the

four
knights

by Jan Pinski

EVERYMAN CrlfSS
Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2003 by Gloucester Publishers plc (fonnerly Everyman Publishers
plc), Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD

Copyright 2003 Jan Pinski

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

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

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

ISBN 1 85744 311 X

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Publishers
plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: info@everymanchess.com
website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Production by Navigator Guides.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by BiddIes Ltd.
 CONTENTS I

Bibliography 4
Introduction 5

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6

Part One: 4 ..tb5: Spanish Four Knights

1 Spanish Four Knights with 4...i.b4 7

2 Spanish Four Knights with 4...tDd4 17
3 Spanish Four Knights: Sidelines 32

Part Two: 4 d4 exd4 5 tLlxd4: Scotch Four Knights

4 Scotch Four Knights: The Main Line 40

5 Scotch Four Knights: Sidelines after 7... dS 59
6 Scotch Four Knights: Sidelines after 5 tDxd4 72

Part Three: Other Systems

7 4 d4 i.b4 86
8 The Belgrade Gambit 102
9 Glek System with 4... i.cS 131
10 Glek System with 4... dS 146
11 Glek System: Sidelines 168
12 Unusual Fourth Moves by White 181

Index of Complete Games 190

 BIBLIOGRAPHY I

Books
Encyclopaedia ofChess Openings Vol C (Sahovski Infonnator 2000)
New Ideas in the Four Knights, John Nunn (Batsford 1993)
The Belgrade Gambit, Bruce Monson (Dearborn 1997)
200 Open Games, David Bronstein (Moscow 1970)
4.d4 im Vierspringerspiel, Lev Gutman (Gennany 1993)
300 Selected Games, Alexander Alekhine (Moscow 1954)
Open Games Theory, Paul Keres (Warsaw 1955)
First World Champion, Yakov Neishtadt (Moscow 1971)

Periodicals

Chess Informant 1-85

New In Chess Yearbooks 1-64
Chess in USSR
64 Chess review
Panorama Szachowa (poland)
Kaissiber (Germa'!Y)
I INTRODUCTION I

The Four Knights has made a comeback to the international chess circuit. Once it was used by
the shameless in order to make a draw in a dozen or so moves, but now it has become a strong
surprise weapon and a real alternative to the Ruy Lopez and other main openings. Based on
home preparation and serious analysis it has been possible for top players to use this system to
fight for an advantage. Objectively the different variations only give equality, but that is the
eternal problem of openings. Against strong black defence, White cannot force an advantage.
Chess is a fighting game where the better-prepared player will usually prove an advantage. That
is why ancient and forgotten openings have come back into tournament chess. It is often pos
sible to find a lot of new ideas in these openings from the 19th century, where the understand
ing of chess was far different from what it is today. I would like to recommend:

4 g3, the Glek System, for those who need an hour or so to recover from a party the eve-
ning before, before getting into the game.
4 d4 exd4 5 ttJd5!? for those addicted to tricks and complications.
4 a3 as an advanced trick, but mainly for those who like absolutely no theory
4 d4 and 5 ttJxd4 for a calm, positional and somewhat harmless game.
4 b5 for either a quiet, positional game or a real fireworks, depending on Black's re
sponse.

This book deals with many typical ideas and plans. Learning and understanding these is es
sential. They will help you when you enter into new territory, and they will also help you re
member what you need to remember. I hope you enjoy reading the book as much as I enjoyed
writing it.
Finally, I would like to thanks National Candidate Master Tomasz Olenderek for his kind
ness, and for letting me use his great archive of chess material. Special thanks for assistance, a
critical viewpoint and the new idea 4 b5 .td6 5 g4!? to National Master Rafal Przedmojski.

Jan Pinski
Warsaw
April 2003

5
 CHAPTER ONE I
Spanish Four Knights
with 4...i.b4
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 .i.b5
.i.b4
The Spanish Four Knights is probably one
of the most classical openings in chess. Top
players have investigated this position for
many decades, and it still enjoys popularity
today. Its followers include Short, Adams,
Speelman and Shirov amongst others.
In this chapter we will look at the main
line, 4".i.b4. Chapter 2 is devoted to 4".'Jd4
and Chapter 3 deals with sidelines and oddities.
In the 1990s English GMs, with Nigel
Short at the forefront, played some great
games in this system with 4".i.h4. They
showed that although White might not have
a theoretical advantage, there is still a lot of
play left in the position, where greater playing
strength and new ideas can play an important
part in achieving good results.
Game l
Forster-Hjartarson
Leip:;dg 1996
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 .i.b5
.i.b4
This is the absolute classical line. As you
will see, games played 130 years ago still in
fluence the main assessments of some lines
starting from this position.
5 0-0
The alternative 5 d3?! is too passive. Play
continues 5".ttJd4 6 i.a4 b5 7 i.b3 and now:
a) 7".d5!? 8 ttJxe5 'ij'e7! 9 f4 ttJxb3!
(Botvinnik was sure that after 9".0-0 White
would be in trouble; however, after 10 exd5
the position is completely unclear) 10 cxb3
3Lb7 11 0-0 dxe4 12 dxe4 i..c5+ and Black
has compensation. One line could be 13
'it>h1 0-0 14 'ij'f3 'u'fd8 15 a3 as 16 i.e3
3Lxe3 17 'iWxe3 b4 18 ttJd5 ttJxd5 19 exd5
3Lxd5 and Black is very close to having a big
advantage.
b) 7".d6 (this is safe) 8 h3 c6 9 0-0 ttJxb3
10 axb3 0-0 11 i.g5 (a more logical plan
would be 11 ttJe2 followed by ttJg3 with
equality) l1...h6 12 i.h4 'iWe7. The position is
more or less equal, but I would prefer to be
Black.
After 5 ttJd5?! ttJxd5 6 exd5 e4! 7 dxc6
dxc6 8 i.e2 exf3 9 i..x f3 0-0 10 0-0 f5!?
(10".i.d6 is equal) Keres believes that Black
has a good game. For example, 11 l:1.e1 'ij'h4
12 g3 'iif6 13 c3 i.d6 14 d4 f4 with some
initiative.
5 . . . 0-0
Not 5".d6?! 6 ttJd5 3Lc5 7 d4! exd4 8 i.g5
0-0 9 i..xc6 bxc6 10 ttJxf6+ gxf6 11 3Lh4! and
White is better: 11...l:!.e8 12 'ij'd3 'iWe7 13
lIfe1 3Lh4 14 'ue2 c5 15 e5 with an attack.
7
 Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
Or 5...ltJd4? 6 ltJxd4 exd4 7 e5 dxc3 8
bxc3 .Jlf8 (8....Jle7 9 exf6 gxf6 10 d4 - 10
g4!? - 1O...c6 11 d5!? cxb5 12 d6 .Jlxd6 13
xd6 'iWe7 14 'iWd3 gives White a strong
attack) 9 exf6 'iixf6 10 .l:i.e1+ d8 11 d4 and
White is clearly better.
6 i..xc6 ! ?
A n original idea, based o n a slightly better
pawn structure, but hardly sufficient to gain
an advantage. The main line with 6 d3 can be
found in the next game.
6ltJd5ltJxd5 7 exd5 e4 8 dxc6 dxc6 trans
poses to 5ltJd5.
6 . . . dxc6
Also interesting is 6...bxc6 7 ltJxe5! (the
only test; 7 d3 .Jlxc3!? 8 bxc3 d6 gives White
nothing). Now Black has the following op
tions:
a) 7....Jlxc3 8 bxc3 (8 dxc3 :Le8 9 ltJd3
ltJxe4 is even) 8...ltJxe4 9 .l:!.el and now:
a1) 9...f5 10 f3 ltJd6 11 d3 ltJf7 12 ltJxf7
l::txf7 13 c4 is a little better for White - .Jld2-
c3 gives him a powerful bishop.
a2) 9...ltJd6 10 d3 f6 11ltJf3 ne8 12 .Jlf4
and White is a little better.
b) 7...'iie8 8 ltJd3 .ixc3 9 dxc3 xe4 10
l:tel 'ilfh4 (10...'iig6 11 ltJe5 'iih5 12 'ii'xh5
ltJxh5 13ltJd3! and White is a little better) 11
ii'f3 .ia6 12 ltJe5! with a slight edge for
White in Tseitlin-Haba, Ostrava 1991.
c) 7...1:!.e8! and now White has a choice:
c1) 8 d4 c5 (8....ixc3 9 bxc3ltJxe4 10 it'f3
ltJd6 11 .Jlf4 .Jla6 12 .l:i.fe1 should be more
or less level) 9 ltJd5 ltJxd5 10 exd5 cxd4 11
it'xd4 .ia6 12 ltJd3 iLe7 13 :tel .if6 and
Black has good compensation for the piece.
c2) 8ltJd3 .Jlxc3 9 dxc3ltJxe4 10 it'f3 d5
11 .Jle3 as 12 .l:i.fel ':'b8 13 iladl with equal
ity.
c3) 8 f4 .Jlxc3 9 bxc3 (9 dxc3?! ltJxe4 10
ii'd4 ltJf6 11 c4 c5 12 'iWf2 d6 13ltJd3 iLb7
would benefit Black) 9...ltJxe4 10 'iif 3 ltJd6
11 d3 f6 12ltJg4ltJf7 13 f5 d5 14 .ia3ltJe5
was agreed drawn in Nimzowitsch
Teichmann, San Sebastian 1912.
7 d3
8
White has no edge after 7ltJxe5 l::te8 8 d4
.Jlxc3 9 bxc3 ltJxe4 10 .l:.e1 .lii.fS 11 g4 .lii.g6
12ltJxg6 fxg6 13 'iid3ltJf6 14 .Jlg5 d7 15
h3 l::txe1+ 16 .l:r.xe1 l::te8 17 l::txe8+ ltJxe8,
Taubenhaus-Chigorin, New York 1889.
7 'iie l .Jld6 8 d3 ltJd7 9 .Jle3 c5 is also
equal. The main idea is ...ltJd7-f8-e6-d4.
7 . . . 4:Jd7
Black has many alternatives to this move.
a) 7...iLd6!? and now:
al) 8ltJe2!?
a2) 8 .ig5 h6 9 iLh4 c5 10ltJd5? (10ltJd2
is equal) 1O...g5 11 ltJxf6+ 'iixf6 12 .ig3
.ig4! 13 h3 .ixf3 14 ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 15 gxf3 f6
with a black advantage, Winter-Capablanca,
Hastings 1919.
a3) 8 ltJh4 ltJxe4 9 ltJxe4 it'xh4 10 iLg5
g4 11 xg4 .Jlxg4 12 ltJxd6 cxd6 13 .Jle7
l::tfe8 14 .lii.xd6 with equality.
b) 7....Jlg4 8 h3 iLh5 9 'iie2 .lii.xc3 10 bxc3
ltJd7 11 it'e3 (11 g4!? .ig6 12 ltJel! f6 13
ltJg2 with the idea of f4 gives White a slight
edge) 11....Jlxf3 12 xf3 1We7 13 it'g4 c5 14
iLe3?! (14 c4 ltJb8 15 .l:r.bl b6 16 f4 would
give White a slight edge) 14...c4! 15 dxc4?!
ltJb6 16 fbl ltJxc4 17 .lii.h 6 f6 18 .ig5
it'c6 and Black was better in Larsen-Nielsen,
Odense 1994.
c) 7....ixc3 8 bxc3 l:te8 9 h3 h6 10 ltJh2
c5 11 c4 .Jle6 12 iLb2ltJd7 13 'iVh5 g5 14
xg5 hxg5 15 l::tfb1 f6 16 iLc3 b6 17 a4 as
18 ltJf1 f7 19 ltJe3 nac8 20 l::tdl with a
draw in Rodrigua-Praude, Oropesa del Mar
2000.
d) 7...e8!? 8 ltJe2 .ig4 9 ltJg3 ltJh5 10
h3 ltJxg3 11 fxg3 .Jlxf3 12 'ti'xf3 .Jlc5+ 13
'it>h2 'iie6 14 g4 l:tad8 15 b3 .Jld4 16 .l:i.b1
.Jlc3 17 l::tf2 'iid6 was equal in Tseitlin
Degenhardt, Hessen 1996.
e) 7...'fie7 8 ltJe2 .ig4 9ltJg3 ltJh5 10 h3
ltJxg3 11 fxg3 .ic5+ 12 h2 .Jlc8?!
(12....Jlxf3 13 xf3 with a slight edge for
White) 13 g4 and White is better because it is
so hard for Black to find counterplay, Lar
sen-Deep Blue, Copenhagen 1993.
8 4:Je2

Or 8 'YWe2 Me8 9 lbd1 lbf8 10 c3 d6
with equality.
8 . . . .id6
Black would also be fine after 8 ...e7 9
h1 f6 10 .ie3 e8 11 'it'd2lbf8 12 .ig5
.ig4 13 .ixf6 'iWxf6 14lbfgl .ixe2 15lbxe2
lbe6, or 8...e8 9 h3 lbf8 10 .ie3 .id6 11
'it'd2 c5 12 lbh2 lbg6. The line 8... f6?! 9
lbh4! 'YWeS 10 lbg3 lbb6 11 lbhf5, however,
would give White something to play on. The
move ...n-f6 is not necessary for Black, and
it weakens the king in a bad way.
9 b3
9 e3 f6 10 lbd2 'YWe7 11 lbg3 g6 12lbc4
lbc5 13 f4 exf4 14 .ixf4lbe6 15 .ixd6 cxd6
16 'iid2 d5 17lbe3 d4 1Slbg4lbg5 19 'iVf4
.ixg4 20 'iWxg4 'iie6 21 'YWf4 'YWe5 was agreed
drawn in Tseitlin-Grabarczyk, Wiesbaden
1996. 9 d4 MeS 10 dxe5lbxe5 11lbxe5 Mxe5
12 f3 MeS! is also level.
9 . . . cS
This structure could have arisen from a
Ruy Lopez. If Black keeps the centre closed
he will be fine.
1 0 .ib2 f6 1 1 a4 e7 1 2 h3?!
This makes little sense. In a position like
this White must play well just to keep the
balance. 12 lbg3 g6 13 lbd2 lbbS 14 lbc4
lbc6 15 'iVd2, with the idea of f2-f4, keeps an
even position.
1 2 . . Je8 1 3 tDd2 c6 1 4 tDc4 .ic7 1 S
'it>h 1 tDf8 1 6 f4 exf4 1 7 tDxf4
If the pawn were on h2 now, White would
Sp anish Fo u r Knig h ts with 4 . . . .i b 4
be doing rather well.
1 7 . . . 121e6 1 8 l2lhS
After 1S lbxe6 .ixe6 19 'YWh5 .in 20
'YWg4 'lthS! Black starts to plan an attack.
1 8 . . JIf8 1 9 'ii"e2 121d4 20 f2 .ie6
21 .ixd4?
A positional mistake - now White is help
less on the dark squares. Alternatively:
a) 21 .icl? f5! 22 e5 .ixc4 23 bxc4 Mae8
24 .if4lbe6 25 .ih2 'it'g5 26 lbf4 .ixe5 27
lbxe6 Mxe6 also gives Black a clear edge.
b) 21lbg3? lbxc2.
c) 21lbe3 f5!? 22 .ixd4! (22 exf5lbxf5 23
lbxf5 Mxf5 24 'iWxf5 - 24 'iWe2 'iWd6 wins -
24....ixf5 25 xf5 MfS and White's compen
sation is insufficient) 22...cxd4 23 lbxf5 xf5
24 exf5 'iVd6 25 g4 g6 26 lbf4 gxf5 27 g5
MaeS with a strong initiative.
21 . . . cxd4 22 xd4 bS 23 axbS cxbS 24
l2laS .ieS 2S 'ii"f 2
Or 25lbc6! .ixd4 26 lbxe7+ <;t>f7 27 c3
.ixc3 2S Mac1 b4 29 lbd5 .ixd5 30 exd5
MfdS and Black is better. Still, White can put
up some resistance with ideas like 31 lbf4 as
32 'LJe6 Md7 33 lbg5+ 'ltg6 34lbe4 .s.c8 35
d6.
2S . . ..ixa 1 26 J:txa1 'ii"c 7 27 d4?!
After 27 lbf4 'iVc3 28 Ma2 .if7 29 lbb7
as 30 lbd6 e5 3llbfS a4 Black is also close
to winning.
27 . . . c3 28 J:ta2 fS 29 eS f4 30 'it>h2
J:tfS 31 h4 .idS 32 l2lc6 .ixc6 33 k1xa7
lha7 34 e6 J::ta8 3S 'it>h 1 l:!.xhS 0-1
9
 Th e Fo ur Knig h ts

Game 2
K . Berg-Bronstein
Tastrup 1990

1 e4 e5 2 lOe3 lOf6 3 lOf3 lOe6 4 i.b5

i.b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6
6...i.xc3 7 bxc3 d6 sl:te1 t'De7 9 d4 c6 10
i.f1 is a little better for White - Nunn.
6...t'Dd4 7 t'Dxd4 exd4 S t'De2 c6 9 i.a4 d5
10 e5 t'Dg4 11 c3 dxc3 12 bxc3 i.a5 13 d4
'ilVh4 14 h3 t'Dh6 15 i.c2 i.fS 16 l:tb1 b5 17
i.xfS t'Dxf5 1S 'id3 also gave White the edge
in Perlis-Alekhine, Carlsbad 1911. 1 0 . . . i.e5 1 1 lOf5 f6
7 lOe2 A very risky move. 11...i.xf5 12 exf5 t'Df6
This is too slow to pose any dangers to 13 i.g5 h6 14 h4 l:tbS 15 d4 is a touch
Black. better for White. Probably best is 11.....ib6!
7 . . . i.g4 12 hl (12 i.e3 i.xf5 13 exf5 i.xe3 14 fxe3
Both 7...i.c5 S c3 i.b6 9 t'Dg3 hS 10 t'Df6 is fine for Black) 12...<t>hS 13 h3 i.xfS
i.e3 tLlg4 11 i.xb6 axb6 12 d4 f6 (Maroczy 14 exf5 t'Df6 15 i.g5 ilfd7 16 i.xf6 gxf6 with
Bogoljubow, London 1922) and 7...tLle7 S c3 good counterplay in the g-file. The black king
i.a5 9 t'Dg3 c6 10 i.a4 t'Dg6 11 d4 .i:IeS 12 is quite safe as the f5-square is not vacant for
i.b3 h6 13 h3 e6 14 l:!.e1 b6 15 e3 the knight.
'fiic7 (Sveshnikov-Yusupov, USSR 1979) lead 1 2 h3 i.xf5 1 3 i.g5 e6 1 4 exf5 'YWxf5
to equality. A player of Bronstein's calibre has no
8 i.xe6 problems taking chances against a Danish
S c3 is In my opinion a weak move: 1M.
S...i.xf3! 9 gxf3 c5 10 d4 b6 11 g5?! 1 5 94 'YWe6 1 6 gxh5 'YWxh3
(11 i.xc6 bxc6 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 ilYxdS The forcing play is over and White has a
l:!.fxdS would still secure equality) 11...h6 12 problem.
i.e3 t'De7! (12...t'Dh5 13 t'Dg3 t'Dxg3 14 hxg3 1 7 h6??
'fiif6 15 i.xc6 bxc6 16 g2 was level in
Honfi-Byshev, Budapest 1959). This is a new
idea - Black wants more then equality. The
main plan is the following: 13 t'Dg3 c6 14
i.a4 t'Dg6 15 t'Df5 t'Dh5! and the knight on f4
will be quite strong.
8 . . . bxe6 9 lOg3 lOh5 1 0 e3
Better is 10 h3! tLlxg3 11 fxg3 i.c5+ 12
<t>h2 i.xf3 (12...d7?! 13 t'Dh4 d5 14 'iVe2
l:teS 15 t'Df5 ..ifS 16 ..id2 f6 17 g4 gave
White an attack in Juarez-De La Vega, Bue
nos Aires 19S5) 13 'fiixf3. According to the
English GM and great authority on opening
theory, John Nunn, White keeps a small A horrible blunder - now Black wins by
edge. force. According to Nunn, the position after

10
 Sp a n is h Fo u r Kn igh ts with 4 . . . il.. b 4

17 e3 is 'unclear', but he does not give any 8 . . . il..x c3

lines. This is clever, as the position is defi I believe a much better line is 8...c6! 9
nitely very messy. In a correspondence game .ic4 d5 (this idea seems so natural) 10 .ib3
I would prefer to play White; in an over the (10 exd5 ttJexd5 11 ttJe4 Ji...e7 12 ttJf3 is
board game, Black: 17..:iWg4+ 18 Wh1 Ji...xe3 equal) 10..:i'd6! 11 h3 h6 12 .ixf6 'iixf6 13
ii'h5 d4 ! (13. ..Ji...xc3 14 bxc3 'iig5 ! 15 'iixg5
(l8...'ilVxh5+ 19 ttJh2 'ilVxdl 20 lhxdl Ji...b6
21 lIgl is a touch better for White) 19 fxe3 hxg5 16ttJf3 f6with equality is also possible)
'iixh5 + 20 ttJh2 'iih6 21 'iVf3 f5 22 'i'xc6 14 ttJe2 .id6! and Black is equal (analysis by
.:tab8 23 b4 'it'xe3 24 'i'xc7 'i'xd3 25 l:tadlKeres). Black wants to play ...h7 and ...g7-
with a mess. g6or a timely ..:ii'g5. Now forcing play does
1 7 . . . e4! not work: 15 f4 exf4 16ttJf3 .ic7! 17 ttJfxd4
With this Black accelerates his attack. .ib618 e5 'i'g619 'i'xg6ttJxg620 hl l::te8
1 8 dxe4 J:.fe8! 1 9 lbd4 21 ttJxf4 ttJxe5 and Black is better. It is inter
Or 19 d3 gxh6! 20 b4 .ib621 .if6lIe6 esting that in ECO the position after 10 .ib3
and Black wins. is considered slightly better for White.
1 9 . . . Ii!.xe4 20 f3 'i'g3+ 21 'lith1 J:.e5 22
9 bxc3
f4 'i'h3+ 23 'litg 1 J:te3 24 il..h 4 'i'xh4 25 Here we have the position from the Pills
J:tf2 h3 0-1 bury Variation 6....ixc3 7 bxc3 d6 8 .ig5
r------" ttJe7 9 ttJh4.
Game 3 9 . . .lbg6
Adams-Korchnoi Or 9...c6and now:
Madrid 1996 a) 10 .ia4 ttJe8 11 .ib3 with a slight edge
for White, Nunn-Tatai, Manila 1992.
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 liJc6 3 lbc3 liJf6 4 il..b 5 b) 10 .ic4 d5 11 Ji...b3 (11 exd5 ttJfxd5 12
il.b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 il..g 5 lbe7 ! e1 f6 13 .id2 h8 was level in Montoro
The great Paul Keres was convinced that Sorin, Villa Ballester 2001) 11..:.d6 12 f4
this move was the best way to equality. exf4 13 'ilVe1 dxe4 14 .ixf4 iVc5 + 15 .ie3
7....ie6 8 ttJd5 ! .ixd5 9 exd5 ttJe7 10 c4 h5 16.id4 with some initiative.
ttJg611 a4 is a little better for White. 1 0 lbxg6
8 liJh4 This is the natural move. 10 .ic4 ttJf4 ! 11
Or 8 xf6 gxf6 9 ttJh4 ttJg6 10 ttJxg6 'ilVf3 (11 .ixf4 exf4 12 ttJf3 Ji...g4 13 h3 Ji...h5
hxg611 f4 .ic5+ 12 hl g7 13 c4 c614 14 J:tbl b6 15 'iVd2 .ixf3 16gxf3 ttJh5 gave
f3 exf4 15 'iVxf4 .id4 with equality. Black all the chances in Janowski-Lasker,
Paris 1909) 11...h6 12 .ixf4 .ig4 13 iVe3
exf4 14 'iVd2 g5 15 h3 .ie616.ixe6fxe617
ttJf3 e5 and here Black is better, even though
the players agreed a draw in Mar6czy
Pillsbury, London 1899.
1 0 . . .fxg6 1 1 il..c4+ 'lith8 1 2 f4
With the two bishops and control over the
pawn structure, White has a small edge.
1 2 . . .'i'e8
12...h613 .ixf6l::txf6 (13...gxf614 f5 'ilVe8
15 'iid2 gives White some chances of estab
lishing an attack on the kingside) 14 fxe5
dxe5 15 'iid2 and White keeps a slight edge

11
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
due to his superior pawn structure.
1 3 fxe5
After 13 'it'd2 bS! 14 .i.b3 as 15 fxeS clxeS
16 a4 bxa4 17 .i.xa4 .i.d7 18 .i.xd7 'iixd7
Black has good counterplay.
1 3 . . . dxe5 1 4 'iWb1 !
White wants to keep an eye on the bS
square and get his queen into play on the
queenside. 14 'iid2 bS 15 i.b3 as would
equalise.
1 4 . . . b6 1 5 't't'b3 i.d7 1 6 a4 h6 1 7 1:txf6
Bad would be 17.i.e3? lbg4 18.i.d2 'it'e7,
for example: 19 h3 'iic5+ 20 hl lbf2+ 21
..t>h2 lbxh3! 22 gxh3? .l:!.f2+ 23 .l:i.xf2 'ii'xf2+
and Black wins.
1 7 . . . 1:txf6
Or:
a) 17...hxgS 18 .i.f7 (18 .l:!.ff1 \ie7 is also
unclear) 18....l:!.xf7 19 l:txf7 .i.e6 20 lIf8+
'iixf8 21 'tixe6 'it'c5+ 22 h1 \ixc3 23 'tih3+
12
g8 2 4 It fl with a n unclear position, o r 24
iVe6+ with a draw.
b) 17...gxf6? 18 .i.xh6 e7 19 .i.xf8 ':xf8
20 'iib4 and White is better.
1 8 i.xf6 gxf6 1 9 i.f7 'iie 7 20 i.xg6 i.e6
20.J::tg8 21 'iVf7 'tixf7 22 .i.xf7 gives
White serious winning chances.
21 'iib4
After 21 'iVa3?! 'iVg7 22.i.fS .i.xfS 23 exfS
l:!.g8 24 g3 hS! you would wonder what
White's pieces think they are doing on the a
ftle, while Black is attacking his king.
2 1 . . . 'iWg7 22 i.f5
22.i.hS? .i.h3! 23 g3 'tigs and Black wins.
22 . . . l:tg8
22....i.xfS?! 23 exfS .l:!.g8 24 'iVe4! would
give White a clear edge. Now it becomes
clear why the queen belonged on the fourth
rank.
23 g3 c5
23....i.xfS 24 exfS 'tigs 25 IIfl 'tie3+ 26
.l:!.f2 cS 27 'iVc4 and Black is a pawn down for
very little.
24 'iWb1 i.xf5 25 exf5 h5! 26 'iWf1 't't'g4
27 Wg2 J::r.g 5 28 'iif3 't't'xf3+ 29 Wxf3
1:txf5+ 30 Wg2
White might be slightly better in this end
ing, but Korchnoi is quick to neutralise the
difference.
30 . . . c4! 31 a5 e4! 32 axb6 axb6 33
dxe4 J::r.a 5 34 1:tb1 1:ta2 35 xb6 J::r.x c2+
36 Wh3 Wg7 37 J:!.c6 J:!.xc3 38 Wh4 J:!.c2
39 h3 J:!.c3 40 Wxh5 y" - y"
Game 4
Speelman-Karpov
Linares 1 992.
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 i.b5
i.b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 i.g5 i.xc3 8
bxc3 h6
8....i.d7 9l:!.bl a6 10.i.a4 l:.b8 11 .i.b3 h6
12.i.h4 transposes to 9....i.d7 below.
9 i.h4 't't'e7
9....i.d7 10 l:i.bl a6 11 .i.a4 lIb8 12 .i.b3
'tie7 13 l:tel lbaS 14 d4 J::tbd8 15 h3 ..t>h7

gave an unclear position in Short-Speehnan,
London 1991.
9...J.g4!? 10 h3 J.xf3 11 'iixf3 g5 12 .i.g3
tL'lh7 (12...tL'ld7 13 d4 f6 14 'iig4 'ith8 15 h4
gave White a clear edge in Capablanca
Lasker, Petersburg 1914) 13 l:rabl (Janowski
Tarrasch, Vienna 1898). Now 13 ...tL'le7!? is
probably best (in the game 13..."iYc8 14 l:!.fdl
ct;g7 15 d4 f6 was bad for Black). Following
14 d4 tL'lg6 15 Mfdl! 'iif6! 16 'iib5 'iig7 we
have an unclear position. It is important that
after 17 J.c4 b6 18 dxe5 tL'lxe5 19 jixe5
dxe5, 20 l:i.d7 falls short to 20 ... tL'lf6.
1 0 l:te 1 t21d8
Or:
a) 1O...tL'lb8!? is similar to the Breyer Varia
tion of the Ruy Lopez: 11 d4 c6 12 J.d3 Me8
13 tL'ld2 (13 h3 tL'lbd7 14 'iid2 tL'lf8 15 g4
tL'lg6 16 g3 tL'lh7! 17 'itg2 'iif6 18 'tWe3
tL'lg5 19 tL'lxg5 hxg5 20 .l::!.h l tL'lf4+ 21 ct;fl
e6 and Black is slightly better, Istratescu
Timoshenko, Bucharest 1993) 13...tL'lbd7 14
tL'lc4 tL'lfS 15 f4 tL'lg6 16 fxe5 dxe5 17 g3
was a mess in Volzhin-Tolstikh, Volgograd
1994.
b) Interesting is 10...g5!? 11 J.g3 (11
tL'lxg5!? is unclear after 11...hxg5 12 J.xg5
tL'ld8!, but not 12...ct;g7? 13 .l::!.e3! followed by
l:i.g3, giving \Xihite a strong attack) 11...g4
12 h3 h5 13 d4 Mad8 14 .l::!.b l tL'lb8 15 d3
b6 16 .i.h2 tL'lbd7 17 g4 J..g6 18 tL'ld2 gfe8
and the position is equal, Anka-Gross, Val
jevo 2000.
Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh ts with 4 . . . iL b 4
1 1 d 4 t21e6?!
This initiates a long line of tactics where
'-"''hite emerges with the advantage. Better
was 11...'ith7 12 'iic1 g4 13 'iie3 and
White is only a little better.
1 2 dxe5
After 12 SLg3 tL'lg5 13 tL'lxg5 hxg5 14 Mbl
a6 15 SLd3 c5 Black is equal.
1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3 t21xe5
Risky is 13 SLg3 Md8! 14 'iic1! tL'lh5!
(14.. :!Vc5 15 2 a6 16 jifl tL'lf4 17 c4 gives
Black some problems with e5) 15 jixe5 (15
tL'lxe5?? tL'lxg3 16 hxg3 "ilVc5!) 15 ... tL'lg5 16
d4 tL'lxf3+ 17 gxf3 c5 18 .i.e3 'if6 and
Black has good attacking chances on the
kingside.
1 3 . . .c5 1 4 iLxf6 'iIIxb5
Karpov has always been known for his
great accuracy in defence. After 14... gxf6?! 15
tL'lg4 'iixb5 16 e5! fxe5 17 .l:.xe5 "iYc4 18
tL'lxh6+ 'ith7 19 .l:.h5 <i;g6 20 tL'lf5 'iie4 21
.l:.b I! '.'V'hite has a very strong attack.
1 5 t21g4 h5
15... tL'lf4 16 "ilVd2 'iih5! (16...tL'lh5? 17
xg7! J.xg4 18 SLxf8 .l:.xf8 19 h3 jic8 20
"iYxh6 and White wins) 17 xf4 "iVxg4 18
'iixg4 SLxg4 19 .l:.e3! gives White a slight
advantage.
1 6 t21e3?
Here '-"''hite had the much more accurate
16 e5!! hxg4 (16 ... tL'lf4 17 tL'lh6+ gxh6 18 .l:.e4
also gives '.'V'hite a strong attack because after
18 ... SLg4 19 'id2 '-"''hite wins) 17 'ixg4 gd8
13
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
18 e3 f8 19 jLxd8CDxd8 20 'itb4 with a
very strong attack.
1 6 . . . gxf6 1 7 tbd5 J:td8?
A miscalculation. After 17...g7! 18 "iWf3
c6 19 "iixf6+ h7 20 "iif5+ 'iith 6 Black has
realistic chances of holding.
1 8 xh5 xd5
18...g7?! 19 "iWf3 xdS 20 exdS CDf8 21
Me7 "iWcs 22 l:.ae1 gives White a winning
attack.
1 9 exd5 tbg7 20 h6 .tf5 21 "iVxf6
The accurate move. After 21 l:.e3? "iVb2
22 l:.ae1 "iWxc2 23 l:.g3 jLg6 24 l:.h3 .Jth7 2S
I1g3 jLg6 White might not break through,
even though he is better.
21 . . . 'ii'b6 22 "iVh4
White is not going to exchange queens
while he is attacking.
22 . . . .txc2 231Ie7 d6 24 c4 b5
25 cxb5?
This is a waste of time. White is attacking
and should have continued to do so after 2S
ae1!' A possible line would be 2S ...b4 26
"iWgs .tg6 (26...aS? 27 e8+ l:.xe8 28 xe8+
h7 29 4+ g6 30 .l:i.h8 and White wins)
27 h4 as 28 g4! and Black cannot survive the
pressure.
25 . . . 'ii'x d5 26 a4
Not 26 xc7?? 'i'eS.
26 . . . c6 27 bxc6 xc6 28 h3 .tg6 29
J:te5 .l:tc8 30 l:tae1 a6 31 a5 tbe6 32 'iVf6
tbf8 33 xc6?! .l:txc6 34 .l:td 1 tbe6 35 h4
g7 36 h5 .th7 37 ltd7 f6 38 .l:!.e3
14
id5 39 J:Id5 tbf4 40 .i:id4 tbe6 41 lild5
Yo - Yo
r---------------.......
Game 5
luldachev-Kholmov
Kaiflkhstan 1994
1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 tbc3 tbf6 4 .tb5
.tb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 .tg5 .txc3 8
bxc3 "iVe7 9 .l:!.e 1
9 .txc6 bxc6 10 e1 h6 11 .td2 is equal.
9 . . . ttJd8!
This is the correct plan. 9...h6 10 j.h4
would transpose to the previous game.
1 0 d4 ttJe6
1Q....tg4 leads to a typical position where
White has a slight advantage after 11 h3
j.xf3 12 'i'xf3 tiJe6 13.Jtxf6! gxf6 14 .l:!.ad1.
1 1 .tc1
A fresh idea is 11 .td2!? c6 (l1...cS 12
jLc4 is slightly better for White) 12 jLfl 'ic7
13 tiJh4 exd4?! (better is 13...e8! 14 tiJfS g6
and Black should be okay) 14 cxd4 tiJxd4 IS
.Jtf4! 'i'b6 16 .ubI j.g4 17 'id3 "iWcs 18
.Jte3 'itbs 19 j.xd4 "iixh4 20 xb7, which
lead to a clear advantage for White in
Yemelin-Smagin, St Petersburg 1994.
1 1 . . .d8
After l1...c6 12.Jtfl "iic7 13 tiJh4 lIe8 14
CDfS g6 IS tiJg3 tiJf4 Black is fine.
l1...cS 12 a41:i.d8 13 .Jtc4 h6 14 h3 1:i.b8,
with the idea ...b7-b6, is unclear according to
Shirov.

1 2 i.f1
Or 12 a4 tLlfS 13 tLlh4 c6 14 .id3 (14
.in I?) 14....i.g4! (an improvement over
14...h6 15 'ii"f3 lIeS 16 tLlf5 .i.xf5 17 "iVxf5,
when White was a little better in Adams
Akopian, Groningen 1993) 15 i.e2 i.e6 and
Black is fine. 12 tLlh4 d5! 13 tLlf5 "iVfS is also
okay for Black.
1 2 . . . c5
12... c6! with equality is probably better.
1 3 g3! 'i'c7?!
The prophylactic move 13...tLlf8! is better,
as White is threatening d4-d5 and tLlh4 with
a strong position. After the moves 14 tLlh4
.i.g4 15 f3 .i.d7 the position is not com
pletely clear.
1 4 d5 liJf8 1 5 liJh4!
White does not achieve anything from 15
.i.g5?! tLl8d7 16 .i.b5 IUs 17 tLlh4 h6 18
i.xd7 (IS .i.d2 c4! and White is forced to
play .i.xd7 or he will lose the bishop)
IS...hxg5 19 .i.xcs gxh4 20 .i.h3.
Sp a n is h Fo u r Kn igh ts with 4 . . . i. b 4
1 5 . . .J:!.e8
15...tLlg6 16 .i.g5 tLlxh4 17 .i.xh4 'tie7 IS
f4 .!:leS 19 f5 gives \Xlhite a strong basis for
an initiative on the kingside.
1 6 i.g5 liJ6d7 1 7 'i'h5 liJb6
17...h6 18 ii.xh6 gxh6 19 g4+ tLlg6 20
tLlxg6 fxg6 21 'iWxg6+ 'it>fS 22 lIe3 <tte7 23
.ie2! and Black will have to tend to an im
mediate and very difficult defence.
1 8 a4
1 8 . . .i.d7
Or lS...a5 19 ii.b5 .i.d7 20 tLlf5 .i.xb5 21
.i.f6! gxf6 (21....i.xa4 22 'ii"h6 tLle6 23 tLlxg7
and White wins) 22 'iWh6 tLle6 23 axb5 and
White is probably just winning.
1 9 a5 liJc8 20 liJf5 i.xf5 21 exf5 liJe7
22 i.b5 J:!.ec8 23 'i'g4 liJxd5 24 J:!.ad1
liJxc3 25 i.f6 liJg6
After 25...g6 26 'iWg5! tLlxb5 27 'iVh6 tLle6
2S .l::te4!! tLlbd4 29 xh7+ <ttxh7 30 l:th4+
'it>gS 31 :hS Black is mated.
26 fxg6 gxf6 27 gxf7+ h8 28 'i'e6 1 -0
15
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Summary
The Spanish Four Knights with 4...i.b4 gives White some chances of creating pressure in the
main line. 6 i.xc6 does not pose Black any problems, so only 6 d3 and then 7 i.g5 is correct,
but then I believe that 7...ttJe7! is the simplest method of solving Black's problems. However,
Black should also be fine in the line with 7...i.xc3, 8.. :e7 and 9...ttJd8, when the game can be
described as positionally complex.

1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 iLb5 iLb4 5 0-0 0-0 (D) 6 d3

6 i.xc6 Game 1
-

6 . . . d6 7 i.g5
7 ttJe2 (D)- Game 2
7 i.xc3
...

7...ttJe7- Game 3
8 bxc3 flie7 (D) - Game 5
8...h6- Game 4

5 . 0-0
. . 7 lLle2 8 . .i1 e 7
. .

16
 CHAPTER TWO
Spanish Four Knights
with 4...tLJd4
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 b5
lDd4
This is a lasting idea by the great Akiba
Rubinstein, the most famous Polish player in
chess history. Actually he started with
4....i.c5 5 tL'lxe5 tL'ld4, but later refIned this to
4...tL'ld4 directly. Today it is considered the
main move after 4 .i.b5 and clearly it is the
most dynamic road to equality. Instead of
seeking his luck in a symmetrical position,
Black creates active counterplay, sometimes
at the cost of a pawn.
Game 6
Spielmann-Rubinstein
Baden-Baden 1925
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 b5
lDd4 5 lDxe5
This is not dangerous for Black, but might
be for White! Also harmless is 5 0-0 tL'lxb5 6
ttJxb5 c6 7 tL'lc3 d6 8 d4 'i'c7 9 h3 e7 10
.i.e3 0-0 with equality - Keres.
5 . . .'iVe7 !
Clearly the strongest move.
6 f4
6 tL'lf3 tL'lxb5 7 tL'lxb5 'i*'xe4+ 8 e2
'ikxe2+ 9 \t>xe2 tL'ld5 10 l::tel f6 with equality
was also possible. The move c2-c4 will al
ways be answered with ...a7-a6 of course.
I
6 . . . lDxb5 7 lDxb5 d6 8 lDf3 xe4+!
This is a very old move, but also a very
good one. New but not so good is 8...c6?! 9
tL'lc3 tL'lxe4 10 0-0 tL'lxc3 11 dxc3 d8 12
l::te1+.i.e713 "iVe2 .i.g4 14 h3 xf3 15 'iVxf3
0-0 with equality, Short-Khalifman, Moscow
2001.
9 'it>f2?
9 'ike2 xe2+ 10 c,toxe2 is necessary, but
Black is still preferable.
9 lDg4+ !
. ..
The direct attack is very dangerous. Less
strong is 9..."iVc4?! 10 .l:i.e1+ .i.e6 11 a4 \t>d7
12 d4 .i.g4 13 e3 c6 14 b3 xf3 15 l::txf3
'i*'d5 16 tL'lc3 f5 17 h3 h5 18 d5 c5 19 'i*'d3
'i*'xd3 20 l::txd3 h4 21 tL'le2 l::te8 22 c4 with
equality, Yeo-Hebden, British League 2001.
17
 Th e Fo u r K n igh ts

1 0 g3 for the pawn deficit.

After 10 <:;t>gl Black has the bishop pair
and a safer king. In short, at least a small
edge, for example: 10...it'c6 11 'iWe2+.i.e7 12
h3 iVb6+ 13 d4 tDf6 14 'It>h2 .i.d7 lS tDc3
O-O!.
1 0 . . :iVg6
Worse is 10...'lt>d8? 11 h3 tDh6 12 d4.i.fS
13 tDa3 e7 14 .l::1.e l 'tWc6 IS dS 'ii'a6 16 c4
with an unclear game, Keitlinghaus-Meissner,
Germany 2001.
1 1 e2+
The great Paul Keres analysed the follow
ing lines and, even today with the assistance
of strong computer programs and SO years of 1 6 b4
experience, they cannot be improved upon: Or 16 <:;t>gl c6 17 b3 dS 18 tDeS.i.c5+ 19
11 tDh4 'iVhs and now: Whl .l:!.e8 with a clear edge.
a) White is in trouble after 12 tDxc7+ <:;t>d8 1 6 . . . a5!7 1 7 a3 axb4 1 8 xb4 'iit'f 5 1 9
13 h3 (13 tDxa8 gS! 14 tDf3 gxf4+ IS <:;t>xf4 'tWe3 h6
dS! with a winning attack for Black) 13...'Jf6 Here it looks better to play 19....l:i.a4! 20
14 tDxa8 it'xh4+!! IS 'it'xh4 tDe4 16 1i'hs tDd4 g4 21 .i.c3 cS 22 tDe2 .i.c6 with a
e7+ 17 'ii'gS .i.xg5+ 18 fxgS h6 19 g6 fxg6 clear advantage for Black.
20 .l::1.f1 g5+ 21 hS tDg3+ with a clear edge. 20 J::ta c1 :g8
b) 12 fS gS 13 'iWxg4 gxh4+ 14 Wf3 it'xg4+ If Black had taken the pawn on a2, White
IS Wxg4 g8+ 16 'it'f3 Wd8 with a clear ad would have been able to benefit from the a
vantage. file with .l:!.a1. That would not be worth win
c) 12 h3 xbS 13 hxg4 gS! and Black is ning a second pawn.
clearly better here - the white king is fragile 21 g1 g5! 22 'tWc3 ::'c8 23 fxg5 hX95
and Black has the two bishops. 24 h1 94 25 tLld4 'tWd5 26 e3 93 27
1 1 . . .d8 1 2 J:te1 c3 J:ta8! 28 tLlf3 gxh2 29 f6+ c8 30
White is also worse after 12 h3 tDe3+ 13 c3 'tWc5 31 'tWd3 'tWh5 32 tLle5
'it'h2 tDxc2 14 l::tb1 and now:
a) Winning the exchange is suicidal:
14...tDd4? IS tDfxd4 'iixb1 16 c4! c6 (or
the entertaining 16...cS 17 'iixf7 'i'e4 18
'ii'c7+ We8 19 d3 lie7 20 tDxd6+ 'tlVxd6 21
.l::1.e1+ 'tlVe7 22 .l::1. xe7+.i.xe7 23 tDc6 .i.f6 24
tDb8! and Black loses material) 17 it'xf7 cxbS
18 .l::1.e1.i.d7 19 l:!.e8+ c7 20 l:!.xa8 lixc1 21
tDe6+ Wc6 22 tDxf8 and the fight is over.
b) 14...c6! (the right approach) IS tDc3
.i.e7 and Black has a pawn more and a better
position.
1 2 . . . d7 1 3 tLlbd4 tLle3+ 1 4 f2 tLlxc2
1 5 tLlxc2 'tWxc2 32 . . . J:txg2! !
White does not have real compensation A powerful blow that highlights the weak-

18

ness \X'hite is suffering from on the light
squares. But not 32...dxe5?? 33 .l:!.xe5 and
after J::te8+ it is \X'hite who wins.
33 xg2 dxeS 34 l:!.xeS iVg4+ 3S g3
Or 35 xh2 'ii'f4+ 36 'it>gl xf6 and
Black wins.
3S . . .iVxg3+ 36 xg3 ..td6 37 xh2
.u.xa2 38 g 1 l:.xd2 39 .u.hS b6 40 ..teS
..tcS+ 41 f1 b7 42 ..tg3 ..tbS+ 43
e 1 l:!.e2+ 44 d 1 l:!.g2 4S nc3 ..te2+
0-1
Gamel
Nikolenko-Aleksandrov
Smoiensk 2000
The Russian chess school teaches us that
drawn positions do not exist, only equal posi
tions do. This game is good illustration of
that point of view.
1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 ..tbS
lLld4 5 lLlxd4
5 .lta4 is considered in Games 9-12, while
5 .ltc4!? is dealt with in Game 8.
S . . . exd4 6 eS
Or 6lDd5lDxd5 7 exd5 f6! 8 0-0 j.,e7 9
f4?! (very risky; 9 .lie2 0-0 10 c4 is equal)
9...0-0 10 'iff3 c5! 11 b3 d6 12 .lib2 j.,f5 13
.l:!.ae1 .lid8! (this move is worth remember
ing) 14 .ltd3 .liaS 15 Ile2 .llae8 16 g3?! (16
.lid and \X'hite holds, although Black re
mains much better) 16....lixd3! 17 cxd3 (17
llxe8 .lixf1 18 l:txf8+ xf8 19 xf1 j.,xd2
gives Black an easily winning endgame)
17...lhe2 18 xe2 'iff5 and Black is close to
winning, at least in practical play, Wolf
Alekhine, Carlsbad 1923.
6 . . . dxc3 7 exf6 xf6
Black will be punished hard for his greed
after 7...cxd2+? 8 .lixd2 'iixf6 9 0-0 .lie7 10
.lic3 'iNg5 11 l:te1 0-0 (it seems tempting to
take a piece too, but after 11...xb5 12 'ii'g4
l:i.g8 13 J::txe7+l 'i;;xe7 14 'ii'e4+ d8 15 'iVh4+
f6 16 .ltxf6+'it>e8 17 .l:!.e1+'i;;f7 [17...'it>f8 18
.ltxg7+! 'it>xg7 19 .l:!.e7+ 'i;; g6 20 'ifxh7+J 18
J:!.e7+ 'it>g6 19 .lieS!, mate comes so soon,
Sp a n is h Fo u r K n ig h ts with 4 . . . tbd4
Shipman-Weber, New York 1985) 12 .l:!.e5
'ii'f 6 13 i.d3 g6 14 'iNe2 and \X'hite is much
better, Milev-Fudeder, Amsterdam 1956.
Black never really got round to ftnishing his
development and most likely never will.
8 dxc3 ..tcS
The position is also a dead draw (sorry,
dead equal) after 8...'iie5+ 9 'ife2 (or 9 .lie2
.lic5 10 0-0 0-0 11 .lid3 d5! 12 'iNf3 .lid6 13
g3 c6 14 i.d2 'iVe6 15 5 h3 16 .lixh7+
'it>h8 17 .lig6+ g8 18 .lih7+ and the players
agreed a draw in Wittman-Greenfeld, Thes
saloniki 1984) 9 ...'iNxe2+ 10 .lixe2 d5 11 i.f4
c6 12 c4 .lie6 13 cxd5 i.xd5 14 0-0 i.c5 15
.l::tfe1 0-0 16 i.d3 !tfe8, Alekhine
Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914.
After 8...c6?! 9 .lid3 'ife5+ 10 .lie3 d5 11
f3 .lic5 12 0-0 i.xe3 13 J:!.fe1 0-0 14 .l:!.xe3
'ii'd6 15 .l:!.ae1 \X'hite is slighdy better, Ima
naliev-Thipsay, Frunze 1985.
9 0-0 0-0 1 0 ..txd7
'If \X'hite wants a draw 10 .lixd7 is the
simplest method' wrote GM John Nunn
about this position . However, as we shall
see, there is still the little task of obtaining
this draw.
1 0 . . . ..txd7!?
10....l:!.d8 11 'iih5 .lixd7 12 'ixc5 i.c6 is
dead equal once again.
1 1 iVxd7 J:!.ae8 1 2 ..te3
Or 12 j.,d2? l:i.e2 with an initiative .
1 2 . . . ..txe3 1 3 fxe3 b6 1 4 J:!.ae 1 J::!.xe3
The position is also balanced after
19
 Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
14.. :iVxb2 15 'iiUxc7 (15 Mxf7?! is risky be
cause you have to calculate the pawn ending:
15.. :iVxc3 16 Mxf8+l:i.xfS 17 e6+ hS 1S
l:i.f1l:i.xf1+ 19 xf1 f6+ 20 1Wxf6 gxf6 and
Black looks better here, but probably White
can keep the balance) 15...xa2 16 xb7.
1 5 l:txe3 'iVxe3+ 1 6 h1 "iYe2 1 7 "iYd3
J::!.e8
It hard to believe that an 1M with an Elo
rating of 2500 can lose a position like this.
But Black does have a three against two ma
jority on the kingside, and would win any
pawn endgame. In a rook endgame, though,
the majority cannot really play a part.
1 8 g 1 h6 1 9 h3 "iYe6 20 b3 "iYe3+ 2 1
J::tf 2?!
Simplest was 21 'fixe3 llxe3 22 c4 l:i.e2
(22...WfS 23 .i:!.dl We7 24 Wf2 is equal too)
23l:i.dl xc2 24 d8+ Wh7 25l:i.d7l:i.xa2 26
l:i.xc7 and the game will be drawn.
21 . . . "iYe7 22 a4 .l:!.d8 23 "iYf3 c6 24 b4?
After this move the white pawns on the
queenside are all weak.
24 . . . J::td6 25 "iYh5
25 f4 with h2 to follow looks much
stronger. Black is still better, though.
25 . ...l:!.e6!
Black is starting an attack against the white
weaknesses on the queenside and the open
white king.
26 :f1 .l:!.e3 27 "iYa5? a6 28 "iYf5 g6! 29
"iYf4 .l:!.xc3 30 .l:!.f2 h5 3 1 .l:!.d2 b5 32 axb5
axb5 33 h2 J:!.c4 34 l:t.d4 .l:!.xc2 35 .l:!.e4
20
"iYf8 36 "iYc7 "iYa8 37 liId4 l:txg2+ 38 h 1
'iVa 1 + 0-1
Game 8
Ivanchuk-Svidler
u'nares 1999
The annotations to this game are based on
Vassily Ivanchuk's annotations in Chess Infor
mant 75.
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 .tb5
ttJd4 5 .tc4!?
As 5 .ta4 does not seem to promise
White any advantage, this has also been tried.
5 . . . c6
Black obviously has some other possibili
ties:
a) 5....tc5 and now:
al) 6 0-0 d6! 7 tDxd4 .txd4 S d3 c6 91Wf3
b5 10 i.b3 as 11 a4 b4 12 tDd1 i.e6 with
equality according to Gutman.
a2) 6 tDxe5 with a further branch:
a21) 6.. :iie7! tDf3 (7 tDd3?! d5 S i.. xd5
tDxd5 9 tDxd5 xe4+ 10 tDe3 i..d6 11 0-0
i..e6 12 tDe1 0-0-0 13 c3 tDf5 gave Black the
upper hand in Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, St
Petersburg 1914) 7 ... d5! S tDxd5 xe4+l
(S...tDxd5 9 i..xd5 c6 10 tDxd4 cxd5 11 tDb3
dxe4 12 tDxc5 'fixc5 13 d4 exd3 14 'fixd3
0-0 was rather level in Janovsky-Marshall,
Paris 1905) 9 tDe3 .tg4 10 .te2 tDxe2 11
1Wxe2 0-0-0 12 d3 1We6 13 0-0 tDd5 and
Black has quite strong compensation -

Keres.
a22) 6...d5!? (Tkachiev's patent) 7.ixd5 (7
exd5?! 0-0 8 0-0 'iid6 9 ':el .l:.e8 10 lZ'ld3
.ig4 would give Black an attack; 7 lZ'lxd5
lZ'lxd5 8 c3! is unclear according to Kramnik
and Dolmatov; the main idea is to avoid 8
.ixd5? 'tig5! 9 .ixf7+ r.i;e7 10 ..Ith5 'ii'xe5
and Black is a piece up) 7...lZ'lxd5 8lZ'lxd5 0-0
9 c3 (9 0-0 l:!.e8 10 lZ'ld3 ..Itd6 with compen
sation - Kramnik, Dolmatov) and now:
a221) The move 9...f5!? and the following
analysis belongs to Lev Gutman. In my opin
ion this move is a mistake, but a very inter
esting mistake! 10 cxd4 .ixd4 11lZ'lf3 (11 0-0
fxe4 12 lZ'lb6 .ixe5 13 lZ'lxa8 'ti'h4 14 g3
"iHh3 15 d4 .ig4 and Black wins; my im
provement would be 11 lZ'lc4! .ixf2+ 12
xf2 fxe4+ 13 gl 'iVxd5 14 lZ'le3 and the
compensation for the piece is not enough)
l1.....Itxf2+ 12 xf2 fxe4 13 lZ'lf4 exf3 14
'ti'b3+ r.i;h8 15 d4 fxg2 16 xg2 g5 17 lZ'le6
.ixe6 18 'iVxe6 "iHxd4 19l:tel "iHf2+ 20 'lithl
'i' f3+ with perpetual check.
a222) 9...l:!.e8 10 cxd4 .ixd4 11 0-0 (11
lZ'lf3 "iHxd5 12 d3 ..Itg4 13 .i.e3 .i.xf3 14 gxf3
'i'd6 15 .i.xd4 'ifxd4 16 'ife2 .l:.ad8 17 0-0-0
.l:.e6 18 'tie3 and White is a little better ac
cording to Gutman) 11...:Lxe5 12 d3 c6 13
lZ'lf4 (White should be better here) 13...b6 14
'ifc2 I:tc5 15 'ife2 i.a6 16.ie3 "iHd6 17 l:!.ac1
.l:!.xc1 18 .l:.xc1 i.e5 and a draw was agreed,
Shirov-Kramnik, Cazorla 1998.
a3) 6 d3 c6 7 lZ'lxd4 .ixd4 8 'iVf3 h5?!
Sp a n is h Fo ur Knig h ts with 4 . . . lD d 4
(\1Vhen a human plays such a move w e talk
about inspiration and style, but if a computer
played it we would talk about lacking under
standing or assume that it was all calculated.
The best move is of course the central push
8...d5 9 exd5 i.xc3+ 10 bxc3 cxd5 11 i.b5+
.id7 12 .ixd7+ 'iixd7 13 .ig5 "iHc6 14 0-0
lZ'ld7 with equality) 9 h3! (Not surprisingly
Leko declines this invitation to a dance. The
computer probably was 'hoping' for some
thing like 9 .ig5 d5! 10 exd5 .ig4 11 "iHg3
'i'b6) 9...d5 10 exd5 i.xc3+ 11 bc3 cxd5 12
.i.b3 'iic7 13 0-0 0-0 (The pawn on c3 ap
pears to be poisoned, even for the computer:
13...'iWxc3? 14 ..Ita3 .ie6 15 'iWg3 .l:.g8 16
:fe1 lZ'ld7 17 :Lab1 f6 18 i.b2 "iHc6 19 d4 e4
20 g6+ and 'X'hite's attack has only just
started) 14 'ifg3. In this position it is clear
that the inclusion of ...h7-h5 and h2-h3 has
been of benefit to White, Leko-Deep Junior
(C), Dortmund 2000.
b) 5...lZ'lxf3+1? is underestimated. The re
sulting position might be boring and solid,
but it also appears to be equal, which should
appeal to some people: 6 'ilixf3 d6 7 d3 (7
lZ'ld5 c6 8 lZ'lxf6+ 'iWxf6 9 xf6 gxf6 10 d3
:g8 and Black is more than okay) 7....ie7 8
0-0 0-0 9 'ilie2 .ig4 10 f3 ..Ite6 11 ..Itb3 c6 12
f4 exf4 13.ixf4 d5 14 exd5 cxd5 15 d4 a6 16
h3 b5 17 a3 lle8 and the players agreed a
draw in J onkman-Romanishin, Lvov 2001.
6 lDxe5
This is the right approach. If Black has
freedom to do what he likes, he will equalise
easily. After 6 d3 Black can choose between
the following:
a) 6...'iWa5 7 ..Itd2 .ib4 8 .ib3 lZ'lxb3 9
axb3 'iic7 10 0-0 .i.e7 11 h3 0-0 12lZ'le2 d5
13lZ'lg3 dxe4 14 dxe4l:te8 with equality.
b) 6...b5 7 .ib3 lZ'lxb3 8 axb3 d6 9 0-0
.ie7 10 h3 0-0 11 lZ'le2 as 12 lZ'lg3 i.e6 13
lZ'lh2 d5 and Black is closer to being better
than to being worse.
6 . . . d5 7 exd5 .fLd6 8 lDf3 lDxf3+ 9 "i!fxf3
0-0 1 0 h3 b5
Black tried 1O...l:;le8+? 11 .ie2 cxd5 12 d4
21
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
'ik'b6 13 0-0 b8 14 b5 lld8 in the game
Podlesnik-S. Polgar, Ljubljana 1994. White
should win after 15 g5! 'iWd6 16 .l:!.fel
'ik'h2+ 17 fl 'ti'd6 18 .l:!.e5.
1 1 i..e2 b4 1 2 ltJe4
White should not fall for 12 dxc6? bxc3 13
c7? (13 dxc3 is better) 13...'ti'xc7 14 'i'xa8
a6! 15 'ifxf8+ i.xf8 16 xa6 'ife5+ 17 i.e2
cxb2 18 i.xb2 'ifxb2 19 0-0 'ifxc2 and wins.
1 2 . . .ltJxe4 1 3 'i'xe4 cxd5?!
Black should play with all his pieces:
13...1:te8! 14 "iWf3 i.a6 (also possible is
14...cxd5!? 15 0-0 'iYe7 16 "iVe3 xh3 17
gxh3 'iVh4 18 'ik'f3 l:txe2 19 'ik'xe2 "ixh3 20
f3 i.c5+ 21l:!.f2 'ifg3+ 22 'ltfl "iWh3+ 23 gl!
with a draw) 15 d3 cxdS 16 0-0 (16 'ti'xdS?!
.l:!.c8! looks too dangerous) 16...'ife7 17 i.dl
'ilVe5 18 g3 c8!? and Black has good com
pensation.
1 4 'i'f3 'i'c7
Better was 14....se8!? 15 d4 a6 16 i.e3
i.xe2 17 'ti'xe2 lic8 18 0-0 b8! and Black
still has some counterplay.
1 5 0-0 d4?
This is simply a tactical error. I have no
ticed during my work with this book that,
despite his great understanding of attack and
chess in general, Svidler makes some strange
tactical mistakes for his leye! from time to
time. 15...b7 16 .i.d3 d4 17 "ig4 l:tae8
gives compensation for the pawn. %0
knows if it is enough?
1 6 'i'xa8 i..b 7 1 7 'i'xa7 .1t .c5
22
1 8 'i'xb7?
This is sufficient, but why not 18 'ik'a4! d3
19 1lVbs 'ti'g3 20 'ilVxb7 dxe2 21 d4! i.xd4 22
d2 exfl'if + 23 .l:!.xf1 and all you have to do
is count the pawns...
1 8. . . 'i'xb7 1 9 i..d 3 b8 20 b3 f4 2 1
i..b2 i..d 6 2 2 g 3 'i'g5 2 3 'it>h2 h5 2 4 f4
'i'd5 25 h4 J:te8 26 a4!
White's plan is very primitive. First he cre
ates some passed pawns, then he pushes
them to the eighth rank and promotes them
to queens. 26...bxa3 27 .i.xa3 .i.xa3 28 .l:!.xa3
'it>f8 29 b4 lIfb7 30 b5 shows that this is a
realistic plan.
26 . . .i..c 7 27 a5
Probably it was better to exchange rooks
with 27 .l:!.ael! 1:txel 28 .uxe1 g6 29 .l:!.e4,
when White dominates.
27 . . . il..xa5 28 i..xd4 xd4 29 J:.xa5 .l:!.c8
30 J::le 5
White should not fall for 30 .l:!.xh5? .l:!.xc2
31 h7+ f8 32 .i.xc2 'iYxd2+ 33 h3
'ti'xc2 34 :h8+ e7 35 .l:.e1+ 'ltd7 36 hS
"ixb3, when Black has been successful in
confusing the matters.
30 . . .'i'd6 31 J:!.fe1 g6 32 f5
Clear-cut is 32l::t1e2! 'ltg7 33 .i.c4 .l:!.c5 34
.ue7 :i.c7 3Sl::txc7 "i!Vxc7 36 c3 bxc3 37 dxc3.
32 . . . gxf5 33 .txf5 J:tc5 34 l:!.e8+ 'it>g7 35
i..d 3 J:!.d5 36 J:!.8e3 J:!.d4 37 'it>h3 'i'd7+
38 'it>g2 d5+ 39 'it>f2 c5 40 l:l 1 e2 .li!.d5
41 'it>g2 liId6 42 'it>h2 c6 43 .li!.e4 'i'c5
44 e5?!

Here White misses a win with 44 .lii.c4!
1:i.f6 45 1:i.e5 'id4 46 'itg2 al 47 l:!.g5+ Wf8
48 1:i.xh5 'YWf1+ 49 'ith21:i.f2+. 50 1:i.xf2 'ifxf2+
51 Wh3 'iVxd2 521:i.f5 'iVxc2 531:i.xf7+.
44 J:td5 45 l:l5e3 fid6 46 f2 f6 47
. .
g2 l:le5 48 J:!.f4 fic6+ 49 g 1 ?
White could still retain the majority of his
advantage with 49 l:tef3! "iVd6 50 g4 hxg4 51
1:i.xg4+ WfS 52 .l:tff4 ii'c6+ 53 Wg3 'iVb6 54
1:i.d4 f5 55 l:.gf4, when Black is under strong
pressure.
49 .. Jbe3 50 dxe3 fic3 51 f2 fid2+
52 .te2 fixc2
Now White has some weaknesses too and
the position is more or less impossible to
win.
53 J:!.xb4 fif5+ 54 J:!.f4 fic2 55 b4 g6
56 b5 g7 57 .!:f.c4 fif5+ 58 J:tf4 fic2 59
g4 hxg4 60 J:!.xg4+ h6 61 l:!.f4 g6 62
h5+ g7 63 ':g4+ h7 64 J:l.c4 fif5+ 65
l:lf4 fie5 66 .td3+ h6 67 e2 h7 68
J:td4 fif5+ 69 J:tf4 Y:. - Y:.
Game 9
Kamsky-Adams
Dortmund 1992
1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 lllc 3 lllf6 4 .tb5
llld4 5 a4 lllxf3+
This line is of course more peaceful than
5....lii.c5 and 5...c6. Black does not wish to
give up material, simply takes a defensive
position and enjoys the fact that White can
not play d2-d4.
6 fixf3 c6
Some black players have also experi
mented with 6....lii.b4, for example: 7 ttJe2
(after 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 i.e7 9 h3 c6 10 i.b3 d6
11 ttJe2 i.e6 12 ttJg3 'iHd7 it is doubtful if
White has any advantage at all) 7...0-0 8 c3
.lii.a5 9 d3 d5 10 i.g5 (or 10 h3 dxe4 11 dxe4
ttJe8 12 ttJg3 ttJd6 13 .lii.c2 .lii.b6 14 a4 as 15
b3 i.c5 with equality, Nijboer-Cifuentes
Parada, Holland 1995) 10...c6 (10...'ifd6 11
.lii.xf6 dxe4 12 dxe4 'iVxf6 13 'YWxf6 gxf6 14
ttJg3 gives White an edge according to Yu-
Sp a n is h Fo u r K n igh ts with 4 . . . tiJ d4
dasin) 11 i.b3 i.e6 12 ttJg3 h6 13 i.xf6
'ifxf6 14 'ifxf6 10f6 and Black had equalised
in Nijboer-Huzman, Leeuwarden 1995.
7 d3
Interesting is 7 0-0 d6 8 h3 i.e7 9 ttJe2
0-0 10 c3 b5 11 i.c2 c5 (11...d5 12 d3 1:i.e8
13 ttJg3 might be a little better for White) 12
d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 i.b7 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 ttJg3
1:i.c8 16 i.b3, which was played in Istratescu
Berkovich, Tel Aviv 1994. White seems to be
a little better placed, but not much.
7 . . . d6 8 0-0
8 i.b3 i.e7 9 'iHe2 0-0 10 f4 i.g4 11 'ilVf2
i.e6 12 0-0 exf4 13 i.xf4 d5 14 ae1 dxe4
15 ttJxe4 i.xb3 16 axb3 'ifd7 17 ttJxf6+
i.xf6 was level in Anand-Ivanchuk, Dort
mund 1992.
8 . . ..te7
After 8...b5! 9 i.b3 i.e7 10 h3 0-0 11
ttJe2 ttJd7 12 c3 ttJc5 13 i.c2 f5 14 exf5
i.xf5 Black's position is perfect. The players
agreed a draw in Acs-Kholmov, Pardubice
2001, but normally Black would play on.
White can improve on this of course, but an
advantage will probably be hard to find.
9 llld 5 llld 7
Black would lose after 9...ttJxd5? 10 exd5
b5 11 dxc6! e4 (or 11...bxa4 12 c7) 12 'iixe4
d5 13 c7 'YiYd7 14 'YiYd4 bxa4 15 'YiYxg7 f8 16
i.f4.
The line 9...h6 10 ttJxe7 'iVxe7 11 c3 0-0
12 .:tel i.d7 13 i.c2 1:i.fe8 14 h3 1:i.ad8 15
i.e3 c5 16 d4 .1i...c6 17 dxc5 dxc5 18 1:i.ad1
23
Th e Fo u r K n igh ts
lead to a draw in Prokopchuk-Magomedov,
Moscow 2002. Black could also try 9...0-0 10
lbxe7+ Wixe7 11 i.g5 h6 12 i.d2 b5! 13 i.b3
as with a fine position. 12 i.xf6, with a small
advantage, is better.
1 0 4Jxe7 iilxe7 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 iilg3
White is a little bit better here. The two
bishops do count for something.
1 2 . . AJc5 1 3 .tc2 4Je6
Black would get into trouble after 13...f5?
14 i.g5 "Wic7 15 f4!, for example: 15...lbe6 16
i..b3 <t>h8 17 fxe5 lbxg5 IS "Wixg5 dxe5 19
exf5 and White has won a pawn, or 15...iib6
16 l:tf2 fxe4 17 dxe4 lbe6 IS f5 lbxg5 19
Wixg5 with an attack on the kingside.
1 4 .te3 c5 1 5 J:!.ad1 b6 1 6 .tb3 .tb7 1 7
f4 exf4 1 S .txf4 tLlxf4 1 9 xf4 .tcS!
In the heavy piece ending the attack on
the king is not as important and Black has
more chances of reaching a draw.
20 .td5 bS 21 df1 .te6 22 h4 J:!.beS
23 c4 .txd5 24 cxd5 <;t>hS 25 iilf2 <;t>gS
26 g4! iild7 27 g5 .l:!.e5 2S <;t>h2 iile7 29
iilf3 'ilVd7 30 :f2 b5 31 b3 a5 32 J:!.g2
"V$e7 33 iilg4 .IleS 34 gf2 l:!.fS 35 J:!.2f3
g6 36 f2 <;t>g7 37 <;t>g 1 h6 3S J:!.f6
3S gxh6+?! <t>xh6 and Black is even better.
3S . . . h5 39 iilf3 c4! 40 l:!.f4
40 bxc4 bxc4 41 lif4 cxd3 42 'ii'xd3 "Wia7
43l:tf6 "Wic5 gives Black good counterplay.
40 . . . cxd3 41 iilxd3 b4 42 <;t>g2 <;t>gS 43
'ilVf3 "V$c7 44 <;t>g3 e7 45 <;t>g2 'ilVd7 46
litf6 lIfeS 47 .!:te2 l:tcS 4S iilh3 "V$eS 49
24
"V$f3 l:!.c3 50 iilf4 'ilVcS! 51 .l:!.xd6 J:tec7
51..."Wih3+ would end with a perpetual
check after 52 f2 l:tec7 53 l:td8+ h7 54
l:tfS lic1! 55 l:txf7+ <t>gS 56 l:tf8+ Wh7 57
l:tf7+ WgS.
52 <;t>f2 l:!.c2 53 .Ilb6 iilh3 54 l:tc6 2xc6
55 dxc6 xc6 56 d2 Y, - y,
Game 10
Motylev-Grischuk
Moscow 200 1
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 .1/..b 5
4Jd4 5 .1/..a4 c6
An interesting pawn sacrifice first found
in the early 1990s by J eroen Piket. So far the
conclusion is that Black obtains good coun
terplay for the pawn.
6 4Jxe5
This is the only way to fight for an advan
tage. Still, White should remember the phrase
'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Alterna
tively:
a) 6 0-0 'iVa5 7 l:tel (J a3 i.e7 S b4 "Wic7 9
i..b2 0-0 10 lbxd4 exd4 11 lbe2 lbxe4 12
lbxd4 d5 is equal) 7...d6 and now:
al) S lbxd4 exd4 9 lbd5 lbd7! (9..."i!Vxa4?
10 lbc7+ 'It>dS 11 b3! iia5 12 lbxaS b6 13
i.b2 i.b7 14 i.xd4 i.xa8 15 e5 dxe5 16
l:txe5 would give White a very strong attack
for the piece) 10 b4 'iVdS (1O...'iVxa4 11lbc7+
'It>dS 12 lbxa8 b5 is a mess) 11 lbf4 lbe5
with equality.
a2) S h3 i.e7 9 a3 0-0 10 d3 (or 10 b4
"iHc7 11 i.b2 b5 12 i.b3 c5 [equal - Piket]
13 lbxd4 cxd4 [13...exd4?! 14 lbxb5 "fibs 15
a4 a6 16lba3 gives White some good squares
for his pieces] 14 lbxb5 "fIb7 15 a4 i.e6 16
i.xe6 fxe6 17 d3 a6 IS lba3 "Wixb4 with
equality) 10...b5 11 i.b3 lbxb3 12 cxb3 c5?!
(This pawn push weakens the d5-square;
12...l:teS seems like a very sensible move.
Now Almasi shows how White is able to take
the initiative and get the rook into play via
the 3rd rank) 13 i.d2 'iVb6 14 b4 cxb4 15
axb4 a6 16 i.g5 h6 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 IS lbd5

"iVd8 19 d4 exd4 20 ttJxd4 .ib7 21 ttJxf6+
'iVxf6 22 .l::!.a3! and White is better, Z.Almasi
Rabiega, Bundesliga 200 1 .
b) 6 a3?! (this kind o f move i s usually a
waste of time and here is no exception)
6 ....icS 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 dS! (as White does not
want to take over the initiative, Black feels
himself compelled to do so) 9 h3 J::te8 10
.JtgS bS 11 b3 ttJxb3 1 2 cxb3 d4 1 3 ttJe2
.if8 14 b4 as 15 bxaS .l:i.xaS and Black was
better in Ryzhov-Zubov, Kiev 2002.
c) 6 d3 bS 7 .ib3 ttJxb3 8 axb3 d6 9 0-0
.ie7 10 ttJe2 0-0 1 1 ttJg3 and the position is
more or less level. One wonders why White
chose to give up the bishop.
S . . . dS 7 l2Jf3
Completely harmless is 7 ttJd3 bS 8 ii.b3
as 9 a3 dS 10 eS ttJe4 1 1 0-0 ttJcS 1 2 ttJxcS
xcS 1 3 'it>h1 0-0 (Adams-Kramnik, Iinares
1 999). After 1 4 d3 l:te8 1 5 .if4 ttJxb3 1 6
cxb3 d4 this position i s equal according to
Vladimir Kramnik. This is of course true, but
two bishops are stronger than one, so I pre
fer Black.
7 . . . i.g4 a d3
Interesting is 8 h3 xf3 9 gxf3 g6! (Black
plays on the dark squares; the most impor
tant thing is to control eS and f4) 10 'it>f1
ii.g7 1 1 ttJe2 ttJxf3 1 2 d4 'fias 1 3 ttJc3 ttJgS
14 eS ttJfe4 1 5 ii.xgS ttJxgS 16 'iWg4 ttJe6
with unclear play, Ponomariov-Gomez
Esteban, Pamplona 1 996.
a dS
. . .
Sp a n is h Fo u r K n ig h ts with 4 . . ,tlJ d4
In Acs-Karakehajov, Athens 2001 Black
had no success with 8... ttJd7?!, which does
look a bit passive. There followed 9 .Jte3
ttJxf3+ 10 gxf3 ii.hS 1 1 d4 'iWf6 12 .l:i.g1 !
.ixf3? (better was 12 ...bS 13 .JtgS 'fixf3 1 4
'iWxf3 ii.xf3 1 5 J:tg3 ii.hS 1 6 ii.b3; Black has
regained his pawn, but he is underdeveloped
and White has started an initiative) 1 3 'iWd3
'iVh4?! (this gluttony will be punished se
verely; 13 ... h6 with ... .ie7 and ... 0-0 was
much better) 1 4 .l:i.g3 'fixh2 1 5 Wd2 'iWhS 1 6
d S c S 1 7 ag1 (White i s already winning! Just
try to find a saving move for Black.) 1 7 .. .f6
1 8 ii.xd7+ xd7 19 'iWb5+ Wd8 20 'iVxb7
lic8 21 .l:i.xg7 'iWe8 22 'iWxa7 .ie7 23 'iWb6+
Wd7 24 ttJbS 1 -0.
9 0-0
Or:
a) 9 h3 ttJxf3+ 10 gxf3 .ihS 1 1 exdS lbxdS
12 ttJe4 'iWe7 13 Wf1 0-0-0 14 c3 'iVc7 1 5
Wg2 .ie7 1 6 I!e1 gS and Black had a strong
initiative in Kholmov-Malaniuk, St Peters
burg 2001.
b) 9 .ie3 ttJxf3+ 10 gxf3 ii.hS 11 .id4
dxe4 12 dxe4 .ixf3 13 'iWxf3 'iVxd4 14 .l:i.d1
fieS 1 5 0-0 .id6 would be fine for Black.
9 . .dxe4 1 0 l2Jxe4
.
After 10 dxe4 .ixf3! 1 1 gxf3 bS 12 .ib3
.ics 1 3 eS ttJd7 Black has compensation for
the material according to Czech GM Pavel
Blatny.
1 0 . . .l2Jxe4
10 ...ii.xf3!? is one of my own ideas, un
verified by practice to this day. The plan is to
give up the bishop in order to obtain some
initiative. It seems to give Black a good game,
for example: 1 1 gxf3 'iVd7 1 2 c3 ttJe6 1 3 .l:i.e1
(there will be a strong attack on the white
king, should his soldiers be so careless as to
open the g-ftle) 1 3 ...0-0-0 1 4 .ie3 ttJdS and
who knows? I believe in Black, but practical
games have yet to be seen.
1 1 l:!.e1 i.e7
After 1 1 ...fS? 12 c3 ttJxf3+ 1 3 gxf3 .i.hS
14 dxe4 xd 1 1 5 .i.xd 1 Black has no real
compensation for the pawn. However, after
25
Th e Fo u r K n ig h ts
l 1 .....ltxf3 12 gxf3 iVf6 13 xe4+ i.e7 1 4
i.e3! O-O-O! Black does have real compensa
tion for the pawn. But not with 1 4 ... 4Jxf3+?!
1 5 hl 4Jg5 16 .txg5 'ii'xg5 17 "iVe2 'it'dS
l S l::te 1, with a strong initiative for White.
1 2 J:!.xe4 'Dxf3+ 1 3 gxf3 f5 1 4 l:te5
A fter 14 l::te 1 ?! 0-0 the question is how
much better is Black?
1 4 . . . e6
Black has two alternatives:
a) 14.. :iid6?! is met with 15 "iVe2! "iVg6+ 1 6
hl 0-0-0 1 7 l:!.xe7 .th3 I S .tg5! (an impor
tant resource) l S .. :xg5 1 9 .l::!.gl 'ilt'f6 20
b3 .l:i.d7 21 l:te5! and White has a clear edge
due to his better pieces.
b) 14 ... 'ilt'd7! 1 5 "iVe2 fS! 16 .td2 (16
.tf4? .tf6 and White loses the exchange)
1 6... .td6 1 7 .l:!.e3 .txh2-H? (White has freer
development so probably this is good) I S
xh2 'iVd6+ 1 9 h1 h6+ 20 'it'gl "iVg5+ 21
hl "iVh4+ 22 gl g5+ with a draw.
1 5 .tb3 .bb3 1 6 axb3 0-0 1 7 'iWe2 d6
1 8 J:!.e4 "ifie7
White would be slightly better after
l S ... f5!? 1 9 1Ie6 "iVd7 20 .tg5 (20 .td2 .l:!.aeS
21 l:le1 lIxe6 22 'iVxe6+ 'ii'xe6 23 .l:!.xe6 is
also pleasant for White - an endgame with
an extra but weak pawn is better than a level
endgame) 20 .. J::!.aeS 21 l:!.el .l:i.xe6 22 'ilt'xe6+
'iVxe6 23 .l:i.xe6 .tc7. And now 24 lle3! with
some chances, rather than 24 .te3 f7! 25
.tc5 xe6 26 i.xfS, which would lead to a
drawn endgame.
26
1 9 92
19 h4? with some naive ideas like h5-h6 is
bad: 19 ... 'ilt'd7 20 .tf4 .txf4 21 ':xf4 f5! and
the rook is horrible on f4.
1 9 . . . f5 20 J:!.e6 xh2?
After 20 ..:i*'d7 21 .tg5 l::taeS 22 lIel
xe6 23 'iVxe6+ 'iYxe6 24 .l:!.xe6 .tc7 25 .l:!.e3
White has a slightly better endgame.
21 .l:!.e7 iVd6 22 J:ta4!
Bringing the worst placed piece into ac
tion. After 22 llxb7? .l:i.feS! Black has active
counterplay.
22 . . JU6
22....l:.f7? 23 l:!.e6 filc7 24 f4 and White
wins.
23 g5 J:lg6 24 l:te8+ f7 25 "ifie7+
xe7 26 J:!.xe7+ g8
White also has truly excellent winning
chances after 26...'it'fS 27 xh2 b5 2S lIa6
.l:i.xg5 29 l:te5 .l:.eS 30 .l:i.xe8+ xeS 31 l:!.xc6
f4 32 .l:i.c7.
27 xh2 J:txg5?!
Better was 27 ...b5 2S :a6 fS 29 lId7
.l:i.xg5 30 .l:!.xc6, though White has very seri
ous winning chances. Now there is no salva
tion for Black.
28 J:!.xb7 a5 29 J:!.e7 e5 30 f4 J:!.g4 3 1 f3
J:!.h4+ 32 g3 :th 1 33 l:!.e5 :ta6 34 J:txf5
J:!.ah6 35 J:txe5 J:!. 1 h2 36 J:!.axa5 J:!.6h3+
37 g4 llh4+ 38 f5 h6 39 e4 1 -0
Game 1 1
Acs-Khalifman
Hoogeveen 2002
1 e4 e5 2 'Df3 'De6 3 'De3 'Df6 4 b5
'Dd4 5 .lia4 .lie5
This gambit has been popular for almost a
hundred years.
6 'Dxe5
White has no real alternative to accepting
the pawn, as after 6 d3 0-0 7 0-0 d6 S 4Jxd4
.ixd4 9 .te3 .txe3 10 fxe3 .ie6 1 1 .tb3 c6
12 fild2 b5! (Lein-Onischuk, Chicago 2002)
Black has equalised completely. One of
Black's next moves will be ... a7-a5.

6 . . . 0-0
In order to get compensation for the
pawn, Black has to finish rus development.
After 6 ...iie7?! 7 ttJd3 ttJxe4 8 0-0 ttJxc3 9
dxc3 (9 bxc3!? ttJe6 10 ttJxc5 iixc5 1 1 'iVf3
c6 12 d4 'iVa5 1 3 .ib3 d5 14 c4 also gives a
strong pressure) 9 ...ttJe6 1 0 ttJxc5 iixc5 1 1
.ie3 White's position is more than slightly
better.
7 I:fJd3
This has been established over time as the
main move. After 7 d3?! d5!? (7...d6 8 ttJf3
i..g4 9 .ie3 c6 10 h3 .ixf3 1 1 gxf3 d5 1 2
i..g5 h 6 1 3 i..h4 'iVd6 1 4 i..g3 'iNe6 gave
Black good counterplay for the pawn in the
more recent Kamsky-Sokolov, Brussels
1992) 8 .ig5 c6 9 'iVd2 (9 i..h4 .l:!.e8 10 f4
'iVa5 1 1 a3 dxe4! 12 b4 .ixb4 1 3 axb4 'iNxb4
14 0-0 'iNxc3 1 5 dxe4 ttJxe4 would leave
Black clearly better) 9 ... .l:!.e8 10 f4 b5 1 1 .ib3
h6 12 i..h4 (12 .ixf6 gxf6 1 3 ttJf3 dxe4 1 4
dxe4 b 4 gives Black a strong attack - e 4 is
very fragile) 12 ... ttJxe4 13 .ixd8 ttJxd2 1 4
'it>xd2 I:txd8 1 5 ttJe2 ttJxe2 1 6 'it>xe2 .l:!.e8 1 7
'it>fl .i b7 1 8 c 3 f6 1 9 ttJg4 h 5 Black com
pletely dominated the board, Tarrasch
Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1 91 2.
7 . . . .i.b6 S e5
This move is very logical, as Black has to
'undevelop' rus knight to the back rank. Of
course the e-pawn will work as a hook for
destroying the White centre, but all silver
linings have a cloud. Some attention has also
Sp a n is h Fo ur K n ig h ts w i th 4 . . l:fJ d 4
.
been paid to the following:
a) 8 ttJf4 d5 9 d3 c6 10 h3 Me8 1 1 0-0
dxe4 12 dxe4 ttJxe4 13 ttJxe4 .l:!.xe4 14 c3
.ic7! (14 ... ttJe6 15 "iYxd8+ ttJxd8 16 .ic2 l:te8
with dead equality, S.Santos-Campora, Al
garve 1 998) 15 .ie3 b5 1 6 cxd4 bxa4 and in
my opinion Black is slightly better, but of
course the position is very close to equal.
b) 8 O-O? d5! 9 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 10 exd5 iixd5
1 1 ttJf4 'iNg5! 1 2 d3 i..g4 1 3 ttJd5 "iVh5 1 4
ttJe7+ Ioth8 15 "iYd2 .ic5 gives Black a clear
advantage according to Keres.
S . . .l:fJeS 9 I:fJd5
This is also considered the main move.
After 9 0-0 d6 10 exd6 ttJf6! White will come
under heavy attack. \v'hite now has two main
choices:
a) 1 1 d7 .ixd7 12 .ixd7 'iNxd7 1 3 ttJe1
.l:!.ae8 14 d3 ttJg4 1 5 ttJf3 ttJxf3+ 1 6 'iVxf3
ttJxf2 1 7 ttJd5 ttJxd3+ 1 8 ttJxb6 "iHd4+ is a
little bit better for Black according to Hiib
nero
b) 1 1 dxc7 "iVd6! (another excellent move
from Keres) 1 2 'it>hl ! (12 Mel .ixc7 1 3 ttJe5
ttJg4 and White is in trouble) 12 ...ttJg4 1 3 g3
(after 13 f4? ttJxh2!! \v'hite is lost: 14 'it>xh2
'iNh6+ 1 5 Iotg3 ttJf5+ 16 'it'f3 "ir'h5+ 17 g4
"iVh3+ 1 8 'it'e4 ttJg3+ 1 9 'it'e5 .ixg4) 1 3. .. 'iVh6
14 h4 .ixc7 and Black has a lot of strong
threats that are not easy to meet. There are
ideas like ...ttJxf2 and ...b7-b5 and also a
tricky little line like 1 5 'it>g1 ttJh2!! 1 6 'it'xh2
'iNxh4+ 17 'it>g1 .ixg3 1 8 fxg3 'iVxg3+ 1 9
c,t>hl "ir'h3+ 20 'it'g1 i..g4 21 'iYel ttJf3+ 22
.l:!.xf3 .ixf3 23 ttJf4 'iYh1+ 24 'it'f2 "iYh4+ 25
'it'fl "iYxf4, when Black is more or less win
ning.
9 . . . d6
A new idea is 9 ...c6!? 10 ttJe3 d5 11 c3
ttJe6 12 i..c2 d4 1 3 ttJf5 "iYg5 1 4 "ir'f3 g6 1 5
ttJg3 f6 1 6 ttJe4 'iih4 and here in this unclear
position the players agreed a draw in Potkin
Acs, Pardubice 2002. I have a feeling that
White might end up being better in this line.
9 ...d6 just seems more natural.
1 0 l:fJe3 c5!?
27
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
Here Black has a wide range of alterna
tives (1 0... dxeS is considered in the next
game):
a) 10 ... c6!? 1 1 c3 lbfS 12 0-0 ..Ilc7 1 3 f4
lbxe3 1 4 dxe3 ..IlfS 1 S exd6 lbxd6 1 6 lbeS
lbe4 17 'iVxdS l:taxdS and Black has com
pensation. Jenni-Blauett, Internet 2002.
b) 1O ... 'iVgS!? and now:
bl) 1 1 exd6 lbxd6 12 0-0 4J4fS 13 4Je1
lbxe3 14 fxe3 .ig4 I S 4Jf3 'iVhs 1 6 el c6
and the position holds chances for both
players according to Hiibner.
b2) Not so reliable is 1 1 f4?! g6 12 0-0
..Ilg4! with a strong attack (1 2 ... f6 1 3 exd6
4Jxd6 14 lbf2 lb4fS 1 S 'iVf3 4Jxe3 1 6 dxe3
..IlfS also gives Black compensation for the
pawn - Timman), for example: 13 4Jxg4
lbxc2+ 14 lbcs ..Ilxc5+ 1 S d4 lbxd4 1 6 ..Ile3
'iVe4! 17 .l::!.e 1 bS 1 S ..IlxbS lbc2; or 1 3 e1
.ie2 and Black has a very strong position.
b3) 1O ... 'iie 7!? 1 1 exd6 lbxd6 12 0-0 l:tdS
13 c3 lbe6 14 ..Ilc2 (1 4 'iihS!?) 14 ... cS l S l:tel
gS 1 6 'iVg4 'iixg4 1 7 lbxg4 c4 1 S lbdeS f6
1 9 lbf3 lbcs 20 lbe3 lbd3 21 ..Ilxd3 cxd3 22
lbdS ..Ilg4 23 b3 .ics 24 c4 ..Ilxf3 2S gxf3
lbfS 26 ..Ilb2 and Black was a little better in
Nunn-Hitech(C), Hague 1 992.
1 1 c3 tLlf5 1 2 exd6?!
This way White plays with fIre - he should
probably be content with equality. But if we
remember that we actually have a junior
world champion playing White here, against
a former FIDE world champion, we can
understand why \/hite is adventurous.
White should probably play something
like 1 2 .ib3 4Jxe3 (12...'iVh4!?) 1 3 dxe3 dxeS
14 e4 c7 1 S .tc4 lbd6 1 6 .idS ..Ile6 1 7 0-0
with equality. Or 12 0-0 lbxe3 13 dxe3 c4 14
lbb4 dxeS and the position is equal. After 12
..Ilc2 lbxe3 1 3 dxe3 c4 1 4 lbf4 dxeS 1 s lbdS
lbf6 16 4Jxb6 'i1Vxb6 17 e4, however, the
position should be fIne for Black. White has
two bishops, but they are not impressive and
Black has a little space.
1 2 . . . iVxd6 1 3 i.c2
After 13 'iVe2 iLe6 14 lbxfS iLxfS 1 S lbeS
28
.tc7 1 6 f4 lbf6 17 0-0 l:adS it is hard to
show how White should complete develop
ment.
1 3 . . .tLlf6 1 4 0-0 i.c7 1 5 g3?!
Black has more than enough compensa
tion for the pawn. The fIght for the h1 -aS
diagonal will be a matter of life and death for
White - most likely death. l S f4 4Jxe3 1 6
i
dxe3 .tg4 1 7 'tiel fs was more normal.
1 5 . . . b5!
A strong improvement. Previously tried
was 1 S ... 'iVc6 1 6 lbxfS .txfS 1 7 lbb4 d7 1 S
.txfS 'iixfS 1 9 lbc2 l:tadS 20 d4 l:tfeS 21 b4
cxb4 22 lbxb4 lbe4 23 .td2 hS and the black
initiative was very dangerous in Yudasin
Nielsen, Kemerovo 1 995. 1 S ... hS!? has been
suggested by Yudasin.
1 6 tiJf4
It seems to be some kind of accelerated
masochism to enter such a position against a
master of attack like Alexander Khalifman.
1 6 . . . tLlh4!
Black is aiming the canons directly at the
white king. Making moves like this was called
launching by Tal, who compared it to ice
hockey, where the puck could be shot far
into the opponent's area with no idea other
than hoping for something to happen.
1 7 d4
Perhaps better was 1 7 4JhS ..Ilh3
(1 7 ... ..Ilb7?! 1S f4! 'iVc6 1 9 lbxf6+ gxf6 20
..Ilxh7+! hS 21 'iit>f2 lbf3 22 ..IlfS c4 23 ..Ilh3
fS 24 ..Ilg2 'iYh6 2S h3 and the black attack is
 Sp a n is h Fo ur Knig h ts with 4 . . .ti':, d4

history) 1 8 l:te 1 lUe8 19 d4 (19 lbxf6+ Wixf6! All this for free. Oops, sorry, Black is of
20 i.xh7+ <;t>h8 21 Wih5 lbf3+ 22 Whl lbxel course missing one of the little ones, but who
23 Wixh3 6 24 'it'xh6 gxh6 25 .lif5 l::tad8 is counting when you're having so much fun?
and Black has a clear advantage) 19 ... cxd4 20 21 f3
cxd4 lbe4 21 lbf4 lbg5 and the attack goes Or 21 lbf5 'iWc7 22 i.xf4 xf4 23 d3
on, but 'W'hite still has his extra pawn. .txd5 with an accelerating attack.
1 7 . . . b7 1 8 d5 l:tad8 1 9 a4 21 . . . 'Wic7 22 11d 1 xh2+ 23 f1 a6!
After 1 9 'We2 fe8 all the black pieces 23 ....lif4? 24 lbg4! would give 'W'hite some
play (but not 1 9 ... g5? 20 lbh5! lbxd5 21 f4 counterplay.
lbxe3 22 .lixe3 lbg2 23 fxg5! and 'W'hite 24 axb5 axb5 25 tL'lg4 tL'lxg4 26 'Wixg4
wins). For this 'W'hite has only a pawn (and xd5 27 xh7+ xh7 28 J:!.xd5 'Wic6 29
some problems developing the queenside 'Wih5+ g8 30 l:txd8 h 1 + 3 1 e2 l:txd8
rook and bishop). My judgement is that this 0-1
is not enough. Play continues with 20 dl
g5!. Now the situation is different - Black is a Game 12
full rook better off than in the previous line Movsesian-lIIescas Cordoba
because it is now taking part in the action. 21 Elista O!Jmpiad 1998
lbh3 (or 21 lbh5 lbxd5 22 1Wxb5 lbf3+ 23
'it>hl "iVh6! 24 "ii'xb7 'i'xh5 and Black wins) 1 e4 eS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 b5 tL'lf6 4 tLlc3
21 ...g4 22 lbg5 h6 23 lbe4 lbxe4 24 'it'xg4+ tL'ld4 5 a4 c5 6 tL'lxe5 0-0 7 tL'ld3 b6
lbg5 and 'W'hite is ready for his own funeral. 8 e5 tL'le8 9 tL'ld5 d6 1 0 tL'le3 dxe5
1 9 . . . d7 20 gxh4
20 lbh5 lbxd5 21 lbg4 (or 21 it'd3 lbf3+
22 'it>hl lbg5 23 lbg2 'Wh3 24 f3 lbb4 25
'iWf5 'iWxh5 and wins) 21 ...e7 22 gxh4 lbxc3
23 bxc3 l::tx dl 24 .lixdl 'Wxh4 and wins.
After 20 lbd3 lbxd5! 21 lbxc5 (21 gxh4
'iWh3) Black has the beautiful 21...lbf4!! 22
gxf4 (or 22 .lixh7+ 'it>xh7 23 lbxb7 lbh3+ 24
'it>hl lbxf2+ 25 l:txf2 'iWxd1+) 22 ...Wih3 23
.lixh7+ Wxh7 24 'iWc2+ h8 25 f3 .lixf4 and
the black attack is crashing through.
20 . . . xf4

This is known as the main line, but I pre

fer 1 O ... c5!? as in the previous game.
1 1 tL'lxe5 g5 1 2 tL'l5c4 f5 1 3 f4
An interesting new idea is 1 3 h4!? 'iVf6
(1 3...g6 1 4 lbe5 'i'f6 1 5 f4 lbc6 1 6 .txc6!
bxc6 1 7 d4 lbd6 18 c4 lbe4 19 b4 gave
'W'hite a clear edge in Motylev-Shirov, Mos
cow 2001) 1 4 f4 lbd6 1 5 c3 lbxc4 1 6 lbxc4
lbc6 17 d4 .lie6 1 8 lbe5 lbxe5 19 fxe5 "iVf7,
with an edge to 'W'hite according to Motylev.
1 3 . . .'itIVxf4 1 4 c3 h4+
The alternatives are worse:

29
Th e Fo u r K n ig h ts
a) 14 ...ctJe6?! 15 d4 'ifh4+ 16 g3 'iVd8 1 7
ctJg2! f4 1 8 i.xf4 ctJxf4 1 9 ctJxf4 l:txf4 20
gxf4 "iVh4+ 21 'it>d2 'iVxf4+ 22 ctJe3 and Black
had insufficient compensation in Kobalija
Korneev, St Petersburg 1998.
b) 14...ctJc6?! 15 d4 i.e6 (1 5 ... 'iih4+ 16 g3
"iVh3 1 7 ctJxb6 axb6 1 8 i.b}t 'it>h8 1 9 i.d5
f4 20 i.g2 "ikh6 21 O-O! gave White a clear
edge in Alavkin-Varavin, Ufa 1 999) 1 6 i.b3
i.xc4 1 7 ctJxc4 'iYh4+ 1 8 g3 "ike4+ 1 9 '.t>f2
'.t>h8 20 l:tel 'iVg4 21 "ikxg4 fxg4+ 22 '.t>g2
and White has a positional advantage, with
the better pawn structure and the two bish
ops, Campora-Handoko, Istanbul 2000.
1 5 g3 'tWh3 1 6 cxd4 f4 1 7 f1 ?!
This is risky. Better is 1 7 gxf4 'ifh4+ 18
'.t>e2 i.g4+ 1 9 ctJxg4 'iVxg4+ 20 'it>e1 (20 'it>d3
iHf5+ 21 We2 [21 '.t>c3?? i.xd4-H 22 'it>xd4
.l:l.d&t would be a gift] 21...iHg4+ draws)
20...'iYh4+ 21 e2 ifg4+ 22 e1 1/2_1/2 El
Kher-Olsen, Tastrup 2000.
30
1 7 . . .fxe3 1 8 .l:txf8+ xf8 1 9 'tWf3+ liJf6
20 dxe3 'ilkxh2 21 'tWf2 'tWh1 + 22 'tWf1
'tWh2 23 'tWf2 'tWh5!
23...'iYh1+ would draw, but Black rightfully
decides to go for more.
24 .\tb3?!
Better was 24 i.d2, even though 24...i.e6!
25 ctJxb6 axb6 26 i.c2 l:txa2 27 l:txa2 i.xa2
28 e4 i.c4 still poses problems for White.
24 . . . .\te6 25 lLlxb6
White is trying to exchange in order not to
be mated, but now he is left with very weak
light squares and a dark-squared bishop - not
a good combination.
25 . . . .\txb3 26 axb3
26 ctJxa8?? "ikdl mate!
26 . . . cxb6 27 it'g2 it'f7 28 g4 h6 29 .\td2
g8 30 e2
To protect the pawn seems wrong: 30
.l:l.a3? a6 31 g5 hxg5 32 iYxg5 ctJe4 33 iHg2
.l::!.f8 34 i.b4 l:!.e8! would continue the attack
for Black.
30 . . ..l:te8 31 g5
31 l:!.xa7 ctJe4 32 Ita3 iVd5 was maybe a
better chance, even though Black remains
much better.
31 . . . hxg5 32 l1h 1 ?! g4 33 'ilfh2 'ilfxb3 34
'i'h8+ f7 35 h4 b5+ 36 e 1 "tixb2
37 f1 'ilfb 1 + 38 e2 'ilfb5+ 39 e 1
J:.e6 40 it'h 1 it'b1 + 41 e2 'ilfb5+ 42
e 1 l:le7 43 d5 'tWd3 44 1i'h5+ "ilVg6 0-1
 Sp a n is h Fo u r K n ig h ts with 4 . . . eiJ d4

Summary
4 .. .':t:Jd4 will remain the main line for some time to come. The immediate captures like 5 lLlxe5
and 5 lLlxd4 are hannless or even dangerous for White. The main focus in this variation is still
directed towards 5 .i.a4. Here Black can try to equalise with 5 ...lLlxf3+. Though his position
will be a little passive, this is a perfecdy viable strategy and has been successful numerous
times. More standard is the gambit with 5 ... .i.c5, which has given Black good results over the
years. The current status is that Khalifman's choice l O... c5!? gives Black sufficient compensa
tion, while other moves in that position could be slighdy dubious.
The more modern idea with 5 ... c6 also seems to give perfect compensation for a pawn, so
White might choose to follow the footsteps of Ivanchuk and try 5 .i.c4 in the future. Black will
probably prove to be doing just as well there too, but there will be chances for original ideas
and opening surprises, something that 5 .i.a4 no longer seems to offer in the same way.

1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 lllc 3 lllf6 4 b5 llld4 5 a4

5 lLlxe5 (0) Game 6; 5 lLlxd4 Game 1; 5 .i.c4 Game 8
- - -

5 . . . c5
5 ... lLlxf3 Game 9; 5 ... c6 (0) Game 10
- -

6 lllx e5 0-0 7 llld 3 b6 8 e5 llle8 9 llld 5 d6 1 0 llle3 dxe5 (0) - Game 12

lO .. c5 Game 1 1
. -

5 lllx e5 5 . . . c6 10 . dxe5
. .

31
 CHAPTER THREE
Spanish Four Knights :
Sidelines
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 i..b 5
In this [mal chapter on the Spanish Four
Knights we will look at unusual options for
Black after 4 i.b5. In Game 1 3 Black imme
diately attacks the bishop with 4... a6?!. This is
tempting because after 5 .ta4 the game en
tered a hannless variation of the Ruy Lopa.
However, after the stronger 5 xc6 Black
cannot achieve an equal position, so it's diffi
cult to recommend Black's fourth move.
In Games 1 4-16 Black plays 4... i.d6, an
interesting idea that avoids the symmetry of
4 ... i.b4 and the deeply investigated main
lines of 4 .. .'Jd4.
Game 13
Yudasin-Sagalchik
Kemerovo 1995
e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lUc3 lUf6 4 i.. b5
a6?!
Alternatively
a) 4... ..ll.e 7 5 0-0 d6 6 d4 exd4 7 tLlxd4
..ll. d7 leads to the Steinitz Defence to the Ruy
Lopez. This usually arises via 3 b5 d6 and
is outside the scope of this book.
b) 4... i.c5 appears to be quite natural, but
white has several promissing continuations:
b 1) 5 ..ll.x c6!? is an improved version of
the classical Ruy Lopez exchange. The main
32
I
reason is that black already has developed
the knight and bishop onto the inferior
squares f6 and c5, e.g. 5 ... dxc6 6 d3 0-0
(Risky but if 6 ....1i.g4 7 h3 ..ll.h5 8 ..ll. e 3 'iVe 7
9 .ixc5 'iVxc5 1 0 'iVe2 tLld7 1 1 g4 ..ll.g6 1 2
0-0-0 tLlf8 1 3 h 4 h 5 - as i n Hug-Fernandes,
Thessaloniki 1 988 - then 14 d4! exd4 1 5
tLlxd4 0-0-0 16 tLlb3 .l:i.xdl + 1 7 l:txdl 'iVe7
1 8 'iVe3 <t>b8 1 9 g5 and White is betteL) 7
h3 I:te8 8 tLle2 .tf8 9 g4 h5 1 0 .1i.g5 'ii'd6 1 1
tLlg3 hxg4 1 2 hxg4 tLlxg4 1 3 'iYe2 as?! (bet
ter was 13 ...'iVg6) 14 tLlh4! and White is
much better, Psakhis-Barua, Calcutta 1 988.
b2) 5 0-0 0-0 (After 5 ... d6 6 d4 exd4 7
tLlxd4 ..ll.d7 8 tLlf5 0-0 9 i.g5 White is
slightly better - Keres.) 6 tLlxe5 tLlxe5
(6 ... .l:!.e8?! 7 tLlf3 tLlxe4 8 d4 tLlxc3 9 bxc3
..ll.e 7 10 d5 tLlb8 1 1 .1i.f4 a6 12 ..ll. a4 ..ll. f6 1 3
d6 with a clear advantage for white i n Ma
roczy-Pillsbury, Nuernberg 1 896. Black's
best is probably 6 ... tLld4 7 .tc4 d6 8 tLlf3
i.g4 9 i.e2 and White is better.) 7 d4 .1i.d6
8 f4 tLlc6 9 e5 ..ll. e7 10 d5 tLlb4 1 1 exf6
..ll.x f6 1 2 ..ll. c4 'iVe7 1 3 <t>hl and White is
better, as in the game Shabanov-Frolov,
Smolensk 2000.
5 i..xc6 dxc6
5 ... bxc6? 6 tLlxe5 'iYe7 (after 6 ... ..ll.b4 7 d3
'iYe7 8 f4 there is no compensation for Black)
7 d4 c5 8 .1i.g5 cxd4 9 'tlYxd4 c5 10 ..ll.x f6

'iix f6 1 1 'iVd5 gives 'X'hite a clear plus.
6 tLlxe5!
The acid test. 'X'hite has no advantage af
ter 6 0-0 ..Itd6! 7 d4 (7 d3 is also harmless)
7... lLJd7 8 dxe5 1LJxe5 9 1LJxe5 (or 9 f4 ..Itg4
1 0 xe5 xf3 1 1 'iVxf3 .i.xe5 with equality)
9... .i.xe5 1 O 'iixd8+Wxd8 1 1 .l:i.d1+e7.
6 . . . tLlxe4 7 tLlxe4 d4 8 0-0 xe5 9 d4
f5
Or 9 ...'iid5 10 .l:!.el .i.e6 (1O ... .i.e7? 1 1
g5! .i.e6 - 1 1 ...f6? 1 2 .i.xf6! - 1 2 xe7
xe7 13 lLJc5 gives 'X'hite a winning posi
tional advantage)
and now:
a) 1 1 lLJg5 (this is not so clear) 1 1 ...0-0-0
1 2 1LJxe6 fxe6 13 'iig4 'i{j'xd4 (13. .. c5 1 4 :!:!.xe6
'iixd4 1 5 :!:!.e4+ 'iid7 16 'i{j'xd7+ .l::lxd7 1 7
Ite8+ :!:!.d8 1 8 l':txd8+ xd8 1 9 ..Itd2 gives
'X'hite some chances in the endgame, even
though they are slim) 14 'ii'xe6+ 'iVd7 (Black
is even worse off after 14 ... b8? 1 5 .i.g5!
c5 [1 5 ... :!:!'c8?? 16 'iixc8+! xc8 17 .l:te8+
d7 1 8 :!:!'d8+J 16 .i.xd8 'ijVxf2+ 1 7 hl
l:txd8 1 8 :!:!'e2 'iVh4 19 :!:!.f1 .i.d6 20 g3 'iid4
21 c3 'iVb6 22 g2 c5 23 .l:tn h5 24 l::txg7
a7 25 :!:!.n 1 -0 Teichmann-Spielmann,
Leipzig 1 9 1 4) 1 5 .i.g5! b4! 1 6 xd8 (16 c3
'iixe6 17 l::txe6 l:!.d5 1 8 cxb4 .llxg5 1 9 :!:!.e7
:!:!.d8 gives Black enough counterplay for
equality) 16 ... .i.xe 1 1 7 'iixd7+ xd7 1 8 :!:!.xe 1
xd8 and Black should draw.
b) 1 1 g5! d6 1 2 b3 b4 (12... 0-0? 1 3
c4 'ij'fS 1 4 1LJxd6 cxd6 1 5 e7 drops a pawn
and 1 2... f6?? 1 3 c4! 'iif5 1 4 g4 'iVg6
[14...'ii'xg4+ 1 5 iVxg4 .i.xg4 16 lLJxf6+j 1 5
lLJxd6+ cxd6 1 6 l:he6+ Wd7 1 7 'iWe2 :!:!'ae8 1 8
.l::le 1 drops everything) 1 3 c4! (1 3 Ite3 c3!
14 1LJxc3 'iVxg5 1 5 lLJe4 'iVg6 16 lLJc5 0-0-0 is
less clear) 13 .. :iDfS and now:
bl) 1 4 d5 cxd5 1 5 cxd5 xel 16 dxe6
xf2+ 1 7 lLJxf2 'iVxe6 1 8 :!:!.c1 c6 gives no
advantage to 'X'hite.
b2) 14 l:!.e3 0-0 (14... f6? 1 5 xf6! gxf6? 1 6
lLJg3) 1 5 a3 ..Ita5 16 'ij'd3 f6 1 7 ..Ith4 :!:!.ad8 1 8
b 4 .i.b6 1 9 c 5 and 'X'hite has practically an
extra piece.
Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s
1 0 J:!.e1 iLe6
After 10 ....ie7 1 1 .i.g5! f6 12 'tie2 0-0
(12 ... fxg5?? 13 lLJd6+) 13 lLJg3 'iVxg5 14
'tixe7 'iVa5 1 5 :!:!.e3 White has an overwhelm
ing advantage.
1 1 iLg5! iLd6
There are other possibilities here:
a) 1 1 ...'iVg6?? 12 d5! cxd5 13 'iVxd5 c6
(13. ...ixd5 14 lLJf6+) 14 'iWd4! h6 (14...iVf5
1 5 :!:!.ad 1 and Black is also lost) 1 5 :!:!.ad I !
hxg5 16 'iVd7+1 .i.xd7 1 7 lLJf6+ d8 1 8
:!:!.xd7+ c8 19 e8 mate.
b) 1 1 ....i.b4!? 12 c3 .i.d6 13 i.h4 h6 1 4
lLJxd6+ cxd6 1 5 'iVb3! b 5 16 iVa3 d7 1 7 d5!
cxd5 18 .i.g3 with a strong attack.
c) The best try must be 1 1 ... h6!. Now
'X'hite should continue with 1 2 .i.h4! in order
to play as in the main game. Instead, 12
'lid3?! Wd7! 13 .i.h4 .lle 8 (13 .. :ilib5 14 'iVd2
t!.e8 1 5 b3! c8 16 c4 'iVh5 1 7 i.g3 :!:!.d8 1 8
'iVc 3 gives 'X'hite some pressure according to
Paul Keres) 1 4 c4 'itc8! (14...d6 1 5 Mac1
'it>c8? [1 5 .. :iVg4 is better] 16 d5! with an at
tack - Schlechter) 1 5 .i.g3! (1 5 Mac1?! .ib4!
16 Me3 [1 6 t!.e2?? 'iVf4!] 16 ...'lig4 17 g3 f5
1 8 'iVb3 .ie7 1 9 Mcel f4 20 h3 'iDf5 21 xf4
'iVxf4 22 lLJg3 .i.f6 23 Mxe6 [23 Me4? 'iDd6
24 c5 .ixb3 25 J::txe8+ Mxe8 26 Mxe8+ d7
27 cxd6 xe8 28 axb3 cxd6 and Black has
realistic hopes of winning the endgame]
23 ... Mxe6 24 Mxe6 .ixd4 and Black has a
good position) 1 5 ... h5 16 h4 leads to an un
clear position. This is the only justification of
4 ... a6 I have found so far.
1 2 d2
Not 12 g4?! 'iid 5! (12 ... 'iDg6? 1 3 f4 f5 1 4
lLJxd6+ cxd6 1 5 d5! was a killer in Snosko
Borovsky-Rubinstein, Ostend 1 907) 13 b3
.i.b4 14 c4 'iVd7, with at most a very slight
advantage for 'X'hite.
1 2 . . . h6
12 ... 0-0! is probably better. This is a well
known idea - Black sacrifices a pawn and in
return gets good drawing chances: 1 3 lLJxd6
cxd6 14 e7 Mfe8 1 5 xd6 Mad8 16 e5
(16 Me5 iVf6 17 'iVb4 'iig6 1 8 t!.ael 'iVxc2 1 9
33
Fo u r Knig h ts
iLc7 .l:i:d7 20 'iYxb7 .l:i:xd4 21 'iYxa6 .l:i:a4 is
not better for White at all) 1 6... cS 17 c3 f6 18
iLf4 cxd4 19 cxd4 .l:i:c8 20 iLg3 .l:i:c2 21 4
'iVdS and Black has compensation, but must
fight for the draw all the same. Even so, it
should be possible to make it. The uncom
fortable thing about Black's position is that
the game might last 100 moves before the
draw is achieved - White will always have an
extra pawn.
12 ... d7 13 tDc5+ iLxcs 14 dxc5+ dS I S
.l:i:ad1 xd2 1 6 .l:i:xd2+ c8 17 f 4 gives \\ihite
good attacking chances - Yudasin.
1 3 i.h4 g5
After 13...g4 14 tDxd6+ cxd6 IS ..tg3
0-0-0 16 4! White has a strong attack.
1 4 tLlxd6+ cxd6 1 5 .tg3 0-0-0 1 6 b4!
Now White is clearly better.
1 6 . . . "iVd5
A better try was 16.. .'lIVbS 17 iLxd6 xb4
18 iLxb4 and White has the advantage - after
18 ....l:i:xd4?? 19 iLc3 \X'hite's closing in on the
full point.
1 7 b3 h5
The following lines are quite entertaining:
a) 17 ... fS 18 c4 'iVxd4 19 .l:i:adl 'iVcs 20
d2 with the advantage, for example: 20.. .f4
21 iLxf4 (21 .l:i:xe6? fxg3 22 hxg3 dS gives
Black counterplay) 21...!-,rxf4 22 .l:i:xe6 f3 23
.l:i:xd6 .l:i:xd6 24 xd6 'iVxd6 2S .l:i:xd6 .l:i:g8 26
g3 .l:i:e8 27 h4 .l:i:e1+ 28 h2 .l:i:e2 29 g4 .l:i:xf2+
30 g3 .l:i:xa2 31 .l:i:xh6! (31 <t>xf3 only gives
a clear advantage) 31...f2 32 .l:i:f6 .l:i:b2 33 gS
34
d7 34 g6 e7 3S g7 xf6 36 g8'iV f l N +
37 f4 and \x'hite ",-ins.
b) 17...cS?! 18 dxcS xcS (18 ... dxcS 19
b6 c6 20 a7 and Black's position looks
like a Swiss cheese!) 19 'iVd2 dS 20 b4 'iYc4
21 e3 d4 22 eS gives White good attack
ing prospects.
1 8 J:tad 1 ! b5
After 18 ... 114 19 c4 cS 20 cxdS (but not 20
dxcS?! xcS 21 iLxd6 xb4 22 iLxb4 .l:i:xdl
23 .l:i:xd1 .l:i:d8 and Black has chances to
draw) 20...cxb4 21 dxe6 fxe6 22 l:Ixe6 hxg3
23 fxg3 White has good winning chances.
1 9 VWa3 cJ;;c 7
The alternatives also lose:
a) 19...b7 20 c4 bxc4 (20 ... f5 21
iLxd6) 21 bxc4 xc4 22 iLxd6 and Black's
king is about to be mated.
b) 19... h4 20 c4! (20 xa6+? d7 looks
tempting, but it is not completely clear)
20...bxc4 (20.. .'f5 21 'i!\Vxa6+) 21 bxc4 'iVxc4
22 iLxd6 xa2 23 cS and Black is lost.
20 c4! bxc4 21 bxc4 xc4 22 d5! i.xd5
23 J:t.e7+ cJ;;c8 24 i.xd6 I:Id7 25 b2
J:t.xe7 26 VWb8+ 1 -0
Game 14
Winsnes-Hector
0rebro 1998
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 i.b5
i.d6!?
5 d4

This is quite a logical attack on the centre,
but not necessarily the best move. White has
the following alternatives:
a) 5 0-0 is seen in Game 15 and 5 d3, in
Game 16.
b) 5 i.xc6 dxc6 6 d4 exd4 (6 . ..lDd7 7 dxe5
lLlxe5 8 lLlxe5 i.xe5 9 'W!Vxd8+ xd8 10 i.d2
We7 1 1 0-0-0 .l:!.d8 1 2 f4 gives White some
advantage in the endgame) 7 'W!Vxd4 'W!Ve7 8
i.g5 i.c5 9 i.xf6 (9 lid2?! h6 10 i.xf6
'W!Vxf6 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 is better for Black - the
two bishops dominate) 9 ... i.xd4 1 0 i.xe7
i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 Wxe7 1 2 0-0-0 with equality.
c) 5 lLlh4?! lLlxe4! 6 lLlf5 (6 'ti'g4 lLlxc3 7
dxc3 i.f8 8 'iVe4 d6 and White probably
does not have enough for the pawn) 6 ...lif6
7 lLlxe4 (7 'iWg4?! lLlxf2! 8 iVxg7 lixg7 9
lLlxg7+ f8 and Black is a pawn up) 7 ... 'ii'x f5
8 lLlxd6+ cxd6 9 0-0 0-0 doesn't offer White
enough compensation for the pawn.
d) 5 a3!? h6 6 d3 b6 7 i.c4 i.b7 8 h3 lLla5
(8... i.c5 9 b4 .1i.d4 10 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 1 .1i.b2
gives White a slight edge) 9 i.a2 c5 10 lLle2!
'ilVc7?! (1 O ... .1i.c7 1 1 lLlg3 d5 with a level game
was better) 1 1 lLlg3 .1i.f8 1 2 i.d2 d6 1 3 b4
lLlc6 1 4 c3 lLld8 1 5 0-0 and White was a little
better in Keitlinghaus-Pedersen, Germany
2002.
e) 5 g4!
This fantastic move is a completely new
idea. Now Black can play:
e 1) 5 ... 0-0 6 g5 lLlh5 7 d3 g6 8 .1i.e3 .l:!.e8 9
iVd2 .1i.f8 10 0-0-0 a6 1 1 .1i.c4 b5 12 i.d5
Sp a n is h Fo u r Knig h ts : Side lin e s
followed b y d3-d4 with advantage for White.
e2) 5 ... h6 6 l:tg1 lLld4 7 i.c4 and White
has some advantage.
e3) 5 ... lLld4 6 .ic4 and Black has achieved
little.
e4) 5 ...lLlxg4 6 l:.gl lLlf6 (6 ...h5 7 h3 lLlxf2
8 'is;;>xf2 .1i.c5+ 9 d4 lLlxd4 1 0 .1i.e3 gives
White the advantage) 7 l:.xg7 'is;;> f8 8 l:tg3
lLlh5 9 l:!g1 lLlf6 (9 ...l:.g8 1 0 l:i.xg8+ xg8 1 1
lLlxe5 wins a pawn) 1 0 d3 and White is bet
ter.
e5) 5 ... i.c5! is probably best. Now White
has the following possibilities:
e51) 6 g5 lLlg4 7 l:i.f1 h6 (7 ... a6 8 i.xc6
dxc6 9 h3 lLlxf2 10 J::!.xf2 i.xf2+ 1 1 xf2
i.xh3 12 'ilVg1 lid7 1 3 d3 0-0-0 with a great
mess was also possible) 8 gxh6 gxh6 9 h3
lLlf6 10 d3 d6 1 1 l:!.hl looks about level.
e52) 6 l:.gI ?! lLld4 7 i.c4 gives Black the
chance to take the initiative with 7 ... d5! 8
lLlxd4 exd4! 9 lLlxd5 lLlxe4 10 d3 lLld6 1 1
i.b3 0-0 - Black is better.
e53) 6 h3 lLld4 7 .ic4 d6 8 d3 c6 9 g5
lLld7 1 0 a3 with an unclear game. But not 1 0
lLlxd4?! exd4 1 1 lLle2 lLle5 1 2 f4 lLlxc4 1 3
dxc4 h6 14 'ifd3 hxg5 1 5 fxg5 'ilVe7 and
Black is better.
5 lZ:lxd4
. . .
Also possible is 5 ... exd4 6 lLlxd4 0-0 and
now:
a) 7 lLlxc6 dxc6 8 i.d3 l:te8 9 0-0 (9 i.g5?
lLlxe4!) 9 ...lLlg4 10 g3 (10 h3 'iWh4! gives
Black a strong attack) 10 ... 'ii'f6 1 1 f4 i.c5+ 1 2
Wg2 f:ib6 with good play for Black.
b) 7 i..g5 h6! (or 7 ... i.e5 8 lLlxc6 dxc6 9
'iWxd8 xd8 10 i.d3 with a level game) 8
i.h4 i.e5 9 .ixc6! (Black is better after 9
lLlxc6?! bxc6 10 .id3 .l:!.b8 1 1 'ic1 d5 and 9
lLlf5?! d6) 9 ... dxc6 10 lLlde2 with equality.
c) 7 .ie3 a6 8 .ie2 .ib4! 9 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 0
iVd4?! (10 e 5 lLld5 1 1 .id2 lLlxc3 1 2 bxc3
i..a5 only gives Black a slight edge) 1O ... c5 1 1
'ilVd3 1Ie8 1 2 f3 d5! 1 3 0-0-0 c4 1 4 lid2 i.b7
and Black is better, Maros-Grabarczyk, Par
dubice 2002.
6 lZ:lxd4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 'ii'e7 8 0-0
35
Fo u r Kn ig h ts
Or 8 f4 c6 (8... cS 9 1i'eS 'iixeS 10 ExeS
tLlg4 1 1 tLldS 0-0 12 tLlxc7 l:tb8 13 tLldS
tLlxeS 14 f4 gives White some advantage) 9
e2 cS 1 0 "ikeS d6 1 1 "ilt'xe7+ <ltxe7 1 2
d2 with equality.
8 . . . 0-0
This is the most logical move, but Black
has also tried 8 ... c6 9 iLe2 0-0 1 0 'iVd3 I:tes
1 1 iLgS h6 1 2 iLh4 iLeS 13 iLf3 d6 14 l:tadl
iLe6 15 iLg3 l:radS 16 tLle2 iLxg3 1 7 tLlxg3
dS I S eS tLld7 1 9 fel "ikgs 20 'iVe3 a6 21 c3
with an even game, Mellado Trivino
Korneev, Malaga 1 999.
9 h3?
9 d3? c6! 10 'iVa4 (10 'iVe3? xh2+1)
1O ... bS 1 1 'iiVb3 as also gives Black the initia
tive, but 9 tLldS tLlxdS 1 0 exdS eS 1 1 'iVe3
J::te S 12 d3 d6 1 3 'it>hl ! with equality was
better (but not 1 3 c3? iLxh2+1).
9 . . .Si.e5?
Too mechanical. Black could have taken
over with 9 ... c6! 1 0 iLe2 (10 iLa4 eS 1 1
'ii'e 3 iLxc3 1 2 xc3 tLlxe4 and 1 0 iLd3 iLcs
1 1 'iVc4 bS 12 'itb3 d6 are both disasters for
White) 1 0... iLeS 1 1 e3 iLxc3 1 2 bxc3
'ii'xe4 and White has some compensation for
the pawn, but hardly enough.
1 0 tie3 cS 1 1 .id3 J:l.e8 1 2 .l:!.e1 d5
Or 1 2... xc3 1 3 bxc3 dS 1 4 exdS 'ii'd7 15
'ii'd2 l:i.xe1+ 1 6 xel 'ii'xdS with an unclear
position.
1 3 exd5 cxd5
14 f4??
36
A tactical oversight of huge dimensions.
14 tLle2 'iVc7 1 5 'iVf3 d7 16 .1i..f4 would be
equal.
1 4 . . . i.d4! 1 5 xd4 xe 1 + 1 S Wh2 tLJh5
1 7 it'xd5 it'g3+ 1 8 Wg 1 J:Ie 1 + 1 9 i.f1
i.eS 20 tixb7 ne8 21 tLJe4 'iYgS 22 tLJd2
tLJxf4 0-1
Game 15
Gallagher-Cooper
British League 2001
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJcS 3 ltJc3 ltJf6 4 Si.b5
Si.dS!? 5 0-0 0-0 S d3
6 d4 has not brought White a lot of suc
cess. 6 ... exd4 7 tLlxd4 I:t.eS and now:
a) S xc6 dxc6 9 f3 'YJie7 1 0 e3 (10
iLgS? l:i.dS! 11 l:tf2 cS 1 2 tLldS 'iVeS 1 3 iLxf6
gxf6 14 tLlb3 'iVxh2+ would leave Black with
the full point) 1 O... tLldS and Black is simply
better.
b) S l:te1?! tLlxd4 9 'ii'xd4 iLeS! 10 'ii'd3 c6
1 1 iLa4 as 12 a3 bS 13 b3 a6 14 'iVf3
'iiVbs with a strong initiative, Barglowski
Malaniuk, Bydgoszcz 200 1 .
c) 8 tLlxc6 dxc6 9 d3 tLlg4 1 0 g3 'ii'f6 1 1
f4 c5+ 1 2 'it>g2 'ii'h6 gives Black good at
tacking chances.
S o o .hS
6 ... b6 7 tLle2 J::te S S tLlg3 a6 9 .ltxc6 dxc6
10 b3 tLld7 1 1 b2 cS was agreed drawn in
Lemmers-Motwani, Belgium 1 996. After 1 2
tLlfS comes 1 2. . .tLlfS with the idea . . .tLle6-d4.
7 tLJe2
White has also tried 7 h3?!, a completely
unnecessary move as ... g4 isn't a threat at
the moment: 7... b6 8 tLle2 b7 9 c3 l:teS 1 0
tLlg3 f8 1 1 l:!.el a6 1 2 a4 d S 1 3 'iVe2 bS
14 .1i..c 2 'iid7 with equality, Sequera-Hector,
Bled 2002. This position could just as easily
have arisen from a Ruy Lopez with d2-d3
instead of d2-d4.
7 . . J:te8 8 tLJg3 a6 9 Si.xcS dxc6
The position is equal.
1 0 b3 Si.eS?!
This move is very strange. The bishop is

utterly useless on this square, and it even
blocks the knight's usual route to d4. Better
was 1Q ... c5 1 1 i.b2 b6 12 'ife2 tiJd7! 1 3 tiJd2
tiJf8 14 tiJc4 tiJe6 with an even game.
1 1 i.b2 4Jd7 1 2 d4 exd4 1 3 4Jxd4
Now White has a slight pull.
1 3 . . .'Y!IVh4 1 4 f4 g6?
Playing this is like pouring petrol on a fIre
- it looks terrible and it is terrible. 1 4...i.g4
1 5 d3 i.c5 1 6 'it'hl i.xd4 1 7 li'xd4 tiJf6
1 8 e5 tiJh5 1 9 tiJxh5 'fixh5 20 e6 gives Black
problems, but maybe there was another way
out of the mess.
1 S 'iiVd 2
Also interesting is the continuation 15 f5!?
gxf5 16 tiJdxf5 i.xf5 17 .l:i.xf5 tiJe5 18 h5
'fixh5 19 tiJxh5 and Black's kingside is very
fragile.
1 S . . Jtad8 1 6 Wh1 f6
Better is 1 6 ...i.g4 17 'fic3 f6 1 8 tiJf3
i.xf3 19 'ifxf3, but White still has a stable
initiative.
1 7 J:!:ae1 gS? 1 8 eS!
In order to attack on the kingside, White
crashes through in the centre.
1 8 . . .fxeS
1 9 tDdfS!
White invades the light squares and has a
winning attack.
1 9 . . . i.xfS 20 tDxfS hS 21 fxgS hxgS
22 tDxd6 cxd6 23 J:1fS! "iVh6 24 J:!.xgS+
Wh7 2S "iVd3+ Wh8 26 J:tg3 tDcs 27 'iYe2
1 -0
Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh t s : Sidelin e s
Game 16
Yemelin-Kharlov
Moscow 2002
1 e4 eS 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 i.bS 4Jf6 4 4Jc3
i.d6! ? S d3 h6
Also fIne is 5 ...a6 6 i.a4 h6 7 h3 b5 8 i.b3
i.b7 9 a3 i.c5 1 0 0-0 (or 1 0 i.e3 i.a7 1 1
'ifd2 0-0 1 2 i.xa7 Itxa7 1 3 0-0 J::i.a8 1 4 a4 b4
1 5 tiJd5 1:.b8 16 tiJxf6+ 'fixf6 17 i.d5 tiJd4
with equality, Fiorito-Labollita, Buenos Aires
2002) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 tiJd5 tiJd4 12 tiJxd4 i.xd4
1 3 c3 i.a7 with a level position, Jonkman
I.Sokolov, Leeuwarden 2002.
6 h3 O-O?!
Better was 6 ... a6 7 xc6?! (7 i.a4 b5 8
i.b3 tiJa5 is equal) 7... dxc6 with a very good
version of the Spanish Exchange for Black: 8
tiJe2 (8 i.e3 e7 9 li'e2 i.e6 10 a3 b5 1 1 a4
0-0 1 2 0-0 tiJd7 was even in Koscielski-
Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 2001) 8... c5 9 b3
i.e6 (or 9 ... tiJd7!? with the idea of ... tiJb8-c6-
d4) 10 i.b2 tiJd7 with equality, Podlesnik
Pavasovic, Dobrna 2002.
6... b6!? 7 i.xc6 dxc6 8 tiJe2 e7 9 a3
i.d7 1 0 i.d2 b5 1 1 g4 c5 1 2 tiJg3 g6 gave
chances for both sides, Wittmann-Rabiega,
Graz 2002.
7 g4!
This illustrates the drawback of combining
... h7-h6 and ... 0-0. \Vhite now has a hook to
attack.
37
Fo u r Kn ig h ts
7 . . . :l.e8
7... a6 8 i..xc6 dxc6 9 g5! (too slow is 9
'be2?! 'bh7 10 'bg3 c5 1 1 'bf5 .Me8 12 i.. e3
i.. f8 13 'iid2 "iVf6 14 h4 h5 1 5 g5 'iic6 1 6
'bg3 g6 and the position was unclear in the
game Podlesnik-Pavasovic, Ljubljana 2002)
9 ...hxg5 10 i..xg5 "ife7 1 1 "ifd2 "ife6 1 2 0-0-0
i..b4 13 .Mdgl and \Xlhite had a strong attack
in Podlesnik-Sebih, Bled 2002.
8 g5, hxg5 9 i.xg5 tLJd4
After 9 ... i..b4 10 .Mg1 'bd4 1 1 i..c4 b5 1 2
i..b 3 c6 13 a3 'bxb3 14 cxb3 i.. f8 1 5 d4 exd4
16 "iVxd4 White has a strong attack.
1 0 tLJd5 i.e7 1 1 tLJxe7+ xe7 1 2 tLJxd4
exd4 1 3 lilg 1 e6 1 4 f3!
This is better than 14 i..a4 d5 1 5 f3,
even though this also makes sense.
1 4 . . .'ti'b4+ 1 5 d1 xb2
15 ... cxb5?? 16 i..xf6 "iVf8 1 7 'iig3 g6 1 8
"iVh4 and Black i s mated.
1 6 i.e1
Here White misses a really strong combi
nation: 16 xf6!! xa1+ (16 ...gxf6 1 7 i..c 1+
h7 18 i..xb2 cxb5 19 j"xd4 .Me6 20 d2
b6 21 .Mg4 followed by .MagI and .Mh4 with
mate) 1 7 j"c 1 g6 1 8 J::tg4 and Black has no
defence, e.g. 1 8...Me6 19 iYd&+- g7 20 .Mh4
with mate to come.
1 6 . . .'ilVxb5!
38
After 16 .. ."iha1 ? 17 'iYxf6 g6 18 .Mg4 we
have transposed to the previous note.
1 7 'ti'xf6 h5+
White wins after 17 ...g6 18 .l:.g5 "iVb4 1 9
.Me5! Mxe5 20 j"h6.
1 8 f3 g6 1 9 .l:.g5 h7?
Here Black could have kept the game alive
with 19...'iYxh3 20 J:.xg6+ fxg6 21 xg6+
Wf8 22 i..a3+ e7 23 "iVf6+ g8 24 i..xe7
"iff1+ 25 d2 "iff2+- 26 'It>c1 'ilVe1+ 27 b2
c3+ and Black draws.
20 xd4
After this White has a very strong attack
on the dark squares.
20 . . :i'g7
20... d5 21 i..b2 i..xh3 22 d2 "iVh6 23
.Mag1 dxe4 24 fxe4 is also very good for
White.
21 i..b 2 xd4 22 i.xd4 d6
After 22 ... b6 23 h4 c5 24 i..b2 i..b 7 25 h5
.Me6 26 ..t>d2 c4 27 .MagI cxd3 28 cxd3 .Mc8
29 hxg6 .Mxg6 30 .Mxg6+ fxg6 31 .Mxg6+
White has very realistic winning chances.
23 h4 f8 24 d2 e7 25 f4 e5 26
i.b2 d7 27 f5 gxf5 28 h5! fxe4 29 h6
e6 30 h7 e3+ 31 e2 f6 32 i..xf6 i.e6
33 trh 1 .l:i:h8 34 i..xh8 .l:!.xh8 35 xe3 b5
36 a3 a5 37 .l:!.h6 a4 38 l:txe6 .llx h7 39
.l:tgg6 1 -0
 Sp a n is h Fo u r Knigh ts : Side lin e s

Summary
After 4... a6?! I am very suspicious about the Black position. Only the line with 1 1 .. ..1i.h4!?
might give Black a reason to continue studying this line, but I doubt it. 4 ... .1i.d6!?, however, has
so far proven to be a variation in its own right. No clear way to an advantage has been found
for White, and all I can do here is to recommend 5 g4!, which will at least surprise your oppo
nent.

1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 ctJc3 ctJf6 4 i.b5 i.d6 (D)

4... a6 (D) - Game 13
5 d3 - Game 16
5 d4 - Game 14; 5 0-0 (D) - Game 15

4. . i.d6
. 4. . a6
. 5 0-0

39
 CHAPTER FOUR I
Scotch Four Knights :
The Main Line

1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 d4 Black immediately provokes \X'hite to ex

exd4 5 4Jxd4 i.b4 6 4Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 change. 1 1 ...l::te8, 1 1 ....i.d6 and 1 1 ....i.e7 will
d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 be discussed in future games.
The diagram above is the basic position of 1 2 i.xf6
the Scotch Four Knights and has been for as 12 .i.h4? would be a bad mistake. After
long as anyone can remember. For a long 12 ...g5 1 3 .i.g3 .i.g4! \X'hite only has one way
time this line was considered utterly harmless to avoid losing a piece: 1 4 .tc7! .i.xf3 1 5
and drawish, but in the 1 990s Lautier came .i.xd8 l::t fxd8 1 6 gxf3. However, Black still
up with 1 1 lba4!? and the line immediately has a clear edge.
became fashionable. However, over time it 1 2 .. :xf6 1 3 'ii'xf6 gxf6
became apparent that \X'hite has no real
chance of an advantage there either. These
days this line is played mainly by those who
favour familiar territory, do not care about
opening advantage, but hope that opponents
have not truly figured out the ins and outs of
the position.

Game 1 7
Bykhovsky-Howell
Cappelle la Grande 1995

1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jf6 3 4Jc3 4Jc6 4 d4

exd4 5 4Jxd4 i.b4 6 4Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 The position is more or less equal. I will
0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1 leave it be up to the reader to decide on
'iYf3 which side he prefers. \X'hite has a better
This is the traditional move. 1 1 lbe2 is structure and Black has two bishops and two
considered in Games 22-23 and 1 1 lba4, in half-open ftles.
Games 24-28. 1 4 4Je2 i.d6
1 1 h6!?
. . . After this move White can gain some ad-

40

vantage. 14....l::!.b8!, not committing the bish
ops too soon, is better. Then there are the
following possibilities:
a) 15 c3 d6 16 .i:Iab1 .l:.e8 17 lbd4 d7
18 b4 hS!? 19 l:!.fe1 h4 20 g3 h3 21 f4 cS 22
lixe8+ l:!.xe8 23 bxcS i.xcs 24 'It>f2 i.b6 25
i.a6 g4 26 l:tel l::tb8! with equality.
b) 15 lbg3 i.aS 16 l:!.abl .ti.e8 17 lbfS?!
xfS 18 i.xfS l:!.e2 19 g4?! J:!b4 20 'it>g2 l:!.f4
and Black was a litde better in Rubinstein
Spielmann, Berlin 1926.
c) 15 lbd4 l:!.b6 16 c4 l:!.d8 17 lbb3 i.f8
18 cxdS cxdS 19 l:!.acl Si.e6 20 l:!.fdl as! with
counterplay, Buxade Roca-Skembris, Villa de
Silges 1999.
d) 15 a3 i.d6 with equal play - Keres.
1 5 'Lld4
White has also tried:
a) 15 c3 and now:
al) lS...1:I.b8 16 'uabl 1:I.e8 17 .i:Ifdl 1:I.eS!
18 lbd4 i.d7 19 lbf3 'ue7 20 lbd4 :eS 21
b4 hS 22 bS cxbS (22...cS?! 23 lbc6! xc6 24
bxc6 l:!.c8 25 bS and Black's weaknesses on
c6 and dS give White good winning chances)
23 i.xbS i.xbS 24 l:!.xbS .l:.xbS 25 lbxbS
Si.cs and White is possibly slighdy better.
a2) lS...aS! (directed against b2-b4) 16
lbg3 .ti.b8 17 'uab 1 l:te8 18 .ufe 1 .ti.eS 19 l:!.e2
'it>f8 20 Wfl. This was played in Bykhovsky
Khavsky, Moscow 1999. Now Black should
not play 20....l:!.xe2?! as in the game, but
20...hS! 21 h4 !Ji.g4 22 f3 i.d7 and thanks to
the weaknesses on the kingside Black has
some initiative.
b) ls lbg3 eS 16 c3 l:!.b8 17 f4 !Ji.c7 18
b3 l:!.e8 19 J:tae 1 l:!.xe1 20 J:txe1 'it>f8 21 lbhS
d8 22 Wf2 as 23 h3 cS with good counter
play, Sveshnikov-Yudasin, USSR 1986.
1 5 . . . e5
lS... !Ji.d7?! would allow White to play 16
!Ji.fS!, dominating the Black bishop - the
knight versus bishop endgame would be
terrible. After 16...!Ji.e8 17 h3 .i:Ib8 18 b3
White is perhaps more than just slighdy bet
ter.
lS...l:!.b8? 16 lbxc6 l:!.xb2 17 lbxa7 !Ji.d7
S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Th e M a in L in e
18 a4! would not work either.
1 6 'Llf5?!
After this move chances of an advantage
have basically gone. Better was 16 lbbS! eS
(16...b8 17 c4! a6 18 lbc3 dxc4 19 xc4
!Ji.eS 20 .l:!.ac1 gives \lhite an edge) 17 f4
xb2 (17... c4!? 18 fxeS! cxd3 19 .l:!.xf6 dxc2
20 .l:!.c1 .l:i.b8 21 a4 a6 22 lbd4 .l:Ixb2 23 .l:Ixc2
l:!.xc2 24 lbxc2 l:1e8 25 .ti.d6 gives \'(lhite
good chances in the endgame) 18 l:!.ab1 a6 19
l:!.xb2 axbS 20 xbS and the passed a-pawn
gives White a slight advantage.
1 6 . . ..i.xf5 1 7 .i.xf5 l:tfe8
17...l:!.ab8 18 b3 d4 19 !tfel l:!.fe8 20
l:!.xe8+ l:!.xe8 21 f1 was rightfully agreed
drawn in Golubovic-Jurkovic, Kastav 2002.
1 8 l:lad 1 J:lad8
This rook looks more naturally placed on
b8. 18...d4 19 .tIfe1 l:!.eS is leveL
1 9 f4 .i.e7 20 g3 .i.a5 21 llf3 l:!.b8?!
21...c4 22 .l:ta3 !Ji.b6+ 23 Wfl f8 was still
fine, even though the position no longer can
be called completely drawn.
22 11a3 J:!.e 1 +??
This is a crime - the ending without the a
pawn is just lost. Necessary was 22...i.b6! 23
l:!.xdS l:!.e2 24 h1 .l:!.be8 25 1:.f3 c4 26 l:!.fl
hS with counterplay.
23 .l:!.xe1 .i.xe1 24 'it>f1 .i.d2 25 'it>e2 .i.e1
26 l:txa7 lle8+ 27 f3 .i.xb2 28 a4 e4
29 a5 d4 30 J:tb7 lle3+ 3 1 'it>g4 .i.a1 32
a6 J:la3 33 a7 'it>g7 34 .i.e6 d3 35 .l:!.xf7+
1 -0
41
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
Game 18
Kountz-Van den Doel
Dei;;jsau 2000
1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 lllc3 lllf6 4 d4
exd4 5 lllxd4 i.b4 6 lllxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3
d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1
f3 .!:te8 1 2 h3
%ite has no really promising way here:
a) 1 2 .i.xf6 xf6 1 3 xf6 gxf6 is equaL
b) So is 1 2 .l:i.fel .i.e6 1 3 .l:i.e2 h6 1 4 i.d2
..td6 1 5 .l:.ae1 .l:i.b8 16 b3 'YWd7 1 7 h3, S.Lalic
Richtrova, Thessaloniki 1 988.
1 2 . . . b8
Alternatively:
a) 1 2 ...h6!? 1 3 ..txf6 (1 3 .i.f4 d4 14 lbe4
lbd5 1 5 .i.h2 f5 1 6 lbg3 g6 1 7 lbe2 iY'f6 1 8
.i.c4 .i.e6 1 9 .l:i.ad 1 .i.c5 is also roughly level)
1 3. .. 'iHxf6 1 4 iY'xf6 gxf6 1 5 lbe2 .l:i.b8 1 6
.l:i.ad 1 .i.d6 1 7 b3 a s 1 8 lbg3 .i.b4 with equal
ity in Georgiev-Yusupov, Linares 1 997.
b) 12 ... .i.d6!? 13 .l:i.fel ..te6 1 4 ttJa4 .l:i.b8
15 b3 h6 16 .i.f4 c5 17 .l:i.adl is Gutman's
analysis. He believes that White is better
here, but I believe that after 1 7 ... .i.xf4 1 8
'YWxf4 'ilfa5! the position is equaL
1 3 l:tab 1 i.d6 1 4 llle 2
Or 14 ttJa4 h6 15 .i.xf6 iY'xf6 16 'YfUxf6
gxf6 with equality.
1 4 . . . h6 1 5 i.f4?!
Better was 1 5 .i.xf6.
1 5 . . . c5!
42
Now Black is better placed for the mid
dlegame.
1 6 b3 a5
Also interesting was 16 ...d4!? 17 i.xd6
xd6 1 8 .l:i.fe1 .i.b7 19 g3 .l:i.e5 followed
by .l:i.be8, when Black is a little better.
1 7 .l:i.bd 1 i.b7 1 8 i.xd6 xd6 1 9 g3
J:!.e5
Black avoids exchanging queens in order
to retain his attacking chances. 1 9 ...'i!Vxg3?!
20 ttJxg3 is only equal - g2 not really a soft
spot anymore .
20 lllc3 l:!.be8
Black is still in the building up phase. It is
too soon to turn to forcing measures: after
20 ... ttJh5 21 'YfUh4 d4 22 ttJb5 c6 23 f3 .l:i.g5
White has 24 e4! xe4 25 fxe4 ttJg3 26
.l:i.fe1 .i.xe4 27 .i.xe4 .l:i.xb5 28 .i.d3 .l:i.b8 29
.l:i.e7 with compensation for the pawn.
21 l:tde1 d4 22 lllb5 'tWc6 23 llla 7 Wic7
After 23 ... it'e6?! 24 .l:i.xe5 'YWxe5 25 'iix e5
.l:i.xe5 26 ttJb5 .i.a6 27 ttJd6 .i.xd3 28 cxd3
.l:i.e2 29 .l:i.c1 White obtains counterchances.
24 lllb5 'tWb8 25 Jibe5 J:!.xe5 26 f3
26 . . . llld 7?
Here Black could have held on to the ini
tiative with 26 ...ttJh5!, leaving White in trou
ble. His possible answers are:
a) 27 f2? ttJf4 28 h1 .l:i.h5 29 .i.e4
.i.c8! 30 a4 .i.xh3 31 gxh3 .l:i.xh3+ 32 Wg1
it'e5 and Black wins.
b) 27 'YWh4 .l:tg5 28 ttJa3 ttJf4 29 g4 l:.e5 30
ttJc4 .l:i.e6 and Black wins with ...g5!. There is

no way to prevent this, e.g. 31 'it>hl ttJxd3 32
cxd3 li.e2 33 IW .lixf3+ 34 'it>gl g5.
c) 27 'iVh2 g5! 28 ttJa3 .lidS!. White would
like to have his knight on c4, but Black's
knight is far superior to White's bishop, so
after 29 ttJc4 .lixc4! 30 .i.xc4 'iid6 Black has
a clear advantage.
27 .l:!.e1 .tdS 28 a4
White cannot play 28 c4?!, after which the
d4-pawn has increased its value by 2-3
points! After 28 ... .i.c6 29 l:i.dl ttJf6 30 l:!.d2
ttJh5! Black is doing very well.
28 . . . g6 29 ttJa3!
If you do not have a plan, it is often a
good idea to improve your worst piece.
29 . . Jbe1 + 30 xe1 ttJeS 31 .te4 b4!?
32 'ii'xb4
White has two alternatives:
a) 32 it'c1 ? .i.xe4 33 fxe4 c4!? 34 ttJxc4
ttJxc4 35 bxc4 xc4 36 'iVaI 'it>g7 37 Whl
'it>f6! with a promising endgame for Black.
b) 32 'it>f2 'iixe1+ (32....lixb3 33 cxb3
'iVxa3 34 'iYxa5 'iVc1 35 d8+ Wg7 36 'iVd5
is probably somewhat better for Black) 33
'it>xel iLxe4 34 fxe4 f8 35 d2 'it>e7 36 c3
'it>e6 37 ttJb5 ttJc6 38 d3 ttJe5+ with an
even endgame. But not 38 ... We5?! 39 c4!
xe4 (39 ...dxc3 with a slight white advantage
is better) 40 Wxc5 d3 41 ttJd6+ Wf4 42 g3+
f3 43 ttJc4 ttJd8 44 d4 We2 45 ttJb2 d2
46 c4 dl'iV 47 ttJxdl Wxdl 48 b4 and it is
Black who will have to fight to draw.
32 . . . cxb4
S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Th e Ma in L in e
33 ttJbS??
Now White loses! White only had one
choice, to play 33 .i.xd5!! bxa3 34 b4! axb4
35 as ttJc6 36 a6 ttJa7 37 f2 f8 38 e2
e7 39 d3 Wd6 40 .i.xf7 Wc5 41 f4 with
chances for both sides. But not 33 ttJb I ?? d3
34 cxd3 .i.xb3 35 d4 f5 36 ttJd2 .i.xa4 37
.i.d5+ ttJf7 and Black wins.
33 . . . d3 34 cxd3 .txb3 3S d4
35 f4 ttJd7 36 ttJd6 .i.xa4 37 ttJb7 .lic2 38
ttJxa5 b3 39 ttJc4 ttJc5 40 ttJb2 ttJxe4 41
dxe4 .i.xe4 gives an easily winning endgame.
Black's king will raid the kingside while
White's knight is occupied doing nothing on
the queenside.
3S . . . .txa4 36 ttJd6 ttJc6 37 dS ttJeS 38
ttJb7 fS 39 .tb1 .tb3 40 d6 a4 41 ttJcS
f7 42 f4 ttJc4 43 d7 e7 44 .td3 ttJb6
4S .tbS .td1 46 ttJd3 b3 47 ttJeS b2 48
ttJxg6+ d8 49 ttJeS ttJxd7 0-1
Game 19
Nunn-Sulskis
Moscow OlYmpiad 1994
1 e4 eS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4
exd4 S ttJxd4 .tb4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .td3
dS 8 exdS cxdS 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .tgS c6 1 1
f3 .td6!? 1 2 l:tfe 1
Or:
a) 12 .i.xf6 'tixf6 13 xf6 gxf6 14 I:.adl
(14 ttJe2?! c5 15 c3 l:tb8 16 b3 l::te 8 looks
even better for Black) 1 4....l::l.b 8! 1 5 b3 .lieS
16 ttJe2 l:i.e8 with equality - Gutman.
b) 1 2 h3 l:Ib8! 1 3 ttJa4 (1 3 l:i.abl h6 1 4
.i.f4 .i:te8 1 5 .i:tfdl .i.e6 i s harmless) 1 3. ...i.e6
14 l:i.adl h6 15 .i.xf6 'iVxf6 16 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 7
b 3 lafd8 with equality, Friedrich-Dervishi,
Arco 2002.
c) 1 2 ttJa4 .1:Ie8! (12...l':tb8!? 1 3 c4 .i.e6 1 4
lIac1 h 6 1 5 .lixf6 'iVxf6 1 6 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 7 b3
was agreed drawn in Sutovsky-Gabriel,
Holon 1 995) 1 3 h3 a5 1 4 .lixf6 'iVxa4 1 5
b3 'iff4 1 6 xf4 .i.xf4 1 7 .i.d4 .i.d6 1 8 lafel
l:i.xe1+ 1 9 l::txe 1 .i.e6 with equality in Adams
Piket, Dortmund 1 992.
43
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
1 2 .. J1b8!
12... h6 13 i..xf6 'ii'xf6 14 'ii'xf6 gxf6 15
tDe2 l:i.b8 1 6 .l:!.ab 1 .l:!.e8 is a little better for
White according to Gutman.
1 3 tLla4 h6 1 4 i.xf6 'WiVxf6 1 5 'WiVxf6 gxf6
1 6 J:tad1 i.g4 1 7 f3 i.e6 1 8 g3?!
This move creates weaknesses on the
kingside for no reason. Simpler was 18 c3 h5
1 9 .l:Id2 h4 20 .l:!.de2 c5 21 b3 i.d7 22 tDb2
with equality.
1 8 . . .'i'g7 1 9 b3 h5!
Black now has a target on the kingside,
and White will have to be accurate in his
defensive play to keep the balance.
20 Wg2 h4 21 c4 i.b4 22 J:te2 dxc4 23
i.xc4 i.xc4 24 bxc4 hxg3 25 hxg3 J:tfd8
26 %:txd8? !
After this Black's rook penetrates. The
right track would have been 26 lIb 1 f5 27
b3 'it>f6 28 c5 i.a5 29 lIxb8 ':xb8 30 tDb2!
i.c3 31 tDc4 b5 32 tDd6 l:!xc5 33 g4! .l:Ie5
34 .:tc2 l:td5 35 tDxf5 lId2+ 36 l:i.xd2 i..xd2
37 'it>f2 i..f4 38 'it>e2 'it>e5 39 'it>d3 with a
draw. Of course this is not forced, but it does
show a highly likely way to equality.
26 . . . .:.xd8 27 Wf2?!
27 tDb2! f5 28 J:k2 'it>f6 29 'it>f2 f4! 30
gxf4 'it>f5 31 c5 l:r.d5 32 tDa4 i.d2 might be
better, but Black still stands very well.
27 . . Jid1 28 tLlb2 .ltc5+ 29 Wg2 l:ic1 30
g4
Or 30 tDd3 lIxc4 31 tDxc5 l::txc5 and the
extra pawn might not guarantee a win but , 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 exd4 4 tLlxd4
44
it's a heavy brick in the wall.
30 . . . i.d4 31 J:td2 c5!
Securing the bishop on d4 and thereby
highlighting the weaknesses of c4 and the
knight on b2.
32 Wg3 Wg6
Better was 32...f5! 33 gxf5 f6 34 g4
(34 Wf4 .l:!.e1 35 tDd1 i.e5+ 36 Wg4 .l:!.g1+ 37
h4 xf5 and Black wins - Sulskis) 34 ... a5
35 f4 l:i.g1+ 36 f3 'it>xf5 and Black has made
improvements.
33 l:ie2 i.e5+ 34 Wg2
34 . . .i.xb2?
This is a wrong decision - after 34...i.d4
35 g3 f5 Black still has a lot of pressure.
Choosing to enter the rook ending shows a
little lack of technique. The old Russian mas
ters always thought that you should improve
your position slowly.
35 ':'xb2 .l:!.xc4 36 J:tb5! f5 37 gxf5+
Wxf5 38 Wg3 We5 39 J:ta5 f5 40 l:txa7
J:!.c1 41 e7+ Wd4 42 Wf4 l:if1 43 a4 c4
44 a5 J:ta1 45 ':'d7+ Wc3 46 Wxf5
l:!.xa5+ 47 We6 Wb4 48 f4 c3 49 J:td 1
J:ta6+ 50 We5 J:ta2 51 l:!.e 1 l:!.f2 52 f5 c2
53 J:tc1 ':'e2+ 54 Wd6 Wc3 55 f6 J:tf2 56
We7 Wd2 % - %
Came 20
Berg-I. Sokolov
Malmo' 2001

4Jf6 5 4Jc3 i.b4 6 4Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 0-0
8 0-0 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1
f3 i.e7
Black does not wish to accept doubled
pawns.
1 2 '!::'f e1
For 12 h3 see Game 21. Better, however,
is 1 2 Mae 1 . Then 1 2... lIeS 1 3 tiJdl ! i!tbS 1 4
h 3 .i.e6 1 5 b 3 'ilYd7 1 6 tiJe3, 1 2. . .SLe6 1 3
tiJe2 c 5 1 4 tiJg3 h6 1 5 SLf4 .i.g4 1 6 'ilVe3 MeS
17 SLfS, and 1 2...bS 13 tiJdl SLe6 14 h3
tiJeS 1 5 SLxe7 xe7 16 Me2 tiJd6 1 7 Mfe 1 all
seem to be better for \Xfhite.
1 2...h6? is now a very risky move; in my
opinion it is actually a mistake. 1 3 .i.xh6! (13
SLf4 .lld6 14 h3 MbS 15 tiJa4 Mb4 1 6 .i.xd6
xd6 17 b3 is a little better for \Xfhite -
Gutman; I am not completely sure about this
evaluation - there are no obvious plans)
1 3 ...gxh6 1 4 'iVe3
and now:
a) 14 ....i.d6? 1 5 lixh6 l:tbS 1 6 Me3 .l:lb4
(1 6 ....i.g4 1 7 l::tfe 1 l:txb2 1 S Me5 SLxe5 1 9
Mxe5 tiJe4 20 .i.xe4 f5 2 1 .l:i.e6 and \Xfhite
wins) 1 7 g5+ <it>hS I S 'iWh6+ <it>gS 1 9 Mf3
tiJe4 20 SLxe4 dxe4 21 l:i.f6 .i.xh2+ 22 <it>xh2
J:i.eS 23 Mh 1 e3 24 'iot>g3 1 -0 Andres Mendez
Garcia Gonzales, Camaguey 1 9S7.
b) 14 ... MeS? 15 xh6 'it'd6 16 'it'g5+ 'iot>fS
17 'ilVh6+ <it>gS I S .l:!.e3! .i.g4 1 9 'it'g5+ <it>fS 20
'itb6+ <it>gS 21 .l:!.g3 e6 (21...'it'e5 22 tiJdl !
.l:!.abS 23 tiJe3 .l:i.b4 24 c4 wins) 22 h3 SLd6 23
.i.h7+ tiJxh7 24 l:txg4+ lixg4 25 hxg4 Me6 26
S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Th e M a in L in e
'iVd2 MbS 27 g3 1 -0 Ardeleanu-Vajda, Iasi
1 999.
c) 14 ...SLe6? 15 'Yixh6 .lld6 16 'iVg5+ 'it'hS
17 f4!, MeS 1 S Mf3 tiJgs 19 'Yih5+ 'iot>g7 20
Mg3+ <it>f8 21 xg&t <it>xgS 22 h7+ 'iot>fS 23
'ilVh6+ 'iot>gS 24 .i.h7+ h8 25 SLf5+ 'iot>gS 26
'iVh7+ <it>fS 27 'iVh&t <it>e7 2S Mxe6+ 1-0
Rublevsky-Novik, Sochi 1 990.
d) 14 ... d4! (the only move) 1 5 'Yixh6 d6
1 6 'iig5+ 'iot>h8 1 7 f4! (17 Mxe7 'iixe7 1 S tiJe4
tiJgS! 19 5+ g7 20 tiJf6!? tiJxf6 21 llVg5+
only offers a perpetual for the material in
vestment) 1 7 ... tiJg8 I S Mxe7 dxc3 1 9 Me3
llVf6 20 'it'c5 .i.g4 21 h3 (21 f5 cxb2 22 h3
MabS 23 c3 .l:i.fdS 24 .i.bl SLdl 25 :ee1 Md5
26 'it'f2 MbdS and suddenly Black wins)
21 ....i.d7 22 .l:Ie5 cxb2 23 lIh5+ tiJh6 24 g4!!
(\Xfhite needs to bring new resources into the
attack; after 24 lig5 'ilVxg5 25 fxg5 .i.e6
Black is much better - Gutman) 24 ... <;t>gS (or
24... .i.xg4 25 hxg4 b 1 26 Mxb 1 'Yixf4 27
Mfl lixg4+ 2S hl and \Xfhite wins) 25 g5
lidS 26 'it'c3! (A very accurate move. After
26 gxh6? 6 27 lIb 1 'iVxc5+ 2S Mxc5 .l:!.abS
the situation is not clear at all. Or 26 d4?
SLf5! 27 'ilVxb2 SLxd3 2S cxd3 .l:!.bS 29 llVc3
'iVb6+ 30 hl irb2 31 'it'xb2 Mxb2 32 l:hh6
':eS! and Black has good counterplay, while
26 ii'e5? f6 27 .i.c4+ g7 2S gxh6+ 'iot>hS 29
ii'xb2 'iVe8 shows that regaining material
with interest doesn't necessarily lead to hap
piness.) 26 .. .f6 (26 ... SLf5 27 Mxh6 'i!fb6+ 28
'iot>h2 f6 29 .i.c4+ <it>g7 30 .l:!.xf6 and \Xfhite
wins) 27 Mxh6 6+ 2S 'iot>h2 bl'iV 29 l:.g6+
'iot>h8 30 l:txf6!! and White has a winning at
tack.
1 2 . . . h6
Still risky, but everything changes with the
white rook on a 1 . Now \Xfhite only has a
perpetual after the sacrifice on h6 because,
compared with all the lines above, Black
benefits from having a target on al when his
pawn reaches b2.
1 2...MbS! 13 l:tabl h6 14 SLf4 (14 SLxh6
gxh6 1 5 'iWe3 SLd6 16 'ii'xh6 Mb4 1 7 'ilVg5+ is
a draw) 14 ... .i.d6 1 5 h3 .l:!.eS and Black is fine
45
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
- Gutman.
1 3 .i.xh6?!
Maybe not the best option. After 13 d2
d6 14 h3 !Ib8 1 5 b3 iLc7 1 6 SL f4 .l:!.b4 1 7
!Lxc7 xc7 the players agreed a draw in
Vydeslaver-Lev, Israel 1 992. Probably best is
13 SLf4! with a small plus - Gutman.
1 3 . . . gxh6 1 4 'ife3 i.d6??
This is bad defence. Alternatively:
a) 1 4... .l:!.e8 1 5 'fixh6 'tid6 (1 5 ...f8? 1 6
.l:!.xe8! and the knight and queen are over
loaded) 1 6 !Ie3 SLg4 and now:
a1) 1 7 .l:!.g3 'tieS 1 8 h3 !Lc5 1 9 .l:!.xg4+
ctJxg4 20 hxg4 'iVg7 21 'iVxc6 !Lxf2+!. This is
the key defensive move, after which it is
Black who delivers the perpetual. Without
this move \X/hite would have excellent com
pensation for the exchange and probably a
large advantage. 22 'it'xf2 'fid4+ 23 'i&tg3
1i'e5+ 24 'it'h3 'fih8+ 25 'i&tg3 'fie5+ 26 'i&t2
'iVd4+ 27 'i&tf1 f4+.
a2) 1 7 'ig5+l f8 1 8 h3! d4 1 9 h6+ g8
20 .l:!.g3 dxc3 21 .l:!.xg4+ and Black is mated.
b) Correct is 14 ... d4!' None of the winning
attempts works, for example 1 5 'tixh6 d6
1 6 g5+ 'i&th8 and now:
b 1) White can head for a perpetual with
1 7 l:!.xe 7 'fixe7 1 8 ctJe4 ctJg8 1 9 h5+ 'i&tg7
20 ctJf6 ctJxf6 21 g5+.
b2) But he cannot go over the top with 1 7
.l:!.e5? ctJh7!. Now Black is close to winning
after 1 8 xe7 xe7 1 9 Mxe7 dxc3 20 bxc3
!Le6, even though Junior 7 continues to see
46
something good in White's position. What
exactly that is, is hard to tell.
1 5 'YWxh6 J:tb8
Or 1 5 ... .l:!.e8? 1 6 .l:!.xe8+ xe8 1 7 xf6.
1 6 'ifg5+ !?
White can play 1 6 Me3! directly, of course.
But the very young Swedish man wisely plays
a few checks fIrst in order to locate the cor
rect winning manoeuvre.
1 6 . . .'.h8 1 7 h4+ g7 1 8 'YWg5+ h8
1 9 'iih 6+ g8 20 J:I.e3! .i.g4
Or 20....l:!.xb2 2 1 .l:!.f3! and it is all over.
21 'iig 5+!?
White has no rush. The time might pass,
but when the position does not change there
is nothing to worry about.
2 1 . . .h8 22 'iVh6+ g8 23 .l:tae 1 !
Classical attacking chess. White introduces
another piece into the attack, and Black can
still not bring any pieces into the defence.
23 . . . i.h5
23 ....l:txb2 24 .l:te5! i.xe5 25 l:txe5 ttJe4 26
1Lxe4 and Black must part with his queen
and his bishop with check in order to avoid
being mated instantly.
24 'iVg5+ h8 25 lilh3 1 -0
Game 21
Pavasovic-Beliavsky
Portoroz 1999
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4
ttJf6 5 ttJc3 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .i.d3 d5

8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .i.g5 c6 1 1
1i'f3 .i.e7 1 2 h3!?
According to Gutman this move gives
White an advantage.
1 2 . . . h6
Or:
a) 1 2... ..ie6 1 3 J:ladl h6 1 4 ..if4 ..id6 1 5
liJa4 .l:i.b8 1 6 b 3 was slighdy better for White
in Santo Roman-Boudre, France 1 99 1 .
b) 1 2...b8 1 3 b 3 h6 14 ..if4 ..id6 1 5
liJe2!? (1 5 life1 .l:i.b4 1 6 .i.xd6 ii'xd6 1 7 liJa4
J:lf4 1 8 'ifg3 liJh5 is given by Gutman; here
1 9 'ife3! gives White a slight edge) 1 5....l:i.e8
1 6 liJg3 fHc7?? (16 ... .i.xf4 1 7 'ifxf4 and
White is a little better) 17 .i.xh6 .i.e5 1 8
.l:i.ae1 gxh6 1 9 'ti'xf6! and White won,
Murillo-Ugalde, Antiguo 1 999.
1 3 .i.f4 lLlh7 !?
Black is trying to manoeuvre the knight to
e6, where it will be ideally placed protecting
c5 and the king. It isn't for nothing that in
Beliavsky's recent book about intuition, he
and his co-author Mikhalchishin suggest you
improve your worst-placed piece when no
other idea exists.
Also possible was 1 3. ...l::!.e 8 1 4 .l:i.fe1 6
1 5 b3 ..ia6 16 liJa4 'ifa5 (1 6...7?? 1 7
J:lxe7! xe7 1 8 liJc5) 1 7 ..ixa6 it'xa6 1 8 J:le2
with a slight edge for White.
1 4 .l:.fe 1 lLlg5 1 5 g3 lLle6 1 6 .i.e5
Or 16 ..ixh6 .i.h4 17 it'g4 ..ixf2+ 1 8 'it>xf2
f6+ 19 g1 xh6 and Black is no worse.
1 6 . . .J:te8 1 7 J:!.ad 1 .i.d7
S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Th e M a in L in e
Black would be worse after 1 7.....ih4?! 1 8
fHg4 "it'g5 1 9 "ii'xg5 ..ixg5 20 b4!.
1 8 iof5 iof8 1 9 lLla4 lLlg5 20 .i.d3
Better was the apparendy illogical ex
change 20 .i.xd7! "it'xd7 21 c4 .l:i.ad8 22 cxd5
cxd5 23 liJc3 'fib7 24 e2 and White has a
slight pull.
20 . . .1i'a5 21 b3 .i.d6! 22 h4
22 .i.c3 would be met with 22... "YWc7!
(22... .i.xg3 23 .i.xa5 .i.d6 24 c4 .l::!.x e 1+ 25
1:txe1 l:i.e8 is equal) 23 'ifh4 c5! and Black has
the initiative.
22 . . .l:be5
Black could also have tried 22 ... f6 23 f4!?
fxe5 24 fxg5 hxg5 25 ii'xg5 with a mess.
Probably he felt intimidated by White's
queen and the possible attacking chances on
the kingside, for example 25 ... e4 26 J:lxe4!
and Black's queen is clearly unprotected.
23 .uxe5 1i'c7 24 hxg5 .i.xe5 25 1i'h4
.i.f4
Interesting was 25 ... ii'd8!? 26 f4! ..id6 27
lle1 c5 28 liJc3 ..ic6 29 liJe2 and the posi
tion is unclear.
26 gxh6 .i.xh6
27 l:!.e 1 ? !
Simpler was 27 liJc5 lle8 2 8 liJxd7 ii'xd7
with complete equality.
27 . . .1i'd6 28 1i'e7 iof4 29 lLlc5?!
White should be more active. After 29 c4
..ie6 30 'ifxd6 ..ixd6 31 cxd5 ..ixd5 32 liJc3
he keeps the balance.
29 . . .ii'xe7 30 .uxe7 .i.g4! 31 lLla4?
47
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
Not the correct response to the threat of
.id6. Better was 31 :el .i.d2 32 :bl l:!.e8
33 b4 f8, when Black has some chances to
outplay White in the technical phase.
31 . . . i.e6! 32 i.a6 i.d6 33 b7 i.c8 34
lLlb2 i.xb7 35 i.xb7 J:r.b8 0-1
.-------.
Game 22
Lutz-Yusupov
Munich 1992
The annotations for this game are based
on Artur Yusupov's notes in Chess Informant
54.
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 lLlc6 4 d4
exd4 5 lLlxd4 i.b4 6 lLlxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3
d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1
lLle2
This move makes more sense than 11 'if3
because White gets no real advantage from
inflicting doubled pawns on the f-file. Now
the knight is heading for d4 and, in some
lines, g3-f5.
1 1 . . .h6
Also possible are:
a) 11...l:te8 seems very natural, and in
practice it's a very reliable possibility. 12 ttJd4
(12 c4?! l::tb8 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 ttJd4 'iVb6 15
ttJc2 .ig4! gave Black a better game in
Alavkin-Bezgodov, Krasnodar 1996)
12...'iid6 13 c3 .ic5 and now White has two
plausible options:
al ) 14.i.h4 ttJe4 15 f3 'i!fh6 16 fxe4 iVxh4
48
17 'ia4 (17 'if3? f5! gave Black a clear ad
vantage in Leko-Winants, Nettetal 1992; the
point is of course 18 exf5? xd4+ 19 cxd4
'ii'xd4+ 20 Whl .l:te3 and Black wins)
1 7...dxe4 18 'ii'xc6 .ixd4+ 19 cxd4 .if5 20
.l:txf5 exd3 21 'iVc3 .l:tad8 22 'iNxd3 'iNxd4+ 23
'iVxd4 .l:txd4 24 .l:t1 .l:ted8 with a draw in
Nirnzowitsch-Tarrasch, Hamburg 1910.
a2) 14 'iVa4 ttJg4!? (14....id7 15 ttJb3 ttJe4
16 ttJxc5 ttJxg5 17 'ii'd4 ttJe6 18 ttJxe6 xe6
19 .l:tadl gives White a little something) 15
ttJf3 'iic7 16 h3 ttJe5 (16...ttJx1 17 .l:tx1
.ixf2+ 18 Wxf2 'iVb6+ 19 f1 'iixb2 with an
unclear game is also possible) 17 ttJxe5 'ii'xe5
1 8 'ixc6 .ixh3 19 .l:tfe1 xe1+ 20 l:.xe1
.l:!.xe1+ 21 h2 .l:tc8 22 xd5 e6 with a
gigantic mess.
b) Black has also tried 11....id6 12 ttJd4
and now:
bl ) After 12...c5 13 ttJb5 .ie7 14 c4!
White is a little better because 14... .ie6 15
'iNc2 dxc4 16 .ixc4 .ixc4 17 xc4 grants
White a very strong position in which he can
play for a win without any risks.
b2) 12....ic7!? is more risky and ambi
tious, but also quite possible, 13 ile1 (13
.ih4!? is interesting; remember that
13. ...ixh2+ 14 xh2 ttJg4+ does not work
due to 15 ixg4!) 13...d6 14 g3 .ig4 15
'jWd2 J::tae8 16 'it'c3 ttJe4 17 .ixe4 dxe4 18
f4 d7 19 xc7 xc7 20 xc6 e5
(Black obviously has compensation for the
pawn, but is it enough?) 21 c3 f5 22 f3 .ih3
23 :te2 h8 24 l::tael 'ie7 25 d5 'iif6 26
id7 h5 with a fighting game, Afek-Sokolov,
Portoroz 1993.
b3) 12....id7! 13 f3 e5 14 c3 'iib6 15
.l:!.fel .ig4 16 'iie3 l:tfe8 and Black is no
worse.
1 2 i.h4 i.d6 1 3 lLld4 c5 1 4 lLlf5 i.xf5
14....i.e5 15 c3 .ixf5! 16 .ixf5 'iid6 17
g3 xg3 18 hxg3 l:!.fe8 reaches a position
similar to the game and one typical for the 11
ttJe2 line. Probably it is more or less equal,
but I definitely prefer the black side.
1 5 i.xf5 l:tb8!

1 5 ....1Le5 was also enough for equality, but
ftrst Black asks an important question.
1 6 b3?
This is a serious weakness of the queen
side - the knight will ftnd a very valuable
square on c3. Black also has some initiative
after 1 6 l:tb 1 l:Ib4 1 7 .i.g3 .i.xg3 1 8 hxg3
"ifb6 1 9 b3 l:!.d4, so 1 6 i.xf6 'iWxf6 1 7 'ii'xd5
z:tfd8 18 'ii'f3 .i.e5 1 9 .i:!.ad1 with approxi
mate equality was probably better.
1 6 . . . .i.e5 1 7 ':b1 "iifd 6 1 8 .Jtg3 .i.xg3 1 9
hxg3 .!:!.fe8
The weakness of c3 secures Black a clear
edge.
20 J:.e1 .!:!.xe1 + 21 "iifx e1 ];te8 22 "iifd 2
"iife 5!
The queen needs to take control of the
dark squares.
23 'ii'f4 "iifc 3!
Black's queen can inflict more damage so
he avoids exchanges.
24 .:n g6 25 .i.d3 g7 26 f3 a5 27 g4
c4 28 bxc4 g5 29 'ii'c7
After 29 'ii'g3 dxc4 30 .i.f5 ctJd5 31 l:td1
ctJf4 there is no defence against the invasion
with ... J:.e2.
29 . . ."iifd4+ 30 h2
A very nice winning line is 30 'it>h1 h5 31
gxh5 ctJxh5 32 g3 .:!.e5! (cutting off the
queen) 33 l:tg1 (33 g2 ctJxg3! 34 xg3
'ii'f4+ 35 h3 g4+1 and White loses his
queen) 33 ...ctJxg3+l! 34 l:!.xg3 l:!.eH 35 h2
(or 35 'it>g2 l:!.gH 36 h2 it'f2+ 37 h3
S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h t s : Th e M a in L in e
l:!.hH 38 Wg4 'iWd4+) 35 ...'iUf2+ 3 6 'it>h3 l:!.hH
37 'it>g4 'ii'd4+ 38 .i.e4 .l:!.h4+ 39 xg5 'iif6
mate!
30 . . . h5 31 gxh5 "iifh 4+!
But not 31...ctJxh5? 32 g3 and no direct
win is apparent.
32 g1 ttJxh5 33 "iifb6
After 33 cxd5 it'd4+ 34 h2 .i:!.h8 Black
has a winning attack.
33 . . . ttJg3 34 cxd5
34 l:!.b1 dxc4 35 .i.f1 lif4 also leaves
Black in perfect controL
34. . . ttJxf1 !
Nice and clean. If 34...l:!.e2? White \vill be
able to give many checks after 35 lib2+!.
35 .i.xf1 "iifb4
Yusupov is known for his great expertise
in the endgame. The queen has done her
destructive deeds and now she is ready to be
exchanged.
36 xb4 axb4 37 .i.b5 l:te 1 + 38 f2
.l:!.d 1 39 .i.d3 f6 40 e2 .l:l.g 1 41 f2
.u.c 1 ! 42 d6
White cannot save the endgame.
42 . . .e6 43 .i.c4+ xd6 44 .i.xf7
J:t.xc2+ 45 g3 e5 46 .i.b3 J:t.d2 47
.i.g8 d4 48 i.b3 e3 49 .i.c4 J:t.d4 50
.i.b5 d2 51 h3 e 1 52 g3 J:Id5 53
.i.a6 J:t.d2 54 .i.c4 ':c2 55 .i.b3 l:tf2! 56
h2 J:t.d2 57 g 1 e2 58 i.c4+ e3 59
.i.b3 f4 60 h2 .l:td6 0-1
Game 23
Christiansen-Gelfand
Munich 1992
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 ttJc3 ttJc6 4 d4
exd4 5 ttJxd4 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .i.d3
d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 10 .i.g5 c6 1 1
ttJe2 .i.g4
This is normally considered the main line
but, as we have seen, Black has many good
options after 1 1 ctJe2.
1 2 c3 .i.d6
Less accurate is 12 ... .i.e7 13 'ii'a4 .i.d7 1 4
ctJd4 ctJe4 (14.. .'ti'c8 1 5 J:.fe1 .i.d8 1 6 ctJf3!
49
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
h6 17 .i.f4 with a slight edge - Gutman) 1 5
xe7 it'xe7 and now \Vhite can keep some
pressure with 1 6 lbb3!.
1 3 'YWe2
Alternatively:
a) 1 3 h3 xe2 14 'ii'xe2 eS 1 5 it'f3 and
now 1 5 ...I;;i,bS! is the easiest way to equality,
even though Black was also fine after 1 5 ... h6
1 6 e3 lbd7 1 7 c2 lbe5 1 S 'iYf5 g6, Anto
shin-Kholmov, USSR 1 957.
b) 13 a4!? xe2 14 xe2 h6 (14 ... I;;i, eS
1 5 d3 I;;i,b S 16 ae 1 l:i.e5 17 xe5 .i.xe5 I S
!:tel it'c7 was equal in Bykhovsky-M.Miiller,
Groningen 1 991) 1 5 h4 g5! (Black takes
over the initiative, obtaining the typical pawn
formation and the favourable knight against
bishop) 1 6 g3 xg3 17 hxg3 itb6 IS d3
lUeS 19 I;;i,ae1 .l:txe1 20 xel I;;i,eS 21 xe8+
lbxeS was a little better for Black, who man
aged to win in Kotsur-Barkhagen, Duisburg
1 992.
1 3 . . . h6 1 4 i.h4
1 4. . . i.d7?!
This allows White to obtain a favourable
exchange of bishops. As we have seen again
and again, the d3-bishop is the problem child
of the family. The right approach was
1 4... xe2! 1 5 i.xe2 (15 'ii'xe2 l:!.bS 1 6 :i.ae1
g5! 1 7 i.g3 I;;i,e S I S d2 i.xg3 19 hxg3 'iYd6
with the threat of simply exchanging rooks is
unpleasant for \Vhite) 15 ...g5 16 g3 xg3
1 7 hxg3 'ii'd6 and Black is fine.
1 5 i.h7+!
50
The king can often find itself in a worse
position on hS than on gS. We remember
how much such a check can matter from
Kotov's classic Think Ltke a Grandmaster.
1 5 . . .h8 1 6 i.f5 i.xf5?!
Better was 1 6...cS 1 7 lbd4 lbg4
(17... lbe4!? I S xe4 dxe4 1 9 'ii'xe4 c5 with
compensation has been suggested by Gut
man - it is truly easier to sacrifice other peo
ple's pieces - but \Vhite is probably better
here) I S h3 lbe5 1 9 f4 lbc4 20 .l:.ae1 c5 21
xd7 'ii'xd7 22 lbf5 I;;i,aeS 23 b3 lbb6 24
lbxd6 'iYxd6 25 'iVf5 "it'c7 26 .i.2 with a
slight edge for \Vhite.
1 7 'YWxf5 "iVe8
After 1 7...eS I S lbd4! \Vhite is doing
well. The following tactics are important:
I S ... lbe4 1 9 f3 lbd2 20 I;;i, fe1 "iibs 21 lbxc6
i.xh2+ 22 hl 'iYf4 23 3 'iYc7 24 lbb4
and \Vhite wins.
1 8 'it'xe8 :taxe8 1 9 i.xf6 gxf6 20 ttJd4
Now it is 'hite who has a good knight
against a less effective bishop.
20 . . J:tfe8 21 J:!.fe 1 J:te5! 22 f1 a5
This march of the a-pawn brings Black lit
tle relief. Black had the chance to go into a
rook endgame with 22 ... i.c5! 23 f4 xe1+ 24
I;;i,x e1 xd4 25 cxd4 :i.bS 26 l:.e2 lab4 27
lad2 h7. This should be possible to draw
because of the active rook.
23 g3 a4?
Black plays with the impression that he
has all the time in the world. Necessary was
23 ... i.c5 24 lbf3! (24 f4 l:.xe1+ 25 l:!.xel
i.xd4 26 cxd4 .l:.bS 27 b3 .l:.b4 would actu
ally justify ... a7-a5 and Black should draw
easily) 24 ... lae6 25 lbh4 XIceS 26 lbf5, when
\Vhite has some advantage, but not much.
24 f4 ':'xe1 + 25 J:txe1
The endgame clearly favours \Vhite. Now
he brings the king to the queenside to protect
his only weakness. Black should probably
have tried to do something active quickly,
but instead he remains passive and loses
without a fight.
25 . . . h5 26 ttJf5 i.f8 27 .l:!.e2 h7 28

We 1 Wg6 29 ttJh4+ Wh 7 30 Wd 1 J:tbS 31
Wc2 i..c 5 32 Wd3 i..fS 33 J::tc 2 J::td S 34
b4 axb3 35 axb3 c5 36 J:td2 c4+ 37
bxc4 dxc4+ 3S We2 J:teS+ 39 Wf3 i..c5
40 ttJf5 J:!.e1 41 .l:!.d5 l:!.f1 + 42 We2 .l:!.f2+
43 We 1 i..b6 44 .l:!.b5 i..a 7 45 1:.b7 1:.a2
46 ':'xf7+ Wg6?! 47 ttJd6 h4
Or 47...f5 48 ttxf5 lixh2 49 l:.g5+ 'it>f6 50
'bxc4 and White wins.
4S f5+ Wh5 49 J:tg7! hxg3 50 hxg3 i..bS
51 ttJeS! i..e5 52 J:tg6 i..xc3+ 53 Wf1
':a 1 + 54 Wg2 1 -0
'bg7 mate cannot be delayed much longer.
,...---
Game 24
Lautier-I .Sokolov
Correze 1992
I have referred to Joel Lautier's annota
tions in Chess Iiformant 54 in order to analyse
this game.
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4
exd4 5 ttJxd4 i..b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 i..d 3
d5 S exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 10 i..g 5 c6 1 1
ttJa4!?
This move and game were the reasons for
the new attention paid to the Scotch Four
Knights eleven years ago. The main idea is to
play for the c5-square and maybe gain a very
slight pull. In my opinion this should not
give Black cause for concern, but still this is
the most promising plan here.
1 1 . . .i..e 7?!
S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Th e Main L in e
This move was later replaced by better op
tions that promise equality (see Games 25-
28). Other moves that have been tried in
clude:
a) 11....l:.e8!? 12 c4 (White went astray after
12 c3?! i.d6 13 .ih4 c5 14 .ic2 i.b7 15 'iif3
'Wie7 16 'Wih3 h6 17 l:!adl liad8 18 f3 g5! 19
.if2 'it>g7 and Black was better in Rublevsky
Zoler, Duisburg 1992) 12...h6 13 .ih4 .l:!.b8
14 .l:!.c1 .ie6 (14....id6! 15 b3 leads to Game
28) 15 cxd5 .ixd5 16 .1l.c4! (16 .ibl .id6 17
.1l.g3 .l:.b4 18 a3 .l:.b8 19 'Wid4 i.xg3 20 hxg3
as 21 .l:.fel h5 22 .l:.xe&t 'iixe8 23 'iid2 was
even in Milos-Kamsky, Manila 1992)
16 ...lie6 17 i.xd5 cxd5 18 a3 i.d6 19 b4 and
White is a little bit better - Gutman.
b) 11....1l.e6!? 12 c3 i.e7 13 J:tel would
transpose to the game, but without the un
pleasant 12 c4.
1 2 l:te 1
Later it became popular to seize the mo
ment instantly with 12 c4! .ie6 13 .l:!.c1 a5
'
14 .id2 c7 15 cxd5 .ixd5 16 .ic4 .l:.ad8 17
.ixd5 .l:Ixd5 18 'bc3 and White was a little
better, Zifroni-Onischuk, Budapest 1993.
1 2 . . .i..e6 1 3 c3 "ilc7 1 4 "ilf3 l:lfeS
Also fine is 14...c5, for example 15 .if5
nae8!? (15...ir'c6 16 b3 .l:!.ae8 17 c4 .ixf5 18
'Wixf5 dxc4 19 .l:Iacl h6 20 .ie3 cxb3 21 axb3
would give White good, active play) 16
i.xe6?! (16 b3 is better) 16...fxe6 17 l:i.xe6?
'be4 and Black wins.
1 5 ':'e3?
15 i.xf6 i.xf6 16 'bc5 ir'd6 17 'bxe6
with equality and 15 b4 'bd7 16 .1l.xe7 .l:.xe7
17 'iWe3 as 18 'bcs 'bxc5 19 'iixc5 'ilia7 20
d6 'ilic7 'With the same assessment were
both better.
1 5 . . .liJg4? !
15...i.g4 16 g3 'iVxg3 17 hxg3 is equal,
but strong would have been 15...'iia 5! 16
'ilidl (16 .1l.xf6 i.xf6 1 7 i.c2 d4 is unpleas
ant) 16...c5 17 i.c2 .l:.ad8 and Black is better
- Lautier.
1 6 i..f4
16 .l:.xe6?? loses to 16...xh2+.
51
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
1 6 . . :i'd7 1 7 J:!.e2 c5 1 8 b3 lZlf6 1 9 h3
d6!
The simplest and safest. After 19 ... d4!? 20
cxd4 .ltd5 21 'iVe3 .ltc6 22 .lte5 l:tad8 Black
has good play, but 20 c4! gives White the
advantage. The line 1 9 ... c4 20 .ltc2 .ltf5 21
ioxf5 'iVxf5 22 l:te5 also looks better for
White.
20 lilae1 'ti'c7?!
After 20... .ltxf4 21 "ij'xf4 l:tac8 the posi
tion is completely even.
21 g5 lZld7 22 'ilr'h5 lZlf8 23 d2
Or:
a) 23 tbb2?! lIab8 24 .ltc2 .ltd7 25 tbd3
would only bring the knight trouble; after
25 ....l::txe2 26 ':'xe2 c4! Black has a queenside
attack.
b) Best was the stereotypical 23 c4! d4 24
ioe4 l:tab8 25 tbb2 h6 26 .ltel tbd7 27 iof3,
when White is a little bit better.
23 . . . 'ti'd7
After 23...ilc6?! 24 c4! ila6 25 cxd5
xd3 26 dxe6 l:txe6 27 .lte3 l:Ie5 28 ilg4
l:te4 29 tbb2 iVd5 30 ii'f3 Mae8 31 tbc4
Black will have to fight long and hard in or
der to reach a draw. White is also doing well
after 23...l:tac8 24 tbb2 followed by c3-c4.
24 f4
It was possibly better to bring the knight
into the game again with 24 tbb2!?
24 . . . c4 25 Jic2 f6 26 Jif5 .!:tab8?
Overlooking a combination, but so does
White. 26...g6 was both necessary and
52
enough for equality after 27 .ltxe6+ tbxe6 28
'iih4 5!.
27 'iih 1 ?
Bad calculation. Also wrong would be 27
.ltxe6+? tbxe6 28 "ij'f5 'it'f7 29 ii'xh7 cxb3 30
axb3 .ltxf4 31 h5+ 'it>f8 32 l:txe6 l:Ixe6 33
l:txe6 'iVxe6 34 i..xf4 l:txb3 35 'iHh8+ f7 36
a8 e4 37 'iHxa7+ 'it'g8 38 .ltd6 l:tb1+ 39
'it'h2 l:t1 ! with a likely draw as a result.
Best was 27 l:txe6! Mxe6 (27 ... tbxe6? 28
.ltxh7+ 'it>f8 29 .ltg6) 28 "iixh7+!! tbxh7 29
.ltxe6+ xe6 30 Ilxe6 l:td8 31 bxc4 tbf8 32
Me2 dxc4 33 tbb2! - White will win the c
pawn eventually and have a very promising
endgame.
27 . . . Jixf5? !
27 ... "ij'f7! 28 .ltxe6 l:txe6 29 Wixd5 l:txe2
30 Wixf7+ 'it'xf7 31 l:txe2 cxb3 32 axb3 xb3
would suddenly give Black chances in the
endgame.
28 l:txe8 J:!.b 7?
One senses time trouble around here. Af
ter 28....ltg6 29 xd5+ .ltf7 30 l:txf8+ lIxf8
31 'iHd4 l:.d8 32 i..e3 cxb3 33 axb3 .ltxb3 34
tbc5 the endgame will end in a draw.
29 'ti'f3 Jig6 30 J::ta8 cxb3 3 1 axb3 'ti'c6
32 f5 Jif7 33 Jif4
Clearer was 33 .lte3! a6 34 e2 l:.b5 35
1:!.a7 tbd7 36 g4 h5 37 d1 ! i..b 8 38 c4!
d6 39 i..g1 i..xa7 40 cxb5 i..xg1 41 'it>xg1
axb5 42 tbb2 'iVc5+ 43 h1 'iVf2 44 e2
xf5 45 'iVxb5 and White has a c1ose-to
winning position.

33 . . . d7 34 i.xd6 'ii'xa8 35 i.xf8?
Missing the last chance to seize the initia
tive. After 3S ..wg3! 'tic8 36 ttJcS ':d8 37
ttJe6! ttJxe6 38 fxe6 .txe6 39 iLe7 l:te8 40
iLxf6 'iWb7 41 .td4 White has a lasting ad
vantage and good chances of creating a mat
ing attack.
35 . . :xf8 36 b4 l:!.e7 37 'iWg3 l:!.xe 1 + 38
xe1 c8 39 'iWe7 d4 40 cxd4 c 1 + 41
h2 'iWf4+ 42 h1 f1 + 43 h2 -
Game 25
Arkhipov-Zaitsev
Moscow 1992
The annotations to this game are based on
Igor Zaitsev's annotations in the book Secrets
from Russia.
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4
exd4 5 ttJxd4 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 .td3
d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.g5 c6 1 1
ttJa4 h6!
This is the main continuation. Black does
not play passively, but threatens amongst
other things to play ... g7-gS and create coun
terplay.
1 2 ..Ith4 i.d6!
There is no equality for Black after
1 2... iLe6 1 3 c3 .i.e7 1 4 l:tel J::te 8 I S iLc2
ttJd7 (or I S ... .:b8 16 ..wd4! as 1 7 Ite3 with an
attack) 16 ii.xe7 ..wxe7 1 7 ..wd3 ttJf6 1 8 b4!.
1 3 l:!.e1
1 3 c3 with the idea of iLc2 and 'it'd3 is
too slow - Black has no problems at all:
1 3...l!e8 14 b4 iLeS I S !Ie 1 as 1 6 a3 axb4 1 7
axb4 .tg4 1 8 ..wc2 'iid6 1 9 iLg3 ii.xg3 20
hxg3 ttJd7 21 d2 l::txe1+ 22 'iix el gS! 23
iLc2 Wg7 24 d2 "iVf6 2S l:te 1 hS and Black
has good chances of creating an attack, but
instead offered a draw in Mannion-Timman,
Elista 1 998.
1 3 . . .l:!.b8
Much better than 1 3. ..cS?! 14 b3! (this
stops Black's pawns) 14 ... iLe6 I S 'iif3 ':b8
16 ii.f5 ':b4 17 ii.g3 iLxfS 1 8 xfS g6 1 9
"ilYf3 cJ;;g7 2 0 l:tadl iLxg3 21 ..wxg3 ..waS 22
S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Th e Main L in e
l:te7 with a strong initiative, Rublevsky
Gavrilov, St Petersburg 1 993.
14 c3
1 4 . . .i.g4!?
Another great idea copyrighted by the fa
mous Igor Zaitsev (mainly known for his
work with Anatoly Karpov). In his annota
tions he writes that he found this move over
the board!
1 5 'iWc2!
The most obvious square, but other
moves require our attention too:
a) I S ..wd2 'iVc7 1 6 iLg3 .txg3 1 7 hxg3
as 1 8 iLc2 cS 1 9 l:tab 1 ! (an improvement
over 1 9 b3? i.d7! 20 ttJb2 d4 21 ttJc4 xc3
22 'it'xc3 dxc3 and Black is better) 1 9 . .Jlfe8
20 ':xe&t l:!.xe8 21 b4 cxb4 22 cxb4 'iVa6 and
Black has sufficient counterplay.
b) I S 'iVxg4 ttJxg4 (but not I S ... ii.xh2+? 1 6
'ii?fl ttJxg4 1 7 i.xd8 ':fxd8 1 8 g3 d4 1 9 ii.e2
ttJf6 20 'It>g2 d3 21 .tdl and White wins) 1 6
ii.xd8 ':fxd8 (the position i s equal) 1 7 h3
ttJeS 1 8 ii.c2 l:te8 19 b3 ttJd7 20 ':xe&t J!1xe8
21 Wfl g6 22 ':el ':xe1+ 23 'ii?xe1 Wg7 24
.i.d3 Wf6 liz_ liz N.Lauritsen-N.Pedersen,
Denmark 1 996.
c) IS ii.xf6 iLxd1 16 ii.xd8 i.xa4 17 .i.e7
iLxe7 18 ':xe7 ':xb2 1 9 ':xa7 .tc2! and
Black is better. White has more weaknesses
and Black's rooks are easier to activate.
1 5 . . . g5 1 6 i.g3 ttJh5 1 7 i.xd6
Or 17 iLfS?! ii.xfS 18 'iUxfS ttJxg3 1 9
hxg3 ':e8 and thanks to the knight o n a4
53
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
Black is slightly better.
1 7 . . :xd6 1 S l:t.e3?!
In a later game White found 18 b4! tLlf4
1 9 tLlc5 l:tbe8 20 f3 .tc8 21 'iYf2 f6 22 .tn
'iYc7 23 g3 tLle6 24 tLlxe6 .txe6 25 "iYd4 cJ;;;;g7
26 J:!.e3 .tf5 27 J:.ae1 l:txe3 28 l::txe3 ILf7 29
a4 "iVd6 30 .l:.e8 and White had some initia
tive, Istratescu-Zaitsev, Romania 1 992.
1 S . . .J:!.beS 1 9 d2
After 19 l:.ae1 1he3 20 ':xe3 tLlf4 21 .tfS
d4! 22 cxd4 .txfS 23 'iWxf5 lli'xd4 24 tLlc3
tLld5 25 d3 .!:te8! Black has sufficient coun
terplay.
1 9 . . /uf4 20 b4 J::!.xe3 21 fxe3?
TIlls move is very unnatural - now White
has some serious weaknesses on the kingside
for little reason. Narural and good was 21
"iVxe3 d4 (21 ..."iVe6 22 'iixe6 fxe6 23 tLlc5
.te2 24 ..ltxe2 tLlxe2+ 25 wn tLlxc3 26 tLlxe6
is okay too) 22 'it'e4 (22 cxd4? lli'xb4 23 tLlc5
ti.d8 24 tLlb3 as! with a strong initiative)
22 .. .f5 23 .tc4+ h8 24 "iYxd4+ "iYxd4 25
cxd4 l:td8 26 a3 ':xd4 27 .tb3! l:ld2 28 .!:ta2!
and White holds his own.
21 . . .lUe6 22 e2 f5 23 J:!.f1
After 23 'it'd3 .l:!.f7 24 .!:tn 'ile5 Black's
advantage should not be underestimated -
White has no counterplay. 25 h3? i.xh3 26
gxh3 lli'g3+ 27 h1 'iixh3+ 28 g1 g4! with
ideas of ...g4-g3 and especially ... tLlg5! gives
Black a winning attack.
23 . . .f4?!
In my opinion this is too early. Simpler
was 23 ... "iVe5! 24 tLlb2 f4 25 exf4 tLlxf4 26
'it>hl 1:!.e8 27 tLld3 'iVe2 28 'iVxe2 l1xe2 29
tLlxf4 .l:!.xc2 and Black will most likely win the
endgame.
24 e4 f3!
Now the position deserves a lot of scru
tiny.
25 d 1 ?
TIlls loses by force. Let's look at alterna
tives:
a) 25 g3? ..lth3 26 llf2 'iVe5 27 exd5 cxd5
28 ..ltb3 cJ;;;g
; 7 and Black is riding high.
b) 25 gxf3?! .i:!.xf3 26 l:lxf3 .txf3 27 exd5
54
tLlf4 28 .tb3 cxd5 with grave danger for
White's king.
c) 25 exd5! is the best chance. 25 ...tLlf4
(White is better after 25... cxd5 26 gxf3 l:txf3
27 l:txf3 .txf3 28 'iWe3, while 25 ...'iWxd5 26
"iVxd5 cxd5 27 h3 .tfS 28 .txf5 .i:!.xf5 29
tLlc5 tLlxc5 30 bxc5 :f6 31 .l:!.xf3 l:tc6 is
drawn) 26 gxf3 tLlh3+ 27 Wg2 .tf5 28 .te4
tLlf4+ 29 hl cxd5 30 tLlc5 .th3 and Black
has an advantage, but not a decisive one.
25 . . . fxg2! 26 xg2
Or 26 xf8+ 'iWxfS 27 Wxg2 "iYf4!! 28 'iVc2
dxe4 and White's king is in big trouble.
26 . . . xd1 27 J:!.xd1 ttJf4 2S 'ii'f3 g6 29
J:!.e 1 g4 30 g3 ttJh3+ 31 <t>g2 l:!.f2+ 32
<t>h 1
32 . . .xe4+! ! 0-1
Game 26
Malakhov-Pinter
Balatonberef!Y 1995
In this game we shall once again see Black
win with knight versus light-squared bishop,
although when compared to Game 22 it is
less clear that Black was better all the way
through.
1 e4 e5 2 lUf3 lUe6 3 lUe3 lUf6 4 d4
exd4 5 lUxd4 b4 6 ttJxe6 bxe6 7 d3
d5 S exd5 exd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 g5 e6 1 1
lUa4 h6 1 2 h4 d6 1 3 e 1
1 3 c4 is considered in the next game.
1 3 . . J:lbS 1 4 e3 e5!?

Another good move.
1 5 .te2
With the threat of .txf6. 15 b3 olte6 1 6
oltc2 g5 1 7 oltg3 .txg3 1 8 hxg3 'iVc7 i s equal
- Gutman.
1 5 . . . .td7 1 6 J:!.b1 g5 1 7 .tg3 .txg3
1 7...'iVc7 1 8 b4 oltxa4 1 9 .txa4 .l:i.fd8 20 a3
as was equal in Georgiev-Nikolic, Brussels
1 992.
1 8 hxg3 .txa4 1 9 .txa4 'ilfd6 20 "i'ld3
g7 21 J:!.e2 J:tb7 22 J:tbe1 J:tfb8 23 .te2
Otherwise White will never get the bishop
'home' to c2.
23 . . . f8?!
Black could also play for a draw with
23 ... .l:.xb2 24 .l:i.e7 (with the threat of g6+)
24 .. .'f8 25 lIxt7+ xt7 26 'iVg6+ Wf8 27
'iVxh6+ Wt7 and White has nothing more
than perpetual. But Black chooses to fight
for an advantage. Probably White is better
after this, but in practice this is sometimes
part of a winning strategy. Risky, but if you
need a win, you need a win...
However, 23... c4!? was probably better, in
order to fix the b-pawn or make sure the c
pawn will be weak.
24 b3 .l:ib6 25 "i'lf5!
Planning .l:Ie6 in some positions.
25 . . . "i'ld7 26 'i'd3 .!:t8b7 27 J:te5 J:id6?!
27 ....l:Ic7! would be better.
28 e4 J:te7 29 J:!.d 1 ?!
29 cxd5!? l:!.xd5 30 'iVc3 gives White some
advantage.
S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h t s : Th e M a in L in e
2 9 . . .d 4 3 0 .l:tde1 .!:te8 3 1 f4 gxf4 3 2 gxf4
g4 33 ':'f1 J:!.ee6 34 .ltd 1 'i'g6 35 "i'lh3
35 xg6 fxg6 36 .tf3 .l:i.c7 37 g4 is not so
clear, as after 37 ... h5! 38 g5 lLlg4 Black has
good counterplay.
35 . . . d3 36 'l'e3?
Probably time trouble was playing a part
here. 36 f5 'ii'g5 37 l::te3 with further compli
cations was better; now Black takes over the
initiative.
36 . . . d2 37 .tf3 .l:td3! 38 "i'le2 ':'ed6 39
J:!.d 1 'l'g3 40 .l:txe5?
40 .l:Id5 lLlxd5 41 'iixd3 l:!.e6 42 'iixd2
lLlxf4 still offered some chances of survival,
while 40 .td5 l:!.6xd5 41 cxd5 lLlg4 42 .l:Ih5
.l:Ixd5 43 .l:i.h3 'iix f4 leaves none.
40 . . . .l:txf3!
The simple way to win.
41 "i'lxf3
Or 41 .l:Ic8+ g7 42 'ij'xf3 e1+ 43 fl
'ife3+1 44 'iff2 lLlg4!.
41 . . ."i'le 1 + 42 h2 J:!.d3 43 J:te8+ g7
0-1
After 44 'iixd3 lLlg4+ 45 'it>h3 lLlf2+ every
thing is lost.
Game 27
Golubev-Malaniuk
Alushta 1994
1 e4 e5 2 tL'lf3 tL'le6 3 tL'le3 tL'lf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tL'lxd4 .tb4 6 tL'lxe6 bxe6 7 .td3
d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .ltg5 e6 1 1
55
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
'2la4 h6 1 2 i.h4 .l:Ie8 1 3 c4
This move became the fashion later, re
jecting c3 as being too slow. In my opinion
White should not obtain any advantage after
this, but still some players have good practi
cal results with this line.
1 3 . . . i.d6
13 ... I;Ib8 14 .l:i.c1 ..td6 transposes to Game
28.
After 13 ... ..te6!? 'X'hite can obtain the ad
vantage with 14 cS! 'ilt'e7 15 J::tc 1 ..taS 1 6
c2! (Gutman) 1 6 ...J::tad8 1 7 e2 gS 1 8 3l.g3
tiJe4 1 9 3l.xe4 dxe4 20 ..td6 'tWf6 21 c2.
1 4 cxdS
'X'hite also has no advantage after 14 .l:i.c1
..t f4 15 l:ic2 d6! (1 S ... ..tg4!? 16 f3 ..te6
should also be okay) 16 ..txf6 'ilt'xf6 17 cxdS
cxdS 1 8 'ilt'f3 ..txh2+ 19 xh2 'ilt'h4+ 20 g1
'ilt'xa4 21 'ilt'xdS ..te6 22 'iVe4 - a draw is very
likely.
1 4 . . . cxdS
I cannot see why 'X'hite should be better
here.
1 S '2lc3
Or:
a) 1 5 .l::!.c 1 3l.f4 16 llc6 (16 cS 'ii'd6 1 7
..tg3 3l.xg3 1 8 hxg3 ..td7 1 9 b 4 .l::!.ad8 2 0 a3
'ilt'eS with equality) 1 6 ...gS 1 7 ..tg3 3l.d7 1 8
a6 and the position i s balanced.
b) 1 5 ..tbS l:!eS 1 6 tiJc3 also looks fIne for
Black after 1 6 .. Jb8.
1 S . . . .teS 1 6 J:!.e1 ?!
16 tiJxdS?? 'iVxdS 1 7 3l.xf6 ..tb7 and
56
White resigned in Svidler-Malaniuk, St Pe
tersburg 1 993. Better than the text is 1 6 3l.bS
.l::!.e6 1 7 ..txf6 3l.xf6 1 8 'iixdS 'ixdS 19 tiJxdS
..txb2 20 .l::!.ab1 ! 3l.eS 21 ..td3 with complete
equality.
1 6 . . . i.b7 1 7 'iWd2 'iVb6!
Taking control of all the dark squares.
1 7 .. :iid6 1 8 SLg3 ..txg3 19 hxg3 d4 20 tiJbS
'iVdS 21 f3 l:!xe1+ 22 l:!xe1 'iVxa2 23 l:!.e7!
would give White excellent play for the
pawn.
1 8 i.g3 i.xg3 1 9 hxg3 '2le4
1 9 ... d4 20 tiJbS lIxe1+ 21 .l::!.x e1 lId8
would give Black a pleasant position too.
20 i.xe4 dxe4 21 .l::r.a d1 l:tad8 22 'iWc1
l:lxd 1 23 '2lxd 1
White has not been very successful in the
opening and now has to defend, but whether
Black is better is hard to say. All the potential
white weaknesses are on dark squares, so
probably it is not so much of a problem.
23 . . :aS 24 '2lc3 ii'b4 25 d2 J:!.e6 26
a3 ii'b6 27 b4 ii'a6 28 ii'd8+ h7 29
'iWd7 ii'xa3 30 ii'xb7 xc3 31 J:!.xe4 % - %
Game 28
Pedersen-Khruschiov
Bled OlYmpiad 2002
This game is included to show how White
can use the Scotch Four Knights as a
weapon. White receives no advantage here,
but his persistence leads to winning a pawn
and the game.
1 e4 e5 2 '2lf3 '2lc6 3 4Jc3 '2lf6 4 d4
exd4 S '2lxd4 .tb4 6 '2lxc6 bxc6 7 .td3
d5 8 exdS 0-0 9 0-0 cxdS 1 0 i.gS c6 1 1
'2la4 h6 1 2 i.h4 J:!.e8 1 3 c4 i.d6 1 4 l:tc 1
!:!.b8 1 S b3
1 5 a3?! ..tf4! 1 6 .l::!.c2 'id6 17 ..tg3 ..tg4!
gave Black a slightly better game in Jouhki
Norri, Helsinki 1 993.
1 S . . .i.eS
Or:
a) 1 S ... ..te6 1 6 cxdS cxdS 17 tiJcs .l::!.b4 18
.ixf6 'ixf6 1 9 tiJxe6 fxe6 with equality, Stu-

rua-Aleksandrov, Batumi 2002.
b) 1 5 ... f4!? 16 J:tc2 (1 6 g3?! g4 1 7
c2 xg3 1 8 hxg3 d 4 1 9 d2 'iVd6 20
:ce1 c5 21 a5 .l:tec8 22 tDb2 d7! is
slighdy better for Black, Rublevsky
Obukhov, Kurgan 1 994) 1 6 ...'iVd6 1 7 c5
'Yi'd8 1 8 !te2 with an even game. White
would be better if his knight were on d4, but
by the time it arrives there, Black will have
established counterplay.
1 6 .tg3 'i'd6
Also equal is 1 6...xg3 1 7 fxg3!? "iVd6 1 8
cxd5 cxd5 1 9 tDc5.
1 7 ne 1 .tg4 1 8 'i'e2 .txg3 1 9 hxg3
l:tbd8
After 19 ... d4?! 20 c5! d5 21 'ifc4 xc4
22 xc4 J:tbd8 23 tDb2! White is a litde bit
better, but Black could also have played
19 ...iYb4 20 c3 xc3 21 tDxc3 d4 22 tDa4
tDd7! with complete equality.
20 'YWe3 tlle4 2 1 'i'd4 .tf5 22 exd5 exd5
23 .txe4 dxe4? !
After this White has a slight pull. Better
was 23 .. .l::txe4! 24 J:txe4 (or 24 'ifxa7 d4 25
a5 lIxe1+ 26 J::txe1 .i.c2 with good com
pensation) 24... dxe4 25 xa7 'i'd2 26 J:tfl
(26 c5?? loses to 26....l:!.c8) 26...e6 with
compensation for the pawn.
24 'i'xa7 'YWd2 25 'YWe5 lite8?
This shows that Black is drifting. After
25 ... .i.g6 26 a3 (26 c2?? e3 and wins; 26
tDc3 Itd3! 27 J:ted 1 'ilVb2 with play) 26 ...J:td3
27 'iVb5 f6 Black has play for the pawn.
S c o tch Fo u r Kn igh t s : Th e M a in L in e
26 ned1 'YWg5 27 'i'e3 'YWf6?!
Black's best drawing chance is 27...'i'xe3
28 J:txe3 Itc2! 29 tDc3 J:tc8 30 tDd5 f8 31
a4 J:tb2, with some counterplay.
28 tlle5 'i'b6 29 nd5 .tg6 30 a3 na8 3 1
b4 J:ta7 3 2 'i'e3 llae7 3 3 ne3 f6 34 'i'd4
.tf7 35 Itd6 'i'e7 36 a4 f5 37 a5
White has built up a winning advantage
and, despite a few stumbles, gets the full
point in the end.
37 . . . h5 38 .l:!.e3 'YWb8 39 J:tb6 'i'a8 40 a6
h4 41 .l:!.e3 ne5 42 nd6 'i'a7 43 J:!.d8?
'W'hy not 43 gxh4! here?
43 . . . 'i'e7 44 .l:.d7 'i'b6 45 f4? l:t5e7 46
nxe7 J:!.xe7 47 gxh4 'i'e7 48 ng3 .th5
49 'i'd5+ .tf7 50 'i'd4?! .th5 51 'i'd2?!
J:re8 52 ne3?! 'i'e7 53 'i'e3?! 'i'xh4 54
b5 nd8 55 lIe 1 'i'f6 56 .l:!.b1 'i'b6 57 f2
.tf7 58 tllxe4 'i'a5 59 'i'e3 a4 60 tlld 2
'i'xf4+ 6 1 tllf3 ne8 62 .l:!.e 1 Ita8 63 "iWd4
'ilVb8 64 "iWe5 .l:.a7 65 .l::!.e 1 .te6 66 e5
'ifb6+ 67 'ilVe3 'i'xe3+ 68 xe3 .td7 69
J:!.b 1 .txb5 70 1:.xb5 .I';lxa6 71 J:!xf5 ];ta2
72 g3 h7 73 f4 h6 74 g4 lita4+
75 .l:!.f4 J:!.a6 76 1:.e4 J:tg6+ 77 h4 .l:!.f6
78 tllg 5 J:rf1 79 J:!e6+ g6 80 tllh 3 g7
81 tllf4 f7 82 na6 nf3 83 g4 J:rb3 84
J:!xg6 nb5 85 J:!.g5 J:!b1 86 J:!.f5+ g7 87
g5 nb6 88 g4 lita6 89 tllh 5+ h7 90
J:tf7+ h8 91 nd7 .l:!.a4 92 ne7 J:.b4 93
tllf4 g8 94 tlle6 l:.e4 95 f5 .l:!.a4 96 g5
.l:!.a5+ 97 f6 :eta8 98 .l:!.d7 l:te8 99 d8
h7 1 00 g6+ 1 -0
57
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Summary
\X1hite has no chance of getting an advantage solely from his own strong play in the Scotch
Four Knights. 1 1 'iff3 is not dangerous for Black, unless he plays 1 1 ...i.e7 to avoid the ruina
tion of his pawn structure, when he should be at least mildly cautious and perhaps cannot
count on complete equality. 1 1 lbe2 is hardly anything to be afraid of and Black should take it
easy and develop. Lutz-Yusupov shows a healthy road to equality for Black and maybe even an
advantage if \X1hite is not careful enough.
Finally, 1 1 lba4!? has been tested for more than ten years and the conclusion has been the
same almost all the time: after 1 1 ... h6 Black has no problems equalising. He should be a little
careful, as seen in the last game of this chapter, but all in all his position is fme.

1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 d4 exd4 5 lDxd4 b4 6 lDxc6 bxc6 7 d3 d5 8

exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 g5 c6 1 1 lDa4
1 1 lbe2
1 1 ...h6 Game 22; 1 1 ...i.g4 Game 23
- -

1 1 f3
1 1 ... i.d6 Game 19; 1 1 ....l::i.e8 Game 18; 1 1 ... h6 Game 1 7
- - -

1 1 ...i.e7
12 .l:!.fe1 Game 20; 12 h3 Game 21
- -

1 1 . . .h6
1 1 ...i.e7 (0) Game 24
-

1 2 .Jth4 e8 (0)
1 2 ... i.d6 1 3 .l:!.e 1 llb8 1 4 c3
1 4... c5 Game 26; 1 4... i.g4 Game 25
- -

1 3 c4 .Jtd6 1 4 J:!.c1 (0) Game 28

-

1 4 cxd5 Game 27
-

1 1 . . . .Jte 7 12 . . J ae8 14 l:!.c l

58
 I CHAPTER FIVE I
Scotch Four Knights :
Sidelines after 7 d5 . . .

1 e4 e 5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 ctJc3 ctJf6 4 d4 in Game 3 1 .

exd4 5 ctJxd4 i.b4 6 ctJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 1 1 . . .h6!?
d5 It is interesting that Vassily Smyslov tried
In this chapter we will investigate some 1 1 .. ..tg4!? against Alexander at Hastings
important sidelines after 7 ... dS in the Scotch 1 954/55, and after 12 c3 .te7 13 'it'c2 h6 14
Four Knights. This includes 1O ... .te6 and .te3 cS he reached an equal position.
1O ... J..e7 (Games 29-32), which are worth 1 1 .. . .l1.e7 has also been played, for exam
while alternatives to 1O... c6. ple:
Earlier on 'hite can diverge with 10 tiJbS a) 12 tiJf4 .l1.g4 13 f3 .l1.d7 14 .l1.xf6 (or 1 4
(Game 33), while after 8 exdS Black can 'iVd2 c6 with equal play) 1 4. . ..txf6 1 5 tiJxdS
throw in an interesting check with 8 ... 'iYe7+l?J..xb2 is equal.
r------" b) 12 tiJd4 J..d7! (according to Gutman
Game 29 this is a mistake; he gives 1 2...'iVd6 1 3 .l:i.el
Spangenberg-Yemelin .l:i.ae8 14 'iVf3 cS 15 tiJxe6 fxe6 16 'ilVh3,
Bratislava 1993 when White has an edge) 1 3 'iYf3 (1 3 .txf6?!
--------------.. .i.xf6 14 'iHhs g6 1 5 'ii'xdS .l1.a4 1 6 'iYxd8
1 e4 e5 2 ctJc3 ctJf6 3 ctJf3 ctJc6 4 d4 .l:i.fxd8 gives Black a good game) 13 ... .l:i.b8
exd4 5 ctJxd4 i.b4 6 ctJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 and it is hard to see why Black should be
d5 8 exd5 0-0 9 0-0 cxd5 10 i..g 5 worse.
This is of course one of the standard posi Another option is 1 1 ....td6!? 12 tiJd4 h6
tions in the whole of the Four Knights. Here 13 J..M cS! 14 tiJxe6 fxe6 15 'iVe2 eS 16 J..g6
1O ... c6, investigated in the previous chapter, c4! (1 6 ....l:i.b8?! 1 7 c4! gave 'hite the advan
is the most common move tage in Salov-Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1991; per
1 0 . . . i.e6 haps White is even clearly better) 17 b3 'iYc7
A sensible-looking alternative to 1 0... c6. 1 8 h 1 c3!? with equal chances.
Black develops a piece and lends support to 1 2 i.h4 i.g4
the dS-pawn. Black has two equally good alternatives:
1 1 ctJe2 a) 12 ...J.. e7 13 tiJd4 J..d7 14 tiJfS .txfS 1 5
This is not the most dangerous move. 1 1 J..xfS .l:i.b8 1 6 .l:i. b 1 .l:i.b4 1 7 J..xf6 .i.xf6 with
'iVf3 is treated in the next game and 1 1 tiJbS!, equality was Ochoa-De la Villa, Barcelona

59
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
1 990.
b) 12 ... .td6 13 lDd4 .td7 14 lDf5 .txf5
1 5 xf5 Mb8 1 6 b3 .te5 1 7 1:tb1 'iVd6 1 8
g3 .txg3 1 9 hxg3, Rossetto-Ju.Bolbochan,
Mar del Plata 1 956. The position is more or
less level, but I would prefer to play Black
here. I am sure that a player with perfect
technique, such as Karpov or Andersson,
would make 7/10 from this position. Re
member that after the possible exchange of
the rooks, Black has queen and knight against
queen and bishop in the endgame, which is
normally an advantage as they complement
each other better.
1 3 c3
After 13 h3 .txe2 14 .txe2 g5! (14 ... e7
15 .tf3 Mb8 16 b3 c6 17 c4 would give
White a slight plus) 1 5 .tg3 lDe4 Black is
equal - 16 ..ie5 .l::!.e 8 does not achieve any
thing.
1 3 . . . i.d6 1 4 a4 i.xe2 1 5 i.xe2 l:tb8 1 6
l:tab'
After 16 b3?' g5! 17 .tg3 lDe4 18 'iVxa7
lDxc3 19 f3 .i:!.b6 White's queen is out of
play, the knight is strong on c3 and Black has
a strong passed pawn in the middle. Of
course White also has a good bishop on f3
and a passed a-pawn, but still Black is slighdy
better.
1 6 . . . e8 1 7 d 1
1 7 . . . 'WIYe5!?
1 7 ... lDe4! would also have been a very
strong move because 18 'iVxd5 lDxc3 1 9
60
bxc3 Mxbl 20 1:txbl 'iVxe2 would have given
Black a good endgame. All in all White has
been drifting and putting too much faith in
his two bishops, and now he is worse.
1 8 i.g3 e6 1 9 i.f3
As I wrote in the note to Black's 1 2th
move, 1 9 xd6 'iVxd6 is equal but not a
draw.
1 9 . . . i.xg3 20 hxg3 llfe8 21 d4 11b6 22
l:tfd1 c6 23 b4 l:tb7 24 a4 l:tbe7 25
bc 1 ? !
Necessary was 2 5 b 5 cxb5 2 6 Mxb5!, when
White has active counterplay. If he never gets
his rooks playing, he will lose.
25 . . . 1!i'd6 26 b5?
This is bad; now Black takes over. Neces
sary was 26 .l:!.b1 ! with the idea of b4-b5. You
should always confess your sins and admit
your mistakes!
26 . . . c5 27 f4 l:te5 28 c4?!
28 'iVd2 'iVe6 29 as g5 illustrates the pres
sure mounting up on White. Even so, that
was preferable to the text.
28 . . . d4 29 a5 g5! 30 d2 tOe4 31
1!i'd3?!
Sadly, necessary was 31 ..ixe4 Mxe4 32
Mel f5, when Black has a clear edge. Now
the final attack sets in.
31 .. .f5! 32 g4 fxg4 33 i.xg4
33 . . .tOxf2! 34 <3;xf2 l::!.e3 35 'WIYb1 d3! 36
b2 1!i'f4+ 37 <3;g 1 J::!.e 2! 38 i.xe2 l:xe2
39 1!i'xe2 dxe2 40 ):Ie 1 g4 41 J:.b 1 1!i'd4+
42 <3;h2 1!i'f2 0-1
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Sidelin e s a f t e r 7 . . d5
Came 30
Alekhine-Lasker
Moscow 1914
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tLlxd4 b4 6 tLlxc6 bxc6 7 d3
d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 g5 e6
1 1 iYf3!? e7!
This is the natural move, and clearly the
best. Also possible are:
a) 1 1 ...j,g4?? 1 2 j,xf6 and White wins.
b) l1...tle8? 12 j,b5! tlf8 (or 12...j,d7? 13
j,xf6 gxf6 14 j,xd7 'Yi'xd7 15 lbxd5) 13 j,c6
with advantage for White.
c) 11...i.. d6?! 12 lbb5! i.. e7 13 lbd4 and
White has improved his position. Moves
such as lbxe6 and lbf5 look promising.
d) l1...c6!? 12 i..xf6 'iVxf6 13 'ixf6 gxf6
with equality.
e) l1...l:I.b8 intending 12 lbb5 j,e7! with
unclear play (but not 12...c5?! 13 a3 i..a5 14
b4 and White is better- Gutman).
1 2 J:.fe1
Alternatively:
a) 12 lbe2 h6 13 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 14 c3 l:tb8 is
even.
b) 12 h3 h6! 13 i..f4 c6, with the idea of
...i.. d6, also guarantees equality. Even 13...c5
14 tlfd1 d4 15 lbe4 lbd5 16 j,d2 'ib6 is
fine, but not 16...lbb4?! 17 j,xb4 cxb4 18
lbg3 when the two bishops are worth little,
but the pawns and the king are slightly weak
ened.
c) 12 tlael l:1.b8 13 lbdl and now:
c1) 13...c6 14 h3 lbe8?!. Gutman believes
that this is an excellent move giving equality,
but a move like ...lbe8 is sometimes a sign
that the pieces are less than ideally placed.
Therefore I prefer White after 15 ii'h5 g6 16
i..xe7 li'xe7 17 'ifu6.
c2) 13....l:!.e8 14 b3 h6! and now 15 i..f4
d6 is equal, while 15 i..h4? g5 16 i..g3
g4! is worth remembering. After 17 li'e3
b4 18 'tlVxa7 j,xe1 19 i..xc7 l:!.a8 20 i..xd8
':xa7 21 f3 lbd7 22 fxg4 i..b4 Black wins
.
material.
1 2 . . . h6
1 3 xh6!?
This leads to a draw by force. The posi
tion would also be equal after 13 j,f4 c6!
(but not 13...i.d6?! 14 lbb5 i..xf4 15 'i'xf4
c6 16 lbc7 ':c8 17 lbxe6 fxe6 18 'iVg3 and
White is better - Gutman) 14 lbdl i.d6.
1 3 . . . gxh6 1 4 J:txe6! fxe6 1 5 Vig3+ h8
Not 15...Wt7?? 16 'iVg6 mate.
1 6 'ii'g6 Vie8 Y2 Yo
-
Came 3 1
Malakhov-Yemelin
Ekaten'nburg 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tLlxd4 b4 6 tLlxc6 bxc6 7 .td3
d5 8 exd5 0-0 9 0-0 cxd5 10 .tg5 .te6
1 1 4:Jb5!
Practice has shown that this move is the
strongest. This is logical because allowing
lbb5 is the only clear drawback of 10...i.. e6
over 10...c6, so if the move should in any way
be inferior, this would be the reason.
1 1 . . .c5
Black could try to improve on his position
here. I see no reason why Black should be
any worse at all after 11...i.. e7!? and now:
a) 12 'iVe2 c5 (12...tle8?! 13 i..f4! c5 14 c4
would grant \x'hite a small plus) 13 c4 d4 14
li'e5 is slightly better for White according to
Gutman, but it is hard to detect why after
61
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
14 ...lbg4 I S 'iVe4 g6 16 i..xe7 'iVxe7, when
Black has an excellent position.
b) 1 2 lbd4 is the logical move. Now Black
has the following choices:
bl) 1 2 ... 'iVd7 13 .l::te 1 ! lIab8 14 'it'e2 b6
I S i..b S! c6 1 6 i..a4 lbe4? (16 ... .l::t e8! 1 7 lbxe6
d6 1 8 'iVf3 fxe6 19 b3 .l::t f8 gives Black
counterplay) 1 7 i..xc6! and White is winning,
Hamdouchi-Pijuan, Castellar 1 996.
b2) 12 .....td7 13 .l::te l cS 1 4 lbfS i.xfS 1 S
xfS .l::tb8 1 6 b 3 h6 1 7 .if4 i.d6 1 8 'iVd2
xf4 1 9 'iVxf4 was roughly equal in Denny
Henao, St Martin 1 992.
b3) 12 ...fid6 1 3 lbxe6 (13 ifc1 cS 1 4 lbfS
.ixfS I S i.xfS lbe4 16 .ie3 'iVeS is fine; so
is 1 3 lbfS i.xfS 1 4 .ixfS l:hb8 I S b 1 h6 1 6
i.e3 'it'e S and 1 3 i.h4 c S 1 4 i..g3 'iVb6 1 S
lbxe6 fxe6 1 6 b3 .id6) 1 3... fxe6 1 4 .ih4
'iVb4 I S .ig3 .id6 1 6 e 1 'iVxe 1 1 7 l::!. fx e 1
.ixg3 1 8 hxg3 ct;f7 with an equal ending,
Muratov-Chekhov, Moscow 1 975.
1 2 a3 a5 1 3 b4!
This is the key idea.
1 3 . . . cxb4
White was a little better after 1 3 ... .ib6 14
c3! h6 IS .ih4! .u.c8 1 6 a4 as 1 7 bxaS .ixaS
1 8 I:tbl , V.Georgiev-Vouldis, Mangalia 1 992.
14 'iVe1
There is only equality after the materialis
tic 14 axb4 xb4 1S .:!.xa7 llxa7 1 6 lbxa7 h6
17 .ih4 (17 lbc6 'it'b6 18 xf6 ifxc6 1 9
'iVf3 .id6 i s similar) 1 7 ... 'iVb6 1 8 i..xf6 'iVxa7
1 9 'iVf3! and now:
62
a) 1 9 ... gxf6? 20 'it'g3+ ct;h8 21 iff4 .l::ta8!
(the queen needs to be protected - 21.. ..l::tb8?
22 xh6+ c,tg8 23 i.h7+ 'iith8 24 i.f5+ ct;g8
2S 'i!Vh7+ f8 26 .ixe6 and White is close to
winning) 22 'it'xb4 and White is better.
b) 1 9 ... .id6! 20 hS 'it'd7 21 i.d4 i..g4
22 'it'h4 .ifS with a likely draw.
1 4. . .'iVb8
Or:
a) 14 ... bxa3?! 1 S .ixf6 gxf6 1 6 'it'e3 b6
17 'iVh6 (1 7 lbd4 xd4 18 'iVxd4 gives
White a small plus according to Yakovich)
1 7 ... fS 1 8 .l::txa3 f6 1 9 l:te1 'it'd7 20 c3! and
White has a plus in a position where Black
must defend and can therefore fInd little
pleasure in his extra pawn.
b) 1 4...b3 I S i.xf6 gxf6 1 6 'iVe3 bxc2 1 7
6 fS 1 8 lbd4 i..c3 1 9 lbxfS gives White a
strong attack.
c) 1 4... h6!? makes a lot of sense, and might
actually be quite good, even though Grischuk
later abandoned it. This may have been to do
with avoiding opponents' preparation rather
than a lack of confIdence in the move itself:
1 S axb4 i.b6 1 6 .ih4 and now:
c1) 1 6... a6 1 7 lbc3 as 1 8 lbbS gS 1 9 g3
axb4 (1 9 ... a4?! drops a pawn to 20 .l:.a3 'iVd7
21 'iVa1) 20 'iVxb4 and White has a signifIcant
advantage, Hutya-Majtenyu, Hungary 1 998.
c2) 16 ... .l::te8 17 'iid2 a6 18 lbc3 gS
(18... aS!?) 1 9 .ig3 lbe4 20 .ixe4 dxe4 21
lbxe4 'it'xd2 22 lbxd2 l1ec8 with suffIcient
compensation for the pawn in Malakhov
Grischuk, Moscow 1 996. Probably White
should now play 23 c4 .ixc4 24 lbxc4 lixc4,
even though Black is better in the endgame.
1 5 xf6 gxf6 1 6 axb4 b6 1 7 d2
g7?!
Later Black improved with 1 7...'iie S!? 1 8
6 fS! with the idea of . . .'it'g7. This pro
tects the king much more than playing
... g7. Frolov-Skatchkov, Russia 1 998 ended
in a draw after 1 9 lbd6 c7 20 .l::l.a e1 'iVxd6
21 'it'g5+ ct;h8.
1 8 c3!
After this White is better.
 S e o teh Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . d5
1S . . :eS 19 'it>h 1
With the idea of advancing on the king
side with f4-fS.
1 9 . . .l:!.feS 20 J:Iae1 'iVgS 21 f4 'iVhS 22
.ie2
Why not 22 fS! i.d7 23 liJd6 ':!'xe1 24
xel i.c7 (24... i.c6 2S bS i.cs 26 i.e2
iVh4 27 g3 'iYh3 2S i.f1 iVhs 29 bxc6 i.xd6
30 'iiixdS and White is close to winning) 2S
i.e2 iVh4 26 g3 'iiigS 27 'it'xdS i.xd6 2S
i.c4 .:!.dS 29 ii'xd6 1:i.eS 30 .:!.xeS i.xeS 31
f4! here? White has real winning chances in
the endgame.
22 . . :h6 23 lLld4 .id7 24 .ibS
24 i.f3!, simply to keep the pressure on,
would have been better.
24 . . . l:Ixe1 2S '!:!'xe1 .ixd4 26 .ixd7 .ieS
27 g3 .!:!.dS 2S 'iVxdS?!
Playing like a computer, but there is no
win. The simple 2S i.c6 d4 29 'iiid3 i.c7 30
cxd4 i.b6 31 dS would have kept long-term
winning chances in an endgame that is very
uncomfortable for Black.
2S . . . .ixc3 29 l:!.e7 g6 30 fS 'iVh5 31 g4
h6 32 gS?!
White is playing with fire, but surprisingly
there is no win after 32 'it'xf7+ 'It>hS 33 .:!.e8+
l:txeS 34 ii'xe8+ r:J;g7 3S "tIHe7+ WhS - the
game must end in a draw.
32 . . . fxgS 33 l:Ixf7+ 'it>hS 34 'iVcs .ig7
3S f6 .ixf6 36 'iVc7 l:tfs 37 .ie6 .ig7 3S
.idS 'iVg6 39 .!ixfS+ .ixfS 40 'it>g2 'iVg7
41 "ii"x g7+ 'it>xg7 42 bS YO - YO
.
Game 32
Kucera-Oral
Prerov 1995
1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 exd4 4 lLlxd4
lLlf6 S lLlc3 .ib4 6 lLlxc6 bxc6 7 .id3 0-0
S 0-0 dS 9 exd5 cxdS 1 0 .igS
1 0 . . . .ie7!?
Or 1 0... i.xc3!? 11 bxc3 h6 1 2 i.h4! (12
i.e3?! liJg4 1 3 ..Itcs .:!.eS 1 4 'it'f3 liJeS lS
'it'g3 liJxd3 1 6 cxd3 i.fS was level in Spiel
mann-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1 925)
1 2...'it'd6 1 3 nel ! i.g4 14 "iVd2 .l:i.feS l S f3
(l S .:!.ab 1 liJe4 1 6 i.xe4 .l:i.xe4 1 7 .:!.xe4 dxe4
is equal) 1 S ... i.d7 16 "tIHf2 liJhS (1 6 ... aS!?) 1 7
.:!.xe8+ i.xeS l S 'iVe3 and the position i s very
close to equality, even though White still has
the slight advantage of the two bishops.
1 1 .ixf6!
This is the drawback of 1 O... i.e 7.
1 1 . . . .ixf6 1 2 lLlxdS
Less effective is 12 hS g6 1 3 'it'xdS l:tbS!
14 .l:!ab1 (14 xdS .:!.xdS 1S liJdl i.e6 1 6
.:!.b 1 c S 1 7 b3 c4 1 S i.e4 .l:i.b4 1 9 f3 was
played in Ignatienko-Likov, Kemerovo 1 99 1 ;
after 1 9 ....l::td2 Black has very good compen
sation for the pawn) 14 ... i.xc3! l S xdS
.l:i.xdS 1 6 bxc3 i.e6 with a draw in Andreas
Borges Cuba 1 9S9. After 1 7 c4 cS! the extra
pawn is not too relevant, even though I
would investigate a move like 1 S a4!? with
the idea of 1 9 .:!.bS. Maybe l S....l:i.b4 spoils
63
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
my idea.
1 2 . . . ..txb2 1 3 lib1 J:I.b8
13 ... .ie5? 14 h5! f5 15 .ic4 Wh8 1 6
.i:!.fel .id6 17 .i:!.b3 would give White a very
strong initiative.
1 4 e4
Gutman gives White an advantage after 1 4
c3, but this can b e debated: 1 4...i. b7 !
(14....ie6 1 5 liJb4 .ixc3 1 6 .ixh7+ xh7 1 7
c2+ g8 1 8 'ii'xc3 was Gutman's justifica
tion, but even here it is not so obvious that
White is better after 1 8...'ii'g5)
and now:
a) 1 5 liJe3 ..ixc3! (1 5 ... .lta3 1 6 .i:!.b3 ..id6
17 .ixh7+ xh7 1 8 1+ g8 1 9 J:!xb7
gives White an extra pawn) 1 6 ..ixh7+ xh7
17 c2+ f5 1 8 xc3 f4 1 9 liJg4 f3 20 liJe5
'iYg5 gives an interesting position with
chances for both sides.
b) 1 5 liJxc7 .ltxg2 16 .ltxh7+ 'iitxh7 1 7
'iitxg2 'iVxc7! (l7...'ig5+? 1 8 'iith l f6 1 9
h5+ 'iitg8 20 liJd5 'iid6 2 1 .l:.fe 1 gives
White a clear plus) 1 8 'iYc2+ f5 1 9 l:txb2 f4
and here Black is close to winning. After
probably the only move 20 .i:!.gl comes
20...l:i.f6! with a strong attack. And if 20
.i:!.xb8?, then 20 ... 'iYg4+ 21 h1 'iYf3+ 22 'iitg1
lU6 23 .i:!.e1 11g6+ 24 'iitf1 1+ 25 e2
.i:!.e6+ and Black wins.
So probably 14 c3 is not advantageous for
White, even though 'W'hite only becomes
worse after being too pushy.
1 4 . . . e6 1 5 lUe3
64
After 1 5 liJe3 h6! 1 6 ..ie4 'iYc7 1 7 f3
.id7 1 8 liJf5 .i:!.fe8 the position is completely
equal .
1 5 . . .llVf6?!
Black forces a position where he has a
pawn less, but excellent drawing chances. It
works out well in practice, but was hardly
necessary. After 1 5 .. .f5!? 1 6 'ii'c2 .i:!.b4 1 7
.i:!.fe 1 (1 7 c 5 ..ie6 1 8 l:txb2 .i:!.xb2 1 9 xb2
'ixd3 is even) 1 7 ... ..ia3 1 8 .i:!.b3 .i:!.xb3 1 9
axb3 .id6 Black has an excellent game.
1 6 llVe2 ..tf5 1 7 ..txf5 "YWxe3 1 8 ..txh7+
h8 1 9 "YWxe3 ..txe3 20 ..te4 e5 21 ..td5
White, of course, has all the chances, even
though they are not enonnous.
21 . . . g8 22 fe1 l:tfe8 23 f1 ..td4 24
h4 f8 25 ..tb7 J:!.e6 26 a4 be8 27 J:te2
J:tb8 28 a5 a6! 29 !:tee1 g6 30 ..td5 J:txb1
31 1ilxb1 :f6 32 f3 ..te3 33 b6 g7 34
..tb7 ..txa5 35 J:txa6 J:!.xa6 36 ..txa6 ..td8
37 g3 g5 38 h5 ..tf6 39 e2 ..te5 40 g4
f6 41 d3 h6 42 e4 ..td4 43 f5
..te3 % - %
Game 33
H nydiuk-Kiselev
Zabrzanski Wrzesien 1994
e4 e5 2 lUf3 lUe6 3 lUe3 lUf6 4 d4
exd4 5 lUxd4 ..tb4 6 lUxe6 bxe6 7 ..td3
d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 0-0
Or 9 e2+ (this does not look so natural)
9 .....ie7 (for 9 ... 'iYe7 see Games 34-35)
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . d5 .
and now:
a) 1 0 i.g5 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 i.e6!? (my new
idea; 1 1 ...c6 1 2 J::Ih el i.d6 1 3 h3 h6 1 4 i.h4
ItbS 1 5 'iYf3 l:!.b4 1 6 i.xf6 'it'xf6 1 7 'it'xf6
gxf6 was equal in Zakic-Gligoric, Nis 1 995)
1 2 J:thel h6 1 3 i.h4 J:tb8 14 iLf5 J:tb6 1 5
ctJa4 Itb4! (1 5 ... Itc6?! would b e awkward and
White would be better after 16 i.d3!) 1 6
i.xf6 (16 iLxe6 J:txh4 1 7 i.h3 l:!.xa4 1 8
'it'xe7 J:txa2 gives Black the edge) 1 6 ... i.xf6
17 i.xe6 fxe6! 1 8 'iixe6+- <;1;hS 19 b3 (19
l:!.xd5 'ikbs 20 b3 'u'xa4 21 bxa4 'ib2+ 22
'it'd1 i.c3 gives Black a promising attack)
19 ... i.g5+ 20 'it'b2 (20 <;1;b1?? l:!.xa4 21 bxa4
'ib8+ and wins) 20 ... l:!.xa4!? (20... 'iif6+- with a
good game was also possible) 21 bxa4 'ib8+
22 'it>a3 i.f4! 23 l:!.xd5 i.d6t 24 l:.xd6 cxd6
and Black has a lot of play for the pawns.
b) 10 0-0 has not been really tested yet.
Here are some ideas: 10 ... 0-0 1 1 'uel l:!.e8 1 2
i.g5 i.g4 1 3 'it'e5 c6 1 4 'it'g3 i.h5 1 5 'ilVh4
(1 5 'ue5 i.g6 1 6 .l:i.ae1 'it'd7 1 7 i.xg6 fxg6 I S
'u5e2 i.d6 is equal) 1 5 ...iLg6 1 6 iLxg6 fxg6!
(this recapture is very important, as after
16 ... hxg6?! 1 7 J:te3 White has serious attack
ing chances) 1 7 'ii'h3 i.f8 1 8 .l:i.e6 c8 1 9
'uael l:!.xe6 20 Vi'xe6+- 'iVxe6 2 1 l:!.xe6 .l:!.c8 22
f3 (22 i.xf6? <;1;f7! would give Black the
edge) 22... h6 23 i.d2 'it>f7 with equality.
9 0-0 1 0 tLlb5
. . .
I cannot believe that this move is good;
the knight does not seem to be the piece
most in need of improvement.
As well as 10 Ji.g5, White has also tried:
a) 1 0 ctJe2?! kteS 1 1 c3 i.d6 1 2 i.f4 c5 1 3
SLxd6 Vi'xd6 with the idea of ... .l:i.bS and
Black is a little better.
b) 1 0 i.d2?! ne8 1 1 a3 iLg4 1 2 Vi'el SLd6
1 3 .i.f4 c6 1 4 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 1 5 l:!.e1 i.e6!? and
Black is no worse. Gambiza-Garcia, Novi
Sad 1 990.
1 0 iLg4!
. . .
The most accurate. 1O ... c5?! 1 1 i.g5 i.e6
would transpose to Game 31, while 10 ... c6?!
1 1 c3 i.c5 12 ctJd4 i.g4 1 3 a4 iLd7 14
iLg5 would give White a slight edge.
1 1 f3
White should not play 1 1 i.e2?! i.xe2 1 2
'iYxe2 .l:!.eS 1 3 i.e3 c 6 14 ctJd4 "iHc7 1 5 ctJf5
l:!.e4, when Black is better due to his gteater
mobility.
1 1 . . .iLd7
A good alternative that gtants equality is
1 1 ...i.c5+!? 12 'it'h 1 i.d7 13 c3 h6 (or 13 ... c6
14 ctJd4 i.d6 15 i.g5 lle8 with counterplay
- Gutman) 1 4 'it'e1 (14 b4 i.b6 1 5 i.f4
ctJh5! is equal - Huzman; 1 6 i.e5 l:!.eS! 1 7 f4
ctJf6 would give Black the advantage) 1 4... c6
15 ctJd4 lieS 16 "ifh4 (16 'iVg3 ctJh5 17 iVf2
'iVf6 is good for Black; the el -bishop is still
not playing) 16 ... i.fS (16 ... i.d6! was
stronger) 1 7 i.d2? (1 7 b3! with equality was
the only move) 1 7 ... c5! I S ctJf5 c4 1 9 SLc2
l:te2 20 l:!.adl i.xf5 21 i.xf5 l:!.bS 22 i.el
i.c5 and Black was clearly better in Mathe
Huzman, Wijk aan Zee 1 992.
65
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
1 2 c3
White was in trouble after 12 g5?! 1:.b8
13 c3 c6 14 hl 1:.e8 15 cl e7 1 6
i.h4 c5 1 7 e 1 i.e3 1 8 xf6 gxf6 1 9
dl f5 20 f4 d4 21 e2 4 2 2 1:.fl c5,
when the frailty of Black's pawn structure is
irrelevant, while his two bishops and attack
ing prospects are highly relevant. Rozentalis
Klovans, Groningen 1992.
1 2 . . . .lte7 1 3 lbd4
White would also have no advantage after
1 3 f4 xb5 1 4 i.xb5 c6 1 5 a4 i.d6! 1 6
i.xd6 (1 6 i.g5 h6 1 7 i.h4 b8 i s also even)
1 6 ...ii'xd6.
1 3 . . .e8 1 4 .l:!.e1 cS 1 S lbfS .ltf8 1 6
l:txe8 lbxe8 1 7 .lte3
White could have tried 17 i.c2!?, but after
1 7...c7 1 8 'iVd3 g6 1 9 h6+ (19 e3?!
'iVh4 would give Black some attacking
chances) 1 9 ... i.xh6 20 i.xh6 i.f5 21 'iVe2
i.xc2 22 ii'xc2 'iVf6 Black keeps the balance.
1 7 . . . hS!?
17 ... 1:.b8 is also equal.
1 8 d2 g6 1 9 lbg3
19 h6+? looks interesting, but analysis
shows that it is a mistake: 19 ...g7 20 b4
ii'c7 21 l::i.e l f6 22 i.f4 i.d6 23 xd6
'iVxd6 24 'iWg5 i.e6. The knight is not really
doing anything good for White at h6, but it
remains stuck there.
1 9 . . . lbg7 20 .l:!.e 1 .lte6 21 lbe2 'i!Vd7 22
b3
22 f4? weakens the control over the
centre and is refuted by 22... d4! 23 i.f2
i.xa2 24 b4 .tb3 25 bxc5 .txc5, when Black
is better.
22 . . . as 23 lbf4
Now Black has an interesting pawn sacri
fice.
23 . . . d4!
23 ... a4?! 24 b4 cxb4 25 cxb4 d4 26 .tf2
would grant White a slight edge.
24 .ltf2
Interesting also was 24 i.e4!? .l::t.d8 25 i.f2
i.d6 26 xe6 xe6 27 cxd4 cxd4 28 ii'xa5
d3 29 i.b6 (29 xd3?? Ji.c7!) 29 ... d2 30 1:.d1
66
i.c7 with strong compensation for the pawn.
24 . . . .!:!.e8 2S lbxe6 lbxe6 26 cxd4 c4
26 ... cxd4? 27 'iWxa5 would leave White sig
nificantly better.
27 dS?
The decisive mistake. White should have
played 27 xe6! ii'xe6 28 i.xc4 (28 bxc4
i.b4 29 c2 e1 ! 30 .tf1 ..txf2+ 31 xf2
d6 32 h3 1:.d8 33 d5 l:tc8 gives Black the
advantage due to the blockade) 28 .. :i'f5 29
d3 h6 30 'iVc2 d7 31 c4 h7! 32
ii'd3 c7 33 a4 and White has no obvious
weaknesses, so it is hard to believe that he
should be much worse, if worse at all.
27 . . . .ltb4 28 dxe6 J:txe6 29 b2 .ltxe1
30 .ltxc4 'ifd 1 31 .ltf1 .ltxf2+ 32 'ifxf2
.l:!.c6! 33 f4 .l:!.c2 34 e3 .l:!.c1 3S 'iff2 h4
36 fS gS 37 h3 .l:!.b1 38 f6 .l:!.c 1 39 a3
xb3 40 'ifd2 'ifb6+ 41 h2 'ifc7+ 42
g 1 'i!VcS+ 0-1
Game 34
Shirov-Karpov
Moscow 1992
The annotations to this game are based on
the those by Alexei Shirov in Chess Informant
56.
1 e4 eS 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 d4
exd4 S lbxd4 .ltb4 6 lbxc6 bxc6 7 .ltd3
dS 8 exdS 'ife7+!?
One of Efun Bogoljubow's ideas, first
played in his game against Spielmann at the
 S c o tc h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . . d5
holiday resort of Pistyan in 1 922. It is a rather
rare line, but on the other hand it can be used
as a surprise. All through the 1 990s this was
former World Champion Anatoly Karpov's
choice.
9 e2
The obvious move. Some unprepared
players have been known to play weird alter
natives:
a) 9 i..e2?! (some commentators has
marked this move with 'I?', something it does
not deserve) 9 .. .'jxd5 (the obvious move -
now White cannot pin with i..g5; 9 ... cxd5 1 0
0-0 0-0 i s equal, but practical examples are
needed) 1 0 i..d2 and now:
al) 1O ... i..a6 seems to be quite good for
Black. 1 1 lZJxd5 cxd5! (much better than 1 1 ...
i..d2?! 1 2 d2 cxd5 1 3 0-0 with good pros
pects for White - Tartakower) 12 c3 0-0 1 3
i.e3 (1 3 cxb4 nfe8 14 i.e3 'it'xb4+ 1 5 'iii>f1
i..xe2+ 1 6 xe2 d4 1 7 i..d2 xb2 1 8 'fidl
c5 gives Black a clear edge) 13 ... i..xe2 1 4
'iVxe2 .l:!.fe8 1 5 cxb4 d4 with equality in Po
gonina-Dimovska, Oropesa del Mar 2001.
a2) 1 O...i..xc3! 1 1 bxc3 i..a6 1 2 f1
i.xe2+ 13 'iVxe2 'i*'xe2+ 14 <;.i>xe2 0-0-0 1 5
l:the 1 was agreed drawn i n Movsesian
Stocek, Trencienske Teplice 2002. Due to a
difference of nearly 1 00 rating points in
Movsesian's favour, we can assume that he
was not truly happy with his position; Black
seems to be a little better.
b) 9 i..e3? lZJxd5 10 'fif3 .Jld7 1 1 0-0
lZJxc3 12 bxc3 i..xc3 13 .J::tabl 0-0 14 .l::!.b7
i.e5 1 5 l:txa7 Z;Ixa7 16 i..xa7 d6! 17 g3 c5
gives Black a clear edge - Gutman.
b) 9 'iii>f1 and now:
bl) 9 ... lZJxd5 1 0 lZJxd5 cxd5 1 1 a3 i..c5 1 2
'i' f3 c6 1 3 i..d2 0-0 1 4 l::te 1 'iVh4 1 5 h 3 i..e6
is even, but White has more problems with
his development, Czerniak-Troianescu,
Netanya 1 968.
b2) 9 ... cxd5 is also playable: 1 0 i..g5
i..xc3! (but not 10 ... c6?! 1 1 'iVf3 h6 12 i..b 5
0-0 13 i..xf6 gxf6 14 i..xc6 i..xc3 15 'i*'xc3
i..a6+ 16 gl ac8 1 7 'ii'g3+ 'iii>h 8 1 8 i..xd5
and White was clearly better, Velimirovic
Lukic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 962) 1 1 bxc3 0-0 1 2
f3 l:te8 1 3 h4 lZJe4 14 i..xe7 lZJd2+ 1 5 'iii>e2
lZJxf3 16 'iii>xf3 l:txe7 17 hel 'iii> f8 with an
even ending in Odeev-Aleksandrov, Voskre
sensk 1 993.
9 cxd5
.. .
Also interesting is 9...xe2+!? 10 'iii>xe2
and now:
a) Sufficient is 1 0 ... lZJxd5!? 1 1 lZJxd5 (1 1
lZJe4 0-0 12 a3 !ii.e7 1 3 c4 lZJb6 14 i.. f4 i.. f5!
with equality - Gutman. Probably it is in this
line that White should look for an advantage,
if there is any to be found. 1 5 b3 followed by
a4 seems to be the best try.) 1 1 ...cxd5 1 2
i..b5+ i.d7 1 3 !ii.xd7+ 'iii>xd7 1 4 dl 'iii>c6!
(an improvement over 14 ... l!he8+ 15 i..e 3
'iii>c6 16 c4 dxc4 17 l::td4 with a slight advan
tage for White in Oll-Beliavsky, Manila 1 992)
1 5 i..e 3 i..c 5! 16 c4 dxc4 1 7 J::tac1 !ii.xe3 1 8
fxe3 I:tad8 1 9 l:txc4+ 'iii>b7 and the endgame
should be a draw.
b) 10 ... cxd5 with a further branch:
b 1) 1 1 i..d2 transposes to the game.
b2) 1 1 !ii. f4 c6 12 lZJa4 0-0 (or 12 ... i..e 6!?
13 l:i.hdl 0-0 14 i.a6 i.g4+! 15 f3 i.. f5 and
Black is okay) 13 .t!.hdl e8+ 14 f1 i.g4 1 5
f3 i.e6 1 6 i.a6 lZJh5! with an unclear posi
tion, for example 17 i..c7 l:.e7! and Black is
doing fine.
b3) 1 1 lZJb5 'iii>d8 12 IIdl c6 13 lZJd4 and
now:
b31) 1 3 ...'iii>c7 1 4 c4 i.d6 1 5 h3 i..d7 1 6
<;.i>f1 l':the8 1 7 cxd5 lZJxd5 with equality -
Gutman. In my opinion White is better after
1 8 i..c 4!.
b32) 1 3. ..i..g4+! should be standard, but
apparently it is a new idea. After f2-f3 White
has weakened his dark squares and Black can
win a tempo with the move ... i.d6, as White
can no longer allow ... .txh2. Play continues
14 f3 i.d7 1 5 c4 i.d6 with equality.
1 0 i.d2
Or 1 0 i..b5+ i..d7 1 1 i..xd7+ lZJxd7 1 2
xe7+ Wxe7 1 3 !ii.d2 lZJb6! (13.. .lZJf6 is
equal, but the knight has more active oppor-
67
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
tunities on the queenside) 14 0-0-0 J:!.hd8 1 5
MheH f8 1 6 ttJb5 .ixd2+ 1 7 Mxd2 c 6 1 8
ttJd4 c 5 1 9 ttJe2?! (19 ttJf3, keeping the bal
ance, was stronger) 1 9... :Le8 20 .l:i.ddl Mad8
21 ttJf4 nxe 1 22 :Lxe1 g5 and Black was a
little better in V.Gurevich-Smagin, Cappelle
la Grande 1 995.
10 .. J1Vxe2+ 1 1 xe2
1 1 ttJxe2 .ixd2+ 12 'it>xd2 .l:.b8 1 3 b3 c5
14 .l:!.he1 d7 is equal. The king will be very
well placed on c6.
1 1 . . .e6
Other moves look less natural.
a) 1 1 ...0-0? 1 2 ttJb5 .l:!.e8+ 1 3 'it>d1 .ixd2
1 4 'it>xd2 nb8 1 5 ttJxc7 J;i.e7 1 6 ttJb5 and
\X1hite has a clear advantage.
b) 1 1 ....id7?! 12 a3 .ie7 (1 2 ... a5? 1 3
ttJxd5 would drop a pawn) 1 3 ttJb5 and
\X1hite is somewhat better.
1 2 tLJa4 d6 1 3 e3 0-0 1 4 f3 tLJd7 1 5
f2 .l:I.e8!
15 ... c5 16 c3 c4 17 .ic2 .ib7 18 b4 would
give \X1hite a slight edge.
1 6 l:the1
Or 16 Mhd1 ttJb6! 17 ttJxb6 axb6 1 8
xb6 Mb8 1 9 .id4 c 5 and Shirov believes
that this position is slightly better for Black.
He probably intended something like 20 c3
d4 21 d2 MXb2 22 a4 and now 22 ... e6 23
as c4 24 c1 l:tbb8 25 e4 f5 26 c6 Mec8
27 .ia4 .l:i.a8 sees \X1hite clearly struggling.
1 6 . . . g6
1 6 ... ttJe5 1 7 c5! c7 1 8 b4 gives an un-
68
clear position. If 1 8... ttJxd3+ the opening of
the c-ftle would expose the c-pawn.
1 7 l:.ad1 tLJe5 1 8 f1
18 c5!? is also possible.
1 8 . . . f5 1 9 l:I.d2 h5
Black has equalised.
20 a3 e7
20 ... ttJd7 21 g3 would be an improvement
for \X1hite, as Black is now tied to the defence
of c5.
21 b4?!
21 g3 f6 22 h3 was stronger, but after
22 ...g5 Black looks okay.
21 . . . tLJe4 22 xe4 dxe4 23 g3 a5 24
i.b6
Shirov gives 24 ttJb6 c3 25 Mde2 lh6 26
d4 (26 ttJc4 axb4 27 axb4 e6 28 d4
Mb8! 29 ttJe3 l:!.xb4 30 xc3 Mb5 is better
for Black, as the e6-bishop is clearly superior
to the e3-knight) 26 ... Mxe2+ 27 Mxe2 e6 28
ttJc8 axb4 29 axb4 'it>h7 30 xc3 g5 31 ttJe7
d6 32 f6 xb4 (32...g4!?) 33 xg5 cJi;g7
with unclear play.
24 . . . l:I.xe1 25 xe1 e3!
25 ... axb4 26 xc7 .!:!.xa4 27 axb4 ':xb4 28
e5 would be equal.
26 .l:I.e2 xb6 27 tLJxb6 .l:I.a6 28 bxa5?!
28 ttJc4 axb4 29 axb4 Ma2 30 ttJe3 e6
31 ttJd1 c4 32 .t'te4 a6 33 l:!.e8+ 'it>g7 34
Ma8 l:1a1 gives equality - Shirov. Now Black
is better.
28 . . . l:.xa5 29 tLJe4 l1a4 30 tLJd6 i.e6
30 ... .ih3 31 ttJe4 (31 cJo>f2!? Mxa3 32 g4
hxg4 33 'ii?g3 f5 34 f4! gives \X1hite counter
play for the pawns - Karpov) 31...1:!.xa3 32
.l:!.e3 MaH 33 'it>e2 J:th1 34 l:1xc3 .l:r.xh2+ 35
ttJf2 d7 36 'it>f1 h4 37 g4 h3 38 'ii?g1 l:1g2+
39 'ii? fl (Shirov) would probably end in a
draw.
3 1 l:.e3 .l:I.xa3 32 tLJe4 f5 33 e2 '>tg7
34 d3 g5 35 d4 g4 36 fxg4 hxg4 37
tLJxe3 i.xe2 38 .l:I.e5
\X1hite is able to draw this endgame be
cause of his counterplay against Black's weak
pawns.
38 . . .i.g6 39 liite 5 l:I.a6 40 e5 .l:I.b6 41
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 7
t4 b4+ 42 e3 b2 43 tZJe2 .l:ib3+ 44 16 .te5 gives White a substantial advantage
tZJc3 b6 45 t4 t!.b2 46 xg4 t!.xh2 47 according to Karpov, while 12...ctJxc3 13
xc6 .:tt2 48 h4 i.t5 49 g4 i.e6 50
g3 t!.d2 51 tZJe4 t!.d3+ 52 t4 i.d5 53
c1 g6 54 e5 % - % Fenoglio, Buenos Aires 1949) 13 ctJe2 ctJf6
Game 35
Yandemirov-Aleksandrov
5t Petersburg 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tZJt3 tZJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 tZJxd4
tZJt6 5 tZJc3 i.b4 6 tZJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 d5
8 exd5 'iVe7+ 9 'ilVe2 tZJxd5 10 'iVxe7+
1 0 . . . xe7
Almost everybody plays this, but why?
Why not 1O....txe7!? instead (there's still
plenty of room in chess for novelties). The
threat of ...ctJb4 and the semi-open b-ftle
makes this position hard to assess. 11 .td2
0-0 12 0-0-0 llb8 13 ctJxd5 cxdS 14 .tf4 11b7
15 l::!.hel .te6 was equal in Fomin-Romanov,
Kstovo 1994. 13 ctJxd5 seems to be innocu
ous, but how should White improve? 13 ctJe4
.tf5 14 f3 .te6 would be unclear (unfortu
nately 14...l:txb2 does not work).
1 1 i.d2!?
Another move order that leads to a well
known position. This move order seems to
be the more accurate than the 'normal' 11 a3,
for example:
a) 11....taS?! 12 b4! (this move was found
by 1M Moshe Czerniak) 12....tb6 (12....txb4
13 axb4 ctJxc3 14 .tb2 ctJd5 15 .txg7 l::i.g8
. . . d5
bxaS ctJdS 14 0-0 l::!.b8 15 :i.e1+ .te6 16 f4
gave White a clear edge in Czerniak
14 .tb2 l:!.e8 15 0-0 and White is a certainly
better.
b) 11....txc3+ 12 bxc3 .te6! (12...ctJxc3?!
13 .tb2 ctJd5 14 .txg7 l::!.g8 15 .te5 is better
for White, as is 12...l::!.e8 13 O-O!) 13 0-0 (13
a4 as 14 .ta3+ 'it'd7 15 0-0 ctJf4 16 l:!.fe1
ctJxd3 17 cxd3 .she8 was rightfully agreed
drawn in Afek-1vkov, Wijk aan Zee 2000)
13...f6 14 c4 ctJb6 15 .te4 .txc4 16 :tel f7
17 .txc6 l::!.ad8 18 .te3 .tdS! 19 .tb5 .tc4
20 .txc4+ ctJxc4 21 .txa7 lIdS! and Black
held in Lautier-Karpov, Biel 1992. White
cannot keep the pawn on a3, no matter how
much he would love to.
1 1 . . .tZJxc3
White had a clear plus after 11....txc3?! 12
bxc3 .te6 13 c4 ctJb6 14 .tb4+ d7 15 0-0-0
c8 16 c5 ltJd5 17 .ta6+ b8 18 .taS .tc8
19 .tc4 .te6 20 i.a6 .tc8 21 .tc4 .te6 22
l::!.he1 in Yandernirov-Aleksandrov, Kstovo
1994.
1 2 a3 i.a5
This seems to be the only move, although
previous publications have claimed differ
ently.
a) According to Gutman Black has a good
game after 12...lIe8? 13 axb4 f8+, but the
two bishops and stronger pawn structure
make this position clearly better for White.
14 f1 ltJe4 15 .tf4 ltJd6 16 f3 shows how.
b) 12....td6? 13 .txc3 !te8 14 0-0-0 f8
15 l:!.hel .td7 16 .txh7 g6 17 h4 and 'X'hite
has an obvious advantage, Frolov-Shibaev,
Samara 2002.
1 3 b4
13 .txc3?! .txc3+ 14 bxc3 was equal in
Spielmann-Rubinstein, Teplitz-Schonau
1922.
1 3 . . .i.xb4?!
Very risky. 13...l::!.e8! was probably the
best. 14 bxa5 (14 0-0 .tb6 15 l::!.fe1+ .te6 16
69
Th e Fo u r Knigh ts
.l.xc3 'it>f8 and the position is equal - Gut
man) 1 4...f8+ 1 5 'it>f1 ctJe4! 1 6 .iel (16
.l.f4 ctJc5! with equality is an important dif
ference from the notes on move twelve; 1 6
.l.b4+ c5 1 7 .l.el ctJd6 is fine too) 1 6...'it>g8!
17 f3 ctJc5 and Black is no worse.
13 ... .l.b6 14 .l.xc3 f6 1 5 0-0 .l.e6 16 .l:!.fel
'it>f7 also looks fine. The game Arkhipov
Kholmov, Azov 1 993 concluded in a draw
after 1 7 l:.e2 .l.g4 1 8 .ic4+ g6 1 9 l':!.e7 i.f5
20 i.f7+ h6 21 i.d2+ g5 22 i.c3 Mhf8 23
i.b3 .l:!.ae8 24 l2:ael l:.xe7 25 .l:!.xe7 .l:!.d8 26
f1 .l:!.d1+ 27 .l:!.el 'ud6 28 h3 c5 29 b5 c4 30
i.xc4 .l.xc2 31 l:!.c1 .l.a4 32 .l.b4 .l:td4 33
.l.e2 g6 34 .ic5.
14 axb4 lLld5 1 5 .te4!
1 5 c4?! ctJb6 16 .if4 :d8 17 .l.xc7 .l:!.xd3
1 8 .l.xb6 i.e6 would allow Black to get
counterplay.
1 5 . . J:te8 1 6 0-0 f8 1 7 f3 e6 1 8 c4
White has an advantage somewhere be
tween slight and large - a medium advantage!
1 8 . . . lLle7 1 9 J:lfc 1 lLlf5!? 20 c3 .td7?!
If 20...ctJe7 21 .l.d4 f5 22 .l:!.xa7 ':xa7 23
.l.xa7 g5 Black keeps good drawing chances.
21 J:[d 1 ! J::r.ed8
After 21 ...l:!.e7 22 l:!.xd7! l:I.xd7 23 .ixc6
.l:!.ad8 24 i.xd7 .l:!.xd7 25 f1 White has seri
ous winning chances.
22 h3?
A sloppy mistake. Two alternatives were
better:
a) 22 i.e5!? i.e6 (22... ctJd6 23 .l.xd6+
70
cxd6 24 l:hd6 'it>e7 25 c5 would put Black
under pressure) 23 .ixc6 J::!.xd1+ 24 ':xd1
l:!.c8 25 c5 f6 26 .l.c3 ctJe7 27 .ie4 would
give White a clear advantage.
b) So would 22 ':xd7! ltxd7 23 .ixc6
.l:!.ad8 24 .ixd7 Ilxd7 25 'it>fl , when the end
game is very unpleasant for Black.
22 . . ..te8 23 l:!.xd8 J::r.xd8 24 J::r.x a7 lLld4!
25 .txd4
After 25 .ig4? f5 26 i.xd4 fxg4 27 i.c5+
'it>f7 28 hxg4 .l:!.d7 the endgame is most
probably drawn.
25 . . . J:.xd4 26 e2 J::r.d 2 27 .tf1 J:tb2!
Black has now found some counterplay.
28 l:!.b7 J:tb 1 29 f4?!
Better was 29 h4!? h6 30 f3 g6 31 c5 .l:!.b2
32 'it>h2 .l:!.b 1 33 .l.d3 .l:!.b2 34 g3 l:!b3 35
i.e4 f5 36 i.c2 .l:!.b2 37 .l.d3 and White still
has a little pressure.
29 . . . J:tb2 30 c5 g6 3 1 g4
31 g3 h5 32 .l.g2 llb 1+ 33 'it>h2 .l:!.b2 34
.l:!.xc7 l:txb4 35 .ixc6 i.xc6 36 .l:!.xc6 h4 37
gxh4 'uxf4 38 'it>g3 1:.c4 would be easily
drawn for Black. And after 31 h2?! .l:!.f2!
Black would have good counterplay.
31 . . . hS 32 g5 h5 33 h4
Maybe stronger was 33 .l.g2 h4!, for ex
ample: 34 .if3 i.d7 35 .l:!.xc7 .l:!.b1+ 36 f2
.l:!.b2+ 37 'it>e3 ':b3+ 38 e2 l:!.b2+ 39 d3
l:tb3+ 40 'it>c2 .l:!.xf3 41 ':xd7 .l:!.xf4 42 'it>c3
.l:!.f3+ 43 l':!.d3. White's position looks good
but Black can keep his counterplay alive with
43 ....:g3!. After 44 'it>c4 ':xg5 45 .l:!.d6 the
position is not clear at all.
33 . . . .!:!.d2 34 .tg2 .!:!.d4 35 f5 gxf5 36
J:lxc7 l:txb4 37 .1xc6 .txc6 38 J:lxc6
l:txh4
Black is better! The draw occurs only be
cause the rook endgame with f- and h-pawns
are theoretically drawn.
39 tU6 litg4+ 40 h2 J::r.x g5 41 c6 f4 42
c7 J::tc 5 43 J:lf5 J:lxc7 44 J::i:.x h5 J.:!.c2+ 45
g1 g7 46 .!:!.f5 J:tc4 47 f2 g6 48
J:ta5 J:lc3 49 litb5 f6 50 J:la5 lite3 51 J:lb5
J:[e5 52 J:lb8 f5 53 .l:!.a8 l:1.b5 54 f3
.l:!.b3+ 55 f2 f3 56 g3 J:le3 Y:z - Y:z
 S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 7 . . . d5

Summary
Once again it makes no real sense for White to avoid the main lines, but Black has an interest
ing alternative in 8 .. JiVxe7+, which still contains many untried ideas. Later Black should be
careful because, as opposed to the nonnal 1 0... c6, neither 10 ... .i.e7 nor 10 ... .i.e6 can fully guar
antee equality.

1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 d3 d5 8

exd5 cxd5
8 . . "i!ke7+ (D) 9 'Yi'e2
.

9 ... cxdS Game 34; 9 .. .':tJxdS Game 35

- -

9 0-0 0-0 1 0 g5
10 ctJbS (D) Game 33 -

1 0 . . e6
.

1O . .i.e7 Game 32
. . -

1 1 ttJb5 (D) Game 3 1 -

1 1 'iV f3 Game 30; 1 1 ctJe2 Game 29

- -

8. . : e 7 + 1 0 ttJb5 1 1 ttJb5

71
 CHAPTER SIX I
Scotch Four Knights :
Sidelines after 5 ctJxd4

1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4

exd4 5 l2lxd4
This position is one with which many be
ginners are familiar. And contrary to most
symmetrical systems that beginners opt for,
this line is also played at the highest level. In
this chapter we shall investigate unusual ideas
for both sides. This includes (after 5 ... i.b4 6
lLlxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3) the interesting 7... d6!?
(Games 36-37), which can be used as a great
surprise weapon. It is little known, looks
passive, but is both good and active. It's not
a very popular move, but quite a good alter
native to 7 ... d5, which is in my opinion a bit 8
l2lg4!
. . .

overplayed and dull - it is very hard to find A good, aggressive move.

new ideas. After 7 ... d6 you will have a more a) After S... i.xc3?! 9 bxc3 Black cannot
dynamic game in uninhibited territory. equalise:
Also making this chapter is Hebden's a1) 9 ... lLld7 is too slow. 1 0 .i.e3 0-0 1 1 f4
5 ... .1c5!?, which is not fully reliable, and fi
c5 1 2 e5 i.b7 1 3 'iHh5! g6 1 4 'iib3 f5?!
nally 5 ...lLJxe4?!, which is somewhat dubious.
(14.. :iKe7 1 5 exd6 cxd6 16 l1ae1 with a white
....--------------...
. initiative was preferable) 1 5 exf6 'iWxf6 16 f5
Game 36 gave White a clear advantage, Baldin-Ivanov,
Godena-Beliavsky Chicago 1997.
Reggio Emilia 1995/96 a2) 9 ... h6 10 .i.f4 0-0 1 1 li'f3 11es 12 Mfe1
'---------------.. lLld7 13 e5 lLlxe5 14 i.xe5 dxe5 1 5 xc6 is
1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4 somewhat better for White.
exd4 5 l2lxd4 b4 6 l2lxc6 bxc6 7 d3 b) Interesting is S .. :e7!? 9 lLJe2! (9 .tg5
d6!? 8 0-0 h6! 10 .th4 g5 1 1 .i.g3 xc3 - better is
The best move, S .i.g5, is seen in the next 1 1 ...lLlg4! as in the main game - 1 2 bxc3 lLlg4
game. 1 3 d2 h5 1 4 f3 lLle5 1 5 f4 h4 1 6 .i.f2 gxf4

72
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 CiJ x d4
17 'YWxf4 c5 1 8 J::i.a bl Ji.d7 was unclear in
Motylev-Mokriak, Briansk 1 995) 9 ... Ji.c5 1 0
c 3 (10 4Jg3?! 4Jg4! i s dangerous: ".iVh4 and
".h5-h4 are coming) 1 0".0-0 1 1 4Jd4 Ji.d7 1 2
ltf3 h 6 1 3 Ji.f4 and White appears to have a
slight space advantage.
9 .1te2!
The best. The alternatives are:
a) 9 Ji.f4 'YWf6 1 0 ii'd2 0-0 1 1 'sae1 h6 1 2
.ig3 'iVd4 1 3 a 3 Ji.xc3 1 4 'YWxc3 ii'xc3 1 5
bxc3 4Je5 1 6 Ji.xe5 dxe5 with equality,
S.Lalic-Maric, Hastings 1 994/95.
b) 9 Itf3 0-0 10 'ii'g3 4Je5 1 1 4Je2 .i.c5
12 Ji.h6 4Jg6 13 .ig5 f6 14 Ji.e3 Ji.xe3 1 5
'YWxe3 .l:!.e8 was unclear in Nepeina Leconte
Maric, Igalo 1 994.
c) 9 h3 4Je5 and now:
c1) 1 0 f4?! 4Jxd3 (a bishop is a bishop!) 1 1
cxd3 'ii'f6 1 2 e5 (1 2 'iVe1 'iYd4+ 1 3 'iVe3 Ji.c5
is a little better for Black) 12".dxe5 1 3 fxe5
'iVg6 14 4Je2 0-0 1 5 4Jf4 'ii'f5 16 d4 llVe4 1 7
'YWd3 .if5 1 8 'ii'xe4 .ixe4 1 9 Ji.e3 .l:!.ae8! and
Black, who plans ".f7-f6, is better, Grabics
Mikhalchishin Nova Gorica 2000.
c2) 10 e2 lth4 (1 0".0-0 1 1 4Ja4! .i.a5 1 2
b 3 with a small advantage for White - Gut
man) 1 1 f4! (1 1 .ie3? .ixc3 1 2 bxc3 'ii'xe4
13 .l:!.b 1 0-0 and 'X-bite did not have full com
pensation for the pawn, Ruchieva-Maric,
Tivat 1 995) 1 1 ...4Jg6 (1 1 ...Ji.xh3? 12 'ii'e l !
and White wins a piece) 12 'iVel i.c5+ 1 3
'it>hl 'iVe7 (13".'ii'x e1 i s equal) 1 4 'iVg3 .i.d4
with an unclear position.
9 . . . CiJe5?!
9".h5? 1 0 d4 z:tb8 1 1 'iVxg7 would just
drop a pawn, but 9".4!? needs to be
investigated:
a) 10 .ixg4 'ii'xg4 1 1 'ii'xg4 .i.xg4 is equal
or maybe even slightly better for Black. He
has two bishops and can utilise the e- and b
flies.
b) Interesting is 10 Ji.f4!? Ji.xc3 1 1 Ji.g3
'ili'e7 1 2 bxc3 4Jf6, when 1 3 f3?! 4Jh5! gives
Black sufficient counterplay. After all,
White's structure on the queenside is slightly
flawed.
c) 10 h3 4Jf6 (1 0".4Je5 transposes to note
'c2' to White's 9th move) 1 1 'iVd3 as with
good counterplay for Black; the chances are
approximately equal.
1 0 CiJa4!
After this White will eventually gain the
two bishops, and then the f2-f4 push will
secure him a slight advantage.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 a3 .lta5 1 2 b4 .1tb6 1 3 c4
13 4Jxb6 axb6 14 f4 4Jg6 1 5 Ji.b2 looks
good too, but White is playing a strategy of
restraint where Black must wonder when or
if his bishop will be exchanged.
1 3 . . .'Yie7 1 4 .ltb2 l:lb8 1 5 iVd2 c5
1 5".l1e8? 16 ii'c3! wins the exchange after
1 6".f5 1 7 c5! dxc5 1 8 bxc5 Ji.xc5 1 9 4Jxc5
.l:!.xb2, as after 1 6".c5 1 7 4Jxb6 cxb6 1 8 f4
the knight is lost.
1 6 bxc5 dxc5 1 7 CiJc3 .lta5 1 8 CiJd5 d6
1 9 'ilkc2
White only has a slight edge after 1 9 .ixe5
xd2 20 Ji.xd6 cxd6 21 .:i.ad1 11b2 22 :b1 .
1 9 . . .c 6 20 J::.a d1 f6 21 f4!
Black is up against it and does not find the
relief he could have after 21 4Jb6?! 'iVc7 22
4Jxc8 .l:1.fxc8 23 f4 4Jg6 24 .i.g4, when White
is better, but not by much.
21 . . . cxd5!
Not 21...4Jg6?? 22 4Jxf6+.
22 fxe5 'iWb6
22".fxe5? 23 .l:!.xfS+ xf8 24 .l:!.xd5 'iVb6
25 .ltxe5 'iVb1+ 26 .i.dl 'ii'xc2 27 .ltxc2
would lead to a winning endgame for White
73
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
(d6+ comes next) .
23 J:!.b1 d4
23 ... dxe4? 24 exf6 gxf6 25 xf6 d6 26
MxbS 'iYxbS 27 "it'c1 wins the exchange and
leaves Black in trouble.
24 xd4 "ilic7 25 l:!.xb8 cxd4!
Trying to complicate matters. 2S ...xbS?
26 xcS is hopeless.
26 "W\Yb3 d3
26 ... "it'xeS 27 MbS 'iVc7 2S hl gives
White a clear advantage.
27 c5+ c,t>h8 28 xd3 "Yi'xe5 29 b2?
It was better to play actively. After 29 MfS!
'iHd4+ (29...fie7 30 MdS! c7 31 .l:i.aS i.e6
32 Mxf8+ xfS 33 "iibs i.xdS 34 exdS
would win for White) 30 hl c7 31 .l:.aS
a1+ 32 bl "it'd4 33 .lldS f2 34 "it'dl
Black is under attack and down on material.
29 . . . "Yi'xc5+ 30 c,t>h 1 "Yi'd6
31 .l:!.b3?
White could still win after 31 c4! .ltc3
32 ifbs .lteS 33 ItaS .ltxh2 34 xa7 .ltes 35
dS ifb6 36 MV MXV 37 fixv dS 3S
i.e2, followed by Md 1 , and Black will have
to enter the hopeless endgame where the a
pawn will decide the game.
31 . . . i.c7 32 e5 "Yi'xe5 33 "Yi'xe5 xe5 34
i.f5 xf5?
After 34 ... i.a6 35 l:!.dl g6 36 i.e4 MV 37
Itd8+ g7 3S Mbl c7 39 l:!.eS i.b6 40 .ltf3
l:tc7 41 i:!.bel h6 42 J::t Se7 J::tc2 White re
tains practical chances of winning, but the
position is probably an objective draw.
74
35 .l::!.xf5 .l:!.c8 36 J:tf 1 ! li!.c4 37 J:i:.d 1 ?
Black is given more and more chances.
White wins after 37 Mb7 Ma4 3S Mdl h6 39
Md8+ h7 40 Mdd7.
37 . . . h6! 38 l:!.b7 a6 39 J:f.a7 J:!.a4
Now it is too late - White can no longer
win the a-pawn.
40 J:td3 b2 41 g3 J:!.xa3
Now the position is close to equal.
42 J:tdd7 f5 43 J:!d5 c,t>h7 44 .l:!.xf5 c,t>g6
45 J:td5 f6 46 l:!.a8 J:ta 1 + 47 c,t>g2 J:i.a2+
48 c,t>h3 ':'a3 49 J:th8 g5 50 J:1d6+ f6
51 l:td5 i.g5 52 l:!.d6+ i.f6 53 l:!.a8 h5
54 .l:!.dxa6 J:i.xa6 55 J:i.xa6 c,t>f7 56 J:i.a7+
c,t>g8 57 J:!.a5 g6
This position is a theoretical draw - it is a
fortress where White cannot enter. All Black
has to do is prevent the white king from get
ting to V.
58 J:!.a7 c,t>f8 59 c,t>g2 c,t>g8 60 c,t>f3 c,t>f8 6 1
c,t>e4 c,t>g8 6 2 c,t>d5 i.c3 6 3 c,t>e6 i.b2 64
.l:!.b7 i.c3 65 h3 i.a1 66 J:.b5 c,t>g7 67
:g5 i.c3 68 h4 i.e1 69 c,t>e7 i.f2 70
c,t>d6 c,t>f7 71 c,t>d5 i.e3 72 lie5 Y, y, -
Game 37
Bezman-Varavin
Perm 1997
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4
exd4 5 ttJxd4 i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3
d6 8 i.g5 h6 9 h4 e6!
After 9 ... 0-0?! 10 0-0 MeS 1 1 f4 b7 1 2
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knig h ts : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 tiJ x d4
lbe2! e7 1 3 lbg3 'it'e6 14 f5 'i!Ve5 1 5 i.xf6
'i!Vxf6 1 6 c3 White has strong attacking
chances - Gutman.
1 0 0-0?!
This runs into a stonn of ancient propor
tions. Better is 1 0 f41. Now there is a lot of
logic in Black continuing aggressively with
1 0... g5! 1 1 ii.g3 (1 1 fxg5 lbg4 12 'iVd2 .l:i.g8
1 3 h3 hxg5 1 4 i.g3 lbe5 gives Black a good
game) 1 1 ...gxf4 (Black must act; after
1 1 ....l:i.b8?! 1 2 0-0 i.cs+ 1 3 c;t>hl lbg4 1 4 f5!
lbe3 1 5 'it'f3 lbxf1 1 6 I;[xf1 i.c8 1 7 e5 White
stands much better because Black's rooks
can hardly be called useful here) 1 2 ii.xf4
.l:i.g8
and now:
a) 1 3 O-O?! lbg4? (1 3 ... i.cs+ 1 4 'it>hl lbg4
right move order) 1 4 'it>hl ? (14 lba4! ii.a5 1 5
c3 lbe5 16 b4 i.b6+ 1 7 lbxb6 axb6 1 8 a4
with unclear play) 1 4... i.c5 1 5 'it'e2 "ikh4 1 6
g3 lIVe7 (16 ...'tlVh3!? and 1 6 ...'it'h5!? are
equally viable options) 1 7 lbdl lbe5?!
(17 ...h5! with a mess is probably better) 1 8
ii.xe5 i.g4 (1 8 ...dxe5 1 9 i.c4 is better for
White) 19 ii.xd6 cxd6 20 "iig2 and there is
not enough compensation for the pawn.
b) 1 3 'it'd2 lbh5!? 1 4 i.e3 (14 O-O-O?
i.xc3! 1 5 bxc3 lbxf4 1 6 it'xf4 'iig5 is clearly
better for Black) 1 4...iVh4+ 1 5 'it'f2 with an
unclear position. But note that 1 5...lbg3?? is
not an option because of 1 6 O-O-O! and White
WillS .
1 0 . . . g5!
With this move and indeed Black's whole
plan, Varavin is clearly inspired by a classic
from more than 1 50 years ago. Here it is:
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 0-0 d6 5
d3 lbf6 6 i.g5?! (6 c3 6 lbc3) 6 ... h6! 7 ii.h4?
(7 i.e3 7 i.xf6 'i'xf6 8 lbc3 is level) 7 ...g5! 8
ii.g3
8 ... h5!! 9 h4 (9 lbxg5 h4! 10 lbxf7 hxg3 1 1
lbxd8 i.g4!! 12 'iid2 lbd4 1 3 h3! [Black wins
after both 13 lbc3 lbf3+1! 14 gxf3 i.xf3 and
1 3 lbf7 l:r.xh2!] 1 3. .. lbe2+ 1 4 'i'xe2 i.xe2 1 5
lbe6 i.b6 1 6 lbc3 i.xfl 1 7 'it>xfl c;t>d7! 1 8
fxg3 l:r.ag8 19 lbxc7 .l:!.xg3 20 lbe2 :g6 21
lbd5 [21 lbe6 lbg4! and Black wins]
21...lbxd5 22 i.xd5 J::i.f8+) 9 ... i.g4 1 0 c3
'iWd7 1 1 d4 exd4 12 e5 dxe5 13 i.xe5 ltJxe5
1 4 lbxe5 'it'f5! 1 5 lbxg4 hxg4 1 6 i.d3 'iWd5
17 b4 O-O-O! 1 8 c4 'it'c6 1 9 bxc5 .l:.xh4 20 f3
.l:.dh8 21 fxg4 'i'e8 (21 ...lbe4! 22 i.xe4 %:th1+
23 c;t>f2 it'xe4 was quicker) 22 'iWe 1 'it'e3+ 23
xe3 dxe3 24 g3 .:i.h 1+ 25 g2 .l:!.8h2+ 26
f3 .u.xf1+ 27 i.xf1 .l::!.f2+ 28 xe3 .l::txfl 29
a4 d7 30 c;t>d3 lbxg4 31 c;t>c3 lbe3 32 .l:i.a2
l:lxb 1 33 .l:.d2+ c;t>c6 34 .l::te2 ':k1+ 35 'it>d2
.l:i.c2+ 36 xe3 ':'xe2+ 37 xe2 f5 38 e3
..t>xc5 39 <iitd3 f4 0-1 Dubois-Steinitz, Lon
don 1 862.
1 1 ..tg3 h5! 1 2 f4
Or:
a) 12 e5? lbd7! 1 3 f4 gxf4 14 i.xf4 i.cs+
1 5 ..t>h1 dxe5 and Black is close to winning.
b) 12 f3 h4 1 3 i.f2 g4 1 4 i.d4 g3 1 5 h3
i.c5!? 1 6 lbe2 ii.xd4+ 1 7 lbxd4 'ilfb8 1 8
75
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
ttJxe6 fxe6 1 9 e5 ttJd5 20 .Jtg6+ d7 was
unclear, but probably good for Black in
Frolov-Varavin, Ekaterinburg 1 997. Maybe
1 6 .Jtxc5 dxc5 was forced, even though Black
can continue with ... c5-c4.
c) 12 h3 and now:
c1) 1 2... lid7 1 3 'ii'd2 l:!.g8 14 a3 .Jtc5 1 5
ttJa4 .Jtb6 1 6 ttJxb6 axb6 1 7 'iVc3! with some
advantage for White.
c2) 1 2... h4 13 .Jth2 g4 14 e5! dxe5
(14... .1Lxc3? 1 5 bxc3 gxh3 16 exf6 hxg2 1 7
lie1 probably does not offer enough com
pensation for the piece) 1 5 i.xe5 i.d6 1 6
.l:!.e1 with a very unclear situation.
c3) 12 ... ttJd7! 1 3 ttJa4 lif6 1 4 a3 .1La5 1 5
b4 .1Lb6 1 6 ttJxb6 axb6 1 7 a4 h4! 1 8 .i.h2 g4
1 9 hxg4 h3 and Black has a very strong at
tack. White would like to play 20 g3 but then
the bishop is simply forgotten and buried,
and after a move like 20... c5! Black is much
better.
1 2 . . . h4 1 3 .i.e 1
Also possible was 13 i.f2!? i.xc3! (the
right moment; 13. ..gxf4 1 4 i.d4 c5 1 5 .1Lxf6
"iixf6 1 6 ttJd5 .1Lxd5 1 7 exd5 'tixb2 1 8 J::txf4
.1Lc3! 1 9 'iNe2+ is not so clear) 1 4 bxc3 gxf4
1 5 lif3 (1 5 i.d4 c5 is less attractive now)
1 5 ... ttJg4! 1 6 .1Ld4 l:tg8 1 7 'it'xf4 (17 h3 ttJe3
1 8 .1Lxe3 fxe3 19 "iixe3 l:!.g3 is dangerous for
White) 1 7... c5 1 8 ..ib5+ 'it'fS 1 9 i.f2 .l:.b8 20
a4 h3 21 g3 lig5 and Black is clearly better.
1 3 . . . gxf4 1 4 J:txf4 ttJd7! 1 5 cJ;>h 1
1 5 'tid2! ttJe5 (1 5 ...'tig5? 1 6 .l:!.xh4! costs a
pawn for no reason) 1 6 a3 i.c5+ 1 7 'it'h1 h3
1 8 g3 g8 would give Black good attacking
chances, but White also has reasonable ideas
and the game is still open.
1 5 ttJd5?? i.c5+ does not work.
1 5 . . :iWg5 1 6 .i.d2
16 lin .l:i.b8!? 17 a3 ..ic5 18 i.d2 "iflg7
gives Black the twin threats of the simple
....l:!.xb2 and the positional ... h4-h3.
1 6 . . . g8 1 7 'i'e2
1 7 'iNn h3 18 g3 ttJe5 is also uncomfort
able.
1 7 . . . ttJe5 1 8 af1
76
White would have been better off trying
1 8 xf7! 'iYxg2+ 19 "iflxg2 .l:i.xg2 20 Wxg2
.1Lxf7!? (20 ... xf7 21 .l:i.f1+ e7 22 .1Lg5+
d7 23 .1Lxh4 ..ixc3 24 bxc3 .ixa2 is less
clear - White has some counterplay with 25
.1Lg3 and the h-pawn, even though Black's
chances are preferable) 21 a3 (21 .1Lg5? i.xc3
22 bxc3 .l:i.b8 23 SLxh4 l:!.b2 24 g3 .l:i.xa2 25
xa2 .1Lxa2 26 i.a6 .1Lc4! 27 .1Lxc4 ttJxc4 28
.1Lg5 as and Black wins; 21 ttJb5 cxb5 22
.1Lxb4 We7 is just very pleasant for Black)
21...i..c5 22 n d7. Ths gives White some
problems to solve, but at least they would
not be overpowering.
1 8 . . ..ltg4!
1 9 l:!.4f3??
A fatal blunder. 19 'iYf2 .1Lc5 20 I1f6! lig7
21 'iNxh4 i.e2! (21 ...i.. f3 22 "iflg3 "iixg3 23
hxg3 ttJg4 24 gxf3 ttJxf6 is hardly better for
Black at all) 22 g3 i.xfl 23 .l:i.xf1 tth8 24
'iNf4 'iNg4 gives Black a clear edge, but still
there is a fight left. Now it is all over.
1 9 . . :iWg7! 20 .i.e3 h3! 2 1 g3 .i.xf3+ 22
.l:!.xf3 ttJxf3 23 'i'xf3 .ltxc3 24 bxc3 'ifxc3
0-1
Game 38
Bondarevsky-Bronstein
Moscow 1945
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4
exd4 5 ttJxd4 .i.b4 6 ttJxc6 bxc6
 S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h ts : Sidelin e s a ft e r 5 CD x d4
Here the standard move is 7 iLd3. This is
certainly the most logical and natural move,
but even so other moves have found their
way into the minds of chess players from
time to time.
7 'ilVd4
Or:
a) 7 eS? 'Viie7 S 'Viie2 ttJdS 9 .td2 ttJxc3 1 0
bxc3 iLcs i s simply good for Black.
b) 7 .td2 0-0 S i.d3 l:teS!? (S... dS 9 0-0 is
equal) 9 0-0 i.xc3 1 0 .txc3 ttJxe4 1 1 'ViihS
(1 1 .td4 dS 12 1:tel .tfS looks good for
Black too) l 1 ...dS 1 2 .l:.ael g6!? (double
edged) 1 3 ife2 .tfS and White has to prove
compensation that is obviously there.
c) 7 .tgS h6 S .td2 (S .th4 gS 9 .tg3
ttJxe4 1 0 ifd4 .txc3+ 1 1 bxc3 O-O! gives
Black the advantage) S... O-O 9 .td3 1:teS is an
improved version for Black on the 7 iLd2
line given above.
d) 7 'Viid 3?! O-O! (the strongest; 7... 'fie7 S f3
dS 9 .tgS dxe4 1 0 .txf6 exd3+ 1 1 i.xe7
cJ;;xe7 12 Ji.xd3 is only equal) and now:
dl) S Ji.gS? iLxc3+ 9 bxc3 1:teS 1 0 f3 dS
leaves White horribly placed in the centre.
d2) S Ji.d2? .txc3 9 .txc3 (9 bxc3 ttJxe4!)
9 ... ttJxe4! 10 'Viixe4 1:teS 1 1 Ji.eS dS 12 'Viie 3
f6 and White is in trouble.
d3) S f3 dS 9 .te2 as and Black clearly has
the initiative.
7 . . :e7 8 f3
S .td3!? is known to be bad because of
S... dS 9 .tgS cS 10 .tbS+ fS 1 1 'fid3
'fixe4+, but 9 O-O! would give White a good
game. Therefore S ... cS! with a slight edge
should be preferred.
8 . d5
. .
There are some relevant alternatives:
a) S ... .tcS 9 'iid3 1:tbS 10 ttJa4 Ji.b4+
(10... 0-0 is very slightly better for White after
1 1 ttJxcS 'fixcs 12 .te3 'iib4+ 1 3 'fic3
'Viixc3+ 14 bxc3 as l S .td4) 1 1 c3 Ji.d6 12
Ji.d2! (12 Ji.e3?! 0-0 13 0-0-0 1:teS 1 4 ifc2
ttJdS! gave Black a strong attack in Bon
darevsky-Smyslov, Moscow 1 944) 12 ... 0-0 1 3
0-0-0 with good attacking chances for White
- Gutman.
b) S... cS! 9 'iVf2 (9 ife3 0-0 1 0 Ji.c4 1:teS
1 1 0-0 c6 12 gS .txc3 1 3 bxc3 dS 1 4 exdS
cxdS I S .tbS .td7 16 Ji.xd7 'fixd7 and Black
is a little better - Gutman) 9...0-0 10 Ji.d2 (10
Ji.d3 dS 1 1 0-0 c4 12 Ji.e2 1:teS is very pleas
ant for Black) lO ... dS 1 1 0-0-0 transposes to
the game continuation.
9 .id2?!
Here White had a chance to escape the
horrible position in which he soon ends up.
After 9 Ji.gS! Black has the follo'Wlng choices:
a) 9 ... dxe4 10 O-O-O! and Black is suddenly
far behind in development and also structur
ally damaged.
b) 9 ... cS 1 0 .tbS+ fS (1 O ... Ji.d7 1 1
.txd7+ ifxd7 1 2 'iVeS+ 'iie6 1 3 Ji.xf6 gxf6 14
'fixdS 'fixdS I S exdS 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 is close
to winning for White) 1 1 ifd3 d4 (1 1 ...dxe4
12 fxe4 .txc3+ [12 .. :iVxe4+?! 13 'fixe4 ttJxe4
14 .tc6 ttJxc3 I S Ji.xas ttJe4+ 1 6 c3 .txc3+
1 7 bxc3 ttJxgS lS .llb 1 with advantage for
White was the line given by Salvioli] 1 3 bxc3
Ji.b7 14 0-0 'iVxe4 I S 'iig3 and \X/hite has
obvious compensation for the material) 12
0-0-0 .txc3 (1 2...h6? 1 3 ttJdS ife6 1 4 .txf6
gxf6 l S Ji.c4! d6 16 ttJxb4 cxb4 17 xd4
and White wins) 13 bxc3 h6 14 Ji.xf6 xf6
I S .tc4 g6!? 16 cxd4 cJ;;g7 17 eS 'iie7 1 S 'iVa3
with a distinct advantage for White.
c) 9 ... 0-0! 10 0-0-0 .tcS 1 1 .txf6 gxf6 12
'iVd3 (12 'Viia4 .te3+ 1 3 bl d4 1 4 1:td3!? [14
ttJe2 cS IS ttJcl Ji.e6 16 Ji.c4 .l:i.fbS 1 7 ttJd3
77
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
b6 and Black can organise a strong attack]
14 ... dxc3 1 5 xe3 cxb2 is very unclear)
1 2... .ie6 1 3 f4 (1 3 exdS?! cxdS 1 4 tt'lxdS??
.ixdS 1 5 xdS fd8 would be rather awk
ward to say the least) 1 3 ... d4 1 4 tt'le2 fd8
with confusion, in which lines like 1 5 fS
.ixa2! 16 'iVa6 d3 can be very hard to evalu
ate. White is probably in trouble; his kingside
is not playing and his own king is under at
tack.
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 O-O-O?!
White should still play 10 .igS! - better
late then never! It's unclear after 1 O... dxe4 1 1
.ixf6 gxf6 1 2 0-0-0 ..Itxc3 1 3 'iVxc3 e3 1 4
.id3.
1 0 . . . e5 1 1 Vif2 d4
Black has clearly taken over the initiative.
1 2 cub 1 ?!
This i s rather passive. 12 tt'ldS tt'lxdS 13
exdS .ixd2+ 14 xd2 d6 15 .ic4 .ib7 was
also rather good for Black, though.
1 2 . . .i.xd2+ 1 3 cuxd2 cud7! 1 4 f4 .!:I.b8
1 5 Vif3 cub6 1 6 Via3
Bringing the queen to the defence of the
queenside. After 1 6 .id3 .ie6! the move
... cS-c4 will come with great power. One
possible line is 1 7 fS c4 1 8 fxe6 fxe6 1 9 "iVg3
cxd3 20 xd3 tt'la4 21 tt'lb3 cS with great
attacking prospects.
1 6 . . :f6 1 7 93 Vie6 1 8 h3
1 8 .ig2 .ig4 19 de 1 tt'la4 20 tt'lc4 (20
tt'lb3? c4! 21 tt'lxd4 "iVb6 22 c3 tt'lxb2 and
Black will crash through) 20 ...'iVbS 21 b3
78
tt'lc3 and it is very unlikely that White will
survive the attack. Probably all chances of
survival lie in the endgame after 22 aS!?
18 . . . a5? !
Easier was 1 8... tt'la4 19 tt'lc4 .ie6! and
White is in a deep crisis .
1 9 i.d3 a4?
This was obviously Bronstein's plan, but it
would have been better to change direction
and play 19 ... c4 20 .if1 c3 21 bxc3 dxc3 22
tt'lf3 "iVxe4 23 'iVxc3 .if5, when White is
completely outplayed.
20 e5 i.e6 21 J:!.he1 J:!.a8
21 ...c4 22 .ie4 .idS 23 c3 .ixe4 24 .ti.xe4
dxc3 25 'ifxc3 tt'ldS 26 'iVxc4 'iHb6 would still
have given Black a very strong attack.
22 b4??
A terrible blunder, which Black does not
exploit.
22 . . . e4?
What does White do after 22... axb3 here?
23 .ie4 bxc2 24 'iVxa8 'iVxa8 25 .ixa8
cxd1'iV+ 26 .l::txd1 .l::txa8 is just one of many
wins. This phenomenon is called mutual
blindness; probably a very beautiful woman
had just entered the playing hall!
23 i.e4 i.d5 24 'ilff3?! e3!
Black now has a completely winning at
tack.
25 cub1 Vie4 26 cuxe3 dxe3 27 J:.xd5
27 . . .CUxd5?
A terrible game with many mistakes -
maybe time trouble was playing a part here.
 S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 t'iJ x d4
27...'it'xa2! 28 'it'xc3 ttJxdS simply leaves
Black a rook up.
28 xd5 'i'xb4 29 xa8 :td8! !
Black plays a good move again, and the
position is still winning.
30 d5 c6 3 1 e6 fxe6?!
Missing the spectacular win. 31 ...l:.xdS! 32
'it'xdS cxdS 33 e7 is probably what Black was
afraid of, but after 33...'tib2+ 34 dl 'it'b1+
35 e2 'ifb5+1 36 dl 'it'e8 37 :f.e3 f6 he
will be completely winning, as moves like
e2-d3 will run into ...'ikb5+ and ...e8.
Therefore Black can simply improve his
situation, for example 38 a3 f1 39 fS g6 40
g4 gxfS 41 gxfS 'ii'xe7 42 l:.xe7+ xe7 43
e2 d6 44 'i.t>d3 eS 45 xc3 xfS and lic3 iLg4 and Black had the initiative in
Black wins.
32 'i'e4 'i'a3+?! 33 'it>d 1 l:txd5+ 34 'it>e2
'i'd6 35 'it>f3 'it>f7 36 'i'xa4 %id2 37 'ii'e4
g6 38 e3 :th2 39 :d3 'i'c5 40 d7+
'it>f8 41 'i'd3??
A horrible mistake. After 4 1 l:!.xh7 'it'dS
42 'it'xdS cxdS 43 a4! .l:txc2 44 l:!.c7 e8 45
as d8 46 l:tcs d7 the endgame is easily
drawn.
41 . . J:td2 42 :td8+ 'it>g7 43 :td7+ 'it>f6 44
g4 'i'f2+ 0-1
Game 39
Rozentalis-Adams
Koge 1997
1 e4 ttJf6
These two players are used to getting the
Scotch via the Alekhine Defence; this also
happened in Rozentalis-Adams, Elista 1998.
2 t'iJc3 e5 3 t'iJf3 ttJc6 4 d4 exd4 5 t'iJxd4
..tc5!?
GM Mark Hebden's favourite.
6 ttJxc6
This is the natural move, but not the best.
6 .lie3! is considered in the next game.
White has also tried 6 ttJb3?!, but this
looks too passive. 6...Ji.b4 and now:
a) 7 i.d3 dS! 8 exdS ttJxdS 9 O-O? (9 Ji.d2
ttJxc3 10 bxc3 'iie7+ 11 'ife2 'it'xe2+ 12 .lixe2
Ji.d6 13 ttJd4 iLd7 is better for Black, but
not much) 9...ttJxc3 10 bxc3 Ji.xc3 and there
is no real compensation for the pawn. Afek
Votava, Rishon Ie Zion 1992.
b) 7 Ji.d2 0-0 8 iLd3 ttJeS 9 0-0 dS! 10
exdS (10 ttJxdS ttJxdS 11 exdS ttJxd3 12 cxd3
Ji.xd2 13 'ifxd2 'iixdS and Black is much
better because of the weakness of d3, bishop
versus knight and better coordination)
1O...ttJxd3 11 cxd3 h6!? (bad would be
l 1...ttJxdS? 12 ttJxdS iLxd2 13 ttJxc7!) 12
iLf4?! (12 'iWf3 iLxc3 13 iLxc3 ttJxdS with
equality was better) 12...ttJxdS 13 ttJxdS
'it'xdS 14 iLxc7 iLfS 15 a3 Ji.e7 16l:!.el iLf6
17 d4 .l:tfe8 18 l'he8+ Itxe8 19 l:i.c 1 Ji.gS 20
S.Lalic-Hebden, London 1988.
6 . . . bxc6 7 d3
It is too optimistic to try to punish Black
with 7 eS?! because after 7..:e7 8 'it'e2 ttJdS
9 ttJe4 (9 iLd2?! i::tb8 10 O-O-O? Ji.a3 would
be a serious disaster, while Black is better
after 9 ttJxdS?! cxdS 10 Ji.f4 llb8) 9...Ji.b4+
10 c3 iLaS Black is a little better according to
Gutman.
7 . . . d6
Or:
a) After 7... dS White should consider 8
exdS, but he can also choose 8 0-0, which
can transpose into the main lines if the
bishop returns to e7. For example, 8...0-0 9
Ji.gS Ji.e7 10 exdS cxdS reaches Game 32.
b) 7...0-0 is a tricky move order. Black
79
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
waits before deciding on ... d6 or ... dS. 8 0-0
.l::te 8 9 J.gS h6 10 J.h4 d6 would take us to
note 'a' to White's 8th move.
8 121a4! ?
This does not turn out to b e successful in
this game, but should not be dismissed.
Other options are:
a) 8 J.gS h6 9 J.h4 0-0 (9 .. :iiVe7!? 10 'iWe2
.l:.b8 1 1 ttJa4 J.d4 12 c3 [12 f4?! gS! 13 fxgS
ttJg4 14 0-0-0 hxgS was better for Black in
the game Ankerst-Kachiani, Baden-Baden
1 993J 12 ... J.eS and Black will follow up with
...gS) 1 0 0-0 .l::t e8 1 1 <>t>h1 gS 1 2 J.g3 .i.g4 1 3
f3 .i.hS 14 .l:.e1 ttJd7 1 5 'iVd2 b8 1 6 .l:.ab1
J.d4 1 7 f4 J.g7 1 8 b4 gxf4 with an unclear
game, Potkin-Lastin, Moscow 1 999.
b) 8 0-0 is probably the best try. 8 ...ttJd7 9
.i.e2 0-0 10 ttJa4! (here this idea works bet
ter) 10 ... J.b6 1 1 b3 'ih4 1 2 ttJxb6 axb6 1 3 f3
J.a6 1 4 c4 (to keep the advantage of the two
bishops) 1 4... cS 1 5 i..b2 with a very slight
advantage for White, Miles-Hebden, London
1 994.
8 . . . i.b6 9 i.g5
White stands slightly better after the
stronger 9 O-O!?, intending ttJxb6 and b2-b3.
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 0-0 h6 1 1 i.h4 J:l.e8
Black searches for counterplay against the
e4-pawn.
1 2 121xb6
After this exchange Black's pawns are no
longer weak.
1 2 . . . axb6 1 3 f4!
Safe play does not work. After 1 3 f3 ..tb 7
14 c4 d5 1 5 'ifc2 'iWd6 16 l:!.fd1 dxe4 1 7
..txe4 'iWc5+ 1 8 ..tf2 'iig5 1 9 i..d3 c5 Black is
at least equal. His bishop on b7 is the best
piece on the board, and ...ttJf6-h4-f4 attacks
the weakest spot in front of White's king.
Best now is probably 20 'iid2! in order to
reach an endgame, but Black is ftne after
20 ...ttJh5!.
1 3 . . .i.b7 14 c4 c5 1 5 'ii'c 2 J:f.e6!
This move, preparing a positional ex
change sacriftce, is necessary because White
is threatening the following plan: a2-a3,
80
.l:::i.ae1 , .l::!.e 3, fe1 and after that e4-eS Of
Black queen remains on d8) or f4-f5. I'm
convinced that ....l:.e6 is the only sensible
move for Black in this position.
1 6 a3!
White frees the rook from al .
1 6 . . :iVe8?!
I do not like this move; the alternatives
look better. 1 6...J.c6 1 7 f5 .l::!.e 5 1 8 l:lae 1 '>th7
(but not 1 8...'iWf8? 1 9 i..xf6 gxf6 20 .l:.f4 'iWg7
21 lle3 with a strong attack) 19 .l:!.e3 "ViIie7
(1 9 .. :iVd7? 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21 .l:!h3 .l::tg8 22 .l::!. f4
is very dangerous) 20 i..g3 .l:.e8 21 i..xe5
'ifxeS and Black has good compensation for
the exchange. 1 6 .. :i\e7!? 1 7 f5 .l::!.e5 1 8 ..tg3
.l:.e8 would also secure Black compensation,
but probably White just continues with 1 9
:ae1 i n order to delay the acceptance o f the
sacriftce.
1 7 f5 J:f.xe4
Because of the inaccuracy of his previous
move, Black is now forced to capture on e4.
Black would like to play 1 7 ....l:!.e5?, but 1 8
J.xf6! gxf6 1 9 l:i.f4 i s very dangerous.
1 8 i.xe4
Or 1 8 J.xf6? g4 19 .l::!.a e1 'iWc6 20 .l:.f2
gxf6 21 .l:::i. fe2 d5! (21 ...<>t>h7? 22 J.e4 and
White is obviously better) and now:
a) 22 .l:.e7?! Wid6 23 'iWe2 (23 h3 .l:.g5 24
cxd5 J.xd5 25 .l:.7e2 .l:.d8 26 .te4 J.xe4 27
xe4 'iWd4+ 28 'iWxd4 cxd4 29 g4 hS 30 .l::!.e4
hxg4 31 hxg4 c5 followed by ... f8 and
... .l:.g8 would give Black a clear advantage)
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 liJ x d4
23 ... h5! 24 cxd5 'it'xd5 25 e4 'it'd4+ 26 hl
xe4 27 xe4 .l::!.xe4 28 "it'xe4 'it'xe4 29
.l:!.xe4 l::td8 would give Black realistic winning
chances.
b) 22 cxd5 'it'xd5 23 e4 "ili'd4+ 24 hl
xe4 25 l::txe4 l:Ixe4 26 .li!.xe4 "ili'd7 and I'm
sure that a player like Adams would win such
an endgame. Perhaps it could be drawn in
correspondence chess, but over the board
the task of the defender is too great.
1 8 . . . liJxe4 1 9 .i.g3?
Black of course has compensation, but
this move does not make sense. Best was 1 9
l:tae l ! "it'e5 2 0 g3 "ili'd4+ 21 f2 'id2 22
"iVbl lbf6 (22 ... lbxf2? 23 lIxf2 d4 24 f6! is
unhealthy for Black) 23 "it'c1 "it'xc1 24 .l:!.xc1
lbg4 25 .l:!.fel lbe5. This endgame is where
the final judgement on 1 6...'it'e8 has to be
made. I believe White has some chances to
win it, while Black has very few active ideas.
1 9 . . . b5 20 b3 bxc4
Black slowly improves his position.
20 ... lbxg3?! 21 hxg3 'it'e3+ 22 h2 e4 23
"iib2 bxc4 24 bxc4 f6 25 ael "ili'd3 26 ltf4
would give White a clear edge.
21 bxc4
21 .. :i1ia4!
21...lbxg3?! 22 hxg3 'it'e3+ 23 iff2 l::txa3
24 l::txa3 'ixa3 25 f6! is dangerous for Black.
22 'ilixa4 .l:!.xa4
In this ending the white pawns on a3, c4
and f5 are very weak. A draw is a fair result.
23 .l:!.fb1 .l:!.a7 24 .i.e1 '>t>h7 25 a4 .i.a6 26
.llc 1 h5 27 .i.h4 ltJd2 28 .l:ic3 liJxc4 29 f6
ltJe5 30 lite1 .i.b7 31 fxg7 '>t>xg7 32
J:!.g3+ liJg6 33 .i.d8 .l:!.xa4 34 .i.xc7 .l:!.d4
35 .!:!.b3 .i.d5 36 J:f.b2 .i.e6 37 .l:!.c2 ltJf4
38 :f1 liJd3 39 .i.d8 .l:!.e4 40 .i.e7 liJb4
41 .!:!c3 .i.c4 42 .i.xd6! Vi - Vi
Game 40
Reefat Bin Sattar-Hebden
Dhaka 1995
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 liJxd4
liJf6 5 liJc3 .i.c5 6 .i.e3!
The most accurate reaction against
5 .... .tc5!?
6 . . ..i.b6
7 'ilid2!?
A surprise - White wants to build an at
tack! The only question is: what about the
possibility of ...lbg4 here?
White's other options include:
a) 7 g3 must be rather hannless. 7... 0-0 8
.tg2 d6 9 h3 Me8 10 0-0 d7 1 1 Mel h6 was
unclear in Lane-Hebden, London 1 994, a
game Black later went on to win.
b) 7 ii.e2 (I am not afraid of this move -
where is its sting?) 7...0-0 8 'it'd2 (or 8 0-0 d6
9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 g5 'it'e7 1 1 hl 'ie5 1 2
f4 ifd4 1 3 d3 lbg4 with counterplay -
Dzindzichashvili) 8... d5!? (after this classic
counterattack in the centre Black should
equalise; 8...l::te 8 9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 .tg5 h6 1 1
.th4 g5 1 2 .tg3 lbxe4 1 3 lbxe4 ltxe4 14
81
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
0-0-0 gives White good attacking chances -
Gutman) 9 exd5 4Jxd5 (9 ...4Jxd4 1 0 .ixd4
4Jxd5? 1 1 .ixg7 4Jxc3 1 2 xc3 l:.e8 1 3
.ih6 d4 1 4 g3+ 'iig4 1 5 0-0-0 xg3 1 6
fxg3 .ie6 gives White a clear extra pawn) 1 0
4Jxc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0-0 (1 1 .ig5!?) l 1 ....ia5!? 1 2
.id4 .lte6 with a double-edged situation.
c) 7 4Jxc6 bxc6 and now:
c1) 8 .ixb6?! just cannot be good. 8 ... axb6
9 .id3 0-0 1 0 0-0 d6 1 1 1:!.e1 4Jg4 1 2 h3 4Je5
13 f4 4Jxd3 14 it'xd3 lWh4 gave Black an
excellent game in Kozakov-Adams, France
1 997.
c2) 8 e5!? (this is an interesting possibility)
8...ii.xe3 9 fxe3 (after 9 exf6? the two bish
ops and the open b-ftle is too much: 9....ih6
10 e2+ 'It>f8 1 1 fxg7+ .ixg7 1 2 it'd2 l:.b8
1 3 0-0-0 d5 and Black has a very strong at
tack, Muningis-Bobras, Zagan 1 995) 9 ... 4Jd5
10 4Jxd5 cxd5 1 1 'iid4! (1 1 xd5 it'h4+ 1 2
Wdl l:!.b8 must b e good for Black) 1 1 ...0-0
1 2 0-0-0 with unclear play.
7 . . . 0-0
7...4Jg4 Iooks like the most obvious move.
Now 8 4Jf5! is the correct reply (8 .ig5? f6 9
.ie3 4Jxe3 10 fxe3 4Je5 is obviously bad).
Play can continue 8...4Jxe3 9 4Jxe3 0-0 1 0
0-0-0 d 6 1 1 g3! and, with the idea o f .ig2, f2-
f4, .l:!.he1 and bl , White's position can be
characterised as solid and rich in possibilities.
8 0-0-0 1:l.e8?!
This is bad. Necessary was 8 ... 4Jg4 9 4Jf5
and now 9 ...4Jxe3 would return to the previ
ous note, while after 9 ... d5?! 1 0 4Jxd5 .ixf5
1 1 exf5 4Jxe3 12 fxe3 Black has no
compensation.
9 f3!
As you will see this is a very dangerous at
tacking plan. White plays in a similar fashion
to the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian
Dragon. In this game the GM achieves a
draw only after extreme difficulties.
9 . . . d6 1 0 94 4Jxd4 1 1 i.xd4 i.e6 1 2
1:1.9 1 !
A strong, attacking move.
1 2 . . .i.xd4 1 3 "iVxd4 c5!?
82
Searching for counterplay III a difficult
situation.
1 4 iVd2
Taking the pawn was also interesting: 14
"iVxd6!? a5 15 g5 (not 15 a3? .l:Iad8 1 6 f4
l:txd1+ 1 7 xdl a6 and Black has compensa
tion) 1 5 ...l:!.ad8 1 6 gxf6!! (this idea might have
evaded White) 1 6 ...l:.xd6 1 7 .l:!.xg7+ 'It>f8 1 8
l:.xd6 .ixa2 1 9 l:txh7 g8 20 l:.g7+ f8
(20... h8? 21 4Jxa2 it'xa2 22 l:!.d5! wins for
White) 21 l:tg4! l:.e6 (Black needs to be really
careful: 21 ... .ie6 22 l:!.h4 g8 23 ktd2 and
White wins) 22 .l:r.h4 g8 23 .l:!.d1 .l:!.xf6 24 e5
l:txf3 25 .l:!.a4 iVc7 26 .t!.xa2 "it'xe5 27 b1 a6
28 .ig2 J::tf4 29 lh4 ktxa4 30 4Jxa4 b5 31
4Jc3 "it'xh2 32 .ib7 and White has good
chances to win this endgame.
1 4 . . . "iVa5 1 5 a3 a6
Unfortunately Black has to lose a tempo
with this move.
1 6 95!
White's attack arrives first.
1 6 . . .4Jd7
1 6 ... 4Jh5 17 f4 g6 1 8 f2 b5 19 f5 gives
White a strong attack too. The knight will
soon arrive on d5.
1 7 f4
Continuing the attack. 1 7 xd6? l:!.ad8 1 8
g3 b 5 would allow undeserved counterplay.
1 7 . . . b5
1 7 ... 4Jb6 18 f5 .id7 1 9 xd6 .ic6 20 g6
is an example of how far White is with his
attack.
 S c o t c h Fo u r Knigh t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 tD x d4
1 8 f5 ..tc4 1 9 g6!
Black's kingside is being broken up, while
Black has not been able to create any threats
of his own.
1 9 . . .fxg6 20 ..txc4+ bxc4 21 fxg6 h6 22
xd6 tDe5 23 .l:!.d5!
Objectively this should be the end, but
sometimes it is hard to win even the most
completely winning positions. Especially if
the opponent is a strong grandmaster, who
has decided not to go down without a fight.
23 . . . d8 24 'i'xc5?! 'i'h4 25 .l:!.dd 1 ? !
J:!.ac8 26 'i'a7?! 'i'xh2 2 7 tDd5 c 3 28
bxc3?
Probably White was drifting into time
trouble. He should have played safer with 28
lL"lxc3 'iWf4+ (28 ... lL"lc4 29 'tif7+ 'it>h8 30 lIhl
and it is all over) 29 'it>bl 'it'f6 30 lL"ldS, when
White is still winning.
28 . . . 'i'h4 29 l:!.df1 h8
But not 29 ... 'ijixe4?? 30 lL"lf6+L
30 'i'd4 tDc6 % - %
The position is not clear. White's king will
continue to live dangerously to the end.
Game 4 1
Kobalija-Sevostianov
Moscow 1 994
1 e4 tDc6 2 d4 e5 3 tDf3 exd4 4 tDxd4
tDf6 5 tDc3 tDxe4?!
This idea looks like a patzer's mistake, but
it is not so stupid as it looks. White should be
careful.
6 tDxe4
6 lL"lxc6?! lL"lxc3 7 lL"lxd8 lL"lxdl 8 lL"lxf7
..t>xf7! (8...lL"lxf2? 9 lL"lxh8 lL"lxhl 1 0 iLf4 d6
1 1 iLd3 is uncomfortable for Black, who has
problems on the kingside) 9 iLc4+ 'it>f6 1 0
xdl c 6 with equality - Euwe.
6 . . .'i'e7 7 f3!
This is the standard way for White to fight
for an advantage. Alternatively:
a) 7 e2? 'iNxe4 8 lL"lbS iLb4+1 9 c3 i.aS
1 0 0-0 0-0 does not give White enough com
pensation for the pawn, even though the
position is not entirely clear.
b) 7 iLd3 lL"lxd4 8 OO lL"le6! gives Black a
clear advantage according to Gutman, but
after something like 9 .l::i.e 1 White should
have some compensation. One line goes
9 .. :iVd8 1 0 'iNhs iLe7 1 1 iLgS and Black has
problems with finishing his development.
c) Interesting is 7 'ijid3!? lL"lxd4! (Black
could quickly end up in trouble with 7 ... dS?!
8 lL"lxc6 bxc6 9 f3 fS?! 19...1:i.b8!?] 10 'tic3!
i.d7 1 1 i.gS 'iNe6 12 O-OO fxe4 1 3 fxe4
dxe4 1 4 i.c4 f5 I S h4 and White has a
winning attack) 8 'iWxd4 fS 9 i.d3 fxe4 1 0
i.xe4 WHb4+ 1 1 'ilVxb4 i.xb4+ 1 2 c 3 i.cs and
Black is only very slightly worse.
7 . . .d5 8 ..tb5 ..td7 9 ..txc6 bxc6 1 0 0-0
dxe4 1 1 fxe4
Gutman believes that 1 1 l:!e I !? is best.
Practice shows us that it is not so clear.
However, 'White is better and does have very
83
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
good attacking chances. Black has the follow
ing options:
a) 1 1 ...f6?! 1 2 ':xe4+ .i.e7 1 3 .i.f4 (but
not 1 3 e2 O-O! 1 4 l:txe7?! 'ii'xd4+ and Black
is fine) 1 3 ... 0-0 1 4 .i.e5 'iWg6 1 5 i.xc7 lUeS
1 6 h 1 'uacS 1 7 .i.g3 c5 I S ctJe2 .i.f5 1 9
ctJf4 ic6 20 J::i.e5 g6 21 ctJd5 i.f6 2 2 ctJxf6+
with a clear advantage for White, Fernandez
Romero-Fernandes, Santo Antonio 2002.
b) 1 1 ...f5?! 1 2 fxe4 fxe4 with a further
branch:
bl) 1 3 c3?! c5 14 ctJf5 'ilVe5 1 5 ctJg3 i.e7
16 ctJxe4 O-O-O! (1 6... i.c6?? 17 ctJg3! 'iVf6 I S
'iVh5+ was Wlnning for White In
Dzindzichashvili-Leveille, New York 1 994,
but that does not say a lot about the varia
tion) 1 7 iie2 c6 I S ig4+ i.d7 1 9 .i.f4
xg4 20 iLxe5 l::thgS and Black is only
slightly worse here.
b2) 1 3 'iVe2! g6 1 4 'ikxe4 'it'xe4 15 ':xe4+
dS 16 Ji.g5+ cS 1 7 .i.f6 J::tgS I S J::ta el
with a clear plus.
c) 1 1 ...0-0-0! 12 J::i.xe4 'iWf6 13 'iWf1! (13
'iVe2?! c5 1 4 ctJb3 .i.c6! 15 ia6+ i..b7 1 6
'iVxf6 gxf6 gives Black lot o f active counter
play, even though his structure is flawed)
1 3 ... c5 1 4 'iVa6+ c,t>bS 1 5 i..e 3 J::i.h eS! (or
1 5 ... .i.b6?! 1 6 a4 with an attack - Gutman)
1 6 c3 .l:!.xe4 1 7 fxe4 i.b6? (1 7...'ii'g6! was
much better) I S a4 c5 1 9 as! with an attack,
Timmerman-Mikhalevski, Dieren 1 996.
1 1 . . .g6 1 2 'iff3 i.g7 1 3 .1I..e 3!
Accurate play. 13 c3?! 0-0 14 iLf4?! (1 4
i.e3! is still possible) 14 ... c5 1 5 ctJb3 .i.c6 1 6
g3 i s given as slightly better for White in
ECO by Nogueiras, but after 16 ...c4! 17 CDd2
.l:!.fdS l S ctJxc4 'iWc5+ 19 ctJe3 i..xe4 the pow
erful bishop on e4 gives Black the edge.
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 tLlb3! 1:tfb8
Or 14 ... i.xb2 1 5 i..c5 'ife5 16 i.xfS .i.xa1
(or 16 ...J::i.xf8 17 'u'ad 1 with an exchange for
nothing) 1 7 xf7+ c,t>h8 1 8 'ii'xd7 and wins.
1 5 .1I.. c 5 e6 1 6 l:!.ad 1 i.e8
Black is also in trouble after 16 ... .i.xb2 1 7
c3 as (otherwise the bishop will be trapped
and lost) 1 8 J::i. f2 a4 1 9 J::txb2 axb3 20 axb3
84
ig4 21 'iVd3! i..e 6 22 h3 'iVg5 23 b4 'u'd8 24
i.d4 and White has a clear advantage.
1 7 i.d4 i.xd4+ 1 8 l:txd4
White has a clear advantage; Black has a
wrecked pawn structure and no active play to
compensate for it.
1 8 . . . a5 1 9 a4! .:i:!.b4 20 lIfd 1 :tab8 21
c3?!
More precise was 21 ctJc5! e7 22 ':'xb4
J::i.xb4 23 c3 and White is virtually winning.
2 1 . . . e7 22 J:!.xb4?!
The wrong exchange. Probably the best
move was 22 h3! to create an air-hole for the
king. Lines such as 22 ctJxa5 c5! 23 J::i.d5
J::i.xe4 24 b3 and 22 e5 'ii'xe5 23 J::i.xb4 'ii'xc3
24 bxc3 axb4 25 cxb4 ':xb4 26 as a4 27
J::i.a l Iha1+ 28 ctJxal c5 29 c4 c,t>f8 30 ctJb3
c,t>e7 31 ctJxc5 <ot>d6 32 ctJd3, though favour
able for White, are not completely clear.
22 . . JIxb4?
Black should have tried 22 ...'iVxb4! with
the idea of 23 'iid4 xd4+ 24 J:.xd4 f6! and
the bishop comes into play via f7. Still, 'hite
should keep a clear edge with 23 e5!.
23 tLlc5 f6 24 b3 g5?! 25 h3 h5
Having nothing to lose in this position,
Black storms forward like a boxer with his
guard down, hoping to get a lucky punch in
before the bell rings. As so often, this only
speeds up his own defeat.
26 1:te 1 .1I..g6 27 e5 fxe5 28 .!:f.xe5 d8
29 tLle6 'iif6 30 tLlxg5 1:tf4 3 1 tLlf3 J:!.e4
32 .!:f.e8+ cli;g7 33 l:!.g8+ cli;f7 34 1:tf8+ 1 -0
 S c o t c h Fo u r Kn ig h t s : Side lin e s a ft e r 5 Cfj x d4

Summary
White has seemingly no other sound options between 4 d4 and his tenth move. 7 'iHd4?! was
clearly a great part of Bondarevsky's downfall, and similar moves will meet similar fates.
For Black there are some alternatives: 5 ...lbxe4 and 5 ... .i.c5 do not lead to equality and
should be ignored by Black. However, 7 . .d6!? leads to a game with chances for both sides and
.

plenty of room for originality.

1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 Cfjc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 ttJxd4 b4

5 ...lbxe4 Game 4 1
-

5 ....i.c5 (D)
6 lbxc6 Game 39; 6 .i.e3 (D) Game 40
- -

6 Cfjxc6 bxc6 7 d3
7 'iVd4 Game 38
-

7 d6 8 0-0 Game 36
. . . -

8 .i.g5 (D) Game 37

-

5. . . c5 6 e3 8 g5

85
 CHAPTER SEVEN
4 d4 i.. b4
1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4
i..b4
In the position after 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3
ttJc3 ttJf6 4 d4 the natural and probably also
the best move is 4... exd4, moving into the
Scotch Four Knights or the Belgrade Gambit
(see Chapter 8). However, there are those
who like to complicate matters with
4 ....tb4!?, which is probably not good
enough for equality, but which can lead to
more interesting positions. In this chapter we
shall look at these lines. As they are very
tactical in their orientation, no positional
introduction will really make any sense, so
instead we'll jump straight into the games.
Game 42
Santo Roman-Hector
Manila OlYmpiad 1992
1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4
i.. b4 S dS
After this move Black has a good game.
The main reason is that the position is clos
ing, and Black has his 'bad' bishop outside
his pawn formation, while White has his
inside. Of course it is always hard to say
when a bishop is truly good and when it is
truly bad, but generally knights are better
suited to closed positions, even though the
86
I
bishops still have part of their strength.
S . . .lLle7 6 lLlxeS
This move, together with 7 i.b5+ (Game
43), is very risky. Black develops quickly and
gets a strong attack.
Other possibilities include:
a) 6 i.d2 is rather peaceful. 6 ... d6 7 'ii'e2
0-0 8 a3 i.a5 9 b4 i.b6 1 0 ttJa4 'ii'd7! ?
(10....td7 1 1 ttJxb6 axb6 1 2 .tg5 ttJg6 1 3 g3
h6 1 4 i.xf6 xf6 was equal in Spangenberg
Servat, Buenos Aires 1 993) 1 1 ttJxb6 axb6 1 2
g3?! ( 1 2 h3! with level chances was better)
1 2 .. :g4 1 3 i.g5 ttJexd5! 1 4 exd5 e4 1 5
.txf6 exf3 1 6 \i'c4 .l:!.e8+ 1 7 'ioi?d2 gxf6 1 8
"iVxg4+ i.xg4 with a clear advantage for
Black in Spangenberg-Rubinetti, San Martin
1 993.
b) 6 i.d3 is rather passive, and chess is
very much the art of aggression. 6 ...ttJg6 7
0-0 i.xc3! (I bid you farewell, bad bishop!) 8
bxc3 d6 (this position is in my opinion
slightly better for Black) 9 .l::!.b l 0-0 1 0 .l:!.el ?
(Ibis move looks wrong. What is the rook
supposed to do here? The only sensible plan
was ttJe 1 followed by g2-g3 and ttJg2 to get
some control of the important squares on the
kingside.) 1 0 ...b6 1 1 .tEl h6! (Not so much
to play ... ttJh7, but more to prevent ttJg5-e6,
after which the fl -bishop would move more
freely on the board. Right now Black has

positioned his pawns to fight against the
dark-squared bishop, but there is no reason
to take liberties with the light squared
bishop) 1 2 g3 liJh7 1 3 liJd2 fS 1 4 exfS .i.xfS
1 5 liJe4 liJf6 1 6 .i.g2 'ii'd7 1 7 f3 liJxe4 1 8
fxe4 .i.g4 1 9 'ii'd3 1:I.f6 20 .i.e3 l:!.afS and
Black has a clear advantage, Weetik-Yande
mirov, Russia 200 1 .
c ) 6 'it'd3!? 0-0 and now:
c1) 7 .i.d2 intends the very risky plan of
castling queenside. It seems that Black has a
more dynamic position and thereby can cre
ate attacking chances much easier. 7... d6 8
0-0-0 liJg4 9 'ii'e2 fS 10 exfS .i.xfS 1 1 h3
liJf6 12 'iWbs (this move also seems a bit out
of touch with reality; taking on b7 is not
really a viable ambition) 1 2 ... .i.xc3 1 3 .i.xc3
liJe4 14 .i.el (now the queen is just a hook
that Black exploits) 14 ... c6! 1 5 dxc6 bxc6 1 6
'iVb3+ liJdS! 1 7 .i.c4 .l:1b8 1 8 .i.xd5+ ..t>h8 1 9
'iVc4 cxdS 20 'it'xdS 'iVb6 and Black's attack
clearly compensates for the sacrificed pawn.
Mann-Mayer, Germany 1 988.
c2) 7 .i.gS (this is safer) 7 ...liJg6 8 g3! (it is
important to keep control of the f4-square)
8 ... c6 9 d6!? (An interesting pawn sacrifice.
Whether White knew the pawn was doomed
here, or only decided to sacrifice it later is not
relevant. More relevant is that Black has
problems with completing his development.
He could have avoided this with 8...d6 of
course.) 9 ...h6 10 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 1 1 0-0-0 l:!.e8
12 .i.h3 (12 .i.g2 l:!.e6 would be a favourable
version for Black) 1 2... i.xd6 1 3 'it'xd6 'ii'x f3
14 .l:!.hfl liJf8 1 5 i.fS g6 1 6 .i.h3 b6 1 7 l:!.d2
'ii'h S. This position is very interesting. Unfor
tunately, the two strong Russian grandmas
ters felt in a peaceful mood that day and
agreed a draw (Malakhov-Turov, Russia Ch.
2001). After 1 8 i.g2 e6 1 9 'it'd3 as 20 'ii'e3
.i.a6 21 h4! the awkward position of Black's
queen is good compensation for the pawn.
One line is 21...i.xfl ? 22 .i.f3! and White is
better.
6 . . .d6!
Worse is 6...0-0?! 7 'ii'd4 3t..xc3+ 8 bxc3
4 d4 il.. b 4
and now:
a) Adventurous is 8...l:i.e8!? 9 i.gS! d6
(9 ... liJ5? 10 exfS d6 1 1 f4 dxeS 1 2 fxeS
'ii'xdS 13 0-0-0 'it'xd4 14 cxd4 liJe4 15 .i.h4
liJc3 16 l:!.d3 liJxa2+ 17 ..t>b2 liJb4 1 8 l:!.f3
gives White an overwhelming advantage in
the endgame with the two bishops and the
strong central control) 10 3t..xf6 cS 1 1 dxc6
gxf6 1 2 cxb7! (12 liJf3 liJxc6 1 3 'ii'e3 fS 1 4
0-0-0 and according to Gutman Black's king
is more fragile than \x'hite's) 1 2... .i.xb7 1 3
liJg4 liJfS 1 4 'i!Vxf6 l:he4+ 1 5 .i.e2 'i'aS 1 6
0-0 l:!.xe2 1 7 'ii'g5+ Wh8 1 8 liJh6 and White
has a clear advantage after 1 8...'ii'dS 1 9 liJxfS
'it'eS 20 liJh6!.
b) 8 ... d6 9 liJc4! cS (9 ... J:.e8 is a possible al
ternative here) 10 'iVd3 liJg6 1 1 f3 bS 1 2 liJe3
a6 13 g3 l:!.e8 14 .i.g2 and according to Lev
Gutman Black does not have enough com
pensation for the pawn. This is probably
right.
7 lLlf3
Weaker is 7 liJd3?! .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 liJxe4 9
'it'f3 5, when Black is better. Also possible is
9 ...liJxc3 10 liJf4 liJa4 1 1 .i.d3 liJcs, which is
also better for Black. All he needs to do is to
avoid 1 1 ...0-0?? 1 2 'iVe4 liJg6 1 3 'iVxa4
(which actually happened in Spielmann
Bogoljubow, Stockholm 1 9 1 9) .
7 lLlxe4 8 iYd4
. . .
8 . . . il..x c3+
The alternative 8 ...liJxc3! looks stronger.
After this move \X'hite needs to be very care-
87
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
ful, for example 9 bxc3 (White can also try 9
xb4 liJexd5 10 iVd4 'iVe7+ 1 1 i.e3 liJxe3
12 fxe3 liJe4 13 iVxg7 'iVf6, which leads to
equality) and now:
a) Exciting is 9 ... i.c5!? 1 0 iVxg7 l:Ig8 1 1
'iVxh7 i..f5 1 2 'iVh4 (12 i.bS+? c6! 1 3 dxc6
i.xh7 1 4 cxb7+ f8 1 5 i.h6+ g7 1 6 i.xg7+
rJ;;xg7 1 7 bxa8'it' 'ixa8 does not give White
any reason to continue) 1 2... liJxd5 1 3 xd8+
.l:.xd8 and Black has a lot of play for the
pawn, probably more than enough to justify
the sacrifice.
b) 9 ...ii.a5 1 0 i.d3 (dubious is 10 'ixg7?!
l:tg8 1 1 'iYd4 liJxd5 12 ii.d2 [12 'it'xd5 i.xc3+
1 3 rJ;;d l i.xal 14 i.c4 i.e6 15 !:tel .lieS
does not work out] 12 ... 'it'e7+ 1 3 ..Ite2 c6 1 4
rJ;;f1 i..b 6 and Black i s clearly better due to
his coordination and lead in development)
10 ... 0-0 1 1 0-0 ..Itf5 (1 1 ...liJf5! 1 2 'it'c4 iVf6
1 3 ..Itd2 i.d7 1 4 a4 c6 leads to a preferable
position for Black) 1 2 i.g5?! Qosing valuable
time; 1 2 c4! ..Itb6 1 3 'it'f4 is more or less
equal) 12 .. .f6 13 i.d2 'iVd7 14 .l:.ael liJg6 1 5
i.xf5 'iYxf5 1 6 'iVe4 'iVxe4 1 7 .l:i.xe4 l:Ife8 1 8
.l:.fe 1 .l:.xe4 1 9 .l:.xe4 rJ;; f7 Black had a much
better endgame in Racek-Trifunovic, Prague
1 946.
9 bxc3 tLlf6 1 0 c4
After 10 ..Itg5 liJexd5 1 1 0-0-0 liJb6 there
is no real compensation for the pawn. Also
possible is 1 1 ...i.e6!? 12 i.c4 c5 1 3 i.xf6
cxd4 14 i.xd8 J::!.xd8 1 5 i.xd5 i.xd5 1 6
liJxd4 0-0 1 7 f3 i.xa2 with a very good end
game for Black, Reefschlager-Neunhoffer,
Germany 1 990. Still, the complications seem
unnecessary.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.e2
Or:
a) 1 1 i.g5?! c5! (1 1 ... liJf5 1 2 'ib2 l:!.e8+ 1 3
e2 h6 1 4 i.xf6 'iVxf6 1 5 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 6
d2 is a little better for White according to
Gutman) 1 2 'iWd1 (12 'iWf4 liJg6 1 3 d2
.l:.e8+ 1 4 i.e2 h6 suits onlv Black, while 1 2
"
dxc6 liJxc6 1 3 iVb2 e8+ 1 4 i.e2 'iVa5+ 1 5
i.d2 'iVh5 i s extremely dangerous for White)
1 2... liJe4 1 3 d3 liJxg5 14 liJxg5 liJg6 1 5
88
'iYh5 'iVe7+ 16 rJ;; f1 h6 and Black has a clear
advantage.
b) Also risky is 1 1 i.d3 liJf5 12 f4 .l:.e8+
1 3 d1 and now:
bl) 1 3. . .liJh5 1 4 'iVg5 'iVxg5 1 5 i.xg5 h6
1 6 i.d2 with equality, Caro-Schlechter, Vi
enna 1 898.
b2) More aggressive is 1 3 ...liJg4!? and:
b21) 1 4 ..Itxf5!? is something for fans of
Mikhail Tal. After 14 ... liJxf2+ 15 rJ;;d2
liJxh1?! 1 6 i.xh7+ xh7 (or 1 6 ...rJ;;h8? 1 7
i.b2! and Black i s soon mated) 1 7 liJg5+
g6 1 8 'iVxf7+ rJ;;h6 19 Wd3! "ife7 20 liJe4+
Wh7 21 liJg5+ rJ;;h6 22 liJe4+ ends in a draw.
Unfortunately there is 1 5 ...i.xf5! (as with
many of Tal's spectacular stunts, this also has
its drawbacks) 1 6 'iWxf5 g6 1 7 'iYf4 .l:.e4 1 8
'iYh6 'iYf6 with a strong compensation for
the piece - Gutman.
b22) 1 4 1:.f1 ! "iff6 1 5 .l:.b1 with unclear
play.
1 1 . . . tLlfS
1 1 ... .l:.e8!? looks like a logical move too.
The idea of ...liJexd5 is obvious .
1 2 'ilYd1 tLle4 1 3 i.b2 tLlcs 1 4 b 1 tLlh4
Here Black could have found a great
square for his queen with 1 4 .. :ike8!? 1 5 0-0
li'a4 1 6 a3 l:Ie8, after which the position is
probably equal, but it is more pleasant to play
Black.
1 S tLlxh4 "iWxh4 1 6 0-0 i.fS 1 7 'ilYd2 fe8
1 8 llbe1 h6 1 9 i.d3
With this move White more or less keeps
the balance.
1 9 . . :i'hS 20 lte3
Bad would be 20 ..Itxf5? xf5, after which
Black would play ... rJ;; f8 and exchange the
rooks. The queen and knight versus queen
and bishop scenario would then, together
with White's wrecked structure, give Black a
better endgame.
20 . . .liIxe3 21 fxe3 i.e4 22 i.d4 'ilYg6 23
':'f3
More accurate was 23 i.xc5! dxc5 24 1:.f4
.l:!.e8 25 ..Itxe4 1:.xe4 26 'iVd3 with equality.
23 . . . 'ilYhS 24 l:tf4

24 J:tg3 .Jig6 25 xc5 dxc5 26 xg6 fxg6
would be better for Black.
24. . . i.g6 25 h4?!
There was no reason to create a weakness
like this. 25 'it'c3 ttJxd3 26 cxd3 f6 27 'iYb3
was equal, though not drawn.
25 . . . i.xd3 26 cxd3 b6 27 e4 f6
27 ... ttJd7 would give White time to create
threats: 28 'ii'e l f6 29 g4.
28 i.f2
28 xc5 bxc5 would give Black the better
structure.
28. . . J:te8 29 J:tf3?
White chooses to be passive - a bad deci
sion. It was necessary to complicate matters
with 29 g4!?
29 . . .lLld7!
Now the knight i s coming to e 5 with a
gain of tempo.
30 'iff4?
30 .l::!.f5 'ii'g6 31 d4 was better.
30 . . .lLle5 31 1:I.g3 'ifd 1 + 32 h2 h5! 33
i.g 1 lLlg4+ 34 h 1 ii'e1 35 J:tf3 g6 36
g3? 'tIYe2 37 i.f2?
Losing on the spot.
37 . . . 'iff1 + 38 i.g 1 'iWh3+ 0-1
Game 43
Trabert-G . Flear
Asti 1998
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4
i.b4 5 d5 lLle7 6 lLlxe5 d6 7 i.b5+ f8!
4 d4 i. b 4
After this move White is in trouble, but
the tables would turn following 7 ... c6 8 dxc6
0-0 and now:
a) White would fall too far behind in de
velopment after 9 cxb7? xb7 1 0 ttJf3 ttJxe4
1 1 0-0 (White loses after 1 1 d2 ttJxd2 1 2
'iYxd2 'ii'a5 1 3 d3 tiJd5 1 4 0-0 tiJxc3 1 5
bxc3 xc3) 1 1 ....Jixc3 1 2 bxc3 tiJxc3 1 3
'iYd3 ttJxb5 1 4 ttJg5 ( 1 4 'iYxb5 xf3 1 5 gxf3
':c8 is simply bad for White) 1 4...tiJg6 1 5
'iYxb5 'iYc8! 1 6 :tel h6 1 7 ttJe4 (17 ttJh3
would be met with 17...xg2 1 8 'itxg2 'ikg4+
and Black wins) 1 7 ...J:te8 1 8 'iYb4 .l:!.b8 1 9
tiJg3 l:txe1+ 20 \i'xel 'iYxc2 and Black is
winning.
b) 9 tiJd7! tiJxe4 (9 ... .i.xd7 1 0 cxd7 tiJxe4
1 1 'iVd4 tiJxc3 1 2 'iVxb4 tiJcd5 1 3 'iYb3 gave
White a clear advantage in Tal-Schmatlanek,
Prague [simulJ 1 960) 10 0-0 (even 10 tiJxf8!?
works; after 1 0 ...tiJxc3 11 bxc3 xc3+ 12
d2 i.xal 1 3 cxb7 .Jixb7 1 4 'iVxal 'iYxf8 1 5
0-0 White i s a little better) 1 0. . .xd7
(1O ... .txc3?? 1 1 ttJxf8 a5 12 cxb7 xb7 1 3
tiJd7 would b e winning for White) 1 1 tiJxe4
bxc6 1 2 a3 a5 1 3 d3 (13 ttJxd6 cxb5 1 4
ttJb7 'iVc7 1 5 tiJxa5 f5 gives Black good
play) B. .d5 14 tiJc5 and White has a posi
.
tional advantage.
8 lLlf3
White does not keep the balance after 8
ttJd3 .i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 tiJxe4 10 'iYf3 ttJf6 and
now:
a) 1 1 c4? g4! 1 2 'Yif4 c6! 1 3 dxc6 bxc6
89
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
1 4 b2 lLlg6 15 i.xf6 'iVa5+- 1 6 'iHd2 .l:te8+
1 7 i.eS lLlxeS 1 8 'ii'xaS lLlxc4+ and Black
gained a material advantage in Hort
Trifunovic, Sarajevo 1 964.
b) 1 1 i.c4?! i.g4 12 'it'f4 hS 1 3 0-0
lLlexdS is plainly bad for White.
c) 1 1 i.gS? lLlexdS 12 it'xdS? 'ii'e7+! is an
important little ftnesse, winning a pawn for
nothing.
d) 1 1 lLlf4 (the best) 1 1 ...i.g4 12 'ii'g3 (12
'iYd3 c6 13 dxc6 bxc6 1 4 i.a4 'iYaS 1 5 i.b3
i. fS looks very dangerous for White)
1 2... lLlfS 1 3 'iYd3 'ti'e7+ 1 4 f1 lLlh4 1 5 f3
fS 1 6 'ti'd2 lLlg6 1 7 lLle2 i.d7! 1 8 i.xd7
'iYxd7 and Black was better, Kunas-Dautov,
Germany 1 993.
8 . . .tLlxe4 9 'iiVd4 i.xc3+
Tempting is 9 ...lLlxc3! 10 bxc3 i.cs 1 1
"iVd2 lLlxdS! (1 1 . ..c6 1 2 dxc6 bxc6 1 3 i.d3
i.g4 14 lLlgS lLldS 15 lLle4 is less clear) 1 2
"iVxdS c 6 1 3 'iYd3 ( 1 3 i.xc6 bxc6 1 4 'iYxc6
e7+ 1 5 '>t>f1 i.b7 16 ifbs as looks very
dangerous for White) 1 3 ... cxbS 14 it'xbS (14
0-0 a6 15 i.e3 i.e6 does not give White
enough compensation for the pawn)
1 4 .. .'e7+ 1 5 'it'e2 'ti'xe2+ 1 6 '>t>xe2 i.f5,
when the two bishops and the lead in devel
opment is well supplemented by a better
pawn structure.
1 0 bxc3 tLlf6 1 1 i.g5
Also possible was 1 1 i.c4!? lLlfS (after the
strange-looking 1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 i.gS lLlfS 1 3
'ii'd3 "iVe8+ 1 4 f1 xf3 1 5 gxf3!? White has
a terrible pawn structure, but also two bish
ops and the g- and b-ftles for his rooks; note
that 1 5 'iYxfS? i.e4 16 f4 ttJxdS is good for
Black) 1 2 'ti'd1 ttJe4 1 3 0-0 f6 14 i.b2
i.d7 and Black has an edge.
1 1 . . . tLlf5 1 2 'iiVd 3 h6 1 3 i.d2? !
After this move it will be very hard for
White to save the dS-pawn. White could
have kept the balance with 1 3 i.xf6 'ti'xf6 1 4
0-0 ttJe7 I S l:.fel i.fS 1 6 'it'd2 a 6 1 7 i.f1 gS
1 8 'iYd4!.
1 3 . . . a6 1 4 ..Ita4 b5 1 5 i.b3 'iiVe 8+ 1 6
f1
90
1 6 d1 lLle7! 17 ti.el i.b7 18 c4 bxc4 19
'it'xc4 'ii'd7 would illustrate the problems
White has with the dS-pawn.
1 6 . . . tLle7! 1 7 c4
1 7 l:i.el i.b7 1 8 c4 bxc4 19 i.xc4 'ii'd7 20
h3 ttJexdS 21 gl is just a pawn for nothing.
Black has some problems with his king, but
that is all .
1 7 . . . bxc4 1 8 ..Itxc4
White will be a pawn down without com
pensation after 1 8 'iYxc4 'iWbs 1 9 xbS axbS
20 ttJd4 i.d7 21 c4 bxc4 22 i.xc4 lLlexd5.
1 8 . . ...Itb7 1 9 l:!.b1 i.xd5 20 i.xd5 tLlexd5
21 c4 tLlb6 22 ..Ite3 'iiVc6 23 tLld2 tLlbd7
24 f3 lIe8 25 f2 tLle5 26 'iiVd4 h5 27
lithe 1 tLlfd7 28 g 1 f6
White has no real compensation for the
pawn and no real chances for saving the
game.
29 h3 f7 30 ..Itf2 tLlc5 31 l:t.e3 tLle6 32
'iVd5 'iVxd5 33 cxd5 tLlf4 34 J:ta3 tLlxd5
35 l:txa6 l:!.a8 36 lIxa8 l:!.xa8 37 l:!.b5 e6
38 l:!.b2 tLld3 39 l:!.c2 tLl3b4 40 l:!.c4 l:!.xa2
41 tLlb3 tLld3 0-1
Game 44
Todorov-Delchev
Bulga17'a 1995
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4
..Itb4 5 tLlxe5! 0-0
This is rather risky. 5 ...lLlxe4, S .. .'ike7 and
S ... i.xc3!? are considered later in the chapter.

6 d3
\X1hite can squeeze a small advantage out
of 6 It'lxc6!? dxc6 Oess accurate is the passive
6 ...bxc6 7 i.d3 It'lxe4, after which \X1hite
gains a small advantage with S 0-0 It'lxc3 9
bxc3 i.xc3 10 i.xh7+! Wxh7 1 1 'iWd3+ WgS
12 'iWxc3) 7 i.gS! (7 eS It'le4 S a3 It'lxc3 9
'ifd2 lt'lbS 1 0 axb4 lt'lxd4 1 1 i.d3 'ifdS 12 f4
i.fS 1 3 i.xfS It'lxfS 1 4 c3 hS and Black is
better - Gutman)
and now:
a) 7 ... h6 S .ltxf6 'iVxf6. Here Black has
compensation, but White should be able to
keep the advantage, for example: 9 eS 'iYh4
(9 ...iff4 can be answered by 10 'iVd2! 'iYxd2+
1 1 '>t>xd2 ':dS 1 2 \te3 cS 1 3 It'le2 cxd4+- 1 4
It'lxd4 .ltcs I S c 3 l.'i.eS 1 6 f4 and \X1hite keeps
the advantage) 10 a3! (after 10 'iYd3 l::tdS 1 1
0-0-0 'iYxf2 1 2 'iYf3 'iYxf3 1 3 gxf3 .lte6 1 4 a3
.ltxc3 I S bxc3 cS Black equalised in Lavios
Ctespo-Toderoevic, Las Palmas 1999)
1 0... i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 cS! 12 ifd3 .l:i.dS 1 3 g3
'iVg4 14 h3 (14 i.e2!?) 1 4...ifd7 I S .l:i.dl 'ifa4
16 i.g2 'iYxa3 1 7 0-0 and \X1hite's position
seems to be preferable.
b) The alternative 7 ... .l:i.eS probably
doesn't work. S 'iVd3 (S eS? is too greedy too
soon: S... cS! 9 i.bS c6 1 0 0-0 cxbS 1 1 exf6
cxd4 1 2 a3 i.cs 13 It'le2 i.g4 14 .l:i.el "idS
and Black has a completely dominating posi
tion) S... .ltxc3+ 9 bxc3 .ltfS. According to
Gutman this position is better for Black, but
after 1 0 f3! I believe that it is very hard for
4 d4 .i. b 4
Black to generate counterplay, for example:
10 ...h6 (10... lt'lxe4? 1 1 .txdS It'lg3+ 12 Wd2
i.xd3 13 .txd3 It'lxhl 14 .th4 would leave
Black a piece down) 1 1 i.e3 and it seems
clear that Black does not have enough com
pensation for the pawn. Black needs another
move to replace 1Q ...h6 for 7 ...l:l.eS to work.
6 . . .J:t.e8 7 .i.d2 tZJxd4
This pseudo-combination doesn't look at
tractive, but the alternatives also look bad:
a) 7 ... lt'lxeS S dxeS ':xeS 9 0-0-0 :eS 10 f3
(this looks more logical than 10 nel c6?!
[10 ... d6 would be a clear improvement] 1 1 eS
i.xc3 12 'iVxc3 It'ldS 13 'iVg3 It'le7 14 .td3
and White was clearly better in Bykhovsky
Sazev, USSR 1972) 1Q ...d6 1 1 g4 and 1Ute
has good attacking chances.
b) 7 ... dS does not work. After S It'lxc6
bxc6 9 eS cS 10 O-O-O! It'lg4 1 1 i.e1 'ifg5+ 12
'>t>b1 I:tbS 1 3 f4! \X1hite had a clear advantage
in Jurtaev-Kochiev, Frunze 1979. The line
continues 1 3..:iVfS (13 .. :iixf4? 1 4 lt'lxdS and
\X1hite wins; 1 3..:iih6 14 h3 cxd4 I S 'iixd4
cS 1 6 'ifgl It'le3 17 'iYxe3 d4 I S 'iYg3 i.xc3
19 i.xc3 dxc3 20 'iYxc3 'iVxf4 21 .ltc4 gives
\X1hite a clear advantage) 1 4 'iYf3 c6 I S h3
It'lh6 16 lt'le2 i.xel 1 7 .l:i.xel with an obvious
advantage for \X1hite.
8 'i!i'xd4 c5 9 d3
9 'iYd6? i.xc3 10 i.xc3 It'lxe4 1 1 "idS
It'lxc3 12 bxc3 'iVf6 and Black wins.
9 . . ..li!.xe5 1 0 0-0-0
1 0 . . . d5? !
91
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
1 0...d6 11 f3 gives White a solid advan
tage, but this is still preferable to the text.
1 1 lLlxd5!
TIlls is a precise reaction; the alternatives
give Black good play:
a) 1 1 'ii'g3 i..xc3 (1 1 ....i:txe4!? also looks
good) 12 .l1l.xc3 l::i.xe4 1 3 f3 l::i.e 3 14 i..xf6
'iWxf6 1 5 xd5 i..e6 gives Black the freer
game.
b) 1 1 exd5 .ig4! 12 'iWg3 (12 f3 .if5 gives
Black good attacking chances) 1 2...xd5! 1 3
liJxd5 'iYxd5 1 4 c4 i..xd2+ ( 1 4...'ii'd4?! 1 5
i.d3 .l1l.xd 1 1 6 l:!.xd 1 .l1l.xd2+ 1 7 l:!.xd2 liJe4
18 .ixe4 'tWxe4 19 'ii'd3 gives White a slightly
better endgame) 1 5 xd2 xd2+ 1 6 <;t>xd2
liJe4+ 1 7 <;t>c2 liJxg3 1 8 hxg3 e8 with a
likely draw.
1 1 . . . lLlxd5
After l 1 ...i..xd2+ 12 'ii'xd2 liJxd5
(12... liJxe4? 13 liJf6+l 'iYxf6 14 'iid8+ and
Wbite mates) 1 3 i..c4 White has a clear extra
pawn. The position after 1 3 ...l:!.xe4 1 4 i..xd5
d4 15 'iYe3 i.f5 16 l:hd4 cxd4 1 7 'ii'xd4
'ii'c7 1 8 c3 does not promise real compensa
tion.
1 2 i..xb4?!
Better was 12 .l1l.f4! .l:!.e8 (12 ....l1l.g4 1 3
exd5! f5 1 4 i..e3 gives White a clear plus)
1 3 exd5 i..g4 1 4 f3 f6 1 5 i..g3 i.. f5 1 6 'iWc4
and Black does not have enough compensa
tion for the sacrificed pawn.
1 2 . . . exb4
12 ... i..g4 1 3 f3 cxb4 14 exd5 i.. f5 1 5 'it'd4
'iVc7 1 6 i..d3 gives White the advantage.
1 3 f4 l:te7 1 4 'iVxd5 .l:1.d7 1 5 'iVh5 'i'e7 1 6
g3 J:txd1 + 1 7 'iVxd1
Now Black has some compensation for
the pawn.
1 7 . . . i..e6 1 8 b1 a5
After 1 8 ...'ii'a 5!? 19 b3 l:td8 20 .l1l.d3 'it'c5
Black would have some drawing chances.
1 9 i..d3 a4 20 f5 i..d 7 21 'i'd2 'iVe5 22
'i'f4?
TIlls leaves the dark squares on the king
side unprotected. After 22 c3! bxc3 (22... .l1l.c6
23 cxb4 'iWd4 24 'iWc3 d8 25 'iWxd4 :xd4 26
92
'.t>c2 .l1l.xe4 27 .l1l.xe4 xe4 28 '.t>c3 is close to
winning for White, while 22 ... b3 23 a3 also
does not achieve anything) 23 xc3 'iWxc3
24 bxc3 White would have very good
chances of winning the game.
22 . . . b3?
Both players seems to have problems
finding their way. Better was 22... a3! and
White has problems with the threat of
. .. 'iWd4, for example 23 e5 (23 b3 d4 24
c1 .l1l.c6 25 l:.e1 e8 and Black dominates
the show) 23 ....i.c6 24 .i:td1 .l1l.d5 25 b3 c3
26 'it'c1 'ii'xe5 and Black is close to winning.
23 lld 1 ?
Here White should have played 23 a3!
.l1l.b5 24 l:tc1 .l1l.xd3 25 cxd3 'iWd4 and al
though Black has some counter chances,
White is better after a move like 26 l::i.c 3.
23 . . . bxa2+ 24 xa2 a3?
Bad attacking technique. After 24...b5! 25
'iVd2 b4 White's king is in great danger.
25 b3 i..e6 26 i..e4! Ile8 27 f6! g5
Black has no defence:
a) 27...g6 28 6 'ii'f8 29 'iWxf8+ xf8 30
'it'xa3 and White wins.
b) 27... gxf6 28 'ii'g4+wins.
c) 27...5 28 fxg7 b5 29 .ie6 fxe6
(29...e8 30 d6 and 'X-'hite dominates the
board) 30 ':'1 'iWe8 31 h6 'iWe7 32 f8+
xf8 33 gxf8'ii'+ 'ii'xf8 34 'ii'xe6+ 'it'g7 35
'iVxc6 and White has a winning ending.
28 'iVg4 l:te8
29 l:.d5! 1 -0

Game 45
N adyrhanov-Safin
Bishkek 1993
1 e4 eS 2 tDf3 tDcS 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 d4
.i.b4 S tDxeS! tDxe4
This line is very risky and, in my opinion,
not very good.
S 'ii'g4!
The critical test. 6 f3?! is not so good.
6 ...lbf6 and now:
a) 7 'it'g3 0-0 8 .tg5 lbxd4 9 0-0-0 lbf5 1 0
f3 .txc3 1 1 bxc3 (1 1 xc3? lbe4 does not
work) 1 1 ...'ii'e7! 1 2 'tixf5 d6 1 3 .txf6 gxf6 1 4
lbd7 .txd7 1 5 'it'f3 'tie6 gives Black a better
game, though many complications still re
malll.
b) 7 e3 0-0 8 d3 .l:!.e8 9 lbxc6 dxc6 1 0
0-0 g4 1 1 'ii'g3 it'd7 1 2 h3 (1 2 iL.g5 lbh5!
13 it'h4 f6 14 h3 fxg5 15 'ii'xg4 it'xg4 1 6
hxg4 lbf4 would leave Black with the better
chances) 1 2... f5 1 3 .l:.ad1 ?! (1 3 .tg5 iL.d6
14 'it'f3 iL.xd3 1 5 'iWxd3 lbd5 with equality
was better) 1 3 ... iL.xd3 1 4 l:.xd3 xc3 1 5
bxc3 lbe4 1 6 'iVf3 'it'd5 and Black has a slight
edge, Adams-Howell, Uoyds Bank 1 992.
S . . . tDxc3 7 'ilfxg7
Black comes out on top after 7 a3? 'iWf6 8
axb4 lbxb4! (8... lbxe5 9 iVg3! [9 dxe5 'iVxe5+
10 e3 lbd5] 9 ...lbf3+ 1 0 gxf3 lbd5 1 1 J:!.a5
is less clear) 9 bxc3 (9 d3 d6 1 0 'iWg3 lbcd5
1 1 tLlf3 lbxd3+ 1 2 cxd3 'iVe6+wins for Black)
9 ...tLlxc2+ 1 0 Wdl lbxal 1 1 'iVg3 0-0 1 2 c4
d6 1 3 g5 'iVf5 1 4 .td3 e6 1 5 c4 d5.
7 . . . 1:I.f8
7...f6? 8 xf6 lbe4+ 9 c3 lbxf6 1 0
lbxc6 .txc3+ 1 1 bxc3 dxc6 1 2 .td3 gives
White a clear advantage due to the two bish
ops and the better structure.
8 a3
Less clear is 8 lbxc6?! dxc6 9 a3 (9 'tieS+?
.ie6 1 0 a3 d6 would leave Black a piece
up) 9 .. :i'e7+ 1 0 'ilVe5 'iWxe5+ 1 1 dxe5 lbd5+
12 axb4 lbxb4, when Black has active coun
terplay.
4 d4 .i. b 4
8 . . . .i.aS
It seems that 8 ...iL.a5 is the only good
move. For 8...lbxd4 see Games 46-47. After
8... lba2+? 9 axb4 lbxc 1 1 0 lbxc6 dxc6 1 1
.l:.xc1 'X'hite has a clear advantage, while the
same goes for 8 .. :it'h4 9 lbxc6 d6 (9... dxc6
1 0 axb4 lbd5 [10....i.g4 1 1 g5!l 1 1 .i.h6
and White wins) 1 0 bxc3 dxc6 1 1 d3 'ilVe7+
1 2 'it>dl ! .
9 tDxc6 dxcS 1 0 'ilfeS+ 'ilfe7 1 1 xe7+
xe7 1 2 .i.d2 .i.fS 1 3 bxc3!
A nice touch. After 13 .txc3 ..txc3+ 14
bxc3 ..txc2 1 5 d2 .i.g6 1 6 h4 h6 1 7 .l:!.h3 c5
1 8 .l:.f3 cxd4 19 l::!.e 1+ 'it'd7 20 cxd4 Uae8 21
:xe8 .l:!.xe8 the position was drawish in Oll
A.Petrosian, Moscow 1 992.
1 3 . . ..i.xc2 14 c4 .i.xd2+ 1 S xd2
In this ending 'X'hite can continue to play
for a win forever without having to take any
risks at all.
1 5 . . . .i.gS
1 5 ... f5 1 6 .td3 ..txd3 1 7 l:!.he1+ 'it>f6 1 8
'it>xd3 gad8 1 9 c3 .l:!.g8 20 g3 .l:!.ge8 2 1 .l:!.e3
gives White good chances to fight for a win
in the rook endgame.
1 S h4! hS
Or 16...Wd6 1 7 h5 .tf5 and now:
a) 1 8 .td3!? .i.xd3 1 9 'it>xd3 c5 20 .l:!.h4
.l:!.ad8 21 .l:!.el l:tfe8? (after the preferable
2 1 ...cxd4 22 klxd4+ 'it>c6 23 g4 .l:!.xd4+ 24
Wxd4 .sd8+ 25 c3 .l:!.d7 26 g5 White would
retain only some winning chances) 22 .l:!.xe8
l:.xe8 23 .l:!.f4 e7 24 .l:!.e4+ Wd7 25 Mxe8
93
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
Wxe8 26 c1xc5 <l;e7 27 We4 We6 28 g4 1 -0,
Estevez-Corujedo, correspondence 1 988.
b) 1 8 .l:!.h4! (this looks stronger) 1 8 ....l:!.g8
1 9 1:.f4 .:i.g5 20 1:.e1 and Black is under con
siderable pressure.
1 7 l1h3 .l:l.ad8 1 8 c3 .l:I.fe8 1 9 l:te1 + f8
1 9 ... Wd7!? is probably better - the king is
needed in the centre.
20 l:the3 .l:I.xe3+ 21 J:txe3 !te8!? 22
l:txe8+ xe8 23 .i.d3!?
This looks tempting, giving a three versus
two majority on the kingside, but it was bet
ter to prepare this with 23 g4!, when White
has some winning chances.
23 . . . .i.xd3??
A bad mistake. It was important to im
prove the position of the king before allow
ing White to improve the position of his
king. After 23 ... 'it>d7! 24 g4 'it>e6 25 .i.xg6 (or
25 f4 .i.xd3 26 'it>xd3 f5 27 g5 h5 28 <l;c3
<l;d6 29 'it>b4 b6 30 a4 a5+ and White cannot
win) 25... fxg6 26 'iio>d3 b5! 27 f3 as Black
draws.
24 xd3
This endgame is winning for White. As
pawn endings have a tendency to be an exact
science, we will have to be exact as well.
Some might wonder what a pawn ending is
doing in an opening book, but this pawn
ending is actually very close to the theoretical
position and could easily arise, so to me it
seems very natural to include it.
24. . . e7
94
Or 24...f5 25 f3 <l;e7 26 g4 <l;f6 27 'it>e3
and now:
a) 27 ... a5 28 'it>f4 b5 29 <l;e3 fxg4 30 fxg4
e6 31 <l;d3 f6 32 Wc3 e6 33 d5-H cxd5
34 cxb5 and White wins.
b) 27 ... <l;e6 28 g5 hxg5 29 hxg5 f7 30
<l;d3 g6 31 f4 <l;f7 32 c3 <l;e6 33 <l;b4
Wf7 34 Wc5 e7 35 d5 cxd5 36 <Ji>xd5 c6+
37 'it>e5 b5 38 cxb5 cxb5 39 <Ji>xf5 and White
WillS .
c) 27 ... b5 28 d5! fxg4 29 fxg4 bxc4 30
c1xc6 <Ji>e5 31 g5 hxg5 32 hxg5 f5 33 <Ji>d4
Wxg5 34 'it>xc4 Wf6 35 'it>b5 <l;e6 36 a4 'it>d6
37 as Wd5 38 'it>a6 Wxc6 39 'it>xa7 Wb5 40
a6 and White wins.
25 e4 e6
25 ... b5 26 cxb5 cxb5 27 <Ji>d5 as 28 <Ji>c5
c6 29 g4 'it>d7 30 f4 'it>e7 31 g5 hxg5 32 hxg5
(32 fxg5? f6! 33 'it>xc6 fxg5 34 hxg5 b4 35
axb4 axb4 36 d5 b3 37 d6+ Wf7 38 d7 b2 39
d8 b 1 'it' 40 'it'f6+ is not so clear) 32... b4 33
axb4 a4 34 'it>c4 <Ji>e6 35 b5!! cxb5+ 36 'b4
'it>f5 37 d5 f6 38 d6 'it>e6 39 g6 and White
WillS .
26 94 f6
The endgame is also lost after:
a) 26 ... b5 27 d5+ cxd5+ 28 cxd5+ We7 29
'it>d4 as 30 <Ji>c5 b4 31 axb4 a4 32 'it>c4 d6
33 h5 f6 34 f4 a3 35 'it>b3 <Ji>xd5 36 xa3
'it>e6 37 'ita4 f5 38 gxf5+ <Ji>xf5 39 'it>b5 'itg4
40 c6 xh5 41 <Ji>xc7.
b) 26 ... f5+ 27 gxf5+ <Ji>f6 28 a4 b6 (or
28 ... a6 29 as b6 30 axb6 cxb6 31 d5 cxd5+ 32
cxd5 as 33 d6 a4 34 'it>d5 a3 35 d7 e7 36
<Ji>c6) 29 d5! cxd5+ 30 'iio>xd5 'iio>x fS 31 'iio>c 6.
27 f4 a5
Or 27...bS 28 cxb5 cxb5 29 d5-H 'it>e7 30
d4 as 31 c5! (but not 31 gS?? hxg5 32
fxg5 f5! and all of a sudden it is Black who
comes out on top) 31 ...b4 32 axb4 a4 33 c4
(33 'iio>c 6? a3 34 xc7 a2 35 d6+ <Ji>f7 36 d7
a1 37 d8'it' 'i'c3+ 38 <Ji>d7 'iid3+ 39 'iitc 8
a6+ 40 b8 'iib5+ 41 'iio>a7 'iixb4 only
gives White good winning chances) 33... <Ji>d6
34 h5 a3 35 Wb3 Wxd5 36 g5 fxg5 37 fxg5
<Ji>e6 38 g6 and White wins.

28 a4 d6
White also wins after 28 ... b5 29 axb5 cxb5
30 cxb5 a4 31 'it'd3 a3 32 c2 a2 33 b2
d5 34 g5 fxg5 35 fxg5 hxg5 36 hxg5 and
28 ...b6 29 d5+l cxd5+ 30 cxd5+ e7 31 d4
f7 32 c4 e7 33 g5 hxg5 34 hxg5 fxg5
35 fxg5 'it'f7 36 b5 'it'g6 37 'it'c6.
29 c5+ e6
29 ... e7 30 d5 cxd5+ 31 'it'xd5 'it'f7 32 f5 37 b2 fxg5 38 fxg5 hxg5 39 d5+ f7
'it'e7 33 c4 (with the standard idea of Wb5)
33 ... c6 34 d4 f7 35 e4 'it'g7 36 f4
f7 37 g5 hxg5+ 38 hxgS ci;e7 39 gxf6+ ,...------------
xf6 40 e4 and White wins.
30 e3??
A terrible blunder. White wins after 30
f5+l e7 31 d5 cxd5+ 32 'it'xd5 f7! (32 ... c6+
33 ci;e4 e8 34 f4; 32 ... 'it'd7 33 c6+ bxc6+
34 'it'c5 e7 35 xc6 d8 36 b5) 33 c4!
c6 34 d3 We7 35 e3 f7 36 f4 ci;g7 37
g5.
30 . . . b5??
30.. .5! 31 g5 h5 32 Wd3 'it'f7 33 c3 e7
would have drawn.
31 cxb6 cxb6 32 d3 b5
Now Black is lost again, as these varia
tions show:
a) 32 .. .5 33 gS h5 34 Wc4 d6 3S g6 e6
36 d5+l cxd5+ 37 d4.
b) 32 ... e7 33 h5 f7 34 c4 'it'e6 35
d5+l! cxd5+ 36 d4 f5 (36 ...'it'd6 37 g5 fxg5
38 fxg5 'it'e7 39 gxh6 ci;f8 40 xdS; 36 ...b5
37 axb5 a4 38 c3) 37 gxf5+ xf5 38 xd5
xf4 39 c6 g4 40 xb6 Wxh5 41 Wxa5
4 d4 iL b 4
Wg4 42 b6 hS 43 as.
33 axb5 cxb5 34 h5 a4
White also wins after 3 4...Wd6 35 g5 and
34 ... We7 35 g5 fxg5 36 fxg5 a4 37 gxh6 Wf7
38 dS.
35 g5 a3 36 c2 a2
Or 36 ...fxg5 37 fxg5 hxg5 38 d5+ 'it'f6 39
d6 a2 40 Wb2 g4 41 d7.
40 h6 g4 41 h7 g7 42 d6 g3 43 d7 g2
44 h8"Yi + 1 -0
.- ......
Game 46
Yandemirov-Bezgodov
Smolensk 1992
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 lLlc6 4 d4
iLb4 5 lLlxe5! lLlxe4 6 g4 lLlxc3 7 "ilfxg7
':'f8 8 a3
8 . . . lLlxd4?
This variation has some attractions be
cause it is quite complicated. Unfortunately
for Black it is also very bad. White's king
might be walking around in the centre, but
Black cannot activate his pieces, and White
immediately gains a strong initiative.
9 axb4 lLlxc2+ 1 0 d2 lLlxa1 1 1 xc3
a5 1 2 iLc4! Wie7
12 ... axb4+ is considered in the next game.
1 3 .l:l.e1 ! d5
The alternatives also do not work:
a) 1 3. .. axb4+ 14 Wd2! 't\d6+ (White also
wins after 14 ... d5 1 5 i..b5+ d8 [1 5 ... c6
95
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
transposes to the next game] 1 6 'it>dl ! iLe6
17 tLld7 .l:Ie8 18 gS tLlb3 19 xe7+ .uxe7
20 tLlf6) I S tLld3+ 'it>d8 16 Wd 1 tLlb3 1 7 i.f4
and Black resigned in Smith-Fauth, corre
spondence 1981. After 1 7 ...Ma 1+ 1 8 'it>c2
tLld4+ 19 'it>d2 tLlfS 20 'iVg5+ it's all over.
b) 13. .. 'ixb4+ 14 Wd3 and now:
b 1) 14 ... dS I S tLlxt7+ and Black resigned in
J.C.Diaz-Am.Rodriguez, Cuba 1 981 . Play
could have continued 1 S ... 'iVxel 1 6 .ltb5+ c6
17 tLld6+ d8 18 .ltg5+ and Black is mated.
b2) 14 ...li'd6+ I S <t>e2! li'e7 (I S ... f6 1 6
W fl <t>d8 1 7 .ltf4 4 1 8 tLld3! and the
queen has no good squares; I S... l::ta6 1 6
.ltxt7+ <t>e7 1 7 .ltg5+ and White wins) 1 6
dl tLlc2 1 7 <t>xc2 d S (1 7. . .d6 1 8 tLlxt7
i. f5+ [1 8 ... 'ixel 19 tLlxd6+ cxd6 20 .ltb5+
d8 21 g5+ is a nice finish] 19 Wdl e4
20 3l.gS and White wins) 18 i.b5+ c6 1 9
tLlxc6 li'xel 20 tLlb8+ 'it>e7 2 1 iLg5+ Wd6 22
xf8+ and again White wins.
c) 1 3..J:h6 14 bxaS! (but not 14 .ltgS?
xb4+ I S <t>d3 dS 16 tLlg6+ l::te6 and Black
wins) and now:
c1) 14 ... l::te6 I S .ltxe6 dxe6 1 6 .lte3 'iVd6
1 7 tLlc4 'ie7 (or 1 7 ...'ic6 1 8 .lth6 and White
wins) 1 8 l::txal and White has a winning posi
tion.
c2) Also worth analysing is 14 ... bS 1 5 axb6
l::txb6 (Black is also lost after 1 5 ...l::ta4 1 6
iLh6 4+ [1 6. . ..l:txc4+ 1 7 Wxc4 'iVe6+ 1 8
<t>d4 xb6+ 1 9 d3 3+ 20 <t>e2 .lta6+ 21
tLlc4 d6 22 <t>d2+l looks risky, but it is impor
tant to step out of the pin. 22 ... 'it>d7 23 'iVg4+
f5 24 'ig7+ c6 25 tLla5+ and White wins]
1 7 d3 'id6+ 1 8 <t>e2 .lta6 1 9 f1 and
White has a winning attack) 1 6 tLld3 Me6 1 7
i.xe6 dxe6 ( 1 7. ..fxe6 1 8 'iYxe7+ Wxe7 1 9
i.g5+ leaves White a piece up) 1 8 .lthG and
'hite has a decisive advantage.
1 4 i..b 5+ c6 1 5 l2lxc6! xe1 + 1 6 i..d 2
"iVe4
Black has also tried 16 ... bxc6 1 7 .ltxc6+
i.d7 1 8 i.xd7+ Wxd7 19 .ltxel l:Iac8+ 20
<t>d3 tLlc2 21 c3 tLlxb4+ 22 i.xb4 axb4 23
li'xh7, when the endgame is winning for
96
White, Evers-Schuetze, correspondence.
1 986.
1 7 l2lb8+! 1 -0
Black resigned because of 17 ... e7 1 8
i.g5+ Wd6 1 9 'iVxf8+ Wc7 2 0 i.d8+ 'it>xb8 2 1
d6+ which leads t o mate, or 1 7 ...'it>d8 18
li'xf8+ Wc7 1 9 'iVc5+ Wxb8 20 'iVd6+ <;t>a7 21
i.e3+ and White wins.
Game 47
Polovodin-Rutman
Leningrad 1978
1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4
i..b4 5 l2lxe5! l2lxe4 6 g4 l2lxc3 7 xg7
.l:!.f8 8 a3 l2lxd4 9 axb4 l2lxc2+ 1 0 d2
l2lxa 1 1 1 xc3 a5 1 2 i..c4 axb4+ 1 3
d2! d5
1 3. .."YWe7 14 l:i.el d5 is considered in the
notes to Black's 1 3th move in the previous
game.
1 4 i..b 5+ c6 1 5 .l:!.e1 !
All pieces join the attack.
1 5 . . .i..e6
Black is all out of luck:
a) I S ...tLlb3+ 1 6 <t>dl i.e6 1 7 tLlxc6 bxc6
1 8 Mxe6+ <t>d7 1 9 l::txc6 and White wins.
b) 1 S... cxbS 16 tLlxt7+ and again White
Will S .
1 6 l2lxc6! bxc6
Or 16 ... d6 17 l::txe6+ fxe6 (17...'iVxe6 1 8
tLld4+ wins) 1 8 tLla5+! and it's game over.
1 7 J:txe6+ d7 1 8 .l:!.xc6
 4 d4 iL b 4

Black is an exchange up, but the threats to

1 1 il..xg4 xg4 1 2 lIe1+ d7! with unclear
his king are impossible to meet. play.
1 8 . . . 'i!He7 8 bxc3 'i!Hxc6 9 0-0 'i!Hxc3
After 1 8 .. :a5 White has the quiet 1 9
After 9 ... d5?! 1 0 lIbl 0-0 1 1 a3 lbe4 1 2
e5! b3+ (or 1 9 ... lbb3+ 20 <J.idl d8 2 1
xf8 lbxc3 1 3 "iVd3 lbxbl 1 4 xg7 xg7
d6+ <J.ie8 22 lIc8 mate!) 20 lIc3+ "iVxb5 2 1
1 5 lIxb1 White is a little better - Nunn.
l:!.c7+ d8 22 'iUe7 mate! 1 0 litb1 0-0 1 1 l:!.b3
1 9 d 1 l:!.ab8 20 iLf4 1 -0 Stronger is 1 1 d5! - '.V'hite should prevent
Black had seen enough. Black from playing ... d7-d5. 1 1 ...'ia5 1 2 .l:i.b5
,...-----. a4 1 3 b2 d6 1 4 xf6 gxf6 1 5 'id2 f5

Game 48 1 6 .l:i.b3 was dangerous for Black in l\fiagma-

S kripchenko Lautier-Adams
Bundesliga 2001
--------. 'i!HhS 1 S iLe2
1 e4 eS 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4
iLb4 S lLlxeS! 'ife7
suren-Bisguer, Tallinn 1 97 1 .
1 1 . . . 'i!Hc6 1 2 iLbS 'ifdS 1 3 iLd3 d6 1 4 c4
White should not exchange queens a
pawn down of course. After 1 5 'iUxh5?!
lbxh5 1 6 lIe1 lbf6 17 g5 lIe8 1 8 lIbbl
kIxe1+ 1 9 !!xe 1 ..te6 the compensation is
limited.
1 S . . .'i!Hh4 1 6 h3
1 6 kIg3!? looks better.
1 6 . . ..!:!.e8 1 7 l:!.f3 l2lhS 1 8 iLd3 iLd7
18 ... b6!? 19 d5! gives White some com
pensation because of the strong bishops,
while 1 9 l:.xf7?! xf7 20 "iVf3+ lbf6 21 'iUxa8
xh3 would be in Black's favour.
1 9 iLe3 h6

6 l2lxc6
After this move Black has easy equality.
For the critical 6 iVd3 see the next game.
6 . . . 'ifxe4+ 7 iLe2 iLxc3+
Even stronger is 7 ... dxc6! 8 0-0 h4 and
now:
a) 9 lIe1 0-0 1 0 g3 3 1 1 il..f1 g4 1 2
.if4 'iYxdl 1 3 lIaxdl g4 1 4 lIc1 .l:i.ac8 1 5
.ig5 lbd5 1 6 lbxd5 cxd5 i s completely equal
- Gutman
b) 9 ii.f3 il..e6 1 0 lbe2 ..tg4 1 1 g3 h5 1 2
lbf4 ..\txf3 1 3 lbxh5 i..x dl 1 4 lbxf6+ e7 1 5 Prophylaxis against d2 with the threat of
Itxd 1 xf6 was agreed drawn in D e la Villa g5 followed by "iVa5 attacking the queen
Garcia-Mellado, Spain 200l. side.
c) 9 g3!? (very risky) 9 .. :iih3 10 il..f4 lbg4! 20 iLc2 litad8 21 'i!Hd2!?
(1O ...h5?! would be too optimistic; after 1 1 21 'iUd3 f5 22 'iUa3 with unclear play was
el c,t>f8 1 2 f1 d7 1 3 h4 '.V'hite i s better) also possible, but Black should avoid 22 ... f4

97
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
23 'YWd3, when White comes out on top.
21 . . . CLlf6!
If Black were to fall asleep with a move
like 21 ...e6?, then the hammer would fall:
22 ..ltxh6! gxh6 23 'iVxh6 with serious threats.
22 'ifd3 f8
22... dS?! 23 cxdS c8 24 .:i.e1 would give
White the advantage, as 24....:i.xdS? loses to
2S .:i.xf6.
23 'ifb3 b6
After 23 ... i.c8 24 dS a6 25 .:i.f4 hS 26
..ltd4 Black is under serious pressure. One
should not underestimate the pressure on the
dark squares.
24 l:!.f4 h5 25 ii.d 1 iYg5 26 h2
26 c2 would allow 26 ... i.xh3!? 27 .:i.g4
xg4 28 i.xg4 3Lxg4 with good compensa
tion for the queen.
26 . . . ii.c6 27 d5 ii.d7 28 g3 g6 29 i.c2
'ifh5 30 ':'h4 iYe2 31 g 1 J:i.xe3!
A safety sacrifice, after which Black has
little to fear. He even has the advantage, but
it is hard to come up with a winning plan. So
maybe this was unnecessary, but still it was
hard to see how Black could improve his
position.
32 fxe3 lle8 33 e4 iYd2 34 iYd3 iYxd3
35 i.xd3 .tc8 36 g2 CLld7! 37 J:!.hf4
CLle5
The perfect blockade, but how can Black
win this?
38 i.e2 e7 39 l:!.b1 a5 40 J:tbf1 J:!.f8 41
J:1.e 1 i.d7 42 ':'c 1 f6 43 ':c3 .te8 44
98
.tg4 .tf7 45 J:!.f1 J:1.h8 46 ii.d 1 llc8 47
ii.g4 :te8 48 ii.d 1 f8 49 J:!.e 1 ii.g6 50
.tc2 f7 51 f2 J:1.e7 52 e3 CLld7 53
d4 .!:te5 54 J:tce3 CLlc5 55 .td 1 f8 56
.tg4 i.e8 57 J:tf1 h5 58 ii.d1 i.d7 59
J:!.h 1 f7 60 ii.c2 h4 61 g4 g6 62 ':f1
h6 63 J::.b 1 ii.e8 64 J::. be 1 ii.g6 65 lilf1
e8 66 J::f.fe 1 J:!.c8 67 nb1 g5 68 ii.d3
CLld7 69 J::.f 1 CLle5 70 i.e2 h6 71 ii.d1
.:te8 72 ii.c2 CLlf7 73 .td3 CLlg5 74 l:!.b1
h7 75 b2 g8 76 be2 f8 77 J:!.f2
e7 78 i.c2 d8 79 J;1fe2 J::te7 80 .!:tf2
.!:te5 8 1 ':'fe2 ii.e8 82 ii.d3 i.d7 83 ':'f2
c8 84 J:tc2 b7 85 l:!.b2 J:te8 86 ii.c2
a7 87 ii.d3 J:!.c8 88 ii.e2 CLlf7 89 .!:tb1
CLlg5 90 J:!.b2 .l:!.e8 9 1 ii.d3 a8 Y, y,
-
Game 49
Sermek-Medancic
Bled 1998
1 e4 e5 2 CLlf3 CLlc6 3 CLlc3 CLlf6 4 d4
.tb4 5 CLlxe5! iYe7 6 iYd3!
The critical test.
6 . . . CLlxe5
Also possible is 6...tbxd4 7 fixd4 3LcS
and now:
a) According Lev Gutman 8 d2?! gives
White an advantage, but it is hard to see how.
8... xeS 9 f4 fie7! (9... 'iVd4?! 1 0 eS tbg4 1 1
fixd4 xd4 1 2 tbbS 3Lf2+ 1 3 'it>e2 b6 14
h3 tbh6 1 5 g4 does heavily favour White) 10
eS (10 ..ltd3 0-0 1 1 e2 d6 looks good for

Black) 10 ... d6 looks better for Black.
b) 8 'tid3 xeS 9 ..ie3 0-0 1 0 f4 fie7 1 1
0-0-0 :e8 1 2 .i.xcs fixcs 1 3 h3 d6 1 4 .i.e2
(1 4 g4?! fif2! would expose the f-pawn and
give Black good counterplay) 14 ... .i.d7 1 5
..if3 .i.c6 with an unclear middlegame ahead,
Zelic-Mikac, Pula 2002. This might be the
best line for Black in the whole system with
4... .i.b4.
7 dxe5 xe5 8 i..d2 0-0 9 0-0-0 d6
Also possible is 9... ..ixc3 10 i.xc3 fif4-+
(10.. :xe4?! 1 1 'iWg3! 'tig6 1 2 .i.d3 'ii'h6+ 1 3
..id2 'tWhS 1 4 fixc7 d S 1 5 .i.b4 i.g4 1 6
..ixf8 ..ixdl 1 7 ..ie7 ..ig4 1 8 'iVxb7 gave
White a clear advantage in Spielmann
Bogoljubow, Stockholm 1 9 1 9) 1 1 J:td2!
(White comes out worse after 1 1 'it>bI ? tLlxe4
12 g3 tLlxc3+ 13 'iixc3 'tixf2 14 'iVxc7 d6 1 5
.i.c4 .i.fS 1 6 .i.b3 .i:lac8 1 7 'tixd6 i.xc2+ 1 8
..ixc2 fixc2+ 1 9 'it>al h6)
and now:
a) l 1 ...dS!? 1 2 exdS! l:.e8 13 b3! .i.fS (or
13 ... tLle4 14 'iWd4 'tih6 1 5 ii.bS c6 16 dxc6
bxc6 17 .i.xc6 tLlxd2 1 8 b2 .i.a6 19 .i.xe8!
tLlc4-+- 20 bxc4 l:txe8 21 l:tel and White wins)
14 'tif3 l:re1+ 15 Wb2 'tigS?! 1 6 h4 'tig6 1 7
d6 tLle4 1 8 .l:!.dS .i.e6 1 9 .l::te S ..ig4 20 d7 tLlf6
21 'tixb7 1 -0. Bellon-Lucacs, Bucharest 1 978.
Better was I s .. :iHxf3 16 gxf3 lId8 (1 6 ...i.h3
1 7 .i.g2! makes no progress for Black) 1 7
i.xf6 gxf6 1 8 .i.g2, though it does not offer
Black enough compensation for the pawn.
The batde will be on the queenside, so the
4 d4 i.. b 4
weakness of White's pawns is less important.
Still, Black can generate some counterplay
with ....l:!.d6-h6, even though it is doubtful
whether it will be enough.
b) 1 1 ...'tixe4 1 2 i.xf6 'iWxd3 1 3 .i.xd3
gxf6 1 4 1Iei dS 1 5 .l::te7 c6 16 de2 .l:!.b8 1 7
J::tc7 .i.e6! (17 ...h 6 1 8 l:tee7 with a clear ad
vantage - Gutman) 1 8 .i.xh7+ Wh8 1 9 .i.d3
and White has the better structure.
1 0 f4 'IiIe7
10 ...'tiaS 1 1 a3 would give White a serious
advantage .
1 1 J:Ie 1 i..d 7 1 2 'IiIg3
White has serious attacking chances. The
way Black now tries to start an attack is too
slow. He should have tried to play with his
pieces.
1 2 . . . c6 1 3 i..d 3 b5 1 4 J:Ihf1 4Jh5 1 5 'IiIf3
iYh4 1 6 e5 f5 1 7 g3 g4 1 8 'IiIxg4 fxg4
1 9 e6 i..xc3 20 i..xc3 i..c8 21 i..b4 ne8
22 f5
White has an overwhelming position.
22 . . . d5 23 i..c3 a5 24 a3 b4 25 axb4
axb4 26 i..xb4 4Jf6 27 i..c 3 4Je4 28
i..xe4 dxe4 29 b3 g6 30 J:Ixe4 h5 31 ne5
gxf5 32 !texf5 i.xe6 33 J:!.xh5 1 -0
Came 50
Egorov-Iuldachev
Aden 2002
1 e4 e5 2 4Jc3 4Jf6 3 4Jf3 4Jc6 4 d4
i..b4 5 4Jxe5! i..xc3+!?
99
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
A novel idea that comes close to equalis
Ing.
6 bxe3 "iie7 7 i.d3!
7 lbxc6 'iYxe4+ 8 i.e2 't'ixc6 would trans
pose to Game 48.
7 . . . tUxe5 8 dxe5 i*'xe5 9 0-0
White has only a slight advantage from the
opening.
9 . . . d6
9 ... ii'xc3 1 0 bl 0-0 1 1 i.b2 c6 1 2 e5
would give White many attacking chances.
1 0 "iie 1
Interesting is 1 0 f4!? 'fixc3 11 Mbl 0-0 12
i.b2 "iVc5+ 13 c.t>hl lbg4 1 4 'iNel , when
White has compensation for the pawn in his
pressure on the dark squares.
10 . . . 0-0 1 1 f4 i*'h5 12 e4 tUd7
12 ...lbg4?! would be wasting time. After
1 3 h3! (1 3 ig3?! 'ifc5+ 1 4 c.t>hl f5! is Black's
idea) 1 3..:iVc5+ 14 c.t>hl lbf6 1 5 'iYg3 White
would have good attacking chances.
1 3 i.b2 tUe5 1 4 i*'g3
14 ktf3!? was interesting.
1 4 . . :iWg4 1 5 i*'e3 tUa4?
Here the knight is misplaced. The bishop
will also look strange on a3, but it can move
back to the kingside much faster than the
knight, so the misplacement is less of a prob
lem for White. After 1 5 .. .l::t e8 1 6 Mae1 i.d7
1 7 Mf3 "iVh4 1 8 l:!.g3 f6 1 9 "iVf2 h8 the
position would have remained unclear.
1 6 i.a3 J:te8 1 7 J:tf3!
White organises an assault on the king. 1 7
c 5 dxc5 1 8 i.xc5 lbxc5 1 9 ifxc5 would only
be level.
1 7 . . . i.d7 1 8 .l:!.e 1 i.e6 1 9 J:tg3 i*'e6 20
e5!
Opening up for the bishops and limiting
the space for the black pieces. After 20 'iVd4
f6 21 c5 dxc5 22 i.xc5 lbxc5 23 'ti'xc5 Wh8
Black keeps the balance.
20 . . . dxe5 21 fxe5 J:tad8
Black is starting to feel the cold. 21 ...lbb6
22 ig5! g6 23 .l:i.h3 f5 24 "iVh6 'iVf7 25 e6
'iNg7 26 'iHh4, with the threat of i.b2, is very
dangerous for Black.
1 00
22 "iif4 "iid 7?
Black was afraid of the threat of j"f5, but
he had to bring the knight back with
22 ...lbb6!, even though White has a terrible
attack after 23 l::tg4 g6 24 h4!.
23 h 1 ?
Sloppy. After 23 'iNh6! g6 24 Mee3! b6 25
Mh3 f6 26 exf6 lbc5 27 i.b2 White has a
winning attack.
23 . . . g6?!
Black could have fought back with
23 .. :iVe6!, planning 24 i.f5? 'iVxe5! and Black
wins. 24 'iYg5 g6 25 h4 remains unpleasant,
but it is still a fight.
24 J:!.f1 'i'e6 25 h4! tUb6 26 i.b2?!
26 h5! is more accurate (see below).
26 . . . tUa4?
Black should not go back here. After
26 ... Me7 27 i.a3 l:!.ed7 28 .if5 'iYxc4 29
"iVxc4 lbxc4 30 e6!? (30 .ixd7 Mxd7 31 i.cl
lbxe5 32 .if4 is probably slightly better for
White, but this kind of endgame is hard to
win) 30 ... d4 31 exf7+ xf7 32 i.g4+ g-;-
33 j"e7 8d5 34 .if6+ h6 35 i.xd4 xd4
and Black has good drawing chances. Of
course this is not a forced line, but it doe
show that Black has a tenable position.
27 i.a3 tUb6 28 h5! tUd7 29 i.b2 tUe5
30 i.f5! "iie7 31 hxg6 tUe6
Or 31 ...fxg6 32 .ixg6 and White crashes
through.
32 gxf7+ xf7 1 -0
It is mate after 33 .ixe6+ 'it>xe6 34 'iYf5.
 4 d4 b 4

Summary
After 4 ... iLb4 there is only one critical move because 5 d5 CLle7 does not seem to give White a
good game at all. Therefore 5 CLlxe5! is absolutely the best move. Then Black has a variety of
choices. 5 ... CLlxe4 6 g4! CLlxc3 7 xg7 lif8 8 a3 is one of these. Here Black is forced to go
into an uncomfortable endgame with 8 ...iLa5 as after 8... CLlxd4? White has a winning attack
straight from the opening. Black has also tried 5 ... 0-0 but by returning the pawn and finishing
his development, White holds a reasonable plus. This leaves Black with 5 ...e7 and 5 ...xc3+,
both of which have failed to equalise completely, but they do have some quality. In the final
analysis we can say that White is slightly better after 4... b4.

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4 b4 5 tLlxe5

5 d5 CLle7 6 CLlxe5 d6
7 CLlf3 (0) Game 42; 7 b5+ - Game 43
-

5 . . .tLlxe4
5 ... xc3+- Game 50
5 ... 0-0 -Game 44
5.. .'ii'e 7
-6 d3 Game 49; 6 CLlxc6 - Game 48
6 g4 tLlxc3 7 xg7 f8 8 a3 tLlxd4
8 ... a5 (0) - Game 45
9 axb4 tLlxc2+ 1 0 'it>d2 tLlxa 1 1 1 'it>xc3 a5 1 2 c4 (0) axb4+ - Game 47
1 2... e7 Game 46
-

7 tLlf3 1 2 c4

101
 CHAPTER EIGHT
The Belgrade Gambit
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tLld5
The Belgrade Gambit arises after the
above sequence. This gambit is especially
popular at club level, where home prepara
tion has not reached the level of professional
chess. The idea seems to be to sacrifice a
pawn and get complications no matter what.
Black has four main replies: 5 ... t2Jxd5
(Games 51 -52), 5 ...t2Jb4 (Games 53-54),
5 ... ..Ite7 (Games 55-59) and 5 ... t2Jxe4 (Games
60-65).
Game 51
Svidler-Cherepkov
Leningrad 1990
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tLld5 tLlxd5
In the position after 5 t2Jd5 Black has
many alternatives. He has tried the text
move, 5 ...t2Jb4, 5 ... ..Ite7 and 5 ...t2Jxe4. Here is
a summary of less important lines:
a) 5 ... d6!? 6 t2Jxd4 ..Ite7 (6...t2Jxe4? 7 t2Jb5
would of course be highly unfortunate) 7
i.b5 i.d7 and White does not appear to
have an advantage.
b) 5 ... h6?! (maybe Black still has a decent
position after this move, but it does nothing
for the development and it creates weak-
1 02
I
nesses) 6 t2Jxd4 ..Itc5! 7 t2Jb5! 0-0 (7 .....Itb6 S
t2Jxb6 axb6 9 ..Itd3 gives White a slight edge)
S t2Jbxc7 t2Jxe4 9 ..Ite3 ..Itxe3 1 0 fxe3 I:!.bS (or
1 0. ."iVh4+? 1 1 g3 t2Jxg3 1 2 hxg3 'iYxhl 1 3
.
t2JxaS and White wins) 1 1 g3 d6 1 2 .ig2 f5
1 3 0-0 and according to Bruce Monson,
White has a small edge. Monson is an Ameri
can master and great specialist in the Bel
grade Gambit.
c) 5 ...i.b4+ 6 t2Jxb4! t2Jxb4 7 t2Jxd4! (7 e5
'iYe7 S .ie2 t2Jg4 [S...t2Je4 9 0-0 t2Jc6 10 :el
h6 1 1 t2Jxd4 0-0 12 .if3 t2Jg5 13 .idS! gave
White a clear advantage, Wehmeier-Bzowski,
Wisla 1 992] 9 .if4 d6! gives Black a good
game, as 10 exd6? 'iie4! would lead to imme
diate disaster).
d) 5 ... i.c5 6 i.g5! .ie7 (6 ... h6?! 7 i.xf6
gxf6 S "iVd2 d6 9 b4 i.b6 10 .ib5 fS 1 1
0-0 would give White a large advantage) 7
t2Jxe7 'iixe7 S .id3 0-0 (S ... "ib4+ 9 t2Jd2! d6
1 0 0-0 i.e6 1 1 f4 0-0-0 1 2 f5 i.d7 1 3 a3 "iVc5
14 b4 'iYe5 1 5 t2Jf3 'iYeS 1 6 b5 t2Je5 1 7 t2Jxd4
gave \X-'hite a clear advantage in the game
Monson-MChess Pro 3.5) 9 0-0 d6 1 0 .ib5
.id7 1 1 :e1 :feS 1 2 i.xc6 .ixc6 13 t2Jxd4
and White has a slight edge - Monson.
6 exd5 .i.b4+
6 ...t2Jb4 is considered in Game 52.
Black will not find any relief in 6 ... 'iie7+?
The check looks contrary to all logic, as the
 Th e B e /grade G a m b i t

f8-bishop is blocked and the fl -bishop is

forced to develop. 7 e2 tDb4 8 0-0 iVc5 9
tDxd4 tDxd5 1 0 i.e c6 (or 10 ... tDe7 1 1 lIel
d6 12 e3 'iVa5 13 c4 c6 14 f4 and White
is better in every conceivable way) 1 1 .l:.e1+
'iii'd8 12 b4 'iVc4 13 g5+ f6 14 xd5 'iVxd5
1 5 i.f4 i.xb4 1 6 c4 'iit'xc4 1 7 tDe6+ 'i;;e 7.
This was played in Koronghy-Ivanic, USSR
1 974. Now White has the combination 1 8
tDg5+ 'it>d8 1 9 'it'd4!!, winning the queen -
Monson.
7 i.d2 e7+
Black is worse after the less natural
7 ... i.xd2+ 8 iVxd2 'iVe7+ (or 8... tDe7 9 'it'xd4 1 0 . . . tDe7
0-0 1 0 0-0-0 d6 1 1 g4! b6 1 2 h4 and White Also interesting is 10 ... liJb4 1 1 Uhel (1 1
has good attacking chances in Fernandes d6!? is interesting) 1 1 ...0-0 (1 1 ...tDxd5?! 1 2
Singh, Dubai 1 986) 9 e2 tDb4 1 0 liJxd4 i.c4+ liJ e7 1 3 lIe2 d 5 1 4 xd5 i.g4 1 5
(interesting is 1 0 0-0 0-0 [with the idea lIae1 0-0-0 1 6 .uxe7 lIxd5 1 7 lIxf7 i.xf3 1 8
1 0... liJxd5? 1 1 i.c4 'it'c5 1 2 iVg5!!] 1 1 c4 gxf3 lId7 1 9 ee7 lIxe7 20 lIxe7 g6 looks
b5) 1 0...tDxd5 1 1 tDf5 'iVe5 1 2 tDxg7+ 'iVxg7 uncomfortable for Black, although the end
1 3 'iVxd5 'it'xb2 1 4 0-0 d6 (14...0-0 1 5 lIab 1 game is not so easy to win for White) 1 2 d6!
'it'g7 1 6 Ilb3 'i;;h8 1 7 g3 'it'f6 1 8 'iVh5 [1 8 c5 1 3 i.c4.
'iVc5!? d6 1 9 iVxc7 with advantage was
clearer] 1 8... d6 1 9 i.d3 gave White a strong
attack in Fabregas-Magnelli, Spain 1 992. Af
ter 1 9 ... h6 White should be aware of tricks
like 20 lIel i.e6 21 g6 'it'xf2-H?, with an
even ending) 1 5 lIabl 'iVg7 1 6 lIb3.
8 e2
Forced. After 8 e2?! d3 9 cxd3 i.xd2+
1 0 WNxd2 tDb4 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 1;Hel liJxd5
there is no real compensation for the pawn.
8 . . . i.xd2+ 9 'itxd2 'ilfxe2+
The best. 9 ... tDb4?! 1 0 WNxe7+ xe7 1 1
c4 d6 1 2 lIhe l ! 'iii'c5 1 3 b3 tDxd5 14
lIeS c6 15 i.xd5 f6 1 6 .i:!.f5 g6 1 7 l:hf6 'it>xd5 Now Black has tried the following moves:
1 8 lIel gives a clear advantage according to a) 13 ...liJc6?! 14 tDg5! liJd8 15 lIe7 gave
Monson. And 1 0 d6! looks even better - White a big edge in Olszewski-McKaig,
Black has no way to equalise anymore. One ICCF 1 972.
idea is 10 ...cxd6? 1 1 WHb5! followed by Uel , b) 1 3...a6 14 l:!e7?! (14 a3 tDc6 1 5 i.d5!
winning material. gives White a clear advantage, as Black can
1 0 i.xe2 not easily free himself; the point is that
This position is more or less equal, theo 1 5...b5 1 6 l:te 7! lIb8 1 7 xc6 dxc6 1 8 d7
retically speaking, but White has a dangerous i.b7 1 9 b4! simply wins for White) 1 4...b5 1 5
initiative. Therefore 6 ... i.b4+ cannot be rec a3 liJxc2! (1 5 ...tDc6 1 6 d5 gives a clear
ommended for Black. advantage according to Polovodin, but as can

1 03
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
be seen above, Black has no defence at all) 16
'it'xc2 (1 6 .ids lDxa1 1 7 i.xa8 lDb3+ 1 8 c2
c4 gives Black reasonable counterplay)
1 6 ...bxc4 1 7 lDeS i.b7 1 8 lDxd7 l::tfd8 1 9
lDxcs .ixg2 and Black is in the game.
c) 13. ..bS?! 1 4 i.xbS l:.b8 1S .ic4 i.a6 1 6
lDeS i.xc4 1 7 lDxc4 gave White a clear
advantage in Polovodin-Tseitlin, Leningrad
1 979.
d) 1 3. ..g6?! 14 l::te7! bS 1S i.xbS lDdS 1 6
.l:!.eS ..tb7 1 7 ..tc4 lDf6 1 8 J::tae1 gives White
a clear advantage - Gutman.
e) 13. .. b6! 1 4 l:Ie7 (14 lDeS?! iLa6 1 S iLxa6
lDxa6 1 6 lDxd7 l:fd8 1 7 .l:.e7 lDb4! 1 8 lDeS
l::i.xd6 gives Black the better game) 1 4....ia6
1 S ..txa6 lDxa6 1 6 nxd7 (16 a3!? lDb8 1 7
ael f6 might give White a slight advantage,
but it is doubtful) 1 6 .. J:tfd8 1 7 l:Ixd8+1 (1 7
l:Ib7 l:!.xd6 with unclear play was played in
Martinov-Gusev, USSR 1 9S9) 1 7...l::txd8 1 8
lle 1 f8 1 9 .l:.e7 nxd6 20 J:.xa7 and the
endgame is microscopically better for White.
1 1 d6
This is the thematic try, but other moves
have also been analysed:
a) 1 1 .ic4!? and now:
al) l 1 ...cS 1 2 dxc6 dxc6 1 3 lDxd4 .ig4 1 4
.l:!.ael d7 l S .l:!.e3 i s better for White, and so
is l 1 ...d6 1 2 lDxd4 'it>d8 13 lihel lDfS 1 4
lDf3!, when Black has problems getting fully
mobilised (for some reason Monson only
gives 1 4 lDxfS with equality).
a2) l 1 ...bS! 12 iLb3 (White has no advan
tage after 1 2 iLxbS iLb7 1 3 lDxd4 .ixdS,
which gives a dynamic and unclear position.
A computer might prefer White, but there
are no weaknesses to target, and in the long
run the open b-ftle should give Black excel
lent counterplay. That is also why after 1 4
l::th el Black would play 1 4. . .'it>d8! in order to
bring both rooks into play.) 1 2... ..tb7 1 3
lDxd4 lDxdS! would give a safe path to equal
ity, while after 13. .. a6 14 .l:!.he1 'it'd8 l S d6!?
cxd6 16 .l:.e2 White would have compensa
tion for the pawn and good reasons to de
cline a draw offer.
1 04
b) More ambitious is 1 1 l:Ihe1!? d6 (for
l 1 ...lDxdS 1 2 .ic4+ lDe7 1 3 .l:!.e2 see the note
to Black's 1 0th move) 1 2 .ib5+ 'it'f8 (actually
Black would be better off playing 1 2....id7!
13 lDxd4 d8 14 ..tc4 lDg6 l S ne3 with a
worse, but defensible position) 13 lDxd4! (1 3
.l:!.e4!? .ifS 14 .l:!.xd4 a6 1 S .id3 .ixd3 1 6
Mxd3 e8 1 7 .l:!. e1 'it'd7 i s equal) 1 3. ..a 6 14
.l:!.e3!! (without this idea White would have
nothing) 14 ... cS (14...axbS 1 S .l:!.ae1 cS 1 6
.l:!.xe7 .ie6 1 7 1:.c7 i.xdS 1 8 lDxbS and
White is close to winning) I S l:Iae 1 cxd4 1 6
l:Ixe7 .ie6 1 7 l:Ic7! i.xdS 1 8 .ic4 i.xc4 19
l:Ixc4 hS! 20 ':xd4 l:.h6 and Black has some
chances of saving the rook ending with active
play.
1 1 . . lLlc6 1 2 ':!'ad1
.
Both the alternatives are more energetic:
a) 12 dxc7! d6 13 .ibS .ie6 14 lDxd4
'it'd7 I S lDxe6 fxe6 16 l:Ihel with an advan
tage for \Xihite in White-Williams, Los Ange
les 1 995.
b) 1 2 l:Ihe1!? cxd6 1 3 lDgs and now:
bl) 1 3. .. f8 14 .ic4! (14 .id3? dS! l S
':e2 d6 and Black i s going to survive)
1 4... lDd8 (or 1 4... lDeS 15 i.dS! with a clear
advantage for White; lDe4xd6 is coming, and
so is 2-f4) I S lDe4 lDe6 1 6 lDxd6 e7 1 7
lDbS with a n advantage for White.
b2) 1 3. .. 0-0?! 14 lDe4 dS 1 S lDd6 with a
distinct plus for White - Gutman.
b3) 13. .. lDd8! 1 4 .ifW? (14 .ib5+ 'it'f8 1 S
lDe4 'it'e7 1 6 lDg3+ lDe6 1 7 lDf5+ 'it'd8 1 8
lDxd6 'it'c 7 1 9 tiJfS b 6 gives Black a good
game) 1 4... lDe6 1 S lDe4 e7 1 6 lDg3 f6
(16 ... g6 1 7 lDe2 'it'f6 18 d3 .l:!.e8 1 9 lDxd4
gives White the advantage) 17 l:Iad1 b8 and
White has good play, but whether this is
enough to claim an advantage is not certain.
1 2 . . . cxd6 1 3 c 1
1 3 l:Ihe1 !? 'it'd8 14 c1 l:Ie8 1 S lDxd4
lDxd4 16 .l:!.xd4 b6! would equalise.
1 3 . . . b6!?
This seems sound. After 1 3 ...dS?! 14
lDxd4 lDxd4 1 S l:!.xd4 d6 1 6 ':xdS White has
a much better ending, but still it requires very

good technique to win such a position.
1 4 lithe 1 >td8 1 S c4
Or 1 5 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 6 .l:!.xd4 .l:!.e8 1 7 .l:!.xd6
.i.a6 and a draw is very likely.
1 S . . . b7 1 6 xf7 4:JeS 1 7 4:JxeS dxeS
1 8 J:.xeS litf8 1 9 dS Y, - Y,
A draw was agreed probably because of
1 9 ... .ltxd5 20 .l:!.xd5 ':xf2 21 J:i.1xd4 .l:!.f7,
when White's advantage is impressive only
from an aesthetic point of view.
Game 52
Bellon lopez-Jamieson
Wijk aan Zee 1977
1 e4 eS 2 4:Jf3 4:Jc6 3 4:Jc3 lUf6 4 d4
exd4 S 4:JdS 4:JxdS 6 exdS 4:Jb4 7 4:Jxd4
This is more natural than 7 .i.c4, which
arises (by transposition) in Game 54.
7 . . .lUxdS
I prefer the following line: 7 ... "it'f6!
(threatening 8..."ilVxd4 and thus slowing down
White's development. 8 c3 ctJxd5 9 .Jtc4
ctJb6 (This is the natural move. Maybe the
books have overlooked the strength of
7 .. :iVf6! because of the following game:
(9 ..."it'eS+? 1 0 <t>d2! "ilVg5+ 1 1 '.tc2 "it'g6+ 1 2
.i.d3 'iVf6 1 3 .l:!.e1+ Wd8 14 "ilVh5 with a
strong attack, Szmetan-Zucotti, Mar del
Plata) 10 d3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 .l:!.e1 d5 1 3
ctJf3 l:.e8! (1 3. . .h 6 14 .Jtc2! with the threat of
"it'd3 is given by Monson. Here White might
be a litde better, even though it cannot be a
Th e B e/grade G a m b i t
lot) 14 .i.g5 "ilVd6 1 5 ctJd4 .ltd7 1 6 'iVh5 h6
and 'W'hite does not have full compensation
for the pawn.
8 lUfS!?
Or 8 "ilVf3?! ctJf6 9 g5 "ilVe7+ 10 .ie2
'iVe5 1 1 .i.xf6 xf6 12 xf6 gxf6 1 3 0-0-0
c6 and Black is better - Monson.
8 . . . 4:Je7 9 gS
9 . . .f6
This allows for White to start a strong at
tack. GM Lev Gutman recommends 9 ... d5
1 0 i.xe7 .Jtxe7 1 1 ctJxg7+ Wf8 1 2 ctJh5 "iIVd6
with unclear play. Also possible is 1 2...b4+
1 3 c3 'iVe7+ 1 4 i.e2 i.g4 1 5 ctJf4 .txe2 1 6
ctJxe2 .td6 1 7 0-0 (1 7 'iVxd5?! .l:!.e8! gave
Black an attack in Holas-Jezek, Podebrady
1 956) 1 7...c6 with a dynamically balanced
position.
1 0 xf6!
This is naturally the idea behind White's
play.
1 0 . . . gxf6 1 1 'iYhS+ lUg6 1 2 0-0-0
Monson gives the following line: 12 i.c4?
c6! 13 0-0-0 d5 14 ctJh4 .i.g7 1 5 ctJxg6 hxg6
1 6 xg6+ '.tf8 1 7 l:.he1 h6 and Black is
winning.
1 2 . . . d6
Black cannot open up his king's position
too much, but it is hard not to. After 12 ... d5!?
13 ctJh4! (1 3 l:.xd5?! 1i'xd5 14 ctJg7+ i.xg7 1 5
1i'xd5 c 6 1 6 'iYe4+ ctJe7 1 7 .i.c4 i.f5 is not
clear at all; only Mikhail Tal has ever fully
understood how to use the queen against an
1 05
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
ocean of minor pieces) 1 3 ...i..g7 14 .l:i.xdS
'iNe 7 1 5 i..d3 c6 16 i..xg6+ hxg6 17 'iWxg6+
f8 1 8 .l:i.d4 i..e6 1 9 'iWd3! White has a very
strong attack for the piece. But maybe this is
the best line Black has at his disposal.
1 3 4:lh4 i..g 7 1 4 i..c4?
This looks very natural, but now Black has
the chance to flee to the queenside with his
king, which is very pleasant as White's pieces
are all either on the kingside, or directed
against it.
Better was 14 .l:i.e 1+1 'it'f8 1 5 i..c4 (with the
idea of 'iNxg6) l S... dS 1 6 .ixdS i..g4 1 7
'iNxg6!! 'iNxdS (1 7. . .i..e6 1 8 i.xe6 hxg6 1 9
lLlxg6+ <;t>e8 20 i.bYt! Wd7 21 .l:i.d1+ 'it'c6 22
.l:i.xd8 .l:i.hxd8 23 lLle7+ <;t>b6 24 lLlfS f8 25
h4 gives White a very promising endgame -
Monson) 1 8 'iNxg4 'iNxa2 1 9 'iWb4+ <;t>g8 20
lLlfS .l:i.d8 21 c3 "ith a clear advantage for
White.
1 4 . . JWd7 1 5 .l:.he1 + 'i.t>d8 1 S 4:lxgS hxgS
1 7 xgS i..h S+ 1 8 'i.t>b1 g7 1 9 "ike4
lilb8?!
Black could have repulsed White's attack
with 1 9 ... fS! 20 'iNdS f6 21 .l:!.e2 Ji.g7 22 c3
f4!, when Black's pieces will develop and
outnumber the small white army.
20 I!.d3 f5 21 d5 fS 22 a5 b5?
After 22 ...i..g7 23 c3 a6 White probably
cannot make any progress. Black would win
after something like 24 i..e 6 b6 25 a3 Ji.d7!
26 Ji.xd7 \t>xd7.
23 geS!
1 06
23 . . :xb2+!
Black is pulling the emergency cord. After
23 ... xe6? 24 .l:i.xd6+ d7 25 xf6 bxc4 26
.l:i.t7 l:i.b6 27 'ili'xa7 White is much better be
cause of Black's weak king.
24 'i.t>xb2 bxc4+ 25 'i.t>c3 i..g 7+ 2S 'i.t>d2
i..xeS 27 J:txdS+ i..d7 28 J:!.xd7+!
White escapes with this perpetual check.
28 . . . 'i.t>xd7 29 'ilfxf5+ 'i.t>e7 30 c5+ 'i.t>d7
31 f5+ 'i.t>e7 32 'ilfe4+ 'i.t>d8 33 'ilfd5+
'i.t>e7 % - %
Game 53
Van Haastert-Golod
Dieren 1998
1 e4 e5 2 4:lf3 4:lcS 3 4:lc3 4:lfS 4 d4
exd4 5 4:ld5 4:lb4 S i..c4
This is the only serious move. The alterna
tives are not promising:
a) White does not have enough after 6
lLlxf6+ 'ili'xf6 7 c4 d6 8 lLlgS?! (this is reck
less, but 8 a3 lLlc6 9 .ibS g6! would also
give Black the better game) 8... dS! 9 exdS
Ji.fS 10 Ji.b5+ <;t>d8! (This would be a new
move! Monson analyses 1 O... c6? 1 1 dxc6
bxc6 1 2 Ji.a4 'iWe5+ 1 3 <;t>f1 'iNcs 1 4 'iWf3 h6
1 5 Ji.d2 and White wins, but even this
evaluation must be checked. After l s ... lLlxc2
1 6 SLxc6+ <;t>e 7 White is much better, but this
is really a mess and the evaluation of 'win
ning' is too optimistic) 1 1 SLa4 h6 1 2 'iNe2
(1 2 lLlf3? "ii'a 6!!, intending 1 3 b3 lLlxc2+ 1 4

.i.xc2 .Jlb4+ and Black wins) 1 2 ... liJxc2+ 1 3
.Jlxc2 .ib4+ 1 4 wn .ixc2 1 5 xc2 hxgS
and Black has a clear advantage.
b) 6 liJxd4? liJxe4! (the test; 6 ... liJbxdS 7
exdS .JlcS 8 Wie2+ and according to Nunn
White may be slighdy better) and now:
bl) After 7 liJbS liJxdS 8 WixdS 'iiVe 7!!
This is a new idea, and a very strong one.
Instead, 8 ... .ib4+? (at least I think it deserves
a question mark) 9 c3 e7 10 liJxc7+ 'it>d8
1 1 cxb4! liJf6+ 1 2 liJe6+ fxe6 1 3 'iiVb3 gives
an unclear position according to Monson's
analysis. Actually White might be better as
Black is potentially very weak on the dark
squares.
Going back to 8 ... Wie7, we have the fol
lowing continuations:
bl l) 9 liJxc7+ d8 10 .Jlf4 d6! 1 1 0-0-0
'it>xc7 and Black wins because after 1 2 f3 gS!
'hite does not have enough compensation
for the piece.
b 1 2) 9 'ilVd4!? is the choice of Fritz 7, but
after 9 ... dS 1 0 .Jlf4 liJc3+ 1 1 'it>d2 liJxbS 1 2
.Jlxb5+ c 6 1 3 l::the 1 .i.e6 White does not
have any weaknesses to attack with his addi
tional development. Black is clearly better.
b 1 3) 9 .i.f4 (the best) 9 ... liJc3+l 1 0 WieS
liJxbS 1 1 .JlxbS c6 1 2 .Jld3 d6 1 3 Wixe7+
.Jlxe 7 1 4 0-0-0 .i.e6 any compensation for
the pawn is an illusion.
b2) According to Monson 7 liJfS is simply
bad. In my opinion it's not this move that's
to blame, but the sad mistake made on the
Th e B e/grade G a m b i t
previous move. 7. . .c 6 8 liJxb4 .ixb4+l
(8...aS!?, as in Prie-Psakhis, Paris 1 990, is
not so clear) 9 c3 'iVf6!
and now:
b21) 1 0 ii'f3 liJxc3 1 1 .i.d2 (1 1 a3 'iiVe5+1
1 2 .i.e3 .i.aS 13 b4 .i.c7 14 g3 liJe4 1 5
Wixe5+ .i.xeS 1 6 .i.d4 .Jlxd4 1 7 liJxd4 0-0
and Black is winning) 1 1 ... g6! 1 2 bxc3 gxfS
1 3 l::t d l .ics 14 .Jld3 dS and White is two
pawns down for nothing.
b22) 1 0 liJxg7+ 'it>d8! 1 1 ii'f3 (1 1 Wic2
liJxc3 1 2 a3 .JlaS 1 3 b4 'iVe5+ 1 4 .i.e3 .Jlb6
and Black wins quickly) 1 1 ....ixc3+l! (a won
derful little combination) 1 2 bxc3 xg7 1 3
.ib2 d S and White must b e lost - both ...l:!.e8
and ....i.g4 are threats.
6 . . .ttJbxd5 7 exd5
7 .i.xdS c6 works in Black's favour.
7 . . ..1l.b4+ 8 i.d2
White has also experimented with 8 'it>n!?
0-0 9 Wixd4 h6 10 h4 d6 11 JtgS .i.cs 1 2
.ixf6 'iiVxf6 1 3 'iVxf6 gxf6 14 Jtd3 l::!.e 8, with
equality in the game Hector-Karolyi, Copen
hagen 1 985.
8 .. :e7+ 9 ir'e2 .1l.xd2+
Or 9 ...Wixe2+ 10 Wxe2 .JlcS 1 1 b4 .ib6 1 2
a4 a s 1 3 bxaS .i.xaS 14 liJxd4, which was
roughly equal in Fahrner-Wells, Graz 1 99 1 .
1 0 xd2 ir'xe2+
10 ... liJe4+? 1 1 Wd3! liJc5+ 12 'it>xd4 xe2
1 3 .i.xe2 b6 14 l::the 1 0-0 1 5 b4! gives a clear
advantage for White - Monson.
1 1 xe2 c5
107
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
Also perfectly possible is 1 1 ...d6 12 hel
(12 CLlxd4 i.d7 1 3 .l:i.hel [or 13 CLlb5 'iit f8! 1 4
CLlc3 e8+ 1 5 'It>d2 CLle4+ 16 CLlxe4 xe4 with
a likely draw] 1 3. .. 0-0-0 1 4 f3 .l:.he8+ 1 5 f2
.l:i.e5! and Black is at least equal, Grimberg
Plear, Belgrade 1 988) 1 2... 0-0 1 3 'iitd3 f5+
1 4 'it'xd4 llfe8 (14...i.xc2 1 5 .l::!.e 7 gives
White good play) 15 .tb3 Ii.e4+ 16 xe4
i.xe4 with a probable draw.
Black can also play the more testing
1 1 ...b5!? 1 2 i.xb5 (White should avoid 1 2
i.b3?! .tb7 1 3 CLlxd4 CLlxd5! 1 4 CLlxb5 [risky
is 1 4 l':the 1 'iit f8 1 5 CLlxb5 CLlf4+ 16 'it'd2 a6
1 7 CLlc3 CLlxg2 1 8 Me5 CLlh4 and White does
not have full compensation for the pawn]
1 4... CLlf4+ 1 5 'it'd2 'iitd8 and White is under
more threat than Black) 1 2... CLlxd5 1 3 CLlxd4
CLlf4+ (13. ..b8!?, threatening ... c7-c5, is an
interesting alternative) 14 f3 CLle6 1 5 hel
l:ib8! 16 CLlxe6 fxe6 17 ':xe6+ 'it'd8 18 .l::!.e5 a6
19 d3 l:txb2 and Black has good play.
1 2 dxc6 bxc6! 1 3 tiJxd4
White could also consider 1 3 .l::!.h el !? and
now:
a) 13. .. d5 14 f1+ d8 (14...f8?! 1 5
.td3 c 5 1 6 b 4 cxb4 1 7 CLlxd4 a 5 1 8 c 3 would
give White compensation - it is hard for
Black to finish his development) 1 5 i.d3 c5
16 b4 cxb4 17 CLlxd4 a5 18 c3 bxc3 19 ac1
.ta6 20 xa6 xa6 21 xc3 l:te8 22 l:tbl
with compensation for the pawn.
b) 1 3. .. 0-0! 1 4 CLlxd4 lIb8 1 5 'iitd2 d5 16
.td3 c5 1 7 CLlc6 .l:lxb2 and Black is at least
equaL
1 3 . . .d 5 1 4 .td3 c5 1 5 tiJb5 0-0
Black is definitely not worse.
1 6 b3
Black would win after 1 6 c4 .te6 17 CLlc7?
(17 b3 would transpose back to the game)
1 7 ... dxc4 1 8 .tc2 Mab8 1 9 CLlxe6 .l:i.fe8 20
d2 IiIxe6 21 'it'c3 e2 22 .l:i.hfl .l:i.d8 23
adl IiId4!.
1 6 . . . .te6 1 7 c4 l:l.feS 1 S 'it>f3?
White could still have kept the balance
with 1 8 CLlc7! dxc4 1 9 .tc2 cxb3 (or
1 9 ....tg4+?! 20 'iit fl .te2+ 21 gl ad8 22
1 08
CLlxe8 CLlxe8 23 bxc4 xc4 24 h4 .te6 with
an unpleasant position for Black) 20 axb3
xb3+ 21 CLlxe8 xe8+ 22 d2 xc2 23
xc2 IiIe2+ 24 'It>d3 .l:lxf2 25 IiIxa7 h5 - the
endgame should be drawn.
1 S . . .l:iladS!
Now White has problems keeping every
thing together.
1 9 .:the1
19 IiIhc1 .l:ld7 20 g3 CLlg4 21 'iitg2 CLle5 22
.tfl dxc4 23 bxc4 IiIed8 would also clearly
favour Black.
1 9 . . ..l:t.e7 20 tiJc3
Or 20 cxd5 xd5 21 c2 .l::i.d2 and the
rook invasion is very unpleasant.
20 . . .J:l.deS 21 J:l.ec 1 d4 22 tiJa4 .tg4+ 23
'it>g3 .l:te5 24 f3?!
This is a bad idea in a difficult position;
now the second rank is seriously weakened.
24 h3 was necessary. After 24... .td7
(24... e2? 25 xe2 IiIxe2 26 CLlxc5 would be
unfortunate) 25 CLlb2 CLlh5+ 26 h2 CLlf4 27
.l:ldl it is not so clear how Black is going to
collect the full point.
24 . . . .td7 25 tiJb2
White would also be seriously worse after
25 f2 i.xa4 26 bxa4 e3 27 IiIdl CLld7 28
IiIel as - the d3-bishop is really weak, and it
is likely that a knight versus bishop endgame
will be terrible for \Xlhite.
25 . . . tiJh5+ 26 'it>f2 tiJf4 27 l:!.c2 tiJxd3+?
Black mistakenly thinks that it is time to
collect the fruits of his hard work. It was

better to put extra pressure on \Xfhite with
27 ... Me3 and, after something like 28 .l:!.d2,
28...i.c6 to continuously intensify the pres-
sure on \Xfhite's position.
28 4:lxd3 f5 29 4:lxe5 xc2 30 .!:te 1 f6
This is what Black had been counting on,
but \Xfhite can escape with one move.
3 1 4:lc6!
The only move.
3 1 . . . J:ta8
31 ...f8 32 l:te2! i.g6 33 ctJxa7 l:txe2+ 34
<Jtxe2 i.bl 35 a4 i.a2 36 ctJc8! would give
\Xfhite a close-to-winning ending. The a
pawn is very strong, and the Black c-pawn
will most likely fall.
32 b4?
This is unfortunate. After 32 .l:!.e7! as 33
J:.d7 l:ta6 (33 ... i.b 1 34 a3 i.a2 35 l:td5 gives
\Xfhite the advantage) 34 l:tc7 \Xfhite has a
slightly better position.
32 . . . a4 33 b5 a6!
Surprisingly it turns out that the knight is
trapped.
34 l:tb1 f7 35 e2 e6 36 d2 d6
37 a3 g5 38 h4 gxh4 39 4:lb4 cxb4 40
J::txb4 axb5 41 cxb5 c5 0-1
Game 54
Pcola-S . Polgar
Brazil 1 994
1 e4 e5 2 4:lf3 4:lc6 3 4:lc3 4:lf6 4 d4
exd4 5 4:ld5 4:lb4 6 c4 4:lfxd5 7 exd5
Th e B e/grade G a m b i t
"YWe7+ 8 d2
\Xfhite can also try 8 f1 and now:
a) 8...b5!? 9 .ixb5 i.b7 10 ctJxd4 ctJxd5 1 1
i.d2! 0-0-0 gives a very messy situation
where it is really hard to say who is better
and why.
b) 8 .. .'c5 9 'ii'xd4 (Black is clearly better
after 9 'ii'e2+? i.e7 10 ctJd2 b5! 1 1 i.xb5
.ib 7; \Xfhite can really feel the problem of his
centralised king, for example 1 2 c4 dxc3 1 3
bxc3 'ii'xd5 1 4 ctJf3 c6 15 i.c4 'ii'xc4 1 6
'ii'xc4 i.a6 1 7 'ifxa6 ctJxa6 and Black has a
pawn more in the endgame) 9 .. .'Yi'xd4 10
'Llxd4 i.c5 and now:
bl) 1 1 i.g5!? f6! 1 2 'Llb5 <Jtd8 1 3 i.f4 d6
1 4 c3 ctJc2! 1 5 c1 i.f5 1 6 i.b3 (1 6 b4?
i.b6 1 7 i.b3 i.d3+ 1 8 'it>gl .l:!.e8 gives Black
a clear advantage; after 19 i.xc2 i.xc2 \Xfhite
cannot recapture because of the back rank
mate) 1 6 ... i.d3+ 1 7 Wgl i.xb5 1 8 i.xc2
i.c4 1 9 i.b3 .ixb3 20 axb3 is only equal.
b2) 1 1 i.e3 i.xd4 1 2 i.xd4 ctJxc2 1 3
i.xg7 .l:!g8 1 4 J:.c1 xg7 1 5 .l:!xc2 d6 might
be slightly better for \Xfhite due to the weak
ness of c7 and the weak kingside pawns.
c) 8 ... c6!? (a new idea) 9 dxc6 dxc6
(9 ... bxc6?! 10 a3 d5 1 1 i.e2 'Lla6 12 b4! ctJc7
would give White a slight edge after 1 3
ctJxd4) 1 0 ctJxd4 i.d7 (1O.. :iVc5?! 1 1 e2+
i.e7 12 ctJb3 'ifd6 1 3 i.e3 gives 'hite the
initiative and should be avoided) 1 1 c3 ctJd5
12 i.xd5 cxd5 13 'iVb3 0-0-0 with a very
unclear position.
1 09
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
8 .. :f6?
Probably too slow. The Queen can be at
tacked from the g5-square. There are many
alternatives that should be looked into:
a) 8...g6? 9 li'e1 ! (9 .l:!.e1?? i..h6+ would be
awkward) 9 ... b5 (9 ... c5?? 10 d6 ii'xe1+ 1 1
.l:!.xe1+ d8 1 2 ctJe5 and White wins) 1 0
i..xb5 .Jtb7 1 1 dl i..xd5 1 2 i..g5 ii'xe1+ 1 3
.l:!.xe1+ i.e6 1 4 ctJxd4 with a clear advantage
for White.
b) 8...d6 9 .l:!.e1+ i..e 7 10 'iVe2 was
played in Hanke-Haussler, Eppingen 1 988.
Now 1O...b5! 1 1 i.xb5 ctJxd5 12 d1 i..b7
looks very promising for Black. One possible
line is 13 i..g5 f6 14 .td2 c5 15 i..c4 g5! with
a strong initiative.
c) 8...'ii'c 5!? looks very logical. 9 'i'e2+
i..e7 and now:
c1) 1 0 .l:!.e1 ? was unsuccessful after 1 O...b5!
1 1 a3 (1 1 i..b3 i.b7 12 'Vie5 f8! 13 'Vif5 d6
1 4 a4 i.. f6 1 5 axb5 i.xd5 1 6 i..xd5 d3! and
White has no defence, while 1 1 i..xb5??
xc2 is mate) 1 1 ...ctJxc2 12 b4 ctJxb4 1 3
axb4 li'xb4+ 14 d1 bxc4 with a winning
position for Black, Lankenau-Pedersen,
Hamburg 1 993.
c2) 1 0 a3! ctJxd5 (or 10 ...d3!? 11 cxd3
ctJxd5 1 2 b4 d6 13 .Jtxd5 xd5 14 .Jtb2
with an unclear position - Monson; here
Black should probably play 1 4...'lt>d8 1 5
.l:!.he 1 .l:!.e8 when i.xg7 can be met by
....Jtg:n-) 1 1 .Jtxd5 'ii'xd5 12 .lle 1 d6
(12 .. .'ti'c5!? 13 'it>d1 d5 14 b4 'iYd6 1 5 ctJxd4
c6 1 6 i.g5 f6 1 7 i.f4 'iYd8 1 8 .l:!.c1 g5 1 9
i.d2 h 5 20 c4 .l:i.h7 is unclear and roughly
level) 1 3 'It>d1 c5 14 i..g5 f6 1 5 .Jtf4 'iVe6 1 6
d3 d5 1 7 e2 'tWe6 with equality - Mon-
son.
9 e2+ i..e7 1 0 e1 ! ?
A more accurate move order might b e 1 0
'It>d1 ! h 6 ( 1 0. . .b5? 1 1 i..g5 and \X/hite wins)
1 1 .l:!.e 1 b5!, transposing to the game. After
1 1 ...c6 1 2 d6! 'tWxd6 1 3 i..d2! as 1 4 ctJxd4
'X'hite is on his way to victory. Black seems
to be forced into 14 ...g6 1 5 c3 b5 16 i.. f4
c5 1 7 ctJb3 'iVh5 1 8 g4 'i'h4 1 9 .Jtd6, when
1 10
he can resign.
1 0 . . . b5!
1O... c6 11 'It>dl! h6 12 d6 would only
transpose to the previous note.
1 1 il.b3!
Not giving Black the chance to free him
self in the centre. 1 1 i..xb5 ctJxd5 1 2 d1
.Jtb7 13 .Jtg5 'i'e6 14 d3 'ii'g4 15 'ii'xd4
xd4+ 1 6 ctJxd4 is very close to equality,
even though White is slighdy better devel
oped.
1 1 . . .h6
Black plays a prophylactic move directed
against .Jtg5. After 1 1 ...a5? 1 2 d1 h6 1 3 a3
ctJa6 1 4 'tWxb5 0-0 1 5 'i'xa5 Black does not
have sufficient compensation, while after
1 1 ....l:i.b8?! 1 2 d1 h6 1 3 g4 White has a
strong attack.
1 2 d 1 !
White is exploiting his initiative. After 1 2
'ii'xb5?! 0-0 1 3 a 3 ctJa6 1 4 i..a2! .l:i.b8 Black
has good counterplay.
1 2 . . .d8
12 ... d3!? seems better, but Black is still in
trouble.
1 3 g4!
White is exploiting the moment.
1 3 . . .i..c 5
1 3 ....l:!.e8 1 4 a3 ctJa6 15 g5 gives White a
decisive attack.
1 4 g5 g6
14 ... 'ii' f5? 1 5 ctJxd4! would be a serious
blow.

1 5 tDe5?!
This looks very tempting, but it was
sttonger to play 1 5 gxh6! d3 (1 5 ... .tb7? 1 6
.tg5+1 f6 1 7 lLJe5 and White wins) 1 6 cxd3
lLJxd3 1 7 hxg7 .l:!.gS 1 S .tg5+ f6 1 9 d6 lLJxf2+-
20 'it'c1 cxd6 21 .ixgS lLJd3+ 22 'iixd3 xd3
23 .ib3 and White wins. Even 1 5 lLJxd4!?
hxg5 1 6 a3 lLJa6 17 lLJxb5 looks very promis
ing for White.
1 5" .'ir'f5 1 6 a3
At fIrst sight White simply wins a rook af
ter 1 6 d6, but then you spot 1 6 ... cxd6 1 7
lLJxf7+ rJi;c7 1 S lLJxhS .tb7 and you realise
the rook is ttapped on al for the moment.
1 6" .tDa6 1 7 d6??
White falls for the fatal atttaction of win
ning an exchange. He could still win with 1 7
gxh6 gxh6 I S .txh6!!, exploiting the bad
position of the Black king. 1 S ... .ib7
(1S... .uxh6 1 9 lLJc6+ dxc6 20 it'eS mate) 1 9
.ig5+ cS (1 9. . . f6 20 1LJf7+ cS 21 'it'e8+
J:txeS 22 J:txeS mate) 20 1LJg6! 'it'xg5 21
lLJxhS .ixd5 22 lLJxf7 .txf7 23 .txf7 does
not give Black enough compensation for the
exchange.
1 7 " .cxd6 1 8 i.d5
'W1Ute is going for the other rook, but it is
also hopeless. 1 S lLJxf7+ c7 19 lLJxhS .tb7
20 f4 .l:!.xhS would give Black a sttong attack
for the exchange. With White's king stuck in
the centte and the rook buried on aI, he has
little hope of survivaL
1 8" .dxe5 1 9 ..Iii.xa8 hxg5 20 b4 d3! 21
Th e B e/g rade G a m b i t
'iWxd3 'ir'xd3+ 2 2 cxd3 ..Iii.xf2 2 3 .I';le2 ..Iii.d4
24 ..Iii.b 2 ..Iii.xb2 25 .li!.xb2 .l:I.h3! 26 .l:I.c1 d6
27 ..Iii.e4 ..Iii.e6
All that remains is endgame technique.
The exchange is natutally no match for
Black's pawns.
28 J:.d2 f5 29 ..Iii.b 7 tDc7 30 :tc6 d7 3 1
e1 ..Iii.b 3 32 .l:I.c3 ..Iii.c4 3 3 ..Iii.g 2 .l:I.e3+ 34
f2 f4 35 ..Iii.e4 tDe6 36 ..Iii.f5 ..Iii.d 5 37
.l:I.dc2 e7 38 .l:I.c8 f6 39 ..Iii.xe6 ..Iii.xe6
40 .l:I.f8+ e7 41 .l:I.a8 .l:I.xd3 42 .l:I.xa7+
f6 43 .l:I.c6 e4 44 .l:I.aa6 e3+ 45 e 1
e5 0-1
Game 55
Svidler-Morozevich
Moscow 2002
1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDf6 3 t2Jc3 t2Jc6 4 d4
exd4 5 tDd5 ..Iii.e7
This safe move leads to equality. Now
White has four options: 6 .tf4 (this and the
three following games), 6 .ic4 (Game 59)
and the two discussed below.
6 ..1ii.f4
The most popular move. White has also
ttied:
a) 6 lLJxd4?! lLJxd5 7 exd5 lLJxd4 S 'iixd4
0-0 is at least immediate equality for Black. 9
.ie2 .tf6 1 0 dl?! (10 'iid3, as played in
Tal-Saigin, Riga 1954, is probably better,
though Black still has no problems) 1O ... d6
1 1 0-0 .tf5 12 .td3 d7 1 3 c3 llfeS 14 a4
111
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
.te4 with a fine game for Black.
b) 6 .tb5!? and now:
bI) 6 ...ttJxe4 7 0-0 ttJc5 (Maybe not the
most natural, but the alternatives are not
necessarily better. 7...a6 S .tf4 d6 9 .ta4 0-0
1 0 .l:!.e 1 f5 1 1 ttJxd4 .th4 12 g3 ttJxd4 1 3
'iVxd4 .tg5 1 4 .tb3 <&t>hS 1 5 f3 .txf4 1 6
ttJxf4 ttJf6 1 7 .l:!.e2 gave White good com
pensation in occupation of the e-ftle, while
after 7...0-0 S l:!.el f5 9 .tf4 .td6 1 0 .txd6
ttJxd6 1 1 .txc6 dxc6 1 2 ttJe7+ 'it>hS 1 3 ttJg5
White had serious threats in Marimon-Diaz,
correspondence 1 959, one being "iVh5, ...h6,
'iVg6!) S ttJxd4 ttJxd4 9 'iVxd4 ttJe6 (this was
of course the idea of ...ttJc5) 1 0 'iVg4 0-0 1 1
.td3 c6 1 2 ttJxe7+ 'iYxe7 1 3 'iYh3 and with
Black's king somewhat exposed, White has
some compensation, but whether it is
enough is hard to tell.
b2) 6 ... 0-0 (the safest; the bishop is not
exactly lethal on b5) 7 0-0 with a further
branch:
b21) 7....tc5 S .tg5 d6 9 .txc6 bxc6 1 0
ttJxf6+ gxf6 1 1 .th6. All this looks a little
uncomfortable, but White did not prove
Black wrong in this game. 1 1 ....l:!.eS 1 2 b4
.tb6 1 3 ttJxd4 l:txe4 1 4 ttJxc6 'iVeS 1 5 b5
i..g4 with an unclear position, Udalov
Gaspariants, St Petersburg 1 999.
b22) 7 ...ttJxd5 (the simplest) S exd5 ttJb4 9
ttJxd4 (after 9 Ji..c4 c5 1 0 a3 ttJa6 1 1 .l:Iel d6
Black is at least equal) 9 ...ttJxd5 1 0 ttJf5 ttJf6
and now White has two natural ways to con
tinue his attacking ideas:
b221) 1 1 i..g5 Ji..c5 1 2 'iWf3 d5 1 3 .id3
i..xfS 1 4 'iHxf5 'i'd7! 1 5 'iWf4 (1 5 Ji..x f6 'i'xf5
1 6 .ixf5 gxf6 and Black is better in the end
game, though White has some compensation
through the ruined pawn structure on the
kingside) 1 5 ...'iVg4! (1 5 ....td6 1 6 'iYh4 ttJe4!?
17 .ixe4 dxe4 I S 'iYxe4 'iWb5 1 9 .te3 :feS
20 g4 'i'e5 is also better for Black) 1 6
'iVxc7 .txf2t 1 7 xf2 'iYxg5 I S l::te l (I S
'iVxb7? 'iVe3 is highly dangerous for White)
l S...l::tfeS and Black has a serious initiative.
b222) 1 1 l:.e 1 .tc5 1 2 'iVf3 d5 1 3 Ji..g5
1 12
Ji..xf5 1 4 'YWxf5 "ii'cs 1 5 "ii'xcs (or 1 5 d3
'iVxf5 1 6 Ji..xf5 .l:!.feS 1 7 .txf6 gxf6 with a
slight advantage for Black) 1 5....l:!.axcS 1 6
.txf6 gxf6 and Black was slightly better in
Markov-Kostic, Sofia 1 947.
6 . . . d6
The more risky 6 ...0-0! is investigated in
Game 5S.
7 li:lxd4 O-O!?
Black can equalise simply with 7 ...ttJxd5 S
exd5 ttJxd4 9 'iVxd4, for example:
a) 9 ...Ji.. f6 1 0 'iVe4+ (10 'iVd3?! 'iVe7-H 1 1
.te2 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 Ji.. f5! 1 3 'YWd2 "ii'e4 1 4 g4
.tg6 1 5 Wb 1 .l:!.feS and Black has some initia
tive) 1 0...'iYe7 1 1 "ii'xe7+ <&t>xe7 1 2 0-0-0 i..f5
1 3 f3 h5 1 4 .tb5 .l:!.hdS with equality.
b) 9 ...0-0 1 0 0-0-0 .tf6 1 1 d2 'iVd7! ?
(1 1 ...c6!? typical for this kind o f position. 1 2
dxc6 'iVb6 1 3 c 3 bxc6 14 Ji..xd6 .l:!.dS 1 5 c4
.ta6! 1 6 .tb3! Ji..e5 1 7 xe5 .l:!.xd2 I S ':xd2
J::tdS 1 9 .l:!.el .l:!.xd2?? 20 .tc7!!) 1 2 .td3 (12
c4?! b5 13 .te2 as 14 g4 b4) 1 2...'iVa4 1 3
bl .td7 1 4 .l:!.hel .l:!.feS with equality in
LaFair-Gurevich, ICC 1 994.
8 li:lb5 lLlxd5 9 exd5 a6!?
This move is not very popular, but it is
quite good. 9 ...ttJb4 and 9 ...ttJe5 are investi
gated in the two following games.
10 dxc6
White has two alternatives.
a) 10 ttJd4? ttJxd4 1 1 'iVxd4 .tf6 12 'iVb4
.l:!.e&t and White's king is under attack.
b) 1 0 ttJc3 ttJe5 1 1 .te2 and now:

bl) 1 1 ...i.g5?! 12 i.g3 ttJg6 1 3 0-0 i.f4
14 d4 'it'g5 (14...i.xg3 1 5 fxg3! would give
White good attacking chances along the open
f-file, and Black some problems with space)
1 5 .:tae1 i.f5?! (1 5 ...i.xg3 1 6 fxg3! i.d7 1 7
i.d3 ttJe5 1 8 ttJe4 h6 1 9 'iVc3 with a small
advantage for White was better) 1 6 h4! 'it'h6
1 7 h5 i.e5 1 8 .ixe5 ttJxe5 1 9 f4 ttJg4 20
.txg4 .ixg4 21 f5 .ixh5 22 l:.e3! f6 23 .l:!.h3
gave Black a long list of problems, Van der
Vaide-Ellenbroek, The Netherlands 1 995
b2) l 1 ...ttJg6! (this is an improvement) 1 2
i.e3 ( 1 2 i.g3?! f5! 1 3 f4 c5! followed b y
... .if6 and possibly . . .b7-b5 gives Black the
better position) 1 2 .. .5 (or 1 2... i.g5!?), in
both cases with complete equality.
1 0 axb5 1 1 i.xb5
. . .
This is the most logical. After 1 1 'it'f3?!
Black has two paths that lead to a slight ad
vantage:
a) 1 1 .. ..ig5 1 2 i.xb5 'iVf6 (but Black
should not fall for the trick 12 ... l:.e8+?! 1 3
i.e3 .txe3 [1 3. ...l:!.a5!? direcdy might b e bet
ter] 14 a-a!! l:.a5 15 cxb7 xb5 1 6 bxc8
'it'xc8 17 fxe3 "iVe6 1 8 b3, when White stands
better because in the rook ending he has a
very dangerous passed pawn on the a-file and
his rook is well placed behind this pawn) 1 3
i.xg5 xb2 1 4 0-0 xb5 1 5 cxb7 .ixb 7 and
Black has good chances - a2, c2 and g2 are a
good collection of weaknesses.
b) l 1 ...bxc6 1 2 i.xb5 .l:!.b8 1 3 i.xc6 .l:!.xb2
14 i.e4 (or 14 0-0 .l:!.xc2 and White does not
have sufficient compensation for the pawn)
1 4 ...i.e6 1 5 0-0 ':xa2 1 6 .l:!.xa2 i.xa2 gives
Black realistic winning chances, as after 1 7
h3 g6 1 8 .ih6 he has the important inter
mediate move 1 8... i.e6!.
1 1 i.g5
. . .
Also possible was 1 1 ....if6 1 2 c3 (12 a-a?
i.xb2 1 3 .l:!.bl "iVf6 14 cxb7 .ixb7 gives
Black a good game -White's pieces are scat
tered and misplaced) 1 2...e8+ 1 3 i.e3 bxc6
14 .id3 i.g5 1 5 f3 i.xe3 1 6 "iixe3 .ie6!?
with an even game. The exchange of queens
would of course benefit White.
Th e B e /grade G a m b i t
1 2 exb7
Or:
a) 12 'it'c1 .l:!.e8+l 1 3 f1 (13 i.e3? .ixe3
14 fxe3 'iVg5! and 'hite is in serious trouble;
this is the main reason for playing ... .l:!.e8+ and
not ... e8+) 1 3 . .. .ixf4 1 4 "iix f4 .l:!.e5 1 5 cxb7
(1 5 c4 b6 would cut off the b5-bishop from
the action) 1 5 ....ixb7 1 6 i.d3 'iVe7 with
good compensation for Black.
b) 12 i.g3 'iVe8+ is also be fine for Black,
as after 13 'iVe2 bxc6 White has nothing.
1 2 i.xb7
. . .
Black has good play for the pawn.
1 3 g4 'ie7+
I think Black either here or on the next
move should have exchanged on f4. Here is
the argument: 13. .. .txf4 14 'iVxf4 .txg2 1 5
.l:!.gl "iiVe7+ 1 6 'It>d2 (16 'it'e3 f6 1 7 c3 .td5!
and 'hite's king is in trouble in the middle,
while he also has split pawns) 1 6... i.e4 17 f3
d5! (17 ... i.g6?! 1 8 ':ael d8 1 9 a4 is differ
ent - Black's pieces are not playing at all) 1 8
fxe4 4+ 1 9 'it'c1 ..wxb5 20 'iUg5 g6 21
'it'xd5 e2 and White has many problems to
solve.
1 4 d2
White is also in trouble after 14 f1 .tf6!
1 5 c3 ..we4, when Black has excellent attack
ing chances.
1 4 i.f6 1 5 .l:the1 d8 1 6 e3 J:!.b8
. . .
Indirecdy attacking b2.
1 7 >te2
White would be punished after 1 7 a4? c6
1 13
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
18 .ic4 .ic8!, when the b2-pawn falls.
1 7 . . . ..tc8
17 ....ixg2 1 8 .id3 .ic6 19 h4 would give
White some time to generate counterplay.
1 8 "tWe2
White should not insert 1 8 "ikh5?! g6! be
fore retreating with 19 "ike2 because ... g7-g6
is useful for Black.
1 8 . . . c6 1 9 ..td3 ..te6 20 "tWd2
Between players of such a level, .ixd6 is
of course a threat and not a trap.
20 . . . g6
Black could also play more actively with
20...'iYb6!? 21 c1 .tf.a8 22 .ixd6 ':fd8 23
'iWf4 'iWa5 with compensation for the pawns.
The rook on al is still not playing.
21 c 1 "tWa5?
This is of course very brilliant and heroic,
but not correct. 21 ... l:ta8 22 .ic2 d5 23 .ie5
c5 would have been better, when Black has
more than enough for the pawn.
22 ..txd6 1:txb2
What a mess!
23 xb2?
White takes the easy way out, but there
was a win! 23 xb2! 'ud8 24 .ig3 .tf.a8!
(24... 'iVb4+ 25 c2 'iVa4+ 26 'it>cl 'iVa3+ 27
'ib2 'i!ea5 28 d2 would only help White to
escape to the kingside) 25 a3 'iYb6+ 26 c1
'iVa5 27 l:txe6 .ixc3 28 'iWe3 .ixal 29 lie8+
lixe8 30 'iWxe8+ g7 31 "ike7 'iWc3+ 32 i.c2
and Black has run out of bullets.
In the game Black manages to draw.
1 14
23 . . . ..txc3 24 "tWa3 "tWxa3+ 25 ..txa3 %:la8
26 l:!.xe6 ..txa1 27 l:!.xc6 l:!.xa3 28 ..tc4
..td4 29 f4 lIa5 30 d2 :c5! 31 1:txc5
..txc5 32 a4 f8 33 d3 ..tb6 34 e4
e7 35 f5 g5 36 d5 g4 37 c6 ..tg 1
38 h3 gxh3 39 gxh3 f6 40 ..td3 g5
41 a5 h4 42 a6 f6 43 b7 xh3 44 a7
..txa7 45 xa7 g4 46 b6 f4 47
c5 e5 % - %
Game 56
Skrobek-Pinkas
Wroclaw 1987
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4
exd4 5 lLld5 ..te7 6 ..tf4 d6 7 lLlxd4 0-0 8
liJb5 lLlxd5 9 exd5 lLlb4!?
Though this does not promise equality, it
does give interesting play.
1 0 c3
Stronger is 10 a3! .ig4 1 1 f3 (1 1 'iWd2
lLlxd5 1 2 'i!exd5 c6 1 3 'iVd2 cxb5 1 4 .ixb5
.if6 is only equal) 1 1 ....ih4+ 1 2 .ig3 (12 g3!?
.ixf3 1 3 'iWxf3 lLlxc2+ 14 dl lLlxal 15 gxh4
'iWf6 is very messy, but maybe not so silly)
1 2... .id7. Bruce Monson believes that this
position is much better for Black, but this is
not true. After 1 3 axb4 .ixg3+ 1 4 hxg3 'iVe8+
1 5 f2 .ixb5 1 6 .id3! White has good at
tacking chances, as well as much better de
velopment.
1 0 . . . a6?
This is just weak. Necessary was 10...lLla6

1 1 5! (1 1 iLe2 J.g5 is equal) 1 1 ..J::te8 1 2
0-0-0 g6 1 3 f3 .ii.g5 1 4 iLd3 .ii.xf4+ 1 5
iVxf4 l:i.e5 1 6 h4, when White has some
chances to generate an attack, but nothing
concrete.
1 1 tUa3 .!:te8 1 2 i.e2 i.h4
After 1 2... J.g5 1 3 .ii.g3 iVf6 1 4 'It>f1 ! (14
O-O?? tt::Jxd5 would be what Black is hoping
for) 14 ... .ii. f5 1 5 cxb4 xb2 1 6 tt::Jc4 'it'xb4
1 7 f4 .ii. f6 1 8 .:tel Black does not have
enough compensation for the piece.
1 3 tUe4?
After this White has pieces hanging eve
l)'Where, which gives Black a chance to sur
vive the dangerous game he has been playing.
White had at least two better moves here:
a) 1 3 .ii.g3! .ii.f6 1 4 tt::Jc4! (14 cxb4? .ii.xb2
1 5 l:tbl iLxa3 1 6 l:lb3 iLg4 1 7 f3 iLd7 1 8
l:txa3 iLb5 1 9 l:td3 iLxd3 20 'iWxd3 c 6 i s less
clear) 14 ... l:lxe2+ (what else?) 1 5 'It>xe2! (1 5
'iWxe2 tt::Jxd5 1 6 0-0 is good for White, but
this is better) 1 5 ...e7+ 1 6 'It>f1 'it'e4 1 7 tt::Je3
tt::Jd3 1 8 'iWc2 and White wins.
b) 1 3 Wf1 !? l:i.xe2 1 4 xe2 f6 1 5 iLg3
iLxg3 1 6 hxg3 iLg4+ (1 6 ...'it'e5+ 1 7 'It>f1
tt::Jxd5 1 8 tt::Jc4 looks very promising for
White; next comes d3 and l:te 1) 1 7 f3 iLf5
1 8 fl with a clear advantage for White.
1 3 . . . i.g4 1 4 tUe3 i.xe2 1 5 Wxe2
1 5 xe2? tt::Jxd5.
1 5 . . :iWd7
Black cannot save the knight on b4, so he
creates counterchances in other ways.
1 6 g3
16 cxb4?? 'iWg4+ 17 f1 xf4 18 f3
'iWxb4 and Black wins.
1 6 . . . i.f6 1 7 h4
1 7 cxb4 g5! 1 8 iLxg5 iLxg5 1 9 d4 .ixe3
20 fxe3 l:te5 gives Black good counterplay
due to the e5-square, the weak white pawns,
and a better king.
1 7 . . . 'ilVb5+ 1 8 Wf3 J:txe3+ ! 1 9 i.xe3
After 1 9 fxe3 tt::Jxd5 20 3 c6 21 e4
tt::Jb6 22 l:tadl l:i.e8 23 J:1hel tt::Jc4 24 'it'c2 b5
Black has good compensation on the light
squares.
Th e B e/grade G a m b i t
1 9 . . . tUxd5 2 0 'iWd2 'ilVe6 21 Wg4! 'iWd7+
22 Wf3 'iWe6 23 Wg4 'ilVd7+ 24 Wf3 'ilVe6
%-%
Game 57
I .Almasi-Bezgodov
Balatonberef!Y 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tUf3 tUe6 3 tUe3 tUf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tUd5 i.e7 6 i.f4 d6 7 tUxd4 0-0 8
tUb5 tUxd5 9 exd5 tUe5
1 0 i.e2
White can also consider queenside cas
tling, but this is probably not an option head
ing for an advantage. 10 'it'dZ c6! 1 1 tt::Jc3
tt::Jg6! (as we have seen before, this is often a
key move) 12 iLe3 c5 1 3 .ie2 f5 1 4 f4 iLf6.
White now gave up the idea of 0-0-0, which
is probably wise. There is no easy way for
him to create counterplay on the kingside
fast. 1 5 tt::Jd l 'it'e8 1 6 0-0 b5 1 7 J.f2 a6 1 8
J.f3 .l:i.a7! and Black was slightly better in
Prie-Van der Wiel, Cannes 1 990.
1 0 . . .tUg6 ! ?
This move again. Black wants to play . . . f7-
f5 and ...c7-c5. Black also has good play after
1 0... c6 1 1 tt::Jc3 tt::Jg6 1 2 .ig3 f5! (this is better
than 1 2... c5 1 3 0-0 ii..h4 1 4 'it'd2 i.xg3 1 5
hxg3 l:i:e8, which was equal in Bragin-Fokin,
Sochi 1 990) 1 3 f4 iLf6 1 4 d3 c5 1 5 0-0-0
a6 1 6 h4 tt::Jh 8! 1 7 h5 tt::Jf7 and Black has the
better chances, as bite has no easy way to
penetrate on the kingside.
1 15
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
1 1 g3
\'{lhite should possibly consider 11 .te3 c5
12 0-0 (12 Q'{c6 bxc6 13 tbd4 'YWc7 14 0-0 (14
tbxc6? WUxc6 15 .tf3 d5 16 .txd5 .tb4+ 17
c3 .txc3+ 18 bxc3 it'xc3+ 19 f1 .ta6+ 20
'ltgl Mad8 would give Black a winning at
tack) 14 ...Mb8 (Black is slightly better - Mon
son) 12...f5 13 c4 .tf6 14 'iVb3 f4 15 .td2
.tfS 16 Mael with a complicated game
ahead, although it might be easier to play
Black.
1 1 . . . f5! 1 2 f4
Forced. After 12 f3? .th4 13 0-0 3.xg3 14
hxg3 a6 15 tbc3 "iofg5 16 'iYel f4 17 g4 .td7
18 d2 Mae8 Black would have a very good
game because of the weakness of the dark
squares in White's camp. 19 tbe4?! e5
would only make matters worse, as ....txg4 is
now a threat.
1 2 . . . f6
Black should have played more energeti
cally with 12...c5! and now:
a) 13 c4 .tf6 14 'YWd2 a6 15 tbc3 .td4 and
Black has the better game.
b) 13 dxc6 is always risky. White has not
fInished his development yet, and can easily
be caught in the middle. 13...bxc6 14 tbd4
6! and Black is somewhat better.
1 3 c3 J:!.e8 1 4 0-0 a6
This move is not very ambitious. Better
was 14 ...c6! 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 tbd4 (1 6 tbxd6
%lxe2 and Black is better) 16...%lb8 with an
advantage for Black.
1 5 ttJd4 .i.xd4+!
15...e7!? 16 %leI f7 with an even game
was also an idea, but now Black, due to his
better pawn structure, has some chances to
manoeuvre his way in.
1 6 cxd4 d7 1 7 J:le 1 ? !
This move gives Black a free hand to
quickly double the rooks on the e-ftle. Now
or on the following move it was better to
play %lel to create some countetplay on the
open fIle.
1 7 . . . 1Wf6 1 8 "iYd2 .!le4 1 9 .!lad1 1Wf7
This highlights the weakness of the pawn
1 16
on d5.
20 1Wc1 ?!
This move seems a bit artifIcial, but after
20 .tf3 l:he1+ 21 Mxel .l::!.e8 Black will con
tinue to be better in the endgame. So White
should play 22 Mel ! with some counter
chances.
20 .. J:tc8 21 c4?!
The bishop is not well placed here.
Stronger is 21 .tf3, when Black is only
slightly better after 21....l:.xe1+ 22 .l:!.xe1 tbe7
23 c4 b5 24 3 as 25 a4 bxa4 26 'iYc4 as
the missing pawn is compensated by the
multiple weaknesses on Black's queenside.
Still, White has some problems with getting
his g3-bishop into the game.
21 . . . ttJe7 22 1Wc2 J:!.xe 1 + 23 '!:!'xe1
ttJxd5!?
After this White suddenly becomes active.
Interesting would have been 23...b5! 24 .tb3
as, when Black continues his aggressive,
prophylactic strategy.
24 h4 %:te8 25 %:txe8+ xe8 26 i.d8
b5 27 b3 1We6 28 h3
28 .txc7 allows mate in one with ...'iVe1.
28 . . .c6 29 h2 h6?
Fritz 7 has an interesting suggestion here.
It wants to allow an endgame of opposite
coloured bishops after 29.. :iWe4 !? 30 xe4
fxe4 31 .tc7 e3 32 gl f7. The argument
would be that following 33 .txd5+ cxd5 34
.txd6 'lte6 35 .te5 f5 Black's king is very
active and might even win the game. Better

would be 33 .txd6 with decent drawing
chances - the b3-bishop still has some func
tions to perform.
30 a4!
Black has missed the boat.
30 . . . i.f1 3 1 'iVd 1 i.e2 32 i.xd5 cxd5 33
'i'd2 i.c4 34 iYb4 iof1 35 iYd2 e8 36
ioh4 iYxa4 37 'iVe1 i.d3 38 'i'e6+ h8
39 i.f6! gxf6 40 f7! % - %
Game 58
Bellon Lopez-Izeta Txabarri
Eigoibar 1998
1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 d4
exd4 5 l2ld5 i.e7 6 i.f4
As well as the safe 6 ... d6, Black also has a
way of fighting for the initiative.
6 . . . 0-0! 7 i.xc7
All the obvious alternatives fail.
a) 7 lZ'lxd4? lZ'lxd5 8 exd5 lZ'lxd4 9 'iVxd4
.tf6 gives Black a clear advantage - Nunn.
b) 7 .tc4?! d6 8 lZ'lxd4 lZ'le5 9 'iWe2 (9
.txe5 dxe5 1 0 lZ'lxf6+ .txf6 1 1 lZ'lb3 'iVe7 is
slightly better for Black because of the two
bishops - Monson) 9 ...lZ'lxc4 1 0 'iVxc4 lZ'lxd5
1 1 exd5 .tg5! 12 .txg5 'iWxg5 and Black has
good chances to create an initiative.
c) 7 lZ'lxc7? lZ'lh5! 8 lZ'lxa8 (8 lZ'ld5 lZ'lxf4 9
lZ'lxf4 i..b4+ 10 lZ'ld2 .l:i.e8 1 1 .td3 d5 12 f3 f5
and White's centre collapses) 8...lZ'lxf4 9 'iVd2
lZ'le6 1 0 i..c4 b6 1 1 .txe6 dxe6 1 2 0-0-0 i..b7
with a clear advantage for Black. In the mid-
Th e B e /grade G a m b i t
dlegame where there are mutual chances of
attack, the number of pieces is generally
more important, compared to their individual
value, while this reverses somewhat in the
endgame. For this reason a rook might be
strong enough to compete with two bishops
in some endgames, while it is no match for
them in the middlegame (depending on other
factors of course).
7 . . :e8
This is the critical position for the line
starting with 6...0-0.
8 i.e2
White has the following alternatives:
a) 8 lZ'lxf6+ .txf6 9 'iWe2 (9 .td3 d5 1 0 e5
.txe5 1 1 lZ'lxe5 e7! and Black has the
advantage) 9 ...iVe7! (9 .. :iVe6 1 0 e5 !ti.e7 1 1 a3
b6 12 0-0-0 .tb7 13 bl l'!ac8 14 .td6
.txd6 1 5 exd6 1fHxd6 16 'iVe4 gave White lots
of play in Polovodin-Lerner, Belzi 1 979) 1 0
e 5 4+ 1 1 c 3 dxc3 12 0-0-0 .l:e8 1 3 .td6
and now:
al) 1 3 ... cxb2+ 1 4 Wbl 'iVa4! 1 5 d2 .te7
1 6 .td3 .ltxd6 17 exd6 b6 1 8 .tc2 a5 1 9
'iVf4 .ta6 20 lZ'lg5 lZ'lb4! (inciting tactics) 21
.ltb3 (the only move; 21 xf7+ Wh8 22 3
xg5 23 iYxb4 l:!.ac8 and Black should win
due to his better king) 21...h6 22 lZ'lxf7 'it>h 7
(Black threatens a winning check on d3) 23
l'!he1 i..e2!? 24 l'!xe2 l:.xe2 with a crazy
situation, but probably also quite a promising
one for Black.
a2) Also viable is 13 ...'iVxb2+ 14 xb2
1 17
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
cxb2+ 1 5 'it>bl j.,e7 1 6 j.,c4 b6! (1 6 ... b5 1 7
.i.xb5 .i.xd6 1 8 exd6 i.b7 1 9 d2 is slighdy
better for White according to Monson,
something that could be discussed) 1 7 j.,c7
liJa5 1 8 Sl.b5 i.c5 and in my opinion White
does not have full compensation for the
pawn.
b) Probably the best move for White is 8
j.,c4!? d6 (8 ... liJxd5 9 ..Itxd5 d6 transposes) 9
liJxd4 liJxd5 1 0 ..Itxd5 "it'd7 1 1 ..Itxc6 bxc6
1 2 j.,a5 ..Ita6! and now:
bl) 1 3 j.,c3? .l::!.fe8 1 4 "ii'h 5 (According to
Monson, 14 'iVf3 Sl.g5! 1 5 liJf5? gives White
the edge. However, after the simple
1 5 ...xe4+l 1 6 'YWxe4 .l:.e8 1 7 f3 :xe4+ 1 8
fxe4 'iWe6 1 9 liJg3 fS Black will certainly win)
1 4... j.,f6 1 5 f3. This was agreed drawn be
cause of time pressure in Braeuning-Lima,
Berga 1 989. Black should continue 1 5 ... c5! 1 6
liJf5 g6 1 7 liJh6+ 'it>f8 1 8 'it'd5 j.,xc3+ 1 9
bxc3 rl;;g7 20 liJg4 f5 21 liJf2 .l:.ab8 with
better chances - Monson.
b2) 1 3 liJfS!? (an improvement over 1 3
..Itc3?) 1 3 ...'iWe6 14 "iVg4 j.,f6. Here I have
been toying with a wild semi-forced line 1 5
0-0-0 'i"xa2 16 Jic3 i..xc3 1 7 bxc3 g6 1 8 h4
j.,d3!? 1 9 .l:.xd3! "iVa1+ 20 d2 'iVxh1 21 .l::tg3
.:rab8! 22 "ifg5 l:tb5 23 "it'f6 .l::tx f5 24 exf5
.l::te8 25 lIe3 .:txe3 26 'it'd8+ g7 27 f6+ 'it>h6
28 Wxe3 'iVe1+ 29 d3 'it'xf2 30 "iff8+ h5
31 'iVxf7 and White continues to have decent
counterplay.
S . . . d6
1 18
Here Black could play the stronger
8 ... liJxe4! 9 i.. f4 .i.d8! (this is a new idea) 1 0
liJxd4 liJf6 1 1 liJc3 j.,a5 1 2 j.,d6 liJe4 1 3
liJdb5 liJxd6 1 4 liJxd6 'i"e5 and Black has
won the opening ballie.
9 ttJxf6+
Monson gives 9 liJxd4 liJxd5 10 exd5
liJxd4 1 1 'it'xd4 ..ItfS 1 2 c3 'i"d7 13 i..a5 b6
14 i..b4 as 1 5 i.a3 b5 with unclear play.
9 . . . ..Iixf6 1 0 ..Iixd6 i.e7 1 1 ..Iixe7 'ii'xe7
1 2 ttJd2?!
White should not waste time defending
this pawn. After 1 2 0-0 'it'xe4 1 3 .l:.el J::!.d 8 14
"ifd2 'i"d5 15 i..d3 White has a slight pull.
1 2 . . . f5! 1 3 exf5 l:teS
Gutman gives 1 3. ..i..xf5? 1 4 0-0 liJb4 1 5
..Itc4+ Wh8 1 6 .:tel with an advantage for
White.
1 4 g4?
After this White is simply lost. Necessary
was 1 4 Wfl i.xfS 1 5 Jid3, when Black has a
big initiative for the pawn, but White has not
weakened himself too much and can fight for
a draw.
1 4 . . . b6!
Black decides to develop the bishop,
which must be the correct idea.
1 5 Wf1 ..Iib7 1 6 ..Iif3?!
16 f3 was better, but White is s till in a hor
rible mess after 1 6 ..."ii'h4.
1 6 . . . ttJe5 1 7 ..Iixb7 'ii'xb7 1 S J:tg 1 l:tadS
Black is now fully mobilised, while White
cannot get any coordination.

1 9 J:!.g2
What else?! After 19 f4 tbc6 20 .l:!.g3 tbb4
21 gl tbdS the weakness of the e3-square
is felt and White will lose.
1 9 . . . d3 20 e3 b5 21 b3 liJf7!
Heading for gS in order to attack the king.
22 liJf3 b4!
Taking the d4-square away from the
knight.
23 exb4 .l:!.e2
Black dominates all White's pieces, so
who cares for pawns?
24 liJg 1 :te2 25 J:!.g3 'ilfb6 26 .l:!.e3 liJg5
27 'ilfe1 i'e6 28 J:!.d 1 d2 29 i'e2 l:te1
Actually it is only here that computers un
derstand that White is lost. All the way from
move 1 4 they have preferred White, but sug
gested no reasonable improvements. So
much for asking your computer how you
played!
Th e B e/gr a de G a m b i t
3 0 f3 l::txd 1 +?
30 .. .'it>f8! was quicker
31 i'xd1 'ii'e 1 32 c;t>e2 'ii'e 7 33 c;t>f1
'ilfxh2 34 !:te2 It'f4 35 J:!.f2 'ii'xb4 36 c;t>g2
'ilfe3 37 liJe2 It'e3 38 liJg3 liJh3! 39 J:!.f1
liJf4+ 40 c;t>h2 .l:!.d6 41 f6 llxf6 42 liJf5
llxf5 43 gxf5 liJe2 44 c;t>h1 liJe3 45 It'e2
It'e 1 ! 0-1
Game 59
Lesiege-Gligoric
Montreal 1998
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJe6 3 liJe3 liJf6 4 d4
exd4 5 liJd5 il..e 7 6 il..e 4!?
This is an idea from Mihajlo Trajkovic and
is therefore called the Trajkovic Gambit.
6 . . . 0-0
The only serious alternative is 6 ... tbxe4, as
after 6 ...tbxdS? 7 exdS i.b4+ White has the
powerful 8 c3! dxc3 9 0-0 tbe7 (better is
9 ...tbaS 10 'ii'a4 tbxc4 1 1 'i!Vxb4 tbd6 1 2
.I;Ie1+ f8 1 3 bxc3 with a clear advantage for
White) 1 0 d6! (to prevent Black from devel
oping) 10 ... i.xd6 1 1 tbgs 0-0 1 2 'iibs h6 1 3
tbxf7 l:txf7 1 4 'it'xf7+ h8 1 5 .l:!.e1 bS 1 6
i.b3 i. b7 1 7 .igS! and all there i s left for
Black to do is to resign.
7 0-0
Black was slighdy better after 7 tbxd4?!
tbxdS! 8 i.xdS (8 exdS?! tbxd4 9 'i!Vxd4 i.f6
10 'i!Vd1 .l:!.e8+ 1 1 .ie2 'i!Ve7 12 c3 lie4 is the
usual story - White is in trouble) 8... tbxd4 9
lixd4 i.f6 10 'ii'd3 c6 1 1 i.b3 dS! 12 0-0
dxe4 13 'ixe4 l':.e8, Morris-Wedberg, New
York 1 991 .
7 . . . d6 8 liJxd4 liJxd4
A cautious move. The other possibilities
are:
a) 8...tbxe4? 9 .l:i.e 1 ! i.f6 1 0 tbbS i.fS 1 1
i.d3 and Black loses material.
b) 8 ... tbeS!? 9 Jib3 tbxdS (White probably
has a slight advantage after 9 ... cS 1 0 tbf5
i.xfS 1 1 exfS c4 12 i.a4 b8 13 tbxf6+
i.xf6 1 4 lidS 'ifb6 1 5 c3 tbd3 1 6 i.bS ':'bc8
1 7 i.e3) 10 i.xdS i.f6 1 1 f4 tbd7! 12 c3 c6
1 19
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
13 .ib3 ctJcS 14 c2 e8 I S el "fic7 with
an even game.
c) 8 ...ctJxdS gives White the chance to try
9 exdS (9 .ixdS ctJxd4 10 'iVxd4 transposes
to the game) 9 ...ctJxd4 10 'iYxd4 ..if6 1 1 'iYd3
l:te8 1 2 c3 ..ig4 1 3 ..ie3, although this
doesn't achieve any advantage.
9 xd4 lZ'lxd5 1 0 i.xd5 i.f6 1 1 d3 c6
This is the natural move, even though it
has to be calculated that d6 does not fa1l.
Black does not fully equalise after 1 1 ...aS
12 a4 'VJIie7 13 c3 c6 14 ..ib3 b6 (even worse
is 14 ... ..ie6?! I S ..ic2 g6 1 6 f4! ..ig7 [Monson
gives 1 6... dS 1 7 eS ..ig7 1 8 fS! gxfS 1 9 .l:!xfS
.ixfS 20 'VJIixfS c5+ 21 Whl fe8 22 ..ih6!!
when White wins after 22 ... ..ixh6 23 .l:tfl !
.1Lg7 24 'VJIixf7+ h8 2S 'iYfS] 1 7 fS i.c8 1 8
..ie3 with a clear advantage for White,
Trajkovic-Stieg, correspondence 1 968) I S
.ie3 ..ia6 1 6 ..ic4 ..ixc4 1 7 xc4 'iYc7 1 8
.1Ld4 ..ixd4 1 9 cxd4 and White is structurally
better.
1 1 ...'VJIie7!? is a more natural waiting move.
After 1 2 c3 e8 1 3 .if4! ..igS! (1 3... ..ieS?! 1 4
..id2! c 6 I S .ib3 ..ie6 1 6 f4 ..if6 1 7 ..ic2!
gives some irritating threats) 14 ..ig3 ..ih4
the position is equal.
1 2 i.b3 i(e8
The most natural. The following moves
have also been analysed:
a) 12 .....ie6 1 3 c3 ..ixb3 14 axb3 'VJIie7 I S
dl fe8 1 6 f3 .l:tad8! equalises, as after 1 7
xa7?! dS! 1 8 'VJIie2 dxe4 1 9 .l:txd8 l\fxd8 20
fxe4 'VJIib6+ 21 ..ie3 l\fxb3 Black is even bet-
ter.
b) 1 2...'VJIic7 13 c3 .te6 14 ..ic2! and White
is better. Also possible is 14 ..if4 ..ixb3
(14...ad8 I S fdl 'iib6 1 6 ..ie3 'ikc7 17 f4
was a little better for White in the classic
game Monson-Yoram, ICC 1 995; with a
different time control Monson might have
played .l:tadl instead of fdl) I S axb3 (IS
.txd6?? .tc4!) lS ... ..ieS 1 6 ..te3 dS with suf
ficient counterplay for Black.
c) 12 ... bS!? 1 3 a4 bxa4 (13 ... b4 14 as! is
better for White) 14 ..ixa4 'ikc7 I S dl gives
1 20
White a clear edge according to Monson, but
'slightly better' is more realistic, as Black can
play I S ... ..tg4! 1 6 f3 ..ie6 followed by ....l:td8
and ... dS. However, 14 xa4! looks more
logical, after which White rea1ly is better.
1 3 c3
13 dl 'VJIie7 14 f3 .ie6 equalises because
after 1 5 'ixd6?? .l:tad8 Black wins. On the
other hand, 13 ..if4 'ie7! (1 3 ... .txb2?! 14
.l:tadl 'if6 1 5 ..ixd6 ..ie6 1 6 f4 gives White
the chance to create a kingside initiative) 14
f3 dS! 1 5 exdS ii.xb2 1 6 adl 'VJIif6 1 7 nfel
fS gives Black the better pawn structure
and good development.
1 3" .i.e6!
Monson gives 13 ... 'VJIie7 14 ..ic2! (14 ..id2
..ie6 1 5 .l:!.fe 1 J:tad8 16 ..if4 ii.xb3 17 axb3 a6
is similar to the game, and even) 14 ...g6 I S
..if4 dS 1 6 exdS ..ifS 1 7 'ikd2 ..ixc2 1 8 'VJIixc2
cxdS, when White must be slightly better
after 1 9 ..ie3!.
14 i.e3 i.xb3 1 5 axb3 a6 1 6 f3 .l:te6
The draw is obvious. The weaknesses on
d6 and b3 cancel each other out.
1 7 ad1 c7 1 8 i.d4 1:1ae8 1 9 1:1f2 h6
20 i.xf6 J:.xf6 21 d4 l:tfe6 22 c4 a5
23 J:.fd2 g5 24 f2 % - %
Game 60
Kenworthy-Van der Sterren
Ramsgate 198 1
1 e4 e 5 2 lZ'lf3 lZ'lc6 3 lZ'lc3 lZ'lf6 4 d4

exd4 5 ctJd5 ctJxe4
This is Black's most principled response.
6 .ic4 .ie7
This position could also have been
reached via 5 ... e7 6 .ic4 ll:lxe4.
7 ctJxd4 0-0
Black should be careful after 7 ... ll:lxd4?! S
li'xd4 ll:lf6 9 0-0 0-0 (9 ... ll:lxd5? 1 0 'iYxg7!
cannot be recommended) 10 ll:lxe7+ 'iYxe7
1 1 g5 MeS 12 h3 d6 13 .l:!.ae 1 . According to
Lev Gutman White has a serious initiative
here. The line could continue 1 3 .. .'ilhel 1 4
.l:!.xel J:txe1+ 1 5 'it>h2 J:te4 1 6 'iVc3 .ie6 1 7
.ixe6 nxe6 I S xc7 b 6 1 9 iVb7 neeS 20
.ixf6 gxf6 21 g4 with a clear white advan
tage.
S ctJb5
Also relevant is S 0-0 ..tc5 9 ll:lb3 (9 ll:lb5
is considered in the next game) 9 ...i.xf2+ 1 0
J:txf2 ll:lxf2 1 1 'iVe2! h4! 1 2 .if4 ( 1 2 g3
ll:lh3+ 1 3 'it'g2 'iNdS! 1 4 'it>xh3 ll:le5 1 5 'it>g2
d6 followed by ...g4 gives Black a good
game) 12 ... ll:lg4 1 3 ll:lxc7 d5! 1 4 .ixd5 J:tbS
1 5 ll:lb5 d7! (1 5 ....l:!.aS would allow a repeti
tion) 16 ..txbS J:txbS with an unclear posi-
tion.
S . . .ib4+
.
S ... ..tc5 is considered in the next game.
9 c3
9 . ctJxf2!
. .
Sharpest and best. Alternatively:
a) 9 ...a5? 10 f3 l:leS 1 1 0-0 gives
'X'hite decent compensation and very good
Th e B e /grade G a m b i t
attacking chances. Where i s e4-knight going
after J:te 1 ?
b) After 9 ... i.c5 the white pawn on c3 is
very useful to him. 10 0-0 ll:lxf2 1 1 h5 ll:le5
1 2 ll:lbxc7 d6 (12 ... ll:lfg4+ 13 <.th1 g6 14 g5
xg5 1 5 .ltxg5 .l:!.bS 1 6 ..te2! gives 'X'hite the
advantage because of his better structure, and
because after 1 6 ... ll:lf2+? 17 J:txf2 xf2 I S
J:tfl c5 1 9 b4 .id6 20 ll:lb5 the bishop is
horribly trapped - a very unusual situation)
1 3 l:lxf2 .ltg4 14 g5 xg5 1 5 ..ltxg5 ll:lxc4
16 ll:lxaS .l:txaS 17 b3 ..ltxf2+ I S <.txf2 ll:le5
with an even position.
1 0 'iVh5!
Forced. 10 'it'xf2? 'iYh4+ 1 1 g3 li'xc4 1 2
ll:lbxc7 ..tc5+ 13 i.e3 J:IbS 1 4 xc5 'iVxc5+
15 'it'g2 b6 would give Black a clear advan
tage due to the superiority of his bishop.
1 0 . . .l2Jxh1 1 1 cxb4 ctJxb4??
A truly horrible move. Black had many
better moves. One of them was l 1 .. ..l::te 8-H. 1 2
<.tfl J:te5 1 3 'iVf 3 'iVh4 14 ..tf4
and now:
a) 14 ... d6!? 15 'it'gl g4?! 16 fl .lte6 1 7
ll:lbxc7 .l:!.cs I S .ltxe5 ll:lxe5 1 9 .ltb3 ll:lg4 20
f4 is slightly better for White according to
Monson. Actually the position looks very
good, but maybe 1 5 .....te6!? would have
changed that assessment.
b) 14 ... g5 1 5 ..txe5! ll:lxe5 16 f6 'iVf2+
(White wins after 16 ... xc4+ 17 <.tgl 'i!Vxd5
l S ll:lxc7 d4+ 19 <.txhl J:IbS 20 'iVd8+ <.tg7
21 ll:le8+ 'it'gS 22 ll:ld6+ cJ:;g7 23 'iVxg5+ lZJg6
12 1
Th e Fo u r Knigh ts
24 ttJf5+) 1 7 'ixf2 ttJxf2 I S ttJdxc7 bS 1 9
xf2 ttJxc4 2 0 ttJxa7 and White i s somewhat
better.
c) 1 4... l:!.e4! I S .ltd3 ttJeS 1 6 .ltxeS l:!.xeS
1 7 ttJbxc7 d6!? (1 7...ii'xh2 I S ttJxaS ttJg3+ 1 9
Wf2 liJh1+ with a draw i s Monson's line) I S
gl ttJg3 1 9 ttJf4 (19 hxg3? ii'd4+ 20 'ithl
.ltg4! was the idea behind IS ... liJg3) 19 ...l:!.bS
20 hxg3 'i'gS 21 .lte4 with chances for both
sides.
1 2 g5!
Black must have missed this one, or
maybe the 1 4th move.
1 2 . . .l:Ie8+
Or 12 ... 'i'e8+ 1 3 liJe7+ WhS 14 liJxc7
dS I S .ltxf7 l:!.xf7 1 6 ii'xf7 liJd3+ 17 Wd2
liJeS I S 'tWfl and White wins.
1 3 f1 J:te5 1 4 l:Ie1 ! ! 1 -0
Eliminating the defender. Black now re
signed due to 1 4...l:he1+ I S xel fS 1 6
1 22
!Ji.e7 ttJc2+ 1 7 'itd2, when Black will lose his
queen.
Game 61
Kersten-Voetter
Correspondence 1 993
1 e4 e5 2 4:Jf3 4:Jc6 3 ltJc3 4:Jf6 4 d4
exd4 5 ltJd5 ltJxe4 6 c4 e7 7 ltJxd4
0-0 8 4:Jb5 ..tc5!? 9 0-0 ltJxf2
Chess is certainly a contact sport! Also
possible is:
a) 9 ... .ltxf2+ 1 0 .u.xf2 ttJxf2 1 1 'iVe2 'ii'h4
1 2 g3!? (1 2 !Ji.f4 ttJg4 1 3 !Ji.g3 ifgS 14 ttJbxc7
l:!.bS I S l:Iel and according to Lev Gutman
White stands much better; in my opinion
White is better, but only slightly) 1 2... liJh3+
13 g2 dS! 14 ttJbxc7 bS I S 'itxh3 d6+
16 g2 liJeS 1 7 !Ji.b3 .ltg4 I S 'tWf2 l:!.cs 19
liJbS .ltf3+ 20 gl .ltxdS 21 !Ji.xdS 'tWaS 22
a4 ttJg4 and Black has some play for the ma
terial.
b) 9 ...'ih4 10 .lte3 d6 (not 10 ...ttJxf2?! 1 1
l:!.xf2 xc4 1 2 liJbxc7 which is clearly better
for White - Nunn) 1 1 liJbxc7 .l:.bS 1 2 .ltd3
!Ji.xe3 1 3 liJxe3 generates a very slight pull
for White.
1 0 'i'h5!
10 l:hf2? .ltxf2+ 1 1 Wxf2 'ii'h4t and Black
is an exchange up. This theme comes back
continually in this line.
1 0 . . .4:Je5!
This is best. Also tested have been:
a) 10 ... ttJe4+? 1 1 'ith1 l:IbS 12 liJbc3 liJf2+
1 3 l:!.xf2 .ltxf2, but this kind of time loss
cannot go unpunished, and after 14 !Ji.gS!
Black resigned in the game Kraft-Scalvanzo,
correspondence 1 990. After 1 4 ... eS I S
ttJf6+ gxf6 1 6 .ltxf6 Black will get swiftly
mated.
b) 10 ... d6 1 1 l:!.xf2 liJeS 1 2 i.gS i.g4 1 3
'ih4 i.xf2+ 14 xf2 'i'd7 I S ttJd4! l:!.aeS 1 6
h3! liJxc4 1 7 ttJf6+ gxf6 I S .ltxf6 l:!.eS 1 9
hxg4 ttJd2 20 i.xeS liJe4t 21 e3 dxeS 22
ttJfS and White keeps a clear advantage -
Monson.

1 1 b4
Monson gives the following long and
nerve-racking analysis: 1 1 ctJbxc7!? d6 1 2
Ihf2 ..Itg4 1 3 figS 'iVxg5 1 4 .txg5 ctJxc4 1 5
ctJxaS l:1.xaS 1 6 b 3 ..Itxf2+ 1 7 xf2 ctJe5 I S
iLe7 l:1.cS 1 9 iLxd6 l:1.xc2+ 2 0 g3 l:1.e2 2 1
ctJc3 l:1.e3+ 22 'it>f4 .l:!.xc3 23 J.xe5 l:1.c5 24
..Itd4 l:i.d5 25 ..Itxa7 with a draw.
1 1 . . . lLlh3+?
Black mistakenly thinks there is a perpet
ual for him, but this is not the case. Better
was 1 1 ...d6 1 2 bxc5!? .ig4 1 3 g5 ctJf3+ 1 4
gxf3 tDh3+ 1 5 'it> h1 tDxg5 1 6 fXg4 c 6 1 7
ctJxd6 cxd5 I S J.xd5.
In my opinion White does not have
enough compensation for the queen.
I S ... b6!? 1 9 ..Itxg5 'iWxg5 20 c4! (20 1:1fS d2!
[20 ...'iVxg4 21 tDxf7 "iid4 22 ctJd8+ "iixd5+ 23
.l:Ixd5 l:1.axdS 24 l:1.xdS l:1.xdS 25 cxb6 axb6
with a draw is Monson's suggestion here] 21
Th e B e/g rade G a m b i t
ctJxf7 .l:!.aeS 2 2 J:!.afl g6 2 3 tDd6+ xd5+ and
Black wins) 20 ....l:!.adS 21 ctJxf7 l:1.xf7 22
..Itxf7+ hS 23 cxb6 axb6 24 ..Ite6 g6 and
White has some chances of surviving.
1 2 Wh 1 lLlf2+
There is no salvation to be found in
1 2 ... tDxc4 1 3 bxc5 c6 14 ctJf6--H gxf6 1 5 ctJd6
tDe5 (1 5 ... ctJxd6 1 6 cxd6 tDg5 17 .i.b2 f5 I S
l:1.xf5 and White wins) 1 6 gxh3 l:1.eS 1 7 ..Itg5!!
(Monson) 17... fxg5 I S ':xf7 tDxf7 19 "iixf7+
'it>hS 20 ctJxeS.
1 3 lbf2! iLxf2 1 4 iLg5 g6 1 5 'i'h6 lLlg4
1 6 i.xd8 lLlxh6 1 7 i.f6 lLlfS 1 8 lLlbxc7
J:!b8
1 9 g4? 1 -0
Black resigned. In my opinion this was too
early, but you have to bear in mind that this
was a correspondence game.
White's last move was not the strongest.
Better is 1 9 1:Ifl ! b5 (19 ... i.. d4 20 l:1.xfS!) 20
J.b3 .ib7 21 l:txf2 l:!.fcS 22 .ie5 'it>fS 23
tDf6 d6 24 tDxh7+ e7 25 ..Itf6+ d7 26
ctJxb5 l:!.eS 27 ..Itc3 and White wins easily.
After 1 9 g4 ctJg7 20 ctJb5 l:1.eS 21 l:!.fl l:1.e 1
22 l:1.xel .txe1 23 ..Ite5 l:f.aS 24 ctJf6+ hS 25
ctJeS White has a clear advantage, although
Black can fight on.
Game 62
Gutnikov-Tal
Leningrad 1951
1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 d4
1 23
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
exd4 5 ti:Jd5 ti:Jxe4 6 'iWe2 f5
7 g4!?
7 g4 and 7 t2Jgs are the only serious tries
for White in this position. 7 SLf4?! is studied
in the next game, while here are some other
alternatives:
a) 7 i.gS? e7 S h4 (S t2Jxe7 t2Jxe7 9
xe7 xe7 10 t2Jxd4 dS is just not enough)
S ... .i.xgS 9 hxgS d6 with a clear black advan
tage.
b) 7 t2Jd2?! d3! (a common theme - one of
the pawns is returned) S li'xd3 (S cxd3 t2Jd4
9 dl t2Jf6 1 0 t2Jxf6+ 1t'xf6 1 1 .i.e2 e6
and Black wins) S... t2Jb4 9 t2Jxb4 xb4 1 0 c3
'fIIe 7 (after 1O ... t2Jxd2 1 1 xd2 e7+ 1 2 e2
SLcS 1 3 0-0 0-0 White also has a tough job
proving that he has enough compensation
for his pawn) 1 1 cxb4! (1 1 t2Jxe4 fxe4 is
clearly better for Black according to Keres,
while after 1 1 e2 SLcS 12 0-0 d6 Black has
an extra pawn) 1 1 ...t2Jg3+ 12 SLe2 t2Jxhl 1 3
\t>f1 and White has some chances, even
though he is still worse after 1 3 ... 0-0.
7 .'f7!
. .
This looks very strong, but Black also has
a respectable alternative in 7... t2Je7!? S t2Jf4 (S
gxfS t2JxdS 9 li'xe4+ e7 10 'iVxe7+ xe7 1 1
t2Jxd4 .i.f6 is clearly better for Black) S. . .dS!
(S... fxg4 9 t2Jxd4 t2Jf6?! 10 h3 gxh3 1 1 i.xh3
would belong in the 19th century, where all
gifts were accepted with no questions asked)
9 t2Jxd4 fxg4 10 t2Jfe6 (too slow is 1 0 g2 cS
1 1 t2JxdS xdS 1 2 t2JbS t2Jc3!! 1 3 t2Jc7+ WdS
1 24
14 xdS t2Jxe2 1 5 t2JxaS t2JxdS 16 'it'xe2 bS!
and Black wins - Monson). Now 1 0 ....i.xe6
1 1 t2Jxe6 1fd6 12 xg4 t2Jg6 13 g2 t2JeS
14 h3 c6 1 5 0-0 gives White some com
pensation (Monson), but Black can also play
the crazy-looking 1 O... t2Jc6!?
This is another interesting Monson idea.
One continuation is 1 1 t2JxdS t2Jxd4 12 'Yi'd3
t2Jf3+ 13 'it'e2 c6 14 t2Jxc6 bxc6 1 5 SLg2 fS
which, according to Monson, is a terrible
mess. Well, he is obviously right! Fritz 7 quite
amusingly assesses this position as -0.03 after
a few moments breath!
7 ... d6? is bad: S .i.h3! (Black wins amus
ingly after S gxfS? xfS 9 h3 xh3 10
xe4+ \t>d7! 11 t2Jgs 'Yi'eS) S ...g6 9 gxfS gxfS
10 t2Jxd4 with a clear advantage for White.
S .tf4?!
After this move Black is doing very well,
but the normal suggestion is S gxfS, after
which theory thinks Black is slighdy better.
Probably he is even more than this after
S . .d6! 9 c4 bS!. Bent Larsen once said
.
that you should accept almost all material on
offer, if it is not losing direcdy - you can
always return it! Well, this is also the philoso
phy of chess computers and an important
part of modern chess, which seems to be
getting wilder. One continuation is 10 'iVxbS
(1 0 'iVb3 t2Jcs 1 1 t2Jg5+ xgS 12 xgS
t2Jxb3 1 3 axb3 b7 and Black is probably
just winning) 10 .. J:teS 1 1 e2 as with a win
ning initiative for Black.

Theory normally prefers 8... ..lT/.c5?! but
White has some interesting tactics now: 9
tDxc7! ..IT/.b4+ (9 .. :filxc7 10 'ii'xe4 tDe7 1 1 ..IT/.f4
looks good for White) 10 dl tDxf2+ 1 1
xf2 'fiIxc7 1 2 ..IT/.c4+ f8 1 3 tDxd4 'fiId6 and
maybe White is actually somewhat better
here. His development obviously looks bet
ter, and after 14 c3 Black has no obvious way
to proceed because 1 4...tDxd4 1 5 xd4
xd4+ 1 6 cxd4 ..IT/.e7 1 7 .ll.e3 must be much
better for White.
8 . . . d6?
Looks natural, but now Black has prob
lems with the development of his kingside.
Better was 8 ... ..lT/.d6!, when Black is simply
better. One line goes 9 ..Il.xd6 tDxd6 1 0 0-0-0
l:te8 1 1 d3 fxg4 with a clear advantage.
9 O-O-a?
White could have kept the balance here
with 9 gxf5 .1t.xf5 10 0-0-0 d7 1 1 tDxd4
tDxd4 1 2 l:txd4 l:te8 13 f3!, when the posi
tion might not be comfortable, but for
whom?
9 . . . e6 1 0 c4 tLle7!
Now White is finished.
1 1 tLlxc7 xc4 1 2 xc4+ d5 1 3 tLle5+
g8 14 tLlxd5 xd5!?
This works well. 1 4... tDxd5 1 5 l:.xd4 tDef6
16 l:txd5 tDxd5 17 lIdl .i.d6 1 8 ..Il.xd5+ 'it>f8
is the materialist's guide to a quick win.
1 5 .!:lxd4 Vixc4 1 6 l:txc4 tLlf6 1 7 h4 fxg4
1 8 h5 tLled5 1 9 g5 tLlb6 20 J:If4 tLlbd5
21 .l:t.f5 iLe7 22 h6 g6 0-1
Th e B e /g r a de G a m b i t
Game 63
Hartoch-Timman
Leeuwarden 1978
1 e4 e5 2 tLlc3 tLlf6 3 tLlf3 tLlc6 4 d4
exd4 5 tLld5 tLlxe4 6 Vie2 f5 7 iLf4?!
This idea does not fit in well. The move
... d7 -d6 proves to be more useful for Black
than .ll. f4 is for White.
7 . . . d6
8 0-0-0
Or 8 tDg5 and now:
a) 8... d3 9 cxd3 tDd4 1 0 h5+ g6 1 1 'fiIh4
c6 1 2 dxe4 cxd5 1 3 exd5 ..Il.g7 14 'iVh3! is
unclear according to Monson. This line has
so many possibilities for improvements that I
do not know where to start. Maybe with 9
xd3, when White avoids a lot of possible
improvements later on in the variation!
b) 8 ...tDe5!? 9 tDxe4 fxe4 10 'fiIxe4 c6 1 1
tDb4 'ii'f6 1 2 0-0-0 ..IT/.f5 with very easy play
for Black.
c) I recommend the untried 8...tDe7!? 9
tDxe4 fxe4 10 'fiIxe4 c6 1 1 tDxe7 (1 1 tDb4
'fiIb6 12 tDd3 i.f5 is horrible for White)
1 1 ...xe7 12 "iYxe7+ ..Il.xe7 1 3 0-0-0 0-0 1 4
..Il.g3 .1t.g5+ 1 5 b 1 .i.f4 16 xd4 ..IT/.xg3 1 7
fxg3 d 5 with a good endgame for Black.
8 . . . tLle7!
A classical solution to a simple problem.
The knight on d5 was annoying, so it is elimi
nated.
1 25
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
9 tDxe7 iLxe7 10 g4?
1 0 lLlxd4 0-0 1 1 f3 Sii.gS 1 2 .i.xgS Wixg5+
1 3 'iitb 1 lLlcs 1 4 l\Vf2 .i.d7 1 5 Sii.c4+ 'iith8 1 6
h4 'tWh6 1 7 l::th e1 l::tae8 and Black has a pawn
for virtually nothing, Van Oosterom
Timmerman, correspondence. 1 986.
1 0 . . . c5
White has completely lost the opening
battle. He has no real compensation for his
two pawns.
1 1 i.h3?!
After 1 1 gxfS .i.xfS 12 J::tg1 aS White
will also come under attack, but the text is
even worse.
1 1 .. .fxg4 1 2 xe4 d5!
White must have missed that one. After
1 2...gxh3?! 1 3 Sii.gs dS 14 'tieS White has
some initiative.
1 3 e5 O-O!
Now it is all over.
1 4 :hg 1 i.f6 1 5 ifh5 gxf3 1 6 .l:!.g3 iLh4
1 7 iLxc8 I.1xc8 1 8 iLg5 i.xg5+ 1 9 .I:.xg5
ife8 20 h6 liitf7 21 .:r.dg1 l::tc c7 22
.l:txd5 ':'ce7 23 <;;>d 1 lIe5 24 .l:!.xe5 xe5
0-1
Game 64
Monson-Milat
correspondence 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 d4
exd4 5 tDd5 tDxe4 6 ife2 f5 7 tDg5
This is the direct attempt. The question is
126
whether it is too direct.
7 . . . d3! 8 cxd3
White has little choice. After 8 "iixd3?
lLlb4 9 e2 lLlxdS 1 0 lLlxe4 .i.e7! (1O ... fxe4?
1 1 "iih 5+ g6 12 "iie5+ e7 1 3 xh8 favours
White) 1 1 Sii.d2 lLlb6! (1 1 ...0-0?! 1 2 "iic4 c6
1 3 lLlc3 'tWaS 1 4 0-0-0 quite unnecessarily
gives White the initiative) 1 2 lLlg3 0-0 Black
is a pawn up with no worries.
8 . . . tDd4 9 ifh5+
After 9 lLlxe4?? lLlxe2 1 0 Sii.gS Black came
up with the stunning novelty 1 0...lLlf4!! 1 1
Sii.xf4 (1 1 Sii.xd8 lLlxdS 1 2 Sii.gs fxe4 1 3 dxe4
lLlb4 and Black wins - Lumachi) 1 1 ...fxe4 1 2
lLlxc7+ 'iitf7 1 3 lLlxa8 Sii.b4+ 1 4 Sii.d2 .i.xd2+
1 5 xd2 iVa5+ 1 6 'iitd 1 dS and White re
signed, Imperiali-Lumachi, correspondence
1 994.
9 . . . g6 1 0 ifh4 c6!
This move is very accurate. After
1 0...lLlc2+ 1 1 'iii>d l lLlxa1 1 2 dxe4 c6 1 3 exf5!
cxdS 14 lli'd4 l::!.g8 1 5 f6 White wins - Keres.
1 1 dxe4
White has little choice. After 1 1 lLlc3
lLlxc3 1 2 bxc3 lLlc2-H (1 2...lLle6 gives Black a
clear advantage - Monson) 1 3 dl lLlxal
White has no real threats for his rook and
will soon lose the game.
1 1 " .cxd5 1 2 exd5
Maybe White is not so badly off after 1 2
exfS?! lLlxfS 1 3 "iVh3 Sii.b4+ 1 4 'iii>d l "iVe7 1 5
Sii.d3 0-0 1 6 a3, when the king is strangely
safe on dl and the pieces will develop quite

easily. But Black has the much stronger
1 2... .i.g7!, taking over the initiative and
threatening ... h7-h6 amongst other things.
1 2 :a5+
. .
12 ... iLb7 is discussed in the next game.
1 3 i.d2!
13 d1 !? quite amusingly leads directly to
a forced draw after 13 ...'ihd5 14 i.c4! 'iVxc4
15 l::te 1+ iLe7 1 6 l::txe7+ cj;;xe7 1 7 liJe4+ and
now:
a) 1 7...e6 1 8 'iVf6+ d5 1 9 liJc3+ cj;;c5
20 b4+ (20 .i.e3 l:!.e8! 21 b4+ 'iVxb4 22 .i:tel
l::txe3 23 fxe3 liJc6 and Black wins - Gut
man) 20...'it>xb4 21 'ikd6+ cj;;a 5! (21 ... cj;;xc3?
22 'i/j'a3+ liJb3 23 .i.b2-H [but not 23 'irb2+?
'it>b4 24 iLd2+ c5 25 axb3 'iNf1+ 26 c2
'iNxf2 27 'iVe5+ cj;;c6 28 d3 and White has a
winning attack- Monson, although 28 ... b6 29
l::tc 1+ 'iWc5! 30 llxc5+ bxc5 does not seem to
be completely clear] 23... d3 24 .l:i.el and
White wins, as after 24 .. :iVf7 25 'itb4! liJxel
26 'iWd4 Black is horribly mated) 22 a3+
b6 23 'iNd6+ a5 (23... liJc6? 24 liJd5+ a6!
25 liJc7+ 'it>a5 26 iLd2+ 'it>a4 27 l::tb 1 ! gives
'hite a strong attack, for example 27".'iWg4+
28 f3 'i/j'd4 29 liJd5 and liJc3+ comes next) 24
'iNa3+ 1/2_1/2 Varady-Larsson, correspondence
1 96 1 .
b) Black can also play 1 7 ...g5 1 8 iLxgS+!
(1 8 'iVxg5+ 'it>e6 1 9 'iVf6+ d5 20 liJc3+ c5
21 b4+ 'it>xb4 would lead to note 'a' but
without Black's g-pawn; I cannot see that this
will make any difference) 1 8...e6 1 9 'tib6+
'it>e5 20 'iNd6+ 'it>xe4 21 f3+ liJxf3! (21 ...'it>d3
22 'ii'a3+ liJb3 23 .:tel !! gives White a win
ning attack) 22 gxf3+ cj;;x f3 23 'iVg3+ cj;;e4 24
'it'f4+ 'iitd5 25 'iYxf5+ d6! (but not
25 ... c6? 26 l::te l 'iVxc1+ 27 <;t>xel l::te 8 28
'ii'c2+ d5 29 'i/j'd3+ cj;;c 5 30 .i.e3+ cj;;c6 31
'it'c4+ 'iitd6 32 .i.c5+ cj;;e5 33 .i.d4+ cj;;f4 34
'ii'f7+ and White wins) 26 .i.f4+ e7 27
'ii'e 5+ f7 28 'iWf5+ 'it>g8 29 'iVg4+ and again
it's a perpetual check.
1 3 . . :!Va4
1 3 ... 'iVxd5 14 0-0-0 iLg7? 1 5 .i.c3! would
lose, but Black would also be in an awkward
Th e B e /g ra de G a m b i t
situation after moves like 1 4. . ..i.e7.
1 4 'ilfg3 f4!
All lines seems to lead to a draw here,
even highly risky ones starting with
1 4...liJc2+!? This should probably be investi
gated more than it has been so far: 1 5 d1 !
liJxa1+ (1 5 ...liJe3+ 1 6 e2 f4 1 7 'iVf3 iVb5+
11 7 ... 'ii'c4+ 1 8 e1 liJxfl 19 'iVc3! gives
White a clear advantage - Monson] 1 8 cj;;e 1
'iVxb2 1 9 l::te l liJxfl 20 'iVe4+ iLe7 21 xfl
and White has a strong and probably decisive
attack) 16 b3
and now:
a) Black is lost after 1 6 .. .'ti'd4 1 7 iLc4
liJxb3 (17 ....i.c5 18 l:i.e1+ f8 19 liJf3 and
White wins; 1 7 ... .i.e7 1 8 .l:te1 f8 1 9 liJf3
'iWg7 20 iLg5! would also give White a win
ning attack) 1 8 J::!.e1+ .i.e7 1 9 iLxb3 <;t>f8
(19 ... d6 20 liJf3 'ika1+ 21 cj;;c2 f4 22 'it'xf4
'iVg7 23 iLc3 'iYf8 24 'iVxd6 i.. f5+ 25 b2
gives White a winning attack - the rooks are
of no value to Black's king) 20 .i:!.xe7 xe7
21 liJf3 'iVa1+ 22 cj;;c2 d6 23 .i.c3 and White
is winning, Svensson-Huglof, correspon
dence 1 969.
b) Black needs to seek survival with the
exchange of queens: 16 ...'it'g4+1 17 'iVxg4
fxg4 1 8 iLb5!? (1 8 i.c3 l:tg8 1 9 i.c4 d6 20
l:te1+ d8 21 .i.f6+ c7 22 iLxal gives
White good compensation, but Black can
also defend) 1 8... iLe7 19 l:!.e 1 'iitf8 20 d6 iLf6
21 liJe4 i..g7 22 .i.g5 and Black resigned in
Meier-Kretschmar, correspondence 1 964.
127
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Maybe Black should have investigated
22.....te5!, when I do not see any win for
White. There is repetition with 23 ..th6+ iLg7
24 iLg5, but that seems to be it. White does
win, however, after 22 ... iLd4? 23 'bf6!.
1 5 ..bf4!
A fter 1 5 'i!Vc3 iLg7 16 1:.c1 O-O! 1 7 b3
'i!Vxa2 1 8 d6 1:.e8+ 1 9 d1 'be6 20 1Wc4
Monson believes that \X/hite has a good
game. But let us take the analysis a bit fur
ther: 20 ...b5! 21 'i!Vxb5 'bxg5 22 'i!Vxg5
'iY'xb3+ 23 1:.c2 iYb 1+ 24 .l:i.el i*b3+ (here
Black could take a draw, but why not try for
more?) 25 J::!.c2 h8!? 26 iLc4 6 27 h4 (27
'i!Vxf4 iLa6 28 iLe3 iYb 1+ 29 !.tel 'iVb7 would
also give Black a fantastic game) 27 ... iLb7 28
h5 iLe4 and Black has a very powerful attack.
A funny line is 1 5 iYxf4?? 'bc2+ 1 6 d1
(1 6 e2 'iY'xf4 17 iLxf4 'bxal is just win
ning) 1 6 ... 'be}t! and Black ,,-ins.
(1 8...'bc2+ with a draw is of course possible)
1 9 'l.t>xd2 1Wd4+ 20 iLd3 'bc4+ 21 'l.t>el 'bxb2
is apparendy good for Black, but after 22
'l.t>e2 0-0 23 'bxh7! 1:.xf2+ 24 'i!Vxf2 1Wxd3+ 25
'l.t>e1 iYc3+ 26 \t>f1 xh7 27 1:.el ! White has
good chances of generating an initiative. Ac
tually Black only has one defence: 27 ... 4
28 d6 'iVb5+ 29 g1 'iVb6!, pinning the
queen. Now after 30 1:.e3 g7! the game ,,-ill
end in perpetual with 31 h4!? 'bc4 32 1:.e7+
g8!, as 32... h6?? 33 g4! 'i!Vxf2+ 34 \t>xf2
g5 35 g3 'bxd6 36 h5! sees the black king
trapped in a mating net starting with 37 l:tfl !.
18 . . ."iVb5+ 1 9 xe3 xd2+ 20 xd2
"iVxb2+ 21 e3 "iVxa1 22 d3 'ilVf6
22 ..."iVxh 1 ?? 23 1We5+ gives a mating at
tack.
23 l2Jxh7 l:lxh7 24 xg6+ ':f7 25 J:t.c 1 !

Here we actually leave the game, which

1 5 . . .b4+ 1 6 d2 l2Jc2+!
This is probably the simplest line. Also
possible are:
a) 16 ... iLxd2+ 17 xd2 'iV'c2+ 1 8 e1 0-0
1 9 iLd3 'i!Vxb2 20 1:.b 1 'iV'dt 21 f1 'bf3 22
gxf3 'i!Vxd3+ 23 'itg2 'iV'xd5 24 l:tbd1 and
Black has compensation for the sacrificed
pawn - Monson.
b) 1 6... 0-0!? 17 iLd3 iLxd2+ 1 8 xd2
4+ 19 d1 "iVa4+ 20 d2 'iVb4+ with a
draw.
1 7 d 1 l2Je3+ 1 8 e2!?
A winning attempt. 1 8 e1 iLxd2+
continued 25 iLxf7+? xf7 26 1:.el d6 27
1:.c7+ f8 28 'iVf4!? iLf5! with a clear advan
tage for Black. Instead we follow the position
to its logical conclusion.
25 . . . b6?
An incorrect winning attempt. Best is
25 .. :iHb6+ 26 'it>e2 iYb5+ 27 'l.t>e3 'i!Vb6+ with
a draw.
26 c4 a6 27 xf7 + Viixf7 28 e4+
d8 29 e5 c8 30 'ilVe8+! Viixe8 31
J:!.xe8+ b7 32 J:t.xa8 xa8 33 h4
Now White wins easily after
33 . . . c4 34 h5 xd5 35 h6 g8 36 f4
b7 37 f5 c6 38 f6 and 39 f7!

1 28

Game 65
Van Der Weide-Timmermans
Sas Van Gent 1996
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 d4
exd4 5 4Jd5 4Jxe4 6 e2 f5 7 4Jg5 d3 8
cxd3 4Jd4 9 h5+ g6 1 0 h4 c6 1 1
dxe4 cxd5 1 2 exd5 g7 !?
This seems to be very healthy. As White
moves his king anyway, why give a check?
Why not just finish development first?
1 3 d 1 !
There are of course some alternatives, but
none of them is any good:
a) 1 3 ii.c4?! h6 14 'iUg3 b5! (after 1 4...hxg5
1 5 ii.xg5 ii.f6 1 6 ii.xf6 'iUxf6 1 7 0-0-0 b5 1 8
'iUe3+ <ot>d8 1 9 ii.f1 l:.h4 20 f4 ttJc6 21 dxc6
'iHxc6+ 22 Wbl ii.b7 23 ii.d3 'iUxg2 24 'iHe5
White had a clear advantage in Monson
Chess Master 4000, 1 994) 1 5 ttJh3 bxc4 1 6
'iVxg6+ f8 1 7 ii.e3 ttJc2+ 1 8 We2 ttJxe3 1 9
fxe3 'iWf6 and Black wins - Monson.
b) 13 'iWg3?! 0-0 14 d6 (1 4 ii.d3 'iHa5+ 1 5
f1 b6 1 6 3 h6 1 7 ttJf3 'iWxd5 gave
\'hite an awful position in Nikonov
Yudovich, USSR 1 949) 1 4 .. :a5+ 1 5 d1
'iHd5 16 d3 b5 1 7 .l:i.e1 ttJc6 1 8 'iVf3 'i'xd6
1 9 ii.f4 'iHd4 and Black is clearly better.
c) 1 3 'ilh3 h6 14 ttJf3 ttJc2+ 1 5 d1 ttJxa1
16 'i'g3 'i'f6 and White is a rook down.
1 3 . . . h6 1 4 4Jf3 4Jxf3!
Simple and good.
Th e B e /grade G a m b i t
1 5 xd8+ xd8 1 6 gxf3 d6
Or 1 6 ... ii.d4 17 h4 We7 1 8 c2 b6 1 9
l:.gl (1 9 ii.e3 ii.xe3 20 fxe3 ii.b7 21 ii.c4
d6 would give Black a pleasant endgame)
1 9 ... f7 20 .i.e3 .i.xe3 with a likely draw.
1 7 f4?!
Played with the idea of stopping ... g6-g5.
But it would have been better to meet this
head on with 17 g1 g5 1 8 h4 g4 1 9 .i.e2!
(1 9 fxg4? fxg4 2() ii.e2 .i.d4 21 el h5 gave
Black a clear advantage in Wieringa-Van der
Tak, Haarlem 1976) 1 9...l':tg8! (1 9 ... .i.d4 20
.l:tg2 h5 21 ii.g5+ <t;c7 22 .uc1+ b8 23 c4!
ii.xb2 24 ii.e7 .i.a3 25 fxg4 fxg4 is a little
better for White - Monson; actually he is
close to winning with 26 .l:tg3! .l:th7 27 .i.f6
.i.c5 28 l:.xc5 dxc5 29 ii.e5+ .l:tc7 30 f3 b5 31
d6 l:.d7 32 fxg4 and Black is completely
dominated) 20 l:tb 1 b6 21 .i.f4 .i.d4 22 e1
.l:te8 23 'it>f1 gxf3 24 ii.xf3 ii.a6+ with a level
endgame.
1 7 . . . .ltd7 1 8 c4?!
Equally bad is 1 8 lIg1 .i.a4+ 1 9 We 1 ii.e8
with a clear advantage for Black.
1 8 . . . .l:!.c8 1 9 b3 e7! 20 ge 1 + f7 21
l:.e2 .!:the8 22 e3 g5?
After this mistake White gets organised.
Black would have been much better after
22... .tb5! 23 l:td2 as 24 a4 ii.c4 25 ii.xc4
.l:!.xc4 26 .l:!.c2 .i:!.b4 - \x<'hite has a bad struc
ture and no counterplay.
23 '!:!:'c1 J:Ixc1 + 24 .fxc1 l:l.xe2 25 'it>xe2
gxf4 26 xf4 e5 Y, y, -
1 29
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Summary
The best line for Black is probably 5 ... iLe7, when he is bound to obtain equality in more or less
every line. I recommend that Black avoids 5 ... ttJxe4 (too many complications and too much
forcing theory to remember) and 5 ... ttJxd5 6 exd5 ..tb4+, where the ending looks better for
White.
For \X1hite I can only recommend that you play something else. This gambit is on the whole
a bit dodgy and should be limited to blitz games and other situations where the opponent does
not have a chance to think things through.

1 e4 e5 2 4:lf3 4:lc6 3 4:lc3 4:lf6 4 d4 exd4 5 4:ld5 4:lxe4

5 ...ttJxd5 6 exd5
6 ... .iLb4+ - Game 51; 6 ...ttJb4 Game 52
-

5 ...ttJb4 6 .iLc4 (D)

6 ... ttJbxd5 - Game 53; 6 ... ttJfxd5 - Game 54
5 ... iLe7
-6 iLc4 Game 59
6 Ji.f4
6 ... 0-0 - Game 58
6 ... d6 7 ttJxd4 0-0 8 ttJb5 ttJxd5 9 exd5
- 9 ... a6 Game 55; 9 ...ttJb4 Game 56; 9 ...ttJe5 - Game 57
-

6 e2
6 iLc4 .iLe7 7 ttJxd4 0-0 8 ttJb5
8 ... ..tb4+ - Game 60; 8 ... ..tc5 - Game 61
6 . . .f5 (D) 7 4:lg5
7 iLf4 Game 63; 7 g4 Game 62
- -

7 . . . d3 8 cxd3 4:ld4 9 'i!fh5+ g6 1 0 'i!Vh4 c6 1 1 dxe4 cxd5 1 2 exd5 (0) j.,g7 - Game 65
1 2 .. ."YWa5+ - Game 64

6 j.,c4 6. . . f5 12 exd5

1 30
 CHAPTER NINE I
The Glek System
with 4 .ic5 . . .
1 e4 e S 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3
cS
4 g3 has been named the Glek System by
everyone writing about it, and with good
reason. As you shall see in this and the com
ing chapters, the Russian Grandmaster Igor
Glek, at one time number 12 in the world, is
a great champion of this system. No player in
modern times has created a system in such a
way and made it his own as Glek has done
with 4 g3. The closest sibling to the Glek
System occurs in the Vienna Opening, when
after 1 e4 e5 2 ttJc3 ttJf6, the move 3 g3 is
sometimes played.
The key idea of the Glek System is to play
the position closed rather than open, al
though White does often put pressure on the
Black centre with d2-d4 or with f2-f4, often
in combination with h2-h3 and g3-g4. In this
way the Glek System might seem a little
modest to start with, but as the opening de
velops it becomes apparent that White can
organise an initiative and that Black should
be careful and well prepared.
4.....ic5 is unsurprisingly the most popular
choice after 4 g3. First of all, Black does not
open the long diagonal for White's bishop as
he does with ...d7-d5. Secondly, the bishop is
very naturally placed on c5, aiming at the
weakest white point on f2.
White has no real choice but to proceed
with 5 .i.g2 and slow development. Black
then should play 5...d6 and later ...a7-a6 to
organise a safe heaven for the bishop on a7,
otherwise White will gain the bishop pair
with a timely ttJa4 and claim a slight advan
tage.
The overall prospects for an advantage for
White after 4... .i.c5 are slim; the positions are
close to equality or simply equal.
Game 66
Pinski-Pedzich
Czestochowa 1998
1 e4 eS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3
.i.cs S g2
Not 5 ttJxe5?? ttJxe5 6 d4 i.xd4! and
Black wins.
S . . . d6
Some poor souls have tried 5...a6?! 6
ttJxe5! (now this works) 6...ttJxe5 7 d4 .i.xd4
(after 7....i.d6 8 dxe5 .i.xe5 9 f4 i..xc3+ 10
bxc3 d6 11 e5 'ili'e7 12 i.a3 e6 13 O-O!
White already has a winning advantage:
13...dxe5 14 fxe5 ttJg4 15 ..idS 6+ 16
'iVd4 Wixd4+ 17 cxd4 ttJh6 18 .ti.abl ttJf5 19
.ti.xb7 ttJe3 20 .i.c6+ 1-0 Glek-Aagaard, Co
penhagen 1996) 8 'iVxd4 d6 9 f4 ttJc6 10
'iVd2! 0-0 11 0-0 ttJe8 12 b3 and White was
131
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
clearly better, Glek-Jonkman, Haarlem 1 995.
6 d3 0-0
Black is trying to play without the prophy
lactic move ... a7-a6. However, exchanging
the c3-knight for the c5-bishop will promise
White some advantage.
6... i.e6 can also be answered by 7 ctJa4!
and now:
a) 7 ...i.b6?! 8 ctJxb6 (8 ctJg5!?) 8... axb6 9
0-0 0-0 10 b3 d5 1 1 exd5 ctJxd5 12 1i.b2 f6
1 3 d4 exd4 14 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 5 'ilVxd4 c6 1 6
fe1 e8 1 7 a3 b5 1 8 l:!.e2 1i.f7 1 9 ae1
with a clear advantage for White in Glek
Swinkels, Zwolle 2002.
b) 7 ... h6 8 c3 d7 9 0-0 i.h3 10 d4 i.xg2
1 1 'iitxg2 i.b6 12 Mel 0-0, Hector
Christiansen, Reykjavik 1 998. Now 13 d5!
ctJe7 14 b4 with the idea c2-c4 gives White
some advantage.
7 tDa4! i.e6
7 ... i.b6 8 ctJxb6 axb6 9 0-0 is also a little
better for White.
8 0-0 'i'd7 9 i.g5! tDg4 1 0 tDxc5 dxc5
1 1 h3 h6
Forced. After 1 1 ...ctJf6?! 12 i.xf6 gxf6 1 3
'iith2 Black's pawn structure is terrible.
1 2 i.d2!
1 2 i.h4? f6! 1 3 hxg4 i.xg4! 1 4 c3 g5 is a
nice trap - Black is better here.
1 2 . . .tDf6 1 3 i.c3?
Ths exchange is a mistake. I should have
played 1 3 'iith2! with some advantage, e.g.
1 3. ..'ii'd6 14 1i.c3 ctJd4 1 5 ctJxd4!? cxd4 1 6
i.d2 ctJd7 1 7 f4 and White has the initiative.
1 3 . . .i.xh3! 1 4 tDxe5 tDxe5 1 5 i.xe5
i.xg2 1 6 xg2 tDg4!
I missed this move when I played 13 1i.c3.
1 7 i.f4
At fIrst I thought that I had this small
combination 1 7 i.xc7. But after 1 7 ... f5!
(17 ... ctJxf2 is also playable) Black has a very
strong attack, for example: 1 8 1i.f4 (1 8 exf5
'ilVxf5 1 9 i.f4 d5+ 20 'iWf3 'iYxf3+ 21 'iitxf3
ctJh2+ and Black should win) 1 8 ...ctJf6 19 f3
ctJh5 20 i.e3 f4! 21 1i.xc5 (21 1i.xf4 ctJxf4+
22 gxf4 I:i.xf4 23 l:th 1 l:!.af8 is uncomfortable
1 32
for White) 21...ctJxg3! 22 xf8 xf8! 23 cl
'ilVb5!? and Black has a lot of compensation
for the sacrificed material. Both ...'iWxb2 and
.. li'g5! are looming.
1 7 . . .f5 1 8 f3?!
Better was 1 8 d2! g5 19 i.e3 b6 with an
unclear position.
1 8 . . .tDf6 1 9 'i'd2 .l:!ae8 20 J:iae 1 ?!
20 h1 !, preventing ... ctJh5!, was better.
20 . . .tDh5! 21 i.xh6?
Pure bluff. I have always admired Tal's
play. Therefore I never miss a chance to play
like my hero. 21 i.e3 'ilVd6 gives Black a
slight edge.
21 . . . gxh6 22 'i'xh6 tUg7
Black correctly retains the piece. After
22 ... fxe4? 23 1i'xh5 exf3+ 24 l::tx f3 .:txe1 25
g5+ g7 26 1i'd5+ .:tf7 27 'ilVd8+ 'ilVf8 28
'ii'g5+ 'iith8 29 'iVh5+ g8 White has made a
miraculous escape.
23 h1 'i'd6?
But this is a grave mistake that only helps
White to accelerate his attack. Black could
have retained a clear advantage with 23 ...'iit f7'
24 f4 d6 25 e5 'ii'd4. Now White can try:
a) 26 .:te4 'ilVxb2 27 e6+ 'iitg8 28 4
xc2+ 29 'iitf1 xd3+ 30 f2 'iVd2+ 31 f1
'ilVd1+ 32 e1 'ilVxf3+ 33 'iitg1 'iVh5! (the easi
est way to stop the counterplay) 34 xh5
ctJxh5 35 llxh5 .:tf6 and Black will win the
endgame.
b) 26 e6+l? (trying to complicate)
26... ctJxe6 (26 ... .:txe6? 27 1i'xc7+) 27 xf5+

(27 l:th7+ <;t>g8 [27...tLlg7? 28 l:txg7+ 'fixg7 29
'iVxf5+ 'it>g8 30 'iVd5+ 'fif7 31 'fig5+ 'iVg7 is a
draw by perpetual check] 28 'fih6 tLlg7 29 c3
'iVd7 30 l:txe8 lhe8 31 l:th8+ <;t>f7 32 l:th7
l:!.g8 and the attack has been repelled)
27 ... 'fif6 28 l:!.h5 xf5 29 l:txf5+ g8 30
l:!.fe5 tLlg7 and Black has great winning
chances in the ending.
24 iVh7+ c,t>f7 25 J:ih5!
Maybe Black missed this one? After 25
l:!.h6? l:th8! Black is clearly better.
25 . . . l:i.e6?!
Better was 25 .. .l::t e5 26 f4 l:te6 27 l:txf5+
l:tf6 28 l:txf6+ xf6 29 e5 'iYc6+ 30 g1 l:te8
31 f5, though White should still win.
25 ...Wie5 26 l:txf5+ Wixf5 27 exf5 l:he1 28
'iVg6+ 'it>g8 29 f6 also wins for White.
26 l:txf5+ c,t>e8 27 J:!.g5!
White has three pawns for the piece and
now the knight is trapped!
27 . . . e4 28 1:txg7 l:!.h6 29 l:te7+ c,t>d8 30
J:td7+ c,t>e8 31 J:te7+ c,t>d8 32 J:td7+ c,t>e8
33 J:.xd6 .l:!.xh7 34 J:td4 .l:!.fh8 35 f4 l:.h2+
36 c,t>f3 exd3 37 l::lxd3 J:!.xe2 38 .l:!.e3
.l:!.xb2 39 J:.xe7 J:!hh2 40 g4 .l:!.b6 41 f5
d8 42 .l:!.g7 l:!.b4 43 f4 a5 44 a3 .l:!.b3
45 e5 l:lf2+ 46 g4 1 -0
Game 67
Seger-Koch
Dortmund 200 1
1 e4 e5 2 cuf3 cue6 3 cue3 cuf6 4 g3
Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 . . Jl.. c 5 .
Jl..e 5 5 Jl.. g 2 d 6 6 d 3 Jl..g4 7 h3
Also possible is 7 tLla4!? and now:
a) 7...d7 8 h3 iLh5 9 g5 iLxf3 1 0
iLxf3 tLld4? ( 1 o. . .Wie 6 1 1 c 3 with only a slight
edge for White was more natural) 1 1 tLlxc5
dxc5 12 xf6 gxf6 1 3 iLg4 gave White a
clear edge in Vitolins-Agzamov, Moscow
1 967.
b) 7 ... b6 8 tLlxb6 axb6 9 h3 is slightly
better for White.
c) 7 ...tLld7 8 h3 i.h5 9 c3 i.xf2+ 1 0 'it>xf2
b5 1 1 b4 bxa4 12 'iixa4 tLle7 1 3 tLlh4 0-0 14
tLlfS and White had a slight advantage in
Averbakh-Spassky, USSR 1 963.
7 . . .Jl..e6
7 ... iLxf3 8 SLxf3 tLld4 9 iLg2 b5 10 0-0
0-0 1 1 <;t>h2!, with the idea f2-f4, secures
White a small plus.
8 cua4 Jl.. b6 9 cuxb6 axb6 1 0 0-0 h6
After 1 0...0-0 1 1 tLlg5! iLd7 1 2 f4 h6 13
tLlf3 l:.e8 1 4 g4 White organised a menacing
offensive in Kovalev-Kepp, Germany 1 995.
1 1 d4
1 1 . . .Jl..d7
A bad mistake would be 1 1 ...iLxa2?? Af
ter 1 2 d5 tLle7 13 tLld2! tLlg6 14 b3 l:.a6 1 5
i.b2 a8 1 6 tLlc4 b5 1 7 tLle3 Black does not
necessarily lose the bishop straightaway, but
half his army is used up fighting not to lose
it. Probably the bishop will be lost sooner or
later anyway.
1 2 b3 0-0
12 .. .'iVc8 13 h2 would lead to a slight
1 33
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
advantage for White after 1 3 ... 0-0, while
Black would get into trouble with 1 3 . ..ctJxe4?!
14 dxeS dxeS 1 5 i.b2 MaS 16 b4! tiJxb4?!
(1 6 ...l:!.a4 1 7 tiJxeS Mxb4 1 8 tiJd3 Mxb2 1 9
tiJxb2 and White is clearly better, but this is
what Black should learn to live with) 1 7
tiJxeS tiJf6 1 8 tiJxd7 xd7 1 9 l::te1 + 'it'd8 20
.txf6+ gxf6 21 'iVf3 and White has a winning
attack.
1 3 i..b 2
13 dS!?
1 3 . . .1:1e8
Better here was 1 3 ...exd4! 1 4 tiJxd4 Me8
1 5 Me 1 tiJxd4 1 6 'i!Vxd4 .tc6 17 a3 Me6 1 8
Madl e7! with counterplay against the e4-
pawn. White retains a small edge, as he has
the two bishops, but it is nothing speciaL
1 4 l:!.e1
Here White should play 14 dS!. After the
black rook has gone to e8 this move is even
more sensible. 1 4... tiJe7 1 5 tiJd2 b5 1 6 f4
tiJg6 1 7 fS gives White a lasting initiative.
1 4 . . . iVe8?!
Black should still open the position. After
14 ... exd4 1 5 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 1 6 xd4 .ic6 1 7
f4 White is somewhat better.
1 5 h2
1 5 dS!.
1 5 . . . lUh7?
Neither player really cares about the centre
it seems. After I S ... exd4 1 6 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 1 7
i.xd4 Me6 1 8 f4 i.c6 1 9 f5 M e7 20 i.xf6
gxf6 21 iVg4+ 'it'h7 22 4 iVh8 Black is
only slighdy worse.
1 6 d2
Now after 16 dS tiJe7 17 c4 tiJg6 18 d3
fS! 1 9 exfS i.xfS 20 e2 tiJf6 21 tiJd2 White
is only very slighdy better.
1 6 . . . f6
Black can no longer exchange on d4, as af
ter 1 6 ... exd4 1 7 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 (Black loses a
piece after 1 7 ...tiJgS?! 1 8 f4 tiJxh3? 1 9 iVc3
tiJxd4 20 xd4 f6 21 c4+ h8 22 f1 - ..\te5 5 i..g 2 d6 6 d3 lUd4!?
the knight is trapped) 1 8 xd4 tiJf6 1 9 d2
Me6 20 f4 \X1}Ute is clearly better (f4-fS is an
obvious threat) .
1 34
1 7 a4 lUg5
17 ... tiJxd4 18 tiJxd4 exd4 19 xd4 tiJgs
20 f4 tiJf7 21 c4 shows White domination.
1 8 lUxg5 hxg5 1 9 dxe5 dxe5
Or 19 ...tiJxeS 20 f4 tiJf7 21 .l::l.adl i.c6 22
.if3 with an advantage for White.
20 J:!.ad 1 ..\te6 21 f4 gxf4 22 gxf4 exf4
23 'it'xf4 J:!.a5
Black is also in trouble after 23... i.f7 24
eS fxeS 25 i.xeS tiJxeS 26 MxeS Mxe5 27
'i'xeS. He cannot really free himself because
after 27...MaS? 28 e7! White wins.
24 J:!.g1
Also possible was 24 !:te3 MgS 25 Mg3
Mxg3 26 xg3 tiJeS 27 i.h1 ! with a clear
advantage. The idea is to use the g-file for a
direct attack.
24 . . . h5 25 i..f 1 l::th 7? 26 xf6 J:1e7 27
iVe3
Now Black is lost.
27 . . . ..\tg4 28 .!:!.d5 f7 29 J:!.g5 J:1f2+ 30
J:tg2 J:!.f3 31 J:txg7+ f8 32 fixf3+ ! iLxf3
33 .1:.g8+ 1 -0
Game 68
Schmaltz-Romanishin
Franken 2001
1 e4 e5 2 lUf3 lUe6 3 lUe3 lUf6 4 g3
An unusual but perfecdy viable road to
equaliry. One should always remember that
in the Glek System White is not really trying

to get an opening advantage. He is trying to
create a real battle instead of the usual long
theoretical lines, where the pieces get
chopped off straight from the opening.
7 lDa4
Also possible is 7 liJxd4 xd4 and now:
a) S 0-0 g4 9 'iVe1 "i!Vd7 10 Sl.e3 xe3
1 1 "i!Vxe3 Sl.h3 12 d4 .ixg2 1 3 xg2 exd4 1 4
it'xd4 0-0 with equality i n Eingorn-Lerner,
Germany 1 995.
b) S liJe2!? might be more ambitious.
S ... .tb6 9 0-0 c6 10 h3 e6 1 1 h2 h5 1 2
d4! (when attacked o n the flank, reply i n the
centre; not 1 2 e3? h4 1 3 g4 xe3 1 4 fxe3
xg4!) 12 ... .ic4 13 d5 cxd5 14 exd5 e4 1 5
b3 .txd5 1 6 Sl.b2 with compensation for the
pawn in Kovaliov-Aleksandrov, Minsk 2000.
7 . . . i.g4
Better than 7...ctJxf3t S .txf3 h6 9 ctJxc5
dxc5 10 i.e3 "iNd6 1 1 i.e2 (1 1 .ig2!?) 1 1 ... c4
1 2 0-0 .ih3 1 3 .l:!.e1 0-0-0 14 f3 .ie6 1 5 iVd2
bS 1 6 "i!Vc3 cxd3 1 7 cxd3 and White had
some initiative in Stripunsky-Gilardo Garcia,
Wijk aan Zee 1 996.
S lDxeS dxeS 9 h3 i.xf3 10 i.xf3 lDxf3+
1 1 ir'xf3 ir'd6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 b3 lDd7!
A typical manoeuvre. The knight is head
ing for the d4-square.
1 4 i.b2
1 4 1i'h5 ctJbS 15 .tb2 ctJc6 1 6 f4 f6 also
does not pose any great threat to Black.
There are not enough minor pieces on the
board for White to hope for a successful
Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . . i. c 5
kingside attack at the present moment.
1 4 . . . lDbS 1 S ir'g2
Or 1 5 :tad1 ctJc6 16 c3 l:!adS 1 7 "i!Ve3 b5
1 S f4 f6 with equality.
1 S . . . lDe6 1 6 f4 f6 1 7 :tf2 J:taeS 1 S .!:taf1
bS 1 9 h 1 lDd4 20 fS
After the continuation 20 fxe5?! fxe5 21
lIxf8+ xf8 22 lIxf8+ "i!VxfS Black would
even be a little better - White has more
weaknesses.
20 . . .ir'a6 21 e4!?
White tries to fight for the initiative
somehow, but this move leaves a terrible
weakness on d3. After 21 J::!.a1 the chances
would have been leveL
21 . . .lDe6
Not 21 ...'ii'xa2?? 22 Sl.xd4!.
22 i.e1 lDb4?!
Together with the next move this is a pit
fall that Black falls into. After 22 ... h4?! 23 g4
!IdS 24 "i!Vg3 l:!.d7 25 g5 White would have
been able to start an attack on the kingside,
but 22 ... !IdS! 23 .i.e3! .l:!.xd3 24 .ixc5 !IfdS
25 g4 bxc4 26 g5 with complications was
better.
23 i.e3! lDxd3?
This loses, but after 23...'ii'c 6 24 a3 ctJa6
25 g4 UdS 26 d2 l::td6 27 lIfd1 White will
soon play g4-g5. The misplaced knight on a6
is a problem for Black.
24 J::td 2! bxe4 2S J:tfd 1
Or 25 bxc4? 'iVxc4 26 l:.fd1 .i:!.dS and
Black survives.
2S . . .l:!.dS 26 'iVe2 ir'e6
After 26.J::td6 27 bxc4 "i!Vxc4 2S l:.xd3
'ii'xe4+ 29 'i'g2 compensation for the pieces
is hard to spot.
27 bxe4 ir'xe4+ 2S g1 ir'xe4 29 J:txd3
e4 30 J:!.xdS 'jVxe2 3 1 i.xeS hS 32 J:!.xfS+
h7 33 J:tf1 ?
After this Black is able to create counter
play with the e-pawn. Correct was 33 lIddS!
'ii'e1+ 34 g2 'ife2+ 35 .i.f2 "iNf3+ 36 g1
'iYxfS 37 l:.feS as 3S :Id4 'i'xh3 39 exe4
and it is very likely that White will win the
endgame.
1 35
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
33 . . . d3 34 f2 e3 35 e1 e2 36 J:tf4
b 1 37 Wf2 "iWb6+ 38 xe2 "iWb5+ 39
Wf3 d5+ 40 We2 "iWb5+ 41 Wf3 % - %
Game 69
Hector-Barkhagen
Swedish Championship, Skara 2002
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3
c5 5 g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 e3
This move often leads to a transposition
to the positions arising after 7 0-0, but in this
game White tries something different.
7 . . .xe3
Also possible is 7 ... ctJd4 8 ..txd4 exd4 9
ctJe2 ..tg4 1 0 'ifd2 ..txf3 1 1 ..txf3 dS! and
Black should be fine.
8 fxe3 lLle7
Black should not part with his bishop too
easily. 8... ..ig4 9 h3! (9 0-0 ctJe7 1 0 h3 ..ixf3
1 1 l::tx f3 c6 was okay for Black in Georgiev
Alterman, Groningen 1 997) 9 .....txf3 1 0
"i*'xf3 "i*'e7 1 1 g4! and now Black needs to
castle in the same direction as White, but
White can improve his position without cas
tling, while this is a hard task for Black to
achieve.
9 d4
Also interesting is 9 'ikd2!? ctJg6 10 0-0-0
c6 1 1 h3 'ifaS 12 bl bS 13 g4! (13 ctJdS
"i*'xd2 14 ctJxf6+ e7 1 5 ':xd2 xf6 was
level in Vasiesiu-Nisipeanu, Bucharest 1 998)
13. .. b4! (13. .. .ie6 14 ctJdS 'ifd8 1 5 ctJxf6+
136
'ixf6 16 gS "VJIie7 17 h4 gives White a king
side initiative) 1 4 ctJe2 with chances for both
sides.
9 . . . lLlg6
Another idea is 9 ... ..tg4!? 10 0-0 "i*'d7 1 1
"ii'd2 ctJg6! with the plan o f ... h7-hS and
Black has good counterplay.
1 0 h3!? c6 1 1 "iWd3 0-0
A fter 1 1 ...'ifc7 1 2 0-0-0 .id7 13 g4 h6 14
l:thfl 0-0-0 1 5 "ii'c4 White has some advan
tage due to the open file and his better
placed queen.
1 2 0-0-0 "iWa5 1 3 g4 b5
After this move Black has reasonable
counterplay.
1 4 g5 lLld7 1 5 Wb1 lLlb6
Also interesting was I S ... exd4 1 6 exd4 (16
"ii'xd4 b4 1 7 ctJe2 ctJdeS 18 ctJf4 with equality
was also possible, but not 1 8 "ii'xd6? ..Ite6
and Black has won vital time in the race for
the kings; wrong is 1 6 ctJxd4? b4 and gS falls)
1 6 ...ctJf4 1 7 "i*'d2 ctJxg2 1 8 'ifxg2 b4 1 9 ctJe2
ctJb6 with unclear play.
1 6 lLld2 exd4?!
After this Black's queen is sadly misplaced
and trapped by its own knight. Better was
1 6... ctJa4! 1 7 ctJxa4 (or 1 7 ctJe2 cS! with
threats) 1 7 ..."i*'xa4 1 8 h4 exd4 1 9 "i*'xd4 with
an unclear position, while after 1 9 hS ctJeS 20
"iixd4 ..te6! 21 "iVxa4 bxa4 Black is a little
better.
1 7 lLlb3 'ii'b4 1 8 exd4 lLlf4 1 9 'ii'g 3 lLlxg2
20 a3! c4 21 lLla5 "i!Ve6

22 tiJxc6!?
Here Hector chooses to play an interest
ing positional sacrifice. After 22 "iHxg2 d7
23 d5 cxd5 24 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 25 exd5 White
would have kept a slight edge.
22 . . . tiJc4 23 d5 "iVd7 24 "iVxg2 tiJe3 25
g3 tiJxd1 26 l:!.xd 1
White has full compensation for the ex
change and a stable advantage.
26 . . . b7 27 tiJd4 ::'ae8 28 J:tf1 !
Very calm! After 28 h4 .l::.e5 29 h5 l:i.c8 30
g6 h6 31 gxf7+ 'iVxf7 Black is okay!
28 . . . h8 29 llf4 "iVe7 30 tiJd 1 c8 31
tiJf2 "iVa7 32 c3 iVcS 33 f3 g8 34
J::th4 ne5?? 1 -0
Black walks straight into ttJd3 and proba
bly lost on time before White could execute
it. A fter 34...g6 3S l:tf4 c4 36 ttJd3 c7 37
h4 White had good attacking chances.
Game 70
Glek -Mikhalchishin
Dortmund 1998
1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 tiJc3 tiJc6 4 g3
c5 5 g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 h3
This is the start of a plan aiming to gain
the two bishops. But as we shall see this plan
is very time consuming and more or less
ignores all other concerns in the position. 7
h3 is in itself not a bad move, but the fol1ow
up is very dubious.
7 . . . h6
Th e Glek S ys tem with 4 . . c 5 .
7... 0-0 8 i.e3 xe3 9 Xe3 d5 1 0 exd5
ttJxd5 1 1 ttJxd5 "iYxd5 12 0-0 "iVd6 1 3 el
d7 14 l:i.dl l:i.ae8 15 f2 was played in
Adams-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1 998.
According to Adams, after 15 ...'iVh6 the posi
tion would be equal.
8 tiJh4?!
8 i.e3 i.xe3 9 fxe3 e6 (9 ...ttJe7 10 'iVd2
ttJg6 1 1 f2 e6 1 2 ttJd2 0-0 1 3 g4!? was
unclear in Gonzalez-Perez, Cienfuegos 1 998)
1 0 d4! with equality.
8 . . .e6 9 tiJf5?!
9 i.e3!? "vith a level position was better.
Now Black gets a speedy development.
9 . . . xf5 1 0 exf5 d7 1 1 g4
1 1 ttJe4 xf5 1 2 ttJxc5 dxc5 1 3 i.xc6+
bxc6 1 4 i.e3 with compensation was indi
cated by Glek. But I think that after 1 4... e4
Black is better. For example, 1 5 g4 d5 1 6
dxe4 "iHxe4 1 7 0-0 0-0 and the pawn is not as
important as the dominating black queen in
the centre.
1 1 . . . dS!
Taking control of the e4-square.
1 1 ...0-0-0? 1 2 ttJe4 and White is okay.
1 2 tiJe2
After 12 f4 exf4 13 i.xf4 0-0-0 14 ttJe2
l:i.de8 1 5 c3 .l::.e 7 16 d4 .l::.he8 Black has a
clear advantage. This is the logical outcome
of f2-f4, as Black is better developed and
therefore prepared for an opening of the
position.
1 2 . . . 0-0-0
137
Th e Fo u r Knigh ts
Black is also better after 12...h5!? 13 ttJg3
(13 g5 'ii'xf5 14 f4 ttJh7 15 ttJg3 'iVd7 16
ttJxh5 g6 17 ttJg3 exf4 18 .1i.xf4 0-0-0 gives
Black a strong attack) 13...h4.
1 3 0-0
After 13 c3 d4! 14 c4 e4! 15 0-0 .l:!.he8 16
ttJf4 e3 White is in crisis. 13 ttJg3 l:!.he8! 14
i.d2 e4 also gives Black a strong initiative.
1 3 . . . h5 1 4 g5
White would lose after 14 ttJg3 hxg4 15
hxg4 g6 16 .1i.g5 1l.e7 17 e2 J::tdg8 18 c3
ttJh5! 19 gxh5 .1i.xg5 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 c4 gxh5
22 i.xd5 h4. This is just one illustration of
the perils White is confronting.
1 4 . . . CLlh7 1 5 c3 'iWxf5 1 6 CLlg3
Or 16 b4 1l.a7 17 ttJg3 g6 18 'iVxh5
'ii'xd3 and White is disorganised and under
direct attack. Of course he still has the two
bishops (!) but it has become clear that White
took too many liberties in the opening in
order to get them. Of course, sometimes
when you try something new, it goes wrong.
But more often than not Glek has been very
successful with his improvements in this, his
own opening.
1 6 . . :ife6 1 7 d4 exd4 1 8 CLlxh5
Or 18 l:tel 'ii'g6 19 xh5 'i!lVxh5 20 ttJxh5
1l.e7 21 ttJxg7 .1i.xg5 22 ttJf5 i.f6 and the
black initiative and extra pawn lasts into the
endgame.
1 8 . . . Wb8 1 9 l:!.e1 'ifd7 20 h4 CLlf8 21
f4 CLlg6 22 g3 f5 23 gxf6 gxf6 24
l:t.c 1 d3 25 'iVxd3 CLlxh4 26 CLlxf6 'iWf7 !
1 38
There is no defence after this move.
27 xh4 l:!.xh4 28 'iWf5 J:Id6 29 l:te8+
Wa7 30 c8 J:!.xf6 31 'iVa8+ Wb6 32 b4
xf2+ 33 Wf1 g3+ 34 We2 l:tf2+ 35
Wd 1 'ifh5+ 0-1
Game 71
Glek-Zeier
Baden-Baden 2002
1 e4 e5 2 CLlf3 CLlc6 3 CLlc3 CLlf6 4 g3
c5 5 g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0
This is the main move and the only one
that really makes any sense.
7 . . . e6
Black knows that the fight will not be on
the dark but the light squares, and he quickly
creates a set-up ready for this. The chances in
this line should probably be about equal, but
there is a lot of play and possibilities for indi
vidual originality and new plans. This is
probably what has attracted such creative
grandmasters as Hector and Glek to this
system.
8 e3
In the long run White cannot live with the
bishop on c5 and needs to eliminate it sooner
or later. But a vital question is whether or not
White needs to play h2-h3. As we shall see in
Shaked-Leko (Game 73), it can sometimes be
crucial, but often it should be possible to
delay this move.
8 . . . xe3 9 fxe3 CLle7 1 0 CLlh4!?

To exploit the open f-flie is very naturaL
White has also tried 10 a4 ttJg6 1 1 as "iVd7!
(but not 1 1 ...0-0?! 12 "iVd2 h6 13 b4 with
advantage for White in Romero Holmes
Korneev, Gran Canaria 1 997) 12 ttJa4 hS! 1 3
h 4 (more or less forced). Now Black should
have played 1 3 ...0-0-0! with good chances of
opening the kingside before the queenside is
opened, instead of 13. .. iLh3?! 1 4 c4 iLxg2 1 5
xg2 O-O?! (1 5 ...0-0-0) 1 6 ttJh2, which was
good for White in Pinski-Lopusiewicz, Kra
kow 1 998.
1 0 . . . c6
Black can also try 10 ... "iVd7!? 1 1 iYf3
(maybe 1 1 d4!? is a more ambitious attempt)
1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 d4 iLh3 1 3 iLxh3 "iVxh3 1 4 ttJES
ttJxfS 15 "iVxfS+ "iVxfS 1 6 .l:IxfS and the posi
tion appears to be leveL This shows that
White cannot always delay h2-h3 for ever,
and that is why White often plays it as early
as move eight (see Games 74-75). The ques
tion of when h2-h3 should be played is one
of the great nuances and unanswered ques
tions of this opening.
1 1 ttJf5
After 1 1 d4 "iVc7 (l 1 ...ttJg6?! 12 ttJES iLxfS
1 3 exES ttJe7 1 4 ttJe4 would give White
something) 1 2 a4 dS 1 3 exdS ttJexdS 1 4
ttJxdS ttJxdS 1 5 "iVd2 ttJe7 Black was fine in
Hector-Aleksandrov, K0ge 1 997.
1 1 . . .i.xf5 1 2 exf5 d5 1 3 'ife2 'ifd6 1 4
a4 h5! 1 5 h3 O-O-O?!
An inaccuracy. Black should have gone
for I S ... d4! 1 6 ttJe4 ttJxe4 1 7 iLxe4 0-0-0 1 8
a s lih6!? with unclear play.
1 6 a5 1:.dg8
On 16 ... d4 White will now have the re
source 1 7 ttJa4!, when the knight has the
option of going to b6 and then c4, while
White can simply continue with Ra(f)bl and
b2-b4 with an attack.
1 7 e4 d4?!
Better was 1 7...'iVcs+ 1 8 h2 d4 1 9 ttJa4
(19 ttJbl g6 20 fxg6 ':'xg6 is in Black's inter
est) 1 9 .. :iVxaS 20 c3 c7 and the position
can best be described as a mess.
Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . i. c 5
1 8 ttJa4 g 5 1 9 fxg6 l::txg6 20 ttJb6+ '>t>d8
21 l:tf3 h4?!
21 ...:hg8 22 h2 cS was better, but Black
is building up a macho image.
22 g4 lLlxg4??
This sacrifice is headless. After 22 ... :hg8
23 l:!.afl 'iVe6 24 .l:!.1 f2 ttJh7 25 'iVfl f6 26
ttJc4 White is better, but that is as far as it
goes.
23 hxg4 l:!.xg4 24 '>t>h2 l:!.hg8 25 i.h3
1:.g3 26 ttJc4 'ifh6 27 l:!.af1 ttJg6 28 ttJd6
'ifh5 29 ttJxb7+ '&t;>e8 30 i.d7+ 1 -0
Game 72
Hector-I . Sokolov
Malmo' 1997
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g3
i.c5 5 i.g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 i.e6 8 i.e3
.txe3 9 fxe3 jid7 1 0 d4 .tg4 1 1 'iVd3
I prefer White here. Black has managed to
prevent h2-h3, but maybe this is too early
because White also has other ways to place
his pieces.
1 1 . . . 0-0
Alternatively:
a) 1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 a3 hS 1 3 ttJh4 ttJe7 1 4 b4!
and I have a feeling that the White attack is
stronger.
b) After 1 1 ....Jtxf3 1 2 :xf3 0-0 White has
1 3 :afl with a slight edge or 1 3 ':'xf6?! gxf6
1 4 ttJdS g7 l S l::tfl fS! 1 6 exfS f6 1 7 'iVd1
:ae8 1 8 c3 with compensation, but nothing
1 39
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
more.
1 2 tLlh4 tLle7
1 2. ..cLlb4 13 'ii'd2 c5 14 d5 as 1 5 tLlf5
gives White the edge. The battle zone is on
the kingside.
1 3 tLlf5 i..xf5 1 4 exf5 exd4 1 5 exd4 c6
1 6 irVf3?!
This neglects the most important objec
tive of the position: including the rook on a1
in some way. Best was 16 l:!f4! to push the
pawns and vacate f1 for the rook. 16 ... l:!.fe8
17 g4 h6 18 h4 d5 19 af1 and White has a
promising attack.
1 6 . . . tLled5 1 7 tLlxd5 cxd5!?
After this Black should be okay. He ob
tains some weak pawns, but also control of
e4 and the open c-flie. 17 ... tLlxd5 18 c4 tLlf6
1 9 g4 d5 20 c5 ':fe8 with unclear play was
also possible.
1 8 irVb3 'tIVc6 1 9 J:!.f3 b5 20 a4?!
White should not open flies on the queen
side; this is where his weaknesses are. 20 l:!.c3
'iVb7 21 l:!.e3 l:!.fe8 22 l:!.ae1 xe3 23 l:!.xe3
cJ;>f8 24 "iVd3 l:!.e8 would give an even end
game, where White still has to defend a little
bit.
20 . . J!ab8
According to Ivan Sokolov Black is al
ready slightly better.
21 axb5 J:!.xb5!
Or course not 21...axb5? 22 ':c3, when
White is active and Black passive.
22 c3 'tIVb6
140
22...'iWxc3 23 bxc3 l:!.b6 24 l:!.e3 l:!.c8
would also give Black the better chances.
23 b3 a5 24 J:!.f4?!
Here the rook is very weird. Better was 24
l:!.e3 l:!.b4 25 l:!.d1 (25 l:!.a4!? l:!.xa4 26 bxa4
:b8 27 h3 and White is a little worse) 25 ... a4
26 bxa4 l:!.xa4 27 "iVd3 l:!.c8 with a slight
black edge.
24 . . ..li!.b4 25 .li!.e1 h6!
A strong prophylactic move. Black pre
vents both g4-g5 and all ideas of back rank
mates.
26 g4 a4 27 bxa4 :!.c4
Better was 27... l:!.a8! 28 l:!.a1 l:!.axa4 29
l:!.xa4 .l:Ixa4 with clear domination.
28 'tIVd3 a5?
A mistake, giving White a chance to create
some counterplay. 28...l:!.a8!, including all
pieces in the attack on the queenside, was
right.
29 .l:!.e2?
29 l:!.a1 ! is the best chance.
29 . . .'it'xa4 30 h4 .:tfc8 31 g5 tLlh5 32
J:.g4 hxg5 33 i..x d5?
33 hxg5 l:!.c3 34 "iVd1 tLlg3 with a clear
black advantage was the sad alternative.
33 . . .J:!.xc2 34 hxg5 ltxe2 0-1
Game 73
Shaked-Leko
TilbulJ, 1997
1 e4 e5 2 g3 tLlc6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 tLlc3

c5 5 g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 0-0 8 e3
As explained earlier, this move is the most
natural. White has also tried:
a) 8 ttJd5!? ttJxd5 9 exd5 ttJe7 10 d4 exd4
1 1 ttJxd4 and now:
a1) 1 1 ...ttJf5 1 2 ttJb3 (also possible is 1 2
ttJf3!? lIe8 1 3 g5 f6 14 f4 d7 1 5 c3
with a slight edge) 12 ... a7 13 'iVd3 'iVf6 1 4
.td2 3Ld7 1 5 'iWc3 ttJd4 1 6 'it>hl .tf5 1 7
l:.ac1 lUe8 1 8 .te3 ttJxb3 1 9 'iVxf6 gxf6 20
cxb3! and White has some advantage, Dreev
Ivanchuk, France 1 984.
a2) l 1 ...ttJg6 (heading for e5) 1 2 c3 f6
1 3 e3 l::te 8 1 4 ttJc2 xe3 1 5 ttJxe3 .td7
with equality. Gevorgyan-Gavrilov, Moscow
1 992.
b) 8 3Lg5 h6 9 3Le3 ttJd4 10 3Lxd4 (1 0 h3
should be a litde better for White according
to Glek) 1 0... exd4 1 1 ttJe2 .tg4 1 2 'ii'd2 d5!
13 exd5 xf3 14 .txf3 ttJxd5 with an even
game in Ahn-Geenen, Charleroi 1 994.
8 . . . xe3
Also interesting is 8...ttJd4 and now:
a) 9 h3!? 3La7 (9 ... c6!? 1 0 xd4 3Lxd4 1 1
ttJxd4 exd4 1 2 ttJe2 'iVb6 1 3 'iVc1 ':e8 1 4 c3
dxc3 1 5 'iVxc3 d5 was level, Belikov-Kuzmin,
Russia 1 997) 1 0 ttJh2 c6 1 1 'iVd2 ttJe8 1 2
lIael f5 1 3 f4 Exe4 14 dxe4 a5 1 5 lIf2 with
even chances, Zhang Zhong-Zhu Chen,
China 1 997.
b) 9 xd4 exd4 10 ttJe2 .tg4 1 1 h3 .txf3
1 2 3Lxf3 d5 1 3 exd5 ttJxd5 1 4 c4 dxc3 1 5
bxc3 c6 1 6 d4 j"a7 1 7 c4 (Brodsky
Bykhovsky, Rishon Ie Zion 1 997) 1 7... ttJf6!
1 8 3 'iVd7 and Black keeps the balance.
9 fxe3 0,e7
This is the natural move. After 9 ... h6 1 0
ttJh4 'it>h7 1 1 d2 .te6 1 2 lIf2 ttJe7 1 3 lIafl
c6 1 4 h3 ttJfg8 1 5 d4 White had the initiative
in Arbakov-Ageichenko, Moscow 1 985.
9 ... e6 10 e2 'iVd7 1 1 ttJh4! g4 12 'iVd2
ttJe7 1 3 lIf2 c6 1 4 lIafl was also a litde bet
ter for White in Vorotnikov-Polovodin,
USSR 1 982.
1 0 0,h4 c6 1 1 d4 0,g4 1 2 'iYd2 0,h6 1 3
.:!:tad 1 ? !
Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . c 5 .
Here I have a new idea: 1 3 h3! 'iVc7 1 4 g4
f6 1 5 .l:i.ad1 followed by ttJf5 and White
should be better.
1 3 . . . g4!
Uncoordinating the white forces - Black
has equalised.
1 4 f3 e6 1 5 'iYe2 b5
Threatening ...j"c4.
1 6 b3 'iYa5
Black is a litde better here.
1 7 ifd2 'iYc7 1 8 'it>h 1 .:!:tad8 1 9 g2 f6
20 a4 b4 21 0,b1 a5 22 'iYe2 d5 23 0,d2
.:!:tfe8
Black has an alternative plan in 23 ... c5!? 24
ttJhf3 (24 dxc5? 'iVxc5 25 exd5 ttJxd5 26
.txd5 j"xd5+ 27 e4 b7 28 ttJc4 lIxd1 29
lIxd1 f5! and White's position collapses)
24... cxd4 25 exd4 ttJc6 26 dxe5 ExeS 27 exd5
xd5 28 ttJe4 ttJfS with advantage for Black.
24 0,hf3 0,f7
24... exd4 25 exd4 dxe4 26 ttJxe4 ttJef5 27
'iVd3 d5 and Black is a litde better.
25 'iYf2 c8 26 .:!:tfe1 ?!
White could have kept his disadvantage to
a minimum if he had played 26 ttJxe5! ttJxe5
27 dxe5 xeS 28 exd5 cxd5 29 ttJf3 c3 30
ttJd4 .ta6 31 J:tfel ttJg6 32 'iVd2, when Black
needs to play 32... cS! to keep some pres-
sure.
26 . . . 0,g6 27 dxe5
Or 27 exd5 cxd5 28 ttJfl 3Lb7 29 lIc1
ttJd6 and White is slowly being ground
down.
141
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
27 . . . dxe4 28 lLlxe4 lLlgxe5 29 lLld4
29 .l:!.xdS .i:txdS 30 liJd4 c5 31 liJf5 liJg4 32
'YlUf3 'ii'e5 33 'iYxg4 Sl.xf5 34 'YlUf4 .l:.e8 35
'YlUxe5 xe5 36 liJd2 Sl.xc2 and the endgame
is very difficult for \x/hite. Still, this is proba
bly the best chance he had.
29 . . . c5 30 lLlb5 'iIIe 7 3 1 h3 .i.b7 32 lLld2
lLlg5 33 e4 lId7 34 h4 lLlgf7 35 lLlf1 c4
36 lLle3 cxb3 37 lLlf5?!
White would also lose after the relatively
stronger 37 liJd5 .lixd5 3S exd5 .l:!.ddS! 39
.lih3 (39 cxb3? liJd3!) 39 ...'ilb7 40 .lig2 liJg4
41 'YlUc5 'iVbs; White's king \vill not be able to
survive the threats.
37 . . . 'illd8 38 xd7 'iVxd7 39 cxb3 g6 40
lLle3 lLld3 41 'iIId 2 .i.xe4 42 h2 .i.xg2
43 lLlxg2 litxe1 44 lLlxe1 lLlfe5 0-1
r------.
Game 74
Ganguly-Acs
Pardubice 2002
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3
.i.c5 5 .i.g2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3
h6
Or:
a) S...b5 9 a3 Sl.b7 10 liJh4 liJd4 1 1 liJe2
liJe6 1 2 b4 .lib6 1 3 Sl.b2 with a slight white
advantage in Belavenets-Akhmilovska, USSR
1 979.
b) S... <l;h8!? (with the idea ...liJf6-gS-e7) 9
liJh4?! (9 .lie3! with the idea d3-d4!) 9 ...liJgS
1 0 liJd5 liJge7 1 1 liJe3 .lie6 12 c3 'YlUd7 1 3
142
'it>h2 d5 1 4 'iNf3 d4 and Black was worse in
Glek-Bleunven, St Ingbert 1 99 1 . But of
course White did not play well.
c) 8... liJe8 9 liJh4 liJd4 1 0 liJd5 c6 1 1 liJe3
liJe6 1 2 c3 g6 1 3 Wh2 liJ8g7 1 4 liJc2 .lib6 1 5
d4 f6 1 6 .lie3 and White was a little better
in Glek-Arbakov, Moscow (rapid) 1 988.
d) 8 ....lie6 9 Wh2! (9 liJh4 liJd4 10 .Jle3
c6! 1 1 liJa4 .lia7 12 c3 liJb5 13 i.xa7 .l:!.xa7
only gives equality) 9 ... h6 (necessary as White
threatened liJg5 and f4) 1 0 liJh4 liJd4 (1 0... d5
1 1 exd5 liJxd5 1 2 liJxd5 .lixd5 1 3 liJf5 .lixg2
14 'iWg4! 'iNf6 1 5 Wxg2 liJd4 1 6 liJxh6+ rt>h7
1 7 'iWe4+ 'iNg6 I S 'iWxg6+ fxg6 1 9 liJg4 liJxc2
20 .i:tbl .l:!.ae8 21 .lid2 with a slight edge for
White; 1 O... d7 1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 gxf4 e7 1 3
liJ f3 with the initiative) 1 1 liJd5 liJxd5
(l 1 ...c6?! 1 2 liJxf6+ 'ii'x f6 1 3 c3 liJb5 1 4 f4! is
uncomfortable for Black) 12 exd5 .Jld7 13 c3
liJf5 14 liJxf5 .lixf5 1 5 f4 and White is a little
better.
9 lLlh4
Also possible is 9 .te3!? .lixe3 10 fxe3
liJe7 1 1 liJh4 c6 1 2 Wh2 liJg6 1 3 liJf5 and
White is probably slightly better.
9 . . . lLle7
An interesting alternative is 9 ...liJd4!? and
now:
a) According to Glek 1 0 .te3?! gives
White the advantage. However, after 1 O...g5!
1 1 liJfS (1 1 liJf3? liJxf3+ 1 2 xf3 g4!)
l 1 ...liJxf5 1 2 exf5 .lixfS 1 3 .lixc5 dxc5 Black
is better.
b) 1 0 liJe2 eS 1 1 liJxd4 Sl.xd4 1 2 'ii'f3 c6
13 liJf5 .Jlxf5 14 'ii'xf5 d5 15 .l:.e 1 .l:!.e6 with a
balanced position in Kuzrnin-Makarichev,
Moscow 1 986.
1 0 .i.e3 .i.xe3 1 1 fxe3 c6 1 2 d4!
This is stronger than 12 .i:txf6!? although
the sacrifice is very interesting. But White has
no real reason to sacrifice an exchange here,
besides the pure pleasure of doing so.
12 ...gxf6 1 3 'iih 5 <l;g7 (Black needs to be
careful; White wins after 1 3...'ii'b6? 1 4 xh6
xb2 1 5 1:1.f1 'iixc3 1 6 xf6 'iVc5 1 7 'ii'g5+
<l;h7 1 8 .l:!.f6 liJg8 1 9 .l:!.xf7+ .i:txf7 20 'ii'g6+

'it>h8 21 'iVxf7) 14 lIn .te6 1 5 tbe2 and
White has compensation for the exchange,
but nothing more. I still believe in Black's
resources here.
1 2 . . . ctJg6 1 3 ctJf5
White has a small advantage here, while 1 3
tbxg6 fxg6 1 4 'ifd3 i.e6 would be level.
1 3 . . .1:%.e8?!
Now White manages to win a pawn. Nec
essary was 13. ..i.xf5 14 exf5 tbe7 1 5 d3
with a slight edge for White.
1 4 dxe5! ctJxe5
Or:
a) 14 ... dxe5 15 tbxh6+ gxh6 1 6 'ifxd8
l:txd8 1 7 xf6 i.e6 1 8 tba4! l:td2 1 9 tbc5
tbf8 20 l:tf2 .:I.ad8 21 tbd3 l:txf2 22 'it'xf2
with a clear extra pawn.
b) 1 4 .. .lhe5 1 5 xd6 (after 1 5 tbxd6?!
'ifc7 1 6 tbf5 tbxe4 1 7 i.xe4 .l:i.xfS! Black
equalises because following 1 8 Wh2 l:txn 1 9
'ifxn White i s no better) 1 5 ...i.xf5 1 6
'ifxd8+ l:txd8 1 7 exfS tbe7 1 8 e4 .l:i.d2 1 9
l:tac1 and Black has no compensation for the
pawn.
1 5 ctJxd6 l:le7 1 6 "tWd4 b6 1 7 l:tad 1 ? !
White should pay more attention to the
problems with his queen. After 1 7 CDf5!
i.xf5 1 8 exf5 White would have a clear ad
vantage.
1 7 . . . "tWc7 1 8 b4
After 1 8 tbf5?! l:td7! 1 9 'it'b4 (the optimis
tic sacrificial attack starting with 1 9 tbd5? is
repelled by 1 9 ... cxd5 20 exd5 i.b7 21 CDxh6+
gxh6 22 ':xf6 tbg6 23 'ifg4 .l:i.ad8 24 c4 'iVe5
and Black's position is preferable) 1 9 ... c5 20
.l:i.xd7 J.xd7 21 "iib3 White would be a pawn
up, but his queen is misplaced and he has
double pawns in the centre. He is better, but
nothing more.
1 8 . . . iLd7 1 9 ctJf5?
After this Black will receive counterplay
down the e-ftle. Correct was 1 9 tba4! l:tb8 20
c3 tbe8 2 1 tbf5 i.xf5 22 exf5, when White
keeps his extra pawn and prevents all this
counterplay. Now Black takes over the initia
tive.
Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . iL c 5 .
1 9 . . . .lixf5 20 exf5 l1ae8
All Black's pieces are now working.
21 g4
Black is also slightly better after 21 'iff4
b5! 22 .l:i.d4 tbc4 23 xc7 .l:i.xc7 24 e4 tbe3
25 .l:i.f2 c5 26 bxc5 tbxg2 27 Wxg2 .l:i.xc5 28
tbd5 tbxe4.
21 . . .b5!
By securing the c4-square Black will create
counterplay on the dark squares. He is
probably already better despite the pawn
deficit.
22 "tWf4
22 'ifc5!? CDc4 23 e4 tbd7 24 'ifd4 as 25
a4 with only a slightly worse position was
interesting.
22 . . .ctJc4 23 "tWxc7 l:txc7 24 l:tfe1 l:txe3!
25 ctJe4 I:I.xe1 + 26 l:txe1 ctJd5! 27 ctJc5
ctJxb4 28 a3 ctJxa3 29 l:te8+ 'iii>h 7 30
.lie4! ctJc4
30... f6?? 31 CDe6 l:!.t7 32 CDf4, followed by
tbg6 and .l::th 8 mate.
31 f6+ g6 32 :e7 l:txe7 33 fxe7 ctJd6 34
ctJb7??
White has defended well and could have
made a draw after 34 c3 tbd5 35 .txd5 cxd5
36 tbxa6 tbe8 37 tbb4. Now he is close to
being lost.
34 . . . ctJe8 35 ctJd8 ctJd5 36 ctJxc6 ctJdc7
37 ctJb8? a5 38 iLc6 a4! 39 ctJa6 a3 40
ctJb4 'iii>g 7 41 'iii>f 2 'iii>f6 42 'iii>e 3 'iii>x e7 43
'iii>d 3 ctJg7 44 c4 ctJa6 45 ctJc2 b4 46 c5
b3 0-1
143
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
Game 75
Glek-Inkiov
Porto San Giorgio 200 1
1 e4 eS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3
cS S .tg2 d6 6 d3 a6 7 0-0 0-0 S h3
h6 9 tLlh4 .te6 1 0 i.e3 i.xe3
There are no serious alternatives to this
move.
a) After 10 ... ltJh7?! 1 1 ltJf5 ltJe7 1 2 ..txc5
dxc5 1 3 ltJe3 iYd7 14 h2 l:tad8 1 5 'iVh5 f6
1 6 f4 White has a strong initiative, Glek
Kuzmin, Belgrade 1 989.
b) 10 ... ltJe7?! 1 1 i..xc5 dxc5 1 2 f4 ltJc6 1 3
f5 ..tc8 1 4 ltJ f3 l:!.e8 1 5 g4 and Black was
under attack in Kuzmin-Vladimirov, Tash
kent 1 987.
1 1 fxe3 tLle7 1 2 h2 c6 1 3 d4 tLlg6 1 4
tLlfS dS 1 S exdS exdS?
After this White takes control of the dark
squares, but he could also have attacked the
d-pawn. All in all Black would have been
much better off had he played 1 5 ... ltJxd5 1 6
ltJxd5 ..txd5. Now 17 'ttg4 g5! ( 1 7... ..txg2
1 8 Wxg2 'iid 5+ 1 9 e4 iVb5 20 h4! would give
White a strong attack) 1 8 lixg5 hxg5 1 9
..txd5 cxd5 20 dxe5 J:tae8 21 l:!.ad1 l:!.xe5
leads to a level endgame.
1 6 dxeS tLlxeS 1 7 d4
White probably had a stronger option in
144
1 7 ltJxd5 ..txd5 1 8 i..xd5 ltJxd5 1 9 xd5
'iVc7 20 ltJd6! iYxc2+ (20 ... l:!.fd8 21 l:!.ad1 and
White retains a strong knight on d6) 21 \t>g1
and White dominates.
1 7 . . . .txfS
After 17 ...ltJc6 1 8 'iVh4! (1 8 ltJxh6+? Wh7
19 'iVh4 g5!! 20 'iVxg5 ltJg4+ and Black wins -
a really surprising and original tactic in a kind
of position seen hundreds of times before)
1 8.....txf5 1 9 l:!.xf5 d4 20 exd4 xd4 21
'iixd4 ltJxd4 22 l:!.f2 White has better pieces,
less obvious weaknesses and a slight lead in
development. A slight, but very stable advan
tage.
1 S llxfS tLlc6 1 9 f4 tLle 7
20 l:txf6!
This kind of exchange sacrifice is auto
matic for a player of Glek's calibre.
20 . . . gxf6 21 'iix h6 l:tcS 22 tLlxdS!
This combination wins. Another way was
22 l:!.f1 'uc6 23 ltJxd5! ltJxd5 24 f5! and
after l:!.h5 Black is mated.
22 . . . tLlxdS 23 .te4 f5 24 .txfS tLlf6 2S
Jitd 1 .l:!.c6
Or 25 ...lie7 26 'iVg5+ 'it>h8 27 l:!.d4 and
White wins.
26 gS+ hS 27 .l:l.xdS ItxdS 2S .td3
JitdS 29 'iif4 g7 30 e4 l:td4 31 eS
J:td7 32 'iifS J:tdc7 33 eS tLld7 34 'Yi'gS+
fS 3S 'iid S+ g7 36 e6 tLlf6 37 e7 l:teS
3S g4 1 -0
 Th e Glek S ys t e m w i th 4 . . . i. c 5

Summary
This system leads to positions with complex equality. Black usually plays ...a7-a6 to keep his
dark squared bishop, after which White has no real choice but to play e3. He will then be
able to create some play along the half-open f-file, while Black prepares to counter with ... dS in
the centre.

1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 g3 i.c5 5 i.g2 d6 6 d3 a6

6 . ..liJd4 (0) Game 68; 6...g4 Game 61; 6...0-0 Game 66
- - -

7 0-0
7 h3 Game 10; 7 e3 (0) Game 69
- -

7 . . . 0-0
7 ... e6 8 e3 xe3 9 fxe3
9.. .iVd7 Game 12; 9. ./De7 Game 11
- -

8 h3
8 e3 Game 13
-

8 . . . h6 9 tDh4 i.e6 Game 15

-

9 . ..tDe7 (0) Game 14

-

6. . . tDd4 7 i.e3 9. . . tD e 7

145
 CHAPTER TEN I
The Glek System
with 4 d5 . . .
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g3 d5
Together with 4... i.c5 this is Black's main
choice against the Glek System. Black strikes
in the centre and obtains an open game with
easy development. In return White can open
the long diagonal for his light-squared
bishop.
After the obvious 5 exd5 lLlxd5 6 i.g2
Black has to make a choice: to protect the
knight on d5 with 6 ... i.e6 or to exchange on
c3. We study 6 ... .i.e6 in Games 77-79, while
6 ... lLlxc3, the more popular choice, is the
subject of Games 8 1 -88. After 7 bxc3 Black
can play 7...i.c5 (Games 81 -83), 7... i.d6
(Games 84-86) and finally 7 ... .i.e7 (Games
87-88) .
r------.,
Game 76
Lima-Santos
Brazjl 2000
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5
White really has no decent alternatives.
5 . . . ttJxd5 6 i..g 2
Again other moves would make little
sense.
6 . . . ttJb6
After this move White should have easy
play, but it all comes down to Lugovoi's
146
7....i.c5!. Not very critical is 6...lLlf6 7 0-0
i.d6 8 d4 exd4 (8 ... 0-0 9 h3 h6 10 l:te1 gave
White a small edge in Mi.Tseitlin-Kostakiev,
Sofia 1 987) 9 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 0 'it'xd4 0-0 1 1
lLlb5! i.e7 1 2 'it'xd8 i.xd8 1 3 .i.f4 and
White has a clear advantage. Glek
Schlehoefer, Bad Zwesten 2000 continued
13. .. .i.d7 14 c4 a6 1 5 lLlxc7 l:!.c8 1 6 lLld5
l:txc4 1 7 lLle3 l:tb4 (otherwise .i.xb7 wins a
pawn) 1 8 .i.d6 and White won the exchange
for a pawn, giving him a close-to-winning
position.
7 0-0 i..e7
Black has some alternatives here:
a) 7... .i.d6 8 d4 0-0 9 lLlb5! (9 dxe5 lLlxe5
10 lLlxeS .i.xe5 1 1 'ih5 .i.xc3 1 2 bxc3 c6 1 3
.i:.e1 .i.e6 is not so clear) 9 ... e4 1 O lLlg5 .i.e7
1 1 lLlxe4 a6 12 lLlxc7! (12 lLlbc3 'iixd4
would only be equal) 1 2 .. :iWxc7 13 d5 lLlxd5
(Black loses after 1 3. .. .l:!.d8 1 4 .i.f4! lLle5 1 5
d6 .i.xd6 1 6 lLlxd6 lLlbc4 1 7 lLlxc4! l:1xd1 1 8
.l:.axd1 f6 1 9 .l:i.fe1 xc4 20 .l:i.d&t f7 2 1
.i.xe5 fxe5 22 .i.d5+ .i.e6 23 .i.xc4 .l:i.xd8 24
i.xe6+ xe6 25 .l:i.e2, when there is no com
pensation for the pawn deficit) 14 xd5
lLlb4 1 5 5 xc2 1 6 i.d2 and White is
better, Glek-Korneev, Le Touquet 1 993.
b) 7 ...i.c5! is a fresh idea from Grandmas
ter Lugovoi. 8 d4! (note 'c') is the real test;
White has not experienced any success with

the alternatives:
a) 8 .l:tel 0-0 9 d3 .l:te8 10 h3 .1i.fS 1 1 a3 a6
1 2 .i.e3 was equal in Sudakova-Lugovoi, St
Petersburg 2002.
b) 8 .l:tbl ?! 0-0 9 b4 iLd6 10 bS?! (10 a3
was better) 10 .. .'Jd4 1 1 tiJxd4 exd4 12 tiJe4
.i.e 7 13 f4 a6 and according to Lugovoi
Black is slightly better, Solovjov-Lugovoi, St
Petersburg 2002.
c) 8 d4!
and now
cl) 8... tiJxd4 9 tiJxeS 0-0 1 0 iLe3 tiJe6 1 1
.i.xcs tiJxcs 1 2 'ilVhs is pleasant for White.
c2) 8...iLxd4!? 9 tiJxd4 with a further split:
c21) 9 ... exd4 10 .l:te1+ .i.e6 1 1 tiJbS 0-0 1 2
.i.xc6 bxc6 1 3 tiJxd4 ..idS 1 4 'ii'g4 gives
White a small advantage - Lugovoi.
c22) 9 ...'it'xd4 10 tiJbS 'iii'd8 1 1 'iixd8+
Wxd8 12 lIdl+] .1i.d7 13 ..ie3 Wc8 14 a4!
.1i.g4 1 5 .l:td3 tiJc4 (or I S ...!:td8 16 as tiJc4 1 7
l:!.xd8+ Wxd8 1 8 a 6 'it>c8 1 9 .1i.cs with the
initiative) 1 6 iLcS! and White has good com
pensation. Now Black should avoid
1 6... tiJxb2? 1 7 .l:tb3 tiJc4 1 8 .1i.xc6 bxc6 1 9
tiJxa7+ Wd7 20 l:tb4 .1i.e6 2 1 .l:!.d1+ 'it>e8 22
tiJxc6 with a clear advantage for White.
c23) 9 ...tiJxd4 10 f4 (too slow is 10 .l:!.e1 ?!
f6 1 1 f4 0-0 1 2 fxeS .1i.fS!, when Black has an
edge due to better development; then 1 3
.i.xb7?! tiJxc2 14 ..ixa8 lWxa8 leaves the light
squares terminally weak) 10 ... .i.fS! (the active
and logical reply) 1 1 ..ixb7 and now:
c231) l 1 ...tiJxc2? 1 2 iLc6+l 'it>f8 1 3 .1i.xa8
Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5
d4+ (or 13..Jlt'xa8 14 fxeS tiJxal 15 l:txfS
and \'(Ihite wins) 1 4 Whl tiJxa8 1 5 fxeS and
White has a winning advantage after
I S ...'iixdl 1 6 ':xdl rj;;e 7 1 7 .l:!.bl tiJb4 1 8
.i.g5+ 'it>e6 1 9 .l:!.bc l .
c232) 1 1 .....ixc2 1 2 'YWhS! 0-0 1 3 .i.xa8
"iYxa8 1 4 fxeS and Black does not have suffi
cient compensation.
c233) 1 1 ...l::i.b8 12 ..ie4 ..ixe4 13 tiJxe4 fS
(13. ..'iii'dS 14 l:!.el ! looks better for White) 14
tiJgS e4 15 c3 tiJc6 1 6 'it'b3 'it'dS 17 tiJe6,
when White might be a tiny bit better after
17...'it'xb3 1 8 axb3 'it>e7 1 9 tiJxc7 .l:thd8 20
.i.e3 but Black does have some active play
for the pawn.
c3) 8 ... exd4 9 l:!.e1+ .1i.e6 1 0 tiJgs 0-0 1 1
'iih s ..if5 1 2 ..ie4 dxc3 1 3 .i.xfS h6! (in Chess
Informant 85 Lugovoi only gives 1 3. .. lWd7? 1 4
g4! and White wins, but this i s better) 14
.1i.h7+ 'it>h8 1 5 tiJxf7+ .l:!.xf7 1 6 'it'xf7 iLd4!
(the only move; 16 ...iVf8?! 1 7 .i.g6 'iVxf7 1 8
.i.xf7 tiJd4 1 9 l:le8+ .l:.xe8 20 .i.xe8 tiJxc2 21
.ub 1 gives White a winning position, while
after 1 6 ...Wxh7 1 7 'it'f5+ the bishop on cS
hangs) 1 7 ..ifS! cxb2 1 8 .i.xh6 f8
(1 8... ..ixf2+ 1 9 rj;;xf2 bxal'iii' 20 .l:!.xal 'iVf6 21
'itxf6 gxf6 22 .l:!.e 1 tiJeS and White has very
good winning chances) 1 9 ..ixg7+ 'iixg7 20
'ilVh5+ 'it>g8 21 lladl!? gives a very double
edged position with many threats on Black's
king, while 21 :e8+ leads to a draw.
So Lugovoi's 7 ... .i.cS has yet to be refuted,
but I'm sure more discoveries will be found
in this line.
8 lIe 1
The obvious move. White has no chance
for an advantage after 8 a3 0-0 9 b4 .i.e6 1 0
.l:!.e1 f6 1 1 d 3 a s 1 2 b S tiJd4 1 3 .i.b2 a4 14
tiJxd4 Cl2-1/2 Z.Varga-Golubovic, Opatija
2002).
8 f6
. . .
After 8 ... ..ig4 9 h3 iLxf3 10 .i.xf3 f6 1 1
iLxc6+l bxc6 12 g4 White has a better
structure and the initiative.
9 d4
Even better is 9 a4! (in order to force
147
Th e Fo ur Knig h ts
Black to give up the control of the b5-square)
9 ... a5 (necessary because 'W'hite was threaten
ing to increase the scope of the g2-bishop
with a4-a5-a6) 10 d4 exd4 1 1 lbb5 d3
(1 1 ...0-0 12 lbfxd4 gives White a slight edge)
12 cxd3 0-0 1 3 3+ 'it>h8 14 i.d2, which
looks better for 'W'hite.
9 . . . exd4 1 0 ltJbS d3 1 1 cxd3
Not the only possible capture. After 1 1
'ifxd3!? 'ifxd3 1 2 cxd3 'iitd8 1 3 lbfd4 lbxd4
14 lbxd4, with the idea lbe6, 'W'hite stands
slightly betrer.
1 1 . . . a6 1 2 ltJc3 0-0 1 3 d4 h8?!
Too slow. Better was 13 ....i.g4 14 3+
Wh8 1 S .i.e3 .l:':te8 (1 5 ...i.h5?! 1 6 dS lbaS 17
'ifc2 i.g6 1 8 'ike2 lbxd5 19 lbxd5 'ifxd5 20
lbh4 'ifd7 21 lbxg6+ hxg6 22 l:Lad1 i.d6 23
.l:':td4 gives White a strong attack) 1 6 d5 lba5
1 7 'ifc2 lbbc4 (17 ... lbac4 1 8 i.xb6 lbxb6 1 9
lbd4 looks a little betrer for 'W'hite; the e6-
square is a nice outpost for the rook after
lbe6 and ... i.xe6) 1 8 .i.f4 'iVd7 with an un
clear position. Black is ready to fight for the
central squares.
14 dS ltJa7?
Not a very impressive knight; after this
move 'W'hite stands clearly better. Better was
1 4...lbb4! 1 5 lbh4 g5 1 6 a3 gxh4 1 7 axb4
hxg3 1 8 hxg3 i.xb4 1 9 'iVh5, when 'W'hite
has compensation for the pawn, but nothing
more.
1 S ltJd4 iLb4 1 6 'iVb3 iLcs 1 7 i..e3
'W'hite could also have played 17 lbe6!?
148
XLxe6 18 dxe6 lbc6 19 .i.xc6 bxc6 20 lbe4
with a strong position.
1 7 . . . iLxd4 1 8 i..xd4 'iVd6 1 9 %:tad 1
Or 19 iLxb6 cxb6 (19...xb6 20 'ikxb6
cxb6 21 J::!.e7 gives a winning ending) 20 lbe4
'ifd8 21 l::tad1 . From a strategic point of view
'W'hite has a completely winning position.
1 9 . . . iLfS 20 a4 as 21 iLxb6 cxb6 22
ltJe4 iLxe4 23 .l:!.xe4 l:He8 24 J:t.e6! J:txe6
2S dxe6 'iVc7 26 .l:!.d7 'iVc1 + 27 'iVd1
'iVxd 1 + 28 .l:!.xd 1 1 -0
Black resigned due to the following line:
28 ... l:!.e8 29 e7! 'it>g8 30 .i.ds+'it>h8 31 i.f7.
Game 77
Motwani-Christensen
Copenhagen 199 1
1 e4 e S 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 ltJc3 ltJf6 4 g 3 d S
S exdS ltJxdS 6 iLg2 iLe6 7 0-0
This position was actually reached via a
different move order in this game, but here
we follow the usual route.
7 . . . ltJxc3
'W'hite would gain the lrubabve after
7 ... i..d6 8 d4!. Now Black must choose be
tween:
a) 8 ... 0-0 9 lbxe5! .i.xe5 (9 ... lbxc3? 1 0
lbxc6 bxc6 1 1 bxc3 loses a pawn, and
9 ... lbxe5? 1 0 lbxd5 is similar, only in worse
circumstances) 1 0 dxe5 lbxc3 1 1 bxc3 lbxe5
12 i.xb7 l:.b8 1 3 .i.g2 does not give Black
much compensation for the pawn. True, the

extra pawn is doubled, but still it controls
squares. Black will fInd most counterplay
after 1 3. .. 'ixdl 1 4 l::tx dl ii.g4 but his prob
lems persist after 1 5 l::tfl ! (but not 1 5 l::td5
ctJf3+ 16 Whl ctJel ! with good drawing
chances).
b) S ... exd4 9 ctJxd4 ctJxc3 10 bxc3 ctJxd4
1 1 'iVxd4! 0-0 12 ii.xb7 with a clear advan
tage, Mi.Tseitlin-Baranov, Moscow 1 974.
c) S ... ctJxc3 9 bxc3 and now:
c1) 9 ... ii.c4?! 10 lIel 0-0 1 1 ctJd2! ii.a6 1 2
i..xc6 bxc6 1 3 dxe5 ii. e7 1 4 ctJe4 and there is
not enough compensation for the pawn,
Khohnov-Zhukhovitsky, Moscow 1 969.
c2) Better is 9 ... exd4!? 10 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 1
cxd4 (11 'iVxd4?! 0-0 1 2 ii.xb7 c5 1 3 d3
l::tb S 1 4 i..g2 ii.e5 would give Black very
active play; here the extra pawn counts for
little) 1 1 ...c6 and White is only very slightly
better, if better at all.
a bxc3 e4?!
This backfIres. It was better to play
S... i..d6 9 d4 and in that way transpose to the
previous note.
9 lLle1 !
9 ctJd4?! ctJxd4 1 0 cxd4 'iVxd4 1 1 l:tb 1
0-0-0 12 d3 would give some compensation
for the pawn. But it would also be com
pletely unnecessary.
9 . . . i..c4?
Of course it is not nice to play .. .f7-f5, but
it seems to be necessary. After 9 ... f5 10 d3
i..d5 1 1 'iYe2 'ie7 12 c4 i.. f7 13 .l:tbl the
Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5
position is somewhat uncomfortable for
Black. He is more or less forced to castle
queenside before it is too late, and will have
some problems with the b-flle. Still, White
needs to activate the knight on e1, and Black
is certainly in the game.
1 0 d3 exd3 1 1 lLlxd3!
It is absolutely essential to bring the
knight back into play. Black's main problem
here is his bad development, and that can
only be exploited with swift development. 1 1
cxd3 ii.d5 1 2 ctJf3 .i.e7 13 l::tb l l::tb S 1 4 c4
..te6 1 5 ctJg5 ii.xg5 16 l::txb7 0-0 1 7 ..txg5
'iVxg5 i s i..xc6 l::txb7 1 9 ii.xb7 l::tdS gave
Black reasonable counterplay for the pawn in
Benko-Vaganian, Vrnjacka Banja 1971.
1 1 ... i..d 5
There is no alternative to stop the pres
sure down the long diagonal. 1 1 ...ii.e7 1 2
'iYg4! ii.xd3 (Black can also try 1 2... Sl.e6 1 3
xg7 ii.f6 1 4 'iVh6 i..xc3 1 5 l::tb l but then
there are no good moves left, for example
1 5... ctJd4 16 l:!.xb7 llVd6 17 .i.f4 ctJe2t i s
hl ctJxf4 1 9 ctJxf4 i..c4 20 'iYxd6 cxd6 2 1
l::tc7 ii.xfl 22 ii.xaS 0-0 23 Sl.d5 and Black
cannot save the endgame) 1 3 llVxg7 i..x fl (or
1 3... i.. f6 1 4 ii.xc6+ bxc6 15 l::te1+ d7 16
'iVg4+ and White wins) 1 4 ii.xc6+ bxc6 15
'iVxh&t d7 16 'iVd4+ cS 1 7 xfl gives
White a close-to-winning endgame.
1 2 J:!.e1 + i..e7 1 3 i..x d5 'Yixd5 1 4 i..a 3
This position IS virtually winning for
White.
149
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
1 4 . . :d7
There is no salvation in 14 ... :td8 15 Wig4
f8 1 6 ctJf4 'iWd7 1 7 xe7+ ctJxe7 1 8 .l:.adl
Wic8 1 9 .l:.xd8+ 'iixd8 20 f3! ctJf5 21 Wixb7.
Probably the only chance is to play 14 ...f8
straight away, as Black will be forced to do so
soon anyway. This way he might have the
idea of ...l:i.ae8 in some situations. 1 5 xe7+
ctJxe7 1 6 Wig4 promises White some initia
tive. The Black rook is pretty ineffective on
h8, but still there is no concrete refutation of
Black's play.
1 5 Ji..xe7 tOxe7 1 S ii'e2 'WifdS 1 7 J:i.ad1
.l:l.d8 1 8 tOf4 'iWe5 1 9 J:td5 J:txd5 20 tOxd5
'itd7 21 tOxe7 1 -0
Besides being a piece down, Black's king is
also in great trouble.
Game 78
Marinkovic-Yuneev
Leningrad 1989
1 e4 e5 2 tOe3 tOt6 3 93 d5 4 exd5
tOxd5 5 Ji..9 2 JteS S tOt3 tOeS 7 0-0 Ji..e5
This is an easy way for Black to equalise. I
do not know why it is played so rarely.
8 'iWe2
Or 8 .l:.e 1 0-0 and now:
a) White can win a pawn with 9 ctJa4?!
d6 1 0 c4 ctJdb4 1 1 c5 .i.e7 12 ctJxe5 ctJxe5
1 3 .l:.xe5 ctJd3 but it is certainly not worth it.
b) 9 d3 ctJxc3 (9 ... f6!? with equality is also
good) 10 bxc3 Wif6 and if anyone is better
1 50
here it must be Black.
c) Interesting is 9 ctJxe5!? ctJxe5 10 .s.xe5
xf2+ 1 1 'it>hl , when the idea of 1 2 d4 pre
sents problems for the f2-bishop and might
give White some chances for an advantage.
8 . . .0-0 9 d3
More ambitious is 9 ctJxe5!? ctJd4 1 0 'iVdl
ctJb4 (10 ... l:i.e8 with compensation is also a
viable option) and now:
a) Not 1 1 ctJd3? ctJxd3 12 cxd3 'iid7,
when Black has a perfect position. Galakhov
Rakhimov, Tashkent 1 993.
b) 1 1 .i.xb7 ctJbxc2 12 .l:.bl .i.h3 13 .i.e4
xfl 14 'ixfl c6 15 ctJxc6 ctJxc6 16 .ixc6
l:!.c8 17 .ie4 ctJd4 with chances for both
sides.
c) 1 1 ctJe4 .i.d6 12 c3 ctJdc2 1 3 ctJxd6
'ii'xd6 14 d4 ctJxal 1 5 cxb4 and Black is
forced into 1 5 ... xa2 16 'ia4 d5 (Black's
position is fragile after 16 ... e6?! 17 xb7)
1 7 'iix al xg2 1 8 'it>xg2 'iixd4 1 9 a5,
when Black has good counterplay with a
rook and pawn against the uncoordinated
two minor pieces. The position is probably
about equal.
9 . . .tS 1 0 a3 JtbS?!
Alternatively:
a) 1O ... ctJd4?! 1 1 ctJxd4 xd4 12 ctJb5! and
White has ideas like 12 ... b6 1 3 c4 ctJe7 14
i.xb7 b8 15 .i.e4. Though Black has com
pensation, it is not completely clear whether
it's enough for a pawn.
b) Much safer is 10 ... 'id7! 1 1 ctJe4 d4
1 2 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 3 'iVdl b6 and White might
be happy with the two bishops, but more
importantly the c1 -bishop cannot find a good
square, and Black has a slight space advan
tage. The chances are probably about even,
but White should be careful.
1 1 tOa4! tOde7 1 2 b4 Ji..94 1 3 ii'e4
I t is not obvious that the queen is well
placed here. More precise was 1 3 ctJxb6!
axb6 14 .i.b2 ctJd4 1 5 i.xd4 exd4 16 'iWe4
i.xf3 17 .i.xf3 and White is better due to the
superiority of his bishop to Black's knight.
1 3 . . .ii'e8?!

This seems somewhat artificial. More
natural was 13 .. :iVd7 14 lLJxb6 axb6 and
there are no apparent defects connected to
the queen's position.
1 4 4Jxb6 axb6 1 5 j.b2
1 5 b5!?, keeping the pressure along the h l
a 8 diagonal, was tempting. I t all depends on
the line 1 5... iLxf3 1 6 iLxf3 lLJd4 1 7 iLg4
"iVd8 (after 1 7 ... f5 1 8 "iVxe5 z:td8 1 9 iLdl
Black will regain the pawn, but once the
bishop comes to b2 White will have a very
strong pressure) 1 8 iLb2, when it seems that
White will once again gain the advantage of
bishop versus knight.
1 5 . . . f5 1 6 'iWe2 lIe8?!
Too passive; now White has time to gain
perfect coordination. Black would be worse
after 1 6...b5?! 1 7 d4! exd4 1 8 lLJxd4 lLJxd4 1 9
iLxd4 but stronger is 1 6. . ..ith3!, exchanging
White's best piece. Even so, White is better if
he reacts with 1 7 .itxh3 "iVxh3 1 8 b5 lLJa7 1 9
d4 g4 2 0 a4, avoiding an undesirable pawn
structure on the queenside, as well as manag
ing to put Black's centre under pressure.
1 7 Jafe1 4Jg6 1 8 'iVf1 !
A very cryptic move that appears very
strong. White has the idea of h2-h4-h5 to
crack open Black's kingside, as well as b4-b5
and d3-d4. Black, on the other hand, is com
pletely without counterplay.
1 8 . . . h8 1 9 h4 h6
Unpleasant, but what is Black to do?
20 b5 4Ja5 21 d4 exd4
Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5
2 1 ...iLg4 22 'it'd3! iLf5 23 'it'c3 e4 24 1LJd2
"iVd7 25 a4 gives White a strong position. All
Black's minor pieces are misplaced.
22 4Jxd4 4Je5
22... 'it'd7 23 .l:i.adl xel 24 xel does not
solve any of Black's problems.
23 j.c3
Stronger was 23 lLJxf5! xf5 24 j,xe5
kIxe5 25 xe5 'it'xe5 (25 ... fxe5 26 e2
would leave Black with a bad structure and
bad pieces) 26 el 'it'c3 (26...d6 27 d3!
'iVxd3 28 cxd3 c6 29 a4 .l:i.d8 30 .l:i.e7 gives
Black enormous problems in the endgame)
27 .l:i.e7 xc2 (chess resembles war; what
good will it do you if you have the largest
army, but cannot bring your troops to the
front? 27 .. :iVxa3 28 "iVe2! is also very danger
ous for Black) 28 e1 .l:i.f8 29 .l:i.d7 c5 30
b4!' This highlights Black's problems, e.g.
30... c1+ 31 'It>h2 .l:i.g8 32 d5 with a win
ning attack, or 30 ...xb4 31 axb4 lLJc4 32
.l:i.xc7 lLJd6 33 .:!.d7 lLJxb5 34 xb7 and
White has a winning endgame.
23 . . . j.g4?!
Necessary was 23... d7!? in order to gain
counterplay against the b-pawn. After 24 f4
lLJec4 25 d3 c5 (25 .. J:he1+ 26 I!.xel lLJxa3
27 .l:i.e7 looks uninviting) 26 bxc6 bxc6 27
'it'g6 .l::i.xe1+ 28 l:.xel iLe8 29 d3 a7!
White stands much better, but Black has
managed to keep his last line of defence and
is still in the game.
24 f4 4Jec4 25 'iWd3 j.h5
Black is also in trouble after 25 ...'it'd7 26
'iVg6 lLJd6 27 iLfl ! (with the threat of fl
d3 as well as protecting the b-pawn). After
27...iLf5 28 lLJxf5 xf5 29 xf5 lLJxf5 30
f2 the endgame is rough for Black.
26 j.d5 'i'h3 27 4Je6 l:tad8?
It is a pity that Black lost his cool here -
we can never have enough fantastic combi
nations. The best move was 27 ... c6! and now:
a) It is worthwhile investigating the posi
tion after 28 xf6?!' This is an inaccurate
move, but the positions are so interesting
that it is difficult to call it a mistake! 28...gxf6
151
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
29 lbfS!! J:IxfS 30 J:Ie7 (this certainly looks
like the end, but ... ) 30...i.. f7! (3(l...xg3+?! 3 1
xg3 J:IgS 32 i..xgS J:IxgS 3 3 lixg8+ xgS
34 J:Ic7 cxb5 35 J:Iel and thanks to the bad
position of Black's king, 'X'hite has good
winning chances) 31 .txf7 (31 J:Ixf7 J::!.xf7 32
i..xf7 iVg4! and Black is a piece up)
31 ...ctJe3!! 32 xe3 l:!.xf7! 33 l:!.xf7 J:IgS 34
f2 2+ 35 f1 iVh 1+ 36 'it>f2 'ih2+ with
a draw by repetition (36 .. :xa I ?? would lose
in an instant to 37 f5).
b) 2S i..g2! iVg4 29 f5 with a clear advan
tage. On 29 ...g6 White has 30 lbxg7!, but
also 30 J:Ie4! iVxf5 31 lbxg7! is a threat, so
Black is out of good moves.
28 i..x aS! CLlxaS 29 CLlxd8 J:txd8 30 i..g2!
l:!.xd3 31 i..xh3 .!if.xg3+ 32 h2 J:tf3 33
l:!.e7 f2+ 34 Wg3 xc2 3S f5 nc3+
36 Wh2 CLlb3 37 l:!.d 1 1 -0
Game 79
Smyslov-Polugaevsky
Baku 1961
1 e4 eS 2 CLlc3 CLlf6 3 g3 dS 4 exd5
CLlxdS S i..g2 iLe6 6 CLlf3 CLlc6 7 0-0 e7
8 .l:!.e1 f6
The alternatives arc not so good:
a) S ... 'iVd6?! 9 ctJe4 iY'd7 10 d4 exd4 1 1
lbxd4 lbxd4 1 2 xd4 0-0 1 3 i..g5 f6 14
ctJc3! c6 15 i.. f4 with a clear white edge,
Korolev-Sauermann, 1975.
b) S ...ctJxc3 9 bxc3 .i.f6 (\X'hite won after
9 .. .f6? 1 0 d4 0-0 1 1 e2 lid7 [1 1 ....td6 1 2
dxe5 fxe5 1 3 ctJg5 iVd7 14 lbxe6 iY'xe6 1 5
5 with a clear advantage to 'X'hite - Smys
lov] 1 2 dxe5 l:!.aeS 1 3 exf6 1l.xf6 1 4 1l.a3
i..xa2 1 5 iVf1 !, Gufcld-Garcia Martinez,
Camaguey 1 974 - Black ",ill lose the ex
change) 10 .i.a3! and Black will come under
serious attack, Vorotnikov-Sher, USSR 1 976.
c) S.. .f6 9 d4! ctJxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 'iVe2
transposes to note 'b'.
9 CLle4
Here 'X'hite should prefer 9 ctJxd5! .txd5
1 0 d4 .txf3 (10...e4 1 1 ctJd2 i..xd4 1 2 ctJxe4
1 52
0-0 1 3 c3 .i.b6 1 4 'iVxd5 iVxd5 1 5 ctJf6+ gxf6
1 6 .1l.xd5 gives 'X'hite a superior endgame,
Snyder-Shmeteff, correspondence 1 975) 1 1
.txf3 ctJxd4 1 2 .txb7 l:!.bS 1 3 .tg2 0-0 14
c3, when the two bishops and better pawn
structure give 'X'hite a clear edge, Snyder
Oppenrieder, correspondence 1 975.
9 . . . 0-0 10 d3 e7 1 1 a3!
Preparing an expansion on the queenside.
1 1 . . .CLlb6
If Black tries to prevent b2-b4 with
1 1 ...a5, 'X'hite continues with 1 2 lbed2!, redi
recting the knight in order to attack the e
pawn. 1 2....1l.f6 1 3 ctJc4 i..g4 1 4 h3 .txf3 1 5
'iVxf3 ctJd4 1 6 dl and Black has serious
problems. For example, 1 6... J:IeS 1 7 c3 lbc6
I S d4 lbde7 1 9 d5 b5 20 lbe3 ctJbS 21 e2
and 'X'hite is close to being strategically win
ning.
1 2 b4 iLg4 1 3 c3 a6 1 4 h3 i..h S 1 S CLlcS
'X'hite has a clear advantage. Polugaevsky
was a great fighter and a great defensive
player. But Smyslov was a great natural player
with a strong sense of positional play. Some
times it is like this: you can fight all you like,
but if the position is bad, the result will be
bad.
1 S . . . b8 1 6 b2 iLd6 1 7 'tIib3 CLld7 1 8
d4 l:te8 1 9 l:te3!
Preparing the doubling of the rooks on
the e-ftle and thereby forcing Black to make
uncomfortable exchanges.
1 9 . . . exd4 20 cxd4 xe3 2 1 xe3 as

Also possible was 21 ...liJxcS 22 dxcS f8
23 g4 i.g6 24 liJeS liJxeS 2S xeS f6 26
i.g3 with the idea of f4, when White has a
clear edge - Smyslov.
22 b5 0,e7 23 l:!.e1 0,d5 24 'ilfb3 0,5f6
24... liJxcS?! loses by force: 2S dxcS .i.xcs
26 MeS i.xf3 27 .i.xf3 c6 28 xdS cxdS 29
MxdS c8 (or29 ...b6 30 .t!.fS! Mf8 31 'iHc3
and White wins a piece) 30 .i.xg7! and White
will have a winning endgame.
25 0,d3 0,b6 26 0,fe5 a4
Black's position is beyond redemption, for
example: 26 ....i.xeS 27 dxeS a4 28 'iWc3 liJfdS
29 'ii'd4 with complete domination, or
26 ...liJfd7 27 liJf4 a4 28 'iVc2 with a very
promising position.
27 iVc2 .ig6 28 0,xg6 hxg6 29 0,c5!
Highlighting the problem of the light
squares.
29 . . .0,bd5 30 iVxa4 b6 31 0,d3 .if8 32
0,e5 d6 33 0,c6 :re8 34 l:!.e5 0,e7 35
c4 0,f5 36 l:!.xe8 0,xe8 37 0,e5 'ilfe7 38
0,xf7! iVe 1 + 39 .if1 0,xg3 40 0,e5+
h7 41 fxg3 xg3+ 42 h 1 1 -0
r------__,.
Game 80
Shariyazdanov-Blauert
Calcutta 2002
1 e4 e5 2 0,f3 0,f6 3 0,c3 0,c6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 0,xd5 6 .ig2 0,de7?!
It is hard for me to accept that the idea of
...liJde7 followed by ...g7-g6 and ....i.g7 is not
Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5
correct, because it happens to be my own
idea! I played it in few games, but when I
faced 8 d4! my love for ...liJde7 perished. 8
d4! was brought to my attention by the
strong Polish 1M (now Gl\1) Pawel Blehm.
After his game against GM Marcin Kaminski,
(which saw 8 d3 not 8 d4) this move has
become quite popular. The last rime I tried
6 ...liJde7 (in 20(0), my teenage opponent,
Polish master Grzegorz Gajewski, played 8
d4! as well. Oh what a misery creative life is!
7 0-0 g6 8 d4!
Or:
a) 8 d3 .i.g7 9 e3 0-0 10 'iHd2 liJfS 1 1
i.cs Me8 1 2 h4 h6 1 3 'iHdl b6 1 4 a3
i.b7 IS liJh2 and the players agreed a draw
in this rather level position, Kaminski-Blehm,
Koszalin 1 998.
b) My fIrst impression of 8 b4 was that
White could establish a strong initiative. As
time showed, however, not all impressions
can be translated into facts: 8 ... a6 9 a4 g7
1 0 i.a3 0-0 1 1 bS (1 1 Mel i.g4 1 2 h3 i.xf3
1 3 .i.xf3 lib8! with the idea of .. . fS gives
Black good chances) 1 1 ...liJd4 12 Mel liJxf}t
(this seems slightly unnatural; probably better
was 1 2 ... i.g4!? 13 h3 .i.xf3 14 .i.xf3 axbS I S
axbS c6 1 6 bxc6 bxc6 1 7 g2 fS, when Black
retains the strong knight on d4 and the
chances are level) 13 'iWxf3 and White has an
1111t1at1ve, Pinski-M.Grabarczyk, Warsaw
1 998. This game shows the effects of practi
cal chess psychology. To me it was very diffI-
1 53
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
cult to play against one of my own pet ideas
- I lost the game.
8 . . . exd4 9 tLlb5 ..tg7 !
Less good is 9 ... a6?! 10 liJbxd4 liJxd4 1 1
'iVxd4! 'iVxd4 1 2 liJxd4 il.g7 1 3 liJb3 0-0 1 4
c3 and White has a clear advantage. At fIrst it
might not look like much, but his pieces are
slightly better placed and Black has problems
developing the queenside. Believe me, this
position is rather uncomfortable. One possi
ble line is 14 ... a5 1 5 liJc5 l:ta7 16 il.g5 f6 1 7
l:tfel f7 1 8 il.e3 b 6 19 il.f1 ! gS 20 il.c4+
g6 21 liJe6 il.xe6 22 il.xe6 and White kept
a distinct advantage, G.Gajewski-Pinski, Po
lanica Zdroj 2000. Thanks to the help of my
opponent I managed to draw, but this posi
tion has no value for Black.
1 0 ..tf4 0-0 1 1 tLlxc7 .::tb8 1 2 tLlb5 .::ta 8
1 3 c3?!
This is the start of a bad plan. White had
two preferable alternatives: 13 liJc7 with a
draw, as in the game he is soon worse, but
best is 1 3 lIe I ! a6 1 4 liJd6 liJf5 1 5 liJxc8
l:txc8 1 6 llVd2 6 1 7 a3 and White has a
slight plus because of the two bishops.
1 3 . . . dxc3 1 4 bxc3?!
The normal 14 liJxc3 was clearly more
sound.
1 4 . . . a6 1 5 tLld6 ..txc3 1 6 l::tc 1 ..tg7 1 7
tLlg5 tLld4?!
Better was 17 ... h6 18 liJge4 a5 and
'hite does not have full compensation for
the pawn.
1 54
1 8 J:!.e 1 h6 1 9 tLlge4
After 19 liJf3 liJxf3+ 20 il.xf3 liJc6 21
il.xc6 bxc6 22 l:txc6 the position is level.
1 9 . . . tLlec6
Better than 19 ...liJef5 20 liJxf5 liJxf5
(20 ... ..txfS 21 liJd6) 21 liJd6 liJxd6 22 il.xd6
l:te8 23 l:txe8+ xe8 24 J::tc7, which gives
White a strong initiative for the pawn. Black
should probably return the pawn, and maybe
give up another one, in order to get his
pieces out of the corner.
20 tLlc5 tLle6
20 ... .l:!.a7! was more ambitious.
21 tLlxe6 ..txe6 22 tLlxb7 'i!Vxd 1 23
J:!.cxd1 tLld4 24 ..te5?!
24 il.xh6! il.xh6 25 J:'i.xd4 iLxa2 26 l:ta4 is
slightly better for White.
24 . . . tLlc2 25 ..txg7 Wxg7 26 l:te2 % - %
Game 81
Glek -Marcelin
Germatry 200 1
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 ..tg2 tLlxc3
This is the most popular move.
7 bxc3 ..tc5
7 ... ..td6 is considered in Games 84-86,
while 7 ...il.e7 is considered in Games 87-88.
8 0-0 0-0 9 J:!.e1
Also possible is 9 d3 f6 (9...iLg4!?) 10 ..te3
il.b6 (10...il.xe3 1 1 fxe3 e4 12 liJd4 seems
pleasant for White) 1 1 liJd2 'iVe7 12 liJb3

iLe6 13 c4 as! (this is a pawn sacrifice in the
long run because of the threats down the b
flie, but this is better than giving up the dark
squares) 14 iLxb6 cxb6 15 CLld2 l:!.fdS 16
l:!.bl "VJIic7. Here White should have played 17
f4! with to play on two flanks. Instead the
game Reefschlager-Mainka, Germany 1994
continued 17 l:!.el iLf7 I S l:!.b2 f5 19 1 e4
20 l:!.xb6 l:!.ab8, when Black had good coun
terplay for the pawn deficit.
9 . :f6!?
. Black to make concessions. Also possible
The main idea of 7...iLc5 i s t o take control
of the d4-square.
9...f610 d3 iLg4 11 h3 iLh5 12 g4 iLf7 13
CLld2 iLb6 14 a4 iLd5 15 CLle4 f5 16 gxf5
':xf5 17 iLe3 was slightly better for White in
Glek-Fox, Martigny Open 1995, while
9....:e8 is investigated in the next game.
1 0 d3 h6?!
This is not necessary. White cannot use
the g5-square for very much. Black should be
equal after 10 ...iLb6. Now play could con
tinue 11 iLe3 iLg4 12 h3 iLh5 13 l:tb1 e4!?
14 dxe4 "VJIixc3 15 'iVd3 "VJIif6! and White
should be careful due to his weakened pawn
structure. If he starts to play too casually, he
might quickly end up in trouble.
1 1 j"e3 j"b6 1 2 4Jd2
I believe that White is slightly better here.
1 2 . . .J:!.e8
After 12.. :iVg6 13 CLlc4 f6 14 a4 CLla5?!
(14...iLe6 15 as iLxe3 16 CLlxe3 a6 gives
White some pressure against b7, but as is
Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 . . . d5
also a little loose, so White is not more than
an inch better) 15 CLld2! (this highlights the
awkward position of the knight on as)
15...iLg4 16 'iVb1 :i.aeS 17 CLlfl f5 IS iLxb6
axb6 19 CLle3 iLh5 20 CLld5 "VJIid6 21 4
"VJIidS 22 'i'h4! White has an overwhelming
advantage, Glek-Karpatchev, Bad Zwesten
2002.
1 3 4Jb3 j"e6 14 c4!
This is the most aggressive move, forcing
was 14 CLlc5 iLxc5 15 i.xc5 i.d7 16 "VJIih5
and thanks to the two bishops White has a
small edge.
1 4 . . . .txe3 1 5 J:.xe3
Again the most natural move. After 15
fxe3 l:!.abS! 16 CLlc5 "VJIig6 17 CLlxe6 (wrong
would be 17 CLlxb7?? iLg4! 18 "VJIib1 e4 19
'Yib5 iLc8 20 iLxe4 l:he4 21 dxe4 iLxb7 and
Black is close to winning) 17...l:txe6 18 l:tfl
though White has some advantage, Black can
fight on.
1 5 . . . l:.ad8
1 6 c1 ?
White here misses the chance to ruin
Black's pawn structure. Perhaps he mis
judged the compensation Black might get on
the light squares. 16iLxc6! bxc617 "VJIie2! (17
'iVel !? iLh3 18 'iVa5 also looks better for
White, but the queen should not go astray
like this and give Black hope of counterplay
on the kingside) 17...iLd7 18 l::te l and White
wins a pawn. He is clearly better after 18...e4
1 55
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
1 9 Mxe4 Mxe4 20 dxe4.
1 6 . . . e8 1 7 b2 l:!e7 1 8 l:!.ae1 &de8 1 9
tUe5
White would have had better chances to
get an advantage with 1 9 f4!? exf4 20 'iWxf6
gxf6 21 Mxe7 Mxe7 22 Mxe7 0,xe7 23 gxf4
0,g6 24 0,as c6 25 fs 0,e7 26 'it'f2 - Glek.
His main idea is 26 ... 0,xfs 27 .i.h3!. Going
back a bit, 1 9 ... b6!? might be better: 20 J::!. f1
(20 ..Ill..xc6? 1Wxc6 21 J::!.xes .i.b7 and Black
has a strong attack) 20 ...ifg6 21 .i.e4 "i'd6
with unclear play.
1 9 . . :i!Vd6
Black could equalise with 1 9 ... 0,d4! 20 c3
0,fs 21 M3e2 0,d6.
20 tUe4 "i!Vb4 21 a1
21 'iWxb4?! ctJxb4 22 J::!.3e2 i.g4 23 l:!.d2 fs
would allow Black to take over the initiative.
21 . . . a5
21 ...'iWa4?! 22 0,c3! "iVa3 23 ctJds .l:!.d7 24
f4 "iVcs 25 Wh1 would play into White's
hands.
22 ie3
Glek thinks White is preferable here. Per
haps he is right.
22 . . . f8?!
After this Black has an unpleasant end
game. Better was 22 .. :tb6!? 23 a3! with only
a slight white edge. Note that 23 0,d2 4
24 0,e4 6 would not achieve anything for
\'V1llte.
23 ixa5 tUxa5 24 tUe3
Black has problems with his knight on as.
I t does not really do anything out there, and
it has no easy way to become useful.
24 . . . e6?
This does little to solve the problem of the
knight on as. Instead of improving his worst
piece, as many theoreticians recommend,
Black is actually making the situation for the
knight even worse.
It was better to play 24 .. .f6 25 h4 b6!, with
the idea of ...ctJb7-cs. After 26 ctJds J::!. f7 27
f4 c6 28 0,c3 Mfe7 29 fxes l:txes 30 .l:ixes
.l:ixeS 31 .l:ixes fxes 32 Wf2 White has better
chances in the endgame.
156
25 tUe4
White immediately spots the weakness of
d6.
25 . . . J:!.d8 26 e5! b6 27 tUd6 bxe5 28
tUxe8 xe8 29 f4?
Simple and best was 29 .l:ixes .l:Ixes
(29 ... Mce8 30 Mxe7 l:txe7 31 .l:ib1 is very
uncomfortable for Black) 30 .l:ixes ctJb7 3 1
f4 with a clear advantage.
29 . . . l::tee8 30 fxe5 J:!.b8 31 J:!:.e4?!
This does not prevent Black's counterplay.
Better was 31 c3 .l:ib6 32 Wf2 0,b7 and even
though Black has improved his position,
problems still remain.
3 1 . . . e4 32 d4?
White is drifting. After 32 l:!.d4! J::!.b2 33
J::!.d8+ .l:ie8 34 .l:id7 J::!. e7 Black has no more
than a repetition. Now Black takes over.
32 . . .l:!.b2! 33 J:!. 1 e2 J:!.xa2 34 J:!.f2 J:!:.b2
34....l:ib7! 35 e6 f6 with very promising
prospects was better.
35 f1 J:lb5
More precise was 3s ... c3! 36 .l:ie3 l:!.b4 37
.l:id3 'it'e8 and Black keeps his extra pawn
with very few problems.
36 lilf3 e5?
First White's play fell apart, now Black's
game disintegrates as well. After 36 ... We8
Black is still better. Now White has the pos
sibility of 37 ds! with an initiative.
37 J:ta3? tUb7??
Very bad. 37 ... cxd4 38 .l:ixd4 .l:iexes and
Black is close to winning.

38 J:d:.xa7 tLld6??
It does not improve. After 38... cxd4 39
.i.xc4 l!a5 40 lixa5 ttJxa5 41 .i.d5 lId7! 42
lIxd4 ttJc6 43 l!dl (43 e6 l!d6! achieves lit
tle) 43... ttJxe5 the endgame is a draw.
39 J:.a8+ 1 -0
A real comedy of errors.
Game 82
Harikrishna-Cvek
Pardubice 2002
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 g2 tLlxc3 7 bxc3 c5 8
0-0 0-0 9 J:te 1 .i:l:e8 1 0 d3! g4 1 1 h3
h5 1 2 g4 g6 1 3 tLlg5
This position has been played a number of
times. The conclusion seems to be that
White has the better chances.
1 3 . . . b6
Black has also tried:
a) 1 3 ...h6 14 ttJe4 .i.b6 1 5 iVf3 a5 1 6
lIb 1 xe4 1 7 lIxe4 .i.xc3 1 8 :i!.c4 ttJd4 1 9
xb7 with a slight plus for 'hite, Glek
Lane, Belgium 1 996.
b) 1 3. . .f6 14 ttJe4 .i.b6 1 5 h4 .i.t7 16 h5
h6 17 ttJg3 l!b8 1 8 e4 ttJe7 19 f3 with a
small edge for White, Rusanov-Smikovski,
Russia 2000.
1 4 tLle4
The best move is 1 4 lIb1 ! h6 (14...lif6 1 5
lif3 xf3 1 6 .i.xf3 lIad8 1 7 g2 f6 1 8
.i.xc6 gave White a small plus in Glek-
Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 . . . d5
Almasi, Biel 1 996) 15 ttJe4 ttJe7 1 6 c4 c6 17
.i.a3 .i.xe4 18 ':xe4 lIb8 1 9 lIxe5 .i.xf2+ 20
hl and White is better due to the two
bishops, Glek-Almasi, Germany 1 996.
14 . . .tLle7 1 5 a4
White needs to try something to disturb
the Black set-up. 1 5 lif3 'id7 1 6 lIbl lIad8
leads to an unclear position.
1 5 . . . c6 1 6 g5 f6 1 7 d2 tLld5
Black has equalised.
1 8 c4?!
After this White has some weaknesses. 1 8
"iVf3 was more natural.
1 8 . . . tLlf4 1 9 i.xf4 exf4 20 "tIid2
After 20 c3 f5! 21 gxf5 .i.xf5 22 d4 .i.a5
we see how well the two bishops work to
gether in an open position.
20 . . . i.xe4? !
This is rather safe. Black should play for
an edge with 20 ... f5! 21 gxf5 .i.xf5 22 "iVxf4
xe4 23 J::txe4 .l:.f8 24 iVg4 xf2+ and
'hite's king \vill always be a little uncom
fortable, even though draw is the most likely
result.
21 xe4 ll:.xe4 22 xe4 d6 23 .tf3
:te8 24 g2 "tIie5
Black is continuing with inaccurate moves.
After 24 ... .i.c7 25 d4 b6 26 lIe1 lIe6 the
position is completely equal.
25 c3 "t1ig5
25 ...c5! 26 lIe1 xe 1 27 lixe1 t7 with
a likely draw.
26 J:l:.e 1 ':'xe1 27 "tIixe1
157
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
27 .. .'t;f7?
Black has completely lost his sense of
danger. This move looks innocent, but it is in
fact a terrible mistake. 27...e5 28 'Ylid2 'i'c5
would sril1 keep the balance.
Here we see the importance of playing at
full concentration even in dull positions, as it
is never easy to foresee when a slight inaccu
racy will change the evaluation.
28 d4! h5
This does little good, but there is no de
fence against c4-c5 and b 1 with threats
against h7 and b7.
29 c5 i.c7 30 b1 ! hxg4 31 hxg4 b6 32
'ife4? !
More precise is 32 as! b5 (32... bxc5 33
'Ylib7 and \Xlhite wins) 33 'i'a2+ f8
(33...e7 34 "ie2+l d7 35 xc6-H xc6 36
'iHe6+ b7 37 a6+ and White wins) 34 'i'e6
f5 35 f1 ! fxg4 36 xc6 'iHd8 37 'iHxg4
xa5 38 'iYxf4+ 'iYf6 39 "itb8+ d8 40 'iYxb5
and White should win.
32 . . . bxc5?
Bad defence. White would still have a
promising position after 32 ... d5! 33 'iHh7
(33 'i'xd5+ cxd5 34 xd5+ e7 35 c6 and
Black has good drawing chances) 33 .. :ii'e6 34
'iHh5+ e7 35 d5 cxd5 36 j.xd5, but this is
still much better than the text. Now it is all
over.
33 xc6 i.b6 34 d7+ \t>g8 35 i.d5+
\t>h7 36 i.e4+ \t>h6 37 'ifc8 i.d8 38 i.f5
f3+ 39 \t>xf3 1 -0
1 58
Game 83
Solovjov-Gavritenkov
Tufa 1999
1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 tDc3 tDf6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 tDxd5 6 i.g2 tDxc3 7 bxc3 i.c5 8
0-0 0-0 9 e1 .l:.e8 1 0 d4
This move should give Black easy play.
The problem is that White is not ready to
support a big centre with his pieces, and
Black quickly develops well to attack it.
1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 J:Ixe8+ "iVxe8 1 2 cxd4 i.b6
1 3 c4
Or 1 3 'i'd3 g4! 14 liJg5?! (14 c3 with
equality is better) 1 4...'i'e1+ 1 5 .i.f1 g6 1 6 c3
(even worse was 1 6 .i.b2? "ike7 1 7 h4 h6 1 8
liJe4 liJb4 1 9 .i.a3 j.f5! with a clear advan
tage for Black, Delchev-Almasi, Odorheiu
1 995) 1 6 ...l::te 8 and Black is better.
1 3 . . . i.g4 1 4 c5 .l:.d8?
This sacrifice is very ambitious, but unfor
tunately flawed. Much better is 1 4. a5 and
a) 1 5 .i.d2 l::td8 1 6 d5 liJe5 (1 6 ... 'i'd7! 1 7
"ikc1 xd5 1 8 liJe5 ii'd1+ 1 9 ii'xdl J:hd1+
20 l:lxdl xdl 21 j.xc6 bxc6 22 liJxc6 .i.d2
23 liJxa7 a4! would give an endgame where
Black has enough compensation to draw) 1 7
xe5 .i.xf3 1 8 .i.xf3 xe5 1 9 l::tb 1 b 6 20 c6
and White is a little better according to Glek,
although I'm not so sure.
b) 1 5 .i.e3 l::td8 1 6 'iYa4! .i.c3 1 7 l::tc 1
i.xf3 18 .i.xf3 liJxd4? (a grave tactical error;
 Th e Glek S ys te m with 4 . . . d5

after 1 8.....ixd4 1 9 .i.xc6 'i'xc6 20 'i\i'xc6

bxc6 21 l::td l .i.f6 22 l::tb l f8 23 l::tb7 i.d4 Game 84
24 i.xd4 l::txd4 25 l::txa7 l::tc4 the rook end Hector-Timoshenko
ing is completely drawn) 1 9 "iVxe8+ l::txe8 20 Bled OlYmpiad 2002
.tdl l::txe3 21 fxe3 .td2 22 l::tc4 .txe3+ 23
g2 lLJe6 24 c6 with good winning chances 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g3 d5
for White, Belikov-V.Ivanov, Moscow 1 996. 5 exd5 ttJxd5 6 g2 ttJxc3 7 bxc3 i.d6 8
1 5 cxb6! 0-0 0-0 9 nb 1 !
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
After 1 5 .i.g5?! l::txd4 1 6 c1 .i.xf3 1 7 .txf3
.ta5 1 8 ..ie3 l::td8 1 9 g2 e6 Black was
just a pawn up in Glek-Van cler Sterren, Ger
many 1 995.
1 5 . . . ttJxd4

Generally White should include this move

in his arsenal in the 6 ... lLJxc3 line, as Black
will have to make less convenient moves to
finish his development.
9 . . . J:.b8
Black has also tried to do without this
1 6 xd4!! move: 9 ...l::te 8 10 d4 h6 1 1 l::te l (more passive
A fantastic concept. is 1 1 .te3 l::tb8 12 lLJd2 lLJa5 1 3 'Yi'h5 b6 1 4
1 6 . . . .t!.xd4 l::tfel .i.b7 with equality, Glek-Hector, Co
1 6 ... .txf3 1 7 'Yi'xd8 "iVxd8 1 8 .txf3 gives penhagen 1 995) 1 1 ...exd4 12 ':xe8+ 'Yi'xe8 1 3
White a winning endgame. cxd4 b6?! (13.. ..l;tb8!? should be played)
1 7 ttJxd4 'iHe 1 + 1 8 f1 axb6 1 9 ttJb3
\,(lhite's position is a technical win, but still
it needs to be played with care and attention;
Hector lost this position in a game in 1997.
1 9 . . . c6 20 e3 'iHb4 21 h3 f3?
21.. . .i.e6 is more resilient.
22 ttJd2! d5 23 l:.b1 'iHe7 24 a4 f5 25
l:!.xb6 g5 26 a5 f4 27 gxf4 gxf4 28 xf4
'iHg7+ 29 g3 'iHc3 30 nxb7! xd2 31
a6 'iHa2 32 a7 c5 33 1:td7 'iHa4 34 1:txd5
'iHxa7 35 i.d6 'iHg7+ 36 i.g2 'iHa1 + 37
h2 'iHc1 38 J:i.xc5 'iHd2 39 i.g3 g7 40
J:!.c7+ h6 41 i.e4 g5 42 nf7 h5 43
1:.f5+ 1 -0 14 l::tb 3! .i.b7 1 5 l::te3 (this wonderful rook

1 59
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
swing is something that should be remem-
bered) 1 S ...'if8 (Glek-Hort, Germany 1 994).
Now White should play ctJh4 \vith some
initiative according to Glek.
1 0 d4 .i.f5
1O ... h6 is considered in Game 85, while
1 0....ig4 is the subject of Game 86. Black
has also tried:
a) 10 ... Me8 1 1 Me 1 (1 1 ctJd2!? .if5 12 ctJc4
'id7 is complex) l 1 ...exd4 1 2 ctJxd4 (12
Mxe8+ 'ixe8 1 3 cxd4 was maybe more natu
ral) 1 2 ...ctJxd4 1 3 cxd4 b6 1 4 .ie3 .if5 and
Black has equalised completely, Nasybullin
Nikolic, Yerevan 1 996. Note that Black's
main strategy has been to remove all objects
of attack for the strongest piece in White's
camp: the g2-bishop.
b) 1 0 ...exd4 1 1 cxd4 .ig4 12 h3 i.hS 1 3
MbS! i.g6 1 4 ctJh4 .ixc2?! (better is 1 4...a6
1 5 Mb 1 'if6 1 6 ctJxg6 with a slight plus for
White, but nothing more) 1 5 "ilYxc2 ctJxd4 1 6
'ic4 ctJxbS 1 7 "ilYxb5 c 6 1 8 "ilYa4 "iVb6 1 9 ctJf5
'ib4 20 'ic2 and White has good attacking
chances, Glek-Mainka, Germany 1 994.
1 1 'Llh4 .i.d7 1 2 f4!?
I believe White could play more strongly
here with 1 2 Mel ! l:i.e8 1 3 i.e4! "ilYf6 1 4 ctJf3
i.g4 I S i.gS 'ixgS (IS ....ixf3 1 6 'id2 'ie6
1 7 .ixf3 looks good for White) 1 6 ctJxgS
.ixdl 1 7 Mbxdl h6 1 8 ctJf3 and Black has
problems holding his centre.
1 2 . . . exf4 1 3 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 1 4 xf4 'Lle7
Black should avoid 1 4 ... gS? 1 5 ctJf5! "ilYf6
1 6 Mf2 i.xfS 1 7 .ie4 ctJe 7 1 8 .ixf5 ctJxfS 1 9
MbS!, when White will have a very strong
attack against the now weakened black king.
1 5 f2 b5?!
Though structurally justified, this is simply
too slow. It was better to neutralise White's
'canon' with 1 S ... .ic6!? 1 6 .ixc6 (1 6 "ilVhS?!
i.xg2 17 ctJxg2 'idS would even give Black
the advantage, as all the weaknesses in
'X'hite's camp will count in the endgame)
1 6 ...bxc6! 1 7 Mxb8 "ilYxb8 1 8 "ilYe2 .l:i.e8 and
Black has found active counterplay and
equality.
1 60
1 6 h5 .l:!.b6 1 7 J:Lbf1
Suddenly all of White's pieces are ready to
attack Black's king.
1 7 . . . g6
Black could also have tried 17 ....ie6! 1 8
ctJf3 (1 8 i.e4!?) 1 8 ...i.c4 1 9 Mel ctJdS 20
ctJe5, when 'X'hite has some offensive possi
bilities, but Black can defend with 20 ...ctJf6
followed by ....idS.
1 8 c5 .i.c6 1 9 J::te 1 .i.xg2 20 'Llxg2!
'Lld5 21 .l::!.e 5?!
This is not the right way to organise the
rooks. White would have been better after 21
Mfe2 'id6 22 Me5 ctJf6 23 ctJf4.
21 . . . 'Llf6 22 .!:te1 'Lld5?
Better was 22.. :iVd6! with equality.
23 .l:!.fe2! .l::!.d 6 24 'Lle3 a6
Or 24...ctJxe3?! 2S .l:!.xe3 a6 26 Me7 .l:i.d7
27 M7eS with a very promising position for
White.
25 'Llg4?!
Inviting Black to take over the initiative.
2S ctJxdS MxdS 26 c6 Md6 27 "ilYf3 would
have secured White a small advantage.
25 . . . h5! 26 'Llf2 h4
It is archetypal for Black to further
weaken White's kingside in this manner. It
takes a tempo but the weakness is perma-
nent.
27 e5 hxg3 28 hxg3 'Llf6
Now Black is better due to a safer king.
29 a3 rJ;;g 7 30 c 1 ! .l:!.h8 31 f4 J:!.h5
32 I:lf1 ?!

White is drifting. It was necessary to ex
change the knights with 32 lLJe4! lLJxe4
(32 ...lLJd5 33 d2 l:i.c6 34 lLJc5 Mxe5 35
Mxe5 would give White counterplay, after
which the game is far from clear) 33 l!xh5
gxh5 34 Mxe4 'iif6 and though Black is bet
ter here, a draw is still a very likely outcome.
32 . . . CtJd5
33 d2?
Abandoning the king - not a good idea.
Better was 33 'iVf3 .l:i.f6 (33 ...h8?? 34 lLJe4
would be funny, but only for White) 34 'iVd3
Mxe5 35 dxe5 .l:i.f5, when Black is better, but
that is alL
33 . . . h8 34 e2 l:tf6 35 ':'xh5?
After this there is no way back.
35 . . :xh5 36 xh5 gxh5 37 l:te 1 CtJxc3
38 .!:!.e5 CtJxa2 39 l:tc5 J:!f3 40 CtJd3
l:txg3+ 41 'it>f2 J:!g4 42 'it>e3 h4 43 J:!xc7
h3 44 '!:!'xf7+ 'it>xf7 45 CtJe5+ 'it>e6 46
CtJxg4 'it>d5 47 'it>d3 CtJb4+ 48 'it>c3 a5 49
CtJf6+ 'it>e6 50 CtJg4 'it>f5 51 CtJh2 'it>f4 52
'it>b3 CtJd5 53 c4 a4+ 54 'it>a3 bxc4 55
'it>xa4 c3 56 'it>b3 'it>g3 0-1
Game 85
Hector-Johannessen
Maimii 2002
1 e4 e5 2 CtJc3 CtJf6 3 CtJf3 CtJc6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 CtJxd5 6 g2 CtJxc3 7 bxc3 d6 8
0-0 0-0 9 .!:!.b 1 ! J;!,b8 1 0 d4 h6
I don't really like this move. It weakens
Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . d5 .
the kingside and takes time, all for the right
to play ...'iVf6. The costs are too heavy.
1 1 l:te1
White has also had success with 1 1 lLJd2!?
.tf5 (1 1 ...lLJa5? to prevent lLJc4 would not
work due to 12 dxe5 .txe5 1 3 Mb5 .txc3 1 4
1:i.d5 'iVe7 1 5 lLJe4 c 6 1 6 1:i.h5! and White will
start a strong attack; Black has more prob
lems than I can care to mention) 1 2 lLJc4
f6 1 3 lLJe3!. Obviously White does not
want to exchange the strong knight for the
bishop on d6. He would like to have the two
bishops, but the battle will be on the light
squares and therefore the knight is more
useful on e3. 1 3 ... .th7 (1 3 ... exd4 1 4 lLJxf5!
'iVxf5 1 5 cxd4 gives White a standard edge)
1 4 .tb2 .:rfd8 1 5 d5 lLJa5 1 6 c4 b6 1 7 .l:i.e 1
.l:i.e8 1 8 .tc3 'iVd8 1 9 'iVd2 lLJb7 20 lbg4 with
an attack, Glek-Zolnierowicz, Berlin 1 990.
1 1 . . .f6 1 2 CtJd2 f5 1 3 CtJe4 g6 1 4
d5 CtJa5 1 5 h4?
This is too optimistic and weakens the
kingside. After the more relaxed 1 5 'iVe2
.l:i.fe8 1 6 .1i.f3 \Xfhite would be a little better.
1 5 . . . xe4!
This move probably came as a surprise to
White. He might have reckoned on some
thing like 1 5 ... lLJc4?! 1 6 h5! iYh7 17 'iVe2 b5
18 a4 a6 19 axb5 axb5 20 g4 .td7 21 g5 with
good attacking chances.
1 6 ':'xe4 f5 1 7 h5 f6
1 7 ... 'iVe8!? 1 8 1:i.e1 (1 8 .l:i.h4?! .te7!)
1 8 ... 'iia4! would also have given Black very
161
Th e Fo u r Knigh ts
good chances. White is punished for his
recklessness and can now only look at the
ruins of his position.
1 8 J:!.a4
Trying to gain some time to organise de
fence. Of course the rook is also somewhat
strangely placed out here, but when you de
fend, often you have to make this kind of
compromise with your position.
1 8 . . . b6 1 9 'iWe2 l:!.be8 20 i.d2 e4
20 .. .f4!? 21 gxf4 exf4 22 f3 'iVf5 would
also be better for Black, but the text move,
blocking out the g2-bishop, is more princi
pled.
21 i.e3
After 21 c4 e3! 22 fxe3 (22 .ixe3 f4 23
gxf4 .ixf4 is very uncomfortable) 22 ... g5
Black has a very promising attack.
21 .. .'Jj.e7?
This is a little slow. Black should have
continued to put immediate pressure on
'hite's centre with 21 . :iif7! 22 c4 (22 .1:.d4
. This move does not promise equality. As
.ie5 23 .1:.ddl .ixc3 is a pawn) 22 ... d7! (the
awkwardness of the rook becomes transpar
ent) 23 .1:.b5 a6 24 ;gbxa5 bxa5 25 ;gxa5 f4
and Black should win.
22 c4 c5 23 dxc6 tLlxc6 24 c5!
White has suddenly decided to fight back!
24 . . . bxc5 25 ga6?
25 c4+ h8 26 .ixc5 .ixc5 27 xc5
was maybe better for Black, but still the
lesser evil.
25 . . . tLlb4??
1 62
Black does not have a good feeling for the
fragility of his dark squares. After 25 ...;gb8!
26 ;gb3! White is worse, but can still bite.
After 26 ;gxb&t? ttJxb8 27 .1:.a3 'iVe6 and 26
l:tdl J:i.b6 Black has good winning chances.
26 c4+ J:tff7?
26 ... .1:.ef7 27 %hd6 'iVxd6 28 .ixc5 'iVd5
29 xb4 gives White a clear edge, but now
he wins.
27 l::tx d6! xd6 28 i.xc5 c6 29 litxb4
l:!.c7 30 l:!.b8+ Wh 7 31 'iWb5 g6 32 i.d4
gxh5 33 h8+ g6 34 :g8+ h7 35
'iiVe 5! 1 -0
Game 86
Glek-Kroeze
The Netherlands 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 i.g2 tLlxc3 7 bxc3 i.d6 8
0-0 0-0 9 J:!.b1 ! nb8 1 0 d4 i.g4
Black does not want to give up the bishop it
is actually a little silly. The idea is of course to
provoke White into weakening his kingside
with h2-h3, but this is not such a big weak
ness, and the bishop is not well placed on d7.
1 1 h3!
Better than 11 'ifd3 d7 1 2 .ie3 exd4 13
cxd4 ttJb4 1 4 'iVd2 ttJd5 1 5 l::t fel ttJxe3 1 6
l::txe3, when Black i s fine, Popovic-Pytel,
Trstenik 1 979.
1 1 . . .i.d7
The alternatives are worse:
a) 1 1 ...xf3 12 .ixf3 f6 1 3 .ie3 ttJa5 1 4
SLg2 b 6 1 5 h 4 was better for White in
W.Watson-Z.Polgar, Brussels 1 988.
b) 1 1 ....ih5? 12 g4! .ig6 13 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 4
ttJxeS .ixe5 1 5 'iVxd8 l:i.fxd8 1 6 f4! .ixc2 1 7
l::tb2 .id3 1 8 fxeS .ixfl 1 9 .ixfl gives White
a technically winning position - Glek.
1 2 d3
Or 1 2 .1:.el ;ge8 13 .ig5! c8 1 4 dxe5
.ixe5 1 5 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 16 .if4 ttJg6 1 7 ;gxe8+
.ixe8 1 8 .ie3 b6 19 h4 h6 20 c4 with advan
tage for White, Drazic-Godena, Bratto 1 999.

1 2 . . . exd4
12 ...h6 1 3 .l:!.el eS 14 dS CiJe7? (14...CiJaS
is stronger) I S CiJxeS CiJg6 1 6 CiJf3 gave Black
no real compensation for the pawn, Forster
Unzicker, Zurich 1 995.
1 3 lt:lg5! g6 14 cxd4 lt:lb4 1 5 iVd2!?
This i s played with a combinational idea,
which should only earn a draw. Objectively
stronger was I S 'ib3 .1i.fS 1 6 CiJe4 with a
slight edge.
1 5 . . . lt:lxa2
1 6 It:lxh7! xh7 1 7 iVh6+ g8 1 8 i.d5
It:lc3
Risky. It was probably safer just to play
l S... ..tfS! 1 9 .1i.xa2 'ii'f6! with an unclear posi
tion. But not 1 9....l:!.eS 20 l:I.bS 'iVd7 21 .l:!.dS,
which would give White a strong attack. For
example: 2 1 . ..c6? 22 ..tgS! 'iVe6 23 .l:!.xfS!
'ilxfS 24 g4 and White wins.
1 9 'Yi'xg6+ h8 20 iVh5+ g8 21 i.c4!?
Th e Glek S ys t e m with 4 . . . d5
White is not afraid of taking risks - a draw
is obviously not an option in his mind. Now
Black shows that his opponent's insistence
on continuing to fight was a wise decision.
21 . . . bS?
An odd mistake because Black was forced
to assist his king. After 21...'iVf6! 22 .1i.d3
.l:!.feS (Black needs breathing space; 22...'iVg7?
23 .1i.h6 f6 24 ..th7+l and 22 ...'iVhS 23 ..th6
iLe7 24 .l:!.be1 iLf6 2S .l:!.eS!! are both winning
for White) 23 'iih7+ 'itfS 24 iLh6+ 'ite7 2S
.l:!.be 1+ 'itdS! (2S... iLe6 leads to a draw after
26 ..tg7 'iVgs 27 iLh6 "it'gS [27...'YWf6 with
repetition is also possible] 2S l:I.xe6+l 'itxe6
29 'iVf5+ e7 30 ..tg5+ WfS 31 h6+) 26 h4
and according to Glek White has the attack. I
feel that Black should now play 26 ..."it'f3!,
intending 27 iLg5+ f6, when Black might just
weather the storm. Now White just wins.
22 i.g5! i.e7 23 iVg6+ h8 24 i.f6+ !
i.xf6 25 iVh6+ g8 26 i.d3 It:le2+ 27
h2 1 -0
Game 87
Kovalevskaya-Xie Jun
New Delhi 2000
1 e4 e5 2 It:lf3 It:lc6 3 It:lc3 It:lf6 4 g3 dS
5 exd5 It:lxd5 6 i.g2 lt:lxc3 7 bxc3 i.e7 8
0-0 0-0 9 lle1 !
White is improving her forces gradually. 9
d4 does not make a lot of sense when the eS
pawn can be threatened with tempo. But still
it might not be so easy for Black:
9 d4 .1i.f6 10 iLa3 .l:!.eS 1 1 dS CiJaS 12 CiJd2
e7 1 3 iLb4 cS! 14 xaS 'YWxaS 1 S d6
(Glek-Semina, Eupen 1 993) l S ... ..txd6 1 6
CiJc4 a6 i s equal according to Glek. The
best line seems to be 1 7 CiJxd6 dS I S 'ins
l:txd6 1 9 'iVxeS iLe6! (all other moves lead to
a white advantage) 20 .1i.xb7 (20 'iVxcS? adS
followed by ... l:I.d2 would give Black very
active play for the pawn) 20 ...'ilxb7 21 xd6
iLh3 22 f3 xf1 23 xf1 c4 with compensa
tion for the pawn.
White has also tried 9 d3 iLg4 (9 ... fS!? -
1 63
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
Glek) 10 lIbl lIb8 1 1 'it'el i.d6 12 lLlg5
'iVd7 1 3 e3 f5 and Black managed to create
annoying threats, V.Maximenko-Petelin, St
Petersburg 1 993.
9 . . .i.fS 10 J:.b1
This is the natural move, but White also
has another path to an advantage: 1 0 d3 e4
I I l:txe4 .lii.xc3 1 2 l::tb l i.f6 and now:
a) 1 3 g4?! .lii.e7 1 4 i.e3 f5 1 5 gxf5 .lii.xf5
1 6 l::ta4 with an unclear position, Krasenkow
Bandza, Kaliningrad 1 986.
b) 1 3 lLld2! improves the knight's position
and gives the queen a chance to improve its
location. 13 ...l::tb 8 (13 ... i.f5 14 .l:i.el l::tb8 1 5
lLle4 i.d4 1 6 l::tb 5 i s somewhat better for
White) 1 4 .lii.a3 l::te8 1 5 ':xe8+ 'it'xe8 16 h5
and White is better.
1 0 . . .e8 1 1 d4
Or 1 1 d3 and now:
a) 1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 h3! is better for White. As
in other lines the bishop has no good square,
especially with the pawn on b7 hanging.
b) l 1 ...e4 1 2 lLld2! (12 dxe4 .lii.xc3 1 3 .lii.d2
.lii.xd2 14 lLlxd2 b6 1 5 e5 i.b7 1 6 ctJc4 l::tb 8
would only give equality) 1 2... exd3 (or
1 2... .lii.xc3 1 3 J:.xe4 with a strong initiative) 1 3
ilxe8+ Oess clear i s 1 3 lLle4 dxc2 [ 1 3. . .l::txe4?
1 4 l::txe4 .lii. f5 1 5 cxd3! i.xe4 16 i.xe4 is very
good for White] 1 4 xc2 i.f5 1 5 l::txb7 l::te6
1 6 lLlxf6+ 'iWxf6 17 l::txe6 'iWxe6 and Black has
good counterplay) 13 ...'it'xe8 14 lLle4 dxc2
(14...i.e7 1 5 cxd3 is somewhat better for
'hite, as Black has problems developing) 1 5
1 64
lLlxf6+ gxf6 1 6 xc2 lLle5 17 e4!? (1 7 .lii.e3
c6 1 8 .lii.d4 .lii.g4 19 h3 ctJf3+ 20 .lii.xf3 .lii.xf3
21 f5 e4 22 xe4 i.xe4 23 l::txb7 c5 24
l::t e7 cxd4 25 l::txe4 dxc3 26 l::tc4 J:.d8 was
drawish in Shaw-Mannion, Edinburgh 1 999)
17 ... h5 1 8 .lii. f4 ( 1 8 .lii.e3 as! 19 .lii.d4 l::ta6 20
dl .ltg4 21 f3 .lii.c8 22 f4 lLlg4! is unclear,
while 22 ... .ig4?! 23 \\lf1 would be good for
White) 1 8 ... a5 (or 1 8... c6 1 9 'itg2 with an
initiative for White) 1 9 i.xe5 xe5 20 .ixb7
i.f5 21 d2 i.xbl 22 .ltxa8 and White is
microscopically better.
c) 1 1 ...J:.b8! (the best) 12 lLld2 (1 2 ctJg5
i.xg5 1 3 .ixc6 l::te6 gives 'hite no advan
tage) 1 2... i.e6 1 3 a4 (13 c4?! 'iVd7 1 4 b2
lLld4 is pleasant for Black) 13 ... \\ld7 14 i.a3
with unclear play.
1 1 . . . i.g4 1 2 h3
1 2 d5? e4 13 dxc6 xd1 14 l::txdl bxc6!
would give Black the advantage.
1 2 . . .i.xf3
12 ... .lii.h 5?! 13 g4 i.g6 14 g5 .lii.e7 1 5 lLlxe5
and White wins a pawn.
1 3 i.xf3
Here White could have played more
strongly 1 3 'iVxf3! and now:
a) Bad is 1 3 ... exd4 1 4 l::txe8+ 'iVxe8 1 5
l::txb7 e1+ (1 5 ...lLle5 1 6 e4 dxc3 1 7 l::txc7
l::td8 18 l::txa7 gives 'hite a clear advantage)
1 6 'ith2 lLle5 1 7 'iWe4 xc 1 (17...xf2? 1 8
cxd4 and White wins) 1 8 l::tb l ! ctJg4+ 1 9 hxg4
\\lh6+ 20 'itgl l::t d8 21 cxd4 with a clear ad
vantage for White.
b) 1 3 ... l::tb8 14 d5 ctJa5 1 5 \\le4 b6! (or
1 5 ... b5? 1 6 .lii. f1 ! a6 [16 ...'iWd7? 17 'YWb4! does
not work] 17 a4 with a clear advantage for
'hite; Black should not try to contest the
light squares on the queenside as he is bound
to lose such a fight) 1 6 'iVa4 lLlb7 1 7 .lii.a3 (17
\\lxa7 ctJc5 18 'iia3 l::ta8 19 \\lb4 l::txa2 is less
clear) 17 ... a5 1 8 c4 with a slight advantage for
White.
1 3 . . . exd4
Equally possible was 13 ...ctJa5!? 14 dxe5
i.xe5 (but not 14 ... 'iVxdl ?! 1 5 l::txdl .ixe5
[1 5 ...l::txe5 16 i.f4 l::tc 5 1 7 i.xb7 lLlxb7 1 8

.l:!.xb7 is obviously good for White] 1 6 d5
l2Jc4 1 7 J::!:xb7 with a white advantage) 1 5
J::!:b5 ..ixc3 (1 5. . .'iVxd 1 ?! 1 6 J::!:x d1 ..ixc3 1 7
1:1c5 ..ib4 1 8 J::!:xc7 J::!:ac8 1 9 J::!:xc8 J::!:xc8 20
.l:!.d7 would give White complete domination;
..idS is very unpleasant) 1 6 .l:!.xe8+ xe8 1 7
J::!: c5 J::!:d8 1 8 iY fl ..ib4 1 9 J::!:xc7 ..id6 with
good counterplay.
1 4 J:txb7
14 J::!:xe8+ 'YiUxe8 15 l:txb7 would be un
clear, but White cannot play 1 5 cxd4? l2Jxd4
1 6 .ixb 7 J::!:d8, after which Black has all the
chances.
1 4 . . . CtJe5 1 5 .i.g2
After this White is fighting to keep the
balance. Better was 1 5 ..ie4! dxc3 1 6 ..if4
xd1 1 7 J::!:x d1 l2Jg6 1 8 ..ixgG hxg6 1 9 fl
with a likely draw.
1 5 . . . dxc3 1 6 .i.f4
1 6 . . . a6?!
This is rather slow in a sharp position. It
seems more sensible to fight for the initiative
with 1 6 ... g5! 1 7 ..tel ( 1 7 ..txe5 J::!:xe5 1 8
'iYxd8+ J::!:xd8 1 9 J::!:xe5 ..ixe5 20 J::!:xa7 J::!:d 1+
21 'ith2 J::!:d2 would give White serious prob
lems with the c3-pawn and his kingside)
1 7 ... c6 1 8 f4 gxf4 1 9 .ixf4 with complica
tions.
1 7 J:!.b3
1 7 'iVb 1 g5 1 8 ..ixe5 (1 8 .ie3 l2Jc4 favours
Black) 1 8 ... J::!:xe5 1 9 J::!:xe5 ..ixe5 looks prefer
able for Black.
1 7 . . :Vixd1 1 8 J:!.xd1 .l:l:.ad8 1 9 J;!.xd8 .l:l.xd8
Th e Glek S y s te m with 4 . . d5 .
20 &xc3 .l::td 1 + 21 .tf1 g5 22 .txe5
.i.xe5 23 &c5 f6 24 'it'g2 J:i.d2 25 .txa6
.i.d4!
Black does not fall for the trick
25 ... J::!:x f2+?? 26 'itxf2 .id4+ 27 'iit f3 .ixc5 28
'iite4, when the endgame is lost.
26 .l::txc7 ':'xf2+ 27 'it'h1 h5
White is a pawn up, but Black has a very
active rook and bishop, and all the white
pawns are weak. Black should be okay.
28 .i.c4+ 'it'f8 29 .i.d3 .l:l.f3 30 .l:l:h7 h4 31
gxh4 J:!.xh3+ 32 'it'g2 g4! ?
Black is taking a lot of risks with this
move. 32 ... J::!:xh4 was a safe draw, but Black
obviously still had some fighting spirit left.
33 a4 .i.e5 34 a5 J:!.h2+ 35 'it'g1 g3 36
J;!.d7 .i.f4 37 .i.e4 .i.e3+ 38 'it'f1 ':'f2+ 39
'it'e1 f5 40 .!:td3 f4 41 a6 g2 42 .txg2
1::tx g2 43 &a3 .l::tg 3 44 'it'f1 .l:.g7 45 'it'e2
'it'e8 46 'it'f3 J:la7 47 .l:!.a5 'it'd8 48 h5
'it'c8 49 h6 l::th 7 50 a7 .txa7 51 'it'xf4
'it'b7 52 .l:l:h5 % - %
Game 88
Glek-Nikolic
W!Jk aan Zee 1997
1 e4 e5 2 CtJf3 CtJc6 3 CtJc3 CtJf6 4 g3 d5
5 exd5 CtJxd5 6 .i.g2 CtJxc3 7 bxc3 .te7 8
0-0 0-0 9 .l:!.e 1 .i.f6 1 0 .l:!.b 1 J:!.b8 1 1 d3
..\te6! ?
This i s better than . SU5 because White
..
now has to expend time defending a2. This
1 65
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
way White does not have time for manoeu
vring with ..Ita3 and lDd2.
1 2 c4 "iWd7 1 3 .tb2
1 3 lDgs?! g4 14 llVd2 lDd4 l s lDe4 e7
would be rather awh.-ward for White. All his
pieces are strangely placed.
1 3 . . . g4 1 4 "iYc1
This is better than 14 'iVd2 because White
leaves the d2-square for the knight.
1 4 . . J:!.fe8
Black develops his pieces into play
smoothly. If he starts action too soon with
14 ... fs?! l s lDd2! lDd4? he will end in trou
ble: 1 6 xd4 exd4 1 7 3! and White wins a
piece. The more normal l s ... i.h3 16 e4
llVd7 1 7 lDf1 ! (eyeing ds and fs) 17 ...lDd4 1 S
lDe3 c6 1 9 'Yi'd 1 favours White and so does
l s ... ..Itgs 16 e4 llVd7 1 7 ..Itc3 l:tfdS l S l:tbs,
1 66
with the idea of 1 9 2.
1 5 .tc3
15 lDd2!? ..Itgs 16 c3, with the idea of
I:ibs and 2, was a possible improvement.
1 5 . . . b6 1 6 'iifb 2
1 6 llVa3 d6 17 'iixd6 cxd6 i s lDd2 lDd4
19 ..Itxd4 exd4 would have been even.
1 6 . . .ct:ld4 1 7 .txd4 exd4 1 8 h4 nxe1 +
1 9 1:txe1 ne8 20 J:lxe8+ 'iifxe8 2 1 iVc1
h5
2 1 ...i.cS!, in order to prevent the weaken
ing of the h-pawn, was probably more exact.
After 22 llVf4 cs 23 'iibs llVd7 White would
be a litde worse, but the most likely outcome
would still be a draw.
22 iVf4 c5 23 ct:lg5 .txg5 24 hxg5 g6 25
.te4 "WIe7 26 f3 .tf5 27 f2 xe4 28
fxe4 iVd7 29 'iifb8+ g7 30 iVe5+ % - %
 Th e Glek S ys tem with 4 . . . d5

Summary
4... dS is probably the most flexible way for Black to meet the Glek System. It seems that after
4... dS Black can equalise with almost any idea, except for my own 6 ... ttJde7. Lugovoi's 6... ttJb6
followed by 7 ... ,i,cS! seems to give Black good play, while the main lines after S ... ttJxc3 also
offer Black good counterplay. White will naturally try to create some threats along the b- and
e-ftles, or try to push with d2-d4, but it should never be really dangerous for Black.

1 e4 e5 2 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 t2Jxd5 6 i.g2 t2Jxc3

6 ... ttJb6 Game 76
-

6 ... ttJde7 Game 80

-

6 ... ,i,e6 (0) 7 0-0

7 ... ,i,e7 Game 79; 7 ... .tcS Game 78; 7 ... ttJxc3 Game 77
- - -

7 bxc3 ..Itc5
7 ... .id6 8 0-0 0-0 9 .l:i.bl .l::i.b 8 1 0 d4 (0)
1 0 ... .ig4 Game 86; 1 O ... h6 Game 85; 1 0 ... .i.fS Game 84
- - -

7....i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 .l::i.e l .i.f6 1 0 Ubi

10 ...l:tb8 Game 88; 1O ...l:te8 Game 87
- -

8 0-0 0-0 9 J::!.e 1 l:f.e8

9 ... 'ilVf6 Game 81
-

1 0 d4 Game 83
-

10 d3 (0) Game 82
-

6. . . i.e 6 1 0 d4 1 0 d3

167
 CHAPTER ElEVEN
The Glek System :
Sidelines
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3
In this chapter we will discuss rare and
less obvious lines at Black's disposal: 4....te7,
4...g6, 4... .tM and 4.. .'Jd4!? Probably Black
should look for equality in the main lines and
not in the sidelines, but there are a still many
new discoveries waiting to be found in the
Glek System
Game 89
Glek-Vucic
Zillertal 1993
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 g3
il.e7
After this move White obtains an excel
lent version of the Philidor Defence.
1 68
I
5 il.g2 d6 6 h3
It is hard to find other good squares for
the c8-bishop than g4, and as White often
has ideas with g3-g4 later and as the position
is relatively closed, the loss of time is fully
justified.
6 0-0 7 0-0 il.e6 8 d4 il.d7
. . .
Black cannot have felt comfortable about
making this move, but his choices were be
tween the unpleasant and the uncomfortable.
After 8 ...exd4 9 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 10 'iVxd4 White
is only a little better, but the position is very
pleasant and it is very hard for Black to find a
good plan.
9 l:.e 1 ne8 1 0 b3
Glek decides on slow development. Here
it was probably fully justified to close the
position and try to establish a kingside initia
tive immediately with 1 0 dS!? ctJb8 1 1 '>ith2,
with the idea of ctJgl and f2-f4 with a strong
initiative.
1 0 . . . a5!?
The downside to 10 b3 is shown immedi
ately. Black suddenly has a hook for his
counterplay.
1 1 il.b2
White could still change plans. After 1 1
dS!? ctJb8 1 2 a3! ctJa6 1 3 .te3 b 6 1 4 ctJd2
ctJcS 1 5 f4 he could still have created a strong
kingside offensive.

1 1 . . . .tf8 1 2 d2
12 dS!? CiJe7 13 CiJd2 CiJg6 14 h2 looks
better for White too.
1 2 . . . h6?!
Black is trying to adjust to being without
space, but this can never be the road to hap
piness. Here he could have tried the pawn
sacrifice 1 2... a4!? 1 3 CiJxa4 exd4 1 4 CiJxd4
CiJxd4 1 5 "iYxd4 "iYcs 1 6 h2 .i.xa4 1 7 bxa4
CiJd7 with some counterplay, even though
White retains the better chances.
1 3 l:t.ad1
According to Glek White stands much
better. It is hard to fmd counterplay for
Black.
1 3 . . . exd4
This shows that S... .i.d7 is probably not
such a good idea. After 13 ... 'ilVcS 14 h2
Black has hardly improved his position.
1 4 tLlxd4 tLlxd4 1 5 xd4 e8 1 6 h2
.te6 1 7 f4!
If you have a space advantage you should
not exchange pieces. After 1 7 CiJdS?! CiJxdS
I S exdS .i.d7 1 9 c4 .i.fS the white advantage
would have diminished. Black would be
thrilled to have some breathing space for his
remammg pleces.
1 7 . . . tLld7?!
I t i s not obvious that the knight will b e
better placed anywhere else. 1 7 ...bS!? with the
idea of ..."iWb7 looks much better.
1 8 tLld5!
Now the situation has changed. After an
Th e Glek S ys te m : Sidelin e s
exchange o n d S White will dominate the light
squares completely and be close to winning.
1 8 . . . .txd5?!
After this Black is forever in trouble on
the light squares. It was better to play a move
like l S... a4.
1 9 'iIIx d5
19 exdS!? CiJcs 20 g4!, taking the fS-square
from the Black queen, gives \,\-1'lite a clear
advantage. Still, it is logical to keep the pawn
centre fluid and let the light-squared bishop
dream of the long diagonal.
1 9 . . . tLlb6 20 d3 a4 21 b4?!
This unnecessary weakening of the c4-
square leads to complications. Simply 21 c4
with a clear plus looks better.
2 1 . . . e6
21 ... a3!? changing the nature of the game
was definitely also possible.
22 a3 a2!?
Black needs to create some counterplay.
22... c6 23 .i.d4 CiJd7 24 .i.f3! gives White a
great advantage.
23 .td4 e5?!
But this is not so good - Black is now los
ing by force. Better were moves like
23 ...MacS or 23 ...iVc4, when Black is much
worse but can still fight.
24 .tg1 J:tae8 25 bxe5 dxe5 26 e5 I!ed8
27 xd8!
Simple chess. The pin is lethal.
27 . . J:txd8 28 J::txd8 xa3 29 e6 fxe6 30
l:.xe6 a2 31 J::tee8 xe2 32 xf8+ h7
33 f5 1 -0
Game 90
Hector-Hartman
Port Erin 1996
1 e4 e5 2 tLle3 lOf6 3 tLlf3 tLle6 4 g3 g6
Another way to the Pirc Defence. How
ever, it's not a good version because Black's
knight on c6 is misplaced.
5 d4!
Stronger than the automatic 5 .i.g2 .ig7 6
0-0 0-0 7 d3 (7 d4? exd4 S CiJxd4 CiJxe4! and
1 69
Th e Fo ur Knig h ts
Black has won a pawn for very little compen
sation) 7 ... d6 S h3 h6, when there is no ap
parent reason why Black should be signifi
cantly worse, or even slightly so.
5 . . . exd4 6 tLlxd4 ..tg7 7 tLlde2
This move is logical but it does involve a
slight loss of time. Equally interesting are:
a) 7 ctJxc6!? bxc6 S jLg2 i.a6!? (S... O-O 9
0-0 l:.bS looks very sound too) 9 f4! (9 eS
e7 1 0 f4 0-0 is far from clear; White's king
is quite uncomfortable in the centre) 9 ... dS
(9 ... 0-0 looks better) 1 0 e5 ctJd7 1 1 f2 0-0
1 2 .l:!.el .l:!.eS 1 3 i.e3 f6? (a bad mistake; after
1 3 ...iYe7 Black would only be slightly worse)
14 ctJxd5! fxe5 1 5 ctJb4 exf4 1 6 gxf4 .ib7 1 7
ctJxc6 White was clearly better in Stripunsky
Kapetanovic, Toronto 1 995.
b) 7 i.e3!? 0-0 S jLg2 d6 9 h3 ctJd7?!
(9 ... .l:!.eS 10 0-0 jLd7 is more natural, after
which 'W'hite is somewhat better; this is actu
ally a direct transposition to the g3 system of
the Pirc) 10 f4 ctJb6 1 1 b3 d5 12 O-O!? .l:!.eS?
(simply bad; after 12 ... dxe4 1 3 ctJxc6 bxc6 1 4
ctJxe4 i.xal 1 5 iYxal 'W'hite would have a
great initiative to compensate for the ex
change, but still this is unclear) 13 ctJxc6 bxc6
14 i.d4! and White has a great positional
advantage, Finkel-Kuzmin, Budapest 1 999.
7 . . . 0-0 8 ..tg2 d6
Or S ... .l:!.eS 9 0-0 .l:!.bS 10 a4 (this move is
not necessary; Glek writes that White should
play 1 0 f4 d6 1 1 h3 jLd7 1 2 g4 b5 1 3 ctJg3 b4
1 4 ctJce2 or 1 0 ctJf4 d6 1 1 h3 b5 1 2 ctJfd5
with some advantage in both cases) 1 0... a5 1 1
i.f4?! (1 1 h3 would still leave White better)
1 1 ...d6 1 2 iYd2 jLe6 1 3 ctJd5 i.xd5 1 4 exd5
ctJb4 1 5 .l:!.fel ctJe4. White has played the
opening less than well, and Black has a pref
erable position, Krasenkow-Glek, Moscow
1 9S5.
9 h3 e8
This is very natural. 9 ... a5 is considered in
the following game.
9 ... jLd7 1 0 i.g5 h6 1 1 jLe3 l:!.eS 1 2 0-0 is
a little better for White, while 1 2 g4 ctJe5 1 3
f4 ctJc4 1 4 i.c1 ctJb6 1 5 0-0 jLc6 1 6 ctJg3
1 70
ctJfd7! would give Black good counterplay
against White's centre.
1 0 0-0
Or 1 0 i.g5!? h6 1 1 .ie3 ctJe5 1 2 b3 as 1 3
0-0 ctJed7 1 4 'iVd2 ctJc5 1 5 f3 h7 1 6 l:i.adl
with a small advantage for White in Glek
Ibragimov, Russia 1 995.
10 . . . ..td7 1 1 f4
This allows Black to create counterplay.
Stronger are:
a) 1 1 g4! .l:!.bS (1 1 ...b5? 12 gS! ctJh5 1 3
ctJxb5 'iVcs 1 4 'it'h2 and White i s much bet
ter - there is no real compensation for the
pawn) 1 2 a4!? with the idea of ctJg3 and f2-f4
with advantage.
b) 1 1 h2 b5! 1 2 a3 a5 1 3 ctJf4 ctJe5 14
ctJcd5 ctJc4 1 5 ctJxf6+ i.xf6 1 6 c3 with
chances for both players in Rashkovsky
Othman, Biel 1 999.
1 1 . . .a5
Black misses his chance. After 1 1 ...b5! 1 2
a3 as h e would have gained good counter
play.
1 2 g4 h6 1 3 ..te3 a4
1 4 'iVd2!
White correctly decides to let Black create
some weaknesses on the queenside with the
pawn push. He knows that it costs Black
time, and that after 1 4 a3 'iVe7 1 5 'i'd2 Black
would be able to use the weakening of the
light squares to his advantage with 1 5 ...ctJa5!,
leaving White awkwardly placed.
1 4 . . . a3 1 5 b3 b5 1 6 tLlg3 b4 1 7 tLlce2

'Llh7
Not 1 7...ttJxg4? 1 8 hxg4 xal 1 9 l:!.xal
ii.xg4 20 l:!.el 'iih4 21 c3! bxc3 22 'iixc3
because two pieces are much stronger than a
rook here, where the weakness of the dark
squares is especially important.
1 8 eS! dxeS?
After this White has a very dangerous
initiative. Better was 1 8...'ife7!? 1 9 I!ad1 ttJf8
20 ttJd4! and White is only a little better.
1 9 l:tad 1 'Llf8
Forced. After 1 9 ...exf4? 20 ii.xf4 (or 20
'ti'xd7!? 'iixd7 21 .u.xd7 ttJe5 22 l:txc7 fxe3
23 ii.xa8 .u.xa8 24 ttJe4 with good chances to
win the endgame) 20 ... ttJf8 21 ..ixh6 .l:.b8 22
ii.xg7 rJ;;xg7 23 ttJf4 White has a strong at
tack. I am very doubtful whether Black is
able to hold the position together at all, for
example: 23 ...ttJe5 24 ttJfh5+l gxh5 25 'Llxh5+
'It>g6 (25 ... rJ;;h7 26 ttJf6+ rJ;;g7 27 'ti'g5+ ttJfg6
28 l:!.xd7 ttJxd7 29 'Llh5+ 'it>g8 30 'iVh6 and
White wins) 26 J:H6+ 'iixf6 27 ..ie4+ ii.f5 28
xf5+ 'iY'xf5 29 gxf5+ xh5 30 'iVf4 and the
threat of I!d 1 -d4 will force Black to part with
at least another piece.
20 fxeS?
In the game this works out well. But the
alternatives were worth investigating:
a) 20 ii.c5!? exf4 (20... ttJe6?? 21 'iVxd7
'iixd7 22 .u.xd7 ttJxc5 23 xc7 and White
wins the exchange at least) 21 'iVxf4 (21
ii.xf8? ..ixf8 22 'iVxd7 'iVxd7 23 l:!.xd7 fxg3
24 ii.xc6 l:!.xe2 does not work out; ... ..ic5+ is
a horrible threat) 21 ...ttJe5 22 ..ixa8 'Yi'xa8 23
ii.xf8 l:!.xf8 (23 ... ii.xf8? 24 l:!.xd7!) 24 'iVxb4
ii.c6 (24... ttJf3+ 25 l:!.xf3 'ti'xf3 26 l:!.xd7 wins
for White) 25 l:!.f2 'Llf3+ 26 'it>fl ttJg5 27 'Llf4
and Black has some practical compensation
for the exchange. After 27... ..ie5 it is not
obvious that he is worse.
b) Very strong is 20 f5!, bringing the fl
rook into play while simultaneously keeping
the Black forces out. 20 ... .:ta6 (20 ... gxfS 21
'Llxf5 ii.xf5 22 ii.xc6 'iVxd2 23 l:!.xd2 gives
White a winning advantage) 21 fxg6 fxg6 22
ii.xh6 and White has a clear advantage.
Th e Glek S ys te m : Sidelin e s
20 . . .'LlxeS?
Black returns the favour. Necessary was
20... 'Yi'h4! 21 ii.f2 (after 21 ii.c5?! ttJxe5 22
ii.xa8? l:!.xa8 Black would have more than
enough compensation for the exchange)
21 ...e7 and Black has managed to keep his
pieces together. The position would then
have been very complicated and who is bet
ter and why is a very difficult question to
answer. After a move like 22 ttJd4 Black
must choose between 22 ... 'Llxe5 and 22 ... l:!.a6
with a strategically complex position.
21 i.xh6 i.xh6?
Another careless move. After 21 ...l:!.b8 22
ttJe4 White has the chances, but still this was
preferable.
22 'iVxh6 .l:!.aS
Black can no longer save himself.
23 'Llf4 'Llh 7
Now the Swedish Champion finishes the
game in style.
24 'LlfhS! gxhS 2S 'LlxhS 'iVgS 26 'Llf6+!
The point behind the combination.
26 . . .'iVxf6 27 J:1xf6 'Llxf6 28 'iVxf6 .!:!.cS
29 J:1dS l:txc2?! 30 J:1xeS l:txeS 31 'iVxe5
lixa2 32 'iVgS+ f8 33 'iVcS+ e8 34
'iVxb4 1 -0
Game 91
Belikov-Zaitsev
Moscow 1996
The annotations in this game are based on
1 71
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
those by Vladimir Belikov in New in Chess
Yearbook 42.
1 e4 e5 2 lOt3 lOc6 3 lOc3 lOt6 4 g3 g6
5 d4 exd4 6 lOxd4 d6
A slight diversion from 6 ...i..g7, which
opens the way for some harassment with
... i..g4. But basically it makes little difference.
7 h3
Also possible was 7 lZJxc6 bxc6 8 i..g2
i..b 7 9 0-0 ii..g7 1 0 b3!? 0-0 (1 0...lZJxe4? 1 1
lZJxe4 i..xal 1 2 i..g5 f6 1 3 'iVxal does not
work) 1 1 .lii.b2 c5 1 2 el 11e8 13 'iHd3 with a
small edge for White.
7 . . . g7 8 lOde2 0-0 9 g2 a5
This time this plan comes without ... e8.
1 0 g5!?
10 0-0 could quite easily have transposed
to the previous game. With his move Belikov
provokes Black to play ... h7 -h6. Whether
Black would have played this move voluntar
ily as Hartman did, or if it is a weakening of
the kingside, is very difficult to decide. That
two strong grandmasters came to a different
conclusion is a very good indicator of this.
1 0 . . . h6 1 1 e3 a4
1 1 ...e8 1 2 0-0 would be a little better for
White.
1 2 0-0
Also possible was 12 'iWd2 h7 1 3 a3
lZJe5 14 i..d4 c5 (1 4 ... lZJc4 15 'YWd3 ii..e 6
[1 5 ... lZJxb2? 16 "iVb5 drops a piece] 16 lZJf4
would also give White a small advantage) 1 5
.lii.xe5 dxe5 1 6 0-0-0 and 'Wbite is better.
1 72
1 2 . . . e8 1 3 b3
White now gives Black a choice. To be
considered was 13 'iWd2!? lZJe5 (1 3 ... h7 1 4
f4 gives White a small advantage) 1 4 i..xh6
i..xh3 1 5 .lii.xg7 cJ;;xg7 16 f4 lZJc4 17 'iWd4
i..xg2 1 8 xg2 lZJxb2 19 h 1 , when White
seems to have some compensation. One line
is 19 ... c5 20 'iWe3 lZJg4 21 f3 lZJc4 22 lZJd5!
and Black is in trouble. Or 20... b5 21 f5! and
White holds a strong initiative. Maybe 1 9 ... c5
is wrong, but in any case White seems to
have some dangerous options.
1 3 a3 lZJe5 would give Black good coun
terplay and should not be considered.
1 3 . . . axb3 1 4 cxb3 .l:.a5!?
Black develops the rook via the fourth
rank. This is obviously quite double-edged, as
the rook can either cause a lot of damage or
come into trouble itself. A normal move like
1 4 ... 'it>h7 would have left the position rather
balanced.
1 5 d2 .l:!.ae5 1 6 .l:tae1 !
A sound positional decision. The rook is
activated and vacated from the unpleasant
pressure on the long diagonal. Less attractive
was 1 6 i..xh6?! i..xh6 1 7 'iHxh6 i..xh3!! (a
very nice tactic that can easily be missed) 1 8
.lii.xh3 h5 19 1Wf4 xh3 20 'it>g2 h5
(20....!:.h8 21 .!:.hl cJ;;g7 would be even) 21
h1 ee5 22 xh5 lZJxh5 and Black has
some initiative.
1 6 . . . \th7 1 7 1Ot4 b6?!
Too passive. Better was the active 1 7... b5!

in order to create weaknesses on the queen
side. On the other hand Black could not play
1 7...tiJxe4? due to 1 8 tiJxe4 ':xe4 1 9 i.xe4
':xe4 20 f3 ':e8 21 'it'g2 and the compensa
tion for the exchange is hardly enough.
1 8 f3 i.a6 1 9 J:!.f2 tLlh5?!
Black must feel under pressure to play
such a move. The rook will be very badly
placed on hS, the knight was a little bit in the
way on f4, and also the f6-knight was keep
ing a good eye on the e4-pawn.
It was better to accept a slightly inferior
position with 1 9 .. .'iHd7 20 tiJfdS tiJxdS 21
tiJxdS tiJe7! 22 tiJb4 (22 f4 tiJxdS 23 fxeS
tiJxe3 24 ':xe3 i.xeS is [lie for Black)
22... b7 23 d4 ':e6 24 i.xg7 'it'xg7 2S
'iVb2+ and White might be a little better.
20 tLlxh5 l:[xh5 21 tLld5 tLle7
21 ...':heS 22 ':el b7 23 b4! would give
Black a headache.
22 g4!?
This is a risky decision, and probably a lit
tle unnecessary. White would keep a signifi
cant plus after 22 f4!, exposing the awkward
position of the rook on hS.
22 . . .tLlxd5
The exchange sacrifice is forced. After
22... ':h4?! 23 f4! tiJxdS 24 'iHxdS c8 2S
..ltg3 i.e6 26 iVd3 there is no counterplay
whatsoever.
23 gxh5
The logical continuation. After 23 exdS?!
':heS 24 f4 ':Se7 2S fS MeS 26 fxg6+ fxg6 27
Th e Glek S ys te m : Sidelin e s
.l::i. f7 'itg8 2 8 l:i.xg7+ Wxg7 2 9 d4 f6 30
':e4 b7 31 J::!. f4 the position favours no
one.
23 . . . tLlxe3 24 xe3 gxh5
Belikov believed 24... dS was a serious al
ternative. As we shall see, this is an illusion:
2S J::!.d2 d4 26 llt'f4 W:Ve7 and in my opinion
Black does not have enough compensation
for the exchange in this position. After 27 eS!
cS 28 e6 c8 29 ..ltfl ! Black is under heavy
pressure, for example: 29 ... xe6 30 hxg6+
fxg6 31 c4 W:Vd7 32 ':de2 d3 33 .l:!.xe6 .l:!.xe6
34 i.xe6 d2 3S ':d 1 'iHxe6 36 nxd2, when
Black must choose between this hopeless
position, or losing the endgame after
36...xh3 37 "iVg4 'iYxg4+ 38 fxg4.
25 f4 f5 26 Wh2 fxe4?
A mistake. There is no reason to let
White's bishop come from g2 to e4 where it
endangers Black's king. White would also be
better after 26 ...'iHh4 27 ':d2!, but not 27
g3? iVxg3+ 28 xg3 i.d4 29 .l:lc2 cS, when
the active bishop gives Black good compen
sation for the exchange.
27 i.xe4+ Wh8 28 J:!.g 1 !
Exposing the problems for Black's king.
28 . . .1i"e7?
This loses by force.
29 J:!.fg2 J:!.g8 30 f3 1 -0
There is no way to meet i.dS.
Game 92
G lek-Grabarczyk
Griesheim 2002
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3
i.b4 5 i.g2!
This simply must be the right move, oth
erwise the g3 system is too slow to be justi
fied. It turns out that Black has a reasonable
game after S d3 dS 6 exdS and now:
a) 6 ... tiJxdS 7 d2 0-0 (after 7 ... tiJxc3 8
bxc3 d6 9 g2 0-0 10 0-0 White has a
tempo extra compared to lines starting with
4... dS; the plan is simply to play c3-c4 and
i.c3 to put maximum pressure on the eS-
1 73
Th e Fo ur Knig h ts
pawn) 8 g2 xc3 9 bxc3 g4 10 h3 h5
1 1 0-0 f6 12 'iHb1 .l:tb8 13 iVb5 and White
has the two bishops and is more active,
Laketic-Lalic, Kladovo 1 995.
b) 6 ...'ihd5! 7 g2 g4 8 h3 xf3 9
xf3 e4! (Black needs to use his lead in de
velopment before it disappears) 1 0 g2
xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 0-0-0 1 2 0-0 .l:the8 1 3 .tf4
'ilif5 1 4 'YWc1 with prospects for both sides,
Barczay-Acs, Budapest 1 995.
5 . . . .txc3
5 ... 0-0 and 5 ... d6 are both covered in the
following game.
6 bxc3
This is the natural recapture, but far from
the only option. Also interesting is 6 dxc3
and now:
a) 6...0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 lLlh4! e6 9 f4 exf4
1 0 .txf4 lLlg4 1 1 lLlf5 lLlge5 12 g4 f6 1 3 h3
'iVd7 1 4 b3 .l:tae8 1 5 g3 (Glek-Rozentalis,
Bad Godesberg 1 994) and White is better -
Glek.
b) 6 ... lLlxe4 7 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 8 xe4 0-0 9
0-0 d6 10 f4 lLlg4 1 1 f5 lLlf6 12 .tg2 .l:te8 1 3
g4 d 5 14 g5 c 6 1 5 h1 'tid6 1 6 d4 and
'X'hite is a little better. Glek-Grabarczyk,
Katowice 1 992.
c) 6 ... d6 7 .tg5!? (7 lLlh4 h6! 8 lLlf5 xf5
9 exf5 'iVd7 1 0 g4 0-0-0 would give an un
clear position; 'X'hite has weakened his king
side, and his two bishops have yet to create
serious scope) 7 ... h6 8 xf6 'tixf6 9 lLld2! h5
1 0 lLlc4 e6 1 1 lLle3 0-0-0 12 'tid2 and
White is a little better according to Glek. All
of this needs to be tested in practice before
any certain real evaluation can be presented.
6 . . . ltJxe4 7 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 8 .txe4 d5 9
.tg2 0-0 1 0 0-0
White is a bit better - he has the two
bishops and a flexible centre. Still, the posi
tion is not completely clear. 'X'hite does have
a flawed pawn structure and the knight looks
good in the centre.
1 0 . . J:te8 1 1 h3
A precaution. 1 1 d3 also looks natural.
1 1 . . .c6 1 2 d3 f6 1 3 a4 .te6
1 74
1 3 ... a5!?, to stop the a-pawn's march,
comes into consideration.
1 4 a5 d7 1 5 h2 ltJf7 1 6 .te3 ltJg5!?
The Polish GM opts for something inter
esting. This move was Glek's own recom
mendation from Injimnant 68. 1 6... lLld6?! 1 7
'iHb 1 ! lLlb5 1 8 iVb2 .l:tac8 1 9 .l:tfb 1 .l:t e7 20
b4 gave White a clear advantage in the
game Korchnoi-Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1 997.
1 7 h5 h6
17 ....tf7 18 'iih4 lLle6 was possible, al
though White is a little better.
1 8 J:tab 1 ?!
Not the best. After 1 8 f4! f7 1 9 'ilie2
lLle6 20 'Nif2 White would have kept a slight
edge. Now Black decides to capture the a
pawn.
1 8 . . .'i!fc7 1 9 .tf4 xa5 20 xb7 .tf7
Black could also take the c-pawn straight
away: 20 .. :ikxc3!? 21 h4 f7 (21 ...lLlf7!? with
the idea of 22 h3 f5! 23 .txf5 'Nif6 with
unclear play is also possible) 22 g4 e6
(22... lLle6 23 .txh6 looks very dangerous) 23
'iVd1 and White has compensation for the
pawn, but no more.
21 1Iid1
21 'ilig4 'iVxc3 22 h4 transposes to the pre
vious note.
21 . . . ikxc3 22 .td2 a3?!
The queen goes astray for no apparent
reason. Black wants to come home and de
fend g7 with the queen, but this is way too
passive. It was better to keep the queen cen-

tralised and ready for action. 22...d4! 23
i.e3 'iHa4! (keeping an eye on the g4-square)
24 'iHd2 Meb8 25 Mfbl l:i.xb7 26 Mxb7 as
and the position is very unclear. \Xfhite has
some potential threats against Black's king,
but Black has a passed pawn supported by
the rook. All in all the chances look pretty
balanced.
23 f4 4Je6
Black would also be in trouble after
23 ...'iHa6 24 fxg5! xb7 25 gxf6 i.g6 (or
25 ... i.e6?! 26 hS 'it'f7 27 h4 as 28 fxg7
"iixg7 29 i.xh6). Now both 26 i.c3 and 26
'iHg4!? give \Xfhite serious threats against
Black's king. Even so, there is nothing con
crete and Black can still hope for the a-pawn
or the exchange to be a decisive factor later
on.
24 f5 4Jg5?
This leaves the knight in a terrible situa
tion. Better was 24...lbd8 25 .l:!.d7, when
\Xfhite will continue with 'iHg4. Black should
avoid the following trap: 2S ...Me7?? 26 i.el !
and the queen has nowhere to go (b4 and cS
will be taken from him with tempo-gaining
pawn moves).
25 h4 4Jh7 26 g4 h5 27 f4 f8
If you want to know who is better and
who is worse, ask the knight on h7!
28 i.b4! c5 29 i.a3 J:!.ac8 30 d4 J:!.e2 3 1
J:!.f2 .l:txf2 3 2 xf2 'iVd8 3 3 i.xc5 J:!.c7 34
J:!.xa7 J:!.xa7 35 i.xa7 'iVc7 36 i.c5 4Jf8
37 e3 'iWd8 38 b3 4Jd7 39 b7 4Jf8
Th e Glek S ys te m : Sidelin e s
40 c 3 g 5 4 1 i.e7 "lWd7 4 2 "lWxd7 4Jxd7
43 hxg5 fxg5 44 i.xg5 4Jb6 45 Wh3
4Jc4 46 i.f4 Wg7 47 Wh4 Wf6 48 i.h3
i.e8 49 i.e5+! 1 -0
Glek returns one pawn in order to gain
control of the dark squares for the passed
pawn. This bishop ending is easily winning.
\Xfhite will play '>t>gS, f6, ius and i.g6 and
Black can do nothing about it.
Game 93
Glek-Wells
Ostend 1993
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 g3
i.b4 5 i.g2 0-0
Or S ... d6 6 d3 h6 7 0-0 lbe7 8 d4! (this is
logical as Black limits his control of d4)
8 ... i.xc3 9 bxc3 lbg6 1 0 i.a3 (10 dxeS!?
dxe5 1 1 "iixd8+ '>t>xd8 1 2 lbel would slightly
favour \Xfhite - Glek) 1 0 ...'iHd7 (Glek
Onischuk, Wijk aan Zee 1 997). Now Onis
chuk recommends that \Xfhite should con
tinue with 1 1 el ! b6 12 Mdl 'iHe6 1 3 dxeS
dxeS 1 4 lbd4!? exd4 1 5 cxd4 with compensa
tion. The natural continuation for Black is
lS ...'iVc4 and now \Xfhite needs to prove his
initiative, or at least increase the pressure.
After 1 6 eS lbdS 1 7 i.n "iia4 1 8 c4 i.g4 1 9
cxdS ii.xdl 20 'ifxc7! \Xfhite gains a winning
initiative. But this line is of course far from
forced. Black should be both less greedy and
more cautious.
6 0-0 d6
Also possible is 6 ....l:!.e8 7 d3 (7 .l:!.el !?) and
now:
a) 7 ... i.xc3 8 bxc3 dS 9 exdS lbxdS 1 0
lbgS h 6 1 1 'it'f3!? (1 1 lbe4 fS 1 2 c4 lbf6 was
played in Glek-Zaitsev, Moscow 1 99 1 ; after
1 3 lbxf6+ "iixf6 1 4 i.b2 \Xfhite would keep a
slight plus) l 1 ...hxgS 1 2 'iVxdS 'iVxdS 1 3
i.xd5 lbe7 1 4 Ji.g2 f6 1 5 Mbl ! with advan
tage to \Xfhite.
b) Less impressive is 7 ... h6 8 lbdS! i.f8 9
h3 (9 c4!? d6 10 h3 also looks better for
\Xfhite) 9 ... d6 1 0 lbxf6+ (better is 1 0 c4! with
1 75
 Th e Fo u r K n ig h ts
some advantage; the main idea is that if Black
takes on d5 White will recapture with the c
pawn and create pressure down the c-ftle
with the rooks, as well as in the centre with
the push d3-d4) 1 O .. :iVxf6 1 1 lLlh2 'iVg6 1 2
lLlg4 f5 1 3 exf5?! (not my fInest moment;
better was 1 3 lLle3! fxe4 14 ..txe4 "ii'f7 1 5
'it>g2 and maybe White has a small advantage)
13. .. ..txf5 1 4 lLle3 ..te6 1 5 lLld5 "ii'f7 1 6 c4
lLld4 17 f4 d7 IS 'it>h2 with an unclear
position, Pinski-Magomedov, Cappelle la
Grande 1 997.
7 d3 d7
Black has tried other moves here:
a) 7 ... ..tg4?! S h3 ..td7 (this is simply a lost
tempo because White often plays h2-h3
freely) 9 lLlh4 lLld4 1 0 f4 ..tc5 1 1 'it>h2 c6 1 2
lLla4 and White was clearly better i n Glek
Konson, Essen 1 995.
b) 7 ... .l::!.eS S lLlh4!? (yet another Glek idea)
S... ..txc3 9 bxc3 d5 1 0 ..tg5! dxe4 1 1 ..txe4
h6 1 2 ..txf6 xf6 1 3 .l::!.b l and White's posi
tion seems preferable.
c) 7 ... h6 S ..id2 ..te6 (S... a6 9 a3 ..ia5 1 0
b 4 ..ib6 1 1 ..te3 ..tg4 1 2 h3 ..txf3 1 3 ..txf3
lLld4 1 4 ..ig2 was a little better for White in
Glek-Wedberg, Biel 1993) 9 h3 as 1 0 a3 ..tc5
1 1 .Jte3 ..txe3 12 fxe3 d5 13 exd5 lLlxd5 1 4
"ii'd2 lLlxc3 1 5 xc3 'it'd6 1 6 lLld2 f5 1 7 lLlc4
..ixc4 1 S "ii'xc4+ 'it>hS (Lepelletier-Anic, Nar
bonne 1 999). Now White can secure a better
structure with 1 9 ..ixc6!? iVxc6 20 'iVxc6
bxc6 21 a4 with some advantage. Black
should probably play 19 ... bxc6 and hope to
create more counterplay with the queens
remaining on the board.
S lLlh4!
This is a standard manoeuvre in this struc
ture.
S . . . h6 9 lLlf5 xf5 1 0 exf5 d5 1 1 g4
.l:!.eS
White would have the advantage after
1 1 ..:d7 1 2 f4 exf4 1 3 ..txf4 SLd6 1 4 ..td2!,
mainly because of the two bishops.
1 2 g5 hxg5
1 2 ... SLxc3? 1 3 gxf6! ..td4 14 fxg7 would
1 76
leave Black with serious holes in his kingside.
1 3 xg5 xc3 1 4 bxc3 d6 1 5 .l:!.b1
e4?
This pawn sacrifIce is not justifIed. Black
would have been better off playing
1 5 ....l::!.a bS!. Often a rook that is not very well
placed on as can be equally inactive on bS,
except that it protects a pawn. If it currently
has no better place to exercise its powers, it is
usual for it to be deployed in this way.
Probably the chances are balanced after
1 5 ... .l::!.a bS!.
1 6 J:txb7 lLle5 1 7 h3?!
White is careful, but this is a little slow.
Stronger was 1 7 ..txf6! 'iVxf6 I S dxe4 dxe4
1 9 'ii'd4 with some edge. One example is
1 9 ...lLlf3+ 20 SLxf3 exf3 21 1!Vxf6 gxf6 22 h3
and White has good chances in the endgame.
1 7 . . . lLled7 1 S d2 c6 1 9 .l:!.b4 J:le5 20
f4 J:.aeS?!
Black should have been more prophylactic
in his line of thinking to prevent White's next
move. After 20... a5! 21 .l::!.b b1 (21 SLxf6 lLlxf6
22 .l::!.c4!? 'ii'd6 23 .l::!.a4 lLlh5 should not give
Black problems; the rook on a4 is probably
the worst-placed piece on the board)
2 1 ...lLlh5 22 'iVd2 .l::!.x f5 23 .l::!. fel f6 24 ..te3
lLle5 Black knights are fInally playing. The
position is probably in a dynamic balance,
but Black must feel a bit more comfortable.
21 c4!
Now the centre is broken up and White's
bishops comes into their own.

21 . . . d6 22 .!:.bb1 dxc4 23 dxe4 tLlc5?
23 ...tt:Jxe4 was absolutely necessary. It is
curious to see the indifference Black presents
to his own material in this game. After 24
l:.fdl c6 25 l:!.d4 ttJxg5 26 'ixg5 f6 27
'iYxf6 ttJxf6 28 l:.xc4 White is better, but the
game is still in progress.
24 l:ifd 1 ! a6 25 f3 'iWxa2?
A fast death is better than a slow torture!
26 xf6 gxf6 27 'iYh6 tLld7 28 h 1 1 -0
Game 94
Glek-Klovans
Willingen 2001
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3
tLld4!?
TIlls move is inspired by similar manoeu
vres in the English opening, where both 1 c4
e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 ttJc3 ttJd4 and 1 c4 e5 2
ttJc3 ttJc6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 ttJd4 have been
tried. Here it gives Black reasonable chances
to fight for equality, but it's too soon to
judge whether it will become a main con
tinuation.
5 g2
TIlls looks like the logical move here, but
accepting the pawn sacrifice is not necessarily
completely hopeless. 5 ttJxe5!? and now:
a) 5 .. ."ie7 looks natural, but still the con
clusions are not so simple to draw. 6 f4 d6 7
ttJf3 iLg4 (7 ... ttJxe4?! 8 ttJd5! ttJxf3+ 9 'iixf3
ttJg5+ 1 0 'iVe3 'iYxe3+ 1 1 dxe3 ttJe6 1 2 f5
Th e Glek S ys te m : Side lin e s
would leave Black seriously wounded) 8 i..g2
(8 i.e2!? ttJxf3+ 9 iLxf3 ttJxe4 1 0 ttJxe4
iLxf3 1 1 xf3 d5 1 2 1 2 d3 f5 1 3 d2 dxe4
1 4 dxe4 fxe4 1 5 3 0-0-0 1 6 0-0-0 with a
clear advantage, Todorovic-Kallio, Budapest
2002) 8 ... h5! (Black needs to seek active
counterplay; 8 ... ttJxe4 9 ttJd5 'iVd8 1 0 c3
ttJxf3+ 1 1 iLxf3 iLxf3 1 2 xf3 ttJc5 1 3 0-0
and l:.e1+ would give White a clear advan
tage) 9 d3 h4 1 0 gxh4 d5 1 1 e5 c6! with
... ttJh5 to come. Black has sacrificed two
pawns but has a superior structure and good
chances in the middlegame. Practical tests
will of course show if this is nonsense or not.
b) 5 ... d5!? (the active reply) and now:
bl) 6 exd5 iLd6 7 ttJc4 (7 f4 xe5 8 fxe5
g4 9 i..e 2 3Lxe2 10 ttJxe2 xd5 1 1 0-0
'ixe5 and Black has better chances in the
middlegame due to his safer king and better
development) 7 ...iLg4 8 i..e2 ttJxe2 9 ttJxe2
0-0 1 0 0-0 ttJxd5 with good compensation
for the pawn in this dynamic middlegame.
b2) 6 d3! (White should try to stabilise his
centre). 6 ... i..d6 7 ttJf3 3Lg4 8 i..g2. There is
no doubt that \Xihite is under unpleasant
pressure here, but he did steal a pawn! I have
not been able to fmd anything really strong
for Black, so maybe this is really worth a
practical test. 8 ... iLe5 (8 ... i..b4 9 0-0 0-0
19 ... dxe4 10 dxe4! and White is just a pawn
up] 10 exd5 l:.e8 1 1 i.e3 and Black has noth
ing) 9 0-0 dxe4 10 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 1 1 dxe4 'iVf6
1 2 iLf4 ttJc6 1 3 iLg5! 'iYxg5 1 4 ttJxg5 iLxd1
1 5 .l:.fxdl i.xb2 16 .l:.abl i.f6 1 7 ttJf3 and
White looks better in the endgame due to the
weaknesses on the light squares. Even 1 7
l:.xb7!? iLxg5 1 8 e 5 ttJd8 1 9 .l:.xc7 l:.b8 20
l:.xa7 (with ideas like 20... 0-0 21 f4) looks a
good try for the full point.
5 . . . tLlxf3+ 6 xf3
6 'iVxf3 will be seen in the next game.
6 . . . c5
The natural development. Black has also
tried 6 ... i..b4!? 7 0-0 d6 8 d4 0-0 (the natural
move; after 8... i.xc3?! 9 bxc3 0-0 1 0 i..g2
J:.e8 1 1 d3 b6 12 f4 White was better in
1 77
Th e Fo u r Knig h ts
Glek-Frog, Elista 1 995) 9 Jig2 exd4 1 0
'iVxd4 .icS 1 1 'iVd3 a6! (a hole for the bishop
in case of CDa4) 1 2 Jie3 (the bishop has no
better squares) 1 2 ... Jixe3 13 "iVxe3 e8 and
the position is more or less balanced.
7 0-0
7 d3 c6 8 0-0 d6 (maybe 8... 0-0 9 Jig2 bS
with unclear consequences is better) 9 .ig2
.ig4 1 0 el d7?! (1O... a6 is more natural)
1 1 CDa4 gave White a small advantage in
Glek-Rizouk, Biel 1 99S.
7 . . . d6
7 ... c6! 8 d3 0-0 9 Jig2 bS with unclear play
is the right way.
8 121a4!
This is a standard manoeuvre. Now White
gains the two bishops and thereby a small,
enduring edge. Still, Black has some devel
opment as compensation and who is better
and why has not yet been decided.
8 . . . h3 9 J:!.e1 "ilVd7 1 0 l2lxc5
No need for any delay. If 10 c3? .ixE2+!
1 1 Wxf2 bS Black has good counterchances.
1 0 . . . dxc5 1 1 d3 0-0 1 2 g2 l:rfe8 1 3
g5 xg2 1 4 xg2 "ilVc6 1 5 h 3 l2ld7
After 1S ...h6 16 i.d2! c4 17 it'f3 ad8 1 8
i.. c3 cxd3 1 9 cxd3 "iVd6 20 ad1 cS 2 1 it'e3
White has the advantage because Black does
not have time for the long manoeuvre ... CDf6-
d7-fS-e6-d4. White should meet this idea by
preparing f2-f4.
1 6 e3 121f8
Also worth considering was 1 6 ... c4 1 7
it'f3 cxd3 1 8 cxd3 'iVd6 followed b y ... c7-cS
and ... b7-b6 with a complex middlegame
ahead.
1 7 g1 l2le6
1 7 ... c4 1 8 it'hS J::i.ad8! should give Black
good counterplay (1 8... cxd3 1 9 cxd3 .l:!.ad8 20
ac1 would be a little better for White).
1 8 f4! exf4 1 9 gxf4 g6?
This is a horrible move - passive and
weakening at the same time. Remember that
Black should be trying to justify the exchange
of bishop for knight with activity. The alter
natives are:
1 78
a) 1 9 ... ad8!? 20 fS CDd4 21 c3 CDbS 22 a4
CDd6 23 it'g4 and White has an initiative.
b) 1 9 ... f5! 20 exfS CDd4 21 .ixd4 cxd4 22
l::te S l:IxeS 23 fxeS 'iiibs and the position is
rather unclear.
20 "ilVg4
Now White has good attacking possibili
ties because of the weak dark squares.
20 . . .121g7 21 "ilVg2 lite6 22 d2
The bishop is going to the long diagonal.
22 . . . J:!.ae8 23 c3 f6 24 a4 b6?
Again Black is very passive. It was neces
sary to try to create some counterplay before
White gets his ideal set-up for the attack.
Better was a move like 24... c4!?
25 l:U1 .:t6e7 26 f5 l2lh5 27 h 1 litg7 28
"ilVf3 11f8 29 d2 J:!.e7 30 fxg6 hxg6 31
J:!.g 1 J:!.h7
31 ...Wh7 would meet with the following
combination: 32 .:!.xg6! xg6 33 .:!.g1+ cj;; f7
34 'iYxh5+ cj;;e6 35 'if5+ cj;; f7 36 Jih6 l::i.a8 37
it'g6+ 'it>e6 38 lW l::tf7 39 Jig7 e7 40
.ixf6+! and Black will soon have to give in.
32 J:!.xg6+ h8 33 h6 l2lg7 34 J:!.ag1
J:!.f7 35 "ilVg4 f5 36 xg7+ J:!.fxg7 37
"ilVxf5 1 -0
Game 95
Glek-Onischuk
Biel 1996
1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 l2lc3 l2lf6 4 g3
l2ld4 5 g2 l2lxf3+ 6 xf3

TIlls looks more logical than 6 .lii.x f3. The
bishop belongs to g2 and the queen does not
belong on d l , but rather e2, if it had to
choose right now.
With 6 'iWxf3 White leaves the dreams of
d2-d4 behind him, at least for the time being.
TIlls sacrifice is a necessity if he wants to play
for an advantage.
6 . . .e5
6 ... d6?! 7 d3 .lii.e7 8 e2 0-0 9 0-0 c6 1 0
h 3 b 5 1 1 f4 4:Jd7 1 2 h2 a s 1 3 4:Jdl gave
White good attacking prospects in Glek
Smagin, Cap d'Agde 1 995.
7 O-O!
Critical. Also worth considering are:
a) 7 h3 d6 8 4:Ja4 .lii.b 6 9 4:Jxb6 axb6 1 0
0-0 ..ie6 and Black does not look worse.
b) 7 d3!? 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 h3 4:Jd7 1 0 4:Ja4
as 1 1 4:Jxc5 4:Jxc5 1 2 .lii.e3 4:Je6 1 3 .l:i.ae 1 with
the idea of 'iVh5 followed by f4 and White is
better, Belikov-Zaitsev, Moscow 1 996.
7 . . . d6 8 'tJa4 d4?!
TIlls seems a bit dubious. 8... .lii.b 6 9 4:Jxb6
axb6 1 0 'iVc3!, with the idea of d2-d4 (despite
what was said above), gives White a slight
advantage according to Glek.
9 e3 g4?!
9 ... ..ib6 1 0 d4 ..ig4 1 1 d3 0-0 12 4:Jxb6
axb6 1 3 f3 .lii.h5 14 .lii.e3 with an advantage
was more prudent.
1 0 d3 d7?!
10 .....ib6 1 1 4:Jxb6 axb6 12 f4! would give
Black some problems, as now 1 3 f5 is a seri-
Th e Glek S ys te m : Side lin e s
ous threat. Still, this was the lesser evil.
1 1 exd4 xa4 1 2 dxe5 dxe5 1 3 e3
0-0-0 1 4 f3 e6 1 5 xe5 lid3 1 6 b3
d7 1 7 l:if2 .i:e8 1 8 e5 b6 1 9 e2
J:td8 20 f1
20 . . :d4
TIlls does not work, but Black is short of
alternatives:
a) 20....l:i.xf3 21 .l:i.xf3 'i'd4+ 22 l::te 3 xal
23 .lii.b2 'i'xa2 24 b4! (with the idea of l:!.a3
trapping the queen) 24... .lii.d7 25 .l:i.a3 'iVe6 26
':xa7 'iHc6 27 .lii.a6+ 'it>b8 28 .l:i.b7+ Was 29
.l:i.xc7 gives White a clearly winning endgame.
b) 20 ... .l:i.d4 21 a4 as 22 .lii.b 5 d6 23 e5!
'iVxe5 24 .lii.b2 also wins.
21 xd3 xa1 22 a6+ b8 23 b2+
xb2 24 xb2 'tJe8 25 d4 e6 26 :te2
'tJe7 27 e2 b7 28 g4 a5 29 f4 f6 30
f5 f7 31 f2 a4 32 e4 xe4 33 bxe4
a3 34 xa3 J::txd4 35 e3 e5 36 b2
l:id 1 37 g5 'tJe8 38 gxf6 gxf6 39 e5 e6
40 J:If2 ':e 1 + 41 d2 J:.e4 42 d3 J::th4
43 exf6 .!::!.h 3+ 44 e2 'tJd6 45 J:!.e2 .l:!.f3
46 .l:te6 d7 47 lie7+ d8 48 e5 'tJxf5
49 l:lxh7 e8 50 d2 f8 51 l:lb7 J:!.a3
52 e7 f7 53 d8+ g6 54 f7 g7
55 xb6 l:lxa2+ 56 e3 'tJh6 57 f8 +
xf8 58 xe5+ e8 59 .l:.e7+ d8 60
h4 .l:.h2 6 1 l:lh7 'tJf5 62 h5 e8 63 b6
'tJg3 64 h6 'tJe4+ 65 b4 'tJf6 66 .!::!.h 8+
b7 67 d4 'tJd7 68 h7 .!::!.h4 69 b5
J:lh5+ 70 e5 e7 71 e4 J:.h4 72 d3
J::th 3+ 73 e2 l:lh5 74 f3 1 -0
1 79
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Summary
Black should not look for equality in the sidelines of the Glek System. 4 ... e7 seems to be too
passive to make real sense, while 4...g6 gives White a pleasant position if he plays 5 d4! and
should be avoided by Black.
4 ... .i.b4 is more relevant, but after ... xc3, which must be the main idea, White will gain
some advantage due to the two bishops. 4... ttJd4!? is interesting, but White apparently has sev
eral good options at his disposal, one of them being the greedy 5 ttJxe5!?

1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 g3 tLld4

4....tb4 5 .tg2 (D)
5 .. 0-0 Game 93; 5 ... .txc3 Game 92
. - -

4...g6 5 d4 exd4 6 ttJxd4 d6 7 h3 .fLg7 8 ttJde2 0-0 9 .tg2 (D)

9 ... l:!.e8 Game 90; 9 ... a5 Game 9 1
- -

4. . ..te7 Game 89
-

5 i.g2 tLlxf3+ 6 'iWxf3 Game 95

-

6 .txf3 (D) Game 94

-

5 i.g2 9 i.g2 6 i.xf3

1 80
I CHAPTER TWEl VE I
U n usual Fourth Moves
for White
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6
In this final chapter we look at less fre
quent fourth moves White. Tries such as 4
CLlxeS?, 4 a3, 4 e2 and also the unfortunate
4 c4?!. Normally people play the Four
Knights with White in order to avoid masses
of theory and computer analysis. This is al
ready achieved at move three, so to try to get
further away from the books is hardly a good
idea. Of all these, only 4 a3!? makes some
sense. And this is also where we will start.
Game 96
Blehm-Socko
Warsaw 2002
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 a3!?
Robert Fischer said that in the Dragon
Variation of the Sicilian a player with an Elo
rating of 2000 can occasionally can beat a
Grandmaster. In the same way, 4 a3 is not so
stupid as it looks at first sight. White says, '1
want see your plans.' Many well-known play
ers have used this move once or twice.
A funny swindle line is 4 CLlxeS? This
move, called the MUller and Schultze Gam
bit, only works in a blitz game, where Black
does not have time to come up with a de
fence! Play continues with 4".CLlxeS S d4 and
now:
a) S".CLlg6?! 6 eS CLlg8 7 i.c4 and 'WTIite
does have some initiative for the piece. After
7".c6?! 8 'iVf3 dS 9 exd6 CLlf6 10 'iVe2+ d7
1 1 ..txf7 White is "'inning according to some
old analysis by Carl Schlechter.
b) S".CLlc6! (this is more accurate) 6 dS
..tb4! (This is the great thing about accepting
gambits. Sometimes you can return the mate
rial and be better off for it. After alternatives
the gambit starts to make sense: 6".CLleS 7 f4
CLlg6 8 eS CLlg8 9 d6 with some compensa
tion, or 6".CLlb8 7 eS CLlg8 8 d6 again with
play for White) 7 dxc6 CLlxe4 8 'iVd4 'iVe7 9
'iVxg7 CLlxc}t 10 e3 CLld5+ 1 1 c3 l::tfS 1 2
cxb4 CLlxe3 1 3 fxe3 'iVxb4+ and Black i s very
close to winning.
4".d5!?
181
Th e Fo ur Knig h ts
According to the old masters you should
play in the centre when your opponent plays
on the flanks. Though many old ideas have
been revised, this one stays strong in modern
chess strategy. Still, Black has tried a lot of
different options here:
a) 4... g6 is a reversed 4 g3 system. But now
White has some interesting opportunities to
fight for an advantage. The pawn on a3 is
very useful here.
al) 5 g3 i..g7 6 .Jtg2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 d3 is
level (a2-a3 is hardly useful).
a2) 5 .Jtc4 .Jtg7 6 d3 d6 7 h3 .1I..e6 S .Jte3
h6 9 .Jtxe6 fxe6 10 d4 exd4 1 1 ctJxd4 "YWd7 1 2
ctJxc6 'fixc6 with a level game in Ham
douchi-Adams, Cannes (rapid) 200 l .
a3) 5 ctJxeS!? makes more sense as Black
cannot play ....Jtb4! any longer. It is interest
ing that this is the only move that gives
White some chances of fighting for the ad
vantage. S ... ctJxeS 6 d4 ctJc6 7 dS
and now Black has two possibilities:
a31) 7... ctJeS S f4 d6! (S ... ctJhS 9 g3 and
White regains the piece 'With good play; no
tice that 9 fxeS? 4+ would be far too dan
gerous) 9 fxeS dxeS 1 0 ..ib5+ .Jtd7 1 1 .1I..xd7+
ctJxd7 1 2 0-0 .1I..c5+ 1 3 'ithl 'Yih4 with
chances for both sides. Practical tests are
needed (or lots of free time and nothing bet
ter to do!).
a32) 7 ... ctJb8 S eS ctJg8 9 d6 (also interest
ing are 9 ..ltc4!? and 9 'iVf3!?) 9... cxd6 (9...c6
10 'iVf3 iLg7 1 1 ..ltc4 fS 12 h4 'fiaS 13 .Jtf4
1 82
looks very dangerous) 10 exd6 'iVf6 1 1 ctJb5
ctJa6 1 2 ..ltc4 .1I..h6 (1 2 ... 'iVe5+ 1 3 ..lte3 iLh6
14 0-0 .Jtxe3 1 5 !tel ! gives White a strong
attack) 1 3 'iVe2+ WfS 1 4 .Jte3 .Jtxe3 1 5 fxe3
and White had a strong attack in Carlsten
Nyysti, Helsinki 2002.
a4) 5 d4 exd4 6 ctJxd4 ..ltg7 7 ctJde2 (this is
some kind of Pirc Defence that should not
be dangerous for Black) 7... 0-0 S g3 d6 9
i..g2 .Jtd7!? Oess logical was 9 ... Wh8 10 h3
ctJgS 1 1 g4 fS 12 exfS gxfS 13 gS and White
was a little better in Blehm-Kaufman, Wash
ington, 2002) 10 0-0 'Yics 1 1 !tel ..lth3 and
Black is hardly worse.
b) 4... iLe7 (In my opinion this move is too
passive to equalise fully. Still, the empirical
evidence is against me) 5 d4 d6 6 .1I..b S exd4 7
ctJxd4 .Jtd7 S 0-0 0-0 9 !tel ctJxd4 10 'fixd4
..ltxbS 1 1 ctJxbS ctJd7! (Black is equal) 1 2 a4
1:teS 1 3 as .Jtf6 1 4 'Yib4 ctJcS 1 5 .Jtd2 c6 1 6
ctJc3 b6 1 7 axb6 and a draw was agreed in
Wahls-Piket, Novi Sad 1 990.
c) 4 ... .JtcS (a provocation!) 5 ctJxeS!? ctJxeS
6 d4 ..ltd6 and now:
c1) 7 f4 ctJc6! (7 ...ctJg6 S eS .1I..e 7 9 fS ctJh4
10 exf6 .Ilxf6 1 1 "ii'e2+ gives Black many
problems with the knight on h4) S eS .Jte7
(now we see that move a3 is quite useful -
Black does not have ... .ib4!) 9 dS ctJxdS 1 0
ctJxdS (10 'iVxdS d6 1 1 .ibS dxeS 1 2 fxeS 0-0
is unclear) 10 ... d6 1 1 exd6 'iVxd6 1 2 ctJxe7
'iVxe7+ 1 3 f2 (or 1 3 'iVe2 i..e6 with a good
game for Black) 1 3. .. 0-0 1 4 ..ltd3 iLfS with
equality in Wolf-Lesiege, Montreal 1 993.
c2) 7 dxeS .ixeS 8 .id3 (also interesting is
S ctJe2 c6 9 f4 i.c7 10 ctJg3 with unclear
play, but 1 0 eS is very risky, for example
1 0 ... ctJg4 1 1 h3 ctJh6 1 2 .Ile3 f6! when per
haps Black is better) S... dS 9 exdS .1I..xc3+ 1 0
bxc3 'iVxdS 1 1 0-0 0-0 and White i s probably
very slighdy better here.
5 b5 d4
The only move. After S ... dxe4?! 6 ctJxe5
d6 7 d4 exd3 (not 7...a6? as in Bhend-Flear,
Brocco 1 9 9 1 , when White is close to winning
after S i.f4! axbS 9 ctJxbS 'fidS 1 0 ctJxc6

bxc6 1 1 ttJxc7+ d7 12 ttJxa8 tva5+ 1 3 b4
tvxa8 14 0-0 - Black's king is awkward and
the a-pawn is potentially very dangerous) 8
0-01 i.e6 9 ttJxc6 bxc6 10 i.f4! 'iVd7 1 1
.ixd3 i.d6 1 2 'iVd2 and there is no compen
sation for the bad pawn structure.
6 tLJe2
After 6 ttJxe5?! d6! (6... dxc3? 7 ttJxc6
bxc6 8 i.xc6+ i.d7 9 .ixa8 'ii'xa8 1 0 d3
cxb2 1 1 SLxb2 .i.e7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 :bl is
good for White) 7 ttJc4 'iic 5 8 ttJd5 ttJxd5 9
exd5 'iVxd5 1 0 'iVe2+ .i.e6 1 1 0-0 0-0-0 Black
has the better game.
6 . . . d7
An interesting alternative is 6 ...ttJxe4!? 7
d3 (7 ttJxe5 'iVd5 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9 ttJf3 c5
looks good for Black) 7...ttJd6 8 SLxc6+ bxc6
9 ttJxe5 ttJf5 10 0-0 .i.d6 1 1 ttJxc6 (1 1 i.f4
i.xe5 12 i.xe5 0-0 would be equal)
l 1 ...i.xh2+ 1 2 'li;?xh2 'ii'd6+ 1 3 ttJf4 'ib'xc6 1 4
:e1+ 'li;?f8 1 5 i.d2 i.b7 with unclear play.
7 d3 d6 8 0-0 h6
It's also possible to chase the bishop and
gain space, like in the Ruy Lopez. After
8 ... a6!? 9 i.a4 0-0 1 0 ttJel b5 1 1 i.b3 ttJa5
1 2 i.a2 c5 1 3 f4 ttJc6 both players have good
play.
9 tLJe 1 tLJe7
It is not fully justified to play 9 ... g5?!,
when White will use his lead in development
to break open the centre. 1 0 c3! dxc3 1 1 bxc3
a6 12 i.a4 'iVe7 13 ttJc2! b5 14 .ib3 ttJa5 1 5
i.a2 c 5 1 6 ttJe3 .i:!.d8 1 7 ttJg3. White is better
due to his control of the light squares. This is
of course just a fantasy variation, but it does
show the tendencies in this position.
1 0 xd7 + 'iYxd7 1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 tLJf3 tLJc6
Black could also have equalised with
12 ...ttJg4!? 1 3 ttJxf4 (1 3 ttJexd4 0-0-0 14 ttJb3
f5 would be very dangerous for White)
13. .. 0-0 14 c3 c5.
1 3 tLJxf4 tLJe5 14 h 1 tLJxf3 1 5 xf3
0-0-0 1 6 tLJh5 tLJg4?!
Unnecessary complications. After
1 6 ... ttJxh5 1 7 'ib'xh5 f6 1 8 'iVa5 'li;?b8 1 9 c3
i.e5 Black is no worse.
U n u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es fo r Wh i t e
17 g3 f6 18 d2 1:1de8 19 c4 dxc3
This was necessary. After 19 ...ttJe5 20
'iVe2 :hg8 21 b4 White will be able to organ
ise a major attack on the queenside.
20 bxc3
White is better. He has control of the cen
tre and possibilities for creating threats on
the b-ftle.
20 . . .tLJe5 21 e2 'iYf7 22 d4 tLJc4 23
tLJxg7 'iYxg7 24 xc4 .:txe4 25 nab1 c6
26 'iYd3 .:the8 27 d5 c5
27 ...cxd5 28 xd5 .l:18e6 29 i.xh6! illus
trates Black's troubles.
28 f3 :te2 29 'iYf5+ c7 30 f4 e7
31 c4 l:td8 32 xd6+?!
More dangerous was 32 a4! b8 33 as
with an attack.
32 . . Jxd6 33 1:1f4 1:1e5 34 'iYc2 J:te2 35
'iYf5 J:!.e5 36 g4 J:!.e3 37 1:1bf1 a6 38
g6?!
38 a4 with some pressure was better.
38 . . ..l:.xa3!
Now it is time. After 38 ... .l:tel ? 39 :xel
'iVxe1+ 40 'it>g2 'iVe2+ 41 h3 h5 42 'iVf5!
followed by .l:!.e4 White comes out on top.
39 ':e4 'iYd7 40 J:!.fe1 ?
From here on White does not play his
best. With 40 "iVxh6! f5 41 :e6 :xe6 42
'ib'xe6 'ii'xe6 43 dxe6 :e3 44 l::!.xf5 d6 45
:f7 b6 46 l:!.a7 White could have kept the
balance and made a draw.
40 . . .b8??
Time trouble madness. After 40 ... f5! 41
1 83
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Me6 Mxe6 42 xe6 'iVxe6 43 dxe6 'it>d8.
Black has serious winning chances in the
rook ending.
41 J:l.e7 a4
Not 41 ...'iVc8 42 Me8 Md8 43 Mxd8 'iVxd8
44 Me8+ and White wins.
42 .l:tb 1 ??
Returning the favour. After 42 h7! Mb3
(or 42.. :tb3 43 Mbl and b7 will fall) 43 Me8+
c:J;;;a7 44 'iWc7 'iVd7 45 'iVb8+ 'iitb 6 46 M8e7
'XThite wins.
42 . . . nb6 43 l:txb6??
Suicide? Miscalculation?
43 . . . iVd 1 + 44 'it>g2 J:l.a2+ 4S 'it>h3 f1 +
46 'it>g4 hS+!
It is very likely that this is the move White
After 7 xc6+?! bxc6 8 bxc3 d6 the two
bishops and the initiative are sufficient com
pensation for the bad pawn structure, A fter 9
0-0 0-0 1 0 d3 SLg4 the position is slightly
uncomfortable for White, for example:
a) 1 1 h3 SLh5 12 g4 (this looks terrible,
but there is no alternative) 1 2 ... SLg6 1 3 J:Iel
with a slightly worse position for White.
b) 1 1 .l:.el ?! f5 12 h3 h5 1 3 .l:.e3??
(\X1hite was in trouble, but this is a bad blun
der; after 1 3 'iWe2 l:te8 1 4 e3 e4 1 5 dxe4
Mxe4 1 6 'iWd2 SLxf3 1 7 gxf3 Mxe1+ 1 8 'it'xel
'iVf6 Black has a strong attack) 13 ... e4 14
dxe4 fxe4 1 5 l:l.xe4 h2+ 0-1 Mitchell-Mack,
correspondence 1 980.
7 . .d6 8 d4 exd4 9 cxd4 0-0 1 0 0-0
.

overlooked. After 47 xh5 d1+ Black wins g4 1 1 e3

the queen. This can be compared with the 1 0 ... e6
47 xhS h3 mate (0- 1 ) line in the Scotch Four Knights (see Games
A terrible game! 29-31).
1 1 ... l2'le7
Game 97 1 1 ...'iVf6 12 .ie2 Mae8 13 'iVd2 tLJe7 14 h3
Golubovic-Szabo h5 15 SLg5 'iWe6 1 6 lIfe1 'it'c8 17 c4 c6 1 8
Budapest 1995 f4 was a little better for White in Tarta
kower-Griinfeld, Vienna 1 928.
1 e4 eS 2 l2'lf3 l2'lc6 3 l2'lc3 l2'lf6 4 a3 dS 1 2 h3 h5 1 3 d3
S exdS l2'lxdS 6 bS Or 1 3 Mel tLJdS 14 .id2 with equality,
Braeuning-Jenni, Bodensee 1 999.
1 3 . . . l2'ldS 14 c4 l2'lxe3
14 ... tLJf4!? seems more logical. But after
the critical 1 5 c5 .ixf3 (1 5 ... tLJxd3 1 6 cxd6
i.gG 1 7 tLJe5 tLJxe5 1 8 dxe5 .l:!.e8 1 9 .l:!.c1 !
gives White some pressure) 1 6 'iVxf3 (or 1 6
.ixh7+l? 'iitxh7 1 7 'it'xf3 tLJd5 1 8 cxd6 'iWxd6
1 9 .l:ab1 b6) 1 6... tLJxd3 1 7 cxd6 'it'xd6 1 8
Mtb 1 White does keep an advantage - the
knight is not really comfortable. Black can
still fight with 1 8 ... c5!? 1 9 dxc5 'it'e5 with
some counterplay, but the long-term prob
lems on the queenside must tell.
White enters a Scotch Four Knights re 1 5 fxe3 c5
versed where he has the extra move a2-a3. After 15 ...e7 16 e4 i.xa3 17 e5 (17 c5?
This gives him the possibility to play an oth SLb2 18 Ma4 i.xf3 19 .l:!.xf3 Mfd8 and Black
erwise dubious line, as the manoeuvre wins) 1 7 ... b4 1 8 c2 .igG 1 9 .ixgG hxg6
...tLJc6-b4 has been prevented. 20 'iVe4 White has good compensation for
6 . . . l2'lxc3 7 bxc3 the pawn with his great centre and chances

1 84

of creating a kingside attack. It will take a
long time before the a-pawn gets close to
promotion.
1 6 'Vlic2 i.g6
Solid. Wild is 16 ... SLxf3 17 SLxh7+!? (17
':'xf3 h4 is pleasant for Black) 1 7...h8 1 8
':'xf3 g6 1 9 SLxg6 fxg6 20 'iVxg6 ':'xf3 21
'iVh5+ Wg7 22 ii'xf3 'iVe7 with chances for
both sides.
1 7 i.xg6 hxg6 1 8 d5 'Vlic7 1 9 J:!.ae1 J::!.ae8
20 e2 J:te7!
The plan of doubling the rooks on the e
file gives Black a safe draw.
21 'Vlid3 ':'fe8 22 e4 .1i.f4 23 h1 'Vlid6 24
J:!.fe1 i.g3 25 :d 1 i.f4 26 l;!de1 i.g3 27
.l:.d 1 i.f4 28 a4 b6 29 1:tde1 i.g3 30 l:ld 1
.i.f4 Y, y,
- struggling to find counterplay that justifies
White cannot make real progtess.
In the following classic battle between two
of the best players of their age, Emanuel
Lasker brutally slaughters Siegbert Tartasch
in a line that has been known to be dubious
for White ever since.
Game 98
Tarrasch-Lasker
World Ch. (game 3) Berlin 1916
1 e4 e5 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 3 ct:Jc3 ct:Jf6 4 i.c4?!
This is a famous beginner's move. Unfor
tunately, after this innocent-looking inaccu
racy White already has to fight for equality!
U n u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es for Wh i t e
4 . . .ct:Jxe4!
A nice combinational theme.
5 ct:Jxe4
5 SLxf7+? Wxf7 6 tLlxe4 d5 gives Black a
serious advantage due to the two bishops and
the strong centre.
5 . . . d5 6 .1i.d3 dxe4
There is no reason to make things compli
cated. After 6 ... f5?! 7 tLlc3 e4 8 b5 White
will end up with an advantage:
a) 8... d4?! 9 tLlxe4 fxe4 1 0 e2 (Black has
problems with the e-pawn) 10 ... SLf5
(1O ...'iVd5 1 1 SLc4 f5 12 SLd3! tLle5 1 3
j"xe4 tLlxf3+ 1 4 .i.xf3+ and White has a clear
pawn more) 1 1 d3 .i.b4+ 1 2 SLd2 .i.xd2+ 1 3
tLlxd2 e 3 1 4 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 5 fxe3 and Black is
the pawn deficit.
b) 8 ... exf3 9 'iVxf3 .i.e6 10 0-0 d7 1 1
tLle2! SLd6 1 2 d4 0-0 1 3 SLf4 SLxf4 1 4 'iVxf4
and White has a positional advantage,
Morovic-Sagalchik, North Bay 1 996. The e5-
square is a good future outpost for all of
White's pieces - especially the knight.
7 .i.xe4 i.d6
Or:
a) 7 ... tLle7 (paul Keres' idea) 8 c3 f5 9 c2
tLlg6 (9 ... e4 1 0 tLlg5 h6 1 1 tLlh3 SLe6 12 f3
looks good for White) 1 0 d4 e4 1 1 e2 SLd6
12 0-0 with unclear play. This still has to be
tested.
b) 7 ... .i.c5?! 8 0-0 f6 9 c3 0-0 (Grob
Alexander, Hastings 1 947/48) and now
1 85
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
White should play 10 'iVc2! with some advan
tage.
8 d4?!
Not recommended. After 8 0-0 0-0 9 c3
h6 10 l:te1 .l:te8 1 1 h3 iLd7 the position was
equal in Djuric-Malaniuk, Formia 1 995.
8 . . . exd4 9 lLlxd4
Or 9 iLxc6+ bxc6 1 0 'ifxd4 0-0 11 0-0 and
now:
a) 1 1 ....l:te8! 12 b3 cS 1 3 c3 l:!.e6 1 4 iLb2
l:!.g6 1 S l:!.fe1 iLb7 with an attack. Sozin
Rabinovich, Moscow 1 924.
b) Also relevant is the natural looking
1 1 ...cS!? 1 2 'iVc3 i.b7. The authors of Enry
clopaedia of Chess Openin,gs believe this to be
equal, but in my opinion Black has a serious
initiative. 1 3 b3 'iWd7 1 4 iLb2 f6 1S l:!.ad1
'Yi'fS 1 6 'iWc4+ 'it>h8 17 iLlh4 'iihs 1 8 h3
(fartakower-Bogoljubow, Piestany 1 922) and
now 1 8... fS! would have given Black the ad
vantage - the knight on h4 is very weak.
9 . . . 0-0!
After 9 ... iLlxd4 10 'ifxd4 0-0 1 1 i.e3 'iVe7
12 0-0-0 l:!.e8 1 3 1:the1 iLe6 14 i.dS! the
position is equal - Gligoric.
10 i.e3
The alternatives are worse. 10 O-O? iLlxd4
1 1 'iVxd4 i.xh2+ 10 iLlxc6 'ifh4! 1 1 iLxh7+
'iWxh7 1 2 iLld4 d8 1 3 'ife2 cS and according
to Keres Black has more than enough com
pensation for the pawn - I agree.
1 0 .. J1Vh4! 1 1 i.xc6 bxc6
Here several moves are possible.
1 86
1 2 g3?
Or:
a) 12 iLlxc6? i.b7 1 3 'ifd4 'ifhS! 1 4 'iVc4
fe8 and White's position is terrible, for
example: I S iLld4 (1 S 'it>El as! 1 6 'it>gl iVgG
and Black wins a piece) 1 S ...i.xg2 1 6 .l:tg1
i.dS 1 7 "tWc3 iLeS! with a clear advantage for
Black. But not 1 7... i.xh2? 1 8 !:!.xg7+ <Ji;xg7
19 iLle6+ gG 20 iVg7+ fS 21 iLld4+ <Ji;e4
22 'it>d2 and only the Gods (and maybe the
computers) know what's going on here.
b) 12 "tWd2 b8 (12 ...J:i.e8 13 0-0-0 'iWe4
and Black is better) 1 3 0-0-0 cS 1 4 ttJf3 'iVa4
1 S a3 is unclear according to Emanuel
Lasker, but 1 s...iL fS 1 6 'iVc3 l:!.bS with l:!.fb8
next gives Black a very strong attack.
c) 1 2 h3 is unclear according to Gligoric. I
would like to play this kind of unclear posi
tion all the time! Just look: 12 ... cS 1 3 iLlb3
(1 3 iLlf3 iVb4+ 14 'ifd2 'iVxb2 1 S 0-0 iLfS
can hardly be called equal; the extra pawn
might not be passed, but still it controls im
portant squares) 1 3. .. i.b7 1 4 0-0 "tWe4 I S
g4 iVeS 1 6 'ifg3 iixb2 and Black is very
close to having a winning position.
1 2 . . . Vi'h3 1 3 Vi'e2 c5
1 4 lLlb3
The alternatives also give little comfort:
a) 1 4 iLlf3? .tg4 I S iLlgS 'iWg2 1 6 'iVEl
iVb7! and White is completely defenceless.
b) 14 iLlbS iLa6 1S 0-0-0 l:!.fb8!! (a great
positional move!) 1 6 c4 iLxbS 1 7 cxbS a6! 1 8
bxa6 e6 1 9 b 3 (after 1 9 'it>b1 i.eS 20 j"c1

':xa6 White has no defence; one line goes 21
b3 l:.xa2 22 xa2 ii'g6+ 23 'iVc2 l:.xb3+ and
Black wins) 1 9 ... .ltf8 20 1:.hel l:.xa6 and
Black should win. For example: 21 ..tf4 c4 22
'iixe6 fxe6 23 Wb 1 cxb3 24 axb3 l:!.xb3+ 25
Wc2 l:.3 26 ..te3 .ltd6 and Black has a clear
pawn more and an active position.
1 4 . . . j,g4 1 5 'ilVf 1 'ifh5!
Black would also be better after
1 5 .. :iVxf1+ 1 6 Wxfl l:.ab8 but there is no
reason to exchange queens when you are
attacking.
1 6 tLld2 l:!.fe8 1 7 l:!.g 1
This move looks utterly senseless, but the
alternatives are not at all better:
a) 1 7 tiJc4 .It3 1 8 l:.gl 'iixh2 and Black is
winning. After 19 tiJd2 .ig4 20 l:.h1 l:.xe3+1
it is all over.
b) 1 7 c3 l:.ab8 (1 7 ...l:.e7!? is also a good
move) 1 8 b3 l:!.e 7 1 9 g2 l:.be8 and there is
no defence against ...l:.xe3. 20 0-0 .lth3 21
'if3 xf3 22 tiJxf3 .ltxfl 23 l:.xfl cannot be
called a real alternative.
1 7 . . . .l:lab8 1 8 tLlc4 j,e5!
Accuracy. This bishop was doing little and
now it is the 'king'. If White exchanges it he
has no defence on the dark squares - he has
already lost the battle for the light squares.
1 9 h3
Desperation is the common trait of des
perate men. Black has a nice win in the fol
lowing line: 1 9 l:.b 1 .ic3+1 20 tiJd2 l:.ed8 21
f3 l:.xd2 22 .ixd2 J:te8+ 23 Wdl .ixf3+ 24
'>t>c1 .txd2+ 25 '>t>xd2 ih6+ 26 '>t>c3 f6+ 27
'>t>d2 'id4+ 28 d3 l:.e2+ 29 '>t>c1 "iYxg1+ 30
"iYdl 'iie 3+ 3 1 d2 J:tel mate!
1 9 . . . j,xh3 20 'ilVe2 i.g4 21 'ilVd3 J:tbd8
22 tLlxe5 .l:txd3 23 tLlxd3 .l:!.xe3+! 0-1
Game 99
Van der Wiel-Timman
Wijk aan Zee 1985
1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 tZlc3 tZlf6
This game is between the two strongest
Dutch players in the 1 980s. Van der Wiel's
Un u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es for Wh i t e
opening experiment with 4 .ie2 i s not re
warded, and neither should it be.
4 i.e2
The problem with this move is that the
extra tempo is useless and the bishop is not
very actively placed on e2, so probably it will
have to move later. Alas, White just gives
Black the advantage of the first move for
free.
4 . . . d5 5 exd5 tLlxd5 6 0-0
6 .ib5 would give the Scotch Four
Knights with reversed colours. This is
probably not so silly when compared with
the actual game.
6 . . . tZlxc3 7 bxc3 j,d6
Also interesting was 7 ... e4!? 8 tiJd4 (this
gambit is clearly White's idea, otherwise after
8 tiJel Black is certainly not worse) 8 ...tiJxd4
9 cxd4 "iYxd4 1 0 c3 "iYd5 1 1 d3 .ltd6 1 2 dxe4
e5! (12...ii'xd1 1 3 .l2:xd1 0-0 14 .ie3 ..te6
1 5 a4 gave White some initiative in Van der
Wiel-Yusupov, Reykjavik 1 985) 1 3 g3 0-0
and the position is equal according to Nunn.
8 d4 0-0 9 J:.b1
9 .ib5 exd4 1 0 cxd4 would again trans
pose to the main line of the Scotch Four
Knights with reversed colours.
9 . . . h6 1 0 dxe5 tLlxe5 1 1 tLlxe5 j,xe5 1 2
j,a3?!
Not a very good move, but Black also has
good prospects after 12 .if3 "ih4! (12 ... l:.b8
13 ..ta3 ..td6 14 iLxd6 'iixd6 1 5 "iYxd6 cxd6
16 l:.fdl l:I.d8 leads to equality according to
187
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts
Timman, but 12 ... l::tb8 seems a bit artificial)
1 3 g3 'iVf6 1 4 e2 c6 1 5 c4 ne8 and Black
has good prospects in the rniddlegame. A
likely move could be ... lIe7 followed by
... .th3.
1 2 . . . lie8 1 3 f3
1 3 xd8 nxd8 14 c4 nb8 1 5 i..d3 .te6
would give Black a solid advantage in the
endgame. \x'hite has weaknesses; Black
doesn't.
1 3 . . :i'h4! 1 4 g3 'i'a4
The opening is over and \X'hite has
accumulated a great amount of problems
with his artificial play.
1 5 'i'c1 xc3 1 6 xb7 h3 1 7 b2
After 17 i..xa8 ':'xa8 1 8 e3 (1 8 nd1 ?
e4 and Black wins) 1 8 ...'iVxa3 1 9 'iff3 nc8
20 nb3 xa2 21 l::td l i.. f6 22 g4 'iVxc2 23
nbd3 .txg4 24 'iVxg4 lIe8 Black has three
pawns for the exchange and good winning
chances.
1 7 . . . xb2?
Here Black could have gained a winning
position with the following sequence:
1 88
1 7 ...nab8! 1 8 i..g2 (1 8 .txc3 nxb7! 1 9 xb7
'iVc6 20 f3 .txfl 21 lIbl i..h3 22 'iVd2 'iVxf3
and \X'hite has no defence against ...ne2)
1 8... i..xg2 1 9 ..t>xg2 i..a5 20 ..tal 'ii'xa2 21
l::txb8 l:!.xb8 and the extra pawn will count.
1 8 J:txb2 .l:!.ad8 1 9 g2 xg2 20 'it>xg2
J:.e2 21 c3 .l:!.de8 22 d2?!
After 22 gl 'it'c6 23 ':'xe2 nxe2 24 1i'a3
a6 \X'hite has some drawing chances, even
though Black is clearly better placed.
22 . . . a5 23 'i'b2?!
23 Wg1 'iVc6 24 'it'd1 leaves \X'hite with
more chances for the draw.
23 . . . 'i'c6+ 24 'it>g 1 'iVc4 25 a3?!
Again inaccurate defence. Better was 25
nxe2 ':xe2 26 'iVb8+ h7 27 'iVb 1+ g6 28
'iVb3 'ifxb3 29 axb3 i:tb2 30 b4 axb4 31 cxb4
nxb4 32 .l::!.d 1 c5 33 nd7 and \X'hite has good
practical chances for a draw. Still, Black is
not forced to choose this endgame of course.
25 . . Jite1 !
After this there is no defence.
26 J:Ixe1 J:txe 1 + 27 'it>g2 'i'f1 + 28 'it>f3
'iVh 1 + 29 'it>g4 f5+ 30 'it>h3 'i'f1 + 0-1
 U n u s u a l Fo u r th Mo v es fo r Wh i t e

Summary
4 a3 is an interesting move for a player looking for a game with reversed colours and some
advantageous differences. Probably the game is level after 4... d5!?
4 lLlxe5 is a losing blitz line with little theoretical importance, 4 .ic4?! is quite bad, and after
4... lLlxe4! Black already has the initiative, and quite likely also the advantage. 4 .ie2 is harmless
and probably just close to a lost tempo. The best option for 'W'hite seems to be entering the
Scotch Four Knights reversed.
All in all 'W'hite should probably look for 4 g3 if he wants to play interesting sidelines.

1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 a3

4 .ie2 (0) Game 99; 4 ..tc4 Game 98
- -

4 . . . d5 (0) 5 exd5 Game 97

-

5 .ib5 (0) Game 96

-

4 ii.. e2 4 . . . d5 5 il.b5

1 89
Th e Fo ur Knig h ts

INTJEX OF COMPlUE GAMES I

Acs-Khalifrnan, Hoogeveen 2002............................................................................................... 26

Adams-Korchnoi, Madrid 1996............................................................................................... 1 1

Alekhine-Lasker, Moscow 1914 ............................................................................................... 61
Almasi.I-Bezgodov, Balatonbereny 1996............................................................................... 1 15

Arkhipov-Zaitsev, Moscow 1992 .............................................................................................. 53

Belikov-Zaitsev, Moscow 1996 ............................................................................................... 171

Bellon Lopez-Izeta Txabarri, Eigoibar 1998..................................................................... 1 1 7
Bellon Lopez-Jamieson, Wijk aan Zee 1977 ...................................................................... 105
Berg.K-Bronstein, Tastrup 1990 ............................................................................................. 10
Berg-Sokolov.l, MalmO" 200 1 ............................. . . . . . . . . . . .............. .............................................. 44
Bezman-Varavin, Perm 1997 ................................................................................................... 74
Blehm-Socko, Warsaw 2002................................................................................................... 181
Bondarevsky-Bronstein, Moscow 1945.................................................................................. 76
Bykhovsky-Howell, Cappe/le la Grande 1995 ........................................................................ 40
Christiansen-Gelfand, Munich 1992 ...................................................................................... 49

Egorov-Iuldachev, Aden 2002................................................................................................ 99

Forster-Hjartarson, uipZig 1996 ........... . . .......... ................. . . . .. . . ...................... ......................... 7

Gallagher-Cooper, British uague 2001 .................................................................................. 36
Ganguly-Acs, Pardubice 2002.................................................................................................. 142
Glek-Grabarczyk, Griesheim 2002 ......................................................................................... 1 73
Glek-Inkiov, Porto San Giorgio 200 1 ...................................................................................... 144

Glek-Klovans, Willingen 2001 ................................................................................................. 1 77

Glek-Kroeze, The Netherlands 1996........................................................................................ 162
Glek-Marcelin,Germa'!y 2001 ............................................................................................... 154
Glek-Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1998 .................................................................................. 137

Glek-Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 1997 .......................................................................................... 165

1 90
 Index o f C o mp le t e G a m e s

Glek-Onischuk, Biel I996 ...................................................................................................... 1 78

Glek-Vucic, Zillertal 1993 ....................................................................................................... 168
Glek-Wells, Ostend 1993 ............................... . . . ................................ . . ........................ .............. 1 75
Glek-Zeier, Baden-Baden 2002 ................................................................................................ 138
Godena-Beliavsky, Reggio Emilia 1995/96............................................................................ 72
Golubev-Malaniuk, Alushta 1994 .......................................................................................... 55
Golubovic-Szabo, Budapest 1995........................................................................................... 184

Gutnikov-Tal, Leningrad 1951 ................................................................................................ 123

Harikrishna-Cvek, Pardubice 2002........................................................................................ 157
Hartoch-Timman, Leeuwarden 1978 .................................................................................... 125
Hector-Barkhagen,Swedish Championship, Skara 2002 ..................................................... 136
Hector-Hartman, Port Erin 1996 ......................................................................................... 169

Hector-Johannessen, Malmo 2002 ...................................................................................... 161

Hector-Sokolov.I, lvlalmiJ" 1997 ............................................................................................. 139
Hector-Timoshenko, Bled OlYmpiad 2002 .......................................................................... 159
Hnydiuk-Kiselev, Zabrzanski Wrzesien 1994 ........................................................................ 64
Iuldachev-Kholmov, Kazakhstan 1994 .................................................................................. 14
Ivanchuk-Svidler, Linares 1999 ............................................................................................... 20

Kamsky-Adams, Dortmund 1992............................................................................................. 23

Kenworthy-Van der Sterren, Ramsgate 1981 ...................................................................... 120
Kersten-Voetter, Comspondence 1993 .................................................................................... 122
Kobalija-Sevostianov, Moscow 1994 ....................................................................................... 83

Kountz-Van den Doel, Dei::rjsau 2000 ................................................................................... 42

Kovalevskaya-Xie Jun, New Delhi 2000 .............................................................................. 163

Kucera-Oral, Prerov 1995 .......................................................................................................... 63

Lautier-Sokolov.I, Comze 1992.............................................................................................. 51
Lesiege-Gligoric, Montreal 1998 ........................................................................................... 1 19
Lima-Santos, Bra::rj1 2000 ....................................................................................................... 146

Lutz-Yusupov, Munich 1992 .................................................................................................... 48

Malakhov-Pinter, Balatonbereny 1995 ..................................................................................... 54

Malakhov-Yemelin, Ekaterinburg 1996 ................................................................................. 61

Marinkovic-Yuneev, Leningrad 1989 ................................................................................... 150
Monson-Milat, correspondence 1996 ........................................................................................ 126
Motwani-Christensen, Copenhagen 1991 ............................................................................. 148
Motylev-Grischuk, Moscow 2001 ............................................................................................ 24

Movsesian-Illescas Cordoba, Elista OlYmpiad 1998 ........................................................... 29

Nadyrhanov-Safin, Bishkek 1993 ........................................................................................... 93

Nikolenko-Aleksandrov, Smolensk 2000 .............................................................................. 19
Nunn-Sulskis, Moscow OlYmpiad 1994 .................................................................................... 43

19 1
Th e Fo u r Kn ig h ts

Pavasovic-Beliavsky, Portoroz 1999 ....................................................................................... 46

Pcola-Polgar.S, Bra:;:j! 1994 ................................................................................................... 109
Pedersen-Khruschiov, Bled Olympiad 2002 .......... ...................................................... ........... 56
Czeslochowa 1998 ......................................................................................... 131
Pinski-Pedzich,

Polovodin-Rutman, uningrad 1978....................................................................................... 96

Reefat Bin Sattar-Hebden, Dhaka 1995.............................................................................. 81

Rozentalis-Adams,
Santo Roman-Hector,
Schmaltz-Romanishin,
Seger-Koch, Dortmund 2001
Ko/!/ 1997................................................................................................. 79
Manila Olympiad 1992 ...................................................................... 86
Franken 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 134
.
............................................................................. 133 .....................

Sermek-Medancic, Bled 1998 ................................................................................................. 98

Shaked-Leko, Tilburg 1997..................................................................................................... 140

Shariyazdanov-Blauert, Calcutta 2002 153

........... ............... ........ .............. ................................

Shirov-Karpov, l'v[oscow 1992 .................................................................................................... 66

Skripchenko Lautier-Adams, Bundesliga 2001 . ..................... 97 ..............................................

Skrobek-Pinkas, Wroclaw 1987 ............................................................................................. 1 14

Smyslov-Polugaevsky, Baku 1961 ....................................................................................... 152

Solovjov-Gavritenkov, Tula 1999 .................................................................................. 158

Spangenberg-Yemelin, Bratislava 1993 ................................................................................ 59

Speelman-Karpov, unares 1992. ............................................................................................ 12

Spielmann-Rubinstein, Baden-Baden 1925 ........................................................................... 1 7
Svidler-Cherepkov,uningrad 1990 ............... .. .............................................. . ...................... 102
Svidler-Morozevich, Moscow 2002 .............................................. . ............. . . . . .
.. .. ... ... ............. 111
Tarrasch-Lasker, World Ch. (game 3) Berlin 1916................................................................ 185
Todorov-Delchev, Bulgaria 1995 ............................................................................................ 90
Trabert-Flear.G, Asti 1998 ........................ .............................................................................. 89
Van Der Weide-Timmermans, 5as Van Gent 1996 ........................................................ 129
Van der Wiel-Timman, Wtjk aan Zee 1985........................................................................ 187
Van Haastert-Golod, Dieren 1998 ........................................................................................ 106
Winsnes-Hector, 0rebro 1998 ................................................................................................. 34
Yandemirov-Aleksandrov, 51 Petersburg 1996...................................................................... 69
Yandemirov-Bezgodov, 5molensk 1992 ................................................................................ 95
Yemelin-Kharlov,Aloscow 2002 .
........................................................... 37 ...................................

Yudasin-Sagalchik, Kemerovo 1995......................................................................................... 32

192