Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 110

To my mother and father

THE TOURNAMENT PLAYER'S REPERTOI RE O F OPENINGS


Series Edited by R . G . Wade , O . B . E .

Sicilian: Keres Attack


Jon Kinlay

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 98 1
Jon Kinlay 1 98 1

ISBN 0 7 1 34 2 1 39 9 (limp)
Photoset by Andek Printing, London
and printed in Great Britain by
Bill ing & Son Ltd,
London, Guildford & Worcester
for the publishers
B.T. Batsford Ltd , 4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W I H OAH

A BATS FORD CHESS BOOK


Adviser: R . G . Wade
Technical Editor: P. A . L amford

Contents
Symbols
Acknowledgments
I Int roduction
2 Central Counterattacks: 6 . . . d5; 6 . . . e5
3 6 . . . h6
4 Queenside C ounterattack: 6 . . . a6
5 6 . . . lbc6; 6 . . . i.. e7
Index of Complete Games
Index of Variations

vi
vii
I
15
19
56
75
1 00
101

Symbols
+
;!; +
+
++
=

00

!
!!
!?
?!
?
??

Corres
OL
IZ
L
Ch
\.-S f

Check
Slight advantage
Clear advantage
Winning advantage
Level position
Unclear p osition
Good move
Outstanding move
Interesting move
Dubious move
Weak move
Blunder
Correspondence
Olym piad
Interz onal
League
Championship
Semi-final

Acknowledgments
My thanks are due to Graham Hillyard for checking the manuscript,
to Paul Lamford for his editorial work and especiallyto Bob Wade,

whose extensive library, friendly advice and warm hospitality were


equally invaluable. My thanks also to E,obert, whose creativity both on

and off the chess board will always be a source of inspiration, and, above
all, to my wife Margaret for her enduring support and patience.
Jonathan Kinlay,
London, July

1 98 1 .

1 Introduction

introduction will provide the reader


with an understanding of the
fundamental strategic ideas; th e
main text will deepen that under
standing and acquaint him with
the theory ; tactical ability the
reader will himself have to provide.
Origin

The Keres Attack, introduced


by the IlliO ves
cS
l
e4
e6
2 ltlf3
3
d4
cd
ltlf6
4 ltlxd4
d6
S ltlc3
6
g4
is one of the most dangerous
weapons available to White in the
Paulsen Variation of the Sicilian .
An uncompromising strategy, its
purpose is to assure W hite of an
undisputed advantage in space
and a firm grip on the centre ,
which form the basis for a direct
kingside attack with pawns . The
unbalanced positions w h ich arise
require a deep understanding of
the strategic concepts a nd a high
degree of tactical alertness to
supplement the necessary detailed
knowledge of current theory. This

The a ttack derives its name from


the Estonian grandmaster P aul
Keres , whose lucid, attacking styl e
of play placed him among the
topmost rank of chess masters of
this century. His approach to chess
strategy was clear and direct and
in his handling of openings he
displayed an extraordinary inven
tiveness.
These distinctive qualities which
typified his style were nowhere
more apparent than in the following
game in which he first experimented
with the attack which was later to
bear his name.
Keres-Bogoljubow, Salzburg 1943
l
e4
cS
2 ltle2
Another of Keres' ideas, the
pur pose of which is to retain the
option of a closed system.
e6
2
3
d4
cd

2 Introduction
4

lbxd4

lbf6

S lbc3
d6
6
g4
Keres wrote: ' Th is interesting
idea came into my mind during
the course of the game . In this
position the continuation 6 g3
followed by i.g2 was often employ
ed and an attack on the king's
wing was begun only later by f4
and g4. The thought came into my
head, however, why not save a
tempo and begin immediately
with g4?'
6
c6
It is interesting that Bogoljubow
avoided the natural attempts at
refutation, 6 . . . d5 and 6 . . . e 5 .
Perhaps he chose this solid contin
uation instinctively, or perhaps,
like Keres, he was able to convince
himself through over-the-board
analysis that the idea was sound.
In any event he must h ave found
the situation confusing and it is
not too surprising that he rather
quickly goes wrong.
g5
7
xd4?
Black quite j ustifiably desires to
simplify the position as much as
possibl e, but exchanging the knights
at this stage turns out to be an
error of judgment. The white queen
takes up a dominating position in
t he centre of the board where it
hinders both the development of
Black's pieces and his intended
expansion on the queenside - a
theme we wil l be returning to at
various stages of the analysis to
follow.

8
9

11Vxd4

lbd7

i.e3
a6
1 0 i.el
1!fc7
11
f4
b6
It now transpires that the normal
1 1 . . . b5 will merely result in a
serious weakening of Black's pawn
formation after 12 a4! since the
undesirable exchange 12 . . . ba i s
forced due to the positioning of
White's queen - directly the result
of the premature simplification on
move 7 . White's advantage is
al ready substantial .
12
fS! (2)
2
B

The concession of e5 in this way


is permissibl e onl y in special
circumstances. Here White is able
to force open the f-file by tactical
means thereby preventing Black
from castling.
12
lbe5
13
fe
fe
The point is that 1 3 . . . i.x e6 fail s
to 14 "t!f a4+ i.d7 ( 1 4 . . . 'ir d7 1 5
i.b5 ! ) 1 5 lbd5 !
14
a4
N ot immediately 14 "t!fx b6 't!Vx b6
1 5 i.x b6 lib8. The tex t move

Introduction 3

ensures that White will be able to


protect his bishop with a5 if
necessary.
14
e7
15
h4

the closed system with the advan


tages of space and piece mobility
which he enjoys in the open system.
Th e disadvantage of the variation
i s th at it is rath er slow, so it is

Renewing the th reat on the


b -pawn. Black has no time to get
castled.
15
1!Vc5
1 6 1!Vd2
1!Vc7
17
ll fl
b7
1 8 ,.td4 !
Now 1 8 . . . -0 is impossible on
account of 19 1!re3 .
18
ll f8
19
llxfl
0-0-0
i.d8
20
llxfl
Or 20 . . . c4 21 't!rf4 0-0-0 22
"it' g4 etc.
lDg6
2 1 . 't!rf4
)
22 "it'g4!
1!re7
As Keres points out, a prettier
finish would have been 22 . . . <2;>d7
23 d5 1!rc6 24 't!rxe6+ <t>xe6 25
g4 mate ! After the move played
Keres won as follows: 23 't!rh5
e5 24 e3 i.c7 25 't!rxh 7 f4
26 i.xf4 ef 27 i.h5+ <t>d7 28
i.g4+ <t>c6 29 "ft' f5 b5 30 "it' d5+
ct>b 6 31 1!rd4+ <t>c6 32 d5
1 -0.

difficult for White to generate and


sustain an attacking initiative to
offset the looseness of his open
formation. In the Keres Attack
the intention is to overcome thi&
problem by extending the fianchetto
immediately to create a fast moving
flank attack. The justification for
this is that if Black is thrown onto
the defensive at an early stage he
will be too preoccupied with his
own position to prevent White
from consolidating his initial gain
in space and subsequently pursuing
his ready-made kingside attack.
To summarise, Wh ite's aims in
the Keres Attack are to:
I) make early gains in space on the
kingside.
2) disorganise Black's forces, so
that it is difficult for him to counter
attack.
3) consolidate his position in the
centre (note that the displacement
of the knight from f6 weakens
Black's control of d5 and e4) and
on the kingside .
4) finally, pursue his kingside
attack directly with f4, f5 and h4,
h5 etc.
Turning to Black's viewpoint,
there are a numb er of different
strategies he can follow. We will
examine:
A) rapid counteraction with 6 ... d5
or 6 . . . e5.

Basic Strategies

Keres' comments on the game


in which he first experimented with
the attack provide an important
insight into its rationale and the
underlying strategic concepts. In
the 6 g3, 7 i.g2 varition to which
Keres refers White's aim is to
combine the pattern of strategy of

4 Introduction

B) restraint on the kingside with 6


... h6.
C) counterattack on the queenside
by means o f 6 . . . a6 and . . . b5.
D) simple dev elopment with 6 . . .
ltlc6 o r 6 . . . e 7.

J.b5+! J.d7 8 J.xd7+ 1!rxg7 9 ltlf5


h5 1 0 J.g5 ltlxg4 I I h3 (4).
Afte r 1 1 . . . ltlf6 1 2 J.xf6 gf 1 3
ltld5 Whit e has complete control.

A) 6

B) 6

...

d5; 6

...

e5

After 6 . . . dS Black is saddled


with an isolat ed pawn and White
gains a subst antial development

adv antage . One example: 6 . . . dS 7


ed ltlxd5 8 J.b5+ J.d7 9 ltlxd5 ed
1 0 't!Ve2+ 1!re7 1 1 J.e3 g6 1 2
xd7+ ltlxd7 1 3 lObS ltle5 1 4 0-0- 0
Fischer-Reshevsky , USA Ch
1 966/ 67 (3).

Diagram 4 shows a typical


outcome fro m the move 6 . . e5,
.

which seri o us ly weakens Black's


white square control: 6 . . . e5 7

..

h6

Black shores up his defences to


av oid t he disorganisation of his
forces which results from g4-g5 .
At t he same time, howev er, t he
move provides a target for Whit e's
kingside att ack .
There are t hree ways in which
White can proceed:
B 1) open up lines immediately
with 7 g5.
B2) reinforce his grip on the centre
by fianchettoing the bishop.
B3) make further preparations for
the attack with 7 I!g l .
Bl) 7 g5
This is a popul ar line of play in
which White breaks early on the
kingside to gain greater scope for
his pieces. To offset the weakening
of his pawn structure he has the
open g-file and a strong bishop on
g5 which hampe rs the action of
Black's pieces while enhancing his
o wn control of the centre . His
strategy is to restrict his opponent
by pushing the f- and h-pawns,
looking for opportunities for a
break with e5 and actio n along the
g-file.
Black usually handles the position
slowly, castling long and gradually
u ntangling his position with . . .
J.e7 and . . . llJg8 (5) .

Introduction 5
5
B

From diagram 5 : 1 5 . . . .tc8 1 6

.tf3 (preventing 1 6 . . . d5) 1 6 . . . 1Wc7

( 1 6 . . . lih7 1 7 1!V e2 lDg8 1 8 lihg 1


.txg5 1 9 lixg5 !i:J ge7 20 lDd5 ! ed
2 1 ed ;!; Skrobek-Adamski, P olish
Ch 1 977) 17 b 1 !i:J g8 18 lidg 1
(White saves a tempo in this way)
1 8 . . . lih7 19 \t f2 .txg5 20 lixg5
(;!;) 20 . . . f!J ge7 2 1 lid 1 g6 22 hg
!i:J xg6 23 li h5 lig7 24 lig 1 ligg8
25 lihg5 !i:J ge7 26 .th5 lixg5 27
lixg5 f5 with equality, Karpov
Andersson, Skara 1 980.
But Black can also break quickly
with . . . a6 and . . . b5 (6):
6
w

1!V xf5 1 9 1!V xf5 ef - Razuvayev


Commons, L ublin 1978 - 20
.txd5 ) 1 4 lDa4 e5 1 5 fe de 1 6 h3
.te6 17 1!V f2 !i:J d7 with a fine
position for Black, Nunn-Ghinda,
Dortmund 1 979.
B2) 7 .t g2
A more sedate system which
nevertheless deserves attention .
White strengthens his position
centrally before carrying forward
his kingside attack . He can opt for
either king- or queenside castling,
the latter offering the better attack
ing opportunities though naturally
incurr ing greater risk. The emphasis
of the attack has shifted from the
wing to the centre so that instead
of steering for a g5 advance White
will be looking for opportunities
to push forward with e5 or f4-f5.
Black's typical plan for counter
action is to wait for White's f4
a dvance and then liquidate in the
centre with . . . !i:J xd4 and . . . e5,
when the outcome of the struggle
will depend on how well each side
makes use of the resulting open
fi les.
One example scenario:
7
B

From diagram 6: 1 3 .ig2 (the


simple 1 3 a3 needs testing) 1 3 . . .
b4! ( 1 3 . . . .ib7 1 4 't!Ve3 ! b 4 1 5 lDa4
lDd7 1 6 e 5 ! d5 1 7 f5 ! 't!Vxe5 1 8 \t f2

6 Introduction

1 1 . . . lt!xd4 1 2 .t xd4 e5 1 3 .te3


ef 1 4 .txf4 .te6 1 5 0-0-0 0-0 1 6
'it>b l (White has only a slight pull
in this position and the way he
develops his attack using the f- and
e-files is most instructive) 16 . . .
llac8 1 7 1!V d2 llfd8 1 8 llhfl lt!e8? !
1 9 .te3 .tf6 20 lt!d5 .txd5 2 1 ed
.te5 22 h4 1Wc4 23 g5 h5 24 .tf4 g6
25 llde l .txf4 26 ll xf4 \!Vc5 27
lle7 with a winning attack in
Horvath-Stean, Virovitica 1 977.
B3) 7 llgl
This move introduces an inter
esting alternative to the more
commonplace plans outlined in B 1 .
White's intention i s to run through
on the kingside with h2-h4, g4-g5
followed by an eventual g5-g6.
The pawn attack will be all the
more dangerous now that Black's
kingside defences have been weak
ened and it is therefore incumbent
on the second player to seek active
counterplay as quickly as possible.
R outine operations will permit
White to complete his development
wi th .te3, .te2, 1!V d2 and 0-0-0
and then pursue his strategy with
h4 etc, so attention focuses on the
more dynamic . . . d5. This break
has the effect of shifting the
emphasis away from the wing to
the centre, so precipitating an
immediate struggle for superiority
in that sector of the board. Although
Black is rather better prepared for
the contest than after 6 . . . d5
discussed in section A , he once
again runs the positional risk of an
isolated d-pawn and faces tactical

t hreat s from Whit e's rapidly mobil


ised pieces.
By way of illust ration we consider
t he position shown in diagram 8 ,
arising from t h e game Karpov
Spassky, Tilburg 1 980.
8
w

The continuation was 9 .tb5


.td7 1 0 ed lt!xd5 1 1 lt!xd5 ed 1 2
.te3 ! (White aims t o control the
square in front of the isolated
pawn and shapes up for an attack
on h6 in case Black should castle
short) 12 . . . .te7 13 't!Vd2 .txh4
(not so much pawn grabbing as an
attempt to secure a sanctuary for
the bishop on f6 where it can
defend the kingside) 14 0-0-0 .tf6
1 5 lt!f5 .txf5 1 6 gf a6 (after 1 6 . . .
d 4 1 7 .txd4 .txd4 1 8 \!Vxd4 1!V xd4
19 .txc6+ be 20 ll xd4 Black's
endgame prospects are bleak) 1 7
.txc6+ b e 1 8 .tc5 ll b 8 1 9 b 4 llb5
20 llge l + d7 21 c4 .
C) 6 . . . a6

The system where Black engages


in an early minority attack with . .. a6
and . . . b5 is the most energetic at
his disposal. It is also the most
dangerous plan for the second

Introduction 7

player since it allows White a free


hand to pursue his ambitions on
the other fl ank. Evidence suggests
that Black's most productive for
mation in this line is the placement
of his knights on b6 and d7, in
preparation for occupation of c4
o r in some cases .a n exchange
sacrifice on c3. White's optimal
development is less easy to define
and it is an open question whether
it is better to- bring the major pieces
into play at an early stage or to
concentrate on forcing concessions
with an immediate pawn storm
an early h4 followed by h5 and
eventually g5-g6 seems to be one
of the most promising plans , - but
we examine one or two of the
options. 1
After 7 g5 .!t::l fd7 8 .te3 (8 llg 1 is
interesting, as is 8 .tc4 reaching a
type of Sozin position) 8 . . . b5 9
a3 we divide into:
C 1 ) 9 . . . .!t::l b6
C2) Other formations
Cl) 9
.!t::l b6
As indicated earlier this plan is
likely to be Black's best bet and
can be precarious for White,
particularly if he routin ely castles
queenside, as the game Korsunski
Timoshchenko, USSR 1 979, illus
trates (diagram 9).
The game follows three phases:
1) occupation of c4; 2) exchange
sacrifice on c3 to demolish White's
centre; and finally 3) switch to
direct attack on the king.
1 2 . . . llc 8 13 .td3 .!t::l c4 14 .txc4
llxc4 1 5 llhe 1 .!t::l c5 1 6 .ig 1 .te7 !
...

(enticing White's next) 1 7 b3 ll xc3


18 ti' xc3 .!t::l xe4 1 9 ti'f3 't!Va8 20
\!Vg4 0-0 21 lld3 d5 22 llh3 .txa3+
23 'it>b 1 't!Vd8 ! 24 lld 1 1!ra5 =f=f.
White's other major piece d evel
opment strategies compris e llg 1
and 't!Vg4, and the two have been
combined although without any
particularly noticeable effect. Here
we take a look at the latter scheme,
this being rather less well mapped
out than the llg 1 plan. White's
intention in seeking a more active
role for the queen is to pressurise
Black's kingside, particularly the
e6 square , in the hope of forcing
positional concessions for his pawns
to exploit - the reverse side of those
h4 plans in which the pawns do the

8 Introduction

initial softening up. If we consider


the position in diagram 10, it is
clear that comparisons with the
position shown in diagram 9 are in
order, in which White's formation
has a more passive look to it. Here
Black's most natural move is 12 ...
llc8, when in view of the routine
exchange sacrifice inte nded White
should test the pote ncy of his own
threats with 13 g6!? hg 14 li:lxe6!?
fe I5 't!r xg6+ <i; e7 I6 f5 li:lf6 I7 e5!?
In the game Kuijpers-Ei sing, Wij k
aan Zee I 974, Black decided that
the th reats were too dangerous
and played 12 ... g6. White logically
followed the plan of weakening
the kingside as much as possible
and then switched to the centre for
the final breakthrough : I 3 h4 h5
(or 13 ... lieS I 4 h5 llxc3 I5 hg! )
I 4 gh lDf6 I 5 't!r g i lDc4 I 6 i.xc4 be
1 7 ll h2 \!Vc7 I S e5 de I 9 fe 't!r xe5?
20 lle2 "@ h5 2I i.g5 li:ld5 22 lDxe6!
fe 23 llxe6! rM7 24 lDxd5 .
Finally in section C I we cover
briefl y the strategy behind the
move 10 h4 with which White has
scored several notable victories.
After the h-pawn reaches the fifth
rank White has to protect or
reposition hi s rook before the
threat of g5-g6 can become concrete.
The older method was llg i which
has the defect of allowing Black to
cover with . . . g6. We use as a
model a more recent game which
illustrates the modern method.
From the position in diagram
I I the game Savareide-Markovic,
Malta (Women's OL) I 980, went

on I2 llh3! (this unusual manoeuvre


has the benefit of preventing . . .
g 6 b y maintaining the pressure o n
the h-fi le) I 2 . . . \!Vc7 I 3 g6!? h g I 4
h g li:lxg6 (or I 4 . . . llxh3 I 5 gf+) I 5
llxh8 lDxh8 I 6 \!Vh5 lDg6 I 7 i.h3
(White already has considerable
pressure for the pawn and in the
next phase of the game she capital
ises on the ope n files and her
opponent's mistakes ! ) I7 . . . e5? I S
lDf5 li:le7 I 9 't!r h8 ! lDxf5 20 e f i.b7
2 I 0-0-0 li:lc4 22 f6 ! gf 23 't!r xf6
lDxa3? (irrelevant) 24 llg i i.c8 25
llg8 ! i.xh3 26 llxf8 + I -0.
C2) Other formations
Lines in which Black refrains
from the aggressive . . . li:lb6 forma
tion pose fewer difficulties for the
first player. Not only are Black's
threats o n the quee nside easier to
meet but his control of the d5
square is weakened, offering White
opportunities to play f4-f5 when
the response ... e5 will be positionally
or tactically undesirable. The usual
range of strategies are available to
White as outlined in section C I
and here we concentrate on a single
interesting example which illustrates

Introduction 9

several of the pri ncipal themes.

22 1!b h7 llJ xe4 23 Iil xf7 Iil xf7 24


1!rg8+ Iil f8 25 1!rxg6+ ct>d7 26
llJ xe4 .txe4 27 Wxe4 .
D) Simple Development Strategies:

6 ... li'l c6; 6 ... .te7

The posl tl on in diagra m 1 2


arises from the game Fedorowicz
P etrosian, Hastings 1977/78. White
has already co mmitted his queen
to the attack (cf. diagr am 1 0) and
stands ready to open the bidding
with f4-f . Black reacts unsteadily,
gaining a tempo on the queen only
to fall back on the defensive at
once: 1 1 . . . lik eS ?! 1 21i' h3 (pi nning
the h-pa wn in preparati on for g5g6) 1 2 . . . g6 (per haps Black
had intended 12 . . . li'l b6, only now
realising the consequences of 13 f4
li'l ec4 1 4 .txc4 llJxc4 1 5 g6! ) 1 3 f4
llJ c6 1 4 Iil g 1 "t!Vc8 1 5 f5 llJc5 (in . . .
llJb6 lines Black would have been
happy to play . . . e5, covering d5
wi th his pieces) 16 fe fe 17 .txb5 !
(Black has taken steps to protect
the pawn on e6 but in so doing has
weakened his d-pawn: the text is
therefore j ustifi able as a tacti cal
means of exploiting this posi tional
weakness) 17 . . . ab 1 8 llJdx b5 llJd8
19 Iil gf l .te7 20 1!f h6 llJf7 2 1 't!Vg7
(completing the penetrati o n on
the dark squares; there follows a
mopping up operati on) 2 1 . . . Iil f8

The strategic concepts underlying


the 6 . . . li'l c6 and 6 . . . .te7 lines are
difficult to pi n down in exact terms.
Whereas in other variations Black
follows clear policies of restraint or
counterattack, here he adopts no
particular str ategic plan but instead
concentrates on avoiding weak
nesses and on co mpleting his
development as rapidly as possible.
His i ntention is to regroup his
forces during the early midd le game
and then draw up his plan according
to the requirements of the position
as he sees them, taking into account
the particular method of dev elop
ment which White has opted for.
The i dea i s that by retai ning
maxi mum flexibility in his positi on
he will be able to cope with any
conti ngency and later on exploit
the positional weaknessesi ncurred
by White in the openi ng. On the
debit side, the main criticism which
can be made of these lines i s that
they are essentially passive , and
White shoul d aim to exploit thi s by
adopting simple, forceful methods.
There i s no shortage of options
from whi ch Whi te may choose,
and we exami ne a number of these
i n turn.
6 ... llJc6 7 g5 llJd7
Dl) 8 .te3
A non-com mittal move whi ch

10 Introduction

Whit e can follow up wit h queenside


cast ling and a rapid kingside att ack,
or Karpov's idea of cent ral act ion,
among ot her plans. Diagram 1 3
shows a t ypical position arising
from the former plan. Scent ing
White's intent ion of going for an
attack with h4-h5 and g5-g6 Black
has himself made preparations for
an all-out assault on the opposite
wing. As the sequel shows, the
outcome of the struggle is decided
by White's capability to adequately
defend his own king while making
use of his superiority in the centre
to even tually open up lin es to his
opponent's.

1Wxg2 1 -0.
Anot her illust rat ion of the king
side v queenside att ack t heme is
provided by the game Alexandria
Kozlovskaya , Tbilisi 1 979, which
once again shows the- strength of
the plan of breaking open Black's
pawn barrier by attacking the
white squares with h4-h5 followed
by g5-g6.

13
w

Mednis-Timman, Sombor 1 974,


continued 1 5 h4 a5 16 h5 a4 1 7 g6
b3? (more resilient was 1 7 . . . fg 1 8
hg h6) 1 8 gf+ <3t xf7 1 9 cb ab 20 a3 !
(Black's play o n the queenside is
. now essentially dead) 20 . . . h6 2 1
llhfl lL!xd4 2 2 lL!xd4 <3t e8 2 3 't!r f2
.tc8 (both sides have managed so
far to defend adequately but now,
after due preparation, White breaks
open the centre) 24 e5 llb6 25 f5 !
.tb7 26 fe de 27 't!r g3 .txg2 28
't!r g6+ <3t d8 29 ltlb5+ lld6 30

The sequel was 15 . . . .tc6


(preparing . . . a5) 1 6 f5 ! (White
reasons that with her pawn attack
so far advanc ed the concession of
e5 is of lesser significance than the
pressure which this move brings to
bear on Black's light squares) 1 6
.. . lL!e5 1 7 .ih3 .td7 ( 1 7 . . . lL!c4 1 8
't!Vf2 ltlxe3 1 9 't!Vxe3 e 5 20 ltld5
.ixd5 21 ll xd5 likewise leaves
Black with a substantial inferiority
on account of the weakness on d5
and the passivity of her pieces) 1 8
h 5 a 5 1 9 g6 h g 20 hg llxh3 (this
exchange sacrifice alleviates some
of the im mediate pressure: on 20
. . . b4 there would follow 21 gf+
lL!xf7 22 fe ) 2 1 gf+ lL!xf7 22
llxh3 b4 23 fe be 24 ef+ <3; e7 25
.tg5+ 'i!> xf7 26 1!Vd5+ <3; g6 27

Introduction 11

lixc3 1!V b8 28 ll g3 1 -0.


Finally in this section we take a
look at a plan devised by Karpov,
the essence of which is to break
open lin s in the centre by sacrificial
means in an attempt to exploit the
exposed position of Black's king.
Naturally there are many fine
points to this strategy and the
reader is advised to take note in
particular. of the idea behind
White's 1 2th move.
15
w

of which is to apply pressure to


Black's d-pawn, which has been
temporaril y weakened by the retreat
of the knight to d7. In order to
defend the pawn Black's pieces
will be forced to take up exposed
positions in the centre where they
are subject to further harassment
by White's forces. The line can
thus be said to be tactically biased
with primary emphasis on rapid
development and piece play, factors
likely to be favoured by K eres
Attack players.
One example should be sufficient
to highlight the main features of
the variation.
16
B

The game Karpov-Dorfman ,


USSR Ch 1976, continued 1 2 llJxc6!
(drawing the queen to the c6 square
so that after the knight sacrifice on
d5 White will be able to recapture
with gain of tempo: note also the
crucial role played by White's
queen acting along the e-file - the
point behind it s peculiar looking
development on e2) 12 ... 't!Vxc6 1 3
.id4 b4 1 4 llJd5 ! ed 1 5 .txg7 llg8
16 ed 't!Vc7 17 .tf6 llJe5 18 .txe5 de
19 f4! .if5 20 .th3 .txh3 2 1 lixh3
lieS 22 fe with three pawns and a
tremendous amount of play for
the piece .
D2) 8 llJdb5
An enterprising move, the point

Szabo-Ivkov, Hilversum 1 973,


went 1 0 ... .td7 (on 1 0 ... a6 White
has the tactic I I 0-0-0! bc4 1 2
.txc4 llJxc4 1 3 .txd6: Black's best
is probably 10 .. . g6) I I .txe 5 !
(rarely a good move in this line but
here justifiable on tactical grounds,
e. g. I I . . . g6 12 .txd6!) I I . .. de 1 2
g6! a 6 ! 1 3 gf+ e7 1 4 a 3 'f/c7 1 5
0-0-0 g 6 1 6 1!Vh4+ xf7 1 7 c4
xc4 1 8 .txc4 .te7 1 9 1!Vg3 ! (an
i mportant improvement on 1 9
'f/g4 after which Black c a n gain a

12 Introduction

t empo with . . . h 5 , which could


become necessary later on) 19 . . .
litad8 2 0 .tb3 .tc8 2 1 h 4 llxd 1 +
2 2 li:lxd 1 ! (instead of the routine
22 llxd 1 White maintains the
rook on the h-file where it is doing
some useful work while at the same
time improving the prospects of
his knight) 22 . . . lld8 23 h5 g5 24
lDe3 h6 25 1!r g4 <M 6 26 a3 "t!rd6 27
b l g7 28 litd 1 1!r c6 29 llxd8
.txd8 30 'ttf3 1!r e8 3 1 lDg4 "t!rxh 5
32 W c3 ! Wxg4 33 1!r xc8 and
White eventually won .
03) 8 .tg2
One of the slower plans at
White's di sposal, whi ch can never
theless prove effecti ve if Black
does not respond energetically.
The intention is to bolster the
centre prior to further operations
on the kingside (h4, f4 etc) while at
the same time restraining Black's
queenside counterplay as far as
possible. For his part the second
player should take note of a shi ft of
emphasis and instead of following
a routine pattern of development
( . . . .te7, . . . 0-0) should himself
take up acti ve operations in the
centre . The typical manoeuvre . . .
lDde5, . . . li:l xd4 followed b y . . . li:l c6,
illustrated in the following game,
fulfils the primary requirement
for reducing material and solves
the problem of the congestion
amongst Black's pie ces, ensuri ng
a level game. From diagram 17 Tai
Malich, Halle 1974, continued I I
f4 lDxd4 1 21!t' xd4 lDc6 1 3 fi'f2 b5
1 4 .te3 llb8 15 0-0-0 lDa5 1 6 e5 !?

17
w

(the logi cal course of events would


be 16 f5 lDc4 1 7 g6, but in contrast to
the game Alexandria-Kozlovskaya
- see diagram 1 4 - Black is able to
handle the pressure on the light
squares since his bishop still stands
on c8 while White's will require
another tempo in order to reach the
appropriate posting on h3) 16 . . . d5
17 .txd5!? b4! 1 8 li:l e4 ed 19 lDxd6+
.txd6 20 ed1!t' c6! (20 . .. Wxd6 2 1
.tc5 followed b y 22 llhe I + is
awkward for Black) 21 f5 0-0 22
f6 ! b3! 23 ab lDxb3+ 24 '.!? b l 1!r a4
25 cb1!t' e4+ 26 '.!? a2 llb5 27 .tc5 !
d4! 2 81!t' xd41!t' c2 291!t' c4 Wxc4 30
be llxc5 3 1 d7 .txd7 32 llxd7 with
a level ending.
6 ... .te7 7 g5 li:lf d 7

These li nes bear a close affinity


to those arising from the 6 . . . lDc6
variation and i ndeed a great number
of transpositions are possible.
However, it is not altogethe r clear
what the attracti ons of the move
are , si nce in comparable 6 . . . lDc6
lines Black generally leaves the
piece on f8, preferri ng to use the
sorely needed tempo to secure

Introduction 13

some counterplay in the centre or


on the queenside . The move does
give Black the option of castling
short early on, but this is rarely
advisable given the strength of
White's attack. On these grounds
it would appear that White should
do no worse than in analogous 6 . . .
li:lc6 lines and i n addition t o the
standard plan of pushing the f
and h-pawns he has other inviting
possi h ili ties.
D4) 8 i.e3
This gives ri se to positions similar
to those discussed in section D 1 .

Without a positive response by


Black White will simply roll through
with i.h3, f5 etc, as the game
Alexandria-Kozlovskaya, Rio de
Janeiro 1 979, illustrates: 10
't!Vc7 ( 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.h3 li:lxd4 1 2
't!r xd4 b5 1 3 0-0-0 Iil e8 1 4 f5 i s vir
tually untenable for Black, Kostro
Baumgartner, Corres 1 975) 1 1
i.h3 lDc5 1 2 f5 b5 1 3 a3 lDxd4 1 4
't!r xd4 e5 1 5 lDd5! \t d8 1 6 't!r c3 i.b7
1 7 i.xc5 i.xd5 1 8 0-0-0! i.b7 1 9
f6! g f 20 gf \t c7 2 1 fe \t xc5 2 2 \t f3
't!r c4 23 't!r f6 i.xe4 24 i.d7+ ! '.!? xd7
25 \t xd6 .

Belyavsky-Vogt , L eningr ad 1 977,


shows the right way for Black, viz
to break up the pawn roller at
once before it breaks on his kingside
defences: 10
h6! 1 1 't!r f3 (there
does not appear to be any method
for White to avoid the ensuing
simplification: 1 1 i.g2 hg 12 hg
Iil xh 1 + 1 3 i.xh 1 lDxd4 14 \t xd4
e5 1 5 't!r d2 ef 16 i.xf4 lDe5 is about
equal, but 1 1 i.h3 deserves a closer
look) 1 1 . . . li:lxd4 12 i.xd4 hg 1 3
hg Iil xh 1 1 4 't!r xh 1 e 5 1 5 i.f2 ef 1 6
0-0-0 i.xg5 1 7 \t h8 + lt) f8 1 8 lDd5
with chances for both sides .
DS) 8 Iil g1
This move is rather more effect ive
than in compa rable 6 . . . lDc6 lines,
since given Black's less act ive
approach White has more time t o
make preparations. He can follow
up in much the same way as in 0 4
with f4, h4 etc, but here we
exa mine an alternative strategy
based on an attack with pieces.
...

19
B

...

Faced with the dual th reats of


lDxe6 and g6 Black is virtually
forced to castle. White will than
play Iil g 1 -g3, when the threat of

14 Introduction

lith3 will force the weakness . . . g6,


presenti ng a useful target for th e
h-pawn. Van Riemsdijk-Najdorf,
Sao Paolo I978, continued from
diagram I 9 with lO 0-0 I I 0-0-0
...

liteS I 2 lilg3 g6 1 3 't!r e2 .tf8 I 4


<t>b I 'ttc 7 I 5 h4 lbxd4 I 6 J.. xd4 b 5
I 7 h 5 b 4 I S lba4 .ib7 I 9 h g fg 20
b3 leaving White with most of the
positional trumps.

2 Central Counterattacks: 6

. . .

d5;

e5

In response to White' s unortho


dox kingsi d e initiative it is natural
for Black to c onsider the possibility
of an early counterattack in t he
centre, in accordance with Nimzo
witsch' s axiom that this is the
appropriate reaction to an attack
on the flank. If successful such
action wo uld completely disrupt
the develpment o f White' s strategy
and expose the weaknesses incurred
by the knight' s pawn' s advance .
While in general the validity of
Nimzowitsch' s maxim may not be
challenged, the Keres Attack is
something of an exception to the
normal rules. As we shall see,
neither of the two candidates for
direct central action is an effective
antidote to White' s wing attack.
The reason for this is that despite
its an tipositional lo ok the move 6
g4 is not merely a tactical device
initiating an assault on the kingside.
It is intended, through the displace
ment of B lack' s knight and the
consequent disorganisation of his
forces, to weaken the second
player' s control of the centre,
bringing about an abrupt shift in
the balance of power in that

important sector of the board.


A 6 . . . d5
B 6 ... e5
A
6
d5 (20)
20
w

This appealing move rather


rebounds on Black by giving White
a lead in development and a stron g
attacking position after . . .
ed
7
Not 7 .ib5+ .id7 8 ed (8 .ixd7+
was tried in the game Stein-Castro,
Havana OL 1 966, which continued
8 . . . "t!rxd7 9 e5 i0 e4 1 0 i0 ce2 i0 c6
1 1 i0 xc6 Wxc6 1 2 i0 d4 Wa6 +) 8
.ixb5 9 i0 dxb5 a6 1 0 i0 d4 i0 xd5
when Black' s position is preferable,
being free of weaknesses.
i0xd5
7
White has a winning position
...

16 6

...

d5; 6

...

e5

a fter 7 . . . ed 8 .tb 5+ .td7 9 't!re2+


't!re7 10 g5.
8 .t bS + (21)
21

So fa r P anov-K otov, USSR


1 9 39 , which was followed in the
game N ikitin-Cherepkov, Moscow
v L eningrad 1 95 8 . The latter went
on 1 1 . . . <M8 12 .txd7 xd7 ( 1 2 . . .
't!rxd7 1 3 .te3 c6 1 4 0-0-0 was
Bebchuk-Shamkovich, USSR 1 958)
13 .tf4 't!ra5+ 14 c3 lieS 1 5 xe7
't!rc5 16 .te3 't!rxe 7 1 7 0-0-0 .
B
eS (23)
6
--.-ro-=-

23

This is the move which causes


a ll the problems f or Black. White's
piece s now bec ome extremely active
and Blac k's increasingly clumsy.
8
i.d7
ed
9 xdS
10 't!re 2+
.te7
Reshevsky tried 10 ... 't!re7a ga inst
Fischer in the USA Ch of 1 966/6 7
but af ter 11 .te3 g6 ( 11 . . . a6 1 2
.txd7+ x d7 1 3 f5 't!re6 1 4 0-0-0
0-0-0 1 5 't!rd3 f6 1 6 li[ he 1 ) 1 2
.txd7+ xd7 1 3 b5 e5 1 4 0-0-0
.tg7 1 5 li[ xd5 0-0 1 6 li[ hd 1 his
position was hardly enviable.
11 fS! (22)

White has here two alternatives,


the second of which is the more
logical and effective :
B 1 7 f5
B2 7 .tb5+ !
B1
7 fS
This i s the 'book' move , which
gives Black some possibilities for
counterplay.
7
hS
8
gS
This is the only atte mpt for a
real advantage . It's messy, but
then this is a position that demands
some brute force . In the game
A. Zaitsev-P ersitz, Cor res 1 966,
White tried the more restrained 8
.tg5 but his position began to slip

6
after 8 ... hg! (8 .. .i.e6? is too slow:
9 gh .i.xfS 10 ef .i.e7 I I h6
Bagirov-Morsovich, USSR 1 960)
9 lt:l e3 .i.e6 10 Wd2 lt:l c6 1 1 0-0-0
lt:ld4 12 .i.xf6 gf 1 3 lt:lb5 't!Vb 6 ! 14
lt:lxd4 ed 1 5 Wxd4 't!rxd4 1 6 Ilxd4
.i. h6 =F. B la c k ha d more than
sufficient compensation fo r the
broken pawns in terms of his very
active piece play.
lt:lxe4
8
9 lt:lxg7+
.txg7
1 0 lt:lxe4
d5
1 1 . lt:lg3 (24)
.

...

d5: 6

..

e5 1 7

could ra pid ly prove fa tal after 1 4

lt:lh5 Ilh7
13
14
15

1 5 lt:lxg7+ Ilxg7 1 6 1!fh5 .


.txh5
lt:lxh5
i.xh5
lt:lc6
.tg4 (25)

25
B

24
B

A rather deceptive pos1t10 n .


Black, though in ful l command o f
the centre, i s under considerable
pressure on the kingside where the
really important action is taking
place.
11
i.g4
This represents some improve
ment over the move 1 1 . . . h4? after
which there followed in the game
N eielov-Romanov, C orres 1 966,
12 lt:lh5 Ilh7 13 lt:lxg7+ lit xg7 1 4
t!Y h5 with a pow erful initiative .
1 2 .tel
't!rd7
Again the attempt to save the
pawn by 12 . . . .txe2 1 3 't!rxe2 h4

Although B lack has some com


pensati on for the pawn his position
is marred by his inability to
remove his king from the centre in
order to continue active opera tions
there . White will slowly orga nise
his development, castle queenside
and run the h-pawn.
B2
7 .tb5+ ! (26)

7
.td 7
Black cannot avoid the exchange
of bishops ai though it emphasises
his weakness on the white squares.

18 6 . . d5; 6 . . . e5
.

7 . . . li:lbd7 is too cumbersome: 8


li:lf5 a6 9 .txd7+ '@xd7 1 0 g5 lilg8
I I lild5 and White's position is
overwhelming.
'@xd7
8 .txd7+
Unsatisfactory is 8 . . . ll:l bxd7 9
lilf5 lilb6 (9 . . . li:lc5 1 0 f3 ) 1 0 g5
g6 ! ? II lile3 lilh5 12 ll:l ed5 .
9 lilfS
hS (27)
27
w

ll:l xe4 I I ll:l xg7+ .txg7 1 2 ll:l xe4


d5, O'Kelly-Christoffel, Groningen
1 946. Gipslis gives 10 f3 hg I I fg g6
( I I . . . lila6 1 2 "& e2 Keller-Rat,
Switzerland 1 96 1 ) 12 lile3 lilc6 1 3
"& f3 .tg7 1 4 li:lcd5 ll:l xd5 1 5 lilxd5
ll:l d4 16 "& g2 . The text is rather
more dynamic and in keeping with
Keres' style .
ll:l xg4
10
11
h3
(Keres).
lilf6
11
gf
12
.txf6
1 3 li:ldS (28)
28
8

On 9 . . . g6? 1 0 .tg5 ! is rather


unsettling: 10 . . . ll:l xg4 I I "& xg4 gf
12 "& h4 with 13 li:ld5 to come .
10
.tgS!
Keres' move and typically a very
active one. Far less clear is 10 gS

White has a winning position.

3 6 ... h6

29
w

concede White a large spatia l


advantage (with all the dangers
which that entails) so early on in
the opening, and the psychologica l
feeling of security which the second
player gains by containing White's
initiative in this wa y is not to be
despised.
If we tum our attention to
White's viewpoint we fi nd that
there are two pa tterns of strateSY
from which he ca n choose. He
may break a t once with 7 g5 or
prepare the advance by fi rst extend
'
ing his piece development in one
fashion or another (7 .t. g2, 7 lilg l).
Opening principles are too crude a
yardstick with which to attempt to
measure the relative merits of the
two plans and the reader is advised
to familiarise himself with both
types of position before deciding
which line to follow. Ideally White
should have one or two (new) tricks
up his sleeve with which to meet
this variation.
We will divide our analysis as
follows:
A 7 g5
B 7 .t. g2
C 7 lit g l and other moves.
A
7
gS
hg
8 .t.xgS (30)

Lines in which Black plays the


restraining 6 . . . h6 are an important
and popular branch of the opening.
The idea behind the move is, of
course, to impede White's progress
on the kingside until Black's
defencei are sufficiently organised
to launch an effective counter
action. While it is true that Black
can avoid the loss of time and
disorganisation of his pieces which
trouble him in othe r variations,
the move 6 . . . h6 suffers from the
drawback of allowing White gr eater
opportunities to ope n lines on the
kingside. On balance the extra time
which Black buys is insu fficient
compensation in itself for the
weakening of his pawn structure
which loses a considerable amount
of its defensive resilience as a result.
It is , however, understandable
that Black should be unwilling to

20 6 . h6
..

30

This position is quite possibly


the most importa nt tha t can a rise
from 6 g4, representing White's
most reputa ble attempt for an
adva ntage against Black's most
solid defence . It has arisen in
games at the highest standards of
play with world class players
championing both the white and
bla ck pieces, and it is for this reason
tha t I shall spend some considerable
time a na lysing the strategic elements
of the position in order to familiarise
the rea der with it as thoroughly as
possible .
I begin by drawing the reader's
attention to the similarity of the
position shown in the diagram to
that which arises from the Richter
Rauzer line 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 lbc6 3 d4
cd 4 lbxd4 ltlf6 5 lbc3 d6 6 .i.g5 e6.
Since Black in the Keres Attack
position almost invariably plays
. . . ltlc6 sooner or later the diff erences
between the two positions amount
to the following: White has gained
the open g-file which he can use to
put pressure on his opponent's
kingside , while Black has the h-file
and some possibilities of exploiting

White's now wea kened f3 squa re


by bringing a knight to e5 where it
a tta cks both c4 a nd f3 a t the sa me
time . An importa nt considera tion
a lso a re Bla ck's improved end
ga me prospects brought a bout by
the wea kening of the white pa wn
structure, a lthough this long term
benefit is a mply compensa ted by
the enlivening of the white position
induced by the excha nge of pa wns.
Exploring the position further
some other importa nt points come
to light. In the Richter-Ra uzer it is
often the case tha t White's stra tegy
will involve exchanging the bishop
fo r knight on f6a t a time when his
opponent can only recapture with
the g-pawn, leaving B la ck with a
weak h-pawn and a centra l ma jority
which, although strong, tends to
hamper the action of his bishops.
Such possibilitie s a re not r eally
open to White in the Keres Attack
as with Black's h-pa wn a lready
gone the first player would have
relatively little compensation for
the two bishops
Black would
have no problems mobilising either
his rook on h8 or his black-squared
bishop, which could quickly come
into play via h6.
But we have yet to mention the
si ngle most important feature of
the position which is sufficient to
outweigh all the disadvantages of
the pawn exchange and tip the
balance in White's favour. It is
that the bishop on g5 is virtually
immune to attack, and as Black no
longer has the option to drive it
-

6 ... h6 21

away with . . . h6 he must suffer the


constriction which it imposes on
his game for as long as W hite
chooses to leave the piece in this
position. Furthermore White can
later play h4 to support his bishop
and eventually h5, reducing the
scope of Black's rook considerably
and threatening to undermine his
kingside with h6. While it is
possible for Black to defend against
these threats he is often forced into
a rather passive position in order
to do so and it is this aspect which
prospective Keres Attack players
are likely to find agreeable .
Playing from the position shown
in diagram 30 Black must choose
between rapid queenside counter
play with lg . . . a6 or solid develop
ment with 8 . . . c6, possibly
coupled with the modern . . . 't!Vb6.
Only the latte r seems to promise
near-equality and hence is the
current favourite .
A I 8 . . . a6
A2 8 . . . c6
At
a6 (31)
8

this move order to transpose to A2


lines but this plan is not to be
recom mended as White has more
choice in the placement of his
quee n .
9 1!t' d2
It is also quite feasible to de velop
the queen on e2 where it guards
the e-pawn and the c4 and f3
squares. This plan was illustrated
by the game Geller-Korchnoi,
match (6) Moscow 1 97 1 , which
went 9 .tg2 (this move order has
the benefit of ruling out an early . . .
b5 by Black) 9 . . . .td7 (on 9 . . .
bd7 1 0 1!Ve2 1!Vc7 1 1 0-0-0 White
has a considerable advantage accor
ding to Velimirovic ; Black dare
not try 1 1 . . . b5? because of 1 2 e5
and hence must waste time with 1 1
. . . llb8, and after 1 2 f4 b5 1 3 llhe l !
White's build-up o n the e-file
means he is ready for a direct
attack based on e5, e.g. 13 . . . llxh2?!
13 b4? 1 4 d5! - 1 4 e5 ! de 1 5
fe g8 - 1 5 ... i.b 7 1 6 ef llxg2 1 7
xe6! ; 1 5 ... h 7 1 6 .t/4 ;
15 .. 1!Vxe5 161!Vxe5 xe5 1 7 llxe5
llxg2 18 c 6 - 16 xe6! fe 1 7
.te4 ! xeS - 1 7
llxe2 1 8 i.g6
mate; 17
ll h6 18 1!Vh5+! llxh5
19 i.g6 mate; 17 ... e7 181!Vxh2
- 1 81!t' xh2! for if 1 8 . . . d3+ 1 9
llxd3 1!Vxh2 once more there i s 20
i.g6 mate) 10 1!Ve2 i.e7 1 1 0-0-0
1!Vc7 1 2 h4 c6 (finally Black has
no othing better than to transpose
to an inferior line) 13 f4 0-0-0 14 f5
'it>b8 1 5 fe fe and now as 1 6 i.h3?!
all ows the equalising 16 . . . h5 !
White should play 1 6 ll hf l with
-

0 0 0

. o .

31

Of course , Black may choose

0 0 0

22 6 . . . h6

some advantage (Guf eld).


The manoeuvre . . . h5 can be
of considerable use to Black if
White has locked in his bishop
with f4 and cannot avoid an
exchange . For example , the game
Kavale k-Szabo, Salgotarian 1 967,
went 9 f4 bd7 1 0 1We2 i.e7 1 1
0-0-0 h5! 1 2 i.xe7 1Wxe7 1 3 1!re3
df 6 1 4 .ie2 e5! and Black took
the initiative .
b5
9
The only move with independent
siginificance , but saf er is the trans
position 9 . . . c6 leading to A2
lines.
Other possibilities are:
(a) 9 ... 1Wc7 1 0 i.g2 bd7 1 1 f 4
Ji bS 1 2 0-0-0 h7 1 3 i.h4liJ b6 1 4
libe l! i.d7 1 5 d5 ! xd5 1 6 ed
g5 1 7 de ! with a crushing attack,
Savon-Bikov, Ukrai ne (Spartakiade)
1 973.
(b) 9 . . . i.e7 1 0 i.g2 c6? ! I I
xc6! be 1 2 e5 d5 1 3 i.xe7
'tf xe7 14 ed! 1Wxd6 1 5 0-0-0 Ji bS
1 6 e4 1Wf 4 1 7 c4 and White's
active pieces and queenside pawn
majority leave him very much on
top , Ciocaltea-Bukic, Bucharest
1 97 1 .
.ib7
1 0 .ig2
bd7
0-0-0
11
12
f4
1Wc7 (32)
Black seems to have successfully
completed his development but
the sequel demonstrates a weakness
in his f ormation on the long white
diagonal.
e5!
de
13
fe
14
b4!

32

fe
1 5 xe6!
15
1!rxe5 1 6 libe l be 1 7
1Wxd7+! xd7 I S c7 mate.
16
ef
gf
.ixe4
1 7 e4
1 7 . . . f g I S 1!rxd7+ "t!Vxd7 1 9
xf6+ e7 20 lixd7+ 'it>xf6 2 1
.ixb7 Ji bS 22 .i xa6 .
1 8 i.xe4
0-0-0
19 1We2 (33)
33
B

Calvo-Panno, Las Palmas 1 973.


Black's weak pawns and exposed
king will be difficult to def end
against the two powerf ul white
bishops.
A2
c 6
8
Theory suppose s that the immed
iate development of the knight

6 . . . h6 23

gives Black a more solid posit ion


and bett er equalising chances but
White should be able t o ret ain a
slight plus with best play. In broad
out line White's strategy must follow
three phases: completion of his
queenside development wit h '4W d2
and 0-0-0; restraint of Black's
cent ral majority with .t. g2 or .t. e2f3; and a st eady advance on the
kingside wit h f4 and h4. As long as
'
White main tains his control oft he
centre (and this should present no
problems with the bishop now
firmly entrenched on g5) the order
in which these phases are enacted
is relatively unimportant, but there
are some nuances of which Keres
Attack pl ayers should be aware
and a thof ough study of the ensuing
material is strongly advised.
We examine:
A2 1 9 '4W d2
A22 9 h4
A23 9 .i. g2
An alternative rarely seen in
practice is 9 ll:lb3 with which White
voluntarily loses a tempo : 9 . . . a6
10 f4 '4W c7 1 1 '4W e2 b5 (the game
L ane-Pritchett fro m Decin 1978
varied with 1 1 . . . .t. e7 1 2 0-0-0 b5
1 3 .t. g2 .t. b7 1 4 e5 de 15 fe lild5 1 6
.i.d2 1Wxe5 1 7 1Wxe5 ll:lxe5 1 8
ll:lxd5 .t. xd5 1 9 .t. xd5 ed ) 1 2 0-0-0
b4 when Black's rapid queenside
expansion gave him the better
chances in Karasev-Krogius, USSR
Ch 1 97 1 . 12 a3 is Korchnoi's
suggested improvement.
A21
9 '4W d 2 (34)
=

34

The most common move at this


point. White follows the classical
Richter-Rauzer plan, quickly cast
ling long before he undertakes
further kingside action.
Black has the choice of 9 ... a6,
the older continuat ion which we
examine first, and the more modern
9 . . . '4Wb 6 .
A2 1 1 9 . . . a 6
A2 1 2 9 . . . '4Wb 6
A21 1
9
a6
10
0-0-0
.t. d7
10 . . . ll:lxd4 is premature: 1 1
'4W xd4 .t. e7 1 2 h4'4t c7 1 3 f4'4W c5 1 4
'4W d2 b5 1 5 e5! d e 1 6 fe 1Wxe5 1 7
.t. g2 ll a 7 1 8 llhe l with excellent
attacking chances for the pawn ,
Medina-Guge, L as Palmas 1 97 3 .
Naturally 1 0 . . .'4W b6 is possible,
transposing to A2 1 2.
11
h4
This is marginally more flexible
than 1 1 f4 but the latter is perfectly
playable:
(a) 11 ... .t. e7 12 f5 ll:lxd4 13'4W xd4
efl! ( 1 3 . . . '4W c7) 14 ef .t. c6?! 1 5
llg l ll xh2 1 6 .t. f4 llh7 1 7 .t. c4 d5
18 .i. b3'4W d7 19'4W e5 and Black was

24 6 . . . h6

completely tied down in Belyavsky


Steinberg, USSR 1 972.
(b) 11
c7 12 i.g2 0-0-0? 13 h4
( 1 3 e5! de 14 ll:lxc6 i.xc6 1 5
xd8+ xd8 1 6 lit xd8+ 'it>xd8 1 7
.txc6 be 1 8 fe ) 1 3 . . . lit e8? ( 1 3 . . .
.te7) 1 4 e 5 ! de 1 5 ll:lxc6 i.xc6 1 6
i.xc6 xc6 1 7 fe lild7 1 8 4 f6
1 9 ef gf 20 i.xf6 lilxf6 2 1 xf6
i.e7 22 4 Bangiev-Zeliandinov,
USSR 1 974.
(c) 11
't!rb6!? 12 .te2? ! (not 1 2
ll:lb3 ll:lg4 1 3 lit e 1 f6 =F + but 1 2 lilf3
seems a promising improvement
as White threatens an immediate
e5 and 12 . . . ll:lg4 leads nowhere
after 1 3 lit e 1 - 1 3 . . . 1 4 lit e2!
xf3 15 .tg2 ) 12 . . . ll:lxd4 1 3
xd4 xd4 1 4 lit xd4 lilh5! 1 5 f5
lilg3 1 6 lit e 1 ll:lxe2+ 1 7 lit xe2 +
Bonev-Padevsky, Bulgaria 1 972.
c7 (35)
11
.

...

35

Adamski, Slupsk 1 978.


White has a small but persistent
advantage in this position and
there are a number of ways to
exploit his superiority:
A2 1 1 1 12 f4
A2 1 1 2 1 2 i.h3
A2 1 1 3 12 i.g2
A2 1 1 4 1 2 i.e2
A21 1 1
12
f4
(a) 1 2
lilh7!? 1 3 .th3 ll:lxd4 ( 1 3
. .. f6? 1 4 lilxe6 .txe6 1 5 .txe6 fg 1 6
ll:ld5 .., a5 1 7 xa5 ll:lxa5 1 8 hg is
winning for White and if 13 . . . ll:lxg5
14 hg the threat of 1 5 i.xe6! makes
life difficult for Black) 1 41i' xd4 f6
1 5 f5 fg 1 6 fe .tc6 1 7 e 7 ! (drawing
the black queen to the e-file) 1 7 . . .
xe7 1 8 lild5 i.xd5 1 9 ed 1!Vf6 20
1!rb 6 i.e7 2 1 lit hf l 1!Vh6 22 i.d7 + !
'it>xd7 23 xb7+ d 8 2 4 xa8+
'it>d7 25 xh8 1 -0 was Ma rris
Formanek , USA 1 979.
(b) 12 . . .te7 1 3 'it>b 1 (more enter
p rising is 1 3 i.g2 transposing to
A23, or 1 3 .th3, or 1 3 .te2 - see
A2 1 1 2 and A2 1 1 4 below) 13 . . .
lilh5 1 4 .ih3 lilxd4 1 5 xd4 f6 1 6
f5 fg 1 7 fe i.c6 1 8 h g 0-0-0 was
played in Alexandria-Belavenets,
Tbilisi 1 979. With two pawns and
a strong bind on the light squares
White has considerable compen
sation for the piece . In the game
Black did not find a satisfactory
way to resolve the problem: 1 9
.tf5 ll:lg3 ( 1 9 . . . 'it>b8 t o free the
dark-squared bishop is more
resilient) 20 lit xh8 lit xh8 2 1 xg7
lit h 5 22 g6 lilxf5 23 ef lit xf5 24
...

A curiosity was 1 1 . . . i.e7


12 lit h3 (normal are 12 f4, 12 .tg2,
1 2 i.e2 or 1 2 i.h3 transposing
eventually to the main line) 12 . . .
lilxd4 1 3 xd4 e 5 1 4 .., d 3 i.xh3
1 5 .txh3 ll:lg8 1 6 ll:ld 5 ! f6 1 7 .., c3
fg 1 8 lilc7+ 'it>f7 1 91!rb 3+ 'it>g6 20
i.f 5+ ct>h 6 2 1 M7 1-0 Pokojowczyk-

6 . . . h6 25
'8h7 't!f d8 25 a3 lilf8? 26 g7 lilg8 27
lilf l ..e8 28 lilf7 8 29 ..f 5 7

30 lile2 't!f d8 3 1 lilf 4 b8 , 32 lilg6


.te8 33 lilxe7 .txf7 34 ef 1 -0.
A21 1 2
1 2 .th3
.te7
f4
13
lilxd4
1 4 "t!Vxd4
And now:
(a) 1 4 ... llc8 1 5 lld2! (to guard c2
and preparing to break open the
centr e now t hat Black has for feited
castling) 1 5 . . . "t!Vc5 1 6 "t!Vd3 .tc6 1 7
lile l "t!Va5 1 8 a3 lidS 1 9 li:ld5!? ed
20 ed "t!Vxd5 2 1 "t!Ve3 with a strong
attack f or the piece in Holmov
Shamkovich, Timisoara 1 972.
(b) 14 ... .tc6 15 llhe l ( 1 5 . .
0-0-0 1 6 li:ld5! ) 1 6 "t!Vf2 lilg8 1 7
.tg4 lilh6 1 8 .txe7+ "t!Vxe7 1 9 .tf3
ll:lg8 20 h5 lilf6 2 1 lild5! and
White had a dangerous initiative,
Gipslis-Jansa, Budapest 1 970.
(c) 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 b l b8 16 f5!
putting a great deal of strain on
Black's position with the threat of
switching the attack to the weak
dark squares around his king) 1 6
. . . e5 ( 1 6 . . . .tc8 1 7 .te3 b 5 1 8 a4 )
1 7 't!Vf2 .tc6 18 i.g2 llc8 19 .tf3
b5 20 a3 .tb7 2 1 lld2 llhd8 22
llhd l and White's simple strategy
of loading up on the d5 square was
sufficient to provide a marked
advantage in Tarj an-Evans, USA
Ch 1 973.
(d) 1 4 . . . '@c5 15 '@d3 0-0-0 1 6
llhg l b8 1 7 f5 '@c7 1 8 @f3 llh7
1 9 lld3 lldh8 with equal chances,
B rowne-Andersson, Las Palmas
1 974.
.

A21 1 3
1 2 .t g2
12 . . . .te7 1 3 b l ( 1 3 f4) 1 3 . . .
lilxd4 1 4 ..xd4 .tc6 1 5 lilh3 0-0-0
1 6 llhd3 b8 1 7 lLld5!? ed 1 8 ed
ll:lxd5! 1 9 .txd5 .txg5
Gipslis
Liberzon, Tallinn 1 969.
A21 1 4
1 2 .te2
This move has invariably been
Karpov's choice in the position.
White endeavours to constrict his
opponent further by supporting
the advance of the h-pawn.
0-0-0
12
.te7
13
f4
b8
14
h5
14 . . . ll:la5 1 5 llh3 lilc6 16 lilb3
.te8 1 7 b I b8 18 "t!Ve3 was
Sutterer-Podzielny, West German
Ch 1 978, in which White retained
a substantial spatial advantage.
.te8
1 5 b1
1 5 . . . d5 16 e5 lile4 1 7 lilxe4 de
1 8 .txe7 lilxe7 19 "t!Ve3 lLlf5 20
ll:lxf5 ef 2 1 llhg I Karpov
Steinberg, USSR 1 97 1 .
1 6 .tf3 (36)
=

36
B

Karpov-Smith, San Antonio


1 972. Black's position remains

26 6 ... h6

cramped and he faces grave dif


ficu lties in attempting to free it.
The sequel was 16 . . . a5 17 't!Ve2
c4 1 8 lithe! liteS 1 9 litd3 g8 20
Wg2 .tf8 2 1 lith I e7 22 b3 a3+
23 b2 b5 24 cxb5 ab 25 't!Vd2
Wb 6 26 .th4! b4 27 .tf2 't!Va5 28
.te l e5 29 e2 c6 30 f5! f6 3 1
litd5 't!Va3+ 3 2 b I .tf7 3 3 litd3
b6?! 34 .tf2 b7 3 5 c3 be 36 litxc3
.te7 37 litg l lithg8 38 Wb2 't!Vxb2+
39 xb2 a7 40 lit xc8 xc8 4 1
c3 ( 1 -0, 70).
A21 2
't!Vb6(!)
9
It sometimes happens that chess
commentators get carried away
when awarding 'oscars' to their
favoured opening innovations. The
unfortunate move is lumbered with
this extravagant commendation
until such time as the author recants
or another more dispassionate
analyst reviews it rather less enthu
siastically.
The reader will notice that I
have attempted to sidestep this
pitfall by awarding Black's ninth
only ' half an exclamation mark.
My intention is to point out that
the move , though far from being a
devastating blow, represents a
tangible improvement in Black's
strategy as hitherto examined.
The proof that this is so lies not
only in the fact that in current
master practice 9 . . . Wb6 is now
regarded as the only acceptable
way to play the line: the reasons
why the move is good may be
clearly stated.

for my oscar award: the move . . .


Wb 6 opens new avenues for Black
in not one but two opening
variations!
1 0 b3 (3 7)
37
B

White should not permit a


general exchange of pieces as in
the resulting endgame the weak
nesses in his pawn structure would
begin to tell.
The interpolation of the moves
9 . . . Wb6 10 b3, while reducing
the attacking p6> tential of the
white position , has done little to
alter the general pattern of his
strategy. Unless Black attempts a
vigorous follow-up such as . . . e5
or an early ... b5 White will continue
as usual with queenside castling,
f4, h4 and .te2 or .tg2. Now that
the g l -a7 diagonal is not blocked
by the knight he may wish to give
some consideration to the plan of
exploiting Black's dark squares on
the queenside with .te3 . In the
main, though, his intention remains
simply to increase his spatial
advantage.
Black now has:

6 . . . h6 27

By pu tting immediate pressu re


on his opponent's centre in this
way Black forces the knight away
f rom its central post, where it has
enjoyed considerable activity, to a
rather dull square on b3, and in so
doing he has neutralised some of
the dynamic potential in White's
position. As a result White's build
up proceeds rather more slowly
than in the 9 . . . a6 1ines. A possible
drawback . to the move is that
Black no longer has the option to
exchange knights on d4 (which
could precede an . . . e5 thrust) but
this consideration is rarely of
i mportance.
What of our comparison with
the Richter-Rauzer? Why af ter I e4
c5 2 lt:lf3 1lDc6 3 d4 cd 4 lt:lxd4 lt:lf 6
5 lDc3 d6 6 .tg5 e6 7 Wd2 is the
analogous 7 . . . "t!fb6 virtually un
known? It could be reasoned that
in the Keres Attack position Black
has a natural follow-up to . . . 1!fb6
in . . . lDe5 to exploit the absence of
the defender of White's f 3 square,
coupled with the threat of occupying
c4, but it transpires that this strategy
is not a viable proposition as White
will reorganise his forces to cover
the threatened squares and event
ually drive out the invader.
My belief is that the dif ference
between the two positions is . . .
essentially nothing! 7 . . . 'itb6 in
the Richter-Rauzer is certainly
playable and probably good and
my prediction is that we will be
seeing more of the move in f uture.
This brings me to the second reason

A2 1 2 1 1 0 . . . lDe5
A2 1 22 1 0 . . . a6 (the main line).
A2121
lDeS
10
11
1!fel
This move has the benefit of
reinf orcing c4 but 1 1 .te2 is
playable, e.g. 1 1 . . . .td7 12 0-0-0
lih3 (playing to exploit the absence
of the bishop f rom f l - Black now
threatens 1 3 . . . lixc3 or 13 . . . lDf3;
a mistake would be 1 2 . . . 1!fxf2 on
account of 1 3 lDd4) 1 3 .ie3?! ( 1 3
f 4! lDf 3 1 4 .txf3 lixf3 1 5 e 5 lDg8
1 6 lt:ld4 lih3 1 7 f 5 or 1 3 . . . lixc3
14 .txf 6! lixb3 1 5 ab ) 1 3 . . .
lixe3! 1 4 f e g 6 1 5 1!fd4 .th6 1 6
1!fxb6 ab 1 7 lixd6 .tc6 with f ull
compensation f or the exchange,
Browne-Kavalek, USA Ch 1 975.
11
.td7
Or 1 1 . . . 1!fc7 and now:
(a) 12 0-0-0 .td7 13 f 4 lDc6 14 .tg2
a6 1 5 .tf 3 0-0-0 1 6 h4 b8 1 7 h5
Ilc8 1 8 c.t>b l .te8 1 9 .th4! (the
black square plan! ) 19 . . . lt:ld7?
(better was 1 9 . . . lt:la5 20 lt:lxa5
1!fxa5 2 1 .tf2 lt:ld7 22 We3 lt:lc5)
20 .tf2 lDc5 21 lihg l g6 22 hg f g
2 3 f5! lDxb3 24 a b gf 2 5 ef ef 26
lt:ld5 1!fa5? 27 .ib6 @b5 28 1!ff2
Tatai-Sax, Budapest 1 976.
(b) 1 2 h4 .id7 13 0-0-0 Ilc8 1 4 h5
lDc4 15 Ilh3 b5 Gipslis-Sax,
Amsterdam 1 976, and now 1 6
lt:ld4! with the idea 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 lDd5!
Ilc8
0-0-0
12
f4
13
Less forceful is 1 3 h4 as played
in the game Lanka-Knaak, Jurmala
1 978, which continued 1 3 . . . a6 1 4

28 6 . . . h6

lilh3 Wc7 1 5 f4 l0c4 16 lilhd3 l0h7


17 e5! ( 1 7 l0d5 !? 1!rb8 ! ) 17 . . . xg5
1 8 hg d5 19 g6! fg 20 Wg4 lilh6 2 1
lilh3 llxh3 2 2 ..xh3 (22 .txh3
l0xb2) 22 . . . <M7 23 .tg2 with
attacking chances for the pawn.
13
c4
14
lild4! (38)

Having served the eviction order


( 1 3 f4) the bailiff moves in immed
iately. Black has no time to
consolidate his gain of c4 and the
ent ire manoeuvre is shown to be a
waste of time . Chiburdanidze
Erenska, Buenos Aires (Women's
OL) 1 978, continued 1 4 . . . a5 1 5
Wd2 l0xb3+ 1 6 a b l0g4 1 7 .te2!
ltlf2 1 8 lilfl l'lxh2 1 9 f5 (th reat :
.ie3 or .if4) 19 . . . e5 20 llc4 l'lxc4
2 1 .txc4 .tc6 22 d5 l0xe4 23
Wxh2 .txd5 24 .txd5 xg5 25
b l ..c7 26 ..g l @c5 27 "t!Vxc5 .
A 2 1 22
10
a6
II
0-0-0
Most commonly played. I I
.te3 commits the bishop too early
as Black need not fall in with
White's plans by castling queenside
but can instead launch a minority

attack: I I . . . Wc7 12 f4 ( 1 2 f3?! b5


13 0-0-0 .td7 1 4 11t'f2 lilb8 15 .td3
l0e5 16 b l b4 17 l0e2 a5 18 f4
eg4 1 9 ..g3 a4 20 ltld2 l0xe3 2 1
@xe3 lilh5 =F Padevsky Suba
Moscow 1 977) 1 2 . . . .td7 1 3 0-0-0
b5 14 .tg2 b8 1 5 b l a5 1 6 l0d4
l0xd4 17 .txd4 b4 18 l0e2 .ic6 1 9
g3 ltld7? ( 1 9 . . . e 5 ! ) 20 e 5 ! d e 2 1
fe .tc5 2 2 .txc6 't!rxc6 2 3 @f4
.txd4 24 llxd4 c5 25 l'lfl lilb7? 26
@g5 Alexandria-Koloyartseva,
USSR 1 977.
Black now chooses between the
solid I I . . . .id7 and the aggressive
I I . . . @c7 aiming for a quick . . . b5 .
A2 1 22 1 I I . . . .td7
A2 1 222 I I . . . 't!rc7
A21221
II
i.d7 (39)
-

h4
12
This is the currently favoured
try for an advantage . Experie nce
with alternatives has not been
extensive but 12 .te3 seems worthy
of investigation .
(a) 1 2 f3?! llc8 ( 1 2 . . 0-0-0? 1 3
.te3 1!Vc7 1 4 a4 ) 1 3 b l @c7
14 f4 b5 1 5 .ig2 b4 1 6 l0e2 a5 and
.

6 . . h6 29
.

Black already held the advantage,


Muhin-Estevez, Luhacovice 1973.
(b) 1 2 ..te3 'f!/c7 13 f4 ( 1 3 ..tf4?!
lL!e5 14 .tg3 g5 ! 1 5 b l .te7 1 6
i.e2 b 5 1 7 a 3 llcS + Lein-Benko,
Novi Sad 1 972) 13 . . . b5 1 4 i.g2
llcS 1 5 b 1 .te7 and now:
b l ) 1 6 llhe1 b4 17 lL!a4 lL!a5 1 S
ll:lb6 ll:lc4 1 9 lL!xc4 '4!xc4 Stein
Krogius, USSR Ch 1 964/65, and
here 20 e5 is promising.
b2) 16 h 3 b4 17 lL!a4 llbS lS '4!f2
(notice how with the bishop on e3
White can set up threats on the
dark squares) lS ... .idS 1 9 e5! de 20
ll:lac5 with an attack, Ambrazatis
Roizma n , Riga 1 972.
(c) 1 2 .i.g2 and now:
c l ) 12 ... i.e7 13 .i.e3 !? 'it'c7 14 f4
ll:la5 l j lL!xa5 'f!/xa5 1 6 'i!?b l t
Hort-A ndersson, Nice OL 1 974.
c2) 1 2 ... lL!e5 13 'ire2 llcS 14 f4
lL!c4 1 5 lld3 'irc7 1 6 h4 .ie7 1 7
lite l?! b 5 1 8 e 5 de 1 9 fe lO b S 20
'f!/f2 (20 .i.xe7 lL!f4! 2 1 'irg4 ll:l xe 5 !
) 2 0 . . . lL!xe 5 2 1 ll h 3 ? f6 22 .i.e3
b4 Tal-Adamski, Lublin 1 974.
(d) 1 2 f4 0-0-0 13 .i.g2 .i.e7 1 4 'i!?b l
l0g4 ! 1 5 .i.xe7 lL!xe7 1 6 'f!/xd6
xd6 1 7 ll xd6 lL!g6 1 S f5 lLl6e5 1 9
fe fe 20 lL!c5 llh6 2 1 h3 lL!e3 22
litg2 g5 with an unclear position ,
Mednis-Jansa , Kragujevac 1 977.
.te7
12
13 ..te2 (40)
1 3 .ig2 is an important alter
native since White may arrive at
the postion via a number of
different routes, e . g. 9 i.g2 .i.e7 1 0
h 4 a 6 1 1 'ird2 1!fb6 1 2 ltlb3 .i.d7 1 3
0-0-0 (A23).

40
B

After 1 3 .ig2 't!fc7 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0-0


14 i.e3 ! 'irc7 1 5 lL!a4 is very
difficult for Black; note that this
manoeuvre is only possible because
the bishop on g2 guards the e-pawn)
14 f4 0-0-0 1 5 .tf3 bS 1 6 h5 the
game transposes to the main line.
Blac k may , however, attempt to
cross White's plans and prevent
the transposition by playing 1 5 . . .
g 6 1 6 'it>b l 'i!?bS a n d now:
(a) 1 7 'irf2 lOgS lS i.xe7 (forced
because of the threat of f6) l S
. . . ll:lgxe7 1 9 't!fg3 (with . . . g6 Black
has effectively ruled out h5 by
White , but in so doing he has
slightly weakened his dark squares
on the kingside) 19 . . . .icS 20 'irg5
llh7 2 1 lld2! (with the black
squared bishops exchanged now is
the time for White to pressurise
Black's d-pawn) 21 . . . 1!fb6 22
llhd 1 'it'e3 23 'f!/g3 e5 24 fe lL!xe5
25 llxd6 llxd6 26 llxd6 l07c6 27
llxc6! llh5 2S llf6 1 -0 Mednis
Fernandez, Budapest 1 97 S .
( b ) 1 7 llhfl .tcS l S f5 (it's rather
too early for White to commit
himself in this way and Mednis's
more restrained approach is to be

30 6 . . . h6

preferred) 1 8 . . . lbh7 19 .ie3 lbf6


20 'trf2 lbd7 2 1 llh l .tf6 22 lba4
lldf8 23 h5 gh 24 llxh5 .te5 25
.ib6 lbxb6 26 lbxb6 lbe7 27 lbxc8
lbxc8 28 lldh 1 llxh5 29 .txh5 ef
30 ef llh8 - Tseshkovsky
Anikayev, USSR Ch (Top L)
Minsk 1 979 .
0-0-0
13
rJib8 .
f4
14
h5
15
White should not forego this
important move which further
restricts his opponent's position
and cuts out some of his defensive
resources such as . . . g6. Postpone
ment of the advance will react in
Black's favour, as the following
games illustrate.
15 .tf3 1!fc7 and now:
(a) 16 rJibl .tc8 (for 16 . . . g6 see
note to White's 13th move) 1 7
'tre2 (after this White's advantage
slips away: the most accurate was
1 7 h5 to answer 1 7 . . . lbg8 with 1 8
lthg l ) 1 7 . . . lbg8! (played a t a
time when White must make the
exchange of bishops because of
the threat of f6) 1 8 .txe7 lbgxe7 1 9
h5 g 6 2 0 a3 g h 2 1 llxh5 llxh5 22
.txh5 f5 23 'trd2 fe 24 lbxe4 e5 and
Black has equalised, Chi-Andersson,
Buenos Aires (Clarin) 1 978.
(b) 16 libel .tc8 1 7 1!ff2 lbg8 ! 18
h5 (the alternative 18 .txe7 lbgxe7
also leaves Black with few problems)
1 8 . . . .txg5 19 fg f6 20 ll g l lbe5 2 1
.ie2 fg 22 llxg5 lbf6 and Black's
firm grip on the important e5
square gives him sufficient counter
play, Karpov-Andersson, Bugojno

1 980.

15
16

.t c8
.tf3 (41)

Following his strategy both


logically and accurately White has
increased his spatial advantage to
the limit while fully restraining his
opponent's central counterplay.
However, he now fi nds himself
without a clear way forward and
so must use the extra flexibility
allowed by his spacious position
to manoeuvre his forces, preparing
to react quickly to any small
concession Black may have to
make in order to free his pieces.
For his part Black has succeeded
in reaching a robust if so mewhat
defensive position and finding his
counterthrust . . . d5 well and truly
contained must seek to alleviate
the crampedness of his formation
by exchanging pieces . With careful
play he should be able to secure
equality, but White's advantage,
though small and static, is likely to
persist for some time to come, and
even a relatively mi nor slip by the
second player may eventually prove
fatal.

6 . . h6 31
.

Black now has:


(a) 1 6
lt:la5 (this is probably not
the best way to seek exchanges) I 7
"4We2 '@c7 I 8 lt:lxa5 '@xa5 I 9 l:thg i
Ilde8 20 a3 '@c5? (better was 20 . . .
"4Wc7 preparing . . . l:th7 and . . . lt:lg8)
2I e 5 ! de 22 fe lLld7 23 .te3 '@c7 24
llxg7 Chiburdanidze-Muresan ,
Budapest I 978.
(b) 1 6
l:th7 I7 'W'e2 lt:lg8 (the
plan of exchanging bishops is
Black's main chance for equality;
notice how White correctly declines
to make the exchange, thereby
saving two tempi) I8 llhg i .txg5
19 l:txg5 ll:lge7 20 ll:ld5 ! (this is
a noteworthy tactic) 20 . . . ed 2 I ed
f6 22 de fg 23 '@xe7 g4! 24 .te4
l17h8 25 '@xg7 with a dangerous
initiative, robek-Adamski, Polish
Ch I 977.
(c) 16 '@c7. This move strengthens
the d-pawn in preparation for the
exchange of dark-squared bishops
and guards against ltld5 tactics
(see Skrobek-Adamski above). The
move is particularly important
because the resulting position can
arise from a number of lines,
e.g. after (A2 I 222) I I . . . '@c7 I 2
.tg2.
Now:
c i ) 1 7 "4We3 ( White takes up the g i
a 7 diagonal which Black has
abandoned) I 7 . . . lt:le8 I8 llhg I
.txg5 I 9 llxg5 lt:le7 20 lld3 f6? (20
. . . g6 2 I ll:la4 gh 22 .txh5 lt:lc6 ::!)
2 I l:tg i ( ) 2 I . . . d5?! 22 ed ed 23
ltlxd5 lt:lxd5 24 l:txd5 l:txd5 25
.txd5 Ilxh5 26 .txb7 Spassky
Ribli, Manila IZ I 976.
...

...

...

c2) 1 7 b1 lt:lg8 I8 l:tdg i ( I 8


l:thg i !?) I 8 . . . l:th7 I 9 '@f2 ( I 9 '@e3
.txg5 20 llxg5 lt:lge7 2 I l:thg i g6
22 hg ll:lxg6 23 .th5 lt:lce7 24 a4 (::!)
l:tdh8 25 .txg6 ll:lxg6 26 f5 e5 27
llg8 llh3 28 '@d4 ll:lf3 29 l:txh 8 !
l:txh 8 ! 30 '@xh8 lt:lxg i 3 I fe fe 3 2
lt:ld4 '@ f7 33 '@d8 '@fl + 3 4 a2
'@c4+ 35 lLlb3 !h-!h Kinlay-Pritchett,
London I 980) I 9 . . . .txg5 20 l:txg5 '
lt:lge7 2 I l:td i (2 I l:thg i !? - see
Kinlay-Pritchett above) 2 I . . . g6
22 hg ll:lxg6 23 llh5 llg7 24 l:tg i
Il7g8 25 l:thg5 ll:lge7 26 .th5
Ilxg5 27 Ilxg5 f5 28 ef lt:lxf5 29
.i.g4 ll:lce7 30 a3 l:tf8 3 I .te2 lt:lc6
32 .td3 ll:lfe7 and Black has
successfully trodden the path to
full equality, Karpov-Andersson,
Skara I 980.
c3) 17 ll:l d4 .i.d7 I8 ll:lb3 .te8?! I 9
.th4 d 5 2 0 e d lt:lxd5 2 I lt:lxd5 e d 2 2
.txe7 '@xe7 2 3 '@f2 (23 .txd.S
lt:lb4) 23 . . . llh6 24 l:thg i '@c7 25
Ilxg7 '@xf4+ 26 '@d2 ! '@xd2+ 27
llxd2 lt:le5! 28 l:txd5 l:txd5 29
.txd5 .i.c6 30 .txf7 (30 .txc6
lt:lxc6 3 1 Ilg5 f6 32 l:tf5 lt:le7) 30 . . .
lt:lxf7 3 I l:txf7 l:txh5 32 ltld4
(Sosonko), Tim man-Spassky, Til
burg 1 980.
c4) 1 7 .th4!? with the plan of
switching to the g i -a7 diagonal
seems promising.
A21 222
"t!Vc7 (42)
11
In this section we examine
Black's alternative strategy of
forfeiting the immediate queenside
castling and instead pushing for a
direct attack with . . . b5. White

32 6 . . . h6

42
w

has to remain alert to Black's


intentions and consider forcing a
transposition to line A2 1 22 1 to
maintain a safe edge.
f4
12
(a) Too routine is 12 h4 .i.d7 13 .i.e2
hoping to transpose to A2 1 22 1 .
Black need not continue 1 3 . . . .i.e7
but can instead play 13 . . . b5! e.g.
14 a3 b4 15 ab ll:lxb4 1 6 f4 litbS 17 f5
e5 I S lih3 .i.c6 1 9 .i.xf6 gf 20 'it>b 1
a5 2 1 l0d5 .i.xd5 22 ed a4 23 lL!c 1
..th6 24 't!Vc3 @b6 + A . l vanov
Anikayev, Frunze 1 979.
(b) Good, however, is 12 .i.g2
clamping dow n hard on Black's
attempts to play actively on the
queenside . 12 . . . b5 is then not
possible because of the reply 13 e5!
so that Black is forced to give up
the idea of fianchettoing his bishop
and the game takes on the charac
teristics of the A 2 1 2'2 1 1 1 . . . .i.d7
lines after 1 2 . . . .i.d7 (unworkable
is 12 . . . lL!e5 13 f4 lL!c4 14 @d4 even better is 14 @e2 .i.d7 15 lid4
- 14 . . . .i.d7? 1 5 e5 lLlh7 and now
instead of 16 ed? ll:lxd6 17 lithe 1
liteS I S lid2 lL! xg5 1 9 fg ll:lf5 +
Chiburdanidze-Kushnir, match ( 1 2)

Bad Kissingen 1 97S, White should


try 16 .i.h4 de 1 7 fe with a promising
game) 1 3 f4 .i.e7 (not 1 3 . . . b5 14
e 5 ! de 1 5 fe 't!Vxe5? 1 6 .i.xf6 ) 1 4
h 4 0-0-0 1 5 f3 transposing t o
A2 1 22 1 - see note to White's 1 3th.
12
b5
1 3 .i.g 2
With accurate play Black emerges
from this line quite well, so
alternatives should be investigated:
(a) 1 3 't!Ve3 .i.b7 1 4 .i.h3 ( 1 4 .i.g2 !
transposes into the favourable
Razuvayev-Commons game that
follows, so Black should improve
with 1 3 . . . b4 instead of 13 . . . .tb7)
14 . . . b4 15 .i.xf6 gf 16 ll:le2 lL!e5 !
1 7 'it'b l lL!c4 I S @d3 0-0-0 1 9
ll:led4 li e S 2 0 lithe 1 'it'bS 2 1 lie2
.i.h6 22 lif2 lieS 23 .i.g2 @b6 + .
Black's pieces are aggressively
placed and White is rapidly running
out of ideas, Furman-Belyavsky,
USSR Team Ch 1 977.
(b) The natural 1 3 a3 .i.b7 has yet
to be tried . What has been tested
(by transposition) is the position
after 1 3 a3 .i.d7 14 .i.e2. The game
Zaitsev-Padevsky from Baku 1 9SO
continued 14 . . . b4 15 ab ll:lxd4 16
.i.f3 libS?! ( 1 6 . . . lieS 17 'it>b l e5
IS fe de 1 9 .i.xf6 gf 20 't!Vxd7+
@xd7 21 litxd7 'it'xd7 22 .i.g4+ )
1 7 e 5 ! de I S fe l0 h 7 ( I S . . . lL!fd5 1 9
.i.xd5 e d 2 0 l0 xd5 ll:lxd5 2 1 @xd5
.i.e6 22 @a5 ) 19 .i.e3 .i.c6 20
lihfl .i.e7 2 1 't!Vg2 ( ) 21 . . . g6 and
here White could have underlined
his advantage with 22 h4! .i.xh4 23
litd4 .i.xf3 24 't!Vxf3 .i.g5 25 .i.xg5
ll:lxg5 26 't!Vg4 @e7 27 litfd l
=

6 . . . h6 33

threatening 28 l:td7.
13
b4
1 3 . . . .tb7 is the natural move
and until recently was considered
perfectly adequate, e.g.
(a) 1 4 'i!?b1 .te7 15 h4 ( 1 5 a3 b4 1 6
ab lt:lxb4 1 7 h4 e5 ) 1 5 . . . b4 16
lt:le2 a5 17 Ilhe 1 0-0-0 1 8 lt:led4
lt:lxd4 19 @xd4 'i!?b8 20 @g l (20 c4 !
be 2 1 ll c l oo) 20 . . . e5 + Stean
Spassky, Moscow 1 975.
(b) 14 h4 0-Q-O 1 5 f5 'i!?b8 1 6 fe fe 17
lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 18 @xd4 i.e7 1 9 i.h3
e5 20 @e3 b4 21 lt:ld5 lL!xd5 22 ed
.ixg5 23 hg @a5 24 't!re4 Ilhf8 +
Timman-Ligterink, Netherlands Ch
1 978.
However, a recent game has cast
d oubt on the move, with the result
that pref rence is currently given
to the text.
(c) 1 4 @e3! b4 1 5 lt:la4 lt:ld7 (trying
to cover the dark squares while
preparing for . . . e5) 1 6 e5! d5 ( 1 6 . . .
de 1 7 llxd7 ! 't!rxd7 1 8 lL!b6 't!rc7 1 9
lhxa8 i.xa8 2 0 fe ) 1 7 f5 ! 't!rxe 5
( 1 7 . . . lL!cxe5 1 8 fe fe 1 9 lt:ld4 't!rd6
20 i.f4 ) 1 8 't!rf2 't!rxf5 (after 1 8 . . .
e7 1 9 i.xe7 lt:lxe7 20 fe fe 2 1
lt:ld4 Black's position is near to
collapse) 19 't!rxf5 ef 20 ll he l +? (20
xd5! ) 20 . . . lt:lce5 2 1 lt:la5
:b8? (2 1 . . . llh2 oo) 22 lt:lxb7
:xb7 23 llxd5 llc7? 24 ll l xe5+
1 -0 Razuvayev-Commons, Lublin,
1 978.
1 4 lL!a4
14 e5 be 1 5 't!rc3 lt:ld5 1 6 . lld5 ed
1 7 .id5 ..tb7 + .
e5
14
de
fe
15

16
17
18

h3
'trf2
i.e3

i.e6
lt:ld7
lt:la5 (43)

43

Nunn-Ghinda, Dortmund 1 979.


Black's position is excellent and
the additional time which his
opponent must lose in extricating
his poorly placed knight will allow
the second player to build a strong
attack.
A22
9
h4 (44)
44
B

This relatively little explored


possibility has the merit of keeping
White's position very flexible. In
particular, if Black should adopt
an early . . . 't!t'b6 plan White can
follow l0b3 with t!te2, thereby
saving a tempo in some variations.

34 6 . . . h6

Black can and probably should


avoid this continuation by employ
ing some of the less committal .
moves at his disposal ( . . . a6, . . .
.id7, . . . .te7) until his opponent's
piece development becomes clear.
Nonetheless , 9 h4 seems a good
alternative to the more usual 9 Wd2
and may serve as an introduction
to the main line or the .tg2
formation's discussed under A23.
9
trb 6
As mentioned above, Black can
force a transposition to A2 1 2 lines
with 9 . . . a6 I(} 1!M2 '@1>6. There
are grounds for the belief that the
text is premature, as we shall see.
Possible also is 9 . . . .td7, e.g. 1 0
llJb3? ! (better are 1 0 Wd2 and I 0
.tg2) 1 0 . . . 1!rc7 I I h5?! a6 1 2 f4 b5
1 3 i.g2 lieS 1 4 We2 b4 1 5 llJd l a5
with good counterplay for Black in
Tseshkovsky-Kurajica, Ljubljana/
Portoroz 1 977.
a6
1 0 llJb3
1 1 1!re2! (45)

45
B

The queen is clearly better


placed on e2 where it covers the
important c4 and f3 squares and
prepares for future action in the

centre (f4, e5 or even llJd5).


11
Wc7
.td7
12
0-0-0
12 . . . b5 also did not work out
well for Black in Zhuravlyev
Pjaren, Corres 1 977, which con
tinued 1 3 .th3 .te7 14 f4 .ib7 1 5
libe l e 5 1 6 fe llJxe5 1 7 't!fg2 b4 1 8
llJd5 llJxd5 1 9 ed g6 20 llJd4 .
1 3 'it>b1
.te7
1 4 .ib3
0-0-0
15
.te3 (46)

A noteworthy plan. Instead of


locking out the bishop with the
customary f4 White attempts to
exploit Black's weakened queenside
dark squares , beginning with the
immediate threat of llJa4. Black
may counter with the llJc6-e5-c4
manoeuvre but with White's queen
already on e2 the horse is likely to
be displaced rather quickly.
llJe5
15
f4
16
lt:lc4
17 .tf2
'it>b8
18
lid4!
This is the procedure: the rook
on d4 has the double function of
attacking the knight on c4 and
preparing further pressure on the

6 . . . h6 35
d-file.
18

li:c8? (47)

48
B

47
w

Tempting, because of the threat


of 1 9 . . . xb2, but Black does not
fully realise the extent of the danger
he is in. Already the weakening 1 8
. . . b 5 was necessary.
Wxc4
19
ll xc4!
llcS
20 , 't!fe3
21
a3!
The threat of .i.fl is devastating.
llchS
21
'itc8
22 't!fa7+
.i. c6
23 J.b6
24 .i.fl
Trapl-Adamski, USSR 1 974.
,An outstandingly clear exposition
of the possibilities at White's
disposal in these lines.
A23
9 .i.g2 (48)
White's intention is to underpin
his hold on the centre and restrain
Black's queenside initiative . In
favourable circumstances he may
break quickly in the centre with
eS, opening up the long diagonal
with devastating effect. As we shall
see, Black would do well to avoid
the accepted line of play, transposing

instead to A2 1 variations discussed


earlier.
9
.i.d7
(a) 9
'tWaS 10 h4 a6 I I 't!fd2 g4
1 2 b3 't!fb6 1 3 We2 f6 1 4 0-0-0
.i.d7 1 5 .i.e3 was Goldevov
KJzmin, USSR 1 964. After Black's
loss of tempo White is prepared
for a rapid f5 , e5 or l0a4-b6 and
stands very well.
(b) 9
.i.e7 may very well represent
Black's most accurate method of
handling the variation. After 1 0 h4
( 1 0 xc6? ! 1>c I I e5 d5 1 2 .i.xe7
1!P'xe7 1 3 Wg4 - 13 ed Wxd6 1 4 e4
't!b4+ is awkwardfor White - 1 3 . . .
0-0 1 4 e d Wxd6 1 5 0-0-0 ll b 8 1 6
llhg l llb4! 1 7 Wg3 't!ff4+ 1 8 lld2
Wh6 =f Stepak-Dzhindzhihashvili,
Israel (Ch) 1 977 178) 10 . . . a6 1 1
't!fd2 Wb6 ! White has nothing
better than 12 b3 transposing to
the main A2 1 2 line , since if 12 .i.e3
Black can happily accept the offer
of the white b-pawn as his own is
guarded by the bishop on c8.
h4
10
Marginally more accurate than
10 "t!t'd2 since if he is given the
option White would prefer to
.

36 6 . . . h6
develop the queen on the more
active e2 square where it supports
an eventual e5 break. The game
Ljubojevic-Larsen, Orense 1 975,
went 10 Wd2 "@b6 1 1 db5 ( 1 1
.i.e3 ! ) 1 1 . . . g4! 1 2 h3 a6 1 3
xd6+ .i.xd6 1 4 h g llxh l + 1 5
.i.xh 1 e5 regaining the pawn
with an excellent position.
.i.e7
10
1 1 Wd2
a6
't!fc7
12
0-0-0
On 1 2 . . . "@b6 White has the
important resource 1 3 .i.e3 ! which
maintains his knight in its strong
central post.
13
f4 (49)
49
B

xd4
13
This is the manoeuvre which is
supposed to equalise. Safer is 1 3 . . .
0-0-0, although White retains his
superiority with 14 .i.f3 - see A2 1 1 .
.i.c6
1 4 Wxd4
eS!
IS
The move overlooked by theory.
Gipslis-Liberzon, USSR Ch 1 969,
went instead 15 .i.h3 b5 16 llhe l
't!fa7 ! 1 7 't!fd3 b4 with equal
chances .
.i.xg2
IS

15 . . . de 16 .t.xc6+ Wxc6 ( 1 6 . . .
be?! 1 7 fe lld8 - 1 7 . . . d7 1 8
i.xe 7 xe 7 19 e4 xe5 20 Wc5+
e8 21 d6 + ; 1 7 . . . d5 18
i.xe 7 Wxe 7 1 9 e4 - 18 't!fa4 )
17 fe lld8 18 't!fe3 d5 ( 1 8 . . . g4
1 9 Wf4 ) 1 9 xd5 llxd5 20 .i.xe7
xe7 21 ll xd5 leaves Black with
plenty of problems to solve: 21 . . .
Wxd5 22 lld 1 followed by 2 3
Wg5 + o r 2 3 't!fc5+; 2 1 . . . e d 22
't!fg5+ .
.i. xh1
16
ef
(a) 16 ... gf!? 17 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 8
Wxf6 llf8 1 9 llh2 .i.c6 20 h 5 ;1;- .
(b) 1 6 ... eS. 1 7 Wg l ! gf ( l 7 . . . .i.xh l
1 8 fe7 f6 - 1 8 . . .i.c6 19 fe d5 20
xd5 .i.xd5 21 ll xd5 - 1 9
.i.xf6! g f 2 0 Wg7 llxh4 2 1 Wf8+
d7 22 fe ! fe 23 Wxa8 xe7 24
llfl ) 1 8 't!fg2 fg 1 9 d5 .
17
fe
f6
(a) 1 7 ... eS? 1 8 fe de 1 9 't!fd8+ .
(b) 1 7 ... .i.c6 1 8 't!fxg7 d7 1 9
Wxf7 llhe8 2 0 f5 ! .
gf
1 8 .i.xf6!
d7
1 9 't!fxf6
20
rs! (50J
.

50
B

White has a winning attack .

6
B

J.g2 (51)

51
8

. .

h6 3 7

h4
8
8 h3 transposes to l i n e 82 after
8 . . lDc6. At this and other stages
9 g5 will lead to positions discussed
under A.
Black is already in difficulties,
as can be seen from the fol lowing
lines.
B l l 8 . . h5?!
B I 2 8 . . . g6? !
813 8
lDc6
Bll
hS?!
8
lDg4
9
gS
f3
10
10 't!t'e2 't!Vc7 I I f3 lDe5 I2 f4
lDg4 1 3 J.f3 , O' Kelly-Stoltz,
Zaandam I 946, is similar to the
column.
10
lileS
f4
11
lt:lg4
1 2 J.f3
lDc6
1 3 lDxc6
be
1 4 J.xg4
hg
1 5 't!Vxg4
't!t'b6
16
dS
b3
1 7 't!t'f3
J.b4
1 8 J.d2 (52)
.

. . .

It is logical to make use of the


luft created by the advance of the
k night's pawn in this way , and the
move has other merits besides.
The bishop reinforces the e-pawn,
i ncreasing White's bind on d5
while discouraging Black's intended
expansior\ on the queenside. In
addition the rook on hi is now
guarded, enabling White to push
forward the h-pawn in support of
the g5 advance. On the debit side
White has allowed his opponent
access to the c4 square, and his
intended h4, g5 advance will
inevitably lead to the exchange of
some of his attacking fire power
while the rook remains on h I .
Black has two ways to continue:
8 1 7 . . . a6
82 7 . . . lDc6
81
7
a6
This move seems insufficiently
motivated towards central action
and as a result White can gain the
advantage by actively continuing
his advance on the kingside.

Spassky-Shishkin, USSR I 960.


White is a safe pawn up.

38 6 . . . h6
812
g6?!
8
This move was tried by Stahlberg
as Black against O' Kelly at Mar
del Plata 1 948. The game continued

hg
9
gS
10
hg
nxh 1 +
11
.ixh1
lDh7
1 2 'Wg4!
eS
ed
1 3 1!rh4
14
lDdS
with White attacking down the
h-file.
813
lD c6
8
The sturdiest alternative. None
theless White's initiative is gaining
momentum:
hg
9
gS
nxh 1 +
10
hg
1 1 .ixh 1 (53)
53

54

Exploiting the ful l power of his


bishops , White is winning with an
attack on the queenside .
(b) 8enko-Clarke , Tel Aviv O L
1 964, continued l l . . . lDd7 1 2 lDb3
lDa5 13 't!fe2 1!rc7 ( hitting the c4
square again) 14 lDxa5 1!Vxa5 1 5
.id2 't!Vc7 1 6 f4 lDb6 1 7 b 3 ( White
can afford this weakness, having a
strong position centrally and on
the kingside) 17 . . . .id7? (better 1 7
. . . lDd7 ) 1 8 a4! .ic6 1 9 lDd5 !
lDxd5 20 ed with a clear plus for
White (55) .
55

Two games to demonstrate


White's advantage in this position:
(a) Strauss-Pelz, Krakow 1 964:
1 1 ... lDxd4 1 2 'Wxd4 lDd7 1 3 .ie3
g6 14 0-0-0 I!b8 (this loss of time is
necessary because of the white
bishop on h 1 ! ) 15 f4 b5 16 e5 de 1 7
'fta7 ! (54)

82

7
lD c6
As we saw in variation B l Black
ru ns into difficulties if he does not
play energetically enough in the

6 . . . h6 39
centre. For this reason it is more
accurate to develop the queen 's
knight immediately in order to be
prepared to exchange White's
actively placed pieces as soon as
danger threatens. White is forced
to play more slowly than after 7 . . .
a6 and the immediate threat of . . .
ll:\xd4 and . . . ll:\ xg4 will cause him
to lose some time safeguarding the
pawn.
h3
8
As before , 8 g5 will effect a
transposition to lines handled
under A.
8 tt:lb3 allows Black to equalise
with 8 . . . e5 9 g5 hg 10 .ixg5 .ie7
I I .ixf6 .ixf6 12 ll:\d5 .ig5 or even
take the initiative with a pawn
sacrifice: . . . a5 ( ! ) 9 a4 d5 10 ed
ll:lb4 l l de Wxd l + 1 2 ct>xd l tt:lxg4
1 3 ef+ ct>xf7 14 ll:\e4 .if5 .
The position after 8 h 3 can also
be reached by inverting the order
of White's 7th and 8th moves.
White's intention, having taken
care of his g-pawn, is to continue
his development before attempting
any further action on the kingside.
He will use his pieces to maintain a
grip on the centre , for which
purpose the bishop is well placed
on g2, and then push forward his
kingside pawns, slowly increasing
his spatial advantage until an
opportunity appears for a direct
assault.
In many ways this strategy is
similar to the one which White
follows in Maroczy bind formations
with the difference that his pieces

are more active while his pawn


structure is looser and less able to
contain his opponent's counterplay.
The contrast between the two
types of game is not negligible.
, White players , I for one, may
welcome the prospect of more
active play and a straightforward
plan of attack, even if Black too is
given greater leeway.
For his part the second player
should bide his time with developing
moves until he can undertake an
effective counterattack in the centre
to simplify the position, thereby
neutralising the attacking potential
which White has built up.
a6 (56)
8
56
w

The game follows a similar


course no matter whether Black
plays the text or . . . .id7 first.
The exchange 8
tt:l xd4 seems
premature . 9 Wxd4 and now:
(a) Gipslis-Abrasimov, Riga 1 966,
saw 9
eS 10 't!fd3 .ie6 I I .ie3
.ie7 12 0-0-0 0-0 l 3 f4! ef 14 .ixf4
't!fa5 1 5 Wb5 ! Wc7 l 6 e5 ! and White
was winning material.
(b) Gipslis-Zarchov, Latvia versus
Ukraine 1 963, varied with 9 .id7
...

...

...

40 6 . . . h6
1 0 't!fd3 .ic6 I I .if4 't!t"a5 1 2 0-0-0
0-0-0 13 't!t"g3! (forcing the weakness)
1 3 . . . e5 14 .ie3 b8 1 5 lild3 't!t"c7
1 6 lilhd l lilc8 1 7 lil l d2 .ie7 1 8 h4
. Having deprived his opponent
of counterplay White proceeded
smoothly with his attack on the
wing.
The game Hort-Andersson, Malta
OL 1980, featured a novel approach
by Black: 8
.ie7 9 .ie3 ll:\e5!? 1 0
f4 lDc4 I I .i f2 .id7 ( I I . . . lDxb2?
12 't!t"b l ) 12 b3 't!t"a5 1 3 't!t"d3
lDa3 14 0-0 lilc8 1 5 ll:\ce2 0-0 ( 1 5 . . .
e5 1 6 ll:\f5 ! ) 1 6 c3 ( 1 6 c4 b5 ! +) 1 6 . .
lilfd8 1 7 lilac I lDb5 1 8 a4 ll:\ xd4 1 9
ll:\xd4! a 6 2 0 lilfe l 't!t"c7 2 1 c4 ;!;.
From the position in diagram 56
White must choose between 9 0-0
and the more flexible 9 .ie3 . The
only important feature to distinguish
between the two lines arises if
White castles queenside in order
to push his attack forward with all
the more vigour. The choice is,
however, essentially a question of
style as White's prospects are
reasonable in either case.
B 2 1 9 0-0
B22 9 .ie3
B21
9
0-0
.id7
10 .i e3
10 ll:lde2 has also been played
with the idea of avoiding exchanges
and further increasing the pressure
on d5. However, the move allows
Black scope to expand on the
queenside without fear of tricks
on the long diagonal . This in itself
need not be a bad thing: in variations
...

of the Sicilian which White handles


positionally it can be dangerous
for Black to push his queenside
pawns too fast, leaving them
exposed and allowing White to
open lines to his advantage .
This theme is illustrated b y the
game Liebert-Madler, East German
Ch 1 963, which continued (after
10 ll:\de2) 10 . . . b5 I I a3 .ie7 12 f4
a5 1 3 .ie3 b4 1 4 ll:\b5 "t!t'b8 1 5 a4
0-0 16 c4 be 1 7 be d5 1 8 e 5 ! ll:\h7 1 9
lilb l with good play for White.
't!t"c7
10
.ie7
11
't!Vel
12
lilad1 (5 7)
57
B

The untested 1 2 a4 would seem


more consistent with White's policy
of restricting Black's counterplay
as far as possible. Then attempts by
Black to play on White's weak
point, the c4 square , would appear
to be unfruitful:
(a) 1 2
lbe5 1 3 lilad l lDc4 1 4 .ic l
lilc8 1 5 b3 (promising is 1 5 h i
followed by 1 6 f4 ) 1 5 . . . lDe5 ( 1 5
. . . lbe3 1 6 .ixe3 't!t"xc3 1 7 lild3 't!t"c7
1 8 c4 ) I f! .ib2 0-0 1 7 h i ;l; .
(b) Black probably does better to
follow the plan of exchanging on
...

6 . . . h6 41
d4 coupled with . . . e5: 12
0-0 1 3
f4 l0xd4 1 4 .i.xd4 e 5 1 5 .i.e3 ef I 6
lixf4 .i.e6 with level chances.
12
0-0
The game Enklaar-Petrosian,
Amsterdam I 973, continued instead
with I 2 . . . b5 1 3 a3 l0xd4 I 4 .i.xd4
e5 I 5 .i.e3 .i.e6 I 6 l0d5 .i.xd5 I 7
e d l0d7 a nd here White could
maintain a slight pull with 18 f4
according to Petrosian .
l0xd4(!)
l3
f4
1 4 .i.xd4
eS
15
.i.e3
ef
16
lixf4
.i. e6
.i.xdS
1 7 lOdS
18
ed (58)

58
B

.i.e7 I I f4 l0xd4 I 2 .i.xd4 e5 1 3


.i.e3 ef I 4 .i.xf4 .i.e6 I 5 0-0-0 0-0
I 6 b i - White is better placed
than in equivalent positions in line
B2 I because he can make better
use of kingside attacking potential.
I n the game Black ran out of ideas
rather quickly: I 6 . . . lilacS 17 1!Vd2
lifd8 I 8 lihfl l0e8?! I 9 .i.e3 .i.f6
20 l0d5 .i.xd5 2 I ed .i.e5 22 h4 1!Vc4
23 g5 h5 24 .i.f4 g6 25 lide l .i.xf4
26 lixf4 "t!t'c5 27 lile7 .
1 0 1!Ve2
.i.e7
1 0 . . . lic8 normally transposes
back to the mai n line after I I f4.
The game Matulovic-Sax, Vrbas
I 977, saw an attempt to avoid this
by I I . . . "it'a5 1 2 l0b3 1!Vc7 1 3 0-0
.i.e7 I4 "t!t'f2 0-0 and now Sax's
suggestion of I 5 a4 leaves Black
neatly parcelled up, facing threats
of a5 followed by l0a4 and f5.
11
f4 (59)
59
B

R. Byrne-Reshevsky, USA Ch
I 966/67 . The position is level.
822
9 .i.e3
This is the more flexible of
White's alternatives and allows
him to consider the possibility of
castling long in addition to trans
posing to the previous line.
.i.d7
9
An i mporta nt departure was
seen in the ga me Horvath-Stean,
Virovitica 1 97 7 : 9 . . . "t!t'c7 1 0 1!Ve2

Again the most flexible. White


waits for Black to declare the
posting of his major pieces before
decidi ng which side to castle.
liteS
11
12
0-0-0
Safe and good is I 2 0-0 l0 xd4 1 3

42 6 . . . h6
.t.xd4 .t.c6 1; R. Byrne-Lombardy,
USA Ch 1 972.
12
W'aS
The same idea as in the game
Matulovic-Sax mentioned earlier.
Black's position seems in no way
improved for having delayed the
manoeuvre until White has castled.
1 2 . . 0-0 was indicated (but not 1 2
. . . b5? allowing 1 3 e 5 ! ) .
1 3 lilb3
W'c7
1 4
bS
0-0 (60)
IS
libel

fg 25 .t.e4 ll:'la4 26 W'f3 lilc3 27


b2 W'd6 ! =F=F and Black went on
to win.
c

l::t g l (61)

61
B

60
w

Not 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 lLld5 ! with a


winning attack. The text is better
but the position strongly favours
White anyway
according to
Marie.
We are following Horvath-Sax,
Hungarian Ch 1 9 7 5 : 16 e5! de
17 g5! hg 1 8 fg (White's idea is a
positional pawn sacrifice to enhance
the scope of his own pieces while
restricting the mobility of his
opponent's) 18 . . . lilh7 19 lt:le4 ( 1 9
't!fh5 appears to be stronger) 1 9 . . .
ll:'lb4! 20 lt:lec5? (better i s 20 .t.c5
.i.xc5 21 lt:lexc5 followed by 22 g6! )
2 0 . . . ll:'l d 5 2 1 lt:lxd7? lilxe3 22
ll:'lxf8 lt:lxd 1 23 lilxh7 lilxb2 24 g6
-

In this section we shall examine


the consequences if White should
adopt a different approach from
those outlined in A or B, dispensing
with any preliminary restraining
manoeuvres in order to pursue his
flank attack directly .
To simplify matters we can say
that White's ideal ' formation in
this line is with his queen on d2,
bish ops on e2 and e3, the rook on
gl and the h-pawn on h4, when he
is ready to bring his king .to safety
and continue the attack with g5.
The success or failure of this plan
must hinge on the possibility of an
effective counteraction by Black
in the centre or on the queenside.
Specifically, it will be a major
concern for White to ensure that
any attempt by his opponent to
secure counterplay with . . . d5 can
be actively combatted and exploited
to his own advantage. In accordance
with this observation White must

6 . . . h6 43
strive to achieve his ideal formation
by alternating attacking moves
( l::t g l , h4) with developing moves
( .i.e3, .i.e2) so that the threat of . . .
d 5 is contained a s much a s possible.
If he can surmount these initial
difficulties White should cope
successfully with other attempts
by Black to gain counterplay and
reach a very promising attacking
position indeed.
Before oeginning the detailed
analysis of the line we pause for a
word about White's seventh move
alternatives.
(a) 7 .i.el commits the bishop
rather too ea rly - it's useful to
retain the option of a check on b5
in case of a quick . . . d5 by Black.
(b) 7 h4 dclares White's intentions
too soon and allows Black to
make preparations for a rapid
counterstrike in the centre . 7 . . .
.te7 ( ! ) and now:
b I ) 8 llgl d5! - transposing to C2.
b2) More interesting is the novel
I 1Wf3!? e.g. S . . . h 5 ! (S . . . .!Llc6 9
tlxc6 be 1 0 g5 olild7 I I g6 oo) 9 gh
/()xh5 I 0 .i.g5 lt:lc6 ( 1 0 . . . .i.xg5?
I I hg 't!t"xg5 I 2 lt':ldb5 ) I 1 0-0-0
.txg5 ( I I . . . a6) I 2 hg 't!fxg5+ I 3
*b I lt:lxd4 I 4 l::t x d4 .i.d7 I 5 ll xd6
.tc6 I6 llxc6? ! ( 1 6 .i.e2 g6 oo) I 6
. . , be I 7 e 5 l::t d S ! I S 't!t"xc6+ ct>f8
1 9 't!t'c5+ <t>gS 20 .i.c4 lt:lf4 +
Ljubojevic-Timman, Montreal i 979.
b3) The curiosity 8 llh3, guarding
the rook in preparation for g5, was
played in the game Torre-Hubner,
Rio de Ja neiro IZ I 979. After S . . .
d S 9 .i.b5 + ct>f8 1 0 e 5 lt:lfd7 I I .i.f4

't!t"b6 1 2 .!Llb3 .!Llc6 1 3 11fe2 a6 I 4


.txc6 b e I 5 0-0-0 a5 Black already
stood better.
(c) The trouble with 7 .i.e3 is that
after 7 . . . a6! White has problems
guarding against the threat of S . . .
e 5 , since after 9 lt':lf5 g6 h e n o longer
has the square e3 for his knight.
However, there has recently been
much interest in the move S 11ff3 !? an unusual sortie which despite its
seeming artificiality keeps White's
attacking chances very much alive.
As yet no clear refutation of the
idea has emerged, and the theory is
rapidly developing:
c l ) 8 ... .!Llc6 9 h3?! .i.d7 1 0 0-0-0 b5
I I .i.g2 liteS I2 a3 .!Lle5 1 3 tlre2
lt:lc4 I 4 f4 .i.e7 I 5 .i.f2 11fa5
1 6 l::t d 3 d5? I 7 .!Llb3 11fc7 1 S ed
't!fxf4+ I 9 'it>b i 't!t"bS 20 de fe 2 I
l::t h d I ( ) 2 1 . . . e 5 22 lt:le4! .i.e6 23
.!Llec5 't!t"b6 24 lt:lb7 't!fc7 25 lt:l3c5!
.i.xc5 26 .i.xc5 I -0 Ciocaltea
Ungureanu , Romania 1 9S l .
c2) 8
olilbd7 9 't!fh3 (threat I O g5):
c2 1 ) 9
.!LlcS 10 f3 e5 l l lt:lb3 .i.e6
( I I . . . lt:lxb3+ I 2 ab .i.e6 1 3 .i.c4 )
12 0-0-0 ( I 2 lt:lxc5 de I 3 't!t'g3 .i.e7
I4 h4 - 14 't!fxe5? .i.d6 =F=F - I4 . . .
't!fa5 I 5 't!t"xe5 0-0-0 I 6 .i.c4 .i.d6 1 7
.i.xe6+ ct>bS I S 't!ff5 fe 1 9 't!fxe6
l::t h eS 20 't!ff7 oo Sax-Tukma kov,
Las Palmas I 97S) I2 . . . lt:lxb3 + 1 3
ab lieS I 4 lt:ld5! .i.xd5 I 5 ed 't!fc7
I 6 c3 't!fa 5 I 7 .i.c4 b5 I S g5 lt:ld7 I 9
b 4 't!Va4 20 .i.d3 't!fa 1 + (20 . . . 't!t"xb4
2 1 .i.f5 ) 2 I ct>c2 't!fa2 (2 I . . .
't!fa4+ 2 2 'it>b l ll xc3 ! 2 3 g6 ! ll a 3 !
2 4 gf+ 'it>dS 25 b a 't!fb3 + 2 6 ct>c i
't!fc3 + 27 .i.c2 't!t'xe3+ 2S ct>b2 lt':lb6
...

..

44 6 . . . h6
29 lld3 ) 22 g6! '@a4+ 23 b l
l:txc3 24 llc l ! lla3 25 '@xd7+ ! ! 1 -0
Perenyi-Barczay, Hungary 1 979.
c22) 9 e5 10 l0f5 ( 1 0 l0b3 b5 1 1 f3
.i.b7 oo) 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 g5 ! ( 1 1 l0xh6
J.xh6 12 .i.xh6 l0c5 ! 13 '@h4 .i.xg4
=F=F; l l lDg3 lOb6 1 2 .i.e2 h 5 1 3 '@h4
J.e7 1 4 g5 l0h7 =F Ermenkov
Polugayevsky, Buenos Aires OL
1 978) 1 1 ... gf 1 2 ef! d5! 13 gf ( l 3
o-O-O d4 1 4 gfdc 1 5 .i.c4 '@xf6 1 6 f4
l0c5 ! 1 7 libe l .i.xf5 1 8 '@g2 .i.e4 1 9
'@g3 l0e6 ( =F) 20 fe '@g6 2 1 .i.xe6
cb+ 22 'ibxb2 fe 23 '@f4 lieS 24 lld2
.i.b4 0- 1 Sax-Gheorghiu , Wij k aan
Zee 1 9 8 1 ) 13 . . . d4 14 .i.c4! ( 1 4 lDe4
lDxf6 ! 1 5 '@h4 l0xe4 1 6 '@xe4 de 1 7
'@xe5+ .i.e6 ! 1 8 lld l ef+ 1 9 ct>e2
'@g5 and Black went over to the
attack in Perenyi-Tompa, Hungary
1 979) 14 . . . l0xf6 ( 14 . . . de 15 .i.xf7+
'ibxf7 1 6 '@h5+ ; 14 . . . '@a5 1 5
.i.xf7+ xf7 1 6 '@h5+ <t>xf6 1 7
'@g6+ 'ibe7 1 8 o-o-o with a dangerous
attack for the piece) 1 5 0-0-0 't!t'd7?!
( 1 5 . . . '@c7 !?) Perenyi-Cabrilo,
Kecskemet 1 979. Now Perenyi's
suggestion is 16 llhe l .i.e7 ( 1 6 . . .
'@xf5? 1 7 '@xf5 .i.xf5 1 8 .i.xd4 )
1 7 f4 '@xf5 1 8 '@xf5 .i.xf5 1 9 fe de 20
ef .i.xf6 2 1 llxe3+ ct>f8 22 l:U3
J.g5+ 23 ct>b l .i.g6 24 Itd7 .
From diagram 6 1 Black has:
Cl 7 . . . lDc6
C2 7 . . . .i.e7
7
d5?! would fail for reasons
similar to those which caused
Blac k's demise in the 6 . . . d5 1ine as
the interpolation of the moves 6 . . .
h 6 7 It g I does little t o alter the
character of the position as far as
...

...

an early central counterattack is


concerned: 8 ed l0xd5 9 J.b5+
J.d7 10 l0xd5 ed 1 1 '@e2+ etc.
Unsatisfactory too is 7 g5. The
game Radovici-Kiuger, Lublin 1 97 1 ,
continued 8 .i.e3 a 6 9 '@d2 J.d7 1 0
0-0-0 l0c6 1 1 J.e2 '@c7 1 2 h4! g h 1 3
g 5 h g 1 4 .i.xg5 .i.e7 1 5 l0xc6 J.xc6
1 6 '@f4 with a clear advantage .
Cl
7
l0c6 (62)
...

62
w

Once more 8 .i.e2 commits the


bishop too early: 8 . . . d5! 9 ed ed 1 0
.i.e3 .i.b4! 1 1 a3 .i.xc 3+ 1 2 b e lDe4
1 3 l0xc6 be 14 '@d4 Ciocaltea
Golombek , Tunis 1 97 1 , and now
14 . . . 0-0 ! 1 5 0-0-0 '@a5 16 't!b4
'@xb4 1 7 cb lDc3 1 8 Itde l lbxe2+
19 Itxe2 is equal according to
Ciocaltea.
So White chooses fro m :
C l l 8 h4
C l 2 8 .i.e3
Cll
h4
8
White has now expended three
successive tempi building up his
kingside attac k and is th reatening
to overru n his opponent's with g5g6, so Black must fight back

6 ... h6 45
without further delay. He can secure
counterplay either by meeting his
opponent head-on with 8 . . . h5 or
opening up the centre with 8 . . . d5.
8 . . . ll:lxd4 on the other hand
leaves White fully in control: 9
't!t'xd4 ll:ld7 10 g5 hg I I hg ll:le5 1 2
lig3 ! a6 1 3 .i.e3 .i.d7 1 4 0-0-0 't!Vc7
1 5 f4 ll:lc6 16 't!rd2 and White's
position has considerable attacking
potential . The game Guseinov
Morgulev, USSR 1 9 7 5 , continued
16 . . . g6 1 7 ll:la4 b5 1 8 ll:lb6 lib8 1 9
tl:lxd7 't!Vxd7 2 0 .i.c5 .
C l l l 8 . . . h5
C l l 2 8 ... d5
CU I
h5
8
9
hg
9 g5 was a recent try in Belya vsky
Andersson, Moscow 1 98 1 , which
continued 9 . . . ll:lg4 10 .i.e2 't!rb6?
( 1 0 . . . g6! I I ll:lxc6 be 1 2 .i.xg4 - J2
'ld4 'lb6! + - 1 2 . . . hg 1 3 't!rxg4
i.g7 oo) I I .i.xg4 't!rxd4 12 .i.e3
't!t'b4? ( 1 2 . . . 't!rxd l + 13 .i.xd l g6 14
tl:lb5 'i!?d7 15 i.e2 a6 16 ll:ld4 ;t) 1 3
.i.e2 g 6 1 4 a3 ! 'i!Vxb2 1 5 ll:lb5 't!re5
1 6 lib I 'itd7 1 7 't!Vd3 a6 1 8 f4 'i!Vg7
19 ll:lxd6 .i.xd6 20 lid I lid8 2 1
i.b6 't!t'f8 22 e5 'i!?e8 23 i.xd8 ll:lxd 8
2 4 't!Vxd6 't!rxd6 25 li xd6 .
ll:lxh5
9
ll:lf6
10 i.g5
10 . . . 't!rc7 , though not clearly
bad , is certainly more dangerous
for Black : I I 't!Vd2 a6 12 0-0-0
ll:lxd4 ( 1 2 . . . .i.d7 allows the lively
13 ll:lf5 ! ef 1 4 ll:ld5 't!t'b8 15 ef) 1 3
't!Vxd4 .i.d7 1 4 'itb l lic8 1 5 .i.e2 b5
1 6 lige I 't!rc 5 17 't!Vd2 ll:lf6 ( 1 7 ... b4

1 8 ll:ld5 ! ed 1 9 .i.xh 5 or 1 7 . . .
't!Vxf2 1 8 e 5 d5 1 9 ll:lxd5 ed 20 e6
.i.c6 2 1 .i.xh5 ) 18 a3 't!Vc7?! ( 1 8
. . . i.e7 1 9 e5 't!Vxe5 20 .i.xb5 't!Vc5)
1 9 f4 't!rb7 20 e5 de 21 .i.f3 't!Vxf3
22 .i.xf6 't!Vc6 23 ll:le4 Vasyukov
Larsen , Manila 1 974.
I I 't!Vd2
In the game Jansa-Andersson,
Cienfuegos 1975, White experiment
ed successfully with the aggressive
I I h 5 ! ? The continuation was I I . . .
a 6 ( I I . . . ll:lxd4 1 2 't!Vxd4 lixh5 1 3
.i.b5+ i.d7 1 4 .i.xd7+ 't!rxd7 1 5
i.xf6 g f 1 6 't!Vxf6 ; I I . . . 't!rb6 ! ) 1 2
ll:lxc6 be 1 3 't!rf3 .i.e7 1 4 e5 ! de 1 5 h6
gh 1 6 i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 7 lid I .i.d 7 1 8
ll:le4 i.e7 1 9 lig7 lif8 20 .i.c4 with
a powerful attack.
't!rb6
II
a6
1 2 ll:lb3
.i.d7 (63)
13
0-0-0

By all accounts this positiOn


should favour White as he is two
tempi up on a similar position
occurring in line A2 1 22 1 . However,
the position is not nearly so bad for
Black as it might appear precisely
because one of White's extra tempi
has been expended on developing

46 6 . . . h6
the. rook to gi where it hinders
rather than helps the evolution of
his strategy: I4 f4 is impossible and
if I 4 J.e2 then I 4 . . . 't!Vxf2 can be
played as I 5 .ie3 leaves the h-pawn
hanging.
Despite this consideration it
should be possible for White to
realise his advantage by redeploying
the rook and aiming for play in the
centre rather than on the wing.
14 .ig2
I4 'i!?b i 0-0-0 I5 J.e3 't!Vc7 I 6 f4?
llxh4! I 7 't!rf2 lL!g4 I 8 't!Vxh4 lL!xe3
I9 lld2 J.e7 20 't!rh 5 g6 2I 't!Vf3
lL!xfl 22 't!rxfl cilb8 with full
compensation for the exchange in
Cardoso-Andersson, Manila I 974.
't!Vc7
14
IS
llgel
.ie7
0-0-0
f4
16
Balashov-Andersson, Cienfuegos
I 9 7 5. Now instead of the incorrect
sacrifice 17 lL!dS? ed I 8 ed lL!xd 5 !
I 9 J.xd5 f6 =F White should
continue 17 't!re2 preparing to
break open the centre with e5,
when he stands rather better.
Cll2
dS!? (64)
8
64
w

This continuation is logical but


very risky.
9 .ibS
More accurate than 9 ed lL!xd5
IO lL!xd5 which allows 10 . . . 1!rxd 5 .
However, t h e game Belyavsky
Ghinda, Bucharest I 980, demon
strated that White could still
maintain a slight edge: I I .ig2
't!ra5+ I 2 .id2 't!re5+ 1 3 .ie3 .id7
( 1 3 . . . lL!xd4 I4 't!rxd4 't!Vxd4 I 5
.ixd4 ) I 4 lL!xc6 J.xc6 I 5 J.xc6+
be I6 't!Vd4 ! . In the game Black
went badly wrong with I6 . . .
't!Va5+? ( 1 6 . . . 't!Vxd4 I 7 .ixd4 f6 !)
17 c3 c5? I8 't!re4 llc8 19 0-0-0 ! ( )
1 9 ... .ie7 ( 1 9 ... Wxa2 20 't!Vb7 )
20 g5 hg 2I J.xg5 .ixg5+ 22 ll xg5
't!rxa2 23 llxg7 llf8 (23 . . . cilf8 24
llxf7+ ! ) 24 h5 c4 25 lld6! 'ira 1 +
26 cilc2 't!Va4+ 27 cilb i llc7 28
llxe6+ fe 29 't!ra8+ I -0.
Ristoja-Eising, Gliickberg Team
Tournament 1 97 7 , went instead
10 . . . ed I I g5?! ( 1 1 .ib5 transposes
to the main line) 1 1 . . . hg I2 hg g6
1 3 lL!xc6? ! be 1 4 't!rd4 llh7 I 5 J.e3
ll b 8 ! I6 't!Vxa7 llxb2 1 7 .id4 llxc2
18 llg3 .ib4+ with a winning
attack.
9 lL! xc6 be strengthens Black's
centre but White gets tactical
chances. The game Pioch-Adamski,
Polish Ch I 9 7 4, continued I 0 g5 hg
I I hg lL!d7 1 2 .ie3 llb8 1 3 g6 ll xb2
I 4 ed cd 1 5 gf+ 'i!?xf7 I 6 .id4 e5 I 7
't!rf3+ lL!f6 00 .
9
J.d7
10
ed
lL!xd5
II
lL!xdS
ed
1 2 J.e3! (65)

6 . . . h6 47
65
B

An idea introduced by Karpov


at Tilburg 1 980. The plan is to
reinforce White's grip on the dark
squares and after 1 3 't!rd2 and an
eventual lL!f5 to drum up threats
against h6 and g7, which could
prove fatal for Black if he castles.
In itself this scheme is not new compare fi ne C l 2, note to Black's
8th move - but its introduction at
this point in the line marks a
considerable improvement over
play as hitherto known: 1 2 't!Ve2+
Jl.e7 1 3 ltlf5 ( 1 3 lLJO O-O l 4 g5 liteS
15 cild I .if8 16 't!rd2 lle4 1 7 Jl.d3
llg4 1 8 lle l 'fi'b6 + Formanek
Wagman, Reggio-Emilia 1 977 178)
13 .. . .ixf5 14 gf ci1f8 1 5 c3 Jl.f6 1 6
.ie3 Liberzon-Formanek, Beersheva
1 97 8 , and now Black should play
16 . . . 't!ra5 + to prevent White from
castling and to prepare for . . . lle8
and an eventual . . . d4.
.ie7
12
White also gets good attacking
chances after 12 . . . 't!rxh4 1 3 't!rd2
.ie7 14 0-0-0 followed by 1 5 lL!f5 .
.ixh4?!
1 3 't!rdl
Risky, but it is easy to understand
Black's desire to avoid unpleasan-

tries such as 13 ... 0-0 1 4 ltlf5 .ixf5


1 5 gf '.t>h7? ( 1 5 . . . lL!e5 1 6 .ie2 )
1 6 .ixh6! gh 1 7 f6 .ixf6 1 8 Jl.d3+
cilh8 19 't!Vxh6 mate.
Black's best is the simplifying
1 3 . . . lL!xd4 14 Jl.xd7+ 't!rxd4 1 5
't!rxd4 ( 1 5 .ixd4 't!re6+) 1 5 . . . Jl.f6
1 6 'fi'b4 't!re7 ( Krnic). After 1 7
\tb5+ 't!Vd7 1 8 't!Vxd7+ '.t>xd7 1 9
0-0-0 '.t>c6 White has only a
minimal edge.
14
0-0-0
Jl.f6
IS
lL!fS
Jl.xfS
16
gf
a6
1 7 .ixc6+
be
18
Jl.cS (66)

White's dark-square strategy is


now complete. With Black's king
pinned down in the centre the
success of the ensuing attack is
assured.
We are following the game
Karpov-Spassky, Tilburg 1 980,
which continued 1 8 . . . llb8 19 b4
llb5 20 llge I + '.t>d7 2 1 c4 llxc5 22
be Jl.g5? 23 f4 't!Vf6 24 cd! 't!ra l + 25
'iti>c2 't!rxa2+ 26 '.t>d3 't!Vxd2+ 27
llxd2 Jl.xf4 28 lla2 cd 29 llxa6 h5
30 '.t>d4 h4 3 1 'itxd5 llb8 32 f6 gf
33 llxf6 .ig3 34 llxf7+ 'iti>d8 3 5

48 6 . . h6
.

IU'8+ 1 -0.
Cl2
8 .te3
After this move White is even
better prepared to deal with Black's
counterthreats in the centre.
a6 (67)
8

Once again 8 . . . d5 is the critical


move , but in this position it is of
dubious value because White is
able to dispense with h4 and
substitute a move with more
relevance to the centre. 9 ed (9
J.b5 ! ) and now:
(a) 9 ed 1 0 i.b5 i.d7 I I 't!Ve2 ( 1 1
a3! followed by 1 2 't!Ve2 and 1 3
0-0-0 ) I I . . . i.b4! ( I I . . . .te7 1 2
0-0-0 0-0 1 3 h4 - White's attack
has real power with the knight
remaining on f6) 1 2 ll:lxc6 .txc6 1 3
0-0-0 .txc3 1 4 i.d4+ ll:le4 1 5 .txc3
0-0 16 i.d4 1fa5 =F Matulovic
Bukic, Kralievo 1 967.
(b) 9
ll:l xd5 10 ll:lxd5 ed ( 1 0 . . .
't!Vxd 5 ! ? I I i.g2 't!Va5+ 1 2 c 3 :! ) I I
J.b5 i.d7 1 2 't!Vd2 .te7 1 3 0-0-0
0-0 14 ll:lf5 .txf5 1 5 gf .
8 . . . .te7 transposes to C22.
The position shown in diagram
67 forms the cornerstone of this
...

...

important variation .
White's strategy has evolved
smoothly so far, and he has
contained Black's counterplay while
strengthening his own lines in the
centre and on the kingside . The
question he now faces is whether
to continue the quiet pattern of
development with 9 i.e2 or 9 1fe2,
or attempt an immediate foray
with 9 h4.
It is difficult to evaluate these
possibilities precisely but in general
terms it may be said that neither of
the two developing plans can be
incorrect and both have their
good points, the former offering
immediate protection to the g-pawn
and related white squares on the
kingside, the latter preparing for
queenside castling while retaining
options on the placement of the
bishop. The interesting question,
however, is whether White can
achieve more with the third, more
active, approach.
C l 2 1 9 .te2
C l 22 9 't!Ve2
C l 23 9 h4
Cl21
9 .te2
We examine :
C l 2 1 1 9 . . . .td7
C l 2 1 2 9 . . . i.e7
C l 2 1 3 9 . . . 't!Va5 ( ! )
The latter i s the only move for
Black if he is to upset the smooth
running of White's scheme. The
alternatives 9 . . . i.d7 and 9 . . . i.e7
allo w the first player to reach his
ideal position with 10 h4. Once he

6 . . . h6 49
h'as achieved this set-up White will
be very well placed, threatening to
throw back his opponent's pieces
with g5, when the prospect of an
open file on the kingside will be
most unwelcome to Black. In
addition there is the further threat
of g6 rupturing the protective
barrier around the black king.
All in all the message is one of
warning to Black players as both
theory and practice indicate that
they are in for a very rough ride in
these variations.
Cl21 1
9
i.d7
10
h4 (68)
68
B

The sharpest continuation.


The quieter 1 0 @d2 is perfectly
playable but allows Black more
time to organise a defensive block
ade with e.g. 10 . . . tt:l xd4 !? I I
't!Vxd4 h5 1 2 gh li:lxh5 and Black is
a tempo ahead on the main line, or
10 ... g5!? - compare with Ghizdavu
Spassky in the C I 2 1 2 line.
In the game Kurajica-Ostojic,
Belgrade 1 969, Black continued 10
... i.e7 and was summarily punished
for his lethargy as follows: I I h4

ltlh7 1 2 ltlxc6 .txc6 1 3 g5 hg 1 4 hg


li:lf8 1 5 0-0-0 .
10
li:lxd4
Black can no longer afford to
ignore the storm gathering on the
kingside but must counterattack
immediately. Passive play will
simply allow White to sweep
through:
(a) 1 0
't!Vc7 1 1 g5 hg I2 hg
li:lg8 13 @d2 li:lxd4 I 4 i.xd4 li:le 7
I S 0-0-0 li:lc6 I 6 i.e3 @aS I 7 g6!
(with Black's h-pawn gone this
thrust is extremely dangerous) I 7
. . . f6 I 8 llh I Ciocaltea-Langeweg,
Hamburg I 965 - a most explicit
example of White's ideal strategy
in practice.
(b) 1 0 . . . g6 I I g5 hg I 2 hg li:lh5 1 3
't!Vd2 't!Vc7 I 4 0-0-0 li:la5 I S f4 b 5 1 6
f5 li:lc4 I 7 i.xc4 1fxc4 I 8 fe fe I 9
'it>b I llc8 20 e 5 d 5 and Black was
left with telling weaknesses on e6
and g6 in Ghizdavu-Toran, Skopje
OL I 972.
(c) Perhaps Black's most promising
attempt to neutralise the pressure
is 10 ... d5, though after I I ed
tt:lxd5 I 2 li:lxd5 ed 1 3 g5 hg I4 hg
White retains some initiative and
can re-direct his attention to
Black's weak isolated d-pawn.
h5!
11
't!Vxd4
12
gh
tt:l xh5
't!Vc7
13
0-0-0
14
f4
i.c6
li:lf6
15
i.f3
llc8
16
i.f2
17
lld2 t (69)
White enjoys a generous advan
tage in space which his pieces are
.

50 6 . . . h6

69
B

eS but the open lines and increased


piece activity provide ample com
pensation) I S . . . gf 1 6 j.xf4 bS
Ghizdavu-Spassky, Nice OL 1 974.
Here the logical and strong move
1 7 gS should be tried, the main
threat being 1 8 j.hS when White's
position offers the better chances.
(b) 10 ... xd4! I I 't!Vxd4 e S 12 't!rd2
.ie6 1 3 h4 dS 1 4 ed xdS
Radulov-Tukmakov,
This game emphasises the im
portance of the extra tempo White
would gain if Black tried the same
manoeuvre after the text move: 1 0
h 4 xd4 I I 't!Vxd4 eS 1 2 't!Vd2 j.e6
1 3 gS hg 14 hg d7 I S 0-0-0 .
h7!?
10
An interesting prophylactic
approach to the problem of the
pawn barrage ! White cannot allow
his pawns to become blockaded
( I I h S?) so the only way forward is
by means of the follo)Ving sacrifice:
hg
11
g5!
12
hg
- xg5
xd4
13 't!rdl .
1 4 .ixd4
.if6
1 4 . . . eS I S .ie3 e6 1 6 dS
also leaves Black in considerable
difficulties .
gf
1 5 j.xf6
f4
16
h7
17
lih1 (71)
Kinlay-Wells, London 1 979. The
finish was 1 7 . . . j.d7 ! 1 8 't!Vxd6
't!Ve7? ( 1 8 . . . .ic6 19 'ireS 't!rc7 20
't!Ve3 0-0-0 t) 1 9 'ti'b6 .ic6 20 0-0-0
lieS 2 1 lih4 't!Vf8 22 lidh l '@g 7 23
=

well placed to exploit.


Cl212
j.e7
9
10
h4 (70)
70
B

This continuation is the most


precise. White retains the queen
on d l so that he may prevent the
blockading . . . h S and if necessary
recapture on d4 without loss of
tempo.
10 't!Vd2 and now:
(a) 10 . . . g5!? I I 0-0-0 d 7 12 h4!
lig8 1 3 hg hg 14 'i!?c I (this seems a
little slow and an improvement
would be 14 lih l followed by lih7
and doubling on the h-file, with a
significant advantage) 1 4 . . . ceS
I S f4 (antipositional in the sense
that it ensures Black a safe seat on

't!rf2 fS 24 't!rh2 .ixe4 2S lixh7


iixh7 26 '@xh7 't!rg2 27 't!Vh8+

6 . . . h6 51
71
B

r:!Je7 28 'Wh4+ r:!Je8 29 't!fh8+ </'Je7


30 't!rh4+ </'Je8 3 I lld l ! I -0 (3 I . . .
@xe2 3 2 lidS + ! ) .
C1213
9
't!VaS (!)
1 0 b3
The natural response to Black's
pressure on the e-pawn is IO 't!rd 2
but aftet- I O . . . xd4 I I 11t'xd4 e 5
I 2 't!Vd2 b 5 Black has dangerous
counterplay and may already stand
better.
10
11t'c7
What has Black done to prevent
White continuing with his plan?
11
h4
The answer lies in the startling
reply . . .
11
dS!? (72)

Played in the game Krnil:-Jansa,


Sombor I 970, this pawn sacrifice
for the initiative proved most
effective: I2 ed ed 1 3 ltlxd5 ltlxd5
I 4 @xd5 .i.e6 I S @e4 0-0-0 an d
with the weaknesses in White's
pawn structure exposed, his king
stranded in the centre and his
queen on the run Black had excellent
'
compensation for the pawn.
A hint to the antidote to this
dangerous gambit was provided
by the game Ghizdavu-Espig, Varna
I 97 3 , in which White declined the
sacrifice and calmly continued his
development: I4 't!rd2 ! .i.e? I 5
0-0-0 .i.xh4? I 6 g5! .i.xg5 I 7 .i.xg5
hg I S @xg5 .i.e6 I9 j,f3 with the
initiative and a positional plu s for
th e pawn .
C l 22
9 @e2 (73) '
73
B

72
w

This move retains a greater


degree of flexibility in White's
position and thereby avoids some
of the problems which Black was
able to set his opponent after 9 .i.e2.
The other mode of queen devel
opment is not satisfactory at this
point: 9 't!rd2 .i.e? 10 0-0-0?! ( 10 .i.e2

52 6 . . . h6

transposes to the game Radulov


Tukmakov in line C l 2 1 2, note to
White's tenth move) 10 . . . it)xd4!
I I 1!fxd4 e5 1 2 1!fa4+ .i.d7 13 Wb3
and Black had at least equality in
Ghizdavu-Tukmakov , Ybbs 1 968.
9
ll:lxd4
Invariably played at this point
as Black fares rather worse with
alternatives :
(a) 9 .i.d7 10 0-0-0 1!fc7 ( 1 0 . . . b5?
I I ll:lxc6 .i.xc6 12 e5 ll:ld5 13 ll:lxd5
.i.xd5 14 ed 1!fxd6 1 5 .i.g2 ) I I h4
b5 12 g5 hg 13 hg ll:lg8 14 g6 ! when
the initiative is very much in
White's hands.
(b) 9 1!fa5 1 0 it)b3 't!Vc7 I I h4 b5
1 2 g5 hg 13 hg ll:ld7 14 g6 ! fg 15 f4
lt)f6 1 6 't!rg2 with a dangerous
attack.
1 0 .i.xd4
eS
11
.i.e3
.i.e6
h4
12
llc8 (74)
...

...

74

grip on the position was stronger


than ever.
Notice that the thematic 12 dS
fails simply to 13 ed it)xd5
14 0-0-0 1!fa5 1 5 ll:lxd5 .hd5 16 M4.
hg
13
g5
ll xc3
14
hg
This sacrifice is essential if Black
is to secure any counterplay. As
we have seen, passive measures
lead to dismal positions for the
second player .
15
gf!
llxe3
16 1!fxe3
gf
1 7 1!fc3
tlb6
Kurajica-Spassky, Solingen 1974.
Having fended off his opponent's
counterattack White has every
prospect of consolidating his mat
erial advantage with 1 8 0-0-0, e.g.
18 . . . 't!rxf2 1 9 1!fc7 ! 1!fc5 20 1!fxb7
.i.xa2 2 1 b3 't!rc3 22 lld3 (Kurajica) .
C123
h4 (75)
9
...

More active than 12


it)d7,
played in the game Matulovic
Janosevic, Yugoslav Ch 1 972. After
1 3 g5 hg 14 hg g6 1 5 0-0-0 llc8 1 6
't!rd2 1!fa5 1 7 b l llh4? 1 8 f3 .i.e7
19 a3 it)b6 20 1!ff2 lt)a4 21 it)d5 !
llh5 2 2 c4 it)c5 2 3 .i.e2 White's
...

Despite the effectiveness of 9


.i.e2 and 9 't!re2 it is still worthwhile
for White to investigate this move,
which is in many ways the most
flexi ble possibility.
Once more the critical reply is

6 . . . h6 53
9
WaS
(a) 9 . . . dS worked out badly for
Black in the game Gheorghiu
R. Garcia , Buenos Aires 1 970,
which went 10 ed ll:lxd5 I I ll:lxd5
@xd5 ( I I . . . ed 12 g5 hg 1 3 hg
followed by 14 .i.e2, 1 5 @d2 and 1 6
0-0-0 ) 1 2 i.g2 't!Va5+ 1 3 c3 ll:le5
1 4 1fe2 't!Vc7 15 0-0-0 i.d7 16 .i.f4!
ll:ld3+ 17 1fxd3 1fxf4+ 18 'i!?b 1
1fc7 1 9 't!Vf3 .
(b) 9 . . . hS(i) may well be Black's
best but is as yet untried . After 10
gh ll:lxh5 1 1 .i.g5 ll:lf6 he is a
tempo ahead on line C I l l .
't!Vc 7
1 0 ll:l b3
This was the course of the game
Krnic-Jansa, Sombor 1 970, quoted
in line C l 2 1 3, where 1 1 .i.e2 d5!?
1
occurred . A substantial improve
ment is . . .
hg
11
gS
ll:l d 7
12
hg
f6
13
g6!
f4
bS
14
ll:lb6
15 @f3
16
0-0-0 (76)
76
B

The open h-file and the looseness


of Black's pawn structure should
provide White with promising

avenues of attack.
C2
7

.i.e7 (77)

77
w

At fi rst sight the purpose of this


move is difficult to discern as it
seems unlikely that there should
be any advantage in positioning
the piece with the least scope first.
It will come as no surprise that the
intention is to facilitate an eventual
counterattack with . . . d5, but the
reader will be forgiven if he fails to
discover the nature of the contri
bution of the move towards that
goal.
It will be recalled that Black
encountered problems achieving
. . . d5 in other lines chiefly because
White could make use of an annoy
ing pin with 7 .i.b5 . With 7 . . . i.e7
Black intends to sidestep this
difficulty by bringing his king to f8 !
White has the usual choice of
continuations:
C2 1 8 h4
C22 8 i.e3
C21
h4
8
The move most frequently seen
in practice and the one which

54 6 . . . h6

Black's set-up is designed to deal


with first and foremost.
d5
8
9 .i.b5 +
'.t>f8! (78)
78
w

while White's already smacks of


defeat.
The text was played for the first
time in the game Urzica-Ghinda,
Romanian Ch 1974, after the inter
esting transposition 6 ... h6 7 h4 -*.e7
8 .i.b 5+ <M8 9 llg l d5 10 e5 ltlfd7.
The game continued I I . .. 't!Vb6?
(risky is I I . . . .i.xh4 because of 1 2
1Wf3 threatening 1 3 ltlxe6, but a
considerable improvement is I I . .
g5 ! 1 2 h g h g 1 3 .i.g3 't!fb6 when
Black has relatively little to fear
on the kingside) 1 2 1Wd2 ltlc6 1 3
.i.xc6 ! be 1 4 g 5 hg 1 5 .i.xg5 .i.b4
16 'i!Vf4 c5 17 .i.d8 ! 1Wa6 1 8 ll xg7!
'.t>xg7 1 9 't!fg5 + cilf8 20 .i.e7+ and
White quickly won.
C22
8 .i.e3 (79)
.

e5
10
Willynilly White must go on.
Ineffectual is I 0 ed ltlxd5 I I .i.d2
.i.f6 ! ( I I . . . .i.xh4 12 1We2 .i.f6 1 3
0-0-0 -*.xd4 1 4 ltlxd5 'i!Vxd 5 1 5
.i.e3 ! -*.xe3+ 1 6 1Wxe 3 ! 1Wxb5 1 7
lld8+ <t>e7 1 8 llxh8 with consider
able compensation, Radulov-Sax,
Vraca 1 975) 12 ltlf3 ltlxc3 1 3 -*.xc3
i.xc3 14 be 't!fxd I +

79
B

= .

10

ltlfd7

White now has two pawns under


attack and it will cost him more
than his position is worth to try to
hang on to material. It is far better
for him to give up a pawn for
attacking chances , though a direct
assault on Black's solid position
seems unlikely to succeed against
accurate defence.
All in all a line for gambiteers only.
II
.i.f4
Dismal is I I ltlf3 ltlc6 1 2 -*.xc6
be 1 3 g5 hg 14 -*.xg5 .i.xg5 1 5 hg
llb8 =F Matulovic-Tukmakov, Bath
1973 - Black's position plays itself

After this move Black must


forego his intended . . . d5, which
would prove rather too risky with
so many of White's pieces in play,
and instead adopt a more solid
approach similar to C l lines.
ltlc6
8
h4
h5!
9
10
gh
ltlxh5
a6
II
-*.g5

6 . . . h6 55
12

t3

'tWd2
o-o-o

J.d7

l0f6 (80)

80
w

We have reached a position


si milar to that arising from line
C 1 1 1 , to which the reader is referred
for a comparative analysis.
Once again the white rook does
not stand particularly well on g 1
and Whit must look for a way of
increasing his spatial advantage

other than the standard plan of


advancing the h-pawn, which is
not feasible in this position.
The game Hort-Andersson from
Bugojno 1 980 featured a restrained
approach by White: 14 f3 ( 1 4 f4!?
1Wb6! ; 1 4 J.g2) 1 4 . . . 1Wc7 15 l0xc6
J.xc6 16 J.h3 lidS (on 16 . . . 0-0-0
White has 1 7 l0d5 ! - the point of
White's exchange of knights on
move 1 5) 1 7 1We3 b5 1 8 <ti>b 1 J.b7
19 ll:le2 g6 20 lid3 (;!;) 20 . . . l0d7 !?
(20 . . . d5 21 J.xf6 J.xf6 22 ed
J.xd5 23 ll:lf4 is very dangerous
for Black) 2 1 J.xe7 <ti>xe7 22 1Wg5+
ll:lf6 23 l0f4 e5 24 ligd 1 ! ef 25 e5
de 26 lixd7+ lixd7 27 lixd7+
1Wxd7 28 1Wxe5+! 'itlf8 29 J.xd7
lixh4 30 b3 with the better chances
for White, although the game was
eventually drawn.

4 Queenside Counterattack : 6 . . . a6
h4! - see B l Chapter 3), but the
move may have some independent
significance. Some examples :
a1) 7
lL! fd7 S 0-0 lL!c6 9 'it>h 1
.te7 1 0 f4 0-0 1 1 g5 ll:lxd4 1 2 '1Vxd4
b5 ( 1 2 . . . e 5 ! ) R. Byrne-Spassky,
match ( 1 ) 1 974. Now best is 1 3 a4!
libS 14 ab ab 15 b3 Bondarevsky.
a2) 7
lL!c6 S lL!xc6 !? be 9 e5 d5
1 0 ed '1Vxd6 ( 1 0 .. . .ixd6 1 1 ll:le4
followed by 1 2 c4) 1 1 lL!e4 '@c7 1 2
c 4 lL!f4 1 3 .ixf4 '@xf4 1 4 lL!f6+?
( 1 4 ll:ld6+ .txd6 1 5 .txc6+ 'it>e7 1 6
.txaS lidS =t= ; 1 4 '@a4! .id7 1 5
lid 1 '@c7? ! - 1 5 . . . .te l w - 1 6 c5
) 14 ... 'it>e7 ! 15 lL!e4 ( 1 5 .ixc6
lia7 1 6 ll:le4 lic7 1 7 '@a4 f6 =t=) 1 5
. . . h 5 ! =t= Planinc-Ribli, Wij k aan
Zee 1 97 3 .
S h3 was tried in Radulov
Cvetkovic, Vrnj acka Banja 1 974,
which continued S . . . '1Vc7 9 ll:lde2
.te7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 f4? ( 1 1 g5 lL!d7
1 2 f4) 1 1 . . . d 5 ! 1 2 e5 .ic5+ 1 3 'it>h 1
lL!d7 + .
a3) 7
'1Vc7 S 0-0 ll:lc6 9 h 3 h 6 1 0
a4 .id7 1 1 lL!xc6 .txc6 1 2 .te3
.te7 1 3 '@d2 lidS 14 a5 (;!;) 14 . . .
't!n> S 1 5 lifd 1 d5? ! 1 6 ed lL!xd5 1 7
ll:lxd5 .txd 5 l S .ib6 ! lieS 1 9
.ixd5 ed 20 lie l Engel-Estrin,
Corres 1 977.
(b) White also has the possibility
of a sharp piece sacrifice in 7 .ie3
.

...

In this chapter w e examine the


possibilities arising from the move
6 . . . a6. Instead of co ntesting
White's kingside initiative directly
Black's strategy in these lines is to
gain as much space as he can on
the queenside in the belief that he
can secure equal chances with
energetic cou nterplay. The move
certainly has appeal, especially for
those who prefer a sharper game,
but there is too an element of the
kill-or-be-killed syndrome in allow
ing such an imbalance to build up
and many players prefer to opt for
the safer and more trustworthy
alternatives.
7
gS
The logical continuation.
(a) 7 .i g 2 has also been tried with
the idea of postponing the advance
until a favourable transpositional
possibility emerges (e.g. 7 . . . h6 S

...

6 . . . a6 57

(the position can be reached via


the move order 6 e3 a6 7 g4):
bl) 7
eS 8 ll:lf5 g6 9 g5 gf 1 0 ef!
d 5 ! 1 1 't!Vf3 ll:\e4 ( 1 1 . . . d4 1 2 0-0-0
't!Vc7 1 3 gf de 14 'ttd 5 xf5 oo Nunn) 1 2 ll:\ xe4 de 1 3 'ttx e4 ll:lc6
14 c4 't!Va5+ ( 1 4 . . . d7 1 5 0-0-0
'f/c7 1 6 ll he 1 f6? 1 7 lhd7! 'ttx d7
18 gf d6 19 e6 't!Vc7 20 f7+ 'it>d8
21 lld l llc8 22 'ttx e5 ! 1 -0 Perenyi
Schneider, Hungary 1 978) 1 5 d2
'ttc 5 1 6 0-0-0 ll:ld4? ( 1 6 . . . 'ttd 4 1 7
'f/e2 xf5) 1 7 b4 ! 't!Vxc4 1 8
'ttx e5+ ll:\e6 1 9 a5 b 6 20 xb6
b7 2 1 fe fe 22 libe l llc8 23 c;t>b l
d5 24 'ttx d5 't!Vxc2+ 25 'it>a 1
't!Vc l + 26 ll xc l ll xc l + 27 ll xc l ed
28 llc7 Perenyi-Mokry, Decin
1 978.
b2) 7 bS \ s also possible, normally
transposing to the main line after
8 g5 ll:lfd7.
An exception was the game
Rigo-Barczay at Budapest 1 980
which continued 7 e3 b 5 8 g5
b4?! 9 gf be 10 fg xg7 I I b4! b7
12 lig l f6 1 3 'tth 5 't!Ve7 1 4 b5
xe4 1 5 ba d5 16 ll b l g6 1 7
'f/h6 ( ) 1 7 . . . ll:ld7 1 8 llb7 xd4
19 xd4 e5 20 xc 3 'tta 3? 2 1 llg3
't!Vxa2 22 xeS 1 -0.
b3) 7
h6 transposes to a similar
variation in the 6 . . . h6 lines - see
C Chapter 3, note to White's 7th.
ll:l fd7
7
We examine:
A 8 e3
B 8 llg l
c 8 g2
D Rarely played 8th moves.
...

...

...

8 h4 transposes to A after 8 . .
b5 9 a 3 b7 " 1 0 e3 . There have
been a few independent tries but
none provides any evidence that
White does better to avoid the
transposition :
(a) 9 g2 b 7 1 0 h 5 ! ? ll:l c 6 I I a 3
li e S 1 2 ll h 3 ? ! ll:lxd4 1 3 't!Vxd4 llc4
14 't!Ve3 e7 1 5 f4 e 5 ! 16 f5 h6 1 7 g6
fg 18 hg ll:lf6 1 9 d2 'tta 8 20 0-0-0
ll:lxe4 =t= =t= Cardoso-Andersson, Las
Palmas 1975.
(b) 9 f4 b7 1 0 f5 ! ? e5? (10 ... ef I I
ll:lxf5 ll:\e5 oo) I I ll:lde2 ll:lb6 1 2
g2 ll:l8d7 1 3 ll:lg3 lieS 1 4 f6! gf
1 5 0-0 A.Rodriguez-Espig, Halle
1 976.
(c) 9 hS b7 (9 ... b4 10 ll:lce2 b7
I I g2 ll:lc5 12 ll:lg3 ll:lbd7 13 f4
e7 1 4 'ttg4 h6 1 5 g6 Ljubojevic
Tal, Las Palmas 1975) 1 0 g2 ll:lc6
I I e3 ll:lde5 12 't!Ve2? ll:lxd4 1 3
xd4 't!Vxg5 =t= =t= Okrajek-Vogt,
East German Ch 1 978.
A
bS
8 e 3
For 8 . . . ll:lc6 or 8 . . . e7 see
Chapter 5 .
The most usual move a t this
point is 9 a3 but there are other
ways for White to handle the
position and these are examined
afterwards.
AI 9 a3
A2 Other moves.
AI
9
a3 (82)
We pause at this very important
position to outline the strategies
of the two combatants.
.

58 6 . . . a6

White's plan revolves around a


direct attack with his kingside
pawns, either by f4-f5 or, more
usually, by pushing the h-pawn to
h5, when in order to continue the
assault he must reposition or guard
his rook.
Black's most effective set-up for
counteraction is with the bishop
on b7 and knights on d7 and b6,
leaving the c-file uncluttered in
preparation for occupation of c4,
or in some cases a break in the
centre with . . . d5.
In practice the move order which
Black chooses to reach this piece
formation is irrelevant, but for the
purpose of highlighting alternative
strategies we divide the analysis as
follows:
A l l 9 . . . .i.b7
A l 2 9 . . . lL!b6
Al l
.i.b7
9
In this line we look at what
happens if Black avoids the standard
set-up with . . . lL!b6.
White now has the following
choice:

A l i i 10 Jlg l
A l l 2 1 0 ..d2
A l l 3 10 ..g4!?
A l l 4 1 0 f4
A i l S 1 0 h4!
1 0 .tg2 leads to a pos1t10n
handled under section C.
Al l 1
10
ll g1
White makes further preparations
before launching his attack with f4
or h4.
ll:lcS
10
For 10 . . . ll:lb6 see A l 2.
1 0 . . . lL!c6 allows a standard
space gaining manoeuvre
II
lL!xc6 .txc6 1 2 'ttd4 ;!;, when
White's control of the centre
is enhanced by the dominating
position of his queen, which Black
cannot easily displace without
incurring some positional disad
vantage . In addition it is difficult
for Black to achieve much on the
queenside, as the sequel illustrates:
1 2 . . . 't!Vc7 1 3 h4 't!fb7 14 .i.g2 a5 1 5
f4 b4?! 1 6 ab a b 1 7 llxa8 't!Vxa8 1 8
'ttx b4 d 5 1 9 'ttd4 e 5 20 fe .i.c5 2 1
't!Vd2 't!Va7 2 2 .i.xc5 't!Vxc5 2 3 llfl
-

6 . . . a6 59

d4 24 ttidS 0-0 25 b4 Liberzon


Lein, USSR 1 972.
ltlbd7
11 1!rg4
j.e 7 (83)
12
0-0-0
White has built up an impressive
battery of power behind the
'advance scout' on gS and now
proceeds to bulldoze his way
through with a kingside pawn
storm.
ttixe4
13
f4!
1 4 .ll:lxe4
j.xe4
I S j.g2
j.xg2
16 't!Vxg2
0-0
ef
fS
17
1 8 ll:lxfS
g6?
I S . . . ll:leS . The column is
Vasyukov-Dzhindzhihashvili, Baku
1 972. White could now have
brought \lis attack to a successful
conclusion with I 9 't!rxaS! 1!rxaS
20 ll:lxe7+ r3Jg7 2 I l hd6 't!fb7 22
i.d4+ f6 23 Ild I ! r3Jfl 24 j.c3 !
cJ;;x e7 25 li xd7+ '@xd7 2 6 j.b4+
(Boleslavsky).
Al l 2
1 0 'W'd2 (84)

to b6, threatening to occupy c4


with gain of tempo on the white
queen - see A I 2. Here we look at
the less popular plans.
10
j.e7
IO . . . tOeS leaves the knight short
of play after I I f3. The game
Adorjan-Ostojic, Polanica Zdroj
1 970, continued I I . . . ttic6 I 2
ll:lxc6 j.xc6 I 3 0-0-0 1!t'c7 I 4 j.f4
lidS I S b4 ! ltlb7 I 6 h4 liteS I 7 j.e3
j.e7 and now IS f4 ! 0-0 I9 fS ef 20
j.h3 with a clear plus.
11
h4
I I lig i lL!c6 I2 tti xc6 i.xc6 I 3
0-0-0 't!VbS I 4 f4 lL!cS I S fS
Vayrynen-Valtavaara, Corres I97S.
lL!cS
11
The same comment applies to
this move as at move ten but Black
has little choice now since I I . . .
ll:lb6? i s met b y I 2 tti xe6! fe I 3
1!rd4 ltic4 I4 'W'xg7 r3Jd7 I S j.xc4
be I6 0-0-0 Ilf8 I 7 Il xd6+ ! r3Jxd6
IS 1!rd4+ r3Jc7 I9 't!fb6+ cJ;;c S 20
'@xe6+ ltld7 2I lid i with a crushing
attack, Karlins-Commons, USA
1 972.
12
f3
1!rc7
85
w

Against this quieter set-up Black


do.es best to manoeuvre his knight

60 6 . . . a6

1 2 . . . ltlc6!?
ttibd7 (85J
t3
o-o-o
Fischer-Najdorf, Leipzig O L
1 960. White n o w continued with
the sacrificial 14 xb5 ab 1 5
ltldxb5 't!Vc6 1 6 ltlxd6+ xd6 1 7
'W'xc6 0-0-0 1 8 't!Vxc6 xc6 with
good prospects in the ensuing
endgame.
A113
10 'W'g4!? (86)

At the time of writing this move


has had but a single trial at master
level and its success in that game is
largely attributable to its surprise
value.
It is true that White's queen
deserves a more active role in the
game, but as White's strategy is
very much based on the idea of a
flank attack with pawns the logical
course of events would be to bring
in the heavy pieces after forcing
some concessions with h4-h5 and
g5-g6 or f4-f5 . Nonetheless, the
text move, when coupled with the
advance f4-f5 , is a dangerous
attacking idea.
llJc6
10
Bringing pressure to bear on the

centre now that White's queen has


been committed to the attack.
ltlceS?!
11
0-o-0
This tempting move may be a
mistake. Black should reserve the
option of exchanging the knight
on d4 so that in response to the
advance f4-f5 he can play . . . lL!xd4
and . . . e5 with gain of time. 1 1 . . .
lieS should b e tried, with the plan
of . . . 't!Va5 and . . . b4.
1 2 1!rh3
White will regain the tempo
with f4 and in the meantime he
moves his queen to a square where
it continues to threaten e6 as well
as preparing for the advance g5-g6
by pinning Black's h-pawn.
12
g6
This weakening move is necessary
( 1 2 . . . lL!b6 1 3 f4 ltlec4 14 .txc4
llJxc4 1 5 g6! ) but it sets up
another target for White's pawn
roller.
13
f4
llJc6
14 ligl
1!Vc8
llJcS
rs
IS
16
fe
fe (8 7)

1 7 xb 5 ! ab 1 8 llJdxb5 llJd8 1 9
ligfl i.e7 20 @h6 llJf7 2 1 @g7

6 . . . a6 61
Ilf8 22 ..xh7 ll:lxe4 23 lhfi! lilxfi
24 t!rg8+ IUS 25 t!rxg6+ 7 26
ltlxe4 xe4 27 t!rxe4 with a
winning position for White in
Fedorowicz-Petrosian, Hastings
1 977/78.
All4
h6
f4
10
Tackling the pawn storm head-on
in the hope of exploiting the
temporary insecurity of the white
king ( 1 1 gh t!rh4+ ).
10 . . . ll:lb6 is handled under A 1 2.
11
f5 (88)

White's best chance lies in


unleashing the potential energy in
his pawn roller at once , for Black's
king may also become exposed .
ef
11
Necessary, for if 1 1 . . . e5 then 1 2
ltle6 ! fe 1 3 fe hg ( 1 3 . . . ltlc5?? 1 4
@1'\5+) 1 4 ed+ ll:lxd7 1 5 t!rg4 o r 1 5
e2 with a significant initiative
for the pawn.
12 ll:lxf5
ll:le5
a4
g6
13
hg
14 ltlg3
15
ab
ab
16
Iha8
xa8
ltlbc6
17 xb5+

18
19

0-0
ll:'ld5

g7
g4! (89)

89
w

Eruslanova-Minogina, Nikolayev
1 978. In this complex position,
with attack and counterattack in
full swing, the chances are about
even. The game continued 20 b6
'fflt 4 21 ltlc7+ <i!?d7. 22 1!t'd2 b7
with obscure complications .
AilS
10
h4! (90)

This currently seems to be the


most reliable method of attack,
which in addition allows White to
retain all the options on the
placement of his major pieces.
ltl c6
10
For 1 0 . . . ltlb6 see A l 2.
1 1 Wel(!)

62 6 . . . a6

Alexander's idea, the point of


which is to open up threats on the
e-file. The less purposeful I I "t!Vd2
allowed Black to reach a most
satisfactory position in the game
Peresipkin-Kochiev, USSR 1973,
after 1 1 ... i.e7 1 2 lbxc6 ( 1 2 0-0-0 !?
lbce5?! 13 f4 lbg4 14 i.g 1 h 5 1 5
i.h3 g6 1 6 f5 Corden-Eising,
Paignton 1 970) 12 . . . i.xc6 13 h5
"t!Vc7 1 4 "t!Vd4?! ( 1 4 lih3 ! ) 1 4 ... 0-0
1 5 h6 e5 1 6 "t!Vd2 g6 1 7 f4 ef 1 8
i.xf4 lbe5 1 9 0-0-0 Ilab8 with the
plan b5-b4.
11
lb de5
12
0-0-0
lbc4
13
lbxc6
The immediate 1 3 f4 allows
Black to equalise with 13 . . . lbxe3
1 4 "t!Vxe3 "t!Vb6.
13
i.xc6
"t!Va5?!
14
f4
More solid is 14 . . . i.e7 but
White retains the initiative with 1 5
i.d4 0-0 1 6 lig l .
IS
lbd5! (91)
9/
B

We are following the game


Alexander-Lundholm, Corres OL
1 970/7 1 , which continued 1 5 . . . ed
( 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 16 lbb6+ ! lbxb6 1 7

i.d2 ..a4! 1 8 i.b4! d 5 ! 1 9 b3


i.xb4 20 ba i.xa3+ 21 c;t>b 1 lbxa4
22 Ilh3 i.b4 23 ed i.xd5 24 "t!Ve5 is
the critical line which Alexander
most feared) 16 ed 0-0-0 17 de d5
18 i.d4 i.xa3 1 9 "t!Vg4+ cct>c7 20
i.xc4 be (20 . . . de 2 1 i.e5+ 'lt>b6 21 . cct>xc6 22 "fl/3+ and 23 "t!Vxa3 22 ba c3 23 "fig 1 + 'lt>xc6 24 "flg2+
c;t>b6 25 "t!Vf2+ cct>b7 26 "t!Vf3+ and 27
"flxc3) 21 ba c3 22 lide 1 "flxa3+ 23
c;t>d 1 "t!Vb4 24 i.e5+ 'lt>xc6 25 "flf3
1 -0.
All
9
lbb6 (92)
. .

We now come to what must


constitute Black's most popular
and effective development schema.
The black knights are best placed
on b6 and d7 where they give
greatest support for action on the
queenside or in the centre . If
White's play is anything less than
purposeful he will fall prey to an
almost automatic attack along the
c-file or a sudden break in the
centre with . . . d 5 .
Currently t h e evidence i s that 10
"t!Vd2 is too routine and that White
should opt for an immediate pawn

6 . . . a6 63

storm with 1 0 li[g 1 followed by


f4-f5 or h4-h5, or better still the
immediate 10 f4 or 10 h4!
A 1 2 1 1 0 1!t'd2
A 1 22 1 0 li[g 1
A 1 23 1 0 f4
A 1 24 1 0 h4!
Al21
t'Dbd7
1 0 1!t'd2
II
f4
It seems that White does not
have time fur further preparations.
The game Suradiradja-Cvetkovic,
Belgrade 1 977, went 1 1 li[g 1 i.b7
12 f4 t'Dc5! 13 i.d3 t'Dc4 1 4 i.xc4
be 1 5 1!t'e2 t'Dxe4 16 t'Dxe4 i.xe4 1 7
1!t'xc4 1!t'cS ! with some advantage
to Black according to Cvetkovic.
II
i.b7
This pb sition can of course arise
from the 9 . . . i.b7 move order.
It is difficult to see how White's
attack is to make a sufficient
impression on Black's position to
offset his opponent's growing
queenside initiative . Black has
provided the d5 square with plenty
of cover so that after White's f5
advance he can reply . . . e5 without
leaving the weakness too exposed.
Meanwhile White faces problems
regarding the security of his king
and must carefully watch the
increasing pressure on his e-pawn.
12
rs (93)
White should not let his position
run out of steam but should extract
whatever advantage he can from
his kingside pawn roller. The
dangers of insipid play are well
illustrated by the game Korsunsky-

Timoshchenko, USSR 1979, which


went 1 2 0-0-0 liteS 1 3 i.d3 t'Dc4 14
i.xc4 li[xc4 15 li[ he 1 t'Dc5 1 6 .tg 1
i.e7! 1 7 b3 litxc3 l S 'ttx c3 t'Dxe4
19 1!t'f3 'tWaS 20 1!t'g4 0-0 2 1 litd3 d5
22 li[h3 .txa3+ 23 b l 'ttd S ! 24
li[d 1 'tta 5 and White's disorganised
forces had no chance of withstand
ing the onslaught.
12
e5
1 3 t'Df3
According to Mednis and Peters
this retreat is preferable to 1 3 t'Db3
because of the exchange sacrifice
1 3 . . . liteS 14 0-0-0 li[xc3 1 5 'ttx c3
i.xe4 1 6 li[g l i.xf5 1 7 'ttc 6 i.e7 l S
'fVb 7 1!t'cS
liteS
13
14
0-0-0
The game Formanek-Peters, Las
Vegas 1 976, continued 14
t'Dc5
1 5 i.xc5 li[xc5 16 i.d3 'ttc 7 1 7
litde l dS ! l S h4 cS 1 9 li[h3
bS 20 'it>b l i.e7 2 1 t'Dh2 li[cS 22
t'Dg4 i.d8 with chances for both
sides.
Worthy of investigation is 14 . . .
ltlc4 1 5 i.xc4 litxc4 1 6 b3 lit c 8 ( 1 6
. . . litxc3 !? 1 7 'ttx c3 i.xe4 oo ) 1 7
ltld5 ltlc5 1 S i.xc5 litxc5.
= .

..

64 6 . . . a6

Al22
10

li g1

8d7 (94)

White now has the choice of 1 1


f4 or 1 1 h4. 1 1 't!rg4, the analogue
of Fedorowicz's idea in the A 1 l 3
line, does not combine well with
lig 1 in this variation because the
superior placement of Black's
knights enables him to launch an
effective counterattack on the c-file:
1 1 . . . i.b7 1 2 0-0-0 g6 ! ( 1 2 . . . lieS?
13 g6 ! hg 14 ll:\xe6 fe 1 5 't!rxg6+
7 1 6 i.g5+ f6 1 7 e5 'it>d7 1 S ef
gf 1 9 .txf6 i.e7 20 i.xhS @xh S 2 1
litg3 1 -0 Vasyukov-Modr, Prague
1979/SO) l 3 h4 lieS 14 h5 e5 1 5
9h 3 litxc 3 ! 1 6 hg ( 1 6 be i.xe4
followed by . . . d5 and . . . ll:\c4 is
curtains for White) 16 ... lixe3 17 gf+
ll:\xf7 1 S @xe3 i.cS =t= Nichevsky
Estrin, Albena 1 973.
A 1 22 1 1 1 f4
A 1 222 1 1 h4
A1221
f4
11
i.b7
12
eS
rs
13
b 3
In the game Shamkovich:.Benko,
USA Ch 1 97S, White tried l 3
e6? fe 1 4 1!rh5+ when instead of

14 . . . g6? Black could play 14 . . .


7 1 5 fe 'it>xe6 1 6 i.h3+ 7 1 7
lift @eS 1 S g 6 lidS winning.
lieS
13
14 i.d3 (95)

Balashov-Malich , Leipzig 1973.


Now instead of 14
c4? 1 5
i.xc4 lixc4 1 6 't!rd3 'tWaS 1 7 d2
lieS 1 S 0-0-0 ll:\c5 1 9 i.xc5 lixc5
20 b3 ! Black should play 14
cS 1 5 xc5 d e 1 6 't!rg4 c 4 1 7 i.e2
b4 with good prospects (Matich).
A1 222
h4
11
The plan of h4-h5 followed by
g5-g6 is rather more dangerous
than the advance of the f-pawn.
Black will be forced to make the
concession .. . g6 when the white
rook can return to h 1 with pressure
along the h-file. H owever, the
effort which White expends on the
manoeuvring of his rook should
allow Black enough time to marshall
his defensive resources sufficiently
well to hold the balance.
11
i.b7
12
hS
g6
13
li g1
i. g 7 (96)
...

...

6 . . . a6 65

Rather more active than 1 3 . . .


Ir.g8, which nevertheless should
be sufficient for equality. The game
Viruna-Cvetkovic, Belgrade 1 977,
went 13 . . . Ir.g8 1 4 hg hg 15 Ir.h7
i.g7 ( 1 5 ... e5? 1 6 1!rf3 ! i.g7 1 7
ll:\dxb5! ab 1 8 lt:lxb5 lt:lf8 1 9 0-0-0
ll:\c8 20 i.c4 'fle7? 2 1 Ir.xd6! lt:lxd6
22 lt:lxd6+ d7 23 lixg7! lixg7 24
lt:lxb7 r:J;;c 7 25 i.d5 lt:ld7 26 'fle2
ll:lb6 27 1!rb5 lt:lxd5 28 ed r:J;;c 8 29
'flc6+ r:J;;b 8 30 lt:ld6 1-0 Hulak
Cvetkovic, Krk 1 976) 1 6 1!rf3 ll:\f8
( 16 . . . 'flc7 1 7 0-0-0 d5 1 8 e5! ? ll:\c4
19 lt:ldxb5 ab 20 lt:lxb5 'flxe5 2 1
i.d4 'flxg5+ 22 r:J;;b l ll:lde5 - 22 ...
lLld2+! 23 lixd2 'flxd2 24 i.xg 7
't!Ve 1+ 25 a2 't!Vxfl 26 ll:\d6+ ro 23 't!Vc3 ! f6 24 b3 'flg4 25 lie 1 <M7
2 6 be ligb8 27 i.xe5 g8 28
lixg7+ r:J;; x g7 29 i.xf6+ r:J;;g 8 30
i.h 3 'flxc4 3 1 i.xe6+ 1 -0 Krnic
Ostoj ic, Kikinda 1 976) 1 7 lixg7?
(better is 17 lih 1 with equal
chances) 17 . . . lixg7 1 8 0-0-0 lih7
19 ll:ldxb5 ab 20 i.xb5+ ll:lbd7 2 1
Ir.xd6 lieS and White's initiative
had failed.
14
hg
hg
i.xh8
15
lixh8+

1!re7
1 6 1!rg4
lieS
0-0-0
17
f4?
18
This falls foul of the conventional
exchange sacrifice on c3. Better
was 18 '4!h4, though after 18 ... i.g7
19 1!rh7 Black can defend his
kingside with ease and continue
his attack on the other flank.
18
lixe3!
19
be
i.xe4
Torre-Espig, Polanica Zdroj
1 977, continued 20 1!rh3 i.g7 2 1
r:J;;d 2 d 5 2 2 li a 1 lt:la4 23 ll:\e2 i.f5
24 1!rh7 25 i.h3 ll:\xc 3 ! =F =F .
A123
10
f4 (9 7)

With regard to the question of


which is the most effective line of
play for White in the early . . . a6, . . .
b 5 , . . . ll:lb6 syste ms one may make
a few simple inferences based on a
study of the material thus far.
It seems that having committed
himself to a pawn attack with g4-g5
White does badly to routinely follow
the rules of simple development
with 1 0 'ti'd2. The attack requires
a further im mediate commitment
of time and effort from him if it is

66 6 . . . a6

not to prove abortive. 1 0 llg 1 goes


some way towards this but still
lacks the punch which a direct and
full-blooded plan would provide.
White therefore needs to add
impetus to his attack before he
decides on the placement of all his
major pieces, and there are two
ways he can go about this : 10 f4
and 10 h4. The latter is probably
the better of the two plans as it is
the eventual threat of g5-g6 which
must trouble Black the more, but
10 f4 is still very dangerous and a
worthwhile experiment.
l08d7
10
11
1!rg4
Following a plan similar to that
devised by Fedorowicz in line
A l l 3 , to which the reader should
refer. He should also compare
with a similar position which can
arise from 10 llg 1 - see A 1 22, note
to White's l i th move. The extra
tempo which White gains for his
attack by leaving his rook on h 1
may prove crucial later on when,
having forced the weakening . . . g6,
the piece is more appropriately
placed for a breakthrough on the
h-file vvith h4-h5 .
1 1 1!rf3 is possible too , though
in the game Sweiecik-Espig, Halle
1 978, White followed up poorly:
l l . . . .tb7 12 0-0-0 1!rc7 1 3 .th3? !
( l 3 1!rh3 g6 1 4 lt:lxe6!? fe 1 5 1!rxe6+
.te7 16 .txb 5 ! is most unsettling
for Black) 1 3 . . . lt:lc5 14 llhfl lt:lc4
1 5 ..tg 1 .te 7 and Black's game was
preferable in view of White's
artificial looking development.

An interesting mixture of plans


was seen in the game Thornally
Commons, USA 1 975: 11 h4 .tb7
12 f5 ef 1 3 lt:lxf5 lt:le5 14 .td4!
(freeing e3 for the knight) 14 . . . g6
1 5 lt:le3 .tg7 16 .te2 h6 1 7 gh
llxh6 1 8 1!rd2 lt:la4 19 lt:lcd5 lt:lc5
- . but White stands better after
20 .txc5 de 21 0-0-0.
.tb7
11
g6
12
0-0-0
It is not clear that this move is
essential, though after 12 . . . llc8
13 g6 ! ? hg 14 lt:lxe6!? fe 1 5 1!rxg6+
rt1e7 1 6 f5 lilf6 1 7 e 5 ! ? .txh l l 8 ef+
gf 1 9 .tg5 ! White's attack is
worrying to say the least.
h5
13
h4
Probably necessary, for if 13 .. .
llc8 there comes 14 h5 .tg7 ( 1 4 . . .
nxc3 1 5 hg! nxe3? 1 6 gf+ r:J;; xf7 1 7
1!rxe6+ <t;g7 1 8 lilf5 mate) 1 5 hg hg
16 llxh8+ .txh8 1 7 lt:lcxb5 ! ab 1 8
lt:lxb5 .
We are following the game
Kuij pers-Eising, Wijk aan Zee
1 974, which continued 14 gh lt:lf6
1 5 1!rg 1 lt:lc4 16 .txc4 be 1 7 llh2
1!rc7? ! (not 17 . . . lt:lxe4 1 8 lt:lxe6! fe
1 9 1!rxg6+, but better is 1 7 . . . 1!re7
1 8 e5 de 19 fe lt:ld5 ) 1 8 e5!? de 1 9
fe 1!rxe5? 2 0 lle2 1!rh5 2 1 .tg5 lt:ld5
22 lt:lxe6 fe 23 nxe6+ r:J;;f7 24
lt:lxd5 .
A 1 24
10
h4! (98)
In many ways 10 h4 is the logical
follow-up to 6 g4. By maintaining
his rook on the h-file White can
forestall Black's preventative . . . g6
and start a strong attack with g5-g6.

6 . . . a6 67
98
B

steady kingside pressure provides


sufficient compensation for the
pawn. In the sequel Black defended
poorly: 1 7 . . . e5? 1 8 lbf5 'lbe7 1 9
1Wh8 lbxf5 2 0 e f J.b7 2 1 0-0-0 lbc4
22 f6 ! gf 23 't!Pxf6 lbxa3? 24 litg l
J.c8 25 lilg8 ! J.xh3 26 lilxf8+ 1 -0 .
12
lih3! (99)
99
B

lD8d7
10
It is important to note that
while the flank attack is in progress
White maintains sufficient central
control to render useless any action
taken there by Black: 10 . . . d5?! 1 1
ed ed ( l l . . . lbxd5 1 2 lt:lxd5 't!Pxd5
1 3 litg l J.b7 14 J.g2 't!Pd7 1 5
lt:lxe6 ! =\) 1 2 lbde2 lbc4 1 3 't!Pxd5
lt:lxe3 1 4 fe lia7 1 5 't!Pxd8+ xd8
16 0-0-0+ e8 17 J.g2 Hort
Ree, Amsterdam(IBM) 1978.
J.b7
11
h5
The natural move but one which,
however, has the defect of removing
sorely needed support from the
pawn on e6.
In the game Savereide-Markovic,
Malta ( Women's OL) 1 980, Black
tried to contain the threat of g5-g6
with 1 1 . . . lbe5. The game continued
1 2 lih3 ! (see the main line for an
explanation of this manoeuvre) 1 2
. . . 't!t'c7 (after 1 2 . . . lt:lbc4 1 3 J.c l it
is difficult to find a counter to the
threat of 14 f4 and 1 5 g6; 12 . . .
J.b7 i s the main line) 1 3 g6 !? hg 1 4
h g lb xg6 1 5 lixh8 lt:lxh8 1 6 't!Ph5
lt:lg6 1 7 J.h3 when apart from the
direct threat of 1 8 lt:lxe6 White's

Prior to this important discovery


White usually played 1 2 litg l
transposing to A l 222 after 1 2 . . .
g6! but this highly unusual method
of guarding the rook prevents
Black from blockading the advance
of the g-pawn anq so makes life
very difficult for the second player.
lt:le5
12
12 . . . J.e7 is no improvement:
13 g6 J.f6 14 't!t'g4 't!Pe7 15 gf+
xf7 1 6 0-0-0 lihc8 1 7 f4 lixc3
18 be lieS 1 9 f5 e5 20 lt:le6
Pokojowczyk-Sznapik, Lodz 1 978.
hg
13
g6
lixh3
14
hg
14 . . . lt:lxg6 15 lixh8 lt:lxh8 1 6
't!t'h5 lt:lg6 1 7 lt:lxe6 ! .
15
gf+
lt:l xf7
1 6 .i.xh3 (100)
With his pawn structure now
seriously weak Black faces grave

68 6 . . . a6

101
B

difficulties warding off an attack


by his opponent's aggressively
placed pieces. The game Torre
Vogt, Polanica Zdroj 1 977, went
on 16 . . . lt:lc4? (better is 16 . . . 't!Vh4
17 'ti'g4 'ti'xg4 18 i.xg4 lt:lc4 ;t) 1 7
i.xe6 'ti'h4 1 8 i.xc4 be 19 1!Ve2
A2
Other 9th moves
In addition to the normal 9 a3
White has:
A2 1 9 f4
A22 9 a4!?
Further experimentation is needed
with 9 'ti'e2: 9 . . . i.e7 10 h4 i.b7 1 1
a3 lt!e5 1 2 0-0-0 lt:lc4 1 3 i.h3 1!Vc8
1 4 lt!d5 lt!c6 1 5 lt:lf5 ef 1 6 ef 0-0 1 7
f6 with attacking chances for the
piece, Sokolov-Sukhanov, Moscow
Ch 1 978.
A21
9
f4 (1 01)
This move introduces a piece
sacrifice which although dangerous
should not prove sufficient.
9
i.b7
b4
f5!?
10
11
fe
be
12
ef+
1 2 ed+ 1!Vxd7 + .
.

12
xf7
1 3 i.c4+
This forceful continuation is
White's best try. After 13 1!Vg4
'tlfe 7 1 4 i.g2 lt!e5 1 5 0-0+ c;!;>e8 1 6
1!Vg3 lt:lbc6 1 7 b e g6 Black was
winning in Kochiev-Tukmakov,
USSR 1 972.
13
'it>e8
14
0-0
lt:le5
1 5 1!Ve2
lt:lbc6
1!Ve7! ( 102)
16
l:U5
1 02
w

Belyavsky-Tal , Sukhumi 1 972.


Black has begun to untangle his
position and should emerge safely.
A22
9
a4!? (1 03)
The idea behind this move, first
employed by Smyslov, is to give

6 . . . a6 69

1 03

104

up the e-pawn for Black's b-pawn


and try to control the centre with
pieces. If his policy is successful
White will then slowly push forward
his kingside attack without fear of
too much queenside counterplay
by his opponent.
There has been too little practical
experience to give a firm j udgment
on this positional approach, but
certainly the line deserves further
experimentation.
b4
9
i. b7
1 0 lt:la2
lt:lc5
1 1 i.g2
I I . . . a S 12 c3 lt:lcS 13 cb ll:\xe4
14 "t!g4 dS I S bS 00 .
lt:l xe4
1 2 ll:lxb4
12 . . . i.xe4!? 1 3 i.xe4 lt:lxe4 1 4
"t!g4 dS I S ll:\ d 3 ll:\d7 1 6 ll:\xe6!? fe
1 7 "t!xe6+ i.e7 1 8 lig I lt:lf7 with
an unclear position in the game
Veroci-Grosch, Hungary (Women's
Ch) 1977.
The column is Smyslov-Vogt ,
Leningrad 1 977, which continued
13 "t!g4 dS 14 lt:ld3 i.e7 I S h4 lt:ld7
16 0-0 0-0 17 lifd I lic8 18 c3 lieS
1 9 aS! lt:ld6 20 f4 lt:lc4 21 .i.f2 ll:\xaS
22 h S lt:lc6 23 g6 (104)

After 23 . . . i.f6 24 gf+ xf7 2S


lt:lxe6! lixe6 26 i.xdS "t!e7 27 fS
White's attack quickly proved
overwhelming.
B
8
lig1
White may use this move order
to reach lines covered in A after 8
. . . bS 9 a3 i.b7 (or 9 . . . lUb6) 1 0
i.e3 a n d there are possibilities for
Black too to transpose to other
variations (for 8 . . . ll:\c6 see Chapter
S). In this section we intend to
cover the independent tries for
either side .
b5
8
ll:lb6
9
a3
10
lig3 ( 105)
1 0 i.e3 transposes to line A 1 2 2.

70 6 . . . a6

There has lately been a great


deal of interest in this plan, which
has proved very successful on the
international circuit.
White intends to fianchetto his
king's bishop to control d5 but
needs to cover his c4 square which
will be weakened as a result. He
does this by playing b3 and
fianchettoing the other bishop,
after which Black's build-up on
the queenside can look a little
pointless. The purpose of the
mysterious tenth move is to avoid
obscuring the action of the rook
since with the queen's bishop
fianchettoed the g-pawn will need
protection. Finally the rook fulfils
a useful function in guarding the
c3 square .
l08d7
10
11
.tg2
.tb7
12
b3
g6!?
Black's most recent attempt at
an antidote to White's strange but
logical plan has a peculiar look to
it too . He intends an all-out attack
on the g-pawn and wants to
prevent White from supporting it
with f4 by playing . . . e 5 . Before he
can do this he must prevent the
knight on d4 from coming in on f5
by playing . . . g6, which at the same
time fixes the intended victim fast.
Less pointed play can lead Black
into difficulty, e.g. 12 . . . lieS 1 3
.ib2 and now:
(a) 1 3
ltlcS 14 't!te2 .te7 15 0-0-0!
.txg5 16 'it>b 1 0-0 17 .th3 .tf6 1 8
f4 't!Ve8 1 9 e 5 de 20 fe .id8 2 1 lidg 1
g6 22 't!Ve3 'it>h8 23 .tfl lig8 24 h4
...

IvanoviC-Hulak, Yugoslav Ch 1977.


(b) 13
.te7 14 't!Ve2 g6 1 5 h4 e5
16 lt:lf3 lic5 17 0-0-0 't!Vc7 1 8 lt:le 1
0-0 1 9 h5 with an attack, I vanovic
Geszosz, Greece 1 978.
eS
1 3 .tb2
h6
14 lilde2
h4
IS
With the bishop no longer on
the c 1 -h6 diagonal White has no
option but to allow this opening of
the h-file .
hg
IS
16
hg
.te7
17 't!Vd2 (106)
...

Bruggemann-Espig, W German
Ch 1 979. Now Black should round
off his plan with 1 7 . . . lt:lc5
(intending 18 . . . lt:le6) 1 8 lt:ld5
lt:lxd5 19 ed lih5 after which he
stands clearly better.
c

8 .tg2
This is a popular treat ment of
the 6 . . . a6 line in which rather
more emphasis is placed on central
play .
White's intention is to strengthen
his grip on the centre, containing
Black's counterplay while slowly

6 . . . a6 7I

building on his space advantage.


Unless he is careful Black will find
himself in a cramped position
without the necessary counterplay
to offset White's initiative on the
kingside. Black's most logical plan
is to intensify his own operations
in the centre with S .. . lt:lc6,
transposing to the 6 . . . lt:lc6 lines
covered in Chapter 5. While this
may suit those preferring a slower
strategic build-:up to the pell-mell
pawn rush characteristic of lines A
and B it is likely that many players
of Black would rather opt for their
original plan of rapid queenside
expansion with S . . . b5, or first the
more flexible S . . . t!rc7.
In this section .we propose to
answer. the question of just how
successful Black's policy of outright
aggression is likely to be in view of
White's more restrained approach.
Cl S . . . b5
C2 S . . . t!rc7
C1
bS (1 07)
8
107
B

9
0-0
White need not worry unduly
about . .. b4 as the knight can be

quickly redeployed on g3 via e2.


An interesting alternatiave is 9 f4
with the idea of putting immediate
pressure on e6 before Black can
exchange the knight on d4. The
game Ciric-Langeweg, Beverwijk
1 967, went 9 f4 J.b7 10 f5 e5 1 1
lt:lb3 lt:lc6 1 2 J.e3 lt:la5 1 3 lt:lxa5
t!rxa5 14 0-0 with some small
advantage to White.
9
J.b7
f4
10
Simple and good is 1 0 J.e3 , e.g.
(a) 1 0
lt:lb6 l l f4 ( l l t!rg4 lt:lc4
12 J.c l lt:lc6 - I2 . . . g6 I3 b3 J.g 7
14 'fJ.d I lilc6 I 5 lilce 2 Liberzon
Espig, Sukhumi / 9 72 - 1 3 lt:lxc6
J.xc6 14 b3 lt:lb6 1 5 J.b2 t - White
has shored up his queenside with
the prospect of good kingside play
to come) 1 1 . . . lt:lc4 12 J.c l lt:ld7
13 b3 lt:lcb6 14 J.b2 lt:lc5 15 t!rg4
t!rd7 1 6 '11. a d 1 b4 1 7 lt:lce2 h5 l S
1Wh4 0-0-0 1 9 c3 Westerinen
P. Garcia, Las Palmas l 97S.
(b) 1 0
lt:lcS l l a3 lt:lc6 l 2 f4 J.e7
13 t!rg4 lt:lxd4?! 14 J.xd4 e5? 1 5 fe
lt:le6 1 6 ed! J.xd6 1 7 e5 J.xg2 l S
t!rxg2 0-0 1 9 ed lt:lxd4 20 lt:le4 ( )
20 .. . 'fJ.cS 2 1 c3 lt:le6 22 'fJ.ad 1 '11. c 4
23 b3 lieS 24 '11. d 5 t!ra5 25 t!rf2
t!rxa3 26 lif5 't!fxb3 27 '11. x f7 't!rd5
2S 't!rf3 t!rc4 29 lif2 'fJ.cdS 30 d7
Sax-Gheorghiu, Skara 1 9SO.
10
b4
10 . . . lt:lc6 1 1 J.e3 lt:lxd4? ! 1 2
't!fxd4 lieS 1 3 a4! e 5 1 4 't!fa7 b4 1 5
t!rxb7 be 1 6 b4! and White was
winning the battle on both flanks in
P1achetka-Knaak, Po1anica Zdroj
1975.
...

...

72 6 . . . a6
II
12

lbce2

lbg3

lbc5
d5 (1 08)

108
w

It seems that Black has achieved


a great deal . Having proceeded in
a logical manner to gain space on
the queen side he finds himself able
to afford the luxury of the central
break . . . d5. However, whereas in
other lines the consequences of
allowing his opponent so much
counterplay would normally prove
fatal for White, here , with his
pieces geared for action in the
centre, he is quite well able to cope
and may even proceed to counter
attack on the queenside . The game
Sveshnikov-Georgadze , USSR Ch
1 978, continued 13 e5 lbc6 14 .te3
g6 15 a3 lbxd4?! 1 6 't!txd4 ba 17 b4!
lbe4 18 Ir.xa3 lbxg3 19 hg Ir.c8 20
c3 .te7 21 Ir.fa 1 . White has
re-established his superiority in
the centre and his pieces exert
considerable pressure on Black's
queenside.
C2

8
't!Vc7 (1 09)
This move is rather more flexible
than either 8 . . . b5 or 8 . . . lbc6 but
suffers from the defect that if

White can quickly weaken the d5


square the queen will find herself
uncomfortably placed.
f4!
9
The text compares favourably
with the slower (though well
playable) 9 0-0: 9 . . . b5 10 :!Ie 1
lbb6 1 1 .tf4? (instead of this
artificial tactical device White
should play 1 1 f4 with a less potent
version of the main line) 1 1 . . . b4?
(not 1 1 . . . .te7 1 2 lbf5 ! ef 1 3 ef ,
but correct is the acceptance of the
sacrifice - 1 1 . . . e5 12 .tg3 ed 13 e5
.te6 +) 1 2 lbd5 ! ed 13 e5 d8 1 4
g6! (threat 1 5 .tg5) 1 4 . . . lbc6 1 5
.tg5+ lb e 7 1 6 g f Ir. a 7 1 7 c4! d e 1 8
Ir.xe 5 ! .td7 1 9 't!te 1 't!tc5 20 cd
lbbc8 2 1 lbc6+ .txc6 22 de 1 -0
Faibisovich-Korelov, USSR 1 972.
Interesting, though , is an idea
of Timman's: 9 't!th5 lbc5 10 .te3
lbc6 1 1 0-0-0 .td7 1 2 f4 g6 1 3 't!te2
J.g7? (after 1 3 . . . Ir.c8 Black's
prospects are satisfactory) 1 4 e5!
Timman-Rohrl, Madrid 197 1 .
9
b5
10
e5
f5
A sorry move to be forced into
but on 10
b4 there follows, of
...

109
w

course, 1 1 fe, while after 10 lt:le5


1 1 fe fe 1 2 0-0 Black is unable to
castle and his e-pawn is open to
attack.
11
lt:ld5
't!rd8
1 2 lt:lel
lt:lb6
1 3 lt:lec3
lt:l8d7
14
a4!
ba
1 5 lt:lxa4
lt:lxd5
16
ed
J.e7
17 't!rh5! (1 1 0)
.

. .

a6 73

D l 8 J.c4
02 8 a4
D1
8 J.c4 (1 1 1)
Ill
B

JJO
B

Threatening 1 8 g6 and preventing


Black from castling - 1 7 . . . 0-0? 1 8
f6 gf 1 9 J.e4 . W e are following
Gipslis-Padevsky, Vrnjacka Banja
197 5, which continued 1 7 . . . lt:lf8
18 J.e4 J.xf5 19 J.xf5 g6 20 J.xg6
fg 2 1 't!rf3 J.xg5 22 0-0 lia7 23
lt:lc3 and the dual threats of 24
lixa6 and 24 lt:le4 rapidly proved
decisive .
D
8th move alternatives
Moves covered in this category
are relegated to the 'second division'
not necessarily because they are
bad but in most cases because
there has been too little experience
of practical play to give a firm
j udgment.

This seems to be a promising


alternative to the standard schemes.
Black is prevented from following
through his usual plan of action
because of tactical threats on e6 (8
. . . b5? 9 J.xe6! fe 1 0 lt:lxe6 1!fa5 I I
J.d2 ) and the game takes on
the characteristics of the Sozin
Velimirovil: Attack . This aspect
may prove to be a source of worry
for Black as more often than not
he has adopted the . . . d6( e6), . . .
lt:lf6, . . . e6(d6) move order to
avoid Sozin type positions.
lt:leS
8
(a) 8
ltlcS 9 a4 lt:lc6 1 0 J.e3 't!rb6
I I 't!rd2 ;t (Gipslis).
(b) 8
1!fc7 9 't!re2 (9 J.xe6? fe 10
lt:lxe6 't!Vc4 I I 1!fd5 't!fxd5 12 lt:lxd5
13 lt:lec7 lia7 14 J.e3 b6 +) 9
. . . lt:lc6 10 J.e3 and White has
transposed to a favourable So zio
variation in which he has avoided
the complications which normally
attend the g4 advance if it is
unaccompanied by lig l .
...

...

74 6 . . . a6
lll bc:6
9 .tb3
9 . . . @c7 10 f4 lll e c6 1 1 .te3
lll xd4 12 xd4 lllc6 13 d2 b5 1 4
f5 lll a 5 1 5 0-0-0 Mikhalchishin
Stupica, Yugoslav Ch 1 96 1 .
lll x c6
10
lll x c6
11
.te3
.te7
bS
12
@dl
.td7
13
0-0-0
lib8
a3
14
0-0
f4
15
16
h4
as (1 12)

Day- Amos, USA 1 969 . Now


White went over to the attack with
17 g6 ! fg? ( 1 7 . . . b4! ) 18 h5 b4 1 9
lll d 5 ! ( 19 . . . e d 2 0 .txd5+ 'it>h8
2 1 hg h6 22 lixh6+ gh 23 1!rh2 ).
02
a4
8
Another, more direct method of
containing Black's queenside play.
The game now takes on the
characteristics of the 6 . .. lll c 6
lines in which White's a4 move is
not particularly effective.

9
10

.te3
.tel

lll c6
llldeS

10 lll b 3 lll a 5 1 1 lll xa5 xa5 1 2


f4 lll c6 1 3 .tg2 .te7 ( 1 3 . . . h 6 !?) 1 4
0-0 0-0 Kmil:-Cvetkovil:, Yugoslavia
1 974, and now 1 5 f5 .
.t d7 (1 13)
10
1 13
w

Shaping up for a direct attack


along the c-file and, in particular,
occupation of c4. Less active is 1 0
. . . lll xd4 1 1 't!Vxd4 lll c 6 1 2 1!Vb6 ( 1 2
1!Vd2 ;!;) 1 2 . . . 1!Vxb6 1 3 .txb6 h6! 1 4
gh lixh6 1 5, 0-0-0 .t d 7 R.Byrne
Spassky, match (5) 1 974.
lieS
11
't!Vd 2
lt:laS!
0-0-0
12
lt!ec4
1 3 't!Ve l
lt:l xc4
14 .txc4
lt!xe3
b3
IS
.t e 7
1 6 1!Vxe 3
17
h4
1!Vc7
Black is in firm possession of
the initiative, Matulovil:-Cvetkovil:,
Vrnjacka Banja 1 974.
=

5 6

0 0

ltlc6; 6

In this chapter w e are concerned


with the simple development options
available to Black, viz 6 . . . lbc6
and 6 . . . j.e7. There has recently
been a great deal of interest in these
lines (especially the former) as the
search for a fully satisfactory
defensive system continues. With
rapid piece development Black
can ensure a flexible position
which presents White with no
immediate targets to attack and
which Cf n be moulded to his
defensive requirements as White's
initiative takes shape . In the hands
of a strong player this unambitious
style of play can be an effective
weapon but, all the same, it leaves
the problem of White's spatial
advantage unresolved and allows
the first player considerable scope
in the formation of his attacking
strategy.
A 6 . . . lbc6
8 6 . . . i.e?
A
lb c6
6
Heralding the animated activity
in the centre which characterises
both sides' play in this line. The
move 6 . . . lbc6 applies immediate
pressure on White's centre and
can often be usefully coupled with
the manoeuvre . . . lOdeS, . . . lbxd4
and . . . lDc6 in order to resolve the

J.e7
problem of the awkwardly placed
king's knight.
gS
lbd7 (1 14)
7
1 14
w

White must also gear his play


towards central action and there
are a number of possibilities open
to him. He can maintain the status
quo with the non-committal S i.e3,
waiting for further information on
Black's intended piece formation
before finally deciding the pattern
of his own development; he can
precipitate an immediate crisis in
the centre with 8 lbdb5 with the
aim of exploiting the temporary
weakness of Black's d-pawn caused
by the awkward placement of the
knight on d7; or he may attempt to
increase his dominance of the centre
with the solid , restraining 8 i.g2.
A I 8 j.e3
A2 8 lbdb5
A3 8 j.g2
There has been little experience

76 6 . . . li:J c6: 6 . . . j.e7

with the enterprising S h4: S . . .


li:Jxd4!? ( S . . . a 6 9 f4 j_e7 1 0 j.e3
transposes to line B 1) 9 1!t'xd4 li:Je5
1 0 j.e2 li:Jc6 1 1 1!t'd3 a6 12 j.f4
1!t'c7 1 3 0-0-0 li:Je5 1 4 1!t'd4 j.d7 1 5
h 5 .tc6 1 6 llh3 (instead o f this
peculiar manoeuvre, which is not
without its good points, however,
White should proceed in a more
direct manner with 1 6 .tg3 to
force through f4-f5, e.g. 1 6 . . . b5
17 f4 li:Jd7 IS f5 li:Je5 19 g6 ) 16 . . .
b5 1 7 a3 lEeS 1 S h6?! (and here
White's play may be improved
with Nunn's suggestion of 1 S li:Ja2
followed by 19 llc3) 1 S . . . gh 19 gh
lEgS with equal chances, Lutikov
Malich, Leipzig 1 977.
AI
8 j.e3
This is White's most popular
choice largely because it maintains
maximum flexibility and postpones
the commitment to one particular
avenue of attack. White largely
controls the tempo of the game
and can at any stage switch from
simple development to an all-out
assault with the f-, g- and h-pawns.
8
a6 (1 15)
J /5
w

S . . . j.e7 will transpose to lines


covered in B after 9 h4 or 9 llg l .
Alternatives are worth exploring:
(a) 8
li:Jxd4?! (this premature
exchange allows the white queen
to establish a dominating presence
in the centre of the board) 9 1!t'xd4
a6 10 j.e2 1!t'c7 1 1 f4 b6 ( 1 1 . . . b5
1 2 a4! ba 13 llxa4 ) 1 2 f5 li:Je5 1 3
fe fe 1 4 a4 j.e7 1 5 h4 1!t'c5 1 6 1t'd2
1!t'c7 1 7 llfl Keres-Bogoljubow,
Salzburg 1 943.
(b) 8
li:JdeS. This is a useful way
of bringing about an improvement
in the positioning of the knight by
means of a simplifying exchange
of pieces.
b I) 9 li:Jb3 li:Ja5 (9 . . . h6!? 1 0 gh g5
I I .te2, Kudryashov-Kapengut,
USSR 1 975, and now critical is 1 1
. . . 1!t'f6 1 2 li:Jb5 1!Ve7 1 3 1t'd2 a6 1 4
.tg5 f6 1 5 .th5+ li:J f7 giving rise to
tremendous complications) 10 li:Jxa5
1!t'xa5 I I f4 li:Jc6 1 2 .tg2 h6 1 3 h4
j.d7 1 4 1t'd2 hg 1 5 hg lixh l + 1 6
.txh I b 5 1 7 .tf3 lieS 1 S li:Je2 with
a marginal advantage for White in
the game Bangiev-Kapengut, USSR
1975.
b2) 9 .te2 a6 1 0 f4 li:Jxd4 1 1 1!t'xd4
li:Jc6 1 2 1!t'd2 b5 1 3 a3 .tb7 1 4 h4 and
White's attack is very dangerous,
e.g. 14 . . . lieS ( 1 4 . . . 1!t'a5 15 0-0 !
b4? 1 6 ab 1!t'xb4 1 7 lia4 ) 1 5 h5
( 1 5 0-0-0 1!t'a5 ! ) 1 5 . . . li:Ja5 1 6 0-0-0
li:Jc4 1 7 .txc4 lixc4 I S g6!? .txe4
19 gf+ r3;xf7 20 li:Jxe4 lixe4 2 1
'id3 lic4 22 f5 with strong pressure
for the pawn.
b3) 9 f4 li:Jxd4 10 j.xd4 li:Jc6 I I
.te3 a6 1 2 h4 (White is effectively
...

...

6 . . . lilc6; 6 . . . .tel 77

a tempo down compared with b2


but he has more choice in the
positioning of his queen and
bishop) 12 . . . b5 1 3 .tg2 (the bishop
is better placed here than on e2:
White no longer has to worry
about . . . b4 as he has a retreat
square for the knight and the
bishop can add to the pressure on
e6 later on by slipping to h3) 1 3 . . .
.tb7 1 4 0-0 .te7 1 5 f5 0-0 1 6 .i.h3
.tcS 17 't!Vh5 lile5 1 S .td4 liteS 19
f6 ! gf 20 litad 1 '@c7 21 gf with a
winning attack, Balaskas-Tringov,
Istanbul 1 975.
12 ... 't!Va5 was tried in the game
Malevinsky-Gutman, Vilnius 1 979:
13 .tc47! (clea rly 13 .tg2 b5 1 4
0-0 i s good for White a s in the
previous game) 13 . . . .td7 14 't!Ve2
b5 1 5 .i.b3 libS (a Velimirovil:
Sozin Attack type of position has
been reached in which the exchange
of knights is to Black's advantage)
16 0-0-0 b4 1 7 lilb 1 '@c7 1S .ta4
li:la5 1 9 .txd7+ '@xd7 20 lild2 .te7
21 lilc4 lilxc4 22 't!Vxc4 0-0 + .
(c) 8
lilb6. A move to watch.
The theory has been developing
rapidly in recent months with Tal
giving it his seal of approval at the
1 979 Riga IZ. Black's strategy is to
force a rapid . . . d5.
c 1 ) 9 lilgl d 5 ! (9 ... a6 1 0 't!Vd2 .td7
1 1 f4 liteS 1 2 lilb3 d5 13 ed lilxd5
14 lilxd5 ed 15 c3 .te6 16 .td3 g6
1 7 't!Vf2 R. Byrne-Grefe, USA
1 970) 1 0 .i.b5 .td7 1 1 ed ed 1 2
"t!t'e2 .te7 1 3 0-0-0 0-0 1 4 .td3 lieS
15 <2;>b 1 .tf8 1 6 lilxc6 be and Black
had at least equality in the game
...

Chiong-Green, ltoh 1 97S.


c2) 9 't!t'd2 d5 (9 ... lile57! 1 0 0-0-0
.te7 10 . . . lilbc4 1 1 .txc 4 lilxc4
12 't!t'e2 lilxe3 13 1Wxe3 a6 14 f4
.te l 15 h4 .tdl 16/5 '@a5 1 7 lihf1
lilc8 18fefe 1 9 '@f3 Kruszynski
Schinzel, Polish Ch 1 980
11
lildb5J 0-0 1 2 t'Llxd6 lilg4 1 3 litg 1
lilxe> 1 4 '@xe3 '@c7 1 5 e5 lild5 1 6
litxd5 ! e d 1 7 lilxd5 '@dS 1 S .td3
.txd6 19 lilf6+ <2;>hS 20 't!Ve4 g6 2 1
"t!rh4 't!Vxf6 2 2 gf 1 -0 Fernandez
Vilela, Alicante 1 97S) 10 0-0-0
.te7 1 1 lilb3 0-0!7 1 2 ed ed 1 3
lilxd5 lilxd5 1 4 '@xd5 '@xd5 1 5
litxd5 lilb4 and Black had enough
compensation for the pawn in
van Riemsdyk-Tal, Riga I Z 1 979.
White may do better with a less
routine approach:
c3) 9 a4 lila57! (9 . . . a6 1 0 a5 lild7
1 1 lilb3 b5 1 2 ab lilxb6 clearly
improves on Black's play, but
White still has the edge) 10 f4
lilbc4 1 1 .te l d5 1 2 ed .i.b4 1 3
.i.g2 ! 0-0 1 4 0-0 .txc3 1 5 be ed 1 6
'@f3 M ista-Navarovsky, Reggio
Emilia 1 967 /6S.
c4) 9 .tb5!? (this exploits Black's
omission of . . . a6) 9 . . . .td7 1 0
t'Llb3 (to control d 5 ) 1 0 . . . liteS
(better is the immediate 1 0 . . . a6)
1 1 't!Ve2 a6 12 .txc6 .txc6 13 0-0-0
.te7 1 4 h4 .td7 1 5 f4 lilc4 1 6 h5 b5
1 7 .td4 b4 ( 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 S g6! b4 1 9
h 6 ! ) 1 S lild5 ! e d 1 9 h6 de 20 hg
ligS 21 '@xe4 with an overpowering
attack, Griinfeld-Rodriguez, Riga
IZ 1 979.
White now has 9 litg 1 , 9 '@d2
and 9 h4, of which the last is the
-

78 6 . . . t0c6; 6 . . . j.e 7

most flexible and at the time of


writing considered the strongest.
A l l 9 lilg l
A l 2 9 't!rd2
A l 3 9 h4
9 f4 is possible too, transposing
after 9 . . . j_e7 to line B l of the
following section on 6 . . . j.e7. The
premature 9 . . . h6 runs into trouble
after 1 0 f5 ! as the game Belyavsky
Ree, Kiev 197S, illustrates: 10 . . .
t0xd4 ( 1 0 . . . e 5 I I t0f3 ) I I 1!fxd4
t'Lle5 1 2 0-0-0 hg 1 3 fe j.xe6 I 4 t0d5
liteS I 5 't!ra4+ 't!rd7 I6 1!fxd7+
.txd7 I7 .txg5 (;t:) I7 ... .tg4 I S
lild2 t0f3? ! I 9 j.e2! lilc6 20 ..txf3
j.xf3 2 I lite I f6 22 .tf4 b5 23 lid4
<M7 24 lie3 .tg4 25 a4 ba 26 litxa4
- Black was never given the
chance to get a completely com
fortable position.
All
9
lilg1 (1 16)
l l6
B

It is not clear that this move


makes a significant contribution to
White's kingside effort, since instead
of castling early as he is often forced
to do in comparable 6 . . . j_e7 lines,
Black can concentrate on drumming
up counterplay on the queenside.

't!rc7
9
A necessary preparation for
the minority attack. The more
convoluted plans tend to lead Black
into difficulty:
(a) 9 t0c5 1 0 f4 ..td7 1 1 1!fe2 b 5 1 2
0-0-0 b4 1 3 t0xc6 .txc6 1 4 t0d5 !
1!fa5 I 5 j.xc5 d e 1 6 b i Krantz
Bryntse, Corres 1 977.
(b) 9
lOdeS 1 0 t0b3 .td7? ! ( 1 0 . . .
t0a5 was indicated, and then pos
sibly I I t0xa5 1!fxa5 1 2 f4 t0c6 1 3
't!rd2 b 5 I 4 h4 .tb7 I 5 h 5 g6 with a
complicated game in wbich Black's
chances are no worse than White's)
I I f4 t0g6 1 2 't!rd2 h6? (this move
only serves to open the g-file for
White's rook) 1 3 0-0-0 hg I 4 lixg5
( ) 14 . . . b5 I 5 1!fg2 't!rc7 I6 lilxg6!
fg 1 7 xg6+ 'i!ldS I S e5 d5 19 t0c5
.txc5 20 ..txc5 t0xe5 2I 't!rxg7
Savon-Gutman, Ashkhabad 197S.
f4
10
Worth considering is 1 0 1!fe2
with a similar idea to that used by
Karpov in line A l 3 , viz 10 . . . b5 I I
t0xc6 1!fxc6 1 2 0-0-0 .te7 1 3 j.d4
b4 14 t0d5 !
1 0 1!fh5 o n the other hand only
helps Black to free his position: 1 0
. . . t0de 5 I I f4 t0xd4 1 2 ..txd4 t0c6
13 j.e3 g6 14 't!re2 ..tg7 and the
slight weakness of Black's d-pawn
is more than fully compensated by
the power of his dark-squared
bishop. The game Salov-Popov,
USSR 1 979, continued 1 5 't!rd2
't!ra5 1 6 0-0-0 0-0 I 7 'i!lb l lidS I S
t0e2 1!fc7 ( I S . . . 1!fxd2 ) I 9 t0g3
b5 ( 1 9 . . . d 5 ! ) 20 f5 d5! 2 I f6 de 22
e2 li xd l + 23 1!fxd i .tf8 with
..

6 . . . l0c6; 6

some advantage to White, though


the game was eventually drawn.
10

II
12

a3

1!fd2

bS
lilb8
lOcS (1 1 7)

Sax-Tringov, Osijek 1 97 8 . With


his last move Black guards his
a-pawn as a final preparation for
the advanc . . . b4. White's own
attack is lagging way behind so
Sax decides to try to hold up
Black's advance in a typically
unorthodox way.
13
b4?!
This hardly improves White's
game, though in any case Black
had already reached an excellent
position.
l0xd4
13
The game went on 14 't!rxd4 l0d7
1 5 Itd l j,b7 16 h3 Itc8 17 Itd3
when Black had a compact and
comfortable position with good
middlegame prospects.
All
9 't!Vd2 (1 18)
The game now crystallises into
the orthodox pattern with pawn
avalanches racing down opposite
flanks. Theory would indicate

. . .

e 7 79

J J8
B

that White can ward off or outrun


his opponent's attack, but only
with very accurate play.
9
't!rc7
The most direct method of
introducing . . . b5, but there are
important alternatives to consider:
(a) 9
@aS 10 0-0-0 l0xd4 I I
't!rxd4 b5 1 2 'i!lb l j,b7 1 3 f4 b4 1 4
t'Lle2 h6 1 5 gh Itxh6 1 6 j,g2 lilh5
17 f5 ! Unzicker-Medina, Hastings
1 969170.
(b) 9
lOcS 1 0 0-0-0 j,d7 I I f4 b5
12 g2 b4 1 3 l0ce2 Itb8 1 4 'i!lb l
't!rc7 1 5 h4 a5 1 6 h5 a4 1 7 g6 b3?
(better is 17 . . . fg 18 hg h6 t) l 8 gf+
'it>xf7 1 9 cb ab 20 a3 ( ) 20 . . . h6 2 1
Ithfl t'Llxd4 2 2 l0xd4 'it>e8 2 3 't!rf2
c8 24 e5 Itb6 25 f5 ! j,b7 26 fe de
27 1!fg3 ! j,xg2 28 1!fg6+ 'it>d8 29
t'Llb5+ Itd6 30 @xg2 1 -0 Mednis
Timman, Sombor 1 974. A crucial
game, this, since it shows that
Black's attack , even when pursued
with the utmost vigour, is not as
strong as White's.
(c) 9 lOdeS (a familiar manoeuvre
which here has the additional
intent of exploiting the early
placement of the white queen) 1 0
..

...

...

80 6 . . . ltlc6; 6 . . . 1.e7

1.e2 ( 10 0-0-0 ltlxd4 I I 't!Vxd4 .td7


12 f4 ltlc6 13 'tib67 - 13 't!Vd2 b5 14
h4 : compare note b on Black's
8th move - 13 . . . 't!Vc8 14 f5 .te7 1 5
fe fe 1 6 .tf4 0-0 1 7 .txd6 .txg5+
18 c;!;lb l llf7 + Kostina-Minogina,
Moscow Women's Ch 1 978) 1 0 . . .
1.d7 I I ltlxc6 .txc67! 1 2 f4 ltld7
13 0-0-0 b5 1 4 .tf3 .te7 15 c;!;lb l
0-0 1 6 'tlrg2 lle8 1 7 h4 ltlb6 1 8 h5
and White's attack bites first,
Vasyukov-Djurasevic, USSR v
Yugoslavia 1 962.
ltlxd4
0-0-0
10
Safer than 10 . . . b5 which allows
White to draw the black queen
onto the long diagonal with I I
ltlxc6! Wxc6 1 2 .tg2. The game
Gufeld-Tukmakov, USSR 1 97 1 ,
continued 1 2 . . . .te7 1 3 llhe l 0-0
(necessary, since White threatened
to break open the centre with 1 4
ltld5 ! ; now, though, White switches
to the kingside) 14 .td4 lle8 1 5 f4
1.b7 1 6 c;!;lb l ltlc5 1 7 f5 b4 1 8 ltle2
.tf8 1 9 ltlf4 llac8 20 g6 .
The column is Hort-Andersson,
Las Palmas 1973, which continued
1 1 xd4 b5 1 2 h4 llb8 1 3 c;!;lb l b4
14 ltla4 .tb7 1 5 b3 (1 /9)
Jl9

With his queenside now well


defended White can turn his
attention to his own attack on the
kingside with every expectation of
a successful conclusion.
Al3
h4
9
The purpose of this flexible
move is not so much to launch
into an immediate kingside attack
but, as with the move preceding it,
to avoid the commitment to one
particular piece fo rmation until
Black declares his intentions. Of
course, the move is a useful one
anyway and White has nothing to
lose by advancing the h-pawn so
early, but it was only when Karpov
linked in a subtle new strategic
concept that the importance of the
line was realised.
't!Vc7
9
9
.te7 will transpose to the
main line after 10 't!Ve2 b5 I I 0-0-0
or to B lines after 10 llg l or 10 f4.
Worth considering is 9
ltldeS
I 0 f4 ltlxd4 I I .txd4 ltlc6 12 .te3 see note b3 to Black's 8th move.
10 We2 (120)
...

...

1 20
B

Karpov's idea, the cornerstone

6 . . . lbc6; 6

of a plan for energetic central


action .
The more conventional 1 0 f4 i s
strong too: 1 0 . . . b5 I I lbxc6
( l l f57 is premature I I . .. lbde5
12 .th3 lbxd4 1 3 .txd4 b4 14 lbe2
lbf3+ 15 cM2 lbxd4 16 lbxd4 e5 1 7
lbe2 .tb7 1 8 lbg3 d5 1 9 g2 de 20
h2 e3 21 ,tg2 litd8 0- l Rodriguez
Tringov, Buenos Aires OL 1978)
1 1 ... 't!rxc6 1 2 a3 .tb7 13 '@d4!7
't!rc5 1 4 Wd2 'Wc7 15 0-0-0 J.c6 1 6
f5 lbe5 1 7 J.h3 J.d7 1 8 h5 a5 19 g6
and White went on to win with
a direct attack in Alexandria
Kozlovskaya, Tbilisi 1 979.
1 0 J.gl transposes to line A33.
10
bS
11
J.e7
0-0-0
1 2 ' lbxc6 !
This exchange is an important
complement to White's strategy.
The purpose of White's deployment
of his queen on e2 is to open up
possibilities of action on the e-file
with lbd5 and the threat becomes
more concrete with the black queen
on c6.
Wxc6
12
b4 (121)
1 3 .td4
-

121
w

. . .

J.e7 8 1

Naturally Black can refrain from


provoking the ensuing sacrifice,
but after 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 f4 lbc5 15 a3
J.b7 16 .tg2 the black queen is
poorly placed on the long diagonal
and White's kingside attack moves
very fast, as the game Egin
Zamansky, Uzbekhistan Ch 1977,
illustrates: 1 6 ... litfc8 17 h5 a5 1 8
g6 b4 1 9 Wg4! e5 20 gf+ xf7 2 1 fe
be 22 lilhfl + e8 23 .txc3 lbxe4
24 ed J,g5+ 25 b I lbxc3+ 26 be
't!rb6+ 27 a I J.f6 28 '@e6+ 'i!n8
29 lilxf6+ gf 30 Wxf6+ g8 3 1
J.xb7 1 -0.
ed
1 4 lbdS!
lilg8
IS J.xg7
Wc7
16
ed
1 7 .tf6
lbeS
de
18
.txeS
19
f4!
White has two extra pawns for
the piece and will soon win a
third while maintaining a ferocious
initiative. We are following the
game Karpov-Dorfman, USSR Ch
1976, which continued 19 . . . J.f5
20 J.h3 (20 fe lieS 2 1 lith2 !7) 20 . . .
J.xh3 2 1 lixh3 lilc8 22 fe '@c4 23
litdd3 '@f4+ 24 b l litc4 25 d6
lite4 26 lithe3 lilxe3 27 litxe3 Wxh4
28 'tt'f3 ! '@xg5 ! 29 lie 1 '@g2 30 '@f5
litg6 3 1 lilfl \!fd5 32 de xe7 33
'tt'f4 a5 34 't!Yh4+ e8 35 't!Vxh7
'@f3 36 't!fh8 + e7 37 't!fh4+ 8
38 Wc4 ! Wb7 3 9 b3 a n d White
went on to win on move 50.
Al
8 lLldbS (122)
This aggressive line deserves a
place in the arsenal of every Keres

82 6 . . . c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7

112
B

Attack player as it gives rise to


positions with plenty of scope for
imaginative attacking play. The
move itself is not motivated merely
by short term tactical considerations
but has a logical strategic basis.
The omission of the move . . . a6 by
Black and the awkward station of
his knight on d7 has resulted in a
weakening of his d-pawn, albeit a
temporary one. In similar positions
White's attack would quickly ebb
away, but here it is possible to
sustain the initiative with repeated
attacks on the black knights, which
are forced to exposed squares in
the centre, resulting in a further
gain of space.
All things considered this is a
very difficult line for Black and
consequently many players choose
an alternative move order such as
6 . . . a6 7 g5 lbd7 8 .te3 lbc6 in
order to avoid the possibility of its
occurrence.
8
lbb6
8 . . . lbc5 is considered to be less
accurate because of 9 .tf4 e5 (9 . . .
e5 !? 1 0 b4 a6 1 1 a 3 .te7 1 2 h4
- 12 .tg3! 0-0 13/4 lbc6 14 h4 t -

1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 J.e3 lbc7 1 4 f4 lbxb5


15 xb5 lbc6 16 J.g2 a6 1 7 lbd4
'flc7 1 8 0-0 lbxd4 19 J.xd4 f6 with
approximately equal chances in
Fatalivekova-Minogina, Nikolayev
1 978) 10 .te3 a6 1 1 J.xc5 de 1 2
"t!Vxd8+ xd8 1 3 0-0-0+ d4 ( 1 3
. . . J.d7? 1 4 d5 ! ab 1 5 lbb6
litxa2 16 lilxd7+ e8 17 J.xb5 !
was Matsukevich-Yakovlyev, USSR
1 976) 14 lbxd4 ed 1 5 lbd5 t White's mobile kingside maj ority
and the powerful knight on d5 are
ample compensation for the bishop
pair and he can break open the
d-file with c3, exposing Black's
king to further harassment.
e5
9 .tf4
This is the move currently
accepted by theory but Black
should consider 9 . . . e5, which
may represent an improvement in
his prospects: 1 0 .te3 .te6 ( 10 . . .
a6? 1 1 .txb6! 'flxb6 1 2 lbd5 "t!Va5+
13 b4 xb4 1 4 lbbc7+ d8 1 5
9d2 ; White also gains the
advantage after 10 . . . .te7 1 1 h4
0-0 1 2 @d2 .te6 1 3 lbd5 lbc8 1 4
0-0-0 'fld7 1 5 .te2 .td8 1 6 lilhg 1
h8 1 7 h5 Krasnov-Yakovlyev,
Moscow 1 966) 1 1 lbd5 .txd5 1 2
ed lbe7 with an interesting position
yet to be explored by theory. For
example , 1 3 c4 ( 1 3 lbxa7 litxa7 1 4
.tb5+ lb d 7 1 5 .txa 7 9a5+) 1 3 . . .
lbf5 1 4 9g4 ( 1 4 .txb6?! 9xb6 1 5
9a4+ 'i!ld8 1 6 .th3 g 6 and White
has no way to increase the pressure)
14 . . . lbxe3 1 5 fe with some
advantage.
1 0 9h5 (123)

6 . . . lbc6; 6 .. i.e7 83
.

123
B

White brings his queen out to a


menacing position on the kingside
while vacating the d 1 square so
that his rook can increase the
pressure on the d-file and thereby
further embarrass Black's knight
on e5.
By con \ rast the simplistic 1 0
i.xe5? misses the mark completely:
10 . . . de 1 1 '@xd8+ 'it>xd8 12 0-0-0+
i.d7 1 3 lbd6 i.xd6 1 4 li[xd6 'it>e7
1 5 litd3 ( 1 5 litd2 h6 + Mestrovic
Ciric, Belgrade 1 967) 1 5 . . . h6 1 6
litg3 hg 1 7 li xg5 'it;>f6 1 8 litg3 lith4
and the initiative passed to Black
in Formanek-Polugayevsky, Lone
Pine 1 978.
10
lbg6
(a) 10 ... a6? fails to I I 0-0-0 ! lbbc4
1 2 i.xc4 lbxc4 1 3 i.xd6 lbxd6 1 4
lbxd6+ i.xd6 1 5 e 5 .
( b ) White also comes o u t on top
fter 10 . . . g6 I I '@h3 i.d7 1 2 0-0-0
'@b8 1 3 '@g3 ! (the threat is 1 4
lbxd6+ i.xd6 1 5 lixd6 '@xd6 1 6
i.xe5 ).
(c) Rather more resilient is 1 0 ...
i.d7 but with forceful play White
can demonstrate his superiority :
I I i.xe5 ! de ( l l . . . g6 1 2 i.xd6! )

1 2 g6! a6! 1 3 gf+ 'it>e7 1 4 lba3 c7


1 5 0-0-0 g6 1 6 "tlh4+ xf7 1 7 lbc4
lbxc4 1 8 i.xc4 i.e7 1 9 g3 ! ( 1 9
g4 litad8 2 0 i.b3 i.c8 2 1 h 4 h5
22 g3 with even chances in
Plachetka-Ho rt , Luhacovice 1 973
-with the text move White avoids
the loss of a tempo) 19 . . . litad8 20
i.b3 i.c8 2 1 h4 litxd 1 + 22 lbxd 1 ! ,
litd8 23 h5 g5 24 lbe3 h6 25 g4
and Black can barely resist the
infiltration of the white forces (the
threat is 26 '@f5+), Szabo-Ivkov,
H ilversum 1 973.
11
i.e3
1 1 i.xd6 i.xd6 12 li[d l 0-0 1 3
lbxd6 '@e7 gives Black compensation
for the pawn ( Boleslavsky).
ll
a6
12
lbd4
i.d7
Fischer-Bukic, Skopje 1967, went
instead 12 . . . lbeS 1 3 li[d 1 g6 1 4
'@e2 i. d 7 1 5 h 4 h6 1 6 i.g2 hg 1 7
i.xg5 ! i. e 7 1 8 f4 lbc6 1 9 i.xe7
'@xe7 20 when White had
increased his space advantage and
preserved the initiative .
Less active than the text is 1 2 . . .
i.e7: 1 3 0-0-0 i. d 7 1 4 f4 h6 (this
works out badly but the threat of
f4-f5 is a very powerful one) 1 5 gh
li[xh6 1 6 '@a5 ! li[h8 (the threat
was 1 7 f5) 1 7 lbxe6 fe 18 i.xb6
'@c8 19 f5 ! and White quickly won
in Gufeld-Kirov, Sochi 1 979.
13
lid1 (124)
Caution is needed. The premature
13 f4 allows Black to gain a strong
foothold in the centre after 1 3 . . .
e5 ! ( 1 3 . . . h6? 1 4 gb li xh6 1 5 '@a5 !
and 1 3 . . . lbxf4 1 4 i.xf4 e5 1 5 i.e3

84 6 . . . li::J c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7

1 24

ed 1 6 J.xd4 leave White with a


marked advantage) 1 4 fe ( 1 4 li::J f5
ltlxf4 1 5 J.xf4 ef + ) 1 4 . . . ltlxe5 1 5
J.e2 li::J b c4 1 6 .te l g6 1 7 1!Vh4 J.g7
with excellent counterplay, while
if 13 0-0-0 Black gets the first blow
in with 13 . . . liteS 14 f4 Itxc3 1 5 be
'@c7 with a dangerous attack. The
game Yuneyev-Nepomnashi in the
Leningrad Ch 1978 continued 1 6
d2 ( 1 6 'i&b l ltla4! =F - White's
best chance may be 16 c4!? ltlxc4
17 .txc4 Wxc4) 16 . . . li::J a 4 17 li::J e 2
li::J b 2 18 li::J g 3?! ( 1 8 Itb l ltlc4+ =F)
18 . . . ltlxd 1 1 9 Wxd 1 d5 and Black
already had a decisive advantage.
Itc8
13
1 4 .th3!?
This move has an anti positional
look to it, giving up the c4 square
and blocking the advance of the
h-pawn, but there are several good
points to recommend it. In the first
place White is now prepared to get
his king rapidly into safety so that
after 14 . . . Itxc3?! 1 5 be '@c7 16 0-0
Black's exchange sacrifice looks
dubious. Secondly, the bishop
performs a useful function on h3,
supporting the key advance f4-f5

and adding to the pressure on e6.


Black's occupation of c4 is a slight
annoyance but no more than that,
since with White's rook already
developed his bishop can drop
back to c l without inhibiting the
activity of any of his pieces.
li::J c 4
14
bS
IS
.tel
16
0-0
b4
17
li::J c e2 (125)
/ 25
B

In this critical position, yet to be


tested in practical play, the chances
are very finely balanced, e.g. 1 7 . . .
J.e7 ( 1 7 . . . '@a5 ! ? with the threat
1 8 . . . h6) 1 8 f4 h6 ( 1 8 . . . e5? 1 9
.txd7+ '@xd7 2 0 li::J f5 0-0 2 1
li::J x g7 ! <t>xg7 2 2 f5 with a very
promising attack, e.g. 22 . . . Itg8 22 . . . J.. d8? 23 '@h6+ g8 24 li::Jg3!
or here 23 . . . 'i&h8 24fg - 23
fg! fg 24 't!rh6+ 'i!lh8 25 Itf7 Wg4+
26 <t>fl ) 19 li::J x e6 ( 1 9 f5 hg 20 fe
J.xe6) 1 9 . . . J.xe6 ( 1 9 . . . Wb6+ 20
li::J 6 d4 hg - 20 . . . J.. xh3 21 Wxh3
and Black 's rook on c8 is hanging 2 1 .txd7+ xd7 22 '@g4+ <t>c7 23
b3 li::J a 3 24 '@f5 ) 20 J.xe6 hg 2 1
J.xf7+ <t>xf7 22 fg+ J.f6 2 3 't!Vf3

6 . . . l0c6; 6 . . .te 7 85
.

and after White regains the piece


Black will have to work hard to
justify his material deficit.
A3
8 .tg2
a6 (126)

9 0-0 .te7 1 0 h4 ( 1 0 lbxc6? bc 1 1


f4 e5 1 2 f5 h6 1 3 f6 gf 1 4 't!t'h5 lbf8
1 5 gh .te6 1 6 .th3 'ttd 7 1 7 .txe6
t:bxe6 + Mednis-Padevsky, Orense
1 973) 10 . . . h6 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 l0de2
b5 12 lbg3 .tb7 13 f4 followed by
14 f5 with good attack\ng prospects)
1 1 gh lbxd4 ( I I . . gh 1 2 lbxe6 fe
1 3 't!t'h5+ ct>f8 1 4 .txh6+ li xh6 1 5
'ttx h6+ ;!;) 1 2 'ttx d4 .tf6 1 3 'ttx d6
gh ( 1 3 . . . .te5 14 'ttd 3 't!t'h4 15 f4
.tc7 1 6 hg lig8 ;!;) 1 4 .tf4 .txh4 1 5
liad 1 .t e7 1 6 'ttd 4 lig8 1 7 e 5 .tc5
18 'ttd 2 b5 19 lbe4 'ttc 7 Y H
Radulov-Quinteros, Montilla 1 974,
but after 20 .tg3 White is clearly
better.
A31
9 .te3
lOdeS
The favoured resonse. Rather
more passive is 9 . . . .te7 transposing
to A 3 2 1 after 10 f4.
10
0-0 (127)
.

This important position often


arises from the move order 6 . . . a6
7 g5 t:bfd7 8 .tg2 lbc6 (see Chapter
4 for alterhative 8th moves for
Black). Despite the frequency of
its occurrence this line is very far
from being completely mapped
out, a fact which is largely due to
the flexibility of both players'
positions and the large number of
transpositions which are possible.
In broad perspective White's
policy is to fo!low the by now
familiar strategy of central restraint
coupled with kingside action of
one king or another (f4, h4). To
counteract this Black will naturally
assume the initiative on the other
wing, but it will be noted that he is
hampered by the placement of
the white bishop on the long
diagonal .
A3 1 9 .te3
A32 9 f4
A33 9 h4

127
B

With his queen's bishop already


developed the move 10 b3 (to
prevent .. . lbc4) is desirable but
questionable. The game S krobek
Bonsch, Halle 1978, went 10 b3
'tWaS 1 1 lbde2 h6! 12 gh gh 13 f4
t:bg4 1 4 .tg 1 lig8 1 5 'ttd 2 .td7 1 6

86 6 . . . lll c6; 6 . . . J.e7

llla 4 lll f6 17 J.f3 lieS I S J.e3 d5


19 e5 lllb 4! 20 /04c3 lll g4 2 1 J.xg4
lixg4 with the better game for
Black.
10
h6
gh
ll
'tth 4
l 2 lll f3 !
lll x f3+
l 3 'ttx f3
g6
liad1
14
J.xh6
1 5 J.xh6
lixh6
h3
16
tOeS
17 'tte 3
gS! (128)

A3 i l 9 . . . J.e7
A322 9 . . . h6
A323 9 ... 'ttb 6
A321
9

J.e7 (129)

129
w

128
w

In this sharp position the chances


are evenly balanced. We have
been following the game Ubilava
Anikayev, USSR 1 976, which went
on I S f3 J.d7 19 'ttd 4 J.b5 20
lll x b5 ab 21 'ttx d6 'ttg 3 22 f4!
lixh3 23 fe 'tth 2+ 24 f2 'ttg 3+
- .
A32
f4
9
Currently the most prom1smg
continuation for White as neither
of Black's most popular choices 9
. . . J.e7 and 9 . . . h6 seems to equalise
fully. However, the more recent
try 9 . . . 'ttb 6 is worthy of further
investigation .

A position which commonly


arises by transposition from 6 . . . a6
or 6 . . . J.e7 lines. Black's set-up is
solid but rather passive and with
active play White should maintain
an advantage.
10 J.e3
0-0
h4
ll
I I 'tth 5 is bad because rather
than achieving anything constructive
the queen gets in the way of White's
attack: I I . . . lll xd4! 1 2 J.xd4 e5 1 3
J.e3 ef 1 4 J.xf4 lll e 5 1 5 lll d 5 J.e6
+ Tringov-Lombard, Skopj e 1 972
- White faces difficulties getting
his king to a safe spot ( 1 6 0-0-0?
J.g4) and Black is ready to go into
action on the queenside.
ll
lll x d4
Further delay in this simplifying
measure will only add to Black's
problems, e.g. I I . lieS 12 0-0
J.f8 1 3 'ttf3 ( 1 3 f5 ! starts the attack
rolling at once) 1 3 . . . 'ttc 7 14 liad l
libS 1 5 h5 lll xd4 1 6 J.xd4 b5 1 7 f5
.

6 . . . c6, 6 . . Ae7 8 7
.

e5 1 8 g3 ( ) 1 8 . . . b4 19 e2
c6 20 Axg7! g7 2 1 f6+ 'itlh8
22 f4 e5 23 1t'h4 Ab7 24 lild3
xd3? 25 cd d5 26 'itlh 1 de 27 de
Ad6 28 g 6 with a winning attack,
M ed i na-Tringov, Skopje 1 972.
1 2 xd4
bS (130)
130

Savon-Espig, Sukhumi 1972,


continued' 13 h5?! (simply 13 0-0-0
gives White an excellent position
as 13 . . . e5 fails to 14 @d5 ! followed
by 1 5 f5 ) 1 3 . . . b4! 14 Wxb4 lib8
15 Wd4 e5! 16 Wd2 ef 17 Axf4
llxb2 and White's position suddenly
began to look rather exposed.
A322
9
h6 (1 3 1)

that White maintains an edge


nonetheless.
b4
10
10 gh 111114 + .
10
bg
lilxb 1 +
11
bg
12
Axb1
1ltb6
cS
13
1'3
14 1Wd2!

White needs to make preparations


for fianchettoing the queen's bishop
( 1 4 b 3 is met by 1 4 . . . Wb4) as this
is the most elegant solution to
Black's pressure on the b-pawn.
14
Ad 7
a3
aS
15
0-0-0
16
b3
1 7 A b2
g6
18
0-0-0 (132)

13 1
w

Gheorghiu gives this move an


exclamation mark, but it appears

R. Byrne-Penrose, Nice OL 1974.


Black's position is cramped, while
his d-pawn is rather exposed and
the weakness of the dark squares
on his kingside looks part ic ularly
telling in view of White's strong
bishop on b2.
A323
't!rb6
9
It is a moot point whether the
displacement of t he white knight

88

6 . . . lC.c6; 6 .

. .

J.e 7

effected by this move is a worthwhile


gain for Black, as the option of
exchanging on d4 is no longer
open to him. In t he game Tringov
Hulak, Zagreb 1 975, Black played
9 . .. 'ttc 7 and White voluntarily
retreated t he piece with 10 lC.de2.
After 10 . . . lC.b6 1 1 a3 J.d7 1 2 'ttd 3
lC.e7 1 3 b3 d5 1 4 J.b2 0 1 5 0-
J.c6 1 6 'iPb 1 the game was about
level.
1 0 lC. b3
Instead of this rather passive
retreat White should consider 1 0
lC.f3 o r 1 0 lC.de2 s o that the knight
can play a useful role on the
kingside. The problem of guarding
the b-pawn can then be handled
by fianchettoing the queen's bishop
as in the Byrne-Penrose game .
10
h 6 ! (133)
1 33

0-0-0

14
15

b5

lb b6
a3
lbbc4
16
h4
R. Byrne-Peters, USA Ch 1975.
With White's f-pawn exchanged
Black has excellent squares for his
knights and can now generate a
dangerous attack.
A33
9
h4 (134)
134
B

9
tfc7
Black prepares for . . . b5. 9
.!Llxd4 1 0 'ttx d4 b5 is premature on
account of 1 1 a4 ! e.g. 1 1 . . . e5 1 2
'ttd l ba 1 3 f4 ( 1 3 0-0 ) 1 3 . . . J.b7
14 f5 (!) 14 . . . lieS 1 5 0-0 a3 ( 1 5 . . .
lbb6 1 6 lbxa4 d 5 1 7 e d J.xd5 1 8
J.xd5 lbxd5 1 9 tfe2 ) 1 6 lixa3
d5 17 lib3! lbc5 1 8 lixb7 .!Llxb7 1 9
lbxd5 Razuvayev-Ree, Amster
dam I 1 975.
For 9
J.e7 1 0 J.e3 see line
B32
h5
lOdeS
10
lbxd4
f4
11
lb c6
1 2 tfxd4
13 tff2
b5
14 J.e3
lib8
15
lba5 (135)
0 0 0
...

An improvement on 1 0 . . . J.e7
1 1 'tte 2 'ttc 7 1 2 J.e3 b5 1 3 0-0-0
J.b7 14 h4 b4 1 5 lC.d5 ! t Andersson
Kuijpers, Wijk aan Zee 1 97 1 . Now,
of course, on 1 1 h4 Black has I I ...
hg 1 2 hg lixh 1 + 13 J.xh l 'ttg 1 + .
1 1 'tte 2
hg
12 J.e3
'ttc 7
13
fg
lbce5

6 . . . lll c6; 6 . . . J.e7 89


135

Tal-Malich; Halle 1 974. In this


interesting position the chances
are roughly level. Characteristically
White now began a typical piece
of rough house stuff with 1 6 e5 d5
17 .i.xd5!? b4! 18 lll e4 ed 1 9 lll d 6+
.i.xd6 20 ed 't!Vc6 ! 2 1 f5 0-0 22 f6!
b3! 23 ab lll x b3+ 24 'Ctb 1 't!Va4 25
cb 't!Ve4+ 26 'Cta2 I!b5 (26 . . . d4! )
2 7 .i.c5 ! d4! 2 8 't!Vxd4 't!Vc2 2 9 't!Vc4
't!Vxc4 30 be I!xc5 3 1 d7 .i.xd7 32
I!xd7 and the game shortly petered
out into a draw.
B
.i.e 7
6
lll fd7 (136)
7
gS
136

lines as many transpositions are


possible. It is also difficult to
discern what advantage Black
hopes to gain that will offset the
drawbacks of committing his bishop
so early on in the game. It may be
argued that the idea is to force
White to declare his intentions on
the kingside at an early stage. In
fact Black's attack on the g-pawn
is something of an illusion since
White may ignore the threat and
go on developing normally: 8 J.e3
.i.xg5? 9 lll x e6 ! fe 10 't!Vh5+ etc.
White's possibilities are:
B 1 8 J.e3
B2 8 lig 1
B3 8 h4
81
lll c6
8 .i.e3
A position closely associated
with those arising from 6 . . . lll c 6 7
g5 lll d 7 8 .i.e3 lines.
f4
9
9 't!rhS? g6 1 0 't!Vd 1 .i.xg5 1 1
.i.xg5 't!Vxg5 1 2 lll x c6 be 1 3 't!Vxd6
I!b8 1 4 h4 't!Vc5 1 5 0-0-0 't!Vxf2 +
Pietzsch-Ciric, Sarajevo 1 966.
9
a6
10
h4 (1 3 7)
137
B

It is difficult to separate into


distinct classes the positions which
can arise from this and 6 . . . lll c 6

90 6 . . . ltl c6; 6 . . . J.e 7


An important position which
often arises via the B3 move order
8 h4 ltlc6 9 J.e 3 a6 10 f4.
Less exact is the immediate 10
1!fd2. After 1 0 . . . ltlxd4 1 1 J.xd4
0-0 1 2 .*.g2 lle8 1 3 0-0-0 ltlb6 14
'@e 2 '@c7 15 lld3 e 5 1 6 J.xb6

'@xb6 1 7 J.h3 ef 1 8 .txc8 llxc8


Black had equ al i s ed in Minic
Udovcic, Zagreb 1 965.
Black must choose now between
10 . . . 0-0 (risky), 10 . . . '@c7 and the
promising 10 . . . h6(!).

B 1 1 10 ... 0-0
B l 2 1 0 . . 1!fc7
B l 3 10 . . . h6(!)
B11
0-0
10
11
J.h3
With this move White aims for
i mmediate pressure on the e6
square coupled with the advance
f4-f5 , but 1 1 J.g2, transposing to
line A32 1 , also promises excellent
chances.
Less energetic is the move 11 .tel:
1 1 . . . llb8 1 2 '@d2 ltlxd4 1 3 1!fxd4
b5 14 a3 lle8 1 5 0-0 J.b7 1 6 llad l
(!) 1 6 . . . .*.c6 1 7 f5?! d5 1 8 fe fe 1 9
ed ed 20 1!ff4 .*.c5 2 1 J.xc5 ltlxc5
22 J.h5 't!Vb6 23 't!rf7+ 'lt>h8 24 'Cth2
d4! 25 llxd4 ltle6 26 lldd l b4 ! =F
S metana-Gross , Czech Team Ch
1 977/78.
ltl xd4
11
1 1 . . . 't!ra5 1 2 0-0 ltlxd4 13 't!rxd4
d5? (this plan misfires , but with
f5 coming Black badly needs
counterplay) 14 ed .ic5 1 5 't!rd3 ed
16 'lt>h2 J.xe3 1 7 1!Vxe3 ltlb6 1 8
.ig2 and Black's isolated d-pawn

proved a decisive liability in the


game Kurajica-Eising, Solingen

1974.

12
13
14

1!fxd4
0-0-0
fS (138)

bS
llb8

138
B

White's attack has now reached


very dangerous proportions and
Black will be hard put to it to avoid
being swamped. The game Kostro
Baumagartner, Corres 1 975, went
14 . . . ltle5 1 5 'Ctb l b4 1 6 ltle2
ltlf3? ! 1 7 't!rc4 ef 1 8 ef J.b7 1 9
't!rf4 .
Bl2
10
't!rc7
More active than 10 . . . 0-0.
Black takes steps to initiate a
queenside attack before committing
the king.
11
.ih3 (139)
Probably the best move in the
position, aiming at e6 and preparing
the advance of the f-pawn. White
can, however, afford to take things
at a more leisurely pace, as the
game Ciric-Kapelan, Yugoslavia
1 979, illustrates: 1 1 't!rd2 b5 12 a3
.ib7 13 J.g2 t:ba5?! ( 1 3 . . . ltlxd4 14
.ixd4 e5 15 .ie3 ef 16 .ixf4. t:be5

6 . . . llJc6; 6 . . . .te 7 91

139

gives Black far better chances of


achievi ng equality) 1 4 b3 lieS 1 5
lhde2 0-0 (as Black is subsequently
unable to make further progress
on the queenside consideration
should be given to the sharp 1 5 . . .
d 5 ! ? 1 6 e d b4 ! ) 1 6 0-0 l::t fd8?! 1 7 f5
.tf8 1 8 fe fe 1 9 .th3 ( ) 1 9 . . . :es
20 h5! lhc5?! 2 1 lif4 llJaxb3 22 cb
llJxb3 23 't!Va2 lhxa l 24 .txe6+ !
:xe6 25 't!Vxe6+ h8 26 l:[f7 't!Vc6
27 't!Vf5 g8 28 llJd5 1-0.
lhc5
11
I I . . . b5? allows 12 .txe6 fe 1 3
lhxe6 't!Va5 1 4 lhxg7+ with three
pawns and an attack for the piece.
f5
b5
12
lhxd4
a3
13
The only way to relieve some of
the pressure on e6. On 1 3 . . . lhe5
White can continue with 14 h5 and
1 5 g6 or more simply 1 4 fe fe 1 5 0-0
preventing Black from castling and
preparing 1 6 b4 and/or llJce2-f4.
e5
14 't!Vxd4
1 5 llJd5! (140)
White has successfully weakened
the d5 square and now has a
substantial positional advantage.
We have been following the game

Alexandria-Kozlovskaya, _Rio de
Janeiro (Women's IZ) 1 979, which
White concluded forcefully as
follows: 1 5 . . . 't!Vd8 16 't!Vc3 .tb7 1 7
.txc5 .txd5 1 8 0-0-0 ! .tb7 ( 1 8 . . .
.txe4 1 9 ];[be l 't!Vc7 20 :xe4 't!Vxc5
2 1 't!Vxc5 de 22 :xe5 ) 19 f6! gf
20 gf 't!Vc7 (20 . . . .tf8 2 1 't!Vf3 )
2 1 fe '@xc5 22 '@f3 '@c4 23 Wf6
.txe4 24 .td7+! 'iPxd7 25 't!Vxd6+
c8 26 't!Vd8 + b7 27 lid7+ 1-0.
813
10
h6(!)
Rather than sitting back passively
awaiting the attack Black takes an
active hand in trying to break up
White's pawn phalanx before it
becomes too dangerous.
11 't!Vf3 (1 41)

92 6 . . . liJ c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7

I n this way White ensures his


possession of the h-file, but at the
cost of permitting a reduction in
his attacking potential.
1 1 .i.h3 should be considered,
though it is not clear how White
can improve on 1 1 . . . liJxd4 1 2
.i.xd4 h g 1 3 h g e 5 1 4 .i.d7+ 'Ctxd7
1 5 lilxh8 't!Vxh 8 16 .i.xe5 't!Vh l + 1 7
<t>f2 Wh2+ with a draw by perpetual
check.
ll
liJxd4
1 2 .i.xd4
hg
13
hg
lixh1
1 4 't!Vxh 1
eS
1 5 .i.f2
ef
.i.xgS
16
0-0-0
1 7 't!Vh8+
{j)f8
1 8 liJdS
White has plenty of compensation
for the sacrificed pawns, but
Black's defensive resources are
probably adequate. The game
Belyavsky-Vogt, Leningrad 1 977,
continued 18 ... .i.e6 1 9 .i.b6 \!Vc8
20 \!Vxg7 .i.xd5 2 1 ed \!Vf5 22 lie 1 +
.i.e7 23 Wd4 lilc8 24 .i.d3 't!Vg5
with an unclear position.
B2
8
lilg1 (142)

This is a popular treatment


of the line. White foregoes the
possibility of kingside castling in
order to enhance his attacking
prospects. Not only does the rook
provide support for the pawn
phalanx, it also introduces, in this
variation where Black usually
castles early on, the idea of a direct
attack along the h-file with l::t g3-h3.
Once again Black must decide
whether to advance immediately
on the queenside with 8 . . . a6 and
. . . b5 or more cautiously continue
the pattern of simple development
with 8 . . . liJc6 .
B2 1 8 . . . -6
B22 8 . . . liJc6
B21
8
a6
9 .i.e3
bS
10
a3
10 't!Vd2 .i.b7 1 1 .i.d3?! liJc5 1 2
f3 liJbd7 1 3 0-0-0 b4 1 4 liJce2 d 5 +
was Neikirch-Malich, Zinnowitz
1 967 .
10
.i. b 7 ( 143)
This line occurs less commonly
than B22 for the reason that White
usually delays l::t g l until Black

1 42

143

6 . . . li:lc6, 6 . .te 7 93
. .

plays . . . lbc6 (e.g. 8 .te3 lbc6 9


l::tg l ) and so there is relatively little
data with which to form an
opinion as to what is White's best
continuation. Clearly, though, a
comparison with the 6 . . . a6 line is
in order (the reader is referred to
Chapter 4, lines A 1 1 1 and A 1 22)
and this would indicate that the
interpolation of the moves . . . .te7
and lilg l is not favourable to Black:
the quiet development of the king's
bishop seems at odds with his very
active play on the other flank. On
the basis of such a comparison the
most likely looking candidates are
l l h4 followed by h S , when in
contrast to line A 1 22 of Chapter 4
Black no longer has the useful
defel)sive plan of . . . g6 and . . . .tg7,
and 1 1 f4, which we take as our
main line .
11
f4
(a) 1 1 1!rh5?! (it seems pointless to
provoke . . . g6 which cuts out the
possibility of gS-g6 at the cost of a
tempo) 1 1 . . g6 1 2 't!Vh6?! .tf8 1 3
'Wh4 li:lcS 1 4 .tg2 li:lbd7 l S 0-0-0
Haag-Bukic, Pech 1 968, and now
the active IS . . . '@aS is in order
with good chances for Black.
(b) 1 1 '@d2 li:lc6 (Black's best bet
must surely be I I . . . li:lb6, following
the plan of A l 2 1 Chapter 4) 1 2
li:lxc6 .txc6 1 3 0-0-0 1Wb 8 1 4 f4
li:lcS l S fS with the initiative,
Vayrynen-Valtavaara, Corres 1 978
- see A l 22 Chapter 4, note to
White's 1 1 th move.
(c) 1 1 h4!? li:lcS (on 1 1 . . . li:lb6 1 2
h S g 6 White has 1 3 lih 1 ! li f8 - 13
.

J.xg5 14 hg - 14 hg hg 15 1lrg4 )
1 2 f3 ( 1 2 @g4! should be considered
- see A l l l Chapter 4) 1 2 . . . li:lc6
13 li:lxc6 .txc6 1 4 @d4 0-0 lS 0-0-0

1Wb8 1 6 hS aS and Black's attack is


no less dangerous than White's,
Matulovic-Padevsky, Lugano OL
1 968.
11
0-0
l 2 't!VhS!
g6
1 3 't!Vh4
li:lc6
14
0-0-0
lile8
15
fS
.tf8
fe
16
fe
1 7 .th3 (144)

Black's position is now critical,


Ciocaltea-Padevsky, Smederevska
Palanka 1 97 1 .
B22
li:lc6
8
It is conceivable that Black
should choose the 6 . . . .te7 move
order to entice White's lilgl rather
than going via 6 . . . li:lc6 which
allows other possibilities. Be that
as it may, practice indicates that
the lines arising from the position
in diagram l 4S tend to favour
White.
9 .te3
a6 (145)

94 6 . . . lll c6; 6 . . . J.. e 7

8221

1 45
w

This move is interchangeable


with 9 . . . 0-0. Black will probably
find that both are necessary sooner
or later.
Mter 9 . . . ltlb6 White should take
care to discourage the intended . . .
d 5 break: 1 0 J.b5 J.d7 1 1 "t!Vh5 g6
12 'tte2 l:[cS 13 O-O-O O-O Gheorghiu
Najdorf, Havana OL 1 966, and
now 1 4 t:bxc6 be 1 5 J.a6 l:[bS 1 6 f4
with advantage to White.
White now has:
B22 1 1 0 h4
8222 10 'ttd 2
8223 10 Wh5
Theory has so far rather neglected
10 f4 for no particular reason other
than that White has promising
alternatives: 10 f4 0-0 1 1 J.e2 ( l l
11t'f3?! t:bxd4 1 2 J.xd4 e5 1 3 J.e3 ef
1 4 'ttxf4 t:be5 15 0-0-0 J.e6
R.Byrne-Padevsky, Lugano O L
1 96S) 1 1 . . . li e S 1 2 'ttd 2 t:bxd4 1 3
J.xd4 b5 1 4 a3 J.b7 1 5 f5 t:b e 5 1 6
0-0-0 (t) 'tta 5 1 7 f6 J.f8 l S 'tte 3
llacS 1 9 'ttf2 'ttc 7 20 lid2 J.c6 2 1
h4 'ttb 7 22 h 5 ! J.xe4 2 3 J.xe5 de
24 t:bxe4 'ttxe4 25 g6 and White had
a prodigious attack in Balashov
Spassky, Manila 1 976.

0-0
h4
10
In Kagan-Petrosian, Rio de
Janeiro IZ 1 979, Black speculated
with the early decentralisation 1 0
. . . t:b a 5 which worked o u t well
after some flaccid play by White:
1 1 'ttd 2 ( 1 1 h5! llJe5 - 11 . . . g6 12
lih 1! lif8 13 hg hg - 1 2 f4 llJec6
- 12 . . . tbec4 13 .i.cl with the
threat of 14 b4 and !J/ack' s knights
look rather silly - 1 3 'ttd 2 followed
by 14 0-0-0 and f5 or g6) 1 1 . . . 'ttc 7
12 0-0-0 g6 13 f4 b5 1 4 f5 llJe5 1 5
'ttf2 t:bac4 1 6 J.xc4 llJxc4 1 7 li[gfl
0-0 ( ) lS f6?! J.dS 19 h5 b4 20
t:bce2 e5 2 1 llJb3 J.g4 22 hg fg 23
b l l:[cS 24 lic l a5 25 c3 'ttb 7 26
t:bg3 a4 27 llJa 1 J.e6 2S cb 'ttx b4
29 b3 ab 30 t:bxb3 liaS 0- l .
11
hS
t:b deS (1 46)
=

1 46
w

There is little to choose between


this and the immediate capture
on d4: 1 1 . . . t:bxd4 1 2 'ttx d4
( 1 2 J.xd4 t:be5 1 3 f4 t:bc6 trans
poses to the main line) 12 . . .
llJe5 1 3 J.e2 t:bc6 1 4 'ttd 2 b5
15 f4 ( 1 5 a3 'tta 5 16 f4 b4
1 7 llJa2, Bronstein-Jansa , Vrsac

6 . . . ltlc6: 6 . . .te l 95
.

1 979, and now instead of 1 7 . . . dS?


simply 1 7 . . . ba) 1 5 . . . as 1 6 .tf3
.tb7 1 7 ltle2! ? (the execution of
White's kingside attack is hampered
by 1 7 g6 .th4+ , and on 1 7 0-0-0
there comes 1 7 . . . b4) 1 7 . . . lilacS !?
1 8 c3 b4 1 9 with approximately
even chances, Matulovic-Vilela,
Sombor 1 978.
1 2 lilxc6
This allows Black to consider
the recapture 12 . . be 13 f4 lild7,
so the best move order for White is
probably 12 f4 lilxd4 1 3 .txd4
c6 14 .te3 transposing to the
text.
lilxc6
12
f4
13
In the game Timoshchenko
Grigorian, USSR First L Ch 1 979,
White played 13 @g4 ! ? when in
view of the strong threat of g6
Black decided on the tactical thrust
1 3 . . . d5?! The game continued 1 4
0-0-0 d 4 1 5 e 5 ! lilxe5 1 6 't!re4 lilc6
17 .txd4 lilxd4 18 Ilxd4 a5 1 9
d5 ! e d 2 0 't!rxe7 .te6 2 1 g6 ( ) 2 1
. . . 'tire 1 + 2 2 lt d 1 't!re5 2 3 gh+ 'C&h8
24 Ilxd5 ! ! 't!rf4+ (24 . . . 't!rxd5 25 h6
't!Vd4 26 hg+ xg7 27 llxg7 'C&xg7
28 .td3 ) 25 lld2 Ilad8 26 'frg5
'tWxd2+ 27 'frxd2 Ilxd2 28 'C&xd2
h 7 29 Ilg3 llc8 30 a4 and White
went on to win.
13
b5
1 4 'iff3?!
Kasparov suggests 1 4 .td3 .tb7
15 'frg4! which clearly improves
White's prospects.
14
.tb7
1 5 .td3
lilb4 (14 7)
.

147
w

1 5 . . b4?! would provoke 1 6


lild5 ! e d 1 7 e d lila7 1 8 e4 g 6 1 9
h g h g 2 0 0-0-0 with more than
enough for the piece.
The text move is the standard
procedure in this type of position,
preparing to exchange off the
potentially useful bishop on d3
and preparing for an eventual ... dS
when circumstances permit.
If in this position the white
queen stood on g4 instead of f3
(see note to White's 1 4th move) he
could continue with 16 f5 and on
16 . . . ef recapture with the pawn,
17 ef, threatening an outright win
with 18 f6, e.g. 17 . . . lilxd3+ 18 cd
Ile8 19 0-0-0 .tf8 20 .td4 and
Black is about to go under.
f5
ef
16
lilxd3+
17 't!rxf5
18
cd
c8 !
Ile8!
h6!
19
1 9 . . . g6 20 lild5 .
20
hg
't!rxf5
21
ef
.txg5
Ilxe3+
22
l hg5
no
23 ct>d2
Black has sufficient counterplay
to hold the balance. We have been
.

96 6 . . . li:J c6; 6 . . . j.e7

following Kasparov-Polugayevsky,
USSR 1 979, which continued 24
li:Je4 j.xe4 25 de l1e8?! (25 . . . f6 26
l1h5 lia7 27 Ilc l ) 26 lic l d5?!
27 e5! h6 28 lih5 lixe5? (28 ... rtixg7
29 lig 1 + 'C&h7 30 f6 lig8 3 1 :axh6+
;!;) 29 f6 ! lif2+ 30 3 lif3+ 3 1
d4 lie4+ 3 2 c;!.>xd5 lieS 3 3 lixh6
lif5+ 34 4 lif4+ 35 c;!,>c5 lie5+
36 c;!.>b6 lie6+ 37 lic6 1 -0 (notes
by Kasparov).
B222
0-0
1 0 'iid 2
li:Jxd4
0-0-0
11
On 1 1 ... li:Jde5 White has 12 lig3,
a characteristic move in this line
preparing to transfer the attack to
the h-file, e.g. 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 li:Jxc6
li:Jxc6 14 f4 't!ra5 1 5 'tWf2 lib8 1 6
c;!.>b 1 b 4 1 7 li:Je2 Stein-Ciric,
Sarajevo 1 967.
b5
1 2 j.xd4
13
a3 (148)
=

13
j.b7
lieS
14
:1Ig3
lieS
15 c;!.>b1
li:Jb6
16
h4
li:Jc4
h5
17
li xc4
1 8 j.xc4
fg
19
g6
h6
20
hg
Shamkovich- H . Olafsson, Lone
Pine 1 979. Despite his logical play
Black's position is now rather
precarious. White should now
proceed with the sacrificial 2 1
lih 1 j_f8 2 2 :1Ixh6! g h 2 3 g 7 @h4
24 gft!l+ ct>xf8 25 j_g7+ <t>e7 26
j.xh6 with a ferocious attack.
B223
1 0 't!rh5
White's most aggressive and
currently most promising continu
ation. The idea is to set up an attack
on the h-flle with lig3-h3, provoking
the weakening . . . g6 which presents
a useful target for an f4-f5 or h4-h5
thrust.
19
0-0
lieS
11
0-0-0
12
:1Ig3 (149)
/49
B

White dispensed with this move


in the game Schonberg-Tukmakov,
Zinnowitz 1 967, and got a winning
attack after 13 f4 b4 14 a4 e5? 1 5
j.e 3 e f 1 6 j.f4 't!ra5 1 7 j.xd6!
j.xd6 18 't!rxd6 't!rxa4 1 9 j.c4 '@a5
20 g6.

The most direct, but other


approaches are worth consideration:

6 ... l0c6; 6 . . . A.e 7 97

(a) 12 f4 g6 1 3 '@'h4 .tf8 1 4 1Wf2!


t'Llxd4 15 i.xd4 b5 (the thematic
1 5 . . . e5 fails to 1 6 fe l0xe5 - or 16
. . . de 1 7 i.c4! - 1 7 i.b6
followed by 1 8 l0d5 ) 16 f5 and
White has already developed con
siderable pressure, Espig-Adamski,
Lublin 1 970.
(b) 12 b1 i.f8 1 3 llg3 g6 1 4 '@h4
i.g7 1 5 f4 h5?! 1 6 i.e2 '@a5 1 7
l0b3 '@c7 1 8 i.xh 5 ! l0e7 ( 1 8 . . . gh
19 '@xh5 and Black will not survive
an attack based on f5-f6 followed
by llh3) 1 9 i.g4 t'Llf8 20 llh3
Ermenkov-Jansa, Tito Uzice 1 978.
12
g6
1 3 't!re2
i.fS
14
b1
'@c7
l0xd4
h4
15
b5
1 6 ' i.xd4
17
h5 (150)

24 ... A.xd4 25 Ilxd4 ..g7 26 Ild l


i.c6 27 Ild6 i.d7 28 Ilgd3 and
White went on to win on move 42.
B3
h4
8
An elastic move, possibly without
much independent significance,
but which can serve as a useful
introduction to earlier lines.
a6
8
9 i. e3 (151)

/50

Premature is 9 i.h3 l0b6! (9 .


t'Lle5?! 1 0 f4 l0ec6 1 1 f5 0-0 1 2 i.e3
t'Llxd4 1 3 '@xd4 l0c6 14 't!rd2 b5 1 5
'@g2 lle8 1 6 0-0-0 Ljubojevil:
Larsen, London 1 980) 10 f4 d5
1 1 f5 e5 ( 1 1 . . . de? 12 fe 0-0 1 3
l0xe4 Planinc-S. Garcia, Varna
1 970) 1 2 l0f3 d4 with unclear p1ay.
From the position shown in the
diagram Black has:
B3 1 9 . . . b5
B32 9 . . . t'Llc6
B31
b5
9
This move gives rise to positions
bearing a close affinity with those
discussed in line B2 1 and the A 1
lines of Chapter 4, to which the
reader should refer .

We are following the game


van Riemsdijk-Najdorf, Sao Paolo
1 978. White has a well developed
and powerful kingside attack which
Black can buy off only at a
considerable positional cost. The
sequel was 1 7 . . . b4 1 8 l0a4 i.b7
19 hg fg 20 b3 d5?! 2 1 ed i.xd5 22
i.h3 l0c5 23 t'Llxc5 i.xc5 24 c4! ( )

/51
B

98 6 . . . /Dc6; 6 . . . J..e 7

10
f4
White need not fear the advance
of the b-pawn but in any case 10 a3
is quite a natural move to consider,
after which 10 . . . J.b7 1 1 ..d2
transposes to A l l 2 Chapter 4
while 1 1 lilg 1 is line B 2 l
10
b4
J.b7
1 1 /D eel
12 /D g 3
'D eS
13 J.gl
'Dbd7
14 ..el ! (152)
.

was now quickly overrun on the


kingside: 22 /Dd2 /Da4 23 lilc2
lilb8 24 f6! gf 25 'DfS ..d8 26 @hS
<Sh8 27 J.h3 fg 28 /Dh6 /Df6 29
lilxf6 J.xf6 30 J.f5 gh 3 1 /Dg4 1 -0.
B32
9
'De6 (153)
153
w

152
B

Black's pressure on the centre


has reached its peak and can be
intensified no further. White now
proceeds t o make further progress
by opening lines on the queenside,
nullifying his opponent's early
gain in space th e re .
14
't!te7
ba
a3!
15
b6
16
lixa3
ed7
17
e4
lieS
18
lie3
0-0
19
0-0
20
f5
e5
21
/Df3
a5
Horvath-Kovacevic , Virovitica
1977. Black has failed to make any
impression on White's centre and

This is a position of considerable


importance which can arise from a
number of different move orders.
There is a wide choice of plans
available to both sides and there
are many transpositions which
can occur. 10 't!te2 transposes to
A 1 3, 1 0 f4 is a common method of
reaching line B 1 , while 10 lilg l is
covered in B2. Here we are
concerned chiefly with the move
10 \!ldl
As always the possibility of
fianchettoing the king's bishop is
open to White, maintaining the
maximum support for the centre
prior to a further build-up on the
kingside , e.g. 10 J.g2 0-0 1 1 !fe2
( 1 1 f4 is A32 1 ) 1 1 . . . xd4 1 2
J.xd4 e5?! 1 3 J.e3 -b6 1 4 0-0-0
J.e6 1 5 J.h3 lieS 1 6 g6 ! hg 1 7
J.xe6 fe 1 8 lidg 1 <3Jf7 1 9 !fg4 J.f6

6 . . ltlc6: 6 . . . A.e7 99
.

20 1txg6+ rt;e7 2 1 h5 lilh8 22 h6 gh


23 ll xh6 lilxh6 24 1lt'xh6 ltl d7 25
lig7+ 1 -0 Tarjan-Naranja, Manila
1977.
10
0-0
11
ltlxd4
0-0-0
1 2 1i'xd4
b5
lib8 (154)
13
lig1
/54
w

Donchenko, USSR 1 970.


14
b4
h5
15 ltle2
In Pokojowczyk-Timoshchenko,
Polanica Zdroj 1 979, White con
tinued over-optimistically with 1 5
ltld5?! ed 1 6 h6 lt!e5 1 7 f4 1i'c7 ! 1 8
ed ( 1 8 fe de 1 9 1i'xd5 g6 ) 1 8 . . .
j.f5 1 9 lig2 lifc8 2 0 lidd2 b3 2 1
ab lixb3 22 1 .tf6 23 c b 1i'c l +
24 rt;e2 ltlf3 and Black quickly won.
15
e5
t'Llc5!?
16 'it'c4!?
17 .txc5
!Vc7
de
1 8 ltld4!
1 8 . ed? 19 .txd4 .
.te6
1 9 ltlf5
20
lidS !
The foregoing series o f inventive
moves culminating in this exchange
sacrifice is due to Timoshchenko,
who assesses the position as unclear.
. .

Directe>d towards the advance


. b4. 1 3 . . . .tb7 14 h5 e5 1 5 1i'd2
g6 16 hg fg 1 7 ltld5 was Gufeld. .

Index of Complete Games


Alexander-Lundholm
Alexandria-Bela venets
Alexandria-Kozlovskaya
Belyavsky-Ghinda
Ciocaltea-U ngureanu
Ciric-Kapelan
Egin-Zamansky
Faibisovich- Korelov
Fernandez-Vi lela
Horvath-Kovacevic
Hulak-Cvetkovic
Kagan-Petrosian
Karpov-Spassky
Kasparov-Polugayevsky
Keres-Bogoljubow
Kinlay-Pritchett
Kinlay-Wells
Krnic-Ostojic

62
24
91
46
41
91
81
72
77
98
65
94
47
96
1
31
50
65

Mednis-Tim man
Mednis-Fernandez
Morris- Formanek
Perenyi-Barczay
Perenyi-Schneider
Pokojowczyk-Adamski
Radulov-Quinteros
Razuvayev-Commons
Rigo-Barczay
Rodriguez-Tringov
Savareide-Markovic
Sax-Gheorghiu
Tarjan-Naranj a
Thornally-Commons
Tseshkovsky-Anikayev
Ubilava-Anikayev
Vasyukov-Modr

79
29
24
43
57
24
85
33
57
81
67
43
98
66
30
86
64

Index of Variations
1 e 4 c 5 2 f3 e 6 3 d 4 c d 4 li:\xd4 f6 5 li:\c3 d 6 6 g4:
6 . . . d5
6 . . . e5

h6

15
7 f5
7 i.b5+

16
17

7 g5 hg 8 i.xg 5 :
8

. ..

8 ...

7 i.g2 :

7 ...

7 ...

a6

9 "t!Vd2 b5
c6 :
9 "t!Vd2 a6
9 "t!Vd2 "t!Vb6
9 h4
9 i.g2
a6

7 ...

c6 :

h4
i.e3

44
47

h4

53
54

7 . . . i.e7 :

8 i.e3

6 . . . a6 7 g5 li:lfd7

8 i. e 3 b5

23
26
33
35
37
38
43

c6
7 i.e3 a6 8 "t!Vf3 !?
7 l:i: g l :

21

a3 i. b 7 :

l O l:i: g l

l O "t!Vd2

l O "t!Vg4
l O f4
l O h4!

57
58
59
60
60

102 Index of Variations


8 i.e3 b5 9 a3 ll:lb6:

8
8

8
8
8
8

1 0 'ifd2
10 llg l
1 0 f4
10 h4!
i.e3 b5 9 f4
i.e3 b5 9 a4
llg l
i.g2
i.c4
a4

62
63
64
65

67
67
68
69
72
73

6 ... t'Llc6 7 g5 t'Lld7


8 i.e 3 a6:
9 llg l
9 't!Vd2
9 h4

77
78
79
80

9 i.e3
9 f4
9 h4

84

8 ll:lbd5
8 i.g2 a6:

6 . . . i.e7 7 g5 t'Llfd7
8 i.e3 t'Llc6 9 f4 a6 1 0 h4:
1 0 . . . 0-0
10 . . 't!Vc7
10 . . h6
8 llg l a6
8 llg l t'Llc6 9 i.e3 a6:
10 h4
1 0 't!Vd2
10 't!Vh 5
8 h4 a6 9 i.e3:
9 . . b5
9
ll:lc6
.

. . .

85

87

89
89
90
9/
93
95
95

96
97

Вам также может понравиться