English 1 ... c5.pdf

The

Tournament

Player's

Repertoire of

Openings series edited by

R OKeene

Symmetrical English 1 ... c5 John Watson

FOR CHESS ... READ BATSFORD

The English Opening is currently enjoying an increase in popularity and featured regularly in the last World Championship match. 1 ... c5 is Black's most solid reply and theory has developed rapidly over the last ten years.

This is the first comprehensive coverage of the Symmetrical Variation in algebraic notation and contains all significant developments since the author's earlier work English ... P-QB4. Watson's tetralogy on the English was acclaimed for its original analysis and careful reappraisal of critical lines and this policy has been maintained in this present book.

Other titles in this Series

The Alekhine for the Toumament Player Alburt & Schiller

Anti-Sicilian: 3 Bh5( +) Razuvayev & Matsukevitch

T he Benoni for the Toumament Player Nunn

Caro-Kann: Classical4 ... Bf5 Kasparov & Sakharov

English Defence Keene, Plaskett & Tisdall

French Defence: Tarrasch Variation Keene & Taulbut

Grand Prix Attack Hodgson & Day

The Najdorf for the Toumament Player Nunn

Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack Keene

T he Pirc for the Toumament Player ·Nunn

FOR CHESS ... READ BATSFORD

John Watson is an American International Master who is a regular contributor to magazines on both sides of the Atlantic. He is also author of Queen's Gambit: Chigorin Defence.

221 diagrams ISBN 0 7134 5391 5 (limp)

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Queen's Pawn: Veresov System Bellin

Sicilian 2 c3 (new edition) Chandler

Sicilian: ... e6 & ... d6 Systems Kasparov & Nikitin

Sicilian: Paulsen Taimanov

Vienna Game Konstantinopolsky & Lepeshkin

For a complete list of Batsford Chess Books please write to Batsford Books, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H OAH

ISBN 0-7134�5391-5

_9

THE TOURNAMENT P LAYER'S REPERTOIRE OF OPENINGS

Series edited by R.D.Keene OBE

Symmetrical English: 1 ... c5

JOHN L. WATSON

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1988 © John L. Watson 1988

ISBN 0 7134 5391 5(1imp)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission from the publisher

Photoset by Andek Printing, London and printed in Great Britain by Dotesios Ltd, Bradford upon Avon, Wiltshire for the publishers B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H OA H

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R.D.Keene GM, O BE Technical Editor: Ian Kingston

Contents

Symbols

Introduction

Part 1: 2 lbc3 lbc6 - Pure Symmetrical 1 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 2 5 e4 and 5 e3 3 5 lbf3 lbf6 (with ... d5 lines) 4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4 5 5 lbf3: Others

Part II: Counterplay by 2 ... lbf6 and ... d5 6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 8 3 lbf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

Part Ill: 2 lbf3 Systems 9 2 lbf3 Introduction and 2 'Others'

10 Three Knights: 2 ... lbc6 3 lbc3 g6

II Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 12 Double Fianchetto Defence 13 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 ... lbc6

14 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 .. . e6 15 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

Index of Variations and Transpositions

IV

3 5

19 32 40 49

67 68 83 98

115 117 128 132 155 166 184 201

216

Symbols

+ ;t + ±+ ±± H

ro

!! !? ?! ?

?? cor res 01 IZ L Ch �f

Check Slight advantage Clear advantage Winning advantage Level position Unclear position Good move Outstanding move Interesting move Dubious move Weak move Blunder Correspondence Olympiad Interzonal League Championship Semi-final

Introduction

This book is a thorough rewrite of my 1980 book English I ... P-QB4 in algebraic notation. I say "rewrite" rather than "revision" because so much of the material is new. Perhaps a third of the most significant I c4 c5 games have been played since 1980. In the meantime, the very character of the opening has changed. In 1980, I had the large problem of organizing material into coherent lines, finding names for variations, etc. Since so little had been written, almost any suggestion was an improvement, and many obvious moves had never been tried. Now the major systems are well defined and widely known, much as with I e4 or I d4 systems. Specialists have arisen in many key variations, and the abundance of new games has created a certain consensus of opinion about major lines.

The major constraint on this new effort has been space. To take an already lengthy book and supplement it with so much new material requires a few compromises. Whenever possible, I cut down on older, well-established material, looking especially to eliminate redundant examples. One will find less detail and fewer changes in the Pure Symmetrical lines of Part I or in (e.g.) the Three Knights lines. Material on the Keres-Parma and the Rubinstein has been re-organized to reflect the disuse of former main lines (now relegated to notes) and the rise of new ones. The biggest changes have come in the second half of the book, with much new material and analysis in the Hedgehog, Double Fianchetto, Asymmetrical, and all the 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4 systems.

Because of length, I had to take a close look at what in my view was most valuable to the reader. It seems to me that two features distinguish the best Batsford opening books: thoroughness, and individual attention to the material. I believe the strength of this book goes beyond its use as an up-to-date reference, however complete. The main difference between this work and, say, ECO is that I've carefully examined each line, suggested innumerable improvements, and pointed towards what seems critical for the assessment and future of each variation, i.e. I've tried to indicate how each side can best pursue (or salvage) his play.

2 Introduction

In general, for the reader's convenience and my own, I have followed the order and format of my 1980 book. The main improvement in this regard has been to cut down on the number of sections. Outside of a few extremely complex lines, one will not find "B232211 " and the like. Now that we know better which variations are effective, much of the rest can be put into notes.

As always, the first edition contained a number of errors. My thanks to all those who drew attention to these; you are mentioned in the text. On that subject, I should say a word about attribution. In general, I have become more conservative in assigning credit. When I have the same suggestion (or game moves) from several different sources, especially when the sequence in question is fairly obvious, I have sometimes left it unaccredited. Also, I have shied away from calling moves (e.g.) "Korchnoi's move" or "Uhlmann's move", unless the evidence is clear or the player's use of the move dominant. Too often famous players get credit for using (sometimes only once) a line developed by someone less visible.

Transpositions are mentioned throughout the text. When in doubt, the 'Index of Variations and Transpositions' in the back may prove useful. Rather than include every major source in the world in some kind of "bibliography", I will merely mention here that the material extends through Informant 42, and the games through mid-to-late 1 987.

Finally, please be tolerant of the inevitable oversights which accompany any such project. The extent of this material is vast, and I greatly appreciate any corrections or additions readers may bring to my attention.

John Watson San Diego, 1987

Part I

2 lLJc3 lt:Jc6: Pure Symmetrical

1 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

1 c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:lc6 3 g3 g6 4 .ig2 .ig7 (1)

w

My new name for this formation is the "Pure Symmetrical" variation. More than in any other ... c5 variation, Black copies White's set-up, sometimes well into the middlegame. By contrast, Chapters 6-15 cover variations where the position is already unsymmetrical by the third move or earlier. Although with the order of this chapter a blind imitation will be sufficient for equality in only a very few cases, it is also true that the plans available to Black tend to be the same ones at White's disposal.

What is really remarkable, then,

is how varied and exciting the play can become. Tal, Fischer and Adorjan, for example, have scored many points by exploiting the dynamic potential in Black's position, whereas Uhlmann, Petrosian and Seirawan among others have found ways to utilize White's advantage of the first move. In general, the key ideas have proven relatively stable. Less has happened since my 1 980 book to the theory of these lines than to any other major formation in the 1 ... c5 English. This is in part a consequence of fashion, and in part due to the number of players who commit themselves to ltJf] on the first few moves.

We begin by a brief discussion of alternatives on the way to the key position.

1 c4 c5 2 lt:lc3

Independent lines with 2 b3, 2 g3 and other odd second moves are discussed in Chapter 9. When desiring to locate a given move order, the reader should first consult the 'Index of Variations and Transpositions'.


2 lt:Jc6 a) 2 ... g6 will generally transpose. Gipslis in £CO gives it an"!", but he ignores the most important independent answer: 3 d4 cd (3 ...

�g7!? intends 4 lt:Jf3 cd 5 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jc6- Chapter IO,Iine A -but 4 d5 d6 5 e4 lt:Jf6 is not a very popular form of King's I ndian for Black, and his 5th move alternatives are unpromising) 4 't!fxd4 lt:Jf6 5 �g5 (5 b3 !?) 5 ... �g7 (5 ... lt:Jc6 6 'tifd2) 6 lt:Jd5 (6lt:Jf3!? lt:Jc6 7'§d2 d6 8 e3 0-0 9�e2�e6?! I O O-O h6 11 �h4 g5 12 �g3 d5!? 13 cd lt:Jxd5 14

lt:Jb5!, Snapik-Schmidt, Poland 1972. ":!; with the idea of e4" -Sznapik, who suggests 9 ... �f5!) 6 ... lt:Jc6 7 't!i'c3 0-0!? (7 ... lt:Jh5 8 't!t'd2 h6 9 �h4 g5 10 �g3 lt:Jxg3 11 hg, lightly t). and now ZacharyZabell, Chicago 1986, went 8 �xf6 ef 9 lt:Jf3?! f5 10 'tifd2 CiJe7 II CiJf4? 'tifb6 12 I!bl d5 13 cd I!d8 14 e3

�e6 15 �c4 I!ac8 16 �b3 �xd5! 17 CiJxd5 CiJxd5 18 �xd5 �c3 H. But 9 I!d I ! improves, so this line is still a problem for 2 ... g6. b) 2 ... b6 3 e4 or 3 lt:Jf3 transposes to normal lines, but 3 e3 can be independent: 3 ... CiJf6 (3 ... �b7?! 4 d4 CiJf6 5 d5) 4 d4 e6 5 d5!? (5 CiJf3!, e.g. 5 ... �e7 6 d5 or 5 ... g6 6 e4!?) 5 ... ed 6 cd d6 7 e4, SzaboRajkovic, Belgrade 1979; and here 7 ... g6 with a kind of Benoni seems best. In the game 7 ... �e7 8 f4! 0-0 9 CiJf3 was ±. A good reason to

delay 2 ... b6? 3 g3

3 e3, seldom played, can transpose to a Queen's Gambit after 3 ... e6 4 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann after 3 ... CiJf6 4 d4 cd 5 ed d5. 3 ... g6?! is less appropriate due to either 4 {jjf3 (Chapter 10) or 4 d4 cd 5 ed

�g7 6 d5 (or 6 CiJf3!) 6 ... CiJd4 7 CiJf3 t Krstev-Bonchev, Sandomierz 1976.

3 g6 a) 3 ... e6 4 �g2 CiJf6 (or 3 ... CiJf6

4 �g2 e6) usually elicits 5 {jjf3 d5 6 cd ed 7 d4 (a Tarrasch Queen's Gambit) or here 6 ... CiJxd5 (Chapter 7). b) After 3 ... e5 4 �g2 g6 White can choose between 5 e3 and 5 CiJf3. Had Black waited via 3 ... g6 4 �g2

�g7, he could play 5 ... e5 or remain free to deviate. A unique order occurred in Uhlmann-Pahtz, East German Ch 1973: 3 . . . e5 4

�g2 d6 5 e3 �f5!? 6 a3 CiJf6 7 d3 '§d7 8 h3! g6 9 CiJge2 �g7 10 I!bl 0-0 11 b4 h5 12 CiJd5 I!ab8 13 CiJec3 (2) t

Introduction and Various 5th Moves 7

13 ... lHc8 14 J:lb3 .ie6 IS .id2 b6 16 't!kf3 ltlh7 17 bS! lLlaS { 17 ... ltle7 18 g4!) 18 llbl J:lf8 19 e4! ltlb7 (?) 20 g4! hg 21 hg .ixg4 22 ltle7+! �h8 23 't!kg3 llbe8 24 lLlfS! gf 2S 't!kh4 .ih6 26 .ixh6 1-0.

4 .ig2 a) 4 b3 .ig7 S .ib2 e6 6 't!kcl (6 .ig2) 6 ... ltlf6! 7 e3 0-0 = KholmovHermlin, Riga 1968. b) 4 a3 .ig7 S llbl is designed to provoke S ... aS, thus avoiding the line 4 .ig2 .ig7 S a3 a6. But S ... aS is not bad, and otherwise 4 ... a6 is possible, e.g. S 't!ka4!? llb8 6 b4 cb 7 ab bS 8 ab ab 9 lLlxbS .ig7 1 0 llb

"! 11t'b6 I I ltla3 ltlxb4 oo with

the idea 12 .ig2 1!t'cS. 4 .ig7

Arriving at diagram I above. We examine: A S a3 B S b3 c s d3

S e4 and S e3 are in Chapter 2, S ltlf3 in Chapters 3-S. S llbl will transpose to A. S ltlh3!? also often transposes, e.g. to S d3, S b3 or S e3. Imitation by S ... ltlh6 might lead to 6 d3 d6 7 1!t'd2 't!t'd7 (?) 8 b3 b6 9 .ib2 .ib7 10 ltle4 0-0 { 10 ... lLleS? II f4) II .ixg7 �xg7 12ltlf4 ! intending h4. An example of S ... e6 was 6 ltlf4 ltlge7 7 h4 h6 8 llbl (8 b3 Larsen) 8 ... 0-0 9 b3 d6 10 .ib2 a6 II d3 J:lb8 12 11t'd2 dS 13 0-0 b4? 14 ltldl! eS IS lLldS lLlfS 16 ltlle3 ! Larst:n- Campos-Lopez,

San Antonio 1972. A

S a3 (3)

A frequently-played and tricky move. Black has: AI S ... ltlf6 A2 S ... e6 A3 S ... d6 A4 S ... a6

S ... llb8 transposes (to S . .. a6, in most cases). Others: a) S ... eS? 6 b4!, e.g. 6 . .. cb?! 7 ab ltlxb4 (7 ... ltlge7 8 bS ltld4 9 .ia3 with the idea cS) 8 .ia3 .if8 (8 ... ltlc6 9 lLlbS ±) 9 'ii'a4! ltlc6 10 cS .ig7 II ltle4 fS 1 2 lLld6+ �f8 13 llbl with great pressure.

Better but insufficient was 6 ... d6 7 J:lbl (or 7 be de 8 .ixc6+! be 9 llbl ;t) 7 ... ltlge7 8 d3 (or 8 e3 !) 8 ... 0-0 9 ltlf3 llb8 10 0-0 b6 II lLld2 h6 12 lLldS .ib7 13 bS lLld4 14 e3 ltle6 IS a4 lLlc7 1 611t'b3! with the idea .ib2, f4 and eventually aS, Rail::evic-Radulov, Novi Sad 1974. b) S ... .ixc3!? 6 be resembles S e3 .ixc3 in Chapter 2. d3, e4 and


lila2-e2(f2) would exploit the extra a3. Also, 6 de!? leaves the c l bishop open, e.g. 6 ... aS?! 7 .i.e3! d6 8 b4!. Better is 6 ... d6 7 h4 h6 8 liJh3 oo. c) S .. . aS 6 liJfJ (6 e3 eS is Chapter 2; 6 ... liJh6!?) 6 ... e6?! (6 ... d6; 6 ... eS) runs into 7 d4! ( 4)

cl) 7 ... .i.xd4? 8 lLlbS d6 (8 ... .i.g7 9 1!t'd6; 8 ... liJge7 9 .i.f4! eS I 0 liJd6+ �f8 II .i.h6+ �g8 1 2 e3 .i.xb2 13 liJgS!) 9 liJfxd4 cd 1 0 liJxd4 liJxd4 II 'iit'xd4 ±. c2) 7 ... cd 8 lLlbS eS (8 ... dS 9 cd ed 1 0 .i.f4 �f8 II liJfxd4) 9 e3! d6 (9 ... de 1 0 1!t'd6) 10 ed etc. c) 7 ... liJxd4 8 liJxd4 cd (8 ... .i.xd4 9 liJbS .i.eS 10 .i.e3!- or 10/4 .i.b8 1 1 e4- I 0 ... 1!t'e7 II 1!t'd2 liJf6 1 2 .i.gS) 9 lLlbS liJe7! (9 ... eS 1 0 e3; 9 ... dS 10 cd 1!t'b6 II a4 .i.d7 12 de!) 1 0 liJd6+ �f8 II cS (II liJxb7 !?) with an interesting attack. d) S ... b6 can transpose after e.g. 6 d3 .i.b7 7 e4. The obvious 6 lilbl .i.b7 7 b4?! cb (7 ... liJaS !?) 8 ab 1!t'c8! 9 liJdS e6 1 0 liJe3 liJd4 was

good for Black in Raicevic-Forintos, Novi Sad 1 974. Better is 7 d3 e6 8 h4 hS (8 ... h6 9 .i.f4 and 10 1!t'd2) 9 lLlh3 d6 1 0 .i.f4 Wd7··1 1 lLlgS! lild8 12 0-0 .i.eS! 13 'iWd2 1!t'e7, Watson-Forintos, Lone Pine 1 976, and now 14 .i.xeS liJxeS ( 14 ... de IS f4) IS e4 with the idea f4 is t. AI

s liJf6 A sound reply.

6 libl 6 e4 transposes to Chapter 2.

6 e3 d6! =, e.g. 7 d4 (7 b4 cb 8 ab dS!) 7 ... cd 8 ed dS 9 cd liJxdS = .

6 aS a) 6 ... a6? 7 b4 cb 8 ab 0-0 9 1!t'a4! lila7 1 0 bS ab II 't!kxbS lb6 12 liJfJ t Bilek-Beckingham, 19S8. b) 6 ... 0-0 7 b4 cb 8 ab aS 9 bS? (9 ba! liJxaS - 9 .. . 1Wxa5 10 .i.b2 with the idea lia 1 - 1 0 d3 d6 II .i.d2 .i.d7 1 2 liJfJ .i.c6 13 0-0 t Taimanov) 9 ... liJb4 1 0 1!t'b3 dS! II cd e6(or l l ... .i.fS I2 d3 llc8't) 12 d6 1!t'xd6 13 lLlf3 eS 14 .i.a3? .i.fS IS lib2 e4 + Reshko-Hamlin, USSR 197S. c) 6 ... e6!? 7 b4 cb 8 ab dS 9 bS liJe7 I 0 cd ed II 1!t'a4 0-0 12 liJfJ liJfS =

Averbakh-Suetin, USSR Ch 1 9S8. 7 liJI'3

A fundamental decision about White's pawn structure: a) 7 e4 transposes to Chapter 2, line A2 (S e4). By committing Black to ... liJf6 and ... aS, White has avoided the defences of that chapter


which involve ... e6/... ti:Jge7 and/or ... a6/ ... b5. b) 7 d3 0-0 (7 ... d6 8 ti:Jh3!? h5 or 8 ti:Jf3 0-0 9 0-0 ..id7 10 ti:Jei) 8 e3 (8 ti:Jh3!?) 8 ... e6 9 li:Jge2 d5 10 0-0 lile8 II 'i*c2 d4 I2 ti:Ja4 =/oo Smyslov-Stein, Amsterdam 1 964.

7 0-0 A good option is 7 ... d5(!) 8 cd

(8 b3!?, e.g. 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 e6 10 d3 b6 II e3 ..ib7 I2 ire2 =) 8 ... ti:Jxd5 (5)

5 w

Now 9 ti:Jg5 e6 10 ti:Jge4 b6 II �a4 was Timman-Enklaar, Dutch Ch 1974, when II ... t!fd7? 12 ti:Jxd5 ed 13 ti:Jc3 ..ixc3 14 be llb8 I5 d3 favoured White. Much bet ter is II ... ..id7, when Kurajica gives 12 ti:Jxd5 ed I3 ti:Jd6+ �f8 14lt:Jx17: but 13 ... �e7! is correct, when 14 ti:Jxf7 ti:Je5 15 ti:Jxd8 ..ixa4 16 b3 ..id7 I7 ..ib2 llaxd8 I8 f4 ..if5 I9 d3 ..ixd3! is strong. I 0 ... c4!?

(Kurajica; "t" ECO ) also looks fine, e.g. II 'ira4 ti:Jb6 12 'i!fb5 0-0 13 e3 a4! with the idea ... lila5.

What else? 9 �b3 ti:Jb6 10 d3 a4! II '@c2 c4! (12 de ti:Jxc4 13 ti:Jxa4 �a5+ I4 ti:Jc3 ti:Jxa3!) is no improvement. And (e.g.) 9 ti:Jxd5 �xd5 10 d3 '@a2! II ..id2 c4! (with the idea 12 de ..if5), or here II ti:Jd2 ..id7, presents Black no difficulties. Nor does 9 0-0 0-0 10 ti:Jxd5 '@xd5 II d3 '@a2 I2 ..ie3 c4, or here II b3 '@d6 (II ... a4!?). Thus 7 ... d5 makes a good impression. But 7 ... 0-0 is important for transpositional reasons.

8 0-0 d6 9 ti:Jel

An example of White's possibilities was 9 d3 ti:Je8 10 ti:Jd2 ti:Jc7 II lt:Ja4! lilb8?! (II ... lla6; II ... b5 t Benko) I2 ti:Jb6! ..if5 l3 ..ic3 e5 I4 ti:Jd2 ..ie6 15 b4 ab 16 ab cb 17 ..ixb4 lle8 I8 li:Je4! ti:Jxb4 I9 lilxb4 ± (b-pawn and d5 control) Benko-Zuckerman, US Ch I967.

9 ti:Je8!? Better seems 9 ... ..id7 10 ti:Jc2

llb8 II b4 ab I2 ab b6. 10 ti:Jc2 a4

To discourage b4. This leads to a typical example: II d3 ..id7 I2 ..id2 lla7 l3 ti:Jb5 lla6 14 ..ic3 �c8 1 5 ..ixg7 ti:J xg7 I6 ti:Je3 ..ih3 17 ti:Jd5 ..ixg2 18 �xg2 lt:Je8 I9 e3 e6 20 ti:Jdc3 ti:Ja7 2I ti:Jxa7 lilxa7 22 �f3! f5 23 b3 ab 24 llxb3 llf7 25 llfbi U± Ivkov-Nicevski, Rovinj-Zagreb 1970. A2

5 e6 (6)


6 Ii:bl 6 li:lf3!? is Chapter 5, line C (5

li:lf3 e6 6 a3). 6 b4? is a mistake due to 6 ...

ll:lxb4! 7 ab cb 8 d4! (8 ll:lb5? ..ixa I 9 'ti'a4 ..if6! I 0 d4, and instead of 10 ... a5? 11 ..if4 lil:a6, my suggestion 1 0 ... a6! was winning in Lobron-Kavalek, Bochum 1 981) 8 ... be 9 e3 ll:le7 (9 ... d5 !) 10 ll:le2 d5 11 cd li:lxd5 (II ... ed) 12 ..ia3 ..iffi 13 0-0! ..ixa3 14 Ii:xa3 ..id7 + SmyslovHartston, Hastings 1 972-73.

6 a5 6 ... lLlge7?! 7 b4 cb 8 ab d5 9 b5

ll:le5 (9 ... ll:la5!? tOed ed II ..ia3!? d4 12 ll:le4 lLlc4 13 ..ib4 0-0 14 ll:lh3 d3!? 15 'it'b3 oo was SeirawanGurevich, US Ch 1984; II d4 is probably best here too) 1 0 cd ed II d4 ll:lc4 12 e3 (" ±" Benko; Black's d-pa wn is a target) 1 2 ... ..ie6 (12 ... ..if5 13 lil:al 't!t'd7 1 4 't!t'b3 - 1 4 lLlge2! lvkov - 14 ... 0-0 15 ll:lge2 a6? 16 ba ba 17 li:lxd5 ±± Ivkov-Keene, Skopje OJ 1972) 13 lLlge2 t!fd7 14 lil:al! 0-0 15 ..ia3

lLlxa3 16 lil:xa3 ll:lc8 17 0-0 li:ld6 18 'ti'b3 li:le4 19 lil:fa I ± Benko-Martz, Vrnjacka Banja 1973.

7 e4 This is the Botvinnik set-up

(c4/e4) as in the next chapter. There we consider e4 versus ... e6, but in general Black avoids ... a5. Here he is already committed to that move, so one should not be surprised that White gets interesting chances. Seventh-move options: a) 7 d3!? ll:lge7 8 ..id2 0-0 9 li:lfJ d5 10 tiel li:ld4!? ( 1 0 ... b6! =; see Chapter 5, line C) 11 b3 ..id7? (II ... b6) 12 cd ed 13 li:lxd4 cd 1 4 lLlxd5 t Ree-Uhlmann, Amsterdam 1975. b) 7 ll:lh3 ll:lge7 (7 ... d5(?) 8 cd ed 9 li:lf4 d4 10 lLle4 c4 II t!t'a4) 8 lLlf4 0-0 9 b3 !? (9 0-0) 9 ... d5!? (9 ... lil:b8 10 ..ib2 b6 =) 10 cd ed II lLlcxd5 lLlxd5 1 2 lt'Jxd5 lt'Jd4 13 0-0

(1 3 e3 ..ih3! Bukic; 13 lLle3 !?) 1 3 ... ..ig4 14 lLlc3 lil:e8 15 f3 lLlxe2+

(1 5 ... ..if5! 16 e4 ..ie6 =/oo Bukic) 16 lt'Jxe2 ..if5 17 Ii:b2 ..id3 1 8 Ii:f2 and White took charge in MilesAdorjan, London 1975. c) 7 h4!? tries to improve upon 'b': 7 ... lt'Jge7!? (7 ... h5 8 d3 ll:lge7 9 ..ig5 t:, or 8 li:lh3 lt'Jge7 9 lt'Jf4; 7 ... h6! 8 lt'lh3 ll:lge7 9 li:lf4 0-0 10 b3 b6! 11 ..ib2 d6 =) 8 h5 d5 9 cd ed (9 ... li:lxd5 10 t!fa4 t) 10 d3 ..ie6 II ltJ h3 f6? 1 2 lt'Jf4 ..if7 13 h6 ..iffi 14 't!t'b3 ±± Watson-Fuller, Harrow 1 979.

Introduction and Various 5th Moves I 1

7 d 6 8 d3 lLlge7 9 lLlge2 0-0

Adorjan-Ermenkov, Warsaw Z 1979, saw 9 ... b6 10 0-0 .i.b7 II .i.e3!? lLld4 1 2 b4 ab 13 ab .i.c6 1 4 'ifd2 with a draw. Perhaps II lLlb5!? with the idea d4, e.g. II ... lLld4? 1 2

lLlxd4 cd 1 3 e5!. or II ... c 5 12 f4 ( 12 .i.d2!? intending b4) 12 ... ef 13 gf f5 (13 ... 0-0 14f5) 14cflLlxf5(1 4 . . . gf 15 .i.e3 and d4) 15 .i.d5 lLlfe 7 (15 ... 'ifd7? 16 .i.e6!) 16 f5! lLlxf5 17 lixf5 gf 1 8 lLlg3 or 18 lLlf4.

1 0 0-0 (7) 1 0 .i.e3 b6 (intends II d4 e5) II

0-0 lib8 (II ... i.a6 12 b3 lib8 13 d4 e5 = Martinovic-Psakhis, Sarajevo 1 981 ; 12 f4!?) 12 "i!fd2(1 2 f4!?) 12 ... ..ta6 13 b3,0 smanovicPsakhis, Sarajevo 198 I. and now Psakhis gives 13 ... lLle5! 14 .i.f4 lLl7c6 15 a4 .i.b7 =.

1 0 lib8 a) 10 ... .i.d7?! II lLlb5! 'ifb6 12 i.g5 ( 12 lLlxd6 lLld4 =) 12 ... h6 13

.i.e3 d5 ( 13 ... lLld4 1 4 b4!) 14 ed ed 15lLlec3! lLld4 16 .i.xd4 cd 17lLlxd5 <t:lxd5 1 8 .i.xd5 ± with the idea b4

(1 8 ... .i.xb5 19 "i!i'b3!), AdorjanSznapik, Warsaw Z 1979. b) 10 ... lLld4 II b4 ab 1 2 ab lLlec6 13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 14 be be 1 5 f4 f5? ( 15 ... e5!?; 15 ... lLlf3+ :t Miles) 16 e5 (" ±" Miles) Miles-Olafsson, Lone Pine 1978. c) 10 ... eS II lLld5 lib8 12 lLlec3 .i.e6 13 .i.d2 :t . d) 10 ... b6 may transpose to the text. Aside from II lLlb5, White may consider II f4!?, e.g. II ... f5 12 ef (intending .i.e3, d4) or II ... i.b7 12 lLlb5 (e.g. 12 ... f5 13 d4 :j; or 12 ... lLld4 13 lLlexd4 cd 14 lH2).

II lLlbS! Smejkal's move. II .i.e3 e5 12

lLld5 is met by 12 ... b5!. I I b6

II ... d5?! 12 cd ed 1 3 .i.f4! (Smejkal) retains the initiative, and II ... e5 12 lLlec3 f5 13 ef gf, Ritov-Balashov, Tallinn 1973, could be answered by 14 f4!?, e.g. 1 4 ... .i.e6 15 lLld5 (1 5 ... .i.f7 16 fe!), 14 ... lLld4 15 b4, or 14 ... lLlg6 15

lLld5 .i.e6 16 fe de 17 'ifh5. Best is 14 ... �h8!.

1 2 d4 i.a6 12 ... e5 1 3 d5 lLld4 14lLlexd4 cd

15 b4 :t (Smejkal), or 1 2 ... cd 13 lLlexd4 lLlxd4 14 lLlxd4 .i.b7 15 f4 ;t (weak d-pawn; 1 5 ... d5 16 cd ed 17 e5).

1 3 .i.e3 llb7


1 4 a4 (intending d5) 14 ... cd 15 ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 16 �xd4 �xd4 1 7 'i¥xd4 lld7 18 llbd1 ll:lc6 1 9 'i¥e3 ± Smejkal-Andersson, Biel IZ 1976. A3

5 d6 6 llbl

a) 6 e3!? is my recommendation for excitement here, e.g. 6 ... e5 (6 ... �xc3!?) 7 b4!!? cb 8 ab ll:lxb4 9 �a3 ll:ld3+ 1 0 �e2 (8)

II B

10 ... ll:lc5 11 d4 ed 12 ed �f5!? (on 12 ... t!t'a5? or 12 ... ll:le6?, 1 3 ll:lb5!; 12 ... a6 13 de �xc3 1 4 lib I and cd) 13 de �xc3 14 llcl 'i¥a5 15 'ti'b3 :t

6 e3 ll:lh6 7 ll:lge2 ll:lf5 8 b4!? (8 lib 1 a5 9 b3 h5 1 0 h3 e5 11 �b2 h4 12 g4 ll:lfe7 1 3 d4 oo SeirawanHort, Hastings 1979-80) 8 ... h5!? (acceptance is critical) 9 lib I ll:le5 1 0 'i!t'c2!? llb8 11 f4 ll:lxc4 12 be 0-0 oo Seirawan-Giardelli, Mar del Plata 1982. b) 6 ll:lf3 e5 7 0-0 (7 b4 e4!) 7 ...

ll:lge7 is Chapter 5, line D. 6 aS 7 e3 e5

Or 7 ... h5!? 8 h3 ll:lh6. 8 ll:lge2 ll:lge7

The position resembles Chapter 2, line B. Black does not generally resort to ... a5 there, but neither does White gain much by the insertion of a3. Hort-van der Stcrren, Lone Pine 1979, continued 9 b3 llb8! 10 ll:lb5 (else 1 0 ... �e6 11 d5

b5) 10 ... 0-0 II ll:lec3 f5 1 2 d3 �e6 13 ll:ld5 �f7 =.

A4 5 a6

This move constitutes the most serious problem for 5 a3: White has trouble breaking symmetry to good effect.

6 llbl 6 ll:lf3 will be seen in Chapter 5:

5 ll:lf3 a6 6 a3. 6 llb8 7 'ti'a4! (9)

The best bet. 7 ll:la4?! 'i!t'a5 achieves nothing, and 7 b4 cb 8 ab b5 9 cb (9 c5 a5 10 �a3 ab II �xb4 ll:lxb4 12 llxb4 �xc3 = Tarjan-Gheorghiu, Hastings 1979-80) 9 ... ab has been shown to be equal by many years of games. 10 ll:lf3 allows any of 10 ... d6 =,

10 ... e5 = or 10 ... d5 =;see Chapter 5, line A. 10 ll:lh3 lt:Jh6 11 0-0 0-0 12 d4 d5 13 �xh6 �xh3! = and 10 e4 e5 = (or 10 ... d6 =) also achieve nothing.


7 ti:Jd4! a) 7 ... e6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab ti:Jge7? (9 ... 'f/c7 ±) 10 b5 ab II cb 't'fa5 12 be i.xc3 13 'i!t'xa5 i.xa5 14 cb 0-0 15 bc't'f 1-0 Watson-Meyer, Vancouver 1976. b) 7 ... ti:Jh6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab b5 lOeb ab II ti:Jxb5 'i!t'b6 1 2 ti:Ja3! ti:Jxb4?! 13 ti:Jh3 ti:Jf5, Seira wan-Gheorghiu, USA 1978, and now 14 0-0 ± with the idea ti:Jc2, i.a3 (Gheorghiu). c) 7 ... d6!? 8 i.xc6+ be 9 'i!t'xc6+ i.d7 1 0 'i¥g2?! ( 10 @'xa6? i.xc3! II de @'c7 intending ... i.c6; 10

@'f3! i) 10 ... i.xc3! II de ti:Jf6 =/oo intending ... i.f5, ... i.a4. Christiansen recommends 9 ... �f8"!" with the idea 10 ti:Jf3 i.b7 II @'a4 @'c8! etc; 1 0 f3 i.b7 II 'f/a4 is awkward but probably best. Seirawan-Timman, Montpettier C 1985, avoided this line by 8 b4!? i.f5 (8 ... i.d7 9 b5 ti:Ja5!?) 9 i.xc6+ be I 0 'it'xc6+ i.d7 II 'it'xa6 i.xc3! 12 de ti:Jf6, and instead of 13 ti:Jf3?!, 13 i.h6 with the idea 13 ... ti:Jg4 14 i.g7 lig8 15 h3(15 ...

i.xf2!?) or 13 ... ti:Je4 14 i.g7 lig8 15 f3 oo, when 15 ... lhg7 16 fe lia8 ought to be fine.

8 b4 8 e3 b5 9 cb (9 ti:Jxb5 ti:Jxb5! 10

cb ab II @'a7 i.b7 12 i.xb7 'it'c7) 9 ... tiJ xb5 I 0 ti:Jge2 ti:Jf6! ( 10 ... e6 I I ti:Je4!) II 0-0 0-0 12 d3 (12 b4 c4! or 12 ... cb 13 ab d5 =) 1 2 ... d6, Rajkovic-Gheorghiu, Lone Pine 1 979, and here instead of 13 b4? i.f5! 14 lid! c4! 15 e4 i.g4 +, 13 i.d2 is best, e.g. 13 ... i.f5 1 4 ti:Je4 ti:Jxe4 1 5 d e i.c8 16 lifdl oo.

8 bS 8 ... cb 9 lixb4!?@'c7!(9 ... e6 1 0

c5!) 10 ti:Jd5 @'c6! =/oo RajkovicMatulovic, Yugoslavia 1979.

9 cb ti:JxbS 9 ... ab?! 10 @'a7. After 9

ti:Jxb5 Seirawan-W .Schmidt, Indonesia 1983, went 10 ti:Jxb5 lixb5 II ti:Jf3 (II e3 'it'c7 1 2 ti:Je2 i.b7 =) II ... i.b7!? (II ... ti:Jf6 Schmidt) 12 i.b2 ( 12 0-0 ti:Jh6!?- 12 ... liJf6 - 13 d3 cb 14 lixb4 lixb4 15 @'xb4 i.c6 1 6 i.g5 i Seirawan-Jansa, Biel IZ 1 985) 1 2 ... i.xb2 (12 ... ti:Jf6 13 be) 1 3 lixb2 ti:Jf6 14 0-0

@'a8 15 lic l cb 16 lixb4(16 ti:Jd4! Schmidt; this looks best) 16 ... 0-0 1 7 lixb5 ab 18 1!t'b4 d6 19 d3 lic8, and now instead of 20 lixc8+ oo, Schmidt calls 20 lib I "±', but after 20 ... i.c6 this is not at all clear either (21 i.h3!?). 8

5 b3 (10)


10 B

A flexible move employed by Smyslov and Larsen. 8 1 5 ... li:Jf6 8 2 5 ... e6 a) 5 ... e5 is normal, but after 6 .ib2 li:Jge7 White usually plays 7 e3 0-0 8 li:Jge2 transposing to Chapter 2. 7 li:Jf3 d5 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 li:Jxd5 (9 li:Jxe5!? .ixe5! 10 .ixd5 .ih3 m) 9 ... 'ti'xd5 I 0 0-0 'ti'd61ooks equal. b) 5 ... b6 6 .ib2 .ib7 7 li:Jf3 is Chapter 2, but White also has 7 _.bl !?, e.g. 7 ... 'ti'b8 8 li:Jd5! .ixb2 (8 ... li:Jd4 9 e3 e6 10 ed ed II cd cd 1 2 li:Je2 li:Je7 13 li:Jxd4 li:Jxd5 14 li:Jf5!) 9 .-xb2 f6 1 0 li:Jf3 t:. c) 5 . .. d 6 6 .ib2 e5 transposes to Chapter 2, and here 6 ... e6 7 li:Jh3!? is promising, with the idea li:Jf4, d3, 'ti'd2, li:Je4 etc. d) 5 .. . .ixc3!? 6 de .-as('!) 7 .id2!? li:Jf6 8 li:Jh3 d6 = MarangunicBarle, Bled/Portoroz 1979. But why not 7 li:Jh3(!) .-xc3+ 8 .id2 _.g7 9 li:Jf4 with the idea li:Jd5 and .ic3 or llcl and .ic3 etc?

81 5 6 .ib2 7 d3!?

li:Jf6 0-0

a) 7 li:Jh3!? is an attempt to clamp down on d5 by li:Jf4 (II):

al) 7 ... e5 8 0-0 d6 9 f4 .id7 1 0 e3 .ixh3!? ( 10 ... .ig4) II .ixh3 ef 12 gf d5 13 .ig2 dc 14 bc'8'd7 15 llbl llad8 16 li:Jd5 ;t RomanishinBelyavsky, USSR Ch 1974. a2) 7 ... d 6 8 0-0 .id7 9 e3 li:Je4!? 10 'i!t'c I li:Jxc3 II .ixc3 e5 12 f4 m Larsen-Polugayevsky, Bugojno 1980. a3) 7 ... d5 (! ) is untried but unjustly so. e.g. 8 li:Jxd5 ( 8 li:Jf4 d4 9 li:Ja4 �d6!; 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 llcl m) 8 ... li:Jxd5 9 .ixg7 'it>xg7 10 cd .ixh3 II .ixh3 �xd5 12 0-0 llfd8 13 d3 b6 =.

b) 7 li:Jf3 e5 !? is also seen: 8 0-0 d6 9 d3 li:Jh5 (9 ... llb8 10 a3!?, e.g. 10 ... a6 I I li:Jd2 .ie6 12 li:Jd5) 10 li:Jd2 .ig4 II a3 .ih6?! 12 b4! ;t Petrosian-Portisch, match (9) 1974 .

7 e6


7 ... d6 8 't!t'd2 J.d7 9 lt:lh3 with the idea lt:lf4; 7 ... llb8 8 't!fd2 a6 9 e3!? b5 10 lt:lge2 e6 II lt:lf4.

8 J.xc6! Larsen's ingenious idea. Other

wise 8 ... d5 = follows. 8 be

8 ... de also deserves attention. I suggest 9 llJf3, e.g. 9 ... llJe8 I 0 1i'd2 b6 ( 10 ... e5 II llJa4 1i'e7 12 't!fe3) II 't!Ye3!? f6 12 0�-0 e5 1 3 lldg I!? with the idea g4-g5, h4-h5.

12 8

9 't!t'd2 (12)

9 d6 9 ... e5! is more accurate. Then

Watson-Browne, Los Angeles 1 982, went 10 0-0-0 d6 II 'it>b l!? (II e3 or II h4 may be better) II ... 't!t'e7! 1 2 f3 J.e6 (12 ... d5? 1 3 llJa4 a5-else 't!Ya5 - 14 J.a3 llJd7 1 5 cd ed 16 lilcl etc) 13 h4 h6 14 llJh3 lt:ld7 15 f4 d5!? 16 e4! d4 17 �a4 llJb6 18 \Wa5 lt:lxa4 19 't!Yxa4 't!fd7 20

llJf2 a5 21 J.c I t. 10 f4! 't!t'e7

II lt:lf3 e5 1 2 fe de 13 't!t'g5!. In Larsen-Betancourt, Lanzarote

1976, White managed by this means to keep the pawn structure static, and Black's bishops inactive: 13 ... lle8 14 0-0-0 h6 (14 ... e4? 15 llJxe4 ± Larsen) 1 5 't!t'e3 �g4 16 ifg I h5 17 'it>b I (with the idea 17 ... J.h6 18 J.cl ) 17 ... e4?! 1 8 lt:lxe4 J.xb2 19 'it>xb2 f5 20 llJc3 llJe3 21 llcl 't!ff6 22 't!Ye I a5 23 'it>a3! ±intending

llJa4. B2

5 e6 6 J.b2

6 J.xc6!? was not so impressive as in B I after 6 ... be 7 J.b2 d6 8 d3 e5 9 1!t'd2, Larsen-Andersson, Las Palmas 1974, when simplest was 9 ... llJge7!, although 9 ... llJf6 10 0-0-0 0-0 II h 4 ( II f 4 llJ g4) II ...

llJh5 was also =.

13 w

6 llJge7 ( 1 3)

7 h4!? The most challenging. White

must not be too passive: a) 7 lt:la4?! J.xb2 8 llJxb2 0-0 9 e3 (9 llJf3 d5 +) 9 ... d5 10 llJf3 ( 1 0 cd?

llJxd5 II lt:le2 b6 12 d4 J.a6 13 de


1!t'f6! 14 lLlc4 lLlc3 H SmyslovFischer, Palma de Mallorca IZ 1970) lO ... lLlf5 11 0-0 b6 12lba4 ..ib7 13 cd ed 14 d3 t!t'f6 15 'tit'd2 li:ad8 16 li:fd1 li:fe8 + SmyslovTal, Moscow (USSR Club Teams Ch) 1964. b) 7 t!t'cl !? is logical, intending lLld5 or lbe4 at some point, but Biack's kingside is very solid: 7 ... 0-0!? 8 lbe4 d6 9 ..ixg7 �xg7 I 0 "t!t'b2+ e5 "and Black is already better" (Adorjan). Or 7 ... d6 8 f4!? (8 lLld5 0-0 = or 8 ... e5 9 d3 0-0 10 h4 h6 11 h5 g5 12 f4 f6 oo DonchevAdorjan, Prague 1984) 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... e5!?) 9 lbe4 e5 10 fe lbxe5 11 lLlf3 f5 12 lbf2 lb7c6 13 lbxe5 (13 0-0? f4!) l 3 ... de 14 ..id5+!? ( 14 h4 h6! =) 14 ... 'it>h8 15 ..ixc6 be 16 lLld3 ti'e7! = ( 17 ..ia3 lild8 18 ..ixc5 ti'e8) Hort-Gulko, Niksic 1978.

7 h6 7 ... h5 8 '@cl !?, e.g. 8 ... d6 9lLle4

0-0 10 ltJf6+ ( lO g4!?) lO ... 'it>h8 11 g4 e5 1 2 g5 lLlg8 13 lbd5 (13 lLle4!?) oo.

8 't!t'bl!? d6 8 ... 0-0 9 h5! d5 (9 ... g5? lO lLle4)

10 hg fg 11 lLlf3 is promising. 9 lLle4 e5

10 ti'd3! lbf5 lO ... lbb4? II '@xd6 lLlc2+ 12

'it>dl lLlxal 13 ltJf6+! etc. I I e3 0-0

Now Watson-Keene, New York 1981, continued 12 a3 ..ie6 13 h5 g5 14 ltJO (14lLlge2 't!t'b6!? 15 'i!t'c2

l:l:ad8 16 lLlec3 lLlfd7) 14 ... d5! 15 cd ..ixd5! (15 ... 't\fxd5 16 "t!t'bl ! with the idea g4) and here 16l:l:bl!? ..ixe4 ( 17 lbcxg5 and 17 lt'Jexc5 were threatened) 17 �xe4 lLld6 18 'ilt'd5 was an interesting try. This whole line is unexplored an

·d

replete with creative options. c

5 d3 (14)

C1 5 ... e6 C2 5 ... d6 a) 5 ... e5 6 lbf3 is Chapter 4, line D, and here 6 e3 is Chapter 2, line B. b) 5 ... lbf6 has several answers, e.g. 6 e4 (Chapter 2, line A) or 6 ..id2 d6 7 l:l:bl "t!t'd7 8 a3 b6 9 lbf3 ..ib7 10 0-0 0-0 11 '@a4 li:fd8? 12 b4

lbe8 13 l:l:fdl! (with the idea ..iel, e3, d4) 13 ... lbd4 14 '@xd7 l:l:xd7 15lbxd4 ..ixg2 16 'it>xg2 ..ixd4 17 be be?! ( 17 ... de 18 a4t) 18lba4 e6 19 l:l:b5! with initiative, RabarDjurasevic, Belgrade 1954. c) 5 . .. li:b8! (5 ... a6 allows White the option 6 "t!t'd2 't!t'a5 7 lLld5!?) 6 e3 (if now 6 'i!t'd2 '@a5!, e.g. 7 e3

Introduction and Various 5th Moves 1 7

a6 8 ltJge2 b5 9 ltJe4 't!Vb6 etc) 6 ... ltJh6 (or 6 ... a6 7 a4 d6 =) 7 ltJge2 ltJf5 8 lib I b6 9 a3 ..ib7 I 0 b4 'ii'c8

= Borm-Rogers, Eerbeck 1978. C1

5 e6 6 ltJh3!?

Again possible is 6 e4. 6 ..id2 is passive, e.g. 6 ... ltJge7 7 a3 (7 'ii'c I h6) 7 ... 0-0 8 lib! a5 = KrogiusKuzmin, USSR 1964.

6 ltJge7 7 ltJf4 d6 !?

More accurate is 7 ... 0-0 with the idea 8 'ti'd2 'ii'a5! or 8 0-0 a6 =.

8 'ti'd2 ! llb8 8 ... 't!Va5?! 9 lib I lib8 1 0 a3 a6

II b4 with the idea II ... cb 12 ab ltJxb4 13 ltJe4 ± Bukic.

9 b3 0-0 10 ..ib2 'tWaS!?

10 ... a6; 10 ... b6. White plays for ltJe4.

11 0-0 eS Perhaps II ... ..id7. After II . ..

e5 Larsen-Hartston, Hastings 1972-73, went 12 ltJfd5 ltJxd5 13 ..ixd5 ( 15)

13 ... ltJe7 ( 13 ... ..ih3 Bukic; 14 llfdl ltJe7 15 ..ih l ±) 14 ..ig2 ..ie6 15 lladl 'i¥d8 16 f4 ef(?) 17 ltJe4! d5 1 8 ltJf6+ 'Ot'h8 19 cd ltJxd5 20 ..ixd5 ..ixf6 (20 ... ..ixd5 21 llxf4) 21 llxf4! ..ixb2 22 1t'xb2+ 'i!lg8 23 ..ixe6 fe 24 llxflH 'it'xf8 25 llf l 'f!/e7 26 'it'e5 ±. C2

5 d6 6 llb1

6 ltJf3 ltJf6 7 0-0 0-0 is Chapter 3, line C2.

6 hS!? Weakening, but imitation by

6 ... llb8 is not problem-free due to 7 'ti'd2! intending b3, ..ib2, e.g. 7 ... 'tWaS 8 a3 a6 9 b4 cb 1 0 ltJa2!. Of course 6 ... e5 or 6 ... ltJf6 is playable.

7 h3. ..id7 8 e3 'ti'c8

8 ... ..ixc3+ 9 be b6 was suggested, but then 10 ltJf3 with the idea e4, 0-0, ltJh4, f4 keeps the advantage.

9 ltJge2 ltJh6 10 a3

Petrosian-Bisguier, New York 1954. The game continued I 0 ... ltJe5!? II f4 ..ic6 12 e4 ltJd7 13 ltJd5! e6 14 ltJe3 t.

Conclusion. 5 ... a6 has taken much of the sting out of 5 a3, although Seirawan continues to do reasonably well on the White side. Black might also look into 5 a3 ltJf6, when


the critical 6 e4 is discussed in the next chapter.

5 b3 has led to some exciting games, and may be the most inter-

esting alternative to 5 li:Jf3. As for 5 d3, 5 ... I:l:b8 with the idea ... b5 seems the main drawback if White needs to make things double-edged.

2 5 e4 and 5 e3

c4 c5 2 lLJc3 lLJc6 3 g3 g6

4 i,g2 i,g7 The two Pure Symmetrical vari

ations about which we have the most over-the-board experience arc 5 e4 and 5 c3. The first system is associated with Botvinnik and, before him, with Nimzowitsch. It can come up by a variety of move orders. The second system, 5 c3. is in a sense the most natural move for White, who can bring his king's knight to the flexible e2 square and leave himself the option of pressing forward with d4 or slowly building up by d3. A 5 e4 B 5 e3 A

5 e4 (16)

Now Black usually picks one of: AI 5 0 0 0 e6 A2 5 0 0 0 lLJf6

Often he will be committed to one of these moves already. e.g. by the order I c4 lLJf6 2 lLJc3 g6 3 g3 i.g7 4 i.g2 0-0 5 c4 d6 6 ll:lge2 c5, when 7 0-0 c5? slightly misplaces the f6 knight, e.g. l:! f4 ef 9 gf lLJc6 10 d3 :f: or simply 8 d3 lLJeX 9 lib I lLJc6 I 0 a3 a5 II lLJd5 .teo 12 f4 or 12 lLJec3 :±:. Others: a) 5 ... e5 6 lLJge2 lLJeg7 7 d3 d6 with: a l ) 8 i.c3?! (This will illustrate the rules of thumb: don't put your knight on d5 until the opponent has played o o . i.e6, and don't play i.c3 too early lest your opponent play 0 0 0 lLJd4 in favourable circumstances. They apply to Black also) 8 o o · lLJd4 9 0-0 0-0 10 'it'd2 a6 II i.h6 :Sb8 (or II 0 0 0 lLJec6) 12 i.xg7 ®xg7 13 lLJxd4 cd 14 lLJe2? (14 lLJd5) 14 0 0 0 b5 +Fuller-Jamieson, Melbourne I975. a2) 8 0-0 0-0 (8 0 0 0 i.e6?! 9 lLJd5!; 8 0 0 0 :Sb8 9 :Sbl a6 IO a4 0-0 II i.d2 with the idea lLJd5) 9 a3 (9 f4!? ef 10 gf could be tried) 9 0 0 0 i.e6?! (9 o o . a6! 10 :Sbl :Sb8 = ) 10 :Sb l f5 II lLJd5 fe 12 de lLJd4? (breaking

20 5 e4 and 5 e3

both rules!) 13 ll:lxd4 cd 14 i.g5 i.xd5 15 cd 'it'd7?! (but otherwise i.h3 will ensure the win in any conceivable ending) 16 i.h3! 1!rxh3 17 i.e7 ±t lvkov-Torre, Madonna di Campiglio 1973. b) 5 ... b6 6 ll:lge2 i.b7 7 d3!? e6 8 0-0 ll:lge7 will transpose to A I below, but here 7 0-0! e6 8 d4! is very strong: 8 ... cd (8 ... ll:lxd4 9 ll:lxd4 i.xd4 10 ll:lb5 i.e5 II ll:ld6+ i.xd6 12 1!rxd6 ±; 8 . . . i.xd4 9 ll:lb5 i.e5 10 i.f4! Uhlmann) 9 ll:lb5 d6 10 ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 II ll:lxd4 ll:le 7 12 1!i'a4+ (or 12 i.g5 0-0 13 1!i'd2 ± Uhlmann) 12 ... 1!i'd7 13 'i*xd7+ �xd7 14 li[dl a6 15 i.e3 llhc8?! 16 li[acl li[ab8 17 b4! ± Uhlmann-Danailov, Halle 1984. c) 5 ... a6 6 ll:lge2 b5!? is probably playable, e.g. 7 cb (7 d3 =) 7 ... ab 8 ll:lxb5 i.a6 9 ll:lec3 1!ra5 10 a4 i.xc3! II ll:lxc3 (II be!? i.xb5 12 ab oo) II ... ll:lb4 etc. But 5 ... a6 6 a4! commits Black too early to a formation which tends to favour White; compare what follows. AI

5 e6 6 ll:lge2 ll:lge7 (17)

Instructive is 6 ... llb8 7 d3 a6 8 a4! ll:lge7 9 0-0 0-0, and now 10 f4?! d6 II �hi i.d7 12 llbl 'it'e8! (intending ... ll:ld4, ... b5) 13 e5? de 14 ll:le4 b6 15 fe ll:lxe5 =F was Roizman-Pankratov, USSR 1970. Much better is 10 li[bl ! d6 11 i.e3 (with the idea d4) II ... e5 (II ...

ll:ld4 12 b4 !) 12 ll:ld5! a5 (12 ... ll:lxd5 13 cd ll:lb4 14 f4 ;!:: with the idea 14 ... ef 15 gf f5 16 e5!) 13 f4 t, e.g. l 3 ... ef 14 gf f5 15 e5 b6 16 ed 'it'xd6 17 d4 t.

17 w

7 0-0 7 d3 helps forestall some of

Black's queenside ideas, e.g. 7 ... a6!? 8 i.e3 ll:ld4 9'it'd2(or 9li[bl !) 9 ... li[b8 (9 ... 'i*a5 10 li[cl ll:lec6 II i.h6 Taimanov) 10 lii:c I! h5?! II i.g5 d6 12 0-0b5 13cb ab 14 b4! 0-0 (14 ... cb 15 ll:lxd4 be 16 'i*xc3 'i*b6 17 'it'c7! Taimanov) 15 be de 16 e5! i.xe5 17 ll:le4 f6 18 i.h6 llf7 19 ll:lxc5 ± Hort-Uhlmann, Skopje 1968.

7 0-0 8 d3

8 a3 will transpose after (e.g.) 8 ... a6 9 li[bl llb8 or 8 ... d6 9 lib I b6. Here and on the next few moves, ... a5 transposes to Chapter I, line A2.

8 d6 9 li[b 1

9 i.e3 ll:ld4 10 1!Vd2 i.d7 II

i.h6 ll:lec6 = and 9 f4 a6 10 g4!? f5! II gf gf 12 ll:lg3 ll:ld4! are unchallenging.

9 b6 9 ... a6!? 10 a3 llb8 (10 ... b5!?

II cb ab, Makarichev-Kasparov, USSR Ch 1978, and now critical would be 12 ll:lxb5 i.a6 13ll:lbc3!? - or 13 a4!? - 13 ... ll:le5 14 ll:lf4! with the idea 14 ... g5 15 ll:lh5 i.xd3 16 i.xg5 etc) II b4 cb 12 ab b5 13 cb ab 14 d4! d5 15 .if4 llb6 16 't!t'b3! ;t Reshevsky-E.Castro, Lugano 01 1968. The ideas include (e.g.) 16 ... de 17 llfd1! f5? 18 d5 and 16 ... ll:lxd4 17 ll:lxd4 i.xd4 18 llfd l ! etc.

10 a3 i.b7 1 1 b4 it'd7 1 2 i.e3 (18)

12 tt'a4 !? llfd8 13 llfd 1 ll:ld4 14 it'xd7 ll:lxe2+ 15 ll:lxe2 llxd7 16 .ie3 (";t" Speelman) was LeinHartston, Hastings 1978-79- dull but somewhat unpleasant for Black.

18 B

1 2 ll:ld4 12 ... llac8 13 f4ll:ld4 14 i.f2! f5

5 e4 and 5 e3 2 1

(14 ... ll:lec6 15 b5 t) 15 ll:lxd4 cd 16 ll:lb5 fe 17 ll:lxd4 e5 18 fe de 19 ll:lb5! a6 20 de it'xdl 21 llfxd1 ab 22 cb! (with the idea lld7, .ixb6) led to an overwhelming queenside pawn mass for White in SehnerChandler, West Germany 1985.

13 it'd2 n fe8 13 ... llfd8 14 i.h6 is similar,

and 14 i.f2 with the idea�d4 is also possible. 13 ... ll:lec6!..

14 i.h6 14 f4. 14 lHcl ll:lec6 15 i.xd4

ll:lxd4 16 lLl xd4 cd 17 ll:le2 lilacS 18 b5 llc7 19 a4 :t Zi.iger-Adorjan, Thessaloniki 01 1984.

14 i.h8 We are following Soos-Geller,

Varna 1964. After 15 ll:lxd4 cd 16 ll:le2 Black played the odd 16 ... a5? 17 ba ba 18 llb6 and got into trouble. Better was 16 ... d5 (16 ... b5 !?) 17 cd ed 18 ll:lf4 de 19 de ll:lc6 oo, with the idea 20 ll:ld5 ll:le5. A2

5 ll:lf6 This is one of the purely English

Opening lines of the King's Indian Defence.

6 ll:lge2 6 d3 0-0 7 f4 d6 8 ll:lO (8 ll:lge2

ll:le8 9 0-0 ll:ld4 = was GrigorianAntunac, USSR v Yugoslavia 1964) 8 ... llb8 9 0-0 a6 =,e.g. 10 llb1 b5 II b3 ll:le8 12 ll:ld5 ll:lc7 13 .ib2 i.g4! = Bronstein-Najdorf, Moscow 1967.

6 0-0

22 5 e4 and 5 e3

7 0-0 (19) 7 d4? cd 8lt:Jxd4lt:Jxe4! =t= Euwe.

/9 H

7 d6 There are so many games with

this line that I will limit myself to the most typical and (hopefully) revealing examples. Here Black also has: a) 7 ... a6 8 lib 1 (8 a4! or 8 d3; see below) 8 ... Il:b8 9 a3 b5 10 cb ab 11 b4 cb 12 ab e5 = (with the idea 13 d4? ed 14 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 15 'it'xd4 lt:Jxe4!) Smyslov-Taimanov, USSR Ch 1961. b) 7 ... lt:Je8 8 a3(8 d3lt:Jc7 9 lib I!?; compare A22) 8 ... lt:Jc7 9 Il:b1 a5 (or 9 ... d6!?, e.g. IOb4lt:Je6is A21 below) 10 d3 (10 lt:Jd5!?) 10 ... lt:Je6!? II f4 f5 12 g4!? lt:Jed4 13 gf lt:Jxe2+ (?! - 13 ... gf) 14 lt:Jxe2 gf 15 lt:Jg3 with an attack, AugustinKozlov, Stary Smokovec 1976.

After 7 ... d6: A21 8 a3 A22 8 d3 A2l

8 a3 (20)

This is less flexible than 8 d3, especially since White is sometimes able to profit from the move a4.

8 aS a) Often played is 8 ... lt:Je8, transposing after 9 Il:b1 a5. Instead, 9 lib I Il:b8!? 10 b4 b6 II d3 lt:Jc7! 12 b5 lt:Jd4 13 lt:Jxd4 .txd4 was Stolyar-Bikov, USSR 1957, when 14 lt:Je2 J.g7 is of interest. Most important is 9 lilbl lt:Jc7!? 10 b4 lt:Je6 II d3 lt:Jed4 12 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 13 lt:Je2, and now Stolyar-Zilber, Leningrad 1957, went 13 ... b6 14

lt:Jxd4 .txd4 15 J.b2 .txb2?! (15 ... e5) 16 llxb2 e5?! ( 16 ... .ib7 17 f4 e6 18 f5?! ef = Stolyar-Nezhmetdinov, Moscow 1957, but 18 'it'el ! with the idea g4 improves) 17 f4 f6 18 Il:2f2 lilb8 19 h4! 'it'e7 20 f5 ±. b) 8 ... i.d7 9 h3 lt:Je8 (or 9 ... a6) 10 libllt:Jc7(10 ... a5) II b4lt:Je6 12 d3 lilb8, and now Shatskes gives 13 b5! lt:Jcd4 14 f4! :t

9 libl

9 h3(!), to prevent.. . .ig4, might

5 e4 and 5 e3 23

be more accurate, but this hasn't 21 been tried yet. B

9 .ig4! Others seem less desirable:

a) 9 ... .id7!? 10 h3 Iii: b8 (I 0 ... lt:Je8 II d3 lt:Jc7 12 .ie3 lt:Jd4 13 b4 ;t) II d3 lt:Je8 12 .ie3 e5!? (12 ... lt:Jd4 13 b4 ab 14 ab t) 13 �h2 lt:Jd4 14 b4 ab 15 ab b6 16 't!fd2 lt:Jc7 17 llb2! (t intending lltbl or llfal) 17 ... f5 18 ef gf 19 .ig5 't!fe8 20 be ± Watson-Shean, Denver 1977. b) 9 ... lt:Je8 10 d3 lt:Jc7 II .ie3 (II lt:Jd5 lt:Jxd5! 12 ed lt:Jd4 =; Illt:Ja4!? lt:Je6 12 lt:Jec3 .id7! =) II ... lt:Jd4!? (II . .. lt:Je6!?) 12 b4 ab 13 ab b6, Evans-Fischer, New York 1967, and now 14 h3 ;tor 14 't!fd2 would maintain the tension.

10 f3 10 h3 .ixe2! II lt:Jxe2 lt:Je8 12 d3

lt:Jc7 13 i.d2 b5! = intending 14 e5? lt:Jxe5.

10 .id7 1 1 d3 lt:Je8

12 .ie3!? (12 h3 with the idea f4) 12 ... lt:Jc7 13 b3 (13 d4 cd 14 lt:Jxd4 a4!, or 14 ... lDxd4 15 .ixd4 .ixd4+ 16 1!t'xd4 lt:Je6 and 17 ... a4) 13 ... lt:Jd4 14 a4 lt:Ja6 = TaimanovGurgenidze, USSR Ch 1958. A22

8 d3 (21) Here White emphasizes central

and kingside play. Black must be very careful not to cede too much space.

8 lt:Je8 a) 8 ... .id7 9 h3 't!fc8?! 10 �h2 lt:Je8 11 .ie3 lt:Jc7 (II ... lt:Jd4 12 .ig5! Shatskes) 12 d4 cd 13lt:Jxd4 lDe6 14 lt:Jde3:!: Rapopov-LitvinovMinsk 1963. b) 8 ... lii:b8 9 llb1 b6!? 10 d4( 10 h3 Nei) 10 ... cd 11 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 12 't!fxd4 lt:Jxe4!? 13 't!fxe4 .ixc3, RitovSpassky, Tallinn 1973, and now instead of 14 .ig5 .ie5! =!= White had 14 be! i.f5 15 1!Ve2 i.xa1 16 g4!, which is at least equal and perhaps better for White. c) 8 ... .ig4!? could use tests: 9 f3 .id7 10 h3 with the idea f4 or here 10 .ie3 seems best. d) 8 ... a6 9 h3 (9 lii:b1 lii:b8 10 a4

lt:Je8 11 .ie3lt:Jc7 12 d4 t) 9 ... llb8 10 a4! lt:Je8 (10 ... i.d7 II llb1 e6 12 .ie3 h6 13 �h2 �h7 14 d4:!: Watson-Williams, New York 1979) II .ie3 and now Black can try II ... lt:Jd4, when 12 .ig5 h6 13 .id2 (Shatskes) is not too frightening. Better is 12 lii:bl! lt:Jc7(12 ... .id7 13 b4 cb 14 llxb4 t Azmaiparashvili-

24 5 e4 and 5 e3

Chekhov, USSR 1980) 13 b4 lt:lxe2+? (13 ... b6 ;!;) 14 lt:lxe2 cb 15 .ib6! .id7 16 lhb4 ±.

Otherwise I I ... lt:lc7 is possible, but then 12 d4 is :t, e.g. 12 ... cd( 12 ... lt:la5!? 13 b3 lt:le6 14 llbl .id7 15 f4! ;!; Taimanov-Suetin, Riga 1954) 13 lt:lxd4 lt:le6 (13 ... .id7 14 lLlde2!, e.g. 14 ... lbe5 15 b3 b5 16 f4) 14 lt:lde2! lt:lc5 15 l:lbl a5 16 b3;!; with the idea 'it'd2 Taimanov.

9 .ie3 ( !) (22) With ... lt:le8 already in, 9 h3 has

less point, e.g. 9 ... lt:lc7 10 g4!? lt:ld4 (or 10 ... lLle6 I I f4llJed4 12 f5 e6! =) II f4 f5 = Taimanov; 12 lbg3 e6 and ... :C:b8.

22 B

9 liJd4 9 ... llJc7?! 10 d4 cd I I llJxd4

llJe6 (or l l ... .id7 12llbl ! llJe6 13 liJde2 lbe5 14 b3 llJg4 15 .icl! ± Watson-Elseth, Hamar 1980) 12 liJde2 lbc5 13 ll:cl .ie6 14 b3 t Barcza-Szilagyi, Hungary 1967.

10 l:lbl Or 10 't!t'd2!?, e.g. 10 ... ll:b8 I I

ll:ab I .ig4 12 f3 .id7 13 b4 llJc7

14 f4 b6 15 h3 f5 16 �h2 .ic6, Filip-Giigoric, Moscow 01 1956. Theory calls this equal, and yet 17 b5 .ib7 18 a4 (with the ideas

llbel , .igl, lLlxd4, a5, g4) may favour White slightly .

·to aS 10 ... llJc7 II b4 t. 10 ... b6 I I e5!

llJxe2+ 12 'i!t'xe2 lit b8 13 d4! cd 14 .ixd4 de 15 .i xe5 .ig4! 16 it'e3 .ixe5 17 'it'xe5 'it'd6 18 'it'e3! t planning h3, llbdl, b3 etc, M.GurevichSturua, USSR 1981.

1 1 h3 a) 1 1 b3?! llJc7 12 a3 .ig4! 13 f3 .id7 14 b4 ab 15 ab llJxe2+ 16

llJxe2 cb! 17 .ib6 ( 17 lhb4 b5 + M.Gurevich) 17 ... 'i!t'c8 18 litxb4 lba6 19 liib l llJc5 + M.GurevichGavrikov, USSR 1983. b) On 1 1 a3!?, I I ... llJc7 12 b4 t is A2l above. I I . .. llJxe2+ 12 llJxe2 a4 is unclear after 13 d4 or after the trade-off of weaknesses (b7 v a3) following b4.

1 1 llJc7 1 2 f4 f5

Here M.Gurevich gives 13 'i!t'd2 with the idea :!I bel, b3, .if2,

llJxd4 with central pressure. This and I I a3 llJxe2+ are areas for further investigation.

Conclusion. 5 e4 remains a complicated and unresolved way for White to conduct the game. The 5 ... lt:lf6 6 llJge2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 a3 lines give Black several methods

to achieve good play, but 8 d3 has proven more dangerous; as of now, the 8 ... li:le8 lines seem best for the second player.

8

23 B

5 e3 (23)

White's most fundamental move, preparing li:lge2 and, perhaps, d4. Bl 5 ... e5 B2 5 ... li:lf6 B3 5 ... e6 a) 5 ... a6?! 6 li:lge2 b5? should be answered by 7 li:lxb5! (7 d4 t Taimanov) 7 ... ab 8 cb, e.g. 8 ... li:le5 (8 ... li:lb4 9 ..txa8 li:ld3+ I 0 �fl ±±:) 9 ..txa8 d5 10 ..tc6+ �f8 II 0-0 ..tg4, Barle-Savon, Yugoslavia 1981, and now 12 f4! was very strong: 12 ... li:lf3+ 13 �g2 or 12 ... li:ld3 13 a4 'it'a5 (otherwise 14 a5) 14 ..txd5 with the idea ..tf3. b) 5 ... li:lh6 6li:lge2li:lf5 is difficult to handle for Black, e.g. bl )7 0-0 0-0 (7 ... llb8 8 d3 b6 9 b3 is similar; for 7 ... g6? see the end of this note) 8 b3 b6 (8 ... a6 9 llbi llb8 I 0 .ib2 d6 II d3 ..td7 I2 li:ld5

5 e4 and 5 e3 25

..txb2 I3 llxb2 ::t, or here 10 ... b5 II cb ab I2 li:le4 ..txb2 I3 llxb2 'it'b6 14 li:lf4! Shatskes; in both cases Black suffers from an inability to play ... e6 without further weakening his kingside) 9 ..tb2 .ib7 10 llbi e6 (10 ... d6 lvkov) II li:lf4 d6 I2 li:le4 ..txb2 I3 llxb2 1!t'e7 I4 'it' a I! li:lg7 I5 h4 f5 I6 li:lg5 ± (the threat of li:lgxe6 means White gets d4 in) Geller-R.Byrne, Sousse I Z I967. b2) 7 b3 a6 8 ..tb2 0-0 9 d3 d6 (9 ... llb8 10 0-0 b5 II llbi t intending

lt:Je4) IO 0-0 ..td7 II 't!td2!? llb8 I2 li:le4 'it'a5 I3 ..tc3 ..txc3 I4 li:lexc3 b5 15 llfei lii:fc8 16 lladi 'it'd8!? I7 li:ld5 'it'f8 oo AnderssonMiles, Tiiburg I977.

As an illustration of how easy it is for these lines to become critical, witness Jakobsen-van der Wiel, Aarhus I983: 7 0-0 b6? 8 d4! cd 9 li:lxd4 li:lfxd4 IO ed ..txd4 II .ih6 ..txc3 I2 be ..tb7 I3 c5! 't!lc7 I4 lii:ei be I5 llbi a6(15 ... 0-0-0!PCN, but then I6 llxe7!, since I6 ... li:lxe7 I7 ..txb7+ 'it'xb7 I8 llxb7 �xb7 I9 ..tg6 with the idea 'it'd6 is unplayable for Black) I6 ..tf4 't!Vc8 I7 llxe7+! I-0. c) 5 ... ..txc3+ was modestly touted in the first edition, but no one has picked it up: 6 de!? d6 7 e4 (7 h4!? and lt:Jh3-f4) 7 ... 't!ld7 8 li:le2 b6 9 li:lf4 ..tb7 10 'it'e2 e6 II li:ld3 h6 I2 ..td2 (12 0-0 li:lge7 I3 f4 0-0-0 I4 b4!?) I2 ... li:lge7 13 0-0-0 0-0-0

26 5 e4 and 5 e 3

14 Ilfel 'irc7 15 h4 .ta6 16 b3 b5! + Benko-Tarjan, Lone Pine 1979.

Better is 6 be(!) b6 7 lt:lge2 .tb7 8 d3 d6 9 0-0 1i'd7 10 e4, SpeelmanCommons, Lone Pine 1978, which went 10 ... f5(?) II li:lf4 0-0-0 \12-\12, although here 12 ef! gf 13 .td5 lt:le5 14 d4 is ±. So 10 ... 0-0-0 is best, and on II li:lf4, II ... 'i!>b8 12 .th3 1We8 is unclear. The position after 10 ... 0-0-0 looks reasonable for Black. White might consider trying to save a tempo by 8 e4 d6 9 0-0, with the option of d4 in one move. d) 5 ... h5 6 h4 (6 h3 t) 6 ... li:lh6 7 lt:lge2 lt:lf5 8 a3 li b8 9 lii b I li:ld6?! 10 d3 b5 II cb lt:lxb5 12 lt:lxb5 liixb5 13 1Wc2 .tb7 14 0-0 'ira8 15 lt:lc3 .txc3 16 Wxc3 ± Padevsky-Gurgenidze, Varna 1975. e) 5 ... d6 6 lt:lge2 .td7 (6 ... e5 and 6 ... lt:lf6 transpose; 6 ... .tf5 7 d3 h5 8 h3 1Wc8 9 a3 t Sapi-Forintos, Hungary 1967) 7 0-0 h5 (7 ... 't!t"c8 8 li:lf4 t or 8 d4 ;t) 8 h3 t ECO. Bl

24 w

5 6 lt:lge 2

e5 lt:lge7 (24)

7 0-0 Some examples of delayed cast

ling: a) 7 d3 d6 8 a3 0-0 9 lib! .te6(or 9 ... a5 10 0-0 lilb8) 10 li:ld5 lilb8 ( 10 ... b5!? II lt:lxe7+ lt:lxe7 12 cb li b8 13 lt:lc3 d5 14 a4 f5 is unclear, Donchev-Adorjan, Prague 1985) II lt:lec3 a6 12 .td2 b5 13 cb? (13 b4 =) 13 ... ab 14 b4li:lxd5 15 li:lxd5 lt:le7! 16 lt:lxe7+ Wxe7 17 0-0 c4! =F Kupka-Faibisovich, Vilnius 1969. b) 7 a3 d6 8 lil:bl a5 (or 8 ... .te6 9 li:ld5 .tf5 10 d3 li:lxd5 II cd lt:le7 =, Botvinnik's idea; 9 ... b5!? Gipslis) 9 li:ld5 0-0 10 0-0 .tg4! II h3 .td7 12 lt:lec3 liib8 13 b4 cb! 14 ab li:lxd5 15 li:lxd5 b5 + LysenkoKarpov, Rostov 1971. c) 7 b3!? d6 8 .tb2 used to be thought bad due to 8 ... .te6 9 lLld5 (?) .t xd5 10 cd lt:lb4, or here 9 d3 d5, e.g. 10 0-0 0-0 II llcl b6 12 a3 Wd7 +with the idea ... f5 Angantysson-Tarjan, Lone Pine 1978. But 9 0-0! d5 10 cd

li:lxd5, and now two interesting ideas of Keene's are II lt:le4 b6 12 lt:lf4!!? intending 12 ... li:lxf4 13 lt:lf6+! .txf6 14 .txc6+ 'i!;>f8 15 ef lilc8 16 fe! ±;and l l li:la4 b6 12 d4, although in the second case mass exchange on d4 should equalize.

7 0-0 8 b3

This gives the best chances for some kind of edge.

8 a3 d6 (8 ... a6?! 9 b4!) 9 d3 (9

ll:bl .te6! 10 ll:ld5 .tf5 II ll:lxe7+ 't!t'xe7 12 d3 e4! 13 ll:lf4 ed 14 e4 .te6 15 b3 ll:ab8 = PachmanBotvinnik, Moscow 01 1956) 9 ... .te6 10 ll:ld5 Ir.b8! 11 ll:lec3 a6 12 lib! (12 b4 e4! 13 Ir.bl ed 14 't!t'xd3 cb 15 ab ll:le5 =F Adorjan) 12 ... b5 13 cb ab 14 b4ll:lxd5 15ll:lxd5ll:le7 16 ll:lxe7+ 'irxe7 17 .tb2? (17 a4 Adorjan; =) 17 ... c4 18 d4 'ira7! 19 d5 .tf5 20 e4 .td7 21 lial f5 =F (c-pa wn and attack) BertokAdorjan, Birmingham 1973.

8 d6 9 .tb2 (25)

9 lib8 a) 9 ... .te6?! 10 ll:le4! h6 II d4 ed 12 ed f5 l 3 lLld2 cd l 4ll:lf3 o!(Keene, based on Lein). b) 9 ... .tg4 10 h3! .te6 11 ll:ld5 (or II ll:le4! as in 'a') II ... 'ird7 12 ¢>h2 ,t Stahlberg-Bobotsov, Zevenaar 1961.

10 d3 a6 1 1 'ird2 b5 1 2 ll:ad1

An interesting juncture. White

5 e4 and 5 e3 2 7

could consider the useful waiting move 12 h3!?. Otherwise he can play 12 llfdl contemplating central action, e.g. 12 ... 'it'a5!? 13 llac l .ie6 14 ll:le4 't!t'xd2 15 llxd2("Minimally !" Taimanov) PolugayevskyBobotsov, Le Havre 1966. The game MacPherson-van der Sterren, London 1978, went 12 ... �h8 13 Ir.acl .tg4! 14 h3 .te6 15 ll:ld5?!

( 15 .tal) 15 ... 't!t'd7 16 ct>h2? .txd5 17 cd ll:lb4 +.

1 2 't!t'a5 Now 12 ... �h8 13 .tal .tg4 14

h3 .te6 15 ll:ld5 is useless. Better is 12 ... .te6, but 13 h3 f5?! (13 ... 't!t'd7) 14 f4 d5 15 fe is also poor: 15 ... de 16 ll:lf4 .ic8 17 ll:lcd5! or 15 ... d4 16 ed cd 17 ll:ld5 o!.

The text is Lein-Polugayevsky, Tbilisi 1967: 13 h3 .te6 14 .tal f5 15 f4 �h8 16 't!t'cl ll:lb4 17 lld2 .ig8 18 �h2 libd8 19 llfdl h6!? 20 a3 ll:lbc6 21 ll:ld5! ll:lxd5 22 cd ll:lb8? (22 ... ll:le7 23 fe de 24 e4! Petrosian; at least !) 23 fe de 24 't!t'xc5 lieS 25 'it'd6 ±±. B2

5 ll:lf6 6 ll:lge2

6 d4 generally transposes. 6 0-0

It's a bit illogical to play 6 ... e6!? (why not 5 ... e6 and 6 ... ll:lge7 instead?), but 7 d4 only transposes to the next section. The other course is 7 ll:lf4!? 0-0 8 0-0, and Larsen-Tal, Bugojno 1984 (by transposition),

28 5 e4 and 5 e3

continued 8 . . . b6!? (9 d4 is threatened; 8 . . . ll:Je7!?) 9 b3!? (consistent is 9 d4!: 9 . . . i.a6!? 10 1!t'a4 i.b7 Tal; but 1 1 li d l looks better for White) 9 . . . i.a6 1 0 i.b2 ( 10 i.a3 !? Tal) 10 . . . d5 II lie l li c8 12 d3 d4 !? =/oo.

7 d4 Or 7 0-0, but why allow 7 . . . e6

again? 7 d6

7 . . . cd 8 ed e6!? 9 i.g5?! h6 1 0 i.e3 ll:Je7! = was RaiC:evic-Hort, Stip 1 977; but 9 d5! intending 9 . . . ll:Ja5 1 0 b3 or 9 . . . ed 10 cd i s better.

8 0-0 (26)

8 i.d7 The most common try, but White

is better in any case. Others: a) 8 . . . cd 9 ed i.f5 1 0 d5 ! ( 1 0 h3 h5 1 1 b3 't!t'd7 1 2 'it>h2 d5! 1 3 i.a3 ( ! ) de 14 d 5 t Watson-Denker, New York 1 978) lO . . . ll:Je5 II b3 't!Vc8 1 2 ll:Jd4 t Rogoff. b) 8 . . . ..trs 9 b3 litb8 1 0 i.b2 't!Va5 ( 10 . . . a6? II de! de 12 ll:Ja4 and 1 2 . . . 't!Vxd l? 1 3 lii:axd 1 lLld7 1 4 i.xg7

and 15 i.xc6 ±, or 1 2 . . . ll:Jd7 1 3 i.xg7 c;S>xg7 1 4 i.xc6 be 1 5 f3 !) 1 1 't!Vd2!? (not II de de 1 2 i.xc6?! be 1 3 ll:Ja4 ll:Je4! , but II a3 ( ! ) has the idea II . . . a6 1 2 de de 13 ll:Ja4 ± intending i.c3) 1 1 . . . a6 1 2 l:tfd I lifc8 ( 1 2 . . . cd!? t) 1 3 de de 14 ll:Ja4 !. c) 8 . . . i.g4!? 9 h3 i.xe2 10 ll:Jxe2 cd 1 1 ed d5 12 c5 b6 13 i.e3!? (or 13 cb t) 13 . . . be 14 de ;t with the idea 1 4 . . . e5 15 i.g5 R.BymeBalcerowski, Varna 01 1 962.

9 b3 a6 9 . . . 't!Vc8 l O i.b2 (or l O d5 t, or

1 0 lii:e 1 i.h3 II i. h l i.g4 1 2 't!Vd2 i.xe2 1 3 l he2 cd 14 ed 't!Vg4 1 5 i.b2! ± Petrosian-Giigoric, Bled 1 96 1 ) l O . . . i.h3 1 1 d5 i.xg2 1 2 'it>xg2 ll:Ja5 1 3 't!Vd2 't!Vd8 1 4 ll:Jc 1 a6 15 lil b l lii:b8 16 a4 lLld7 17 lite! ± Hort-Hamman, Copenhagen 1 965.

1 0 i.b2 lib8 1 1 't!Vd2

Or II de!? de 1 2 ll:Ja4! b6 l 3 ltJf4 't!Vc8 ( 1 3 . . . ll:Ja5 1 4 't!t'c2 i.xa4 1 5 ba t Mikenas-Suetin, Vilnius 1 966) 14 li c l e6 1 5 ll:Jd3 ll:Je8 16 i.xg7 ll:Jxg7 1 7 't!Vd2 't!t'c7 1 8 lifd 1 ± with the idea 't!Vb2, ll:Jc3 KavalekN eamtu, Bucharest 1 966.

1 1 cd 1 1 . . . b5 1 2 eb ab l 3 de ! de 14

lii:fd 1 (or 14 lii:ae l , working against the hanging pawns) 14 . . . 't!Vb6 1 5 lLlf4 is ideal for White, e.g. 1 5 . . . e6 16 ll:Je4 ll:Jxe4 17 i.xe4 i.xb2 1 8 't!Vxb2 ± Pytel-Kupka, Zagreb

1 977. 12 ed

12 ... b5 1 3 cb ab 14 d5 ( ±) 14 . . . ll:la5 ( 14 . . . lLla7 1 5 lLld4 b4 1 6 lLlce2 lLlb5 1 7 lHe 1 ll:e8 1 8 lLl xb5 ± with the idea 1 9 lLld4) 15 lLld4 'i!t'b6 1 6 llfe 1 llfe8 1 7 ll:acl i.f8?! 18 lLlce2 lil:ec8 1 9 lLlf4 (planning lLld3-b4) 19 . . . lLle8 20 lLlc6! ±± Pytel-Wentman, Gausdal 1978. B3

27 w

5 6 lLlge2

e6 lLlge7 (2 7)

This is Black's least ambitious continuation, aiming for only a draw but challenging White to achieve more.

7 0-0 Options to mix it up:

a) After 7 lLlf4 0-0 8 0-0 d6 Black must be careful, e .g. 9 a3 (9 b3 a6 1 0 i.b2 b5 1 1 d3 i.b7 12 1!t'e2 ll:b8, about =, Hort-Planinc, Banja Luka 1 974) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . i.xc3!? would be interesting) 10 lil: b 1 lil:b8 1 1 b4 cb 12 ab b5 13 cb ab 14 't!fb3 d5?! 1 5 lLld3! 't!fb6 16 lLlc5 d4 17 lLlce4

5 e4 and 5 e 3 29

e5 1 8 d3 i.f5 1 9 lLld6 lil: bd8 20 lLlxf5 lLlxf5 2 1 ll:a 1 ± G.Garcia-Estevez, Camaguey 1 974. b) 7 d4 (!) is probably best as it limits Black's options in the main line: 7 . . . cd 8 lLlxd4 d5!? (8 . . . lLlxd4 9 ed d5 10 cd lLlxd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 't!fb3 and 1 2 lLlxd5 cd 1 3 1!t'a4!? are discussed in the main line below) 9 cd lLlxd5 1 0 lLlxd5 lLlxd4 1 1 lLlc3 lLlc6 1 2 't!fxd8+ lLl xd8 and one can see that the omission of 0-0/ . . . 0-0 makes a difference. White is very slightly better, and AnderssonMiles, Tilburg 1 98 1 , went 13 i.d2 0-0 (Makarichev gives two instructive lines: 1 3 . . . i.d7?! 14 lLle4 i.c6 1 5 lLld6+ �d7 16 i.xc6 �xd6 -

16 . . . �xc6 1 7 lLlc4 - 1 7 i.f3 i.xb2 18 ll b 1 ± intending �e2; and 1 3 . . . �e7 !? 1 4 ll:c1 i.d7 1 5 0-0 i.c6 16 b4 ±) 14 lil:c 1 i.d7 1 5 0-0 i.c6 1 6 llc2! (t) 1 6 . . . i.xg2 ( 1 6 . . . f5 1 7 i.xc6 lLlxc6 1 8 lLla4 intending lLlc5 Koval:evic) 17 �xg2 lLlc6 1 8 lLle4 n fd8 (perhaps 1 8 . . . a 5 ! ? with the idea 1 9 a3 a4 20 lLld6 lla6! Makarichev) 1 9 i.c3 llac8!? ( 1 9 . . . lil:d5 !?) 20 i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 lil:fc 1 intending lLlc5, a 3 , b4. White's pressure persisted, and he eventually won.

7 0-0 7 . . . d5?! is premature due to 8 cd

lLlxd5 9 lLl xd5 ed 10 lLlf4! t Hort, or here 10 1!t'b3 d4 1 1 d3! t Tal.

8 d4 cd 9 lLlxd4

30 5 e4 and 5 e3

9 ed d5 1 0 cd lLl xd5 I I lt:lxd5 ( I I 1rb3 lt:la5 ! 12 1rc2 .id7 ! 1 3 lt:lxd5 ed 1 4 1rc5 lle8 1 5 1rxd5 �g4! +, a game Bukhman-Suetin) I I . . . ed 12 .ie3 ( 1 2 lt:lc3 lt:lxd4 =; 1 2 1rb3 i.g4! 1 3 lt:lc3 lt:lxd4 +) 1 2 . . . .ig4 1 3 lle l , Botvinnik-Gligoric, Hastings 1 96 1 -62, and now 1 3 . . . 1rd7 14 1rb3 llad8 i s =.

9 lt:lxd4 9 . . . d5 may be more accurate,

on account of 10 cd lt:lxd5! ( 10 . . . ed I I 1rb3 lt:lxd4 12 ed lt:lf5 1 3 1rxd5 'i!Yxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 lt:lxd4 1 5 .ig5 t Benko-Geller, Wijk aan Zee 1 969; I 0 . . . lt:lxd4 I I ed lt:lxd5 transposes) I I lt:lxd5 lt:lxd4! = LarsenMatulovic, Palma de Mall orca 1967. Here I I lie I l0xd4 12 ed 'tWb6 is also equal.

But the interesting thing here is that 7 d4( !), instead of 7 0�. doesn't allow this line; instead we get the ending of that note, or the play which follows:

10 ed d5 10 . . . d6 !? I I d5 e5 1 2 b3 e4!?

13 i.b2 f5 14 'i!Yd2 h6 1 5 lt:lb5 !? ( 1 5 llae I with the idea f3 is t) 15 . . . .ixb2 16 'i!Yxb2 a6 1 7 lt:ld4 g5 1 8 f3 t Doda-Fischer, Havana 1 965.

11 cd lt:lxd5 I I . . . ed?! is worse after either

1 2 .ig5! or 1 2 .ie3 and 13 'i!Yb3 etc. 12 'i!Yb3! (28)

Creating the most problems for Black. 1 2 lt:lxd5 ed 1 3 .ie3 i.e6 = or here 1 3 'i!t'b3 i.e6! 14 'i!t'xb7

i.xd4 = has often been seen, and a game Velez-Boudy, Cuba 1982, went 13 'i!Ya4!? 'i!Yb6 1 4 .ie3 ( 1 4 .ixd5 i.h3 =) 1 4 . . . .ie6 1 5 llac l llfc8 =.

28 B

Now Black has a wide choice: a) 12 ... lt:le7 13 d5 ed 14 i.g5 h6 15 .ixe7 'i!Yxe7 16 lt:lxd5 'i!Ye5 =

was Forintos-Sapi, Hungary 1 969. But 1 3 lld I ! causes more trouble, e.g. 13 . . . i.xd4?? 14 .ig5 f6 ( 1 4 .. . lle8 1 5 .if6) 1 5 i.e3 ±±, or 1 3 . . . lt:lf5 14 d5 etc. Perhaps 1 3 . . . 'W'b6, yet 14 lt:la4 (or 14 'it'a3!?) 14 . . . 'i!Yxb3 1 5 a b with the idea lt:lb6/ lt:lc5 is not so easy . After 1 5 . . . lLl c6, 1 6 i.f4! renews the threat. b) 12 ... lt:lb6 13 lild l is similar, e.g. 13 . . . i.xd4 1 4 i.h6 lle8 1 5 a4! with the idea 15 . . . aS 16 lild4 f6 1 7 lilxd4! or 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 a5 i.e6 17 'i!Yb4. c) 12 ... 'i!Yb6 13 lt:lxd5!? ed 14 i.e3 .ie6 1 5 llac l llac8 16 i.xd5 i.xd5 17 'it'xd5 lilcd8 18 'i!Yc5 i.xd4 1 9 1Wxb6 i.xb6 20 i.xb6 a b 2 1 llfd I t Kest1er-Pavlov, Bucharest 1 976.

d) 1 2 . . . .txd4(!) is the most critical, e.g. 13 .th6( ! ) lle8? 14 llad l .txc3 15 be 'ti'b6 1 6 'ti'c4 't!rc6 17 'ti'e2! b5 18 .tg5 .tb 7 19 'ti'e5 llac8 20 11 fe I ! .ta8 (now the pawn can't be taken - if 20 . . . 11t'xc3 then 21 'ti'xc3 and 22 .txd5) 2 1 h4 't!rc5 (21 . . . 't!rxc3? 22 lld5 ! ) 22 .txd5! .txd5 23 .th6 f6 24 'ti'xf6 llc7 25 .te3 'ife7 26 'ife5 :±± Cardoso-Torre, Manila 1973 .

13 . . . .tg7! is better. After 14 .txg7 ct>xg7 White should try for a small edge by 1 5 llfd l 11t'b6 1 6 lLlxd5 1!t'xb3 1 7 ab ed 1 8 llxd5 ! a6 1 9 b4 t Smyslov-Petrosian, USSR Ch 1 974. A similar but probably less desirable line (for White) goes 1 3 lLlxd5!? ed 1 4 .th6 .tg7 ( 14 . . . lle8 1 5 llad 1 ;;!;) 1 5 .txg7 ct>xg7 1 6 .txd5, Andersson-Gheorghiu, Moscow 1 98 1 . B lack found 16 . . . a 5 ! 1 7 llac l ( 1 7 llfd 1 !?) 1 7 . . . a4

5 e4 and 5 e3 31

1 8 't!Vc3+ 1!t'f6 1 9 1!t'xf6+ ct>xf6 20 llc7 lla5! and if 2 1 .txb7, 2 1 . . . .te6 =.

Conclusion. This last line, with 5 e3 e6 6 lLlge2 lLlge7, remains the most serious drawback to using 5 e3 as a winning weapon. Andersson's order with 7 d4 ( ! ) , howjver, gives White some hope of m� ing Black suffer for such unimaginative play . The endings in that line are defensible, but slightly better for White. Otherwise, 7 lLlf4 is the best bet to keep the pieces on and try for a specific advantage later on.

As regards the other replies to 5 e3, 5 . . . lLlf6 is inferior because it cedes a central advantage, and 5 . . . e5 is a viable and complex system offering chances for both sides.

3 5 �f3 �f6 (with . . . d5 lines)

In this chapter we look at assorted ideas in the Pure Symmetrical with lt:lf3, mainly involving . . . d5 ideas by Black. The first of these is: A I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 lt:lf3 d5 4 cd

lt:lxd5 5 g3

Moves other than 5 g3 in this position are dealt with in Chapter 8. Also, the few lines where Black plays . . . d5 and . . . g6 without . . . lt:lc6 are i n Chapter 8, line D.

The next two sections introduce I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:lc6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 i.g7 5 lt:lf3 lt:lf6: B 6 0-0 d5 C 6 d4 and 6 0-0 0-0, Introduction A

29 w

1 c4 2 lt:lc3 3 lt:lf3 4 cd 5 g3

c5 lt:lf6 d5

lt:lxd5 lt:lc6 (29)

5 . . . g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7 lt:lxd5 'tWxd5 8 d3 lt:lc6 is 'B ' below, and here 7 'tWa4+!? lt:lc6 8 1rc4 lt:ldb4 9 0-0 'tWaS is equal.

6 i.g2 a) 6 'i!t'b3?! lt:lc7 + (or 6 . . . e6) is a good version of the Rubinstein System - Chapter 6. b) 6 lt:lxd5(?!) (this can always be played later, unless White is afraid of 6 .ig2 lt:lc7, again Chapter 6) 6 . . . 'tWxd5 7 .ig2 e5 (7 . . . g6 is 'B' below) 8 d3 (8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3?! e4! 10 lt:lei i.f5 II 'i!t'a4 'tWe6! 12 d3 .ig4! 13 'tWc2 lt:lb4 + Ree-Smejkal, Amsterdam 1 975) 8 . . . 'tWd7 ( intending . . . i.d6, . . . 'i!t'e7) 9 0-0 i.d6 10 i.e3 ( 10 lLld2! =) 10 . . . 0-0 II lil c l 'tWe7 12 ltld2 .id7 13 lt:le4 b6 I4 lt:lxd6 'tWxd6 + A.SchneiderPortisch, Hungary 1 984.

JO w

6 g6 (30)

Here 6 . . . e5? 7 ltlxe5! ltl xc3 8 i.xc6+ be 9 de 1t'c7 10 1t'a4! is a blunder, and 6 . . . ltlxc3 7 be g6 transposes to a Griinfeld-like position which is discussed in my English II.

7 d3 a) 7 0-0 i.g7 is 'B ' below. b) 7 d4!? i.g7 8 0-0 ltlxc3 (8 .. . cd 9 ltl xd4 ltlxd4 1 0 ltlxd5 i.g4!? or 1 0 . . . i.e6; 8 . . . ltl xc3 9 be 0-0 is a Griinfeld Defence) 9 be cd 1 0 cd ltlxd4 I I ltlxd4 1t'xd4 1 2 llb I (possibly 1 2 1t'xd4 i.xd4 1 3 llb l is more accurate, e .g. 1 3 . . . i.b6 14 i.h6) 1 2 . . . 0-0 13 i.e3 tt'c4! 1 4 1t'd2 i.e6 1 5 llxb7 llad8 = Ribli-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1 983. c) 7 ltlgS e6! = ; see 7 0-0 i.g7 8 ltlg5 e6 below. 7 ltlg5 ltlb6 8 d3 ltld7 9 0-0 ..tg7 = Djuric-Bertok, Yugoslavia 1 978 . d) 7 1t'b3? ltldb4! (or 7 . . . ltlb6! 8 ltle4 e5! 9 d3 - 9 d4?! c4! - 9 . . . .i.e6 1 0 tt'd1 f6 + Szabo-Miles, Hastings 1 973-74; 7 . . . ltlc7?! 8 ltlg5 ! e6 9 i.xc6+ be 10 d3 ;!;; 7 . . . e6!? 8 d3 ..tg7 9 i.g5! and 9 . . . ltld4? 1 0 1t'xd5 ! ! or 9 . . . tt'b6 1 0 tt'xb6 ab I I i.d2 ;!; Uhlmann) 8 ltle4!? (8 a3 ltla5 9 1t'd I lLl bc6 10 d3 i.e6 I I ltld2 0-0 +; 8 d3 i.g7) 8 . . . i.g7 9 ltlxc5 1t'a5 1 0 lt:le4 i.f5 1 1 ltlfg5 0-0 1 2 e3 h6 1 3 ltlh3 i.e6! H planning . . . i.c4, Webb-Miles, England 1 975. e) 7 't!t'a4 ltlb6 ( ! ) looks good, e.g.

5 lbf3 lbf6 (with . . . d5 lines) 33

8 1t'c2 i.g4! or 8 't!t'h4 i.g7 9 d3 h6 or 8 't!t'b5 ltld7 9 d3 ..tg7 1 0 i.e3 lt:ld4. Instead, practice has seen 7 . . . i.g7 8 ltlg5 !? (8 't!t'b5 ltldb4 9 0-0 't!t'a5 ! =; 8 't!t'c4 ltldb4 9 0-0 't!t'a5 1 0 ltle4 1t'a6! I I Wxc5 b6 1 2 'i!t'e3 0-0! - 12 . . . lbc2 13 lbd6+ -

1 3 ltle l i.e6 1 4 ltlc3 llac8 1 5 i.xc6 ltlxc6 1 6 d 3 lLl b4 1 7 i.d2 b5! =F Kaiszauri-Georgadze, Tbilisi 1 977) 8 . . . e6 9 ltlge4 ltlb6! 10 tt'b5 c4 I I ltla4 0-0 1 2 ltlxb6 ab 13 't!t'xc4 e5 14 't!t'c2 ltld4 1 5 Wb l f5 1 6 ltlc3 e4 (or 16 . . . i.e6 intending . . . i.b3 Karpov) with a strong initiative, Tatai-Karpov, Las Palmas 1 977.

7 i.g7 8 i.d2

8 ltlxd5 transposes to 'B' . 8 0-0!?

Perhaps more accurate is 8 . . . e6 ( ! ) 9 't!t'c l b6 1 0 i.h6 0-0 I I h4 f6 ! 1 2 0-0 i.b7 1 3 i.xg7 �xg7 1 4 tt'd2 e5 1 5 e3 ltlc7! 1 6 llfd l lt:le6 + (central bind) Ptleger-Sigurjonsson, M unich 1 979.

31 8

9 tt'cl (31)

34 5 ltJj3 ltJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)

9 0-0 b6 and now 1 0 ltJxd5 'tlt'xd5 I I .tc3 i.b7! , or 10 'iWa4 i.b7 I I ltJxd5 'it'xd5 1 2 ltJg5 'it'd7 1 3 .tc3 h6 = Spiridonov-Bukic, Bajmok 1 980, or 10 lii:b l i.b7 I I a3 e6 1 2 'iWa4, Karlsson-Vadasz, Ere van 1 980, when 12 . . . a6 or 12 . . . ltJd4 is equal.

9 b6 Good seems 9 . . . ltJc7 ! , e.g. 1 0

i.h6 ltJe6 I I h 4 f6! intending . . . ltJed4. 9 . . . ltJxc3 1 0 be c4!? I I d4 e5 = , Ivkov-Miles, Amsterdam 1 976, is also playable, or here 1 0 . . . e 5 I I 0-0 c4!? 1 2 d e ltJa5 1 3 c5, Uhlmann-Smejkal, Vrbas 1 977, and now best is 13 . . . 'iWc7! 14 i.e3 i.e6! .

1 0 .th6 .tb7!? Better is 10 . . . e6! - see Pfleger

Sigurjonsson above. After 10 . . . .tb7!? Uhlmann-Aiburt, Bucharest 1 978, continued I I h4 ltJf6 12 h5 ! ltJd4 1 3 hg ltJxf3+ 1 4 .txf3 .txh6! 1 5 'iWxh6 i.xf3 1 6 ef fg oo.

Altogether a good line for Black, barring White's transposition to 'B ' . 8 1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJc6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 .tg7 5 lfjf3 ltJf6 6 0-0:

6 d5 7 cd

I f 7 d3 then Black simply plays 7 ... (}.0 and there is nothing better than 8 cd, transposing to another line.

7 ltJ xd5 (32)

32 w

8 ltJ xd5 This time White has some mter

esting options: a) 8 d3!? sacrifices the c-pawn for the sake of quick development and open lines, e.g. 8 ... ltJxc3 9 be .txc3 10 ll b i i.g7 ( 10 . . . 0-0 I I i.h6 or I I 't!t'a4!?) I I 'it'c2 't!t'd6 12 i.e3 b6 ( 1 2 . . . ltJd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 i.f4) 1 3 i.f4 't!t'd7 I 4 d4! ;t ( J4 . . . cd I 5 ltJe5) Speelman-Ady, London I 985.

The problem with 8 d3 is that after 8 . . . 0-0! White must transpose by e ither 9 ltJxd5 or 9 i.d2. b) 8 't!t'a4 ltJ b6! looks good, but 8 . . . 0-0 9 't!t'c4 is less clear, e .g. 9 . . . ltJxc3 10 dd!i'b6 ( 10 . . . b6?! I I ltJg5! i.b7? I2 ltJe6! Uhlmann) I I 't!t'h4!? lle8 I 2 lii:b i ltJe5!? I 3 ltJxe5 .txe5 14 b4 cb I 5 i.e3 'iWa6 16 'tlt'xb4 :t Uhlmann. c) 8 'tlt'b3 e6 (8 . . . ltJc7?! 9 ltJg5 ! 0-0 10 .txc6 :t, but 8 . . . ltJdb4? with the idea 9 a3 ltJ a5 or 8 . . . ltJb6 9 'tlt'b5 ltJd7 looks reasonable) 9 'ilt'c4? (9 'irb5 .b6 =; 9 d3 0-0 1 0 .tg5

l0d4! I I l0xd4 't!t'xg5 = Hi.ibnervan der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1 984) 9 . . . b6 10 d3 0-0 I I .ig5 't!t'd7 (or I I . . . f6 +) 1 2 llac l .ib7 1 3 't!t'h4 l0de7! 1 4 g4 f6 1 5 .id2 e5 was =F in G.Garcia-Dzindzihashvili, Wij k aan Zee 1 979. d) 8 lOgS e6 9 l0ge4 (9 d3!? 0-0! 10 l0xd5 ed I I lt:lh3 =) 9 . . . b6 I 0 't!t'a4 .id7 ( 1 0 . . . .ib7 !? gives up a pawn after 1 1 lt:lxd5 ed 1 2 l0c3, but 12 . . . 't!t'd7 13 l0xd5 0-0-0 14 l0c3 lithe8 1 5 litb l l0d4! 1 6 't!t'xa7 .ixg2 1 7 't!t'xd7+ llxd7 1 8 \!lxg2 l!Jxe2 sufficed for an eventual draw in Romanishin-Ligterink, Wijk aan Zee 1 985) I I l0xd5 ( I I l0d6+ 'i!le7 12 l0xd5+ ed 13 l0xf7 l0e5 ! ) I I . . . ed 1 2 l0c3 l0e7 + (centre) BrowneMiles, Lanzarote 1 977.

8 't!t'xd5

9 d3 0-0 (33) a) 9 . . . .id7 may also transpose, but White can also try ( e.g.) 1 0 .if4!? 't!t'e6 ( 1 0 . . . 'it'f5!? I I e4 't!t'f6 1 2 e5 't!t'f5 1 3 d4) I I lOgS 't!t'f5 1 2 't!t'b3 ! with the idea .ih3 ( 1 2 . . . l0d4 1 3 't!t'xb7). b) 9 ... 't!t'd6?! 10 .ie3 (or 10 .if4 e5 I I .ie3; 10 l0d2!? b5 I I l0c4 't!t'c7 1 2 a4 .ib7 1 3 .ie3 - intending a5 -1 3 . . . l0d4 14 .ixb7 't!t'xb7 1 5 ll b l with the idea b4) 1 0 . . . .ixb2!? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 is note 'b' to 1 0 . . . .id7) I I lit b l .ig7 ( I I . . . .id4 1 2 l0xd4 cd 1 3 .if4 e5 14 .ih6 t Chess Player) 1 2 ..-c2! l0d4 1 3 l0 xd4 cd 1 4 .if4 e5 1 5 .id2 t.

5 l0j3 l0/6 (with . . . d5 lines) 35

33 w

10 .ie3( ! ) Played almost exclusively now.

Others: a) 10 .tr4 't!t'd7 I I 't!t'c2 e5 12 .ie3 b6 =. b) 10 t!t'a4!? 't!t'h5 ! I I .ie3 .id7 12 llac l b6 1 3 b4!? l0e5 14 't!t'd l cb 15 l!Jxe5 .ixe5 16 .ixa8 llxa8 ==/m Estevez-Uhlmann, Leningrad IZ 1973. c) 1 0 a3 is rather weak, but important due to other move orders, e.g. 5 l0f3 l0f6 6 0-0 0-0 7 a3 d5 8 cd l0xd5 9 l0xd5 etc: c l ) 10 ... b6 I I litb l ( I I d4!? cd 1 2 .ie3 't!t'h5 1 3 l0xd4 l0xd4 14 .ixd4 - 14 .ixa8 l0xa2+ and 15 . . . .ig4 -14 . . . llb8 ==) I I . . . .ib7 1 2 .ie3 ( 1 2 b4 't!t'a2! 1 3 't!t'b3! =, rather than 1 3 .ie3 l0d4 + Ribli-Miles, Amsterdam 1978) 12 . . . l0d4! with the idea 1 3 b4 cb 14 ab llfc8. c2) 10 .. . 't!t'h5!? I I lirb l .ih3 (or I I . . . .if5 =) 12 .ie3 .ixg2 13 �xg2 't!t'd5 ! 14 't!t'c2 b6 = LarsenBukic, Portoroz 1977. c3) 10 . . . .id7 I I lLlg5 't!lf5 !12-!12 Lein-Zuckerman, US Ch 1977;

36 5 liJj3 liJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)

1 2 .ih3 'ti'd5 1 3 .ig2 'ti'f5 etc. c4) 10 . . . 'ti'd6 I I l:lb l .if5 !? (or I I . . . .ie6 =, or even I I . . . c4 !? with the idea 1 2 dc 'i!t'xd l l 3 llxd l .if5 1 4 l:l a l liJa5 "=/oo" ECO) 1 2 .ie3 l:lac8 13 'ti'a4 b6 14 lit fc I .ie6 = Notaros-Lein, 1 973.

1 0 .id7 This solid defence has taken

over from: a) 10 . . . 'i!t'h5? I I llc l liJd4 12 b4! ± Pirc-Jovanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 963. b) 1 0 . . . 'it'd6!? I I l:lci liJd4 ( 1 1 . . . b6? 1 2 d4; I I . . . .ixb2 1 2 ll xc5 .ig7 13 'it'b3! ;t:) 1 2 liJxd4! ( 1 2 liJd2 .ig4! 13 l:l e l 'it'b6 14 liJc4 'it'a6 =/oo Rind-Chandler, New York 1 979) 12 . . . cd ( 1 2 . . . .ixd4!? prevents the g7 bishop from becoming bad, but then either 1 3 'it'c2!? .ixe3 1 4 fe 'it'e6 1 5 'it'xc5 'it'xa2 1 6 .id5 'it'xb2 1 7 'it'xe7 ±, or 1 3 .if4, e .g. 13 . . . 'i!t'a6 14 'i!t'b3 .ie6 15 .ixb7! ) 1 3 .id2 .ig4 ( 1 3 . . . .ie6 1 4 'it'a4 'i!t'b6 1 5 .ib4! , e.g. 1 5 . . . l:lfe8 1 6 .ic5! 'i!t'xb2 1 7 llc2 .id7 18 ll xb2 .ixa4 19 .ixb7 ±) 14 h3 .ie6 1 5 'it'a4 a5 (versus .ib4) 1 6 'it'b5 ! 'ti'e5 1 7 'it'xe5 .ixe5 1 8 'it'c5 .id6 was Palatnik-Timoshchenko, USSR Ch 1 973, and now Gufeld gives 1 9 l:lxa5 ! ±. c) 1 0 . . . .ixb2!? has never been refuted, although Black doesn't seem much interested: I I l:lbl .if6! (to defend the e-pawn) 12 'it'a4, when Black has three choices:

12 . . . 'ti'd7 1 3 .ixc5 liJd4 ( 1 3 . . . b6!? 14 .ixb6 liJd4) 1 4 'ti'd I liJxf3+?

( 1 4 . . . liJe6 1 5 .ie3 llb8 1 6 d4 ! Tal-Pytel, Tallinn 1973) 1 5 .ixf3 l:lb8 16 .ixa7 ± Tal-Pribyl, Tallinn 1973. Or 1 2 . . . 'it'd6!?, when 1 3 liJd2 liJd4 1 4 .ixd4 .ixd4 1 5 .ixb7 i s critical. O r finally 12 . . . liJb4 1 3 a3 ( 1 3 lldc l .id7 1 4 'it'd l ± Jansa, but then 1 4 . . . b6!? is interesting) 1 3 . . . liJa2 14 liJg5! liJc6 ( 1 4 . . . 'i!t'e5 15 lt:Je4 ±) 1 5 .ixd5 lt:Jxa4 1 6 lt:Je4, Jansa-Pribyl, Luhacovice 1 973, and now instead of 16 . . . .id4 1 7 .ixb7 ±, Jansa gives 16 . . . lt:Jb6 17 lt:Jxf6+ t; after 1 7 . . . gf 1 8 .if3 White stands very well .

ll lt:Jd4! The most promising. Aside from

relatively pointless moves such as I I 'it'c2?! b6 1 2 a3 l:lac8 1 3 lt:Jd2 lt:Jd4 + Doda-Markovsky, Polanica Zdroj 1 976, or I I llc l? 'it'xa2 1 2 .ixc5 l:lac8 +, or I I lt:Jd2 'it'h5 = (or I I . . . 'it'f5 =), White also has: a) l l 'i!t'cl !? b6 12 d4 cd 1 3 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4! 14 .ixd5 lt:Jxe2+ 1 5 $>g2 lt:Jxc l 16 .ixa8 .ixb2 1 7 l:l b l .if6! = Bagirov-Tukmakov, USSR Ch 1 978. b) l l lt:Jg5 'ti'f5 ( I I . . . "ire5 !? 1 2 .if4 'ti'xb2 oo/+) 1 2 .ih3 'it'd5 1 3 .ig2 =. c) ll 'it'd2 'i!t'd6 12 .ih6!? ( 12 l:l b l llac8 1 3 a3 =) 1 2 . . . l:lac8 1 3 a 3 b6 14 .ixg7 $>xg7 1 5 b4 lt:Jd4 1 6 be ( 1 6 llfc l c4!, Larsen-Miles, London

1 977) 1 6 . . . li xeS 17 liJ xd4 'ti'xd4 1 8 llad I Y:!- Y2 Geller- Karpov, Linares 1 983; 18 . . . i.a4 or 18 . . . 1lfc8 +. d) 1 1 d4 cd 12 li:lxd4 'ti'c4 13 li:lxc6 ( 1 3 'ti'b3 'ti'xb3 14 li:lxb3 i.g4! , Kaufman-Aiburt, New York 1 979) 13 . . . i.xc6 14 i.xc6 be ( 14 . . . 1!¥xc6, e.g. I S '@'b3 'ti'a6 or I S lic l 'ti'a6) I S b3 '@'a6 1 6 ll c l 'ti'xa2 1 7 n xc6 1lfb8 1 8 lic7 i.f8! (or 1 8 . . . i.f6 =) 1 9 i.cS 1ld8 Espig-Smejkal, Leipzig 1 977.

1 1 'ti'd6 1 2 li:lxc6 13 i.xc6 14 net 15 lixc5!

i.xc6 'ti'xc6 'ti'e6!

I S i.xcS b6 (or 1 S . . . 'i!Vxa2 =) 1 6 i.a3 'ti'xa2 1 7 i.xe7 1lfe8 1 8 i.a3 .ixb2 + Gheorghiu.

15 't!Vxa2 1 S . . . .ixb2 1 6 llbS i.f6 17 'i!Va4

;!; Karpov. 16 1lb5! (34)

This idea of Karpov's revived White's chances in this line (previously considered +).

34 B

5 li:\f3 li:\f6 (with . . . d5 lines) 37

Now Black has non-trivial problems to solve: a) 16 ... b6 17 '@'a 1 ! 'ti'e6! (Karpov's suggestion, to improve upon 1 7 . . . 'ikxa l 1 8 nxa l lifb8 1 9 lii:a6! �f8?! - 19 . . . 1lb7 20 1lbxb6 t Karpov -20 1lb4 i.eS 2 1 liba4 ± KarpovRibli, Amsterdam 1980) 18 't!Va6 ( 1 8 't!Va4!? lHc8 19 ll a l hS ! 20 1lb4 i.f6 21 'ti'a2 'ikd7 = BagirovMikhalchishin, Tbilisi 1 980) 18 . . . 't!Vd7 ( 1 8 . . . 1lfc8 1 9 't!Vb7 I vanov, presumably with the idea 19 . . . 1lcb8 20 'ti'f3) 1 9 lia l (threatening 1lxb6!) 19 . . . hS 20 1l b4 1l fc8 2 1 'ti'a4!? (21 'tWbS l vanov) 2 1 . . . '@'b7 (21 . . . 't!Vxa4! Ivanov) 22 h4 i.eS 23 'ti'b3 1lc6 24 d4 t IvanovTimman, Lucerne 01 1 982; White eventually won. b) 16 . . . a6!? 1 7 lixb7 liab8! 1 8 1l xe7 1l xb2 1 9 .if4 aS 20 1la7 lile8 21 e3 1ld2 22 'i!Vc l ! 1lxd3 23 'i!Vc6 ;t Ostojic. c) 16 . . . 'ti'a6 17 lilb4!? (or 17 't!Vb3, forcing 17 . . . b6 anyway - Karpov; then 18 n b4 transposes, but 1 8 i.gS !? '@'b7 1 9 lla l i s possible) 17 . . . b6 18 'ti'b3 1l lb8 19 1la4 'ti'b7 20 llfa l a6 2 1 't!fa2 aS 22 lilc l (22 d4!? with the idea b4) 22 . . . i.eS 23 1lc4 ( " ! " Ostojic, intending 23 . . . .id6 24 .if4 Ostojic), RibliTi mman, Tilbu rg 1 980.

It's interesting that Tim man did not repeat 16 . . . 'ti'a6 in his later game versus Ivanov. The general impression in this variation is that

38 5 ltJf3 ltJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)

Black probably ought to draw, but White ca n develop pressure without any significant error by his opponent. c 1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJc6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 i.g 7 5 ltJf3 ltJf6:

Now there are two major choices: C l 6 d4 ( !) C2 6 0-0 (other than 6 . . . d5)

6 d3 !? 0-0 (6 . . . d5 7 cd ltJxd5 is discussed above; 7 ltJd2 !?) 7 i.e3 d6 8 h3 i.d7 9 1!fd2 lilb8 I 0 i.h6 ltJe8 (?) I I h4! i.g4 12 h5! gh 1 3 ltJh4 'ifd7 1 4 i.e4 ltJd4 1 5 0-0-0 b5 1 6 f3 b4 1 7 ltJb5 ! ltJxe2+ 1 8 ot>b I ltJxg3 1 9 fg ltJxe4 20 de 't!fe6 2 1 ltJf5! ± Reti-Becker, Vienna 1 923. C 1

35 B

6 d4 (!) ( 35)

I f nothing else, this tends to get into the next chapter without allowing 6 0-0 d5, as above, which seems satisfactory for Black. On top of that, 6 d4 has several original fea-tures.

6 cd

There's nothing wrong with 6 . . . d6 or 6 . . . 0-0, but then Black must deal with the Yugoslav King's Indian after 7 d5 . Also , 6 . . . d6 7 de de 8 1!fxd8+ is somewhat unclear.

7 ltJ xd4 d5!? 7 . . . h5 !? 8 h3 doesn't achieve

much, and 7 . . . ltJ xd4 8 1!fxd4 0-0 (8 . . . d6 9 b3! :t) will transpose after 9 0-0 (9 b3 d5 ! ) 9 . . . d6. But here 9 i.d2 !? is unique, e .g . 9 . . . d6 10 lii:ac l a6 I I b3 Iib8 12 0-0 i.e6

( 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 1!fa7!) 1 3 'ifd3 etc. 8 0-0

8 1!fa4 !? i.d7 ! 9 cd ltJxd5. 8 cd!? ltJxd5 9 ltJxc6 be 10 ltJxd5 cd oo, e.g. I I i.xd5 ( I I 1!fxd5 1!fxd5 12 i.xd5 Iib8 1 3 i.b3 i.h3 ! oo) I I . . . Iib8 1 2 i.c6+ i.d7 1 3 i.xd7+ 1!fxd7 14 1!fxd7+ ot>xd7 15 lib! lii:fc8 1 6 ot>d l Iic6 ! =/oo.

8 0-0 8 . . . e6!? 9 cd ltJxd5 I 0 ltJxc6 be

I I 'ifa4 i.d7 1 2 ltJe4 1!fe7 1 3 't!fc4 :t. 9 cd ltJxdS

10 ltJxdS ltJxd4 And now I I i.g5 ! looks danger

ous, with the idea I I . . . ltJc6 1 2 ltJxe7+ ltJxe7 1 3 't!fxd8 lii:xd8 1 4 i.xe7 (;!;) 1 4 . . . Iie8 1 5 i.a3 Iixe2 16 Iiae l , or I I . . . Iie8 1 2 e3 ltJc6 13 ltJxe7+! ±, or I I . . . f6 1 2 1!fxd4 fg 13 't!fe3 e6 14 ltJc3 ±.

It's surprising that 6 d4 has seldom been employed. C2

6 0-0 0-0 6 . . . d6 7 d4 cd 8 ltJxd4 i.d7 is

passive: 9 lLlc2 ! 0-0 I 0 b3 a6 ( 1 0 . . . tt'a5 I I .td2 tt'h5 1 2 f3 t ) I I .tb2 Il.b8 1 2 lLld5 ± Bozic-Pete, corres 1 965; or 9 b3 0-0 I 0 .tb2, e.g. 10 . . . lLlxd4 I I 11t'xd4 .tc6 1 2 'it'd2 1t'a5 13 lilfd l ;!:: Hansen-Larsen, Gausdal 1 985.

7 d3 An alternative to 7 d4 ( !}, and to

the harmless 7 a3, when 7 . . . d5 ! 8 cd lLlxd5 is discussed above, and 7 . . . d6 8 lil b l lLle8 with the idea 9 b4 .tf5 ! 10 e4 .tg4 = (Giigoric ; or here 8 . . . .tf5 =) is another solu-tion.

7 d6 a) 7 . . . dS 8 cd is 'B ' above. Here 8 lLld2 ( ! ) would be more lively: 8 ... d4 9 lLla4 't!i'a5 (9 . . . lt:\d7 1 0 lLlb3) 1 0 a3 .td7 I I b4! ; or 8 . . . de 9 lLl xc4 (9 .txc6 !?) 9 . . . .td7 10 a4 ! with the idea a5; or 8 . . . e6 9 lLlb3 b6 I 0 .tg5 lLle7 I I 1!i'd2; or finally 8 . . . .te6 9 lLlb3 b6 10 .tg5 intending I 0 . . . de I I .txc6 lilc8 1 2 .tb7 lilc7 13 .ta6! cb 1 4 .tf4 lild7 1 5 .tb5 Il.d4 16 e3 lil b4 17 a3 etc. Of course Black is n ot so badly off, but this is

5 lt:\j3 lLlf6 (with . . . d5 lines) 39

worth a try. b) 7 . . . a6 8 .tf4 (8 .te3!? d6 9 h3) 8 . . . d6 9 't!i'd2 I:. b8 10 .th6 b5 = Larsen-H tibner, Tilburg 1 978.

8 lilb l lilb8 8 . . . 'it'd7 !? 9 a3 b6 Romanovsky.

9 a3 a6 I 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 12 cb ab 13 d4

.tf5 ( 1 3 . . . d5!? is risky due to 14 lLle5 ! lLlxe5 1 5 de lLlg4 1 6 lLlxd5 e6 - 16 . . . lLlxe5 1 7 .tg5 - 1 7 lLlf6+ !) 14 lilb3 lLle4 15 lLlxe4 .txe4 1 6 d5 .txf3 I 7 ef lLle5 1 8 f4 lLlc4 19 f5! lila8 ( 1 9 . . . gf 20 g4 ! Keene) 20 fg

hg 2 1 h4 ! lil a ! 22 h5 (=/oo) SteinFilip, Moscow 1 967.

Conclusion. The main lessons of this chapter are that the early . . . lLlf6 and . . . d5 lines of the Pure Symmetrical tend to be satisfactory for Black . If White is forced into them, he should exchange on d5 (line B); still better, he should avoid all that by 6 d4. The . . . d5 lines are thus a problem in such cases as those in 'A' above, where White plays an early lLlf3.

4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4

1 c4 cS 2 li:lc3 li:lc6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 i.g7 5 li:lf3 li:lf6 6 0-0 6-0 7 d4 cd

7 . . . d5 !? 8 de de 9 Wa4 't!t'a5 1 0 't!t'xc4 i.e6 I I 't!Yh4 'ti'xc5 1 2 li:lg5 ;t (Taimanov). 7 . . . d6 is a King's Indian Defence, Yugoslav Vari-at ion.

36 B

8 li:lxd4 (36)

This was at one time one of the very rnuin lines of the English (note for example its position in ECO as the culminating line for I . . . c5). Remarkabl y, it has practically disappeared from high-level practice in a few short years, without any maj or discoveries in the meantime.

There are several reasons for this, including the development of other, more dynamic I . . . c5 lines. Furthermore , al though it was popular at the time of the last edition, this whole mode of defence was already beginning to look shaky from a theoretical point of view. That impression has been confirmed in many lines which I have now relegated to notes. A 8 . . . 'ti'a5 B 8 . . . li:lg4 C 8 . . . li:lxd4

The alternatives seem insufficient: a) 8 . . . 'ti'b6?! 9 li:lc2 (or 9 e3 e6 10 b3 .id7 I I i.b2 liac8 12 'ti'd2 ;!; with the idea 1 3 li:lde2, FoguelmanSaadi, Argentina 1959; or 9 li:ldb5 !? Mecking; or, finally, 9 li:lb3!?, but then 9 0 0 . 'ti'b4! is ' A' below) 9 0 0 0 d6 10 b3 .ie6 ( 10 0 0 . li:le6 I I h3 i.e6 12 i.e3 Wc7 1 3 li:ld4 i.d7 14 li:ld5 ± Gheorghiu-Buza, Romania 1969) I I li:ld5 ( I I e4 ;t; I I .ie3 Wa5 1 2 .id2 'ti'h5 1 3 e4 ;t) I I 0 0 0 .ixd5 1 2 cd li:le5 1 3 i.e3 Wa6 1 4 a 4 ll:fc8 15 li:la3 t Keene-Littlewood, Hammersmith 1 97 1 . b ) 8 . . . a6?! 9 e3 (or 9 li:lc2 d6 1 0 b3 'ti'a5 I I li:ld5 ! t; or even 9 li:lxc6 !? de - 9 0 0 0 be 10 c5 - 10 'ti'b3 'ti'c7

I I i.f4 e5 1 2 .ie3 .ie6 1 3 a4 t Ortega-Palhares, Graz 1 978) 9 . . . "f!/c7 I 0 b 3 llb8 ( 1 0 . . . e5?! I I ll:Jde2 d6 1 2 i.a3 ± TimmanAndersson, Biel 1 98 1 ) I I a4 d6 12 .ib2 t Sakharov-Popov, K iev 1 964. c) 8 ... d6!? (3 7) is a chal lenging gambit:

37 w

c I ) 9 .ixc6!? be 10 ll:Jxc6 is untested, e.g. 10 . . . "f!/c7 I I ll:Jd5 ll:Jxd5 1 2 cd .ib7 1 3 i.d2 ( 13 .ig5 !?) 1 3 . . . i.xc6 14 lilc 1 .txb2 (Taimanov) 1 5 ll xc6 'it'd7 1 6 'it'c2 i.f6 1 7 lilfc I ; 10 . . . "f!/d7!? may improve. c2) 9 ll:Jc2 ( !) is safe, and uncomfortable for Black, who lacks space, e.g. 9 . . . .ie6 (9 . . . ll:Jd7 10 i.d2 ll:Jb6 1 1 b3 e6 1 2 a4 ;!; PortischSax, Hungarian Ch 1 97 1 ) 10 b3 (or 10 ll:Jd5 t with the idea 10 . . . 'it'd7 I I .ig5; or 10 ll:Je3) 1 0 . . . 'it'd7 1 1 .ib2 (or I I ll:Jd5 .if5 1 2 i.b2 ;!; Petrosian-Smejkal , Amsterdam 1973) 1 1 . . . i.h3 1 2 lil b l i.xg2 1 3 �xg2 llfd8 1 4 e4 lilab8 1 5 'it'e2 a6, K arner-Musil, 1 975, and now 1 6

5 llJf3 ll:Jf6 with 7 d4 41

ll:Jd5! was advantageous. c3) 9 ll:Jxc6!? be 10 i.xc6 lilb8 ( 1 0 . . . i.h3!? 1 1 .ixa8 't!t'xa8 1 2 f3 i.xfl 1 3 �xfl llc8 14 "f!/d3 "f!/b7 ! - 14 . . . t!Vc6 1 5 .ie3! - 1 5 lil b l ll:Jd7 1 6 b3 ll:Je5?! 17 'it'd5 'it'd7 1 8 ll:Je4 ± Vukic-Nemet, Vinkovci 1 977; 1 6 . . . i.xc3 ! 1 7 "f!/xc3 d 5 1 8 .ib2 f6 Vukic, but 1 9 't!t'e3 t) I I i.g2 'it'a5 and now the main line has been 12 ll:Jb5 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . . .td7 1 3 .td2 't!t'b6! 1 4 .tc3 .txb5 1 5 cb 'it'xb5 16 tib2 ;!; Hansen-Hick!, Kiljava 1 984) 1 3 .txb7 llxb7, and after 14 .td2 't!t'a6 ( ! ) 1 5 .tc3 llfc8 1 6 a4 Black has 1 6 . . . ll xc4 with reasonable play. The variation 1 2 't!t'c2 .ie6 1 3 b3 llfc8?! 1 4 .id2 't!t'h5 1 5 e 4 ll:Jg4 1 6 h 3 ll:Je5 1 7 't!t'd 1 ! .txh3 18 'it'xh5 ;!; of Espig-Markland, Polanica Zdroj 1 973, stands or falls on 13 . . . d5 !?, e.g. 14 cd .if5 1 5 't!t'd2 . A

8 'it'aS 9 ll:Jc2

Also quite promising is 9 e3 (38) :

42 5 !i:Jf3 !i:Jf6 with 7 d4

Now the attempt to win the c-pawn by 9 . . . 'it'b4 10 'ilre2 !i:Je5 fails to l l f4 ltJxc4 12 a3 tfc5 1 3 b4 etc, or here 10 . . . !i:Ja5 1 1 !i:Jd5 t (or even I I b3 tfxc3 1 2 .i.d2 !). So in Zilber-Gurgenidze, USSR 1 959, Black tried 9 . . . d6 !? 10 .i.xc6 ( ! ) be 1 1 !i:Jxc6 tfc7 12 !i:Jd5 !i:Jxd5 1 3 cd .i.b7; but 1 4 .i.d2! .i.xb2 1 5 litb I .i.xc6 16 de litab8 1 7 tfa4 litfc8 1 8 .i.b4! .i.f6 1 9 .i.a5 won outright.

The most popular move, 9 !i:J b3 , i s the worst after 9 . . . tfb4! 1 0 c5 (no one has tried my 10 !i:Jd2 d6 I I a3 1!t'a5 1 2 h3!? .i.e6 1 3 !i:Jd5), and Black has done well with 10 . . . a5, 10 . . . b6( ! ) and even with 10 . . . d6!?, e .g. 1 1 a3 1lt'g4! 1 2 cd litd8 1 3 h 3 1!t'h5 1 4 e 4 .i.g4! 1 5 h g !i:Jxg4 1 6 lite 1 .i.xc3 1 7 be litxd6 1 8 !i:Jd2 !i:Jce5 =/ro Khasin-Kuksov, USSR 1 980.

9 d6 9 . . . tfh 5 10 !i:Jd5 d6 1 1 !i:Jf4 tfa5

1 2 .i.d2 tfd8 1 3 .i.c3 ("!" £CO) Romanishin-van den Berg, Amsterdam 1 973.

10 .i.d2 1rh5 1 1 e4! tfxd 1

Rogoff-Lo mbard, Haifa 1970. I nstead of 12 ll fxd l !i:Jg4 1 3 .te l .i.e6 1 4 f3 !i:Jge5 1 5 b3 g5 ! =, White should have tried 12 litaxd 1 ! t, preparing !i:Jd5. B

8 !i:Jg4 (39) This is still the best idea apart

from 8 . . . !i:Jxd4. Black aims to

39 w

simplify. 9 e3

The daring gambit 9 !i:Jb3 d6 1 0 !i:Jd5 !? e6 1 1 !i:Je3 !i:Jxe3 1 2 .i.xe3 .i.xb2 1 3 ll b l , Gutman-Petrushin, Beltsi 1 977, is suspect, but White did well after 13 . . . .i.g7 14 tfd2 1!t'c7 ( 1 4 . . . 1!t'e7) 1 5 llfd l ( 1 5 litfc I !?) 1 5 . . . litd8 ( 1 5 . . . !i:Je5 !) 16 .i.h6 .i.xh6 17 tfxh6 e5 1 8 .i.d5 .i.e6 19 !i:Jd2! .i.xd5 20 cd ltJa5 2 1 !i:Je4 f5 2 2 !i:Jg5 ±.

9 d6! 9 . . . !i:Jge5? 10 b3 d6 1 1 .i.b2

.i.g4 12 f3 .i.d7 1 3 1!t'd2 t and 9 . . . f5? 10 !i:J de2 o r 1 0 c5 are unsatisfactory, but 9 . . . !i:Jh6!? 1 0 b3 ( 10 !i:Jde2 looks best) 10 . . . !i:Jxd4 1 1 ed !i:Jf5 is possible.

10 b3 1 0 !i:Jxc6 be 1 1 .i.xc6 litb8 gives

Black compensation, but 10 !i:Jde2 is a sound alternative, and even 10 .i.xc6!? be I I !i:Jxc6 1!t'd7 12 !i:Jd4 is of interest.

10 !i:Jxd4 1 0 . . . .i.d7?! I I .i.b2 litb8 12 !i:Jd5!.

Gufeld-Dvoiris, Sochi 198 1 . 10 . . . �h6?! I I �de2! 't!i'a5 1 2 i.d2 �f5 1 3 �d5 t Weinstein-Cleghorn, Lone Pine 1976.

40 w

1 1 ed �h6 (40)

1 2 i.d2 My suggestion from the first

edition. 1 2 i.b2 �f5 (a new idea was 12 . . . a6 ( ! ) 13 lle l Ii:b8 1 4 a4 �f5 1 5 �d5 e6 1 6 �e3 �xe3 1 7 ll xe3 b5 + De Boer-Hartoch, Wijk aan Zee 1 985) 1 3 �d5 ( 1 3 �e2 llb8 = ; or 13 d5 i.d7 14 Ii: b l !? Hartoch) 13 . . . i.d7 ( 1 3 . . . e6 I 4 �e3 �xe3 I S fe t) 1 4 lle l Ii:e8 I S 't!i'd2 t Sahovic-Cleghorn, Lone Pine I 977.

1 2 �f5 I 2 . . . i.xd4 I 3 i.xh6 .txc3 1 4

i.xf8 .txa I 1 5 i.xe7 t. 13 d5 i.d7

14 l:.c I a6 1 5 �e4 with advantage, e .g. 15 . . . b5 (?) 16 c5 de l 7 �xeS �d6 1 8 Ii:e I lle8 I 9 �e6! etc. c

8 �xd4

5 �j] �/6 with 7 d4 43

9 't!i'xd4 d6 (41) 9 . . . 't!i'a5? 10 c5 ! 't!i'a6 I I i.f4 ±

Krogius-Kudinov, USSR Team Ch I97 1 .

4 / w

10 't!i'd3 (42) The strength of this move has

eclipsed: a) 1 0 't!i'd2 Ii:b8 I I b3 a6 (or I I . . . i.e6 I 2 i.b2 't!i'a5), o r 10 . . . .te6( ! ) I I .txb7 llb8 12 i.d5 �xd5 13 �xd5 't!i'd7 I 4 e4 Ii:fc8 ( 14 . . . f5!? Bertok) IS 't!i'e2 i.xd5 1 6 cd ( l 6 ed llb4) 16 . . . 't!i'b5 = Korchnoi-Geller, USSR Ch 1963. b) 10 b3 d5! I I cd i.e6 !? (or 1 1 . . . �xd5 1 2 't!i'xd5 .txc3 I 3 i.h6 't!i'xd5 = Spassky-Tal , Moscow 1967) I 2 't!i'h4 �xd5 1 3 �xd5 i.xd5 14 ll b l = .

c ) 10 lld1 i.e6 ! I I i.xb7 �g4 ( I l . . . llb8 co) 1 2 't!i'f4 lilb8 1 3 i.g2 't!i'c8 ( 1 3 . . . i.h6 = ) 14 �d5 lle8 I S h3?! �e5 1 6 't!i'h4 't!i'xc4 1 7 �xe7+ <Zi>h8 + Larsen-Tal , match 1965. d ) 1 0 i.d2!? is logical, and IO . . . a6 I I b3 llb8 12 ll c l b5? 13 't!i'a7!

44 5 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 with 7 d4

.ie6 1 4 li:Jd5 ±, or I 0 . . . .ie6 I I 'it'd3 ( I I lHd l !?) I I . . . li:Jd7 1 2 b3 lib8 1 3 liac l a6, and now 14li:Jd5 ! intending 14 . . . b5? 1 5 cb ab 1 6 li:Jb4 was best. e) 10 1!t'h4 has lost its sting, e .g. 1 0 . . . .ie6 I I .ixb7 ( I I .ig5 'it'a5 1 2 li:Jb5!? lhc8 1 3 b3 lic5 ! 14 a3 h6! = Savon-Osnos, Moscow 1966) I I . . . lib8 1 2 .if3 'it'a5 1 3 li:Jd5 ( 1 3 li d ! ? lib4 1 4 b3 lixb3 etc Mikhalchishin) 1 3 . . . .ixd5 1 4 cd li:Jxd5 1 5 .ixd5 'it'xd5 16 'it'xe7 a5 17 e4 'it'd4 = Mikhalchishin-Gulko, USSR Ch 1 978.

Also fine is I 0 'it'h4 'it'a5 (or I 0 . . . l:tb8 I I .ih6 'it'a5 =), e.g. I I .id2 .ie6 1 2 b3 l:tab8 1 3 llac l lifc8 = planning ... 'it'd8 , . . . a6 etc . f) 1 0 .igS .ie6 !? I I 'it'f4 'it'a5 (or I I . . . l:tc8 12 b3 'it'a5 =) 1 2 l:tac I l:tab8 (or 1 2 . . . l:tac8! 1 3 b3 l:tc7 Fine, or here 13 . . . lic5 !? 14 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 5 li:Je4 'it'xa2! oo HulakVelimirovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 986) 1 3 b3 llfc8 1 4 'it'd2 a6 1 5 ..te3, Fischer-Spassky, match 1972, and here 1 5 .. . .id7 and ... b5 was recommended.

I t is simpler for Black to play 10 . . . h6! I I .id2 ( I I .ixf6?! .ixf6 1 2 't!t'd2 .ig7 1 3 l:tfd l lib8! 1 4 c5 ..te6 1 5 cd 'it'xd6 1 6 'ifxd6 ed 1 7 lixd6 llfc8 =t= Watson-L .Levy, Lincoln 1 975) I I . . . .ie6 12 'it'd3 't!t'd7 (or 12 . . . li:Jd7) 13 e4 !? .ih3 14 f4 (14 f3) 14 .. . .ixg2 1 5 �xg2 'if c6 1 6 l:tac l e6 17 b3 li:Jd 7 18 1!t'f3

li:Jc5 19 l:lce I f5 ! + BronsteinKernachevsky, USSR 1973 .

After 1 0 1!t'd3 , Black's most common tries are: c 1 10 . . . .if5 C2 10 . . . a6 a) 10 ... li:Jg4 I I b3 'it'a5 1 2 .id2 1!t'h5 13 h4 li:Je5 14 1!t'e3 1!t'g4 1 5 liad 1 't!t'd7 1 6 li:Jd5 1!t'd8 1 7 ..tc3 ± Reshevsky-Zuckerman, US Ch 1967. b) 10 . . . .ie6 I I .ixb7 ( I I .id2 1!t'd7 12 li:Jd5 !? li:Jxd5 1 3 cd .ig4 14 f3 .if5 1 5 e4 .ih3 16 .ixh3 'ifxh 3 17 liacl liac8, SmyslovChristiansen, Hastings 198 1 -82) 1 1 . . . l:tb8 12 .ig2 llc8 ( 1 2 . . . 'it'a5 13 b3 ! li:Jg4!? 14 .id2 'it'h5 1 5 h3

li:Je5 16 g4! li:Jxd3 1 7 gh ± UhlmannBonsch, East German Ch 1 98 1 ; or here 13 . . . lixb3 14 ab 'it'xa l 1 5 .id2 1!t'a6 1 6 li:Jb5 t QuinterosJimenez, Cienfuegos 1972) 1 3 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 14 cd .id 7 1 5 .ig5 !? ( 1 5 lib ! ! t) 1 5 . . . .ixb2 1 6 liab l ..tf6 1 7 .ixf6 ef, Kimelfeld-Muratov,

USSR 1973, and now Osnos gives 1 8 'fla6! t. c) 10 ... lii:b8 I I ..ie3 ( I I i.f4!? or 1 1 llfd l .ie6 1 2 ..if4 is a lso good) I I . . . b6 ( I I . . . 'fla5 1 2 h3! t with the idea 12 . . . i.e6 1 3 i.d4 lii:fc8 1 4 b3 a6 1 5 1i'e3 ! ; I I . . . a6 1 2 i.a7! lii:a8 13 i.d4; I I . . . i.f5 12 'il'd 2 a6 is 'C2' below) 1 2 i.d4 i.b7 1 3 e4 'fld7 14 lii:fd l lii:fd8 1 5 a4 t RibliVenalainen, Nice 01 1 974. d) 1 0 . . . 1i'a5 1 1 h3 (or I I ..id21i'h5 1 2 b3 i.h3 1 3 lii:ac l lii:fd8 1 4 e42; Smejkal-Hernandez, Banja Luka 1 979) I I . . . ..ie6 1 2 i.d2 ltJd7 ( 1 2 . . . 1i'a6 1 3 b3 lii:fd8 1 4e4d5!? 1 5 ed ..ixd 5 1 6 ..ixd5 lLJxd5 17 ltJxd5 e6 1 8 lii:ad I lii:xd5 1 91!i'fH DorfmanSher, USSR 1 973) 1 3 ltJd5 1i'd8 1 4 ltJf4 i.f5 1 5 e4 ltJc5 1 6 1i'c2 ..id7 17 i.c3 U± Gu.Garcia-Abreu, Bayamo 198 1 . e) 1 0 . . . ltJd7 I I 'it'c2 ( I I b3 ltJc5 1 2 1i'd2 a5! 1 3 ..ib2 ..ie6! 1 4ltJd5 -14 lii:ab1!? - 1 4 . . . i.xb2 1 5 'flxb2 llb8 16 lHdl b5 17 cb lii:xb5 1 8 llac l ..ixd5 1 9 ..ixd5 1i'b8 = Vukic-Zivkovic, Yugoslavia 1 974) I I . . . ltJc5 1 2 i.g5! h6 1 3 i.e3 i.f5 ( 1 3 . . . i.e6 1 4 llfd l 1Wc8 1 5 ltJd5 lle8 1 6 ..id4 ±) 1 4 'it'd2 �h7 1 5 i.d4 ..ixd4 1 6 1!i'xd4 ..id7, Hort-Unzicker, Venice 1969, and instead of 17 ltJd5 i.c6 + Hort gives 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 . . . f5 1 8 e4) . C1

1 0 1 1 e4

_ifS ..ie6 (43)

43

w

5 liJ./3 ltJf6 with 7 d4 45

This is second to I 0 . . . a6 in popularity. Black offers a tempo to block off the g2 bishop, but it's a high price to pay.

12 ..id2 Also quite good is 1 2 b3 and:

a) 12 . . . a6 13 ..ib2 ltJd7 1 4 1i'd2 ltJc5 1 5 f4! llc8? ( 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 eft) 16 f5 i.d 7 17 f6 ! gf ( 17 . . . .t xf6 1 8 lii:xf6 ± ) 1 8 ltJd5 f5 19 e f i.xf5 20 ..ixg7 �xg7 2 1 1!i'd4+ f6 22 g4 ..ie6 23 ltJxf6 ±± Smyslov-Timman, Moscow 1 98 1 . b) 1 2 . . . 1Wa5 1 3 i.d2 'flh5 1 4 f3! i.h3 1 5 lii:ac I ..ixg2 16 �xg2 f1fd8 17 f1fd l i.h6 1 8 ltJd5 ± DonnerPomar, Brunnen 1 966. c) 12 ... ltJd7 1 3 i.d2 (or 1 3 i.b2 1i'a5 - 13 . . . ltJc5 14 1i'd2 1Wd7 15 f1ac1 t Karpov-Diaz. Stockholm 1969- 1 4 nac l llac8 1 5 f1fd l t) 13 . . . ltJe5!? 14 'fle2 1!i'd7 15 ltJd5! ltJc6 16 f1ad I i.h3 17 ..ixh3 1i'xh3 18 ..ie3 ± Uhlmann-Mohring, East Germany 1 982.

1 2 ltJd7 a) 12 ... a6 1 3 b3 llb8 14 llacl

46 5 &iJfJ &iJf6 with 7 d4

&iJd7 1 5 'ti'e2 &iJc5 ( 1 5 . . . &iJe5 !? 16 lil.fd l ..tg4 1 7 f3 ..td7 1 8 ..te3 ± Krogius-Tringov, Varna 1 970; but 16 . . . b5 ( ! ) 1 7 cb ab 1 8 &iJxb5 i.g4 improves . So 1 6 h3 or even 1 6 f4 i.g4 I 7 'ti'e3 &iJc6 1 8 �h I was best) 16 &iJd5 ! a5 ( 1 6 . . . b5 17 b4 &iJa4 1 8 c5 ±) 1 7 lil.fd l;!: RogoffZuckerman, US Ch 1 974. b) 12 . . . 'ti'd7 1 3 b3 (or 1 3 lil.fe l ;!:) 1 3 0 0 0 a6 14 lil.fe l !? ( 1 4 nac l ! , e .g. 14 . . . i.h3 15 lil.fd l ..txg2 16 �xg2 lii:ab 8 1 7 a4 ;t) 14 . . . lil.ab8 1 5 a4 i.h3 ( 1 5 . . . &iJg4!?) 16 lil.ad I lil.fc8 1 7 i.g5 ;!; Hort-Browne, Rovinj/ Zagreb 1970.

13 b3 a6 1 3 . . . &iJc5 1 4 'ti'e2 a6 transposes.

14 \!t'e2 Or 14 Il.ac l &iJc5 1 5 \!t'c2! Keene.

1 4 &iJc5 1 5 lbc1

1 5 Il.fd l 't!Vd7 1 6 lil.ac l lil.ab8 or 16 . . . i.h3 is less convincing.

1 5 b5!? 15 . . . i.d7 16 lil.fd l lil.c8 17 i.e3

't!Ve8 18 &iJd5 U ± Hort-Unzicker, Lugano 01 1 968.

1 6 cb ab 1 7 Il.c2!

Not I 7 't!Vxb 5?! ..tc8 ! 1 8 't!Vc4 ..ta6 1 9 &iJb5 \!t'd7 20 a4 lil.ab8 2 1 li[b I lifc8 + Portisch-Geller, Skopje 1 968.

After 1 7 lil.c2, Smejkal-Popov, Wij k a an Zee 1 975, continued 1 7 . . . b4 1 8 &iJd5 i.xd5 1 9 ed lib8 20 lil.fc I !? (20 lil.c4! 'ti'a5 2 1 i.e3 with

the idea h4-h 5 Uhlmann) 20 . . . lil.e8 2 1 lil.c4 \!t'a5 22 lil. l c2 e6 23 de &iJxe6, and now 24 \!t'g4! (threatening i.xb4) 24 . . . h5 25 lil.xb4 hg 26 lil.xb8 is winning. C2

44

w

1 0 a6 (44)

The key line at the time of the first edit ion. I ronically, what seem the two best sequences against it remain untested by leading players.

1 1 ..te3!? What I feel is best was shown to

me in N orway in 1 980 by the ori-ginator: I I Il.d I ! ..tf5 ( I I . . . &iJd7 12 't!Vc2 ! Il.b8 1 3 ..te3; I I . . . Il.b8 12 c5 or 1 2 ..te3; on I I . . . 't!Va5, 1 2 h 3 looks easiest) 1 2 '8'f3! (45)

45

B

This is the point, although two recent games have seen 1 2 e4 with quick equality for Black .

Is it the refutation of 10 . . . a6? Lauvsnes-Svenn, Oslo 1980, went 1 2 . . . llb8 1 3 c5 lLle8 1 4 i..f4 'W'c8 1 5 cd ed 16 llxd6 ±, and in WatsonKastner, New York 1 980, Black was equally frustrated following 1 2 . . . llc8 1 3 'W'xb7 'W'a5 14 'W'xe7 llfe8 1 5 'irb7 lLld7 !? 1 6 'ti'd5 (or 16 ll xd6! ±±) 1 6 . . . lLlc5 1 7 i..d2 ±±.

Since 1 1 l1 d 1 and 1 1 ..te3 are both so effective, I will limit comments on 1 1 i..d2 to the main line: 1 1 . . . llb8 12 llac l ( 1 2 e4 !? b5 ! 1 3 ab a b 1 4 lLlxb5 ..ta6 1 5 a4 'W'e8, 13 c5 b4! 14 lLla4 'ila5 !; best may be 1 2 a4 and 1 2 . . . lLld7 1 3 'it'c2 a5 14 llad 1 or 1 2 . . . ..te6 l 3 b3 'W'd7 1 4 a4 �) 1 2 . . . lLld7 ( 1 2 . . . i..f5 !? 1 3 e4 i..d7 1 4 h3 'irb6 oo) 1 3 b3 ( 1 3 'ti'e3 !?; 1 3 e4 lLle5 1 4 'W'e2 i..g4 ! 1 5 f3 i..e6 1 6 b3 b5 =) 1 3 . . . lLlc5 1 4 'ti'b 1 b5 1 5 ab a b 1 6 lLld5 i..b7 = Uhlmann-Smej kal , Arande1ovac 1 976.

11 lLlg4 a ) 11 . .. llb8? 1 2i..a7 ! lla8 1 3i..d4 ±. b) 11 . .. i..f5 12 1!rd2 llb8 ( 1 2 . . . 'ti'd7 1 3 i..d4 ! or 1 3 i..g5 llab8 14 llac1 t with the idea 14 . . . b5 15 ab ab 16 i..xf6 t) 13 Jlac 1 (or 1 3 i..a7 ! lla8 14 i..d4) 1 3 . . . b5 1 4 cb a b 1 5 ..ta 7 lla8 ( 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 lLla4 ±) 1 6 i..d4 b4 1 7 lLld5 lLlxd5

5 lLlj3 lLlf6 with 7 d4 47

18 ..txd5 ! Furman-Vasyukov, USSR Ch 1969.

12 i..d4 lLle5 13 'it'd1 llb8

1 3 .. . i..e6 14 i..xb7 llb8 1 5 ..txa6 llab2 1 6 lLld5 t Vukic-Gufe1d, Yugoslavia v USSR 1 975.

14 lLld5 (46) The author's move, giving more

play than (e .g.) 14 c5 i..e6 1 5 Jlc1 lle8 = or 14 a4 i..e6 15 lLld5 i..xd5! 16 ..txd5 a5 17 b3 lLlc6 = MateraZuckerman, US Ch 1977, or 1 4 ll c 1 ..te6 1 5 lLld5 ( 1 5 b 3 b 5 ! = ) 1 5 . . . b5 16 c b ..txd5 1 7 ..txd5 a b 1 8 'W'd2 e6 19 i..g2 lLlc4 = Tal-Torre, Leningrad 1973.

46

B

Here Black has 14 . . . i..e6?! 1 5 i..b6 (or 1 5 lLlb6) 1 5 . . . 'W'd7 1 6 llcl , or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 f4 lLld7 16 ..txg7 �xg7 1 7 'ird4+, or 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 cb and now 1 5 . . . llxb5 16 f4 lLld7 1 7 ..txg7 �xg7 1 8 'ild4+ �g8 1 9 b4 and 20 a4 or 1 5 . . . ab 16 lLlb4 or 16 llc l . In fact, Thomas-Matheson, corres 198 1-83, saw 1 5 . . . ab 16 lLlb4 i..b7 1 7 e4 ( 1 7 i..xb7 !? i) 1 7

48 5 ti:Jf3 ti:J/6 with 7 d4

. . . ti:Jc6 1 8 i.xg7 't>xg7 1 9 ti:Jxc6 i.xc6 20 't!i'd4+ 't>g8 2 1 lHcl 't!i'b6 22 'ii'xb6 l hb6 t.

Conclusion. The most important

development in this whole line is the possibility of I I lld l (!) after 10 . . . a6. In general, despite its rich heritage, 5 . . . ti:Jf6 has lost its place as a major defensive system.

5 5 ltJf3: Others

1 c4 c5 2 lt::lc3 lt::lc6 3 g3 g6 4 .tg2 .tg7 5 lt::lf3 (47)

The lines of the last chapter offer Black l ittle in the way of active counterplay, and tend to leave White the advantage. Thus (for the above move order) this is the natural place to break the symmetry, and almost every leading player does so. The most attractive means for this are: A 5 . . . a6 B 5 . . . d6 C 5 . . . e6 D 5 . . . e5 a) 5 . . . llb8 is equivalent to 5 . . . a6, except that White might try 6 e3!?

a6 7 d4, or here 6 . . . e5 7 d4! (intending lt::lb5, .tf4 after exchanges). b) 5 ... lt::lh6 is an idea which is easier to play via 5 . . . d6 6 0-0 lt::lh6. The problem is 5 . . . lt::lh6 6 h4! (6 0-0!? lt::lf5 7 b3 b6 8 .tb2 .tb7 9 d3 e6 = Huguet-Hort, Las Palmas 1973; 10 ._d2 with the idea l O . . . d5? I I cd ed 12 lbxd5! -.xd5 13 lt::lh4 is met by l O . . . 0-0 and on I I lt::le4, I I . . . d5!) 6 . . . d6 (6 . . . lt::lf5 7 h5 e6 8 d 3 d5 9 g4 lt::lfd4 1 0 lt::ld2! and I I e3, or j ust 9 lt::ld2 is promising) 7 d3 ( 48)

48

B

7 . . . llb8 (7 . . . .tg4 8 h5! - or 8 .td2 Euwe - 8 . . . gh 9 lt::lh2 .td7 10 .txh6 .txh6 I I e3 ;!;; Black's f8 bishop is a serious problem; 7 . . . .tf5 8 h 5 'tid7 9 .td2 o r 9 lt::lh4!?all Taimanov's analysis) 8 h5 .td7?

50 5 li:Jf3: Others

(8 . . . f6 9 hg hg 1 0 li:Jh4 ;!;" Botvinnik) 9 .txh6! .txh6 1 0 hg hg I I We i ! .tg7 1 2 lhh 8+ .txh8 1 3 �6 .txc3+ ( 1 3 . . . .tf6 1 4 li:Jg5 ±) 1 4 be e6, Botvinnik-Giigoric, Moscow 01 1956, and here 1 5 �d2! with the idea 15 . . . 'ife7 16 li:Jg5 ± was best (Flohr), instead of 15 li:Jg5 �e7 t. A

5 a6 The idea is to beat White to the

punch by enforcing . . . b5 before b4 is possible.

6 0-0 a) The "main l ine" with 6 a3 lir.b8 7lir.b l b5 8 cb ab 9 b4 cb l 0 ab (49) is rather dreary, but it often arises:

49

B

Now 1 0 . . . li:Jf6 I I 0-0(}.0 1 2 d4 d5 is Chapter 2, l ine C2, note to 7 d3, and 10 . . . li:Jh6?! I I e4 f5 ( I I . . . d6!?) 12 d4! fe 1 3 li:Jxe4 li:Jf5? ( 1 3 . . . d5 ;!;") 14 d5 ± was TimmanKostro, Wij k aan Zee 197 1 .

But Black has several good alternatives. The least analysed is 1 0 . . . d5 I I 1!t'b3 ( I I d4 .tf5 12 lir.b3

.te4( ! ) = Pirc-Matulovic, Maribor 1967) I I . . . li:Jf6 12 d3 0-0 1 3 .tf4

lir.b6 = (intending . . . d4) TaimanovAverbakh, USSR Ch 1 958 .

I 0 . . . e5 !? is not bad either: I I d4 li:Jxd4 (or I I . . . ed 1 2 li:Jd5 i.b7 1 3 .tb2 li:Jf6 1 4 li:Jxd4 0-0 1 5 li:Jxf6+ -15 li:Jb5!? - 1 5 . . . i.xf6 1 6 li:Jxc6 be 17 0-0 .txb2 + Kastner-Gheorghiu, New York 1980) 12 li:Jxd4 ed 1 3 li:Je4 d 5 (or 1 3 . . . d 6 14 .tb2 ti'b6 1 5 e3 ,tb7 1 6 i.xd4 i.xd4 1 7 ti'xd4 Wxd4 1 8 ed �d7 = GheorghiuJansa, Budapest 1970) 14 i.f4 de! !5 .txb8 i.f5 !? ( 1 5 . . . .tb7 ( ! ) ) 16 .ta7 li:Je7 17 e3 ! d3 18 g4 .te6 19 .txe4 .tc3+ =/ro DespotovicVelimirovic, Yugoslavia 1 984.

Finally, an easy solution is 10 . . . d 6 I I 0-0 ( 1 1 d 4 i.g4!) 1 1 . . . i.g4 ( 1 1 . . . li:lh6 1 2 d4 li:lf5 1 3 d5 ! !; 1 3 . . . li:lxb4 1 4 i.d2) 1 2 h 3 i.xf3 1 3 i.xf3 \!fd7 1 4 i.g2 e6 1 5 e3 li:lge7 = Shatskes. b) 6 d3 lir.b8 7 0-0 (7 a4 d6 8 i.d2 .td7 =) 7 . . . b5 !? (7 . . . d6 is safer) 8 cb ab 9 i.e3 ! li:ld4 10 lic1 li:lh6 ( 10 . . . d6 I I b4!? Euwe, or 1 1 i.xd4 cd 12li:ld5 e6 1 3li:lb4!) I I b4li:lhf5 12 .tf4 li:lxf3+ 1 3 .txf3 e5 14 i.d2 cb 15 li:ld5 ;t Polugayevsky-Malich, Bad Liebenstein 1963.

6 lir.b8 7 e3 ( ! )

Untried, but I think i t i s best to counter Black's flank attack with a central push. In practice, 7 a4 has been played, e.g. 7 . . . a6 8 d3

5 lt:lf3: Others 51

(8 e3 lt:lh6 9 d3 0-0 and . . . e5) 8 . . . 8 lt:lf6 9 .id2 0-0 1 0 lii:b l .id7 I I 5 d6 lt:le I lt:le8 = Fo rintos-W.Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1 968.

Bu t also interesting would be 7 d3 !?, e.g. 7 . . . b5 8 cb ab 9 a4! ba (9 . . . b4? 1 0 lt:lb5 'i!t'b6 I I d4 !) 1 0 '!Wxa4 .ib7 I I .if4 ! lia8 ( I I . . . d6 1 2 lt:le5!) 1 2 'i!t'b5 :t; or 7 . . . lt:l f6 8 h3!? 0-0 9 .ie3 d6 10 d4 etc.

7 b5 Consistent. 7 . . . e5 (to stop d4)

might be answered by 8 d4( ! ) anyway, with the idea .if4, lt:le4/d5, and/or lie ! after exchanges.

8 cb ab 9 d4 b4

I 0 lt:le2 1 0 lt:le4!?.

50

B

10 II ed (50)

cd

I l ike White, e .g . I I . . . lt:lf6 1 2 d5 lt:la5 1 3 lt:lf 4 :t, or I I . . . d5 1 2 .if4 lib6 1 3 lt:le5 lt:lxe5 14 de e6 1 5 lt:ld4 :t. intending to overprotect e5 and (e.g.) push the a-pawn ( 1 5 . . . g5? 1 6 .ie3 ±).

If not used for transpositional purposes, this can be too passive.

6 0-0 After 6 d3 , 6 . . . e5 is 'D' below

and 6 . . . a6 is 'A'; 6 . . . h 5 !? 7 .id2 lt:lh6. 6 a3!? is logical , e .g. 6 . . . lib8 (6 . . . aS 7 e3!?) 7 b4! b6 (7 . . . cb 8 ab lt:lxb4 9 lixb7 lt:la6 1 0 1!t'b3 ! t) 8 0-0 e5 9 lib l lt:lge7 10 d3 0-0 1 1 lt:le 1 .ie6 1 2 lt:ld5 :t Watson-Delva, Philadelphia 1 980.

6 lt:lh6 6 . . . lt:l f6 7 d4 is Chapter 4. 6 . . .

.id7 7 e3 1!t'c8 8 d4 t. 7 d4(!)

A recent idea. Also promising is 7 b3 0-0 8 .ib2 lib8 9 e3! a6 10 1!t'c2 e5 1 1 liad 1 lt:lfe7 1 2 d4:tYudasinGeorgadze, Bangalore 1 98 1 . Nor-mal has been 7 a3 0-0 (or 7 . . . lt:lf5 =) 8 li b l lib8 9 b4 lt:lf5 (9 . . . b6) 1 0 e 3 .id7 1 1 1!t'e2 e6 1 2 lii:d 1 b6 oo Hort-Spassky, match 1977.

5 1

B

7 cd 8 .ixh6 .ixh6 9 lt:lxd4 (5 1)

52 5 liJf3: Others

9 �d7 "? !" Andersson; Black probably

underestimated White's next. But 9 . . . ll:lxd4 I 0 \!t'xd4 0-0 I I l:Ifd 1 �g7 12 \!t'e3 or 12 \!t'd2(Andersson) is uncomfortable for Black. By analogy with the �g5/xf6 systems of the Hedgehog (Chapter 1 1 ) , White can work up a good deal of pressure in the centre; 13 c5 is in the air , for one thing.

10 e5! 11 ll:lxe6 12 ..be6 1 3 \!t'e2

de �xe6 be

":j;" Andersson. Andersson-van der Wiel, Wij k a an Zee 1983, continued 1 3 . . . \!t'd2 1 4 \!t'xd2 ( 14 liac 1 Andersson) 14 . . . �xd2 1 5 ll:le4 0-0-0 1 6 lit ad 1 �h6 ( 1 6 . . . �b4 17 a3 �a5 1 8 ll:lxc5 �b6 !) 1 7 ll:lxe5 lidS 1 8 ll:ld3 rj;c7 1 9 f4 ! �g7 20 lite] lita5 2 1 a3 litb5 22 lic2 lihb8 23 b4 a5 24 l:Ifc l ±. Simple but effective ! c

52

w

5 e6 (52)

The leading anti-ll:lO system, due both to its soundness and to the dynamic chances it offers. Black threatens to wrest the central initiative by playing . . . d5 before White has a chance to do the same by d4. 5 . . . e6 continues to score well at all levels of international play, and any player on the White side would do well to study its ramifications. C l 6 0-0 C2 6 d4

There are some feeble options here, and one fascinating one: a) 6 d3 li:lge7 7 �g5!? (7 �f4 d5 -6 0-0) 7 . . . h6 8 �d2 0-0 9 \!t'c 1 rj;h7 10 h4!? d5 I I h5 g5 =F G rigorianFurman, USSR 1 972. b) 6 b3 ll:lge7 7 �b2 0-0 8 ll:la4!? (8 0-0 d5 +) 8 . . . e5 ! 9 0-0 (9 lLl xc5?? e4) 9 . . . d6 1 0 e3 f5 I I d3 ( 1 1 a3 h6!? 12 b4 cb 13 d4! unclear, TorreZuckerman, Cleveland 1 975; but I I . . . a5 ! is+) I I . . . h6 1 2li:le l f4 (+) 1 3 ll:lc2 g5 1 4 lite l �f5 1 5 lilc3 'it'd7 ! (attack) Smyslov-Fischer, Buenos Aires 1970. c) 6 h4 h6 (6 . . . d5 !? 7 h5 li:lge7 8 cd ed 9 d3 h6!? - 9 . . . j.g4!? - 1 0 hg fg I I �d2 g5 12 'it'a4 �d7 1 3 0-0 ll:ld4 =/oo Ribli-Sosonko, Amsterdam 1980) 7 b3 (7 d4 !? - cf 6 d4) 7 .. . ll:lge7 8 �b2 b6?! (8 . . . d5 ! +, or 8 . . . 0-0) 9 \!t'b 1 ! e5 1 0 liJd5 Ilb8 I I h5 d6? 12 hg fg 1 3 ll:lh4 ± FedorowiczShamkovich, Hastings 1977-78. d) 6 e3 could transpose to 5 e3 after

6 . . . li:lge7 7 d4 etc; 6 . . . li:lge7 7 0-0 li:lf5 !? (7 . . . d5 = or 7 . . . 0-0 8 d4 d6) 8 b3 0-0 9 ..ib2 l:tb8 (9 0 0 0 d5 =) I O lba4 ..ixb2 I I li:lxb2 �f6 I 2 lt::la4 b6 = Kholmov-Suetin, USSR I970. e) 6 a3!? is a wild sideline, and also the variation with my biggest oversights from the original volume! On 6 . . . a5, 7 d4 ( ! ) transposes to note 'c' of Chapter I , l ine A . And the point on 6 . . . lt::lge7 is 7 b4!? (53):

53

B

Now one line is 7 . . . cb 8 ab li:lxb4 9 ..ia3, and 9 . . . lb bc6 IO lbb5 0-0 I I ..i d6! lt::lf5 I 2 ..ixf8 ..ixa l I 3 'tlt'xa i thf8 1 4 0-0 b6 ( 14 . . . 'tlrg7 I 5 d4 d5 1 6 g4! lt::lfe7 I 7 lt::lc7 l::tb8 I8 lt::le8 etc ; I4 .. . lb d6!? I5 lt::lc7 l::tb8 I6 c5 lt::le8 17 li:lxe8 with pressure) 15 g4lt::lg7 ( 1 5 . . . lt::ld6 16lt::le 5 \lre7 I 7 g5! with the idea li:lg4 ), Watson-Groth, Oslo I980, and instead of I6 lt::le5 'fJ/e7 =, I6 g5 ! was strong, e .g . 1 6 . . . lt::le8 I 7 lt::le5 "t!t'e7 I8 lt::lg4! �xg5 I9 li:lc7 ! "t!t'xg4 20 ltJ xe8 'it;>f8 2 1 lt::lf6 �h4 22 lt::lxd7+ . Here best is probably 9 . . . lbec6 ( ! ) 10 'tlt'a4 a5 I I l::tb I l::tb8 12 0-0 0-0 13 li:la2 d5! I4 lt::lxb4 ab

5 ltJf3: Others 53

I 5 ..ixb4 lt::lxb4 I 6 'fJ/xb4 de I 7 't!t'xc4 ..id7 1;2-1;2 Watson-Antunac, New York 198 1 . I 8 lt::ld4 !? e5 I 9 lb b 3 ..ie6 20 � b4 could follow.

My first error came in the main line 7 . . . lt::lxb4 8 ab cb 9 li:le4! (9 lt::lb5 ..ixa I 10 lt::ld6+ 'it>f8 I I �a4 ..if6 +) 9 . . . ..ixa i I O �a4(?) ..ig7 I I lt::ld6+ 'it>f8 1 2lt::lg5? ( 1 2 't!t'xb4!?, but I 2 . . . h6 1 3 0-0 a5 14 't!t'a3 'it>g8 + with the idea . . . lt::lf5 or . . . lt::lc6), Watson-Hjartarson, Lone Pine 198 1 , and Black refuted the line outright by 12 . . . �b6! 1 3 lt::lgxf7 b3 (or even I 3 . . . llg8 +) I4 ..ia3 b2 1 5 0-0 b i � H with the idea I6 c5 't!t' Ib3!.

Oddly enough, this doesn't quite finish off the 6 a3, 7 b4 idea, because I later realized that after 9 lt::le4 ..ixa i White could still play 1 0 d4! (with the idea lt::lf6+ and ..ih6 mate, or ..ig5 etc) and get a whole different set of complications. This may also be too chancy, but they are positionally better founded than in the last example, since the black bishop is cut off from the sensitive kingside squares. Probably the most important line goes 1 0 . . . ..ic 3+ 1 I 'itff1 0-0! 1 2 ..ig5 f5 ( I 2 0 0 0 f6 !? I 3

lt::lxf6+ 'it;>g7 I 4 lt::lg4) I 3 li:ld6! and Black must still free himself, e .g. l 3 . . . a5 14 �a4 b3 I 5 �xb3 ..ib4 16 c5 ( I 6 ..if4 1!t'b6! ) I6 . . . b6 ( I 6 . . . l::ta6? 1 7 li:lxc8) I 7 li:le5 l::tb8 I 8 d5 be ( I 8 . . . .ixc5!? 19 lt::lxc8 !? l::txc8 20 de intending 20 . . . de 2I 't!t'xe6+

54 5 liJf3: Others

</;g7 22 liJd7 i.d4 23 e3; or 19 de!? .txd6 20 ed+ </;g7 21 •b2) 19 •c4 with ideas such as liJxc8 and d6 or •h4 ( 19 .. . i.a3 20 i.f3; 19 . . . i.a6 20 •xa6 i.c3 21 f4). Admittedly speculative in the extreme (this last position, for example, i s very dangerous), this line provides some hope for 6 a3 !?.

Unfortunately, Black has yet another answer to 6 a3 which puts White's chances for advantage to the test, viz simply 6 . . . d5. This move is as yet untried in several 6 a3 contests, but seems acceptable. A sample line might go 7 cd (7 •a4!?; 7 0-0) 7 . . . ed 8 b4!? (8 0-0 liJge7 9 d4?, given in the first edition, falls short after 9 ... ltJxd4! 10 liJxd4 cd and on I I lLlb5, I I . .. 'tlt'b6) 8 . . . c b ( 8 . . . d4 9 ltJa4) 9 a b d 4 1 0 ltJa4 ( 10 ltJe4!?) 10 . . . d3 I I i.b2 i.xb2 1 2 ltJ xb2 de! =. White is perhaps better off with simply 8 d3, e.g. 8 . . . ltJge7 9 i.g5 h6 I 0 i.xe7 ltJxe7 I I d4. Compare lines below. Cl

54

w

6 0-0 liJge7 (54)

6 . . . d5 here is also generally ignored. Aside from 7 d3, 7 cd ed 8 d4!? is of some interest, since pawn grabbing by 8 . . . cd 9 lLlb5 'irb6 is unclear after 1 0 liJd6+ </;e7 I I ltJxc8 llxc8 1 2 e3 ! .

7 d3 a) 7 b3 is roughly equivalent to 6 b3, e.g. 7 . .. d5 8 cd ed 9 .tb2 0-0 10 ltJa4 i.xb2 I I lLlxb2 i.g4 1 2 lLld3 'tlt'd6 13 lilc I b6 14 h3 i.xf3 15 i.xf3 llad8 + Dake-Schmidt, Lone Pine 1975. b) 7 e3 transposes to 6 e3 or 5 e3. c) 7 lilbl d5 8 a3!? a5 (8 . . . d5 9 ltJa4 t; 8 . . . de 9 'tlt'a4 t Lysenko, although (e.g.) 9 . . . i.d7 ! 1 0 't!rxc4 b6 I I b4 cb 1 2 ab JileS =) 9 d3 h6 (or 9 . . . 0-0 =) 1 0 i.d2 0-0 I I 't!tcl </;h7 1 2 cd ed = Lysenko-Kogan, USSR 1976. d) 7 e4!? 0-0 (or 7 . . . d5) 8 d3 d5 ! 9 cd? ! ed 1 0 ltJxd5 liJxd5 I I ed 't!t'xd5 12 .te3 .txb2! 1 3 liJd4 'tlt'xg2+!? ( 1 3 . . . 'tlt'd6 =) 14 </;xg2 .txd4 =/co Bellon-Adorjan, Lanzarote 1975. e) 7 d4!? is less dangerous to Black than its counterpart 6 d4 below. Best seems 7 . . . liJxd4 8 ltJxd4 cd 9 ltJb5 liJf5 !? (9 . . . d5 I 0 cd lLlxd5 I I .txd5 ed 1 2 liJxd4 = Yusupov-Cordes, Graz 1978; 9 . . . 'tlt'b6( ! ) 1 0 a 4 - 10 e3 liJf5 - 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I c5? 't!rxc5 1 2 b4 'tlt'b6!, KharkinLysenko, USSR 1 968) 10 g4 a6 I I 't!ra4 liJh4 12 liJd6+ </;f8 1 3 liJxc8(?!) ( 1 3 c 5 +) 1 3 . . . 't!fxc8 1 4 'tlt'b4+ </;g8 1 5 .txb7 't!t'b8 =F

Steinberg-Tukmakov, Orel 1966. 7 0-0 (55)

Or 7 . . . d5, when 8 ..td2 or 8 .i.f4 transposes, or 8 cd ed (8 . . . li:lxd5 ! ? 9 .i.g5 1!rd7) 9 ..tg5 (9 ..tf4 0-0 1 0 'trd2 ..if5 1 1 l:i:ac I 't!t'd7 = PtlegerPenrose, Bath 1973) 9 . . . h6 10 ..txe7 li:lxe7 1 1 d4 cd 12 li:lxd4 0-0 1 3 e3 ( 1 3 l:i:c 1 ( !) ) 1 3 . . . li:lc6! 1 4 li:lxd5 li:lxd4 = Larsen-Korchnoi, London 1980.

55

w

C I I 8 ..td2 C 1 2 8 a3 C 1 3 8 ..tf4 C 14 8 l:i:b l a) 8 ..tg5 h6 9 .i.d2 (9 .i.xe7 'it'xe 7 1 0 e3 !? or here 9 . . . li:lxe7 1 0 d4 might be tried) 9 . . . b6 (or 9 . . . d5 =) 1 0 a3 .i.b7 1 1 l:i:b 1 d5 1 2 b4? ! (but 1 2 cd ed 13 b4 d4! +) 1 2 . . . de! 13 de cb 14 cb lil:c8 1 5 lba4 lbd4 16 lbxd4 ..ixg2 1 7 lbxe6 fe 18 'it>xg2 l:i:xc4 + Korchnoi-Karaklajic, Wijk aan Zee 1 968. b) 8 l:i:e1 !? is a Larsen refinement similar to 8 l:i:b l . The idea is probably 8 . . . d5 9 .i.g5 h6 10 cd ed I I .i.xe7 lbxe7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 lbxd4 lbc6

5 lb/3: Others 55

14 li:lxc6 be 1 5 l:i:c l , when White has not wasted time via l:i:b l-c1 and the e-pawn is protected versus . . . lil:e8, . . . ..ig4 etc. Larsen-Kudrin, Reykjavik 1986, saw 8 . . . a6 9 .i.f4 d6 (9 . . . d5 1 0 e4!?) 1 0 trd2 l:i:b8 1 1 ..ih6 ( 1 1 lil:b 1 - cf 8 ..tf4 d6) 1 1 . . . e5 1 2 ..txg7 'it>xg7 1 3 a3 b5 1 4 cb! ? a b 1 5 b4 =.

Cl l 8 ..id2

Common, but passive. Trading bishops isn't necessarily desirable.

8 d5 Also good are 8 . . . b6, e.g. 9 1Wcl

..tb7 1 0 ..ih6 ..txh6 1 1 11xh6 ltJf5 1 2 tt'f4 tt'b8 = GheorghiuTu kmakov, Buenos Aires 1970, and 8 . . . d6 9 't!Vc 1 lilb8 10 ..ih6 a6 1 1 a4?! ( 1 1 b3 b5 1 2 ..txg7 =) 1 1 . . . d 5 ! + Lysenko.

9 'ilc1 b6 1 0 ..ih6

1 0 cd ed 1 1 i..h6 d4 ! 1 2 lt:le4 lbd5 13 a3 i..b7 + (centre).

56

w

10 .i.b7 1 1 i..xg7 �g7 12 cd lbxd5 (56)

56 5 li:Jf3: Others

A typical position. Larsen-Tal, Leningrad IZ 1 973, went 1 3 h4!? (weakening; 1 3 li:Jxd5 1!t'xd5 1 4 1!t'c3+ o;!;>g8 1 5 li:Je5? li:Jd4! i s also poor, but 13 �e l or 1 3 a3 is preferable) 1 3 . . . li:Jd4 1 4 �e l h6 1 5 li:Je5? ( 1 5 lDxd4) 1 5 . . . li:Jxc3 l6 1!t'xc3 ( 1 6 be i.xg2) 1 6 .. . i.xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 1!t'd5+ 1 8 li:Jf3 �ad8 19 o;!;>g I e5 20 li:Jxd4 ed =F. C1 2

8 a3 dS Or 8 . . . b6 9 �b l i.b7 1 0 i.d2

d6 I I b4 1!t'd7 =. 9 i.d2

9 cd ed (or 9 . . . li:Jxd5 10 i.g5 1!t'd7 =) 1 0 � b l b6 I I i.f4 h6 1 2 1!t'c I d4 1 3 li:Ja4 g5 + CsomSmej kal, Kiel 1 978.

Larsen tried 9 i.g5 ! ? h6 l 0 cd ed l l i.xe 7 li:Jxe 7 12 d4 versus Karpov at Buenos Aires 1 980, but 1 2 . . . cd 1 3 li:Jxd4 li:Jc6 1 4 li:Jxc6 be 1 5 llc l i.a6! 16 �e l �e8 = held the balance; see 8 �e l above and 8 �b l below.

9 b6 1 0 �b1 i.b7 (5 7)

1 1 b4?! Natural, but White never quite

equalizes thereafter. I I 1!t'a4 de! 12 1Wxc4 ( 1 2 dc li:Ja5) 1 2 . . . lDd5 1 3 't!Va4 = or I I cd li:Jxd5 1 2 1!t'a4 ( 1 2 li:Jxd5? 'ifxd5 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 a b li:Jd4! + Marjanovic-Gufeld , Vrnjal:ka Banja 1976) or I I 'itcl 'itd7 achieves nothing.

1 1 eb 1 2 ab de 13 de �e8

White's hanging pawns are a problem, e.g. 14 c5?! ( 14 li:Jb5 a6 1 5 li:Ja3 is best; 1 4 li:Je l 'itd7 1 5 li:Jd3 li:Jd4 + ) 1 4 . . . be 1 5 be li:Ja5 16 li:Ja4 i.c6 l 7 1!t'c2 li:Jb7 18 �fc l 1!rd7 1 9 li:Je I ! li:Jd5 ! + PetrosianFischer, Belgrade 1970. C1 3

8 i.f4 A system Fischer played with

colours reversed. I overestimated its worth in the first edition.

8 dS 8 . . . e5 9 i.d2 or 9 i.g5 ( ! ) is 'D'

below. The main option is 8 . . . d6 9 1!rc l li:Jf5 (9 . . . b6 1 0 �b l i.b7 I I a31!fd7- 11 . . . a5 12 �dl :t-1 2 b4 �ad8 1 3 �el f5 1 4 b5 e5 1 5 i.h6 :t D.Byrne-R.Byrne, New York 1 967) 1 0 �b l 1!re7 ll �e l ( !) (versus . .. li:Jd4) I I . . . i.d7 12 li:Je4! e5 ( 1 2 . . . li:Je5 1 3 li:Jxe5! i.xe5-13 . . . de 14 i.d2 ±- 14 i.xe5 de 1 5 g4 ! and 1 6 g5) 1 3 i.d2 a6 1 4 li:Jc3 b5 ! 1 5 li:Jd5 't!Vd8 1 6 li:Jg5!? ( 1 6 b4!?) 16 . . . �c8 1 7 li:Je4 i.e6

1 8 g4! li:Jfe7 1 9 li:Jdf6+ ± w ith the idea .tg5, Malich-Ciocaltea, Halle 1974.

9 l:lb1 !? 9 cd ed 1 0 We i b6 1 1 .th6 is the

note to I 0 .th6 in line C 1 1 ; here 9 ... li:Jxd5 10 li:Jxd5 ed 1 1 W'd2 l:le8 ( Larsen) i s equal .

9 b6! 9 . . . de 10 de .txc3? 1 1 be W'xd 1

1 2 l:lfxd 1 f6 1 3 .td6 b6 1 4 li:Je5 . 9 . . . e5 1 0 .td2 h6 1 1 cd ! li:Jxd5 1 2 1t'c l ;!;. 9 . . . d4? 1 0 lDa4 e 5 1 1 .td2 b6 12 a3 and b4.

1 0 a3

1 1 Wa4

.tb7 (58)

The alternatives are comparable to previous sections and rather depressing.

1 1 a6! Played by McCambridge versus

the author at Lone Pine 198 1 . The move prepares . . . de and . . . li:Ja5 (compare 1 1 . . . de 12 de li:Ja5 1 3 l:lfd 1 W'e8 1 4 1t'xe8 l:laxe8 1 5 l:ld7 ! or here 14 . . . lU xe8 1 5 li:Jb5). Others are 1 1 . . . e5? 1 2 cd ef 1 3 de and 1 4

5 liJf3: Others 5 7

'ifxf4, 1 1 . . . d 4 1 2 li:Ja2 f6 1 3 b4 e5 1 4 .td2 t, and 1 1 . . . W'd7 12 lHc l lHd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 b4 cb 1 5 ab d4 ( 1 5 . . . li:Jd4 1 6 li:Jxd4 .txd4 1 7 b5 .tg7 1 8 li:Ja2! ;t) 1 6 li:Je4 li:Jd5 1 7 b5 li:Jce7 1 8 .te5 Uoo.

After 1 1 . . . a6 ! I countered rather feebly with 1 2 l:lfc 1? de 13 de? ( 1 3 1t'xc4, b�t 1 3 . . . li:Jd5 is a t least =) 1 3 . . . li:Ja5 and the threat of . . . .tc6 and . . . li:Jxc4 was too strong, since 14 li:Je5 .txg2 1 5 'i!i>xg2 g5! doesn't work . Thus White should settle for something like 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3 li:Jxd5 e d 1 4 l:lfc l with the idea W'd l , b4, or perhaps 12 l:lfd l li:c8 ( 12 . . . li:Ja5 1 3 Wc2 or 12 . . . 1fe8 13 1t'b3!?) 1 3 li:ac 1 or 13 e4!?. These

lines are not necessarily prospectless for White, but for now 1 1 . . . a6! seems to provide a complete answer to the 8 .tf4, 9 li:b 1 idea. C14

8 li:bl!? Larsen, who has encountered

some difficul ties on the White side of 5 li:Jf3 e6, has invented a new strategy based on i.g5. It has yet to yield good results, but has some interesting features.

8 d5 8 . . . b6 9 .tf4 d5 transposes to

the last section; if 10 cd ed (or 10 . . . li:Jxd5 =) 1 1 1!t'd2 .tb7 1 2 a3 then 12 . . . d4 fol lowed by . . . li:Jd5 is equal.

9 ,tg5 (! ) h6 1 0 cd ed

58 5 li:Jf3: Others

10 . . . hg? II de li:Jxc6 1 2 h3! ± (Tu kmakov); or 1 2 li:Ja4! 't!t'e7 1 3 't!t'c 1 li:Jd4 1 4 lii:e l .

1 1 .i.xe7 1 2 d4

li:Jxe7 cd

1 2 . . . b6!? (Tu kmakov). 13 li:Jxd4 (59)

59

B

White has some pressure on the isolani to compensate for the bishop pair. In Larsen-Tukmakov, Las Palmas IZ 1 982, Black went for the Tarrasch-like position after 1 3 . . . li:Jc6! 1 4 li:Jxc6 b e 1 5 't!t'c2 (a big choice: 1 5 e4!?; 1 5 't!t'd2 lii:e8 1 6 lii:fe 1 .i.a6 1 7 li:Ja4 'it'd6 =) 1 5 . . . lii:b8 1 6 llfd 1 ( 16 e4!?) 16 . . . 't!t'a5 ! 1 7 e4 de 1 8 .i.xe4 .i.e6! = ( 1 9 .i.xc6 .i.xc3 ).

One can see how Larsen's experiment with 8 lii:e 1 (see above) was aimed at getting the same k ind of play with the useful lii:e 1 in; but of course that move had less point when Black avoided . . . d5. C2

6 d4! ? (60)

60

B

Another eccentric tactical idea (see 6 a3!? above), which probably "shouldn't" work but has some charming points. The justification for such madness stems from the dark-square holes which Black has created by moving his c-, eand g-pawns.

6 li:Jxd4 The most entertaining line. Safer

but less ambitious is 6 . . . cd, but after 7 li:Jb5 Black must move against a simple edge by li:Jbxd4. If 7 . . . e5 (?) then 8 e3 ( ! ) a6 9 li:Jd6+ rtle7 can be followed up by either 10 li:Jxc8+ lii:xc8 1 1 ed ( I I . . . e4 12 li:Jg5 or 1 1 . . . ed 12 0-0 rtlf8 ! 1 3 .i.g5 !?) or even 10 c5!? 't!t'a5+ 1 1 b4 1!rxb4+ ( 1 1 . . . li:Jxb4 12 0-0 'it'xc5 13 li:Je4 or 13 li:Jxc8+ with the idea ed and/or .i.a3) 1 2 li:Jd2( ! ) 't!t'xc5 ( 1 2 . . . de 1 3 fe exposes Black even more; 12 . . . f5 13 lii:b 1 't!t'xc5 14 't!t'b3 ! and .i.a3) 13 li:J2e4 1!t'b6 ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'b4+ 14 .i.d2 't!t'b6 1 5 llb I and 'i!t'b3) 14 0-0 with the idea .i.a3.

Similarly, 7 . . . 't!t'b6 8 e3! is promising, e.g. 8 . . . de 9 .i.xe3 (9 1!rd6!?)

9 . . . 'tlra5+ l 0 ..td2 "ifb6 ( 1 0 . . . 1t'd8 I I ..tf4 e5 12 'tlrd6) I I ..tf4 e5 1 2 ..te3 't!t'a5+ 1 3 ..td2 1lrb6 1 4 0- 0 etc.

The most sensible decision is therefore 7 . . . d5 ("!" - the author; but I seem to have been asleep to the possibilities for much of this chapter) 8 cd! (61)

6 1

B

Now 8 . . . 'ffa 5+ !? proves surprisingly risky due to 9 ll:ld2 ! 'tlt'xb5 (9 . . . ed!? 10 a4!? a6 I I l2Jd6+ �e7 13 b4!? ll:lxb4 1 4 ..ta3 'it>xd6 1 5 �b l

etc; safer but less enterprising is 10 ll:ld6+ 'tie 7 I I ll:lxc8+ �xc8 1 2 0-0, e.g. 1 2 . . . ll:lf6 1 3 ll:lb3 'tlrb6 1 4 e3) 10 de (or 1 0 a4, to limit Black's options) 10 . . . be ( 10 ... ll:le7 !?, but then I I a4 1t'a6 1 2 b4, e.g. 1 2 . . . d3 13 b5 1t'a5 14 0-0!? ..txa l 1 5 cb-15 lLlc4!? ._b4 16 ed- 1 5 . . . ..txb7 1 6 ..txb7 with the idea 16 . . . �b8 1 7 ll:lc4 etc) I I a4 ( I I ll:le4!? Povah) I I . . . 'tlt'b7?! ( I I . . . 11t'a5 1 2 b4!; I I . . . 'tlt'b6 1 2 ll:lc4 'tfb4+ 1 3 ..td2 ! Povah; best looks I I . . . 11t'a6, but 1 2 11t'c2 and ll:le4-d6/c5 is nice) 1 2 lbc4 "with ample compensation for a pawn" (Povah). This is an

5 lLljJ: Others 59

understatement, since Black can hardly defend against the multiple threats of l2Jd6, ll:la5, ..tf4 and �cl.

So in Nogueiras-Barbero, Thessaloniki 01 1 984, Black played simply 8 . . . ed, hoping for active piece play: 9 0-0 ll:lge7 10 ll:lbxd4 0-0 I I ..te3!? �e8 1 2 �c l !? ( 12 �e l ( ! ) is more accurate here: e2 is covered, and the a l rook may yet end up on d l . Then 1 2 . . . ll:lf5 1 3 ll:lxf5 ..txf5 14 ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 1 5 ..txd4 ..txd4 1 6 'tlrxd4 ..te4 1 7 �ad I or 15 ... ..te4 16 ..th3 !? is not yet equal) 1 2 . . . ll:lf5 1 3 l2Jxf5 ..txf5 14 �c5?! d4 1 5 ll:lxd4 ..txd4 16 �xc6 ( 1 6 �d5? ..txe3) 1 6 . . . ..txe3 1 7 �d6 fle7 +.

7 ll:lxd4 cd 7 . . . ..txd4 8 ll:lb5, e.g. 8 . . . ..te5

(8 . . . e5?? 9 e3; 8 · - ..tg7?? 9 'tlrd6; 8 . . . 'ffb6 9 a4!? - or 9 e3 ..te5 10/4 ..tbB 1 1 e4 etc, or even 9 0-0 - 9 . . . a5 l 0 ..tf4 e5 I I ..tc I etc) 9 ..tf4 (9 f4 !?) 9 . . . ..txf4 1 0 gf 'W'a5+ I I �� d5 1 2 b4 ! cb 1 3 1t'd4 f6 1 4 1t'c5 .

62

B

8 ll:le4! (62)

60 5 li:Jf3: Others

8 1t'c7!? A good place to look for im

provements: a) 8 ... d6 9 \Wa4+ q;e7 (9 .. . .i.d7 IO li:Jxd6+ q;(E II 1t'a3 ± Povah) 1 0 'tta3 with an attack (Povah); possible is (e.g.) 10 . . . f5 II .i.g5+! li:Jf6 12 li:Jxf6 .i.xf6 I3 .i.xf6+ q;xf6 I4 ��0 'it'b6 I5 e3 ! 'ttc5 I6 1t'xc5 ±. b) 8 ... dS!? 9 1t'a4+ .i.d7!? 1 0 li:Jd6+ q;ffi II 1!t'b4!?, or here 9 . . . q;f8 I 0 cd ed ( 1 0 . . . 1t'xd5 II \Wb4+ with the idea .i.g5 or b3) II li:Jc5 with pressure. 9 cd ed 10 \Wa4+ is similar, with options l ike 10 . . . q;(E II 1Wa3+ !? and li:Jd6. c)8 ... fS?! 9li:Jd6+ �7 1 0 c5! \Wa5+ I I .i.d2 \Wxc5 I 2 li:Jxc8 ! (clearer than I2 'itb3 !? a5 t) I2 . . . 'irxc8 I3 l:l:cl (or I3 .i.b4+ and e3) I 3 . . . 1t'b8 I4 .i.b4+. d) 8 ... li:Je7!? 9 li:Jd6+ q;ffi 10 \Wb3!? intending 1 0 . . . \Wc7 II .i.f4 or I 0 . . . 'itb6 II \Wa3. This could use tests.

9 cS li:Je7 10 .i.f4!

White has developed strong pressure on the dark squares. Now 10 . . . e5? I I 'irxd4! 0-0 I2 \Wd6! is given by Povah, but winning is I I li:Jd6+ with the idea II . . . q;ffi I2 'irb3.

So in Chernin-Parameswaran, Bangalore I98I, Black tried 10 . . . 'ita5+ I I .i.d2 ( II q;n !?) I I . . . 1t'c7 12 li:Jd6+ �ffi 1 3 l:l:c I h5 14 'ira4

lbd5 ( 14 ... li:Jf5 15 li:Jc4! ±intending li:Jb6 Filip) 1 5 .i.xd5 ed 16 1t'a3 ( ± threatening 1 7 c6, 1 7 \Wf3; 1 6 't!t'b3 !?) 16 . . . �g8 1 7 �0 (or 1 7 11t'f3 f5 1 8 \Wd5+ ±) 1 7 . . . f5 1 8 .i.f4 't!t'd8 1 9 li:Jb5 b6 20 c b \Wxb6 2 1 li:Jc7 .i.b7 22 li:Jxa8 ±±.

Time will tell if 6 d4 (or 6 a3 !?) can help to spice up a rather settled 5 . . . e6 variation. D

63

w

s eS (63)

This, the Botvinnik System as Black, has been utilized by many top players, although some are shy of its- committal nature. Dl 6 0 -0 02 6 d3 ( .i.g5 lines)

6 a3 tends to t ranpose. 6 e4? (doesn't mix with li:Jf3) 6 . . . li:Jge7 7 a3 a5 8 0 -0 0-0 and White must moe his king's knight again versus . . . f5 -f4. D l

6 0-0 The main line; this section in

cludes lines where �0 is played

here or on the next few moves, e .g. 6 d3 li'Jge7 7 a3 0-0 S 0-0.

6 li'Jge7 a) 6 . . . li'Jf6?! 7 a3 (or 7 li'Je l and S li'Jc2) 7 . . . a5 S lib I 0-0 9 d 3 d6 1 0 i.g5 ! h6 I I i.xf6 i.xf6 1 2 li'Je l i.g7 1 3 li'Jc2 a4 14 li'Je3 li'Jd4 1 5 lie I 't!Va5 1 6 li'Jed5 lieS 1 7 e3 ± Stein-Doroskevich, USSR Ch 1967. b) 6 ... d6 7 d3 or 7 a3 transpose. I f 7 li'J e I , 7 . . . i.e6 ! S li'Jd5 li'Jge7 9 a3?! 0-0 10 d3 libS I I li'Jc2 b5 + Hubner. A disaster for Black was 6 . . . d6 7 a3 i.e6!? S d3 li'Jge7?! (8 . . . a5) 9 b4 ! e4? (but 9 . . . cb? 1 0 a b li'Jxb4 I I i.a3 li'Jbc6 1 2 li'Je4 McCa mbridge) 1 0 li'Jxe4 i.xa I I I i.h6! ±planning 1 1 . . . i.b2 12 't!Vc2 or I I . . . li'Jf5 12 't!Vxa I , McCambridgeChoobak, Los Angeles 1 985. Oi l 7 a3 0 1 2 7 d3

Harm less is 7 b3 0-0 8 i.b2 d6 9 d3 h6 = with the idea . . . i.e6.

White's main option is 7 li'Je l , a good reply being 7 . . . d6 8 li'Jc2 ..ie6 9 d3 (9 li'Je3 !? lib8 !?) 9 . . . d5 ! 1 0 b3 ( 1 0 cd li'Jxd5 I I li'Je3 li'Jde7 or I I . . . li'Jxe3 +) 10 . . . 0-0 I I llb l lieS 12 e4 de 13 de li'Jd4 + KorchnoiHiibner , match 1 980-8 1 .

7 li'Je I 0-0 S li'Jc2 d6 9 li'Je3 (9 llb I i.e6! I 0 li'Jd5 a5; 9 d3 i.e6 10 li'Jd5 li b8 ! = planning . . . b5)

9 . . . i.e6 (9 . . . lib8 10 li'Jed5 li'Jxd5 I I li'Jxd5 li'Je7 = Lombardy-Evans, USA 1 966) 10 a3 't!Vd7 I I d3 i.h3 12 li'Jed5 i.xg2 1 3 �xg2 liJ xd5 1 4

5 li'Jf3: Others 61

li'Jxd5 li'Je7 15 li'Jxe7+ 't!Vxe7 16 e4 f5 1 7 f3 h5 =. D l l

7 a3! ? (64)

This can simply transpose to '022', but here we look at White options.

7 0-0 It 's not clear what the best move

order is by which to prevent unwanted complications: a) 7 ... a6?! 8 b4 ! cb 9 ab li'Jxb4 1 0 i.a3 li'Jbc6 I I i.d6 li'Jf5 12 li'Je4 i.f8!? 1 3 i.xe5 li'Jxe5 l 4li'Jxe5 i.g7 15 d4 ± Osnos-Tarasov, USSR Ch 1967 . b) 7 . . . aS!? may prematurely concede White the opportunity for a favourable i.g5. Also of interest is 8 li'Jb5 d6!? 9 e3 i.e6 10 't!Vc2 h6 I I lld I llc8 1 2 d4! with an attack, Karner-Espig, Tal linn 1 975. But here 8 . . . d5 9 cd li'Jxd5 10 li'Jg5 (Karner) isn't impressive, e .g. 1 0 . . . li'Jde7 I I li'Jge4 0-0! and 1 2 li'Jxc5? @b6 or 1 2 li'Jed6 i.e6! 1 3 li'Jxb7 't!fb6 14 li'Jbd6 a4 ! etc .

62 5 liJf3: Others

c) 7 ... d6!? looks innocent, but 8 b4 !? creates new problems, e.g. 8 . . . cb 9 ab liJxb4 10 .ta3 ± with the idea 10 .. . liJec6 II 't!t'a4 liJa6 12 liJe4 .tf8 1 3 d4; or 8 ... .te6 9 liJg5 .txc4 I 0 d3 cb!? ( I 0 . . . .te6 I I liJxe6 fe 12 be d 5 ! 1 3 e4! �0 1 4 \lt'g4 t Ftacnik-Rogers, Groningen 1976-77) I I ab .te6 12 ll:lxe6 fe 1 3 b5 liJd4 1 4 e 3 't!t'c7 1 5 .td2 liJdf5 1 6 b6! 1!t'xb6 l 7 1!t'a4+ �f8 1 8 ll:b l 'it'd8 1 9 lixb7 ± Ftacnik-Danner, Vienna 1 985.

So the main move is 8 . . . e4! (65):

65

w

For example, 9 liJe I f5 I 0 .tb2 �0!? (or 10 ... .te6 1 1 d3 ed 12 ll:lxd3 .txc4 1 3 liJa4! =/oo RomanishinShort, Lvov 1 984) II d3 (II ll:b 1 !?) I I . . . .te6 12 de!? ( l2 'it'd2!?) 12 . . . fe 1 3 .txe4 .txc4 = RomanishinAgza mov, Sochi 1 984.

But nobody has tried my somewhat fanciful 8 . . . e4 9 liJg5!? h6 (9 .. . f5 10 ll:b l t; or 10 .tb2!? h6 I I h3 .te6?! 1 2 d3 ed 13 edt Rajkovic-Nicevski, Stip 1 976; I I . . . cb) 1 0 liJgxe4! !? ( 10 liJh3 g5 I I

.tb2 0-0 oo Rajkovic), e.g. 1 0 . . . cb ( 1 0 . . . f5 I I be fe 12 cb with good play) I I ab f5 12 b5 liJe5 ( 1 2 . . . liJa5 1 3 ll:xa5; 12 . . . liJb8 !? 13 .ta3 fe 14 liJxe4 oo) 13 liJd6+ '@xd6 14 .ta3 't!t'd8 1 5 liJd5, and 15 . . . liJg8 16 it'b3 or 1 5 . . . liJxd5 1 6 .txd5 with e4, d4 to follow.

Too speculative, perhaps, but also the best try for advantage once White has played 8 b4!?.

8 b4 e4! 8 . . . cb 9 ab liJxb4 1 0 .ta3 gives

clear compensation. 9 liJel?!

Here 9 ltlg5 is critical, since 9 . . . h6? 1 0 l0gxe4 attacks c5. 9 . . . f5 1 0 lib! ( 1 0 .tb2 d5!) is unclear, e .g. 1 0 . . . h6 ( 10 . . . d5 !? I I cd ltlxd5 l 2 1!t'b3 !?) II ltlh3 cb 12 ab g5 with complications.

After the text move HorvitzDonaldson, match 1 978, went 9 . . . d5 ! 1 0 ll:ab l !? cb 1 1 cd l0xd5 12 ltlcxe4 .tf5! 13 l0ed3 ll:fe8 with advantage to Black. D l 2

7 d3 0-0 8 a3

Most flexible (aside from 8 .tg5!?, which transposes to 02 below). 8 ltle l ll:b8 ! ? (8 . . . d6 =) 9 ltlc2 a6 10 b4 .te6 II be de 12 ltle3 b6 1 3

ltled5 .td7! 1 5 .td2ltlxd5 l 6ltlxd5 ltle7 (=) 1 7 't!fc l ? ltlxd5 1 8 .txd5 .th3 19 ll:e I? b5 20 a3 \!t'd6 2 1 .to .te6 22 cb ab 23 .te3 ll:fc8 24 'ti'd2 b4 H Barcza-Karpov, Caracas

1970. 8 d6

8 . . . f5!? should be met by 9 lib I a5 10 lLle l ! d6 1 l lLlc2. 8 . . . a6 9 l:Ib l Itb8 1 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 1 2 c5 ! ;1;.

9 l:Ibl aS (66) Ideas based on . . . b6 leave White

a s l ight spatial plus, e.g. 9 ... b6 10 b4 .ib7 I I be!? de 12 .ib2 1!t'd7 1 3 lLld2 lLld4 14 .ixb7 'tixb7 1 5 e3 lLle6 16 e4! ! planning lLld5, .tc3, a4-a5, Larsen-Bobotsov, Palma de Mallorca 1 969.

66

w

1 0 .id2 White can still play into the .i.g5

lines by (e.g.) 10 .tg5 f6 I I .i.d2 or I I .ie3!?, discussed in '02' below. Or: a) 10 lLldS l:Ib8! I I lLld2 .i.e6 = .

b) 10 lLle1 .ie6 (the move 10 .i.d2 discourages) and: b l ) 11 lLlc2!?, e .g. I I . . . d5 12 cd lLlxd5 13 lLle 3 lLlde7 (or l 3 . . . lLlxe3 14 .txe3 lLld4!?, sacrificing the b-pawn for a bind) 14 lLle4! b6 1 5 lLlg5 ..tc8? ( 1 5 . . . .id7 or even 1 5 . . . 'tid7 ( !) l 6 lLlxe6 'ti'xe6oo) l 6 b4 cb

5 lLlf3: Others 63

1 7 ab ab 1 8 .id2 Ita2!? 1 9 .txb4 ;t Radke-Watson , Sunnyvale 1 975; or here I I . . . l:Ib8 12 b4 cb 1 3 ab b6 14 b5 lLld4 1 5 lLle3 ;t AgdesteinKe kki, Norway 1 982. b2) 1 1 lLldS l:Ib8 12 lLlc2 ( 12 .ig5 f6 and . . . b5) 12 . . . b5 1 3 lLlce3 ( 1 3 cb? lLlxd5 1 4 be lLlc3 ; 1 3 lLlxe7+? lLlxe7 14 lLle3 a4! 1 5 .id2 be 16 de l:Ib3 =F Lengyel-Wedberg, Eksjo 1 980) 1 3 . . . 1Wd7 (or 1 3 . . . b4, or 1 3 . . . b e 14 d e f5) 14 cb Itxb5 1 5 a4?! l:Ib8 l 6 lLlxe7+ lLlxe7 1 7 lLlc4 lLlc6 18 .id2 e4! l9 lLJxa5 lLlxa5 20 ..txa5, Barcza-Uhlmann, Sarajevo 1969, and now Uhlmann gives 20 . . . .tb3 ! 2 1 't!fd2 ..ta2 22 n be l l:Ixb2 =F.

1 0 l:Ib8! 10 . . . h6 and:

a) 11 't!t'a4!? .te6! 12 Itfc l f5 1 3 't!fd l '@'d7 14 lLl e l f4 1 5 lLld5 fg 16 hg Itab8 l 7 lLlc2? ( 1 7 b4! oo) 1 7 . . . Itf7 1 8 lLl xe7+ lLlxe7! 1 9 ..txa5 l:Ibf8 20 .i.e l h 5 ! 21 b4 .i.h3 22 ..te4!? h4 23 be hg 24 f3 't!fg4! =F Polgar-Ribli , Hungarian Ch 1972. b) 1 1 lLlel! ..te6 ( I I . . . f5 12 lLlc2 �h8 1 3 b4 t; I I . . . l:Ib8 1 2 lLlc2 .te6 1 3 b4 t) 12 lLld5 l:Ib8 ( 1 2 . . . Ita7 !?) 1 3 b4! a b 1 4 ab .txd5 1 5 cd lLlxb4 16 .txb4 cb 1 7 Itxb4 !.

1 1 lLle1 Thus . . . l:Ib8! has saved the tempo

for . . . h 6. I I h3 !? is the best option, trying to get Black to commit himself. Suttles-Chow, Canada 1 976, went I I . . . h6 12 lLle l .ie6 13 �h2

64 5 li:Jf3: Others

d5!? 1 4 cd li:Jxd5 1 5 t!t'c l li:Jd4 1 6 . bd5 i.xd5 1 7 i.h6 i.c6 1 8 .txg7 c;t>xg7 19 t!t'e3 llh8 ! ro. Or here 1 2 t!t'a4!?, e .g . 1 2 .. . .te6 ( 12 . . . .td7 13 lUc l and t!t' d l) 1 3 llfc l t!t'd7 14 'it>h2 f5 15 t!t' d l f4 1 6 1!t'h l !? intending i.e I , li:Jd2-e4, or li:Je4 and b4.

1 1 .te6 12 li:Jc2

12 li:Jd5 allows 12 . . . b5, e.g. 1 3 b3 ( !) ( 1 3 li:Jxe7+? li:Jxe7 1 4 cb llxb5 15 b4 ab 16 ab c4 ! +n= CsomHartoch, Skopje 01 1972) 1 3 . . . b4 ( 13 . . . f5 !? with the idea . . . be) 1 4 a4 1!t'd7 (or 1 4 . . . h6!) 1 5 li:Jd2, EkOrnstein, Goteborg 1975, and now 1 5 . . . 'it>h8 is = .

12 d5 13 cd li:Jxd5 14 li:Jxd5

14 li:Je3 li:Jxe3 (or 14 . . . li:Jde7) 1 5 i.xe3 tt)d4 16 b4 ab 17 ab cb 18 lilxb4 ,-as 19 t!t'a4 t!t'xa4 + Suttles-Ghizdavu, Lone Pine 1975.

1 4 i.xd5 Now White finally achieves b4,

but having lost the centre: 15 b4 ( 1 5 .txd5 1rxd5 16 b4 ab 1 7 ab llfd8! 18 li:Je3 t!t'd4 19 be e4! 20 1!t'c2 ed 2 1 ed 1!t'f6 22 llb6 t!t'f3 =F threatening . . . li:Jd4, O'DonnellWatson, Colorado 1 976) 1 5 . . . i.xg2 16 'it>xg2 b5!? ( 16 . . . a b ! 1 7 ab 1!t'd5+) 1 7 ba! li:Jxa5 1 8 li:Je3 1le8 1 9 1!t'c I ( 19 t!t'c2? i.f8 ! 20 t!t'a2 1le6 21 f4 e4! Jamieson) 1 9 . . . .tf8 20 i.xa5 't!fxa5 2 1 li:Jd5 li:e6 22 e4

t!t'a4! = Evans-Karpov, San Antonio 1972 . D2

6 d3 li:Jge7 7 a3

The irregular 7 h4!? h6 (or 7 . . . h5 ) 8 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 (8 . . . d6) 9 cd li:Je7 10 h5 g5 1 1 d6! li:Jf5 12 g4! li:Jxd6 1 3 t!t'c2 'irb6 ( 1 3 . . . c4!?) 1 4 .te3 e4! 15 li:Jd2! tiro Bruycker-Schmidt, Malta 01 1980.

7 0-0 If 7 . . . a5 White has 8 lilb I 0-0

9 i.g5 (see below), or immediately 8 i.g5 ( ! ), e.g. 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . f6 9 .id2 0-0 10 litbl is the text) 9 i.xe7 li:Jxe7 (9 . . . t!t'xe7 10 ll b l d6 J l li:Jd2! .te6 12 1ra4! , or here I I . . . 0-0 1 2 li:Jd5 and 1 3 b4) 1 0 llb l (67)

1 0 . . . d5 ( 1 0 . . . li:Jc6 1 1 li:Jd2 ! and II . . . 0-0 12 li:Jd5 or II . . . d6 12 t!t'a4! i.d7 1 3 li:Jde4 ! etc) I I li:Jd2 ! de?! ( I I . . . d4 1 2 li:Ja4 1!t'c7 1 3 li:Jb3 ! ; I I . . . i.e6!? 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3 1!t'a4+ c;t>f8! ;!;) 12 1!t'a4+ i.d7 1 3 1!t'xc4 1!t'b6 14 li:Ja4 .txa4 15 1!t'xa4+ li:Jc6 16 li:Jc4 1!t'c7 1 7 't!fb5 ± Watson-Gri.inberg,

New York 1 978. This illustrates the idea behind i.g5.

8 ltb1 a5 9 i.g5!

021 9 . . . h6(?!) 022 9 0 0 0 f6 021

9 h6(?!) 10 i.xe7 CiJxe7

10 . . . 'i!he7 I I CiJd2 ::t Petrosian. Knights are worth more than the bishops if White can keep things semi-closed.

1 1 CiJd2! CiJc6 I I . . . d6 1 2 b4 ::t. A fter II . . . CiJc6

White's strategy is demonstrated by the sample line 1 2 CiJd5 ltb8 1 3 b4 ( 1 3 'it'a4!? d6 1 4 b4 i.d7! 1 5 be CiJd4 1 6 'it'd! de = WatsonH .Oiafsson, New York 1977) 1 3 . . . a b 1 4 a b b 6 1 5 'it'a4 (or 1 5 b e be 1 6 lhb8 CiJxb8 1 7 'i!t'b3! planning 17 . . . CiJc6 1 8 'it'b5 'it'a5 19 'it'xa5 CiJxa 5 20 CiJe4 CiJb7 2 1 0-0 f5 22 CiJec3 ±) 15 . . . i.b7 ( 1 5 . . . cb 16 CiJxb4 CiJxb4 17 'it'xb4 i.b7 1 8 i.xb7 lixb7 1 9 'it'd6! ±) 1 6 be be 17 (jJe4 ±. 022

9 f6 This is best, but committing

the f-pawn has some original consequences.

10 i.d2 The new idea l 0 i.e3 !? d6 I I 0-0

(68) was seen (by transposition) in Andersson-Seirawan, Linares 1 983:

6li

B

5 {£Jj3: Others 65

I I . . . i.e6 (II . . . f5 1 ·2 i.g5 !? Byrne; here 12 . . . h6 1 3 i.xe7 CiJxe7 1 4 {£Jd2 g5 1 5 b4 might follow: 1 5 . . . e4 1 6 'i!t'c2) 1 2 CiJe l ! 'it'd? ( 1 2 . . . h6!?) 1 3 CiJc2 a4 14 b3 ab 1 5 li:xbH.

The idea of playing i.e3 to stop . . . d5 may attract attention. If Black plays . . . CiJf5 then after i.d2 intending {£Jd5 or CiJe l -c2 White has his normal position without fear of . . . d5 or . . . f5.

1 0 d6 1 1 0-0 i.e6 12 CiJe 1 f5

The point is that now 1 2 . . . d5? 1 3 cd CiJxd5 14 'it'b3 is ± (see 9 . . . f6).

1 3 CiJc2!? Not necessarily best. 13 CiJd5

lib8 14 b4 is untried but attractive. Also 1 3 f4!? and 13 i.g5!? could be considered .

13 d5 14 b3! d4?!

Natural , but better is 1 4 . . . lib8. After 14 .. . d4?! Petrosian-Radulov, Amsterdam 1 973, continued 1 5 CiJb5 f4 1 6 b4 b6(?) ( 1 6 . . . ab 1 7 ab

66 5 li:Jf3: Others

b6 ;!;) 1 7 be be 1 8 a4! ( intending li:Jba3 and lib5 or li:Ja 1-b3) 18 . . . �d7 1 9 li:Ja 1 .th3 2 0 li:Jb3 .txg2 21 l&xg2 e4 22 li:Jxc5 f3+ 23 ef ef + 24 �xf3 ! lixf3 25 li:Jxd7 lixd3 26 .tg5! ±.

Conclusion. As a whole, 5 . . . e5 has a good reputation . On the other hand, it is probably easier to probe against than 5 . . . e6, and these last lines with i.g5 are of particular interest in this regard .

Part II

Counterplay by 2 ... lt:Jf6 and ... d5

6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJf6 3 g3 d5 4 cd ltJ xd5 5 i.g2 (69)

69

B

5 ltJc7 (70) This introduces the Rubinstein

System, the most ambitious of Black's established strategies in the Symmetrical English. By moving his knight three times only to arrive at the modest c7, the second player concedes a lead in development to his opponent for the sake of central command . The idea is to clamp down on d4, usually by . . . e5 and . . . ltJc6. This strategy has been successful for many years, yet the assessment of several of the key lines remains open.

Before looking at replies to 5 . . . ltJc7, a quick look a t Black's alternatives: a) 5 ... ltJf6 6 't!fb3 ! ltJbd7 (6 . . . 't!fc7!? 7 ltJf3 with the idea 7 . . . e5 8 ltJb5 't!fe7 9 d4! cd 10 ltJxe5! etc, or 7 .. . ltJc6 8 d4 and 8 . . . cd 9 ltJb5 or 8 . . . ltJxd4 9 ltJxd4 cd 1 0 ltJb5 't!fb6 I I 't!fc4 t; 6 . . . ltJc6 7 .txc6+ be 8 't!fa4 t or 8 ltJf3 ;!;) 7 ltJf3 e5 8 0-0 .te7 9 e3 0-0 10 d4 tl ±. b) 5 ... ltJb4!? 6 ltJf3 (6 a3 !? ltJ5c6 7 ltJf3 ; 6 f4 g6) 6 . . . tb8c6 7 0-0 e5 (7 . . . g6 8 ltJa4!?) 8 d3 .te7 9 ltJd2 ltJd4!? (9 . . . i.d 7 1 0 a3 ltJa6 I I ltJc4 f6 1 2 f4 ;!;) 10 ltJc4 f6 I I f4 ef 12 gf 0-0 1 3 a3 ltJa6 14 e3 ltJf5 1 5 .id5+! �h8 1 6 e4 ± KotovFu rman , USSR Ch 1 949. c) 5 ... e6?! 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 would be Chater 7, but 6 ltJxd5! ed 7 't!fb3! (7 d4 !? i) wins a pawn: 7 . . . .te6 8 't!fxb7 ltJd7 9 ltJh3! (9 ltJf3 ;!;) 9 . . . 9 . . . ltJb6 1 0 't!fa6 .id6 II d 3 0-0 1 2

li::lf4 ± S.Garcia-Farago, Polanica Zdroj 1 978. d) 5 ... ltJb6 6 d3 e5 7 .te3 !? (or 7 ltJf3 t, or 7 a4! t e.g. 7 . . . a5 8 f4) 7 . . . i.e7 8 llcl 0-0?! (8 . . . ltJa6), Portisch-Hort, Tilburg 1 978, and now best is 9 ltJe4! f5 I 0 ltJxc5 f4

3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 6Y

I I .i.d2 with the idea I I . . . .i.xc5 12 llxc5 '@d4 1 3 'i!fb3+ �h8 1 4 'i!fc3. e) 5 ... lt:lxc3 6 be ( 6 de!?) 6 . . . g6 7 llbl is a line from I o4 lt:lf6 2lt:lc3 d5 3 cd etc.

70

w

A 6 'i!fb3 B 6 d3 c 6 lt:lf3 a) 6 a3 will generally transpose to (e .g .) 6 d3 e5 7 a3 or 6 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 7 a3, even after 6 a3 e5 7 b4 lt:lc6 8 lt:lf3 etc. b) 6 lt:lh3 e6 (6 . . . e5 encourages f4) 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 b3 0-0 9 .i.b2 lt:lba6 (9 . . . 'i!fd7 !?) 1 0 lt:la4 lt:lb5 I I lt:lf4 Iiib8 = Kholmov-Korchnoi, USSR Ch 1 958. c) 6 f4 g6 (or 6 . . . e6 7lt:lf3lt:lc6 8 b 3 .i.e7 9 .i.b2 0-0= Korchnoi-Balanel, 1 954) 7 b3 (7 lt:le4 lt:lba6! =) 7 . . . i.g7 8 i.b2 (8 i.a3 lt:lba6 =) 8 . . . 0-0 9 '8'c I?! lt:lbc6! 1 0 lt:lf3 lt:le6 I I 0-0 lt:ld4 + Korchnoi-Ragozin, USSR Ch 1 9 56. d) 6 b3 e5 7 i.b2 (7 i.a3 i.e7 8 llc l lt:lba6 9 lt:lf3 f6 1 0 0-0 b5 I I i.b2

i.b7" ;!:" ECO) 7 . . . i.e7 (or 7 . . . lt:lc6, since 8 i.xc6+?! is not so good without 'i!fa4 available; but 8 llc l i.d7 !? and either 9 etJf3 f6 10 0-0 llc8 I I e3 ! t planning d4 -Peters, or 9 lt:Ja4 lt:le6 1 0 lt:lh3 i.e7 I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 f4 t Taimanov seems to favour White. Thus 8 . . . f6 -Peters) 8 llc I f6 !? (or 8 . . . 0-0 9 lt:la4 lt:ld7 1 0 e3 llb8 I llt:le2 b5 1 2lt:lac3 i.b7 1 3 i.xb7 llxb7 1 4 d4 ed ! 1 5 ed lt:le6 =) 9 lt:lh3 (9 lt:la4 lt:lba6 10 lt:lh3! 0-0 I I 0-0 i.e6 1 2 f4 ;t Brinck-Claussen- Witkowski, Wijk aan Zee 1 97 1 ) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . i.e6!? 10 f4 'i!fd7 I I lt:lf2 lt:lc6 1 2 fe lt:lxe5 - 12 . . . fe;!:- 1 3 lt:lce4! Taimanov) 10 f4 l0c6 I I 0-0 i.e6 1 2 fe fe 1 3 llxf8+ 'i!fxf8 1 4 lt:le4 lld8 1 5 'i!ffl ! 'i!fxfl + 1 6 �xfl i.d5 1 7 lt:lhf2 b6 1 8 lt:ld3 i.f6 1 9 b4 ! ± TaimanovZhuravlev, Riga 1 968. e) 6 '8'a4+ !? i.d7 !? (6 . . . lt:ld7 7 lt:lf3 ;!: and 7 . . . g6 8 d4 or 7 . . . f6 8 0-0 e6 9 lldl i.e7 10 e3; 6 . . . '@d7 7 'i!fe4 !? g6 - 7 . . . e6 8 lt:lf3 ;!:; 7 . . . lt:lc6 - 8 lt:lf3 i.g7 oo, e.g. 9 0-0 0-0 10 lld I lt:lc6 I I e3 e5) 7 '@c4 lt:lc6 8 'i!fxc5 e5 (8 . . . lt:le6!? 9 'i!fe3 lt:led4 10 i.e4 e5 I llt:lf3 i.c5 1 2 'i!fd3 lt:lb4 1 3 'i!fb l f5 14 lt:lxd4 ed, Hank enPeters, Los Angeles 1 979, and now best was 1 5 i.xb7 Iiib8 1 6 i.g2 d3' 17 0-0 lt:lc2 =/oo Peters) 9 'i!fe3

lt:lb4!? (9 . . . lt:le6 10 d3 lt:led4 I I 'i!fd2 .:t with the idea I I . . . lt:lb4 1 2 Iiib l ) 10 '@xeS+ i.e7 I I �fl 0-0 12 'i!fe4, Nikolayevsky-Kudriashov,

70 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

USSR 1 966, and now 1 2 . . . f5! 1 3 'i!f' b 1 14 tim was a better try than 1 2 . . . g6? 1 3 'i!f'b l ±. A

6 'i!¥b3 lt:Jc6 6 . . . lDd7?! 7 lDf3c5 (7 . . . g6 8 d4

t) 8 d3 t is given under 6 d3 e5 7 'i!f'b3 below.

71 w

7 i.xc6+ be (71)

In my first book I treated this line under the reverse move order I c4 c5 2 lDc3 lDc6 3 lt:Jf3 g6 4 d4 cd 5 lDxd4 i.g7 6 lDc2 i.xc3+ 7 be 't!Va5 (or 7 . . . lDf6 with . . . 't!Va5 to follow). The point is that if White plays \lfa4 in the next few moves after the diagram he transposes to those li nes but having taken two moves for \lfa4. Since 6 't!fb3 is the more common line now, I have reversed the order of names from those 6 lDc2 i.xc3+ games, put s ingle quotes around them and used the material here.

8 \lfa4 For lines where White keeps his

queen on b3, see 6 d3 e5 7 ti'b3

below. 8 lt:Jf3 f6 9 t!t'a4 transposes. 8 i.d7

Two interesting gambits are possibl e here: a) 8 ... lt:Je6!? 9 d3 g6 10 i.e3 i.g7 ( 1 1 1Wxc6+ i.d7 1 2 1i'b7 l:ib8 =t= Tarjan) I I . . . 0-0 1 2 lDf3 lt:Jd4 1 3 i.xd4 cd 1 4 lDe4 i.e6 1 5 0-0 i.d5 + 'Browne-Brasket', Lone Pine 1972. b) 8 . . . e5!? 9 lDf3 f6 10 !t'xc6+ i.d7 1 1 1!t'e4, 'Matulovic-Szabo', Kapfenberg 1 970, and 1 1 . . . lt:Je6! 12 0-0 lDd4 with the idea . . . i.c6 was the best try, e.g. 1 3 lDxd4 cd 14 lDb l l:ic8 oo.

c) 8 ... '@d7 9 lt:Jf3 f6 (72) is a very common line, but has generally led to difficulties for Black:

72

w

1 0 d3 e5 ( 1 0 . . . lDb5?! 1 1 i.e3 e5 1 2 llc I lDd4 1 3 lDe4 11 b8 1 4 lt:Jxc5 i.xc5 1 5 llxc5 llxb2? ! 16 i.xd4! lib! + 17 'it>d2 nxh l 1 8 lt:Jxe5 ! ± Larsen-van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1 980) 1 1 i.e3! ( 1 1 0-0 lDe6 !? 1 2 i.e3 llb8 - 12 . . . lDd4!? - 1 3 llab 1 i.e7 14 llfcl 0-0 1 5 lDe4 t Quinteros-

3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 71

Portisch , Mar del Plata 198 1 . I I . .. ll:\b5 ( ! ) improves) I I . . . ll:\d5 ( !?, but I I ... ll:lb 5? 1 2 l:lcl is Larsenvan der Wiel, and 1 1 .. . ll:\e6 12 lie I with the idea ll:\e4 looks equally poor) 12 ll:\e4 ll:\xe3 l 3 fe n b8 1 4 't!t'c2 ± Nilssen-Trifunovic, Amsterdam 1954.

9 ll:lf3 f6 10 d3

Not necessarily best, but played most often. Others: a) 10 d4is safe: 10 . . . cd l l 'i¥xd4 e5 1 2 't!t'c4 't!t'e7 1 3 0-0 't!t'e6 = SteinMatulovic, Sousse I Z 1 967. b) 10 't!t'a5 e5!? ( lO . . . lLle6 l l'i¥xd8+ llxd8 and . . . ll:ld4 looks okay) I I

b 3 't!tb8 1 2 .ib2 ltle6?! ( 1 2 . .. c 4 1 3 .ia3 =) 1 3 .ia3 .ie7 14 llcl 't!tb6;!: Taimanov-Korchnoi, USSR 1966. c) 10 ltle4 e5 1 1 d3 ltlb5 =.

10 e5 1 1 .ie3

a) 1 1 ll:\d2 ll:\d5 1 2ll:\c4 .ie7 1 3 't!t'a5 'i¥b8 ! = lvanovic-Quinteros, Bar 1 977. b) 11 0-0 lLle6 1 2lLle4 't!tb6 1 3ll:\fd2

'i¥b5 !? ( 1 3 ... lLld4!?) 1 4 'i¥d 1 .ie7 1 5 ll:\c4 0-0 =/co A. PetrosianAnikayev, Daugavpils 1973.

1 1 lii:b8!? Or 1 1 . .. ll:\e6. After 1 1 . . . lii:b8 !?

Quinteros-Sokolov, Biel lZ 1 985, continued 1 2 0-0 ll:\d5 13 life! ( 1 3 \!t'xa7 l1a8 1 4 'tib7 ll:lb6 =) 1 3 ... a5 14 .id2 llxb2 1 5 ltle4 'i¥b6 1 6 'i¥xa5 ( 1 6 .ixa5 't!ta6 =/co Sokolov) 1 6 . . . 'tia5 1 7 .ixa5 l1xe2 ! 1 8 ll:lfd2

.ih3 =. Overall, this line remains dyna

mically equal. B

6 d3 The idea here is to delay ltlf3, so

that . . . ll:\c6 may be answered by .ixc6+.

6 e5 (73) Alternatives tend to have draw

backs: a) 6 ... g6 7 .ie3! and 'tid2, .ih6, h4-h5 may follow. b) 6 ... ll:\c6? 7 .ixc6 be 8 't!t'a4 .id7 (8 . . . 'tid7 9 ll:lf3 f6 lO 't!t'a5 ! e5 1 1 b3 ll:\e6 1 2 .ia3 ll:\d4 1 3 ll:\xd4 ±; or here l O .ie3 e5 I I ll:\e4 ll:\e6 1 2 lic l lii:b8 1 3 'i¥c2 ±) 9 ltlf3 f6 l O .ie3 (or 1 0 lLld2! , e.g. l O ... e 5 1 1

ltlc4 .ie7 1 2 f4 ±) 1 0 ... e5 1 1ltle4 ltle6 1 2 lii:c 1 't!tb6 1 3 ltlfd2! lii:b8 14 lLlc4 'i¥c7 1 5 b3 l1b7 1 6 't!ta5 ! ± Sanguinetti-Dbokin, Moscow 01 1956. c) 6 ... e6?! 7 'i¥b3 (or 7 ltlf3 ;!:) 7 . . . ltld 7 8 lLlf3 b6?! 9 ltld2 lii:b8 10 ltlc4 .ib7?? ( I 0 . . . .ia6) 1 1 .ixb7 lii:xb7 1 2 ltla5 1-0 Karlsson-Bass, Gausdal 1 983. d) 6 ... 'i¥d7!? 7 ltlf3 (7 ltlh3 ltlc6 8 .ie3 b6 = ; 7 .ie3 e5 8 l1clltlc6?! 9 ltlf3 ;!:) 7 . . . ltlc6 8 0-0 e5 9 ltld2 .ie7 (9 . . . lii:b8 !?) l O ltlc4 f6 ( 1 0 .. . 0-0!? and 1 1 .ixc6 'i¥xc6 12 ltlxe5

'i¥e6 +leo or 1 1 a4 !? f6 1 2 f4) 1 1 't!Va4 ( 1 1 f4 ;!:) 1 1 . . . ltld8 1 2 'ti'xd7+ .ixd7 ( 1 2 ... �xd7 1 3 .ie3 ltlc6 1 4 liac l ltla6 1 5 ltld5 ;!: lvkov-


Dunkelblum, Caorle 1972) 1 3 f4 ef 14 .ixf4 lilc8 (?) ( 1 4 ... lt::lce6 I 5 lt::la5 lt::lxf4 t Timman; I 5 .id6 !?) 1 5 a4 b6 16 .ixc7 ! lilxc7 17 lt::lb5 .ixb5 18 ab :±± Timman-Hort, Montreal 1979.

73

w

7 lt::lh3!? a) 7 t!fa4+ .id7 8 t!fe4 lt::lc6 9 lt::lf3 f6 10 0-0 .ie7 I I li::ld5 (}0, WitkowskiPietzsch, Riga 1954. b) 7 'ttb3 li::ld7 8 lt::lf3 (8 f4!?) 8 . . . .ie7, and now 9 li::ld5!? li::lxd5 (9 .. .

lt::le6 1 0 (}0 0-0 I I a4! <t>h8 1 2 a5 l:tb8 1 3 ;V ± Geller-Madera, Buenos Aires I 954) 1 0 t!fxd5 t!fc7 ! I I .ie3 ( I I 0-0 .id6) I I . . . llb8 I 2 llci b6 =. Best seems 9li::ld2 (}0 lO 0-0, e .g . 10 . . . li::lb6 ( 1 0 . . . l:tb8 !?) I I lt::lc4 .ie6 I 2 t!fc2 ! t Karlsson-Alburt, Hastings 1 983-84.

On 7 t!fb3 lt::lc6 8 .ixc6+ be, 9 t!fa4 transposes to 6 'it'b3; and 9

li::lf3 f6 I 0 .ie3 .id7 ( 1 0 . . . li::le6 I I lt::le4 'ikd5? I 2 llc l ± Panno-Strauss, Lone Pine 1976; I I . . . 'ikb6!?) I I

lt::le4 ( I I 0-0 li::le6!) I I . . . li::le6 1 2 ll c l t!fb6 1 3li::lfd2 .ie7 = ( I 4 0-0??

f5 ! ) Rasch-B.Stein, West Germany 1975. c) On 7 a3, independent were 7 . . . .ie7 8 lt::lf3 lt::lc6 9 0-0 0-0 10 llb i , Andersson-Tseitlin, Polanica Zdroj 1978 ( 10 . . . .ie6! Mil ic), and 7 . . . t!fd7!? 8 .ie3 lt::lc6 9 ll c I li::le6 10

li::lf3 llb8 I I 0-0 f5 1 2lt::la4 b6 13 b4 .ib7 1 4 bc b5 1 5lt::lc3 a6Voo Riblivan Riemsdyck, Riga IZ I 979. d) 7 f4 ef (7 . . . .id6!? 8 fe .txe5 intending 9 't!t'a4+ 't!t'd7; 7 . . . li::ld7 8 'it'a4 t) 8 .ixf4 .ie7 9 'it'a4+ (9 'ikb3 li::lc6 10 .txc6+ be I I 't!t'a4

lt::le6!? 1 2 't!t'xc6+ .id7 and . . . li::ld4 oo) 9 . . . li::ld7 (9 . . . .id7 10 't!t'a5! with the idea 10 . . . b6? I I .ixc7! 't!t'xc7 I 2 li::ld5 ±) 1 0 li::lf3 0-0 I I 0-0

lt::lb6 1 2 't!t'c2 li::lcd5 I 3 a3 .ie6 1 4 e4 was Tal-Gipslis, Riga I 954, when 14 . . . lt::lxf4 15 gff5 would have been equal. e) 7 .ie3 lt::lc6? 8 .txc6+ still favours White, and 7 . . . 'ikd7 8 l:tc l lt::lc6 is note 'd' to 6 . . . e5. Better is 7 . . . lt::le6 8 llc lli::ld7 9 lt:lf3 llb8 10 0-0 .te7 =; but here 10 . . . g6?? I I 't!t'd2 h6 1 2 li::ld5 b6 1 3 d4 ! ! cd 14 .ixd4 ed 1 5 li::lxd4 was :±± in SadovskyShaposhnikov, corres 1956.

More conventional is 7 . . . .ie7 8 l:tc l , e .g . 8 ... li::le6!? (safer 8 . . .

lt::lba6 9 li::lf3 f6 1 0 li::ld2 l:tb8! = Plachetka) 9 li::lf3 lt::lc6 l O li::ld2 .id7 I I 0-0 llb8 1 2 lt::lc4 f6 13 a4 (}0 = Plachetka-Bai'ias, Trnava I98 I .

After 7 li::lh3:


7 i.e7 7 . . . i.d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 ef(or 9 . ..

ltJc6 1 0 i.d2 i.g4! =) 10 ltJxf4 ltJd7 ! ? I I ltJe4 ( I I b3 !?; I I i.e3 ltJf6 12 <t>h I ;!:: ECO ; 1 2 . . . l:tb8) I I . .. i.e5 12 e3 f5 13 ltJd ltJf6 was Averbakh- Bronstein, USSR 1974, and now best is 1 4 ltJc4 :t.

8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 ltJc6

9 . . . ef l O ltJxf4 ltJc6 I I i.e3 i.d7 1 2 Itc l ( 1 2 ltJfdS !?) 1 2 . .. Itc8 1 3 't!t'd2 ltJe6 1 4 ltJfdS b6 = GiardelliQuinteros, Moron 1 982.

10 i.e3!? 1 0 <t>h I llb8 I I a3 ef!? ( I I . ..

i.d7! = ) 1 2 ltJxf4 ltJe6 1 3 llb l ltJxf4 1 4 i.xf4 t Uhlmann-Kostro, Kienbaum 1958.

After lO i.e3, B lajwas-Fielding, corres 1 983, continued lO . . . llb8 I I llc l i.g4?! ( I I ... b6! =) 1 2 ltJf2 ef 13 gf i.h5 1 4 ltJce4 f5 ( 14 ... b6?? 1 5 ltJg3; 14 . . . ltJd4?? 1 5 ltJg3) 1 5 ltJxc5? ( 1 5 ltJg3 ± threatening i.xc5 ) 15 . . . ltJd5 oo. c

74

w

6 ltJf3 ltJc6 (74)

6 . . . g6?! 7 't!t'a4+! and 7 . .. i.d7 8 't!t'c4 or 7 ... 't!t'd7 8 't!t'c4 ltJba6 9 ltJe5 . C l 7 b3 C2 7 't!t'a4 C3 7 a3 C4 7 d3 cs 7 0-0 Cl

7 b3 e5 Or 7 .. . g6!? 8 i.a3 (8 i.b2 i.g7

9 llc l 0-0 1 0 ltJa4!? i.xb2 l l ltJxb2 ltJe6 =) 8 . .. b6!? (or 8 . .. ltJa6 9 l::l:c l 't!t'a5 l O ltJa4 ltJab4) 9 e3 i.g7 l O d4 cd I I ltJxd4 ltJxd4 ! 1 2 i.xa8 i.g4! ! 1 3 't!t'xg4 't!t'xa8 1 4 0-0-0 f5 1 5 't!t'h4 i.f6 16 'it'xf6 ! =/oo RobatschFarago, Erevan 1982.

8 i.b2 i.e7 Generally chosen, although 8 . ..

f6 (75) has a fine theoretical reputation:

75

w

For example, 9 0-0 i.g4! l O ltJe l 't!i'd7 ( I I ltJd3 @xd3! ) , or here 1 0 ll c l ltJe6 I I ltJa4 :iil.c8 with solid control over the centre. Instead of acceding to passivity, White


could try I 0 h3 .i.h5 l l lLlh4!? 'it'd? 1 2 lLle4!? with the idea 1 2 . . . .i.e? 1 3 llc l b6 14 g4 .i.g6 1 5 lLlg3 oo, or 12 . . . lld8 1 3 llc l b6 14 d3 (e.g. 14 . . . .i.f7 15 f4 !?), or 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 lLlxf5! 'ti'xf5 1 4 g4 .i.xg4 1 5 hg 't!fxg4 16 llc l (planning l:tc3-g3).

Shatskes also gives 9 llc I .i.g4 10 lLla4 (?!) (again, 10 h3 .i.h5 I I lLlh4 'it'd? 1 2 lLle4 lLle6 1 3 0-0) I 0 . . . lLle6 I I .i.a3 b6! 1 2 h3 ( 1 2 lLlh4 lLled4!) 1 2 . . . .i.h5 1 3 0-0 llc8 +.

9 llc 1 f6 9 . . . lLle6!? I 0 0-0 0-0 I I lLle I !

.i.d7 (lest .i.xc6) 1 2 lLld3 intends 1 2 . . . llc8 1 3 lLla4 or 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 lLld5 b6 1 4 f4 ;!;, In Speelman-Sax, Plovdiv 1 983, Black found 1 2 . . . b6 ( ! ) 1 3 lLld5 ( 1 3 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 14 lLlxe5 .i.b7 oo) 1 3 . . . .i.d6 14 f4 ef 1 5 gf llc8 1 6 e3 ( 1 6 'ti'e l !?) 1 6 . . . f6 ! 1 7 't!fh6 lLle7 =.

1 0 0-0 10 lLla4 lLla6! I I 0-0 0-0 trans

poses. 1 0 0-0 1 1 lLla4

I I lLl e l !? .i.g4 ! =. Perhaps I I d3 !? .i.e6 ( I I . . . .i.g4 !?) 1 2 e3 lLld5 13 't!fe2 lLlxc3 14 .i.xc3 't!fd7 1 5 lLle I !? with the idea f4, 't!Vb2 is worth a try.

1 1 ltJa6! I I . . . b6 1 2 lLlh4!? .i.d7 ( 1 2 . . .

.i.b7 1 3 b4 ! ; 1 2 . . . lLld5 1 3 a 3 ;!;) 1 3 a 3 ! ? ( 1 3 e3 lLlb4 oo ) 1 3 . . . 't!fe8 ! 1 4 't!fc2 llc8 1 5 e3 lLle6 16 f4 e f 1 7 gf c4 ! =/oo Sokolsky-Taimanov,

USSR Ch 1 954. Here 1 2 d4 !? ed 1 3 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 .i.xd4 cd 1 5 llxc7 't!fxc7 1 6 J.xa8 .i.g4 =/oo was Ruiz-Tarjan, Palo Alto 198 1 .

1 2 e3 Again, 1 2 ltJ e l .i.g4! , or 1 2 d3

.i.g4 = . After 1 2 e3, FurmanWitkowski, Polanica Zdroj 1967, went 1 2 . . . .i.e6 !? ( 1 2 . . . .i.g4 13 h3 .i.e6) 1 3 d4 cd 14 ed e4 15 lLle l f5 16 f3 .i.g5 1 7 llc2 .i.e3+ 1 8 �h 1 lLlxd4 19 llc3 ! .i.g5 20 fe ;!;. C2

76

B

7 't!t'a4 (76)

7 .i.d7 (!) 7 . . . 't!t'd7 is playable but u n

necessary. After 8 0-0 (8 't!t'e4 f6 9 0-0 e5 1 0 lld I .i.e? I I e3 't!t'g4! =; 8 d3 e5 9 0-0 llb8 I 0 .i.e3 .i.e? =), Black has : a) 8 . . . e5 9 e3 ! ? (9 a3 llb8 1 0 b4 b5) 9 . . . .i.e? 1 0 lld l lLle6!? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I d4 ;!;) I I 't!t'e4!? f6 1 2 .i.h3 'i!t'd8 1 3 d4 ;!;. b) 8 .. . g6!? 9 't!t'c4 (9 lLle I ! ?) 9 . . . b6 10 b4 .i.g7 ! I I be b5 1 2 't!t'e4 b4 1 3 lLlg5 .i.b7 1 4 ll b l h6 ( 1 4 . . . lLla6!


co) 1 5 llxb4! lt:lxb4 1 6 1!fxb7 hg 17 '8'xb4 t Mi khalchishin-Chekov, USSR 1977.

8 1!fe4 8 'it'h4 e5 =.

8 g6! Safe and good. 8 . . . lt:le6 !? is rich

in complications, e .g. 9 e 3 g6 1 0 d4 cd 1 1 ed i.g7 1 2 i.e3! ( 12 0-0 lt:lexd4 1 3 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4 14 't!rxb7 ll b8 =; 1 2 d5? lt:led4 1 3 de i.xc6) 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 'ii'd5 lt:lc7?! ( 1 3 . . . lt:lb4!? 1 4 'ft'b3 lt:ld3+ 1 5 �e2 f4 ! ro; 1 3 . . . f4 !? with the idea 14 gf lt:lb4 15 'ti'e4 lt:l xd4!? 1 6 lt:l xd4 i.xd4 17 i.xd4 i.f5 1 8 'i!Vxb7 1t'xd4! ro) 1 4 'i!Vb3 Uoo Romanishin-Tal, USSR Ch 1976.

9 lt:le5 i.g7 1 0 lt:lx d 7 'i!Vxd 7 1 1 0-0

White's two bishops are at least compensated by Black's space and development. 1 1 1!fa4 0-0 (or 1 1 . . . lt:ld4 =) 1 2 d 3 lt:le6 1 3 i.xc6!? be 14 i.d2 llfb8 + Csom-Vadasz, Budapest 1977.

1 1 0-0 I I ... llc8 ( ! ) (or I I . . . lt:le6) 12 a3

lt:le6 is also good, e .g. 13 b4 ( 1 3 d3 0-0) 13 . . . b6 1 4 e3 0-0 + NovakAdams, Polish Ch 1977.

12 a3 1 2 d3 lt:le6 (or 12 . . . llab8 ! and

. . . lt:ld4) 1 3 i.d2 nac8 =. 1 2 llac8

Or 1 2 . . . llab8. After 12 . . . llac8, I gave 13 b4 lt:le6 14 lib I b6 with good play in the first edition, but

Sokolsky's 1 3 b4 cb 14 ab lt:lb5 ! + is even better. So play should go 13 lib ! ( 1 3 d3 lt:le6 14 i.e3 lt:led4 +) 13 . . . lt:le6 14 b4 b6 1 5 lt:ld5 lt:led4! 16 be be 17 e3 lt:le2+ 18 �h l e6 19 't!rd3 cd 20 't!rxe2 llb8 + SmcjkalSokolov, Novi Sad 1984 . c

7 a3 (77)

7 g6 Best on grounds of simplicity,

but there are two other good moves: a) 7 . . . e6!? 8 0-0 i.e7 is rare: 9 d3 (9 e3 't!rd3! Polugayevsky-Korchnoi, Amsterdam 1972) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . b6!?) 10 i.e3 lt:ld5 1 1 llcl lt:lxe3 1 2 fe i.d7 ( 1 2 . . . llb8) 1 3 lt:le4 'ft'b6 14 'i!Vc2 c4 1 5 d4 :t Vaganian-Lju bojevic, Tilburg 1983. b) 7 . . . e5 8 b4 (8 0-0 transposes to 7 0-0 below) 8 . . . f6 ! (8 . . . cb 9 ab i.xb4 10 lt:lxe5! 0-0 ! I I lt:lxc6 - 1 1 .ixc6 'tWd6! - I I . . . be 1 2 't!ra4 :t) 9 be (9 lib! !? cb 10 ab i.f5 1 1 llb2, Forintos- Varnusz, Balatonbereny 1983; 1 1 ... i.e7 Forintos) 9 . . . i.xc5 (9 . . . lt:le6!? 1 0 e3 i.xc5 1 1 0-0 0-0


1 2 't!t'c2 i.d7 ro) 10 0-0 0-0 I I .ib2 ( I I a4 lDc6 1 2 i.a3 �h8 1 3 't!t'c I llb8 = Seirawan-Sax, Amsterdam 1 983; I I lib I !? l:lb8 1 2 d3 i.e6 1 3 li:'Je4 i.e7 1 4 't!t'c2 lLJdS ! Plachetka) I I . . . i.e6 (or I I . . . lLJ e6 12 llc I Wh8 1 3 e3 't!t'd3 =, or 1 2 . . . ..tlh8 ) 1 2 lt:Je4 { 1 2 't!t'a4!?) 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 llc l ll:Ja6 1 4 d4 't!t'b6! I S .ta l llad8 1 6 llb l 't!t'c7 = Gofstein-Karasev, USSR 1 976. c) 7 . . . f6!? 8 llb I eS 9 0-0 (9 b4 is ' b') 9 . . . i.fS 10 d3 't!t'd7 I I i.e3 llc8 1 2 b4? cb 1 2 ab i.xb4 =t= DorfmanAnikayev, USSR Ch 198 1 .

8 b4 Consistent. Otherwise, 8 d3 (8

h4'? i.g4? 9 b4 ! Mi khalchishin; but 8 . . . h6 =) 8 . . . i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.d2, and now 1 0 . . . b6 (or 1 0 . . . h 6 ) I I I1b l i.b7 1 2 b 4 cb 1 3 a b lt.:d4 = Lu kacs, or 10 . . . ll:Je6 I I lt:Jd4 = Lukacs, or 10 . . . ll:Je6 I I lib I a S 1 2 lt:Je4 i.d7 1 3 e3, VaganianKorchnoi, Linares 1 98S, and now Mikhalchishin suggests 1 3 . . . a4 !?.

8 i.g7 (78)

9 be 9 lib ! i.fS ! 1 0 ll b l c4 I I bS

ll:JaS 12 't!t'a4 b6 + E.Meyer-Portisch, Lone Pine 1978.

9 lt:Ja6 10 i.b2

1 0 0-0 ll:JxcS I I a4, ChristiansenPeters, USA 1 979, is best met by I I . . . 0-0 1 2 .ta3 't!t'aS and 1 3 ll b l a6 o r 1 3 lit e I i.e6.

I 0 ll:Jxc5 Black is already somewhat better,

e .g. I I ll:Ja4 (else I I . . . .ie6) I I . . . i.xb2 1 2 ll:Jxb2 i.e6 1 3 0-0 llc8 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 lie ! 't!t'aS + AnderssonPortisch, Biel IZ 1 976) 14 lic l "§'aS + Osmanovic-Smejkal , Sarajevo 1983. C4

7 d3 Here we treat l ines where White

delays 0-0. 7 e5

7 . . . g6 !? resembles 7 0-0 g6 below, but White gets to the c-pawn more quickly: 8 i.e3! ll:Je6 (8 . . . ll:Jd4? 9 i.xd4 cd I 0 1i'a4+; 8 . . . eS 9 lt:Jd2 .id7 1 0 0-0 :U ±) 9 0-0 i.g7 I 0 ll:Ja4 ll:Jcd4?! ( 10 . . . 0-0 I I lt:JxcS lt:JxcS 1 2 i.xcS i.xb2 1 3 ll b l i, or l l lie ! i) I I lic l 'ii'aS 1 2 ll:JxcS ! lt:Jxf3+ 13 i.xf3 lt:JxcS 1 4 lixcS 't!t'xa2 I S b4 ± Gheorghiu-Korchnoi, Palma de Mallorca 1 972.

8 lt:Jd2 8 .ie3?! .ie7 (or 8 . . . i.d7 9 0-0

i.e7 10 lt:Jd2 0-0, e .g . I I ll:Ja4 b6 12 b4 cb! 13 llc l ll:Jd4 =/oo) 9 lt:Jd2


,.td7 (9 . . . 0-0!? 10 ..ixc6 be I l lbb3 ! Popov, but I I . . . fS 1 2 ..ie3 lbe6 1 3 lba4 f4 ! holds; s o I I lbc4 !) I 0 0-0 ( I 0 lbc4 0-0 I I a4 'i!?h8 I 2 0-0 f6 1 3 f4 ef 14 gf lbe6 IS fS lbed4 or 14 . . . ..ie8 =) 10 . . . 0-0 I I lbc4 f6 ( I I . . . b6!?; see below) 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 gf :S:b8 I 4 :S:c l lbd4 I S i.f2 i.g4! + Rukavina-Lengyel, Virovitica I 977.

8 ..id7 a) 8 ... i..e7? 9 i.xc6+ be 10 lbc4 f6 I I '@'a4 ±. b) 8 . . . '@d7?! 9 0-0 b6 10 lbc4 f6 I I a4 ..ie7 1 2 f4 ef 13 i.xf4 lbe6 1 4 aS ! ± Polugayevsky-Gheorghiu, Palma de Mallorca 1972. c) 8 ... i..e6!? 9 ..ixc6+ be 10 b3 ! ( 10 '@a4 t!id7) 10 . . . lObS I I lba4 't!i'dS 1 2 f3 ..ie7 (?!) ( 1 2 . . . hS I 3 i..b2! !) 1 3 i..b2 hS 1 4 :S:c l h4 I S g4 (intending I6 lbe4) I S . . . ..ixg4!? 16 e4 '@xd3 17 fg ..igS 1 8 liJxcS ± Petrosian-Szabo, Amsterdam 1973.

Norm al after 8 . . . ..id7 is 9 0-0 i..e7 ('CS2' below). 9 lbc4 bS! 1 0 lbe3 lii:c8 I I 0- 0 lbd4 1 2 i..d2 ( 1 2 liJedS = Pachman) I 2 . . . i..e6 I 3 a4?! ( 1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf g6 =) 1 3 . . . a6 14 ab ab I S lii:a7 ..ie7 + OlafssonBronstein, Reykj avik 1 974. cs

7 0-0 And now:

C S I 7 . . . g6 !? CS2 7 . . . eS

7 . . . e6?! 8 d3 (8 b3 i..e7 9 ..ib2 0-0 1 0 lii:c l , Ujtelky-Bednarski , Polanica Zdroj I 96S; lO . . . b6? I I

d4 ! ) 8 . . . i..e7 9 ..ie3 0-0 (9 . . . eS 10 Iit c l !) 10 d4 !. est

79

w

7 g6!? (79)

Recently beginning to catch on a bit.

8 lba4 Others tend to cede Black control

of d4: a) 8 b3 i_g7 9 i..b2 b6 (or 9 . . . 0-0 =) 10 lba4 ..ixb2 I I lbxb2 Iilb8 I 2 e3 0-0 1 3 d4 cd I4 :S:c i i..b7 I S ed lObS! 16 dS lbb4 I 7 a4 lbc7 =t= Gurevich-Alburt, US Ch 1983. b) 8 a3 i.g7 9 Iilb l , Filguth-Law, Youth Team Ch 198 1 ; 9 . . . 0-0! with the idea I 0 b4 cb I I ab i..fS ! . c ) 8 d3 ..ig7 9 ..ie3 ( 9 i..d2 0- 0 l O a3 ..ig4 I I h3 ..id7 =) 9 . . . b6 (9 . . . lbd4 10 lba4 't!Yd6 I I :S:cl lbe6 I 2 lOgS! Tomas) l O 't!Yd2 ( 10 Iil c i 0-0 I I '@a4 i..d 7 I 2 '@h4 eS 1 3 '@xd8 Iilaxd8 + Younglove-Dlugy, New York I 983) I O . . . 0-0 I I :S:fd i Iilb8 I2 i..h6 lbd4 = Adamski-Cserna, Budapest 1 979.

8 b6


8 . . . �a6!? is untried. If 8 . . . �c6, 9 d3 i.g7 10 �g5 ! t looks promising. Complex is 8 . . . e5!? 9 d3 (9 b3 !? and 9 . . . e4 10 �e l tor 9 . . . b5 10 �c3 lib8 I I i.b2 i.g7 1 2 li c l �c6 1 3 �c l i.d7 1 4 �d5 intending �d3) 9 . . . i.d7 (9 . . . b5 !'? 10 �c3 -10 �g5 i.d7 I I "f/b3 c4 - 1 0 . . . lib8 I I i.c3 �c6 1 2 licl f5 =/m) 1 0 a3 �c6 I I i.e3 b6 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 d4 cd 14 �xd4 lic8 1 5 ab, RomanishinPalat ni k, Kiev 1 973, and now instead of 1 5 . . . i.g7?! 16 �b5 ! 0-0 1 7 lia2 'i/c7? 1 8 �xa7 ! ±, Black had 1 5 . . . i.xb4, e.g. 16 �b5 0-0 17 �xa7 �xa7 1 8 .ixb6 lic7 .

9 d4! cd 10 i.f4 i.g7 II �d4

1 1 li c l i.b7 = . II �d4

1 2 i.xc7 �xc7 1 3 i.xa8 0-0 14 i.g2!? ( 14 �c3 lid8 15 i.g2 - versus . . . i.a6 - 1 5 . . . �f3+ 16 i.xf3 lixd l 1 7 lifxd I , l ightly t , PolugayevskyTaimanov, U SSR Ch 1 967) 14 . . . i.a6 ( 1 4 . . . lid8) 1 5 �c3 li d 8 16 �h i ("! t" Razuvayev) 16 . . . �xe2 17 "f/a4 i.c4 18 lifd l �d4 19 liacl b5, Razuvayev-Ki rov, Bulgaria 1 9 8 1 , and now 20 "f/a6 t was best . C52

7 C52 1 8 � e l C522 8 d3

e5

Not 8 �a4'! ! i.d7 9 �e4 f5 10 �e3 'ti'e7 + . Others:

a ) 8 b3 i.c7 (8 . . . f6 9 i.b2 was 'C I ' ; 9 i.a3!'? i.c7 10 �c I .ig4 I I i.xc6+ be 1 2 �a4 �c6 1 3 licl "f/a5 14 �d3 lid8 m; 8 . . . i.e6 9 i.b2 lic8 10 lic l b6 I I �c l i.d7 1 2 �d3 i.d6 13 �c4 and f4 follows: i) 9 �c l !? (9 i.b2 f6 1 0 lic l ; see 'C I ' ) 9 . . . .ig4!? ( 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 �d3 f6 I I �a4 ± intending .ia3, li e ) ; 9 . . . i.d7 10 �d3 f6 I I f4 ef 12 �xf4 :t ) I 0 i.xc6+ be I I i.a3 "f/d7 ( I I . . . .ih3 !? 1 2 �g2 h 5 m) 1 2 tJ i.h3 1 3 lif2 (1) .

b) 8 a3!? f6 (8 . . . .id7 9 c3 ! i; but 8 . . . i.d7 is playable, as is 8 . . . a5 9 d3 1f..e7 . 8 . . . i.c7 9 b4 f6 is ·c 3'. and here 9 lib I a5 10 b3 0-0 I I .ib2 i.f5 12 d3 �c6 = was OlafssonErnst. Reykj avik 1985) 9 d3 (9 e3 !? i.e7 ! 10 d4 cd I I ed cd 12 �c2 d3 1 3 �f4 0-0 14 �xd3 i.f5 is a l ine given by Boleslavsky) 9 . . . i.e7 (9 . . . i.e6?! I 0 i.e3 "f/d7 I I �e4 �d4 12 li c l �a6 13 i.xd4 ! cd 14 e3 de 1 5 fc i.f5 16 �xe5 ! fe 1 7 �h5+ g6? - 1 7 . . . i.g6 - 1 8 � f6+ �d8 1 9 �xd7 gh 20 �xffi ++ AdamskiFoisor. Warsaw 1 983 . The same game with 15 . . . i.d6 16 d4 ed 1 7 �xd4 i.e5 1 8 �xe6 "f/xe6 19 �g5 ! �b6 20 �d5 ++ was GufeldBukic. Skopje 197 1 ) 10 �d2 1f..d7 ( 10 . . . 0-0 !?) I I li:bl ( I I �c4 0-0 1 2 14 b5 1 3 �c3 ef l4 �f5 ! �c5! oo Lech tynsky-Trap! , Czechoslovak Ch 1 986) I I . . . lib8 12 �c4 b5 1 3 �c3 �d4? 1 4 b4 c b 15 ab i.e6 1 6 f4 cf 1 7 lixf4 ! ± wit h the idea


li:lcd5 , Espig-Forintos, Balatonbereny 1 984. C521

/10

B

8 li:lel (80)

I 've suggested this (Shatskes's) move as a substitute for the almost auto matic 8 d3, but haven't aroused much interest. The idea is to threaten .ixc6+ while 1Wa4, b3, .ia3 , li:ld3 and :S:c l are all sti l l possible. If Black defends his pawns, f4 will become a key break . There is a certain piquancy in 8 li:le l , as White moves his king's knight three times to get to an odd square (d3), j ust as Black moved his three times to get to c7. Of course Black's regaining of time gives him many options.

8 .id7 To prevent .ixc6+. Others:

a ) I gave 8 . . . .ie7?! 9 .ixc6+ (?) be 10 't!t'a4 (}.0 I I b3 1!re8, which was Michaelides-McDaniels, Boston 1978, when Michaelides gives 1 2 li:ld3 ! f6 1 3 .ia3 ±. True enough, but Black also had 10 . . . 't!rd6! (= )

as in Watson-Banks , New York 1 980, when I I f4 or I I d3 is best , since the natural I I li:ld3? .if5! 1 2 li:le4 t!¥d5 1 3 f3 c4 1 4 li:lc3 �d7 15 't!t'xc4 .ixd3 clearly favoured Black.

The correct sequence is 9 li:ld3! f6 1 0 .ixc6+ be I I 't!ra4 U ±. b) 8 . . . .ie6 9 li:ld3 f6 1 0 .ixc6+ ( 10 f4 c4 I I li:lfl ef 12 gf'ifd7 = SmyslovHtibner, Ve lden (match) 1 983) 10 . . . be I I �a4 �d7 12 b3 li:lb5 13 .ib2 li:ld4 1 4 f4 t Watson-Grtinberg, Gausdal , 1980, with the idea 14 . . . e4 1 5 li:lfl f5 1 6 d3, or even 1 5 li:lxe4!? li:lxe2+ 1 6 \t12. c ) 8 . . . h5!? 9 f4 (9 h3!? .ie6; 9 h4 g5 10 hg oo) 9 . . . h4 10 d3 hg I I hg c4!? 12 de .ic5+ 13 e3 t!Vxd l 14 li:lxd l ef 1 5 li:ld3 ( 1 5 gf .if5 with active piece play) 1 5 . . . f3 ( 1 5 . . . .ixe3+ 16 li:lxe3 4') 16 :S:xf3 .ie7 1 7 li:l l f2 li:le6 1 8 li:le4 li:lg5 1 9 li:lxg5 .ixg5 20 :S:fl .ie6 2 1 .id5 0-{}.0 22 e4 .if6 22 .ie3 ± Nikolic-Cebalo, Vrs ac 1 983 . d) 8 . . . .ig4!? i s the most interesting alternative: 9 .ixc6+ (9 li:lc2? �d7 10 li:le3 .ih3 '+) 9 . . . be 10 t!¥a4 t!¥d7 I I li:ld3 f6 1 2 f4 !? �d4+ 1 3 :S:fl �xa4 ( 1 3 . . . c4 14 1Wxc6+ �d8 1 5 li:le l ) 1 4 li:lxa4 t .

9 li:ld3 9 b3 'ticS ( ! ) (9 . . . .ic7 10 li:ld3 f6

I I f4 cf 1 2 li:lxf4 0-0 1 3 e3 ! b6 14 .ib2 .id6? 15 li:lcd5 t!¥e8 16 li:lh5 li:le5 17 :S: xf6! .ig4 18 li:lxg7 ! ±± D.Cramling-Lengyel , Eksjo 1982; a good example) 1 0 .ib2 ( 1 0 li:ld3


.ih3 I I f4 .ixg2 1 2 �xg2 'i!t'd7 !?) 10 . . . ll:ld8? ( 10 . . . .ih3! =) I I ll:ld3 f6 1 2 f4 i Watson-Eversole, Colorado 1 977.

9 f6 (8 1) 9 . . . .ie7 10 .ixc6 be I I ll:lxe5

.ih3 1 2 ll:lxc6 �d7 1 3 ll:lxe7 ±; 9 .. . c4 10 .ixc6 cd I I .ixb7 Itb8 ( I I . . . .ih 3 12 .ixa8 't!t'xa8 14 �a4+ and 'ti'e4) 1 2 .ig2 ±.

8 1

w

1 0 b3 Interesting is 10 f4 (" !" Colias)

10 . . . c4 I I ll:lf2 ef 1 2 gf f5 !? ( 1 2 . . . .ic5 1 3 \Wa4 !?; 1 2 . . . .ie6) 1 3 b3! cb 1 4 d4! .id6 (? ! ) ( 14 . . . .ib4 Colias) 1 5 e4 fe 16 ll:l fxe4 .if5 1 7 �xb3 .ixe4 1 8 ll:lxe4 .ie7 1 9 ll:lg5 ±± Ivanov-Ch ow, Ch icago 1986.

After I 0 b3, play could go 10 . . . .ie7 I I .ib2 0-0 1 2 f4 t, or 1 0 . . . .ig4 I I .ixc6+ be 1 2 f3 .if5 ( 12 . . . .ih3 1 3 llf2 .if5 1 4 ll:le4 .ixe4 1 5 fe t) 1 3 ll:lf2 t/oo.

8 ll:le I still awaits a body of practical evidence. C522

8 d3 .ie7

a) 8 . . . f6 9 ll:ld2 (9 e3 .ig4 ! 10 h3 .ih5) 9 . . . .id7 1 0 ll:lc4 ll:lc6?! ( 10 . . . .ie7 is the text) I I f4 (or I I a4 ::!-:) I I . . . ef 1 2 .ixf4( ! ) ( 1 2 gfis examined in 'c') 1 2 . . . ll:lxf4 1 3 l:ixf4 .ie7 14 .id5! \Wb8 15 c3 b5 16 \Wf3 ±± Pavlov-Nach t, Romania 1 973. b) 8 . . . .id7?! 9 e3! :t:: . c) 8 . . . ll:le6?! 9 ll:ld2 .id7 1 0 ll:lc4 f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 .ixf4! is 'b' ; 1 2 gf(? ! ) .ic7 1 3 e3 0-0 1 4 �b3 l:ib8 1 5 f5 ll:lg5 16 ll:le5+ 'it>h 8 1 7 ll:lxd7 1i'xd7

= Shatskes. 9 ll:ld2 (82)

9 .ie3 0-0 10 ll:ld2 is C4 above (note to 8 ll:ld2).

9 .id7 a) 9 . . . 0-0!? I 0 ..txc6 be I I ll:lc4 f6 1 2 b3 !? .ih3 1 3 li e ! ll:le6 14 .ib2 h 5 1 5 e3 1i'e8 1 6 f3 ( ! ) h4 1 7 ll:le4 hg 18 hg \Wh5 19 1!t'e2 t DzindzihashviliTim man . Tilbu rg 1985; 1 2 1!t'a4( ! ) ("t" ECO ). b) 9 . . . hS? ! 1 0 h4! g5 I I hg .ixg5 12 f4 ! h4!? 1 3 ll:lc4 ± PodgayetsKa rasev, USSR 1 974.

10 �c4 0-0 (!)


A gambit sequence which continues to have great success. There are many games with the older 10 . . . f6, e.g: a) 1 1 a4!? 0-0 1 2 f4 ef 13 .ixf4 �e6 ( 13 . . . .ie6!?, e.g. 14 �e3 'it'd7 =

Blau-Pachman, Munich 1 958; 14 .txc6 is especially risky with the centre and b-file exposed) 1 4 �d5 �xf4 1 5 �xf4!? 'it'e8 !? with the idea 16 �d5 lid8 or 16 e3 lidS 17 d4 cd 18 ed ..tc8 1 9 d5 .ic5+ 20 'it>h l �e5 =. b) 11 f4 b5 1 2 �e3 litc8!? (the older line is 1 2 . . . ef and: 1 3 lhf4!? �e6 14 lHI ! Byrne, but unclear; or 1 3 �f5 !? fg 14 �xg7+ 'it>f7 15 �f5 gh+ 1 6 'it>h l ro Zaichik-Palatnik, USSR 1 975; or 1 3 gf lib8 ! , and 14 �ed5 0-0 15 f5 ..td6 = or 1 4 .id2!? 0-0 1 5 f5 �e5 1 6 'it>h 1 , VilelaLukacs, Albena 1 985; 16 . . . c4!?) 13 a4 ( 1 3 f5 0-0 14 .id2 �d4 =; 1 3 �ed5 �xd5 1 4 �xd5 0-0 1 5 fe �xe5 16 ..tf4 �c6 1 7 a4 b4 1 8 litc l .ie6 1 9 e4 ..td6 = with the idea . . . �a5, . . . c4, Smyslov-Htibner, Velden (match) 1 983) 1 3 . . . b4 1 4 �e4!? ( 14 � b 5 e f 1 5 litxf4 �e6 16 �c4 ! 0-0 1 7 �bd6 �xf4 ro Houshan-van der Sterren, Lucerne 01 1 982; 1 4 �cd5 0-0 1 5 �xe7+? ! 'it'xe7 1 6 �c4 litfd8 + SeirawanPortisch, Mar del Plata 1 98 1 ) 14 . . . f5 1 5 �d 2 0-0 1 6 �ec4 e f 1 7 gf 'it>h8 18 �b3 litf6 =/ro KorchnoiPortisch, Lucerne (World Team Ch) 1 985.

II ..txc6 I I a4!? is interesting, when 1 1 . . .

f6 ( I I . . . b6 !?) 1 2 f4 ef is note 'a' to 10 . . . 0-0. The more common way to decl ine is 1 1 f4 ef 12 gf ( 1 2 ..txf4 �e6 - 12 . . . ..te8!? - 1 3 ..td6 �ed4 14 ..txe7 'it'xe7 15 e3 �f5 =) 12 . . . f5 !? ( 1 2 . . . lie8; 1 2 . . . libS 1 3 ..td2 f5 or 1 3 . . . lib8) 1 3 ..te3 b6 (or 1 3 . . . litb8 14 lic l 'it>h8 1 5 'it'e l lif6 = Lobo-Tarjan, Palo Alto 19S l ) 1 4 ..tf2 ..th4 1 5 ..tg3 ..txg3 1 6 h g 'it'f6 =!+ with the idea . . . lidS, RegueraIllescas, M edina del Campo 19S5.

83

w

12 �xeS ..te8 (83)

13 ..te3 a) 13 f4?! ..tf6 (or 1 3 . . . 'it>h8 1 4 ..te3 �e6 1 5 .i f2 f5 ! with the idea . . . g5) 14 �f3 ..tc6 1 5 �e4 lieS! 16 'it'c2 ..td4+ 1 7 e3 f5 ! =t= EspigPolugayevsky, Sochi 1974. b) 13 e4!? ..tf6 1 4 �g4 ..td4 1 5 �e3 ..tc6 1 6 �f5 �e6 1 7 �xd4! ( 1 7 �d5? lie8 I S �xd4 �xd4 1 9 �e3 'it'd7 20 f3 liadS 21 b3 f5 ! =t= Petrosian-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1 976) 1 7 . . . �xd4 (or 1 7 . . . cd I S


ll:Je2 f5) 1 8 i.e3 f5 1 9 i.xd4 1!fxd4 20 't!t'b3+ 'it>h8 2 1 ll:Je2 1!fd7 22 f3 i.b5 =/co Schtissler-Donaldson, Malmo 1 985. c) 13 't!Vb3 b6! 1 4 i.e3 �h8 1 5 lUd l f6 1 6 lLJf3 i.f7 1 7 't!t'a4 ll:Jd5 1 8 ll:Jxd5 i.xd5 + CommonsGheorghiu, Lone Pine 1 975.

1 3 ll:Je6 There are other good moves:

a) 13 . . . f6 !? 1 4 ll:Jf3 i.c6 15 ll:Je 1 'i!lh8 1 6 d4?! ll:Jd5 1 7 ll:Jxd5 't!t'xd 5 1 8 f3 llad8 =!= Frumkin-Savereide, Palo Alto 1 9 8 1 . b ) 1 3 . . . i.f6 1 4 ll:Jf3 ll:Je6 1 5 ll:Je4 i.e7! (or 1 5 . . . i.d4 1 6 i.xd4 cd 1 7 't!t'd2 i.c6 = Colditz-Reichenbach, Berlin 1977 ; 15 . . . b6 ! ? ) 1 6 ll:Je5 'i!lh8! 1 7 f4 f6 18 ll:Jf3 b6 19 i.d2 i.c6 (or 19 . . . i.f7) 20 i.c3 't!t'd7 2 1 lLJf2 i.xf3 22 ef f5 + SeirawanB.Stein, New York 1978 . c) Even 1 3 . . . ll:Jd5!? seems okay: 14 ll:Jxd5 ( 14 't!t'b3 ll:Jxe3 1 5 fe i.f6!)

14 . . . 't!t'xd5 15 f4 f6 1 6 ll:Jf3 i.f7 ! 1 7 't!t'c2 llfe8 1 8 b3 i.ffi 1 9 i.c 1 b5! + Watson-Grefe, Las Vegas 1 975 .

14 llc1 14 ll:Je4 b6 = with the idea . . .

'it>h8 , . . . f6/ . . . f5/ . . . f4. 1 4 't!t'b3 !? i.f6 (or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 1Wd5 't!t'c8 1 6 f4 'it>h8 - or 16 . . . i,{6 - 1 7 f5 ll:Jc7 1 8 't!t'e4 i.f6 = Vadasz-Vaganian, Skara 1 980) 1 5 f4 i.xe5 16 fe i.c6 1 7 1Wc4 1Wc7 = Sahovic-J oks ic, Yugoslav Ch 1 976.

After 14 lie I. Black gets excellent play, e .g. 1 4 . . . i.f6 1 5 ll:Jc4 i.c6 16 ll:Je4 i.d4 1 7 i.xd4 cd 1 8 ll:Je5 i.d5 19 't!t'a4 lle8 20 ll:Jf3 't!t'b6 2 1 llc2 llad8 22 llfc 1 h 6 2 3 h 4 �h8 24 ll:Jed2 ll:Jf4 ! ! 25 gf 't!t'g6+ 26 'i!lf1 1Wg4 =!= Govbinder-Kapengut, Moscow 1 979.

Conclusion: The Rubinstein is holding up well, and should probably be employed more often .

7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

I c4 c5 2 �c3 �f6 3 g3

3 �f3 e6 transposes (e.g. 4 d4 to Chapters 1 3 and 1 4) . 3 e4 e6 is the I c4 �f6 2 �c3 e6 3 e4 c5 English .

3 e6 4 �f3

4 ..tg2?! d5 5 cd ed 6 d4 (otherwise . . . d4) 6 . . . cd 7 1!¥xd4 �c6 + is a line from I c4 e5 2 �c3 �f6 3 g3 c6 4 d4 etc.

4 �c6 4 . . . d5 5 cd �xd5 is the best way

to get to the main line, but we use this order to look at irregular lines. Here 6 ..tg2 �f6!? is Chapter 8 (5 g3 �f6), 5 . . . ed 6 d4 is a Tarrasch Queen's Gambit, and 4 . . . b6 lines are dealt with in Chapter I I . White can play for the e4 lines of that chapter by 4 . . . b6 5 d3 ..tb7 6 e4, in view of 6 . . . d5? ! 7 cd ed 8 e5 �fd7 9 d4! cd?! (9 . . . ..te7 10 ..tg2 �c6 ;t) 10 � xd4 �xe5 I I .ib5+ �bd7 1 2 1!t"e2 1!¥e7 1 3 0-0 ± Platonov-Grigorian, USSR 1 97 1 .

Finally, 4 . . . a6 !? 5 .ig2 (5 d4 b5 !? 6 .ig2 be oo Velimirovic) 5 . . .

..tc7 6 0-0 0-0 7 d4 cd 8 �xd4 1!t"c7 9 1!t"d3 (9 b3? d5) 9 . . . d6 I 0 b3 ..td7 I I ..tb2 �c6 1 2 li: c l ;t WatsonMiles, Lone Pine 1 976.

5 .ig2 .ie7 5 . . . 1!t"b6 !? is Makarichev's idea,

to s top d4: 6 0-0 ..te7 7 b3 ! (7 e3 d5 =) 7 . . . 0-0 8 ..tb2 :iid8 (8 . . . d5 9 cd ed 10 d4 ! ;!;) 9 d4 cd 1 0 �a4 ;t (centre).

6 0-0 dS 6 . . . 0-0 7 e4?! d5 8 cd ed 9 e5

�e4! + Ree-Petursson, Malta 01 1980. 6 . . . 0-0 7 d4 cd (7 . . . d5 tends towards the main line) 8 �xd4 a6 is ±. This can also arise by 6 . . . a6 7 d4 cd 8 �xd4 0-0 (84) :

White has two ways to obtain


the advantage: a) 9 b3 'it'c7 I 0 i.b2 d6 I I llc l �xd4 ( lest �d5 ) 1 2 'it'xd4 i.d7 1 3 llfd l (or 1 3 .to llfd8 1 4 'it'f4 i.e8 1 5 g4! with the idea g5) 1 3 . . . llfd8 1 4 h3 i.e8 1 5 a4 (or 1 5 'it'e3 ::!: G .Garcia-Andersson, Cienfuegos 1 975) 1 5 . . . llab8 1 6 i.a3 ! b6 1 7 lld3 i.f8 1 8 'it'f4 :!; Csom-Augustin, Pula 1 975. b) 9 i.f4(!) is also good, preventing . . . 'it'c7 : 9 . . . � xd4 (9 . . . d5 1 0 cd �xd5 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 llc l ) 10 'it'xd4 d6 I I 'it'd3 'it'c7 1 2 llac l lld8 1 3 llfd l ltJ h5 14 i.e3 i.d7 1 5 i.d4 (with the idea 'it'e3) 1 5 . . . i.e8? 1 6 'tWO ±± Watson-Slaton, Pasadena 1 983.

7 cd �xdS A 8 d4 B 8 �xd5

In general, White gets to both main lines via 8 d4, but 8 � xd5 can be independent. The alternatives are equal : 8 e3 0-0 (or even 8 . . . c4! ) 9 d4 cd 10 �xd5 ed I I �xd4 i.f6 = Tarrasch-Rubinstein, Carlsbad 1 923; and 8 b3 0-0 9 i.b2 i.f6 I 0 'it'c l b6 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 d4!? i.a6 ( 1 2 . . . �xd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 �d2 i.a6 1 5 i.xd4 t Smej kal-Ftacnik, Vrsac 1 98 1 ) 1 3 l:Ie l �xd4 1 4 i.xd4 ( 14 �xd4 cd 1 5 't!i'd2 d3 ! = ) 1 4 . . . cd 1 5 't!i'a3 Wc8 1 6 l:Iad l l:Ie8 = Olafsson-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1 98 1 . A

8 d4 (85)

115

8

The basic position . Now 8 . . . cd 9 �xd5 (9 �b5 0-0 1 0 �bxd4 �b6 =) 9 . . . ed 1 0 �xd4 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . i.f6 I I i.e3) I I i.e3 i.f6 1 2 llcl �xd4 ( 1 2 . . . i.xd4!? ;l: is Portisch-Da rga of Chapter 1 3 ) 1 3 i.xd4 i.g4 14 llc2 t . And 8 . . . �f6!? 9 e3 0-0 10 a3 ( 10 de!? Mikhalchishi n) 1 0 . . .

cd I I ed 't!t'b6 12 'it'd3 lld8 1 3 i.e3 �g4? ! 14 b4 ± was MikhalchishinLalic, Sarajevo 1 985. Thus: A I 8 . . . �xc3 A2 8 . . . 0-0 AI

8 �xc3 A little riskier than 8 . . . 0-0, but

very common. 9 be 0-0

a) 9 ... i.d7 is passive: 10 llbl b6 I I e4 cd 1 2 cd 0-0, Ujtelky-Szilagyi , Budapest 1979, and now best is 13 i.b2! (d5 and �d4-c6 can follow). b) 9 . . . i.f6 10 e3 ( 1 0 i.a3!? cd I I cd �xd4 1 2 �xd4 'iWxd4 1 3 �c2 oo) 10 . . . 'tWaS I I 't!t'b3 'it'a6 1 2 Wa3 :!;,

10 e4

3 gJ and the Keres-Parma Variation 85

The main line, bu t now we see that 8 . . . 0-0 is an easier route, because here 10 llbl !? is rather difficult for Black. I gave 1 0 . . . 1!t'c7 I I i.f4 i.d6 1 2 i.xd6 1!t'xd6 as equal in the first edition, but Unzicker-Miles, Baden-Baden 198 1 , went 1 3 1!t'a4 cd, and now Unzicker suggests " 14 ll'l xd4! ±" . Black can play 14 . . . ll'ld8 1 5 lil:fd l �e7 16 ll'lb5 a6 17 ll'ld6 llb8, but t seems fair. The other idea is 10 . . . �a5 , but Korchnoi-Lipnitsky, USSR Ch 1 952, went I I �c2 cd 12 ll'lxd4! ll'lxd4 ( 1 2 . . . lLl d8 !? 1 3 llb5! 1t'c7 1 4 i.f4 1!t'd7 - 14 . . . i.d7? 15 llh5 -1 5 lil:d I 1!t'e8 1 6 lil: b I ) 1 3 cd i.f6 1 4 lld l lld8 1 5 i.e3 1!t'a6 1 6 llb4! ± .

10 cd In view of this move's poor

results, the alternatives deserve more attention : a) 10 . . . b5!? (Peters) l l d5 ( 1 1 llbl b4 12 d5 ed 13 ed i.f5 ! 1 4 llal lt:Ja5 ; I I i.e3 'it'c7 !? 1 2 1!t'e2 a5? 1 3 d5 ! ± Crane-Drysdale, corres 1 979; but I I . . . cd or even I I . . . ll'la5 seems to im prove) I I . . . ed 12 ed ll'la5 1 3 ll'le5 co. b) 10 . . . b6!? is quite reasonable. White should probably forego I I i.e3 i.b7 1 2 1!t'e2 ll'la5 1 3 ll'le5 'it'c7 = Spassov-Raicevic, Subotica 1 978, in favour of I I d5 ll'la5 (86)

Here 1 2 'ti'c2!? has been seen in two games: 1 2 . . . ed 1 3 ed ll'lc4 (or 13 . . . g6!? Smej kal; 13 . . . i.f6 14 i.f4 g6 1 5 llad l i.f5 16 �c l ,

IM

w

Botvinnik-van Scheltinga, Amsterdam 1963, and now 16 . . . ll'lc4 ! 1 7 d6 �d7 is unclear) 1 4 i.f4 i.d6 ( 1 4 . . . ll'ld6 =) 1 5 ll'lg5 g6 1 6 �e4 b5 1 7 i.xd6 ll'lxd6 1 8 'it'h4 h5 = Ftacnik-Lerner, Bratislava 1983 .

A game Hort-Zwaig, Halle 1967, was more to the point: 1 2 i.f4 ( ! ) ed 1 3 ed i.f6 ( 1 3 . . . i.a6!? 1 4 lle l i.f6 or 1 3 . . . i.d6!?) 14 �d3 i.b7 15 llad l it'c8 16 llfe l with the advantage: 16 . . . c4 !? 17 1t'c2 '@c5 18 ll'l g5 i.xg5 19 i.xg5 ±. But Black's play is easy to improve upon. c) 10 . . . 1t'c7!? I I d5 ed 12 ed ll'la5 is fine , so perhaps I I 'it'e2 with the idea d5, or I I i.f4 i.d6 1 2 i.e3 b6 as in Watson-Carlson, Colorado 1976, when White should continue 13 lil:cl or 1 3 ll'ld2!?.

1 1 cd b6!? I I . . . i.f6 12 i.b2 b6 transposes,

but limits Black's options; here 12 . . . ll'la5 !? is also interesting. The other line is I I . . . i.f6 12 i.e3 b6


( 1 2 . . . li:Ja5!? 1 3 :ii c l !? .id7 1 4 �d3 a 6 1 5 :ii fd l .ia4 = Wa tson- 117

0 gaard, Os lo 1 9SO; 1 3 '@ld3 !?) B

1 3 't!t'a4 ( 1 3 'i!t'd3 .ib7 1 4 :iiad I :ii cS = Schussler-Christiansen , Reykjavik 1 9S4) 1 3 . . . .id7 1 4 '@'a3 IleS 1 5 llac l lt:Ja5 = PortischH i.i bner, Abano Terme 1 9 80.

12 .ib2 (87) a ) 12 d5!? has also succeeded, e .g . 12 . . . ed ( 1 2 . . . lt:Ja5 13 't!t'd3 cd 14 ed .if6 15 .ia3 ! ± O'Kelly-Barden, England 1 95 1 ; 14 . . . .ib7 ! ?) 1 3 ed lt:Jb4 ( 1 3 . . . .if6 1 4 :iib 1 .if5 1 5 l1b3 lt:Ja5 1 6 Ilb4 =t= Mikhalchishin). H ere my suggestion 1 4 lt:Je5! (to replace 1 4 lt:Jd4 .ia6 1 5 lit e 1 .if6 1 6 .i a3 .ixd4 =) has been tried in several games, e .g: 14 . . . .i f6 ( 1 4 . . . .ia6? ! 1 5 :iie I :iic8? 1 6 .ia3 .id6 1 7 .ixb4 .ixb4 I S lt:Jc6 ± GorelovLukacs, Budapest 19S2) 15 :ii e 1 .if5?! ( 1 5 . . . :iie8 1 6 :iib 1 ! .ixe5 1 7 :iixb4 t Minic; 1 5 . . . .ib7 1 6 .ia3 t) 1 6 g4! lt:Jd3 1 7 lt:Jxd3 .ixd3 1 S .i.a3! .ixa 1 1 9 .ixf8 �xf8 20 't!t'xd3 't!t'f6 2 1 d6! :iidS 22 g5 ! H Mikhalchishin-Gorelov, USSR 1 984. b) 1 2 .ie3 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . . .i a6 1 3 :iie l lt:Ja5 !?) 1 3 :iic l b5! = Kuzmin. Ins tead, 1 3 . . . lt:Ja5 14 '@'d3 :iicS 15 :ii xcS 'ti'xc 8 1 6 :iic 1 �aS 1 7 d5! led to 1 7 . . . ed 1 8 ed .ixd5? ( I S . . . :iid8 1 9 lt:Jg5 g 6 Minic) 1 9 lt:J g5 .ixg5 20 .ixd5 �dS 2 1 .ixg5 �xg5 22 l'i:c7 ±± in Qu interos-Tringov, Bar 1 977.

1 2 .if6!? 12 . . . .i a6 13 l:le l lt:Jb4 ( 1 3 . . .

:iicS 1 4 d5 ed 1 5 .ih3 lla8 1 6 ed lt:Ja5 , Sisniega-Karolyi , G raz 1 978 , and now 17 lt:Je5 ! is ;!:;) 1 4 .ifl ! ( 14 :iie3 !? liicS 1 5 lilc3 - 15 .ic3 '@'c7 with the idea . . . lt:Jd3 - 1 5 . . . :ii xc3 1 6 .ixc3 '@'c7 = Robatsch-Pinter, Rome 1 9S2) 1 4 . . . .ixfl 1 5 �xfl :iicS ( 1 5 . . . 't!t'cS!? Ftacnik) 1 6 lite2 f5? ! ( 1 6 . . . \!t'd7) 1 7 't!t'bH Ftacnik-Farago, Skara 19SO.

Remember, however, that Black has to allow 12 d5 to h ave this option.

13 :iib1 ! .ib7 1 3 . . . .ia6 1 4 l:I e 1 lt:J a5 1 5 d5

.ixb2 1 6 l:I b2 t. 1 4 d5 ed 15 ed lt:Ja5 16 lt:Je5 .ixe5?!

Conceding too many advantages, yet: 1 6 . . . lit eS 1 7 l:le1 lt:Jc4 ("? -1 7 . . . lit eS" R ibl i ; but 1 8 d6 ! ) I S li:Jxc4 l:Ixc4 1 9 d6 .ixg2 20 �xg2 lit c6 2 1 d7 litc7 22 .ixf6 't!t'xf6 23 :iic l and wins, Berg-Velikov, West

3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 87

Germany 1 983. After 16 . . . .txc5, Christiansen

Portisch, Linares 198 1 , went 1 7 .ixe5 ltc8 1 8 li e I '@'d7 1 9 .ic3 .ta6 20 li c l lLlb7 2 1 '@'d4 f6 22 .ib4 lixc 1 23 lixc l li c8 24 li xc8+ '@'xc8 25 h4 .tb5 26 d6 lLlc5 27 '@'d5+! �f8 28 '@'e4 ! �f7 29 '@'e7+ �g6 30 h5+ �xh5 3 1 i¥f7+ 1 -0. A2

8 0-0 9 e4

9 lLlxd5 ed (9 . . . 1!¥xd5? 1 0 i.e3 ! ) i s ' B ' below, and 9 d e lLlxc3 (9 . . . .ixc 5 1 0 i.d2 lLl b6 I I lLle4 ! t Ftacnik-Gorik, Dortmund 198 1 ) 10 b e .txc 5 I I 'it'c2 h 6 (or I I . . . 'ft'e7 intending 1 2 lLlg5 f5 ! ) 1 2 lidl ( 1 2 ll b l '@'c7 13 lLld4 i.d7 =) 12 . . . 'ti'f6 1 3 lil:bl e5 + RomanishinAiburt, U SSR Ch 1 975.

A new m ove which has had success is 9 ll b l !? (88)

The idea is that B lack lacks a plan, and the rook may be useful: a) 9 . . . .tf6 10 lLlxd5 ( 10 e3 cd I I ed

� 1 2 i.e3 li d8 CD CebaloMarjanovic, Kovala 1 9 85) 10 . . . 'ti'xd5 I I de 1!¥xc5 ( I I . . . 1Wxa2 1 2 i.g5! ) 1 2 !t'a4 i.d7 1 3 i.e3 !t'e 7 14 'ft'e4 (or 1 4 b4 Ribli) 1 4 . . . llac 8 15 b4 b6 1 6 .id2! t/ ± with the idea b5 , .tb4 Suba-Petursson, Thessaloniki 01 1984. b) 9 . . . cd 1 0 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 I I �xd4 .tf6 1 2 'ft'c4 lLlxc3 1 3 be �a5 1 4 i.e3! !t'xc3 1 5 '@'a4 ! (or 1 5 1Wxc3 t) 15 . . . i.d8 1 6 .txa7 ! ± SubaCebalo, S kopje 1984. c) 9 . . . �aS 1 0 de!? ( 10 'ti'd2!? lid8 - 10 . . . cd? 11 cd llJxd4 12 llJd5! -I I lLl xd5 t; 10 .t d2 lLlxc3 I I .txc3 't!Va2 1 2 e3 lil: d8 13 'ft'e2 cd 14 lLlxd4 CD Speel man-Aiburt , Taxco IZ 1985; 13 . . . e5 !? Speelman) 10 . . . lt:lxc3 I I be "it'xa2 (!?) (perhaps I I . . . ti'c5 ) 1 2 .te3 e 5 1 3 lLlg5 lidS 14 'ifb3 'tWxb3 1 5 ll xb3 lLla5 ( "?!" Informant) 16 ll b4 f6 17 lLle4 llJc6 18 llb5 t Cebalo-J . Pinter, Taxco IZ 1 985. d) 9 . . . h6!? Speelman. Then 10 e4 llJ b6 I I de (!) 't!Yxd I 12 li xd I .t xc5 1 3 e5 looks better than in 'A22' below, because of 1 3 . . . llJc4 1 4 lie I .

After 9 e4, 9 . . . lLlxc3 is ' A I ' above. Also: A2 1 9 . . . lLldb4 A22 9 . . . lLlb6

9 . . . lLlc7 1 0 i.e3 t. 9 . . . lLlf6!? 10 de i.xc5 I I e5 t. A21

9 lLldb4 (89)

88 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Varia tion

H9 w

10 de! One of my best ideas from the

first ed i t ion; I believe that it accounts for the demise of 9 . . . ltJdb4. Whi te's o ther choices a re fai rly harmless: a) 10 i.e3 cd I I lt:\xd4 lt:\xd4 1 2 i.xd4 b6 ( 1 2 . . . lt:\c2 1 3 '@xc2 '@xd4 1 4 Iiadl ± ; 1 2 . . . i.d7 !? 1 3 Ii c l .ic6 1 4 a3 eS!? I S .ixeS ! lt:\ d 3 1 6 .ic7 'ii'd7 1 7 Iic2 t Speelman) 13 eS .ia6 14 .ixaH 'iVxa 8 ! I S Iil:e I Iil:d8 etc.

b ) 10 d5 ed I I ed ltJd4 1 2 a3 ( 1 2 lt:\xd4 cd 1 3 a 3 de 1 4 a b .ixb4 I S 't!fd4 .id6 1 6 �xc3 - 16 be b6 = - 1 6 . . . a S ! 1 7 .ie3 .id7 + and . . . bS Schmidt- Po rtisch, Buenos Aires 01 1 978) 1 2 . . . ltJxd S ! 1 3 ltJxd4 lt:\xc3 14 be cd I S cd Iil:b8 ( I S . . . i.f6!? and . . . �aS) 1 6 Iil: b l b S !? ( 1 6 . . . b6 Ri bli) 1 7 �d3 a6 ! 1 8 Ii e l .id6 1 9 .id2 i.d 7 2 0 i. b4 .ixb4 2 1 a b a S 22 ba Y:> - 'h GheorghiuUn zicker, Lucerne 01 1 982. c) 10 a3 cd I I ab de 12 be b6 (or 1 2 . . . 't!fc7 1 3 b5 - 1 3 .ie3 Iii: d8

14 �e2 .id7 = Hubner-Portisch.

Abano Terme 1 980 - 1 3 . . . l:ld8 14 't!fc2 lt:\a5 15 i.f4 \!Vc4 = GellerPiache_t ka. Skara 1 980; 1 4 't!fa4!?) 1 3 .if4 ( 1 3 �e2 �c7 14 .ie3 .ib7 1 5 l:lab l l:lfd8 = Kavalek-Tarjan, US Ch 1 978) 13 . . . i.b7 14 'iVb3 'ii'c8 I S l:lfd l l:lfd8 1 6 ltJd4 a5 ! = Ftacni k-Tarjan, Malta 01 1 980.

1 0 i.xc5 10 . . . lt:\d3 I I '@'e2 ltJxcl 1 2 l:laxc l

.ixc5 1 3 l:Hd l ! , o r here 1 1 .ic3!? lt:\xc5 ( I I . . . .ixc5 1 2 'i!t'e2 i.xe3 1 3 't!¥xc3 ! ) 1 2 ltJd4 t ( 1 2 . . . eS 1 3 ltJfS) .

11 e5! I I a3 lt:\d3 1 2 'i!t'e2 lt:\xc l 1 3

l:laxc l eS 1 4 l:lfd I .id4 I 5 h3 a6 = Vaganian-Portisch. Rio I Z 1 979.

11 i.e7 Anticipating lt:\e4 or b4. Others:

a) l l ... lt:\d3? 1 2 .igS ! f6 ( 12 . . . 't!fd7 1 3 �e2) 1 3 ef g f 1 4 .i h 6 ± . b) l l . . . 't!fxd1 1 2 l:lxd l lt:\c2 (else 13 a3) 13 li b ! lt:\2d4 1 4 ltJxd4 ( 1 4 .if4 t:) 1 4 . . . .ixd4 1 5 .ixc6 i.xc3 1 6 be be 1 7 i.c3 t or 1 7 i.a3 t. c) l l . . . ltJdS 1 2 lt:\e4 .ie7 1 3 a H, e .g . 1 3 . . . b6 1 4 �c2 .ib7 1 5 lt:\eg5 g6 1 6 'i!t'e4 etc. d ) l l . . . b6?! 1 2 a3 't!fxd l 1 3 lixd l ltJd5 ( 1 3 . . . lt:\c2?? 1 4 lia2) 14 ltJxdS cd 15 b4 .ic7 1 6 lixd5 ± WatsonPe tursson, Harrow 1 979 .

12 a3 lt:\d3 l3 'ii'e2 ltJxcl 14 liaxcl

Korchnoi-H i.ibner, Johannesburg 1 9H I . I 4 lifxc l ( ! ) ± intending b4, lid! etc was more accurate, because


now 14 . . . 'it'a5 ! 15 lifd l a6 ! was playabl e ( H i.ibner tried 15 . . . lifd8?! 16 tt:J b5! :!;). In general , if White

gets e5 in , h is g2 bishop, space and devel opment offer good chances. A22

9 tt:Jb6 This seems Black's best. despite

a few new White ideas. 10 d5

a) Untried is 10 lt:J e2!?, e.g. I 0 . . . cd 1 1 lt:Jexd4 tt:Jxd4 1 2 tt:Jxd4 .if6 1 3 tt:Jb5, bu t th is isn't m uch . b) 10 de looks good a gai nst 1 0 . . . .i xc5 I I 't!t'e2! :!;, but 10 . . . 't!t'xd l (or I 0 . . . tt:J d7 !? 1 1 e5 tt:Jxc5 1 2 .ie3 lib8 = Tseit l in-Ag 1.a mov, USSR Ch 1 982) 1 1 lixd l .ixc5 12 e5 ( 1 2 .if4 f6 !) 1 2 . . . tt:J c4 1 3 lie 1 .id7 ( 1 3 . . . lt:J b4 1 4 .ifl !?; 1 4 lie4 tt:Jb6 1 5 .ie3 i.xe3 16 li xb4 i.c5 = Quinteros-Razu vayev, Novi Sad 1 982) 14 i.fl tt:Jb6 1 5 li d 1 tt:Jb4 1 6 a 3 ttJ bd5 1 7 lt:Je4 li f c8 ! 1 8 tt:Jxc5 lil:xc5 1 9 tt:Jg5 ( 1 9 tt:Jd4 !? lt:Jc4 20 lie! t was Leviti na- Li u She La n, Nalenczow 1 984; but 19 . . . liac8 20 b4 lic7 im proves) 1 9 . . . .ia4 20 lt:Je4 lic7 2 1 lie I h6 22 b4 a5 = Watson-Alburt, New York 1 979.

10 ed II ed

I I tt:J xd5!? i.g4 ( I I . . . tt:Jxd5 1 2 e d tt:J b4 1 3 lt:Je l :!; o r 1 3 tt:Je5 :t ; I I . . . .ie6 1 2 tt:Je I !? with the idea 1 2 . . . i.xd5 1 3 ed tt:J b4 14 do, but th is is critical) 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 i.xf3 tt:Jd4 1 4 .ie3 tt:J xd5!? 1 5 ..ixd4

tt:Jf4?! 1 6 i.xg7 lt:Jxh3+ 1 7 �g2 tt:Jxf2 1 8 't!t'xd8 :tl ± ForintosU tasi , Hu nga ri an Ch 1986 .

II tt:Jb4 (90) I I . . . tt:Ja5 !? 1 2 b3 ( 1 2 .if4!?) 1 2

. . . i.f6 1 3 .id2 .if5 14 lie I :t Ftacnik-Johansson , London 1982.

12 lt:Jel 12 lt:Je5!? is still con troversial ,

e .g . 12 . . . .if6 1 3 f4 .if5 14 a3 ( 1 4 i.e3!?) 1 4 . . . tt:Jc2 1 5 lia2 lic8 ( 1 5 . . . tt:Jd4?! 1 6 b4 't!t'c7 1 7 .ie3 cb 1 8 lt:Je4! .ixe4 1 9 .ixe4 ± Hjart arsonH .Olafsson , Icelandic Ch 1 984) 1 6 b3 ( 1 6 g4 .ixe5 1 7 fe .ig6 =) 1 6 . . . tt:Jd4 1 7 .ie3 lie8 ( 1 7 . . . 't!t'c7 ! Hjartarson) 1 8 .ixd4! ( 1 8 b4 .ixe5 19 fc lt:Jc4 = Tal- Pe tursson, Talli nn 1 98 1 ) 1 8 . . . cd 1 9 't!t'xd4 't!t'c7 20 lt:Jb5 .ixe5 21 fd : Hjartarson . But 12 . . . i.d6 ( ! ) still has good standing, e.g. 1 3 tt:Jd3 .ig4! 14 'ifxg4 tt:Jxd3 1 5 i.g5 ( 1 5 .ih6 i.e5 = Ribl i ) 1 5 . . . f5 , Dorfman-Tukmakov, USSR 1984, and i nstead of 1 6 't!t'h5 't!t'd7 1 7 't!t'e2 c4 = , White could try 1 6 't!t'e2 't!t'xg5 1 7 't!t'xd3 with the ideas tt:Jb5, f4, liae I -e6, when 17 . . . f4 !? is m .


12 i.f6 a) 1 2 . . . ll:lc4!? 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 �e4 i.f5 1 5 ll:lc2 ..txe4 ( 1 5 . . . ..Q.f6 !?) 1 6 i.xe4 ll:ld6 1 7 i.g2 l:l:e8 1 8 l:l:b l i.f6 1 9 ..tf4 ..te5 20 i.xe5 n xe5 2 1 ll:le3 :t Korchnoi-Kuzmin, Moscow 1973. b) 12 ... c4 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 i.f4 ..Q.d6 ( 14 . . . ll:lc5 1 5 d6 ..tf6 1 6 a4 ! ll:lb3 17 l:l:a3 ± Gulko) 15 i.xd6 1!t'xd6 1 6 �d4! i.f5 1 7 ll:lf3 l:l:fd8 !? 1 8 ll:ld2 ! ± Gulko-Alburt, USSR Ch 1975. c) 12 ... i.d6 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 ll:lc2 ..tf5 1 5 li:le3 i.g6 1 6 b3 li:lc7 17 ..Q.b2 :t Spraggett-Andrijevic, San Bernardino 1 986.

13 i.e3 13 a3 !? i. xc3!? ( 1 3 . . . ll:la6 14

ll:lc2 ll:lc4 1 5 li:le3 ll:ld6 = AlburtBurman, USSR 1973) 14 ab ..txb4 1 5 li:lc2 i.f5 1 6 li:lxb4 cb 1 7 d6 ( 1 7 �d4 b3) 1 7 . . . �d7 1 8 i.f4 gave White some compensat ion (= ?) in Boersma-Franco, Amsterdam 1983.

13 ..txc3 1 4 be ll:l5xd4 1 5 i.xc5 l:l:e8 (91)

9/ • � .t � ;. .K � � w � l. - - 1. � 1. �-,. · - -7.

�- . . . - .. .. .. . �·- .

• • • • . � . " - �;, - [9,. � - . " "' �" • • f.Q� ... ..

� - · � \llb � - � o;:? f'l ,., � � � t;'f · · .&�. �- �

16 1!t'd4!? The latest move. In two earlier

games 16 i.d4 had been played: 16 . . . i.e6 ( 1 6 . . . i.f5!?) 1 7 ll:ld3 l:l:c8 ( 1 7 . . . 1!t'd6 18 l:l: c l - 18 lLlc5 lLlxc3! threatening . . . 'ilxd4! - 18 . . . l:l: ac8 19 l:l:e I litfd8 20 i.e4 ll:ld7 21 li:le5 ll:ldf6 22 i.b I =/ oo CherninPetursson , World Junior Ch 1979; compare what follows) 18 lic l ( 1 8 li:lc5 li:lxc3 1 9 lLl xe6 fe 20 i.xc3 l:l:xc3 2 1 ..txb7 :t Rodriguez) 18 . . . �d6 19 lie! lied8 20 'i/h5!? (20 ..te4 was Chernin-Petursson) 20 . . . h6 2 1 l:l:ed l 1!t'ffi =/oo FtacnikAm.Rodriguez, Thessaloniki 01 1984.

After 16 't!i'd4!?, Ehlvest-Lputian, USSR 1985, went 16 . . . i. e6?! 1 7 li:ld3 (or 1 7 f4 g6 1 8 c4 :t Dlugy) 1 7 . . . I!c8 ( 1 7 . . . 1!t'c7 !? 1 8 a4 l:l: fd8 1 9 a 5 ll:lc8 or 1 8 ll:lb4 ll:lxb4: :t ? ) 1 8 a4 ll:ld7 ( 1 8 . . . l:l:c7 19 l:l:fe l ! ± Ehlvest) 19 i.xa7 ll:lxc3 ( 19 . . . 1!t'a5 20 ll:lb4 li:lxc3 1 6 life ! ± Ehlvest) 20 ll:lf4! ± .

Ftacnik-Dlugy, Lugano 1987, saw the improvement 16 . . . 't!Yf6 ( ! ) 1 7 ..txb6 ( 1 7 ..txd5 1!t'xd4 18 ..txf7+ 'i&xf7 19 i.xd4 ll:lc4! Dlugy; 17 li:ld3 ll:lxc3 =; 1 7 �xf6 !? ll:lxf6 1 8 i.d4 is interesting) 17 . . . ll:lxb6 18 'ffxf6 gf 19 ll:ld3 li:la4! ( 19 . . . i.f5 20 ll:lf4 :t or 20 ll:lc5 l:l:ac8 2 I ll:l xb7 :t Dlugy) 20 c4 ..te6! 21 l:l:fc l?! (2 1 i.xb7 i.xc4 22 ..txa8 l:l:xa8 = Dlugy) 2 1 . . . l:l:e7 22 ll:lf4 l:l:c8 (=/+). Here 2 1 ll:lf4 ( ! ) looks better, e .g. 2 1 . . .


.txc4 (21 . . . ltJ c5 22 ltJd5 or 21 . . . l:le7 22 lHe l) 22 tlfc l .ia6 ( 22 . . . l:lac8? 23 .txb7 tlc7 24 ltJd5) 23 ltJd5 ;!;. One feels that Black should be able to defend this sort of position, but i t may not be as easy as Ftacnik-Diugy would indicate. B

8 ltJxd5 ed Here 8 . . . 't!t'xd5 can be met by

9 d4!? ltJxd4 (9 . . . 0-0 10 .te3) 1 0 ltJxd4 'ti'xd4 1 1 't!t'c2 0-0 1 2 .te 3 't!t'f6 ( 1 2 . . . 'it'b4 !? 1 3 llfd l e5 oo) 1 3 llfd I , Pytel-Bernard, Lublin 1973, and now 1 3 . . . e 5 was best; or by 9 d3 .td7 (9 . . . 0-0?! 10 .ie3 't!t'd6 1 1 d4 cd 12 ltJxd4 ! DzindzihashviliKraidman, Israel 1976) 1 0 .ie3 l:lc8 1 1 d4 ed 12 ltJxd4 'ti'a5 ( 1 2 . . . 't!fh5 ! ) 1 3 ltJb3 't!t'b5 1 4 ne t l:Id8 1 5 ltJc5 .tc8 1 6 't!t'b3 't!t'xb3 1 7 .txc6+ ! Watson-Martz, Lone Pine 1 976.

9 d4 0-0 A position which also comes

from 8 d4 0-0 9 ltJxd5 ed. White has: B 1 10 .te3 B2 10 de 8 1

1 0 .te3 c4 a) 1 0 . . . .if6 I I de! ( 1 1 'ti'd2 c4; 1 1 't!t'a4 l:Ie8) 1 1 . . . .txb2 1 2 l:I b l .if6 1 3 ltJ d4 ! Csom. b) 10 . . . 'it'b6 1 1 'ti'd2 l:Ifd8 1 2 b3 .te6 1 3 de!? ( 1 3 nac l !? ±) 1 3 . . . ..txc5 1 4 ..txc5 't!t'xc5 1 5 ltJg5 ! H tibner-Csom, Houston 1 972.

1 1 ltJeS (92) I I b3 cb (or I I . . . b5!? and 1 2 a4

ltJa5 or 1 2 ltJe5 ltJxe5 1 3 de i.e6) 12 ab ( 1 2 'tifxb3 ltJa5) 1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3 ltJe5 't!fb6 = E. Meyer-Shamkovich, New York 1983.

1 1 .tf5 ! Not I I . . . .te6? 1 2 ltJxc4! o r I I

. . . ltJxe5? 1 2 de .te6 1 3 i..d4 ±. But I I . . . f6!? 1 2 ltJxc6 be 13 i..f4 ( 1 3 'ti'a4) 1 3 . . . a5 ( 13 . . . .td6 ! ?) 14 b3 .ta6, Portisch-Matulovic, Biel IZ 1976, is playable , and I I . . . ltJa5 ( ! ) 1 2 t!t"c2 f6 1 3 ltJf3 b5 14 ltJh4 i..e6 = Cillo-Pytel, Istres 1975, deserves attention.

1 2 b3?! An instructive move, but not

best. a) 12 ltJxc6 be 1 3 t!t"a4?! ( 1 3 .td2 l:Ib8 =) 13 . . . 1!fb6 14 b3 .ic2! + lvkov-Aiburt, Yugoslavia v USSR 1975. b) 12 't!Vd2?! l:Ic8 1 3 ltJxc6 nxc6 14 f3 l:le8 1 5 a3 (?) l:Ie6 1 6 life I h5 + Bass-Diugy, Bermuda 1985.


c) 12 't!t'a4!? lt:'Jxe5 ( 1 2 . . . li:'Jb4 1 3 .id2! ; 1 2 . . . 't!t'd6 1 3 1t'b5 ) 1 3 de d4 14 .tf4 ( 1 4 llad l ? .td7 !) 14 . . . g5 15 .id2 'ti'c7 16 llac 1 m Tal .

12 lle8 ! 13 be

Or 1 3 lt:'Jxc6 llxc6 14 be llxc4 ;!: Tal.

1 3 ltJxeS 14 de de 15 't!t'a4 ( 15 .txb7 llc7

16 .tf3 1t'xd 1 17 llfxd 1 c3 Tal ) 1 5 . . . 't!Vc7 1 6 llac I c3 1 7 .id4 c2 1 8 .id5, Tal-Aiburt, USSR Ch 1975, and now Tal gives 1 8 . . . llfd8! =F, e.g. 19 e4 .ie6 20 'i!t'b3 .ixd5 21 ed 't!t'c4! etc . 82

93

w

10 de .ixeS (93)

The most popular position of the Keres-Parma. White has tried just about everything: 82 1 1 1 lt:'Jg5 822 1 1 .ig5 823 1 1 b3 824 I I a3 825 1 1 'ti'c2

a) 1 1 1t'd3!? is almost unknown . Petrosian-Keres, San Antonio 1972, went 1 1 . . . h6 12 a3 !? a5 1 3 .id2 b6! \12-\12 with the idea . . . .ta6. Perhaps 12 .id2 is better. b) 1 1 .if4 .if5 (or I I . . . lii:e8) 12 'i!t'b3 ( 1 2 llcl .tb6 =) 1 2 . . . .ib6 1 3 llad 1 .te4 1 4 .ie3, AnderssonPeters, Hastings 1978-79, and now 14 . . . .txe3 is = .

c) l l li:'Je1 lle8 (or 1 1 . . . d4 1 2 li:'Jd3 .ib6 13 lt:'Jf4 lle8 1 4 b3 .tf5 =, or I I . . . .tg4!? 12 li:'Jd3 .ib6 1 3 lt:'Jf4 d4 = Lein-Speelman, Hastings 198 1-82) 1 2 li:'Jd3 ( 1 2 .txd5 .ig4) 12 . . . .ib6 1 3 lt:'Jf4 d4 14 .td2 .tg4 = 8enko-Tarjan, US Ch 1978. 821

1 1 ltJgS Threatening 't!t'c2 and 't!t'xd5 .

1 1 h6! Actually, 1 1 . . . .id4!? is more

important, since after 12 1t'c2! ( 1 2 't!t'b3? h 6 1 3 lt:'Jf3 .ib6 + ) 1 2 . . . g6 13 1t'b3 .if6 ! ( 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 lt:'Jxf7 �xf7 15 .ih6 ±) 1 4 1t'xd5 li:'Jd4 (94)

94

w

3 g3 and the Keres- Parma Variation 93

we have a position which also comes from I I 1Wc2 .ib6 1 2 lt:Jg5 g6 1 3 @d l .id4 1 4 1Wb3 .if6 etc . This hasn't been tested, as far as I know, since the first edition. Best play is probably 15 Wxd8 ( 15 �h I lt:Jxe2 16 .ie3 Wxd5 17 .ixd5 .ixb2 1 8 l:Iae I lt:Jc3 1 9 .ib3 h6! 20 lt:Jxf7 led to a draw in Mi les-Tarjan, Riga IZ 1 979) 1 5 . . . lt:Jxe2+ 1 6 �h i l:I xd8 ( 16 .. . .ixd8 17 .ie3 ±) 17 lt:J e4 .id7 ( 1 7 . . . lt:Jxc l 1 8 lt:Jxf6+ �g7 19 lt:Jh5+ �h6 20 naxc l �xh5 2 1 nc7, or here 1 8 . . . gh 1 9 �xc l nd2 20 llfd l t) 1 8 .ie3 .ie6 1 9 l:I fd 1 ! l:IacS ! 20 .if3 l:Ic2 2 1 n xd8+ .ixd8 22 li[e l .ic4, Benko-Pe ters, US Ch 1975, and here instead of 23 lt:Jd2 .ia5 ! , 23 .ih6 ( ! ) (23 lt:Jc5 !?) 23 . . . .ia5 (23 . . . f5 24 lt:Jd6 .ia5 2 5 l:I xe2 ! .ixe2 26 lt:Je8 l:Ic7 27 .ig5 ! h6 28 .tf6+ ±) 24 lLlf6+ �h8 25 nd 1 l:Ixb2 26 h4! tl±, e .g. 26 . . . .ie6 27 h5 lt:Jc3 28 hg! fg 29 l:Id6 .ic8 30 .ig4 ±±.

If the above holds , I I . . . .id4 is suspect; compare comments under I I 1Wc2 below.

1 2 1Wc2 1 2 lt:Jh3 has several good answers:

1 2 . . . l:Ie8 1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =; 1 2 . . . .if5 1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =; 1 2 . . . .ixh3 1 3 .ixh3 lile8 14 .ig2 d4 1 5 .if4 Wb6 = TaiLengyel , Miskolc 1 969; and even I I . . . g5!? Tukmakov.

1 2 .i xfl+ 12 . . . hg? 1 3 1Wxc5 .ie6 14 lild l

l:Ic8 1 5 .i.e3 ! ±.

13 l:Ixfl hg This is equal, e .g. 14 'tlkd2 d4 ( 1 4

. . . .ie6 ! ? ) 1 5 Wxg5 't!Vxg5 16 .i xg5 .ig4 =, or 14 1!t'b3 !? .ie6 ! 1 5 't!Vxb7 't!Vd6 16 .ixg5 l:Iab8 1 7 1!t'a6 n xb2 18 lilc l lii:c8 19 .if4 'tlkd7 = WatsonWeinstein, Boston 1 978 . B22

95 B

1 1 .igS (95)

1 1 f6 Not I I . . . .ie7?! 1 2 .ixe7 '@'xe7

1 3 'tlkd2 lld8 , but I I . . . 'tlkb6 !? is respectable: 12 lt:Je l ( 12 't!Vxd5 .ie6 13 @d2 h6 14 .ie3 .ixe3 1 5 1!t'xe3 't!Vxb2 - o r 1 5 . . . 't!Vxe3 = -16 l:I fb l 't!Vf6! = Barbero-Diugy, Mendoza 1985; or 14 .if4 lii:fd8 1 5 't!fc2 l:Iac8 etc) 1 2 . . . .ie7 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . d4!? 1 3 lt:Jd3 .id6 1 4 b3 t and lt:Jd5 ) 1 3 .ixe7 'tlkxe7, Varnusz-Domoter, Hungary 1 974, and now instead of 14 lt:Jd3 .ifS! 15 lt:Jf4 allowing 1 5 . . . Wxb2 ! 1 6 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jc6 = Florian , 14 @d2 and 14 . . . .if5 1 5 lt:Jf3 or 14 . . . d4 15 lt:Jd3 seems best.

12 .i.d2


Popular, but it's not clear that this is any better than the older 1 2 Iic l .i.b6 ( 1 2 . . . .i.xf2+?? 1 3 Iixf2 fg 1 4 �xg5!) 1 3 .i.d2 ( 1 3 .i.f4 .i.e6 1 4 �e l lite8 1 5 �d3 't!t"e7 ! 1 6 .i.d2 Iiad8 + Ghitescu-Peters, Bagneux 1 978) 1 3 . . . d4 (or 1 3 . . . .i.e6 =, or 1 3 . . . .i.f5 , o r 1 3 . . . .i.g4 1 4 't!fb3 �h8 1 5 e3 't!fd7! 1 6 .i.c3 liad8 = with the idea 1 7 litfd I ? 't!ff5, Christiansen-Tarjan, U S Ch 1 978) 14 � e l .i.e6 1 5 �d3 .i.d5 ! (or 1 5 . . . lite8) with a good game Keres.

12 d4 Several moves are good here:

a) 12 ... liteS 1 3 l:tcl .i.b6 1 4 e3 .i.f5!? 1 5 .i.c3 .i.e4 1 6 't!fb3 �h8 17 lifd l 't!Ve7 18 .i.d4! t LarsenAgdestein, Gausdal Z 1985, when 1 8 . . . �xd4 19 �xd4 l1ad8 is playable. Also, 1 4 . . . .i.g4 (or 14 . . . d4!? Wedberg) may improve, e.g. 15 h3 ( 1 5 .i.c3 d4 =; 1 5 't!t"b3 �h8 =; 15 't!Va4 d4 =) 15 . . . .i.h5 16 g4!? .i.g6 I 7 .i.c3 .i.e4! . b) 1 2 . . . .i.b6 1 3 .i.c3 .i.g4!? 1 4 h 3 .i.f5 1 5 �d4 .i.xd4 1 6 .i.xd4 lie8 17 e3 't!t"d7 18 .i.c3 l1ad8 was equal in Lombardy-Weinstein, US Ch 1978. c ) 12 . . . .i.e6 13 e3 d4? (not 1 3 . . . �e5? 14 .i.c3 .i.g4 1 5 h3 ; Larsen gives 1 3 . .. 't!fb6 1 4 .i.c3 l1ad8 1 5 b4 with the idea 1 5 . . . .i.xb4 1 6 lib ! 't!t"c5 1 7 .i.xb4 �xb4 18 't!t"d4 ! , but this i s not convincing after 14 . . . lifd8! 1 5 b4 �xb4 1 6 lib !

't!t"d6) 1 4 ed �xd4 1 5 .i.e3 (" ±" Larsen) 15 . . . �xf3+ 1 6 .i.xf3 't!fb6? ( 1 6 . . . .i.xe3 1 7 't!t"xe3 U ± van der Wiel) 1 7 life ! ! ± Larsen-Yusupov, Reykjavik 1985 . d) 12 . . . 1!i'e7!? 1 3 .i.c3 l1d8 1 4 e3 .i.f5 ( 1 4 . . . .i.g4!?) 1 5 lie ! .i.e4 1 6 li e ! .i. b6 17 a 3 t Agdestein-Aiburt, Taxco IZ 1985.

13 �e1 Or 1 3 b4 .i.b6 1 4 b5 (van der

Wiel) and now 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .i.b4 lite8 is equal. After 1 3 �e l .i.b6 14 �d3, Black can play 14 . . . .i.g4 with rough equality. B23

96

B

1 1 b3 (96)

1 1 .trs I I . . . 't!ff6?! 1 2 .i.g5 't!Ve6 1 3 lic l

.i.b6 14 lic2 ! ± was UhlmannVelimirovic, Tallinn 1977. But I I . . . .i.g4 is very logical , e .g. 1 2 h3 .i.h5 13 .i.b2 'i!t'd6! ( 1 3 . . . d4 14 litcl .i.b6!? 15 g4 .i.g6 16 ll xc6! be 1 7 �xd4 t Welin-Watson, Hamar 1980) 14 e3 Iiad8 1 5 g4 .i.g6 1 6


ti'id4 =/m Watson-Alburt, Orlando ! 9 8 1 . Here 12 -'.b2 d4 1 3 li[c I -'.b6 !4 h3 -'.e6! is equal too. Finally, 1 1 . . . lie8 1 2 -'.b2 d4 is also play-able.

12 -'.b2 -'.e4 Here too 1 2 . . . lile8 1 3 llc 1 'it'd6

! 4 e3 liad8 is possible. 13 lilcl 'i!re7 14 't!Yd2

Another try is Suba's 14 lt:lh4 , c: . g . 1 4 . . . -'.xg2 1 5 �xg2 (threateni ng 16 .ixg7) 1 5 . . . d4 1 6 e3 !? ( 1 6 :i1c4) 1 6 . . . -'.a3 ! ( 1 6 . . . d e 1 7 lt:lf5 i'We4+ 1 8 'it'f3 ! ± ) 17 -'.xa3 'it'xa3 1 8 ed liad8, Suba-Peters, Hastings 19 78-79, and now 19 lic4!? is intt;rcsting. But Stean-Schtissler, Malta 01 1 980, saw 14 . . . -'.b6! 15 e3 ( 1 5 'i/Ud2!?) 1 5 . . . 't!Ye6! 1 6 't!Vh5 f6 1 7 .ixe4 fe =.

14 -'.b6 a ) 1 4 . . . d4 1 5 'it'g5 ! 'it'xg5 1 6 lt:lxg5 �xg2 17 �xg2 ± H tibner- Ivkov, West Germany 1 975. b) 14 ... f6 !? 1 5 e3 life8 resembles the main line: 1 6 lilfd l lilad8 1 7 't�Ye2 -'.b6 1 8 a3 'i!r f7 (?) ( 1 8 . . . lt:la5 ) 1 9 lt:ld4 J Uhlmann-Farago, Halle 1 978.

1 5 e3 A place to look for improvement,

e .g. 15 't!Yf4!?. Also, 1 5 't!Yg5 !? f6 16 'it'g4, Ostermeyer-Grtinfeld , Dortmund 1984, deserves attention; 15 . . . \i'xg5!? 16 lt:lxg5 -'.xg2 1 7 '4txg2 life8 ( 1 8 e 3 d4).

15 life8

97

w

1 6 llfdl

1 7 -'.al l ?

lilad8 (97)

This tries to improve upon 1 7 lt:ld4 -'.xd4 1 8 .ixd4 .ixg2 1 9 �xg2 'it'e4+ 20 �g1 h5 + Palatnik , or 17 'it'e2 't!Yb4 (to prevent lt:ld4 and meet 18 .ic3 with 18 .. . 'it'a3 19 'it'b2 'it'xb2 and 20 . . . lLl b4; 17 .. . h6 1 8 lt:ld4 lt:le5 is also possible).

On 17 .ial !? f6 1 8 'it'e2, 18 . . . 'it'f7?! 1 9 lt:ld4 gave White a small edge in Ribli-Pinter, Baile Herculane Z 1982. 1 8 . . . a6!? 19 lt:ld4, SmejkalSchtissler, Lucerne 01 1982, could have led to 19 . . . .ixg2 20 <oi'xg2 'i¥e4+ = (2 1 'Wf3 lt:le5 !) . Easier still is 18 . . . �h8 , Quinteros-Alburt, New York 1 983 , which went 1 9 'it'fl ? 't!Ya3 ! 20 lid2 .ixf3 2 1 -'.xf3 lilxe3 ! 22 .ixd5 lle7 =F. 824

1 1 a3 .if5 I I . . . .ie7 1 2 b4 ( ! ) .if6 1 3 lila2

with the idea lild2 is promising for White, and I I . . . a5 led to a White advantage in Petrosian-Peters, Lone Pine 1976: 12 lt:l e l ( 1 2 'Wc2 .ib6


1 3 lild I h6 1 4 i.f4 i.e6 = ChaudryRadulov, Malta 01 1 980) 12 . . . d4 !? ( 1 2 . . . i.e6 1 3 lt:Jd3 i.d6 1 4 i.f4 i.e7 1 5 i.d2!? a nd lt:Jf4) 1 3 li:Jd3 i.b6 ( 1 3 . . . i.d6 !? Peters; 1 3 . . . i.e7 1 4 i.d2 a4 1 5 b3 - 15 ltJf4!? - 1 5 . . . ab 1 6 1t'xb3, lightly t, Portisch-Pr i tchett, Buenos Aires 01 1978) 1 4 i.d2 lile8 1 5 lilc l i.g4 1 6 Ii: e l lieS 1 7 h3 i.f5 1 8 1i'b3 i.e4 1 9 i.xe4 Ii: xe4 20 1t'b5 ! t.

12 b4 i.b6 1 3 lla2 !?

13 i.b2 lle8 14 1t'd2 ( 1 4 e3!? i.e4 15 �b3 1t'd7 1 6 li[adl llad8 and . . . i.f5 = Spassov-Tuk makov, Plovdiv 1983; 15 lt:Jd4!? with the idea 15 . . . i. xg2 1 6 �xg2 lt:Je5 1 7 llc l lt:Jc4 1 8 .tal intending lt:Jf5 , 1i'g4) 1 4 . . . i.e4 1 5 llfd l 1t'e7 = Borsch-Ch andler, Keszthely 198 1 .

1 3 Ii:a2 ! ? i.e4 1 4 li[d2 1t'e 7 1 5 i.b2 l He8 1 6 1t'a l !? ( 1 6 lt:J h4!? li[ad8) 16 . . . f6 ! 17 llfd l 1t'e6 = Portisch-Spassky, Bugojno 1978. 825

98

w

1 1 �c2 i.b6 (98)

I I . . . i.e7?! 1 2 i.eJ i.f6 ( 1 2 . . . i.e6 1 3 lt:Jd4 ±) 1 3 llfd l liie8?, Szabo-Flesch , Belgrade 1964, and now 14 lt:Jg5 ! is ± .

Since most ofWhite's l i th moves are rather flat, attention has turned to I I �c2. White can easily risk disadvantage thereby (see the next note), but the main line which follows has some good points.

12 lt:JgS 12 lldl neglects the kingside:

12 . . . h6 (or 12 . . . 1t'f6! 13 i.g5 •e6 14 i.f4 - 14 'iJ/d3 h6 15 i.d2 was recommended, but 15 . . . d4 looks fine - 1 4 . . . h6 1 5 'iJ/d3 li[d8 1 6 a4 1We7 1 7 i.d2 i.g4 + PortischH iibner, match 1 980 ) 1 3 b3 'iJ/f6 ( 1 3 . . . i.g4!? 1 4 i.b2 1le8 1 5 'i!t'd2 llc8 = Stein-Parma, USSR v Yugoslavia 197 1 ) 14 i.b2 d4, and now 15 'i!t'd2 lld8 1 6 b4 a6 1 7 a4 i.e6 1 8 b5 lt:Ja5! = Cramling-Kochiev, Reggio Emilia 1 980, or 15 llac I i.f5 1 6 'i!t'd2 llad8 17 b4, AdorjanCramli ng, Gladsaxe 1 983, when 17 . . . a6! 18 a4 a5 ! is =.

12 g6 1 3 'ifd1

To 1 3 'i!t'd2 there are three good replies. 1 3 . . . i.d4 !? 1 4 lldl ( 14 lt:Jh3 i.g7 =) 14 . . . 1i'b6 1 5 lt:Jf3 !? ( 1 5 e3 i.f6) 1 5 . . . i.xf2+ 16 �fl i.c5 1 7 �h6 i.e7 ro . O r 13 . . . lt:Jd4 14 lt:J f3 ! lt:Jc6 ! 1 5 b4 ( 1 5 1!t'h6 f6) 1 5 . . . a6 1 6 i.b2 1We7 1 7 a3 i.f5 , about equal, Bukic-Mikhalchishin , Banja Luka 198 1 .


Best seems 1 3 . . . d4 ( ! ) 14 1i'f4 ( 1 4 li:lf3? 1Ve7 1 5 1i'h6 f6 1 6 e3 d3, Agzamov-Tal, USSR Team Ch 1 9 8 1 ) 1 4 . . . We7 1 5 i.d5 (with the idea li:lxh7) 1 5 . . . i.f5 16 e4 ( 1 6 g4 ..tc7 ! ) 1 6 . . . de 1 7 i.xe3 h6 1 8 li:lf3 ( 1 8 li:lxf7 lhf7 1 9 i.xf7+ <t>xf7 20 "§'xh6 1i'f6 + Bagirov) 1 8 . . . i.xe3 1 9 1Vxe3 1Vxe3 20 fe li:lb4 ! + Pigusov-Kengis, USSR 1982.

1 3 li:ld4 !? An important decision:

a ) 13 . . . d4 14 li:le4 t Ad or jan. White has play on the dark squares, e.g. 14 . . . .tf5 1 5 i.g5 f6 16 i.h6 i. xe4 17 i.xe4 and 1i'b3. b) 1 3 . . . i.d4!? 1 4 1i'b3 ! is the complex line given in '821 ' above (under the diagram), which seems to favour White. c) 13 ... i.e6 (!) is a new idea. The game Adorjan-Dlugy, New York 1985, ended quickly after 14 li:lh3 ..txh 3 I 5 i.xh 3 lile8 16 i.g2 We 7 1;2 - '/2. Critical seems 14 li:l xe6 fe 1 5 i.h6, e .g . 1 5 . . . lilf7 ( 1 5 . . . llxf2 1 6 lil xf2 i.xf2+ 1 7 <t>xf2 1i'f6+ 1 8 �g l g5 1 9 \!fb3 ! ) 1 6 e4 ( 1 6 1i'd2 "t!rf6) 16 . . . d4 ( 1 6 . . . de!?) and 17 1i'b3 with the idea 1 7 . . . 1i'f6 t 8 f4 ,

or 1 7 f4!?. 14 i.e3 li:le6 15 li:lxe6 i.xe6 1 6 .id4 llc8 1 7 e3 1i'd6

1 7 . . . i. xd4!? 1 8 1i'xd4 lilc2 19 Wxa7 lil xb2 20 llfbl !.

1 8 h4!? Or 18 1i'd2 i.xd4 19 Wxd4 lilc2,

Adorjan-Gri.infeld, Dortmund 1984. Now 20 lilfd l Wb6 21 Wxb6 ab 22 b3 "w6uld have assured a small but lasting edge" (Ribli). After 18 h4!?, Adorjan-Plaskett, Esbjerg 1985, went 18 . . . lilc4? ( 1 8 . . . h5 ! Plaskett) 19 b3! .ixd4 ( 19 . . . lilc6 20 h5 ± Plaskett) 20 be i.xa I 2 1 cd! i.g7!? 2 2 de Wxe6 23 1i'a4! (" ±" Plaskett) 23 . . . We8 (23 . . . Wa6 24 Wxa6 ba 25 lilc l ) 24 Wxa7 1i'a8 25 1Vxa8 lil xa8 26 i.d5 ±.

Conclusion. Although this I I Wc2 i.b6 12 li:lg5 idea is hardly intimidating, it currently represents White's best try in the li:lxd5 lines. The note on 13 . . . .ie6 seems particularly important. Overall, I feel the 9 e4 variations grant White more positive chances.

8 3 ltJf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

1 c4 c5 2 li'lc3 li'lf6 3 li'lf3 d5 4 cd li'lxd5 (99)

99

w

This frequently arises after I c4 c5 2 li'lf3 li'lf6 3 li'lc3 d5 4 cd li'lxd5. Black secures h is share of central turf at the cost of a tempo and slight loosening. A 5 e4 B 5 d4 C 5 e3 D 5 g3

'D 5 g3' examines the odd lines where Black neither retreats his knight to c7 (Chapter 6) nor plays . . . li'lc6 (Chapters 3 and 7). 5 li'lxd5 t!rxd5 6 g3 is Chapter 3, line A, note to 6 .ig2. 5 t!ra4+ lLlc6 (5 . . .

.id7!? 6 "it'b3 - 6 tWc4? lLlb4 7 lLld5?? b5 - 6 . . . li'lb4 7 a3 .ie6 8 'ii'a4+ .id7 9 t!rd I t; but 6 . . . li'lb6 and 7 li'le5 e6 8 g3 li'lc6 or 7 e3 li'lc6 8 d4 cd 9 cd .ie6 I 0 t!rd I .id5 may improve) 6 li'le5 'ii'c7 (or 6 . . . .id7 ( ! ) with the idea 7 li'lxf7 li'lxc3 8 t!rc4 li'la5 9 1!t'f4 li'ld5 1 0 'it'f3 .ig4 ! -Peters; or here 8 'it'b3 tlrb6! 9 li'lxh8 'it'xb3 1 0 ab li'ld4) 7 li'lxd5 t!rxe5 8 li'lb6 lib8 9 li'lxc8 li xc8 1 0 e3 , Uhlmann-Korchnoi, Skopje OJ 1972, and now Korchnoi gives 10 . . . g6! = .

A 5 e4 (100)

Once considered dubious, this move of Nimzowitsch 's has taken over as the main line.

8 liJj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 99

A I 5 . . . liJxe 3 A 2 5 . . . liJ b4

5 . . . liJe7 6 d 4 e d 7 1t'xd4 (or 7 liJxd4!? e5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I+ 9 ct>xd I liJxb5 1 0 liJxb5 liJa6 I I .ie3 .ie6 ! I 2 liJxa 7 liJe5 1 3 i.b 5+ c;!;>d8 1 4 c;!;>e2 Yeo Timman-Miles, Nik�ic 1983) 7 . . . 1t'xd4 8 liJxd4 e5 (per-haps 8 . . . f6 !?; then 9 f4 t or 9 liJdb5 liJxb5 1 0 ltlxb5 liJa6 I I f4 t) 9 liJdb5 liJxb5 I 0 liJxb5 .ib4+ I I .id2 .ixd2+ 12 c;!;>xd2 liJa6, Foerder-Maehate, 193 1 , and now 13 'i!i>e3 ! ± Shatskes, or 13 lite I c;!;>e7 t Miles. Al

5 A l l 6 de A l 2 6 be All

liJxc3

6 de!? 1t'xd 1+ Tal's 6 . . . 'tlt'e7 is untried. He

gives 7 g3 !. 7 ct>xdl liJc6

a) The 7 .. . .ig4!? 8 .ie3 e6 of van Wijgerden-van Riemsdyck , Amsterdam 1979, might be met by 9 .ib5+ liJd7 10 a4 t and c;!;>c2. b) 7 . .. b6 8 a4 .ib7 9 ltld2 co; 8 .if4( ! ) liJ c6 (8 . . . .ib7 9 i.xb8 a nd .ib5+) 9 .ib5 .ib7 1 0 a4 0-0-0+ I I c;!;>d2 t ( I I . . . f6 1 2 e5) . c) 7 . . . f6 8 .ie3 e5 9 i.c4 liJd7 1 0 liJd2 .id6 1 1 a4 c;!;>e7 1 2 a5 ! :tl ± Seirawan-Arkell, London 1 98 1 .

8 .ie3 Or 8 i.f4 !? g6 (8 . . . e6 9 ct>c2 .ie7

10 litd I Miles; 8 . . . f6 !?) 9 ct>c2 .ig7

10 lld l .id7 I I .ic4! f6 1 2 .ixf7+! ± Miles-Vaganian, London 1984.

8 e6 8 . . . b6 !? 9 .ib5 (or 9 liJd2 .ib7

10 f3 t) 9 . . . .ib7 10 b4! e6 1 1 be ( I I a3 !? Cvetkovic) I I . . . .ixc5 1 2 .txc5 be 1 3 'i!i>e2 t CvetkovicBiriescu, Satu Mare 1980.

9 ct>c2 Just as good seems 9 a4, e.g. 9 . . .

b 6 1 0 liJd2 .ib7 ( 1 0 . . . .id6 !?), but now 1 1 .ie2 or 1 1 ct>c2 (Tal) is preferable to 1 1 liJc4 0-0-0+! 12 c;!;>c l ( 1 2 ct>e2 liJa5) 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 f3 f5 ! with counterplay, Tal-Tim man, Montreal 1979.

9 .id7 (101) a) 9 . . . b6? 10 .ib5 .id7 ( 10 . . . .ib7 I I liJe5 llc8 1 2 llfd l or 1 2 a4) I I a4 a6 1 2 .ie2 .id6 1 3 liJd2 liJ a5 14 llfbl ! 0-0 1 5 b4 ± Benko-Seirawan, Lone Pine 1978. b) 9 . . . .ie7 10 .ie2 0-0 I I llfd I ;t Cvetkovic; compare what follows. 10 litd I ! ? .id7 I I liJd2 liJa5 1 2 .ie2 .ie7 ! . 1 0 a4 !?.

Now 10 ..ie2!? .ie7 I I lii:fd l 0-0-0 ( I I .. . liteS !?) 1 2 litd2 f6 1 3

100 8 &iJf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

liad I &iJa5 ( I 3 . . . e5 I 4 .ic4 rt;c7 1 5 .id5 t; 13 . . . .ie8 !?) 14 e5, and in place of 14 . . . .ia4+? 15 b3 llxd2+ I 6 &iJ xd2 i.c6 I 7 ef gf I 8 .ig4! ± Cvetkovic-Palatnik, USSR v Yugoslavia 1976, 14 . . . .ic6 1 5 lhd8+ llxd8 1 6 llxd8+ rt;xd8 I 7 ef gf was = in Dvoretsky-Barway, France 1983. 6 de is a bit awkward for Black, but should be drawn. A l 2

6 be g 6 (1 02) The most important move . 6 . . .

e 6 7 .ie2 ( 7 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) 7 . . . .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 t VidmarRabar, Ljubljana I 945, and 6 . . . &iJc6 7 .ic4 't!t'c7 8 0-0 e 5 9 d 3 .ie7 10 &iJ g5! t Rejfir-Porath , Moscow Ch I 956, are unpleasant for Black.

102

w

Now 7 d4 .ig7 is a Grii nfeld Defence, but W hite also has: a) 7 .ia.3 't!t'a5 !? (7 . . . 't!t'c7 8 't!t'b3 !? .ig7 9 't!t'd5 !? lt:ld7 10 .ib5 0-0 I I .ixd7 .ixd7 1 2 't!t'xc5 .ic6 oo O'Kelly-J .Schmidt , cor res I 957; but here 9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I d4 is more dynamic) 8 't!t'b3 .ig7 9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 .ic4 e6?! ( 10 . . .

0-0) I I 0-0 0- 0 1 2 d4 b5 1 3 .ie2 c4 14 't!t'b2 lle8 1 5 .id6 .ic6 I 6 a4! ba I 7 lt::Jd2 ± Dubinin-Kupert, corres 1957. b) 7 .ib5+ .id7 (7 . . . lt::Jd7 8 a4!? or just 8 0-0 and d4) 8 .ic4 b5 !? (8 . . . lt::Jc6 9 d4 .ig7 1 0 0-0 0- 0 I I h 3 't!t'c7 oo ) 9 .id5 lt::Jc6 1 0 a 4 b4 I I 't!t'b3 e6 12 .ixc6 ::t: KorchnoiZaltsman, Lone Pine 1979. c) 7 't!t'a4+!? might be tried, e.g. 7 . . . lt::Jc6 8 .ia3 or 7 . . . &iJd7 8 e5 ! ; best is 7 . . . .id7 8 't!t'b3 't!t'c7 9 lib! (or 9 d4!?) 9 . . . b6 10 .ic4 e6 I I d4 lt::Jc6 1 2 .ib5 oo. A2

5 &iJb4 Still the main line, but it's under

fire from: A21 6 .ic4 A22 6 .ib5+

6 d4 !? cd 7 .ib5+ .id7 (7 . . . &iJ5c6 or 7 . . . lt::J8c6 transposes) 8 lt::Jxd4 and 8 . . . e5 9 lt::Jf5 or 8 . . . .ixb5 9 &iJd xb5 is untried, but 6 i.b5+ is more forcing. A21

8 lLlf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 10/

White threatens 0-0 or d4 . .\ 2 1 1 6 0 0 0 i.e6 A 2 1 2 6 . . . lLld3+ a ) 6 ... e6? can be answered by 7 d4(!) cd 8 lLlb5 a6 (8 . . . d3 9 i.c4! lLlc2+ I 0 <M1 lLla6 1 1 lilc 1 ± Rabinovich) 9 lLl bxd4 lLlbc6 I 0 0-0 lLlxd4 I I lLlxd4 i.d6 1 2" a3 lLlc6 1 3 lLlxc6 be 1 4 \i'g4 ±. Or 7 0-0 lLl8 c6 8 d3 lLla5 (8 . . . lLld4 9 lLlxd4 cd 10 lLle2 a6 I I lLlg3 i.d6 12 \i'g4! ± is given by Nimzowitsch) 9 i.b5+ lLlbc6 I 0 d4 cd I I lLlxd4 i.d7 1 2 i.f4 t Gheorghiu-Peters, Lone Pine 1978. b) 6 . . . lLl4c6!? 7 d3 !? (7 0-0 g6! 8 d3 i.g7 9 i.e3 b6) 7 . . . g6 8 lLlg5 !? (8 i.e3 lLld4 9 i.xd4 cd 10 lLle2 i.g7 I I lLlg5 !?) 8 . . . e6 9 f4; an untried l ine. A2l l

6 i.e6 7 i.xe6

7 i.b5+ lLlbc6 8 a3 lLld3+ 9 'it;e2 lLlf4+ 10 �fl o4 ( 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 i.xc6+ be 12 d4 cd 13 \i'xd4, lightly t) I I "i!t'a4 \i'd3+! 1 2 �gl lilc8 (threatens . . . lLlh3+) 1 3 lLle5 lLle2+ 1 4 lLlxe2 �xe2 15 h3 it'xe4! +.

7 lLld3+ 7 . . . fe 8 0-0 lLlbc6 9 lLlg5 \i'd7

10 -;!t'g4 lLld4 I I f4 intending e5 ± Golombek-Dykstra, Leeuwarden 1947.

8 �n fe 9 lLlg5! (104)

9 lLle I ? lLlc6 10 lLlxd3 \i'xd3+ I I \i'e2 \i'd7 + with . . . 0-0-0 and . . . g6 to fol low. 9 g3?! lLlc6 10 �g2 g6 I I

lLle l i.h6 ! 1 2 lLlxd3 \i'xd3 + W. Koch-Richter. The best option is 9 \i'b3 !? \i'd7 10 lLlg5 lLlc6! I I lLlxe6 lLld4 1 2 lLlxd4 \i'xd4 ( 1 2 . . . lLlxd4 1 3 lLld5 =) 1 3 \i'b5+ �17 14 lLld l =/oo Cafferty .

Still a very interesting posit ion, somewhat lost in the shuffle after the emergence of 6 . . . lLld3+.

9 �b6 !? Tal 's move. B lack has many

interesting tries; some have been worked out, others really haven't: a) 9 . . . �d7 1 0 �f3! ( 1 0 �g4 lLlc6! - or 10 . . . e5 I I lLle6 lLlf4! = - I I \i'xe6 \i'xe6 12 lLlxe6 �d7 13 lLlxf8+ lhffi 1 4 f3 g5 ! + Radchenko) 1 0 . . . lLle5 I I it'h3 it'd3+ ( 1 1 . . . lLld3? 12 lLlxe6; I I . . . lLlbc6? 12 lLlxe6 lic8 - or 12 . . . lLld4 13 \i'h5+!, or 12 . . . b6 13 lLld5! - 1 3 f4! Ciocaltea, or here 13 d3!? lLlxd3 14 .i.h6! Stean) 12 \i'xd3 lLlxd3 1 3 �e2 (or 1 3 gH; 13 lLlxe6 �d7 14 lLlg5 e5 =) 1 3 . . . lLlf4+ ( 1 3 . . . lLlxc l+? 14 llaxc l �d7 15 d4 ! cd 1 6 1Ud 1 lLlc6 1 7 lLlb5 e5 18 lLlt7+ with the idea 1 8 . . . llg8 19 lLlxe5+! , Stefanov-Neamtu,

/02 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

Romanian Ch 1 977) 14 '.t>f3 ( 14 '.t>e3 e5! 1 5 li:Jd5 !?; 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 li:Jc7+ '.t>d7 1 7 li:Jf7 ! ) 1 4 . . . e5 ( 14 . . . h6!? 15 '.t>xf4 hg+ 16 �g3 !Suba-AlburtBucharest 1 978) 15 d4 ! ( 1 5 g3 h6 ! = ; 1 5 li:J d5 li:Jc6 ! ! 1 6 li:Jc7+ �d7 1 7 li:Jxa8 li:Jd4+ 1 8 '.t>g4 - 18 '.t>g3 li:Jd3! Benko - 1 8 . . . h5+ 1 9 '.t>h4 e6 20 d3 i.e7 2 1 llfl llh6! 22 i.xf4 ef 23 b4 llg6 ++ Vadasz-Lukacs, Hungarian Ch 1 977) 1 5 . . . cd ( 1 5 . . . li:Jc6 1 6 d e li:Jg6 1 7 li:J e6 Moiseyev) 1 6 li:Jb5 li:J a6 1 7 i.xf4 ef 1 8 li:Je6 (Moiseyev); ±. b) 9 . .• li:Jc6!? is logical, but 10 li:Jxe6 'it'd? I I li:Jxc5 ! ( I I li:Jd5 Itc8) I I . . . li:Jxc5 1 2 'it'h5+ g6 1 3 'it'xc5 'i!rd3+ 14 '.t>g l , Tim man-Stean, Amsterdam 1978, seems to have put this line to rest: 14 . . . i.g7 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 h4! and llh3 Stean) 1 5 't!t'b5 Itd8? ( 1 5 . . . 'it'd?!? 1 6 d3, or 1 6 'it'd5, o r 1 6 h4 Miles - a little unclear) 1 6 't!t'xd3 Itxd3 1 7 '.t>fl 0-0 1 8 '.t>e2 l:td7 19 f3 li:Jd4+ 20 '.t>d I g5 2 1 d3 g4 22 f4 ± . This line is not completely clear. c) 9 . . . li:Ja6 !? was tried in SzekelyPalatnik, Frunze 1979: 10 'i!ra4+!? 'i!rd7 I I 'it'xd7+ '.t>xd7 12 '.t>e2 li:Jf4+ ( 1 2 . . . c4!? 1 3 b3 li:J ac5 14 be h6!?) 13 '.t>f3 li:Jg6 1;1-1;1; 14 h4 seems a good follow-up. Instead of 10 'it'a4+, 1 0 1i'f3 li:Je5 I I 'it'h3 't!t'd3+ 1 2 'it'xd3 li:Jxd3 gives White the same ending with the black king on e8, e .g. 13 '.t>e2 c4 14 b3 li:Jc5 1 5 be lld8 etc. 10 li:Jxe6 'it'd 7 I I

li:Jg5 is a third option ( I I . . . c4 1 2 'it'a4!?), but most critical seems 10 'it'b3: 10 . . . li:Jxc l ( I 0 . . . 't!t'd4 I I li:Jd I ;t; 10 . . . li:Jc7!? I I 'it'xb7 'it'd4 1 2 li:Jd l li:Jxc l 1 3 lhc l 't!t'xd2 14 't!t'c6+; 10 . . . 't!t'd7 I I li:Jxe6) I I l:txcl 'it'xd2 1 2 'it'b5+ 'it'd 7 1 3 li:Jxe6 ;t.

1 0 'it'f3 Also favourable is 10 'it'a4+

li:Jd7 I I 't!t'c4 li:J7e5 ( I I . . . h6 1 2 li:Jxe6 li:J 7e5 1 3 'it'b5+ �f7 1 4 li:Jxc5 ! li:Jxc5 1 5 d4 ± Chekhov) 1 2 'it'xe6 't!t'xe6 1 3 li:J xe6 l:tc8 ( 1 3 . . . '.t>d7 1 4 li:Jxc5+ ! ) 1 4 f4 'ot>d7 1 5 li:Jxc5+ Itxc5 1 6 fe Itxe5 1 7 '.t>e2 li:Jf4+ 1 8 '.t>f2 li:Jd3+ 19 '.t>e3 li:Jb4 20 d4 !I ± Chekhov-Kharitonov, USSR 1980. On the other hand, 10 1i'e2?! c4 I I b3 h6! 1 2 li:Jf3 li:Jc6 13 be 0-0-0 + was too passive in Polugayevsky-Tal , Riga IZ 1979.

105

B

10 c4 1 1 b3 (105)

Black has not solved this position: a) 11 ... li:Je5 12 "t!¥h3 li:Jd3 1 3 "t!¥f3 li:Je5 14 'it'e3 ( ! ) cb 1 5 ab 't!t'xb3 16 d4 li:Jf7 1 7 't!t'd3 'it'b6 18 '.t>e2 ± Levin-Zilberstein, USSR 1 983 .

8 lbjJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation 103

b) 1 1 . . . 1!t'a6? 1 2 a4 �d7 1 3 lbb5 lbc6 14 be lbce5 1 5 'ft'g3 1!t'c6 1 6 .i.b2! lbxb2 1 7 1!t'xe5 1!t'xc4+ 18 d3 ! lb xd3 1 9 lid l lid8 20 lbxe6 1 -0 Gheorghiu-Chow, New York 1984. c) l l . . . h6 1 2 bc lbxcl !? ( l 2 . . . lZJe5 1 3 1!t'h3 lbbc6 1 4 lbxe6 is given as unclear by Tukmakov; but Black needs an idea. Instead, 13 . . . hg 14 1!t'xh8 lbd3 (Tal) allows 15 'i!lh5+ �d7 1 6 1!t'e2 etc) 1 3 lZJ17 (or 1 3 1!t'h5+ !? �d7 1 4 lZJ17 lbd3 1 5 1!t'f3, and now best was 1 5 . . . 1!t'xf2 :t, Loginov-M alaniuk, USSR 1 984) 1 3 . . . lig8 14 lbe5 ! 1!t'b2 1 5 1!t'f7+ �d8 1 6 lixc l ! 1!t'xc l + 1 7 �e2 'ft'xh l 18 'ft'xe6 ±± TukmakovPense, USSR 1 980. d) " l l . . . lba6!? 1 2 bc lbac5 =/ro" (Tal) has yet to be tried . But both 1 2 ..ta3 (e .g. 12 . . . lidS 13 ..txc5 lbxc5 14 't!¥17+ �d7 1 5 d4) and 1 2 li b l (e.g . 1 2 . . . 1lt'a5 1 3 lib5 1!t'a6 1 4 lixc5 lb xc 5 1 5 lbb5 lic8 1 6 lbt7 lig8 1 7 lbe5) seem good for White. A21 2

106

w

6 lbd3+ (106)

7 �e2 lbf4+ 7 . . . lbxc l +? 8 libe l leaves Black

way behind in development: a) 8 . . . e6 9 d4 cd 10 i.b5+! lbc6 I I 1!t'xd4 1!t'xd4 1 2 lbxd4 ..td7 1 3 lifd l lic8 14 lbxc6 be 1 5 ..ta4 ± Aronin-Mi kenas, USSR 1 947. b) 8 . . . a6 9 d4 cd 10 1!t'xd4 (or 1 0 lbxd4) 10 . . . 'ft'xd4 I I lbxd4 e6, Botvinnik-Kasparian, USSR Ch 1938, when 12 e5 ! , 12 f4 and 1 2 lifd l are all ± according t o Euwe. c) 8 . . . lbc6 9 i.b5 ! (9 'ft'b3 !? e6 10 i.b5 i. d7 I I ..txc6 ..txc6 12 l:Ud I :t) 9 . . . i.d7 10 ..txc6 ..txc6 I I d4 ( ± Nimzowitsch, with the idea I I . . . cd 12 1!t'xd4! ) I I . . . e6 1 2 :�lei ..te7 13 d5 ed 1 4 ed i.d7 1 5 d6 i.f6 1 6 �fl + �f8 1 7 lbe4 b6 1 8 b4 ! ± Welin-Bergstro m, Sweden 1 985 .

8 �fl lbe6 To prevent d4. 8 . . . ..te6?! ("8 . . .

lbc6? 9 d4! cd 10 ..txf4 de I I 1!t'b3 ±" Schwarz; I I . . . e6 1 2 1!t'xc3 :t. Here 10 lbxd4 is also :t) 9 i.b5+ i.d7 I 0 d4 cd I I lbxd4 lbg6 1 2 ..te3 e 6 1 3 1!t'b3 i.e7 1 4 li d ! 1!t'c8 15 li[c l 1!t'd8 1 6 g3 lZJa6 1 7 lZJf3 0-0 18 �g2 ;!; Benko-Peters, Lone Pine 1978.

9 b4!? Also unresolved is 9 lbe5!? (107):

a) 9 .. . lbd7? 1 0 lbxf7! �xl7 I I ..txe6+ �xe6 1 2 1!t'b3+ �6 13 lbd5+ �17 1 4 lbc7 �g6 1 5 ltJe6! 1!t'e8 1 6 lbf4+ �g5 17 h4+ �h6 18 'ft'g3 1lt'g6 19 'ft'g5+ 'ft'xg5 20 hg+ �xg5 2 1 lih5+! ±± J .Pinter-

104 8 &i:JjJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation

/07

B

Arkhipov, Balatonbereny 1 983. b) 9 . . . 'i¥d6!? 1 0 f4 ( 10 1!Va4+ &i:Jd7 -10 . . . &i:Jc6!? - I I f4 a6 - I I . . . &i:Jd8!? Euwe - 12 d3 llb8 1 3 &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 4 f5 &i:Je5 15 .if4 b5 =/m Sifdeif-Zade; 10 i.b5+!? &i:Jd7 I I &i:Jc4 1!Vd3+, or here 10 . . . &i:Jc6 Simagin) 10 . . . &i:Jc6 ( 10 . . . &i:Jd7 Ftacnik) I I 'ti'a4 &i:Jd8? ( I I . . . .id7) 1 2 d4 cd 13 &i:Jb5 'ti'b8 14 &i:Jxd4 f6? ( 14 . . . 1!Vc7 ±) 1 5 &i:Jdxc6 be 16 ..tf7+ 1 -0 Suba-Sax, Hastings 1 983-84. c) 9 . . . 'ti'd4 I 0 'ti'a4+ ..td7 I I &i:Jxd7 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'ti'xd7+ �xd7 14 d3 e5 1 5 ..te3 e6 1 6 &i:Je2, Averbakh-Bondarevsky - called "!" by Euwe and Schwarz, but 1 6 . . . &i:Jc6 seems equal .

The best chance m a y be 1 0 f4 !? &i:Jxf4 (I 0 . . . f6? I I &i:Jb 5 ! 'ti'xe4 1 2 d3 'ti'f5 1 3 g4) I I 't!t'a4+!? ( I I ..txf7+ !? <!td8 1 2 t!t'f3 ! 'ti'xe5 1 3 d4 cd - 13 . . . 'ti'/6 14 'ti'xf4 - 14 ..txf4 't!rf6 is unclear; 1 5 .ic4!? de 1 6 lld I + �e8 1 7 e5 !?) I I . . . ..td7 1 2 ..txf7+ �d8 1 3 'ti'xd4 c d 14 &i:Jd5 with complex play.

d) 9 . . . &i:Jc6 10 &i:Jxc6 be I I d3 g6 ( I I . . . &i:Jd4 !?) 1 2 &i:Ja4 'it"d6 1 3 ..te3 ..tg7 14 lic l ( 14 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 5 ..txc5 t ) 14 . . . 0-0 ( 1 4 . . . .id4!?) 1 5 'ird2 �h8 1 6 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 7 &i:Jxc5 ± Suba-Bukic, Tuzla 198 1 . e ) 9 . . . g6 (!) 1 0 't!Va4+ ( 1 0 'ti'f3 f6; 10 f4 ..tg7!? I I &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 2 f5 lilf8) and now: e l ) 1 0 . . . &i:Jd7 I I d4!? cd 12 &i:Jb5 .ig7 (?) 1 3 &i:Jxf7! �xf7 14 .ixe6+ �xe6 15 'ti'b3+ with a big attack, Miles-Hort, London 1 983 . But Miles gives 1 2 . . . a6 ; then 13 &i:Jxd4 b5 14 ..txb5 ab or 1 3 &i:Jxf7 ab 14 &i:Jxd8 li xa4! 1 5 .ixb5 �xd8 16 .ixa4 &i:Jc5 etc i s unconvincing. e2) 10 . . . ..td7 I I &i:Jxd7 ( I I .ixe6 fe 1 2 'ti'b3?! ..tg7 ! intending 1 3 'ti'xb7 .ixe5 14 'ti'xa8 'ti'b6 etc) I I . . . 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'it"xd7+ �xd7 1 4 d3 &i:Jc6 (or 14 . . . ..tg7 1 5 .ie3 b6 =) 1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6 h4 i.g7 17 h5 liaf8 + Larsen-Timman, Bugojno 1984.

9 cb Very important is 9 . . . g6 !? 10 be

.ig7, when Seirawan-Miles, London 1982, went I I .ixe6 .ixe6 1 2 d4 &i:Jc6 1 3 .ie3 .ig4 1 4 &i:Je2 f5 1 5 h3 t. But in Ftacnik- Pinter, Prague 1985, Black found 13 . . . 'ira5! 14 'ird2?! 0-0-0 1 5 lii: fc l f5 ! 1 6 efgf =F . Stohl gives 14 llc l .ic4+! 1 5 �gl ( 1 5 &i:Je2 ! ?) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 h3 f5 ! 17 ef gf m; Black looks well off .

I f Black's play holds up, White might have to deviate at an early

8 lLlf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 105

stage . Risky but enterprising would be 1 3 . . . \!ka5 14 d5 !? .ixc3 ( I4 . . . 'i¥xc3 I 5 llc l \!kb4 I6 de f e 1 7 lLlg5) I 5 llc l with the idea I 5 . . . 0-0-0 I 6 \!kc2.

10 lLle2! ( /08) This has completely replaced

Veresov's original idea of 10 lLld5 , which has failed t o produce much after 10 . . . g6 ( 1 0 . . . lLlc6!? I I .ib2 lLlc7 oo) I I .ib2 .ig7 I 2 .ixg7 lLlxg7 I 3 lLlxb4 ( I 3 'W"c l !? lLlc6 I 4 d4 .ie6! I 5 h4 lilc8 I 6 h5!? lLlxh5 I7 'i¥h6 lLlxd4 + Seira wan-Peters, US Ch I 98 I ; I 4 d3 .ie6 I 5 h4 f6 I 6 \!kh6 0-0 I 7 llh3 b5 ! + FedorowiczKuligowski, World U-26 Teams Ch I 98 I ) I 3 . . . 0-0 I4 h3 ( I 4 d4 .ig4 I 5 �e2?! 'W"d6! I 6 'W"d2 lLle6 ! =t= or I 5 \!kd2 .ixf3 I 6 gf lLlc6 +) I 4 . . . e 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . \!kd6 I 5 lilb i .ie6 is also playable) I 5 g3 .ie6 (or I 5 . . . lLlc6 , since I 6 lLlxc6 de takes away d5, but 16 lLld5 lLle6 is at least =) I6 llc l lLld7 I7 lLld5 lLlf6 ( 1 7 . . . lLlb6 = Sax) 1 8 lLlxf6+ \!kxf6 I 9 �g2, Seirawan-Sax, Linares I 983, and now 19 . . . llac8 ! is +.

lOS

B

One advantage of 10 lLle2 is that 10 ... g6? I I .ib2 .ig7 I2 .ixe6 .ixb2 13 .ixf7+ �xf7 14 1!t"b3+, or here 13 . . . �f8 14 llb i favours White. Otherwise, the idea is to use White's large centre and space.

1 0 lLlc7 a) 10 . . . lLlcS 1 1 'W"c2 ( I I lLlg5 e6 I2 d4 Miles; 1 2 . . . h6 ! ) I I . . . e6 1 2 d4 lLlcd7 1 3 .ib2 ( 13 .if4 with the idea lld1 ) I 3 . . . lLlb6 I 4 .id3 .id7 I 5 llc l ( 1 5 h4 ! ) 1 5 . . . lLla6 1 6 'W"d2 llc8 1 7 h4 ! llxc l + 1 8 .ixc l "Wc7 19 h5 h6 20 llh4! with an attack , Miies-Hort, London 1 983. b) 10 . . . lLld7?! I I .ixc6!? (or 1 1 d4 lLlb6 1 2 .id3 g6 - 12 . . . lLlc7 13 llb 1 e6 14 .id2 :t - I3 h4! .ig7 14 h5 gh 15 .ie3 .id7 16 lib ! a5 1 7 d5 lLlf8 18 lLlf4 ± Lerner-Smejkal, Bratislava 1983) 1 I . . . fe 12 d4 e5 1 3 'W"b3 (or 13 lLlg5) 1 3 . . . ed 14 lLlg5 lLle5 1 5 .if4 h6 1 6 .ixe5 hg 1 7 lild 1 'ira5 1 8 .ixd4 llh6 1 9 'ire3! llc6 20 h4 g4 2 1 g3 ± Dzindzihashvili-Peters, US Ch 1984.

1 1 d4 1 1 .ib2 e6 ( 1 1 . . . .ie6 12 .ixe6

lLlxe6 1 3 d4 !) 12 lLlf4!? lLld7 I 3 lLlh5 llg8 I 4 d 4 lLlb6 I 5 .id3 ( 1 5 .ib3 a 5 I 6 llc l ) I 5 . . . g6! =/ oo SchUssler-Wedberg, Stockholm I 984.

1 1 e6 1 2 h4!?

Other games have seen 12 .ib2, e .g. I2 . . . lLld7 ( I 2 . . . b5 1 3 .ib3 a5!

106 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

oo Vaganian; 1 2 . . . i.e7 1 3 h4 li:Jd7 14 llc l li:Jf6 15 i.d3 i.d7 16 li:Je5 ;!" 109

Sideif-Zade - Mi khalchishin, Baku w

1 983) 1 3 h4! li:Jf6 14 i.d3 i.d7 1 5 h5 h6 1 6 li:Jf4 i.e7 1 7 't!t'e2 a6 1 8 nh3 i.d6 1 9 't!t'd2 i.xf4 20 't!t'xf4 Uro Psakhis-Vaganian, Lvov 1 984.

1 2 i.d6 1 3 h5 h6 1 4 Ilh4 li:Jd7

Now H tibner-Tuk makov, Wijk aan Zee 1 984, continued 1 5 i.b2 ( 1 5 i.e3 ! ?) 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 Ilh3 li:Jf6 1 7 i.d3 i.d7 1 8 ll:le5 .tb5 1 9 �g l 0-0 20 li:Jf4 with the idea :ag3, and Black found it difficult to cope with the pressure, although this is hard to assess.

All in all, the 6 i.c4 lines are scoring well for White. It seems that Black might look into the sideline 6 . . . li:Jd3+ 7 �e2 ll:lf4+ 8 <t>fl li:Je6 9 b4 g6 !? . A22

6 .tb5+ A221 6 . . . .td7 A222 6 . . . li:J8c6

6 . . . li:J4c6 7 d4 cd 8 ll:lxd4 (8 't!t'xd4 i.d7 9 't!t'd l g6 t) 8 . . . i.d7 9 i.e3 (9 li:Jxc6!? li:Jxc6 1 0 i.e3 ;!;) 9 .. . ll:l xd4 I 0 't!t'xd4 ll:lc6 I I 'it'd2 ;1::. A221

6 7 a3

.td7 (109)

Almost always played, but what about 7 i.c4 ? This used to be considered fairly irrelevant due to 7 . . . i.e6, transposing t o the 6 i.c4

i.e6 line above. But theory no longer likes that line, so perhaps 7 i.c4 is worth a try. On 7 . . . li:J8c6?, 8 a3 is strong, and 7 . . . li:J4c6 can be met by 8 't!t'b3 (8 d4 t) 8 . . . e6 9 'it'xb7 li:Ja5 I 0 't!t'xa8 li:Jxc4 and 1 1 d3 ll:lb6 12 't!t'b7 may leave B lack short. This leaves (e.g.) 7 . . . e6 8 d4 cd 9 li:Jxd4 li:J8c6 1 0 a3 li:Jxd4 I I ab ;!;! ±.

7 lD4c6! 7 . . . .txb5? has been discredited:

8 ab .td3 (8 . . . 1t'b6 9 be 't!t'xc5 10 'it'b3 .tc6 1 1 d4 ± Shatskes) 9 'it'a4+! li:Jc6 (9 . . . 'i!t'd7 10 li:Je5! 'it'xa4 I I li:Jxa4 .ta6 1 2 b5 ±±) 10 b5 li:Jb4 I I b6+! 't!t'd7 ( I I . . . li:Jc6 1 2 li:Je5) 1 2 't!t'xd7+ �xd7 1 3 ll xa7 nb8 14 li:Je5+ ±± Forintos-Farago, Dubna 1979.

8 i.c4!? a) White's best may be 8 d4 cd 9 li:Jxd4 ll:lxd4 (9 . . . g6! Peters; 1 0 .te3 , l ightly ;!; ) 10 't!t'xd4 li:Jc6 1 1 'fi'd3 a6 12 .ta4 li:Je5 1 3 i.xd7+ 't!t'xd7 14 't!t'g3 ! f6 1 5 0-0 ± BukicSmejkal, Banja Luka 1 976.

8 lb./3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 107

b) 8 0-0 e6!? (8 . . . lL!d4(! ) ) 9 d4 cd 1 0 lL!xd4 i.e7? I I lL!f3 ! 0-0 1 2 i.f4 f6 1 3 'i!Yb3 ± Kholmov-Anikayev, Sochi 1974.

8 e6 9 d3 i.e7

10 i.e3 0-0 l l 0-0 lle8!? ( 1 1 . . . i.e8 1 2 'i!Yc2!?,

Korchnoi-Lengyel, Moscow 1975; then 1 2 . . . lL!d4 13 i.xd4 cd 1 4 lL!e2 lL!c6 1 5 b4 llc8 is ! after 'i!Yb2, llacl etc) 12 d4 cd 13 lL!xd4 lL!xd4 1 4 i.xd4 lL!c6 Y2-Y2 AnderssonPolugayevsky, Wij k aan Zee 1979. 1 5 i.e3 :!:. A222

6 liJ8c6 7 d4

Not 7 0-0?! a6 8 i.a4 b5 9 a3 lL!d3 + Tukmakov-Tal , USSR Ch 1 977. Or 7 a3?! lL!d3+ 8 <t>e2 lL!f4+! 9 <t>fl lL!e6 I 0 b4 ( 1 0 d3 g6) I 0 . . . g6! I I be i.g7 1 2 e5 ll:ld4 I 3 lL!xd4 'i!Yxd4 14 i.b2 0-0 + PoutiainenTal, Tallinn 1 977.

7 cd 8 a3 (1 10)

8 de! a) 8 . . . i.d7?! 9 ll:lxd4 (9 ab de 10 'i!Yb3 cb I I i.xb2 "ti'b6 ro Plachetka) 9 .. . lL!xd4 I 0 i.xd7+ 'i!Yxd7 I I ab e6 ( I I . . . e5 1 2 ll:ld5 ±) 1 2 i.e3 lld8 1 3 0-0! i.xb4 1 4 i.xd4 1t'xd4 1 5 'ti'a4+ <t>e7 ( 1 5 . . . lld7 1 6 ll:lb5 ! ) 1 6 lL!b5 ! 'ikxe4 1 7 llfe l ! 'it'xei I 8 lilxe I i.xe I 19 1t'a3+ <t>f6 2 0 ll:ld6 ±± Uhlmann-Lukacs, Berlin 1982. b) 8 . . . '@b6?! 9 i.xc6+! (9 ab!? de 10 'it'a4 cb I I i.xb2 with an attack) 9 . . . be (9 . . . liJ xc6 10 lL!d5 ) 10 ab de I I be i.a6 (0-0, i.e3 etc was threatened) 1 2 lL!e5 lld8 1 3 'ti'a4 i.b5 1 4 'ti'a2 ! e6 1 5 'ti'xa7 1!t'xa7 1 6 lii:xa7 i.e7 1 7 c4 ! i.xb4+ 18 <t>e2 i.c5 1 9 lii:a2 f6 20 cb fe 2 1 be ±± Ribli-Ftacnik, Baile Herculane z 1 982.

1 1 1

B

9 'ii'xd8+ <t>xd8 1 0 ab (J J J)

10 cb This is still the main move. 10 . . .

lL!xb4 (?) I I <t>e2 with the idea 12 ll:lg5 , 1 2 lii:d I + or 1 2 i.e3 i s effective. Or 10 . . . g6 I I be i.g7 1 2 lla3

/08 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

.id7 1 3 0-0 lii:c8 14 lii:d l a6 ( 1 4 . . . �e8? 1 5 litxa 7 !) 1 5 .ie2 �e8 1 6 b5 ! ± Stean-Browne, Buenos Aires 01 1 978. I 0 . . . .id7 I I be g6 transposes.

This leaves 10 . . . c2!? I I .ixc6 be 12 li:Je5 ( 1 2 li:Jd4 .id7 1 3 li:Jxc2 e5 14 .ie3 �c7 =) 12 . . . �e8. BohmLangeweg, Du tch Ch 1979, and here 13 .ie3! e6 1 4 .ic5 (Stean) , or 1 3 . . . f6 1 4 li:Jd 3 ! e5 1 5 �d2 etc .

11 .ixb2 e6!? It's unclear what' s best here:

a) 1 1 . . . e5? 1 2 .ixc6! ( 1 2 0-0-0+ �c7 1 3 .ixc6 be 14 .ixe5+ Wb7 =) 1 2 . . . be ( 1 2 . . . .ixb4+ 13 �e2 be 14 li:Jxe5 �c7 1 5 :iii: hc l ±) 1 3 li:Jxe5 �c7 14 �e2! f6 15 li:Jd3 .id6 1 6 lithcl lite8 1 7 f3 ± Ree-Chandler, Lone Pine 1979. b) 1 1 . . . f6!? 1 2 e5! .id7?! ( 1 2 . . . .ig4 1 3 .ixc6 .ixc6 1 4 li:Jd4 fe 1 5 li:Jxc6+ We8 1 6 0-0 ± ; 1 2 . . . �c7 !? with the idea . . . .ig4) 13 .ic4! litc8 14 litdl �c7 1 5 e6 .ie8 1 6 b5 li:Ja5 17 .ie2 �b8 18 0-0 ± TimmanBohm, Dutch Ch 1979. c) 11 . . . .id7!? was Timman's improvement: 1 2 0-0 (here 12 0-0-0!? has its points; also 1 2 .ia4 !'! with the idea 12 . . . f6 13 e5 could be tried) 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 .ic4! ( 1 3 lii:fd l e5 1 4 .ixe5 .ixb4 1 5 .if4!?) 1 3 . . . li:Jxb4 14 e5 litc8 15 .tf7 ( 1 5 e6 nxc4 1 6 litfd l li:Jc6 ! 1 7 litxd7+ �c8 1 8 li:Jd4 li:Jxd4 19 .ixd4 litc6 ! Ligterink) 15 . . . li[c2 16 lii:fb l li:Jd3 17 .id4 fe 1 8 .txa7 e6 1 9 litxb7 .id6 20 .ie3

li:Jc5 ! 21 lita8+ �7 22 litxd7+ \12-\12 Tal-Tim man, Montpellier (play-off) 1985.

1 2 0-0 f6 1 2 . . . .ixb4? 1 3 litfd l + �c7 14

.txc6 be 1 5 .ixg7 litg8 16 .ie5+ �b6 17 litab l c5 18 .id6! .ib7 19 .ixc5+! ± Chekhov.

1 3 e5 f5 (1 12) Here 1 3 . . . .ie7!? seems a good

option, when White can play 14 .ixc6 be and now 15 .id4 .id7 16 .ixa 7 �c7 1 7 .ic5 = or 1 5 li:Jd4 .id7 1 6 litfc l fe or 1 5 lii:a4 .id7 16 lit l a l e5 17 litxa7 litxa7 18 litxa7 cb 19 li:Jd4 fe 20 lita8+ .txa8 2 1 li:Jxe6+ �d7 22 li:J xg7 , but none of these lines seems to offer many winning chances.

14 li:Jd4!? a) 14 .ixc6 be 1 5 li:Jd4 .id7 1 6 l:lfc I .ixb4 1 7 li:Jxc6+ .ixc6 1 8 litxc6 litd7 1 9 litca6 .ic5 = Rakowiecki-Adamski, Poland 1980. b) 14 li:Jg5!? �e7 1 5 .ixc6 be 16 .id4 �e8 1 7 .ic5 ( 1 7 l:la4 !? with the idea 1 7 . . . .id7 18 .ic5) 1 7 . . .

8 li:lj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 109

.txc5 1 8 be �e7 19 lUd l aS oo Hi.ibner-Timman, West Germany 1985.

14 li::Jxd4? Best is 1 4 . . . .td7 ! oo Ch ekhov.

White could try 15 l Hd l �c7 1 6 .txc6 be 1 7 b5 !? cb 18 llac l + ( 1 8 . . . � b6 1 9 li::Jb3 !?, o r 1 8 . . . �b7 1 9 li::Jxf5) , but again, the winning chances are slim.

After 14 . . . li::J xd4?, ChekhovVerner, USSR 1979, continued 1 5 .txd4 .td7 1 6 .txa 7 �e8 1 7 .txd7+ �xd7 1 8 llfd l + �c6 1 9 li[dc l + ! �d7 2 0 llc4 g5 ! 2 1 b5, and now best was 21 . . . li[g8 ::!::.

6 .ib5+ remains a dangerous move, but Black can defend . B

5 d4 B l 5 . . . cd B2 5 . . . li::J xc3

5 . . . e6 6 e3 or 6 e4 is a Queen's Ga mbit Semi-Tarrasch . 5 . . . g6 !? may be met by 6 e4 li::Jxc3 7 be .tg7 (a Gri.infeld) or by 6 de li::Jxc3 7 't!t'xd8+ �xd8 8 be .tg7 9 li::Jd4 li::Jc6 10 e3 (?) ( 10 .tg5 ! ) 10 . . . .td7 I I llcl �c7 12 li::Jb5+ �b8 + TarjanShamkovich , US Ch 198 1 . A third try is 5 . . . g6 6 .td2!? cd 7 li::Jxd4 .ig7 8 e4 ! li::J b6 9 .te3 t ChristiansenBotterill, Hastings 1978-79. Finally, 6 li::J xd5 (?) 'it'xd5 7 't!t'c2 is refuted by 7 .. . .tf5 ! 8 'it' xeS 't!Vxc5 9 de .tg7 10 li::Jd2 0-0 (or 10 . . . li::Jc6 ! ) I I e4 .td7 with more than enough for the pawn, Ahlstrom-Ch ow,

Chicago 1985 . B1

5 6 't!t'xd4

cd

6 lt:lxd5 't!t'xd5 7 't!t'xd4 't!Vxd4 8 li::Jxd4 .td7 = (9 .tf4 f6; 9 e4 a6) .

6 li::Jxc3 6 . . . e6 7 e4 li::Jxc3 transposes.

7 't!t'xc3 li::Jc6 8 e4 (/ 13)

8 e3 .tg4 9 .td2?! .txf3 10 gl 'it'd5 + Ribli-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1978.

8 e6 a) 8 . . . a6?! 9 i.c4 1t'a5 (9 . . . e6? 10 0-0 .td7 I I Iidl ±, e.g. I I . . . bS 1 2 .tg5 't!t'c7 1 3 i.d5! ± MikhalchishinHorvath, Pees 1978) 10 i.d2 't!t'xc3 I I .txc3 tl ± Korchnoi-Karpov, USSR Ch 1970. b) 8 . . . 'tWaS? 9 't!Vxa5 li::Jxa5 10 i.bS+ (or 10 li::Je5 ) 10 . . . .id7 I I i.xd7+ �xd7 12 0-0 li::Jc6 1 3 .tf4 ± TaiZhuravlev, Sochi 1977 . c) 8 . . . i.g4 9 i.b5 li:c8 10 i.e 3 ! .txf3 I I g f a 6 12 lldl �c7 1 3 .txc6+ 't!t'xc6 14 't!t'd4 ! f6 1 5 0-0

I 1 0 8 &i:Jj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

( ±) 1 5 . . . e5? 1 6 'i!Va7 i.e7 1 7 li:c l ±± Portisch- Htibner, Montreal 1979.

9 i.bS i.d7 9 . . . 't!Vb6!? 1 0 i.xc6+ 't!Vxc6 I I

�xc6+ be 1 2 0-0 i.e7 1 3 i.e3 t Muresan-Savereide, Tbilisi 1982.

10 0-0 'ti'b6 !? a) 10 . . . a6 I I i.e2 'i!Va5 ( I I . . . li:c8 12 i.f4 ±) 12 'i!Vxa5 &i::Jxa5 1 3 &i::Je5 ( 1 3 i.d2 i.b5 ! 14 li:e l !?) 1 3 . . . i.d6 1 4 &i::Jxf7 �xf7 1 5 li: d l i.b5 16 i.xb5 ab 17 li:xd6 t MartzDieks, 1975. b) 10 . . . li:c8 I I li:d l a6 12 i.xc6 ! li: xc6 1 3 'i!Vb3 't!Vb8 1 4 i.e3 i.c5 1 5 li:d2! i.xe3 16 'i!Vxe3 i.c8 1 7 &i::Jd4 li:d6 1 8 �g3 0-0 1 9 l/Jxe6 1 -0 Butnoris-Gelyashinis, USSR 1980. c) 10 . . . f6!? 1 1 i.e3 i.b4 1 2 't!Vb3 't!le7 1 3 li:ad l 0-0? 14 ltxd7 ±± Fedorowicz-Bouissious, Dmitrias 198 1 .

1 1 i.a4 1 1 a4 !? may be best. After 1 1

i.a4, Mi les-Ribl i , Baden-Baden 198 1 , went 1 1 . . . 't!Vc5 !? 1 2 'i!Vd3 �d6 1 3 �e2 a6 14 lid1 'i!Vc7 1 5 i.xc6 ( 1 5 i.e3 ±) 1 5 . . . i.xc6 1 6 &i::Jd4 i.d6 Y2-Y2. H .Oiafsson-Chow, New York 1984, sa w 1 1 . . . !Va6 1 2 i.b3 ( 1 2 �b3 !?) 1 2 . . . !Va5 1 3 'ti'd3 ( 1 3 i.d2 't!fxc 3 1 4 i.xc3 f6 1 5 e5 i.e7! Chow; here 15 li:adl planning .!ad2 looks mildly ±) 1 3 . . . li:d8 1 4 i.g5 i.e7 1 5 i.xe7 l/Jxe7 =. Generally, White seems to retain a light edge from 5 . . . cd.

82 5 l/Jxc3 6 be g6 (1 14)

Interesting after 6 . . . i.f5 would be 7 't!Vb3 , e.g. 7 . . . 'W/c7 8 e4!? i.xe4 9 l/Jg5 i.g6 I 0 i.f4 ! 't!Vc8 ( I 0 . . . 'it'xf4 I I 't!t'xb7) I I i.c4 e6 1 2 l/Jxe6 fe 1 3 i.xe6 with the attack .

1 14

w

7 e3 7 e4 is a Gri.infeld. Others include:

7 't!t'a4+ l/Jc6 8 de? ! i.g7 9 i.b2 0-0 + Korchnoi-Furman, Moscow 1973; 7 i.g5 !? i.g7 8 e3 0-0 9 'W/d2 cd I 0 cd b6 = Korchnoi-Reshevsky, Lone Pine 1979; and 7 i.f4!? i.g7 8 e3 'it'a5 (8 . . . de? 9 cd 'W/a5+ 10 't!t'd2 t) 9 't!t'd2 0-0 10 i.e2 lt:\c6 I I li: b I cd 1 2 cd 't!t'xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 li:d8 = Portisch-Tim man, Til burg 1980.

7 i.g7 8 i.bS+

Karpov's move, which to some extent revived this line. Actually, however, both alternatives have some promise:

8 lLljJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation 1 1 1

a) 8 .te2 0-0 9 0-0 b 6 ( 9 . . . 'it"c7 1 0 .ta3!? lLld7 1 1 e4 l:i:d8 1 2 'it"b3 e6 13 l:i:d1 ;!; Liberzon-Peters, H astings 1 980-8 1 ; 9 . . . liJ c6 1 0 tt'b3 !? wou1d intend 10 . . . lLla5 1 1 1Wa3; 9 . . . lLld7 10 a4!?) 10 a4 ltJd7 1 1 a5 l:lb8 1 2 e4 1Wc7 1 3 .tg5 ! lLlf6 1 4 .td3 h6 1 5 .td2 ( 1 5 .th4 lLlh5) 1 5 . . . .t b7? ! ( 1 5 . . . e6 ;!;) 1 6 d5 ! l:lad8 1 7 c4 e5 1 8 l:i:b1 ± H .Oiafsson-Paolozzi, Lone Pine 1 979. b) 8 .td3 (prepares .te4 in some cases) 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 'i/c7 (9 . . . lLlc6 10 .ta3 b6 I I de 'i/c7 1 2 .te4 .tb7 1 3 1!t'c2 t Tal-Miles, Bugojno 1978) 10 .ta3 ( 10 l:lb1 t) 10 . . . liJd7 1 1 1We2 b6 1 2 e4 .tb7 1 3 l:lfd 1 l:l fd8 , Portisch-Tal, Milan 1975, and now 1 4 e5 (";!;" Tal) has the idea 1 5 lLld2 on either 14 . . . e6 or 14 . . . .td5.

8 lLld7 8 ... lLlc6!? Tal. 8 . . . .td7 9 a4 !?

1Wa5 10 1Wb3 ! cd 1 1 ed .txb5 1 2 1!t'xb5+ t Makarichev.

9 0-0 0-0 1 0 a4 a6!?

Weakening the queenside . In Spraggett-Shamkovich, New York 1983, Black tried 10 . . . lLlf6 1 1 .td3 ( 1 1 .ta3 !? lLle4 1 2 l:lc1 ) 1 1 . . . .tf5 ( ! ) 1 2 lle 1 ( 1 2 .ia3) 1 2 . . . .txd3 1 3 1!t'xd3 l:lc8 14 e4 e6 1 5 .tf4 1Wa5 +.

1 1 .td3 b6 Also interesting here is 1 1 . . .

e5 !?. 1 2 l:lb1 .tb7 13 e4 (1 15)

1 15

B

1 3 'i/c7 Or 1 3 . . . e6 1 4 .tf4 l:le8 ( 14 . . .

lLlf6) 1 5 e5 ! h6 (versus ltJg5-e4) 1 6 We2 ..tc6 1 7 ..txa6 ..txa4 1 8 ..tb7 l:la5 19 ..te4 ± H.OiafssonKuligowski, Reykjavik 1 982.

After 1 3 . . . 1Wc7, KarpovKorchnoi, Merano 1 98 1 , went 14 lle1 e6 1 5 e5 ! h6 16 h4 l:lfd8 17 ..tf4 ( 1 7 h5 Tal) 1 7 . . . ll:Jffi 1 8 ..te3 l:lab8 1 9 'i/e2 ..tc6 20 ..txa6 cd 2 1

c d ..txa4 2 2 lLld2 'it"c6 2 3 l:i:ecl 1Wa8 24 .td3 ..tc6 25 f3 b5 26 lLlb3 ±. c

5 e3 Keres managed to eke out small

advantages from this move, which still has some punch . C 1 5 . . . lLlc6 C2 5 . . . lLlxc3

5 . . . e6 6 d4 is a Queen's Gambit. Korchnoi's 6 1Wc2 !? ltJc6 7 a3 {=) mixes it up. C1

5 ltJc6 6 ..tb5 e6

6 . . . ltJxc3 7 be ..td7 (7 . . . g6? 8

1 1 2 8 l0f3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

l0e5 'ii'c7 9 '§a4; 7 . . . 'ii'c7 8 0-0 e5 9 d4 e4 10 l0d2 ±) 8 0-0 e6 (8 . . . a6!?) 9 d 4 i.e7 I 0 e4 0-0 I I 't!fe cd 1 2 cd lieS 13 i.b2 l0b4 14 i.c4 ± Keres-Taimanov, USSR 1948.

7 0-0 i.e7 8 t0e5 i.d7 9 ..txc6

9 l0xd5? l0xe5 ! 10 ..txd7+ 1Wxd7 I I t0xe7 t0d3 ! + was VeltmanderA ronin, USSR I953. Or 9 t0xd7 '§xd7 10 d4 cd I I ed t0c7 ! = Shatskes.

9 ..txc6 10 l0xc6 be

I I '§a4 1Wb6 1 2 t0xd5 ! ed I 3 b3 0-0 14 i.a3 :t, e.g. 14 . . . '§b5 15 llfc l 1Wxa4 1 6 ba 1Hb8 1 7 ..txc5 ..txc5 IS llxc5 llb2 19 d4 etc.

Thus 5 . . . l0c6 does not lead to clear equality. C2

5 t0xc3 6 be

6 de 'iWxd I+ 7 c;!;>xd I l0c6 (7 .. . .if5?! 8 l0d2!) 8 e4 b6 =, or 8 . . . i.g4 = .

/ 16

w

6 g6 (1 16)

C2 I 7 ..ta3 C22 7 1Wa4+ C23 7 .ib5+

7 d4 is '82' above. 7 h4 h6! is pointless, and 7 ..tc4 i.g7 8 h4 !? is artificial after 8 . . . h6 9 '§c2 1Wc7 10 llbl b6 I I i.d5 l0c6 I 2 c4 0-0 1 3 h5 ( I 3 't!fxg6? e6) 1 3 . . . g5 14 i.b2 e6 + Christiansen-H.Olafsson, Lone Pine 1978. C21

7 i.a3 'i!i'c7 7 . . . W'a5 8 W'b3 ! ::!::, or 8 l0e5 !?

with the idea 8 . . . 'i!i'xa3? 9 .ib5+ and IO l0c4 ; 7 . . . l0c6 8 ..tb5 ! (all analysis by Karpov). 7 . . . l0d7 8 .ib5 is C23.

8 ..tc4 ..tg7 9 0-0 0-0

Equal, e .g . 10 lii:c l t0d7 I I d4 llb8 12 ..tb5 ( 1 2 e4 i.h6! 1 3 llc2 l0b6 Karpov) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 l0d2 llfd8 I4 't!ff3 a6 ( I4 .. . i.b7 1 5 'i!i'g3 'i!i'c8 ! Karpov) 1 5 .ie2 i.b7 1 6 'i!i'g3 'i!t'c6 1 7 .ib2 e5 + ShamkovichKarpov, Leningrad I97 l . C22

7 'i!t'a4+ l0d7 7 . . . i.d7 8 'i!t'b3 'i!t'c7 9 ..tc4 e6

10 d4 t. 8 i.a3

8 e4 .ig7 9 e5? 0-0 10 e6 fe I I h4 l0b6 12 't!fe4 e5! I 3 i.c4+ c;!;>h8 I4 l0g5 i.f5 =!= Lein-Peters, Lone Pine 1977. Best may be 8 it'a4!?, e.g. 8 . . . .ig7 ( 8 . . . e5 !?) 9 d4 0-0 10 .id3 'i!i'c7 I I .id2 b6 1 2 0-0 i.b7 I 3 e4 etc.

8 ltJj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 1 13

8 1Wc7 9 i.e2 i.g7

10 0-0 0-0 I I lilab l b6 1 2 1t'h4 i.b7 1 3 c4 Il:adS 1 4 i.b2 i.xf3!? 1 5 i.xf3 was U hlmann-S.Garcia, Madrid 1 973, and now Uhlmann gives 1 5 . . . lt:le5 = . C23

7 i.b5+ i.d7 7 . . . lt:ld7 S 0-0 i.g7 9 a4 0-0 I 0

d4 is 'B2' above. Or here S i.a3 !? 1Wc7 9 d4 cd! (Bukic; 9 . . . i.g7 I 0 i.xc5 0-0 I I i.b4! ± Smej kalJansa, Czechoslova kia 19SO) 10 1Wxd4, and now 10 . . . lilgS I I 0-0!? i.g7 12 1Wa4 is unclear, and 10 . . . f6 I I 0-0 e 5 1 2 1Wa4 ties Black down.

8 1Wb3 1Wc7 9 lilbl b6

10 lt:lg5 e6 I I c4 i.b7 1 2 i. b2 0-0 1 3 i.xg7 'it>xg7 14 0-0 lt:lc6 1 5 'W'b2+ f6 1 6 lt:le4 Il:adS 1 7 lilfd i e5 = Smej kal-Schmidt, Warsaw 1 979. D

5 g3 An odds-and-ends section of

those lines which do not transpose.

5 g6 Bronstein's deviation 5 . . . lt:lf6 !?

6 i.g2 lt:lc6 7 0-0 e6 faces a severe test after S e3 ( " ! " Uhlmann) S . . . i.e7 (but no one mentions S . . . 1td3 intending 9 lt:le I 1td7 or 9 lt:le2 e5 , which seems critical) 9 d4 cd I 0 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 I I ed 0-0 1 2 i.f4!? (or 1 2 i.e3 i.d7 1 3 d5 ! t

Uhlmann-Adamski , Halle 19S I ) 1 2 . . . \!t'b6 1 3 \!t'e2 i.d7 1 4 d5 lUeS 1 5 de i.xe6 1 6 \!t'b5 ! ± KorchnoiWirthensohn, Bad Kissingen 19S 1 .

The older S b3 i.e7 9 i.b2 0-0 10 lilcl 't!t'a5 I I lt:la4 lidS 12 'W'c2! lt:lb4 1 3 't!tbl t Smyslov-Bronstein , Amsterdam I956, and S d3 i.e7 9 i.f4 with the idea 9 . . . �d5 10 lt:lxd5 ed 1 1 d4 are also possible.

6 i.g2 6 'ti'a4+ is harmless after 6 . . .

lt:lc6 7 �e5 lt:lxc3 ! S de 1td5 9 lt:l xc6 i.d7 = Gheorghiu-Csom , Orense 1975. 6 'ti'b3 �b4! 7 lt:le4? (7 a3 lt:l4c6 =) 7 . . . i.g7 ! S lt:lxc5 1Wa5 9 a3 �4c6 (or 9 . . . ltJSc6 10 �a4 i.e6! I I 1td l i.f5 ! =F Vukic-Bukal, Yugoslavia 1 973) 10 1Wc4? ! ( 1 0 1Wc2 + ) 10 . . . b5 1 1 1th4 b4 I 2 lt:l d3 �a6 1 3 i.g2 i.d7 =F with a bind, Polugayevsky-Bronstein, USSR Ch 197 1 .

6 7 0-0

i.g7

7 \!t'a4+ lt:lc6 is Chapter 3. 7 . . . i.d7 S 1Wc4 �b4!? ro.

7 0-0 8 lt:lxd5

As usual , S \!t'b3 e6 (or S . . . lt:lc7 =, or S . . . lt:lb4 =) 9 d3 �c6 = ( 10 i.g5? lt:ld4! ) doesn't achieve anyth ing. S d4!? cd 9 lt:lxd4 �xc3 10 be is logical , but 10 . . . lt:lc6! 1 1 lt:lxc6 ( I I i.e3 lt:la5 ! =) 1 1 . . . be 1 2 1WxdS lixdS 1 3 i.xc6 i.xc3 14 lilb1 i.f5 ( 14 . . . i.h5 =) 1 5 e4 lilacS = was Htibner-Tal , Bugojno 197S.

1 1 4 8 &i:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

8 't!t'xdS 9 d3 &i:Ja6 !?

9 . . . &i:Jc6 is Chapter 3 again. 9 . . . &i:Ja6 !? was Andersson-Smej kal, Palma de Mallorca 1972: 10 a3 't!t'h5 ( 10 0 0 0 'it'd6 1 1 lilb1 �d7 1 2 �e3, Andersson-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1973, and now 1 2 . . . lilab8 is unclear) 1 1 lilb1 �h3 1 2 'it'a4

�xg2 1 3 <t>xg2 't!t'd5 1 4 �e3 &i:Jc7 1 5 lilfc l ;!:.

Conclusion. Clearly the most dangerous lines in this chapter stem from 5 e4, but 5 d4 may appeal to those who want a small, safe edge and don't mind the Semi-Tarrasch Queen's Gambit.

Part III

2 ltJf3 Systems

9 2 ltJf3 Introduction and 2 'Others'

1 c4 c5 In this chapter we introduce the

important 2 lbf3 by looking at irregular li nes, by which one side or the other avoids the material in Chapters 1 0- 1 4. Be fore that, we look at lines where White plays neither 2 lbc3 nor 2 lDf3: A 2 b3 8 2 g3 c 2 lbf3

Other moves tend to transpose, e.g. 2 e4 lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 4 g3 i.g7 5 .ig2 is Chapter 2, line A . 2 e3 can lead to a Queen's Gambit after 2 . . . e6 3 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann, Panov A ttack after 2 . . . lDf6 3 d4 cd 4 ed d5. 2 d3 e6 with the idea . . . d5 equalizes immediately, and 2 f4 can be a nswered by 2 . . . lbf6 , 2 . . . g6, or even 2 . . . d 5 3 cd 1t'xd5 4 lDc3 'i!t'd8. A

1 1 7

B

2 b3 (1 1 7)

Larsen gave this move new l ife a few years back, but it is only an occasional choice now. Its main virtue is to discourage . . . g6. A I 2 . . . lDf6 A2 2 . . . e5

2 . . . g6 3 .ib2 lbf6 4 .ixf6 is 'A l '. 2 . . . d6 3 .ib2 e5 will transpose to ' A2' . On 2 . . . lbc6 3 .ib2 e6, White can try 4 lDf3 d5 5 cd ed 6 e3 (6 d4 lDf6 7 e3 .ig4 = or 7 . . . cd 8 lDxd4 .tb4+ =) 6 . . . lDf6 (6 . . . d4? 7 .ib5 ; 6 . . . a6 7 d4 t) 7 .ie2 or 7 .ib5 - see 'A I 2' .

2 . . . b6 3 .ib2 .ib7 is doubtless equal, e .g. 4 lDf3 lDf6 5 e3 e6 6 .ie2 .ie7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 d5 (or 8 . . . cd =) 9 de .txc5 10 lDbd2 lbc6 I I cd 't!t'xd5 1 2 a3 lUd8 = PetrosianSaidy, San Antonio 1972. AI

2 lbf6 3 .tb2

A l l 3 . . . g6?! A l 2 3 . . . lbc6 a) 3 ... d6 4 g3 lDc6 5 .ig2 e5 (5 . . . g6? ! 6 .ixf6 ! ) 6 lbc3 (6 e3 .if5 ! ) 6 . . . .ie6 7 lDf3 h6 8 0-0 d5 (?) 9 cd lDxd5 10 e3 ! intending d4. b) 3 . . . d5 !? 4 cd lDxd5 5 lDf3 lbc6 6 a3 (6 lDc3 lDxc3 7 .txc3 f6 and . . . e5 =)6 . . . f6 (6 . . . e6 7 g3 lDf6 8 .ig2 .ie7 9 0-0 ;t i ntending d4) 7 e3 e5 8 'i!t'c2 .te6 9 .td3 g6 10 h4 .tg7

1 18 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 'Others'

I I li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 1 2 .txc3 li[c8 1 3 h5 ! ± Timman-Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1 974. c) 3 . . . e6 4 li:Jf3 .te7 (4 . . . d5 5 cd ed 6 e3 with the idea 6 . . . li:Jc6 7 .tb5 !) 5 g3 0-0 (5 . . . d5 6 .tg2 d4 7 b4!?) 6 .tg2 li:Jc6 7 0-0 d5 is a Reti System. Al l

1 /8

B

3 g6?! 4 .txf6 ! ef 5 li:Jc3 (1 18)

5 ..ig7 Probably not the best, but Black

has serious troubles with the loss of d5 , e .g . 5 . . . b6 6 e3 .tb7 7 li:J le2 d5 (lest li:Jf4, d4) 8 cd ..ixd5 9 li:Jxd5 (or 9 .tf4 .tb7 10 ..ie2 ±) 9 . . . 'tit'xd5 10 li:Jf4 ± ( 10 . . . 't!fd7 I I 'tit'f3 or 1 0 . . . 't!lb7 I I ..ie2). Or 5 . . . d6 6 g3 li:Jc6 7 .tg2 h5 8 h4 .t h6 9 li:Jf3 ..ig4, Keene-Bellon, Cala Galdana 1 974, and now either 10 li:J h2 !? ..ie6 I I li:Jfl and li:Je3-d5 , or 10 0-0 0-0 I I li:Jh2 ..ie6 1 2 e3 retains the advantage.

6 g3 li:Jc6

7 .tg2 f5 8 e3 0-0 9 li:Jge2 a6 1 0 li[c l b5

I I d3 .tb7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 1i'd2 t!fa5 14 lUd I lbb8 1 5 li:Jd5 ± KarpovBrowne, San Antonio 1972 . All

3 li:Jc6 4 li:Jf3

4 g3 e6 5 li:Jf3 transposes. 4 e6 5 e3

5 g3 d5 6 cd ed 7 .tg2 d4 8 0-0 .te7 9 e3 0-0 1 0 ed cd I I li:Ja3 .tf5 ( I I . . . .tg4!?) 1 2 li[e l t GulkoBelyavsky, USSR 1973.

5 d5 Safer 5 . . . .te7 6 .te2 0-0 7 0-0

(7 d4 cd 8 li:Jxd4 1!fa5+ 9 1t'd2, very slightly !, A ndersson-Szabo, A msterdam 1979) 7 . . . d5 8 cd li:Jxd5! 9 li:Ja3 b6 10 li:Jc4 .i.b7 I I d4 li[c8 = Petrosian-Vasyukov, Moscow 1973.

6 cd ed Here 6 . . . li:Jxd5 is playable, but

makes the k ingside difficult to develop after (e.g.) 7 a3 .

7 .tel!? 7 .tb5 is also natural, with the

idea 7 . . . .td7 8 0-0. 7 a6

7 . . . d4? 8 ..ib5 ! with advantage . After 7 . . . a6, Petrosian-Belyavsky, USSR Ch 1973, continued 8 d4 cd 9 li:Jxd4 ..ib4+ 10 .tc3 ..id6 ( 10 . . . 'tlt'a5 I I 1i'd3 ;t Zaitsev) I I li:Jd2 0-0 1 2 0-0 .tc7 ( 1 2 . . . li[e8) 1 3 lL!xc6 be 14 'tit'c2 li[e8 1 5 ..id4 't!rct6 1 6 g3 :t.

2 lLlj3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 1 19

A2

1 / 9

w

2 3 .ib2

4 g3

e5 li:lc6 ( 119)

a) 4 e3 g6 5 li:lf3 .ig7 6 d3 li:lge7 (or 6 . . . f5 ! ) 7 a3!? d5! 8 cd li:lxd5 9 'tlrc2 .ie6 + ( 10 'tlrxc5 lieS I I 'it'b5 li:lb6 and . . . a6) Seirawan-Tarjan, USA 1980. b) 4 li:lf3 d6 5 d3 g6 6 li:lc3 .ig7 7 e3 li:lge7 8 .ie2 0-0 = AnderssonStean, Hastings 1 974-75. c) 4 li:lc3 d6 5 g3 g6 6 .ig2 .ig7 7 li:lf3 !? (7 d3 or 7e3 - see the text). Now normal is 7 . . . li:lge7 8 d3 0-0 9 0-0 h6 1 0 li:l d2 ( l O e3!? planning 10 . . . .ie6 I I 'it'e2) 10 . . . .ie6 I I a3 d5!? ( I I . . . 'tlrd7 =) 12 b4!? cb 13 ab li:lxb4 14 .ia3 =/oo Keene-Timman, Reykjavik 1972. Or 7 . . . f5 ( ! ) 8 0-0 li:lf6, e .g. 9 li:le l li:lc6 1 0 li:lc2 f4 ! (preventing li:le3) I I li:ld5 li:lxd5 1 2 cd li:le7 1 3 lib l ? ( l 3 b4 =/oo) 1 3 . . . g5 1 4 e3 li:lg6 =t= Hecht-Hubner, West Germany 1 980.

4 d6 4 . . . li:lge7 5 .ig2 d5!? 6 cd li:lxd5

7 li:lf3 f6 8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3 and d4. 5 .ig2 g6 6 li:lc3 .ig7 7 d3

7 e3 li:lge7 8 li:lge2 .ie6? is discussed in Chapter 2, line B I .

7 li:lge7 8 e3 0-0

8 . . . .ie6 !? 9 li:ld5 .ixd5 I 0 cd li:lb4? ( 1 0 . . . 'tlra5+! Keene; then I I �e2! oo; White can avoid this by 7 e3 is he wishes) I I e4 '@a5 1 2 .ic3 'ifb5 1 3 .if! ! (" ± " Larsen) 1 3 . . . 'tWd7 14 li:lf3 0-0 1 5 a3 li:la6 16 h4 !? li:lc7 17 a4 b5 18 h5 ± LarsenSeira wan, N iks ic 1 983 .

9 li:lge2 .ie6 9 . . . .if5 l O li:le4 ;!: or 1 0 0-0 'it'd?

I I li:ld5 !. 9 . . . �h8 !?. 10 li:ld5

lO 0-0 is Chapter 2, Iine B. After lO li:ld5 , Larsen-Kavalek, Lugano 1970, went 1 0 . . . 'tlrd7 I I h4 !? f5 1 2 'tWd2 liae8 1 3 h 5 b 5 ! 1 4 h g h g 1 5 li:lec3 b e 16 b e e 5 =/oo . B

2 g3 e6 a) 2 . . . d5!? 3 cd 'it'xd5 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 5 .ig2, Suba-Stefanov, Romania 1980, and instead of 5 . . . .ig4 6 h3 .ih5 7 0-0 li:l f6 8 d3 'it'd? 9 li:lbd2 t, 5 . . . e5 6 li:lc3 'it'd?! with the idea ... .id6, . . . li:lge7, . . . b6 (Suba): !? b ) 2 . . . g6 3 d4!? cd 4 'tlrxd4 lt:lf6 5 .ig2 lt:lc6 6 'it'd2 .ig7 7 li:lc3 0-0 was Larsen-Browne, Tilburg 1982. 8 li:lh3? li:la5 ! 9 'tlrd3 'tWc7 ! + followed, but 8 b3 ! is :!; unless 8 . . . d5 !?

120 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 'Others'

9 cd li:Jxd5 I 0 .ixd5 .txc3 I I 't!rxc3 \!t'xd5 1 2 .ih6 li:Jd4!? or some such works.

3 .ig2 3 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 4 .ig2 b6 is Chapter

I I . 3 d5 4 cd ed 5 d3 li:Jc6!?

Or 5 . . . li:Jf6, e .g. 6 .ig5 .ie7 7 't!t'b3 li:Jbd7.

6 li:Jc3 li:Jf6 7 .ig5 .ie7 8 li:J h3 d4 (or 8 . . .

.ixh3 !?) 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 10 li:Je4 .txh3? ( 1 0 . . . .ie7 ! l l li:Jf4 .id7 oo, or I I �cl 't!ra5+ 1 2 't!t'd2 't!rxa2 oo) I I .txh3 .ie7 12 0-0 0-0 13 �c l b6 14 \!t'a4 tl ± Seirawan-Giigoric, Lone Pine 1 979. c

120

8

2 li:Jf3 (120)

About half ofSymmetrical English games begin with this move. This section deals with irregular orders. C l 2 . . . li:Jc6 C2 2 . . . ll:lf6

2 . . . d6, 2 . . . e6 and 2 . . . g6 all transpose. 2 . . . f5!? 3 d4 (or 3 e3 ;!;) 3 . . . cd 4 li:Jxd4 g6 5 g3 .ig7 6 .ig2 li:Jc6 7 li:Jb5 !? (o r 7 li:JbH) 7 . . . li:Jf6 8 li:Jbc3 ;!; Botvinnik-Smyslov, match (20) 1958 .

2 . . . b6 is independent in the line 3 g3 .ib7 4 .ig2 g6 5 d4 cd 6 't!t'xd4 li:Jf6 7 b3 li:Jc6!? (7 . . . .ig7 is Chapter 1 2) 8 't!rd I !? li:Je5 9 0-0 li:Jxf3+ 10 ef .ig7 I I li:Jc3 0-0 12 .ib2 1!t'c7 = Andersson-Adorjan, Indonesia 1983. Mestel suggests 8 '@d2. Cl

2 li:Jc6 C l l 3 li:Jc3 C l 2 3 g3

3 d4 cd 4 li:J xd4 li:Jf6 is Chapter 1 4. But B lack also has: a) 4 . . . d5!? 5 't!ra4 \!t'b6! is suggested by Christiansen ; 5 g3 !?. b) 4 . . . 1!t'b6 !? (Wedberg) really shouldn't be any better than when White p lays it. 5 li:Jb3 ;!; or 5 e3 t. c) 4 . . . e6 !? is Wedberg's other idea, which has not done badly. Critical is 5 li:Jb5 d6 (5 . . . a6? 6 li:Jd6+ .ixd6 7 't!t'xd6 li:Jge7 8 li:Jc3 0-0 9 e4 ± Hi.ibner-Wed berg, Lucerne 1979) 6 .if4 e5 (6 . . . li:Je5? 7 c5) 7 .ig3 f5 !? or 7 .tc 1 .ie6. 5 li:Jc3 .ib4 6 g3 't!t'a5 !? 7 li:Jxc6 de 8 .id2 't!t'c7 ! 9 li:Je4 1!ra5 ! 10 .ig2 e5 I I .ic3 .txc3+ 1 2 be li:Jf6 \12-\12 AdorjanWedberg, Oslo 1984. 5 g3 .i..b4+ 6 .id2 .ie7 (6 . . . 1!t'b6!? 7 li:Jb3 li:Je5 8 1!rc2 a5 - 8 . . . 1!Vc6 9 .ixb4! -9 .ig2 a4 10 li:Jc I ;!; Polugayevsky-

2 llJj3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 121

Ornstein, Buenos A ires 01 1 978) 7 ..tc3 li:lf6 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 d5 I 0 cd ( 1 0 li:ld2 't!t'b6 =) 10 . . . li:lxd5 !? ( 1 0 . . . ed =) I I li:lxc6 be 12 "i!t'a4 't!t'b6 1 3 .id4 c5 1 4 ..te5 f5 1 5 .ic3 "i!t'a6! was = in Eingorn-Dorfman, Moscow 1 985. C l l

3 li:lc3 e5!? 3 . . . li:lf6 4 e3 e5!? is the note to

Black's fourth. 4 e3

4 g3 f5 5 d3 llJf6 6 .ig2 .ie7 (6 . . . g6 !?) 7 0-0 0- 0 8 a 3 d 6 9 l:t b l 1t'e8 (9 . . . a5 !?) I 0 b4 "i!t'h5 I I li:ld5 .idS 1 2 e3 t Bukic-Mestrovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 974.

4 r5 a) 4 . . . li:lf6 5 d4 (121) (5 .ie2 d5 6 cd li:lxd5 7 0-0 li:lc7 ! ? oo SpeelmanWedberg, 1982) and:

121

B

a l ) 5 . . . ed 6 ed d5?! 7 .ig5 .ie7 8 de! d4 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 0 li:ld5 0-0, Portisch-Radulov, Indonesia 1983, and now I I .ie2! .ie6 1 2 li:lf4 't!fa5+ 1 3 't!fd2 ± (Portisch). a2) 5 ... cd!? 6 ed e4 7 li:lg5 ! ? i.b4

8 d5 li:le5 9 't!t'b3 tt'e7 I 0 .id2 0-0 I I li:lcxe4 ..txd2+ 12 �xd2 ;l; Gurevich-Yudasin, Sverdlovsk 1984. H ere 7 li:le5!? has led to 7 . . . i.d6 (7 0 0 0 i.b4 8 ..te2 0-0 9 0-0 l:te8 10 .if4 .if8 I I c5 ! ± MoskalenkoAseyev, USSR 1985) 8 li:lg4 li:l xg4 9 ti'xg4 0-0 1 0 .ig5 f5 ( 1 0 o o . f6 I I c5! ;l;) I I .ixd8 fg 1 2 .ig5 li:lxd4 1 3 0-0-0 .ie5 =/oo VainermanZaid, USSR 1985. a3) 5 . . . e4 6 d5 (6 li:le5 ! ? Wedberg; 6 li:ld2 cd 7 ed .ib4 8 li:lb3!?) 6 o o . ef 7 de fg 8 cd+ ..txd7 9 .ixg2 'irc7 10 'W'b3 .ic6 I I li:ld5 i.xd5 12 cd .id6 1 3 "i!t'a4+ 't!fd7 = Suba-Wedberg, Dortmund 1983. b) 4 . . . d6 5 d4 cd ( 5 0 0 . ed 6 ed .ig4 7 i.e2! i.xf3 8 i.xf3 li:lxd4 9 .ie3 ! li:lxf3+ 10 1Wxf3 't!fd7 I I 0-0-0 ± Helmers-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 198 1 ) 6 ed .ig4 7 .ie2 li:lf6 8 0-0 i.e7 9 .ie3 ± Timman-Radulov, Helsinki 1 972 .

5 d4 cd 5 0 0 0 e4 6 d5 (or 6 li:ld2 li:lf6 7 d5

;!;) 6 o o . llJb4 7 li:ld2 .id6 8 a3 li:la6 9 g4! :!: Odendahl-Costigan, US Junior Ch 1978.

6 ed e4 7 d5 ef

Now after 8 de White keeps the edge, e.g. 8 o o . ti'e7+ 9 .ie3! or 8 0 0 0 de 9 't!fxf3 li:lf6 10 .if4 .ie7 I I l:td l :!:. Cl2

3 g3 e5 3 0 0 . g6 4 d4 cd 5 li:lxd4 .tg7 6

122 2 liJf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

liJc2!? can transpose to Chapter I 0, line A I , after 6 . . . liJf6 7 liJcH. But Black has the i mportant options 6 . . . 'ffb6 !? ( when 7 liJd2 =/ oo is best) and 6 . . . 1!t'a5+ (Keene). In the latter case, 7 liJd2 d5 frees Black's game, so critical is 7 .td2 t!t'b6 8 liJc3 , when 8 . . . 1!t'xb2 9 lii:b l ?? '@xc3 wins, but 9 liJd5 'it>d8 or 9 liJ b5 lt>d8 is unclear.

4 .tg2 f5!? 5 d3 d6 6 liJc3 liJ f6

A standard position, but LarsenShirazi, Lone Pine 1979, took an odd turn after 7 0-0 h6!? (7 . . . g6) 8 liJ h4 g5 9 liJg6 lii:g8 10 liJ xf8 lt>xfl! I I a3 f4 1 2 b4 Uoo. C2

122

w

2

C2 1 3 g3 C22 3 liJc3

liJf6 ( 122)

a) 3 e3!? g6 4 liJc3 .tg7 5 d4 0-0 (5 . . . cd is safer) 6 .te2 (6 de( !) liJa6 7 .te2 liJxc5 8 0-0 t) 6 . . . cd 7 liJxd4 liJc6 8 liJc2 d6 9 e4 (9 0-0 .tf5 ! 10 f3 d5! � Vaganian) , Inkiov-

Vaganian, Plovdiv 1983, transposes to a Rubinstein Variation (Chapter 6). b) 3 b4 !? cb 4 d4 d5 (or 4 . . . e6 5 d5 .ic5) 5 cd liJxd5 (5 . . . 'i¥xd5 ( ! ) ) 6 e4 liJb6 7 d5 e5 !? 8 liJxe5 .td6, Napolitano-Adam, corres 1950-53, and now Napolitano gives 9 liJd3 ! . c ) 3 b3 g6 4 .tb2 .tg7 5 e3 0-0 6 �e2 liJc6 7 0-0 d5 =; here 3 . . . d5 4 cd liJxd5 5 .tb2 f6 6 liJc3! e5 !? 7 lt:\xd5 'i¥xd5 8 e3 .te6 9 �c4 t was MilesTimman, Amsterdam 1985. C2 1

3 g3 C2 1 1 3 . . . d5 C2 12 3 . . . g6

3 . . . b6 4 .tg2 .t b7 is Chapter I I , and 3 . . . a6!? 4 liJc3 ! (4 �g2 b5 ! ) will lead to a standard White space advantage after d4. C21 1

3 4 cd

d5

4 .tg2 liJc6 5 0-0 e5?! ( 5 . . . de 6 1!t'a4 is a Catalan ; 5 . . . d4 6 d3 e5 7 b4 !?) 6 t!t'a4 (123) :

2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 123

Black's position is exposed, e.g. 6 . . . "ilc7? 7 llJc3 de 8 llJxe5 "ilxe5 9 ..txc6+ llJd7 1 0 ..tg2 .i.d6 I I "ilxc4 ± Zaichik-Eingorn, USSR 1979, or 6 . . . ..td7 7 cd llJxd5 8 llJxe5! llJxe5 9 "ile4 etc. The main l ine has been 6 . . . .i.d6 7 llJg5 ! ltld7 ! ? (7 . . . .te7 8 cd llJxd5 9 "ilc4 .txg5 1 0 .txd5 "ile7 I I d3 .txc l 1 2 .txc6+ ± ; 7 . . . .te6 8 llJxe6 !; 7 . . . b5 !? 8 cb llJe7 ;!;; 7 . . . .td7? 8 cd lbb4 9 "ild l llJfxd5 1 0 d4 ! ..tc6 1 1 a3 llJ a6 1 2 "ilb3 .i.e7 1 3 de! ± Portisch-Kavalek, Tilburg 1980) 8 ..t xd5 ! "ilxg5 9 ..txc6 be 1 0 'ifxc6 llb8 I I "ilxd6 litb6 1 2 1Wc7 0-0 1 3 llJc3 ;!; Kovacevic-Barle, Sombor 1976.

Finally, Quinteros tried the novel 6 . . . 'itd6 !? versus Pan no in Buenos Aires 1980: 7 d3 !? .i.d7 8 "ilb3 llJa5 9 'itc3 llJc6 10 1i'b3 =. The relevant options are 7 llJc3!? (e .g. 7 . . . ..td7 8 llJb5 "ilb8 9 cd llJxd5 10 llJg5 !?), 7 llJg5 and even 7 llJa3!?. These need tests.

4 llJxd5 5 ..tg2

5 b3 f6! 6 .t g2 e5 7 0-0 llJc6 8 llJc3 ..te6 = Miles-Ljubojevic, Lucerne 01 1982.

5 llJc6 Interesting is 5 . . . g6 !? 6 d4 ..tg7,

e .g. 7 e4 llJc7! 8 d5 llJ b5 ! 9 0-0 0-0 (or 9 . . . ..tg4! Karpov) 1 0 'itc2 llJa6 I I .tf4 .i.g4 1 2 ltJ 1 d2 llJd4 =/ro Korchnoi-Karpov, Moscow 197 1 .

6 d4 (124) 6 0-0 e5 !? 7 llJc3 ..te6 8 llJg5 (8

d 3 .te7 =; 8 e3 llJxc3 with . . . .tc4, . . . e4) 8 . . . 1Wxg5 9 llJxd5 't!Vd8 10 llJe3 litc8 I I b3 ( I I 'ita4!?) I I . . . .i.d6 1 2 .i.b2 0-0 1 3 "ile l !? ( 1 3 litc l ) 1 3 . . . ..tb8 1 4 f4 e f 1 5 gf f5 =/ro Timman-Portisch, N ik�ic 1978 .

124

B

Following Andersson's lead, this has become a popular position. A sampling of ideas: a) 6 . . . llJc7 7 e3 ..tg4 8 llJc3 cd 9 ed e6 10 "ila4 "ild7 I I 0-0 .i.e7 1 2 .i.f4 llJd5! ? ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 ..txc7 and 14 d5) 13 llJxd5 ed 14 litfel :U.ad8 (?) ( 1 4 . . . 0-0) 15 ..tg5! .txf3 16 .txf3 0-0 17 ..txe7 llJxe7 18 1Wxa7 ± Miles-Ljubojevic, Bugojno 1986. b) 6 ... llJf6!? 7 e3 (7 ..te3!? e6 8 0-0 llJg4 9 ltlc3 llJxe3 10 fe = AnderssonPortisch, Nik�ic 1983. 7 tWa4 ..td7 8 de e5 9 0-0 ..txc5 10 lbc3 t Andersson-Portisch, Reggio Emilia 1985) 7 . . . e6 8 0-0 .te7 9 de .txc5 10 "ilxd8+ �xd8 I I .i.d2! .i.d7 1 2

124 2 !Df3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

li[cl .id6 1 3 &i:Jc3 ( 1 3 &i:Ja3 !? planning &i:Jc4 or ltJb5 Andersson) 1 3 . . . lieS 1 4 &i:Jb5 .ibS 1 5 &i:Jfd4 &i:Jxd4 16 &i:Jxd4 &i:Jd5 1 7 lid l ;!; SpeelmanPritchett, c) 6 . . . ltJb6 7 de tt'xd l + S �xd l &i:Ja4 9 &i:Jc3 &i:Jxc5 (9 . . . ltJxc3+ 1 0 be .id7 I I .i e 3 lieS 1 2 lilbl ltJa5 1 3 ltJe5 ;t Andersson-Timman, London 19S2) 1 0 .ie3?! ( 10 ltJb5 ! ltJe6 I I ltJg5 ltJcd4 1 2 ltJxe6 ltJxb5 - 1 2 . . . ltJxe6 1 3 .ie3 ± Byrne) 1 0 . . . ltJe6 I I � 2 g6 1 2 lilhd l t Andersson-Seirawan, Wijk aan Zee l 9S3. d) 6 . . . .if5 7 0-0 (7 ltJc3 ltJdb4 ! S e4 .ig4 9 a3 cd 10 ab de I I be g6! + Andersson-Portisch, Mar del Plata 19S2), and now 7 ... e6 S ltJe5 (S a3!? .ie7 - 8 . . . lic8!? - 9 de .ixc5 10 b4 .ie7 I I .ib2 t Nikolic-Ra zuvayev, Novi Sad l9S2) S . . . .ig6!? 9 ltJxg6 hg 10 ltJc3 ! cd I I ltJxd5 ed l 2 1!t'b3 ;t Andersson-Portisch, Turin 1982; or 7 . . . ltJdb4 ( ! ) S a3 !? (S 't!t'a4! 'tia5 ro Miles; then 9 't!t'xa5 ltJxa5 1 0 .id2 !? is interesting, with the idea 10 . . . ltJac6 I I ltJc3 ltJc2 12 d5 ! ) S . . . ltJc2 9 ltJh4 't!t'xd4 ! 10 ltJd2 !? ( 10 .id2!? Speelman) 10 . . . ltJxa l I I i.xc6+ be l 2 ltJxf5 't!t'd7 1 3 't!t'a4 g6, Speelman-van der Wiel, Dortmund l 9S5, and now best was 1 4 ltJe4! gf 1 5 ltJ xc5 , although the onus is on White to improve earlier. e) 6 ... cd 7 ltJ xd4 ltJdb4 8 &i:Jxc6 't!t'xd I + 9 �xd l ltJxc6 (125)

e l ) 1 0 .ixc6+ be l l ltJc3 ( I I .ie3!? a5 12 ltJd2 .ie6 13 �c2 .if5+ 14 �c l e5 15 ltJc4 t Miles-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 19S3) I I . . . g6 1 2 i.e3 .ig7 1 3 lilcl .ie6 14 b3 .ixc3 ! ( 14 . . . 0-0? 1 5 ltJa4 ±) 15 li[xc3 a5 = SmyslovHubner, match (7) l9S3 . e2) 1 0 ltJc3 .id7 I I i.e3 llcS (or I I . . . e5 !? 1 2 li[c I 0-0-0, SpeelmanAlburt, match (3) l 9S6) 1 2 lilc l g6 1 3 f4 .ig7 14 �el 0-0 15 �e2 .ie6 = Andersson-Farago, Rome l9S6. C212

3 g6 4 b3

a) 4 d4 cd 5 ltJxd4 d5 !? 6 i.g2 e5? (6 . . . .ig7) 7 ltJO d4 S 0-0 ltJc6 9 e3 .ig4 10 't!t'b3 ! ± TukmakovBelyavsky, USSR Ch l 97S. b) 4 .ig2 .ig7 5 d4 cd 6 ltJxd4 d5 !? (6 . . . 0-0 7 ltJc3 1tc7!? S 't!t'd3 ltJc6) 7 cd ltJxd5 S 0-0 0-0 9 ltJb5!? e6 10 e4 ltJb4 =.

4 .ig7 5 .ib2 0-0 6 .ig2 d6

After 6 . . . d5?! 7 cd ltJ xd5 S

2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 125

i.xg7 �xg7 9 (}-0 b6 10 d4 t Dzindzihashvili-We bb, Hastings 1 977-78.

7 0-0 e5 7 . . . lt:lc6 8 d4 cd (8 . . . lt:le4!?) 9

li:lxd4 i.d7 I 0 lt:lc3 'ii'a5 I I e3 t Romanishin-Gulko, USSR 1978.

8 lt:lc3 8 e3 lt:lc6 9 d4?! ed 10 ed i.g4 +

Kasparov. 8 lt:lc6 9 e3

Two good moves after 9 d3 are 9 . . . lt:lh5 I 0 e3 f5 I I li:ld2 lt:lf6 =

Bernat-Rogers, Buenos A ires 01 1 978, and 9 . . . lt:le8 1 0 lt:ld2 lt:lc7 I I e3? ! i.e6 + Tempone-Kasparov, Dortmund 1980.

9 .trs Or 9 . . . lt:le8 planning . . . lt:lc7, . . .

i.f5. After 9 . . . i.f5, WeinsteinTarjan, USA 1 977, continued 1 0 d 3 ( 1 0 d4? e4 I I lt:lg5 lle8 + WebbKasparov, Sk ara 1980) 10 . . . 'i!rd7 ( 1 0 . . . lt:lb4 I I e4 i.g4 1 2 h3 i.d7 = Kasparov) I I a3 ( I I lt:lg5! t Kasparov) I I . . . llab8 1 2 lt:lg5 a6 =. C22

3 lt:lc3 b6 A risky line which suddenly

attained popularity, although its value is still unresolved.

4 e4 Also 4 e3 !? can be dangerous:

a) 4 . . . i.b7 5 d4 cd (5 . . . e6 6 d5 ;!;) 6 ed e6 7 a3 ! (7 i.g5 !? i.e7 - 7 . . . h6! - 8 i.d3 0-0 9 h4!? SpeelmanKudrin, 1985; 9 . . . d5 10 i.xf6

i.xf6 I I i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 2 lt:lg5+ 'it>h6 13 'ii'd2 i.xg5 Karlsson) 7 . . . d 5 (126)

Now 8 i.g5 !? .i.e7 9 i.xf6 .txf6 10 cd ( intending 10 . . . ed I I .i.b5 +) ran into I 0 . . . (}-0! I I de fe 1 2 .i.c4 lt:lc6! 1 3 .i.xe6+ 'it>hH in AnderssonAdorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1984. In view of 14 d5 .i.a6! 15 de lle8, there followed 1 4 0-0 lt:lxd4 1 5 lL!xd4 i.xd4 1 6 i.d5 .i.xc3 17 i.xb7 i.xb2 = .

But here 8 cd! lt:lxd5 is promising, e.g. 9 lt:le5 ( ! ) (9 .i.b5+ i.c6 1 0 i.d3 lt:ld7 oo) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . i.d6!?) 1 0 'i!rf3 _.c7 I I i.b5+! ab 1 2 lt:lxb5 _.e7 1 3 lt:ld6+ @xd6 (?) 14 _.xf7+ 'it>d8 15 @xb7 Karlsson. Here 1 0 . . . _.f6 looks better, but I I _.g3 ! is still good, e.g. I I . . . i.e7 12 h4 ! or I I . . .

lt:lxc3 1 2 be i.d6 1 3 i.f4. b) 4 . . . g6 seems best to me, e.g. 5 d4 i.g7 6 i.e2 (6 d5 d6 7 e4 (}-0 8 i.e2 e6 avoids locking in Black's bishop on b7, so Black is a tempo up - . . . b6 - on a Benoni) 6 . . . 0-0 7 0-0 lt:la6!? (7 . . . i.b7? 8 d5 is bad, but 7 . . . e6!? and 7 . . . d6 are possible)

126 2 li:JjJ Introduction and 2 ' Others'

8 e4 (8 b3 i.b7 9 i.b2 e6 = ; 8 d5 d6 9 e4 li:Jc7 l 0 a4 e6 =) 8 . . . cd 9 li:Jxd4 i.b7 (9 . . . li:J c 10 f3 a5 !?) 10 f3 with a Hedgehog-like position.

4 i.b7!? a) 4 .. . d6 5 d4 cd 6 li:Jxd4 i.b7 (127)

127

w

Now 7 f3 would tranpose to Chapter 1 3, and 7 i.d3 e6 (7 . . . g6) 8 0-0 i.e7 9 't!re2 0-0 10 b3 ( 10 �h l with the idea f4, li:Jf3) 1 0 . . . li:J bd7 I I i.b2 was Ornstein-Ljubojevic, Nice 01 1 974, and here I I . . . a6 oo or 1 1 . . . l:l:e8!? was best.

An irregular seventh move was 7 li:Jd5 !? e6 8 �xf6+ 'it'xf6 (8 . . . gf? 9 i.d3 �d7 1 0 0-0 h5 I I i.c2 a6 12 J.e3 ± with f4, Murei-Dankert, Berlin 1 983) , Greenfeld-Kudrin, Beer-Sheva 1 984, and now instead of 9 c5?! be 1 0 i. b5+ li:Jd7 +loo, 9 li:Jb5 'it'b8 1 0 1t"g4 li:Jd7 I I i.g5 ! (Greenfeld) was interesting.

However, the biggest danger in this sequence is 7 11t"e2!?, preparing for 0-0-0 and a central advance: 7 . . . e6 (7 . . . li:Jc6?! 8 li:Jxc6 i.xc6 9 i.g5 li:Jd7 10 0-0-0 'tireS I I �b l

li:Jc5 1 2 f3 a5 1 3 h4 'it'b7 1 4 h5! ± Korchnoi-Gheorghiu, London 1980; 7 . . . g6 8 i.g5 i.g7 9 0-0-0 li:Jbd7 1 0 f4 ± Lebredo) 8 g4!? (or 8 g3 , e.g. 8 . . . li:Jbd7 9 i.g2 a6 10 0-0 l:l:c8 I I i.d2 'it'c7 12 b3 :!: KorchnoiMakropoulos, Rome 198 1 ) 8 . . . i.e7 (8 . . . li:Jc6 9 li:Jxc6 l:l: xc6 10 i.g2 i.e7 I I 0-0 l:l:c8 12 i.f4 t CvetkovicVelikovic, Yugoslavia 198 1 ) 9 g5 li:Jfd7 10 h4 li:Jc6 I I li:Jxc6 ( 1 1 i.e3) 1 1 . . . i.xc6 1 2 i.f4 a6 1 3 0-0-0 't!t'c7 14 �bl i.b7 1 5 h5 li:Je5 16 l:l:h3 t ( intending 1 7 g6 ! ) Vera-Lebredo, Managua 1 982. b) 4 . . . li:Jc6!? 5 d4 cd 6 li:J xd4 i.b7 7 i.g5 (7 f3 11t"b8 !? 8 i.e3 e6 9 1Wd2 i.d6 l 0 li:Jdb5 i.e5 I I f4 i.xc3 = Csom-Horvath , Magyarorszag 1984, or 7 i.e2 11t"b8 ! ?) 7 . . . 't!t'b8 8 li:Jxc6 i.xc6 9 't!t'e2!? (9 i.d3 t) 9 . . . h6 10 i.d2 e5 I I li:Jd5 i.xd5 , Tal-Toskov, Albena 1984, and here Tal gives 1 2 ed! i.e7 1 3 i.c3 d6 14 g3 :!: . Also 7 i.e3 e6 8 f3 i s solid, e.g. 8 . . . 'it'b8 9 1!rd2 :!: (9 ... J.c5 10 0-0-0 0-0 I I g4!), KorchnoiWinants, SWIFT 1987.

5 e5 5 i.d3 e6 6 0-0 d6 ! ? (6 . . . li:Jc6) 7

i.c2 i.e7 8 d4 cd 9 li:J xd4 a6 is similar to the 4 . . . d6 lines above. 5 d3 d6 6 g3 is Chapter I I .

5 li:Jg4 a) 5 . . . �e4!? doesn't deserve the '??' I gave it (or £CO's " ±±", for that matter), since 6 li:Je2 f6 ! 7 d3 li:Jg5 8 li:Jxg5 fg 9 i.xg5 (9 d4 !?) 9 . . .

2 liJf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' I 27

ttJc6 may be a playable gambit. b) 5 ... lLg8 is a more serious option:

6 d4 (6 ..td3 ..txf3 ! 7 1!rxf3 li:Jc6 8 "fWg3 g6 was equal in QuinterosDzindzihashvili, Lone Pine 1980) 6 . . . ..txf3 !? (6 . . . cd 7 li:Jxd4 g6 8 ..tf4 i.g 7 9 't!re2! llJc6 1 0 li:Jf3 li:Jh6 1 1 h4 ! V ± Mestel-Miles, London ! 984) 7 'ihf3 (7 gt1? cd 8 't!rxd4 li:Jc6 9 t!fe4) 7 . . . li:J c6 8 de (8 d5 !? li:J xe5 9 t!fg3 with space and the bishops would be interesting) 8 . . . be 9 1i'e4 ( 9 ..tf4 li:Jd4 1 0 1t'e4 f5 ! = RaicevicPlaninc, Yugoslav Ch 1977) 9 . . . g6 10 ..td3 ..tg7 1 1 f4 f5 1 2 1te3 d6 1 3 .tc2 li:Jd4 1 4 ..ta4+ �f8 =/ oo Portisch-Quinteros, Mar del Plata 198 1 .

6 h3 6 d4!? cd 7 li:Jb5 ! li:Jc6 8 ..tf4

1ib8 9 ..tg3 li:Jgxe5 10 llJxe5 li:Jxe5 I I 1i'd4 d6 1 2 0-0-0 =/oo Uhlmann.

6 li:Jh6

7 d4 7 .td3 .txf3 ! 8 1txf3 li:Jc6 9 e6 !?

g6 = Uhlmann-Adorjan, Sarajevo 1982.

7 cd 7 . . . ..txf3 8 1hf3 li:Jc6 9 de! with

the idea 9 . . . be 10 ..txh6 gh 1 1 e6 ! ± Uhlmann.

8 li:Jxd4 e6 8 . . . g6 9 ..tf4 li:Jc6 10 llJf3 ..tg7

1 1 .te2 li:Jf5? 1 2 g4 ! li:Jfd4 1 3 li:Jxd4 li:J xd4 14 'it'xd4! was GheorghiuStefanov, Romania 1979.

After 8 . . . e6, Vaganian-Pytel, Buenos Aires 01 1978, went 9 .tf4 (9 ..txh6!?) 9 . . . a6 1 0 li:Jf3 f5 1 1 g3 li:Jf7 1 2 ..tg2 ..te7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 lile l li:Jc6 1 5 h4 h6 1 6 h5 :V ±.

This is a rather skimpy overview of 3 . . . b6 4 e4 .tb7 5 e5, however, and the reader will find much room for independent investigation.

1 0 Three Knights: 2 . . . lbc6 3 lbc3 g6

128

w

1 c4 2 lLlf3 3 lLlc3

cS l!Jc6 g6 (128)

This variation hopes to control dark squares and maintain flexibility. But the difficulties following 4 e3 , and the fact that B lack has developed better systems, have cast the Three Knights into relative disuse. A 4 d4 B 4 e3

4 a3 i.g7 5 litb1 a5 6 e3, Hi.ibnerDiez del Corral, Spain 1975, is well answered by 6 . . . l!Jf6 7 d4 cd 8 ed d5 9 i.g5 i.g4! etc. A

4 d4 cd S lLlxd4 i.g7 6 lLlc2 ( 1 29)

a) 6 e3 lLlf6 (6 . . . lLlh6 7 lLlc2 !? , e .g. 7 .. . i.xc3+ 8 be lLlf5 9 i.d3 'it'a5 10 0-0 ! ) 7 lLlc2 (7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 cd lLlxd5 10 lLlxc6 be 1 1 l!Ja4 lLld7! = van Scheltinga-Tarjan, Wij k aan Zee 1973-74) 7 . . . 0-0 (7 . . . d6 8 i.e2 i.e6 9 e4 lLld7 I 0 lLld5 lLlc5 I I f3 f5 =/oo Keene-Tal, H astings 1973-74) 8 i.e2 b6!? (8 . . . d6 9 0-0 i.e6 I 0 e4 = is Chapter 6, colours reversed)9 e4 i.b7 10 i.g5 litc8 1 1 lLla3 h6 1 2 i.h4 a6 1 3 1Wd2 lth7 14 0-0 t Korchnoi-Gipslis, USSR 1966. b) 6 lLlb3!? d6 7 e4 b6!? (or 7 .. . lLlf6, or 7 . . . i.xc3+ 8 be lLlf6) 8 i.e2 i.xc3+ 9 be lLlf6 10 f3 ( 10 i.h6!?) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.g5 i.a6 1 2 lDd4 lLl a5 13 lLlb5 lLld7! 14 'it'd4 lLlc5 1 5 i.h6 lLle6 = Osterman-Holzl, Maribor 1983.

129

B

Three Knights: 2 . . . ltlc6 3 ltlc3 g6 129

A I ' 6 . . . d6 A2 6 . . . .1xc3+

6 . . . ltlf6?! 7 g3 d6 8 .i.g2 �0 9 �0 (or 9 b3 �) 9 . . . .i.d7 (9 . . . '1Va5 10 e4 � or 10 .i.d2 ± or 10 l0d5 ± ; 9 . . . .1e6 10 b3 9d7 I I ltldS .i.fS 12 ,ib2 ltlxdS 13 .1xg7 rj;xg7 1 4 .i.xdS! .i.h3 I S lit e I h S 16 ltle3 h4 17 litcl ± intending cS, Petrosian-Smej kal , Amsterdam 1 973) 10 b3 9c8 I I .tb2 .i.h3 12 l:t b l litd8 13 e4 .1xg2 1 4 rj;xg2 e6 I S l:te l a6 1 6 ltl a4 ! ± Korchnoi-Htibner, m atch (2) 1 980. AI

6 d6 7 g3

7 e3 .1xc3+ =. 7 e4 .1xc3+ is line A2, and here 7 .. . ltlh6 8 h4!? (8 .1e2) 8 . . . fS 9 hS fe 10 ltlxe4 is given as unclear by Botvinnik.

7 .te6 8 l0e3 liteS 9 .i.g2 9d7?!

Better 9 . . . .1xc3+. After 9 . . . 't1Vd7, Keres-Kuijpers, 1959, went 10 .i.d2 .i.h3 I I .1xh3 9xh3 1 2 ltlcdS ltlh6 1 3 9b3 9d7 1 4 .i.c3 U ±. A2

6 7 be

.1xc3+ lt)f6!?

The lines with . . . 1t'a5 are deal t with in Chapter 6, line A, since that order is now the main way of reaching these positions. In fact, 7 . . . 9aS is probably Black's best.

8 f3 8 ltlb4!? 9aS 9 ltld5 ltle4! 10

9c2 ltld6 I I e4 llJeS 12 .i.f4 f6 1 3 .i.e2 ( 13 lit d I !? ltldf7 1 4 .i.g3 ± planning f4) 1 3 . . . ltldf7 1 4 .i.e3 d6 I S lit b l ;t Szabo-Ribli, Wijk aan Zee 1973 .

8 d6 9 e4 .i.e6

Now Taimanov recommends 10 .i.h6!? or 10 ltld4. ·QuinterosFischer, Buenos A ires 1 970, went 10 .i.e2!? liteS I I ltle3 9a5 1 2 .i.d2 llJeS 1 3 9b3 l0fd7 ! 1 4 f4 tOeS I S 9c2 ltlc6 1 6 � 0 9a4! +. B

130

B

4 e3 (130)

This presents serious problems for 3 . . . g6 , and has accounted for its fall from favour. The threat is d4-dS. B l 4 . . . ltlf6 B2 4 . . . d6 B3 4 . . . .i.g7 8 1

4 ltlf6 S d4 cd

130 Three Knights: 2 . . . li'lc6 3 liJc3 g6

Wi nning d5. 7 cd li'lxd5 1s a Caro-Kann.

7 lLle4 Nothi ng works, e .g. 7 . . . .ig4

8 .ixf6 ef 9 cd i.xf3 10 1!hf3! li'lxd4 I I @e4+ @e7 12 (}.(}.0 ±, or 7 . . . .ig7 8 .ixf6 i.xf6 9 cd li'lb8 10 h3 0-0 I I .ic4 li'ld7 1 2 0-0 ± Uhlmann-Pribyl, Tallinn" 1 977.

8 cd li'lxc3 9 be 'ihd5 I 0 .ie2 (" 10 'tlrb3 ±"

8otvinnik) 10 . . . .ig7 I I (}.0 0-0 12 c4 't!Vd6 1 3 d5 li'la5? ( 1 3 . . . .ixa l 14 'i!t"xa l ±) 14 U.c l b6 15 U.el U.e8 16 c5! ±± ( 16 . . . be 17 1Wa4) RogoffZuckerman, Lone Pi ne 1978. 82

4 d6 5 d4 .ig4

5 . . . .ig7, most often played, is line 83 below. 5 . . . cd 6 ed .ig4 7

.ie2 .ig7 8 0-0 li'lh6 (8 . . . li'lf6 is '83' ; 8 . . . .ixf3 9 .ixf3 li'lxd4 1 0 .ixb 7 lilb8 I I .ie4 U ±) 9 d5 .ixf3 10 .ixf3 li'le5 I I b3 (}.0 12 i.d2 a6 13 .ie2 li'lf5 1 4 U.e I @b8 1 5 lic l U.c8 1 6 f4 li'ld7 1 7 .ig4 ± Smej kalZi nn, Lugano 01 1 968 .

6 i.e2 .ig7 7 d5 liJaS

7 . . . li'le5?? 8 li'lxe5 .ixe2 9 @a4+. 7 . . . .ixc3+ 8 be li'la5 9 e4 b6 10 0-0 li'lf6 I I h3 ± Taimanov, e.g. I I . . . .ixf3 1 2 .ixf3 0-0 1 3 .ih6 lieS 1 4 'itd3 li'ld7 1 5 .ie2 lt:le5 1 6 'i!t"g3 lt:lexc4 17 f4 etc. Finally, 7 . . . lt:l b8 8 h3 .ixf3 9 .ixf3 lt:lf6 I 0 0-0 0-0 I I 'itd2 a6 1 2 U. b l ! lt:lbd7 1 3 .ie3 was also ± in Smyslov-Simagi n, USSR 195 1 .

8 0-0 Or 8 .id2 lt:lf6 9 h3 .ixf3 10 .ixf3

0-0 I I b3 a6 12 0-0 U.b8, TaiVelimirovic, Titograd 1984, and now best is 1 3 a4! .

8 lt:lf6 8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 be lt:lf6 I 0 lt:ld2

.ixe2 I I 1!¥xe2 0-0 12 e4 li'ld7 1 3 li'lb3 with the idea .ih6, f4 etc.

9 h3 .ixO 10 .ixf3 0-0 I I .ie2 e6 12 de ( 1 2

e4 ed 1 3 ed ;l;) 1 2 . . . fe 1 3 @c2 'i!t"e7 14 b3 lt:lc6 1 5 .ib2 i Filip-AverbakhMoscow 196 1 . 83

4 .ig7 5 d4 d6

5 . . . lt:lf6? 6 d5 lt:lb8 7 e4 d6 8 .ie2 ± Welin-Zieher, Copenhagen

Three Knights: 2 . . .. lt:\c6 3 lLlc3 g6 131

1982. Better 5 . . . cd 6 ed d6 (6 . . . tDf6 7 d 5 lt:lb8 8 d 6 ! ±) 7 d5 (or 7 i.e2) 7 . . . lt:le5 (7 . . . lt:lb8 8 i.d3 lt:lf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 i.g5! ±) 8 lt:ld4 (or 8 lt:lxe5 ;!;) 8 . . . lt:lh6 9 h3 0-0 10 i.e3 lt:lf5 1 1 lt:lxf5 .ixf5 12 g4 .ic8 1 3 f4 t Partos-Paidoussis, Istanbul 1975.

6 .ie2 (132)

6 d5!? is not so clear, e .g. 6 . . . lt:le5 (or 6 . . . i.xc3+!? 7 be lt:la5) 7 li:ld2 (7 lt:lxe5 i.xe 5 8 i.e2 lt:l f6!? 9 0-0 g5!? - 9 0 0 0 0-0 (D - 10 i.d3 g4 I I ct>h 1 Jilg8 oo Keene-van der Wiel, Aarhus 1 983) 7 . . . f5 8 .ie2 lt:lf6 9 h3 e6!? (9 .. 0 0-0 10 f4 lt:lf7 00 Korchnoi-Fischer, Sousse I Z 1967)

10 f4 lt:lf7, Pytel-Tal, Jurmala 1 983; 1 1 g4!? ed 1 2 g5 lt:le4 l 3 lt:l xd5 lt:l g3 =/oo Pytel .

6 lt:lf6 6 . . . cd 7 ed lt:lf6 8 d5 lt:lb8 9 0-0

0-0 10 .ie3 ;!; Portisch-Petrosian, S an Antonio.

7 d5 Or 7 0-0 cd 8 ed .ig4 9 d5 .ix£3

10 .ix£3 lt:le5 1 1 .ie2 ;!; UhlmannBrowne, Zagreb 1970.

7 lt:la5 7 . . . lt:le5 8 lt:ld2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10

a4 lt:le8 1 1 f4 lt:ld7, Ribli-Pogats, Hungarian Ch 1972, and now Haag gives 12 Jila3 ! .

8 e4 Or 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ti'c2 ;!;. After 8 e4 ,

Filip-Sanz, Olot 1975, went 8 . . . 0-0 9 h3 (o r 9 0-0 .ig4 1 0 .ie3!? .ixf3 l l gf ;!;) 9 . . . a6 1 0 0-0 llb8 l l lle l ! .id7 1 2 e5 lt:le8 1 3 .if4 b5 1 4 cb ab 1 5 1t'd2 ;!;.

Conclusion. 4 e3 is still a good reason to avoid 3 . . . g6. The Three Knights is probably doomed to lasting quiescence.

1 1 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

I c4 c5 2 lt:lf3 lDf6 3 g3

3 lt:lc3 e6 4 g3 b6 will often transpose, but unique is 5 e4 .tb7 (5 . . . lt:lc6 6 .tg2 .tb7 7 0-0 t!Vb8 8 llel d6 9 d4 cd 10 lDxd4 ;t RomanishinVaiser, Sochi 1 984) 6 'it'e2!? lt:lc6 (6 . . . d6 7 d4 cd 8 lDxd4 a6 9 .tg2 'ti'c7 10 0-0 lt:lbd7 I I .te3 ! was Korchnoi-Csom, Rome 1 98 1 , or here 8 .. . g6! ? 9 .tg2 a6 1 0 0-0 lt:lbd7 I I lld l 'ti'b8 1 2 a4 ! .tg7 1 3 a5 ± Petrosian-Psa khis, Las Palmas IZ 1 982) 7 .tg2 d6 8 0-0 .te7 9 lld I a6 (9 . . . lt:l d4? 1 0 lt:lxd4 cd I l lt:lb5 e5 12 lDxd4 ! ed 1 3 e5 ± Seirawanvan der Wiel , Wijk aan Zee 1983; 9 . . . e5!?) 10 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4 1 2 llxd4 'it'c7 1 3 b3 !? ( 1 3 .te3 !) 1 3 . . . b5 1 4 .tb2 e5 1 5 llddl be 1 6 ll a c l =/ ro Rivas-Short, Plovdiv 1984.

3 b6 3 . . . e6 4 .ig2 lt:lc6 5 0-0 b6 !? 6

d4 cd 7 lt:lxd4 .t b7 8 lt:lb5 !? (8 lt:lc3) 8 . . . d6 9 .if4 e5 1 0 .ig5 a6 I I .txf6 gf 1 2 lt:l 5c3 ;Vro Pigott-Brittan , London 1 979.

4 .tg2 .ib7 5 0-0!?

An issue of move order which

can prove important. White can gain a tempo in certain lines, and sidestep problems based on . . . lt:le4 i n others, b y choosing 5 lt:lc3 e6 6 d4 cd (6 . . . lt:le4 7 d5 ( ! ) lt:lxc3 8 be .ie7 9 e4) 7 'ti'xd4 (133)

a) 7 . . . .ic5?! 8 'ti'f4 0-0 9 0-0 d5, Vaganian-Browne, Gjovik 1983, and now Adorjan gives 1 0 lldl ! 'ti'e7 I I cd lt:lxd5 1 2 lt:lxd5 .ixd5 13 b3 ± . b) 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 i s a main l ine, but 8 .tg5 is challenging: 8 . . . lt:lbd7 (8 . . . .ie7 9 lid I h6 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 I I 'it'f4 - 1 / 'ti'e3!? - I I . . . .txc3+ 12 be g5, Chekhova-Litinskaya , USSR 1984, and now 1 3 'it'e3 ! ;t Chekhova) 9 lt:lb5 t!Vb8 (9 . . . h6 1 0 .ixf6 lt:lxf6 I I lld l lt:le4 1 2 lt:lh4 lbc5 1 3 0-0! ± Suba-Kindermann, Dortmund 1985; 9 . . . e5!? lO lt:lxd6+

.ixd6 I I 'it'xd6 lLlc4 Suba) 1 0 lii:d l e5 I I 'ire3 a6 l 2 lLlc3 .ie7 1 3 .ih3 .ic6 14 lLld5 ;!: A.Greenfeld-Suba, Thessaloniki 01 1 984. c) 7 . . . lLlc6 8 'irf4 .ib4 is the main problem with this order: 9 .id2 0-0 10 0-0 .ie7 !? (now that White's bishop is diverted from b2; also interesting is 10 . . . lii:c8 and ... 'ire7, or even 1 0 . . . lLla5) I I lii:fd l ( I I llad l a6 1 2 lLld4 1!1c8 1 3 lLlxc6 .ixc6 1 4 e4 d6, about equal) I I . . . d6 ( I I . . . a 6 1 2 e4 d 6 1 3 1!1e3 lii:a7 = Stean-Andersson, Amsterdam 1 979) 1 2 lii:ac l h6 ( 1 2 ... llc8 1 3 .iel lii:c7 1 4 e4 lii:d7 1 5 'it'e3 't!fa8 16 't!fe2 lii:c8 ro Frias-De Firmian, New York 1 985) 13 .ie l 'irb8 1 4 h3? ! a 6 1 5 't!fe3 b5 ! + H .OiafssonDe Firmian, Copenhagen 1 985 .

Aside from this, 5 d3 !? e6 6 e4 d6 transposes to A3. 5 . . . d5 6 lLle5 or 6 cd lLlxd5 7 0-0 intending d4 is the alternative.

5 e6 (134)

6 lLlc3 a) 6 d3 d5 (for 6 . . . .ie7 7 e4 d6, see

Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 133

' A3 ') 7 cd lDxd5 (7 . . . ed 8 lDe5!?, e .g. 8 . . . .td6 9 'ira4+ lDbd7 10 lLlc4 .ic7 I I .if4 ro) 8 lDc3 .ie7 9 'it'a4+ 'ird7 (9 . . . lLl bd7 1 0 e4 lLlxc3 1 1 be ;!:, or 10 lDe5 !?) 1 0 'irg4 h5?! ( 1 0 . . . 0-0! , planning l l .ih6 .if6 1 2 lLle4? .t xb2! ) 1 1 'tlfc4 lLlc6 1 2 'ira4! 0-0 1 3 .ig5 ;!: RomanishinGeorgadze, USSR 1 972. b) 6 d4 cd 7 'irxd4 lLlc6 8 '1Vf4 can be independent, e.g. 8 . . . d5 !? 9 lii:d l ! .td6 l 0 'tlfh4 0-0 I I lLlc3 .ie7 1 2 .tg5 h6 1 3 cd! ed 1 4 .te3 ± Stukaturkin-Sakharov USSR 198 1 . Other tries include 8 . . . lLle7 9 lLle5 !? .txg2 10 �xg2 lLlg6 1 1 lLlxg6 hg 1 2 lLlc3 lii:c8 with equality in Rashkovsky-Kharitonov, Sverdlovsk 1 984, and 8 . . . .tc5 9 lLlc3 0-0 1 0 lii:d I lLle7 ro Kasparov, although in this case I I lLle5 intending e4 looks ;!:. Finally, simply 8 . . . 1!1b8 has its points, since 9 lLlb5 is not available . A 6 . . . .ie7 B 6 . . . a6 a) 6 ... lLle4!? 7 lLla4!? (7 lLlxe4 .ixe4 8 d3 .ib7 9 e4 .ie7 = Fedorowicz; but 7 'irc2! looks ;!:) 7 . . . .ie7 (7 . . . d5 !? ) 8 d 3 lLlf6 9 e4 d 6 1 0 lLlc3 ;!: Fedorowicz. b) 6 ... d6 7 lii:e 1 (7 d4 cd 8 lLlxd4!?) 7 . . . .ie7 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cd is 'A2' . Otherwise 8 . . . e5 9 b3 lLl c6 1 0 a3 0-0 I I lii:b l a5 1 2 lLld5 = PlachetkaVaisman, Stara Pazova I983, or 8 . . . lLlc6 9 d4 cd 10 lLlxd4 lii:c8 I I b3 0-0 I 2 .ib2 ( 1 2 .ie3) I 2 . . . lii:e8

/34 Queen 's Indian and Hedgehog

= Karlsson-Fedorowicz, Lugano 19S3. c) 6 . . . d5 7 cd (or 7 lt:Je5) 7 . . . lt:Jxd5 S d4 lt:Jxc3 9 be lt:Jd7 (9 .. . .ie7!?) 10 lil:e I cd I I cd .ib4 1 2 .ig5 ! f6 1 3 .id2 t Karpov-Hort, Waddi nxveen 1 979. d) 6 ... lt:Jc6 is popular, since 7 d4 lt:Jxd4 S lt:Jxd4 .ixg2 9 ot>xg2 (9 lt:Jxe6!? fe 1 0 ot>xg2 en SiddeekFedorowicz, Estes Park 19S4) 9 . . . cd 10 '@xd4 is considered equal , e.g. 10 0 0 0 'tWbS I I .if4 '@b7+ 1 2 ot>g 1 d6 1 3 .ig5 .ie7 1 4 .ixf6 .ixf6 ! = , or 1 0 0 0 0 a6, or 1 0 0 0 0 '@bS I I .if4 '@c6+ 1 2 f3 .ic5 13 '@d3 .ie7 14 lil:d1 0-0 = Fedorowicz.

So White's best is 7 e4 (135)

Now 7 . . . e5 S d3 .ie7 9 lt:Jh4 0-0 1 0 lt:Jf5 lt:Jd4 1 1 g4! t SteanSch neider, Beersheva 1 9SO, and 7 · o o lil:cS?! S e5! lt:JgS 9 d3 d6 1 0 .if4 t Uhlmann-Szabo, Amsterdam 1 972, are suspect. Smej kal-Larsen, Biel IZ 1 976, saw 7 0 0 0 'i!t'bS !? 8 d4 cd 9 lt:Jxd4 lt:J xd4 10 'it'xd4 .id6 ! =; but S lie I (S 0 0 0 d6 9 d4 !) or S d3

improves. Thus 7 . . . db is the main answer:

S d4 cd 9 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 (9 0 0 0 lieS 1 0 lt:Jxc6 ( ! ) .ixc6 I I .if4 is promising, e.g. I I o o · .ie7 1 2 t!Ye2 a6 13 llfd l t!Yc7 1 4 liac l t!YbS 1 5 e5 ! ) 10 t!Yxd4 .ie7 I I b3 ( 1 1 lidl a6 1 2 ti'd3 lt:Jd7) I I 0 0 . 0-0, ChristiansenAndersson, Hastings 1979-SO, and instead of the normal 12 .ib2 ti'bS =, 1 2 .ia3 ( ! ) prevents o o . lLld7 , e.g. 1 2 0 0 0 '@bS ( 1 2 o o • a6? 1 3 lifd 1 lt:JeS 14 e5! ±) 13 lUd I lidS 14 .ib4!? .ic6 1 5 a4 a6 16 f4 lia7 17 a5 b5 IS ti'b6 . A

136

w

6

A I 7 b3 A2 7 lil:e l A3 7 d3 A4 7 d4

.ie7 (136)

7 t!Yc2 !? 0-0 (7 0 0 . lt:Jc6 S e4 d6 9 lid I e5) S e4 d6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jbd7 1 1 lid 1 '@bS 1 2 b3 lieS 1 3 .ib2 a6 1 4 t!Ye2 was SmyslovDzindzihashvili, Moscow 1 972, when 14 · o o lil:eS! would have been equal .

Al 7 b3 0-0

7 . . . a6 is B l . 7 . . . d5 8 e3 lt:le4!? 9 .ib2 .if6 1 0 'it'c2 lt:lxc3 I I .ixc3 d4 = Lein-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi 1969.

8 .ib2 d6 8 . . . d5 is fi ne, e .g. 9 cd lt:lxd5 10

d4 ( 10 lt:l xd5 .txd5 I I 1t'bl - or I I fJ.cl lLld7 12 d4 fJ.c8 - I I . . . lt:ld7 12 fJ.d l 't!fc7 13 d4 1t'b7 14 de lt:l xc5 1 5 .id4 \12-\12 Smej kal-Ribli , Lucerne 0 I 1 982) 10 . . . lt:lxc3 I I .txc3 cd 1 2 1Wxd4 1t'xd4 was equal in Andersson-Polugayevsky, Mar del Plata 1982.

9 e3 lt:lbd7 a) 9 ... a6 10 d4 lt:lbd7? I I d5! ed 1 2 lt:lh4! g6 ( 1 2 . . . fJ.b8 1 3 lt:l f5 de? 1 4 .txb7 fJ.xb7 1 5 lt:ld5 ±±: Hulak; 12 . . . fJ.a7 1 3 lLlf5 d4 14 ed ± Karlsson-D.Gurevich, Helsinki 1 983) 13 lt:l xd5 lt:lxd5 14 .txd5 .txd5 1 5 1t'xd5 ± AnderssonBrowne, Wijk aan Zee 1983. Best seems 10 . . . 1t'c7 I I 1t'e2 lt:le4 = .

b) 9 . . . lLlc6 10 fJ.e l !? fJ.c8 I I fJ.c l fJ.c7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 ed d5 14 cd � Petrosian-Dolmatov, USSR 198 1 .

1 0 d4 fJ.b8! Stopping d5 due to I I d5 ed 1 2

cd b5 ! . Now I I 1t'e2 fJ.e8 1 2 e4 cd 1 3 lt:lxd4 a6 = was DzindzihashviliRibli, Amsterdam 1 978. A2

7 fJ.el (137) The most important alternative

to 7 d4. White hopes, by e4/d4/


lt:lxd4 , to gain a tempo on lines where he plays d4/1t'xd4/e4/.e3/ lt:ld4 etc.

A2l 7 . . . d5 A22 7 . . . d6

Black must be careful after 7 . . . 0-0, e .g . 8 e4 lt:lc6?! 9 e5! lLle8 10 d4 ;!; or 8 . . . d6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:lxd4 with the idea e5 . New is 7 . . . lt:le4!? 8 lt:la4!? (8 lt:lxe4 .txe4 9 d3 .tb7 10 e4 lt:lc6 =) 8 . . . d5 9 cd ed 10 d3 lt:lf6 I I d4 ro Speelman-Fedder, Plovdiv 1 983 . A21

7 dS 8 cd ed

8 . . . lt:l xd5 9 e4 (9 lt:lxd5 ed 10 d4 0-0 =) 9 . . . lt:lxc3 (9 . . . lt:lb4!? 10 d4 cd I I lt:lxd4 lLl8c6 - 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 a3 ltJ4c6 13 e5! ;!; Ftacnik-Meduna, Czechoslovakia 1978 - 1 2 lt:lxc6 lt:lxc6 13 e5! ;!; Larsen-G ligoric, Portoroz 1979) 10 be 0-0 I I d4 cd 12 cd lLlc6 1 3 .ib2 .tf6 ( 1 3 . . . lt:la5 !? ) 1 4 fJ.b l fJ.e8 15 h4 h6 (?) ( 1 5 . . . fJ.c8) 16 d5! ed 17 e5 .te7 1 8 e6 with the attack, Seirawan-

136 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

Timman, Las Palmas 19S l . 9 d4 �0

10 .tgS 10 de be 1 1 ltlh4 is worth a look,

e.g. I I . . . .. d7 1 2 e4! ltlxe4 ( 1 2 . . . d4?! 1 3 ltlf5 ! .tdS 14 ltla4) 1 3 ll:lxe4 de I 4 -.xd7 ltlxd7 1 5 .i.xe4 ! KanTaimanov, USSR Ch I 952. Other moves include 10 .tf4 ltla6! =, I O �3 lLl bd7 ( 1 0 . . . ltlc6!? I I de ltla5) 1 1 de ll:lxc5 I 2 ._dl =, and 1 0 ltle5 cd I I -.xd4 .tc5 1 2 �4 ltle4 I 3 ltlxe4 -.xh4 with an unclear position in Fedorowicz-Browne, US Ch I9S4.

1 0 ltlbd7 I 0 . . . ll:la6 I I litc l liteS ( 1 1 . . .

ltle4 o r I I . . . h6 Tal) I 2 e 3 ltlc7 !? ( 12 . . . ltle4 =) 13 de be I 4 ltl a4 ;t Romanishin-Tal , USSR 1977.

After 10 . . . ltlbd7, the continuation I I litc l h6 ( I I . . . liteS =) I 2 .txf6 lLlxf6 1 3 -.a4 a6 1 4 de be 1 5 ltld2 litbS I 6 e4 de led to a level game in Quinteros-Polugayevsky, Mar del Plata 19S2. A2

7 d6 More common than 7 . . . d5, but

difficult to handle. 8 e4 a6 (138)

S . . . 0-0 9 d4 cd 10 ltlxd4 has the drawback that 10 .. . a6 runs into I I e5 ( ! ) de 12 .txb7 lita7 13 ltlc6 11fxd i 1 4 lLlxe7+ �hS I 5 lit xd i litxb7 1 6 b 3 etc. And here 1 0 . . . ._c8 I I .te3 lLl bd7 1 2 f4 also favours White.

9 d4 cd 1 0 lLl xd4 'tllc7 1 1 .te3!

I I b3 ltlbd7 I 2 .tb2 =, e.g. I 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 f4 lit fe8 I 4 f5 !? e5 1 5 ltlc2 b5 ! , Larsen-Quinteros, Mar del Plata 1982.

1 1 ltlbd7 I I . . . 0-0 12 g4 !? is dangerous.

1 1 . . . -.xc4?? loses to 12 lite I ( I 2 . . . � 1 3 e5 !) .

1 2 litc1 0-0 13 f4 litfe8

a) 13 . . . litad8 14 g4 ltlc5 I 5 .tf2 e5 16 ltlf5 ef I 7 b4 ! ±± LemachkoAiexandria, match I 984. b) 13 ... litac8 14 g4 ( 14 f5 e5 I 5 ltld5 ._d8 =) 1 4 . . . ltlc5 I 5 .tf2 g6, Dezan-Bass, I 984, and now 1 6 .tg3 ! , e.g. 1 6 . . . e5 I 7 fe de 1 8 lLld5, looks better than I 6 b4.

14 g4 a) 14 .tfl .tf8 I 5 b3 litac8 I 6 f5 e5 I7 ltlc2 b5 = Spassov-Stoica, Athens 198 1 ; I 5 g4 e5 I 6 ll:lf5 g6 1 7 g5!? lLlh5 18 lLld5 oo Fedorowicz . b) 14 rs ltlf8 I 5 g4 ±, but 14 . . . e5

1 5 llJd5 1t'd8 or 14 . . . .if8 is critical. 14 lLlcS

A try to improve upon 1 4 . . . lljf8 15 g5 lLlfd7 1 6 b3 ( 16 'W'g4!?) 16 . . . llac8 1 7 llfl 'ifb8 18 f5 e5, Quinteros-Ribli , Linares 1 98 1 , and now Fedorowicz gives 19 lLlde2! with the idea lLlg3, f6.

/39

B

1 5 .ifl (l39)

A key position. Ftacnik succeeded with the move 1 5 . . . e5 versus Agdestein in Naestved 1985: 16 fe(?) de 17 lLlf5 llad8 1 8 ltJd5 lLlxd5 19 cd a5 20 lLlxe7+ (lest . . . .ig5) 20 . . . 'it'xe7 2 1 "itd2 llc8. But 16 lLlf5 ! seems to improve, due to 16 . . . ef 1 7 g5 lLlfd7 1 8 b4 lLle6 1 9 lLld5, when Black gets some compensation for the exchange, but it doesn't look sufficient.

Fedorowicz analyses 1 5 . . . d5 !? , giving 1 6 e5?! lLlfe4 =t= with the idea 1 7 cd lLlxf2 or 1 7 lLlxe4 de 1 8 .ifl lld8; and 16 ed ed 1 7 b4 lLlce4! 1 8 lLlxe4 de = ( although here 1 7 g5 !? intending 1 7 . . . llJfe4 18 lLlxd5 may be good). Fedorowicz suggests


16 cd! as best, e.g. 16 . . . 'it'xf4 17 b4 ltJcd7 ( 17 .. . ed 18 be be isn't enough) 1 8 de fe 19 lLlxe6 1lhg4 ( 1 9 . . . 'tireS 20 'W'b3 ! ) 20 lLlc7 ±.

In general, 7 lle l loo ks good against 7 . . . d6 , but 7 . . . d5 is likely equal. c

7 d3 This variation is fairly common

due to orders like I c4 llJf6 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 g3 e6 4 llJf3 b6 5 e4 .ib7 6 d3 or I c4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 e6 3 llJf3 b6 4 e4 .ib7 5 d3 etc. C l 7 . . . d5 C2 7 . . . 0-0 C1

7 dS Not possible in the above

mentioned move orders. 8 cd

8 lLle5!? 0-0 9 .if4 'it'c8 1 0 cd lLlxd5 1 1 lLlxd5 .ixd5 seems =, but could be tried.

8 eel On 8 . . . lLlxd5, 9 'it'a4+ is note 'a'

to 6 lLlc3 a bove. 9 lLlh4!?

9 lLle5 0-0 is harmless and 9 d4 0-0 comfortably equal.

9 0-0 9 . . . 'it'd7 10 e4!? . 8 fter 9 . . . 0-0,

the game Shirazi-Winslow, Los Angeles 1 982, continued 1 0 lLlf5 lLla6 1 1 d4 ( 1 1 .ig5 lLlc7 1 2 d4 h6 Winslow) 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 de be 1 3 a3 ( 1 3 lLlb5!?) 1 3 . . . lle8 1 4 b4 .tf8 1 5 lLlb5 lLlc7 1 6 lLlxc7 'it'xc7 1 7 .tb2


lt:le4 t. C2

7 0-0 8 e4 d6 (140)

Not S . . . d5? ! 9 cd ed 10 e5 and I I d4, but S . . . lt:lc6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 transposes.

140

w

9 b3 a) 9 lt:lel lt:lc6 1 0 f4 ltJeS (or 1 0 . . . a6) I I g4 lt:lc7 1 2 lt:\0 d5 1 3 fS de 1 4 de .i.d6 Y2-Y2 Petrosian-Darga, Las Palmas 1 973. b) 9 h3 a6 (9 . . . lt:lc6 10 d4 cd I I lt:lxd4 :cs 1 2 lt:lxc6 ! .i.xc6 1 3 .i.f4 t Smyslov-Reshevsky, Belgrade 1 970) 10 .i.e3 lt:lc6 I I d4 cd 1 2 lt:lxd4 lt:l xd4! (lest lt:lc2) 1 3 1i'xd4 lt:ld7 1 4 :rd :bS 1 5 :ac I 1i'c7 =

Carrasco-Gheorghiu, Palo Alto 198 1 . c ) 9 1i'e2 lt:lbd7 (9 . . . lt:lc6 1 0 :d l e5 = ) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 1i'c7 1 2 b3 a6 1 3 .i.b2 ;!; Smejkal-Piachetka, Czechoslovakia 197S. d) 9 :el doesn't allow d4 in one step (as 7 :e l did), so 9 . . . lt:lbd7 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:lxd4 a6 12 b3 1i'c7 1 3

.i.b2 :acS (or 1 3 . . . :res 1 4 :ac l 1i'bS) was balanced in PortischLjubojevic, Madrid 1973.

Common is 9 . . . lt:lc6 1 0 d4 e5, e .g . I I de de 1 2 ltJd5 ltJeS!? ( I 2 . . . lt:ld7) 1 3 b 3 lt:lc7 14 .i.b2 .i.r6 ( 1 4 . . . .i.d6 1 5 lt:l h4! lt:ld4 1 6 lt:lr5 t Polugayevsky-Gurgenidze , Kislovodsk 1972) 1 5 ii'c2 lt:le6 1 6 :ad I t Vaganian-Matanovic, Belgrade 1974.

9 lt:lc6 a) 9 ... lt:la6 1 0 :el (or 1 0 1i'e2! and d4) 1 0 . . . e5 I I .i.h3 lt:lc7 1 2 lt:lh4 g6 1 3 lt:lg2 intending r4, Korchnoi-Petrosian, match ( 1 ) 1974. b) 9 . . . lt:lbd7 10 1i'e2 a6 I I .i.b2 lt:le8 (?) 12 d4 ;!; Smyslov-Filguth, 1978. c) 9 . . . :es 10 .i.b2 .i.f8 I I :el lt:lc6 12 d4 e5 "=" ECO, but 13 de de 14 lt:ld5 looks ;!;. d) 9 . .. a6 10 .i.b2't!fd7!? ( 10 ... :eS) I I :e 1 lt:lc6 1 2 .i.h3 ii'c7, TaiPolugayevsky, Tallin·n 1973, and now best. is 1 3 lilac I ! ;!; planning d4.

1 0 d4 cd 1 0 . . . e5?! I I de de 1 2 lt:ld5! ( 1 2

. . . lt:lxe4?! 1 3 lt:lxe5 ! ) ;!; Gligoric. 1 1 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4

I I . . . 1i'd7 1 2 .i.b2 :acS 1 3 ltJc2 a6 1 4 1i'e2 :res 1 5 :rd ! 1i'c7 1 6 :ac l 1i'bS 1 7 f4 .i.aS IS �h i .i.f8 1 9 lt:le3 ;!; was Watson-de Firmian, Los Angeles 1 9S I . This illustrates the general "rule" that Black shouldn't allow lt:lc2 when his

own knight is on co ( lt:\c2 versus . . . lt:\bd7 is less effective) .

141

w

12 1t'xd4 a6 (141)

Here 1 3 ..i b2 ..ic6!? 1 4 :S:fd 1 1t'c7 1 5 :S:ac l 't!t'b7 is double-edged. Best may be 13 ..ta3 , e.g. 1 3 . . . 1t'c7 14 l:Ud 1 :S:fd8 1 5 llac 1 ( 15 lt:\a4 :S:ab8 ! ) 15 ... lii:ac8 1 7 ..ib4 ;l; with a4 to follow. A4

7 d4 cd 7 . . . 0-0?! 8 d5 ed 9 cd d6 1 0 lt:\d2

lt:\a6 1 1 lt:\c4 lt:\c7 12 a4 ± SmyslovDominguez, Las Palmas 1972. 7 . . . lt:\e4!? is almost untested. YudovichKovacevic, Zagreb 1969, saw 8 d5 (8 lt:\xe4 ..ixe4 9 d5 b5 !?; 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 1t'b3 t was H i.ibner-Sunye, Rio de Janeiro IZ 1 979) 8 . . . lt:\xc3 9 be i.f6 (9 . . . 0-0 Ku rajica; then 10 d6 i.f6 1 1 1t'd3 lt:\c6 1 2 e4 or 10 e4 d6 1 1 e5 !? can be tried) 1 0 e4 ! i.xc3 1 1 i.g5 f6!? ( 1 1 . . . i.f6 12 i.xf6 and 1 2 . . . gf 1 3 lt:\h4! or 12 . . . 1t'xf6 1 3 e5 1t'h6 14 lt:\d2! is difficult) 1 2 l::tc 1 fg 1 3 l::txc3 ed 14 ed 0-0 1 5 1i'c I h6 1 6 h4! gh 1 7 lt:\xh4 ±±.


A41 8 lt:\xd4 A42 8 1t'xd4 A41

8 lt:l xd4 i.xg2 9 �xg2 'it'c8

Also 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 e4 ( 10 b3 a6 1 1 i.b2 d6 1 2 d3 lii:a7! = Uh1mannRibli , Vrbas 1977) 1 0 . . . 1t'c8 (or 10 . . . d6 1 1 b3 a6 12 i.e3 'it'c7) 1 1 b 3 1t'b7 1 2 0 lt:\c6, CapablancaVidmar, New York 1927; possible now is 1 3 i.b2 :S:ad8 14 :i:te I lt:\e8 !? with the idea . . . lt:\xd4, . . . f5 .

10 1t'd3 Harmless is 10 b3 0-0 ( 10 . . . d5

1 1 i.f4!?) 1 1 i.b2 1t'b7+ 1 2 0 d5 =. But 10 i.f4!? is complex: 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 lt:ldb5 ( 1 1 e4 1t'xc4!? 1 2 lt:\cb5 lt:\c6 oo, or 1 1 . . . 't!t'b7 1 2 0 :i:td8) I I . . . a6 12 i.d6 lt:\c6 ! 13 i.xe7 lt:\xe7 14 lt:\d6 1t'c6+ 1 5 0 lt:\c8 16 lt:\de4 lt:\ xe4 = N ei-Gipslis, Tallinn 198 1 .

1 0 lt:\c6 11 lt:\xc6!

Or I I b3 , but 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 i.b2 :i:td8 or 1 2 . . . d5 !? should suffice, or I I . . . lt:\e5 1 2 1t'e3 1t'b7+ 1 3 0 lt:\g6, Nei-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch 1967.

1 1 1t'xc6+ 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i.d2 l::tac8 14

b3 l::t fd8 1 5 'tWO ( 1 5 0 d5 ) 1 5 . . . a6 1 6 l::tfe 1 d6 1 7 lhc l 1!t'b7 = intending . . . b5 Hort-Tal, H avana 01 1 966. A42

8 't!txd4 (142)


142

B

The main line. Black must first decide where he wants his queen's knight: A42 1 8 . . . lLlc6 A422 8 . . . 0-0 A423 8 . . . d6 A421

8 lLlc6 9 1Wf4

9 'tlt'd2 lLla5 1 0 b3 d5 I I lLle5 de

9 't!t'b8 a) 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 ltd1 and 10 b3 transpose to 'A422') 10 . . . ltc8 1 1 ltd ! .i.b4? ( I I . . . lLla5 !?) 12 e5 .i.xc3 13 be ± KorchnoiVeresov, USSR 1967. b) 9 ... lLla5!? 1 0 ltd ! !? ( 10 b3 ;t) 10 . . . 1Wc8 ! 1 1 b3 d5 1 2 cd? ( l2 lLle5 de =; 1 2 lLl b5 0-0 =) 12 . . . 't!t'xc3 .td2 't!t'b2 14 'tlra4+ 'lt>f8 1 5 .txa5 ba 16 de .txf3! 17 .txf3 lil:c8 =F Slitsky-Ruderfer, 1 967.

10 lLlbS Or I 0 1Wxb8+ ltxb8 I I .i.f4 l:r.c8

12 lLlb5 lLle4 1 3 l:r.ad I .i.c5 1 4 lLld2! t Smyslov-Tal, Moscow

1963. 10 e4 transposes to 8 . . . 0-0 below.

After 10 lLlb5 , Korchnoi-BarczaLeningrad 1967, went 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I 't!t'xb8 l:r.axb8 1 2 .i.f4 l:r.d8 1 3 .i.d6 (or 13 .i.c7 l:r.c8 14 .i.d6) 1 3 . . . .txd6 14 lLlxd6 .ta8 1 5 lt fd l ltb8 16 :S:d2 ( 16 lLlg5 !) 16 . . . :S:fd8 ( 1 6 . . . h6), and Milic suggests 1 7 lLlg5 ! . A422

8 o-o (143) Probably not the most accurate

order for the . . . lLlbd7 systems, but best for the . . . lLlc6 ideas.

9 ltdl a) 9 b3 lLlc6!? 10 't!t'f4 't!t'b8 1 1 .i.b2!? 't!t'xf4 1 2 gf !; 9 . . . d6. b) 9 e4!? lLlc6 (9 . . . 't!t'c8!? 10 e5 - or 10 lil:d1 - 1 0 . . . lLlc6 1 1 't!t'h4 " ! with the idea 1 1 . . . lLlxd5 1 2 cd .txh4 1 3 de ;!;" Yudovich; Black could argue with this) 10 ire3 ( 10 'tlrd3 d5 I I e5 - 11 cd lLlb4 = - I I . . . lLld7 1 2 cd lLlb4 =) 10 . . . .i.c5 !? ( 10 . . . d6 I I ltd l 1Wc7 1 2 1We2 lLle5 1 3 b3 lLlxf3+ 14 .i.xf3 a6 1 5 .i.b2 , KorchnoiKholmov, Moscow 1 964, and now

Karklins gives 1 5 . . . .ic6 ! ; l O . . . d5 ! ? I I e5 ! , e .g. I I . . . d4 12 lt:lxd4 lt:lg4 l 3 lt:lxc6 etc) I I 1!1e2 d6 1 2 b3 lt:ld7 1 3 .ib2 li:lde5 1 4 llad 1 :!; Smejkai-Giigoric, Vrbas 1977.

9 lt:lc6 9 . . . d6 is ' A423'. 9 . . . a6 10 .ie3 !?

.ic5 I I 1!1d3 is oo, and 9 . . . d5? ! l O lt:le5 .ic5 I I \!fh4 i s dubious. This leaves the old move 9 . . . 'tlt'c8 l 0 e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 .if4 lld8 I I l:l:ac l lt:lc6 12 'tlt'd3 d5! = Refir-Milev, 1958; 10 't!Vf4 lt:l a6 ! I I b3 d5 =) I I b3 lt:lc6 1 2 'tlt'd2 lld8 13 't!t'e2! lt:ld7 ( 1 3 ... lld7) 14 .ia3 1!1b8 15 lld2 lt:lc5 16 l:l:ad l ± Korchnoi-Gipslis, Stockholm IZ 1 962.

10 'tlt'f4 d6 Moves like 10 . . . llc8 1 1 b3 a6

12 e4 b5?! ( 1 2 . . . .ib4) 1 3 e5 ! b4 l 4 lt:la4 lt:le8 1 5 .ie3 f6 1 6 .ib6 ± Forintos-Kushnir, Lone Pine 1975, and lO . . . .ib4 I I .id2 (or I I lt:lf5 ! nd lt:lge4) 1 1 . . . lt:la5 1 2 b 3 't!t'e7 1 3 lt:lb5 :t are no longer played. Better is lO . . . 't!t'b8 (144) :

144

w

a) 1 1 1lhb8 ( I I b3 l:l:d8 1 2 't!t'xb8


may be more accurate) I I .. . l:l:axb8 ( l l . . . l:l:fxb8?! 1 2 .if4 l:l:d8 l 3 lt:lb5 lt:la5 1 4 .id6 :t Portisch-Csom, Ljubljana 1973) 1 2 .if4 l:l:bc8 1 3 lt:le5 ( 1 3 lt:lb5 d5 ! =) 1 3 . . . d6! 1 4 lt:l xc6 .ixc6 1 5 .ixd6 .ixd6 1 6 Itxd6 .ixg2 1 7 'ii?xg2 Itxc4 1 8 Itad l g5 ! 19 lld8 llxd8 20 l:l:xd8+ 'ii?g7 2 1 l:l:a8 lt:ld5 ! = PortischPachman, Amsterdam 1 967 . b) 1 1 e4 't!t'xf4 ( 1 1 . . . l:l:d8 AI burt) 12 .ixf4 Itfd8 1 3 e5 lt:le8 14 lt:ld4 lt:la5 ( 14 . . . l:l: ac8!?; 14 . . . 'ii?f8!? Averbakh) 1 5 b3 .ixg2 16 'ii?xg2 g5 ( 1 6 . . . d6 1 7 ed .ixd6 1 8 .ixd6 lt:l xd6 19 l:l:d2 :t Karpov-Portisch, Milan 1 975) 17 .ie3 'ii?g7 1 8 f4! gf 19 gf lt:lc6 20 lt:lce2 ± PetrosianPortisch, Palma de Mallorca 1974.

1 1 b3 'tlt'b8 I I . . . a6 1 2 .ia3 d5 1 3 .ib2( ! )

with the idea 1 3 . . . .id6 1 4 cd! . 1 1 . . . 'tlt'd7 1 2 .ib2 l:l:fd8 1 3 .ih3! ± intending lt:ld5 or lt:l b5 SzaboTatai , Sarajevo 1972.

12 .ib2 l:l:d8 a) 12 ... lt:leS 1 3 .ia3 ! lt:lxf3+ ( 1 3 . . . lt:lg6) 1 4 .ixf3 :!; Hort-Nicevski, Rovinj-Zagreb 1970. b) 12 . . . a6 1 3 lt:lg5 ! ( 1 3 e4 l:l:d8 transposes, but 1 3 l:l:d2 ! is also strong) 1 3 ... l:l:a7 ( 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 lt:lge4) 1 4 lt:lce4 lt:le5 1 5 lt:lxf6+ .ixf6 16 .i xb7 l:l:xb7 17 lt:le4! .ie7 ( 1 7 . . . lt:lf3+ 18 't!t'xf3 .ixb2 1 9 l:l:ab l .ie5 2 0 lt:l xd6! Haag) 1 8 l:l:d2 ± Smyslov-Andersson, Biel IZ 1 976.


1 3 e4 Again 1 3 l:ld2 is promising, e.g.

13 . . . a6 14 "tit'e3 ! ( 1 4 li:Jg5 ! h6! 1 5 lL!ge4 lL!xe4 intending 1 6 lL!xe4 f5 and . . . .ig5) 14 . . . lL!d7 1 5 lL!g5 ! etc.

1 3 a6 14 "tit'e3 "tit'a7

14 . . . b5?! 1 5 cb ab 16 lL!xb5 lL!b4 1 7 lL!fd4 (or 1 7 e5 !?). After 14 . . . "tit'a7, Taimanov-Kholmov, USSR Ch 1967, continued 15 lL!e l l:lab8 1 6 lL!c2 .ia8 1 7 t!re2 (;l;) 1 7 . . . t!rb8 1 8 a 4 t!rc8 1 9 l:lab I lL!e8 20 f4 .if6 2 1 h3 lL!c7 22 lt>h2 lL!a7 23 lL!e3 U ±. A423

145

w

8 d6 ( 145)

Now Black intends . . . lL!bd7 instead of . . . lL!c6. Still in its infancy at the time of the first edi tion, this 'Hedgehog' system subsequen tly became the s ingle most popular answer to the English Opening. It's worth a little space to consider how this came about. By traditional theory, Black's pawn on d6 should prove a weakness in the long run.

White's strategy in these ci rcumstances was supposed to be straightforward: establish a bind on Black's two freeing moves . . . . b5 and . . . d5 . Then, with more space to work with , White could more rapidly shi ft his forces from one side to another, eventually forci ng new weaknesses or material gain . This sort of squeeze was a trademark of many strong players, including (e.g.) Botvinni k and Smyslov.

Two di fficulties arose: ( I ) Preventing both . . . b5 and . . . d5 turned out to be more difficult than in posi tions with the knight on c6; in particu lar, the b7 bishop had more direct control of e4, d5 and even b5 (after, e.g, . . . �c6); (2) I f Wh ite did manage to achieve the bind. it often turned out that he couldn 't transfer his forces as planned above, because any committal movement would release the pressure on Black 's game. Thus White tends to be as much tied up by Black 's latent activ ity as Black himself is tied up by White's space advantage.

After several years and seemingly countless games, the essential validity of Black 's st rategy versus a central bind seems fu lly substantiated. In fact, players on the White side turned their attention to either an early central break (e4-e5) or to a safer positional solution beginning with �g5xf6, to defuse the counter-

attacking potential of Black's setup. These latter strategies have done much to discourage advocates of the Hedgehog, but the debate continues. A423 1 9 b3 (with 10 .ta3) A4232 9 l:i:dl A4233 9 e4 A4234 9 i..g5

These lines are highly transpositional , so I have grouped b3 and lid l without e4 under A4232, those games where an early e4 is played under A4233, and the rare 9 b3 with 10 i..a3 under A423 l . A4231

9 b3 0-0 9 . . . a6 is 'B' below. 9 . . . lt:Jbd7

1 0 .ta3 lt:Jc5 I I b4 lt:Jce4 12 lt:Jxe4 .txe4 1 3 llfd l 0-0 1 4 b5 1!t'cS 1 5 'tie3!? l:i:dS I 6 l:i:d4 ( 1 6 lt:Jd4 !?) 1 6 . . . a6! 1 7 l:i: xe4 lt:Jxe4 1 S lt:ld4! ( I S 'ti'xe4 d5 !) I S . . . f5 1 9 lt:Jc6 i..f6 20 i..xe4 fe 2 1 i..b2 l:i:eS 22 .txf6 gf 23 'tixb6 ab = Uhlmann-Jansa, Hastings 1975-76.

10 i..a3 10 i..b2 transposes to lines

below, e .g. 10 a6 I I l:i:d l ts 'A4232' .

10 lt:la6 ! As suggested in the first edition.

10 . . . lt:lc6 I I 'tif4 a6 12 l:i:d l ::!:: transposes to ' A422', whereas 1 0 . . . d5!? I I .txe7 'ti'xe7 1 2 c d lt:lxd5 1 3 lt:lxd5 i..xd5 14 l:i:acl is unclear.

1 1 l:i:fd1 lt:lcS 12 l:i:acl ( 1 2 ll:Jb5 lt:lfe4 1 3 't!t'e3


a6 14 lt:lbd4 'ti'c7 =!+ was SubaStefanov, Romania 19SO) 1 2 . . . a6 13 b4?! lt:lcd7 14 i..b2 'ti'bS 1 5 lt:ld2 i..xg2 16 'i!txg2 lieS 17 f3 (?) b5! =t= Miles-Adorjan, R iga IZ 1979 . A4232

9 l:i:d1 0-0! ? The safer 9 . . . a6 10 e4 is examined

in 'A4233' , and 9 . . . a6 10 lt:Jg5 is 'B22' below. Also possible is 9 . . . ll:Jbd7, e.g. 1 0 lt:lg5 ! ? .txg2 I I 'i!txg2 0-0 1 2 lt:Jge4 lt:lxe4 ( 1 2 . . . lt:leS 1 3 lt:lb5) 1 3 lt:Jxe4 1!t'c7 ! 1 4 b3 ( 1 4 lt:Jxd6 l:i:adS) 1 4 . . . lifdS 1 5 f3, Krnic-De Firmian, N ice 19S I , and now Krnic gives 1 5 . . . lt:lf6! =.

10 b3!? a) 10 lt:lbS !? lt:lc6 I I 'ti'd3 'ti'bS 1 2 b3 ( 1 2 lt:J xd6? lidS 1 3 i..f4 e5 1 4 lt:J xe5 lt:lxe5 1 5 .txe5 i..xg2 1 6 'i!fxg2 lt:leS H Alburt) 1 2 . . . l:i:dS 1 3 i..b2 , AI burt-Tarjan, US Ch 19S I , and now 1 3 . . . a 6 or 1 3 . . . d5 ! 14 cd ( 1 4 lt:Jg5 h6! 1 5 .txf6 .txf6 1 6 't!t'h7+ 'i!ff8 Christiansen) 1 4 . . . lt:lb4 1 5 'ti'b l i..xd5 1 6 i..e5 'tib7 1 7 a3 i..e4 = Byrne and ·Mednis. b) I mportant for an assessment of this order is 10 i..gS( ! ) lt:Jbd7 10 . . . lt:lc6 I I 't!t'f4 ;!; SpeelmanHawksworth, Edinburgh 19S5) I I lt:Jb5 d5 ( I I . . . e5!? 1 2 'tie3 e4 1 3 i..xf6 lt:Jxf6 1 4 lt:lfd4 lt:lg4 1 5 'tif4 ;!; Gurevich-Benjamin, US Ch 19S3; 12 'i!t'd2!?) 12 cd i..xd5 ( 1 2 . . . lt:lxd5? 1 3 .txe7 't!t'xe7 1 4 e4 and 15 e5 ; 1 2 . . . ed!? 1 3 1t'f4 h6 1 4 .txf6 lt:J xf6 1 5 lt:Jfd4 - 15 lt:Je5 l:i:e8! - 1 5


. . . a6 1 6 lt:lc3 .id6 1 7 't!rf5 ! ]i[e8 1 8 lt:lxd5 lt:lxd5 19 .txd5 .txd5 20 't!rxd5 .te5 2 1 e4 ! U ± AdorjanBouaziz, Riga IZ 1979) 1 3 lt:lc3 ( 1 3 't!rh4 ]i[c8 ! 1 4 e4 ]i[c4 1 5 lt:lfd4 .ia8 = Horvath-Borm, Baden 1980) 1 3 . . . .ic6 1 4 't!rc4! ( 14 lt:le5 lt:lxe5 1 5 't!t'xe5 't!t'c8 = Schiissler-Suba, Lucerne 01 1982) 14 . . . 't!rc8 ( 14 . . . ]i[c8 1 5 'tlra6 'tlk 7 1 6 lt:lb5 ;!; Ftacnik) 15 e4 h6 (?), Korchnoi-Ftacnik , Biel 1 984, and now 1 6 .if4 ! was very strong, e.g. 1 6 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . . . g5 1 7 lt:ld4 ± ) 1 7 lt:lxb5 't!rb7 1 8 lLlc3 ! ± Ftacnik. Better seems 15 . . . lt:lc5 16 e5 ( 1 6 lt:ld4 .ib7 1 7 e5 !?) 16 . . . lt:ld5 17 b4, Kengis-Shabalov, Jurmala 1985, and now 17 . . . lt:l xc3 is =/ ro according to Kengis; but in general this looks a risky line . 9 . . . a 6 i s probably more accurate than 9 ... d6.

146

w

10 11 .tb2

A4232 1 1 2 lt:lg5 A42322 1 2 ... e3

lLlbd7 a6 ( 146)

1 2 lt:ld2 .txg2 1 3 'i!?xg2 't!rc7 1 4

lt:lde4 transposes t o 1 2 lLlg5 . 1 2 'tlt'd2 ... c7 1 3 lt:ld4 .ixg2 1 4 'i!?xg2 'tlt'b7+ 1 5 f3 lt:le5 (or 1 5 . . . ]i[fd8 =, or 1 5 . . . ]i[fc8 16 e4 lt:le8 =) 1 6 e4 ]i[fc8 1 7 'tlt'e2 lt:lc6 ( 1 7 . . . g5!?) 1 8 lt:lxc6 ]i[xc6 was equal in KorchnoiPolugayevsky, Buenos Aires 1980 . A42321

12 lLlg5 .ixg2 13 'i!?xg2 'tlt'c7

Or 1 3 . . . ]i[a7 14 lt:lge4 't!t'a8 1 5 f3 lt:le8 = Baumbach-Espig, 1976. Or 1 3 . . . 't!rb8 1 4 lt:lge4 ]i[d8 1 5 lt:lxf6+ .txf6! 1 6 't!rxd6 'tlt'b7+ 1 7 'i!?g l ( 1 7 f3 lt:le5 1 8 't!ra3 lt:lg4! 19 ]i[xd8+ ]i[xd8 20 lt:le4 lt:le3 =/ ro R uderferPsakhis, USSR 1980) 1 7 . . . lt:le5 1 8 't!ra3 lt:lc6 = Koval:evic-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice 1 978 .

1 4 lt:lge4 't!rc6 Or 1 4 . . . lt:le8 with the idea .. .

't!rb7, . . . b5 Ljubojevic. Or 1 4 .. . ]i[fd8 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ .txf6 ! ) 1 5 . . . lt:lc5 1 6 ]i[ac1 'tlt'b7 = SchmidtGiigoric, Buenos Aires 01 1978. After 14 . . . 'tlt'c6, Hort-Browne, Buenos Aires 1 980, went 15 f3 li[fd8 16 lilacl lt:lc5 1 7 lt:l xc5 be 18 'tlt'f4 d5 19 e4 de =. A42322

12 't!t'e3 With the ideas lt:ld4-c6 and/or

f4-f5 . 12 'tlt'c7

Or 1 2 . . . lil e8 , e .g. 1 3 lLld4 ( 1 3 h3!?) 1 3 . . . .txg2 1 4 'i!?xg2 .tf8 1 5 :C:ac l 'tlt'c7 1 6 h 3 ]i[ac8 = RibliGiigoric, Vrbas 1 977.

1 3 h3 Larsen's move, s topping . . . ll:lg4

and giving the king a safe square on h2. 1 3 ll:ld4 .txg2 14 �xg2 ll:le5 (or 14 . . . l:lfe8 !) 15 f3 ( 1 5 f4 !? �7+ 1 6 ll:lf3 ll:leg4, e .g. 1 7 1M3 ll:ld7 ! 1 8 b4 ! f5! ? oo ) 1 5 . . . �7 1 6 lild2 litfc8 1 7 h3 lilc7 1 8 a4 ll:lfd7 = Seirawan-Browne, US Ch 1 980 .

1 3 lilfc8 Or, again, 1 3 . . . lilfe8 ! . Complex

was 13 . . . lil acS 1 4 lilac! lilfdS 1 5 ll:ld4 .txg2 1 6 �xg2 ll:le5 1 7 f4 'it'b7+ I S ll:l f3 ll:lc6 1 9 �h2 b5 20 f5 ! e5 2 1 g4, Larsen-Browne, Reykjavik 1978.

14 ll:ld4 .txg2 1 5 �xg2 ll:leS

"=" Hubner. In Htibner-Browne, Tilburg 1982, White got some pull after 16 �gl ll:lc6?! ( 16 . . . 'tlt'b7) 1 7 lilac l 'tlt'b7 I S ll:lxc6 lhc6 1 9 a4 ll:leS 20 .ta3 . A4233

147

w

9 e4 a6 (147)

Most flexible. 9 . . . 0-0 will usually transpose, but cuts down on the


number of defences to the e4-e5 plan of 'A4233 1 ' . A4233 1 10 b3 A42332 10 'tlt'e3 A42331

1 0 b3 ll:lbd7 1 1 lild1

a) 1 1 .ta3 ll:lc5 12 lilfe l 0-0 ( 12 . . . e5 ! ? =) 1 3 lilad l �8 14 e5 de 1 5 'tlt'xe5 'tlt'a7 ro Lief-Walder, Anaheim 1 9S4. b) The simple 1 1 .tb2 0-0 has fallen from favour: b l ) 12 ll:ld2 .tc6 1 3 a4 'tlt'bS 14 lilfe 1 liteS 15 h3 .tffi = KorchnoiBrowne, Chicago 1 9S2. b2) 12 lilfe1 1Wc7 1 3 11t'd2 lilfe8 1 4 ll:ld4 .i. ffi 1 5 lilad1 lilad8 1 6 ll:lc2 11t'b8 1 7 11t'f4 .taS 1 8 g4 ll:le5! 1 9 g5 ll:lg6 20 'tlt'e3 ll:lh5 2 1 ll:le2 d5 22 e5 ll:lh4! =F Valvo-Gheorghiu, Philadelphia 1978. b3) 1 2 lilfd1 and now: b3 1 ) 12 ... lilc8 13 ll:ld2 .tc6! 14 a4 'tlt'c7 1 5 h3 lilfe8 = Karpov-Browne, Buenos Aires 1 9SO. b32) 1 2 ... 'tlt'c7 1 3 11t'e3 lilfe8 14 ll:ld4 ( 1 4 'tlt'e2 lilacS 15 lild2 'tlt'bS 1 6 lilad l .tf8 1 7 ll:le l ! intending ll:ld3, f4, Smej kal-Raj kovic, Belgrade 1977, is a neglected plan) 1 4 . . . .t f8 1 5 lilac I lit adS 1 6 h3 g6?! ( 1 6 . . . �s =) 1 7 ll:ld5 ! ! (148)

1 7 . . . ed I S cd ll:lc5? ( I S . . . 'tlt'bS 19 ll:lc6 'tit' aS 20 lZl xdS 'tlt'xdS 2 1 'tlt'f4 ;t Rshaid) 1 9 ll:lf5 ! ll:lxd5 20 ll:lh6+ .txh6 2 1 'tlt'xh6 ffi 22 ed ± Rshaid-Wiedenhafer, corres 1984.


b33) 12 . . . 1i'b8! 1 3 ll:ld2 ( 1 3 'ti'e3 liteS 1 4 ll:ld4 .tffi =) 1 3 . . . litdS (or 1 3 . . . litac8 1 4 'it'e3 b5 ! + UhlmannLjubojevic, Amsterdam 1975) 1 4 a4 't!V c7 1 5 't!Ve3 n acS 1 6 'ti'e2 ll:le5, Polugayevsky-Ftacnik, Lucerne 01 1 9S2, and instead of 1 7 h3 h5! l S f4 ll:l g6 1 9 ll:lf3 d5 ! 20 cd h4 ! =F, Ftacnik gives 17 'it>h 1 =.

11 'it'c7!? a) 1 1 . . . lita7 1 2 ..ia3 ll:lc5 1 3 e5 .txf3 ( 13 . . . de 1 4 't!fxdS+; compare below) 14 .txf3 de 1 5 't!fxe5 ll:lcd7 16 ..ixe7 'it'xe7 1 7 'W'e3 litc7 l S ll:la4 ± Tiller-Lobron, Randers 1 9S2. b) 11 . . . ll:lcS!? 12 e5 de 13 1i'xe5 ( 1 3 ll:lxe5 .. c7 =) 1 3 . . . \i'cS 1 4 ..ib2 ( 1 4 ..if4 0-0 1 5 't!fc7 't!fxc7 1 6 ..ixc7 ll:lcd7 =) 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 litd2 liteS 1 6 litadl ..ic6 1 7 'it'e2 ll:lcd7 = Smejkal-Quinteros, Novi Sad 1 9S2. c) 11 . . . 1!t'b8 1 2 .ta3 ll:lc5 13 e5 and now: c l ) 13 ... ..ixf3 14 ..ixf3 de 15 ..ic6+ 'it>ffi 1 6 'it'e3 lita7 (149)

Now known is 1 7 b4 ll:lcd7 1S c5 ! , e.g. l S . . . g6 !? ( l S . . . b 5 1 9 ..ib2 is untested; l S . . . 'ti'c7?! 19 ..ixd7 ll:lxd7 20 ll xd7 ! ! 't!fxd7 2 1 cb llaS 22 litd 1 'ti'c6 23 ll:le4 f5 24 b5 ! ! with a winning attack, StempinKsieski, Polanica Zdroj 1 9S3) 19 ll:la4 be 20 't!fh6+ 'it>gS 21 be 'ti'f8 !? 22 'W'e3 'it>g7, Mayorov-Andrianov, USSR 19S3; 23 litac l ! Andrianov, but this leaves many questions.

I like the simple 17 lld2. Then 17 . . . 'it'cS? lS 'W'xe5 ! or 17 . . . litc7? l S 'it'xe5 is bad, but on 17 . . . ll:lcd7, l S ..ixe7+ 'it>xe7 19 litadl h6 (else 'ti'g5) 20 ll:le4 with the idea c5 and/ or litd6/ ll:lf6 can follow. White intends simply litadl and then (e.g.) b4 if Black does nothing. c2) 13 ... de 14 Wxe5 'ti'a7!? ( 1 4 . . . ..ixf3? 1 5 'W'xbS+ lit xbS 1 6 ..ixg3 0-0 1 7 ll:la4 litfcS 1S ll:lxc5 ..i xc5 19 .ib2! ± and ..ie5 Tiller-H.Olafsson, Randers 19S2) 1 5 ll:la4 ( 1 5 i.b2 liteS 1 6 'it'e2 'ifaS = Tu kmakovPsakhis, USSR Ch 1 9S3; 15 'it'e2 0-0 16 ll:le5 ..ixg2 1 7 'it>xg2 litcS) 1 5

. . lt:Jfd7 ! 1 6 'iff4!? ( 1 6 'ifxg7 .if6 1 7 �h6 .ixa I 1 8 lt:Jxe5 =/ro Greenfeld) 16 . . . 'ifb8 17 'ifg4 h5 m Miles-Georgiev, Belfort 1983.

Also possible in this line is 14 . . . tL1ed7 1 5 'ifxb8+ nxb8 1 6 .iel ( l 6 .ixd6 .ixd6 1 7 nxd6 rt/e7 1 8 Ilad 1 b5 ! + Trosclair-Gheorghiu, New York 1984; 16 .ib2 !? 0-0 1 7 t'i:ld4 .ixg2 1 8 rtlxg2 llfe8 1 9 f4 t'iJg4 20 lt:Je2! lt:Je5 2 1 h3 lt:Jf6 22 t'i:le3 b5 23 Ilacl t Ftaenik; but 23 . . . b4! 24 lt:Je2 lt:Jfe4 =) 16 . . . ne8 17 .ib2 h5 !? 18 h4 ( 1 8 h3) 18 . . . ne7 1 9 lt:Jg5 .ixg2 20 rt/xg2 0-0, Georgiev-Ftaenik, Wijk aan Zee 1985. Instead of 17 . . . h5!?, 1 7 . . . Ii:g8!? 1 8 lt:Je2 g5 19 lt:Je5 .ixg2 20 \t>xg2 lt:Jxe5 2 1 .ixe5 lt:Jd7! was equal in Pelts-Browne, New York 1986. d) 11 ... 0-0? 1 2 .ia3 lt:Je5 1 3 e5 de 14 1!fxd8 nfxd8 1 5 lt:Jxe5 .ixg2 1 6 $>xg2 .if8 (or 1 6 . . . Ilde8 1 7 lt:Ja4 Ii:ab8 18 lt:Jxe5 be - /8 . . . .ixc5 /9 .ixc5 nxc5 20 f4! b5 21 lld2 Mednis - 1 9 .ib2 ! Ilb7 20 Ild3 rtlf8 2 1 llad 1 rtle8 22 f4 ± PytelKrusynski, Poland 198 1) 17 .ixe5 ! be ( 1 7 . . . .ixe5? 1 8 lt:Ja4 rt/f8 19 b4! .ixb4 20 lt:Jxb6 .ic3 2 1 lt:Jxa8 n xa8 22 lt:Jd7+! lt:Jxd7 23 ll:acl ±±) 1 8 �a4 lld6 19 <M3 h5 20 h3 lla7 2 1 g4 ± Ftacnik-Ambroz, H radec Kralove 198 1 .

12 .ia3 lt:Jc5 13 e5 de 14 'ifxe5 (/50)


14 lieS! a) 14 . . . 'i!t'c8 15 lt:Ja4 ( 1 5 1i'e3!? lt:Jfd7 Ftaenik) 1 5 . . . lt:Jfd7 ( 1 5 . . . lt:Jcd7 1 6 'ifb2 .ixa3 1 7 1!fxa3 b5 18 cb ( ! ) ab 19 lt:Jd4! .ixg2 20 lt:Jxb5 ± Korsunsky-Norgulev, USSR 1977; 1 5 . . . lt:Jxa4 16 .ixe7 rtlxe7 1 7 'ifd6+ ±) 1 6 '@xg7 .if6 1 7 'it'h6 .ixa l 1 8 ll:xa1 ( 1 8 lt:Jxc5!? lt:Jxc5 19 ll:xa I \!t'c7 20 lld1 lld8 2 1 Ile I ! ± Olafsson-Kinderrnann, Reykjavik 1 982) 18 . . . '@c7 1 9 lt:Jxc5 be 20 .ib2 lig8 2 1 1i'h7 ± Stean-Ligterink, Mar del Plata 1982 . b) 14 . . . 't!t'xe5 1 5 lt:Jxe5 .ixg5 1 6 rtlxg2 llc8 , Krnic-Stoica, Athens 198 1 , and aside from 17 .txc5 llxc5 18 f4 llc7 19 f5 t, Mednis gives 1 7 .ib2 ! 0-0 18 rtlf3 t .

1 5 \!t'xc7 1 5 .ib2 h5!? 16 h3 .ic6 (or

16 . . . .ixf3 1 7 1!'xc7 ll:xc7 1 8 .ixf3 h4 ro Browne) 17 1!fxc7 Ilxc7 1 8 lt:Je5 .ixg2 \12-\12 I vanka-Browne, Las Vegas 1986. 15 .tc I " !" �xe5 1 6 lt:Jxe5 .ixg2 17 rtlxg2 lt:Jcd 7 1 8


lt:lxd7 lt:lxd7 19 lt:le4 llc6 20 i.f4 ;!:: (Kengis) needs tests.

I S lilxc7

1 1 lt:ld4 1t'c7 12 b3 (15 1)

1 6 i.cl /5/

A clever try which threatens i.f4 and lt:le 5.

1 6 lt:lfe4! 1 6 . . . lt:lcd7 1 7 i.f4 lieS 18 a4 !?

(perhaps 18 lt:le5 i.xg2 19 �xg2, e.g. 19 . . . b5 20 llac l lt:lxe5 2 1 i.xe5 be 22 lt:la4; 1 9 . . . i.a3 !?) 1 8 . . . i.b4 1 9 lt:la2 i.c5 20 lt:le5 i.xg2 21 �xg2 lt:lxe5 22 i.xe5 ;!: I vanovBrowne, Los Angeles 1 98 1 .

1 7 lt::lxe4 i.xe4 18 i.f4 lilc8 19 i.d6

1 9 i.e 5 f6 20 i.d6 lt:lb7 Gutman.

1 9 lt:ld3!? Not 19 . . . llc6? 20 i.xe7 �xe7

2 1 b4 lt:la4 22 lt:le5 i.xg2 23 lld7+! �e8 24 llad 1 ±±: Gutman-de Firm ian, Lone Pi ne 198 1 . But also possible is 19 . . . i.f6( !) , e .g. 20 lt:le5 lt:lb7 ! 21 f4 lt:lxd6 22 llxd6 i.e7! 23 lldd 1 i.xg2 24 �xg2 f6 25 lt:lf3 i.c5 = Andersson-BrowneNaestved 1985.

After 19 . . . lt:ld3, GutmanLjubojevic, Biel 1 985, went 20 i.xe7 �xe7 21 lt:ld4 i.xg2 22 �xg2 lt:le5 23 lild2 llhd8 24 lilad 1 �e8 25 �fl lt:lc6 26 �e2 . Gutman calls this ";!::� , but it is no more than a drawn ending. A42332

10 1t'e3 0-0

This line has been dominated by Uhlmann's almost exclusive use of it over the last decade. For the most part, other players have shied away from the variation, either because they mistrusted White's chances or because they simply didn't feel up to defending against the (often devastating) Black counterattacks which can arise after . . . b5 and/or . . . d5 . Theoretically, the l ine may be better than its lack of popularity would indicate.

12 lt:lbd7 1 2 . . . lt:lc6 13 i.b2 lilfd8 ( 1 3 . . .

llfe8) 1 4 lilac l lt:l xd4 1 5 1t'xd4 ;!:, e.g. 1 5 . . . i.f8 1 6 h3 l:iac8 1 7 �h2 lile8 1 8 lUd 1 i.a8 19 i.a3 liled8 20 f4 ;!: Uhlmann-Tarjan, Skopje 1976.

13 i.b2 l:ife8 Played exclusively now, although

1 3 . . . lilad8 is not unthinkable. 14 l:ifel

Not even in the first edition, this has become Uhlmann's main idea. If Black plays . . . d5 at any point, White is ready to answer with e5 . a) 1 4 litacl ll ac8 1 5 h3 'it'bS 1 6 g4, Uhlmann-Ribli , Manila IZ 1976, and now 16 . . . g6! 17 ct>h l .US I S f4 e5 (Stean). b) 14 ct>h1 i.f8 15 f4 g6 1 6 litae I i.g7 1 7 1!id2 ( 1 7 h3? e5! - or 1 7 . . . llad8 18 g4 e5 + Uhlmann-Szabo, Bucharest l979 - IS ll:lc2 ef 19 1!1xf4 ll:lc5! 20 ll:lb4 ll:lh5 2 1 '@f2 '@d7 =F Stefanov-Gheorghiu, Romanian Ch 1 97S) 17 . . . e5 !? ( 1 7 . . . lladS ! =) 1 S ll:lc2 ef 19 1!1xf4 ll:lc5 (?) ( 19 . . . ll:le5 20 litd I h6! ) 20 ll:lb4 ± Uhlmann-A.Rodriguez, Halle 1976. c) 14 h3 i.fS 1 5 llfe1 lladS ( 1 5 . . . litacS 16 lle2 '@bS 17 1!id2 ll:lc5 1 S litd 1 1!1aS 1 9 '@e 1 " ! t � UhlmannVaiser, Be rlin 1 9S2) 1 6 lle2 ( 1 6 llad 1 �bS 1 7 �c 1 ll:lc5 1 S �b 1 '@aS 19 f3 '@bS 20 f4 e5 + was Uhlmann-Akesson, Polanica Zdroj 19S1 ) 1 6 . . . '@bS 1 7 llae1 g6 1S �d2 ll:lc5 (or 1 S . . . i.g7 1 9 �d1 ltJc5 = Hiibner-Kasparov, Tilburg 1 9S 1 ) 1 9 �d 1 '@aS !? 20 ll:lc2 i.g7 2 1 i.a 1 h5 22 b4 li:lcd7 2 3 �xd6 h4 ! 24 g4 ll:lc5 25 �xb6 li:ld3 =I ro Uhlmann-Adorjan, Budapest 19S2.

14 i.f8 15 lite2 llad8

1 5 . . . llac8 1 6 lld 1 �S 1 7 �d2 ll:lc5 1 S i.a 1 '@aS 19 f3 :U.edS 20 ct>h 1 g6 2 1 '@e3 i.g7 22 :U.ed2 liteS 23 1!1f2 i.h6 24 lite2 lledS 25 ll:lc2 !


(with the idea ll:la4) 25 . . . lLleS 26 ll:le3 i.g7 27 lled2 b5 28 ll:le2! tl ± Uhlmann-Grunberg, Dresden 19S5.

16 1rd2 g6 16 . . . ll:lc5 17 lld 1 ll:lg4 !? ( 1 7 . . .

1!ibS) 1 S ll:lc2 g6 transposes. 1 7 lld1 ll:lc5

1 S ll:lc2 ll:lg4 19 ll:le3 ! ( 19 .ta 1 i.g7 20 ll:le3 ll:lxe3 2 1 1!1xe3 .tc6 = Uhlmann-Gheorghiu, East Germany v Romania 19S4) 19 . . . i.h6 20 f4 ll:lxe3 21 �xe3 i.g7 (2 1 . . . e5 22 li:ld5) 22 b4 li:ld7 23 lited2 lLlbS 24 .tfl i.f8 25 �d4 ! e5 26 �f2 ± Uhlmann-Womacka, East German Ch 19S6. A sti l l unresolved line. A4234

9 i.g5 (152)

After all the messy lines had been played a while, this simplifying posi tional l ine became popular. The result was dramatic: after years of high fashion, the Hedgehog was replaced as the main 1 . . . c5 variation (by the Double Fianchetto of the next chapter). This was apparently not due to any clear


advantage produced by 9 .i,g5, but because it denies Black the type of game he wants.

9 a6 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 lHd l li:Jbd7 ( 10 . . .

li:Jc6 1 1 't!t'd3 t) 1 1 li:Jb 5 was examined in 'A4232' above. 9 . . . h6? 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 1 't!t'd3 a6 1 2 lUd 1 .i.e7 1 3 li:Je4 d5 ( 1 3 . . . ..txe4) 14 cd ..ixd5 1 5 li:Jc3 .i.c6 16 't!t'c4 ! and 1 7 li:Je5 wins.

10 .i.xf6! A move I called "uninspired" in

the first edition! 10 Iilfd1 li:Jbd7 1 1 li:Jd2 !? is relatively untested; best seems 1 1 . . . .i.xg2 1 2 <t>xg2 �0 13 li:Jde4 'itc 7! 1 4 li:Jxd6 lHd8 with counterplay, e .g . 1 5 li:Jde4 't!t'c6 1 6 0 h6! = .

10 .i.xf6 1 1 'itd3 (154)

More popular than 1 1 't!t'f4 ( 153)

/53

B

a) 1 1 . . . hf3 1 2 't!t'xO ( 1 2 .i.xf3 lla7 1 3 llfd 1 .i.e5 1 4 't!t'd2 0-0 1 5 llac I b5?! 1 6 't!fe3 ! ;!; KarpovBrowne, Bath 1983; 1 5 . . . 'ite7 Karpov) 1 2 . . . li[a7 1 3 llfd 1 ( 1 3

llad 1 �0 1 4 b3 li:Jd7 ! 1 5 li:Je4 .i.e7 = Hebert-Greenfeld, Thessaloniki 01 1984) 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 lld2 lld7 1 5 llc1 't!fc7 1 6 b 3 llc8 1 7 a4 li:Jc6 1 8 't!t'xc6 'itxc6 1 9 .i.xc6 llxc6 20 li:Ja2! ;!; Andersson-Browne, Tilburg 1982. b) 11 . . . lla7 12 llad1 ..ie7 13 li:Je4 .i.xe4 14 't!t'xe4 li[c7 15 b3 was Andersson-Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 198 1 , and now Cebalo gives 1 5 . . . li:Jc6! 16 li:Jd4 li:Jxd4 =. c) 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 llad 1 ( 1 2 llfd 1 .i.e7 1 3 li:Je4 .i.xe4 14 'it'xe4 lila 7 1 5 li:Jd4 't!t'c8 16 b3 JileS 1 7 a4!? 1tc5 oo Karpov-Kasparov, USSR 198 1 ) 1 2 . . . .i.e 7 1 3 li:Je4 .i.xe4 1 4 'ti'xe4 li[a 7 1 5 li:Jd4 1tc8 ( 1 5 . . . lld7 16 b3 .i.f6 17 a4 ;t Nogueiras-Pazos, Cuba 1984) 1 6 b3 1!t'c5 1 7 a4 llc7 1 8 lld2 'ti'e5 ( 1 8 . . . li:Jd7 1 9 li:Jxe6 ! ±) 19 'ir'b 1 llfc8 20 llfd 1 li:Jd7? ( 20 . . . g6) 21 b4 ! ! g6 (2 1 . . . llxc4 22 .i.b7) 22 b5 ab 23 cd d5 24 li:Jc6 ±± KavalekVelikov, Solingen v Slavia 1984.

11 lla7 a) 1 1 . . . .i.xf3 1 2 ef!? ( 1 2 .i.xf3 ;!;) 1 2 . . . lla7 1 3 f4 0-0 1 4 llad 1 .i.xc3 !?

( 1 4 . . . :U.d7 1 5 fS ! ) 1 5 't!t'xc3 :U.d7 1 6 h4! 'tlt'c7 1 7 h 5 ± Ni kolic-De�e. Novi Sad 1 982. b) 1 1 . . . 0-0? 1 2 :U.fd l i..e7 1 3 ll:lg5 i..xg5 14 i..xb7 lla7 1 5 i..e4 ! f5 16 i..g2 :U.d7 1 7 f4 i..f6 1 8 e4 ± Vaganian-Htibner, Thessaloniki 01 1984. c) 1 1 . . . 't!t'c7 is a good alternative, e.g. 12 :U.fd I i..e7 1 3 ll:le4 0-0 1 4 ll:lfg5 g6 ( 14 . . . :U.d8 1 5 ll:lc5 ! i) 1 5 't!t'd4 h6 ! 1 6 lLl f3 i..xe4 ! 1 7 't!t'xe4 ll:lc6 1 8 :U.ac l Y:!-Y:! Tal-Browne, Taxco IZ 1985. More common is 1 2 :U. ad l i..e7 1 3 ll:ld4 i..xg2 1 4 <t>xg2 ll:lc6 1 5 f4 ll:lxd4 ( 1 5 . . . 0-0 16 ll:l xc6 't!t'xc6 17 :U.f3 b5 = WelinBrowne, Reykjavik 1986; 16 f5 !? or 16 b3) 16 1hd4 0-0 1 7 f5 ( 1 7 :U. f3 ! ? Ftacnik) 1 7 . . . :U.ac8 ( 17 . . . i..f6 1 8 'tlt'xd6 'tlt'b7+! =/ro or 1 7 . . . 'it'b7+ Ftacnik) 1 8 fe fe 1 9 'ii'g4 1Wxc4 20 :U.d4 't!t'c6+ 2 1 :U.e4 =/ro Ftacnik-Browne, Naestved 1985. d) 11 . . . i..e7 12 :U.fd 1 ll:le7 13 ll:le4 i..xe4 14 't!t'xe4 :U.c8 1 5 :U.ac 1 0-0 1 6 ll:ld4 i..f6 1 7 b 3 'ii'c7 1 8 :U.cd2 i Htibner-Ljubojevic, London 1982.

12 :U.ad1 i..e7 13 ll:ld4

1 3 ll:le4 0-0 14 :U.d2 ( 1 4 ll:lxd6? i..xf3 1 5 i..xf3 :U.d7) 14 . . . 't!t'c7 1 5 ll:leg5 !? ( 1 5 :U.fd 1 ! ?) 1 5 . . . g6 1 6 h4 ll:ld7 17 b3 ll:lf6 1 8 ll:ld4 i..xg2 19 <t>xg2 Wb 7+ 20 f3 d5 = S myslovShort, Montpellier 1 985.

13 i..xg2 14 <t>xg2 'ii'c8!?


14 . . . :U.c7 1 5 f4 ! (threatening f5) 1 5 . . . ll:lc6 ( 1 5 . . . g6 Greenfeld; 16 e4!?) 1 6 ll:lxc6 ( 16 f5 ( ! ) ll:le5 1 7 't!t'e4 :U.xc4 1 8 fe fe 19 b3! Greenfeld) 16 . . . 't!t'a8 ! 17 :U.f3 't!t'xc6 18 b3 0-0, Ehlvest-Greenfeld, Groningen 1982-83, and now 19 e4 is t.

1 5 f4 g6 1 5 . . . ll:lc6 1 6 f5!? ll:le5 1 7 't!t'e4

0-0 18 fe fe 19 :U.xf8+ i..xf8 20 ll:lf3 ll:lxc4 2 1 b3 ll:le5 22 ll:lxe5 i was Dorfman-Psakhis, USSR Ch 1984; or 1 5 . . . :U.c7 ! ? 1 6 f5 e5 (?), NikolicRibli, Novi Sad 1982, when Nikolic gives 1 7 f6! ed ( 1 7 . . . i..f6 18 ll:lf5) 18 fg :U.g8 I 9 't!t'xh7 ±±.

16 b3 I 6 f5 !? gf I7 e4 fe I 8 ll:lxe4 f5

(forced) I 9 ll:lg5 !? ( I9 lixf5 !? gf 20 ll:lf5 'ii'c6 ! ; I9 ll:lc3 ll:lc6! 20 't!t'e2 ll:lxd4 = Tal-Gavrikov, Tallinn I985) 19 . . . i..g5 20 ll:lxe6 1Wxe6 2 I :U.dei 't!t'xe i 2 2 :U.xe l + :U.e7 23 't!t'd4 :U.g8 24 :U.xe7+ <t>xe7 ! 25 'ii'xb6 ll:ld7 26 'ii'xa6 =/oo Tal-Short, Naestved 1985.

16 0-0 About equal , although: 17 h4!?

b5!? 18 cb :U.c7 I 9 :U.f3 e5? 20 ll:ld5! ! 'tlt'b7 (20 . . . e d 2 I :U. c l ! ) 2 1 b 6 't!t'xd5 22 be ±± Greenfeld-Pasman, BeerSheva I984.

Probably Black can equalize after 9 i..g5, and often the i endings are theoretically drawn. But very seldom does Black achieve the active play he gets in other lines.


8

155

w

6

7 d4

a6 (155)

7 b3 d6 (7 . . . J.e7? 8 d4 cd 9 11t'xd4 d6 1 0 J.a3 ! is looked at below; 7 . . . d5 8 cd lLlxd5 9 lLlxd5 and 9 . . . 11t'xd5 1 0 J.b2 or 9 . . . ed 1 0 d 4 ;t ) 8 J.b2 ( 8 e 3 J.e7 9 d 4 lla7! =) 8 . . . J.e7 9 d4 cd 10 lLlxd4 ( 1 0 11t'xd4 is 'A') 1 0 . . . J.xg2 1 1 �xg2 �0 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 'it'd3 't/c7 =) 1 2 . . . 11t'c7 13 f4 lbc6!? ( 1 3 . . . lle8!?; 1 3 . . . 'tlt'b7) 1 4 lLl O 'tlt'b7 1 5 11t'e2 llfe8 1 6 llad 1 oo 8ronstein-Kalinchev, Moscow 1982.

7 cd 8 11t'xd4 d6

8 1 9 b 3 82 9 lld 1 a) 9 e4 J.e7 1 0 b3 lLlbd7 1 1 J.a3 'tlt'b8 1 2 llad 1 lLlc5 is 'A4233 1 ' ( 1 1 . . . 'tlt'bS). b) 9 J.e3 lLlbd7 1 0 lLlg5 J.xg2 1 1 �xg2, Sahovic-Gipslis, Jurmala 1978, and now 1 1 . . . 11t'c7 1 2 lLlge4 lld8 or 1 1 . . . llc8 1 2 lLlge4 ll c6 is better than 1 1 . . . J.e7? 1 2 li:lge4

lLlc5 1 3 llfd 1 lLlxe4 1 4 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 5 11t'xe4 llb8 1 6 J.f4 ! ±. c ) 9 J.gS J.e7 transposes to 'A4234'; or 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 0 lLld2 J.xg2 1 1 �xg2 J.e7 1 2 lLlde4 11t'c7 1 3 llfd 1 0-0! 1 4 lld2 ( 1 4 lLlxd6 llfd8) 1 4 . . . llfd8 = was Dr� ko-Griinberg, Polanica Zdroj 1985. 8 1

9 b3 lLlbd7 ! 9 . . . J.e7? ! 1 0 J.a3! lLlc6 ( 1 0 . . .

�0? 1 1 llfd 1 lLle8 1 2 lLle4 lLlc6 1 3 11t'd2 d5? 1 4 cd J.xa3 1 5 de! 11t'xd2 16 li:lfxd2 ± Zuckerman-8enjamin, New York 1979; 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 J.xe7 1!rxe7 14 cd J.xd5 1 5 lLlc3 ±± Zuckerman) 1 1 11f4 ;!;, e.g. 1 1 . . . 11t'c7 12 llac1 lLle5 1 3 llfd 1 ;!; 8enko-Diesen, Lone Pine 1976, or 1 1 . . . 11t'b8 12 lilfd 1 d5 1 3 J.xe7 lLlxe7 1 4 lLle5 ;!;.

10 lild1 J.e7 Or 10 . . . 'iVb8 1 1 J.a3 li:lc5 =

Seirawan-Fedorowicz, USA 1 977. 1 1 J.a3 lLlc5

1 2 b4 lLlcd7!? 13 b5 lLlc5 14 11t'e3 ab 1 5 lLlxb5, Uhlmann-Rogoff, 8iel I Z 1 976, and now Rogoff gives 15 . . . 11t'b8! . Moreover, 1 2 . . . lLlce4(!) and 13 lLlxe4 li:lxe4 14 'tlt'xg7 J.f6 or 1 3 lLla4 lLld7 looks good. 82

9 lild1 821 9 . . . lLlbd7 8 22 9 . . . J.e7 821

9 lLlbd7 10 lOgS J.xg2

/56

B

1 1 �xg2 (156)

1 1 i.e7 a) 1 1 ... "tlrc7 1 2 lt:lge4 l!Jxe4 1 3 lt:lxe4 lt:le 5 1 4 b3 lil:d8 ! 1 5 i.e3! b5 1 6 "tlt'b6 ± Larsen-Gheorghiu, Las Palmas 1 976. b) 1 1 ... lil:c8!? 1 2 lt:lge4 lil:c6 1 3 i.g5!? ( 1 3 i.f4 lt:lxe4! 1 4 "t!t'xe4!? \12- \12 Adorjan-Suba, Prague 1985; 14 . . . "tlrc7 1 5 b3 lt:lf6 with the idea . . . b5 could follow. 14 lt:lxe4!?, e .g. 14 . . . e5 1 5 "tlt'd5 "t!t'c7 16 i.e3 i.e7 may favour White) 1 3 . . . i.e7 1 4 lt:lxf6+ lt:lxf6 1 5 lLle4 0-0 1 6 lt:lxf6+ i.xf6 1 7 i.xf6 "tlt'xf6 1 8 "tixf6 gf 19 lld4 !.

12 lt:lge4 0-0 ! The typical gambit idea. Horvath

IIijin, Virovitica 198 1 , continued 1 3 lt:lxd6 "t!t'c7 1 4 lt:lde4 ( 14 i.f4 !?) 14 . . . lil:ad8 1 5 i.e3!? ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ Ilijin, but 1 5 . . . lt:lxf6 1 6 11t'h4 lt:ld5 or 1 5 . . . i.xf6 !? is unclear) 1 5 . . . lt:lg4! 16 i.f4 lt:lde5 1 7 lt:ld5 ed 18 cd =/oo. 822

9 i.e7


1 0 lt:lgS 1 0 b3 lt:lbd7 transposes to 'A';

or here 10 . . . 0-0? 1 1 i.a3! lt:lc6 1 2 1rf4 d 5 1 3 cd (or 1 3 i.b2!? intending 1 3 . . . i.d6 1 4 cd lt:lxd5 ! 1 5 "tlt'g4 lt:lf6 1 6 "tn14 with an attack) 1 3 . . . e d ( 1 3 . . . lt:lxd5 14 lt:lxd5 i.xa3 or 14 i.xe7 "tlt'xe7 is a better try) 14 i.xe7 lt:lxe7 1 5 lil:ac l lil:e8 1 6 l!Ja4 ± Ftacnik-Suba, Sochi 1 977.

1 0 i.xg2 1 1 �xg2 lt:lc6

1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 lt:lce4 lil:a7 13 lt:lxf6+ i.xf6 14 "tlt'g4 i.e7 1 5 h4 lt:ld7 1 6 b3 lt:lf6 1 7 'tWO lil:d7 1 8 i.b2 ;t Adorj an-Lau, Plovdiv 1983.

12 "tlt'f4 lil:a7 13 b3

13 lt:lge4 ( 13 lt:lce4 0-0 1 4 lt:lxf6+ i.xf6 1 5 'ti'g4 'ti'c7!? - 15 . . . lil:d7 -1 6 "it'e4 g6 1 7 i.f4 t RobatschG .Garcia, Malta 1 98 1 ) 1 3 . . . lil:d7 14 i.e3 lt:le5 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 lt:la4 b5 16 lt:lb6 lil:b7 1 7 lt:lxf6+ Horvath) 15 lt:lxf6+ i.xf6 was HorvathSchneider, Hungary 1984, and now Horvath gives 1 6 "tlt'e4! ± with the idea lt:la4, but this is not very convincing.

1 3 0-0 1 4 i.b2 lil:d7

A position where White still has chances to exert pressure, e.g. 1 5 lt:lce4 lt:le8 1 6 lt:lf3 ( 1 6 lil:acl h6 1 7 lt:lf3 'ti'b8 1 8 �gl 'ti'b7 19 "it'd2 ! Ornstein-Ftacnik, Trnava 1983) 16 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . . . "tia8 1 7 �gl lil:d8 1 8 'ti'e3 b5 1 9 lil:ac 1 ;t Adorjan-

/54 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

Schneider, Hu ngarian Ch 1 984) 17 ct>g l ! be 1 8 be ll:la5 1 9 li[ac l li[c7 20 lilde2 't!t'c8 2 1 .ta3 e5 22 't!t'e3 ± Adorjan-Rohde, New York

1985. Thus an early . . . a6 creates certain

problems for Black , apparently without corresponding benefits.

1 2 Double Fianchetto Defence

1 c4 c5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6

2 . . . g6 3 g3 (3 d4 cd 4 lt:lxd4 .tg7 5 e4 is a S icilian) 3 . . . b6 4 .tg2 .tb7 5 0-0 .tg7 6 d3 !? lt:lh6!? 7 lt:lc3 0-0 8 .td2 f5 9 llbi lt:lf7 = FeusteiNicolaiczuk, West German Ch 1978.

3 g3 b6 4 .tg2 .tb7 5 �0

5 lt:lc3 g6 can be independent in the line 6 b3 d5 (!) 7 cd .tg7 8 .tb2 lt:lxd5 9 t!t'c i (9 0-0 lt:lc6 10 ll b i ?! lt:lc7! + Andersson-Korchnoi , Sao Paulo I 979; 10 d4 lt:lxc3 ! I I .txc3 lt:ld4 +lro) 9 . . . 0-0 10 lt:lxd5 1!hd5 I I .txg7 �xg7 I 2 t!t'c3+ f6 I 3 0-0 lt:lc6 I4 llfel e5 + Ivkov-Tukmakov, Lugano I 985.

157

w

5 g6 (15 7)

An extraordinarily popular variation at the highest levels, at least for the moment. It retains many of the structural features of the Hedgehog without as much risk (no initial weakness on d6, for one thing). The reader should note, however, that the Double Fianchetto can be conveniently used only against 2 lt:lf3 , as (e.g.) 2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 g3 renders 3 . . . b6 ineffective , whereas 2 lt:lc3 b6 allows 3 e4 .tb7 4 lt:lf3 intending d4, as outlined in Chapter 9. A 6 ll:l c3 8 6 b3

6 d3 .tg7 7 e4 will transpose to 'A2', and 6 d4 cd 7 t!t'xd4 .tg7 will transpose to 'A I ' . Korchnoi-Miles, Tilburg I985, saw 6 e 3 .tg7 7 d4 cd (7 . . . 0-0 8 d5 b5 Miles) 8 ed 't!t"c8 !? (I gave 8 . . . d5 9 lt:le5 t!t'c8 = in the first edition) 9 lt:la3 d5 10 lle I de I I t!t'a4+ lt:lbd7 1 2 1Wxc4 a6 ! 1 3 t!t'e2 0-0! =. A

6 lt:lc3 .tg7 A I 7 d4 A2 7 d3

S low is 7 llbi? ! lt:lc6 8 b3 0-0 9 .tb2 d5 =!+ Andersson-Larsen, Copenhagen I977; or 7 e3 0-0 8 d4

156 Double Fianchello Defence

cd 9 ed lt:lc6 1 0 ..if4!? lt:la5 1 1 b3 d5 12 lt:le5 1l c8, a t least =, EisingKeene, Mannheim 1975. A1

7 d4 A l l 7 . . . lt:le4 A l 2 7 . . . cd A l l

/58

w

7

8 lt:lxe4

lt:le4 (158)

a) 8 1!rd3 lt:lxc3 (8 . . . f5 !? 9 lt:lg5 cd 10 lt:lcxe4 f) 9 be 0-0 1 0 e4 (" 10 d5 with a spatial advantage" Ivanov) 10 . . . cd ( 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 .te3 lt:lc6 1 2 lt:ld2 e5 - 1 2 . . . e6!? - 1 3 d5 lt:le7 1 4 f4 t Pfleger-Gligoric, Manila 1974) 1 1 cd d6 1 2 ..ig5 lt:lc6 1 3 li[ac I lil:c8 14 li[fd l li[c7 1 5 1!re3 1!t'a8 1 6 ..ih6 =leo Ivanov-Miles, Lucerne 01 1982. b) 8 4Jd5!? lt:lc6 (8 . . . 0-0 9 lt:lg5 ! lt:ld6 1 0 ..if4 :t; 8 . . . e 6 9 lt:lf4 d5? 10 de be I I lt:ld2! lt:lf6 1 2 cd lt:lxd5 13 lt:le4 ± Greenfeld-Karolyi , Groningen 198 1 ) 9 dc bc 1 0 lt:lel !? f5 l l lt:ld3 a6 1 2 lt:ldf4 ..tc8 ( 1 2 . . . li[d7 1 3 4Je6! ) 1 3 ..td2!? ..id7 1 4

ll b l 0-0 1 5 lt:lc3, Vadasz-Ftacnik, Zalaegerszeg 1979, when Ftacnik gives 15 . . . lD xc3 ! 1 6 .txc3 .txc3 1 7 be 1!rc8 =.

8 9 d5

.txe4 0-0

a) I gave 9 . . . b5 as best, but RenmanOrnstein, Swedish Ch 1984, went 10 cb ( 10 lt:ld2 .txg2 I I �xg2 'ti'b6 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 h4 lt:la6 = SchmidtOrnstein, Erevan 1976) 1 0 . . . 1!rb6 I I 4Jd2! ( 1 1 a4 a6 1 2 a5 1!rxb5 1 3 lt:ld4 c d 1 4 .txe4 d6 = ) I I . . . .txg2 1 2 �xg2 1!t'xb5 1 3 1!rb3! 'ti'a6 !? ( 1 3 . . . 1!rxe2 1 4 lt:lc4 lt:la6 1 5 .tf4 and 1lae l ; 13 . . . 1!rxb3 1 4 ab d6 1 5 lbc4 lt:ld7 1 6 1la6 :t) 1 4 lt:lc4 d6 1 5 ..id2 lt:ld7 16 .tc3 lt:lf6?! ( 1 6 . . . li[b8?? 1 7 .txg7; 1 6 . . . .txc3 1 7 1!rxc3 0-0) 17 li[ad I 0-0 1 8 .txf6! .txf6 19 'ti'c2 li[lb8 20 b3 with all the play. b) 9 • . . e5 10 1!t'b3 0-0 I I ..ih3 ..txf3 12 1!t'xf3 f5 1 3 e4 f4!? ( 1 3 . . . 1!t'f6 Karpov) 14 1!t'dl d6 1 5 .id2 a5 1 6 'ti'a4 ± Karpov-Timman, Brussels 1986.

10 .th3 Threatening lt:ld2. Not 10 h4

b5! =, but 1 0 'ti'b3 is promising, e.g. 10 . . . e6 I I ..ih3 t or I I ..ig5 :t.

1 0 .txf3 1 1 ef e6 (159)

I I . . . e5 !? 1 2 f4 !? ( 1 2 li[e l ) 1 2 . . . e f 1 3 .txf4 ..ixb2 1 4 li[b l ..if6 1 5 't!Va4, Karpov-Timman, Amsterdam 1 98 1 , is assessed as =/co by Timman; in the game, 1 5 . . . d6 1 6 llbl h 5 ! 1 7 lle l g 5 1 8 li[be3! gf

1 9 lii:e8 b5 ! 20 't!Yxb5 't!Yb6 =I CD followed. Timman suggested 1 6 life I ( ! ) and 1 6 . . . h 5 1 7 .ih6 .ig7 1 8 .ixg7 'ii?xg7 1 9 lii:e3 etc, or 1 6 . . . a6 17 :Iii: b3 :Iii: a 7 18 lii:be3 lii:e7 1 9 l:Ixe7 .ixe7 20 .ih6 lii:e8 2 1 lii:e3 ! with ongoing pressure.

!59 w

1 2 lii:e 1 ! " 1 2 f4!" Filip. 1 2 lii:b 1 a 5 ( 1 2 . . .

ed 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:J c6 1 4 .ig5 .if6 1 5 .ih6 lii:e8 CD Seirawan-Miles, Lone Pine 1978) 1 3 .ie3 ( 1 3 f4) 1 3 . . . l:Ia7 1 4 't!Yd2 lle8 = LevitinaAlexandria, Dubna 1983.

12 .id4 The problem is that now 1 2 . . .

ed 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:Jc6 1 4 .ig5 .if6 1 5 i.h6 is strong. After 1 2 . . . .id4, Korchnoi-Panno, Lucerne 1985, went 1 3 .ih6 lii:e8 14 1i'a4 a6 ( 14 . . . ..txb2 15 llad l !) 15 f4 1147 1 6 llad l :tl ±. All

7 cd A 1 2 1 8· 1i'xd4 A l 22 8 ll:l xd4 Al21

8 1i'xd4 ll:Jc6

Double Fianchetto Defence /57

a) 8 . . . 0-0 9 1i'h4 d6 1 0 .ih6 ( 1 0 .ig5!? ll:lbd7 I I lii:fd l ; 1 0 lii:d l ll:lbd7 l l .ie3 llc8 1 2 lii:ac l a6 1 3 b 3 ll e8 1 4 't!Yh3 ! :;!; planning lLld4 Pekarek-Ambroz, Prague 1986) 10 .. . lLl bd7 I I lii:ac I lii:c8 12 b3 llc5 1 3 .ixg7 'it'xg7 14 lii: fd l � Schmidt-Barle, Pula 1975. b) 8 . . . d6! (160) (Adorjan's move)

9 lii:d l ll:lbd7 10 b3 ( 1 0 't!Yh4 lii:c8 with the idea . . . lii: c5) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.b2 lii:c8 (or 1 1 . . . a6 in tending 1 2 lii:acl b5; 1 2 't!Yf4!?) 1 2 't!Ye3 ( 1 2 lii:ac l a6 1 3 ll:Jd5 b5! = DonaldsonGurevich, New York 1985) 12 . . . lii:e8 1 3 lii:ac l a 6 14 .ia l lii:c5 ! 1 5 a4 't!Ya8 1 6 ll:Je 1 lii:f5 ! 1 7 .ixb7 1i'xb7 1 8 f3 h5 = (or 18 . . . d5 =) Karpov-Kasparov, match (23) 1986.

9 't!Yf4 a) 9 't!fh4 h6 ! 1 0 ll:Jd4 ( 1 0 ll:ld5 lii: c8 = or 10 . . . e6 =) I 0 . . . g5 ( 10 . . . lii:c8 I I lii:d I g5?! 1 2 ll:Jxc6 .ixc6 1 3 1t'd4 .ixg2 1 4 'i!7xg2 :;!; GreenfeldE.Gudmundsson, Groningen 1982-83) I I ll:Jxc6 de 1 2 't!Yh3 1i'd7 = Donaldson-Lengyel, Strasbourg 1985.

158 Double Fianchetto Defence

b) 9 1i'd3 li[c8 1 0 e4 �g4 was equal in Korchnoi-Miles, Baden-Baden 198 1 .

9 lil:c8 9 . . . �a5 10 b3 0-0 with the idea

I I l:[d I e5! Shamkovich . 9 . . . 0-0 10 1i'h4!? �a5 I I ..tg5 ( I I b3 �h5! Kengis) I I . . . lilc8 12 b3 lic5! 1 3 li[ac l h6 = Kengis-Ma karichev, Moscow 1 986.

10 lid1 10 b3 �e4 ( 10 . . . 0-0) I I 1i'xe4

..txc3 1 2 li[b l ..tg7 13 1i'h4 h6 1 4 ..tb2 ;t Smyslov-Kohlweyer, Dortmund 1986.

10 �a5!? No t best, perhaps, but most

exciting. Either 10 . . . 0-0 I I 1i'h4!? �a5 12 b3 lilc5 1 3 ..ta3 lif5 ! = Velez-Lebredo, Cuban Ch 198 1 , or 1 0 . . . �h5 I I 'tWe3 �b4 1 2 l:[ b l li[xc4 1 3 �e 5 ..txe5 1 4 1i'xe 5 f6 1 5 1i'b5 ..ta6 1 6 1i'a4 =/ro is playable.

1 1 b3 b5 No t I I . . . �e4? 12 �e5 ! ± , and

I I . . . �h5 12 1i'e3 b5 transposes. 12 �xb5! �h5 13 1i'e3 ..txa1 14 �d6+ �f8 15 �xeS ..txc8 16 g4

Analysis by Panno, who gives 1 6 0 0 0 �g7 1 7 ..ta3 ..tf6 1 8 g5 �f5 19 gf! ± . But Donaldson-Kouatly, Strasbourg 1 985, went 1 6 . . . �f6 ! Yl-\t'l. I n fact, 1 7 ..td2 �xg4 1 8 1i'g5 ..tf6 1 9 1!ha5 ;t is given by Donaldson, while even 1 7 ..ta3!? with the

idea 17 ... �xg4 18 1i'f4 ..tf6 1 9 1i'xg4 �g7 20 �d4! keeps an edge. Al22

8 �xd4 ..txg2 9 �xg2 (161)

Now Black can head for a somewhat passive ending, or take his chances in the middlegame: A l 22 1 9 . . . 1i'c8 A l222 9 . . . 0-0 a) 9 . . . �c6 is less effective due to 1 0 �c2 0-0 I I e4, e.g. I I . . . ltle8 1 2 ..td2 �d6 1 3 1i'e2 1i'c8 1 4 lilad l ;!; Yermolinsky-Eingorn, USSR 1982. b) 9 . . . 1i'c7 10 b3 0-0 I I e4 transposes to 9 . . . 0-0. A l221

9 1!Vc8 10 b3

A fascinating alternative is 10 ..tg5 !?, as in Agudelo-Rodriguez, Envigado 1983: 1 0 . . . 1!Vxc4 ( 1 0 . . . h 6 I I ..txf6 ..txf6 1 2 �d5) I I l:[c l 0-0 ( I I . . . �c6!? 1 2 �cb5 1i'd5+ 1 3 e4 1i'xg5 1 4 �c7+) 1 2 e4! �xe4! 13 �xe4 1!Vxd4 14 1!Vxd4 ..txd4 1 5 ..txe7 li[e8 1 6 �d6 ! ! li[xe7 1 7 li[c8+ �g7 1 8 �e8+ li[xe8 19 li[xe8 ..txb2

20 f4 =/ro. 10 11rb7+ 1 1 f3 d5

I I . . . ll:lc6 1 2 i.b2 0-0 1 3 e4 ;!;, e.g. 1 3 . . . a6 14 llc I ll:lxd4 1 5 'Wxd4 ll:lg4 1 6 1fd2 i.h6 1 7 ll:ld5! ± Kochiev.

12 cd 13 ll:lxd5 1 4 i.e3!

ll:lxd5 1fxd5

1 4 i. b2? 0-0 1 5 'tid3 lld8 + was Capablanca-Botvinnik, Nottingham 1936.

14 ll:lc6 Noteworthy is 1 4 . . . (}.0 1 5 llc l

h5 ! (to improve upon 1 5 . . . ll:la6 1 6 ll:lc6 1fe6 1 7 1fd3 ± or 1 5 . . . ll:ld7 16 llc7 ll fc8 17 ll:lc6! 'tlt'e6 1 8 Ilxd7 Gl igoric, although then 1 8 . . . Ilxc6 m ay hold; perhaps 1 8 'tlt'xd7 1fxd7 1 9 llxd7 Ilc6 20 Ilfd l ) 1 6 a4 ( intending ll:lb5) 16 . . . a6 1 7 1Vd3!? ( 1 7 i.f2) 17 . . . e5 1 8 ll:lc6, lightly ;!;, Rubinetti-Emma, Buenos Aires 1 979.

/62

B

1 5 ll:lxc6 't!t'xc6 16 Ilcl (162)

Double Fianchetto Defence 159

16 1i'e6 1 6 . . . 'tib7 1 7 'tlt'd3 (}.0 1 8 Ilfd l

llfc8 19 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 20 Ilxd7 Ilxcl 2 1 i.xcl �! 22 a4 :t PolugayevskySpassky, Manila IZ 1976.

17 'tid3 0-0 18 Ilfdl

White has some edge here, but Black should be able to hold with proper defence. Not 1 8 . . . f5? 19 1fc4 �f7 20 't!t'xe6+ �xe6 2 1 Ilc6+ �f7 22 i.g5! ± Tal-Polugayevsky, USSR Ch 1 976, nor 18 . . . Ilac8? 19 Ilxc8 1hc8 20 'it'd? 'ti'a6 2 1 lld l e6 22 i.g5 ! h6 23 i.d8 ± which was Polugayevsky-Smyslov from the same event. But 1 8 . . . i.f6!? 19 lilc7 ! ( 1 9 i.h6 i.g7 ; 1 9 1i'e4 lil fc8! 20 'it'xe6 fe) 1 9 . . . h5 is possible, or 18 . . . h5 19 lilc7 lilad8 Kasparov, or, finally, 18 . . . lilfc8 19 lilxc8 'ti'xc8 ( 1 9 . . . lilxc8? 20 'it'd7) 20 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 21 Ilxd7 � ;!; Bagirov, although this last looks difficult. A1222

163

w

9 10 e4

0-0 'tlt'c7 (163)


All the rage. Weaker are 10 . . . lLlc6 I I .ie3 ;t( or here I I lLlc2 lLle8 1 2 .id2 lLld6 1 3 b3 1!t"c8 14 1!t"e l ! 1!t"b7 1 5 f3 f5 1 6 litd l � ChekhovPsakhis , Irkutsk 1 983), and 10 . . . lLla6 I I b3 ( or I I .ie3 ! liteS 1 2 b3 lLlc5 I 3 f3 �) I I . . . lLlc5 1 2 f3 lLle8 1 3 .te3 �-

1 1 b3 I I .ie3 1Wxc4 1 2 lit c l lLlc6! 1 3

lLlcb5 1!t"xa2 1 4 lit a l = FtacnikAdorjan, Gjovik 1983. I I 1!t"e2 lLlc6 1 2 lLlc2 a6 1 3 litd l ( 1 3 .ig5 e6 I 4 litac l litfc8 1 5 b3 lLle8 1 6 .id2 1!t"b7 I 7 f3 b5 1 8 lLle3 f5 = VukicPsakhis, Bor 1985) 13 . . . e6 14 b3 ( 14 .if4 1Wb7 1 5 .id6 litfd8 Adorjan) 14 . . . 1Wb7 1 5 .tb2 litfd8 1 6 f3 d6 1 7 lLl e3 lLle5 1 8 litd2 g6! I 9 litad l h5! threatening . . . g4, HansenAdorjan, Gladsaxe 1983. Finally, I I lLl d5 lLlxd5 1 2 cd 1!t"e5 13 lLlf3 1!t"xe4 1 4 lite I 1!t"f5 ! 1 5 litxe7 lLla6 (Kasparov) leaves the white d-pawn weak .

I I lLlxe4! 12 lLlxe4

I 2 lLld5 !? 'ilrct8 ( 1 2 . . . 'ilt'e5 1 3 .ib2; 1 2 . . . 'tlt'c5 1 3 .te3) 1 3 lite I e6 14 litxe4 ed 1 5 cd lLla6 = GochevVilela, Teteven 1 985.

12 'i!fe5 13 'it'f3 1Wxd4 14 litbl

a) 14 .te3? 'ilt'e5 1 5 litad l ( 1 5 c5 lLlc6; 15 lLlf6+ .txf6 1 6 'it'xa8 lLlc6 17 1Wb7 1We4+ !) 1 5 . . . 1i'c7 ! 16 .if4 1i'c6 I 7 litd5 f5 =t= Kharitonov-

Gavrikov, Jurmala 1983. b) 14 .ta3 lLlc6 15 litad l 1We5 16 litxd7 1!t"a5 ! 1 7 .txe7 lLle5 1 8 1!t"dl lLlxd7 19 1!t"xd7 1!t"xa2 = KarpovKasparov, match ( 1 3) 1984-85.

1 4 1We5 ! 1 4 . . . lLlc6!? I 5 .ib2 't!fxb2 1 6

litxb2 .txb2 Speelman; then 1 7 lLlc3 is bothersome.

14 . . . 'ilt'e5 is Karpov-Kasparov, match (20) 1 984-85, agreed drawn. After 1 5 .if4 Black has two lines: 15 . . . 'tlt'h5 (!) 1 6 g4! ( 1 6 lLlf6+ .txf6 1 7 'ilt'xa8 lLlc6 1 8 1!t"b7 g5 ! 1 9 'it'xd7 lLld4 20 g4 1Wg6 2 1 .ig3 1!t"e4+ 22 f3 lLlxf3) 1 6 . . . 'tit' aS 1 7 lLlf6+ .txf6 1 8 'ttxa8 lLlc6 1 9 'it'b7 'it'xa2 20 't!fxd7 lLld4 =/oo intending . . . 'it'e2, . . . lLlb3. Or 1 5 . . . 1We6 1 6 lLlf6+ .txf6 17 'tlt'xa8 lLlc6 1 8 1Wb7 g5 ! , and 1 9 .te3 litb8 20 'ilt'a6, or 19 .tc7 h5! 20 litbe l h4, or (best) 19 llbel 1!t"f5 20 .te3 = Adorjan.

Thus the ending from 9 . . . 1!t"c8 seems sufficient to draw, and, for now, 9 . . . 0-0 10 e4 't!fc7! also appears to equalize. A2

7 d3 0-0 7 . . . d5 is stil l untried, as far as I

k now, e .g. 8 't!fa4+ 1Wd7, or 8 cd lLlxd5, or 8 l!Je5 0-0 9 .ig5 lLlbd7. 6 d3 .ig7 (6 ... d5 7 lLle5 is annoying, e.g. 7 . . . g6 8 1!t"a4+) 7 e4 may be a more accurate order.

8 e4 lLlc6 (164) 8 . . . d6 9 h3 lLlc6 transposes, or

9 lLlh4 lLlc6 10 f4 lLld7! I I h3 e6

1 2 i.e3 ltJd4 = Meduna-Smej kal, Marianske Lazne 1 978.

164

w

9 h3 a) 9 i.g5 ltle8 1 0 \!rd2 ltlc7 1 1 i.h6 ltle6 1 2 i.xg7 �xg7 1 3 ltlh4 ltled4 14 f4 f5 1 5 ef gf 16 b4! cb 1 7 ltlb5 =/ro Romanishin-Winants, Brussels 1 986. b) 9 l:l:e1 e6 (9 ... d6 10 a3 e6 I I l:l:b1 ltld7 1 2 i.g5 Wb8 1 3 Wd2 ! Karlsson-Miles, Gjovik 1983) 10 h3 d5 1 1 ed? ( 1 1 e5 ! ltld7 1 2 i.g5 \!rb8 13 cd ro) 1 1 . . . ed 12 i.g5 h6! 13 i.xf6 i.xf6 14 ltlxd5 ( 14 cd ltlb4 +) 1 4 . . . i.xb2 1 5 Ilb 1 i.g7 + Cafferty-Miles, England 1 980. c) 9 l:l:b1 ltle8 (or 9 ... d6 1 0 ltlh4 ltld7) 10 i.e3 ltld4 1 1 ltle2 e5 1 2 b4 d6 1 3 be de = Karpov-Savon, USSR Ch 1 973. d) 9 ltle1 d6 10 f4 ltld7 ! 1 1 ltlf3 ltld4 1 2 lLl xd4 cd 1 3 ltle2 f5 = Uhlmann-Hecht, Vr§ac 1 973. e) 9 ltlh4 ltle8 (9 ... d6 1 0 f4 e6 1 1 g4 ltl e8 1 2 ltlf3 ltlc7 ! 1 3 f5 d5! Popov) 10 f4 f5 ( 10 . . . ltld4!? 1 1 f5 Ribli) 1 1 ltlf3 Wc8 !? ( 1 1 . . . ltlc7!)


12 i.e3 d6 13 l:l:c1 ltld4 1 4 :e1 Wd7 = Pfleger-Jansson, Nice 01 1974.

9 d6 Now 9 . . . e6 10 :e 1 !? is Cafferty

Miles again ; 10 'tlt'e2 ( ! ) has the idea 10 . . . d5 1 1 e5 ltld7 1 2 i.g5 and 1 3 cd. 9 . . . ltle8 10 i.g5 ltlc7 1 1 1fd2 ltle6 12 i.h6 ltled4 1 3 ltlxd4 ( 1 3 ltlh4!?) 1 3 . . . ltlxd4 = Alburt-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1975.

10 i.e3 1 0 i.g5 ( ! ) may be the best try,

e .g . 10 . . . h6 ( 10 . . . l:l:c8 1 1 \!rd2 ltld7 1 2 ltlh2!?) 1 1 i.e3 �h7 ( 1 1 . . . l:l:c8 12 \!rd2 �h7 1 3 b3 planning d4) 1 2 d4 ltla5 13 Wd3 e5 14 d5 ;!; Hatjun-Forintos, Hungarian Ch 1954.

10 l:l:c8! 10 . . . h6?! I I Wd2 �h7 12 d4 :t

Vaganian-Manning, Manila 198 1 . 10 . . . a 6 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 ltlxd4 ltld7 1 3 ltlxc6 i.xc6 1 4 i.d4 ;!; UhlmannSpiridonov, Polanica Zdroj 198 1 .

1 1 't!ld2 ltld7 Equal, e.g. 1 2 b3 ltlde5 1 3 ltle1

ltld4 = Planinc-Sofrevski , S kopje 197 1 , or 1 2 �h2 a6 1 3 ltlh4 ltld4 14 f4 b5, Speelman-Browne, London 1980, and now Browne gives 15 f5 !? be 1 6 de ltle5 17 b3 e6 1 8 i.h6 a s unclear. Then 1 8 . . . i.xh6 19 \!hh6 �h8 looks forced, but fine. B

6 b3 i.g7 I 'm not sure why 6 ... d5!?


shouldn't be effective, e .g. 7 cd (7 ..tb2 ..ig7) 7 0 0 0 ..ig7 8 ..ib2 0-0 and 9 lbc3 li:lxd5 =, 9 d4 li:lxd5 10 e4 li:lc7 =, or 9 ..ixf6 ! ? ..ixf6!? 1 0 li:lc3 ..ixc3 ! ? I I d e 1Wxd5 1 2 1Wxd5 ..ixd5 1 3 lHd l ..ie4.

7 ..ib2 0-0 7 . . . d5 is the last note, and 7 0 0 0

e6 8 d4 d5 i s also of interest. 8 1 8 d4 82 8 li:l c3

8 e3 e6 (8 . . . d5 =) 9 d4 'it'e7 1 0 li:lc3 li:la6!? I I 'ti'e2 d 5 1 2 lii:fd l lii:fd8 1 3 lhc l de ( 1 3 . . . lbe4 !? Tukmakov) 1 4 be lii:ac8 1 5 li:lb5 ..ie4 16 a3 t Karpov-Kasparov, match ( I I ) 1984-85. 81

8 d4 cd 8 . . . li:la6!? 9 d5 e6 (9 . . . b5 1 0

lii:e l ! ! ) with the idea 1 0 d 6 lbe4, and 8 . . . e6 9 de be 10 li:lc3 1We7 are reasonable options.

/65

B

9 't!t'xd4 (165)

9 lbc6 9 . . . d6 10 li:lc3 ( 10 lii:d l li:lbd7

1 1 li:lel 't!t'c7 =) 1 0 . . . li:lbd7 1 1

'tid2 ( I I lbd5? ! b5 ! Adorjan) 1 1 . . . lii:c8 1 2 lii:fd l a 6 1 3 li:ld4 ..ixg2 1 4 'it>xg2 'tic7 1 5 f3 'tib7 1 6 e4 e6!? ( 1 6 . . . lii: fd8 1 7 li:ld5 li:le5 = Adorjan) 17 lii:ac l ( 1 7 li:lc2 b5 ! ; 17 li:lde2 b5 !) 1 7 . . . lii:fd8 = Korchnoi-Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1 984.

10 'ti'h4 1 0 'ti'd2 d5! I I cd 'ti'xd5 = . 10

'ti'f4 d5 !? I I lii:d I 'ti'c8 12 cd li:lxd5 13 'tid2 (?) ( 1 3 'tie l =) 1 3 0 0 0 lii:d8 14 ..ixg7 li:le3! H Kasparov.

1 0 h6 10 . . . d6 I I li:lc3 h6 12 lbd5!

li:lxd5 13 ..ixg7 'it>xg7 14 cd lbb8 1 5 1Wd4+ 'it>h7 1 6 h4 !I ± 8arcza-8iro, Hungarian Ch 1 966.

1 1 ..txf6! The best chance. 1 1 lbe5 't!t'c7 1 2

lba3? ( 1 2 lbxc6 = ) 1 2 . . . g5! 1 3 1Wh3 lbxe5 1 4 ..ixb7 'ti'xb7 1 5 ..txe5 'ti'e4 + Ribli-Enklaar, Wijk aan Zee 1 973.

1 1 ef I I . . . ..ixf6? 1 2 'ti'xh6 e6 1 3 li:lc3.

12 li:lc3 Kasparov (who queries I I ..txf6)

gives 1 2 lba3 d5 1 3 lii:ad l 'ti'e7 ! + here.

12 fS Otherwise White dominates the

centre. Now 8jarnehag-Ostenstad, Sweden v Norway 1 984, continued 1 3 1Wxd8 lii:fxd8 1 4 lii:ac l li:le7(?) 1 5 lii:fd l lii:ac8 ( 1 5 . . . d5 1 6 lbe 1 ) 1 6 li:l b 5 ! d5 1 7 li:lxa7 lii:a8 1 8 li:lb5 lii:xa2 19 li:lfd4 lii:aa8 20 cd ± intending li:lc6. Here 14 0 0 0 ..txc3 ( !)

1 5 llxc3 d5 16 cd lt:lb4 seems to improve . In general, 8 d4 is not very dangerous. 82

166

B

8 lt:le3 (166)

821 8 . . . e6 822 8 . . . d5 823 8 . . . lt:l a6 a) 8 . . . lt:le4!? 9 '@c2 (9 d4 lt:l xc3 10 i.xc3 lt:lc6 =) 9 . . . lt:lxc3 I 0 i.xc3 i.xc3 I I 'tixc3 d5 ( I I . . . lt:lc6 1 2 llfd l d5 I 3 d4!) 1 2 cd 'tixd5 1 3 d4, lightly :t. b) 8 ... lt:le6 (?) 9 d4 cd (9 . . . lt:le4 10 llcl ;t) 10 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 'tWxd4 lt:lbd7 is '8 1 ' ) 10 . . . i.xg2 I I ct>xg2 d5 !? 1 2 cd lt:lxd5 1 3 lt:ldb5 ( 1 3 'tid2 or I 3 e3 !? may im prove) 1 3 . . . lt:lxc3 1 4 'tixd8 llxd8 1 5 i.xc3 = AlburtPolugayevsky, USSR Ch 1974. 821

8 9 d4

e6

9 lic l d5 (9 . . . '@e7 I 0 d4 d6 I I 'tid3 :!) 10 cd ed ( IO . . . lt:l xd5 I I d4 :!) I I d4 lt:la6, and now 1 2 e3 ! ? 'tie7 l 3 de be 14 lt:la4 llfc8 1 5 i.a3 i.f8 oo Eisterer-Sax, 8alatonbereny


1984; or 1 2 de( ! ) lt:lxc5 ( 1 2 . . . be is the main line below) 1 3 lt:lb5 ( 13 lt:ld4!? :!) 13 . . . 'tid7 I4 lt:lbd4 1lfe8 1 5 nc2 a5 ! 16 a3 i.a6 =

Taimanov-Kudrin, Thessaloniki 01 1984.

9 d5

1 3 . . . e5! ( 1 3 . . . f6? 14 lt:lxf6! nxf6 1 5 lt:lg5 1t'c8 1 6 llac l lt:lc6 1 7 lt:le4! ±) I4 i.xe5+ ( 14 lt:lxe5!? with the idea 14 . . . f6 I 5 lt:lxf6) I4 . . . f6 1 5 lt:lxf6 ("?!" Ftacnik; 1 5 lt:lf4!?), Schneider-Ftacnik, Stary Smokovec I 983, and now 15 . . . llxf6! I 6 lt:lg5 1t'c8 I 7 lil ac ! ? lt:lc6! wins ( I 8 lt:le4 lt:lxe5) , so Ftacnik gi ves 1 7 lt:le4 lt:ld7 1 8 i.xf6+ lt:lxf6 I9 lt:ld6 'ife6! 20 lt:lxb7 llc8 +.

10 de be 1 1 ed ed 12 llcl lt:la6

Now 1 3 e3 would be the 9 lic l note above, but more accurate is I3 lt:la4 'tie7 I4 i.a3 llac8 I 5 lt:le l ! llfd8 16 lt:ld3 lt:le4 17 1We l ! :t Taimanov-Tal, USSR 1983.


822 8 d5 9 lt:lxd5

9 cd lt:lxd5 10 't!t'c1 lt:lc6 9 lt:le 5 !? e6 (9 . . . lt:lbd7 1 0 f4 !?) 10 d4 cd ( 10 . . . lt:l a6 is '823') 1 1 lt:lb5 ! a6? ( 1 1 . . . lt:lfd7) 1 2 lt:lxd4 ( ±) 12 . . . lt:lfd7 1 3 lt:lxf7! with a killing attack, Lengyel-Sugar, Hu ngary 1982.

9 lt:lxd5 10 i.xg7 �xg7 1 1 cd 't!t'xd5

For 1 1 . . . i.xd5 1 2 d4 �a6 1 3 't!t'd3 i.b7, see 823.

12 d4 cd Or 1 2 . . . lt:la6 1 3 e4! 't!t'd6 ( 1 3 . . .

't!t'd7 1 4 d5 t) 1 4 e5 ( 1 4 d 5 e 6 =) 14 . . . 't!t'd8 ( 1 4 . . . 't!t'd5 !? 1 5 lt:lh4 'ti'd7 oo), Mestei-Chekhov, Tjentiste 1975, and now Chekhov gives 1 5 1!t'e2! cd 1 6 lUd 1 ;!:.

13 't!t'xd4+ 1 3 lt:lh4 'ti'd7 1 4 i.xb7 follow

ed by 15 't!t'xd4+, 16 lUd 1 may also be lightly t.

13 't!t'xd4

168

B

14 1 5

lt:lxd4 i.xg 2 �xg2 (168)

This endi ng is unpleasant but qui te tenable for Black: a) 15 . . . lt:la6 16 1Hd1 liac8 1 7 liac 1 lt:lb4! ( 1 7 . . . �f6 1 8 �b5 t) 18 lixc8+ ( 1 8 a3 lt:la2 =) 18 . . . lixc8 19 lid2 a6 Y2-Y2 Benk<r Weinstein, Lone Pine 1975. b) 15 . . . a6?! 16 life! lia7 17 lic2 lifd8 1 8 e3 �f8 ( 1 8 . . . e5 19 lt:lf3 f6 20 g4 ! t) 1 9 liac1 �e8 20 g4! h6 2 1 h4 liad7 22 f4 tl ± AnderssonHort, Niksic 1 976. c) 15 ... liteS 16 lilacl lt:l d7 17 lifd 1 ( 1 7 lt:lc6 �f6) 17 . . . lt:lf6 ! 1 8 e3 ( 1 8 lt:lc6 lic7 1 9 b4 a 6 20 a4 b5) 1 8 . . . a6 19 a4 lt:le4 ! 20 lt:lc6 Y2- Y2 TaiSavon, USSR Ch 1973; 20 . . . �f6 2 1 b4 b5 =. d) 15 . . . lidS 16 lifd 1 lt:l a6 1 7 lt:lc6 ( 1 7 liacl lilacS) 1 7 .. . lildc8 ! 1 8 lt:lxe7 ( 1 8 lilac I lic7) 1 8 . . . lle8 19 lt:lc6 lixe2 20 lild7 lilc8 = Marie. 823

8 lt:la6 9 d4

9 d3 d5! =. 9 e3 d5 1 0 lt:lxd5 lt:lxd5 1 1 i.xg7 �xg7 1 2 cd 't!t'xd5 1 3 d4 lifd8 1 4 lt:le l 't!t'd7 = TormLjubojevic, Nice 01 1974. 9 lilcl can be met by 9 . . . d 5 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 10 lt:le5 !?) 1 0 . . . lt:l xd5 1 1 i.xg7 �xg7 12 cd ihd5 1 3 d4 lilfd8 = ( 1 4 e4 't!t'h5), or by 9 . . . e6 1 0 d4 d5 1 1 e3 ( I I cd ed 1 2 de was '82 1 ' ) 1 1 . . . 't!t'e7 1 2 't!t'e2 1Hd 8 = .

9 d5 9 . . . cd 1 0 lt:lxd4 ( 1 0 't!t'xd4!?

lt:le4!? 1 1 't!t'e3 lDxc3? 1 2 i.xc3

�xc3 1 3 't!Vxc3 lt:\c5 1 4 llfd l ;!:! ± S i lman-Wi nslow, Palo Alto 198 1 ) 1 0 . . . .ixg2 I I 'ittxg2 lt:\c5 1 2 ll e l ( 1 2 f3 ! ;t-) 1 2 . . . 't!Vc7 1 3 e4 'it'b7 1 4 r3 d6 1 5 't!Vd 2?! ( 1 5 lt:\c2! ;t- with the idea lt:\e3) 15 . . . a6 16 lbc l llfc8 ! = Sunye-Larsen, Las Palmas IZ 1 982.

10 lt:\e5 A move I suggested in the first

edition, to replace 10 cd lt:\xd5 I I c3 lt:\xc3 1 2 .ixc3 llc8 = (or 1 2 . . . lt:\c7 ! Kasparov), and 1 0 d e lt:\xc5 I I lt:\xd5 lt:\xd5 =.

1 0 e6 10 . . . cd I I 't!Vxd4 lt:\d7 1 2 f4, or

here I I . . . lt:\ b4 12 llad l ± .

169 B

1 1 de (169)


= Andersson-Polugayevsky, Biel 1985. I I cd ed ( or I I . . . lLlxd5 =) 1 2 ll c l 't!Ve7 1 3 lLld3 cd 1 4 lt:\b5 't!Vd7 = Andersson-Rodriguez, Biel 1985.

1 1 lt:\xc5! I I . . . be? 12 cd ed 1 3 lLld3 't!Ve7

14 lt:\a4 llac8 1 5 llc l llfd8 1 6 .ia3 etc.

12 cd ed 1 2 . . . lLl xd5 1 3 lt:\xd5 .ixd5 14

.ixd5 't!Vxd5 1 5 't!Vxd5 ed 1 6 llfd l ;t- Ftacnik .

13 lt:\f3 1 3 llc l d4 =.

1 3 't!Vd7! Better than 1 3 lle8, which

allows 14 lt:\b5! and lLlbd4. After 13 . . . 't!Vd7 Ftacnik-Speelman, Thessaloniki 01 1984, went 14 llcl llfe8 1 5 llc2 llad8, and now 16 lLld4 (=) ( Ftacni k) was better than 1 6 b4 d4 ! .

Conclusion. The Double Fianchetto Defence is solid and reliable. I ts main drawback is a lack of positive prospects for the second player. This will probably inhibit expansion of its use on any but the highest

I I e3 't!Ve7 1 2 't!Ve2 de 13 be llac8 levels.

1 3 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlc6

1 70

w

1 c4 2 lLlf3 3 d4 4 lLlxd4

c5 lLlf6 cd lLlc6 (1 70)

One of the most common English Opening positions. White has: A 5 g3 B 5 lLlc3

5 lLlc2 or 5 f3 are answered by 5 . . . d5 = . Slow is 5 e3 e6 (5 . . . d5 =) 6 .ie2 d5 7 cd (7 0-0 .id6 =) 7 . . . ed 8 lLlc3 .id6 = (a Queen's Gambit). A

5 g3 This isn't played much, but

Black has no certain route to equality.

5 e6 a) 5 . . . e5?! 6 lLlb5 .ic5 7 .ie3 ! (compare 5 e4 lLlb4 in Chapter 8),

or here 7 lLld6+ .ixd6 8 't!Yxd6 1i'e7 9 't!Yd l !?. b) 5 . .. d5 6 .ig2 e5? (6 . . . e6 is note to 6 . . . 't!Yb6) 7 lLlxc6 be 8 0-0 ;!:. c) 5 . . . lLlxd4 6 1i'xd4 g6 7 .ig2 .ig7 8 lLlc3 is Chapter 4. d) 5 ... 't!Yb6!? (1 7 1) is the main alternative:

Now 6 lLlb3 lLle5 ! (intending . . . 1!t'c6) 7 .ig2!? 0 c5!? 1!t'c6 8 li:gl 1i'c7, at least =, or 8 . . . d5 =) 7 . . . lLlxc4 8 0-0 e6 (8 . . . g6!? 9 't!Ye2 lLle5 10 .ie3 't!Yd8 I I .id4 lLlc6 12 .ixf6 oo - Janicki) 9 1Wc2 d5 1 0 e4 .ie7 I I ed ed 1 2 lLlc3 .ie6 1 3 lLlxd5 = (Filip).

White can also play 6 lLlc2!? lLle5 7 lLle3 lLlxc4!? 8 lLlxc4 1i'c6 9 e4 't!Yxe4+ 10 1i'e2 1!t'xh 1 I I lLld6+

( '' ±" Kasparov) I I . . . <c!id8 1 2 .7J xl7+ <c!te8 1 3 ltJxh8 !? ( 1 3 ltJd6+ c=), and now 1 3 . . . g6 14 't!t'c2 ! or 1 3 . . . 't!t'xh 2 1 4 g4 ! , but 1 3 . . . d 5 is u nclear, e .g . 14 't!t'b5+ ( . . . g6 and . . . �xh2 were threats) 14 . . . i.d7 1 5 'tlj'xb7 llc8 .

In the first edition I suggested 6 0"Jb5( ! ) with the idea 6 . . . ltJe5 7 �g2! ltJxc4 8 ltJ l c3 d5 (8 . . . a6 9 'tli'a4 ltJd6 1 0 i.e3) 9 i.xd5 ltJd6 I 0 �e3 't!t'd8 I I i.g2 V ±; or 6 . . . d5 7 cd! 1!t'xb 5 8 ltJ c3 't!Vb6 9 de 1!t'xc6 I 0 c4 a6 I I i.g2 :1:: . Miles-Giigoric, Bugojno 1 982, went 6 . . . a6 7 l05c3 ( 7 i.e3!? 't!t'a5+ 8 ltJc3 b5 9 ltJd2 is interesting) 7 . . . e6 8 i.g2 ltJe5 9 �b3 !? (9 ltJd2) 9 . . . W'b4! I 0 ltJd2 llb8 I I 0-0 i.e7 1 2 W'c2 0-0 13 a3 "i!t'c5 =.

6 i.g2 'W'b6!? a ) 6 . . . d5 7 0-0 i.c5 8 ltJxc6 (8 ltJb3 i.e7) 8 . . . be 9 '§'c2 (=?); compare the Gri.infeld Defence. b) 6 . . . i.b4+ 7 ltJ c3 is analysed under 5 ltJc3 e6 6 g3 i.b4 below. He re 7 i.d2 't!t'b6 (7 . . . i.c5 !?) 8 liJ b3 is Ch apter 1 4. c) 6 . . . i.c5 7 ltJb3 (7 ltJc2 d5; 7 li:Jb5 d5 8 0-0 0-0 9 .ig5!? Kova�evic; 7 ltJxc6 be 8 0-0 0-0 9 t!t'c2!?) 7 . . . i.b4+ ( 7 . . . i.e7 8 0- 0 d6 9 ltJc3 i s 5 li:Jc3 e6 6 g3 i.c5 below) 8 i.d2 (likewise 8 ltJc3 d5) 8 . . . i.e7 9 li:Jc3 0-0 1 0 0-0 b6? ( 10 . . . d6 I I i.f4 :1::) I I i.f4 i.a6 1 2 lt:Jb5 ! ± Chernikov-Stein, Moscow 1 966.

7 ltJc2!?

2 l0f3 l0f6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:Jc6 167

Or 7 ltJb5!? d5 8 cd ed 9 ltJ lc3 wi th the idea 9 . . . i.c5 (9 . . . d4? 10 i.f4) 10 i.f4!? 0-0 I I ltJc7 . 7 ltJb3 is natural: 7 . . . li:Je5 (! 7 . . . i.b4+ 8 ltJc3 is 823 below) 8 ltJ I d2 (8 c5!? i.xc5 9 ltJxc5 't!t'xc5 1 0 0-0 d5 is speculative; 8 't!t'c2 !?) 8 . . . d6 9 0-0 i.e7 =.

Finally, 7 e3 i.c5 8 0-0!? is analysed under 4 . . . e6 5 g3 of Chapter 1 4. Black has 7 . . . i.b4+ and 7 . . . d5 as options, but 7 . . . lt::le5 8 't!t'e2 is not productive.

7 d5 8 0-0!?

8 cd ed = (Aibu rt). After 8 0-0, Alburt-de Firmian, New York 1985, went 8 . . . de 9 ltJca3 't!t'a6 10 b3 i.e7 ( 10 . . . cb I I 't!t'xb3 ltJd4 1 2 't!t'b2 =/oo - Alburt; then 1 2 . . . ltJxe2+ 1 3 <c!ih I li:Jxc I 1 4 ltJb5 'ti'b6 1 5 llac l i.c5 is possible; I I ab!? intending i.b2, ltJc4 is promising, however) I I be!? (":!:" Alburt) I I . . . 0-0 1 2 ltJb5 'W'a5 1 3 i.d2 'ti'd8 14 i.f4 e5 1 5 i.g5 i.g4 1 6 li:Jd2 Uoo. B

1 72

B

5 li:Jc3 (1 72)

168 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6

5 e6 (1 73) One of the oldest lines of the

English Opening, and still the terrain for key international contests. Black's alternatives are mostly dubious : a)5 . . . g6 6 g3 .ig7 7 .ig2 or 6 li:Jc2 is Chapter 4. b) 5 ... e5? 6 li:Jdb5 .ic5 7 .ie3! .ixe3 8 li:Jd6+ '1!?f8 9 fe ±, e.g. 9 . . . li:Jg4 I 0 'i!rd2 'i!rh4+ I I g 3 'i!rh6 1 2 li:Jd l ! 'i!rg6 1 3 .ih3 h 5 14 0-0 li:Jf6 1 5 .if5 ! 'i!rg5 1 6 li:Jc3 ±± in Cherepkov-Kiaman, USSR 1958. c) 5 . . . 't!lb6 6 li:Jb3 (6 e3 e6 7 .ie2 .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 b3 !; 6 li:Jc2 e6 7 e3 d5!?, or 7 g3 .ic5 8 e3 li:Je5 !) 6 . . . e 6 7 e4! ? (7 g 3 is the main 6 . . . 'i!rb6 line ) 7 . . . .t b4 8 .id3 d5 9 cd ed 1 0 ed li:Jxd5 I I 0-0!, e .g . I I . . . li:Jxc3 12 be .ie7 13 'i!rh 5! . d) 5 . . . li:Jxd4 6 'i!rxd4 g6 (6 . . . d6 7 .ig5) 7 .ig5 ! .ig7 8 li:Jd5 0-0 9 .ixf6 ef 1 0 'i!rd2 ± GheorghiuMatulovic, Skopje 1968. e) 5 . . . b6!? 6 e4 .ib7 transposes to Chapter 9, C22, note (b) to 4 . . . .ib7. f) 5 . . . d5 is the most interesting deviat ion : f l ) 6 li:Jxc6!? be 7 cd cd 8 e4!? li:Jxe4 9 .ib5+ .id7 10 'i!rxd5 ! Ivanov-Cabanas, Edmonton 1985; f2) 6 'i!ra4!? with the idea 6 . . . 'i!rd7 ? 7 li:Jdb5 or 7 cd li:Jxd5 8 li:Jxd5 'it'xd5 9 li:Jb5 ± (Tal) . Or 6 . . . 'it'b6!? 7 li:Jdb5 e 6 8 .if4 e 5 9 c d ef 10 'it'xf 4 ! li:J b5 I I li:Jc7+ '1!?d8 1 2

li:Jxa8 Tal-Donner, Wij k aan Zee 1973, and now 12 . . . 'i!rc5 was suggested, but Abolinsh-Isomussu, corres 1 980-2, went 1 3 llc l .id6 14 li:Jb5! ±. After 1 2 . . . 'i!ra5 1 3 lld l ! li:Jxa2 1 4 lil a ! .ib4 1 5 llxa2! .ixc3+ 1 6 be 'i!rxa2 17 'i!rc7+ (Janicki). Here 7 cd li:Jxd5 8 li:Jxd5 'i!rxd4 9 'i!rxd4 lLl xd4 I 0 .if4 is also promising.

But 6 . . . e6(!) seems reasonable, e .g. 7 li:Jxc6 be 8 'i!rxc6+ (8 cd ed) 8 . . . .id7 9 'i!ra6 d4! 10 li:J b l .ib4+ I I .id2 'i!re7 planning . . . 0-0, . . . e5-e4; f3) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jxc6 be 8 .id2! (8 e4 lt::lxc3 9 'tixd8+ '1!?xd8 =) 8 . . . e6 (8 ... lt::l xc3? 9 .ixc3 'tixd l + 10 llxd l f6 I I g3 e5 12 .ig2 .id7 1 3 0-0 ± Portisch-Donner, Amsterdam 1969) 9 g3 (9 e4 lt::lb4 ! =) 9 . . . .ie7 ( 9 . . . lt::lxc3 !? 1 0 .ixc3 'i!rd5!? t) 1 0 .ig2 0-0 I I 0-0 .ib7?! ( I I . . . .ia6 1 2 .if3 't!t'b6 13 lt::la4 't!t'b5 14 a3 llfd8 1 5 'i!rc2 !) 12 llc l c5 13 li:Ja4 llc8 14 b3 ! intending lt::lb2-c4, Polugayevsky-Belyavsky, USSR Ch 1974.

1 73

w

B I 6 li:ldb5 B2 6 g3 a) 6 e4 .ib4 is a Taimanov Sicilian, considered harmless for Black after e.g. 7 lt:lxc6! be ! (7 . . . d e 8 1Wxd8+ �xd8 9 e5 ! is dangerous) 8 .id3 e5 (or 8 . . . 0-0 9 e5 't!t'a5) 9 .id2 0-0 10 a3 .ie7 and . . . d6. b) 6 a3 't!t'c7 (or 6 . . . d5 7 .ig5 .ie7 =, or here 7 . . . .ic5 !? 8 e3 .ixd4 9 ed de) 7 e3 (7 e4? lt:l xe4! 8 lt:lxe4 't!t'e5) 7 . . . a6 8 .ie2 b6 =. c) 6 .ig5 .ib4 (or 6 . . . 't!t'a5) 7 lbb5 a6 8 lt:ld6+ �e7 9 lt:le4? (9 lt:lxc8+ =) 9 . . . d5 10 cd ed I I lt:lxf6 gf 1 2 .id2 d4 1 3 lt:le4 't!rd5 =t= OjanenEndzelins, corres 1 955. d) 6 e3 d5 (or 6 . . . .ib4!, and 7 lt:lb5 0-0 8 a3 .ie7 - or 8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 lt:lxc3 d5 = - 9 .ie2 d5 = FilipVasyukov, Moscow 1 959; or 7 .id2 0-0 8 .ie2 lt:lxd4 9 ed d5 =) 7 cd (7 .ie2 .id6 8 0-0 0-0 = or even 7 . . . .ic5 8 0-0 .ixd4 9 ed de =) 7 . . . ed 8 .ie2 .id6 =; o r here 8 .ib5 .id7 9 0-0 .id6 =. e) 6 .if4!? can transpose after 6 . . . d 5 7 lt:ldb5 e 5 or 6 . . . .ib4 7 lt:ldb5. Independent is 6 . . . d5 7 cd ! ? lt:lxd5 8 lt:lxc6 be 9 .id2, with White a tempo down on the 5 . . . d 5 ("f3") line above, e .g. 9 . . . .ib4 (or 9 . . . .ie7) 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 10 Il:c l Il:b8 ! l l 't!t'c2 't!t'a5 1 2 e3 lt:lxc3 1 3 be .ia3 = Andersson-Sosonko, Tilburg 1982) I 0 . . . ..ixd2+ I I 1t'xd2 cd 12 e3 0-0 1 3 ..id3 't!t'b6 (or 13 . . . a5) 14 0-0

2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . ltJc6 1 69

Korchnoi-Timman, Hilversum 1982, and aside from 14 . . . ..ia6 1 5 ..ixa6 't!t'xa6, Black had 14 . . . a5 (Hort) or 1 4 . . . e5 1 5 b4 .ie6. B l

1 74

B

6 lbdb5 ( 1 74)

A move I advocated in the first edition at a time when 6 g3 was almost exclusively chosen . Two cycles have occurred since: first, 6 lt:ldb5 became the main l ine, following Korchnoi's lead; recently, 6 g3 has been strengthened again, and fairly reliable answers to 6 lt:ldb5 have cut into the latter's popularity . B l l 6 . . . .ib4 B l2 6 . . . d5 a) 6 . . . ..ic5!? 7 .if4 e5? 8 .ie3! ± transposes to note (b) above to 5 . . . e6. Better 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ic7 't!t'e7 9 ..id6, which is B I I . b) 6 . . . d6 has never been refuted, yet doesn't appeal to top players: 7 ..if4 e5 (7 . . . lt:le5 ? 8 c5) 8 ..ig5 a6 9 .ixf6 (9 lt:la3 .ie6 - or 9 . . . ..ie? = -10 g3 't!t'b6 I I lt:lc2! lt:lg4 1 2 ..ie3

1 70 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:Jc6

li:Jxe3 1 3 li:Jxe3 'tlt'xb2 1 4 li:Jed5 l:tc8 1 5 l:tbl 't!t'a3 1 6 lhb7 li:Ja5 1 7 l:tb4 =/ro - Timman-Sosonko,

London 1980) 9 . . . gf 10 li:Ja3 (1 75)

1 75

B

Now e.g. 1 0 . . . .ie6!? I I e3 ( ! I I g3 f5 12 .ig2 .ig7 1 3 't!t'd2 0-0 140-0 't!t'a5 1 5 l:tfd l e4! ro Mi kenas) I I . . . f5 I 2 t!fd2 ( 1 2 .ie2 t) 1 2 . . . .ig7 ( 1 2 . . . l:tc8 !? I 3 lid I e4!?) I 3 0-0-0 'tlt'a5 I4 li:Jd5 t!fxd2+ 15 l:txd2 0-0-0 16 .ie2 f4! 1 7 ef .ih6 I 8 li:Jc2 ef I9 .if3 li:Je5 20 li:Jd4 ;!; ZilbersteinLein, USSR Ch I972.

More accurate seems 10 . . . f5 ( ! ) , because of the sequence I I e3 .ig7 I 2 't!t'd2 ( 1 2 't!t'h5!?) 1 2 . . . e4 1 3 0-0-0 ( 1 3 l:t d i .ie5!) 1 3 . . . .ie6! I 4 'tlt'xd6 'tlt'xd6 1 5 l:txd6 .ixc3 16 be li[c8 with no problems. After 10 . . . f5 I I g3 .ie6 1 2 .ig2 .ig7 I 3 0-0 0-0 I4 't!t'd2 t!fa5 , we have Mikenas' line of the last paragraph. 8 1 1

6 .ib4 7 .if4

7 .ig5 0-0 8 e3 d5 = is slow, and 7 li:Jd6+!? <t;e7 8 li:Jxc8+ l:txc8 is bad for White's development,

whereas here 8 .if4 e5 9 li:Jf5+ <t;f8 10 .ig5 d5! (Tai manov) favours B lack . Finally, 7 a3 .ixc3+ 8 li:Jxc3 d5 can lead to e.g. 9 cd ed 10 e3 0-0 I I .ie2 .if5 =; or 9 e3 0-0 I 0 .ie2 de I I .ixc4 't!t'xd l + 1 2 li:Jxd l li:Je5 = (intending . . . l:td8, . . . li:Jd3) Gipslis-M inic, USSR v Yugoslavia 1967.

7 0-0 Now 7 . . . e5 8 .ig5 a6 9 li:Jd6+

<t;e7 10 li:Jxc8+ compares well for White with 7 li:Jd6+?! above, and here 10 li:Jde4!? h6 I I li:Jxf6 gf I2 .id2 also seems good. 7 . . . d5? 8 li:Jc7+ <t;e7 (8 . . . <t;f8 9 li:Jxa8 li:Je4 10 a3 ! li:Jxc3 I I 'i!t'd3 ±) 9 li:Jxa8 e5 (9 . . . d4 10 a3 .ia5 I I b4 li:Jxb4 1 2 a b .ixb4 1 3 f3! ±± - SzaboLangeweg, Tel Aviv 1 964) 10 .id2 (or 10 cd ef I I de 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'c l !) 1 0 . . . d 4 1 1 li:Jd5+ li:Jxd5 I 2 c d 't!t'xd5 13 .ixb4+ li:Jxb4 I 4 't!fd2! ±±, in view of I4 . . . 't!t'a5 15 l:tc l , 14 . . . li:Jc6 1 5 li:Jc7 o r 1 4 . . . li:Ja6 1 5 li[ c l 't!t'd6 I 6 't!t'g5+.

8 .ic7!? 8 .id6 .ixd6 9 li:Jxd6 ( 1 76) and:

1 76

B

a ) 9 . . . 1!t'b6!? 10 1!fd2 ( 1 0 l:lb l lt:Jd4! I I e3 1!fxd6 1 2 1!fxd4 - 12 ed h6 = - 1 2 . . . 't!i'xd4 1 3 ed b6 = Kapengut; or 1 0 . . . lt:Je8 I I e3 't!i'b4! = - Korchnoi-Andersson, Johannesburg 198 1) 10 . . . lt:Je8 ( 1 0 . . . lt:Jd4 I I l:ldl 't!i'xd6 1 2 't!i'xd4, l ightly ;!; after 12 . . . 1!fxd4 1 3 l:lxd4 b6 - Keene) I I lt:Jxe8 ( I I lt:Jde4 f5 1 2 ll:Jg5 1!fc5 1 3 e3 b6 1 4 .te2 ;!; Euwe; but 1 2 . . . lt:Jf6 1 3 e3 h6 14 lt:Jf3 lt:Je4 1 5 't!i'c2 d5 !? or simply 1 2 . . . ll:Je5 1 3 e3 h6 must be considered) I I . . . l:lxe8 12 e3 ( 1 2 g3 ll:Je5! 1 3 b3 d5 !) 1 2 . . . l:ld8 1 3 .te2 d6 ( 1 3 . . . d5!? 1 4 cd ll:Jb4 1 5 .tf3 ed 1 6 a3 ; 1 4 . . . ll:Je7 ! ?) 1 4 0-0 ( 1 4 l:lb!?) 14 . . . .id7 1 5 l:lfd l .ie8 ;!; Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match ( 1 3) 1980. b) 9 . . . ll:Je8 10 e3 ( 1 0 1!t'd2 1!t'b6, or I 0 . . . ll:Jxd6 I I 't!i'xd6 't!i'b6 1 2 l:lb I lidS 1 3 g3 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4, very l ightly ;!; ( 19 . . . 1!ff6! Hort).

8 1!fe7 9 .id6

9 a3 !? (Raj kovic) 9 . . . .txc3+ 1 0 b e ll:Je8 looks =, e .g. I I .id6 ( I I .ig3 1!t'f6 1 2 1!fd2 a6 1 3 ll:Jd4 g6 =) I I . . . ll:Jxd6 12 lDxd6 ( 1 2 't!i'xd6 't!i'xd6 and . . . b6) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 't!i'd2 .ia6 14 l:ld l ll:Ja5 1 5 e4 l:lfd8 = with . . . ll:Jb7.

9 .ixd6 10 't!i'xd6 (1 77)

10 ll:Jxd6 ll:Je8 I I lDcb5 a6 ! 1 2 lt:Jxe8 ab! =, e .g . 1 3 ll:Jc7 l:la4 1 4 ll:Jxb5 ( 14 c b 1!t'b4+ 1 5 't!i'd2 ll:Jd4!

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . ltJc6 1 71

+ Janicki) 14 . . . lhc4 1 5 e3 l:l b4 and . . . d5 =.

10 1!t'd8 ! Not I 0 . . . l:ld8 ? I I 't!i'xe7 ll:Jxe7

12 ll:Jd6 'i!;>f8 13 g3 ll:Jc6 1 4 .ig2 ± Abramson-Rokhlin, corres 1965-8, or 1 0 . . . 1!fxd6?! I I ll:Jxd6 l:ld8 12 g3 'i!;>f8 1 3 .tg2 ll:Je8 14 ll:Jcb5 ll:Jxd6 1 5 ll:Jxd6 't>e7 1 6 0-0-0 lib8 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 . . . b6? 1 8 ll:Jxf7) Adorjan-Agdestein , Gjovik 1983.

1 1 e4 a) 1 1 0-0-0 a6 1 2 ll:Jd4 ll:Je8 ( 1 2 . . . ll:Jxd4 1 3 l:lxd4 b5!? Polugayevsky) 13 lLJ xc6 be 14 't!i'd4 d6 1 5 c5 (else 15 . . . e5) 1 5 . . . d5 1 6 f4 ll:Jf6 1 7 e4 a5 = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match (5) 1980. b) I I g3 a6 ( I I . . . ll:Je8 1 2 't!i'd2 a6 1 3 ll:Ja3 b6 1 4 .tg2 .ib7 1 5 0-0 l:ld7 16 l:lfd I ;!; Miles-Hjartarsson, Mexico City 1 98 1 ) 12 ll:Ja3 1!t'b6! 1 3 l:lb l 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4 lDxb4 1 5 .tg2 d5 = ( 1 6 l:l d I b 5 ! ) KorchnoiPolugayevsky, match ( I ) 1 980.

I I a6 Black needs an improvement.

1 72 2 Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jj6 3 d4: 4 . . . Ci:Jc6

Not I I . . . 1!t'a5 1 2 i.d3, but I I . . . 't!t'b6!? is a viable option, e.g. 1 2 lld l ( 1 2 't!i'd2 d5) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 't!i'c7 't!t'xc7 1 4 Ci:Jxc 7 llb8 ( 14 . . . lla7 1 5 c5) 1 5 a 3 ro . Also, I I . . . Ci:Je8 1 2 1!t'd2 a 6 1 3 Ci:Ja3 (or 1 3 Ci:Jd6) could use tests.

12 Ci:Jc7 Ci:Je8 12 . . . lta7 1 3 c5 t.

1 3 Ci:Jxe8 ltxe8 1 4 ..te2 Wb6 1 5 lilb1 'W'd4

Instead of 1 5 . . . 'W'b4 16 'itxb4 Ci:Jxb4 1 7 a3 Ci:Jc6 1 8 ltd 1 !, or 1 5 . . . e 5 1 6 0-0 'tWd4 1 7 ll d I 't!t'xd6 1 8 ltxd6 Ci:Jd4 19 i.g4 U ±. After 1 5 . . . 1t'd4 Korchnoi-Gri.infeld , Lucerne 1982, went 16 ltd I ! 'itxd6 1 7 ltxd6 �f8 1 8 0-0 �7 19 llfd 1 g5? ( 1 9 . . . b6 20 f4 lilb8 ;!; ) 20 Ci:Ja4 b5 2 l cb ab 22 i.xb5 Ci:Je5 23 a3 lta5 24 Ci:Jc3 ±±.

In general, 6 . . . i.b4 leads to slight edges for White, and not much counterplay. 8 1 2

1 78

w

6 dS (178)

Aggressive and critical. 7 ..tf4

7 cd Ci:Jxd5 (7 . . . ed 8 Ci:Jxd5 transposes; 8 i.f4!?, e.g. 8 . . . i.b4 9 Ci:Jc7+ �e7 10 Ci:J xa 8 d4 I I a3 ..ta5 ! 12 i.c7 !?) 8 Ci:J xd5 (8 e4 Ci:Jxc3 9 'tWxd8+ �xd8 10 Ci:Jxc3 i.c5 = e.g. 1 1 i.f4 �e7 12 i.b5 i.d7 1 3 lite ! a6 14 i.d3 ltac8 =

Filip-Flesch, Hungary 1969) 8 .. . ed 9 't!t'xd5!? (9 e3 i.e6 =) 9 .. . i.b4+ (or 9 . . . i.e6!? 1 0 't!t'xd8+ llxd8 1 1 e3 i.b4+ 12 Ci:Jc3 0-0 1 3 i.e2 Ci:Je5 1 4 0-0 i.xc3 1 5 b e i.c4 =

Tuzovsky-Greckin, USSR 1967) 10 i.d2 i.e6 ( 1 0 . . . 't!t'e7 I I Ci:Jc3? 0-0 1 2 i.g5 't!t'c7 1 3 e3 i.e6 1 4 't!t'd2 't!t'a5 15 i.h4 g5! 16 i.g3 llfd8 1 7 1!t'c2 i.xc3+! 1 8 b e Ci:Jb4! =F SubaPortisch, Thessaloniki 01 1 984; 1 1 a3 i.xd2+ 12 'itxd2 0-0 1 3 't!t'd6 't!t'g5 oo Portisch. B lack could also try I 0 . . . i.xd2+ 1 1 't!i'xd2 't!t'xd2+ 12 �xd 2 0-0 13 f3 !? lild8+ 14 �e l oo, or here 1 3 Ci:Jc3) 1 1 't!t'xd8+ lilxd8 1 2 Ci:Jc3 0-0 ! ( 12 . . . Ci:Jd4 1 3 0-0-0) 1 3 e 3 lild7 ( 1 3 . . . Ci:Je5) 1 4 i.b5 ltfd8 15 0-0-0 i.xa2 = Kraidman-Cramling, Gausdal 198 1 .

7 e5 Spassky tried 7 . . . d4!? versus

Trifunovic in Belgrade 1964: 8 Ci:Jc7+ �e7 9 'ita4! (9 't!t'b3 !?) 9 . . . Ci:Jh5 (9 . . . de 1 0 ltd ! ) 1 0 Ci:Jxa8 Ci:Jxf4 I I Ci:Jb5 i.d7 12 g3? Ci:Jg6 1 3 't!t'a3+ �f6 14 1!t'f3+ \12- Y2 but 1 2 e3 ! (Gipslis) 1 2 . . . de ( l 2 . . . Ci:Jg6 1 3 Ci:Jxa7 ! Ci:Ja5 1 4 Ci:Jb5 ±) l 3 't!t'a3+

ct>f6 1 4 'ti'xe3 ± puts this line to rest.

2 lZlf3 lZlf6 3 d4: 4 . .. lZlc6 1 7 3

1 2 ll:ld6 (180)

8 � 1�

8 �g5 a6! 9 ll:lxd5 ll:lxd5 1 0 B

�xd8 �b4+ =F. 8 ef 9 de be

1 0 't!Yxd8+ ct>xd8 (1 79)

An arena for some heavyweight battles throughout the 80s . B 1 2 1 1 1 :ild l + B 1 2 2 1 1 ll:ld4

1 1 0-0-0+ �d7 1 2 ll:ld6 �xd6 1 3 lhd6 ll:lg4! 1 4 ll:ld l ct>c7 1 5 :ild4 g5 16 g3 c5 (" !" Raj kovic), e .g. 17 l:tc4 �c6 1 8 l:tg l ( 1 8 f3 :ilfd8 ! ) 1 8 . . . ll:lxh2 1 9 gf ll:lxfl 20 :ilxfl g4! 2 1 lit xc5 h5 etc. In TroisRogulj, Virovitica 1980, Black settled for 12 . . . ct>c7 !? 1 3 ll:lxl7 litg8 14 ll:le5 �f5 15 e4 !? ( 1 5 g3 ll:le4!?) 15 . . . fe 16 �c4 lite8! 1 7 ll:lf3 ( 1 7 �xg8 l:txe5 18 �b3 ef 19 i..c2 i..g4 intending . . . �c5) 17 . . . lit h 8 =. 8 1 2 1

1 1 :ildl+ �d7

With one further split: B l2 1 1 12 .. �xd6 B 12 1 2 12 . . . ct>c7 a) Originally 12 . . . l:tb8!? was played: 1 3 ll:lx17+ <t>e8 14 ll:lxh8 ( 1 4 ll:ld6+ i..xd6 1 5 llxd6 litxb2 16 l:td2 l:tb4 17 g3 l:tc4! 1 8 ll:ld 1 ct>e7 = Andersson-Timman, Bugojno 1982) 14 . . . llxb2; but 1 5 litd4 ! ( 1 5 l:td2? i..b4) 1 5 . . . �b4 ( 1 5 . . . a5 1 6

e 3 fe 1 7 fe, and 1 7 . . . i..c5 1 8 �d3! or 17 . . . �b4 1 8 llxb4 ab 19 ll:ld 1 litxa2 20 �c4 lit xg2 2 1 ll:lf7 looks insufficient) 16 l:txb4 lit xb4 1 7 e3 !? ( 1 7 g3 l:tc4?! 1 8 ct>d2 l:td4+ 1 9 <t>c I ct>f8 20 e 3 ± - H tibnerMakropoulos, Athens 1 976; 1 7 . . . ct>f8 1 8 gf ct>g8 1 9 e 3 <t> h8 20 �d3 ±; or here 18 . . . l:txf4 19 e3 t or 1 9 litgl ct>g8 20 ll:lg6 :!: Stean-Liberzon, Baden 1980) 17 . . . fe 18 fe ct>f8 1 9 i..d3 ct>g8 20 0- 0 ct>xh8 2 1 ll:le4! t (Xu Jun). b) 12 . . . <t>e7!? 13 g3 g5 14 �g2 �g7 1 5 0-0 litab8 16 ll:lc4! t Polugayevsky-Giigoric, Bugojno

1 74 2 !i:JjJ !i:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . !i:Jc6

1982. 81211

12 i.xd6 1 3 lilxd6 llb8(!)

13 . . . <t1c7 14 lii:d4 g5 1 5 g3 t; 1 3 . . . <tre7 1 4 lld4 ( 1 4 lld2 !i:Jd5 !? 1 5 !i:Jxd5 cd 1 6 g3 llac8 = H .OlafssonSosonko, Luceme 01 1982) 14 . . . g5 15 g3 !i:Jh5 !? ( 1 5 . . . fg 16 hg !) 16 i.g2 ( 1 6 !i:Je4 !) 16 . . . f5 1 7 i.f3 g4 1 8 i.g2 t van der Heijden-Fiorito, Netherlands 1 984.

14 li[d2 14 b3 lii:b4 1 5 g3 <tre7 1 6 litd2

c5 = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match (7) 1983.

14 liteS 1 5 g3 f3 1 6 <t1d1

16 i.h3 fe 1 7 i.xd7 !i:Jxd7 1 8 b3 <trc7 = H.Olafsson- Portisch , New York 1 984.

16 fe+ 1 7 i.xe2 <trc7 18 i.c4 i.g4+!?

( 1 8 . . . <tre7 19 <t;c i llbe8 20 b3 i.e6 21 i.xe6 t Xu Jun-de Firmian, Thessaloniki 01 1984) 19 <trc2 ( 1 9 lt>cl !?) 1 9 . . . lle7 20 b3 litd8 2 1 litxd8 <trxd8 22 f4 i.f5+ = KarpovPolugayevsky, London 1984. 81212

12 13 !i:Jxf7 1 4 !i:Je5

l!;>c7 !? litg8

14 g3 litb8 1 5 litd2 i.b4 1 6 i.g2 ..ixc3 1 7 be litb l + = AnderssonTal, Malmo 1983.

14 llb8 !

1 5 !i:Jxd7 !i:Jxd7 1 6 g3

16 litd2 !i:Je5 ! 1 7 e3 fe 1 8 fe i.b4 19 ..ie2 ..ixc3 20 be lit b l + 2 1 lit b l litb2 = Rubinetti-Velimirovic, Lucerne 01 1982.

1 6 !i:Jxb2 1 7 ..ih3 !i:Jf6

1 7 . . . lt:Jc5?! 1 8 0-0 litc2 1 9 litc l litxc l 20 litxc l t Korchnoi-Portisch, match (5) 1983 . Gutman mentions 17 . . . ..ib4!?, 17 . . . lt:Je5 !?, and 17 . . . lt:Jb6!? a s well .

After 1 7 . . . lt:Jf6, AdorjanCebalo, Vrsac 1983, continued 1 8 0-0 fg 19 h g ..ib4 20 lite ) litd8 2 1 ..ig2 litdd2 ! = .

8122

181

8

1 1 lt:Jd4 (181)

Another Korchnoi move, designed to avoid Black's active piece play of the last two sect ions.

1 1 ..id7 1 1 . . . c5 !? 1 2 lilc6+ (or 12 lildb5

i.b7) 12 . . . lt>c7 1 3 lt:Jc5 ..ie6 14 g3 fg 1 5 hg litb8 is worthy of attention ( 1 6 b3 ? c4; 1 6 litc l ) I I . . .

i.b7?! 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 ll:lf3 ± is given by Levitina. Korchnoi-Portisch, match (3) 1 983, went I I . . . '!/c7 1 2 g3 i.c5?! ( 1 2 . . . l:tb8 1 3 0-0-0 i.c5 14 i.g2! ll:lg4 15 ll:le4 ! ! or 14 . . . i.xd4 1 5 l:t xd 4 !; 1 2 . . . i.b4! ;t Gutman) 1 3 l:tc l ! fg 1 4 hg i.a6? 1 5 ll:lxc6! ± .

1 2 g3 fg 1 2 . . . c5?! 1 3 ll:ldb5 l:tb8 1 4

ltJxa7 ! llxb2 1 5 0-0-0 ;t and 1 2 . . . i.d6 1 3 i.g2 l:tc8 1 4 0-0 fg 1 5 hg h5(?) 1 6 l:tad I '!;c7 1 7 i.xc6! Ligterink-Hulak, European Team Ch 1 983, are not effective. But 1 2 . . . i.b4!? 1 3 i.g2 ( 1 3 gfl?) 1 3 . . . fg transposes.

13 hg i.b4 Or 1 3 . . . lib8 1 4 0-0-0 ( 14 i.g2

lixb 2 1 5 0-0 l:tb4 = AnderssonPolugaye vsky, Tilburg 1983) 1 4 . . . '!/c7 oo, intending . . . ll:lg4 -Polugaye vsky; 1 5 i.h3 i.xh3 1 6 l:txh3 i.b4, roughly equal.

14 i.g2 Or 14 llc l c5 = . After 14 i.g2,

Timm an-Gligoric, Volmac 1 984, went 14 . . . i.xc3+ 15 be '!/c7 1 6 0-0 ( 1 6 l:th4 g5!? 1 7 lith6 ll:lg4 1 8 lih5 h6 = Djuric-Velimirovic, Titograd 1985) 16 . . . llab8 1 7 ll:lb3, and here Gligoric likes " 1 7 . . . h5 ! planning . . . h4" . White was better after 17 . . . llhe8 18 l:tfe 1 l:tb5 1 9 e4 t.

Overall, 6 . . . d5 appears best after 6 ll:l db5, as Black's piece play compensates for his pawn weak-

2 llJf3 llJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . llJc6 1 75

nesses. 82

6 g3 (182)

This simple development has been debated a mong top players for over 30 years without in any way exhausting its possibilities. B21 6 . . . i.b4 B22 6 . . . i.c5 B23 6 . . . it'b6

Older moves tend to be too passive: a) 6 . .. d6 7 i.g2 i.d7 8 0-0 a6 9 b3 !, e.g. 9 . . . i.e7 10 a4! 0-0 1 1 ..ta3 'tib8 1 2 lla2 with the idea l:td2, Karpov-Schauwecker, Bath 1 973. b) 6 . . . dS can transpose to 6 . . . i.c5 after 7 ..tg2 ..tc5 8 ll:lb3 ..tb4, or to a Queen's Gambit after 7 cd ed . c) 6 . . . a6 7 ..ig2 it'c7 8 0-0 ..te7 (8 . . . ll:l a5 9 b3 d5 10 i.g5 - or 10 ..tb2 de 11 b4 - 1 0 . . . ..te7(?) 1 1 l:t c l de 12 b4 llJ c6 1 3 ll:lxc6 be 14 ..txf6 gf 1 5 ll:le4 ± Gligoric; 1 0 . . . de!? 1 1 i.xf6 !) 9 b3 0-0 10 ..ib2 l:td8 1 1 ll c l d5? 1 2 cd ed 1 3 ll:la4 ..id7 1 4

1 7 6 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . liJc6

1i'd3 1i'a5 1 5 liJf5 ± Smys1ovCobo, Havana 1 967. d) 6 .. . liJe5 7 .if4 ! liJg6 (7 . . . liJ xc4 8 e4 d5 9 ed ed lO liJdb5 ±) 8 .id2 (or 8 .ig5 a6 9 .igH) 8 . . . 't!lb6 9 e3 .ie7 1 0 .ig2 liJe5 ;!; Szabo-Enk1aar, Amsterdam 1973. e) 6 . . . .ie7 7 .ig2 0-0 8 0-0 a6 (8 . . . d S 9 cd liJxdS l O liJ xdS e d 1 1 .ie3 ;!;, or here l O liJxc6! be 1 1 .id2 ;!;) 9 .if4! (9 e4 !? 1!t'c7 1 0 .ie3 and 9 liJb3 d6 10 .if4 are options) 9 . . . 1i'a5 (9 . . . liJhS 10 .ie3; 9 . . . liJaS l O 1!t'd3 d 6 1 1 liJb3 ;!; ) 1 0 liJb3 "ti'b4? 1 1 cS ! etc. 821

183

B

6 .ib4 7 .ig2 (183)

7 0-0 a) 7 .. . 't!rb6 !? 8 llJc2!? (8 liJb3 is the main line 823 1 ; 8 liJdbS ! ?) 8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 be 0-0 l O 0-0 ( l O .ia3 lld8 1 1 .id6 liJe8 1 2 cS 1!t'a5 1 3 1i'd2!?) l O . . . d S 1 1 liJe3 lld8 1 2 cd ed 1 3 liJxd5 liJxdS 14 .ixdS liJe7 1S c4 liJxd S 16 cd .ifS = BukalJoksic, Yugoslavia 1 977.

b) 7 ... d5 8 liJxc6 ! be 9 1!t'a4 is awkward for Black . c) 7 . . . 1!t'a5 8 0-0! .i xc3 (8 . . . a6 9 liJb3 1!t'hS l O .if4 ±) 9 be 0-0 (9 . . . 1!i'xc3 1 0 liJbS! ) 10 "ti'b3 lld8 ( I O . . . lle8 1 1 liJbS; 10 . . . dS 1 1 cd ed 1 2 .if4 .ig4 1 3 life 1 1!t'c5 1 4 1!t'xb7! liJxd4 1 S c d 1!t'xd4 1 6 l:lab 1 aS? 1 7 .ib8 ±± Stahlberg-Persitz, Ljubljana 19SS) 1 1 .ia3 1!t'hS 1 2 l:lfd 1 liJxd4 1 3 cd d S SpassovFormanek, Stara Zagora 1977; 1 4 llac 1 ± . d) 7 . . . liJe5 8 "ti'b3 (8 0-0!? liJ xc4 9 1!t'b3 .ixc3 I 0 1!t'xc3 dS 1 1 b3 liJd6 1 2 .ia3 0-0 1 3 "ireS llJfe8 1 4 llfd 1 b6 1 S 1i'c2 oo Shatskes; o r here 8 . . . .ixc3 9 be liJxc4 1 0 1i'a4 liJ b 6 1 1 '§'b3 0-0 1 2 .ia3) 8 . . . tWaS (8 . . . .icS 9 liJc2 ;!;) 9 liJc2 .ixc3+ l O be dS 1 1 cd ed 1 2 .if4 liJc4 1 3 liJe3! liJxe3 ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'cS 14 .ixd5 !? or 14 lld l ) 14 .ixe3 ;!; - FurmanVistanetskis, Vilnius 1960.

8 0-0 d5 a) 8 . . . a6 9 i.gS!? (or 9 liJc2 .ixc3+ lO be d5 1 1 liJe3 ;!;) 9 .. . h6 10 .ixf6 "it'xf6 1 1 e3 .ixc3? ( 1 1 . . . 't!t'e7) 1 2 b e 't!t'eS 1 3 llb 1 't!t'c7 14 cS ! liJaS 1 S 't!t'hS! fS 1 6 g4 ti'xcS 1 7 gS ± ( 1 7 . . . hg 1 8 liJf3) GarciaPalermo-Evans, Lone Pine 1 978. b) 8 . . . "it'e7!? 9 liJc2 (9 .igS) 9 . . . .ixc3 1 0 be lld8 1 1 .ia3 d6 1 2 liJd4 ( 1 2 e4!?) 1 2 . . . liJe5 1 3 "ti'b3, Tukmakov-Hort, De�in 1977; 1 3 . . . liJfd7 ! = (Tukmakov).

9 cd ed

1 0 .ie3

2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 .. . liJc6 1 77

Zee 198 1 . I 0 .if4 or 10 .ie3 Or 1 0 .ig5, as in Quinteros- deserve a look)

Bertok, Cap D'Agado 1 986: 10 . . . .ixc3 ( 1 0 . . . h6!?; 1 0 . . . .ie6 I I 184

li:lxc6 be 1 2 lilc l t) I I be .ie6 1 2 W

lilb I ll:l a5 1 3 f4 ! li:lc4 1 4 'it'd3 li:lb6 1 5 lHe l h6 16 .ih4 't!t'd6 1 7 .ixf6 gf 1 8 e4 de 19 .ixe4 .ixa2 20 lilb5 ± .

After 10 .ie3, 1 0 . . . .ixc3 I I be .ie6 12 lilb I favours White, e.g. 12 . . . li:l a5 1 3 't!t'a4 b6 1 4 lilfd l li:lc4 15 .if4, Portisch-Donner, Santa Monica 1966, went 10 . . . lile8 I I lilc l .ig4 1 2 '@b3! .txc3 1 3 lilxc 3 li:lxd4 1 4 .txd4 .txe 2 1 5 lilfc l li:le4 ( 1 5 . . . .ia6 1 6 lilf3! liJe4 1 7 lilf5) and now 1 6 lile3 .ta6 1 7 lice I ± (Portisch). 822

6 .tcs 7 li:lb3

7 li:lc2 't!t'b6! or 7 .ie3 't!t'b6 are futile. 7 e3 0-0 (or 7 . . . b6) 8 .ig2 d5 9 cd ed 10 0-0 .ig4 (else I I liJb3) I I li:lxc6 be 12 't!t'c2 ( 1 2 'it'a4 't!t'd7 or 1 2 . . . ll: c8) 1 2 . . . ll:c8 = Browne-Lj ubojevic, Milan 1975.

7 .ib4 7 .. . .te7 is still common, but

White keeps a riskless edge: 8 .ig2 0-0 9 0-0 d6 (184) (9 . . . a6 10 c5! d5 I I cd .txd6 12 .ig5 .te7 1 3 'trxd8 lilxd8 14 liJa4 t Tiller-Plachetka, Norway v Czechoslovakia 198 1 ; 9 . . . b6 1 0 liJd5 !? ed I I cd .ib7 1 2 d6 lile8 1 3 de 'tlt'xe7 14 lil e l t Gheorghiu-Tu kmakov, Wijk aan

Now harmless is I 0 e4 a6 I I 't!t'e2 lilb8 1 2 lil d l 't!t'c7 1 3 .if4 liJe5 14 liJd2 b6 = Ciafone-Tarjan , Palo Alto 1 98 1 . 10 li:ld4!? .id7 ( 10 . . . d5 !? intending I I cd ed 12 .if4 't!t'b6) I I liJdb5 ( I I b3 a6 1 2 .ib2 lilb8 =) I I . . . 't!t'b8 1 2 .if4 ( 1 2 .ig5 a6 ! 1 3 .txf6 gf =, or 1 3 liJa3 lild8 =) 1 2 . . . ll:le5 1 3 b 3 a6 1 4 liJd4 t Vukic-Minic, Vinkovci 1 977.

The best move is 1 0 .if4!, when 10 . . . liJe5 I I c5! and 1 0 . . . li:la5 I I liJxa5 ( I I .ixd6 liJxc4 1 2 .txe7 t) l l . . . 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'd2 favours White. More common are: I 0 . . . liJ h5 I I .te3 liJf6 ( I I . . . liJe5 1 2 c5 ! d5 1 3 .id4 li:lc6 1 4 e4 ! = Kapengut; or 14 e3 ± Adorjan) 12 ll:cl liJg4 1 3 .tf4 g5 ( 1 3 . . . liJge5 1 4 liJb5 !) 14 .id2 it:lge5 1 5 liJb5 liJg6 1 6 c5! d5 Adorjan-Hulak , Toluca 1982, and either 1 7 liJd6 ± or 1 7 e4 d4 1 8 liJd6! (as played) is strong. O r 1 0 . . . liJg4 I I :file I liJge5, AdorjanMokry, Prague 1985, and aside

1 7 8 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 .. . li:Jc6

from 12 li:Jb5 a6 1 3 li:Jbd4 li:Jxd4 1 4 'ifxd4 !, 1 2 li:Jd4(!) li:Jxc4 ( 1 2 . . . i.d7 1 3 li:Jxc6 i.xc6 1 4 c5! ± ) 1 3 i.xc6 ± with the idea li:J xc6, li:Jxe7+, b3, li:Jb5 etc (Adorjan). Fi nally, IO . . . h6 l l litc l e5 1 2 i.d2 i.e6 13 li:Jd5 liteS, GavrikovZaichik, Tbilisi 1 9S3; 14 i.c3! ! and li:Jd2 (Gavrikov).

8 i.g2 dS 9 cd

9 (}.0 de I 0 li:Jd2 (}.0 ( 10 . . . 'tlt'd4 I I li:Jb5 'ife5 1 2 a4 !) I I li:Jxc4 'ife7 1 2 i.e3 litdS 1 3 'ifb3 li:Jd5! = Stean-Sosonko, A msterdam 1979; 12 i.d2 litdS 1 3 'tt"c I li:Jd4 (or 13 . . . i.d7) is also equal.

9 li:JxdS 9 . . . ed 10 0-0 i.e6 I I i.g5 ! ( I I

. . . 0-0 1 2 lit b l !) . 10 0-0 (!)

10 i.d2 li:Jxc3 I I i.xc3 i.xc3+ 12 be 'ti'e7 = ; 10 a3 i.xc3+ I I be 0-0! ( I I . . . li:J xc3? 1 2 'tfxdS+ and 1 3 i.b2 ±) 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 'ifc2 it'c7 ! 1 3 c4 li:Je5 =) 1 2 . . . li:Jb6 1 3 'ifxdS 1 4 c5 li:Jd5 ! ( 1 4 . . . li:Ja4 1 5 i.f4 ;t) 1 5 i.b2 b6 1 6 e4 li:Jde7 ro. Finally, 1 0 'ifc2 li:Jxc3 ! ( 1 0 . . . (}.0 I I i.d2 ;t) I I be i.e7 equalises.

1 0 li:Jxc3 10 . . . i.xc3 I I be (}.0 1 2 i.a3 !

liteS 1 3 c4 li:Jb6 14 litc l i.d7 1 5 li:Jc5 ± Adorjan-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1 9S2.

1 1 be!? (1 85) I I 'ifxdS+ has also had success,

e.g. I I . .. li:Jxd S!? ( I I . . . 'it>xdS

Tu kmakov) 1 2 bc i.xc3 1 3 lit b l a5 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 may improve; 13 . . . i.b4 14 li:Jd4 and li:Jb5) 14 litd l !? ( 14 li:Jc5 i.b4 1 5 li:Ja4 ::!:: TukmakovTal, Erevan 19SO) 14 . . . f6 1 5 a3 lUd8 1 6 li:Jc5 ± Reshevsky-Kogan, US Ch 19S I .

1 1 'ti'xd1 No better seems I I . . . i.xc3 1 2

lit b I 0-0 1 3 i.e3 i.f6 1 4 li:Jc5 'ti'c7 1 5 'ti'a4 litdS 1 6 lUc l ( ±) 1 6 . . . litbS 1 7 li:Ja4! i.e7 I S 'ti'xa 7 ! etc of Sunye-Hase, Moron 19S2.

1 2 litxd1 i.xc3 13 llb 1 0-0 14 li:JcS eS

Christiansen gives 1 4 . . . li:Jd4!? 15 'it>fl e5 1 6 litd3!? i.a5 ro, but the immediate 1 5 lld3( ! ) intending 15 . . . li:Jxe2+ ( 1 5 . . . e5 16 e3) 16 'it>f l li:Jxc l 17 lit xc3 li:Jxa2 I S lita3 etc looks good. 14 . . . li:JdS? 1 5 i.a3 liteS 16 li:Ja6! i.a5 1 7 litb5 ± was Christiansen-Radulov, Indonesia 19S2. Probably Ftacnik's 1 4 . . . litdS i s best.

After 1 4 . . . e 5, Razuvayev-

2 �!3 �!6 3 d4: 4 . . . �c6 179

Polugayevsky, Moscow l9S5, ended 186

quickly: 1 5 .ia3 .tf5 1 6 lixb7 B

�a5 1 7 lic7 liacS I S lba6! ( ±) I S . . . l:UdS? 1 9 lhdS+ lhdS 20 lhc3 l -0. 823

6 Still the main l ine. 6 . . . ._.b6

drives the white knight from the centre without the loss of tempo 6 . . . .ic5 entails. Recently the move has p repared the direct . . . d5.

7 �b3 (186) 7 �xc6 'ti'xc6! or:

a) 7 �db5 �e5 (7 . . . .ic5?! S .ig2! .ixf2+ 9 �fl �g4 1 0 1!t'd6! ±± Lipinski-Schinzel , Warsaw 1977) S .ig2 (S .if4 lt:lfg4! 9 e3 a6 +) S . . . a6 (S . . . �xc4!? 9 'W'a4 'ti'c5 ! 10 .if4 e5 I I .ig5 a6 1 2 .ixf6 libS 1 3 �d5 ab 14 'W'a7 ! 'W'd6 oo) 9 �a3 (9 'ti'a4 .ic5; 9 .ie3 'ti'a5) 9 . . . .ixa3 10 ba � xc 4 I I 1!t'b3 ?! ( I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 e4!?) I I . . . ihb3 12 ab �a5 1 3 lib l d5 + (Euwe). b) 7 e3 .ib4 (or 7 . . . d5 =) S .ig2 d5 9 cd � xd4 1 0 1!t'xd4 'W'xd4 I I ed �xd5 =. c) 7 �c2 d5 ! (or 7 . . . .ic5 S e3 0-0 9 .ig2 'ti'a6 =) S cd ed 9 � xd5 (9 b3 = Gufeld) 9 . . . lt:\xd5 1 0 1!t'xd5 .ie6 I I 't!t'e4, Belyavsky-Gurevich, USSR 1975;. I I . . . .ib4+ ! 1 2 �xb4 'W'xb4+ 13 'ti'xb4 �xb4 + (Gufeld).

see diagram

8 23 1 7 . . . .ib4 8232 7 . . . �e5 8233 7 . . . d5 8231

7 .ib4 8 .ig2 ._.a6

Still the normal move, although White has done well against it. Others: a) 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 .ixc3?! 10 c5! it'c7 I I be b5 1 2 .if4 e5 1 3 .ig5 ± Mikhalchishin-Valenti, Rome 1977; better 9 . . . �e5 10 c5 't!t'a6 I I 'ti'd4 �c6 1 2 'it'd3 ! Tischbierek-Goglitz, East Germany l 9SO. b) 8 ... �e5 9 .ie3 'W'a6 (9 . . . 'W'c7 10 c5 �c4 I I 'itd4! �xe3 1 2 'W'xe3 libS 1 3 0-0 .ixc3 14 1!t'xc3 b6 1 5 c6 0-0 - 15 . . . de 16 �d4! - 1 6 �d4 a6, Portisch-Donner, Amsterdam 197 1 ; 1 7 liac l ! d6 I S lifd I ± Portisch) 10 c5 �c4 I I .tel d5 1 2 cd 0-0 1 3 0-0 .ixd6 ( 1 3 . . . lidS 1 4 .ig5 ! ; 1 3 . . . h 6 14 'W'd3 lidS 1 5 a 3 .ixd6 1 6 �c5! Romanishin) 1 4 't!t'd3! libS 15 a4! �e5 16 'itd4 lidS 17 �b5 ± Romanishin-Hulak , K rk 1976.

180 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:Jc6

c) 8 . . . d5 9 cd (9 li:Jd2 d4 1 0 li:Ja4 'f/c7 =) 9 o o • li:Jxd5 (9 0 0 0 ed 10 .te3 "t!la6 I I 0-0 0-0!? 1 2 li:Jc5 ! ) 1 0 0-0! li:Jxc3 ( 10 o o • .txc 3 I I be 0-0 1 2 c4 li:Jde 7 Bagirov-Barczay, Tallinn 198 1 ; 1 3 .tb2 i; 13 .ta3; l 2 "t!lc2!? Bagirov) I I be .te7 ( I I 0 0 0 .txc3 1 2 .te3! with a strong attack) 1 2 .te3 "t!lc7 1 3 li:Jd4 .td7 14 llbl a6 1 5 li:Jxc6! .txc6 1 6 .txc6+ "t!lxc6 1 7 :U.b6 t planning 1!Va4, :U. fb l etc, Gulko-So kolov, Parnu 1977.

9 c5 a) 9 0-0!? "t!lxc4 10 .td2 d5 I I li[ c l i.xc3 1 2 .t xc3 @'a4 o r 1 2 0 0 0 @'g4; here 1 2 . . . li:Jd4? l 3 li:J xd5 ! ! li:'lxe2+ 1 3 "t!lxe2! with a k illing attack , Fernandez-Lebredo, Cuba 1984. b) 9 li:Jd2!? .txc 3 l O be 0-0 (or 10 o o ·

d5 =) I I 0-0 ( I I c 5 b6; I I "t!lb3 !? Gligoric) I I 0 0 0 d5 12 "it'b3 .td7 (or 12 0 0 0 li:'la5 13 @'a3 b6 1 4 cd ed 1 5 c4! li:J xc 4 1 6 li:Jxc4 "t!lxc4 1 7 .tb2 li:'le4 1 8 1!t'e3 =/ro Tatai-Ostojic, Rome 1 977) 13 1!t'a3 , KorchnoiSpassky, match (5) 1 977-8; 1 3 0 0 0 1!t'xa3 1 4 .txa 3 ll fc8 = (Stean).

9 b6 (187) 9 0 0 0 1!t'c4 1 0 0-0! .txc5 I I li:J xc5

1!t'xc5 12 .te3 1!t'e7 1 3 li:Jb5! t Chekhov-Alburt, U SSR 1978.

1 0 cb!? Perhaps even better is l 0 0-0( ! )

be?! ( 1 0 . . . .txc5? I I li:Jxc5 be 1 2 'f/d6 ! ; 1 0 o o · .tb7 I I .tg5 .t xc3 1 2 be li:Je5 1 3 .txb7 t intending .txf6, 1!t'd4, Tukmakov-Razuvayev, Tashkent 1 980) I I .te3 ! (" ±" Eingorn)

/87

w

of Eingorn-Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1984, which went 1 1 . 0 0 d5 l 2 li:Jxc5 @'a5 13 li:Jca4 ±. H ere I I 0 0 0 c4 1 2 li:Jc5 "t!la5 1 3 @'d6 ! looks worse.

1 0 ab 1 1 0-0 0-0

I I o o • .txc3!? 1 2 be d5 1 3 .tg5 ( 1 3 e4!?) 1 3 o o • .tb7 14 .txf6 gf 1 5 li:'ld4 t Thinnsen-de Firmian , Palo Alto 198 1 .

1 2 .tg5 .te7 1 3 e4 ! h6 ( 1 3 . . . b5 !?) 14 .tf4 e5

15 .te3 li:Jb4 16 a3 li:Jd3 17 'flc2 li:Jg5 1 8 .td2 1!t'c4 19 .tf3 ± van Dyck-Bernard, corres 1979-82. Thus both 10 cb and 10 0-0 look good for White. 8232

7 li:Je5 The old main line.

8 e4 .tb4 8 0 0 . d6 9 f4 lt::lg6 1 0 "t!le2 .te7 I I

.te 3 "t!lc7 1 2 .tg2 .td7 1 3 n e t 0-0 14 0-0 a6 1 5 li:Jd4 t PolugayevskyLjubojevic, Tilburg 1 985.

9 'ire2 (188)

/88

B

9 0-0 Weak is 9 . . . 'it'c6? 1 0 .id2! (or

l O f4( ! ) with the idea lO . . . lLlxe4 1 1 .ig2 lLlxc3 1 2 be .ixc3 13 .id2 ± Shatskes) 10 . . . d6 1 1 f4 ±; or 9 . . . d6?! 1 0 f4 lLlg6 1 1 .id2 0-0 1 2 .ig2 a6 1 3 �c 1 �b8 1 4 g4! ± Holmov-Razuvayev, USSR 197 1 . A wild line goes 9 . . . a5 !? l O .ie3 ( l O f4 lt:l eg4! 1 1 e5 a4 oo) lO . . . 'it'c6 ( l 0 . . . 'it'c7 !? 1 1 f4 ! lLlxe4 12 .id4) 1 1 f3 0-0 12 lLld4 'it'a6 1 3 lLlb5 d5 !? ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'c6 1 4 .id4 ±) 1 4 lLlc7 ( 1 4 cd ed 1 5 .id4 de 1 6 .ixe5 ef 17 'it'c4 f2+ oo Miles-Nunn, London 1 977) 1 4 . . . 'it'd6 ( 1 4 . . . 'it'c6!? 1 5 lLlxa8 lLlxc4 1 6 .id4 e 5 1 7 ed lLlxd 5 1 8 'it'xc4 o! Karpov) 1 5 lLlxa 8 de? ( 1 5 . . . lLlxc4! 1 6 a 3 lLlxa2 17 llxa3 d41 8 .id2 de 19 llxc3 U ± Karpov) 1 6 fe lLlxe4 1 7 �d 1 ! 'it'c6 1 8 .ig2 ±± Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1977.

10 f4 lLlc6 I I .ie3

Or 1 1 e5 lLle8 1 2 ..id2 ( 1 2 .ie3 't!t'c7 14 ..td2 t) 12 . . . f6 13 c5 !? ( 1 3

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlc6 181

ef lLlxf6 14 c5 't!t'c7 1 5 .ig2 b6 1 6 lLlb5 .ixd2+ 1 7 'trxd2 'trb8 1 8 �c 1 :!: Ubi1ava-Gu1ko, USSR Ch 1 98 1 , or here 14 .ig2 d5 1 5 0-0-0 a 5 1 6 .ie3 o!) 1 3 . . . 'trd8 ( 1 3 . . . 'trc7 14 lLlb5 .txd2+ 1 5 'trxd2 t) 1 4 a3 ( 1 4 .tg2 fe 1 5 fe b6 1 6 lLle4 a 5 oo ) 1 4 . . . .txc3 1 5 .ixc3 fe 1 6 .txe5 lLlxe5 17 'trxe5 a5 ( 1 7 . . . b6( ! ) 1 8 .tg2 .ta6 oo) 1 8 i.d3 a4 1 9 lLld2 d6 20 cd lLlxd6 2 1 0-0-0 ± Dvoiris-Tal, USSR 1985.

1 1 'it'c7 1 2 ..tg2 b6

1 2 . . . d5 falls short after 1 3 e5 lLle4 1 4 llc 1 (Mikha1chishin), or here 14 0-0 .txc3 1 5 cd! ed 1 6 be b6 1 7 �ac 1 f5 1 8 �fd 1 .ie6 1 9 g4 (" ! " Velimirovic ).

13 llacl !? 1 3 e5 lLle8 14 �c 1 " ±" (Mikhal

chishin). 1 3 .ta6 1 4 0-0 .txc3

1 5 �xc3 d6 1 6 lLld4 lt:lxd4 1 7 .txd4 e 5 1 8 i.fl Stean-Spassky, Munich 1979; and instead of 18 . . . llac8 1 9 f5 ! ± , 1 8 . . . ef 19 gf �ae8 20 i.d4 lLld7 was best . 8233

7 dS (189) This radical solution was revived

a few years ago and is currently the main line.

8 cd 8 .te3!? 'ti'b4 9 cd lLlxd5 is

unpromising, although Taimanov gives I 0 i.d2 lLl xc3 l l .txc3 't!t'e4

18 2 2 l1Jf3 l1Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . l1J c6

189

w

1 2 f3 'ti'e3 1 3 't!t'd2 t. Instead, 9 c5 !? is very interesting. Then 9 . . . l1Jg4 1 0 i.f4!? (or 1 0 i.d2 i.xc5 I I e3 ) I 0 . . . i.xc5 I I e3 with the idea a3 is apparently bad, and 9 . . . e5 !? 1 0 a3 't!t'c4 I I ..tg5 d4 1 2 e3 'ire6 13 l1Jb 5 is also loose. Perhaps 9 . . . l1Je4 I 0 lic l l1Jxc3 (the c-pawn is immune) I I li xc3 't!t'e4 12 f3 'iVf5 would be best.

8 l1Jxd5 9 l1Jxd5

The other popular move is 9 i.g2 (9 i.d2!?) 9 . . . l1Jxc3 1 0 be: a) 1 0 ... ..te7 I I 0-0 (}0 ( I I . . . e5 1 2 i.e3 'iVc7 1 3 l1Jc5 0-0 1 4 'iVa4 i.xc5 - lightly ! Kasparov-Karpov (26), Moscow 1 9S4-5) 12 ..te3 'irc7 1 3 l1Jd4 lidS ( 1 3 . . . i.d7!?) 1 4 l1Jxc6 !? ( 14 'iVa4 i.d7 15 l1Jxc6 i.xc6 1 6 i.xc6 be 1 7 liab I t CvetkovicGiigoric, Lugano 1983; or here 1 7 c 4 \12- \12 Kasparov-Karpov, match ( 24) 1 9S4) 14 . . . lixd l 1 5 l1Jxe7+ 1txe7 16 l:l:xfd l g6 ( 1 6 . . . h6 !? Adorjan) 1 7 l:l:ab I e5 I S lib5 ! i.e6 ( 1 8 . . . e4 1 9 lie5 ! ±) 19 lixb7

lidS! 20 lidb l U± AdorjanZysk, Dortmund 1 984. b) 10 ... e5 1 1 (}0 ( I I l1Jd2 'irc7 1 2 l1Jc4 �e7 1 3 l1Jc3 �e6 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 c4 i.c5 1 6 l1Jd5 'ird7 = Tallvanovic, Nik� ic) I I . . . i.e7 1 2 i.e3 'f!Jc7 1 3 l1Jc5 trans poses to I I . . . e5 above. Here I I . . . �e6!? 12 ..te3 'ira6 13 l1Jc5 i.xc5 1 4 i.xc5 lidS is an option.

9 1 0 �g2 1 1 �d2 (190)

ed �b4+

I I �fl !? with the idea i.e3, h3, �g l -h2 is slow but worth con-sideration.

1 1 i.g4 a) 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 (}0 i.g4 1 3 h3 i.e6 14 i.e3 't!t'dS 1 5 lic l lieS 1 6 l1Jd4!? ! ( 1 6 a3 planning l1Jc5), Livan der Wiel, Biel 19 85. b) 11 ... a5 1 2 0-0 i.xd2 ( 1 2 . . . (}0 1 3 i.e3 'ira6 1 4 l1Jc5 !? - /4 licl!? -14 . . . i.xc5 1 5 i.xc5 lieS 1 6 e3 �f5 \12-\12 Adorjan-Ivanovic, Vrsac 19S3) 13 'ti'xd2 a4 14 ltJc I 0-0 1 5 l1Jd2 ( 1 5 lii:d I i.f5 1 6 l1Jd3 i.xd3) 1 5 . . . lidS

("?! 1 5 . . . lita5! Eingorn; 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 17 lt:ld5 t; 1 5 0 0 0 .tf5 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 1 7 litfd 1 llfd8 1 8 lt:l d 5 t GeorgievGligoric, Plovdiv 1 986) 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 17 litac I i..d7 18 litfd 1 lita5 1 9 lt:ld5 'tWa7 20 lt:lb4! litc5 2 1 lt:lxc6 .txc6 22 11rb4 ± - EingornMikhalchishin, Lvov 1 984.

1 2 0-0 1 2 .txb4!? • 'itxb4+ 1 3 'itd2

11rxd2+ ( 1 3 . . . 0-0!?) 1 4 ct>xd2 0-0-0 15 h3 i..h5 1 6 litac l ct>b8 1 7 lt:lc5 litd6 18 II hd 1 :t - SmyslovH .Oiafsson, Copenhagen 1 985.

1 2 litd8 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 lite! lithe8 ( 13 . . .

ct>b8 1 4 i..f4+ ct>a8 1 5 a3 t Tukmakov) 14 .txb4 ( 1 4 .te3 litxe3 !?; 14 . . . 1Wa6!?) 14 . . . 1Wxb4 1 5 'tWd4! 't!t'xd4 1 6 lt:lxd4 .txe2? ( 1 6 . . . ct>d7! 1 7 lt:lxc6 be 1 8 e3 :t Tukmakov) 1 7 life I i..c4 1 8 lit xe8 llxe8 19 lt:lxc6 be 20 b3 ± Tukmakov-Veingold, USSR 1979.

13 .txb4 1 3 h3 !? .ih5 14 .te3 ( 1 4 lit c l !?;

14 .txb4 1Wxb4 1 5 f4 !? f6 oo

2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lt:lc6 183

Nikolic-Cebalo, Novi Sad 1 984) 14 . . . d4!? 1 5 .txc6+ be 1 6 .txd4 c5 17 lt:lxc5 .txc5 1 8 'tra4+ ct>f8 19 .txc5+ 't!t'xc5 '20 llac l 't!t'e7 2 1 'tWa5 ! g5 22 litc7 'tWf6 23 'tWc5+ 'tWd6 24 'tWxa7 ct>g7 oo AdorjanDanner, Lugano 1983.

1 3 't!t'xb4 1 4 'it'c2 0-0 15 litfd1

" ±" (Spraggett). Here SpraggettChand.ler, Commonwealth Ch 1985, continued 1 5 . . . 'it'c4!? ( 1 5 . . . litfe8 is natural) 1 6 litd2 litfe8 1 7 e3 g6 1 8 h3 (or 1 8 lite I lt:le5 !? 1 9 litxd5 't!t'a6 20 llxd8 litxd8 2 1 h3 .tf3 22 'itc7 ± Smejkal-Cebalo, France 1986) 1 8 . .. i..f5 19 'tWd I .te4 20 lie! 'tWb4 2 1 lt:ld4! ±.

Conclusion: Black has found no easy way to escape his difficulties after 6 g3. Neither 6 . . . .ib4, 6 . . . .ic5 nor any of the traditional move after 6 . . . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lb3 are presently satisfactory, and the newer 7 . . . d5 !? apparently leaves White with some pull .

1 4 2 lb f3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

1 c4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4 cd 4 lLlxd4 e6 (191)

/ 91

w

4 . . . e6 has long been considered Black's most rel iable line. It introduces variat ions which are of great transpositional significance. The position after 5 lt:\c3 .ib4 6 g3, for example, can arise from the controversial Nimzo-I ndian line I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlc3 .ib4 4 lLlf3 c5 5 g3 cd 6 lLlxd4, and I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 lLlf3 cd 4 lLlxd4 e6 is a Benoni . A 5 g3 B 5 lLlc3 a) 5 e3 (5 .if4?? e5 ! ) 5 . . . lLlc6 6 .ie2 d5 = . b) 5 lLlb5 d5 6 cd (6 .if4 .ib4+

7 lt:ld2 lLle4 ! intending 8 1!t'a4 lLlc6 9 lLlc7+ <t>f8 1 0 lLlxa8 1!t'f6! I I g3 lLlxd2 etc) 6 . . . a6 (or 6 . . . ed 7 .if4 .ib4+ 8 lLl lc3 0-0 =) 7 lLl5c3 ed 8 .ie3 lLlc6 9 .id4 lLlxd4 10 1!t'xd4 1!t'c7 I I e3 .ic5 12 1!t'a4 b5! 1 3 .ixb5+ ab 1 4 1!t'xa8 0-0 :t= Korchnoi-Greenfeld, B iel 1986. A

5 g3 This move lacks the direct

punch of 5 lLlc3, but can serve to produce an original, balanced game. A I 5 . . . .ib4+ A2 5 . . . 1!t'c7

Very important is 5 . . . d5 6 .ig2, which is a Catalan Openi ng. I will not discuss it for reasons of space, but it is considered fully equal in the main lines following 6 . . . e5 and 7 . . . d4. For further details, the reader may consul t the first (English notation) edition of this book, and update it by Chess Informant from #29 on. Surprisingly little has changed, although now even lines such as 5 . . . d5 6 .ig2 e5 7 lLlf3 d4 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 e3 d3!? and 9 . . . .ig4!? have had some

success, along with the normal 9 . . . j_e7 and 9 . . . j.c5.

Other moves include 5 . . . lt:lc6 ( Chapter 1 3, A), 5 . . . a6 6 j.g2 flc7 (82 below) and 5 . . . j.c5, e.g. 6 lt:lb3 j.b4+ (6 . . . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lxc5 tt'xc5 8 lt:ld2 'it'c6 9 e4 ! ±) 7 j.d2 i.e7 8 j_g2 lt:lc6 9 0-0 (t) 9 .. . b6? 1 0 lt:ld4! j.b7 l l j_f4 0-0 1 2 lt:lb5 ± Kuligowski-Su nye, Graz 1 9 8 1 .

Popular is 5 . . . tt'b6!?, e.g. 6 j_g2 j.c5 7 e3 lt:lc6, and now instead of 8 lt:lb3 j.b4+ 9 j.d2 lt:le5! l 0 't!Vc2 d5 =I oo ( I I cd tt'a6 ! ) as in several games, the gambit 8 0-0!? is critical (or 8 lt:lc3 !, to transpose and a void 8 . . . j.xd4 9 ed tt'xd4 1 0 lt:lb5!) : 8 . . . lt:lxd4! (8 . . . 0-0? 9 lt:lc3 ±; 8 . . . j.xd4 9 ed flxd4 1 0 1!hd4 lt:lxd4 l l lt:lc3 'it>e7 !? - 11 . . . d5!? Nogueiras - 12 Itd I lt:lc6 13 b3 ! a5 1 4 j.f4 ! lt:le8 15 litd2 f6 1 6 litad l lt:le5? 17 j.xe5 1 -0 - Nogueiras-Am. Rodriguez, Havana 1986. 8 lt:lc3 avoids this) 9 ed j.xd4 1 0 lt:lc3 (192) (with the idea lt:la4)

/ 92

B

2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 185

1 0 . . . e5 ( 1 0 . . . j.xc3?! I I be and j.a3; 10 . . . j.e5 I I lite l j.b8 1 2 lt:lb5 ± Nogueiras) I I lt:l b5 0-0! ( I I . . . j.c5 1 2 j_g5 0-0 1 3 fld2 h6 1 4 j.xf6 'it'xf6 1 5 b4 j_e7 1 6 lt:lc7 lit b 8 1 7 lt:ld5 f;lg5? - 1 7 . . . fle6 1 8 f4! - 1 8 f4 ef 19 't!t'xf4 l -0 Rogers-Suba, Szirak I Z 1 986) 12 lt:lxd4 ( 1 2 a4 j.c5 ! 1 3 a5 fld8 14 lt:ld6 j.c7 Psakhis) 1 2 . . . ed, Nogueiras-Psakhis, Szirak IZ 1986. Now 1 3 tt'd3 d5 ! l 4 cd Itd8! ( 1 4 . . . j.g4 1 5 h3 j.h5 1 6 f4! ; 1 4 . . . flc5 1 5 j_g5! , e.g. 1 5 . . . lt:lxd5 1 6 litacl tt'a5 1 7 't!t'xd4 lt:lb6 18 j.f6! gf 19 Itc5) seems to hold, e.g. 1 5 Ite l h6! etc. The game went 1 3 b3 d5 14 ..ib2 ( 1 4 cd j.f5 ! 1 5 j.b2 d3; 14 i.a3 liteS 15 c5 't!t'a5 1 6 j.b2 't!t'xc5 17 j.xd4 =) 14 . . . de 1 5 'it'xd4 cb 1 6 flxb6 ab 1 7 a b j.e6 1 8 j.xb7 =.

A rare line is 5 . . . 'ffa5+ 6 lt:lc3 (6 j.d2 't!t'b6 7 j.c3 e5 ! 8 lt:lb3 tt'c6 9 f3 't!t'xc4 =, or 9 . . . d5!?; 6 lt:ld2 lt:lc6!? 7 lt:lb3 flc7 8 e3 - 8 j_g2 ltle5 - 8 . . . b6 9 j_g2 j.b7, very lightly ;!: Pavlovic-Karlsson, Nice 198 1 ; here 6 . . . tt'b6 7 e3 lt:lc6 8 lt:lxc6 - 8 lt:ldb3!? - 8 . . . be = was Coppini-A verbakh, Reggio Emilia 1 977-8) 6 . .. lt:le4 7 j.d2 lt:lxd2 8 'ffxd2 a6 9 i.g2 j.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I litfd I ;!: Yusupov-Anikaev, USSR 1979. A I

5 i.b4+ 6 j.d2

6 lt:lc3 is A2 below; on 6 lt:ld2, 6

186 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

. . . li:Jc6 7 li:Jc2 ..tc5 = or 7 . . . ..te7 =. 6 'irb6 (193)

6 . . . ..tc5 7 li:Jb3 ..te7 8 ..tg2 ;!;; 6 . . . ..te7 7 ..tg2 li:Jc6 8 ..tc3 ;!; (8 e3 !?) ; 6 .. . ..txd2 7 'irxd2 (or 7 li:Jxd2 11rb6 8 liJ2b3 'it'b4+ 9 'it'd2 ;!;) 7 . . . d5 (7 . . . li:Je4!? 8 1We3 'it'a5+ 9 li:Jd2 li:Jxd2 1 0 'ihd2 'irxd2+ 1 1 c;!;>xd2 c;!;>e7 1 2 ..tg2!? -1 2 'fJ.dl - 1 2 . . . li:Jc6 1 3 c;!;>c3 li:Jxd4 14 c;!;>xd4 d6 1 5 '1J.ac 1 ..td7 = - Rashkovsky-Sideif-Zade, Baku 1983) 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 cd ed 10 li:Jc3 li:Jc6 1 1 0-0 ;!; Grinza-Evans, Haifa 1976. But most of these ";!;"s are mild.

193

w

7 .txb4 a) 7 ..tg2 li:Jc6 (simplest, but 7 . . . .ic5 8 e 3 ..txd4 9 e d 'it'xd4 1 0 0-0 li:Jc6! has been equal in practice) 8 li:Jb3 d5 (8 . . . a5 !?) 9 cd ed 1 0 0-0 .bd2 1 1 'irxd2 0-0 1 2 li:Jc3 '1J.d8 1 3 '1J.ac 1 .ig4 = Stean-Sanz, Las Palmas 1 978. b) 7 e3 li:Jc6 (7 . . . 0-0; 7 . . . ..tc5 !? 8 ..tc3 li:Je4 9 'it'b3 ;!; Browne) 8 ..txb4 (8 .ig2) 8 . . . 't!t'b4+ 9 't!t'd2

1t'xd2+ 10 li:Jxd2 d5 !? ( l 0 . . . d6; 10 . . . c;!;>e7) 1 1 li:Jxc6 ! be 1 2 'fJ.c l ;!; Pribyl-Gross, Czechoslovakia 1975.

7 'it'xb4+ 8 li:Jc3!

Zilberstein's gambit . 8 li:Jd2 'irxb2 (or 8 . . . d5 =) is less effective: 9 li:Jb5 li:Ja6 10 .ig2 0-0 1 1 li:Jd6 'irb4 = Auen-Hartston, Vienna 1 972.

8 li:Jc6 ( !) Complex is 8 . . . 't!hb2!? (8 . . .

'it'xc4 9 e4 'irc5 10 li:Jb3 'ire7 1 1 e5 ±; 8 . . . 0-0 9 'it'b3 'irc5 1 0 '1J.d 1 a6 - /0 . . . liJc6 I I 't!t'b5! ;!; - 1 1 .ig2 li:Jc6 1 2 li:Jxc6 be 1 3 0-0 ;!; -Rashkovsky-Chekhov, USSR 1975; 8 . . . a6 9 a3 ! 'irxc4 1 0 'fJ.c 1 0-0 1 1 ..tg2 ± with the idea 1 1 . . . 't!t'c7? 1 2 li:Jd5 t!t'd8 1 3 '1J.xc8 ! ; 1 1 . . . li:Jc6 1 2 li:Jxc6 b e 1 3 0-0 'irg4 14 'ird6) 9 li:Jdb5 'it'b4 1 0 li:Jc7+! c;!;>d8 1 1 't!t'd2 li:Je4! 1 2 li:Jxe6+ fe 1 3 li:Jxe4 't!t'xd2+ 14 li:Jxd2 ( 1 4 c;!;>xd2 b6 ! 1 5 .ig2 .ib7 1 6 'fJ.hd 1 li:Ja6 = -Petursson-Forintos, Ljubljana 198 1 ) 1 4 . . . c;!;>c7 1 5 ..tg2 li:Jc6 1 6 0-0 b6 17 li:Je4 .ia6 18 liac 1 ;!; AlexandriaLitinskaya, Vilnius 1980 .

9 li:Jdb5 0-0 1 0 e3 d5 1 1 a3 'it'a5!

1 1 . . . 'ire7?! 12 cd ed 1 3 .ig2 ;!; . After 1 1 . . . 'ira5, RashkovskySchneider, Frunze 1 983, went 1 2 c5 ( 1 2 b4 'it'd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 .ig2 .ig4 1 5 'ird2 li:Je5 = HausnerPinter, Skara 1980; or 1 2 . . .

�b6!?) 1 2 . . . �d8 1 3 .te2 ( 1 3 llc l llb8 14 b4 a5 ! 1 5 't!t"a4 .td7 + Diesen-Andersson, Torremolinos 1978) 1 3 . . . �e7! 1 4 lL!d6 ( 14 b4 a5 ! ) 14 . . . b6 1 5 lL!xc8 ll fxc8 1 6 cb ab 1 7 0-0 lL!a 5 +. A2

/ 94 w

5 �c7 (194)

Attacking c4 and preparing the Sicil ian-like . . . d6, . . . a6 etc. A 2 1 6 lL!d2 A 22 6 lL!c3 a) 6 '@"c2 d5 7 lL!b5 �c6 8 .tg2 a6 9 lL!5a3 lL!bd7 = (Ne istadt). b) 6 b3 .tb4+ 7 lL!d2 (7 .td2 .tc5 and . . . d5) 7 . . . .tc5 8 e3 ltJc6 = .

c) 6 �a4 .tc5 (or 6 . . . �b6 7 e3 lL!c6 =, or 6 . . . a6) 7 lL!b3 .te7 8 lL!c3 �c6 = or 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lL!b5 't!t"b8 =. d) 6 '@"d3 a6 (6 . . . e5 7 lL!b5 't!t"c6 8 e4! lL!xe4 9 .tg2 lL!c5 1 0 't!t"d5 with attack, Bradford- Peters, Phoenix 1978) 7 .tg2 (7 lL!c 3 is A22) 7 . . . lL!c6 8 b3 (8 lL!xc6 de!? 9 0-0 .te7 I 0 'it'b3 e5 I I .te3 lL!d7 = Olafsson-Karpov, Buenos Aires

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 187

1980) 8 . . . d5?! (8 0 0 0 .tb4+ =; 8 . . . .tc5 = ; 8 . . . lL!xd4) 9 lL!xc6 b e 1 0 0- 0 .t e 7 I I lt:lc3 0-0 1 2 e4 t ArkellPsakhis, European Cup 1 984. e) 6 .tg2 .tb4+ (6 . . . �xc4!? 7 0-0 lL!c6 8 lL!xc6 de! 9 .tg5 .te7 10 lL!c3 0-0 I I lL!e4 lld8 12 �e l �d4 = Duric-Antonov, Pernik 198 1 ; 6 . . . a6 7 b3 .tb4+ 8 .td2 t) 7 lL!c3 (7 lL!d2 �xc4 8 lL!c2 0-0 9 0-0 .txd2 1 0 .txd2 d5 + Kapengut) 7 . . . 'it'xc4 8 0-0 0-0 (or 8 . . . lL!c6) 9 .tg5 lL!c6! with the idea . . . d5 . A21

6 lL!d2 lL!c6 Or 6 . . . .tb4 7 .tg2 �xc4 as

above, but White has 7 e3 or 7 1i'b3 . 6 . . . a6 7 .tg2 lL!c6 (7 . . . d6 8 b3 .te7 9 .tb2 ;!;) 8 lL!xc6 de 9 0-0 .te 7 10 1i'c2 0-0 I I b3 e5 1 2 .tb2 .te6 1 3 a3 (or 13 1i'c3) 1 3 . . . a5 1 4 c5 t Stean-Cebalo, Smederevska Palanka 1980. 6 . . . .tc5 !? 7 lL!2b3 0-0 8 .tg2 .te7 ("? ! 8 . . . .tb4+ 9 .td2 'it'xc4 I 0 l:tc I .txd2+ I I �d2 't!t"a5 1 2 lL!c5 =/rn" Kasparov) 9 1i'd3 a6 1 0 0-0 d6 I I .td2 lL!c6 1 2 lL!xc6 be 1 3 .ta5 'tWb 7 1 4 .tc3 t

- Rashkovsky-Kasparov, USSR 198 1 .

7 lLl bS 't!Vb8 7 . . . 1i'b6 8 .tg2 a6 9 lL!c3 .te7

10 0-0 0-0 I I lL!a4 ! 'it'a5 12 c5! .txc5 13 lL!c4 't!t"b5 14 b3 ± Mikhalchishin-Lukin, USSR 1 979.

8 .tg2 a6 9 lL!c3 bS

9 . . . .te7 (Razuvayev) 10 0-0 0-0

188 2 l1:Jf3 l1:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

I I 11:Jde4 t intending 12 ..tf4. After 9 . . . b5, Polugayevsky-Taimanov, USSR 1978, went I 0 0-0 ..te7 I I c5!? ( I I b3 0-0 1 2 ..tb2 lil:d8) I I . . . ..txc5 1 2 11:Jde4 l1:Jxe4 1 3 11:J xe4 ..tb6! ( 1 3 . . . ..te7 14 ..tf4 e5 1 5 ..te3 0-0 I6 11:Jc3, Rashkovsky-Taimanov, USSR Ch 1 977) 14 ..tf4 ..tc7 1 5 ..txc7 9xc7 1 6 lil:c l lil:a7, dynamically equal. A22

6 l1:Jc3 a6 (195) Not 6 . . . 9xc4? 7 e4 'it'b4 (7 . . .

1t'c7 8 ..tf4) 8 a 3 't!t'b6 9 ..te3 ± ( Muller). The main option is 6 . . . ..tb4 7 't!t'd3 (7 ..tf4!?, e .g. 7 . . . e5 8 11:Jdb5 'tixc4 9 ..txe5 or 8 . . . 'tic6 9 ..be5; 7 'tib3!? ..tc5 8 ..te3 a6 9 l1:Jc2) and now: a) 7 . . . a6 8 ..tg2 l1:Jc6 9 11:Jxc6 de (9 . . . be 10 ..tf4 e5 I I ..tg2 !) I 0 0-0 e5 I I l1:Ja4 ;!: (Gipslis); b) 7 . . . l1:Jc6 8 11:Jdb5 !? 'tib8 9 ..tf4 l1:Je5 10 1!t'd4 d6 I I 11:Jxd6+ ..txd6 1 2 0-0-0 11:Jxc4 1 3 1Wxc4 ..txf4+ 1 4 gf 0-0 1 5 lil:g l , Seirawan-Polugayevsky, London 1 984; 1 5 ... e5! (Polugayevsky); !.

/ 95

w

7 ..tgS!? a) 7 1t'a4 l1:Jc6 8 11:Jxc6 t!t'xc6 =, or 7 . . . b5 !? 8 cb ..tb7 (Korchnoi). b) 7 e3 11:Jc6 (7 . . . ..te7 =) 8 ..te2 b6 9 11:Jxc6 de = . c) 7 e4 b6 (7 . . . ..tb4( !) ; 7 . . . b5 !?) 8 a3 ..tb7 9 't!t'e2 d6 1 0 ..tg2 11:Jbd7 = Maninang-Dolmatov, Manila 1982. d) 7 b3 b5!? 8 ..tg2 ..tb7 9 ..tf4 d6 =, or 7 . . . ..tb4 8 ..td2 d5 =. e) 7 ..te3 ..tb4 8 'tib3 ..te7! 9 ..tg2 d6 10 lilc l 11:Jbd7 = TarjanVaganian, Skopje 1976. f) 7 1id3 l1:Jc6 (7 . . . b6; 7 . . . b5!? 8 cb ..tb7 9 e4!? ..tb4 1 0 ..tg2 l1:Jxe4! = Tarjan-Fedorowicz, US Ch 1977) 8 l1:Jxc6 (8 b3 ..tc5 ! ) 8 . . . 't!t'xc6!? (8 . . . de =; 8 . . . be) 9 e4!? ( 9 ll g I ..tc5 10 ..tg2 't!t'c7 = with the idea I I ..tf4 d6 1 2 lld l �e7! ) 9 . . . b6 10 ..tg2 ..tb7 I I ..td2! lil:c8 1 2 b 3 t H .Olafsson-Alburt, Reykjavik 1986. g) 7 ..tg2 1Wxc4 !? (7 . . . ..te7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ..tf4!? d6 l O l1:J b3 11:Jbd7 I I lil:c I ;!: Dantov-Tischbierek, Berlin 1984; 7 . . . d6 8 ..tg5 11:Jbd7) 8 ..tf4 (8 0-0 1Wc7 9 ..tg5 l1:Jc6 +) 8 . . . l1:Jc6 9 11:Jxc6 be 10 lil:c l 'irb4 I I a3 1i'b7 1 2 ..td6 ..txd6 1 3 't!t'xd6 1i'b8 = Sosonko- Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1978.

7 ..te7 a) 7 . . . ..tb4 8 ..txf6 gf( 8 . . . ..txc3+ 9 be gf 10 e4 b5 I I 't!t'f3) 9 ll c l b6 10 ..tg2 ..tb7 I I ..txb7 't!t'xb7 1 2 0-0 ;t Rashkovsky-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1976.

b) 7 . . . b5!? 8 cb .tb7 9 f3 .tc5 1 0 'i!t'd2 0-0 I I lit e I ab ro DonchevOrtega, Erevan 1 986.

8 llc1 d6 8 . . . b6 9 .tg2 (9 .txf6 gf) 9 . . .

.tb7 10 lt:ld5 !? ed I I cd .tc5 ! 1 2 d6 ( 1 2 .txf6 gf 1 3 d6 .tb4+; 1 2 lt:lf5 'i!t'e5 !?) 1 2 . . . 'i!t'c8 1 3 .txf6!? ( 1 3 0-0!? .txg2 1 4 lt:lf5) 1 3 . . . .txg2 1 4 'i!t'd2 1!1b7 ! + Grigorian-Karlsson, Erevan 1 980.

9 .tg2 lt:lbd7 9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0 h6 I I .td2 .td7

12 e4 lHc8 1 3 b3 'it'd8 1 4 a4 tl ± Gauglitz-Petra n, Budapest 1986.

10 0-0 h6 1 1 .te3 0-0

1 2 h3 lle8 1 3 f4 !? ( 1 3 b3) 1 3 . . . lt:lf8 14 lt:lb3 ( 14 .tf2 and e4 -Yusupov) 1 4 . . . .td7 = YusupovPsa khis, Erev an 1982. B

1 96

8

5 lt:lc3 (196)

The main line, not so easy for Black as 5 g3. B l 5 . . . .tb4 B2 5 . . . d5

5 . . . lt:lc6 is Chapter 1 3. 5 . . . b6 6

2 ltJfJ ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 89

e4 d6 7 .td3 or 7 f3 is Chapter 1 5 , E. Here 6 lt:ldb5 ( ! ) .tc5 (6 . . . d6? 7 .tf4 e5 8 lt:ld5 or 8 .tg5) 7 .tf4 0-0 8 .tc7 'i!t'e7 9 .td6 .txd6 1 0 t!t'xd6 t was Speelman-Fedorowicz, Lone Pine 1978.

5 . . a6 6 e4 is a Kan Sicilian, and 6 g3 is A22. Independent is 6 .tg5 lt:lc6 ( 6 . . . h6 7 .th4 .t b4 8 llc l !?) 7 e3 (7 e4!?) 7 . . . .tc7 8 .ie2 (8 lt:lf3) 8 . . . 'tia5 ! 9 .if4 lt:le4 10 'i!t'c2 lt:lxc3 = Furman-Tal, USSR Ch 1975. 81

1 9 7

w

5 .tb4 (197)

6 g3 a) 6 e3 lt:le4 7 'i!t'c2 lt:lxc3 8 be .ie7 =. b) 6 lt:lc2 .ixc3+ 7 be t!t'a5 8 'i!t'd3 lt:la6! (8 . . . lt:lc6 9 .ia3 d5 ! + Fischer) 9 f3 lt:lc5 1 0 1!i'd2 0-0 + Debarnot-Tatai, Las Palmas 1975. c) 6 .ig5 lt:lc6 (6 . . . h6) 7 lic 1 1i'b6 8 .txf6 gf 9 lt:lb3 lt:la5 =/ro Korchnoi-Furman, USSR Ch 196 1 ; d ) 6 'it'c2 lt:lc6 7 e 3 0-0 8 .te2 d 5 =. e) 6 .if4!? 0-0 7 lt:ldb5 lt:le4!? (7 . . . d5( ! ) ; 8 lt:lc7 lt:lh5) 8 't!fc2 lt:lxc3 9

190 2 li:Jf3 lt/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

be '@f6 I 0 e3 a6 I I l:i:c l .ta5!? ( I I . . . ab 12 cb e5 !?) 1 2 li:Jc7 e5 1 3 li:Jd5 't!i'e6 14 .tg3 d6 1 5 .td3 f5 =/oo Murei-Shamkovich, Wijk aan Zee 1983. f) 6 '@b3 li:Ja6 (6 . . . .tc5 7 li:Jf3 '@b6 =, or 7 .te 3 li:Ja6! , or 7 e3 li:Jc6 8 li:Jf3 0-0 9 .te2 d5 =) 7 .tg5 (7 e3? li:Je4; 7 li:Jc2 .te7; 7 .td2 0-0 8 e 3 b 6 = ) 7 . . . h6 (7 . . . '@a6 8 .td2 li:Jc5 9 't!i'e2 li:Jee4 10 li:Jxe4 li:Jxe4 = Bronstein; but 1 0 li:Jb 3 ! .txc3 I I .t.xe3 '@f5 1 2 f3 seems to favour White) 8 .txf6 't!i'xf6 9 e3 '@g6 1 0 llc l 0-0 I I a 3 .te7 1 2 g3 li:Je5 1 3 '@e2 '@xc2 1 4 llxe2 a5 ro GunawanRom anishin, De Pasar 1984. g) 6 li:Jb5 has two good replies: g l ) 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 (7 .tf4 d5 or 7 . . . li:Je4!?) 7 . . . .txe3+ 8 li:Jxe3 d5 9 .tg5 (9 e3 li:Je6 =; 9 ed ed 1 0 .te3 li:Je6 I I .td4 lle8 12 e3 li:Jg4! ) 9 . . . h6 1 0 .txf6 '@x6f I I ed ed '@xd5? ! ( 1 2 e3 li:Je6!? - 12 . . . lld8 13 '@d4! w - 1 3 '@xd5 lld8 14 '@f3 't!i'g6 1 5 lid I llxd I + 1 6 li:Jxd I =/oo; here 1 3 . . . .tg4!? 1 4 '@b3? ! '@g6 1 5 f3 .te6 =F was MureiWest, Biel 1 985; Murei gives 14 .tb5 llad8 15 't!i'e4 ! ;!;) 12 . . . lld8 1 3 't!i'f3?! ( 1 3 '@b3 li:Ja6 ! ? or 1 3 . . . li:Je6 oo Kapengut) 1 3 . . . '@b6! 1 4 l:i:d l l:i:xd l+ 1 5 li:Jxd l li:Je6 1 6 1i'e3 ( 1 6 e3 .te6 =F) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4 1 7 't!i'e8+ 'lt>h7 18 e3 li:Je2+ ! 19 'lt>d2 .tf5 ! 20 '@xa 8 't!i'd6+ 21 'lt>e l li:Ja l ! 22 1Wxb7 't!i'e7+! 0-1 Vaganian-Planinc, Hastings 1 974-5.

g2) 6 ... d5 7 .tf4 (7 a3? .txe3+ 8 li:Jxe3 d4 9 li:Ja2 0-0 1 0 e3 li:Je6 =!=; 7 ed ed 8 .tg5 0-0 9 e3 a6 10 a3 and 10 . . . .ta5 = or 1 0 . . . ab I I ab l ha 1 12 '@xa l li:Je6 1 3 .txb5 d4! =/oo Kagan-Gulko, USSR 197 1 ) 7 . . . 0-0 8 e3 (8 li:Je7? li:Jh5; 8 '@b3 li:Je6) 8 . .. li:Je6 (or 8 . . . a6(! ), and 9 li:Je7 l:i:a7 1 0 li:Jxd5 ed I I .txb8 .txe3 12 be .tg4 or 9 a3 .ta5 1 0 li:Jd6 li:Je6 +) 9 a3 .txe3+!? (or 9 . . . .ta5 10 b4 a6 =) 10 li:Jxe3 h6 I I ed ed 1 2 .te2 ( 1 2 li:Jb5!?) 1 2 . . . d4 = SzilagyiFaber, Bagneux 1 975. h) 6 .td2 is the best of these slow moves: 6 . . . li:Je6 (6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 .te7!? 8 .tf4 d5 9 e3 li:Jbd7 10 .tg3 de I I .txe4 ! Velikov-Sem kov, Bulgaria 1980- 1 , or 7 . . . .txe3 8 .txe3 li:Je4 9 '@e2!? d5 I 0 e3 li:Jxe3 I I '@xe3 de 12 .txe4, C.HansenHjartarson, Esbjerg 1 985, and instead of 12 . . . b6 1 3 0-0 ;!;, 12 . . . .td7 was best, but 9 l:i:e l may improve) 7 a3 (7 li:Je2 .te5 8 .te3 .txe3 9 li:J xe3 0-0 =, or 7 . . . .te7 =) 7 . . . .te7 8 .tg5 (8 .tf4 d6 9 .tg3 !?) 8 . . . 0-0 9 e3 d5 ! ? 10 .te2 h6 I I .th4 li:Je5 1 2 ed :t Karner-Gipslis, Tallinn 1 975.

After 6 g3: B I I 6 . . . li:Je4 B l2 6 . . . 0-0

6 . . . li:Je6 is Chapter 1 3, B 2 1 , and 6 . . . '@e7 7 '@d3 is A22 above. B l l

6 li:Je4 7 't!i'd3

No longer seen is 7 1tc2 'ira5 ! (8 t;Jb3 1!ff5!) or 7 .i.d2 .i.xc3 (7 . . . t;:Jxc3!?) 8 .i.xc3 lLlxc3 9 bc 't!t'a5 1 0 �d3 0-0 I I .i.g2 lLlc6 1 2 lLlb3 't!t'c7 1 J c5 b6 = Grigorian-Savon, USSR 1976.

7 't!t'aS Presumably 7 . . . .i.xc3 8 be lLlc5

m ight be tried, but 7 . . . lLlxc3 8 be 11..c7 9 lLlb5 ! favours White .

8 lLlb3 (198) 8 lLlc2?! .i.xc3+! (8 . . . lLlxc3?! 9

tt:Jxb4 lLlxc2 1 0 lixa2 with pressure) 9 be lLlc5 ! I 0 't!t'd2 ( 10 @e3 b6; 1 0 �d4 0-0 I I ..b3 b 6 12 .i.g2 lLlc6 + , o r I I . . . d6! 1 2 0-0-0 b6 ! BanasLerner, Stary Smokovec 1977) 1 0 . . . b 6 I I .i.g2 .i.b7 1 2 .i.xb7 lLlxb7 1 3 .i.a3 lLlc6 14 O-O d6 + LombardRogoff, Biel 1976.

B I I I 8 . . . lLlxc3 B I I 2 8 . . . 't!t'f5 Bi l l

8 ltJxc3 9 .i.d2!

9 lLlxa 5 lLle4+ 10 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ I I 't!t'xd2 lLlxd2 1 2 'lt>xd 2 lLlc6 = ; 9

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 91

be .i.xc3+ 10 'lt>d I 't!t'e5 ! I I .i.f4 @f6 12 lite ! .i.e5 ; 9 a3 lLle4+ I O ab 't!t'xb4+ I I lLld2 lLlc5 ! .

9 1 0 't!t'xe4 1 1 lLlxd2 1 2 .i.g2 1 3 't!t'e3

lLle4 .i.xd2+ 0-0

lLlc6

The best alternative is 1 3 't!t'd3 !?, e.g. 13 . . . 't!t'e5 14 lib! lLld4 1 5 1t'b3(?!) a5 1 6 't!t'c3 f6 oo SubaFtacnik , Prague 1985; 1 5 't!t'c3 ! , but Black's 1 3th and 14th moves were hardly forced.

Lesser moves are 13 a3 lidS ( 13 . . . d5 14 cd ed 1 5 't!t'xd5 't!t'c7 = Padevsky) 14 't!t'c2 ( 1 4 't!t'f4!?) 1 4 . . . d5 1 5 0-0? lLld4 1 6 1t'd3 de 1 7 lLlxc4 't!t'h5 1 8 lilad l e 5 + -Romanishin-lvkov, Sochi 1983; and 1 3 't!t'f4 e5 ! 14 'lrh4 ( 1 4 't!t'e3 lLld4 1 5 't!t'd3 d5 ! 1 6 cd .i.g4! + Dorfm an-Makarichev, USSR Ch 1978) 14 . . . d6 1 5 a3 .i.e6 1 6 ll c l lilad8 1 7 llc3 d 5 18 lLlb3 @b6 1 9 cd lixd5! =F LjubojeviC-Velimirovic, Yugoslavian Ch 1982.

1 3 dS 1 4 0-0 d4 IS @d3 ( 199)

see diagram I S lid8

a) IS . . . 't!t'b6 16 'ira3 ! e5 1 7 c5 't!t'b5 ( 1 7 . . . 'i!t'c7 !? Gulko) 1 8 lilfe l lt:lb4 19 lilac I .i.e6 20 lLle4 :! GulkoG.Agzamov, USSR 1982; 20 . . . lLlxa2 ! 2 1 lLld6 1!t'b3 22 't!t'xb3 .i.xb3 23 .i.xb7 ! t (Gulko).

192 2 liJf3 lf¥6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

199

B

b) After 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 a3, Black has tried just a bout everything, e.g. 1 6 . . . f5 1 7 liJ b 3 ( 1 7 b4? ! "t!t'c7 1 8 c5 .ie6 + Padevsky-Semkov, Bulgaria 1 9 8 1 ; 1 7 .ixc6!? be 1 8 b4 "t!t'c7 1 9 f4 t Padevsky) 1 7 . . . 1rc7 1 8 .id5+ ! 'it>h8 1 9 f4 lld8 2 0 fe 'irxe 5 2 1 llad 1 ± Ljubojevic-Szmetan, Buenos Aires 1 979. Or 16 ... @c7 1 7 f4 ( 1 7 b4 .ie6 1 8 liJe4 liJe7 ! oo) 17 . . . ef 18 llxf4 .ie6?! ( 1 8 . . . lle8 19 .id5 .ie6 20 llafl "t!fb6 ? - 20 . . .

llad8 - 2 1 b4 ± Popov-Chekov, USSR 1 979) 19 .ixc 6! be ( 19 . . . 'it'xc6 2 0 b4 ± Informant) 2 0 c 5 t!t"e5 2 1 b 4 .id5 2 2 llxd4 liJe5 23 lLlc4 ± Catalan-Saeed, Dubai 198 1 . Or 16 ... .if5!? 17 liJe4?! ( 1 7 b4 .ixd3 1 8 ba .ixe2 1 9 llfe 1 .id3 20 a6 llab8 21 ab liJa5 oo -Prandstetter. But 1 7 1i'xf5 1rxd2 18 1lld3( ! ) with the idea 18 . . . 1rxb2 19 llab l t!t"c3 20 llxb7 looks best) 1 7 . . . .if6 18 b4 'iVc7 1 9 f4 ( 1 9 c5 !? f5 2 0 liJd6) 19 . . . f5 20 liJeg5 e4 + Ftacnik-Prandstetter, Czechoslovakian Ch 1982.

This leaves 16 . . . g6!? 17 b4 11fc7 (Informant), which favours White after 1 8 f4; and 1 6 . . . .ie6 1 7 b4 t!t"c7 1 8 f4! ? ( 1 8 liJe4( !) , and 1 8 .. .

g6 1 9 liJf6+ 'it>g7 20 liJd5, or 1 8 .. .

h6 19 liJc5 .ic8 20 f4 Informant) 1 8 . . . ef 19 gf g6 ! =/oo GiffardCebalo, Sainte Maxime 1982. Overall , none of these 16th moves seems fully equal for Black.

16 a3 1 6 llfd 1 (Ftacnik) .

16 liJe5 1 6 . . . t!t"c7! ? (Gaprindashvili);

1 7 f4 ! ( 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 f5 or 1 8 b4). 1 7 b4(!)

1 7 @c2 'it'c7 18 1i'e4 ( 1 8 llac l .id7 =) 1 8 . . . a5?! ( 1 8 . . . llb8 1 9 llac l b6 = Stohl; 1 8 . . . d3!?) 1 9 9 llac 1 a 4 20 c5 ;!; PolugayevskyFtacnik, Moscow 1985.

1 7 'iVc7!? The original idea was 1 7

liJxd3 1 8 ba liJc5. Then 1 9 llab 1 llb8 20 llb4!? is natural, to stop . . . lLla4 , but 20 . . . b6 2 1 llab 1 lld6 holds. So perhaps 20 liJe4, and 20 . . . liJxe4 2 1 .ixe4 or 20 . . . liJa4 2 1 llb4 liJc3 22 liJxc3 de 23 llc l lld2 24 .if3 c2 25 llb2 etc. Needs tests.

18 "t!t'b3 .id7 1 9 f4!

" ±" (Gaprindashvil i) : 19 . . . liJg6 ( 1 9 . . . lLlg4 20 1i'f3 ! lLle3 21 t!t"xb7 t!t"xb7 22 .ixb7 liJxfl 23 'it>xfl llb8 24 .if3 ± Gaprindashvili) 20 liJf3 .ic6 2 1 llfd l !? ( 2 1 llac l ) 2 1 . . . e 5 22 f5 liJe7, Gaprindashvili-

Mokry, Polanica Zdroj 1986; 23

g4 ! with the idea lilac l , lt:ld2-e4 ( Gaprindashvili). 8 1 1 2

:!00 B

8 1tfS 9 1We3 (200)

9 lt:lc6 a) 9 ... lt:l xc3 1 0 be JJ..e7 1 1 JJ..g2 lt:lc6 ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 0-0 lt:la6 1 3 c5 ! .ixc5 1 4 lt:l xc 5 1Wxc5 1 5 Wxc 5 lt:lxc5 1 6 JJ..a3 d6 1 7 lilfd 1 ± Donchenko-Saharov, USSR 1976) 1 2 c5 ! 0-0 1 3 .ia3 lild8 ( 1 3 . . . b6!? 14 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 5 cd lilb8) 14 0-0 t!t'e5 15 Wd3 Wc7 16 lilfd l ;!;! ± Fedorowicz-Kaufman, New York 1979. b) 9 . . . lt:la6 1 0 JJ.g2 lt:lxc 3 1 1 be .icS 12 lt:l xc 5 lt:lxc5 1 3 1t"d4 ! t!t'xd4 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 JJ.f4) 1 4 cd lt:lb4 15 �2 ± Lombardy-Hebert, Lone Pine 1 98 1 . c ) 9 .. . 0-0 10 JJ..g2 lt:l xc3 1 1 be JJ..e7 12 0-0 ( 1 2 c5 !?) 12 .. . lt:lc6 1 3 c5 b6( !) 14 lt:ld4!? ( 14 cb ab 1 5 1Wxb6 .ia6 1 6 1We3 JJ..c4 1 7 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 8 cd lilxa2 = Huzman; 1 4 JJ..a3 lilb8)

2 lLlf3 liJ/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 193

14 . . . 'irxc5 1 5 lt:lxc6 de 1 6 't!t'xc5 be 1 7 .ixc6 lilb8 1 8 lilfd l , HuzmanTuk makov, USSR 1983; "!" -H uzman. 1 8 . . . .ib7 19 JJ..d7 lilbd8 20 JJ.f4 JJ..c8 is one approach.

It 's interesting that (a) and (c) are approximately equal, which indicates that 8 . . . 't!t'f5 may be somewhat underest imated by comparison with 8 . . . lt:lxc3.

10 JJ..g2 lt:ld6!? 1 1 cS lt:lc4 1 2 11t'd3!

As suggested in the first edi tion, rather than 12 't!t'f4 't!t'xf4 1 3 gf b6! = . After 1 2 't!t'd3, Miles-Sax, D ubai 1 986, w ent 1 2 . . . 'irxd3 1 3 e d lt:l4a5 14 lt:lxa5 lt:lxa5 1 5 JJ.e3 ( 1 5 .id2 JJ..xc5 1 6 lt:lb5 JJ..b6 1 7 JJ..b4 d 5 ! 1 8 lt:ld6+ �d7 1 9 liJxf7 lt:lc6! oo Miles; 17 lt:ld6?! �e7 ! 1 8 JJ..b4 �f6 =) 1 5 . . . d6 1 6 c d JJ.d7 1 7 0-0! ( 1 7 �e2 JJ..c6 = VelikovKurtenov, Vrnjacka Banja 1985) 1 7 . . . JJ..xd6 1 8 lt:le4 (" ±" Miles) 1 8 . . . .ie7 1 9 lilfc 1 lt:lc6 ( 1 9 . . . JJ..c6 20 JJ..d2) 20 ILleS .ixc5 2 1 .ixc5, and 21 . . . f6 was best , but 22 b4 or 22 d4 is strong. B12

6 0-0 7 JJ..g2

7 11t'b3 JJ..c5 (7 .. . .txc3+ 8 be d5 9 cd t Gulko, e .g. 9 ... lt:lxd5 1 0 e4 lt:lb6 1 1 JJ..a3 lile8 1 2 lt:lb5) 8 JJ..e3 (8 lt:lf3 !? 11t'b6 9 1!t"xb6) 8 . . . 1i'e7 9 JJ..g2 ! lt:lc6 (9 . . . lt:lg4 1 0 lt:le4 liJxe3 1 1 1!rxe3 t Gulko) 10 lild 1 lt:lg4 1 1

194 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

Ci:Jxc6 be 1 2 i.xc5 \!t'xc5 1 3 Ci:Je4 't!ta5+ 14 \!t'c3 ( 14 �fl !?) 14 . . . \!t'xc3+ 1 5 Ci:Jxc3 litbS 1 6 b 3 d 5 1 7 0-0 i.a6? ! ( 1 7 . . . Ci:Jf6 = Gulko) I S Ci:Ja4 ! d e 19 Ci:Jc5 i.cS

.20 litd4 t

Gulko-Fedorowicz, Cl ichy 1 9S6-7 .

201

w

7 dS (201)

Key for both the English and Nimzo-Indian. White has: 8 1 2 1 S cd 8 1 22 s \!t'b3

S 0-0 !? is an important recent move. S . . . e5? 9 li::lc2 i.xc3 10 be de 1 1 i.a3 \!t'xd I 1 2 litfxd I liteS 1 3 lt::le3 favours White, so play has gone S . . . de 9 \!t'a4 (9 lt::lc2!? i.xc3 10 be 't!tc7 !? I I lt::le3 litdS 12 \!t'a4 - Conquest-I . Farago, Dortmund 1 9S6; 12 . . . i.d 7 1 3 't!txc4 't!txc4 1 4 lt::lxc4 i.c6 looks equal) (diagram) a) 9 . . . 't!tb6 1 0 't!tb5 ( 1 0 lt::lc2!?) 1 0 . . . litdS I I \!t'xb6 ab 12 li::ldb5 lt::lc6 1 3 i.e3 i.c5 1 4 i.xc5 be 1 5 litfd l litxd l + 1 6 litxd l �f8 1 7 li::ld6, I .Sokolov-lzetu, Novi Sad 19S6; " ±" , since Ci:Jxc4 is threatened and 17 . . . lt::la5 I S lt::la4! is strong.

202

B

b) 9 . . . 1raS 1 0 \!t'xa5 ( I 0 \!t'b5 e5 ! ) 10 . . . i.xa5 I I li::ldb5 lt::lc6 12 litd I ( 1 2 i.g5 !?) 1 2 . . . e5 ( 1 2 . . . a6?! 1 3 li::ld6 i.xc3 1 4 be li::ld5 - 1 4 . . . lLla5 15 i.e3! - 1 5 lt::l xc4! lbxc3 1 6 litd2 a5 17 i.a3 liteS IS lite! ± Romanishin-Ribl i , Reggio Emilia 19S5-6) 1 3 lDd6 (or 13 i.e3 i.e6 1 4 li::ld6 t Suba) 1 3 . . . lbd4 ( 1 3 . . . i.xc3!?) 1 4 �fl litdS ( 1 4 . . . i.g4 1 5 h 3 k4') 1 5 lbxc4 i.xc3 1 6 b e i.e6 1 7 c d i.xc4 I S i.xb7 litabS 19 i.f3 ed 20 i.f4 litb2, Condie-Suba, Dubai 19S6; 21 a4! planning a5-a6 (Condie). c) 9 . . . lba6 10 lbdb5 lbd5 ( 10 . . . li::ld7?! I I litd l 1re7 1 2 i.e3 lDdc5 - 12 . . . liJb6 13 i.xb6 14 a3 ± - 1 3 i.xc5! \!t'xc5 1 4 lbe4 \!t'b6 1 5 't!txc4 ± Georgadze-A. Rodriguez, Seville 19S6) I I litd I i.d7 1 2 lbxd5 ed 1 3 litxd5 \!t'c8 ( 1 3 . . . 't!teS 1 4 i.e3 i.c5 = Zaitsev) 1 4 a3 i.e7 1 5 i.f4 i.f6 1 6 lit c I c3 ! 1 7 be i.c6 I S 'tlrd I i.xd5 19 1Wxd5 ! Karpov-Portisch, Tilburg 19S6.

8121 8 cd

The older move, not ambitious but still of interest.

8 lt:Jxd5 9 .id2 (203)

9 'i!fb3 can lead to: a) 9 ... lbc6 10 lt:Jxc6 be I I 0-0! ( I I 'i!fc2?! 1Wa5 1 2 .id2 .ta6 +) I I . . . lilb8 1 2 1Wc2 .ie7 1 3 lild I 'ti'b6 14 lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 =/ oo Belyavsky-Alburt, USSR 1 974; here 1 2 . . . .ia6 1 3 lild l 'i!fb6 14 lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 1 5 e4 't!t'e2 oo Schm id-Klar, Neuhausen 196 1 . b ) 9 . . . 't!t'b6 1 0 e3 ( 10 .txd5 ed I I .ie3 .ih3 ! Hort) 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ( 1 0 . . . .txc3+ I I be 'ifxb5 1 2 a b lt:Jxc3 1 3 .ib2) I I lt:Jxc 6 be 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 .id2? 't!t'a6! =!= Hort-Kindermann, Dortmund 1 983) 12 . . . .ia6 1 3 lild I lilab8 = (Hort).

9 .txc3 9 . . . lt:Jb6 I 0 lt:Jc2 .ie7 I I b3 lt:Jc6

1 2 0-0 .if6 ( 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 e4 .ig4 1 4 f3 .ie6 1 5 .ie3, MascarinasFtacnik, Thessaloniki 1 984) 1 3 lilc l ;! Karasev-Aiburt, USSR Ch

2 0f3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 195

1976. The main option is 9 . . . lt:Jxc3 1 0 be , and now 10 . . . .ie7 I I lilb l e5 1 2 lt:Jc2 ( 1 2 lilxb7 ed =) 1 2 . . . lt:Ja6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc5 1 4 lt:Je3 .ie6 1 5 0- 0 lilc8 1 6 .ib4 o f GrigorianTu kmakov, Erevan 1 980, slightly favoured White, but both 10 . . . .ic5 I I lt:lb3 ( I I 0-0 e5 1 2 lt:Jc2 lt:Jc6 1 3 lil b l a6! oo) I I . . . .ib6 1 2 0-0 lt:Jc6 1 3 't!t'c2 e 5 1 4 e 3 .ig4, Santos-Ligterin k, Lucerne 1983, and 10 . . . .ia5 I I 0-0 ( I I 't!t'b3 !?) I I . . . e5 1 2 lt:lb3 .ib6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc6, Osterman-Minic, Yugoslavia 1976 seem equal.

10 be e5!? Or I 0 . . . lt:Jb6( ! ), e.g. I I .if4

( I I 0-0 e5 - 1 1 . . . ltJc4 - 1 2 lt:lb3 lt:Jc4 1 3 i.e I !?) I I . . . 't!t'e7 12 lt:lb5 e5 1 3 .tel lild8 = AksharumovaAlexandria, Volgograd 1 985.

11 lt:lb5 (!) a) l l lt:Jc2 lt:Jc6 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 0-0 .ie6 =) 1 2 . . . lt:lb6 1 3 lt:Je3 .ie6 14 lilc l =. b) 11 lt:lb3 lt:Jc6 12 0-0 lt:Jb6 ( 1 2 . . . lt:Jde7 1 3 a4!? 't!t'c7 - 13 . . . ltJa5 Sunye - 14 't!t'c2 .ie6 1 5 c4 :t Sunye-Agzamov, Cienfuegos 1984) 1 3 .ie3 't!t'c7 14 't!t'd3 lild8 1 5 't!t'e4 .ie6 16 lilfd l =/oo Tai-Timman, Bugojno 1 980.

1 1 lt:Jc6 I I . . . a6 1 2 .te l (or 1 2 c4! lt:lb6

13 lt:Ja3 lt:lc6 14 c5 ! :t Makarichev) 12 . . . ab ( 1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3 c4) 13 'i!fxd5 ( 1 3 .ixd5 ! f) 1 3 . . . 't!t'c7 1 4 0-0 lila5 15 .ie3 lt:Ja6 ( 1 5 . . . b4 16 't!t'b3 f) 1 6

196 2 liJf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

lUc l lii:8d 1 7 't!t'f3, - StempinAdamski, Poland 1982; 17 . . . lii:a4 oo (Stempin).

1 2 e4! With a small edge, due to the

bishops, e .g . 1 2 . . . tiJde7 ( 1 2 . . . tiJc7 1 3 .ic3; 1 2 . . . tiJ f6 1 3 .ig5 or 13 .ic3; 12 . . . tiJb6 1 3 c5 liJc4 1 4 .ic3) 1 3 0- 0 .ie6 1 4 c 5 ! ? .id5 1 5 tiJd6 t. 8122

204

B

8 't!t'b3 (204)

An attempt to gain more activity than 8 cd provides.

8 .ixe3+ a) 8 . . . tiJa6 9 0-0 't!t'a5 10 cd .ixc3 I I 't!t'xc3 't!t'xc3 1 2 be ed 1 3 .ia3 lii:e8 14 c4!? ( 1 4 lii:ab l !?) 14 . . . de 1 5 li[fc l t Ghitescu-Short, Lucerne 1 985. b) 8 . .. .ic5 9 .ie3 ! tiJa6 10 cd liJg4 I I tiJc2! tiJxe3 1 2 liJxe3 .ixe3 ! He ed 1 4 liJxd5 .ie6 1 5 0-0 tiJc5 1 6 1!fc4 lic8 1 7 lii:ad I ± GheorghiuKnaak, Romania v East Germany 1 983. c) 8 ... tiJc6 9 tiJxc6 .ixc3+ 1 0

1!fxc3 be I I 0- 0 't!t'e7 1 2 b3 lii:d8 ( 1 2 . . . e 5 1 3 .ib2 lii:e8 1 4 f4 ! ) 1 3 e 3 a5 14 a4 ± ( i.a3 lii:fc I follows) Polugayevsky-Holmov, Kiev 1 984.

9 be 9 1!fxc3 e5 10 lbb3 ( 10 lbb5 a6

I I lba3 d4 +) 1 0 .. . d4 I I 't!t'd3 lbc6 =, although this could resemble 8 0-0 de 9 't!t'a4 above after 1 2 .ig5. 8 1 22 1 9 . . . e5 B l222 9 . . . de 8 1 223 9 . . . lbc6 8122 1

9 e5 10 lbb5

a) 1 0 lbf3 de I I 1!fxc4 1!fa5 ( I I . . . 't!t'e7 =) 1 2 0-0 lbc6 13 a4 .ie6 1 4 't!t'b 5 't!t'c7 + Kouatly-Portisch, Toluca 1982. b) 10 lbc2!? de 1 1 1!fb5!? ( 1 1 1!fxc4 i.e6 and . . . .id5) I I . . . lbc6 ( I I . . . lbbd7 !?; I I . . . 't!t'e8!?) 1 2 0-0 't!t'c7 13 .ig5 i.e6 14 lii:ab I lii:ab8 1 5 i.xf6 gf 1 6 lbe3 0.e7 1 7 f4 ! with attack, Farago-Szymczak, Polanica Zdroj 198 1 .

10 de 1 0 . . . a6!? I I tiJa3 ( I I 'ti'a3 !?) I I

. . . d4 1 2 cd ed 1 3 0-0 0.c6 14 tiJc2 lle8 = - Romanishin-Agzamov, USSR 198 1 ; 1 2 .ib2!? may improve ( 1 2 . . . lbc6 1 3 lii:d l ) .

1 1 't!t'a3 A gambit. I I 't!t'xc4 a6 1 2 lbc7

(205) ( 1 2 lba3 .ie6 1 3 'ird3 - 13 'ikb4 .id5 - 1 3 . . . 1!fc7 !? 14 0-0 lii:d8 1 5 't!t'b l ! t Arbikov-Gavrikov,

USSR 1 98 1 ; but 1 3 . . . 'tt'xd3 ! = a nd . . . i.f5 - Gufeld).

:!1!5 H

a ) 12 . . . bS 1 3 'tt'c5 lLl bd7 1 4 'tt'a3 'iVxc7 15 i.xa8 lbb6 16 i.g2 lLlfd5 1 7 e4! lilxc3 1 8 i.d2 lbca4 1 9 ..ia5, Sosonko-Timman, Tilburg 198 1 , a nd instead o f 19 . . . lilc4?? 1 -0, 1 9 . . . 1Wc6! 2 0 i.xb6 lbxb6 2 1 0-0 lilc4 intending . . . i.b7, . . . f5 is unclear. b) 12 ... lila7(!) 1 3 lLld5 lbxd 5 ( 1 3 . . . b5 1 4 'it'c5 lild7 =) 1 4 1t'xd5 1!t'c7! 1 5 'it'd3 ( 1 5 0-0 b5 1 6 i.e3 ..ib7 1 7 1i'c5 i.xg2= Cebalo) 1 5 . . . 't>d8 1 6 tfe3 b 6 1 7 0-0 i.b7 = Holzi-Portisch, Lucerne 01 1 982.

I I lLlc6 a ) I I . . . i.h3!? 12 i.xh 3 ( 1 2 i.xb7 lilbd7 1 3 i.xa8 tfxa8 14 f3 co) 1 2 . . . 1t'd5 1 3 0-0 1t'xb 5, Basin-Aseev, USSR Ch 1 985; 14 i.g5 ! lbbd7 1 5 lHd l with the idea 1 5 . . . lilfd8 1 6 liab l co. b) 11 ... tfd7!? 1 2 'it'c5 lba6 1 3 1!t'xc4 lild8 + Ubilava-Georgadze, USSR 1 983; but 12 li1 b I ! makes the point of Black's I I th unclear.

12 ..ie3 !

2 lilj] lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 97

1 2 0-0 i.e6 1 3 i.e3 a6 (or 1 3 . . . i.d5) 1 4 lild6 i.d5 ! 1 5 lbxb7 tlc7 16 lLld6 ..ixg2 1 7 't>xg2 lbd5 +.

1 2 i.e6 1 2 . . . i.g4!? (Olafsson).

13 litd 1 'it'b8 1 4 0-0

1 4 i.c5 a6 15 ..ixf8 ab 16 i.d6 lilxa2 1 7 i.xb8 /Dd7 ! 1 8 i.xc6 bc 19 i.xe5 f6 =t= (Hjartarson).

1 4 lidS 1 5 'it'c5 Ii:xd l 16 Ilxd l a6 1 7

lbd6! ( 1 7 lLla3 tlf8 ! = H .OlafssonHjartarson, Gjovik 1985) 1 7 . . . lild7 18 'ika3 'tt'c7 19 1t'a4! ( 1 9 lbb5 'it'b8 = ) 1 9 . . . lila5 20 lbxb7! lbxb7 2 1 tlc6 ! 'it'xc6 22 ..ixc6 lilb8 23 i.xd7 lild8 24 i.a4 lilxd l + 25 ..ixd I ot>f"8 (!) 26 i.e I 't>e 7 27 i.a3+ 't>d7 28 i.c2 g6 29 f3, and White's two bishops eventually prevailed . Bl222

9 de 10 'it'a3

10 'it'xc4 e5 I I lilb5 is the last section . Instead, I 0 . . . a6 I I ..ia3 lile8 12 0-0 ( 12 Ild I) 12 . . . e5 1 3 lbb3 b5 !? 14 tlc5 lilbd7 1 5 'it'b4 e4 1 6 c4! ;t was Franco-Marcussi , Buenos Aires 1 985.

10 'it'b6 Or 1 0 . . . lilbd7 1 1 lilb5 lilb6 12

0-0 i.d7 13 Il d l ( 1 3 lbd6 i.c6 14 i.xc6 be 1 5 lid I 'it'e7! = UbilavaTukmakov, Kujbysev 1 986) 1 3 . . . lLlfd5 14 lLld6 'it'f6! 1 5 lild4! i.c6 16 e4 lilc7 ( 1 6 . . . lilc7!? Karpov) 1 7

198 2 &DfJ &Df6 J d4: 4 . . . e6

li b ! ( 17 &Dxb7 ..ixb7 1 8 e5 'tt'xe5 oo; 1 7 ..ie3 h6! Ka rpov) 17 . . . e5 1 8 lid I lifd8 = Karpov-Portisch, Lucerne 1985.

1 1 ..ie3 Or I I ..ig5 e5 1 2 &Dc2 ..if5 !? 1 3

&De 3 ..ie4 oo (Polovodin), o r I I (}.0 e5 1 2 &Dc2 'tt'c7 1 3 ..ig5 &Dbd7 1 4 lifd I h 6 = Basin-Holmov, Mi nsk 1 985.

1 1 'tt'a6 ! Not I I . . . &Dg4? 1 2 &Dc6 ! &Dxe3

1 3 &De7+ 'i!lh8 14 &Dxg6+ ±±, or 1 1 . . . &Dxd5? 1 2 ..ixd5 ed 13 &Df5 'tt'd8 1 4 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 5 &Dxd5 ± (Polovodin).

12 'tt'xa6 &Dxa6 13 &Db5 &Dd5 14 ..id4

1 4 ..ixd5 and 1 5 li:lxa7 is only equal. After 14 ..id4, UbilavaPolovodin, USSR Ch 1983, went 14 . . . b6 1 5 (}.0 ..id7 16 &Dd6 ..ic6 ( 1 6 . . . b5!?) 17 &Dxc4 &De7 =. Generally, 9 . . . de looks superior to 9 . . . e5. B1 223

9 &Dc6 Karpov's move, threatening . . .

li:la5. 1 0 1 1 1 2

cd 'tt'c2 'tt'd3 (206)

&Da5! &Dxd5

Else Black piles up on the c-file . 1 2 'tt'c7!

a) 12 ... ..id7? ! 1 3 c4 &De7 ( 1 3 . . . &Db6 14 c5 &Dbc4 1 5 (}.0 t; 1 3 .. . &Db4 1 4 'tt'c3 &Dbc6 1 5 ..ia3 ;!;

206 B

Kasparov) 1 4 0-0 lic8 ( 1 4 . . . ..ic6! 15 ..ia3! ;t Kasparov) 1 5 li:lb3! li:lxc4 16 ..ixb7 lic7 17 ..ia6! ± Kasparov-Karpov, match (4) 1986. b) 12 ... b6!? (Korchnoi) has the idea . . . ..ib7, . . . lic8; 13 c4 ..ia6 14 &Db5 is critical ( 14 . . . ..ixb5 15 cb lic8 16 ..id2 &Dc4 oo).

1 3 &Db5 Kasparov's 1 3 (}.0?! looked

weak after 1 3 . . . ..id7 1 4 e4 li:l b6 1 5 f4 o f Kasparov-Suba, Dubai 1986; and now 1 5 . . . liac8 =F with the idea . . . lUd8 .

1 3 'tt'c6! 14 ..ia3!?

1 4 0-0 ..id7 15 a4 a6 1 6 e4 ab 17 ed 'tt'c4 = (Kasparov). After 14 ..ia3 , I zeta-Simagin, Novi Sad 1986, continued 14 . . . lid8! 1 5 e4 &Dc4 (or 15 . . . a6 =) 16 ed 'tt'xb5 1 7 lii:b l 'tt'a6 18 ..ie7 lii: xd5 ! 19 ..ixd5 ed 20 0-0 ( 20 'tt'x5 ..ih3 oo) 20 . . . ..ie6 2 1 f4!? (2 1 ..ic5 b 6 2 2 ..id4 'tt'xa2 23 lii:a I 'tt'd2 + Simagin) 21 . . . ..ih 3! 22 lii: f2 'tt'e6 23 'tt'e2 b6! 24 'tt'xe6 fe +; =F.

This whole l ine with 4 . . . e6 5 tt:Jc 3 .i.b4 6 g3 has opened up greatly over the past few years. The key l ines at the moment seem to be 6 . . . lt:Je4 7 'ti'd3 'i!t'a5 8 lt:Jb3 "iff5 9 'ti'e 3 and 6 . . . 0-0 7 .i.g2 d5 8 0-0!?. R2

_'() 7

w

5

82 1 6 .i.g5 822 6 cd

d5!? (207)

6 .i.f4!? is the only other which prevents . . . e5 and does something useful. Then 6 . . . lt:Jc6 7 lt:Jdb5 (7 lt:Jxc6 be 8 e3 is solid but uninspiring) is Chapter 1 3, B 1 2. 6 . . . lt:Jh5 7 .i.xb8 and 6 . . . de 7 lt:Jdb5 look undesirable, so that leaves 6 . . . .i.e7!? 7 e3 (7 lt:Jdb5 0-0 8 e3 lt:Je6 9 cd lt:Jxd5 1 0 lt:J xd5 ed I I lt:Je7 .i.b4+ 1 2 �e2 oo) 7 . . . lt:Je6 or 6 . . . .i.b4 7 'ira4+ lt:Jc6 8 lt:Jxe6 .i.xc3+ 9 be be (9 . . . 'i!t'd 7 I 0 cd lt:Jxd5 I I lid ! !), and now 1 0 e3 lt:Je4!?, 10 'i!t'xc6+ .i.d7 I I 'i!t'd6 de , or 1 0 e4!? lt:Jxe4 I I ed 'i!t'xd5 12 .i.c4 'i!t'c5. It's a bit surprising that 6 .i.f4

2 lt:Jf3 lt:'l/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 199

hasn't been seen more often. 821

6 .i.g5 e5 6 . . . .i.e7 7 cd (7 e3 or 7 lt:Jf3) 7 . . .

lt:Jxd5 8 .i.xe7 lt:Jxe7 9 e3 � (Filip). 7 lt:Jb3

a) 7 lt:Jc2 d4 8 lt:Jd5 .i.e6" !" 9 .i.xf6 gf 10 e4 rn (Mikhalehishin); or 8 . . . .i.f5 = (Neistadt). b) 7 lt:Jdb5!? a6 (7 . . . d4 8 lt:Jd5 lt:Ja6 9 'ti'a4 .i.d7 10 e4 ! Neistadt) 8 'it'a4 (remarkably, even grandmasters have fallen for 8 lt:Jxd5?? ab 9 lt:Jxf6+ 'it'xf6 ! ) 8 . . . .i.d7 9 cd (9 .i.xf6?! gf I 0 ed .i.xb5 1 1 ll'lxb5 ab! +) 9 . . . ..ixb5?! (9 . . . 'i!t'b6! 1 0 i.e 3 .i. x b 5 I I .i. x b6 .i.xa4 1 2 lt:Jxa4, and 12 . . . lt:Jbd7 = or 1 2 . . . .i.b4+ = Mikhalchishin; a t least) 10 lt:Jxb5 ab I I 'i!t'xa8 .i.b4+ 1 2 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 'i!t'xd5+ ( 1 3 . . . lt:J xd5 1 4 �e l lt:Jb4 1 5 Ile l ) 1 4 �e l 0-0 1 5 lid ! 'i!t'e5 1 6 'i!t'a3 ± Mikhalch ishin-Gorelov, USSR Ch 198 1 .

7 d4 8 lt:Jd5 .i.e7

8 . . . .i.e6!? 9 e4 .i.e7 (Tal); 1 0 lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7 I I .i.d3 t.

9 lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7 10 e3 lt:Jc6

1 0 . . . a5 I I ed a4 1 2 lt:Je5 ed+ 1 3 'ire2 �; 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I ed ed+ 1 2 .i.e2 t (Tal). Presumably he doesn't like 10 . . . 'i!t'b4+ I I 'i!t'd2 'i!t'xd2+ 1 2 lt:Jxd2 with two bishops, but then either 12 . . . lt:Jc6 or 1 2 . . . de 1 3 .i.xe3 lt:Jc6 looks playable.

200 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

10 .. l£Jc6 was Ortega-Tal, Erevan 1986. Ortega played I I .te2!? h6 1 2 .txf6 'ti'xf6 1 3 ed ed 14 0-0 0-0 =. Tal recommends 1 1 ed ! ed+ 1 2 i.e2 h6 1 3 i.h4 ;!;(two bishops), and that seems correct. 6 .tg5 deserves a closer look . 822

6 cd l£Jxd5 7 .td2

7 l£J xd 5 'ti'xd5 8 e3 l£Jc6 9 l£Jxc6 1!t'xc6 I 0 .td2 .td7 I I .tc3 f6 = Adamski-Suetin, Lublin 1976. 7 l£Jdb5 a6 ( or 7 . . . l£Jxc3 8 'ihd8+ �xd 8 9 be .tc5 = Gipslis) 8 liJxd5 ed 9 liJd4 liJc6 10 e3 1i'b6! 1 1 liJc2 .te6 = ( Kapengut).

7 .te7 a) 7 . . . liJb4 8 liJf3 ! i.e7 9 g3 (9 a3 liJbc6 10 e4 :t) 9 . . . b6 1 0 .tg2 .tb7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 li[c 1 liJd7 1 3 .tf4 ! Kupreichik-Georgadze, Riga 1972. b) 7 . . . .tc5!? 8 liJb3 i.b6!? (8 . . . .te7 9 liJxd5 'ti'xd5 I 0 .tc3 'ti'xd 1 + 1 1 li[xd 1 f6 was NimzowitschRubinstein, Liege 1 930; 12 g3 ! !) 9 g3 (9 e4 liJxc3 - 9 . . . liJb4!? - 1 0 .txc3 0-0 oo Polugayevsky) 9 . . . e5 ! ? 1 0 .tg2 liJxc3 ( 10 . . . .te6 1 1 liJa4!) 1 1 .txc3 'ite7 1 2 a4 (or 1 2 liJd2 !) 1 2 . . . a 6 1 3 liJd2 liJc6 1 4

liJc4 i.c7 1 5 liJ e 3 .te6 1 6 l£Jd5 t Polugayevsky-Dzindzihashvili , 1985.

8 e4 8 g3 liJb6 =; 8 liJxd5 'itxd5 9

.tc3 e5 =. 8 liJb4 9 .te3

9 i.b5+ .td7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a3 liJ4c6 =.

9 1 0 .te2 1 1 liJxc6

0-0 liJ8c6 l£Jxc6

Quinteros-Kasparov, Moscow 1982. The game went 12 0-0 'ti'a5 1 3 1t'b3 .tc5 1 4 .txc5 1!t'xc5, and now instead of 1 5 li[fd l e5 1 6 'itc4 1!Ve7 1 7 liJd5 1!Vg5 = , Janicki suggests 15 llac1 liJd4 1 6 't!t'a4 liJxe2+ ( 1 6 . . . e5 may improve) 1 7 liJxe2 1i'e5 1 8 liJc3 a s " a strong alternative". Here 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 liJd5 1!ra5 1 7 .tc4 would favour White.

In any case, White's advantage after 6 cd is very small, and for now, 6 i.g5 hasn't been shown to yield much either. Although Black sacrifices his counterchances with 5 . . . d5, it looks like a good neutralising line.

1 5 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

1 c4 c5 2 lL:lf3 lL:lf6 3 d4 cd

A good place to mention 3 . . . d5 4 cd cd 5 \!t'xd4 (5 lL:lxd4 is " A") 5 . . . 'iWxd5 6 lL:lc3 't!fxd4 7 lL:lxd4 (!) 7 .. . a6 8 g3 e5 9 lL:lb3 ..td7 (9 . . . lL:lc6 1 0 ..tg2 ..td7 1 1 0-0 ..td7 1 2 ..tg5 ! :t1 ± Reti-Grau, London 1927) 1 0 ..tg2 ..tc6 1 1 e4!? with the idea 1 1 . . . ..tb4 1 2 0-0 ..txc3 1 3 be llJxe4 1 4 li e I etc.

4 lbxd4 The theory of Black's 4th move

alternatives to 4 . . . lL:lc6 and 4 . . . e6 has grown dramatically over the past decade. In particular, 4 . . . b6 and 4 . . . e5 are now standard systems. A 4 . . . . d5 B 4 . . . g6 C 4 . . . a6 D 4 . . . e5 E 4 . . . b6

4 . . . d6 5 lL:lc3 (5 g3 d5!, e.g. 6 ..tg2 e5 etc) 5 . . . e6 6 e4 b6 transposes to E2 after 7 f3, or to Chapter 9, C22, note (a) to 4 . . . ..td7.

A 4 d5 5 cd lL:lxd5

5 . . . a6!? 6 \!t'a4+ (6 f3!?, e .g. 6 . . . lL:lxd5 7 e 4 llJc7 8 .i.f4) 6 . . . b5 7 lL:lxb5 .i.d7 8 llJ bc3 lL:lxd5 (8 . . . 'tib6 9 \!t'd4!) 9 lL:lxd5 ..txd5 10 'tid I Y ± - Browne-Sosonko, Denpasar 1 982.

6 e4! (208) 6 g3 e5 7 lL:lc2 lL:lc6 8 e4 lL:ldb4 =;

6 lL:lb5 't!t'a5+ 7 lL:lbc3 lL:lxc3 8 lL:lxc3 e5 9 e3 =.

208

B

6 lL:lc7 a) 6 . . . lL:lb4 7 tla4+ (everything looks good, e.g. 7 .i.e3 lL\8c6 8 lL:lxc6 'tixd I + 9 �xd 1 lL:lxc6 1 0

202 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

liJc3 !, 7 liJb5 !? .-xd I + 8 'it'xd I liJba6 9 a3 liJ4c6 I 0 liJ I c3 ! SavonKarasev, Moscow 1 974, or 7 liJa3 e5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I+ 9 ct'xd I liJ8a6 10 i.e3 !) 7 . . . liJ4c6 8 liJxc6 liJxc6 9 i.e3 i.d7 10 liJc3 e6 I I ll:c l i.d6 1 2 i.e2 ! Dake-Muller, Folkestone 1933. b) 6 ... liJf6 7 i.b5+ (or 7 liJc3 e5 -7 . . . a6 8 e5 - 8 i.b5+ i.d7 9 liJf5 !) 7 . . . i.d7 8 1t'e2 (8 e5 i.xb5 9 liJxb5 1t'xd 1+ =) 8 . . . a6 9 i.xd7+ lt:lbxd7 (9 . . 1t'xd7!? seems better) I 0 0-0 e6 I I liJc3 1t'c7, Yudovich-Karak laic, Yugoslavia 1 9 5 1 ; 1 2 i.e3! ± intending f4 (Minic) .

7 i.f4 7 i.c4( !) , e .g . 7 . . . e5 8 'ffh5 !

i.b4+ 9 liJc3 0-0 I 0 liJf3 ±, or 7 . . . g 6 8 0- 0 i.g7 9 i.e3 ! . Also 7 liJc3 e5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd 1+ 9 ct'xd I lt:lxb5 10 liJxb5 liJa6 I I i.c4 ! ( I I i.e3 ? ! i.e6! 1 2 i.xa7 i.b4 !) I I . . . i.c5 1 2 'it'e2 i.d7 1 3 i.e3 'it'e7 1 4 ll:hd l i.c6 1 5 f3 t (Browne).

7 liJe6!? 7 .. . liJd 7 may be better, but

White seems to keep some edge by 8 1t'a4 ( !) , e.g. 8 . . . a6 9 liJc3 or 8 . . . e 6 9 liJc3 i.c5 I 0 ll: d I a 6 I I i.e2.

8 i.b5+ liJc6 Forced, due to 8 . . . i.d7 9

liJxe6 ±. After 8 . . . liJc6, TimmanMiles, Bugojno 1986, went 9 liJ xe6 (9 liJxc 6 1i'xd l + 10 'it'xd l a6 co) 9 . . . 1t'xd I+ I 0 'it'xd I i.xe6 I I i.xc6+ (or just I I liJc3 intending I I . . .

0-0-0+ 12 'it'e l i.d7 1 3 l:lc l t) I I . . . be 1 2 liJd2 g6, and Timman recommends 1 3 b3 i.g7 14 ll:c l i.d4 1 5 'it'e2 c5 1 6 i.e3 !. B

4 g6 5 liJc3

5 f3 d5 ! 6 cd liJxd5 7 e4 liJc7 = (8 liJc3 e5). Better 5 g3 d5 6 i.g2 de (6 . . . e5 !? 7 liJf3 d4 8 0-0 liJc6 9 e3 i.g4 - 9 . . . d3!? - 10 1t'b3 t

- Tukmakov-Belyavsky, Vilnius 1978) 7 .-a4+ liJbd7 (7 . . . lt:lc6!? looks strange, but is hard to refute) 8 0-0 i.g7 9 ll:d l 0-0 1 0 1t'xc4 liJ b 6 ( ? 10 . . . 1t'a5 = ) I I 'it'b3 i (Tukmakov).

5 d5 (209) 5 . . . i.g7 6 e4 is a S icilian, and

here 6 g3 0-0 7 i.g2 is !.

209

w

6 i.g5!? Most common, although White

has a good option in (b): a) 6 cd liJxd5 7 liJdb5 liJ xc3 8 .-xd8+ 'it'xd8 9 liJxc3 i.g7 (or 9 . . . liJc6 = Pachman) 1 0 i.d2 i.e6 I I g3 liJd7 1 2 i.g2 ll:c8! 1 3 ll:c l 'it'c7!

2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 203

= Flohr-Euwe, match (5) 1932. h) 6 li:Jf3( !) ";!;" (Stean), e . g. 6 . . . de 7 �xd8 <&xd8 8 e4. c ) 6 jJ4!? i.g7 7 e3 0-0!? (7 . . . li:Jc6

=) 8 it'b3, Vaganian-Gulko, USSR Ch 1976; 8 . . . li:Jh5!? intending 9 i.xb8 llxb8 1 0 cd i.xd4 1 1 ed e6 with attack.

6 de 6 . . . li:Je4 7 li:Jxe4 de 8 li:Jb5! with

the idea 8 . . . li:Jc6? 9 �xd8+ <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ i.d7 1 1 li:Jd6 ±± or 8 . . . f6 9 '8'xd8 <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ i.d7 I I i.c3 t (Korchnoi), or 8 . . . i.g7 9 'ii'xd8+ <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ li:Jd7 ( I 0 . . . i.d7 ! ;!; Stean; I I g3 !) 1 1 i.e3 b6 12 g3 i.a6 13 i.g2 llc8 14 <&b I ! lhc4 1 5 b3 llc6 16 li:Ja3 ± SteanSchmid, London 1 979. Finally, 8 . . . 1Wxd I+!? 9 llxd I li:Ja6 of Speelman-Alburt, match (3) 1986 is less clear. The game went 1 0 g3 i.g7 1 1 b3 f5 1 2 i.g2 i.d7 1 3 f3 i.xb5 1 4 cb li:Jb4 1 5 fe t.

7 e3 Or 7 li:Jdb5 ( Korchnoi) with the

idea 7 . . . i.d7 8 li:Jd5! 7 i.g7

7 . . . 1Wa5 8 i.xf6 gf 9 i.xc4 i.b4 (9 . . . i_g7 t) 10 llc l a6?! 1 1 0-0 li:Jbd7 1 2 a3?! ( 1 2 li:Jd5! Suetin) 1 2 . . . i.e7? 1 3 b4! 1We5 1 4 f4! '8'b8 1 5 i.xf7+ ±± Petrosian-Korchnoi, Curar;ao 1 962.

8 i.xc4 0-0 9 0-0 i.d7

9 . . . a6 10 a4! is t or 1 0 1We2 b5 I I i.b3 i.b 7 1 2 llfd l �a5 1 3 e4

li:Jbd7 1 4 li:Je6! fe 1 5 i.xe6+ <&h8 16 i.xd7 b4 17 i.xf6 ef, SimaginKorchnoi, Leningrad 1956; 1 8 li:Ja4 t.

After 9 . . . i.d7, Portisch-Benko, Las Palmas 1 972, went 10 1Wd2! ( 1 0 it'b3 li:Jc6!) 10 . . . li:Jc6 I I llfd 1 li:Jxd4?! ( I I . . . li:Je5 1 2 i.b3 ±) 1 2 it'xd4 i.c6 ( 12 . . . 1Wc7 1 3 i.xf6 i.xf6 14 i.xf7+ ±) 1 3 i.xf7+ ±±. c

4 a6 A tricky move which may be

used as a transpositional device . 5 li:Jc3

5 g3 d5 ! 6 i.g2 e5 7 li:JO d4 ! and Black has a Catalan with the extra move . . . a6 (=) . Here 7 . . . e4!? 8 li:Jfd2! (8 li:Jd4 de!) 8 . . . e3 ( 8 . . . de 9 0-0! t) 9 fe li:Jg4 1 0 cd li:Jxe3 I I 'tWa4+ li:Jd7 1 2 'tWe4+ 1We7 1 3 li:Jb3! U ± was Martz-Miles, Lone Pine 1 976. 5 i.g5!? d5 6 cd 't!Vxd5 = (Miles).

5 d5!? (2 10) 5 . . . e6 transposes to Chapter

14.

210 w

204 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

6 li:Jb3!? a) 6 e3 e5 !? (6 . . . g6 ! =; 6 . . . e6) 7 li:Jf3 e4 8 li:Jd2 de 9 i.xc4 b5 I 0 i.e2 i,b7, lightly ;!; Webb-Miles, England I 975. b) 6 i.f4 e6 7 e3 li:Jc6 =. c) 6 i,g5 e5 ! (6 . . . de 7 e4 ! :t) 7 li:Jc2 (7 li:Jf3 d4 = planning 8 li:Jd5 i.e7 9 li:Jxe7 'i+'xe7 =, or here 8 . . . 'i+'a5+ 9 i.d2 'i+'d8 =) 7 0 0 0 d4 8 li:Jd5 .if5 ! 9 .ixf6 gf 1 0 e3 li:Jc6 1 I i.e2 'i+'a5+ = G .Garcia-Jansa, Cienfuegos I 945. d) 6 li:Jf3!? e6 (6 . . . de 7 'i+'xd8+ �xd8 8 e4 e6 9 li:Je5 �e8 10 li:Jxc4 ;!; Olafsson-Miles, Teesside I 975) 7 cd (7 i.g5 .ie7 8 e3 li:Jc6 =) 7 0 0 0 ed 8 e3 (8 .ig5 .ie7 9 e3 offers more prospects) 8 o o . li:Jc6 9 .ie2 =, e .g. 9 . . . .ic5 1 0 �0 �0 1 I li:Jd4 lii:e8. e ) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jdb5 !? (7 .id2 e5 8 li:Jf3 li:Jc6 9 e4 li:Jdb4 = or 9 0 0 0

li:Jxc3 = ) 7 0 0 0 li:Jb4! 8 'i+'xd8+ �xd8 9 li:Ja3 b5 (or 9 0 0 . e 5 I 0 g3 .ie6 I I .ig2 li:J8c6 =) 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 .ie3 .ie6 1 2 ��0+ !? ( 1 2 .ie2) 1 2 o o . li:Jd7 1 3 �b I llc8 + Karasev-Tseshkovsky, USSR 1976.

6 e6 6 o o . de 7 'i+'xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 li:Ja5 e6

9 li:J xc4 ;!; transposes to OlafssonMiles in note (d) above. Otherwise 8 . . . li:Jbd7 9 a4 b6 10 li:Jxc4 ± or 8 o o • b5 9 g3 (or 9 .if4) 9 0 0 0 e6 (9 . . . e5 1 0 i.g2 lit a 7 I I .ie3 lii:d7 12 li:Jc6+ li:Jxc6 1 3 .ib6+ 'it>e7 14 .ixc6 lii:d4 15 a4 ! b4 1 6 li:Ja2 ±) 10 .if4! li:Jfd7 I I ��0 �e8 1 2 .ig2 lla7 1 3 li:Jc6

li:Jxc6 14 .ixc6 threatens .ib8. 7 cd ed 8 g3 li:Jc6 9 .ig2 .ie6

10 0-0 .ie7 I I .ie3 �0 1 2 li:Ja4! (White

takes advantage of . . . a6) 12 o o . lie8 13 li:Jac5 (even better is I 3 .ib6! ± Rashkovsky) 1 3 0 0 . .ic8 14 l:.tc l h6 1 5 li:Ja4! with advantage, Rashkovsky-Chekhov, Minsk 1976 . D

211

w

4 e5 (21 1)

Still experimental at the time of the first edition , this is now a wellestablished line with a solid reputation.

5 li:Jb5 a) 5 li:Jc2 d5 6 cd 'i+'xd5 (6 0 0 0 .ic5 7 li:Jc3 0-0, and 8 .ie3 ! is critical) 7 tixd5 (7 .id2 li:Je4 - or 7 . . . li:Jc6 -8 li:Je3 'tid4 9 'tic2 li:Jc6 10 .ic3 .ib4 = - Sukhanov-Sinelnikov, Moscow 1 980) 7 0 0 . li:Jxd5 8 e4 li:Jb4 9 .ib5+ (or 9 li:Jxb4 .ixb4+ 10 .id2 li:Jc6 =) 9 . . . li:J8c6 10 li:Jxb4 .ixb4+ I I .id2 .id7 = Adamski-

2 fiJ/3 fiJj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 205

Gufeld, Tbi lisi 1983. b) 5 fiJf3 fiJc6 6 fiJc3 i.b4 7 i.d2 0-0 (or 7 . . . e4 !? 8 fiJg5 1!t'e7 intending 9 'i!t"b l e3) 8 e3 (8 a3 i.xc3 9 i.xc3 �e8 intending . . . d5 - Scoones) 8 . . . e4 9 fiJg5 (9 fiJd4 fiJxd4 10 ed d5 ! , e.g. I I fiJxe4? fiJxe4 12 i.xb4 lle8 1 3 i.e2 i.g4 ! Scoones) 9 . .. �e8 1 0 a3 i.xc3 + Novikov-Bukhman , Leningrad 1975.

5 d5! a) 5 ... d6 6 i.g5 fiJa6 7 fiJbc3 !. b) 5 . . . i.c5 6 i.e3 ! i.xe3 7 fiJd6+ 'i!;>fll 8 fe U ±, e .g. 8 0 0 . fiJg4 9 ll:lc3 ! fiJxe3 1 0 'tWd3 lt:lg4 I I g3 ll:lf6 1 2 i.h3 ll:lf6 1 3 0-0 ±. 8 . . . lt:lc6 would transpose to Chapter 1 3 , B, note to 5 . . . e6. c) 5 ... i.b4+ 6 i.d2 (or 6 ll:l l c3 intending 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 i.e7 8 lt:ld6 ;!;) 6 . . . i.xd2+ ( 6 . . . i.c5 7 i.e3 ! is note (b), or 7 i.c3 1!Vb6 8 e3 a6 9 b4! ;!;) 7 'tWxd2 0-0 8 ll:\ 1 c3 lt:la6 9 g3 li:lc5 10 i.g2 a6 I I ll:ld6 ± Capablanca-Torres, Barcelona 1 929.

6 cd i.c5! a) 6 . . . a6 !? 7 .ll:l5c3 i.c5 8 ll:ld2 (8 b4 !? i.a 7 9 e3 0-0 10 i.e2 lie8 I I i.b2 Uoo; 8 'i!t"d3 !? lt:lg4 9 lt:ld l f5) 8 . . . 0-0 9 ll:lb3 i.b4 10 i.d2 lie8 I I 'tWc2 i.xc3 12 i.xc3 'tWxd5 1 3 lid l 't!Vc6 1 4 e4 ! i.e6 1 5 i.d3, lightly ;!; Palatnik-Lutikov, Yurmala 1 98 1 . b ) 6 . . . 'tWaS+ 7 ll:\5 c3 b5 8 fiJd2 ( 8 g3 b4 9 W'a4+ W'xa4 I 0 li:lxa4 i.b7

=; 8 a3 b4 9 W'a4+ 't!Vxa4 10 lt:lxa4 lt:lxd5 I I e4 lt:lc7 + AdamskiBarlov, Prague 198 1 ) 8 0 0 . b4 9 ll:lce4! (9 lt:lb3 1!t'b6 ! ) 9 0 0 0 ll:l xe4!? (not 9 . . . ll:lxd5? 10 lt:lc4 'it'c7 I I lt:led6+, but 9 0 0 . 't!Vxd5!? is given by Scoones, when both I 0 1!t'c2 i.e6 I I g3 !? and 10 ll:lxf6+ gf I I e4 intending i.c4, 'tWh5/b3 seem good) 10 lt:lxe4 i.b7 ( 10 0 0 0 f5 I I ll:lg5) I I g4 ! lt:la6 (better I I 0 0 . ·W"xd5 1 2 1!t'xd5 i.xd5 1 3 i.g2 lt:ld7 14 i.e3 ;!; or 14 lt:ld6+ ;!; Cvetkovic) 1 2 i.g2 �d8 1 3 0-0 i.xd5 ( 1 3 . . . lhd5 ;!;) 14 i.g5 i.e7 1 5 i.xe7 'i!i>xe7 16 1!t'c l ! ± Lombardy-Martin, Olot 1974. c) 6 . . . i.b4+ 7 i.d2 (I gave 7 ll:l l c3 a6 , but then 8 1!t'a4 ! . So 7 liJ l c3 0-0! with the idea 8 a3 i.a5 9 b4 i.b6. If 7 ll:l5c3 , best is 7 . . . W'xd� 8 1!t'xd5 ll:lxd5 1 0 i.d2 i. e6 =) 7 . . . i.c5 8 d6 ! (212) ( 8 1!t'c2!? lt:la6 9 b4!? i.b6 10 ll:l l c3 0-0 I I 'i!t'b3 i.f5 I 2 e3 i.e4! 1 3 ll:lxe4 ll:lxe4 - threatening . . . W'f6 - 14 ll:lc3 lt:lxd2 1 5 'i!i>xd2 'i!t"h4 1 6 g3 , Palatnik-Agzamov, Odessa 1977; and here 16 . . . 1!Vf6! gives a strong attack).

8 0 0 0 ll:la6 ( 8 0 0 . 0-0? 9 lt:lc7 ll:le4 10 e3 ; 8 0 0 0 ll:le4!? 9 e3 ll:lxd6 10 b4 i.b6 I I i.c3 ll:lxb5 12 i.xb5+ .id7 13 'i!t"d5 ! ; 8 . . . i.xd6 9 i.g5 ! , e .g. 9 0 0 0 .ie7 10 '@xd8+ 'i!i>xd8 I I ll:l l c3 or 9 0 0 0 .ib4 10 ll:\ 1 c3 'i!t'xd I + I I lixd I li:la6 12 .ixf6 gf 1 3 a3 t) 9 e3 0-0 1 0 i.c3 .ig4? ( 1 0 . . . lieS I I


:!/2 8

li:Jd2 �xd6 1 2 li:Jc4 !) I I �e2 �xe2 1 2 'i!t'xe2 �xd6 1 3 0-0 �b8 ( 1 3 . . . 'i!t'e7) 14 li:Jd2 'i!fe7 IS 'i!t'c4 'i!t'd7 16 lifd l lic8 1 7 li:Je4! ± Zilberstein-Semeniuk, No vosibirsk 1976.

7 li:J5c3 Almost exclusivel y chosen.

a) 7 li:J l c3 0-0 (7 . . . a6 8 li:Ja3! 0-0!? 9 li:Jc4 Scoones) 8 d6 (8 �gS a6! ; 8 e3 a6 9 li:Ja3 bS planning . . . b4 , . . . �b7) 8 . . . li:Jc6 9 e 3 �fS 1 0 �e2 a6 I I li:Jc7 lic8 1 2 0-0 e4 +! + Dzindzihashvili-Alburt, New York 1980. b) 7 e3 0-0 8 �c4 !? (8 li:JSc3 is the main line; 8 d6? a6 ! ; 8 a3 lt:JxdS 9 �c4 �e6) 8 . . . li:Jbd7 (or 8 . . . li:Jbd7 (or 8 . . . a6 9 li:JSc3 bS 1 0 �b3 lie8 1 1 0-0 e4 =) 9 li:JSc3 e4 1 0 h 3 , Cornelius-Schroer, U S A ( telephone) 1 977; 10 . . . lie8 ! =. c) 7 d6 0-0! (7 . . . li:Je4? 8 e3 li:Jxd6 9 'i!t'dS; 7 . . . 1!VaS+ 8 li:J I c3 li:Je4 9 e3 li:Jxc3 10 be li:Ja6 I I a4 !) 8 �e3 (8 li:Jc7? li:Je4! 9 e3 �b4+! 10 li:Jc3 li:lxc3 H or 10 li:Jd2 'i!fxd6 I I

li:Jxa8 lid8 ++) 8 . . . �xe3 9 fe li:Ja6 ( 9 . . . li:Jc6 ! ) 10 li:J i c3 �d7 1 1 'i!t'd2 ( I I a4) I I . . . �xbS 1 2 li:JxbS li:Je4 =/oo Svedchikov-M .Tseitl in , Lvov 1977. d) 7 'i!t'c2 !? has more poi nt , e .g. 7 . . . li:Ja6 (7 . . . 'i!t'b6 8 �e3 li:Jbd7 9 �xeS �xeS 10 li:JSc3 ; 7 . . . �aS !? 8 lt:J Ic3 li:JxdS planning 9 'i!t'e4? li:J xc3 10 't!Vxe5+?? �e6 I I li:Jxc3 �xf2+ Scoones. Here 9 �d2! li:Jxc3 10 li:Jxc3 with the idea li:JdS i s more cri t ical , e.g. 1 0 . . . �d8 I I g3 0-0 12 �g2) 8 a3 0-0 (8 . . . li:JxdS!?) 9 lt:J lc3 �d7?! (9 . . . lt:JxdS t Scoones; probably just equal) 1 0 e3 lic8 I I �d2 li:JxdS 1 2 'i!fe4! �c6 1 3 'i!t'xeS lie8 14 '8'g3 ± - TsamrjukPukshansky, corres 1979-80.

7 0-0 (213) 7 . . . e4? 8 li:Jxe4 ! li:Jxe4 9 'i!t'a4+

wins a second pawn.

8 e3 Most common. 8 e4? lt:Jg4 or 8

�g5 �xf2+ come up short; but others are of in terest: a) 8 g3 li:Jg4!? (8 . . . e4 9 �g2 e3!?

2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 207

10 i.xe3 i.xe3 1 1 fe 'tWb6 1 2 1Wd4 'ti'xb2 1 3 li:Jd I :!;. 8 . . . l:l:e8 9 i.g2 e4 1 0 0-0 i.f5 oo. 8 . . . 'tWb6 9 e3 e4!? 1 0 i.g2 i.f5 oo; here 9 . . . ..ig4 1 0 ..ie2 i.h3 I I a3 l:l:d8 1 2 l:l:g l ! i.f5 1 3 b4 ..ie7 1 4 g4 intends g5 , e4 Kuindzi) 9 e3 (9 li:Je4 f5 ! ) 9 . . . f5 1 0 ..ie2 li:Jf6 I I a 3 li:Jbd7 1 2 b 4 i.d6 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jb6 14 li:Jb3 'it>h8 =/oo Peshina-Vaganian, USSR 1979. b) 8 h3!? hasn't been tried , but would intend active play based on i.g5 and or g4/ i.g2. Black could reply sharply by 8 . . . e4 9 g4 !? e3 1 0 ..ixe3 i.xe3 I I fe li:Je8 1 2 'ti'd4 \!t'h4+ 1 3 'it>d2 00.

8 e4 Similar are 8 . . . i.f5 9 a3 li:Jbd7

10 li:Jbd2 e4 I I b4 ..id6 1 2 li:Jc4 li:Jb6 oo Mascarinas-Buturin, Lvov 1 98 1 ; and 8 . . . a6 9 i.e2 e4 10 0-0? ( 10 li:Jd2!) 10 . . . l:l:e8 I I li:Jd2 i.f5 , Antunac-Shamkovich, Ne w York 198 1 .

After 8 . . . e4: D l 9 i.e2 02 9 li:Jd2

9 a3 will usually transpose, e .g. 9 . . . Ii:e8 1 0 b4 i.f8 I I li:Jd2 is discussed under 9 li:Jd2 . Quasiindependent are: a) 9 . . . aS !? 10 li:Jd2 'tlt'e7 ( 10 . . . l:l:e8) I I d6!? ( I I i.e2 l:l:d8 1 2 'tWd2 ..if5 1 3 g4 i.g6 oo HansenReinert, De nmark 1985) 1 1 . . . i.xd6 12 li:Jdxe4 li:Jxe4 1 3 li:Jxe4 l:l:d8 1 4 li:Jxd6 ( 1 4 'tWc2 i.f5 =) 1 4 . . . Ii:xd6 1 5 't!Vc2 li:Jc6 1 6 ..id3?! ( 1 6

i.e2 =) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4! 1 7 i.xh7+ 'it>f8 1 8 'it'e4 li:Jb3 ± Palatnik-Kasparov, Kislovodsk 1982. b) 9 . . . li:Jbd7 10 li:Jd2 l:l: e8 I I 'tWc2 'tWe7 1 2 b4( ! ) transposes to 02, note to 10 . . . i.f5 . c) 9 ... "tie7 10 li:Jd2 i.f5 ( 10 . . . l:l:d8 I I b4 i.d6 I 2 li:Jc4 li:Ja6 - 12 . . . li:Jc6 1 3 d6!? Scoones - 1 3 li:Jxd6 'tWxd6 14 i.c4 t Scoones) I I b4 i.d6 I 2 li:Jc4 li:Jbd7 13 i.b2 a6 14 't!Vd4 l:l:fe8 I5 ..ie2 Ii:ad8 I 6 g4! i.xg4 ( 16 . . . ..ig6 1 7 h4! Scoones) 17 i.xg4! li:Jxg4 18 li:Jxe4 i.e5 I9 lb xe5 'ti'xe5 ( ? I9 . . . li:Jgxe5 20 'it>e2!?) 20 li:Jc6 ± AltermanFaerman , USSR I979. D l

214

B

9 i.e2 (214)

9 'tWe7!? a) An apparently simple solution is 9 ... li:Ja6(!) 10 a3 l:l:e8 I I b4 i.f8 12 ..ib2 li:Jc7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jcxd5 = Lerner-Tverdokhlebov, Odessa I98 1 . b) 9 . . . .trs 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l:e8 ( 1 0 . . . i.b4 I I g4! i.g6 1 2 h4 h6 1 3


'it'b3 ;!;) I I li:Jc4 .i.g6 ?! ( I I . . . a6; I I . . . .i.b4 Scoones) 1 2 a3 ;!; van der Vliet-Alburt, Bergen 19S2. c) 9 . . . lle8 10 li:Jd2 ( 10 0-0 .i.f5 I I a3 li:Ja6 =; 1 0 a3 li:Jb7d I I li:Jd 2 li:Jb6 1 2 b4 .i.d6 1 3 Wb3 .i.f5 =

Mamuzic-Barczay, Subotica 19S l ) 1 0 . . . .i. b4 I I 'it'b3 .i.xc3 1 2 be 'tixd5 1 3 'tixd5 li:Jxd5 = PekovicBarczay, Subotica 1 9S l .

1 0 li:Jd2 10 a3 .i.f5 would be note (c) to 9

a3 above, but Black also has e.g. 10 .. . lidS ( 10 .. . 'it'e5 !? I I li:Jd2 lieS 12 li:Jc4!? 1t'g5 1 3 g3 .i.h3 1 4 b4 planning 1t'd4, .i.b2 looks safe for White) 1 1 b4 .i.d6 1 2 .i.b2 li:Jbd7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jb6 14 't!Vb3 .i.e5 15 li:Jc4 li:Jxc 4 16 .i.xc4 .i.f5 = Hodos-Gofstein, Daugavpils l 97S.

1 0 lld8 1 1 a3 li:Jxd5

1 1 . . . .i.f5 1 2 b4 .i.d6 13 li:Jc4 !. 12 li:Jxd5

12 li:Jcxe4 li:Jxe3 ! 1 3 fe ..txe3 ! was Barkovsky-Tseitlin, Leningrad 1 9S l : 14 1t'b3 .i.xd2+ 1 5 li:Jxd2 li:Jc6 16 li:Jf3 lieS 17 'it'c4 li:la5 ! +.

12 lixd5 1 3 'it'c2 ..tf5 1 4 b4 i.b6 1 5 i.b2

li:Jc6 16 0-0 1t'g5 ! 17 'it'h l ! lid6?! ( 17 . . . lieS Kasparov) IS li:Jxe4 ! ..txe4 19 'it'xe4 lid2, MikhalchishinKasparov, USSR ch l 9S l ; and now 20 ..ta6 ! ! (Kasparov) would have kept some advantage. 02

9 li:Jd2 lieS

Now 9 . . . 1t'e7 1 0 a3 leads to note (c) to 9 a3. Also 10 li:Jb3 !? lidS I I li:Jxc5 1t'xc5 1 2 ..td2 intending llc1 favoured White in Ivanov-Popovich, New York l 9S2. 9 . . . ..tf5 l 0 ..t2 .i. b4 !? I I g4 ..tg6 1 2 h4 h6 l 3 1t'b3 .i.xc3 1 4 be 'it'xd5 1 5 .i.a3 llcS 1 6 h5 favoured White in Hasin-Karasev, USSR 1977.

10 a3 ..trs I O . . . li:Jbd7 1 1 1t'c2( ! ) 1t'e7 1 2 b4

.i.d6 1 3 li:Jc4 a6 ( 1 3 . . . li:Jb6? 1 4 li:Jxd6 'ihd6 1 5 li:Jb5) 14 ..tb2 b5 15 li:J xd6 'ihd6 16 ..te2 li:Jb6 1 7 ll d 1 ..t b7 I S lld4, KalinskyPukshansky, USSR l 9S l ; " ±" (Scoones, Janicki), although the situation is still complex. Here 1 7 . . . .i.f5 !? followed b y . . . liacS should also be considered.

1 1 li:Jb3!? The "main l ine" has been I I b4

.i.f8 l 2 li:Jc4 li:Jbd7 1 3 .i.b2 a6 ( 1 3 . . . lieS l 4 li:Jb5! li:Jb6 1 5 li:Jxb6 ab 16 d6 ± Ljubojevic-Browne, Yugoslavia l9S l ) 14 1t'b3 b5 1 5 li:Ja5 li:Jc5 ! 1 6 be 1t'xa5 17 d6 llacS I S 1t'b4 'tidS = .

1 1 ..tf8 12 ..te2 ..tg6

Better 1 2 . . . h6, according to Scoones, when he suggests g4-g5 and 0-0-0 for White. After 1 2 . . . i.g6, Litvinov-Shereshevsky, USSR l 9SO, went 13 0-0 li:Ja6 1 4 .i.d2 li:Jc7 1 5 lic l :t After Black wins the d-pawn, his bishop is still misplaced on g6, although this

2 ti:Jf3 tl:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 209

disadvantage should probably not be decisive. 215

Conclusion: Now that White has B

some experience versus 4 . . . e5, the results are beginnig to even out. This last line with 9 ti:Jd2 seems to be the most serious try for an advantage. E

4 b6 The Sicilian/Hedgehog-like posi

tions which often result from this move are now standard fare in international chess.

5 ti:Jc3 The only serious al ternative is 5

f3 e6 (5 . . . d5 6 cd ti:Jxd5 7 e4 ti:Jc7 8 .if4 ;t; 5 . . . .ib7 6 e4 d6 7 ti:Jc3 transposes) 6 e4 .ib4+!? (agai n, 6 . . . d6 transposes to mai n lines) 7 ti:Jc3 (7 .id2 .ic5 8 .ie3 0-0, or 8 ti:Jb3? ti:Jxe4! ) 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ie2 .ib7 9 0-0 ti:Jc6 10 .ie3 'tWb8, PomarJansson, Lugano OJ 1968, and now instead of I I a3 .id6 ! +, I I ti:Jc2 .ixc3 1 2 be d6 = was best.

5 .ib7 E l 6 .ig5 E2 6 f3

6 'iic2 d6 7 e4 e6 (7 . . . g6 8 .ie2 .ig7 is also playable) 8 .ie2 d6 9 .ie3 ti:Jbd7 1 0 0-0 .ie7 =. White's queen is rather poorly placed on c2. E l

6 .ig5 (215) A logical move which hopes to

disrupt Black's kingside .

6 a6 a) 6 ... ti:Je4?! 7 ti:Jxe4 .ixe4 8 f3 .ib7 9 e4 g6 (9 . . . f6 1 0 .ie3 l0c6 I I ti:Jb5! ± Alekhine-Samisch, Baden Baden 1925 ) 10 .ie2 ( 10 ti:Jb5 intending ti:Jd6+ - Kotov - looks good, e .g . 10 . . . d6 I I 'W'd4 f6 1 2 .ie2, o r just I I ti:Jc3 ;t) 1 0 . . . .ig7 I I 0-0 ;!; Menchik-Canal, Carlsbad 1929. b) 6 . . . ti:Jc(j 7 e4 d6 8 .ie2 e6 9 0-0 !; Black's knight is better on d7. c) 6 . . . 'W'c7 7 lilc l ti:Ja6 8 a3 (8 e3 ;!;) 8 . . . :IileS 9 e3 ti:Jc5 10 f3 d6 I I .ie2 e6 1 2 .ixf6 gf 1 3 0-0 .ie7 14 b4 ti:Jd7 1 5 f4! ;t RashkovskyGrigorian , USSR 198 1 . d ) 6 • . • h6 7 .ixf6 gf8 e4 ! ? e6 9 .ie2 lilg8 10 .if3 ( 1 0 .ih5!? lilxg2 I I 'W'f3 lilg8 1 2 0-0-0) I 0 . . . ti:Jc6 = Khasin-Karasev, USSR 1 976. I recommended 8 ti:Jf5, but then 8 . . . 'iic7 ! i s n ot clear, e .g. 9 e4 e6 1 0 ti:Je3 ( 1 0 ti:Jg3 !?) 1 0 . . . .ib4 I I .id3 'W'e5 1 2 'tlrc2 .ixc3+ 1 3 be ti:Ja6 etc. Perhaps 8 e3 is best, e .g. 8 . . . a6 9


._.g4!? ._.c7 1 0 .te2 and I I .tO , or here 9 li:Jde2!? intending li:Jf4, .te2-0. e) 6 . . . e6 7 li:Jdb5! (7 e4 h6) 7 . . . d6 8 .tf4 e5 9 .ig5 a6 10 .txf6 gf I I li:Ja3 d5 ( I I . . . b5 1 2 li:Jd5 ! t; I I . . . f5 1 2 ... d3 !) 1 2 cd t, e.g. 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 li:Jc2 f5 ( 1 3 . . . b4 1 4 li:Jxb4) 1 4 a3 . I) 6 . . . d6 !? i s the m ain alternative: 7 .txf6 (7 e4 !? intending 7 . . . li:Jxe4 8 li:Jxe4 .txe4 9 ._.e2 with attack is well met by 7 . . . li:Jbd7! =) 7 . . . gf 8 e3 (8 e4 li:Jc6 9 .te2 litg8 1 0 �0 li:Jxd4 I I ._.xd4 .tg7 = VeraLebredo, Cuban Ch 1982; Lebredo's 9 li:Jc2!? should be tried) 8 . . . li:Jc6 (8 . . . h5!? 9 h4 e6 I 0 li:Jde2 t with the idea li:Jf4, .te2-f3; 8 . . . e6 9 'ii'h5 'ii'c8 !? 10 .te2 li:Jc6 I I .tf3 li:Jd8 1 2 0-0 .txO 1 3 'ii'xO .te7 1 4 litfd l ± Kavalek-Kudrin, Berkeley 1984. Here 9 . . . 1!re7 10 .te2 li:Jc6 I I .if3 li:Jxd4 1 2 ed .txO 1 3 'ii'xf3 was t in Agzamov-Bonsch, Sochi 1 984) 9 'ii'h5 (9 li:Jde2!? intending li:Jf4 should be considered) 9 . . . 'ii'd7 1 0 li:Jd5 li:J xd4 I I ed llg8 !? (intending . . . litg6, . . . e6) 12 .td3 ! ? lit xg2 1 3 .tf5 Wa4 14 1irf3 1i'a5+ 1 5 b4 ?! ( 1 5 �fl .txd5 1 6 cd litd8 1 7 a3 is crucial - Scoones) 1 5 . . . .txd5 1 6 'ii'b3 'ii'b5 ! 1 7 cb .txb3 1 8 .te4 ( 1 8 ab litg5 ! ) 18 . . . litg4 1 9 .txa8 .ta4 and Black stood well in Butnorius-Palatnik , Krasnodar 1 980. A very unclear line.

7 .txf6

a) The gambit 7 e4! ? is extremely interesting after 7 . . . li:Jxe4 8 li:Jxe4 .txe4 9 t!fe2: (216)

2 16

B

Now Black has: a l ) 9 . . . .tb7 10 li:Jf5 ! d5 ( 10 . . . d6? I I 0-0-0) I I 0-0-0 ( I I cd t!fd7! - 11 . . . t!Vxd5 ?? 12 li:Jxg 7+ -12 li:Je3 f6! intending . . . e6 ro) is complex but promising for White. a2) 9 ... d5 10 f3 .tg6 I I t!fe3 ( I I �0-0!?) I I . . . 'ii'd7 ( I I . . . 'ii'd6 !?) 1 2 llc l e6 1 3 cd .tb4+ 1 4 � f2 0-0 1 5 d e (Scoones). a3) 9 . . . .ig6 10 g4! f6 I I .tg2 lita7 12 .id2 !? e6 1 3 lld l ( l 3 0-0 looks more accuxate) 1 3 . . . flc7 (or 1 3 . . . 'ii'c8) 14 0-0 h5? ( 14 . . . �f7! 1 5 f4 .tc5 1 6 .tc3 lite8 - Kotov) 1 5 li:Jxe6! de 16 11Vxe6+ t!fe7 ( 1 6 . . . .te7 Kotov, but 1 7 .if4) 1 7 t!fxb6 'ikc7 1 8 llfe l + .ie7 1 9 lhe7+! �xe7 20 .tb4+ �f7 2 1 .idS+ �e8 22 'ii'e6+ �d8 23 .tb7+ t!fd7 24 .ta5 mate, Zilberstein-Kim, USSR 1978.

This gambit has gone unrepeated, as far as I know, but has obvious

2 li:J./3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2 J J

merits i n terms o f development and open lines. b) 7 f3 e6 8 e4 'ti'c7 (8 0 0 0 d6 9 'ti'd 2 li:Jbd7 1 0 .ie2 .ie7 I I 0-0 0-0 = Smyslov-Botvinnik, USSR 1 967 ) 9 'ti'd2 li:Jc6 I 0 li:Jxc6 de I I 0-0-0 .ie7 = Zi l berstei n-Suetin, USSR 1 974. c) 7 l:lcl e6 8 f3 h6 9 .ih4 .ie7 I 0 'ti'b3 'ti'c7 = Dzibuan- Vaiser, Alma Ata 1 978. d ) 7 'ti'c2 h6 (or 7 o o • c6 8 e4 d6 = ) 8 .ih4 'i!fc7 9 e3 c6 I 0 li:Jf3 d6 = Pomar- Ljubojevic, Pa lma de Mallorca 1 972. e ) 7 li:JfS!? 'ti'c7 8 'ti'd4( ! ) is of note, e.g. 8 . . . li:Jc6 9 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 I 0 li:J xg7+ .ixg7 I I 1!t'xg7 1!t'e5 1 2 'ti'xe5 li:Jxe5 1 3 cd .ixd5 1 4 f3 1;2-1;2 Rash kovsky-Psakhis , USSR 1979. White is better if he can neutralise Black's lead in development.

21 7

w

7 gf (21 7)

8 e3 a) 8 li:JfS!? b5 !? 9 a 3 ! be 10 e4 li:Jc6 I I .ixc4 e6 1 2 li:Jd6+ .ixc6 1 3 'i!Vxd6 llc8 1 4 0-0, Rash kovsky-

Sueti n , USSR 1 974; 14 0 0 0 li:Je5 ! 15 .ie2 ifc7 1 6 llad l 'i!Vxd6 1 7 li[ xd6 �e7 1 8 llfd l llc6 = (Suetin ). Still better 8 o o . ifc7 ( ! ) 9 li:Jd5 !? ( best see ms 9 c4 e6 1 0 li:Jg3) 9 0 0 0 .ixd5 10 'i!fxd5 ( I 0 cd? c6 ! I I d6 'ilc5 1 2 ll c l 'ifa5+ etc) 1 0 . . . li:Jc6 I I ll d l e6 1 2 li:Jd6 .ixd6 +. b) 8 e4 e6 9 g3 (9 .ie2 'ti'c7 10 0-0 h5 ! ? I I a3 li:Jc6 1 2 �h I h4 1 3 f4 f5! 14 ef h3 1 5 .if3 hg+ 16 .ixg2 0-0-0 with an attack , C. Hansen-Piaskett, Copen hagen 1 985) 9 . . . .ib4 10 .ig2 .ixc3+ ( 10 . . . 'ti'c7 ) I I be 'i!Vc7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 ll e l li:J d7 1 4 't!fh5 �e7 with play against t he c-pawns, Hausner-Tseshkovsky, Banja Luka 198 1 .

8 e6 9 'ti'hS!?

a) 9 a3 f5 !? 1 0 ll g l .ig7 I I g4 f4 !? 1 2 ef li:Jc6 1 3 li:J xc6 .i xc6 14 llg3 'ti'c7 oo Peresipkin-Zaid, Alma Ata 1977; simply 9 . . . 't!fc7 (preventing 1 0 ll g l ) was easier. b) 9 li:Jde2!? is again interest ing, with the idea 9 . . . .ih6 10 li:Jg3 or 9 . . . 't!fc7 1 0 li:Jf4. I feel that this is White's best chance for advantage.

9 'ti'c7! "=" ( Psakhis) , threatening . . .

'i!fe5 , e . g . 1 0 0-0-0 'ti'e5 I I 'i!fh3 .ib4!? etc . Lerner- Psakhis, R iga 1 985, went 1 0 li:Jf3 'i!fc5 I I 'ti'h4 f5 1 2 .ie2 .ig7 1 3 0-0 li:Jc6 1 4 llacl li:Je5 15 'i!fg3 li:Jg6 1 6 ll fd l llc8 ! 17 a3 'ti'c7 =.

The two key li nes wi th regard to

212 2 &i:Jf3 &i:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

6 i.g5 are 6 . . . d6, when 7 .txf6 gf 8 e3 is critical , and 6 . . . a6, when both 7 e4! ? and the line 7 .txf6 gf 8 e3 should be investigated. E2

6 f3 (2 18)

E2 l 6 . . . &i:Jc6 E22 6 . . . d6 a) 6 . . . d5 7 cd &i:Jxd 5 8 &i:Jxd5 (8 &i:Jdb5!?) 8 . . . 1t"xd5 9 e4 ±. b7 6 . . . e5 7 &i:Jdb5 d5 (7 . . . e4 8 &i:Jd6+ .txd6 9 t!t'xd6 ±) 8 &i:Jxd5 .txd5 (8 . . . lt:lxd5 9 cd i.b4+ 10 i.d2 a6 - 10 . . . .txd5 11 e4! - I I lt:lc7+ ..Wxc7 1 2 .txb4 1t"c4 1 3 .tc3 ± Mi nev) 9 cd .tb4+ 10 .td2 lt:lxd5 I I e4 a6 ( I I . . . lt:le3 1 2 .txb4 ±± ) 1 2 e d a b 1 3 .txb5+ lt:ld7 1 4 0-0 ±± Hort-Sikora, Trzyniec 1972. c) 6 . . . e6 7 e4 is the main line; here 7 .. . i.b4 transposes to 5 f3 e6 above. E21

6 lt:lc6 7 e4 e6

7 . . . 1i'b8 8 .te3 e6 is the main

line. 7 . . . lt:l xd4 8 't!Vxd4 e6 (8 . . . d6!? 9 i.g5 e6 10 c5 ! be I I 't!Va4+ �e7 1 2 e5 ! with a big attack, Santos-Soylu, Budva 198 1 ) 9 .te3 .tc5 I 0 1t"d2 0-0 I I 0-0-0 .txe3 12 1Wxe3 e5 1 3 g4! with attack , Pomar-Robatsch, Sant Feliu 1973.

8 .te3 8 lt:lxc6 .txc6!? (8 . . . de =) 9 e5

lt:lh5! (Spraggett). 8 "i!n>8

a) 8 . . . .te7 9 .te2 0-0 l 0 0-0 1t"bS ( 1 0 . . . d6 I I 't!Vd2 lt:le5 1 2 lifd l ::t:) I I f4 ( I I lt:lc2 was recommended . Then I I . . . lidS - Scoones - would meet 1 2 f4 by 1 2 . . . d5 ! 1 3 cd ed 14 e5 d4 1 5 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 etc) I I . . . lt:lxd4 1 2 1t"xd4 ! d5 ! 1 3 cd e d 14 e5 .tc5 1 5 t!t'd3 d4 =/ ro KhasinZelandinov, USSR 1 975. This is an important sideline. b) 8 . . . i.b4 !? 9 lic l lieS 10 a3 .te7 (Zai tsev) is untested. c) 8 ... i.c5!? 9 1t"d2 (9 .te2 0-0 10 0-0 d5 ! ) 9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0-0 ..We7 I I i.e2 li fdS 1 2 lihe l d5 1 3 cd lt:lxd4 1 4 i.xd4 ed 1 5 e5 lt:ld7 1 6 f4 - Spraggett-Spassky, Montpellier 19S5; 16 . . . .txd4 ! 17 1t"xd4 lt:lc5 = and . . . lt:le6 (Spraggett).

9 't!Vd2 9 i.e2 i.d6 ! is harder to meet.

9 .td6 9 . .. .tc5 1 0 i.e2 0-0 I I lid I

&i:Je5? ! ( I I . . . lidS + Taimanov) 12 lt:ldb5 ! a6 1 3 lt:ld6 V ± TaimanovTal, USSR Ch 1 973.

10 lt:ldb5! .te5

2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 213

10 . . . i.xh2 I I l hh2 ! . I I f4 i.xc3 1 2 ti:Jxc3 0-0 (2 19)

2 / 9 · � i. � · · � w �� ... - & • & � & � � • • • • �•a •

� -- · �- . - . - . � � � �

� � � � � � • �ffl, r� • • � w .

�-� � . �-� � � �D1. - � � �--·� � �-� i..� g

Now harmless is 1 3 e5 ti:Jg4 1 4 i.gl f6 1 5 1!fxd7 ( 1 5 h3 ti:Jh6 1 6 ef lhf6 1 7 i.e3 ti:Jf5 = ScoonesSpraggett, Budapest 1984. But White has two other advantageous moves: 1 3 0-0-0 J:ld8 1 4 e5 ti:Je8 I 5 c5 ti:Jb4! 1 6 'it>b i ti:Jc7 I 7 h4 i.c6 I 8 a3 ti:Jbd5 1 9 ti:Jxd5 ti:Jxd5 was Gheorghiu-Adorjan, Biel I983; 20 llh3! ti:Jxe3 2 1 1!fxe3 ± (Gheorghiu); or 1 3 i.e2 ('T Informant) I 3 . . . lld8 I 4 0-0 d 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . ti:Je7? 1 5 i.d4 ! ti:Je8 I 6 llae i ± G reenfeldMiles, London I 984) I 5 cd ed I 6 e5 t (Mi les), the point being that I 6 . . . d4 I 7 ef de I8 't!t'xe3 favours White. E22

6 d6 7 e4 e6

7 . . . g6 8 i.d3 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 I 0 0-0 ti:Jbd7 I I 't!t'd2 a6 I 2 llfd i is a Kan Sicilian, considered better for White after 't!t'f2, b4, ti:Jb3 etco.

8 i.e3

8 i.e2 i.e7 9 0-0 ti:Jbd7 (9 . . . 0-0 10 b3 !? ti:Jbd7 I I 'it>h i a6 I 2 i.b2 l:te8 13 't!t'd2, Uhlmann-Ljubojevic, Madrid I973; I 3 . . . llf8 = with the idea . . . 't!t'c7, . . . Ii:ac8, . . . 't!t'b8 ) 10 ti:Jdb5 !? ( 10 i.e3 transposes) 10 . . . 't!t'b8 I I i.f4 ti:Je5 1 2 a4 0-0 1 3 'it>h i llc8 I 4 't!t'b3 a6 1 5 ti:Ja3 i.c6 =/oo Htibner-Ljubojevic, Montreal I979.

8 i.e7 8 . . . a6 9 i.e2 ti:Jbd7 I 0 a4!? i.e7

is also playable, but not 1 0 . . . d5?! I I ed ed I2 0-0 de 13 i.xc4 ti:Je5 I4 llel ! ± Pomar-Gheorghiu, Torremolinos 1973.

9 i.e2 9 't!t'd2 0-0 10 0-0-0!? a6 I I g4

ti:Jfd7!? ( I I . . . ti:Jc6; 1 1 . . . ti:Jbd7 Plaskett) I 2 h4 ti:Jc6 1 3 g5 1!fc7 I4 'it>bl ti:Jxd4 1 5 't!t'xd4 l:t fc8 =/oo Plaskett-Akesson, Esbjerg 1982.

220 B

9 0-0 1 0 0-0 (220)

1 0 ti:Jbd7 IO . . . a6 I l 't!t'e l ( ! , since l l . . . d5

1 2 cd ed 13 e5 is strong) I I . . . lt:lbd7 ( I I . . . lle8 1 2 't!t'f2 ti:Jbd7 1 3

214 2 fi:Jj3 fi:Jj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

lilfd l ;I;) 1 2 1t'f2 ( 1 2 Wg3!? with the idea 12 . . . 1t'c7 1 3 fi:Jd5 ! 'it'dS 1 4 fi:Jxe7+ 1t'xe7 1 5 lilfe l ! can be met by 1 2 . . . lieS) 12 .. . lieS ( 1 2 . . . lilbS!? Byrne) 1 3 lilacl 1t'c7 1 4 b4 'it'bS 1 5 a3 lileS 1 6 lilfd l .idS 1 7 fi:Jb3 ( 1 7 �h l .ic7 l S t!i'gl ! Gurevich) 1 7 . . . .ic7 l S g3 .iaS ! ( l S . . . h6 1 9 .id4 lilcdS 20 a4 ! ± Seirawan-Benjamin, US Ch 19S l ) 1 9 lilb l !? ( l 9 c5!? Gurevich) 1 9 . . . d 5 ( 1 9 . . . h5 !? Gurevich) 20 cd ed 21 fi:Jxd5 .ixd5 22 ed .ixg3 ! 23 hg lilxe3 = Strauss-D.Gurevich, USA 1 9S5.

This bodes well for Black's main line position, since White has effectively saved the tempo .ifl in the above line.

1 1 t!i'd2 1 1 fi:Jdb5 'it'bS 1 2 t!i'd2 lildS ( 1 2

. . . a6 1 3 fi:Jd4 lileS = ) 1 3 lifd l a6 1 4 fi:Ja3 ? ! d5 ! + Gheorghiu-Ma rovic, Skopje 196S.

1 1 a6 Versus fi:Jdb5. 1 1 . . . fi:Jc5 !? 1 2

lifdl d5 !? 1 3 cd e d 1 4 fi:Jf5 de 1 5 't!t'e l fi:Jed7 1 6 't!t'g3 oo, with attack .

12 lilfd1 1 2 a4 lieS 13 lifd l lieS 1 4 a5? !

d5 ! 15 cd ed 1 6 fi:Jxd5 ?! .ixd5 1 7 ed fi:Jxd5 =F Panno-Ljubojevic, Madrid 1973.

1 2 lic8 a) 12 . . . t!i'c7 1 3 a4 !?. Else 1 3 liac l lilfeS 1 4 .ifl lilacS 1 5 t!i'f2 't!t'bS =, a typical line. b) 12 . . . lile8 13 .ifl lilacS ( 1 3 . . .

.i ffi 1 4 lilac l t!i'c7 1 5 b4 litacS 1 6 a 3 't!t'bS 17 fi:Jb3 t PolugayevskyLjubojevic, Bugojno 1 9SO) 14 lilac l 't!t'c7 1 5 �h l ( l 5 b4? d5! 1 6 cd .ixb4; 1 5 a3) 15 . . . 't!t'b8 16 .ig 1 .iffi = Yusupov-Tseshkovsky, USSR 19S l .

1 3 liac1 't!t'c7 Or 1 3 . . . lileS 1 4 .ifl ( 1 4 lLlc2

.iffi 1 5 .if2 't!t'c7 1 6 fi:Je3 fi:Je5 = Eising-Tarjan, Wij k aan Zee 1974) 14 . . . .iffi 15 .if2, Ogaard-Omstein, Eksjo 1 975; 1 5 . . . 't!Vc7 16 a3 li:le5 17 b3 't!t'b8 =.

14 .ifl 14 b4 d5!? . 14 't!Ve l lifeS ( 1 4 . . .

't!VbS 1 5 't!t'f2 .idS) 1 5 t!i'g3 .iffi 16 li:lb3 li:le5 1 7 t!i'f2 li:lfd7 l S li:la4 li:lc5 19 lLl xeS - I vanov-Sa von, Kishinev 1975; 19 . . . be intending . . . li:lc6, . . . e5 , . . . li:ld4 (Gufeld).

14 't!t'b8 Or, as usual, 14 . . . lieS. Here 1 5

a3 !? 't!t'bS ( 1 5 . . . li:le5 !?) 1 6 b4 .idS 17 li:l b3 li:le5 l S li:la4 d5 ! =/ro

2 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 215

a) 16 li:Jc2 i.fl! 1 7 b3 b5 =, or here 16 . . . i.d8 - com pare (b). b) 16 li:Jb3 i.d8 1 7 i.d4 i.c7 1 8 g3 lilcd8 1 9 li:Jd2, B radford-Shapiro, St. Paul 1982, and simplest is 19 . . . i.c6 =.

16 .td8 Several games have gone 16 . . .

.t fl! 1 7 li:Jc2? ( 1 7 a 3 o r 1 7 li:Jb3) 1 7 . . . li:Je5! e.g. 1 8 i.xb6 ( 1 8 li:Ja3 d5 ! ) 1 8 . . . li:Jxc4 19 i.xc4 lixc4 20 li:Je3 (20 i.d4 li:Jd7 2 1 't!rg3 lilc6 22 li:Je3 e5 23 li:Jf5 d5! =F Hort-Ljubojevic, Wij k a an Zee 1973) 20 . . . lilc6 2 1 i.a5 d5 ! 22 ed ed 23 li:Jf5 d4 ! 24 li:Jxd4 l:lc5 25 i.b6 1lh5 =F WebbHartston, British Ch 1977.

17 't!rgl Not 1 7 b4?! li:Je5 1 8 li:Ja4 d5 ! or

1 7 li:Jb3? ! i.c7 1 8 't!rg 1 ct>h8 1 9 lilc2 l:lg8 ! 20 1lcd2 g5! with attack, Taimanov-Yusupov, USSR 1 982. And 17 b3 i.c7 1 8 't!rh4 ( 1 8 li:Jde2 Yusupov) 1 8 . . . li:Je5 1 9 't!rh3 li:Jg6 20 i.g5 i.d8 2 1 lile I l:lc5 !

intending . . . 1lh5 , . . . d5 was also favourable for Black in GrigorianAgzamov, USSR 198 1 .

After the text move, Ani kayevMerkulov, USSR 1982, went 17 . . . li:Je5 (Ani kayev gives 17 . . . i.c7 18 b4 1le7 19 a3 1lce8 20 i.f2 with advantage to White; however, 1 8 . . . ct>h8 may be possible, intending . . . lilg8, . . . g5 , as above) 1 8 b3 h6 19 li:Ja4, and instead of 19 . . . d5? 20 ed ed 21 c5 b5 22 li:Jb6 ±, Anikayev gives 19 . . . li:Jfd7 20 b4 g5!? 2 1 a3 <tig7 (or 2 1 . . . ct>h7 Scoones) with a complex position, perhaps a bit in White's favour.

Conclusion: White may have some kind of theoretical edge if there is some sequence by which he achieves the a3, b4, li:Jb3 bind. Practice shows that this is a very big "if', however. For now, both of Black's basic plans - with . . . i.d8-c7 and . . . i.f8 - look quite playable.

Index of Variations and Transpositions

Transpositions abound in the Symmetrical English, and are mentioned throughout the text. This i ndex is designed to help the reader find h is way through the various move orders to the pages which cover a particular sequence of interest. Transpositions on later moves are dealt with in the text.

Unless o therwise indicated, parentheses without a page n umber mean that the enclosed moves are analysed in the note to the move preceding the parentheses, or that they are minor alternatives (discussed in the text at the beginning of the spli t into major alternatives). If the move in parentheses transposes to another part of the book, the relevant page number follows.

1 c4 c5 and·

2 lilc3 lilc6 (2 . . . Others) II 2 lilc3 lilf6 I I I 2 lilf3 I V 2 Others

2 lilc3 lilc6

2 . . . e6 3 lilf3 (3 e4 lilf6 is English 1 . . . N-KB3 Systems) 3 . . . lilf6 (3 . . . d5 4 cd ed 5 d4 or 4 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lilxd4 is Chapter 1 4) is Chapter 7 2 . . . g6 3 d4 6

2 . . . e5 3 g3 (3 lilf3 lilc6 121 ) 3 . . . lilc6 4 .ig2 d6 5 e3 6 2 . . . b6 3 e3 6

3 g3

3 e3 6 3 lilf3:

3 . . . e5 121 3 . . . g6 Chapter 10

Index of Variations and Transpositions 21 7

3 . . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lLlxd4 189) 4 . . . lLlf6 Chapter 7 3 . . . lLlf6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd is Chapter 1 3) 4 . . . g6 5 J.g2 J,g7 Chapters 3. 4

3 . . . g6 (3 . . . e6, 3 . . . e5) 4 J.gl (4 b3 , 4 a3) 4 . . . J,g7 5 lLlf3

5 a3 (5 lLlh3): 5 . . . lLlf6 (5 . . . . e5, 5 . . . J.xc3, 5 . . . a5, 5 . . . b6) 8 5 . . . e6 9 5 . . . d6 12 5 . . . a6 12

5 b3 : 5 . . . lLlf6 (5 . . . e5, 5 . . . b6, 5 . . . d6, 5 . . . J.xc3) 14 5 . . . e6 15

5 d3:

5 e4:

5 e3 :

5 . . . e6 ( 5 . . . e5, 5 . . . lLlf6, 5 . . . l:tb8 ) 1 7 5 . . . d6 1 7

5 . . . e6 ( 5 . . . e5, 5 . . . b6, 5 . . . a6) 20 5 . . . lLlf6 21

5 . . . e5 ( 5 . . . a6, 5 . . . lLlh6, 5 . . . J.xc3+, 5 . . . h5 , 5 . . . d6) 26 5 . . . lLlf6 27 5 . . . e6 29

s ... lLlf6

5 . . . a6 (5 . . . l:tb8, 5 . . . lLlh6) 50 5 . . . d6 51 5 . . . e6 52

6 0-0 (6 d3, 6 b3 , 6 h4, 6 e3, 6 a3) 54 6 d4 58

5 . . . e5 60

6 0-0 (6 d3)

6 d4 38

6 . . . 0-0

6 . . . d6 38 6 . . . d5 7 cd lLlxd5 8 lLlxd5 (8 d3, 8 ira4, 8 irb3 , 8 lLlg5) 34

7 d4 (7 d3 9) 7 . . . cd (7 . . . d5, 7 . . . d6) 8 lLlxd4 Chapter 4

218 Index of Variations and Transpositions

II

2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 g3

3 lLlf3 and:

3 . . . e6

3 . . . g6 4 d4 (4 e3 i.g7 5 d4 cd 6 ed d5 is a Grtinfeld) 4 . . . cd 5 lt:lxd4 202 3 . . . b6 4 e4 (4 e3) 4 . . . i.b7 (4 . . . d6, 4 . . . lt:lc6) 125 3 . . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lt:lxd4 is Chapter 14) Chapter 7 3 . . . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5:

5 e4 (5 li:lxd5, 5 1i'a4): 5 . . . lt:l xc3 99 5 . . . lt:lb4 100

5 d4 109 5 e3 1 1 1 5 g3:

5 . . . lt:lc7 is Chapter 6 5 . . . lt:lc6 6 i.g2 (6 'i!t'b3 , 6 lt:lxd5 ) 6 . . . g6 32 5 . . . g6 (5 . . . lt:lf6) 6 i.g2 (6 'i!t'a4+, 6 'i!t'b3) 113

3 . . . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5 5 i.g2 lt:lc7 (5 . . . lt:lf6, 5 . . . lt:lb4, 5 . . . e6 , 5 . . . lt:lb6, 5 ... lt:lxc 3 68 ) and:

4 li:lf3

6 'i!t'b3 (6 a3, 6 lt:lh3, 6 f4, 6 b3, 6 'i!t'a4+) 70 6 d3 71 6 lt:lf3 73

4 i.g2 d5 82

4 ... lt:lc6

4 . . . d5 5 cd ed (5 . . . lt:lxd5 83 ) 6 d4 is a Queen's Gambit 4 . . . a6 83 4 . . . b6 5 e4 (5 i.g2 i.b7 is Chapter 1 1 ) 5 . . . i.b7 126

5 i.g2 i.e7 (5 . . . 'i!t'b6 83 ) 6 0-0 d5 (6 . . . 0-0 83 ) 7 cd lt:l xd5 (7 . . . ed is a Queen's Gambit ) :

8 d4 0-0 (8 . . . lt:lxc3 84) 9 e4 (9 de, 9 lit b 1 ) 84 8 lt:lxd5 ed (8 . . . 1i'xd5) 9 d4 91

I l l

2 lLl f3 lLlf6

Index of Variations and Transpositions 219

2 . . . b6 3 g3 .i.b7 4 .i.g2 lLlf6, see Chapters 1 1 and 1 2 2 . . . e6 3 d4 cd 4 ll:lxd4 ll:lc6 120 2 . . . f5 120 2 . . . g6 155 2 . . . lbc6 :

3 d4 cd 4 ll:lxd4 e6 (4 . . . d5 , 4 . . . 't!t'b6) 120 3 lilc3 g6 (3 . . . e5 121 ) 4 e3 (4 a3 , 4 d4 128 ) 129

3 g3 e5 (3 . . . g6) 4 .i.g2 f5 121

3 d4 (3 e3, 3 b4, 3 b3 122 )

3 lilc3, see I I 3 g3 b6 ( 3 . . . d5 122 ; 3 . . . g6 124 ) 4 .i.g2 .i.b7 5 0-0 (5 ll:lc3 e6 6 d4 132 ; 5 ll:lc3 g6 155 ) and:

5 . . . e6 6 ll:lc3 (6 d3, 6 d4 133 ) 6 . . . .i.e7 (6 . . . a6 152 ) 7 d4 (7 b3, 7 l:i:e 1 135 ; 7 d3 137) 7 . . . cd (7 . . . 0-0, 7 . . . ll:le4 139 ) 8 Wxd4 (8 ll:lxd4 139):

8 . . . ll:lc6 140 8 . . . 0-0 140 8 . . . d6 142

5 . . . g6: 6 lilc3 (6 d4, 6 e3) 6 . . . .i.g7 7 d4 (7 d3 160) 7 . . . cd (7 . . . ll:le4 156 ) 157 6 b3 .i.g7 (6 . . . d5 161 ) 7 .i.b2 0-0 8 ll:lc3 (8 d4 162 ) 163

3 . . . cd (3 . . . d5 201 ) 4 lilxd4 ll:lc6

4 . . . d5 ( 4 . . . d6) 201 4 . . . g6 202 4 . . . a6 203 4 . . . e5 204 4 . . . b6 209 4 . . . e6:

5 g3 (5 e3, 5 ll:ldb5) 5 . . . Wc7 (5 . . . d5, 5 . . . a6, 5 . . . Wb6 185 ; 5 . . . Wa5+, 5 . . . .i.b4+ 185 ) 187 5 ll:lc3:

5 . . . .i.b4 (5 . . . b6, 5 . . . a6) 6 g3 (6 Others 189 ) :

220 Index of Variations and Transpositions

6 . . . ltJe4 190 6 . . . 0-0 193

5 . . . d5 199

5 ltJc3 (5 g3, 5 Others 166 ) 5 . . • e6 (5 . . . Others 168 ):

6 ltJdb5 : 6 . . . .i.b4 (6 . . . .i.c5, 6 . . . d6) 1 70 6 . . . d5 1 72

6 g3:

IV

2 b3

6 . . . .i.b4 (6 . . . Others) 1 76 6 . . . .i.c5 1 77 6 . . . 't!t'b6 1 79

2 e4 ltJc6 3 ltJc3 g6 4 .i.g2, see Chapter 2 2 e3 ltJf6 3 ltJc3 d5 4 cd ltJxd5 5 ltJO 1 1 1 2 g3:

2 . . . g6 (2 . . . d5 1 19) 3 .i.g2 (3 d4 1 19 ) 3 . . . .i.g7 4 ltJc3 , see Chapters l -5 2 . . . e6 3 .ig2 (3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 .ig2 b6 is Chapter I I ) 3 . . . d5 120

2 ... ltJf6 (2 . . . Others 1 1 7 ; 2 . . . e5 1 19 ) 3 .ib2:

3 . . . g6 ( 3 . . . Others) 118 3 . . . ltJc6 118

English 1 ... c5.pdf

Documents

Transcript of English 1 ... c5.pdf