The Queen's Gambit for the Attacking Player E-Book

Graham Burgess

• Herausgeber: Batsford
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 423

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

This book is a state-of-the-art survey of all branches of the world's most popular gambit from the viewpoint of the player who wants to attack with the white pieces. Many of the world's top young players, such as Kramni, Anand and Shirov have invested enormous amounts of time and analysis into making lines of the Slav, Semi-Slav, and QGA into reliable, ambitious weapons for Black. This book concentrates concentrates on the lines which are at the cutting edge of White's counter-efforts, and provides a selection of aggressive repertoires against Black's older defences, including the Orthodox, Tarrasch and Semi-Tarrasch. No player who has read this book need be in any doubt how to meet Black's sharp approaches - be they modern, dynamic counter attacks or old, romantic gambits.

Leseprobe

The Queen’s Gambit for the Attacking Player

Graham Burgess and Steffen Pedersen

Contents

Bibliography

Introduction

Symbols

Section One: Orthodox Defences

  1    Exchange Variation versus 3...♘f6

  2    Exchange Variation versus 3...♗e7

  3    Rubinstein Attack

  4    Tartakower Defence

  5    Lasker Defence

  6    Dutch-Peruvian Gambit

  7    Cambridge Springs

Section Two: Slav and Semi-Slav

  8    Slav: Introduction and 5 a4 ♗f5

  9    Slav: 5 a4 without 5...♗f5

10    Slav: The trendy 4...a6

11    Gambits: Marshall and Abrahams

12    Semi-Slav: Repertoire with 5 ♗g5

13    Latvian Bayonet Attack

Section Three: Queen’s Gambit Accepted

14    QGA 3 e4 e5: Gambit Play

15    QGA 3 e4 ♘c6: Chigorin-style

16    QGA 3 e4 c5 and the Linares Variation

17    QGA 3 e4 ♘f6: Alekhine-style

Section Four: Other defences

18    Vienna Variation

19    Ragozin Variation

20    Tarrasch Defence

21    Semi-Tarrasch

22    Unusual second moves for Black

Index of Variations

Bibliography

Books

Wells, Complete Semi-Slav, Batsford 1994

Flear, New Ideas in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Batsford 1994

Markov and Schipkov, Winning With the Slav, Batsford 1994

Ward, Opening Play, Batsford 1994

Dunnington, Pawn Power, Batsford 1994

Wells, Piece Power, Batsford 1994

Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, vol. D, Šahovski Informator 1987

Pedersen, 1.d4!, John Rendboe 1993

Kondratiev, Slavianskaya Zashchita, Fizkultura i Sport 1985

Karpov (editor-in-chief), Secrets from Russia, Olbrich 1993

Polugaevsky, Queen’s Gambit: Orthodox Defence, Batsford 1988

Samarian, Queen’s Gambit Declined, Batsford 1974

Konikowski and Thesing, Semi-Slav Defence:Botvinnik Variation, S1 Editrice 1993

Pickard, ECO Busted, Hays 1993

Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, D44, Šahovski Informator 1993

Den Broeder and Van der Vliet, Second Amber, Magnana Mu 1993

Pachman, Das Damengambit, Olms 1993

Periodicals

Chess Base Magazine

Informator

New in Chess Quick Service

New in Chess Magazine

New in Chess Yearbook

Inside Chess

Chess Life

British Chess Magazine

Chess Monthly

Dragon

Europe Échecs

Europa Rochade

Skakbladet

Nyt fra Sydøstfyn

Tidskrift för Schack

Norsk Sjakkblad

Jaque

Shakhmaty v SSSR

Chess in the USSR

Shakhmatny Biulleten

Biulleten Tsentralnovo

Shakhmatnovo Kluba SSSR

Introduction

The Purpose of this book

Our aim in this book is to equip the reader with sufficient weapons to play for a win with White after the moves 1 d4 d5 2 c4. The many branches of the Queen’s Gambit have developed huge bodies of theory, with relatively few books devoted to them. Therefore our task has been rather a difficult one, and we have had to be quite ruthless with variations we do not consider to be up to the mark.

To summarise the authors’ general policy:

1) We have given at least two viable, ambitious systems against the most important and topical of Black’s defences. Where this was not appropriate (either because the alternatives to the main system were too insipid, or demanded so much detailed coverage – and we would not dream of sending our readers out to battle inadequately armed – as to make the book too large) we have striven to give plenty of choice inside the main lines.

2) When a sensible defence for Black is out of fashion, we have given the reasons for this; i.e. the line which presumably has been putting people off playing the position with Black.

3) Against unusual, generally aggressive options for Black, we have provided a safe, convincing way for White to proceed.

4) In all cases, we have been on the look-out for move order tricks; both how to avoid being ‘move-ordered’ out of the repertoire advocated here, and ways to manoeuvre Black onto unfamiliar territory.

Those, at least, have been our minimum aims. Naturally, we have also given many extra ideas for White where these seem worthy of exploration. We have taken great care to examine Black’s resources in ‘refuted’ lines, especially when the theory is based on games which are rather old, or between obscure players.

The recent advances in the strength of chess-playing software have had some impact on this book. Both authors have used Fritz2 on fast computers to help unravel some of the positions arising in this book which are of a highly tactical nature. Silicon analysts are still a little crude in their positional assessments, but if pointed in the right direction, can be a very useful tool.

How the book found its authors

How has it happened that one of the co-authors of this book lives in England, and the other in Denmark? In early 1993, I (GB) was living in Svendborg (Denmark) and had been commissioned by Batsford to write this book. When, in June 1993, I was asked by Batsford to take the job in London as their chess editor, I was left with a small problem regarding this book. I had already spent several months compiling, organizing and critically reviewing material in my database (the hard slog of writing an openings book), so certainly did not want to abandon the project, but clearly would hardly have the spare time to complete the book to my satisfaction in a sensible time framework. The obvious solution was to bring in my club-mate, Steffen Pedersen, as a co-author. So, we exchanged databases, discussed which lines to consider, and kept in touch. Broadly speaking, GB is responsible for the sections on the Semi-Slav (without the Marshall Gambit), Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Vienna, Ragozin, Tarrasch, Semi-Tarrasch and 2...♗f5, while SP wrote the sections covering the Orthodox Systems, the pure Slav, the rest of the second move deviations, and the Marshall Gambit. When the word ‘I’ is used, it refers to the principal author of the particular section. Naturally, there was plenty of discussion about the critical positions in all these lines (many of which we had worked on together during the previous two years), and GB, doubling as the editor of the book, was able to standardize stylistic matters throughout.

Move orders

All chess players have their own likes and dislikes, and so choose their move orders to avoid or allow certain possibilities. For instance, after 1 d4 ♘f6 2 c4 e6, the move 3 ♘f3 is popular (to avoid a Nimzo-Indian), whereupon 3...d5 leads into a Queen’s Gambit, in which White is committed to putting the knight on f3. Thus we have considered all the lines relevant to this; in any case, this fits in well with our policy of giving more than one viable option for White in the main lines.

There are just a few requirements in order for this book to equip you with a complete repertoire with the Queen’s Gambit:

1) You must play 1 d4. Of course, after 1 ♘f3 or 1 c4, transpositions very often occur into lines in this book, but are by no means guaranteed.

2) After 1 d4 d5, you must play 2 c4. We have not catered for 2 ♘f3 (intending c4 on move three) against the Chigorin, Rausis line, or 2...e6 3 c4 dxc4. This requirement is not much of a burden, since avoiding the Albin seems to us rather unnecessary cowardice!

3) After 1 d4 ♘f6, you need to play 2 c4 to be certain of staying within the confines of this book against an opponent who intends a subsequent ...d5 (after 2...c6 or 2...e6). Instead after 2 ♘f3 d5 3 c4 dxc4, lines of the QGA arise which are not discussed here.

On an entirely different matter of move orders, in the opening phases of the main games we have not always stuck rigidly to the move orders in the actual games, but have in some cases adjusted reality in the interests of clarity. We feel the benefits of this policy far outweigh the danger of being misled about a particular player’s repertoire. In any case, most players adjust their repertoires continually, so it’s best to be ready for anything.

The Queen’s Gambit at Club and at International level

It does not take a great deal of research to reveal that these are two entirely different animals. To risk a gross generalization:

1) At international level, the Queen’s Gambit is viewed as a solid classical structure, from which Black will aim to strike quickly at White’s position to force simplification and equality, or else dynamic counterplay. Those with Black will know a good deal of theory, and many tricks, ready to pounce on the slightest inaccuracy from White to ease their task. The most popular lines are the Semi-Slav, Slav, QGA, and in the Orthodox, the Tartakower (if allowed).

2) At club level, the Queen’s Gambit is defended by those who wish to obtain a solid position, and avoid early accidents. Counterstrikes against White’s position are carried out when essential, rather than as a matter of course. Black’s defence tends to be carried out on general principles rather than specific knowledge. The most popular line is the Orthodox, with the ...♘bd7 systems and the Cambridge Springs top of the popularity table.

Naturally there are plenty of exceptions, e.g. club players who are up to the minute with Shirov’s Semi-Slav analysis, and masters who are content to sit on a solid, passive position. Nevertheless, the above considerations will hopefully be of use to players wondering which parts of the book to study in most detail.

We have certainly not skimped on the coverage of lines topical at international level (especially since, after a suitable time delay, the top players’ preferences seep down to club level), but have taken pains to give space to lines we know to be popular amongst club players, even though a glance at Informator or a sweep through Chess Base suggests hardly anyone plays them. Thus gambits such as the Albin and Hennig-Schara receive full coverage, and a great deal of space is devoted to the solid Orthodox systems – too passive for most top players, but a great favourite with club players for whom it is perhaps important to avoid losing in matches, or who don’t mind coming under attack, experience telling them that these attacks may not be so well organized as those which would put Grandmasters off defending these lines against their peers.

And finally...

We would like to acknowledge the assistance given by the following people: GM John Nunn, who in the course of his superb typesetting of this book, came up with numerous analytical suggestions, Niels Højgaard and Skakklub Sydøstfyn, for bringing the authors together in the first place, Thorbjørn Rosenlund (Skakbladet) for providing the photographs for the back cover, and all of my (GB) colleagues at Batsford who always put in so much painstaking work behind the scenes to ensure the books come out in such good order.

Graham BurgessLondon

Steffen PedersenStenstrup

August 1994

Symbols

!!

Excellent move

!

Good move

!?

Interesting move

?!

Dubious move

?

Bad move

??

Blunder

+−

White is winning

±

White is much better

⩲

White is slightly better

Equal position

∞

Unclear position

⩱

Black is slightly better

∓

Black is much better

−+

Black is winning

Δ

Intending

OL

Olympiad

Ch

Championship

Wch

World Championship

Echt

European Team Championship

Z

Zonal

IZ

Interzonal

Ct

Candidates event

jr

Junior event

wom

Women’s event

mem

Memorial event

sim

Simultaneous game

rpd

Rapidplay game

Corr

Postal game

(3)

Third match game

(D)

Diagram follows

1 Exchange Variation versus 3...♘f6

Exchanging on d5 clears up the central tension at a stroke, and leads to positions in which both sides’ strategies are rather more clear-cut than normal.

Until relatively recently, White would normally play in very classical style, carrying out a ‘minority attack’ by advancing his b-pawn in the hope of causing some weaknesses in Black’s queenside. This is very well motivated positionally, though Black’s means of obtaining counterplay have become well worked-out over the years, making White’s task quite arduous to say the least.

In recent practice White has enjoyed considerable success with a completely different strategy. By developing the king’s knight to e2 followed by kingside castling, White tries to break through in the centre with f3 and e4. This has proved to be very difficult for Black to handle – he must wait patiently for his chance to strike back.

To get down to the details after 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ♗g5 c6, most games continue 6 ♕c2 ♗e7 7 e3 or 6 e3 ♗e7 7 ♕c2, though White’s decision at move six is not a trivial one, since 6 e3 can be met by 6...♗f5, and 6 ♕c2 by 6...♘a6, should Black wish to avoid the main lines. These ideas, and other early deviations, are discussed in Game 1.

Game 2 features some attempts by Black to delay castling and instead manoeuvre his minor pieces, with a view to some helpful exchanges.

The main line is discussed in Game 3, with the focus on the aforementioned scheme of ♘ge2 and expanding in the centre.

Game 1

Zsu.Polgar – Bönsch

Dortmund 1990

1

d4

d5

2

c4

e6

3

♘c3

♘f6

4

cxd5

exd5

5

♗g5 (D)

The basic position of the Exchange Variation. The pawn structure dictates that White should play either for a minority attack or a gradual central mobilization, whilst Black will look to use the half-open e-file as a launch-pad for piece-play on the kingside.

5

...

c6

Usually Black plays ...c6 at this point, but it is also possible to leave it out for a while, e.g. 5...♗e7 6 e3 ♘bd7 7 ♗d3 and now:

a) 7...♘f8 will normally transpose to lines dealt with in the notes to Game 2.

b) 7...0-0 8 ♘ge2 ♖e8 9 0-0 ♘f8 will often lead to Game 3, though in Kasparov-Short, London PCA Wch (15) 1993, Kasparov gave the move order independent significance: 10 b4! a6 (in Gutman-Razuvaev, USSR 1976 Black achieved an equal position after 10...♗xb4?! 11 ♗xf6 gxf6 {11...♕xf6 12 ♘xd5 ±} 12 ♕b3?! ♗xc3 13 ♘xc3 c6 but Kasparov’s intention was to play 12 ♘xd5! ♕xd5 13 ♕a4, e.g. 13...♗h3 14 ♘f4 ♕a5 15 ♕xa5 ♗xa5 16 ♘xh3 ♘e6 17 ♖fd1 ± or 13...♗e7 14 ♕xe8 ♗h3 15 ♘f4!, as pointed out by Dvoretsky in Secrets of Chess Tactics) 11 a3! (11 a4? ♗xb4) 11...c6 12 ♕c2 g6 13 f3 ♘e6 14 ♗h4 ♘h5 (strangely enough, 14...♘g7 15 ♗f2 h5 16 h3 ♘h7 17 e4 ♗h4 18 ♕d2 ♗xf2+ 19 ♖xf2 h4 20 ♗c2 ♘h5 21 ♘f4 ♘xf4 22 ♕xf4 ♕f6 23 ♕d2 ♗e6 24 e5 ♕g7 25 ♘a4 ♘f8 26 ♕g5 ♕h8 27 f4 ± occurred in Kasparov-Beliavsky, Moscow TV rpd 1987) 15 ♗xe7 ♖xe7 16 ♕d2 b6?! 17 ♖ad1 and White was much better.

6

e3

When White wants to avoid the system with...♗f5 then 6 ♕c2 is more precise. White will answer 6...g6 with 7 e3 when 7...♗f5 8 ♕b3 is good for White. Black’s alternative to transposing to the main line (i.e. 6...♗e7 7 ♕c2) is 6...♘a6(D) intending...♘b4:

a) 7 a3♘c7 8 e3 ♘e6 9 ♗h4 ♗e7 10 ♗d3 g6 11 ♘ge2 (11 ♘f3 ♘g7 12b4♗f5?! {12...a6} 13b5!± Vaganian-Westerinen, Moscow 1982) 11...♘g7 12 f3 ♘f5 13 ♗f2 c5 14 g4!? ♘xd4 15 ♘xd4 cxd4 16 ♕a4+ ♗d7 17 ♕xd4 0-0 18 0-0 and White has the better chances because of the pressure against the d5-pawn; Tisdall-G.Garcia, Manila OL 1992.

b) 7 e3 (White simply ignores the ‘threat’) 7...♘b4 (7...♘c7 is too passive: 8 ♗d3 ♗e7 9 ♘ge2 ♘e6 10 ♗h4 g6 11 f3 0-0 12 0-0 b6 13 ♔h1 ♗b7 14 ♖ad1 ♖c8 15 ♕c1 ♖c7 16 e4 dxe4 17 fxe4 ♖d7 18 e5 ♘d5 19 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 20 ♘xd5 cxd5? 21 ♖f6 and White is more or less winning; Kouatly-Piket, Cannes 1990) 8 ♕d2 ♗f5 9 ♖c1 a5 10 a3 ♘a6 11 ♗xa6!? ♖xa6 12 ♘ge2 ♗e7 13 ♘g3 ♗e6 14 ♘a4 ♘d7 15 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 16 0-0 with a small edge for White; Züger-King, Bern 1988.

6

...

♗e7

Black may instead try two radically different approaches to benefit from White not having put his queen on c2:

a) 6...♕b6 gives White a fairly pleasant choice:

a1) 7 ♕c2♘e4 8 ♗f4 ♘a6 9 f3 (9 ♘xe4 ♘b4 10 ♕b1 dxe4 11 ♕xe4+ ♗e6 12 ♘h3?! {12 ♘e2 is better} 12...♘xa2! ∓ Skomorokhin-S.Ivanov, Katowice 1993) 9...♘f6 10 ♕d2 ♗e7 11 ♗d3 ♗d7 12 ♘ge2 c5 13 ♗e5 ♗c6 14 ♘f4 ⩲ Stohl-Efimov, Hradec Kralove 1988.

a2) 7 ♕d2♘e4 8 ♘xe4 dxe4 9 ♘e2 ♗e6 10 ♘c3 ♗b4 11 ♗e2 ♕a5 12 ♗f4 ♘d7 13 0-0 ♘b6 14 ♕c2 ♗xc3 15 bxc3 ♘d5 16 ♕xe4 ♘xc3 17 ♕c2 ♘xe2+ 18 ♕xe2 ⩲ Knaak-Faibisovich, Berlin 1989.

a3) 7 ♗d3!? is an interesting gambit but it needs more testing in practice before a conclusion can be drawn. 7...♕xb2 8 ♘ge2 ♗e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 e4 dxe4 11 ♘xe4 ♘bd7 12 ♘2g3 gave White some compensation in Scherbakov-S.Ivanov, Podolsk 1992.

b1) 12 ♘f3?! (it is hard to believe that this is the best square for the knight) 12...♘b6 13 b3 ♔d7 14 ♘e1 (14 ♘h4 is more logical) 14...♗4!. Exchanging the darksquared bishop for one of the white knights is a part of Black’s system. The continuation shows that Black’s position can be quite viable, despite his ugly-looking pawns, if White fails to establish a grip early on. 15 ♘c2 ♗xc3+ 16 ♔xc3 ♘c8 17 ♖ae1 ♘d6 18 f3 ♖he8 19 ♖e2 ♖e7 20 ♖he1 ♖ae8 Ivanchuk-Short, Linares 1992. The game has turned out to be a big fight for the e4-square, in which Black can hold his own.

b2) 12 f4!? looks better, as does

b3) 12♘ge2.

7

♕c2

♗g4?!(D)

This dubious move intends harmonious queenside development, so one should know what to do against this. 7...♘e4? would be a terrible mistake since 8 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 9 ♘xd5! wins a pawn.

For 7...♘bd7 see Game 2, and for 7...0-0, Game 3.

8

♘ge2

Best according to ECO, but White may also try:

a) 8 h3♗h5 9 f4!? h6 10 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 11 g4 ♗g6 12 f5 ♗h4+ 13 ♔d2 ♗h7 14 ♘f3 0-0 15 ♗d3 ♖e8 16 ♖af1 ♘d7 17 ♕d1 b5 18 ♘xh4 ♕xh4 19 ♖f4 ♕d8 20 h4 f6 21 ♕g1 with better chances for White; Vladimirov-Rubel, USSR 1962.

b) 8 ♗d3♘bd7 9 h3 ♗e6 (9...♗h5? 10 f4!) 10 ♘ge2 h6 11 ♗h4 ♘h5 12 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 13 0-0-0 ♘b6 14 ♔b1 ⩲ Vaganian-Short, Skellefteå 1989.

8

...

♗xe2

8...♗h5 is logical, but in Lazarev-Korelov, USSR 1960 White obtained a good position after 9 ♘f4 ♗g6 10 ♘xg6 hxg6 11 ♗d3 ♘bd7 12 0-0-0 ♘f8 13 ♕a4+.

  9

♗xe2

♘bd7

10

0-0

0-0

11

♗d3

♖e8

12

f3

White employs similar ideas to those seen in the standard lines. Sooner or later he will play e3-e4.

12

...

♘f8

13

♗h4

a6?!

Preparing...c5, but it is too slow.

14

♖ad1

♘g6

14...c5? 15 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 16 dxc5 ♖xe3 17 ♘xd5! +−.

15

♗f2

♗d6

Again 15...c5? doesn’t work: 16 ♗xg6 hxg6 17 dxc5 ♗xc5 18 ♘xd5 +−.

16

e4

dxe4

17

fxe4

♘g4

18

e5

♗c7

Black naturally avoids 18...♘xf2?? 19 ♕xf2 +−.

19

♗c4!

♖e7

20

♔h1

♘xf2+

If Black doesn’t take, then White will play ♗g1 and h3.

21

♕xf2

♕d7

22

♘e4

♖f8

23

♕f3

♕e8

24

♕h5 (D)

Creating a mating net; next will come♘f6+!

24

...

♔h8

25

♖d3!

h6

There is no defence: 25...f5 26 ♖h3 h6 27 ♘f6! ♕c8 28 ♕xh6+! +− or 25...b5 26 ♘f6! gxf6 27 ♖h3 +−.

26

♖df3

26 ♘f6♕c8 27 ♘g4 ♔h7 28 ♖h3 and 29 ♘xh6 also wins.

26

...

♘xe5

27

dxe5

♖xe5

28

♖xf7!

♖xf7

29

♕xf7

1-0

Game 2

Kasparov – Andersson

Reykjavik 1988

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ♘c3 ♘f6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ♗g5 c6 6 ♕c2 ♗e7 7 e3

7

...

♘bd7

8

♗d3

♘h5 (D)

Black generally tries to exchange the dark-squared bishops at some point, so why not do it immediately?

Black may instead opt for the standard 8...0-0, which is considered in the next game, or manoeuvre his queen’s knight with 8...♘f8. White can then try two set-ups:

a) 9 ♘f3♘e6 10 ♗h4 g6 11 0-0 ♘g7 (11...0-0 12 ♖ab1 ♘g4!? 13 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 14 h3 ♘h6 15 ♖be1 f5 16 ♘e2 ♘f7 17 ♘f4 ♘eg5 18 ♘xg5 ♘xg5 19 f3 and White has the better game; Timman-Ljubojević, Amsterdam 1986) 12 b4! a6 (12...♗xb4? runs into 13 ♗xf6 ♕xf6 14 ♘xd5! ±; 12...0-0 13 b5 ♗f5 14 bxc6 bxc6 15 ♘e5 ± Stein-Rossetto, Mar del Plata 1966) 13 ♖ab1 ♗f5 14 a4 0-0 (14...♗xd3 15 ♕xd3 ♘f5 16 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 17 b5 axb5 18 axb5 0-0, Zaichik-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1987, 19 ♖fc1 ±) 15 b5 axb5 16 axb5 ♖c8 17 ♖fc1 ♗xd3 18 ♕xd3 ♘f5 19 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 20 ♘a4! ⩲ Novikov-Kharitonov, Sevastopol 1986.

b) 9 ♘ge2♘e6 10 ♗h4 g6 11 0-0-0 (it is also interesting to castle kingside, e.g. 11 f3 0-0 12 ♖d1♖e8 13 0-0 ♘h5 14 ♗f2 ♗h4 15 ♕d2! ♗xf2+ 16 ♖xf2 ♘f6 17 ♗c2 ♕c7 18 h3 ♘h5 19 e4 ± Chernin-Rogers, Mendrisio 1989) 11...♘g7 12 f3 0-0 (12...♘f5 13 ♗f2 ♕a5 14 ♔b1 ♗e6 15 h3 0-0-0 16 e4 ♘g7 17 ♗g3 ♘ge8 18 ♗e5 ♖f8 19 ♘c1 dxe4 20 fxe4 ♘d7 21 ♗h2 ♘b8 22 d5 ♗d7 23 ♘b3 ♕b6 24 d6! 1-0 Bronstein-Medina, Gothenburg IZ 1955) 13 h3 ♘fe8 14 ♗f2 f5 15 ♘f4 ♘e6 16 ♘ce2 and White has the better prospects; Bronstein-Korzin, USSR 1961.

  9

♗xe7

♕xe7

10

♘ge2

This is the most common move. The main alternative is 10 0-0-0, retaining the option of playing the knight to f3, whence e5 beckons. After 10...♘b611 h3 g612 ♔b1 Black has tried:

a) 12...♘g7 13 g4 ♗d7 14 ♘f3 0-0-0 15 ♕b3!? ♗e6 16 ♖c1 ♔b8 17 ♘a4 ♘xa4 18 ♕xa4 ♖d6? (too clumsy; 18...♗d7 leads to the game P.Nikolić-Timman in line ‘b’) 19 ♖c3 ♖c8 20 ♖hc1 f6 21 ♖a3 b6 22 g5! ♖c7 23 gxf6 ♕xf6 24 ♘e5 ± Epishin-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1992.

10

...

g6

11

0-0-0

♘b6

12

♘g3

♘g7! (D)

Much better than 12...♘xg3 13 hxg3 which gives White a pleasant edge, and 12...♘f6 13 ♖he1 ♗e6 14 f3 0-0-0 15 ♔b1 ♔b8 (15...♘e8 led to a quick draw in Sadler-Crouch, Hastings 1991 after 16 ♘ge2 ♔b8 17 ♘c1 ♘d6 18 ♘b3 ♖he8 19 ♕f2 f5 20 ♘c5, but White should prefer 16 ♕f2) 16 ♕f2 h5 17 h4 ♘e8 18 ♘ge2 ♘d6 19 ♘f4 ± Barlov-Campora, Bor 1985.

13

♔b1

♗d7

14

♖c1

0-0-0

15

♘a4

♘xa4

16

♕xa4

♔b8

17

♖c3

b6

18

♗a6

18 ♖a3 was tried in Timman-Short, San Lorenzo Ct (11) 1993 but Black secured a good game with 18...♗e8 19 ♕c2 ♖c8 20 ♖c1 ♗d7 21 ♕d2 h5.

18

...

♘e6

19

♖hc1

♖he8

Black will soon be ready to play ...c5, so naturally White decides to bring his queen back.

20

♕b3

♕d6

21

♘f1

♔a8! (D)

A good prophylactic move.

22

♘d2

♘c7

The bishop cannot be trapped since after 22...b5 23 a4 ♖b8 24 axb5 cxb5 25 ♕a2 ♖b6 26 ♗c8 White has the advantage.

23

♗f1

♘e6?!

Black starts to play some weak moves around here. Instead 23...♕xh2 would lead to an unclear position after 24 ♘f3 ♕d6 25 ♘e5 ♖xe5 26 dxe5 ♕xe5.

Play continued: 24 g3! ♖c8 25 ♗g2 ♖c7 26 h4 ♖d8 27 ♘f3 ♗c8?!

27...f6 leaves White only slightly better.

28♕a4 c5?!

28...♕b7 29 ♖a3 ♗c8 (29...a6 30 ♗f1) 30 ♘e5 c5 31 ♘c4 ♕c6 32 ♕xc6+ ♖xc6 33 dxc5 bxc5 34 ♖d3 ♘c7 35 ♘a5 ♖f6 36 ♖d2 +−.

29 ♘g5! ♘xg5 30 hxg5 ♗b7 31 dxc5 bxc5 32♕f4!

During the last handful of moves Kasparov has been improving his position move by move and now he exchanges queens to get into a very favourable ending.

32...♕xf4 33 gxf4 d4

33...c4 holds on to the pawn but only temporarily, because after 34 ♖d1 and eventually ♖d4 Black will be left with some dreadful pieces.

34 ♖xc5 ♖xc5 35 ♗xb7+ ♔xb7 36 ♖xc5 dxe3 37 fxe3 ♖e8 38 ♖e5!

38 ♖c3 allows counterplay with 38...♖e6 Δ ...f6.

38...♖xe5 39 fxe5

The pawn ending is winning.

39...♔c6 40 ♔c2 ♔d5 41 b4 ♔xe5 42 a4 f6 43 gxf6 ♔xf6 44 b5 1-0

The pawns cannot be stopped: 44...♔e5 45 a5 ♔d6 46 e4 ♔c5 47 b6 axb6 48 a6! ♔c6 49 e5.

Game 3

Sadler – Murugan

London Lloyds Bank 1993

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ♘c3 ♘f6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ♗g5 c6 6 e3 ♗e7 7 ♗d3

7

...

0-0

Black contents himself with solid development.

8

♕c2

♘bd7

9

♘ge2

♖e8 (D)

One of the key positions in the Queen’s Gambit, and the starting point for countless games.

10

0-0

As explained above, we shall focus on lines in which White castles short, and then plays in the centre (as popularized by Kasparov), though some attacking players may prefer to throw caution to the winds, and castle queenside:

a) 10 0-0-0 gives Black the choice of 10...a5 or 10...b5 with a likely transposition to line ‘b’, and trying 10...♕a5 11 ♔b1 b5 12 ♘g3:

a1) 12...♘f8?! 13 ♘ce2! ♕b6 14 ♖c1 ♗d7 15 ♘f5 ♗d8 16 ♘eg3 a5 17 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 18 ♘h5 ♕d8 19 ♘d6 ♖e6 20 ♘b7 ♕b7 21 ♘c5 ♖d6 22 ♘xf6+ ♖xf6 23 f3 ± Shirov-Wedberg, Stockholm 1990.

a2) 12..h6 (as played in Miles-Morović, Tunis IZ 1985) 13 ♗f4 g5 14 ♗e5 ♘xe5 15 dxe5 ♘g4. Now, according to Shirov, White has good compensation after 16 h4! gxh4 17 ♗h7+! ♔h8 18 ♗f5 ♘xe5 19 ♗xc8 ♖axc8 20 ♘f5.

b) 10 h3 ♘f8 11 0-0-0 b5 (normally Black advances his queenside pawns to create counterplay, but 11...♗e6 12 ♔b1 ♘6d7 13 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 14 g4 ♖ac8 15 ♖c1 a6 16 g5 c5 17 dxc5 ♘xc5 18 h4 b5 ∞ Lobron-M.Gurevich, Munich 1992 is a reasonable alternative) 12 ♔b1 a5 13 g4 a4 (13...♗d7 14 ♘f4 ♖c8 15 ♗f5 a4 16 ♘d3 ♗xf5 17 gxf5 ♘8d7 18 ♖hg1 ♗f8 19 ♖g2 and White has built up a very strong attack; Christiansen-Spassky, Linares 1981) 14 ♘g3 (14 ♘f4 is also worth considering; the idea is to play ♗f5 Δ ♘d3) 14...♕a5 (immediate action with 14...a3 15 b3 ♕a5 16 ♖hgl ♔h8 17 ♘ce2 ♗d7 18 ♘h5 {18 ♗f5 is good} 18...♘e4 19 ♗xe7 ♖xe7 20 ♗xe4 ♖xe4 21 ♘eg3 ♖e7 22 ♘f5 ♗xf5 23 gxf5 f6 24 ♖g4 ♖aa7 25 ♖dg1 ♖f7 26 ♖c1 ♖ac7 27 ♘f4 left White with a good game in Chernin-Bönsch, Altensteig 1991) 15 ♘ce2 ♗d7 (15...b4?! is too optimistic; in Vladimirov-Van der Sterren, Ostend 1990, Black had absolutely no compensation for the pawn after 16 ♕xc6 ♗d7 17 ♕c1 ♘e6 18 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 19 ♕d2 g6 20 h4 ♗g7 21 g5 ♕b6 22 f4!) and now:

b1) 16 ♘f5♗xf5 17 gxf5 ♖ac8 18 ♖hg1 ♔h8 19 ♗xf6 ♗xf6 20 ♘f4 ♘d7 21 ♖c1 a3 22 b3 c5 23 ♘xd5 c4! with a complicated position; Tisdall-Inkiov, Gausdal 1990.

b2) 16 ♖hg1!?.

b3) 16 ♘h5♘xh5 17 ♗xe7 ♖xe7 18 gxh5 b4 19 ♕d2 ± De Boer-M.Müller, Groningen 1991.

10

...

♘f8

Short experimented with 10...g6 against Timman in San Lorenzo Ct (13) 1993. After the further moves 11 f3 ♘h5 12 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 13 e4 ♘b6 14 e5?! c5! he obtained excellent counterplay, but instead 14 ♖f2, as suggested by Timman, keeps the advantage.

11

f3 (D)

With this set-up White intends to build up a strong centre with e4 but he should not necessarily hurry in this respect; his central majority is an enduring feature of the position. Sometimes it is best to wait, and play some prophylactic moves such as ♗h4, ♗f2, ♔h1 and then advance with e4. It is difficult for Black to create rapid counterplay since the only active plan is...c5, and White can normally just ignore this – when Black plays ...c4 the bishop will go to f5, while if Black leaves his pawn on c5, White may exchange pawns and play against the weak pawn on d5, or occupy d4 with a knight.

An alternative move order, 11 a3 g6 12 b4 ♘e6 13 ♗h4 a6 14 f3, was played in Kasparov-Beliavsky, Moscow TV rpd 1987, transposing to the note to 5...c6 in Game 1.

11

...

♗e6

Quite a variety of moves have been played here; it is not clear which of them is best:

a) 11...♘g6 12 ♖ad1! ♘h5 (or 12...♗e6 13 ♘g3 ♕a5?! 14 ♖de1 c5 15 f4! c4 16 ♗e2 ♗d7 17 ♗f3 ± Moskalenko-Atalik, Aosta 1990) 13 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 (13...♖xe7 14 e4 ♘hf4 15 e5 ♘xd3 16 ♕xd3 ♖e8 17 f4 ± Schandorff-Bank Friis, Bellinge 1991) 14 e4 dxe4 15 fxe4 ♗e6 16 e5! ± Markov-P.Horvath, Harkany 1991.

b) 11...h6 12 ♗h4 doesn’t help Black at all since...♘g6 is now ruled out and exchanging the darksquared bishops is not possible any more. Therefore Black can only play for...c5, but this is normally to White’s advantage:

b1) 12...c5?! 13 ♖ad1 (13 ♗xf6! ± should be compared with ‘d’) 13...c4 14 ♗f5 ♗e6 (Zsu.Polgar-Georgadze, Salamanca 1989) 15 ♘f4 is better for White.

b2) 12...♗e6 13 ♖ad1 ♖c8 should be met by the good prophylactic move 14 ♔h1 rather than 14 e4 dxe4 15 fxe4 ♘g4 16 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 17 ♕d2 c5 18 d5 ♗d7 19 h3 ♘e5 20 ♘g3 » Zaichik-Kovačević, Manila OL 1992.

b3) 12...♘e6 13 ♖ad1 b6 14 ♔h1 ♗b7 15 ♗f5!? ⩲ Greenfeld-Van der Sterren, Budapest 1989.

c) 11...♘h5 12 ♗xe7 gives Black a choice of two recaptures:

c1) 12...♕xe7 13 e4 dxe4 14 fxe4 ♗e6 (14...♗g4?! 15 e5! ♖ad8 16 ♘e4 ♘g6 17 ♖ad1 gave White the better game in Ivanchuk-Yusupov, Brussels Ct (3) 1991) 15 ♖f2 ♘f6 16 h3 ♖ad8 17 ♖af1 ± Bareev-Ahlander, Naestved 1988.

c2) 12...♖xe7 13 ♕d2 (13 e4!? dxe4 14 fxe4 ♘e6 15 d5 ♘c5 16 ♖ad1 and White has the initiative; Bareev-Raičević, Belgrade GMA 1988) 13...♘e6 (13...♗e6!?) 14 ♖ad1 g6 15 ♔h1♖d7 16 f4! ± Timman-Short, Amsterdam 1992.

d) 11...c5?! 12 ♖ad1 (12 ♗xf6! ♗xf6 13 dxc5 ♖xe3 14 ♖ad1 ±) 12...c4 13 ♗f5 ♗e6 14 ♘f4 a6 15 ♘xe6 fxe6 16 ♗h3 b5 17 e4 b4 18 ♘e2 ♘h5 19 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 20 g4 ♕g5 21 ♕d2 ♕xd2 22 ♖xd2 ♘f6 23 e5 ♘6d7 24 f4 ± Moskalenko-Gazarek, Novi Sad 1988.

e) 11...b5 12 ♗h4 a6 13 ♗f2 ♗b7 14 ♔h1 ♖c8 15 ♗f5 ♖c7 (Gelfand-Beliavsky, Belgrade 1991) 16 ♖ad1 ⩲.

12

♗h4!

White aims to avoid exchanging dark-squared bishops. Other moves:

a) 12 ♖ae1!?♖c8 13 ♔h1 ♘6d7 (13...a6 14 a3 h6 15 ♗h4 c5 16 dxc5 ♗xc5 17 ♘d4 b5 18 ♕d2 ♗e7 19 ♖d1 ♘6d7 20 ♗xe7 ½-½ Yrjölä-Pigusov, Helsinki 1992) 14 ♗xe7 ♖xe7 15 ♘f4 ⩲♖c7?! 16 ♕f2 ♘f6 17 e4 ± Kasparov-Andersson, Belfort 1988.

b) 12 ♖ad1♖c8 (12...♘6d7 13 ♗xe7 ♕xe7 14 ♘f4 ♕d6 15 ♕f2 ♘f6 16 ♗b1 ⩲ Ružele-Van der Sterren, Manila OL 1992) 13 a3 ♘6d7 (13...c5 14 dxc5 ♖xc5 15 ♘d4 ⩲ L.Hansen) 14 ♗f4 ♘g6 (14...a5 15 ♔h1 b5 gave Black more counterplay in Kamsky-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee Ct (6) 1994) 15 ♗g3 ♗h4 16 b4 ♗xg3 17 ♘xg3 (∆ e4) 17...♘f6 was played in Kamsky-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee Ct (4) 1994. Kamsky then recommends 18 ♗xg6 hxg6 19 e4 or 18 h3 Δ ♕f2 and e4.

12

...

♘6d7

White had the better position after 12...♖c8 13 ♖ad1 ♕a5?! 14 ♗f2 ♘6d7 15 a3 f6 16 ♘g3 in Malaniuk-Nenashev, Tashkent 1987.

13

♗f2

♗h4?!

This move simply loses time. Instead 13...♖c8 is more appropriate.

14

g3

The time Black has lost vainly attempting to exchange bishops outweighs the slight weakening of White’s kingside.

14

...

♗e7

Of course not 14...♗g5?? when 15 f4 followed by f5 wins a piece.

15 ♘f4 ♘f6 16 ♖ad1 ♗d7?

Very passive; 16...♖c8 is better.

17 e4 dxe4 18 fxe4 ♘g4 19 ♗c4!(D)

Now we see why the bishop should have stayed on e6.

19...♘e6 20 ♘xe6 ♗xe6 21 d5! cxd5 22 exd5 ♗d7 23 d6 ♗f6 24 ♘d5 ♖c8 25 ♘c7 ♘xf2 26 ♖xf2 ♖f8 27 ♕d3 ♗g4 28 ♖e1 ♖xc7

This sacrifice is almost compulsory, else Black’s pieces will remain cramped.

29 dxc7 ♕xc7 30 ♕e4 ♗h5 31 ♗d3 ♗g6 32 ♕e3 ♕d6 33 ♗xg6 ♗d4??

An awful blunder. After 33...hxg6 Black is still fighting.

34 ♗xf7+! 1-0

In view of 34...♖xf7 35 ♕xd4! ♕xd4 36 ♖e8+ ♖f8 37 ♖xf8#.

2 Exchange Variation versus 3...♗e7

It is easy to understand the appeal of 3...♗e7. Although he breaks the ‘knights before bishops’ maxim so familiar to beginners, Black reasons that if he is going to play...♘f6 and ...♗e7 in any case, there is no harm in ruling out the Exchange Variation with ♗g5 and a subsequent ♘ge2.

After 3...♗e7, White may choose to play 4 ♘f3, with a Tartakower, Lasker or Classical QGD in prospect (the Cambridge Springs, Ragozin and Vienna are no longer possible). In this chapter we shall examine a way in which White still opts to exchange on d5 and then establish a firm grip on the e5 square, by placing his bishop on f4. This is a perfectly reasonable square for the bishop; the standard objection to this move is the simplifying...♗f8-d6. Here...♗f8-e7-d6 would lose a tempo.

Black has two main approaches. Firstly in Game 4 we deal with 5...c6, intending...♗f5. White can either hinder this plan, with 6 ♕c2, or molest the bishop once it reaches f5.

The alternative is 5...♘f6, the aim of which is, if appropriate, to play ...c7-c5 without losing a tempo. If Black then plays an early...♗f5, White can go hunting the b7-pawn, but concentrating on quick development is a sounder policy.

Game 4

Flear – Beliavsky

Szirák IZ 1987

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ♘c3

3

...

♗e7

3...♗b4 is occasionally tried here. After 4 ♘f3:

a) 4...♘f6 will transpose to the Vienna or the Ragozin.

b) 4...c5 5 cxd5 exd5 6 ♗g5 ♘e7 (6...♘f6 is a rare line of the Ragozin – see note ‘b’ to Black’s sixth move in Game 38) 7 dxc5 ± ECO.

c) 4...♘e7 5 cxd5 exd5 6 ♗f4! 0-0 7 e3 c5 8 ♗e2 ⩲ Cebalo-Nogueiras, Taxco IZ 1985.

4

cxd5

exd5

5

♗f4 (D)

5

...

c6

For 5...♘f6, see the next game.

6

e3

6 ♕c2 is the other option here. Black can force through...♗f5, often with tempo, but this will involve some concessions from Black:

a) 6...♗g4 is a typical move in the exchange variations; Black plans ...♗h5-g6 to exchange the lightsquared bishops. 7 f3 ♗h5 8 0-0-0 ♘f6 9 e4! ♗g6 (9...dxe4 10 g4 ♗g6 11 fxe4 gives White a strong initiative) 10 ♗d3 0-0 11 e5 ♘e8 12 ♗e3 ♘a6 13 ♗xg6 fxg6 14 f4 ± Shirov-Spraggett, Manila IZ 1990.

b) 6...♗d6 7 ♗g3 ♘e7 8 e3 ♗f5 9 ♕b3 ♗xg3 (9...b5?! 10 a4 b4 11 ♘ce2 0-0 12 ♖c1 a5 13 ♘f3 ♘g6 14 h4! h5 15 ♘e5! ⩲ Bareev-Lputian, Lucerne Wcht 1993) 10 hxg3 ♕b6 11 ♗e2 ♘d7 12 g4 ♗e6 13 ♘h3 0-0-0?! 14 ♕a3 ♖he8 15 ♘f4 h6 16 b4 ♔b8 17 ♖b1 with a strong attack; Bareev-Khalifman, USSR Ch 1990.

c) 6...h5!? 7 h3! (no, White isn’t interested in having his bishop trapped!) 7...g6 8 e3 ♗f5 9 ♗d3 ♗xd3 10 ♕xd3 ♘d7 11 ♘ge2 ♘f8?! (11...♘gf6) 12 0-0-0 h4 13 f3 b5?! 14 ♔b1 ♘e6 15 ♗e5 ♗f6 16 e4 ± Seirawan-Agdestein, Thessaloniki OL 1988.

d) 6...g6(D) (∆...♗f5). We shall consider two interesting approaches:

d1) 7 f3 (a speciality of Shirov’s) 7...♗g5!? (7...♘f6 8 ♗h6 ♗f5 9 ♕d2 ♘bd7 10 g4 ♗e6 11 ♘h3 ♗d6 12 ♗f4 ♘b6 13 ♗xd6 ♕xd6 14 ♕f4 ♕e7 15 ♘f2 h5 16 g5 ♘fd7 17 h4 0-0 was about equa1 in Bykhovsky-Geller, New York 1990) 8 ♗e5 (Shirov considers this move dubious, suggesting instead 8 ♗xg5 ♕xg5 9 ♕d2!? ♕xd2+ 10 ♔xd2 or 8 ♕d2!? ♗xf4 9 ♕xf4 ♕f6 10 ♕xf6 ♘xf6 11 e4 with a slight endgame advantage for White in both cases) 8...f6! (8...♘f6 9 h4! ♗e3 10 ♕d3 ♗xg1 11 ♖xg1 ⩲; 8...♗f6 9 ♗xf6 ♘xf6 10 0-0-0 0-0 11 e4 ⩲) 9 ♗g3 ♗e3!? 10 ♕d3 ♕e7 11 ♘d1 ♗h612 e4 (12 e3 ♘a6 13 ♕c3 ♘c7 14 ♖c1 ⩲ Shirov):

d11) 12...dxe4?! 13 fxe4 ♘a6 14 ♘c3 (White has by far the freer game because the knight can be developed to f3) 14...♘b4 15 ♕e2 b6 16 a3! ♗a6 17 ♕d1 ♗xf1 18 ♔xf1 ♘a6 19 ♘f3 0-0-0 20 d5! ⩲ Shirov-Magomedov, Daugavpils 1989.

d12) 12...♘a6! (Shirov-Magomedov, Frunze 1989) 13 ♘c3 ♗f5! 14 ♕e2 ♗e6 15 ♕d1 ♘c7 16 ♗d3 0-0-0 is given by Shirov, who claims an advantage for Black, but I am not convinced; White plays 17 ♘ge2 and if 17...♗e3 then 18♕a4.

d2) 7e3♗f5 8♕d2:

d21) 8...♗d6 9 ♘ge2 h5 10 f3 ♘f6 11 ♗xd6 ♕xd6 12 ♘g3 ♗e6 13 ♗d3 ♘bd7 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 ♔b1 ♔b8 16 ♘ge2 ± Hoffman-Abramović, Vrnjačka Banja 1989.

d22) 8...♘f6 9f3:

d221) 9...h5 10 ♗d3 ♗xd3 11 ♕xd3 ♘bd7 12 ♘ge2 0-0 13 e4 dxe4 14 fxe4 ♘c5 15 ♕f3 ♘e6 16 0-0-0 ⩲ M.Gurevich-Geller, Moscow 1987.

d222) 9...0-0 10 ♘ge2 (10 g4 ♗e6 11 ♗d3) 10...♘bd7 11 g4 ♗e6 12 ♘g3 c5 (Howell-Diaz, Frunze 1989) 13 0-0-0 cxd4 14 exd4 ♘e8 15 ♔b1 ♖c8 ⩲ Howell.

d223) 9...c5 10 ♗h6! cxd4 11 exd4 ♘c6 (11...a6 12 g4 ♗e6 13 ♘ge2 ♘bd7 14 ♗g2 ♘b6 15 b3 gave White a large plus in Kasparov-Short, Thessaloniki OL 1988) 12 ♗b5! ± (Kasparov).

d23) 8...♘d7 9 f3:

d231) 9...♘b6?! 10 e4 ♗e6 11 e5 h5 12 ♗d3 ± Karpov-Kasparov, London Wch (7) 1986.

d232) 9...g5!? 10 ♗g3 ♘gf6 11 ♗d3 ♗g6 12 e4 dxe4 13 fxe4 ♘h5 14 ♘ge2 ♘xg3 15 ♘xg3 ♕b6 16 ♘ge2 ♖d8 17 0-0-0 ♕a5 18 ♔b1 ⩲ Goldin-Geller, Moscow 1989.

6

...

♗f5

7

g4

♗e6

Black can retreat in another direction, but White can still employ megalomaniac space-gaining measures, viz. 7...♗g6 8 h4:

a) 8...♗xh4? 9 ♕b3 b6 10♖xh4! ♕xh4 11 ♘xd5! ♘a6 12 ♕a4 ♘e7 13 ♘xe7 +–.

b) 8...h5 9 g5 ♗d6:

b1) 10 ♕f3?!♘e7 11 ♘ge2 (11 ♗xd6♕xd6 12♘ge2) 11...♗b4! 12 0-0-0? (12 ♖g1 ♕b6 13 0-0-0 =) 12...b5! 13 a3 ♗a5 14 b4 (Miles-Portisch, Reggio Emilia 1984) and now Pachman gives 14...♗xb4! 15 axb4 a5! 16 bxa5 b4 17 ♘b1 ♕xa5 which is overwhelming for Black.

b2) 10 ♘ge2!♘a6 (10...♘e7 11 ♗xd6 ♕xd6 12 ♘f4 ⩲ Pachman) 11 ♗xd6 ♕xd6 12 ♘f4 ♘c7 13 ♗e2 ♕b4 14 ♕d2 ♘e7 15 ♗f3 ♘e6 16 ♘ce2! ⩲ Karpov-Portisch, Linares 1989.

c) 8...h6 9 ♘f3 ♘d7 10 ♗d3 ♗xd3 11 ♕xd3 ♘gf6 12 ♖g1 ♕a5 ∞ Knaak-Raičević, Athens 1992.

8

h4 (D)

8

...

c5

This may well be the best try, since the alternatives can leave Black rather too passive:

a) 8...♗xh4 9 ♕b3 g5 10 ♗h2! ♗xg4? (10...♕b6 11 ♘f3 ♕xb3 12 axb3 ♗xg4 13 ♘xh4 gxh4 14 ♗xb8 ♖xb8 15 ♖xa7 ±) 11 ♕xb7 ♕e7 12 ♕xa8 ♕xe3+ 13 ♗e2 ♕xf2+ 14 ♔d2 +− Vaiser-Diaz, Havana 1985.

b) 8...♘f6 9 f3 c5 10 ♗d3 ♘c6 11 ♘ge2 a6 12 ♖c1 ♘d7 13 ♗g3 0-0 14 ♗b1 ♖e8 15 ♔f1 ♘f8 16 ♔g2 ♖c8 17 dxc5 ♗xc5 18 ♗f2 ♗a7 19 ♖c2 ♕a5 20 ♘f4 ♘e5 21 ♘fxd5 ± Chernin-Pigusov, Copenhagen 1986.

c) 8...♘d7 9 h5:

c1) 9...♕b6 10 ♖b1 ♘gf6 11 f3 0-0 12 ♗d3 c5 13 ♘ge2 is difficult for Black; Beliavsky-Geller, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1983.

c2) 9...♘h6 10 ♗e2 ♘b6 11 ♖c1.

c21) 11...♗d6?! 12 ♘h3 ♗xf4 13 ♘xf4 ♗d7 (13...♕g5?! 14 ♘xe6 fxe6 15 f4 fixes e6 as a weakness) 14 ♖g1 g5 (14...♕h4 15 g5 ♘f5 16 ♖g4! and 14...♕g5 15 ♔d2! are unsuccessful queen forays analysed by Kasparov) 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 ♔d2! ♕e7 17 b3! g5 18 ♘d3 0-0-0 19 ♖h1 f6 (19...f5?! 20 ♘e5) 20 ♕g1 ♘f7 21 ♕g3! (Δ 22 ♘b5) 21...♕d6! 22 ♕xd6 ♘xd6 23 f3 ♖dg8 24 ♘c5 ♔d8 25 ♗d3 ♗c8 26 ♘e2 ♘a8?! (Kasparov suggests 26...♔e7 and 26...♘d7 as lesser evils) 27 ♗h7! preparing an h-file pile-up, gave White a very pleasant ending in Kasparov-Karpov, Moscow Wch (21) 1985.

c22) 11...♘c4 12 ♗xc4 dxc4 13 ♗xh6 gxh6 is Kasparov’s suggested improvement, though 14 f4, trying to stifle Black’s bishops, looks quite promising.

  9

dxc5

♗xc5

10

♘ge2

♘e7

Beliavsky suggested 10...♘c6, to meet 11 ♘d4 with 11...♗xd4, while 11 ♘b5 runs into 11...♗xg4!?.

Instead 10...♗xg4 11 ♕xd5 ♕e7 looks very suspect in view of 12 ♕g2 ♘f6 13 ♗g5 with a safe advantage (Fritz prefers 13 ♗e5 ♕xe5 14 ♕xb7 ♗d7, but this looks unnecessary).

11

♘d4

♘bc6

12

♘xe6

fxe6

13

♗g2

Tony Kosten suggested 13 ♕a4 0-0 14 0-0-0, which is clearly rather risky, but consistent with White’s early pawn thrusts.

13

...

0-0

Flear points out that 13...e5 14 ♗g3 d4 15 exd4 exd4 16 ♘e4 ♗b4+ 17 ♔f1 favours White.

14

0-0

♘g6

14...♖xf4?! could be described as over-zealous.

15

♗g5

♗e7

16

h5!

16 ♗xe7?!♕xe7 17 h5 ♘h4 18 ♗h1 ♖ad8 19 f4 Black (Beliavsky).

16

...

♗xg5

17

hxg6

hxg6

18

f4

♗e7 (D)

19

♘xd5!

This excellent sacrificial idea is the logical consequence of White’s play.

19

...

exd5?

Black should play 19...g5! when White has nothing better than 20 ♘xe7+ ♕xe7, although 21 f5!? may still give White an edge.

20

♗xd5+

♔h7

20...♔h8 21 ♖f3 ♗h4 22 ♖h3 g5 23 ♗xc6 bxc6 24 ♕xd8 ♖axd8 25 fxg5 ♖d2 26 ♖xh4+ ♔g8 27 ♖h2 ♖xh2 28 ♔xh2 ♖f2+ 29 ♔g3 ♖xb2 30 g6! wins due to the dire position of the black king (Flear).

21

♖f2

21 ♖f3 is preferable, though the text is good enough.

21

...

♗h4

22

♖h2

g5

23

♗e4+

♔g8

White wins after 23...♔h8 24 ♕xd8 ♖axd8 25 ♗xc6 bxc6 26 fxg5 +− as in the note to Black’s 20th move.

24

♗d5+?

Instead 24 ♕b3+ wins, as Flear analysed:

a) 24...♔h8 25 ♕xb7 ♖c8 (25...♖xf4 26 ♕xc6 ♖xg4+ 27 ♔h1 ♖c8 28 ♕g6) 26 ♗xc6.

b) 24...♖f7 25 ♗d5 ♕e7 26 fxg5 ♗xg5 27 ♗xf7+ ♕xf7 28 ♖h8+.

After the text, Glenn was unfortunate enough to let even the draw slip away in time trouble:

39 ♔f3 ♔e7 40 ♔e4 ♔f6 41 ♖c5 was White’s last chance.

39...♔e7 40 ♔f4? ♖d4+ 41 ♔e3 ♖d5 0-1

Ouch!

Game 5

Chekhov – Klovans

Frunze 1988

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ♘c3 ♗e7 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ♗f4

5

...

♘f6

6

e3

White can prevent ...♗f5 with 6 ♕c2 but in Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow Wch (20) 1985 Black equalized after 6...0-0 7 e3 c5 8 dxc5 ♗xc5 9 ♘f3 ♘c6 10 ♗e2 d4! 11 exd4 ♘xd4 12♘xd4♕xd4.

6