Fl.

ON BOARD
PART II: 1997-2004
ALEXEI SHIRO

EVERYMAN CHESS
Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc),
Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

Copyright 2005 Alexei Shirov

First published 2005 by Gloucester Publishers plc

The right of Alexei Shirov to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in ac
cordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

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

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

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

ISBN 1 85744 382 9

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

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
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

Typesetting by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Edited by Jonathan Tait.
Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Production by Navigator Guides.
Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.
CONTENTS
I

Foreword 5

1 The Struggle without Limits (1997-2004) 7

2 Notes on Creativity 16
3 Selected Games 21

Index of Opponents 191

Index of Openings 192
 FOREWORD I

Almost eight years have passed since my ftrst book Fire on Board was published. A period of
many changes, both in my life and in the chess world in general. New time controls, new for
mats for official competitions, and a new meaning of the term 'world championship'. All this can
be seen from both positive and negative sides, but when I think about the current attitude of
players towards chess today, it isn't easy to be particularly optimistic, not compared with the
times of Fire on Board 1. Everything in chess is much more materialistic and less respectful to
wards ethics and morals than it was before, in my opinion.
I remember that during those years, especially when I was in top sporting form, I often felt
like writing a sequel to my first book, but something always stopped me... so difftcult wao; it to
concentrate on purely chess aspects of the game and not start turning my book into a 'political
weapon', such as Antichess by Victor Korchnoi. Fortunately, in the summer of 2003 I managed
to convince myself that it was the right moment to begin revising my best games, thanks to a
long break between two important tournaments.
The analytical work started successfully and I would become really fascinated finding new
ideas and polishing long variation trees. I felt as excited as I did during the preparation of my
first book, so my aim to forget politics and concentrate on chess was achieved. But fighting for
time was less successful: analysing some of the games took so many hours (or even days, as was
the case for the game against Karpov) that my next tournament, to be followed by another, was
rapidly approaching. Therefore I took the decision to try not to spoil my preparations and to
continue the book in a slower fashion.
Not all my tournaments were a success (something similar happened to me while writing the
first book too), but when I won the Sarajevo tournament in May 2004, I decided that it was time
for 'victory' in the field of writing as well. In two months the second collection of my best games
was finished.
How can I compare this book with the ftrst volume? I remember that previously I didn't like
to mention which moves were produced by the computer, but I believe this is impossible to
avoid nowadays. Analytical engines are so advanced that when one really wants to discover the

5
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7 - 2004

truth about certain positions it's necessary to use the external help. At the same time I found it
rather interesting to try to 'compete' with the artificial brain, because my ideas often seemed bet
ter than l'rifZs suggestions. (Funnily, I would still have to use Fritz to prove my point of view
Hopefully I was able to reduce the number of errors to a minimum but, unfortunately, the
commentaries are more technical and less creative than in former times. Nowadays I don't like
to give a clear evaluation if I am not sure about it myself, because I feel there is a big difference
between giving general explanations based on strategical rules, and trying to give the deepest
evaluations while still remaining within human possibilities.
Despite having changed slightly the method of analysing my games, I tried to use the same
criteria in selecting them for the book. First of all I wanted to present to the reader: unusual
ideas and sacrifices, the best attacks and endgames, the most memorable games and also some
painful moments - just as in Fire on Board in 1996, although my play has advanced since then in
many respects.
I leave it to the reader's judgment whether my recent games are more enjoyable than the old
ones. But if you want again to enter the universe of razor-sharp and 'tasteful' chess, then my new
book is for you.

Alexei Shirov
Riga,
February 2005

6
 CHAPTER ONE I
The Struggle without Limits

I look at the final sentences of my previous work, completed in 1996, and find these words:
'Now that this book is finally finished (it really took too long!) my real comeback will start!' I try
to remember where I wanted to come back eight years ago and realise there is something in me
that will never change: whenever for some reason my results worsen, I always want to return to
the highest levd. Writing a book is good, but playing... is more interesting! And now, before I
start preparing for my games again. I would like to contemplate this important period a little.
When I finished that old text in July 1996 I wanted to deliver my book to the publisher at
once, but I was unable to conclude some technical analyses of my games until November. This
uncertainty led to a continual instability in my play. I remember playing many good games in
September-October at the Yerevan Olympiad and in Tilburg (the events that end Firr: on Tml),
but some very stupid losses deprived me from having real success in those tournaments. One
day I had defmitdy to end my first book and think how to improve my chess.
Although I adjusted quite weU to the 'computer changes' of those times, using the internet to
update my databases and Fritz for analysing critical positions, I could also see that the analytical
engines didn't yet offer much hdp in discovering new ideas and creating new opening concepts.
I still needed a lot of 'human contact' and this was not easy to arrange while living with my fam
ily in Tarragona, chesswise quite an isolated place. Besides which, many of my chess friends were
not yet accustomed to going online to exchange ideas and analyses. Therefore I took any oppor
tunity to have short training sessions with other players.
Apart from Zigurds Lanka, Jordi Magem and Mikhail Rytshagov, whom I had known and
worked with for years, I should also mention Henrik Teske, Danid Fridman, Kevin Spraggett,
Alexander Cherniaev and, later on, Tal Shaked, who all helped me on various occasions. When I
analysed with other players I always intended to check with a computer any idea that seemed
interesting and try to get deep enough into the positions, something that was impossible a few
years earlier. Such work always required a lot of time and I remember Teske saying 'What a de
voted guy you are!', and all I could say in my defence was that I was only able to be like that with
other players around me; at home I would be much lazier. Funnily, a few days after that conver
sation I had to play against this 'ideological opponent', and that encounter opens the games sec
tion of the book.

7
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

In my tournaments I still played with inconsistency, combining good games with some in
credible oversights in better positions, such as blundering the queen in first two (!) rounds of
Groningen 1996. And when I had a dismal failure in Unares 1997, sharing last place, it was easy
to become pessimistic. Some interesting ideas in some games, but the final result. . So when I
.

went to a small Category 17 tournament inTer Apel I didn't have many expectations, even
though I felt that the months of work should pay off one day. But suddenly I won that tourna
ment scoring 4 out of 5! My next stop was Dos Hermanas, more or less an elite event. Once
again I started badly, so the final result of 50% was especially important for me to regain confi
dence in my play. And when a month later I shared fust place withTopalov in Madrid, I already
had a feeling I could have done even better, something that a few months before was impossible
to imagine.
It seemed that the crisis was over, but then another problem appeared, something that can of
ten happen to a professional player.The Madrid tournament finished in May and I had no good
invitations untilTilburg in September, so I had to spend more than four months without playing
a game at a classical time limit. I decided to make a more long-term preparation, first of all for
the World Championship in Groningen (December 1997) that was to be played for the first time
under the elimination system, so I had to be especially concerned about possible rapid chess tie
breaks. I took part in some active tournaments in Spain and saw that my way of thinking in
chess was a little slow.
When I went toTilburg I felt rather unconcentrated and stale, so my performance turned out
to be another failure: only 5 out of 11, losing against Kasparov, Kramnik and Svidler, all of
whom scored three points more than me and shared the first three places. My form in view of
the World Championship seemed critical once again, as good theoretical preparation didn't make
up for my mistakes in other parts of the game.
AfterTilburg I began working permanently with the Estonian GM Mikhail Rytshagov, and
this change helped me drastically improve the level of my opening preparation. It's true that
Zigurds Lanlm and I had also discovered a great many ideas in the Ruy Lopez, Sicilian and
King's Indian, but it was Mikhail who assisted me in the formation of a complete repertoire.
When in November 1997 I invited him to my flat in Riga for the first rime, even after six hours
of analysing the Najdorf lvlikhail didn't let me go to sleep, but insisted that we analyse other
openings! In the first round in Belgrade (my next tournament) I was able to beat Gelfand with
White 'almost' according to our preparation.
The list of sporting achievements that I attained with Mikhail's help is extensive and runs
from Belgrade 1997 to Moscow 2002 (the Russia vs. the Rest of the World match) - almost five
years of successful co-operation. For some reason, during the last two years I have performed
better when going alone to the tournaments but still using the fruits of my work with him. Dur
ing our years of analysing together, Mikhail and l have discovered so many theoretical novelties
that I prefer make them the subject of my next book, which will deal with a selection of open
ings and themes. I think that it is especially important for a coach to be able to work on the main
lines of all the principal openings, and not just on those that he plays himself.
In the World Championship in Groningen I didn't get past the ftfth round, having lost against
Anand, but I still rated my result as a satisfactory one, because I adapted to the new knockout
formula well enough. But how to defeat the very best players such as Anand? I had to work even
harder...
In January 1998 I started badly in Wijk aan Zee with only 1 '12 points from the first four
rounds, missing a simple win against Karpov, whom I've never yet beaten under a classical rime

8
 Th e S truggle with ou t Li mi ts

control. After that game I took a long walk on the North Sea beach, asking myself how to finally
start scoring points, especially since my play seemed strong and creative enough. I don't remem
ber now what my final conclusion was, but the win over Kramnik the next day was already quite
an answer. This game marked the beginning of my relatively glorious period. Even though I
spoiled my tournament a little, losing to Salov in round 12 and finishing equal third with 7112 out
of 13, it was now 100% dear that I could do better.
My next tournament was llnares, one of the strongest tournaments in chess history, as the
seven participants were also the seven highest rated players in the world at that moment. And
when I went tl1ere I was able to have a clear conscience as regards the preparation I made. The
Israeli GM Emil Sutovsky helped me during both preliminary training and the tournament itself,
while Mikhail Rytshagov joined us for the last seven rounds.
In linares I passed through all stages of mood: 'pessimism' when I lost to Anand in the first
round; 'optimism' when I won good games against Ivanchuk, Topalov and Svidler, together with
draws as Black against Kramnik, Kasparov and Anand (everybody played two games against
each other); 'realism' when I lost to lvanchuk from a nearly winning position; 'euphoria' after
beating Topalov and Kramnik; and finally a 'return to earth' after losing against Svidler and
drawing the last round game with Kasparov. Although I finished the tournament in second place
behind Anand, it was definitely my biggest ever success in 'slow chess'.
I will never forget that the 'return to earth' was only partial because, against my initial princi
ples but influenced by one of my coaches in Linares, I accepted the offer of Luis Rentero Suarez,
the fraudulent organizer (and also the President of the World Chess Council, an organization
created by Kasparov), to contest a match with Kramnik after two and a half months in Cazorla
(Jacn, near Linares), in order to determine the challenger to Kasparov. Normally, the match
should have been played by Anand, but he declined and so the offer was passed over to me. In
the end I thought that my second place in the tournament of the best players might be consid
ered a serious argument for me contesting this unofficial world championship. But now I am
sure that the sporting criteria must be very strict and announced beforehand. llnares was not
envisaged as a classification tournament.
Despite the fact that I consider my acceptance of the match against Kramnik to have been a
grave error, 1 still think that Rentero, Kasparov and Kramnik are themselves responsible for
what they have done to me, all of them in general and each one in particular.
But in March 1998 I couldn't know what was going to happen, and at that moment my aim
was clear: to prepare for the match against Kramnik in the best possible way. Although Kramnik
was the world number two at that time, l considered my chances to be quite good, especially
because of my positive score against Vladimir. I thought that by neutralising his advantage in the
openings I could outplay him in the subsequent stages of the game.
Almost immediately after JJnares I went to Monaco to participate in the traditional rapid and
blindfold event 'Melody Amber'. Mikhail Rytshagov went as my second, and almost immediately
we started planning our strategies for the match against Krarnnik, during our seafront walks after
the games. We decided to strengthen my team of trainers by inviting I..embit Oll and Valery Sa
lov, and also invented a 'preparation trick'... As I found it an interesting idea to employ the
Griinfeld Defence in the match, in Monaco 1 played the King's Indian exclusively against 1 d4.
Thanks to a draw with me advantage against Kramnik and my last round victory over Van WeJy,
I could make believe that the King's Indian was my main and best prepared opening. Later on
Kramnik admitted that he spent a lot of time preparing something against it for Cazorla, while l
didn't even think about employing it there again.

9
Fire on Board Part /1: 1 99 7-2004

It's interesting that, despite starting 'as badly as always' and not making much specific
preparation for the games in Monaco, I played confidently and shared first place with Kramnik,
ahead of lvanchuk, Anand, Topalov and Katpov among others. Everything indicated that I
could even improve my form for the match in Cazorla, and I took the decision to go my native
town of Riga to train for nearly one month with Rytshagov and Oll. Never in my life did I take
chess so seriously. Valery Salov didn't help me during preparation but his advice during the
match was of great importance, since his own experience in Candidates matches in 1994-95 was
still quite fresh.
The match started at the end of May and went more or less as expected. My team of trainers
(Salov, OU, Sutovsky and Rytshagov) worked to the maximum every day, and although I was not
achieving a great deal with White (probably it dawns on everybody for the first time how di.ffimlt
it is to refute the Petroff DefenceQ, I was nevertheless able to create some practical problems in
the fourth game and win a long endgame. With Black I played the Griinfeld Defence and didn't
experience many problems in the first and third games. I only suffered a little in the fifth, so
when I manab to save a suspect position, I felt that victory in the match was close. There were
ten games to be played and I remember a curious decision before the eighth game: not to risk
anything and play a peaceful variation (5 11fe2 in the Petroff), because with the draw I forced
Kramnik to play for a win at all costs in the ninth game. And even if he achieved it I could still
play for a win in my last game with White! But that wasn't necessary as I was able to win the
ninth game, even though I had some difficult moments after the opening.
Winning the match, not getting any prize money but 'securing' the match against Kasparov
with tl1e 'prize fund' of two million dollars - what else could be asked from life? But the ava
lanche of unexpected events was about to start...
When I returned to my house in Tarragona I found it empty. My family relationship was al
ready not good over the fmal years (which may happen when sport absorbs everything), but in
any case the change was drastic. The same day I learnt that tl1e main bank account had been
'cleaned' by my already ex-wife.
The divorce procedure is always tough, especially with a four-year-old child (my daughter Na
talia) in the middle. Besides, I felt like a complete beginner with the Spanish legal system, be
cause two or three years adapting to the society is not the same as living one's whole life in the
same place. I remember that it seemed completely absurd to me that you receive the divorce
papers no earlier than one year after signing the conjugal separation agreement, and therefore I
tried to speed up the process to the maximum, accepting terms that were not especially favour
able to me. I had to forget completely about stud)ng chess for a period of time, and in those
circumstances it would have been wise to cancel my participation in the Dortmund tournament
due to take place in June-July 1998. But sometimes it isn't easy not to fulfil your contractual obli
gations.
Going to Dortmund was a grave error; it would have been better to try to reach an agreement
witll the organizers at any cost. During the tournament I was both very unconcentrated and
stressed at the same time. The level of the world's best players is so high that they don't forgive
you any moment of weakness but always take their chance. I scored just ZY2 points from 9
games, despite playing well at some stages, and finished in last place. The chess magazines im
mediately ran the headline 'Kramnik up (he was the winner), Shirov down'. My worst suspicions,
that they would 'reclaim' the Cazorla result, unfortunately became true two years later.
In the games section the reader can see how I felt between tournaments, struggling with my
bad form and waiting for the 'confirmation' of my match against Kasparov. which originally was

10
 Th e Struggle with ou t Li mi ts

scheduled to be played in Sev:ille in November 1998. I tried to keep preparing seriously despite
all the private troubles, and this time 1 was helped by the Armenian GM Vladimir Akopian, who
achieved the biggest success in his career a year later becoming the world vice-champion. Step by
step I started getting back to my best form.
During the Polanica Zdroj tournament in August I received a phone call from Luis Rentero,
and he horrified me with the news that my match against Kasparov in Seville was cancdled and
nothing similar was being offered in its place. When I told him that it was his obligation, in that
case, to pay me two hundred thousand dollars cancdlation fee according to the contract signed
in March, his answer was that he would eat that contract and didn't want to compensate me any
thing. After that conversation that man stopped existing for me of course, but he regained his
standing in the chess world surprisingly quickly, perhaps because human memory is very short
nowadays.
The hellish period began. First I had some conversations with people dose to Kasparov
about a possible match against him in California for a prize fund of one million dollars instead of
two, and it seemed that an agreement to play under those conditions might be made. But then I
received a fax from the other confidence man, this time the vice-president of the WCC, Dr. Wil
liam Wirth, saying that California was also cancelled. I tried to get the match to Barcelona with
the support of the Catalan government, but then - it was October 1998, only four months after
Cazocla - Kasparov publicly announced that he was going to look for a new challenger. As for
my rights... nothing. That was the end of my 'adventure' with the 'unofficial world champion
ship', which was actually recognized by FIDE as the legitimate one during <J>rague's schism' of
2002 when Kramnik was already 'the champion'. I don't think such an extreme violation of the
rules has ever occurred in any other sport.
Going back to 1998-99 ... My first memory of that period is that I had to continue emptying
my bank account. The agreement with my four trainers in Cazorla was that I would pay them a
decent sum for their work, and also a certain bonus for 'winning' the match. Salov and Ryt
shagov understood the situation and didn't claim the bonus, but Emil Sutovsky seemed 'un
aware' of what had been done to me by the WCC and demanded the whole sum. I decided to
pay the bonus to all four, since they had all done the same work and deserved the same treat
ment. This strong Israeli GM happened to be a typical example of the contemporary mercenary
attitude, but fortunately, he is one of very few people to whom I had to stop talking for long.
Ufe would be terrible if I had to be like this more often.
Finally, with broken family, finances and sporting rights, I started a new life. Thanks to a few
friends I was able to calm down reasonably quickly and work on chess again. In November 1998
I already showed good play in a match against the Czech grandmaster Zbynek Hracek, winning
in Ostrava. In January 1999 I beat Kramnik in the European Cup in Belgrade, combining it with
my team's victory against a club that was theoretically a lot stronger (they had Kramnik, Anand,
Beliavsky and Gelfand, while our team was myself, OU, Rozentalis and Gdanski on the top four
boards). Unfortunately my club, Polonia Warsaw, lost in the fmaJ against a team including Van
Wely, Adams and Timman, but my result (21/z/3) was good enough.
From Belgrade I went directly to Wijk aan Zee and there Kramnik took his revenge. Since I
also lost to Kasparov (my worst game in years - at that moment it was completely impossible for
me to concentrate when facing him), my final result was rather modest. But neither was it a fail
ure: I scored 7 out of 13 and my game against Reinderman deserved to be included in this book.
Then I had another series of successes: second equal in Monaco (with Topalov, behind Kram
nik, but ahead of Anand and the rest of a field which was almost the same as the year before);

1 7
Fi re on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2 004

then second equal with Bareev in Sarajevo (behind Kasparov, but ahead of Adams and Leko);
and finally my match against Judit Polgar in Prague in July, where I won five games with one
draw. As it happens, I decided not to include any games from that match in this book, because
the wins were due more to preparation than 'fire on board', so they will be analysed in my next
volume.
Why did I say 'finally my match against Polgar'? Simply because, after the last game, my Elo
rating was the highest in my career- more than 2760- and if I didn't go to Las Vegas then third
place in the next ranking list would already be secured.
But how not to go to Is Vegas when it was an official World Championship and so another
real chance to get the title? Anand and Morozevich didn't participate for some reason, so Kram
nik and I were the main favourites. But the tournament wasn't to be mine. F'trst I lost with White
against Ivan Sokolov and only went through to the next round by winning the second game with
Black and then the tie-break. Nor could I avoid the tie-break against Gilberto Milos, so I could
see that my form was far from perfect. Nevenheless I won that match too, and then the next
one against Nigel Short in a very strange way. So I was already in the fifth round and faced the
Romanian GM Uviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, who was playing very well but was not yet especially well
known.
The first game finished with a quick draw, while in the second one I played the 'ultra-sharp' 4
l1c3 in the Caro-Kann as White and got a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn. However,
Nisipeanu kept calm and defended accmately, so at a certain point I should have chosen a line
leading to a more or less forced draw. I will never understand why I chose a different continua
tion which wa-. very risky and finally brought me elimination. I believe that with a draw I would
have had slightly better chances in the tie-break, since I had already won many tie-breaks in
World Championships. But of course Nisipeanu's victory was totally justified. As it happened
Kramnik was also knocked out at the same stage, but without losing rating points, so he main
tained third place in the Elo list because I lost 12 points.
Although in Las Vegas l was probably closer tl1an ever to the world title, l took and keep tak
ing my defeat calmly, because one can't compare sport with an 'off-board' game. I simply de
cided to wait for another chance.
My private life also changed. During the 1998 Olympiad in Elista I initiated a romance with a
Polish chess player, the future woman grandmaster Marta Zielinska. Our relations did not last
long - less than two years - but when on 7 November 1999 my second daughter, Maria, was
born, I realised that it was increasingly difficult to combine top-level play with a father's duties.
My play became unstable again. Success in the Ew-opean Team Championship in Batumi (where
I played for the Spanish team and scored 6 out of 8, which allowed me to achieve my highest
ever official Elo rating of 2751) was followed by a couple of strange defeats in the German
Bundesliga - and then by a mediocre result in Linares (a tournament I had agreed to play in, hav
ing received the promise that Rentero would have nothing to do with it, though it still cost me a
lot to concentrate): 4Yz out of 10, after dropping a piece in an absolutely drawn position as Black
against Kasparov, and not making use of the opening advantage in the other game against him,
and also when playing Peter Leko. It was especially painful for me to lag behind Kramnik again,
since this Iinares result was used as 'justification' for the Kramnik-Kasparov match, which had
likely been intended in 1998, but without taking my possible win into consideration. As we all
know, the match was played in October-November 2000 and ended with victory for Kramnik
after some games that were a little strange; for example, Kasparov's loss in 25 moves, or his
draw offer on move 13 as White when his match situation was already desperate. Since then

12
 Th e S trugg le wi th ou t Limits

Kramnik has been recognized as the 'world champion', though fortunately there arc still people
who doubt whether it is really possible.
After Linares 1 went again to Monaco where Anand and Kramnik, among others, participated
as always, and I achieved an even greater success than in 1998 and 1999, this time taking a clear
first place. But I have to admit that I was luckier in this event than in the two previous ones,
which is why I could not be really satisfied with the quality of my play. The same happened in
the rapid tournament in Paris a month later, which I won as well. But when I went to Sarajevo in
May I felt very well prepared once again and really wanted to win the tournament in which Kas
parov participated. I was leading before the last two rounds but by losing to Sergei Movsesian,
who is always a dangerous opponent, I missed my chance. The final result (8 points out of 11) in
a Category 19 tournament was very good, but I only shared second place with Adams and it left
me feel dissatisfied, especially as Kasparov scored half a point more. After the tournament Kas
parov said to the press: 'What I wanted least would be Shirov's victory in this tournament, be
cause he would then claim his rights again'. No comment.
Soon after Sarajevo I won the four-player tournament in Merida. However, during the rest of
the summer my play worsened again. Nevertheless, in Polanica Zdroj in August, I played rather
well, finishing in with my 'habitual' joint second place, on 6 out of 9, tying with Van Wely and
behind Boris Gelfand. I also played many interesting novelties in the openings, so I ask the
reader for patience to wait until the third edition of Fire on Board is published, which will hope
fully be completed soon. Immediately after the Polanica tournament I left Poland, where I had
spent the past year and a half, and settled my unofficial residence in Riga, my native city, despite
keeping a Spanish passport which made me feel a little uncomfortable. (And now my life is di
vided among three residences: Tarragona, Riga, and Siauliai in lithuania, which is the native city
of my wife.) This time there was no need to sign any official documents of divorce, because I
was not married, but leaving my little daughter in Poland was very tough. 1 still don't know if I
am going to be a good fatl1er for her, but at least 1 have never denied my responsibilities.
In Riga I first of all started preparing for the World Championship which was to take place in
November-December in New Delhi. Apart from studying openings and preparing physically
(fortunately, in Riga I have always lived near the woods, which allows me to run regularly), I had
to adjust myself psychologically and, most of all, reduce the negative effect of ilie recent changes
in my life. I also decided not to repeat the 'Nisipeanu syndrome' and not be afraid of possible
tie-breaks in knockout events.
During the Olympiad in I stanbul my personal life changed radically when I met my future
wife, Victoria Cmilyte. At the World Championship, which started in New Delhi one week after
the Olympiad, we already decided that we were going to become a fanilly. Victoria helped me a
lot while I was approaching the finals of tl1e Championship and, before leaving for Tehran, I
made her a proposal, which she accepted. My euphoria was slightly spoiled by losing to Anand,
but in the end I did not consider myself a loser at aU! In fact, reaching the finals of tl1e World
Championship was extremely important for me.
Most of my matches - against Onishclmk, Mikhail Gurevich, Gelfand and Bareev - ended
1-1 after the first two games. Mikhail Rytshagov (who also played in New Delhi, but lost to
Etienne Bacrot in the first round) and Jordi Magem (who came to New Delhi to consult me)
helped me immensely. I also worked hard of course, and in the rapid games managed to surprise
and outplay my rivals using our preparation.
And thus with my success in New Delhi the 20th century ended very well for me.
In Wijk aan Zee 2001 which, as always, took place in January, in the first stage of the tourna-

13
Fi re on Board Par t II: 1 99 7 - 2004

ment I played perhaps the best chess of my life, scoring 61,/2 in the first 8 rounds. Unfortunately,
I failed in the final stage and lost the historic opportunity of finishing ahead of Kasparov, Anand
and Kramnik. Now it seems to me that after this tournament I partially lost my motivation, be
cause it is impossible to be focused on one single thing for so many years. Furthermore, some
new problems with Kasparov appeared, which are not worth mentioning here but which have
made our encounters rather aggravated and uncomfortable for me. Anyway, in our game in
Unares 2004 which ended in a very interesting draw, I finally removed these negative emotions.
In 2001 the number of tournaments I was able to play in increased, thanks to my recent title
of world vice-champion. Most of my achievements were due to outplaying weaker opponents
but there were some pleasant exceptions, such as my wins against Topalov in the semifinals of
the tournament in Leon in June and in the fourth round of the World Championship at the end
of the year. Both times after defeating Veselin my next opponent was Anand, against whom I
was not able to offer much resistance. But undoubtedly my marriage to Victoria on the 7th of
August was the most joyous event of that year. Among the guests we invited to the wedding
were Mikhail Rytshagov, Jordi Magem (the witness) and Zigurds Lanka, who had always helped
me in the most important moments of my career.
On the 3rd of February 2002 our son Dmitry was born, and about two years later our second
son Alexander appeared. In such circumstances it was almost impossible to play all tournaments
equally well, because my level of preparation fell notably. Nevertheless, I managed to achieve
some good results: in Monaco, March 2002 (second place after Morozevich, ahead of Anand
and Kramnik); Prague, April-May of the same year (reaching the semifmals, when Kasparov and
Kramnik had already been eliminated), and in the Russia vs. the Rest of the World match, Mos
cow, September 2002, which was most successful for me. Although I am an ethnic Russian I
played in the Rest of the World team, and felt especially satisfied scoring 7 out of 10 and defeat
ing Kramnik (although losing to Kasparov). ln 2002 I also participated in the Spanish Champi
onship for the first time. I had no problems in reaching the final (I only dropped half a point in
the first seven games). Then I faced Paco Vallejo, the future of Spanish chess, and although I did
not consider myself a favourite in this match at all, with a little bit of luck I won 2-0 and ob
tained the tide which had a certain meaning for me. Up to now it has been the only time I have
participated in the national championship.
In 2003 I made another attempt to return to the 'super elite' and, with 7 points out of 13 in
Wijk aan Zee, combined with victory in the Category 15 tournament in Reykjavik (7 out of 9), I
thought I was on the right track. But then failures in Monaco and Dos Hermanas made it clear
to me that the stability I had demonstrated in 1998-2000 was very difficult to regain. Neverthe
less, on January 1st 2004 I still kept fifth position in the world ranking list and, right after Alex
ander was born, I won a rapid tournament in Tallinn (a memorial for Paul Keres). This tourna
ment took place on the 3rd-4th January and I went there directly from the hospital where our
baby had been born the night before. The first day I played tlttee games and although I managed
to defeat Rytshagov and Dreev, I lost to Rozentalis. But the next day, in the morning I felt re
freshed and defeated Sulskis, Brodsky and Sveshnikov. I was leading Radjabov by one point, and
in the last game an interesting struggle ended in a draw, which ensured me of victory in the tour
nament.
Nevertheless, this small triumph in Tallinn had not improved me for the Wijk aan Zee tour
nament a few days later. Being in a somewhat euphoric state, and at the same time somewhat
tired to the changes in my life that were of great importance to me, I did not feel prepared
enough. In the ftrst six rounds I lost two games (against Bareev and Anand) in technically drawn

14
 Th e Strugg le with out Limits

positions, which had almost never occurred in my career before. I recovered a little with wins
against Timman and Ivan Sokolov, but in the last round I made again the 'Las Vegas error', since
I took an unnecessary risk against Victor Bologan and lost.
In contrast, in Linares of that year I started rather well: although missing the victory against
Topalov in the third round I beat Radjabov in the sixth, but after that J felt tired again and man
aged only four more draws and no victories. And in the ensuing tournaments in Monaco, the
French League, and the Bundesliga, I was not successful either.
It seemed to me that the only remedy was to finish tl1is book with some notes on the 'player
of the past', who is only able to write about his former successes. J went to Sarajevo, which is no
longer considered a super-elite tournament (Category 15), with these rather pessimistic thoughts.
Curiously enough, my results there in 2002-03 had been worse than in 1999-2000, when the
strongest players of the world used to participate. However, I was visiting Sarajevo for the fifth
time and had become accustomed to the city, and this helped me maintain good concentration.
With a little bit of luck I scored a lot of points, so the victory in the 2004 edition was mine.
One week later I had another slice of luck in the rapid tournament in Leon, struggling wildly
with Radjabov (the outcome of our match was decided in blitz) and then against Svidler, having
won the first two games in almost desperate positions, and finished with 31/2-1/z, a score which
did not reflect the true 'balance of forces'. Since the first knockout World Championship in
Groningen in 1997, rapid games have formed a very significant part of every player's chess life,
though grave errors can often be made there.
I was finishing the main part of this book when the FIDE World Championship in Tripoli
was coming to an end. This time l had decided not to participate - and not only me, but also
Anand, Morozevich, Svidler, Ponomariov, Polgar, Gelfand, each for their own reasons. I don't
want to speak for others, but my own reason is evident: 'Prague's schism' of 2002, which was
concluded after that tournament where I, as the reader knows, achieved a good result. These
-shameful agreements recognized Kramnik as the world champion and gave Kasparov the right
to play a match directly with the winner of the FIDE World Championship. And now Kasparov
was not present in Tripoli either, but in contrast to Anand (who has performed excellently in the
FIDE Championships), he was just awaiting his rival -with the only difference being that, as
opposed to 1998, Kasparov is not world champion anymore.
I don't know whether Kasparov or Kramnik would win a real World Championship if they
participated - in order to determine the final winner the knockout system is fairest, in my opin
ion - but as long as they continue to receive their eternal privileges, I am not going to fight for
the title of World Champion anymore.
But of course, it is not my plan to abandon the 'struggle without limits' - the struggle to per
fect my play, the struggle against my opponent of tomorrow, the struggle for brilliancy in chess.

Postscript: I wrote the last sentence six months ago, so now it's time to reflect a little on
this final period. A nice coincidence is that I have once more been able to win my last 'slow
and rapid tournaments - in Drammen over the New Year, and in Tallinn already in 2005. So
some 'usual' bad Bundesliga weekends are again forgotten. What is much less satisfying, how
ever, is the fact that 1 struggle to find good games from those events, although the three
played earlier in autumn, when my form was even worse, are definitely a worthy addition to
rhc present collection. Still, it's good to finish the book in a quiet mood and hope for a better
chess future. And of course it is also time to start working on Fire on Board 3, in which I hope
to disclose some unseen peculiarities of my chess life, analysis and games.

15
 CHAPTER TWO I
Notes on Creativity

It isn't easy to define chess and say to whlch of chess creativity:

category it belongs. Being a mental sport it
includes elements of both art and science.
'Science' may be too general a description, so I
would like to narrow it a little by saying that,
for me, chess is first of all a logical, and
sometimes even a mathematical,
Having said that, it's often very difficult to
find a mathematical (or even a logical)
solution in chess - that's when thlngs may
become irrational and one can get room for
creativity.
Chess creativity is often compared with
creativity in art, but I tend to disagree with
that. The rules of chess are strict: you can
neither make up your own rules, nor expand
chess beyond its 64 squares. Nevertheless,
there are amazing discoveries to be made with
the limited means, and then things may
suddenly seem so unusual that one forgets
that the combinations derive from strict
limitations. Aesthetic feeling becomes
strong that one gets the illusion of an endless
art, until you are back once more to the game
limited withln its 64 squares.
During my professional career I have made
a fair number of interesting discoveries in
chess that make me fecl proud. I think that,
basically, I can distinguish between two types
1. 'Home' creativity. That is when you find
new ideas during your technical preparation
for the next chess match or tournament.
Technical preparation can be either for a
specific opponent or just a general attempt to
exercise. improve your chess skills. It's the most
common way to create in chess because you
work quietly. Sometimes 'home creativity' can
be shared with other people: you pay attention
to an idea suggested by another chess player,
or even a computer, and do your best to make
that idea work.
2. Over the board creativity. When you arc
playing a tournament game and the clock is
ticking, you tend to choose moves according
to your general knowledge of the game and
your pre-established method of logical
thinking. However, sometimes you need to go
beyond your usual frames, to escape the
confines of your knowledge and think less
so rationally. You are still strictly limited within
the constraints imposed by the rules of chess,
but you can't absorb the whole game, it's too
big, so you end up using your associative
intuition. And sometimes a brilliant - and
mathematically correct! - solution is the result.
In my practice 1 have had two especially
memorable examples of each kind of

16

creattvtty. By coincidence my opponent in
those two games was the same: the Bulgarian
Veselin Topalov, who is not only one of the
world's leading grandmasters but also a very
combative and creative chess player.
The story that I am about to tell has its
origins in early 2000, when I was preparing at
home for one of the most important
tournaments in my career, due to take place in
Linares, Spain, some three weeks later. During
my preparation l noticed that some of my
opponents might employ the Sveshnikov
Variation (the most common ways of begin
ning a chess game are usually named after the
famous players who ftrSt employed them), and
as a surprise I decided to prepare a very old
and sharp continuation, which was almost
completely forgotten in top level chess during
the 1990s. While studying that old line I came
upon the following critical position:
One can see that White has a material
disadvantage (Black has two bishops for a
knight), but his attacking chances (such as the
threat to mate the black king with the queen)
are quite promising. The position was not new
to chess theory and one of Black's possible
continuations that really disturbed me was
1 5 Ji'xc7. The idea is simple: by sacrificing
..
his queen for White's two knights Black hopes
to create safety for his king and use the force
of his three minor pieces against White's
queen. Now, capturing the queen with the
knight, '1 6 tbxc7 xc7,
N o tes on Crea tivity
seems to be the only reasonable continua
tion for White, and one tends to consider and
play such moves absolutely automatically, not
only in a tournament but also during home
preparation. I was no exception and, at the
beginning, I kept analysing with my trainer the
consequences of this capture. After some
three hours of work I gave up on the whole
idea of trying the line with White, since Black
seemed fine in all variations.
It all happened during our lunchtime. My
trainer and I went to the kitchen to make
some simple food and filled our glasses with
some fine beer. Already feeling relaxed J still
kept thinking about d1e position. And just a
little beer was sufficient for me to realise d1at
White was not at all obligt.-d to take the queen:
mere were other ideas in the position too!
Work on the 'buried' line started all over again
with new momentum, and a yt.>ar and a half
later (not just three weeks later as was
originally 'planned' - such is me destiny of
ideas born at home) I was fmally able to play
my idea in a tournament game.
The idea that came into my mind with the
aid of beer was 1 6 c3!1,
See f oll owi ng diagram
not taking the queen but attacking the rook
instead! Before tlus game only 16l:iJxc7 rj;xc7
17 ..-..s llxe4 18 'ifxf7+ i.e7 had been
played. The reader will understand later why I
want to emphasise this position.
17
Fi re on Board Part /1: 1 9 9 7- 2004
The game continued 16 .. Jlxe4 1 7 '1Vh5
Wd8 1 8 lbxc7 xc7 19 'Wxf7+ JJ..e7
and reaching this position was the point of
White's play. As Black didn't want to give up
his rook on the last two moves (which would
yield White a strong attack), White was finally
forced to capture his queen. But if we
compare this position with the one after 16
lJxc7 xc7, we can sec that White's pawn is
on c3 instead of c2. This small di fference -
the pawn on c3 takes the important d4 square
away from Black's knight - proved sufficient
to win the game later on. The idea had
worked!
As I have already mentioned, most of the
brilliant chess ideas are born at home in a
quiet atmosphere. When you play a tourna
ment game you tend to be more concentrated,
yet more tense and maybe more automatic
18
too. Basically, you demonstrate your home
preparation at the beginning of the game and
try to exploit your general chess skills in the
later stages. Thus you search either for the
very best move or the best practical solution,
depending on how complicated the position is
and how much time is left for thinking. You
can either opt for strategic planning or simply
perform mechanical calculations.
In the game that I am about to demon
strate, I was lucky enough to have some time
at my disposal when the critical position arose,
so I could stop and think.
Well, the posmon seemed rather simple
since, apart from the kings, only two minor
pieces were left on the board. However,
simplicity may often be misleading. I came to
realise that any ordinary solution would lead to
a draw, as is often the case with opposite
coloured bishops. All the same, I had two
extra pawns and fdt that there should be
something to be done! Alas, it was all in vain -
once again I saw that normal continuations
would lead to a draw. White would simply
move his king to e3 and neutralise Black's
winning attempts for good. I wondered if I
should give it up, while my clock continued to
tick.
I believe that real creativity comes when
you master the ability to connect different
parts of your experience and perception,
sometimes even small chaotic pieces of it,
which at first sight don't seem to be directly

related. When you're pressed for time it is
sometimes nect.'Ssary to expand the dimen
sions of your brain-work, from logic based on
knowledge into the so-called 'associative level'.
And then the solution should come...
47 . . ..th31 !
As I have already stated, the 'nonnal' paths
would lead to a draw, e.g. 47...i.e4 48 g3 'iii'f5
49 f2, and as the black king can't get to e4,
the white king manages to reach the key e3
square. In order to make a breakthrough to
the decisive e4 square, Black must first
sacrifice his bishop!
48 gxh3
48 f2 'itt> f5 49 e3 i.xg2 would leave
White pawnless and helpless, but now Black
can achieve his goal.
48...5 49 2 We4
and Topalnv had to resign the game after a
few more moves. TI1e king helps the black
N o tes on Crea tivity
pawns promote to a queen.
The idea of giving up the bishop in order to
gain the necessary tempo seems very logical
and easy to find when it has already been
played, but no computer program proved
competent enough to suggest it. I would like
to think that no hwnan in chess history would
be able to find it under the same conditions,
but who knows...? Maybe the Swedish grand
master, Ulf Andersson, would be able to rise
to the challenge. I guess that the next game
should explain everything...
This position suddenly came into my mind
when I played against Topalov. In the game
against Andersson, played almost seven years
earlier, I became a victim of the astonishing
idea of d1e bishop sacrifice:
44. .J.xh41 45 Wxh4 5 46 g3 e4 47
.
2 3
when Black's centralised king and pawns
19
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

dominate completely and I soon had to resign.
Seven years is a long time and I am not just
talking about human memory. My ....i.h3 in
deed resembles Andersson's ....i.xh4, but still,
strong and my high concentration (always nec
essary to perform well in chess) did the job.
My conclusion on the above examples
from my practice is rather simple. In chess, as

it was a different position and not exactly the in any other field, you need to reach beyond
same idea, since Topalov didn't even have a your knowledge (the greater the knowledge,
pawn on h3 as I had on h4. the further you can go!). And that's when
Nevertheless, the association was very creativity begins.

20
 CHAPTER THREE I
Selected Games

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 .i.f5 4 ltif3 e6 5
Game 1 .i.e2 ltle7 6 0-0 c5
Shirov-Teske The German grandmaster employs the
European Cup Final, Budapest 1996 same line as Karpov played against me in Vi-
Caro-Kann Difence, Advance Variation enna 1996. In that game I thought for about
______..,.__________.. twenty minutes on my 7th move, while this
The game was annotated after the tourna time my next few moves took me nearly an
ment and published in various magazines, al hour. The line indeed needs a high level of
though the notes were revised several times precision from White if he wants to fight for
when I was working on the book. My special the opening advantage.
thanks to Henrik Teske for his comments on 7 dxc5
the game when he was casually visiting me in Against Karpov I played 7 c4 and got noth
Spain in September 2003. ing from the opening.
The game was played when the club teams 7 ...ltlec6 8 .i.e3 ltld7 9 c4 dxc4 1 0 ltla3
from both Berlin (whom I played for) and
Dresden already could achieve nothing in the
Cup. As a funny circumstance, before going to
Budapest I had a short training session in
Dresden with Zigurds Lanka (also playing for
the Dresden team) and my opponent in this
game! Fortunately, we didn't analyse the Caro
Kann. The present game had a certain theo
retical importance at that time because it in
troduced the way of challenging Karpov's fa
vourite set-up. And even though Karpov
managed to find equality for Black some time
later, I still like the game itself.

21
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
1 0.. ixc5
Up to here everything has been theoretical,
but this logical capture is new. The known
path was 1 0...c3, which I was expecting during
the game and planning to answer with 1 1 b4!?.
But i f I remember correctly, afterwards my
opponent said that he rejected 1 o. c3 because
..
of a very strong idea, 1 1 'ilb3! cxb2 1 2 llad1,
which he saw at the board. When we started
analysing, it seemed to us that White was
clearly better. Naturally I didn't mention the
idea in my annotations, hoping that some day
I would be able to employ it in a tournament
game. And an opportunity soon came: in my
next game as White against Karpov (Monaco
1 997) the position appeared on the board. He
continued 1 2 ... b1 ...! 1 3 xbl ...c8 which I
had missed in my preparation. Here I must
admit that I should have given Henrik's idea a
better look later on and not just have been
satisfied with the postmortem. Nevertheless, I
managed to react reasonably well: 14 .c3! and
Black still has certain difficulties. The game
continued 14 ... .i.xb l 1 5 llxb1 .i.e7
16 4 xd4 1 7 Ld4 xeS 1 8 J.3 llb8
19 1Wa5 0 20 1Wxa7 and here ov had
serious chances to equalise with 20 ..:d8!,
.
while in the game after 20....:a8 21 11i'b6 lla6
22 11i'b5 1Wc7 23 llfc1 liaS 24 .xb7 .xb7 25
.i.xb7 l:[dB 26 J.e3, I managed to get a rea
sonable advantage. The end of the story was
tragic. Later on, when my position became
completely winning, I started messing up and
22
at the end I couJdn't even remember where
my pieces were and lost on time! Yes, it was a
blindfold game.
Teske's suggestion 16 d2l? is also inter
esting, but we concluded that after 16 ...0-0
(not 16.)Llcxe5? 1 7 f4 lLlc6 1 8 ...xg7 i.f6 19
1Wh6 .td4 20 f5 and wins, or 1 7...lDg6 1 8 J.3
:bs 19 c6 bxc6 20 :xb8 lilib8 21 'fkxg7 with
a clear advantage) 17 f4 b61 18 cxb6 (1 8 4?!
cS 19 cS bxcS 20 J.3 4! is equal)
1 8 ... b6 19 J.3 b4! 20 9b3 6d5! Black
is quite OK
After all I shouJd conclude that 1 0 ... c3 is
probably playable, but so is the move chosen
by the German grandmaster.
1 1 i.xc5f
Only in this order! The line 1 1 xc4 .i.xe3!
1 2 6+ e7! (12...8 1 3 fxe3 eS 1 4
eS xeS 1 5 11'd4 c6 1 6 1if4 yields
White a strong initiative for the pawn) 1 3
xfS+ exfS 14 11'd6+ e8 1 5 e6 fxe6 16
1i'xe6+ 1i'e7 17 11'xe7+ q;xe7 18 fxe3 just
leads to an equal ending.
1 1 .. .ltixc5 1 2 ltlxc4 0-0
Black cannot now exchange queens, as after
1 2 .. .'-xdl 1 3 :fxdl e7 1 4 llac1 his position
is extremely dangerous.
1 3 c1 !
The only move to get something. 1 3 ltkl6
1i'b6 is equal.
1 3 .'ire7?1
..
After the game my opponent was unhappy
with this move, but in fact it doesn't seem

bad. Other lines such as 13 ...4 1 4 lDxd4
1i'xd4 1 5 lld 1 , 1 3...i.d3 1 4 .Ld3 d3 1 5
"ife3, or 1 3...9c7 1 4 1i'e3 7 (or 1 4...lDb4
1 5 lDd4) 1 5 llacl appeal to me even less.
In 1 998 Karpov finally found the solution:
13. ..llX13! 1 4 9e3 1i'd5!, which he employed
against lvanchuk in Monaco (this time jn a
rapid, not a blindfold, game) and after 1 5 lZkl6
lDdxeS 16 llfd l lDxf3+ 17 i.xf3 1i'e5 1 8
'fixeS eS 1 9 .txb7 llab8 he had no prob
lems.
Thus my opponent was right not to be
happy with 1 3 ...1i'e7, even though the truth
about the whole line was only to be known
much later. Almost seven years after the cur
rent game, Henrik admitted that he had com
pletely overlooked 1 3 1i'ct ! and was under the
impression that he was already much worse,
which probably prevented him from finding
the correct path.
1 4 'ii'e3
14 l:dt !? would be another interesting try
and it took me some time to decide between
those two moves. It seems to me I made the
right choice although, trying to avoid time
pressure, 1 stiU couldn't figure out everything.
White's play is mainly concentrated against
Black's bad knights and the weakness of the
d6 square.
1 4.. Jtad8
I was concerned about 1 4... 4 but felt
that after 15 .td3 11fc5 16 1i'e2 White would
stiU hold a tiny advantage. This l."Valuation was
Selected Ga mes
probably based on the line 1 6...4 1 7 lDxd4
1i'xd4 1 8 :ad1 llac8 1 9 6 d6 20 .Lf5
ltlxf5 21 l:xd4 d4 when White has queen
vs. rook and knight, but I doubt now that he
can win this position. 1 6...b5 17 ltla3 I.Dc3 1 8
bxc3 1i'xa3 1 9 .txbS l:tac8 or 1 9...1lfc8 also
seem good enough for Black.
1 5 liJd6
After our game in Monaco, Karpov's next
try in thls line was reachlng the same position
against Hubner in Dortmund 1997, and here
Robert demonstrated a big improvement over
my play: 1 5 llad1 ! with advantage to White,
since Karpov's 1 S....tg6 (1 S ... ltld7 1 6 ltld4! is
also bad, but 1 s...ltle4! stilt deserves serious
attention), could have been answered by 16
lDd6! according to Hubner; the rook on d l
defends the knight on d6 in some lines, so
White has won an important tempo. It was
then that Karpov crune up with 13 ...c!Lkl3!, but
only with his third try! As for me, 1 5 lZk:l6 is
definitely not a move to be proud of, but as I
said, 1 was in danger of getting under time
pressure.
15 b6?
A bad mistake as it weakens the c6 square
considerably. After 1 5 ... 7! 1 6 I.Dxb7 llb8
Black would still be in the game, though I pre
fer White in the line 1 7 llac1 lDcxeS (if
1 7 ... :Xb7 1 8 llxc6 llxb2 19 1lc7 and Whjte is
clearly better) 1 8 ltlxe5 lDxe5 (or 1 B...llxb7 1 9
t:Llc6 'i'f6 20 b3) t 9 lDa5 f6 (again if 1 9...'i'f6
20 b3) 20 f4 'ifb4 21 fxeS 1fxa5 22 exf6 gxf6
23
Fire on Board Part II: 7 99 7- 2004
(not 22...:xf6? 23 g4 lZ.g6 24 'ifi>h 1 "'b6 25
'irf4 winning a piece, or 22. .l:r.xb2 23 fxg7) 23
. 22 'iVxe5
.ic4 with the advantage. 1 7 liX16!? is interest
ing as well; for example 17 ...llklxeS 1 8 lladl!
(Black has counterplay after 1 8 lOxfS exfS)
1 8 ...'iff6 1 9 :d2 and again White is slightly
better.
1 6 .i.b51 ll:lb4
It's already hard to give Black any advice;
for example 1 6 ...'irc7 1 7 ..ixc6 li'xc6 1 8 l0d4
and White's game is easy, while after
1 6. .l0xe5 1 7 ltlxf5 ltlx3+ 1 8 gxf3 li'f6 19 b41
.
Black does not have enough for the piece.
1 7 ! .td3
1 7....ig6 would lose to 1 8 Wd2! aS 19 a3.
1 8 .ixd3 ll:lcxd3
1 9 f4!
Now Black cannot avoid mater_ial losses
anymore.
19 f6
1 9 ... ltxd6 20 exd6 Wxd6 would offer
slightly tougher resistance, but the endgame
arising after 21 a3 lZ.d8 22 axb4 Wxd4 23
1Vxd4 lZ.xd4 24 lZ.xa7 g6 25 l:dl lZ.dS 26 g3!
Wg7 (if 26. ..lilif4 27 lZ.fl ltle2+ 28 Wg2 f5 29
:e 1 t0d4 30 lZ.ct wins) 27 lZ.b7 l0xb4 28
lZ.xdS lDxdS 29 f2 should be lost.
20 a3
Now it's all forced.
20 ... fxe5 21 fxe5 ll:lxe5
21....:xf1+ 22 llxfl lDxeS 23 'i'xeS .xd6
24 'irxd6 Ld6 25 lObS lidS 26 ltlc7 llkl3 (or
26...lld7 27 xe6) 27 xdS exdS 28 b4 is
24
hopdess.
22 llxf8+!? 'A'xf8 23 ll:bc.e6 'i'xd6 24 ltlxd8
ltlbd3 25 l:d 1 ! would win as well, but why
make it more complicated?
22 .. 'itxd6
22...l:r.xft+ 23 lZ.xfl transposes to
21...lZ.xfl+.
23 :lxf8+ xf8 24 ll:lxe6+ r/;e7 25
'ifxg7 + 1 -0
Black resigned in view of 25...Wxe6 26
.J:et+ f5 27 ...xh7+ f6 28 .1lft+.
The game was annotated shortly after the
tournament and published in various maga
zines, including New ilt Chess.
This was the second game in a row that
Nigel let me win his queen, the previous one
being Shirov-Short, Yerevan Olympiad 1 996,
which was p1.1blished in Fire on Board. Once
again, despite being it my only remaining
piece, the queen was sufficient to do the job.
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 ll:lc6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .txc6
At that time I had done a bit of work on
the Exchange Variation with Jordi Magem,
and some of the ideas we found were quite
good. Nevertheless, Black has several ways to
equalise, against which nothing could be done,

and I had to stop employing this variation in
1 997.
4... dxc6 5 0-0 'itd6 6 /&3 b5 7 c3 c5 8
ll:lc2 11Je7
Here I couldn't remember how the theory
went exactly. No wonder I soon came up with
a novelty.
9 a4 i.b7 1 0 axb5 axb5
1 1 J:txa8+
A new move. 1 1 'ife2 c4! with an unclear
game occurred in De Ia Villa-Giorgadze,
Aceimar 1 995. I think what l did, exchanging
rooks and opening the centre while Black
hasn't developed yet, is more nah1ral.
1 1 ...i.xa8 1 2 d4 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 .i.xe4 1 4
ll:lxe5
14 llet ?l was not a good idea because of
1 4....c6!.
1 4...f6 1 5 lDd3
1 5. . ...txd3?
Selected Games
Now White gets the upper hand. His posi
tion also looks promising in the line 1 5...c6 16
ti:}cS (16 l:te 1 i.xd3 17 1i'xd3 'it>f7 gives Black
an extra tempo to develop as the white rook is
not especially useful on el ; 1 6 i.f4 'ifdS is
also OK) 1 6 ... i.xc2 17 'ifxc2 1i'xd4, but I
don't see anything concrete, whereas a pawn is
a pawn. Now I believe White should just settle
for a draw after tS llet 'iVc4 '1 9 'irxc4 bxc4 20
lle4 because, otherwise, he takes a serious risk
of being a pawn down without compensation.
As we can see, I didn't achieve a great deal in
the opening, but at least I was able to exploit
Black's mistake.
1 6 Wxd3 c6 1 7 i.d2!
By bringing the rook into the black camp
White manages to create really dangerous
threats.
17 ... d5 1 8 :S1
Here we can see the difference between
15...c6 and the game. The activity of the white
rook becomes the decisive factor.
18 ...i.e7
After 1 8... f7 1 9 lla8! it becomes impossi
ble for Black to complete development.
1 9 J:ta8+ i.d8 20 'tlrb3!
20...0-0?
A tactical oversight. Black should have tried
something else, though his position would still
remain unpleasant; for example 20... cifi>f7 21
lla7+ lie? (or 21...lic7 22 g3 lieS 23 3) 22
e3 lieS 23 xdS 'i'xdS 24 1fxd5+ cxdS 25
'it>f1 We6 26 llb7 with a clear advantage, or
25
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004
20...1t'd7 21 .i.b4! (White must be precise;
winning a pawn but granting Black counter
pia), as in the line 21 .i.aS 0-0 22 hd8 ltxd8
23 1i'h3 f7 24 ltxd8 'ifxd8 25 9xh7 'i'aS!,
is not advisable) 2 1 . Wf7 22 .i.cS lte8 23 lta7
..
.i.c7 24 3 lte6 25 g3 and Black is com
pletely tied up.
21 i.b4 'iWf4 22 g3 1i'c1 + 23 g2 i.e7
Everything is forced. 23...lte8 24 3 9bt
25 lilid5 9e4+ 26 W'f3 1i'xd5 27 lixdS+ cxdS
28 i..aS would lose much more quickly.
24 :&1
Shon must have overlooked this when
playing 20 ... 0-0. Now only some technique is
required. To be certain l spent about half an
hour considering my 26th move and think
that I found the best winning plan.
24. . .1i'xa1 25 xa1 i.xb4
26 ltlc2! JJ..e7
26 . .td2 lets the white queen penetrate af-
. .
26
ter 27 1Wd3 J.c1 28 WfS liJe7 (or 28....i.xb2
29 1We6+) 29 'ifd7 Wf7 30 l!lb4 and wins.
27 ltle3 lidS 28 1i'c2!
White is not afraid of exchanging knights as
he can stalemate the rest of Black's pieces later
.
28 ...ltlxe3+
28...l!lb4 allows White a strong attack after
29 'i'e4 .i.8 30 9e6+ h8 31 l!lfS.
29 fxe3 lld& 30 'We4! .ita
31 g4!
31 1i'e8 f5 would be slighdy more difficult
for Wllite.
31 ... g6 32 1i'e8! g7 33 h4 c5
This makes things easier, but Black was lost
anyway; e.g. 33...g8 (or 33 . f5 34 'i'eS+) 34
..
wf3 f5 (if 34. ..g7 35 lit>r4 c;t>g8 36 hs gxhs
.
37 gxhS g7 38 e4 ltxd4 39 h6+ 'it>g8 40
1fe6+ wins) 35 gxfS gxfS 36 f4 llf6 37 gS
'it>g7 38 1fd7+ etc.
34 dxc5 lld2+ 35 3 .ixc5

36 g5!?
36 'WxbS would win very easily of course,
but having checked the variations I decided to
go for his bishop.
36 ....:d5
Short makes it amusing as now he ends up
checkmated. But nothing else makes any real
differ<.."'llce; e.g. 36.. lld3 37 gxf6+ xf6 38
. 17
'ilc6+ .id6 39 e2 or 36 ... b4 37 'ifc6! wins.
37 gxf6+ xf6 38 Wc6+ e5 39 e4
l:td3+ 40 'it1e2 .:e3+ 41 Wd2 d4?!
English humour. Otherwise Black loses a
piece.
42 'ifd5 checkmate
r------ chances by playing ... b5-b4.
Game 3
Shirov-Kramnik
Linares 1 997
Sicilian Dejence, Rkhter-Rall:(!r
The game was annotated shortly after the
tournament and published in various maga
zines, including New in Chess.
Jlnares 1 997 was one of the worst tourna
ments in my career, and even the one game I
won (against Topalov) was full of mutual mis
takes. But at least I made some interesting
draws ...
1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lLlf6
5 lbc3 lbc6 6 .ig5 e6 7 11i'd2 a6 8 0-0-0
h6 9 .ie3 .ie7 1 0 f4 lbxd4 1 1 .ixd4 b5
1 2 'it>b1 .ib7 1 3 .id3 0-0 14 e5 dxe5 1 5
fxe5 lbd7 1 6 lbe4 .ixe4 1 7 .ixe4
Selected Games
So far nothing new. This position had al
ready occurred in the game Ye Jiangchuan
Kramnik at the previous Olympiad. It was
clear that Kramnik would improve somewhere
since he had decided to repeat the line. The
only question is where? Now comes the an-
swer . . .
.. Ab8!
This is a lot stronger than 1 7 ...llc8 which
let White smoothly organize a strong attack in
the above-mentioned game. Now Black in
tends to complete his development comforta
bly and try to exchange bishops. I f White
plays c2-c3 one day, Black will get excellent
I was figuring it
out for about an hour and then realised that
going for the exchange is probably the best
way.
1 8 i.a7
It was also clear, however that Black would
aclueve excellent compensation and that
Kramnik was familiar with the position. For
tunately, I already had something in mind my
self. Half a year later in Novgorod Kramnik
played the same line against Kasparov and the
latter came up with an interesting sacrifice: 1 8
c3!? Wc7 19 .tc2. Here Kramnik didn't take a
pawn and quickly got into an inferior position.
1 would think that Kasparov's novelty was
terribly strong, but in fact the consequences of
the line 1 9.)tixe5 20 llhe1 i.d6 21 'ire2 f6
(21 ...4 22 Wd3 g6 23 llxe6 ltieS! is also
playable) 22 'ife4 llfd8 23 'Db7+ fB are un-
27
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7 - 2 004
clear to me.
18 .!Dxe5 1 9 'iVc3l
After 1 9 11t'f4 'ilc7 (of course not
1 9...i.d6?? 20 i.cS) 20 i.xb8 l:lxb8 Black
seems to have good play for the exchange.
1 9...i.d6 20 'it'd4!
Again 20 i.xb8 'i'xb8 would give Black an
easy game, while it's not so easy for White to
prevent threats like ...lL!c4 and ... i.eS.
20 . i.c7 21 1Wc51 cs
22 l:lhe1
This was my idea, trying to place my pieces
as well as possible before taking the exchange.
However, 22 g3 (employed by Svidler against
Ionov in the St. Petersburg Championship
shortly after the present game) seems stronger.
At the time I was concerned about 22...l:lb7,
but now White can continue 23 l:lhe1 ! and
Black can't improve his position so easily.
Probably White has slightly better chances in
this line, as well as after 22 ...lL!c4 23 i.xb7
'ifxb7 24 c3 as occurred in the game.
22 .. .!Dc4
I was planning to answer 22 ... l:lb7 with 23
'i'gl ! and then take the exchange.
23 i.xb8
Now there was already no choice as my ear
lier intention 23 b3? would just fail to
23 ...i.b6.
23...11t'xb8 24 g3
l wanted to defend my kingside pawns as I
thought I was still fighting for the advantage.
Mter 24 i.d3 Black would have two ways to
28
equalise: 24...i.d6 25 1i'd4 i.eS 26 'ile4 fS 27
1fc6 lL!xb2 28 'ifxe6+ hB 29 'i'xeS 'i'xeS 30
l:lxe5 lL!xd1 31 i.xfS lL!e3 and 24...ltc8 25
i.xc4 (Black is better after 25 5 i.xh2 26
i.xc4 bxc4 27 lld7 'W'f4) 2S...i.a5 26 9h5
i.xel 27 i.xe6 fxe6 28 :xe1 'fld6. Here we
can see that, compared with Svidler-Ionov
above, White lost a tempo on 22 llhe1 as the
rook doesn't do a great deal there, while the
pawn would be very useful on c3.
24 . i.e5 25 c3 l:lc8 26 'iVe7
26 b4!
This leads to a draw by force and I must
admit that I overlooked the final combination
in my earlier calculations. I mostly expected
26...tlh.b2!? after which I would have to make
a choice between 27 Wxb2 or 27 lld7!?. Let's
have a look:
a) 27 xb2 i.xc3+ 28 b1 i.xe 1 29 llxe1
with slightly tl1e better chances because of the
strong bishop.
b) 27 lld7!? ltla4 28 'W'xf7+ 'iii'h B 29 l:tct
and now Black can do neither 29...'ifb6 30
'ti'g6 ttlxc3+ 31 l:txc3 11t'g1+ 32 '1tb2 'ifxh2+
33 i.c2 i.xc3+ 34 b3 and wins, nor 29...b4
30 'ii'g6 ltlxc3+ 31 l:txc3 bxc3+ 32 c2 W'b2+
33 dl c2+ (or 33...'fla1+ 34 e2 'i'xa2+ 35
'iPe3) 34 i.xc2 'ii'xc2+ 35 'ifxc2 :xc2 36
xc2 with a winning endgame, but after
29... lL!c5! 30 'ii'g6 lbxe4 31 11fxe4 l:lc4 (not
3t....i.xc3? 32 l:txc3 llxc3 33 'ffd4) 32 'ifd3
i.f6 his compensation for the exchange seems
rea.<;onable.

I should also mention that variations like
26 ....if6 27 Wb7 b4 28 cxb4 llxb2 29 llcl
llc4 30 a4 J.g5 31 1txb8 lld2+ 32 Wa2 :xb8
33 ltc7 or 30...i.e7 31 fixe? llc7 32 fkxc7
fkxc7 33 lled 1 arc completely disgusting for
Black.
27 1Wxb4
27...1ic7!
This came as a big surprise. I was counting
on 27 ... lt!xb2? 28 Wfxb2 1tc7 29 11Fc2 .i.xc3
30 lle2! and wins, or 27...1Vxb4 28 cxb4 tihcb2
(if 28....i.xb2 29 c2) 29 .ib7 l':.b8 30 .:d7
ltlc4 31 .i.xa6 :Xb4+ 32 c2 with a clear ad
vantage.
28 'irb7
The only move.
28...c!ba3+ !
A beautiful drawing combination.
29 Wc1
29 'itia 1 lbc2+ is the same story.
Selec ted Gam es
29 f4+! 30 gxf4 ..xf4+ 31 l:td2 l:td8
..
32 l:ted1
Again Whj te has no choice. If 32 .ih7+?
h8 33 J.d3 l0c4 is strong.
32... :Xd2
Avoiding the last little trap: 32...tDc4?? 33
1tc7 and wins.
33 llxd2 % - %
Drawn because o f the perpetual after
33 ...91+ 34 :dt li'f4+ 35 1ld2 'i'fl+ etc.
Just as in my Olympiad game against Kas
parov in 1 996 (see Fire 011 BoarrJ), the oppo
nents disagreed about who was finding his
way to draw.
Game 4
Shirov-Yusupov
Ter Apel 1997
PetroffDejen&e
The game was annotated shortly after the
tournament and published in various maga
:dnes, including New i11 Chess.
A small tournament (only six participants in
a single round-robjn) in Ter Apel was held a
few weeks after my disastrous performance in
IJnares (where I scored -4), so it was impor
tant for me to regain confidence. Thanks to
thls game I managed to take clear first place
with 4 out of 5, so the mission was accom
plished. And the game itself gave me a very
satisfying feeling too - at that moment I even
considered it to be the best in my whole ca-
29
Fire on Board Part 1/: 1 9 9 7- 2 004
reer. Still, as often happens, I am able now to
find many mistakes in my old analyses (I think
they were done in haste), and therefore the
game is no longer so convincing to me. But I
believe that, even with all the inaccuracies, the
game is worth being in this collection. Inter
estingly enough, such a classical player as
Arr:ur Yusupov played with a lot of imagina
tion and creativity, but this time it didn't work
out best for him.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 d4 xe4 4 .i.d3 d5
5 xe5 .i.d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 c4 c6 8 xc6
bxc6 9 c5 .i.e7 1 0 c3
Up to d1is point we were following our
Bundesliga game (Solingen 1 996), but here
Yusupov diverged with...
1 0...f51?
a,.c; he had played against Timman a few
years ago. In our previous game he had tried
1 O .i..5, but it seems to give White a slight
..
advantage after 1 1 3! (1 1 1i'c2 i..g6! 1 2 lilie4
dxe4 1 3 i..xe4 1ixd4 14 i..xg6 hxg6 1 5 i.e3
11b4! 1 6 a3 'l'bs with equality was the course
of our Bundesliga encounter) t t...lbxc3 12
bxc3 i.xd3 1 3 'i'xd3, as i n the rapid game
Shirov-Hiibner, Frankfurt 1 996. In fact we
analysed 1 1 f3! with Yusupov after the game
in Solingen, and to our surprise it was not at
all easy for Black to reach a comfortable posi
tion. And in the rapid game against Hubner
(played some three months later) I was able to
more or less demonstrate White's ideas. It
continued 13....i.g5?! (1 3...a5 would be more
30
stubborn) 14 1Va6! .*.xct 1 5 l:taxct 'it"d7 1 6
llfel llfe8
and here I forced events with 17 llxe8+ (1 7
h31? would probably be more precise)
1 7... l:txe8 1 8 h3 and, fortunately, it was good
enough to keep the advantage. The rest of the
game was definitely influenced by the time
control (20 minutes + 5 seconds per move),
but I would still like to give a few more
moves: 1 8... h5 (1 8...9e6 1 9 'itht 1fe3 20 l:tg1
'ifxc3 21 1i'xc6 is good for White) 1 9 1i'xa7
'ife7?! (1 9...1Ve6 20 ht 1l'g6! was a better
try, intending 21 'ifxc7?! l:te2) 20 c;t.h1 1i'e3 21
llgt 1Wxc3 22 1i'xc7 llet? (a mistake, though
White still has good chances after 22...11'xd4
23 'ifxc6 or 22.. l:te6 23 11'h8+ 'it'h7 24 1Vf4)
.
23 llxel ...xe1 + 24 h2 'i'al (if 24......d2 25
...eSI 'ifxa2 26 1i'e8+ h7 27 'l'xf7 or 25. ..g6
26 a4 h4 27 11'f6 'ifet 28 1l'd6 ...d2 29 aS
xas 30 ...xc6 wins) 25 'iixc6 'ifxd4 26 'ifd6!
and White soon won.
1 1 f3 ll'lg5 1 2 11a4!
I give the exclamation mark not exactly to
this particular move but to the whole plan
which I found over the board. Timman had
played 11 lik2 instead of 1 1 f3.
12 . . .i.d7 1 3 .i.f4!
This is the fonnal innovation. Practice had
seen 1 3 b4 lbe6 14 i.e3 a6 1 5 .c2 g6 with an
unclear position in Spangenberg-Tempone,
Buenos Aires 1 994.
13 .. .i.f6 1 4 llae1 lOa&!?
Trying to disprove the value of White's

idea. Otherwise he might have chosen the
quieter 14 ... ltlf7!? and White is only slighdy
better.
1 5 e6
White has to keep on with his plan. There
is no way back!
1 5 . . .i.xe5 1 6 1lxe5 'ilrh4
A critical posltlon has arisen and here 1
sank into deep thought. It was very difficult to
choose between going for a slighdy better
endgame (a kind of no-risk play) and great
complications. The odds are ten to one that I
would choose the second option, but was it
really the right decision? According to the final
result it probably was.
1 7 f4!?
This makes the game very spectacular, but
from the 'purity' point of view 17 x5 might
have been stronger. Black is then forced to
play 1 7...1lxf5! (White is much better after
17...ltlxc5? 1 8 dxcS 'lfxa4 1 9 xh7+ xh7 20
xa4) 1 8 :Xf5 xeS (not 18...ltlxd4? 19 lieS)
19 dxcS ji'xa4 20 xa4 .i.xf5 21 lldt l llb8!
22 b3 llb4! with good drawing chances,
though White is still able to play for the win.
Note that it would be far less strong to cap
ture the pawn with the rook because after 1 7
llxf5 'lfxd4+ (not 1 7...1lxf5? 18 i.xf5 ltlxd4
1 9 .i.g4! ltlf5 20 lilidS and wins) 18 'tlfxd4
ltlxd4 the position is completely equal.
There is absolutely no doubt that today I
would choose 17 Lf5 and try to win the end
game with very good practical chances. Six
Seler;ted Games
years on and a completely different approach.
I think Tal also 'suffered' such an evolution of
his playing style throughout his career.
1 7 . . .ltlxf4 1 8 g3 ltlh3+ 19 g2 'ffh6 20
ltlxd5
Anod1er critical position and now it's Black
who has to choose between many different
continuations. He goes for a most natural one
but it seems to be a mistake.
20 ... f4?1
Let's look at other options. 20 ..'tlfd2+ is
.
another move that comes to mind, though
after 21 i.e2 Black should realise that his best
continuation is 21 ...1lae8. The logic of the
variations I analysed after 21 .tc2 is not easy
for me to explain, so let me just give the
whole bunch for the readers' judgment.
a) 20...'ifd2+ 21 e2
a1) 21...ltlg5 22 ltlxc7 llab8 (worse is
22 l:ac8 23 llf2, or if 22... f4? 23 1fc4+ Wh8
...
31
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
24 :.xg5 wins) 23 :r.f2! and White is ck"lll"ly
better.
a2) 2 1 ...4
a2'1) 22 ltle7+? ,.Phs 23 'ifdl 'ifxb2 24 'ifd3
.tg4 and Black wins.
a22) 22 lbxf4 ltlxf4+ 23 gxf4 flxf4 (or
23.. .'ifxb2 24 'ifb3+ 'i'xb3 25 axb3) 24 :.xf4
'ifxf4 25 1i'b3+ 'ith8 26 ...e3 '1Vxe3 (or
26...:.f8 27 1i'xf4 :.xf4 28 dS) 27 ltxe3 lle8
28 llxe8+ .ixe8 29 Wg3 Citg8 30 cli>f4 fl 31
e5 We7 32 b4 with a slight advantage.
a23) 22 '1Vb4! f3+ (after 22 ...1i'xb4 23 l0xb4
White is clearly better) 23 :.xf3 1i'ct 24 7+
Cith8 25 ltlfS l:lab8 26 'i'c4 'i'xc4 27 .i.xc4
li)gS 28 l:tf2 with a decisive advantage; e.g.
28...g6 29 h4 .ixf5 30 hxgS .ih3+ 3 1 'ii?g1
:xf2 32 Wxf2 l:lxb2+ 33 We3 llb8 34 l:le7 or
28 ... .i.xf5 29 l:lexfS l:lxf5 30 flxf5 lhb2+ 31
Citft h6 32 :.f8+ h7 33 h4.
a3) 21 ...llae8 22 li)e7+ (22 '104? allows
Black a strong attack after 22...1i'xe2+! 23
flxe2 l:lxe2+ 24 xh3 cxd5) 22... h8 and
now:
a3t) 23 3 :m (if 23... f4+ 24 g2 fxg3
25 'ifd1 or 24...J.g4 25 'ffd 1 f3+ 26 Wg1
'1Vxe2 27 l:lxe2 fxe2 28 l:lxfB+ llxffi 29 1i'e1
wins) 24 2 l:fxe7 25 ll2 :XeS 26 dxe5
'IVdS+ 27 .if3 1i'xe5 is unclear.
a32) 23 1i'd1 1 'l'gS 24 'ifcl ! 1i'f6 25 1i'e3 f4
26 gxf4 llli f4+ 27 hl and White is better.
There are other Black 20th moves that de
serve attention too:
b) 20...h8?! 21 ltle3! (better than 21 ltlf4
32
l0xf4+ 22 ltxf4 gS 23 llf2 f4 unclt.-ar, while
after 21 li)xc7 l:lab8 Black has compensation)
21 ...o:!Llg5 (21 ...f4 22 ltl5 transposes tn the
game) 22 l0xf5 'iVh3+ 23 gl and White is
winning.
c) 20 ...l:tac8 (possibly the strongest move)
21 o:!Llc7+ Cith8 and then:
cl) 22 'ifd 1 f4 23 llhS f3+ 24 1lxf3 llxf3 25
'i'xf3 (25 llxh6 llf2+ 26 Whl gxh6 27 'ift:1
Citg7 28 'iWeS+ Wf8 or 25 tl)g6+ 'i'xg6 26
.ixg6 llf2+ 27 h 1 .ig4 28 llxh7+ 'ii?g8 29
J.xe8 i.xdl 30 llxh3 .if3+ 31 ,.Pgt llg2+ 32
'ifilfl l:lxb2 33 lth4 l:lxa2 is good for Black)
2S...'ifd2+ 26 .i.e2 ll)gs 27 'ffd3 1i'xb2 with
an unclear position.
c2) 22 '1Vc2?! f4 23 J.xh7 llfl! and Black is
better.
c3) 22 J.xfS! :Xe7 and further:
c31) 23 llxe7?! 'i'd2+ 24 xh3 llxf5 25
l:lxfS (25 llxd7 1i'h6+ 26 Wg2 'ifd2+ is a
draw) 2S....ixf5+ 26 g4 .i.xg4+ 27 g3 (or 27
'itxg4 'ifg2+ 28 f4 1i'f2+ etc.) 27...J.h5!
(27...J.d7 28 l:leS!? '1Vd3+ 29 Wf2 'ifd2+ 30
:e2 'iff4+ 31 Wet 1i'ct + or 30 W3 d3+ is
another way to draw, but not 27 ...1i'd3+? 28
g4 'ifg6+ 29 f3 11ff6+ 30 We4 '1Vxe7+ 31
'ii>d3 and White still has chances) 28 l:le5
'1Vd3+ 29 h4 'ifni 30 l:lxhS '1Vf4+ 31 h3
93-t draws.
c32) 23 .ixd71 llxf1 24 xf1 llf7+ 25 llfS
ll.xfS+ 26 J.xf5
A very important moment for the overall
evaluation of this line. Six years ago I consid-

ered 26 ...9e3 to be Black's best try, but the
queen ending after 27 .lxh3 11ff3+ 28 'itet
9e3+ 29 dl 'ifgl+ 30 c2 1i'xh2+ 31 c3
1Wxg3+ 32 Wb4 1Wxh3 33 Wxc6 1i'c8 34 dS is
virtually winning for White. Instead Black
should play 26...9f6! 27 11fc2 g6 28 g2 lbg5
29 h4 li:Jf7 (it looks like Black can also achieve
the draw in a line that, for some reason, I
didn't even consider in 1 997: 29 ...gxf5 30 hxgS
1fxd4 31 11fc3 11fxc3 32 bxc3 h6! 33 gxh6
Cit'h7 34 c;t.o xh6 35 f4 g6 draws, or if
31 11fxf5 1i'xb2+ 32 h3 1fxa2 33 1Vf6+ Cit'gS
34 1i'd8+ r/;f7 35 1!fxc7+ !itg6 36 11fxc6+
xgS 37 'ird6 'ire2! and White can't win) 30
i.c4 1i'xd4 31 i.xc6.
In 1997 I thought White was still better
here, but once again I have to disagree with
my own old evaluation. Black should have
enough play to reach the draw after 31.)tJe5,
although 29 ...gxf5 was easier of course.
So many variations with virtually no expla
nations is not what I would normally wish to
present to the readers! And some lines may
still have been overlooked. Can we now come
up with some general conclusions? Let me try:
1 . Thanks to the creative (and not always
best) play by both opponents, the position
after White's 20th move became extremely
complex and very difficult to evaluate pre
cisely.
2. When there are so many variations to
calculate and decisions to make, the players
'normally' run short of time. ln this game 1
Sele c ted Games
was lucky to play reasonably quickly and it
looks as if I didn't make any serious errors,
whereas my opponent was less successful with
the clock. His 20... f4?! (a more correct mark
than my original '?', as we will see later) is the
first step in the wrong direction, while
20....:ae81 would probably secure him equality.
21 o!De7+ 'iti>h8 22 4!Df51
The tempting 22 .i.fS? would lose suddenly
to 22 .fxg3 23 hxg3 g6 24 .i.xd7 1i'd2+ 25
..
Wxh3 :txfl and ,_.ntz can justify that there is
no way to parry Black's mating attack.
22 1Vg5
Probably the best practical chance as
22... .i.xf5 23 .:xf51 (23 .Lfs? fxg3 24 hxg3
li:JgS is less clear; e.g. 25 l:lh1 1ff6) 23 .. 1lac8
.
(or 23...1lfb8 24 ..c2) 24 li'dt ! is completely
disgusting for Black.
When Yusupov made his move he just had
two minutes to reach move 40. Knowing by
experience that I had done many wrong things
in such situations, this time I tried first of all
to concentmte on the chess part of the game.
23 I!Dh4 Wh6 24 .i.f5!
Now the king is weU protected by the
knight on h4 and White can go after Black's
pieces. Or so I thought at the time, not having
seen 25...g5! in my analysis. AU the same, 24
.i.fS is a good winning try in my opponent's
time-trouble. The only other choice would be
to settle for the repetition after 24 f5 9g5.
24 fxg3
If 24...-lx5 2S li:Jxf5 'i'g6 26 'i'c2! 1Wg4 27
33
Fire on Board Part 1/: 1 9 9 7 - 2 004
'it'dt and White consolidates.
25 hxg3
25 . . .g6?
Only this is the decisive mi.-;take!
a) 2S ... i.xf5 26 ltlxfS Whs was also bad in
the view of 27 'it'dt 'ifxd1 28 l:lxdt llJf2 (or
28...llJg5 29 lDe7) 29 Wx2 't!f> 30 dS with a
clear advantage.
b) 25...g5! (which was found, I believe, by
some Finnish amateur who sent a letter to
Nen' in Chess after my annotations were pub
lished) nearly equalises the game!
b1) 26 l:le7? gxh4 27 l:lxh7+ 'ifxh7 28
..txh7 l:lxft 29 xfl l:tffi+ is good for Black,
while 27 llxd7 llxfS 28 :l.xfS hxg3 even wins.
b2) 26 Axd7 :l.xfl 27 Wxft gxh4 28 ..txh3
l:l8+ 29 :l.fS llxfS+ 30 ..txfS hxg3 31 .ie4
'iff4+ 32 <ili>g2 'ifxe4+ is equal.
b3) 26 'it'dl (White's best chance now)
26...gxh4 27 ..txd7 tl'!gS 28 g41 and I would
like to think that White is slightJy better,
though l am not even sure about that.
26 .txd7 'ii'd 2+ 27 xh3 lbf1 28 .txc6
:ata
During the game I thought that I was com
pletely winning by this point and the only
problem was that I was a bit short of time
myself. In fact there are still some tricks in the
position.
29 .tg2 1:1f2
This makes White's task easier. Only after a
due postmortem could we Cll tablish White's
win in lines such as 29...:l.t t7 30 l:le8 gS 31
34
i..d5 l:lf6 32 llJf3 or 29...:l.l f6 30 'it'd7 gS 31
lle7 l:th6 32 'irg4. Fortunately for White, in
both cases Black does not have time to cap
ture the bad knight.
30 11i'd7 g5 31 lle7 1Wc2
32 .te41?
1 calculated the possible checks to the end
and went forward with my king, not noticing
that 32 'it'g4! llg8 33 'ifc6 1:.gf8 34 1i'e5+
would have won at once.
32 . . . 1lh2+ 33 Wg4 llxh4+
On 33 ...'1t'e2+ Fritz (1 997 version!) found a
pretty win with 34 tl'!f3 (in the game I would
probably have played 34 xg5 llg8+ 35 Wf6)
34... h5+ 35 xg5 .e3+ 36 Wg6 :l.g8+ 37 1lg7
1i'xe4+ 38 Wh6 tlfe3+ 39 tl'!g5 and mates.
34 gxh4 1Ve2+ 35 xg5 llg8+
l f 35 ... h6+ 36 xh6 1i'e3+ 37 'itthS.
36 6 1 -0
Here Black's flag fell, but he is lost anyway.
Game 5
Shirov-Short
Dos Hermanas 1997
LopeiJ Berlin Deje_nce
The annotations to this game are based on
my notes made after the tournament for !'!for
ma/or 69. The text was added when working
on the book.
During the Dos Hermanas tournament it
looked like I was going to repeat my disas
trous performances in 1 995 (-5) or 1996 (-3),
 Selected Ga mes

as I managed only one point from the first Although White had to exchange his
four games. It was completely clear that this bishop for the knight, he is still slighdy better
town, not far from Seville, didn't inspire me at because Black's pieces arc not placed very
all to play good chess. But in round five I harmoniously, and the centre counts as well.
managed with a bit of luck to beat Illescas, 15 .. c6
and then made two draws against Gelfand and
Kramnik. So before the last round I had a
chance to score 50% which would nor be bad
at all in the circumst.'lnces. But I still had to
win the last round game...
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 .i.b5 f6 4 0-0
.te7 5 J:.e1 d6 6 c3
6 d4 would be normal of course.
6 ... 0-0 7 d3

Black intends ...d6-d5.

1 6 .ta3?1
I think that now I would prefer 16 a4!?, as it
lets White take more space and also plans to
answer 16... d5 17 e5 i.e7 with 18 i.a3!, ex
changing the 'right' black bishop.
16 .. .te7 1 7 J:.ad1 .J:.es 1 8 d5t?
Opening the centre, after which the game
becomes rather sharp. It's a pity that the move
This quiet approach was recommended to a2-a4 would now be illegal because, otherwise,
me by the Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett, I saw no way to strengthen my position.
who was my second in Dos Hcrmanas. It 18 . . .cxd5 1 9 exd5 .J:.c8 20 1t'd3
definitely contains some poison, even though
it can hardly be recommended seriously if one
wants to fight for an opening advantage. But it
worked in this single game which is most im
portant.
7 . . .a6 8 .i.a4 7
I don't like this move very much because
now White gets good control over the centre.
8 ....tg4 would be more natural.
9 d4 .i.f6 1 0 .i.c2 b6 1 1 h3 .i.d7 1 2 b3t
During the game I didn't know that this
was a novelty. 1 2 ltla3?! had been tried before,
but putting the knight on the edge is seldom
logical. 20 .. h6!
1 2 exd4 1 3 cxd4 14 c3 xc2 1 5
.. It's not bad for Black to wait, since his two
1Vxc2 bishops will always be a force when the game

35
Fire on Board Part 1/: 1 9 9 7 - 2 004
becomes sharp. The immediate 20... i.f6
would allow White a slight advantage after 21
llxe8+ i.xe8 22 lt)e4 i.e7 23 i.b2.
21 ltle4?!
Maybe I should have played 21 i.b4!? first
and not started forcing events just yet. Now
Black activates his light-squared bishop, gets
the d7 square for his knight, and the game
becomes balanced.
21 ... .i.f5! 22 'ifd4 .tfBI
Giving away the two bishops with
22...i.xe4? 23 llxe4 would be erroneous of
course.
23 lbg3 l:lxe1 + 24 lbe1 .i.h7! 25 5
The critical position of the game. White has
done the utmost to activate his pieces, create
threats and thus combat Black's advantage of
the two bishops. It's stiU not enough for more
than equality, but now Short wants to make
things too simple.
25 ...lbd7?!
In fact he had two good possibilities: the
natural and sharp 25... l:c2!? and the simple
25...i.g6.
Let's look at 25 ... l:.c2 first. White is now
obliged to play 26 i.b4! (why didn't I make
this move earlier?) since 26 i.b2? would fail to
26.)ilid5 27 fi)xg7 1lxb2 28 fi)hS ilc2! 29 b4
'irb6 30 lb6+ Wh8 31 fi)xh7+ ..xd4 32
d4 ltc4 33 fB .J:r.xd4. And after 26 .ib4
Black's best response is 26 ... ltk8, as variations
such as 26...llxa2 (if 26...i.g6 27 lt)f4 .J:r.xa2 28
fJ)xg6 fxg6 29 lle6 gS 30 i.c3 with compensa-
36
tion) 27 i.c3 f6 (27...1lc2 28 li:lxg7 :Xc3 29
lte8 'ilc7 30 fi)hS l:tcl+ 31 Wh2 f5 32 l:txf8+!
WxfB 33 'ilh8+ i.g8 34 'Wfxh6+ q;e7 35 'ifg7+
i.fl 36 lt)gs wins) 28 g4 (28 lbf4?! 00 29
fJ)e6 'ireS) 28...li:ld7 29 lle6 hS 30 lbxg7!
look pretty dangerous. However, after
26...lbc8 it's White who has to be very careful.
Probably he is not worse after 27 .g4 (if
27 a4 lbe7) 27...J.g6 28 ltlf4 ltle7 29 lLlxg6
(29 lLlh4 'irb6 30 lLlhxg6 'it'xf2+ 31 h2
g6 32 lbxg6 fxg6 is good for Black)
29...lLlxg6 30 11'5 (30 a3 or 30 a4 also lead to
unclear play) 30...l:txa2 31 'Wbl llxf2 32 Wxf2
1i'b6+ 33 lle3 'irxb4 34 'ife4, but I doubt he
would have serious winning chances.
But sometimes one doesn't feel like calcu
lating anything, in which case Black could just
try 25 ... J.g6!? 26 lLlf4 i.h7 when, objectively
speaking, White should probably repeat the
position with 27 lLlh5.
Once again I look at the game, played many
years ago, with a strange feeling. I had a good
position in the opening, then played logical
moves but got nothing out of the whole thing.
And even worse: for six years I couldn't un
derstand why. However, today it's dear to me
that both 16 .i.a3 and, later on, 21 lLle4 were
wrong and therefore I finally put the mark ?!'
on those moves. Instead I could have played
prophylacticalJy with 1 6 a4 or 21 .i.b4, which
would be more in Tigran Petrosian's style.
Black's pieces, especially the knight on b6 and
bishop on d7, would be far less active than in
 Selected Games

the game and White would have control over lld7 lL:!xf5 36 l:xdl he would have 36 . lL:!xg71,
. .

the action. Trying to attack the enemy king is freeing the c4 square for the bishop should
brood of course, but preventing your oppo White play l%d7.
nent's play is sometimes better! 33 1lc7
Well, back to the game... Thanks to Short's
desire to defend an inferior ending, I was able
to demonstrate reasonably good technique
and still feel satisfied at the end of all.
26 i.xd6! 9b6
The only move.
27 i.xf8!
Not 27 'ifxb6 lL:!xb6 28 .i.xf8 xf8 and
Black is completely OK.
27 . . .'it'xd4 28 ltlxd4 Wxf8

Now White is nearly winning. But first he

Even though White is a pawn up, he has to
be vety quick and precise in his play, because
otherwise Black's active bishop and his rook
on the open c-file will tell.
29 d6! lidS 30 lle7 ltlc5 31 b4?!
But time pressure can also tell. The line 31
llc7! llxd6 32 llc8+! e7 33 l:xc5 llxd4 34
lL:!xg7 would promise more winning chances.
.
3 1 . ltle4!
. .
has to pass the time control.
33 . . ..i.b1
33...i.g6 34 lL:!de6+ fxe6 35 lL:!xc6+ ..te8 36
lL:!xdS dB 37 llct is also good for White.
34 a3! ltle8 35 ltlxe8 wxe8 36 ltle2! .i.e4
37 ltlg3 J.c6 38 ltlf5 J:l.d 1 + 39 'iti>h2 lld2
40 Wg3
Nothing is spoiled! And now, with another
hour on the clock, it's more pleasant for
White.
40 .. Jld3+ 41 f3 llxa3 42 ltlxh6 J.d5
42..l:b3 43 lL:!xf7 llxb4 44 h4 is also win
ning.
43 ltlf5!

For the moment Short defends correcdy. If

31...:Xd6 32 bxc5 llxd4 33 llxb7 llc4 34
l:b8+ e7 35 lL:!xg7 .1g6! (or 35 llxc5 36
...

llb7+ 8 37 lL:!e6+ fxe6 38 l:lxh7) 36 l:lc8

and White is better.
32 ltlxg7 ltlxd6?
But here he makes a decisive mistake.
32. :Xd6 would be enough for a draw; e.g. 33
..

lL:!dfS lld1+ 34 ..th2 lL:!d6 35 lies lL:!xfS 36

lL:!xfS lla1 . Maybe Black missed that after 35 43 . . . b57

37
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004
This is pure desperation. 43...llb3 would
also lose by force to 44 h4! l:txb4 45 h5 .ie6
46 t'llg7+ '1tf8 47 lllxe6+ fxe6 48 h6 'iPgB 49
h3! a5 SO g4 a4 51 g5 or 49. ..l:tf4 SO g4!.
Instead, with 43...'d81 44 l:r.cS .i..e6 Black
could still play on, though after 45 h4 his sur
vival chances are minimal; e.g. 4S...b6 46 l:r.e5
aS 47 llld4.
44 h4
Now the pawn queens by itself.
44. . .d8 45 lla7 a5 46 h6 ..te4 47 'IPJ4
axb4 48 h6 i.xf5 49 5 :Xa7 50 h7 1 -0
,...----
Game 6
San Segundo-Shirov
Madrid 1 997
Kif!g's Indian Defence
These annotations were done after the
tournament and published in various maga
zines, including Schach.
1 d4 ll\f6 2 lLif3 g6 3 c4 ..tg7 4 lDc3 0-0
5 e4 d6 6 h3
Even though this set-up is in Pablo's reper
toire it still came as a surprise to me, because
nowadays he normally employs 6 .i..e2 eS 7
.i..e3 and so on.
6...e5 7 d5 a5
Three years ago (also in Madrid) I played
7...llla6 against San Segundo and won a crazy
game. This time I felt like being more solid.
8 ..te3 ll\a6 9 ll\d2
9 . .. ll\d7!?
38
After 9.. .lllc5 White could avoill playing the
standard g2-g4 and continue 10 .i.e2.
1 0 g4
Now this is probably not the best option.
More ambitious is 10 t'llb3 b6 (10...lllac51? 1 1
lllxc5 t'llxc5 was what I wanted to do) 1 1 g4
fS 12 .id3 and White was slighdy better in the
game Khalifman-Damljanovic, Manila Inter
zonal 1990, which he went on to win.
1 0 . . .ll\dc61?
The immediate 10 ... f5 looked very interest
ing as well, but when you have two options
you've got to choose! And sometimes, as in
this case, you can't even explain why you pre
fer one to the other.
1 1 ll\b3?!
This is out of place. He should have tried
something like 1 1 l:tgt 'irh4 12 t'llf3 'fle7.
11 ttlxb3 1 2 xb3 'irh4!
..
Now Black is starting to stand better. At
this moment I already saw my 1 6th move and
hoped that my opponent would not notice it
in time. Such an idea appears to be very natu
ral only when you sec it played.
1 3 :g1 ? !
It was already time for some stubborn de
fence like 1 3 1Wdt intending 13....i..h6 1 4 1i"d2.
1 3 ... ..th6! 1 4 g5 ..tg7 1 5 0-0-0?1 f5 1 6
gxf6?
Falling into the trap. However, after the
only move 1 6 exf5, Black can get a serious
advantage with either the positional 1 6...gxf5
or the sharp, and probably even stronger,

1 6....ixf5!.
a) 1 6 ...gxf5 1 7 f3 (if 17 g6 f4 1 8 gxh7+ h8
19 .id2 tiJc5 20 'ifa3 'ifxf2) 17 ... f4 1 8 .id2
'i'f2! 1 9 .ig2 5 20 1i'c2 .t5 21 e4 'ife2!
and Black is clearly better.
b) 1 6.. .ixf5! 17 1i'xb7 i.d7! (17.. J:lfb8 18
1i'c6 would be unclear) 1 8 .ta7 (if 18 1i'b3
llxf2 19 i.xf2 'ifxf2) 18 ... 1lxa7! 1 9 1i'xa7 5
20 'ifxc7 (or 20 'ifxa5 'ifxf2 21 :g2 1i'e3+ 22
llgd2 e4) 20...1i'xf2 21 1lg2 'i'e3+ 22 :gd2 a4!
and I don't see a good defence for White;
for example 23 1i'a5 'i'xg5 24 bt i.h6! 25
lle2 a31! 26 'i'x.'\3 (or 26 b3 W5+ 27 1
'l'xfl 28 llxfl llxfl+ 29 tiJbt e4) 26 '1'5+
...
27 al 1i'xf1 28 llxf1 llxft+ 29 bt i.f5 30
'ira8+ i.8 31 a4 hb1 32 l:e3 e4 with a deci
sive advantage.
1 6 ....i.h6!!
The point of everything. White's position is
now completdy hopeless.
Sele c t e d Games
1 7 ltla4
If 17 l1b5 llxf6 1 8 J.xh6 'i'xh6+ 1 9 1i'e3
1i'xe3+ 20 fxe3 J.d7, or 17 .txh6 'irxh6+ 1 8
l:td2 llxf6 19 lldt llc5 20 'ifc2 i.d7.
1 7 ....i.d7!
Complications like 1 7...1lxf6 1 8 c5! are
rather unnecessary.
1 8 f7+ llxf7 1 9 1Wxb7 xa4!
20 1Wxa8+ llf8 2 1 1ixf8+
Otherwise it's mate; for example 21 'irxa6
'i'xf2 22 J..d3 J..xe3+ 23 b 1 llb8 24 b3
i.xb3 etc.
21 .. .'xf8 22 bh6+ 1Wxh6+ 23 lld2
liJb4 0-1
The bishop manoeuvre ...g7-h6-g7-h6
seems amusing to me, but the game otherwise
is too one-sided.
Game l
Shirov-Salov
Madrid 1 997
Scandinavian Dtfence
The annotations to this game were done
shortly after the tournament and published in
various magazines, including New in Chess and
Schach.
My goal in the final three rounds was to
score two points, which would possibly guar
antee me a rating of 2700 in the next list. As I
happened to play guys against whom I was
accustomed to doing well, I had to start try-
ing...
39
Fire on Board Part /1: 1 99 7-2004

1 e4 d5 Salov would hardly miss th e opportunity to

Even though Valery had already played this weaken his opponent's pawn structure.
against Short in Dos Hermanas, I still didn't 1 2 gxf3 cxd5 1 3 .i.xd5 71
expect it here. So it wasn't the best surprise Again the correct decision. I expected
for me, especially as I was now facing the 1 3...li)c6 1 4 0-0-0 .ia3 1 5 c3 when White is
Scandinavian Defence for the first time. clearly better.
2 exd5 11t'xd5 3 llJc3 'ira5 4 d4 liJf6 5 liJf3 14 0-0-0
c6 6 .i.c4 .i.f5 7 ..td2 e6 8 liJd5
Trying to follow some game of Bologan,
only to learn afterwards that Victor had in f.'\ct
played 8 li)e4 against Ionov (who used to
work a lot with Salov) in Kazan 1 995.
8 ... 'ird8 9 llJxf6+ 'irxf6

1 4 i.c3? would turn on a cold shower; i.e.

14 ... ..ib41 1 5 ..ixb4 'irxb2 and Black is better.
14 . . . ..ta3! 1 5 c3 0-0 1 6 .i.e4!
A good square for the bishop.
1 6 ....i.e7?!
This move should have been severely pun
1 0 1t"e2! ished. Correct is 16 ... ..ic5 17 .1.c3 Le3+ 1 8
l thought that I was still in a kind of open Wxe3, and although White i s still a little better,
ing book', so my opponent sinking into a long the position offers fight.
thought here made me puzzled. Only check
ing the database later indicated that my move
was a novelty! And a strong one besides. The
latest m.-ws on this line had been 1 0 0-0 li)d?
(10 . .ig4!?
. . may be t)uitc word1y actually) 1 1
c3 .id6 1 2 ..i.g5 'lfg6 1 3 11fd2 h6 1 4 .if4 i.e7
1 5 lZfet 0-0 1 6 i.g3 and White was slighdy
better in Campora-Wolff, Buenos Aires 1997.
After my game 1 0 ..e2 became the main line
and nowadays there is a lot of theory.
10 .. .tg4
Otherwise White would hold a strong ini
tiative; for example 1 O .ixc2 11 d5 with a
.

strong attack. I was intending 1 1 dS against 1 7 ..txh7 +?!

10 .. .li)d7 with as well, though today 1 1 i.gS Grabbing a pawn, for which Black gets
11fg6 1 2 0-0-0 is considered the critical line. some counterplay. 17 .ixb7 :ab8 18 .te4
1 1 d5 .i.xf31 l:tfc8 or 1 8 .1.c6 lbe5 1 9 J.e4 lZfc8 with com.

40

pensation would be a similar story, but what I
missed wa.c; a brilliant bishop sacrifice. To be
precise, I saw the sacrifice itself but the varia
tions I was calculating seemed insufficient to
me It was a great pity I didn't see thinbrs to
.
the end as it was objectively the strongest con
tinuation and the mating attack (should Black
accept the sacrifice) is really beautiful. Let's
see: 17 h4! h6 (the only move) 1 8 i.gSI hxgS
1 9 i.h7+!! (not 1 9 l:.xd7? gxh4) 19 ... h8 20
hxgS is the critical position.
Now if Black takes the pawn he loses by
force: 20...1i'xg5+ 21 Wb l lt:lf6 (if 21 ...llfd8
22 f4 'i'xf4 23 l:d4 'ti'g5 24 f4 'i'cS 25 W'h2)
22 i.c2+ g8 23 l:dgt 'i'f4 (if 23 ...'i'd5 24
'l'e3) 24 'ifft!! g6 (or 24...l:fd8 25 'lfh3 f8
26 1Wh8+ tbg8 27 l:txg7 e8 28 l:.g4) 25 'ifg2
llfd8 (if 2s ...ttlg4 26 1i'h3t lllh6 27 i.xg6 .tgs
28 'i'hS) 26 i.xg6 i.cS 27 J.xf7+1 xf7 (or
27...Wf8 28 1i'g7+ We7 29 llet Wd7 30 l:xe6)
28 1Wg7+ e8 29 .Uh8+ llJg8 30 'ii'xgB+ d7
(or 30...e7 31 'ith7+ d6 32 .:dt+) 31
l:t.dt+ .id6 32 llh7+ q;,c6 (or 32 c8 33
..
1i'xe6+ b8 34 'ifdS) 33 1Wxe6 'ireS (if
33...ltab8 34 llh6 followed by 35 lld4) 34
llxd6+ 'ifxd6 35 1Wc4+ 'ifcS (if 35 .. .'b6 36
'itb3+ cS 37 11fb4+ dS 38 'it'xb7+) 36
llc7+ Wxc7 37 'it'xeS+ d7 38 f4 and so on.
So the correct way for Black is to give back
the piece by 20...'iff4+!, when White goes 21
bt , and now 2L.i.xg5 (not 2t...llfd8? 22
ltd4 1i'xg5 23 f4 or 22...1WeS 23 i.5+ g8 24
lldh4 'WxfS+ 25 Wa1 f6 26 g6 and wins) 22
Selected Games
llxd7 i.h6 is the toughest, though after 23
i.c2 White's advantage is stiU quite clear.
1 7 ...'itixh7 1 8 Vl'd3 + Wg8 1 9 xd7 b6!
20 llhg1
20. llad8!
. .
Throwing another pawn but getting maxi
mum activity.
21 'lfxa7
I f 21 'iVb7 lld3 with counterplay.
21 .. i.c5 22 e3
.
There is no way to keep both extra pawns.
22 ...lla8 23 1Wb7 llxa2 24 "ile41 i.xe3+ ?!
Severe time-trouble approaches and Salov
starts going astray. After 24...llfa8 it would be
hard for White to prove a real advantage.
25 fxe3 b5?
Another error. In the endgame after
25... llc8 26 'ifd4 jfxd4 27 exd4 l:aS! Black
would keep some drawing chances.
26 c2 b4
Desperately trying to attack. Otherwise
WhJte would have a sound extra pawn; e.g.
26...1tc8 27 1i'd4 'ifxd4 28 l:txd4 or 26...lla4
27 lld4.
27 1Wxb4 11i'f5+
During the game I saw no clear win against
27 ... 'ifxf3; for instance 28 .:xg7+? 1;xg7 29
l:tg1+ f6 30 'Wh4+ eS 31 'ird4+ <itfS 32
'ifd3+ eS is only a draw. But the next day
Valery indicated that 28 b3!! should achieve
the aim. A sample variation is 28...llaa8 29
llxg7+ f/;xg7 30 l:tgt+ Wf6 31 1Wh4+ litl'cS 32
'ifd4+ fS 33 e4+ f4 34 'i'f6+ <ite3 35
41
Fire on Board Par t II: 1 9 9 7- 2004

llet+ Wd2 (or 35...'i'e2 36 li'gS+ 'iti>d3 37 the knockout system is perfect for producing a
'i'bS+) 36 1i'xf3 IZ.tb8+ 37 c4 l:.c8+ 38 d4 clear winner, because you have to win all the
IZ.dS+ 39 eS and White wins. matcl1es against people who won all their
28 Wb3 llaa8?? matches before!
In my four knockout cl1ampionships I was
eliminated three times by Vishy Anand at
different stages (once in the final), and in Las
Vegas 1 999 it was the Romanian GM Liviu
Dieter Nisipeanu who knocked me out at the
quarter-final stage, when my chances to win
the championship seemed the greatest (Anand
was absent). Since I always made it through to
round five at least, I can have an overall feel
ing of satisfaction, but finding games for this
book from those championships is not an easy
task because the tension often makes both
opponents err! However, the present game,
The fatal mistake. Things would still nor be the second of the founh round, was quite
that clear after 28 1Z.a5 29 e4 (not now 29
... good. The first game ended in a draw and now
llxg7+? xg7 30 :.gt+ h7 31 1i'xf8 JibS+ I had to try to make use of the white pieces.
32 a3 liaS+ with a draw) 29 ...1i'h5 30 c2 1 e4 c5 2 c!Of3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c!Oxd4 c!Of6
JibS (or 30 'i'xh2+ 31 ltl2 'ifxg1 32 ..xaS
... 5 c!Oc3 e6 6 g4!?
and if 32 ..1i'hl 33 lld8!) 31 'i'd4
. g6, but in The Keres Attack has been popular for
the long run White's material advantage decades, but now I am not sure whether it is
should tell. the best way to fight against the Schevcningcn.
29 llxg7+ 1 -0 More about my thoughts on this opening will
Black resigned due to the obvious be given in my next book.
29...g7 30 ltgt+. 6 . h6 7 h3!?
The more aggressive 7 h4 is another critical
Game S line.
Shirov-Akopian 7 . . . a6 8 i.g2 g5
FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997
Sicilian Defence, Schevening_en Variation

The annotations to this game are based on

my notes made after the tournament for l'!for
mator 71. The text was added when working
on the book.
In 1 997 was the first occasion that the
FIDE World Knockout Championship was
introduced. During the years the innovation
received a great deal of criticism and finally, in
2002, the knockout championships were sus
pended. In my opinion there was nothing
wrong with them: the aim of the world cham This known strategical idea, to stop White's
pionship is tu determine the champion and possible pawn assault with f2-f4, is usually

42

more effective when White's bishop is already
on e3.
9 b3!?
This new move was found by Bologan a
few years before the present game, but it had
to wait to be played. Normally White 'auto
matically' puts his bishop on e3 (as I
had done several times before), but then
sometimes tries to move it to b2 anyway!
9 . . ltlbd7 1 0 .i.b2 .!t:le5 1 1 1i'd2 .i.d7
Trying to exploit a temporary weakness of
the dark squares with 1 t ...l'Dg6 would proba
bly lead nowhere after 1 2 0-0-0 ttlf4 1 3 .i.3!,
but it is very interesting to exchange the h
pawns by 1 1 ...h5!?, a move that wouldn't be
possible in standard lines with the white
bishop on e3. After 1 2 0-0-0 hxg4 1 3 hxg4
llg8 1 4 f.3 .i.d7 it turns out that White will
never be able to play f.3-f4 (as in my
because then the g4-pawn would become ter
ribly weak! The idea was introduced into prac
tice by Kiril Georgiev against Kveinys in Bad
Worishofen 2002. Probably White's whole
up is not good enough for an advantage, but
that's a different story.
1 2 0-0-0 Wc7 1 3 f4!?
13 ttlce2! would be slightly more accurate,
when White is slightly better.
13 gxf4
1 4 .!t:lce21
During the game, this move seemed to me
tltc best in order to place my pieces in an ideal
way, while 14 1Wxf4 i..e7, planning to answer
Selected Games
1 5 ttlf3 with 1 5...0-0-0 1 6 lbe2 lbg6, looked
less clear.
What didn't enter my mind was tltat 1 could
also continue 1 4 ttlde2!? 3 1 5 i..x 3, as tried
half a year later in a rapid game Moreno
Carnero-Salov, Villarrobledo 1 998. Black
myself didn't take the bishop because of 1 6 11ff4
when White has the initiative. Nevertheless,
after the normal response 1 5 ... 0-0-0 1 6 llhf1
i..e7 White didn't manage to prove tllat his
pieces stood any better than in my game. Mo
reno Carnero-Salov continued 17 b 1 b8
1 8 J.h 1 J.c6 1 9 4 i..e8 (I would recom
mend 1 9 ... i..d7 followed by ... J.c8) 20 ttlce2
ttlfd7 21 iLlf4 when we can see that White was
proceeding with the same plan after all. The
game ended in a draw following severe mutual
errors.
game) 14 .te7
Here 1 4... 0?! 1 5 ttlx3 c!ilie4? wouldn't
work because of 1 6 11fe3 llc8 17 c4 ttlxc4 (the
only move) 1 8 bxc4 11fxc4+ 1 9 b 1 llg8 20
set ttle5! with a clear advantage.
1 5 .!i:lxf4 0-0-0 1 6 b1 ..PbS 1 7 :hf1 !
White is slightly better because of his space
advantage, but Black's only weakness is his
h6-pawn and White can't approach it very
easily. Still, he does have a plan.
17 .. .tc8
Keeping things as solid as possible. Com
plications like 17 ...1ldg8 18 tL!d3t or 17.)lk8
18 ttlf.3! would favour White.
1 8 ltlde2! l:th7 1 9 .!L\g3 b6 20 .!t:lgh5
43
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2 004

At the moment blockading Black's weak-

ness.
20 . . .lDfd7
As White will be able to exchange knights
anyway it was worth considering 20 ...ltlxh5 21
lDxhs aS!?. In the game Black pushed this
pawn a little late - on the 28th move.
21 lDd3 .i.b7 22 lDxe5 lDxe5

26 .'a7!
.

Excellent. It turns out that Black has no

weaknesses anymore and his pieces arc co

ordinated, while White's queen is out of play.

Everything depends on small nuances now.
27 g6 1tc5 28 1Wf4
1 f zs .td4?! Wbs.
28 a5! 29 llfd1
.

When I analysed the game for the first time I think that 29 a41? was stronger, as then at
I thought that 22...dxe5 would be stronger and least the white king would be safe. Now Black
that White should continue 23 1i'c3!?. In fact, gets real counterplay.
the queen exchange does favour White in this 29. . . a4 30 .in a3 31 ..ia1
new structure and I think that his chances uf lf 31 .i.d4 1i'a5!.
getting a serious edge are quite good. There 31 ...lDc6! 32 h4 .i.xf6 33 gxf6 lDe61
fore capturing with the knight seems correct. Black lost a tempo on purpose - it's more
23 lDf6?! important to get the 'g4' or 'g2' square for his
White is consistent in his plan to place his rook. Another possibility is 33.. . e5!? 34 1i'f3
pieces on the best squares, but he underesti ltXI4 35 .txd4 exd4, but I think the text is
mates Black's pawn sacrifice, after which the stronger.
game becomes very sharp. He should have 34 J.e2 llg2 35 h5!
continued quietly 23 1i'f2! planning to double
rooks on the d-fde with a slight advantage.
23 .. llg7!
This is stronger than 23 ...l:thh8, when I
would play 24 1i'f2! (not 24 .txeS? dxcS 25
7+ cB) in a better version than on the
previous move and then double rooks; e.g.
24...a7 25 l:td2 and White is clearly better.
24 1i'xh6
Even here 24 Wff2!? deserved attention, but
J thought there would be nothing wrong with
taking his pawn and then trying to consolidate.
24. . .llg6 25 Wh4 lieS 26 lld2

44

Freeing the h4 square for the queen,
'threatening' to promote a new one orne day,
and trying to ignore Black's threats before
they become real!
35 ...1i'c6?
And after this mistake, made in mutual
time-trouble, they won't become real! Instead
Black had 3S Ilf21 36 1i'h4 llg2! (not
..
36...tbc4? 37 bxc4 1ib4+ 38 cl llxe2 39
ltxe2 'ii'xc4 40 11re1 .i.xe4 41 lld4 1ixa2 42
.tc3 ami wins), forcing White to play 37
.id4!? (or else go for tie-break games after 37
1if4 1lf2) 37...1i'c6 and now probably 38 'i'f4
(if 38 cl i..a6 39 i..xa6 tb3!) 38...'i'xe4 39
i.xeS .xeS! (not 39 ...dxeS?! 40 1i'xe4 i..xe4
41 i..d3 and White is better) 40 'ifxeS dxeS
with a very unclear endgame.
36 i.xe5 dxe5 37 1i'xe5
White has won a second pawn which is
worth the game because, in other lines, i t
could become a passer. The rest was relatively
easy for me: I just had to try to exchange
pieces, promote the h-pawn, watch for his
tricks and.. . collect more pawns!
37 ...l:lg5
[f 37 ...'i'xe4 38 'i'xe4 i..xe4 39 -td3.
38 1Wd4 'tWxe4 39 'tWxe4 J.xe4 40 c1 !
40 .l:lf5 41 l:lf1 l:ld5
. .
If 41..Jlxf1 + 42 i..xf1 l:th8 43 lld7+ fit>bS
44 .te2.
42 .td1 !
Better than 42 c4 bS 43 ltf4 bxc4! 44 bxc4
lieS.
Selected Games
42 ... b5 43 l:lf4! l:lxd2
Or 43....th7 44 .fl.xdS exdS 4S ilg4.
44 'iir'xd2 :dB+ 45 'iPc1 .tf5 46 l:lb4 'iPb6
47 .te2
47 c4!? cS 48 llxb5+ <ifild4 49 liaS also
wins.
47 ...c5 48 l:lxb5+
From this moment the b-pawn becomes
White's main force.
48 . 'iPd4 49 :as We3 50 i.d1 'iW4
..
l f 50...Wt'2 51 b4!.
51 l:la7!
Not 51 La3 eS 52 l:Z.a7 .i.e6!.
51 ...l:lf8 52 :xa3 e5 53 b4 e4 54 b5 e3
55 b6 J.e4 56 l:la4!? We5 57 1la7 Wf4
If 57...Wxf6 58 lla3 WeS 59 llxe3 f5 60
llb3 f4 61 h6! wins.
sa a4 :9s 59 :Xt71 :91 60 :91 :n 6 1
f 7 'it'e5 62 'it>b2 1 -0
I hope the reader will forgive me for not
commenting much on the last twenty moves -
they were rather simple.
By winning this game I qualified for the
fifth round to meet Anand, and since then
Anand has been a bi:te noire for me!
Game 9
Shirov-Kramnik
Wijk aan Zee 1 998
Sicilian Dtfence, Richter-Rau!(!r
This game was annotated shortly after the
tournament and published in various maga-
45
Fire on Board Par t II: 1 9 9 7- 2 004
zincs, i ncluding New in Chess.
1 e4 c5 2 /.l)f3 c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 /.l)xd4
lC!f6 5 /.l)c3 d6 6 .ig5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 8
0-0-0 h6 9 .te3 i.e7
This was the second time Vladimir had
employed this set-up against me. In Unares
1 997 I continued 10 f4. Here I chose a 'less
active' move.
1 0 f3 xd4 1 1 .ixd4 e5! ?
Tlus came as a surprise as l l ...bS i s more
usual nowadays. The text move was tried by
Christopher Lutz against me in Munich 1 993,
and that grune was published in the first vol
ume of Fire on Board. 1 mention this because,
shortly before the present game, it was ru
moured that Vladimir had bought my book at
the beginning of the Wijk aan Zee tourna
ment, so when he played 1 1...e5 I realised that
he might perfectly well have read my annota
tions through and drawn his own conclusions.
This gave me mixed feelings: on one hand I
felt kind of proud that the leading grandmas
ter had read my book, but at the same time I 1 9 .../.l)xd5 20 .id2 0-0
couldn't even remember what 1 had written
there! With such a memory I should probably
read over my book myself occasionally...
which seems to apply to this book as well!
1 2 .ie3 .ie6
In the game with Lutz I was so impressed
by Black's set-up that, afterwards, I immedi
ately stated 10 3 to be a dubious move. But
of course I wouldn't play it again five years
Luer had I still thought the same.
46
1 3 b1 :ca 1 4 h41?
The idea is not to play g2-g4 too early as it
would allow Black to sacrifice the exchange in
even better circumstances than in the game.
14 ...'Wa5 1 5 a3 b5!
A new move, which is probably stronger
titan t S...l:xc3 1 6 'i'xc3 'i'xc3 1 7 bxc3 dS 1 8
exdS xdS 1 9 .id2 and White was bener in
one of Lanka's games in Germany.
1 6 g4!?
This looks risky as after tlte standard sacri
fice White's 3-pawn will be very weak. But I
didn't see any other way to fight for the ad
vantage; for example 1 6 dS 'i'xd2 1 7 l:xd2
(1 7 xf6+ gxf6 18 flxd2 f5 is good for Black)
17 ... d5 18 exdS .id7 would lead to a com
pletely even grune.
1 6... 1lxc3 1 7 9xc3 Wxc3 1 8 bxc3 d5 19
exd5
Of course there is no place for strange tac
tics like 1 9 gS? 11Xg5 20 hxgS l:xlt1 21 gxf6
l:xfl 22 l:xfl .ixf6 when Black stands better.
Black had many possibilities and it's not
easy to pick the best one. During the grune I
was afraid of 20... e4?! 21 fxe4 J.xg4, but in
fact 22 llet b6 23 .ie3 yields White a better
game. Possibly the best option was 20... b6
which I was going to answer with 21 :le1 !?.
Anand's suggestion 21 c4!? xc4 22 J.xc4
J.xc4 23 J.b4 is also interesting.
21 c4 bxc4 22 ..ixc4 :ba+
I had a feeling that this move was a mistake

since now White confidently gets a slightly
better game. But it's not easy to suggest a real
improvement; for instance 22...tt:k3+ 23 .i.xc3
.i.xc4 24 .i.xeS and 22. J.xa3 23 .i.xdS .ixdS
..
24 .i.b4! are good for White.
23 .ib3 .ixa3
Here Kramnik offered me a draw, but I felt
that I could safely play on.
24 llhe1 f6 25 l:le4!?
I was attracted by the idea of activating my
rook, but now the white pieces stand in slightly
shaky positions. Fortunately, at the end every
thing comes out right. Simpler, though not nec
essarily stronger, is 25 'ita2 .i.f8 (25....i.c5!? 26
.i.aS f4) 26 lle3 f7 27 :d3 llbS.
25 ....ic5 26 lla4 liJc7
27 b2!!
The only move to keep the advantage. 27
a2 .i.xb3+ 28 cxb3 lidS would yield Black
sufficient compensation for the exchange.
Selected Gam e s
27 ...h7
Probably the correct decision to keep ten
sion in the posicion. Exchanges would work in
my favour; for example 27 ... Lb3 28 cxb3
lld8 29 c2 ltlb5 30 .i.et lDd4+ 31 b2.
28 .ie1 ! .id5
Again after 28 ... .i.xb3 29 cxb3 .i.d4+ 30
J.c3 White is clearly better.
29 lld3 .tc6 30 l:lc4! liJe6 31 Af2!
3 1 ....tb5?
I think tlte decision to go for the endgame
with a rook against two bishops is incorrect.
After 31 ....ixf2 32 IZ.xc6 lJc5 33 :.ds White
would still stand better, but there would be
some drawing chances for Black.
32 :.Xc5 ILixc5 33 .ixc5 .txd3 34 cxd3
h5 35 c3 llc8
Both players arc in time-trouble and Black
doesn't select the right defence. His only
chance to save the game is to play 35...hxg4 36
fxg4 g6 either now or later. All the same, I
believe that with accurate play White would be
able to convert his advantage.
36 b4 llb8+ 37 a4 g6?
Again 37...hxg4 38 fxg4 g6 was called for.
Now White is probably just winning.
38 .te6! l:lh8 39 Af2 6 40 a5 hxg4
41 fxg4 g6
Too late.
42 g5+ ! g7
If 42...fxg5 43 .i.e3.
43 xa6!
It was still possible to go wrong. l was
47
Fire on Board Part 1/: 1 9 9 7-2004
tempted to play 43 d4?, which probably only
leads to a draw after 43... exd4! (43...118!? is
also possible) 44 .i.xd4 (or 44 gxf6+ Wxf6 45
.i.xd4+ 'lii'xe6 46 .i.xh8 <itfS 47 .i.c3 g5 48 h5
g4) 44. :Xh4 45 gxf6+ (or 45 i.xf6+ h7)
..
45...Wh7 46 .tc5 l:lf4 47 i.e7 gS.
43 Jld8
evaluating: what is the best game? For some
If 43...fxg5 44 hxg5 llh2 45 .i.cS l:ld2 46
.i.c4 wins.
44 i.c4 f5 45 Wb7 e4
Black's last hope is to trade 'e' and r pawns
for 'd' and 'h', when the resulting endgame is
probably drawn. Now if I take on e4 Black
may achieve his goal, but fortunately I figured
out that, with two bishops against rook, one
passed pawn is stronger than twol
46 d4! !
I f 46 rj;c7 l:la8 or 46 .i.b6 l:le8 then Black
has counterplay.
46 . . .f4 47 d5 e3 48 i.e1 f3 49 Wc7!
The last finesse. Now, the game is over.
49 . .llf8
Or 49...l:la8 50 d6.
50 d6 1lf4 5 1 .i.c3+ h7
If Sl ...'it8 52 d7 :Xc4+ 53 'iii>d6 wins.
52 .td3 1 -0
Gatne 10
Shirov-Topalov
linares 1 998
Sicilian Defence, Kan Variation
The game was annotated shortly after the
48
tournament and published in various maga
zmes.
Chess players are often asked what is their
very best game and nearly always the answer is
that it hasn't been played yet. I think that such
a reply is primarily due to the difficulty in
years I considered the present game to be my
best ever, mainly because the calculations I
made and the moves I found weren't seen or
anticipated by anyone who was watching, in
cluding some strong players in the pressroom
and, of course, the computers. But does this
precision in the later stages allow me to ignore
my rather weak play in the opening and still
evaluate the game as the very best? I don't
know for sure.
1 e4 c5 2 lL'If3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL\xd4 a6
I should mention that Topalov surprised
me by choosing the Paulsen, which explains
my next move.
5 .td3
At that time I usually played 5 lbc3 (nowa
days I employ 5 i.d3 more often), but in Til
burg 1 997 Svidler had sprung a relatively new
line on me: 5 ... b5 6 .Ll3 1ib6 7 lbb3 Vc7,
and after all he even won the game. Not very
surprisingly, Topalov adopts the same ma
noeuvre.
5 ...Wb6 6 lL'Ib3 'flc7
Here I understood that, to prove the logic
of my 5th move, I should avoid putting my
knight on c3 by whatever means; that is to say,
White shouldn't play lbc3 before Black plays
...lbf6. If Black avoids it for a long time,
White can do something else. In the game
...lb6 followed swiftly, but then I came up
with a concrete, although not necessarily cor
rect, approach for White.
7 'fle2
7 0-0 and 7 c4 are other possibilities.
7 . . .lL\f6 8 lL'Ic3 d6 9 f4 j.e7 10 e571
This move is connected with a pawn sacri
fice which seemed very interesting to me dur
ing the game, but looks a lot less convincing
now.

1 0...dxe5 1 1 fxe5 .!Dfd7 1 2 .tf4 o!Dc6 13
0-0 li:)dxe5
I assessed this position as slightly better for
Black because, even though White has some
compensation for the sacrificed pawn, it re
quires a lot of effort to prove it sound.
1 4 ltae1 'ilb6+ 1 5 Wh1
1 5 .i.e3 'ilrd8 looks safe for Black.
1 5 . . .o!Dxd3
During the game I was more afraid of
1 S.)t)g6!?, but it seems that White can get
some play by continuing 1 6 .i.e3 (worse is 16
.i.g3 0-0 1 7 1fh5 ll:\b4) 16...1lc7 17 4 0-0
(17 ... ll:\b4 1 8 .le4 and i f 1 8.. 5 1 9 c31) 1 8
.
.i.xg6 h xg6 1 9 tl)b6 llb8 20 tl)c4 with com
pensation.
1 6 1Vxd3 0-0 1 7 1tg3 h8?1
With this move Black simply loses a tempo
and, moreover, puts his king in a worse posi-
Sele c ted Games
tion. Both 17 ... f6 and 1 7. f5 deserved serious
..
attention and 1 fmd it hard to say which one
was the best option. So let's have a look:
a) 1 7 .. 5 1 8 1L.c7 'ifa7 1 9 lba4 i.d8 20
.
tl)b6 (20 J.d6? llf6) 20 ....i.xc7 21 'ilxc7 llf7
22 lbxc8 Zlxc7 23 tl)xa7 ltlxa71 24 ltkl4 tl)bSI
25 lbxe6 l:xc2 26 a4! (Black is better after 26
:xf5 1le8 27 Zlefl hS 28 ll8+ :X8 29 Zlxf8+
h7) 26 lbd6 27 lldt ll:\c4 28 :ld7 with
...
compensation. I n this endgame White is really
fighting for survival, but probably with rea
son.-tble chances of succeeding.
b) 1 7... f6 1 8 .i.c7 'ffa7 19 tl)a4 Jid8
(1 9... c5!? 20 tl)b6 Jie6, with a superior version
of the game, deserves auention too) 20 .i.xd8
lbxd8 21 'i'd6! ll:\t7 22 'ireS 1fxc5 (or
22...'ifb8 23 tLlb6 lla7 24 Zle3) 23 tLlbxcS eS
24 lbb6 lla7 25 c4 and it looks again as if
White maintains nearly sufficient compensa
tion for the pawn.
18 .tc7 fla7 1 9 o!Da4 f6 20 .tb6 'ihJS 21
.tc7 'ika7 22 li:)b6!?
A debatable decision but probably a correct
one. A 'dull' draw after 22 J.b6 was not ex
actly what I wanted that day.
22 e5 23 o!Dxa8 1txa8 24 .:d1 l:e81
Black cannot allow the exchange of bish
ops. After 24....i.e6? 25 .i.d6 he would always
be worse.
25 .td6 .idS
26 c5!?
A very intuitive move; I felt that my previ
ous play had to be continued logically. 1 also
49
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7-2004
calculated the variation that occurred in the
game later on and thought that 29 'lfd3 would
work. Afterwards I was 'accused' by nearly
everyone of not seeing 29 1i'g4 when playing
26 cS. 1 don't really understand what is
wrong about it, since my opponent went for
this particular line and did not see 29 'llg4 and
31 trf3 either. If I remember correctly, it was
Nigel Short (Svidler's second in Linares) who
said in the pressroom something like 'Shirov's
moves can either be of a genius or a patzer'.
The collection of Nigel's games in my books
may indicate the reason for such an attitude.
26 .. b6 27 e4 c!Od4?!
This seems to be a mistake as the forth
coming complications are favourable for
White. Instead Black had many interesting
possibilities; for instance 27 ....1e6!? 28 .1a3
lLkl4 with unclear play.
28 i.xe5! f5!
Not 28...fxe5? 29 6 and wins.
29 Wg4!
On reaching this point I realised, of course,
that botlt 29 1i'd3? .i.b7! 30 'ifd7 (or 30 :x5
.1xe4 31 'ifd7 .1xg2+ 32 gl i.e7 33 i.d4
.i.h3) 30...i.c6 31 'ilf7 h6 321i'h5 fxeS and
29 ll'c3? i.b7 were really bad for me. But I
didn't panic since I felt that in such a position
there should always be something. After mak
ing my move I saw the line Topalov subse
quently went for, but almost immediately 1
calculated what would be my response to that.
29 ...ll'!e3?
50
This natural move leads to severe trouble.
29...d6? is also bad; i.e. 30 'Whs 1i'xe4 31
i.xd6 i.g4 32 'iff7 i.xdl 33 .tm 1i'g6 34
i.xg7+ 'ifxg7 35 'ifxe8+ 1l'g8 36 'ifxg8+
Wxg8 37 :xdl and wins, so the only real
chance is 29... fxe5 30 :xf5lL.e7 31 'iff3 i.x5
32 1i'xf5 with a slight advantage for White.
Actually, I'm not sure about that assessment
now. Probably the position is nearly equal in
tile last line, so it's questionable to call
27...d4 a mistake. But 29...3 definitely is!
301Wh5! llg8?
And this just loses. No better is 30...g6 31
:xd8 or 3o ..:m 31 'iff7! :gs 32 .:r.xd8 :xd8
.
33 .i.xf6 :gs 34 Lg7+ :xg7 35 1i'e8+ .:r.gs
36 'ifeS+ :g7 37 l:tf8 mate. The only chance
was 30...'ifc6, but after 31 :d6 White is clearly
better anyway, as the variations show:
a) 31.. 1i'bs 32 :et i.g4 33 'fff7 1i'xc5 34
.
:xe3 i.hS 35 ds f4 (or 3S...'ifxd5 36
:xdS i.g6 37 %Z.dd3 Ji.c7 38 2 .i.cS 39 :d2
l:[8 40 3 witlt a decisive advantagt:) 36
'lld3 (not 36 %let i.c7 37 xhs g6) 36...i.c7
37 g3 1Wf5 (or 37...'1fxe3 38 .xe3 bd6 39
'lfxb6) 38 f6 xd3 39 :xeS+ be8 40
:xd3 gxf6 41 :C3 and Black loses a bishop.
b) 31...Ji.g4 32 llxc6 i.xhS 33 :et lDxc2
(or 33...:Xe5 34 l:Z.xe3 ..tg4 35 l:[d3 l:Z.e8 36 h3
Ji.5 37 d6 :e1 + 38 h2 Ji.xd3 39 :cs) 34
:xc2 :XeS 35 llc8 :ds 36 c3 l:[d6 37 g4
i.g6 38 :dt .i.d3 39 gl g8 40 e4 l:Z.d7
41 f2 winning a piece.
31 Wt31
 Selected Games

Now it's all over. Black loses material by I think the game was good enough to show
force. here: 6...l0d6 7 hc6 bxc6 8 dxeS lOb7 9
31 .. l.Zxd1 l0d4 0-0 10l0c3 l:te8 (the immediate 1o . .tc5 ..

Or 31...l0xfl 32 l0cl6 1la7 33 l0xc8 1ff7 is probably more critical, planning to speculate
341lxf1. with a possible .. . d7-d5 after 11 lldt l:te8) 11
32 t'Dd6 1t'a7 .tf4 .tc5 12 'ifd2! (now White prevents the
If 32 ...1fxf3 33l0f7 mate. ...d5 idea) 12 ... '1fh4 13 l:tad1 .i.xd4 14 ...xd4
33 ttlxc8 1t'd7 34 ltld6 10 l0d8 15 .tg3 1i'xd4 16 llxd4 l0e6 17 :Ld2
There is no way to save the knight, so To l:tb8 18 b3.
palov resigned.

Game11
Shirov-Kramnik
Linares 1998
Rt!Y Lopez, Bfll'lin Defence

The annotations to this game are based on

my notes made after the tournament for l'!for
IHalor 72. The text was added when working
on the book.
When this game was played I was leading
the tournament with +2 after winning the
famous ending against Topalov. As that game Black has exchanged queens and maintains
was long and tough with many mistakes, and rather a solid position, but his bishop can't
since Kramnik had half a point less, I wasn't come out from c8 as the d-pawn is completely
sure whether I would feel especially motivated stuck. Piket tries active measures but they only
to beat him. A quiet opening suited me per play into White's hands: 18... l:lb4 19 l:tfd1 c5
fectly in such a situation, but after his mistake 20 l0d5 l:td4 21 c3 llxd2 22 llxd2 c4 (Black
on move 14 everything changed and I became probably didnt like 22. . ..tb7 23 c4) 23 b4!
more determined. .tb7
1 e4 e5 2 tt'lf3 ltlc6 3 .tb5 ttif6 4 0-0
lbxe4 5 d4 J.e71?
This old version of the Berlin Defence has
never been especiall y popular and thus took
me by surprise. Later on it virtually disap
peared from practice, and for today's players
the 'Berlin Defence' means only the ending
arising after 5...l0d6, to which Kramnik, by
the way, made an important contribution to
theory.
6 dxe5
l more or less remembered that White
should play 6 'We2 if he wants to fight for the
advantage, but still I didn't want to see his 24 f4l d6 25 f5 .txd5 26 llxd5 lOgS 27
preparation. A few weeks later I did dare try it exd6 cxd6 28 .txd6 f6 29 i.c5 h5 30 .txa7
- against Piker in a blindfold game in Monaco. lle1+ 31 W2 llct 32 b5l0e4+ 33 'it?e3l0xc3

51
Fire on Board Pa rt II: 199 7-2004
34 :IdS+ Wh7 35 b6 l:bl 36 .:r.d7 xa2 37
.:r.c7 c3 38 d3 :dt+ 39 Wc2 :ld2+ 40 Wb3
:lxg2 41 llxc3! xc3 42 xc3 llg1 43 b7
l:lbl 44 b8'ir :Xbs 45 .i.xb8 g6 46 d4 gxf5
47 c;t>e3 'i!;lg6 48 f4 h4 49 h3 1 -0 Shirov
Piket, Monaco (blindfold) 1998.
6 .. 0-0 7 lte1
As I knew nothing about 7 1Wd5 [ stuck to
my insipid opening pL-.y.
7 ... d5 8 exd6 .ixd6 9 .!i)bd2 ..if5!?
A novelty which is probably OK, though I
would prefer 9...d2 1 0 .i.xd2 'irf6!? and
White must be careful not to get a worse posi
tion.
1 0 .!i)c4 .tb41
Forcing White to exchange queens but, as l
mentioned, I didn't really mind that.
1 1 c3
1 1 .i.xc6? .i.xe1 1 2 'i'xd8 .i.x2+ 13 ft
:.axd8 1 4 i.xe4 .i.xe4 1 5 c;t>xf2 i.xc2 would
be bad for White, as Black's rook and two
pawns are definitely stronger than the two
knights.
1 1 ..xd1 1 2 l:lxd1 .ic6 1 3 .te3 ltle7!
14 Jle1 ! J.xe3?!
A first step in the wrong direction. After
the game I thought that Black could easily
equalise with 1 4. .ti)g6, but here the computer
. And now Black weakens his queensidc in
suggests a curious move, 1 5 .td4!?, which
reminds me a lot... of my move 14 i.d4
against Ftacnik played half a year later! As that
game is also included in the book, the reader
wiU understand what I mean. I have no idea
52
whether I would have found 15 i.d4 had
Kramnik played 14...g6. but in any case it's
not that effective here as the precise 15 ...i.e7!
.
maintains equality.
1 5 .!Lixe3 .!Lid6
1 5....lg6 1 6 5 is also slighdy better for
White.
1 6 f5 .!Liexf5
1 7 .ta4!!
Although this move is definitely not as
spectacular as my 47....i.h3!! played one round
earlier against Topalov, I stiU consider it one
of most memorable in my career. I worked
out that after the natural 1 7 i.d3 :res I
would have no advantage, so it became clear
to me that I should fight for the e-file or make
him weaken his queenside. Fairly simple, but
stiU.. .
1 7 ...g6
1 7...b5 1 8 i.c2 llfc8 1 9 a4! was what I was
aiming for. Black's position wouldn't be easy
to defend after, for example, '19...a6 20 g4
h6 21 h3 as his pieces stand rather passively.
Nevertheless, it might have been a better op
tion than the text, because now White does
take full control over the e-ftle.
1 8 lle2 b5?!
worse circumstances than in the previous
note. I think he should have chosen 1 8...l:lfd8
or 18 h5!?.
.
1 9 .tc2 llfeB 20 ltae1 llxe2
If 20 . f8 21 5 and White is better.
. .

2 1 :Xe2
Black has traded one pair of rooks, but if
he exchanges the other one with 21...1lfe8 22
llxe8+ e8, his position in the knight end
game arising after 23 i.x5 gxf5 will be terri
ble due to the weak pawns bS and especially
5. So he should look for something else.
21 a5?
And this 'active' move practically throws
the game, since now White can immediately
begin a direct attack against Black's weak
nesses on the queenside. 21...a6!? or 21...h5
would have been better tries.
22 Ae5 b4 23 Ac51 bxc3 24 llxc3! l0b5?!
Once again Black's activity only provokes a
quicker end. 24...l:ta7 was necessary, but I be
lieve White should still win in the long run.
25 llc4!
Another fine move that makes me remem
ber this game with aesthetic pleasure.
Selected Games
25 ...Ad8
2S...l2)fd6 26 l:tcS a4 would be the last real
try in this game. White would probably con
tinue 27 a3 fixing the weakness.
26 Wf1 l0e7?!
Losing the pawn immediately, but after
26...l2)fd4 27 l2)xd4 l:txd4 28 lieS llb4 29 b3
he wouldn't be able to save it anyway.
27 a4lLld6 28 l:r.xc7
White has the better pieces, he is a pawn
up, and the black pawn on aS is still weak.
Black tries to confuse things in mutual time
trouble but everything ends alright.
28 l0d5 29 Ac5 11.Jb4 30 i..b3 lLld3 31
..
l:lxa5lLlxb2
The terminal station for the knight.
32 Ad&! llb8 33 ll!d2 lib& 34 e2 :as
35 lld4 ltlb7 36 l0e4! l:tb6 37 i..d 5 g7
38 d2 l0d6 39 t:bc3! !tits 40 Af4 'iin6
41 a5 1 -0
Black resigned due to the obvious 41...l:ta6
(if 4t...llb8 42 a6 and the pawn queens) 42
l:b4 and White wins the knight.
1 would conclude that, although two knights
have pmctically the same value as a bishop and
knight even in open positions, the side with the
two knightc; should be careful because there are
often practical problems. The bishop still con
trols more squares than the knight and some
times, as in this game, that factor can be impor
tant. It's a pity that after this game 1 still didn't
win Unares. Anand won two games in a row in
the next two rounds, while I lost my game
53
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004

against Svidler and ended up half a point be On the other occasions I tried 9....tf5,
hind the Indian star. 9 ... b5 and 9...ltla5 but all without success. By
,.......---- which I mean success in the opening, although
Game 12 I could apply it to the game results as well!
Karpov-Shirov 10 d5 ltla5 1 1 ltld2 c5 1 2 a3f?
Monaco (rapid) 1998 A new move, which looks stronger to me
King's Indian D(ence than the previously played 12 b3.
""-----llll-
lillo --------...
1 2 ltlg4!?
..

The game was annotated shortly after the Trying to create complications. The natural
tournament and published in various maga 12... b5 13cxbS axb5 14 b4 cxb4 15 :xb4!?
:;dnes, including Ches.t:Ba.re Magatfne. However, would yield White a small advantage.
the deep analysis of the position after Black's 1 3 11fc2 ltle5 1 4 b3 b5
29th move was mainly done when working on
tl1e book.
Anatoly Karpov has always bc.:en a very dif
ficult opponent for me and I think I have
managed to beat him only in some rapid
games so far. Even today he demonstrates an
incredible tenacity in defending worse posi
tions, so he still loses very seldom, although
his number of wins has diminished during the
last decade.
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lDf3 .i.g7 4 g3 0-0 5
.i.g2 d6 6 o-o lLlc6 7 ltlc3 a6 8 J:e1 J:b8
9 J:b1
1 5 h3?!
This proves to be too slow. White should
have played 15 cxb5 axb5 16 b4! cxb4 17 axb4
lt!ac4 18ltlxc4, and I must admit that I don't
like the position after 18... bxc4 very much for
Black, while 18...lt!xc4? just fails to 19ltlxb5.
1 5 . . . bxc4 1 6 bxc4 :xb1 1 7 c!Llcxb1 1i'b6l
1 8l0c3!

Again Karpov goes for this variation. I had

already faced it three times against him before
tl1e current game and I was never able to
equalise in the opening, even though in Wijk
aan Zee 1998 1 was almost winning later on.
So this time I made another attempt to save
Black's honour.
s .. .:ea

54

By tactical means White saves the pawn,
which would otherwise drop after, for exam
ple, 18 f4? ttlexc4.
1 8 .. ..i.f51
18 ...lbaxc4?? was of course impossible due
to 19 ttlxc4ltlxc4 20 'ira4.
1 9 e4 J..d7 20 1
After the game Karpov claimed that this
move was too passive. The other, and proba
bly the better, option was 20 ltle2!? gS with
unclear play.
20 . . .ltb8!
I was thinking about a funny knight sacri
fice: 20...ttlb3!?, but the position after 21
'ifxb3 Wxb3 22 li)xb3 L4 23 lbxcS dxcS 24
li)b2 seemed quite unclear to me. Meanwhile
with the text I could already hope for the ad
vantage.
21 f4?!
Played unexpectedly quickly and probably
badly. However, Black's position was already
preferable in any case; e.g. 2tltlc3? ttlb3 or 21
lle3 g5.
21 . . .h4!
This was the idea behind the previous
move, of course.
22 1i'xa4 d3 23 lbf3
Missing Black's reply, although 23 llfl
ltlxc1 would also be very unpleasant for
White.
23. . .lbxe1 !!
If I just recaptured the bishop, the position
would be unclear after 23.)bxct 24 eS. By
Selected Games
taking the rook Black sacrifices some material
but penetrates with his heavy pieces. And it
turns out that White has practically no de
fence.
24 lbxe1 1fb1
25 1i'xa5?!
25 i.e3 would offer slightly more resis
tance, though Black still has a big advantage
after 25...ltlb3 26 .i.3 .i.d4.
25 . . .1i'xc1
Now Black should be winning. lt's amusing
how powerless White's knights are on the
back rank.
26 i.f3
After 26 Wa4 llbl 27 .i.3 'ird2 28 'ife8+
(28 ft loses outright to 28....1Lc3 ! 29 ltlg2
.i.d4 ! 30 i.e2 11fc3!) 28...i.f8 29 'iii'fl, Black
would possibly be forced to 'give up' his rook
for White's knight and bishop with 29...1lxc11
30 i.xdl tlxdl, but he emerges with a deci
sive advantage; e.g. 31 W'c6 1i'b3 32 .xa6
'ifxg3 and White's a-pawn is too far away
from promotion, while Black will create
deadly threats with his queen and bishop
sooner or later.
26 ...J..d4+ 27 h2!
The best practical chance. 27 <ili>f1 llb3 is
curtains.
27 ...:b3?
When victory is close, Black starts to err.
The easiest way was 27 'irxc4.
..
28 h4! ltxa3?
Again not the best. A relatively forced win
55
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7- 2004
could be achieved by 28...g7 29 h5 gxh5 30
.i.xh5 llxa3 31 ds d2+ 32lDg2 l:ta2 Qess
clear is 32.....tg1+ 33 h3) 33 .i.f3 ...d3 34
...xe7 .i.f6.
2911Vd8+ g7
30 e5??
Now it's very easy for Black, whereas after
30 h5!, threatening 31 h6+ xh6 32 1!ff8+, it
would not be so! When I checked the analysis
made five years ago I noticed that it wasn't
very accurate. At that time I thought Black
could still win after 30 h5, but now I have fi
nally come to the conclusion that White draws
with precise play. How many hours I've had
to spend to be sure I know the truth about the
position! Wdl, let's see the lines:
a) 30...1i'd2+ 31 g2 :.xf3 (if 31...h6 32
hxg6 llx3 then 33 9xe7 'it>xg6 34 '1t>h31 and
White has at least a draw in all variations) 32
h6+ xh6 33 'iff8+ j_g7 (if 33...Cjfj>h5 34 'ifxf7
:n 35 11fxh7+ Wg4 36 'ifxg6+ f3 371i'h5+
Wxe4 38 'fi'g6+ is perpetual) 34 'ifxe7 f6 35
11fe6 :xg3 36 Wxg3 'it'xdl 3711Vh3+11Vh5 38
.e6 defends.
b) 30 ...gxh5 31 ...xe7 .i.6 32 11fxd6 11t'd2+
33lDg2 l:txf3 34 eS .i.gs 35 fxgS 'irxdt 36 e6
draws.
c) 30 :Xf3! is the best chance and then:
..
c1) 31 lbxf3 loses quickly after 31...'ifxd1
32 h6+ 6 33lbxd4 (if 33 'iff8+ 'it>hS 34
xd4 g4! wins) 33... cxd4 34 1i'xe7 'i'e2+ 35
h3 (or 35 'it'g1 d3 36 'iigS+ g7 37 e5 dxe5
38 fxeS 1118 39 d6 h6!) 35...'iff1+ 36 'ith2
56
'iff2+ 37 Wh3 1i'g1! 38 g4 9e3+ 39 h4
...f2+ 40 Wh3 11fxf4 with a decisive advantage.
c2) 31 h6+! (the only move) 31 . . .xh6
32 Wf8+ .tg7 33 Wxe7 llxf4! (the point! -
if the check on d2 was included, the f-pawn
wouJd be protected by the knight on g2) 34
gxf4 Wxf4+ 35 Wg2 'Wg4+ 36 Wf1 Wxd1
37 9114 + 'Wh5 38 Wf4+ g5 39 1Wxd6+ f6
]n 1998 I ended my analysis in this position
with the assessment 'Black is better'. How
ever, the real investigation only starts here!
White has two reasonable queen moves, 40
'i'e6 and 40 'ile7, but only the latter move
draws:
40 'i'e6 is losing after 40...'i'h1+ 41 We2
(41 Wf2 'ifh4+! is the same thing; 41...1i'h2+
42 lbg2 seems less clear) 41...'iih2+ 42 dt
'iieS! 43 'ifxeS fxcS 44 lbd3 (Black also wins
after 44 d6 aS 45 3 a4 46 lDxcS a3 47ll)b3
g4) 44.. .i.f8! (only this!
. - giving up the c
pawn would yield White at least equal chances
after 44...g6 45 ll)xcS aS 46lbb71 a4 47 cS)
45 xeS g7 46lbc6 f6! and I don't think
White can save tht: brame; for example 47 eS+
fS 48 d6 e6 49lbd8+ <itxeS 50 d7 j_e7 51
6+ e6 52 d81W .i.xd8 53 xd8+ <iteS and
d1e knight is powerless against the three
passed pawns.
The question is, of course, why 40 1We7 is
to be preferred to 40 'i'e6. It turns out that
after 40 'Wh1 + (if 40...'1'113+ 41 e2 f5 42
...
'i'e6+ draws) 41 'iPe2 inl2+ 42 d1 (on 42
f1 the best reply is 42 ... g4! 43 1i'xc5 1i'f4+
 Selected Games

and wins, or 43 2 g3! 44 ...xeS 1i'h1+ 45 lE!xcS! (see below) and not 46 d7 i.f6 47
...gl 'ifxgl+ 46 xgl .i.8! and White cannot lE!xcS+ g5 which is winning for Black; e.g.
save the endgame; e.g. 47lhh4 gS 48 thfS 48 llf7+ (also insufficient is 48 lld3 h5 49
f4 49 d6 'it>xe4 SO d7 icS+ 5 1 g2 i.b6 52 e2 h4 50 llxc5 f4 51 lle6+ xe4 or 51
thd6+ d4 53 'ithg3 aS etc.) 42 .'5'e5, White
lhxa6 h3 52 lhc7 i.h4 53 lhdS+ xe4 54
has the resource 43 d6! lhc3+ 'ifi>d4 55 lC!bS+ WeS and White loses)
48 ... f4 49 d8'it i.xd8 50 llxd8 xe4 51
lC!e6

and further deep analysis demonstrates that

there is no win here:
a) 43...f5 44lhf3! 1i'f4 (after 44 . .'..al+ 45
. 51 ...c.i?f3! (the only move that wins!) 52
e2 .i.f6 46 f8+ hS 47 'tin+ g4 48 lC!xcS h5! 53 e1 h4 54 fl h3 55 Wg1 aS!
.xh7! 'irb2+ 49 lhd2 White is not worse, and White is helpless against three black
while 45 ...2+ 46 .i.c3 47 "ife6+ hS passed pawns.
48 "ifdSl is similar to 44 ....f4) 45 lhct2 .i.c3
.. After the correct move 46 xeS!, Black's
46 'ire6+ hS 471ifd5 i.xd2 48 1i'xd2 1i'fl+ best chance is 46. . .a5, when White again has
49 'it>c2 "ifxc4+ SO b2. to find the only move 47 h2! (after 47 d7
b) 43...1ifd4+ 44 We2 1ixc4+ 45 'it>t2 (45 i..f6 48 liXJ3 fl 49 lbxcS+ We6 SO llxg4
dl would be the same) 45 ...1ifd4+ {if 45... f5 .i.e7 Black is even temporarily a pawn down,
d1cn 46 lhf3!) 46 e2 fS (not 46...'tte5 47 but either the h- or a-pawn will queen) and
llX13!) 47 d7 .i.f6 48 'tif8+ WhS 49 'l'e8+ then:
g4 50 eSI and Black would have nothing c1) 47 ...i.f6 forces 48 lE!a4!, and after
better than a perpetual check. Black's best 48...'f7 49 cS We6 50 lC!b6 h5 51
Instead Black may insist on exchanging lhc4 Wd7 52 lC!xaS h4 53 t2. things are
queens with ... rather similar to the main line in the next note.
c) 43 g6! when, under the threat of
.. If now 53... i.g5 54 thc4 .i.f4 White is just in
44.. 1i'xe7 45 dxe7 fl. White is obliged to go
. time to save the game with 55 tClb6+ Wc6 56
for 44 'irxe5 fxe5 45 ltld3 but, despite be d7 Wc7 57 c6 h3 (or 57 ...i.g5 58 lhc4) 58
ing two pawns down, White achieves the draw thdS+ dB 59 c7+ d7 60 llf6+ Wxc7 61
because his passed pawns are strong enough. llxg4.
Black can't stop them as easily as in the 40 c2) 47 ..h5 (the main line) 48 lDe6! (only
.

11fe6 line (where he was able to play ... .i.fB! this! 48llb7 a4 49 c5 a3 50 d7 i..f6 51 c6 a2
when the white pawn was stiU on d5). Never 52 c7 a1'1' 53 c8'i' 'ifa2+ 54 Wd3 'itb3+ is
theless, White has to be extremely careful. For hopeless for White since he loses his e4-pawn
instance, after 45...g41 he should continue 46 with check and, later on, will be unable to

57
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
fight against Black's passed pawns; meanwhile
the same idea as in previous variation, 48lL!a4
f7 49 c5 e6 50 lL!b6, wouldn't work here
because Black has 50....tf8! 51 l2Jc4 a4 keep
ing the a-pawn alive) 48....i.f6 49 c5 'iW7
50 &Dc7 a4! (giving up the passed a-pawn in
order to deactivate the white knight is the best
practical winning chance; 50...h4 would be
weaker in view of 51 c6 h3 52 f2 i.h4+ 53
gl) 51 ltJb5 a3! (if 51...We6 52 c6 .i.dB 53
c7 fiti>d7 54 cxd8...+ fiti>xd8 55 l2Ja3 d7 56
l2Jc4 draws) 52 xa3 'Ote6
Now White's passed pawns are stopped
while Black's will be supported by the bishop
on f4. Nevertheless, White can still resist with
53 ltJc4 'it>d7 54 b2 .i.g5 55 3 .i.f4!
56 f2! (but not 56l2Jxf4 exf4 57 2 h4 58 just lucky that it wasn't his day.
Wg2 h3+ 59 h2 f3 60 g3 c6 or 58 gl 30...9d2+ 3 1 2 :Xf3 32 9xe7 dxe5
'ttc6! 59 e5 d7 with zugzwang!) 56 .. .'ii' c6
57 d3 and Black can't really improve his
58
position. The most he can achieve is a bishop
versus knight endgame with extra pawns on
g3 and h4 which, contrary to the computer's
assessments, is not enough to win; e.g. 57...h4
58l2Jf2 g3 59 l2Jh3 .tct 60 r.to .ta3 6tlL!gS
i.xc5 62 'it>g2 i.xd6 63lL!f3 with a draw.
As we can see I had to analyse to this very
endgame position to 'conclude' that Black
cannot win after 30 hS!. I am not sure whether
the hours and days spent were worth it, but
sometimes chess research really fascinates me.
I should also add that 30 eS?? is not at all typi
cal of Karpov, because with his incredible
defensive skills he would nonnally see 30 hS!
within half a second (remember his 42....i.e4!!
against Kasparov in New York 2002!). I was
33 h5 xd1 0-1
White has no perpetual and so resigned.

..------.
Game 13
Kramnik-Shirov
WCC Candidates (game 9), Cazorla 1998
Griinfeld Defence
This game was annotated when working on
the book.
When my match against Kramn.ik was
ended I couldn't annotate the games for
magaines or Informator because of private
troubles. Later on, the match itself was the
trouble: the case became known as 'Cazorla's
fraud' and eventually it was not me, the win
ner, but Kramnik, the loser, who played the
match against Kasparov in 2000, a match
which was supposed to be the winner's only
prize in Cazorla! Meanwhile, the loser's prize
was a reasonable cheque - and then it was
nicely supplemented. Even now, when re
membering the Cazorla match, which remains
one of my greatest achievements at the chess
board, it is not easy for me to concentrate on
the chess part of the games and analyse them
properly. And this decisive ninth game (I
leading 4Vz-31/z, so victory would finish the
match. while a draw would practically do the
job as weU since I would be White in the final
game) is also a very complicated one. There
fore 1 have decided just to give it some brief
remarks. My 19th and 21st moves, as weU as
the sporting importance, are the main reasons
for including this game in the book. In the
next volume there will be a broader chess
story with more annotated games from Ca
zorla.
1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 g6
Ready for the Griinfeld Defence, as in all
my games with Black in the match.
3 f3
This move came as a surprise. But at least it
was an 'expected' surprise, because it was clear
that my opponent would have to do some
thing special in his last game as White, though
it was difficult to guess what it would be. I had
employed 3 f3 myself, as long ago as 1987-88
Selec ted Gsmes
in a couple of games against Kamsky (without
much success, despite getting reasonably good
positions), so now I had to decide whether to
use my old and definitely insufficient knowl
edge or try something new.
3 d5
.
It was not easy to make the right choice ac
cording to the match situation. Nonnally I
wouldn't mind playing 3 ..c5 and turn the
.
game into a Samisch King's Indian which I
knew reasonably well. Instead I decided to
play more safely (before the match J decided
that I would not defend any King's Indians)
and soon ended up in unknown territory.
4 cxd5 li)xd5 5 e4 lDb6 6 lDc3 i.g7 7
.tea 0-0
was
8 1Wd2!
The exclamation mark is for taking me out
of my lmowledge. 8 f4 was supposed to be the
main line and after 8..ltlc6 9 dSltlaS 10 .i.d4
.
eS! Black is doing reasonably OK in tl1e com
plications, so I wouldn't mind going into such
a game. But now I had to work at the board
with not much time, no knowledge, and not
much understanding of this particular position
either, while Kramnik, as he later admitted,
had everything more or less prepared to move
14.
a e51?
...
I had a brief look at8...ltlc6 9 0-0-0 eS 10
dS ltld4 11 f4 (11 ltlbS!? is also known and
interesting, though I didn't even consider it
during the game) 1 1 .. c5, but it seemed to me
.
59
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7- 2004
that I would need preparation to play this line.
In fact the game would be very double-edged.
9 d5 c6
1 0 h41
I underestimated this, of course. The
threatened direct attack on the kingside is very
strong.
1 0 h5?1
A dubious novelty, though as I mentioned,
the position was completely new to me any
way. Instead lO.. cxdS l 1 exdS l!8d7 (11...f5!?
. the pressure. Even now 1 wouldn't like to be
12 hS gxhS 13 llxhS l18d7, suggested b}'
Kramnik.'s second, GM Sakaev, is interesting
but hardly advisable) 12 hS lbf6 13 hxg6 fxg6
14 0-0-0 was tested in tournament practice
both before and after 1998 and I think Black
has a reasonable game after 14....i.d7.
Now, when writing these annotations, I
can't really understand why I didn't play the
immediate tO cxdS 11 cxd5l18d7, but when
. the game in the end, but that is a different
the clock is ticking and the situation is so
tense ... Nevertheless, there is no reason to play
incorrect chess! After tO.. hS Black's position
. 1S...i.d7 16 llh3 would be a loss of tempo
becomes strategically very difficult.
1 1 .te2
When working on this game I naturally
checked what other GMs wrote about it. Here
Igor Stohl suggested an interesting move: 11
lldt!?, trying to save a tempo on .i.e2, but I
think that Black may then try 11... cxd5 12
exdS lba6 13 .i.e2 .i.d7 14 g4 ltc8 creating
some counter-threats. Neither can I see
whether, after 11...llbd7, White has anything
60
better than 12 J.e2, so 11 .i.e2 is probably the
most accurate move.
1 1 ...cxd5 1 2 exd5 ltl8d7
Now 12...lba6 13 g4 .i.d7 14 gxhS gxhS 15
i.h6 is definitely not advisable for Black, since
White still has the option of castling long.
1 3 d6 tt.\f6 1 4 .i.g5 :ea?
As I said, Kramnik had everything pre
pared; he played quickly and confidently up to
this point and here I completely cracked under
Black after 14 .td7 or 14 .ic6, but either
... ...
move would at least yield me a playable posi
tion, whereas the text should have sent my
game going downhill. The disadvantage of
14... 1le8 is that it doesn't really challenge
White's development, while putting Black in
danger of a decisive d6-d7 in some lines.
Amusingly, this was what helped me to win
story.
1 5 :d1 .i.e6
compared with 'l4...i.c..l7, but maybe I should
still have preferred it. Meanwhile, the ChessUase
Maga:dne suggestion 16 li'lbS (instead of 16
llh3) would be wrong because of 16....txb5
17 .i.xbS lle6 and White's pride, the d6-pawn,
will soon be in trouble.
1 6 ttlh3 c!tlc4 1 7 .bc4 .i.xc4 1 8 b3 .taG!
Sometimes optimism helps! As I could only
see myself in darkness after 18....i.e6 19llf2,
followed by 0-0 with a clear edge based on the

powerful d6-pawn, I decided at all costs to
prevent White from castling. And it worked!
1 9 d5?
But of course the co-operation of my op
ponent at such an important stage was neces
sary. Instead 19 d7! was probably the way to
play. I was planning to continue 19...l1.e6, not
seeing that I could also tty the knight sacrifice
l9...'1'xd7!? 20 ...xd7 ltlxd7 21 llxd7 e4
which Kramnik was afraid of, if I remember
correctly. However, in this case White would
emerge with a nearly decisive advantage after
22 ltldS! exf3+ 23 7+ h7 (23.. }it;f8 24
f2) 24 gx3. So it's quite clear that 19....Z:.e6 is
pretty much forced, though it's very hard to
find a reasonable reply after 20 lbdS; for ex
ample 20...i.b5 21 i.xf6 .txf6 22 ltlgS and
White is close to winning.
19 e4!l
Suddenly all my moves in this game became
justified as the complications are favourable
for Black. White's king is in the centre, he is
down in development and there are no lines
that work weU for him. Such is the price of a
single error.
20 tl::l xf6+?
A typical example of how one big mistake
is usually followed by another. This time 20 d7
would allow a very strong rook sacrifice
20...exf3+! 21 dxe8'1'+ 'ii'xe8+ 22 ...e3 (22
tbe3?ltle4) 22...ltlxd5 23 .Z:.xd5 ...c6! 24 .Z:.d8+
llxd8 25 i.xd8 'l'c2 26 'ireS+ i.8 and Black
wins. Instead 20 llk7+ was a must, when I
Selected Games
very much like Black's position after 20....Z:.xe7
21 dxe7 'ifxe7 as now 22 'iVd6 can be an
swered very strongly by 22......e8!, but it's also
clear that with 22 f2 White is in the game.
20 .txf6 21 d7
..
This is now the only continuation (how
much better to move that pawn earlier!), and
just as after 20 d7 Black is not forced to move
the rook from e8!
21 . 1ib&!!
I didn't see this move beforehand, but it
came very naturally as I felt that the position
of White's king had to be exploited somehow.
2t...:l.e6 was also possible but why calculate
other moves when you are just winning!
22 dxe8W + AxeS 23 1le3
It's easy to see that there was nothing e1se;
e.g. 23 .ie3 J..xh4+ 24ltlf2 exf3 winning im
mediately.
23 . . . .txg51 24 Wxb6 .txh4+
Without this intermediate check, the whole
idea with ...Wb6 wouldn't work, of course
25 Wd2
The best chance. Both 25 ltl2 exf3+ and
25 'W2 ex3+ 26 coiiod2 .ix2 lose even more
quickly.
25 .. axb6 26 fxe4 .C.xe4
Two bishops and two pawns are nearly al
ways a greater force than rook and knight, and
the presence of one more rook on each side
only increases Black's advantage. Some tech
nique is still required, but knowing that it
would bring me victory in the march I didn't
61
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
allow myself any moments of weakness.
27 Wc2 l:lg4 28 l:ld2 .i.e7! 29 l:lg1 Wg7
There is no hurry in endgames! I learnt this
principle (Capablanca's, I think) from
Shereshevsky's book E.ndgan1e Stmtegy when I
was young, and it worked well at the high
points of my career such as this one.
30 lDf2 l:lf4 3 1 lDd3 lte4 32 l:lgd1?1
32 lDf2 would b e useless i n view of
32... 1le6, but 32 a4!? should have been tried as
Black's bishop would be temporarily out of
play. Still, his advantage after 32.. i.g5 33 llf2
f5 is more than sufficient.
32 .. .ib5! 33 a4 .i.e& 34 l:e1 ?!
White finally manages to exchange rooks,
but losing the g2-pawn means throwing the
towel. However, there was no other real
chance to hold, as otherwise Black would
simply advance his kingside pawns one day.
34 l:lxe1 35llJxe1 .ib4
..
62
36 l:le2 ..txe1 37 lbe 1 ..txg2 38 Wd2 h4
39 we3 .id5 40 b4 h3 41 l:le2 f51?
4 1...g5 was winning too, but I didn't want
to put my bishop on g2 just yet.
42 l:d2 .ie4!?
42... .i.g2!? 43 f2 was what I wanted to
avoid, even though 43 ...g5 44 lld7+ f6 45
lld6+ We5 46 l:r.xb6 f4 still wins.
43 4 ..tg2
Now! With the white king on g3, Black's
... f5-f4 will be with check.
44 l:ld7+
Or 44 g3 f4+ 45 Wh2 gS etc.
44 'iW6 45 l:lh7 g5+ 46 Wg3 f4+ 47
.. .
Wg4 'it>e5 0-1
Going across to collect more white pawns.
Here I accepted my opponent's congratula
tions and I could not imagine at that moment
the 'meaning' of that peak of my chess career.
Game 14
Markowski-Shirov
Polanica Zdroj 1998
Riti Opening
The annotations to this game are based on
my article 'Forget Deep Blue', written shortly
after the tournament and published in various
magazines, including Schach. The article in
cluded two games of mine and dealt with the
'new computer chess tendencies' such as the
1<3sparov-Deep Blue match and 'Advanced
Chess' events. I believe that these are not cur
rently the most important subjects and there
fore I have changed the text a little.
This game was played at a very critical
moment for me. I had only 2 points from 5
games and couldn't help the annoying feeling
that some people would start questioning my
wee candidacy and stuff like that.
How naive I was five years ago! Nowadays
we know that the 'world championship candi
dacy' often has little to do with sporting
achievements and failures. At least the '1998
wee story' was a matter of intrigues, not re
sults. Nevertheless, looking back at Polanic.1

1998 (played two months after the match in
Ca:zorla), I should say that finishing the diffi
cult tournament 'in style' (with 31/2 points
from the last 4games) made me very satisfied.
And the present game is especially memorable
because of the deep and precise calculations 1
managed to make.
1 lL!f3 d5 2 g3 .tg4 3 i.g2 lL!d7 4 c4 e6
5 cxd5
During my preparation I noticed that
Tomasz Markowski is quite a specialist in the
1 liJf3 opening. Here he goes for the early
pawn exchange on dS which is the correct
strategical decision, as White shouldn't wait
until Black plays ... c6 and c"lln take on dS with
the other pawn.
5 exd5 6 0-0 lL!gf6 7 d3 c6
.
I made this move almost automatically as
Black nearly always plays it in such positions.
However, if he wants to place his bishop on
cS he might as well do it immediately, whereas
the text appears to be a tempo loss. Then
again, perhaps I am exaggerating things here,
since in most cases it just leads to a transposi
tion and the position is roughly equal in either
case.
8 1rc2 .tc5 9 e4 0-0
1 0 h3
Not yet a mistake, but I think Black's
bishop will be better placed on hS (and some
times on g6) than on g4. Therefore I would
prefer 10liJc3.
1 0 .th5 1 1 lhbd2?!
..
Sele c ted Games
But this seems to be erroneous as White
will now get in trouble with his e-pawn. Again,
11liJc3 would be correct
1 1 dxe4! 1 2 dxe4 .Ue8 1 3 b3?!
.
Another inaccuracy. After 13 liJh4 White
could still hope for an even fight.
1 3 . . ."ife7!
Now there is no way to avoid material
losses, though White can still hope to get
some compensation.
1 4 .tb2
During the game I was afraid of 14 liJh4
ii'eS 15 li::lfS 1Wxat 16 .ib2 'i'xa2 17 llal
'irxal+ (17....id1?! 18 1i'c1 .i.xb3 19 l:txa2
.i.xa2 20 i.xf6 gxf6 seems less attractive to
me) 18 .i.xa1, but analysis convinces me that
after lS .. .t8 Black's position is excellent.
.
14 lLlxe4! 1 5 :l.ae1
.
The right decision. Otherwise White has
nothing for the pawn; for example 15 ltlxe4
1i'xe416 9c3liJf6!.
1 5 .tg6!
..
I was tempted to sacrifice the queen, but
the position arising after 15...i.xf3 16 .i.xf3
tili:d2 17 l:lxe7liJxf3+ 18 g2ltlh4+ 19 gxh4
Le7, although a little better for Black, did
nor seem clear enough to me. 17 1fxd2 'i'd6
18 1Vxd6 i.xd6 19 l:ldt lbes 20 i.xeS i.xeS
21 lld7 Lb8 22 l:lel also yields White good
drawing chances.
1 64!
Again, less concrete play would leave White
a pawn down; e.g. 16 ltlxe4 .i.xe4 17 1i'c3
63
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7 - 2 00 4

11'f8 and if 18 llxe4 llxe4 t9lbg5 J:leS. In this position I nearly stopped calculating
as I couldn't see anything real, but now I
doubt that after 22. ..txd 23 fxe3 l:txa2 24
.

.1Ld4 J:lxg2+ 25 lbxg2 c5 26 l:te 7 .i.xg2 27

i.xg7 .i.xh3 it would be so easy for White to
make a draw.
Looking back at those chaotic old annota
tions I should perhaps conclude that
16...lbxg3 was objectively stronger than
16....i.xf2+, although the move played in the
game is certainly more interesting. I should
also mention that 16...lbxf2? would be bad in
view of 17 l:txe7 .i.xc2 18 l:txd7 lladB 19
l:txd8 llxdB 20 b41.
1 6 ....txf2+ !? 1 7 l:txf2li:)xf2 1 8 l:txe7 i.xc2 1 9 :Xd7 !
I spent 45 minutes thinking about this,
leaving myself less than half an hour to reach
the time control. It was very difficult to decide
whether the text was better than 16...lDxg3,
which also seemed very attractive. Even now I
cannot quite decide which of the two options
is better, but it seems that the line I chose at
least contained more traps and hidden things.
After 16 ..xg3!? White would continue 17
.

.r:.xe7! (not 17 lili.g6? 1i'g5! 18 11fd3lt\xf1 19

J:lxe8+ llxe8 20 'i'xd7 .r:.ds 21 ..txf2+ 22
Wxfl 'ifbS+ 23 xf2 l:txd7 winning)
17 .....txc2 18 .:Xd7 lbxft (not 18 ...J:lad8? 19
l:txd8 llxd8 20 J:let) 19 lbxf1 and I couldn't The correct approach. Keeping the active
find a way to establish Black's advantage, rook is fundamental to White's counterplay.
while White's defence is pretty easy; for ex The other option would be much worse; i.e.
ample 19.. J:lad81? 20 l:txb7 lle2 2tlbe3 .i.e4!
. 19 .:xe8+? llxeB 20 f2 lbcS and Black is
22 .tc3 (not 22 .txe4? .i.xd and wins). clearly better.
1 9 llad8!
.

Meanwhile Black has to try to exchange this

rook by whatever means. My original inten
tion, 19. l0dt, would not promise anything
..

real in view of 20 lbc4!, increasing White's

activity and counterplay.
20 l:txd8 J:lxd8 21 li:)c4 !
This is better than 21 xf2!? llxd2+ 22
el (if 22 cii>e3? lld3+ 23 Wf2 .i.xb3 wins)
22...1ld8 when Black has the better chances.
21 3
..

2t...lbdt!? was another option.

22 .ia3 b5? !

64

22 . J.btl? was probably stronger, keeping
. .
some advantage, but I was fascinated by the
line that had arisen in the game and, being
already under time pressure, I couldn't evalu
ate everything.
23 ltla5?
This active move happens to be the deci
sive mistake. By playing the correct 23 lilc3!
White would probably secure the draw; for
example 23....lxb3 (23... b4 24llJxc2 bxa3 25
.ixc6 is unclear) 24 J.e7 l:e8 (24...:d7 25
liJhfS .tdS 26 llJxdS cxdS 27 .tf1 llJeS 28
.txbS is also quite OK for White) 25 li:}hf5
.i.xa2 26 J.xc6 l:b8 27 i.d6 :b6 28 .tc7
with approximate equality.
23 .. b4!
This is what I had in mind. The idea of sac
rificing an exchange in order to promote a
pawn is so natural that I would perhaps leave
it unmarked, but when I put the position on
Fritz5 (just to do some blunder-checking) I
saw that it didn't even come close to suggest
ing 23... b4. And yet the move wins by force,
whereas otherwise things are less ckar.
My current computet, five years after writ
ing those lines, suggests 23...b4 as the third
strongest move after some four minutes think
ing. It considers 23...c..'i and 23...llJe5 to be
stronger alternatives and possibly Fritz would
still have good chances to win the game with
one of them. Nevertheless, 23 ..b4 is more .
forcing and thus the better move. 1 think that
my 23...b4 in this game, as well as 47... i.h3
against Topalov, well demonstrates that a hu
man can still find better moves than a com
puter in certain positions, even in a tourna
ment game - and the beauty of such moves is
in their depth. As long as players strive for this
kind of perfection and creativity on the chess
board, they have a lot to offer to the chess
audience.
24lLixc6
Forced.
24. . . bxa3 25 xd8 lL'Ib4!
This is a lot strunbrcr than 2S... i.xb3 26
llJfS J.xa2 27 li:}d4. Now Black can block the
b3 square in some lines.
26 f3 lruca2 27 li.:\c6
27 .. .te4!
27.. l2Jct would probably be sufficient. but
.
the text is both simpler and far more attrac
tive.
28 fd4 .txc6 29 xc6 a5!
65
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7 - 2 0 0 4

29 lllc1 30 lllb4 a2 31 lllxa2 lllxa2 would

...

be less dear.
30 b4
After 30 lll xa5lllb4 we see the importance
of blocking the b3-pawn.
30 ... axb4 0 -1
White cannot avoid material losses and so
resigned. I had only two minutes left for 10
moves to reach the time control, but making
those moves would already be easy. Nonnally
it's not advisable to consume all the time in
the game, but in this case it definitely helped
me to calculate things better.
10 .. h5
Gan1e 15 In my home analysis I mainly concentrated
Shirov-Korneev on a typical move for such positions: 10...e5.
Spanish Team Ch., Salamanca 1998 TI1en White can play the standard 11 f4, hop-
Sicilian Dd'ence, Kan Variation ing to get a slightly better game, or the more
'------"""'-________. ambitious 11 5, after which Black has an
The annotations to this game are based on ultra-sharp continuation t 1 ..lbg4!? 1 2 11'f3
.

my notes for lnformator 73 made after the 1i'h4 13 h3l1.b8!? 1 4 g1 hS! with very dou
tourn.11ncnt. The text was added when work ble-edged play.
ing on the book. 1 1 .ILg5l
Shortly before ilie S panish Team Olarnpi Black's previous move was aimed against
onship I learned that I might not play the the f2-f4 advance but, as I mentioned, this was
match against Kasparov at all and, of course, not White's only idea behind 10 Whl.
such news severely affected my play. Before 11 ... 'ft'c7
the last round I had only 3'/z points from 7
games, and all I could do was to concentrate
as if nothing had happened. The game tumed
to be a little bit one-sided but I still like the
final part of it.
1 e4 c5 2 llf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lJxd4 a6 5
.id3 i.c5 6 llb3 .1La7
This was the first and, so far, the only time
when somebody employed this set-up against
me. It also came as a surprise because I was
expecting some line of the Ruy Lopez from
Oleg. Still, this line of Paulsen was popular
enough in those times, so I was well prepared
anyway. 1 2 1i'd2?!
7 c4 llc6 8 llc3 d6 9 0-0 l116 10 h1 !? Black's main weakness is the d6-pawn, but
Not a novelty but an extremely seldom sometimes it's not the best idea to try only to
played move which I prepared a year before exploit your opponent's weaknesses! Now I
the actual game. White wants to play 2-f4, or would prefer d1e standard and active 12 f4! h4
first .igS followed by f2-f4. 13 'tfo with a slight advantage.

66

1 2 .td7 1 3 l:lad1
..
Now 13 f4 h4 would be less convincing be
cause the queen is worse on d2 than on 3.
1 3. . .ltie5 1 4 .te2 .tc6?
After this inaccuracy White's strategy
works. Also bad is 14...c4? 15 .i.xc4 'ifxc4
16 'it'xd6! (16 e5?1 lbd5 1 7 lLJxd5 ..xd5 is un
clear) 16....i.b8 17 ..d2 'flc7 18 eS! ..xeS 19
f4 11t'c7 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21 lLJe4 .i.c6 22 f6+
rj;e7 23 1ib4+ '1ttx f6 24 ..c3+ e5 25 lld6+!
and wins. But as he himself pointed out in the
postmortem, Oleg had a very interesting pawn
sacrifice: 14...lLJfg4! 15 .i.h4 f6! 16 9x.d6
1i'xd6 17 llxd6 gS 1 8 .i.g3 h4 1 9 .ixeS lLJxe5
with good compensation. I don't know why
he didn't play what he had seen.
1 5 f3
Naturally I avoided taking the pawn, which
would give Black the two bishops and some
compensation after 15 .i.xf6? gxf6 16 'ifxd6
..xd6 17 :xd6 e7.
1 5 0-0-0
...
This looks brave and... bad! But possibly
d1ere was no alternative.
1 6 lL!b5!?
I like this move more than 16 liJd5!?, which
also seems to bring White the advantage after
16 ...exd5 1 7 cxdS .i.b5 18 llct .i.c5 19 .txbS
axb5 20 lLJd4 b4 21 a3 b3 22 lLJxb3.
1 6 ... axb5 17 cxb5 .teB?!
I think it was better to leave the bishop
where it was, because saving the extra material
is impossible anyway.
Selec ted Games
18 llc1 .tc5 19 lL!d4 'it'b8 20 b4 b6 21
a4?!
The pawn assault against the enemy king's
fortress is typical for the Sicilian, though it
normally takes place on the kingside! Here it is
also unnecessary as 21 lDb3 would win a lot
more quickly.
21 ... h4!
Starting some counterplay which, fortu
nately, is too late.
22 a5 lL!h5
23 .txh41
This is more accurate than 23 bxcS dxc5
when Black can still hope for miracles.
23 ...g5!?
During the game I saw ghosts like 23...W"e7
24 J.xe7 lLJg3+ 25 liti>gt .i.xd4+, but of course
the calm 26 :f2 would refute it. Neither
would 23...lLJg6 work after 24 bxc51 (but not
24 axb6? .ixb6! 25 l:lxc7 lDxh4! 26 lrg5
rj;xc7 intending 27 :c1+ 'ii?b7 28 lLJc6 lbguQ
24...lLJxh4 25 axb6 W"e7 26 c6 3+ 27 gl ,
so as we see Black's position was already
pretty hopeless. The text doesn't help either.
24 'Wxg5 f6 25 3! 'Wg7
25....i.xd4 26 1ixd4 1ib7 was slightly more
resistant, but White would still win by force
with Z7 a6! 'ita7 28 f4 li)g6 29 .i.xh5 h4
(or 29...:xh5 30 .txf6) 30 .i.xe8 llhxe8 31
llc6.
26 g4!
Eliminating any tllreats.
26...lL!f4 27 bxc5 ltlxe2 28 ltlxe2 l:l.xh4
67
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2 0 0 4
29 c6 J:cB 30 xb6+ WaS 3 1 c7 1 -0
Here Black lost on time and thus avoided
getting mated.
Game 16
Shirov-Ftacnik
European Cup, Senec 1998
Philidor Difence
The annotations to this game are based on
my notes for ltftmnator 73 made shortly after
wards. The text was added when working on
the book.
After the Spanish Team Championship my
next event was the preliminary part of the
European Cup, where I had to meet Ftacnik
and Almasi. The situation with my match vs.
Kasparov was not improving, but at least I
had some optimism because, at that time,
was trying to obtain sponsorship in Barcelona.
In vain of course, but J would only know that
later, while the optimism helped me to win
both games in a reasonable style.
Before starting work on this game
thought I would only need to add text to the
variations I analysed in 1 998, but that was eas
ier said than done since my old analysis turned
out to be very hasty and full of errors. When I
realised that, my first intention was to exclude
the game from the book, because my own
play seemed no longer anything special.
'relatively easy' game (as I had thought before)
was, in fact, only won because of my oppo-
68
nent's bad mistake on move 1 8. However, I
found some sidelines so fascinating, especially
the ones starting with 8 ... lbxg41, that I decided
to give my annotations for the readers' judg
ment anyway. After all, I didn't make bad mis
takes myself; I didn't stand worse, so why not?
A draw would be a more logical outcome of
this game, but that's chess.
1 e4 d6 2 d4 lDf6 3 c3 lDbd7 4 f4
I had only encountered this opening in
some blitz games, so on my 4th move I was
already thinking! And maybe I should have
chosen 4 g4!?, though it seemed too aggressive
to me.
4 e5 5 lDf3 exd4 6 'lt'xd4 c6 7 .i.e3
..
7 . . ..i.e7
Too passive. The theoretical 7 ..d5 would
.
be preferable, though not because of my next
I move.
8 g4!?
Here l saw n o reason t o slow down, and I
was surprised to Jearn afterwards that such a
natural attacking move was a novelty (8 0-0-0
I and 8 'it"d2 had been played before). However,
right after writing the notes for bifo1'111a/or I
realised a possible problem with 8 g4 (see the
note to d1e next move) and therefot-e J would
now prefer 8 0-0-0.
8 .. d5!?
A fter the game I was convinced that this
A was t he best possible reaction to White's 8th
move, but what I completely missed was that
after 8.)bxg4!? 9 'irxg7 c!hxe3 1 0 'irxh8+ f8.

it's not at all easy for White to fmd a good
continuation! Analysis shows that it's probably
best for Whi te to go for a forced draw after
tremendous complications with 1 1 d2 .ig4!
(an important intermediate move; after
t t ....if6 1 2 'i'gS 'i'b6 1 3 li)gS! i.xgS t 4
1i'xg5 White seems to parry Black's threats) 1 2
xe3 .if6! 1 3 1i'g8 'i'b6+ 14 e2! 'iVxb2 1 5
11fxg4 .ixc3! 1 6 1ldt ! (16 ltet 11fxc2+ l7 We3
i.aS 1 8 f5 1i'c5+ 1 9 e2 may not be losing
either, but it looks precarious to me)
1 6 .. .ffxc2+
' 17 d2 i.xd2 1 8 l:lxd2 'iVxe4+ 1 9
2 'ifxhl 20 lteZ+ Wd8 2 1 'i'g7! Wc7 (the
variation is so forced for both sides that I pre
fer to give no sidelines; for example,
21 ...1i'xh2+? loses to 22 We3) 22 lte7+ d7
23 llxd7+ Wxd7 24 'flxf7+ dB 25 1i'f8+
Wc7 and White should either give a perpetual
or make Black do the same by taking his rook.
Thus the line starting with 8 ...xg4 would
lead to a draw with perfect play and would
also be very fascinating. The pleasure of chess
analysis is that you can 'replay' all the nice
variations presuming they are correct ones,
while on the board one always has to choose a
move. In fact 8... d5 is good enough too. I
should also mention that during the game I
anticipated 8 ...c5 9 1i'd2 lfug4 winning the
pawn, when White's compensation after 1 0
0-0-0 seemed su fficient to me.
9 g5!
Going for mass exchanges as 9 exdS?! .i.cS
looked .rather unattractive.
Selected Games
9 . ...tc5 10 d3
.
I wasn't convinced by the idea of sacrificing
a pawn with lO 'ii'd2?! here, as I saw nothing
definite for White in the line 1 o. .xe4 1 1
.
xe4 dxe4 1 2 d4 0-0 13 0-0-0 b6.
10 . . . dxe4!
Less good was 10 ...i.xe3 1 1 'ifxe3.
1 1 ltlxe4 xe4 1 2 'irxe4+ "ile7 1 3
1Wxe7+ xe7
I was mostly expecting 1 3....ixe7 and hop
ing to get some small advantage with 14 0-0-0,
but now J think that with t4 ...b6 Black
should equalise sooner or later. Instead of that
Ftacnik wants to exchange the bishops and
simpli fy the position. White can't really avoid
this exchange but...
14 ..td41
White can do it while gaining a very impor
tant tempo, so his initiative becomes strong.
Here we also sec why it was safer to take on
c7 with the bishop as now the black king will
be exposed.
1 4. . .xd4 1 5 d4 c5!
1 5 ...b6 1 6 0-0-0 lld8 would be a tough,
but much more passive defence. The text,
however, requires very accurate play from
Black later on.
1 6 0-0-0 :dB!
Black is balancing on the razor's edge and,
for the moment, he finds the strongest moves.
Much weaker was t 6...lle8 1 7 b4 e4 1 8 .ig2
3 1 9 llde1+ with a clear advantage, while
16 ...g6 1 7 .i.c41 would also yield White a plu.
69
Fire on Board Pa rt II: 1 99 7 - 2 0 0 4

Black would have 20...1i/f8! which I missed

in my analysis five years ago. 1 was counting
on 20...c5? 21 l:r.et ! l:r.xd4 22 c3 l:la4 23 .i.bS
l:txa2 24 :.Xe4+ d6 25 l:r.dl+ c7 26 lle7+
b6 27 bl ! i.xfS+ (or 27...l:r.a5 28 i.d7) 28
xa2 xbS 29 b3! i.e6 30 g61, which is in
deed a pretty win. But as we can see, Black is
not obliged to go for such a line! And after
20...f8 1 found no way that White could be
better; for example 21 i.g2 lbg3! 22 i.h3
l:r.xd4 (22 ..lbe4!? might also be possible) 23
.

l:r.xg3 l:lxdt+ 24 xdt f6 and there are simply

not enough pieces on the board.
17 f51 It's difficult to say what Ftacnik was afraid
Trying to gain space and confusing Black. of, but 1 8. lbe4 is the decisive mistake. Now
..

Funnily, during and after the game I thought I White easily gets a winning advantage.
was already much better in this position. 1 9 .tg2 lbd6
1 7 . . . h6! 19...lbf2 would allow the nice shot 20
Again the best continuation. The immedi lbxc6+! bxc6 21 f6+ gxf6 22 gxf6+ xf6 23
ate 17 lbe4 would be bad in view of 1 8 i.g2!
.. l:r.xdS lbxht 24 i.xc6! i.b7 25 l:ld6+ eS 26
lbxgS 1 9 h4 cS 20 l:r.del+! fB 21 hxgS l:r.xd4 l:tdS+ e6 27 .L.b7 llb8 28 llbS with an ex
22 l:r.xh7 winning. tra pawn and a decisive advantage in the end
1 8 h4 lDe4? game.
The fatal error. Back in 1 998 I was con
vinced that Black's position was already clearly
inferior, but as often happened when working
on the book, I had to change certain evalua
tions. Here 1 8...hxg5 19 hxgS lbe4 was suffi
cient for equality; e.g. 20 l:r.hS lbg3 21 l:r.el+
d6 22 :lh3 lbxtl (but not 22.)txf5? 23
l:r.d3) 23 l:r.xt1 1ilc7 is level, while after the
move which 1 thought to be very strong, 20
l:gt

20 .i.xc6l
The game is practically over. though some
technique is still required.
20 . . ..!Dxf5 21 .i.xb7! .txb7 22 .!Dxf5+
8 23 gxh61
All White's moves are simple, but also
rather elegant, I think.
23 gxh6

Not 23 ... i.xh1? 24 h7.

24 J:txd8+ J:txd8 25 l:lf1

70

Trying to be as accurate as possible, I re
jected the immediate rook exchange 25 Jldl
Jlxdl+ 26 'ifilxdl because of 26 ... i.c8!? as it
seemed to me that White was not dearly win
ning; e.g. 27 llkl6 i.g4+ 28 !itd2 ri;e7. I think
the evaluation not clearly winning' was simply
influenced by my 'usual' time pressure.
25 h5 26 lld1 llb8!
.
Trying to set up some practical chances in a
lost position. Otherwise after 26...1lxdt+ 27
'ifilxd l .i.cB 28 g3 ..t;e7 29 d2 .tg4 30 e3
I could play with my eyes dosed.
27 lld7 .te4 28 d6 ..llg6 29 c4
29 Jlxa7?! lidS would be unnecessary in
time-trouble.
29 'iPg7!
. interesting one.
Activating the king is not at all a bad way to
confuse things. Portunatcly, I kept myself cool
and calculated to the end, despite having only
a few minutes left to reach move forty.
30 c5 31 c6 llb6! 32 eB + ! cii>e6
I f 32. ..Ciiie5 33 c7 Jlc6+ 34 <iii'd2 i.f5 35
Jlxf7 or 34...(6 35 Ae7+ Wf4 36 xf6 wins.
33 l:.d6+ q;e7
33 ... e5 34 c7 i.f5 35 Jlxb6 axb6 36 7
is similar.
34 c7 ..llf5 35 llxb6 axb6 36 g7
The h-pawn falls and there is no more hope
for Black.
36 ....tc8 37 xh5 Wd6 38 7 c7 39
h5 .tb7
Or 39...i.a6 40 d2.
40 h6 ..lle4 41 lt:leB+ 1 -0
Selected Games
Game 1 7
Shirov-Hracek
Match (game 2), Ostrava 1998
Cam-Kann Defence, Advance Variation
The annotations to this game were done
shordy after the match and published in vari
ous magazines, including Schoch.
My match against Hracek didn't contain a
single draw, hut the final score 5-l in my fa
vour didn't seem just, because Hracek mis
played various strong positions (e.g. in the
third and sixth games). I believe that the sec
ond game., which I present here, was the most
1 e4 c6
The first surprise. Zbynek would normally
choose the Sicilian.
2 d4 d5 3 e5 .tf5 4 &31?
Previously I'd always gone for 4 lL!f3, but
when I saw how convincingly Sutovsky (one
of my seconds in Cazorla) beat Magem at the
1 998 Elista Olympiad with 4 lbc3, I couldn't
help trying it. After success in this game, I was
encouraged to continue employing this sharp
system and, for several years, it became my
main weapon against the Caro-Kann. How
ever, my current opinion about the system
isn't great - sec my games vs. Topalov and
Dreev, played in 2003, later in this book.
4...Wb6
The main line is 4...e6, but for some reason
71
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7-2004

the text move was quite popular at the time.
5 .!Df3 e6 6 .te2 c!Dd7 7 0-0 .!De7 8 b3
thou-_,>ht that going for the queen with 12
lfu.e6?! fxe6 13 lba4 ltJxa4 1 4 J.xb6 ltJxb6
would nor. be in White's f.'lvour, but now J
beHeve that his position is very reasonable in
this line. He can play 1 5 c4!?, for example. I
don't know why I thought White was worse
five and a half years ago.
1 2 g4?!

In the fourth game I tried to improve

White's play with 8 lt)a4, which is possibly
more critical. In Monaco 2001 later I also tried
it against Karpov, but unfortunately it turned
out. to be a very low-quaHty blindfold game,
even though I eventually won.
8 ... c5!? Going for complications 1 overlooked
Faithful to his sharp style 1-Iracek goes for Hracck's 1 4th. 1 2 b4?! lt)d7! (not 12 ..t'Lie4?!
.

broke and the boring' Caro-Kann suddenly 1 3 ltJxc4 he4 1 4 b5!) 1 3 g4?! J..g6 1 4 f4 lieS
becomes very exciting. The move was also a would be a similar story, so maybe I should
novelty. have played 12 f4!? with an unclear position.
9 dxc5 .!Dxc5 1 2 ....tg6 1 3 f4 lbe4! 1 4 4:\a4
Feeling very confident as f4-f5 is threaten
ing, but...
1 4 h5! 15 f5!
.

There is no way back. 1 5 gxhS?! t'Lif5 is cur

tains.
15 hxg4 1 6 fxe6!

1 0 lDd4
Maybe, in retrospect, I should suggest
something like 10 e3 tlk6 1 1 t'LibS!? (but
not 1 1 t'L1a4?! 'l'aS).
1 0 . . .a6 1 1 .te3 tltds
1 1 ... J..g6!? is also interesting. At the time 1

72

As 1 6 fxg6 l0xg6 17 .i.xg4 ..h4 1 8 'ife2
tbxeS 19 f3 .i.d6 20 .i.xe4 /l)c41 would be
terribly unpleasant for White, 1 had to dive
into muddy waters. J must add that during the
game I felt a lot more pcs.o;imistic than in later
analysis.
1 6 ...g3!?
l'viaybc not bad, but I was much more
afraid of 1 6... f5!. Only in analysis could I es
tablish that White's position was acceptable:
a) 17 .i.f4? i.h7 isn't advisable.
b) l7 exf6 (the most critical continuation)
17 ...gxf6 1 8 .i.f4! (1 8 xg4 f5 19 f3 bS 20
/l)b2 'irc7 21 9e2 il..g7 is horrible and, during
the game, I thought it was my only possibility
after 1 6 ... 5!) 1 8...J..g7 19 c4 is unclear, with
the idea of sacrificing the exchange after
1 9 ...dxc4 20 bxc4 f5 21 /l)b31.
c) 17 c4!? also seems to hold the dynamic
balance; for example:
cl) 1 7...lth3 18 il..f4 dxc4 1 9 bxc4 is unclear.
c2) 1 7 ... 1rc7!? 1 8 llct !? (not 1 8 cxdS?
tbxdS 1 9 /l)xfS lfxcS 20 i.f4 .xe6 21 lt':ld4
'ilf6 22 il..g3 'iVgS and Black wins) 1 8...g3 1 9
i.f4 gxh2+ 20 g2 is also unclear.
c3) 1 7 ...g3 1 8 hxg3 tbxg3 1 9 i.f3! lbxfl 20
'ilxf1 and White has compensation.
c4) l 7 ... lbc6 1 8 /l)xf5! (but not 1 8 /l)xc6?
'ifh4 1 9 i.f4 g3 and wins) 1 8 ... xf5 19 1lxf5
lfh4 20 :xm+ llxf8 21 'ilxdS llf2 22 11t'd7+
ffi 23 i.xf2 9xf2+ 24 h l g3 25 'irf7+
'i'xf7 26 ex.fl l2:\xc5 with a level position.
1 7 exf7+ i.xf7 1 8 h3!
Selected Games
It cost me a lot to fmd this move, and when
l made it 1 was left with about 20 minutes (or
even less) to reach the time control. Bur I was
confident that my position was at least not
worse. Other moves didn't work; for example
1 8 hxg3? l2:\xg3 or 1 8 i.g4? gxh2+ 1 9 g2
l2Jg6 20 e6 l2Jh4+ 21 '11i'xh2 ti'c7+ 22 i.f4
l2Jg6+ 23 'itg1 l.t!xf4 24 exf7+ 'irxf7 and Black
is winning.
18 .. g2?
After a long thought Hracek made the deci
sive error. 18 .1lxh3 1 9 i.g4 would also be
.
bad, so he had to try 1 8... lbf2! 1 9 i.xf2 gxf2+
20 :txf2 lbc6 hoping to get enough activity
for the pawn.
1 9 l:lxf7! xf7 20 i.g4!
And White is winning. The rest is easy to
understand without much comment. All the
remaining white pieces participate in the attack
and Black is not even developed yet.
20 .'irc7 21 Wf3+ '1ii'e8 22 .i.e6!
.
22 ltlc6
..
I f 22 ..l2Jg6 23 i.xdS l.t!cS 24 'A'xg2! wins,
.
or 22. .'i'xe5 23 i.fl+! (better than 23 n+
.
d8 24 lbc6+ bxc6 25 .i.b6+ 1lc7 26 'it>xg2)
23...d8 24 1ld1 ! (24 ltJe6+?! d7 25 l2:\b6+
Wc6 would be unclear) 24...l%c8 (or 24...lbc8
25 i.f4) 25 lbe6+ d7 26 lt':lb6+ c6 27
lbxc8 lbxc8 28 lbd8+ and wins.
23 .txd5 ltlxd4 24 'lrxe4 1 -0
Black can't protect his king anymore and
therefore he resigned.
73
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
Game 18
Shirov-Reinderman
Wijk aan Zee 1 999
Sicilian Defence1 Taimanov Variation
'-----""""'....,;________.,.
The annotations to this game were done
when working on this book and are based on
my notes for lnformalor 74 back in 1999,
though with a new copyright: Fritz (Hamburg,
Germany).
This is one of those games of which I had a
far higher opinion before starting the detailed
analysis. It's also difficult to understand why
my comments on it five years ago contained
some obvious mistakes in evaluations. Once
again I had every doubt about whether to in
clude the game in the book or not, but in the
end I decided that some bad moves don't
make it less spectacular! At least I'll try to pro
vide correct annotations this time.
1 e4 c5 2 tL!f3 tOe& 3 tL!c3 e6 4 d4 cxd4
5 tL!xd4 a& 6 ..te2 tL!ge7
Somehow this set-up has always seemed
too slow to me. Black wants to put his other
knight on c6 after an exchange on d4, but I
believe that it stands a little better on the
'normal' f6 square due to its control over dS.
J n the present game it will be difficult for
Black to employ the 'freeing' idea ... d6-d5.
7 f4!
Preparing in advance the f2 square for the
queen.
74
7 d4 8 'irxd4 b5 9 0-0
Van der Wicl played 9 a4 against Anders-
son in Wijk aan Zee 1 987 and, funnily enough,
the game transposed to that one anyway later
on. I think 9 0-0 is a more precise move order
though.
9 ... 'i6'c7?!
Beliavsk"Y played 9.. llk6 against Palac
.
(Slovenian League 2001) and it seems a better
option. though he didn't equalise completely
either. The game continued tO 11Vf2 J..e7 1 1
..te3 o-o 1 2 a4 b4 1 3 .1Lb6 'iWe8 1 4 b 1 with
an edge for White.
1 0 'irf2!
Possibly my opponent didn't expect this.
10 . tL!c6
Now we can see that 9 ...1i'c7 was rather
unnecessary as it didn't prevent White's plan.
The 'logical continuation' would have been
1 0 .b4 1 1 4 Wxc2 winning a pawn. but
..
coming under terrific attack, after either the
quiet 1 2 b3!? with compensation (that I was
modestly planning during the game) or the
straightforward 1 2 fS! 'ti'xa4 (12. exf5 1 3 l0b6
..
llb8 1 4 4 l0c6 1 5 i..f4 is curtains) 1 3 f6!
gxf6 14 'ifxf6 g6 15 J..gS J..e7 16 ..x7+
d8 17 J..xe7+ l0xe7 1 8 ..g7 lle8 19 J..h5
g6 20 ..xh7 and White is winning (accord
ing to Fn'JZs 'investigations' five years later).
1 1 ..te3 ..te7 1 2 a4!
12 J..d3, planning to move the knight to e2
(as Tal did once in a similar position), was also
interesting, but I prefer my move.

1 2. b4 1 3 .!tlb1
..
The knight will be extremely well placed on
d2, as it can later go to c4, b3 or f3 depending
on the situation.
1 3 . :b8
. .
1 3 ... d5 1 4 i.b6 11t'b7 1 5 lDd2 would also be
unpleasant for Black.
1 4 .!L\d2 0-0 1 5 ..td3 d6
Here I think 15 ... d5 would be preferable.
White could then continue 1 6 ltlb3 with a
slight advantage.
1 6 :ad1 1
Only this move is new because, as I men
tioned before, we had transposed to the old
game Van der Wiel-Andersson (after 1 4...0-0).
Here Van der Wiel played 1 6 'it'g3, and
following 1 6 ... f5! Black got good play since the
queen on g3 is now relatively stupid. The
move I chose aims for a better co-ordination
of White's pieces, parries the threat of
1 7...i..f6 (which can now be answered by 18
b3) and has in mind attacking the d6-pawn
one day.
1 6 ...b3?1
There's no need to sacrifice a pawn of
course, but neither is it easy to find a good
move.
1 7 cxb3!
After 17 ltlxb3 b4 or 17 ... i.f6!? Black
could hope for decent compensation.
1 7.....i.f6 1 8 :c1 1
The c-ftle is much more important than the
extra pawn.
Selected Games
1 8 ... i.xb2 1 9 :C2 i.a3
l9 ... i.. f6 looks more stubborn, since after
20 llfcl i.b7 21 .i.xa6 .i.xa6 22 llxc6 'Wb7
Black would retain some counterplay for the
sacrificed material. Of course White is better
anyway; for example 23 llb6 'it'a8 24 llxd6.
20 e5?!
This spectacular continuation, that made
me select this game for the book, is in fact a
wrong one! Instead 20 .rla 1 would grab a
pawn in similar fashion to the previous note,
but would yield Black some extra activity; e.g.
20... .tb4 21 .C.act i..b7 22 .txa6 J.xa6 23
l:txc6 'it'a5! (not 23... 'ifb7 24 .C.c71 1i'a8 25
lla7 llbc8 26 llxa8 llxct+ 27 Lbft and wins)
24 c4 J.xc4 25 ll6xc4 .i.a3!, although I
think that White should still be able to con
solidate and slowly win after 26 ll 1 c3 dS! 27
exd5 exd5 28 llc6 .i.b4 29 lld3!.
However, I believe that 20 f5!, which I
didn't even consider during the game, would
be even stronger than 20 llal . 21 f6 is now a
serious threat, so Black's reply 20 ... f6 seems
forced. And now it's time to go after Black's
pawn; i.e. 21 llal ! (21 fxe6 7! offers Black
more counter-chances) 21 ....i.c5 (21 ...i..b4 22
llact is just terrible this time) 22 .txcS dxc5
23 1i'xc5 1WeS 24 l':.c31 'ii'xcS+ 25 ltxc5 LbeS
26 .i.fl and the endgame seems winning for
White.
20 ... d57
The decisive mistake. 20... dxe5 21 i..e4
i..b7 22 lla1 would also he bad, but 20...'ii'd7!
75
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
might make me regret my exuberant 20th
move. Objectively White's best move now is
21 exd6, as 21 lbe4t? dxe5 22 lLlf6+! gxf6 23
.ixh7+ h7 24 "ilh4+ c;l;>gs 25 'ifg4+ h8
only leads to a draw, while 21 .ixh7+?! Wxh7
22 lL!e4 f61 (22...l::th8 is also good enough to
draw; e.g. 23 llxc6 'ifxc6 24 'ifh4+ g8 25
9d8+ h7 and now 26 lL!g5+? Wg6 27 1i"xh8
fails to 27...1i"xg2+! 28 xg2 .ib7+ and Black
obtains a superior endgame) 23 exf6 g8!
(but not 2..1 l::txb3? 24 l:txc6! 'ifxc6 25 'ifh4+
21 1Llf3! 'it'd7
..ti>g8 26 fxg7 11lxg7 27 f5 winning) has White
already looking for a narrow escape, such as
24 fxg7 (24 J.ct l::txb3 25 fxg7 .xg7 favours
Black) 24.....xg7 25 l%xc6 .tb7 26 l::tc41 .i.dS!
(not 26...d5? 27 .id4 eS 28 l'lc3! exd4 29 l:tg3
dxe4 30 b41! and White wins) 27 l::td4 :xb31
28 LdS! exdS 29 J.d4 1i"g6 30 'ifh4! (not
30 fS?! 'ifg41) 30 ...1i"xe4 31 9g4+ fl 32
'ild7+ 'fle7 33 W5+ e8 34 'ifc8+ with a
draw by perpetual check. It's amazing that
such a long and complicated line was in fact
rather forced.
OK, it's time to get back to 21 exd6. Black
should capture the pawn with the bishop, be
cause the tempting 2t ...lL!b4 loses to 22
.ixh7+! Wxh7 23 lL!e41 5 24 .,_.4+ 'itg8
25 llc7! 1Wd8 (25 ...lL!xc7 26 lL!g5 is mate) 26
lL!gs li:)f6 27 .i.d4! 'ifxd6 28 .ixf6 .i.cS+ 29
1ilhl 1Wd3 30 l::tct with a decisive attack, while
21...1i"xd6 22 i.e4 lL!a5 23 .ia7 .td7 24
i.xb8 llxb8 25 'ife3 leaves Black with no
_compensation for the exchange. However,
76
after 2 1 ...i.xd6 White doesn't have anything
better than 22 ltX4 J.e7 23 i.e4 with a tiny
advantage, much smaller than in case of 20 5!
or 20 ltal.
All the same, from a practical point of view,
20 e5 is an understandable try and 21...d5? is
quite a natural mistake. Now I can start the
decisive attack that gave me a lot of aesthetic
pleasure, even though my moves were not all
perfect from the computer's point of view.
This queen move is now late. During the
game I was completely unsure what to do af
ter 21 ...llxb3, because I thought that after 22
i.xh7+ Wxh7 23 lL!d4! Black would still have
23.. ltb2 and, although I would win the piece
.
back, it might be not enough for a win. Fortu
nately, Fritz 'prolonged' my calculations and
stated (even back in 1 999) that after 24 i.ct!
White should be winning. OK, I have to give
a few more computer lines: 24... lL!xd4 (or
24...l::txc2 25 ..xc2+ 1ilg8 26 J.xa3 'ifb6 27
J.x8 .xd4+ 28 h1) 25 11fh4+ Wg8 26 l::txc7
li:)e2+ 27 h 1 l::tb 1 28 'iff2 li)xct 29 1fc2
l::tb8 30 :et .ib2 31 l::th 3 g6 32 J:th6 and
Black has no defence.
22 .ixh7 + !
A simple, known, but still a nice, sacrifice.
22 xh7 23 1ih4+ c;t>gs 24 ltlg5 :ea
..
24.. .lld8 25 .h7+ ffi 26 'iVh8+ We? 27
'ifxg7 loses more quickly.
25 :t31
25 1ifh7+ 8 26 'ilh8+ rl;e7 27 'ilxg7 d8

would be less convincing now.
25...ltle7
Forced. 25...l:txb3 loses to 26 .:h3 WfB 27
lDh7+ g8 28 lDf6+.
26 'irh7+ 'it118 27 'ifhB+ g8
28 f6!?
Fn'tz claims that 28 .i.f2!, strangling the
black king, would be more effective, but un
fortunately I learned to attack with old books.
28 . . .exf5
I f 28...l:txb3? 29 f6.
29 e61
29 lDh7+?! riJe7 30 .i.g5+ e6 31 1lxg7 d4l
would create some unnecessary mess, if only
from a human point of view. White is winning
after 32 g4! according to the silicon monster.
29 . . .fxe6
At least there is some solidarity in the line
29...:xe6 30 lhh7+ e7 31 .tgS+ f6 32 ..xg8
which I saw during the game.
30 l:lg31 g6 31 h7+ 7 32 .th6!
I saw this move when playing 22 .i.xh7+.
And you, my German friend?
32 e7
..
If 32 ...lhxh6 33 ..f6+ g8 34 :xg6+
xh7 35 :xh6+ mating.
33 .tg5+ Wf7
33. .<.ftd6 34 .i.f4+ rl;e7 (34... e5 35 :xg6+)
. tournament I was especially successful in the
35 1lg7+ d8 36 i.c7+ would be a nice fin
ish.
34 .if6!?
Too concerned about aesthetics and a little
short of time, I didn't notice 34 lDf6, after
Selected Games
which Fritz gives an unusual evaluation
+25.52 in White's favour.
34 l:f8
...
34... .i.f8 35 5 mate is how 1 would pre
fer the game to end, of course. Meanwhile
34... e5 35 llc7 is the same story as the game.
35 J:tc7!
Not +25.52 anymore but still clearly win
ning for White. Not a bad end to an attack
starting with 20 e5, is it?
35 f6 36 'ii'xf6 + e8 37 1i'xg6+
..
Finally gathering in the harvest.
37 ..td8 38 l:xd7 + .bd7 39 xf8 .txf8
..
40 Wff6+ .te7 41 l:g8+ 1ic7 42 'ifc3+
'itb7 43 l:xb8+ 'itxb8 44 h4 1 -0
Black resigned due to the obvious
44...i.xh4 45 fi'b4+.
Game 19
Shirov-Van Wely
Monaco (blindfold) 1 999
Riti Opening
The annotations to this game were done
when working on the:: book and are based on
my notes published in ltiformator 75 in 1 999.
In the '1999 edition of the Melody Amber
blindfold games. Not only in the result (shar
ing first place if I remember correctly) but also
in the quality of my play. The two I offer for
the readers' judgment gave me a real pleasure.
I remember that I even wanted to play my
77
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
rapid games blindfold, but this wasn't permit
ted by the tournament rules!
1 llf3 llf6 2 g3
Shortly before going to Monaco 1 started
living in Glogow (Poland), which also hap
pened to be the hometown of Tornasz
Markowski. As Tomasz was preparing for the
Polish Championship (which he later success
fully won) we did some training together,
played various blitz games, and somehow I
was convinced into trying some of Markow
ski's repertoire sometimes. I gave up the idea
after struggling for a draw with White two
months later against Nigel Short (Sarajevo
1 999), but that's a different story.
2 d5 3 .i.g2 .i.f5 4 d3 e6 5 0-0 h6 6 c4
.
c& 7 .i.e3 dxc4
I am still not an expert in the Reti Opening,
but this capture seems a little premature as
White will have a long-lasting initiative in the
queenless rniddlegame. 7 ... i.e7 looks more
normal to me.
8 dxc4 1i'xd1 9 :Xd1 lLibd7 1 0 tL!c3
1 0 lbg4?!
..
Maybe once having swept the queens from
the board, Black should have tried to ex
change more pieces and played 1 O i.cS. ...
1 1 ..td2 .i.c5 1 2 .i.e1
White's passivity is only temporary.
1 2 0-0-0 1 3 tL!d4! .tg&l?
..
A new move. Previously 13 ... i.h7 used to
be played, but I doubt it would change any
thing in White's plans.
78
1 4 lba4!
If White manages to trade his knight for a
black bishop, his advantage will be quite seri
ous. Naturally Van Wely wants to avoid this
happening...
1 4 .i.e7
.
but. . .
1 5 .i.xc6!
'Now the game starts for Alexei!' pointed
out Joel Laurier, who was watching the game
in the pressroom. (In Monaco the competitors
are always split into two groups - six play at a
time, then the other six, and so on, and at this
moment Joel wasn't playing.) The time control
in the blindfold games is 25 minutes, plus 20
seconds per move. Having played a new open
ing I was thinking a lot over the first moves,
and when sacrificing on c6 I had barely three
minutes left! Not a nice way to 'start' the
game, which only thanks to Fischer clock
could still be continued.
White could not hope for any advantage af
ter the alternative 1 5 i.aS :deB 1 6 b4 tbgeS,
and sacrifices arc now dubious; i.e. 16 .ixc6?!
bxc6 17 lC!xc6 llkleS or 16 lDxc6?! bxc6 1 7
i.xc6 lCigf6.
1 5 . . . bxc6 1 6 tL!xc6 .i.f6
After the game 1 thought this was the only
move since 1 6 ... l:lde8 17 llh.a7+ b8 1 8
l:lxd7 lC!eS would lose to 1 9 llxe7!. But i n fact
Black could also play 16 ... 11he8, to which the
best reply is probably 17 i.aS! lbges 1 8
lC!xe7+ l:lxe7 1 9 i.xd8 xd8 20 l:lacl

with an edge for White, who will now start
advancing his queenside pawns.
1 7 .i.a5!?
I had no time to evaluate whether 17 lbxd8
llxd8 would be a better option than the text,
so I simply chose the more spectacular move!
1 7 . . ..i.c2 1 8 .i.xd8 llxd8
Black had two alternatives, but neither of
them would equalise complctdy:
a) 1 8....ixa4 1 9 i.xf6 /.Dgx6 20 l.Dxa7+
h7 21 h3 rj;;xa7 22 bxa4 and White i s better.
b) 1 8 ... i.xd1 !? 1 9 llxdl llxd8! (worse is
19...i.xd8 20 l.Dxa7+ q;c7 21 ll)bS+ Wc8 22
6+ q;c7 23 lbxt7 with a big edge) 20 i.Dxd8
.ixd8, which could also occur one move later.
1 9 lDxd8 .i.xa4?!
Van Wdy wants to break up my qucenside
pawns hut this allows White additional activ
ity. 19 i.xd8? was bad due
... to 20 lld4, but he
couW play 1 9 ... .ixdl! 20 ltxdt .ixd8.
Selected Gemes
Compared with the 1 6...11he8 line indicated
earlier, Black has a dark-squared bishop
which, in some lines, can give him important
control over d6 and cS squares. All the same,
it's difficult to fight against the white pawns
after 21 b4.
20 xn .bb2 21 lDd6+!
Black's idea would work after 21 llab1
i.xdl 22 ltxb2 c7!, but 22 i.Dd6+! trans
poses to the game.
21 . . /ilc7
21 .. 5d8 would also be answered by 22
ltabl i.xdl 23 l1.xb2! with a clear advantage.
22 llab1 .i.xd1 23 b5+ ! 'itic6
It's an unusual situation when one has to
choose between two bishops. I preferred the
dark-squared one and played ...
24 1lxb2!?
but it's clear to me that 24 ltxdll? would
also do. So, finally, it was just a matter of taste,
especially with no time to evaluate everything.
24. . ..!tlge5 25 .!tid4+ d6 26 lld2
Using the tempo to win another pawn.
26 . ...i.a4 27 .!tif5+ <j;c7 28 .!tlxg7
... which is actually a very important one,
since White can now create a passed pawn on
the kingsidc.
28 . . ..!tlc5 29 1ld4
Going for the h6-pawn. When it falls the
game should be over, though White must still
take into account the slightly misplaced posi
tion of his knight and the danger of Black cre
ating a passed a-pawn.
79
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7- 2004

29. a5 30 J:h4 l'[)f7 31 .llf4 l'[)e6 32 llf6

.. 1 a4 c6 2 lilf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl:'ixd4 tl:'Jf6
clid7 33 ltxh6 clie7 6 l0c3 a6 6 .ie3 l'[)c6 7 .te2 e6 8 f4
33 . .i.c2 would lose
. . to 34 llhS. 1Wc7?!
34 f4!? I think this is already a mistake. The queen
34 llhS lL\cd7 35 llh4 would keep the ma docs not alwavs stand well on c7 and the loss
terial advantage intact and be sufficient for a of a tempo an be very important. S. .i..e7
.

win. With the text I was trying to activate my would be a more normal continuation.
knight and utilise the strong kingside pawns. 9 1Wd2 .te7 1 0 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 g4!
34. . .l'[)xc4 36 f6 exf6 36 l'[)xf6+ 'itld7 37
h4!

Of course!
11 lbxd4 1 2 Wxd4 e5
.

An obvious, but still effectivt: move. Black goes for a pawn but White's compen
37 ... .i.c2 38 tl:ld4 .tb1 ? sation will be too strong. I can't SugJ,rest an
A typical 'blindfold' blunder when you are alternative, however.
already in time-trouble. 38 . .i.e4 would pro
.. 1 3 1Vd3 itxg4
long the resistance, though not change the There were some earlier games with
final result after 39 g4. 1 3 ... exf4 14 i..x f4, but after 1 4...J.e6 15 gS or
39 1lc6 1 4....ixg4 15 i..xg4 lfug4 1 6 J.tkls ii'dB 1 7
Winning a piece and the game. 'irg3 lileS t 8 i..xeS dxeS 1 9 llhgt g6 20 'ifxeS
39 ..i.xa2 40 :Xc6 a4 41 h5 a3 42 h6 1 .0
. White is definitely better.
14 .txg4 tilxg4 1 5 tild5 'ifd7
Game 20
Shirov-Ljubojevic
Monaco (blindfold) 1 999
Sicilian Defonce, Scheveningen Varia/ion

The annotations to this game were done

when working on the book.
Although I have always considered this
game to be relatively 'easy', I decided to in
clude it in the book because it is nice to re
member. And when I started annotating it, I
also noticed that the position on move 22 was
less clear than I had thought before.

80

l S...'iVdB is bad aftt-r 16 .i.b6 'tfd7 1 7 llhgl.
1 6 f5!
A positional approach. There was no forc
ing way to get the advant:.'lge, and since it was
a blindfold rapid game I couldn't think for too
long. The superiority of the knight on dS over
the black bishop is more than enough com
pensation for a pawn.
16 Ji.d8 17 lZhg1 lilxe3 1 8 1Wxe3 f& 1 9
lle8 25 llhl g8 26 'itb3! 'l'c6 27 hxg7
h4 Wlf7 20 h 5 <li'hB
20. ..1i'xh5 21 l:g3, followed by lldgl,
would also be very dangerous for Black.
21 llg&!
This is not a sacrifice of course, because the
rook can't be t:.'lken, but an intention to pre
pare the final assault with h6 at some point.
'I11e immediate 21 h6 f!fJ didn't seem com
pletely clear to me, so I decided that the g7-
pawn should be blocked for any eventuality!
21 . . .lZgB 22 lZdg1
Sele c te d Ga mes
22 h6?
T ,jubojevic cracks under the pressure. Dur
ing the game, and for many years afterwards, I
was convinced that White was already winning
at this point, because the rook sacrifice 23 h6
hxg6 24 fxg6 followed by the mating attack
seemed unstoppable. This is actually the case
in lines such as 22. ..1i'd7 23 h61 hxg6 24 fxg6
g7 28 'iVe3! or 22...1lc8 23 h6 hxg6 24 fxg6
'iVc8 25 1i'h3 l:tc7 26 'iVh5! l:txc2+ 27 Wbl !,
but what both players missed was that after
22. . . b5! Black can still tight. Now White
should probably still sacrifice the rook, but in
a different way; i.e. 23 h6 (the alternative 23
l:tlg2 'tfa7 24 'ifh3 h6 or 24 'l'g3 llc8 is un
clear) 23. ..hxg6 24 llxg6! (not 24 fxg6? 'i'a7)
24...gxh6 25 l:txh6+ rj}g7 26 'ifh3 <t>t Z7
l:th7!
and White wins the queen for two rooks.
Nonnally this is not a good balance, but here,
once again because of the superior knight on
dS, he has good chances to win the endgame;
for example 27...l:ta7 28 l:txf7+ l:txf7 29 b4 or
27...1lg1+ 28 'it?d2 l:ta7 29 llxf7+ :Xf7 30
c31 and Black stiU faces a very difficult de
fence.
23 ltlxf6!
A simple, but stiU a nice combination. Note
that if Black had time to put his king on h7 in
a similar position (for example, if the white
queen wasn't on e3), it would be very difficult
for White to break through.
81
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004

A new and an interesting continuation.

1 6 ... a5 had been seen before, but that weakens
the light squares on the que<.>nside.

23 .i.xf6 24 l:txh6+ gxh6 25 11'xh6+

..

'ihl7 26 11'xf6+ l:tg7 27 h6 llag8 28 Ag6

1 -0
Closing the box, so Black resigns. 1 7 f31?
Here I thought for some forty minutes.
Game 21 Nothing really attracted me; for example, after
Shirov-Topalov 17 lL!xcS lLlxcS 1 8 a4 aS I? 1 9 'iVbs .i.gS!? 20
Sarajevo 1999 .i.xgS 'A'xgS 21 1i'xb6 1le7 Black has excellent
Sicilian Difence, Nt!idoifVariation compensation .
._ .......
.. ....'-__
. ________...
_
1 7. . .lbf6 1 8 1Vd2 1Vd7 1?
The game was annotated shortly after the Now I can repeat the queen's trip to b4 and
tournament and published in various maga already threaten the b6-pawn. Instead
zines, including Schoch. Some remarks were 18 .. lLlh5!? would be an alternative.
.

added when working on the book. 1 9 f4

1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti)xd4 ltlf6
5 lbc3 a6 6 i.e3 ltlg4 7 i.c1
After my second round game against Kas
parov I wasn't very convinced about 7 .tgS.
Later on I made some important investiga
tions into the 7 ... h6 8 .i.h4 gS 9 .i.g3 .i.g7
line, but that's a subject for the next book.
7 ll:lf6 8 i.e2 e5 9 ltlb3 J.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0

1 1 .i.e3
1 used to employ 1 1 ht , but now decided
to go for a line favoured by Svidler and Short,
among others.
11 . .i.e& 1 2 ltld5 ltlbd7 1 3 1i'd3
The idea of this move is to make quick 1 9 . . .ltlfe4 20 1Wb4 l:tfb8l 21 ltlxc5
threats against the d6-pawn (by exchanging on At the time I gave this move (and also my
c7 and putting the rook on dl). Black's reply is next) a dubious mark, suggesting instead 21
now forced. .i.f3!? as "very unclear", but it's difficult for
1 3 J.xd5 1 4 exd5 ltlc5 1 5 'ifd2 ltlfe4 1 6
. me to say what I planned five years ago
1Wb4 b6!? against 21 ...f5!. In fact, I c;,luite clislikc the posi-

82
 Selected Games

cion after 20...l:lfb8! now, so 1 should take this
2-3 and then f3-f4 to be a wrong idea.
21 . ..lt\xc5 22 fxe5
Once again 1 don't know whether to agree
with my old "?!" assessment. Instead 22 5!?
would promise double-edged play.
22 . . .dxe5 23 Aad1 i.d6! 24 1ih4 1lf81
(29... h6 30 J.xh6 'iVxe2? loses to 31 .ixg7) 30
.if1 h6 31 .ixh6 lDxd3 32 i.e3, for example,
the white attack seems very dangerous. But
Black can defend with 28...h61 when White
should continue 29 gS! (not 29 .ixh6? 11fxe2)
29... f6 (if 29...i.e7 30 'iVg4 with compensa
tion)

Here I realised that, besides not having any 30 .ig4! (this move is very difficult to fore
advantage, 1 was running the risk of getting see, but once you reach such a position you
into an inferior position. Now Black wants to can figure out that there is nothing else; e.g. 30
continue 25. . 5, which wouldn't be good to
. g6? 5, or 30 gxh6? 11fxe2 31 l:ld2 g5 32 .ixg5
play immediately; i.e. 24. . f5 25 b4 lba4 26
. 'iffl+!! 33 Wxft fxgS+ 34 'if2 lDe4 wins,
l:lx5! 11fx5 27 .id3 and Black is under fire. while after 31 l:lel gS! 32 L'tg5 'ifxel+ 33
25 g4 'iVxe1 fxgS Black is clearly better) 30... fxg5 31
I think that five years ago I was a little .ixgS 'ifc2! (Black should also be very careful:
dogmatic, since 1 considered preventing .. fl-. the 'logical' defence 31 ...l:la7? loses to 32
5 to be obligatory. Now 1 see that after 25 b41 .ixh6 gxh6 33 'ifxh6 'if2+ 34 h 1 'iVf6 35
lDa4 26 l:ld3! 5 27 l:lb3! White can get inter 'ifh5 l:lffl 36 l:lgt fB 37 :o 'ilg7 38 .ifSJ
esting play as well. 'iVf6 39 l:lg6) 32 .ixh6 'ifh7 33 .ie3 'Wxh4 34
25...1Wa4! 26 c4! llxh4,
Forced, since 26 c3? fS! 27 b4 is cur
tains.
26 . . .'irc2?!
By not taking the pawn Black, in fact, gives
White the initiative. It would be extremely
difficult to prove White's compensation after
26.. 11fxa2!, but having analysed the game a
.

great deal, I think 1 managed it. White should

now play the straightforward 27 l:lf3! (the
tempo losing 27 l:ld2? :ae8! would help Black
organize his game and remain with a clear ad
vantage) 27...11fxb2 28 l:lh3 and after
28...'iVc2?! 29 lld3! (29 l:tf1? f6) 29...9bl+

83
Fire on Board Par t II: 1 99 7- 2004

Black is snll a pawn up and has managed to i.xb6 f5 38 .tdt would be a better option.
exchange queens, but White probably holds 33 . ..ltlxg5
enough fighting resources not to lose the The only move.
game. I think the assessment of this position is 34 -*.xg6 e4!
critical for the overall evaluation of 26. .'irxa2.
. Not 34.. ."ifxg5+?? 35 llg2 and wins.
27 l:td2 'iVe4 28 'irh31 a5 29 b3 35 .l:.g2 exd3

White's pieces are now more consolidated, 36 -*.f6!

so he need be in no hurry. At this moment I
felt optimistic, though stiU very alert because
of time pressure.
29 'iVg6 30 'ith1 'lt'e4+ 3 1 1 g6 32
. win the queen, but in a better way for Black;
g5!
ProbaQly the best way to keep fighting for
the advan12ge.
32 ...1le4
It's not easy to comment on a stage with
mutual time-trouble, but I think that both
sides are playing correctly. 36 il..e7 would also
i.e. 36 ... i.xe7 37 llxg6 hxg6 38 'i'xd3 i.cS+
39 'itg2 :aes with counterplay.
36 . . .gxf6 37 1fxd3 J:ae8 38 %lxf6 .ic5+!
39 'ith1
Not 39 fl ?? lle1+ 40 xel 1Wxg2 and
Black wins.
39 .. .1te3 40 1i'd1
40 .d21? l:tfe8 41 lift was possible.
40. . .1Ue8!

33 -*.d3
The temptation to win his queen was ex
tremely high, so I didn't realise that 33 i.hS!
(which I saw as weU, of course) 33 ...lDxg5 34
1i'g4 ltlh3+ 35 <ith t 'it'xg4 36 i.xg4 ltlf4 37

84

41 .llgxg6+ !
I t was good that the time-trouble ended
right before this move. Otherwise I might
have gone for 41 :.n 'irxg2+1 42 Wxg2 l:e2+
43 ht .i.d6 and an immediate draw is the
most likely outcome; for instance 44 'ifd4
:.xh2+ 45 gt l:lee2 (or 45....i.c5!? 46 1i'xc5
bxc5 47 xh2) 46 'irg4+ f8 47 'ilc8+ g7
48 \i'g4+ etc.
41 hxg6 42 Af1
..
So I gained an important tempo on the last
variation, at the cost of also improving hls
pawn structure. Black can probably hold this
position, though l still hoped for practical
chances. And my hopes weren't in vain.
42. . ..1l8e7 43 9g4 wg7 44 'ffh4 t5?!
The next day Topalov suggested 44. Wg8!
..
45 'irf6 lld3 with compensation.
45 Ad1 1
It's extremely important to take the d3
square away from Black's rook. Now his king
is more exposed than before, so hls chances
lie mainly in activity. White is required to
maintain a high level of precision in his calcu
lations.
45. . .A3e4
Black should perhaps prefer 45...ll7e4 46
'ird8 f4, though White remains slightly better
after 47 ..c7+1 and if 47 ...h6 48 'flf7.
46 1t'g3 f7
47 'irbs!
Attempting to break the co-ordination of
the black pieces with a neat manoeuvre. Black
Selected Games
has to watch out for rhe d-pawn now.
47 .1le8 48 1!Vc7+ .ll4e7 49 1!Vg3
..
Thls was my idea. I had no time to consider
other options such as 49 'ifc61? intending
49...lld8 50 a3! (not 50 d6? :007) so.. .l:ld6 51
'i'a4.
49 .1le3 50 1!Vh41 ll3e4 61 'irh7+ 6
52 Wc7!
The aim is achieved as the black king is
much worse placed on f6 than on f7. White
can now push his passed pawn and will have
an important check on c6 when necessary.
52 g5
If 52.. :let + 53 :.xel l:lxet+ 54 Wg2 g5 55
.
1llc6+! 7 56 d6 or 55...e7 56 11fg6! g4 57
<itg3.
53 We&+ 'itJg7 54 d6
Pinally this pawn moves forward. Jf the
tricks don't work, the game should be over for
Black.
64 g4 55 lZf1 ! :t4
...
If 55...llel 56 11fd7+ wins.
56 ltg1 i.xg1 57 Wxe8 .i.d4 58 1!Ve2!
In the second time-trouble l nearly over
looked 58 lfilg2? lt2+ 59 Wg3 llf3+ 60 h4??
(60 Wg2 repeats) 60....i.f6+ 6 1 h5 llh3
mate.
58 J:.e4 59 Wd2 Wf7 60 d7 e7 61
...
..g5+ Cit>xd7
61...e6 62 d8fll+ l seemed amusing to me.
62 xf5+ Ae& 63 xg4
The active black pawns are ftnally taken and
the rest is just technical.
85
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

63. . .i.c5 64 h4 rl1e7 65 'it'g7+ We8 66 10 lL!b6 1 1 .tn cxd4 12 lL!xd4 Wh8 1 3
.

h5 .i.f8 67 'irb7 llf6 68 rl1g2 JLe7 69 r/;g3 c3! e5!? 1 4 'it'h5

'iti8 70 wg4 l:lh6 7 1 'it'a8+ 'iti7 72 1i'd5+ I thought Nigel had just blundered with his
'iti8 73 'ifd2 lld6 74 'it'e3 'iti7 75 c5 move, so I didn't much look for other possi
bxc5 76 WVxc5 1 0 bilities, such as 1 4 liJb3!?. To be honest, I was
r------. already short of time - such was my form in
Game22 Las Vegas.
Shirov-Short 14...lbd5!
FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas 1999
French Difence

The game was annotated shortly after the

tournament and published in various maga
zines, including late Gambito.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 c3 lLif6 4 JLg5 dxe4
5 lL!xe4 JLe7
I was n little surprised when Nigel played
this line because I had employed it myself sev
eral times the previous month.
6 .i.xf6 gxf6
But I preferred taking with the bishop.
7 lL!f3 lLld7 8 .i.c4 c5 9 0.0!? This came as a shock, since I had only
During the game I didn't know that this counted on 1 4...exd4?? t S liJx6 i.xf6 1 6 i.d3
natural move was a novelty. I was trying to winning or 1 4...1lg8? 1 5 ll'l5 with a clear
figure out the consequences of the Jjne 9 dS advantage. No wonder t:lutt, seeing strong
liJb6 10 i.bS+ .ld7 1 1 ile2, only to learn Nigel's reply, I got completely confused and
afterwards that this had already occurred in an immediately made a big mistake.
old Tseshkovsky-Bronstein game. 1 5 llad 1 ?
9... 0-0 1 0 lle1 ! An extremely brave decision based o n a to
To my mind this is the only way to fight for tal miscalculation. There would be nothing
the advantage. 1 0 c3 cxd4! 1 1 cxd4 (or 1 1 wrong with the straightforward 1 S liJe2! ec7
llJxd4 llJeS) 1 t ...liJb6 1 2 .i.b3 i.d7 would be 1 6 lladl .le6 17 c41 when White has a certain
easy for Black. initiative.

86
 Selected Games

15 .. exd4 1 6 l:xd4 f5! 1 7 ll:\g3

The alternative try 17 .i.c4 fxe4 1 8 l:xdS
(or 1 8 .i.xd5 f5) 18 ...1i'c7 19 l:xe4 f5 20 l:et
would leave Black with a somewhat better
position.
1 7 . . ..i.c5!
A cold shower. I missed this completely
when playing 15 l:adt. Of course 17....if6 1 8
l:dd l i s a lot weaker.
1 8 l:d2 Wb6

1 9 We2?
I was again totally confused and already in a
very dangerous situation. 1 9 1i'f3 tlk7! or 1 9
b4 i.xf2+ 20 llxf2 f6 21 1i'g5 llg8!
(21 ... 22 ttlhSI is less clear) 22 'i'f4 lDg4
would also be bad, but 19 ll)xfS! ttlf6 20 1i'f3
stiU offered some hope.
1 9 . . .ll:lf6 20 11re5 Wg8!
Probably the most precise move, though
24. ...c6?
Now 1 had real hope. The natural 24....ld6
would lead to a draw after 25 :Xd6 11fxd6 26
l:xc8 'ilxg3 27 l:xa8 ..xc3 28 llxa7 'ifxb4 29
lla8, but the funny 24... Ae7! would be almost
decisive. All White can do is go for 25 tLlhS+
(White has nothing after 25 :xe7 .ie6, while
if 25 lld4 1fc7 26 llc4 'l'd7 27 l:xt:7 1i'xe7 28
llxc8 llxc8 29 lDxf5+ 8 30 tllxc7 9ilxt:7 31
c4 l:d8 wins) 25...h6 26 Le7 xhS 27
llxt7 .i.e6 28 llxh7+ Wg6 29 lle7 with some
play, but after all a queen is a queen.
25 l:dd8 .i.b6 26 l:g8+ 'Oti6?!
Black would have an edge after 26...h6 27
lhc8 ..xeS 28 l:txc8 l:xc8 29 ttlxfS+ g5.
27 ll:lh5+
Not 27 llde8? .ie6 28 :Xa8 'ifxc3 and
Black is better again.
27 e5
.

the foUowing line indicated by Salov was also

very strong: 20 ... .id71? 21 lllh 5 l:ac8! (not
2t...l:fe8?? 22 'ilxf6+ 'iVxf6 23 l:xe8+ AxeS
24 lllx f6 and wins) 22 'l'xf6+ 1i'xf6 23 li:)xf6
llxe1 24 l:xd7 (or 24 tllxd7 18) 24...g7 25
lllhS+ h6 26 lllf4 :b 1, as it would secure a
large endgame advantage.
21 h3
Otherwise ...g4 wins.
21 ... :ea 22 'ii'xe8+
No talk about brilliancies, it's merely a sad
necessity to give up the queen and pretend
that White can stiU resist.
22...lDxe8 23 l:xe8+ 7 24 b4 28 l:ld3!!

87
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7 - 2 0 0 4
After I made this move I had almost no
time left, but with an extra 30 seconds per
move I was still able to stand and fight! Of
course I couldn't take hls rook, as after 28
ltge8+? e6 29 ltxa8 'ifxc3 it's all over.
28 . . .'irh6?1
During the game J was afraid of 28 ... a5 29
bS 'ifcS, but in the postmortem with Valery
Salov we decided that White still has attacking
possibilities after 30 l:te3+ d6 31 lt)f6 c7
32 c4! a4 33 a3. Instead 28... 1Wg6 was sug
gested by Seirawan, but again Whlte looks OK
after 29 lhg6 hxg6 30 /.t)g71! (not 30 tbg3?
e6) intending 3<L.f6 31 tbe8+ rJ;e7 32
6 with a slight advantage (ami 28. .. a5 29 bS
'iVg6!? 30 ltxg6 hxg6 31 lbg7!! is similar). But
even without sugt,sting anything concrete, I
don t like Nigel's move because now he puts
'
himself in danger as well.
29 ..ie2! ._c1 + 30 lld1 1Vxc3 31 ..if3
88
31 . . ..te6?
Probably the decisive mistake, which is very
easy to understand when the king is in a mat
ing net and 30 seconds per move only makes
vou nervous. 31 ...'..c4! 32 lte8+ e6 33 llxa8
flxa2 would be Black's best chance, l think.
32 l:txa8 "Wxb4 33 Ilea! ..id4 34 AdS ..ib6
35 a3! 1Va5 36 l:t8d2! f4
37 ..tg4!
The winning move.
37 . . ..tc4 38 lile1 +
There was no time on the clock to find the
spectacular 38 g3!, but the text doesn't spoil
anything.
38 . . ...ie3 39 l:l:dd1 ..ib3 40 ltb1 ..tc2 41
btb41 f5 42 ..i.f3 ..ie4 43 fxe3 ..ixf3 44
gxf3 xa3 45 lbxf4 b6 46 l:td4 1 -0
Game 23
Stohi-Shirov
European Team Ch., Batumi 1999
King 's Indian Difence
The annotations to thls game are based on
my not for ll!fo1'1nator 77 back in 1999, al
es
though it turned out that many of my old
evaluations had to be changed. The text was
added when working on the book.
In the European Team Championship my
result was already quite reasonable before the
last round (as I had won the two previous
games), but I still felt extremely annoyed by
the weak qu:ility of my play and had a particu-

lar desire to play something good at last.
There was little to do in a not-prepared-for
winter hotel, lost somewhere twenty kilome
tres from Batumi, with an extremely poor
heating system. Therefore some players got
the strange habit of using the hotel's disco
theque a..o;; a place for drinking local wine and
talking during the artificially prolonged
nings, before going back to the cold rooms.
On this occasion Zigurds Lanka and
long and 'noisy' discussion about some lines
of the King's Indian, and this 'preparation'
helped my confidence before this game.
Igor Stohl is an extremely solid and well
prepared player who often doesn't show a
brreat ambition as White against a strong op
ponent. But naturally my hearing was pretty
damaged at this stage, as I normally don't go
to such places as discotheques, so I might not
even have heard his possible draw offer.
1 lLif3 lLif6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 .tg7 4 .t92 o-o
5 d4 d6 6 o-o lLic6 7 lLic3 a6
So we get a system that 1 analysed with
Lanka for years, reached countless times in my
practice, but still find difficult to understand.
The complexity of strategical ideas for both
sides is enormous in this line, and the possible
tactical play is not to be underestimated either.
8 h3 i.d7 9 e4
A 'classical' move. One might also remem
ber my game against Laurier in the Manila
Intcr.t.onal 1 990 (see l''irr on Board) in which
Joel played 9 llld5.
Sele c te d Games
9 . e5 1 0 .i.e3
Nowadays White doesn't normally play 1 0
dS, since the posi tiona! pawn sacrifice
1 0. ..ltd4! 1 1 lllxd4 exd4 1 2 1i'xd4 'ifc8 yields
Black good chances after 13 h4 tbg4 14 1i'd2
bS.
1 0 ...exd4 1 1 lLixd4 lleB 1 2 lLixc6 bxc6
eve
I had a
1 3 c5?!
For some strange reason this move was
fashionable in Batumi. The idea of avoiding
... c6-c5 might be good, but not when Black is
better developed. He can now start attacking
White's weaknesses.
1 3 . . ."tic81 1 4 g4
After 14 Wh2 it would be worth consider
ing 14 ... :le5!? witl1 open warfare. However,
the text doesn't bring White much peace ei
ther.
14 . h5!
This is much stronger than 14...d5, as An
toniewski played against Stohl earlier that year.
1 5 g5 lLih7 1 6 h41?
And this move is stronger than 1 6 Wh2, as
Marin played against Socko in round 4, when
Black achieved a nice victory after 1 6 d51 17...
li'd2 :lb8 18 :ladl :lb4!? 1 9 a3 1lc4 20 f4 d4
21 tbe2 dxe3 22 'iVxd7 'ifxd7 23 l::txd7 .i.xb2
24 :ld3 :XeS 25 llxe3 :IdS and so on. This
game was also discussed by me and Lanka,
especially since Zigurds had worked for many
years with Bartosz Socko, but we couldn't
believe that the line was repeatable. Stohl,
however, seemed to have a di fferent opinion.
89
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7 - 2 004
1 6....i.h3!
There is no 1 6...d5?! anymore, since it
would now fail to 17 cxdS h3 1 8 d6! and if
'1 8...i.xg2? 19 d7.
1 7 cxd6 cxd6 1 8 f3
The only move, as otherwise Black goes tor
the weaknesses immediately; for example 18
'ti'O xg2 1 9 'iti>xg2 l:lb8 20 l:lab1 l:lb4! or 1 8
'ti'xd6 i.xg2 1 9 Wxg2 i.eS! 20 'ti'd1 xc3 21
bxc3 l:lxe4 with a dear advantage.
18 hg2 1 9 Wxg2 .t.xc31
I think it was this exchange that Stohl
missed. Instead after 1 9...d5? 20 i.d41 he
would have every reason to be happy with his
position.
20 bxc3 d5
21 ..tf2?
Correctly understanding that the e-pawn
should be sacrificed but missing a better op
portunity to do so. Black has some problems
90
with the activity of his pieces, especially the
knight, so White had to bring as many pieces
as possible into play. Thls could be done by 21
l:bl ! dxe4 (21 ...a5!? is interesting but then,
compared with the game, White would have
an active rook) 22 llb41 with complex play.
21 . . .dxe4 22 .l:te1 .l:tb8?!
As usual, I gave more importance to piece
activity than the number of pawns, and al
though my decision was more or less justified
from a practical point of view, it's clear that
keeping an extra pawn was a better idea. Even
after the simple 22 ... exf3+!? 23 Wxf.3 fB
White's compensation is not fully sufficient,
but I could also play 22 ..1115!?. I rejected this
because I thought that, after 23 fxe4 llxe4 24
l:lxe4 'i'xe4+ 25 jlf3, White would have a
good position due to the activity of his rook
and bishop. But in fact the queen exchange
25 ...11fxf3+ 26 Wx3 f61 27 gxf6 (27 lld1 fxgS
28 lld6 l:lt'B+ 29 g2 llf6 30 lld8+ lbfB is
just bad for White) 27 ...lbxf6 promises Black
c.xccllcnt winning chances.
23 .l:txe4 :xe4 24 fxe4 f6!
This was my idea. The rook and queen are
already active, so I want to bring my knight
into play as well, and then start going after his
weaknesses and king.
25 gxf6
Back in 1 999 I thought White would have
good drawing chances with 25 :b1 ?, but this
evaluation was clearly erroneous, because after
25 ... :xb1 26 'ti'xbl fxgS 27 'itb3+ q;g7 28

j.d4+ Black has 28...llf6! (less clear is
28...h6 29 'ilfl 'irg4+ 30 2! 'A'xh4+ 31
e3 'i'f4+ 32 'A'xf4 gxf4+ 33 xf4 and White
might draw this endgame - which is why I
used to think 25 :lb 1 was strong) 29 'ti'b4
fl! and the win is just a matter of time.
25 . . .6 26 .-e2!
Keeping the pawn on e4 to control the dS
square. 26 e5? lld5 27 1i'f3 'A'e6 would be
exacdy what I was aiming for.
26 . . .'ife6 27 .rl.e1 %le8f?
28 e5?
White suddenly changes his plans. During
the game I didn't realise that the a6-pawn
would be a more than reasonable trade for the
one on e4, and after 28 1fxa6 lihe4 29 'i'd3!
White would have litde difficulty in saving this
game.
28 t0d51
Now Black is at last clearly better and, be-
Selected Games
sides, it's much easier for him to find good
moves with such wonderful piece co
ordination.
29 ..tg3 lbxc3 30 '6'xa6 AdS! 31 .rl.f1 ?I
The last mistake, though I think Black was
objectivdy winning anyway.
31 . . .lbe4! 0-1
Black has achieved total domination and,
although material is still equal, White decided
that it was already time to resign.
Game 24
Shirov-Topalov
Sarajevo 2000
F17!nch D(ence
The annotations to this game were done
while working on the book and are based on
my notes for lnformator 78, written after the
tournament.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lbc3 lDf6 4 ..tg5 dxe4
5 tl:lxe4 ..te7 6 ..txf6 gxf6 7 tZ:lf3
7 . . . a6!?
This move became popular after Moro
zevich started employing it in 1998 with suc
cess. The legend says that Morozevich once
showed the move to Boris Spassky and the
reaction of the former world champion was
'OK, but isn't 7 .a5 more logical?' Then
..
Spassky insisted on analysing his idea and I
think his plan was ... a4, ...d7, ..b6, ... .i.b7,
.
...lla5, .'i'a8 and so on. The result of the
..
analysis is unknown to me. Shordy before the
91
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
Sarajevo tournament I played 6 .Lf6 n ..
stead of 6 ...gxf6) against Spassky in the 'Grand
Prix du Senate> in a rapid game, and after
wards we had a talk about different lines in the
French. He didn't tell me the '7. .a5 story' but
. of 1 3 h4 and lost without much fight.
he did inform me that, in his opinion, 8 c41?
was the way to challenge 7... a6. I found the
idea interesting and later on learned from the
database that it had already been played.
8 c4!? f5 9 ttlc3
9 . i.f61
. .
I don't know whether Topalov was pre
pared for 8 c4 or not, but here he comes up
with a strong novelty. After 9.. c5 1 0 dS, fol
. makes.
lowed by 'ifcZ. yielded White a very strong
position in the game Wang Zili-Dreev, Shen
yang l999.
1 0 'Wd2
White's queen doesn't stand as well on d2
because it closes the path of the rook in some
lines, but what to do? 1 0 'ifc2 i.xd4! 1 1 0-0-0
cS wasn't advisable.
1 0 c5
..
During the game I considered 1 0...0-0 to be
a better option, but I am not so sure anymore.
1 1 d5 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 e5
1 2 ... b5 would be premature in view of 1 3
'ire3!; instead 1 2...i.g7!? seemed best to me.
One year later Morozevich played it against
me in Astana 2001, and I managed to get the
advantage (and even win after serious mutual
errors) by continuing 1 3 h4 exdS 1 4 lLlxdS
lLlc6 1 5 hS! h6 1 6 l:th3! f4 17 l:th4. However,
92
it is very early to draw the conclusions about
the whole line because, in Bid 2003, Moro
zevich repeated it against Lutz. For some
strange reason Lutz continued 1 3 b 1 instead
1 3 h4 b51
An excellent move, reminding White that
he should act quickly, before the position
opens up completely and the black bishops
become especially strong.
1 4 d6!
Freeing the dS square for the knight and
provoking Black for a mistake that he actually
14...ltlc6?
It's natural to put the knight on d4, but
now White gets immense activity with Ius
queen and the pawn on seventh rank. Neither
was 1 4.. .i.e6 advisable, due to 1 5 g4! fxg4 1 6
i.d3! i.g7 1 7 lDgS with the advantage, but
14 ... e4! would have made me calculate un
pleasant variations. My best move would be
probably 15 1td5 (it's very hard to have confi
dence in lines like tS liJgS!? .i.d4 16 tlJe2 tlJc6
17 lLlxd4 cxd4 1 8 cS! with terrible mess) and
after 1 5_ .. 'i'b6!? (1 S....i.xc3 1 6 bxc3 'ifaS 1 7
'ifxa8 1txc3+ 1 8 b1 seems less good, and
although things are still incredibly compli
cated, I prefer White; for example 1 8...'i'b4+
1 9 c2 11fa4+ 20 'itlct 'ifa3+ 21 d2 'ilb4+
22 e3 exf3 23 .xf3 or 21...11fxa2+ 22 el
exf3 23 1Vxf3 and somehow the rook pair and
d6-pawn make me fed confident) 1 6 tbgs

l:ta7! (not 16 ... .i.xc3? 17 bxc3 IZ.a7 1 8 lbxe4
fxe4 19 'irgS+ 'ith8 20 1if6+ Wg8 21 lidS and
wins), I see nothing better than 17 lbcxe4!?
fxe4 1 8 'lfxe4
18...:ld8 1 9 'lfxh7+ fiitf8 20 6+ .i.g7 2 1
lbh7+ g8 22 llf6+ f8 with a draw by
repetition.
1 5 d7 .i.b7
1 6 Wd6!
The only move but a strong one. I already
felt very confident at this stage because, some
how, I sensed that my pieces were placed
more harmoniously for the forthcoming com
plications.
16 e4 1 7 o!tld5 .i.g7 1 8 .!l:\g5 .!tld4!
. lbxfS .i.eS 26 lle3! seem more or less clearly
In a difficult position one can, of course,
expect best play from a player like Topalov.
He already 'had a chance' to be severely mated
after 18... h6 19 cxbS axbS 20 .i.xbS lbd4 (if
20...lbb4 21 lbc7+ c.ti>h8 22 .i.c4 lbxa2+ 23
Selected Games
itb1 wins) 21 lbe7+ 'ith8 22 1i'g6!!, or
18...'iVaS 19 c.t>b1 h6 20 llf6+ h8 21 'lfxcSI,
but naturally he avoids such lines.
1 9 .!l:\e7 + q,;,hs
20 flh3l?
Back in 2000 I considered this continuation
imprecise, but now I bt:licve that it is one of
the best moves in the position. 20 b4!? was an
interesting alternative, but during the game it's
not so easy to dare opening up the king like
this. And then there was also 20 bl !? which
would lead to a transposition after 20... f4 21
l:h3, while after 20... b4 the idea 21 .i.e21
might be even more effective than in the
garnet
20 ... f4
By not allowing my rook to g3, Topalov
practically forces me to find the right winning
plan. After 20... b41? I would probably con
tinue 2t llg3 (actually 21 bt l? aS 22 ltg3! is
a perfectly acceptable aJternative move order)
and a good question remaining is what I
would do after 21...a5. Other lines such as
21...f4 22 IZ.g4, 21...'ifb8 22 llc8, and 21 ...h6
22 llf3!? (even here 22 bt l? is very strong!)
22 ... 'ifb8 (22... exf3? loses to 23 llxg7 Wxg7 24
llxd4) 23 'lfxb8 llaxb8 24 llxd4 ..ixd4 25
in White's favour. So after 21...a5, I decided
back in 2000 that 22 llxd4! was the best
chance to get the advantage, since variations
like 22 'lfxcS 1i'xd7 23 lbxh7 IZ.fd8 24 bl
lbe6 25 llxd7 llxc5 26 llg5 llxd7 27 llxf7+
93
Fire on BoBrd PBrt II: 1 9 9 7- 2004
<ith7 28 ltlgS+ h8 with a draw or 22 tllxh7
1i'b8! 23 .xb8 (23 'iWxc5 11ff4+ 24 1ld2 tlle6!
i good for Black) 23...ltfxb8 24 tbgs ll8 are
not especially promising. To my great surprise,
when writing these notes, I realised that Whire
still has a very strong alternative in 22 b 1 !
and Black i s paralysed, facing the threat of
23 1i'xc5 .xd7 24 tllxh7! which is now genu
ine! His best chance now is possibly 22 ... h6
(22...1la6 23 1i'xc5 .xd7 allows a neat mate
after 24 llxt.l4 xd4 25 tllxf7+ llxf7 26 llg8,
while 22...f4 23 llg4 lla6 - what else? - 24
1i'xc5 1i'xd7 loses to the more complicated
but no less beautiful 25 llxd4! .xg4 26
ltd8!, but after 23 tllh7 lla6 24 1i'xc5 <itxh7
25 1lxg7+ 1Jxg7 26 llxd4 White is winning.
Returning to 22 llxd4, the position after
22... cxd4 23 1i'f4! 'i'xd7 24 tllx5 d3 25 tllxg7
d2+ (not 25 ...1i'a4 26 llxd3! exd3 27 xd3
and Black will get mated) 26 li'xd2 li'xd2+ 27
xd2 should be winning, but it's clear that 22
bl! is more convincing. It's never a bad idea
to check your old analysis through!
2 1 'itb1
Here I was already considering 21 b4!?
more seriously, but I preferred a different idea.
21 ...b4!?
During the game 1 was more concerned
about 21...h6, which would finally make me
play 22 b41, because after 22 lbg6+ <iPgS! (of
course not 22 .. fxg6 23 li'xg6 hxg5 24 hxgS+
g8 25 cxb5! J.d5 26 c4! xc4 27 lldh 1 virtually an immediate resignation.
and mate is inevitable) White is forced tu re-
94
peat the position with 23 tlle7+ <ith8 and then
play 24 b4! anyway. But then Black is in fact
helpless. Is the b2-b4 idea generally better
than the one (liti>b1 and then J.e2Q that I
found? Aesthetically I like both of them, so it
depends on taste - and the actual position!
22 ..te21!
Normally in chess one sacrifices a piece for
something concrete, be it a check, mate or a
combination. Maybe a direct mating threat. In
this case White will only get a threat to
threaten mate! Unusual, isn't it? The immedi
ate 22 1i'xc5 Wxd7 would suit Black pcrfecdy.
22 f3
Trying to win a tempo to get the knight to
g6 via f4, but probably missing my 26th move.
If instead 22...tllxe2 23 11fxc5 and it's impos
sible to parry the threat of 24 1i'f5; e.g. 23 . f5
. .
24 lbe6 wins, while 23.. tlld4 24 llxd4 xd4
.
25 95 r:bg7 26 tllg8! is another neat end -
there are many in the sidelines of this game!
The most stubborn try would be 22 .. a5, but
after 23 .lg4! (defending the precious d7-
pawn!) 23... 5 f 23... f6 24 'ifxc5 wins) 24
ltlg6+! g8 25 :xd4! Ld4 26 'ife6+ <j;g7 27
tllxf8 'irx8 28 'ifb61 White finally gathers in
the harvest.
23 gxf3 lllxe2?!
Black's position should be considered lost
in any case, because White has both an attack
and a material advantage, but this capture is
24 11t'xc5 ltlf4 25 'ti'f5 ltlg6
 Selected Games

the whole story. Shortly before the 2000 Sara

jevo tournament I gave a simultaneous exlubi
tion in Paris, in the Jardin de Luxembourg,
and an amateur played the Budapest Gambit
against me. After that game I realised that
there were some new (at least for me!) ideas in
the opening and I decided to give it a try. ln
2001 I gave another simul in a different part
of Paris and before it I answered my oppo
nents' questions. Somebody asked my opinion
of the Budapest Gambit, referring to my game
against Bacrot, and I started telling the story
about the Paris amateur in 2000 - but it
26 h5! turned out that I was speaking to the same
The last flnesse. I had to see this move well guy! So I suggested that he try the opening
in advance, of course. against me again in the simul and this time I
26 1Wxe7 27 hxg6 1 -0
. managed to beat him more convincingly. As
Black resigns; h e is finally getting mated. for me, 1 haven't tried the Budapest Gambit
------- again in a tournament game since, but who
Game 25 knows about the future...
Bacrot-Shirov 3 dxe5 4 e4
Sarajevo 2000 But here is a surprise for me. I expected 4
Budapest Gambit .if4 or 4 f3 and was now already out of the
'-------'--------..
book.
This game was annotated after the tourna 4 . . . ll\xe5 5 f4 ll\ec6 6 ll\f3
ment and published i n various magazines, in Probably not the best move. 6 .i.e3 looked
cluding Schoch. more logical.
1 d4 ll\f6 2 c4 e5!? 6 .. i.c5 7 ll\c3 0-0 8 f5
A new move. 8 .i.d3 used to be played, but
I'd better skip theoretical remarks as White's
set-up doesn't convince me anyway.
a . .d6 s .t9s t6 1 0 .i.t4 :as 1 1 'iid 5+
.

h8 12 0-0-0 7

h had been almost ten years since I played

the Budapest Gambit. Bacrot's second in Sara
jevo was Alexander Nikitin, Kasparov's long
time coach, so I tried to take them out of their
opening preparation. Here I think I should tell

95
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7 - 2004

Black has developed comfortably and aims would be unclear) 24 1i'xe4 l:g4 25 'ft'f3 ltle5
for the play on the dark St.(uares. After the 26 LeS llxc4+ 27 i.c3 .i.xc3 28 bxc3 'ii'aS
game Nikitin surprised me a lot by claiming I 29 b2 l:Z.a4 30 l:la1 l::te8 winning.
was much worse here. 23 ...Wd7!
1 3 h4? The simplest win.
13 g4! with an unclear position would still 24 axb4 llxc2+ 25 xc2 1i'xf5+ 26 'ii>c3
be normal for White. ll:Je6 27 'lfe3 .!Oxf4 28 ll:!f3 a5 29 l:ta1
13 .. ll:Jce5 14 h5?! axb4+ 30 xb4 l:d8 31 l::thf1 9c2 32
14 .d2 was not good in view of 14. )tg4! , 'iVc3 c5+ 0-1
but White should have played something
other than the text, since now his kingside
play will be ended.
1 4...h6 1 5 'ifd2 ll:Jf7
White is already in severe difficulties as the
e4-pawn is very weak.
1 6 ..td3 ..tb4 1 7 ..tc2 .!Oc5 1 8 'iVdS
Or 1 8 l:Z.he1 i.d7.
1 8 .. .'ittg8 1 9 .!Oe2
Aiming for the estranged bishop on b4 (e.g.
1 9... i.d7? 20 a3 i.c6 21 .d4 with an unclear
position), but missing the tactical blow.
1 9 . . . c6! 20 1Wd4 ..txf5 21 exf5 :Xe2 22
ll:Jg1 ? White resigned because of 33 bS 1Ve4.
During the game I was more concerned
about the queen sacrifice 22 a3 l:Z.e4 23 i.xe4 Game 26
ti)b3+ 24 b 1 ti)xd4 25 d4, but it's proba Shirov-Akopian
bly insufficient in the long run (after
. 25 ... J.c5 Merida 2000
26 9b6, for example). French Defence
22 llxg2
.

The game was annotated shortly after the

tournament and published in various maga
zines, including the late Gambito.
The tournament in Merida was a double
round-robin with four players. After five
rounds Judit Polgar (who was to play Gilberta
Hernandez with Black) and 1 had 3 points,
and I was detennined to fight for the tourna
ment victory, thinking that my chances as
White would be pretty good. As it happened,
starting the game in time and not losing by
default was already a big achievement. The last
round began at 1 Oam, instead of the normal
23 a3?! 3pm, and theoretically there is nothing un
The last chance was 23 i.e4, when I would usual about that since it's a common practice
have to find the computer continuation in chess tournaments. The peculiarity of this
23 ...e4 (23 ...l:Z.g4? 24 J.n l:Z.xf4 25 xf4 case, however, was that I simply didn't know

96

about the schedule! It was in the restaurant,
during a dinnt:r which took a lot longer than
expected, that Alfonso Romero asked me why
I was still enjoying the food and wine instead
of preparing for the decisive game. Only then
it turned out there was not much time left
anymore! All the same, I thought there was no
real reason to prepare for Akopian, who
would, for sure, employ some surprise open
ing, so I was not in any hurry to pay the bill.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d6 3 lDc3 .ib4 4 e5 c5 5 a3
.ia5!?
l11is line is becoming very popular nowa
days, especially at top level. When Akopian
played it (he had never done so before),
wondered whether he wanted to follow his
fellow Armenians, such as Vaganian and Lpu
tian, or his opponent in the World Champion
ship final, Alexander Khalifman. Nowadays'
meant the year 2000, of course, although the
Armenian grandmasters still employ this line.
6 b4
In 2003 (against A talik in the Bosnian
League) I played 6 'A'g4 in dus position, and
then 6. . /i:'Je7 7 dxcS J.xc3+ 8 bxc3, influ
enced by the game Leko-I<halifman (Linares
2000). Although I happened to win after a lot
of mutual nlistakes, 1 presume that the other
rwo victories :lbnst Suat were a better
choice for this book!
6 cxd4 7 'Wg4 lDe7 8 bxa5 dxc3 9 'Wxg7
..
.rigS 1 0 'Wxh7 lDbc6
1 1 lDf3
Selec ted Games
I used to play 1 1 f4 here, but in this deci
sive game l didn't want to sec Akopian's
preparation. Now I feel that chess is chess,
and if 1 1 f4 is better than 1 1 f3 (and I think
it is), then it should be played regardless of the
tournament situation!
1 1 .'5'c7 1 2 .if4 .id7 1 3 .i.g3 0-0-0 1 4
.
.id3 'i!rxa5 1 5 0-0 'Wc5
I
Some months later in l foogcv<..--cn 2000,
Khalifman plared I S ...Ilh8!? here against
Galkin, and after 16 ..xf7 1ldf8 1 7 'A'g7 1lhg8
1 8 'lfh6 (1 8 'ifh7 llh8 is a draw) 1 8... 1lxf3! 1 9
gxf3 d4! 20 'iff4 df5 he got excellent
compensation for the exchange in a position
sinUiar to the current b'llme.
1 6 9xf7!?
After the game I was surprised to learn
from my opponent that grabbing the pawn in
computer style was i n fact new. 16 llfcl had
been played by Dolmatov against Lputian in
the 1 990 Manila I nterzonal, but I wasn't sure
what to do after the obvious 1 6 ... 1ldf8. 1 6
'A'h4 has also been tried in a few games.
1 6 l:tdf8 1 7 'Wh7 :xf3!?
..
A very ambitious exchange sacrifice which,
frankly speaking, I didn't seriously consider. In
his old annotations Dolmatov gave the line
1 7...1lh8 18 'A'g7 llhgB 19 1i'h6 f5 (now
Khalifman's idea, 1 9 ... 1lxf3 20 gx3 d4?!,
doesn't work so well because of 21 'ire3!, and
with his queen on cS, Black can't play
21 ...ef5) 20 i..x fS llxfS, after which I was
going to continue 21 'ife3!? with a slight ad-
97
Fire on Board Part /1: 1 9 9 7- 2004
vantage. It's funny that after 21 ...b61? 22 ltfdl,
one can still get back to the Dolmarov
Lputian game.
1 8 gxf3 lhxe5
1 9 .te2
I was not especially happy to make this
move as I wanted to continue 1 9 hl l?. The
position after 1 9. ..lbxf3 20 'ifhS quite ap
pealed to me, but I wasn't sure whether I
would be better if, instead of taking a pawn,
Black exchanged his knight for my bishop and
got a passed c-pawn after l9...tihd3 20 cxd3.
19 d4
Now White really has to watch out. l also
reckoned on 1 9...5g6!?, and my intention
was to repeat the position by 20 W e5
(Black can look for something else here, of
course) and then play 21 hl .
20 l::tf e1 .tc6
21 1 !
98
Probably the best move, which made my
opponent think for nearly an hour. TI1e threat
to take on f3 was quire strong; for example 21
.tdl >d7! or 21 ltadl i..x3 22 'irh6 7g61
and the game is quite unclear.
21 .. .li'lxf3
The correct way of capruring. I expected
2t...i..x f3 and must admit that 22 i.xf3 xf3
23 :Xc6, which J was going to play, probably
leads to a draw after 23 ..11fc4+ (23...d2H
.
gives White a chance to fight on with 24
Wgl !? f3+ 25 g2 gS 26 'fixe? 'ifd5+ 27
l:te4 'ifxe4+ 28 'i'xe4 xe4 29 l:.et!? and the
h-pawn might become dangerous; instead 24
Wet 'i'd5! 25 llxc7 li'ht+ 26 e2 'iff3+ 27
Wet would be just another draw) 24 lte2
'i'dS (not 24 .lbd2+? 25 >e1 'iVdS 26 dt)
..
25 'ifxe7 (25 llxe7 llXI2+ 26 We2 'iff3+ also
draws, while 25 'ifh3+?! fS can be dangerous
for White) 25 . lihh2+ 26 g1 f3+ etc.
. .
However, 22 .i.dt !, which was seen by Vladi
mir but not by me, may give White some edge
after 22.. 1t'b5+ 23 Wgl i..xdl 24 l:txe5 1lxg3+
.
25 hxg3 'i'xeS 26 1lxd1 .
2 2 .i.xf3 .txf3 23 l::te 51?
It was tempting to play 23 'iffl, but the
endgame arising after 23 ...'iff5! (much worse
is 23 i..d5 24 1Vf4 with a dear advantage) 24
...
'i'xe6+ 1i'xe6 25 llxe6 lbfS didn't convince
me, as Black can sometimes sacrifice the pawn
on d3 and create a passed pawn on c2, pro
tected by a bishop on dt or knight on d4.
23 . .i.d5 24 'itg1 g;,d7! 25 l::td 1
 Sele c te d Gam e s

25 1Vxa3?!
.. 28 hxg3
Since the white rook is still on eS Black
tnkes an opportunity to capture the a-pawn. It
shouldn't have been the best move (2S...b5!
would promise more compensation), but I
reacted incorrectly.
26 1ih4?
Instead, after 26 llxdS+! exdS 27 llel !
White would be two pawns down, but with a
tetnfic attack and a deadly pin.
26 1Va4?
.

28 ltJf5
.

Now 28...Wxe6 is an option, but I think

White should win after 29 l:f.cl+ 'it'd? 30
'irxe7+ cB 31 'ireS+ i.c6 32 lle8+ c7 33
:e?+ 'iii'c8 34 'iff5+ i.d7 35 1i'd5!?.
29 'iVh7 + xe6 30 'it'g6+ >d7
If 30...e5 31 f4+ e4 32 llel+ f3 33
11fxf5 and wins.
31 'iVxf5+ c6 32 wrt& + c5 33 'it'e7 +
'itc4 34 11re5 Wc5 3 5 f4 b6
Missing White's blow. When I played 26
'l'h4 I nearly had a seizure when I saw that
Black could play 26... d3!? here. But then I
calmed down, realising that with 27 llxdS+
(why didn't I consider tll.is exchange sac ear
lier?) 27 ... exd5 28 llxd3 I would maint.'lin
enough possibilities; for example 28...1i'c1+ 29
Wg2 'i'xc2 30 1i'h7!.
After the game Vladimir suggested
26...1i'a2!?, and it seems the position is more
or less balanced after 27 1i'xd4 c6 (or
27...1i'xc2 28 lldel 1fd2 29 Wb4!) 28 1lxd5+
'i'xdS 29 1fxd5+ exdS 30 :XdS+ e6 31 lld3.
27 lbe6! 36 f5!
Now White is winning. It was good we It made no sense to enter into complica
were playing with the FIDE time control tions such as 36 'ifc7+ i.c6 37 l:f.el 'ifxc2 38
(meaning the Fischer clock with a half minute l:f.eS+ b4 39 1fxc6 'irhl+ 40 f2 1fa2+ 41
bonus per move, not the FIDE control of lle2 'l'c41 - especially since, checking it now
2001 !), so the rest was relatively easy for me. with Fri I reach the conclusion that it's a
27 l:lxg3+
.. draw in the end.
The rook is taboo; i.e. 27 ....txe6 28 llxd4+ 36 . . .'itc6 37 'ii'f &+
or 27... Wxe6 28 lle1+. Repeating moves in order to the second

99
Fire on Board Part II: 199 7-2004

time control and consider the exchange sacri 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 a6 5
fice at more leisure. .td3
37 ...c5 In Polanica 1998 I played S tlX3 against
If 37...b7 38 l:el. Sergei, but he managed to obL'lin an almost
38 'ti'e5 c6 39 :xct4! 'iVa1 + 40 Wf2 'ilh1 equal ending right from the opening. There
fore I had to adjust my preparation this time.
5...lbf6 6 0-0 d& 7 c4 .i.d7 8 lbc3 lbc6

41 lbd5!
The simplest.
41 1i'xd5 42 1fxc3+ Wd6
. 9 i.e3
Black cannot avoid the queen exchange; for 9 tbxc6 J.xc6 10 b4 has become the main
example 42...b6 43 'lfe3+ c6 (otherwise line since Khalifman's beautiful victory over
White takes the a7-pawn with the check) 44 Rublevsky in Kazan 2001.
'irf3 aS 4S 'lfxdS+ xdS 46 e3 wins. 9....te7
43'tt'd3! a5 9 ...tikS!?
10 .ie2 .flc8, planning to answer
Again if 43..."ti'xd3 44 cxd3 aS 4S e3. 11 b3 widt lt ...bS, was the line that worried
44 e3 a4 45 1i'xd5+ Wxd5 46 Wd2 b4 me in 1998 when I chose 5 llk3. This time I
47 c1 1 -0 was ready to challenge it, but Rublevsky
White will play Wb2 and then c2-c3. played differendy (and expectedly!).
1 0 f4 0-0 1 1 o;lilh1 xd4 1 2 i.xd4 .tc6
Gan1e 27 13 1i'e2 lbd7 14 Aad1 e5 1 5 .i.e3 exf4
Shirov-Rublevsky 1 6 .txf4
Montecatini Terme 2000
Sicilian Difence, Kan Variation

The annotations to this game were done

while working on the book and are based on
my notes for lnformator 79.
The Russian grandmaster Sergei Rublevsky
is a very strong tactician and his opening rep
ertoire is extremely well-worked. However, it
is also very narrow, so preparing against him is
not such a difficult task. But being prepared
docs not yet mean winning the game, of
course.

1 00
 Selected Games

1 6 .lbe5
.

Now I can't remember exactly how my

pr<.'{>aration went, but this move is a novelty.
16 ...1WaS 17llkl5 i.xdS 18 exd51lae8 19 lfc2
h6 with unclear play was tested in the game
G.Hemandez-Christiansen, Philadelphia 1998,
which soon ended a draw, so White could
possibly improve at some stage.
1 7 i.c2 'Wc7 18 c5!?
The pawn sacrifice looks very attractive of
course, but in retrospect I would prefer 18
i.b3!?.
1 8... dxc5! 1 9 ltld5 1l'd6
23 ...l:ad8!! 24lbxf6+
Being in shock I didn't mind going into
forcing variations, unless they led to a lost
position. 24 a4!? was the other option, but it
would probably lead to a similar position after
24...i.c4 25 llJxf6+ llxf6 26 :xd6 llfxd6 27
lift.
24 :xt6 25 :Xd6 J:[fxd6
..

20 g3!?
Even though I didn't see anything clear, l
still couldn't force myself to go into the equal
ending after 20 b6 i.bS 21 1fxb5 axbS 22
llxd6 i.xd6 23 xa8 llxa8 24 lld 1 3! 25
i.xd3 i.xf4 26 J.xbS. Now the fires start
burning again as in the good old times.
20 .i.b51 21 '1Vh5 f6 22 J:[f4!
.

I rejected 22 f6+ llxf6 because the end 26 J:[f1!

game after 23 J.xe5 llxf1+ 24 1lxfl ife6 25 The critical moment in the game. We both
1Wf5 11'xf5 26 llxf5 lld8 27 i.c3 seemed dan were under severe time ptcssure and my op
gerous to me. Actually, instead of 23 .ixe5, 23 ponent thought (as he later admitted) that he
llfe 1! would be enough to keep the position was already better. Looking for winning
equal, but I doubt I'd have chosen differently chances tna)' have cost him the game as the
even if I'd seen that. position is still very unclear.
22 g6! 23 11h6!?
. 26 .i.f8?
.

Once again rejecting a drawish line 23 Probably 26 ...g5 was the best option for
llJxf6+ 'ifxf6 241lxf6 gxh5 25 lLf8 + llxf8 26 Black (26 ... 27 'irct J.xf1 28 xd6 and
i.xe5 ll2 27 i.bt - and of course, com 26 ...f7 27 'ifct i.gS 28 l!ret both seem
pletely missing Black's reply. good for White), when I would have to find

101
Fire on Sosrd Part 1/: 199 7-2004
the precise 27 'ilh3! (after 27 'ifhs J.xft 28
.txeS :l.g6 29 .tc3 bS 30 eS .td3 31 .txd3
:.Xd3 Black is better) 27 ....txfl (27 ... .td7?
allows 28 'ifhS) 28 .txeS and the game re
mains unclear.
27 1i'c1
Now White is finally better and my oppo
nent's time-trouble speeds up the process.
27 . . ..i.xf1 28 .ixe5
28 lte6?
..
During and after the game I thought I was
already winning at this point, but in fact after
28....tc4 (the only move) 29 .txd6 l:lxd6 it
would still be very difficult to convert
White's advantage into a victory. Possibly the
best he can do is exchange the bishops im
mediately with 30 .i.b3 .ixb3 31 axb3 retain
ing good winning chances.
29 1i'xf1 lbe5 30 .i.b3+ c4 31 9xc4+
Wg7 32 1i'c7 + 1 -0
Game 28
Shirov-Bauer
Istanbul Olympiad 2000
Nimzo-Indian Defence
This game was specially annotated for the
book and hasn't been analysed by me before.
The Istanbul Olympiad played an extremely
important role in my life - as there I met my
wife Victoria Cmilyte, who was playing for the
Lithuanian women's team and took the gold
medal on board one. Now Victoria is also the
1 02
mother of my two children and we have every
reason to look back happily at our beginning:
Istanbul 2000. As for me, I was in exceUcnt
psychological shape during the Olympiad, but
my final result was slightly damaged by the
fact that, just a few days after its end, the
World Championship was due to start and I
didn't want to demonstrate my repertoire.
That's why, when I played with black pieces
against Gelfand and Vaganian, 1 chose side
lines which, in the romantic atmosphere, were
not carefully prepared and ended up helping
my opponents to convert tl1eir brilliant play
into victories. Nevertheless, my final result
with seven wins, three draws and two losses
was reasonable for the life-turning tourna
ment. I managed to win aU my games with
White, and I chose this one for the book. It
seems that my opponent made his decisive
mistake as early as on move 9, but to prove it
I had to play very precisely.
1 d4
I played this instead of my usual 1 e4 not
just to hide my main preparation, but also be
cause I found a weakness in Christian's reper
toire.
1 ...ltlf6 2 c4 e6 3 ltlc3 .ib4 4 1i'c2 c5 5
dxc5 ltla6 6 a3 51? 7 .i.d2 ltlxc5
If I am not mistaken, this set-up was first
employed by Victor Korchnoi against Yasser
Seirawan at the 1990 Novi Sad Olympiad,
exactly 10 years before the present game. As I
happened to be in Novi Sad myself during the

first rounds, I noted that game and remember
analysing it with Leonid Yudasin. Seirawan
played 8 ltct and I suggested 8 b3!?, which
seemed interesting to Leonid as he himself
employed it against Korchnoi a month later in
Pamplona - though all he got was a difficult
draw with White and some unpleasant 'habit
ual' Korchnoi remarks in the postmortem! It
became dear that 8 b3 was not the way to get
the advantage.
Eight years later Kramnik discovered (or
maybe he just knew the 1960's juniors' game
where the idea was seen first) that there was a
simple solution for White, and he went on to
beat Campora in a rapid chess game (Villar
robledo 1998). A reasonable path to follow.
8 0-0-01
8 ltcl .i.xc3 9 .i.xc3 1i'a4 with equality oc
curred in that old Seirawan-Korchnoi game.
8 ....i.xc3 9 .i.xc3 'lia4?!
Here this move is a mistake, because the
active position of White's rook on dl makes a
difference to the aforementioned game. Black
should have kept the queens on with 9... 11fc7
or 9...11fb6 and, not being a 1 d4 specialist
anymore, I can't say much about the positions
arising.
1 0 xa4 a4 1 1 i.e5! b6
A novelty, but it doesn't bring Black equal
play either. Kramnik's game saw 11...d5 12
hf6 gxf6 13 cxdS exdS 14 e4! with advantage
to White.
1 2 f3 e7l?
Selected Games
Intending ...llk8 followed by ...d6 and ...e5
with good chances. White must act.
1 3 i.d6+! d8 14 e4 c!Dea 1 5 i.g3! We7
At least ...d6 will no longer be with tempo,
but Black can get still out of trouble if he
completes his plan. Fortunately, there is a way
for White to win another tempo and gain
more space.
1 6 b3! ll:lc5 1 7 b4 lD&4
The knight goes back because otherwise
Black's position would be too passive; for ex
ample after 17.)ob7 18 tDe2.
18 'it>c2 d6
During the game I was especially concerned
about 18... a5 19 e2 d6 20 4 .i.d7 and
didn't have a very clear idea what to do then. I
saw that 21 'ii>b3 axb4 22 axb4 5+ 23 bxcS
.i.a4+ 24 Wc3 ..i.xd 1 25 cxb6 .i.a4 would be
rather unclear, while 21 b5? i.xbS 22 cxb5
axb4 23 axb4 ltc8+ 24 <iftb3? ltc3+ 25 xa4?
7 26 J.xd6+ f6 27 e5+ g6
would lead to the brilliant mate! Probably I
would have chosen 21 ..i.e2!; for example
21...e5 22 f5+ .L:5 23 exfS axb4 24 axb4
f6 25 f4! and the advantage of two white
bishops versus two black knights will soon
become decisive. Strangely, the computer con
siders the position after 21 .i.e2 to be good
for Black but once again my own feeling
contradicts that judgment.
1 9 Wb3 i.d7 20 e5!
This move would be useless if Black had al
ready exchanged the a-pawns. At the same
103
Fire on Board Part 1/: 1 99 7-2004

time, it would make little sense to play 20 lt:le2

now because of 20...c5.

29 . .. b5
This loses, but 29...llc7 30 llcl ltlcS+ 31
20. .. d5 bxc5llxa6 32 cxb6 was no better.
Otherwise Black would lose material. 30 Ac1 .tea 31 l:tdd1 !
21 cxd5 exd5 22 .i.a6! White has placed his pieces ideally, kept his
Preventing ...a7-a5, developing pieces, and two bishops, and will now win material.
feeling confident about forthcoming forced 31 ...b6 32 .i.b7 c4 33 .i.xaS Axa8 34
variations! c3 Wg6 35 xb5!?
22...c7 23 e61 xe6 In time-trouble this seemed the easiest way
Once again the only move. to win, and probably rightly so.
24 lbd5 .i.c6! 35....i.xb5 36 Axc4 .i.xc4+ 37 Wxc4
Bauer correctly decides here (and later on) l:tc8+ 38 c3i>b5 Ac2 39 Wa6 l:xg2 40
that gettipg rook and pawn for two minor Wxa7 1 -0
pieces would be virtually hopeless for him; for
example 24...llec5+ 25 bxcSli)xcS+ 26 llxcS
bxcS 27llh3! and White is winning.
26 .i.d6+ 6 26 .i.e5+
Normally I consider such move repetitions
not very aesthetic, but what can you do when
you are getting short of time? Be practical.
26 . ..'it>e7 27 .i.d6+ 6 28 Ad2!
After this move, which re<.Juired a lot of
calculation, White is on top. Still, he has to
bring the rest of his pieces into play...
28... Ahd8
The immediate 28...b5 would probably be
more stubborn, but after 29 lbe2 b6 (if r------

29...1lad8 30 .llcl i..d7 31 lt:lg3it:lb6 32lt:le4+ Game 29

g6 33 i..e7 l:[de8 34 i..h4 also seems win Shirov-Bareev
ning for White) and then 30 llk3! c4 31 FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000
l:.ddt :bd8 32 i..xbS! and Black would stiU French Defence
lose a pawn with no compensation.
29 2 The annotations to this game are based on

1 04

the notes made for lfljormator 80 shortly after
the tournament. The text was added when
working on the book.
The World Championship in New Delhi
was my third FIDE knockout After being
eliminated by Nisipeanu in 1999 I decided to
adopt a different strategy and, first of aU, not be
afraid of play-offs. I was lucl-y not to be seeded
in 'Anand's hair, so I considered my chances of
reaching the final to be quite good. From the
second to the fourth round my plan worked
well: against Alt.oxander Onischuk, Mikhail
Gurevich and Boris Gelfand I made draws in
all the main games (even though some of them
were hard fought) and then won the tie-breaks
ratl1er confidently. But the match against
Bareev changed this routine, because I lost tl1e
first game with Black and was in a totally must
win situation in the second one.
1 e4 e6
Vcry solid! After 1 ... c6 I would of course
have played the sharp 2 d4 dS 3 eS i.f5 4
llX3!?; Bareev preferred to wait and see instead.
In the tie-break he did play t c6 though, and
..
fortunately the result was the same.
2 d4 d5 3 lllc3 lllf6 4 g5 dxe4 5 lllxe4
.i.e7 6 xf6 .i.xf6 7 ltlf3 llld7 8 'ii'd2 0-0
9 0-0-0 .i.e7 1 0 ..tc4 lllf6 1 1 :he 1 ! 7
The tension of knockouts is sometimes so
high that one can simply confuse moves in the
opening. There was nothing wrong with the
theoretical line 11 lbxf6+ i.xf6 12 llhe1.
1 1 ... ltid5?!
Selected Games
After making my 11tl1 move I immediately
saw 11 ...xe4 12 .:xe4 bS! and already started
iliinking about going to the travel agency, to
arrange the trip back home as early as possi
ble. Then, while Bareev was thinking himself,
I decided that I could still fight after 13 i.d3
(not 13 .txbS? 'it'dS 14 lteS 1!fxa2 15 'it'c3
l:r.b8 wiili a clear advantage) 13...i.b7 14 llc5,
but it is difficult for me to explain why Bareev
didn't go for this line, as in the game he gets
an inferior position.
1 2 e5!?
Anomer hasty move but, tortunately, not a
bad one this time.
1 2 ...f5
This time Bareev does play the move I saw
right after having made mine.
1 3 .i.xd5
1 3 ... exd5
Now White gets the edge without losing
any material. 13 ...fxe4, winning the exchange,
was more critical. However, when making my
13th move, I was already confident that after
14 i.xe4 .ig5 15 lte3 1Wf6 (15...c5 16 <otbt
.i.xe3 17 1i'xe3 or 15 ....ixe3 16 11Vxe3 is also
good for White) 16 bl xe3 (16...'i'xf2?
loses nicely to 17 l:th3!, intending 17 ....ixd2
18 .ixh7+ <.thS 19 g6 mate) 17 fxe3 I
would be better anyway.
1 4 lllc5 .i.g5?!
Taking the f4 square away from the white
knight but losing an important tempo. And
the pawn will stand very weU on f4 too. The
105
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004

immediate 14. ..i.f6 would have been prefer

. of 21 g6 for example 20...c4 21 llJxc4 dxc4 22
able, when White would reply 15llJcd3. ..xa8 cxd3 23 9xc8 'iVxf4+ 24 Citb1 dxc2+ 25
1 5 f4 .i.f6 1 6 h3! 1ixc2 .i.xgS 26 dS wins for White, while
20...g6 21 h4 will lead to a quick mate once the
pawn gets to hS.
21 g6 c4

This is one of those few positions where

two knights are stronger than two bishops.
Having full control over 'five eighths of the e
flle, including the important eS square, White 22 lDb4!
starts preparing an assault on the kingside, Simple and effective.
though he must still be careful not to aUow 22 J.b7 23 gxh7+ Wxh7 24 llg1 'it'h6!?
.

Black activity when the game opens up. As time pressure approaches Bareev tries a
1 6 'ifd6 1 7 lDcd31 b6 1 8 g4 c5 1 9 g5
. clever trick which, after White's correct reply,
J.d8 20 'irg2! lets him die quickly, rather than suffer in lines
like 24 .tf6 25 1l'g6+ g8 26 c3! .i.xeS
...

(26...a5 27 lik2) 27 dxeS .xg6 28 llxg6 or

24...ltg8 25 c3 and White dominates com-
pletely in both cases.
25 'iff3!
2SllJd7?! .i.e?! was what Black might have
hoped for.
25 J.f6 26 lDd7
.

In a tournament game, especially such an

important one, you can't help trying to find a
forcing way to convert the advantage into a
full point. In analysis later you also mention
such 'quiet' possibmties as 20 c3 or 20 h4!?
which are also good for White.
20 :b8
..

There was no good way to parry the threat

1 06

Now there is no objection to this fork.
26 l:tbd8?
..
Probably overlooking White's 29th move.
He should give up the other rook, but after
26...ltfd8 27 !Dxb8 :.Xb8 28 c3 (not 28
tlJxdS?! h8!) 28. ..lte8 29 ttJc2 lte4 30 ltdfl I
should equalise the score anyway.
27 ll:lxf8+ .Uxf8 28 li:)xd5 Wh8 29 Wa3
1 -0
So the match finished 1-1 and I had to play
another tie-break, and again I managed to win
rather convincingly, though my opening
preparation for the third (and thus for the
secondQ game turned out to be a bluff later
on.
Game 30
Shirov-Grischuk
FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000
e ClassiCtll Variation
.___llll...,....,.
llil. ________.
The annotations to this game were done
when working on the book.
This was my first ever encounter with Sa
sha Grischuk at a normal time-control, but his
incredibly imaginative play had already caught
my attention a year earlier in Baturni when he
was sixteen years old. Also, I once lost four
blitz games in a row to him in the Internet
Chess Club, so it was easy to feel alert for this
game. One thing was for sure: Grischuk's
qualification for this semifinal match was no
surprise at all.
1 e4 e5 2 ll:)f3 li:)c6 3 .tb5 ll:)f6 4 0-0
JJ..c5
But his opening choice was! He had never
employed this move order before.
& ll:lxe5!?
Rytshagov and I worked on this capture in
1999 and we had a lot of confidence in
White's position, not noticing one funny de
tail.
5 . ll:lxe4!
. .
The correct reply. S...tlJxeS 6 d4 would be
indeed promising for White according to our
preparation.
Selected Games
6 1We2 ltlxe5
7 d4!
An amusing position: three minor black
pieces are hanging simultaneously as early as
move 7. It's too bad that White will catch only
one of them. 7 'irxe4 9e7 8 d4 tlJg6 wa.c; the
known theoretical line leading to equality.
7 . ..JJ..e7 8 1Wxe4li:)g6 9 f4
This was a novdty; 9 c4 had been played
previously.
9... c6?1
Now things can go according to my plan.
The critical continuation was 9...0-0 10 f5 dS!
and here I must admit that my original inten
tion from the preparation in 1999 was 11
Wd3, which isn't good because of 11...tlJh4 12
g3 a6 13 .ia4 cS! and Black has an excellent
game according to... theory! Yes, it was a
shock to discover that there were many games
in the database with Black playing S...tlJxeS
(instead of s . tlJxe4) followed by 6 d4 a6 7
. .
i.a4?! tlJxe4 8 'ire2 i.e7 9 'l'xe4 tlJg6 10 f4
0-0 11 f5 dS 12 'iVd3 tlJh4 13 g3 cS! when the
same position is reached! (! i.e2! is critical,
which is why I never paid attention to that
line.) As I analysed it without being familiar
with the database games, I soon made some
mistake in my investigations, though I don't
remember what it was now. It is worth men
tioning, however, that instead of 11 1Vd3,
White can try 11 'ite2 or 11 'iFel!? with inter
esting play, though this is less promising than
what I got in the game.
107
Fire on Board Part II: 1997-2004

1 0 i.d3 d5 1 1 'lre2 17...lild6. After IBitcS! he would have tore

Now if Black casdes he will practically be a
tempo down on the 9...00 line, because
White's bishop is already on d3. Therefore he
blocks the f5 square first.
1 1 ... f5 1 2 ltld2 0-0 1 3 ltlf3
treat again with 18...li.lf7 (since 18 ...lt.le4 fails
to 19 llxd5), but on 19 .llc2 he could of
course try 19...li.ld6! once more.

18 b4! a4?!
Jusdy rejecting 18...axb4 19 Axb4 lle8 20
White's knight is much better placed than lDe5 when White is better, but missing that
his opposing nwnber, so a small advantage is 18...1le8 19 li.leS 1i'h6 20 .i.b5 lle7! (not
already secured. 20...1ld8 21 bxaS 'i'xd4+ 22 .i.e3) 21 llcS
1 3...ltlh8!? axb4 22 .i.xb4 .i.e6! would probably equalise.
Getting the message! 1 9 b5!
1 4 i.d2 a5!? Active play often hdps to pretend that you
Probably Grischuk didn't like his position are pressing!
verv much after 14.)of7 15 ltaet .i.f6 1 9 . 1le8 20 lbe5 ltld6 21 i.b4 e4 22
..

(1S:...td6 would spoil d1e original plan of i.xe41?

transferring the knight to e4Q t 6 .i.b4 6 t 7
lt.le5, but with the text he expends another
tempo.
1 5 c4?!
And I didn't find the way to use it effec
tively! Instead 15 llaet! .i.f6 16 b4! would be
preferable as now Black is almost forced to
sacrifice a pawn. Still, he can hope for some
compensation after 16 ...lilf7 17 bxaS lild6 18
lt.le5ltle4 19 .i.b4 l:.e8.
1 5...ltlf7 1 6 cxd5
Maybe 16 cS!? with a slight advantage was
better. but I don't like closed pawn structures
in general!
1 6. ..cxd5 1 7 llac1 !?
I took this drastic decision being afraid that
Black would complete his development and
consolidate his position. It's true that to make
use of a lead in devdopment, you normally do
it by concrete play, otherwise a l]uiet 221lc2!?,
hoping to get a small edge by doubling the
rooks on the c-file, also deserved attention.
22 .. dxe4
After 22... fxe4 White should probably play
23 .i.c5! intending 24 b6 with excdlent con
trol of the dark squares all over the board.
Black can try 23...b6, but the position after 24
llk61 'ilc7 25 .i.b4 is still in White's favour as
the knight is extremely well placed on c6, even
better than on e5. So, it looks like 22 . dxe4. .

Still trying to prevent . li.ld6.

.. was a reasonable decision.
1 7 ...i.f6 However, I must admit that during the
Black could insist on his plan with g.une I planned something like 23 g4?! which

108

would only play into Black's hands, as after
23... i.e6 White cant continue with his aggres
sive play so easily. Another possibility was 23
'ifh51?, but I believe that the position after
23... i.xe5 (not 23 g6? 24 lbxg6 i.xd4+ 25
...
hl hxg6 26 'l'xg6+ h8 27 5! with a crush
ing win) 24 fxe5 i.e6 is roughly equal.
23 llfd1 .i.e6 24 d5!
24. ...i.d7?
But now White is on top. I t seems that
both players missed 24...l:c8! during the game,
and although after 25 dxe6 (I should probably
play 25 llxc8 i.xc8 26 lbc4! with a slight
advantage) 25 ...llxc1 26 l:xcl 1i'd4+ 27 hl
'l'xb4 28 Wb5 g6 29 llxg6!
Black's position looks delicate, he can
probably save his honour with 29.. _'l'd2!
(29...'1'd6 30 lLlh4! 'l'xe6 31 lili.f5 :l.c8 32
l:lxc8+ '6'xc8 33 g3! is really dangerous) 30
l:lgt l:lxe6 31 'l'xfS 'ifxa2 (also interesting i s
Selected Games
31...'iVcl6!? 32 lLlh4! :l.e8! 33 :l.el! i..c3! 34
'iVg4+ Wh8 35 l:tdl 'l'h6! with good compen
sation, but I should mention that this is a
purely 'advanced' analysis, without a single
move that a human would come up with by
himself) 32 :l.cl (32 lLle5 i.xe5 33 fxeS ds
34 :l.ft :l.e8 35 'l'gS+ Wh8 also looks like a
draw, since 36 h3?! 1We6! may be dangerous
for White) 32 ... e3 33 lLleS J.xeS 34 fxe5 :l.e8
35 .gS+ h8 36 'ifxe3 'l'b2! 37 :l.e 1 a3! and
it's time for White to go for perpetual check
after, for example, 38 1Wf3.
lt should also be mentioned that the dS
pawn is untouchable; e.g. 24...i..xd5? 25 :l.c5
or 24...J.xc5 25 fxe5 i.xd5 26 :l.c5 l:xeS 27
:l.dxd5 :.XdS 28 1i'c4 and wins.
25lL\c6!
This blow turns a promising position into a
winning one!
25 'irc8!
..
Giving up the queen is the only way to pro
long resistance, as otherwise White's passed
pawns would advance; e.g. 25.. bxc6 26 dxc6,
.
or 2S...'I'b6+ 26 i..c5 1i'c7 27 d6 'ifc8 28
lbe7+ i.xe7 29 dxe7, or 25 ... .ixc6 26 dxc6
'ilc7 27 lld7 'i'xf4 28 ltft ! and White wins.
26lL\e7+ .i.xe7 27 l%xc8 .IZ.axc8 28 .txe7
:Xe7 29 d6
Without this pawn, White's material advan
tage would not be of much importance.
29 llf7!
Correctly protecting the seventh rank and
avoiding forced losses such as 29 ... :l.e6 30
109
Fire on Board Part II: 1997-2004
'it'e3 .i.xb5 31 'it'b6 .i.d7 32 11fxb7 :eta 33
f2! (the king blockades the passed e-pawn to
free up the rook) 33 ...e3+ 34 e2 .i.e8 35
lld5 .i.hS+ 36 el or 29...llee8 30 'l'e3.
30 lld5 llc1 + 31 2
31 llf8!
..
Again the right decision. Passive defence
was no longer possible because White would
simply activate his queen, so Black connects
his rooks in order to make threats.
32 lle5!?
I was confident about the forthcoming
rook endgame, so I preferred not to look for
other winning plans. Fritz doesn't approve my
decision, but this time I won't 'discuss' things
with him.
32...llfc8
33 lle7!
But J will agree that hiding the king, instead
of giving back the queen, was also possible: 33
1 10
WhS!? h6 34 g3! (34 llrg6 ll8c3 35 h3 e3+!
36 .D.xe3 lttc2+ 37 Z:e2 Z:xe2+ 38 xe2 Z:c2+
39 Wd3 l:lxa2 doesn't look so clear)
34...:Sc3+ 35 h4l:lft 36 g3 llf2 37 h3 llff3
38 'ifg6 and White wins.
33 ...ll1c2 34 llxd7 llxe2+ 35 ..ti>xe2 b61
Great defence. After 35...1lc2+ 36 Wet
llxa2 the forced line 37 llxb7 l:lat+ 38 d2
lta2+ 39 c3 lla3+ 40 d4l:ld3+ 41 Wc5 e3
42 b6 a3 43l:lc7 a2 44 b7 wins, so Grischuk
finds the only chance to provoke a mistake.
36 llb7 llc2+ 37 ..ti>e3!
Now the previous variation would not do
since the b-pawn wouldn't advance so quickly.
37 ...llc3+ 38 d4 lld3+ 39 ..ti>e51
This required very precise calculation be
cause now the e-pawn starts running. How
ever, White's passed pawn plus mating threats
weigh more.
39 ...e3 40 We6 h6
Again the best chance. 40.. e2? was of
.
course impossible due to 41 llb8 mate, while
40...g5 would lose to 41 l:ld7! 8 (or 41...e2
42 f6! h6 43 g6 with mate) 42 1:7+ g8
43 :X5 gxf4 44 d7 e2 451le5 WfB 46 llxe2.
41 lle7
41 ...lld4?!
Finally allowing a forced win. However,
41...e2 42 lle8+ h7 43 d7 lld2 44 c7
:Xa2 45 d7 l:lc2+ 46 b6 Z:d2 47 llxe2
llxd7 48 lla2 would also be hopeless, or if
41 . g6 42 d7 llc3 43 d8 8 44 d7 a3 45
. .
g3! and Black is in zug.lWang!

42 r.t>d7 l:le4 43 l:lxe4 fxe4 44 r.t>e7 1 -0
Black resigned due to 44 .e2 45 d7e1... 46
..
dB..+ !iPh7 47 Wf7 and there are no queen
checks to prevent 1i'g8 mate! A funny rook
turning-to-queen endgame with mating ideas
in both stages.
r-----
Game 31
Shirov-Grischuk
FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000
La Main Line
This game was analysed by me early in 2001
and published in lnjof'IHator 80. However, al
most all the annotations had to be changed
when I was working on the book and gave
this game a closer look.
My lead in the semifinal match of the
World Championship didn't last long. Gris
chuk struck back in the second game, outplay
ing me in a complex position where I was a
pawn up but didn't sense the danger in time.
Despite this painful loss, I had to do my best
in my last game with White under the slow
time-control. The situation was pretty tense
and, although I tried to keep as calm as possi
ble, I ended up mixing up the lines that I had
prepared.
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .tb5 a6
No more surprises.
4 h4 tLlf6 5 0-0 .te7 6 l:le1 b5 7 i.b3
d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 tLla5 1 0 .tc2 c5 1 1 d4
.tb7
Selected Games
This move was in Grischuk's repertoire at
the time and I believe it's pretty dubious.
1 2 d51
Closing the centre is very dangerous for
Black in many lines of the Ruy Lopez, due to
the space advantage that White gets. I expcri
enced it recently myself as Black, in a game
against Topalov (Linares 2004) which he won
in the 11...1i'c712 d5 variation.
1 2 tLlc4 1 3 a4
..
No, this is not what 1 had prepared, al
though in my defence I should mention that 1
looked through the line before the ftrSt game,
not the third, and 13 a4 without b2-b3 was
also one of the possible plans. Fortunately,
tluee months later I got another chance, in a
blindfold game against Piket in Monaco 2001,
and this time I did play 13 b3 b6 14 a4. My
opponent continued 14... ..ic8, and after 15
'ife2 .i.d7 I introduced a strong novelty: 16
c4! b4 17tllbd2.
Here there is another funny story. As I
learned afterwards, this position also arose a
few miles away (in tht: Rapid Chess World
Cup in Cannes to be precise) in the game
Kasparov-Grischuk almost the same day! That
means that, while l had a last opportunity to
use my preparation, Grischuk was especially
unlucky because, knowing my game, he could
not try the line again. This cost him another
defeat at the semifinal stage, since Cannes was
also a knockout event. My game continued
17...tllh5 (Grischuk chose 17... g6 and stood
111
Fire on Board Part II: 7 99 7-2004

worse after 18 c!Llfl ll:lhS 19 g4lLlf4 20 .ixf4 1 3 ...ltlb6 14 11fe2?!

exf4 21 'it'd2 .i.f6 22 eS dxcS 23liJxcS .igS?!
24 lLlh2, although in this Line, interestingly
enough, 23....ixeS 24 :.XeS Wf6 2S l:tael
Le8 would offer Black serious counter
It was still possible to play 14 b3 but, as I
said, I completely mixed up the 'official the
ory' of that time with my own preparation.
14 . ltlxa41
. .

chances, so maybe Kasparov had already

gone wrong somewhere) 18liJf1 .if6!? 1 9 g4!
lLlf4 20 i.xf4 exf4 21 e5! dxeS 22 'fie4 'lf> 23
c!LlxeS

A typical idea in many types of closed Ruy

Lopez. Black voluntarily accepts an isolated
and thus weak a-pawn in exchange for the
bishop pair. The position is still very closed
and here Piket committed 'hara-kiri' with and White's two knights and bishop are by no
23....ixe5 (23...i.g5 was a tougher ddence, as means weaker than Black's two bishops and
Grischuk played with the white queen on d2) knight, but there is always a danger iliat the
24 ifxeS f5 and after 2S aS lL!c8 26 d6!? (26 position will open up and BI.'lck will get strong
gxf5 and 26liJh2!? are also interesting accord play. All the same, White's position seems
ing to Frihfj 26...i.c6 27 l:tad1 I got a serious slightly preferable to me so far.
advantage. The rest of the game was a little 15 .i.xa4 bxa4 1 6 c4 lt)d7 1 7 ltxa4 ltlb6
influenced by d1e fact that it was not only 1 8 :a3 a5 19 ltlc3 a4 20 ..ie3 .tea!
blindfold but also rapid chess: 27...ltc8 28
ifxf4 (if 28 ti'xcS llxet 29 :.Xel 'ifxd6 30
'ifxd6 llhtd6 31 lle6 i.e4 32 i.xe4 c!Llxe4 33
llb6 fxg4 34 hxg4lld8) 28....z:txe1 29 llxc1
..xd6 30 'it'gS! (the endgame after 30 ifxd6
c!Llxd6 31 gxf51 should be winning as well; for
example 31...gxf5 32lle5 i.e4 33 Le4lDxe4
34 3 c!Llc3 3S c!Llg3 f4 36 liJhS ll8 37 g2
ll:lb 1 38 llgS+ Wh8 39 lldS, but the text
seems more effective) 30...1Z.a7?1 (30...fxg4 31
hxg4 l:ta7 looks stronger, but in fact after 32
ll:lg3 lle7 33 l:ldt! 'it'e6 34ll:lh5! Black is lost
anyway) 31 gxf5 h6 (some blindfold tricks) 32
1i'g4! (not 32 ifxg6+?? l:g7) 32.. 'ird4 33llc6
. AU this had been known and played before.
1i'xg4+ 34 hxg4 .i.f3 3S lle8+ and Black re The last move is especially important in
signed. Black's set-up: his bishop gets to d7 just in

1 12
 Selected Games

time and the a4-pawn can no longer be con

sidered weak, as White simply doesn't have a
light-squared bishop to attack it. Therefore he
has nothing better than exchanging it for the
b-pawn sooner or later.
21 b3
A novelty. The game Topalov-Piket, Gmn
ingen 1997 saw 21 (threatening 22 f4)
2 1...i.gS! and Black stood weU. It looks like I
didn't want to exchange my bishop, preferring
to sacrifice it, and therefore kept my knight on
f3! A joke that turned out to be true.
21 ...axb3 22 lbb3 :as 23 .l:leb1
28 . . .J:la6!?
l'orcing White to make a decision. 28. f4 ..

could be met by 29lbx.e7+ ...xe7 30 e6, while

after 28...i.g5?! 29 .:r.bs the bishop would
have to rerum to e7 anyway.
29 1i'f3?
The wrong choice. 1 didn't want to give up
my strong knight, but it was more important
to shut in the bishop on c8, so I had to con
tinue 29 e7+ 1i'xe7 30 e6!.

23 f5?
..

Back in 2001 I indicated that after 23 ...d7

or 23 ...i.d7 White would only have a slight
advantage. Now I think that 'equality' would
be a more proper evaluation in either case.

24 .ixc5!!
This is a strong positional sacrifice that was
underestimated by Grischuk. At this moment
I felt comfortable, as I knew that two pro
tected central pawns should be a little stronger
than the Black bishop. And my optimism Before analysing this game properly, I
wasn't excessive, though I spoilt things later wasn't sure whether my advantage would be
on. serious had [ played this way, but now J think
24... dxc5 25 lbxe5 ltla4! it is. Black cannot exchange his bishop for the
The only answer. Black's knight is bad but dS and e6 pawns so easily, while White can
White is now obliged to exchange it. After combine different ideas against the weak
25...J..b 7 26 ex5 Black would be clearly nesses at cS and 5. Now a possible defence is
worse. 30... 1i'c7, covering the h2-b8 diagonal as oth
26 lbxa4 .:Xa4 27 lbc6 'flc7 28 e5 erwise the white queen would be very strong
A picturesque pawn centre. on eS; e.g. 30... 4?! 31 'ifeS :a4 32 llet!. whjJe

1 13
Fire on Board Part /1: 1 99 7 -2004
30...'A'd6 fails to 31 'ifb2! f4 (if 3t ...'iff4 32
l:.b8 'ifxc4 33 1i'e5) 32 llb6 llxb6 33 'lfxb6.
After 30. ..11Vc7 White should play 3'1 l:tb8! (31
'ifb2 f4l 32 l:.b6 f3! is now less clear, since
after 33 g3 l:txb6 34 1i'xb6 'it'eS! White can't
take on cS because of .....fS) 31...lla1 (if
31...h6 then 32 'Wb2! followed by 'it'bs is
strong, slowly rounding up the cS-pawn) 32
l:txal 1i'xb8 33 :as! "ilc7 34 1i'a2! and I be
lieve that Black is objectively lost.
29...f4!?
Not a bad move, but 29...ltxc6! 30 dxc6
'it'xeS would be the most effective way to
punish me for my weak 29th move, since
White can't even dream about the advantage
with just rook and c-pawn against two strong
black bishops. I could only hope that I
wouldn't be much worse either after, for ex
ample, 31 lldl.
30 lle1
Avoiding any such future possibility, but al
lowing Black to activate his bishop in return.
If 30 l:.b8 then 30...:Xc6 31 dxc6 11fxe5 looks
even worse for White than on the previous
move.
30...J..f5 31 llb5
Threatening 32 'ifb3.
31 ... .i.c2! 32 llb2 i.g6 33 l:td2!?
Maybe it was preferable to try and repeat
the position with 33 llbS, but once again I
didn't even want to think about it! Besides,
Black may decide to play on with 33... i.e8,
though the position after 34 xe7+ 'lfxe7 35
1 14
l:tb8 'i'a7 36 l:tebt llat 37 e6 should still be
about equal.
33 ....i.e8?1
Correcdy rejecting 33....:.xc6?! 34 dxc6 .i.e8
because, after the blow 35 lld7! i.xd7 36
'lidS+, White would have very strong com
pensation for the sacrificed piece. During the
game Grischuk's move seemed like a blunder
to me, but in fact it aims for some incredibly
complicated tactics... which were not needed
because 33...i.g5! would already create defi
nite problems for me, especially with the
knight on c6. And after 34 e6 (possibly the
only move, as the threat of ...i.e8 is strong)
the bishop can go back with 34...i.e7!
(34...i.f6 is not good because of 35 e7 llfa8
36 d6! 'ifxc6 37 d7 i.xe7 38 llxe7 l:td8 39
'irxf4 and White's initiative is stiU very strong)
35 xe7+ (White can't allow both bishops to
become active; for example after 35 eS
.i.eB!) 3S...'ifxe7 and White has to struggle for
a draw, which I believe he can still achieve due
to the strength of his pawns, even though the
computer program clearly prefers Black.
34 lbxe7+ 'flxe7 35 d6!
It's good that sometimes a strategically ri
diculous move can work out tactically.
35 ...'iVe6 36 'iVb7
Is the game close to being over? That's
what I felt after playing this move, but my
opponent didn't share my thoughts.
36....ic6!
Lightning from a clear sky! I had only reck-

oned on 36...3 37 d7! (37 'ifxa6 'iVg6 38 g3
'ifh6 is unclear) 37...fxg2 (or 37...'iVg6 38 g3
i..xd7 39 l:lxd7) 38 dB'iV 'ifxh3 39 1rxg2 l:lg6
40 'ifdd5+ .i.f7 41 e6 and wins, while after
36...11fxc4 White should win by continuing 37
d7 i.xd7 38l:lxd7l:lg6 39l:led11 h6 (or 39...3
40 l:ld8!) 40 l:ld8 l:lxd8 41 l:lxd8+ h7 42
WVhB with a decisive attack.
37 'irxa6 .txg2! 38 f3!
The only way to continue fighting for a
win, as trying to avoid the draw after 38 xg2
f3+ 39 h2 'ilh6 would be not without prac
tical risk; e.g. 40 l:ld4 (40 1i'b7 'iff4+ 41 ht
'iffS draws) 40... cxd4 41 c5 'ifg5 42 1i'c4+
Wh8 43 WVft (43 :gt 'ifxeS+ 44 l:lg3 h5 is
unclear) 43...d3 44 e6 'ifxc5 45 d7 ltgs 46
1i'gt d2 47l:ldt 1rd5 and Black is OK.
38 ..txf3 39 h2
.
Once again feeling confident, but...
39 .tg411
. It's a pity that I had to make my 40th move
Incredible imagination. I expected 39...g5,
which is not good because of 40 ltd31 i.a8 (if
40... g4 41 .Uxf31 gx3 42 -.o7) 41 'ifa3 g4 42
hxg4 3 43 ifcl! and White parries aU threats
while keeping a decisive material advantage.
40 ...,7 ?!
Here I missed a win, but I only know it
now from working on the annotations. Back
in 2001 I indicated the following line after
capturing the bishop: 40 hxg4 'ifxg4 (40... 3
41 WVa2 Wxg4 42 ltf1 is the same) 41 ltfl f3
42 'ffa2 'ffh4+ 43 gl 'ff g3+ (43...'ifg4+ 44
Wf2 W'h4+ 45 e3 wins) 44 :g2 W'xg2+
Selected Games
(44...fxg2 seems to .lose after 45 ltx8+ Wx8
46 'ifa8+ f7 47 e6+1 xe6 48 'ireS+ f5 49
d7 'ifh4 50 'Wf7+ We4 51 ltdS+ Wf4 52 Wxg2
'ifg3+ 53 Wft 1th3+ 54 We2 'ife3+ 55 dl
1i'b3+ 56 d2 1i'b2+ 57 et 'ifct+ 58 ltdt
1i'e3+ 59 'ire2) 45 1txg2 fxg2 46 L8+ f8
47 e6 g5 48 g2 h5
and I thought this pawn endgame was
drawn. Not so, as White can use the triangle!
The most precise way is 49 e7+ e8 (after
49...f7 White completes his task more easily;
e.g. 50 3 We8 51 We4 g4 52 We5) 50 h2!
(not 50 f3? h4 51 Wg4 Wf7 with a draw)
50...f7 (if 50... h4 51 h3 f7 52 Wg4 WeB
53 xg5 h3 54 f6 wins) 51 Wg3 We8 52
Wg2! and Black is in zugzwangl After 52...g4
53 g3 f7 54 f4 e8 55 eS f7 56
Wd5 g3 57 Wc6 g2 58 Wd7 gt11f 59 e811f+
White wins easily.
and probably didn't have much time. Maybe I
would have found this win if it was already the
second time control. Although the fact that in
the end it took me three years, and computer
assistance was required, does question my
ability to do it within one hour!
40 'irh6 41 'ird5+ llf7!
..
Grischuk plays precisely. After 41 ...h8 42
'Wg2 f3 1 would have 43 llf2! winning. But
funnily he still misses a similar idea later on.
42 g1!7
Again not even thinking about repetition by
42 11fa8+, while seeing that 42 e6 exh3+ 43
115
Fire on Board Par t II: 1 99 7- 2004
Wgt 11fg3+ 44 fl i..h3+ 45 :tg2 .i.xg2+ 46
'ilxg2 'Wd3+ 47 g1 llf6 48 e7 'i'd4+ 49 Wft
'ifd3+ would also lead to a draw- and reject
ing it in order to balance on the razor's edge
instead! It finally paid off, but only with my
opponents' help.
42 W'xh3 43 1i'g2
..
43 llat?! could already be dangerous after
43...g6.
43...'iih4 44 .Uf2!?
Again 44lla 1 g6 isn't advisable.
44...f3??
Perhaps not the greatest piece of luck in my
career, but deftnitely a precious gift. Black had
little difficulty in holding the balance after
44....i.h3 45 aS+ l:tf8 46 'lfdS+ h8 47 'iff3
'ilg5+ (but not 47... h6 48 IZ.a1 or 47... h5 48
l:at 'ifg5+ 49 ht i..g 4 50 'ife4 and White is
better again) 48 ht 'ifh4. He could also try
44...i..e6!?, although then I would probably
prefer my position after 45 l:ef1 g5 46 1i'e4!
Anyway, now the game ends.
45 e6 .Uf8
45....i.xe6 46 llxe6 fxg2 47 lle8+ is mate.
46 e7 :ea 47 d7 .i.xd7 48 xf3 'ifg5+
49 cm1 1 -0
Black didn't want to sec 49 h5 50 11fd5+
..
Wxd5 51 cxdS and the passed pawns decide
the game in White's favour.
The fourth game was drawn (also with
some luck) and thus I reached another peak in
my sporting career. It was a pity that I
couldn't offer any serious fight to Anand in
1 16
the final, after missing an easy draw in the
second game, but that's a different story.
Game 32
Shirov-Piket
Wijk aan Zee 2001
PeiTf!ffDifence
The annotations to this game are based on
the notes I made for ltiformator 80 after the
tournament. The text was added when work
ing on the book.
For me Wijk aan Zee 2001 was a tourna
ment that is easy to split in two parts. After 8
rounds, I was confidently leading with 61/2
points; then I lost to Kasparov, almost struck
back in round ten (drawing after missing a win
against Anand), and then complete disaster
with two more losses (to Ivanchuk and
Kramnik) and a draw in the last round against
Morozevich. When the tournament ended, I
tried to find non-chess reasons of my poor
finish, but now I think it was simply physical
exhaustion which I felt strongly for the first
time in many years. The only conclusion to be
drawn is that when a player approaches his
thirties, he should be more and more careful
about conserving his energy. Still, I played
many good games in the first ten rounds, and
I like this one the most.
1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 ll)f6 3 li)xe5 d6 4 li)f3
li)xe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 .i.d6
This line, which I have played many times
with both colours, in fact aims to be a refuta
tion of 1 e4 as Black keeps trying to find a
forced draw in the labyrinths of long, concrete
variations.
7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6 9 .Ue1
The alternative 9 ...c2 is probably prefer
able, at least according to my later experience
with Black.
9. . ..i.f5 1 0 1i'c2 .i.g6
A reasonable move, but Piker's later
suggestion lO...llX!7 11 c3liJdf6, which was
introduced into practice by Kasimdzhanov in
2002, might be an easier way to equality.
 Selected Games

16 . ....ta5!
Just in time! If White managed to play b2-
b4 he would be a bit better. But now he first
of all has to watch out for the e4 S<:Juarc.
1 7 ..g3!
Still, watching out doesn't mean looking
back.
1 7 ...'i&;>h8 1 8 Wh4

1 1 c5
A typical advance, making Black's position
n little more passive at the risk of endangering

White's pawn sttucture. Other moves

wouldn't promise much; e.g. 11 ltJc3ltJxc3 12
bxc3 .i.xd3 13 'ifxd3 dxc4 14 1fxc4 .!bd7
transposing to known lines.
1 1 . ..i.e7 1 2 ltlc3 ltlf6!
A strong novelty that yields Black a passive
but solid position. During my preparntion I
expected 12...lbxc3 and 1 thought my hopes
to get a slight advantage after 13 hg6 hxg6
14 bxc3 would be justified.
13 i.g5
1 8 ... ..txc3?!
Possibly this capture is not flexible enough.
Getting the knight to e4 is strategically sound
of course, but later in the game Piker ex
changes it for the g5 bishop. And in that case
it was more logical to play 18 .lbe4t? irruncdi
..

I didn't want to exchange on g6, as I would
then have more or Jess to abandon my hopes
of attacking his king. And organizing posi
tional pressure would not be easy either; e.g.13
.i.xg6 hxg6 14 i.gS .!bbd7 IS l:te2 (15 ltJes
'ii'c8! 16 f4 .i.aS) 15...l:tc8 16 llacl l:lxc2 17
l'lxe2.!bf8 and Black should hold the balance.
1 3 ltlbd7 1 4 ltle5
.
atdy, since after 19 l:e3.!bxeS 20 fxeS .!bxgS
21 WxgS f6 22 exf6 :Z.xf6 Black would still
have his strong bishop on the board. White
would probably continue 23lle7 l:tg6 24 1ie5
with unclear play.
1 9 bxc3 ltle4 20 lle3!

A strategically unclear decision but, as I said,

I wanted to attack so some risks had to be
taken. After 14 b41? Black would continue
14...l:te8 preventing me from such a possibility.
14 ....ixd3 1 5 'ir'xd3 ti'c8!
Creating two positional threats that can't
both be parried at the same time.
1 6 f4
After 16 b4 ltJxeS 17 dxeS .!bd7 18 f4 aS
(18... 6!? is also possible) 19 a3 axb4 20 axb4
l:lxa1 21 l:txa 1 f6 rhe position is equal.

117
Fire on Board Part II: 7 99 7 - 2 004
Only by creating fast threats White can
challenge such aces as the protected knight in
the centre of the board.
20 lDxg5?!
.
Now White gets the initiative. 20...lili:e5 21
fxeS f61 would be correct (or else 2t...'iVe6 22
lin f6) wid1 an approximately equal position
after 22 ext:O gxf6 23 .ih6 :n 24 llfl 'tlre6
since the white bishop is also quite strong here.
21 xg51
Even when you arc trying to attack it's often
advisable not to damage your own pawn struc
ture; in this game, anyway, it will be important
at a later stage. 21 fxg5 l0xe5 22 .:Xe5 1i'd7 23
llae1 LS looks completely fine for Black.
21 ... h6
21 ...f6? was impossible because of22 lbg6+
hxg6 23 'irxg6 and there is no defence against
24 lle7 or 24 llh3+ 'ii>gB 25 llh7 followed by
26 1i'h5 mating.
22 5 li:)f6!
A sligh dy worse position is usually unpleas
ant to defend, so Black avoids the line
22...xe5 23 fxe5 and tries to solve his prob
lems tactically.
23 lDxf7+ l
23 'irh4 was possible, but then another
knight would come to e4. With the text White
sacrifices a piece for various pawns (thus the
pawn structure was importantQ and keeps ilie
initiative.
23 . . .h7 24 lDg5+ WgB 25 11'g6 hxg5 26
lle7
118
Without this intennediate move the sacri
fice wouldn't work; i.e. 26 fxg5? ttk4.
26 ...lDe8 27 llae1 !
Creating another unpleasant threat.
27 ...1i"g4
Forced, since 27...gxf4? would lose to 28
llxg7+l xg7 29 lle7.
28 fxg5 1i"h4!?
Three and a half years ago I considered dlis
move to be a mistake, because I iliought iliat
after 28 ... 'ilf4! 29 h3 1i'g3 Black, while suffer
ing, would still be able to hold the position.
It's true iliat I see nothing better than 30 llfl !
(if 30 'ii>h 1 1i'xc3 31 llxe8 llaxe8 32 llxe8
1i'ct+ 33 Wh2 1Wf4+ or 31 1i'e6+ h8 32 1i'g4
g8! draws) 30...llxf1+ 31 ft 9xc3! 32
:XeS+ llxe8 33 1i'xe8+ h7 when, despite
being a pawn up, White will probably not win
if Black defends correcdy; e.g. 34 9h5+ <ifa>gB
35 1i'g4 1Wat+ 36 'ii>2 ..xa2+ 37 g3 11'b3+
38 Wh2 'ife3! 39 rfJ 'ifeBI 40 1i'h5 'ife61 41
1i'h7+ <itt>8 42 1i'h8+ gs 43 'ilh4 WeB! 44
1i'f4 d7 45 h4 aS 46 h5 a4 47 h6 gxh6 48
11fxh6 e8!. But it is also clear that fmding all
these moves at the board would be very djffi
cult! And the text doesn't spoil anything.
29 g3!?
Only now can I say that White has indeed
sacrificed the knight, as after Black's reply it
can no longer be recaptured. 29 h3 would
force 29...'ifg3 and therefore transpose to the
variations indicated in the previous note, but it
seemed to me that 29 g3!? would be stronger.

Now I feel like changing my opinion because
29 h3 is more unpleasant from a practical
point of view.
29 ."tlh3!
. The only chance, but not a sufficient one.
After 29...1i'g4 White wins with a funny
king march: 30 g2! 1113+ 31 h3.
30 l:lxb7 1Vf5
31 6+ 1 '16'xe6 32 l:lxe6 l:lf7?
A serious time-presswe inaccuracy, after
which White has the upper hand. There would
be nothing wrong with Black's position after
32... l:.f31, when I only see a draw for White
after 33 g2 (33 llxc6 llxc3 doesn't promise
anything either) 33...llxc3 34 h4! llc2+ 35
h3 llxa2 36 l:.be7 8 37 bS llat 38 <itg2
lla2+ with a probable repetition of moves.
33 ltxf7 Wxf7 34 ltxc6
Four pawns should be normally stronger
than a knight and this one is still on e8.
34 l:lb8 35 l:la6 ltb7 36 h4?!
..
Selected Games
It was better to keep Black's knight inactive
by playing 36 a4! IJ:Jc7 37 l:ld6.
36 /.tlc7 37 ltd6 l.tlb5!
.
38 g6+1
White's only winning chance i s to promote
a pawn, so he must use the possibility to ad
vance a pawn with check. 38 llxd5 IJ:Jxc3
seems less clear to me.
38 We7
. . .
38 e8 would also be answered by 39
..
llxd5 IJ:Jxc3 40 lieS+, and if 40. . l:tc7 White
.
wins in the style of a good study: 41 h5! llxeS
42 dxeS e7! 43 g2! e6 44 f3 ttld5 45
e4! IJ:Je7 (if 4S...IJ:Jc3+ 46 d3! l2Jd5 47 d4
IJ:Jb4 48 g4 IJ:Jc6+ 49 e4 IJ:Jxe5 SO g5! and
Black is in zug.lWang) 46 g4 ttlc6 47 g5 IJ:Jxe5.
Now it's White to move and he can't make a
zugzwang so easily, but he is still winning after
48 a4! (48 a3! a6 49 a4 is just as good) 48... a6
(if 48...a5 49 d4 l0f3+ 50 c4 IJ:Jxg5 51
bS and White creates as many passed pawns
as he needs) 49 aS! (zugzwang!) 49... l0c6 50
h6 li1e7 51 hxg7 li1g8 52 c6! tjje7 53 c7 d7
54 ,.,.,eS and wins. I don't know whether I
would find all this at the board, but at home
it's always fascinating to analyse such endings!
39 llxd5 l.tlxc3 40 l:le5+ 6
With the time control move, Piket goes
into an unusual mating net. I beli'-"'VC his posi
tion was hopeless anyway; for example
40 ... d8 41 d5 l0xa2 42 ltfS! wins.
41 c6!
1 19
Fire on Board Part /1: 1 9 9 7-2004

The intermediate moves (we already saw 38 7 a3 .i.xc3+ 8 tDxc3 d5 9 .i.d3

g6+!) seem to be the most important in this
endgame! 41 h5 l%b2 would be less clear.
41 l:lb1 +
.

White's idea was based on the line 41...ltc7

42 h5 l:xc6 43 g4 (threatening 45 gS mate!)
43...llc6 44 gS+!? (44 ltf5+ rtJc7 45 llf7+ Wd6
46 l:xg7 is also winning of course) 44 ..e7
.

45 h6! .:txeS (or 45 ...llle2+ 46 llxe2 ltxe2 47

hxg7) 46 dxe5 gxh6 47 g7 r:t/f7 48 c6+! <Ji/xg7
49 gxh6+ and one of the two pawns will
queen.
42 g2 l:lb2+ ?l
Losing at once, but 42... lllb5 43 lld5! Wxg6
44 a4 tiJc7 45 lld7 would lead to the same 9 exd5 seems even more boring, though
result. that's a matter of taste.
43 3 1 -0 9 d4
...

A fter 43.)Zb5 White has 44 ltxb5! l:xbS
45 c7 and the pawn is unstoppable.
...---
Ga/1/e 33
Shirov-Grischuk
Linares 2001
Sicilian Difence, Four Knights
_______.._____a.,____.
The annotations to this game were done
when working on the book and are based on
my notes published in Injimnator 81.
The memories of the New Delhi match
were still quite fresh, so it is no wonder that in
Linares (which was a double-round rubin
event) new blood came out and both players
won with White. Actually my win turned out
to be not so difficult as I managed to exploit
Black's opening inaccuracies reasonably well.
1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lbc& 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4
lDf& 6 tDc3 e& 6 lDdb5
6 l:iJxc6 is more critical, but somehow I
thought my opponent wanted to play the
Sveshnikov and I wanted to try my i.xbS line
(see the next game).
6 .i.b4
..
Complicating things unnecessarily. After
9...dxe4 10 l:iJxe4 l:iJxe4 1 1 i.xc4 'it'xdt+ 1 2
<lilxd1 J.d7 it would only require some accu-
racy to hold the endgame.
10 tDe2 e5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 h3
White's play is still unpretentious, but at
least now he has some targets to aim at. And
the presence of the queens is a vc.:ty imponant
factor once he opens the position with f2-f4.
1 2...l:leB 1 3 lDg3 i.e&?!
A novelty. Against Ponomariov a month
before this game, Korchnoi played 1 3 ... tiJd7
and his choice seems stronger because it slows
down f2-f4. Actually, during the current game
neither opponent remembered its predecessor.
1 4 f4 exf4 1 5 .i.xf4 lDd7?!

Oops, I forgot about that one. Now White

has a couple of ways to fight for a minimal
advantage, but he has to accept getting ex
tremely dull positions!

120
 Selected Games

Now this knight retreat is too late. l 5 ... h6, fxg6 hxg6 21 i..gS! and White's attack is very
with a slight plus for White, was called for. strong.
1 6 1Wh5! 1 8 .tg5 'ti"g7 1 9 \i'h4 l'Lice5
Now we can see the disadvantages of
13 ...i.e6. Black cannot gain control over the
e5 square so easily.
1 6 g6?!
..

This weakens the kingside and White's ad

vantage becomes evident. Neither 1 6 ... f6? 17
cS nor 16...lbB 1 7 eS! lbg6 18 lbe4 was any
better, but Black could still play l 6...lbf6 and,
after any queen move, the knight will go back
10 d7. At f1.tst I thought that White had no
advantage here, but then I took a look at 1 7
'i'bS!? and decided that it was promising
t:nough. The main line seems to be 17 ... lbd7
1 8 1i'xb7 lbdeS 1 9 'iia6! llb8 20 b4! .ib3!
(otherwise Black is pawn down, but what to
do after this?) 21 i.xcS (21 cxb3 l:tb6 with a
good position was the idea behind 20 ... i.b3)
21 ...:.b6 22 i..xg7! l:txa6 (If 22.. 5j;xg7 23 cxb3
:.xa6 24 i.xa6 and White is better) 2.1 .lf6!
with an excellent initiative for the queen,
though the position is too complicated to give
any definite asse.c;smcnt.
This allows a nice breakthrough, but trying
to avoid i t with 1 9...h5 would weaken Black's
position even further. White could then con
tinue 20 tl:le2 with a big edge.
20 ..the Wha 21 l'Lit5!
Even here 21 tl:le2!? deserved serious atten
tion, but if straightforward play works, why
reject it?
21 .....bf5
21 ...gxf5 22 'irgS+ lbg6 23 exfS is lost for
Black.
22 exf5 l'Lixd3 23 cxd3 'fte5

1 7 Wh6 'ftf6
Black was already in dire straits, since other
moves could be refuted sharply; e.g. 1 7.. 6 1 8
.

eS! tl:loceS 1 9 lbhS! 'fle7 (if 1 9...:.e7 20 24 llf4!

lbxf6+ lbxf6 21 i..xeS) 20 i..xeS fxeS 21
.i.xg6 hxg6 22 'irxg6+ h8 23 tl:lf6! lLlxf6 24
l:lxf6 -.n1 25 'irgS! :.g8 26 1ixe5 and wins, or
1 7... tlke5 1 8 lbfS! .ixf5 1 9 exfS lbxd3 20
After White doubles the rooks on the -file,
all his pieces will attack the king, which will
simply have no defence.
24 lLic5 25 llaf1 l'Lixd3 26 fxg6! fxg6
..

121
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2 004
The rook was poisoned: 26 ... lbxf4 27 gxf7+
xf7 28 llxf4+ g8 (if 28.. e6 29 :e4 or
.
28. .g6 29 9g3+ Wxh6 30 :h4+ 'l'hs 31
.
1i'f4+ g6 32 :xhS wins) 29 1i'g3+ 'iPh8 30
llffi+ and mates.
27 l:f7 o:!bc5 28 .z:r.g7 +
"Missing an easier win by 28 i.f8 hS 29
hcS 1i'xc5 30 1i'f6 with mate.
28 . . .h8 29 .l:lff7
29 . ..o:!be6
After the queen exchange 29...1i'e1+ 30
1i'xe1 :xel+, simply 31 f2 wins the rook.
30 llxg6 d3 31 J:g4 llg8 32 .l:lxh7+ 1-0
Game 34
Shirov-Topalov
Leon (rapid) 2001
Sicilian Difence, Sveshnikov Variation
-----""""-___________.
This game has already been mentioned in
the article 'Notes on Creativity' earlier in the
book. Since the reader already knows how the
1 6 c3! idea was found, I will concentrate here
on technical aspects of the game using the
notes I made for lnfof111alor81 back in 2001 .
1 e4 c5 2 o:!bf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 o:!bxd4
o:!bf6 5 tilc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .*.g5 a6 8
tila3 b5 9 .ilxf6 gxf6 1 0 lild5 f5 1 1
.*.xb5?!
What a pity! Today the mark '?!' is probably
the most appropriate for this sacrifice. But the
memories of its investigation remain.
11 axb5 1 2 tilxb5 lla4 The strongest move now is probably
1 22
The best continuation according to both
old and new theory.
1 3 b4!
Tllis move was introduced by Alvis Vito
linsh somewhere in the 1 970s. As with many
of Alvis' ideas, it looks completely illogical:
White gives up the b-pawn, so his queenside
no longer a force compensating fot the sacri
ficed piece! In e.xchange the b-ftle is open, but
what is its worth when the black king is still
on e8 and the board is full of pieces? Once
again Alvis proved that he could see deeply
into complex positions.
Now, when about seven years have passed
since Alvis' death, I notice that some of his
ideas have had a strange destiny. Firstly, Alvis
himself was not always able to make them
work at their best because, as a true artist, he
sometimes lacked certain practical skills. Then,
picked up by stronger players (here I would
only name Tal and myself, but there are many
more of course), his ideas would shine, and
then one day... they would be refuted by mod
ern determination and technologies. But not
all of them.
1 3 llxb4
1 3...'i'h4 is an alternative that probably
gives Black equal chances. But this was only
paid attention to when the problems with
1 3 ... 1lxb4 first became evident!
14 ltlbc7 + Wd7 1 5 0-0
This is the main position of the 13 b4 line.
 Selected Games

I S ...l:tg8!, which was first played by Leko
against Luther (Essen 2002) with Black
achieving a brilliant victory. I must admit that
I had missed 1 S...l%g8 in my preparation. But
here we were still in 2001 and Topalov played
the move that was considered good at that
time.
tastrophe in the game [which I only learned
about when working on the annotations]
Berendsen-Van Beek, Nijmegen 1 993, after
23 c4 d4 24 liJxc6 l:xc8 25 cS!) 23 'iFxdS+
'iVxdS 24 exdS+ c7 25 g3 with a slight ad
vantage to White.

1 6 c3!
1 5.. JWxc7 The reader already knows how this move
There was an old game, Vitolinsh occurred to me. All I can add is that it's the
Cherniaev, USSR 1 990, which continued strongest move in the position.
15 ...1i'g5 1 6 liJxb4 liJxb4 and here Vitolinsh 1 6 . . .J:.xe4
didn't find 17 l:tb 1! that gives White the
strongest attack. I played it myself in a simul in
Paris in 2001, and all I remember is that Black
was mated rather quickly after 1 7...Wxc7 1 8
l:txb4 fxe4 1 9 'iFdS and so on. Instead Vito
linsh played 1 7 'irb1 ? and lost a complicated
battle.
Another critical position arises after
l5...1lb7 1 6 'iih5 fiJc7 17 1rxf7 l:lxc7
(1 7. ..c6? 18 l:tab1 fxe4 led to quick disaster
in the blindfold game Shirov-Lautier, Monaco
2000: 1 9 llxb7 xb7 20 llb1+ c6 21 llb6+
cS 22 l:b3 c6 23 llc3+ Wb7 24 liJxe7
Le7 25 1WdS+ a7 26 1i'a8+ 1-0) 1 8 liJb6+ Probably best. 1 6...'irb7 allows White to
'iPc6 1 9 l:labt dS {the only move, since i f open of the c-flle by 17 cxb4, which should
1 9...i.a6 then 20 'irb3! with a decisive attack) yield a terrific attack after 1 7 ... fxe4 18 llcl .
20 'irf6+ 'ti'd6 21 'iVxh8 /iJg6 22 1fg8 1 1 'lrh5! Wd8
Topalov insists on giving up his queen. He
See following diagram
could have chosen something like 1 7 ...'iVa5 1 8
and back in 2000 I decided that White 1rxf5+ d8 1 9 11'xe4, leading to an extremely
should be better in this position. The main complex position that required many hours of
line was 22....l:tg7 (22... fxe4 led to a quick ca- investigation. My final assessment was that

123
Fire on Board Part 1/: 7 99 7- 2004
White was slightly better there as well.
1 8 lbxc7 Wxc7 1 9 1i'xf7+ i.e7 20 J:tab1 !
20 . ..i.a6!
Now it's probably time for me to mention
the mles under which tl1e game was playelL
'Advanced chess' allows each player to consult
a computer program during the game and thus
avoid very bad mistakes. Still, it's quite well
known that the programs don't understand
the positions with imbalanced material very
weU as yet. Besides, we were only given half an
hour each for the whole game without any
increments. No wonder that by this point
some time had already been consumed, so it
was only possible to consult the computer for
quick checking of your own ideas, or else play
the computer's moves without checking them
yoursdf. The proper combination of two
brains was already impossible and Topalov
was mostly sticking to his own. That let him
find the strongest move which was missed in
my preparation, so I had to start working on
the position again. It was good that I could do
it using the same tool as before: the analysis
engine. I still had some time for that.
21 1Ud1
21 l:tfet !? was an alternative.
21 .. Jlf8 22 'ii'b3!
The only move to keep fighting for the win.
As I had a bit more time than Veselin, I could
carefully check the line 22 1i'xh7 llh4 23 1!fg6
l:tg4 24 11fh6 .i.e2! 25 l:tel (25 h3 l:th4 26 11fe3
.i.xd1 27 11fb6+ d7 28 "ifb7+ We6 29 llxdl
1 24
l:tc4 isn't advisable for White) 2S ... l:lxg2+ 26
'itxg2 l1.g8+ 27 h3 .i.g4+ and establish that
it would be a forced draw. Now I should men
tion that I had to try to win not only to 'de
fend' my opening idea, but also because 1 was
down in the four-game match at that moment
(this was the second game).
22 ....:b8 23 e6!
23. ...:Xb1
This, and especially the next, move is an in
dication that Topalov had too little time left to
consult the program properly. I expected him
to play 23....i.c4 24 11fxf5 llxb1 25 l:txbt .i.d3
26 llft d5!, after which I would be obliged to
give up the exchange in some way. Neverthe
less, after 27 'ifxh7 .i.xft 28 xfl White's
winning chances are quite good thanks to his
passed h-pawn; e.g. 28 l1.c4 29 11fg8! d6 (if
..
29 ... l1.xc3 30 11fxd5) 30 g3! :Xc3 31 h4.
24 lbb1 i.d3?!
It was still not too late to play 24.....i.c4 and
get into the above-mentioned lines.
25 l:td1 !
After this precise move White's advantage
becomes sufficient to convert into victory.
Normally I would still fitce serious difficulties
in the technical part but, as the reader knows,
I had serious external help.
25 ...14?!
Now Black pieces get misplaced. 25 ... .i.c2
26 l1.ct i.d3 would be more stubborn.
26 'ii'd 5! i.c2 27 llc1 lle2 28 a4!
A human move, quickly checked with the

machine. This pawn will decide the game.
28 ...e4
28... J.e4 29 'iVbs l:td2 30 aS would make
no difference.
29 a5 i.d3 30 lta1 1
30 ...llb2 3 1 c4!?
The computer recommended 31 a6 J.xa6
32 'ii'xe4 with a decisive advantage, but then J
would still have to take his h-pawn to create a
new passer. As I saw nothing wrong with my
move, which would keep the aS-pawn alive,
once again I disregarded my assistant.
31 . . .l:lb7
One doesn't need 1-Wtz to see the pretty win
after 3t ...l:tb4 32 a6 J.xc4 33 'ifxc6+! xc6
34 a7.
32 a6 lla7 33 f3!
The game is over and the rest is automatic
- in the purest sense of the word.
33 . . ..!CJe5 34 fxe4 ..txc4 35 l:lc1 llxa6 36
l:lxc4+ .!CJxc4 37 1fxc4+ ltc6 38 'flf7
Wd8 39 1i'g8+ 'itd7 40 'flxh7 l:lc5 41 1i'f7
llc1 + 42 2 ltc8 43 'flf5+ Wc7 44 11Ve6
1-0
,.....-----.....,
Game 35
Fedorov-Shirov
European Team Ch., Leon 2001
Bishop's Opening
The annotations to this game are based on
my notes for lnjo1711alor 83 made shortly after
the tournament. The text was added when
Selected Games
working on the book.
1 e4 e5 2 .i.c4
If Fedorov doesn't play 2 f4 anymore, it
means the King's Gambit has finally become
an opening of the past.
2. . ..!CJf6 3 d3 c6
There would be nothing wrong with the
Italian Game after 3.)t)c6, but why not chal
lenge White's set-up directly? But you still
need to remember the actual variations...
4 .!CJf3 d5 5 ..ib3 ..id6 6 .!CJc3 dxe4 7 .!CJg5
0-0 8 .!CJcxe4 .!CJxe4 9 .!CJxe4
9 ...a5?!
As with many of my 'novdties', this one
was the result of confusing the moves. My
plan was to follow the game Adams-Kramnik,
Tilburg 1 998, which went 9... J.f5 1 0 'irf3
J.xe4 1 1 dxe4 lbd7 1 2 c3 and only then
12 ... a5. Did I dream 9...a5 or what? I don't
know.
1 0 'irh5!
Here I realised with horror that Pedorov
might not always need to sacrifice his pawn on
move 2 in order to mate his opponent! At first
my position looked grim, but then I found
something...
1 0 .i.b4+ !
With this check Black manages to misplace
the white pieces a little. The alternative,
10 ... J.e7?!, looked much more unpleasant, as I
saw no way to finish my development after 1 1
a4! (but not 1 1 'iVxeS? a4 12 J.xa4 7 1 3
'iVf4 lha4 14 li:lf6+ J.xf6 t S Wxa4 l:te8+
125
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

which is good for Black) 1 1 ...ltXI7 12 0-0 and

White is clearly better.
1 1 Wf1 !

A very direct approach. It's true that with
out castling White's pieces can be misplaced
(which will in fact be the case later in the
game), but at the moment White just wants to
attack! And if his queen's rook comes to el,
then to e3, then... I really needed to calm
down and look for counter-chances.
Instead, 1 1 c3 would be answered by
1 1 ....i.e71, and after 12 0-0 (or 1 2 1i'xe5 a4 13
i.c2 5 with compensation) 12... a4 1 3 i.c2
Black can choose between 13...ltXI7 or 13... 5
14 llg5 h6 tS l13 .i.f6, which seems to lead
to a reasonable position after 16 ltet ..e8 1 7
1i'xe8 l:lxe8 1 8 d4 e4 1 9 .i.f4 lld7. But not
1 1 ...1i'xd3? as the complications after 12 llg5
are clearly favourable for White; e.g. 12 ....i.c5
(or 12 ... hc3+ 13 bxc3 1i'xc3+ 14 e2 i.5
1 5 .i.xf7+ ii?h8 16 lldl) 13 llxf7 i.xf2+ 14
f2 a4 15 l:ld1 'i'g6 (if 1 5...'i'e4 16 lld8
axb3 17 llxfB+ WxfB 18 lld6 1t'c2+ 1 9 Wet
wins, or 1 5 ...1t'f5+ 16 'i'x5 .i.x5 17 llh6+
h8 18 li)xf5 axb3 19 e2 and White keeps
his extra piece) 16 1i'xg6 hxg6 17 .i.c4 b5 18
g3 e4 (or 18...bxc4 t 9 li)xe5) 19 .i.xb51 cxb5
20 lld6 with a big advantage.
1 1 .. .Jl.e7
The only move - which I had to play with
eyes closed, trying to forget that now the e1
square is available for White's rook.
1 2 a4 c!bd7
1 3 h4?!
This allows Black a nice opportunity to cre
ate counterplay. I was more concerned about
1 3 ..ie3, hoping that after 13...b6 14 h4 1t'e8! I
would still be holding on, but who knows...
13 ll)g5 i.xg5 1 4 ..ixgS was another
interesting continuation, but I think that after
1 4...li)f6 (1 4.....e8?! 1 5 4 li)cs 1 6 .ia2
looks precarious) 15 1113 (or 1 5 'ifh4 ..d6)
15...'ifd6 1 6 hf6 11fxf6 17 Wxf6 gxf6 18 llet
.lle8!, followed by 19 .....te6, Black should hold
the balance.
1 3...c5!
Finally I got what I wanted: the white
pieces arc misplaced and Black is active. The
eS-pawn drops off though.
1 4 lbxc5 ..txc5 1 5 xeS Jl.d4
Black has good compensation but no more
than that at the moment.
1 6 'iig5l

126

A good move. Black cannot exchange
llucens, nor is he eager to retreat his bishop to
f6, so White wins a tempo for his develop
ment. 1 6 .g3 would be well answered by
l 6.....i.e6.
16 1t'b6 1 7 .i.e3 .i.e6 1 8 :&3!
. good and unusual game is spoiled. A possible
The rook is not well placed here, but if it
gets to b3 one day,.. Black has to create some
threats before White consolidates.
1 8 l:tfe8!
. 23 J.xe6 l:txe6 with compensation; for exam
18 ...llae8?! would be less fortunate, since
after 1 9 'iVf4 c5 20 i.xd4 cxd4 21 gl,
Black's pieces (the rooks in particular) also
start getting misplaced.
1 9 g1 !
Now 1 9 ..f4 could be answered by
1 9. :ad8, while 1 9 ..ixe6 i.xe31 20 1i'xe3 (or
..
20 fxe3 ..xb2) 20...'ifxb2! 21 l:tb3 'i'xc2
would be a dream line for Black.
1 9 h6 20 11'f4 %tad8
activity!
21 llh3!
Another rook comes to a strange square.
21 11'b4!
..
The most ambitious try, as simplifications
wouldn't really favour Black; e.g. 21 ... J.xh3 22
.i.xf7+ Wh8 23 ..i.xe8 ..Le3 24 ..xe3 (24
'it'8+ 'ith7 25 gxh3 J.xf2+ 26 .xf2 'irx2+
27 Wx2 Le8 28 l:tb3 l:te7 29 h51 is also good
for White, but 25 ...'it'xb2! 26 fxe3 'ifc1 + 27
f2 'ifxc2+ 28 Wg3 'ifc1 ! would draw)
24...'iVxe3 25 fxe3 :XeS 26 gxh3 .:txe3 27
llb31 l:te7! (27...llxh3 28 Lb7 :xh4 29 b3
l:tg4+ 30 Wh2! is clearly better for White) 28
Selec ted Games
hS! and White has a slight advantage in the
endgame.
22 .i.xe6?
It's hard to find a reason for this mistake, as
now White's position becomes lost and a
alternative was 22 ..i.d2, when I was planning
22 ..Wf8! (22... ..i.e5!? 23 .xeS 'i'xd2 is also
interesting, but I didn't see it during the game)
ple after 24 J.xas .:.f6 25 'flc7 .i.xf2+ 26 hl
l:tes.
Probably the most correct road for White is
22 c3 J.xe3 23 'i'xe3 fld6! 24 J.xe6 l:txe6 25
'ifg3 'fle7 with approximately equal chances.
22 . ..he6
From move 1 5, Black's activity compen
sated for the sacrificed pawn, but now White's
extra pawn no longer compensates for Black's
23 .i.xd4 ltxd4 24 'Wb8+ h7 25 :b3?
25 c3 would be the last chance in time
trouble, but after 25 ... 'iVxb2 26 cxd4 'ifxa3
objectively White is lost.
25 ...ire1 + 26 h2 11'xf2
The extra pawn is gone, with more to fol
low.
27 irg3 1t'xc2 28 .ZZ.c3 1t'xb2 29 .ZZ.c4 .zlg6
30 1t'f3 l:txd3 0-1
Game 36
Shirov-Agrest
European Team Ch., Leon 2001
Sicilian Defence, K.an Va1iation
The annotations to this game were done
when working on the book. I bad to put a
very critical eye to the notes I made for lnfor-
11/o/or BJ back in 2001 and noticed that such a
game is almost impossible to describe and
explain with variations alone.
In olden days this game might have been
called 'a triumph of light square strategy', but
today we know that the strategy onl}' proves
correct when all the lines have been revised
with a computer program! Well, this time the
127
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
'advanced' analysis did approve my play.
Before the game it was easy to suspect that
my opponent might choose this particular line
in the Paulsen, because a year earlier he
seemed to equalise comfortably with this set
up against my trainer Rytshagov. As I decided
to repeat that game there is no wonder that i t
was Agrest who deviated ftrst.
1 e4 c5 2 li)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li)xd4 a6 5
d3
Finally I showed a clear preference for this
move over S ltlc3, so strong was the impact of
my game vs. Rublevsky in Polanica 1 998.
5 ...c5 6 lbb3 e7 7 0-0 d6 8 c4
Even though White's knight is not as active
on b3 as it would be on d4, he can still employ
the standard anti-hedgehog set-up, which has
the main advantage of being simple! Just de
velop pieces, take the space, control certain
squares, and prepare some break in the centre.
The plan worked rather smoothly in this
game, though I wouldn't claim White's open
ing advantage so easily...
8 b6 9 li)c3 b7 10 f4 li)d7 1 1 iLe3
.
gf6 1 2 'iff3
1 2 g6
..
A novelty played after some thought, dur
ing which I presume Agrest was evaluating the
course of his previous game in this line:
1 2...h5 1 3 l:lad1 'ifc7 1 4 h3 g6 15 'iff2 llX:5 1 6
ltlxc5 dxcS 1 7 e5 ltld7 1 8 .i.e4 0-0-0 and here
a draw was agreed in Rytshagov-Agrest, Istan
bul Olympiad 2000. I believe that White's last
1 28
move in this game was an inaccuracy, while 1 8
ltle4! would promise him a small but steady
advantage.
Another interesting idea for Black is just to
castle short at some moment (maybe even at
once, instead of 12...g6 or 12...h5), but guaran
teeing safety for Black's monarch in this case
isn't possible, in my opinion.
1 3 :ac11 'ilc7 1 4 'flh3 h5
Finally Agrest plays his 'favourite' pawn ad
vance. During the game I quite liked my posi
tion after 14 ...0-0-0 1 5 l0d4, with the idea
1 5...ltlc5?! 1 6 ltld5!, whereas 1 was again less
sure about 1 4... 0-0!?. It's quite possible I
would have continued 15 g4!?, full of fear for
my own king.
1 5 f5!
With this typical advance White defines the
pawn structure and starts fighting for control
of the light squares. Both during the game and
now, I consider White's position to be better,
albeit with a different reason in each particular
case.
1 5 ...gxf5
The computer suggests 1 5 ...ltlg4 here, but
after 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 ltld4 ltlcS (not
1 7...ltlxe3? t 8 ltlxe6 and wins, or 1 7 ltlf8? 1 8
.
:l.xf8+ LfS t 9 lbxe6) 1 8 .i.c2! Black cannot
maintain the balance; for example 1 8... e5 al
lows an extremely dangerous piece sacrifice 19
ltldS! .i.xd5 20 exdS exd4 21 hg6+ d8 22
.i.xd4 and Black is in dire straits, while after
1 8...ltlxe3 19 'ii'xe3 t:S 20 f.3. one <.."an no

longer come up with a reasonable defence
against White's threats, such as b2-h4 or lbdS.
16 exf5 e5 1 7 .i.e2!
When I played this move I suddenly re
membered that I had already had a similar
position ... in a tive minute blitz game against
Sergei Movsesian (Dordrecht 1999). As th.u
J.,rame wasn't recorded I can't say how great a
similarity there was between the two .brames,
but the memory definitely helped me feel
more confident, because I managed to win the
blitz game rather smoothly as well.
1 7 . . .llg8 1 8 i.f3
The first critical moment.
1 8. . ..i.xf3
During the game 1 rather underestimated
the active possibility 1 8 ... e4!? 1 9 .i.e2 tneS, as
I was going to answer 20 tnd2, which is not
enough to fight for the edge. The correct idea
is 20 l:td4!, intending to sacrifice the exchange
for a pawn so as not to lose the battle for the
light squares. Then I quite like White's posi
tion after 20...3+ (or 20...l:tc8 21 tnc12 c6
22 l:txe4) 21 .1xf3 ex3 22 l:txf3 J.xf3 23
'Wx3 with good compensation.
1 9 Wxf3 l:.b8!?
A curious move. At the time I didn't even
realise its meaning, because I was planning to
play 20 llxi2. against any black move. And
indeed, in that case 19 . .l:tc8 is more promis
. Now the most natural move is also the
ing than 19 ..l:tb8, which practically gives up
. best. White simply fights for the e4 and dS
the light squares. However, it turns out that
l9 . ..:.cs has its drawback as well since it al-
. 20 b5 21 cxb5 axb5 22 .!Dde4
Selected Games
lows 20 lbtiS!, the move that Agrest possibly
wanted to avoid. A nyway, we should see now
what could happen after 19. . llc8.
.
As I already mentioned, the best answer is
20 llJdS!, because trying to play as in the game
with 20 llJd2 allows 20...'ilc6! QJut not
20 ..llg4 21 h3! and the rook has to go back),
.
and even after the most critical 21 'iie2 (varia
tions such as 2'1 ttldS xdS 22 cxdS 'ifc2 or
21 tnde4 xc4 22 tnxc4 l:tg4 are very reason
able for Black) 2l...d5! (21 ...h4!? deserves at
tention as weU; for example 22 l:lfe1 h3 23 g3
tng4 is very unclear; probably White should
play 22 h3! instead, and later on we will sec
that fixing the h4 weakness is White's basic
idea in such positions!) 22 cxdS dS 23
tnxdS 'i'xdS, it's difficult for White to claim
any White. For example, computer analysis
gives a draw after 24 liJf3 'ifxa2 25 .:.Xd7
'it;lxd7 26 liJxeS+ e8 27 .1xb6 11ra4 28 g6
1Wd7! (not 28 . . fxg6 29 f6) 29 tnxe7 11fxe7 30
.
'iixa6 .:.xg2+ 31 xg2 'iVe4+ 32 l:tf3 l:lc2+ 33
.i.f2 .g4+ 34 l:tg3 'ife4+ and so on. Thus 20
dS! is definitely a better try, and it turns out
that Black cannot free his position in a forced
way; e.g. 20... lbxd5 21 cxdS li)6 22 l:r.ct 'itb7
23 l:txc8+ 'ifxc8 24 :let or 20...'ifc6 21 :Ct !
and White keeps a steady advantage.
20 lild2
squares.
. ..
1 29
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
And the mission has been quickly accom
plished. Black cannot avoid the knight ex
change, after which his hS-pawn wiU be ex
tremely weak.
22 ..b4
. thing.
22 lbxe4 23 ll'lxe4 ll'lf6 24 l::lc t! would
...
also be good for White.
23 lDd5 xd5 24 :.Xd5 tDf6
25 .Uc1 !?
A typical situation for me: fascinated by the
strategical finesses, I forgot to think about
more tactical solutions. The simple 25 f6+
.ixf6 26 ..xhS would be more materialistic
and probably better.
25 'itb7 26 xf6+ .txf6 27 .Ucd1 h4
.
Now the h-pawn is still alive, which some
how wasn't in my plans. OK, it's not a tragedy
yet.
28 .tf2 8
Another critical position in the game. Fun-
1 30
oily, I started looking here for a forced win,
which in this case - and in complete contrast
to my 25th move - was in fuct premature!
Fortunately. my next moves don't spoil any
29 1ih3?!
29 h3! would be correct. More about that
l.'lter.
29 .Ud8!
..
An excellent defence.
30 .i.c5
After my opponent's move I saw that 30
llxd6 llxd6 31 llxd6 'ife4! would yield him a
certain counterplay. But why not the text?
30 . . ..Ug51
Again Agrest finds a move that I had over
looked 30...e8 31 'if3 with a clear advan
tage was what I expected.
3 1 i.e3!
Once again I didn't want to let Black free
his position, even in exchange for anod1er
pawn after 31 llxd6 llxd6 32 llxd6 rl;g7 or 31
.ixd6+ g8.
31 . .Ug8
Here I sank into thought. I could see there
were several ways to win the h-pawn but, as I
said before, I wasn't convinced that Black
wouldn't get counterplay which, in its tum,
might be enough for a draw. What to do? I
felt that my pieces were standing better and
his pawns on h4, d6 and even b4 were quite
weak. Why couldn't I win them in a comfort-
able way? I realised that there was something

wrong with my Icing's position on gt in some
lines, and the key plan would be to have my
pawn on h3 and then go after his pawns. Im
mediatdy I got very angry with mysdf for not
realising that on move 28 (i.e. 28 h3!), but
since I had to play something anyway, I de
cided to regroup my pieces and try to get an
other chance.
32 i.c5!
The tactical variations show that it was wise
not to take the d6-pawn. After 32 l:lxd6!?
ltxd6 33 l:lxd6 'iVe4!! 34 l:lxf6 Wb1+ 35 f2
'ii'c2+, the only way for White to avoid the
forced draw is by 36 f3! (not 36 el l:txg2
37 'if3 'ifh1+ 38 'ifdt 'iVe4) 36...e4+ 37 f4!,
and although White retains some winning
chances after 37...'ifc7+ 38 xe4 1i'e7+ 39
d3 1i'xf6 40 .icS+ lit>e8 41 11ff31, I bdieve
Black should hold in the end.
32 .. .:g5 33 .d31
Freeing the h3 square!
33 . ..1ld7
The computer suggests 33 ...1lxg2+ 34
xg2 dxc5 here, but to the human eye it
should be clear that after 35 ire4! White
stands to win.
34 .i.f2 llg8 35 h3!
Finally! The rest of the game was rather
easy for me, as my opponent's time-trouble
made it even more difficult for him to defend
his weaknesses.
35. .. 1Wc6?! 36 1We4 llc7 37 b4 J.e7 38
..txh4 f6
Now the bishop on e7 resembles a weak
pawn, while the aforementioned b4 and h4
weaknesses are already gone. Being two pawns
up I felt rather too relaxed and, being short of
time myself at this point, I cardessly played
...
39 l:r.1 d2!
which turned out to be quite a good move!
It's true that I missed ..
. when I realised what an error I had made on
39 ....c1 + 40 'ifilh2 l:tc4
but fortunately, having passed the time
control, I could see that...
41 Wba+ 7
41...l:lc8 42 'flb3 or 4l...'g7 42 'tlra7
Selected Games
would also be enough for me.
42 'iib3!
was still winning the game. And since my
opponent chose...
42...'iff1 ?
here, after...
43 l:tf2 c 1 44 lld1 1 -0
he had to resign immediately.
Game 37
Gyimesi-Shirov
FIDE World Ch., Moscow 2001
King's Indian Defence
The annotations to this game were written
shortly after the tournament and published in
]aqHe.
For some strange reason my subsequent
play in the 2001 World Championship was
affected by what happened in this game. I
think I played quite well until the critical mo
ment (after White's 24th move), but when I
saw the winning continuation it seemed to me
that there was an even better way to finish the
game off. And since my opponent didn't find
the refutation, I still thought afterwards that I
had won a good game. It was in the evening
move 24, and then it was incredibly difficult
not to stop thinking about the game and to
concentrate on my next encounters, in which I
believe I played worse than I might have.
Hopefully this was the last rime I got upset by
131
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

a game that I actually won!

1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltlc3 .i.g7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 g5 1Ve8 7 .i.e2 ltla6 8 ltlf3 e5
9 d5 ltlh5 1 0 g3
This position had already occurred in the
game Gyimesi-Moreno Camero, Ohrid 2001 ,
and a draw was actually agreed here. Javier
told me afterwards that, in his opinion, the
final position was quite promising for Black,
though we didn't do any serious analysis. And
since I didn't expect that Gyimesi would re
peat the line, I didn't make much specific
preparation for this game either.
1 0 ...f6! 1 3 ......e7!
Now a very tactical game begins. Black's
strategy seems justified both in analysis and
the game itself.
14 :g1
Black is better after 1 4 1i'd2 h4 1 5 ltgl
h8.
14 ......f61 1 5 l:lg2
Not 1 5 t2Jf3? J.xh3.
1 5 ...h8! 1 6 xh5
I f 16 9d2 h4! again.
1 6 ...i.h6 1 7 h4 ltlc51
I spent a lot of time evaluating the conse
quences of 17...1i'f4 1 8 ltk2 Wxh4 19 lLlf7+
This novelty was found at the board. 10... 5 ltxf7 20 J.xf7 J.g4 21 :Xg4 1ixg4 22 lbg3,
1 1 ex5 gx5 1 2 tLlh4 with an unclear position and suddenly realised that I could change the
had been seen before. I felt that White's move order!
bishop should be deactivated first. 1 8 b4
1 1 g4!?
11 J.e3?! f5 would transpose to a line in
which g2-g3 is not usually played, so Black
would have excellent chances. After the game
Gyimesi said he also considered 1 1 i.d2!?, but
didn't much like his position after 1 1 .. 5 1 2
.

ex5 gx f5 t 3 h4 f6 1 4 g4! f41.

1 1 fxg5!?
.

One of the basic rules in the King's Indian

is to take the control over the dark squares
whenever possible, so 1 1 ...ltJf4 12 i.xf4 exf4
13 ..c21 seemed a lot less attmctive to me.
1 2 gxh5 gxh5!?
12 . h6 1 3 hxg6 1ixg6 was another option.
.. This is what I'd anticipated. 1 8 Wd2 also
1 3 ltlxg5 seemed bad after 1 8 ...1i'f4! intending 1 9 'ifxf4

1 32

lDd3+, but 1 8 1i'e2 was a reasonable alterna
tive. [n that case Black should again continue
1 8 ...1iff4, and after 1 9 llg3 .i.d7 (real posi-
tion.'\ sacrifices such as 1 9 ... 1i'xh4!? 20 f7+
rtxf7 21 .i.xf7 .i.d7 or 1 9...a5 20 ltd1 .i.d7 21
..Q.g4 .i.xg5 22 hxgS ltad8 are interesting as
well) 20 b4 4!? 21 lilia4 1i'xh4 22 f7+
llxf7 23 .i.xf7 1Wht+ 24 1Wft 1Wxe4+ 25 'A'e2
'iVht+ would lead to a draw, but Black can still
try for more with 20...1i'xh4! 21 f7+ llxf7 22
.i.xf7 .i.f4 and his position is better; for ex
ample 23 llgl 'ifh2 24 l:.ft 'ii'h 3 25 f3 a4
and if 26 xa4 1Wh4+ 27 l:.2 .i.xa4 or 26
1 1i'g3+ 27 f2 .i.h3.
1 8 f4! !
..
Without this move my whole concept start
ing at move 1 0 would be incorrect!
1 9 lLle2?
Now White is lost. The correct move was
1 9 f7+ (1 9 bxcS 1i'xh4 would also be cur
tains) 1 9...ltxf7 20 .i.xf7 .i.h3 21 ltg3 (not 21
llg1 ? e4 22 e4 1i'xe4+ 23 1i'e2 'ifd4 and
wins) 21 ...e4 22 l:.f3 ...xh4! (White is better
after 22...1i'd2+ 23 'ifxd2 .i.xd2+ 24 <t>e2
.i.xc3 25 llg1 and if 2S....i.d7 26 Ci&?d3) 23
lilxe4 'i'xe4+ 24 11fe2 'ifxe2+ 25 Wxe2 .i.g4
26 .i.e6 .i.x3+ 27 xf3 with good drawing
chances.
1 9 .-xh4 20 .!Jf7+ l:txf7 21 J..xf7 J..h3
..
22 l:th2 .!Jxe4 23 1i'd3
23 'ifb3 would lose to 23....i.d2+ 24 <iPd 1
.i.f4.
23...J..d 2+ 24 1
Selected Games
Even though we were using the FIDE
time-control 90+30 (which, by the way, I don't
object to as much as other players), I still had
enough time to calculate. However...
24...J..xb4??
I saw that 24 ...xf2+ 25 :xf2 1txf2 would
bring me an almost decisive advantage; for
example 26 1txh3 (if 26 xd2 .i.g4! wins)
26...'ilet+ 27 <t>c2 9xe2! (not 27 ... 'ifxa1 ? 28
.i.g6) 28 111ft (28 l1h 1 fails to 28 ... .i.e3+, while
if 28 .i.g6 .i.f4+ 29 Wb3 ...c3+ 30 'ifxe3
.i.xe3 31 l:.h 1 h6 and Black should win)
28 ...1txft 29 l:.xfl llf8! (29... .i.xb4? 30 .i.e6
gives White more chances) 30 xd2 Wg7 with
a winning rook endgame. So the question is,
why did I play the different move? J believe I
had too much confidence in my pieces' co
ordination, forgetting that now White could
achieve that as well.
25 1lb1 ??
What luck. My opponent aUows me not
only to win the game but also to make another
spectacular move. In fact my position would
be very shak')' after the simple 25 c2! f2
26 'i'f3 and then:
a) 26......xc4+?! 27 Wb 1 'A'h4 28 1txf2 .i.a3
(after the line 2B.. .'ifxf2 29 l:.xf2 :m 30 c2
.tcs 3 1 l:.f6 .tg2 32 g3 .i.xdS 33 l:.aft
Black's five pawns aren't worth the rook) 29
c3 'ifb4+ (or 29 ...'.g5 30 Wc2 .i.f5+ 31
b3 .i.c5 32 :tg2 with a clear advantage) 30
c2 'ifb2+ 31 d3 e4+ 32 lilxe4 'ifxa1 33
:h1 ! (if 33 l:.xh3 'i'b1+ 34 c3 1i'b4+ 35
133
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2 004

d3 'iWbt+ draws) 33...'irg7 34 llxh3 .:m 35 with a draw.

l:f3 Ac5 36 c5 dxcS 37 c2! (better than b2) 33 'ifg3+1 rj;}f7 34 llJB llg8! (not
the alternative variation 37 .ie6 llxf3+ 38 34...lLlh3? 35 ltlxe5+ dxe5 36 1i'xe5 and wins,
1t'xf3) 37... 1i'al 38 d6 cxd6 39 .ids :Xf3 40 or 34...lLle4 35 'ifg4 lLlf6 36 lbgS+ g6 37
1i'xf3 1lg7 41 .ixb7 and here White has good 1i'g3 lLlh5 38 11h4 with strong threats) 35
winning chances. liJgS+ e8 36 'Wh4 :Xg5! 37 'ifxgS c4 38
Only after hours and hours of analysis 1i'g8+ d7 39 it'a8 lLld3 40 1i'xb7 ltle5 and
could I establish 'equality' in the following there is no way for White to win.
line:
b) 26 ... J.c51 27 .ie6! (the move I missed
during the game) 27 ... .ig4! (if 27...1i'xc4+ 28
ltlc3 or 27...1ih6 28 llgt wins) 28 .ixg4
1i'xg4, when White has several good tries but
it seems none of them wins the game; e.g. 29
l:lxh7+!? (29 llxf2 1i'xc4+ 30 llJc3 J.x2 31
1i'f6+ g8 32 1i'g5+ h8 or 32 1i'xf2 'iff4 33
:gt+ h8 is OK for Black) 29 ... 7 30
llh1+ g6 31 :gt 1i'xgl 32 lLlxg1 llh81 and
now:

Please don't ask me whether I would have

found all these lines and saved the game if
Zoltan had played 25 Wc2. With 24.)txf2+
the game could almost have become a work of
art .. and my mistake spoiled it Of course I
shouldn't have let this affect me so much (es
pecially given the final result!), but sometimes
it isn't easy to control your feelings.
25 i.f51
..

bt) 33 1i'g2+ Wf7 34 llJf3 l:g8! 35 'ffh2 (35

llJgS+? e8 is good for Black) 35.. .1lg4! 36
11fh5+ e7! (36...f6? would lead to prob
lems after 37 'ifh6+ e7 38 b31 threaten
ing 39 ltlg5, or if 37... 5? 38 118+ g6 39
lLlxeS+ dxeS 40 1i'xc5 wins) 37 llJgS (noth
ing concrete comes from 37 'ilh7+ e8,
while 37 b3 can this time be answered by
37 ...Wf6! 38 'ilh6+ f5! and Black is OK, or
if 38 ltlh4 then 38...g71 should save Black's
honour according to Fril:() 37 ....:xc4+ 38
b3 (if 38 d2 f6 39 lLlh7 + g1 40 lbg5 Now the game is over.
f6 repeats) 38. .. :b4+ 39 Wc3 (or 39 Wc2 26 'iVf3 9g5 27 Ab2 li}c3+ 28 We1
llc4+) 39 Wf6 40 lLle6 lLle4+ 41 d3 J.b6!
.. lLlxe2 + 29 l:txb4 li}d4 01

1 34
 Selected Games

r-------. tried to go for more simplifying lines. Perhaps

Game 38
Ponomariov-Shirov
Linares 2002
Sicilian Difence
'---------"""'------_. where
This game was annotated when working on
the book.
Even though 2002 was not a bad year for
me, my main achievements were in rapid
chess events such as Monaco, Prague and
Moscow. No wonder that it was difficult to
find a game for this book from that year, but 1
believe that this one is worthy.
not the best strategy, because I soon messed
up anyway. By playing 6 ... lt!f6 I could reach a
position that occurred two years later in a
game against Adams (Wijk aan Zee 2004),
I more or less equalised in the opening,
got outplayed later on, and then drew by a
miracle.
7 h4 xd2 + 8 i.xd2 lDf6 9 .i.g5
I had tried 9 c!DdS against Huzman in Bel
grade 1 999, but after 9.)thd5 1 0 .i.xd5 1fe7
1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 i.xf4 c!Des 1 3 0-0 .i.e6 Black
achieved equality.
9 . ..i.e6?!
.

1 e4 c5 2 tilf3 tileS 3 tilc3 There would be nothing wrong with the

The second peak of popularity for this simple 9 ... h6 1 0 .i.xf6 1fxf6, which was tested
'anti-Sveshnikov' move started in 2003, so a in several games including Kasparov-Leko,
year earlier it could still be rather surprising. Moscow 2002 (played after the present game
As for me, I employed it a lot i n 1998-99, but though), without White getting anything from
then 1 wasn't convinced by White's set-up. the opening.
Later on I followed the '2003 fashion' as well 1 0 lbd6 xd5 1 1 .i.xd5
of course, but once again... this game was Now White has a small. but lasting advan
from 2002. tage.
3 ...e5 1 1 ... h6 1 2 .i.xf6 1i'xf6 1 3 1id2 li)e7 14
3...c!Df6 4 i.bS 1fc7 only came into serious .tc4
practice much later. 1 4 J.b3! would make Black's counterplay
4 c4 d6 5 d3 i.e7 6 tild2 much more difficult, because in some lines he
wouldn't have the move ...llJds-b6 with
tempo. Nevertheless, I think it was an exag
geration to claim (as I did) that 14 i.c4 was a
mistake, even though the subsequent notes
demonstrate why I thought this way.
14 0-0
..

Nowadays 6 0-0 is more popular.

6 g5!?
..

This move isn't necessary a s the simple

6 ...c!Df6 promises Black a good game, but
6.....igS is also reasonable. As I mentioned, I
didn't anticipate the opening in this game, so 1

135
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7- 2004
Castling the other side with 14...0-0..0
considered dangerous, but maybe it was play
able. Actually this was one of my reasons for
preferring 14 i.b3 at the time - so that
1 4 ...0-0-0 would then be the only option for
Black. Now a year later, I would disagree with
that statement as well. After 1 4 i.b3 I could
also continue 1 4...0-0, followed by l S ... bS and
1 6 ... 1lac8, with a rather unclear game.
1 5 <iPf1 !?
1 5 0-0-0 llad8 16 g3 dS 1 7 exdS lbxdS
would be good enough for Black, although
with the bishop on b3 things might have been
different.
1 5 .. .1lad8 1 6 lle1 d5 1 7 exd5 xd5 1 8
1i'e2 llfeB 1 9 1i'e4 o!Ob6!
Now we see the drawback to White's 14th
move. Black even takes over the initiative,
although it is insufficient to win the game.
20 i.b3 lld41 21 '1Vxb7 c4 22 dxc4!?
1 36
A brave, though not a bad decision. After
22 .i.xc4 lbxc4 23 dxc4 l1d2 24 .xa7 Jlxc2
Black wouldn't be at risk at all, whereas White
I am not so sure about. However, objectively
speaking, this line seems to lead to equality the
same as the text.
22...e4! 23 Wg1 lld7! 24 fla6 e3! 25
fxe3
25 . . Jhe3!?
Even though I gave an exclamation mark to
almost all Black's moves, he is still not better.
Since I didn't have much time, after a short
reflection [ decided to go for a forced draw.
Later on I was very surprised that some com
mentators, including Spanish GM Alfonso
Romero in the magazine Jaque, claimed that J
missed a forced win in the line 25 ... 1ld2 26
l:tft 'ilc6 27 llh2 cs. During the game I had
briefly considered this possibility of course,
but it clidn't seem very convincing. If this
really was the way to win it would be quite
beautiful, but analysis shows that after 28
1i'b7! (a move overlooked by the Spanish GM,
who only analysed 28 'ifhs 'irxe3+ 29 'ithl
'ife2 30 'iffS l:tdt l 31 'ifxf7+ h7 32 'it'fS+
h8 and 28 hl llxe3! 29 1i'bS l:t2! 30 .:lgt
fle7 3 1 cS llel and Black seems to be win
ning in both cases) 28...'ifxe3+ 29 hl llf2 30
.:.gt llf4 31 g3! Black has notl1ing better than
31....:lee41 32 gxf4 'if3+, which is actually a
very nice way to reach the draw by perpetual
check. But I still consider my decision to be
more practical than going into such a compli-
 Selected Games

cated line with not much time left. Kramnik in Monaco 2002, but trying it again
26 l1xe3 lld1 + 27 Wh2 'i!Vxh4+ % -Yz would be a hit risky!
When I called my wife afterwards, she
asked me why I didn't continue 27...11t"d6+ 28
l:lg3 l:td4. 1 must admit that, during the game,
I didn't even consider such an idea, but in fact
it is an interesting try. Nevertheless, after 29
lift (29 h3 'iVe6+ 30 'ith2 'iVes 31 :.n is
the same thing) 29 ... llxh4+ 30 c.t>g1 Black
should take the perpetual check with
30...'ifd4+ anyway, because 30 ...'irxg3 31 cS!
might be dangerous for him; although even
then Fritz points out that Black can draw by
playing 31 ...'ith2+ 32 2 1i'e5! 33 .i.xf7+
Wh8!? (33. . .Wxf7 34 cxb6 ltf4+ 35 'itgl
'ifcS+ 36 'iit-h 2 'irhS+ is also drawn) and 1 2 .i.g2 'irb6 1 3 exf6 0-0-0 14 0-0 c5 1 5
White has nothing better than 34 g1 , after d5 b4 1 6 lba4
which Black should finally go for the repeti 1 6 llbt is also critical, of course.
tion of moves. 1 6 'irb5 1 7 a3 exd5
..

17. .l0b8 is not played nowadays, because

.

Game 39 after 1 8 axb4 cxb4 White can sacrifice a queen

Ponomariov-Shirov in a more effecthe way than in the game: 1 9
Wijk aan Zee 2003 ..d4! l0c6 20 dxc6 :.Xd4 2 1 cxb7+ and ac-
Semi-Siav Defence cording to my old, though not necessarily
.._________...,..._______. correct analysis, his attack should be decisive.
The annotations to this game were done So I will dare to conclude that the pawn is
when working on the book and are based on b7 than on g7!
more dangerous on
my notes for lnformalnr86. 18 axb4 cxb4 1 9 .i.e3 c5 20 'ii'g4 +
1 d4 lld7
A little surprise. Ponomariov plays both 1
c4 and 1 d4, but somehow I had concentrated
more on preparing some Sicilian than anything
else.
1 ...d5 2 c4 c6 3 c!Df3 f6 4 c3 e6 5
.i.g5 dxc4
Once again the Botvinnik Variation! When
I wrote Fire on Board I more or less thought I
wouldn't be able to try it again, and indeed
between 1 997 and 2002 I played no games
with d1e opening to which l had given a spe
cial chapter in my first book. However, 3 out
of 3 since 2002 is not so bad, is it?
6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9 xg5 hxg5 The famous position. When I reached it in
10 i.xg5 7 1 1 g3 .i.b7 my practice for the first time, in Wijk aan Zee
Sticking to the classical line. The other old 1 996 against Ivanchuk (the game was anno
move 1 1 . . .:gs brought me a win against
. tated by me in Fin: on Board). I couldn't imag-

137
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2 004
inc the consequences. After thinldng for 1 5 or
so minutes (and with no home preparation!)
Ivanchuk came up with amazing...
21 ..g7!?
which of course totally shocked me. White
sacrifices his queen for only two pieces, but
his extreme activity makes it hard for Black to
defend. One mistake and he is lost immedi
ately, which is exactly what happened in that
old game. Naturally, I put a lot of effort after
wards into defending Black's position in my
home analysis; and also when, in 2002, Emil
Hermansson (actually Ivanchuk's friend and
his second in some tournaments) demon
strated a way for Black to play in one of his
games, I thought that 21 Wg7 was no longer
that critical. So I was once again (although not
as much as in 1 996!) surprised by the sacrifice,
played this time by another great Ukrainian
but from a younger generation.
I would also like to mention that I was 're-
minded' about the alternative, 21 lilxcS, by
Van Wely in a blindfold game in Monaco
2004. After 21....ixc5 22 .ixcS fixeS 23 :ret
c7 24 h4! I could 'sec' that Black has certain
difficulties, though I still managed to win the
game later on from a worse position.
21 ....txg7 22 fxg7 l:tg8 23 xeS
23...l:txg7!
This is much better than the 23 ... d4 I
played against lvanchuk, thinking that after 24
..ixb7+ :xb7 25 lilxb7 Wb6!? I would be
OK. Not so, as Vassily demonstrated with the
1 38
precise 26 .ixd4! 1ixd4 27 :fdt when
White's attack was terrific, and he went on to
achieve a brilliant victory (see Fire on Boord).
Black can also play 23.. .llc7 24 lilxb7 :xb7
and while his position looks extremely dan
gerous, it's difficult for White to claim the
advantage by force.
24 lDxd7!
A new move. White is not trying to win
material but wants to create maximum threats.
I used to think that 24 ..th3 was very danger
ous here, but the game Th.Ernst-Hermansson,
Stockholm 2002, showed that Black has noth
ing to worry about after 24... 5 25 .ix5 :g7
26 .ig4 :g7 and the rook keeps attacking th
bishop. White can settle for a draw, of course,
but if he wants more than that he may get
severely punished; for example 27 ..txd7+
:xd7 28 lilxd7 d4!! when Black has a clear
advantage. I believe something like this actu
ally occurred in the game.
24 .id4 has also been tested, but it
shouldn't cause Black serious trouble; for ex
ample 24... f5 25 libcd7 :xd7 with unclear
play.
24...1bd7 25 .:lxa7
Here I started thinking and my next move
took me nearly an hour. I can't say that I felt
at ease. Normally I like attacking my oppo
nent's king with my pieces well co-ordinated,
which is exactly what White is doing here!
Black has a material advantage (a queen is a
queen after all), his potential passed pawns are

more advanced that White's passer on h2, but
how to make use of all this? Finally, I decided
that I should exchange my rook for whatever
was available - be it White's rook on a7, the
bishop on e3, or even the g2 bishop in some
Jines. With three pieces it would be much
more difficult for White to attack than with
four.
25 . . .:g6!?
This perfectly human idea, to play ...lla6 or
... l:le6xe3, is also considered by Fritz8 to be
the best move in the position - after a mere
two minutes thought, compared with the hour
spent by me. The difference between brains is
becoming more and more humiliating.
26 :ta 1 ?!
A serious mistake. The natural 26 lldt, try
ing to stop both ...lle6 and ...lla6, should have
been played. Ruslan said he didn't like
26...l:.a6 27 llxa6 i.xa6 28 llxdS 'ira41, which
should actually lead to a forced draw after
some bishop checks (e.g. 29 .t.h3+ c7 30
i.f4+ b6 31 i.e3+), but l didn't notice it
during the game. Instead I was planning
26 ... 'irg41?, although I can't remember now
what I was calculating. Therefore all I can do
is give the conclusion (a 'forced' draw) and
some sample lines from my later analysis:
a) 27 llcl 'ire2 28 b3 (or 28 ltxb7 <itx.b7 29
i.xdS+ :.c6!) 28...c3! (28 ... 1le6 29 ltxb7 :.xe3
30 LdS llxb3 31 :.xt7 .:.c3 is unclear) 29
lla4 lle6 with advantage to Black.
b) 27 lld4 'irfS and then:
bt) 28 h4 is well met by 28...1lg4! 29 lldl
(worse is 29 lld2?1 1Wb 1 + 30 h2 c3 31 bxc3
bxc3) 29...'irc2 30 i.3 fSl and Black has the
better chances.
b2) 28 h3! (freeing the h2 square for the
king, taking the g4 square away from Black,
and keeping the h4 square for the rook)
28...1le6! (28 ...:.a6? is now impossible due to
29 llxc4+!, but 28...'irb 1+ 29 h2 ..xb2 is an
acceptable alternative; in my old analysis I
thought 30 i.xdS ..ixdS 31 .:.XdS was ex
tremely dangerous for Black because of
3t .. .llf6 32 g2 'ire2 33 1lc5+ dB 34 llg5!?
Selected Games
f 34 ltcc7 'ir3+ 35 h2 c3! draws], but Fritz
points out that 34...'irf3+ 35 liti>h2 llg6 36
llbS c8 37 ltxb4 llxg3! keeps Black alive
e.g. 37 %lxb4 1lxg31 38 .:.Xc4+ b8 39 ..if4+
a7 40 ..ixg3 tltb6 and White's advantage
is insufficient to win) and then:
b21) 29 1iti>h2? llxe3 30 fxe3 'ffc2 would be
bad for White.
b22) 29 :.r4!? is an interesting try, but Black
is OK after 29....g6; for example 30 h2 (30
ltxb7 b7 31 i.xdS+ b8 32 ..ixe6 li'xe6 is
equal) 30.. .1lxe3 31 fxe3 'irb6 32 lla1 .xe3
33 .:.X7 c3 34 bxc3 bxc3 and White has to
take the draw by checking with his rook, 35
ll8+ d7 36 ll7+ and so on.
b23) 29 l:lxb7!?
and now Black also draws by 29... :.xc3! 30
..ixdS (not 30 fxe3? li'bt+) 30.. ..:.Xg3+! 31
fxg3 Wfbt+ 32 f2 1i'xb2+ 33 e3 li'c3+ 34
e4 f5+ 35 ..t>e5 lie3+ 36 i.e4 fxc4
(36...Wxg3+ 37 xfS 1fxh3+ is also enough)
37 llxb4 (if 37 %lg7 ...c3!) 37......xg3+ etc.
I wouldn't give this long line starting with
26......g4 had I realised during the game, or at
least when beginning my analysis, that Po
nomariov's aforementioned suggestion,
26...lta6, would in fact be the easier way for
Black to achieve equality after 26 lldt . How
ever, the move chosen by Ruslan in the game
is definitely overambitious.
26. . Jle6!
The threat of taking on e3 and then activat
ing the queen is simple and effective.
1 39
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
27 .i.d4?1
Consistent, but not good either. It was time
for a tough defence like 27 lZ.7a5 1lxe3 28 fxe3
'ft'e6 29 lZ.et.
27 ...:e2 28 h4 lld21
The rook is making a brilliant career for it
sdf, heading first for White's bishop and then
for the b2-pawn. 28...'iig4 would only lead to
draw after 29 1lxb7! xb7 (not 29 ...'i'xd4? 30
lZ.x7 b8 31 l:taS and White wins) 30 ..ixdS+
c7 31 .i.cS!.
29 .te3
Maintaining the best possible co-ordin.ttion
of attacking pieces, but at a high price: the b2-
pawn. However, there was already no choice;
for example if 29 1la8+ rj;c7 30 .i.eS+ b6 31
llb8 'ilg4 wins.
29 ...l:xb2 30 111 a5
White is definitdy prepared for the decisive
attack. Has Black anything to offer in return?
30 b3! !
..
Yes - the strength of his pawns! White can
indeed win material with his active pieces, but
now it's too late!
31 :c5+
This makes Black's task easier. 31 l:ta8+ was
a must, and now Black should take the rook.
a) 31 ...Wc7 32 lt8a7! would possibly force
Black to repeat moves with 32...c8, since the
computer line 32 ... 1lbt+ 33 'ii?h2 l:td1 is not
exactly clear after 34 lZ.Sa6! (if 34 .i.f3 lZ.d3!
wins) 34. .'ifb5! 35 :f6 b2 36 llx7+ Wb8 37
. fight a little with 34 i.xd5! which would be
:m+ .tcs 38 .th3 (38 l:tff7 1Wb7! 39 l:taxb7+
1 40
hb7 is good for Black) 38 ...11'c6 39 .i.d7 d4
40 R.4+! (if 40 .i.xc6 xa7 41 hd4+ llxd4
42 l:txc8 c3 43 .i.g2 c2 wins) 40 Wxa7 41
...
.i.xc6 bt1i' 42 llxc8 1ff5 43 lZ.e8! and White
has definite counterplay.
b) 31 ...-i.xaS! 32 l:lxa8+ Wb7 33 lZ.a7+ c6
34 l:txd7 l:tbt+ (or 34...Wxd7 35 h5! :b1+) 35
h2 xd7 and now, as opposed to the game,
White gets an opportunity to push his h-pawn
immecliatdy: 36 hS! b2 37 h61
and Black still needs a certain accuracy,
though I believe he bas two ways to win:
b1) 37...l:th1+! (best) 38 .i.xhl bt1W 39
i.xd5 c3 and White will be forced to give up
one of his bishops for the c-pawn.
b2) 37 ... lZ.a1 !? is also good but even more
complicated; e.g. 38 .i.h3+! (if 38 h7 bt'il 39
h89 1i'gt+ 40 <ith3 Wht+ wins) 38... Wd6 39
.i.f4+! (39 i.f5 e5 40 g4 d4 41 h7 lla8 wins,
or if 40 h7 f5 41 h81!f bt'if 42 g4+ e4 43
'ifd4+ f3 44 'fVxd5+ 'ire4 45 'ifxf7+ e2
and there are no more checks) 39...e7 (not
39 ... c5? 40 i.f5 f6 41 h7 lZ.a8 42 g4 d4 43 g5
d3 44 g6 bt'il 45 g7 and White's pawns get
there ftrst) 40 i.fS Wf6 41 h7 lZ.aS 42 .ibt d4
43 i.d6 d3 44 .ta3 'Yt;g7 45 i.xb2+ xh7 and
wins.
31 ...d8 32 llxb7 ti'xb7!
It looks more logical to give a check with
32... lZ.b1 + first, and only after 33 h2 take the
rook with 33.. .'ii'xb7, but then White can still
slightly unpleasant in time-trouble. even

though Black's position shou1d be objectively
winning. The text prevents White &om even
that possibility.
33 .:Xd5+
Now 33 ..i.xdS fails to 33. ..1i'b4!.
33 ...'ffxd5
With two potential queens it's not so pain
ful to give up the existing one.
34 -*.xd5 llb1 + 35 g2 b2 36 -*.e4 lld1 !
The threat of 37...l:td3! lets Black win a deci
sive tempo, so the white king can never make it
across to stop the c-pawn following the ex
change of the b-pawn for White's bishop.
37 -*.g5+
After 37 .tc2 b1'if 38 i.xb1 l:txb1 39 hS
e8 40 i.d4 ffi! 41 f3 c31 White loses the
other bishop as well.
37 . . .'e8 38 .i.f6 b11W 39 hb1 .:Xb1 40
h5 41 g4?1
In the tine 41 f4 ltb3 42 f2 l:td3 43 We2
llxg3 White would save the bishop but not
the game, thanks to the tact that the f7-pawn
is still alive.
41 ....1:r.d1 42 .i.b2 'itgB 0-1
Now it's all over, 43 3 is again met by
43...c3! winning the bishop.
,....---
Game 40
Shirov-Topalov
Wijk aan Zee 2003
Caro-Konn Defence, Advance Variation
'------""""""""-
" ------_.
The annotations to this game are based on
Selected Games
the notes made for lnjoriiJator 86 shortly after
the tournament. The text was added when
working on the book.
This was one of the most chaotic games in
my career. When I decided to sacri fice a piece
in the opening I couldn't figure out whether I
was worse or better. In fact, during the subse
quent play, it was both. Veselin once asked me
if there were many of his games in my book,
and of course he got a positive answer. What
can I do if the games are good? Or if even
some draws (such as this one) are no less fas
cinating than the games I won?
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 .i.f5 4 lllc3!?
This was probably the last serious game in
which I employed this sharp and risky line. I
don't think it really fits my style, and I re
member that after almost every 4 lbc3 game
of mine, I stated that developing the knight
one move earlier is much more logical!
4 e6 5 g4 g6 6 lllge2 c5 7 -*.e3
.
The sharper move, 7 h4, gives me even less
confidence, as the line 7 ... h5 8 lLlf4 i..h 7 9
h5 lbc6! is too complicated for me.
7 ...lllc6
Grischuk played 7...cxd4 8 lbxd4 ..i.b4!?
against me in Dubai 2002, and I liked it so
much that I tried it myself with Black against
Nikolai Vlassov in Reykjavik 2003. Both were
rapid games and both finished with a win for
Black!
8 dxc5 h5! ?
Here my knowledge ended.
14 1
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7- 2004
9 ltlf4?l
This sacrifice, which is very interesting of
course (otherwise the game wouldn't be in this
collection!), finally seems unsound to me, so
the solid 9 d4 was to be preferred.
9 d4 1 0 ltlxg6 fxg6
...
1 1 1id37l
This was my idea behind 9 f4 and it
turned out to be a novelty, though the old
move 1 1 J.d3 was possibly better.
1 1 .. 1 2 0-0-0 dxc3!
. as 1 7 l:ld7+ is threatened.
Topalov immediately takes the right piece;
12...dxe3 13 'A'xe3 would be more promising
for me.
1 3 1t'xc3 1Wc7 14 .i.c4
1 4...1Wxe5?
This natural capture, preventing a possible
sacrifice on e6, is in fact a mistake because
White now gets a very important tempo for
the attack. Black should have been unafraid of
1 42
ghosts and played 14.-hxg4! with the advan
tage, as 1 5 i.xe6+ xe6 16 1Wc4+ 'lile7 1 7
J.gS+ 'lile8 1 8 'A'e6+ lL!ge7 leads nowhere.
1 5 .i.d41
This strong move should have led to
White's advantage, but unfortunately I didn't
realise it during the game.
1 5 1Wf4+
..
After 1 S...ltxd4 16 l:lxd4 Black has trouble
not only with his king, but also with his queen
1 6 b1 :es
1 7 g5??
I give this move two question marks be
cause it looks like White is totally confused
which he actually is! Instead of attacking the
e6-pawn in order to open up the king, I sud
denly started thinking about the one on g6.
Instead 17 l:lhet! would create the unpleas
ant threat of 1 8 Axe6, so Black's reply

1 7 ... Yixg4 looks forced. And now White has
an idea which, unfortunately, I completely
disregarded during the game: 1 8 h3! 1115 (if
18 . ..1Wf4 19 llxe6 llxe6 20 J..xe6+ Wxe6 21
1Wb3+ wins) 19 f4!! and the black queen is
nearly trapped on 5! The only move is 19... h4,
and after 20 J..d3 (20 .i.eS!? is also interesting)
20 ... 'iVhS 21 .ie2 'iVh6 22 J..g4 ltld8
the posttlon becomes really picturesque
with all the black pieces sidelined. White
l'hould of course be careful and remember
that he is a piece down, but I think that after
23 "jib3 .ie7 24 J..xe6+ lLlxe6 25 :Xe6 8
26 .tes 'iVhs 27 llet !, threatening 28 .td6, he
gets the advantage. Unfortunately, we can't
consider this advantage a triumph of White's
play, because we know that Black missed a
good opportunity on his 1 4th move.
1 7 1i'xg5 1 8 l:lhg1 ?!
. b) 21 .i.xf6! (White should first think about
I could still play 18 f4, although after
1 8...'iVh4! it would be no longer the same
story. But the text I like even less.
1 8 Jih4?
. 23 J..xe6+ h7 (not 23 ... l:txe6? 24 WdS) 24
The position is so sharp that every small
difference may change the evaluation. This
move, which was good after 18 f4, is now er
roneous and lets White get back to the game
which would have been difficult to achieve
after 1 8...11Vf4! 19 llge l lLlh6! (if 1 9 ...ltlf6 20
'ifb3 and White has compensation) 20 l:txe6
(desperation, but what else? Black also wins
after 20 .i.eS lLlxcS 21 :XeS lLlg4 22 l:td7+
'itig8 23 .i.xe6+ r.th7 24 J..gS+ l:.xg8 25 l:txe8
Selected Games
'ifxl'2) 20...:Xe6 21 .ixe6 + xe6 22 'irb3+
'iti'5 23 1!fd5+ ltleS 24 'irxb7 gS! and White's
attack is over.
1 9 l:lge1 ll:lf6! 20 1i'b3
20 ll:ld8?!
.
The advantage of having extra material is
that it can be given back at a convenient mo
ment, and therefore Black would have done
better to play 20...'g8. Then White has vari
ous continuations, but only 21 .i.x f6! keeps
the balance.
a) 21 .ixe6+ lth7 22 .ixf6 11Vxf6 23 .igB+
l:txg8 24 l:txe8 'ifxf2 is good for Black; for
example 25 a3 (if 25 11fxb7 'iV3!) 25 ... 11fxc5 26
1i'xb7 J..e7 27 llxg8 r.txgs 28 lld7 (or 28 llet
'l'd6) 28. ...if6 29 l:tc7 Wg1+ 30 a2 lbe7 31
llxe7 J..xe7 32 Wxe7 Wxh2 33 1i'e6+ Wh7 34
c4 1Wc21 and Black should win.
the initiative, rather than taking back material!)
21 ...Wxf6 22 1ixb7 lba5 (or 22. . .ll:le5 23 .i.bS
lle7 24 WbB lLl3 25 lle4! with compensation)
11fe4 and White can play on.
21 e&! g8?
This move is connected with a blunder that
White doesn't notice. After 21...J..e7 the posi
tion would be unclear, in my opinion.
22 Jl.g3?
Missing that 22 1Wa4 would attack the
queen (due to 23 J..xe6+!) and the rook at the
same time. Black's only continuation is
22... lLlf7, but while he is still doing OK mate-
1 43
Fire on Board Part II: 7 99 7- 2004

rial-wise after 23 i.xf6 gxf6 24 1ixe8 'ifxc4, the eS-pawn.

his position is nearly lost; e.g. 25 llxe6 llh7 27 Axg6 'it'xg6 28 .txg6+ Wxg6 29 .ixe5
(or 2S ... 'iVg4 26 1ld7 .:h7 27 b3) 26 1lxf6 1lg7
27 llgt gS 28 llfS and there is no way to get
out of the pins.
22 .'A'g5
.

Now the position is unclear again.

23 l:le5 1ih6 24 h4 7 25 llg5!

So White has a much better version than in

the 26...i.xc5 line. Due to his activity he
should be better, because Black's pieces still
don't co-ordinate weD, while material is now
more or Jess balanced. But, as I already men
tioned, I was quite short of time at this stage,
Another picturesque position. I was sure so 1 didn't manage to take what the position
that by shutting Black's queen in the box I was offering.
would be much better, but reality proves di f 29 ... lDxc5 30 1rg3+ Wf7 31 b4!?
ferent. A logical intention to give a check on b3
25 e5!
. and force the black king back to g6, but it
Preventing 26 i.f4 and planning something seems that I could get a more lasting initiative
like 26...i.e7, 27...llhf8, 28 .. .'iii' h 8 and so on, by playing 31 i.xf6 gxf6 32 llgl !.
in order to free her majesty.
26 .id3
Time pressure always comes sooner than
desired, so I had to start looking for concrete
solutions, such as winning his queen. An al
ternative would be 26 f3!? .i.e7! with a very
messy position which I find especially difficult
to analyse to a clear evaluation.
26 ...lDe6?!
Topalov decides to give up the queen, but
not in the right way. 26...e4?! would be very
dangerous because of 27 i.bS tlk6 28 i.f4
i.xcS 29 1tg3! and Black's queen is really
trapped. Instead 26... i.xc5! was correct, and 31 ... l0ce4!
after 27 Lg6+ 1ixg6 28 llxg6 xg6 White Topalov nonnally tries to place his pieces
has to be very accurate, though he can proba actively whenever possible, so a line like
bly achieve e<Juality by playing 29 'l'bsr and 31 ...lbe6 32 f4! with more threats is not to be
have sufficient counter-chances after taking expected &om him.

1 44

32 'it'b3+ Wg6 33 .ixf6?!
In time-trouble I missed the last chance to
fight for a win: 33 .i.d4! l:lh6 34 f3 ltxl6 35
.i.e3 and the black king is still unsafe.
33 .. .1ixf6 34 ltg1 + h7 35 'ii'd3+ 'ltg8
36 'it'c4+ 7 %-%
Here, in the last minute before reaching the
time-control, I realised that I should just say
'draw' to finish this interesting fight
Game 41
Shirov-Van Wely
German Bundesliga 2003
Sidlian Drfence
The annotations to this game were done
when working on the book and are based on
my notes for lnformator 87, written shortly after
the game.
1 e4 c5 2 ll:!f3 ll:Jc6 3 ll:Jc3
This had been my main weapon against
2. ..l2x6 in the years 1 998-99, but then I started
employing (not always with success the main
lines of the Sveshnikov again. Here J decided
to come back to 3 llk3, most of all because of
its growing popularity.
3 . . .ll:Jf6
However, this answer was not yet well
known at the highest level when this game
was played. 1 remembered that in the former
years I planned to continue...
4 .tb5
but when my opponent played...
Selected Games
4...1Vc7
I found myself without any specific prepa
ration as early as move 4! Thinking about what
to do, 1 suddenly recalled that once or twice J
had played the line in the English Opening 1
c4 eS 2 lbc3 lbf6 3 e3 J.b4 4 'i'c2 Axc3 5
..xc3 ttk:6 with Black, and here I could theo
retically get something similar with reversed
colours and an extra tempo! Thi:; helped me
to feel that l 'knew' something about the posi
tion.
5 0-0 e6
5...lbd4 became the mam line a month
later, after Kramnik and Leko played it against
Anand in Linares.
s :e1
6 .i.xc6 would be more 'according to my
knowledge', but I had a feeling that with the
extra tempo (on the line with reversed col
ours) 1 could profit more.
6 . . .ll:Jg41? 7 .txc6
Finally I had to take the knight. This cap
ture is typical for 3 J.bS or 4 J.bS lines, while
in thls particular case it also prevents Black
from playing ...lbd4 or ...lbgcS.
7 . . .bxc6!
When checking the database afterwards my
main surprise was that this logicaJ, and proba
bly the best, capture was a novelty. Black
wouW have a hard time after either 7 ...dxc6?! 8
e5 lbh6 9 d4 or 7 ...'ifxc6? 8 d4.
8 e5!?
During the game this seemed to me the
145
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
only way to fight for the advantage, but now I
would perhaps prefer a quieter 8 d3!?.
8 f6!
...
The only way. The following moves are
also relatively forced for both sides.
9 d4 cxd4 1 0 1bd4 ltlxe5 1 1 ltlxe5 fxe5
1 2 :Xe5
J was not yet in time pressure at this point,
but naturally I had consumed something as I
had already started thinking at move 5. Fun
nily, I also thought that I had seen this posi
tion before somewhere, and maybe had even
stored some analysis back in 1 998. As I didn't
find anything afterwards, I could only con
dude that ideas from different lines some
times cross your mind in a way that, once you
get to play something similar, you don't even
know where the feeling of deja vu comes
from!
1 2. .. .te7!
This should have allowed Black to com
plete his development. That task would be
more difficult after 12 ...d6 13 .:tel or 12...i.d6
1 3 llgS! (during the game I was sure that 1 3
i.f4 was the 'analysed' move, and this helped
me to make the right decision on move 1 41)
13 ... e5 14 1fc4.
1 3 .ig51?
As I couldn't see a good continuation for
White after 13 i.f4 d6 14 lle3 0-0, I decided
that trying to exchange bishops, in order to
avoid Black having the bishop pair, should be
the right choice.
146
1 3 . . . .id6?
And insisting on maintaining that pair is
wrong. Black would get a reasonable game
after 13. .. d6 14 i.xe7 1i'xe7! (1 4... dxe5 1 5
li'c51 yields White terrific play on the dark
squares in compensation for the exchange) 15
lle3 0-0.
1 4 .if4!
I spent some time calculating 1 4 l:[5!?, but
the consequences of 1 4... llf8! weren't clear to
me. Computer analysis more or less demon
strates that, in the line 15 lbe4 (15 llx8+
'iir'x 8 is just equal) 1S...i.xh2+ 16 h1 :x5
(16...d5!? 17 llx8+ x8 1 8 g3 dxe4 19 xh2
1fb6 seems hard to refute as well) 17 1i'xg7
i.d6 (to be honest, I stopped here during the
game) 1 8 'ifxh7! (a serious try; instead 1 8 lldt
i.f8 19 'ffxh7 llxgS 20 ltlxg5 'iff4 21 'i'g6+
e7 is an immediate draw) 1 8...llxg5 19
ltlxgS 'i'aS! (activating the queen is necessary,
as otherwise White will just bring up his rook
and give mate) 20 'i'g8+ e7 21 lldt! 'i'eS! (if
21 ...'iff5 22 1i'g7+ e8 23 ltxd6 'ffxf2 24
lld41? with a strong attack) 22 11fh7+ e8 23
'ifg6+ <iie7 24 g3 'if5 (not 24...'ilh8+ 25 g'l
118 26 'ilh7+ <iie8 27 'ifhS+ e7 28 llJh7
and wins) 25 'ffg7+ e8 26 llxd6 'ffx f2
White hasn't got more than a perpetual
check. At first I couldn't believe this, but even
though I could prolong Fritzs line with 27
'ifg6+ q;e7 28 lbe4 'iffS 29 'ifg7+ d8 30
ltlf6! 'i'fl+ 31 h2 'A'2+ 32 h3, I decided
that Black stands no worse after 32... ciftc7!, so

the initial 'iron' assessment was quite right.
But it's good that after such lengthy computer
analysis I was able to establish that my on
board choice was correct Black indeed has
severe problems after 14 Af4!.
14 c5 1 5 We3!
..
There was no need to exchange queens by
1 S l:lxe6+!? dxe6 16 'i'xd6 ..xd6 17 Axd6 or
1 5 'ile4!? AxeS (not 1 5... Ab7?! 16 l:lxe6+
dxe6 1 7 1fxe6+ 'ife7 1 8 'ifxd6 'ifxd6 1 9 Axd6
c4 20 o!iJbS! with a dear advantage) 16 LeS
dS 17 i.xc7 dxe4 1 8 lbxe4, as either option
would yield White 'only' excellent compensa
tion for the exchange in the endgame. By
keeping the queens on the board White soon
creates a decisive attack.
1 5 a6
..
I nterestingly enough, if Black had chosen a
different defence then the ll5 move (which
didn't work on move 141) would play the deci
sive role; for example 1 5...0-0 1 6 lDb5 ifbs 1 7
lDxd6 'i'xd6 1 8 llf5! or 1 5. . .l:lb8 1 6 llk!S (16
l:ldt !? is also possible) 16 ...'.b7 (or 16...1ic6
1 7 'iVg3 AxeS 1 8 .i.xeS 'ifxdS 1 9 'iVxg7 llf8
20 i.xb8) 17 llf5! and White is clearly better,
since if 1 7...'ilxb2 1 8 lle1 'ifxc2 1 9 g4 hf4
20 'i'xf4 llb1 21 tlk7+ dB 22 'i'gS+ rllxc7
23 llxcS+ wins.
1 6 d5!?
Here I already had a nice choice between
trying to finish the game by attacking (which I
did), or going for a quiet endgame after 1 6
li'g3!? i.b7 17 lZ.d1 ! (17 .:Xe6+ dxe6 1 8 .i.xd6
Selected Games
11rc6 is far less clear) 17 ...00 (if 17 ...0-0-0 1 8
llxcS 'iVxcS 1 9 Axd6 and White's attack is
decisive) 18 l:lxcS .ixf4 1 9 .:Xc7 .i.xg3 20
hxg3 J.c6 21 lDe2 which should be winning
as well.
1 6 'it'c6
..
Once again my opponent prevents me
from putting the rook on 5, although objec
tively speaking, going for 1 6 ... 1 7 ltf5!
(otherwise the position is unclear; e.g. 17
11fg3? 0-0 1 8 llae1 'flxb2 19 c3 l:lxf4 20 'ifxf4
J.b7! or 1 7 JigS J.xf4 1 8 lDxf4 'l'xb2 1 9 lift
0-0 20 c3 ll7 21 li1hS 'ifb8) 1 7 ... .ixf4 1 8
llxf4 might have been a better option for him.
Still, White has a clear advantage anyway; for
example 1 8 . a5 (18 ... lla7 loses by force to 19
. .
'ii'xcS exdS 20 llet+ ..t>d8 21 'ii'e7+ rllc7 22
11fxg7, and 1 8 ... d6 19 b41 also looks extremely
unattractive) 1 9 llel ! (now 1 9 'ii'xcS!? exdS 20
llet+ 'it'd8 21 11fe7+ q;c7 only leads to a
draw) 19 ... d6 20 1Wh3 l:ta7 21 1Wh5+ g6 22
'ii'gS 'ii'xb2 23 iLlf6+ <ja>d8 24 tLle4+ <ja>c7 2S
l:t7+ Cii?b8 26 tbxd6 l:.x7 27 tbx7 llf8 28
'iVe7 winning.
1 7 J:g5!?
This time I myself rejected 17 ll5!? hf4
1 8 lLlxf4 J.b7 19 llxcS, because I wanted
more than 'just' a pawn. Now White's attack
wiU be decisive.
17 ...h6
17 ... Axf4 18 lLlxf4 0-0 1 9 ifc3 is just lost
for Black, while the text allows a nice finish.
18 .i.xd6! hxg5
14 7
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004

18 ...1i'xd6 would also be answered by 1 9 ing square of the black one!

lldt ! Wd8 20 lDc3. 21 9f3 .tb7
1 9 J:ld1 ! Which would be the case again after
I had to see this when playing 1 7 llgS, of 21...1i'xc2 22 lDg8!.
course. Black has no defence. 22 1fxb7?!
1 9 J:lh6
.. 22 lDd5! would be slightly more precise, but
then I would have to give up the idea. . .

22 lld8 23 ll\gB!
. ..

While I saw that 1 9 ...1i'xd6 was impossible,

due to 20 lDf6+ We7 (or 20 ... gxf6 21 :xd6) 21
llxd6 xd6 22 lbe4+ and wins, I was still a which finally worked! It's no excuse for
little concerned about 19 ... .i.b7 during the missing an easier win a move earlier of course,
game. White continues 20 'ii'xgS 1i'xd6 21 but OK. ..
lbf6+ gxf6 22 'ifg6+ Wd8 23 llxd6 Wc7 24 23 J:h8
. ..

1i'd3! and of course he is winning, though 23 ...1i'g4 fails to 24 3.

some technique is still required; for example 24 1i'f3! lbgB 25 9h5+ 1 -0
24... .i.c6 25 1Wd2 llag8 26 31 and so on. Black i s getting mated.
20 ll\e7!
Finally getting to Black's king. Game 42
Shirov-Dreev
Dos Hermanas 2003
Caro-Kann D_ej_ence

The annotations to this game were written

when working on the book and are based on
notes made for Infornalor 87 shortly after the
game.
It's not often the case that a drawn encoWl
ter leaves you with an overall feeling of satis
faction. But even though I missed a good
practical chance in time-trouble, I still con
sider the game interesting at all stages, with
20 a4
... both opponents demonstrating creative chess.
20. .11Vb5 would be neatly answered by 21
. 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 ll\c3
lOgS!, with the white knight reaching the start- Finally keeping my promise to develop the

1 48

knight a move earlier (than in the 3 e5 J.5 4
c3 line).
Recently 1 have made a 'compromise' with
myself by employing 3 e5 J.5 4 J.e3!? quite
often. Does that mean the c3 square is in fact
inappropriate for White's knight in the Caro
Kann? TI1e future might tell.
3... dxe4 4 lZ'Ixe4 J.f5 5 lZ'Ig3 J.g6 6 h4 h6
7 lZ'If3 0A7 8 h5 .i.h7 9 .td3 hd3 1 0
'lrxd3 e6 1 1 i.f4 /l)gf6 1 2 0-0-0 i.e7
1 3 /l)e4
Over the years I employed 3 e5 almost ex
clusively against the Caro-Kann, so the posi
tions arising after 3 c3 are still relatively new
to me. In this particular line I already had ex
perience against Kramnik, in the Russia vs.
Rest of the World match, Moscow 2002, and I
remember spending nearly 1 5 minutes in the
opening despite it being a rapid game! 1 played
tile 'standard' 1 3 fitbt , and although I ended
up winning, it was definitely not due to the
early part of the game. In Wijk aan Zee 2003 I
saw Kramnik himself play 1 3 e4 and realised
that it might be more precise, because in some
positions White's king is better on cl, so why
waste a tempo!
1 3 0-0
..
After the present game Black started play
ing 1 3...1Wa5 14 bt 0-0, trying to prevent the
g-pawn advance at such an early stage. In
some games, however, White continued 1 5
g41? anyway and the position arising after
1 5...lt)xg4 1 6 e5!? is so complicated that I
Selected Games
d1ink one should wait for furtller tournan1ent
practice before drawing any conclusions. All
the same, 1 can't help mentioning that Dreev
lost in this line against Motylev, a few montlls
after Dos Hermanas. But then again, he suc
cessfully defended Black's honour on two later
occasions by playing 1 6.)t)dxe5 1 7 dxe5
l:tad8, followed by 1 8... 51.
1 4 lZ'Ixf6+!
This knight exchange, in connection with
tile next move, occurred to me shortly before
the game, when I realised once again tllat 1 4
bl would not lead anywhere, s o I had tu
find something real.
14 lZ'Ixf6
..
After 14._J.xf6 1 5 g4 White's attack would
be 'for free'.
1 5 g4!
The point. Unfortunately I did not have
much time to prepare it properly.
1 5 /l)xg4!
.
After more than an hour's thought Dreev
chooses the strongest continuation. 1 5...1Wa5
would now be rather late in view of 1 6 g51
li)ds 17 ..ae5 and White's initiative is very
strong, even if Black manages to exchange
queens later on; e.g. 1 7 . h4 (if 1 7 ... 1Wxa2 1 8
. .
gxh6 lDb4 19 h7+ Whl:l 20 'i'e4 .i.f6 2 1 h6 or
20 .. f6 21 h4 5 22 1i'g2 wins) 1 8 'ifb3! (1 8
.
'ife4 is worse because of 1 8 ... 5!) 1 8...1Wxa2 1 9
1Wxa2 lDxa2+ 20 b1 and then:
a) 20 ... lDb4 21 gxh6 f6 22 ltdgl .:f7 23
hxg71 fxe5 (if 23 .. .lhg7 24 h6 .:xg1 + 25
1 49
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7- 2004
l:txg1+ h8 26 l:tg7 f8 27 llxb7 lDd5 28
g3 xh6 29 c4 /l)b6 30 b3 with a decisive
advantage) 24 /l)xe5 .:xg7 (if 24 ...:f6 25 /l)g4
. llxg4 exf.3 21 .ixh6 wins.
Wxg7 26 /l)xf6+ f6 27 .:h3! wins) 25 h6
.:xgl+ (or 25....:g5 26 .:xgS+ xg5 27 l:tg1
h7 28 llxg5 Wxh6 29 llg6+ h5 30 .:g7)
26 llxg1+ h7 271lg7+ xh6 28 ltxe7 l:tg8
29 Wcl and White is clearly better.
b) 20... f6 21 gxf6 gxf6 22 llhg1+ 'it>t7 (or
22. ..h7 23 f4 b4 24 l:tg6 .:gs 25 1lxh6+
g7 26 :gt+ 8 27 llgg6) 23 Wxa2 fxe5 24
/l)xe5+ e8 25 llg6 llf6 26 lldg1 J:td8 27
l:tg8+ l:tf8 28 :tg7 and again White has a
clear advantage.
1 6 llhg1
1 6. . .f5?1
Logical. but not the best. Home analysis
convinces me that Black shouldn't have been
afraid to take the second pawn, as White
doesn't have more than just good compensa
tion in the line 1 6. ..li:'lxf2! 17 'A'd2 (17 'W'e2?!
/l)xdt 18 1Lxh6 1i'd5 1 9 xg7 J:tfdBI is good
for Black) 1 7...4 (if 1 7. ..li:'lxd1 1 8 xh6
1i'b6 t9 llxg7+ Wh8 20 'lfd3 1i'xb2+ 21 xdl
lib 1+ 22 e2 'ifb5 23 c4 9f5 24 'irxfS exf5
25 ll:'le5 will recoup the exchange with advan
tage) 1 8 9e3 /l)g5 1 9 /l)xg5 hxg5 20lLxg5.
1 7 11e2
Now White wins back the pawn and he
should be slightly better, although things are
still very complicated.
1 7 ...h7
Forced. If Black tries to keep the extra
150
pawn he immediately gets into trouble; e.g.
a) 17...9d5 18 c4 'ire4 19 'ifxe4 fxe4 20
b) 17 ...9d7 1 8 ti)es 'ildS (or 18 .../l)xc5 1 9
dxe5) 1 9 c4 9a5 20 lDg6 and wins.
c) 1 7...'ilc8 18 5 /l)xe5 1 9 lLxe5 with a
clear advantage.
1 8 11xe6 ild5!
18 ...J:tf6 19 ...e2 would be in White's fa
vour, so Dreev continues with very sharp play.
Now the queen exchange is not promising, so
I have to accept the challenge and calculate.
1 9 Wxe7 'ifxf3 20 i.e51 llg8 21 xb7
The critical position. White has won a pawn
temporarily and still has bishop vs. knight,
though Black can immediately erase both ad
vantages if he wants. A more important factor,
however, is that White's pawn on h5 fixes
Black's pawns on g7 and h6, and this might
become very important if the queens get ex
changed and a race begins between White's
queenside pawns and Black's kingside ones.
21 ...11xf2 22 b1 ?!
Too slow. I had two possibilities to take a
pawn, and while one of them, 22 xg7, would
lead to a repetition after 22...J:tab8 23 'ilc7
llbc8 24 ...d7 llcdB (since 25 11fe7? loses to
25.. llde8 26 'irt7 ...e3+ 27 bt J:txg7 28
'ilxf5+ hB 29 J:txg4 'ile2), the other capture,
22 'ilxc6!, should have been played. Now after
22. .J:tac8 (22.../l)xe5 23 dxeS 'ile3+ 24 bl
.
'ifxe5 does not regain the pawn due to 25
.:d5) White could continue 23 c7! (which I

actually missed during the game, although 23
t!i'g6+ Wh8 24 c3 l:lb8?1 25 xb8 l:lxb8 26 b4
aS 27 l:tdet! or 24...t!i'e3+ 25 Wbt ltlxeS 26
dxe5 'ifxe5 27 :get would still have been
better than my 22nd move) 23...'tl'e3+ 24 'itbt
'ffe8 25 Wxe8 l:tgxe8 26 eS
and 1 don't know whether White's advan
tage is sufficient to win or not.
22 ..%1ae8!
. losing the race after 27...f4 28 l:txa7 l:lxh5 29
I overlooked this resource.
23 xc6 eS 24 dxeS AxeS
Black has activated his rook, and the f
pawn means that his chances seem rather
good. White's pieces are in perfect locations,
but he can't get anything from it because
Black defends everything. Here mutual time
pressure was already approaching, but I man
aged to find a move I can be proud of.
25841
Already thinking about possible endgames!
Selected Games
25 ...'ifcS?!
Black can't improve his position either, so
it's no wonder he offers a queen exchange, but
it's a dubious decision in my opinion. I would
prefer 25...a5.
26 .-xeS :Xc5 27 :d7 h51
Going for the hS-pawn (see my note to
White's 21st move) would probably mean
l:lf7.
28 llf7
There was an extremely interesting pawn
sacrifice: 28 b4!? l:lxa4 29 c3, after which the
black rook is out of play, but my situation on
the clock didn't let me evaluate it properly.
28 ... 14 29 :xf4 .:xh5 30 b4!
The race commences. h seems White will
be slightly ahead, but he has to push his pawns
in any case.
30 . gS
..
15 1
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
With the same intention.
31 l:tf7 + !
Exchanging a pair of rooks and leaving
Black with an inactive one on hS.
31 l:tg7 32 l:txg7 + <itxg7 33 2! 6!
..
In time-trouble Dreev realises that White's
pawns may be faster, so he does his best to
activate the king.
34 b5 e5 35 Wb3 'iil'd 5 36 l:td1 + ?!
It's a real pity that this time-scramble mis
take spoilt an otherwise mutually well-played
game. I think that, from practical point of
view, it would be almost impossible for Black
to hold his own after 36 'it'b4! llh4+ 37 aS.
At least, during the postmortem
thought that Black was lost. However, I kept
analysing the position blindfold and managed
to establish that with a fantastically illogical
move, 37...g4!, closing the path for his rook
again, Black makes a draw! (Other moves lose;
for example 37 ...d6 38 lla1 Wc7 39 a6
b8 40 aS ltc4 41 llf1 llf4 42 lle1.) After
37 ...g4, White's best winning try is 38 Wa6 (38
lldt+ cS 39 lld7 llhS is similar to the
game), but I see no win in the line 38...g3 39
aS (if 39 l:xg3 llxa4+ 40 b7 cS draws)
39...1lg4! 40 a7 :g7+ 41 a6 (or 41 Wb6
ll1-,>6+ 42 c7?! cS) 41 ...h5! 42 b6 c6 43 b7
llxb7 44 llxg3 l:.b4! (not 44.. .1lh7 45 :C3+
d6 46 !itb6 h4 47 a6 and wins) 45 llc3+
Wd6 46 l:th3 h4 47 c3 l:.b3 or 4S llg6+ c7
and draws. A really fascinating endgame, in
my opinion.
1 52
36 .. .'ii> c6 37 J:td7 g4!
lbi.s was what I had overlooked. It was for
nmate that I could still draw the game.
38 l:tc7 + b6 39 l:tc6+ b7 40 J:.g6 l:tg5
41 l:txh6 g3 42 l:th1 g2 43 l:tg1
White's rook is the ugliest of course, but
the extra pawn keeps the balance.
43 . .'b6 44 'iii'b4 l:tg4+ 45 c4 a5+ 46
.
bxa6 %-%
Game43
Radjabov-Shirov
Sarajevo 2003
Semi-Slav Difence
we
lbi.s game was annotated when working on
the book.
Before this eighth round encounter I had
made six draws in a row, and only one of
them was from a promising position. Taking
into account the tournament situation (fei
mour had half a point more than me) and
knowing his solid style, I thought that another
draw would be the best I could achieve that
day. However, there are lucky exceptions in
chess sometimes.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lt)c3 tl:)f6 4 e3 e6 5
lt)f3 lt)bd7
I had already played the Meran against Rad
jabov, four months earlier in Wijk aan Zee, so
I expected him to be well prepared for this
game. Nevertheless, the speed of his play,
both during and after the opening, was so im-
 Sele c ted Games

pressive that it even slightly scared me. against Bareev happened in an otherwise very
6 .i.d3 dxc4 7 .i.xc4 b5 8 i.d3 .i.b7 9 e4 successful tournament? OK, it was only round
b4 10 li)a4 c5 11 e5 c!bd!i 12 li)xc5 three...
He chose 12 0-0 in Wijk. 18 .i.h7+ xh7 19 Wxd4
12 . . .lbxc5 13 dxc5 .i.xc5 14 0-0 h6 15
li)d2 0-0
Here I was already struggling to remember
the main lines. I only managed to recall that
15...lL!c3 16 'ifc2 IVdS 17li)f3l'ld8!? 18li)e1
.i.d4 19 i.d2! was considered dubious by old
1hcory, willie the text should be playable. And
as for 15...'ifc7!?, which is employed nowadays
by such expens in the Meran as Dreev and
Vallejo: I only learned about the existence of
r:hat move when writing these comments.
16 lbe4 .i.d4 17 lDd6 i.e&
Back in 1994 I tried 17...i.xe5!? 18 tLlxb7
'iib6 19. . . f6!
Without this Black's position would be too
passive.
20 .td2 fxe5 21 1i'e4+ !?
The immediate 21 'ifxeS 'ifd7 would possi
bly rule out White taking on e6 with check in
some variations, but I can only guess that this
is the real difference.
21 .. .'g8 22 1i'xe5 'iid7 23 .l:.fe1 .J:.ac:IS

against Bareev in JJnares, and lost very un

fortunately after 19 'ifhs (19 'ife2 .i.f6 20
9e4 l'lfc8 21 'ifh7+ 'iltf8 22 i.e4 'ifxb7 23
.if4 e7 with an tmclear position was more
or less my preparation for that game)
'I 9....if4?? 20 lL!cS! 9xc5 21 .ixf4 'ifd4 22
i.d6 and so on. Ever since then I thought that
17....ixeS was a mistake. So imagine my sur
prise when I realised, while writing these The critical posltlon. I more or less re
notes, that instead of 19 ....i.f4?? I could have membered that the theory went up to here,
played 19....i.d4! and there is nothing wrong and I also tried to calculate the lines at the
with Black's position! Pinter played it in 1999 board, so by this stage I had consumed more
against Tkachiev and the latter found nothing than an hour, which wasn't dramatic for 23
better than to play 20 'iff3 and offer a draw. moves, except that my opponent had only
Should J mendon that the unfortunate loss spent a few minutest Here he fmally started

153
Fire on Board Part II: 7 99 7-2004
thinking and then chose a completdy unambi
tious move.
24 c4
I was much more afraid of 24 'iVxe6+ 'iVxe6
25 .Uxe6 since I wasn't sure how to continue.
25. ..ltk7 leads to a slightly unpleasant end
game, while 25...li)f4 26 i.xf4 l'lxf4 27 h3 (if
27 l'ldt ltc41) 27...i.d5 28 l:.e8+ ltxe8 29
li)xe8 may indeed be dangerous if Black can' t
fi nd a fo rced draw. So I would stick to
25...7 (which was actually my intention
during the game) a nd after 26 l'lg6 h7 27
l'lg4! (no t 27 l'lg3? li)a6 winning m aterial)
27... l'lxd6 (af ter 27... a5 28 4 the computer
doesn't see any compensation for the pawn)
28 i.xb4 llff6 29 i.xd6 l:txd6 30 l'lc4 6 31
f3 g6 I bdieve that Black can save this posi
tion with good play, as the combination of
rook, bishop and knight is always a force to be
respected in such endgames.
24 . b6!
With this move Black a chieves favourable
simplifica tions.
25 lt\xb6 'irxd2 26 'irxe6+ h8 27 'irxc6
'irxf2+ 28 h1 axb6
There is no d anger a nymore and still some
time on the clock, but are there real winning
chances? I was trying to figure it out but
co uldn't do so for long as my oppo nent once
more started p laying very quickly.
29 b37
Af ter 29 %:tact! 11fxb2 (or 29...l'ld2 30 l:te8)
30 'iVxb6 I don't thin k I would be able to
154
hop e for a win.
29 l:td2! 30l:te8l:txa2 31l:tc1!?
..
Again played with impressive speed. At first
I thought I might have blundered something,
but then I saw tha t everything was still under
control.
31 ...l:te2! 32l:txf8+ 'irxf8 33 'irxb6 'ii'f4!
Even though there is almost no ma terial
lef t, White has to be extremdy careful about
losing the b3-pawn and then the game.
34 'ird8+
34 'Wc6 h7! would also give me winning
chances.
34 .Wh7 35 'ird3+
..
White is more or less forced to exchange
queens.
36 ...'ire4 36 'irxe4+l:txe4
37 h3?
The decisive mistake. The b3-pawn would
fall a nyway, but there was no need to weaken
the g3 square. J have not found a win for
Black after 37 g11 l:te3 38 l:tc6 ltxb3 39
l'lb6. For instance, if I play as in the game
39...g5 (both 39... h5 40 h4 and 39...llb2 40 h4
look drawish) 40 ltb7+!? (40 f2 hS! 4 1 g31
may also be sufficient) 40 . g6 4 1 ltb6+ g7
. .
42 llb7+ f6 43 ltb6+ eS 44 Lh6 lld3,
White saves himsdf with 45 l:E.b6 b3 46 f2
d4 47 e2 .Uc3 (the g3 square is unavail
ableQ 48 dll.
37 ...l:te3
I believe that Black is winning already.
38l:tc6

A passive defence like 38 llb1 would never
work, as Black would bring his king to c3
sooner or later and then collect the pawn
anyway.
38 Axb3 39 :b6 g5 40 l:b7 +
. moves. The set-up I came up with was quite
40 gt hS 41 W2 h4 would not help.
40 . . .Wg6 41 l:b6+
41 . . .g7?!
On move 41 I had all the time in the world
to think, but somehow I finally got influenced
by my opponent's speed and also made my
move quickly. In fact, 41...51? was already
winning by force; e.g. 42 llxh6 lld3 43 llb6
b3 44 gt e4 45 2 ..td4 46 'it>e21lg3 47
f2 llc3 48 e21lc2+ 49 3 b2 or 49 d1
c3.
42 l:b7+?1
This 'forces' Black to win the game imme
diately, but White was probably lost anyway.
42 ...WJ6 43 :b6+ e5!
What else? Now Black even gets an extta
tempo on the previous variation.
44 l:xh6 l:d3 45 :b6 b3 46 l:b4 5 47
'ii?g 1 c5 48 llb8 c4 49 Wf2 c3 50
e2 l:d2+ 51 Wt3 l:d4 0-1
White loses his rook.
r-----
Game 44
Shirov-Atalik
European Team Ch., Plovcliv 2003
French D(ence
....______...._____
., ..
The annotations to this game were made
Selected Games
when working on the book and are based on
my notes published in lnformator 89.
This was one of those cases where I felt
completely unprepared from almost the first
creative and effective, but... definitely not to
be recommended!
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lL'Ic3 i.b4 4 e5 lL'Ie7 5
a3 .i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 b6
I knew only that this variation existed but
nothing more. Afterwards I was surprised that
it's not employed very often, because I find it
quite interesting.
7 1Wg4 lL'Ig6 8 h4 h5 9 "iVg3?!
I now prefer 9 li'dt after studying the da
tabase.
9....i.a6
1 0 2? 1
Typically for me, in a new situation I took a
dogmatic approach. Theoretically the bishop
exchange favours Black, so I decided to avoid
it at any cost - without even taking into ac
count that the bishop wouldn't come out
from fl.
10 . . .:lh7!?
There would be nothing wrong with a sim
pie move like 10...11d7, after which I would
have to exchange the bishops anyway: 11 l0f4
(what else?) tt...l0xf4 12 .i.xf4 (not 12
1lxg7?? l0g6) 12...g6 and so on. With the text
Black tties to avoid even the possibility of
l0f4.
1 1 i.g5
155
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

11 4)f4 would now be very unfortunate in play) 17lbe2

view of 11...4)xf4 12 -'.xf4 (12 J..xa6? g2+
13 'ilxg2 4)xa6 just loses a pawn) 12...J..xf1
13 xf1 4)c6 and the black knight gets active
immediately, which would not be the case if it
was forced to recapture a white bishop on a6.
1 1 . 1Vd7 1 2 'it'f3?!
..

playable for White? I would like to believe

That this move was a novelty l only learned
after the game of course. But that it was dubi
ous I could sense even before making it! It's
hard to suggest anything, but now I would
possibly prefer one of the alternatives 12 a4 or
121i'e3!?.
12 'ifa4? 1
...
so, but it isn't easy.
1 3 g3
Now the attack becomes quite dangerous,
thanks to the dubious 10 lbe2 move!
1 3 . . ...txf1
After 13...1i'xc2 14 .1\xa6 lL'lxa6 15 0-0
White has a strong initiative.
1 4 xf1 c5!

But now my plan works. This natural move

is connected with an oversight, as Atalik didn't
notice the forthcoming knight sacrifice. A
slight change of move order with 12...c5!
would be simple and effective, because after
13 li)g3 .1\x1 14 xf1 Black would have an
important 14...1i'b5+! check at his disposal,
allowing him to develop just in time. White's
problems would then be pretty severe from a
practical point of view. Direct attacks simply 14...1i'xc2 15 lL'lxhS would be rather com
wouldn't work; e.g. 16 4)5? ex5 17 'ifxdS plicated, so Atalik chooses a continuation that
l:tc8 18 e6 4)ce7 19 exf7+ 8 wins, or 16 appears more straightforward. Here 1 was
l:tdt 1i'a4 17 4)xh5 1t'xa3118lL'lf4 (tf 18 .if6 lucky to sink into thought... because it seemed
llxh5 19 1i'xh5 gxf6 20 exf6 1i'xc3) 18...f4 at first that 15lLlxhs was the only choice and
19 .1\xf4 cxd4 20 1i'd3 l:th8 21 li'g3 g6 22 that I should just play it and think afterwards.
cxd4 1i'xg3 23 fxg3 aS with a clear advantage. Then it fortunately crossed my mind that the
The only way to try and hold the balance is 15 position after 1S...4)c6! would be so unpleas
gl 6 16 'ifdt, but is the position after ant that it's not easy to find even a reasonable
16...1i'c4 (tf 16...1i'a4 17 .te3 with counter- continuation. Meanwhile the idea of 15 l15

15 6
occurred to me; first as a joke, but then .
. . 1 6 'it'g1 exf5 17 'Wxf5
1 5/0f5! It's not often that I've threatened mate in
I realised that this was the best move! I one in my practice.
could nor see the variations clearly, but is that 1 7 .../0d7
necessary once you've established that the 15
xhS?! 6! line is good for Black?
1 5 1Vc4+?
..

After this check Black's position falls apart.

Taking the knight was equally bad: 15...ex5 16
'ii'xdS c6 17 e6 W8 18 cxf7! (not 18 llet?
lieS) 18...8 (if 18......a6+ 19 Wgl ...c8 20
l:el e7 21 J.xe7+e7 22l:Xe7 r:llxe7 23
h2 'ifc7+ 24 g3 l%d8 25llet+W8 26 lle8+
lhe8 27 fxe81W+ cli>xe8 28 11fg8+ e7 29
1i'xh7 wins) 19 1i'd6+ xf7 20 d5 8 21
.i.xd8 g8 22 1i'e6+ 1Llf7 23 J.g5 and White
is clearly better.
But the modest retreat 15._'iWd7! would ac 18 e6!
tually promise Black a decent game; for exam During the game I thought that 18 llh3
ple 16lLid6+(161Llg3? 'ilb5+would transpose was winning as well, so it's lucky that I didn't
to the 12...c5! line) 16...Wf8 17 c4! lLlc6! 18 choose it, since analysis shows that it isn't easy
cxdS xd4 19 dxe6 (19 'ife4 exd5 20 Wxd5 to break down BL'lck's defences after two ugly
llb8 is unclear) 19...1Llxf3 20 exd7 1Llxg5 21 knight moves: tS. lLid8! 19 ll3 h8. The
..

hxg5 e5! (White is better after 21...lld8 22
llh3! llh:e5 23 llel llxd7 24 g6! llh6 25 f5
or 22...11xd7 23lld3!) 22 .:et d7.
best I could come up for White, with the help
of the computer later on, was a relatively
forced draw after 20 e6! f6 21 llet! cxd4 (or
21...fg6 22 e7 cxd4) 22 e7 1Llfg6 23 .i.f4!
(threateningllg3) 23 . 'iVc61 24llg3 f7! (not
. .

24...'ifd7? 25 lle61 and wins) 25 cxd4 (threat

ening llc3!) 25...1Llxf4! 26 ...xh7 1Llhg6 27
llge3 l:teS 28 g3 1Llh3+ 29 Wg2 2! 30
f2 (not 30 'i'xh5? e4) 30...1i'xc2+ 31
'itgt 'iV5 32llf11Wg4 33lle3

I reached this position in my calculations

when I played 15 1Llf5! and thought that after
23 llh3 White would be clearly better. How
ever, analysis shows that Black can fight on
with 23...g6! 24 llhe3 f6 25 l:le8+llxe8 26
llxeS+ Wg7 27 lids lLle5 28 lLies+ f7 29
xf6llg7 and the endgame is rather unclear.

157
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7- 2004
33...tl)f4! 34 llxf4 1ixg3+ 35 Wht 'llh3+
etc.
1 8 ltlf6
. 22 1i'xd4 23 l:tf3
The only move.
1 9 lle1 !
Now the black knights are placed more
prettily, but they can't defend the king like in
the last line!
1 9 1i'xc3?
..
This lets White finish the game effortlessly.
After the forced 19 ...tl)f8 I would still have to
find some good moves. The main line now
runs 20 llh31 (20 i.xf6 gxf6 21 1ixf6 fxe6 22
llxe6+ Wd7 23 llc6 1Ve2 24 l:ld6+ c7 25
dxc5 bxcS 26 l:lc6+ b7 is unclear) 20...cxd4!
(if 20../e7 21 ex7+ x7 22 l:lf3 wins) 21
i.xf6 (not 21 llg3? rj;e7 22 ex7+ x7 and
Black defends) 21...gxf6 22 e7! (22 1ixf6 fxe6
23 llxe6+ rj;(.)7 is unclear again) 22 ... tl)g6 23
'Wxf6! (threatening 24 llg3 which would also
be interesting immediately; e.g. 23 llg3!? llh8
24 1ixf6 llg8 25 f4 l:lc8 26 f5 1ic6 27 1ixd4
'i'cS 28 1ixc5 llxc5 29 l:lgS llxc3 30 fxg6
llxg6 31 llxdS lle6 32 ltxe6 fxe6 33 llxhS
and if 33...1lxa3? 34 :h7! wins, or 33...xe7
34 llh7+ f6 35 l:lxa7 llxc2 36 l:la4 with a
clear advantage, although rook endings can
suddenly be drawish sometimes!) 23 . .d7 24
. Anand-McShane played on the top board! It
'l'fS+! We8 25 llg3 'ifc6 26 c4! dxc4 (if
26 ... '1'd6 27 cxdS l:lh8 28 llf3 l:lh7 29 .gS!
threatening 29 llf6 and wins) 27 :xg6 fxg6 28
'iffB+ d7 29 e81i'+ llxe8 30 :Xe8 and
White's attack should be decisive.
158
20 exf7+ Wxf7 21 '6'e6+ 8 22 llh3
The last heavy piece enters the attack.
.
23 ...ltlxh4
23...1fg4 would save the king for a while,
but not avoid the demolition after 24 'ifxd5
lleB 25 11fd6+ :e7 26 llxe7 !Oxe7 27 lle3
'ifd7 28 'ifxd7 d7 29 :xe7 and wins.
24 l:tf4 'ii'c3 25 .i.xh4 llh6 26 l:te5 11'd2
27 .i.xf6 1 -0
Mate is knocking at his window.
Game45
Hracek-Shirov
Gennan Bundesliga 2003
Sicilian Defence, Sveshnikov Variation
The game was annotated a few months af
ter it was played, and published in New in
Chess.
1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4
ltlf6 5 lL\c3 e5 6 ltldb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8
lL\a3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 0 lL!d5 f5 1 1 c3
.i.g7 1 2 .i.d3 .i.e6 1 3 'ii'h5 0-0 1 4 0-0
Somedling extremely funny happened at
this point. While I was thinking, I noticed that
the same position had appeared in the game
was also visibly clear that Luke McShane was
not in hurry with his move, as he possibly
trusted my preparation more than his own.
(At least it seemed that way to me during the
game, because at some point our eyt:s crossed
 Sele c ted Games

and Luke started laughing.) That gave me very fashion is 17 1i'h4!?, as first Topalov and then
mixed feelings. I had decided to employ this Vallejo played against Van Wdy in Monaco
particular line because I'd analysed the game 2004. Both games reached a curious position
Anand-Kramnik, Cap D'Agde 2003, played a after 1 7... 5 18 cb4 xb4 19 xb4 i.f6 20
month earlier, and had a possible improve lihs aS 21 exf5 i.fl 22 'i'h6 i.g7 23 'l'h4
ment in mind. But my plan was to try it axb4 24 f6 i.g6 25 fxg7.
against Hracek that day and not yet against
Vishy himself! Besides, if the games continued
along the same path, Vishy and I would only
score one point in total and I was afraid that
the team managers would expect more from
the top two boards. Nevertheless I had no
choice but to play the planned move...
14 ...f4

Here Van Wely took the pawn with the

king against Topalov, while a few days later
against Paco he chose 25...'ffxg7 which seems
better. The game was drawn after a compli
cated battle.
1 7 ...f5!7
I felt this natural move shouldn't be wrong.
Kramnik played 1 7 a5 against Anand.
...

and almost immediately Luke did the same 1 8lLlcb4 lL!xb4 1 9 lL!xb4 a5 20 exf5!
against Anand. Zybnek quickly replied ...
1 5 llfd1
still following the Anand-Kramnik game, so
one could now expect the same move from
Vishy. However, after some reflection he
played 15 c2!? which seems rather risky, but
at least the games were no longer going in the
same direction! I should say that I was truly
impressed how Anand went for the team's
interests, as he would possibly play 15 llfdt in
different circumstances. Fortunately, he still
achieved a great victory with 15 lLJc2, and
since I managed to win my game as well, we
made a maximum score on top two boards, This capture had been mentioned by some
though in the end the match was drawn any commentators on the Anand-Kramnik game
way. and therefore I had prepared it. Strictly speak
1 5...llb8 1 6 lL!c2 1i'd7 1 7 h3 ing it was a novelty as only 20 c2 had been
Now as I write these annotations the latest played before.

15 9
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7-2004

20 .t.xf5!?
.. playt.'ts missed that 23 W3! Wh8 24 1Wd5,
A vety important moment. After some played first in 2004 by Ganguly and then by
twenty minutes thought I rec.'lptured the Ramesh, might be a lot stronger and make
pawn, because it seemed to me that I would 20....i.xf3 look dubious.
get good practical winning chances in the re
sulting complications. Looking back, J have a
feeling that I was overoptimistic, since I had
definitely not analysed those complications in
detail! It would have been safer to play
20....i.f7!, which I had analysed before the
game as well. Then White would be forced to
play 21 1ib4 and after 21...axb4 22 f6 i.g6 23
fxg7 a familiar position (familiar for the
reader, that is; see the note 17 h3) would be
reached, with the only difference that White's
pawn is on h3 instead of h2. Personally I don't
think that having it on h2 (as in the 17 'i'h4
line) favours White so much, but at least with 23 . l:l.b8!
the pawn on h3 he would weaken the g3 After the game l thought I had played the
square if he plays 2-3, as Vallejo did later on right idea but not the most precise move or
in his game. Therefore, on 23 ...'iVxg7, White der. Instead 23... .i.g6!? was an interesting al
c.'ln try the immediate 24 cxb4 (Vallejo took ternative, when 24 9g4 l:tb8! 25 iLc4+ h8
on g6 in his position), though after 24...e4 25 26 b4 transposes to the game, while 24 1We2
.i.c2 'i'xb2 26 .i.b3+ h8 27 l:tab 1 'VWf6 Black 'VWxa5 25 .i.xe8 :XeS 26 llxd6 e4! is good for
holds equality. Black; for example 27 a4 ..cS! 28 l:td7 e3 29
21 lLlc61 l:l.be8 22 .txb5 1i'c71 l:tadl?! .i.hS! 30 f3 .i.fl with very dangerous
threats. But analysis shows that the text is
strong anyway.
24 .tc4+ h8 25 b4 .t.g6

This was the idea. Black has sacrificed a

pawn and now wants to create threats using
his central pawn chain and bishop pair. Noth
ing unusual so far.
23lL'lxa5
If 1 am not mistaken, the game still follows
Maxim Notkin's analysis in Chc Tod'!J. Both
26 1i'g4
Now Black's attack goes smoothly. How
ever, after 26 'iVe2 e4! (not 26... 3? 27 'i'd2
fxg2 28 'irxd6 'ira7 29 l:td2 and Black has

160
 Sele c te d Games

nothing) White wouldn't have an easy life ei 29 tDc6 l:r.be8, with the tcrt'iblc threat of
ther; for example: 30...e3!, is unplayable for White. Logically he
a) 27 'ifd2 e3 28 fxe3 (28 'irxd61i'xd6 29 tries to cover that square.
llxd6 i.xc3 is also good for Black) 28...'irb<>!
29 :ac1 fxe3 30 'ifxd6 c2+ 31 lld4 llfe8! and
Black wins material according to Ftil
b) 27 llac1 f3! 28 'ird2 fxg2! (not 28....ie5?!
29 g3) 29 1fxd6 Wa7 30 'it'g3 llb6! (nnt
30...l:r.f3? 31 lbc6) 31 1ic3 'ifc7! and all
Black's pieces are attacking.
The computer might still defend White's
position after, say, 23 .idS, but that's not the
point. Here I should mention that the main
reason for choosing 20....ixf5, instead of the
safer 20...i..t7, was precisely the difficulty that
\'\''h ite faces when defending such a position at
the board. As 1-lracek didn't play especially 29 . . .fxg2?
fast, I suspected that he hadn't an.'llysed the Too light-hearred. It's tempting to keep all
position thoroughly with the silicon monster, the attacking pieces alive, but the 'pragmatic'
and a fter the game he admitted that this was taking on c1 would be more practical. After
the case. 29...i.xcl! 30 Jlxct l:tbS 31 e3 l:r.xb4 32 g3!
26. . . e4! lta4! Black would be slightly better, but the
white king is at least relatively safe now, which
is why I didn't play it.
30 1fh4?
The decisive mistake. After 30 e3! I was
planning 30...11fa7!.

At this point I was feeling extremely confi

dent, though in fact the position isn't clear yet.
27 Aac 1 f3 28 .i.d5!?
28 g3 e3! 29 fxe3 l:r.beS would be very dan
-,rerous; for example 30 i..dS 2+ 31 Wg2 llxe3
32 c6 .ixc3 with a clear advantage.
28....i.h6!
With this move Black ensures himself of
the exchange, while still keeping attacking
ideas in mind.
29lLlc4
but my calculations were far from precise.
On 31 l:td4 Black must play 31...l:txf2!
(since my 'brilliant' intention 31 ...l:r.xb4?! 32
llxb4 i..xe3 would be parried by 33 Jlc2!
.ixf2+ 34 xg2 and I am not sure Black can
even get equal chances), and after White of

16 1
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
course takes the rook, 32 x2, then 32...:f8+
secures the draw; e.g. 33 xg2 Qf 33 e2
'ifa3! 34 llddt 'ifa7) 33....txe3 34 llfl (not 34
J:lcd I? .lxd4 35 cxd4 'ifa3 when Black's at
tack continues) 34...1lxf1 35 xft .txd4 36
cxd4 'ifxd4 37 1i'e6! etc.
311let is also possible, as after 31...1lxf2 32
Wx2 .lxe3+ 33 Wxg2 (not 331lxe3? llf8+ 34
xg2 'irxe3 and wins) 33...i.xcl 34 llxcl
'ite3 35 .llc2!, Black has nothing better than
allowing the perpetual check after 35...9d3 36
i.b3 .tf7 37 'iff4! Lb3 38 1Wf6+ gs 39
..g5+h8.
30 .1t'a7!
..
Creating more threats.
31 xg2
31 l:tbl .tgs 32 'ilg31l3 33 'ii"xg2 .ih4 34
h1 .ifS would be a triumph of Black's plan.
31 . .i.xc1
Getting extremely short of time, I had to
stop relying on cala.tlations and decided to
play as safe as possible. That's why I took the
material available, whereas with more dme I
would definitely consider 31...'iVg7!? (which
fiitz likes) more seriously.
32 .lbc1 llf31
Black's attack is very strong and can be
continued with simple moves.
33 lt!e3 l:lbf8 34 l:lc2
Also short of time, Hracek misses 34ltlg4
which would be slightly more stubborn. I be
lieve the best reply then is 34... h5! and Black
should win.
1 62
34...1Wg7!
With the king open White can't save mate
rial anymore.
35 'lrg5 h6 36 1Wg4 l:l8f4 37 'IreS+ 7!
Having more seconds than my opponent, I
didn't want to repeat position with 37.. l:l.f8.
.
38 'trb7 .i.f7+ 39 lt!g4 .i.xd5 40 1t'xd5
l'hh3 0-1
The final blow coincided with passing the
time control, so White resigned.
Game46
Shirov-I.Sokolov
Wijk aan Zee 2004
Ruy Lope Modern Jteinitz
The game was annotated shortly after the
tournament and published in Nen' l11 Chess and
Jaqne.
1 e4 e6 2 ltlf3 lt!c6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.a4 d6 5
0-0 .i.g4 6 h3 h5
I knew Ivan might pla)' this, but I was still
more concerned that he would employ some
thing else. As a result I was once again out of
the books very early.
7 .i.xc6+ bxc6 8 d4
Nevertheless, I managed to remelJlbcr that
these moves were the most critical and that I
was possibly following some game Svidlcr
Yandemirov.
8 . . .1Wf6
GM Yandemirov, probably one of the lead
ing experts in the 6...h5 line, played B . .ix3 9
. .

1Wx3 exd4 against Svidler (fogliatti 2003). He
did try the text too, but in earlier games, at
least according to my knowledge.
9 li)bd2 i.e6
And this was a definite surprise. Later on I
learned from the database that 9... .i.e6 was
employed several times by the St. Petersburg
IM Vladislav Vorotnikov at the end of the
1970s. Instead 9...lbe7 would be 'Yandemi
rov's move'.
1 0 li)b3
There's not much to say about this move as
it's probably forced - protecting the central
pawn and developing pieces.
10 1Vg6 1 1 li)g5l
...
Once again it was only after the game that I
learned that, at this moment, I came up with a
novelty. A 'typical sm1cture', such as one after
11 't!fd3 f6!?, didn't appeal to me as 1 saw no
way to utilise my lead in development. And
Sele c ted Games
otherwise Black would be completely OK
see Smyslov's games in the 5 .1xc6+ bxc6 6
d4 f6line.
11 ... .i.d7
Trying to keep the bishop pair but allowing
White to quickly increase his initiative. Still,
11....i.c4 12 .J:tet .i.e? 13 aS! i.xgS 14 xc4
.i.xcl 15 llxcl exd4 (or 15...'1t'e6?! 16 b3) 16
11fxd4lbe7 17 eS!? wouldn't be very pleasant
for Black.
I Iowcver, just when the book was about to
be printed, it came to my attention that 11
gS in fact wasn't a novelty, since Mr. Vo
rotnikov faced it at least twice in 1979!
Moreover, he came up with the amazing
11....1Lc8 12 dxeS f61?, something I didn't
consider at aU during the game !
White continues 13 exf6 (13 3 fxeS
would again be a good structure for Black,
while the 'creative' 13 f4 fxgS 14 f5 'ifh61
seems insufficient), and after 13 ...gxf6 he
should probably find a 'computer' move 14
.d3! if he wants to fight for the advantage,
as 14 lb3 hh3 15 lbh4 is nothing much
after lS ....g4 16 .xg4 .i.xg4 17 lbg6 .J:th7
with an approximately equal endgame, e.g. 18
4 c5 19 f5lbe71, while 14 'ti'd4lbe7 15
f4 was what Vorotnikov's opponents actually
played. Then he tried 15...c5 agajnst
G.Piesina and, even more amazing,
15...'ti'g8!? against V.Kozlov. Both moves
promise Black a certain counterplay.
I have no idea whether or not Mr. Vorot-
1 63
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7 - 2004

nikov analysed 14 Wd3! back in the 1970s, after 17lbh4 Wfg4 18 1i'c3! and wins. During
but in my opinion it is a promising move. the game I thought the move chosen by Ivan
The 'advanced' line goes 14... fxg5 (14...d5 15 was a mistake as weU, but I was probably
lbf3 dxe4 16 .D.et f5 17lbe5! is clearly better wrong.
for White) 15 'irc3 ctlfl (15....id7? loses to
16 'iVxh8lbf6 17 f4! gxf4 181lxf4) 16 'iVxc6
IL'l7 17 f4! g4 18 f5! (but not 18 1i'd5 +?! WeB
19 'ird4 gxh3 20 l:2 c5! 21 'irxh8 :g7 and
Black is on top, according to F1itz after some
fifteen minutes thought) 18...'iYg7 19 h4!

1 6 ZLlxf7!
I could, of course, have continued 16 'ii'e3!?
with a slight advantage, but it's not often
nowadays that I can sacrifice something. The
temptation was great enough.
1 6 .. Ji'xf7?!
and 1 definitely prefer White's position de And what I completely missed during the
spite the sacrificed material. game was that Black could m.'lke a counter
1 2 dxe51 sacrifice with 16...Wxf7! 17 .i.xc7+lbf6 18 e5
I felt the centre should be opened. The .ixh3 19 .i.xd8 llxd8
immediate 12 f4 exf4 13 .ixf4 was an altemn
tive, but I didn't really want to be a pawn
down after 13...6 (13....ie7!? is also playable)
14lbf3 .ixh3.
12 ..dxe5
Now 12... f6 would be wrong because oft3
e6 (which is why Vorotnikov put his bishop
on c8!) 13... .ic8 14lbf7! llh7 15 f4 .ixe6 16
lbg5! fxg5 17 f5 with a clear edge for White.
1 3 f4! exf4 1 4 .txf4 .te7
This time 14...f6 15 lbf3 .ixh3 wouldn't
win a pawn, since White can regain it by con
tinuing t6lbh4 'irg4 1711fxg4 .i.xg4 18 lbg6
llh7 19 J..xc7 with somewhat better chances and although Fritz is very optimistic about
in the endgame. White's position beatuse of the extra ex
1 5 1t'd2 ltd81 change, r believe that humans should assess it
There was already no time to complete de with a certain caution. Still, it's the computer
velopment. I should also mention that 15... f6? that also in,licates the line which is probably
16lbf3 .i.xh3 would now lead to total disaster best for White: 20 1ie2! (20 'ii'2 g8 21 exf6

1 64

.ixf6 I find less convincing) 20...g 8 21 exf6
..ixf6 22 l:lf2! (a loss of tempo like 22 d l:tc15!
would give Black excellent play, once again in
my opinion) 22....ixb2 (a computer move of
course, but is there anything better?) 23 l:tafl
and after the a6-pawn falls, White's winning
prospects will be excellent since his heavy
pieces are already very active.
1 7 i.xc7 'ife6 1 8 .i.xd8 .i.xd8
19 h 1 1?
l didn't want to go for the a6-pawn in the
variation 19 llks ..ib6 20 1Vb4 ..ia71 21 h1
it'e71 22 lllxa6 ..xb4 23 lllxb4 f6 24 l:lael
h4!, although l must admit that in 'advanced
chess' it would probably be the best choice.
And my assessment of this Hne as "slightly
better for White" just reflects my feeling dur
ing the game. Now I would probably change it
to "clearly better".
19 ..ltf6?
This loses. 19...i.b6 20 1IVb4 cS 21 xeS
would also be bad, as White bas an extra pawn
on the 19 cS lines, but 19...1i'e7! would pos
sibly lead to the true evaluation of "slightly
better for White". Thus my 19 h1 shouldn't
be considered the best move in the position.
20 ltlc5 'ife7 21 llad1 ! !
I had this in mind when playing 19 hl.
Black has no defence.
21 .. ..i.c8
21.....tg4 would be slightly more tenacious,
but then White should still win by the same
means as in the game: i.e. 22 eS! i.xdl 23 exf6
Selected Games
1!fxc5 (if 2.1.. . gxf6 24 .:r.et or 23... 0-0 24 fxe7
l:txfl+ 25 h2 i.xe7 26 llle4 wins) 24 .:r.cl+
fT 25 1i'd7+ xf6 26 'if'e6+ Wg S 27 :.cS+
winning material, or if 22.. .ltld5 23 4 1i'h4
(or 23. ..i.xd1 24 llkl6+ d7 25 :.rr ) 24
lhi6+ <ittd7 25 c4 .i.gS 26 1id3 i.xd1 27
.:r.xdt and it's over.
22 e5 ltld5 23 ltle4 xe5
23... i.c7 24 6+ i.xd6 25 exd6 1i'xd6 26
c4 is curtains.
24 llde1 .i.e7 25 c4
25 ... ..tb4?
An extra exchange should be enough for
White to win the game anyway, of course, but
this move loses in one.
26 ltlc3 1 -0
Gatne47
Shirov-Radjabov
Linares 2004
King's Indian Difence
The game was annotated after the tourna
ment and published in various magazines, in
cluding Ne1v in Chet.r and Jaqtte.
1 d4
Somewhere in 1996 I started playing 1 c4 as
White almost cxclus.ively, switching to 1 d 4
only very occasionally. Hopefully }jnares will
mark my definitive comeback to playing both
moves, as I can be more than satisfied with
the way my three 1 d4 games went, even
though J spoilt my chances against Topalov
1 65
Fire on Board Part II: 7 99 7 - 2004
and Vallejo later on.
1 . . liJf6
. 2 c4 g6 3 llJc3 i.g7
Radjabov decides to stick to his main reper
toire.
4 e4 d6 5 i.e2 0-0 6liJf3 e5 7 0-0 lLic6 8
d5e7 9 b4!7
Even though this move has been known
since the late 1950s, it was only in the mid
nineties that the line became more popular
than the 'standard' continuations 9 lL!et and 9
tL!dz, both of which I used to employ a great
deal. The responsibility for such popularity
rests exclusively with Vladimir Kramnik, who
won many outstanding games in the last dec
ade of the last century. As for me, in the sec
ond half of the nineties I often prepared (and
sometimes played!) the King's Indian against
Vladimir, so I could feel rather confident
about my knowledge of a position which I had
occasion to employ with both colours. All the
same, starting this particular game I couldn't
help thinking that my preparation might be
not up to date.
9 .. llJh5 1 0 :e1 f5 1 1 llJg5liJf6
11...lL!f4 is another option which I played
in a few games in 1997-98, two of them
against Kramnik.
1 2 .tf3
Funnily, I never paid much attention to 1 2
f3 until Kramnik used it to beat Ivanchuk in
Monaco 2000. Although I later studied that
move as well, in this game I wanted to stick to
my older preparation.
1 66
1 2 ... c6 1 3 .tb217
But here I am not following .Kramnik's
steps anymore. l-Ie always played 13 .le3, as
for example against me in Unares 1998.
1 3 ... h6
The standard and probably the best con
tinuation. Now White is forced to exchange
on e6, after which his pawn on that square
could fall at any moment. What can be his
compensation? Hard to tell, but probably it's a
combination of several factors, such as the
absence of Black's light-squared bishop, the
passivity of the other one on g7, and his pawn
weaknesses on c6, d6 and, most importantly,
g6 - which is why White never plays lL!e6 be
fore ... h6 in such positions.
1 4 ltle6 .txe6 1 5 dxe6 fxe4 1 6 llJxe4
llJxe4 1 7 :Xe41?
After 17 i.xe4 dS Black would stand well,
so the exchange sacrifice that follows this cap
ture is the main idea behind White's 13th
move.
1 7 ... d517
The most natural continuation. However,
17 ...lL!f5!?, as played in the game Dautov
Kindermann, Nussloch 1996 (which, by the
way, was the first time 12 .tf3 was employel,
is also rather interesting. White then continues
18 bS, because attacking the weakness at c6 is
the only reasonable way to 'protect' the e6-
pawnl
1 8 cxd5 cxd5 1 9 :xeS! .txe5 20 he5
'tlb6

21 .i.b2!
A novelty with a long history... It was first
discovered by me and Zigurds Lanka during
our training somewhere in November 1997,
and we analysed it a great deal. As we both
were 'King's Indian defenders' at that time
(and Lanka still is!), logically we looked at the
arising positions from the black side, and our
conclusion was that White's initiative more
than compensates the exchange. We were
clearly worried about Black's position, so
much so that playing the line with Black
seemed more like gambling than a serious try.
Still, it was six and a half years ago and one
must not forget that computers were much
less powerful then. During those years I
would occasionally return to analysing the
variation, especially when planning to play 9
b4 with White against someone, and I would
always conclude that White was better.
It was only shortly before Unares 2004 that
I started to realise that Black might have some
defensive resources that we missed back in
1997. But still, when getting the opportunity I
could not help trying such an old, but never
theless interesting idea. In fact the idea is sim
ple enough: White doesn't much care about
the possible loss of his e6 or b4 pawns, but
wants to achieve the maximum co-ordination
of his queen, rook and bishop pair to attack
the enemy king.
Earlier practice had seen 21 .i.d4 'ifxe6 22
J.c5 h7, as well as 21 'iFd2 'ii' xe6 22 llel
Selected Games
llx3! (not 22 h7?? 23 .lg7 and wins) 2..1
...
gx3 (if 23 11fxh6? l:f6 24 .i.c3 'ird6 consoli
dates) 23...lJf5 and Black was always doing
fine.
21 'ith7!?
..
Correctly not taking any pawn. After either
21 ...xb4 22 llbt or 21...'ii'xe6 22 'iVd4 rJi;f7
23 1fg7+ e8 24 'ifxh6 Black's defence
would be difficult.
22 1i'e21?
It's hard for me to say whether this move is
better than 22 'i'd2 or 22 'ife1, which would
also make sense. I think the main reason for
choosing 22 'ii'e2 was that I didn't want to
allow a possible ...:x3 capture in any varia
tion.
22 . . . d4!?
The danger of leaving the diagonal a1-h8
open can be seen in the following sample
variation: 22.. 1i'xb4 23 tfeS l:g8 24 llcl
.
llac8 25 :xeS lJxc8 26 i.xdS lJe7 27 .i.3
lE!rs 28 g4 &/Jg7 29 e7 lJes 30 h4 and White
should win.
23 h4!
Trying to open the bt-h7 diagonal is espe
cially effective when the other one is tempo
rarily closed. I was also considering 23 l:dl
l:ad8 24 1fc4llf5, but it didn't seem particu
larly attractive.
23 llf61 24 lle1 1i'xb4
...
A very concrete defence which slows down
the h4-h5 assault.
25 a3
167
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004
Before I started serious analysis of this
game, I thought that this move was a mistake.
In fact I saw that 25 hS?! llxf3! 26 gxf3 l:lg8!
would be more than playable for Black, and
therefore thought that 25 a3 was the only
move. After the game my second, Mikhail
Rytshagov, told me that 25 lldl!? (didn't l put
my rook on e1 the move before?) was possibly
stronger than 25 a3, and at first I believed him
as it seemed to me that with this move 1
would finaUy achieve the co-ordination 1 was
aiming for! But in fact the position is ex
tremely complicated, and although it seems to
me that White always has some initiative, it is
not enough to claim a real advantage.
The mnin line after 25 l:tdt goes 25...l:ld8
(25...tbf5 is less advisable in view of 26 hS!
1fe7 27 dS or 26...l:le8 27 .idS with a clear
advantage, while if 26...l:lg8 27 hxg6+ llgxg6
28 hS l:txe6 29 xg6+ l:txg6 30 xd4!
tbxd4 31 ..e4 White still has the better
chances) 26 hS! (the most critical try; after 26
11fe5 ltf5 27 ..c7 White has compensation,
but 26....:xf3!? 27 gxf3 'iVxb2 28 1i'f6 'A'a3
lt:ads to an immediate draw), and now Black
has to choose between various moves. Let's
look at all of them:
a) 26...gxh5 is not very challenging.
al) 27 ti'e4+ 28 i.xhS lWe7!
(28...'ifxb2 29 i.xg6+ .:.Xg6 30 l:tb1 1i'xb1+
31 11t'xb 1 is good for White) 29l:txd4 (if 29 f4
'ilxe6 30 1ixe6 ltxe6 31 f5 tb4 32 fxe6 lbxhS
33 :xd4 :xd4 34 .Ld4 g6 35 .i.xa7 &iJg7
1 68
36 e7 fl draws) 29...:xu4 30 .ixd4 'ifxe6
31 .Lg6+ rl.xg6 32 1i'xb7+ g8 33 'ila8+
fl 34 1i'xa7+ 'ile7 with a level position.
a2) 27 .ixhS lbg6! and if 28l:td3 11t'c4!, or 28
.e4 1i'c7! as in the previous note.
a3) 27 11fd3+1 (best) 27...&J1!fl 28 li..a3 1i'h6
29 e7 .:te8 30 1i'xd4 11fxd4 31 llxd41le6 32
i.xhS ll8xe7 33 i.xe7 llxe7 34 f4 and Black
is slightly worse in the endgame, though I be
lieve he shouJd still hold it.
b) 26...'ifb6!? is a rather critical choice as it's
very difficult to evaluate the positions after 27
hxg6+ g8 28 i.g4l:txg6 or 27.. /:;g7 28 i.g4
cs.
c) 26..'irc5!? 27 i.e4! (probably the only
move to hold the balance; 27 11t'e4?! ltlc6 28
hxg6+ t/;g7 just looks bad for White) 27...g8
(after 27...rlilg7 28 li..xg6! works even better;
e.g. 28 ...tbxg6 29 hxg6 llxg6 30 e7 'ii'c 6 31 g3
l:tc8 32 l:txd4 h7 33 i.a3 with a slight ad
vantage) 28 Lg6! ltlxg6 29 hxg6 'iWe7 30
i.xd4l:txe6 (30...I:txg6 31 1i'e5 h7 32l:tel is
dangerous for Black) 31 'ffc4! bS 32'irb3
and I believe the position is roughly equal.
In the game I kept the initiative as well, so
there is nothing really wrong with the move T
chose.
25 'ild61
...
During the game I thought that by playing
25...1i'b6!? Radjabov would deprive me from
any winning chances, since I would be abso
lutely forced to continue 26 'if'eS (after 26 hS
:.am White can't activate his yuecn as in the

game bec.:1use the bishop on b2 would be
hanging) 26 ...llf5 27 'ifxd4 'ifxd4 28 .ixd4,
and it seems that with queens exchanged
Black shouldn't face any problems. That's not
the case, however, because the bishop pair
together with the passed e6-pawn are still a
major force! Black can now play 28. ..ltk6, but
after 29 .ic3! (not 29 .ie3 llx3! 30 gxf3 lieS
and it's White who has to fight for the draw,
though he would probably achieve it by play
ing 31 lld1 llxe6 32 g2) 29...1lc5 30 .ib2!
(30 .if6 115 would only repeat moves), I see
no way for Black to parry the 'st.'lndard' 31 hS!
threat comfortably.
26 h5!
26 .11af81?
. .
Black had three ways to activate his rook:
to put it on d8 strengthening the d4-pawn; or
e8 planning to attack 'the bone' on e6; or the
move he chose that keeps the sacrifice on 3
Select ed Games
in mind. To choose one out of three is alwuys
difficult, even in analysis, so I will just give
some variations without suggesting which
move was the best:
a) 26....Ue8 27 'ifbS! (27 1i'd3 c!lk6 28
hxg6+ g8 is good for Black; e.g. 29 .1br4
'iff4 30 f3 hS! 31 lle4 'ilgS 32 .ih3 liJeS 33
IZ.xeS 'i'xeS 34 .ixd4 ifdS) 27... 1ld8 28 hxg6+
liJxg6 29 'ifxb7+ 'ife7 30 a4!! (30 W'e4? drops
the e-pawn to 30...1ld6, while 30 Wxe7+?!
liJxe7 31 lle41lxf3 32 gxf3 d3 331le1 g6 is
drawn) 30...9xb7 (30...1ld6 31 1Vxe7+ ll:Jxe7
32 .ig4 llg6 33 i.h3 is similar, but not
30...lle8? 31 Ld4 1i'xb7 32 .ixb7 l:tfxe6 33
llxe6 llxe6 34 aS a6 35 .ib6 when White has
a dear advantage) 31 .ixb7 &i::Je 7 32 i.a3 and
White has the better chances.
b) 26...1ld8 27 i.xb7 (27 hxg6+ liJxg6)
27 ...gxh5 28 Wd3+ g8 (not 28 ...g7? 29
lle4 6 30 i.xd4 'iVxb7 31 .ixf6+ xf6 32
IZ.f4+ eS 33 ...e3+ d6 34 :d4+ li:JdS 35 e7
and wins) 29 lle4! and White retains good
compensation (e.g. if 29...ll:Jf5 30 i.a6!). This
last position is quite critical for the general
assessment of 26 ...1ld8, and all I can say is that
I like it for White. Maybe Teimour's choice
was correct after all.
27 1We4!?
The most direct approach - a typical choice
for a tournament game (especially when there
isn't much time to think anymore). I would
probably not achieve anything special by con
tinuing 27 hxg6+?! liJxg6 28 'it'e4 lle8! or 27
'it'd3 l:td8 28 hxg6+ liJxg6, but 27 9c4!? (sug
gested by Mikhail Rytshagov) is very interest
ing. During the game I wouldn't risk calculat
ing a possible capture on 3, and probably
rightly so as it's Black's best opportunity any
way. Let's see:
a) 27 ...:ds 28 hxg6+ ll:Jxg6 (if 28...'itxg6 29
lle4 or 28...g7 291ld1 'ilxe6 30 llxd4 'i'xc4
31 llxc4) 29 i.xb7! 'Wb6 30 .if3! with a slight
advantage.
b) 27.)tf5 28 hxg6+ ltxg6 29 i.xb7 d3 (if
29...1le8 30 W'd3 9f4 31 .idS) 30 i.dS! again
with an edge for Wrute.
1 69
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004

c) 27 ... l:.f4 28 e4 liJc6 (or 28...l:.h4 29 'i'd4 32 f5!. So it seems that, once again, my
.ixg6+ liJxg6 30 hxg6+ xg6 31 g3 l:.g4 32 opponent chose the best move.
1fd3+ g7 33 l:.e4!) 29 hxg6+ rjJg7 30 i.xc6 29 .i.c1 ! 'fle7
bxc6 31 e7 lle8 32 l:le4! and here White is The only way to avoid 30 xh6+ was by
clearly better. 29 ... h5, but it would yield White a strong at
d) 27...l:.xf31 28 gxf3 gxh51 (not 28...l:.xf.3? tack after 30 xhS 'ifcS 31 .to l:lxg6 32
29 'ifxd4 1fxd4 30 i.xd4 b6 31 l:.c1 or J.b2.
28 ... l:.f4 29 %le4 l.txe4 30 fxe4 ttk6 31 9d5
and wins, while White is also better after
28... l:.f5 29 'ii'xd4 l:.gS+ 30 fl 'it'xd4 31
hxg6+ xg6 32 i.xd4) 29 .ixd4 b6 30 c3
'i'dS is rather unclear. Once again, I must ask
the readers to forgive me for ending the analy
sis in such a complicated position.
27 .. lbc61
Bl..'lck could still move his rook, but this
time it would just lead into trouble; e.g.
27 ... :C8 28 Wxb7 (not 28 'iVxd4? 'i'xd4 29
i.xd4 l:.xO 30 gxO liJc6! and Black is better)
28... l:.xe6 29 ltxe6 'i'xe6 30 hxg6+ Wxg6 31
i.xd4 with the advantage, and 27...1ld8 28 30 .ixh6+ 1 Wxh6 31 'iih4+ Wxg6 32
hxg6+ liJxg6 29 .ihS! 'i'c6 30 i.xd4 'i'xe4 31 .ixc61
l:.xe4 llf5 32 g4! is even worse for Black. Naturally, I am not yet satisfied with an
28 hxg6+ Cili>g7 equal ending arising after 32 i.e4+ l:.5 33
'i'xe7 liJxe7 34 g4 <iPf6 35 gx5 bS.
32 . . . bxc6
Forced. 32...l:.xc6 loses immediately to 33
1i'g4+ f6 34 li'xd4+.
33 l:e5

Another critical moment and, after the text,

everything becomes forced. 28...ci>g8 was a
chance to deviate, but it looks like White gets
the advantage by playing the same 29 c1 !
(lines like 29 'i'dS 11rxd5 30 i.xdS .le8 or 29
'i'g4 l:.eB 30 'irhs .lfxe6 31 .idS ci>g7 32 33 ...1i'xe6??
xe6 l:.xe6 are not convincing), and after I believe this move was the only real mis
29...l:le8 30 .tg4 d3 (30...liJd8 is also danger take in the whole gnme. After the natural
ous due to 31 l:ldt! liJxe6 32 l:lxd41) 31 i.xh61 33 %hc61 34 'i'hS+ g7 35 l:lgS+ 'i'xgS 36
..

1 70

1i'xg5+ ltg6 37 'i'eS+ g8 38 'irxd4 l%f7 39
g3 l:.fg71 Black would have set up an impene
trable fortress - unless an endgame expert
such as Karsten Milller can find a way to
break in.
34 :xe6 :xe6 35 1Vg4+ I
After this important check there will be no
fortresses, so White can begin converting his
advantage into victory.
35 . . .'f7 36 1fxd4 a& 37 g4 l:tg8 38 f3
l1f6 39 Wt2 l%e8 40 'it'c4+ g7 41 11Vxa6
llefB 42 1i'd3 c5 43 a4 :as 44 1Vc3 g&
45 11Vxc5 l:tfa6 46 g3 l:txa4 47 1i'd6+
Wf7 48 g51
ihe winning plan is very simple: White
pushes his pawns, protected by his king, and
has only to watch out for some possible rook
checks on the back rank - and the queen can
do that job, of course.
48 l%8a6 49 1fd7+ Wg6 50 f4 l:la1 51
. of the h3-d3-a3 set-up, as he started employ
'ifd3+ g7 52 1Vd4+ Wg8 53 g4 l%1a2
54 'tt'd8 + g7 55 1Wc7 + g8 56 f5 :S7
57 'it'd8+ </ilg7 58 f6+ h7 59 1i'd3+
litthB &O 5 :as 61 1Wh3+ gB 62 </ilg6
:t2a7 63 'lte6+ </iJfB 64 'iVd6+ ..tg8 65
11Vd5+ </ilh8 66 1Wh1 + 1 -0
Gaf!Je48
Kasparov-Shirov
Linares 2004
Lo Anti-Marshall
.____...,....,_...,._________.
ihe game was annotated shordy after the
Selected Games
tournament and published in various maga
zines, including New in Chess and ]aque.
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 lbf6
5 0-0 i.e7 6 l%e1 b5 7 i.b3 0-0
I incorporated the 'Marshall threat' (8 c3
dS) into my repertoire a few months ago, and
the first time 1 played it was against Gelfand in
Crete 2003. Funnily, nearly all my opponents
went for d1e 8 h3 line, which I used to employ
a lot with White bdore it became popular in
tournament practice.
8 h3 .i.b7 9 d3 d6 1 0 a3
According to the database, the first time
this position appeared was in the game
Westerinen-Poulsson, Oslo 1 973. However, J
don't think it would be a mistake to call Lat
vian GM Zigurds Lanka (it's funny to mention
his name again, having just finished the notes
on my game against Radjabov) 'the Godfather'
ing it regularly in the 1980s, introducing all the
main strategical ideas. It's also amusing that
both opponents in the current grune played it
for the firSt time only in 1996, finally giving
deserved respect to Zigurds' ideas. And other
leading players did so even later.
10 lbb8
.
Switching colours when preparing a par
ticular opening is not always an easy task. You
tend to play what you are afraid of yourself,
but then new problems, which were unnoticed
before, begin to appear. Here I had tried both
1 0...d7 and lO .l}JaS, until I decided that the
..
171
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004

Breyer-type set-up might be preferable, as 1 9 :Xc4! dxe4 20 g5 l1e7 21 xe4 with an

White has less activity than in the Breyer. attack for White.
1 1 IDbc12 IDbc17 1 2 ttlt1 lle8

1 7 dxc5 ttlxc5 1 8 exd5 e4 1 9 ttlh2?!

1 3 .ta2 Kasparov decides (well, in fact I can't call it
Paco Vallejo played 1 3 g5 against me in a deci sion', given the impressive speed of his
'

an earlier round, but after 1 3...d5 14 exd5 play) to deviate from the previous game where
.i.xd5 1 5 i.xd5 xdS he found nothing bet he continued 19 3d4, which is probably a
ter than 1 6 'W3 going for further simplifica better option. I was very surprised to learn
tions. I manlll,red to equalise comfortably with from journalists later that, right after his game
1 6...i.xg5 1 7 .t.xgS 'Wxg5 1 8 'i'xd5 b6 1 9 with Kramnik, Kasparov claimed that 19 h2
'lb7 'it'd8! and after 20 W3 1 accepted Paco's would yield him 'a decisi ve attack'.
draw offer. In the pressroom Ljubojevic was
claiming that I was already better at this point,
but I don't believe him.
Another option is 1 3 g3 c6 14 5
which I faced against Svidler in Wijk aan Zee
some six weeks before. This time there were
no simplifications, but still after 1 4...d5 1 5 d4!?
h6! (not 1 5...exd4? 16 e5) 1 6 dxe5 (1 6 xf7?
Wxf7 17 dxe5 xe5 1 8 exd5 fails to 1 8...ifr4)
1 6...hxg5 1 7 exf6 .t.xf6 I got a comfortable
game.
Kasparov prefers to follow his game against
Kramnik in Linares the previous year, and I
should say be was especially quick and confi 1 9 ... ttlxd51
dent at this stage, which made me nervous of I had to spend a half an hour on this move
course. because, even though I remembered that my
1 3 c6 1 4 ttlg3 .tts 1 5 ttlt5 d5 1 6 d4
. position should be OK, I still had to recon
c51 struct the analysis tree in my head, since I had
Kramnik was right to consider this move never thought I'd get the position on the
the strongest in his annotations for lnjo1711alor board. Instead, 19... i.xd5 (as Kramnik played
87. l f l am not mistaken, he also indicated the and equalised with after 1 9 fd4) 20 g4 (the
line 1 6...g6?! 17 h6+! .t.xh6 1 8 .t.xh6 xe4 point of 19 ) 20....i.xa2 21 1i'xd8 l:laxd8

1 72
 Selected G a m es

22 lllxf6+ gxf6 23 llxa2 can't be recom
mended for Black.
20 g4
Played after more than one hour thought.
20 1fg4 would be answered by 20 f6....
when writing these notes, I am mther puz?Jed
to see that Fritz prefers White, but these anno
tations are not on a man vs. machine clash.
22 b4 4

20 . . .h5!

OK, Fritz has already changed its evalua

tion.
I don't know if this or some other move 23 g3?!
was missed by Kaspatov's camp in their An unexpected pawn sacrifice. White
preparation, but here he started thinking again. should have SL>ttled for passive defence after
Meanwhile 1 was still following my analysis 23 'flxd8 l:.axd8 24 lbfl lbe6 when Black is
with Rytshagov. Instead 20.. .'I'd7?! 21 lDfh6+ only slightly better.
Wh8 22 3 would be unattractive, though 23 . . .1fxd1 24 .lhd1 xh3+ 25 g2 g5
2(J...'itth8!? might have been an alternative. Black has a clear advantage and naturally I
21 ltige3 started smelling my first victory against Kas
A very surprising decision when having less parov. (Did I have any other chance since
than 20 minutes for the remaining 20 moves. I Manila 1 992, besides in 1 998?). However, it
expected 21 LdS and was planning to an wasn't to be this time either.
swer it with 21 ..1i'xd5 (though 21 ...i..xd5!? 22
. 26 .id5 i.xd5 27 o!tlxd5
lDge3 i..e6 23 lDd4 i..cSI? is also interesting)
22 f6+ (22 1i'xd5 .i.xdS 23 ge3 .i.e6 is not
worse for Black) 22. . gxf6 23 1fxh5 :eS!,
.

forcing White to go for the perpetual check

after 24 .g4+.
I should also mention that knight sacrifices
wouldn't work; e.g. 21 lbfh6+? gxh6 22 LdS
i..xdS 23 lDxh6+ .lxh6 24 i..xh6 .:.es, or 21
lDgh6+? gxh6 22 lbxh6+ (similarly 22 i..xh6
'iff6 23 1i'xh5 l:.eS or if 22 11rxh5 1Wf6 23
i..xdS i..xdS) 22 .i..xh6 23 i..xh6 'iff6 24
..

'i'xhS l:.eS and wins.

2 1 . ..f4!
Here I was 'out of book' myself, but I still 27 ...l:le5?
had total confidence in my position. Now Now White gets sufficient compensation

1 73
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2004
for the pawn. After the game I thought that
27 ... lDf3 was winning, but in fact White still
gets a certain counterplay by continuing 28
..tf4! (not 28 l:th1 ? l:tad8 or 28 lj)c7 l:ted8 29
..tf4 l:r.ac8 and wins) 28...l:tac8 29 l:thl !.
So the best move was 27 ... 6!. During the
game I rejected this because of 28 llh 1 l:ted8
29 lj)fe3 regaining the sacrificed material, but
had I prolonged my calculations I would
probably have realised that after 29...g6! 30
lj)f6+ h8 31 lilie4 ..tg7 Black gets a possi
bly decisive positional advantage.
28 J.xg5
White could also play 28 lj)h4, which I saw
right after making my 27th move. Then I
might have returned the pawn by 28...tiJf3 29
ljxf.3 exf.3+ 30 xf.3 llc8 with a sligh t edge,
though not as big as in the previous note.
28 Axf5 29 .i.f4!
..
I missed this move completely. Black re
mains a healthy pawn up, but his rook on f5 is
so misplaced that White's own piece activity
grants him nearly full compensation for a
pawn. Nevertheless, it still requires a lot of
a{;curacy to save the game.
29. . .Ac8 30 ltle3 Af6 31 lld51 g6 32
:.ad1 llfc6 33 lidS
33 .. ltlb6
Playing it safe. Variations like 33...lj)c3 34
:r.td7 l:txd8 35 l:txd8 Wg7 l normally consider
only in computer analysis, but who knows,
maybe it would have been a winning try?
34 g4! h7!
1 74
I would like to repeat my previous com
ment, this time regarding the 34... hxg4 35
tbxg4 line.
35 ll8d4!
A very strong move again. White is plan
ning to attack the black kingside, so he keeps
both rooks alive in order to be able to create
threats.
35 . . .l:le6?!
l'vlissing another computer suggestion:
35 ... 5!? 36 gxf5 gxf5, after which White
should probably continue 37 h3 (less advis
able is 37 lj)xfS l:tf6 38 lt)d6 llxf4 39 c8
lt)xc8 40 c4 .ig7! and Black is better)
37 ....ig7 38 l:td6 with good clrawing chances.
36 gxh5 gxh5 37 llh1 Wg6 38 f3?!
Finally time-trouble tells. 38 llg1 would be
an immediate draw.
38 . .exf3+?1
.
38... f5 would be better. I rejected it because
of 39 Cit>f2, intending 40 l:ldd1, but here
39... .ie7! would still offer some hopes of win
ning.
39 Wxf3 llc3 40 Ag1 + h7 41 Ad3
Here I sank into long thought, only to
reach the conclusion that the position was
drawn.
41 ...:.Xd3 42 cxd3
42 . . .1lf6
Setiling for the repetition, since variations
like 42 ... .ih6 43 .ixh6 l:r.xh6 44 llg5 or
42.....td6!? 43 lt)f5 Lf4 44 llg7+ !iths 45
xf4 lDdS+ 46 W3 (not 46 !itgS?? llf6)
46.. f6 47 l:g6 didn't convince me.
. 1 e4 e5
43 'ii?e4 l:le6+ 44 3
Trying to win with 44 fS would now be
answered by 44 .J.d6 as there is no fS
..
anymore, though 45 l:gS draws anyway.
44 tl:ld7
...
And suddenly 1 wanted to win again! Hon
estly speaking, 44. .llf6 was better.
. Against Ivan 1 opted for 1 4 b3, which looks
45 d41
Now Black has to be extremely careful.
45 ...l:lc6!
But fortunately he is not worse yet.
46 l:lg5 l:lc3 47 lhh5+ g6 48 l:tg5+
48 .'ith7
. .
48 ..f6 49 Wc4 l:xa3 50 l:g8! would be
.
good for White, so it's better to end the game.
49 l:th5+ g6 50 l:lg5+ % -%
Game 49
Shirov-Atalik
Sarajevo 2004
.Ruy Lope Main Une
This game was annotated shortly after the
tournament and published in Nell' in Chess.
Even though 1 was in reasonable shape in
Sarajevo and ended up winning the event, I
still struggled in the opening of almost every
game, consuming a lot of time. But on this day
I was rather fortunate that Suat chose the
same line that Ivan Sokolov had played against
me two rounds earlier. so I had some fresh
thoughts about it.
In our two prL"Vious games, both played in
2003, Suat went for the French Defence.
2 tl:lf3 tl:lc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.a4 tl:lf6 5 0-0
.i.e7 6 l:le1 b5 7 .i.b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3
tl:la5 1 0 .i.c2 c5 1 1 d4 cxd4 1 2 cxd4
.i.b7 1 3 d5 l:tc8!? 1 4 tl:lbd2
a little artificial but is not necessarily wrong.
Nevertheless, this time I felt like trying a more
classical approach.
14 . . .tl:lh 51?
By playing 14. .'ifc7 Black could transpose
.
to the line that was tested in my old game
against Timman in Belgrade 1 995 (see Firo 011
Board). Keeping the queen on d8 looks logical,
but it has also a drawback since Black cannot
get the knight on f4 with tempo, as in the ear
lier game after 1 5 J.b1 (15 J.d3 is a different
possibility) 1 5...5 1 6 fl 4 when Black
threatens to sacrifice on c1 in some lines.
1 5 tl:lf1 tl:lc4
After 1 5...f4 White could either 'arrest'
the aS knight with 1 6 J.xf4 exf4 17 b3 or play
something else; for example 1 6 3.
1 6 a4!
I found this natutal and concrete move at
the board. I was a little surprised to discover
in d1e database later a lot of games with 1 6 b3
l1Jb6 1 7 g6, including an old game of
Tal's as Black. I believe that when the bishop
is on b7 in a standard Ruy Lopez set-up, the
bS-pawn is Black's major weakness, so it
1 75
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7- 2004

should be 'bothered' immediately. llxa3 llxd3 22 'iVxb4 'tlc7 23 .lla 2 or 20... a5

16 .. b4!? 21 llac1, but in fact in the latter line, by play
A novelty. Even though Suat wasn't in his ing the 'ugly' 2t....tg5!, Black has every
best form in Sarajevo, it didn't reflect on the chance to hold the balance.
usual creativeness of his play. Not wanting to
suffer under the typical 'Spanish torture' after,
for example:, 1 6 ...lE!f4 1 7 b3 lE!b6 18 axb5
axb5 1 9 lbg3, he seeks counterplay involving
the sacrifice of one or even two pawns in
some lines.
1 7 b3!
At first I thought there was nothing wrong
with 1 7 i.d3 lEif4 18 .txc4 llxc4 19 .txf4
exf4 20 'ifb3 winning a pawn, but then it
dawned on me that Black would have excel
lent play after 20...'iVc7 21 lltd2 :.c2!.
1 7 . .tL\a3!
.

19 ltlxe5!
And White has an extra pawn in the centre.
ls anything else required?
1 9...i.f6!
Well, as long as it's not a passed pawn (as in
the line 19...dxc5 20 1Wxh5), things arc still
rather messy.
20 'ii'xh5 i.xe5 21 .l:a2 llc3 22 '1Vd1

Another strong move, though 1 cou1dn't

believe my eyes when it was played. The
knight goes to the edge, not even attacking
White's pawns, but its activity is not to be un
derestimated. In fact Black had no alternative;
for instance if 1 7...lE!b6 1 8 aS d7 1 9 e3
lEif4 20 .td2 lscs 21 .txb4 and here White
wins a pawn comfortably.
1 8 .id3! Should I mention that I stopped my calcu
18 .txa3 bxa3 19 l:txa3 g6! would yield lations here, thinking that a pawn was a pawn,
Black easy play on the k.ingside for 'just' a with a second one about to drop?
pawn. 22 ...'Wf6!
1 8... a5?1 Who cares about the second pawn when
But this is a little over the top. During the one is aiming for piece activity!
game I thought I would also be better after 23 1le3!
18...lJf4! 1 1) .txf4 exf4 20 1Wd2 .llc3!? 21 I believe this was a correct decision, even

1 76

though White is on the razor's edge now. 23
e3 was an alternative, after which Black's
strongest reply is 23 ... .ic8!, and even though
White c:m take the second pawn with 24
.ixa3 bxa3 2S llxa3, the position after
2S 9g6 doesn't seem entirely clear to me.
..
The same is true after 23 .ixa3 bxa3 24 llxa3
..icB!.
23 ...l:r.fc8!?
Another unexpected move. I had calculated
23....if4 and planned to answer it by 24 .ih2
.ixe3 2S lilie3 llfc8 26 41? (26 1i'g4!? is a
computer suggestion that didn't cross my
mind) 26...xc4 (if 26....ia6?! 27 ..ixc3 ..xc3
28 xd6 1i'xd3 29 lld2 ..c3 30 ll:lxcB J.xc8
31 d6 .id7 32 lidS and White is winning) 27
..ixc3 ..xc3 28 ..ixc4 with a dear advantage.
24 .td2 :3c5 25 :t31 11fd81
A move connected with a devilish plan that
I didn't notice in time.
26 ll:le31?
Ohjectivdy this isn't a mistake, but I wasn't
mentally prepared for the forthcoming chaos
on board. I should have chosen 26 i.e3! llc3
27 lbg3!, finally achieving good co-ordination
of White's pieces while keeping an extra pawn.
26...ll8c7
27 ll:lg4!
Now if 27...J.d4 28 1lg31 WhB 29 'iVO and
White is clearly better.
27 ...1fc81
What a cold shower. I completely over
looked this simple move, threatening ...llct ,
Selec ted Games
and as often happens in such cases, at first I
wanted to resign. Then 1 realised that my reply
was forced.
28 .tn :c1 !
28 ... i.a6?! would give Black an inferior ver
sion of the game after 29 xeS ltct 30 i.xcl
.:txcl 31 'il'd4!.
29 .i.xc1 llxc1 30 1fd2 .ta6
31 tllxe5!
By this point I had calmed down and felt I
could continue trying to win the game. 31 llJ3
seemed less ambitious to me in view of
31 ...ll:lbl (31 ...i.xd3 32 'ifxd3 'ifc31 33 lilieS
'ifxeS is also interesting) 32 1i'e3 i.xd3 (dur
ing the game I didn't see 32...llxft+ 33 <ifi>xfl
.i.xd3+, hut in fact it's pretty dangerous for
Black; e.g. 34 Wg1 lLlc3 3S lilieS! dxeS 36
l:d2 he4 37 d6 and the d-pawn is extremely
strong) 33 'irxd3 'ifc31 34 lilieS 'ifxeS 35 llc2
l:xc2 36 'lfxc2 llk3 and I doubt that White
can hope for more than a draw.
31 ...:xn +
3l ...dxeS 32 'ith2 would probably transpose
to the game, as 32 ... .i.xf1 33 1i'gS! is worse for
Black.
32 h2 dxe5 33 d6?
This tempting move, runung to utilise
White's major force - the d-pawn, is surpris
ingly not the best. White's piece harmony
could have been achieved by 33 W'gS!, attack
ing the e-pawn and making a deadly threat of
'irc7. Black's pawn on eS, along with his posi
tion, would probably fall apart; for example
1 77
Fire on Board Part II: 1 9 9 7 - 2004

33...'ifffi (if 33 e8 then 34 llg3 g6 35 'i'f6,

...

followed by 36 l:tgS, wins the! pawn) 34 'ifxeS

lt}b1 35 :at ! and if 35...lt}d2?! 36 llxfl
lt}xf3+ 37 gxf3 .i.xfl 38 d61 'ii'b8 39 f4 wins.

38...1lc3!? 39 :XeS -*.c4! 40 lld2 .i.d3 41

f31 l:txb3 42 lldSI with excellent winning
chances.
34 d7 11'd8 35 l:[d3
As we can see, after Black's inaccuracy at
move 1 8, his position was always objectively
bad and the move 33 'ifgS! would have
brought me a decisive advantage. However, I
was already a little short of time, the position
was complicated, and my opponent played the
whole game in the spirit of the young Mikhail
Tal ... is it any wonder that I finally erred?
33...i.b7??
But this returns the favour immediately. Af
ter the obligatory 33...Wd7! things would still
be very unclear from a practical point of view.
I intended 34 .dS?! which probably doesn't
yield White more than a draw after 34. .i.b7
.. On d7 the pawn is already too close to
35 'ifxaS (if 35 'ifxeS ildt) 35 xd6 36 1i'a7
... queening. Black has no defence.
'ilc7 37 lld3 h6 38 1lad2 illb l 39 1ld7 (not 39 35 16
..

l:E.dl?! :Xdt 40 l:txdt lllc3 41 llcl W'd7! and
Black is better) 39...'ifc6 40 l:.xb7! (40 'ii'b8+
'iPh7 41 ll2d3 .xe4 42 .xb7 .f4+ 43 l:tg3
l:txf2 44 llxf71 iVxf7 45 IVe4+ 'ilfS 46 ifb7
also draws) 40. ./llxd2 41 llb8+ 'iPh7 42 11xf7
. 36 l:[d6 f7 37 ffe2 :c1 38 Wh5 + e7
lla1 43 'iffS+ 1i'g6 44 llh8+ xh8 45 'ifxg6
illfl + with a relatively happy end for both
sides. However, White's best move is again 34
.gS!. I doubt whether at the last moment I
would have realised that 34 W'gS was stronger,
but even if I did I would still have had to cal
culate the following line: 34...1ld1 35 11e71
llxd6 36 l:txf7 'ifxc7 37 1lxe7 lld3 38 l:tb2!
3S...h6 would prolong the resistance but
not change the result, in view of 36 lld6 lt}b 1
37 1i'd3 llct 38 11fb5 llk3 39 'ifxb7 lllxa2 40
llc6 l:txc6 41 .xc6 'iPfB 42 .cS+ and wins.
39 l:[e6+ xd7 40 :d2+ 1 -0
GtlltJe 50
Shirov-Bologan
Sarajevo 2004
PetroffDifence
The game was annotated shortly after the

1 78

tournament and published in New in Chess.
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lL!t6 3 d4
Nowadays this move is close to being a
'fingerfehler' since 3 lbxeS is played almost
exclusively.
3 lL!xe4 4 .i.d3 d5 5 lL!xe5 lDd7 6 lL!xd7
. but who wants to leave the king in the centre
.i.xd7 7 0-0 .i.d6
8 lL!c31?
An old line that I played against Kramnik
and Anand back in 1997-98, but gave up when
I started studying 3 thxeS, influenced by fash
ion.
8 .lL!xc3 9 bxc3 i.e&? I
The normal continuations are 9...0-0 and
9...'ifh4. When Bologan played his move I
thought it was a dubious novelty which I
should try to refute right away. In filet it had
already been played by Zhu Chen against
Kovalevskaya in Shenyang 2000.
1 0 :b1 !
Selected Games
The first move in a new position is often a
very important one. Black should be pre
vented from castling long.
1 o ...:ba
1 0...b6 1 1 i.bS+ fB was possibly playable,
so early in the game?
1 1 ..5!
Now it's time to prevent short castling as
well. This move turned out to be a novelty, as
the aforementioned game continued 1 1 f4 f5
and Black seemed comfortable.
1 1 . . . c6?!
Afterwards Viorel was very unhappy about
this move, suggesting 1 1...g6 1 2 'it'h6 Wd7!
instead. I should admit that his idea was com
pletely correct and, even more, it would have
taken me by surprise, as I had only reckoned
with 1 2... i.f8 13 'ile31 when White is clearly
better. Nevertheless, White still has a pleasant
game after 1 2...d7 1 3 .tgs 1i'f8 14 'ith4 h6
1 5 i.f6 i.e? 16 f41? (16 c4 gS 17 i.xe7 gxh4
1 8 i.x8 dxc4 19 dS i.g4 20 i.xc4 l:lhxf8
would only be equal, though 16 l:lfell? is an
alternative) 1 6 ... i.xf6 17 'itxf6 'fie? 1 8 1fe5
..d6 1 9 1i"e3, since the black king is not best
placed in the centre. Still, it's not easy to sug
gest anything concrete after 19...l:lhg8! and if
20 f5 hf5 21 i.xf5+ gxf5.
1 2 .i.g5 .i.e7 1 3 .i.xe7!
J seriously considered 1 3 f4, but this time I
saw a similar idea for him; i.e. 1 3...i.xg51
(13.. .g6?! 1 4 i.xe7 gxhS 15 i.xd8 'it>xd8 16
1 79
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2 004
l:Ue1 is good for White) 14 fxgS g6 15 1!t'h6
d7! and Black h.-ts some defensive possibili
ties.
1 3 ...'ifxe7 1 4 f4
1 4...'iff6!
Now 14 ...g6? would lose to 1 5 ..eS 0-0 1 6
f5 gxfS 17 i.xfS l:.fe8 ( 1 7. . .11be8 1 8 i.xh7+
7 1 9 1Wh5+ Wg7 20 118 is even more
direct) 18 'irg3+ h8 1 9 i.xh7l, so Black has
to abandon any hopes of castling. But to ex
ploit the king's position in the centre, one has
to play energetically.
1 5 llbe1 dB!
The strongest defensive try. White would
have an easy game after 1 5 ... Wf8 1 6 f5 (con
tinuations like 16 g4!? g6 1 7 'iih6+ 1!fg7 1 8
11fxg7+ Wxg7 1 9 f5 gxfS 20 gxfS i.c8 2 1 f6+
Wh6 22 llf4 or the immediate 1 6 lieS!? are
also interesting) 1 6...i.d7 1 7 lieS! and Black
seems almost stalemated (if 1 7...lZ.t:8 18 llft:l).
1 80
Meanwhile 1 5...g6 would be bad in view of 16
'ifh6 e7 1 7 11t'h3! followed by 18 fS.
1 6 g4!
1 6 . . .g6
Once again Bologan's decision seems best.
1 6...c8?! fails to 1 7 f5 i.d7 1 8 gS 'ifd8 1 9
1i'xf7 'iVxgS+ 20 h'l and wins. Instead the
computer prefers 1 6..5c7 17 f5 i.d7 1 8 gS
'ifd8
which is indeed very solid. Fortunately, it's
also very passive, and I believe that White can
prove it by continuing 1 9 1i'h4! (1 9 f6?! g6 20
..h4 i.e6 would only give White a slight ad
vantage) 1 9 .. 6 20 'it'g3+ Wc8 21 1i'd6 fic7 (if
.
21 ...fxg5 22 llc7) 22 ficS! (22 'i'a3!? is also
possible) 22 ..'ifb6 23 'ila3! (23 1i'xb6?! axb6
.
24 lle7 llg8 25 gxf6 gxf6+ 26 Wf2 l:a8! is not
as good for White either) 23... fxg5 24 lle7 and
I don't think it would be incorrect to say that
White's position is winning.

1 7 1ih6 c7?!
Surprisingly Black makes a wrong choice,
which might also be considered the decisive
mistake. During the game I thought that this
move was completely forced, since 17 ....i.x.g4!
would 'lose' to 1 8 fS!, overlooking that Black
still has 18 ... d7!.
This is probably one of the most fascinat
ing positions I have ever analysed. The com
puter gives White a clear advant.1ge in several
ways, while the human wants to crush Black's
defences with a single blow, but in fact Black
holds on in practically every line!
a) 19 .:tf4 J.bS 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 l:txf6 l:txh6
22 1lx7+ d6 23 1lee7 .i.g4! 24 llxb7 l:txb7
25 1lxb7
leads to an ending that Black probably
holds with 25 ... .t.f5!! (not 25...a5? 26 117! e6
27 lla7 J.fS 28 g2! and White is winning) 26
l:txa7 (26 Wg2 a6 27 lla7 1lh4 28 l:txa6 1lg4+
Selec ted Gemes
and 26 J.xfS gxfS 27 :Xa7 l:tg6+ 2 h 1
l:te6! also draw) 26 ... J.xd3 27 cxd3 .J:r.h3 28
llg7 1lxd3 29 .:xg6+ d7 and 1 don't sec how
can White make use of his two extra pawns -
for example after 30 h4 l:th3! (not 30.. Jlxc3?
31 h5 l:td3 32 h6 .:Xd4 33 l:tg2! and wins) 31
l:tg4 :Xc3, or 30 llg3 l:tdl+ 31 'itg2 l:td2+ 32
h1 (or 32 Wh3 l:txa2 33 Jlf3 :a81)
32. ...1tJ 1 + 33 l:tg1 l:td3
and if 34 llct lld2 35 a4 :az 36 h4 llxa4
37 h5 cS 38 lldl 't;e7 39 g2 llc4, or 35 h4
l:lf2! (if 35...l:lxa2 36 hS White still has chan
ces) 36 l:lgt llf4 37 l:tg7+ Wd6 38 1lh7 l:tf3.
b) 1 9 fxg61? hxg6 20 l:txffi l:txh6 21 llx7+
d6 22 llf6+ d7 23 llxg6 :Xg6 24 .i.xg6
l:lg8 25 .t.d3 reaches a similar position as in
the game, but one thing is clear: Black's draw
ing chances are much higher here as he has
some extra tempi.
After many hours of analysis I decided that
White's best winning try was:
c) 19 h3! .i.hS 20 fxg6 and now if20 ... hxbr6
21 l:txf6 llxh6 22 IZ.xf7+ 'it'd6 23 llce7 and
wins, but Black has 20... .i.f31! (can the human
brain foresee such a resource five moves be
fore? I honestly didn't), when it looks very
promising to go for a double rook ending with
21 1Wh51? .i.xhS 22 l:txf6 Lg6 23 .i.xg6 fxg6
24 l:tf7+ Wd8 2S ilee7, but once again 1 failed
to find a win after 25 ... h6! 26 Wg2 gS!; for
example 27 g3 hS 28 h4 gxh4+ 29 xh4
.:g8! or 27 lld7+ c8 28 l:tc7+ d8 29
llfd7+ e8 30 llxb7 l:txb7 31 l:.xb7 l:.8 32
18 1
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004
llxa7 llf6!.
Instead 21 lieS! is the most critical move (it
should also be mentioned that 21 '1Ve3? is
wrong because of 21...1lbe8 22 llxf3 llxe3 23
llxf6 llxel+ 24 Wf2 lle71) 21...hxg6 22 ll51
'ifx5 (forced) 23 .txfS+ gxfS 2411Vf61
when White's extra queen gives him excel
lent practical chances. I hope to be forgiven
for not analysing in detail. Variations such as
24...1lbg8+ 25 'it2 .te4 26 'ifxf7+ WeB 27
..c:6+1 Wc7 28 'ife7+ Wb8 29 llgt ! lleB 30
'ilfl llh8 31 1Wg71 .txc2 32 h4 or 28 .. /ltcS!
29 h4! more or less confirm my optimism.
1 8 f5 .i.d7 1 9 fxg6 1i'd6 20 l:txf7 hxg6
These moves were indeed forced.
21 1i'f4!
It was frustrating to conclude that there
was no mate after 21 llxd7+? 'ifxd7 22 'iff4+
'itb6 23 ltb 1+ WaS, so I calmed down and
prepared myself mentally to try and win the
1 82
endgame a pawn up.
21 1i'xf4 22 llxf4 l:th4
..
23 lle71 d6
The best practical try. If Black lets White
keep both kingside pawns, then it would be
virtually all over straight away; for instance
23...l:tg8 24 h3! llxh3 2S l:tff7 lldB 26 .txg6
Wd6 27 .ifS i.x5 28 gxfS llh6 29 llxb7 or
24...Wd6 2S ile3 and White will win.
24 llg7! llxg4+ 25 llxg4 .ixg4 26
:Xg6+ .i.e6 27 h41
The bishop endgame after 27 .t5?! llgB
seemed completely unclear to me in respect of
winning chances, so this pawn advance pre
vents possible rook exchanges. However, with
the aid of remarks made by the Spanish GM
Alfonso Romero, I later established that
White should in fact win by continuing 28
llxg8 i.xg8 29 wf2 e7 30 Wg3 Wf6 31 f4
b6 32 h4 .tfl 33 .td7 cS 34 .ig4! -*.g6

35 dxcS! (I think I missed this intermediate
exchange; instead 35 i.f3 cxd4 36 cxd4 i.xc2
37 i.xdS didn't look so clear to me) 35 ... bxc5
36 i.f3! and the rest is easy. Had I realised this
I would probably have preferred 27 i.fS! to
27 h4?!, since it's always advisable to exchange
rooks in such positions.
27 . . .r/Je7
27.J:.gs? was impossible due to 28 l:.xg8
.ixg8 29 hS and wins.
28 Wf2! .i.f7
28...l:.h8 would lose to 29 l:.g7+ .ifl 30
i.g6 f6 31 l:.x7+ xg6 32 :.Xb7 l:.xh4 33
e3.
29 l:.g5! b6
The immediate 29...c5 was a better tty.
30 g3 c5 31 h5!
Black should have tried to prevent this
pawn advance. Now he is lost
31 . . .l:.h8 32 h41 Wf6 33 .i.g6!
The last finesse. Now White wins with or
without bishops on the board.
33 .. .i.xg6
If 33... .ie6 34 l:.g2 etc.
34 l:.xg6+ Wf5 35 ltg5+ e4
Or 35 ...e6 36 dxcS bxcS 37 c4 and White
wins.
36 J:te5+ Wf4 37 l:lxd5 cxd4 38 l:lxd4+
Wf5 39 l:.d7 l:.c8 40 J:tf7 + e6 41 J:tf31?
Actually 41 l:.xa7 f6 42 l:.a3 was both
greedier and simpler.
41 ...J:th8 42 c4 J:th7 43 l:.f8 We5 44 l:.c8
Wd4 45 J:tc6
Selec ted Games
45 .. J:tg7 46 h6 l:.g2 47 Wh5 1 -0
.
Game 51
Huzman-Shirov
European Cup, Izmir 2004
Slav D(ence
This was the third consecutive year I played
for the Bosna Sarajevo team in the European
Club Cup. We managed to win the competi
tion in 2002, though we had a total disaster a
year later. Both previous years I played on the
second board (scoring 5/7 and S1/2/7 respec
tively). This time my task was a little tougher
as I was put at the top of the team. Apart
from a new, unfortunate loss against Kas
parov I could be rather satisfied with my per
formance (41/2/7), but not really with the level
of my play. The team ftnished second, so the
event was still a relative success. Out of my
three wins, this one was the most interesting.
1 lbf3 d5 2 d4 c6 3 c4 lbf6 4 cxd5
Before making this modest capture Alex
ander Huzman spent some minutes looking at
tl1e openings on the other boards, so I sus
pected that he didn't have a clear idea whether
to play for a win or a draw.
4...cxd5 5 lbc3 lt:lc6 6 .i.f4 .i.f51
The exclamation mark is for the tight psy
chological choice in the situation. Normally 1
play the 6... a6 line, but then White can do
some 'theoretical' pressing for a while, before
deciding whether to be aggressive or super-
1 83
Fire on Board Part 1/: 1 99 7 - 2 004

solid. Now he has to make such a choice al relying on some old analysis that possibly con
most immediately. tained a mistake.
7 e3 e6 8 .i..b5 11 ... ,.c8 1 2 11fa5 il.d3!
This is what I hoped for. After 8 .id3 I
would still have been able to catch some sun
on the beach, but it wouldn't be mentioned in
this book.
8 ...lbd7! ?
8. .i.b4 i s probably also OK, but I already
.

wanted to tty to avoid a quick draw.

s -.a4 :C8

Preventing White from castling short and

causing a certain trouble for his queen.
1 3 d2?!
Surprisingly this move still follows 'ilieory'
- as I was able to check on the database af
terwards. 1 3 lldt i.c4 1 4 bS would be a
little safer and offer roughly equal chances.
13 b61l
It's not the first time tlus position has ap This was a novelty. At the time I had no
peared in my practice, though now it is with idea that other moves such as 1 3 ...J.c4,
the opposite colour! It wasn't easy to remem 13....ta6 or 13... i.g6 had all been tried before,
ber my old non-computer analysis when I but the concrete move that 1 found was sim
tried to fmd an advantage for White. ply stronger.
1 0 .ixc67!
According to my memories, I never con
sidered tlt.is capture to be very good. I em
ployed 1 0 0-0 a6 1 1 .ixc6 l:txc6 1 2 llfc1 .i.e7
1 3 lLldl !? in the late eighties and even won
two games(as did Shabalov), but despite those
wins I believe that at some point Shaba and I
decided the line wasn't pront.ising for White.
1 0 .l:txc6 1 1 11fxa7?!
..

This came as a surprise - and an unpleasant

one at first. More than fifteen years ago
Black's initiative seemed evident to me, but
who knows... Nowadays one can bravdy col
lect tl1e pawn, having analysed all the defen 1 4 'lla7?
sive lines in advance with ]UIIior9, and then The decisive mistake, after which her maj
safely write home about! Wdl, in fact, after esty will be in serious trouble. The critical con
wards Huzman admitted that he was also just tinuation is 1 4 'ira4 when Black would have

1 84
 Selected Games

several opportunities to get a good game. The
best is probably 14 ... b5!? (since 14 ...llc4!? 1 5
llla7! .i.b4 1 6 llhcl looks less clear to me) and
after 1 5 11a5 i.c4! (not 1 5...b4? 1 6 Wxd3 bxc3
1 7 bxc3) 1 6 lbxb5 i.xb5 1 7 'ifxbS llb6 1 8
'ifd3 llxb2+ 19 '1Pe1 lbf6l
If 1 7 llxc3 llxc3 18 bxc3 'i'xc3 wins easily.
1 7 .....ta6!!
But now tllis move is important to jail the
queen, which otherwise would come back into
the game via a3.
1 8 a4
Trying to get some air with 18 c4 wouldn't
help because of 1 8.. dxc4 (18 ...i.xc4 19 1i'a3
.

f6 is also good enough, but why grant the

queen amnesty?) 1 9 d5 llcS! and wins.
1 8 0-0 1 9 aS
.

The immediate 19 tDe1 would Jose more

quickly to 1 9... e5! 20 Le5 f6 21 i.g3 llf7.
1 9 . . .b5 20 ttle1
Or 20 lbe5 llc7.
20 g5! 21 i.g3 f5
..

White can't control the c7 square anymore,

so the rest requires no comment.
22 ttld3 f4 23 exf4 TJ.c7 24 xc7 9xc7
and according to the rules, White can't cas 25 fxg5 1Wc4 26 ttlb4
tle anymore and therefore stands worse.
1 4 ib4 1 5 :hc1
.

26 . . .e5!
This bishop sacrifice is the most effective
1 5 . . ..tb5!! way to finish the game.
The aim of this move is to defend the 27 ttlxa6 exd4 28 ttlc7 dxc3 29 a6 ttlc5
knight on d7! I'll explain why. 30 a7 1ff1 + 0-1
1 6 'it>d1
1 6 a3 would allow Black a winning attack Game 52
after 1 6 ... .i.xc3+ 1 7 llxc3 (17 bxc3 0-0 is simi Shirov-Fressinet
Jar to d1e game) 1 7...llxc3 1 8 bxc3 'ifc4! and Calvia Olympiad 2004
we can see that White doesn't have a combi Sen1i-Siav Defence
nation beginning 19 'ifxd7+! (as would work
in the case of the immediate 1 5...i.a6?). The last Olympiad in which I represented
1 6. . ...txc3 1 7 bxc3 Spain ended disastrously for me (6'/2 out of 1 2

1 85
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7-2 004
including three losses, whkh is quite a lot),
despite all my efforts to make a good appear
ance for the country that granted me citizen
ship in 1996. It is still rather difficult to find
the exact reasons for my bad play, so I would
rather limit myself to analysing a game that is
nice to remember. Spain finished 10th, which
is worse than in 1996 (6th) when I played for
the country for the first time, but still better
than on other occasions.
1 d4
Unfortunately after making this move I still
have to explain why, as I keep playing 1 e4
almost exclusively. Let's hope it will change
one day.
1 .. d5 2 c4 c6 3 lbc3 .!L\f6 4 f3 e6
I rather expected that Laurent would play
the Semi-Slav and therefore 1 d4 was chosen,
though of course there were other things to
prepare as well.
5 e3
It always seemed to me that 5 .i.g5 was
sharper, until one day in 1991 Shabalov found
7 g4 in a 'very boring' line. Nevertheless, I
more often chose to go for the Botvinnik and
Moscow Variations as my then compatriot's
idea seemed insufficient to fight for the ad
vantage. But this time I changed my mind.
5 . . .bd7 6 'irc2 i.d6
The solid 6...b6 only became known when
7 g4 got really popular. It's a reasonable
alternative when you are afraid of long and
sharp variations.
7 g4!
Here it is again! I remember when, some
four years ago, a much younger player played
it against me in a friendly blit't: game, and my
opponent didn't even know who introduced
this sacrifice into practice. So, I remind the
dear reader that Shirov-Thorhallsson (Reykja
vik 1992) was the game in which 7 g4 was first
played, and of course it was published in fo'ire
on Board.
7 . . .dxc4 8 i.xc4 e5!?
Fressinet follows the line that I myself
adopted with Black against Gelfand and Rad-
1 86
jabov earlier in the year. To be honest, we are
already talking about recent developments and
not the beginning of the 90's, when 8... b5 was
played almost exclusively.
9 i.d2!?
Both Gelfand and Radjabov went for 9 g5
5 to i.d2, but I was able to achieve rea
sonable positions after 10... exd4. The text was
played by Chabanon - a big connoisseur of
the 7 g4 line, as I could see when sharing im
pressions with him in the French League -
against Boudre somewhere in France in 2002,
and was pointed out to me by my wife who, as
one might guess, has studied the mysteries of
'Shabalov-Shirov' gambit as well.
9 exd4 1 0 xd4 .!L\e517
Formally a novelty. Boudre played 1 0.. .b6
1 1 i.e2 0-0, but in my opinion he didn't
equalise after 12 fS. Still, the fact that such a
strong defender as Dreev chose 1 0... ti:lb6
against Harik.rishna (also in Calvia, three
rounds after the present game) indicates that I
might be wrong.
1 1 i.e2!
This is our 'family analysis', though in fact it
is also the only move.
1 1 . . i.xg4
.
Possibly not best as now White gets a big
initiative. L.Dominguez played 1 1 ...lbfxg4!?
against Gelfand in the last round and the game
was drawn after an interesting struggle (12
ti:le4 i.e7 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 .ic3 'flc7 15 l:.dg1
f5 and so on), though I got the impression

that White could improve somewhere.
1 2 f4! li:)g&
The logical retreat. 1 2....ixe2? would fail to
1 3 fxe5, while 1 2. ..lbed7 1 3 .i.xg4 c!Llxg4 1 4
lLl5 also looks promising for White.
1 3 .txg4 li:)xg4 1 4 lbt5
14 lbh4?
. 1 & ...lbf2
The decisive mistake. Black was absolutdy
forced to continue 1 4... 0-0 and I must admit I
missed that, after 1 5 c!Lle41? (also interesting is
15 llgt !? c!Llxh2?! 16 llg3! or 15 ...lLlf6 16 0-0-0
with compensation), Black would have
15....i.xf4! (I was counting only on 1 5....i.e7
16 0-0-0 and White retains a strong initiative,
e.g. 16 ....c8 1 7 lbxe7+ c!Llxe7 1 8 h3 lLlh6 19
.i.b4 lLlh5 20 lLlg5). So, after 16 exf4 d5
I would have to fmd 1 7 c!Llfg31 (1 7 h3?
.xfS 1 8 hxg4 .xg4 looks really bad for
White) 1 7... 5 1 8 h3! keeping a slight edge in
the complications, e.g. 1 8...c!Llh6! (if 1 8... fxe4
Selected Games
19 hxg4 lLlxf4 20 0-0-0! or 19 e3 20 .i.xe3
..
llae8 21 Wf2 llxe3 22 xe3 llxf4 23 lLle4
and White is clearly better) 19 ll)g5! llae8+ 20
2 .d4+ 21 'ifilflt? (21 g2 c!Llh4+ 22 wn
lbfl 23 lLlxfl llxfl 24 llh2 is also good)
2t ...c!Llxf4 22 c!Llf3 .d3+ (or 22...'i'd6 23 .i.xf4
.xf4 24 g2, while 22....d5?! 23 11'b3 is
worse for Black) 23 'i'xd3 lbxd3 24 .i.xh6
gxh6 (or 24... f4 25 .i.xg7 g7 26 lbe2, but
not 25 llgl ?! fxg3 26 llxg3 IZ.f7 unclear) 25
IZ.gl ! h8 26 lld1! lle3 27 lLlh4 c!Llxb2 28
lld7 lbd3 29 lbhxf5 c!Llc5 30 IZ.c7 lLle6 31 lle7
with a slight edge. So, I can conclude that I
was better after my 1 4th move, even in the
case of the correct defence.
1 5 .!Oxg7 + Wf8 1 6 0-0-01
Now the game is over as Black comes un
der a terrific attack, though 1 nearly spoiled i t
a t the end.
If 1 6...xg7 1 7 c!Lle4 wins.
1 7 li:)e4! lbxd1
17 ...lbxe4 18 .xe4 'fie7 Qf 1 8... xg7 1 9
.i.c3+ {6 20 .e6 IZ.eB 21 llhgt+ lLlg6 22
1fxd6 wins) would be more stubborn, but
after 1 9 'i'd3 lldB 20 llhgl I (20 .i.c3!? .i.c7 21
'i'c2 is less precise) 20...h5 21 .i.el .i.c7 22
.i.xh4 1Vxh4 23 1Vc3 White still wins.
1 8 llxd1 .te7
1 9 f5l
The key move, after which the game really
should be over.
1 9 . . .11rb6
187
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004
20 f6?
Only my terrible form in Calvia can explain
why I rudn't find 20 'flc3 llg8 21 f6 winning
immeruately.
20 .i.b4 21 .i.xb4+ 11t'xb4 22 a3
Complicating matters. 22 lbc5!? leads to a
forced win, e.g. 22 ... lbg6 (if 22...'i'g4 23 'ifd3
or 22... h5 23 lbd7+ g8 24 l15 J:h7 25
l:gl+ h8 26 a3) 23 lbd7+ g8 24 lb5 h5
25 lbe7+ lth7 26 lbes Zilhd8 27 &D7xg6
J:xdl+ 28 'il'xdt h6 29 h8! etc.
22 11t'a5 23 c!Oc5
23 . h6?
This loses at once, whereas after 23 ...tbg6 I
would still have to calculate 24 lbfS h5 25
tbd7+ Wg8 26 tbe7+ h7 27 'it'c4 .D.hf8 28
tbxg6 fxg6 29 tbxf8+ J:xf8 30 J:d7+ Wh6 31
'il'f4+ g5 32 'ife4 'il'e1+ 33 ltc2 J:h8 34 'fle7
winning. 23... h5 24 lbf5 would be the same.
24 c!Of5 lbg6
1 88
24....D.d8 would just check whether, after 25
7+ :Xd7 26 J:xd7 l:g8, I could come up
with 27 bl and if 27 ... tbxf5 28 'it'c5+! l!fxc5
29 :ds mate.
25 ltld7+ Wg8 26 ltle7+ ct>h7 27 ltlxg6
fxg6 28 ltle5! 1 -0
Mate is inevitable.
Game 53
Shirov-Navara
Match (game 2), Prague 2004
Sicilian Def!_nce, Scheveningen Variation
The first game of my mini-match against
David Navara ended in a draw after I missed
some reasonable winning chances. There
would be no tie-break in the event of a 1 - 1
score, so [ wanted to try and press to the
maximum with the white pieces.
1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 ltlc6
5 ltlc3 a6
The first surprise. Normally David plays a
5 ... d6 set-up, after which I was going to place
my bishop on c4 (and later on, on b3), as lv
anchuk did against him in Calvia.
6 .i.e2
Nowadays 6 .ie3 followed by 'il'd2 and
0-0-0 is much more popular, but sometimes I
tend to be conservative.
6 . d6
Oh dear... Now it looks like I am forced to
play the line I tried to avoid in my preparation.
7 ..te3 ltlf6 8 f4 .i.e7 9 g4!?
 This 'good old style' aggressive advance
took me half an hour. I realised perfectly that
it might be very risky (after all it had only been
tried in rapid chess before), but as 1 said, play
ing the main lines with 9 9d2 or 9 0-0 was
not my intention that day.
9 ...1ra5!?
Having also spent half an hour, Navara
comes up with a very interesting novelty.
9 d5 10 e5 ll:\d7 1l g5 was seen in the rapid
..
game Ponomariov-Zvia.gintsev, Russia vs. the
Rest of the World, Moscow 2001 .
1 0 lbb3
Probably the only reasonable answer. 1 0
0-0?! would be strongly met by 1 0... ll:\xd4 It
'it'xcl4 e5.
1 0. . .1Wc7
The manoeuvre ... 'ifb6-c7 is typical in many
Sicilian set-ups. Here it is especially effective
because White usually tries to challenge it by
placing his queen on f3 and bishop on d3,
whereas now he has already played 6 .ie2, so
1 1 .id3 would be a loss of tempo. After a due
thought I chose a different, highly risky plan.
1 1 g5
After 1 1 1Wd2 b5 my idea wouldn't work
because of 1 2 g5?! b4.
1 1 ...lbd7 1 2 1Wd2 b5 1 3 0-0-0!?
This was the idea. Normally it's not advis
able to allow ... b4, especially when the e2
square is occupied, so you have to choose
whether to place your knight on b1 which is
very passive, or on a4 where it can simply be
lost! However, the alternative 1 3 a3 .i.b7 14
0-0-0 liJc5! didn't appeal to me at all, as Black
would probably get a slight!}' better game
without any effort.
1 3 . . .i.b7
I had a feeling that after l3 ... b4 1 4 lba4
i.b7 1 5 h4 my knight would be 'safe' on a4,
but I might easily be wrong.
14 f5! ?
Another committal decision since the eS
square is very important for Black, but I felt
there was no way back as 14 h4 could be an
swered by 1 4 ... lba5!.
14 ..lDde5
Possibly a first step in the wrong direction
as Black no longer has the ... b4 idea. The im
mediate 1 4...b4!? was, of course, what con
cerned me the most, since after 1 5 fxe6! (1 5
lba4?! doesn't seem correct in view of
1 5...exf51 1 6 exfS liJceS 17 llhf1 llcB 18 f6
gxf6 1 9 llf4 fxgS 20 llxb4 lbf3 21 i.xf3
i.xf3) 1 5... fxe6 1 6 lba4, Black would have a
strong silent' move in 1 6...llc8! (1 6...0-0?! 1 7
i.g4! lL\ds 1 8 'ifxb4 would favour White) and
it's not easy to find an appropriate response.
Probably the best move is 17 llhfl ! and after
1 7...lbce5 (17 ....:tffi!? is possible) 1 8 lDd4 'ira5
19 lL'Ixe6 Black can already go for the perpet
ual check after 1 9. .'ifxa4 (1 9 .ltg8!? is inter
. ..
esting too) 20 xg7+ dB 21 lbe6+ '1te8 22
i.hS+ l1g6 etc.
1 5 :ht1 lba5!
Correctly rejecting 1 5 ...0-0-0 1 6 lbd4 when
1 89
Fire on Board Part II: 1 99 7 - 2004
White stands better.
1 6 lillta5 '1Vxa5 1 7 a3
1 7 . . 0-0-0?
. If27 ... 'ifc7 28 /l)a4! wins.
But this castling is d ifficult to explain be
cause White will be even more comfortable
than in the above-mentioned variation. After
17...b4 Black would still have a reasonable
game, for example 1 8 ll:la2! (1 8 axb4?! is not
good because of 1 8...1Wa1+ 19 lLlbl .ixe4 20
f6 llc8! 21 fxe7 llxc2+ 22 1Wxc2 .ixc2 23
xc2 1Wa4+ and White may be in danger)
1 8... .ixe41 (better than 1 8.)Dc6 19 ltlxb4
ltlxb4 20 1i'xb4 1Wxb4 21 axb4 .ixe4 22 fxe6
fxe6 23 c3 and the weakness a6 would tell) 19
f6 gxf6 20 gx f6 .iffi 2 1 /ilib4 (21 1Wxb4
1Wxb4 22 lilxb4 .ib7 seems equal) 21 ...d 5 22
1Wc3 .ixb41 23 axb4 1Wa4 and Black's strong
control over the centre compensates for the
king's weak position.
1 8 .i.d4
Suddenly White is much better because
Black has no counterplay. I t is also rather easy
to continue.
1 8...:Jlg8
1 8... h6 should have been tried as it would at
least fix the pawn structure on the kingside.
Nevertheless, White would have a big advan
tage after 1 9 f6 gxf6 20 gxf6 .tffi 21 1We3 hS
22 b1 lild7 23 1Wg5.
1 9 '1Ve3 c4
As David admitted after the game, he saw
too late that 1 9...lbc6 would be answered by
20 f6! tilid4 21 fxe7! and after 21.../l)xe2+ 22
190
e2 llde8 23 llx7 "ilc7 24 lLlf4 IZ.xe7 25
ltlxe6 'ifd7 26 11fc3+ (or 26 lLlcS!?) 26...b8
27 l:.xe7 11fxe7 28 'l'g31 White is winning.
19 ...'1'c7 would also lose to 20 f6 gxf6 21
.ib6.
20 .txc4 bxc4 21 h4! Ad7 22 .i.b6
In time-trouble I played to gain some addi
tional seconds thanks to the increment each
move. A not very aesthetic approach, but
practical.
22. . .'1Ve5 23 .i.d4 '1Va5 24 fxe6 fxe6 25
.tb6 '1Ve5 26 .td4 '1Va5 27 e51
Now Black's defence collapses as he simply
has too many weak pawns.
27 ...1le8
28 exd6 .i.xd6
29 .txg7!
So, one of them drops. The game is over.
29 ....tc5 30 .td4 .txd4 3 1 llxd4 cs 32
llff4!
32 ltd3 'ifxe3+ 33 l:.xe3 l:.d41 would give
Black some small chances in the endgame.
32 ....i.c6 33 llde4 1i'd6 34 llxc4 lled8 35
b1 1 -0
Black will certainly lose more pawns and
therefore resigned.
I would like to give a special mention to
David's very friendly behaviour in the post
mortem, despite the unfortunate result of the
game. His love of chess is evident, so I can
only wish him well in developing his talent
even further.
 INOEX OF OPPONENTS
I

Numbers refer to game numbers.

Bold numbers indicate that Shlrov was Black.

Agrest 36 Kramnik 3 , 9, 1 1 , 13
Akopian 8, 26 Ljubojevic 20
Atalik 44, 49 Markowski 14
Bacrot 25 Navara 53
Bareev 29 Piket 32
Bauer 28 Ponomariov 38, 39
Bologan 50 Radjabov 43, 47
Dreev 42 Reinderman 1 8
Fedorov 35 Rublevsky 27
Fressinet 52 Salov 7
Ftacnik 1 6 San Segundo 6
Grischuk 30, 31, 33 Short 2, 5, 22
Gyimesi 37 Sokolov, I. 46
Hracek 1 7, 45 Stohl 23
Huzman 51 Teske 1
Karpov l2 Topalov 1 0, 21 , 24, 34, 40
Kasparov 48 Van Wely 19, 41
Koroeev 1 5 Yusupov 4

19 1
 INDEX OF OPENINGS I

Numbers refer to game numbers. Bold numbers indicate that Shirov was Black.

Bishop's Opening 35 Anti-Marshall 48

Budapest Gambit 25 Modem Steinitz 46
Caro-Kann Defence 1, 1 7, 40, 42 Scandinavian Defence 7
French Defence 22, 24, 26, 29, 44 Semi-Slav Defence 39, 43, 52
Griinfeld Defence 13 Slav Defence 51
King's Indian Defence 6, 12, 23, 37, 47 Sicilian Defence
Nimzo-Indian Defence 28 Anti-Sveshnikov 38, 41
Petroff Defence 4, 32, 50 Four Knights 33
Philidor Defence 16 Kan 1 0, 1 5, 27, 36
Reti Opening 14, 19 Najdorf 21
Ruy Lopez Richter-Rauzer 3, 9
Berlin Defence 5, 1 1 , 30 Scheveningen 8, 20, 53
Chigorin 9 ... 1ia5 31, 49 Sveshnikov 34, 45
Exchange Variation 2 Taimanov 1 8

ECO index
A07 14 B45 33 C24 35 D14 51
A1 1 1 9 B46 1 8 C42 32 D44 39
A52 25 B66 3, 9 C43 4, 50 D45 52
BOt 7 B81 8 C65 30 047 43
B07 1 6 B83 20 C66 5 D70 13
B t 2 1 , 1 7, 40 B84 53 C67 1 1 F.38 28
B19 42 B92 21 C68 2 E63 12, 23
830 38, 41 C1 1 22, 24, 29 C72 46 E71 37
B33 34, 45 C16 44 C88 48 E90 6
B42 1 0, 1 5, 27, 36 C17 26 C96 31 , 49 E97 47

1 92