Eric Schiller Sicilianfense Classical Richter Rauzer

Eric Schiller Sicilianfense Classical Richter Rauzer




ERIC SCHILLER


Sicilion Defense Richter Rauzer Variation Classical Lines 1 e4 c5 2 £f3 dó 3 d4 cxd4 4 Hxd4 £f6 5 ńc3 ńcó 6 Ag 5 eó 7 2d2AeT

V

i

i

,„Ł

A

■

A

A...

▲

1

▲

<£.

.A,

II

A

,£t

A

..4..

a

A

n

B

A

n

Erie Schiller

Chess Enterprises, Inc. Coraopolis, 1987

© 1987 by Erie Schiller

Ali rights reserved. Published 1987

Cover Design: Witalis Associates, Pittsburgh PA Proofreading: Thomas Magar

ISBN: 0-931462-72-X

This book was set in Pillsbury Laserfont, designed by Erie Schiller and available from Ecological Linguistics, P.O. Box 1 51 56, Washington D.C. 20003.

Printed in the United States of America 90 89 88 87    5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Variations without 8 ooo oo 9 f4

1

Alternatives to 8 ooo

1

2

8 ooo oo Options at move 9

3

3

9 Nb3 a5

7

4

9 Nb3 aó

12

5

9 Nb3 Qbó

17

Variations with 8 oo-o oo 9 f4 Nxd4

6

10 Qxd4 hó

26

7

10 Qxd4 Qa5

30

8

10 Qxd4 Qa5 1 1 Bc4 BdT

34

Variations with 8 ooo oo 9 f4 e5

9

9...e5

42

Yariations with 8 ooo oo 9 f4 h6

10 10 Bxf6 and 10 h4

44

1 1

10 Bh4

47

12 10 Bh4 e5 1 1 Nf5Bxf5 12 exf5

52

Index of Yariations

62

Preface

Perhaps the highest compliment a player can pay to an opening is to play it as both White and Black. Many of the best players in contemporary chess have this relationship with the Classical Sicilian ( 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Nc6). The variation has been a cornucopia for opening ideas, and the present work may be considered a report on the State of the art in the Classical Richter Rauzer with 6 Bg5 e6 7 Qd2 Be7 (Alternative strategies for Black are treated in my companion volumes on the Modern Richter Rauzer lines and the 7...a6 variations.) at the end of 1 986, with some additional materiał from 1 987 added during the production stages.

It has been a dozen years sińce the major work by Harding and Markland, and there is much to add from the theory of the past decade. It is especially important to notę that the revised ECO Volume B is very sloppy in the handling of the Richter Rauzer, relying primarily on Yugoslav sources and omitting even well established references easily found in Harding/Markland. Excellent recent works by Dempsey and Polugayevsky have already fallen out of datę, and each lacks a number of important references and new ideas. Rolf Schwarzs fine addition to his Handbuch series and Vreekens editing of the classic Euwe work are strong on European sources, but have the diśadvantage, especially for our virtually monolingual society, of being in the German language. In any event, anyone wishing to play the Classical Richter Rauzer had better be up to datę on such new lines as 7 Qd2 Be7 8 o-o-o o-o 9 f4 h6 10 Bh4 e5 1 1 Nf5 Bxf5 1 2 exf5 exf4!? which had a field day in the mid-1 980's. I have tried to synthesize the existing sources while adding all relevant recent games and a few ideas of my own. Original ideas are clearly indicated and should be treated with healthy skepticism. As I player I enjoy complications even when they are not always fully justified. Readers of one of the above referenced works are well aware of what can happen to anyone who simply follows opening analysis without checking it first!

The present volume deals with the positions arising after 6 Bg5 eó 7 Qd2 Be7, and concludes the work begun in my previous Chess Enterprises publications, which covered alternatives at the 6th and 7th moves. Once again there is a bias in organization, though not, I hope, in evaluation, in favor of the player of the Black pieces. It is less pervasive than in my other works, however, because the richness of the opening demands a wider rangę of choices for Black. In many ways the history of the Rauzer is the history of the Sicilian Defence in the 20th century, and accordingly there is discussion of the development of contemporary theory. I have tried to revive some forgotten ideas and put forward a few new thoughts, but essentially the purpose of this book is to provide the reader with a thorough survey of the materiał he will need to know in order to play the opening as Black. One significant advantage of this approach is that the inclusion of the moves h7-h6 for Black and Bg5-h4 for White can be dealt with specifically. The attempt to combine ali these positions into one generał discussion is based on a point of view from the White side. In this work h7-h6 is suggested only when it is advantageous for Black. The layout of the book follows ECO, to facilitate updating.

Bob Wadę not only allowed me to rummage through his library for hours on end, but provided his customary gracious atmosphere as well. I am obliged to Julian for the videos and Nigel, Dave, Gary, Pauline, and Diedre for much stimulating conversation, etc. Thomas Magar did a wonderful job of proofreading, and added many substantive comments. Any improvement in this regard over my previous books is entirely his doing, and any remaining errors are my responsibility - not his.

The complicated transpositional paths and dense web of variations required a powerful organizational tool, so this manuscript was prepared using Microsoft Word 3.01 running on a Macintosh Computer. Typesetting was done using an Apple LaserWriter, the courtesy of University of Chicago Department of Humanities. Pillsbury laserfont from Chessworks Unlimited was chosen for the text and the diagrams. It is available from Ecological Linguistics, P.O. Box 1 51 56, Washington D.C. 20003. I have drawn heavily on published literaturę, and have ottempted to give credit wherever due.

Thanks are due to Bob Dudley for his extraordinary patience regarding the kinks in the software, most of which have been ironed out. He has had to expend extra time on some of my recent books - time which I hope will be rewarded in this ond futurę efforts!

Symbols

In order to keep the publication of this volume economical for the publisher (and purchaser), the following abbreviations and symbols ar used:

3E

Championship

[E3

Correspondencegame

±

White stands slightly better

±

White stands much better

=

The chances are approximately equal

00

The situation is unclear

cc

There is compensation fo the materiał deficit

Counterplay

Black stands slightly better

+

Black stands much better

A

Intending to play...

In order to avoid confusion, numbered moves are maintained in English Algebraic Notation, but for ideas which are not tied to specific moves, Figurine Algebraic Notation has been adopted, with distinction madę between white pieces ( (S 12 B ń U Cl ) and Black pieces ( i. li 1 Ł iŁ ł ).

The main lines are set in boldface and deeply embedded lines are set in italics.

INTRODUCTION

The Classical Variation of the Richter - Rauzer fades in and out of fashion, but its unique combination of solid structure and aggressive queenside play inusres that it will never disappear completely from the tournarnent scene. In fact, it is now em-ployed on a regular basis by a number of the worlds best players, and is a favourite among opening theoreticians sińce there is great scope for originality within the confines of a clearly defined strategy, and a good sense of timing (or thorough preparation) is needed. Black plays in accordance with classical principles. He attends to his development, places his king in a secure position, and then launches his counterattack, either in the centre with e6-e5 or on the queenside with bT-b5, sometimes, but not always, supported by aT-aó. As Fine noted "the main defensive idea is to concentrate on the attack." His major weakness is the pawn at d6, but as we shall see this pawn can almost always be sacrificed for sufficient compen-sation, because White must invest a considerable amount of time in attacking it, and usualy must give up his powerful Bg5 for the Nf6, conceding the bishop pair which can be a powerful influence in the middlegame and endgame. Indeed, endgames are characteristic of the Classical Richter Rauzer. Often a pawn structure arises where Black has h,g,f, and e-pawns against h, g, and e-pawns on the kingside, with White enjoying a straight-forward 3-2 queenside majority. With rooks on the board Black can often hołd up the advance of the queenside pawns while targeting the weak isolated pawn at e5, but if White can suc-cessfully advance on the queenside he will reach the queening square first. If the players are of equal strength, Black will have the advantage of having played such positions morę frequently. Experience is very important in these complicated endings. With regard to the question of timing, center stage is occupied by the e- and h-pawns. It is very difficult to generalize about the wis-dom of an early h7-h6. In tthis volume it is recommended where appropriate, and omitted where it would be a poor choice. The move e6-e5 is advisable if it is necessary to prevent e4-e5 by White, or if the position of the Black pieces is sufficiently strong to allow the endgame structure mentioned above.

V

i

11*

II

fgf

I

Ł

Lj^

_.s

m

i II A

*

li

i

m

i.

A

A

i,

A

§•!

A

m

A

i:

1

A

0


1 Alternatives to 8 oo-o 0363}

Nonę of these moves are particularly popular but the player of the Black pieces should be prepared to meet them from time to time.

1A    8 Bxf6 Bxf6

IB    8 f4

1C    8 Rd 1

After 8 Nbd5 oo! White has nothing better than 9 Bxf6, transposing to 8 Bxf6.

1A    8 Bxf6 Bxf6

9 Ndb5

i

i

*

■B

Ii-l

A

1

Ł

•iii*

ii:

i

r:

A

i

■j

pi

ń

i;

... . ...

11

I...

A

1

ii

A

i:

A

W

i'

A

iii

n

%

A

0

The direct assault on the Pd6 is not to be feared, sińce the pawn can be sacrificed easily with 9_oo and now 1 O Nxd6 (10 ooo leads to lines dis-cussed under 8 ooo, while 10 Qxd6 fails to 10...a6l.) 10_

Qa5 (Purdy suggests 10... Bxc3l? 1 1 bxc3 Qf6.) 1 1 Nc4 (1 1 ooo allows 1 l...Rd8!5, Korchnoi -Boleslavsky, USSR 3E 1952.) 1 l_Qc5 allows Black to build strong pressure along the c- and d- fileś:

a)    After 1 2 Qd6, Black can play 1 2...Qg5, inviting a draw after 1 3 Qg3 Qc5 1 4 Qd6 Qg5, as in Fuderer -Gligoric, Yugoslav 3E 1951, while 1 3 f4? allows 13_Qh6 14 Qd2 Rd8 15 Bd3 Bh4*.

b)    12 f4 Rd8 13 Qe3 Bd4! 14 Qf3 b5 15 Nd2 Nb4+.

c)    12 Ndl Rd8 13 Bd3 bó 14 Rbl Nb4 15a3 Nxd3+

1 6 cxd3 Ba6 17 b4 Qd4

1 8 b5 Bb7 +, Abramson -Hybl, IE3 3E V, 1 965-68.

IB    8 f4

This should merely transpose to the main lines after

8_Nxd4 9 Qxd4 oo 10 ooo, but 8...Qb6 has independentsignificance:

a)    9 Nb3 hó 10 Bh4 Nxe4 is assessed as equal by

ECO.

b)    9 Nxc6 bc 10 e5 dxe5

1 1 fxe5 Nd5 1 2 Nxd5 cxd5 1 3 Bxe7 does not worry Black provided that he avoids the reckless 1 3...Qxb2 1 4 Bdó Qxa 1 +

1 5 Kf2 Qb2 which allowed the devastating 1 6 Qg5! in Gusev - Petkevićh, USSR 1 965, though I 3...Kxe7 1 4 Qg5+ Kf8 14 a4 hó 16 Qg4 Ba6 17 Ra3 Bxf 1 18 Rg3! with pressure -Schwarz.

1C    8 Rdl

a comfortable gamę, Trajković - Dijnhaupt, 153 1962.) 1 l_Qc7 12 oo Rd8 13 Be3 Bd7 14 f4 Bc6 15 Bf3 b5 16 a3 d5 17 exd5 Nxd5 =, Bykhovsky - Bradarević, Kislovodsk 1964.

»

a

*

ii

A

Ł

A

B

Ł

Ł

Jl

JL

W

i

A

1

A

n

il

Sf

A

s

B

A

H


There does not seem to be any real justification for this approach, as opposed to ąueenside castling which places the White king in a morę secure position. Nevertheless, White allows no morę than equality. 8_oo

9 Be2 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Qa5 11 Bd2 (1 1 Qd2

Rd8 12 oo Qc7 gives Black


V

i

1

I.

«

,aI

k

iii;

▲

kj

k

i

:i£;:

k

i

&

A

!Ł

A

ii

A

A

W:

A

iii

H

H


K

i

I

*

▲

H

k

▲

ii

▲

1

A

\ś.

A

iS

A

w

A,

A

A

A

H

A

H


2 8 0-00 0-0

Options at move 9 ©63}

First we should notę that

8...Nxd4 9 Qxd4 oo 10 f 3 Qa5 is no longer considered adeąuate because of 1 1 Qd2! =, Benjamin - Kogan, USA 3E 1984. 10Bf4 is

also interesting: 1 0...a6 1 1

f4 b5 12 Bb3 BbT 13 Rhel Rc8 14 Kb 1 QcT 15 f5!±, Mokry - Dajkalo, Polanica Zdrój 1986. Schwarzs preferred 10e5isalso popular, as after 10...dxe5 1 1 Qxe5 the white queen dominates the center of the board.

2A    9 Be 2

2B    9 Bxf6

2C    9 f3

2D    9 Kb1

2E    9 Ndb5

2F    9 Qe 1

2A    9 Be2

This rarely has independent signif icance, transposing, after 9...Nxd4 1 O Qxd4 Qa5 11 f4 to the main lines. But if White chooses to go his own way Black will soon gain the upper hand:

a)    1 1 h4 BdT 12 Bd2, Taimanov - Averbakh, Stockholm IZ 1 952,

12J3c7T.

b)    1 1 Bd2 Qc7 12f4 Rd8 13 Qf2 BdT 14 Bf3 Bcó 15 Rhel b5+, Hooper -Gligoric, Hastings 1951/52.

2B    9 Bxf6 Bxf6

10 Nxc6 bxc6

This is another attempt at pawn-snatching which can lead to a good gamę for Black: 1 1 Qxd6?l Qb6! 1 2 Qg3 (12 Qd2 Rb8 13 b3 Qa5!=, 12 e5? Rd8! -Schwarz) 1 2...Rb8 13 b3 Bxc3! 14 Qxc3 Qxf2 with a strong initiative for Black.

2C    9 f3

»

a

1

ti:

i

mm

k

k

•iii'

k

i

?£

k

fi

■a

A

Ł

I

A

A

Iii

A

i,

A

i,i

0

A

H


This type of formation is morę effective against the Dragon than against the Classical formation.

With 9...a6 Black threatens to expand his ąueenside , so White is compelled to launch a kingside attack with 10 h4, but Black is faster:

a)    10...Nxd4 I 1 Qxd4Qa5 12 Kbl b5 13 Qd2 b4 14 Ne2 e5! 15 Nel Be6 (ECO suggests 15..BbT!?) 1 6 g4 Rfd8 17 Bxf6 Bxfó 18g5 Be7 1 9 Bh3, Tringov -Kupreichik, Plovdiv 1 980, and now Kupreichik gives

1 9...Bxh3 20 Rxh3 Rac8=.

b)    10..Bd7 is a playable, if less ambitious, altemative. Liu - BeIIin, Peking 1 98 1 continued 1 1 g4 Rc8 1 2 Be3 Nxd4 1 3 Bxd4 Bcó 14g5 Nd7 1 5 Be2 b5 lóRdgl b4 17 Nd 1 e5 18 Bf2 Qa5 19 Kbl d5 20h5dxe4 21 gó Qd5.

White can also play 10 g4, but Black can obtain a good gamę by exchanging knights and then attacking on the ąueenside: 10...Nxd4 1 1 Qxd4 b5 12 Kbl Qc7 13 Qf2 b4 14 Bxfó Bxfó 15 Ne2 a5 16 Nf4 a4 17Nh5 Be7 1 8 Qd4 e5 1 9 Qc4 Qa7! 20 Qxb4 Beó 21 Qd2 Rab8 22 h4 Rbó 23 Kai Rfb8 24 Rb 1 Qb7 25 c4 a3 26 b3 d51, Przewoźnik -Jasnikowski, Poland3?

1981.

2D    9 Kb 1

[ii

[Al

BH

w

fil

11

▲

W

k

k

Ł

JL

W

II

A

ń.

A

i

A

Ul

ii'

A

i

&

s

A

n

Shifting the king to bl is often a useful strategy in the Sicilian Defence, but here it allows Black to carrry out his desired central thrust with 9_d5!, and after 10 exd5 Nxd5 1 1 Bxe7 Ndxe7 12 Nxc6 Nxc6 Black has a good gamę, for example 1 3 Bb5 Qb6 1 4 Bxc6 Qxc6 15 Qd6 Qxd6 16 Rxd6 bó 17 Rhdl Bb7 18 f3 Rfc8, Ljubojević -Sosonko, Tilburg 1983. The older 9...h6 is a fully playable altemative.

2E    9 Ndb5

Now that Black has already castled he is in a position to sacrifice his Pd6 with the threat of immediate pressure along the d-file, but the defense is a little morę subtle here.

»

Ul

Ł

a

i

□□

fu

▲

M

▲

I

ii

▲

ff

1

Ii

A

A

lt

n

li

A

W

0

£L

Aj

s

After 9_Qa5 10 Bxf6

(10 f4? is a blunder:

10...Rd8l. 10a3should be met by 10...a6! 1 1 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2 Nxd6 Rd8 1 3 f4 e5 and Black is winning.) 1 O..Bxf6 1 1 Nxd6 (1 1 Qxdó a6!)

1 l_Rd8 12 f4 (12 Qe 1 ? Nb4! 1 3 Nc4 Nxa2+ 14 Nxa2Rxdl+ 1 5 Qxd 1 Qxa2 is a cute linę pointed out by Taimanov.) Black must play 1 2_e5! in order to prevent White from advancing his own e-pawn and establishing an outpost at d6. Now on 13 Qd5 (1 3 Bc4 Beó! 1 4 Bxe6 fxe6 1 5 Qd3 exf4 1_6 Qc4 Qe5! 17 Nxb7 Rdc8oo, Unzicker -Heinecke, Germany 1 949.)

Black cannot afford to enter the endgame after the exchange of queens, because 1 3...Qxd5 14 exd5 Rxd6 15 Ne4! Rd8 16 exd6 is clearly better for White, so the correct plan is the calm retreat 1 3_Qc7 14 f5 Nd4l cutting the communication along the d-file. After 15 Ndb5 Qa5:

a)    1 6 Qc4 Bxf5! can cause White problems, e.g. 17 b4 Qb6! 1 8 Nxd4 exd4 19

Nd5 Rxd5! 20 Qxd5 Bg4 21 Qb5 Qc7 22 Bd3 Bxdl 23 Rxd 1 Rc8 and Black held a decisive advantage in Sadomsky - Dubin in, 1=3 1 955. ECO gives the followingunattributed (probably Boleslavsky) analysis: 17 exf5 Rac8 18 Qa4 Qxa4 1 9 Nxa4 Nb3+ 20axb3 Bg5+ 21 Rd2!a6 22 Nbc3 Bxd2+ 23 Kbl Bxc3 (or 23...b5 24 Nbó Rxc3!25bxc3Be3-)24 Nxc3 Rxc3 25 bxc3 Rd 1 +

24 Kb2 e4 27 h4 =.

b)    Flohr suggested 16 Qc5 but 16...a6! 17 b4 bó 18 Qxd4exd4 1 9 bxa5 axb5 20 Nd5 Rxa5 21 Nxf6+ gxf6 22 Kb2 Bb7 23 Bd3 Rda8 T, according to ECO, though Boleslavsky contends that after 24 Ra 1 Black has no winning chances due to his weakened pawn

Kuzmin - Yudasin, Mińsk 1 982 saw the introduction of this plan, with the idea of f4 and then either the advance of the e-pawn or piece play on the kingside with Qe 1 -h4 and Bf 1 -d3. 9_a6 10 f4 (10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 e5 Nd5 1 2 BxeT QxeT 1 3 exd6 Qxd6 1 4 Ne4 Qf4+ 1 5 Kb 1 Rb8

gives Black sufficient counte rplay accord ing to Dempsey.) 1 OJBdT 11 Nf3 Rc8 (1 l...b5 is recommended by Dempsey, who shows Black getting sufficient compensation for a pawn in the event of 1 2 e5 dxe5 1 3 fxe5 Nd5 1 4 BxeT QxeT 15Nxd5exd5 16 Rxd5 Rc8 or 1 2 Bxf6 Bxf6!

1 3 Rxd6 Be7 1 4 Rd 1 b4.)

and now:

a) 1 2 e5? and Black quickly gained the upper hand with 1 2...dxe5 1 3 fxe5 Nd5 14 Bxe7 Qxe7l Kuzmin -

Yudasia Mińsk 1 982.

b)    Again pawnsnatching is not recommended: 1 2 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Rxd6Nb4L

c)    1 2 Qh4 is critical, according to Dempsey, who gives 1 2...h6 1 3 Bxh6 gxh6 1 4 Qxh6 Ng4 (but White might try 1 4 h3 or 14 e5) and 1 2...Qa5 (much morę sensible.)

I

i

I

i;

i

k

m

k

k

▲

I

ii

k

IM

A

.1

'Ł

A

1

A

§:

i?

A

ńi

£1

s

A

H


I

i

iii

I'

*

▲

W

▲

II!

▲

i

li!

k

ii

i

&

A

A

ir

£1

I.

A

I.

„A,

A

.4;

fi

H

A

0


3 Podebrady 9 Nb3 a5 ©63}

This yariation received its name from the win by Alekhine against Frydmann at Podebrad 1936. This chapter concerns itself with

9.. .a5, and the next deals with 9...a6. Lines with

9.. .Qb6 (Chapter Five) are often reached from the

6.. .Qb6 (Gulko -Fedorowicz) yariation.

3A

10

a3

3B

10

a4

3C

10 Bxfó

3D

10Nd4

3A

10

a3

i

▲

Ł

1

li

m

i

Ł

i

k

i

i!

▲

m

i!

i

A

11

£2

ii

ii:

A

m

!A:

A

ś

1

5

A

5

10 a3 is not very ambitious, and after 10...h6 1 1 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2 Qxd6 Bxc3 13 Qxd8 Bxb2+! 14Kxb2Rxd8 1 5 Rxd8 Nxd8 1 6 Bb5 Kf8 17 Rd 1 Ke7 18 Nc5e5! S , van der Wiel - Arnason, Reykjavik 1 985.

3B    10 a4

10-d5l is the new move, replacing 10...Qb6 1 1 Qe3 Qb4 1 2 f3 hó 13 h4± Alexander -Gligoric, London 1951.Now:

3B1    11 Bxf6

3B2    1 1exd5

3B3    1 1 Bb5

3B1 1 1 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 exd5

V

i

1

I

*

k

▲

iM

▲

i

▲

i

li;

A

A

'i

f!

i!

A

!

■4i

A

iii

a

n

A

S


V

i

m

l

*

Ł

1

▲

fi

▲

I

▲

1

iii

A

Ł

i

A

A

I

A

&

i.

A

ll

E

H

H


1 2_Bxc3 (Speelman suggests 1 2.~Nb4l? 1 3 dó Bd7S, while Tisdall recommends 1 3...e5, A Bg5 and Bf5. If 1 3 Ne4 then 1 3...exd5 14 Nxf6+ Qxf6 15 c3 Bf5! 16 cxb4 Rfc8+ 17 Nc5axb4 1 8 Qxd5 Qe7!

1 9 Bc4 Rxc5 20 Qd4 b3l* -Analysis.) 1 3 Qxc3 exd5 (Another possibility is

1 3...Nb4!? 14Qd2exd5 15 c3 Bf5! 16 cxb4 Rc8 17 Nc5 axb4oo, -New in Chess.) 1 4 Nd4 Nb4 was played in Kristiansen -Speelman, Gladsaxe 1 983, after which ECO suggests 15 Qg3±. But 14_Bd7! is stronger, A Rc8 and only then Nb4. Psakhis -Kupreichik, USSR3E 1985 continued 15Bb5?!Nxd4 16 Qxd4 Bxb5 17 axb5 a4!7, but 15 Kb 1 comes into consideration.

3B2    11 exd5

Nxd5 12 Bxe7 Ncxe7 1 3 Bc4! (Karpov -Kasparov (37) 1984/85 saw 1 3 Nb5 Bd7 1 4 Be2 Nf5 15 N3d4 Nxd4 1/2-

112) and now instead of 1 3...Qc7?l 14 Nxd5 (14 Bxd5 exd5 was agreed drawn in Marjanović - Sax, Sarajevo 1984.) 1 4...Nxd5 15 Bxd5 exd5 16 Qxd5!±, Kosten -Chandler, England 1 985, Black should play 1 3_Qe8!? where there does not seem to be any elear way to an advantage for White. For example 1 4 Bxd5Nxd5 15Nxd5exd5 1 6 Qd4 Qe4 17 Rhel Qxd4 (17...Qg6 a thó-H?) 18 Rxd4Be6 1 9 Nc5 ból 20 Nd3 (20 Nxe6fxe6=)

20...Rc8 21 Ne 5 Rc 5-Analysis.

3B3    1 1 Bb5!?

is a sacrificial linę from the Master, Mikhail Tal, (though actually proposed by Vintolins) who used it to demolish Sisniega at the MexicoInterzonal:

3B3 1    1 1 ...Nxe 4

3B32    ll..Nb4

3B33    1 1 ...dxe4

3B34    1 1 ...Na7l?

3B31    1 1 _Nxe4

12 Nxe4 dxe4 13 Qxd8 Bxd8 14 Bxd8 Nxd8 15Nc5 f5 16 Rd6 Kf7 17 Rhdl Ke7 1 8 Bd7! Rf7? (18...Bxd7 1 9 Rxd7+!Kf6 20 Rld6!±) 19 Nxeó!l Bxd7 20 Nc7 Bxa4 21 Nxa8 NeÓ 22 NbÓ Be8 23 R6d5 Bcó 24 Rxa5 Kfó 25 Nd5+ Kg6 23 Ne3 1-0, Tal - Siniega, Taxco IZ 1985.

3B32    HJMb4

3B321    12e5

3B322    1 2 Rhe 1

3B321    12 e5

12_NdT 13 Bxe7 Qxe7

14 f4 Nc5 15 Nxc5 Qxc5 16 h4±, Kindermann -Felsberger, Vienna 1 986.

14_b6l? was seen in Balashov -Khalifman, Mińsk 1986 but after 15 Rhel Nc5 16 Nd4 Bd7 17 Kb 1 Black blundered with 17„.Rac8 and after 1 8 g4 Rfd8 1 9 f5 White was clearly on top. Better 17_Rfc8 a 18_Bxb5 19 axb5 a4 - Balashov.

3B322    12 Rhel

3B3221    12...h6

3B3222    12...dxe5

1 2...Nxe4?? is a blunder which loses to 1 3 Nxe4 dxe4 1 4 Qxd8.

3B3221    12_h6

3B32211    1 3 Bxf6

3B32212    13exd6

1 3 Bxh4? Nxe4 1 4 Bxe7 Nxd2 15 Bxd8 Nxb3+, while 1 3 Be3 and 1 3 Bf4 are untested, but likely to be seen soon.

3B32211    13 Bxf6

1 3...Bxf6 1 4 exd6 exd6 (Not

14.. .Bxc3 15 bxc3 Nxd5 1 6 c4! +-) 15 Nxd5 (15 Qe3 Bf5 16 Rd2 Rc8t -Rashkovsky & Temirbayev)

15.. .Nxd5 16 Qxd5 Qc7co -Tukmakov. Better is 15„Bg4! 16 f3 Bg5 17 Ne 3 Bf5S5,

Oli - Temir-bayev,

Kuibyshev 1 986.

3B32212    13 exd5

1 3...exd5 1 4 Qe3 Be6 15 Bf4 Rc8 16 f3 Nh5 17Be5 Nc6 1 8 Bxc6 bxc6 was seen in Winsnes - Khalifman, Groningen 1 986.

3B3222    12_dxe5

Another new plan. Vitolins -Inkiov, Yurmala 1 985 saw 13Ne4l? Nxe4 14 Qxd8 Bxg5+! 1 5 Qxg5 Nxg5 16 h4e5?l 17 hxg5 Bf5 18 Rd2±, but Black could have improved with 1 6.„h6 17 hxg5 hxg5 1 8 Rd6óo, according to Tukmakov.

Therefore in Anand - Inkiov, Calcutta 1 986 White varied with 1 3 Qxd8 Rxd8 1 4 Ne4 Nbd5 (The interpolation of an exchange of rooks with 1 4...Rxd 1 + 1 5 Rxdl Nbd5 16 c4 NcT 1T Nxf6+ is better for White.) 15 c4 NcT 16 Rxd8 Bxd8 ITRdl BeT 18 Nxf6+ gxfó 1 9 Be3 Nxb5 20 axb5 f5! and here White should have tried 21 g3, even though 21 ...Kf8 22 Nc5 Bxc5 23 Bxc5+ Ke8 24 Bdó BdT 25 Rd4 would have given White only a smali advantage. Instead, White tried 21 Nc5 right away, when Black could have equalized with 21...f4! 22

Bd4 fó! 23 Na4 e5 24 Bc5 Kf7, according to Baljon.

3B33    1 l_dxe4

Ta! - Korchnoi, Candidates' 1985 saw 12 Qxd8 Bxd8 (12...Rxd8 1 3 Rxd8 Bxd8 14 Rd 1 = -Bagirov.) 13 Rhel (Tals improvement on the Sisniega linę 1 3 Bxfó Bxf6 1 4 Nxe4 with a slight edge for White.) 1 3_Na7 1 4 Bc4 hó (14..Ncól?) 15 Bxfó gf (Or 15...Bxf6 16 Ne4 bó 17 Nxf6+ gxfó 18 Rdó Rb8 1 9 Red 1 with a difficult gamę for Black -Cebalo) 16 Nxe4 f5 17 Nd6 Bc7 1 8 g3 and now Black should have played 1 8... Rd8, although after 1 9 Nb5 White would still have some pressure. Instead, Korchnoi played 1 8...b6 which allowed Tal to add another brilliant combination to his well-endowed vault With 1 9 Nxf5!l ef 20 Bd5 Be6 (20...Rb8 21 Re7±) 21 Bxa8 Rxa8 22 Nd4 Bd5 (If

22...Re8 23 Nxe6 fe 24 Rd7 Bb8 25 Rb7; 23...Rxe6 24

Rxe6 fxeó are the un-pleasant alternatives.) 23 Re7 Rc8 24 Nb5! 1 -0, Since after 24...Nxb5 25 Rxb5 Nd6 26 Rxc7 Rxc7 27 Rxd6.

3B34    1 1 _Na7

This is an interesting new move. 1 2 Be2

Kapengutgives:

a)    1 2 e5 Nxb5 (1 2..Nd7 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14f4±) 1 3 exff gxfó 14 Bhó Nd6 15Qe2 f5IS

b)    12 Bxf6Bxf6 13 exd5. But after 1 3..Bxc4 neither 14 Qxc3 Nxb5 15 axb5 exd5 A Ib6 or Aa5-a4 nor 14 bxc3 Nxb5 15 axb5 Qd6 16 Qd4 Rd8! 17c4

bó look appealing.

1 2_b5!? (1 2...Bd7 Bxf6 14 exd5Bxc3 15 Qxc3 Ba4 16 dxe6±, Gelfand - Ryskin, Mińsk 1 986, which continued 1 6...Qe7? 17ef+ Kn8 1 8 Bc4 Rac8 1 9 Rhe 1 Qg5+ 20 Qd2 +-. After 16_Qg5+ 17 Qd2 Qxd2+ 18 Rxd2 Bxb3 19cb fe 20 Bc4 White has a

X

1'

i

Ł

A

Ł

i

Ii

H

A PI

A

A

S;

p

A

•i£

E

H

U A

S

The return of the knight to its previous post was


»

m

X

▲

▲

A':

1

>1

"Ł

il

A

A

A

A

%

&

A

A

E

H

A

H

a)    The gamę continued 14 dó!e5 15 Kb 1 Bf5 1 6 Bd3 Nxd3 17 cxd3 (± -New in Chess.) 17...Qd7 18 a4 Rac8 1 9 Ne4 Bd8 20 Rc 1=.


comfortable endgame advantage.) 13 Bxf6 Bxf6 (Kapengut) e.g.

a)    1 4 axb5 a4 1 5 Nxa4 Nc6 16 Nc3 d4!oo a 17 bxc6dxc3 1 8 Qxd8?? cxb2+ 1 9 Kb 1 Ra 1+ 20 Nxa 1 bxa 1 =2*1

b)    14Nxb5dxe4 15 Qxd8 Rxd8 1 6 Rxd8 Bxd8 =, but perhaps Black can play

14.„Nxb5 15Bxb5 (15axb5 a4 oo) 15...dxe4 16Qxd8 Rxd8 17 Rxd8+ Bxd8 18 Rd 1 Bbó with an unclear position in which Black has counterplay.

3C    10 Bxf6

This move fails to impress after 10..Bxf6 11 Qxd6 Qxdó 1 2 Rxdó a4! e.g. 1 3 Nd2a3 (13..Bxc3l?) 14Bc4 Nb41? 15bxa3 Rxa3 16 Ndb 1 Rxc3 17 Nxc3 Bxc3 +.

3D    10 Nd41?

introduced in Mokry-Thorsteins, Thessaloniki OL 1984,: 10_h6 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2 Ndb5 (Not 1 2 Nxc6 bxcó 1 3 Qxd6 Qb6!) 12_d5 13 exd5 Nb4 (13...exd5 14 Nxd5 Be6 15 Bc4±.)    7

b)    14 a3 Nxd5 15Nxd5 exd5 1 6 Qxd5 Qb6oo -Mokry. I think that 14...Qb6 deserves attention as well.

c)    14Bc4exd5 15 Nxd5 Nxd5 16Bxd5QbÓOT -Mokry.

d)    1 4 Kb 11? is left dangling without further comment by Mokry. On 1 4...exd5 1 5 Nxd5 Nxd5 16 Qxd5 Qb6l? Blacks bishop pair may be sufficient compensation for the pawn.

e)    1 4 dxe6?? Bg5!

1

1

4

m

1

Ś,

§11

▲

▲

i

iii

Ł

i!!

A

i

S

A

A

i:

A

A

A

S

H

&

5


4A

4B

4C

4D

4E

4F

4G


1 5 f4 Qxd2+ T, e.g. 16 Kxd2 Bxf4+ 17 Ke2 Rxe6 or 16 Rxd2 Bxf4 17 exf7+ Kh8 1 8 Bc4 Rd8 19 Nd5 Nxd5 20 Rf 1 Bxd2+ 21 Kxd2 Nf6+ (Magar)

Where can Black seek improvements? The loss of time by the knights is compensated by the weakness of the b5 square, but Blacks 1 2...d5 may not be necessary, if Black can get away with 1 2...a4!?. On 1 3 Qxd6, 1 3...Qb6 gives Black the initiative which is probably worth a pawn, while 1 3 Nxd6 a3 may also be sufficient. Practical tests are awaited, and with theoreticians working on this linę, improvements may be discovered here or elsewhere.

4 9 Nb3 ab

An interesting and fully playable linę.

10Be2

10Bd3 10 Bxf6 10 f3 10 f4 10 h4 10 Kbl

4A


10 Be 2


After 10...b5 White has only played 1 1 Bxf6, which transposes to 1 0 Bxf6, below.


4B    10 Bd3


Blocking the d—file is inap-propriate and gives Black the opportunity to expand on, the queenside with 10_b5 a Ac8-b7, fd8-c7, *f8-c8, and Ic6-e5 or Ic6-b4. Mencinger - Ostoj ić,


K

i

f:

1

*

Ł

▲

Ł

▲

i

li

Ł

I1!

A

2

§!

A

H

A

ąjftjf *

B

m

A

e

s

A

H


Ljubliana 1 98 1 saw 1 1 Rhgl BbT 12 f4 Rc8?l 13 Kbl b4 1 4 Na4 a5 1 5 g4 NdT 1 6 BxeT QxeT 17g5 with a winning gamę for White. Better is 1 2_Qc7 e.g. 13 Kbl b4 14 Na4 a5 1 5 g4 Na7! where the Na4 is skating on rather thin ice.

4C    10 Bxf6 gxf6

This is one occasion where

10...Bxf6 fails to provide sufficientcompensation:

1 1 Qxd6 Bxc3l? (1 l...Qbó 1 2 f4!±, Shaposhnikov -Belyavsky, RSFSR 1980.) 1 2 bxc3 and now:

a)    1 2...Qf6 13 Qg3 e5 14 Bc4 Be6 15 Bxe6 Qxe6 16 Rd5 Rac8 17 Rhd 1±,

Benjamin - Christiansen, US 3E 1984.

b)    12...Qh4 13 g3 Qf6 14 Qc5e5 15 Bc4 Bg4 16Rd6 Qg5+ 17 f4 Qh5 18 Qe3±, Ivanović - Popović, Novi Sad 1984.

4C1    1 1 Be2

4C2    1 1 f4

4C3    11 h3

4C4    1 1 Qh6

4C1    11 Be2

This transposes to 1 1 f4 lines after 1 1 ...Kh8 1 2 Bh5 Bd7 13 f4 b5 14 Kbl, or 1 1 J>5 12 f4. An

independent path was seen in Hindle - Muir, British 3E 1 985, reached via 10 Be2 b5 1 1 Bxf6 gxf6: 1 2 Qh6 Kh8 13 f4 b4 14 Rd3 Rg8 1 5 Rh3 Rg7 and Black, having set up his defensive formation, siezed the intiative on 1 6 Nd 1 a5 17 Kb 1 a4. The gamę concluded 18 Nel Nd4 1 9Bd3 Baó 20 Bxa6 Rxaó 21 Rg3 Bf8 22 Qh5 Ra5! 23 Qh4 d5 24 f5 dxe4 25 Rxg7 Bxg7 26 fxeó fxeó 27 Qxe4 f5 28 Qb7 Rb5 29Qa7a3 30 Nb3 Nxb3 31 axb3 Rd5 32 Ne3 Ra5 0-1.

4C2    11 f4

11J>5 12 Kbl

V

k

1

ii

i

Ł

M

▲

Ł

▲

1

ii

Ł

n

A

w

&

UL,

A

A

A

2

A

4,

$

H

A

H


I

ml

m

1

*

te

1

A

A

A

fii

A

m

A .....

A

A

li:

im

A

li n

'f

A

B

A

B


4C31


Or 12 f5Kh8 13 Ne2 Rg8 14 Nf4 Bf8 15 Kb 1 Bhó 16

fxe6 fxe6 J_T Nxe6 Bxe6 1 8 Qh6 Qe7o5, Hubner -Korchnoi, Tilburg 1985. Now:

a) 1 2..Bd7 13 f5Kh8 14 Ne2 Rg8 1 5 Nf4 Bf8 16g3 QeT 17 Bh3 Rd8 18 Rhfl±, Marjanović - Barlov, Yugoslav 3E 1 985.

b) Black can also play 1 2...b4!? 1 3 Ne2 a5, e.g.

14    f5 Kh8! (14_Bd7

deserves practical tests.)

15    Nbd4 (15Qhóexf5 16 exf5 Bxf5 17 Ned4 Nxd4

1 8 Nxd4 Bg6oo, Gavrilov -Mikhalchischin, USSR 1 980.)

15...Qbó 16 Nxc6 Qxc6 17 Nf4 Rg8 18g3Bd7! 19 Bh3 Qc8 20 Rhe 1 Rb8 21 Rcl a4 22 c4 Rb7 23 Re3, Tseitlin - Lysenko, Sochi 1980, 23J>3 24 a3

Rc7oo/=.

c) Marjanović - Popović, Novi Sad 1 984, saw 1 2...Kh8 13 Be2Qbó 14 Rhfl Bd7 15Bh5a5and now 16 Rf31? (16 f5 Rac8 17 Ne2 b4 18Nf4a4 19 Nel Ne5 20 Bxf7 b3?! 21 cxb3 axb3 was played in Tal - Larsen, Eerwsel (4) 1 968, but here White missed 22 Bxe6l, so 20...Nxf7 21 fxe6 Be6 is recommended, with chances for both sides.)

16...a4 17 Nel b4 18 N3e2 Rg8 1 9 g4 where Black should have played 1 9...Rg7 instead of 1 9..Be8 20 Rh3 Rc8 21 f5 exf5, where White could have played 22 gxf5! ±.

Another plan for White is 12 Bd3 Qbó 13 Rhfl Kh8 1 4 Qf2, as seen in Ivanov -Bellizzi, New York 1 984

4C3    11 h4

1 1 h4l? was introduced in Jansa - Sax, Biel IZ 1 985. After 1 l-b5 (1 l...Kh8 12 g4 Rg8 1 3 g5 was seen in Jansa - Popović, Bor 1 985, and here 1 3...fxg5 1 4 hxg5 Rxg5 would give Black fuli compensation. ) 1 2 g4:

4C31    12_b4

4C32    12...Kh8

On 1 2..Bb7 1 3 g5 b4 14 Na4 threatens Ag5xf 6 and Sxd6.

1 2_b4

1

i

1

i

i

ii

▲

A

1!

▲

A-

A

m

!l;

&

A

A

A

ii

A

I

2

1

&

s

A

3


1 3 Ne2 (1 3 Na4 may be met by 1 3-BdT) 1 3_a5 (1 3..Bb7 1 4 g5 gives White a stong attack. 1 3..Xh8 comes intoconsideration here, e.g. 1 4 Ned4 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Bb7 16 Bd3 Rg8 17f3a5 18 Ne2 Qb6 19 Kbl a4 20 Rhg 1 d5!+, although White can improve with_l 6 Qxb4 Rb8 17Qel d5 o5/oo Cuijpers -Ligterink, Holland 3E 1985.) 14 Nbd4 (14 Ned4 is an alternative: 1 4...Bb7 ( 14..J4b8 and 14...Na7are interior, allowing a strong attack after 15 Qe3.14...Ne5!?) 15 Nxc6 Bxcó 1 6 Nd4 Bb7 17g5 (17Bd3 Kh8 18 Ohó Rg8

19e5Rg7ao - Yudasin and Yuneyev) 17.J5! 18 Rgl Bxe4! Ehlvest - Yudasin, Sverdlovsk 1 984, and now White should have played 1 9 h5! with a strong attack, although after 1 9...Kh8 20 gó Rg8 21 Qh6 Rg7 it will not be easy to finish Black off. Interestingly, this experiment has not been repeated.

14_Ne5 the gamę Jansa - Sax, Biel Interzonal 1 985 heated up qu ickly: 15g5a4 16Ng3 b 31? 17axb3axb3 18 Nxb3 fxg5 1 9 hxg5 Nf3 20 Qc3 Bxg5+ 21 Kbl Qfó 22 Qxf6 Bxf6 and Blacks bishop pair keeps the position balanced.

4C3212_Kh8 13 g5 Rg8

14 Kbl Bb7 15 f4 Nb8 16 Bd3 Nd7 17 Rhg 1 b4 18 Ne2 a5 1 9 gxf6?l (19Ng3 and 1 9 Nbd4 come into consideration.) 1 9...Rxg 1 20 Rxg 1 Bxf6 21 Nbd4 Nc5?l (Better 21_Qe7 A Rg8) 22 Qe3 Bg7 23 Nf3 Nxd3 24 cxd3 a4?l was played in Ivanović - Popović, Yugoslav 3P 1 986 where 25Ng3! would have established a dominating position. 24...Rc8 would have limited the damage.

4C4    1 1 Qh6

The gamę Chiburdanidze -Popović (match -5) Subotica 1 986 has attracted considerable attention. After

1 l_Kh8 12 Qh5 Qe8,

1 3 Bd3!? was introduced (Previously, 1 3 f4 Rg8 had done well for Black, e.g. 1 4 g3 b5 15 Bh3 b4¥, Campora - Popović, Bor 1985 or 14 g4 b5 15Bd3 RgT 16h4b4 17Ne2a5 1 8 g5 a4 =, Arnason -Inkiov, Plovdiv 1 986.) 1 3_ Ne51 14 f4 Nxd3+ 15 Rxd3 Rg8 16 Rh3 RgT 17 Rdl Qg8 18 Rdd3 BdT 19 Rdg3 Rgó 20 Nd4 Rc8 and now the evaluation of the linę depends not on the gamę continuation 21 Qe2 but rather on 21 f5! Rg5 22 Qe2 or 22 Qh4, A ślf3 in either case.

4D    10 f3

Another new idea, this time from John Nunn, playing against Mokry at Reggio Emilia 1 983/84:1 0_b5 11 h4 Qc7 12 Bd3 Rd8 13 Qf2 Ne5oo/=.

4E    10 f4

faster than White's kingside actions.

4F    10 Kbl

After 10...Qb6 1 1 Bd3 Qc7 12 f4 b5 13 Rdel b4 14 Nd 1 a5 White was already letting the initiative slip from his hands in Lobron -Popović, Zagreb 1985. White then adopted a plan involving the destruction of the center, and was suitably punished: 15e5Nd5 16 Bxe7 Ncxe7 17 Nd 4 dxe5 1 8 fxe5 Ba6 1 9 Rhf 1 Bxd3 20 Qxd3 Ng6 21 Qe4a4 22 Rf3a3 23 b3Ra5 24 Ref 1 Qxe5 25 Qd3 Rc5 26 Qd2 Rcc8 27 Qf2 Nf6 28 h3 Ne4! 0-1.

In an important Interzonal encounter, Zijger tried the passive 10...Ne8 instead, but after 1 1 Bxe7 Qxe7 1 2 Bd3 b5 13 Rhe 1 Bb7 1 4 f4 f6 Black had a passive gamę, Lobron - Zijger, Munich Interzonal 1 987.

This variation has been given a rest because of Kondratiyev - Bondarevsky, USSR 1 952, which saw 10_Qc7 11 Bd3 b5 12 Rhe 1 b4 13 Ne2 e5 14 f5 a5 where Blacks gueenside play proved to be


V

i

1

*

fi

▲

ii

▲

m

▲

I.

i

1

▲

11

1

A

2

i

ii

A

I

A

o

A

h


5A

10Be2

5B

10Be3

5C

10 Bxf6

5D

10 f3

5E

10 f4

5F

10 g4

5G

10 h4

5H

10 Kbl

51

10Na4

5A

10 Be 2


5 Podebrady Variation with

9-Qb6


to the 10 f3 lines after 1 0_Qc7 1 1 f3 aó 12 g4, but White can try:


V

$vi!i

i

1

i

iii

▲

il

n

▲

ii

▲

i

▲

A

2

O

A

ii

A

d

1

A

A

ts

0

A

0


Invites 10...Qxf2? 1 1 Rdf U but 10_Bd7! e.g. 1 1 g4 Rfc8 1 2 Be3 Qd8 1 3 g5 Ne8 1 4 f4 Na5 1 5 Nxa5 Qxa5 1 6 Kb 1, Volchuk -Gufeld, USSR 1 959, 16_d5 17 exd5 Bb4 1 8 Bd4 Ndó A ie4 or ic4 - Schwarz.

5B    10 Be 3

This should simply transpose

a)    1 1 Nb5 Qd8 12 f3 aó 12 N5d4 e5! 14Ne2a5 gives Black the initiative, Zakharov - Lublinsky, Moscow 1 951.

b)    1 1 h3 aó 12 g4 b5 13 Bg2 (This piece should always keep an eye on c4!)

1 3.„Nd7! 14 f4 Nbó 15g5 b4 16 Qf2 Nc4 17 Na4 Rb8_l 8 Bf 1 Nxe3 19Qxe3 Bd7+, Preinfalk - Dunhaupt, [=3 1961.

5C    10 Bxf6 Bxf6

If White makes this exchange with the intention of playing 1 1 Qxd6 he has madę a serious mistake, because of 1 l...Qxf2l, but with the pressure mounting at c3, the logical alternative is to play 1 1 Na4 first, which fails to 1 l_Qc7 12 Qxd6? Bg5+! 13 Kbl Rd8l,

5D1



and 1 2 f4 didnt turn out any better in Suetin - Taimanov, USSR 1951 which saw 12J?d8 13g4a6 14g5 BeT 1 5 h4 b5 and the queenside initiative was far morę significant than Whites pawn thrust on the kingside:

16Nc3b4 17Ne2a5! 18 Nbd4 BbT 1 9 Bg2 d5+.

This is the standard move in the position. White bolsters the center while at the same time prepares the thrust g2-g4. The fact that the Qb6 blocks the advance of the b-pawn slows down Blacks queenside play considerably. The positions which arise are very double-edged and require careful handling on both sides.

5D1    lCLaÓ

5D2    lCLRd8

1 CLaó

This is the preferred variation in contemporary praxis. Black prevents the incursion of the knight at b5 and prepares an eventual advance of the b^. The time lost in Id8-b6-c7 is regained when the white bishop retreats from g5 in order to make way for the advance of the g-pawn.

5D1 1    1 1 Be 3

5D1 2    1 1 Bxf6

5D13    1 1 g4

5D14    11 h4

5D11    11 Be3

This move allows Black to transpose to the 1 1 g4 lines with 1 1 ...Qc7 12g4b5.

5D12    11 Bxf6!?

A old idea, introduced into praxis by Hubner in the 5th gamę of his match against Kasparov. 1 1 J3xf 6 12 Qxd6 a) 1 2..Be7?! (Boleslavsky) 1 3 Qg3 (Baljon) 1 3...Qa7

V

i

.1.

i

m

Ili

U A

Al

▲

▲

i

..iji

▲

i£l

i

2

&

A

i

A

tf

1

&

Bi

ii

H


14 f4 b5 15 e5 BbT 16

Bd3! with a tremendous position for White, which he let slip after 1 6...Rfd8 by playing 17 f5?l instead of 17 Kb 1! Nb4 18Be4±.

b)    Black should have played

1 2_Rd8 13 Qc5 Rxdl^_ 14 Nxd 1 Qc7 A A.b7-b6oo -Hort

c)    Euwe/Vreeken recommend 1 2_Bxc3 1 3 bxc3 Rd8

14 Qf4 Rxd 1+ 15 Kxd 1 Bd7.

5D13    11 g4

Until recently this was the only serious try for White, but Black has adeąuate resources.

5D131    1 1 ...Qc7

5D132    1 l...Rd8

5D131    1 1 _Qc7

This is the logical approach, sińce Black s counterplay is based on a flank advance father than on the A.d6-d5 thrust. In order for the Ab7 to advance, it is necessary to get move the queen (Pawngrabbing is not advisable. After 1 2 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3 Qxd6 Black returns the H to bó and then plays

If8-d8J.

a) 12 Be3 is the normal move. 1 2_b5 1 3 g5

13 Kbl Nd7 14 f4 Nbó 15 Qf2Na4! 16Ne2 d5 (Sosonko) 17 e5 fó 18 exfó Bxf6 or 17 exd5 Nb4 A lxd5, 17Bg2 (Karpov)

17...dxe4 !? or 1 3 Qf2 b4 14 Ne2 a5 15 Kbl a4 1 6 Nbd4 Baó 17 Nxc6 Qxc6 18 Nd4Qb7 1 9 h4 d5! +i,Fichtl -Vasiukov, Berlin 1 962.

1 3_Nd7

This introduces an old-fashioned footrace where each side generally ignored defense and goes all out on the attack.

al) 14 h4 b4o° -Hort,.

1

i

1

*

......

m

lii

▲

III

▲

Pi

4

A

n

11

A

1

1

a

A

fi

A

I.

1

B

s

A

II

s


ECO gives 14..Nb6 15a3 Ne5 16 Bxbó Qxb6 17 f4 Nc4 1 8 Qd4 Qxd4 1 9 Nxd4, Vasiukov - Filipowicz, Budapest 1 965, 1 9...Bd7 =.

a2) 14 f4 Nb6 15 Qf2

(After I5f5b4 16 Nb 1 Ne5+ with initiative and 17f6gxf6 1 8 gxfó Bxf6 19 Bg5 Bg7 20Rgl Ng6 21 Bh6 Be5! T Polugayevsky -Boleslavsky, USSR 1958.)

15_Rab8! (15...Na4 16 Bd2oo.) 16 h4 Na4 17 Bd2 ( 17 Nxa4?! bxa4T) 17_Nxc3 18 Bxc3 b4 1 9 Bd2 a5, Nezhmetdinov - Taimanov, USSR 1951.

The position is evaluated by ECO as unclear, though it seems that Blacks pieces are in a morę effective formation to support the attack against the enemy king, and that the advance of the queenside pawns is taking place with gain of tempo. Furthermore, the eA is unsupported and the d5 square is not as firmly under Whites control as is usually the case. In sum, an interesting position with rich attacking possibilities for both sides. The gamę continued 20 Kb 1 a4 21 Nel Bd7 22 Bd3 Rfc8 23 h5 Na5 24 f5 Nc4 25 f6 Bf8 26 g6 Qc5 and now with 27 Qg2! a3 28 gxh7+ White would have had the upper hand: 28..Xxh7 29 e5 Kh8 30 Qe4 or 28...Kh8 29 Bxc4 Qxc4 20 Bh6l. There-fore Black should perhaps in-vestigate 21 ...d5!?, e.g

22 exd5exd5 23 f5b3 24 axb3 (24 Bf4 bxc2+!)

24...axb3 25 Nxb3 Rxb3l?

26 cxb3 Qe5 27 Bh3 Qe4+ 28 Kai Bxf5 or 28 Kcl Nd4, though 27 Bd3 leaves White with a strong hand.

b) 1 2 f4 Rd8 1 3 Bxf6 Bxf6 14 g5 Be7 15h5b5 16 Bd3 b4 17 Ne2 a5 18 Kb 1 a4 1 9 Nc 1 (Martinović -Ivanović, Borovo 1981)

1 9...Bd7! oo -Martinović.

5D132    1 l_Rd8

Fully playable.

1 2 Be3 Qc7 13 g5 Nd7 14 h4 b5

JL

i

m

i

Ł

ii.

i

▲

▲

i

A

▲

▲

J

A

H

'i

m

E

A

Aj

m

A

f

£1

B

fń

H


a)    15 h5!? Nb6 (15..M8 16f4d5 ITed b4 18Na4 Rxd5 19B13 Rb8 20Qf2 ±; 15... b4l?) 16 g6 (Klovans - Mochalov, USSR 1985) 1 6_b4oo -Klovans.

b)    15 f4 Nc5 16 Bg2 b4 17 Ne2 a5 18 Nbd4 Bb7oo, e.g. 1 9 Ng3 Nxd4 20 Bxd4 b31, Durasević -Bogdan-ović, Yugoslav 3E 1958.

c)    15 g6 fxg6! (Not

15...Nc5 1 6 gxf7+ Kxf7 17 Bh3 Na4 18 f4Nb4 1 9 f5 e5 20Nxa4Nxa2+ 21 Kbl bxa4 22 Na5 Rb8 23 Qd5+ Kf8 24 Kxa2 Qxc2 25 Rd2 Rxb2+ 26 Kai Qc3 27 Qd3 1-0, Tal - Stolz, Telegraph gamę 1954.) 16 h5 gxh5 17 Rxh5 Nf6 18 Rg5 Ne5 1 9 Qg2 Bf8

[Tl

[1

rm

i*l

m

A

▲

i.....

Tl

a ii

11U

i

n

A i

i... te

ty

Aa

a i

A

2

B

■Ha

Black has achieved a solid defensive position: 20Be2 (20 f4 weakens the center.

20.. M7 is the conservative plan, though Spassky -Boleslavsky, USSSR 3E 1 958 saw Black aim for counter-play with 20...Nc4 21 Bxc4 bxc4 22 Nd4 Rb8 23 Rg 1 Rb7 %) 20...Nc4 21 Bxc4 bxc4 22 Nd4 Rb8 23 Rh 1 as seen in Tal - Mohrlock, Varna Ol 1 962. White threatens to play Sh 1 -h6xf6 and Blacks ąueenside play looksslow. Suggested improvements include

20.. .Bb7 and 20...Ng6.

This possibility has, perhaps, been somewhat underrated. On 1 1 _Rd8:

5D141    12 g4

12_d5 13 exd5 Nxd5 14 Bxe7 Ndxe7 15 Bd3 e5 16 h5 Kh8 17 h6!g6 18 Qg5 Ng8 19Ne4 White had a good attacking position in Gipslis - Bielczyk, Riga 1981, which continued 19_QCT 20 Bc4 b5 21 Rxd8 Nxd8 22 Bd5 BbT 23 Rdl Bxd5 24 Rxd5 Neó 25 Qd2 Nf4 26 RdT Qc4 27 g5Rc8 28 Ndó Qf 1 + 29 Qdl Nd3+ 30 Kd2 Qg2+

31 Kxd3 e4+ 32 Kxe4 f5+

1 -0. The fault seems to lie

with 1 4... Ndxe7.

1 4_Ncxe7 A Ad7-c6 is a morę appropriate plan.

5D142    12 h5 Qc7

1 2...h6 (1 2...d5 1 3 exd5 Nxd5 14Bxe7oo) 13 Be3 Qc7 14 Qf2 Nd7 15 g4 Nce5 1 6 Rg 1 b5 17 g5 hxg5 1 8 Bxg5 Bxg5 1 9 Rxg5 Nf8 20 a3!±, Hellers - Piket, Amsterdam 1 985.

1 3 g4 (Worthy of attention is 13 hó g6 1 4 Qf4, e.g.

1 4...Ne 8 1 5 Bxe7 Qxe7 16 Qe3 b5 17 Be2 Rb8, Martinović - P. Popović, Yugoslav 3E 1 986, where 1 8 Rd2 A 2hd 1 would have been slightly better for White - Martinović.)

13J>4 14 Be 3 Nd7 (14J>4 1 5 Na4 Nd7 16g5 gives White an attack -Serper) 15 g5 Nce5 16 g6!, Serper - Brodsky,

USSR 1 986, and now Black should not have played 16J>4? 17 gf+ Kxf7, which allowed 1 8 Nd5!l, but rather 16Jg 17 hg Nxg6 18 Qe2cx> ~ Serper.

5D2    10-Rd8

»

i

1

i

▲

1

▲

▲

i

▲

w.

M

A

Ł

H

A

A

it!

A

m

Al

[s

E

|hJ

Although this is not considered sufficient for equality it never-theless remains popular in tournament play, because the unbalanced naturę of the posi-tions makes it possible to tip the scales in Blacks favor in the event of any slight error on Whites part.

5D21    11 Bd3

This leads to play along the lines of Nunn - Mokry, above, after 1 l~a6 12 g4 Qc7. 1 1 ...Qc7 can ais o be played immediately, for example 1 2 Qf2 Nd7 1 3 Nb5 Qb8 14 Qg3 Nf6 15 h4aó 16 N5d4 Nxd4 17 Nxd4 Qc7, Byrne -Fedorowicz, USA 3E 1981.

5D22    1 1 Be3

If it is Whites intention to storm the kingside with

»

i

w

ft

i.

A

1

±

I

▲

ii;

▲

1

A

A

A

Ili

A

n.

m

A

&

3

0

&

0


pawns, it makes a lot of sense to remove the bishop from the g-file with gain of tempo. After 1 l_Qc7 White can try to drive the queen further back with an immediate I 2 Nb5, but 1 2...Qb8 13c4a6 14 Nc3 Qc7 A ie5oo -ECO.

Therefore 12 Qf2 is usually preferred, placing the diagonal g 1 -a7 under control and preventing a7-a6. Now 1 2...d5?l is not. good, e.g. 1 3 exd5Nxd5 14 Nxd5 Rxd5 15 g4 Beó 16Nd4±, Tal -Savon, USSR 3t 1962.

After 12_Nd7:

a) 13 Nb5 Qb8 14 g4

(14h4a6 15 N5d4 Nxd4 1 6 Nxd4 Qc7 transposes .)

1 4_a6 15 N5d4 =, e.g.

1 5_Qc7 ( or 15...Nde5 16 h4 Bd7 17 g5b5 18 h5 Nc4 1 9 Nxc6 Bxc6 20 Nd4 Nxe3 21 Qxe3 Qb6 22 gól with a strong attack in Hellers - Whitehead, New York Open 1987.) 1 6 h4 Nxd4 (16...Nce5 17 Kbl b5 1 8 g5 Nc5 1 9 h5 Na4 20 Bel d5 21 g6±, Gipslis -Wittman, Hradec Kralove 1979/80.) 17 Nxd4 Nc5 1 8 g5, Gipslis - Tukmakov, USSR 1975, Here 18...d5l?

1 9 exd5 Rxd5 20 f4 allows

20.. .e5! 21 fxe5 Bg4! ot. 20 Be4 Rd8 21 Nb3 ± (ECO)

21.. .Rxdl + 22 Rxd 1 bó a Ab 7, or 22...Na4 23 Bd3 Bd7 24 h5 Be8 A Ie5 -Schwarz.

b)    13 g4 a6 14 g5*,

Altschuler - Sadomsky, [53 1964.

c)    13 Kb 1 aó 14 g4 b5 15 g5 b4 16 Na4 Nce5

17 Nb6 Rb8 1 8 Nxc8 Qxc8= Tarasev - Ilivitsky, USSR 1963.

5D23    11 g4

1 l.d51 12 exd5 (12

Bxf6 is met by 1 2...dxe4!)

12_Nxd5 13 Bxe7 Ndxe7 14 Bd3 e5 =,

Kholmov - Taimanov, USSR 3E 1959.

5D24    1 1 h4

1 1 _a6! 12 h5 Qc7 13 h6 gól e.g. 14 Qf4 Ne8 1 5 Bxe7 Qxe7 1 6 Qe3 b5 17 f4 Qc7 1 8 Bd3 b4 1 9 Ne2 a5 20 Kbl Bd7 21 Rei Qa7 22 Qxa7 Rxa7 2-5, Jansa - Mokry, Bratislava

V

ł

i!

i

11

A

I.

t

H

i,

A

A

1

n

JL

'1

a

A

A

A

ft

A

w

A

'I

m

5

A

H


1983.

5D25    11    Kbl

Hubner - Kasparov, (3)

1 985, saw 1 1 ...aó 1 2 Be3 Qc7 1 3 Qf2 Nd7 14f4b5 15g4Bb7 16 Bg2 Rac8 S.

1 1 ..Bd7!? 1 2 Be 3 Qc7 1 3 Nb5 Qb8 14Nxd6Be8 15 Bc5 bó 16 Ba3 a5 oo -Hort.

5D26    11    Nbl

1 l_Nb4! a 1 2...Nxa2#!

E.g. 12 Na3 1 2...d5, e.g.

1 3 Be3 dxe4 1 4 Bxbó Rxd2 1 5 Rxd2 (1 5 Kxd2 axb6co.)

1 5...axb6 1 6 Kb 1 e3 oo.

5D27    11    Nb5

The recommended reply here is the ungainly 1 1 _Rd7, the point of which is to free the d8-square for the queen while piling up on the d-file and preparing dó-d5.

If White tries to prevent

this implementation of this plan by playing 1 2 c4, he receives the rude shock 1 2...d5! anyway, sińce White can ill afford the opening of the c-file, Suetin - IIivicky, USSR 1952.

On the other hand, if White chases the queen Black still achieves his objective, as was shown in Simagin -Gurevićh, USSR 1965: 12 Be3 Qd8 13N5d4Nxd4 14 Nxd4e5 15Nf5d5!and the pawn center is rolling. 1 3 c4 d5 1 4 exd5 exd5 1 5 c5 a5!

16 Bd4 (16 a4 d4! = )

1 6...a4 17 Na 1 Nxd4 18 Qxd4 Ne8! + - Suetin.

5D26    11 Qe1

This is a logical redeployment of the queen to the kingside, taking the sting out of a possible dó-d5 advance by Black is, considering that the 2 will shortly move to f2, a waste of time. Reshevsky - Saidy, US 3E 1 966/67 saw 1 1 _a6 12 h4 (12 Be3 Qc7 1 3 g4 b5 14 g5 Ne8 15 f4 Bf8 16 Qf2 Rb8 17 h4 Na5 18 Nxa5 Qxa5 19 Kbl b4 T, Milic - Kupper, Opatija 1953) 12_Qc7 13 h5 h6 14 Be3 b5 15 Qf2 Rb8 1 6 g4 Ne5 OO. Blacks queenside pressure looks morę menacing than it really

is.

5E    10 f 4

Here, too, Blacks queenside pressure proves unbearable:

10_Rd8 11 Qe 1 aó 12 Bd3 QcT 13 Rgl b5 14 g4 b4 15 Ne2 a5 +,

Goldin - Taimanov, USSR 1951.

5F    10 g4

After 10_Rd8 11 Be 3 QcT 12 g5 NdT 13 f4.

Lein - Rowner, Pernau 1 958 saw 13_a6 14 f5 b5 15 h4 b4 16 Ne2 and here Black should have played 16_d5! A ib6, with c4 firmly under control.

5G    10 h4!?

This is a new move introduced by Jon Arnason.

exd5 Nxd5 1 3 BxeT NcxeT (1 3... Ndxe7 is also unsatisfactory after 1 4 Bd3 hó 1 5 g4.) got clobbered by 1 4 hó gó 15 Bc4! in Arnason - Thorsteins, Reykjavik Open 1 984. Arnason gives 1 1 ...hó 1 2 Be3 Qc T 1 3 Qe2! intending to advance the g-pawn.

5H    10 Kbl

After 1 0...aó play transposes to Lobron - Popović, (9...a6 10 Kbl).

51    10 Na4

After 1 O...Qc7 1 1 Bxf6 we have Suetin - Taimanov, discussed above via the move order 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 1 Na4. According to Euwe 1 0 Na4 was the actual move order.

IS

f*;u

&

oo

▲

Zł.

A

i

:;1

s

m

§§

A

s

lp

m

5

Ai'

A\

5

II]

o

H

A

5


a) 10.Ng4 is not on because of 1 1 f3 Bxg5 1 2 hxg5 Nf2 1 3 Na4!.


b) 10...Rd8 1 1 h5d5?! 12


K

A

I'

i

ii

▲

!

A

i;-:

A

4

1

m

A

ifl

%

I-'

A

A

A

'M

m

I

A

0


6A

1 2 Bc4

6B

12 Bel

6C

12Be2

6D

12e5

6E

12g4

6F

12 Kbl

6G

1 2 Qd3

6H

1 2 Qg 1

6A

12 Bc4!


6 9 f4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 hó ©651

jO

IL

A

3

i?

OH

n

▲

A1

Z]

pi

▲

*

w.

ii

2

A

TT

Ł

2!

1

A

5]

A

A

¥

T

s

This has fallen out of favour recently, but it may be a temporary whim of fashion. In later chapters we will consider two interesting alternatives to this capture.

1 1 Bh4

Instead 1 1 h4? leads to positions discussed under the move order 9...h6 10 h4 Nxd4 1 1 Qxd4 hxg5.

1 l_Qa5 1 l...a6 was introduced in Sznapik - Dejkalo, Poland 1 985. The gamę continued 1 2 Bd3 Rb8 13e5dxe5 14 Qxe5 BdT 1 5 Qe2 b5 16 g4 b4 17 Bxf6 Bxf6 18Ne4 g6 1 9 h4 BgT 20 Nc5 Qf6oo.

White has the usual number of alternatives, plus a few uncommon ones:

No reliable equalizer has yet been found against 1 2 Bc4! move, but Blacks position is solid enough to allow the variation to be played with confidence.

The best defense is 1 2_e5

13    fxe5 (13 Qd3 exf4 14 Nb5Bg4 15Rdfl a6 gives Black a significant advantage, Canal - Barcza, Venice 1948.) 1 3_dxe5

14    Qd3 Qc5! (1 4...a6 15 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 6 Nd5 Bg5+ is the only alternative which shows any promise at all.) and now:

1

i

i?

*

Mi

▲

k

▲

A

1

m

II

A

A

H

2

A

:'a,

A

A

&

S


»

m

:i,

i

▲

▲

’k-

pi

▲

1

il

i

A

i

U

A

A;

A

A

A.

&

H

A

s


6A1    15 Bb3

6A2    15 Bxf6

6A1    15 Bb3 Be6

16 Bxf6 (16 Bxe6 fxe6 17 Qh3 is overambitious:

17...Qc7 1 8 g4?l Bb4!+, Tringov - Schmid, Tel Aviv OL 1964.) 1 6_Bxf6 and now:

a) 17 Bxe6 fxe6 1 8 Qd7 Qe7=

b)    17 Nd5 Bd8 18Qg3 a5\

1 9 Qxe5 a4 gives Black a very strong attack, for example 20 Nf6+ Bxf6 21 Qxc5 axb3 22 Qxf8+ Kxf8 23 axb3 Ra2! and Black was winning in Grlinberg -Gebuhr, E3 1981. 1 8 Kb 1 is safer (oo),

c)    17 Kb 1 Be7 18 Nd5 was seen in Krantz - Germanov,

1 978, and now Black should have played 18„.Kh8=.

6A2    15 Bxf6 Bxf6

The exchange at fó concedes

the bishop pair, and yet it is hard for Black to obtain eąuality:

a)    1 6 h3 Be6 17 Nd5 Bd8 18 Kbl=, Durasević -Gligoric, Yugoslav 3E 1 952.

b)    lÓKbl Be6 17 Bxe6?l fxeó 1 8 Qd6 Qc4 1 9 Qd3 5-5, Gligoric - Taimanov, Stockholm IZ 1952, but 17 Bd5!±.

c)    16Qe2 aó 17 Kb 1 b5 18 Bb3 Be6 1 9 Nd5 Bd8 20 h4 Qc8 21 Rdfl Rb8 22 Ne3 Bb6 23 Nf5±, Parma -=Bradvarević, Yugoslavia

1 965, although even here Black should be able to hang on. 16..Be6l?

d)    16 Nd 5! Bd 81(16.Bg5+

17 Kbl Be6 18 h4 Bd8 19 Qe2 =, Maeder - Heigl, i=3 1 978.) has been employed by Gebuhr and now:

dl) 17 Rdfl Beó 18 Rf3 (1 8 Qg3 a5 1 9 a3 a4 20 Ba2 Rc8 21 c3 Bxd5 22 Rxd5 Qb6=, Karvi -


Gebuhr, 1=3 1976.) 1 8...a5 1 9 a4 Rc8 20 Bb3 Rb8 21 Kbl b5 22 axb5 Qxb5 23 Qxb5 Rxb5 24 Nc3 Rb4=, Weissleder - Gebuhr, tu? 1976.

d2) 17 h4 Be6 18 Bb3 b5 19a3 a5 20 Qe2 (20 Qg3 a4 21 Ba2 Rc8 22 c3 Bxd5 =, Kalvelis - Gebuhr, E3 1976.) 20...a4 21 Ba2Ba5?! 22 c3 Rad8 23 Kbl f5? 24 exf5Bxd5 25 Rxd5 Rxd5 26 Qxe5±, Quednau - Gebuhr, [=3 1983.

d3) 17 Kbl Be6 18 h4 a5 1 9 a41? Rc8 20 b3 Bxd5 21 Bxd5 Rb8 22 Bc4 Bfó 23 Qh3 with a strong attack in Hess - Schild, E3 1 984.

6B    12 Bel 1 2_e5 and now:

a) 1 3 Qc4 Be6 yields roughly level chances.

b)    13 Qgl exf4 1 4 Nd5 Qd8 15 Nxf4 Nxe4 +, Abakarov - Livinov, USSR 1959.

c)    1 3 Qd3 Bg4 (1 3...exf4!?) 14Be2Bxe2 15Qxe2Rfe8 1 6 f5 Rac8= , Zadomski -Kriukov, 1=3 1 958.

6C    1 2 Be2

Black can sieze the initiative

with 1 2...e5 1 3 fxe5 dxe5 14 Qd3 Be6.

6D    12 e5

The resolution of tension in the center and liquidation of forces allow Black to equalise : 1 2_dxe5 13 Qxe5 Qxe5 14 fxe5 Nd 5 15 Bxe7 Nxe7

a)    1 6 Bd3 b6! (This is the only effective deployment of the queenside forces, e.g.

16.. £d7 17 Bh7+! Kxh7 18 Rxd7 Nc6 1 9 Rxb7 Nxe5 20 Rei!, Ivkov - Taimanov, Yugoslavia vs. USSR 1956.) 17 Be4 Rb8 18 Rhel Bb7 and the invasion of the seventh rank is only temporary, Gligoric - Benko, Zagreb Candidates' 1 959:

1 9 Rd7 Bxe4 20 Rxe4 (20 Nxe4 Nc6 21 Nd6Rfd87)

20.. .Nc6 21 Nb5Rfd8 21 Rc7 Rbc8.

b)    16 Bb5 aó 17 Bd3

(17Ba4 b5 18 Bb3 Ra7 19 Rd2 Rd7 was agreed drawn in Zagiń - Shagalovićh,


Mińsk 1957. Another possibility is 17 Bd7l? Rd8 1 8 Ba4 Rxd 1 + 1 9 Rxd 1 b5 20 Bb3 but 20..Mg6l -Boleslavsky.) 17_b5 18 Be4 Ra7 19 b4 (19 Rhel Rc7 20 Re3 Bd7 21 Rdó Bc6 =, Niephaus - Szabo, 195 i, or 1 9 Rdó b4?l 20 Na4 21 Rhdli, Schmid -0’Sullivaa Oublin 1957.)

19_Bd7 ^ Rdó Rc8 21 Rhd 1 (21 Kb2l? R8c7 22 Rbó Ne8 23 Rb8= -Gligoric) 21_R8c7=, Matanović - Panno,

Portoroz IZ 1 958.

6E    i 2 g4

This is premature: 1 2_e5 13 Qgl exf4 14 g5 hxg5 15 Bxg5 Beó 16 Bxf4 Rfc8!¥ Winter -Heigl, [=3 1 977

6F    12 Kb 1

Here the prophylactic move is out of place: 12-«5! 13

fxe5 dxe5 14 Qd3 (14

Qe3 Beó 7) 14_Rd8 15 Nd5? Nxd5 1 ó Bxe7 Nc3+!

T Kogan - Eisenstadt, USSR 1951.

6G    1 2 Qd3

Black should set up an oppo-sition to the White 2 with

1 2_Rd8:

a)    Unclearcomplications arise on 1 3 g4 Bd7 14 Rg 1 (1 4 Kb 1 - see 1 3 Kb 1) 1 4_g5 15 fxg5 hxg5 16 Bf2 b5 17 e5 dxe5 18 Qe3 Ne8,

Tolush - Rejfir, Vienna 1 957, but not 1 4 g5 Nh5 15Qf3 Nxf4!+, Khasin - Bannik,

USSR 1 958.

b)    13 Be2 Bd7 14 Qg3

Beó leads to a balanced gamę after either 1 5 e5 dxe5 16fxe5Ne4 17Nxe4 Bxe4 1 8 Bxe7 Qc7 or 1 5 Bf3 e5 16 f5 b5 17 Kbl b4 18 Bxf6Bxfó 1 9 Nd5 Bxd5 Rxd5 Qc7 21 h4 a5, Spassky - Boleslavsky, USSR 3E 1957.

c)    13 Kbl Bd7! 14 g4 Bc6 15 Bg2! d5 16 e5

d4 and now White might investigate Zagorovsky's 17 Ne21? Bxg2 1 8 exf6 gxf6 19 Rhglw.

6H    12 Qg1

This can lead to some rather interestingcomplications


7A

7B

7C

7D

7E

7F

7G

7H


after 12_BdT 13 g4 (13

Be 1 Qc7 1 4 g4 Rac8 1 5 Bd3b5=):

a)    13_Rfc8 14 Bel b5 15 Nd5 Qd8, or 15 g5 hxg5 16 fxg5 b4, e.g.

17 gxf6 Bxfó 1 8 Nb 1 Qxa2 1 9 Rd4 Rxc2+! 20 Kxc2 Ba4+ 24 Kc 1 Rc8+ -Schwarz.

b)    13_Bc6 14 Bel Qc7 15 Bd3 d5 16 e5 Ne4 17 Bxe4 dxe4 18 h4 b5 1 9 Bg3 b4 20 Ne2 Bd5 21 Rxd5 exd5oo, Tolusch

- Taimanov, USSR 1 958. ECO suggests 17 h4, but I feel that 17..Bc5 is an adeąuate reply.

T 9 f4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Qa5

Here, too, Black will find it difficult to achieve fuli equality. On the other hand, only one of the many variations given below will bring White his cherished advantage.

1 1 Bb5 1 1 Bd3

I    1 Be 2 1 1 e5

II    Kbl 1 1 Qd2 1 1 Qd3 1 1 Qg 1

11 Bc4, discussed in subseąuent chapters, is universally recommended, but there are no less than eight altematives.

7A    1 1 Bb5


This is easily met by either 1 l..Rd8 or 1 l_h6 12


K

k

i

*

M

Ł

1

▲

„A,

Ł

H

▲

i

I

ii

1

i.

ii

I

A

A

A

A

li

&

H

A

H


Bh4 e5!, e.g. 1 3 fxe5 dxe5 14_Qxe5 Beó 15 Qd4 aóó5/+, Ioseliani - Liu (5), Velden 1983.

TB    11 Bd3

Since Black is going to play e6-e5, this seems an inappropriate place for the bishop, as was confirmed in Joppen - Unzicker, Germany 1 954, which continued 1 l...hó 12 h4e5 13 Qgl exf4 1 4 Bxf4 Beó 1 5 g4 Nxg4 1 6 Nd5 Bxd5 17 Qxg4 Beó 18 Qg3 Qxa2 1 9 e5 RfcS*. Also good is 1 l_e5 12 Qe3 hó 13 Bxf6 exf4 14 Qel Bxf6 1 5 Nd5 Qd8=, Ioseliani -Liu (3), Velden 1983.

TC    1 1 Be 2

A quiet move introduces a linę where the bishop scurries about the board, seeking to induce smali weaknesses. But the weaknesses don t amount to much in the end(game)

1 l_h6 introduces the usual choice:

a)    Here 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Qxd6 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Qxa2?, Dubinin - Veresov, USSR 3E 1 940.

b)    12 h4 is possible, but after 12_e5! 13 Qf2

exf4 14 Bxf4 Beó 16 Rd4 Rfc8 16 Qg3 Black

can play the standard exchange sacrifice 16_Rxc3! 1T Qxc3 Qxa2 and now 1 8 Qa3 Qxa3 1 9 bxa3 d5 gives Black a good gamę, Vasiukov - Boleslavsky, USSR 1 95T.

c) 12 Bh4 e5! 13 fxe5

(1 3 Qf2 exf4 14 g3 f3! 15 Bxf3 g5! or 15 Bxf6 Bxf6 16 Qxf3 Beó! or here 1 6 Rd5 QcT 17 Qxf3 Beó, Gergenredet - Schilsch,

USSR 1 936 with a good gamę for Black in each case.) 13_dxe5 14 Qd3 Beó 15 Qb5 Qxb5 (1 5...QcT may be even stronger.) 16 Bxb5 Rfd8 17 Be2 Kf8 18 Bg3 Bdó 1 9 Bf 3 Rac 8 and Black has exploited the wasteful bishop moves by strengthening the back rank, Rossetto - Benkó, Portoroz Interzonal 1 958.

7D    11 e5

Here Black should not fear

X

I

*

k

i

u

Ł

„4

1

Pi

i

&

A

„4

A

A

A

6

S'


the endgame which arises after 1 1 _dxe5 12 Qxe5 (White is committed to this plan, sińce 1 2 fxe5 Rd8 1 3 Qf4 Rxdl + A if6-d5 is very unpleasant, Marsky -Yudovićh, USSR 1 936.)

1 2„Qxe5 (This is much better than 1 2...Qb6/ e.g.

13 Na4 Qc6 14 Bb5 Qxg2 15 Rhg 1 Qxh2 16 Bxf6 Bxf6 17 Qxf6g6 18 Rhl Qg2 1 9 Rh6 e5 20 Rdh 1 Bf5 21 R6h2 Qf3 22 fxe5 Rfc8 23 Qh8+!! 1-0, Barczay - Mikhalchischin, 1983.) 13 fxe5 Nd5 14 Bxe7 Nxe7 15 Bd 3 (15 Bb5 aó! 16 Bd3 b5 17 Be4 Rb8=, Usatschi - Geller, USSR 1 958, rather than

15...Ng6 lÓRhel b6 17g3 Bb7 1 8 Rd7 Bg2 1 9 Rd2 Bb7 20 h4 Rfd8 21 Bd3±, Evans - Santos, Algarve 1975.) 15_b6 16 Be4 (ECO suggests 1 6 Rhe 1 Bb7 17 Bxh7+, evidently with the idea 17...Kxh7 1 8 Rd7, but after 1 8_Nd5l 1 9 Rxb7 Nxc3 20 bxc3 Kg6 a draw is the likely result, the weakness of the white pawns offsetting the control of the seventh rank.)

16_Rb8 17 Rhe 1 (17

Nb 5 is an interesting development: 17...Bb7 18 Rhe 1 Bxe4 1 9 Rxe4 Ncó 20 Rd3 Rfd8 21 Rc3 Rd5 22 Rxc6 Rxb5 23 Rc7 ±,

Dvoiris - Inkiov, Sochi

1983.) 17_Bb7 18 Rd7

(18 Bxb7 Rxb7 1 9 Rd6 Nc8 20 Rd2 b5+.) 1 8_Bxe4 and

now each of the captures merits attention:

a)    1 9 Rxe4 Ncó 20 Rdó

(20 Nb5 Rfd8 21 Rc7Rdc8 22 Rxc8 Rxc8=, Khasin -BoleslaYsky, USSR 1961.) 20_Rfc8! 21 Nb5 Kf8 22 Rd7 Rd8 23 Rc7 Rdc8 ==, Tseshkovksy -Yudasin, Minsky 1 982.

b)    19 Nxe4 Ncó 20 Ndó Rad8 21 Rc7 Nxe5 22 Rxe5 Rxdó 23 Rxa7 Rdb8= -Boleslavsky.

c)    Whites best try is 1 9 Rxe7!, e.g. 1 9_Rb7 20 Rxb7 Bxb7 21 g3 Bc6 22 b4 Rc8 23 Kb2 Kf8 24 b5 Bb7 25 a4 Rc5±, Matulović - Bradvarević, Yugoslavia

1 975, although even here Black should be able to hołd.

The materiał in this section illustrates the need to have endgame competence when playing the Richter - Rauzer,

1

i

*

i!

A

iii:

A

A

X

A

Ii

i

I:

&

A

i

A

iii

*

A

Ef

1

A

ś.

n


and, on the plus side, will afford many opportunities to practice, and therefore improve, endgame play.

TE    11 Kbl

This move leads to unclear complications. After 1 1_Rd8 White has a choice:

a)    1 2 Qd2 was played in Kamyshov - Ilivitsky, USSR

1 949, and now black should play 12..Bd7! 1 3 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 4 Nd5 Qxd2 with a level gamę.

b)    ECO gives 12 Be2 BdT 13 Rhfl Bcó 14 Qe3oo.

c)    1 2 Bc4 BdT transposes to the next chapter.

TF    1 1 Qd2

Black eąualises quickly here With 1 l_hó 12 Bh4 Nxe4 13 Nxe4 Qxd2+.

It is often suggested that Black develop his queenside immediately with 1 1 ...b6 12 Be 2 BbT, and Black had a comfortable gamę in 1 3 Bf3 Rad8 1 4 Bh4 Ba6 1 5 Qd2 b5, Spassky - Bronstein, USSR3E 1959. But after 12 Qb5!, the endgame following

12.. .Qxb5 1 3 Bxb5 is uncomfortable, according to Boleslavsky, so Black should play 1 1 _hć>, transposing to

10.. .h6 lines, above.

TH    11 Qg 1

Here Black should react with

1 l_b5! 12 Bxb5 Rb8

and now the best White has is 13 e5! dxe5 14 fxe5 Bb4 15 Bd2 Nd5 16 Nxd5 exd5 1T Bxb4 Qxb4 1 8 a4 Qf4+ 1 9 Kbl a6 e.g. 20 Bc6 Qc4 21 Bxd5Qxa4 22 Qd4 Rb4 23 Qc5 Bf5 24 Bcó! In Westerinen - Loikjkaned, Finland 1 963 Black went wrong with 24...Qa3?? 25 Qxf8+!!, but he could have drawn with 24...Qxc2+ 26 Kxc2 Rc4+ a lxcó.


8 9 f4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Qa5 1 1 Bc4 BdT

Even after 1 1 Bc4 BdT there are still a great many paths to follow:

8A

12 Bb3

8B

1 2 Bxf6

8C

12 Kbl

8D

12 Rhe 1

8E

12 Rhf 1

8F

1 2 e5

8A

12 Bb3

1 2_Bc6 is the reply and now:

a)    13 Kbl Rfd8 14 Rhe 1 h6 15 Bh4 Qh5!

16 Bg3 d5T, Korbuzov -Yudasin, USSR 1 982.

b)    13 Rhf 1 h6 14 Bh4

allows Black to obtain instant eąuality with 1 4~.e5 1 5 fxe5 dxe5, according to Petrosian. Black can try for morę with 1 4_Qh5, for example 15Bg3d5! 16 exd5 Rfd8 1_T Rfe 1 Bxd5 18 Nxd5 Nxd5+, Jansa - Barlov, Vrnjacka Banja 1983. 16e5 Ne4 17 Nxe4 dxe4 turned out well for Black in Kudrin -Whitehead, USA 1983: 18 Qgl a5 1 9 a3 b5 20 Bf2 a4 21 Ba2 b4 22 g4 Qh3 23 Rde 1 Bb5! 24axb5a3! 25 Be3 axb2+.

c) 13 Rhe 1 Rfd8 14

Qd3 b5 allows the speculative 15Nd5!?Nxd5 1 6 exd5 Bxg5 1 7 fxg5 exd5 1 6 Bxd5 which gave White a smali advantage in Dvoiris - Yurtayev, USSR 1986.

14...h6 comes into consideration.

8B    1 2 Bxf6!?

This was introduced in Shamkovich - Taylor, New York 1 983, which continued 12_Bxf6 13 e5 BeT 14 exd6 Bf6 15 Qd3, and here, according to Shamkovich, Black has compensation after

15_Qb6 16 Bb3 Bc6 17 Ne4 Bxe4 18 Qxe4

a5. The gamę actually continued 1 5...g6 1 6 Ne4 Bg7 17 Bb3 Bcó 1 8 Rhe 1 Rfd8 1 9 g4 Rd7 20 Qd2 Qxd2+ 21 Rxd2 Rad8 22 c3 Bxe4 23 Rxe4 Rxd6 2-3.

8C    12 Kbl Bc6:


JL

A,

▲

iii

IPli

łMł

I

.....

i .

d .

A

1

Alllj

ii a ii


a)    13 Rhe 1 hó 14 Bh4

b5! 1 5 Bb3 b4 16Bxf6 Bxf6 1T Qxd6 Rac8 a Rf8— d87, according to Kholmov. White gets nowhere with I5e5, either: 1 5...dxe5 16 fxe5 Rad8 17 Qf4 Rxd 1 +

18 Rxd 1 Nh5 1 9 Qg4 Bxh4 20 Qxh4 b4 21 Qxh5 bxc3.

b)    13 Rhf 1 hó 14 Bh4

Qh5 I5g3? g5! 1 6 fxg5 hxg5 17 Rxf6 Bxf6 1 8 Qxf6 gxh4 1 9 gxh4 Kh7+, Tal -Larsen, 6th match gamę, Eersel 1 969. But better is 15 Bg3 Qc5 16 Bh4=,

Byrne - Larsen, USA 1 968, or 15..Nxe4 16Nxe4d5 17 Bd3 dxe4+.

c)    13 Bb3 Rad8 (A

position which can also be reached via 11 Kb 1 Rd8 12 Bc4 Bd7 1 3 Bb 3 Bc6) for example:

cl) 1 4 Rhf 1 h6 1 5 Bh4 Qh5! 1 6 Bg3 d5=, Zakharov - Osnos, Riga 1 968.

c2) 14 Rhe 1 h6 1 5 Bh4

Qh5 16 Bg3 d5! 17exd5 [ 17 e5?l Ne4 18Ne2a5! and Black had a strong initiative in Korzubov -Yudasin, USSR 1982.) 17... Nxd5 1 8 Nxd5 (1 8 Bxd5 BfóT) 1 8...Bxd5 1 9 Re5 Bf 3! 20 Rxh5 Bxh5 21 Qd8 =, Dvojris - Yudasin, USSR 3E 1986.

d) Gligorics 1 3 g4 awaits practical tests.

8D    12 Rhe 1 Rfd8

a)    Disastrous results were obtained in Keres - Geller, CuracaoCandidates' 1 962: 13 Bb3 b5 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5b4 16 Bxf6 gxf6 17 exf6 Qg5+, but White could have tried 17 Nd5!, and now 17...exd5 1 8 exf6 Bf8

1 9 Re5 Be6 20 Qh4 Qb6 21 Rd4 h6 22 Rh5 leads to a very strong attack -Schwarz. Therefore 1 3_h6! is the better move,

e.g. 1 4 Bh4 Qh5 15Bg3 Qc5.

b)    13 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5

I

1

i

tk\

▲

A

Ł

▲

▲

k

li

ii

A;:

m

A

i

A:

*1

A

A

A

A

i':

B

B


»

i

i

%

▲

i

li

▲

!•

▲

a

▲

A1

A

A

„ń;

A

A

A

A

B

B


Nd5 15 BxeT NxeT 16

Qh4 Ngó provides equal chances.

c) Ag ain, 1 3 f5 is met by 1 3_b5!

8E    12 Rhf 1

Here 12_Bc6 forces transpositions after 1 3 Kb 1 or 1 3 Bb3, sińce 1 3 f5 runs into 1 3...b5f but Black should avoid 12J>5 13 Bb3 b4, where Mikh. Tseitlin -Makarychev, USSR 2? 1 98 I saw l4e5!!dxe5 15fxe5 bxc3 1 6 Bxf6 Bxf6 17 exfó cxb2+ 18 Kbl Rfd8 19 Qg4 and White won ąuickly.

8F    12 e5 dxe5

1 3 fxe5 (1 3 Qxe5 allows Black to obtain eąual chances with 1 3...Qb4 1 4 Rd4 Qb6 15 Rhd 1 Rad8 16 f5 Bc8, Suetin - Glek, Moscow 1983.) 1 3_Bc6

8F1    14 Bd2

8F2    14 Bxf6

8F3    14 h4

8F4    14 Qf4

8F1    14 Bd2

Nd7 15 Nd5 Qd8 16 Nxe7+ Qxe7

This is a forcing continuation which leads to a position which requires careful handling by Black, but at the same time it is not easy for White to take advantage of his bishop pair, especially in view of his weak ne5.

8F11    17 h4

8F12    17 Rhe 1

8F11    17 h4

White has not been able to establish anything after

17„.Rfc8:

a)    18 Be3Qc5f Gufeld -Yudasin, USSR 1982.

b)    18 Bg5Qc5 1 9 Qxc5 Nxc5 20 Rhgl Be4 21 Rd4 Bgó! 22 g4 hó 23 Be7 Nx7„ Sax - Ivanović, Niksic 1 983.

Also interesting is 17...Qc5l? 1 8 Qxc5 Nxc5 1 9 Bb4

»

11

*

l;|j

▲

I

▲

li-.

▲

w

A

Ł

Z

ń

m

A

&

A

A

A

11

Si

H

ii


18 Bb3 18 Bfl 1 8 Bd 3


Rfc8!, Gav ric - Speelman, Banja Luka 1 983, confirmed in Murey - D. Gurevich, Jerusalem 1986: 20 Bxc5 Bxg2 21 Rh2 Rxc5 22 Bxe6 Bc6 23 Bd7 Rxe5 24 Bxc6 bxcó 25 Rd7 a5 26 Rc7 Rc5 with a decisive advantage for Black.

8F1 2    17 Rhe1

Now Black must choose among a number of lines which float in and out of favor.

8F121    17...Nb6

8F122    17...Qc5

8F123    17...Rfc8

8F124    17...Rfd8

8F121    17„Nb6

This has been taking a pounding in recent years but some improvements may have stabilized the situation:

8F121 1 8F1212 8F1 21 3

8F1211    18 Bb3

18.. .Rfc8! 19 Qg4 Bd5

20    Bg5 (20 Bh6 can be

met by either 20...g6 or

20.. .Qf8, but both await practical tests) 20_Qc5!

21    Bf6 (21 Be3 Qf8 S or 21 ...Qc7 22 Bxb6axb6S, -Yudasin and S. Ivanov.) 21_g6 22 Re2 a5! ?, Agapov - Yudasin, USSR 1984.

8F1212    18 Bfl

This causes morę problems:

8F12121    18...Rfc8

8F12122    18...Rfd8

8F12121    18_Rfc8

1 9 Kbl Nd7 (1 9..Bd5 20 b3 is much better for White, A. Ivanov - Armas, Mexico 1 980) 20 Bb4 and White has a persistent advantage, A. Ivanov -Gavrikov, USSR 1983. It is here that Black must seek help.

8F12122    18_Rfd8!

19 Qg4

a) 1 9...Qc5 and now:

a 1) 20 Bh6 Rxd 1+ 21 Kxd 1 is a topie of conversation at the highest levels:

a 1 1) 21 ...Rd8+?l 22 Bd3 g6 23 Qh4+, Chandler -Pavlović, Nis 1 983.

a<2) 2 1 ...g6!? A 22...Bb5or

22..Rc8 -Yudasin.

a 13) 21 ...Qf8 22 Bg5 NdT 23 Kc 1 Rc8 24 Qd4 Bd5 25 Kbl Qc5 26 Qxc5 Nxc5 27 Be3 gave White a slightly better endgame in Timman -Sosonko, Holland 1985/86.

a2) A new try is 20 Qb4!?. If Black exchanges queens then White will have a much better endgame, so the question is where to put the 1!. Tseshkovsky - Yudasin, USSR 3E 1 986 saw 20...Qf2 2 1 Qf4! and now Black was f orced to exchange otherwise Whites dark-squared bishop would become too powerful. Therefore 20...Qg 1 !?.

b) Perhaps 1 9...Kh8 is playable, when Ivanov -Glek, USSR 1 983 continued 20 Kbl Qc5 21 Bd3Na4? 22 Qh3 g6 23 Qh4 with a strong atttack, but Gleks suggestion of 2 1 ...Rxd3l? might save the day.

8F1213    18 Bd3

On the morę hopeful side,

1 8_Rfd8 looks fine for

Black:

a) A draw is secured in the event of 19Qf2Rxd3!20 cxd3 Ba4 21 b3 Bxb3 22 axb3 Qa3+ 23 Kbl Qxb3+.

b) 1 9 Qe3 Qh4?

c) 1 9 Qg4!? Rxd3! 20 cxd3 Ba4 and now not 2 1 b3? Qa3+ 22 Kbl Bxb3, which led to a winning attack in A. Rodriguez - Armas, Bayamo 1 980 but rather 2 1 Bh6 f5! 22 exf6 Qxf6 23 Be3 Bxd 1

24    Rxd 1 Nd5 25 Bd4 e5 26 Bgl Nf4 27 Qd7 Rd8 ?, Timoschenko - Armas, Bayamo 1981, while Westerinen - Maki, Finland

1 98 1 ended in a draw after

25    Qe4 Nxe3 26 Qxe3 Qf5.

8F122    17_Qc5

With most of the attention focussed on 17...Rfd8, this move provides an alter-native which leaves Black no worse off than the main linę:

V

I;

ft

A

Ł

i

▲

▲

i

i

m

A

m

A

A

w

1!

$

n

i!


»

X

i

A

▲

11

I

▲

A

▲

i

▲

ii

A

A

H

A

Ai

A

ii

1

B

1


a)    18 Qf4 can be met by

18...a5!?oo, but 1 8_Bb5 is the move which has been subjected to investigation over the board:

al) 19 Bxb5 Qxb5 20

Bb4 was seen in Kindermann

-    Gurevićh, Beersheva

1 984:20_Nc5 21 Rfl Rac8 22 Rf3 hó 23 Rd4 f6 24 exfó Rxfó 25 Qg4 h5 26 Qg3 e5 27 Rxf6exd4 28 Bxc5Qxc5 29 Qb3+

Kh8 30 Rf4 Qe5 31 Qf3 Re8 32 Qf2 Qa5 i-i.

a2) 19 Bb3 QcT!

(1 9...a5?l 20 a4 Bc6 21 Re3±, Kavalek - Benko, Netanya 1969.) 20 Qg3 Nc5 21 Bg5 i-i. Ljubojević

-    Gurevićh, NY 1 984, A 21J5 22exf6Qxg3 23 hxg3 Nxb3 24 axb3 gxf6 =.

b)    18 Qxc5 Nxc5 19 Bb4 b6

1

□

00

Ł

a

A

i

i

▲

l

A

n

Al

ii

A

n

2

m

=

A

il

m

B

m

20 Re2! (New in Chess considers the position after 20 g31? slightly better for White.) 20_Rfd8 21

Redl Rxd2 22 Rxd2 Kf8 23 g3±, Savon - Paoli, Cienfuegos 1 973. The gamę continued 23...Ke8 24 b3 Rd8 25 Rxd8+ Kxd8 26Kd2 but now Savon gives

26..fie4 and Black is ok after 27 Be 2 Kc7 ar 27 Bxc5 bxc5 28 Bd3 Bxd3 29 cxd3 Kd7 30 d4 Kc6!

8F123    17_Rfc8

a)    18 BflThis move may be seen again, sińce Black allowed White to obtain a powerful bishop pair in Gufeld - Prameswaran, New Delhi 1984 after 1 8...Qc5?l

1 9 Qxc5 Nxc5 20 Bb4.

b)    18 Qf4 Karpov -Ungureanu, Skopje OL 1972 saw 1 8_a5 1 9 Kb 1 Nb6?l (Karpov suggests 1 9...a4 20 Bd3 f5 or 1 9_b51? 20 Bd3 Nc5od.) 20 Bd3 Nd5 21 Qg4, and now Black could have limited the damage with 21...Nb4 22 Bh6Qf8 or 21 J>5I?

Instead, 21 ...Qc5 22 Re4! b5 23 Qh3 Nb4 24 Be3! gave

»

*

*

A

▲

Ł:

▲

▲

i

Ł

ii

1.

ii

.Si

Ł

A

A

A

A

&

6

H

A

s


White an overwhelming advantage: 24...Bxe4 25 Bxe4 Qxe5 26 QxhT+ Kf8 27 Bxa8 Qe7 28 Qe4 Qc7 29 Qb7 1 -0.

c) 18 Qg4 Qc5 19 Bh6 g6 20 Re2± , Tseshkovsky - Korensky, USSR 1973, which continued 20...Rc7 (20..Nxe5 21 Qf4 Nd7 22 Rxd7 Bxd7 23 Qf6 Qgl +

24 Kd2 and White wins.) 21 Rf 1 Re8 22 Ref2 and now Black should have tried 22_Qe7.

8F124    17_Rfd8

18 Qg4 Nf8

a)    Chait - Lysenko, USSR 1 976 continued 1 9 h4 Qc5 20 Bb3 Rd4f.

b)    19 Bd3 Rxd31? is an

interesting new linę for Black. Petrushin - Lysenko, USSR 1984saw 20cxd3 Qc5+ 21 Kbl Qd5 22 Re3 Ng6 23 Bc3 (23 g3 Nxe5oo)

23...Qxg2 24 Qxg2 Bxg2 25 Rgl Bc6 26Reg3 Rd8 27 Kc2 and now with 27„.Bb5!

28 h4 h5! Black would have had an even gamę, according to Lysenko.

c) White should perhaps try

19 Kbl.

8F2    14 Bxf6

This is a poor choice, as usual. After 1 4_gxf6:

a)    15 Rdel f5!T, Dely -Sofrevsky, Skopje 1 967.

b)    15 Rhe 1 should be met by 1 5_b5!

c)    15 Nd51? deserves consideration: 1 5...exd5 1 6 exf6 Bxf6 17Qxf6dxc4 18 Rd4 h5! 1 9 Rhd 1 and now Black can settle for a draw with 1 9...Rae8 20 Rd5, as in Bakhmatov - Lysenko, USSR

1 975, or play morę ambitiously with 1 9...Qc5, where White s best seems

to be 20 Rf 1 Rae8 21 Rf5 Re 1 + 22 Kd2 Qb4+ 23 c3 Qxb2+ 24 Kxe 1 Re8+ 25 Re5 with roughly level chances, instead of 20 Rf4?

1

l|i

Hi

i

fi

▲

1

▲

A.

▲

$$$

A

.....

▲

ii

i

I

1

1

m

1

III

A

Hf

A

A

li

E

fi

A

s


V

il

i

liii

▲

III

▲

A

4

i

!!

ii

▲

li

m

s

A

1

A

II

.....

A

A

m

fi

A

fi


Qe3+ 21 Kb 1 Be4l. 20 g4!? is interesting, e.g. 20~Rfe8 21 gxh5Qe5 22Rgl + Kf8 23 Qh6+ KeT 24 Qd2oo -

Lysenko.

8F3    14 h4

By defending the bishop White renews the threat of exf6. After 14-Bc5 15 Qf4 Black should adopt Vogt's suggestion of 1 5..Nh5 1 6 Qg4 gó, and despite the weakness of the dark squares on the kingside, and the inacessibility of d8 to the Black rooks, Black can establish strong queenside pressure with b7-b5. This unbalanced position requires practicaltests.

The alternatives are:

a) 14...Rad8 15 Qf4 Nh5l?

16 Qg4 Bxg5+ 17 Qxg5 gó 18Be2Ng7oo, or 16 Qh2 Qb4! 17 Bxe7 Qxe7 18 Be2! gó 1 9 Bxh5 gxh5oo -Boleslavsky.

b) 14...Rfd8 15 Qf4 Nh5 16 Qg4 Bxg5 17 Qxg5 gó =, Timman - Sosonko, Bergen 1984.

8F4    14 Qf4

Now 1 4_Nd5 practically forces 1 5 Bxd5 Bxg5 1 6 Qxg5 exd5 and now White can not obtain any advantage with:

a)    17 Rd3 d4! 18 Rxd4 Rae8 19 Re 1 f6, Tal -

Bradvarević, Kislovodsk 1 964, which saw Black develop an edge with 20 Qd2 Rxe5 21 Rdl Rfe8 22 g3 Re3.

b)    17 Rd4 Rfe8 18 Rfl Qc7 1 9 Rf5 Re 5 20 Rxe5 fó, Bronstein -Averbakh, Beverwijk 1963, which was agreed drawn after 21 Nxd5 Qxe5 22 Qxe5 fxe5 23 Rd2.

c)    17 Rhel d4 18 Rxd4

f6! is good for Black.

d) 17 Kbl d4 18 Rxd4

f6! is likewise good for Black.

9 9 f4 e5


»

11! A

i

*

ł te

1;

Ł

$;!

▲

Ii

1

te

m

A

I:

......p;

A

m a

m

A

#

te

B

A

B

Gellers variation has a reputation as being insufficient for fuli equality, but is a useful surprise weapon and leaves White with only a slight plus and that only after accurate play. It is becoming morę popular. The knight can retreat or advance to:

9A

10 Nb3

9B

10 Ndb5

9C

10 Nf3

9D

10 Nf5

9E

10Nxc6

9A

10 Nb 3

lCLa5! 1 1 a4 Nb4 gives Black a better gamę, and even worse for White is 1 1 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2 Qxd6 Qxd6 1 3 Rxd6 exf4! (Analysis by Schwarz)

9B10 Ndb5 Bg4 1 1 Be2 1 1 J3xe2 12 Qxe2 a6

1 3 Bxf6 axb5 14 BxeT QxeT is known to favor Black.

9C    10 Nf3 Bg4

1 1 h3 (11 Be2 Rc8 12 Kbl Bxf3! 1 3 gxf3 Nd4= Stolyar - Ilivitsky, USSR 1954) 1 1 _Bxf3! 1 2 gxf3 Nd4 13 fxe5 (13 Qg2?l Rc8 1_4 Rg 1 gó 15 Bd3 Ne6!+, e.g. 1 6 fxe5 dxe5 17 f4 Rxc3l, Novopashin -Mikenas, Gorky 1 954.)

1 3_dxe5:

a)    14 f4 Ne6! 15 fxe5

(15Qg2Qa5 16 Bxf6 Bxf6 17 Nd5 Bd8 - Schwarz.)

15_Nxg5 16 exf6 (16 Qxg5allows 16..Nxe4!)

16_Qxd2+ 17 Rxd2 Bxf6=* -ECO.

b)    14 Rgl Rc8! e.g. : 15

Bhó gó and Black s ąueenside play is faster, Jovcic -Kazić, 153 1 954 or 15 Qg2 Qa5! or 1 5 Be2 Rxc3! 16 Bxfó Bxf6 17 bxc3 Be71, Karaklaic - Joppen, Belgrade 1 954, or 15 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 6

Qd3 Qo5a If8-d8 -Korchnoi.

9D    10 Nf5!

The only move to secure an advantage for White.

10_Bxf5 11 exf5 Rc8 (1 1 ...exf4 12 Kbl!) 12 Kbl

and now 1 2_h61 transposes to 9...h6 lines after 1 3 Bh4, but White can go wrong with 1 3 Bxf6?! Bxf6 14 Nd5 exf4 15 Nxf6+ Qxf6 16 Qxf4 Qe5! with eąuality, Matanović - Milic, Belgrade 1 954. White can also try an old (1 955) suggestion in Chess Archives - 1 3 h4l?

9E    10 Nxc6 bxc6

a)    1 1 fxe5 dxe5 1 2 Qxd8 Rxd8 13 Rxd8Bxd8 14Bc4 Be7 15 h3 Bd7 16 Rd 1 Be8 =, Kotov - Ge ller, Zurich Canddates' 1 953.

b)    1 1 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Qxd6 Qb6! 1 3 fxe5 Rd8!

I

8!

[i

i

ft

ii

m

n

k

fu

i

k

ś.

1

I

k

I.

Ii

n

il

il

H

li

T

A

A

||

A

li

m

i

A

A

H


X

i

I

i

i

▲

§||

▲

!!

i

■1

▲

n

H

§!§

m

i

A

I!

A

H

A

I.

" 1

A

A\

h

5

A

0


K

i

1

i*

tl

liii

k

fi

1

k

k

ii

iii

1!

ii

A

ft

n

f!$;

ii

ii

w

A

•

ni

A

H

ii

s

A

0


1 O 9 f4 hó

This move remains quite popular. The main linę is 10 Bh4, followed by either

10..£d7 or 10...e5, which in the case of the latter can also be reached by the 9„.e5 move order.

10A    10 Bxf 6

10B    10 h4

10A    10 Bxf6 Bxf6

As is so often the case, the exchange at fó followed by an assault on the d-pawn in not a successful strategy for White. After 10..£xfó White has a number of plans, nonę of which are particularly frightening:

10A1    1 1 Nxc6

10A2    1 1 Nb3

10A3    1 1 Ndb5

10A1 1 1 Nxc6 bxcó 12 Qxd6 Qb6

Black obtains good play for the pawn:

Now:

10A11    13e5

10A12    13Na4

10A13    1 3 Qd3

10A14    13 Re 1

10A11    13 e5

1 3...Rd8 14Qa3 Qe3+ 15 Kbl Rxd 1+ 1 6 Nxd 1 Qxa3 17 bxa3 Be7, Szabo -Padevsky, Dresden 1 959 with chances on the queenside, or 1 3 Qd2 Rb 8 14 b3 Rd8 15Bd3e5=/¥, Harandi - Balashov, Rio de Janiero IZ 1 979.

10A12    13 Na4

1

a

w

*

A,

Ł

Ł

1*1

i

‘,4!

▲

m

ii

A

&

i

k

A

H

A

2

H

i

A

JL

s


This try was knocked out of commission in Chess World,

1 949, which pointed out that after 13...Qe3+ 14 Qd2Qxe4 15 Nc5 Qd5 White can t play 1 6 Qa5? due to 1 6..Bxb2+-+ and Schwarz adds that on 1 4 Kb 1 Black can play 1 4...Qxe4 or 1 4...Rd8l? 1 5 Qxd8+

Bxd8 16 Rxd8+.

10A13    13 Qd3

1 3...Rb8 14 b3 Rd8 (14...Qb4 15 Kb2=, for example 1 5...Baó 1 6 Qe3 Rbó 17 e5!, Am. Rodriguez - Fernandez Garda, Cienfuegos 1984.) 15Qf3 Bd4 Ó5, Marjanović -Sofrevski, Yugoslavia 1 982, confirmed in Rodriguez - van der Wiel, Biel IZ 1985, which concluded in a draw after 16Bc4Qc5 17 Rd3 Qa3+ 18 Kbl Qb4 (1 8...c5l? 1 9 Rhd 1 Bb7oo, Wagman - Torre, Lugano 1984.) 1 9 Kc 1 Qa3+ 20 Kbl Qc5. In Kovalev -Maryasin, Mińsk 1 98 1 White tried 1 6 Be2 but after 1 6...Qa5 17Na4c5!

1 8 c3 Bd7 19cxd4Bxa4 20 Kbl cxd4 21 Bc4 Qb4 22 Qd3 Bcó 23 Rcl Rbó 24 Rhe 1 a5 Black had a strong initiative.

An interesting new try is 1 3„.e5!?. Marjanović -

Popović, Titograd 1 984 saw 14 f5a5 15 Na4 Qa7 16 Qc3 Rb8 17 a3 (17 Bc4l? )

17...Be7, and instead of 1 8 h4? Bd7 1 9 Bc4 c5 20 Bb3 c4! 21 Rxd7 Qxd7 22 Qxc4 Qa7l, 1 8 Bc4, which Marjanović considers ±.

10A14    13 Rei

1 3...Bxc3 14 bxc3 Rb8 15 Bd3 Rfd8, Shocron - Emma, Mar del Plata 1 959.

10A2    11 Nb 3

a) 1 l_e5 12 g3 Bg4 13

Rei (13 Be2 Bxe2 14 Nxe2 Re8=, Miolo - Filipowicz, Graz 1981.) 13_a5 14 a4 (1 4 Bb5 can be met by a4, according to Karpov.)

1 4...Rc8 (1 4_Nb4 comes into consideration here, to prevent the invasion of the knight at d5. Hase - Garda, Argentina 1 960 saw further 15 Kbl Rc8 16Rgl?d5!7.)

15 Nd5 Be6 16 Kbl Bxd5 17 exd5±, Karpov - Kavalek, Bugojno 1 980, and 1 6...exf4 17 gxf4 Bh4 18 Rdl Re8 1 9 Rg 1 f5 20 exf5 Bxf5 21 Bd3 Bxd3 22Qxd3± Danailov - Cvitan,

Groningen 1981.

b)    ■ 1 ..Be7 12 Qf2 a6 13 h4 o5 14 g4 b4 15Ne2 a5 16 g5a4 17 Nbd4 BbT 18 Rg ! ? hxg5 1 9 hxg5 Nxd4 20 Qxd4 Qc7 21 Qd3 b3! 22 axb3 axb3 23 Nc3 d5! 24e5d4! 25 Nbl bxc2 26 Qxc2 ObÓT, Fichtl -Bielczyk, Trinec 1980.

c)    1 1 ...Qb6!? is an interesting alternative.

10A3    11 Ndb5

j»r

A

ł

4,

iU

tt.

I

"M

▲

i

iii

Pk

W

A

ip

A

H

X

A

h'

The best reply is 1 l_e5!

1 2 g3 (With the king and queen lined up diagonally the dark squares must be supported. If 12Nd5then Black can equalise with 1 2...exf4 1 3 Nbc7 Rab 8 14 Nxf6+ Qxf6 15 Qxd6 Qxd6 1 6 Rxd6 Bg4, Kavalek -Geller, Sousse IZ 1 967) and now:

Qxe2 a6 (Pachman prefers Black after 1 4...exf4 1 5 gxf4 Qa5.) 15 Rxd6 Qb8! (Increasing the pressure on the dark squares and embarrassing the invading pieces provides sufficient compensation for the pawn.

1 5...Qa5 would fail to 1 6 Na3!exf4 17 Rxf6!) 1 6 Rxf6 (1 6 fxe5 Bxe5 leaves White without a good move.)

1 6...gxf6 17Qg4+ Kh8 and now White has only 1 8 Qh4 Kg7 1 9 Qg4+, sińce 1 9 Na3 fails to 1 9...Ne7! -Velicković.

b)    A reasonable alternative is 12_a6 13 Nxd6 Bg4

14    Be 2 Bxe 2 15 Nxe2 Qc7, Kupreichik - Fedorowicz, Hastings 1 984/85, but perhaps morę accurate is

13_Nd41? 14 Nc4 Bg4

15    Ne2*, Janosević -OKelly, Bognor Regis 1 956.

c)    Langeweg prefers 1 2...Qa5co.

10B    10 h4

10_Nxd4! 11 Qxd4 hxg5 12 hxg5 Ng4 is

better for Black, for example:

a) 12..Bg4 13Be2Bxe2 14

V

i

m

1

*

SI

▲

m

▲

i:-

li

Ł

i!

i

A

1

1

ii

Aj

1

A

A

ta

[fi

[?

H.


11 9 f4 hó 10 Bh4 10_Bd7

This is the normal move.


a)    13 Be2 e5 14 Qgl exf4 15 Bxg4 Bxg5 16 Qh2 Bhó 17 Bf 3 Qf6 - ECO

b)    13 Rd3 e5 14 Qgl exf4 1 5 Rdh3 Nh6! 16gxh6 Bxh3, Formanek - Toth, Reggio Emilia 1 984.


1*1

l

«

1*1

4

▲

i

m

▲

ii

i

Ł

1

W

1

A

A

I,

A

1

A

“E

m

fi

A

h


c) 1 3 e5 Bxg5 1 4 fxg5 Qxg5+ 15 Kb 1 dxe5 16 Qd6 Nhó 17Ne4Qg6 18 Qxe5 fó, Mithrakanth -Thipsay, New Delhi 1 984.


Already one can notice the result of Blacks straightforward development - his rooks are already connected while the White bishop still sits on fl. Furthermore, Black is getting ready to sieze the e-pawn. Nevertheless, White has cleared the g—file and is ready to try to advance the g-pawn in an effort to exploit the weak-ness created by the move hT-hó. The dynamie naturę of the position has led to an evaluation of unclear by con-temporary theoreticians. White has tried a number of plans:

1 1A


1 1 Bf 2


1 IB

1 1 Bxf6

1 1C

1 1 Nb 3

1 ID

1 1 Ndb5

1 1E

1 1 Nf3

1 1A

1 1 Bf2


»

*

▲

i

▲

iii;

i

tt

▲

iii

•i

ń.

A

"K

1

A

A

i

A

'M

E

s

A

H


Black obtained a significant advantage in Gallego -Rivas, Spanish X 1 98 1 after 1 1...Rc8 1 2 Kb 1 Na5 1 3 h3 Rxc3! 14 Qxc3 Nxe4 15Qe3 Nxf2 16 Qxf2 Qb6.

1 IB    11 Bxf6 Bxf6

White has tried the usually ineffective plan of going after the d-pawn, and has come away with no advantage:

12 Ndb5 Qa5

a) 1 3 Qxd6 a6 14 e5 Nxe5 1 5 b4! gave White an edge in Sax - Utasi, Budapest 1 984, according to Schwarz, but the player of the Black pieces claims that the chances are equal.

b) 13 Nxd6Nb4 14 e5 Nxa2+ 1 5 Nxa2 Qxa2 16 Qb4 BeT 17 QxbT (or 17 Bc4 Qal+ 18 Kd2 Qa4) 17_Rab8 1 8 Qxd7 Qxb2+ 19 Kd2 Bxd6 20 exd6 Qd4+ 21 Bd3 Qxf4+ is given by Schwarz with a draw as the likely result.

lic    11 Nb3

The only example on record is 1 l...a5 12 e5Nd5 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 1 4 Nxd5 exd5 1 5 Qxd5 a4 1 6 Nc5 Bg4

17Ne4Bxdl 1 8 exd6oo,

Hu lak - Ivanović, Stip, 1 979.

1 ID    11 Ndb5

After 1 1 _Nxe4 12 Bxe7 Nxd2 13 Bxd8 Nxf 1

White can play 1 4 Bc7 (Better than 1 4 Rhxf 1 Rfxd8 15 Nxd6 Rab8 16 Rd2 Ne7 17 Rfd 1 Bcó 1 8 a4 Kf8 19 b3, Matanović - Timman, Niksic 1978, 1 9„.a6=.)

14_Ne3 15 Rd3 (15 Rxd6 aól?) 15_Nxg2 16 Bxd6 Rfc8 and now:

1 1D1    17 Nc7

11D2    17 Rgl

11D1    17 Nc7 Rab8

1 8 h4! (trapping the Ng2)

1 8_Na5! (hastening toward

»

i;

i

Ł

A

1

▲

I

▲

m

li

m

A

n

i

U

a

A

I'

A

&

A

6.

a

A

B


c4, to puli the Ng2 to safety via e3) 1 9 Rgl was played in van der Wiel -Fedorowicz, Graz 1981 and now, according to van der Wiel, Black should have played 19J^lc4! 20 Nxe6 Nxd6 21 Nxg7 Bcó! 22 Rd6 Kxg7 23 Nd5 Rd8=.

Instead, the gamę developed into a 1 43 move marathon that took over 1 4 hours of playing time, with an interesting drawn queen and rook pawn versus queen ending.

1 1D2    17 Rgl!

The latest idea, with White establishing a winntng gamę quickly in Kholmov -Kupreichik, Mińsk 1985: 17J\lh4 1 8 Nc7 Rab8 19 Ne4! Ngó 20 Nc5!+-

1 1E    11 Nf3 Qa5

1 1E1    12 Bc4

The development of the bishop is met by a strong pawn sacrifice: 1 2_b5! 13 Bxb5 Rfc8 and now:

a)    14 Bc4 Nb4 Ć5/?, Tseshkovsky - Kupreichik, USSR 3E 1 979.

b)    14 Bxc6 Rxc6 15 Kbl

Ra6! keeps the pressure on.

c)    14 e5 dxe5 15 Bxf6

(15 fxe5 Nxe5 16 Bxf6 Bxfó 17 Bxd7 Nxd7 1 8 Qxd7 Bxc3 and Black wins.)

15_Bxf6 16 Qxd7 Nb4! and now Schwarz gives 17 a3? e4! and 17 fxe5 Rxc3!

1 8 bxc3 Nxa2+ 1 9 Kb2 Nxc3 20 Bc4 Bxe5! 21 Nxe5 Qxe5 22 Qd4 Nxd 1+ 23 Rxd 1 Qxh2.

1 1E2    12 e5

This is a old move, analysed by Pachman, which madę its debut, and probably finał appearance, in Sokolovsky -Utasi, łasi 1 984, which concluded 1 2_dxe5! 1 3 Bxf6 Bxf6 14 Qxd7 exf4! 15 Qxb7 Bxc3 16 Qxc6 Bxb2+N

»

Ul

00

i

A |1:

||

s

3

▲

i||

:1

□

te

Ul

if

mil

JL

jU

A

if: ^

fi

5

a||

B

»

l

*

i,

i

i:

k

li

i

M

k

Ii

▲

A

fi

ii

A

A

A

•Si

ń

A

'i

&

s

n


i

1

i

W

W

11

¥

±

▲

JL

ii

A

A

A

A

'Ł

A

A

&

a

ii

6

H


17 Kxb2 Rab8+ 18 Bb5 Rxb5+ 19 Kai Rc5 20 Qe4 Qc3+ 21 Kbl Rb8+ 22 Kcl Rcb5 0-1.

No better is 1 3 fxe5 Nxe5 14Nxe5Qxe5 15 Bxf6 Bxf6 1 6 Qxd7 Rad8 17 Qb5 Qe3+ 18 Kbl Bxc3 19 Bc4 aó 20 Qb3 Bd4! -Schwarz.

1 1E3    12 Kbl Rfd8!

This is State of the art theory. White has several alternatives, and theory has not yet decided on their relative merits.

11E31    1 3 Bd3

1 1E32    1 3 Qe 1

11E33    13 Rg1

11E31    13 Bd3

1 3...d5 1 4 exd5 Nb4 1 5 a3 was seen in Byrne -Kupreichik, Reykjavik 1980,. Miles suggests 1 5_Nxd3 1 6 Qxd3 Bxa3 oo. After 1 3_b5:

a)    14 Nxb5 Qb6 15 Rhe 1 Rab8 16 b3 Be8

Byrne - Ivanović, Reykjavik 1 982 continued 17 f5? Ne5+, but 17 g4 awaits practical tests, although Gufeld feels that even here Black has good chances.

b)    Gufelds 14 Rhgl! is almost certainly best:

14_b4 15 Ne2 e5

(15...d5 16 Bxf6 Bxf6 17 e5 Be7 1 8 g4 gives White attacking chances - Gufeld.) 16 g4 Be6 (16...Nxg4? 17 Bxe7 Nxe7 18 f5!) 17 b3 d5 18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 g5 hxg5 20 fxg5 Be7 21 g611, Gufeld - Utasi, Havana 1985, and now 21 _f6 is best, according to Gufeld.

bl) 22Ng3Bc5 23 Rgfl Qa3!l 24 Qe2 Nd4! is listed as unclear without further comment. The point, presumably, is that Black can. get rid of the Nf3 and then play Bd4, while a7-a5-a4xb3 is also a threat.

1 1E32


I

il

*

iii

▲

i

i

▲

ii

i

il

Ł

1

il!

I;

A

iii

m

il

£

A

H

A

A

iii

fi

s

fi

A

H


b2) 22 Qe 1! (a Bel-h4-

hT) 22...dxe4 (On 22J5 23 Ng5! looks good.) 23 Bxe4 Rxd 1 + 24 Qxd 1 and there does not seem to be any way of preventing the queen from returning to the kingside after 25 Qe 1.

Perhaps Black can try 22_Kf8 A Ae7-c5 and Ac6-e7-g8. For example:

23 exd5 (23 Qh4 Bc5 24 Qh8+ Bg8 25exd5Ne7) 23_Rxd5 and now:

b21) On 24 Bc4 Magar suggests 24...Rxdl + 25 Qxd 1 Bxc4 26 bxc4 Rd8 27 Qe 1 Qa3 28 Qh4 Ke8 29 Qh8+ Bf8 30 Nh4 b3 31 cxb3 (31 axb3Nb4 32 Nel Rd2 a «xc2) 31...Nxa2 33 Nxa2 Qxb3+ 34 Kai Rb8. White can try 30 Ng5 sińce

30...fxg5 is met by 3 1 Rf 1 but Magars idea retains its validity: 30.-.b3! 31 cxb3 Nb4 32 Nel Rd2 etc.

b22) 24 Be4 Rxd 1+ 25 Qxd 1 Rd8 26Qel Nd4.

Since the brilliant gamę Gufeld - Utasi has been widely dis-tributed in recent publications, Black should be well prepared to meet this attack, commencing with 1 3 Bd3.

13 Qe 1

After 13_Be8 14 Bd3,

Mnacakanian - Tukmakov, Erevan 1 980, Black should not try to exchange knight for bishop, but should rather simply expand on the ąueenside with 14_Rac8 A b7-b5. Alternatively, he can try 1 3...Rac8, e.g. 14 Nd2 Ne8 1 5 g4 Bxh4 16 Qxh4 Nb 4, as in Pavlov -Tischbierek, Halle 1981, which concluded in a draw after 17Nb3 Qb6 1 8 Bd3 a5 1 9 a4 d5 20 g5 hxg5 21 fxg5d4 22 Qf2.

11E33    13 Rgl

Our only example is Dolmatov - Spassov, Amsterdam 1979: 1 3..Be8 14 Bd3 b5 15 Nxb5 Qb6 16 Bf2 Qb7 17 Rgel d5 18exd5Nxd5 1 9 c4 Bb4 20 Qc 1 oo.

1 1E4    12 Qe 1

After 1 2_Rfd8 this usually transposes to 1 2 Kb 1 lines but White can try 1 3 e5

12    9f4h6

dxe5 1 4 fxe5, although Black can then play 1 4.~NhT! 1 5 Bxe 7 Nxe7, as in Karpov -Timman, Buenos Aires 1980, when Timman gives 1 6 Nd5 Qxa2 17Nxe7+ Kf 8 18 Qb4a5 1 9 Qc5 bó 20 Ng6+ Kg8 21 Ne7+ with a draw.


10 Bh4 e5 11 Nf5 Bxf5 12 exf 5

10...d5 1 1 e5 Nd7 12 Bf21

introduced recently in Prandstetter - Kupreichik, Yerevan 1984, looks sufficient to keep the initiative in Whites hands. Anyway, if this position really appeals to the reader he is invited to take up the French!

Since 1 0J3d7 is the superior option, only the transposition from 9...e5 10Nf5Bxf5 1 1 exf5 hó 1 2 Bh4 will be considered here. The straightforward move order would be 9...h6 10 Bh4 e5 1 1 Nf5 Bxf5 1 2 exf5.

»

m

n

i

A

I"

n

1

i

i

Ii

11

m

A

li

H

p

§

A

ii

A

i

A

H

ii

H

A

s

1 2A    1 2...exf4

1 2B    1 2...Qa5

K

m

i

*

H

A

H

▲

i!

i

w

ii

iii

A

A

A

$

A

ii

A

i;

A

A

0

s

H


1 2A 1 2_exf4

This linę now occupies center stage, with claims of refutation and counter-refutation arising daily. The reader is warned that he should be aware of recent theory before playing this

12A1    13 Bb5

1 2A2    13    Bc4

12A3    13 Kbl

1 2A4    1 3 Qxf4

12A1    13 Bb5

Now 1 3...a6 14 Ba4 b5 1 5 Bb3 is better for White, according to Langeweg, so perhaps Black should follow De Wit - Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee II 1 984, which saw 13_d5I? 14 Qxf4 (Langeweg evaluates 1 4 Bxf6 Bxf6 15Nxd5Be5oo.)

14_Qb6 15 Bf2 Bc5 16 Na4 Qxb5 17 Nxc5 Rac81? 1 8 a4 Qb4 1 9 Qxb4 Nxb4 20 Rd2 Rfe8 21 Bd4 bó 22 Bxf6bxc5

23    Bh4 and a draw was agreed. But after 23...Re4

24    Bf 2 c4! Black would have held the advantage.

12A2    13 Bc4

A new move in Sax -Popović, Sarajevo 1 985:

13_Na5l 14 Be2 Rc8 15 Rhf 1 (15 Qxf4 d5!) 15_a6

16    Rxf4 Re8 17 g4 d5

1 8 g5 hxg5 (1 8..Bc5l? 1 9 Rf3 Ne4 20 Ne4 Rxe4 21 Rh3oo.) 19 Bxg5 Rxc3!

20 Qxc3 Nxe4 21 Bxe7 Nxc3 22 Bxd8 Nxe2+23 Kd2 Nxf4 24 Bxa5 Re2+25 Kc3 Rxh2 i-i.

12A3    13 Kbl

1 3_d5 Schwarzs criticism seems unjustified, and he offers no better move.

1 3...Qb6? 14Qxf4d5 15 Nxd5Nxd5 16 Rxd5 Rad8

17    Bc4±, Matanović -Geller, Zagreb 1955. 14 Bxf6 (14 Qxf4 -13 Qxf4 ) 14_Bxf6 15 Nxd5 Be5

«

ii

i

i

li

A

▲

iii

i

1

i

m

A

w

A

ii

A

li

A

Ł

fi

b1

A

s


15...Bd4 16 Bc4 b5 17 Bxb5=, Tal - Uzbozchikov,

USSR 1 975.

12A31

16 Bc4

12A32

16 f6

12A33

16g3

12A34

16 Qf2

12A31

16 Bc4

12A31 1

16...b5

12A312

16...Qd6

12A313

1 6...Qg5

12A311

16„b5

Now 17 Bxb5 (17 Bb3 a5

oo) 17_Rab8

(Novo-

struyev - Ragozin, USSR

1 986 saw the

new idea

17...Bxb2l? 18

c3! Ba3 19

Bxc6 with unclear complications which will no doubt be explored in the near futurę. 1 8 Kb2

Qb8.oo):

12A3111

18 c4

12A3112

1 8 Bxc6

12A311 1 19 Rhell fó

18 c4 Nd4

ii

m

m

fj|0

i!:

ii

A

2

liki

A

A

%

ii

j

A

A.

A

A.

I|1

$

s

m

a)    20 Ba4 Nf5 21 Bb3:

al) 21JMe3 22 Nxe3 Qxd2 23 Rxd2 fxe3 24 Rd5 Rfd8 25 Rxe3 Rxd5 26 cxd5 Kf8 27 h3 Rb4! =

Mencinger - Bielczyk, Mysłowice 1 985.

a2) 21...Nxd4 22 Qd3 Nxb3 (22...a5 23 Ba4! Qd6! 24 Re4! Nf5! 25 Bb3 Qc5! 26 Rxf4 oo - Shakharov) 23 axb3 a5!?, mentioned in Schwarz. Despite the light square weakness of the kingside and Whites passed c-pawn, Black should survive if he can extricate his queen. Perhaps he can play it to e8, sacrificing the Pf4 for an opportunity to advance the a-pawn. In any event, 22..a5 seems ok at present.

b)    20 a4!?

bl) 20...Rf7 21 Qf2 Qa5

22    Re4 Nxf5 23Qc2Ne3

24    Nxe3 fxe3 25 c5 (t -Baljon) 25...Kh8 26 Qc4 Re7 27 b4 Qc7 left the queenside tooexposed in Tseshkovsky -Khalifman, Moscow 1 985, but Makarychev points out that 21 Nxf4 Qc8 22 Ng6a6

23    Nxe5 fxe5 24 Rxe5Nb3

25    Qxc3 axb5 26 Qxb3 bxc4 27 Qc2 Rfb7 28 Rb5

$

m

*

ilfj

A

1

A

A

¥

A

k

A

&

H

fi.


JL

Ł

▲

▲

i.

li

i

1

li

£2

ii

A

A

,1

A

*1,

A

1

A

A.

fi

H

H


Rxb5 29 axb5 Rxb5 30 f6 c3 3 1 Rc 1! is winning for White.

b2) The thematic pawn sacrifice (for greater activity) 20...a6 was introduced in A. Rodriguez -Popović, Dubai OL 1986: 21 Bxa6 Rb3 22 Bb5 Qa8 leading to the latest critical position: b2 1) The gamę continued with the queen sacrifice 23 Qxd4!? Bxd4 24 Rxd4 f3! 25gxf3QaT! 26 Rd2 (Popovićsuggests 26Rde4!?)

26...Rxf3 where 27 Ka2 would have given an unclear position, according to Popović, better than 27 Ne7+ Kh7 28 Ng6 Rg8 29 Bd7? Rb8! 30 Redl Qc5as

played in the gamę.

b22) Marjanović - Popović, Jakarta 1 986 saw the morę conservative 23 Nb6 Qa7 24 c5 Kh8 25 Bc4 Rxb6! 26 cxb6 Qxa4 27 Re4 Nb3 where 28 Bxb3 would have left the position level.

c) 20 Qf2 Nxb5 21 cxb5 Rxb5 22 Nxf4 Qa5 23 Nd3 Rfb8 24 Nxe5 Rxb2 and a draw was agreed in Spraggett -Speelman, Commonwealth 3E 1 985.

12A3112    18 Bxc6

1 8...Bxb2 is often considered good for Black, but after 1 9 Qd3! Be5 20Bb5a6 21 c4 axb5 23 c5 White has a slightadvantage, according to Makarychev, who also suggests 20 Kc 1!? But 18_Rxb2+ 19 Kcl Qb8 20 Oe2 f3 leads to an unclear position which requires practical tests.

12A312    16_Qd6

This is a new plan which has yet to develop its fuli potential: a) 17 c3 Na5 18 Bb3 Nxb3 19 axb3 Rfe8 20 Rhf 1 Qc6oo, GrUnfeld -Korchnoi, San Bernadino 1984.

12A32


»

m

i

▲

▲

i

2

m

P

a

J:

A

w

A

1

&

H

a

B


b)    17 fó!? Bxf6 18 Qxf4 Be5 19 Qf2 b5oo,

Kudrin - Zuger, London 1984.

c)    17 Bb3 has been suggested.

d)    17 Qe2 is an interesting new move. D.OIafsson -Ligterink, Reykjavik 1986 saw futher 17...Rfe8 18 Qg4 Na5 1 9 Bb3 Nxb3 20 axb3 a5 21 Rhe 1 a4?, but

21...KK7! =.

e)    17 Rhel is claimed to be best by Am. Rodriguez on the basis of his gamę (as Black) against Barbalescu, Havana 1 986, but the critical position was rached in Horvath - Feher, Kecs-kemet 1985: 17J?fe8 18 Re4 Kf8 1 9 Qe 1 (1 9 Bb3 and 1 9c3 deserve practical tests.) 1 9...Rad8 20 Rd3 Bd4 21 c3 Qc5 where an unclear position could be reached after 22 Bb3 Be3, according to Baljon.

12A313    16„Qg5

17 Qd3 Rfc8 18 Rhel Kh8 led to unclear complications in Unzicker - Kestler, Bamberg 1 965.

16 fó

Korchnoi has suggested this move, A 1 6...Bxf6 17 Qxf4 Be5 1 8 Qf3=. The Af7 will become a target along the open f—file.

12A33    16 g3

Karpov tried 1 6 g3 in his 35th 1 984/5 marathon match gamę against Kasparov. After 16.Jxg3 17 hxg3 Ne7 a draw was agreed, but Balashov -Salov, USSR 3C 1 984 continued the discussion with

18Ne3 Qxd2 1 9 Rxd2 Rfd8 20 Bd3 Bxg3 21 fó Ngó 22 Rg2 Bf4 23 Nf5 gxfó 24 Nxh6+ Bxh6 25 Rxh6 +. Korchnoi prefers 16„.Re8.

12A34    16 Qf2


JL

ii'

▲

lu

Jt

..4.

i

m

k

k

* A

p

m

A

&

A

A

Al

B

s

A

0


This is another new try. After 16...Qa5 17Bc4Rfe8 18 f6! Rad8 19 a3 Rdó 20 Bb3 Bxf6 21 Qxf4 Be5 22 Qf2 Qd8 23 Rhf 1 Rf8 24 h4 bó 25 g4 Ne7 26 Nxe7+ Qxe7 27 Rxd6 Bxd6 28 g5 hxg5 29 hxg5 Black lost quickly in Lukov - Kolev, Bulgarian 3E 1984: 29...g6 20 Qh4 Be5 31 Rh 1 Rd8 32 Qh7+ Kf8 33 Rfl Rd7 34 Rxf7+ Qxf7 35 Bxf7 Rxf7 36 Qxg6 1 -0.

1 2A4    13 Qxf4 d5

12A41    14 Bb5

12A42    14 Kb 1

12A41    14 Bb5

Belyavsky - Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1 984 continued

14...Qb6 15 Bf 2 Bc5 16 Na4 Qxb5 17Nxc5b6 18 a4 Qa5 19 Nb7 Qa6 20 Nd6 Rad8 21 Nb5 Ne4 22 b3 Qc8 23 Be 1 a6! 24 Nc3! Nb4 25 Kb2 Rfe8 26 Rcl a5?l 27 Rfl with a roughly level gamę. Improvements may be found with 26...Qc6, intend-ing to advance the d-pawn, or an earlier implemen-tation of the strategy with 25...d4!? 26 Qxe4 Rfe8 27 Rxd4 Rxe4 28 Rxe4 a5 and now 29 Rf 1 is forced, in order to meet

29-Rdl With 30 Re2!, but even so Black is better, according to Makarychev, who also points out that 27 Qg4? loses to 27...Rxe 1, while 27 Qf3 Re3! and 27 Qh4Qxf5! 28 Rcl!dxc3 29 Bxc3 Nd5 are also better for Black.

Even if problems arise here, there is still 1 4...a6 1 5 Ba4 b5 16 Bb3 d4 17 Bxf6 Bxf6 18Ne4Be5 19Qf3a5 20 a4 bxa4 21 Bxa4 Qb6co, Byrne - Thorsteins,

Reykjavik Open 1 984, sińce 22 f6 Rab8 is better for Black, and 22 Nf6+ is only equal. The gamę saw 22 Nd2 Nb4 23 Nc4 Qc5 24 Nxe5 Qxe5 26 f6 d3 and now White should have tried 26 c3 Na2+ 27 Kbl oo.

12A42    14 Kbl d4

15 Bxf6 Bxf6 16 Ne4

This position is normally reached via 1 3 Kb 1 d5 1 4 Qxf4 d4, and is the subject of considerable debate both among theoreticians and over the board.

V

I,

W

*

liii

A

A

A

i

I

,1

A

a

1'

A

Z

A

A

1

a

B

A

sl



12A421    16..Be5

12A422    16...Rc8

12A421    16_Be5

Play has usually continued

17 Qf3 (17 Qd2 Rc8 18 Bd3 Qa5 19Qxa5Nxa5±, Klovan - Dorfman, USSR 1975.) 17_Rc8 and now:

a) 18 Bc4 Na5 (An

interesting alternative is 18

_b5 19 Bd3 Nb4 20 f6 Qd5 21 b3 Qcó!, Matulović - Damljanović, Vrnjacka Banja 1 985, which continued 22 Rhf 1 Nxd3 22cxd3 Qc2+ 23 Kai gó 00. Better 22 fxg7 Bxg7 23 Ng3 Qxf3 24 gxf3 and now after

24...Nxd3, 25 Rxd3 f5 leads to a level gamę but 25 cxd3±. An alternative is 1 9 Bxb5? Nb4!, which turned out well for Black in Matulović - Ivanović,

Be Ig rade (6), 1985.) 19 Bd3 (19 Bb3 Nxb3 20 Qxb3 Rcó! 21 Qxb7Qd5! 22 Nc3 Qc5 -Van der Wiel, who also gives 20 ab Rcó a Qa5) 1 9_Nc4 20 fó gó 21 h4 Qb6 22 Bxc4 Rxc4 and now in Sax - van der Wiel, Biel IZ 1 985 White played 25 h5?, allowing 23...d3 24 c3 Rxe4! 25Qxe4Bxc3 1-0.

b) Hjartarson - van der Wiel, Reykjavik 1 985 saw instead 1 8 a3! Kh8 19g4 Na5 20 Bd3 Nc4 21 g5 Qbó 22 Bxc4 Rxc4 23 gxhó QxhÓ 24 Rhgl with an initiative for White. Black could limit White s advantage with 23...gxh6 and now 24 Rd2! (24 fó? fails to 24...d3 25c3Rxc3!2óNxc3Bxc3 27 Qg2 Rg8) 24...Rfc8 25 fó or 24...Rc3 25 Rd3. Is 1 8...Kh8 forced? 1 8J4a5 allows a strong attack after 1 9 fó, but this has not yet been seen, Oli - Thorsteins, Kiljava 1 984 saw 19Bd3 Nc4 20 Bxc4 Rxc4 21 Qd3 Qc7 22g4Rc8 23 Rd2 a5 24 g5±.

12A422    16_Rc8

a) 17 Bc4 Bg5 18 Nxg5 hxg5 19Qg3 Qfó 20 h4

X

Ii

*

A.

▲

A

▲

li

i

P

W;

P

W

ii

A

J

1

A

a!

A

1

A

A

&

B

A

5

1

W

i

WL

A

A

i

li

A,

.1

A

i;

A

.1

A

1

A'

A

&

A

B


led to complicated play with better chances for White in Maki - Salov, Leningrad 1984: 20...g4 21 Bb3Qxf5 22 Rhfl Qh5 23 Rf4 Rce8 24 Rxg4 Kh8 25 c3L The altemative is 17_Be5 18 Qf3 Na5! 19 Bb3 Nxb3

20    cxb3 (20 axb3 Qa5!) 20_Re8 21 g4±,

Matulović - Ivanović, Belgrade (8) 1985, where Black should have tried

21    ...Qc7 22 Rcl Qb8.

b)    17 Bd3 is less effective: 17_Be5 18 Qd2 Qa5 19 g4 Qxd2 20 Rxd2 Bf4! 21 Rg2 Nb4 with an active gamę for Black, Vogt - Tischbierek, Potsdam 1985.

c)    17 a3 Be5 18 Qg4?l Nb8! 19Bb5aó 20 Ba4 b5 21 Bb3 Nd7 led to a level gamę in Matulović -Ivanović, Belgrade (4)

1 985. 1 8 Qf3 comes into consideration.

12B    12„Qa5

This is rapidly faliing out of favor. 13 Kb 1 (13 g4 exf4! 14 Qxf4 d5 15 Kb 1 d4 16 Bxf6 Bxf6 17Ne4 Be5=, Suetin - Krogius, USSR 3E 1 966/67.) where Black has two useful tries:

1 2B1    1 3...Rad8

1 2B2    1 3...Rfe8

12B1    13_Rad8

12B11    14 Bxf6

12B12    14 Bd3

12B13    14g4

12B1 1    14 Bxf6

Bxf6

15 Nd 5 Qxd2

16    Rxd2 (16 Nxf6+ gxf6

17    Rxd2 transposes.)

16_exf4 17 Nxf6+ gxf6

a)    18 Bd3, Liberzon -Mititelu, Luhacoviće 1971,

1 8_Rfe8co.

b)    18 Be2 Rfe8 19 Rfl Re4 20 Bf3 Re3 21 b3 Rd7 22 Bxc6 bxc6 23

Rxf4 d5 24 Rc4±, Geller - Sosonko, Malta OL 1 980. Black can irwestigate the alternative 20...ReT 21 b3! Ne5 22 Bd5, Parma - Paoli, Reggio Emilia 1971, and now Schwarz suggests

22...Ng4 23 Rxf4Ne3,

which may not be so bad, so further consideration should be given to 21 a3 Ne5 22 Bd5 (22 Be2 f3l, Spassky - Gheorghiu, Havana OL 1 966) 22...Ng4 23 Rxf4 Ne3 24 Bf3! b5 25 Be2 Re5 26 Bd3 Kf8 27 Rh4, where Rittner - Stern, 153 1 968 continued 27...Ke7 28 Re2 and White won quickly, but Schwarzs recommended 27.~Nxf5Iooks pretty bad after either 28 Rh5Rel+ 29 Ka2 or 28 Bxf5 Rxf5 29 Rxh6.

c) 18 Bc4 Rfe8 19 b3 Re5 20 Rhd 1 b5! 21

Rxd6 Rxd6 22 Rxd6 Nb4 23 Bd3 Nxd3 24 Rxd3 Re2 =, Van der Wiel - Ligterink, Dutch 2E 1981.

12B12    14 Bd3

White can maintain a minimal advantage after 14_d5! 15 fxe5 Nxe5 16 Rhe 1 d4 17 Ne4 Qb6 18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 Qf4, Hubner - Sosonko, Tilburg 1 980, though after 1 9...Rfe8 the position is sufficiently messy that Black will have good practical chances.

12B13    14 g4 exf4

15 Qxf4 d5

1 6 g5 hxg5 17 Bxg5 Ne4! is equal, while 1 6 Bd3 Bd6! gave Black the upper hand in Kavalek - Mikhalchischin, Athens 1 968.

This is not sufficient for equality:

a)    14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Nd5 Qxd2 16 Rxd2 exf4 17 Nxf6+ gxf6 18 Be 2 Re 3 1 9 Bf3±, Jansa - Bielczyk, Lucerne OL 1 982.

b)    14 g4 exf4 (Better than 1 4...Nxg4 1 5 Bxe7 Nxe7 16 Rgl Nf6 17 Bb5l, Belyavsky - Sosonko, Amsterdam 1981.) 15 Qxf4 d5 16 g5 hxg5 17 Bxg5 d4 18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 Ne4 Qe5 20 Nxf6+ Qxf6 21 Rgl±,

Karpov - Timman, London 1982.

This concludes the survey of the Classical Richter Rauzer in the 1 987. No doubt the winds of theory will change considerably, and the reader assumes the obligation to keep a close eye on the developments in the international arena. Good Łuck!

If you have any interesting games with these variations, or comments or questions on any of the materiał containedherein, please write (enclosing a self-addressedstamped envelope)to Chessworks Unlimited, 5508South Cornell Avenue #2, Chicago, IL 60637.

1    Alternatives to 8 o-oo {B63}    1

1A 8 Bxf6 Bxf6    1

1B 8 f 4    1

1C 8 Rd 1    2

2    8 ooo o-o Options at move 9 {B63} 3

2A 9 Be2    3

2B 9Bxf6Bxf6 10Nxc6bxc6    3

2C 9 f3    3

2D 9 Kb1    4

2E 9 Ndb5    5

2F 9 Qe 1    6

3    Podebrady 9 Nb3 a5 {B63}    7

3A10a3    7

3B10a4    7

3B1 1 1 Bxf6Bxf6 12exd5    7

3B2 1 1 exd5 Nxd5 1 2 Bxe7    8

3B3 1 1 Bb5!?    8

3B31 1 l..Nxe4    8

3B32 1 l..Nb4    9

3B321 1 2 e5    9

3B322 12 Rhe 1    9

3B3221 1 2...h6    9

3B3222 12...dxe5    9

3B33 1 l...dxe4    10

3B34 1 l...Na7    10

3C 10 Bxf6    11

3D10Nd4!?    11

4    9 Nb3 aó    12

4A 10 Be2    12

4B10Bd3    12

4C 10 Bxf6 gxfó    1 3

4C1 1 1 Be2    13

4C2 1 1 f4    13

4C3 1 1 h4    14

4C31 1 2...b4    14

4C32 1 2...Kh8    1 5

4C4 1 1 Qh6    15

4D    10    f3    16

4E    10    f4    16

4F    10    Kb 1    16

5    Podebrady    Variation with 9...Qb6    17

5A 10 Be2    17

5B 10 Be 3    17

5C 10 Bxf6 Bxf6    17

5D 10 f3    18

5D1    10...a6    18

5D11    11 Be3    18

5D1 2    11 Bxf6!?    18

5D13    11 g4    19

5D1 31    11 ...Qc7    19

5D132    1 l...Rd8    20

5D14    1 1 h4    21

5D141    1 2 g4    21

5D142    1 2 h5 Qc7    22

5D2    10...Rd8    22

5D21    11 Bd3    22

5D22 1 1    Be 3    22

5D23 1 1    g4    23

5D24 1 1    h4    23

5D25 1 1    Kb 1    24

5D26 1 1    Nbl    24

5D27 1 1    Nb5    24

5D26 1 1    Qe 1    24

5E 10 f4    25

5F10g4    25

5G 10 h4!?    25

5H 10 Kbl    25

51 10 Na4    25

6    9 f4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 hó B65}    26

6A 1 2 Bc4!    26

6A1    15 Bb3    Be6    27

6A2    15 Bxf6    Bxf6    27

6B 1 2 Be 1    28

6C 1 2 Be2    28

6D12e5    28

6E 1 2 g4    29

6F 1 2 Kb 1    29

6G 1 2 Qd3    29

6H 1 2 Qg 1    29

7    9 f4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Qa5    30

7A 1 1 Bb5    30

7B 1 1 Bd3    31

7C 1 1 Be2    31

7D 1 1 e5    31

TE 1 1 Kbl    33

TF 1 1 Qd2    33

TG 1 1 Qd3    33

TH 1 1 Qg 1    33

8    9f4Nxd4 10Qxd4Qa5 1 1 Bc4BdT    34

8A 12 Bb3    34

8B 1 2 Bxf6!?    34

8C 1 2 Kb 1 Bcó:    34

8D 12 Rhe 1 Rfd8    35

8E 12 Rhfl    36

8F12e5dxe5    36

8F1 14 Bd2 NdT 15 Nd5 Qd8 16 NxeT+ QxeT    36

8F1 1 1T h4    36

8F1 2 1T Rhe 1    3T

8F121    lTJ\lb6    3T

8F1211    18 Bb3    3T

8F1 21 2 1 8 Bf 1 3T 8F121    3    18 Bd3    38

8F1221T„Qc5    38

8F123    lT...Rfc8    39

8F124    lT...Rfd8    40

8F2 14 Bxf6    40

8F3 14 h4    41

8F4 14 Qf4    41

9    9f4e5    42

9A 10 Nb3    42

9B 10 Ndb5 Bg4 1 1 Be2    42

9C 10 Nf3 Bg4    43

9D 10 Nf5!    43

9E 10 Nxc6 bxc6    43

10    9f4h6    44

10A 10 Bxf6 Bxf6    44

1OA1 11 Nxc6 bxc6 1 2    Qxd6 Qb6    44

10A11    1 3 e5    44

10A1 2    13 Na4    44

10A1 3    13 Qd3    45

10A14    1 3 Re 1    45

10A2 1 1 Nb3    45

10A3 1 1 Ndb5    46

1 OB 10 h4    46

11    9 f4 h6 10 Bh4    4T

1 1A 1 1 Bf 2    48

1 1B 1 1 Bxf6 Bxf6    48

11C    1 1 Nb3    48

1 ID    1 1 Ndb5    48

1 1D1 ITNcT Rab8    48

1 1D2 17 Rgl!    49

11E 1 1 Nf3 Qc5    49

1 1E1 12 Bc4    49

1 1E2 1 2 e5    49

1 1E3 12 Kbl    Rfd8!    50

11E31    13 Bd3    50

1 1E32 1 3 Qe 1    51

1 1E33 1 3 Rgl    51

1 1E4 1 2 Qe 1    51

9f4    hó 10Bh4 e5 1 1 Nf5Bxf5 12 exf5 52

12A 1 2...exf4    53

12A1    1 3 Bb5    53

1 2A2    1 3 Bc4    53

12A3    13 Kbl    53

12A31 16Bc4    54

12A31 1 16...b5    54

12A31 1 1 18 c4 54 12A31 12 1 8 Bxc6

55

12A31 2 16...Qdó    55

1 2A31 3 1 ó...Qg5    56

12A32 16 fó    56

1 2A33    16 g3    56

1 2A34    16 Qf2    56

1 2A4 1 3 Qxf4 d5    57

12A41 14 Bb5    57

12A42 14 Kbl d4 15Bxf6Bxf6 16 Ne4    57

1 2A421 16..Be5    58

1 2A422 16...Rc8    58

12B 1 2...Qa5    59

1 2B1 1 3...Rad8    59

1 2B1 1 14 Bxf6 Bxf6    59

1 2B1 2 14 Bd3    60

12B13 14g4exf4 15Qxf4d5 60 1 2B2 1 3...Rfe8    60

Openings:

Donaldson: Meran Defense    $5.50

Druash: AlapiiYs Opening    $3 50

Eckert: Sicilian Scheveningen: Keres7 Attack    $5,50

Estrin: Gambits    $5.00

Estrin: Three Double King Pawn Openings    $5,00

Estrin. Wilkes=Barre Variation, Two Knights Defense    $4.00

Filipowicz & Konikowski: 4,.,d5 in the Cordel Defense, Ruy Lopez    $3 25

Grefe: The Offbeat Sicilian, Unorthodox Ways to Win With White    $6.00

Grefe & Silman: Center Counter    $5.50

Janicki. Anglo-Benoni Two Knights Defense    $5.00

Janicki: Anglo^Benoni Four Knights Defense    $5.00

Janicki & Kotkowski: F lohr-Mikenas System, English Opening    $5.00

Kapitaniak Sicilian Defense, Wing Gambits    $5.00

Konikowski: Arkhangelsk System, Ruy Lopez    $6.00

Konikowski- Modern Benoni, Four Pawns Attack    $6,00

Konikowski. Petrosian System, Queen's Indian Defense    $6,50

Konikowski. Queen's Gambit Declined,    Exchange Variation    $4.00

Konikowski. Tartakower System, Queen's Gambit    $5.00

Kuligowski: Deve!opments in the King's Indian Defense    $5 50

Leverett: Sicilian Defense, Velimirovic Attack    $5.00

Marfia: Queen's Gambit With Bf4    $2.50

Marfia: Queen's Indian With 4 g3    $3.50

Marfia & Dudley: Double Fianchetto Opening System    $2.00

Schiller: Blackmar Diemer Gambit    $5,00

Schiller: Cambridge Springs Defense, Queen's Gambit    $6o00

Schiller. Gruenfeld Defense, Russian Variations    $5.50

Schiller & Goldman- Sicilian Dragon Yugoslav Attack    $6 50

Schiller. Modern Richter Rauzer    $5o00

Schiller: Sicilian, Richter Rauzer With <t,a6    $5.00

Schiller. Sicilian, Classical Richter Rauzer    $6 00

Schiller: Orthodox Variation, Queen's Gambit    $6 50

Shamkovich & Schiller: Caro»Kann 4.,,Nd7    $5,00

Taylor: Rubinstein Variation, N imzo«l ndian Defense    $5.00

Tejler & Marfia: Euwe Defense, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit    $2,50

Wall: Larsen's Opening    $5,00

Wall: Owen's Defense    $5.00

Wall: 500    French Miniatures    $5.00

Wall: 500    Itahan Miniatures    $5.00

Wall: 500    King,s Gambit Miniatures    $5,00

Wall: 500    Ruy Lopez Miniatures    $5.95

Wall. 500    Sicilian Miniatures    $5,00

Watson: 4 Nc3 Gambit in the Queen's Gambit & Slav    $5,00

Watson: Taimanov & Knights' Tour Benoni    $5.00

Watson: 6..rNc6 in the Saemisch Variation, King's Indian Defense    $5.00

Williams: The Real American Wilkes=Barre Variation, Two Knights    $3.25

Middle Gamę:

Nimzowitsch: Blockade    $4,50

Sheffield: Tension in the Chess Position    $5,00

Endgame:

Botvmnik- Botvinnik on the Endgame    $5,50

Brieger: The Joy of Matę    $2.00

Cvetkov: Pawn Endings    $5,00

Mednis: Practical Rook Endings    $4.50

Mednis: Ouestions & Answers on Practical Endgame Play    $7.95

Games, Biography:

Botvinnik: Fifteen Games and Their Stories    $5.00

Koltanowski. Chessnicdotes I    $5.00

Koltanowski: Chessnicdotes II    $5.00

Koltanowski: In The Dark (blindfold chess)    $9.95

McCormick: The Games of Viktor Kupreichik    $5.00

Platz: Chess Memoirs    $10,00

Tournaments:

Christiansen: 1983 U. SL Championship    $6,50

Taylor: Manhattan International New York 1985    $6 00

Postpaid from 107 Crosstree Road, Coraopolis, PA 15108

$6.00

This is the third and concluding volume of author Schiller's comprehensive series on the Sicilian Richter Rauzer. It is certainly one of the most thorough treatments of this linę, and definitely the most current survey of the theory. The book considers play from both sides of the board. The author has incorporated ideas from other leading analysts along with his own concepts to produce a most valuable resource for players of all strengths.

ISBN 0-931462-72-X


Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Fender Eric Clapton Strat (25dB midbooster preamp) -yvjeTZ5A6 łJC^koost dCV)03~.r<k DOZatKp (ziS
416 ARTYKUŁY Castaldi, Teresa (1991). Ethnography and adult workplace literacy program design
Aneks 237 Schiller: Ober die asthetische Erziehung des Menschen, in eirter Reihe von Bńefen. 1796
ScanImage07 f O e r c 7/? 3. Stufe / 3. rosition® Miteinander Ensemble Together Der Schiller L’ćleve
page0094 86Schicht — Schill 7a późniejszych odznaczyły się wyborne Te deum wedle Klopstoka, i arcydz
page0095 87Schill — Schiller maszerować przez Westfaliję do Fryzyi, a ztamiąd do Anglii. Ale załoga
SeiteG Die Eule Eulalia ist sicher die vornehmste ihrer Art. Keine andere hat so herrlich schillernd
Male zbrodnie malzenskie Eric Emmanuel Schmitt M Eric-l mmanud SchmitlMAŁŻEŃSKIE
294 WILHELM EMRICH niemożliwe, a Schiller pozostał tragiczną, wewnętrznie rozdartą postacią. Tylko
Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Filmowa, Telewizyjna i Teatralna im. Leona Schillera w
Shakespeare zusammenstellte. Moglich, dass dieser Aufsatz es war, der die Anfmerksamkeit Schillers a
12» und ein Epos dichtet, das man (łber die Ilias setzen konnto, versuchfc Schiller eine moderno Tra
wzory listow? s4243 ABC pisania listów Mit freundlichem GruB Buchhandlung Thekla Schiller gez. Dr. D

więcej podobnych podstron