The
The
The
Classical Caro
Classical Caro
Classical Caro
‐
‐
‐
Kann in Ac on
Kann in Ac on
Kann in Ac on
by Eric Schiller
by Eric Schiller
by Eric Schiller
The
The
The
Classical Caro
Classical Caro
Classical Caro
‐
‐
‐
Kann in Ac on
Kann in Ac on
Kann in Ac on
by Eric Schiller
by Eric Schiller
by Eric Schiller
The Classical Caro-Kann in Action by Eric Schiller
This file contains theory and practical examples of the Classical Caro-
Kann lines with 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4
h67.Nf3 Nd7. Special attention is paid to those lines where Black castles
kingside, a plan made popular by Eric Lobron in the 1980's.
Immortals
1
1
Lanka
Kasparov
Riga
1977
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.£e2 ¤gf6 12.¥d2 e6 13.c4
1
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
In this variation White avoids commiting his
¢ for as long as possible.
¥d6
Two can play at this
game!
14.
¤f5
This possibility only exists because Black has stubbornly refused to move his
¢
from the center of the board. But Kasparov showed that this intrusion is only a minor
inconvenience - and did so at the age of 13!
0-0!
What is remarkable about this is that Kasparov
here improves on the 1974 game between Spassky and Karpov in the Candidates' match.
15.
¤xd6 £xd6
2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+pwqpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
16.
¦h4?
It is time for White to castle - see Mnatsakanian - Bagirov, Kirkovan 1978.
[ 16.
¥a5
see Karpov-Pomar.
]
16...b5! 17.
¢f1 bxc4 18.£xc4 £d5 19.£e2 £b5?!³
This lets some of the advantage slip,
but one can understand the young man's desire to get into a favorable endgame.
[ 19...
¦fb8!
20.b3
( 20.
¥f4
¦b4!
would surely have been found by the World Champion
Kasparov.
) 20...a5
∓ ]
20.b3?
[ 20.
£xb5 cxb5
is not as bad as it looks, because the White
¢ could enter the game quickly.
]
20...a5 21.
¤e5 a4 22.¦h3 ¦fd8 23.£xb5 cxb5 24.¤c6 ¦e8 25.bxa4 bxa4 26.¦c1 ¤b6
2
3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9-snN+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9p+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+R0
9P+-vL-zPP+0
9+-tR-+K+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
27.
¤e5?!
The
¤ was gainfully employed, limiting the options of the Black ¦s. There were still
drawing chances at this point.
[ 27.
¢e2!? ¤bd5 28.¢d3 ¦ec8 29.¦hh1 ¦a6 30.¤e5 ¦xc1 31.¦xc1 ¤xh5
gives Black a
pawn but obtains active play in return.
32.
¦c8+ ¢h7 33.¤xf7 ¤hf4+ 34.¥xf4 ¤xf4+ 35.¢e4
¤xg2 36.¦h8+! ¢g6 37.¤xh6! ¦b6 ( 37...gxh6 38.¦g8+ ¢f6 39.¦xg2 ) 38.¤g4 ¦b2
39.
¤e5+ ¢f6 40.¦f8+ ¢e7 41.¦f7+ ¢d8 42.¦xg7 ¦xf2 43.a3= ]
27...
¦ec8 28.¦b1 ¤e4 29.¥e1 ¤d5 30.¦b7 ¤d6! 31.¦b2
[ 31.
¦d7 ¦a6! ]
31...
¦ab8 32.¦xb8 ¦xb8 33.¤d7
[ 33.
¦a3 ¦a8 34.¥d2 ¤b5 35.¦d3 ¦c8!∓ ]
33...
¦b1 34.¦a3 ¤c4 35.¦d3
[ 35.
¦xa4 ¤d2+ 36.¢e2 ¤c3+ 37.¢xd2 ¤xa4 ]
35...
¦a1?!
[ 35...
¤f4!
was more efficient.
]
36.g3
¦xa2 37.¤c5 a3
0-1
2
Mnatsakanian
Bagirov
Kirovakan
1978
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 £c7 12.£e2 e6 13.c4 ¥d6 14.¤f5 0-0 15.¤xd6
£xd6 16.0-0-0
(Diagram 4)
3
4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+pwqpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is the main line of this variation. For the alternatives see Lanka - Kasparov and Belyavsky -
Bagirov.
b5! 17.g4!
White must play aggressively.
[ 17.cxb5 cxb5 18.
¢b1 ¦fc8 ( 18...b4!? 19.¤e5 ¤d5
may provide more winning chances for
Black, Lukin - Gorshkov, USSR 1975.
) 19.
¤e5 ( 19.g4 £c6! 20.¤e5 ¤xe5 21.dxe5 £c2+
22.
¢a1 ¤e4∓ ) 19...£c7 20.¥c1 ¤xe5 21.dxe5 ¤d5 22.¦d4 ( 22.g4 £c4! ) 22...b4 23.¦g4
¢h8 24.¥xh6 gxh6 25.£d2 ¢h7 26.£d3+ ¢h8 27.£d2=
- Yurkov.
]
17...bxc4 18.g5 hxg5 19.h6 g6 20.h7+
¤xh7 21.¤xg5 ¤xg5 22.¥xg5
5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0{
9zp-+n+p+-0
9-+pwqp+p+0
9+-+-+-vL-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
The last few moves have been forced, and we arrive at an interesting position which at first
glance seems to hold some danger for Black.
f6?
This overreaction leads to a difficult position
for Black.
[ 22...c3! 23.
£e5 ( 23.£e4? £b4 ) 23...cxb2+ 24.¢b1 £xe5! ( 24...¤xe5? 25.dxe5 £b4
26.
¥f6+- ) 25.dxe5 f6
Only now is this move effective.
26.
¦xd7 fxg5 27.¦hh7 ¦xf2 28.¦dg7+
¢f8 29.¦c7 ¢e8 30.¦he7+ ¢d8 31.¦ed7+ ¢e8 32.¦e7+ ¢f8 33.¦h7= ]
23.
£e4 ¢f7 24.¦h7+ ¢e8 25.¥f4 £d5 26.£xg6+ ¢d8 27.£g7 ¢c8 28.¦g1 ¦d8 29.£e7
e5 30.dxe5 c3 31.b3
£f3 32.¥e3 £e2 33.e6 £b2+ 34.¢d1 c2+ 35.¢e2 c1£+ 36.¢f3
¤e5+ 37.¢g2 £xg1+ 38.¢xg1 ¦g8+ 39.¢h2 ¤f3+ 40.¢h3 ¤g1+ 41.¢h4 ¤f3+ 42.¢h3
½-½
4
6
Karpov
Pomar
Nice Olympiad
1974
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.£e2 ¤gf6 13.c4 ¥d6 14.¤f5 0-0-0 15.¤xd6+
£xd6 16.¥a5
6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+pwqpsn-zp0
9vL-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
A move much praised by Mednis, but one which does not seem to impress anyone else.
¦de8
17.
¤e5 £e7 18.¥c3²
[ 18.0-0
makes it harder to defend the h-pawn.
]
18...
¦d8 19.f4 ¤xe5 20.fxe5 ¤h7
7
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zpp+-wqpzpn0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-zP-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-vL-+-+-0
9PzP-+Q+P+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black is going to have problems on the dark-squares now. Pomar will have to play f5 at some
point.
21.0-0-0
¤g5 22.a3!
The idea behind this move is not to advance the b-pawn but rather
to enable Bc3-b4, after which the bishop can invade d6.
f5 23.exf6
[ 23.
¥b4 £f7 24.¥d6
would now be met by the exchange sacrifice
¦xd6 25.exd6 ¤e4
26.
¦h3 ¤xd6 27.¦e3 ¤e4
with considerable compensation for the exchange.
]
23...gxf6 24.
¦hf1
This prevents the advance of the f-pawn.
¦he8
[ 24...f5? 25.
¦xf5 ]
25.
¦de1 £f7 26.g4 ¦f8 27.£c2
(Diagram 8)
5
8
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-tr-+0{
9zpp+-+q+-0
9-+p+pzp-zp0
9+-+-+-snP0
9-+PzP-+P+0
9zP-vL-+-+-0
9-zPQ+-+-+0
9+-mK-tRR+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
£g8?!
[ 27...f5
had to be played.
28.gxf5 exf5 29.
¥b4 ¦fe8 ( 29...¦g8 30.£xf5+ £xf5 31.¦xf5
¦xd4 32.b3 ¦h4 33.¥d2 ¦xh5 34.¦g1 ¦h3 35.¢c2 ¦h2 36.¢c3 ¦h3+ 37.¢b4² ) 30.¦xe8
¦xe8 31.£xf5+ £xf5 32.¦xf5 ¦e4÷
∆ Rh4.
]
28.
¥b4 ¦f7 29.£g6 £xg6 30.hxg6 ¦g7 31.¦xf6 ¦dg8
9
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+r+0
9zpp+-+-tr-0
9-+p+ptRPzp0
9+-+-+-sn-0
9-vLPzP-+P+0
9zP-+-+-+-0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9+-mK-tR-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
32.
¦ef1!
A very strong positional move, which is far better than simple material gain.
[ 32.
¦h1 ¦xg6 33.¦xh6 ¦xh6 34.¦xh6 ¤e4 35.¦xe6 ¦xg4
and White has winning chances,
but nothing guaranteed.
]
32...
¦xg6 33.¦xg6 ¦xg6 34.¦f8+ ¢c7 35.¥a5+! b6
[ 35...
¢d7 36.¦d8+ ¢e7 37.¦a8 a6 38.¦a7 ¤f7 39.¦xb7+ ¢f6 40.¦b6 ¦xg4 41.¦xc6±
∆ d5.
¦xd4?? 42.¥c3+- ]
36.
¥d2 ¤e4 37.¥f4+ ¢b7 38.¦f7+ ¢a8
[ 38...
¢a6 39.¥b8 b5 40.¦xa7+ ¢b6 41.c5+ ¤xc5 42.dxc5+ ¢xc5 43.¦h7 ¦xg4 44.¦xh6
¦e4 45.¦h5+± ]
39.
¦f8+ ¢b7 40.b4 ¦xg4 41.¦f7+ ¢a8
[ 41...
¢a6 42.¥b8 b5 43.¦xa7+ ¢b6 44.c5+
would have been embarassing.
]
42.
¢c2 h5?!
[ 42...b5! 43.c5
± ]
43.a4 h4?!
[ 43...
¦g8 44.¦h7± ]
44.
¢d3+- ¤g5 45.¦f8+ ¢b7 46.¦b8+ ¢a6 47.¥d2 ¦g3+ 48.¢c2
1-0
6
10
Matulovic
Campora
Vrsac
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.£e2 £b6 13.0-0-0 c5 14.¥e3 cxd4 15.¥xd4
¥c5 16.¤e4 ¥xd4 17.¦xd4 ¤xe4 18.¦xe4 ¤f6 19.¦e3 0-0 20.¤e5 ¦ac8 21.¢b1 ¦fd8
22.
¦b3 £c7 23.¦c3 £a5 24.¦xc8 ¦xc8 25.¦d1 ¦d8 26.¦xd8+ £xd8 27.g4 £d4 28.c3
£e4+ 29.£xe4 ¤xe4
10
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-+n+P+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+K+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Here we have a
¤ endgame in which White's advances on the » have led to clear weaknesses in
his structure, and Black is the one playing for a win.
30.f3
¤g5 31.f4 ¤e4
The further the
pawns advance - the harder they are to protect.
32.
¤d3 f5! 33.gxf5 exf5 34.¢c2 ¤g3
35.
¢b3 ¤xh5
11
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9zpp+-+-zp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-+-+p+n0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+KzPN+-+-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
And the h-
§ falls, giving Black a decisive advantage.
36.
¢c4 ¢f7 37.¢d5 ¢f6 38.¢d6 g5
39.fxg5+ hxg5 40.
¢c7 b6 41.¢b7 f4 42.a4 g4 43.a5 bxa5 44.c4 g3 45.¤e1 ¢e5 46.c5
¤f6 47.c6 ¢e4 48.c7 ¤e8 49.c8¤ f3 50.¤xa7 f2
0-1
7
14
Tischbierek
2500
Lobron
2545
Hannover
1991
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e4
12
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This move is now considered inferior, since it allows the typical equalizing maneuver involving an
exchange of
¤s and centralizing the £.
¤xe4 14.£xe4 ¤f6 15.£e2 £d5 16.c4 £e4!
For the less effective 16...
£f5, see Karpov - Larsen, Linares 1981.
13
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzPq+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
17.
¦de1
[ 17.
£f1 ¤g4
- Kavalek.
]
[ 17.
¥e3 ¤g4 18.¤d2 £f5
- Kavalek.
]
[ 17.
£xe4 ¤xe4
A) 18.
¥e3 f5!? ( 18...0-0 19.¤e5 ¦fd8 20.g4 c5 21.f3 cxd4 22.¦xd4 ¦xd4 23.¥xd4²
Strikovic - Korchnoi, Torcy 1990.
) 19.
¤d2
and, according to Armas, the chances are level.
;
B) 18.
¥e1 ¥f6 19.¤e5 ¦d8 ( 19...c5 20.f3± ) 20.f3 ¤d6 21.¥f2 ¥xe5 22.dxe5 ¤xc4
and in this position Black is again no worse, Armas - Tal, Germany 1990.
]
17...
£xe2 18.¦xe2 b5!?
[ 18...0-0
19.
¤e5 ¦fd8 20.¥c3 ¦ac8³
White was tied down to the defense of his
§s in
Ivanovic - Kavalek, Bugojno 1982.
]
19.b3 0-0 20.
¢c2 ¦fc8 21.c5
Otherwise the
¢ would be exposed after Black plays c5.
¤d5
8
14
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+r+-+k+0
9zp-+-vlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+pzPn+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+P+-+N+-0
9P+KvLRzPP+0
9+-+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White has a poor position, and now desperately tries to get something going on the kingside.
22.g4
¥f6 23.a3 a5
Now White cannot close the
« with a4, because if either pawn advances,
Black will capture, opening up a line. Instead, the
« can only be closed at the cost of making
White's
¥ even worse.
24.
¦g1 a4 25.b4 ¦a7 26.¦e4 ¦d7 27.¥c1 ¢h7 28.¦d1 ¦g8
15
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+r+0
9+-+r+pzpk0
9-+p+pvl-zp0
9+pzPn+-+P0
9pzP-zPR+P+0
9zP-+-+N+-0
9-+K+-zP-+0
9+-vLR+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
With all of White's attention concentrated on the weak
§ at d4, Black feints at a new front.
29.
¦h1
¦gd8 30.¦he1 ¢g8 31.¥b2 ¢h7 32.¦d1 ¤e7
Black is still searching for a plan, while White
marks time.
33.
¦d2 ¤d5 34.¦d3 ¢g8 35.¦d2 ¥g5
Lobron finally gets the right idea!
36.
¦d1
[ 36.
¤xg5 hxg5
would give Black excellent winning chances, thanks to the advantage of good
¤ against bad ¥.
]
36...
¤f6
This wins a pawn, and the rest is easy.
37.
¦e2 ¤xg4 38.d5
Desperation.
¦xd5
39.
¦xd5 exd5 40.¤d4 ¦c8 41.¤f5 g6 42.hxg6 fxg6 43.¤e7+ ¥xe7 44.¦xe7 ¢f8 45.¦e6
¢f7 46.¦d6 ¦e8 47.¦xc6 ¦e2+ 48.¢b1 h5 49.¦d6 ¦e6-+ 50.¦xd5 ¤xf2 51.¦d7+ ¢e8
52.
¦b7 h4 53.¦xb5 h3 54.¦b8+ ¢d7 55.¦h8 ¦e1+ 56.¢a2 ¦e2
0-1
22
Huebner
Larsen
Tilburg
1980
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¦he1
9
16
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has completed development, and Black is still two tempi away. But there are no real
targets.
a5 14.
£e2 0-0 15.¢b1
White may not have anything better, but this move permits
Black to complete development and lay claim to full equality.
£b6!?=
17
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-wqp+psn-zp0
9zp-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+K+RtR-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The idea here is to maintain maximum control of c5 by leaving the
¤ in place and adding the £
to the mix.
16.
¤e5 a4
[ 16...
£xd4? 17.¥xh6 £xe5 18.£xe5 ¤xe5 19.¦xe5 gxh6
wins a piece.
]
17.c4?
White fails to sense the danger.
a3 18.b3
£xd4
18
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+Pwq-+-+0
9zpP+-+-sN-0
9P+-vLQzPP+0
9+K+RtR-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Now it is safe to take the pawn because of the threats at b2 and the pawn at h6 is taboo.
19.
¥b4
[ 19.
¥xh6? £xe5 20.£xe5 ¤xe5 21.¦xe5 gxh6-+ ]
19...
£xe5 20.£xe5 ¤xe5 21.¥xe7 ¦fe8 22.¥b4
After a series of forcing maneuvers, Black
remains a pawn ahead.
10
19
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+r+k+0{
9+p+-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sn-+P0
9-vLP+-+-+0
9zpP+-+-sN-0
9P+-+-zPP+0
9+K+RtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤ed7 23.¤e4 b6 24.¤d6 ¦eb8 25.f3 b5! 26.¥c3 bxc4 27.¤xc4 ¤d5 28.¥d2
Although Black has weakened his pawn structure slightly, his pieces are now active.
¤c5
29.
¤e5 ¦a6 30.¦c1 ¦b5 31.¦c4 ¤f6 32.g4 ¤fd7 33.¥c3
[ 33.
¤xd7 ¤xd7 34.¥c1 ¤e5 35.¦c3 ¦d5³ ]
33...
¤b6 34.¦ce4 ¤d5 35.¥d2 f6 36.¤g6
The
¤ cannot accomplish anything without
assistance, but it is hard to bring the remaining forces into the attack. Still, there was no place to
retreat to.
e5 37.
¦c4 ¤d3 38.¦ee4 c5
Black keeps reducing the amount of space available to
the White pieces.
39.
¦a4 ¦bb6
[ 39...
¦xa4 40.¦xa4
would give White significant counterplay.
]
40.
¦xa6 ¦xa6 41.¦c4
[ 41.
¦a4 ¦xa4 42.bxa4 c4 43.¢c2 ¤c5 44.a5 ¢f7∓ ]
41...
¦a7 42.¤h4 ¤b6 43.¦c3 ¦d7 44.¥e3 ¦d5
20
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-sn-+-zp-zp0
9+-zprzp-+P0
9-+-+-+PsN0
9zpPtRnvLP+-0
9P+-+-+-+0
9+K+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black's pieces are well-cordinated, while White's lack purpose.
45.
¤f5 ¢f7 46.¤g3 ¤d7
47.
¤e4 g6 48.hxg6+ ¢xg6 49.¤g3 ¤e1 50.¥c1 ¦d1 51.¤e4!
Preparing to force more
pieces off the board.
¤d3 52.¢c2 ¦xc1+ 53.¢xd3 ¦a1!
[ 53...
¦xc3+ 54.¢xc3 f5 55.¤f2
provides more resistance.
]
54.
¦c2 ¦f1 55.¢e3 ¦e1+ 56.¢d3 ¦b1 57.¤xc5 ¤xc5+ 58.¦xc5 ¦b2 59.¦c2™ f5!
60.
¦c6+ ¢g5 61.gxf5 h5! 62.f6 ¢g6!
Larsen has always had a flair for
¦ endgames.
Especially when rook pawns are involved!
63.
¢c3 ¦xa2 64.¢b4 ¢f7 65.¢a4
(Diagram 21)
11
21
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0{
9+-+-+k+-0
9-+R+-zP-+0
9+-+-zp-+p0
9K+-+-+-+0
9zpP+-+P+-0
9r+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦f2 66.¢xa3 ¦xf3∓ 67.¢b4 h4 68.¦c8 ¦f1 69.¦c2 ¢xf6 70.¢c5 ¢f5 71.b4 h3 72.b5
¦b1 73.b6 ¢f4 74.¦e2 e4 75.¢d4 e3! 76.¢c5
[ 76.
¦xe3 ¦b4+ 77.¢c5 ¢xe3 78.¢xb4 h2 79.b7 h1£ 80.b8£ £b1+-+ ]
76...
¢f3 77.¦h2 ¢g3 78.¦e2 ¦b3! 79.¢c4 ¦xb6 80.¦xe3+ ¢g2 81.¦e2+ ¢f3
and this is
now a book win for Black, so White resigned.
0-1
23
Glatt
Burger
Budapest
1982
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.£e2 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.¦he1 a5 15.¤f5?!
22
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9zp-+-+N+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A bit reckless.
¥b4!
[ 15...exf5 16.
£xe7 ¤xh5 17.¤h4!± ]
16.
¤xh6+ gxh6 17.c3 ¦e8
[ 17...
¥e7!? 18.¥xh6 ¦e8 19.¤e5 ¥f8³ ]
18.cxb4
Otherwise
¥f8 will defend the kingside.
axb4 19.
¤e5 ¦xa2
(Diagram 23)
12
23
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-wqr+k+0
9+p+n+p+-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-zp-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9rzP-vLQzPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
20.
¥xh6
[ 20.
¥xb4 £b6
A) 21.
¥a3
A1) 21...
¤xe5! 22.£xe5 ( 22.dxe5 ¤d5÷ ) 22...¦a8!? ( 22...¤d5 23.¦d3 f6 24.£g3+
¢h8 25.£g6 ¦a1+ 26.¢d2 ¦xe1 27.£xh6+ ¢g8 28.¦g3+ ¢f7 29.£h7# ) 23.£g3+
( 23.
¦d2 £b3! ; 23.¦e2 £b3 ) 23...¢h8 24.£f3 ¦8xa3 25.£xf6+ ¢g8-+ ;
A2) 21...
£b3 22.¦d3 ¦a1+ 23.¢d2 ¦xe1 24.¢xe1 £d5 25.¦g3+ ¢h7 26.£d3+ £e4+
27.
£xe4+ ¤xe4 28.¤xd7 ¤xg3 29.¤f6++- ;
B) 21.
¤xd7! ¤xd7 22.¥a3 ¦a8 23.£g4+ ¢h8 24.¦xe6!? fxe6 25.£xe6 ¦a1+ 26.¢c2
¦xd1 27.£xh6+ ¢g8 28.£g6+ ¢h8 29.£h6+= ]
20...b3! 21.
¤xd7?
[ 21.
£d3 ¦a1+ 22.¢d2
A) 22...
¤xe5
strikes me as a stronger move.
A1) 23.
¦xe5 ¦xd1+ 24.¢xd1 ¤g4 25.£g3 ( 25.¦g5+? £xg5 26.¥xg5 ¤xf2+ 27.¢e2
¤xd3 28.¢xd3 ¢h7 29.g3 ¦g8 30.¥f4 f6 31.¢e4 c5
(
∆ e5)
) 25...
£xd4+ 26.¥d2
£xe5 27.£xg4+ ¢h7 28.¥c3 £d5+∓ ;
A2) 23.dxe5
£a5+∓ ;
B) 22...
£a5+ 23.¢e2 ¤xe5 24.£g3+ ¤eg4 25.¦xa1 £b5+
is evaluated as unclear by
Byrne and Mednis. Seems to me that Black is in deep trouble.
26.
¢d1 £xh5 27.¥d2 £f5
28.
¦e5! £c2+ 29.¢e1∓ ]
24
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-wqr+k+0{
9+p+N+p+-0
9-+p+psn-vL0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9rzP-+QzPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now, instead of simply recapturing, Burger brings the game to a quick conclusion.
21...
£a5!!
[ 21...
£xd7 22.£e5± ]
22.
¤xf6+ ¢h8 23.£d3 ¦a1+ 24.£b1 ¦a8 25.£xa1 £xa1+ 26.¢d2 £xb2+ 27.¢e3 £c3+
28.
¢f4
The material difference is not as important as the fact that the
¢ is fleeing while Black's b-
13
§ is near the queening square. The White ¦s are impotent and pose no threat.
b2 29.
¤e4 £c2
30.
¤d2 £f5+ 31.¢g3 ¦g8+ 32.¢h2 £xh5+ 33.¢g1 £xh6
0-1
24
Sisniega
2410
Lobron
2490
New York
1988
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.£e2 0-0
Yet another approach by
Lobron, who seems to be reluctant to repeat himself despite all successes!
14.
¤e5
¦c8
15.
¦he1 b5 16.¢b1
25
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rwq-trk+0{
9zp-+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+p+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+K+RtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A more cautious alternative to 16.
¤f5!?
b4
17.f4
¤d5=
The
¤d5 has secured its position.
18.
¤e4 f5!?
An important decision, which takes away the outpost at e4, but weakens e6 in the
process.
19.
¤f2 ¥h4! 20.¤ed3 £e7
The pin at f2 does not keep White from going after e6.
21.
£xe6+ £xe6 22.¦xe6 ¤7f6
26
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-trk+0
9zp-+-+-zp-0
9-+p+Rsn-zp0
9+-+n+p+P0
9-zp-zP-zP-vl0
9+-+N+-+-0
9PzPPvL-sNP+0
9+K+R+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The standard weakness at h5 gives Black full compensation.
23.
¦h1
¥xf2
24.
¤xf2
a5
The
¦h1 is very passive, and Black now takes over the initiative.
25.
¦e5 ¤d7 26.¦ee1 c5
27.dxc5
¦xc5 28.¤d3 ¦c7
Black still has three forms of compensation - the weakness of the
§
at e6 and the limited scope of the
¥d2 and, perhaps most importantly, much more active pieces.
29.
¦e2 ¦fc8 30.¦c1 ¦c4 31.¤e5 ¤xe5 32.¦xe5 ¦d4
[ 32...
¤xf4 33.¦xf5 ¤e2 34.¦e1 ¤g3 35.¦f3 ¤xh5³ ]
14
33.
¦e2 ¤xf4 34.¥xf4 ¦xf4 35.¦e5
27
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-+k+0{
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9zp-+-tRp+P0
9-zp-+-tr-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-+P+0
9+KtR-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦a8 36.c3 bxc3 37.¦xc3 a4 38.¦f3 ¦g4! 39.¦exf5 ¦xg2 40.¦f2 ¦g1+ 41.¦f1 ¦xf1+
42.
¦xf1 ¦a5 43.¦h1 g5 44.hxg6 ¢g7 45.b4 ¦f5 46.¢b2 ¦f3 47.¦g1 h5 48.¦g5 h4
49.b5 h3 50.b6 a3+ 51.
¢c2 ¦f6 52.¦h5 ¦xb6
½-½
25
Van Mil
2370
Fette
2385
Lugano open
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.£e2 0-0 14.¤e5
28
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
c5!?
It is probably appropriate for Black to play this right away, before White can coordinate his
pieces.
15.dxc5
¥xc5 16.f4
[ 16.
¤xd7 £xd7 17.¥g5 ¤d5 18.c4?! ( 18.¥d2= ) 18...hxg5 19.cxd5 ¦ac8! 20.¢b1 exd5
21.h6 g6 22.
£e5 f6 23.£xd5+ £xd5 24.¦xd5 ¦fd8∓
Van der Wiel - Fette, Lugano 1989.
]
16...
¦c8 17.¢b1 £c7 18.¤xd7 £xd7 19.¤e4 ¤xe4 20.£xe4 ¦fd8 21.£e2 £c6
(Diagram 29)
15
29
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rtr-+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+q+p+-zp0
9+-vl-+-+P0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPvLQ+P+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black's chances are certainly no worse here.
22.
¥c3 ¦d5 23.¦xd5 exd5 24.¦e1 d4 25.¥d2
¥b6 26.£e4 £xe4 27.¦xe4 g6 28.a4 f5 29.¦e5 ¦c5 30.¦e7 ¦c7 31.¦e5 ¦c5 32.¦e1
gxh5 33.
¥b4 ¦c4 34.¥a3 ¦xa4 35.¦e7 d3 36.cxd3 ¦xf4 37.¥d6 ¦g4 38.g3 h4 39.gxh4
¦xh4 40.¥e5 ¦h1+ 41.¢c2 ¦e1 42.d4 f4 43.¦g7+ ¢f8 44.¦g4 ¦e4 45.¢d3 ¦e3+
46.
¢c4 f3 47.¢d5 ¥d8 48.¦f4+ ¢g8 49.¢e6 ¥g5 50.¦f7 ¥h4 51.¦g7+ ¢f8 52.¦h7
¦xe5+ 53.dxe5 f2 54.¦f7+ ¢e8 55.¦f3 h5 56.b3 a5 57.¦f4 ¥g3 58.¦c4 ¢d8 59.¦d4+
¢e8 60.¦c4 ¢d8 61.¦c1 h4 62.¢f6 h3 63.e6 ¥h4+ 64.¢f7 h2 65.¦b1 ¥g5 66.¦d1+
¢c7 67.¢g6 ¥e7 68.¢f5 ¥b4 69.¦h1 ¢d6 70.¢g4 ¢xe6 71.¢g3 ¥d6+ 72.¢g2 ¢d5
73.
¦d1+ ¢c5 74.¢xf2 ¢b4 75.¢g2 ¥e5 76.¦d5
½-½
27
Grunfeld
Lobron
Biel
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.£e2 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 a5
30
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9zp-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
(For 13...c5!? see Tseshkovsky - Van Mil, Kusadasi 1990)
14.
¤e5 a4 15.f4 a3
Black's play is
very straightforward - he thrusts the a-pawn at White's jugular!
16.b3 0-0 17.f5
16
31
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sNP+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9zpP+-+-sN-0
9P+PvLQ+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
White correctly takes aim at the weakest square in Black's camp - e6. But the reply closes the e-
file and takes the sting out of the move.
¤xe5! 18.dxe5
[ 18.
£xe5 ¥d6 19.£e3 £c7
gives Black the initiative.
]
18...
¤d5 19.¢b1
[ 19.f6
¥xf6! 20.exf6 £xf6
and Whtie is defenseless along the diagonal.
]
19...
£b6 20.c4
This creates a weakness, but the
¤d5 is simply too dominating.
£d4! 21.¥e1
¤c3+
22.
¥xc3
£xc3
Black's advantage is obvious - the dark squares are his, and the
queenside lies undefended.
23.
¦d3 £a5 24.f6
What else?
gxf6 25.exf6
¥xf6 26.¤e4 ¥g7±
27.c5 f5!
Well-timed! At the risk of a slight weakening of e6, Black drives away the only enemy
piece which is causing any trouble, and simultaneously deprives c5 of its only support.
28.
¤d6
£xc5 29.¦c1 £a7!
No job too humble for the
£, which slips into defensive mode for a moment.
30.
£xe6+ ¢h8 31.¦cd1 b5 32.¦3d2 ¦f6 33.£e2 ¦ff8 34.¦c2
The d-
‘ was not proving
useful anyway.
f4!
The c-
§ is of no consequence.
35.
¦xc6 £e3 36.£xb5
The endgame would
have been horrible if the
£s came off.
[ 36.
£xe3 fxe3 37.¤xb5 ¦a5! 38.¤c3 ¦f2∓ ]
36...f3 37.g4
[ 37.gxf3
¦xf3
and the White
¢ is in more danger than its counterpart.
]
37...f2 38.
¤f5 £e4+ 39.¢c1
32
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-tr-mk0{
9+-+-+-vl-0
9-+R+-+-zp0
9+Q+-+N+P0
9-+-+q+P+0
9zpP+-+-+-0
9P+-+-zp-+0
9+-mKR+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦xf5!
0-1
17
28
Vogt
Doleschall
Budapest
1985
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.£e2 c5 14.¦he1! 0-0
33
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This allows White to use f5 to infiltrate Black's position.
15.
¤f5 exf5 16.£xe7 ¤e4! 17.£xd8
¦fxd8 18.¥e3 ¤df6 19.dxc5 ¤xh5 20.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 21.¦d1 ¦c8
34
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-zP-+p+n0
9-+-+n+-+0
9+-+-vLN+-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black wisely declines the offer to enter an endgame in which White's
¥ is stronger than Black's
¤.
22.
¦d7 ¤xc5 23.¥xc5 ¦xc5 24.¦xb7 a5 25.¤e1
(Diagram 35)
18
35
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0{
9+R+-+pzp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9zp-tr-+p+n0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+-mK-sN-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White is clearly better, and in order to survive Black must try to exchange
§s on on the » as
quickly as possible.
¤f4
[ 25...f4 26.
¤d3 ¦g5 27.¦a7 ¦xg2 28.¦xa5 g5 29.c4 ¢f8
would probably not have held,
but might have provided more resistance.
]
26.g3
¤h3 27.¤d3 ¦d5 28.a4!
The decisive move, threatening to dominate the 5th rank.
f4
29.
¦b5 ¦d4
[ 29...
¦xb5 30.axb5 fxg3 31.fxg3+- ]
30.b3
¤xf2 31.¤xf4
[ 31.
¤xf2 fxg3 32.¤h3 ¦h4
and it is Black who will collect the point!
]
31...g5 32.
¤e2 ¦d1+ 33.¢b2 ¦d2 34.¦e5 f6 35.¢c3 ¦xc2+ 36.¢xc2 fxe5
36
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9zp-+-zp-zp-0
9P+-+-+-+0
9+P+-+-zP-0
9-+K+Nsn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has an extra
§ but his ¢ is too far away, and White strikes quickly!
37.b4!
axb4
38.a5
¤g4 39.a6 ¤e3+ 40.¢b3 ¤d5 41.a7 ¤c7 42.¢xb4
(Diagram 37)
19
37
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0{
9zP-sn-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-+-zp-zp-0
9-mK-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-+-+N+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now the Black
¤ is relegated to the role of minder, and the White ¢ and ¤ work together toward
a successful conclusion of the game.
¢f8 43.¢c5 ¢e8 44.¤c3 e4
[ 44...
¢d7 45.¤d5 ¤a8 46.¤b6++- ¢c7 47.¤xa8+ ¢b7 48.¤b6 ¢xa7 49.¤c4 e4
50.
¢d4 h5 51.¢xe4 h4 52.g4 ¢b7 53.¤d2 ¢c6 54.¢f5+- ]
45.
¢c6 ¢d8 46.¤xe4 ¢c8 47.¤d6+ ¢d8 48.¤f7+
1-0
29
Lobron
Douven
Amsterdam
1987
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.£e2 a5 14.¤e5 a4 15.a3
38
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9p+-zP-+-+0
9zP-+-+-sN-0
9-zPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Lobron, as White, chooses this prophylactic plan, but it hardly looks like a panacea for his
queenside ills, despite the success in this game.
0-0 16.
¦h3 ¦c8
[ 16...
£c7!? 17.¤g6 ( 17.¢b1 ¤xe5 18.dxe5 ¤d7
and the Rh3 looks a bit artificial.
)
17...fxg6 18.
£xe6+ ¢h8 ( 18...¦f7 19.hxg6 ) 19.£xe7 ( 19.hxg6 £d6! ) 19...¦ae8 20.£b4
¤d5 21.£xa4 ¦xf2 22.hxg6 ¦xg2 23.¥xh6 gxh6! ( 23...¦xg3 24.¥f4+ ) 24.¦xh6+
A) 24...
¢g7? 25.¦dh1 £f4+ 26.¢b1 ¦e1+ ( 26...£xh6 27.¤f5+ ¢xg6 28.¤xh6 )
27.
¦xe1 £xh6 28.¤f5+ ¢xg6 29.¤xh6 ¢xh6 30.£b3+- ;
B) 24...
¢g8! 25.¦dh1 £f4+ 26.¢b1 ¦e1+ 27.¦xe1 £xh6 28.£a8+ ¤f8∓ ]
17.
¢b1 c5 18.¥c1 £c7 19.¤g6! fxg6 20.£xe6+ ¢h8 21.hxg6
Now we see that the move
20
¦h1-h3 can have a real impact on the kingside attack, when the other ¦ goes to h1.
£d6
Black tries to get rid of the big attacker which controls the important light squares.
22.
£xd6
¥xd6 23.¤f5! ¤e4 24.¤xd6 ¤xf2
[ 24...
¤xd6 25.dxc5
wins a piece.
]
25.
¦e1 ¤xh3 26.¤xc8 ¦xc8 27.gxh3 ¤f8 28.dxc5
39
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-sn-mk0{
9+p+-+-zp-0
9-+-+-+Pzp0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9p+-+-+-+0
9zP-+-+-+P0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9+KvL-tR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
When the dust settles White has an extra pawn and more powerful minor piece.
¤xg6 29.¦e4
¦xc5 30.¦xa4 ¦h5 31.¦b4 ¦xh3 32.¦xb7 ¦h1 33.a4
Just a footrace.
¤f4 34.¦e7 ¤d5
35.
¦e5 ¤c7 36.a5 g5 37.¦c5 ¤a6 38.¦c6 ¤b4 39.¦b6 ¤d5 40.¦b8+ ¢g7 41.a6
1-0
30
Heidrich
Lobron
2530
Bundesliga
1987
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.£e2 ¤gf6 12.¥d2 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 ¦c8
40
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rwqk+-tr0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It is interesting that Lobron chose this move, given his success against Grunfeld with 13...a5!? at
Lugano, 1981. But even this quiet move threatens to punch open the queenside.
14.
¤e5 0-0
[ 14...
¤xe5 15.dxe5 ¤d5
makes less sense with the
¦ at c8.
]
15.
¦he1 b5 16.¤f5!?
Sisniega - Lobron, New York 1988 saw the more conservative 16.
¢b1.
exf5 17.
¤xd7 £xd7 18.£xe7
The little combination has created a pawn structure which would
favor White were it not for the fact that his h-
§ is so weak. But the endgame is not what Black is
21
after!
£d5! 19.¢b1
[ 19.
£xa7? ¦a8 20.£c5 £xa2 21.¥b4 ¤e4
is gruesome.
]
19...
¦ce8 20.£c7 ¦xe1 21.¦xe1 £xg2 22.¥b4 ¦e8! 23.b3
[ 23.
¦xe8+ ¤xe8 24.£e7 £f1+ 25.£e1 £xe1+ 26.¥xe1 ¤f6∓ ]
23...
¦xe1+ 24.¥xe1 £e4 25.¥c3 £f3 26.£d8+ ¢h7 27.¢b2 ¤d5
41
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-wQ-+-+0
9zp-+-+pzpk0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+p+n+p+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+PvL-+q+-0
9PmKP+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The old notion of good
¤ vs. bad ¥ is exemplified here.
28.
¥e1 £e4
0-1
31
Tseshkovsky
Van Mil
Kusadasi
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.£e2 c5
42
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
(For 13...a5!?, see Gruenfeld - Lobron, Biel 1981)
14.dxc5
£c7 15.¤e4 ¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤xc5
17.
£e5??
(Diagram 43)
22
43
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0{
9zppwq-vlpzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-sn-wQ-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤d3+
0-1
34
Garma
2280
Lobron
2535
Novi Sad ol
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¢b1
44
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
c5!
White's quiet move allows Black to resolve the central questions immediately.
14.
¤e4
[ 14.dxc5
¤xc5 15.£b5+ £d7 16.£xd7+ ¤cxd7
gives Black an excellent and solid
position.
]
14...0-0 15.dxc5
[ 15.
¥c3!? b6 16.¤xf6+ ¤xf6
looks about even.
]
15...
¤xc5 16.¤xc5 ¥xc5 17.£e2 £b6³
Black already has the initiative, and f2 is feeling the
heat.
18.
¤e5 ¦fd8!
[ 18...
¥xf2? 19.¦hf1 ¥d4 20.¤c4 £c5 21.c3 b5 22.¥xh6
A) 22...bxc4 23.cxd4 ( 23.
¦xd4 gxh6 24.¦xf6 £g5 25.¦ff4 e5-+ ) 23...£e7 24.¥g5± ;
B) 22...
£xc4 23.£xc4 bxc4 24.cxd4 gxh6 25.¦xf6 ¢g7 26.¦f4²
since the c-
§ is difficult
to defend.
]
19.g4
¥d4 20.¤d3 ¤d5
All of Black's pieces are getting into the act, while White's are badly
placed.
21.g5
23
45
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-tr-+k+0{
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-wq-+p+-zp0
9+-+n+-zPP0
9-+-vl-+-+0
9+-+N+-+-0
9PzPPvLQzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Not finding an effective defense, White decides to counterattack.
hxg5 22.h6
[ 22.
¥xg5?? ¤c3+ ]
22...g6 23.h7+
¢h8
The Black king is now perfectly safe, and all endgames are winning for him,
too.
24.c4
¤f4 25.¥xf4 gxf4 26.¤e5 £c7 27.¦xd4 ¦xd4 28.b3
[ 28.
¤xg6+ fxg6 29.£xe6 £g7-+
is a complete defense.
]
28...
¦ad8 29.¤f3 £c5 30.¤xd4 £xd4
The return of the exchange secures an easy win.
31.
¢c2 e5∓ 32.b4 f3 33.£xf3 £xc4+ 34.¢b1 £xb4+ 35.¢a1 £d4+ 36.¢b1 ¦d6
0-1
40
Wheldon
Lobron
London
1987
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.c4 0-0 14.¥c3
46
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-vLQ+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is yet another line where an early c4 by White is not effective because Black, having castled
short, can strike quickly on the queenside.
b5 15.
¤e5
[ 15.c5
¤d5
∆ b4.
]
[ 15.cxb5?
cxb5
and White is in bad shape, with Black commanding d5, the c-
‘, and
threatening an advance of the b-
§.
]
15...bxc4 16.
£xc4 ¤b6! 17.¥a5
[ 17.
£xc6 ¦c8 18.£b7 ¤bd5 19.¤e2 ¤e4 20.¦hf1 ¤dxc3 21.bxc3 ¤xc3 22.¤xc3 ¦xc3+
24
23.
¢b2 ¦c7
And the
¢ is stipped bare.
]
17...
¤xc4 18.¥xd8 ¦fxd8 19.¤xc4 ¦d5
47
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-+k+0
9zp-+-vlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+r+-+P0
9-+NzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
After a few forced moves Black has many targets on both sides of the board, while White cannot
easily get at the weakness at c6.
20.
¤e3 ¦g5 21.¦h4 ¦b8 22.¦d3 ¦b7 23.¦b3
Advancing
the b-
§ would weaken too many dark-squares.
¦xb3 24.axb3 ¥d6! 25.¤ef1 ¢f8 26.¢c2
¢e7
48
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9zp-+-mkpzp-0
9-+pvlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-trP0
9-+-zP-+-tR0
9+P+-+-sN-0
9-zPK+-zPP+0
9+-+-+N+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Even if the players were evenly matched, White would not be likely to hold the game, given his
many weaknesses. In this game, Lobron cleans up.
27.f4
¦g4 28.¦xg4 ¤xg4 29.¤e2 ¤f6
30.
¤fg3 ¤d5 31.f5 ¤e3+! 32.¢d3 ¤xg2 33.¢e4 ¤h4 34.fxe6 ¢xe6 35.¤f1
It is not clear
whether White lost on time, or simply gave up. but after 35... g5 the win is simple.
0-1
44
Vitolins
Kivlans
Latvian ch
1978
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.c3 ¤gf6 13.a4 c5
The normal move, although
Bronstein's 14...Nd5 is my preference.
14.0-0
¥e7!? 15.¦fe1 0-0
[ 15...
¤d5?! 16.¥d2 cxd4 17.¤xd4 0-0 18.c4 ¤b4 19.£b3 £b6 20.¤gf5!±
ERmenkov -
Gomez, Thessaloniki ol 1984.
]
16.
¤f5?!
25
[ 16.
¤e5! ¤xe5 17.dxe5 ¤d5 18.¥d2 ¦fd8 19.¤e4 ¤f6
(Kasparov & Shakarov)
20.
¤xf6+
¥xf6 21.£g3 ¥h4 22.£xh4 ¦xd2 23.b4
with counterplay.
]
16...
¦fe8
[ 16...exf5? 17.
¦xe7 cxd4 18.¤xd4
‚
]
49
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+r+k+0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9wq-zp-+N+P0
9P+-zP-vL-+0
9+-zPQ+N+-0
9-zP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
17.
¤xh6+!? gxh6 18.¤e5 ¤xe5 19.dxe5 ¤h7
This position is more dangerous for Black
than might appear at first sight. His
£ is far away and the ¦s are not of much use either. White
has paths for his
¦s to get into the game, and he will have 2 §s as material compensation.
20.
¥xh6 ¥f8 21.¥f4 ¢h8
The h-
‘ is obviously safer than the g-‘.
22.
¦e4 £c7 23.¦ae1÷
¥e7 24.¥h6 ¦g8
[ 24...
¥f8 25.£e3 ( 25.¥xf8 ¦xf8
and it is difficult to continue the attack.
; 25.
¥f4!? ) 25...¥xh6
26.
£xh6 ¦g8 27.¦f4 ¦g7
looks more solid.
]
25.
£f3 ¥g5 26.¥xg5 ¦xg5 27.g4 ¦d8∓ 28.£e2 f5 29.exf6 ¤xf6 30.¦xe6 ¦xg4+ 31.¢f1
¦dg8 32.£e5 ¦g1+ 33.¢e2 ¦xe1+ 34.¢xe1 £xe5+ 35.¦xe5 ¦e8 36.¦xe8+ ¤xe8
50
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+n+-mk0
9zpp+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9P+-+-+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-zP-+-zP-+0
9+-+-mK-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Because the Black
¢ is so far away from the «, his material advantage is not sufficient for victory.
37.
¢e2 ¤d6 38.b4 ¤e4 39.¢d3 ¤xf2+ 40.¢c4 cxb4 41.cxb4 ¤d1 42.a5 ¢g7 43.¢c5
¤c3 44.¢d6 b6 45.¢c6
and the pawns must leave the board, and with them, any hopes for a
Black win.
½-½
26
45
Gaprindashvili
Nikolac
Wijk aan Zee
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.c3 ¤gf6 13.a4 c5 14.0-0 ¦c8?! 15.¦fe1 c4
16.
£c2 ¥e7
[ 16...
¤d5 17.¥e5!? f6 18.£g6+ ¢d8 19.¤e4 fxe5 20.dxe5N
∆ ¤f3-d4xe6+.
]
17.
¤e5 0-0
51
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-trk+0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9wq-+-sN-+P0
9P+pzP-vL-+0
9+-zP-+-sN-0
9-zPQ+-zPP+0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
18.
¤f5! ¦fe8?
[ 18...exf5? 19.
¤xd7 ¤xd7 20.¦xe7± ]
[ 18...
£d8!
was the best chance, though White still has a strong position.
]
19.
¤xg7!!
led to a brilliant and vicious conclusion.
¢xg7 20.¥xh6+ ¢xh6 21.¤xf7+ ¢xh5
22.g4+!
¢h4 23.f3 ¤xg4 24.¦e4
1-0
46
Panchenko
Bronstein
Moscow Ch
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.c3 ¤gf6 13.a4
(Diagram 52)
27
52
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9wq-+-+-+P0
9P+-zP-vL-+0
9+-zPQ+NsN-0
9-zP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
In this line White intends to castle short, so that his
¢ does not become a target on the «. 13...c5
is normal but Bronstein's move is also appealing.
¤d5!? 14.¥d2 £c7
Black follows the normal
strategy of keeping control of f4. White's position already seems artificial, especially the pawn
advances on the
«.
15.
¢f1
So now White decides to attack on the
», and figures that the ¦ is
better on h1.
a5 16.
£e2 ¥e7 17.¤e5 ¤xe5 18.£xe5
[ 18.dxe5
¥g5!? 19.¥xg5 hxg5
and Black controls f4.
]
18...
£xe5 19.dxe5 ¤b6
This
¤ will be effective on the light squares on the a6-f1 diagonal, and
in particular, the weakness at c4.
20.
¥f4
53
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0{
9+p+-vlpzp-0
9-snp+p+-zp0
9zp-+-zP-+P0
9P+-+-vL-+0
9+-zP-+-sN-0
9-zP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-+K+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
f5!?
It is not clear that this radical move was necessary.
[ 20...
¤c4!? ]
[ 20...0-0-0!? ]
21.exf6 gxf6 22.
¢e2 ¢f7 23.¦hd1 f5
Bronstein seems obsessed with this move!
24.
¥e3
[ 24.
¥e5 ¦hd8
∆ ¤c4.
]
24...
¤d5 25.¥d4 ¦hd8 26.c4
The powerful
¤ must be dislodged, but this is achieved only at a
great cost to the queenside structure.
¤f6
∆ f5-f4 ×h5.
27.
¥e5 ¤g4 28.¥c7 ¦dc8! 29.¥f4
e5
³ 30.¥d2 ¢e6 31.¥c3 ¥c5∓ 32.¤h1 ¦g8! 33.¢f1 f4!
The weakness of the
§ at h5 is now
a critical liability for White.
34.
¦d3 ¦g5 35.¦h3 b6
By defending the
§ at a5, Black now frees
the
¦ to join its colleague, by traveling to f5.
36.
¦e1 ¦d8 37.¢e2 e4 38.f3 ¤e5 39.¥xe5
(Diagram 54)
28
54
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-+0{
9+-+-+-+-0
9-zpp+k+-zp0
9zp-vl-vL-trP0
9P+P+pzp-+0
9+-+-+P+R0
9-zP-+K+P+0
9+-+-tR-+N0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦xg2+! 40.¢f1 ¦dd2 41.¥d4 e3!
[ 41...
¥xd4 42.¦xe4+ ¢f5 43.¦xd4 ]
42.
¥xc5
bxc5
43.
¦h4
and White resigned (presumably at adjournment) since the
¤ is
permanently trapped and Black can simply defend his f-
§ and then eradicate the « §s.
0-1
49
Belyavsky
Tal
USSR
1981
[Schiller/Tal]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 0-0 14.£e2 £a5
55
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9wq-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPP+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
15.
¢b1 ¦ad8 16.c4
[ 16.
¤g6!? fxg6 17.£xe6+ ¢h8 18.£xe7 ( 18.hxg6 ¤g8 ) 18...¤d5 19.¥d2 £xa2+
20.
¢xa2 ¤xe7 21.¥b4 c5
is given by Tal, who suggests that there are chances for both sides.
I think that White is perhaps for choice after...
22.dxc5
¤c6 23.¥c3 g5 24.f3 ¤xc5 25.¦xd8
¤xd8 ( 25...¦xd8 26.¤f5! ) 26.¥b4 b6 27.¦e1 ]
16...
¤xe5 17.dxe5 ¤d7 18.¦d2
[ 18.a3!?
¤c5 19.£c2 ]
18...
¥g5! 19.¥xg5 hxg5 20.h6
[ 20.
¦hd1? ¤xe5! 21.¦xd8 ¦xd8 22.¦xd8+ £xd8 23.£xe5?? £d1# ]
20...
¤xe5!
29
[ 20...
£xe5? 21.h7+ ¢h8 ]
[ 20...g6? 21.h7+
¢h8 22.¦hd1± ]
56
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zP0
9wq-+-sn-zp-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-tRQzPP+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
21.
¦d5!
A beutiful isolation theme one would expect more often from the player of the Black
pieces. In addition, it is the only move.
[ 21.hxg7?
¦xd2 22.gxf8£+ ¢xf8 23.£e4 ¤d3-+ ]
[ 21.
¦xd8? ¦xd8 22.hxg7 ¢xg7∓ ]
21...
¦xd5
[ 21...exd5 22.
£xe5 gxh6 23.¤f5 f6 24.£e6+ ¢h8 25.¦xh6# ]
22.cxd5
£xd5 23.hxg7 ¢xg7
and here the game was agreed drawn because of
24.
¤h5+
¢g6 25.¤f4+ gxf4 26.£h5+ ¢f6 27.£h4+ ¢f5 28.£h5+
½-½
50
Timman
Lobron
Plovdiv
1983
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 0-0 14.£e2 a5
57
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9zp-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPP+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
15.c4?!
[ 15.
¦he1
looks much more promising.
]
30
15...a4 16.
¢b1 a3 17.b3 ¦a6 18.£f3 £c8 19.¦he1 ¦d8 20.£e3 c5 21.¤xd7 ¦xd7
½-½
51
Karpov
Huebner
Tilburg
1982
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 0-0 14.c4
58
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is a logical continuation, and Black will have to play very carefully, or perhaps very
recklessly, to maintain good chances.
c5
[ 14...
¤xe5
is worth testing.
15.dxe5 ( 15.
¥xe5 ¤g4 ) 15...£c7
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
15.d5
¤xe5
[ 15...exd5
concedes control of f5, which can be exploited immediately by
16.
¤f5! ]
16.
¥xe5 ¤g4
59
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-zpPvL-+P0
9-+P+-+n+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Suddenly the game takes on a highly aggressive character.
17.
¥xg7!?
[ 17.f4
¤f2 18.£e2÷ ( 18.£c3? ¤xd1 19.¦xd1 f6 20.dxe6 £b6! 21.¤f5 £xe6 22.¤xe7+
£xe7 23.¥d6 £e4! 24.¥xf8 £xf4+∓ )]
17...
¢xg7
[ 17...
¤xf2 18.£f3 ¤xh1 19.¥xf8 ¥g5+ 20.¢b1 ¤xg3÷
is given by Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
18.
£e2 ¥g5+
[ 18...
¤f6 19.dxe6 £c7 20.¤f5+ ¢h7 21.£c2! ]
31
19.
¢b1 ¤f6 20.dxe6 £c8 21.e7 ¦e8 22.¦d6!
The
¦ becomes a direct participant in the
attack.
£g4
[ 22...
¥f4 23.¦xf6! ¢xf6 ( 23...¥xg3 24.£f3 ¦xe7 25.fxg3± ) 24.£f3 £c7 25.¤e2 ¦xe7
26.
¤xf4 ¢g7 27.¤d5± ]
23.
£e5 ¢g8
60
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+r+k+0
9zpp+-zPp+-0
9-+-tR-sn-zp0
9+-zp-wQ-vlP0
9-+P+-+q+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
24.
¦e1!
[ 24.
¦xf6 ¥xf6 25.£xf6 £e6³ ]
24...
¤d7 25.¦xd7!
This sacrifice deflects the Black
£ into a position where it can be forced from
the board, leading to an endgame which is easy for a player of Karpov's ability.
£xd7
26.
¤f5
f6
™
[ 26...
£d3+ 27.¢a1 £d4 28.¤xd4 ¦xe7 29.£xe7 ¥xe7 30.¤f5 ¥g5²
Perhaps this
evaluation understates the advantage, but where Varnusz sees +- is beyond me!
31.
¦e5 ]
27.
£d5+! £xd5 28.cxd5
Although the material imbalance is still huge, Black's
¦ lie impotently
on the back rank and are no match for White's extra
§s. The ¥ doesn't do much, either .
¥f4
29.g3
¥c7 30.¢c2 b5
[ 30...
¢h7 31.d6 ¥a5 ( 31...¥xd6 32.¤xd6 ¢g8 33.¤xb7 ¦ab8 34.¤d6± ) 32.¦e6
∆ d7.
]
31.
¤xh6+
[ 31.d6
¥xd6 32.¤xd6 ¦ab8 33.¤xe8 ¦xe8³
and the e-
§ falls.
]
31...
¢h7 32.¤f5 ¦g8 33.d6 ¥a5 34.¦e6 ¦g5 35.¦xf6 ¦xh5 36.d7 ¦h2 37.¤e3
1-0
52
Andres
A.Rodriguez
Palma Sonano
1983
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¥b4+ 12.c3 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¤e5 0-0 15.c4²
White is better, according to ECO II (1987)
c5 16.d5 exd5
[ 16...
¤xe5 17.¥xe5² ]
17.
¤f5! ¤xe5 18.¥xe5 ¤g4! 19.¥xg7 ¥g5+
[ 19...
¤xf2 20.£f3 ( 20.¤xe7+ £xe7 21.£g3 £g5+ 22.£xg5 hxg5 23.¥xf8 ¦xf8 24.cxd5
¤xh1 25.¦xh1 ¦d8 26.¦d1 f5
gives Black the better endgame.
) 20...
¥g5+ 21.¢b1
is given by Rodriguez without further comment.
¤xh1 22.¥xf8 £xf8 23.¦xh1 dxc4 24.£xb7
¦b8! 25.£xa7 c3 26.b3 £e8
looks very good for Black.
]
32
61
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpp+-+pvL-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-zpp+NvlP0
9-+P+-+n+0
9+-+Q+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
20.f4
[ 20.
¢b1 ¤xf2 21.£f3 ¤xd1 ( 21...¤xh1 22.¦xd5
gives White a very strong attack, as the
¤
at h1 has no significance.
) 22.
¦xd1 ( 22.¥xf8 £xf8 23.¦xd1 dxc4∓ ) 22...¦e8
leads to
unclear complications after 23.
¥xh6 or 23.cxd5.
]
20...
¥xf4+ 21.¢b1 ¦e8
[ 21...dxc4 22.
£e4! £g5 23.¦hf1+- ]
[ 21...
¤f2 22.£f3 ¤xd1 ( 22...£g5 23.¦xd5 ) 23.£xf4 £g5 24.¤xh6++- ]
22.
£f3
[ 22.
¦hf1!?
is suggested by Rodriguez.
]
22...
£g5
and the position was agreed drawn, though there remains much to examine here.
23.
¦xd5
62
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+r+k+0{
9zpp+-+pvL-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-zpR+NwqP0
9-+P+-vln+0
9+-+-+Q+-0
9PzP-+-+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦e5!!
What a brilliant exploitation of an interference theme! What follows is based on analysis by
Amador Rodriguez, published in Chess Informant 36.
24.
¦xe5
[ 24.
¥xe5 £xf5+ 25.£d3 £xd3+ 26.¦xd3 ¤xe5 27.¦d5 ¦e8 ( 27...b6? 28.¦h4 ¥g3
29.
¦h3+- ) 28.¦xc5 ¤d3 29.¦f5 ¥g5³ ]
24...
¤xe5
[ 24...
¥xe5 25.¦h4! £d2 26.¥xe5 £e1+ 27.¢c2 ¤xe5 28.£e4 £f2+ 29.¢b3± ]
25.
£e4 ¤xc4! 26.¦d1!! ¤d6
[ 26...
¤d2+ 27.¦xd2 ¥xd2 28.¥xh6 ]
27.
¤xd6
[ 27.
¦xd6?! ¥xd6 28.¥xh6 £xh5∓ ]
27...
¥xd6 28.¥c3
and here Rodrriguez indicates that White's initiative compensates for the
§.
Unless he can contest some of the central light squares, it seems to me that Black might be in
considerable trouble here.
½-½
33
56
Timman
Huebner
Tilburg
1982
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 0-0 14.¤xd7 £xd7 15.¥e5
63
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0{
9zpp+qvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-vL-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This plan, which does not involve the exchange of the other pair of
¤s, was introduced by Jan
Timman in this game.
¦ad8
It is not clear what Kasparov really thinks about this move. In BCO II
(1989) he provides no alternative, but in the 1983 book with Shakarov he suggests an idea which
remains untested.
[ 15...
¤g4!?
This move, given without further comment, deserves serious investigation, since I
think that it will be hard for Black to equalize later.
]
16.
£e3 £d5 17.¢b1 ¦d7?!
[ 17...b5
is suggested without further comment in Kasparov & Shakarov, but I am not sure that
Black is secure here.
18.f3!
White now threatens to plant a
¤ at e4 and continue with his »
attack. I think that Black is worse here, lacking clear counterplay, e.g.
¤d7
19.
¥c7
¦c8
20.
¥f4 ¦fd8 21.¤e4 c5 22.g4 cxd4 23.¦xd4 £c6 24.¦h2
∆ g5.
]
18.c4
£a5
19.f4
b5
Now it is too late, becuase White can advance the c-
§ and seal the
position.
20.c5
± ¦d5 21.f5 ¤d7 22.¥f4 £d8 23.fxe6 fxe6 24.£xe6+ ¦f7 25.¦hf1!
Black's position is now hopeless.
¤f6 26.¤f5 ¥f8 27.¥e5 £d7 28.¤xh6+ gxh6 29.¦xf6
¥g7 30.£xd7 ¦fxd7 31.¦df1 ¥xf6 32.¦xf6 ¦g7 33.¦xc6 ¦xg2 34.¦g6+ ¦xg6 35.hxg6
h5 36.c6
¦d8 37.¥f6 ¦d6 38.c7 ¦c6 39.¥e5 ¢f8 40.d5 ¦c4 41.b3
1-0
57
Zapata
Garcia Palermo
Bayamo
1983
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 0-0 14.¢b1
(Diagram 64)
34
64
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤xe5 15.¥xe5 ¤g4 16.£e2 ¤xe5 17.dxe5 £c7
White has some pressure here, with a
promising outpost at d6 and temporary control of the d-
‘. But at the same time he has to worry
about the weak
§s at e5 and h5.
18.f4
¦ad8
19.
¦df1
White trades the d-
‘ for attacking
potential on the
». But Black's position is solid, and there is no need for concern.
£a5
20.
¤e4
¦d4! 21.c3 ¦d7
The
¦ is driven back but doubling will still be possible, and now there is a slight
crack in the kingside pawn structure.
22.g4
¦fd8 23.¦h3 £a4!
Taking advantage of the fact
that d1 is now under-defended.
24.b3
£b5
An interesting decision. Black calculates that despite
the small weaknesses, White's
« is solid enough to withstand any attack, while the Black ¢ is
less secure.
[ 24...
£a5 25.g5 b5 26.gxh6 b4 27.£g4+- ]
25.
£xb5
[ 25.
£g2 ¦d3! 26.g5 ¦xh3 27.£xh3 hxg5 28.fxg5 £d3+ 29.£xd3 ¦xd3 30.¢c2 ¦e3
31.
¦f4 ¦e2+ 32.¢b1 ¥a3³ ]
25...cxb5 26.
¢c2
65
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+k+0{
9zpp+rvlpzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+p+-zP-+P0
9-+-+NzPP+0
9+PzP-+-+R0
9P+K+-+-+0
9+-+-+R+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The menacing kingside
§s are now a liability in the endgame.
b4 27.
¦g3 bxc3 28.¦xc3 ¥b4
29.
¦e3 ¦d4 30.¦e2
½-½
35
58
De Firmian
Korchnoi
Lugano
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 0-0
This has become
established as the major continuation, since 13...a5 is too risky.
14.
¤e4 ¤xe4 15.£xe4 ¤xe5
16.
¥xe5
The elimination of the
¤s has not achieved anything for White.
£d5!
Inviting an
exchange which would lead to a dead drawn endgame. But De Firmian insists on continuing the
battle.
17.
£g4!? f6 18.¥f4 £xa2!
Perhaps White was already regretting his decision, as it is
Black who has all the attacking chances here.
19.
¥xh6 ¦f7 20.c3 a5 21.¥d2 a4 22.¢c2
Time to evacuate! It is clear that only one
¢ is in danger here, and it isn't Korchnoi's!
£b3+
23.
¢d3 ¦d8 24.¢e2 e5!
66
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+k+0
9+p+-vlrzp-0
9-+p+-zp-+0
9+-+-zp-+P0
9p+-zP-+Q+0
9+qzP-+-+-0
9-zP-vLKzPP+0
9+-+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Open lines will lead to a quick finish.
25.dxe5
£b5+ 26.¢e1 £xe5+ 27.¥e3 ¦xd1+ 28.¢xd1
£d5+ 29.¢e2 f5!
The a- and e-
§s have had their say, and now it is time for the f-§ to finish the
game.
30.
£g6 f4 31.¥c1 ¥c5 32.£d3 £xg2!
And it is all over but the shouting.
33.
¦f1
£g4+ 34.¢d2 ¦d7
0-1
60
Belyavsky
Larsen
Tilburg
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e5 a5
(Diagram 67)
36
67
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9zp-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It is well-known that Larsen is enamored of rook pawns. This plan, however, should be
postponed until castling has been completed.
14.
¦he1 a4? 15.¤g6! ¤d5
[ 15...fxg6 16.
£xg6+ ¢f8 17.¦xe6
∆ ¤f5.
£e8 18.¦de1 £xg6 19.hxg6 ¥b4 20.c3 ¤d5
21.
¥d2 ¥a5 22.c4 ¥xd2+ 23.¢xd2 ¤5f6 24.¦e7±
∆ ¦f7, ¤f5 etc.
]
[ 15...a3!
is the most vigorous reply.
16.b3! ( 16.
¤xh8 axb2+ 17.¢b1 ¦a3 18.£e2 £a5
19.
¥d2 £a7© ) 16...¤d5 ( 16...fxg6 17.£xg6+ ¢f8 18.¦xe6 £e8 19.¤f5! £xg6 20.hxg6
¥b4 21.c3 ¤d5 22.cxb4 ¤xf4 23.¦e7± ) 17.¤f5! exf5 18.¤xe7! ¤xe7 19.¥d6 ¤e5
20.dxe5 0-0 21.e6!
¤d5 22.e7 £xd6 23.exf8£+ ¢xf8 24.£xf5
and Black has no way to
get to the long diagonal (a1-h8), and so he is just an exchange down. (Analysis by Belyavsky.
)
]
16.
¤f5 ¥f8
[ 16...exf5 17.
¤xe7 ¤xf4 ( 17...¤xe7 18.¥d6 ) 18.¤g6+ ¤e6 19.¤xh8+- ]
17.
¥d6 ¦g8 18.c4 ¤b4 19.£h3!
68
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvlr+0{
9+p+n+pzp-0
9-+pvLp+Nzp0
9+-+-+N+P0
9psnPzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+Q0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White gets ready to exploit the weakness of the light squares on the
». Except for the ¦ at d1, all
of Whitels pieces participate in the attack.
fxg6
[ 19...
¥xd6 20.¤xd6# ]
20.
¦xe6+ ¢f7 21.hxg6+!! ¢xe6 22.¦e1+ ¤e5 23.¥xe5
and Black resigned, rather than face
an ignominious checkmate.
¤d3+ 24.¢b1 ¤xe5
[ 24...
¢d7 25.¤xg7+ ¢e7 26.£e6# ]
25.
¦xe5+ ¢f6 26.¤g3 £c8 27.£h5 ¥d6 28.¤e4#
1-0
37
65
Geller
Burger
Reykjavik
1984
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¤e4
69
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPNvL-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black can achieve a reasonable game by exchanging knights here.
¤xe4
14.
£xe4
£a5?
But excessive greed can land him in deep trouble!
[ 14...
¤f6
is the obvious and natural move.
15.
£d3 ( 15.£e2 £d5 16.¢b1
is evaluated as
better for White by Karpov - a remark which Kasparov & Shakarov quote but do not comment
on. This received a test (via transposition) in Kupreichik - Lobron, Ljubljana 1989 (16...0-0).
)
15...
£d5 ( 15...£a5? 16.¢b1 ¤xh5 17.¥d2!± ) 16.c4 £e4= ]
15.
¢b1 ¤f6 16.£e2
[ 16.
£d3
is also good, since the pawn cannot be captured due to the trap mentioned in the
previous note.
]
16...
£b5
[ 16...
¤xh5?? 17.¥d2± ]
17.
¦d3!
[ 17.
£xb5 cxb5
is still about even, because Black controls the light squares c4, d5, and e4.
]
17...
¤xh5 18.¥c1 ¤f6 19.¤e5 £d5
[ 19...0-0 20.g4
with a strong attack.
]
20.
¦hd1
b5
Black must try to prevent c4 followed by a breakthrough in the center.
21.f4!
This simultaneously protects g2 and threatens to advance and disrupt the Black forecourt.
g6?!
This doesn't really help.
[ 21...
¦f8 22.f5 0-0-0? 23.¤xc6! ]
22.g4
¦b8 23.f5 gxf5 24.gxf5± ¦b7 25.fxe6 £xe6
(Diagram 70)
38
70
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+k+-tr0
9zpr+-vlp+-0
9-+p+qsn-zp0
9+p+-sN-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+R+-+-0
9PzPP+Q+-+0
9+KvLR+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
26.
£f1! ¤d5 27.¦f3 ¦h7 28.£g1!
Black could resign here.
¥h4
[ 28...
¥f8 29.¦e1 ¦e7 30.¥d2 £d6 31.£g8 ¦g7 32.£h8 f6 33.£xh6 ¦g5 34.£h8+- ]
1-0
66
Kupreichik
Lobron
Ljubljana
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.
¤c3 d5 3.d4 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥f4 ¤gf6 10.¥d3 ¥xd3 11.£xd3 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¢b1 0-0
71
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This is the newer approach from Lobron, one of the most successful employers of the Classical
Caro-Kann, who knows when to push his a-
§!
14.
¤e4
¤xe4
15.
£xe4
¤f6
16.
£e2
We now have a line similar to that which arises after 13.
¤e4, which is not a promising line for
White, though Karpov seems to think that White has an advantage here, if Black plays his
£ to
d5.
£d5
Evidently, Lobron disagrees.
17.
¤e5 £e4!
This
£ maneuver lies at the heart of many
of Black's games. In the endgame Black's chances are quite good, because the
§ at h5 is
generally a liability.
18.
£d2
[ 18.
£xe4 ¤xe4
does not give White anything - see Thorsteins - Lobron, Reykjavik 1984.
]
18...
¤d5
Lobron deftly exploits the d5-square.
19.
¥g3 ¦fd8 20.¦de1 £f5
39
72
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-tr-+k+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+nsNq+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-vL-0
9PzPPwQ-zPP+0
9+K+-tR-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has achieved full equality.
21.
¤d3 ¦ac8 22.¥e5 c5
The thematic advance has been
well-prepared.
23.dxc5 f6!
[ 23...
¥xc5 24.¤xc5 ¦xc5 25.g4!? ]
24.g4
£f3
[ 24...
£xg4
would be very risky.
25.
¦eg1 £b4 26.£xh6 ¥f8 27.¥d6 ]
25.
¥d4 £xg4
But now there is a gain of tempo involved.
26.
¥e3 £f5 27.¥xh6!?
73
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rtr-+k+0{
9zpp+-vl-zp-0
9-+-+pzp-vL0
9+-zPn+q+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+N+-+-0
9PzPPwQ-zP-+0
9+K+-tR-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Is this sacrifice necessary or correct or simply optimistic?
gxh6
28.
£xh6
¢f7
29.
£c1
The retreat is motivated by the fact that Black is getting ready to attack by moving his
¤ and then
sacrificing the exchange on d3. Clearly Kupreichik did not evaluate the position correctly when he
went in for the sacrifice.
¥xc5 30.¦eg1 ¥d6!
Overprotecting f4 and opening the c-
‘ which can
be useful if the rooks stay on the board.
31.h6
¦g8™ 32.£d1 ¦xg1 33.¦xg1
[ 33.
£xg1 £g6∓ ]
33...
¦g8 34.¦h1 ¦h8 35.¦h5 £e4 36.a3 ¥f8-+ 37.£d2 b6 38.f3 £g6 39.£h2 ¦xh6
40.
¦xh6 £xh6 41.£b8 £h1+ 42.¢a2 £xf3 43.£xa7+ ¥e7 44.£a4 ¤e3 45.£h4 ¤xc2
46.
¤f4 ¤d4
0-1
40
74
Ivanchuk
2680
Seirawan
2635
Novi Sad Olympiad
1990
[Schiller/Seirawan]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.c4!? b5!?
[ 13...a5
was preferred by Larsen.
14.
¢b1 ( 14.¦he1 b5 15.c5 ¤d5
gave Black a good
game in Tal - Larsen, Tilburg 1980, but as Kasparov & Shakarov noted, the advance of the b-
§
can be played without a5 as well.
) 14...a4 15.
¤e5 ¤xe5 16.¥xe5 £a5?! ( 16...0-0! ) 17.¤e4
0-0-0?! 18.c5!
¤xe4 19.£xe4±
Karpov - Larsen, Amsterdam 1980.
]
14.c5!
Even though this concedes the d5 square, the only way to avoid this would be to play 14.
b3?!, which would be too weakening on the queenside.
[ 14.cxb5? cxb5 15.
£xb5 0-0∓
’b
]
14...0-0
15.
¢b1!
The idea is to allow the
¥ to retreat to c1 and allow a ¤ to occupy f4.
a5!
16.
¥c1
(
∆ ¤e2-f4)
[ 16.
¤e4?! ¤xe4 17.£xe4 ¦c8 18.¤e5 ¤f6 19.£e2 ¤d5 20.¥c1
A) 20...
¥g5!?
(But doesn't this fail to
21.
¥xg5 £xg5 ( 21...hxg5 22.g3² ) 22.g3
∆ f4)
;
B) 20...a4 ]
16...a4 17.
¤e2 £b8!
(
∆ e5,¦d8,¤c5). From this post the £ can be useful both on the b-‘ and
long
’.
[ 17...
¤g4 18.¦hf1 ¤df6 19.¤e1!
(
∆ f3,g4)
¤d5 20.f3 ¤gf6 21.g4± ]
74
XIIIIIIIIY
9rwq-+-trk+0
9+-+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+pzP-+-+P0
9p+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzP-+NzPP+0
9+KvLR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
18.g4?!
A premature, and somewhat panicky response.
[
¹18.¤f4! ¦d8 19.£c2 b4 20.£c4 ¤d5 21.¤xd5 exd5 22.£d3
and there is no way to
continue the
« attack, so White can launch his own offensive on the ».
]
18...
¤xg4™ 19.¦dg1
(Diagram 75)
41
75
XIIIIIIIIY
9rwq-+-trk+0{
9+-+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+pzP-+-+P0
9p+-zP-+n+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzP-+NzP-+0
9+KvL-+-tRR0
xiiiiiiiiy
f5!
Although the
§s at c6 and e6 will be very weak, it is important to seal the » and keep control
of central squares, including e4.
[ 19...
¤xf2?
A) 20.
£e3 ¤xh1 21.£xh6 ( 21.¦xg7+ ¢xg7 22.£xh6+ ¢g8 23.¤g5 ¥xg5 24.£xg5+= )
21...
¤g3! ;
B) 20.
£c2!! ¤xh1 21.¥xh6
is devastating:
¥f6 22.¤f4! ¦d8 23.¥xg7 ¥xg7 24.¤xe6!
fxe6 25.
£g6+- ]
20.
¤f4!
[ 20.
¦g2 a3!? 21.b3 e5! ]
20...
¦f7!
Once again Black must avoid temptation at f2.
[ 20...
¤xf2 21.£c2! ¤xh1 22.¤xe6 ¦f7 23.¥xh6 ¥f6 24.¥f4 £c8 25.h6+- ]
21.
£e2 e5?
[ 21...
¤f8!
would have been a more effective defense.
22.
¤xe6 ¥f6
Intending to establish a
pin on the e-
‘ with the £.
23.
¤xf8 £xf8 24.£e6?!
One can well understand the appeal of
this move, which attacks two loose
§s and pins the ¦. But Black has a magic solution.
£c8∓ ]
22.
¤g6! £e8™
[ 22...e4 23.
¤xe7+ ¦xe7 24.¤h4! £f8 ( 24...¦f7 25.¤xf5! ) 25.¤g6 £f7 26.¤xe7+ £xe7
27.f3! ]
76
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+q+k+0
9+-+nvlrzp-0
9-+p+-+Nzp0
9+pzP-zpp+P0
9p+-zP-+n+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+KvL-+-tRR0[
xiiiiiiiiy
23.
¤h2?
[ 23.
¤fxe5!
would have been very strong here.
¤dxe5 24.dxe5 ¥xc5 25.¦g2!
∆ f3±
]
23...
¤xh2 24.¦xh2 ¢h7
42
77
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+q+-+0
9+-+nvlrzpk0
9-+p+-+Nzp0
9+pzP-zpp+P0
9p+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzP-tR0
9+KvL-+-tR-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Although White has planted his pieces all over the
», but it is hard to find a good continuation. But
Ivanchuk succeeds.
25.f3!
The point of this move is to hold up the advance of Black's e-
§.
[ 25.dxe5
¤xc5
(
∆ ¤e6)
26.e6
¦f6 27.¤f4 ¥d6 28.¦hg2 ¦a7! ]
[ 25.
¤xe5? ¥xc5! ]
25...
¥f8
[ 25...
¥f6 26.dxe5 ¤xe5 27.¦e1
is a pin that wins.
]
26.
¦e1 e4!
∆ ¤f6
27.fxe4
£xe4+ 28.£xe4 fxe4 29.¦xe4 ¦f5!? 30.¦e6?
The c-
§ proved
too inviting a target, but this allows Black to escape.
[
¹30.¤f4² ]
30...
¦c8 31.¢c2 ¢g8 32.¥d2?! ¢f7
Now the interdependence of White's pieces is exposed
as a weakness. If the
¦ leaves the 6th rank, then Black can sacrifice the exchange by capturing
the
§ at h5 and then the ¤ at g6.
33.
¦ee2 ¤f6“ 34.¦ef2“
The game was drawn, but might
have continued 34...
¦d5 35.¦h4 ¥e7 ∆ ¥d8-c7. The analysis in this game is by Yasser Seirawan,
to which I added some prose comments and a few clearly identified lines.
½-½
75
Tal
Larsen
Tilburg
1980
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 ¥e7 13.¦he1 a5 14.c4 b5 15.c5
(Diagram 78)
43
78
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9+-+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9zppzP-+-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This position can also be reached via 13.c4.
¤d5 16.¥e5 0-0 17.¤e4 ¤7f6 18.¤xf6+ ¤xf6
19.
¥xf6 ¥xf6
The exchanges have worked to Black's favor, since his
¥ is better than the ¤ and
there will be opportunities to put pressure on the d-
‘.
20.g4
£d5 21.¢b1 ¦fd8 22.¤e5 a4
23.f3
White has no constructive plan here.
b4 24.f4 a3 25.b3
¥xe5 26.¦xe5
[ 26.fxe5
¦d7 27.¦e4 ¦ad8 28.¢c2= ( 28.¢c1?? £xc5+ 29.dxc5 ¦xd3 30.¦xd3 ¦xd3
31.
¦xb4 ¦d5 32.¦c4 ¦xe5∓ )]
26...
£g2 27.£e2 £xe2 28.¦xe2 ¦d5
Black has the more active rooks and better pawn
structure, but the position is too closed to allow progress to be made.
29.
¦e5 ¦e8 30.¢c2 f6
31.
¦e4 e5 32.¢d3
[ 32.dxe5
¦xc5+ ]
32...
¦xd4+ 33.¦xd4 exd4 34.¢c4
[ 34.
¢xd4?? ¦d8+ ]
34...
¦e2 35.¢xb4 ¦xa2 36.¦xd4 ¦a1 37.¦d6
½-½
80
Karpov
Larsen
Tilburg
1982
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¥b4+
(Diagram 79)
44
79
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+ntr0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-vl-zP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Larsen's move, introduced in this game, which did not catch on for several years, probably
because this game ended in defeat.
12.c3
¥e7 13.¤e4
ECO II (1987) stops here, claiming an
advantage for White. Indeed, this may be the most promising move, but it is by no means clear
that an advantage is guaranteed.
¤gf6
"You would rather have expected 13...
¤df6." - Kasparov,
Shakarov.
14.
¤d6+ ¥xd6 15.¥xd6 £a5 16.¥b4 £c7
It is possible that the
£ would be better
positioned at b5 - see the game Santo Roman - Lobron, Lyon 1988.
17.
¥a3 b5 18.£e2 ¤d5
19.
£d2 a5 20.¦c1 £b8 21.c4! b4 22.cxd5 cxd5
Kasparov and Shakarov claim that this
position "was not a pleasant sight" for Karpov, but they give no analysis to justify this evaluation.
23.g4
In return for the temporary investment of a
§, White has a strong initiative.
bxa3 24.bxa3
£d6 25.£e3 ¦b8 26.¢f1 0-0 27.g5! hxg5 28.£xg5 £xa3 29.h6
80
XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-trk+0{
9+-+n+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zP0
9zp-+p+-wQ-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9wq-+-+N+-0
9P+-+-zP-+0
9+-tR-+K+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
£d3+ 30.¢g2 £h7 31.¦h3 f6 32.£e3 £e4 33.hxg7! ¢xg7 34.¦c7 ¦bd8
[ 34...
£xe3?? 35.¦xd7+ ]
35.
¦g3+ ¢f7 36.£c3 £h7 37.£c6 ¢e7 38.£c5+ ¢e8 39.£d6 £e7
Black, though being
pummeled by fierce blows, manages to cover up, but White has more punches to throw.
40.
£c6
¦h8 41.¤h4! £f7
[ 41...
¦xh4 42.¦g8+ ¢f7 43.¦xd8 £xd8 44.¦xd7+ ]
(Diagram 81)
45
81
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trk+-tr0
9+-tRn+q+-0
9-+Q+pzp-+0
9zp-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-sN0
9+-+-+-tR-0
9P+-+-zPK+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
42.
¤f5! exf5 43.¦e3+ ¢f8 44.£d6+ ¢g7 45.¦g3+
1-0
81
Chandler
Berg
Bundesliga
1986
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¥b4+ 12.c3 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¤e5
82
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-zPQ+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is perhaps a more effective move than shuffling the king.
0-0 15.
¢b1
[ 15.c4!? c5 16.d5 exd5 17.
¤f5!? ¤xe5 18.¥xe5 ¤g4÷
Andreas - Rodriguez, Palma
Soriano 1983.
]
15...c5 16.
£f3 cxd4 17.¦xd4
(Diagram 83)
46
83
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-tR-vL-+0
9+-zP-+QsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+K+-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤xe5
[ 17...
£c8!? ]
18.
¥xe5 £c8 19.¦hd1 ¦d8 20.¤e4 ¦xd4 21.¦xd4 ¤xe4 22.£xe4 b5
[ 22...a5!?
∆ ¦a6!?
]
23.
¦d3 ¥f8 24.g4 a5 25.f4 f6 26.¥d6 ¥xd6 27.¦xd6 ¦a6 28.¦d4
84
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+q+-+k+0{
9+-+-+-zp-0
9r+-+pzp-zp0
9zpp+-+-+P0
9-+-tRQzPP+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+K+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has a few weaknesses, but there is no reason why he should lose this position.
¦a8 29.a3
¢h8
[ 29...
¦b8!? 30.g5 b4 31.axb4 axb4 32.¦xb4 ¦xb4 33.£xb4 hxg5 34.fxg5 fxg5÷ 35.£g4
£c6 36.£xg5 £e4+
and White will find it difficult to escape the checks.
]
30.
¢a1 ¢g8
[ 30...
¦b8 ]
31.g5 hxg5 32.fxg5 fxg5 33.h6
£e8 34.¦d6± ¦d8?? 35.£d4
1-0
82
Riemersma
Van Mil
Dieren
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¥b4+ 12.c3 ¥e7 13.0-0
47
85
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+ntr0{
9zpp+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-zPQ+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤gf6 14.¦fe1 0-0 15.c4
Here we see same-side castling, but to an unusual side! On the one
hand, this limits White's ability to use a
» §storm, but on the other hand, Black's « counterplay
does not have the advantage of bothering the White
¢.
£a5 16.¤e5 ¦ad8 17.£e2 £a6?!
This allows an effective reply.
18.
¤g6! ¦fe8
[ 18...fxg6 19.
£xe6+ ¢h8 20.£xe7 ¤xh5 21.¥c7 ¤xg3 22.¥xd8 ]
19.
¤xe7+ ¦xe7 20.¤f5 ¦ee8
86
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trr+k+0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9q+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+N+P0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
21.
¤xh6+!
gxh6 22.
¥xh6 ¢h8 23.¥g5 £a5 24.c5
Now it is clear the the Black
£ is
offsides.
¤h7 25.b4! £c7
[ 25...
£xb4 26.¥xd8 ¦xd8 27.£e3± ]
26.
¥xd8 ¦xd8 27.¦ad1 ¤df6 28.£e5 £c8
[ 28...
£xe5 29.dxe5 ¦xd1 30.¦xd1 ¤d5÷ ]
29.d5! exd5
[ 29...
¦xd5 30.¦xd5 exd5 31.£e7² ]
30.
£c3 £g4 31.¦d4 £xh5 32.¦e7
The material balance has shifted to Black, but White's
pieces are much more active.
¢g8 33.£g3+ ¢f8 34.£c7 ¦e8 35.¦xe8+ ¤xe8 36.£xb7
¤hf6
(Diagram 87)
48
87
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+nmk-+0
9zpQ+-+p+-0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-zPp+-+q0
9-zP-tR-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9P+-+-zPP+0
9+-+-+-mK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black's pawns drop like ripe mulberries.
37.
£xc6 ¤g4 38.£xd5 £h2+ 39.¢f1 £h1+ 40.¢e2
and there is no more attack, so White's material advantage is decisive.
¤ef6
41.
£f3
£a1
42.
£f4 £xa2+ 43.¦d2 £a6+ 44.¢e1 £a1+ 45.¦d1 £c3+ 46.¢f1
[ 46.
£d2 £e5+ 47.£e2 ¤e4 48.f3? £c3+ 49.¢f1 ¤e3+ 50.¢g1 ¤xd1 51.£xe4 £e3+
52.
£xe3 ¤xe3-+ ]
46...
¢g7 47.¦c1 £d3+ 48.¢g1 £e2 49.c6 ¤d5 50.£f3
[ 50.
£g5+ ¢f8 51.£d8+ ¢g7 52.£g5+ ¢h7 53.£h5+= ]
1-0
83
Ernst
Larsen
Gausdal
1985
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¥b4+ 12.c3 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¢b1 a5
88
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9zp-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-zPQ+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Typical Larsen!
15.
¤e4 ¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤f6 17.£d3 £d5!
Black would like to exchange
£s,
so that he can obtain an endgame where the
§ at h5, already under attack, becomes a real
liability.
18.
¤e5 £e4 19.£xe4 ¤xe4 20.¥e3 a4 21.a3?
Weakening the
« § structure, and
insuring that the
§ at b2 will require support for the rest of the game. Because of that, either ¢ or
¥ will be required to remain in the lower left-hand corner of the board.
¥f6 22.g4 ¦d8 23.f4
¤d6
Larsen correctly heads for an endgame with good
¤ vs. bad ¥, by exchanging at e5 and
establishing a
¤ outpost at c4.
24.
¥c1 ¥xe5 25.fxe5 ¤c4 26.g5 hxg5 27.¥xg5 ¦d5
49
28.
¥c1 c5 29.¢c2 ¤a5 30.¦h4 b5 31.¥g5 f6 32.¥c1 fxe5 33.dxc5 ¦xd1 34.¢xd1
89
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+k+-tr0{
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-+p+-+0
9snpzP-zp-+P0
9p+-+-+-tR0
9zP-zP-+-+-0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9+-vLK+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This position is hopeless for White because the Black
¢ can infiltrate along the light squares.
¢d7 35.¦g4 ¦xh5 36.¦xg7+ ¢c6 37.¦e7 ¢d5 38.¥e3 ¤c4 39.¥f2
0-1
84
Santo Roman
2435
Lobron
2490
Lyon
1988
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 ¥b4+ 12.c3 ¥e7 13.¤e4 ¤gf6 14.¤d6+ ¥xd6 15.¥xd6
£a5 16.¥b4 £b5
90
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+q+-+-+P0
9-vL-zP-+-+0
9+-zPQ+N+-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
An important attempt to improve on Karpov-Larsen.
17.
£xb5
cxb5
This is an interesting
endgame. White has an effective
¥, but the disrupted Black § structure does have the merit of
controlling important light squares, especially c4 and d5, which the
¥ cannot touch.
18.a4 bxa4
19.
¦xa4 ¤d5 20.¥d6 a5
White has taken control of c4 and has pinned down the enemy
¢, but
Black now has a healthy
§ structure.
21.
¦c4 f6 22.0-0 ¢f7 23.¥g3
Suddenly this
¥ does not
look so useful.
a4 24.
¦a1 b5 25.¦c6 ¦hc8!
(Diagram 91)
50
91
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+r+-+-+0
9+-+n+kzp-0
9-+R+pzp-zp0
9+p+n+-+P0
9p+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-+NvL-0
9-zP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-+-mK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The tide has turned. Black's pieces are clearly more active.
26.
¦d6 ¤7b6 27.¦e1 ¦e8 28.¤d2
¦e7 29.¦c6 ¦c8
The pseudo-active White
¦ is finally run down.
30.
¦c5 ¦xc5 31.dxc5 ¤c8
32.
¦a1
This
¦ just can't find a job.
e5 33.c4 bxc4 34.
¤xc4 ¦c7 35.¦xa4 ¦xc5 36.f3 ¦c7
37.
¥f2 ¤f4
92
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-tr-+kzp-0
9-+-+-zp-zp0
9+-+-zp-+P0
9R+N+-sn-+0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-zP-+-vLP+0
9+-+-+-mK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
In all of the main lines with the advance of the h-
§ to h5, the § can often become a major liability
in the endgame. Now White must weaken his
».
38.g4
¦d7 39.¥e3 ¤d5 40.¢f2 ¦c7 41.¢e2
¢e6
Naturally Black has no interest in trading his excellent
¤ for the ¥.
42.
¤d2 ¤ce7 43.¦c4
¦b7! 44.b3 ¦b8 45.¥c5 ¤c6 46.b4
The threat was 46...
¤a5, so the pawn falls anyway.
¤cxb4 47.¥xb4 ¦xb4 48.¦c6+
White is no longer seeking exchanges!
¢d7 49.¦a6
(Diagram 93)
51
93
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0{
9+-+k+-zp-0
9R+-+-zp-zp0
9+-+nzp-+P0
9-tr-+-+P+0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-+-sNK+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦a4! 50.¦xa4 ¤c3+ 51.¢e3 ¤xa4
But the
¦s come off anyway, and the endgame is a simple
win for Black.
52.
¤e4 ¤b6 53.¤g3 ¤c4+ 54.¢e4 ¢e6 55.f4 ¤d6+ 56.¢f3 ¢d5 57.fxe5
fxe5-+ 58.g5
¢e6 59.gxh6 gxh6 60.¢g4 ¢d5 61.¢f3 ¢d4 62.¤e2+ ¢d3 63.¤c1+ ¢c2
64.
¤e2 ¢d2 65.¤g3 ¢d3 66.¢g4 e4 67.¢f4 e3 68.¢f3 ¤f5
0-1
88
Spassky
Karpov
Leningrad (m/4)
1974
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.b3
94
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvlntr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+P+Q+NsN-0
9P+P+-zPP+0
9tR-vL-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
The fianchetto plan might be playable against 10...
£c7, but here it is not effective.
¤gf6 12.¥b2
£a5+ 13.¥c3
[ 13.c3
¥a3 14.0-0-0 ¥xb2+ 15.¢xb2= ]
13...
¥b4 14.¥xb4 £xb4+ 15.£d2 £xd2+ 16.¢xd2 c5
Black has already achieved full
equality.
17.c4
(Diagram 95)
52
95
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+P+-+NsN-0
9P+-mK-zPP+0
9tR-+-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
cxd4
[ 17...
¦c8 18.dxc5 ¤xc5
might have been even stronger.
]
18.
¤xd4 a6 19.¢e3?!
This gives Black the advantage, according to Botvinnik.
[ 19.f3
¦c8 20.¤ge2 ¦c5 21.g4
was best, according to Botvinnik, who evaluated this position
as even.
]
19...
¦c8 20.¦ac1 ¢e7 21.f3 ¦c5 22.¤de2 ¦hc8 23.f4
96
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-+-+0{
9+p+nmkpzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-tr-+-+P0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+P+-mK-sN-0
9P+-+N+P+0
9+-tR-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
b5?!
[ 23...
¦5c7
would have been a good preliminary move, as the immediate advance allowed
Spassky to exchange into a tenable endgame.
]
24.cxb5 axb5 25.
¦xc5 ¦xc5 26.¦c1 ¤d5+ 27.¢f3 ¦xc1 28.¤xc1 f5
Although this causes
some pawn weaknesses, it was necessary to control e4.
29.
¤d3 ¢d6
(Diagram 97)
53
97
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+n+-zp-0
9-+-mkp+-zp0
9+p+n+p+P0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+P+N+KsN-0
9P+-+-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
30.a4!
This establishes a passed pawn on the extreme flank, which diverts Black's forces
sufficiently to obtain a draw.
bxa4 31.bxa4
¤7f6 32.¤e5 ¢c5 33.¤f7 ¢b4 34.¤d8 ¤c7
35.
¤e2 ¤xh5 36.¤d4 ¤d5 37.¤8xe6 ¤e7 38.¤xf5 ¤xf5 39.g4 ¤h4+ 40.¢f2 ¤xf4
41.
¤xf4 ¢xa4 42.¤e6 ¤g6
½-½
89
Lasker
Lee
London
1899
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.
¤c3 d5 3.d4 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.¥d3 ¥xd3
9.
£xd3 ¤gf6 10.¥d2 e6 11.0-0-0 £c7 12.¦he1 0-0-0 13.£b3 ¥d6
[ 13...c5!?
- See Zapata - Dorfman.
]
14.
¤e2
98
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+pvlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-zP0
9+Q+-+N+-0
9PzPPvLNzPP+0
9+-mKRtR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
For the alternative 14.
¤e4, see Zapata - Adianto.
¤g4?!
[ 14...
¤e4 15.¥e3 ]
[ 14...
£b6! 15.£a4 ¥c7= ]
15.
¦f1 ¤df6 16.£a4 ¢b8 17.c4 £e7?!
[ 17...
£c8² ]
[ 17...c5!
would have equalized.
]
18.
¤c3 £c7
∆ ¥f4.
19.g3
£c8 20.b4! e5?! 21.dxe5 ¤xe5 22.¥e3! ¤xc4
[ 22...b6 23.
¦xd6! ¦xd6 24.¤xe5± ]
54
[ 22...
¤xf3 23.£xa7+ ¢c7 24.¥b6+ ¢d7 25.¥xd8 ¦xd8 26.c5 ¤e8 27.cxd6 ¤xd6
28.
¤e4 ¢e7 29.¤xd6 ¦xd6 30.£e3++- ]
23.
¥xa7+ ¢c7 24.¦d4±
99
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+qtr-+-tr0{
9vLpmk-+pzp-0
9-+pvl-sn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9QzPntR-+-zP0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9P+-+-zP-+0
9+-mK-+R+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
b5
[ 24...
£e6 25.¦e1 ¤e5 26.¥b6+!! ¢c8 27.£a8+ ¢d7 28.£xb7+ ¢e8 29.¦xe5!+- ]
[ 24...
¤e5 25.¤xe5 ¥xe5 26.£a5++- ]
[ 24...
¤b6 25.¥xb6+ ¢xb6 26.£a5# ]
25.
¤xb5+! cxb5 26.£xb5 ¤a3 27.£a5+ ¢b7+ 28.¥c5 ¥xc5 29.bxc5 ¦xd4
[ 29...
£a8 30.¦b4+ ¢c6 31.¦b6+ ¢c7 32.¦a6++- ]
30.
¤xd4 £d8 31.c6+ ¢c8 32.£a8+ ¢c7 33.£a7+ ¢d6 34.£xa3+ ¢d5 35.¦d1+- £b6
36.
¤f3+ ¢e6 37.£d6+ ¢f5 38.£d3+ ¢g4 39.¤e5+
1-0
90
Fischer
Steinmeyer
USA ch
1963
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤f6
100
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-zppzpp0
9-+p+-snl+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It is uncommon to play this so early.
7.h4 h6 8.
¥d3
[ 8.
¤e5!
is a more effective move - see Spassky - Petrosian (m/13) 1966.
]
8...
¥xd3 9.£xd3 e6 10.¥d2 ¤bd7
[ 10...
£c7!? 11.c4 ¤bd7 12.¥c3
would have transposed to Fischer - Donner, Varna Olympiad
55
1962, a game with which Black was no doubt familiar, but Fischer seemed to get a very good
position there and Steinmeyer had a specific variation in mind.
]
11.0-0-0
£c7 12.c4 0-0-0
[ 12...
¥d6
was preferred by Fischer, who gave further:
13.
¤e4 ( 13.¤e2 0-0-0 14.¢b1 c5= )
13...
¥f4!
and the removal of the dark-squared
¥s solves Black's opening problems.
]
13.
¥c3!
101
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-zP0
9+-vLQ+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Eliminating the exchange of
¥s. Now Steinmeyer reveals his plan, but it turns out that it is not a
very good one, to put it mildly!
£f4+?
[ 13...c5 14.d5
² ]
[ 13...
¥d6! 14.¤e4 ¥f4+ 15.¢b1 ¤e5!
exploits the pin on the d-file to gain equality.
16.
¤xe5
¥xe5= ]
14.
¢b1 ¤c5?
[ 14...
£c7 15.¤e4 ¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤f6 17.£e2² ]
15.
£c2 ¤ce4
[ 15...
¤cd7 16.¤e5! ¤xe5 17.dxe5 ¤d7 ( 17...¤g4 18.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 19.¦d1+ ¢c8
20.
¦d4+- ) 18.¦d4 £xe5 19.¦xd7!
- Fischer.
]
102
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PzPnwq-zP0
9+-vL-+NsN-0
9PzPQ+-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This position had already been reached in Shamkovich - Goldberg, USSR 1961, where White
continued ineffectively.
16.
¤e5!
[ 16.
¥a5?
was played in the above-mentioned game, and Steinmeyer no doubt was quite
pleased with the prospect of meeting that variation. But Fischer's improvement destroys the
entire variation with the
£ check at f4.
]
16...
¤xf2
[ 16...
¤xg3 17.fxg3 £xg3 18.¦d3 £f4 19.¦f3 £e4 20.¤xf7+-
- Fischer.
]
[ 16...
¤xc3+ 17.bxc3! ¦g8 ( 17...¤g4 18.¤h5! £f5 19.£xf5 exf5 20.¤xf7 ) 18.¦d3 h5
56
19.
¦f3 £h6 20.¤xf7+-
- Fischer.
]
17.
¦df1!
and Black resigned, because of
£xg3 18.¦xf2 £e3 19.¦e2 £f4 20.¤xf7
1-0
98
Tarrasch
Capablanca
Bad Kissingen
1928
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.¥d3 ¥xd3
9.
£xd3 ¤gf6 10.¥d2 e6 11.0-0-0 ¥d6 12.¦he1! ¥xg3?!
[ 12...
£c7 13.¤f5 0-0-0 14.¤xg7?! ( 14.¤xd6+ £xd6= ) 14...¦hg8
would force the sacrifice
of the
¤ for three pawns, but this is not enough compensation, according to Kmoch.
]
13.fxg3 0-0
[ 13...
£b6 14.¤e5±
Kmoch - Hoenlinger, Vienna 1928.
]
14.
¥b4 ¦e8 15.¤e5 ¤xe5 16.dxe5 £xd3 17.¦xd3 ¤d5 18.¥d6 b5 19.g4 ¦ad8 20.¦e4
f6 21.c4 fxe5 22.
¥xe5 ¤b4 23.¦xd8 ¦xd8 24.cxb5 ¤d3+ 25.¢c2 cxb5 26.¥c7 ¦d7
27.
¦xe6 ¤xb2 28.¢xb2 ¦xc7 29.¦e8+ ¢h7 30.¦e4 ¦c5 31.a4 a5 32.axb5 ¦xb5+
33.
¢c3 ¦c5+ 34.¢d3 ¦c8 35.¦a4 ¦a8 36.¢e4 ¢g6 37.¢e5 ¦a6 38.g3 ¦a7 39.¢e6 ¦a8
40.
¢e5 ¦a6 41.¢d5 ¢f6 42.¦f4+ ¢e7 43.¦e4+ ¢d7 44.¦a4 ¢c7 45.¢c5 ¦e6 46.¢d5
¦a6 47.¢c5
½-½
108
Jones
Lee
London
1900
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.¥d3 ¥xd3
9.
£xd3 ¤gf6 10.£b3 £c7 11.¥e3 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥d6 13.¤e2 £b6 14.¤d2 £xb3 15.¤xb3
¤d5
103
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+pvlp+-zp0
9+-+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-zP0
9+N+-vL-+-0
9PzPP+NzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This time Black emerges from the opening with a clear advantage, controlling the center and
enjoying a sounder pawn structure.
16.c4
¤xe3 17.fxe3
Giving up the bishop for the knight,
with the weak base of the pawn chain at e3 compounding the situation, shows that White did not
appreciate the type of endgame that the Classical Caro-Kann leads to.
¤f6
18.
¤c3
¥b4
57
19.
¦hf1
¥xc3!?
Returning the minor exchange may not have been necessary, but the
§
structure will now be in Black's favor on a fairly permanent basis. Still, castling was also to be
considered.
20.bxc3
¤e4 21.¢c2
There is no time for 21.
¤d2 because the c-§ hangs.
b6
22.
¦f4 ¤f6 23.e4 ¦d8
104
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trk+-tr0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-zpp+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PzPPtR-zP0
9+NzP-+-+-0
9P+K+-+P+0
9+-+R+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
24.e5?!
[ 24.g4!? ]
24...
¤d7 25.¦e1
A very passive move, hoping for some action on the e-file.
¤f8 26.h5 ¤h7
Whatever White does, there are still holes. That is why these endgames are often good for Black,
when there are
¤s rather than ¥s on the board.
27.a4
¢e7 28.a5 ¤g5 29.axb6 axb6
30.c5?!
105
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-tr0{
9+-+-mkpzp-0
9-zpp+p+-zp0
9+-zP-zP-snP0
9-+-zP-tR-+0
9+NzP-+-+-0
9-+K+-+P+0
9+-+-tR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Overlooking a powerful reply!
¦a8!
Seizing the only open file.
31.
¦ff1
[ 31.
¢b2 bxc5 32.¤xc5 ¦hb8+ 33.¤b3 ¦a5 34.¦b1 c5! 35.¢c1 ¦a3∓ ]
31...
¦a2+ 32.¢d3 b5
[ 32...
¦xg2 33.cxb6 ¦b8 34.¤c5 ¦xb6 35.¦a1
is not so clear.
]
33.
¦a1 ¦ha8 34.¦xa2 ¦xa2 35.¦a1 ¦xa1 36.¤xa1
(Diagram 106)
58
106
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0{
9+-+-mkpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+pzP-zP-snP0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zPK+-+-0
9-+-+-+P+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A pure
¤ endgame, and one which is every Caro Kann player's dream!
f5! 37.
¤c2
[ 37.exf6+
¢xf6 38.¤c2 ¤f7 39.¤b4 ¤d8
and the h-
§ falls.
]
37...
¤e4 38.¤b4 ¢d7 39.c4 bxc4+ 40.¢xc4 ¤g3∓ 41.d5 exd5+ 42.¤xd5 cxd5+
43.
¢xd5 ¤xh5 44.e6+ ¢c7 45.¢e5 f4 46.¢f5 g5 47.¢g6 g4 48.¢f7 f3 49.gxf3 gxf3
50.e7 f2
Well-calculated!
51.e8
£ f1£+
0-1
109
Tarrasch
Duras
San Sebastian
1912
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.¥d3 ¥xd3
9.
£xd3 ¤gf6 10.¥f4 £a5+ 11.¥d2 £c7 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.£e2 e6 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦a5
107
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-vl-tr0
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zpp+psn-zp0
9tr-+-sN-+-0
9-+PzP-+-zP0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
For 17...Rd8?! see Matulovic - Torfasson.
18.
¢b1 ¥d6 19.f4 £e7!
∆ ¢c7, ¦h8-a8.
20.
£f3!
∆ ¤g3-e2-c1 (× a2).
¢c7 21.¤e2 ¦ha8 22.¤c1
(Diagram 108)
59
108
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-+-+0{
9+pmk-wqpzp-0
9-zppvlpsn-zp0
9tr-+-sN-+-0
9-+PzP-zP-zP0
9+-+-+Q+-0
9PzP-+-+P+0
9+KsNR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
h5!
Or else g2-g4-g5.
23.g3 g6 24.
¦he1 £f8
Taking measures against an eventual c4-c5.
25.
¦e2 b5 26.c5
™
¥e7 27.a3 ¤d5 28.¤a2 ¦d8
× d4.
29.
¤c3
109
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-wq-+0{
9+pmk-vlp+-0
9-+p+p+p+0
9trpzPnsN-+p0
9-+-zP-zP-zP0
9zP-sN-+QzP-0
9-zP-+R+-+0
9+K+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤xc3+
[ 29...
¥xc5?
A) 30.dxc5?!
¤xc3+ 31.£xc3 ¦xd1+ 32.¢c2 b4! 33.£xb4 ( 33.axb4 ¦aa1 ) 33...¦b5
34.
£xb5 cxb5 35.¢xd1 £e8³
∆ f7-f6.
;
B) 30.
¤xd5+! ¦xd5 31.b4! ¥xb4 32.axb4 £xb4+ 33.¦b2N
- Tarrasch.
]
30.
£xc3 ¦a4 31.¦ed2 £g7!
∆ £g7-f6-f5 × ’b1-h7.
32.b4!
Preventing Black from advancing
the b-
§.
£f6 33.¢b2 ¦da8 34.¦a1
Now it will be difficult for Black to make progress on the a-
‘.
¢d8 35.£d3 ¢e8 36.£e4 £f5 37.£g2
[ 37.
£xf5?! gxf5
∆ f7-f6, b7-b6.
38.
¤xf7 ]
37...
¦d8! 38.¦e1
[ 38.
¤xc6 bxc6 39.£xc6+ ¦d7 40.£xb5 ¦a8³
× d4.
]
38...
¦d5 39.¦e3 ¦a8 40.£e4 ¦ad8 41.£xf5 gxf5 42.¢c3= ¥f6 43.¦ed3 ¢e7 44.¤f3 ¦a8
45.
¦a2 ¥h8 46.¤g1 ¢d7 47.¤e2 ¢c7 48.¢b3 ¦ad8 49.¦ad2 b6 50.¢c2! ¥f6 51.¦d1
¢b7
½-½
60
113
Fischer
Donner
Varna ol
1962
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.¥d3 ¥xd3
9.
£xd3 e6 10.¥f4 £a5+ 11.¥d2 £c7
110
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvlntr0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-zP0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
12.c4
[ 12.0-0-0
¥d6 13.¤e4 ¥f4!= ]
12...
¤gf6
13.
¥c3
White overprotects e5 and also avoids the exchange of bishops via the
method used in the previous note.
a5! 14.0-0
[ 14.0-0-0
¥b4!
is given by Fischer.
]
14...
¥d6 15.¤e4
[ 15.d5!?
was suggested by Tal, but Fischer provided a good reply:
¥xg3! 16.fxg3 ( 16.dxe6?
¤e5! ) 16...cxd5 17.cxd5 ¤xd5 18.¥xg7 ¦g8 19.£h7 ¤7f6 20.¥xf6 ¤xf6 21.£xh6 £xg3
22.
£d2
is evaluated as equal by Fischer.
]
15...
¤xe4 16.£xe4 0-0=
111
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+pwqn+pzp-0
9-+pvlp+-zp0
9zp-+-+-+-0
9-+PzPQ+-zP0
9+-vL-+N+-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-+RmK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black is secure in his position, not fearing a kingside attack because his pieces are close enough
to defend, and he overprotects e5 as well.
17.d5!?
This commital move leads to a position
where Black's pieces are tied down, but Fischer whet his appetite for attack, and tried to satisfy it
prematurely. It might have been wiser to delay, retaining control of the dark squares.
[ 17.
¦ad1!? ]
17...
¦fe8 18.dxc6 bxc6 19.¦ad1 ¥f8 20.¤d4 ¦a6
61
112
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+rvlk+0
9+-wqn+pzp-0
9r+p+p+-zp0
9zp-+-+-+-0
9-+PsNQ+-zP0
9+-vL-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-+R+RmK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White has an excellent game here, with well-coordinated pieces and control of the center.
21.
¤f5
Another ambitious move.
¤c5 22.£e3 ¤a4 23.¥e5 £a7
113
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+rvlk+0
9wq-+-+pzp-0
9r+p+p+-zp0
9zp-+-vLN+-0
9n+P+-+-zP0
9+-+-wQ-+-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-+R+RmK-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Now Fischer must choose between exchanging
£s, which would gut the attack, or sacrificing a
piece.
24.
¤xh6+!? gxh6 25.¦d4
An aesthetically powerful move, but Black can now get his
£
over to the aid of the
¢.
f5! 26.
¦fd1
[ 26.
£g3+ ¥g7 ]
26...
¤c5 27.¦d8 £f7 28.¦xe8 £xe8 29.¥d4 ¤e4
The attack is over, and the material
imbalance is too important.
30.f3 e5!
The bishop has no retreat.
31.fxe4 exd4 32.
£g3+ ¥g7
33.exf5
£e3+ 34.£xe3 dxe3-+ 35.¦d8+ ¢f7 36.¦d7+ ¢f6 37.g4 ¥f8 38.¢g2 ¥c5
39.
¦h7 ¢e5 40.¢f3 ¢d4 41.¦xh6 ¦b6 42.b3 a4 43.¦e6 axb3 44.axb3 ¢d3 45.g5
and that is how Donner, famous for getting clobbered quickly, defeated the great Bobby Fischer!
0-1
114
Gligoric
Golombek
Zagreb
1965
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 e6 8.¥d3 ¥xd3
9.
£xd3 £c7 10.¥d2 ¤d7 11.0-0-0 ¤gf6 12.¢b1 0-0-0 13.c4 ¥e7 14.¥c3 ¦he8 15.¦he1
c5 16.d5 exd5 17.cxd5
¥f8 18.¤f5 ¦xe1 19.¦xe1 c4 20.£d2 £c5 21.¤e3 ¤e4³
62
114
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-+0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-wqP+-+-0
9-+p+n+-zP0
9+-vL-sNN+-0
9PzP-wQ-zPP+0
9+K+-tR-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White's d-
§ is very weak, and Black's ¥ will be useful on the dark squares.
22.
£c2
¤xc3+
23.
£xc3 b5 24.¦d1 ¤b6 25.£a5 ¢b7 26.¤e5 f6 27.¤c6 ¦a8 28.¤d4 b4 29.£xc5 ¥xc5
30.h5
¦e8 31.¤df5 a5 32.g4 ¥f8 33.¦d4 ¥c5 34.¦f4 b3 35.¦f3
115
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+-+0{
9+k+-+-zp-0
9-sn-+-zp-zp0
9zp-vlP+N+P0
9-+p+-+P+0
9+p+-sNR+-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+K+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤xd5 36.¤xg7 ¦e4 37.¤gf5 ¢c6 38.axb3 cxb3 39.¢c1 a4 40.¤xd5 ¢xd5 41.¦d3+
¢c4 42.¦d1 ¦xg4 43.¤xh6 ¦g5 44.¦h1 ¥xf2 45.¤f7 ¥e3+ 46.¢b1 ¦g2 47.¤d6+ ¢b4
48.
¤f5 ¥f4 49.¤d4 ¢c4 50.¤f5 ¢c5 51.h6 ¥e5 52.h7 ¦xb2+ 53.¢c1 ¦c2+ 54.¢d1
¥c3
116
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-+-zp-+0
9+-mk-+N+-0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+pvl-+-+-0
9-+r+-+-+0
9+-+K+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
55.h8
£ ¦d2+ 56.¢c1
[ 56.
¢e1 ¦d8+ 57.¢e2 ¦xh8 58.¦xh8 b2 59.¦h1 a3-+ ]
56...
¦c2+ 57.¢d1 ¦d2+
½-½
63
115
Spassky
Petrosian
World Championship (m/1)
1966
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.¥d3
117
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvlntr0{
9zpp+nzppzp-0
9-+p+-+lzp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-zP0
9+-+L+NsN-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9tR-vLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
It is generally held that the further advance of the h-
§ is the only way for White to try to establish
an opening advantage, but this line is also seen.
¥xd3 9.£xd3 £c7 10.¥d2 e6 11.0-0-0
0-0-0 12.c4
¤gf6
Black continues with his standard scheme of development. Note that there is
no way for White to return to the lines with the pawn at h5 except by conceding a tempo. The die
is cast!
13.
¢b1 c5!
With the White
¢ at b1, there is little point in transfering the ¥ from f8 to f4
via d6.
14.
¥c3
[ 14.
£e2 ¥d6 15.¤e4 ¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤f6 17.£e2 cxd4 18.¤xd4 a6
and Black has no
problems.
19.
¥c3 ¦d7!=
Smyslov - Botvinnik (m/3) 1958.
]
14...cxd4 15.
¤xd4
[ 15.
¥xd4 ¥c5 16.¤e4 ¥xd4 ( 16...¤xe4 17.£xe4 ¤f6!?
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
) 17.
£xd4
¢b8= ]
15...a6
118
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9+pwqn+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PsN-+-zP0
9+-vLQ+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black can be satisfied with his game at this point.
16.
¤f3
[ 16.
£e2 ¥d6 17.¤e4 ¤xe4 18.£xe4 ¤c5! 19.£e2 ¥e5 20.¦he1 ¥f6 21.g3 ¦d7!=
Unzicker - Porath, Munich ol 1958.
]
[ 16.
¤b3 ¤c5 17.£f3 ¥e7 18.¥a5 ¦xd1+ 19.¦xd1 £e5 20.¥c3 £c7=
Spassky - Portisch,
Budapest 1961.
]
16...
¥c5
64
[ 16...
¤c5? 17.£xd8+ £xd8 18.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 19.¤e5!
would be most unpleasant.
]
17.
£e2 ¥d6
[ 17...
¤g4 18.¤e4 ¤df6
is irresponsibly given as leading to equality in Varnusz (1991), based
on Sokolov - Susic, Yugoslavia 1965. But Kasparov & Shakarov had already printed the
refutation in 1983!
19.
¤xc5 £xc5 20.¥d4² ]
18.
¤e4 ¥e7 19.¤xf6
[ 19.
¦he1
is an important alternative, ignored by Varnusz (1991).
¤xe4
( 19...
£f4
is suggested by Kasparov & Shakarov.
) 20.
£xe4 ¥f6 21.£e3 ¥xc3 22.£xc3 ¤f6 23.¦xd8+
¦xd8 24.¤e5 h5!?
(Kasparov & Shakarov)
( 24...
¤e8? 25.c5!²
Spassky - Matulovic, 1964.
)
25.c5
¦d5!?
- analysis.
]
19...
¥xf6
[ 19...gxf6
∆ ¤e5 was suggested by Boleslavsky but the text is also playable.
]
20.
¥xf6 ¤xf6 21.¤e5
119
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+-0
9-+P+-+-zP0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Varnusz considers this position worse for Black, but offers no improvements for White in the
remainder of the game.
¦xd1+ 22.¦xd1 ¦d8 23.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 24.£d3+
[ 24.h5
¢e7
brings about a position that might have arisen from the main lines, except that
Black has used his extra time to bring his
¢ to a useful defensive post.
25.g4
¤d7= ]
24...
¢e7 25.£d4 h5 26.a3 ¤d7!= 27.¤xd7 £xd7 28.£c5+
[ 28.
£xg7? £d3+ 29.¢c1 £xc4+ 30.¢b1 £xh4³ ]
28...
£d6 29.£g5+ ¢e8 30.£e3 £c6 31.£g3 g6 32.b3 £e4+ 33.¢b2 e5 34.£e3 £xg2
35.
£xe5+ ¢f8 36.£h8+ ¢e7 37.£e5+
½-½
135
Charousek
Von Popiel
Cologne
1898
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5
(Diagram 120)
65
120
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wqkvlntr0
9zpp+-zppzpp0
9-+p+-+-+0
9+-+-+l+-0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Sergeant, writing in 1919, described our line as an "old continuation, now generally abandoned in
favour of Kt-B3."
5.
¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 e6?
If this is how Black handled the opening in the good
old days, then it is no wonder that the line fell from favor!
7.h4 h6 8.
¥d3 ¥xd3 9.£xd3 ¤d7
10.
¥f4 ¤gf6?! 11.0-0-0 £a5 12.¢b1 0-0-0 13.¤f1
121
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9wq-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-vL-zP0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+K+R+N+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This position, however, seems strikingly modern, by comparison!
¥e7 14.¤1d2 ¤c5 15.£e2
¤d5 16.dxc5 ¤xf4 17.£e4 ¤d5 18.¤e5!± ¦hf8
122
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-tr-+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9wq-zPnsN-+-0
9-+-+Q+-zP0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPsN-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Now Charousek unleashes an effective, and prototypical combination.
19.
¤xf7! ¥f6
[ 19...
¦xf7? 20.£xe6+ ]
20.
¤c4! ¤c3+
[ 20...
¦xf7 21.¤d6+ ¦xd6 22.cxd6 ¤c3+ 23.bxc3 £xc3 24.£xe6+
∆ £b3.
]
21.bxc3
£xc3 22.¤fe5 ¦d5
66
[ 22...
£b4+ 23.¢c1 £xc5 ( 23...¥xe5? 24.¤d6++- ) 24.¤g6 ¦fe8 25.¦xd8+ ¦xd8
26.
£xe6++- ]
23.
¦xd5 cxd5 24.£f3 £b4+ 25.¤b2 £xb2+ 26.¢xb2 ¥xe5+ 27.¢b3 ¦xf3+ 28.gxf3+-
¥d4 29.¦g1 ¢d7 30.c3 ¥f6 31.h5 ¢c6 32.f4 ¢xc5 33.¦e1 ¢d6 34.¢c2 b6 35.¢d3 a5
36.a4
¢d7 37.f3 ¢d6 38.¦b1 ¢c7 39.c4 ¢c6 40.¦b5 ¥e7 41.f5 dxc4+ 42.¢xc4 exf5
43.
¦xf5 ¥f6 44.f4 ¢d6 45.¦b5 ¢c6 46.f5 ¥g5 47.¦e5 ¥f6 48.¦e6+ ¢c7 49.¢b5 ¥d4
50.
¦c6+ ¢d7 51.¦c4 ¥c5 52.¦g4 ¢e7 53.¦xg7+ ¢f6 54.¦g6+ ¢xf5 55.¦xh6
1-0
139
Kallinger
Elgstrand
corr.
1958
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.¢f1?!
123
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0{
9zppwqnzppzp-0
9-+p+-sn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9tR-+-+K+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
e6 13.c4
[ 13.
¦e1
A) 13...0-0-0?! 14.b4!
¥d6 15.£a3!
A1) 15...
£b6 16.c4 ¤b8 ( 16...¥b8 17.b5
∆ ¥a5.
) 17.c5
£b5+ 18.¤e2 ¥c7 19.£b3±
∆ a2-a4, O.Smith - Maricic, Correspondence 1963.
;
A2) 15...
¢b8 16.c4 ( 16.¦h4!? ) 16...¥xg3?! ( 16...¢a8 17.c5 ¥xg3 18.fxg3 ¤d5²
- R.Schwarz.
) 17.fxg3
£xg3 18.¦h4!
∆ ¥f4+.
¤g4? 19.¦e2 ¢a8 20.£c1! g5 21.¥e1
gxh4 22.
¥xg3 hxg3 23.£f4±
Laue - Jakob, 1951.
;
B) 13...
¥d6 14.¤e4 ¤xe4 15.£xe4 ¤f6 16.£e2 0-0-0=
Analysis.
]
13...0-0-0?!
[ 13...
¥d6!=
- R.Schwarz.
]
14.
£c2 e5 15.dxe5 ¤g4
[ 15...
¤xe5 16.¥f4 ¤fd7 17.¤xe5 ¤xe5 18.£f5+ ]
16.
¥c3 f6?
[ 16...
¤gxe5± ]
17.e6!
£xg3 18.¦e1!
[ 18.fxg3
¤e3+ 19.¢f2 ¤xc2 20.exd7+ ¦xd7 21.¦ac1 ¥c5+ 22.¢f1 ¤e3+ 23.¢e2 ¦e8∓ ]
18...
£f4 19.exd7+ ¢b8
[ 19...
¦xd7 20.¦e4 £f5 21.¦e8++- ]
20.
¦e4 £f5 21.¦h4
1-0
67
140
Spassky
Botvinnik
USSR Teams
1966
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 £c7 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.£e2 e6 14.¤e5 ¤xe5
15.dxe5
¤d5 16.f4 c5
124
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-zpnzP-+P0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPPvLQ+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This threatens 17...c4, so White's hand is forced.
17.c4
¤b4 18.¥xb4
[ 18.
¢b1
was recommended by Botvinnik.
¥e7 19.¥c3
was appended by Kasparov, who
notes that sooner or later the
¤ will retreat to c6, citing resemblences to Parma - Barcza,
Kapfenburg 1970. But there are perhaps some significant differences.
¢b8 ( 19...¤c6 20.¤e4
would be Parma-Barcza, except that the knight traveled via b8 there instead of b4.
)
20.
¤e4
¦xd1+ 21.¦xd1 ¦d8÷ ]
18...
¦xd1+
19.
¦xd1
cxb4
Now, as Botvinnik noted, the White
¢ will have difficulty finding
shelter, and Black will have counterplay in any
£ endgame.
20.
¤e4 ¥e7 21.¤d6+ ¢b8
125
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+-tr0
9zppwq-vlpzp-0
9-+-sNp+-zp0
9+-+-zP-+P0
9-zpP+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+Q+P+0
9+-mKR+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
A critical position which has been the subject of much discussion.
22.
¤xf7
[ 22.g3
was claimed by Boleslavsky to secure an advantage for White, but Kasparov has
shown that this is an overoptimistic evaluation.
f6 ( 22...
¦f8 23.¢b1 a6 24.£e4
∆ £xb7+ or
c5 - Boleslavsky.
) 23.exf6
¥xd6 24.fxg7 ¦e8 25.£g4
(Boleslavsky)
£xc4+ 26.¢b1 £e4+!
27.
¢a1 ¦g8 28.¦xd6 ¦xg7
with chances for both sides, according to Kasparov. But I would
prefer to be Black here.
]
22...
¦f8 23.¤d6 ¦xf4 24.g3 ¦f8 25.£g4 £d7! 26.¢b1
[ 26.
£xg7? ¥g5+-+ ]
68
26...
¥g5
[ 26...
¦f2 27.£xg7 £a4 28.¦c1! ]
27.
¤b5 ¦f1!
126
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+-+0
9zpp+q+-zp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+N+-zP-vlP0
9-zpP+-+Q+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+K+R+r+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black already has sufficient counterplay.
28.
¢c2
White has to settle for a pawn-down ending
here, hoping that his
¤ will be able to outmaneuver the enemy ¥. Against Botvinnik, this is
wishful thinking!
[ 28.
¦xf1 £d3+-+ ]
28...
¦xd1 29.£xd1 £xd1+ 30.¢xd1 ¥e3!
Botvinnik wastes no time in limiting the scope of the
¤.
31.
¢e2
[ 31.b3
¥f2 32.g4 ¥c5
dominates the
¤ completely. Botvinnik gives the following line:
33.
¢e2
a6 34.
¤d6 ¥xd6 35.exd6 b6 36.¢d3 ¢b7 37.¢e4 ¢c6 38.¢e5 ¢d7-+ ]
31...
¥c1 32.b3 ¥b2! 33.¤d6 ¥xe5 34.¤e4 ¢c7 35.g4
The endgame has now taken shape.
Black must find a way to open up some lines so that his
¢ can take an active role. To do so, he
will temporarily sacrifice a
§ at b5.
[ 35.
¤c5 ¥xg3 36.¤xe6+ ¢d6 37.¤xg7 ¢e5 38.¤e8 ¢e6
and the
¤ gets trapped.
]
35...
¢c6 36.¢d3 b5 37.cxb5+ ¢d5!
[ 37...
¢xb5 38.¤d2 ¢c6 39.¤e4! ]
38.g5?!
[ 38.
¢e3 ¥c7 39.¢f3! ¢d4 40.¤f2 ¢c3 41.¢e2 ¢b2 42.¢d3 ¢xa2 43.¢c2
would have
been a better drawing plan, as Spassky later demonstrated, because the Black
¢ would not be
able to play any role, and the
¤ could establish a blockade on the light squares.
]
38...hxg5 39.
¤xg5 ¥f4 40.¤e4 ¥h6
As Botvinnik noted, the key here is for the
¥ to occupy a
post where it can both control e3, to stop harrassing checks, and also defend the
§b4.
41.
¤f2
¥g5 42.¤g4 ¥f4 43.¤f2 ¥d6 44.¤g4
[ 44.
¤e4 ¥c7! 45.¤f2 ¥b6 46.¤e4 ¢e5 47.¤d2 ¢f4 48.¢c4 ¢e3 49.¤f1+ ( 49.¤b1
¥a5! ) 49...¢e2 50.¤g3+ ¢f3 51.¤f1 ¥c7!
guarantees victory for Black, according to
Botvinnik.
]
44...
¥c5 45.h6 gxh6 46.¤xh6
Tbe
» §s have been eliminated, but this means that Black can
concentrate his attention on advancing his passed
§, which also limits White's ability to
maneuver.
e5 47.
¤f5 e4+ 48.¢e2 ¢e5 49.¤h4 ¢d4 50.¤f5+ ¢d5
[ 50...
¢c3 51.¤g3 ¢b2 52.¤xe4 ¥d4 53.¢d3= ]
51.
¤h6 ¥e7
[ 51...
¢e6 52.¤g4 ¢f5 53.¤h6+ ¢f4 54.¤f7 ¥e7 55.¤h6
and although the
¤ is stranded,
there is no way to pick it off, according to Botvinnik.
]
52.
¤g4 ¥g5 53.¤f2 ¢d4 54.¤d1 ¥c1 55.¤f2 ¢d5 56.¤g4 ¥g5 57.¤f2 ¥f6 58.¤g4
¥d4 59.¤h2 ¥c5 60.¤f1 ¢d4 61.¤d2 ¥b6
69
127
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9zp-+-+-+-0
9-vl-+-+-+0
9+P+-+-+-0
9-zp-mkp+-+0
9+P+-+-+-0
9P+-sNK+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
62.
¤c4?
This natural move throws the game away.
[ 62.
¤f1 ¢c3 63.¤g3 ¢b2 64.¢d1! ¢xa2 65.¢c2 e3 66.¤e2
would have drawn, in similar
fashion to the alternative discussed at move 38.
]
62...
¢c3 63.¢d1 ¥d4!
∆ ¢d3.
64.
¢e2 e3 65.¤a5
[ 65.
¤xe3 ¥xe3 66.¢xe3 ¢b2 67.¢d3 ¢xa2 68.¢c4 ¢a3 69.b6 axb6-+ ]
65...
¢b2 66.¤c6 ¥c5 67.¤e5 ¢xa2 68.¤d3 ¥e7
and White resigned because his
§-pawn
falls and then Black's b-
§ marches on.
0-1
144
Olafsson,F
Addison
Reykjavik
1968
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6
128
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvlntr0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
12.c4
[ 12.
¢f1!? 0-0-0 13.b4
is an interesting option.
¤gf6 14.¦e1 ¥d6 15.£a3!? ¢b8
( 15...
¥xg3 16.£xa7 ¤g4 17.£a8+ ¤b8 18.fxg3 £xg3 19.¦e2 e5!? ) 16.c4 ¢a8 17.¤e2
£c8 18.¤c3 ¦he8 19.¦h4 ¥b8
led to unclear complications in Hector - Vladimirov, Gausdal
1990. Black's position looks very suspect here.
]
12...
¤gf6 13.¥c3
[ 13.
£e2!? 0-0-0 14.c5 ¤d5 15.b4 ¥e7 16.¢f1 e5÷
Ciocaltea - Valero, Spain 1980.
]
70
[ 13.c5 b6 14.b4 a5 15.cxb6
£xb6 16.bxa5 £a6 17.£xa6 ¦xa6 18.¤e5 ¥d6 19.¤c4
¥xg3 20.fxg3 0-0 21.¢e2 c5 22.¦h4 ¦c8=
Romm - Porath, Israel 1976.
]
[ 13.
¤e4 ¥e7 14.0-0-0 ¦d8!? 15.¤xf6+ ( 15.¦dg1 c5 ) 15...¤xf6 16.£c2 0-0 17.¦dg1
( 17.
¦h4?! c5! 18.¥e3 a6 19.¢b1 b5 20.cxb5 axb5 21.dxc5 ¦xd1+ 22.£xd1 ¥xc5³
- Suetin.
) 17...c5 18.
¥e3 a6 19.g4 b5 20.cxb5 c4!? 21.bxa6 £a5 22.¢b1 £xa6÷
- analysis.
]
13...
¥d6
129
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+pvlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-vLQ+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
14.
¤e4 ¥e7 15.g3 0-0-0 16.0-0-0
Play has transposed back into normal channels.
¦he8
[ 16...
¤xe4
would be more natural.
]
17.
¢b1 c5 18.£e2 ¤xe4 19.£xe4 ¥f6 20.£e3 a6 21.¦he1 cxd4 22.¥xd4 ¥xd4 23.¦xd4
¤f6 24.¦h4 e5
½-½
145
Williams
Schiller
New York City ch
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6
[ 11...
¤gf6
is playable here, but this should just transpose elsewhere.
]
12.0-0-0 0-0-0
This move is usually delayed until after the other
¤ has been developed.
13.c4
[ 13.
¤e5?! ¤xe5! 14.dxe5 £xe5 15.¦he1 £c7 16.£e3 ¢b8∓ ]
13...
¤gf6 14.¤e4
[ 14.
¥c3 c5 ( 14...¥d6 15.¤e4 ¥f4+ 16.¢c2 ¤e5! 17.¤xe5 ¥xe5 18.¤c5 ¥d6 19.¤b3
£e7=
Bronstein - Kotov, Amsterdam 1968.
) 15.
¢b1 cxd4 16.¤xd4 a6 17.¤b3 ¤c5 18.£f3
¦xd1+ 19.¦xd1 ¥e7 20.¥a5 £e5 21.¦e1 £d6!=
- Suetin.
]
(Diagram 130)
71
130
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzPN+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzP-vL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
A new move, at the time, but one which is not particularly impressive.
14...c5 15.d5?!
[ 15.
£a3!? ¢b8 16.¤xc5 ¤xc5 17.dxc5 ¥xc5 18.¥b4 £f4+ 19.¢b1 £f5+ 20.¢a1 ¥xb4
21.
£xb4 ¤xh5 22.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 23.£e7÷ ]
15...exd5 16.cxd5 c4! 17.
£d4 ¤xe4 18.£xe4 ¤f6 19.£f5+ £d7
131
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9zpp+q+pzp-0
9-+-+-sn-zp0
9+-+P+Q+P0
9-+p+-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-vL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
20.
£xd7+ ¦xd7 21.¤e5 ¦xd5 22.¤xf7 ¦g8 23.¥c3 ¥e7 24.¦de1 ¥c5³ 25.¥xf6 gxf6
26.
¦e4 ¥xf2 27.¤xh6 ¦xg2
132
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0
9zpp+-+-+-0
9-+-+-zp-sN0
9+-+r+-+P0
9-+p+R+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-vlr+0
9+-mK-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White has an advanced pawn, but Black has the attack.
28.
¦xc4+ ¢d8 29.¦e4 ¥d4 30.¤f7+
¢c7 31.h6 ¦c5+ 32.¢d1 ¥xb2 33.¦e7+ ¢b6 34.¦e6+ ¢a5
0-1
72
159
Bronstein
Bazan
Mar del Plata
1960
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¤e4
This is no longer seen in tournament play, and is not even
mentioned in ECO II (1987).
133
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvlntr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9tR-vL-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤gf6
12.
¥f4 ¤xe4 13.£xe4 ¤f6 14.£e2 £d5!?
This prevents White from castling
queenside, and also threatens to exchange queens with 15...
£e4.
15.
¥e5 £e4 16.£xe4 ¤xe4
17.
¢e2 ¦d8 18.¦ad1 ¦g8!?
The point of this move is not so much as to take action on the
kingside as to free the
¥ from its defensive duties at g7.
19.c4
¥d6 20.¦d3 ¢e7 21.¦b3 ¦d7
22.
¦h4?!
[ 22.
¦d1
is more logical, but the game is still roughly level.
]
22...
¤f6 23.¥xd6+ ¢xd6! 24.¤e5 ¦c7
Black will underminde the White center with c6-c5, and
thus force the
¤ at e5 to abandon his outpost.
25.
¦a3 a6 26.b4 ¢e7 27.¦g3 ¦cc8 28.¦f4
¦cf8=
134
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trr+0
9+p+-mkpzp-0
9p+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-zPPzP-tR-+0
9+-+-+-tR-0
9P+-+KzPP+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Although Black's position is cramped, it is very solid.
29.
¦h3 ¤d7 30.¤xd7 ¢xd7 31.¦hf3 f6
32.
¦e3 ¦e8 33.¦fe4 ¦gf8 34.c5?! ¦f7 35.f4 ¦fe7 36.g4 ¦f8 37.f5?! ¦fe8! 38.fxe6+
[ 38.
¢d3 exf5? ( 38...e5 39.dxe5 fxe5 40.¦g3 ¦f8= ) 39.¦xe7+ ¦xe7 40.¦xe7+ ¢xe7
41.gxf5
² ]
38...
¦xe6 39.¦xe6 ¦xe6 40.¢f3
[ 40.
¦xe6 ¢xe6 41.¢e3 f5∓ ]
40...
¦e7 41.¦xe7+?!
73
[ 41.
¦d3 ]
41...
¢xe7 42.¢e4 ¢e6 43.a3 ¢f7
∆ g7-g6.
0-1
163
Belyavsky
Campora
Luzern
1985
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 e6
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤f6 11.¥d2 ¤bd7 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.¢b1
135
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This move rarely has independent significance, usually transposing after White eventually
chooses a real plan.
0-0-0
Black can also choose 13...c5, opening up the
« now that White has
commited his
¢ to that side of the board, but castling is the more thematic move in the tradition
of the Caro Kann.
14.
£e2 ¥d6 15.¤e4 ¤xe4
[ 15...
¥f4!?
might be stronger.
]
16.
£xe4 ¤f6
[ 16...c5?! 17.dxc5
¤xc5 18.£c4!±
Kurajica - Bagirov, Titovo Uzica 1978.
]
17.
£e2 c5
[ 17...
¦he8!?
is suggested by Kasparov & Shakarov, who give further
18.
¤e5 ( 18.c4 e5
19.c5
¥f8 20.dxe5 ¤d7 ) 18...c5 19.¥c1 ¥f8 20.dxc5 ¥xc5 ]
18.c4
£c6 19.¤e5 £e4+ 20.£xe4 ¤xe4
(Diagram 136)
74
136
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-vlp+-zp0
9+-zp-sN-+P0
9-+PzPn+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-vL-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
We have reached a position filled with dynamic tension, which must be resolved quickly.
21.
¤xf7
¤xf2 22.¥e3 ¤xh1 23.¦xh1
[ 23.
¤xh8 cxd4 24.¦xd4 ( 24.¥xd4 ¦xh8 25.¦xh1 e5³ ) 24...¦xh8 25.¦xd6 ¤g3 26.¦xe6
¤xh5÷ ]
23...
¥g3 24.¤xd8 ¦xd8 25.dxc5 ¦d3
137
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0
9zpp+-+-zp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-zP-+-+P0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-+rvL-vl-0
9PzP-+-+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black's activity compensates for the weak doubled pawn.
26.
¥c1 ¥f2 27.¥f4 ¥xc5 28.¥e5
¦d7 29.¦h4 ¥e3! 30.¦e4 ¥g5 31.¥d4 b6³ 32.¢c2 ¦e7 33.a4 ¢d7 34.a5 bxa5 35.¥xa7
¢c6 36.¥f2 ¥f6 37.¥e1 a4 38.¥b4 ¦e8 39.¦e1 ¥d4 40.¦a1 ¦a8 41.¦a2 ¦a7
White's last few moves are incomprehensible. His
¦ has been reduced to the status of a §.
42.
¢d3 ¦b7!?
[ 42...e5 43.b3
¦f7 44.¦xa4 ¦f2 45.¦a6+ ¢b7 46.¦g6± ]
43.
¦xa4 ¥xb2 44.¦a6+ ¢d7 45.¥c5 ¥f6= 46.¥b6 ¢c6 47.¥d4+ ¢d7 48.¥b6
One can only assume that the players continue for many more moves because this was a team
tournement.
¢c6 49.¥a5+ ¢c5 50.¦xe6 ¦d7+ 51.¢e4 ¢xc4 52.¥b6 ¦d2 53.g4 ¦g2
54.
¢f5 ¢d5 55.¦e1 ¢d6 56.¦e4 ¢d5 57.¦a4 ¦e2 58.¥c7 ¦f2+ 59.¢g6 ¥c3 60.¥d8
¦g2 61.¥b6 ¦e2 62.¥d8 ¦e4 63.¦xe4 ¢xe4 64.g5 hxg5
½-½
75
170
Evans
Berger
Amsterdam iz
1964
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¢b1 c5 14.c4
138
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzP-vL-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
cxd4?!
Black should have castled instead of opening up the center which greatly increases the
scope of White's forces.
15.
¤xd4 a6
[ 15...
¤e5 16.£e2 ¤xc4 17.¤xe6! ¤xd2+ 18.¦xd2 fxe6 19.£xe6+ £e7 ( 19...¥e7 20.¤f5
¢f8 21.¦c1+- ) 20.£c4±
∆ ¦e2 - Evans.
]
[ 15...0-0-0 16.
¤b5 £b8 17.¤e4! ¤xe4 18.£xe4± a6 ( 18...¤f6 19.£e3 a6 20.¤a7+
¢c7 21.¥a5+ b6 22.¦xd8+- ) 19.¥f4 e5 20.¦xd7! ¦xd7 21.¥xe5 £a8 22.¤c7 ¦xc7
23.
£f5+ ¢b8 ( 23...¦d7 24.¦d1+- ) 24.£xf7+-
- Evans.
]
139
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0
9+pwqn+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PsN-+-+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzP-vL-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
16.
¤xe6! fxe6 17.£g6+ ¢d8 18.¦he1!+- ¢c8
[ 18...e5 19.
¥c3 ¢c8 20.f4!
- Evans.
]
[ 18...
£xc4 19.¥c3 ¥e7 20.£xg7 ¦g8 21.£xh6
∆ ¥xf6.
]
19.
¦xe6 b6 20.£f5!
∆ ¥f4.
¢b7 21.¥f4 £c5
[ 21...
£c8 22.¤e4 ¢a7 ( 22...¤xe4 23.£xe4+ ¢a7 24.¦c6!+- ) 23.¤xf6 ¤xf6 24.¦xf6!
gxf6 25.
¦d7+ £b7 26.¦xb7+ ¢xb7 27.£xf6 ¥c5 28.£g7+ ¢c6 29.£c7# ]
22.
¦xf6‡ ¤xf6 23.¦d7+ ¢c6
[ 23...
¤xd7 24.£xd7+ £c7 25.£xc7# ]
76
24.
¦c7#
1-0
173
Spassky
Petrosian
World Ch (m/13)
1966
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.£e2 ¤gf6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤xe5
15.dxe5
¤d7
[ 15...
¤d5!? 16.f4 c5 17.c4 ¤b4 18.¥xb4 ¦xd1+ 19.¦xd1 cxb4 20.¤e4
is discussed in
Spassky - Botvinnik, USSR 1966.
]
16.f4
¥e7 17.¤e4 ¤c5 18.¤c3 f6
[ 18...
¦he8!? 19.¥e3 ( 19.g4!?
also comes into consideration, for example:
¥f8 20.g5
with a strong initiative.
) 19...
£a5 20.¢b1 ¤a4 21.¤xa4 £xa4 22.£f2 b6²
Tiller -
Groszpeter, Groningen 1977/78.
]
[ 18...
¦d4 19.¥e3! ¦xd1+ 20.¦xd1 ¦d8 21.£g4!
would have given White strong pressure on
the kingside.
]
19.exf6
¥xf6 20.£c4
[ 20.b4?
represents a wrongheaded approach.
¥xc3! 21.¥xc3 £xf4+ 22.¢b1 ( 22.¥d2 £e4!
23.
£xe4 ¤xe4 24.¥e3 ¦xd1+ 25.¦xd1 ¦d8 26.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 27.¥xa7 ¤g3 28.¥d4 ¤xh5
29.g4
¤f6∓ ) 22...¤e4 23.¥xg7 ¦hg8 24.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 25.¦d1+ ¢c8 26.¥d4 ¦d8!
and the threat of a family fork at c3 is very important.
]
20...
£b6
140
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zpp+-+-zp-0
9-wqp+pvl-zp0
9+-sn-+-+P0
9-+Q+-zP-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPPvL-+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
21.b4!
² ¤a6 22.¤e4!
[ 22.
£xe6+?
would have been an error.
¢b8 23.¤e4 ( 23.a3 ¦xd2! 24.¢xd2 £d4+ 25.¢c1
£xc3 ) 23...¦he8 24.£f5 £d4-+ ]
22...
¤c7 23.¦he1 ¦d4
This is the logical and most aggressive move, but there was a worthy
alternate of a more defensive nature.
[ 23...
¥e7 24.¥c3 ¤d5 25.¥xg7 ¥xb4 26.¥xh8 ¥xe1 27.¥d4 £b4 28.£xb4 ¥xb4
29.
¥xa7 ¤xf4 30.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 31.¥e3 ¤xh5 32.¥xh6 e5 ( 32...¥e7? 33.g4 ¤f6 34.¤xf6
¥xf6 35.g5 ) 33.g4 ¤f4
with a likely draw.
]
24.
£b3 £b5 25.c3 ¦xe4
[ 25...
¦hd8 26.¤c5!
exposes the weakness of e6.
]
26.
¦xe4 £xh5 27.£c4 £f5
77
141
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-tr0
9zppsn-+-zp-0
9-+p+pvl-zp0
9+-+-+q+-0
9-zPQ+RzP-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9P+-vL-+P+0
9+-mKR+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has one
§ for the exchange, but White's position is rather exposed. With careful play
perhaps White has the advantage in this unbalanced position.
28.
£e2 h5 29.¥e1 ¦e8 30.g3
a5 31.bxa5
£xa5 32.£c2 £f5 33.¦a4 g5?
Perhaps Petrosian was running out of patience,
or perhaps he thought it was necessary to open up the position, but this was a poor decision. A
counter on the queenside with 33...b5 would have been more appropriate.
34.fxg5
¥xg5+
35.
¢b1 £xc2+ 36.¢xc2 e5
[ 36...b5
is still an interesing option. Black will plant his
¤ at d5 and his active pieces would
provide sufficient compensation.
]
37.
¦e4 ¤d5 38.¥f2 ¤f6 39.¦a4 ¢c7 40.¥c5 ¤d5 41.¦e4
142
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+-+0{
9+pmk-+-+-0
9-+p+-+-+0
9+-vLnzp-vlp0
9-+-+R+-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9P+K+-+-+0
9+-+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Here the game was adjourned. Black has a difficult defensive task in this complex endgame, and
could only hope for a draw.
b6 42.
¥g1!
This is the best square for the
¥. Complicating matters
with 42.c4 was not needed.
¥d8 43.¦f1 ¤f6 44.¦e2 c5 45.¦f5 ¢d6 46.a4 ¢d5
Black is
properly aggressive with his
¢, a technique usually associated with his opponent!
47.
¢d3 ¤g4!
48.
¦b2!
[ 48.
¦xh5
would have gained a pawn, but forfeited an important file:
¦f8!
and Black has plenty
of counterplay.
]
48...
¦h8 49.a5 c4+ 50.¢e2 ¢e4 51.¦f7 bxa5 52.¦b8 a4 53.¦c8
[ 53.
¦d7 a3! ]
53...
¥f6
(Diagram 143)
78
143
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+R+-+-tr0
9+-+-+R+-0
9-+-+-vl-+0
9+-+-zp-+p0
9p+p+k+n+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9-+-+K+-+0
9+-+-+-vL-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
54.
¦xc4+?
[ 54.
¦xh8 ¥xh8 55.¦c7!
would have won easily.
¢d5 56.¦c5++- ]
54...
¢f5 55.¦a7 a3?!
[ 55...
¦d8
was the best try, hoping for
56.
¦cxa4 ¥g5
with counterplay.
]
56.
¦xa3 ¦b8 57.¦b4 ¦c8 58.c4 ¥e7 59.c5 e4 60.¦a7 ¥f6 61.¦h7?
[ 61.
¦ba4!
would have left Black in a hopeless position.
]
61...
¢g6 62.¦d7 ¢f5 63.¦d5+ ¥e5 64.¦b6 e3 65.¢f3 ¤f6 66.¦d3 ¦xc5 67.¥xe3 ¦c2
68.
¦d8 ¦c3 69.¢e2 ¦c2+ 70.¢d1 ¦c3 71.¥f2
144
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tR-+-+0{
9+-+-+-+-0
9-tR-+-sn-+0
9+-+-vlk+p0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-tr-+-zP-0
9-+-+-vL-+0
9+-+K+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤e4?
[ 71...
¦a3
followed by the check at g4 would have given Black better chances of surviving .
]
72.
¦f8+ ¢g5
[ 72...
¤f6!?
was worth a try, since mass liquidation does not succeed.
73.
¦fxf6+
¥xf6
74.
¦xf6+ ¢xf6 75.¥d4+ ¢g5 76.¥xc3 h4!
and a draw is assured.
]
73.
¦b5 ¦d3+ 74.¢e2 ¦d5 75.¦xd5 ¤c3+ 76.¢f3 ¤xd5 77.¦a8!
and now it is just a matter
of time.
¢f5 78.¦a5 ¢e6 79.¥e1 ¤f6 80.¦b5 ¤d5 81.¥d2 ¥g7 82.¥c1 ¥e5 83.¥b2 ¥c7
84.
¦c5 ¥d6 85.¦c1 ¤e7 86.¦e1+ ¢f5 87.¦a1 ¤c6 88.¦a6 ¥e5 89.¦xc6 ¥xb2 90.¦c5+
¢g6 91.¢f4 ¥g7
1-0
79
175
Massana
Schiller
New York City ch
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤xe5
15.dxe5
¤d7 16.f4 ¦g8!?
145
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vlr+0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-zP-+P0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPPvLQ+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Kasparov and Shakarov indicate that my idea is original, but point out that White can play more
strongly than in the game.
17.
¥c3
[ 17.
¤e4 f5
was the point of my previous move.
]
17...f5 18.
£c4 ¤c5 19.¤xf5?
White falls for the optical illusion. There is much less space on
the
« than there seems to be.
[ 19.b4 b5! ]
[ 19.
¥b4 ¦d5! 20.¦xd5 cxd5 21.£c3 ¤d3+ 22.cxd3 ¥xb4 23.£xc7+ ¢xc7
is slightly better
for Black.
]
[ 19.
¦xd8+!
was the correct move.
£xd8
20.
¦d1
this is the line given by Kasparov and
Shakarov, intending Bb4. But with all due respect, the claim that my position would have been
suspect is not clear:
£h4
A) 21.
¥b4 b5 22.£d4 £xg3 23.¥xc5 ¥xc5 24.£xc5 ( 24.£d7+ ¢b8 25.£xc6 £xf4+
26.
¢b1 ¦c8 27.£xb5+ ¥b6-+ ) 24...£xf4+ 25.¢b1 £e4
and Black seems safe to me. Still,
one should respect the opinion of the World Champion and I would examine these positions
carefully before adopting the plan in an important game.
;
B) 21.
¤e2 ]
19...b5! 20.
¤d6+?
(Diagram 146)
80
146
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vlr+0{
9zp-wq-+-zp-0
9-+psNp+-zp0
9+psn-zP-+P0
9-+Q+-zP-+0
9+-vL-+-+-0
9PzPP+-+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
£xd6!! 21.£e2 £c7 22.¦xd8+ £xd8-+ 23.¦d1 £e8 24.b4 ¤a4 25.¥d4 ¥xb4 26.c4 £f8
27.
£f3 ¥a3+ 28.¢c2 ¢c7 29.cxb5 cxb5 30.£b3 £f5+ 31.¦d3 ¦d8 32.¢d2 £xf4+
0-1
179
Malchikov
Shakarov
USSR
1976
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦a5 18.¢b1 ¥d6 19.f4 ¦d8 20.¦d3
[ 20.
¤e4 ¤xe4 21.£xe4 ¢b8 22.g3
For 22.b3 see Jansa - Podgayets, Sombor 1970.
b5
23.c5
¥xe5 24.dxe5?! ( 24.fxe5 ¦a4÷ ) 24...¦a4! 25.£e3 ¦d5 26.b3?! ( 26.¦xd5 cxd5³ )
26...
£d7! 27.¦xd5 £xd5 28.¦c1 ¦d4∓
Maeder - Podgayets, 1969.
]
147
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zppvlpsn-zp0
9tr-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-zP-+0
9+-+R+-sN-0
9PzP-+Q+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
We are in the thick of the theoretical jungle here, exploring a sideline to the main variant where
the
¦ is placed at d2. There is no danger, however.
20...b5
[ 20...c5
is not as effective.
21.
¦hd1²
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
[ 20...
£e7 21.¦hd1 ¥c7 22.¤e4 ¤xe4 23.£xe4 b5 24.d5! f5 25.£e1 bxc4 26.d6 ¥xd6
27.
¤g6±
Vogt - Boensch, GDR 1979.
]
21.c5
¥xe5 22.fxe5 ¤d5
81
148
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9trpzPnzP-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+R+-sN-0
9PzP-+Q+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This position was evaluated as inferior to 20.
¦d2 by Boleslavsky. We follow the analysis by
Kasparov & Shakarov in their 1983 book.
23.
£d2 ¦a4 24.b3 ¦a3 25.¤e4
The
¤ heads for d6,
but without a supporting cast it will not make much of an impression.
b4
If White gets d6, then
Black will be able to occupy c3 in return.
26.
¦f1
[ 26.
¦g3 f5! 27.exf6 ¤xf6 28.¤d6+ ¦xd6 29.cxd6 £xd6 30.¦xg7 ¤e4 31.£xh6 ¤c3+
Black's attack looks very dangerous, but White has sufficient resources to get the half-point.
32.
¢c2 ¢b8! ( 32...¦xa2+ 33.¢d3 ¢b8
transposes.
) 33.
¦g8+ ¢a7 34.£f8! ¦xa2+
( 34...
£xd4?? 35.£a8+ ¢b6 36.£d8+ £xd8 37.¦xd8 ¦xa2+ 38.¢d3 ¦xg2 39.h6+- )
35.
¢d3 ¦d2+! 36.¢xd2 £xd4+ 37.¢e1 £e3+ 38.¢f1 £e2+ 39.¢g1 £e1+ 40.¢h2
( 40.
£f1?? ¤e2+ 41.¢h2 £h4# ) 40...£h4+= ]
26...
¢b8 27.¦df3 ¦d7 28.¦1f2 ¢a7
The Black
¢ is now safe, providing more flexibility in
choice of plans.
29.g4
£d8!
149
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-wq-+-+0
9mkp+r+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-zPnzP-+P0
9-zp-zPN+P+0
9trP+-+R+-0
9P+-wQ-tR-+0
9+K+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
30.
£c1
[ 30.
¦xf7!? ¦xf7 31.¦xf7 £h4
allows the
£ into the game, but it is not clear that there is great
danger.
32.
£e2 £h1+ 33.¢b2 ( 33.¦f1?? £xe4+! 34.£xe4 ¤c3+ 35.¢b2 ¦xa2+ 36.¢c1
¤xe4 37.¦f7 ¦d2 38.¦xg7 ¦xd4 39.¦g6 ¤xc5 40.¦xh6 ¦xg4 41.¦g6 ¦h4-+ ) 33...£g1
A) 34.
£f2 £xg4 35.¤d6? ¦xa2+ 36.¢xa2 ¤c3+ 37.¢a1 ( 37.¢b2 ¤d1+ 38.¢c2 ¤xf2
39.
¦xf2 £xd4-+ ) 37...£d1+ 38.¢b2 £b1# ;
B) 34.
¦f2 ¦a6
and according to Kasparov & Shakarov, neither side can make progress.
]
30...
£h4 31.£g1 ¤c3+
[ 31...
¢a8!? 32.¦xf7 ¦xf7 33.¦xf7 £h3!? ]
32.
¤xc3 bxc3 33.¦c2
82
150
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0{
9mkp+r+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-zP-zP-+P0
9-+-zP-+Pwq0
9trPzp-+R+-0
9P+R+-+-+0
9+K+-+-wQ-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦xd4 34.£xd4 £h1+ 35.¦c1 £xf3 36.¦xc3
With checkmates no longer likely, a draw is
inevitable.
£e2 37.¦c2 £e1+ 38.¦c1 £e2 39.¦c2 £e1+ 40.¢b2 £a5 41.¢b1
½-½
180
Korolyov
Vdovin
Corr.
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦a5 18.¢b1 ¥d6 19.f4 ¦d8 20.¦d2
151
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zppvlpsn-zp0
9tr-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-zP-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-tRQ+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This move, originally recommended by Boleslavsky, has not had been tested in the Grandmaster
arena but it has seen action in the former Soviet Union.
b5
[ 20...c5
is not as effective.
21.
¦hd1²
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
21.c5
¥xe5 22.fxe5
[ 22.dxe5
¤d5÷ 23.¤e4 ¦a4 24.¤d6+ ¢b8 25.g3 £a5! 26.a3 ( 26.¤xf7 ¦xa2 27.¤xd8
¦a1+ 28.¢c2 ¤b4+ 29.¢b3 £a4+ 30.¢c3 ¦xh1
and White is in big trouble.
) 26...
¦xa3!
27.bxa3
¤c3+ 28.¢b2 ¤xe2 29.¦xe2 b4∓ ]
22...
¦a4!
83
152
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+pzP-zP-+P0
9r+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-tRQ+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
23.
¦hd1
[ 23.
¦h3 ¤d5 24.¤e4
Kasparov & Shakarov have a low opinion of this sacrifice.
¤f4 25.£f2
¤xh3 26.gxh3 ¢b8 27.¤d6 ¦f8 28.b3 ¦a6? ( 28...¦a8
would have been better, allowing
Black to reorganize along the back rank.
) 29.
£g2! f6 30.exf6 gxf6 31.£g6 e5 32.¦g2!
and White had more than enough compensation in Zakharov - Shakarov, corr. 1978
]
[ 23.
£f2 ¤g4 ( 23...¤d5 24.¤e4÷ ) 24.£f4
A) 24...
£xe5!? 25.£xg4 ( 25.dxe5 ¦xf4 26.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 27.¦d1+ ¢e7∓ ; 25.£xe5
¤xe5∓ ) 25...¦axd4 26.¦xd4 ¦xd4 27.£f3 ¦d2 28.£a3 ( 28.£c3 £d5 ) 28...b4 29.£a8+
( 29.
£xb4 ¦xg2 30.¤e4 ¦xb2+!! 31.£xb2 £xe4+ 32.¢c1 £xh1+ 33.¢c2 £g2+ 34.¢b3
£xb2+ 35.¢xb2-+ ) 29...¢c7 30.£a5+ ¢c8 ( 30...¢b8 31.£xb4 ¦xg2 32.¦d1+- )
31.
£a8+= ;
B) 24...
¤xe5 25.b3 £a5!?
leads to wild complications!
153
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9+p+-+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9wqpzP-sn-+P0
9r+-zP-wQ-+0
9+P+-+-sN-0
9P+-tR-+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
B1) 26.
¦hd1 ¤c4! 27.bxc4 ( 27.bxa4 £c3 ) 27...£c3 28.¦b2 ¦b4 29.¦xb4 £xb4+
30.
¢a1 £c3+ 31.¢b1 £b4+ 32.¢c2 £xc4+= ;
B2) 26.
¤e4 ¤d3! 27.£e3 ( 27.¦xd3 ¦xa2 28.¦dd1 ¦a1+ 29.¢c2 £a2+ 30.¢d3
£xb3+ 31.¤c3 £c4+ 32.¢c2 ¦a2+ 33.¢b1 £b3+ ) 27...¦axd4 28.¤d6+ ¦4xd6
29.cxd6
¤b4 30.£c3! £a3 31.£xg7 ¤d5
and, according to Kasparov & Shakarov, "the
outcome is obscure". Who says the Classical Caro-Kann is boring?
;
B3) 26.bxa4
£b4+ 27.¢c1 ( 27.¦b2? £xb2+ 28.¢xb2 ¤d3+ 29.¢c3 ¤xf4 30.¦h2
e5!-+ )
B3a) 27...
£c3+
was not as effective in Marzell - Shakarov, Correspondence 1977.
28.
¢d1 ¤c4 29.¦f1! e5 ( 29...¤xd2? 30.¤e2 ) 30.£f5+ ¢b8 31.¤e4 £b4 32.¢e2
Perhaps White can do better than this!?
¤xd2 33.£xe5+ ¢a7 34.¤xd2 ¦xd4 35.£e3
bxa4 36.
¢e1 f5! 37.a3 £b2
and Marzell - Shakarov, Correspondence 1977 eventually
ended in a draw.
;
B3b) 27...
£c4+! 28.¢d1 ¤d3 29.£e3 ( 29.£xf7 £xd4 30.£xe6+ ¢b8-+ ) 29...¦xd4
84
30.axb5 ( 30.
¤e2 £xa4+ 31.¦c2 ¦d7∓ ; 30.¢e2 ¤e5+ 31.¢e1 £c1+ 32.¢e2
£c4+= ) 30...f5! 31.bxc6 f4
Kasparov & Shakarov stop here, claiming an advantage for
Black. But the position merits further study.
32.cxb7+
¢xb7? ( 32...¢b8!
is correct.
)
33.
£f3+ ¦d5 34.¤e2 ¤b2+ 35.¢e1 ¤d3+ ]
23...
¤d5 24.¤e4 £a5 25.b3 ¦a3 26.£f3 f5 27.exf6 gxf6 28.g4 b4 29.£g3 f5 30.gxf5
exf5
31.
£h3
This wins a pawn, but it is of no importance since White's pieces are totally
paralyzed by the threatening Black forces.
¢b8 32.£xf5 ¦e8 33.¢c1 ¢a7 34.£g6 ¦e7
35.
¦f2 £a6 36.¦fd2 £a5
½-½
183
Widera
Tarnai
cr
1974
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.£e2 ¤gf6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦a5 18.¢b1 ¥d6 19.f4 ¦d8 20.¦hf1
154
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zppvlpsn-zp0
9tr-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-zP-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+Q+P+0
9+K+R+R+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This seminal game is not mentioned in Kasparov & Shakarov, but the interest is mailnly historical,
since White achieves nothing with this plan.
£e7 21.¤e4 ¤xe4 22.£xe4 f6
Black will play to
achieve e6-e5, after which he will have the better game.
23.
¤g6 £f7 24.£e2 ¦e8 25.¦d3 b5!
26.b3 bxc4 27.bxc4 e5!
and Black has taken over the initiative.
28.
¦e3 e4 29.¦c1 f5 30.g4
£c7 31.£f2 £d7 32.¤e5 ¥xe5 33.dxe5 fxg4 34.£e1 ¦a4 35.¦xe4 £f5 36.¦c2 £xh5
37.
¦d2 £f5 38.¢a1 £f8 39.¦d6 ¦xc4 40.¦xc4 £xd6 41.£a5 £d1+ 42.¢b2 ¦d8 43.¦c2
£d4+ 44.¦c3 g3
0-1
185
Martin
Pomar
Las Palmas
1977
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦d8 18.¤e4 ¤xe4 19.£xe4 ¥d6 20.f4 f5 21.£e3 ¥xe5
85
22.
£xe5 £xe5 23.dxe5
155
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+p+-+-zp-0
9-zpp+p+-zp0
9+-+-zPp+P0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This endgame, which could have been reached a few moves earlier, must be handled properly.
The
¦s must not come off the board too quickly!
¦hg8?
[ 23...g5! 24.hxg6 ( 24.g3
¦hg8 25.¦hg1 ¦d7!
Kasparov & Shakarov.
) 24...
¦dg8 25.¦d3
¦xg6 26.g3 ¦hg8 27.¦h3 h5 28.¢c2 h4! 29.gxh4 ¦h6 30.¦d2 ¦g4= ]
24.
¦xd8+ ¢xd8
[ 24...
¦xd8 25.¦d1 ¦xd1+ 26.¢xd1 ¢d7 27.¢c2 c5 28.¢b3 ¢c7 29.¢a4 ¢c6 30.a3
¢c7 31.¢b5+- ]
25.
¦d1+ ¢c7 26.¦d6 g5 27.g3 gxf4 28.gxf4 ¦e8 29.¢c2 ¦e7 30.¢b3 ¦e8 31.¢b4 ¦e7
32.a3
¦e8 33.a4 ¦e7 34.c5 bxc5+ 35.¢xc5 b6+ 36.¢c4 ¦g7 37.¦xe6 ¦g4 38.¦xh6
¦xf4+ 39.¢b3 ¦f3+ 40.¢a2 ¦h3 41.¦h7+ ¢d8 42.b4 f4 43.a5 ¢c8 44.a6 ¢b8 45.e6
¦e3 46.e7
1-0
186
Van der Wiel
2590
Korchnoi
2625
Amsterdam
1987
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦d8 18.¢b1
(Diagram 156)
86
156
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zpp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
The ubiquitous waiting move makes an appearance in this topical variation.
¥d6
19.f4
c5
20.dxc5
¥xc5!= 21.¤e4 ¥d4 22.g3
157
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zp-+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PvlNzP-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+Q+-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Korchnoi now proceeds to clear the pieces off the board, confident that the endgame poses no
problems.
¤xe4 23.£xe4 ¥xe5 24.£xe5 £xe5 25.fxe5 ¦hg8 26.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 27.¢c2
¦d4 28.¦h4 ¦xh4 29.gxh4
158
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0{
9+p+-+pzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0
9+-+-zP-+P0
9-+P+-+-zP0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPK+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A very unbalanced pawn structure. White has greater mobility but fewer chances to create a
passed pawn. And Viktor the Great is involved in the game!
¢d7 30.a4 ¢c6 31.¢c3 ¢c5
32.b4+
¢c6 33.¢d4 ¢d7 34.¢e3 ¢c8
Korchnoi makes it clear that in his opinion White has
no winning chances at all.
35.
¢f4 ¢b8 36.¢g3 ¢c8 37.¢h3 ¢b8 38.¢g2 ¢c8 39.¢f3
¢b8 40.¢e3
½-½
87
187
Gepuriani
Guliev
Frunze
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.£e2 £c7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦d8
159
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zpp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This move is less active than the transfer to the a-
‘, but it is also a solid continuation which
provides a peaceful alternative.
18.
¤e4
[ 18.a3 c5 19.dxc5
¥xc5 20.b4 ¥xf2 21.¤xf7÷
Wiedeman - Groszpeter, Groningen 1976/
77.
]
[ 18.
¤f3 ¥d6 19.¤e4 ¤xe4 20.£xe4 ¦he8 21.¢b1 ¢b8 22.¦d3²
Hort - Pomar, Las
Palmas 1976.
]
[ 18.f4
is discussed in Palac - Neidhardt.
]
18...
¤xe4
[ 18...c5? 19.
¤c3 ¥d6 20.¤b5 £e7 21.dxc5 ¥xc5 22.¤a7+ ¢c7 23.¤xf7!±
Tatai - Pomar,
Malaga 1968.
]
19.
£xe4 ¥d6 20.¤f3
[ 20.f4 f5 21.
£e3 ¥xe5 22.£xe5 £xe5 23.dxe5
160
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+p+-+-zp-0
9-zpp+p+-zp0
9+-+-zPp+P0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
g5!
( 23...
¦hg8? 24.¦xd8+! ¢xd8 25.¦d1+ ¢c7 26.¦d6±
Martin - Pomar, Las Vegas
1977.
) 24.hxg6 ( 24.
¦xd8+ ¢xd8 25.fxg5 hxg5 26.h6 ¦h7∓ ; 24.g3 ¦hg8 25.¦hg1 ¦d7!³ )
24...
¦dg8 25.¦d3 ¦xg6 26.g3 ¦hg8 27.¦h3 h5 28.¢c2 ( 28.¦f3 h4! 29.gxh4 ¦g1+
30.
¢c2 ¦8g2+ 31.¢b3 ¦b1 ) 28...h4! 29.gxh4 ¦h6 30.¦h2 ¦g4 31.¦f3 ¦hxh4=
- Korolyev.
]
20...
£e7
88
[ 20...
¦he8 21.¢b1 £e7 22.¦he1 £f6 23.g3 ¥c7 24.a3²
Spassky - Pomar, Palma de
Mallorca 1968.
]
[ 20...
¥e7!
is preferred by Kasparov & Shakarov, inviting the following conclusion:
21.
¤e5
( 21.
¦d3 ¥f6 22.¢b1 ¦d7 23.¦hd1 ¦hd8
and after a preliminary
¢ move to get off the c-‘,
Black will be ready to play b5.
) 21...
¥d6 22.¤f3 ¥e7
etc.
]
21.
¦d3 £f6 22.g3 ¦he8
Playing for e6-e5.
23.
¦hd1 £f5!?
Another plan - the exchange of
£s
will open the e-
‘. and the doubled § will control an important central square.
24.
£xf5
exf5
25.
¤h4 f4! 26.g4
[ 26.gxf4?!
¥xf4+ 27.¢b1 ¦e2³ ]
26...
¦e2 27.¦1d2 ¦e1+ 28.¦d1 ¦e2 29.¦3d2
[ 29.
¦1d2= ]
29...f3 30.
¦d3
[ 30.
¤xf3? ¥f4∓ ]
30...
¥e7 31.¤xf3 ¦xf2 32.¦1d2
161
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9+p+-vlpzp-0
9-zpp+-+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+P+0
9+-+R+N+-0
9PzP-tR-tr-+0
9+-mK-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦xf3! 33.¦xf3 ¥g5 34.¦fd3
[ 34.
¦xf7?? ¦xd4 35.¦ff2 ¦xc4+ 36.¢d1 ¥xd2 37.¦xd2 ¦xg4³ ]
34...
¦e8 35.¢c2 ¥xd2 36.¢xd2 ¦e4 37.¦g3 ¦xd4+ 38.¢c3 ¦f4 39.g5 ¦h4 40.gxh6
gxh6 41.
¦f3 ¦xh5 42.¦xf7 ¦h3+³ 43.¢b4 ¦h2 44.¢c3 h5 45.¦h7 h4 46.¦h8+ ¢c7
47.
¦h7+ ¢b8 48.¦h8+ ¢a7 49.¢b3 ¦h1 50.a3 ¦h2 51.¢c3 h3 52.¢b3 b5 53.cxb5
cxb5 54.
¦h6 b6 55.¦h7+ ¢a6 56.¢c3 ¦h1
½-½
188
Palac
Neidhardt
Bordeaux
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.£e2 ¤gf6 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦d8 18.f4
(Diagram 162)
89
162
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-zpp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-zP-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-+Q+P+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
A recent attempt to rehabilitate an old and discarded line.
¥d6 19.¤e4
[ 19.
£c2 c5 20.¦he1 cxd4 21.¦xd4 ¥xe5! 22.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 23.fxe5 ¤d7 24.£a4 ¢b8
25.
£b5 f6∓
Litvinov - Begun, USR 1978.
]
19...
¤xe4 20.£xe4 c5
[ 20...f5
is usually played here.
]
21.
¤d3 cxd4 22.£xd4 ¥c5 23.£xg7
[ 23.
£e4 ¦d4 ]
23...
¦hg8 24.£xh6 ¥e3+!
[ 24...
¦xg2 25.¦he1÷ ]
25.
¢b1 ¦xg2 26.£h7 ¥d4 27.£e4 £c6 28.£xc6+ bxc6 29.¦h3²
Although White has a
powerful passed pawn, the centralized
¥ and more active ¦s provide a lot of compensation.
¦dg8 30.h6 ¦8g3! 31.¦dh1?!
[ 31.
¦xg3 ¦xg3 32.¤b4!? ]
31...
¦g1+ 32.¦xg1 ¦xh3 33.¦g8+ ¢c7 34.¢c2 ¦xh6 35.¦f8 f6 36.a3 ¦h2+ 37.¢c1 e5
38.
¦xf6 e4 39.¤e5 ¥xb2+ 40.¢d1 e3 41.¦f7+ ¢d6 42.¦d7+ ¢c5 43.¦d3 e2+ 44.¢e1
¥xe5 45.fxe5 ¢xc4 46.¦d6 ¢c5 47.¦d3 ¦h5 48.¦c3+ ¢d4 49.¦b3 ¦xe5 50.¦xb6 c5
51.
¦b2 c4 52.¦xe2 ¦a5 53.¢d2 ¦xa3 54.¦e8 ¦a2+ 55.¢c1 ¢d3
½-½
193
Eshazarian
Shirokovsky
Roslavl
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 e6 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
¦d5 16.b4
(Diagram 163)
90
163
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-snp+psn-zp0
9vL-+rsN-+P0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9P+P+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This allows an effective exchange sacrifice.
¦xa5 17.bxa5 ¥a3+ 18.¢b1 ¤a4 19.¦d3
[ 19.
£e1 ¤d5! ]
19...
¥b4
[ 19...
¥b2?! 20.£d2! c5 21.c3 £xa5÷
Kosanski - Dely, Yugoslavia 1975.
]
[ 19...
£xa5!? ]
20.
£f3 £xa5 21.¤e2 ¤d5
[ 21...
¦f8?! 22.¦b3 ¤d5 23.¤c4 £a6 24.£d3
gave Black nothing in Byrne - Saidy, USA
1969.
]
22.
¦h3?!
[ 22.
£xf7! ¤ac3+ 23.¤xc3 ¤xc3+! 24.¦xc3 ( 24.¢c1 £xa2 ) 24...¥xc3 25.£xe6+ ¢c7
26.
£f7+ ¢c8 27.£e6+=
Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
22...f6 23.
¤g6 ¦d8 24.¤gf4 ¤dc3+
[ 24...
£b5! 25.¦b3 ¤xf4 26.¤xf4 ( 26.£xf4 £xe2 27.¦xb4 £e1+
is deadly.
) 26...
£f1+-+ ]
25.
¤xc3 ¥xc3
This position had already been reached in Schepers - Tarnai, Correspondence
1972.
26.
¦xc3 ¦xd4?!
[ 26...
£b4+!
was the superior move, as played by Tarnai.
]
27.
¤e2 ¦d1+ 28.¤c1 £b4+ 29.¦b3 £d2 30.£xd1 £xd1 31.¦bd3 £e1 32.¦hg3
[ 32.
¦he3 £xf2 33.¦xe6
would have provided stiffer resistance.
]
32...
£e5 33.c3 £f5
0-1
197
Ipek
2095
Rocio
Novi Sad olw
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 e6 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.¥a5
c5?!
(Diagram 164)
91
164
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-sn-+psn-zp0
9vL-zp-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPP+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Tbis is unwise, and White can gain the upper hand immediately.
16.dxc5?!
[ 16.c4!
A) 16...cxd4 17.
¢b1
gives White a strong initiative.
¥d6 ( 17...¢b8 18.¦c1 ¥c5 19.b4± )
18.c5!
¥xc5 19.¦c1± ;
B) 16...
¦xd4! 17.¦xd4 cxd4 18.¢b1 ¢b8 19.¦c1 ¥c5! 20.a3 ( 20.f4 ¦c8 21.¤e4 ¤xe4
22.
£xe4 £e7 23.¥xb6 ¥xb6 24.¤d3 £f6∓
Agapov - Shishin, USSR 1982.
; 20.
¤d3 £e7
21.b4
¥d6 22.c5 ¥xg3 23.cxb6 ¥d6 24.bxa7+ ¢a8!
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
) 20...
¦c8
21.f4
¤fd7 22.¤d3
(Korsunsky - Bykhovsky, USSR 1979)
£c6!∓
- Bykhovsky.
;
C) 16...
¢b8 17.dxc5 ¥xc5 18.f4 ¥d4 19.¢b1 ( 19.¤xf7 £xf7 20.¦xd4 ¦xd4 21.£e5+
£c7 22.£xd4 £xc4+=
Maric - Vukic, Kraljevo 1967.
) 19...
¥xe5 20.fxe5 ¤fd7 21.¤e4±
£xe5 22.¥c3±
Runau - Mohadam, Hastings 1971/72.
]
[ 16.
¦h4 ¥d6 17.dxc5 ¥xe5 18.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 19.cxb6 axb6!÷
Diaz - Noguieras, Cuba ch
1990.
]
16...
¥xc5 17.¤d3 ¥d6 18.¦h3 ¢b8 19.¤e4 ¤xe4 20.£xe4 ¦c8 21.¦d2 £c4 22.¦e2
½-½
200
Timman
2660
Granda Zuniga
2485
Novi Sad olm
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.£e2 e6 15.¤e5
¤b6 16.¦h4
(Diagram 165)
92
165
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-snp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-+-tR0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This move has generally fallen out of favor.
¥d6!
[ 16...c5
17.
¥a5 ¥d6 ( 17...cxd4 18.¦hxd4 ¥c5!?
- Trifunovic.
) 18.dxc5
¥xe5
( 18...
¥xc5!? ) 19.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 20.cxb6 ¥f4+ 21.¢b1 axb6 22.¥xb6 £xb6 23.¦xf4±
Ubilava - Peres, USSR 1974.
]
17.f4!?
A new move.
[ 17.
¥a5 ¥xe5 ( 17...¦he8 18.¤f1! ¥xe5 19.dxe5 ¦xd1+ 20.¢xd1 ¤fd7 21.¦e4 ¦d8
22.
¢c1 ¤c5 23.¦g4±
Gaprindashvili - Pomar, Olot 1975.
) 18.dxe5
¦xd1+ 19.¢xd1 ¤fd7
20.
¦e4 ¦d8 21.¢c1 ¤c5 22.¦g4±
Haag - Flesch, Salgotarjan 1967.
]
[ 17.
¤f1 ¢b8?!
The start of an artificial maneuver.
( 17...c5 18.dxc5
¥xe5 19.¥a5 ¦xd1+
20.
¢xd1 ¦d8+ 21.¢c1 ¦d4
- Kasparov & Shakarov. Black is no worse here.
) 18.
¢b1 ¢a8?!
19.
¤h2 c5 20.dxc5 ¥xc5 21.¤hf3²
Gipslis - Suleymanov, USSR 1978.
]
17...c5 18.
¥e3 ¤fd5 19.dxc5 ¥xe5 20.fxe5 ¤xe3 21.£xe3 ¦xd1+ 22.¢xd1 ¤d5
166
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-zPnzP-+P0
9-+-+-+-tR0
9+-+-wQ-sN-0
9PzPP+-+P+0
9+-+K+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White's extra pawn is not so important, since it is doubled and weak. The problem is, how to get
the
¤ to d6 without losing the e-§.
23.
£e2
Timman chooses to give up the pawn immediately.
[ 23.
£d4 ¦d8© ]
23...
£xc5 24.¢e1 ¢b8 25.c3 ¤e7 26.¦f4 ¦f8 27.¦c4 £g1+!
Since his other pieces are
passive, Black must operate actively with his
£.
28.
¤f1 ¤c6 29.¦g4 £c5 30.¦xg7 ¤xe5
31.
£e3 £c7
[ 31...
£xe3+ 32.¤xe3² ¤d3+ 33.¢e2 ¤xb2 34.¦h7 ¤a4 35.¦xh6 ¤c5 36.¢f3
and the h-
§ looks very dangerous.
]
32.
¢f2 ¤c4 33.£xh6 £c5+ 34.¢g3 ¤d6 35.£f4 ¦h8 36.¤e3 ¦xh5
(Diagram 167)
93
167
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+-+0
9zpp+-+ptR-0
9-+-snp+-+0
9+-wq-+-+r0
9-+-+-wQ-+0
9+-zP-sN-mK-0
9PzP-+-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
37.b4
[ 37.
¦xf7 £g5+ 38.£xg5 ¦xg5+ 39.¢h4 ¤xf7-+ ]
37...
£e5 38.¦g8+ ¢c7 39.£xe5 ¦xe5 40.¢f4 ¦e4+ 41.¢f3 f5= 42.¦g7+ ¢c6 43.¦g6
¢d7 44.¦g7+ ¢c6 45.¦g6 ¢d7
½-½
203
Hellers
Khalifman
New York open
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.£e2 ¤gf6 15.¤e5
¤b6 16.c4
168
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-snp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Supposedly a new move attributed to Shirazi, but actually introduced in 1987 .
¦xd4
[ 16...c5!? 17.
¥f4 ¥d6 18.dxc5 £xc5
- Dlugy.
]
17.
¥e3! ¦xd1+ 18.¦xd1
(Diagram 169)
94
169
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-snp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-+-vL-sN-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦g8!
[ 18...
¥d6? 19.¦xd6! £xd6 20.¤xf7+- ]
[ 18...
£xe5 19.¦d8+!! ¢xd8 20.¥xb6+ axb6 21.£xe5±
- Khalifman.
]
[ 18...
¥b4 19.¤d3! ¥e7 ( 19...£e7 20.a3 ¥xa3 21.¥xb6 axb6 22.bxa3 £xa3+ 23.£b2
£xb2+ 24.¢xb2
∆ ¤e5.
¦d8 25.¢c2 ¤g4
²/÷ - Analysis.
) 20.
¥f4 £d8 21.¤e5 £e8
22.
¤g6! fxg6 23.£e5+-
- Khalifman.
]
19.
¥f4?!
[ 19.f4!
¤a4 ( 19...c5 20.£d3!
∆ ¤xf7 - Dzhindzichashvili.
; 19...
¢b8 20.f5! ¥d6 21.¥f4
- Dlugy.
) 20.
¥xa7 c5 21.£d3! £a5 ( 21...b6 22.b3! ) 22.¤d7!+-
- Dlugy.
]
19...
¤bd7!
This takes advantage of the fact that the
¥f4 can be captured with check if the ¤
moves away.
20.
£d2
[ 20.
¤g6?! £a5 21.¤xf8 ¦xf8 22.¥d6 ¦d8
Khalifman considers White to have compensation
here, but it is not clear to me that it is enough.
]
20...
¥b4! 21.£xb4 ¤xe5 22.¤e2
[ 22.
¢b1 ¤d3! 23.¥xc7 ¤xb4 24.¥d6 ¦d8 25.c5 b6 26.a3 ¤a6 27.cxb6 axb6 28.¦d2
¤e8 29.¥f4 ¦xd2 30.¥xd2³ ]
[ 22.
¥e3 ¦d8 23.¦xd8+ £xd8 24.£c3 ¤eg4-+
- Khalifman.
]
22...
¤xh5 23.¥e3 ¦d8! 24.¦xd8+ £xd8
170
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+kwq-+-+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-sn-+n0
9-wQP+-+-+0
9+-+-vL-+-0
9PzP-+NzPP+0
9+-mK-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White does not have compensation for the pawn.
25.
£c3 £d6 26.¥xa7 c5 27.£a5 ¤d3+
28.
¢b1 £a6! 29.£c3
[ 29.
£xa6 bxa6 30.¢c2 ¢b7 31.¢xd3 ¢xa7 32.¢e4 ¢b7 33.¢e5 ¢c6∓ ]
29...
¤xb2 30.£xb2 £xa7 31.£e5 £b6+ 32.¢c2 ¤f6 33.¤c3 £c7 34.£e3 ¤g4 35.£e2
¤e5?
[ 35...
£f4 36.¤e4 h5!-+
- Khalifman.
]
36.
¤b5
95
171
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+Nzp-sn-+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9P+K+QzPP+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This leads to an endgame where Black's extra pawns are decisive.
¤c6
[ 36...
£b8 37.£h5!
- Khalifman.
]
37.
¤xc7 ¤d4+ 38.¢d2 ¤xe2 39.¤e8!
[ 39.
¢xe2 ¢xc7
would have been immediate suicide.
]
39...
¤f4 40.g3 ¤h3 41.¢e3 ¢d7 42.¤xg7 ¤g5 43.¤h5
[ 43.f4
¤h7 44.g4 ¤f6 45.g5 hxg5 46.fxg5 ¤g4+ 47.¢f4 ¤f2!-+
- Khalifman.
48.
¢e5
¢e7 49.¤h5 ¤d3+ 50.¢e4 ¤b4 51.a4 ¤c6 52.¤f4 ¤a5 53.¢d3 ¢d6 ]
43...f5 44.
¤f4 ¢d6 45.¤d3 e5
172
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-mk-+-zp0
9+-zp-zppsn-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-+NmK-zP-0
9P+-+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It is now just a matter of technique, but White's next move makes Black's job a lot easier.
46.f3?
[ 46.f4
¤f7 47.fxe5+ ( 47.¤b2 b6-+ ) 47...¤xe5 48.¤b2 ( 48.¤xe5 ¢xe5-+ ) 48...b6 49.¢f4
¢e6 50.¢e3 ¢f7!
- Khalifman.
51.
¢f4 ¢f6 52.¢e3 ¢g5 53.¢f2 ¢g4 54.¢g2 h5 55.¢h2
h4 56.gxh4
¢xh4 57.¢g2 ¢g4 58.¢f2 f4 59.¢g2 f3+ 60.¢f2 ¢f4 61.¢e1 ¢e3 62.¢f1
f2 63.a3
¢f3 64.¤d1 ¤g4-+ ]
46...
¤xf3!
0-1
205
Shahal
2200
Lederman
2335
Beer−Sheva
1991
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.£e2 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.c4
96
¦xd4 16.¥e3 ¦xd1+ 17.¦xd1 ¦g8
[ 17...
¥b4!? 18.¤d3 £e7 19.a3 ¥d6 20.c5 ¥xg3 21.cxb6 ¥d6 22.bxa7 ¢c7 23.¤c5 ¦a8
24.
¤a4 b5 25.£d2 ¤d7 26.£a5+ ¢b7 27.£d2 ¢c7 28.£a5+ ¢b7 29.£d2 ¢c7
30.
£a5+ ¢b7
and a draw was agreed in Sion-Magem, Leon 1991. Black's position seemed a
bit suspect to me and I suppose that time pressure was involved.
]
18.f4 g5!?
[ 18...c5 19.
£d3 ¥e7 20.¤xf7 ¦f8 21.¤e5 ¦d8 22.£c2 ¦xd1+ 23.¢xd1 ¥d6 24.¤g6 e5
25.fxe5
¥xe5 26.£f5+ £d7+ 27.£xd7+ ¤bxd7 28.¤xe5 ¤xe5 29.¥xc5 ¤xc4 30.b3² b6
31.
¥f8 ¤e3+ 32.¢d2 ¤xg2 33.¥xg7 ¤g8 34.¢d3 ¢d7 35.¢e4
1-0, Sax-Andersson,
Szirak 1990. A loss on time?
]
19.hxg6 fxg6 20.
£d3 ¤bd7
½-½
206
Fedorowicz
Panno
Buenos Aires
1991
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.£e2 £c7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.c4
15.Ba5 is the normal move, and 15.Rh4 is also seen. The advance of the c-
§ is rare - and with
good reason.
[ 15.c3 c5 16.
¢b1 ¥d6 17.f4 cxd4 18.cxd4 ¢b8=
Boleslavsky.
]
173
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-snp+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
15...c5! 16.
¥f4 ¥d6 17.dxc5 £xc5 18.¢b1
One can now find the logic in White's plan. The
idea is to try to get the c-
§ to move one square forward. But the goal will not be achieved.
¥c7
19.
¦he1 ¤bd7
Black has calmy withdrawn his pieces from the danger zone and now challenges
control of e5.
20.
¤xd7
[ 20.
¤xf7? ¥xf4 21.¤xh8 ¦xh8 22.£xe6 ¦e8 23.£f7 ¦xe1 24.¦xe1 ¥xg3 25.fxg3 £f2
and Black is certainly no worse.
]
20...
¦xd7 21.¦xd7 ¢xd7 22.¥e3 £c6 23.f4
The slighly exposed
¢ is not a problem for Black,
so peace was declared.
½-½
97
207
Chiburdanidze
Sturua
Tbilisi
1991
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.£e2 ¤gf6 14.¤e5 ¤b6 15.c4
c5 16.
¢b1!?
174
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-sn-+psn-zp0
9+-zp-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-sN-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This strong preliminary move improves White's chances in the variation.
¥d6
[ 16...cxd4 17.
¥a5±
- Chiburdanidze.
]
[ 16...
¦xd4 17.¥c3 ¦xd1+ 18.¦xd1 ¤a4 19.¥a5!
- Chiburdanidze.
]
17.
¥a5 £e7 18.dxc5 ¥xc5 19.¤d3 ¦d7 20.¦c1 ¢b8 21.¤e4 ¤xe4 22.£xe4 ¦c8
23.
¥c3±
Black's kingside is very vulnerable, and the coming exchange of White's
¤ for Black's ¥
only makes things more difficult.
¢a8 24.¤xc5 £xc5 25.¥xg7 f5 26.£e5 £c6 27.b3 £xg2
28.
¥xh6 ¦h7 29.¥e3 £c6 30.£d4 £e8 31.h6 e5 32.£d3 £e6 33.¦h5 ¦f8 34.¦g1 ¦hh8
35.
¦g7 f4 36.£e4 ¤d7 37.¥d4 ¦d8 38.¦xe5 £xh6 39.¦xd7
1-0
209
Kavalek
Karpov
Waddinxveen
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 e6 14.£e2 c5 15.¢b1
0-0-0 16.c4
¥d6 17.¤e4 ¤xe4 18.£xe4 ¤f6 19.£e2
(Diagram 175)
98
175
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzP-vLQzPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦he8
[ 19...cxd4!? 20.
¤xd4 a6 21.¥c3 ¦d7
is suggested by Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
20.
¥c3 ¦e7 21.¤e5 cxd4 22.¥xd4 ¥xe5 23.¥xe5 £a5
[ 23...
£c6!? ]
24.
¦xd8+ ¢xd8 25.f3 ¦d7 26.g4 ¢e7 27.¦h2?!
[ 27.
¥c3!² ]
27...
¤e8 28.a3 £a4 29.¦h1 £b3 30.¥c3 ¤d6 31.¦c1 ¤xc4 32.¥b4+ ¤d6 33.¦c3
½-½
210
Faibisovich
Okhotnik
USSR
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.£e2 c5 14.¤f5 0-0-0 15.¤e3
¤b8 16.¦h4 ¤c6 17.¥c3 ¥e7 18.dxc5 ¥xc5 19.¦c4 ¥xe3+ 20.£xe3 ¦xd1+ 21.¢xd1
¦d8+ 22.¢c1²
176
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+n+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+R+-+-+0
9+-vL-wQN+-0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9+-mK-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has the advantage here due to the pin on the c-file and
¥ vs. ¤.
¤d5
23.
£e1
¤xc3
24.
£xc3 £b6 25.b4 ¢b8 26.¤e5!
White now forces a favorable endgame.
£xf2 27.¦xc6
bxc6 28.
¤xc6+ ¢c7 29.¤xd8+ ¢xd8 30.£d2+ £xd2+ 31.¢xd2
99
177
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-mk-+-+0{
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9P+PmK-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Each side has a defensible passed pawn, so a draw would be the likely outcome, were it not for
the fact that Black's g6 square becomes weak.
f5?
This move should have been delayed until
absolutely necessary. Now White can aim for a timely advance of the g-
§, once his ¢ is in the
right position.
32.c4
¢c7 33.c5 ¢c6 34.¢d3 ¢d5 35.g3 e5
Already, Black was almost in
zugzwang.
[ 35...
¢e5 36.¢c4+- ]
36.
¢c3 a6 37.¢d3 a5 38.a3 a4 39.¢c3 e4 40.¢d2 ¢c6 41.¢e3+- ¢d5 42.¢f2 ¢c6
[ 42...
¢e5 43.b5 ¢d5 44.b6 ¢c6 45.¢e3
∆ g4.
]
43.
¢e2 ¢d5 44.¢e3 ¢c6
White's triangulation proves decisive, as Black is limited to the d5/c6
pair.
45.g4
1-0
227
Buljovcic
Vukic
Novi Sad
1976
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.£e2 e6 13.0-0-0 ¥d6 14.¤f5 ¥f4 15.¤e3²
178
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-vl-+0
9+-+-sNN+-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
The
¥ maneuver now looks rather pointless.
¤e4
[ 15...b5 16.
¦h4! 0-0-0 17.c4 ( 17.a4!
looks even stronger.
) 17...
¥xe3 18.fxe3 bxc4 19.¢b1
¢b7 20.¦c1
gave White a good game in Westerinen - Rytov, Tallinn 1973.
]
16.
¥e1 ¤df6?!
100
[ 16...
¤g5!? 17.g3 ¤xf3 18.£xf3 ¥g5 ]
17.g3
¥xe3+ 18.£xe3 0-0-0 19.g4?!
This turns out to be the wrong plan, since the pawn
never makes an impact.
[ 19.
¤d2!? ]
19...c5 20.
¦g1 ¦d5 21.dxc5 ¦xc5 22.c3 ¦a5 23.¢b1 ¦d8 24.¦xd8+ £xd8 25.¤d2 ¦e5!
179
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+kwq-+-+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-tr-+P0
9-+-+n+P+0
9+-zP-wQ-+-0
9PzP-sN-zP-+0
9+K+-vL-tR-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has taken over the initiative and White's pieces look silly.
26.
¢c2 £a5 27.£d4 ¤xd2
28.
¥xd2 ¦e4 29.£d6 ¦e2 30.f3 ¤d7 31.£d3 £a4+! 32.¢b1
180
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9q+-+-+P+0
9+-zPQ+P+-0
9PzP-vLr+-+0
9+K+-+-tR-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦g2! 33.¦e1
[ 33.
¦xg2 £d1+-+ ]
33...b6 34.b3
£c6 35.c4 ¦f2 36.f4 ¤c5 37.£d4 £g2 38.¦d1 £e4+!∓ 39.£xe4 ¤xe4
40.
¥b4 a5
0-1
238
Timman
2610
Portisch
2610
Antwerp (m/2)
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¤e4 0-0-0 15.g3
¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¥e7 17.¢b1 ¦he8
101
181
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0
9zppwqnvlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPQ+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvL-zP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
18.
£e2
{insert Lanc-Garcia}
¥f8?!
That this is an error is quickly conceded by Black. {insert
Kuczynski-Garcia}
19.
¥c1 ¥d6 20.¦he1 £a5 21.¤d2
Speelman considers White's position
better here and I agree. Black's massed center does not have any way to expend its potential
energy, and White's control of c4 is important.
¤f6 22.g4 ¥c7 23.¤b3
[ 23.c4
is considered stronger by Speelman, restraining Black's b-pawn.
]
23...
£d5 24.f3 ¥g3?!
Tempting, but not best.
[ 24...b5!
would provide a useful square for Black's queen at c4.
]
25.
¦g1 £d6 26.¤d2
[ 26.
£d2 ¤d5 27.c4 ¥f4 28.£a5 ¥xc1 29.cxd5 ¥e3 30.dxc6 ¥xg1 31.£xa7 bxc6
32.
£a6+ ¢c7 33.£a7+= ]
26...
£c7 27.¤c4 ¤d5 28.¤e5 ¥xe5 29.dxe5 £b6?!
Better are 29...c5 and 29...b5
30.
¥d2
¦d7 31.c4 £a6 32.¦ge1 ¤b6 33.b3 ¦ed8 34.¥b4 ¦xd1+ 35.¦xd1 ¦xd1+ 36.£xd1 ¤d7
37.
¥d6
[ 37.
£d4! £b6 38.£xb6 axb6 39.¥d6± ]
37...
£a5 38.£e2 b5?
[ 38...
£c3 39.f4 c5
would have provided more resistance.
]
39.cxb5
£xb5 40.£e3?
[ 40.
£xb5! cxb5± ]
40...
¢b7 41.£f4 £d3+ 42.¢b2 £e2+ 43.¢a3 £a6+ 44.¢b2 £e2+ 45.¢a3 £a6+
½-½
247
Hellers
Miles
Biel
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.¤e4 ¤gf6 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 c5 17.¥c3 ¤f6 18.£e2 cxd4 19.¥xd4
(Diagram 182)
102
182
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PvL-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
The Caro-Kann can be as theory-oriented as any other opening. In this line, there has already
been a fair bit of experience!
£a5 20.¢b1 £f5+!
[ 20...
¥c7?!
{Insert Huebner-Hjartarson here}
]
21.
¢a1 ¥b8
[ 21...
¥c7 22.¥xa7 ¦xd1+ 23.¦xd1 £xh5
is evaluated as unclear by Huebner. If Black's
meager defenses can handle the queenside attack, then White has long-term trouble on the
kingside. But that is a big "if".
]
22.
£e3
[ 22.c5
{Insert Khalifman-Douven}
]
22...
¦d7 23.¥e5 ¤g4! 24.£c5+
183
XIIIIIIIIY
9-vlk+-+-tr0{
9zpp+r+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-wQ-vLq+P0
9-+P+-+n+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9mK-+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦c7!!
A wonderfully aesthetic move, exploiting the pin on the fifth rank.
25.
£d4 £xf3 26.¥xc7
¥xc7 27.£xa7 ¤e5!?
[ 27...
¤xf2 28.¦df1 £xh1 29.¦xh1 ¤xh1∓ ]
28.
¦hf1 ¤c6 29.£a8+ ¤b8 30.c5 ¦d8 31.£a4 ¤c6 32.£a8+ ¥b8 33.¦d6 ¦xd6 34.cxd6
£d3 35.¦c1 £xd6 36.f4 £d2
0-1
103
251
Kayumov
Shahzadov
corr.
1988
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¤f6 16.£e2 ¥d6 17.c4 c5 18.¢b1?!
184
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-vLQzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
cxd4 19.c5!?
[ 19.
¤xd4 ¥xg3! 20.¤xe6? ( 20.¤b5 £e5³
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
) 20...
¦he8 21.fxg3
¦xe6 22.£f3 £c6!
and in Perevyortsev - Shakarov, Correspondence 1982, White resigned,
rather than face:
23.
£xc6+ ¦xc6 24.b3 ( 24.¦h4 ¦c5 ) 24...¤e4 ]
19...d3
Kasparov & Shakarov stop her with an exclamation point for Black, but no more analysis.
185
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-zP-+-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+p+NzP-0
9PzP-vLQzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
20.
£e1 £c6
[ 20...
¥xc5 21.¥f4
∆ ¦c1.
]
21.
¤d4 £d5 22.cxd6 £xd4 23.¦h4! £d5
[ 23...
£xd6 24.¦c1+
∆ ¥f4.
]
24.
£e3 ¦xd6 25.¦a4! ¦hd8 26.£xa7 £f3 27.¦c1+± ¢d7 28.¦b4 ¢e8 29.¦xb7
(Diagram 186)
104
186
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trk+-+0{
9wQR+-+pzp-0
9-+-trpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+p+qzP-0
9PzP-vL-zP-+0
9+KtR-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤e4??
[ 29...
¦6d7 30.¦xd7 ¦xd7 31.¦c8+ ¦d8 ( 31...¢e7 32.¥b4# ) 32.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 33.¥a5+
¢e8 34.£b8+ ¢d7 35.£c7+ ¢e8 36.£d8# ]
[ 29...
¤d7!? ]
30.
¦e7+ ¢f8 31.¥f4! £xh5™ 32.¥xd6 ¢g8 33.¥b4 d2 34.¥xd2 ¤xd2+ 35.¢a1
1-0
255
Anand
Adams
Oakham
1986
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 ¤gf6 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¤f6 16.£e2 ¥d6 17.¢b1 ¢b8?
A move doubly cursed, since White has two effective replies.
18.
¤e5
[ 18.c4 c5 19.dxc5
£xc5 20.¥e3 £c7 21.¦xd6! ¦xd6 22.c5
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
18...
¢a8 19.¤c4 ¥e7 20.¥f4 £c8
White has clearly obtained a strong initiative and Black has
no counterplay at all.
21.g4
¤d5 22.¥d2 ¥f6 23.¤e5 ¦hf8 24.c4 ¤e7 25.¥b4!± ¦de8
26.f4
¥xe5 27.fxe5 f5 28.¦hf1! £d7 29.£f2 ¦f7 30.£h4 b6 31.£h1!
187
XIIIIIIIIY
9k+-+r+-+0{
9zp-+qsnrzp-0
9-zpp+p+-zp0
9+-+-zPp+P0
9-vLPzP-+P+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+K+R+R+Q0
xiiiiiiiiy
What a beautiful maneuver to get the
£ to h1!
¢b7 32.£g2 g5
Desperation.
33.hxg6
¤xg6
34.gxf5
¤h4 35.fxe6! £xe6
[ 35...
¤xg2 36.exd7 ¦xd7 37.¦d2 ¤e3 38.¦c1 c5 ( 38...a5 39.¥d6 ¤f5 40.c5 bxc5
105
41.dxc5
± ) 39.dxc5 ¦xd2 40.¥xd2 ]
36.
£e4 ¤f5 37.¦f3 a5 38.¥a3 h5 39.b3! ¤h6 40.¦xf7+ ¤xf7 41.¥b2 ¤g5 42.£d3 h4
43.d5 cxd5 44.cxd5
£g4 45.d6 h3 46.¦c1 h2 47.£d5+ ¢b8 48.d7 ¦d8 49.£d6+
1-0
256
Markovic
2370
Miladinovic
2350
Yugoslav Team Ch
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¤f6 16.£e2 ¥d6 17.¢b1 ¦he8
188
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+pvlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvLQzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
18.
¥c1
[ 18.c4 e5 19.c5
¥f8 20.dxe5 ¤d7
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
[ 18.
¤e5 c5 19.¥c1 ¥f8 20.dxc5 ¥xc5
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
189
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+pvlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPP+QzP-+0
9+KvLR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Probably best.
18...c5 19.dxc5
¥xc5 20.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 21.¦h4
White threatens some action
on the c-
‘, but that is about all.
£b6!
By striking at the weakpoint in White's camp, Black finally
achieves an equal game.
22.
¤e5 ¦d4
[ 22...
¥xf2 23.¦c4+ ¢b8 24.¤xf7 ]
23.
¦xd4 ¥xd4 24.¤xf7 ¥xf2= 25.£f3 £c7 26.£xf2 £xf7 27.£c5+ ¢d8
[ 27...
£c7? 28.£f8+± ]
106
28.
£xa7 £d7
Black can afford to be patient - the h-
§ isn't going anywhere.
29.a4
¢e8 30.£c5
£d5
190
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+k+-+0
9+p+-+-zp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-wQq+-+P0
9P+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9+KvL-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
31.
£c7
If White exchanges
£s then he not only drops the h-§, but probably the g-§ too since
the
¢ and § ending would be horrible:
[ 31.
£xd5 exd5 32.a5 ¤xh5 33.¥f4 ¤xf4 34.gxf4 h5-+ ]
31...
£d7 32.£b8+ ¢f7 33.£f4 £d5 34.b3 e5 35.£f5 £e4 36.£c8
It is rare that the side
with the extra
§, and ¥ vs. ¤, is the one that must avoid the exchange of £s!
¤xh5 37.£d7+
½-½
260
Tal
Huebner
Montreal
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 e6 14.¤e4 0-0-0 15.g3
¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤f6 17.£e2
191
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvLQzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now 17...Bd6 is normal, but there are alternatives.
c5
Although this is a thematic move, it cannot
be played in all positions.
[ 17...
¦d5 18.¥f4 ¥d6
looks very artificial.
19.
¤e5! ¤d7 ( 19...¥xe5 20.¥xe5 £d7 21.c4± )
20.
¦he1 ¦d8 21.c4! ¦a5 22.¢b1 ¤xe5 23.dxe5! ¥b4 24.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 25.¦d1+ ¢e8
26.a3
¥e7
27.
£e4
and White's pieces are much better placed, providing a significant
advantage, Sopie-Vinagre, Correspondence 1985/88.
]
107
18.dxc5
¥xc5 19.¦h4!
The rook rushes into the game, threatening Rc4.
¢b8 20.¥f4 ¥d6
21.
¦xd6 ¦xd6
192
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+-trpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-+-vL-tR0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPP+QzP-+0
9+-mK-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Now comes a surprising move by Tal.
22.
¤e5!
The threats are Nxc7 and Nc4.
¢a8!?
[ 22...
¤d5 23.¤xf7 ¤xf4 24.¦xf4 ¦f8 25.¤xd6 ¦xf4 26.¤b5! £c4 27.£e5+!
--Tal.
]
[ 22...
¦hd8 23.¤c4 ¤e8 24.¤xd6 ¤xd6 25.¦g4
--Tal.
]
23.
¤c4! ¤e8
[ 23...e5 24.
¥xe5 ¦e6 25.¥xc7!! ¦xe2 26.¤b6+!
--Tal.
]
24.
¦g4 £e7 25.¤xd6 ¤xd6 26.¦xg7
193
XIIIIIIIIY
9k+-+-+-tr0{
9zpp+-wqptR-0
9-+-snp+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-+-vL-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzPP+QzP-+0
9+-mK-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The material is now even, but White's position is far superior.
¤f5
27.
¦g4
¦d8
28.
¥e5!
Now the rook gets back into the game without difficulty.
f6 29.
¥c3 e5 30.b3 a6 31.¢b2 £e6
32.
£c4 £e8 33.¦g6
The target is the pawn at h6.
¦c8 34.£a4 £d8 35.£e4!
[ 35.g4
¤d6 36.¦xh6 ¤b5
would have been much more complicated, according to Tal.
]
35...
¤d6 36.£d3 £c7
[ 36...e4 37.
£d4 £c7 38.a4
--Tal.
]
37.
¥b4 ¤b5
[ 37...e4 38.
£xd6 £xc2+ 39.¢a3 £c1+ ( 39...b5 40.£xa6+ ¢b8 41.¥d6+ ) 40.¢a4 b5+
41.
¢a5+- ]
38.
¦xf6 a5
[ 38...
¤d4 39.¦xa6+! bxa6 40.£xa6+ ¢b8 41.¥d6+- ]
39.
¥d6 ¤xd6 40.¦xd6 e4 41.£d2
1-0
108
262
Kudrin
2570
Douven
2475
Palma de Mallorca
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¤e4 0-0-0 15.g3
¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤f6 17.£e2
194
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvLQzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¥d6 18.¤e5 c5
As in Tal-Huebner, this is premature when White can lift the rook into the game
via the 4th rank.
19.
¦h4! ¥xe5
[ 19...
¢b8
is recommended by Skembris, but it is not clear that it is any good.
20.
¤c4 ¢a8
21.
£f3 ¤d5 22.¥a5!
forces Black to critically weaken the pawn cover.
b6 23.
¤xd6 ¦xd6
24.dxc5
¦c6
( 24...
£xc5
25.
¥b4!
exploits the pin on the a8-h1 diagonal.
)
25.cxb6
Black cannot do any damage on the queenside, despite dominating the c-file.
¦xc2+ 26.¢b1
£b7
A) 27.
¢xc2 ¤b4+ 28.¦xb4 £xf3 29.b7+ £xb7 ( 29...¢b8?? 30.¦d7
∆ Bc7.
) 30.
¦xb7
¢xb7 31.¦d7+ ¢a6 32.¥c3+- ;
B) 27.
¦f4! axb6 28.¦xd5! exd5 29.¢xc2 bxa5 30.¦xf7
led to a win in O'Donnell-Vranesic,
Toronto 1990.
]
20.dxe5
¤d7 21.¦g4 ¦hg8 22.¦e1 £c6 23.£e4 ¤b8 24.¦f4
195
XIIIIIIIIY
9-snktr-+r+0{
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+q+p+-zp0
9+-zp-zP-+P0
9-+-+QtR-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzPPvL-zP-+0
9+-mK-tR-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦d7
[ 24...
£xe4 25.¦exe4 ¦d7
might have been more resistant, but stil grovelly.
]
25.
£h7 ¦gd8 26.¥a5 b6 27.¥c3 £d5 28.b3 b5 29.¢b1 b4 30.¥b2± f5 31.exf6 g5
32.hxg6
¦xh7 33.gxh7 e5 34.¦xe5 £f7 35.¦e7 £f8 36.f7 £xe7 37.f8£ ¦xf8 38.¦xf8+
109
£xf8 39.h8£ £xh8 40.¥xh8 h5 41.¢c1 ¢d7 42.¢d2 ¢e6 43.¢e3 ¢f5 44.f3 ¤d7
45.
¢d3 ¤b6 46.¥g7 a5 47.¥f8 ¤d7 48.¥d6 ¢e6 49.¥c7 ¢d5 50.c4+ bxc3 51.¢xc3
1-0
266
Hjartarson
2615
Timman
2610
Amsterdam
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 £c7 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 c5 17.¥c3 cxd4 18.¤xd4 ¤c5 19.£c2 a6 20.¦he1 ¥e7 21.¢b1 ¥f6 22.f4
¦d7 23.¤f3 ¦xd1+ 24.¦xd1 ¦d8 25.¦xd8+ £xd8 26.¥xf6 gxf6 27.a3 f5 28.¢a2 f6
29.b4
¤e4 30.g4 £d6 31.gxf5 £xf4 32.£g2 ¤g5 33.¤xg5 £xc4+ 34.¢b2 fxg5 35.fxe6
£xe6
196
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9p+-+q+-zp0
9+-+-+-zpP0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9zP-+-+-+-0
9-mK-+-+Q+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Many queen and pawn endings are drawn, but Black's king has just enough shelter to allow his
kingside pawn to advance.
36.
£c2+ ¢d7 37.£h7+ ¢c6 38.£g6 ¢d6!
[ 38...
£xg6?? 39.hxg6+- ]
39.
£d3+ £d5 40.£g6+ £e6 41.£d3+ ¢e7 42.£h7+ £f7 43.£e4+
[ 43.
£c2!? £xh5 44.£c7+ ¢f6 45.£d6+!? ]
43...
¢f8 44.£g4 ¢g7 45.¢c3 £d5 46.£g3 ¢f6 47.£f2+ ¢e6 48.£f8 £c6+! 49.¢b3
¢e5 50.£g7+
[ 50.
£e7+?? £e6+-+ ]
50...
¢f5
The king will snare the h-pawn, with or without the help of his queen.
0-1
271
Arakhamia
2440
Van der Sterren
2475
Sydney
1991
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 c5 17.d5
110
197
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+-vlp+-zp0
9+-zpP+-+P0
9-+P+Q+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-vL-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is a commital move which brings the focus of attention to the critical square d5.
¤f6
[ 17...
¦he8
is too passive.
18.
¥c3 ( 18.£g4!
gives Black problems, according to Van der
Sterren (NIC YB 21).
) 18...exd5 19.
£xd5 ¤e5 20.£e4 ¤xf3 21.£xf3 f6 22.¦he1
gave White an advantage on the kingside in I.Ivanov-A.Miles, World Open 1989.
]
[ 17...exd5 18.cxd5
{insert Volchok-Akopov}
( 18.
£xd5
{insert Solomon-Adianto}
)]
18.
£c2 exd5 19.cxd5 ¦he8 20.¥c3 £d7
[ 20...
¢b8
was seen in Tiviakov-Miles, Moscow GMA Open 1989, but then White can simply
capture at f6 and play
¤h4, securing the f5 square and the advantage.
]
21.
¥xf6
[ 21.
¦h4?! ¤g4!
is a promising
§ sacrifice which leads to an advantage for Black:
22.
¥xg7 f6
23.
£g6 ¤xf2 24.¥xf6 ( 24.¦f1? ¦g8 25.¦xf2 ¦xg7 26.£xh6 ¥xg3 27.¦g2 ¥f4+! 28.£xf4
¦xg2-+ ) 24...¤xd1 25.¥xd8 ¤e3 26.¥f6 ¤xd5³
according to analysis by Van der Sterren.
]
21...gxf6
22.
¤h4 ¦e5!
White's advanced pawns have become inviting targets, and Black is
succesfully contesting the f5-square.
23.f4
White must dislodge this well-placed
¦.
¦xh5
24.
£e2 ¦xd5 25.¦xd5 ¥xf4+ 26.gxf4 £xd5
198
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9zpp+-+p+-0
9-+-+-zp-zp0
9+-zpq+-+-0
9-+-+-zP-sN0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+Q+-+0
9+-mK-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
After this forced series of moves Black has three
§s for the ¤, but they are very weak. The
double attack on the
¦ at h1 and the § at a2, however, provides sufficient counterplay.
27.
¦d1
£xa2 28.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 29.¤f5
King evaluates this position as
±, but this is hard to justify, since
Black seems to have sufficient defensive resources and White is running out of
§s.
£e6
30.
£d3+
[ 30.
£xe6 fxe6 31.¤xh6 ¢e7
is unwinnable for White.
]
30...
¢c7 31.¤xh6 £e1+ 32.¢c2
111
199
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0{
9zppmk-+p+-0
9-+-+-zp-sN0
9+-zp-+-+-0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+-+Q+-+-0
9-zPK+-+-+0
9+-+-wq-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
£f2+?
A critical error.
[ 32...
£h4! 33.¤xf7 £xf4 34.£d8+ ¢c6
is correctly evaluated by Van der Sterren as =.
]
33.
£d2 £f1?
A second, terminal error. There was still a way out, as demonstrated by Van der
Sterren.
[ 33...
£f3! 34.b3 ( 34.¤xf7 £e4+ 35.£d3 £xf4= ) 34...£h5 35.f5 £f3 36.¢b2 ¢c6
37.
¤xf7 ( 37.¤g8 £e4= ) 37...£xf5 38.£d6+ ¢b5= ]
34.
£a5+ ¢c6 35.£a4+ ¢c7 36.£a5+ ¢c6 37.£a4+ ¢c7 38.£e4! £f2+ 39.¢c3 £f1
40.
¤xf7
Now the White
¢ will find a home at a2, and the extra piece will be put to good use.
£c1+ 41.¢b3 £d1+ 42.¢a2 £d7 43.¤h6 b5 44.¤f5 c4 45.¤e3
1-0
279
Medina
Campora
Torremolinos
1983
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¤e4 0-0-0 15.g3
¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¥d6 17.c4 c5 18.¥c3
200
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+-vlp+-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+PzPQ+-+0
9+-vL-+NzP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¢b8
[ 18...
¦he8 19.¢b1 ¢b8 20.dxc5 ¤xc5 21.£c2 f6! 22.¤d4 a6 23.¦dg1 e5 24.¤f5 ¥f8
25.
¤e3
(Speelman suggests an advance of the g-pawn here.)
¤e6 26.¤d5 £c6 27.f4 exf4
28.gxf4
¥d6
Kruppa-Karpman, Minsk 1990 reached this position, which Speelman (1991)
112
evaluates as even.
]
19.d5 e5 20.
¦he1 ¦de8 21.¤h4 ¤f6 22.£c2 ¤xh5 23.¤f5 g6 24.¤xd6 £xd6 25.£e4
¢a8 26.¥xe5 £d8 27.£d3 ¦hg8 28.¥c3 £d6 29.¦e3 a6 30.¦de1 £d7 31.£e2 ¦xe3
32.
£xe3 ¦c8 33.£f3 f5 34.¦e6 £f7 35.£e2 f4 36.¦e7 £f8 37.d6 fxg3 38.fxg3 ¤xg3
39.
£g2 £f4+ 40.¥d2 £xc4+ 41.¥c3 £f4+ 42.¥d2 £c4+ 43.¢d1 £g4+ 44.¢e1 ¦c6
45.d7
¦e6+ 46.¥e3 ¦xe3+ 47.¦xe3 £xd7 48.£xg3 g5 49.£e5
1-0
280
Watson,W
Van der Sterren
Budapest
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.¢b1 ¦he8
201
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+pvlp+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPQ+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvL-zP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
17.
£e2
[ 17.
¥c1 ¤f6
was agreed drawn in Smirin-Kharitonov, USSR Championship 1988.
]
17...a6
18.c4
c5
19.
¥c3
cxd4?!
This is a poor idea, since White can advantageously
recapture with the rook.
[ 19...
¥f8!
--Speelman (1992).
]
20.
¦xd4 ¥e7 21.¦g4 ¥f6 22.¥xf6 gxf6 23.c5 ¤e5 24.¦f4 ¦d5 25.¦xf6 ¦xc5?!
[ 25...
¦ed8
is considered best by Speelman (1992). This would maintain control of the
important d-file.
]
26.
¤xe5 ¦xe5
[ 26...
£xe5 27.£xe5 ¦xe5 28.¦d1 ¦xh5 29.¦xf7 ¦f5 30.¦dd7 ¦xf7 31.¦xf7
is clearly
better for White, since the 7th rank is controlled and the pawns are very weak on the sixth rank.
Analysis by Speelman (1992).
]
27.
£f3 ¦f8 28.¦xh6 ¦f5 29.£xf5 exf5 30.¦c1 ¦e8 31.¦xc7+ ¢xc7 32.¦f6 ¦e1+ 33.¢c2
¦e2+ 34.¢c3 ¦xf2 35.g4 ¦f3+ 36.¢d4 ¦f4+ 37.¢e5 ¦xg4 38.¦xf7+ ¢c6 39.¢xf5 ¦g2
40.h6
¦xb2 41.h7 ¦f2+ 42.¢g6 ¦g2+ 43.¢f6 ¦f2+ 44.¢g7 ¦g2+ 45.¢f8 ¦h2 46.¦f6+
1-0
113
281
De Firmian
Miles
Biel
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.¤e4 ¤gf6 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 c5 17.¥c3 ¤f6 18.£e2 cxd4 19.¤xd4 a6
202
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9p+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PsN-+-+0
9+-vL-+-zP-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This has been the critical position of the variation for almost a decade now.
20.
¤f3 ¦d7
[ 20...
¥c5
is suggested by the Zarkov program (15 min/move), with a fluctuating opinion
generally resolving in Black's favor if White captures at f6.
21.
¥xf6 gxf6 22.¤d2 ¦d4 23.¤e4
£e5 24.¦xd4 ¥xd4 25.f4 £c7 26.¦d1 ¦d8 27.¤d2 £b6 28.¤b3 ¥e3+ 29.¢c2 ¦xd1
30.
£xd1 £c6
and I would agree that in this position Black's chances are to be preferred.
]
[ 20...
£c6
is an untested idea of Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
21.
¤e5
[ 21.
¢b1 ¦hd8 22.a3 £c6 23.¦h4 ¥c7 24.¦xd7 ¦xd7 25.¤e5 ¥xe5 26.£xe5 ¤e8
27.
£e2 f6 28.¦e4 e5
and Black had a comfortable position in Benko - Kagan, Israel 1967.
]
21...
¥xe5 22.¥xe5
203
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+-+-tr0{
9+pwqr+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-vL-+P0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Even here, Black seems to be holding the balance nicely.
£a5 23.a3 ¦hd8 24.¦xd7 ¤xd7
25.
¥c3 £g5+! 26.£d2 £xd2+ 27.¢xd2 f6 28.¢c2 ¤c5 29.¦e1 ¦d6= 30.¦e3 ¢d8 31.b4
¤d7 32.¦d3 ¦c6 33.¢b3 ¢e7 34.c5 e5 35.g4 ¢e6 36.f3 a5 37.¦d1 axb4 38.axb4 b6
39.cxb6
¦xb6 40.¢c4 ¦c6+ 41.¢b3 ¦b6 42.¦d2 ¦b7 43.¦a2 ¤b8 44.¦a5 ¤c6 45.¦c5
¢d6 46.¢c4 ¦c7 47.¦d5+ ¢e6 48.¦c5 ¢d6 49.¥b2 ¤a5+ 50.¢b5 ¤c6 51.¢c4 ¤a5+
114
52.
¢b5 ¤c6 53.¢c4
½-½
282
Cabrilo
Vadasz
Trnava
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 ¤f6 17.£e2 c5 18.¥c3 cxd4 19.¤xd4 a6 20.¦d2
204
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9p+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PsN-+-+0
9+-vL-+-zP-0
9PzP-tRQzP-+0
9+-mK-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
A sensible approach - doubling
¦s before undertaking any serious operations. But this also give
Black time to complete his development.
£c5 21.¢c2 ¥c7 22.g4 ¥a5! 23.¤b3 £c6!
24.
¦xd8+ ¦xd8 25.¥xa5 £xh1 26.¥xd8 ¢xd8 27.f3 £g1
205
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-mk-+-+0
9+p+-+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+P+-+P+0
9+N+-+P+-0
9PzPK+Q+-+0
9+-+-+-wq-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This endgame poses no problems for Black.
28.
£d2+ ¤d7 29.£f4 ¢e7 30.a4 £f2+ 31.¢b1
£b6 32.¢c2 £b4 33.a5 g6 34.£c7 gxh5 35.gxh5 e5 36.¤d2 f5 37.b3 ¢e6 38.£c8
¢e7 39.£h8 £xa5 40.£h7+ ¢e6 41.£g8+ ¢e7 42.£g6 £a2+ 43.¢d1 £a1+ 44.¢e2
£h1 45.£xh6 £g2+ 46.¢d1 £g1+ 47.¢c2 ¤f6 48.£h8 £g8 49.£xg8 ¤xg8 50.c5 ¢e6
51.
¤c4 ¢d5 52.¤e3+ ¢xc5 53.¤xf5 ¤f6 54.h6 a5
½-½
115
283
Magerramov
Tavadian
USSR
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¤f6 16.£e2 ¥d6 17.c4 c5 18.¥c3 cxd4 19.¤xd4 a6 20.¤b3
206
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9p+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+NvL-+-zP-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
£c6 21.¤a5
[ 21.
¦h4 ¥c7 22.¤d4 £c5 23.b4 £g5+ 24.¥d2 £e5 25.£xe5 ¥xe5
207
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9+p+-+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-vl-+P0
9-zPPsN-+-tR0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9P+-vL-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Kasparov & Shakarov evaluate this endgame as holding chances for both sides, Kudriashov -
Kharitonov, USSR 1981.
]
21...
£c7 22.¤b3 £c6 23.¤a5
½-½
284
Renet
2495
Miles
2520
Cannes
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.¤e4 ¤gf6 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 c5 17.£e2 ¤f6 18.¥c3 cxd4 19.¤xd4 a6 20.¢b1
116
208
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9p+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PsN-+-+0
9+-vL-+-zP-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦d7 21.g4?!
Still inappropriate.
[ 21.
¤b3 £c6 22.¦h4 ¦hd8 23.¦c1 £g2!÷
Chandler - Arkell, British Ch 1984.
]
21...
¦hd8 22.¤b3 ¥f4 23.¦xd7 £xd7 24.¥xf6!?
I am highly suspicious about the positional
value of such an exchange, though the Zarkov computer program holds similar ideas.
[ 24.f3
∆ Kc2 is evaluated as equal by Speelman (1992).
]
24...gxf6 25.
¢c2 £a4! 26.£e4 ¥e5 27.¢b1 £b4
It is clear that Black has all the play here.
209
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9+p+-+p+-0
9p+-+pzp-zp0
9+-+-vl-+P0
9-wqP+Q+P+0
9+N+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
28.g5?
A confusionary riff?
[ 28.
¦c1
was required.
]
[ 28.f4
¥c7
would still be hopeless for White.
]
28...
¦d2!
0-1
287
Reeve
Hawkes
Canada Zonal
1987
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 £c7 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¤f6 16.£e2 ¥d6 17.c4 c5 18.¥c3 cxd4 19.¤xd4 a6 20.g4?!
117
210
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pwq-+pzp-0
9p+-vlpsn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PsN-+P+0
9+-vL-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This reckless move betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the opening, and costs White
dearly.
¥c5 21.f3 £f4+ 22.£d2 £c7 23.£h2 £b6! 24.¤b3 ¥d6 25.£e2 £c6 26.¢b1
¥c7 27.¤d4 £c5 28.b4!?
White must take some action before Black brings a
¦ to the e-‘
and starts the advance of the e-
§, undermining the base of the § chain.
211
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9+pvl-+pzp-0
9p+-+psn-zp0
9+-wq-+-+P0
9-zPPsN-+P+0
9+-vL-+P+-0
9P+-+Q+-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¤d5!
White probably overlooked this.
29.
¥b2
[ 29.bxc5?
¤xc3+ 30.¢b2 ¤xe2 31.¤xe2 ¦xd1 32.¦xd1 ¦d8
gives Black a much better
endgame.
]
29...
¤xb4 30.¤b3 £g5 31.¤d2 ¦hg8 32.¤e4 £e7 33.¦xd8+ £xd8 34.¦d1 £e7 35.¥a3
f5 36.
¤c3 fxg4 37.fxg4 ¢b8 38.¤d5
(Diagram 212)
118
212
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+r+0{
9+pvl-wq-zp-0
9p+-+p+-zp0
9+-+N+-+P0
9-snP+-+P+0
9vL-+-+-+-0
9P+-+Q+-+0
9+K+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A clever set of pins, but the points are not sharp.
¤xd5! 39.£b2
[ 39.
¥xe7 ¤c3+ 40.¢b2 ¤xe2 41.¦e1 ¦e8-+ ]
39...
¥d6 40.¥xd6+ £xd6 41.cxd5 exd5∓ 42.£d4 ¦c8 43.g5 hxg5 44.£xg7 £b4+
45.
¢a1 d4 46.¦b1 £c3+ 47.¦b2 £e1+ 48.¦b1 £c3+ 49.¦b2 ¦c7 50.£xg5 d3 51.£d8+
¢a7 52.a4 ¦c6 53.£g5 £e1+ 54.¢a2 ¦c1 55.£g4 ¦a1+ 56.¢b3 £e3
0-1
288
Tal
Miles
Bugonjo
1984
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.c4 ¥b6
213
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-vlp+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NzP-0
9PzP-vL-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It is very strange that ECO II ignores this line, even though it seems to be the most playable
move in the position.
17.
¥c3
[ 17.
¥f4 £e7 18.£e3 ¦he8 19.¢b1
was agreed drawn in Miles - Hort, Bath 1983.
]
17...
¦he8 18.¢b1
[ 18.
£e2
was an attempt to improve, introduced months later in Van der Wiel - Miles, Tilburg
1984.
]
18...a6 19.
£c2 ¦e7 20.¤e5 ¥a5!
An important resource, which indirectly undermines the
outpost at e5.
21.b4
119
[ 21.c5
¤d5! ( 21...¥xc3 22.bxc3
would leave Black with problems on the dark squares,
especially at b6.
) 22.
¤c4 ¥xc3 23.bxc3 b5!
as suggested by Miles, would take advantage of
the attack on the
¤ to force White either to capture the pawn, or retreat. In either case Black
would no longer have a problem at b6.
]
21...
¥b6 22.a4 £b8!
Black has a choice of creating a
£ and ¥ battery on either diagonal.
23.f4
£a7 24.¦d2 ¢b8
Black could not capture the pawn here.
[ 24...
¥xd4? 25.¦hd1± ]
25.a5
¥c7 26.g4
[ 26.d5?
exd5
27.
¥d4
£a8
looks imposing but Black can slide his pieces in puzzle-like
fashion and bring the
¢ to c8 and £ to b8, after which White has nothing for the § (Analysis by
Miles.)
]
26...
¢a8=
214
XIIIIIIIIY
9k+-tr-+-+0
9wqpvl-trpzp-0
9p+p+psn-zp0
9zP-+-sN-+P0
9-zPPzP-zPP+0
9+-vL-+-+-0
9-+QtR-+-+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White controls a great deal of space, but Black's position is solid and his pieces have just enough
breathing room.
27.g5?!
This only accentuates the weakness at f4.
¤e8 28.c5?!
White seems
obsessed with the dark-squares, but Black's next move shows just how weak the pawns are!
£b8 29.g6 f6 30.¤c4 ¥xf4∓ 31.¦e2 ¤c7 32.¥b2 ¤b5 33.¦he1
[ 33.
¦d1 ¥c7
and the
¦ will advance to d5, after which the h-§ or d-§ must fall.
]
33...
¤xd4 34.¥xd4 ¦xd4 35.¦xe6 ¦xe6 36.¦xe6 £d8 37.¦e1 ¢a7! 38.¢a2 ¥d2! 39.¦b1
£d5 40.¢b3 ¦d3+
0-1
289
Van der Wiel
Miles
Tilburg
1984
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.c4 ¥b6 17.¥c3
(Diagram 215)
120
215
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-vlp+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-vLQ+NzP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦he8 18.£e2
Van der Wiel prepared this as an improvement on Tal - Miles, Bugojno 1984, but
it does not achieve much here.
c5
with the two possible thrusts at e5 and c5, Black can usually
manage to undermine White's center early in the middlegame.
19.
¢b1
[ 19.dxc5
¦xd1+ 20.¦xd1 £xc5
would put a lot of pressure on the diagonal, and the pawn at
h5 would also be weak.
]
19...
¦e7
Black is ready to double
¦s on the d-‘, and can already lay claim to equality.
20.a3?!
The threat of capturing at c5 followed by b4 is irrelevant, as it is time for Black to capture at d4
anyway.
cxd4
216
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9zppwq-trpzp-0
9-vl-+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+Pzp-+-+0
9zP-vL-+NzP-0
9-zP-+QzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
21.
¤xd4
[ 21.
¥xd4 ¥xd4 22.¦xd4 ( 22.¤xd4 ¦ed7 23.¤b5 £c5∓ ) 22...¦xd4 23.¤xd4 £c5
- Miles. Once again the weakness of the pawn at h5 is a major factor.
]
21...
¦ed7 22.c5
[ 22.
¤b5 £c6 23.¦xd7 ¦xd7 24.¦d1 a6 25.¦xd7 £xd7
loses material.
26.
¥xf6 gxf6
27.
¤c3 £d4 28.¤e4 ( 28.f4 £g1+ ) 28...f5∓ ]
22...
£xc5 23.¦c1 ¦c7
[ 23...
¥c7 24.¤b5÷ ]
[ 23...
¢b8?? 24.¤c6+! £xc6 25.¥e5+ ¢a8 26.¦xc6 bxc6 27.¥xf6 gxf6 28.£f3+- ]
24.
¤b5
(Diagram 217)
121
217
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9zpptr-+pzp-0
9-vl-+psn-zp0
9+Nwq-+-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-vL-+-zP-0
9-zP-+QzP-+0
9+KtR-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¦c6
[ 24...
£f5+
was suggested by Miles, and it might be even more effective than the text.
]
25.
¥e5
[ 25.
¥a5?
£f5+
26.
¢a1
¥xa5
is evaluated as winning for Black, but it is not so simple.
27.
¤xa7+ ¢c7 28.¤xc6 bxc6
and the minor pieces are better than the rooks, but it is not
hopeless.
29.
£a6 ]
25...
£xf2
218
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-vlr+psn-zp0
9+N+-vL-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-+-+-zP-0
9-zP-+Qwq-+0
9+KtR-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Here Van der Wiel decided to go into the endgame, and Miles cleaned up.
26.
£xf2
[ 26.
¤d6+!
would have been more resistant, but Miles provided the following analysis that
shows that he would have prevailed anyway.
¢d7 ( 26...¦dxd6 27.£xf2 ¥xf2 28.¥xd6 ¤e4
29.
¦xc6+ bxc6 30.¥e5! f6 31.¦h4! ¤d2+ 32.¢c2 ¤f3 33.¦f4 ¤e1+ 34.¢d1 ¥xg3
35.
¦g4 ¥xe5 36.¢xe1 f5∓ ) 27.£b5 ¢e7 28.¤xb7 ( 28.¦xc6 bxc6 29.£xc6 £c5 )
28...
¦xc1+ 29.¦xc1 £f5+ 30.¢a1 ¦d4!! ]
26...
¥xf2 27.¤d6+ ¢d7! 28.¤xb7
[ 28.
¤xf7 ¦f8
traps the
¤.
]
28...
¦xc1+ 29.¦xc1 ¦c8!
The endgame is now a clear win for Black, provided he avoids a few
traps.
30.
¦f1
[ 30.
¦d1+ ¢e7 31.¥d6+ ¢e8
and White's attack fizzles.
]
30...
¤e4
[ 30...
¥b6?! 31.¤d6³ ]
31.
¦d1+ ¢e7 32.¥xg7 ¥xg3 33.¦d4 f5 34.¥xh6 ¦h8 35.¥e3 ¦xh5 36.¦a4 ¦h1+ 37.¢a2
¦e1 38.¥xa7 ¦e2
[ 38...f4?!
39.
¥b8!
would have made things tougher for Black, e.g.,
f3
40.
¦xe4!
¦xe4
41.
¥xg3 ]
122
39.
¦b4 f4 40.¥b8 f3 41.¦xe4 ¥xb8 42.¤c5 ¥d6
0-1
290
Barua
Ravikumar
Calcutta
1986
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.c4 ¦he8 17.¥c3 ¥b6 18.£c2
This was wrongly attributed to Anand by Berg (1991).
£e7!
[ 18...c5?! 19.d5 exd5 20.
¥xf6 gxf6 21.cxd5!
(Stronger than 21.Qf5+, seen in GAME REF).
c4 22.
¦h4! ¢b8 23.¢b1 ¦d6 24.¦f4 £c5 25.¦xc4 £xf2 26.£xf2 ¥xf2 27.g4±
Anand-Gerber, Biel 1988.
]
19.
¤e5 ¤d7 20.f4
219
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0{
9zpp+nwqpzp-0
9-vlp+p+-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-zP-+0
9+-vL-+-zP-0
9PzPQ+-+-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Here Black can afford to start liquidating pieces.
¤xe5 21.dxe5
[ 21.fxe5?
£g5+ 22.¢b1 £xg3 23.¦hg1 £f3 24.¦xg7 £xh5³ ]
21...
¦xd1+ 22.¦xd1 ¦d8 23.£e2 ¦xd1+ 24.¢xd1 £d8+ 25.¢c2 ¥d4 26.£d2 ¥xc3
27.
£xd8+ ¢xd8 28.¢xc3
220
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-mk-+-+0{
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-zP-+P0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+-mK-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
There is obviously no danger to either side in this position.
b6 29.g4
¢d7 30.b4 ¢e7 31.¢d4
¢d7 32.¢e4 ¢e7 33.g5 ¢d7 34.a4 c5 35.b5
½-½
123
294
Christiansen
Chandler
Wijk aan Zee
1982
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.c4 ¦he8
[ 16...
¥d6 17.¥c3
gives White a solid grip on the position.
¢b8 18.£e2 ¢a8 19.¢b1 b5?!
20.d5!
bxc4
21.dxe6
( 21.
¥xf6 gxf6 22.dxe6 c3
was not as clear in Timoschenko-
Marushenko, Budapest 1991.
)]
[ 16...
¥b6
is the reasonable alternative.
]
17.
¥c3
221
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-vl-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-vLQ+NzP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
¢b8 18.£e2 ¥f8 19.¤e5²
The
¤e5 is very strong, and the £c7 is tied to the defense of f7, so
Black is without a clear strategy and must remain passive.
c5
20.dxc5
¥xc5 21.f4 ¤g8
Black will drive back the enemy
¤, but at the cost of a significant weakening of his § structure.
22.
¢b1 f6 23.¤g6 £b6 24.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 25.¦d1 ¦xd1+ 26.£xd1
222
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+n+0{
9zpp+-+-zp-0
9-wq-+pzpNzp0
9+-vl-+-+P0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+-vL-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+K+Q+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black is now forced to take measures to prevent the infiltration of the White
£.
¢c8
[ 26...
¤e7 27.¤f8!± ]
27.
£e2 ¢d7 28.g4 ¢e8
[ 28...
¤e7? 29.¤f8+ ¢e8 30.¤xe6± ]
29.
£e4
124
223
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+k+n+0{
9zpp+-+-zp-0
9-wq-+pzpNzp0
9+-vl-+-+P0
9-+P+QzPP+0
9+-vL-+-+-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+K+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Whtie's forces are well-coordinated, while Black's are scattered.
£d6
Threatening mate at d1.
30.
¢c2 £d7 31.a3 a5 32.f5! e5
Forced.
33.
¤f4 a4 34.¤e6
The
¤ occupies yet another
outpost, and this time its effect is decisive.
¥f8 35.¥a5! ¤e7 36.¥b4 ¢f7 37.£d3 £c8
An exchange of
£s would be out of the question here.
[ 37...
£xd3+ 38.¢xd3 ¢e8 39.¢e4 b6 40.¤c7+ ¢d7 41.¤d5 ¤xd5 42.¥xf8± ]
38.
£d8
1-0
299
Kunovac
2260
Ostojic
2265
Yugoslavia Team Ch
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 £c7 12.¤e4 ¤gf6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.¥f4
224
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-vl-+-+P0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-+Q+NzP-0
9PzPP+-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This move attempts to create a strongpoint at e5, but Black can defend without difficulty.
¥d6
17.
¥xd6
[ 17.
¥e5 ¥xe5 18.¤xe5 c5 19.£c4 ¦d5 20.f4 ¤e4=
Belinkov - Podgayets, USSR 1968.
]
17...
¦xd6
18.
£e2
For 18.c4 see Flejsch - Namzhilov. The c-
§ should remain in a position to
support the
§ at d4, which otherwise becomes a target.
¦hd8 19.c3 ¦d5 20.¤d2?!
This also
drops the h-
§.
[ 20.
¤e5 c5
shows just how fragile the outpost really is.
]
125
[ 20.g4
¤xg4 21.¦dg1 f5 22.¦xg4 fxg4 23.£xe6+ £d7 24.£xd7+ ¦8xd7 25.¤e5 ¦e7
26.
¤xg4 ¦g5
does not provide enough compensation.
]
20...
£a5 21.¤c4?!
This pawn sacrifice does not lead to any compensation, so it was probably
better to let the h-
§ go.
[ 21.a3
¦xh5 ]
21...
£xa2 22.¢c2 £a4+ 23.b3 £b5 24.¦a1 ¦xh5∓
225
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+q+-+-+r0
9-+NzP-+-+0
9+PzP-+-zP-0
9-+K+QzP-+0
9tR-+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
25.
¦a5
Perhaps White thought that this would get him off the hook, but it simply adds a little
flash to the game.
£xa5! 26.¤xa5 ¦xh1 27.b4 ¦h5
The rooks and pawns are more than a
match for the queen.
28.
¤c4 ¦hd5 29.£e1 ¦5d7 30.£c1 ¤d5 31.¤e5 ¦c7 32.g4 ¦e8
33.
¢b3 f6 34.¤d3 e5
and the lines are going to be opened for the
¦s.
35.c4
¤f4 36.¤xf4
exf4 37.
£xf4 ¦d7 38.¢c3 ¦ed8-+ 39.d5 cxd5 40.c5 ¦e8 41.£f5 a6 42.£d3 ¦e4 43.b5
¦c4+ 44.¢b3 axb5 45.£e2 d4 46.c6 ¦xc6
0-1
302
Ljubojevic
Karpov
Linares
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 ¤gf6 14.¤e4 0-0-0 15.g3
¤c5 16.¤xc5 ¥xc5 17.£c4
(Diagram 226)
126
226
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-vl-+-+P0
9-+QzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvL-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Not as popular as 17.c4.
¥d6 18.£a4 ¢b8 19.¤e5 ¤d5
Because White has not established a
pawn at c4, Black can also lay claim to a useful outpost. Ljubojevic tries to drive back the
¤ later,
but it is not a successful strategy.
20.f4
¤b6= 21.£b3 ¥xe5 22.dxe5 ¤d5
227
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-tr-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+nzP-+P0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+Q+-+-zP-0
9PzPPvL-+-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
A critical position. White should now concentrate on the kingside, accepting the fact that Black
will have a powerful
¤ at d5.
23.c4?!
[ 23.
£f3 ¦d7 24.£g4 ( 24.g4!?
comes strongly into consideration - author.
) 24...
¦hd8
is a promising sacrificial defence:
25.
£xg7 £b6 26.£g4 ¤e3 27.¥xe3 £xe3+ 28.¢b1
¦xd1+ 29.¦xd1 ¦xd1+ 30.£xd1 ¢c8!=
was given by Suetin.
( 30...
£xg3?? 31.£d8# )]
23...
¤e7 24.¥e3 c5!
Black aims to establish a new outpost for his
¤ at d4.
25.
¦xd8+ ¦xd8
26.
¦d1 ¦xd1+ 27.£xd1 b6!
(Diagram 228)
127
228
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+-+0
9zp-wq-snpzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0
9+-zp-zP-+P0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+-+-vL-zP-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9+-mKQ+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It is already clear that the
¤ will be much more effective than the ¥ in the endgame.
28.
£d3 g6
This move is effective for two reasons. First, it prevents the White
£ from sneaking into the » via
h7. Second, it secures another new outpost for the
¤ - this time at f5.
29.hxg6 fxg6 30.a3 a5
31.b3 h5
229
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-+-+-+0
9+-wq-sn-+-0
9-zp-+p+p+0
9zp-zp-zP-+p0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9zPP+QvL-zP-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-mK-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The
¥ has no gainful employment anywhere on the board.
32.
£e4 ¤f5 33.¥f2 £d7 34.a4
¢c7 35.¢c2
[ 35.
£a8 £d3 36.£a7+ ¢c8 37.£a8+ ¢d7 38.£b7+ ¢e8 39.£b8+ ¢f7 40.£b7+ ¤e7
41.
£g2 £c3+-+ ]
35...
£d8 36.¢c1 g5 37.fxg5 £xg5+ 38.¢c2 ¤e7
Naturally Black would be happy to
exchange
£s if possible, and this sets up 39...£g6.
39.
£h7?!
This allows Black to achieve a
winning endgame.
¢d7?
[ 39...
£g6+ 40.£xg6 ¤xg6 41.¥e3 ¢d7 ( 41...¤xe5 42.¥f4 ¢d6 43.¢d2!±
and Black is in
zugzwang!
) 42.
¥f4 ( 42.¥g5 ¤xe5∓ ) 42...¤xf4 43.gxf4 h4-+ ]
40.
£e4 £f5 41.£d3+ ¢c6 42.£xf5 exf5
But even if this is not the most efficient method, it is
still a win, as Karpov demonstrates.
43.
¥e3 ¤g6 44.e6 ¢d6 45.¥g5 ¢xe6 46.¢d2
[ 46.
¥d8 f4 47.gxf4 h4 48.¥c7 h3 49.f5+ ¢xf5 50.¥h2 ¢g4 51.¢d3 ¢f3 52.¥c7 ¢g2
53.
¢e4 ¤h4 ( 53...h2 54.¥xh2 ¢xh2 55.¢d5
is less clear.
) 54.
¢d5 ¤f5 55.¢c6 ¤g3-+ ]
46...f4 47.gxf4 h4 48.
¢e3 h3 49.¢f3 ¢f5 50.¢g3 ¤xf4 51.¥d8 ¤e2+ 52.¢xh3 ¤d4
53.
¥xb6 ¤xb3 54.¥d8 ¢e4 55.¢g4 ¢d3 56.¢f4 ¢xc4 57.¢e4 ¢c3 58.¥f6+ ¢c2
59.
¥e5 c4 60.¢e3 c3 61.¥f6 ¤c5 62.¢e2 ¢b3
0-1
128
305
Karpov
Miles
Amsterdam
1985
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.£e2 ¥b6
[ 16...
¥xd4
is the correct move.
]
230
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-vlp+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvLQzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
An original idea by Miles, aiming at d4. But Karpov quickly switches to an advantageous
endgame.
17.
¥f4
[ 17.
¦h4!? ¦d7 18.c4 c5 19.¥c3
is considered better for White by Karov & Zaitsev.
]
17...
£e7 18.c4 ¦he8 19.£e5! ¥c7 20.£xc7+ £xc7 21.¥xc7 ¢xc7 22.¦h4! ¦e7 23.¤e5
231
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-+0{
9zppmk-trpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+PzP-+-tR0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has secured an outpost and a significant spatial advantage. Black must eliminate the
¤s,
but this leads to a difficult
¦ & § endgame.
¤d7
[ 23...b5 24.b3 bxc4 25.bxc4
¦b8 26.¦d3 ¢d6! 27.¦a3 ¦c7 28.¦a6 ¦bc8 29.¦f4
and the White
¦s provide enough pressure to lay claim to an advantage, Ermenkov-Campora,
Amsterdam 1985.
]
24.
¦f4 ¦f8
[ 24...f5!?
might have limited the damage, though with a
¤, rather than a §, at e5, White can
more easily target the weak
§ at e6.
]
25.
¢c2 ¤xe5 26.dxe5 ¦d7 27.¦xd7+ ¢xd7 28.c5!
129
232
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-tr-+0{
9zpp+k+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-zP-zP-+P0
9-+-+-tR-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzPK+-zP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has two big advantages - the active rook and the permanent control of more space.
¢e7
29.
¦a4 ¦a8 30.¢c3 ¢f8 31.¦d4 ¢e7 32.¦b4 ¦b8
The comparison of the
¦s is
embarrassing for Black.
33.
¦a4 ¦a8 34.¦a3 ¢e8 35.¦b3 ¦b8 36.¦a3 ¦a8 37.¢c2 ¢e7
38.
¦b3 ¦b8 39.¦a3 ¦a8 40.¦a4
obviously White was just temporizing until the time control
had passed.
¢e8 41.¦b4 ¦b8 42.¦a4 ¦a8 43.¢c3 ¢e7 44.¢c4 ¢e8 45.¦a3 ¢e7 46.¦b3
¦b8 47.¦a3 ¦a8 48.f4 g6
[ 48...
¢e8 49.g4 g6 50.g5 gxh5 ( 50...hxg5 51.h6 ¢f8 52.fxg5
and White wins by taking
the d-file, and/or simply advancing the b-
§.
) 51.gxh6
¢f8 52.¦h3 ¢g8 53.¦xh5 ¦d8 54.¦h3
¦d2 55.¢c3 ¦d5 56.b4 ¦d1 57.¦d3 ¦a1 58.¦d8+ ¢h7 59.¦f8 ¦xa2 60.¦xf7+ ¢xh6
61.
¦xb7 ¢g6 62.b5+- ]
49.hxg6 fxg6 50.
¢d4 h5 51.¢e4 ¢f7 52.¦b3 b6
[ 52...
¦b8 53.a4 b6 54.a5 b5 55.¦d3 ¢e7 56.¦d6 ¦c8 57.a6 ¦c7 58.¢f3 ¢f7 59.¢g2
¢e7 60.¢h3 ¢f7 ( 60...¦d7 61.¢h4 ¦xd6 62.exd6+ ¢d7 63.¢g5+- ) 61.¢h4 ¢e7
62.
¢g5 ¢f7 63.¢h6+- ]
53.
¦d3!
[ 53.cxb6 axb6 54.
¦xb6 ¦xa2 55.¦xc6 ¦xb2
would be a much more difficult position to play
for the win.
]
53...
¢e7 54.¦d6 bxc5 55.¦xc6 ¦b8 56.¦xc5 ¦xb2 57.¦c7+ ¢f8 58.¦xa7± ¦c2 59.¢f3
¢g8 60.a4 ¦a2 61.a5 ¢f8 62.a6 ¢g8 63.¦a8+ ¢g7 64.a7 ¦a3+ 65.¢e4
Since the g-
§
can never be captured because of
¦g8+, the win is now trivial.
1-0
311
Kruppa
2460
Khenkin
2450
Minsk
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.£e2 ¥xd4
(Diagram 233)
130
233
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-vl-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPvLQzP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This gambit has been around for some time, but there seems no reason to refuse the offer.
17.
¥f4
[ 17.
¤xd4? ¦xd4 18.¥f4 ¦xd1+ 19.£xd1 ( 19.¦xd1 £a5 ) 19...e5 20.¥e3 £a5∓
was miserable for White in Tal - Chandler, Wijk aan Zee 1982.
]
17...e5 18.
¥xe5 ¥xe5 19.¤xe5
This does not promise any advantage for White, according to
Kasparov & Shakarov, though Campora considers the position better for White already.
¦xd1+
20.
¦xd1 ¦d8 21.¦f1
234
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-+0{
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+p+-sn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzPP+QzP-+0
9+-mK-+R+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Clearly when White is encouraged to play a move like this, Black must be happy with the results
of the opening!
£e7 22.¦e1 £e6 23.b3 ¦d4 24.f3 ¤d7 25.¤g4 £xe2 26.¦xe2 ¦d5
27.
¦e8+ ¢c7 28.f4
This move is not easy to understand.
[ 28.
¦g8 ¦xh5 ( 28...¤f6 29.¤xf6 gxf6 30.¦g7 ¦xh5 31.¦xf7+± ; 28...f5 29.¤e3 ¦e5
30.
¢d2 f4 31.gxf4 ¦xh5 32.¦xg7
might be tenable.
) 29.
¦xg7 ¦g5 ( 29...¦f5 30.¤xh6 ¦xf3
31.
¤xf7± ) 30.¦xf7 ¢d6 31.¤xh6± ]
28...
¦xh5 29.¦e7 ¢d8 30.¦xf7 ¦h3 31.¤e5 ¤xe5 32.fxe5 ¦xg3 33.¦xb7 a5 34.¦a7 h5
35.
¦xa5 h4 36.¦a8+ ¢c7 37.¦h8 g5 38.¦h7+ ¢b6 39.¢d2 ¢c5 40.e6 ¢d6 41.e7 ¢d7
42.a4 h3 43.a5 g4 44.a6
¦g1 45.a7 ¦a1 46.¢e3 g3 47.¦xh3 g2 48.¦g3 ¦xa7 49.¦xg2
¦a2 50.¢d4 ¢xe7 51.¢c5 ¢d7 52.¦g7+ ¢c8 53.c4 ¦a6 54.b4 ¢b8 55.¦g6 ¢b7 56.¦f6
¦a4 57.¦f7+ ¢b8 58.¦f4 ¢b7 59.¦e4 ¢c7 60.¦h4 ¢b7 61.¦h7+ ¢b8 62.¦g7 ¦a6
63.
¢d6 ¦b6 64.c5 ¦xb4 65.¢xc6 ¦c4 66.¦g8+ ¢a7
½-½
131
313
Khanov
Shakarov
USSR
1979
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.c4 b5 14.¤e5
[ 14.c5
¥e7 15.¢b1 0-0
A) 16.
¦de1 ¤g4 17.£e2 ( 17.¤e4 f5 ; 17.¤f5 exf5 18.¦xe7 ¤xc5! 19.¦xc7 ¤xd3
20.
¦xc6 ¤gxf2 21.¦f1 ¤e4³ ) 17...¦ae8
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
;
B) 16.
¤e4 ¤d5?! ( 16...e5!? 17.¤xe5 ¤xe5 18.dxe5 £xe5 19.¤xf6+ £xf6 20.¥c3 £f4
is suggested by Kasparov.
) 17.
¤c3 ¤xc3+ 18.£xc3 ¤f6 19.£c1! ¤d5 20.¦de1 b4
21.g4
¦ab8 22.¢a1 b3 23.a3 a5 24.¢b1 £c8 25.£c4! ¥d8 26.¦hg1 £b7 27.¤e5 f6
28.
¤g6 ¦e8 29.f4 £f7 30.£d3 ¤e7 31.g5±
Shishov - Vdovin, Sochi 1980.
]
[ 14.cxb5 cxb5+ 15.
¢b1 £b7= ]
14...
¤xe5 15.dxe5 £xe5 16.¦he1 bxc4 17.£c2 £b5 18.a4
[ 18.
¤f5 ¦d8 19.¤xg7+ ¥xg7 20.¦xe6+ fxe6 21.£g6+ ¢d7!∓
- Kasparov.
]
18...
£b3?!
[ 18...
£b7! 19.¤f5 ¦d8
- Kasparov & Shakarov.
]
19.
¦xe6+ fxe6 20.£g6+ ¢e7 21.¥c3 ¤d5! 22.¤f5+!!
[ 22.
¥xg7? c3 ]
[ 22.
¦e1? ¢d8 23.¥a5+ ¢c8 24.£xe6+ ¢b7 25.£d7+ ¢a6 26.£xc6+ ¤b6 27.¥xb6
£xb6 28.£xa8 ¥a3!-+ ]
22...exf5 23.
¦e1+ ¢d7 24.¥a5! ¤e7
[ 24...
¤b6 25.£f7+ ¢d6 26.¦e6+ ¢c5 27.¦e5+ ¤d5 28.¦xd5+ cxd5 29.£c7+ ¢d4
30.
£f4+= ]
25.
£e6+ ¢e8 26.£xc6+ ¢f7 27.£e6+
½-½
314
Spassky
Portisch
Mexico City (m/8)
1980
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.c4
(Diagram 235)
132
235
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvl-tr0{
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+Q+NsN-0
9PzP-vL-zPP+0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Spassky tries to improve on his previous meeting experience with Portisch in this line, which
went nowhere (Tilburg 1978) after 12.0-0-0.
£c7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.¥c3
This position should
be compared with Fischer - Steinmeyer. The only change is the presence of the
§ at h5 instead
of h4.
c5 15.
¢b1
[ 15.d5!
should have been played, as suggested by Fischer for the similar position.
]
15...cxd4 16.
¤xd4 a6 17.¤b3 ¥e7 18.¥a5 b6 19.¥c3 ¤c5 20.£f3 £b7 21.£xb7+ ¢xb7
236
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-tr0
9+k+-vlpzp-0
9pzp-+psn-zp0
9+-sn-+-+P0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+NvL-+-sN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The endgame should not be a problem for Black, but Portisch plays weakly.
22.
¤xc5+
bxc5
23.f3
¦xd1+ 24.¦xd1 ¢c6 25.¦h1
It is obvious that the weak h-
§ limits White's play.
¤d7?!
[ 25...
¦d8= ]
26.
¢c2 ¦g8
Black's plan is too ambitious.
27.
¤e2 ¥d6 28.a3 f5
We see this pawn formation
adopted by Black in a number of games, especially when e6-e5 follows. But there is always a
price to pay at g6.
29.b4
¤b6 30.¢b3 ¢d7 31.¦d1 ¢e7 32.bxc5 ¥xc5 33.¤f4!
(Diagram 237)
133
237
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+r+0{
9+-+-mk-zp-0
9psn-+p+-zp0
9+-vl-+p+P0
9-+P+-sN-+0
9zPKvL-+P+-0
9-+-+-+P+0
9+-+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now it seems that e6-e5 is no longer achievable, and Black is left with too many weaknesses.
¦b8 34.¥b4 ¤d7 35.¢c3 ¦c8 36.¤d3 ¥xb4+ 37.axb4² e5 38.¦a1 ¦c6 39.¦a5
White's active pieces give him the only real chances to win the game.
¢f6 40.g3 ¦e6 41.¦d5
¤f8 42.¦d8 ¢e7 43.¦a8±
A fine set of rook moves has increased the advantage.
g6 44.
¤c5
¦d6 45.¤xa6 ¤e6 46.b5 gxh5 47.c5 ¦d5 48.¦a7+ ¢e8 49.b6
1-0
315
Adams
Suesman
?
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 e6 13.c4 0-0-0 14.¥c3
238
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-vLQ+NsN-0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is one of the earliest examples of the main line of the Classical Caro- Kann, and Black was
not well prepared.
¤g4!
A one-trick move.
15.
£e2 ¥d6 16.¤e4!
The attacked
¤ not only
escapes, but it simultaneously defends f2 and attacks the Black
¥.
¥f4+ 17.¢b1 f5
This leaves
e6 weak, but that isn't the real problem here. The central pawns will be exchanged after e6-e5,
and then it is the f-
§ that lacks support.
18.
¤ed2 e5 19.dxe5 ¤gxe5?!
[ 19...
¥xe5 20.¤xe5 ¤gxe5
A) 21.
¤f3 ¦he8 22.¤xe5 ¤xe5 23.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 24.¦d1+ ¤d7 ( 24...¢c8 25.f4 )
25.
£d3² ;
B) 21.f4?!
¤g4 22.¥xg7?! ¦he8 23.£f3 ( 23.£f1 ¤e3 ) 23...¦e3 24.£f1 ¤c5!
134
gives Black excellent play for the
§.
]
20.
¤d4 ¦he8
[ 20...
¥xd2 21.¦xd2 ¦he8 22.£d1² ]
21.
¤2b3!
239
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0{
9zppwqn+-zp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+-+-snp+P0
9-+PsN-vl-+0
9+NvL-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
The battle rages over c5 - a fight only White can win.
¤b6 22.c5 ¤d5 23.¥a5! b6
240
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktrr+-+0
9zp-wq-+-zp-0
9-zpp+-+-zp0
9vL-zPnsnp+P0
9-+-sN-vl-+0
9+N+-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
24.
¤xf5! bxa5 25.¤d6+ ¦xd6
Forced.
[ 25...
¢b8 26.¤xe8 ¦xe8 27.g3 ¥g5 28.f4 ¥xf4 29.gxf4 ¤xf4 30.£a6± ]
[ 25...
¢d7 26.g3 ¥g5 27.f4 ¥xf4 28.gxf4 ¤xf4 29.£e4! ]
26.cxd6
£xd6 27.g3 £c7
(Diagram 241)
135
241
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+k+r+-+0
9zp-wq-+-zp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9zp-+nsn-+P0
9-+-+-vl-+0
9+N+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+QzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
And now White finishes nicely!
28.
¦xd5!
and Black resigned rather than face...
cxd5 29.gxf4
£c4 30.¦c1
1-0
321
Shamkovich
Lein
New York
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤f3 ¤d7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 £c7 13.¤e5
242
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0{
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+-sN-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is premature.
¥d6
[ 13...
¤xe5
is also good.
14.dxe5
£xe5 15.¦he1 £c7 ( 15...£d5? 16.¦xe6+ fxe6 17.£g6+
¢d7 18.¥c3± ) 16.¥c3!? ( 16.¤f5 ¤d5 17.c4 0-0-0!∓
Zhidkov-Podgayets, USSR 1969.
)
16...
¦d8 ( 16...¤d5 17.¥d4© ) 17.¦xe6+ fxe6 18.£g6+ ¢e7 19.¤f5+ exf5 20.¦e1+ ¤e4
21.
£xf5 ¦d6! 22.¥f6+! ( 22.£xe4+ ¢f7 23.£c4+ ¦d5 ) 22...¦xf6 23.£xe4+ ¢d7 24.£e8+
¢d6 25.£e5+=
Solyu-Oeney, Istambul 1988.
]
14.f4 0-0 15.
£f3
This move gives the variation an individual flavor.
¦fd8 16.¢b1 c5 17.¤xd7
¦xd7 18.dxc5
There was no way to preserve the center.
¥xc5 19.¥c3 ¤d5!
The bishop on c3
might prove dangerous.
20.
¥e5 ¥d6 21.¥xd6 ¦xd6 22.¦d4 ¦c6
136
243
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-+k+0
9zppwq-+pzp-0
9-+r+p+-zp0
9+-+n+-+P0
9-+-tR-zP-+0
9+-+-+QsN-0
9PzPP+-+P+0
9+K+-+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has now taken over the initiative.
23.c3
¦c8 24.¤e2 £a5
Black is applying maximum
pressure at c3, which can no longer be defended by a bishop.
25.
¦hd1 b5 26.a3 £b6 27.f5
This move has little effect, as the White forces are not in a position to support kingside play.
¤f6
28.fxe6
¦xe6 29.¤f4 ¦e5 30.¤d5 ¤xd5 31.¦xd5 ¦xd5 32.£xd5 a6
244
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-+k+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9pwq-+-+-zp0
9+p+Q+-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-zP-+-+-0
9-zP-+-+P+0
9+K+R+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
Equal? Perhaps, but the Black king is much safer.
33.
¦f1 £c7 34.g4 £c4 35.£f5
[ 35.
£xc4 ¦xc4³ ]
35...
¦c5 36.£f3 ¦g5 37.¦g1 £e6 38.£a8+ ¢h7 39.£f3 f5! 40.£d3
[ 40.gxf5
£xf5+³ ]
40...
£c4! 41.£c2 ¢h8
And now the pawns fall like ripe mangoes.
42.
¦d1 £xg4 43.¦d4
£xh5 44.¦d8+ ¢h7 45.£b3 £h1+ 46.¢a2 £c6 47.£g8+ ¢g6 48.¦c8 £d7 49.c4
White has run out of useful moves.
f4 50.
¦d8 £c6 51.¦c8 £e4 52.¦c7 ¢h5! 53.£c8
[ 53.
¦xg7 ¦xg7 54.£xg7 £xc4+ 55.¢a1 £d5∓ ]
53...f3 54.
¦c6 ¢h4 55.cxb5 axb5 56.¦c1 f2 57.£c7 ¢h3! 58.¢a1 ¢g2
0-1
326
Kapengut
Podgayets
USSR
1970
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤c5 15.¤xc5
¥xc5 16.a3 ¥d6 17.£e2 ¤d7
137
[ 17...c5 18.dxc5
¥xc5 19.¥f4 ¥d6 20.¥xd6 ¦xd6 21.¦xd6 £xd6 22.¤e5 £c7 23.¦h4!
¢b8 24.¦c4 £e7 25.¦d4²
- Boleslavsky.
]
18.c4 c5
[ 18...e5 19.dxe5
¤xe5 20.¥c3²
- Boleslavsky.
]
19.
¥c3 cxd4 20.¤xd4 a6 21.¤b3 ¦hg8 22.¦d2 ¥e7 23.¦hd1 ¤f6 24.¤d4 ¦ge8 25.b4
¥f8 26.¢b2 ¦d7 27.¤b3 ¦ed8 28.¥d4 £c6! 29.¥xf6 gxf6 30.¦xd7 ¦xd7 31.¤a5 £c7
32.
¦xd7 £xd7 33.c5 f5
and, according to Kasparov & Shakarov, Black has chances to draw.
332
Tseshkovsky
Kasparov
USSR Championship
1978
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 c5 15.¥f4 c4?!
245
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+pzPNvL-+0
9+-+Q+NzP-0
9PzPP+-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
16.
£e2
[ 16.
¥xc7!
is the refutation of this line.
cxd3 17.
¥xd8! ( 17.¤xf6
is what Kasparov had been
expecting:
¢xc7 18.¤xd7 dxc2 19.¢xc2 ¢xd7 20.¤e5+ ¢e8 21.d5 ¥d6= ) 17...¤xe4
18.
¦h4! dxc2 19.¢xc2 ¤xf2 20.¦f1± ]
16...
£c6 17.¤xf6 gxf6 18.d5 exd5 19.¤d4 £a6 20.¢b1 ¥d6 21.£f3 ¥xf4 22.£xf4 ¤c5
23.
£f5+ ¢b8 24.f4²
Black's pawn structure is in very bad shape.
¤d7 25.£xd5 ¤e5 26.£e4
¤g4 27.£e2 £b6 28.c3 f5 29.¦he1 £c5 30.£e7 £xe7 31.¦xe7 ¦he8 32.¦de1 ¦xe7
33.
¦xe7 ¤f6 34.¦xf7 ¤xh5 35.¤xf5 ¦d3 36.¦f8+ ¢c7 37.¦g8 ¢d7 38.¦g6 b5 39.a3
¦d1+ 40.¢a2 ¦g1 41.¦d6+ ¢c7 42.¦xh6 ¤xg3 43.¤d4 ¤e4 44.¤xb5+ ¢d7 45.¦h7+
¢e6 46.¦xa7 ¤c5 47.¤d4+ ¢d6 48.¤f5+ ¢d5 49.¤e3+ ¢e4 50.¦c7 ¤d3 51.¦e7+
1-0
333
Fedorowicz
De Jong
Wijk aan Zee
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 ¥h7 8.¤f3 ¤d7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 c5?!
138
246
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-vl-tr0
9zppwqn+pzp-0
9-+-+psn-zp0
9+-zp-+-+P0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+-+Q+NzP-0
9PzPPvL-zP-+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This move creates significant weaknesses on the
«.
15.
¥f4 £c6
[ 15...
£a5!? 16.¤xf6 ¤xf6 17.¢b1 ¤d5 18.¥d2 £c7 19.c4 ¤f6 20.¥c3±
- Fedorowicz.
]
[ 15...c4
- see Tseshkovsky - Kasparov, USSR Championship 1978.
]
16.
¤xf6 gxf6
[ 16...
¤xf6 17.¤e5 £e8 18.£a3! a6 19.£a5
- Fedorowicz.
]
17.d5
£a4
[ 17...exd5 18.
£xd5 £xd5 19.¦xd5±
but
÷ - Fedorowicz.
]
18.
£b3 £a6 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.c4 ¤b6
[ 20...
¥e7 21.¤h4 ¤b6!? 22.¤g6 ¦xd1+ 23.¦xd1 ¦e8 24.¤xe7+ ¦xe7 25.¥xh6 £xc4+
26.
£xc4 ¤xc4
∆ ¦h7.
]
21.
¦xd8+ ¢xd8 22.¤d2 ¦h7 23.¢b1?!
[ 23.
£d3+! ¦d7 24.£g6!+-
- Fedorowicz.
]
23...
¦d7 24.¦c1 e5 25.¥e3 f5 26.¤f3 ¥g7 27.¤h4 f4 28.¥xc5 ¤a4 29.¥a3 e4 30.¤f5
¥f6 31.¦d1 £c6 32.gxf4 ¤xb2 33.¥xb2 ¥xb2 34.¦xd7+ £xd7 35.¢xb2 £xf5 36.£xb7
£xf4 37.£a8+ ¢e7 38.£xa7+ ¢f6 39.£e3 £b8+ 40.¢c2 ¢f5 41.£xh6 £b4 42.£g6+
¢f4 43.£g3+ ¢f5 44.£b3 £e1 45.£h3+
1-0
339
Karpov
Seirawan
Linares
1983
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 ¥e7
(Diagram 247)
139
247
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zppwqnvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This is an interesting variation. Black intends to castle kingside. In this game Karpov tries to
discourage that plan.
14.
¤xf6+ ¥xf6
[ 14...
¤xf6 15.¤e5 0-0 16.g4 ¦fd8 17.g5 hxg5 18.h6!
- Matanovic.
]
15.
£e4!
A strong centralizing move which lends support to the f4-square, which can be used by
the
¥.
0-0-0 16.
¥f4 £a5 17.¢b1 ¦he8 18.¥g3²
White has a comfortable position, but as the
game shows, it is not clear that there is an easy way to convert this to victory, and even the
World Champion failed to gain the point.
£f5 19.£e2 b5 20.¦d3 ¤b6 21.¤e5 ¥xe5 22.¥xe5
f6 23.g4
£h7 24.¥g3 ¢b7 25.¦e1 a5 26.£d2 a4 27.f3 £g8 28.¦e4 £f7 29.£e1 ¦d5
30.a3
£d7 31.£d1 ¦d8 32.¥e1 f5 33.¦e2 £f7 34.¥b4 fxg4 35.fxg4 g6 36.£e1 gxh5
37.
¦xe6 ¦8d7 38.gxh5 ¦f5 39.¦d1 ¦xh5 40.£e4 ¤d5 41.¥c5 ¦h2 42.¦c1 h5 43.¦h6
¦f2 44.£e1 ¦d8 45.£d1 ¦f3 46.£e1
½-½
340
Kudrin
Benjamin
New York Open
1987
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.
¤c3 d5 3.d4 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤gf6 13.¤e4 ¥e7 14.¤xf6+ gxf6
248
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zppwqnvlp+-0
9-+p+pzp-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
The pawn capture is overambitious.
15.g4 0-0-0 16.
£e4 ¤b6 17.¢b1 ¦d5 18.£e2 c5
19.dxc5
¥xc5 20.¥c1 £c6 21.c4 ¦d7 22.b3 ¥e7 23.¥f4 e5 24.¥c1 ¦hd8 25.¦xd7
¤xd7 26.¦d1 ¥f8 27.¤h4 ¤c5 28.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 29.¤f5 £h1 30.¢c2 ¢e8 31.f3 ¤e6
140
32.
£d1 £g2+ 33.¢b1 e4 34.fxe4 £xe4+ 35.¢a1 ¥c5 36.¥b2 ¤f4 37.¥xf6 ¤d3 38.a4
a5 39.
¥c3 b6 40.¤g7+ ¢f8 41.¤f5 ¢e8 42.¤g3 £e3 43.£e2 £xe2 44.¤xe2
249
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+k+-+0{
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zp-+-+-zp0
9zp-vl-+-+P0
9P+P+-+P+0
9+PvLn+-+-0
9-+-+N+-+0
9mK-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White's goals now are to get the dark-squared
¥s off the board and exchange his g-§ for Black's
h-
§.
¤f2 45.g5 ¤g4 46.gxh6 ¤xh6 47.¥d4 ¢e7 48.¢b2 ¤f5 49.¥xc5+ bxc5
250
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-mkp+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zp-zp-+n+P0
9P+P+-+-+0
9+P+-+-+-0
9-mK-+N+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
This endgame is winning for White because the Black
¢ will have to travel to the edge of the
board to deal with the h-
§, while White's ¤ remains in the ”.
50.
¤f4 ¤d6 51.¢c2 ¢f6 52.¢d2
¢g5 53.¤d3 ¤b7 54.¢e3! f5
[ 54...
¢xh5 55.¢f4 ¢g6 56.¢e5 f6+ 57.¢d5 f5 58.¢c6 ¤d8+ 59.¢xc5 ¤e6+ 60.¢b5 f4
61.
¢xa5 f3 62.¤f2+- ]
55.
¢f3 ¢xh5 56.¢f4 ¢g6 57.¢e5 ¢g5 58.¢d5 f4 59.¢c6 ¤d8+ 60.¢xc5 f3 61.¢d5
¢f5 62.c5 ¤e6 63.¢d6 ¢e4 64.¤f2+ ¢e3 65.¤h1 ¢d4 66.¢xe6 ¢xc5 67.¢d7 ¢b4
68.
¢c6 ¢xb3 69.¢b5
1-0
343
Tarjan
Christiansen
USA Ch
1981
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 e6 14.¤e4 ¥e7 15.¢b1
141
251
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0{
9zppwqnvlpzp-0
9-+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+-+Q+N+-0
9PzPPvL-zPP+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
0-0?!
[ 15...c5!
is more flexible.
]
16.
¤xf6+?!
This is not the most effective plan. White could have gone for the jugular on the
kingside.
[ 16.
¦dg1! ¤xe4 17.£xe4 ¤f6 18.£e2 ¤g4 19.¤e1!
∆ f3 and g4. Black has no counterplay
and would not last long.
]
16...
¤xf6 17.¦dg1 ¤g4 18.£e2 ¦ad8 19.¤e5?!
[ 19.
¤e1!? ¤f6 ( 19...¦xd4 20.¥c3± ) 20.¤f3 ¤g4= ]
252
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-trk+0{
9zppwq-vlpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-sN-+P0
9-+-zP-+n+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPvLQzPP+0
9+K+-+-tRR0
xiiiiiiiiy
White needs all his forces for the attack. Thus a retreat of the knight would have been preferable.
19...
¤xe5 20.dxe5 f6
[ 20...
¦d5 21.f4 ¦fd8 22.¥c1
does not leave Black any useful follow-up.
]
21.exf6
¥xf6 22.¥c1
[ 22.
£xe6+ ¢h8 23.¥c1 ¦fe8 24.£h3 £b6„
--Christiansen.
]
22...
£e5!= 23.¦e1 £xe2 24.¦xe2 e5 25.c3
[ 25.b3!?
∆ Bb2.
]
25...b5 26.
¢c2 ¦d5 27.¥e3
[ 27.
¦e4 ¥g5 28.¥xg5 hxg5 29.f3 ¦fd8 30.¦e2 ¦8d6³ ]
27...a5 28.a4
¦b8 29.¦d2 bxa4 30.¦a1 ¦db5 31.¦a2 a3 32.bxa3 a4 33.¦d6 ¦c8 34.¦b2
[ 34.
¥xh6! e4 35.¥d2 ¦xh5 36.¦b2 ¦d5 37.¦xd5 cxd5 38.¦b5! d4 39.¦b4
and, according
to Christiansen, White cannot lose.
]
34...
¦d5 35.¦xd5 cxd5 36.¦b4 ¦c4 37.¦xc4 dxc4
142
253
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-+-vl-zp0
9+-+-zp-+P0
9p+p+-+-+0
9zP-zP-vL-+-0
9-+K+-zPP+0
9+-+-+-+-0[
xiiiiiiiiy
White seems to have the better bishop, but in fact the fixed queenside pawns make the situation
very much in Black's favor, and the weak h5-pawn is a bonus
38.f3
[ 38.
¥c5!
would have provided stiffer resistance.
]
38...
¥e7 39.¥c1 ¢f7 40.¢d1 ¢e6 41.¢e2 ¢d5 42.g3 ¥c5 43.g4 ¥e7 44.¢f2 ¥h4+
45.
¢e2 ¥f6 46.¢d2?
[ 46.
¢f2 e4 47.fxe4+ ¢xe4 48.¥d2 ¢d3-+ ]
[ 46.
¥d2! ¥e7 47.¥c1 ¥c5 48.¥b2 e4 49.f4 ]
46...
¥g5+ 47.¢d1 ¥xc1 48.¢xc1
254
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0{
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-+kzp-+P0
9p+p+-+P+0
9zP-zP-+P+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-mK-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The king and pawn endgame is a trivial matter, as Black demonstrates.
e4
(Notes after
Christiansen, in his book on the 1981 US Championship.)
0-1
349
Kuczynski
Dejkalo
Poland Ch
1990
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥f4 £a5+ 12.¥d2 £c7 13.0-0-0 e6 14.¤e4 ¥d6 15.¢b1
b5?
[ 15...
¤xe4 16.£xe4 ¤f6
would be more sensible.
]
16.
¥a5 £xa5 17.¤xd6+ ¢e7 18.¤e5 ¢xd6 19.£g3 ¤e4 20.¤c4+
1-0
143
374
Wittman
Izeta
Haifa
1989
[Schiller]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.
¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7
9.
¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 ¤gf6 11.¥d2 £c7 12.0-0-0 e6 13.¤e4 0-0-0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4
¥d6 16.c4 c5 17.¥c3 cxd4 18.¥xd4 £xc4+ 19.¢b1 ¤f6 20.£e3 ¤g4
255
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-vlp+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+qvL-+n+0
9+-+-wQNzP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0[
xiiiiiiiiy
It seems that Black has an initiative in addition to his pawn. But there is potential danger on the
queenside.
21.
£d2 ¢b8 22.£a5! £a6 23.£xa6 bxa6 24.¥xg7 ¦hg8 25.¥d4
White has
regained the pawn, but the initiative remains with Black.
256
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-tr-+r+0{
9zp-+-+p+-0
9p+-vlp+-zp0
9+-+-+-+P0
9-+-vL-+n+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
e5 26.
¥c3
White concedes the exchange rather than go into a very bad endgame.
[ 26.
¥e3 ¤xe3 27.fxe3 ¦xg3 28.¦hf1 ¢c7! ]
26...
¤xf2 27.¤xe5 ¤xd1 28.¦xd1 ¥xe5 29.¥xe5+ ¢b7 30.¦f1 ¦d7 31.¥f4 f5 32.¦e1
¦c8 33.a3 ¦c6 34.¦e8 ¦b6 35.¦b8+ ¢c6 36.¦h8 ¦d1+ 37.¢c2 ¦h1 38.¦xh6+ ¢d5
39.
¦h8 ¦h2+ 40.¥d2 ¢e4 41.h6 ¦d6 42.¦e8+ ¢f3 43.¦e3+ ¢g4 44.¦d3 ¦xd3
0-1
