re ne
I
CaSSICa
by Byron Jacobs
EVERYMAN CHESS
First published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers plc, formerly Cadogan Books
plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
Copyright© 2001 Byron 1acobs
The right of Byron 1acobs to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 1 85744 232 6
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester
Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: dan@everyman.uk.com
website: www .everyman.uk.com
The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First
Rank Publishing.
EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)
Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron 1acobs
Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.
Production by Book Production Services.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge,
Wiltshire.
[ CONTENTS I
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 tLJf6
Bibliography
4
Introduction
5
Part One: Main Line with 4 e5 tLJfd7
1
Modern Main Line with 5 CLJce2
2
Old Main Line with 5 f4 c5 6 tLJf3 tLJc6 7 il.e3 cxd4 8 CLJxd4
26
3
0 ld Main Line with 5 f4 c5 6 tLJf3 tLJc6 7 il.e3 a6
47
4
0 ld Main Line: Others Variations after 5 f4 c5 6 tt:Jf3
59
7
Part Two: 4 J!Lg5
5
The Burn Variation with 4... dxe4 5 CLJxe4 il.e7
69
6
The Burn Variation with 4 ...dxe4 5 CLJxe4 il.e7 6 il.xf6 gxf6
86
7
Main Line with 4... il.e7 5 e5 tt:Jfd7
97
8
The McCutcheon Variation: 4... il.b4
134
Part Three: Other Variations
9
Odds and Ends
156
Index of Complete Games
175
I BIBLIOGRAPHY I
Books
Baker, C. A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire (Cadogan 1998)
Gufeld,E . & Stetsko, 0. The Classical French (Bats ford 1999)
Harding, T.D. The Classical French (Batsford 199 1)
Krnic, Z. et al. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume C, 4th edition (Sahovski
Informator 2000)
Nunn, J., Burgess, G., Emms, J. & Gallagher, J. Nunn 's Chess Openings
(Everyman/Gambit 1 999)
Watson, J. Play the French (Cadogan 1996)
Periodicals
British Chess Magazine
Chess Informant
Correspondence Chess (BCCA)
New in Chess Yearbooks
Data bases
ChessBase Mega Database 2001
Chess Informant
Mega Corr (ed. Harding, T.D.)
INTRODUCTION
I
It is well known that in chess different openings can wander in and out of fashion, the style
often being set by the world champion and other players at the top of the chess tree. A case
in point is the King's Indian Defence. While the great strategist Anatoly Karpov was world
champion in the late 1970s and early 1980s, this slightly risky opening was a rare guest at the
highest levels. However, then along came Garry Kasparov who, with his ferocious attacking
play, demonstrated that the King's Indian was a perfectly viable defence for Black. Suddenly
this opening was all the rage and everyone was playing it. Then, in the late 1990s Kasparov
lost interest, switching to other defences against 1 d4, and suddenly enthusiasm for the
King's Indian waned again.
The French Classical (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tLlc3 tLlf6) has not always been at the forefront of
theoretical debate, but is currently extremely popular. For example, at the recent Astana
tournament in Kazakhstan, featuring Kasparov, Kramnik, Shirov, Gelfand and Morozevich,
the French Classical was seen in three of the 30 games played. Another recent world class
gathering was seen at the tournament in Leon, where players are allowed access to computer
software and databases during play. In that event, where the competitors were Anand,
Shirov, Topalov and Leko, the French Classical accounted for three out of j ust 14 games.
One of the reasons that this line is suddenly being seen so much more often is that I
sense that many top grandmasters are becoming slightly bored with playing the Sicilian. The
Sicilian has for a long time been regarded as the 'correct' reply to 1 e4, creating dynamic
positions where Black has a sound structure. The problem is that, if White so wishes, play
can easily become ferociously complex. Thus a number of top players are starting to use the
French more and more as a means of obtaining unbalanced positions but avoiding the
horrendous complications that are often a hallmark of the Sicilian Defence.
The French Classical fits in well with this modern desire to create dynamic
counterchances as Black but to start off from a sound base. For a long time the Classical
was possibly seen as a poor relation of the Winawer variation (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tLlc3 i.. b4),
where Black invariably doubles White's c-pawns, but at the cost of the bishop pair and with
a resultant weakening of the dark squares. Black certainly gets counterplay in the Winawer
but he has to reconcile himself to taking on a number of weaknesses in order to do so. The
Classical variation is an altogether more solid choice.
I hope that an examination of the game s in this book will prove useful even for players
who do not expect to play these line s that often. The reason is that most of the games here
see the creation of a central situatio n where White has pawns on d4 and eS facin g black
pawns on dS and e6. Such closed cent res can arise from numerous diffe rent ope nings, such
as Sicilians, Caro-Kanns and even Pirc and Modern Defences. The plans and strategies that
are employed in the games in this book may well prove helpful in obtaining an
unde rstanding of certain positions that can arise in those openings.
I would like to thank Jonathan Tait as well as grandmasters Nigel Davies and Glenn
Flear, all of whom have made excellent contributions to the material here.
Byron J acobs,
Sussex,
July 200 1
CI/APTER ONE
I
Mod e rn M ain Lin e
with 4 e 5 lt:Jfd 7 5 lt:Jc e 2
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 tt:Jfd7
5 tt:Jce2
In subsequent chapters we will see how
White is happy to play the position by
allowing an exchange of pawns on d4 in
situations where he is obliged to recapture
with a piece. By playing 5 t2Jce2, White
adopts a different tack. He decides that, at
whatever cost, he is determined to maintain
central pawns on d4 and e5, thus 5 t2Jce2
prepares to play c2-c3 and White will
(usually) meet .. .f7-f6 with f2-f4. The plan is
to take time in the early part of the game to
stifle Black's attempts at counterplay and
then exploit the powerful centre and extra
space at a later date.
Nevertheless, 5 t2Jce2 has very obvious
drawbacks and is not the kind of move you
would recommend to a beginner. Let's
examine its merits objectively: White has
only one piece developed and decides to
move it again; the knight was perfectly well
placed on c3 - it is clearly less happy on e2
where it obstructs White's development by
completely blocking in the fl-bishop and
also hampers the queen and king's knight.
However, it is important to bear in mind
that the position is blocked and, of course, a
loss of time is much less serious in a closed
p osition. Furthermore, White's strong
centre is persuasive compensation for the
shortcomings of the move 5 t2Jce2. In the
French Black is often reliant on the breaks
. . . c7-c5 and .. .f7-f6 to prise open the white
centre and generate counterplay. Here,
although these moves may be useful for
Black in terms of file opening, neither will
actually directly undermine White's centre.
In fact, White's pawns on d4 and eS can
often prove so suffocating for Black that he
feels obliged to resort to hefty material
sacrifices such as . . . t2Jdxe5 to blow the
position open. The resulting positions are
very double-edged. When it goes wrong for
White he can find himself minus two
pawns, way behind in development with no
centre and his king wandering around in the
middle of the board. In such circumstances
a mere piece can seem paltry compensation.
For those of a nervous disposition, it is also
possible for Black to play more
circumspectly and look for counterplay with
queenside pawn advances.
I have given substantial coverage to this
variation, since over the past couple of years
it has been subject to extensive tests at the
highest level. It is a particular favourite of
Viswanathan Anand, who seems to win
every single game he plays with it. His
favourite opponent is Alexei Shirov, whom
Fre n c h C la s s ic a l
h e has played three times i n this line. The
fiery ex-Latvian tries a different defensive
set-up in every game, but j ust gets blown
away time after time.
In Games 1-6 we see Black adopting a
straightforward queenside counterattacking
plan with 5 . . . c5 6 c3 ctJc6 7 f4 'ii'b 6, whereas
in Games 7-9 Black prefers pawn play with
7 . . . b5. Game 10 sees White declining to
form the large pawn centre, preferring
instead 7 4Jf3 . Finally, in Games 1 1- 1 3
Black delays the development o f his queen's
knight in favour of the immediate central
attack 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 f6.
Note that the variation seen in Games 16 (5 . . . c5 6 c3 ctJc6 7 f4 'ii'b 6), and also
others in this chapter, can arise from the
following line in the Tarrasch Defence: 1 e4
e6 2 d4 d5 3 4Jd2 4Jf6 4 e5 4Jfd7 5 c3 c5 6
f4 ctJc6 7 4Jdf3 'iVb6. Here if White plays
ctJe2, either immediately or in the near
future, a direct transposition is possible
(although, curiously, the knights have
reversed themselves - it is now the king's
knight which is on e2 and the queen's
knight on f3). However, in the Tarrasch
route, the white knight is not yet committed
to e2 and White often exploits this fact to
play .i.d3, or to delay the placing of the
kingside minor pieces altogether in favour
of moves such as h2-h4, g2-g3 or even �f2.
Camel
Anand-Shirov
FIDE Knockout,
Tehran 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 'Llc3 'Llf6 4 e5 'Llfd7
9 . . .it.e7
.
Black's alternatives here are considered in
the next main game.
1 0 h4
A remarkable move, calmly preparing to
develop the king's rook whilst still behind in
development. However, this move does also
clamp down on the kingside and thus
inhibits the advance . . . g7-g5 which is often
useful for Black in undermining the white
centre. As we shall see in the next main
game, White also has a couple of other
moves here.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 l::t h 3
·
'Knights before bishops' is a well-known
piece of advice for those starting out in the
game. 'Rooks before bishops' is another
concept altogether.
1 1 . . . a5 1 2 b3
Preventing Black's . . . a5-a4, which he
could follow up with . . . 4Ja5 securing a
powerful clamp on the queenside.
1 2 . . .'V/JJ c7
12 . . . 'ii'd 8 is seen in the next game.
5 'Llce2 c5 6 f4 'Llc6 7 c3 'ilib6 8 'Llf3 f6
1 3 'Lleg 1
For 8 . . . i.e7 see Games 4 and 5, while
8 . . . a5 is the subject of Game 6.
This bizarre-looking move leads to a
strange position where White has moved
seven of his pawns and only developed two
pieces. Meanwhile Black has mobilised most
of his forces and seems well prepared for
action in the centre. However, it is not all
doom and gloom for White: he has a very
strong centre and good attacking chances
9 a3
An important little move which prevents
the highly annoying ... kb4+ and also creates
the possibility of b2-b4, gaining space on
the queenside. The inferior 9 g3 is the
subject of Game 3.
M o d e rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 0Jtd 7 5 CiJc e2
on the kingside. Left to his own devices he
will complete his development when he will
have a promising kingside initiative. Shirov
therefore opts for a sacrifice of a piece in an
attempt to maximise the advantages of his
position. Note that White's text move is the
best as 13 tLlg3? gets blown away by
13 . . . cxd4 14 cxd4 fxeS 1S fxeS tt:JdxeS! and
White is in big trouble, mainly due to the
hanging rook on a l .
1 3 . . . a 4 1 4 b4 fxe5
A more circumspect approach is
14 . . . cxd4 1S cxd4 fS 16 .tb2 (this is a little
slow; the immediate 16 lUgS, possibly
intending �d3 and g2-g4, looks more to the
point) 16 . . . tt:Jb6 17 lUgS �xgS 18 hxgS '¥.i'f7
19 �c 1 �d7 20 �cc3 g6 2 1 �h6 �ac8 22
l:.cS tLla7 23 l:.aS l:.a8 24 l:.cS l:.ac8 2S l:.aS
�a8 26 �cS l:.ac8 'h-'h Kuczynski­
Zaragatski, German League 200 1 .
1 5 fxe5 CiJdxe 5
If Black could now simply retreat his
bishop he would have nothing to complain
about. However, White not only attacks the
bishop on h4 but is also threatening tt:Jd2,
trapping the black queen. Black has no
decent way to deal with these two threats
and must resign himself to jettisoning a
further piece.
22 . . . e5
If 22 . . . iH6 23 i.xf6 l:.xf6 24 tt:Jd2 and
the queen goes.
23 nxh4 �t5 24 VWd 1 e4 25 �xb3 axb3
26 4Jd2 e3 27 ct:Jf3 nae8 28 'it>d 1 c4
Black's horde of passed pawns look
impressive, but White has two extra pieces
and good control of the dark squares.
29 �e2 �e4 30 'it> c 1 11e6 3 1 �c3 !1g6
32 11h2 �d3 33 �xd3 cxd3 34 'it>b2 d2
35 �xb3 !1g3 36 �b2 g 5 37 �c2 !lc8
38 �d3 g4 39 �e5 11c 1 40 !1h 1 !1xg2
4 1 ct:Jh4 1 -0
Black launches in with a typical piece
sacrifice for such positions.
Game2
1 6 dxe5 CiJxe5 1 7 CiJxe5 'ilixe 5+ 1 8 VWe2
Sakaev-Bareev
�xh4+ 1 9 �d 1
El ist a 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ct:Jc3 ct:Jt6 4 e5 ct:Jfd7
5 ct:Jce2 c5 6 c3 ct:Jc6 7 f4 'ilib6 8 ct:Jt3 f6
9 a3 ii.e7
Not 19 l:.xh4 '¥i'xc3+.
1 9 . . .'�f6 ? ?
This move is based on a horrible
miscalculation after which Black is lost.
Much better was 19 . . .'¥i'xe2+ 20 �xe2 �f2
leading to an interesting endgame with
balanced chances.
20 CLJf3 'ifxc3 21 �b2 'ifb3+ 22 'it>c 1
Immediate queenside action with 9 . . . a5 is
also possible: 10 g4 (White may be better
advised to settle for the more restrained 10
g3 , e.g. 10 ... �e7 11 �h3 fs 12 g4 0-0 1 3 0-0
Fre n c h Cla s s ic a l
a4 14 'l.t>h 1 'l.t>h8 1 5 .S g 1 cxd4 16 cxd4 �d8
17 'ife 1 ctJb6 18 gxfS exfS 19 i.e3 with
good play in Mateo-Prakken, Ubeda 2 000)
10 . . . i.e7 1 1 i.g2 0-0 12 'ifd3 (this is too
slow) 12 . . . cxd4 13 cxd4 fxeS 14 fxeS llxf3 !
( a highly thematic sacrifice which leads to
the rapid dismantling of the white centre)
1 5 i.xf3 LtJdxeS 1 6 dxeS tDxeS 17 'ife3 (one
point of Black's play is 17 'ifc3 d4! 18 ctJxd4
'ifxd4 19 'ifxd4 ctJxf3+ 20 'l.t>f2 ctJxd4 with a
winning position) 17 . . . iVxe3 1 8 i.xe3
ltJxf3+ 19 'l.t>f2 ctJeS 20 i.d4 ctJxg4+ 21 'l.t>g3
ctJh6 22 i.eS ltJf7 23 i.c7 eS with a
fabulous position for Black who won
quickly in Sendur-Kaidanov, Istanbul 2000.
pretensions towards a kingside attack and
relocates his forces on the queenside) 16 ... a4
17 b4 i.d7 18 ctJc3 ctJa7 19 i.b2 �e8 20
.Se 1 .Sc8 2 1 ctJd2 with a balanced position
in Brodsky-Dgebuadze, Wijk aan Zee 200 1 .
1 4 it.e3 f 5 1 5 iLd3 cxd4 1 6 cxd4 tLlb6
1 7 ctJh 5
1 0 h4
Others:
a) 10 fS ! ? is a typically random
Morozevich move which led to wild play in
Morozevich-Gleizerov, Alushta 1993, viz.
10 . .. cxd4 1 1 fxe6 ctJdxeS 12 ltJfxd4 i.cS 13
ltJf4 ctJxd4 (instead of this, 13 . . . i.xd4 14
cxd4 iVxd4 looks pretty solid for Black; it is
difficult to see how White can justify his
play in this position) 14 cxd4 i.xd4 15
iVa4+ ctJc6 1 6 i.d3 gS 17 ttJhs 'l.t>d8 1 8 h4
i.xe6 19 hxgS fxgS 20 i.xgS+ 'l.t>d7 21 ctJf6+
and White went on to win.
b) 10 b4 cxb4 1 1 cxb4 aS 12 bS!? (White
gives up a pawn in return for several tempi)
12 . . . 'ifxb5 13 ctJc3 iVb6 14 .Sb 1 'ifd8 15
Si.d3 fs 16 h3 hs 17 .Sg 1 h4 1 8 'l.t>fl ltJf8 19
iVc2 with reasonable play for the pawn in
Lanka-G lek, Zillertal 1 993 .
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 :h3 a5 1 2 b3 �dB 1 3 tLlg3
An alternative idea to placing the knight
on g1 as in the previous game. From g3 the
knight can often hop to the hS-square.
1 7 . . . �e8
A remarkable variation given by Finkel is
17 ... a4 18 .Sg3 i.xh4? (18 . . . .Sf7!?) 19 ctJxh4
iVxh4 20 �f2! \th8 21 .Sxg7 iVh 1+ 22 i.fl
axb3 23 .Sg3 ! and White wins. It can be
surprisingly easy for White to whip up an
attack on the kingside despite Black having
blocked the position with .. .f7-f5.
1 8 tLlh2 g6 1 9 'Llf6+
·
White is obliged to sacrifice a pawn as 19
ctJg3 h5 spells the end of his initiative on
the kingside.
1 9 . . . �xf6 20 exf6 tLld7 21 h 5 'Llxf6 22
hxg6 �xg6 23 g4
White heads for an endgame where he
maintains good chances, despite his pawn
minus, as his pieces are so active.
23 . . . t2Jxg4 24 'Llxg4 �xg4 25 �xg4+
1 3 . . . h6
fxg4 26 nxh6 'Lle7 27 Wd2 !if7 28 iL.f2
Others possibilities here are:
a) 13 . .. ctJb6 14 i.d3 fS 15 i.c2 i.d7 1 6
i.e3 cxd4 1 7 cxd4 a 4 1 8 b 4 ctJa7 19 ltJhS
Si.e8 20 ctJgS iVc8 2 1 .Se 1 l2Jc4 with a tense
position in Smirin-Psakhis, Las Vegas 1999.
b) 13 ... cxd4 14 cxd4 CLJb6 15 �d3 fS 16
CLJe2 (White temporarily abandons his
l:lg7 29 nah 1 g3 30 .l:h8+ Wf7 3 1 it.e 1
g2 32 .l:g 1 b6 33 iLh4 iLb7 34 :xa8
iLxa8 3 5 iLg5 lLJf5
This is a mistake. After 35 .. .1�Jc6! 36 \te3
eS 37 dxeS CLJxeS 38 jLe2 d4+ 39 'it?xd4
CLJf3+ 40 �xf3 �xf3 the position is
completely equal.
M o d e rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 0Jd 7 5 t'U c e2
36 5Lxf5 exf5 37 l:.xg2 �e6 38 l:.h2
1 02 �h8+ 1h-1h
Game]
Dolmatov-Bareev
El ist a 1997
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 t'Uc3 ctJf6 4 e5 ctJfd7
5 f4 c5 6 ctJf3 t'Uc6 7 t'Ue2 �b6 8 c3 f6
9 g3?!
38 . . . �d7
Now Black has some problems to solve
as his pieces are passive and his pawns are
weak. Bareev sensibly decides to jettison a
pawn to activate his forces, after which he
has little trouble maintaining the balance.
39 l:.h6 5Lc6 40 �f6 l:.h7 4 1 l:.xf5 �h2+
42 �e 1 a4
Sacrificing a further pawn to build a
fortress.
5 2 iLf4 �e6 53 ..te5 �f5 54 �d2 l:.a4
This move just does not seem to work.
The problem is not particularly that White is
wasting important development time with
pawn moves (he frequently does that in this
variation) but that this move creates
weakness along the f-file. This drawback
will become abundantly clear in the
subsequent play.
55 l:.f3+ �e6 56 �b3 �f5 57 :Sf3+ �e6
9 . . . cxd4 1 0 cxd4
58 :Sc3 �f5 59 l:.h3 b5 60 l:.h 7 �e6 6 1
Although supporting the centre like this
is thematic, it doesn't work out well for
White as the black initiative is just too
strong. White would do better to change
plans and try 10 ctJexd4 fxeS 1 1 fxeS,
although it will only be equal, e.g. 1 1...4:Jxd4
(not 1 1 . .. 4:Jdxe5 12 ctJxeS ctJxeS 13 'i:VhS+
ctJg6 14 �d3) 12 cxd4 �b4+ 13 �f2 0-0 14
�g2 �e7 15 .td3 l:.f7 16 h4 4:Jf8 17 ctJgS
�xgS 18 hxgS g6 with a balanced position
in Psakhis-Dizdar, Zagreb 1993.
43 bxa4 5Lxa4 44 l:.xd5+ �c6 45 l:.e5
5Lb3 46 f5 �h5 47 f6 l:.h7 48 �f2 l:.d7
Black now has a rock solid structure and
White cannot make any progress.
49 l:.e3 .1Lf7 50 l:.c3+ �d5 51 �e3 l:.a7
l:. h 3 � f 5 62 l:.f3+ �e4 6 3 l:. g 3 � f 5 64
�c2 b4 65 axb4 l:.xb4 66 l:.g7 l:.b7 67
�d3 l:.b3+ 68 �d2 l:.b2+ 69 �e3 l:.b3+
70 �f2 �e6 7 1 l:.h7 l:.a3 72 nh8 �f5
73 l:.d8 :Sa7 74 �g3 ..te6 75 :Se8 ..tf7
76 :Sb8 l:.d7 77 �b 1 :Sd8 78 l:.b7 l:.f8
79 wf2 wg6 80 �e3 l:.h8 81 l!b 1 l:.h3+
8 2 �f4 :Sh4+ 83 �g3 :Se4 84 :Sg 1 Wf5
8 5 l:.h 1 �e3+ 86 �f2 :Sxe5 87 dxe5
�xe5 88 �e3 �xf6 89 �f4 �g7 90
�g5 5Lg8 91 :Sb 1 .1Ld 5 92 :Sb5 5Lc4 93
1 o . . fxe5 1 1 fxe5 iLb4+ 1 2 t'U c 3 0-0 1 3
.
Ilb7+ �h8 94 �f6 �g8 95 I!d7 iLb3 96
iLf4 il.e7 1 4 �d2
nd2 iLc4 97 nf2 iLd5 98 I!c2 iLe4 99
This is clearly refuted by Black but the
position is already difficult. Other examples:
l1c5 iLd3 1 00 !!aS iLc2 1 0 1 !!aS+ �h7
Fre n c h Cla s s ic a l
a) 14 CLJa4 'iVaS+ 1 5 CLJc3 'iVb6 16 CLJa4.
This is not the most ambitious way to
handle the position, but in Jaracz-Gleizerov,
Katowice 199 1 , Black declined White's tacit
peace offer and went on to win after
16 . . . 'iVd8 17 �d3 CLJb6 18 0-0 ctJxa4 1 9
'iVxa4 � d 7 20 'iVc2 h6 2 1 'iVd2 � e 8 2 2 h 3
i. b 4 23 'iVh2 CLJ e 7 24 a 3 �aS 25 �e3 �g6
26 i.xg6 CLJxg6 27 Mac l �b6.
b) 14 �h3 'iVxb2 15 'iVc l 'iVxc l+ 16
:xc l C2Jb6 1 7 'LJbs C2Jd8 18 C2Jc7 Mb8 19
0-0 (White is trying to generate an initiative
in the endgame but his forces are easily
repulsed) 19 . . . h6 20 �d2 CLJc4 21 �c3 bS
22 CLJh4 Mxfl+ 23 �xfl Mb7 and Black
soon won in Anand-Sisniega, Philadelphia
1987.
1 9 'iYxf2 lt:Jb3+ 20 axb3 'ifxf2 2 1 Sd2
�f5 22 �h6 �d3+ 23 �b 1 lt:Jf2+ 0-1
Game4
Anand-Shirov
Frankfurt 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 4 e5 lt:Jfd7
5 lt:Jce2 c5 6 c3 lt:Jc6 7 f4 �b6 8 lt:Jf3
�e7 9 a3
For 9 g3 see Game 5.
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 h4
Again White adopts the familiar plan of
h2-h4 and Mh3 .
1 O . . . f6 1 1 f:th3 tLla5
1 4. . .g5!
A thematic blow which seriously
undermines White's centre. The weaknesses
along the f-file are now seriously apparent.
1 5 lt:Jxg5 � x g 5 1 6 �xg5 lt:Jxd4
Black wants to gain squares for his pieces
on the queenside, but this move takes the
pressure off d4 completely.
1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 axb4 tLlc4 1 4 tLlg3 a 5
1 7 �g2
This looks promising for Black, but the
pin along the a-file means that he will have
to waste more time before developing a
serious initiative on the queenside.
Remarkably, this position had already
occurred nearly 100 years previously. In
Alapin-Maroczy, Vienna 1908, White tried
his luck in the endgame after 17 0-0-0 CLJf3
18 .ie3 CLJxd2 19 .ixb6 axb6 20 Mxd2
CLJxeS 2 1 .ih3 CLJc6 22 b3, but that proved
to be pretty hopeless too.
If Black tries to open the centre he falls
foul to a typical combination: 1S .. . fxe5 1 6
�xh7+ �xh7 17 CLJgS+ �xgS (if 17 . . . �g8 1 8
'iVhS CLJf6 19 'iVg 6 and Black is helpless
against 'LJhS) 18 hxgS+ <it'g8 19 'iVhS and
1 7 . . . lt:Jxe5 1 8 0-0-0 :t2 !
1 6 lt:Jg 5 :d8
A triumphant and thematic mvaswn
along the f-file.
1 5 �d3 f5
WillS.
If 16 . . . �xg5 17 hxgS J::t d 8 intending to
meet 1 8 ifhS with 1 8 . . . tZ:if8, White can play
M o dern M a in L in e with 4 e 5 t:Dtd 7 5 t:Dc e 2
1 8 CLihS maintaining a strong attack. White
has possibilities such as g2-g4, prising open
the kingside or maybe even l2Jf6+.
1 7 �h 5 .ixg 5
Now, a s we saw previously 1 8 hxgS is
reasonably well countered by 1 8 . . . CLJf8 but
White has a better recapture . . .
9 . . . a 5 1 0 h4
Instead 10 �h3 'ifa6 1 1 0-0 CLJb6 12
dxcS .ixcS+ 13 CLJed4 �d7 14 �f2 g6 15 a4
CLJc8 1 6 �e3 'ifb6 1 7 �fl CLJ8e7 1 8 .i.d3
CLJxd4 19 .ixd4 hS led to a draw in the
game Plaskett-Karolyi, Graz 1978.
1 o . . a4 1 1 .ih3
.
1 8 �xg5 �fS
The black rook has to come scurrying
back to deal with the threat of CLihS.
1 9 CZ'lh5 � f 7 20 l:lg3 g 6
1 1 . . .t2Jdb8 ! ?
�h6 .ib7 2 5 �xg6+ hxg6 26 �xg6+
Speelman, as is often the case, finds a
new plan in the opening. Rather than trying
to blunt White's kingside aspirations with a
combination of . . . f7-f6 and/or . . .f7-f5, he
allows White a free hand in that sector in
the interests of developing his own play on
the other wing. As you might assume, this is
a double-edged strategy.
�hS 27 'ifxf7 l:lgS 28 .ifS! 1 -0
1 2 h5 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 .id7 1 4 0-0 CZ'la5
28 CLJf6 was also sufficient, but this is a
very elegant conclusion. After 28 . . . CLJxf8 29
CLJf6 forces checkmate.
1 5 CZ'lc3 0Jc4 1 6 f5 CZ'lxb2 1 7 �e2 a3
2 1 .ixc4!
Now to add to Black's woes the white
dark-squared bishop enters the game.
2 1 . . . dxc4 22 b 5 'i¥xb5 23 .ia3 b6 24
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 CZ'lc3 CZ'lf6 4 e5 CZ'lfd7
Black creates a secure, albeit unusual,
outpost for his knight on b2. It may have
been possible to bring the knight back into
the action with 17 . . . CLJc4, but a continuation
such as 1 8 f6 gxf6 19 exf6 i.xf6 20 CLJxdS
i.xd4+ 2 1 Wh2 'ifcS 22 CLJxd4 'ifxdS 23
ltJfS gives White tremendous play for his
material.
5 CZ'lce2 c5 6 c3 CZ'lc6 7 f4 'i¥b6 8 CZ'lf3
1 8 f6 gxf6 1 9 exf6 ..id6 20 .ih6?
.ie7 9 g3
This amounts to a critical loss of a tempo
after which Black activates his entire
position. White had to try 20 ltJxdS 'ifbS 2 1
CL'lf4 i.xf4 22 'i¥'xb5 i.xb5 2 3 i.xf4 i.xf1
24 .:xf1 when his bishop pair, lead in
development and the generally disorganised
Game5
Lalic-Speelman
H ast ing s 2000
This move has been the popular
interpretation of how White should handle
this position for many years but, in view of
the recent games with h2-h4 and .:h3, it
now looks a little slow.
Fr e n c h Clas sic a l
nature o f the black pos1t10n give him
excellent play for the exchange.
20 . . . l2Jc6
9 a3
Now the pressure against d4 swings the
game Black's way.
21 w h 1 ?
White caves in completely. Finkel offers
the variation 2 1 ctJxd5 ctJxd4! 22 ctJxb6
ctJxe2+ 23 �f2 i.. c 5+ 24 i.. e3 j,xb6 25
j,xb6 ctJc3 but Black has all the chances.
21 . . . l2Jxd4 22 'ii' e 3 �cS 23 �g7 ttJts 24
'ii'g S h6 2S lLlxdS hxgS 26 l2Jxb6 l1xhS
Earlier in the game it would have been
hard to anticipate that Black's rook would
play a key role by becoming active along the
h-file.
27 l2Jxa8 .:xh3+ 28 wg2 nxg3+ 29 wh2
�d6 0- 1
r-------.
Game 6
Arakhamia-Volkov
Isl e ofMan 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 CZJc3 l2Jf6 4 eS l2Jtd7
S l2Jce2 cS 6 c3 l2Jc6 7 f4 'ik'b6 8 l2Jf3
aS
In this game we see Black again declining
to advance his own f-pawn and relying on
his own queenside play to balance the
chances. This method of handling the
position has been seen often in the games
of the young Russian Grandmaster,
Alexander Volkov.
Volkov provides all the other practical
experiences for Black in this position:
a) 9 g3 has led to a couple of quick
draws, viz. 9 . . . a4 10 j,h3 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 a3
12 b3 j,b4t- 13 �f2 ct:Jdb8 and now:
a1) 14 j,e3 j,d7 15 g4 h5 16 gxh5 l:Ixh5
17 j,fl ctJe7 18 ctJg3 �h8 19 l:Icl ctJbc6 20
h4 0-0-0 21 j,d3 �b8 22 j,b 1 lf2-Y2
Khalifman-Volkov, St Petersburg 1999.
a2) 14 �g2 ctJa6 15 j,e3 j,d7 16 �c 1
j,e7 17 ctJc3 ctJab4 1 8 'ifd2 'iVa5 19 ctJa4 b6
Y2-Y2 Ulibin-Volkov, Krasnodar 1998.
b) 9 a4!? is a rarely seen idea but is well
worth a look. White gives away the b4square but he usually has to make some sort
of concession on the queenside in these
variations anyway. By advancing the a-pawn
he at least gains some space on the queen's
wing and prevents Black having matters
entirely his own way there. Another Volkov
game saw 9 . . . j,e7 10 g3 (obviously the
familiar idea of h2-h4 and l:Ih3 also comes
into consideration) 10 . . .0-0 1 1 j,h3 cxd4 12
cxd4 f6! ? (this sacrifice is another of the
devices at Black's disposal for generating
counterplay in these positions) 13 i.. xe6+
�h8 14 exf6 (a computer would be highly
tempted to go 'all in' here with 14 i.. xd5
fxe5 15 fxe5, when it is not easy to see how
Black can develop sufficient play to justify
his two-pawn deficit) 14 . .. i.. b4+ 1 5 cuc3
CLJxf6 16 i..x c8 �e8+ 17 <it>f2 i..xc3 18 bxc3
M o de rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 CiJfd 7 5 lLJc e 2
�axc 8 (Gorin-Volkov, Bydgoszcz 2000).
Black's lead in development and the
weakness of White's light squares offer him
reaso nab le play for the pawn.
9 . . . a4 1 0 h4 l1 a7
A very provocative move that encourages
Wh ite in to an immediate demonstration of
force . The point of 1 0 . . Jh7 is that Black
would like to develop his queenside play
with . . . lt:JaS but, if played at once, this move
dro ps a pawn after 10 . . . ttJa5 1 1 'ifxa4.
Volkov therefore p rotects his rook so that
after, say, 1 1 l:Ih3 ctJaS , 12 'ii'x a4? becomes
impossible due to 1 2 . . . ttJb3 . He may also
have been thinkin g that this rook might
come in handy one day for defending along
the seventh rank.
move allows the white queen to invade the
black position and generate sufficient play
to force a draw. There was nothing wrong
with the simple 22 .. J�xh5 23 l:hh5 'ifxh5
and White is in a bad way. One satisfying
feature of the black position here is that the
rook on a7 performs a crucial role in
defending the b7-pawn!
23 .ixb7
Volkov must have underestimated this
move.
23 . . . lLJe7
After 23 . . . l:Ixb7 24 'ii'xc6+ Black should
acquiesce in a draw by perpetual check with
24 . . . l:Id7 25 'ifc8+ l:d8 26 'ifc6+ l:d7.
24 �c7 l1xb7
1 1 f5 exf5 1 2 ti:Jf4 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 �aS+
Forced as the threat of 'ifb8+ had to be
dealt with somehow.
1 4 .id2 �dB 1 5 � d 3
2 5 �xb7 lLJc4 26 �a8+
1 5 lt:JxdS is well met by 15 ... ttJdxe5.
1 5 . . . CiJ b 6 1 6 'ifc2 g 6 1 7 h 5 g 5 1 8 lLJe 2
f4 1 9 .ixh 7 lLJc4 20 .if5?
This lands White in trouble. The more
restrained 20 .td3 was called for when the
position is unclear.
A sneaky way to force a draw here is 26
ttJxf4 'ifxf4 27 'ifb8+ ttJc8. The point of
White's play is that (27. . .�d7 drops the
queen after 28 e6+) 28 'ifxc8+ �e7 29 'ifc7+
�e6 30 'ifc8+ with a perpetual.
26 . . . 'it'd7 27 �xa4+ 'it'e6 28 �a6+ 'it'f5
20 . . . g4 21 lLJg 5 ! ?
29 lLJg3+
2 1 lt:Jfg 1 ttJxd2 2 2 �xd2 (22 .txc8 ttJb3
23 .txb7 'ifa5+ is strong) 22 . . . f3 was rather
unpalatable for White, so she decides to mix
things up.
This move is good enough to hold the
balance, but unfortunately for White she
follows it up incorrectly. It was also possible
to play the position in a slightly calmer way
with 29 b3 ttJe3 30 'ii'd 3+ �e6 3 1 g3 when
matters remain completely obscure although
White is probably not worse.
29 . . .fxg3 30 0-0 +
Someone who gets excited about such
things may want to scan a large database to
discover if this is the latest example of
castling with check in a tournament game.
2 1 . . . �xg5 2 2 � xc8
30 . . . 'it'e4 3 1 l:.ae 1 + ?
22 . . . CiJxd2 ?
W hite's imaginative play pays off as thi s
A further example to add to the case
histories of 'the wrong rook'. After 3 1
l:fe 1+ ttJe3 3 2 l:ad 1 Black has nothing
better than 32 . . . �f5 33 'ifd3+ �e6 34 .J:ixe3
'ifxhS 35 'ifa6+ with another perpetual
check.
31 . . . CiJe3
Fre n c h Cla s s ic a l
For 8 . . . c4 see the next game.
Now unfortunately, White's initiative is
an
end.
at
9 ltJxd4 ltJxd4 1 0 cxd4 b4 1 1 a4
1 1 'i¥a4 seems less testing for Black, e.g.
1 1 . .. a5 (1 1 . . .'i¥b6 led to an edge for White
after 12 'Uf3 bxa3 13 bxa3 �b8 14 .i.d3
'i¥b3 15 'i¥xb3 �xb3 16 �e2 .i.e7 17 .i.d2
in A.Sokolov-Glek, Moscow 1992) 12 tt:Jf3
'i¥b6 13 .i.bS �b8 14 .i.c6 .i.e7 15 .i.d2
'i¥d8 16 axb4 .i.xb4 17 .i.xb4 �xb4 1 8
'iYxaS 'iYxaS 19 �xaS �xb2 20 .i.xd7+ �xd7
21 0-0 .i.b7 and the endgame was equal in
Lanka-Lempert, Hyeres 1992.
32 �e2 nxh 5 33 �c2+ wxd4 34 �c3+
we4 35 �c2+ 'lt>xe 5 36 �c7+ we6 37
�xg3 i.. h 6 38 �c7 f5 39 �b6+ Wf7 40
%U2 g3 0 - 1
Camel
Anand-Shirov
L eo n 2000
This game was played under the curious
conditions that both players had access to
computer software and databases during
play.
1 1 . . . �a 5
Shirov has himself experienced the white
side of this variation: 1 1 . .. CLJb6 12 CLJf3 .i.e7
13 b3 aS 14 .i.bS+ CLJd7 15 0-0 .i.a6 1 6
.i.xa6 �xa6 17 'iVd 3 �c6 18 .i.d2 0-0 1 9
�ac l tt:J b 8 2 0 fS and White had a promising
position although Black held on to the draw
in Shirov-Korchnoi, Lucerne 1993 .
1 e 4 e6 2 d 4 d 5 3 ti:Jc3 'Llf6 4 e5 ctJfd7
5 ltJce2 c5 6 c3 'Llc6 7 f4 b5
1 2 i.. d 2 i.. e 7 1 3 ti:Jf3 0-0 ? !
After this Black ends up losing a tempo
whilst carrying out the ... .i.a6 manoeuvre. It
was therefore better to play 13 . . . .i.a6
immediately.
1 4 i.. b 5 !
Black decides to take the initiative on the
queenside with pawn rather than piece play.
Since lines are now clearly going to opened
quickly on the queenside it would be overly
ambitious of White to attempt to carry out
an attacking plan on the kingside with
moves we have seen before such as h2-h4
and �h3 . Anand therefore joins in with the
battle on the queenside and proves that
White is well placed to meet Black's
advances there.
8 a3
A useful move which, as well as
inhibiting . . . b5-b4, prevents a potentially
annoying . . . .i.b4-t-. 8 'Uf3 is seen in Game 9.
8 . . . cxd4
·
The pressure on the knight on d7 is a
nuisance for Black as if 14 . . . a6?! 1 5 .i.d3
and Black is no longer able to exchange the
light-squared bishops. White will have a free
hand on the kingside.
1 4 . . . ctJb6 1 5 b3
White avoids castling as he already has
his eye on the coming endgame.
1 5 . . . i.. a6 1 6 i.. x a6 �xa6 1 7 aS ltJd7
Black has achieved his desired bishop
exchange but it has cost him more time
than it needed to. White has used this extra
time to expose the advanced black b-pawn.
1 8 'iYe2 tLlb8
After 18 . . . 'i¥xe2+ 19 �xe2 �ac8 20 �hcl
White will continue with 'Ue 1-d3 when
defence of the b-pawn could prove
problematic for Black.
1 9 Wf2 �xe2+ 20 'it>xe2 'Llc6 21 �hc1
�fc8
M o d e rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 {jj fd 7 5 tjj c e2
Black has obtained greater protection for
h is b-pawn but now his knight will be
subject to an uncomfortable pin.
39 .ic 1 1 -0
Game8
Anand-Morozevich
22 l:.a2 l:.c7 23 l:.ac2 l:.ac8 24 a6
This is a key moment for Black who has
to decide whether to prevent White's
com ing f4-f5 advance by playing the move
h imself.
24 . . . 'it>f8
24 .. . f5 is certainly possible. After 25 exf6
gxf6 26 g4 White maintains an edge.
25 g4 'it>e8 26 f5 'iii'd 7 27 .if4 g 5 ?
Shirov loses patience and creates a
horrible weakness in his kingside. Also bad
was 27 . . . etJa5 28 l:xc7+ l:xc7 29 l:xc7+
rj;xc7 30 f6 i.f8 3 1 etJg5 but Black could
have continued to resist with 27 . . . g6.
28 .ie3 h6 29 f6 .ifS 30 'it>d3
Frankfurt 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tjj c 3 {jjf6 4 e5 lLifd7
5 lLice2 c5 6 c3 tjj c6 7 f4 b5 8 a3 c4? !
Morozevich i s a fantastically talented
player who often comes up with highly
original ideas in the opening. However,
closing the centre this early is rarely a good
idea for Black in the French and so it
proves in this game.
9 {jjf3 t'Lib6 1 0 g4
White gets on with it. It will be a very
long time before Black can generate serious
play on the other wing.
1 O . . f5 1 1 gxf5 exf5 1 2 .ig 2
.
This is not the most energetic
continuation. White should probably prefer
12 h4 i.. e 7 13 h5. It is a curious feature of
these variations that White often does not
need to worry overly about completing
development but can successfully pursue his
initiative with his pieces all posted on the
back rank.
1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 0-0 h6 1 4 �f2 .ie6 1 5 i.f 1
g5
30 . . . {jj a 5 ? !
After this White wins easily. Shirov could
have forced his opponent to conclude the
game accurately by playing 30 ... l:b8 31 :tal!
(but not 31 etJxg5? hxg5 32 i.xg5 l:b6 33
h4 l:xa6 34 h5 Ila3 35 l:b2 etJa5 3 6 l:xc7+
\t>xc7 3 7 �c2 l:a 1 3 8 i.c 1 etJc6 and Black
wins) 3 1 . . .l:b6 32 etJxg5 hxg5 33 i.xg5 etJb8
34 :xc7+ �xc7 35 h4 etJxa6 36 i.d2 when
Black has no counterplay and the h-pawn
will inevitably roll up the board (variations
g iven by Finkel) .
31
�xc7+ �xc7
32 �xc7+ 'it>xc7
33
{jj x g 5 ! h x g 5 34 .ixg 5 tjjx b3 35 h4 {jja 1
3 6 .lii.. c 1 tjj b 3 3 7 .lii..e 3 tt:Ja 5 3 8 g 5 tt:Jc4
Morozevich i s not a player who likes to
sit still, but this is going too far. Although
White's king will now be stripped of pawn
protection, he has a huge preponderance of
pieces nearby and Black has little
opportunity to create trouble there.
Meanwhile, Black's advanced pawns will
now become a source of weakness.
1 6 fxg 5 hxg5 1 7 h4!
A bold decision, but a correct one.
1 7 . . . g4
This leads to a hardening of the arteries
in Black's position. A better chance was
17 . . . gxh4 18 CDf4 when play might go
1 8 . . . 'i¥d7 19 �h3 0-0-0 20 CDxe6 'i¥xe6 2 1
ctJg5 'i¥g8 2 2 lixf5 �b8 23 �h2 and White
is on top.
Fre n c h Cla s s ic a l
tt::Jxf7+ 't:Jxf7 20 'i¥xf7 'i¥xa8 2 1 :td 1 't:Jd5
and Black was well on top in A.Hernandez­
J.Sequera, Valencia 2000) 18 ... 8d3+ 19 \t>d2
CLJxf4 20 CLJxf7+ \t>e8 21 ct:Jxh8 'ik'xa8 22
:tae l 'i¥xg2+ 23 <i.t>c l 'i¥d5 and Black won
easily in Lagua-Orlov, Chicago 199 1 .
However, 14 'i¥xd4 appears t o b e much
more dangerous for Black, e.g. 14 ... 8xd5 15
'i¥xd5 'i¥xc3+ 16 \t>d1 'i¥xa1 17 CLJg5 and
White will regain the rook with a strong
attack.
1 8 lZ'lgS i.c8 1 9 fth 2 a S 2 0 lZ'lg3 fta6
2 1 .1Le3 CUa4
1 1 cxd4lZ'lb6 1 2 i.bS .1Ld7 1 3 e6 ! ?
White pummels his way forward.
1 3 . . . fxe6 1 4 l2Jxe6 'ifcS
22 'ifc2
White remorselessly targets the weakling
on f5 .
22 . . ..l1f8 23 ftf2 'iVd7 24 e6 1 -0
Game9
Finkei-Meessen
Budapest 199 6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lZ'lc3 lZ'lf6 4 eS l2Jfd7
5 l2Jce2 cS 6 c3 l2Jc6 7 f4 bS 8 lZ'lf3 b4
Black takes immediate advantage of
White's omission of 8 a3 .
This is preferable to 14 . . . ife7? 15 0-0
when the knight on e6 is still immune and
White has a very powerful initiative.
9 fS
White presses on but Black is quite well
placed to meet this. Probably better is 9 g4
bxc3 10 bxc3 'i¥a5 1 1 <i.t>f2 �a6 12 i.d2
CLJb6 with an unclear position in Mortensen­
Schussler, Vejstrup 1989.
·
1 5lZ'lc5 ? !
This is over-ambitious. The best plan was
the simple 15 't:Jxf8 <i.t>xf8 1 6 0-0 with
decent compensation for the pawn.
9 . . . exf5
1 5 . . . l2Jxd4 16 l2Jxd7lZ'lxbS 1 7 'ife2+
A very solid alternative for Black is
9 . . . bxc3 10 fxe6 fxe6 1 1 bxc3 cxd4 12 cxd4
�b4+ 13 �d2 0-0 14 �xb4 CLJxb4 15 'i¥d2
'i¥a5 16 <i.t>f2 CLJb6 and a draw was agreed in
Sax-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 199 1 .
Again a better plan was 17 ct:Jxf8 \t>xf8
18 0-0, although now White is two pawns
down which will be hard for him to justify.
1 0 lZ'lf4 cxd4
10 . . . bxc3 is playable but risky for Black,
e .g. 1 1 bxc3 cxd4 12 �b5 'i¥a5 13 8xd5
CLJe7 and now 14 'i¥b3 has been seen in two
games: 14 . . . a6 1 5 8g5 axb5 16 8c7+ \t>d8
17 8xa8 lt:JxeS 1 8 �f4 (or 1 8 0-0 h6 19
1 7 . . . �xd7 1 8 'ifxbS+ �c7 1 9 i.e3 ii'eS
Now Black is j ust winning, although he
makes a complete hash of the ending with
two extra pawns and nearly ends up worse.
20 ii'e2 l2Jc4 21 i.d4 .1Ld6 22 b3 ifxe2+
23 �xe2 fthe8+ 24 �d3 lZJeS+ 25 lZ'lxeS
�xeS 26 ftac 1 + �b7 27 ftcS i.xd4 28
�xd4 .:e4+
29 �d3 .:ae8
30 .:xdS
M o dern M a in L in e w i th 4 e 5 Cjj fd 7 5 Cjj c e2
l1e3+ 3 1 Wc4 l13e4+ 32 wbS a6+ 33
was n8eS 34 l1hd 1
:xdS+ 3S nxdS
I:.e2 36 I:.d7 + wc6 37 l1xg7 I:.xa 2+ 38
wxb4 aS+ 3 9 wc4 Jle2 40 l:.gS l:.e 1
I suspect that the score of the game may
not be entirely accurate here as this leaves
the f-pawn en prise and White inexplicably
fails to take it.
Black still has an active position and good
counterplay) 15 . . . �e8 16 ctJc5 ctJd8 17 �e5
�h5 18 l:c 1 VJIJe7 19 'iVa4 �xc5 20 dxc5
ctJe4 with a balanced position in Jerez­
Jimenez, Albacete 2000.
1 1 a3 ..id6 1 2 tt:JhS iUe7 1 3 tt:Jg3 0-0 1 4
..igS tt:Jf6
41 'it>d3 l1g 1 42 nxfS l:.xg2 43 l:.hS l:.a2
44 <it>c3 a4 4S b4 l1f2 46 :xh7 1f2 -V2
Game 10
Hort-Knaak
Dresden 1995
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 eS tt:Jfd7
S tt:Jce2 cS 6 c3 tt:Jc6 7 tt:Jf3
White declines to set up the large centre
with 7 f4, relying instead on pure piece play.
However, the evidence is that this approach
should not be unduly worrying for Black.
Equal.
7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 f6
1 S ..ie2 h6
Black gets the thematic break in before
White has a chance to hold it up with Ci:Jf4
(eyeing the e6-square) .
Black had a good opportunity here for
the thematic advance 15 . . . e5, e.g. 16 dxe5
ctJxe5 17 ctJxe5 �xe5 18 'iiVd2 and now
18 . . . �e6 is a simple continuation or Black
can be more ambitious with 18 ... h6 19 .te3
d4 20 .txd4 l:d8 21 .tc5 VJIJc7 with good
play for the pawn (21 . ..l:xd2 22 .txe7 l:xb2
is also fine) .
9 tt:Jf4
9 exf6 Ci:Jxf6 10 ctJc3 transposes directly
into Nijboer-Glek (see Game 13) , which is
unexciting for White.
9 . . . iUe7
acceptable
Another
perfectly
continuation for Black is 9 . . . �b4+ 10 �d2
VJIJe7 1 1 �xb4 VJii xb4+ 12 VJii d2 VJIJe7 (the
endgame after 12 . . . �e7 13 exf6+ gxf6 14
VJii xb4+ ctJxb4 1 5 �d2 ctJb6 16 a3 ctJc6 17
�b5 �d7 1 8 �xc6 �xc6 19 l:he 1 �d7 20
b3 �d6 as in Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg
1993, is fine for Black.) 13 exf6 ctJxf6 14
�d3 ctJe4 1 5 VJIJ e3 VJii b4+ 1 6 �f 1 0-0 17 l:e 1
'iYxb2 1 8 �xe4 dxe4 19 VJIJxe4 'iixa2 with
an unclear position in Velimirovic­
Moskalenko, Belgrade 1988.
1 0 exf6 �xf6
Or 10 . . . ctJxf6 1 1 tLJd3 'iic 7 12 g3 �d6 13
�g2 0-0 14 0-0 .i.d7 15 .i.f4 (White has
gained control of the dark squares, but
1 6 i.d2 ..id7 1 7 0-0 a6
This move serves little purpose. More
natural is 16 ... .te8 to relocate the bishop on
a better diagonal.
1 8 i.d3 tt:Jg4
Black is playing as if he stands better and
should be looking to take the initiative. In
fact the position is about equal and so again
the simple 17 . . . .te8 is called for. Black tries
to get something going on the kingside but
merely ends up getting his pieces in a tangle.
1 9 ..ic3 iUf6
This move cuts off the retreat square for
the g4-knight but Black is trusting that the
tactics will favour him. However, this turns
out to be a forlorn hope. Admittedly White
Fre n c h C la s s i c a l
cannot immediately exploit the position of
the knight as 20 h3 ctJxf2 21 �xf2 �h4 is
good for Black. .. but there is no hurry.
20 �c2 tiJe7 2 1 �d3 g6 22 a4 lH7
Again White is banking on the strong
centre but, in this particular position, this
involves paying a heavy price in terms of
king safety. More circumspect moves are 8
ltJf4 (Game 12) and 8 exf6 (Game 13) .
8 . . . fxe5
8 ... i.b4+ is possible, but if Black is going
to play like this, it makes sense to flick in
the pawn exchange first as then White
cannot respond with the natural i.d2 - see
the note to White's tenth. Play could
continue 9 i.d2 �b6 10 i.xb4 �xb4+ 1 1
�d2 ctJc6 1 2 liJf3 fxeS 1 3 fxeS �xd2+ 14
�xd2 ctJb6 1 S ctJc3 a6 1 6 i.d3 i.d7 17
�af1 with an edge for White in Kozlov­
Matveeva, Moscow 1999.
9 fxe5
23 'iVe2 !
White has the eS-square well under
control and the position of the knight on g4
is looking increasingly shaky.
23 . . . h5 24 �d2 �f4
This loses but 24 . . . eS? 2S ctJgS �ff8 26 f3
ltJh6 27 ctJSe4 was also winning for White.
2 5 h3 .:!.h7 26 �xf4 iVxf4 27 hxg4 h4
28 'iVe5 1 -0
Game 1 1
J. Polgar-G. Hernandez
Merida 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tiJc3 tiJf6 4 e5 tiJfd7
5 tiJce2 c5 6 c3 cxd4 7 cxd4 f6 8 f4
The alternative 9 dxeS has been played a
few times. However, it is hard to believe
that White, with such constipated
development, can allow his opponent a
central passed pawn, use of the cS-square
and g1-a7 diagonal, and still keep an
advantage. Practice has seen:
a) 9 . . . ctJc6 10 ltJf3 i.b4+ 1 1 ctJc3 ctJcS 12
i.e3 �aS 13 �c2 0-0 was Shirov-lvanchuk,
Tilburg 1 993 . Now White erred with 14
�c l and after 14 . . . d4 Black was better.
However, even after the preferable 14 a3,
White's position is unexciting.
b) 9 . . . �b6 10 ctJc3 ctJc6 1 1 liJf3 i.b4 12
i.d2 ctJcS 13 a3 i.xc3 14 i.xc3 0-0 1S g3
i.d7 and again Black was very comfortable
in Bologan-Short, Beijing 2000.
c) 9 . . . i.cS 10 ltJf3 ctJc6 1 1 ctJc3 �b6
(Black has a powerful concentration of
force along the g1-a7 diagonal but it proves
impossible to keep his queen and bishop
stationed here and he ends up losing time
when they are driven back; thus one of the
plans seen in either Shirov-lvanchuk or
Bologan-Short seems preferable) 12 i.d3
i.e7 13 ctJa4 �aS+ 14 ..td2 ctJb4 1S ii.e2
ctJcS 16 tLlxcS �xcS 17 M.c l �b6 1 8 �b3
aS 19 i.e3 �d8 20 a3 a4 2 1 �d1 ctJc6 22
�d3 and White was firmly in control of the
M o d e rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 tDfd 7 5 CD c e 2
position in Voitsekhovsky-Alavkin, Bor
2000.
position.
9 . . . i.. b4+
With three pawns for the piece and a
reasonable attack, Black now stands quite
well.
14 . . . ctJxf3+ 1 5 gxf3 l:txf3 1 6 ctJg3 CiJxd4
1 7 i.. g 2
1 0 �f2
Unfortunately White must make this
awkward move as 10 .i.d2 'ii'h4+ is very
good for Black, as indeed is 10 CLJc3 'ii'h4+.
1 0 . . . 0-0 + 1 1 CiJf3 CDc6
This is a typical position for these
variations where White attempts to maintain
a strong centre at all costs. If White can
unravel her pieces, she will have a great
position. Black therefore invariably gambits
a large amount of material, usually a piece
or so, to exploit his lead in development
and get at the white king. To a large degree,
positional considerations now go out the
window and the position becomes purely
tactical.
1 2 a3 CiJdxe5
Here we go! The more restrained
12 . . . .i.a5 is also possible when play might
continue 13 h4 (a useful move, as Black can
often hurl . . . g7-g5 in White's direction)
13 . . . 'ii'e 7 14 �g3 .i.c7 1 5 �h3 'ii'f7 16 CLJf4
CLJf6 17 .i.d3 CLJe4 1 8 lH1 and White stands
well.
1 3 axb4 'iVh4+ 1 4 � g 1 ?!
In her understandable haste to get her
king out of the firing line, Polgar jettisons
slightly too much material. A better plan
was 14 ctJg3 ct:Jxd4 15 .i.e2 ctJxe2 16 'ii'xe2
'ii' d4+ 17 �fl �d7 1 8 .i.e3 with an unclear
Lateral defence with 1 7 l:.a3 was a
plausible alternative.
1 7 . . . l:tf7 ?
Black misses a very good chance here.
With 17 . . . CLJe2+ 18 'ii'xe2 'ii' d4+ 1 9 .i.e3
l:.xe3 20 'iif2 l:.d3 he would inevitably gain
a fourth pawn for the piece and obtain a
clear advantage.
1 8 il.e3
Following Black's oversight Polgar is
over the worst and now has all the chances.
1 8 . . . ctJf5 1 9 CiJxf5 l:txf5 20 b 5 !
This pawn now transforms from a sickly
weakness to a powerful thorn in Black's
flesh on the queenside.
20 . . . i.. d 7 21 b6 a6 22 'ii d4
White's bishop pair will be a potent force
in the endgame.
22 . . JlVh 5 23 h3 il.c6 24 �h2 e5 2 5
iVg4 l:. d 8 2 6 iVxh 5 l:txh5 27 :ht 1 g6 2 8
i..f3
Suddenly White's whole position has
come to life. This bishop will transfer to e6
when the pressure on Black's position will
quickly become intolerable.
28 . . . l:tf5 29 il.g4 l:.xf 1 30 lixf1 �g7 3 1
ii.e6 il.eS 32 il.c5 1 -0
Fre n c h C!�ssic a l
Game 12
Anand-Bareev
Shenyang 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 lt:Jfd7
5 tt:Jce2 c5 6 c3 cxd4 7 cxd4 f6 8 lt:Jf4
i.b4+
This is th e only sensible way for Black to
play as White's last move threatened the e6pawn.
9 i.d 2 \i'b6
the cost of exposing the e4-square - Black
now hastens to exploit this) 1S . . . l2Je4 1 6
ife 3 'ifd 8 1 7 i.e2 'iVaS+ 1 8 b4lLJ xb 4 1 9 0-0
(White has good compensation for the
pawn as Black's queenside is gummed up
and his bishop is so bad) 19 . . . l2Jc6 20 l:.c2
ttJd6 2 1 ttJdeS lLJfS 22 iY gS lLJxeS 23 dxeS
i.d7 with unclear play in Dvoirys-Nielsen,
New York 2000.
1 0 . . .\i'xb4+ 1 1 'ifd2 'ifxd 2+ 1 2 Wxd2
We 7 1 3 exf6+ gxf6 14 ne 1 tt:Jb6 1 5 lt:Jf3
A nand finds a much better plan than did
Bezgodov in the following game: 15 i.d3
l2Jc6 16 l2Jf3 <it>d6 17 lLJhS l:.f8 18 it.xh7
(White has gained a pawn but at the cost of
severe disruption to his pieces, and he is
unable to retain his booty for long) 18 ... e5
19 l2Jg3 e4 20 lLJh4 ttJxd4 21 f3 l:.h8 22
ttJhfS+ i.xfS 23 ttJxfS+ <it>eS 24 ttJxd4 �xd4
25 i.fS l2Jc4+ 26 <it>e2 l:.ag8 27 :td1+ WeS
28 g4 l:.h3 and Black soon won in
Bezgodov-Sakaev, Moscow 1999.
1 5 . . .tt:Jc6 16 i.b5 .id7 17 i.xc6 bxc6
1 8 l!te2 l!tae8 1 9 !.the 1 �f7 20 We 1 tt:Jc4
2 1 lt:Jd2 lt:Jxd2 22 �xd 2
The routine 9 . . . i.xd2+ 10 iYxd2 iYe7 1 1
exf6 l2Jxf6 1 2 i.d3 l2Jc6 1 3 l2Jge2 0-0 1 4 0-0
i.d7 15 a3 iYd6 16 l:.ad1 l:.f7 17 i.b 1 l:.e8
18 f3 l:.fe7 1 9 l2Jd3 gave White a pleasant
edge in Sax-Glek, Germany 1993. Even if
Black plays the freeing advance . . . e6-e5, this·
will only serve to leave him with a weak cl­
pawn.
1 0 .ixb4
Others:
a) 1 0 exf6 l2Jxf6 11 iYa4+ l2Jc6 12 i.xb4
'i¥xb4+ 13 iYxb4lLJxb4 got White nowhere
in Vukovic-Piskov, Igalo 1994, viz. 14 i.d3
0-0 15 a3lLJhS! (this clever move maintains
Black's slight initiative) 16 axb4 l2Jxf4 17
i.f1 eS 1 8 dxeS l:.e8 19 <it>d2 l:.xeS 20 g3
lUe6 2 1 i.d3 lt:JgS and Black had an edge
although his opponent hung on to draw.
b) 10 l:.c l 0-0 1 1 i.xb4 'iVxb4+ 12 'ifd2
'if e7 1 3 exf6 lt:Jxf6 14 lt:Jd3 ctJc6 1 5 lt:Jf3
(White has nailed down the e5-square but at
Anand has managed to keep control over
the position and Black has an unpleasant
defensive task ahead.
22 . . . c5
This is a clever idea, but Anand spots a
flaw in Bareev's plan.
23 dxc5 e5 24 tt:Jxd 5
It looks as if this drops material and,
M o d e rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 {jj f d 7 5 Cjj c e2
indeed, it does. However, Anand has
appreciated that he can limit his losses to
the exchange and in return he gains two
pawns and a powerful pawn roller on the
queenside.
24 . . . il.b5
The dual threats of ... .txe2 and . . J�d8
win material, but Anand has everything
under control.
2 5 �c3 il.xe2 26 .l::!: x e2 l:.c8 27 �c4
�e6 28 b4 l:.hd8 29 l:.d2 l:.d7 30 f4
It goes against the grain to present Black
with a passed pawn but Anand has
calculated that he can quickly undermine it.
30 . . . e4 3 1 l:.d4 f5 32 g4 l:.g7 33 Cjje 3
White's forces co-ordinate beautifully.
33 . . . fxg4 34 l:.d6+ �f7 35 {jjf 5
Regaining the exchange. It is all over.
35 . . . e3 36 {jj x g7 .l::!:e 8 37 Cjjx e8 e2 38
l:.f6+ 1 -0
If 3 8 . . . �e7 39 �f5 and the career of the
new black queen will be short indeed.
Game 13
Nijboer-Giek
play in this game is highly- probably overly
- cautious and this encourages Black into an
ambitious demonstration on the kingside)
13 . . . .td7 14 i.e3 �e7 15 l:.el g5 (this is an
interesting plan - Black is not concerned
about freeing his game with the standard
. . . e6-e5 but is happy to hold the centre and
play on the kingside) 16 ctJh2 �g7 17 �c l
�f7 1 8 tt:Jfl ttJe7 19 tt:Jb5 .txb5 20 .txb5
ttJf5 21 .td3 g4 22 .txf5 exf5 23 hxg4 fxg4
24 ttJg3 ii'g6 and Black had a very pleasant
position and went on to win with a kingside
attack in Hort-Knaak, Germany 1996.
c) 1 1 g3! ? is White's most imaginative try
in this position. Placing the bishop on g2
shores up the kingside and makes it slightly
more difficult for Black to achieve the
advance . . . e6-e5, as this piece would then be
pressing strongly against the isolated cl­
pawn. One possibility is 1 1 . .. .td7 12 i.g2
0-0 13 0-0 �c8 14 �e 1 �b6 15 ttJa4 'iic 7
16 i.e3 b5 1 7 ttJc3 a6 18 l:.cl �b8 19 i.g5
and White had a modest initiative m
Kuzmin-Cederqvist, Yerevan 1997.
11
. . .
o-o 1 2 il.g5 �ea
Wijk aan Zee 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 Cjj c 3 {jjf6 4 e5 {jjfd7
5 Cjj c e2 c5 6 c3 cxd4 7 cxd4 f6 8 exf6
{jj xf6 9 {jjf3 Cjj c 6 1 0 Cjj c 3 il.d6 1 1 il.d3
This is a very natural developing move
for White but it doesn't place his opponent
under any great pressure. Other tries here
are:
a) 1 1 i.b5 attempts to increase White's
control over eS . Practice has seen 1 1 . . . 0-0
12 0-0 �cl 13 h3 .td7 14 �e1 (14 �e3 a6
15 i.xc6 i.xc6 16 �e1 �ae8 17 a3 4Jd7 1 8
� c 1 �b8 19 �c2 �f5 2 0 .i. c 1 e 5 and Black
had an active game in Kuzmin-Lempert,
Alushta 1 994) 14 . . . �ae8 15 i.e3 a6 16 .tf1
�b8 17 a3 �e7 18 b4 i.e8 19 b5 axb5 20
ctJxbS i.f4 21 i.xf4 'iixf4 22 ii'c l ctJe4 was
fine for Black in Lau-Gleizerov, Dresden
1994.
b) 1 1 i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 h6 13 h3 (White's
1 3 �d 2 ? !
This already looks like a step in the
wrong direction. The queen achieves very
little on this square and actually becomes a
target for moves such as . . . ctJf6-e4.
Furthermore, moving away from d1 also
encourages Black to look for opportunities
to sacrifice the exchange with ... �f8xf3 at
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
some point.
h5 diagonal to prevent �dl .
1 3 . . . tZJh5 1 4 tbe2
2 1 gxf4 .Ilxf4
The impression is that White is already
fighting a rearguard action. Here 14 0-0 is
better than the text, but Black still has a
pleasant game after 14 . . . h6 1 5 i.e3 tt:Jf4.
White's position looks desperate but
Nijboer defends coolly.
1 4. . .e 5 !
This thrust is lent extra energy by the fact
that the white king is still languishing in the
centre.
1 5 tbxe 5
This is unpalatable but forced as after 15
dxe5? .i.b4 1 6 ctJc3 �xf3 ! 1 7 gxf3 d4 White
gets torn apart, e.g. 18 f4 dxc3 19 bxc3
tLlxe5 ! 20 fxe5 'ii'x e5+ and the white
position has collapsed.
1 5 . . . tbxd4
1 6 tbxd4 ifxe5+
17
�e3
tbt4
22 �e2
White must get his pieces out. 22 ctJe2
again allows 22 ... i.b4 and Black is winning.
22 . . . .Ilxd4 23 'ifxd4!
White defends carefully. 23 i.xd4 looks
as if it will probably lead to the same
position but in fact Black has the sneaky
23 . . . 'ii'e 4! which enables him to capture on
e2 with the bishop and keep the queens on.
Nevertheless, even here White has further
resources which keep him in the game, e.g.
24 �g1 i.xe2 25 'ii'e3 (even 25 �xg7+,
which looks hopeless after 25 . . . <iil f8, still
gives White chances - 26 'ii'e 3 .th5 27 <iilf 1!
'ii'h 1+ 28 �g1) 25 . . . i.b4+ 26 i.c3 (26 <iilxe2
'ii'c2+ 27 <ii?f3 �xe3+ 28 fxe3 'iff5+ is good
for Black) 26 . . . i.xc3+ 27 bxc3 'ii'a4 appears
to be all over, but now White launches a
counterattack aiming for perpetual check
with 28 �xg7+! <iilxg7 29 'ii'g5+ and Black's
only way to try to avoid this is 29 . . . <ii?f7 30
'ii'f5+ <ii?e 7 31 <iilxe2 and White is still in the
game.
23 . . .'�xd4 24 �xd4 lixe2+ 25 �f 1
Black has a pawn and an active position
for the exchange but it is not enough to
push for the advantage.
1 8 �f1
25 . . . .l:le4 26 �xa7 �e2+ 27 �g2 l:!e6
An awful move to have to make but now
at least White plans to consolidate and get
organised with g2-g3 and i.f1-g2.
28 f4!
1 8 . . . �g4 ? !
This is a superficially attractive move but
it plans a sacrifice which turns out to be
only good enough for a draw. Thus the
calmer 18 . . . i.d7 may be better. Play might
continue 19 g3 'ii'e 4 20 f3 'ii'e 7 and life
looks difficult for White as 21 gxf4 runs
into 2 1 . . .�b4.
1 9 h 3 � h 5 20 g3 gae8
This sacrifice was the idea behind
18 . . . �g4. Black wants the bishop on the dl-
This is another good defensive move.
White jettisons a pawn to free up space for
his king. Now White gets his pieces out and
the position quickly fizzles out into a draw.
28 . . . �xf4 29 .Ilhe 1 �d2 30 �f2
Guaranteeing the draw.
30 . . . .ltxe 1 + 3 1 .Ilxe 1 ga6 3 2 �d4 �h5
33 .Ile7 �f8 34 .Ilxb7 .Ilxa2 35 .ltxg7+
�e8 36 �e3 .Ila4 37 �d4 �g6 38 b4
.Ila3+ 39 �f4 .Ilxh3 40 �e5 %-%
This was a gritty defensive performance
from White but hardly a good advert for his
choice of opening variation.
M o d e rn M a in L in e with 4 e 5 liJ fd 7 5 liJ c e2
Summary
The main lines in this chapter, as seen in Games 1-5, look quite promising for White as long
as he keeps a close eye on potential Black sacrifices on e5 and is careful not to waste time
with g2-g3 . The best plan for Black may be Volkov's idea of 8 ... a5 (Game 6) . The theory is
not well developed here and there is certainly much scope for original play.
7 . . . b5 (Games 7-9) is best met by 8 a3 and a direct challenge to Black's queenside
ambitions.
The early exchange with 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 f6 (Games 1 1-13) may turn out to be Black's
most reliable method of meeting 5 lDce2. White has the choice between the thematic but
risky 8 f4 (Game 1 1) and the more solid 8 ct:Jf4 (Game 12) . With the latter move White
abandons his ideas to maintain the d4/e5 structure but hopes to gain a small edge anyway. 8
exf6 (Game 1 3) appears unlikely to cause Black any trouble.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e5 liJfd7 5 liJce2 c5 6 c3
6 . . . liJc6
6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 f6
8 f4 - Game 1 1 ; 8 ctJf4 - Game 1 2; 8 exf6 - Game 13
7 f4
7 ct:Jf3
-
Game 10
7 . . . 'Yib6
7 . . . b5 (D)
8 a3
8 ct:Jf3
8 . . . cxd4 - Game 7 ; 8 . . . c4
Game 9
-
Game 8
-
8 liJf3 f6
8 . . . �e7 (D)
9 a3 Game 4; 9 g3
8 . . . a5 - Game 6
-
-
Game 5
9 a3
9 g3 - Game ]
9 . . i.e7 1 0 h4 0-0 1 1 l1h3 aS 1 2 b3 (DJ 'ii c 7
.
12 .. .'iVd8 Game 2
- Game 1
-
1 3 liJeg 1
7.
. .
b5
B.
. .
il... e 7
1 2 b3
CI-IAPTER TWO
I
Old M ai n Lin e with
7 cxd4 8 4Jxd4
.
.
.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 tt:Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 '2Jf3 tt:Jc6 7 �e3 cxd4 8 tt:Jxd4
In this chapter we consider the position
that arises after Black opts for the
immediate exchange of pawns in the centre
with 7 . . . cxd4. Black opens the c-file at once
and will soon castle his king to safety (or
what he hopes will be safety) on the
kingside. The battle lines are then drawn
with White usually castling on the
queenside.
There are a number of games which see a
classic situation with competing attacks on
opposite wings: White charges forwards on
the kingside, often using the lever f4-f5 ,.
while Black pursues an initiative on the
other wing. However, practical experience
seems to indicate that Black should be
perfectly happy when such a scenario arises.
The white knight on c3 acts as a target for
the pawn advances, while the open c-file
also helps Black to get at the white king.
Even when the white attack prises open the
black king - after, for example, f4-f5-f6,
forcing . . . g7xf6 - the black king proves to
be hard to get at.
In fact, many games nowadays see White
adopting a more restrained strategy. He
does not try to force the pace on the
kingside but is content to take the view that
he has a long-term space advantage and can
concentrate on trying to nullify Black's
queenside play. To this end we often see
plans such as �b 1 , :c1 and c2-c3 .
The latest word in these lines for White
is a semi-waiting strategy with an early g2g3 . White may still end up with his king on
the queenside but keeps open the option of
a quieter plan with 0-0 and perhaps .i.h3 .
The main line sequence with 8 . .i.c5 9
VJ/1d2 0-0 is considered in detail in Games
14-20. However, Black has two other main
ways to approach this position. He can head
for a very dull, slightly worse endgame with
9 . . i.xd4 10 i.xd4 CLJxd4 1 1 'ifxd4 VJ/ib6,
which is seen in Game 2 1 , or he can grab a
hot, but not necessarily poisoned, pawn
with 8 . . . VJ/ib6 9 VJ/Id2 VJ/Ixb2 (Games 22-23).
.
.
.
Game 14
Kasparov-Short
A mst erdam 1994
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 ctJf6 4 e5 '2Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 ctJf3 tt:Jc6 7 it.e3 cxd4 8 tt:Jxd4
�c5 9 �d2 0-0 1 0 0-0-0
Kasparov recent try, 10 g3, is the subject
of Game 20.
1 0 . . a6 1 1 h4
1 1 g3, the Kasparov try deferred, is see n
.
O ld M a in L in e with 7
in Game 19.
1 1 . . . ll:lxd4
It is also possible to take the view that
the knight on c6 will prove to be the more
useful minor piece and play 1 1 . .. i.xd4,
which we consider in Game 1 8 .
1 2 i.xd4 b 5 1 3 �h3
A multi-purpose move. The rook can
either be used for attacking purposes on g3
or, as is more often the case, help to play
c2-c3 and challenge Black along the c-file.
13 h5 is seen in Game 17.
.
.
.
c x d4 8 {ij x d4
This leads to great complications. A
simpler course was available: 17 fxe5 ctJxe5
18 l:Ie3 ct:Jf7 19 g3 with approximate
equality. However, Thorhallsson-Limp,
Istanbul 2000, finished swiftly from this
position viz. 19 . . . ctJd6 20 i.h3 ctJf5 21 l:If3
ctJd6 22 l:Ixf8+ 'ilfxf8 23 ctJb6 �b8 24 'ilfc5
ctJe4 25 'il:Vc7 'il:Vd6 26 'ilfxd6 ctJxd6 27 ctJxc8
ctJxc8 28 i.xe6+ 1-0.
1 7 . . .'�f6
1 3 . . . b 4 1 4 ll:la4
A natural attempt to hold Black up on
the queenside, but this piece can become
rather exposed. 14 ctJe2 is the subject of
Game 16.
1 4 . . . i.xd4 1 5 �xd4
1 8 f5 ! ?
A typically violent Kasparov thrust, the
main point of which is revealed after
18 . . . 'ilfxf5 19 l:If3 �g4 20 l:Ixf8+ ctJxf8 2 1
ct:Jb6 and White wins.
1 8 . . .�h6+ 1 9 �b1 �xf5
1 5 . . . f6
At the time this was a new move. Black's
plan is, not unusually for the French, to
seek to undermine the white centre. What
Short probably did not anticipate was that
Kasparov would be quite happy to let him
do this! For 15 . . . a5 see Game 1 5 .
1 6 'ii x b4
A slightly surprising move. One might
expect White to concentrate on maintaining
his centre. Instead he allows it to be
demolished but in return generates active
piece play, particularly along the dark
square s.
1 6 . . . fxe 5 1 7 �d 6
After this Black is in trouble as he is
struggling to get his queenside pieces into
the game and his back rank is rather
exposed. A better try for Black is 19 . . . ctJf6
with the following possibilities:
a) 20 Wic7 is uninspiring: 20 . . . exf5 2 1
ctJb6 f4 22 ctJxc8 l:Iaxc8 2 3 'ii'x e5 and now
in Van Blitterswijk-Stellwagen, Holland
2000, Black found the highly practical pawn
sacrifice 23 . . . ctJg4!? and after 24 'ii'x d5+
<it>h8 25 l:Ic l ctJe3 26 'ii'a5 'ii'g 6 27 h5 'ilfe4
28 i.d3 'ii'xg2 29 l:Ihh 1 'ilfds he had
regained his pawn and went on to win.
Quieter methods were also possible as after
23 . . . 'ii'g6 Black should have little to
complain about.
b) 20 fxe6 is given an '! ' by Knaak but he
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
has made a mistake i n his analysis. After
20 . . . 4Je4 2 1 'ifxdS 4Jd2+ 22 :xd2 (Knaak
spots 22 <it>a1 ? i.xe6!) he gives 22 . . J�xf1+,
missing the superior 22 ... i.xe6! which is
very good for Black.
c) 20 4Jb6 ctJe4 2 1 i+'c7 :f7 22 i+'d8+
�f8 23 'ifc7 :f7 24 i+'xeS :xfS 25 i+'d4
4Jd2+ 26 �xd2 i+'xd2 27 i+'xd2 l:.xfl+ 28
'iVc l l:.xc l+ 29 �xc l :b8 30 l:.b3 aS 3 1
�d2 and White held an edge in Van der
Weide-Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2000.
�xe5 ltb7 30 ltd6 c3 3 1 ii.xe6+ j_xe6
32 ltxe6 1 -0
20 lH3 ltxf3 2 1 gxf3 �f6 22 ii.h3 rJ;;f 7
Short resigned due to 32 . . .4Jc4 33 i+'xc3!
(not 33 l:.xe7 :xb2+ 34 �a1 ctJxeS 35 l:.xeS
:h2 when Black can struggle on) 33 ... ctJa3+
34 �c l 'iff8 35 i+'xa3 and wins.
Game 15
Sedlak-Antic
Subo t ic a 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 ctJf6 4 e 5 ctJfd7
23 c4
5 f4 c5 6 ctJf3 l2Jc6 7 ii.e3 cxd4 8 l2Jxd4
Kasparov plays this game with his usual
immense energy. However, his play is also
very logical. White is forcing open lines
before his opponent has a chance to
complete his development.
ii.c5 9 �d2 0-0
1 0 0-0-0 l2Jxd4 1 1
ii.xd4 a6 1 2 h4 b5 1 3 lth3 b4 1 4 l2Ja4
ii.xd4 1 5 �xd4 aS
23 . . . dxc4
If Black tries to keep the position closed
(or at least not wide open) with 23 . . . d4 then
White forces further line opening with 24
f4! exf4 25 .:xd4 and wins.
24 tt:Jc3 "Wie7 25 "Wic6 ltb8 26 tt:Je4
Now White's pieces co-ordinate perfectly
and the game is up for Black. One
particularly attractive finish, given by
Ftacnik is 26 . . . lt:Jf8 27 lt:Jd6+ �g8 28 4Jxc8
'ifb4 and what appears to be a promising
counterattack is brutally extinguished by 29
ifxe6+! Lt:Jxe6 (29 . . . �h8 30 ifxe5 is easy) 30
it.. x e6+ �f8 3 1 �d8 checkmate.
26 . . . CLJb6 27 CLJg 5+ Wg8 28 i¥e4 g6 29
28
One of the drawbacks of Black's plan
with .. . f7-f6 as seen in the previous game is
that Kasparov's energetic respo nse enabled
his knight on a4 to play an active role in
O ld M a in L in e with 7
proceedings. Here Black's play is far
simpler, concentrating on completing his
queenside development and hoping to show
up the seamy side of the positioning of the
knight on a4. It may appear dangerous to
allow White a free hand on the kingside, but
Black's position has no weaknesses and it
takes a while for White to generate any
serious threats there.
.
.
.
c x d4 8 t[j x d4
usually good for Black who has the open c­
file on which to operate and a weak pawn
on c2 to target, while White finds it hard to
get anywhere on the kingside) 2 1 hS ifbS
22 �f3 a4 23 h6 �c4 24 iff2 .:fc8 25 fs b3
26 fxe6 fxe6 27 axb3 axb3 28 c3 0-1 Wells­
Glek, Vienna 1998. Queen to the a-file is
quickly decisive.
1 7 . . .'Wic7
1 6 _j_b5
Others possibilities are:
a) 16 �b l �c7 17 .i.bS �b7 18 �e2
�c6 19 b3 i.. a6 20 c4 (this is a common
theme; White exploits the pin along the cl­
file to prevent his pawn on c2 from
becoming a liability) 20 .. Jhc8 2 1 �al
i.xc4!? (an imaginative piece sacrifice from
Korchnoi) 22 i.xc4 dxc4 23 �xd7 �xg2
24 �hh l c3 25 l:.hgl (25 'VJIJe7? loses
beautifully after 25 . . . c2 26 .:c 1 'VJIJxh l ! 27
.:xh 1 c1 'VJiJ + 28 �xc l .:xc 1 + 29 �b2 �fc8
and the white king is caught in a mating net.
Even 30 ttJcS � lxcS does not help.)
25 . . . 'VJiih 2 26 ifd3 g6 27 ifg3 'VJiie2 28 .:de l
'VJiid2 29 .:dl 'VJiie 2 30 .:de l ifd2 3 1 .:d1
lh-lh Glek-Korchnoi, Willingen 1999.
b) 1 6 c4 was seen in Nijboer-Korchnoi,
Arnhem 1 999. Play continued: 16 . . .bxc3 17
�xc3 'VJIJxh4 (a typically bold pawn grab
from Korchnoi) 1 8 g3 � d8 19 �b 1 i.a6 20
i..xa6 .:xa6 2 1 .:h 1 .:as 22 g4 with good
compensation for the pawn, as White has a
free hand on the kingside and Black's
counterplay on the opposite wing is
nowhere to be seen.
1 6 .. J�b8 1 7 _j_dJ
Or:
a) 1 7 c4 bxc3 18 ttJxc3 ifb6 19 iVxb6
.:xb6 20 b3 f6 2 1 exf6 ttJxf6 22 a4 ttJg4 23
�d4 li:Jh6 24 �b2 li:Jfs 25 .:d 1 with a
balanced
endgame
in
Yurtaev­
Goloshchapov, Calcutta 2000.
b) 17 i.. x d7?! (such a simple plan seems
unlikely to cause Black any problems)
17 . . . i.. x d7 18 CUeS �c8 19 �d2 Vlilc7 20
CUxd7 'ifxd7 (positions such as these are
Black puts pressure on the e-pawn to
hold up White's f4-f5 advance. After
17 . . . i.b7 White took his chances at once in
Fedorov-Korchnoi, Batumi 1999 with 18 fS
and after 18 . . . ifc7 19 �e 1 exfS 20 i.xfS
i.c6 2 1 ttJcS ttJxcS 22 'iYxcS life8 23 .:he3
'i¥b6 24 ifxb6 �xb6 25 e6 g6 26 exf7+
�xf7 27 i.e6+ �g7 28 i.g4 �bb8 29 �d2
he had a useful endgame advantage.
1 8 .l: e 1
1 8 hS 'i¥c6 19 b3 i.a6 20 fS �bc8 2 1
.:d2 i..xd3 22 .:hxd3 'i¥c7 2 3 l:Ie2 �fe8?!
was seen in Berndt-Furlan, Bled 2000. Black
is playing to pressurise the eS-pawn but his
plan has a rather large tactical drawback.
Much better was 23 . . . h6 24 f6 gxf6 25 exf6
�h7 with play as in the main game. Black's
kingside has been broken up but it is still
remarkably difficult for White to make any
progress in that sector - mainly because of
the useless knight on a4. After 23 . . . :fe8?!
play continued 24 :g3 exfS? (this is a
disaster; it was still possible to mount a
defence with 24 . . . <ith8 25 'i¥g4 �g8 26 fxe6
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
lZJxe5 2 7 'ii' f5 lZJc6 with unclear play) 2 5 e6
(whoops!) 1-0.
convoluted manoeuvres to activate his
major pieces on the kingside.
1 8 . . . 'ik'c6 1 9 b3 i.a6 20 i.xa6 'iYxa6
28 .. J:tbc7 29 l:.g4+ Wh7 30 �d3 l:tg8
One of White's attacking units is
exchanged off. Endgames will always favour
Black because of the numerous white pawn
weaknesses.
31 l:Ixg8 Wxg8 32 l:te3
21 h 5
Or 21 �g3 l:.bc8 22 f5 'illc 6 (not
22 . . . exf5? 23 e6 winning) 23 l:.e2 �h8 24 h5
l:.g8 25 l:.f3 f6! ? 26 exf6 e5 27 fxg7+ l:.xg7
28 'illd2 4:Jf6 and Black had reasonable play
for her sacrificed pawn in Arakhamia-Grant
- Matveeva, Kishinev 1995.
2 1 . . . l:.fc8 2 2 f5 � c 6 23 li e 2 ttJc5 2 4 f 6
Here White should have been less
ambitious and taken the opportunity to
exchange knights. Instead he hopes to
generate play on the kingside, but Black's
defensive resources are considerable.
24 . . . ttJe4
One of White's major problems from
here on is in the huge disparity in strength
between the knights. Black's is wonderfully
placed on e4 whilst White's is a feeble
spectator on a4. White would like to arrange
an exchange sacrifice on e4 but the pressure
along the c-file makes it impossible for him
to achieve this in an advantageous manner.
25 fxg7 h 6 !
An excellent defensive move, keeping
control over the dark squares. Instead
25 . . . �xg7 26 h6+ would have given White
all sorts of chances.
26 .l::lf 3 l:.b7 27 'ik'e3 �xg7 28 !H4
Black's knight on e4 is so strong that
White has to perform all sorts of
30
32 . . . l:tc8 !
This is a very clever move played not to
defend the back rank but to create space for
the manoeuvre ...'illc7-e7-g5 clamping down
on the dark squares.
33 l:te2 'Wic7 34 �d4 'W/e7 35 fie3 �g7
35 . . . 'illg5 was also possible, but Black's
king is in no particular danger and there is
no hurry to force the queen exchange.
36 �f4 l:tc6 37 Wb2 f5 !
Well timed!
38 'W/e3
The endgame after 38 exf6+ 'ifxf6+ 39
'i¥xf6+ �xf6 is hopeless for White as the
black king comes to g5 and White is still
playing without the knight.
38 . . . Wh7 39 l:te 1 �g7
Hitting the pawns at e5 and g2.
40 �d4 ifxg2 0-1
Game 16
J . Polgar-Shirov
P rague 1999
e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Lt:J c3 Li:Jf6 4 e5 ttJfd7
O ld M a in L in e w i th 7
5 f4 c5 6 {jjf 3 'Llc6 7 �e3 cxd4 8 'Llxd4
�c 5 9 �d 2 0-0
1 0 0-0-0 a6 1 1
h4
t2Jxd4 1 2 �xd4 b5 1 3 �h3 b4 1 4 'Lle2
.
.
.
c x d4 8 {jj x d4
we have another familiar theme for this
variation: White achieves the optically
desirable f4-f5 push but finds that this has
only served to weaken the e-pawn) 21...bxc3
22 i.xc3 i.b4 23 fxg6 fxg6 and Black's
queenside play, combined with the weak­
ness of the white e-pawn, gave him a fine
game in Rahal-A.Martinez, Barbera 1999.
c) 1 5 :g3 ifxh4 (why not?) 16 'ife3 �a6
17 f5 l:!fc8 18 f6 �f8 19 ctJf4 i.xf1 20 l::Ix f1
:c4 21 'iff2 <;t>h8 22 c3 bxc3 23 bxc3 :b8
with an extra pawn for Black and a decent
initiative on the queenside in Bryson-Orr,
Edinburgh 1999.
1 5 .. .'iVc7 1 6 �xc5 'Llxc5
As we saw in previous games, White can
easily find the knight horribly stuck out of
play on a4 and so it is a logical attempt to
improve by playing to e2 instead, where it
also aims at the strong d4-square. However,
this plan also has its disadvantages, not least
of which is that the f-bishop is temporarily
impeded. Furthermore, although the knight
could prove out of play on a4 it did at least
help to counter Black's queenside play with
. . a6-a5-a4-a3 .
1 4 . . . a5 1 5 'iVe3
White forces his opponent into an
immediate decision by pressurising the
bishop on c5. However, various other
moves have been tried here:
a) 1 5 g4 �a6 16 g5 (this is a very
committal way for White to play) 16 . . . �xe2
17 �xe2 'ifc7 1 8 \t?b 1 �fc8 19 :c 1 a4 20
h5 a3 2 1 b3 i.xd4 22 'ifxd4 'ifc5 23 'ifd2
�a7 24 g6 (this breakthrough looks
impressive but in fact, as we see so often in
this line, Black can still defend the kingside
without too much trouble) 24 ... fxg6 25 hxg6
hxg6 26 i.g4 ctJf8 27 l:!ch 1 l:!ac7 28 �d1
�f7 29 l:.d3 'ife7 30 'iig2 :c3 and Black
was fine in Brustman-Zielinska, Suwalki
1999.
b) 1 5 h5 il.a6 1 6 h6 g6 1 7 .l:.f3 l:tc8 18
'it>b 1 'ifb6 19 c3 l:tc7 20 g4 :fc8 21 f5 (here
1 7 'Lld4
So, White has got her knight round to
the attractive d4-square and effected the
positionally desirable exchange of dark­
squared bishops. However, this has all taken
much time and Black is ready to launch
forwards on the queenside. He also has a
good square for his own knight on e4.
1 7 . . . a4 1 8 �b 1 ?
This is a serious mistake after which
White is struggling. Black's threat of ... a4-a3
must be prevented and the only way to do
this is with the bizarre-looking 18 a3 ! It
looks suicidal to open lines on the
queenside but in fact White can keep the
position under control and hold the
balance. A possible variation, given by
Finkel, is 18 . . . bxa3 19 'ifxa3 �b6 20 hS
31
Fre n c h C la s s ic a l
.i.a6 2 1 .i.xa6 :xa6 2 2 h 6 g 6 2 3 g4 ctJe4 24
5 f4 c5 6 4Jf3 ct:Jc6 7 i.e3 cxd4 8 4Jxd4
:B with an unclear position.
i.c5 9 'iYd 2 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 a6 1 1
1 8 . . . a3 1 9 b3 i. a 6 20 i. x a 6 .:txa6
4Jxd4 1 2 i.xd4 b5 1 3 h5 b4 1 4 4Je2
With . . .ctJc5-e4-c3 in the offing it is clear
that Black already stands very well.
Here White has the usual choice between
trying to block Black's queenside play or
simply getting on with it himself on the
opposite wing. Here are some examples of
the blockading strategy following 14 ctJa4:
14 ... .i.xd4 15 'ii'xd4 'ii'a5 (15 ... a5 1 6 .i.b5
:b8 1 7 i.d3 i.b7 1 8 h6 g6 19 f5!? was the
violent continuation of Nunn-Lputian,
Manila 1 992; Black declined to capture the
white pawn and played safe with 19 . . . .i.c6
when, following 20 fxe6 'ilig5+ 21 �b 1
'ii'xe5 22 'ilixe5 ctJxe5 23 ctJc5 fxe6 24 :he 1
ctJxd3 25 cxd3 , White had a small edge in
the endgame) 16 b3 i.b7 17 f5 (White goes
for it; a more restrained, and probably
preferable approach is 17 �b 1 .i.c6 1 8
ctJb2) 17 . . . .1c6 1 8 f6 gxf6 19 exf6 �h8 20
i.d3 (White's initiative on the kingside
looks terrifying but, as we have seen in
previous examples, Black has good
defensive resources and his counterplay on
the queenside comes very quickly)
20 . . . .1xa4 2 1 'iff4 :g8 22 bxa4 'ifxa4 23
�b 1 ctJc5 24 g3 :ac8 and Black was well
on top and went on to win in Gallagher­
Barsov, Bern 1994.
21 �e 1 l:.b6
22 c3
White tries to compete on the queenside
but now it is too late as Black is so well
mobilised there and has already created
serious weaknesses around the white king.
22 . . . �b7 23 l:.c1 4Je4 24 cxb4 .:txb4 25
!:.d3 l:.c4!
A clever move from Shirov which
ensures him domination of the c-file.
26 r!xc4
It is difficult to suggest how White might
defend. For example, if 26 :dd1 :fc8 27
�a 1 'ifb6 and White is collapsing.
h4
1 4 . . . a5
26 . . . dxc4 2 7 l:.d 1 4Jc5 28 'iYc3 'iYxg2
29 b4 4Jd3 30 'iYxa3 l:.a8 31 .:txd3 cxd3
3 1 . .. :xa3 32 l;Ixa3 ifg1+ 33 �c2 'iif2+
34 �b 1 'ife 1+ 35 �c2 'iie4+ also wins.
32 'ifxd3 'iYxa 2+ 33 Wc1 'iYa 1 + 34 Wd2
l:.d8 3 5 'it>e3 'iVe 1 + 0 - 1
A gory example of how this variation can
go horribly wrong for White.
Game 1 7
Topalov-Morozevich
Sar aj evo 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �c3 �f6 4 e5 �fd7
32
1 5 �e3
Other possibilities are:
a) 15 .i.xcS CLlxcS 16 'JJIe3 'JJib 6 17 fS
O ld M a in L in e w i th 7
(White takes advantage of the lack of
protection of d5 to make this thematic
push, but Black is well mobilised and in a
good position to meet it) 17 . . . a4 1 8 Wb 1 b3
19 cxb3 axb3 20 a3 exf5 2 1 l::tx d5 l::t a5 22
t2Jf4 h6? (this is too slow and, according to
Knaak, Black could have obtained a good
position with 22 . . . i.b7! - one point being
that 23 l::t d 6 i.e4+ 24 i.d3 'ifb7 25 i.. xe4
t2Jxe4 26 l::t b 6 tt:Jd2+ 27 Wa1 'ifa7 is very
awkward for White) 23 i..d3 (now White is
on top) 23 . . . i.e6 24 l::td 6 \!Wb7 25 l::tc l l::t c 8
26 \!Wd4 t2Jxd3 27 l:.xc8+ .i.xc8 28 t2Jg6!
'it>h7 (28 .. .fxg6 29 hxg6 wins) 29 tt:Jf8+ Wg8
30 :d8 g5 3 1 \!Wd6 1-0 Smirin-Lputian,
Rostov 1993.
b) 1 5 f5? ! i.xd4 1 6 ctJxd4 ctJxe5 looks
speculative to say the least; Zakic-Dizdar,
Cetinje 1990, continued 17 h6 g6 18 fxg6
fxg6 19 i.b5 \!Wd6 20 :he 1 tt:Jf7 2 1 'ife3 e5
22 ctJc6 d4 23 \!Wg3 i.. d7 24 ctJxd4 i.. x b5 25
tLlxb5 \!Wc5 26 a4 bxa3 27 ctJxa3 :ab8 with
an excellent position for Black.
c) The unsubtle 15 g4 i.. a6 16 g5 'VJi/c7 1 7
g 6 was adopted i n Wiersma-Luther,
Leeuwarden 1992. Play continued 17 ... a4 18
h6 fxg6 1 9 hxg7 :f7 20 f5 i.xe2 21 fxg6
l:.xg7 22 gxh7+ Wh8 23 i.xe2 (although
White has stripped the pawn cover away
from the black king it turns out that his own
king is the more vulnerable) 23 ... b3 24 axb3
axb3 25 'VJifc3 .i.b4!
1 5 . . . 'ii' c 7 1 6 �b1 i.. a 6
.
.
. c x d4
8 CiJ x d4
1 7 i.. x c5
1 7 h6 g6 18 g4 a4 19 i.. xc5 ctJxc5 20
ctJg3 :fc8 (this looks suspiciously like a
waste of time; why not just get on with it
with 20 . . . b3?) 2 1 i..xa6 :xa6 22 :c1 a3 23
b3 ctJd7 with an approximately equal
position in Kotter-Kaid, Germany 1999.
1 7 . . . CiJxcS 1 8 CiJg3
It is important for White to cover the e4square. 1 8 ctJd4 a4 19 i.xa6 :xa6 20 f5
ctJe4 2 1 'VJi/f4 a3 leads to one of those
positions where Black is invariably much
quicker than his opponent. However,
White's play does not make a positive
impression. Most of his effort appears to be
in frantic attempts to contain his opponent
rather than further his own ambitions.
1 8 .. JHc8 1 9 l1c1 a4 20 i.. x a6 11xa6 2 1
l:thd 1 a 3 2 2 b 3 l1c6
Black has a good position with the usual
white weaknesses to aim at and the usual
good squares for his own pieces.
23 �d4 CiJa6 24 l:td2 'ii'e 7 !
Black observes that his opponent's
kingside pawn advances have also created
weaknesses.
25 �d3 'ii'h4 26 'ii'f3 l1c3 27 �d3 h 6 !
Black is in no hurry and tidies up his own
position. One point is that 28 :h 1 ,
apparently expelling the black queen, runs
into the brutal 28 . . . l:.xc2!
28 f5 28 . . 'ifg5
White's last served only to give away
.
33
Fre n c h C l a s s i c a l
another dark square o n the kingside.
29 'iff 1
1 4 . . . aS
lii: x d3 30 'ifxd3 tLlcS 3 1 'iff3
tt:Jd7 0 - 1
1 S 'itt b 1
Resignation may seem surprising but
White cannot defend his e-pawn and his
position will soon cave in.
Game 1 8
Apicella-Bricard
B esanco n 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 tt:Jc3 l2Jf6 4 eS l2Jfd7
S f4 cS 6 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 7 i.e3 cxd4 8 tt:Jxd4
.lieS 9 'ifd 2 0-0
1 0 0-0-0 a6 1 1
h4
.lixd4
Black decides that the knight on c6 will
prove to be a more useful piece in the
ensuing play than the bishop on cS.
0bviously Black may soon capture again on
d4 in which case play is likely to transpose
into positions considered earlier. However,
in practice, he tends not to do this. This line
seems to make it a little easier for White to
organise a solid defensive set-up on the
queenside and this is probably why it is not
seen as often as 1 1 . . .ctJxd4.
1 2 .lixd4 bS 1 3 hS b4 1 4 tt:Je2
As usual 14 tLla4 is an alternative here
and may be stronger, e.g. 14 . . . 'i!Vc7 15 �b 1
aS 1 6 iH2 i.. a6 17 i.. xa6 :xa6 1 8 tLlcS
tLlxcS 19 i.xcS �c8 20 i.. d 6 'ilVd7 21 g4 and
White stood a little better in Larsen-Gausel,
Aars 1995.
34
White has also tried:
a) 15 i.e3 a4 16 tLld4 tLlxd4 17 i.xd4 b3
gave Black little cause for complaint in
Apicella-Vallin, Vichy 2000. Play continued
18 cxb3 axb3 19 a3 .i.a6 20 .i.xa6 �xa6 2 1
� b 1 tLlb6 2 2 i.xb6 (a slight condemnation
of White's play - he has been to some
trouble to preserve the dark-squared bishop
but now ends up exchanging it off anyway)
22 . . . 'ilfxb6 23 h6 g6 24 �cl �a4 25 .:h3
�c4 with equality.
b) 15 g4 a4 16 �b 1 b3 17 cxb3 axb3 1 8
a3 i.a6 19 h6 g 6 2 0 �h3 'ifb8 2 1 �c3 i.c4
22 tLlc l tLlaS 23 'ilff2 with a small plus for
White, as Black was not really getting
anywhere on the queenside in Hickl-Franke,
Luxembourg 1988.
1 S . . . a 4 1 6 tt:J c 1 i. a 6 1 7 g 4 'ifc7 1 8 lii: h 2
lii: fc8 1 9 .ll. x a6 :xa6 20 h6 g6 21 .l:e 1
White is building up slowly,
concentrating first on hoping to deprive
Black of his queenside play before pursuing
his own ambitions on the other wing.
However, Black's reply is strong so maybe
2 1 i.e3 was better.
21 . . . b3 ! ?
A typical pawn sacrifice to open lines on
the queen's wing. At the very least this is a
good practical move.
22 cxb3 axb3 23 tt:Jxb3 .l:ca8 24 tt:Jc1
tt:Jxd4 2S �xd4 :a4 26 'YWd2 tt:JcS
O ld M a in L in e with 7
.
.
.
c x d4 8 liJ x d4
With his knight about to parachute into
e4 it is clear that Black's idea has been a
great success.
:bs :c7 so :hs :cs .
21 :1he2 l2Je4 28 'i'd3 'i'a 5 29 l:.xe4
dx e4 30 nxe4
48 . . . �g6 49 :1b5 :1a7 50 �c5 �b7 5 1
47 exf6 �f7 48 g 5
Now White is winning.
:1a5 :1b3+ 5 2 �f4 �b4+ 5 3 �e3 �b8
54 �d4 �b7 55 �c5 �d7 56 �c6 nd8
57 :tb5 nd 1 58 :tbs �d5 59 �gB+ �t7
60 ng7+ WfS 61 nxh7 :1xg5 62 ng7
1 -0
Game 19
Enders-Knaak
Bun desl ig a 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 li:Jc3 li:Jf6 4 e5 li:Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 li:Jf3 li:Jc6 7 .te3 cxd4 8 li:Jxd4
.tc5 9 'i'd2 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 a6 1 1 g3
30 . . J!xa2
This looks very promising for Black, but
in fact White can probably hang on after
this. Better therefore was the simple
30 . . . :xe4 3 1 �xe4 :c8
31 li:Jxa2 'i'xa2+ 3 2 �c2 �c8+ 33 �d 1
'ifa 1 + 34 �e2 'ifxb2+ 35 �f1 g 5 ? !
Now, with a series of accurate moves,
White equalises the position. In his notes
Finkel gives 35 ... �cl+ 36 �g2 :c2+ 37 :e2
:xe2+ 38 �xe2 �xf4 39 �d1 as leading to
a draw. However, after 39 . . . �xh6 40 �d8+
'i¥f8 (Finkel gives only 40 ... �g7 which does
indeed lead to an immediate draw after 41
g5) 4 1 �f6 h6, although Black is tied down
he is two pawns ahead and must have
reasonable winning chances.
36 :e2 'ifc 1 + 37 � g 2 gxf4 38 l:.d2
Suddenly White has generated his own
threats thanks to Black's weak back rank.
38 . . . f3+ 39 �f2 'i'c7 40 �xf3 �f8 4 1
'ifd4 'if b 7 + 42 �g3 'if e 7 4 3 � f 2 'ifg5 44
'iff4 Vixf4+ 45 nxf4 �aS 46 �b4 f6?
Black, presumably frustrated at his
inability to land a killing blow, becomes
flustered and goes into self-destruct mode.
He could still have drawn easily enough
with 46 . . . �f8 47 'it>f4 l;la7 48 �g5 �e7 49
This is a decent alternative to the attempt
to activate the king's rook with 1 1 h4, as
seen in previous games. To a certain extent
White is playing a waiting game with this
move, intending to see how Black deploys
his forces before committing his own
pieces. Another move along similar lines is
1 1 �f2, as seen in Pedzich-Aaberg,
Copenhagen 199 1 , which continued
1 1 . . .ctJxd4 12 i.xd4 �c7 13 .id3 i.xd4 14
�xd4 bS 1 5 :he 1 �b6 1 6 �xb6 lt:Jxb6 17
CUe2 b4 1 8 CUd4 aS 19 b3 and White had a
small edge in the endgame.
1 1 . . . 'ifc7
1 1 . .. i.xd4 12 Jl.xd4 b5 has also been
tried, when in Zolnierowicz-Dizdar, Baku
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
1988, White played the strange 13 h4. If you
want to play like this you might as well get
on with it on move 1 1 . It certainly did not
work out well for White: 13 ... b4 14 ctJe2 a5
1 5 g4 'ifc7 16 �b 1 �a6 17 ctJg3 Mfc8 1 8
l:.h2 a 4 (Black's attack i s a whole rank
further advanced than White's) 19 ctJh5 b3
20 cxb3 axb3 2 1 a3 ctJxd4 22 'ii'xd4 �xf1
23 Mxf1 ct:Jb6 and Black soon crashed
through on the queenside. The rest of the
game is instructive: 24 Me2 ctJc4 25 f5 Ma4
26 'ifd3 'ifa7 27 Mc l l:.a8 28 'ii'c 3 Mxa3 29
bxa3 ctJxa3+ 30 �b2 ctJc4+ 3 1 �b 1 b2 32
l:lxb2 ctJa3+ 0- 1 .
23 �b6 ctJf7 24 ctJxe6 ct:Jh6 25 ctJxf8 'ifxg4
26 �xg4 ctJxg4 is fine for Black, as the
white knight is isolated on f8) 23 . . . b4 24
�d3 �b5 25 axb4 �xd3 26 �xd3 �xb4 27
ct:Jh5 �h8 28 :fl :f8 29 Mxf8+ �xf8 30
�c5!? ctJc6 (the crafty point of White's
move is that 30 . . . �xc5 is met by 3 1 �xd5!
Vlie7 32 Mxc5 and White is on top however, by declining the sacrifice Black is
able to hold the balance) 3 1 Mxd5 'ifxd5 32
�xf8 'ifh 1+ 33 �a2 'ifd5+ 34 �b 1 'ifh 1+
�-� Enders-Knaak, Germany 1994. Both
sides must settle for perpetual check.
1 2 Wb1
l:the 1 .ltxd4 1 6 �xd4
1 2 . . . lL'lxd4 1 3 .ltxd4 b5 14 .ltg2 .ltb7 1 5
White's set-up is solid but rather
unambitious.
1 6 . . . l:tfc8 1 7 l:tc1 �a 5 1 8 �d2
12 �h3 demonstrates a further point of
the move 11 g3 - the white bishop can be
developed actively on the h3-c8 diagonal
where it may prove useful for the f4-f5
advance or possibly for a potential sacrifice
on e6. Note also that Black's advance . . .f7f6 is impeded by this plan. Another
encounter between the two combatants
featured in our main game saw 12 . . . ct:Jxd4
13 �xd4 b5 14 Mhe 1 Me8 (with f4-f5 on
the cards Black feels obliged to make this
not terribly useful move) 15 �b1 �b7 1 6
a 3 �f8 1 7 f 5 � c 6 1 8 fxe6 fxe6 19 ctJe2
ctJc5 20 ctJf4 'ifd7 2 1 'ife2 ct:Jb7 22 'ifg4
ctJd8 23 �f1 (White has ganged up
effectively on the e-pawn and driven Black
back but it is difficult for him to now
annexe this pawn because the forcing line
1 8 . . . d4! ?
This move initiates great complications.
Black will lose the exchange but in return
will seriously inconvenience the white king.
At the very least, this is an excellent
practical decision, especially as the
alternative 18 . . . ctJb6 19 ctJe4 allows White to
steer the game towards a dreary position,
albeit one in which Black has no difficulties
whatsoever.
1 9 .ltxb7
Another way to win the exchange was 19
'ifxd4 �xg2 20 'ifxd7 Mxc3 21 bxc3 �d5
22 Mcd 1 'ifxa2+ 23 �c l but then the huge
black bishop on d5 does not look any worse
O ld M a in L in e with 7
than one of the white rooks.
1 9 . . . dxc3 20 �d6 CDc5
20 . . J�c4!? 2 1 b3! l:c5 22 �a1 �a3 23
�b 1 b4 24 �xc5 ctJxc5 25 .txa8 leads to a
strange position which is difficult to judge.
.
.
.
c x d4 8 CD x d4
After this White cannot cope with
Black's threats. He had to try 37 �xc8+
"ifxc8 38 .:xb4 when the game should end
in a draw.
37 . . . CDd3 38 .l:.b8 �c2+ 39 �a 1 �a4+
21 .ll. x c8 !:txc8 22 !:te3 b4 23 .l:.d 1 cxb2
40 � b 1 'i'c2+ 41 Wa 1
24 f 5 !
41 . . . Wh7 !
This is an excellent move from White. It
is imperative for him to try to regain the
initiative as quickly as possible. Chances are
balanced.
Presumably having negotiated the time
trouble Black now finds a killing quiet
move. This frees his rook to join in the
attack after which White has no chance to
resist. Of course now 42 l:ixc8 is met by
42 . . .�b2 mate.
24 . . . h6?
However, this is too slow and now White
has a chance to get on top. Black had a
chance to force a remarkable draw with
24 . . . exf5 25 e6 ctJxe6! 26 l:xe6 b3!! 27 cxb3
l:c 1+ 28 l:xcl bxc l� + 29 �xc l fxe6 30
�xe6+ �f8 and the position has fizzled out.
42 'iVb6 .l:.c4 0- 1
N ores to this game are based on
variations given by Knaak in ChessBase
Magazine.
Game 20
25 fxe6 'Llxe6 26 .l:.f1 ?
White in turn errs. Much better was 26
l:td5 "ifa4 27 .:b3 when Black's queenside
play is under control and White holds the
advantage.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 CDc3 tDf6 4 e5 'Llfd7
26 . . . �a4 27 .l:.b3 'iVb5 28 'iVd3 �b7 29
5 f4 c5 6 'Llf3 'Llc6 7 .ll. e 3 cxd4 8 'Llxd4
Kasparov-Bareev
Novgo ro d 199 7
i¥f3 �c7 30 .l:.xb2 a 5
.ll. c 5 9 'iVd 2 �xd4 1 0 .ll. x d4 'Llxd4 1 1
The position may objectively be balanced
and, although a computer would probably
prefer to play White with the extra material,
such a position is horrible to defend,
especially in time trouble.
'i'xd4 'i'b6
31 a3 'Lld4 3 2 �d3 'iVxe5 33 axb4 axb4
34 .l:.xb4 'Llxc2 35 'Y/Ua6 �c3 36 .l:.b2
'Llb4 37 'iVd6 ?
This used to be quite a popular line for
Black at a high level, where gaining a half
point is often the limit of the ambition of
the player with the black pieces. White
keeps a tiny edge and, of course, Black
should be able to draw, but it is not an
exciting way to spend an afternoon. The
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
main lines offer Black equally good chances
and with interesting positions to boot and
this dreary line has therefore fallen out of
favour recently, which is no bad thing.
handling this position: 13 ... \te7 14 0-0-0
i2Jb8 15 .td3 CLJc6 (the white knight is now
driven away from its fine outpost and the
position is utterly level) 16 i2Jf3 lh -lh
Khalifman-Dreev, Novosibirsk 1995.
12
. . .
LUxb6
1 2 �xb6
This is probably White's best. Others:
a) 12 ii'd2 CLJc5 (it is difficult to see why
Black does not want to capture on b2 but
having played 1 1 . .. ii'b6 Black is peaceably
inclined) 13 0-0-0 .td7 14 ii'd4 a6 15 h4
0-0-0 16 �h3 .tc6 17 CLJe2 <it>b8 18 �c3
CLJa4 19 ii'xb6 CLJxb6 (so White ends up
with his tiny endgame edge anyway) 20 CLJd4
.td7 2 1 b3 CLJc8 22 h5 CLJe7 23 g4 �df8 24
g5 h6 (this is instructive play from Black ­
he hits back on the kingside before White
has a chance to ferry his forces across and
create a serious clamp) 25 �h3 g6 26 hxg6
ctJxg6 27 �xh6 t2Jxf4 28 .td3 �hg8 29 � g l
�g7 30 �d2 �fg8 3 1 .th7 �h8 32 �e3
�hxh7 33 �xh7 �xh7 34 �xf4 �h4+ 35
�g4 .l::! h l 36 i2Jf3 J:c l 37 �g2 �c7 38 a4
�d8 39 J:h2 .te8 40 �e3 lh -lh Kasparov­
Timman, Horgen 1995. A draw with Black
against Kasparov is rarely a bad result.
b) After 12 i2Jb5 ii'xd4 13 i2Jxd4 White's
knight is beautifully posted on d4, carefully
blocking the black cl-pawn and well situated
to aid with the advance f4-f5 . The only
problem is that Black can kick it away pretty
quickly with the following manoeuvre, after
which the position is a bit dead. This is why
12 'ifxb6 is the preferred method of
38
1 3 a4
Or 13 0-0-0 .td7 14 .td3 h5 15 CLJe2
\te7 16 CLJd4 g6 17 g3 .tc6 18 �de l i2Jd7
19 c3 �ag8 20 �hfl g5 (White's play has
been passive and Black grabs the initiative)
2 1 f5 g4 22 �e2 h4 23 b4 (this creates
weaknesses in the queenside; if White were
to sit still he should not be in any great
danger) 23 . . . hxg3 24 hxg3 .ta4 25 �b2 �h3
26 �gl J:gh8 27 �a3 .l:ic8 28 \tb2 a6 29
�gg2 .tdl 30 �e3 i2Jb6 3 1 �f2 �h l 32
fxe6 fxe6 33 �fl CLJa4+ 34 \tc l l!xc3+ 0-1
Nunn-Korchnoi, Lucerne 1985.
1 3 . . . �e7
It is also possible to prevent the advance
of the a-pawn at the expense of giving away
the b5-square, e.g. 13 . . . a5 14 \td2 (14 i2Jb5
�e7 15 b3 f6 1 6 exf6+ gxf6 1 7 \td2 i.d7 1 8
� e 1 .txb5 19 i.xb5 CLJc8 2 0 c 4 dxc4 2 1
.txc4 �d8+ 2 2 �c3 �d6 left Black slightly
behind in development, but this did not
prove serious in Kir.Georgiev-M.Gurevich,
Manila 1990: 23 �dl .l:ic6 24 <it>b2 i2Jd6 25
.td3 �g8 26 g3 h5 27 l:.hgl �c5 28 .i.e2
and the game was soon drawn) 14 . . . i.d7 15
b3 �e7 1 6 :e 1 :ag8 17 h4 h6 1 8 .i.d3 g5
(Korchnoi's patent plan of challenging on
Old M a in L in e with 7
the kingside before White gets a grip again
proves its value) 19 hxgS hxgS 20 g3 i.c6
21 �xh8 �xh8 22 ctJe2 ct:Jd7 23 ct:Jd4 �h3
24 lig1 gxf4 2S gxf4 �h4 26 <it>e3 �h3+ 27
\t>f2 ctJcS 28 �g3 �xg3 29 \t>xg3 ct:Jxd3 30
cxd3 f6 31 <it>f3 fxeS 32 fxeS i.d7 33 <it>e3
\t>f7 34 <it>f4 lh-lh Short-Korchnoi,
Groningen 1997.
1 4 a 5 ti.:Jd7 1 5 'it>d2 g 5 1 6 g3 gxf4 1 7
gxf4 f6
.
.
.
c x d4 8 ti:J x d4
good for Black) 2 1 . . .\t>fS (Black can also
consider 2 1 . .. �d6 22 �f7 cueS 23 cubS+
\ticS) 22 lic7 ctJe8 and the white rook is
expelled.
21 ti.:Jxd5+ 'it>d6 22 ti.:Jxf4 e5
Bareev may have been relting on this
move to equalise the position. It looks as if
White may have nothing better than 23
iL.xc8 �xc8 when Black would have little to
fear. However, Kasparov finds a typically
energetic move to keep the initiative.
23 !1g3 !
This activates the rook and creates
enough momentum to keep Black under
pressure.
23 . . . �xh3
The point of Kasparov's play is that
23 . . . exf4 runs into 24 �d3+ \tiel 2S �e7+
�b8 26 �e8 CUg6 27 �xh8 CUxh8 28 �d8
and White wins.
24 .l:d3+ 'it>c6 25 .l:c3+ 'it>d6 26 ti.:Jxh3
.l:g8 27 .l:d3+ 'it>e6 28 ti.:Jf4+ <it>f5 29
ti.:Jd5 !1g2+ 30 <it>c 1 .l:f2 31 !1b3
Bareev is living dangerously here.
Although an endgame has been reached, it
is still risky to neglect development whilst
opening up the centre in front of your king.
Nevertheless, it is not at all obvious if there
is anything wrong with Bareev's idea.
1 8 !1 g 1
The b-pawn is also a weakness in the
black camp.
31 . . . .l:b8 3 2 a6 b5 33 ti.:Je7+ <it>f6 34
ti.:Jc6 .l:b6 3 5 ti.:Jxe5 h 5 36 ti.:Jd3 .l:xh2 37
ti.:Jb4 'it>g5 38 l:f3 ti.:Jg6 39 .l:f7 .l:h4 40
c3
Bareev has fought very well but is now
obliged to give up the exchange to prevent
White from obtaining a decisive passed a­
pawn.
40 . . . .l:xb4 41 cxb4 nxa6 42 .l:g 1 + �h6
The start of a typically violent plan from
Kasparov. However, more reserved play got
White nowhere in Short-Timman, Novgo­
rod 199 S : 1 8 exf6+ ct:Jxf6 19 i.d3 iL.d7 20
ctJe2 �hg8 2 1 �hg1 <it>d6 22 c3 and a draw
w as agreed.
46 !1a7 ti.:Jg6 47 .l:a 1
1 8 . . . fxe5 1 9 �h3 exf4 20 I1ae 1 ti.:Jf8
.l:xb2 49 <it>f5 I1f2+ 50 <it>e6 I1f4 51 l:. b 1
After his brave play in accepting
Kasparov earlier pawn sacrifices, Bareev
loses his nerve and returns the material,
reconciling himself to a slightly worse
endgame. However, if he had held his
nerve, it is not entirely clear how Kasparov
could j ustify his two-pawn deficit. The
critical move is 20 . . . ct:Jf6 and after 21 �g7+
(2 1 l::t g f1 �f8 22 �xf4 ctJe4+ is definitely
h 4 5 2 l::i: b 6 h3 5 3 l::i: x b5 h2 5 4 l:. h 1 lih4
43 <it>d2 .l:d6+ 44 �e3 a6 45 <it'e4 ti.:Jh8
.l:d2 48 .l:7xa6
5 5 <it>d6 ti.:Jf4 56 l:.f5 ti.:Jh 5 57 .l:f2 l::i: x b4
58 l::i: f xh2 l::i: b 5
Whatever the theoretical status of this
endgame it must be very difficult to defend
in practice.
59 .l:a2 <it>g6 60 .l:a6 ti.:Jf4 61 <it'e7+ <it>g5
62 .l:g 1 + <it'h4 63 .l:a4 !U5 64 .l:g8 <it'h3
65 .l:a3+ �h2 66 .l:a2+ <it'h3 67 nd2
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
:e5+ 6 8 �f6 :e3 6 9 �f5 tiJe2 7 0 :b2
�h2 71 :g7 !:te8 7 2 :g6 :e3 73 !:te6
1 -0
Game 2 1
Kasparov-Shirov
i.d3 �fc8 17 'ife 1 cub4 18 a3 CtJxd3 19
�xd3 �c4 20 'ifd2 �ac8 21 CtJe2 'ifxd2 22
�xd2 �e4 23 CtJc3 �ec4 24 �e 1 and White
had a tiny edge in the endgame but Shirov
hung on to draw.
1 1 0-0-0
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tiJc3 ctJf6 4 e5 ctJfd7
Having extracted the small concession of
. . . 'ife7, Kasparov decides to return to
normal play.
5 f4 c5 6 ctJf3 tiJc6 7 it.e3 cxd4 8 tiJxd4
1 1 . . . tiJb6 1 2 ctJb3 it.xe3 1 3 �xe3 it.d7
it.c5 9 �d 2 0-0 1 0 g3
14 �b1 !:tfc8 1 5 g4 ctJb4 1 6 tiJd4 :c5
A st an a 2001
Black has other possibilities to develop
his attack. One idea is 16 . . . 'ifc5 17 i.d3
i.a4 which is highly unclear.
1 7 a3 tiJc6 1 8 tiJcb5 ? !
White tries a plan similar to that seen in
the previous game. However, as Kasparov
points out, playing g2-g3 here maintains the
option of castling kingside.
Kasparov missed a good opportunity
here. The move 18 CtJb3 forces Black to
sacrifice a pawn with 18 . . . d4 19 CtJxd4 CtJxd4
20 .:xd4 .:ac8. At first sight this does not
look like the kind of gambit one wants to
accept, but here White has the strong move
21 .:d6. By preventing the black queen
from coming into play, White makes it
difficult for his opponent to j ustify his
gambit.
1 8 . . . tiJxd4 1 9 tiJxd4 :ac8 20 it.d3 t2Jc4
21 �h3
1 0 . . .'�e7
This is not a terribly good square for the
black queen in terms of attacking on th.e
queenside. However, the flip side is that the
possibility of . . . f7-f6 is created. Other
treatments for Black are:
a) 10 . . . CtJxd4 1 1 i.xd4 a6 12 i.g2 bS 13
CtJe2 aS 14 a3 i.xd4 15 CtJxd4 Vi'b6 16 0-0
(the advantage of not committing the king
too early) 16 . . . CtJc5 17 g4 i.b7 18 �ad1 b4
19 fS exfS 20 gxfS �ae8 21 axb4 axb4 22
Vif4 and White had a good position in
Gofshtein-M.Gurevich, Noyon 200 1 .
b) 1 0. . .i.xd4 1 1 i.xd4 CtJxd4 1 2 'ifxd4
CUbS was seen in Anand-Shirov, Leon 200 1,
played just a couple of weeks after the
Kasparov-Shirov game. Play continued 13
0-0-0 CLJc6 14 'iff2 il.d7 15 �b 1 'ifaS 16
40
21 . . . h6
This looks suicidal but Shirov has
prepared an amazing counterattacking idea.
Furthermore, the more natural 21...g6 leaves
White with a pleasant choice between the
simple 22 il.xc4 dxc4 23 'ifc3 with a small
O l d M a in L in e with 7
but persistent edge and the more complex
22 QJf3 , intending to come to gS .
22 g5 l2Jxa3+! 23 bxa3 :c3 24 gxh6 g6
This is the critical position of the game.
White is a piece ahead and Black has no
immediate threats. Furthermore, the black
king is also not entirely happy.
Nevertheless, despite all that, it is not clear
that White can win this position.
25 'iVg2
Some variations given by Kasparov
demonstrate how tricky this position is:
a) 25 <it>c l l:t8c4 26 <it>d2 to escape from
the danger zone with the king looks logical
but after 26 . . . l:txa3 27 ttJf3 'liVeS the black
major pieces are running riot.
b) 25 'i¥g3 l:txa3 26 t2Jb3 i.. a4 27 h7+
�g7 28 'iV gS 'iYxgS 29 fxgS i..x b3 30 <it>b2
i..xc2 3 1 <it>xa3 i.. xd 1 32 l:txd1 is a long
forcing variation which leads to an endgame
where White may be slightly better but it is
unlikely to be enough to win.
.
.
.
c x d4 8 tD x d4
Kasparov in tournament games to a
thoroughly dismal 0- 1 3 . After 34 . . . �f7
Kasparov admitted that White had very
little chance to win the game.
35 :d4 1 -0
Suddenly l:tgS will be mate.
Game 22
De Firmian-Hubner
Pol an ic a Zdro j 1995
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 'Llfd7
5 f4 c5 6 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 7 ..ie3 cxd4 8 l2Jxd4
'iVb6 9 'ifd 2 'ifxb2 1 0 � b 1 'iVa3 1 1 i.. b 5
l2Jxd4 1 2 ..ixd4 ..ib4 1 3 �b3
The alternative to this is to castle at once.
However, White invariably plays :b3 at
some point in this line and he doesn't often
go anywhere with the king other than on
the kingside, so the two lines can easily
transpose. After 13 0-0 play continues
13 . . . a6 14 l:tb3 'iYaS 15 :fb 1 and now:
25 . . . �xa3 26 l2Jb3 'ifb4 27 ..ixg6
White must act at once. If he delays with
27 l:thg1 l:tc3 28 i.. x g6 then Black has the
sneaky move 28 . . . <it>h8! preparing a
powerful sacrifice on b3 .
27 . . . �xb3+
28
cxb3 'ifxb3+
29 'ii b 2
'ifxb2+ 30 'iit> x b 2 fxg6 31 h4 <iit> h 7 32 h5
Wxh6 33 hxg6+ Wxg6 34 :hg 1 +
34 . . . Wf5??
A hideous blunder from Shirov which at
once brings his individual score against
a) 15 . . . i.. e 7 is possible but, bearing in
mind that a white rook will soon be landing
on b7, the bishop can become a target here,
e.g. 16 i.. xd7+ i.. xd7 17 l:txb7 l:tc8 18 'i¥e3
l:tc4 19 fS exfS (19 . . . l:txd4 runs into 20
:tb8+) 20 l:txd7! �xd7 21 l:tb7+ <it>e8 22 e6
(and not 22 :tb8+ <it>d7 23 :txh8 when
23 . . . :txd4 is fine for Black) 22 . . . 'ii'a3 (this
loses; Black had to play 22 ... 'ii'd 8 when 23
exf7+ <itxf7 24 CLJxdS :te8 25 �eS :xd4 26
�xd4 keeps White's advantage to a
41
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
minimum) 23 l:tb8+ i. d 8 2 4 'iVgS 'i¥d6 2 5
exf7+ �d7 26 'iVxfS+ �c6 27 'i¥c8+ 1-0
Soffer-Blauert, Budapest 1998.
b) 1 5 ... i.a3 1 6 i.xd7+ i.xd7 1 7 'Lle4 (17
i.b6, trying to trap the black queen, fails to
17 ... ..tc5+, but White can prepare this threat
with 1 7 �h 1 when 17 . . . i.c5 1 8 l:txb7 l:tc8
19 i.xcS l:txcS 20 l:t 1 b3 i.c8 2 1 l:t7b4 'if!c7
22 h3 0-0 was about equal in Ernst­
Manninen, Reykjavik 1995; while 17 'ifle3
resulted in complex play leading to a draw
in Santo Roman-Ziiger, Moscow Olympiad
1 994: 17 . . . l:tc8 1 8 �xb7 l:Ic4 19 fS i.c8 20
fxe6 fxe6 2 1 l:txg7 l:txd4 22 'iVgS 'iflxc3 23
'if!hS+ �d8 24 'if!gS+ �e8 25 'iflhS+ lh-lh)
1 7 ... 'i¥xd2 1 8 'Llxd2 i.e7 19 l:txb7.
Structurally White stands worse but the
activity of his pieces is reasonable
compensation. Chances are balanced, e.g.
b 1) 19 . . . i.b5 20 c4 dxc4 2 1 a4 i.xa4 22
'Llxc4 i.bS 23 'Lld6+ i.xd6 24 exd6 0-0-0?
(this is asking far too much of the black
position, especially as 24 . . .0-0 should be fine
for Black - in the worse case scenario he
would have to give up a rook for the white
bishop and cl-pawn, but even then he would
have excellent chances to hold the game) 25
l:ta7 l:Ixd6 26 i.eS 1-0 Luther-Ziiger,
Altensteig 199 5. Now Black loses the
exchange in terrible circumstances.
b2) 19 . . . i.c6 20 l:Ic7 ..tbs 21 c4 i.d8 2.2
�cS dxc4 23 'Llxc4 0-0 24 i.e3 i.e7 25
'Lld6 l:tfd8 26 l:td1 i.xd6 27 exd6 l:tac8 28
l:txc8 l:Ixc8 29 i.b6 i.d7 30 i.c7 �f8 with
an equal position in Kir.Georgiev-Ziiger,
Altensteig 1995.
after which White regains the piece and has
a strong attack for the two pawns) 19 ... i.f8
(now Black has numerous extra pawns for
insufficient compensation) 20 'LlxdS (this
doesn't work but it is difficult to find a
good plan when you are three pawns down
for nothing) 20 . . . 'Llxd5 2 1 i.xg7 i.xg7 22
l:tg3 �f8 23 ii'xg7+ �e7 24 a4 l:tg8 25 'ifh6
'ifb4 26 c4 'Llf6 27 'iff4 'ifd6 28 '1i'e3 :lxg3
29 hxg3 'Lle4 0-1 Sedlak-Marjanovic,
Subotica 2000.
14 . . �e7 1 5 f5
.
In a later game De Firmian preferred a
more restrained build-up which also served
him well: 15 'i¥e3 0-0 16 0-0 'ifc7 17 fS i.cS
18 i.xd7 i.xd4 19 'ifxd4 i.xd7 20 f6 l:Ifc8
21 'i¥g4 g6 22 'ifgS '1i'c5+ 23 �h 1 b6 24
'Lle2 'iff8 25 'Lld4, when in De Firmian­
Kaidanov, Lexington 1995, White had
excellent compensation for the pawn thanks
to his well posted knight on d4 and the
serious dark-square weaknesses around the
black king.
1 5 . . . exf5
1 3 . . . �a5 1 4 a 3
14 0-0 0-0 1 5 'if!e3 (or 15 'iflf2!? f6 16
i.xd7 i.xd7 1 7 exf6 gxf6 1 8 l:tfb 1 i.d6 19
'iflg3+ with a good attack in Kruppa­
Nikolenko, Budapest Open 1990) 15 ... 'Llb6
16 <iith 1 l:td8 17 fS exfS 18 e6 i.xe6 19
'iVgS? (Black can defend after this, so White
had to play 19 i.xg7 <Et>xg7 20 'if!gS+ <Et>f8 2 1
'i'h6+ when the game will b e a draw unless
Black is willing to risk 2 l . . .�e7 22 'ifh4+,
42
15 . . . b6 is a calm response. Mencinger­
Rogulj , Bled 1 992, continued 16 0-0 .i.a6 1 7
..txa6 'ifxa6 1 8 'LlbS 0-0-0! ? 19 fxe6 'LlcS 20
l:Ixf7 (20 'ifc3 should keep White on top;
now the tables turn) 20 . . . 'Llxb3 21 iie2
<Et>b8 22 cxb3 l:Ihe8 23 a4 iVc8 24 h3 'ifxe6
25 l:Ixg7 l:Ig8 26 l:Ixh7 l:Ic8 27 aS l:Icl+ 28
<Et>h2 'iYg6 29 l:Ixe7 'iVg3 checkmate.
1 6 CZJxd 5
O ld M a in L in e w i th 7
If White wishes to keep the queens on,
he must play rather speculatively, e.g. 16 e6
fxe 6 17 jL,xg7 l!tg8 18 "iVh6 �f7 19 jL,xd7
i.xd7 20 jL,e5 d4 (20 . . . .i:.ac8!?) 21 'ilixh7+
�f8 22 jL,f4 l!txg2 23 .i.h6+ �e8 24 "iVh8+
�f7 25 'ilVh7+ and the players agreed a draw
in Van der Wiel-Ree, Holland 1986. Black
could try for a win with 25 ... �f6, but 26 h4
is a dangerous reply. After 26 . . . dxc3 27
.i.g5+ �e5 28 "iVxe7 the position is highly
unclear.
1 6 . . . .5ih4+ 1 7 �d 1
17 �e2 would transpose to the next note
after 17 . . . 'iYxd2+ 1 8 �xd2.
1 7 . . . �d8
.
. . c x d4
8 Ci:J x d4
30 l:Xb 1 b5 31 axb5 axb5 32 .t[xb5 �d7 and
White had a tiny edge in Nijboer-Kuijf,
Wijk aan Zee 1996.
1 8 Ci:Jf6+ !
This results in a devastating opening of
lines after which the black king cannot
survive.
1 8 . . . gxf6 1 9 exf6 0-0
This gets mated by force. However, the
position was already hopeless, e.g. 19 ... h6 20
'ilVb4 (20 'iYe3+ �f8 21 'iYe7+ 'tixe7 22 fxe7+
�xe7 23 �xh8 wins the exchange but 20
'ilVb4 is much stronger) 20 . . ..i.xf6 21 .i:.e3+
�e7 22 .i:.xe7+ 'iYxe7 23 l:te1 and the game
IS up.
20 l:1g3+! �h8 2 1 �h6
Keeping the queens on is a brave
decision which, in this particular case, turns
out to be rather foolhardy. Exchanging
queens leaves a balanced endgame where, as
usual, White's active pieces compensate for
the pawn. Examples of play: 17 . . . 'iYxd2+ 18
�xd2 .i.d8 19 l!tg3 ( 19 l!tc3 is much less
relevant, e.g. 19 . . . a6 20 iLd3 tt:'lf8 21 �b6
.i.e6 22 tt:'lc7+ .i.xc7 23 �xc7 g6 24 g4 �d5
25 l!tg 1 f4 when Black stood well and went
on to win in Sahu-Singh, Calcutta 1 996)
19 . . . a6 20 iLxd7+ .i.xd7 2 1 l:.xg7 i.e6 (the
position is equal) 22 tt:'lf4 (or 22 tt:'lf6+ �f8
23 .i:.g3 l:.c8 24 l:.fl l:.c4 25 l:.f4 iLxf6 26
exf6 l:.g8 27 l:.g7 l:.xg7 28 fxg7+ �g8 Y2 -Y2
Apel-Blauert, Germany 1997) 22 . . . 1Le7 23
g4 fxg4 24 tt:'lxe6 fxe6 25 l:.fl l:.d8 26 �e3
l:.d7 27 a4 l:.c7 28 �d3 .i.d8 29 l:.xc7 .i.xc7
21 . . . l:1g8
If 2 1 . . . .txf6 the brutal 22 .i:.g7 forces
mate next move but White might prefer the
flashy 22 'i¥g7+, achieving the same end,
albeit by taking one move more.
22 l:1g7 Ci:Jf8 1 -0
Not waiting for 23 .i:.xg8+ and mate next
move.
Game 23
Fedorov-Volkov
St P et ersburg 199 7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Ci:Jc3 Ci:Jf6 4 e5 Ci:Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jc6 7 �e3 cxd4 8 CL'lxd4
'ii b 6 9 'ii d 2
This is certainly the critical test of Black's
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
idea a s t h e alternatives do not seem to
promise much:
a) 9 a3 and now:
al) 9 . . . tt:Jxd4 10 i.. xd4 i.. c S 1 1 ti:Ja4
'iYaS+ 12 b4 'i¥xa4 13 bxcS b6 14 cxb6 axb6
leaves the white position looking a bit of a
mess. Kobalija-Bareev, Moscow 1 999,
continued l S i.. e 2 i.. a6 1 6 j,xa6 'i¥xa6 17
'i¥d3 'i¥xd3 18 cxd3 .l:.a4 1 9 i.. eJ <it>d8 20
<it>d2 <it>c7 21 .l:.hc l + <it>b7 22 Mcb 1 Mha8 23
�b3 d4 and Black went on to win.
a2) 9 . . . i.. c S and now:
a2 1) 10 tt:JcbS tt:Jxd4 1 1 i.. xd4 0-0 12
j,xcS (after 12 j,dJ i.. xd4 13 tt:Jxd4 'i¥xb2
14 ti:JbS tt:JxeS lS fxeS i.. d7 16 Mb 1 'iYxeS+
17 'i¥e2 'i¥xe2+ 1 8 i.. xe2 a6 19 ti:Jc3 .ic6
Black's pawns proved more valuable than
the piece in Dueball-Smejkal, Raach 1969)
12 . . . tt:JxcS 1 3 'i¥d4 i.. d 7 14 ti:Jd6 f6 l S �e2
fxeS 16 fxeS with an equal position in
Macieja-Gradalski, Suwalki 1 999.
a22) 1 0 tt:Ja4 'iYaS+ 11 c3 .txd4 12 .ixd4
tt:Jxd4 13 'i¥xd4 b6 (13 . . . tt:Jb8 14 tt:JcS b6 lS
ti:Jb3 tt:Jc6 1 6 tt:JxaS tt:Jxd4 17 0-0-0 bxaS 1 8
l:ixd4 i.. d 7 1 9 i.. e 2 left White with a typical
and useful endgame advantage in Videki­
Guliev, Szekszard 1 994) 14 'i¥b4 'i¥xb4 (or
14 . . . i.. b 7 lS .tbs Mc8 16 'iYxaS bxaS 1 7
i.. x d7+ <it>xd7 1 8 0-0-0 Mc4 19 Md4 Mhc8 20
<it>b 1 <it>e7 2 1 b3 M4c7 22 <it>b2 j,a6 23 b4
�c4 24 ti:JcS again with a small edge for
White in Kveinys-Ziiger, Yerevan 1996) lS
axb4 �e7 (alternatively l S . . . 0-0 1 6 j,bs f6
1 7 exf6 and now in Sax-Klinger, Szirak
198S, Black committed a horrible blunder
with 17 . . . Mxf6?? and after 18 �xd7 �xd7
19 tt:Jxb6 Md8 20 Mxa7 .i.e8 21 0-0 he could
go home; however, 17 . . . gxf6 instead looks
quite reasonable) 16 j,bs i.. b 7 17 0-0 (or 17
�d2 Mhc8 18 Mhe l Mc7 19 i.. x d7 �xd7 20
b3 .l:.ac8 21 Me3 <it>e7 22 Mg3 �f8 23 ti:Jb2
i.. c 6 24 ti:JdJ i.. b S 2S ti:Je l aS 26 bxaS Ma7
27 a6 .i:xa6 28 Mxa6 i.. xa6 29 ti:Jc2 and
White had a small plus in Balinov-Vigh,
Poland 1997) 17 . . . Mhd8 18 �f2 f6 (this is
the right idea; once Black makes this break
44
he should have no problems) 19 �xd7
Mxd7 20 �e3 Mf8 21 b3 i.. c 6 22 ti:Jb2 i.. b S
23 MfJ <it>d8 24 Mdl �e7 2S Mal Mc7 26
�d4 with equality in Nunn-Ehlvest,
Reykjavik 1988.
b) 9 tt:JcbS is pretty much scuppered by
the reply 9 ... a6 10 ti:JfS �cS l l i..x cS? (after
this White has a very bad position; best is
1 1 tt:Jbd6+ <it>f8 12 'iVhS ti:Jd8 13 tt:Jxg7!
i.. xe3 14 tt:Jxe6+! fxe6! lS 'i¥h6+ <it>g8 1 6
'iVgS+ �f8 and White gets a perpetual check
- this is best play for both sides but does
not constitute a good reason to play 9
tt:JcbS) l l . .. ti:JxcS 12 tt:Jbd6+ <it>f8 13 'iYhS
ti:Jd8 14 ti:Jxg7 (White's problem is that his
queenside is falling apart, e.g. 14 tt:Jxc8
'i¥b4+ lS c3 'i¥xb2) 14 . . .'i¥b4+ lS c3 'i¥xb2
16 Mdl 'i¥xc3+ 17 Md2 h6 18 tt:Jge8 tt:Je4 0-1
Hi.ibner-Korchnoi, San Francisco 199S .
c) 9 i..e2 i.. c S 10 tt:Ja4 'iYaS+ 1 1 c3 i..xd4
12 i.. xd4 tt:Jxd4 13 'i¥xd4 b6 14 0-0 ti:JcS
(after 14 . . . i.. a6 lS i.. xa6 'i¥xa6 16 fS 0-0 17
b3 bS 18 ti:JcS tt:JxcS 19 'iYxcS Mfc8 20 'i¥b4
'i¥b6+ 21 <it>h 1 aS Black was fine in Sherzer­
Almasi, Hungary 199S) l S i.. d l .i.a6 1 6
Me l 'iYbS 17 ti:JxcS bxcS 1 8 'i¥f2 'i¥b6 1 9 fS
0-0-0 (White's play has been so convoluted
that Black easily gets away with this) 20 .i.e2
i..xe2 21 Mxe2 �b8 22 Mdl Md7 23 'i¥g3
g6 24 fxe6 fxe6 2S Mf2 l:Idd8 26 h3 'i¥a6
'h-'h Olenin-Itkis, Alushta 2000.
9 :Y!lVxb2 1 0 : b 1 �a3 1 1 i.. b 5 'Lldb8
..
A rather retrograde move but it does at
least go some way towards untangling the
black queenside. Highly dangerous is
1 1 . . .ctJxd4 12 .i.xd4 a6 13 i.. xd7+ .i.xd7 14
Mb3 'i¥e7 lS Mxb7 which leaves Black way
behind in development. This proved to be
too much of a handicap in Golubev­
Zakharov, Moscow 199S: 1S . . . 'i¥d8 16 0-0
'i¥c8 17 Mb3 .tcS 18 fS exfS 19 tt:JxdS 0-0
20 ti:Jf6+! <it>h8 2 1 Mh3 i.. x d4+ 22 �h l 1-0.
1 2 i.. x c6+
A violent alternative is 12 fS! ? i.. b 4 13
Mb3 'iYaS 14 0-0 exfS 1S Mfb 1 f4! (a good
move which throws White off balance and
O rd M a in L in e with 7
.
.
.
c x d4 8 tiJ x d4
co-ordinate with such a vulnerable king.
all ows Black to simplify the position) 16
!i xb4 fxe3 1 7 �xe3 0-0 1 8 �xc6 lLlxc6 19
,li b5 �a6 20 l:xd5 Yz -Yz Dolmatov-Volkov,
Ks tovo 1 997.
j_ c 8 29 'iV e 5 !1f6 30 !1 e 1 j_ e 7 3 1 fxe6
1 2 . . . bxc6 1 3 0-0 a6
fxe6 32 Wi!h5+ 'itd7 33 i.. xf6 j_xf6 34
In an earlier game between the same two
players Black had tried 13 . . . �c5 14 �b3
'ii'a5 15 �fb 1 �b6 16 �c l !? (White is using
his initiative to create play on the queenside
as well as the kingside) 16 . . . �xd4 17 �xd4
lt:Jd7 1 8 f5 exf5 19 e6 fxe6 20 'i'g5 �d8 2 1
'i'xg7 �f8 22 ctJe2 with highly unclear play
in Fedorov-Volkov, Omsk 1 996.
tlJxe6
22 tiJf4 !1h6 23 c3 h4 24 h3 a5 2 5 a4
i.. a 6 26 !1e 1 j_c8 27 !1f 1 j_a6 28 .: b 1
White has won the exchange but the
bishops on the open board will be hard to
cope with.
34 . . . wd6 35 tiJd4 j_d7
14 �b3
36 �f3
14 . . .'�a5
Black must be very careful here. For
example, the plausible 14 . . . �e7? loses at
once to the reply 15 ctJa4 c5 16 ctJxc5! �xc5
17 �c3 .
1 5 !1xb8 .i:.xb8 1 6 tlJxc6 Wilc7 1 7 tiJxb8
Wilxb8 1 8 f5
Instead 18 ab 1 �c7 19 f5 �xe5 20 fxe6
fxe6 2 1 �d4 �cl 22 �e3 �e7 23 �xg7
�cS 24 �d4 �xd4 25 �xd4 Yz-Yz was
Chandler-Klinger, Vienna 1986.
1 8 . . . Wilxe5 1 9 j_d4 Wilc7 20 �e3 'iVc4 21
tiJe2 h 5 ! ?
Black hits upon the plan o f developing
the rook via h6. The position favours White
as it is difficult to see how his opponent can
Here White misses a remarkable
manoeuvre. With 36 'i'h8! planning 'i'b8,
he could have placed intolerable pressure on
the black king.
36 . . . j_xa4 37 �f4+ Wd7 38 �g4+ 'itc7
39 �f4+ Wd7 40 .:b1 j_c6 41 �f5+
'it>c7 42 �f4+ wd7 43 !1b8
White seems to be making decisive
inroads into the black position, but now
Volkov finds a cold-blooded defence.
43 . . . Wilxc3 ! 44 �f5+ 'itd6 45 Wile6+ 'itc7
46 tiJb5+ j_xb5 47 lieS+ 'itb7 48 !1xc3
i.. x c3 49 �xd 5+ 'itb6
White has won the black queen but the
bishops and a-pawn render any winning
attempts impossible.
50 �d8+ Wc5 51 Wf2 'itb4 52 �xh4+
i.. c4 53 'ife7+ 'itb3 54 Wilb7+ wa2 55
�c7 Y:z - Y:z
45
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
Summary
The main lines, as seen in Games 14-18, are holding up well for Black. When one considers
the structure, this is not entirely surprising. White has the usual space advantage and
attacking chances on the kingside, but his opponent has a quick queenside counterattack and
an open c-file to press against the white king. Indeed, when the game turns into a race, Black
invariably gets the better of it. The best way for White to play seems to be with a plan of
challenging on the queenside and hoping to steer for a slightly better endgame. However,
the quieter plans with either 1 1 g3 or 10 g3 (Games 19 and 20 respectively) have received
recent experimentation at a high level and may be the way for White to go.
The endgame variation of Game 21 has fallen out of favour - hardly surprising when
Black has good counterplay in the main lines while here he has to resign himself to a turgid
endgame. The pawn grab with 8 . . . 'iVb6 (Games 22 and 23) certainly seems to be playable but
it is not a choice for those of a nervous disposition.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 tt:Jfd7 5 f4 c5 6 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 7 i.e3 cxd4 8 tt:Jxd4
8 . . i.c5
.
8 ... 'iVb6 9 'ifd2 'ifxb2 10 l:.b 1 'ifa3 1 1 i.bS (D)
1 1 . .. lt:Jxd4 - Game 22; 1 1 . .. t2Jdb8 - Game 23
9 �d2 0-0
9 . . . i.xd4 10 i.xd4 ctJxd4 1 1 'ifxd4 'iVb6 - Game 21
1 0 0-0-0
10 g3 - Game 20
1 0 . . . a6 (DJ 1 1 h4
1 1 g3 - Game 19
1 1 . . . tt:Jxd4
1 1 . .. i.xd4 12 l2Jxd4 bS
-
Game 18
1 2 i.xd4 b5 1 3 l:t h 3
1 3 hS - Game 1 7
1 3 . . . b 4 1 4 tt:Ja4
14 ctJe2 - Game 16
1 4 . . . i.xd4 1 5 �xd4 (DJ f 6
1 5 ... a5 - Game 15
Game 14
1 6 �xb4 -
1 1 Ji.b5
46
10 . . a6
.
15 "V/Iixd4
[ CHAPTER THREE !
...
Old M ai n Lin e with
7 a6
1 e4 e 6 2 d4 d 5 3 tbc3 tbf6 4 e 5 etJfd7
patent 8 a3 is the subject of Game 30.
5 f4 c5 6 tbf3 tbc6 7 ..te3 a6
The major difference between the play in
the games in this chapter and the previous
one is that here White invariably castles on
the kingside. This sets the scene for a more
docile encounter where the blunt strategy of
attacking on opposite wings is replaced by a
more positional struggle. At some point
White tends to make the capture d4xc5
which is usually met by . . . �xcS and the
exchange of dark-squared bishops. Black
has reasonably easy play on the queenside,
as his knights and pawns become active
there, but must be careful not to wind up in
an endgame where he is stuch with the
archetypal bad light-squared bishop.
White has two main ways to handle the
position. He can gear up for a big push on
the kingside or he can be more circumspect
and try to restrain Black's play whilst
maintaining the positional advantages of his
game such as the dark square control
(especially the key d4-square) and extra
space.
The main line with 8 'i¥d2 bS 9 dxcS
�xcS 10 �xcS CLJxcS 1 1 'iff2 is examined
in Games 24-26. Game 27 sees 9 . . . b4, while
alternative tries for White on move 9 are
seen in Games 28 and 29. Finally, Murey's
Game 24
Anand-Bareev
Do rt mun d 1 992
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tbc3 tbt6 4 e5 tbfd7
5 f4 c5 6 tbf3 tbc6 7 ..te3
7 . . . a6
Preparing a general pawn advance on the
queenside. Not wishing to 'castle into it',
White's king will generally seek a safe haven
on the other wing.
8 "iHd2 b5 9 dxc5 ..txc5 1 0 ..txc5 tbxc5
1 1 �f2 �b6 1 2 ..td3
The ambitious tactical thrust 12 b4 is the
subject of Game 26.
47
Fren c h C la ss ic a l
1 2 . . J!b8
Aiming for active piece play and
defending his own queen. Instead the
experimental 12 . . . �b7?! 13 0-0 0-0-0 is
probably not too bad if Black then meets 14
a3 with 14 . . . Wc7, when Khalifman feels that
with 1 5 b4 White is only slightly better
(space advantage and better minor pieces) .
However, after 14 . . . b4 1 5 axb4 'ii'x b4 16
lt:Je2 White was able to develop a strong
attack against the black king in Khalifman­
Speelman, Munich 1992. 12 . . . b4 is seen in
Game 25.
1 3 0-0
couplet. After 15 lt:Jxa4 bxa4 (or 15 . . . 'ii'xf2+
16 Wxf2 bxa4 17 b3 We7 1 8 tLld4 �d7 19
i-f1 .:hc8 20 .:d2 aS 2 1 c4 axb3 22 axb3 a4
23 cxdS lt:JxdS 24 bxa4 tLlc3 25 Wf3 lt:Jxa4
Arakhamia-Kiriakov, Port Erin 2000, and
Black had equalised) 16 b3 (after 16 'ii'x b6
.:xb6 17 b3 axb3 18 axb3 We7 19 Wf2 �d7
20 ctJd4 h6 21 We3 f6 22 c3 lt:Jxd3 23 Wxd3
gS Black had sufficient counter-chances in
Khalifman-Bareev, Moscow 1992) 16 ... axb3
(Black could also consider 16 . . . �d7!?
maintaining the tension) 1 7 axb3 0-0 18
'ii'x b6 .:xb6 19 lt:Jd4 f6 (not allowing
White's king early access to the centre) 20
g3 fxeS 21 fxeS �d7, as in Kuczynski­
Dolmatov, Polanica Zdroj 199 1 , White
retains the better minor piece and thus he
can probably claim a nominal edge.
1 5 tt:Je2 �d7 1 6 tt:Jed4 tt:lbxd3
Not really the move that Black wants to
play but after 16 . . . a5 Anand analyses 17
i-xh7+ Wxh7 18 'ii'h4+ Wg8 19 lt:JgS .:fc8
and now simply 20 Wh 1 ! (taking the king
off the sensitive a7-g1 diagonal) leaving
White with a strong attack.
1 7 cxd3 tt:Ja4 1 8 b4!
1 3 . . . tt:lb4
Black could also consider the immediate
13 . . . lt:Ja4 when after 14 lt:Jxa4 bxa4 15 'ii'xb6
.:xb6 16 b3 he is able to rapidly activate hi_s
forces, e.g. 1 6 . . . �d7 1 7 Wf2 We7 1 8 We3
h6 19 h4 �c8 20 hS lt:Jb4 21 tt:Jd4 .tbs with
reasonable play in Maciejewski-Gleizerov,
Lubniewice 1993.
1 4 ntd 1 o -o ? !
This move is the source of Black's later
woes. The king is lacking in support from
his minor pieces, so nowadays everyone
plays 14 . . .Cba4! exchanging queens. As we
saw in the previous note the doubled a­
pawns are not really a weakness as White
will probably have to play b2-b3 at some
point, exchanging one off. The typical result
is that Black has an isolated a-pawn, but has
counter-pressure against the b- and c-pawn
48
A strong move that fixes the b-pawn to
bS. Now White has a classic 'good knight
against bad bishop'.
1 8 . . . a5 1 9 a3 ntcB 20 ndc1 axb4 2 1
axb4 nxc 1 + 2 2 nxc 1 :ea 2 3 nxc8+
�xc8 24 �c2
By controlling the c-file White obliges his
opponent to protect several points of entry.
It's also difficult to get the a4-knight back
into play.
24 . . . �d7 25 Wf2 Wf8 26 g4
With everything under control White
builds up his space advantage.
26 . . . �e8 27 �e3 f6
Played in order to obtain some breathing
space, but nevertheless the big squeeze
continues.
28 h4 '¥Wb8 29 �c 1 Wf8 30 �e2 Wf7 3 1
�e3 'i¥f8
Hoping to distract his opponent by
O ld M a in L in e .with 7
.
.
.
a6
hitting the b4-pawn, but White's initiative is
overwhelming.
1 4 . . . i.a6
3 2 f 5 ! �ea 33 g5! exf5 34 gxf6 gxf6
35 �h6 fxe 5 36 �xh7+ 'it>f6 37 'it'h6+
'it>f7 38 CLig5+ 'it>e7 39 'it'g7+ 'it>d6 40
t2Jf7+ 'it>c7 41 tt:Jxe 5
White's king-hunt has not yet won any
material but the result is not in doubt. The
passed h-pawn is a strong asset and Black's
pieces are too badly placed to prevent the
loss of a couple of pawns.
4 1 . . . CLib6 42 tt:Jxb5+ 'it>b8 43 t2Jd4 'ifh 5+
44 CDdf3 .lieS 45 'it>f2 f4 46 'it'e7 tt:Jc8
47 'iff6 'it>b7 48 'ifxf4 'ifh8 49 t2Jg5 'ifh6
50 'it>g3 CDd6
51
¥if3 i.c6 5 2 t2Jgf7
t2Jxf7 53 �xf7+ 'it>b6 54 �f4 �e6 55 h 5
i. b 7 56 'iff6 ! 1 -0
A neat way to extinguish any resistance.
If 56 . . . 'i!Uxf6 then White has 57 4:Jd7+ and
ctJxf6 followed by queening the h-pawn.
Game 25
Lutz-Zifroni
T el A v iv 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 t2Jf6 4 e5 t2Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 CDf3 tt:Jc6 7 i.e3 a6 8 'ifd2 b5
9 dxc5 i.xc5 1 0 i.xc5 tt:Jxc5 1 1 'iff2
¥ib6 1 2 i.d3 b4
Continuing the queenside advance and
preparing to place the bishop on the a6-f1
diagonal.
1 3 tLle2 a 5 1 4 0-0
The standard move. In Romero Holmes­
Schwartzman, Wijk aan Zee 1995, Black
experimented with 14 . . . �b8 15 Wh 1 ctJxdJ
16 cxd3 'i!Uxf2 17 �xf2 �a6 18 �d1 We7 19
4:Jed4 4:Jxd4 20 4:Jxd4 .:tbc8 2 1 g3 and
White had an edge.
1 5 'it>h 1
The most popular. Others:
a) After 15 �fd1 0-0 16 ctJed4 �fc8 1 7
4:Jb3 ctJa4 1 8 'ifxb6 ctJxb6 19 4:Jbd4 ctJa4 20
�db 1 ctJcS 21 �xa6 .:xa6 22 a3 ctJe4 Black
had
adequate
counter-chances
m
Kuczynski-Glek, Bundesliga 1995.
b) Naturally White can keep the annoying
black knight from the a4-square with 15
�ad1 ctJa4 16 'i!Uxb6 ctJxb6 1 7 b3, but after
17 . . . We7 18 ctJed4 4:Jxd4 19 ctJxd4 �hc8 20
i.xa6 �xa6 21 a3 bxa3 22 �a 1 4:Jd7 23
�xa3 4:Jb8 24 �f2 ctJc6, as in Kuczynski­
Djurhuus, Manila Olympiad 1992, White's
initiative had been neutralised. The ending
is not really particularly promising for White
after his opponent has been able to
exchange off his light-squared bishop.
c) Sharper is the pawn sacrifice 15 fS! ?,
but after 1 5 . . . �xd3 16 cxd3 exfS 17 4:Jf4
ctJe7, as Nunn points out, it's not clear that
White has enough compensation.
1 5 . . . tt:Je7
With Black having made space gains on
the queenside, he now prudently restrains
White's intended fS-advance. 15 . . . �xd3 1 6
Fr e n c h C l a s s ic a l
cxd3 'ifb5 i s m e t b y the aggressive 17 f5
leading to complications, e.g. 1 7 ... cuxd3 1 8
'ifh4 tt:Jdxe5 1 9 ctJxe5 CUxe5 2 0 tLld4 'ifb8
21 fxe6 0-0 with unclear play in Morgado­
Carlsson, correspondence 1 996.
1 6 b3
The critical move cutting out Black's
annoying . . . ctJa4. White has three main
options: a) 16 l:ad 1 CUa4 17 'ifxb6 CUxb6 18
CUed4?! ( 1 8 b3 as in Kuczynski-Djurhuus
above is nothing special for White) 18 ... ctJa4
1 9 �b 1 ctJc5! 20 �fd1 0-0 2 1 �g 1 a4 22
�f2 .a:fb8 when Black's well-placed pieces
and advanced pawns offered him the better
options in Vehi-Glek, Biel 1997.
b) 16 .a:fd 1 h6 1 7 tLlg3 g6 18 ctJe2 h5?!
(18 ... ctJa4 looks safer) 1 9 tLled4 ctJa4 20
Mab 1 i.xd3 21 cxd3 Mc8 22 Md2 Mc7 23
.a:e 1 �d7 24 'ifh4 .a:hc8 25 b3 cuc3 26 'iff6
gave White some pressure in Rowson­
Barsov, York 1999.
c) 1 6 tLlg3 CUa4 (this seems adequate but
16 . . . g6!? is an interesting try, cutting out f4f5 but loosening the dark squares; Lutz­
Glek, German Bundesliga 1995, was unclear
after 17 ctJe2 l:b8 1 8 i.xa6 tLlxa6 19 tLled4
ctJc5 20 'ifh4 ctJe4 2 1 Mad1) 17 'ifxb6 CUxb6
18 cud4 g6 19 ..txa6 .a:xa6 20 a3 bxa3 2 1
Mxa3 �d7 2 2 Mfa 1 a4 2 3 tLlge2 Mc8 with
equal chances in Votava-Glek, Germany
1 997.
1 6 . . . h6
An essential preparatory move for
kingside castling.
1 7 l:tad 1 l:!c8
The provocative 17 . . . 0-0!? was tried in
the encounter Skripchenko-Lautier - Piskov,
Recklinghausen 1 996, which continued 1 8
g 4 Mfb8 19 tLlfd4 ctJe4 2 0 ife 3 ctJc6 2 1 Mg1
..txd3 22 l:.xd3 Mc8 23 Mg2 Mc7 24 h4 and
White was intent on smashing open the
kingside. However, this only led to
perpetual check in the game and it's not
clear if the attack is all that strong.
1 8 ctJg3 g6
The standard reaction to the threat of f450
f5. Now White switches to the plan of
invading on f6.
1 9 l2Je2 �b7 20 l2Jfd4
The primitive 20 'ifh4 tLlxd3 21 cxd3
Mc2 22 tLled4 Mxa2 23 'iff6 looks good for
Black after 23 ... Mh7.
20 . . . l2Je4
This well-posted knight seems to give
Black a satisfactory position. If White
captures on e4 then his central control is
weakened, e.g. 2 1 i.xe4?! dxe4 22 1:Ife 1 (not
22 Md2? as 22 . . . tt:Jd5 wins material)
22 . . . tt:Jd5 23 CUg3 e3 and Black has good
play.
21 1'Nh4 �b6 22 �xa6 "iNxa6 23 g4?
Too risky. Perhaps it was time for 23
tLlg3 .
23 . . . h 5 !
With ideas such as 24 . . . g5 25 fxg5 ctJg6 in
the air.
24 f5 g 5 ! 25 "iNh3 l:txc2!
A dramatic exchange sacrifice to kill off
the attack.
26 fxe6 fxe6 27 CZJxc2 'ifxe2 28 �g2
28 . . . hxg4!
Another blow for White. Black obtains a
second pawn and further important squares
for his pieces.
29 1'Nxe2 lZJg3+ 30 �g2 CZJxe2 3 1 l2Jd4
l2Jf4+ 32 �9 1
l:th3 33 l:td2 CZJeg6 34
l:t e 1 �d7
The white rooks are powerless to stop
the e-pawn being picked off.
.
O ld M a in L in e with 7
3 5 nc2 tLld3 36 .l:.f1 tLldxe5 37 Sf6 tLlf4
38 l:U8 .l:.d3 39 tLle2 tLlf3+ 40 �f2
t:Z'l h 3+ 0 - 1
White loses at least a rook.
Game26
Feletar-Kovacevic
Pul a 2000
.
.
.
a6
lla3 c2 2 1 lt:Jd4 axb5 22 J.e4 lt:Jc5 23 J.xc2
�d8 24 �a8 and having won the exchange
White was better in Sherzer-Glek, Budapest
1998.
b) 14 . . . 'ii'c 7! 15 �d2 lt:Jc5 16 'ii'd4 aS 1 7
�a3 0-0 1 8 J.d3 J.b7 19 �cl �fc8, a s in
Tissir-Vysochin, Cappelle la Grande 2001 .
With White tied down t o holding onto the
queenside, Black had a pleasant game.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4 e5 tLlfd7
1 3 S b 1 tLlc6
5 f4 c5 6 tLlf3 tLlc6 7 �e3 a6 8 'ii d 2 b5
A combative alternative is 13 . . . d4!? 14
lt:Jxd4 'ifaS! with interesting complications
(after 14 . . . lt:Je4 15 lt:Jxe4 'i'xd4 16 lt:Jd6+
�f8 17 'ii'd2! 'i'xd2+ 18 �xd2 lt:Jd5 19 g3
White has the better endgame) . If 1 5
lt:JdxbS then 1 S . . . lt:Je4 16 'ii'f3 lt:JdS 1 7
'ii'xe4 axb5 1 8 �b3 J.d7 looks fine for
Black. Clearly there is room for further
investigation here, but at first sight 13 . . . d4
looks promising.
9 dxc5 �xc5 1 0 �xc5 tLlxc5 1 1 �f2
'i'b6 1 2 b4! ?
1 4 �xb5 �d7
Aiming for tactical play before Black
becomes better organised.
1 2 . . . tLlxb4
If this proves to be too risky then Black
could consider retreating his attacked knight
with 12 . . . lt:Jd7 1 3 �b 1 'ii'xf2+ 14 �xf2 lt:Jb6
15 J.d3 J.d7 when a premature draw was
agreed in Tissir-Komarov, Tanta 200 1 .
Black has been pushed back and his pawns
are fixed on light-squares, but he can seek
counterplay by using a4, c4 and c3 - squares
that have been weakened by the aggressive
advance 12 b4. This position requires
further tests before one can make a final
j udgement on 12 b4.
A more risky alternative to 13 lib 1 is 13
a4?! and after 13 . . . lt:Jxb4 14 axb5:
a) 1 4 ... 'ii'xf2+ 1 5 �xf2 lt:Jxc2 1 6 I:ia5 0-0
17 i.d3 d4? (17 . . . CDb4! 18 i.e2 ctJc5 looks
playable) 1 8 .1Le4! dxc3 19 i.xa8 CDb4 20
14 . . . axb5?! is dubious: 15 �xb5 lt:Jd3+ 16
cxd3 'i'xf2+ 17 �xf2 d4 18 lt:Je2 0-0
(18 . . . �xa2? leads to all sorts of problems
after 19 �c l �d7 20 �b6) 19 �c l lt:Je7 20
�b2 and White had maintained an extra
pawn in Zelcic-B.Kovacevic, Pula 2000.
1 5 0-0 'V/tia7 1 6 �xc6 �xc6 1 7 tLld4!
An improvement on 17 f5 exfS 1 8 lt:Jd4
lt:Ja4!, as in Wiersma-Radjabov, Groningen
1999, which led to easy equality. By playing
17 lt:Jd4 first, White aims to gain a tempo
for the attack.
1 7 . . . Sc8 ?
A poor move that clearly underestimates
White's attacking potential. Instead
17 . . . lt:Ja4! is playable. Then 18 lt:Jxa4 (if 1 8
CDce2 then 1 8 . . . J.d7 takes the sting out of
White's fS-break; White should probably try
18 lt:Jxc6! 'ii'xf2+ 19 �xf2 lt:Jxc3 20 llb7
with the slightly better prospects in the
ending) 18 . . .J.xa4 19 l:tb4 (19 f5 only leads
to equal chances after 19 ... exf5 20 .:tb4 J.d7
21 ctJxf5 'i¥xf2+ 22 Mxf2 i.xf5 23 Mxf5 0-0)
19 . . . i.d7 20 Mfb 1 is not really anything as
Black can continue 20 . . . 0-0! 2 1 �b7?! :fb8!
Fre n c h C l a s sic a l
with equal play.
1 8 f5 exf5 1 9 ttJxfS 0-0
for Black after Kamsky's 16 . . . 'iVc7! 17 ctJc4
(17 ct:Jxd4? gives Black a strong initiative
after 17 . . . ct:Jxd4 18 i.xd4 0-0-0) 17 . . . 0-0-0
with an unclear position.
b) 10 ctJe2 ctJxc5 1 1 ctJg3 i.e7 12 'iVf2
'ifa5 13 i.e2 h5 (13 . . . b3+!? 14 i.d2 ctJb4 15
0-0 bxa2 is murky) 14 h4 g6 15 0-0, as in
Yudasin-Machulsky, Haifa 1989, and now
according to M.Gurevich Black can equalise
with 1 5 . . . ctJa4 16 �ab l i.c5.
1 o . . �a5 1 1 ctJb6 ttJxb6
.
20 l:tb4!
The storm clouds gather around the
black monarch.
20 . . . f6 2 1 l:tg4 g 6 ?
A blunder. Feletar intended to meet
2 1 . . .�c7 with 22 ctJxg7! �xg7 23 �xg7+
�xg7 24 exf6+ with a persistent attack.
White can proceed slowly as his opponent
cannot put up much of a defence, e.g.
24 ... �f7 25 �h 1 h6 26 'iVf5 'iVb7 27 ct:Je2
�e8 28 f7+ �d8 29 'iVf6+ and although
Black has a piece more White's f-pawn gives
him the better prospects.
Not entirely forced. Black has also tried
the dubious looking l t . .. :b8?! In
Ziatdinov-Miljanic, Niksic 199 1 , Black
obtained good play for his pawn after 12
ctJxd7 i.xd7 13 i.d3 i.xc5! ? 14 i.xc5
'ifxc5 15 i.xa6 0-0 16 'iff2?! (White is
probably better after 16 �fl ! f6 17 i.d3 !
:f7 1 8 'iff2 'ifxf2+ 19 �xf2, but after
19 . . . g5 Black made it messy in Arakhamia­
M.Horvath, Lenk 1991) 16 ...'iVxf2+ 17 �xf2
f6 1 8 �he t?! (I prefer 1 8 �g3) 1 8 . . . g5 19
exf6 gxf4 20 ctJe5 ctJxe5 2 1 �xe5 :xf6 and
he even went on to win.
1 2 cxb6 �c5
22 exf6 nc7 23 f7+ l:tfxf7 24 ctJh6+
�fa 2 5 ttJxf7 nxf7 26 l:tf4 1 -0
Game2 7
Magem-Vaisser
E sc al des 199 8
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ttJc3 ctJf6 4 e5 ttJfd7
5 f4 c5 6 ctJf3 ttJc6 7 �e3 a6 8 �d2 b5
9 dxc5 b4
Obliging White to make an immediate
decision about the future of his knight.
1 0 ltJa4
The most popular. The alternatives are
not thought to be dangerous for Black:
a) 10 ctJd l ctJxc5 1 1 .id3 .ib7 12 0-0 d4
13 .if2 .ie7 14 b3 f6! 15 exf6 gxf6 1 6 ctJb2
(Kamsky-Lautier, New York 199 1) is fine
52
1 3 �xc5
13 'iff2? fails tactically to 13 . . . b3+ 14 c3
'iVxa2!
1 3 . . . �xc5 1 4 0-0-0
14 'iff2 'ifxf2+ 15 �xf2 �b8 16 �e3
�xb6 17 ctJd4 i.d7 18 i.d3 �e7 19 :hfl
ctJxd4 20 �xd4 Mc8 21 �f2 h5 didn't yield
anything for White in Fedorowicz-Vaisser,
O ld M a in L in e with 7
New York 1998.
1 4 . . . ifxb6 1 5 h 4
White could also consider pressing in the
A game M.Hansen-Krause, OLNN
ntre.
ce
199 2, continued 1S �d3 aS 16 \tb 1 a4 1 7
b3 � a6 1 8 f S �xd3 19 �xd3 �cS 2 0 Mhe 1
with a complex struggle ahead.
1 5 . . . h5
Stopping the h-pawn before it gets too
far. Instead 1S . . . �b7 16 Mh3 0-0-0?! 17
ltJd4 \tc7 1 8 c3 CLJxd4 19 �xd4 �xd4 20
�xd4 bxc3 2 1 Mxc3+ \td7 22 l:.b4 gave
White a strong initiative in Ziatdinov-Glek,
Kusadasi 1 990. Black shouldn't be in too
much of a hurry to castle in this line.
1 6 l:rh3 a 5 1 7 <it' b 1
After 17 fS! ? Magem gives 17 . . . exfS 1 8
�gS � e 6 1 9 �xg7 0-0-0 as Black's best
line, with good counter-chances for the
second player.
1 7 . . . il.. a 6
Risky. lt was safer to solidify the kingside
first with 17 . . . g6.
1 8 il.. x a6 ifxa6 1 9 f5 ! ?
Sharp, but it's not clear that White's
initiative gives him anything concrete.
1 9 . . . exf5 20 ifg5
.
.
.
a6
material.
21 e6?!
2 1 'iVxg7 was objectively stronger,
leading to an unclear position after 2 1 . . . .t:tg8
22 �h7 Mxg2 .
2 1 . . . 'i¥xe6
2 1 . . .fxe6? allows 22 CLJd4 \tf7 23 :!e3
Mh6 24 Mde 1 and White piles on the
pressure.
22 'i¥xg7 lig8 23 'i¥d4 l:rxg2 24 l:r e 1
l:r e 2 2 5 lihh 1 l:r c 8 26 'i¥d 1 lixe 1 ?
The opening of the e-file gives a strong
initiative for White. Magem points out that
after 26 . . . Me4! 27 CLJgS 'IVeS 28 CLJxe4 fxe4
Black has plenty of compensation for the
exchange; two pawns, the centre and shelter
for his king on d7. Furthermore, White's
rooks are ineffective.
27 l:rxe 1 'i¥d6 28 CZJe5 ifc5?
An oversight but if Black defends the h­
pawn with 28 ... �h6 then White switches to
the queenside with 29 'ife2 :c7 30 �bS+.
29 c4!
A shock. White threatens 30 �a4+ and
the black position crumbles.
29 . . . b3 30 'i¥xh5 Wd8 31 'i¥xf7 'i¥b4 3 2
CZJd3 bxa2+ 33 <it'a 1 'ii'd 6 3 4 c5 ifd7 3 5
CZJe 5 'i¥e8 36 'ife6 1 -0
Game 28
Chuprov-Gieizerov
St P et ersburg 1994
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 CZJc3 CZJf6 4 e5 CZJfd7
5 f4 c5 6 CZJf3 CZJc6 7 il.. e 3 a6 8 'ifd2 b5
9 il.. d 3
20 . . . CZJe7 !
Magem rejects the alternatives. After
20 . . . 0-0 White's attack with 2 1 .t:tg3 g6 22 e6
is crushing. 20 ... g6 on the other hand is best
met by 2 1 'iVf6! (clearer than 21 e6) 2 1 . . . .t:tf8
22 LUgS ti:Je7 23 ti:Jh7 and Black loses
White doesn't have to capture on cS. He
can instead just try and complete his
development. Another way of doing this is
9 �f2 - see Game 29.
9 . . . b4 1 0 ctJd 1 'i¥b6
Black can also gain time and space with
10 . . . c4. This plan of blocking up the centre
is considered to be acceptable for Black and
leads to unclear play in each of the
following examples: 1 1 iLe2 hS (or 1 l...ti:Jb6
Fr e n c h C la s s ic a l
12 0-0 il.e7 13 iLf2 g 6 14 ctJe3 a S 1 S il.g3
ii.d7, as in Stripunsky-Dreev, Rostov 1993)
12 0-0 iLe7 (alternatively 12 . . . g6 13 .i.f2
ii.e7 14 ctJe3 il.b7 1S c3 'ii' aS 16 il.h4 bxc3
17 bxc3 .i.xh4 1 8 ctJxh4 ctJe7, as in
Shaposhnikov-Smikovski, St Petersburg
1 997) 13 a3 l:.b8 14 axb4 iLxb4 1S c3 .i.e7
16 ltJgS ltJf8 17 'ifc2 ifb6, as in Shirov­
Glek, Bundesliga 1996. Here Glek suggests
17 . . . iLxgS 1 8 fxgS ctJe7 as equally unclear.
1 1 �f2
1 3 CLJf3 !
Preferable to 13 ctJxc6?! 'i¥xc6 14 0-0
i.b7 1S 'ifg3 fS! 16 il.xcS (16 'ifxg7? is j ust
asking for trouble on the g-file after
16 . . . 0-0-0) 16 . . . ctJxcS 17 a3 ctJe4 18 il.xe4
fxe4 19 axb4 d4 when Black had good play
in Novik-Gleizerov, Moscow 1992.
1 3 . . . i.b7 14 0-0 f5 1 5 exf6
The opening of the centre helps White
obtain some targets for his pieces.
1 5 . . . gxf6 1 6 .tt e 1 d4 1 7 i.d2 Cbe7 1 8
'i¥e2 Cbf8 1 9 CLJf2
Probing away at the centre and forcing
concess10ns.
1 9 . . . f5
To stop the knight coming to e4, but it
weakens other squares . . .
2 0 Cb g 5 .tt g 8 2 1 'i¥h 5+ .tt g 6
1 1 . . . cxd4
Perhaps the most logical plan is to
exchange the light-squared bishops with
1 1 . .. aS! 12 0-0 il.a6 13 il.xa6 �xa6 14 c3
ii.e7. In Shaposhnikov-Volkov, Samara
2000, White tried to react aggressively with
1S fS?! exfS 16 il.f4 cxd4 17 cxd4 0-0 but
this wasn't convincing.
1 2 Cbxd4 i.c5
Black could try 12 . . . ctJxd4 13 il.xd4 .i.cS
14 iLxcS ctJxcS. However, in the game
Shaposhnikov-Meshkov, St Petersburg
1 999, he quickly got into difficulties: 1S
ctJe3 0-0?! (why not 1 S . . . aS followed by
. . . il.a6 and only castling later?) 16 0-0-0!? aS
17 �b 1 il.a6 1 8 ctJg4! .i.xd3?! 19 �xd3
ctJd7 20 ltJf6+! (Black clearly overlooked this
move) 20 . . . �h8? (20 . . . gxf6 is a better
defence, e.g. 21 'ifh4 �fc8 22 'i¥h6 Mc3 ! 23
exf6 ctJxf6 with chances to hold) 21 'i¥h4
ctJxf6 22 exf6 eS 23 fxe5 'i¥e6 24 .:I.f1 'ifxe5
25 Mh3 'ife4 26 fxg7+ 1-0.
54
22 a 3 !
Creating play on the queenside, where
Black is more or less obliged to seek shelter
for his king.
22 . . . bxa3
If 22 . . . b3 23 cxb3 'ifxb3 White switches
to the c-file with. 24 �ac l then after the
further 24 . . .'ifxb2? White obtains a winning
attack with 2S ctJxe6 ctJxe6 26 �xe6 �d8 27
.i.aS+.
23 bxa3 0-0-0 24 �h 1 h6 25 CLJf3 CLJd7
26 �h3 Cbf6 27 .tt a b 1 'i'c6 28 :xb7!
An excellent exchange sacrifice. By
eliminating this bishop, Black's counter­
pressure on g2 is reduced. With the
O ld M a in L in e with 7
harmony lost in his opponent's position the
white pieces suddenly flood into Black's
w eaknesses.
28 . . .'�Wxb7 29 tt:Jh4 tt:Jg4
Or 29 ... �g7 30 �xe6 with several threats.
30 tt:Jxg4 fxg4 3 1 �g3 :g7
Knaak prefers 3 1 . . .�f6 but admits that
Black still has a difficult defensive task after
32 �xg4 �c6 33 .i.a5 �d7 34 'Ll£3 .
32 :xe6 nd6 33 ife 1 �b6?
Missing the point. Instead the only
chance was to try 33 . . . <;t>d7! when after 34
l:lxd6+ .i.xd6 3 5 f5 Black has problems but
is still alive.
34 �xe7 �xe7 35 ifxe7 l::t e 6 36 ifxe6+
1 -0
Game29
Shaposhnikov-Aiavkin
Samara 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 ctJfd7
5 f4 c5 6 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 7 .ie3 a6 8 �d2 b5
9 iff2 ifb6 1 0 il.d3 cxd4
Otherwise, possible is 10 . . . �b8 intending
to meet 1 1 0-0 with 1 1 . .. cxd4 12 'Llxd4
'Llxd4 13 .i.xd4 �xd4!? (a clever idea but
White retains the slightly better ending) 14
�xd4 .i.c5 15 'Lle2 f6 (15 . . . b4!? aiming to
put the queenside pawns on dark squares)
16 .:f2 .i.xd4 17 'Llxd4 fxe5 18 'Llc6 �b7
19 ctJxe5 ctJxe5 20 fxe5 �f7 21 a4!, as in
Marjanovic-Itkis, Bucharest 1 999. White
clearly had the better minor piece and went
on to win.
Another recent try is 10 ... .i.b7 1 1 0-0 c4
12 .i.e2 f5 13 exf6 'Llxf6 14 'Llg5 'Lle7 15 a4
Sharapov-Vysochin, Polanica Zdroj 2000,
and now after 15 . . . h6! Black should be okay.
.
.
.
a6
Kruppa-Savchenko, Minsk 1 996.
1 2 tt:Jce2 b4
The immediate 12 . . .f6 is also reasonable:
13 exf6 ctJxf6 14 h3 0-0 15 0-0-0 e5 16 fxe5
ctJe4 with sharp play in Macieja-Schmidt,
Legnica 1 994.
1 3 0-0 f6
Creating tension in the centre. The other
plan of exchanging off the light-squared
bishops has recently been popular: 13 . . . a5
14 c3 .i.a6 15 .i.xa6 l:.xa6 16 :acl 0-0 1 7
�fd1 (17 cxb4 ctJxb4 1 8 �xcS! ? led t o a
lively exchanges followed by a drawish
ending in Miladinovic-Kosic, Niksic 1997:
1 8 ... ctJxc5 19 ctJb3 ct:Jbd3 20 .i.xc5 ctJxf2 2 1
.i.xb6 �xb6 2 2 �xf2 a4 2 3 ctJc5 .l:xb2 24
ctJxa4 �xa2 25 CDac3 �a3 26 <;t>e3 and a
draw was agreed) 17 . . . bxc3 1 8 bxc3 f6 gave
Black adequate counter-chances in Mitkov­
Kastanieda, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
14 �h 1 0-0
Taking the e-pawn is risky, e.g. 14 .. .fxe5
15 fxe5 'Ddxe5 16 �g3 �a7 1 7 'Dxc6 'Dxc6
18 .i.xcS �xc5 19 .txh7 and Black doesn't
even possess an extra pawn to compensate
for having the inferior king.
1 5 exf6
1 1 tt:Jxd4 .ic5
A solid alternative is 1 1 .. .'Llxd4 12 .i.xd4
.i.c5 13 'Lle2 .txd4 14 'Llxd4 ctJc5 where
White has yet to prove an advantage, e.g. 15
0-0 0-0 16 b4 CLJe4 17 .txe4 dxe4 18 CLJb3
'i¥xf2+ 19 <iifxf2 .tb7 and with the bishop
coming to dS he had no problems in
1 5 .. Jbf6
Finkel judges the position after 15 ... 'Llxf6
16 'Llxc6 .txe3 1 7 �g3 to be slightly better
for White, but after 17 . . . .tb7 18 'Lle5 :ad8
Black is ready for anything.
1 6 tt:Jxc6 ii.. x e3 1 7 'ii g 3 ii.. b 7
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
1 7 . . . .i.c5 1 8 tLle5 'iVc7! i s a reasonable
alternative.
�h4+ fails to 30 tLlh3) 29 lLlf7+ White wins
the exchange.
1 8 tt:Je5 ti:Jxe5 1 9 fxe 5 .ltf2 !
Better than 19 . . Jixf1+ 20 �xfl which
would give White the initiative due to his
control of the f-file and superior presence
on the kingside. After 19 . . . �f2 Finkel
suggests 20 'iVh3 h6 2 1 l::txf2 .i.xf2 22 lLlf4
maintaining the pressure.
20 'ii g 4 l1h6 21 lZ'lf4 l1f8 22 lt:Jh5
Game30
Lalic-Korchnoi
C alcut t a 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 lZ'lf6 4 e5 lt:Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 7 .lte3 a6 8 a3
An idea championed by Yacob Murey.
White competes for control of the dark
squares on the queenside. However, this
represents a tempo not spent on kingside
development. Black does best to keep some
tension in the centre and prepare for a
timely . . .f7-f6.
8 . . . cxd4
22 . . . l1f7 ?
Much better was 22 ... 'iYc7 which stops 23
lLlf6+?? in view of 23 . . . �fxf6 24 exf6 'iYxh2
checkmate.
23 ti:Jf6+ �h8 24 lt:Jxh7 ife3
24 . . . �xh7 allows the decisive fork 25
'iVg6.
25 l1ae 1
More precise was 25 tLlg5! �f4 26 �ae l !
2 5 . . . iff4
25 . . . 'iVxe 1 26 �xe1 .i.xe 1 fails to 27 tLlg5
Ite7 28 tLlf3 when Black loses one of his
bishops as 28 . . . .i.f2 29 'iYxb4 �f7 30 tLlg5 is
resignable.
26 ifxf4 l1xf4 27 lt:Jg5 d4?
Losing on the spot. Instead 27 . . . �g8
continues the fight, but a clear pawn down.
Then after 28 �e2 .i.g3 29 �xf4 .i.xf4 30
tLlf3 White consolidates but would have
technical difficulties to convert the material
advantage.
28 l:e2 1 -0
After 28 �e2 ..tg3 (28 . . . �xh2+ 29 �xh2
56
Others:
a) 8 . . . c4?! takes the tension away from the
centre and therefore enables White to build
pressure on the other wing with 9 ctJe2 h5
10 lt:Jg5 lt:Je7 1 1 .i.f2 'iYa5+.Now in Murey­
Korchnoi, Beersheva 1984, White exchang­
ed queens with 12 'iVd2 and Black had few
problems. Better is 12 c3 followed by a
general advance on the kingside. Play could
be as in a well-known line in the Advanced
variation.
b) 8 . . . .i.e7? either loses time or cedes
space, e.g. 9 dxc5 lt:Jxc5 10 b4 lt:Jd7 1 1 .i.d3
'iVc7 12 ctJe2 ctJb6 13 0-0 �d7 14 'iYe 1 ctJa4
15 'iYg3 g6 1 6 ctJg5 lLld8 1 7 ctJd4 and Black
had a passive game in Korchnoi-Keller,
Switzerland 1984.
9 lt:Jxd4 �c5 1 0 g3
Or:
a) 10 b4?! seems to lead to self­
weakening if Black reacts quickly with ... f7f6, e.g. 10 . . . .txd4 1 1 .txd4 0-0 12 g3 b5 13
.te2 �b7 14 0-0 �c8 1 5 �f3 f6 1 6 exf6
tLlxd4 17 'iYxd4 'iVxf6 with advantage to
Black in Murey-Moskalenko, Paris 1992.
b) 10 'iYd2 is perhaps the most solid, but
in this case is White's a2-a3 move just a
waste of time? For example, 10 . . . tLlxd4 1 1
.i.xd4 �xd4 (l l . . .bS is more positive) 12
O ld M a in L in e w i th 7
'ii'xd4 'i¥b6 13 0-0-0 'i¥xd4 14 �xd4 b6 15
g3 .i.b7 1 6 �g2 �c8 17 �hd 1 �c7 1 8 ctJe2
h5 and Black had a comfortable game in
Murey-Komarov, Montauban 2000.
.
.
.
a6
the white king in the centre.
23 a4
12 c3 is less cowardly but after 12 . . . �xd4
13 �xd4 Ci:Jxd4 14 'i¥xd4 'i¥c7! (14 . . . b6!?
intending ... �b7-c6 is also interesting) 15 b4
b6 Black has a fine game as he will obtain
play on the c-file.
Very slow. Instead 23 0-0-0 �xa3+ 24
�b 1 is more practical, when after 24 ... �c8
25 �f4 �xc2 26 �xe5 �xd2+ 27 Ci:Jxf5
�xd 1 + 28 �xd 1 �xf5 29 .i.d4 White should
hold the ending despite the two-pawn
advantage. In view of this variation
Korchnoi suggests 24 ... i.e4 maintaining the
better game.
1 2 .. .'iVb6 1 3 tt::l a 4 'ifa5+ 1 4 t2Jc3 'iVc7 ! ?
23 . . . �c8 24 c3?!
1 0 . . . 'iWb6 1 1 tt::l a 4 'ifa5+ 1 2 tt::l c 3
Playing for more than a draw.
1 5 t2Jce2 0-0!
1 5 ... h5 has also been played, but I prefer
Korchnoi's move which ensures a safe king.
1 6 i.g2 tt::l x d4 1 7 tt::l x d4
The alternative is 17 �xd4 when 17 .. .f6?!
18 exf6 Ci:Jxf6 1 9 0-0 �d7 is playable for
Black, but because of his hold on the centre,
White can claim a shade of an edge. Instead
of 17 .. . f6, then 17 . . . a5!, intending . . . b7-b6
and . . . �a6 is recommended.
i 7 . . . tt::l b 6 1 8 b3 f6 1 9 exf6
The last chance for White to castle. Now
Black is able to force an ending with two
pieces for a rook.
24 . . . �e8 2 5 l:tf3
25 �e2 holds for the moment, but after
25 . . . �g4+ 26 �d3 �xd4 27 cxd4 i.f5+ 28
�e2 'i¥e7 Black has too many threats.
25 . . . i.g4
Black now forces an ending with two
minor pieces for the rook.
26 �xf6 .lil.xd4 27 cxd4 'iVxe3+ 28 'ir'xe3
�xe3+ 29 �f2 �e2+ 30 �f 1 gxf6 31 h3
�xg2 3 2 �xg2 i.d7 33 �c1 i.c6 34
�f3 ti::l d 7 3 5 g4 t2Jf8 36 h4 t2Je6
Black's plan is to avoid any rook
invasions and hit away at the white weak
points.
37 �e3 �g7 38 �f1 i.d7 39 l:H2 'it>g6
40 �f1 ti::ld 8 4 1 �g 1 h6 42 �f4 tt::l c 6 43
�d 1 ?
1 9 . . .e 5 !
Black takes the initiative. White's slow
play has left his king dangerously exposed.
20 fxe5 'ir'xe 5 2 1 'ir'd2 �xf6 22 �f1
Losing quickly. Korchnoi instead
suggests the line 43 �e3 ctJa5 44 �cl �xg4
45 �cl �d1 when White sheds a pawn or
two but achieves some activity for his rook,
and therefore some hope for the cause.
However, Black should objectively still be
able to win.
43 . . . h 5 44 gxh5+ �xh5 45 � g 1
4 5 �g3 loses the h-pawn after 4 5 . . . ctJe7.
White could have sought safety with 22
0-0-0 despite the fact that it loses a pawn.
45 . . . t2Jxd4 46 �d 1 tt::le 2+ 47 �e3 d4+!
22 . . . i.f5 ? !
After 47 . . . d4+ 48 �xe2 (or 48 �f2 i.. g4)
48 . . . .i.g4+ Black wins comfortably.
More to the point was 22 ... .i.g4! keeping
0-1
Fre n c h C la s s ic a l
Summary
The move 7 . . . a6 generally seems to be a little less incisive for Black than the plan of
capturing on d4 and continuing . . . .i.. c S, as seen in the previous chapter. The problem with
allowing White to capture on cS is that this results in an exchange of dark-squared bishops
which obviously favours White. Also the queens often end up opposing each other along
the g1-a7 diagonal and this can easily lead to a queen exchange, again the simplification
favouring White.
White seems to do best to stick to the main lines of this variation as seen in Games 3 1
and 32, where h e is guaranteed a small edge. Having said that, this variation is quite solid for
Black and could be a good choice against a white opponent hell-bent on attack.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt.Jc3 lt.Jf6 4 e5 lt.Jfd7 5 f4 c5 6 lt.Jf3 lt.Jc6 7 �e3 a6 (D)
8 'ii' d 2
8 a3 - Game 3 7
8 . . . b 5 (D) 9 dxc5
9 ..td3 - Game 35; 9 'iff2 - Game 36
9
. . .
�xc5
9 . . . b4 - Game 34
1 0 �xc5 lt.Jxc5 1 1 'iff2 'ifb6 (D) 1 2 �d3
12 b4
Game 33
-
1 2 .. J:tb8
12 . . . b4 - Game 32
Game 3 1
1 3 0-0 -
7
58
.
. a6
.
B
. . .
b5
1 1.
.
.'Viib 6
[ CHAPTER FOUR I
Old M ai n Lin e :
Oth e r Variations aft e r 6 Ci:Jf3
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 '2Jc3 CLJf6 4 e 5 '2Jfd7
'tlfa5+ 9 c3 cxd4! ?
For 9 . . . c4 see Game 32.
5 f4 c5 6 CLJf3
This chapter deals with variations after 6
ct:Jf3 where Black avoids heading straight for
the positions from Chapters 2 and 3 . This
generally means that Black has some exotic
piece development in mind and in this
chapter we frequently see moves such as
... c5-c4, an early ... a7-a6, an early . . .'�b6, or
- particularly ifMorozevich is playing Black
- the black minor pieces ending up
anywhere and everywhere.
Game 3 1 deals with the piece sacrifice
which occurs after 6 . . . CLJc6 7 i.e3 ii'b6 8
CLJa4 ii'a5+ 9 c3 cxd4 10 b4 CLJxb4. This was
frequently seen in the 1980s, but its
popularity has waned since then. It is also
possible for Black to play without
gambitting a piece with 9 . . . c4 (Game 32) .
Instead o f 7 . . . 'iVb6, 7. . .i.e7 is the subject
of Game 33 and the offbeat 7 . . . b6 of Game
34. Finally, the plan of delaying ... CLJc6 with
6 . . . a6 is seen in Games 35-37.
r-----
Game31
Chandler-M . G urevich
L en ing rad 19 87
.._______________.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 ltJc3 liJf6 4 eS liJfd7
5 f4 cS 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 7 �e3 �b6 8 ltJa4
10 b4 '2Jxb4
This piece sacrifice variation has been
thoroughly investigated over the years. The
main conclusion is that although Black has
practical chances, there remains a suspicion
that he doesn't quite get enough
compensation. If instead Black chickens out
with 10 .. .'�c7 then White keeps his opening
advantage due to a firm grip on key dark
squares such as d 4 and c S . Here is an
example: 1 1 ct:Jxd4 ct:Jxd4 12 i.xd4 ct:Jb8 13
a3 CLJc6 14 i.e3 i.e7 1 5 i.d3 0-0 16 0-0
i.d7 17 �f3 g6 18 CLJcS aS, as in SuetinLiberzon, USSR Championship 1960, when
by 19 CLJb3 axb4 20 cxb4! Suetin claims a
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
clear advantage for White.
11
cxb4 �xb4+
1 2 �d2 �xd2+
13
tiJxd2 b6
Black can also try 13 . . . g5! ? to break up
the white centre. Although it hasn't done
particularly well in practice, this could be his
best option, e.g. 14 �b 1 (14 t2Jb2 gxf4 15
t2Jd3 b6 1 6 <itt f2 ii.a6 17 t2Jf3 �c8 led to a
complicated struggle in Anand-Dreev,
Madras 199 1) and now:
a) 14 . . . a6 is considered inferior, e.g. 1 5
i.d3 gxf4 1 6 0-0 b5 (16 . . . t2Jxe5 i s met b y 1 7
t2J b 6 with a bind) 1 7 t2Jb2 tbxe5 1 8 �xf4
ctJg6 19 i.xg6 hxg6 20 tbf3 ifb6 2 1 t2Jd3
0-0 22 tbfe5 :a7 23 iff3 ifd6 24 l'::r f6 �c7
25 l:.fl and in Kalegin-Chigvintsev, Russia
1 992, Black resigned as he is powerless to
stop the threats of tbxf7 and t2Jxg6.
.
b) 14 . . . gxf4 1 5 Ji.b5 �b8 (best is
15 . . . <itt f8! 16 'ife2 d3 ! with unclear
complications) 16 ctJc5 'ifc3 17 t2Jd3 a6 1 8
�c l 'ifa3 1 9 ifb3 ifa5 2 0 .i,xd7+ �xd7 2 1
tbxf4 and White won quickly in Short­
Timman, Amsterdam 1 994, as his extra
piece is far more use than Black's three
pawns.
1 4 �d3 !
White has tried several other moves but
the text is now considered to be the
strongest. Alternatives are:
a) 14 'i¥b3 ii.a6 15 i.xa6 ifxa6 16 t2Jb2,
as in Timman-Yusupov, Bugojno 1986, is
not very clear as after 16 .. ."ifa5 !, intending
60
. . . tbc5, Black has reasonable play.
b) 14 <itt f2 0-0 15 t2Jf3 tbc5 16 t2Jb2
tbe4+ was murky in Tseshkovsky­
Dolmatov, USSR Championship 1986.
c) 14 'ifc2 led to balanced chances after
14 . . . �b7 15 ifc7 �a6 16 ii.xa6 ifxa6 1 7
'ifc6 � c 8 1 8 ctJc5 l:.xc6 19 tbxa6 g 5 ! in
another Timman-Yusupov encounter, this
time from Tilburg 1986.
d) 14 h4 0-0 15 �h3 f6! 1 6 l:.b 1 i.a6 17
ii.xa6 ifxa6 1 8 �b4 fxe5 1 9 fxe5 tbxe5 20
�xd4 .i:.f6 21 ctJc3 �af8 22 ife2 'ifxe2+ 23
tbxe2 tbc6 was fine for Black in Yurtaev­
Vaisser, Frunze 1 987, but he could have
played for even more with 20 . . . �c8! when
Vaisser then prefers Black.
1 4 . . . �a6 1 5 tLlb2 tLlc5
15 . . . i.xd3?! allows White to get
organised rather easily: 16 t2Jxd3 tbc5 1 7
t2Jf2! ctJa4 1 8 0-0 tbc3 19 ifg4 0-0 2 0 tbf3
.i:.ac8 2 1 ifh4 'i¥a4 22 ctJg4 and White had a
strong attack in Timman-Korchnoi,
Brussels 1987.
1 6 �xa6 ifxa6 1 7 'ife2
Ghinda suggests 17 a4!? in order to deny
Black the a3-square.
1 7 . . . ifa3
17 . . . d3 ?! 1 8 ife3 'ifa3 19 ifd4 is
considered by theory to be a clear advantage
to White, but after 19 . . . 0-0 20 0-0 �ac8 2 1
t2Jd1 �fd8 22 tbf2 tbe4 23 t2Jfxe4 dxe4 24
ife3 �c2 25 tbxe4 ifb2 Black was able to
hold in Psakhis-Dizdar, Portoroz 1987.
1 8 'iWb5+ rj;; e 7
1 9 0-0 'iWe3+ 20 I:tf2
I:thc8 21 �d 1
White could also try 2 1 tbfl ! 'ifc3 22 �f3
d3 23 �d1 ifd4+ 24 <Ett h 1 ctJe4 25 tbxd3
�c2 26 tbe3 and despite the fact that Black
has active-looking pieces, White was well in
control in Nunn-Zysk, Germany 1988.
2 1 . . . g6 22 tiJf 1 'iWa3 23 I:txd4 'ii x a2 24
tLlg3 ! ?
U p t o here everything had been seen
before! Chandler was probably aware of the
game Van der Sterren-Gurevich, Tallinn
1987, which continued 24 ttJa4 'ifa1 25
O ld M a in L in e : O th e r Va ria tio n s a ft e r 6 Ci:J t3
�fd2 tt:Jd7 26 ifb4+ �e8 27 �d1 �cl with
an unclear struggle.
24 . . . ii'b3 25 iie2
Black has three passed pawns and no
problems in any simplified position. White's
ch ances lie in a middlegame with the
possibilities of getting at Black's king.
i!Ya5+ 9 c3 c4
Closing the centre and threatening to
embarrass the white knight. White has to
react immediately.
1 0 b4 iic7
Pinning the knight by 28 . . .ifc4 is given
by Chandler as unclear.
Alternatives:
a) Playing the closed position is surest.
Instead 10 . . . cxb3?! 1 1 axb3 leaves White
with the better pawn structure and his
centre intact. If then 1 1 . .. bS? White can
safely play 12 tL'lcS as 12 . . . 'iVxc3+ 13 .id2
'iVb2 14 tL'ld3 costs Black his queen.
b) The speculative 10 ... tL'lxb4!? 1 1 cxb4
.i.xb4+ 12 �f2 bS (Sek-Nizialek, Porabka
1987) is hard to refute, but I suspect that it's
not quite sound: 13 tL'lcS! .ixcS 14 dxcS
.ib7 1S 'iVd4 b4 (1S .. J�c8 16 c6 .ixc6 1 7
'iVxa7 'iVxa7 1 8 .ixa7 only gives Black two
pawns in the ending) 16 .i.e2 .i.c6!? (again
16 . . . �c8 17 c6 .ixc6 18 'iVxa7 must be
preferable for White) and it's not clear how
White can use his extra piece, although he
has many options and he must be better.
Perhaps 17 tL'ld2 0-0 18 .if3 .ibS 19 �hb 1
is a good start.
29 f 5 !
1 1 3Le2
White goes on the offensive to smash
open Black's king
After 33 . . . exfS 34 ifxfS+ �d6 3S 'iVf6+
White picks up the black knight.
1 1 g3 .ie7 12 .ih3 ! restrains Black's use
of the f-pawn. Then 12 . . . bS 13 tL'lcS aS 14
a3 axb4 1S axb4 �xa1 16 'iVxa1 tL'lxcS 1 7
dxcS 0-0 18 tL'ld4 gave White a pleasant
edge in Svidler-Bareev, Russian Champion­
ship 1 997.
34 Ci:Jxe6 !
1 1 . . . i.. e 7 1 2 a3
2 5 . . . Ci:Jd7 26 �d 1 .l:c3 27 Ci:Jd3 .l:ac8 28
}lff1
28 . . . a 5 ?
29 . . . gxf5 30 Ci:Jf4 1:.8c5 3 1 iih5 ! Ci:Jxe5
32 'ii g 5 + 'itd7 33 Ci:Jxf5! Ci:Jc6
A crushing blow.
34 . . . 'itxe6
34 .. .fxe6 allows an even swifter mate: 3S
'ifg7+ �d8 3 6 tL'ld4 tL'lxd4 3 7 �f8.
35 �de 1 + 'itd7 36 l:.e7 + ! 'itc8 37 'i:Vg8+
1 -0
G ame32
Short-Psakhis
Mo scow Oly mpi ad 199 4
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt::J c 3 lt::Jf 6 4 e5 lt:Jfd7
5 f4 c5 6 lt:Jf3 lt::J c 6 7 �e3 �b6 8 tt::J a4
If White wishes to discourage .. . f7-fS
then he can try 12 g4!? This was reasonably
successful in Kamsky-Bareev, Madrid 1994:
12 . . . bS 13 tL'lcS aS 14 a3 0-0 1S 0-0 axb4 1 6
axb4 �xa1 17 'iVxa1 tL'lxcS 1 8 dxcS f6 1 9
exf6 .ixf6 2 0 g S .id8 2 1 'iVc 1 'iVb8 2 2 'ii'd2
.i.c7 23 tL'ld4 tL'lxd4 24 'iVxd4 with a bind.
To mix it, Black then sacrificed a pawn with
24 ... Jl.b7 2S 'iVd2 d4!? but it shouldn't really
have been enough.
1 2 . . . f5
12 . . . a5! ? 13 0-0 fS 14 h3 ltJd8 15 g4 ltJf8
16 'ifc2 CLJg6, as in Ernst-Ulibin, Stockholm
61
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
1998, i s a more flexible way of playing the
position. The added tension on the
queenside makes it more difficult for White
to build pressure on the other wing.
1 3 I!g 1 !
An improvement on 13 CUeS?! tt:Jf8!
leaving the knight on cS looking a bit silly.
After the further 14 ifa4 b6 15 ctJa6 ifd7
Black had no particular worries in Short­
Bareev, Novgorod 1994. White has some
choice as to how to manoeuvre his pieces.
Anand has even suggested the manoeuvre
13 cub2 followed by a3-a4, i¥c2, cub2-d1-f2
but this seems long-winded.
solely on the kingside will be insufficient to
wm.
21 . . . axb 5 ? !
Short considers 2 1 . . .'tixb5 22 ctJe3 aS to
be more dynamic for Black.
22 tt:Je3 I!xa 1
23 �xa 1 i.dS 24 �d2
tt:Je7 2 5 i.h4 tt:Jt5 26 i.xdS �xdS 27
:9 1 :9s 2s .1 d 1 :91 29 i.c2
White now threatens to capture on fS
with the bishop gaining the 'knight pair' in a
closed manoeuvring game. The further
exchange of a pair of knights would leave
Black with his 'bad bishop' and holes on the
dark squares.
1 3 . . .t2:JtS 1 4 g4 fxg4
29 . . . tt:Jxe3 30 �xe3 i.eS 31 �e 1 'Wie7
In an analogous position Ulibin just put
his knight on g6 allowing White to capture
on fS . Here, with his king still in the centre,
White is better placed to counter this plan
with 14 . . . ctJg6 15 gxfS exfS 16 \t>d2 cud8 17
ife 1 ctJe6 1 8 ifg3 and pushing the h-pawn
to hS. White will be able to slowly build
pressure on the g-file and against dS and fS,
whereas Black has no counterplay.
3 2 �g3 �cS 33 na 1 i.c6 34 �h3 �b7
1 5 I!xg4 g6 1 6 i.t2
This 'bad' bishop will eventually come to
h4 to exchange itself for a black minor
piece. First of all White consolidates the
other wing.
1 6 . . . b6 1 7 tt:Jb2 i.d7 1 S a4 a6 1 9 �b1
�b7 20 ctJd 1 b5
35 �h6 :9s 36 h4
White prepares the additional threat of
h4-h5.
36 . . . .1 e S 37 l1g 1 � g 7 3S 'Wi g S h 5
Stopping White's h-pawn, but this is a
concession as the g-pawn becomes
chronically weak.
39 �dS 'iVd7 40 'iVa5 �c7 41 �xc7+
�xc7 42 f5!
Generating a protected passed pawn.
42 . . . exf5 43 .1xf5 .1t7 44 i.h3 .1e6 45
ctJg5 .1xh3 46 tt:Jxh3 tt:Je6 47 nt 1
47 tt:Jf4 would allow counterplay after
47 . . . tt:Jxf4 48 \t>xf4 :tf8+ 49 \t>gS :tf3 . Short
prefers to prepare tt:Jf4 under more
favourable circumstances
47 . . . :as 4S nt2 �c6 49 .l:t6 �d7 50
tt:Jt4
White could also have played SO :txg6 as
so . . :ta3 can be met strongly by 5 1 cuf4
.
l:txc3+ 52 \t>d2 tt:Jxf4 53 :td6+.
50 . . . tt:Jxt4 51 �xf4 �e7 52 !1xg6 :ts+
53 �e3 I!f 1 54 11d6 11h 1 55 !1xd 5 lbh4
56 !1xb5 !1h3+ 57 �e4 1 -0
Game]]
lvanchuk-Morozevich
21 axb5
Opening the a-file because pressure
62
A mst erdam 199 6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tLlc3 tLlt6 4 e5 tLltd7
O ld M a in L in e : O th e r Va ria tio n s a ft e r 6 !U f3
5 f4 c5 6 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 7 i.. e 3 i.. e 7 8 dxc5
Nowadays this is considered to be best as
n atu rally if Black recaptures with the bishop
he loses a tempo on other variations. White
can also develop naturally: 8 'ifd2 0-0 9 .1e2
cxd4 10 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 1 1 .1xd4 t2Jb8 12 0-0
tt:Jc6 13 �f2 .1d7 14 ttJbS a6 1 5 t2Jd4, as in
Timman-Hort, Linares 1983, when Black
does best to play 15 . . . 4Jxd4 16 .1xd4 'ib'c7
with a quick . . . .1c5. Despite having the
superior minor piece White then couldn't
claim to have much advantage.
8 . . . '2Jxc5
The most natural but not the only way of
handling the position:
a) 8 . . . 0-0!? has been played more recently
by Morozevich. It could transpose back to
normal lines after 9 �e2 ctJxc5, but Black
retains the option of . . . .1xc5 depending on
White's approach: 9 'ifd2 ctJxcS 10 .1e2 b6
11 0-0 .1a6 12 ctJd4 'ib'd7 13 .1xa6 ctJxa6 14
ttJxc6 'ifxc6 15 f5! ? exfS 16 ctJxdS .1c5 1 7
l:.ad1 l::t a d8 1 8 c 4 .i.xe3+ 1 9 'ifxe3 'ifxc4 20
ttJe7+ <it?h8 2 1 ctJxf5 �xd1 22 �xd1 ctJcS, as
in Shaposhnikov-Morozevich, St Petersburg
1997, was not better for White.
b) 8 . . . �xc5! ? happily loses a tempo, but
despite this fact, after 9 'ifd2 0-0 10 0-0-0
'ifb6 1 1 � g 1 .i.xg1 12 :xg1 ttJc5 13 �d3
ttJb4 14 <it?b 1 .id7 Black was okay in
Ivanchuk-Korchnoi, Roquebrune 1992.
9 i.. e 2 0-0 1 0 0-0 i.. d 7
10 . . . f6?! is premature as after 1 1 exf6
:xf6 12 'ifd2 b6 13 t2Jd4 �b7 14 ctJxc6
.1xc6 1 5 �d4 klf8 1 6 �g4 White obtained
good pressure on the central pawns in
Groszpeter-Meszaros,
Vienna
1 996.
Morozevich doesn't believe that 1 0 ... b6
solves all Black's problems either. He
continues his analysis with 1 1 'ife 1 .1a6 12
�xa6 ctJxa6 1 3 l:id1 ctJc5 14 fS giving White
a nice edge.
1 1 a3 i.. e S 1 2 'ife 1 .l:c8
Morozevich suggests 12 .. .f6 intending
. . . �g6 as a better way of continuing Black's
development.
1 3 l::t d 1 'ifc7 1 4 b4
Black's unadventurous and passive
scheme allows his opponent to gain space.
1 4 . . . t2Jd7 1 5 t2Jb5 'iVbS 1 6 i.. d 3 f6
Too late!
1 7 'ifh4 f5 1 8 'i'h3 t2Jb6 1 9 i.. x b6!
Killing off attempted counterplay with
. . . ctJc4 and gaining time to prise open the g­
file.
1 9 . . . axb6 20 g4 g6 21 gxf5 exf5
If 2 1 ...gxf5 then 22 <it?h 1 followed by
doubling on the g-file would give White a
strong attack.
22 .l:f2 t2Jd8 23 ti:Jbd4 <&tt h 8 24 .l:g2 .l:c3
25 ti:Jh4
White's pieces are all poised to pounce
something has to give.
25 . . . tt:Jc6 26 t2Je6 .l:g8 27 tt:Jxf5 �ea
27 . . . gxf5 leads to a rapid mate after 28
:xg8+ <it?xg8 29 'ib'h6.
28 .l:g3! h5
28 . . .'ib'xe6 is met by 29 'ifxh7+!
29 t2Jh6 l::t g 7 30 i.. f 5 .l:xg3+ 3 1 �xg3
'ifbS 3 2 .:xd5 �h7 33 i.. x g6 11xh6 34
i.. f7 1 -0
A delightful attacking game punishing an
over-passive approach.
Game34
Ovetchkin-Morozevich
Mo scow 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 tt:Jfd7
63
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
5 f4 c 5 6 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 7 .lie3 b 6 ? !
Another experimental idea is 7 . . . :b8!? 8
iYd2 c4 9 f5 .te7! (better than 9 . . . b5?! 10
fxe6 fxe6 11 ctJg5 b4 12 ctJd1 ctJb6 13 .te2
ct:Je7, as in Hellers-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993,
when instead of 1 4 g4! ? White can cheekily
get away with 14 'irxb4! ct:Jf5 15 'iVd2) 10
fxe6 fxe6 11 ctJe2 with an unclear position
according to Ivanchuk.
Wixc4 Wixe3 26 ct:Jxf5) 24 .tg5 lieS 25 ct:Jf6
and Black has to abandon the exchange.
22 tt:Jd5 b5
8 .lie2
8 .tb5 .tb7 9 0-0 .te7 (9 ... g6 is more
solid) 10 f5 0-0 1 1 f6! gxf6 12 .th6 fxe5 13
'iVe l ! gave White a strong attack in Gipslis­
Shereshevsky, USSR 198 1 .
8 . . . .lie7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 �d2 tt:Jdb8 1 1
.tt a d 1 'iit h 8 1 2 'iif h 1 .lia6 ! ?
Consistent but arguably a little slow. The
other possibility was 12 . . . cxd4 13 ctJxd4
ctJxd4 14 .txd4 ctJc6, which despite being
unappetising at least diminishes the power
of White's f4-f5 break.
23 tt:Jxf5 !
With Black's queenside still half-asleep
his king is too exposed to survive.
23 . . . bxc4 24 �e4 gxf5 25 l::t x f5 .lif8 26
.:dt 1 1 -0
1 3 f5 .lixe2 1 4 tt:Jxe2 exf5 1 5 c3 ? !
Game35
A s Ovetchkin mentions, more t o the
point is 15 c4! cxd4 16 ctJexd4 dxc4 17 Wic2
trying to exploit the lead in development.
Then 17 .. .'iVd5 18 ctJxf5 Wie6 19 ctJxe7
'ifxe7 20 'i¥xc4 is better for White.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 e5 tt:Jtd7
1 5 . . . cxd4 ? !
5 f4 c5 6 tt:Jf3 a6
With such lagging development, it was
more prudent for Black to block the centre
with 15 . . . c4.
.
Black hopes to profit by delaying
development of the queen's knight.
1 6 tt:Jexd4 �d7 1 7 �d3 g6 1 8 c4 .:d8
This rapid pawn expansion can easily
transpose to the previous chapter if Black
opts for an early . . . ctJc6. Playing on the
queenside with 7 .. .'ii'b6 is seen in Games 36
and 37.
1 9 tt:Jb5 ! ? d4
If 19 . . . dxc4 then Ovetchkin gives 20 'ifc2
with many threats, but then after 20 ... ctJb4!?
things are far from clear, e. g. 21 :xd7 ctJxc2
22 :xe7 ctJxe3 23 :e 1 ctJc6 with
complications.
20 tt:Jfxd4 a6
20 ... ctJxe5 is far too risky as 21 'i¥e2 'i¥b7
22 .tf4 ctJg4 23 ctJc7 wins at least the
exchange.
21 tt:Jc3 �b7
Taking the e-pawn is quickly punished;
e.g. 2 1 . . .C2Jxe5 22 'ile2 'ilb7 23 C2Jd5 ! .li.f8
(23 . . . C2Jxc4? loses to 24 C2Jxe7 'ilxe7 25
64
Anand-Bareev
L in ares 1993
7 .lie3 b5
8 �d2
There are a couple of notable alternatives
but these are not convincing:
a) 8 g3!? is an unusual try, but in M.Kuijf­
M.Gurevich, Germany 1 996, White never
did develop his bishop to g2 or h3: 8 . . . .te7
9 C2Je2 C2Jc6 10 c3 0-0 1 1 h4 b4! (opening
lines and making it difficult for White to
press on the kingside) 12 cxb4 lLlxb4 13
ctJc3 cxd4 1 4 ctJxd4 .li.b7 1 5 a3 C2Jc6 16
O ld M a in L in e : O th e r Va ria tio n s a ft e r 6 CiJt3
,id3 t2Jxd4 17 �xd4 ctJcS 18 il.c2 ctJe4 19
'i'f3 .l:.c8. The move 8 g3 has hardly been a
raging success as Black has obtained good
play and at least equality.
b) 8 dxcS ctJxcS 9 .td3 .te7 10 0-0 ctJc6
1 1 t2Jd4 t2Jxd4 12 i.xd4 b4 13 ctJe2 0-0 1 4
g4 ctJe4 1 5 ctJg3 i. b 7 16 'ife 1 .l:. c 8 1 7 .l:.d1
VJJi c 7, as in Nijboer-M.Kuijf, Netherlands
1995, and again the centrally posted knight
on e4 frustrates hopes for a white attack.
26 . . . gxf5? is simply a blunder as 27 'i!Vg3+
<iiih 8 28 e6+ wins Black's queen.
27 .li.g4 .li.g5 28 'fie2
Things are getting desperate for Black,
for instance the main threat is 29 e6.
28 . . . h5 29 .li.xh5 ! gxh5 30 �xh 5 .li.e8
31 l:.f6 ! 1 -0
If 3 1 . . .i.c1 then 32 e6 mates quickly.
Game36
Lutz-Morozevich
s . il.e7
. .
An earlier try was 8 . . . .tb7. After 9 .td3
b4 10 t2Jd1 ctJc6 1 1 0-0 cxd4 12 t2Jxd4 i.e7
13 �f3 ! 0-0?! (rather castling into it; instead
Kamsky suggests 13 . . . g6 14 t2Jf2 'i!Vc7
keeping open the option of . . . 0-0-0) 14 .l:.h3
g6 15 t2Jf2 ctJcS 16 t2Jg4 ctJe4 17 i.xe4 dxe4
18 t2Jxc6 .txc6 19 i.d4 the storm clouds
were developing around Black's king in
Kamsky-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1992.
El ist a Olympiad 199 8
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 CiJc3 CiJf6 4 e5 CiJfd7
5 f4 c5 6 CiJf3 a6 7 .li.e3 'fibS 8 CiJa4
9 il.d3 g 6 1 0 0-0 il.b7 1 1 CiJd 1 !
With the positional threat of solidifying
the centre with 12 c3 .
1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 CiJxd4 CiJc5 1 3 b4
Forcing Black's hand and fixing the
opposing b-pawn on a light square.
1 3 . . . CiJa4
Anand prefers White slightly after both
13 . . . ctJe4 14 'ife 1 and 13 . . . t2Jxd3 14 cxd3
ctJc6 15 a3 aS 16 .i:Ib 1 .
1 4 c 3 CiJb6 1 5 Af2 'fic7 1 6 CiJb2 CiJc4
1 7 'iie 2 CiJc6?
A crucial moment because after this the
white initiative is perhaps impossible to
resist. Instead with 17 ... t2Ja3 (blocking the a­
pawn advance) 1 8 �ac l t2Jd7 1 9 t2Jb3 t2Jb6
20 ctJaS t2Jbc4 Black has a firm grip on
some crucial squares making it difficult for
his opponent to make progress.
1 8 a4! CiJxd4 1 9 Axd4 .li.c6 20 axb5
axb5 21 nxa8+ .li.xa8 2 2 CiJxc4 bxc4
22 . . . dxc4 23 .te4 0-0 24 .l:.a1 is
catastrophic for Black who cannot prevent
the rook's entry onto the seventh rank.
23 .li.c2 .i.c6 24 'iWe3 0-0 25 f5! exf5 26
.li.xf5! �d8
8 a3 is the subject of Game 37.
8 .. .'iVa5+
Others:
a) An interesting alternative is 8 . . .'�c6
when after 9 ctJxcS ctJxcS 10 dxcS i.xcS 1 1
'ifd2 the rather slow 1 1 . .. 'ifb6?! (more
dynamic instead is 1 1 . . . .td7 when 12 0-0-0
i.xe3 13 'ifxe3 'i!Va4 14 <iiib 1 ctJc6 1 5 �d3
0-0-0! 16 c3 d4! proved to very unclear in
Luther-Piskov, Erfurt 1993) seems to lead
to a pleasant edge for White: 12 .txcS 'ifxcS
13 0-0-0 ctJc6 14 <iiib 1 ..td7 15 g3 !ic8 16 h4
Vi'b4 17 Vi'f2 (White retains the queens as
his plan of a general kingside pawn push is
then more effective) 17 . . .ctJaS 18 t2Jd4 0-0
19 hS bS 20 Vi'e3 Vi'e7 2 1 .td3 ctJc4 22
�xc4 dxc4 23 c3 b4 24 g4 and possession
of the superior minor piece will ensure that
65
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
White's attack will prove the most
dangerous in Ulibin-Alavkin, Russia 1 997.
b) 8 .. .'i¥c7 is similar: 9 dxcS tL'lxcS 10
lt:JxcS i.. x cS 1 1 'ii'd2 .i.d7 12 0-0-0 i..b S 13
i.. x cS �xcS 1 4 fS ! exfS 1 5 lDd4 i.. d 7, as in
Riemersma-Barsov, Vlissingen 1 996, and
now White can keep an edge with the
straightforward 1 6 lDb3! �c7 17 �xdS .
9 c3 cxd4 1 0 b4 'W/c7 1 1 'W/xd4 <8c6
1 1 . . . a5! ? makes sense as after 12 bS b6
Black has a useful square on cS for a knight.
After 13 .i.e2 tL'lcS 14 0-0 LDbd7 15 �ac l
i.. b 7 16 �h 1 i.. e 7 Black had a fine position
in
J onasson-Thorhallsson,
Icelandic
Championship 1 996.
advantage to White, who has bolstered her
centre and maintained a bind in
Skripchenko-Matveeva, Belgrade 1996) 15
�xa4 i.. b7 (15 .. .fxe5 16 bS lt:Jcb8 17 fxeS
LDxeS 1 8 LDxeS �xeS 1 9 i.. e2 gives White
good piece play for the pawn) 16 exf6 tL'lxf6
17 LDgs �d7 1 8 i.. d3 .i.d6 1 9 o-o o-o 20 fs
left White with an initiative in Luther­
Topakian, Austria 2000.
14 . . . tLlxf6 1 5 ..id3 ..id6 1 6 0-0 0-0 1 7
a 4 .Ub8 1 8 axb5 axb5 1 9 tLld4 ? !
Morozevich instead recommends 19
�ae 1 .i.d7 20 tL'ld1 , j ust mobilising his
decentralised pieces, with an unclear game.
1 9 . . . <8xd4
20
..ixd4
<8e4!
21
..ixe4
1 2 'Wid 2 b5 ! ?
dxe4
Another plan based o n cracking open the
queenside seems reasonable: 12 . . . i.. e 7 13
i.. e 2 bS 14 lt:Jb2 aS!? 15 0-0!? (15 .i.xbS
axb4 16 .i.xc6 �xc6 17 cxb4 is well met by
17 .. .'iVb5 !) 15 . . . axb4 16 .:fc l ? ! (16 i.. x bS is
safer) 16 . . . �b7 1 7 cxb4 i.. x b4 18 �c2, as in
Vratonjic-Drasko,
Yugoslavia
1993 ,
1 8 . . . .i.a3 19 �ab 1 lDb4 with complications
that seem suspicious for White.
The clear-out in the centre has left White
weakened on the light squares.
1 3 tLlb2
22 ..ie3?
Surely the best move is 22 g3 ! which has
been played in a more recent game, i.e.
22 . . . i.. b 7 23 �e3 i.. dS? (better is the
immediate 23 ... e5! 24 fxeS .i.xeS 25 i..xeS
�xeS 26 �xf8+ �xf8 27 �fl .l:.xf1+ 28
�xfl �dS and Black shouldn't be worse as
the white knight is badly placed) 24 :a7
l:.b7 25 �xb7 .i.xb7 26 tL'ld1 .i.dS? (26 ... e5!)
27 lDf2 eS 28 fxeS i.. xeS 29 .i.xeS (29 'iVgS!
is strong) 29 . . . �xe5 30 tL'lg4 l:ixf1+ 3 1 �xfl
�fS+ 32 LDf2 and with his knight in play
White was able to press for the win in Van
der Weide-J agodzinski, Senden 1999.
22 . . . ..ib7 23 c4 g 5 ! 24 cxb5?
24 g3 trying to hold onto f4 is better.
24 . . . gxf4 25 b6 fxe3!
Sacrificing the exchange for two massive
pawns in the centre. There is no defence.
26
bxc7
�xf1 +
27
�xf1
exd2
28
cxb8'fi + ..ixb8 29 l2Jd 1 ..ia7+ 30 .Uf2
1 3 . . . f6 ! ?
Aiming to undermine the centre before
White can get fully developed.
1 4 exf6 ? !
14 a4 is critical, e.g. 14 . . . bxa4 (not
14 . . . �b8?! 15 axbS axbS 16 CLJd4! tLlxd4 17
.i.xd4 fxeS 1 8 fxeS .i.e7 1 9 .l:ta7 with a clear
66
..ia6 0 - 1
Game3 7
Klimov -Kruppa
St P et ersburg 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 ltJc3 l2Jf6 4 e 5 ttJfd7
O ld M a in L in e : O th e r Va ria tio n s a ft e r 6 CLJ f3
5 f4 c5 6 ct:Jf3 a6 7 il.e3 �b6
12 .. .f6!? is interesting and could be best.
After 13 c4?! (13 exf6 CDxf6 14 i.d3 is
better) 13 . . .Vi'a5+ 14 'iid2 'ifxd2+ 1S �xd2
fxeS 16 cxdS exdS 17 fxeS 0-0 18 .i.e2
CDdxeS 19 CLlxeS CLlxeS 20 .tlab 1 White had
more or less enough play for the pawn to
hold the game in Berndt-Soln, Bled 2000.
1 3 c4! �a5+ 14 �d2 Vi'xd2+ 1 5 �xd2
d4! ?
Otherwise White improves his pawn
structure and Black will have problems with
his lack of space.
1 6 ct:Jxd4 ct:Ja5 1 7 �c2
8 a3!
8 �b 1 is less effective, e.g. 8 ... CDc6 9
'ii'd2 Vi'a7!? (preparing to increase pressure
on the a7-g1 diagonal with . . . i.c5, without
allowing CDa4 hitting both bishop and
queen) 10 i.e2 (or 10 CDd1 cxd4 1 1 CDxd4
CDxd4 12 i.xd4 i.c5 13 c3 f6, as in Reefat­
Shulman, Dhaka 1 999) 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 CDxd4
i.cS 12 �d1 0-0 13 0-0 bS 14 Mf3 i.b7
gave Black comfortable development in
Szelag-Radiabov, Lithoro 1 999.
Or 17 c6!? bxc6 18 J:b 1 offers White an
edge as he has the more active king and the
bishop pair as well as a space advantage.
1 7 . . . ct:Jxc5 1 8 ct:Jc6 ct:Jxc6 1 9 il.xc5 �d8
20 il.b6 .l:lf8 21 il.c5 .l:.d8 2 2 il.e2 il.d7
Kruppa and Komarov suggest 22 . . . bS! as
an interesting try for freedom, although
after 23 cxb5 axbS 24 Mhd1 (24 i.xbS? fails
to 24 .. J:�d5) 24 ... i.b7 2S �b2 the bishop
pair and loose b-pawn still offer White the
better chances.
23 il.b6 .:!.e8 24 .l:.ad 1 ct:Jb8 25 �b3 il.c6
8 . . . ct:Jc6
26 il.f3 !
8 ... Vi'xb2? ? loses to 9 CDa4. A move order
trick to avoid the text move is 8 . . . cxd4!? 9
CDxd4 CDc6 10 .ie2 i.cS which transposes
to 8 . . . CDc6 9 i.e2 cxd4 10 CDxd4 i.c5, e.g.
11 CDa4 ViaS+ 12 c3 i.xd4 1 3 i.xd4 CDxd4
14 'i¥xd4 0-0 (14 . . . b6 1S i.d1 ! iVb5 16 b4
aS 1 7 ctJb2 Vi'c6 18 i.f3 axb4 19 cxb4 bS 20
�f2 Vi'b6 2 1 �e3 'i¥b8 22 l:hc 1 0-0 left
White with a persistent edge in Topalov­
Korchnoi, Dos Hermanas 1999) 1S 0-0 Vi'c7
16 b4 b6 17 CDb2 i.b7 with equal chances
in Berg-Radiabov, Aviles 2000.
Exchanging an important defensive piece
in order to gain access to the seventh rank.
A slight weakness on the kingside is a small
price to pay for such a rich prize.
26 . . . il.xf3 27 gxf3 h5 28 �d6 �c6 29
�d7 ct:Je 7 30 l:thd 1 CLJg6 31 !:. 1 d4 l:.eb8
3 2 c5 ct:Jh4 33 l:.d3 ct:Jg2 34 .l:.3d4 ct:Je3
Losing a pawn and the game. Better is
34 . . . CDh4, but White can progress with 3 5
i.c7 Mc8 36 Mb4 Ma7 3 7 �c3 CDxf3 3 8
Mb2 CDh4 39 i.b6 with excellent chances.
3 5 il.c7 l:.c8 36 i.d6 CLJf5 37 l:tc4 �c6
9 dxc5
38 �xb7 l:.ac8 39 l:tb6 �h7 40 �xc6
The latest fashion. 9 CDa4 is less precise
here: 9 . . . Vi'a5+ 10 c3 c4 1 1 b4 cxb3 12 'ifxb3
bs 13 tt:Jb2 b4! 14 cxb4 i.xb4+ 15 �f2 Mb8
gave adequate play for Black in Apicella­
M.Gurevich, Cappelle la Grande 1999.
l:txc6 4 1 �b4 �g6 42 �b6 :c8 43 'it>c4
9 . . . il.xc5 1 0 ct:Ja4 ifa5+ 1 1 b4 ifxa4 1 2
bxc5 0-0
CLJh4 44 c6 ct:Jxf3 45 c7 ct:Jxh2 46 .l:lb8
l:txc7+ 47 il.xc7 h4 48 :b3 CZJg4 49
�h3 Wh5 50 i.d8 f6 51 exf6 gxf6 52
a4 CLJf2 53 �f3 ct:Je4 54 Wd4 ct:Jg3 55
i.xf6 Wg4 56 .l:f2 h3 5 7 We5 'Llh5 58
Wxe6 Wg3 59 .l:a2 h 2 60 �a 1 1 -0
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
Summary
The piece sacrifice in Game 3 1 has not been refuted but is no longer popular. The main
reason is probably that if White has a reasonably grasp of the theory it will be an uphill
struggle for Black to draw. The plans of development with 7 ... Ji.e7 and 7 ... b6 are a little too
slow for Black and are not to be recommended, especially as White gets a good game just by
playing natural moves in reply. The best of the offbeat tries here is 6... a6 followed by .. .'ifb6.
This plan leads to unusual positions where a well prepared Black can set awkward problems
for his opponent.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 lLlf6 4 e5 lLlfd7 5 f4 c5 6 lLlf3
6 . . . l2Jc6
6 ... a6 7 iLe3 (D)
7 . . . b5 - Game 35
7 .. .'ii' b 6
8 CLJa4 - Game 36
8 a3 - Game 37
7 j_eJ 'it'b6 (D)
7 ... iLe7 - Game 33; 7 . . . b6 - Game 34
8 l2Ja4 'ifa5+ 9 c3 (D) cxd4
9 . . . c4 - Game 32
Game 3 1
1 0 b4 -
7
�e3
7
. .
.'ilb 6
9 c3
[ CHAPTER FIVE I
Th e Burn Variation :
4 �g 5 dxe4 5 ltJxe4 jL e 7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 i. g 5
dxe4 5 l2Jxe4 i.e 7
By simplifying the position with 4 ... dxe4,
known as the Burn variation, Black gives up
the 'traditional' French Defence plan of
encouraging e4-e5 and then undermining
White's centre with . . . c7-c5. Whilst this
gives him fewer prospects of a violent
counterattack on the queenside, he also
avoids the dangers to his kingside caused by
White's cramping pawn on eS.
The resultant pawn structure is known as
a 'little centre'. White has a half-open e-file
and will often place a knight on the outpost
on eS. Black, on the other hand, has the dS­
square and will usually try to liquidate
White's d4 pawn with ... c7-c5 at some point.
Very occasionally he will be able to free his
game with . . . e6-e5 .
By comparison with the Rubinstein
variation (3 . . . dxe4) the presence of White's
bishop on gS is of doubtful value. Either it
will be exchanged on f6 (giving Black the
bishop pair) or White will have to spend
time retreating or defending it.
All in all the Burn variation is Black's
most solid and durable fourth move
alte rnative which nevertheless maintains
good counterattacking chances. For these
reasons it is a favourite with many leading
players: Alexander Khalifman, Nigel Short,
Mikhail Gurevich, Alexander Chernin and
Evgenny Bareev are amongst its leading
exponents.
Games 38-43 see Black breaking the pin
immediately with S . . . i.e7, while in Games
44-47 Black tries 5 . . . ltJbd7. The key feature
of games in this chapter is that Black will
meet a capture on f6 by recapturing with a
piece (usually the bishop) . The more
dynamic, but also more risky, plan of
. . . g7xf6 is considered in the next chapter.
Game38
Tebb-M . Gurevich
4NCL 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 i. g 5
dxe4 5 l2Jxe4 i.e 7 6 i.xf6 i.xf6
The more dynamic recapture 6 . . . gxf6 is
the subject of Chapter 6.
7 l2Jf3
For the alternative 7 c3 see Game 43 .
. 0-0 8 �d2
This queen move is popular here. Other
tries can be found in Games 41 and 42.
7
. .
8
. . .
l2Jd7
The immediate fianchetto with 8 . . . b6 is
seen in Game 40.
9 0-0-0 b6 1 o Ad3
69
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
White points the bishop directly at the
kingside. For 10 Si.c4 see Game 39.
1 0 . . . �b7 1 1 h4
This is certainly White's most direct try
in what is a major parting of the ways. More
subtle approaches are as follows:
a) 1 1 �e3 (both this and 1 1 'ii'e 2 inhibit
Black's ... c7-c5 by unveiling the rook on dl)
1 1 . .. 'ii'e 7 12 �b 1 l:fd8 1 3 lt:Jfg5 c5 14 dxc5
Si.xe4 15 ctJxe4 ctJxc5 16 CLJxc5 bxc5 was
fine for Black in Kavalek-Fichtl, Kosice
196 1 .
b) 1 1 'ii'e 2 Si.e7 (1 1 . . .'ii'e 7 i s interesting,
as in the previous example) 12 h4 lt:Jf6 13
ctJeg5 Si.xf3 14 lt:Jxf3 �d6 15 ctJe5 c5 16
dxc5 'ii'x c5 1 7 �b 1 l:ad8 1 8 Si.c4 lt:Jd5 19
Si.xd5 exd5 20 ctJd3 with a slight edge for
White in Sakaev-Kacheishvili, Ubeda 200 1 .
c) 1 1 c3 i.. e 7 12 h4 c5! (In Topalov­
Dreev, Linares 1995, White developed a
strong attacking position after 12 . . . ctJf6 13
ctJeg5 Si.xf3 14 gxf3 �h8 15 �b l �d6 16
l:dg l h6 1 7 ctJe4 ctJxe4 18 fxe4 e5 1 9 f4.
The text is far more incisive, offering a
pawn sacrifice to accelerate the queenside
counterplay.) 13 dxc5 'ii'c 7 14 ctJeg5 (14
'ifc2 h6 15 cxb6 axb6 16 �b l l:a5 1 7 lt:Jed2
�fa8 gave Black excellent counterplay in
Solozhenkin-Dizdar, Paris 1 996) 14 . . . lt:Jf6
15 �c2 h6 16 �de l Si.xf3 17 ctJxf3 Si.xc5
with equality in Topalov-Dreev, MosGow
1996.
Other possibilities are:
a) 12 �b 1 ct:Jf6 13 ctJxf6+ i.xf6 14 ctJg5
h6 15 lt:Jh7 l:e8 16 lt:Jxf6+ 'ii'xf6 was already
uncomfortable for White in Harris­
Dokhoian, Philadelphia 1990.
b) 12 ct:Jfg5 h6 13 l:h3 has been tried by
some wild Englishmen, but Black's position
proves to be very durable after 13 . . . Mc8!
(13 ... ctJf6 14 lt:Jxf6+ i.. xf6 1 5 lt:Jh7 Me8 16
ctJxf6+ �xf6 17 g4 e5 1 8 i.. b 5! gave White
the initiative in another Hebden game
against Machulsky) 14 �b 1 c5 15 dxc5 bxc5
16 ife2 (Hebden-Kaidanov, Hastings
Challengers 1990) and now 16 ... �b6 would
certainly not be worse for Black.
c) 12 Mh3 (Chandler-Dolmatov, Hastings
1990) should probably be met by 12 . . J�c8
as in the Hebden-Kaidanov game above.
12
. . .
CZJf6 1 3 CZJxf6+
In the game Fressinet-Tukmakov, Salona
2000, Black answered 13 c4 with 13 ... c5!? 14
dxc5 �b8!? The continuation showed that
the pressure Black obtains with this
thematic pawn sacrifice can even continue
into the endgame: 15 lt:Jxf6+ i.xf6 16 'iWxb8
Mfxb8 17 cxb6 axb6 18 �b l i.. xf3 19 gxf3
h5 with the better chances for Black despite
his pawn minus. Positions with opposite­
coloured bishops tend to favour the side
with the initiative.
Alternatively 13 ctJeg5 i.. xf3 14 lt:Jxf3
�d6 15 ctJe5 c5 16 dxc5 'iWxc5 left Black
fully equal in Nunn-M.Gurevich, Belgrade
199 1 .
13
. . .
�xf6 1 4 CLJg5 h6
This looks more incisive than 14 . . . g6,
though that too looks eminently playable.
Hector-Liiva, Stockholm 1 993 , continued
15 i.. e 4 i.. d5 16 �b 1 i.. g7 17 ct:Jf3 'iWf6 1 8
�e3 i.. xe4 19 'ifxe4 c5 with quite a good
position for Black.
1 5 �h7+
11
. . .
it.. e 7 1 2 �f4
White can simplify the position with 15
lt:Jh7 Me8 16 ct:Jxf6+ 'ifxf6 17 'ifxf6 gxf6,
but the resulting position is by no means
easy. After 18 f3 fS one plan for Black is to
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 iL g 5 dx e 4 5 ti:J x e 4 iL e 7
bring his king to f6 and put a rook on the g­
file.
1 5 . . . <it>h8 1 6 iLe4 i.. x e4 1 7 ti:Jxe4 iLe 7
1 8 c4 �d7 1 9 <it> b 1 !!adS 20 !!d3 ? !
Black need not worry about the possibility
of his opponent playing d4-dS - which
means that Black can do without the passive
10 ... c6 after which 1 1 'ik'e3 (1 1 g4!? i.. e7 12
gS i.. b 7 1 3 'ik'f4 'ik'b8 14 'ik'h4 was also very
dangerous for Black in Velimirovic-Cosma,
Niksic 1994) 1 1 . . .'ik'c7 12 tbxf6+ tbxf6 13
ctJeS aS 14 c3 a4 1 S a3 l:.aS 1 6 i.. a2 cS 17
l:.he 1 left White with a strong and well­
centralised position in Kindermann-Dreev,
Nussloch 1996.
1 1 d5! ?
Far too ambitious. White should just
centralise his other rook with 20 l:.he l .
2 0 . . . �c6 2 1 !t c 1 f5 22 l2Jd2 e 5 !
It was also possible to capture on g2 but
Gurevich's move is far more convincing.
Black liquidates his weakness on e6 and
clears the e-file for major piece action.
23 �xe5 i.. x h4 24 d5 �c5 2 5 !! h 1
�xf2
Very cold-blooded. White gets nothing.
26 !tdh3 !tde8 27 �c3 i.. f 6 28 !!xh6+?
Sheer desperation, but the position is
hopeless in any case.
28 . . . gxh6 2 9 !txh6+ <it>g7 30 'ifh3 'ii'x d2
31 !th7+ <it> g 8 0 - 1
White has run out of attacking pieces.
This is an instructive example of how to
win with Black in this opening.
Game39
Van den Doei-M. Gurevich
Wijk aan Zee 1 999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 '2Jc3 '2Jf6 4 i.. g 5
dxe4 5 l2Jxe4 iLe 7 6 i.. x f6 i.. x f6 7 '2Jf3
0-0 8 'ifd 2 l2Jd7 9 0-0-0 b6 1 0 i.. c4
For 1 0 �d3 see the previous main game.
1 0 . . . il.b7
Gurevich is about to demonstrate that
White can also just protect the knight on
e4 with either rook or queen, but Black
does not experience great difficulties in
either case:
a) 1 1 l:.he 1 i.. dS 12 i.. d3 (12 �xdS exdS
13 tbxf6+ tbxf6 was just equal and drawish
in Finkel-M.Gurevich, European Club Cup,
Belgrade 1 999, whereas 12 'ifd3 c6 13 i..b 3
bS 1 4 �xdS cxdS 1 S tbxf6+ tbxf6 16 "ifxbS
gave Black a tremendous attack down the b­
and c- files in W edberg-Nielsen, Reykjavik
Zonal 2000) 12 . . . cS 13 c4 i.. b 7 14 dxcS (14
dS! ? exdS 1 S cxdS c4 16 i.. c 2 bS 17 �b 1
'ik'b6 1 8 'iff4 l:.ad8 led to a complex
struggle in Reinderman-M.Gurevich,
Andorra Zonal 1998) 14 .. .'iVe7! (a thematic
pawn sacrifice which opens lines against
White's king - 14 . . . bxcS 1S tbxf6+ "ifxf6 16
"ifc2 g6 1 7 �e4 was slightly better for
White in Hi.ibner-Short, N ovi Sad
Olympiad 1990) 15 lL'lxf6+ lL'lxf6 16 cxb6
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
axb6 1 7 � b 1 :as and Black had a strong
initiative for the sacrificed pawn in David­
M.Gurevich, Amsterdam 2000.
b) 1 1 'iff4 �dS (1 1 . . . �xe4 12 'i¥xe4 �e7
13 lt:Jes lt:Jf6 14 'iff3 lt:Jds 15 �b 1 'iVd6 16
�he 1 a6 1 7 �d3 bS was also very
reasonable for Black in Kindermann­
Chernin, Dortmund 1 990, but 1 1 . . .�e7 is
dangerous for Black because of 12 dS) 12
�d3 (12 �xdS exdS is fine for Black)
12 . . . �e7 1 3 c4 �b7 14 g4!? (attempting to
improve on Hi.ibner-M.Gurevich, Germany
1 992, which went 14 h4 lt:Jf6 15 lLle5 a6 16
lt:Jxf6+ �xf6 1 7 �e4 �xe4 1 8 'iVxe4 �xeS
19 dxeS 'iVe7 with an equal position)
14 . . . lt:Jf6 15 lt:Jxf6+ �xf6 16 �e4 �xe4 1 7
'ifxe4 'i¥e7! 1 8 h4 'iVb4! and Black had
excellent counterplay in the game Bologan­
M.Gurevich, Belfort 1998.
1 1 . . . b 5 ! ? 1 2 if.. b 3
16 'iVxcS? lt:Ja4 is immediately disastrous
and 16 'ifc6 is also bad because of
16 . . . �xb2+ 17 �xb2 iVf6+ 18 �c l lt:Jc4 19
iVxbS lt:Jxd6. The only other move worth
considering for White was 16 'i¥b3, but then
16 . . . 'i¥c7 17 lt:JxbS 'iVc6 leaves Black with
very dangerous attacking chances due to the
open b-file and powerful bishop on f6.
1 6 . . . tba4
Gurevich also suggested 16 . . . 'ifd7!? in his
notes.
1 7 tbe5 �b6 1 8 �d 5
1 8 lt:Jdxf7? loses to 1 8 . . . 'ii'e 6 19 �b 1
:ae8 20 f4 :xf7.
1 8 .. J1ad8 1 9 f4
This time around 19 lt:Jexf7? is bad
because of 19 . . . �xb2+ 20 �d2 iVaS+ 2 1 c3
(2 1 �e3 �d4+ will leave White's king
without a good square) 2 1 . .. 'iVxc3+ 22 �e2
'ifc4+ 23 lt:Jxc4 :txdS 24 :txdS lLlc3+ etc.
The only decent move for White. After
12 �xbS exdS 13 lt:Jxf6+ lt:Jxf6 14 :he 1 cS
Black is doing very nicely and 12 dxe6? bxc4
wins a piece because the knight on e4 is
hanging.
Once again, snatching the bS-pawn gives
Black very strong play on the b-file: 2 1
lt:JxbS :xdS 22 lt:Jxc7 llxd1+ 2 3 �xd1 :b8
is very strong despite the absence of queens.
1 2 . . . c5 1 3 t2Jd6
21 . . . a6 22 g4 if.. x e5 23 fxe 5
Once again 13 dxe6? loses a piece - this
time because of 13 . . . �xe4 14 exf7+ �h8 15
'iVxd7 'ifxd7 16 �xd7 �xf3 17 gxf3 c4
trapping the bishop.
White could also consider 23 'YixeS. Now
Black's knight heads for e6 from where it
nicely blockades White's e-pawn.
1 3 . . . if.. x d5 1 4 if.. x d5 exd 5 1 5 �xd 5 t2Jb6
�xc5 tt:Jxc5 27 b4? !
15 . . . :b8!? was also worth considering.
1 6 'ife4!
1 9 . . . c4 20 � b 1 �c7 21 .:She 1
23 . . . tt:Jc5 24 11f 1 t2Je6 2 5 .:Sf3 'it'c5 26
27 b3 was better.
27 . . . t2Jd7 28 .:Se3 tt:Jb6 29 g5 lid7 30
.:Sa3 ? !
And here White should simplify with 30
e6. As the game goes Black is slightly better.
30 . . . t2Ja4 31 .:Sf3 .:Se8 32 .l:df 1 :xe5 33
tt:Jxf7 .:Se8 ! 34 �c1 c3 35 t2Je5 .l:i.de7 36
tLid3 t2Jb6 37 t2Jf2 t2Jd5 38 tt:Jd 1 tt:Jxb4
In time trouble Black snatches a pawn
and lets his opponent off the hook. He
should have played 38 .. J�e 1 39 ::txe 1 :xe1
40 a3 :g1 41 h4 :h 1 when White is in deep
trouble.
39 CL:lxc3 l:1c7 40 �b2 l:1d7 4 1 l:1f4 CL:lc6
42 a4 bxa4 43 CL:lxa4 �d6 44 CL:lc5 h6
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 Ji. g 5 dx e 4 5 t[j x e 4 !JJ.. e 7
45 gxh6 lixh6 46 tt:Jxa6 .:!.xh2 47 l1 1 f2
exchange sacrifice.
V2 - V2
9 . . Wkxf6 1 0 Ji.d3 iJ.. b 7
.
Game40
Kindermann-Bareev
P ardub ic e 1994
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 ctJf6 4 !JJ.. g 5
dxe4 5 tt:Jxe4 �e 7 6 !JJ.. xf6 �xf6 7 ctJf3
0-0 8 �d2 b6
The idea behind this order of moves is to
avoid the line in which White's bishop
comes to c4 after 8 . . . Ct:Jd7 9 0-0-0 b6 10
i.c4, though it is arguable whether this is so
fearsome for Black. The negative side of
8 . . . b6 is demonstrated in the current game.
Black has also played 8 . . . i.e7 in this
position which avoids the exchange of the
dark-squared bishop but loses valuable time.
For example:
a) 9 i.d3 b6 10 CLJeg5!? was an interesting
plan that was used in Gelfand-Bareev,
Linares 1992, the game continuing 10 . . . h6
1 1 .i.h7+ \t>h8 12 i.e4 i.xg5 ! 13 CLJxg5 c6
14 Ct:Jf3 i.b7 15 CLJe5 'iic 7 16 'iif4 �g8 17
'ii'g 3 and now 1 7 ... .l:c8 intending ... Ct:Jd7
would have steered the game to safe waters
for Black (rather than 1 7 . . . Ct:Jd7?! 18 CLJxc6
'iix g3 19 hxg3 \t>h8 20 0-0-0 as played in
the game) .
b) An interesting recent example of this
line was seen in Ehlvest-Khalifman, Bali
2000, which went 9 0-0-0 'iid5!? (Khalifman
was on the other side of this position in
Khalifman-Bareev, Belgrade 1993, that
game continuing 9 . . . CLJd7 10 i.c4 a6!? 1 1
i.b3 c6 1 2 'iff4 b 5 1 3 h 4 .l:a7 1 4 Ct:Jeg5 Ct:Jf6
1 5 c3 "iYc7 16 CLJe5 c5 1 7 i.c2 cxd4 and
now 1 8 'ifxd4! would have been White's
best) 10 CLJc3 'ii a5 1 1 CLJe5 i.b4 12 CLJc4
i.xc3 1 3 CLJxa5 .i.xd2+ 14 .l:xd2 b6 1 5 CLJc4
J.b7 16 Ct:Je3 Ct:Jd7 17 ..tb5 'Llf6 1 8 f3 .l:fd8
19 .l:hd1 �f8 V2 - V2 .
9 tt:Jxf6+ !
First played by Chandler, this virtually
forces Black into making a dubious
After 10 . . . h6 1 1 i.e4 White has an
unpleasant bind on the position.
1 1 CL\g5 h6
1 l . ..g6?! weakens Black's kingside and
gives White a strong attack after 12 0-0-0
CLJc6 (and not 12 . . . ifxd4? 13 Ct:Jxh7) 13 h4
CLJxd4 14 h5, as in Sax-M.Gurevich, Manila
lnterzonal 1990.
1 2 CL\h7 �xd4 1 3 ctJxf8 �xf8
Psakhis later suggested the line
13 . . . 'iix b2! ? 14 i.h7+ �h8 15 0-0 CLJa6 16
CLJxe6 �xh7 which he felt gave Black
enough for a draw. This idea has either been
ignored or gone unnoticed as nobody seems
to have tried it in practice.
1 4 c3 �h4
14 . . . "ife5+ 15 i.e2 CLJc6 16 0-0 .l:d8 17
ife 1 left Black with very little compensation
in Almasi-Dreev, Tilburg 1 994.
1 5 g3!
This makes it difficult for Black to obtain
compensation. After the older 15 0-0-0
i.xg2 16 �hg1 i.c6 Black has two pawns
for the exchange and a solid position.
1 5 . . .'iVf6 1 6 l:lf 1
tt:Jd7
1 7 f4 tt:Jc5 1 8
0-0-0 Ji.d5
Black now faces a grim defensive struggle
to save half a point. His last move deviates
from the stem game in this line, Chandler­
D.Prasad, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. That
encounter continued 18 ... a5 19 .i.c2 it.. c6 20
Fre n c h Cla s s ic a l
'iYe3 a4 2 1 �d4 'iYe7 2 2 f5 and now
22 . . . 'iYf6 intending 23 . . . e5 would have kept
White at bay.
Game 41
Leko-Khalifman
1 9 c4 ttJxd3+ 20 'iYxd3 it.c6 21 �d4?!
Budapest 2000
White should want to keep the queens on
so 21 g4 was better. Black in turn should
take the opportunity to exchange.
dxe4 5 lZJxe4 it.e 7 6 it.xf6 it.xf6 7 ttJf3
2 1 . . . We7 ? ! 22 �e3 iff5 23 g4!
0-0 8 it.c4
Starting the process of softening up
Black's king.
1
e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 it.g5
23 . . . �xg4 24 �e5 l:cS 2 5 l: g 1 �h4 26
A natural developing move which
envisions putting the queen on e2 in some
lines. 8 'iYd3 is seen in Game 42.
l:xg7 �xh2 27 l:e 1 ! it.d7 28 c 5 ! iff2
8 . . . ttJc6 ! ?
29 c6 it.e8 30 ifxe6+ <it>fS 3 1 �e5
Attempting t o reveal the dark side of
White's plan by playing for an early ... e6-e5.
The traditional mode of development is to
play 8 . . . CDd7 though this is quite dangerous
for Black after 9 'iVe2 il.e7 10 0-0-0!? (10
0-0 c5 11 d5 exd5 12 il.xd5 CDb6 13 il.b3
'i'c7 was fine for Black in Smirin-Lputian,
Wijk aan Zee 1993) with the game Topalov­
Kramnik, Monaco 1997, proceeding 10 ... c6
1 1 h4 b5 12 il.d3 'iYc7 13 �b 1 tDf6
(13 . . . c5!? 14 dxc5 CDxc5 looks interesting,
offering a pawn to open lines against
White's king) 14 CDxf6+ il.xf6 15 'iYe4 g6 16
h5 jLb7 1 7 hxg6 hxg6 1 8 CDe5 ::tfd8 1 9
'iYg4 (the immediate 1 9 CDxg6 i s met by
19 . . . ::txd4, but now this is a threat)
19 . . . jLxe5 20 dxe5 'iYxe5 2 1 jLxg6! with a
very dangerous attack.
The spectacular 3 1 �xf7+ il.xf7 32
'iYxc8+ �g7 33 'iYg4+ il.g6 34 'iYd7+ iJ7 35
'iYd2 would have been stronger, but White
1s wmnmg m any case.
.
.
.
.
3 1 . . . l:d8
Sacrificing the queen for two rooks with
3 1 . .. 'iYxe 1+ 32 'iYxe 1 �xg7 would also be
quite hopeless for Black after 33 'iYe5+.
32 l:gg 1 �c5+ 33 �xc5+ bxc5 34 :es
:d4 35 l:xc5 :xt4 36 :g3 :11 + 37
Wc2 l:f2+ 38 Wb3 f5 39 l:e3 f4 40 l:e 1
h5 41 fH5+ it.f7+ 42 Wc3 h4 43 l:h 1
l:f3+ 44 <it>d4 h3 45 We4 l:f2 46 l:xh3
Wg7 47 :xt4 :xb2 48 l:a3
48 �g3+ would have been more accurate.
48 . . . :c2
Black could hold out a bit longer with
48 . . . ::tb4+ 49 �e3 ::tb6.
49 :g3+ it.g6+ 50 Wd5 l:xa2 51 We6
1 -0
9 c3
9 lt:Jxf6+ led to a quick draw after
9 .. .'iVxf6 10 0-0 eS 1 1 ctJxeS ctJxeS 12 dxeS
Th e Burn Va ria tio n : 4 iL g 5 dx e 4 5 C[j x e 4 iL e 7
'ifxe5 1 3 c3 in Balashov-Dreev, Elista 1995.
In the game J .Polgar-Shirov, Prague match
1995, White attempted to inhibit Black's
intended . . . e6-e5 by playing 9 �b5 but this
has the drawback that it loses valuable time.
Shirov in fact found a nice tactic with
9 . . . �d7 10 'ifd2 (10 CLJc5 �e8! 1 1 CLJxb7?
'ifb8 is not to be recommended for White)
10 . . . �e7 1 1 0-0 CLJe5 ! and after 12 CLJxeS
�xb5 13 c4 �a6 was already slightly better
on account of his bishop pair.
9
. . .
e5 1 0 d5
1 0 dxe5 CLJxeS 1 1 CLJxf6+ 'ifxf6 12 CLJxe5
'iix e5+ was probably an attempt to achieve a
quick handshake in the game Spassky­
Shirov, P aris/Internet 2000, but after 13
�e2 �e8! 14 'ifxe5 �xe5+ 1 5 �d2 �e6! 16
�xe6 �d8+ 1 7 <it>c2 �e2+ 1 8 �b3 fxe6
Black was already much better. Pushing on
to d5 is the only serious option for White.
play 14 . . . b5 against his next unsuspecting
opponent with the idea that 15 �d3 is
answered by 15 ... e4! 16 �xe4? �e8 winning
a p1ece.
a2) 12 'ifd2 �h8 13 0-0-0 �g4 14 .i.e2
'ifd6 15 CLJh4 �g8 16 g3 :tad8 when Black
stood well in the game Anand-Shirov,
Sydney (Olympic Exhibition) 2000.
b) 10 . . . CLJa5 !? might appeal to those with
a more exotic taste in chess moves but it
could be quite playable. Baklan­
Goloshchapov, Ordzhonikidze Zonal 2000,
continued 1 1 �d3 b6 12 h4!? and now
12 . . . CLJb7! was the correct move (rather than
12 . . . g6 13 h5 i.g4 14 'ifd2 i.g7 15 hxg6
hxg6 16 CLJfg5 as played in the game) .
1 1 �e2
Aiming to castle long is the only way that
White can really trouble his opponent.
Instead 1 1 0-0 i.g4 12 h3 Jixf3 13 �xf3
i.e7 14 �b5 a6 15 �a4 CLJd7 16 :ad l �d6
17 b4 CiJf6 18 CLJxf6+ 'ifxf6 19 �xf6 gxf6 20
i.c2 aS produced a drawish-looking
endgame in Ivanchuk-Ehlvest, Reggio
Emilia 1990.
11
1o
. . .
tt:Jbs
This has been the most popular choice,
but Black's position is certainly not easy in
either the game continuation or Short­
Gurevich in the note to White's 12th move.
He might therefore have to consider the
two other knight moves in this position:
a) 10 . . . CLJe7 1 1 CLJxf6+ gxf6 and now:
al) Short-M.Gurevich, 4NCL 2000, went
12 CLJh4 ctJg6 1 3 �h5 �d7 14 h3 and now
Gurevich annotated his 14 . . . CiJxh4 as being
a dubious move but without suggesting an
improvement; I suspect that he wants to
. . .
iLf5 1 2 0-0-0
This is certainly not the only move, since
White has tried no less than three
alternatives of which Short's play in 'c'
looks like the most dangerous for Black:
a) After 12 0-0 Black can equalise with
12 . . . �xe4 (12 . . . CLJd7 13 �ad 1 �xe4 14
'ifxe4 ctJc5 also looked fine for Black in
Hernandez-Shirov, Merida 2000) 13 �xe4
'ifd6 14 �ad1 l2Jd7 15 i.b5 tt:Jb6!?
(15 ... l2Jc5 is also possible) 16 �fe 1 a6 17
i.d3 g6, as in Sutovsky-Psakhis, Pula Zonal
2000.
b) 12 CLJg3 �g4 13 h3 �xf3 14 'ifxf3
l2Jd7 15 ctJe4 �e7 16 0-0-0 .i.d6 17 g4 �b8
1 8 g5 b5 produced a double-edged struggle
which Black eventually won in Leko-Shirov,
Frankfurt 2000.
c) White obtained a much improved
version of this in Short-M.Gurevich,
Shenyang 2000, after 12 .ltd3 .1Lxe4 13
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
�xe4 C2Jd7 14 0-0-0 � e 7 1 5 g 4 i.. d 6 16
�b 1 .:tb8 1 7 h4 with the makings of a very
strong attack on the kingside.
1 2 . . ..�:Jd 7 1 3 ctJ g 3 il.g6 1 4 il.d3 !
A considerable improvement on
Bologan-M.Gurevich, Belfo rt 1 999, in
which Black obtained excellent play after 14
h4 e4! 15 ctJxe4 .:te8 16 C2Jxf6+ 'ifxf6 17
'ifd2 ctJb6 and after the further 18 .tb3
'iff5 19 .tc2 'ifxc2+ 20 'irxc2 .txc2 2 1
�xc2 .:tad8 won back his pawn. By
preventing the freeing 14 . . . e4, Leko keeps
Black bottled up.
attempt by Black to free his position with
27 .. .f5? is met by 28 gxf5 gxf5 29 C2Jd6 .:f8
30 .:th5, forcing strategic capitulation with
30 . . . f4.
26 'iie 2 'iie 6 27 � b 1
1 4 . . . il.xd3 1 5 'ii x d3 l2Jc5 1 6 'it'e3 b6 1 7
h4! ?
1 7 ctJe4 was also better for White but the
text is much sharper.
1 7 . . . �e8
17 . . . e4! ? 18 ctJxe4 .:te8 would have given
Black some compensation for his pawn and
certainly a lot more freedom. Now it gets a
bit grim.
1 8 l2Je4 l2Jxe4 1 9 'ii x e4 g6 20 g4 il.g7
21 h5
Black's problems stem from the fact that
his bishop has been made 'bad' by the
inhibiting effect of the e4-pawn. Both 21 g5
and 2 1 ctJd2 were quite good too.
2 1 . . . 'ii f 6
Activating the 'bad bishop' with
2 1 . .. �h6+ 22 �b 1 .tf4 runs into 23 hxg6
hxg6 24 C2Jd4! threatening to hop into c6 or
even e6.
27 . . . e4?
Black forcibly unleashes the bishop on g7
but gains little compensation for his pawn.
In retrospect it would have been better to
try and do this with 27 .. .f5!? 28 gxf5 gxf5,
leaving Black's king a bit open but keeping
material parity. White would continue with
29 .:dgl (or maybe 29 ctJfl ! ? to come to e3
or g3) .
28 'ii xe4 'ii c8 29 'ii d 3 �d8 30 'ife2 l:.e6
30 . . . .:xc3? 3 1 bxc3 'ifxc3 32 ctJb3
defends everything.
3 1 l2Je4 .thd 1 +
O r 3 1 . . . f5 3 2 .:xd8+ 'ifxd8 3 3 gxf5 gxf5
34 'ifc4 �f7 35 f4!
22 hxg6 hxg6 23 lLld2 ! c6
32 'ii x d 1 'ifc6 33 'ii d 3 aS 34 .:1d 1 il.e5
Capturing the pawn on f2 would see a
dramatic increase in the pressure after
23 . . . 'ifxf2 24 .:tdf1 'ifc5 25 'iff3 'ife7 26
ctJe4 .:tad8 27 g5 . In fact Black would be
utterly helpless in this line.
3 5 'iie 3 'ii c7 ? !
Allowing the rook t o come into d5
makes it easier for White.
36 .:1d5 il.g7 37 'ii d 3 :ea 38 .:1d7 'ifes
39 a4 :ta 40 'ii d 5 'iit4 41 l2Jd6 Aes 42
24 dxc6 :ac8 2 5 f3 �xc6
l2Jc4 il.c7 43 'iic 6 il.d8 44 �b7 �g7 45
Black should certainly take the
opportunity to exchange queens given the
vulnerability of his king and the strength of
the queen and knight team. In any case
White would have a clear advantage after
25 . . ."ifxc6 26 �xc6 l:.xc6 27 ctJe4 as the
l2Jxb6
The harvest of pawns commences.
Black's case is hopeless.
45 . . . il.xb6 46 .:1xb6 .:1d8 47 �a6 'ii'd 2
48 'iVe4 �d5 49 �a7 g 5 50 Wa2 �c5 51
ifd4+ ifxd4 52 cxd4 �d5 53 Wb3 1 -0
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 .i. g 5 dx e 4 5 ti:J x e 4 .i. e 7
Game42
Milos-Shirov
L as Veg as 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 ti:Jc3 ti:Jf6 4 �gS
dxe4 5 Ci:Jxe4 �e 7 6 �xf6 �xf6 7 ti:Jf3
0-0 8 'i'd3
challenging) 13 dxcS (13 .i.bS a6 14 i.xd7
'ifxd7 15 dxcS 'iVa4! gives Black excellent
compensation for his pawn) 13 . . . 'ife7 14 h5
i.xf3 15 lLlxf3 l:tfc8 with excellent play.
b) In a subsequent game from the same
match, Shirov chose 1 1 tLlfgS and play saw
1 1 . .. i.xe4 (1 1.. .i.xg5+ was Black's earlier
choice after which Milos probably intended
12 hxgS i.xe4 13 'iVxe4 'ifxg5+ 14 �b 1
anyway) 12 'iVxe4 i.xg5+ 13 hxgS 'ifxg5+ 14
Wb 1 CLJf6 15 'ifc6 and White had barely
adequate compensation for his pawn.
1 0 h4! ti:Jf6 1 1 ti:Jfg S Ci:Jxe4 1 2 'ifxe4 g6
12 . . . i.xg5+ 13 hxgS 'ifxg5+ 14 f4 'iVg6 15
'iff3 gives White a strong initiative for the
pawn, but this might have been preferable
to the game continuation, after which White
soon develops a very strong attack.
1 3 �c4 l:.b8 1 4 'ife3 �f6 1 5 f4 bS 1 6
�b3 aS 1 7 h S �xgS 1 8 hxg 6 ? !
An interesting alternative to the usual 8
'iV d2, though it does have a slightly artificial
feel. For 8 i.c4 see the next game.
8 . . . ti:Jd7
The natural move and probably the best.
8 . . . tLlc6?! is an attempt to take advantage of
the awkward position of White's queen
(with a subsequent lunge to b4) though it
has the drawback of blocking Black's c­
pawn. Speelman-Nogueiras, Lucerne 1989,
continued 9 0-0-0 i.e7 10 a3 ! 'iVdS 1 1 tLlc3
'iV aS 12 'iVe3 kld8 13 .i.d3 g6 14 i.e4 i.d7
15 h4 hS 1 6 tLld2 (16 dS! ?) 16 . . . 'iVb6 17
tLlb3 lLlaS 18 lLlxaS 'iVxaS and now 19 g4!
would have launched a very dangerous
attack.
This is certainly a spectacular move, but
after Black's simple reply White must have
regretted giving his opponent the f-file. The
immediate 18 fxgS was better.
9 0-0-0 �e7
1 8 . . . fxg6
Freeing the f6-square for the knight but
losing time. More usual is 9 . . . b6 and after 10
h4 i.b7:
a) 1 1 tLlegS can be answered by the
energetic 1 l . .. g6 12 �e3 cS!? (12 ... h6 13
tLle4 i.g7 was also okay for Black in
J.Polgar-Bareev, Madrid 1 994, but
Gurevich's pawn offer is altogether more
18 . . . a4 was suggested by Milos in his
notes, but it seems to be bad because of 19
fxgS axb3 20 l:txh7 fxg6 21 l:tdh 1 bxa2
(both 2 1 . . .iVds 22 l:h8+ Wf7 23 iVf4+ iVfs
24 �xc7+ �e8 25 �xf8+ �xf8 26 'iYxb8
and 2 1 . .JH1+ 22 Mxf1 �xh7 23 'iVeS look
winning for White) 22 Mh8+ �f7 23 M 1h7+
�e8 24 Mxf8+ �xf8 25 'iVf4+ followed by
Fre n c h C la s s ic a l
mate. Note that 1 8 . . . iH6 loses t o 19 'iVh3 .
1 9 fxg 5 Wi/e7 20 l:.df 1
20 .:he 1 looks more natural.
20 . . . i.d7 2 1 a3 a4?
After this the endgames are much more
dangerous for Black because of the danger
of White's king coming in via b4. It would
have been better to simplify with 2 1.. .:xfl+
22 :xfl :f8.
22 i.a2 l:. x f 1 + 23 l:. x f 1 l:.f8 2 4 l:.xf8+
Wxf8 25 �f4+ We8
25 . . . 'iVf7 26 'iVxf7+ �xf7 27 �d2 �e7 28
�c3 �d6 29 �b4 clearly illustrates the
problem with Black's 2 1st.
26 wd2 b4
A desperate lunge before White's king
comes to c3 .
27 �e5 Wd8 28 'ifh8+ i.e8
29 'iff6
bxa3 30 bxa3 'ifxf6
After 30 . . . �d7 White should play 3 1
'iVxe7+ �xe7 3 2 c4! e S 3 3 cS! exd4 3 4 �d3
when Black's bishop is bad and his pawns
(especially a4) are weak. Note that 34 �d3
�f7 35 .i.xf7 �xf7 36 �xd4 �e6 37 �e4
wins for White because he takes the
opposition.
31 gxf6 W d 7 ?
Losing on the spot. Black's last chance to
stay on the board was with either 3 1 ...i!.d7
or 3 l . . .�f7.
creates potential weaknesses should Black
break out.
Occasionally White has played 7 lt:Jxf6+
'ifxf6 8 lt:Jf3 which immediately gets back
the bishop pair and hopes to keep a small
space advantage. But the problem with this
plan is that Black finds it all too easy to free
his game with . . . c7-c5 and/ or . . . e6-e5. An
example of Black equalising and then going
on to outplay his opponent was Prokes­
Tartakower, Budapest 1929, which is worth
giving in full because of the instructive way
Black sets about making something out of
nothing: 8 . . .0-0 9 .td3 lt:Jd7 10 0-0 cS 1 1 c3
cxd4 12 cxd4 eS! (Black frees his game
completely; 12 ... b6 is dubious because of 13
'iVc2 h6 14 �e4 .ta6 1 5 .txa8 .txfl 1 6
�xfl :xa8 1 7 'iVc 6 with strong pressure) 1 3
dxeS ctJxeS 14 ctJxeS 'iVxeS 15 'iVc2 g 6 1 6
:fe l 'iff6 1 7 .te4 �e6! (rather more than
freeing Black's game - White has to be
careful that he doesn't slip into an inferior
position) 18 �xb7 :ab8 19 'i!Vc7 'iVxb2 20
�e4 :b4 21 'iic2 :c8 22 'ifxb2 :xb2 23 a4
aS (Black is now clearly better - White's a­
pawn is fixed on a light square and Black's
rooks are much more active) 24 h3 �g7 25
.i.d3 .:_c3 26 :e2 .=.xe2 27 .txe2 �f6 28
.i.bs �e7 29 :dl :b3 30 .:td4 :b4 31 :dl
i!.b3 32 :al
3 2 d5! 1 -0
32 dS eS 33 d6 cxd6 34 f7 wins Black's
bishop.
Game43
Topalov-Bareev
Li n ares 1994
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 li:Jc3 li:Jf6 4 i.g5
dxe4 5 lt:Jxe4 i.e 7 6 i.xf6 i.xf6 7 c3
This apparently innocent-looking move
conceals megalomaniac intent. By delaying
the development of his knight to f3, White
hopes to establish a better grip on eS by
advancing his f-pawn to f4. The drawback
of this is that it uses a lot of time and
78
32 . . . �d6 33 �fl �cS 34 �e l �d4 35
�d2 �dS (enabling Black's rook to come
to the seventh rank) 36 g3 Ilb2+ 37 �e l
Th e Burn Va ria tio n : 4 il.. g 5 dx e 4 5 tD x e 4 il.. e 7
�b3 3 8 h4 f6 39 .ta6 �c3 40 �b5 �b4 4 1
�d7 �a2 4 2 �b l �c3 4 3 �cl+ �c2 44 �bl
�b2 45 �c 1+ �c2 46 h5 �b7 47 �c6 �e7+
48 �fl �b2 49 l:xc2+ (forced because of
49 �e l �d3+) 49 ... �xc2 50 hxg6 hxg6 5 1
f3 �b3 52 g4 �c7 5 3 �e8 g5 54 �f2 �c3
55 .tb5 �d4 56 �g3 �e3 57 �e8 �c l 58
�b5 �g1+ 59 �h2 �f2 60 �c6 �cl 61
.i.d5 �c7 62 �e4 �g7 0-1 . A very finely
played endgame by Black.
7 . . . t:iJd7 8 'ifc2
A new move at the time of the game, but
not particularly effective. 8 f4 0-0 9 ti:Jf3 b6
10 .i.d3 �b7 1 1 0-0 c5 12 dxc5 ctJxc5 13
ctJxc5 bxc5 14 'if c2 g6 left Black rather
more than equal in Boll-Dreev, Tilburg
1 993 . 8 ti:Jf3 is probably White's best,
though this defeats the object of playing 7
c3 .
8 . . . e 5 ! 9 dxe 5 ? !
White should try 9 0-0-0!?
14 . . . gxf6 1 5 il.. x h7+ �g7 ! 1 6 'i'ie4 .:te8 !
Fantastic chess! Both 16 . . . 'i'xe4+ 17
�xe4 �e8 and 1 6 . . . ti:Jd3+ would be better
for Black, but he has bigger fish to fry.
1 7 'i!fxe8 iJ.. f 5 1 8 'i!fxa8
It's too late to turn back - 18 'i'e7 ti:Jd3+
19 �fl .i.xh7 wins the rook on h 1 and 1 8
'i'a4 ti:Jd3+ 1 9 �fl �xh7 2 0 'i'dl �e8!
leaves White without a decent move.
1 8 . . .'i!fe4+ 1 9 �f2
Through lack of a good alternative
White's king decides to head for the hills.
Both 19 �fl 'i'g2+ 20 �e l ti:Jd3+ 21 �dl
�g4+ and 19 �d 1 'JJic2+ 20 �e 1 ti:Jd3+ lead
to mate.
1 9 . . . 'i!fg2+ 20 �e3 t:iJd5+ 21 �d4 'i!fd2+
22 �c5 'i!fe3+! 23 �c4
Instant death follows 23 �xd5 .i.e6 mate
and 23 �b5 'i'b6+ 24 �c4 ctJe3 mate.
23 . . . CDb6+ 0 - 1
Now 24 �b3 'ife6+ also leads to mate.
9 . . . CDxe5 1 0 f 4 CDg6 1 1 g 3 0 - 0 1 2 iJ.. d 3
Game44
ifd 5 ! 1 3 a 3 ? ?
J . Polgar-Bareev
H ast ing s 1993
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 CDc3 t:iJf6 4 il.. g 5
dxe4 5 CDxe4 t:iJbd7
This line is less popular than 5 ... �e7 but
is nevertheless quite playable
6 t:iJf3
In this game we see a slightly unusual
move order. The position after Black's
seventh move is more commonly reached
via 6 tLlxf6+ tt:Jxf6 7 ti:Jf3 h6.
6 . . . h6 7 CDxf6+ Gxf6 8 il.. e 3
Overlooking a brilliant combination. 13
tLlxf6+? is also bad because of 13 ... gxf6 14
0-0-0 'ifxh 1 1 5 .i.e4 �f5!; but 13 ctJe2
avoids the immediate danger.
1 3 . . . tDxf4 1 4 tDxf6+
The point of Bareev's combination is
that 14 gxf4 is answered by 14 . . ..th4+ 1 5
� f l (or 1 5 �e2 fs 1 6 b3 �h8) 1 5 . . . f5 ,
Black emerging the exchange u p after 1 6
ctJd2 �xh 1 1 7 ct:Jdf3 .1i e 7 etc.
The plan of maintaining the pin with 8
.i.h4 is seen in Game 45.
8 . . . iJ.. d 6
A natural and perfectly playable move ...
if Black follows up correctly. There is an
interesting alternative in 8 . . . a6 with which
Black prepares to fianchetto his queen's
bishop without having to worry about
checks on bS. He also avoids committing
his king, keeping the option of castling
Fre n c h Cla s s ic a l
queenside. Zhang-M.Gurevich, Cap d'Agde
2000, continued 9 tt:Je5 b6 10 c3 .ib7 1 1
'ifa4+ tt:Jd7 (and not 1 1 . . .b5 1 2 .ixb5+) 12
c4 .i.d6 13 0-0-0 'ife7 14 f4 ii.xe5 1 5 dxe5
0-0-0 16 .i.e2 g5 with excellent counterplay.
9 �d3
A rather exotic-looking move with
violent intent. In subsequent games in this
line White tended to prefer the natural 9
i.d3 but without setting the world on fire.
The game Almasi-Hi.ibner, Baden 1999,
continued 9 . . . 'W/e7 (Huhner was on the
opposite side of this position in the game
Hi.ibner-Nogueiras, Elista Olympiad 1998,
and evidently prefers to keep the option of
a queenside fianchetto rather than bringing
his queen's bishop to c6 via d7. That game
went 9 . . . .id7 10 'Wie2 'Wie7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 c4
c5 13 .i:.ad 1 .i:.fd8 14 i.b 1 i.a4 15 b3 i.c6
16 ctJe5 �e4 17 i.xe4 ctJxe4 18 .i:.d3 with a
very slight edge for White.) 10 0-0 0-0 1 1
.i:.e1 b 6 1 2 c4 i.b7 1 3 d5 .i:.ae8 1 4 h 3 V2 - V2 .
9 . . . b6 1 0 l21e5 it.b7
White's reply severely interferes with
White's development. Black should get his
king out of the way with 10 . . . 0-0 and only
after 1 1 0-0-0 complete the fianchetto of his
bishop (1 1 . . . ii.b7) .
1 1 �b5+ l21d7 1 2 0-0-0 a 6 1 3 'ifb3 ? !
of White's queen and develops excellent
counterplay.
1 3 . . . b5! 1 4 c4
Polgar tries to prevent Black's bishop
from becoming entrenched in the centre. 14
f4 i.d5 15 'ifd3 0-0 is very comfortable for
Black.
1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 f4
Naturally White refuses the pawn offer as
15 cxb5 .id5 16 ii.c4 tt:Jb6 17 .ixd5 tt:Jxd5
would see lines opening up in front of her
king.
1 5 . . . it.e4 1 6 c5 it.e7 1 7 it.d3 it.xg2 !
A cold-blooded and correct decision.
Opening lines in front of the king may seem
very risky but then risk is inevitable in such
a sharp position. After 17 . . . ii.xd3 18 'Wixd3
tiJf6 19 g4 'WidS 20 g5 hxg5 2 1 fxg5 ctJe4 22
.i:.hg 1 White's attack is very dangerous in
any case.
1 8 �hg 1 i.. d 5 1 9 �c2 f5 20 l21g6 l1e8
In her notes to the game Polgar
suggested 20 . . . .i:.f7 21 c6 tt:Jf6 22 ctJe5 i::I b 8
(counterattack rather than passive defence)
23 .i:.g6 .i:.b6 24 .i:.dg 1 ctJg4, though this is
far from clear after 25 .i:.6xg4 (or 25 .i:. 1 xg4
fxg4 26 f5) .
20 . . . .i:.f6!? was another interesting line,
intending simply to eliminate the dangerous
knight (White's key attacking piece) with an
exchange sacrifice.
21 c6
The weakness of the c6-pawn gives Black
more chances for counterplay. White should
prefer the immediate 2 1 'ife2.
21 . . . l21f8 22 ttJe5 i.. h 4?
Black in turn goes astray. He should have
played 22 . . . .if6 23 'ife2 .i:.e7, meeting 24
'ifhS with 24 ... 'ife8 25 'ifxh6 .ixeS 26 fxe5
'ifxc6+.
23 �e 2!
Polgar later felt that 13 'Wie2! 0-0 14 f4,
intending .i:.g1 and g2-g4, would have been
even stronger. Over the next few moves
Black manages to exploit the poor position
23 .i:.xg7+ doesn't quite work after
23 . . . <it'xg7 24 .i:.gl+ <it'h7 25 .ixf5+ exf5 26
ifxf5+ <it'h8 27 tt:Jf7+ .ixf7 28 ifxf7 .ig5 .
23 . . .'�f6 24 Wih 5 1::I e d8
With 24 . J::t e 7 Black could hope for 25
.
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 iL g 5 dx e 4 5 11J x e 4 iL e 7
CLJg6? (White should prepare this with 25
.l:dfl) 25 ... CLJxg6 26 .l:xg6 ..tf3! Now White
comes crashing through.
25 llxg7+! �xg7
moves with which Vaganian contests the
initiative. He invites a white rook to come
to d7, correctly envisioning that it can be
repulsed.
Or 25 .. .'�xg7 26 Mgl .
2 6 .:l: g 1 + �hS
26 ... �h7 27 CLJg4 'iVg6 28 'ifxh4 1s
equally deadly.
27 11Jf7+ �h7 28 Lt:'lxh6 1 -0
Black is mated after 28 CLJxh6 'ifxh6 29
'iff7+ �h8 30 'iVg8.
Game 45
Rozentalis-Vaganian
Budapest 1996
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 4Jd2 dxe4 4 11Jxe4
4Jd7 5 11Jf3 4Jgf6 6 4Jxf6+ 4Jxf6 7 il.g5
1 9 .:l:xd4 �xd4 20 .:l:d 1 �b6 21
h6
il.c5 22 il.f3 .:l:cS ! 2 3 . g3
Here we arrive at the same position as in
the previous game, but via a Rubinstein
move order. For the immediate 7 . . . c5 see
Game 47.
When he played his 1 8th move, Vaganian
must have seen that 23 .l:xb7+ is met by
23 . . . 'ifxb7 24 ..txb7 ..txf2+ 25 'ifxf2 :cl+
26 'iffl :xfl+ 27 �xfl �xb7 when Black
emerges with a winning king and pawn
endgame.
8 il.h4 c 5 9 il.e2 il.d7
.:l:d7
One of the main ideas behind placing the
bishop on e2 is that after 9 . . . cxd4 10 'ifxd4
'ifxd4 1 1 CLJxd4 White brings the bishop to
f3 and obtains quite serious pressure against
Black's queenside.
Exchanging rooks with 25 .l:xc8+ would
have made it easier to draw. Now White
must suffer.
1 0 0-0 �b6?
25 . . . �c7 26 nc3 �d6 27 Wg2
This over-ambitious move could have
had unexpectedly serious consequences.
Black should play either 10 ... ..te7 or
10 . . . cxd4 1 1 'ifxd4 .tc6.
And not 27 b4 ..txf2+! 28 �xf2 'ifd4+
etc.
1 1 11Je5 ! cxd4 1 2 il.xf6
White is tempted by the possibility of
making Black's king wander and thereby
misses a golden opportunity. In fact he
could have won on the spot with 12 ..th5!
CLJxh5 1 3 'ifxh5 g6 14 CLJxg6! etc.
23 . . . .:l:c7 24 .:l:dS+ .:l:cS 25 .:l:d3
27 . . . llc7 28 �h7 �fS 29 �e4 f5 30
'ii e 5 il.d6 31 �b5 a6 32 'i¥b3 il.c5
32 ... 'ifc8 was probably better. Now
White's pieces become active and any
winning chances fade away.
33 'ii d 1 'ii h S 34 a4 �e5 35 'iid 2 iff6
36 llc4 e5 37 'ifd5 �e7 38 il.h5 il.d4
39 llxc7 'ii x c7 40 b3 �a7 41 il.xf7 �b6
1 2 . . . gxf6 1 3 4Jxd7 �xd7 14 c3 .:l:dS 1 5
42 f3 'ii c 7 43 'ii c4
�a4+ �c7 1 6 cxd4 'it'bS!
The exchange of queens leads to a draw,
and White should certainly be satisfied with
that result. Trying to improve the king with
43 �h3? runs into the highly unpleasant
43 . . .'�c2.
Finally reaching sanctuary on the
queenside. Black is now okay.
1 7 .:l:fd 1 'i¥b4 1 8 'iVc2 lixd4
The start of a cold-blooded sequence of
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
4 3 . . . \i'xc4 4 4 .txc4 W b 8 45 .td3 Wc7
46 .txf5 a5 47 Wf1 Wd6 48 We2 We7
49 �d3 Wf6 50 .tea b6 51 �c4 i.g 1
52 W b 5 iH2 53 Wc6 i. g 1 % - %
Game46
Kasparov-Shirov
F rankfurt 2000
1
e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tbc3 tbt6 4 i.g5
dxe4 5 t2Jxe4 t2Jbd7 6 tbt3 i.e7 7 t2Jxf6+
i.xf6 8 h4
8 . . 0-0
.
Black can also try delaying castling:
a) 8 . . . a6! ? 9 'ifd2 bS 10 0-0-0 iLb7 1 1
.l:h3 iLe7 1 2 .td3 f6 1 3 .tf4 .tds 1 4 'ife2
c6 1S iLe4 �f7 16 'Dd2 'Df8 was an
interesting plan of blockade that Black: tried
in the game De Firmian-Seirawan, USA
Championship, Salt Lake City 1999. Black
plays . . . a7-a6 because the immediate 8 ... b6?
is answered by 9 iLbS iLb7 10 'DeS .
b) 8 . . . h6 9 iLxf6 leaves Black with two
ways of playing the position:
b 1) 9 . . .'Dxf6 10 'ifd2 b6 (Black should
probably castle at this point and only play
. . . b7-b6 on his next move) 1 1 0-0-0 (or 1 1
.tbS+ i.d7 1 2 i.d3) 1 1 . . ..tb7 1 2 'DeS 0-0
13 i.d3 cS! 14 dxcS 'ifc7 1S .l:he 1 (1S cxb6
ifxb6 would give Black excellent play on
the c- and b-files) 1S . . . i.xg2?? (Korchnoi is
famous for his cold-blooded defence, but
on this occasion opening the g-file proves
suicidal; 1S . . . bxcS was correct, with a
double-edged fight in prospect) 1 6 �e2
�h8 17 .l:g 1 .tds 1 8 'iff4 'ifxcS 1 9 �e3 1-0
Anand-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 2000. Black
is defenceless, e.g. 19 .. Jhc8 20 lleg3 ctJhS
21 'ifxh6+! ! gxh6 22 .l:g8+ .l:xg8 2 3 ctJxf7
mate.
b2) 9 . . . 'ifxf6 (Black aims to free h is game
with . . . e6-eS, a plan which tends to lead t o
drawish positions i n which h e i s slightly
worse) 10 'ifd2 0-0 11 0-0-0 eS 12 �e 1 ( 1 2
dxeS 'DxeS 13 'DxeS 'ifxeS 14 iLc4 i. e 6 1 S
.l:de 1 'ifcS 16 i.xe6 fxe6 gave Blac k a
slightly inferior but tenable rook e ndgame
in Degraeve-Speelman, Istanbul O lympiad
2000) 12 . .. exd4 13 'iVxd4 'ifxd4 14 ctJxd4
'Db6 1S 'Dbs c6 16 'Dd6 .l:d8 17 i. d3 � f8
1 8 'Dxc8 .l:axc8 19 i.fS .l:b8 20 g3 gave
White the slightly better endgame in Leko­
Korchnoi, Tilburg 1998.
c) 8 ... cS 9 'ifd2 (9 dxcS 'if aS+ 10 c3 "ifxcS
11 iLe3 'i¥c7 12 CDgS b6 13 i.bS a6 14 i. e2
i.b7 1S 'Yiic2 'DeS 16 i.xcS 'ifxcS 1 7 ctJe4
'ifeS 18 'Dxf6+ gxf6 19 0-0-0 i. xg2 w as
much better for Black in Sax-Korchnoi,
Lucerne 1989, though he later managed to
lose) 9 ... cxd4 10 0-0-0 eS?! (10 . . .0-0 is safer)
1 1 .l:e 1 0-0 12 'DxeS .l:e8? (Black should
play simply 12 ... 'DxeS 13 .l:xeS i.. e 6 with
only slightly the worse game) 13 'Dxf7!
.l:xe 1 + ( 13 ... <it>xf7 14 .i.c4+ <it>f8 1 S .:xe8+
'ifxe8 16 .l:e 1 gives White a winning attack)
14 'ifxe 1 �xf7 1S i.c4+ �f8 1 6 "iie 6
i.xgS+ 1 7 hxgS 'ifxgS+ 18 �b 1 'DeS 19
'i¥g8+ �e7 20 .:e1 i.d7 2 1 'ifxa8 "ifd2 22
.l:xeS+ �f6 23 a3 <iii x eS 24 'Yiib 8+ �fS 2S
'iff8+ 1-0 Timman-Korchnoi, Tilburg 199 1.
9 i.d3
9 'ifd2 eS (this equalises, though Black
could also play for a more complex game
with 9 . . . b6! ?) 10 i.xf6 ifxf6 1 1 0-0-0 exd4
12 ifxd4 'Yiixd4 13 'Dxd4 ctJf6 14 CUbS i.. fs
1 S i.d3 (and not 1S ctJxc7 .l:ac8) 15 . . . i.xd3
16 .:!xd3 .:!fc8 17 .:!hd1 �f8 18 ,:c3 c6 19
ctJd6 .:c7 with an equal position in Lutz­
Korchnoi, Zurich 1 999.
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 il.. g 5 dx e 4 5 0, x e 4 i. e 7
9 . . . c5
1 0 ife2
cxd4
11
ife4 g6
12
0-0-0 ifa 5 ?
A new but dubious idea. Black should
play 12 . . . e5 after which 13 �xf6 iYxf6 14
�b5 .l:.d8 (14 . . . iVe6!? is a suggestion of
Kostakiev) 1 5 :he 1 gives White adequate
compensation for his pawn, but no more
than that. Another rapidplay game,
Kasparov-Anand,
Kopavogur
2000,
continued 15 . . . iVb6 (Black can also play
15 . . . a6! ? when Balashov-Kruppa, Elishta
2000, continued 16 �xd7 �xd7 17 iYxe5
'ii'x e5 18 �xe5 �c6 lh -lh) 16 �c4 ctJc5 17
'ii'x e5 �e6 1 8 i.xe6 ctJxe6 19 h5 d3 20
hxg6 hxg6 2 1 .:h 1 ctJg7 22 cxd3 'ifxf2 23
.l:d2 �ac8+ 24 <i.t>b 1 'ifc5 (the position is
equal) 25 'iff4 ltJh5 26 'ifh6 'iff8 27 'ifg5
'ifc5 28 'ifh6 lh-lh .
22 ctJxe6 .:xd1+ 23 :xd1 <i.t>f7 leaves White
with nothing better than a draw by
repetition with 24 ctJg5+ �g8 25 lZJe6 <i.t>f7
etc.
22
0,xe6
fxe6
23
ifxg6+
�h8
24
ifxf6+ �h7 25 She 1
25 g5 looks very strong but Shirov
pointed out an amazing defence in
25 . . . �xh1 26 g6+ <i.t>h6 27 g7+ <i.t>hS! (and
not 27 . . . \t>h7? 28 g8'i¥ + l:hg8 29 .:d7+) .
25 . . . .l:xd 1 + 26 Sxd 1 'i'c5 ! 27 g5 �f8
28 ifh6+ �g8 29 ifxe6+ �g7 ??
1 3 i.. x f6 0,xf6 1 4 ifxd4 0,h5
An interesting move which certainly
makes a fight of it. 14 . . . \t>g7 15 h5 would
win immediately.
1 5 a 3 �d8
The endgame arising after 1 5 ... iVb6 16
'ifxb6 axb6 1 7 .:he 1 would be much better
for White due to his vastly superior
development and the weakness of Black's b­
p awns.
1 6 ife3 i.d7 1 7 g4 0,t6 1 8 iff4
According to Shirov, 1 8 h5! would have
been even stronger. He offers the following
variations as proof: 1 8 . . . ctJxg4 19 'iff4 e5
(19 . . . ctJxf2 20 hxg6 fxg6 2 1 'ifh6 wins) 20
ifg5 h6 (20 .. .f6 2 1 'ifh4 g5 22 ltJxg5 is
devastating) 21 'ife7 'ifd5 22 hxg6 'ifxf3 23
i.. e4 'iff4+ 24 <i.t>b 1 fxg6 (24 .. J�H8 25 �xb7
�e6 26 .i.xa8 .:xa8 27 f3 ! 'ifxf3 28 .:hf1
winning) 25 �xg6 'iff6 26 .:xd7 with a
huge advantage in the coming endgame.
The proverbial final error. 29 ... �h8
leaves White with nothing clear.
30 'ifh6+ ??
Kasparov in turn misses his chance, at
least this time around. 30 .:d6 would win.
30 . . . Wg8 31 'irg6+ Wh8 32 'i'h6+ Wg8
33 'i'e6+ Wg7 ? ?
Once again missing 33 . . . \t>h8 . This time
Kasparov gets it right.
34 Sd6 i.. e8 35 ife7+ 1 -0
Game47
Leko-Korchnoi
Wijk aan l ee 2000
1 8 . . . 0,d5 1 9 ii'h6 {ijf6 20 0,g 5 ? !
This seems very strong but it lets Black
off the hook. White could still transpose
into the variation given above with 20 h5!
ctJxg4 21 'ii' f4.
20 . . . i.c6 21 i.. x g6 hxg 6 ?
Black should play 21. . . fxg6
after
which
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 0,c3 'Llf6 4 i.g5
dxe4 5 'Llxe4 'Llbd7 6 'Llxf6+
A much quieter treatment than 6 ltJf3 .
6 . . . 'Llxf6 7 'Llf3 c5
The
choice
between playing this
with 7 ... h6
immediately and preceding it
83
Fre n c h C la s s ic a l
seems largely a question of taste. The main
argument against 7 . . . h6 is 8 �e3 (see
J.Polgar-Bareev) , though this is far from
convmcmg.
8 j_b5+
Certainly White's most forceful move but
if White's initiative is neutralised he will
have further freed Black's game with
exchanges. 8 �c4 has been the most
popular alternative, e.g. 8 . . . 'i:Ya5+ 9 c3 �e7
10 0-0 0-0 1 1 �e1 �d8 12 �e5 'ifb6 13
'ife2 h6 (An argument against interpolating
. . . h6 on move seven? 13 . . . cxd4 14 ctJxd4 h6
15 �h4 ct:Jd5 16 �xe7 ctJxe7 17 �e 1 left
Black under some pressure in Shirov­
Topalov, Monaco 1997) 14 �xf6 gxf6 1 5
� h 5 �f8 1 6 dxc5 'VJilc7 1 7 �e 1 �g7 1 8 h3
b6 19 ctJh2 �b7 20 ctJg4 and was agreed
drawn in Morozevich-Korchnoi, Wijk aan
Zee 2000. The final position is very sharp
indeed and it is surprising that neither of
these two great fighters wished to continue.
8 �e2 leads to similar play to the next
game.
Slobodjan, Koszalin 1999. In fact he lasted
just another four moves: 15 .. .f5 (15 ... fxe5 16
'i:Yg3+ �h8 1 7 'i:Yxe5+ �g8 1 8 'i:Yxc5 wins a
pawn) 16 �ad1 �e7 17 'i:Yxb7 %He8 1 8 l:.d3
f4 19 l:.d7 �f6 and 1-0.
1 2 tt:J e 5 'i&'d 5 1 3 0-0 j_xc5 1 4 1:1fe 1 tt:'Jd7
1 5 tt:Jf3 f6??
A quite uncharacteristic blunder from
Korchnoi who loses a pawn for zero
compensation. Both 15 ... l:.fc8 16 llad1 'i:Yc6
and 15 . . . 'i:Yc6 look rather equal.
8 . . . j_d7 9 j_xd7+ 'iWxd7 1 0 �e2 j_e7 ? !
1 6 l::t ad 1 'iVc6 1 7 'ifxe6+ 'i&'xe6 1 8 l::t x e6
Black seems t o obtain a very reasonable
position in this game, but this is not the
only move. 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 0-0-0 �c5 is
another good line, the game Almasi­
Ehlvest, Biel 1996 continuing 12 'VJi/e5 �c8
13 ctJxd4 'i:Yc7 14 'VJi/xc7 (14 �xf6 gxf6 1 5
'iYxf6 loses after 15 ... �xd4 with mate o n c2)
14 . . . �xc7 with equality.
fxg 5 1 9 .l:!.xd7 g4 20 l::t e 5 !
1 1 dxc5
In an earlier game against Korchnoi,
Leko played 1 1 0-0-0 but after 1 1 . . .0-0 12
dxc5 'i:Ya4 13 �b 1 lixc5 14 .i.. xf6 gxf6 15
ctJe1 �fd8 1 6 ctJd3 lif8 Black had no
problems (Leko-Korchnoi, Vienna 1996) .
A simple refutation.
20 . . . 1:1ad8
Korchnoi might have missed the fact that
20 . . . l:.ac8 is answered by 2 1 l:.g5, winning
the g4-pawn, as 2 1 . . . gxf3 is met by 22
l:.gxg7+ �h8 23 l:.xh7+ �g8 24 l:.dg7 mate.
21
l::t x d8 l::t x d8 22 tt:Je 1 j_d4 23 .l:!.b5
j_b6 24 c4 l::t d 1 2 5 �f 1 l::t c 1 26 b3 �f8
27 a4 j_d4 28 �e2 b6 29 .l:!.d5 j_f6 30
tt:'Jd3 .l:!.c3 31 l::t b 5 h5 3 2 �d2 h4 33 tt:Jf4
h3 34 g3
Korchnoi's attempts to complicate have
come to nought.
1 1 . . . 0-0
34 . . . �g8 35 lt:Jd 5 l::t f3 3 6 �e2 j_d4 37
After 1 1 . .. i.xc5 12 ctJe5 'ifa4 13 0-0 0-0
14 .ixf6 gxf6 15 'VJi/f3 Black found himself
in big trouble in the game Hracek-
tt:Je3 j_c5 38 b4 j_f8 39 a 5 bxa 5 40
bxa5 a6 4 1 l::t b8 �f7 42 tt:Jxg4 .l:!.f5 43
f4 1 -0
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 i.. g 5 dx e 4 5 CiJ x e 4 iL e l
Summary
S . . . tt:Jbd7 is currently less popular than S . . . i.e7 and tends to be a bit more passive. But
Black's position is ultra-solid and it seems that he can more or less neutralise 6 lt:Jxf6+ and
he gets to trade punches after the sharp 6 tt:Jf3 i.e7 7 tLlxf6+ i.xf6 8 h4.
If Black opts for S . . . i.e7 then he must certainly know what he's doing, yet countless
attempts by the world's most dangerous attacking players have failed to make a lasting
impression on Black's fortress-like position. In the main line White seems to be hitting his
head against a brick wall, especially when Black is Mikhail Gurevich.
The current fashion is to try and eke out an edge with 8 i.c4, hoping for 8 .. tt:Jd7 9 'ife2.
But this doesn't look like the end of the world for Black and he can avoid the perils of
Leko-Khalifman (Game 4 1) with 10 . . . tt:Je7. Upcoming battles in the Burn variation may well
centre on this very line.
.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 CiJc3 CiJf6 4 i.. g 5 dxe4 5 CiJxe4
5 . . . i.. e 7
S . . . tt:Jbd7
6 tt:Jf3
6 . . . h6 7 ttJxf6+ tt:Jxf6 (D)
8 i.h4 - Game 44; 8 i.e3 - Game 45
6 . . . i.e7 Game 46
6 tLlxf6+ lt:Jxf6 7 lt:Jf3 (D)
7 . . . h6 - Games 44 and 4 5 (by transposition); 7 . . . cS - Game 4 7
-
6 i.. x f6 i.. x f6
6 . . . gxf6 - Chapter 6
7 ctJf3
7 c3 - Game 43
7 . . . 0-0 (D) 8 �d 2
8 i.c4 - Game 41; 8 'ifd3 - Game 42
8 . . CiJd7
.
8 .. b6 - Game 40
.
9 0-0-0 b6 1 0 i.d3
1 0 i.c4 - Game 39
- Game 38
1 O . . . i.. b7
7 C2Jt3
7
. . .
0-0
CHAPTER SIX
I
Th e Burn Variation : 4 it g 5
dx e 4 5 ttJx e 4 it e 7 6 itxf6 gxf6
1 e 4 e6 2 d 4 d 5 3 CZ'l c 3 CZ'lf6 4 � g 5
dxe4 5 CZ'lxe4 �e 7 6 �xf6 gxf6
Recapturing with the pawn on f6 leads to
an altogether more dynamic and double­
edged game then the solid 6 . . . i.xf6 (see
Chapter 5, Games 3 8-43) . Black covers the
e5- square and obtains an open g-file. On
the other hand Black's king will only be able
to reside on the kingside under exceptional
circumstances (generally speaking Black
tries to castle long) and his pawn structure
might get shredded should White manage to
play a later d4-d5.
Many Black players opt to include both
6 . . . i.xf6 and 6 . . .gxf6 in their repertoire, the
choice of line depending on the occasion,
and also who their opponent is.
White usually plays 7 tbf3 and then
Games 48-50 see various White tries after
the popular move 7 ... a6, while Games 5 1-53
witness attempts by Black to get by, for the
moment at least, without . . . a7-a6.
Gam e48
Sutovsky-Morozevich
P am plo n a 199 8
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 CZ'lc3 CLJf6 4 �g5
dxe4 5 C2Jxe4 �e 7 6 iLxf6 gxf6 7 CLJf3
This is far and away the most popular
move, but White has tried numerous
alternatives:
a) 7 g4?! attempts to combine a kingside
fianchetto with the restraint of Black's .. .f6f5 idea, but it is far to extravagant to be
good. Black can simply play 7 ... i.d7 8 i.g2
i.c6 threatening .. .f6-f5 .
b) 7 c3 f5 8 tbg3 c5 9 i.b5+ i.d7 10
i.xd7+ 'ifxd7 11 tbf3 tbc6 12 dxc5 'ifxdl+
13 Mxdl i.xc5 brought about an endgame
in which White had to play carefully to hold
the balance in Ljubojevic-Lautier, Manila
1990.
c) 7 'ifd2 prepares queenside castling and
in some cases intends to come to h6 with
the queen. Black should meet this plan with
7 . . . b6 8 i.b5+ (giving Black a useful tempo
for . . . c7-c6, but 8 i.c4 i.b7 is
embarrassing) 8 . . . c6 9 i.c4 i.b7 10 0-0-0
b5!? 1 1 i.e2 tbd7 12 tbf3 'ifc7 13 �he t
0-0-0 (preparing . . . a7-a6 followed by . . . c6-c5
- which White now tries to prevent) 14
'ifh6 Mdg8 15 g3 f5! 1 6 tbed2 i.f8 when
Black had more space and the bishop pair in
Renet-Andersson, Cannes 19 89.
d) 7 g3 (Fischer's favourite line which
Black should meet energetically) 7 .. .f5 ! 8
tbc3 i.f6 9 ctJge2?! (9 ctJf3 is probably
better, but then 9 . . . c5 10 dxc5 'ifa5 1 1 'ifd2
�d7 12 ctJd4 'ifxcS 13 0-0-0 �xd4 14
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 i.. g 5 dx e 4 5 eu x e 4 i.. e 7 6 i.. x f6 g x f6
�xd4 'ifxd4 1 5 �xd4 was fine for Black in
Psakhis-King, Dortmund 1989) 9 . . . ctJc6 10
dS exdS 1 1 ctJxdS (after 11 'ii'x dS Black's
most promising line is probably 1 1 .. .i.e6!?
12 �bS 0-0 13 'ii'x b7 ctJaS, an interesting
pawn sacrifice recommended by Soltis)
1 1 . .. i.xb2 12 i.g2 (offering an exchange
sacrifice that it would be unwise to accept)
12 . . . 0-0 13 0-0 i.eS (13 . . . i.h8?! 14 ctJef4
ctJeS 15 �hS gave White compensation for
the pawn in Fischer-Petrosian, Candidates
match 197 1) 14 l:.b 1 ctJaS 15 �e 1 c6 1 6
l:.d1 l:. e 8 1 7 4Jdf4 �c7 1 8 ct.J h s ctJc4 and
White was struggling to find decent
compensation in Bellon-Marovic, Medina
del Campo 1 990.
e) 7 i.c4 is an interesting move after
which 7 . . . a6 (7 .. .f5?! is risky because of 8
ctJg3 i.f6 9 c3, when White prevents the
. . . c7-c5 break and may play his knight or
queen to hS next move; while 7 . . . b6 8 4Jf3
transposes into the next game, Almasi­
Andersson) 8 a4 (8 4Jf3 bS transposes into
Bakre-D.Prasad, given as a note within
Sutovsky-Morozevich) 8 . . .ctJd7 9 4Jf3 cS 10
0-0 was the game Leko-Bunzmann,
Hamburg 1999, and now 10 . . .cxd4 1 1 ctJxd4
ctJb6 would have led to a complex struggle
with chances for both sides.
D 7 tt:Je2 aims to bring the knight to f4,
but it loses time and this is far from being a
secure post. Here 7 . . . b6 8 ct.Jf4 fS 9 ctJg3
'ifd6 10 �f3 ctJc6 1 1 0-0-0 i.b7 gave Black
a very active position in Zagoryansky­
Ufimtsev, Moscow 1949.
7
. . .
a6
This ubiquitous little move has been very
fashionable recently. Black stops anything
landing on the bS-square, prepares a pawn
storm should White castle queenside and in
many cases will play . . . b7-b5, stopping
White from establishing a pawn on c4 and
thus keep control of dS . This plan of c2-c4
and d4-d5 is White's main plan against
6 . . . gxf6. Against Sutovsky 7 . . . a6 is an
especially good idea as the young Israeli
grandmaster has been scoring heavily
against 7 . . . b6 with 8 i.c4 i.b7 9 'ii'e2
followed by castling short, e.g. 9 . . . c6 10 0-0
'iVc7 (the position is extremely dangerous
for Black - 10 . . . ctJd7 looks bad because of
1 1 ctJh4! 0-0 12 ctJg3 fS 13 ctJhxfS exfS 14
ct.JxfS i.f6 15 �hs i.g7 1 6 'ii'g4 �f6 1 7
ctJxg7 �xg7 18 �xd7 winning i n Sutovsky­
Hoffman, Villa Martelli 1 997) 1 1 ctJg3 ctJd7
(1 1 . . .b5!? 12 i.b3 4Jd7 might be an
improvement, intending to meet 13 ctJfS
exfS 14 l:.fe 1 with 14 . . . ctJb6) 12 ctJfS ! ? exfS
13 l:.fe 1 4Jf8 14 ctJh4 ctJg6 15 ctJxfS h5 1 6
�f3 Wf8 1 7 ctJxe7 ctJxe7 1 8 �xf6 tt:Jg6 19
l:.eS and White's attack just kept on coming
in Sutovsky-Volkov, Isle of Man 2000.
8 'ih'd2
8 i.c4 can now by met by 8 . . . b5 9 i.. b 3
i.b7 10 'ii'e2 i.dS with Bakre-D.Prasad,
Calcutta 2000, continuing 1 1 i.xdS 'ifxdS
12 0-0 0-0 13 a4 ctJc6 with a very solid
position for Black. 8 g3 is seen in Game 49
and 8 c4 in Game 50.
8 . . b5
Alternatively there is 8 .. .f5 9 ctJg3 (or 9
ctJc3 bS lh-lh W.Watson-Anand, Palma de
Mallorca 1989) 9 . . . 4Jd7 10 ct.Jhs h6 1 1 0-0-0
ctJf6 12 ctJxf6+ i.xf6 13 Wb 1 bS 14 g3 i.b7
15 i.g2 �d6 16 l:.he 1 0-0-0 with equality in
Perunovic-Antic, Yugoslav Championship,
Subotica 2000.
.
9 Wih6
The game Klovans-P .Nielsen, Istanbul
Fren c h C la s s ic a l
Olympiad 2000, was also interesting: 9 0-0-0
.i.b7 1 0 i.d3 'Lld7 (10 . . . i.d5 1 1 �b 1 'Llc6
also looks reasonable) 1 1 �b 1 i.d5 12 'iVh6
c6 13 'iVg7 I:tf8 14 'ifxh7 f5 15 'Llc3 lt:Jf6 1 6
ii'h3 lDg4 when Black's active pieces gave
him compensation for the pawn.
9 . . . ii.. b7 1 0 ii.. d 3
1 0 'ifg7 l:.f8 11 'ifxh7 f5 offers Black
excellent compensation for his pawn.
1 o . . tt:Jd7
.
As usual Black must be wary of letting
his opponent's pieces in with a premature
10 .. .f5?! Nurkic-Muratovic, Bihac 1999, was
good for White after 1 1 'Lleg5 i.xf3 12
'Llxf3 i.f8 13 'ife3 'ifd5 14 0-0 'Lld7 15 a4.
Morozevich must have prepared this well
in advance. 14 . . . i.e7 is bad because of 1 5
i.xf5.
1 5 'ifxh8 ii.. xf3 1 6 gxf3 t2Jf6
Imprisoning White's queen and
threatening ideas such as . . . 'ifd5, ... 0-0-0 (or
. .. �e7) followed by . . . .i.h6. The queen can
be saved, but at a very heavy cost.
1 7 l::t g 1
This loses, but what can White do?
Morozevich gave the lines 17 0-0-0 �e7 1 8
� b 1 'iVd5; 1 7 d 5 'iVe7 1 8 �fl 0-0-0; and 1 7
c 3 �e7 1 8 l:. g 1 'ifd5 19 l:.g8 (otherwise
. . . i.h6 as usual) 19 . . . 'iVxf3 winning.
1 7 . . . 'ifxd4 1 8 l::t g 8 we7 1 9 wf 1 ii.. g 7 ! 20
1 1 l2Jg3
�xg7
1 1 0-0-0 f5 12 'Lleg5 i.xg5+ 13 ctJxg5
'iff6 14 'ifh5 'ifg6 15 'ifh4 0-0-0 gave Black
a good game in W edberg-P .Nielsen, New
York Open 2000.
Giving up the queen with 20 l:.xa8 i.xh8
2 1 l:.xh8 'Llg4! 22 fxg4 ii'xh8 is also
hopeless for White.
1 1 . . . f5 1 2 tt:Jh5 ii.. f8 1 3 �e3 ?
23 �h4 c5 24 l::t d 1 c4 25 ii.. x f5 'i'xf3 !
Presumably Sutovsky thought that this
prevented Black's next move. He is certainly
in for a big surprise. 13 'i\ff4 �g8 is also
uncomfortable for White so he should head
for equality with 1 3 'Llg7+ i.xg7 14 'ifxg7
'iff6 1 5 'i\fxf6 'Llxf6 16 i.e2.
25 ... exf5 26 'iff4 would keep White in the
game.
20 . . . l::t x g8 21 �h6 �xb2 22 l:ie 1 �c3
26 'ifd4 tt:Jd5 0-1
After 27 'ifc5+ (27 i.e4 ctJe3+) 27 ... �f6
28 'ifd4+ �xf5 White runs out of checks.
Game 49
1 3 . . . tt:Jf6 ! 1 4 �e5 ?
Kasparov-M. Gurevich
Saraj evo 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tt:Jc3 t2Jf6 4 ii.. g 5
dxe4 5 tt:Jxe4 ii.. e 7 6 ii.. x f6 gxf6 7 t2Jf3
a6 8 g3
Adopting a formation which challenges
one of the main points of the 7 . .. a6 and 8
. . . b5 plan. White fianchettoes his king's
bishop and gradually prepares for c2-c4.
8 . . . b5
Heading straight for Black's ambush.
White should bail out with 14 lbxf6+ 'ifxf6
1 5 .i.e2, though Black is already better
because of the two bishops
1 4 . . . lbxh 5 ! !
Morozevich himself switched to
8 . . . ctJc6!? in his game against Milos at the
Istanbul Olympiad, 2000. That game went 9
i.g2 e5 10 d5 lt:Jb4 1 1 l2Jc3 c6 12 dxc6
'ifxd1+ 13 �xd1 bxc6 14 a3 ct:Jds 15 ct:Jxd5
cxdS 16 �xdS 0-0 17 0-0 ke6 18 :d2 z:tab8
19 b4 aS when Black's pressure on the
Th e B u rn Va ria tio n : 4 iL g 5 dx e 4 5 C£J x e 4 iL e 7 6 iL x f6 g x f6
queenside was compensation for the pawn.
Nigel Short has played 8 . . .fS 9 ctJc3 �f6
(he also tried the immediate 9 . . . cS against
Glek in an Internet blitz game, 2000: 10 dS
�b6 1 1 :b 1 �f6 12 �g2 0-0 13 0-0 :d8
14 :e1 ctJc6 with complex play) 10 �d2 (10
�g2 cS 1 1 dxcS iVaS 12 0-0 �xcS was fine
for Black in Madl-Maric, Halle 2000) 10 . . . c5
1 1 dS 0-0 12 0-0-0 bS 13 dxe6 �xd2+ 14
ctJxd2 fxe6 15 �g2 :a7 with approximate
equality in De la Villa-Short, Pamplona
2000.
9 iJ.. g 2 iJ.. b 7 1 0 'ife2 C£Jd7
Black has an alternative in 10 ... �d5, but
Morozevich had an unpleasant experience
in this line after 1 1 ctJc3 (1 1 ctJed2 ctJd7 12
0-0 0-0 13 :fd 1 ctJb6 14 c3 ctJa4 15 ltJf1 c6
16 ctJe3 intending �c2, b2-b3 and c2-c4
was another promising plan that was used in
Glek-Volkov, Korinthos Open 2000) 1 1 ...c6
12 0-0-0 ltJd7 13 �b 1 ctJb6 14 :he 1 �c7
15 ltJh4 hS 16 f4 fS 17 ltJf3 0-0-0 18 ltJeS
(Leko-Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999) .
Preparing a dangerous exchange sacrifice.
1 6 . . .'�c7 1 7 l:1xd 5 ! exd5 1 8 C£Je3 iLf6 !
1 8 . . . :fe8 19 ctJd4 gives White superb
compensation. Gurevich knows he must
eliminate one of White's knights.
1 9 C£Jd4 iLxd4! 20 cxd4 C£Je4 21 C£Jxd 5
Surprisingly this is not White's best.
After the game Kasparov felt that 21 .th3
would have been better - Black's
weaknesses are not going to run away.
2 1 . . .'iVd6 22 C£Je3 �f6 23 'ifh5 l:1ad8 24
C£Jxf5 C£Jd6 25 C£Je3 ?
Before playing this, White should protect
his d-pawn with 25 �g4+. Now Black is
better.
25 . . . 'ifxd4! 26 l:1d 1 �g7 ?
Missing a golden opportunity with
26 .. .'�xb2! 27 �gS+ �g7! 28 �xg7+ �xg7
29 :xd6 :xd6 30 lDfS+ �f6 3 1 ctJxd6 �eS,
when Black's active king is a menace. After
the text, all hell breaks loose.
27 l:!d5 �h8 28 'ifd 1 C£Jb7 29 b4 l1xd 5
30 'ifxd5 C£Jd8 3 1 'ifd6 Gbe6 3 2 Vi'xa6
1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 l:!fd 1
'Dd4 33 h4 f5 34 'Lld5 'Lle2+ 35 �f1 f4!
Improving on the game J .Polgar­
Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2000, in which
Black had good play after 12 :ad1 �dS 13
:fe 1 �h8 14 ltJfd2 c6 15 c4 bxc4 16 ctJxc4
aS. Kasparov had no doubt done his
homework on this line and frees the fl­
square for his knight.
36 �xe2 fx g3 37 'ird6 'iVb2+ ?
1 2 . . . iLd5 1 3 c3 f5 1 4 C£Jed 2 c5 1 5 dxc5
C£Jxc5 1 6 C£Jf 1 !
In time trouble Black slips up. 37 . .. �xf2+
38 �e3 :xg2 39 �b8+ �g8 40 �eS+ is a
draw by perpetual check.
38 �d3 l:1xf2 39 Vi'b8+ �g7 40 'ifxg3+
�h8 4 1 'ifb8+ �g7 42 �c7+ �f8
Black's king is unable to escape 42 . . . �h6 loses to 43 1li'd6+ �h5 (43 . . . �g7
44 1li'e7+ �h8 45 'ii d8+ <it>g7 46 'ii'g5+
Fre n c h C l a s s ic a l
transposes into the game) 4 4 t2Jf4+ l:.xf4 45
'i'xf4 'i'xg2 46 'i'g5+! 'i'xg5 47 hxg5 �xg5
48 a4 winning.
43 �e7+ �g8 44 �g5+ �h8 45 it.e4!
A deadly quiet move. White has
calculated that his king can escape the
checks.
45 . . . �c2+ 46 �d4 �d2+
Or 46 . . .'i'c4+ 47 �e5 etc.
Allowing the cl-pawn to advance turns
out to be mistaken. Black later improved on
this with 14 . . . ite6!? in the game Belotti­
Radjabov, St Vincent 200 1, and obtained a
strong attacking position after 1 5 t2Jd5
(Shirov suggested 15 g4!? fxg4 16 i.d3 i.g7
17 ctJg5 as being slightly better for White)
15 . . . itxd5 16 'i'xd5 t2Jd7 17 ctJd2 i.g7 1 8
l:.h3 'i'f6.
47 �c5 �xg5 48 hxg5 l:!.xa 2 49 �xb5
1 5 d7 i.b7 1 6 �d6 !
�e2 50 tt:Jc3 �e3 51 �c4 �g3 52 b5
Topalov must have underestimated this
idea. White puts his biggest piece right in
Black's guts.
�xg5 53 b6 1 -0
Game50
Shirov-Topalov
Saraj evo 2000
.________________..
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 it.g5
1 6 . . . e4 1 7 ttJdS i.g7 1 8 ttJg S tt:Jd4
18 . . . h6 is met by 19 cxb5 axb5 20 i.xb5
when the black position is falling apart at
the seams.
1 9 tt:Je7+ �h8 2 0 �h3 ? !
dxe4 5 tt:Jxe4 it.e 7 6 it.xf6 gxf6 7 tt:Jf3
a6 8 c4
This direct and natural way move is an
attempt to exploit the time lost by 7 . . . a6.
White is playing for d4-d5 .
8 . . . f5 9 tt:Jc3 it.f6 !
In Wang Zili-Dreev, Shenyang 1999,
Black played 9 . . . c5 1 0 d5 i.. f 6, but then 1 1
'ifc2 was quite good for White. With
Topalov's move order the queen must go to
the inferior d2-square.
1 0 �d2
After 10 'ifc2 Black can play 10 . . . �xd4
1 1 0-0-0 cS.
1 0 . . . c5
Shirov suggested that 10 ... 0-0 would be
better, and he probably intended to meet
this with 1 1 g4! ? fxg4 12 l:.g l .
1 1 d5
T h e thematic move, obtaining a passed
pawn and driving a wedge through Black's
position. 1 1 dxc5 'i'aS 12 i.e2 'i'xc5 was
fine for Black in Kovalevskaya-Maric,
Women's World Cup, Shenyang 2000.
1 1 . 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 e5
12 . . . i.. g 7!? is an interesting alternative,
not blocking the bishop's diagonal.
. .
1 3 h4 b 5 1 4 d6 ltJc6 ? !
A n inaccurate order of moves according
to Shirov, who later discovered an
interesting defensive try for Black. White
should play 20 �b 1! first, after which
20 . . . b4 (20.. .f4 21 l:.h3 transposes b ack into
the game) 21 i.e2 is winning for White
because 2 1 . .. t2Jxe2 is answered by 22 'i'xcS
threatening 'i'xfS.
20 . . . f4? !
20 ... b4! would have set White a very
difficult problem (Black wants to defend by
playing . . . a6-a5 and ... l:.a6) b ut White can
still develop a winning attack with 2 1 l:.g3!
aS 22 I:txd4! cxd4 23 'iff4 (th re atening
'ifxf5) 23 . . . 'ifxd7 24 'LlxfS etc.
T h e Bu rn V ariatio n: 4 iL.g5 d xe4 5 lDxe4 iL.e7 6 iL.xt6 gxf6
2 1 �b 1 b4 22 iL.e2 f3
After 22 ... CtJxe2 Shirov gave 23 'ii'xcS
CtJd4 (23 .. .f5 24 CtJe6) 24 :xd4 i.xd4 25
'iffS! <i.t/g7 26 CtJg8! By interposing 22 .. .f3
Black hopes to get his knight back to
defend. Unfortunately for him, one knight
is not enough to stem the flow of White's
pteces.
23 gxf3 tt:Jxe2 24 �xc5 lLlf4 25 �f5
lt:Jg6 26 h5 �xe7 27 hxg6 1-0
Game 51
Kaplan-Bronstein
Hastings 1975
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 tt:'Jt6 4 iL.g5
dxe4 5 tt:'Jxe4 iL.e7 6 iL.xf6 gxf6 7 tt:'Jt3
1981) 9 . . . 0-0 10 :e 1 !? (10 c3 cxd4 1 1 cxd4
CtJb6 12 i.b3 i.d7 followed by bringing the
bishop to c6 is just equal) 10 . . . CtJb6 1 1 .tf1
cxd4 12 CtJxd4 <i.tt h 8 13 c3 eS?! (had Short
seen the reply he would probably have
played 13 .. .f5) 14 'ifhS! (Shirov-Short, Las
Vegas 1999) and now 14 ... exd4? loses on
the spot to 1 5 CtJxf6! i.xf6 16 .td3 .
b) 8 i.d3 cS 9 0-0 0-0 10 'i¥d2 fS 1 1
CtJxcS CtJxcS 12 dxcS i..f6 (12 . . . i.xc5 13
'ifh6 i.e7 14 :ad 1 is very dangerous for
Black) 13 c3 i.d7 and Black had good
compensation for the pawn in Rogers­
Short, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990.
c) 8 g3 cS 9 i.. g2 'i¥b6 10 0-0 cxd4 1 1
CtJxd4 0-0 1 2 CtJc3 CtJeS 1 3 CtJb3 i..d 7 gave
Black a solid game in Sutovsky-Short,
Bugojno 1999.
8 . c5 !?
Certainly the sharpest move, though
Bronstein avoided the chance to repeat this
in a later game. He was probably well aware
of the possible danger. In Van den Abbeele­
Bronstein, Brussels 1995, he adopted the
solid plan of 8 ... c6 9 i.d3 b6 10 0-0-0 i.b7
1 1 :he 1 'Viii c7 12 'Viii h 6 0-0-0. Another
intriguing plan of development was tried in
Benjamin-Seirawan, Los Angeles 199 1 :
8 . . . CtJf8 9 0-0-0 c 6 10 i.c4 h S 1 1 h 4 'ifc7 12
:he 1 i.d7. This super-solid approach
seems to have gone unnoticed by theory.
9 d5
The critical move, which coupled with
the improvement on White's next spells
danger for Black. 9 0-0-0 cxd4 10 'Viiixd4
'Viii b 6 was fine for Black in J .Polgar-Short,
Pamplona 1999.
9 f5 10 dxe6? !
In B.Ivanovic-Zviaginsev, Yugoslavia
2000, White improved on this with 10 CtJc3
i.f6 (10 . . . e5!?) 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 12 g4! and
obtained a very dangerous attack.
10 ... fxe4 1 1 exd7+ �xd7 12 �c3?
Far too optimistic. White should play for
equality with 12 'Viiixd7+ i.xd7 13 lUeS.
12 . .0-0 1 3 tt:Jd2 'iff5 14 0-0-0 �xf2
.
7 ...tt:'Jd7
An interesting and flexible move which
develops a piece and maintains options of
. . . c7-c5, .. .f6-f5 or a queenside fianchetto
with ... b7-b6. An old favourite of Bronstein,
Nigel Short has recently been using it. The
moves 7 . . . b6, 7 .. .f5 and 7 ... a6!? will be
covered in later games.
8 'ii'd2
In Short's games White has tried several
oth er moves:
a) 8 i.c4 cS 9 0-0 (9 dS CtJb6 10 i.bS+
i..d 7 1 1 'i¥e2 i.xbS 12 'ii'x bS+ 'i¥d7 13
'ii'xd7+ <i.ttx d7 14 dxe6+ fxe6 was very
comfortable for Black in Tseshkovsky­
Bronstein, USSR Championship, Moscow
.
. . .
.
91
Frenc h Classic al
8 ... j_b7 9 �e2 c6 10 0-0-0 "Wic7 1 1
�he 1 ctJd7 12 'it>b 1 0-0-0
Castling immediately is not mandatory.
Black can also keep his options open with
12 . . . h5 13 ctJc3 li:Jf8, as in Goloshchapov­
Volkov, Novgorod 1999.
13 j_a6
White probably overestimated his
chances in this position. The lack of pawn
cover in front of Black's king is far less
important than the mighty bishop pair.
15 t2Jxe4 �f4+ 16 ctJd2 j_g4 17 !:.e 1
j_g5
A vicious pin, which prevents White
from properly mobilising his forces.
18 j_d3 !1ae8 19 �ef 1 �e3 20 h3 j_e2!
2 1 �f5 j_h6 22 j_xe2 �xc3! 23 bxc3
!1xe2 24 �d5 �xd2 !
Initiating a really elegant combination
that forces zugzwang.
25 �xd2 �d8 26 �hd 1 c4 0-1
White will eventually run out of pawn
moves after which he will be forced to leave
the rook on d2 undefended.
Game 52
Almasi-Andersson
Ubeda 1997
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 ctJf6 4 j_g5
dxe4 5 t2Jxe4 j_e7 6 j_xf6 gxf6 7 GLJf3
7 .i.c4 b6 8 li:Jf3 i.b7 would transpose
back into the game.
7 ...b6
The solid line which aims first of all to
tuck Black's king away on the queenside.
8 j_c4
8 i.b5+?! c6 9 i.c4 is a surprisingly
common inaccuracy which gives Black the
useful . . . c7-c6 move on a plate.
92
13 ... j_xa6
Black has tinkered with a number of
different moves in this position but the
respective strategies are basically the same.
White exchanges light-squared bishops and
then tries to engineer a central breakthrough
with c2-c4 and d4-d5 . Black, on the other
hand, will try to restrain d4-d5 and perhaps
even attack the d4-pawn with a subsequent
.. .f6-f5 and . . . i.f6.
Another plan for Black is to try and
generate play on the half-open g-file. One
thing he should be quite wary of, however,
is playing .. .f6-f5 prematurely. This weakens
his central control and invites a White
knight to step in to e5. Here are some of the
alternatives:
a) 13 .. J:�he8 14 i.xb7+ <it>xb7 15 c4 (the
passive 15 c3 has also been played but
should hardly trouble Black after 15 ... 4:Jf8
followed by . . . li:Jg6.) 15 ... 4:Jf8 16 'iic2 f5! 17
li:Jc3 i.f6 18 �e3 �e7 19 l:;Ied3 li:Jg6 20 d5
�ed7 21 'iV a4 li:Je7 22 dxc6+ li:Jxc6 23 li:Jb5
�xd3 24 �xd3 'ii b 8 25 'iid 1 Y2-Y2
Korchnoi-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988.
b) 13 ... Mhg8!? 14 tLJg3 (14 g3 fs 15 tLJed2
T h e Bu rn V ariatio n: 4 il...g5 dxe4 5 tjjxe4 il...e7 6 iLxf6 gxf6
h5 gave Black good play on the kingside in
Lanka-Budnikov, St Petersburg 1993)
14 ... i.b4!? 15 c3 i.f8 16 i.xb7+ \txb7 17
c4 \tb8 produced a delicately balanced
game in Van der Wiel-M.Gurevich, Wijk
aan Zee 1990.
c) 1 3 ... ct:Jf8!? 14 .txb7+ \txb7 1 5 g3 ctJg6
16 c4 f5 ! 17 ctJc3 i.f6 started to give White
problems with his d-pawn in Janovsky­
Savchenko, Moscow 1 99 1 .
d) 13 . . .f5? i s bad because o f 1 4 .txb7+
Wxb7 15 ctJeg5 �df8 16 d5! when White
had achieved his breakthrough very easily in
Timman-Andersson, Yerevan Olympiad
1996.
e) Last but not least Black played
13 ... b5!? in Neelakantan-Speelman, Calcutta
1998. Black's idea is that White will not be
able to achieve his thematic c2-c4 and d4-d5
breakthrough . The game continued 14
i.xb7+ \txb7 1 5 c4 bxc4 1 6 ifxc4 ctJb6 17
ifb3 \ta8 1 8 �c l �b8 19 ifc2 �hc8 with
approximate equality.
14 �xa6+ �b8
After the king move White's best is to
retreat the queen anyway. This is probably
slightly stronger than 14 ...ifb7 which forces
White's queen back to its best square after
15 ife2.
1 5 g3
The queen is optically impressive on a6
but nothing more. 15 ife2 is probably
White's best after which 15 . . . �he8 (Black
tried 15 ... l:rhg8!? in Christiansen-Andersson,
FIDE World Championship, Groningen
1997, and 15 . . . ct:Jf8!? is also possible) 16 c3
(16 a3 i.f8 17 c4 h6 18 ctJc3 f5 19 d5 i.g7
was tried in Hellers-Andersson, Eksjo 1993)
16 ... ctJf8 17 g3 f5 1 8 ctJed2 ctJg6 19 ctJc4
was marginally more comfortable for White
in Leko-Andersson, Ubeda 1997.
15 ...f5 16 {jjed2 h5 !
The thematic means of gammg
counterplay after White's g2-g3. 16 ... i.f6 17
'ii'e 2 was slightly better for White in
Sokolov-Andersson, Bar 1997, when
White's knights honed in on e5.
17 �e2 h4 18 tjjc4 hxg3 19 hxg3 il...f 6
20 .l:!.d3 b5?!
Although this is often a good idea, in this
case White builds quick pressure against c6.
Black should settle for the solid 20 . . . �he8.
21 tjjcd2 tjjb6 22 .l:!.c 1 l:td5 23 c4 bxc4
24 tjjxc4 �aS
A further mistake. Black should exchange
White's knight before it comes to e5 as he
does not get adequate compensation for his
pawn.
25 tjjce5 iHb7 26 tt:Jxc6 .l:!.c8 27 .:!.dc3
l2Ja4 28 .l:!.c4 l2Jb6 29 .:!.4c2 .:td7 30 l2Ja5
l:txc2 3 1 .:!.xc2 �e4 32 l2Jb3 �xe2 33
�xe2 .:!.d8 34 .:!.c2 l2Jd5 35 tt:Ja5 nhs 36
a3 a6 37 �a2 �a7 38 l2Jc4 .:!.h7 39 .:tc 1
f4 40 gxf4 {jjxf4 41 l2Jd6 l2Jd3?!
4 1 . .. ctJd5 was better when Black should
still be able to hold the draw.
42 l:tc7+ �b6 43 tjje S .l:!.h8 44 .:!.xf7
.1L.xd4 45 l2Jxd4 .:!.xe8 46 .:!.f6 tjjc5 47 f4
�b7 48 b4 l:td8 49 l2Jxe6 .:!.d2+ 50 �b 1
tjje4 5 1 .:!.h6 .:!.f2 52 �c 1 �a7 53 .:!.h3
�b6 54 �d 1 a5 55 bxa5+ �xa5 56
�e 1 .l:!.a2 57 .l:!.e3 l2Jf6 58 l2Jd4! l2Jg4 59
.l:!.g3 {jjf2 60 f5 l2Je4 6 1 l:te3 l2Jg5 62 f6
�b6 63 .l:!.c3 .l:!.g2 64 .l:!.c6+ �b7 65 .:!.c5
l2Jf7 66 lZJe6 �b6 67 a4 .l:!.g4 68 a5+
�a6 69 l2Jc7+ �a7 70 l2Jd5 �a6 7 1
�d2 l:ta4 72 l2Jc7+ �b7 73 �e3 �a7 74
tjje6 l2Jh6 75 �d3 �a6 76 �h5 .i:a3+ 77
�c4 l2Jf7 78 l2Jc7+ �b7 79 l:th7 lZJe5+
80 �b5 .l:!.b3+ 81 Wc5 .l:!.d3 82 lZJd5+
1 -0
Game 53
Pavlovic-Sakaev
Vrnjacka Banja 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 {jjf6 4 .iLg5
dxe4 5 tjjxe4 iLe7 6 iLxf6 gxf6 7 l2Jf3
f5!?
Black's most energetic and direct
treatment which leads to ultra-sharp
positions. As discussed in the notes to
Frenc h Classic al
Kaplan-Bronstein, White can avoid this
possibility if he plays 7 i.c4 provided he is
happy about having his bishop on c4 in the
7 l2Jf3 a6 and 7 l2Jf3 b6 lines.
8 ct:Jc3
White wants to meet Black's intended
... c7-c5 with d4-d5, but retreating the knight
to g3 is also interesting and requires great
care on Black's part: 8 CDg3 cS (in Zhu­
Bareev, Rome 1 990, Black played 8 ... CDd7!?
and after 9 .tc4 cS 10 fie2?! l2Jb6 1 1 i.bS+
\t>f8!? 12 dxcS CiJdS had very strong play) 9
i.bS+ (9 fid2 cxd4 10 0-0-0 hS 1 1 h4 CDc6
12 i.bS .td7 13 CDxd4 i.f6 left Black with
a good game in Hoi-Sax, Lugano 1989;
while 9 i.c4 cxd4 10 CDxd4 CDc6 11 CDxc6
fixd1+ 12 �xd1 bxc6 was also very
comfortable for Black in Short-Dizdar,
Bundesliga 1990/9 1) 9 ... i.d7 10 i.xd7+
fixd7 1 1 dS exdS 12 'iid3 CDc6 13 0-0-0 f4!
14 CiJhS 0-0-0! (an important improvement
over the 14 ... fig4 15 'iix dS �d8 16 'iif5 of
Shabalov-Savchenko, USSR Championship,
Tbilisi 1989) .
8 ...i.f6 9 'iVd2
9 i.c4 is questionable because of 9 ... CDc6
10 dS (10 CDe2 CDaS 1 1 i.d3 c5 was fine for
Black in Kovalev-Luther, Hamburg 1993, as
was 10 i.bS 'ifd6 1 1 fid2 i.d7 12 'ifh6
'iVe7 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 in Rohde-Speelman,
London 1984) 10 . . . CDa5 .
9 c5
This time 9 . . . ctJc6 10 JibS would be
. . .
94
good for White, but 9 . . . 0-0!? is an
interesting alternative. Gipslis-Chernin, St
John 1988, continued 10 g4 fxg4 1 1 �g1 e5!
12 i.d3 i.g7 13 dxe5 \t>h8 14 0-0-0 fS! with
complex play.
10 d5
The only move to really trouble Black.
The alternatives are dealt with as follows:
a) 10 0-0-0 cxd4 1 1 l2Jxd4 CDc6 12 i.b5
i.d7 13 CDxfS !? exfS 14 fid6 i.e5!
(14 ... i.e7 15 �he 1 makes it difficult for
Black to unravel) 15 �he 1 figS+! 16 \t>b 1
0-0-0 17 �xe5! i.e6! (17 ... CDxe5 1 8 CiJdS) 1 8
ficS �xd1+ 19 CDxd1 l:.d8 2 0 CDc3 flxg2
with equality in Liberzon-Botvinnik,
Moscow Team Championship 1966.
b) 10 dxc5 l2Jd7 1 1 i.bS 0-0! 12 c6 bxc6
13 i.xc6 .l:.b8 gives Black good
compensation for his pawn according to
Suetin.
c) 10 i.b5+ i.d7 1 1 dxc5 (1 1 i.xd7+
CDxd7 12 0-0-0 'if aS 13 \t> b 1 0-0-0 was
already getting difficult for White in Sax­
Andersson, Reggio Emilia 1988/89) 1 1 ...a6
12 i.xd7+ CDxd7 13 CDa4 (13 0-0-0 'iVc7 14
'iid6 �c8 recovered the pawn in A.Sokolov­
Andersson, Brussels 1988) 13 ... fic7 14
0-0-0 CDxcS! 1 5 CDxcS 'ifxc5 16 fid7+ �f8
17 fid6+ 'ifxd6 18 :xd6 �g8 19 g3 �e7!
was fine for Black in Wedberg-Andersson,
Haninge 1988.
10 ...0-0
After 10 . . . exd5 simply 1 1 'ife3+ wins
back the pawn with advantage.
1 1 0-0-0 e5 12 h4
Preparing to put the knight on gS. In
Saulin-Kiriakov, Moscow 1999, 12 �b 1 also
led to a razor-sharp struggle after 12 ... CDd7
13 g4!? e4 14 CDg1 fxg4 15 CDxe4 .tg7 16 h3
'iib 6 17 c3 CDe5 18 hxg4 i.xg4 19 �e 1
�fe8.
12 ...ct:Jd7
Black has also played 12 . . . i.g7, but after
13 d6 (White can also play a waiting move
with 13 �bl, after which he met 13 ... a6
with 14 d6 in Timoshenko-Navrotescu,
T h e Bu rn V ariatio n: 4 ii..g5 dxe4 5 CiJxe4 ii..e7 6 ii..xf6 gxf6
Caciulata 1992) 13 . . . i.e6 14 CLJgS CLJc6, the
position of the knight on c6 did not prove
that helpful in Klovans-Dizdar, Groningen
199 1 . That game continued 15 g4 CLJd4 16
gxfS i.xfS 1 7 i.d3 ifd7 1 8 i.xfS ifxfS 19
ct:Jds � h8 20 c3 ct:Jc6 21 ctJe3 ifd7 22 ifdS
when White was taking control. 12 ... a6?! has
also been seen, but in such a sharp position
such a relaxed build-up looks rather slow.
13 l:tg 1
White has also played 13 d6 ct:Jb6 14 ife3
(14 ct:Jgs h6 1 5 ct:Jh3 .i.g7 16 ife3 ifxh4
was good for Black in Kuzutovic-Dizdar,
Croatian Championship, Makarska 1994,
while 14 ct:JbS .i.d7 15 ctJc7 :c8 16 ife3
�xc7! 17 dxc7 ifxc7 gives Black good
compensation for the exchange, according
to Sakaev) 14 ... e4 15 CLJgS i.d7 16 g4! i.d4
17 :xd4 cxd4 18 ifxd4 f6 was very messy
in Lau-Sakaev, Dortmund 199 1 .
13 ...e4 14 tUg S 'LleS 15 ii..e2
Sakaev gave 1 5 f3 h6 16 ctJh3 i.g7 17
fxe4 ifxh4 as an alternative- which is also
very complicated.
15...h6 16 'Llh3 ii..g7 17 CiJf4 bS!?
Certainly consistent but possibly not the
best. Black can also play 17 ... ifxh4 after
which the attempt to smash through the
kingside with 18 g4 does not really work
after 18 .. .fxg4 19 CLJxe4 .i.fS 20 :h 1 ifd8
2 1 CLJg3 .i.g6 (Sakaev) .
18 g4
1 8 CLJxbS ifb6 obviously gives Black
compensation (and not 18 ... �b8 because of
19 ct:Jhs i.h8 20 ifxh6).
18 ...b4 19 'Lla4 fxg4 20 'LlhS
20 ...'�a5?
This apparently natural move is a mistake
according to Sakaev. Black should keep his
pieces centralised with 20 ...ifd6 21 'iVf4 fS
22 ctJxcS aS when Black can give his king
additional protection with ... l:a7 (and not
22 . . . i.h8? 23 CLJe6! i.xe6 24 'iYxh6!) .
2 1 'Llxg7 'iit>xg7 22 b3 fS 23 'iie3 ii..d7
24 f4! 'Llg6 25 'LlxcS .l:.ad8 �- �
White is clearly better now and should
keep playing.
95
Frenc h Classic al
Summary
6 ... gxf6 has been all the rage of late, with attention being centred on Morozevich's 7 . . . a6.
Whether or not this is a passing phase remains to be seen. The plan of 8 g3 from Kasparov­
Gurevich (Game 49) seems to have a certain amount of venom and we may see some
developments in 8 . . . CLJc6!? as opposed to the 'natural' 8 ... b5.
Black's position still looks quite playable in the older 7 ... b6 lines, as Ulf Andersson and
Mikhail Gurevich have repeatedly shown. It may be a bit easier to play White, but this can't
really be called an advantage. I quite like the idea of repositioning Black's knight with 12 or
13 ... ct:Jf8!? and these middlegames should be studied quite carefully if Black wants to play
this line. The other plan which needs to be handled carefully is Sutovsky's idea of castling
kingside and trying to sac one of his knights!
Black has also been doing well with 7 ct:Jf3 fS !?, with ultra-sharp opposite-side castling
positions arising after 8 CLJg3 . White can try to side-step this with 7 i.c4, though this cuts
out the Kasparov-Gurevich plan should Black adopt the Morozevich idea of 7 ... a6.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 �g5 dxe4 5 t2Jxe4 �e7 6 �xf6 gxf6 (D)
7 t2Jf3 (D) a6
7 . . . CLJd7 - Game 51; 7 . . . b6 - Game 52; 7 . . .f5 - Game 53
8 �d2 (D)
8 g3- Game 49; 8 c4 - Game 50
8 . . b5 - Game 48
.
6...gxf6
96
7 ti:Jf3
8 'fid2
I CHAPTER SEVEN !
Main Line with 4 i.. g 5 i..e7
5 e5 ctJfd7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �c3 �f6 4 ..ig5 ..ie7
5 e5 �fd7
With 4 . . . �e7 Black responds to the
threat of 5 e5 in the most obvious way - by
unpinning the knight. In turn, White now
has to answer the renewed threat to the e4pawn, and the natural continuation 5 e5
C2Jfd7 is the subject of this chapter.
Deviations from this sequence are included
in the 'odds and ends' of Chapter 9.
Following 4 ... .te7 5 e5 C2Jfd7 the
traditional battleground has been 6 .txe7
�xe7 7 f4 (Games 54-59) . As opposed to
the immediate 4 e5 C2Jfd7 both sides have
profited from the exchange on e7. White
has traded off the 'bad' bishop that might
be hampered by the pawn chain on the dark
squares. For Black the removal of a piece
relieves the cramp somewhat.
After the obligatory . . . c7-c5, Black has
two main strategies: (1) to attack on the
queenside with combinations of . . . c5-c4,
. . . �b6-4, . . . ctJd7-b6-a4, ... ctJc6-a5-c4; and (2)
to assault the centre with . . .f7-f6, a move
which is often compulsory as a defensive
measure in any case. White also has two
ways to play: (1) to attack on the kingside,
using the bishop sacrifice on h7 or a pawn
advance such as f4-f5-f6; or (2) to play for
central control, bringing the rooks to the
central files and putting a knight on d4 or e5
(after .. .f7-f6, e5xf6) or both, aiming for an
advantageous endgame with the superior
minor piece, knight vs. light-squared bishop.
The second half of this chapter (Games
60-63) sees a different approach for White
(and hence also for Black) . Instead of
capturing on e7 White supports the .i.g5
with the h-pawn by 6 h4!?, when a
subsequent exchange of bishops on g5 will
give White a half-open h-file. Black can win
a pawn by taking twice on gS, but in that
case White will gain time to build up an
initiative by attacking the black queen, and
in the short term Black's counterplay will be
severely reduced.
Game 54
Glek-Morozevich
Russian Championship 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �c3 �f6 4 ..ig5 ..ie7
5 e5 '2Jfd7 6 ..ixe7 "V/Jixe7 7 f4
This is the normal continuation. White
protects the eS-pawn in advance of Black's
undermining thrust . . . c7-c5. Also, in the
event of .. .f7-f6 (or .. .f7-f5) White can play
e5xf6, when the f-pawn controls the eS­
square, supporting a possible outpost and
helping to fix the black e6-pawn as
Frenc h Classic al
backward. Other seventh moves are
considered in the notes to Game 59.
7 0-0
7 . . . a6 and other moves are also seen in
Game 59.
8 ct:Jf3 c5
. . .
Transpositions are rife in these
variations. This game features 9 'ii'd2 �c6
10 dxcS with 10 ... 'ii'x c5 1 1 0-0-0. The next
game sees 10 ... CtJxc5 1 1 0-0-0, which may
move on to Game 56 (10 .. .f6) should Black
follow with 1 1 . .. f6. Game 57 has the
alternative main line 9 dxcS �c6 with 10
ii.d3, instead 10 'ii'd2 would return to 9
'ifd2. Similarly, an early i.d3 by White in
Game 54 or 55 may transpose to Game 57,
though the move order is perhaps
inaccurate. 9 i.d3 cxd4 leads to unique
positions in Game 58, but other black nin'th
moves allow White to return to Game 57
with d4xc5 . Finally, 7 ... a6 (Game 59) can
also enter the loop, should Black
subsequently castle short.
9 'ifd2 ct:Jc6
Since White has held back d4xc5 Black
can pre-empt the exchange by capturing on
d4. This is usually dealt with via 9 ... �c6 10
0-0-0 cxd4, but as 10 dxcS is more usual, it
makes more sense, if Black wants to play
this way, to capture on d4 immediately, i.e.
9 ... cxd4 10 �xd4 �c6 1 1 0-0-0 ctJb6 and
then 12 if e3 is standard; the queen
overprotects eS in case of .. .f7-f6 and allows
98
the bishop come to d3 . It is a mistake for
Black to try to exchange queens as White's
central dark-square control guarantees a
good endgame, e.g. 12 . . . i.d7 13 �b 1 'iVcS
14 h4 l:tac8 15 Mh3 �aS 16 �b3 ! 'iVxe3 17
l:txe3 �ac4 1 8 l:tf3 f6 19 exf6 .:txf6 20 �d4
l:tcf8 2 1 i.xc4 �xc4 22 b3 �d6 23l:le3 bS
(23 . . . l:txf4 24 �xe6 leaves Black with an
isolated queen's pawn) 24 a3 aS 25 g3 with
total control in Larsen-Bareev, Hastings
1990/9 1 .
However, 12 ... �xd4 13 'ifxd4 i.d7
followed by ...:fcs and ... �c4 gives Black a
reasonable game, e.g. 14 i.d3 �tfc8 1 5 �e2
�c4 16 i.xc4 :xc4 17 Vi'd2 .:tac8 18 �d4
.:txc2+! 19 �xc2 i.a4 20 b3 i.xb3 2 1 axb3
'iVa3+ with perpetual check in Nemet-Zuger,
Suhr 199 1 . For this reason White might
consider avoiding exchanges and retreating
with 12 �f3 , intending ii.d3 .
10 dxc5
White scuttles the centre and rules out
the aggressive . . . c5-c4, maintaining his
knight on f3 for the time being to control
d4 and eS.
In the old main line White castled long
immediately, 10 0-0-0, waiting to see what
Black intended before deciding whether to
capture on cS. 10 ... a6 is reasonable, passing
the ball back, when the usual 1 1 dxcS �xcS
transposes to 10 dxcS �xcS 1 1 0-0-0 a6 in
the next game. However, Black can change
the nature of the game by 10 ... c4!, and
although White's attack appears to be
further along, Black has an important
resource . . .f7-f6! in answer to f4-f5, gaining
time for counterplay. Nor need Black fear
the knight sortie �c3-b5-d6, as shown by
the following variations:
a) 11 �bs �b6 12 h4 i.d7 13 �d6
.:tabS 14 fS f6 15 'ii'f4 exfS 16 g3 �c8 17
ct:Jbs �b6 1 8 �d6 ct:Jcs 19 ct:Jbs 4Jb6 20
ctJc3 ?! :be8 2 1 �e 1 Y2-Y2 Bologan­
G leizerov, Calcutta 1999.
b) 1 1 fS!? f6! 12 fxe6 ctJb6 (not 12 ...'ii'xe6
13 ltJbS! and 14 lt:Jc7) or 1 1 . .J�b8!? 12 �f4
Main Line w ith 4 iL.g5 iL.e7 5 e5 {fjfd7
f6 1 3 fxe6 ctJb6 (not 1 3 .. .'ii' x e6 14 �xc4
bxc4 15 d5).
c) 1 1 g4 Iib8 12 tt.Jb5 tt.Jb6 13 tt.Jd6 �d7
14 c3 (or 14 f5 f6! 15 'iff4 ctJc8) 14 ... tt.Jc8 1 5
ctJxc8 �fxc8 1 6 'ifc2 f 6 17 h 4 b5 1 8 �b 1
b4 19 cxb4 (Gallagher-Crouch, Krumbach
199 1) and in Informator 52 Crouch gave
19 . . . tt.Jxb4 20 'irc3 ctJxa2! 2 1 �xa2 Iib3 22
'ife 1 �xf3 as the simplest win.
d) 1 1 h4 .l:.b8 12 tt.Jb5 tt.Jb6 13 g4 �d7
14 tt.Jd6 ctJc8 15 f5 ctJxd6 (or 15 .. .f6!?) 16 f6
gxf6 1 7 exd5 'ifxd6 1 8 'iff4 (if 1 8 'ifh6
l:tfe8!? 19 'ifxf6 'ire7 20 'iff4 e5 or 20 'ifh6
�f8) 18 ... 'ife7 19 'ii'f4 fxg5 20 hxg5 f6 with
an unclear position in Viaud-Carleton,
correspondence 1992-94.
10...'i\Vxc5
This is the most aggressive recapture.
Black prevents his opponent from castling
short and intends a queenside assault when
the white king goes long. 10 . . . ctJxc5 is seen
in the next game and 10 .. .f6 in Game 56.
11 0-0-0
White does not achieve anything by
delaying castling:
a) 1 1 .i.d3 f6 12 exf6 'Llxf6 (or
12 ... .l:txf6!? intending . . . ctJf8) 13 0-0-0 .l:.b8
(or 13 . . . .i.d7 14 .l:.he 1 .l:.ac8) 14 �b 1 b5 1 5
ctJe2 � h 8 16 'ife 1 ( 1 6 'ifc3) 1 6 ... b 4 17 'ii'h 4
�g8 18 Iihe 1 .l:.b6 19 ctJc l g6 20 ctJb3 'ii'd6
2 1 tt.Jbd4 'Llxd4 22 ctJxd4 'irc5 23 ctJb3 'ifc7
24 g3 .l:.d6 25 'ii' g5 �a6 lh-1h Klovans­
Nikolenko, Pardubice 1995.
b) 1 1 a3 !? (intending 1 1 . . . ctJb6?! 12 b4
'ii'e 7 1 3 .i.d3 and 0-0 with advantage) can
be met by 1 1 . . .a6 12 �d3 f6! (12 . . . b5!?) 13
exf6 ctJxf6 14 0-0-0 b5 16 ctJe2 �h8
(Peptan-Matveeva, Yugoslavia 1997) and
the inclusion of a2-a3 . . . a7-a6 is clearly in
Black's favour.
1 1 ...{jjb6
Here 1 1 . .. a6 12 ctJe2 b5 would transpose
to 7 ... a6 (Game 59) but White can play
more strongly with 12 .i.d3 ! and if 12 ... b5?
the sacrifice is very strong: 13 �xh7+! �xh7
14 ctJgS+ �g8 lS 'ifd3 �e8 (or ts . J:td8 16
.
'ifh7+ �f8 17 'ifh8+! �e7 1 8 'ifxg7 .l:.f8 19
ctJxe6! �xe6 20 .l:.xd5 and wins) 16 ii'h7+
�f8 17 'ifh5! tt.Jd8 18 tt.Jh7+ �g8 19 �d3
'ire7 (19 . . . 'ifc4 20 ctJe2!) 20 �h3 f6 2 1
'Llxf6+! tt.Jxf6 22 exf6 1-0 Chandler-Agnos,
London Lloyds Bank 1989.
White is also in control after 12 . . .f6 13
exf6 ctJxf6 14 .l:.he 1, and this applies equally
to 1 l . ..f6 12 exf6 ctJxf6 when White gains
the advantage after 13 tt.Jd4!? 'ifxd4 (Stetsko
gives 1 3 . . J:�b8 14 g3 b5 1 5 ctJxc6 'ifxc6 1 6
�g2 b 4 17 ctJe2) 14 'ifxd4 ctJxd4 15 .:Ixd4
a6 1 6 g3 �d7 17 �g2 b5 18 .l:.el .:Iae8 19
a3 g6 20 .l:.d2 .l:.c8 2 1 ctJe2 tt.Jh5 22 tt.Jd4 as
in
Sutterer-Mayer,
World
Senior
Championship 1993.
12 wb 1
After 12 �d3 Black should probably opt
for 12 ... ctJc4!, since after 12 ... �d7, apart
from 13 �b 1 transposing, White can
sacrifice with 13 �xh7+! �xh7 14 ctJg5+
�g8 15 'ifd3 .l:.fe8 16 'ifh7+ �f8 17 �he ll
and then if 17 ... 'irb4 18 'ifh8+ �e7 19 'ifh4
�d8 20 'Llxe6+ �c8 21 a3 'ife7 22 ctJg5 f6
(Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Amsterdam 199 1)
White can gain the advantage with 23 exf6
'ifxf6 24 .l:.xe8+ �xe8 25 ctJxd5 ctJxd5 26
.l:.xd5 (Korchnoi) . In Nielsen-Ulibin,
Mamaia 199 1 , Black tried 17 ... ctJc4!? 1 8
'ifh8+ �e7 19 'ifh4 .l:.h8 2 0 ctJh7+ f6 2 1
exf6+ �d8 2 2 fxg7+ �c7 2 3 gxh8'if and
here the players prematurely agreed a draw.
White's other option is to advance the h-
French Classical
pawn to weaken the enemy kingside by 12
h 4 it.d7 13 hS l:lac8 (or 13 . . .l:lfc8) 14 h6 g6.
The slowness of this plan enables Black to
generate sufficient counterplay on the
queenside. For example, 1S ltJh2 ti:Jb4 16 a3
if aS! 17 axb4 'ii'a 1+ 1 8 ttJb 1 lt.a4 19 it.d3
i.b3 20 'ii' f2 ctJa4 2 1 <i.ttd2 lh-lh J akobetz­
Frilli, correspondence 199S.
12 j_d7 13 j_dJ
It is still a little early yet for 13 ti:JbS as
after 13 . . . ctJa4 14 ctJd6?! f6! the knight is
insecure on d6. Hjartarson-Brynell,
Stockholm 1996, continued 1S it.e2 fxeS 16
fxeS ltJxeS 17 ctJxeS "i¥xd6 18 ctJxd7 'i¥xd7
and Black had an extra pawn. White does
better to play 14 ltJbd4 'i¥b6 1S ti:Jb3 and
then 1S . . . aS! (threatens ... ctJxb2!) 16 c3 f6 17
exf6 �xf6 1 8 it.d3 l:laf8 19 g3 eS 20 ctJgS
(or 20 ctJxeS ctJxeS 21 fxeS l:lf2 22 it.e2
lt.g4 with counterplay - Ulibin) 20 ... g6! 2 1
it.c2 (if 2 1 i.xg6 hxg6 2 2 'ii'xdS+ l:l6f7 23
ctJxf7l:lxf7 24 'i¥c4 "i¥f2! intending 2S 'ii'xa4
ti:Jd4! 26 'ii'xaS i.fS+ with a draw) 2 1...d4 22
ctJe4 .M6f7 23 fxeS dxc3 24 ctJxc3 ctJxeS was
unclear in Borik-Blauert, German
Bundesliga 1997.
. . .
13 . tt:Ja5?!
Black prevents the ltJc3-bS manoeuvre
and prepares to attack with . . . tt:Jac4.
However, this is perhaps the worst of
Black's tries at this point and he does better
to play:
a) 13 .. .':tJb4 prevents both 14 ctJbS and
. .
14 it.xh7+ (by keeping the white queen from
d3) . However, after 14 a3 aS 1S :hfl ! .tHc8
16 "i¥f2 ctJxd3 17 cxd3 White achieved a
good endgame following both 17 ..."i¥xf2 1 8
l:lxf2 ctJa4 19 l:lc2 ltJxc3+ 2 0 l:lxc3 l:lxc3 2 1
bxc3 l:lc8 2 2 <i.ttb 2 f6 2 3 l:le 1 'it>f7 2 4 <it>c2
<i.tte 7 2S <i.ttd2 fxeS 26 l:lxeS (Campora­
Zuger, Bern 1992) and 17 ... ctJa4 18 ltJxa4
lt.xa4 19 "ii'xcS l:lxcS 20 l:le t b6 2 1 ti:Jd4
l:lac8 22 b3 it.d7 23 <i.ttb 2 (Almasi-Zuger,
Horgen 199S) .
b) 13 . . .l:lac8 negates the sacrifice more
subtly: if 14 it.xh7+<i.ttx h7 1S ctJgS+<i.ttg8 16
"i¥d3 l:lfe8 17 'ii'h7+ <i.ttf8 the king is able to
thread his way through to the queenside
. . .<i.tte7-d8-c7-b8. Sax-Timman, Rotterdam
1989, concluded 18 "iVhS <i.tte 7 19 ctJxf7
ltJaS! 20 ti:Jd6 lh-lh. However, putting a
rook on c8 encourages ctJc3-bS as ti:Jd6
comes with tempo: 14 ti:JbS! f6 1S exf6
l:lxf6 16 ttJbd4! ctJxd4 17 ctJxd4 ctJa4 1 8
ti:Jb3 'ii'c 7 ( 1 8 . . . 'ii'b 6 19 l:lhe 1) 19 g 3 eS 20
fxeS 'ifxeS 21 "ii'e t l:lf2 22 .t:rde 1 'ii'f6 23
.Mhfl and Black's initiative was not enough
to outweigh his inferior structure in
Naiditsch-Blauert, Budapest 1998.
c) 13 ...l:lfc8 also prevents the it.xh7+
sacrifice because the black king already has
room to run, but after 14 ti:JbS! and 1S ti:Jd6
the rook is missing from the f-file to
support the .. .f7-f6 break.
14 j_xh7+!
The quieter 14 b3 is also reasonable.
After 14 ...l:lfc8 1 S ltJe2 ltJac4 16 'ii' c 3 ! ctJe3
17 "iVxcS l:lxcS 18 .Mdg1 ctJg4 19 .Me t ! aS 20
h3 ltJf2 21 .Mhf1 ti:Jxd3 22 cxd3 .Mac8 23
.MxcS .MxcS 24 .Met .Mxe t+ 2S Wxc 1 White
was on top in Madl-Hagarova, Ostrava
1999.
1 4 . �xh7 15 Lt:lg5+ Wg8 16 'iWd3
White has played the sacrifice in three
games so far, the first of which was Tong
Yuanming-Ulibin, Beijing 1996, which went
16 . . . .Mfc8 17 'iVh7+ �f8 18 'iYh8+ <iit e 7 19
'iVxg7 �d8 20 ctJxf7+ <iitc 7 2 1 ctJd6 ctJac4 22
ctJxc4 Mg8 23 'iVh7 ctJxc4 24 ctJxdS+ exdS
.
.
Main Line with 4 Jig5 Jie7 5 e5 l:fjfd7
25 e6 �ad8 26 g3 ifb6 27 b3 Ci:Je3 28 exd7
ti:Jxd1 and Black won.
However, in this line White can play
more strongly with 18 fS! (Glek) 18 ...exf5 19
it'h8+ We7 20 'ii'x g7 .i.e6 21 ctJxe6 Wxe6 22
'ii'f6+ Wd7 and now rather than 23 'ii'xf7+
Wc6 24 ctJxdS when 24 . . . Ci:Jac4! continues
Black's attack (25 Ci:Je7+ <it>bS 26 ctJxc8+
�xc8) , White should play 23 Ci:Jxd5! 'ii'xc2+
(not 23 . . . Ci:Jxd5? 24 'ifxf7+ Wc6 25 'ife6+) 24
Wa1 Ci:Jxd5 25 ifxf7+ Wc6 26 l:.c l when the
queen and pawns are better than the rook
and knights in the endgame. Black cannot
deviate from this line: if 20 ... Wd8? 21 Ci:Jxf7+
Wc7 22 e6! .i.xe6 23 ctJgS+, or 20 ... Ci:Jac4 2 1
ti:Jxf7 We8 2 2 Ci:Jd6+ Ci:Jxd6 2 3 l:.xd5 ! wins.
16 .. JHe8 17 �h7+ 'itf8
ctJf8 29 l:.g7 l:.c8 30 'ifxf7+ �d8 3 1 'iff6+
We8 32 'iff7+ etc. However, Fritz comes up
with 29 Ci:Jxd5! exd5 30 e6 and after
30 . . . tLlc4+ 3 1 Wa1 'ife7 32 :xf8+! 'i'lxf8 33
bxc4 .i.xc4 34 exf7+ Wd7 35 :e 1 the
advancing the g-pawn will win the game.
White can also play 19 'ifxg7! Wd8 20
tbxf7+ Wc7 21 tLld6 tLlac4 22 ctJcb5+! �b8
23 ctJxc4 'ifxc4 24 ctJd6 'ifxf4 25 l:.hf1 with
a 'significant advantage' according to Finkel,
who also notes 2 1 . . .l:.ed8 22 'ife7! Wc6 23
ctJe2 l:.e8 24 ctJd4+ 'ifxd4 25 ctJxe8 'ifc5 26
'ifxcS+ Wxc5 27 ti:Jf6 and 19 ... :f8? 20
ctJce4! dxe4 2 1 ctJxe4 'ifb4 22 'iff6+ �e8 23
ti:Jd6+ 'ifxd6 24 exd6 ctJc6 25 h4 as winning
for White.
Instead White decides to force a draw:
18 Cjjce4?! dxe4 19 Cjjxe4 'iVc6 20 �d6
'iVb5 2 1 'ifh8+ �e7 22 'iWh4+ �f8
If Black really wanted to win he could try
22 . . .f6!? 23 exf6 �d8 24 f7+ �c7 25 fxe8'if
l:.xe8 26 b3 ctJac4 27 l:.d4 (Glek) and then
27 ... e5 !? (Finkel) with complications. But
White could have his draw anyway with 23
Ci:Jxf6 tLlac4 24 Ci:Jxd7+ �f7 25 'ifhS+ etc.
23 ifh8+ 'ite7 24 'iWh4+ 'itf8 �- �
Game 55
Labutin-Uiibin
With the rook on e8 the 1 8 fS variation
does not work: Black could simply capture
24 ctJxdS? ctJxd5 ! as White does not have 25
�e6+.
This apart, the rook is worse placed on
e8, as it might later be taken with check and
B lack is without latent threats against c2.
Thus the straightforward 18 'ifh8+ We7 is
good for White. Glek later suggested 19
�h 4!? �h8! 20 tbh7+ We8 21 ti:Jf6+ gxf6 22
i¥xh8+ iff8 23 'ifxf6 tLlac4 24 l:.d3 'ii'b 4 25
b3 or 25 tLld1 as slightly better for White.
This was tested in Grabics-Matveeva,
Istanbul 2000, and White could find
nothing better than perpetual check: 25 b3
ctJa3+ 26 �b2 �bs 27 l'Ig3 ct::Jd7 28 l':tg8+
Kstovo 1997
1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 Cjjc3 l:fjf6 4 .1l.g5 .1l.e7
5 e5 l:fjfd7 6 .1l.xe7 'iWxe7 7 f4 0-0 8 l:fjf3
c5 9 'ifd2 Cjjc6 10 dxc5 Cjjxc5
By recapturing on cS with the knight,
Black keeps options open regarding where
to play on the board. In this game he goes
for the queenside with . . . a7-a6 and ... b7-b5,
whereas in Game 56 Black opts to challenge
the white centre with .. .f7-f6.
This flexibility also serves Black well
should his opponent now attempt a 9 dxcS
main line with 1 1 .i.d3 . Then 1 l . . .f6! 12
exf6 "ifxf6 13 g3 shows White's move order
to be inaccurate, on account of Alekhine's
suggestion 13 . . . ct::Jxd3+! intending 14 cxd3
French Classical
eS! (for which see the note to 13 0-0 in
Game 57) .
1 1 0-0-0 a6
With ... a7-a6 Black prevents the sortie
ti:JbS and prepares a queenside pawn
advance. The position after 1 1 . .. a6 might
also arise via 7 ... a6 8 ti:Jf3 cS 9 'Jilid2 ctJc6 10
dxcS ctJxcS 1 1 0-0-0 bS 12 'Jilie3 and then
12 ... 0-0. Starting with 7 ... a6 is more flexible
as Black can hold back . . . 0-0 until the most
suitable moment. But White does have
other options against 7 . . . a6, such as 8 'Yig4
or 8 'YihS, which Black might not want to
bother with and which 7 . . . 0-0 renders
ineffectual. The ramifications of 7 . . . a6 are
covered in Game 59.
Returning to the current game: here
1 1 . . .f6 12 exf6 'Yixf6 13 g3 is another route
to 10 .. .f6 positions in Game 56. 1 1 . .. .i.d7!?
is a waiting move; Black may yet play either
.. .f7-f6 or . . . a7-a6. The easiest reply for
White is 12 'Yie3 ! so that if .. .f7-f6 Black is
unable, after e5xf6, to recapture with the
queen since the knight hangs; while if Black
chooses 12 . . . a6 he is committed to an early
... .i.d7 when he might prefer to play ... b7b5.
12 'i!Ve3
This useful move has several points.
White can follow with .i.fl-d3 threatening
.i.xh7+ etc., and if ...tt:Jxd3 c2xd3 White will
aim for an advantageous endgame, playing
�b 1 , ti:Je2 and .Mc l . The queen is well
102
placed on e3 , overprotecting eS in
preparation for Black's . . .f7-f6 or White's
own advance f4-f5. Finally, there is a
positional threat of 13 MxdS!? exdS 14
ctJxdS, as in Aseev-Holzlein, Wiirzburg
1990, after 12 .. .f5? 13 MxdS! b6 (if 13 ... exd5
14 ctJxdS 'Yid8 15 'YixcS .i.e6 16 i.c4 �h8
17 ti:JgS with a huge advantage) 14 Md6
.i.b7 15 .i.e2 'Jilic7 16 Mhd1 ti:Jd8 17 g4!
with a won position for White.
White can also play 12 �b 1, preparing
for the opening of the c-file after an
exchange on d3 . However, Black may not
oblige, preferring the advance 12 ... b5 1 3
i.d3 b 4 14 ctJe2 aS intending ... .i.a6. I n
Klovans-Kviriashvili, Pardubice 1996, this
plan was extremely effective after 15 h4
.i.a6 16 hS? b3 ! 17 ctJc l i.xd3 1 8 ctJxd3
ti:Jb4 19 ti:Jxb4 axb4 20 ti:Jd4 'Jilia7 2 1 a3
bxc2+ 22 'Yixc2 bxa3 23 b4 ctJe4 24 Mh3
Mfc8 0-1 . The alternative, 13 'Yie3 , is
considered via 12 'Jilie3 bS 13 �b 1 below.
More often White plays 12 .i.d3
immediately and then if 12 .. .f6 (or 12 .. .f5)
13 exf6 'Jilixf6 14 g3 Black has wasted a
move on ... a7-a6 in a 10 . . .f6 line, c.f. 14
i.d3 in the notes to 14 ti:Jd4 in Game 56.
However, Black can improve by delaying
.. .f7-f6. After 12 ... i.d7 13 'Yie3 f6! White is
unable to play as desired with 14 exf6
ti:Jxd3+ 15 cxd3?! 'Yixf6 16 g3? because of
16 ... d4, while after 15 :xd3 or 15 'ifxd3
'Yixf6 16 g3 Black gains time with ... i.e8-g6.
Instead 13 ctJe2 Mac8 14 �b 1 ti:Jxd3 15
cxd3 f6! 16 ti:Jed4 (or 16 exf6 'Yixf6 17 ii'e3
i.e8) 16 . . .ti:Jxd4 17 ti:Jxd4 fxeS 18 fxeS 'ifh4
was fine for Black in Dolmatov-Bareev,
Sochi 1988. The same applies to 12 ... b5 13
'Yie3 f6 (see below), but here White has 1 3
ctJe2, intending t o establish a knight o n d4.
ECO quotes Gligoric-Stahlberg, match
1949, which continued 13 ... i.b7 14 ti:Jfd4
ti:Jxd4 15 ti:Jxd4 when White's central
control gives him the edge.
1 2 .b5!
This obvious advance has a hidden
. .
Main Line with 4
subtlety which White fails to notice: it clears
the second rank for the queen. For instance,
White can no longer consider 13 �xdS?
exdS 14 ctJxdS since 14 ... iVa7! keeps hold of
the ctJcS. Aseev-Bareev, Lvov 1990, saw
instead 12 ... l:.dS!? 13 ctJe2 .td7 14 l2Jed4
MacS 15 �b 1 ctJaS 16 .td3 ctJc4 17 .txc4
dxc4 1 S g4 ctJa4 19 c3 bS with mutual
chances.
13 f5?!
This logical move, threatening f5-f6, was
one of the above-mentioned purposes of 12
'if e3 . Unfortunately it is incorrect at this
juncture due to Black's unexpected reply.
Instead 13 i.d3 gives Black a choice.
13 .. .f6 is okay since, as noted above, 14 exf6
ctJxd3+ 1 5 cxd3?! 'ifxf6 1 6 g3? fails to
1 6 . . . d4, while after 14 ctJe2 b4 15 �b1 aS 16
exf6 .:xf6 1 7 �de l 'ifd6 1 S ctJeS i.a6 Black
began to take over the initiative in
Khalifman-Stojanovic, Ubeda 1997. Black
has also fared well with 13 ... tt:Jxd3+ 14 cxd3
.tb7!? intending . . . .i:fdS, . . . d4, or if 1 5 ctJe2
d4!? with good compensation for the pawn.
Lindgren-Trapl, correspondence 1992, saw
15 .i:d2 .MfdS 1 6 d4 l:.acS 1 7 �b l ctJaS 1 S
'ifd 3 i. c 6 19 tt:Jgs fs 2 0 g 4 �fs 2 1 �g2
i.eS 22 h4 b4 23 gxfS �xfS and Black was
better.
13 �b 1 also lacks punch. As noted
before, the point of �b 1 is to anticipate
... tt:Jxd3 , which cannot occur unless the
bishop goes to d3 . Furthermore, 13 �b 1
allows Black to establish his knight on e4 by
13 . . . b4 1 4 ctJe2 ctJe4, and this lead to easy
equality in Short-Korchnoi, Thessaloniki
Olympiad 19SS, after 15 ctJg3 'ifcS! 16
'ifxcS ctJxcS 17 i.d3 aS 1 S Mhe 1 i.a6 19
i.xa6 �xa6, though a subsequent accident
cost Black the game. Finkel suggests 15 g4
as a possible improvement, but this has not
yet been tried.
13 .. .'�a7!
An unusual and strong resource - Black
removes the queen from e7 with tempo by
threatening . . . 'Db3+.
i.. g 5
iLe7 5 e5 {fjfd7
14 ltJd4
With this move White gives up his
kingside ambitions as the queen can hardly
do anything on her own, but there doesn't
seem to be anything better. Black is for
preference after 14 'ifgS f6 15 exf6 Mxf6 16
dxe6 i.xe6, while if 14 'iff4!? exfS 1 5 'DxdS
ctJe4 16 Mg1 .te6 17 'De3 (Finkel) then
17 . . . l:.fdS is strong, e.g. 1S .td3 'Df2 or 1 S
g4 l2Jb4! 19 a3 ? 'ifxe3+! 2 0 'ifxe3 'Da2+ and
mates, or if 1S MxdS+ MxdS 19 i.d3 gS! 20
'DxgS Mxd3 ! 21 cxd3 'DxeS! with decisive
threats of . . . 'Dxd3, ... ctJg6 and ... 'ifxe3 .
14...ltJxd4 15 '¥Yxd4
Finkel suggests 1 5 .i:xd4!? exfS 16 'DxdS
i.e6 17 i.e2 'De4 1S 'Df4 i.xa2 19 g4 with
counterplay. This is certainly more
adventurous than taking with the queen. If
19 . . .ctJc5 20 gxfS MadS 21 Mhd1 (not 2 1
MxdS? 'Db3+) 2 1 . ..'�c7 (threat: . . .'Db3+) 22
Mb4 and White hangs on.
15 ...exf5 16 ltJxd5 i..e6 17 ii.e2 i..xd5
18 '¥Yxd5 ltJe4 19 �he 1 'ife7 !
Simple chess - Black intends to drive the
white queen away and win the eS-pawn.
20 i..f3 �ad8 2 1 '¥Yc6 l!c8?!
2 1 ... 'if xeS wins a safe pawn, whereas the
text allows White to maintain material
equality.
22 '¥Yb6? !
White should therefore take the a-pawn
and may still survive after 22 'ifxa6 and
either 22 .. ."ii'xe5 23 �xe4 fxe4 24 'i¥d6;
French Classical
22 . . . 'ifc5 23 i.xe4 fxe4 24 lld2; or 22 . . . lla8
23 'ifxbS �xa2 (or 23 ... llfb8 24 i.xe4!?
�xbS 25 i.xa8) 24 c3 .
22 ...�xe5 23 g3 l1c4
The rook switches to frontal attack by
24 . . J�b4 or if 24 'ifxa6 lla4. Exchanging
rooks does not help White: 24 lld8 g6 25
llxf8+ <itxf8 and the a-pawn still cannot be
taken due to 26 'ifxa6? lla4 27 'iic 8+ �g7
and Black wins after either 28 a3 llxa3 !; 28
c3 llc4 and ... llxc3+; 28 i.xe4 llxa2! 29
<it>d2 fxe4; or 28 'iic 3 !? 'ifxc3 29 bxc3 llxa2.
24 l1e2?
White prepares to defend b2 by c2-c3 .
However ...
24 . ..l1b4 25 c3 l1xb2 !
. . . Black takes it anyway.
26 l1xb2 'ifxc3+ 27 �b 1 'ifxf3 28 �d4?
The only defence was 28 �c 1 intending
28 . . . ctJc3+ 29 Wa1 ctJa4 30 'iff2!, though
Black is clearly better with three pawns for
the exchange. After 28 'i!Vd4 Black simply
has three pawns for nothing.
28 ...t2Jc3+ 29 �c 1 t2Jxd 1 30 'ifxd 1
l1c8+ 0- 1
Game 56
Mrdja-Gieizerov
Turin 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 il.g5 !ii.e. 7
5 e5 CLifd7 6 !ii..xe7 'VJ/lxe7 7 f4 0-0 8 lLif3
c5 9 �d2 CLic6 1 0 dxc5 f6 1 1 exf6
104
�xf6 12 g3 t2Jxc5 13 0-0-0
This line has recently seen a revival. The
diagram position can arise by a variety of
routes. Gleizerov has favoured the direct
10 .. .f6 as in this game, but 10 . . . ctJxcS 1 1
0-0-0 f6 12 exf6 'ilfxf6 1 3 g3 is also often
seen, as is 9 dxcS f6 10 exf6 'ifxf6 1 1 g3
ctJc6 12 'i!Vd2 ctJxcS 13 0-0-0.
The pawn structure defines White's
strategy: to control the central dark-squares
and thus the black d- and e-pawns. The
backward e6-pawn is an obvious target,
either for direct attack or for the thrust f4f5 to undermine the dS-pawn. As the e6pawn can only be advanced if White goes
wrong, losing his grip on the position, Black
will work around the centre, re-routing the
bishop to a more active post on the kingside
via d7 and e8. The black rooks will typically
be posted on the c- and cl-files.
Instead of 13 0-0-0 in the game, 13 i.d3
is also possible transposing to 9 dxcS, but
White's move order is inaccurate - as is
explained in the notes to Game 57.
13 . . J1d8
A necessary preliminary. If immediately
13 . . . i.d7?! 14 ctJxdS ! exdS 15 'ifxdS+ ctJe6
16 'ilfxd7 (not 16 ctJgS :ad8 1 7 i.h3 !:tfe8
1 8 :he 1 ctJcd4 19 'ilVe4 'if f7 20 fS i.c6 2 1
fxe6 'iYg6 2 2 'iYc4 bS with an unclear
position) 16 ... :fd8 1 7 'iYxb7 :ab8 1 8
J:.xd8+ ctJexd8 19 'iYd7 'iYxb2+ 2 0 �d2 and
Black has insufficient compensation.
Main Line with 4 i.g5 i.e7 5 e5 t'iJfd7
By . . . l::r d S Black prepares development
with . . . i.. d 7-eS, prevents 'ii'e 3 due to . . . d5d4, and supposedly threatens t4 ...CLJe4 since
t5 CLJxe4? dxe4 wins material.
14 l2Jd4
ECO's recommendation, intending
t4 ... CLJe4 t5 'i¥e3 with a slight advantage
(Keres, Euwe) .
a) t4 i.. d3 is preferred in NCO, though
White has not shown much against Black's
standard plan of 14 . . . �d7 15l::rh e1l::racS 16
�b t i.. e S 17 CLJe5 CLJxe5 t S l::rx e5 ct:Jd7 19
l::re e t and White had nothing in Mukhaev­
Gleizerov, Tomsk t99S; Black in fact played
for the win after t9 . . . i.. h 5 (19 . . . JIH7) 20
�e2 �g6!? (20 . . . i.. xe2) 2 t �g4 l::rc 6 22
'ifd4 'ifxd4 23 l::rxd4 �f7 24 f5?! exf5 25
�f3 CLJf6 26 CLJxd5 f4! 27 l::re 2 fxg3 2S hxg3
.:cd6. Instead t7 'iff2 CLJxd3 t S .:xd3 i.. g6
lead to a quick draw in Gallagher-Weinzettl,
Pula 2000, following 19 .:d2 CLJa5!? (t9 ... b6)
20 �d4 CLJc4 2 1 .:de2 iffS 22 CLJe5 ifb4 23
CLJxc4 �xc4 24 'i¥e5 �c6 25 a3 'ifc4 26 .:d2
.:dcS Y2-Y2.
White has several other options:
b) t4 'iff2 used to be thought good, since
if 14 . . . CLJe4?! t5 CLJxe4 dxe4 t6 CLJd2 White
gains the advantage, or if t4 . . . b6 White has
gained a tempo on 14 'ife 1 i.. d7 15 i.. g2
.i.eS 1 6 'iff2. However, the absence of a
major piece on the e-file, plus the latent pin
on the f-file gives Black the chance to break
with 14 . . . d4! 15 lt:JbS eS which scored two
crushing
wins
for
the
Czech
correspondence IM, Milan Mraz: 16 .i.c4+
i.. e 6 17 'iff1 d3 ! t S i.. xe6+ 'if xe6 19 CLJc7?
'ifxa2 20 CLJxaS CLJe4 0-t (Khoklov-Mraz,
correspondence 1992) and 16 CLJc7 'iff7! t7
CLJxaS 'ifxa2 1S 'i¥g2 e4! t9 CLJd2 'ifat+ 20
ct:Jb t d3 2 t .i.xd3 exd3 0- 1 (Kunz-Mraz,
correspondence 1994) . Best play appears to
be t6 ct:Jg5 ! �hS (not 16 ... .tf5? t7 .tc4+
�fS tS g4 .i.g6 19 CLJc7 winning material in
Sadvakasov-R.Bagirov, Istanbul Olympiad
2000) t7 h4 (or 17 .i.c4 l::rfS) 17 . . . l::rfS t S
'iff3 exf4 t9 CLJxh7!? �xh7 2 0 'ifh5+ 'i¥h6
21 'ifxc5 fxg3+ 22 Wb 1 i.g4 with an unclear
position.
c) t4 'ii'e 1 keeps control of e5 and the
knight out of e4. Gleizerov again outplayed
two opponents following t5 i.b5 .:acS t6
i.xc6 i.xc6 t7 CLJd4 i.eS t S 'ife5 'ifxe5! t9
fxe5 �f7 and then 20 h4 We7 2 1 h5 CLJe4!
22 CLJxe4 dxe4 23 h6! gxh6 24 CLJe2?! (24
.:xh6) 24 ... .:xd1+ 25 �xdt h5! (Sochko­
Gleizerov, Stockholm 2000) ; the front h­
pawn blocks White's play down the file and
grants an endgame advantage to Black, who
ground out a win in S6 moves. Black was
also better after 20 ct:Jdb5 .i.xb5 2 t CLJxb5
CLJe4 22 Mhe 1 �e7 23 l'Dxa7?! .:c5 in
Grabarska-Gleizerov, Koszalin 1999, and
won after 24 a4 .:as 25 CLJb5 :xa4 26 CLJa3
b5 27 ct:Jb 1 b4 2S .:e3 .:as 29 ct:Jd2 :at+ 30
ct:Jb t :as 3 t ct:Jd2 :at+ 32 ct:Jb 1 :c4 33
:fl ? :xb 1+ 0- 1 .
Gleizerov notes t5 .tg2 as an
improvement. In fact, this worked out well
for White in Machulsky-Stetsko, Moscow
19S t, after 15 . . . .i.eS t6 'i¥f2 b6 17 CLJd4
CLJxd4 tS ifxd4 :acS t9 Mhe 1 i.g6 20 .th3
:c6? 2 t 'ifxf6 gxf6 22 f5! For Black either
19 ... .i.f7 or 20 . . . .tf7 was necessary.
d) t4 .i.g2! is also possible immediately,
since there is no need to prevent . . . CLJe4. In
fact 14 ... CLJe4 is probably a mistake. After 15
'ife3! CLJxc3 16 'ifxc3 'ifxc3 17 bxc3 .i.d7 1 S
:he 1 Black has great difficulties defending
the centre and both the white f-pawn and
French Classical
front
c-pawn
are useful
levers.
Voitsekhovsky-Volkov, Smolensk 1997,
continued 18 . . . h6 19 ctJe5 ctJxe5 20 :xe5
�f7 21 c4 i.c6 22 .i.h3 dxc4 23 i.xe6+
�f6 24 i.xc4 and White had won a pawn.
Otherwise after 14 ... i.d7 15 Mhe1 has saved
time on 14 'ife l.
14...�d7
Keres and Euwe's assessment of
14 ... ctJe4 1 5 'ife3 was confirmed in J.Berry­
V.Hybl, correspondence 1976, which
continued 15 . . . ctJxc3 16 'ifxc3 i.d7 17 i.g2
Mac8 18 Mhe 1 b6 19 ctJxe6 i.xe6 20 ifxf6
gxf6 2 1 Mxe6 and White had won a pawn.
15 'ii'e3
Again 1 5 i.g2 seems better. Soentges­
1992-97,
Hampel,
correspondence
continued 15 ... i.e8 16 'ife3 ctJxd4 17 ifxd4
l:.ac8 1 8 'ifxf6 gxf6 when White advanced
thematically 19 f5! d4 20 ctJe4 ctJxe4 (if
20 . . . i.c6 2 1 ctJxc5 i.xg2 22 ctJxe6) 2 1 .1Lxe4
e5 22 i.xb7 with an extra pawn. If instead
16 . . . J::.ac8 17 ctJxc6 Mxc6 18 ctJxd5! exd5 19
i.xd5+ <it>h8? (or 19 ...ctJe6 20 Mhe 1) 20
i.xc6 :xd1+ 21 Mxd1 'iixc6 22 'iie 7 wins
for White.
15...Mac8 16 �e2?!
After this less than incisive move Black is
able to reinforce his central defences. 16
i.g2 still looks better.
16...�e8 17 �g4 �f7 18 I:i.he 1 ct:Jxd4
19 'ifxd4 �c6
Black's policy of over-protection leaves
106
White rather at a loss. If here 20 'ifxf6 gxf6
2 1 f5 Black can simply play 2 1 . . .e5 since d5
is well defended. White proceeds to do
nothing much for the next few moves while
Black continues to reorganise his forces.
20 �b 1 a6 2 1 a3 h6 22 l:e5 l:dd6 23
h4 ct:Jd7 24 l:e3 �g6 25 �h3
25 'ifxf6 ctJxf6 26 i.f3 and White still
has a hold over the central dark squares.
Black cannot play 25 ... gxf6?! due to 26 f5!
exf5 27 i.f3 and d5 drops off.
25 ...'iff7 26 �f 1
White might at least have attempted to
do something on the kingside, e.g. 26 g4 b5
27 f5 to undermine the d5-pawn.
26...ct:Jc5 27 l:ee 1 ctJb3!?
27 ... b5 was also worthwhile, but Black
wants to keep the b-file open for his rook.
Plus, . . . ctJb3 shows nice psychology: White
will be aware that he has not done much
constructive, and Black teases him by
exploiting White's nondescript a2-a3 and
�b l .
28 'ii'f2
It was preferable to play 28 iVe5
intending g2-g4, f4-f5. Black cannot then
play 28 . . . ctJa5 29 g4 ctJc4? 30 i.xc4 since the
Md6 hangs, while if 28 . . . i.f5 29 i.d3 i.xd3
30 Mxd3 White still has a grip on e5.
28 ...ct:Ja5 29 �d3 tbc4 30 'ifd4?!
Better was 30 i.xc4 Mxc4 3 1 Md4.
30...�h5 31 tbe2 'ii'c7 32 �a2 Ild8 33
:c 1 e5!
When Black can achieve this advance
with impunity then White has clearly gone
wrong.
34 fxe5 tbxe5 35 :1 1 ct:Jxd3 36 'ii'xd3
d4!?
An odd decision. Black is okay after this
move, but 36 ... i.g6 was simpler, with an
extra pawn after 37 'ii'd2 Mxc2 38 l':Z.xc2
ifxc2 39 ifxc2 i.xc2 40 l2Jd4 i.e4.
37 ctJf4?
Probably short of time, White sees
ghosts. It was essential to capture 37 lDxd4,
when if 37 ...l':Z.c4 then not 38 c3 �dxd4!, but
Main Line with 4 ii..g5 ii..e7 5 e5 CDtd7
3 8 ktf4 as 3 8 ... g5 fails to 39 hxgS hxgS 40
'iVfS gxf4 41 'iVgS+. Black would have to try
37 ... J:.cd6 3 8 c3 (if 3 8 J:.f4 gS! now works
since Black has ... .i.g6 after 'i¥g5+) 38 ... .i.f7+
39 b3 aS 40 a4 bS! 4 1 'iVxbS J:.b8 42 J:.xf7
(if 42 iVfS .i.xb3+ 43 ctJxb3 'i¥c4) 42 . . . �xf7
43 l:.fl+ �g8 44 'i¥c4+ 'i¥xc4 45 bxc4 and
White has better chances to hold the game.
37 ...ii..f7+ 38 �b 1?!
38 b3 J:.c3 is not much of an
improvement.
38...ii..c4 39 �f3 ii..xf 1
The exchange up Black won easily.
40 �xf 1 d3 41 ti:Jxd3 �xg3 42 h5 �f6
43 'ifh 1 �f3 44 �h4 �d5 45 �c4 Wh7
46 l1g 1 l1xh5 47 �c7 nt7 0- 1
Game 57
Ulibin-R. Bagirov
Dubai 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ti:Jc3 ti:Jf6 4 ii..g5 ii..e7
5 e5 ti:Jfd7 6 ii..xe7 'ifxe7 7 f4 0-0 8 ti:Jf3
c5 9 dxc5
By capturing early on cS White is able to
follow with i.d3 and castle short. The
immediate 9 .i.d3 can transpose to the
current game after, for example, 9 ... ctJc6!?
10 dxcS or 9 . . .f6 10 exf6 'ifxf6 11 g3 l2Jc6
12 dxcS lLJxcS. But it allows Black to change
the play with 9 . . . cxd4!? leading to different
positions in Game 58.
9 ...t2Jc6
Once
again
there
are
many
transpositional possibilities. After 9 . . . ctJc6
10 'i¥d2 would return to 9 'ifd2 in Games
54-56. If 9 ... l2Jxc5 10 .i.d3 fS 1 1 exf6 'ifxf6
12 g3 l2Jc6 is another route to move 12
below, while 10 'i¥d2 l2Jc6 is again Game
55. Similarly 9 .. .f6 (or 9 .. .f5) 10 exf6 'i¥xf6
1 1 g3 l2Jc6 12 i.d3 lLJxcS was the actual
move order in Ulibin-Bagirov, while 12
'iVd2 lLJxcS is Game 56.
Finally, 9 ... 'i¥xc5 !? attempts to avoid the
current game in favour of a return to Game
54 after 10 'i¥d2 l2Jc6 or 10 ... l2Jb6 1 1 0-0-0
ctJc6. White can refuse the transposition
with 10 i.. d3 !? and in Rodriguez-Comas
Fabrego, Linares 1997, he held a slight plus
after 10 ... 'i¥e3+ 1 1 lLJe2 lLJc6 12 'i¥d2 'i¥xd2+
13 �xd2 l2Jc5 14 J:.he1 i.d7 15 l2Jed4. The
alternative 10 'i¥d4 is less testing following
10 . . . b6 1 1 i.bS (or 1 1 'iVxcS bxcS 12 lLJbS
l2Jc6) 1 1 . .. a6 12 i.xd7 i.xd7 13 0-0-0 l:.a7
14 �b 1 l2Jc6 15 'ifd2 and White had merely
lost time in Zhelnin-Gleizerov, Russian
Team Championship 1997, which
continued 15 ... l2Ja5!? 16 b3 .:cs 17 l2Je2
l2Jc6 18 l2Jed4 aS 19 l2Jxc6 i.xc6 20 l2Jd4
'i¥e7 2 1 J:.he 1 i.. d7 22 J:.e3 a4 23 b4 a3 with
an unclear position.
10 ii..d3
As noted above, 10 'iVd2 returns to 9
'ifd2 l2Jc6 10 dxcS lines in Games 54-56.
10...f6
There is little point in 10 . . .£5!? which
gives White a choice between 1 1 exf6
transposing, and 1 1 0-0!? as seen in
Plachetka-Bareev, Trnava 1989. The game
continued 1 1 ...l2Jxc5 12 l2Je2 .i.d7 13 l2Jed4
i.. e 8 14 'i¥d2 l2Je4 15 'ife3 �hS 16 a3 i.. xf3
17 l2Jxf3 aS 1 8 c4! with pressure against the
centre, and after 18 ... 'iVcS 19 'iVxcS lLJxcS 20
cxdS l2Jxd3 21 dxc6 bxc6 22 l2Jd4 J:.fe8 23
J:.f3 l2Jxb2 now 24 l2Jxc6! .:a6 25 J:.c l
would have been clearly better for White
according to Plachetka.
1 1 exf6 �xf6
The best move, prompting the
French Classical
weakening of White's kingside light squares.
Instead 1 1 . . . ctJxf6 12 �d2 �xc5 would
reach the note to move 1 1 in Game 54,
although this move order gives White more
options, either for 12 0-0 �xc5+ 13 �h 1, or
12 �e2 and 13 0-0-0.
Capturing with the rook is also inferior as
White does not have to make any
concessions. Thus 1 1 . . J�hf6 12 �d2 ctJxc5
13 0-0 is clearly worse than after 1 1 ...�xf6,
an assessment which has not changed since
Bronstein-Yanofsky, Saltsjobaden Inter­
zonal 1948. Alternatively, 12 ...�xc5 would
prevent White from castling short, but in
... �xc5 positions (see Game 54) Black does
not play . . .f7-f6 so soon, if at all.
12 g3 ct:Jxc5 13 0-0
The most accurate move. 13 �d2 allows
Black to break immediately with 13 ...ct:Jxd3+
intending 14 cxd3 e5! (Alekhine), e.g. 15 0-0
(if 15 ct:Jxd5 �d6 and . . . exf4) 15 ... �h3 16
ZHe 1 Mae8 1 7 ctJxd5 �d6 1 8 ctJc3 exf4 19
Mxe8 Mxe8 20 �xf4 �xd3 2 1 Md1 , as in
Virovlansky-Driamin, St Petersburg 1998.
Or if 14 �xd3 .td7 (intending ... �e8-g6)
1 5 ct:Jg5 �f5 is okay.
13 .....5ld7 14 �d2
White prepares to grip the e5-square by
Mae l . If instead 14 �e2!? Black can initiate
favourable exchanges by 14 ... lt:Jd4 15 lt:Jxd4
�xd4 16 �f2 �b4 17 a3 �b6 and after 1 8
b 4 ctJxd3 19 cxd3 d4! 2 0 ctJe4 e 5 Black had
freed both his position and his bishop in
Simagin-Ljublinsky, Sochi 1952.
White has also tried 14 �b5!?, intending
to remove the knight from c6 so that the
white queen can take up residence on d4.
However, Black can thwart the plan by
14 . . . d4! and if 1 5 �xc6 (15 ctJe2 Mad8)
15 . . . dxc3 16 .txd7 cxb2 17 �b l �ad8 1 8
�d6 (or 1 8 CtJe5 CtJxd7 19 lt:Jxd7 'i'e7)
1 8 ... Ct:Jxd7 19 'i'b4 b6 20 'i'xb2 'i'e7 2 1
�be l lt:Jc5 and Black drew without
difficulty in Jenni-R.Bagirov, Biel 2000.
14...ct:Jxd3
Black intends to break with ... e6-e5 while
it is still possible. It is necessary to take the
bishop first since if 14 ... e5? loses a pawn to
15 ctJxd5 �d6 16 .tc4. Anything else and
White will play 15 Mae l with a positional
advantage, e.g. 14 . . . .te8 15 Mae l il.g6 16
.txg6 �xg6 17 ctJe5 or 1 5 ... �ad8 16 ct:Je5
ctJxe5 17 Mxe5 .tf7 18 ct:Jd 1 ct:Jd7 19 �ee 1
d4+ 20 'i'e3 �xe3+ 2 1 l:Ixe3 (Keres­
Lilienthal, USSR Championship 1949) .
15 cxd3
15 �xd3 is inferior due to 15 ... i.e8 and
the bishop arrives at g6 with tempo,
enhancing Black's counterplay. With 1 5
cxd3, i f 1 5 ... .te8 16 l:Iae 1 grips e 5 again.
Hence Black plays:
15 ...e5! 16 l:tae 1
The immediate 16 ctJxd5 is no good since
after 16 ... �d6 the knight must retreat when
17 . . . exf4 regains the pawn. 16 ctJxe5 ctJxe5
17 fxe5 �xe5 18 d4 �h5 also gives White
nothing. By 16 Mael White adds pressure to
eS, while if 16 . . . exf4 17 ctJxdS 'i'd6 the
knight is now able combine retreat and
recapture with 1 8 ctJxf4.
16 ...exf4!?
Of his own accord Black falls in with his
opponent's scheme, sacrificing a pawn for
active piece play.
The alternative, 16 ... .th3 17 IH2 d4 1 8
CtJe4 'i'f5, leads t o great complications. For
a start, White can win the black queen by 19
CLJxeS CLJxeS 20 fxeS 'i'xe5 !, but after 2 1
CZJf6+ 'i'xf6 2 2 .:txf6 �xf6 and 2 3. . ..l:af8 the
Main Line with 4 il.g5 il.e7 5 e5 Cfjfd7
white pieces are impotent, tied to defence of
fl . De Firmian-Chernin, New York Open
1988, saw instead 2 1 .Sxf8+ .Sxf8 22 'Llf2
'i!Vh5 23 'i¥b4 iLg2! 24 'ifxd4 iLc6 and again
the threats on the light squares were enough
to draw the game.
In A.Rodriguez-Stojanovic, Linares 1997,
White tried 19 'Llfg5 !? iLg4! (not 19 . . . exf4?
20 'i!Vc 1 !) 20 h3 iLxh3 21 .Sh2 exf4 22 .Sxh3
h6 23 gxf4 hxg5 24 'i!Vh2 'i!Vg4+ 25 �h 1
'i!Vxf4 26 .Sh8+ �f7 27 'Lld6+ and obtained a
winning position after 27 ... 'i!Vxd6? 28 'ifxd6
.Sxh8+ 29 �g2 .Sh6 30 'i!Vd5+ �f8 3 1 .Sfl+
l:tf6 32 'i!Vd6+ �e8 33 .Sxf6 gxf6 34 'i!Ve6+
'Lle7 35 'i!Vxf6. However, after 27 ... �f6!
White has no more than a draw by 28 .Sh6+
g6 29 'Lle4+ <i.t>g7 30 l:th7+ �g8 (Froberg­
A.Gaujens, correspondence 1997-98), while
if 27 'i!Vh5+ it is not clear how White
continues after 27 . . . <i.t>e6 28 'Llxg5+ <i.t>d6!
Fritz improves on this for White with the
subtle 19 'i!Vc l !?, and if 19 . . . exf4 20 'Llfg5!
when the prospect of .Sxf4 and 'ifc4+
creates serious problems for Black, or if
19 . . . .i.g4 20 'Llxe5! since the bishop no
longer controls fl . A.Bartsch-Scruton, email
1997, saw 19 . . . 'i!Vd7 20 'i!Vc4+ �h8 2 1 'Llc5
'i!Vc7 22 'Llg5 (threatening 'Llxh3 and 'Lle6)
22 ... b5 (or 22 ... iLf5 23 'Llce6 'i!Va5 24 .Sfe2)
23 'i!Vxb5 'i!Vb6 24 'i!Vc4 'Lla5 25 'Llf7+ and
Black resigned.
17 CZ'lxd5 �d6
1 7 . . . 'i!Vf7?! 1 8 'Llxf4 'i!Vxa2 is inconsistent.
Black gets the pawn back but cedes all
counterplay; after 19 d4 'i!Va5 20 'i!Vxa5
'Llxa5 2 1 .Se7 White was in control in
A.Rodriguez-Chernin, Subotica Interzonal
1987.
18 ctJxf4 il.g4 19 �e3
19 'i!Vc3!? is another possibility, aiming to
combine 'Llg5 and 'i!Vc4+ with new threats,
for instance, 19 . . . .Sad8 20 'i!Vc4+ <i.t>h8 2 1
CLJg5 i s strong. G.Coleman-O'Neale,
correspondence 1997-98, saw 19 . . . iLxf3 20
�xf3 CDd4 21 �f2 �ac8 (if now 2 1 . . .�ad8
22 'ifc4+ �h8 23 �e4 threatens 24 �xd4!
'i!Vxd4 25 'i!Vxd4 .Sxd4 26 CLJg6+) 22 ifa5
.Sf5 23 'i!Va4 g5 24 ge4! ct:Jb5 25 'i!Vb3+ �h8
26 'i!Ve6 .Scf8 27 'Llh3 and White
consolidated.
19 ...ll.ad8
19 ... iLxf3 allows White more activity
after 20 'i!Vxf3 ! "ifd4+ 2 1 .Sf2 .Sad8 22 ge4,
as in Brunner-Zi.iger, Prague 1989.
20 CZ'lg5
Better than 20 .Sf2 h6 2 1 h4 .Sf7 22 CLJd2
'ifb4 23 'Lle4 ctJd4 with a dynamic position
for Black in Arnason-Bareev, Sochi 1988 .
20 ...h6 2 1 C2Je4 �b4
The black player reached this same
position again later in the year. Kadhi­
R.Bagirov, Abu Dhabi 2000, saw 22 ctJg6?!
.Sxf1+ 23 .Sxfl 'i!Vxb2 24 "iff4, when after
24 . . . iLe6 25 C2Jf8 ltJd4! 26 Wh 1 iLf5 27 g4
.Sxf8 28 gxf5 ctJxf5 Black still had his all his
counterplay and was now a pawn up as well.
22 h3
This was first seen in Kovalevskaya­
Ulibin, St Petersburg 1995, continuing
22 ... iLc8 23 .Sf2 ctJd4 24 .Sef1 iLf5 25 g4
iLxe4 26 "ifxe4 �fe8 27 'ii' g6 "ifd6 28 'ifxd6
Yz-Yz. Presumably Ulibin had some White
improvement in mind, or else thought the
final position was worth playing on.
Whatever, Black wisely makes a different
response.
22 ...il.f5 23 ll.f2 tt:'le5!?
Rather than adopt a blockading strategy
with ... '2ld4 Black resorts to a tactical
Frenc h Classic al
defence, threatening 24 . . . tt:Jxd3 25 tt:Jxd3
�xd3 when White cannot recapture as the
�e 1 hangs.
24 a3 'iVa5 25 l2Jc5
Having driven the queen back 25 d4 was
now possible, since if 25 . . . �xd4 26 b4 'iVd8
27 ctJc5 �e8 28 �fe2 threatens 29 'i¥b3+
and 29 tt:Jfe6 maybe with g3-g4 thrown in,
e.g. 29 ... <i.th7 30 g4 jL,c8 3 1 tt:Jfe6 jL,xe6 32
'iVxe5 . However, 25 ... tt:Jc4! 26 'iVc3 'ifxc3 27
ctJxc3 g5! 28 tt:Jfd5 jL,xh3 improves for
Black; if 29 tt:Jf6+ <i.tg7 30 �e7+ <i.tg6 3 1
tt:Jcd5 tt:Jb6 defends.
25 ...l:.de8 26 l2Jce6?!
White sees that after 26 tt:Jfe6 jL,xe6 27
�xf8+ �xf8 28 ctJxe5 jL,xh3 is draw ish, and
27 'i¥xe5? jL,f7 even wins for Black since
the �e 1 hangs again. By using the c5-knight
White keeps h3 defended, while after
26 . . . �xe6 27 'ifxe5 opposes queens.
Unfortunately, Black does not have to
capture on e6.
26 ...l2Jxd3! 27 l2Jxd3 l:txe6 28 l2Je5 �ef6
Black is content to have regained his
pawn and rejects complications following
28 . . . jL,xh3 29 �xf8+ <i.txf8 30 'iVe4 h5! Now
the game proceeds to a draw.
29 b4 �a6 30 h4 �e6 3 1 .1:1xf6 l1xf6 32
l1d 1 <t1ih7 33 g4 <t1ig8 34 <t1ig2 �f8 35
�g3 'iVb5 Yz - Yz
Game 58
Szilagyi-Harding
correspondence 1987
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 �g5 �e7
5 e5 l2Jfd7 6 �xe7 'ifxe7 7 f4 0-0 8 l2Jf3
8 jL,d3 c5 9 tt:Jf3 is the same thing as
current game. Instead 8 "ifd2 c5 9 tt:Jf3 or 9
dxc5 ctJc6 10 tt:Jf3 reaches 'ifd2 lines in
Games 54-56.
8 'ifh5 is artificial, since after 8 ... c5 9 tt:Jf3
cxd4 10 tt:Jxd4 ctJc6 1 1 �d3 g6 12 ctJxc6
bxc6 13 'ifh6 f6 14 exf6 'ifxf6 15 0-0 �b8
Black was better in Okolotowicz-Friedman,
Toronto 1998.
1 10
8 ...c5 9 �d3
An unpretentious move, setting up to
sacrifice immediately on h7. Unfortunately
for White, even if Black does not prevent it,
the sacrifice does not seem all that strong.
The sortie with 9 tt:Jb5 is now ineffective
as 9 ... a6! creates a home for the rook, i.e. 10
ctJc7? �a7 and the knight is trapped.
J. 0 livier-Gleizerov, Metz 1999, saw 10 tt:Jd6
cxd4! 1 1 jL,d3 f6 12 tt:Jxc8 lixc8 13 exf6
"ifxf6 and White had used several moves in
order to capture Black's problem bishop on
its home square. Nevertheless, this was
better than 12 0-0 ctJc6 13 'ife2 ctJc5 14
�ae 1 i.d7 15 a3 i.e8 16 g4 fxe5 17 ctJxe8?
e4 18 b4 ctJxd3 19 cxd3 exf3 0- 1 D.Walker­
R.Shaw, British Championship 1999.
9...cxd4!?
Showing no fear, Black not only ignores
the bishop sacrifice but even encourages it.
9 . . . tt:Jc6!? is also okay as the sacrifice 10
i.xh7+ is only good enough for a draw:
10 . . . <i.txh7 1 1 ctJg5+ <i.tg6! 12 'iVg4 (if 12
'ifd3+ f5 13 'iVh3 ctJf6! 14 exf6 gxf6 and the
black queen defends laterally) 12 .. .f5 (not
12 ... ctJdxe5? 13 dxe5 ctJxe5 14 'i¥g3 f5 1 5
ct:Jf3+ winning i n Finnie-Simmons,
correspondence 1995-96, nor 12 .. .f6? 13
ct:Jxd5 ! exd5 14 f5+) 13 'iVg3 (if 13 'ifh4 tt:Jf6
14 g4 fxg4 15 exf6 gxf6 16 tt:Jge4 f5)
13 ... cxd4 14 ctJxe6+ (if 14 ctJe2 �h8)
14 ... <i.th6 15 ctJxf8 ctJxf8 16 lt:Jxd5 'iVcS and
Black survives. White should probably
Main Line with 4 !ii. g5 !ii. e7 5 e5 l'[j fd7
return to the main lines of Game 57 by 10
dxc5!
9 . . .f6 (or 9 . . .f5) also allows White to play
normal lines following 10 exf6 'ifxf6
(10 . . . l:.xf6!? 1 1 'i¥d2 cxd4 12 ctJxd4 ctJc6 13
4Jf3 'i¥b4! might be worth trying) 1 1 g3 !
when 1 1 . . . ctJc6 12 dxc5 ctJxc5 13 0-0 or
1 1 . .. cxd4 12 ctJxd4 ctJc6 1 3 4Jf3 ctJc5 14 0-0
transposes again to Game 57 (9 dxc5) .
Bronstein's imaginative 1 1 ctJg5!? has
proved to be unsound after 1 1 . .. 'ifxf4! 12
.i.xh7+ �h8 13 'ifhS 4Jf6! 14 4Jf7+ l:.xf7 15
'ifxf7 �xh7 and White has insufficient
compensation. If 16 l:.fl (as suggested in
Informator 45) then 16 . . . 'i¥h4+ 17 g3 (or 17
.:.f2 cxd4 1 8 ctJe2 ctJc6) 1 7 ... 'ifxd4 1 8 ctJe2
(or 18 l:.f4 'i¥g1+ 19 <ittd2 'ifxh2+) 18 ... 'ifxb2
19 l:.d1 ctJg4! 20 'ifh5+ 4Jh6 stopping all
threats (G.Berry-Megier, correspondence
1992-94) . Or if 13 'ifd2!? 'ifxd2+ 14 �xd2
l:.f2+ 15 ctJe2 (or 15 �e 1 l:.xg2 16 h4 ctJc6!)
1 5 ... 4Jf8! 16 .td3 c4 17 l:.af1 l:.xf1 1 8 l:.xfl
(Kostakiev-Strelkov, correspondence 1988)
then 1 8 . . . �g8! preventing l:.f7 and Black is
clearly better.
10 !ii.x. h7+
10 ctJxd4!? is possible when 10 . . . ctJc6 1 1
4Jf3 ! can again return to normal lines by
1 1 . . . ctJc5 or 1 1 . . .f6 12 exf6 'ifxf6 13 g3 .
Martinez Penalver-Deak, San Agustin 1997,
saw instead 1 1 . .. 'ifb4!? 12 .i.xh7+ �xh7 13
ctJg5+ �g6 14 'i¥d3+ f5 when 1 5 ctJxe6! d4
(or 15 ... l:.e8 1 6 'i¥g3+ �f7 17 'i¥xg7+ with
perpetual) 16 a3 'ifxb2 17 liJd5! 4Jdxe5! 1 8
'ii g3+ ctJg4 19 4Jxf8+ �f7 2 0 0-0 �xf8 2 1
'ifd 3 would have been unclear.
10...'\txh7 1 1 l2Jg5+ �xg5?!
1 1 . .. �g6! again seems sufficient after 12
'ifd3+ (not 12 'i¥g4? f5 13 exf6 ctJxf6) 12 .. .f5
13 exf6+ (if 13 �h3 4Jf6! 14 exf6 gxf6
defends laterally again) 13 . . . �xf6 14 4Jh7+
�f7 15 ctJg5+ �f6 etc (not 15 . .. �d8? 16
'i¥g6+) . White can play on with 14 ifxd4+
�g6 1 5 ifd3+ �f6 16 ctJh7+ �f7 17 ctJxf8
but has no actual advantage (17 . . . ifxf8
intending . . . �g8) .
12 fxg5 dxc3
Black has three pieces for the queen and
after 13 ifd3+ �g8 14 'i¥xc3 would have
good play with 14 ... ctJc6 and .. . 4Jdxe5 .
13 '¥i'h5+!
White intends to lift his queen's rook to
the h-file and attack before Black has time
to develop his queenside.
13 ...Wg8 14 0-0 l2Jxe5
Not 14 . . . g6? 15 'i¥h6 followed by l:.f4
and l:.h4; while if 14 . . . cxb2 15 l:.ael ctJc6
(or 15 . . . b 1'i¥ 16 .l:.xb 1 ctJxe5 17 l:.b3) 16
l:.e3 b 1'i¥ 17 :h3 ! 'ifxfl+ 1 8 �xfl f6 19 g6
fxe5+ 20 �g1 l:.fl+ 2 1 �xf1 �f8 22 'ifh8+
�e7 23 'i¥xg7+ wins.
15 .tlae 1 l2Jg6?!
Black has better chances to defend after
15 . . . 4Jbc6 16 l:.e3 g6 17 'i'h4 l:.d8 18 l:h3
�f8.
16 .tle3 e5 17 g4
17 ....tld8? !
No better is 17 ... l:Xe8 1 8 l:.h3 l:.e6 19
'ifh7+ �f8 20 l:.h6 ctJe7 (or 20 ... 4Jf4 21
'i¥h8+ �e7 22 'i'xc8 gxh6 23 'ifxb7+) 2 1 g6!
f6 22 'i¥h8+ ctJg8 23 l:Ih7 l!e7 24 l:.xg7! 1-0
T eichmeister-Krecmer, correspondence
1988-89, since 24 ... l:.xg7 25 Itxf6+ �e8 26
'i'xg7 wins.
The only way Black can prolong the
game is to return a piece by 17 ... .i.xg4 1 8
'ii'xg4 cxb2 though White i s clearly for
preference.
18 !1h3 �d6 19 '*'h7+ wts 20 �h6! �f6
French Classical
Hoping for 2 1 gxf6?? gxh6. Instead
Bernard-Dermann, Dortmund 1989,
concluded 20 ... \t?e8 21 'i¥xg7 .te6 22 l:xg6
1-0, while in Tait-Crouch, Nottingham
1990, after an hour's thought Black decided
simply to resign.
2 1 .l:xf6! 1-0
Game 59
King-Short
Birmingham 4NCL 2001
.________________.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 4Jc3 4Jt6 4 �g5 �e7
5 e5 4Jtd7 6 ii.xe7 �xe7 7 f4
Although 7 f4 has been the featured
move in all the main games, it is not White's
only possibility. Several other moves are
worth noting.
a) Firstly, 7 'tJbS, to which Black should
answer 7 . . . '2Jb6! and then:
al) 8 c3 a6 9 ctJa3 was popular in the
early years of the 20th century. Black has a
solid reply in 9 . . . c5 10 ctJc2 (or 10 f4 ctJc6)
10 ... ctJc6 1 1 f4 ctJa4 12 l:b 1 bS, or a more
dynamic one in 9 . . .£6!? with a few lines:
al l) 10 exf6 gxf6 1 1 'ifhS+ 'iff7 12 'ifh4
eS.
a12) 10 'ifhS+ g6 1 1 'iVh4 (1 1 exf6?
'ifxa3) 1 1 . . .fxe5.
a13) 10 ii.d3 fxeS 11 'i¥h5+ (1 1 dxe5 cS)
1 1 . .. �d8 12 dxe5 'Lla4.
a14) 10 f4 fxe5 1 1 dxe5 (1 1 fxe5 'i¥h4+)
1 1 . . .0-0.
a15) 10 '2Jf3 ctJ8d7 1 1 exf6 'ifxf6 12 .i.d3
eS!
a2) 8 a4!? is sharper: 8 ... a6 9 aS axbS 10
axb6 l:xal 11 'ifxal and now 1 1 . .. 0-0 (or
1 1 . .. ctJc6 12 c3 0-0) 12 bxc7 'ifxc7 13 .i.d3
ctJc6 14 c3 b4 was equal from Spielmann­
Maroczy, Vienna 1908, to Borgo-Gleizerov,
Bolzano 1999. Black also has an interesting
piece sacrifice in 1 1 . .. c6! (intending to win
the b6-pawn by a future . . . t2Jd7) 12 'ifa8
'ifb4+ 13 c3 (if 13 �e2 'ifa4 14 'ifxb8
'ifxc2+ with a draw, not 13 �dl? 'iixd4+
and 14 ...'ifxe5) 13 ... 'ifxb2!? (13 ...'iia4 14
'iVxb8 'iVal+ is also good for a draw) 1 4
ctJe2 b 4 15 'ifxb8 0-0 16 cxb4 'ifxb4+ 17
�dl cS! 1 8 'iVc7 'iVa4+ 19 �d2 .i.d7 20
�e3 l:c8 21 'ifxb7 cxd4+ 22 ctJxd4 l:c3+ 23
.i.d3 gS!? (23 . . .l:xd3+ is another draw) 24
'ifb8+ �g7 25 'ifd8 and Black finally
decided to force a draw: 25 ... l:xd3+ 26
�xd3 'ifc4+ 27 �e3 'ifc3+ 28 �e2 'ifb2+ 29
�d3 .tbS+ 30 ctJxbS 'ifxbS+ 3 1 �d2 lh-lh
Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Belgrade 1987.
b) If White wants to play 'ifd2 main lines
(Games 54-56) then 7 'ifd2 is an interesting
move order, holding back f2-f4 for a while.
As usual 7 ... c5 is a mistake due to 8 'tJbS,
while if 7 ... a6 White can try 8 ctJdl!? cS 9 c3
ctJc6 10 f4 when ... a7-a6 is just a wasted
move. This 19th century idea was seen again
recently in Sakaev-Volkov, New Delhi 2000,
which continued 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 gS!? 12
fxgS h6 13 t2Jf3 hxgS 14 t2Jf2! l:g8 15 h3 f6
16 exf6 ctJxf6 1 7 0-0-0 ctJe4 1 8 ctJxe4 dxe4
19 ctJeS ctJxeS 20 dxeS .td7 2 1 �b 1 0-0-0
22 'ife3 .tc6 23 l:c l 'i¥c7 24 'i¥a7 with the
big threat of 25 .txa6! bxa6 26 l:xc6 'ifxc6
27 l:c l, and White won.
After 7 ... 0-0 the plan with 8 ctJdl is now
ineffective - after 8 ... c5 9 c3 ctJc6 10 f4
cxd4 1 1 cxd4 f6! 12 t2Jf3 fxeS 13 fxeS Mxf3 !
14 gxf3 'ifh4+ 1 5 'iff2 t2Jxd4, with the f- and
e-pawns dropping off Black will get three
pawns for the exchange (Harmonist­
Tarrasch, Frankfurt 1 887). 8 'Llce2 is a safer
version since after 8 . . . c5 9 c3 'Llc6 10 f4
Main Line with 4 iL.g5 JL. e7 5 e5 CD fd 7
cxd4 1 1 cxd4 f6 1 2 ct.Jf3 fxeS 1 3 fxeS then
13 .. J�xf3 ? fails to 14 gxf3 "ii'h4+ 15 <i.t>d1,
but Black has nothing to fear after 13 . . . CLJb6
14 ctJg3 ii.d7 (Keres, Euwe) . White cannot
improve on 8 f4 cS 9 CLJf3 transposing into
normal lines with "ii'd2. Instead, as after 7 f4
0-0 8 '2Jf3 cS, 9 CLJbS is poor due to 9 ... a6
when 10 CLJc7? loses the knight after
10 .. Jia7, and otherwise .. .f7-f6 demolishes
White's centre.
Finally, in Shirov-M.Gurevich, New
Delhi 2000, Black tried 7 . . . CLJc6!? 8 f4 CLJb6
9 CLJf3 ii.d7 10 ii.d3 a6 11 0-0 f6 12 exf6
"ii'xf6 13 "ii' e 3 0-0-0 14 a4 ii.e8 15 aS CLJd7
16 fS?! exfS 17 CLJxdS "ii'd 6 18 c4 ii.g6 19
ctJh4 f4! 20 Mxf4 and now 20 ... ii.xd3 2 1
'ifxd3 CLJf4! would have won material after
22 CLJxb4 'ifxf4, 22 CLJfS "ii'xf4 or 22 "ii'd2
CLJxdS 23 cxdS gS.
c) The direct 7 'iWg4 can be met simply
by 7 . . . 0-0! 8 CLJf3 cS 9 il.d3 cxd4 (9 .. .f5?! 10
"ii' g S! showed up weaknesses at c7, d6 and
e6 in Senff-Mork, Budapest 1998) 10
il.xh7+ (if 10 h4 fS!) 10 ... \t>xh7 11 ctJgS+
"ii'x gS (or 1 1 . .. \t>g8 12 "ii'h S "ii'xgS) 12 "ii'xgS
dxc3 13 bxc3 CLJc6 14 f4 Mh8 15 0-0 CLJcS 16
Mf3 \t>g8 17 Md1 CLJe4 1 8 "ii' g4 bS with an
unclear position in Michel-Rellstab, Bad
Elster 1937.
7 a6
. . .
The first point of 7 . . . a6 is to prevent the
incursion at b5 and thus enable . . . c7-c5 .
Black also prepares the later advance . . . b7-
bS and refuses to commit the king for the
time being. The king may go short if and
when Black deems it appropriate, or he may
go long.
The immediate 7 . . . c5? 8 CLJb5 is clearly
bad, though Black keeps falling for this perhaps because CLJbS is an unexpected
move in the opening. If Black covers c7
then the king will have to move following
CLJd6. The exchange sacrifice is insufficient:
8 . .. 0-0 9 CLJc7 cxd4 (or 9 .. .f6 10 '2Jf3 CLJxe5
1 1 CLJxa8 CLJxf3+ 12 "ii'xf3 cxd4 13 0-0-0
Keres) 10 CLJxa8 f6 1 1 CLJf3 fxeS 12 fxeS
CLJc6 13 .td3 CLJdxeS 14 0-0 ctJg4 15. CLJd2
with a clear advantage in Levenfish-Fahrni,
Carlsbad 19 1 1 .
8 ctJf3
Alternatively:
a) White sometimes develops the queen
first. 8 "ii'd2 cS 9 dxc5 CLJc6 10 0-0-0 'iWxcS
1 1 CLJf3 bS transposes below.
b) If 8 'iWg4 0-0 9 .td3 (if 9 fS f6!) 9 . . . c5
10 fS! cxd4 1 1 f6 CLJxf6 12 'iWh4 h6 13 exf6
"ii'xf6 14 "ii'xf6 gxf6 15 CLJa4 CLJd7 16 b3 b5
17 CLJb2 eS 18 CLJe2! CLJcS (if 18 ... e4 19 CLJxd4
cxd3 20 CLJxd3 Me8+ 2 1 <it>d2 CLJeS 22 .l:hf1
CLJxd3 23 cxd3 the white knight dominates)
19 0-0 CLJxd3 20 CLJxd3 and the piece was
better than the pawns in Hjartarson-Bricard,
Iceland-France 1993 . Black can improve by
playing ... f7-f5 himself. Hjartarson suggests
9 .. .f5 10 exf6 "ii'xf6 12 CLJf3 c5 13 CLJgS as
unclear. Simpler still is 8 .. .f5 9 exf6 '2Jxf6 10
"ii'g S CLJc6!? 1 1 .0-0-0 il.d7 12 ct.Jf3 0-0-0 13
CLJeS Mhg8 14 il.e2 h6 15 CLJxc6 .txc6 16
ifeS CLJd7 and White was unable to utilise
the eS-weakness in Krantz-Carleton,
correspondence 1987. Black subsequently
broke with first . . . g7-g5 and later . . . e6-e5 .
c) 8 "ii'h S!? cS 9 ct.Jf3 cxd4 10 CLJxd4 CLJc6
1 1 0-0-0 led to White's advantage in Van
der Wiel-Moskalenko, Belgrade 1988, after
1 l . .. CLJxd4 12 Mxd4 CLJb6 (if 12 . .. b5 13 f5!)
13 .td3 'iWc5 14 CLJe2 il.d7 15 'iWgS g6 16
iff6 �g8 and now 17 g4! (Moskalenko) . It
is better to delay the exchange on d4 and
French Classical
play first 1 1 . . . ctJb6. For example, 12 �b 1
.i.d7 1 3 h4 and now 1 3 . . . tt:Jxd4 14 Mxd4
'ii'c S 15 'ifdl .i.bS 16 .i.e2 0-0 was fine for
Black in Van Mil-Kuijf, Dutch
Championship 1992.
8 c5
8 . . . b5 is best followed by 9 .i.d3 cS 10
dxcS 'ii'x cS 1 1 'ii' d2 ctJc6 reaching 1 1 .i.d3
in the notes to the game. If instead
lO . . . ctJxcS 1 1 0-0 or 9 ... tt:Jb6 10 0-0 cS 1 1
dxcS Black has merely shown his hand at an
early stage. The continued queenside
advance . . . b5-b4 allows White to
consolidate the centre and attack with f4-f5,
as in Schuh-Schmittdiel, Vienna 199 1 : 9
i.d3 b4 10 ctJe2 aS 1 1 0-0 cS 12 c3 (12 c4!?
is also worth considering) 12 ... .i.a6 13 fS
bxc3 14 bxc3 ctJc6 1 5 .i.xa6 Mxa6 16 'ifd2
cxd4 17 cxd4 0-0 1 8 Macl exfS 19 lLlf4
tt:Jdb8 20 ctJxdS with a clear advantage to
White.
9 dxc5
9 .i.d3 is dubious due to 9 ... cxd4 10
lLlxd4 (10 ctJe2 'ii' b4-t is similar) 10 ... 'ii'b 4!
1 1 tt:Jde2 'ii'x b2 12 0-0 'ii'b 6+ 13 �h 1 ctJc6
with an extra pawn in Lasker-Levenfish,
Moscow 1925.
King in fact inverted his 9th and lOth
moves, playing 9 'ii'd2 ctJc6 10 dxcS.
Throwing in 10 0-0-0 also makes little
difference after lO ... bS 1 1 dxcS ctJc6, 1:1nless
Black opts to close the queenside with
10 . . . c4!? This is supposed to be bad as it
allows White to attack the centre
immediately with 1 1 fS! However, in Shirov­
Morozevich, Frankfurt 2000, Black quickly
evacuated to the queenside by 1 1 ...ctJb6! 12
fxe6 fxe6 13 h4 .i.d7 14 hS 0-0-0. After the
further 1 5 h6 gxh6 16 Mxh6 Mdg8 17 'ii'f4
..te8 1 8 'iff6 ..tg6 19 g4?! 'ii' e8 20 .i.g2 Mf8
2 1 'iih 4, having negated the kingside threats
Black took over the initiative on the
queenside: 2 1 . . .ctJb4 22 Md2 ctJa4 23 a3
ctJxc3 24 bxc3 'ii' a4! 25 cxb4 'i¥xa3+ 26 <itd1
�xf3 ! 27 'ii'e 7? (though if 27 ltxf3 'i¥xf3+
28 <itc l 'i¥a3+ 29 <itd1 Mf8 or 28 �e2
. . .
1 14
.i.xc2+) 27 . . . �e3 and Black won .
9 tt:Jc6
9 ... ctJxc5 10 'ii'd2 ctJc6 and 9 . . . 'ii'x c5 10
'ii'd2 ctJc6 again transpose below. Against
the latter theory recommends 10 'ii'd4
famous
game
the
following
Konstantinopolsky-Lilienthal, Moscow
1936: 10 . . . ctJc6 1 1 'ii'x cS ctJxcS 12 .i.d3 �e7
13 �d2 h6 14 ctJe2 .i.d7 15 ctJed4 :ac8 1 6
Mael Mc7 17 g 4 ctJb4 1 8 a 3 l2Jbxd3 19 cxd3
Mhc8 20 Mc l �d8 21 h4 ctJa4 22 :xc7
Mxc7 23 b3 ctJb6 24 hS and White invaded
on the kingside. However, 10 . . . b6 seems
okay for Black, as after 7 ... 0-0 in Game 57.
10 �d2
If 10 .i.d3 then lO . . . ii'xcS ! prevents
kingside castling and then 1 1 'ii'd2 yet again
transposes below. lO . . . ctJxcS is slightly
inferior as it allows White more flexibility in
development. Olivier-Soln, Mitropa Cup
1999, saw 1 1 0-0 ctJxd3 12 cxd3 0-0 13 'iid2
fS 14 exf6 'ii'xf6 15 g3 .td7 16 :ae l and
White was better; while in El Taher-Sorial,
Cairo Zonal 2000, Black fell for 1 1 . .. 0-0? 12
.i.xh7+! �xh7 13 ctJgS+ �g6 14 'Vig4 CLJxeS
15 'Vih4 fS 16 Mael ctJe4 17 'ifh7+ �f6 1 8
ctJcxe4-t dxe4 19 ctJxe4-t �f7 2 0 fxeS and
White won.
. . .
1 o . 'ifxc5
The alternative recapture, 10 . . . CLJxc5, is
very similar to two variations examined
previously: 7 . . 0-0 8 ct:Jf3 cS 9 'i¥d2 CLJc6 1 0
dxc5 ctJxc5 1 1 0-0-0 a6 (Game 5 5) and 4 e 5
. .
.
Main Line with 4 il.g5 il.e7 5 e5 0J td7
tt:Jfd7 5 f4 cS 6 tt:Jf3 ctJc6 7 .te3 a6 8 'i'd2
bS 9 dxcS .txcS 10 .txcS ctJxcS (Games 2426) .
Then 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 transposes directly in
to Game 55. However, Black can delay
castling in favour of 1 1 . . . b5 12 .td3 b4 13
CL\e2 aS 14 ctJed4 CL\xd4 15 ctJxd4 when
Miljanic has shown the attributes of Black's
position: 15 . . . 0-0 1 6 �b 1 .tb7 17 l:.he l
ctJe4 1 8 'i'e3 a4 19 .i.xe4 dxe4 20 ctJe2 .tds
21 l:d4 J:.fc8 22 l:.c l 'i'a7 23 c4? .txc4 24
.l:.xe4 .i.xe2 25 'i'xe2 l:.xc l+ 26 �xc l 'i'g1+
winning (Brajovic-Milj anic, Cetinje 1996)
and (by transposition) 1S ... .td7!? 16 �b1 a4
17 'i'e3 0-0 1 8 :he 1 l:.fb8 19 g4? (better 19
fS tt.Jxd3 20 cxd3 exfS with equality) 19 ...b3!
20 cxb3 axb3 21 a3? ctJa4 22 'i'd2 tLlxb2! 23
'iVxb2 :xaJ 24 ctJe2 l:.a2 25 'ifc3 'ifa3 26
ctJcl ktc8 27 'ifd4 .l:cc2 0-1 Vujosevic­
Miljanic, Tivat 1997.
Castling short seems preferable for White
against . . . ctJxcS. Compared with the 4 eS
line mentioned above, Black has swapped
... 'i'd8 and ... b7-b5 for just . . . 'i'e7 and
should stand comparatively worse. Indeed,
after 1 1 �d3 and 12 0-0, Black has
struggled to challenge White's dominance in
the centre. For example, 1 1 ... 0-0 12 0-0 fS
13 exf6 'i'xf6 14 g3 .i.d7 1 5 l:.ae 1 .i.e8 16
ctJeS l:.c8 17 l:.f2 ctJxeS 1 8 l:.xeS l:.c6 19
.i.fl tt.Jd7 20 �e 1 (Stefansson-Hjartarson,
Icelandic Championship 1995) or 1 1 ...b5 12
0-0 b4 13 ctJe2 0-0 14 tt.Jed4 tt.Jxd4 15 tt.Jxd4
tt.Je4 1 6 'i'e3 �b7 17 a3 aS 18 axb4 axb4 19
ctJb3 f6 20 'ik'b6! (Kovacevic-Antic,
Yugoslav Team Championship 200 1) with
advantage to White in both cases.
1 1 0-0-0
With this move White plans to attack in
the middlegame, centralising a knight in
support of f4-f5.
1 1 .i.d3 is also important, especially as
the bishop may already have been deployed
to b3; i.e. 10 . . . 'ifxcS 1 1 'ifd2. After the
usual 1 1 . . . b5 then 12 0-0-0 again returns to
1 1 0-0-0 (see the note to 12 CLJe2 below) .
White has another option in 12 a3 !?
preparing 'i¥f2 to take control of d4 (12
'i:Vf2 would be answered by 12 ... 'ifb4!) .
However, Black can achieve adequate
counterplay with a timely .. .f7-f6 and/ or
... b7-b5-b4. For example, Piuva-Carleton,
correspondence 1992-94, went 13 . . . 0-0 14
'i:VxcS ctJxcS 15 �d2 b4 16 axb4 ctJxb4 17
tt.Jd4 f6 1 8 exf6 .:xf6 19 g3 gS 20 ctJce2
with an unclear position. Bologan-Short,
Buenos Aires 2000, saw 13 ... h6 14 h4 0-0 15
'ifxcS ctJxcS 16 b4 tt.Jd7 17 �d2 ctJb6 1 8
ctJe2 ctJc4+ 19 .i.xc4 dxc4 2 0 tt.Jfd4 l:.ad8 2 1
�e3 tt.Je7 2 2 �f2 tt:Jds 2 3 J:.hd1 J:.de8 24
g3 and now at last 25 .. .f6! 25 tt.Jf3 gS 26
hxgS hxgS 27 exf6 gxf4 28 gxf4 !txf6 and
the game was soon drawn.
If Black tries 1 1 . . .ctJb6, White can again
play either 12 0-0-0 (see the next note) , or
12 a3 and if 12 ... ctJc4 13 .txc4 'ifxc4 14 b3
'i'cS 15 ctJa4 'ife7 16 c4 dxc4 17 ctJb6 �b8
18 ctJxc4 0-0 with advantage to White in
Morovic Fernandez-Alvarado, Las Palmas
1995, which concluded 20 0-0 .i.b7 21 l::t a cl
ctJa7 22 fS exfS? 23 tLlxfS 'i:Ve6 24 'ifgS g6
25 ctJ3d4 'ifb6 26 'ifh6 1-0.
Sometimes White opts immediately for
1 1 a3 bS 12 'i'f2, but this has little
independent significance as White generally
plays .i.d3 fairly soon in any case, e.g .
12 . . . .i.b7 13 .i.d3 or 13 'i'xcS ctJxcS 14
0-0-0 0-0 15 .td3 .
1 1 b5
Not wanting to be predictable, Short has
also played 7 . . . 0-0, and here 1 1 . . . ctJb6!?
which theory frowns on due to
Kindermann-Franke, German Bundesliga
1989: 12 .i.d3 .td7 13 \t>b 1 tt.Jas 14 b3 .:c8
15 ctJe2 ctJc6 16 c3 halting Black's
counterplay, after which White attacked on
the kingside with g2-g4. Possibly Short
would instead have castled long, as he was
encouraged to do in Hernandez-Short,
Merida 200 1 , after 12 h4 .i.d7 13 .l:.h3 h6 14
l:.g3 .:g8 15 hS 0-0-0 16 <i!tb 1 f6 17 exf6
gxf6 18 .:xg8 .:xg8 19 fS eS 20 CLJxdS (if 20
. . .
French Cl assical
'ifxh6 .i.xfS 2 1 'iff6 �f8 and 22 ... d4)
20 ... tt:Jxd5 2 1 'ifxdS 'ifxdS 22 �xdS .i.xfS
23 �d6 .l:.d8 24 �xd8+ �xd8 with a
favourable endgame for Black.
12 tZ:le2
The generally recommended move for
White. Since the knight will have to move
anyway after ... b5-b4 White moves it in
advance and prepares to establish a knight
on d4.
12 .i.d3 is also important. With . . . 0-0
instead of ... b7-b5 then 12 .i.d3 is very
strong, threatening .i.xh7+ (see 1 1 . . .a6 in
Game 54) . Here, however, Black is not so
obliging with the king and continues either
12 ... b4, followed by ... a6-a5 and . . . .i.a6, or
else 12 ... tt:Jb6 with ideas of . . . tt:Jb4, . . . .i.d7
and ... 0-0-0, ... �b8 and . . . ctJc4, or . . . b5-b4
and ... ctJa4. For example, 12 . . . b4 13 ctJe2 aS
14 �b 1 .i.a6 as in 15 h4 a4 16 .i.xa6 �xa6
17 'ifd3 �b6 18 �h3 'ifaS 19 tt:Jfd4 ctJxd4
20 tt:Jxd4 ctJcS 2 1 'if g3 0-0 22 fS ctJe4 23
'ife 1 exfS 24 CZJxfS (Gunnarsson­
Thorhallsson, Icelandic Championship
2000) when Black should have played
24 ... �e6!; or 12 . . . tt:Jb6 13 h4 b4 14 ctJe2
.i.d7 15 �b l h6 16 ctJg3 ctJa4 17 �a1 ctJc3
18 �de l (not 18 bxc3 bxc3 19 'ib'c l l:b8
etc.) 18 . . . 'ik'a5 19 a3 l:b8 20 fS ct:Jbs 2 1
.i.xbS l:xbS 2 2 fxe6 fxe6 2 3 ctJhS bxa3 24
b3 'ifxd2 25 tt:Jxd2 0-0 with a winning
endgame in Savanovic-Raicevic, Niksic
1996.
1 16
12 0-0
Mostly Black plays both . . . b5-b4 and
. . . 0-0 at some point. Short starts with ... 0-0,
whereas other players have mostly played
. .. b5-b4 first, but it makes little difference.
In either case White will play 13 ctJed4 and
throw in �b 1 and h2-h4 at some point.
ECO gives 12 ... b4 13 tt:Jed4 ctJxd4 14 ctJxd4
0-0 15 �b 1 aS 16 h4 with a slight advantage
to White in A.Rodriguez-Moskalenko,
Holguin 1989. The game continued
16 . . . 'i!Vb6 17 .i.d3 .i.a6 18 'ife3 .i.xd3 19
cxd3 b3 20 a3 �fc8 21 �he 1 ctJcS 22 fS
ctJa4 23 :d2 �ab8 24 f6 'ifd8 25 'iff4 ctJcS
26 :e3 ct:Jd7 27 :g3 g6 28 l:.dt �h8 29 hS
'ifcl 30 'ifh6 and White won. Kindermann­
Mueller, German Championship 1996,
deviated with 15 h4 aS 16 hS a4 17 Wb l
'ifb6 1 8 g4 ctJcS 19 .i.g2 i.a6 20 .Uh3 b3 2 1
cxb3 axb3 22 a3 .i.c4 2 3 fS and after 2 3 . . .f6?
24 ctJxe6 ctJxe6 25 fxe6 'ifxe6 26 i.xdS
.i.xdS 27 'ifxdS 'ifxdS 28 �xdS fxeS 29
�xb3 White won the endgame.
12 . . . ctJb6, and ... ct:Jb6 in general, no
longer achieves anything for Black.
Following 13 ctJed4 tt:Jxd4 13 tt:Jxd4 or
13 . . . i.d7 14 ctJxc6 .i.xc6 White will be
happy to answer ... ctJc4 with i.xc4, keeping
the favourable minor piece for the
endgame.
13 tZ:led4 �b7 !?
A slightly unusual development in these
positions. On the long diagonal the bishop
supports the possible manoeuvre ...ctJd7-c5e4. Meanwhile Black clears the back rank in
preparation for his 16th move.
1 4 h4 tZ:lxd4 1 5 tZ:lxd4 b4 1 6 �h3
One of the points of h2-h4, though not
always appropriate. Better was 16 hS and if
16 ... �ae8 17 g4 f6?! 18 fS! or 17 . . . 'ifb6 1 8
i.g2.
1 6 .. J:ae8!
Rather than wait while White prepares
f4-f5, Black plans to take the fight to his
opponent in the same sector with the move
. . . f7-f6.
. . .
Main L in e with 4 i.. g5 i.. e7 5 e5 ctJ fd7
17 l::te3 'irb6 18 �b 1 f6 19 ctJf3 aS 20
'ird4?!
Trading queens is a routine plan when
White controls the centre, but here it is
inappropriate as White cannot maintain his
control. With hindsight it looks better to
support the f-pawn by 20 g3 .
20...fxe5 2 1 ttJxeS
2 1 'iVxb6 lDxb6 22 fxe5 lDc4 is also fine
for Black.
21 ...'iVxd4 22 �xd4 ttJxe5 23 �xe5 .i:.f5!
This is the point: White cannot maintain
his grip on e5, for if 24 .l:.ee 1 ? .l:.ef8 25 g3
Black has 25 . . . e5! since the bishop on f1 is
undefended.
24 a3?!
Voluntarily wrecking his own pawn
structure. Better was 24 .l:.xf5 exf5 25 'it'c l
and if 25 . . . .l:.e4 26 c3 when the game should
be drawn.
24...l::txe5 25 fxe5 bxa3 26 bxa3
Black has the initiative in the endgame
since the white pawns are more scattered
and vulnerable.
26...i..c6 27 g3 �f7 28 i..d3 g6 29 �c 1
�e7 30 �d2 .l:.b8 3 1 l::tf4 i..b5 32 i..xb5
l:.txb5 33 h5?!
Seeking to create some weaknesses to
attack but, more significantly, opening up a
route for the black king to infiltrate. It was
better to wait with 33 :a4 or 33 'it'd3 .
33 ...gxh5 34 l:.th4 �f7 35 l:.txh5 �g6 36
�h4 l:.tb7 37 gf4 �f7 38 .:i:xf7?
Suicidal - White had to keep rooks on. It
was preferable to sit tight with 3 8 _:g4+
'it'h5 39 :a4 and if 39 ... �g5 40 .l:.xa5 'it'f5
41 :a4 'it'xe5 42 �e3.
38 ...�xf7 39 �e3
White is a tempo short after 39 c4 dxc4
40 'it'c3 'it'g6 4 1 �xc4 �f5 42 a4 �xe5 43
'it'b5 'it'd5 44 'it'xa5 �c5! and the e-pawn
quickly queens.
39...Wg6 40 Wf4
Again if 40 'it'd4 'it'f5 4 1 a4 h5 42 �c5
(or 42 c3 'it'g4) 42 ... 'it'xe5 43 'it'b5 'it'd4 44
'it'xa5 'it'c5! and wins.
40...h5 41 a4 Wh6 0- 1
And White resigned since his king must
give way after 42 c3 'it'g6 or 42 g4 h4 43 c3
�g6 44 g5 h3.
Game 60
Khalifman-Gulko
Reykjavik World Cup 1991
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ctJc3 ctJf6 4 i..g5 i..e7
5 e5 'Llfd7 6 h4!?
White offers a pawn in order to reduce
Black's counterplay to a minimum. Albin,
Alekhine and Chatard have all had their
names attached to this move, although of
the older players Bogolyubov and Euwe
were more frequent adherents.
6...i..xg5
Acceptance is usually the critical test of a
gambit, if not obligatory. The numerous
French Classical
declinations are seen in Games 6 1-63 .
7 hxg5 �xg5 8 Li:Jh3
This is the usual move. White has tried
others, e.g.
a) 8 .:hs 'iVe7 9 'iVg4 fS 10 'iVh3 ctJf8 1 1
0-0-0 .i.d7 1 2 g4 fxg4 1 3 'iVxg4 ctJc6 1 4 .:gs
l:.g8 1 5 ctJge2 0-0-0 with no problems for
Black in Velimirovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslavia
1989.
b) 8 tt:Jbs 'iid 8 9 'iVg4 g6 10 0-0-0 a6 1 1
ctJc3 c S 1 2 f4 ctJc6 1 3 dxcS ctJxcS 1 4 tt:Jf3
.i.d7 1 5 .:h6 V/ie7 16 .td3 0-0-0 17 'iVgS
Vlif8 1 8 'iVh4 \t>b8 19 \t>b 1 .:c8 20 :xh7
l:.xh7 2 1 'iYxh7 regaining the pawn, but
Black had organised good queenside
counterplay: 2 1 . ..ctJb4 22 V/ih 1 ctJa4 23
ctJxa4 Jl.xa4 24 b3? 'iVcS 25 :c l? V/I aS 26 a3
.txb3 27 \t>b2 ctJxc2 0-1 Velimirovic-Antic,
Yugoslav Team Championship 1999.
c) The most significant alternative is 8
'iVd3 !?, an idea of GM Hector's which does
not appear in any theoretical tome to date.
h6 18 ctJh4 :hc8 19 :h3 gS 20 ctJg6+ \t>f7?
(20 . . . \t>d8) 21 :f3+! \t>xg6 22 .i.d3+ (forcing
mate) 22 . . . \t>hs 23 :h3+ \t>g4 24 f3+ Wf4 25
Wf2 g4 26 g3+ 1-0 Kasparov-Korchnoi,
Zurich rapidplay 200 1 (26 ...\t>gS 27 f4
mate) .
c2) 8 . . . h5 9 tt:Jf3 'Viie 7 10 g4 g6 1 1 gxhS
gxhS 12 'iVe3 ctJb6 1 3 0-0-0 .td7 14 i.e2
ctJc6 15 Vlif4 0-0-0 16 :dg 1 and White had
full compensation for the pawn in Hector­
Brynell, Gothenburg 1999 .
c3) 8 . . . g6 9 tt:Jf3 Vlie7 10 Vlie3 and then
10 . . . ctJc6 1 1 0-0-0 ctJb6 12 .:h6 .td7 13
VligS 'iVxgS+ 14 ctJxgS rj;; e 7 15 ctJxh7 :ac8
16 f4 ctJb8 17 i.d3 ctJa4 18 ctJxa4 .i.xa4 19
:dh 1 cS 20 dxcS :xcS 21 ctJgS :xh6 22
:xh6 .i.e8 (Hector-Brynell, Malmo 1993)
when 23 .txg6! fxg6? 24 :h7+ rj;}f8 25
:xb7 is strong. Black may do better with a
standard plan: 10 . . . a6! 1 1 0-0-0 cS 12 dxcS
(12 ctJe2!?) 12 . . . V/ixc5 13 ctJd4 ctJc6 14 f4
ctJxd4 15 :xd4 bS 16 'iVd2 .i.b7 17 :h3
ctJb6 18 ctJd1 :c8 19 ctJe3 ctJd7 20 Jl.e2
V/1 e7 21 .td3 'iVcS 22 i.e2 with a draw in
Nataf-Thorhallsson, Bermuda 1999.
8 �e7
8 ... V/ih6 is less reliable as after 9 g3 White
can build a strong initiative by advancing
the kingside pawns. This was shown in
Riumin-Makogonov, USSR Championship
1934, following 9 . . . c6 10 Jl.d3 g6 1 1 f4 b6
12 'iYe2 aS 13 0-0-0 'iVg7 14 g4 i.a6 15 fS
.i.xd3 16 'iYxd3 gS 17 'iVe3 h6 18 �h2 ctJf8
19 :dh 1 :h7 20 ctJa4 tt:Jbd7 2 1 'iVc3 l:.c8
22 f6 'iVg6 23 ctJxb6 ctJxb6 24 'iVcS :c7 25
'iYxb6 and White won. And again in
Khalifman-Heyken, Germany 1993, 9 ... a6
10 f4 g6 1 1 'iVf3 'Viif8 12 0-0-0 ctJc6 13 fS !?
ctJb6 (13 . . . gxf5) 14 ctJgS 'iVg7 1 5 fxg6 'iVxg6
16 'iVf4 h6 17 .te2 ctJb4 18 :d2 rj;;e 7 19
tt:Jf3 .td7 20 'iVh4+ f6 2 1 a3 ctJc6 22 Jl.d3
'iVg7 23 ttJe2 lte8 24 ttJf4 .tf7 25 �e2 -'laf8
26 �he 1 ttJd8 27 Jtf5 and White won
quickly.
9 tZ:lf4
From f4 the knight may later sacrifice
. . .
By hitting the h7-pawn White seeks to
prompt . . . g7-g6 and bind the kingside with
:h6 before Black has time for ... h7-h5 (c.f.
the note to 10 . . .ctJxd4 in the game). 8 'iVd3
is clearly set for a higher profile after its
recent use (albeit in a rapidplay game) by the
13th World Champion. Three replies have
been seen:
c l) 8 . . . ctJc6? 9 tt:Jf3 V/ig6 10 'li'xg6 fxg6
1 1 ttJbS We7 12 ttJxc7 �b8 13 ttJb5 ttJb6 14
c3 ltd7 1 5 iLd3 tLla5 16 b3 ltxb5 17 ltxb5
Main Line with 4 i.. g5 i.. e7 5 e5 {ij fd 7
itself on d5 o r probe the kingside from h5.
Black already needs to be careful. For
instance, 9 .. .f5? and 9 .. .f6? are immediately
refuted by 10 ctJg6, while the seemingly
solid 9 ... ctJf8?! was demolished in the
famous game Alekhine-Fahrni, Mannheim
19 14: 10 'iWxg4 (threatening 'iWxg7 or ctJxd5)
10 . . .f5 1 1 exf6 gxf6 12 0-0-0 c6 13 J:.e 1 \td8
14 J:.h6 e5 1 5 'iWh4 ttJbd7 1 6 �d3 (16
ctJxd5 is also strong) 1 6 ... e4 17 'iWg3 'iVf7 1 8
�xe4 dxe4 19 ctJxe4 J:.g8 2 0 'iVa3 'iVg7 2 1
ctJd6 ctJb6 2 2 ctJe8 'iVf7 2 3 'iVd6+ 1-0.
Ever since Alekhine's game 9 ltJf4 has
been considered the main line. However,
Black has sorted out some good defences,
so more attention has recently been given to
other ideas for White, such as 8 'iVd3 above;
or here 9 'iYg4!?, preparing quick castling,
and then:
a) 9 .. .f5 (not 9 .. .f6? 10 ctJf4 ltJf8 1 1
ctJcxd5!) with a pleasant choice for White
between 10 exf6!? ctJxf6 1 1 'iVg3 (Short)
1 1 . .. ctJc6 12 0-0-0 a6 13 ctJg5 'iVd6 14 f4
.i.d7 15 .i.d3 l:g8 16 .i.xh7 ctJxh7 17 J:.xh7
'iVf8 18 'iVg4 'iVf6 19 f5 exf5 20 'ifh5+ g6 2 1
ctJxd5! and wins (Asanov-Hernando
Rodrigo, Santa Clara 1999); 10 'iWg3 ctJc6 1 1
0-0-0 ctJf8 1 2 ttJf4 'iVf7 (12 . . .�d7 13
ctJfxd5!) 13 .i.e2 i.. d 7 1 4 �h5! g6 1 5 �xg6
ctJxg6 16 'iWxg6 hxg6 17 J:.xh8+ \te7 1 8
�xa8 with an advantage (A.Ivanov-Crouch,
Netherlands 1992); and 10 'ifh5+ g6 1 1 'ifh6
ctJf8 12 'Llf4 c6 13 0-0-0 b6 with a solid but
passive position. In the latter variation
Black is also worse after 10 . . . 'iff7 1 1 'iVxf7+
\txf7 12 ttJb5 ctJa6 13 ltJg5+ \te7 1 4 J:.xh7
J:.xh7 15 ctJxh7 ctJb6 16 ctJa3 .i.d7 17 .i.xa6
bxa6, as in Klip-Korchnoi, Dutch League
1992.
b) 9 ... g6! is more solid, offering a return
to main lines after 10 ltJf4. However, White
can deviate by 10 ctJg5!?, attacking h7 and
leaving f4 free for the queen or f-pawn.
10 ... ctJf8? loses to 11 ctJxd5, while after
10 . . . h5 1 1 'iff4 White can attack the h-pawn
with g2-g4, as for example, in Bezgodov­
Hmadi, Tunis 1997, which continued
1 1 . .. ctJc6 12 0-0-0 ctJb6 13 g4 .i.d7 14 gxh5
gxh5 15 .i.e2 0-0-0 16 :xh5 J:.xh5 17 .i.xh5
ctJc4 18 a3 (not 18 .i.xf7? 'ifb4) 18 .. J�g8 (or
1 8 . . J�h8 19 .i.e2) 19 ltJh7 (not 19 ctJxf7?
�e8) 19 ... ctJ6a5 20 i.. e2 f5 21 ctJf6 :g7 22
b4 c6 23 ctJb 1! ctJxa3 24 ctJxa3 'ifxb4 25
ctJb 1 and White won. No better is 1 1 ...c5?
12 ctJb5 or 11 ... a6 12 g4! c5 13 gxh5 cxd4 14
hxg6! :xh 1 1 5 g7 wins.
In P .A dams-Tait, correspondence
2000-0 1 , Black prepared ... c7-c5 by
1 1 . .. J:.f8!? (the idea is 12 g4 f6!) 12 0-0-0 a6
13 .i.d3 c5 14 dxc5 ctJc6, but White
exploited the time-consuming nature of this
plan by sacrificing for an impressive win: 15
J:.he 1 'ifxc5 16 ctJxf7! ctJdxe5 17 J:.xe5
'Llxe5 18 'iVxe5 \txf7 19 ctJe4! 'iVe7 20
ctJd6+ \tg8 2 1 .i.xg6 'iYg7 22 'iVxh5 �xf2 23
ctJe8! 'ifh8 24 'iVg5 .i.d7 25 ctJc7 �c8 26
ctJxd5 ! exd5 27 'ifxd5+ \tg7 28 'ifxd7+
\txg6 29 'iVg4+! \tf7 30 :d7+ \tf8 3 1 'iVb4+
\tg8 32 'iVb3+ \tf8 33 'iVa3+ 1-0 as Black
finally saw that mate follows 33 . . . \tg8 34
'iVg3+ \tf8 35 'ifxf2+ etc.
Another try is 10 ... h6!? 1 1 .i.d3 ctJc6 (still
not 1 1 . . .ctJf8? 12 ctJxd5) 12 0-0-0 ttJf8 13
'Llf3 (instead 13 :h4 ctJxd4!? 14 'Llxf7 �xf7
15 'ifxd4 'iVg5+ is unclear) 13 . . . .i.d7 14 �h2
0-0-0 15 :dh 1 h5 16 'iff4 with a kingside
bind in Bartel-Ulibin, Bydgoszcz 200 1 ,
although White let it slip following 16. . .:g8
17 'Llg5?! .i.e8 18 �b5?! 'Llxd4 19 'i¥xd4
French Classical
�xg5+ 20 f4 �h6 2 1 .ixe8 �xe8 22 g4
't:Jd7 23 gxh5?! g5! 24 �xa7 gxf4 25 ctJa4
f3+ 26 'l.tb 1 b6 27 �a8+ 't:Jb8 28 c4? �e3
0- 1 .
White can also consider 12 ctJxf7!? 'l.txf7
13 .i.. x g6 'l.tg7 (if 13 . . . 'l.tg8 14 .ih5+ 'l.tf8 1 5
�f4+ or 13 ... 'l.tf8 1 4 0-0-0) 14 �h5! with
good compensation for the piece. Play
might continue 14 . . .ct:Jd8 15 0-0-0 't:Jf7 16 f4
'l.tf8 1 7 f5, or 14 . . . ct:Jf8 15 .ie8+! 'l.th7 16
0-0-0 (threatening �xh6+) 16 ...�g7 17 �h3,
or 14 . . . 'l.tg8 15 0-0-0 't:Jf8 16 .ie8+ �g7 17
�h3 .id7 18 ii.xd7 �xd7 19 �d3 .
9 tt:Jc6!
This move has caused White the most
problems. Although the knight blocks the c­
pawn, the pawn break is not ruled out
altogether - Black hopes to consolidate by
... ct:Jb6, . . . .i.d7 and . . . 0-0-0, after which the
c6-knight can move and . . . c7-c5 advanced.
Furthermore, Black has trouble with an
early . . . c7-c5, firstly because of the familiar
knight sally to b5, but also because of
potential white sacrifices on d5 .
For example, if 9 . . . a6 10 �g4 g6 1 1 0-0-0
c5? 12 �g3 ! (not yet 12 ctJcxd5? exd5 13
ctJxd5 ct:Jb6!) 12 ... cxd4 1 3 ctJcxd5! exd5 14
ctJxd5 �c5 1 5 c4! (threatening 16 e6 or 16
b4) with a very dangerous attack, or
12 ... ctJb6 13 dxc5 �xc5 14 .id3
(threatening .ixg6) 14 ... �f8 15 .ie4!
(threatening iLxdS) 15 . . . dxe4 16 ctJxe4
ctJ8d7 (Bogolyubov-Spielmann, Stockholm
. . .
1 9 1 9) when 17 't:Jd6+! 'l.td8 (or 17 . . . 'l.te7 1 8
'Yi'h4+) 1 8 ctJh3! intending ctJg5 i s strong.
White also gained a clear advantage after
1 1 . .. ctJb6 12 ii.d3 CLJ8d7 13 �h6 ct:Jf8 14
'l.tb 1 ! .id7 15 ctJh5! 0-0-0 16 't:Jf6 in
Miillner-Iqbal Ahmed, correspondence
1989. 15 .. .f5 16 exf6 gxh5 17 �g7 was no
better, while if 15 . . . gxh5 16 �g7 ctJg6 17
ii.xg6 because if 'l.tb 1 Black does not have
the resource 17 . . . �g5+.
Sometimes Black plays first 9 . . . g6 to
prevent ctJh5 and in advance of �g4.
However, White can exploit this move
order by 10 .i.d3 ! threatening 1 1 .i.xg6, as
for example in Goldberg-Bohn, German
Bundesliga 1994: 10 ... ctJb6 1 1 ii.xg6! ctJc6
(or 1 1 . .. 'Yi'g5 12 �h5! �xf4 13 g3) 12 .i.. x h7
�g5 13 g3 .id7 (or 13 . . . �f5 14 'Yi'h5) and
now 14 'Yi'd3 ! 0-0-0 (if 14 ... 'Yi'g7 15 ct:Jh5! or
14 ... ct:Jb4 15 'Yi'e2 �f5 16 �h5) 15 0-0-0
�g7 16 ctJce2 intending c2-c3, �c2
consolidates. Or 10 . . . �g5 1 1 �d2 a6 12
ii.xg6! ctJxe5 (12 . . .fxg6 13 ctJxe6) 13 .:h5
ctJc4 (if 13 ... ctJf3+ 14 gxf3 ! �g 1+ 15 �e2
�xa1 16 .i.xf7+! 'l.txf7 17 ct:Jfxd5! wins Baburin) 1 4 �xg5 ctJxd2 1 5 .i.d3 ctJc4 16
ctJcxd5 ! exd5 17 ctJxd5 't:Jb6 1 8 ctJxc7+ 'l.tf8
19 ctJxa8 ctJxa8 20 'l.td2 and White won in
the game Velimirovic-Stojanovic, Yugoslav
Championship 1996. Even worse is
10 ... ctJf8? due to the familiar 1 1 ctJcxd5!
exd5 12 ctJxd5 �d8 1 3 't:Jf6+ 'l.te7 14 �f3
c6 1 5 0-0-0 ii.e6 16 d5! and wins (Banas­
Kafka, Czechoslovakia 1975) .
10 'ifg4
This involves sacrificing the d-pawn. If
White does not want to do that then 10
�d3 should be chosen, when 10 . . . g6 1 1
0-0-0 ctJb6 1 2 �g3 h5! transposes to 10
�g4 g6 11 0-0-0 h5 1 2 �g3 ct:Jb6 in the
next note.
Other moves are easier on Black. After
10 �bS �b4! 1 1 't:Jfe2 (if 1 1 .ixc6 bxc6 12
a3 �c4 or 12 l:h3 l:b8 intending . . . c7-c5)
1 l . . .'ifxb2 12 a3 ctJxd4 13 l:a2 ctJxc2+ 14
�f1 �b3 1 5 l:xc2 a6 1 6 ctJd4 'ifxa3 17
Main Line with 4 iL.g5 iL.e7 5 e5 tD td 7
l:!h3 �b4 and Black was clearly better in
Hellsten-Brynell, Malmo 1995. Or if 10
'ifd2 Black need not weaken the kingside
but can play 10 ... b6 (or 10 ... ct:Jf8!? intending
... i.d7) 1 1 ct:Jb5 (if 1 1 ct:Jh5 �g8 12 i.d3
ct:Jf8) 1 1 . .. ct:Jf8 12 ct:Jh5 .Ug8 13 0-0-0 a6 14
ct:Jc3 i.b7 1 5 f4 0-0-0 1 6 g4 f6 17 g5 f5 and
Black slowly consolidated in R.Watson­
Giulian, correspondence 1984-85.
10 .tbxd4!
Black can avoid complications by playing
10 ... g6. Following 1 1 0-0-0 White intends to
blockade the h-pawn by �h6 and build up
on the kingside. This plan, if allowed, gives
White more than enough for the pawn, for
instance 1 1 . .. CLJb6 (not 1 1 . . .b6? 12 CLJcxd5!
exd5 1 3 CLJxd5 'iid 8 14 e6 or 1 1 . . .CLJf8 12
'iVg3 'ii'b 4 1 3 i.b5 i.d7? 14 ct:Jxd5! and
wins) 12 Mh6 i.d7 13 i.b5 and then if
13 ... 0-0-0 14 i.xc6 i.xc6 15 Mdh 1 and
White regains the pawn with advantage;
similarly 13 . . . CLJa5 14 Mdh 1, or if 13 . . . ct:Jb4
14 i.xd7+ CLJxd7 15 .:dh 1 ct:Jf8 16 a3 CLJa6
17 ct:Jb5! 'ifd7 1 8 a4 CLJb4 19 CLJh5! gxh5 20
ii'g7 with a clear advantage to White in
Loskutov-Iljushin, St Petersburg 2000.
So Black should play 1 1...h5! to block the
h-file. This advance is often risky because it
loosens the kingside pawn structure, setting
Black up for sacrifices either on g6 or for
the sequence ct:Jfxd5 e6xd5, CLJxd5 'ii'd8, e5e6! But here the sacrifices don't work: after
12 ii'g3 CLJb6 13 i.d3 i.d7 then if 14
i.xg6? �g8 or 14 CLJxg6? fxg6 15 i.xg6+
�d8 16 Mxh5 Mxh5 17 i.xh5 �c8
intending ... �b8, ... a7-a6, ... �a7 and Black
keeps the extra piece. White probably has to
be content with 12 iff3 CLJb6 13 g4 h4 14
ctJh3 i.d7 1 5 g5 0-0-0 1 6 'iff4 intending
ctJg1-f3 (Sax) with a level game.
1 1 0-0-0
If 1 1 'ii'x g7?! 'iff8 and White remains a
pawn down, e.g. 12 'ti'xf8+�xf8 13 0-0-0 c5
14 lth5 CLJc6 1 5 Me 1 a6 1 6 ct:Jh3 b5 17 f4 h6
1 8 g4 f6 19 exf6 ct:Jxf6 20 Mh 4 (Beake-T ait,
Notts League 1998) and now 20 ... Lt:Je7!
. .
intending . . . ctJg6 with a clear advantage.
1 1 . l2Jf5
Black has another option in 1 1 ...c5 !?,
when the sacrifice is unsound: 12 ct:Jfxd5?
exd5 13 ct:Jxd5 'ifxe5! and if 14 .i.b5 �f8!
15 i.xd7 f5 or 14 J:.h5 f5! wins. White does
have some unexpected tricks after 14 i.c4!?,
e.g. 14 . . .0-0? 15 Mxh7! and wins or 14 ... CLJb6
15 'ii'h 4 CLJxc4 16 �he 1 0-0 (if 16 ...CLJe2+ 17
�xe2 'ifxe2 18 CLJc7+) 17 l:.xe5 CLJxe5 1 8
CLJe7+ �h8 19 'ifxh7+! mating, but i n the
latter line 15 ... 'ifd6! is strong, or even
14 . . . �f8!?
Black also has the advantage after 12 kie 1
'ii' f 8, or 12 i.b5 tt:Jxb5 13 ct:Jxb5 �f8, or 12
�xd4 cxd4 13 ct:Jb5 �f8. So White must
play 12 'ii'xg7 'ii'f8 13 'ii'g 5! with some
compensation.
12 l2Jfxd5!
White has to sacrifice further to j ustify
his play. Not, however, 12 CLJcxd5? due to
12 . . . CLJxe5!
12 exd5
Black must accept as 12 ... ctJxe5? 13 'ifa4+
.i.d7 14 CLJxe7 i.xa4 1 5 ctJxf5 or 12 ... 'ii'c 5?
13 b4 'ifxf2 14 ctJe4 ctJe3 1 5 ctJxc7+! �f8 16
coxf2 wins for White, while if 12 ... ii'd8 13
ctJe3 ! ctJxe3 (13 ... g6 14 ctJxf5 exf5 1 5 'ii'd4)
14 ii'xg7 (14 fxe3 !?) 14 ... coxd 1 1 5 'ifxh8+
�e7 16 ii'xd8+ �xd8 17 �xd1 CLJxe5 1 8
�xh7 with advantage.
13 l2Jxd5
Not 13 'ifxf5? cob6.
.
.
. . .
Frenc h Cl assic al
13 ...'�xe5!
Very few players have had the nerve to
play this move, but it is certainly best. Not
13 ... 'ifc5 ? 14 'ifxf5 ctJb6 15 e6 i.xe6 16
ct:Jf6+ wins, while if 13 ... ctJxe5 White has a
choice of promising lines:
a) 14 'ife4 'ifd6 (14 ... ctJd6 15 'ife3) 15 f4
c6 (15 ... i.e6 1 6 fxe5 i.xd5 17 :xd5 'ife6 18
�d3) 16 ctJb6! 'ifb8 (16 ... ctJg3 17 'ife3) 17
ctJxc8 'ifxc8 1 8 i.d3 .
b) 14 'ifa4+ i.d7 1 5 i.b5 'ifd6
(15 ... i.xb5 1 6 'ifxb5+ c6 17 ctJxe7 cxb5 1 8
ct:Jxf4) 1 6 i.xd7+ ctJxd7 17 ctJb6 'ifxb6 1 8
'ifxd7+ �f8 19 'ifxf5 with the advantage,
e.g. 19 . . . 'ife6 20 'ifxe6 fxe6 2 1 l:.d7 :e8 22
:hd1 :e7 23 :d8+ :e8 24 : 1d7.
c) 14 'ife2 'ifd6 15 f4 ctJg3 (not 15 .. .f6?
16 fxe5 fxe5 17 'ifh5+) 16 'ife3 ctJxh 1
(16 . . . ct:Jxf1!? 1 7 :hxfl i.e6) 17 fxe5 'ifd8
(17 . . . 'ifh6!?) 18 ct:Jf6+ gxf6 19 :xd8+ �xd8 .
20 'i¥d4+ �e8 2 1 i.b5+ c6 22 exf6 i.d7 (not
22 . . . ct:Jg3 23 'i¥d6 ct:Jf5 24 i.xc6+) 23 i.d3
(Timmerman-Carleton, correspondence
1992-93) when Black had to try 23 ... ctJg3 24
'i¥d6 (or 24 'i¥e5+) 24 . . . �d8 25 'i¥xg3
(Cimmino) with two rooks for the queen,
e.g. 25 ... i.e6 26 'i¥d6+ �c8 27 i.xh7 :d8
28 'i¥a3 �c7.
14 .li.b5!
The only move. 14 ctJxc7+? 'i¥xc7 1 5
�xf5 ctJf6, 14 .tc4? ctJf6 and 14 .td3? 4:Jf6
are winning for Black, while if 14 f4 ctJf6 15
fxe5 (not 1 5 i.b5+? c6 16 'i¥f3 'ifb8!)
1 5 ... ctJxg4 16 ctJxc7+ �e7 17 ctJxa8 ctJf2
regains the rook with advantage.
14...0-0 15 .li.xd7
Black is also okay after 1 5 f4 'i¥e6 16
'i¥xf5 'i¥xf5 1 7 ctJe7+ �h8 1 8 ct:Jxf5 ctJf6 or
15 :he 1 ctJf6 16 'i¥c4 'ifxd5! 17 �xd5
ctJxd5 18 'i¥xd5 c6 with rook, bishop and
knight for the queen.
15 ...tt:Jh6?!
Black could have played for a win with
15 ... �xd7 16 'YWhS f6! (Gulko) since if 17
\\Wxh7+? �f7 18 \\Wh5+ g6 19 \\Wh7+ CLJg7 he
keeps the piece, i.e. 20 lLlb6 (20 .l:he 1 .l:h8,
20 f4 'i¥f5) 20 . . . i.g4 21 ctJxa8 i.xd1 22
:xd1 'iff5 23 'ifh2 :xa8 24 'i¥xc7+ �g8.
Or if 17 :he 1 ctJg3 ! 1 8 'ifxe5 (18 :xe5?
ctJxh5 19 :xh5 i.g4) 18 .. .fxe5 19 ctJe7+ (19
fxg3 i.g4) 19 ... �f7 20 �xd7 �e6 21 :d5
:xf2 22 :dxe5 �f7 still with the extra
pawn.
16 �g3
White can win the queen after 16 'i¥h4
i.xd7 17 :he 1 ct:Jf5 1 8 'i¥h5 'i¥d6 19 ct:Je7+
ctJxe7 20 :xd6 cxd6 2 1 :xe7 i.c6 though
is unlikely to make any progress against the
rook and bishop. With 16 'ii'g3 White gives
up his attack to regain the pawn and there is
nothing left to play for.
16 ...�xg3 17 ltJe7+ �h8 18 fxg3 .li.xd7
19 :xd7 ltJg4 20 :xc7 b5 2 1 :h4 C2Jf6
22 ctJf5 a6 23 a4 Y2 - Y2
Game 61
Nataf-Uiibin
Stockholm Rilton Cup 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 .li.g5 .li.e7
5 e5 ctJfd7 6 h4 c5
This is the critical declination. Black
ignores the bishop on g5 and plays to
undermine the enemy centre straightaway.
The one drawback is that ... c7-c5 weakens
the queenside dark squares which White can
probe with lLlbS.
7 .ltxe7!
This is a useful preliminary to the knight
Main Line with 4 il.. g5 ii. e7 5 e5 t'U t d7
sally. White intends to follow up with lLlb5
only after the natural recapture 7 .. .'�xe7.
The immediate 7 lLlb5? allows Black to
attack the centre by 7 .. .f6! If 8 exf6 lLlxf6
White has lost the d6-outpost, while 9 �f4
0-0 10 CLJc7 fails to 10 . . . lLld8. Black is also
for preference after 9 dxc5 �xc5 10 �d3
0-0 or 9 lLlf3 CLJc6 and 10 . . . a6.
For this reason White has attempted to
j ustify the line by sacrificial means: 8 �d3
intending 8 .. .fxg5 9 'i¥h5+ �f8 10 hxg5
i.. x g5? 1 1 lLld6. However, Black can refute
this by 8 . . . a6 9 'i¥h5+ �f8 and then if 10
%:.h3 axb5 11 �h6 CLlxe5 ! (making room for
the king; 1 1 . .. 'i¥c7 is also good) 12 dxe5 (if
12 i.. xg7+ �xg7 1 3 �g3+ �f8) 12 . . . gxh6 13
�f3 c4 14 'i¥xh6+ (or 14 exf6 cxd3 1 5 fxe7+
�xe7 1 6 J:.f7+ �d6 1 7 lLlf3 CLJc6) 14 . . . �e8
1 5 'i¥g7 �f8 16 i.. x h7 'i¥c7 17 exf6 'i¥e5+
and Black wins (Zlotnik) . No better is 10
CLJd6 �xd6 1 1 exd6 cxd4 12 �xh7 CLJe5 13
i.. f4 'i¥xd6 1 4 CLJe2 lLlbc6 1 5 0-0-0 �d7 16
i.xe5 lLlxe5 17 f4 �e8 1 8 fxe5 �xh5 19
exd6 .:xh7 20 �d2 i.xe2 2 1 �xe2 �f7 and
Black won in Murey-Bricard, Paris 1994.
Nor is 7 'i¥g4 effective, due to 7 ... �f8! 8
lLlf3 (or 8 �xe7 'i¥xe7 9 lLlb5 cxd4 10 CLJc7?
lLlxe5) 8 . . . CLJc6 9 'i¥f4 (or 9 lLlb5 cxd4)
9 ... cxd4 10 lLlbS after either 10 ... 'i¥a5!? 1 1
�d1 h6 1 2 �xe7+ �xe7 (Zlotnik) or 1 0. . .f6!
1 1 exf6 lLlxf6 12 lLlbxd4 i.d6 (Stetsko) .
7 .. . �xe7!
After 7 . . .'�'xe7?! White proceeds with 8
lLlb5! aiming at c7 and d6. Black can
prevent CLJc7 by . . . �d8 or . . . 'i¥d8, bu't both
8 ... �d8 9 f4 and 8 . . . 'i¥d8 9 CLJd6+ �e7 are
j ust inferior versions of 7 . . . �xe7. So Black
has tried to j ustify the variation by
sacrificing the exchange at a8. The direct
8 . . . cxd4 9 CLJc7+ �d8 10 CLlxa8 CLJc6 (if
10 .. .'�b4+ 1 1 i¥d2) 1 1 Qjf3 'i¥b4+ 12 i¥d2
'li'xd2+ (or 12 ... 'li'xb2 13 �d1) 13 �xd2
CLlxe5 14 CLJxe5 CLJxe5 (Kraatz-Stader,
correspondence 1983) and now 15 �h3
(Nogueiras and Sieiro) intending �a3 wins
for White. So Black has concentrated upon
8 . . . 0-0 9 CLJc7 cxd4 10 ctJxa8. Unfortunately
no continuation seems satisfactory for
Black:
a) 10. . .'i¥b4+ 1 1 'i¥d2 'i¥xb2 12 �d1 CLJc6
13 lLlf3 CLJc5 14 i.. d3 i.d7 15 CLJc7 �c8 16
lLlxd5! exd5 17 0-0 i.. g4 (17... 'i¥xa2 18 'i¥f4)
1 8 'i¥f4 i.. xf3 19 'i¥xf3 CLJxd3 20 cxd3 'ii'xa2
2 1 �a1 'ii'd2 22 'ii'xd5 (Keller-Heidenfeld,
Enschede 1961) and if 22 ... 'i¥xd3 23 e6!
b) 10 ... CLJc6 1 1 lLlf3 f6 12 lLlxd4 lLldxe5
(if 12 .. .fxe5 13 CLJxe6! 'ii'xe6 14 CLJc7 and 15
'i¥xd5) 13 i.. e2 lLlxd4 1 4 'i¥xd4 CLJc6 15
'i¥d2 'i¥d6 16 0-0 i.. d7 17 c4 d4 1 8 b4 �xa8
19 c5 'i¥d5 20 i.. f3 'ii'c4 21 �fc l 'i¥xb4 22
'i¥xb4 lLlxb4 23 i.. x b7 (Zezulkin-Malorov,
Krasnodar 1998).
c) 10 . . .f6 11 'i¥xd4 CLJc6 (1 1 . . .fxe5 12
'i¥d2) 12 'li'd2 fxe5 13 0-0-0 lLlf6 14 f3 Vi'd6
15 C2Jh3 (or 15 CLJe2 i.. d7 16 CLJc3 �xa8 17
lLle4) 15 ... i.. d7 16 i.. b 5 �xa8 17 .:he 1 and
White is better; i.e. 17 ... lLld4 18 i..x d7
lLlxd7 19 f4 CLJc6 20 �b 1 'i¥e7 21 f5 d4 22
fxe6 'i¥xe6 23 CLJg5 'i¥d5 24 c3 lLlf6 25 cxd4
CLJxd4? (25 . . . exd4) 26 C2Jf3 lLlxf3 27 'li'xd5+
lLlxd5 28 gxf3 �d8 29 �a1 1-0 Vitolins­
Koopmann, Porz 199 1.
d) 10 . . . CLlxe5 1 1 'i¥xd4 lLlbc6 (1 1 . . .CLJec6
12 'li'd2 e5 13 0-0-0 i.. e 6 14 f4) 12 'ii'd2
'ii'd6 (12 . . . b6 13 i.. e2 i.b7 14 CLJxb6 axb6
15 '2Jf3) 13 i.e2 i.d7 14 h5 f6 15 0-0-0
'2Jf7 16 f4 �xa8 17 '2Jf3 (Khalifman-Levin,
Riga 1988).
8 f4
French Cl assical
This has always been the standard plan
for White, hoping to show that the
awkwardness of Black's . . . �e7 outweighs
the now wasted move 6 h4 in 6 iLxe7 'ii'xe7
7 f4 type positions. However, White has not
managed to prove an advantage with this
plan. It may be because other players
foresaw Ulibin's novelty on move 10 that
White has tried doing without f2-f4. This
leaves the eS-pawn vulnerable but, if
captured, White obtains open lines and
attacking chances against the black king. To
this end four moves have been ventured:
a) 8 ctJf3 cxd4 9 'ii'xd4 ctJc6 and after 10
'ii' f4 'ii' c 7 11 0-0-0 CLJdxeS (threatening
. . . CLJd3+) 12 'ii' g3 (or 12 �b 1 'ii'b 8) 12 ... �f8
13 CLJbS 'ii' b 8 14 CLJxeS 'ii' x eS 1 5 f4 'ii'f6
Black was better in Chigvintsev-Ulibin,
Tomsk 1997. White has also tried 10 'ii'd2
CLJdxeS 1 1 CLJxeS CLJxeS 12 0-0-0 f6 13 g4
iLd7 1 4 f4 CLJc6 1 5 CLJxdS+!? exdS 16 'ii'x dS
'ii' c 7 17 i.c4 �ae8 18 'ii'f7+ �d8 19 Mxd7+
'ii'xd7 20 Md1 CLJd4 2 1 'ii'xd7+ �xd7 22
i.bS+ �c7 23 iLxe8 CLJe2+ 24 �d2 CLJxf4
with a level endgame in Manca-Gleizerov,
Montecatini Terme 1997.
b) 8 'ii' g4 �f8 9 CLJf3! cxd4 (or 9 ... CLJc6 10
'ii' f4) and then 10 CLJbS CLJc6 1 1 'ii' f4 'ii' aS+
(if 1 l . . .f6 12 exf6 ifxf6 13 CLJc7! ifxf4 14
CLJxe6+ regains the pawn with advantage) 12
�d1 ifb6 13 g4! (preparing 1 4 tl:Jd6 f6 15
exf6 tl:Jxf6 16 g5) 13 ... h6 14 Z;lg1 g5 1 5 hxg5
hxg5 16 'i:Yxg5 a6 17 tl:Jd6 gave White a very
strong attack in Loskutov-Chuprikov,
Smolensk 2000. The game ended abruptly
17 ... CLJcxe5? 18 CLJxeS 'i¥xd6 19 'i¥d8+ �g7
20 ifxh8+! 1-0. No better is 13 ... <iii g 8 1 4
CLJd6 f6 15 exf6 CLJxf6 16 g S ifxb2 17 � c l
e S (the only move) 1 8 CLJxeS CLJxeS 19 'ifxeS
i.g4+ 20 f3 ! i.xf3 2 1 iLe2 .txe2 22 'ii'x e2
CLJe4 23 CLJxe4 dxe4 24 'ii'c4+ and wins.
White can also try 10 ifxd4 'ii'b 6 1 1
iff4!? (if 1 1 ifxb6 axb6! 12 0-0-0 CLJc6 13
Me 1 d4 14 CLJbS .:xa2) 1 1 . .. 'ii'xb2 12 <it>d2!
'ii'xa1?! (12 . . . CLJc6 13 .:b 1 'i'a3 is safer) 13
CLJgS! when Black's defence consists of a
string of only moves: 13 ... CLJxe5 14 'iYxeS
CLJc6 15 'ii'd6+ �g8 16 'ii/c 7 iLd7 17 'ifxd7
CLJeS 18 ifc7 bS! 19 ifxeS b4 (or 19 a3 aS) .
So perhaps 8 ... CLJc6 is better, when 9 dxcS
�f8 10 f4 'ii'aS (intending ... d5-d4) , 9 'i¥xg7
CLJxd4, or 9 ifgS+ �f8 10 ifxd7+ CLJxd8 1 1
f4 b6! (Situru-Hi.ibner, Yerevan Olympiad
1996) don't offer White anything. Instead 9
CLJf3 ! cxd4 10 CLJbS �f8 1 1 'ii'f4 or
10 ... 'ifa5+ 11 �d1 �f8 12 iff4 returns to
8 . . . �f8 above, but Black might try
10 ... iff8!? 1 1 iff4 �d8 12 0-0-0 f6.
c) 8 'ifhS!? CLJc6 9 dxcS and now rather
than 9 . . . CLJdxe5 10 0-0-0 g6?! 1 1 'ii'h 6 f6 12
'ifg7+ CLJf7 13 CLJe4 fS 14 CLJgS iff8 15 ifc3
with a clear advantage to White in Frolov­
Gleizerov, St Petersburg 1995, Black should
prefer 9 ... 'ifaS 10 0-0-0 (if 10 ifgS+ �f8 or
10 iLbs CLJdxeS 1 1 0-0-0 d4) 10 ... d4 1 1 tt"Jbs
(1 1 CLJb 1 ifxa2) 1 1 . . .'i¥xa2 12 ifgS+ �f8 1 3
CLJxd4 h 6 ! 14 'ii'f4 CLJdxeS with an unclear
position.
d) 8 dxcS!? CLJxeS 9 ife2 was Sakaev­
Ulibin, Dubai 2000, which continued
9 . . . CLJbc6 10 0-0-0 �f8 1 1 f4 CLJd7 12 CLJf3
CLJxcS 13 �b 1 (13 fS!?) 13 . . . b5 14 ife3 ifb6
15 .:xdS exdS 16 CLJxdS ifd8 17 ifxcS+
CLJe7 18 CLJc3 a6 19 i.e2 i.e6?! 20 Md1 'VIic8
21 'ifb4 h5 22 CLJd4 Z;!h6 23 i.f3 .tla7 24 f5
i.c4 25 ctJc6 �xc6 26 i.xc6 �g8 27 .i.e4
tl:Jxf5 28 'ifa5 Z;ld7 29 Z;lxd7 "ifxd7 30 b3
.i.fl 3 1 "ifxa6 and White won; but 19 ... i.b7
20 Z;!d1 'ifc8 would have held for Black.
Main Lin e with 4 iJ.. g5 iLe7 5 e5 ti'J fd7
.
Gormally-Summerscale, York Vikings 2000,
saw instead 12 .. .'ife7!? 13 g4 (13 fS!?) 13 ... hS
14 gS g6 1S CUeS CUdxeS 1 6 fxeS 'ifxcS 17
.ltg2 cud4 1 8 'i¥d3 cuf3 and Black
consolidated his defences.
Black can also decline the pawn by
8 . . . CUc6, when 9 f4, 9 'i¥g4 and 9 'ifhS
transpose to 8 f4 CUc6, 8 'ifg4 CUc6 and 8
'ifhS CUc6 respectively, while 9 'ife2 'ifaS! or
9 cuf3 cudxeS 10 CUxeS CUxeS 1 1 'ife2 CUc6
12 0-0-0 �f8 are unclear.
8 Vi'b6
Black has two other reliable moves:
a) 8 . . . CUc6 9 dxcS (if 9 cuf3 a6 10 'ifd2 bS
prepares a queenside initiative) 9 . . . 'ifaS!
(better than 9 ... CUxcS 10 'i¥g4! <itf8 1 1 0-0-0
with advantage) 10 'ifd2 (or 10 cuf3 CUxcS
1 1 'ifd2) 10 ... CUxcS 1 1 cuf3 l:t.d8 12 cud4
�f8 13 0-0-0 'i¥b6! 14 hS CUe4 1S 'i¥e3
CUxd4 16 CUxd4 CUxc3 (not 16 . . . CUg3 ? 17
CUa4! 'i¥d4 1 8 'ifd4 cuh 1 19 fS) 17 'ifxc3
�g8 and Black was okay in Tait­
Micklethwaite, correspondence 2000-0 1 .
b) 8 ... cxd4 9 ifxd4 'i¥b6 (if 9 . . . CUc6 1 0
'ifd2 Black i s merely behind on 8 . . . CUc6 9
dxcS with 'ifd2) 10 'ifxb6 (if 10 'ifd2!?
'ifxb2! 1 1 l:t.b 1 'i¥a3 12 l:t.b3 'ifaS 13 l:t.bS
'i¥d8 14 fS CUc6 is safe enough) 10 ... CUxb6
White has a nominal advantage though all
the games have been drawn, e.g. 1 1 hS h6
12 cubs CUc6 13 cuf3 �d7 14 b3 a6 1 S
cubd4 CUxd4 16 CUxd4 CUc8 17 �d2 CUa7 1 8
c 3 lh-1h Nunn-Seirawan, Cannes rapidplay
1992.
9 ti'Ja4
Again White has alternat�ves:
.
a) 9 ct:Jf3 allows Black to force a draw by
9 . . . 'ifxb2! 10 ct:Jbs a6 1 1 l:t.b 1 (1 1 ct:Jc7?
'ifc3+ 12 �f2 l:t.a7) 1 1 . ..'ifxa2 12 l:t.a1 'ifb2
13 l:t.b 1 etc. as in Maksimovic-Ulibin,
Chelyabinsk 1990. Instead 10 . . .'ifb4+ 1 1
�f2 a6 1 2 ctJc7 l:t.a7 1 3 c4 �d8! leads to
very interesting play, e.g. 14 cxd5 �xc7 1S
a3 'if aS 16 d6+! ? <;t>d8 17 d5 intending ctJgS
(Nogueiras and Sieiro) , or 14 tLJxdS exd5 15
cxdS cxd4 16 l:t.c l ! ? (Minev) 16 . . b6 17 :c4
. . .
.
'ifa3 18 'ifc2 'ife3+ 19 �g3 CUeS 20 l:.xd4
l:t.c7 21 �c4 .ltb7 22 l:t.e 1 'i¥a3 23 'iVfS bS
24 d6 bxc4? 2S dxc7+ �xc7 26 'ifxf7+ Wb6
27 l:t.xc4 cubd7 28 l:t.b 1+ 1-0 Wibe-J.Szalai,
correspondence 1994.
b) 9 l:t.h3 !? defends the tLJc3 , rendering
9 . . .'ii' xb2? suicidal because of 10 l:t.b 1 'ifa3
1 1 CUxdS+ and wins. But other moves are
more than okay for Black: e.g. 9 . . . cxd4 10
tt:Jbs d3 11 'ifxd3 'ifxg1 12 'i¥g3 tLJc6 13
'ifxg7 l:t.f8 14 'ifxh7 CUeS 1 S 0-0-0 CUe4; or
9 ... CUc6 10 dxcS tLJxcS 1 1 CUge2 l:t.d8! 12
lt:Jd4 'i¥b4! 13 CUxc6 bxc6 14 'ifd2 l:t.b8 1S
b3 d4 and Black stood better in Tait­
P.Adams, correspondence 2000-0 1.
9 .'�fa5+
9 . . . 'i¥c6 10 CUxcS lt:Jx�S 1 1 dxcS 'ifxcS 12
.
'ifd2 lt:Jc6 13 cuf3 �d7 14 hS h6 1S 0-0-0
l:t.ac8 16 �b 1 'ifaS 17 'ifxaS CUxaS is not so
bad for Black either. It was not because of
the opening that White won in Velimirovic­
Miljanic, Yugoslav Team Championship
1992.
10 c3
. .
10 b6!
Black prepares the exchange of light­
squared bishops by ... i.a6. This is a typical
device in the French, so it is perhaps
surprising that 10 ... b6 was actually a novelty
here.
10 . . . lt:Jc6 was Black's choice previously,
when Keres proposed the following pawn
sacrifice: 1 1 tLJf3 cxd4 (not 1 l . . .bS? 12
. . .
1 25
French Classical
tDxcS tDxcS 13 dxcS b4 14 t2Jd4!) 12 b4!
t2Jxb4 (declining the pawn by 12 . . . ifc7 13
t2Jxd4 a6 14 l:th3 gives Black a very passive
position) 13 cxb4 ifxb4+ 14 �f2 bS 1S
.i.xbS ifxbS 1 6 t2Jxd4 ifa6?! 17 ifb3 with a
strong attack for White. R.Hall-Valerio,
correspondence 1993-9S, quickly concluded
17 . . . i.. b 7 (if 17 .. .f6 18 l:.hc l fx�S 19 l:.c6) 1 8
ifb4+ �d8 19 l:thc 1 .:cs 2 0 l:.xc8+ �xc8 2 1
:e t+ 1-0, since after 2 1 . . . �d8 (2 l . . .�b8 22
Mxc6) 22 tt:JxcS tt:JxcS 23 l:.xcS and 24 l:.aS
ifc4 2S ifd6 �e8 26 t2Je2 wins.
Black can improve with 16 ... ifc4!?
(preventing 'ifb3) and then if 17 l:.h3 !
(intending l:tc3) 1 7 . . . t2Jb6! 1 8 t2Jb2 ifcS 19
l:.c l t2Jc4, but it is easier not to enter this
line at all.
1 1 �f2
White can prevent ... i.. a6 by playing
either 1 1 a3 or 1 1 l:.b 1, since if 1 1 . .. i.. a 6??
12 b4 wins the queen. However, after
1 l . ..c4! the threat of ... b6-bS forces White to
re-open the queenside by 12 b4 and Black is
fine after the en passant capture, e.g. 1 1 a3 c4
12 b4 cxb3 13 ifxb3 .i.a6 14 i.. xa6 t2Jxa6
1S t2Je2 l:.hc8 16 0-0 g6 1 7 t2Jb2 bS 18 t2Jd3
ifa4! 19 ifb 1 t2Jb6 20 ife 1 t2Jc4 with
advantage to Black in A.Hunt-Sarkar, Witley
1999.
11 ...�a6 12 tt:Jt3 �xf 1 13 .:i.xf 1 li:Jc6 14
�g 1 g6
Black emphasises the solidity of his
position, ruling out any f4-fS breaks.
15 b3
Preparing a2-a3 . If immediately 1S a3
then Black plays 1 S . . . c4 again.
15 ....:i.ac8 16 a3 cxd4 17 cxd4
Not 17 t2Jxd4? bS.
17 ...b5 18 li:Jc5 li:Jxc5 19 b4
After 19 dxcS 'ifc3! 20 b4 aS attacks the
pawn chain. 2 1 ife 1 'ifxe1 22 l:.fxe1 axb4
23 axb4 :as does not ease the pressure,
while if 21 ife2 axb4 22 �.fc l , intending
22 . . . 'ifb3 23 a4!? bxa4 24 :ab 1 with
perpetual against the queen, Black has the
resource 22 ... CDd4! keeping the advantage.
19...'iYa4!
Black gains the initiative on the
queenside after the queen exchange.
20 bxc5
Or 20 dxcS ifxd1 2 1 l:.fxd 1 l:.c7 22 t2Jd4
t2Jxd4 23 l:.xd4 aS intending ... l:.a8 and
. . J�ca7 when Black will invade down the a­
file.
20 ...'ifxd 1 2 1 lHxd 1 l!b8 22 l!db 1 .:i.b7
23 �f2 l!hb8 24 .:i.a2
White can do little but wait for Black to
prepare his breakthrough.
24...as 25 �e3 b4 26 l!ab2 a4 27 axb4
a3 28 nb3 l!xb4 29 l!xb4 .:i.xb4 30 .:i.a 1
.:i.b3+ 3 1 �d2 li:Jb4 32 li:Je 1 a2 33 li:Jc2?
Losing immediately, though Black is still
better after 33 �c l l:.c3+ 34 �b2 l:.e3
(threatening . . . l:.xe1) and then 3S t2Jc2 l:.e2
36 �c3 .l:xc2+ 37 �xb4 l:.xg2, when 38
�b3 l:td2 39 Mxa2 :xd4 40 .iaa7+ �f8 and
. .. �c4, or 3S t2Jf3 �e2+ 36 �b3 t2Jd3 or 36
�c3 t2Jc6 37 t2Je 1 �e3+ 3 8 �d2 �e4 are in
Black's favour.
33...l!b 1 34 �c3 h5! 35 g3 �d8! 36
�d2 �c7 37 �c3 �b8 38 �d2 li:Jxc2
39 l!xa2 li:Jxd4 0- 1
Game 62
Degraeve-M . Gurevich
Be!fort 1997
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d 5 3 CDc3 lDt6 4 �g5 �e7
5 e 5 lLlfd7 6 h4 a6
Main Line with 4 ii. g5 ii. e7 5 e5 0, t d7
Black prevents the knight sortie to bS
and intends to assault the centre with . . . c7c5 at the earliest opportunity. Therefore
White must proceed on the kingside with all
haste.
7 'Wig4
Defending the bishop and threatening
i.xe7 and �xg7.
7 ii.xg5!?
The most combative move, if extremely
risky as White gains the h-file and a forward
infantryman with which to prod the
kingside. Nevertheless, while the statistics
are with White, who scores 67% from 1 12
games in my database, the theoretical status
is less clear.
Other moves give Black a passive
position or worse. 7 . . . c5? misses the threat
of 8 i.xe7 and 9 'ti'xg7, while both 7 . . . g6 8
i.xe7 �xe7 9 hS and 7 . . .f6 8 i.f4 merely
weaken Black's kingside.
The same applies to 7 .. .f5?! 8 �hS+ g6
(or 8 . . . �f8 9 lt:Jh3 and lt:Jf4) 9 �h6 i.xgS
(not 9 . . . �f7? 10 hS! i.xgS 1 1 hxg6+-�g8 12
gxh7+ �f7 13 �hS+ �g l 14 tt:Jf3 i.e7 1 5
tLJxdS ! exdS 16 'ii'h 6+ �f7 17 e6+ mates, or
otherwise tLJxe7 and tLJgS wins) 10 hxgS
and now 10 ...�f7, intending ... tLJf8, ....l:.g8g7, is supposedly the most solid formation,
although this looks atrocious and White has
a simple plan of attack in tLJge2-f4 and g2g4. For example, 1 1 tLJge2 lt:Jf8 12 tLJf4 .:gs
13 0-0-0 l;Ig7 14 g4 fxg4 15 f3 gxf3 16 .l:.d3
. . .
�g8 17 .l:.xf3 cS 18 i.d3 'ife8 19 i.. x g6
tLJxg6 20 lt:JhS �e7 21 tLJf6+ �h8 22 lifh3
tLJf8 23 lt:Je2 i.d7 (or 23 ... b6 24 tLJf4 .:a7
25 tLJxh7!) 24 tLJf4 i.e8 25 lt:Jxe6 1-0
Zanlungo-Salas Romo, correspondence
1963; while if 14 ... c6 15 i.g2 <it>g8 (Hacker­
Faisst, correspondence 199 1) it is hard to
see how Black can survive after 16 gxfS exfS
17.i.xd5+! cxdS 1 8 tLJcxdS.
is
also
passive.
The
7 ... �f8
straightforward 8 i.xe7+ �xe7 9 f4 cS 10
dxcS lt:Jc6 11 0-0-0 lt:JxcS 1 2 lt:Jf3 is clearly a
good (for White) version of a 6 i.xe7 main
line. Or White can take a more aggressive
approach, as in Hector-Wikstrom,
Norrk0ping 1996, which saw: 8 lt:Jf3 cS 9
dxcS tLJc6 10 tLJa4!? (better than 10 �f4
�c7! 1 1 i.xe7+ �xe7 12 0-0-0 tLJdxeS with
an unclear position) 10 ... tLJdxeS 1 1 tLJxeS
ctJxeS 12 i.xe7+ �xe7 13 'ii'g3 f6 14 f4 ctJc6
15 0�0-0 i.d7 16 i.. e2 �f7 17 .l:.he 1 tLJb4
18 �b3 aS? (better is 18 ...i.xa4 19 'ii'xb4
iLc6) 19 lt:Jb6 .l:.ad8 20 fS g6 21 lt:Jxd7
�xd7 22 a3 lt:Jc6 23 fxe6+ �xe6 24 i.f3
1-0.
Black has also tried 7 ... h5!? intending 8
i.xe7?! hxg4 9 i.xd8 �xd8, or otherwise to
block the kingside after 8 �g3 iLxgS 9 hxgS
g6. Nevertheless, White can break in with a
timely g2-g4, as for example after 10 0-0-0
bS 1 1 'ti'e3 .l:.g8 12 f4 lt:Jb6 13 lt:Jf3 'ife7 14
lt:Jh2 lt:J8d7 15 g4 hxg4 16 lt:Jxg4 i.b7
(Rytshagov-Bykhovsky, Cappelle la Grande
1993) when 17 lt:Jf6+ tLJxf6 1 8 exf6 is clearly
better for White. No better is 8 . . . g6 9 0-0-0
cS 10 dxcS lt:Jc6 1 1 lt:Jf3 lt:JxcS 12 �f4
iLxgS 13 lt:JxgS �e7 1 4 l:th3 lt:Jd7, when
Bauer-Ruf, Metz 1998, concluded 15 :xdS!
0-0 (if 1S . . . exd5 16 lt:JxdS �f8 17 :e3! and
18 e6) 16 .:xd7 iLxd7 17 tLJge4 �g7 1 8
lt:Jf6 .l:.h8 19 .J:.d3 :adS 2 0 lt:Jce4 iL c 8 2 1
.l:.d6 �cl 2 2 tLJgS .:df8 2 3 c 3 1-0.
8 hxg5 c5
The only consistent follow-up, as
anything else would leave Black with a
passive position. For example, 8 ... g6 9 .i.d3
1 27
French Cl assical
"V/ile7 10 tt:Jf3 cS 1 1 dxc5 ctJc6 12 0-0-0
ctJxc5 (if 12 . . . tt:Jdxe5 13 tZ:lxe5 tZ:lxe5 14
"V/iid4) 1 3 "VJi/f4 �d7 14 l:.h6 with a clear
advantage in Bogolyubov-Maroczy, San
Remo 1930.
9 ti:Jf3
The direct attack 9 g6!? f5 (not 9 . . .fxg6
10 l:.xh7!) has not proved conclusive. After
10 'ii' g3 h6 1 1 ttJf3 Black is able to escape
the worst with 1 1 . .. 0-0! 12 0-0-0 tZ:lc6 13
etJe2 cxd4 14 li:Jexd4 f4! 15 etJxc6 bxc6 16
'ifh4 "V/iix h4 17 l:.xh4 c5, as in Khalifman­
M.Gurevich, Moscow TV 1987. Instead 10
"V/ilf4 is critical, supporting the d4-pawn and
a possible rook sacrifice on h6 should Black
castle short. The position White is aiming at
follows 10 ... h6 1 1 dxc5 0-0?! 12 0-0-0 li:Jc6
(if 12 ... ctJxc5 13 i.c4! "V/iie 8 14 l:.xd5! e;xd5
15 l:.xh6!) 13 ti:Jf3 li:Jxc5 (if 13 . . . "V/iie 8 14
li:Jxd5! exd5 15 �xd5) 14 �c4! with
sacrifices pending at d5 and h6. Black has to
play 14 ... "V/iie 8 15 �xd5 etJe4 (not 15 ... exd5?
1 6 l::I xh6!) 1 6 li:Jd4 when wild tactics arise.
For example, 16 . . . b5? 17 li:Jxc6 "V/iixc6 1 8
etJxe4 exd5 19 ti:Jf6+! :xf6 2 0 exf6 dxc4 2 1
f7+ �f8 2 2 l:.xh6 wins (I.George) , or
16 ... "V/iix g6 17 li:Jxc6 bxc6 18 l:.dd 1 li:Jxc3 19
bxc3 ifxg2? 20 l:.dg 1 "V/iie4 21 i.xe6+! �xe6
22 l:.xg7+! wins, or 16 ... li:Je7? 17 l:.d8! "V/iixd8
18 etJxe6 'i¥d2+ 19 'ii'xd2 li:Jxd2 20 �xd2
�xe6 2 1 i.xe6+ �h8 22 i.f7 with a clear
advantage (I.George-Corfield, correspon­
dence 1988-89) . Black does better with
1 28
either 16 . . . li:Jxd4 17 l:.xd4 etJxc3 1 8 bxc3
'ii'xg6 19 l:.d3 'ii'xg2 20 l:.xh6 gxh6 21 :g3+
'ii'xg3 22 'ii'xg3+ �h7 or 16 . . . etJxc3 17
l:.xh6! etJe2+! 1 8 ctJxe2 gxh6 19 'ifxh6 "V/ile7
20 ti:Jf4 "V/iig7 21 'ifh5 l:.e8! 22 l:.d6 li:Jxe5 23
li:Jxe6 �xe6 24 i.xe6+ nxe6 (24 ... �f8 25 f4
�e7 26 nb6) 25 nxe6 when White has
adequate compensation (I.George), but
maybe no more than that after 25 ... etJc4 26
c3 'ifd7.
Furthermore, Black can avoid this line, if
desired, by 1 1 dxc5 etJc6 12 tt:Jf3 ctJxc5 1 3
0-0-0 "V/iic 7! when Bos Swiecik-Lissowska,
Polish Women's Championship 199 1 ,
continued 14 �b 1 ( 1 4 g4!?) 14 . . JH8 1 5
ti:Jd4? "V/ilxe5 16 "VJi/xeS li:Jxe5 17 �e 1 etJe4 1 8
f3 ctJxc3+ 19 bxc3 ti:Jxg6 2 0 ti:Jxe6 �xe6 2 1
l:.xe6+ �f7 and Black was better. Other
move orders can also be circumvented: 1 1
ti:Jf3 etJc6 1 2 0-0-0 cxd4 or 1 1 0-0-0 ctJc6 12
dxc5 li:Jxc5 13 ti:Jf4 li:Je4!
With 9 li:Jf3 White keeps options open,
holding back g5-g6 until it might more
inconvenience Black.
Another possibility is 9 dxc5!? and after
9 ... li:Jxe5 (or 9 . . . li:Jc6 10 0-0-0! ti:Jdxe5 1 1
'ii'g3) 1 0 'ii'g3 li:Jbc6 1 1 0-0-0 White has
good compensation for the pawn, e.g.
1 1 . ..'ife7 12 f4 li:Jd7? 13 li:Jxd5! exd5 14 l:.e1
with a clear advantage in Pliester-Giulian,
Edinburgh 1988, or 1 1 . .. 'ii'a5 12 f4 li:Jg6 13
f5 (13 �d3!?) 13 ... li:Jge5 14 g6 (if 14 f6 ng8!
1 5 'ifh4 gxf6 16 gxf6 i.d7 and ... 0-0-0)
14 . . .fxg6 1 5 fxg6 h6 1 6 l:.h5 (T.Thiel­
J J enssen, Balatonbereny 1994) when
16 . . . ti:Jd7 intending . . . 0-0 or . . . l2Jf6 was
essential.
9 ti:Jc6
Black has another possibility in 9 ... cxd4!?
10 'ifxd4 etJc6 1 1 'ii'f4 'ii'c 7 12 0-0-0 li:Jdxe5
(threatening ... ti:Jd3+) and if 13 li:Jxe5 'ii'xe5
14 'ifxe5 lDxe5 15 l:.e 1 (Arencibia­
Hernandez Castillo, Santiago 1993) then
15 ... d4! equalises after 16 li:Jd5 exd5 17
l:.xeS ..ie6 or 16 etJe2 etJc6 17 l:.h4 .ii d 7 1 8
etJxd4 tt:Jxd4 19 :xd4 i.c6. White might
.
. . .
M ain Line with 4 J.. g 5 J.. e7 5 e5 'D fd7
prefer to keep the tension by 13 �b 1!?
planning l:.e 1 . Black has also tried
1 1 . .. �b6!? 12 0-0-0 'ii'xf2 13 l:.d2 'ifc5 14
g6 fxg6 15 .td3 l:.f8? (15 ... �d8 offers more
resistance) 16 'ifg3 'ife3 17 l:.xh7 4Jdxe5 1 8
i.xg6+ \t>d8 19 i.e4! intending i.xd5 with a
huge attack in Mirumian-Supatashvili,
Ankara 1995.
10 dxc5
10 g6 is again possible when, after 10 .. .f5
1 1 'ifg3 ! h6, the fact that Black has not yet
castled allows White to play 12 4Jg5!
attacking and then:
a) 12 . . . 'ife7 13 4Jf7 l:.f8 (not 13 ... 0-0? 14
4Jxh6+) 1 4 4Je2 cxd4 1 5 0-0-0 4Jc5 16
4Jxd4 with a clear advantage to White.
Landa-Gleizerov, Bled 1990, continued
16 . . . 4Je4 17 'ife3 f4 1 8 'ife 1 'ifc5 19 c3 lt:Je7
20 i.d3 4Jxg6 2 1 4Jd6+ 4Jxd6 22 i.xg6+
4Jf7 23 4Jf5 exf5 24 e6 �e7 25 i.xf7 'ifd6
26 l:.d2 f3 27 gxf3 .td7 and now 28 l:.g1 ! g5
29 l:.h 1 l:.h8 30 exd7+ �xf7 3 1 'ifd1 would
have won (Landa) .
b) 12 . . . 4Jxd4 13 4Jf7! 'i!Va5 14 0-0-0 l:.g8
(again not 14 . . . 0-0? 15 4Jxh6+) 15 �b 1 b5
(perhaps 15 . . . 4Jb5!?) 16 'ifh4 b4 17 l:.xd4!?
cxd4 1 8 4Jxd5! exd5 19 4Jd6+ �f8 20 4Jxf5
4Jf6 2 1 exf6 .txf5 22 'iff4 with
compensation in Passos-Dutra Neto,
correspondence 1993.
10 ...'Lidxe5 11 -t:'lxe5 -t:'lxe5 12 'irg3
12 ... tLlg6?!
The knight blockades the g5-pawn but is
itself a target on g6. 12 ... 4Jd7 was stronger
when 13 g6 h6 14 gxf7+ �xf7 doesn't
achieve much for White, nor does 13 'ife3
'ife7, while in B.Ivanovic-Shaboian, Pula
1990, Black defended after 13 0-0-0 ctJxc5
14 g6 fxg6 1 5 l:.xh7 l:.xh7 1 6 'ifxg6+ �f8 17
'ifxh7 'ifg5+ 1 8 !:td2 'ifh6 and eventually
won as his higher-rated opponent
overpressed.
13 0-0-0 J..d7
13 ... 'ife7 allows Black to defend against
14 i.d3 by 14 . . . 'ifxc5 15 i.xg6 fxg6 16 'ife5
0-0! (Finkel) since if 17 'ifh2 :xf2 1 8
'ifxh7+ �f8 o r 17 :d2 l:.f5 ! 1 8 'ifh2 h5 1 9
gxh6 l:h5. Instead 14 'ife3 ! increases the
pressure, and if 14 . . . i.d7 15 .txg6 fxg6 16
:he 1 wins the d5-pawn, or 14 ... 0-0?! 1 5 f4
and Black is in trouble down the h-file.
14 J..d3 'irb8 15 'i!Ve3 tbe7
Black cannot play 15 ...'ife5? because of
16 4Jxd5! exd5 (or 16 ... 'ii'xd5 17 .txg6
'ifxa2 1 8 i.xf7+!) 17 'ifxe5+ 4Jxe5 18 l:de1
f6 19 gxf6 gxf6 20 f4 and White won in
Hector-] .Hansen, Gausdal 1987.
16 J..xh7 g6 17 J..xg6!
Clearly Black cannot capture with the f­
pawn so he is forced to give up his defences
on the e-file.
17...�xh 1 18 �xh 1 'Lixg6 19 -t:'lxd5 J..c6
20 'Lib6 J..xg2?
20 . . . �a7 was obligatory when there is no
immediate win for White.
2 1 �h6!
Threatening the decisive 22 :xg6 fxg6 23
'ifxe6+ etc.
2 1 ../Jile7 22 'i!Vd4
Black has no defence to 'iff6+. If 22 ... e5
the queen comes round via 23 'ifg4 .tc6 24
'iff5.
22 ...'i!Vd8 23 'iif6+ �e8 24 'Lixa8 i¥a5
25 'Yic3 'Yixa2 26 b3 J..e4 27 f3 J..xc2
28 'Yixc2 'Yia 1 + 29 �d2 'Yid4+ 30 'i!Vd3
Wif2+ 3 1 \td 1 Wlg 1+ 32 �c2 'ifxc5+ 33
�c3 'Yixg5 34 �h2 <it>f8 35 'Lib6 '*'b5 36
tLlc4 �e7 37 <it>b2 tLlf4 38 �d2 -t:'ld5 39
'ife5 'iWcS 40 �d4 'W/c7 41 tLle3 1 -0
1 :;_q
Fr ench Classi cal
Game 63
Zezulkin-Lempert
Czestochowa 1991
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jc3 tbt6 4 i.g5 i.e7
5 e5 tt:Jfd7 6 h4 0-0
A disdainful move - Black continues as if
6 h4 did nothing at all. There are another
two more moves that need to be examined:
a) The first, 6 .. .f6!?, is probably too
sharp. White has a strong response in 7
'ifh5+!, the point being that 7 ... g6 8 exf6!
gxh5 9 fxe7 or 8 . . . ct:Jxf6 9 �e2 leaves Black
very weak on the dark squares. The
alternative, 7 . .. Wf8, has obvious drawbacks
- after 8 exf6 ctJxf6 (if 8 . . . il.xf6 9 ctJh3! Vi'e8
10 Vi'g4 - Suetin) 9 Vi'e2 (aiming at the weak
e5-square) 9 ... c5 (if 9 ... il.b4 10 l:h3 !) 10
dxc5 and Black has struggled after 10 ... ctJa6
(10 . . . b6!?) 1 1 ct:Jf3 ctJxcS 12 0-0-0 b5 13 Vi'e3
b4 14 ctJbS! il.d7 1 5 ctJeS �e8 16 ctJd4 Vi'b6
17 �d3 l:c8 18 l:he 1 aS 19 ctJg4 hS (if
19 ... ctJxg4 20 il.xe7+ Wxe7 2 1 Vi'g5+) 20
�fS! ctJxg4 (if 20 . . . hxg4 2 1 ctJxe6+ wins) 2 1
ctJxe6+ Vi'xe6 2 2 il.xe7+ Wxe7 2 3 Vi' gS+ ctJf6
24 il.xe6 ctJxe6 25 l:xdS il.f7 26 l:xe6+ 1-0
Vitomskis-Carleton, correspondence 199697.
b) The second, 6 ... h6
offers a normal position (following 7
�xe7 'ii'xe7) with the two h-pawn moves
thrown in. Opinion is divided as to whom
1 30
·
this inclusion favours more. For White, h2h4 is often useful, allowing a rook lift via
h3 . On the downside the white kingside is
somewhat weakened, which Black might
later try to exploit by .. .f7-f6 e5xf6 ctJxf6!
Also . . . h7-h6 rules out the sacrifice on h7
and any knight sally to gS .
After 7 �xe7 Vi'xe7 Stetsko offers 8 f4
0-0 9 ctJf3 c5 10 Vi'd2 ctJc6 1 1 0-0-0 f6! 12
exf6 ctJxf6 intending ... ctJhS, even 13 l:e 1
ctJhS!? since 14 ctJxdS gains a pawn only
temporarily. Or if 8 Vi'g4 0-0 he proposes
... f7-f5 and ... c7-c5, for example 9 ct:Jf3 (or 9
0-0-0 cS 10 f4 ctJc6 1 1 ct:Jf3 f5) 9 . . .f5 10 'iff4
cS 1 1 0-0-0 (Trajkovic-Malesevic, Novi Sad
1988) and then 1 1 . . .ctJc6! 12 ct:Jbs a6 13
ctJd6 cxd4. ECO prefers 8 f4 0-0 9 ctJf3 cS
10 dxcS 'with a slight advantage'. None of
these variations have received serious
testing.
White can decline the discussion in two
ways:
b 1) 7 Vi'hS!? and then ECO gives 7 ... a6 8
0-0-0 cS 9 dxc5 ctJxcS 10 ctJf3 as slightly
better for White, or if 7 ... g6 8 il.xe7 Vi'xe7 9
Vi'g4 with a clear advantage. In the latter
line, though, Fritz finds a trick in 9 ... Vi'b4!?
intending 10 0-0-0 ctJxeS. White has
sufficient compensation but no more than
that after 1 1 Vi'g3 ctJc4 12 il.xc4 Vi'xc4.
White should prefer 9 Vi'e2 and f2-f4, 0-0-0,
ct:Jf3, etc.
b2) 7 �e3 cS 8 Vi'g4 when Hellers­
Bareev, Gausdal 1986, saw 8 . . . g6 9 ct:Jf3
ctJc6 (9 . . . cxd4!?) 10 dxcS ctJxcS (if
10 . . . ctJdxe5 1 1 ctJxeS ctJxeS 12 Vi'g3 with
compensation) 1 1 0-0-0 a6 12 �xcS �xcS
13 ctJe4 iLe7 14 Vi'f4 bS 15 ctJd6+! il.xd6 16
exd6 l:a7? (15 .. .f6 16 Vi'g3) 17 ctJd4! �d7
(17 ... ct:Jxd4 18 Vi'xd4 forks the rooks) 1 8
�xbS axbS 19 Vi'xf7+ 1-0. 8 . . . �f8 i s more
solid. ECO also gives 9 ct:Jf3 ctJc6 10 0-0-0
cxd4 1 1 �xd4 as clearly better for White,
but Black might try either 10 .. .f5!?
(Sokolsky) along the lines of (line 'b 1 ', or
10 ... cxd4 11 ltxd4 LLlxd4 12 .l::!: xd4 bS!?
Main Line with 4 i.. g5 i.. e7 5 e5 ti:J fd7
(Stetsko) with queenside counterplay after
13 tDxb5 'i¥b6 or 13 �xbS :b8 and ...'i¥b6.
7 i..d3
This is the most direct attempt at
refutation, planning 8 ttJh3 and i.xh7+ etc.
White has a quieter alternative in 7 'i¥g4 f5
(not 7 ... c5?! 8 .i.h6 g6 9 hS with a strong
attack) 8 i.xe7 'i¥xe7 9 'i¥g5! with a slight
plus after 9 ... 'i¥xg5 10 hxg5 c5 1 1 ttJb5 ttJc6
12 0-0-0, or 9 . . . 'i¥b4 10 0-0-0 c5 1 1 'i¥e7
'i¥b6 12 lt:Ja4 'i¥c6 13 ttJxc5 lt:Jxc5 14 'iVxc5
'iYxcS 15 dxc5 ttJd7 1 6 ttJf3 ttJxc5 (Hebden­
Gurevich, 4NCL 1998).
7 f5? !
Black blocks the b 1-h7 diagonal in
advance of .i.f1-d3, but it seems a little
inconsistent now to be worrying about the
opponent's moves. Better to continue as
planned with 7 . . . c5! and then:
a) 8 'iVh5 g6 9 'i¥h6 and either 9 ... cxd4 10
lt:Jf3 ttJxe5! 1 1 lt:Jxe5 dxc3 12 ttJxg6 with a
draw, or 9 . . . ttJc6! (Euwe) when 10 �xe7
'ii'x e7 1 1 h5 cxd4 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 �xg6
hxg6 14 'ii' h 8+ �f7 15 �h7+ �e8 16 Sxe7+
lt:Jxe7 is good for Black, while 10 f4 ttJxd4
1 1 h5 lt:Jf5! 12 i.xf5 gxf5 is unclear.
b) 8 lt:Jh3 and now the threat of 9 i.xe7
'ii' x e7 10 i.xh7+ must be answered. Not
8 . . . h6? 9 i.xh6! gxh6 10 'iVg4+ �h8 1 1 CLJg5
(or 1 1 'ii'h 5 �g7 12 ct:Jf4 and 13 l:.h3)
1 1 . .. 'ii'b 6 12 ifh5 �g7 13 l:.h3 wins; but
8 . . . g6! seems okay. Relange-M.Gurevich,
Belfort 1997, continued 9 f4 cxd4 10 lt:Je2
. . .
'iVa5+! 1 1 'i¥d2 (if 1 1 �fl f6) 1 1 ...ifxd2+ 12
�xd2 i.b4+ 13 �d1 f6 14 i.h6 when
14 . . . l:.f7!? 15 h5 (or 15 exf6 CLJxf6 16 CLJxd4
CLJg4) 15 . . .fxe5 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 CLJg5 e4
would have been good for Black according
to Gurevich.
8 ti:Jh3
8 g4!? cS 9 gxfS cxd4 10 f6 is perhaps
over-sharp: the compulsory sacrifice
10 ... i.xf6! (not 10 ... gxf6? 1 1 i.xh7+ etc.) 1 1
exf6 ct:Jxf6 gives Black strong play for the
piece with an advancing centre and greater
co-ordination, e.g. 12 CLJce2 e5 13 f3 'i¥b6
14 c3 'i¥xb2 15 cxd4 CLJc6 16 'iib 1 ? (better
16 i.xf6 l:.xf6 17 'iVb 1 or 16 dxe5) 16 ... CLJb4
17 CLJc 1? CLJxd3 18 ttJxd3 'iVg2 19 dxeS
'iVxh 1 and Black won in Shabalov­
Supatashvili, USSR 1985.
After this debacle White switched to 8
exf6 ttJxf6 9 ttJf3 c5 10 dxc5 CLJc6 1 1 if e2
i.xcS 12 0-0-0 and White has good chances
here too. Shabalov-Budnikov, Leningrad
1989, continued 12 ... i.d7 13 Wb 1 a6 14 h5
'iVe7 15 CLJh4 'iVf7 16 i.g6!? ii'e7? (the only
defence was 16 . . . hxg6 17 hxg6 'i¥e8 1 8
i.xf6 l:.xf6 19 'iVh5 CLJe7) 17 h6 gxh6 1 8
i.xh6 hxg6 19 CLJxg6 'i¥f7 2 0 ct:Jh8 ii'e7 2 1
l:.d3 i.d6 2 2 f4 ttJh7 2 3 CLJg6 ii'f6 2 4 .:lg3
�f7 25 'iVhS l:.g8 26 ct:Jf8+ �e7 27 l:xg8
l:.xf8 28 l:.xf8 1-0.
8 .ltJC6
It is too late now for 8 ... c5? 9 ct:Jf4 CLJb6
10 dxc5. Khalifman-Ulibin, Sochi 1989, saw
instead 8 ... CLJa6 9 i.xa6 bxa6 10 CLJa4 with a
slight advantage. White can aim for more
with 9 g4! (Nesis) 9 . . . ct:Jb4 10 gxf5 exf5 (not
10 ... ct:Jxd3+? 1 1 'iVxd3 i.xe7 12 ifxe7 l:.xf5
13 CLJxd5) 1 1 ct:Jf4 or even 1 1 i.. f l!? and
White is clearly better.
9 Ci:Je2
Not now 9 g4? CLJxd4.
9 Ci:Jb4
More active than 9 . . . ct:Jb6 when
Vigfusson-Carleton, correspondence 199597, saw 10 c3 h6 1 1 i.xe7 lt:Jxe7 12 ct:Jhf4
ife8 13 Sgl lt:Jc4 14 'iYc2 c5 15 g4 cxd4 1 6
..
. . .
131
French Classical
cxd4 itd7 17 g5 hxg5 1 8 Mxg5 Mc8 19
itxc4 l:Ixc4 20 'ifb3 and White was better.
10 ttJef4 ttJxd3+ 1 1 �xd3 t2Jb6 12 0-0-0
12 ...i.d7?!
N ai"ve development does not fit the bill
since White is about to launch a huge attack
by :g1 and g2-g4. Black needed to generate
some quick counterplay. For example,
12 . . . ctJc4 13 �hg1 c5 14 g4 'ifa5 15 �b 1
'ifb4 and 12 . . . c5 1 3 dxc5 ctJc4 14 :he 1 'ifa5
or 1 4 �b 1 b6!? are quite messy.
Nevertheless White can hope for some
advantage after either 12 ... ctJc4 13 'ifg3 !?
intending to attack with 14 ltJh5 or 14 h5,
1 5 ctJg6; or if 12 ... c5 13 'ifa3!? :e8 (or
13 . . . ctJc4 14 iL.xe7 'ifxe7 15 'ifxc5 'ifxc5 1 6
dxc5 ctJxe5 1 7 :he 1) 14 dxc5 ctJc4 1 5 'ifc3,
e.g. 1 5 ...'ifc7 1 6 itxe7 �xe7 17 Mxd5! or
15 . . . b6 1 6 b3 ctJa5 (or 1 6 . . . ctJa3 17 �b2
ltJb5 18 �g3) 17 l:Ihg 1 intending g2-g4.
13 l1hg 1 ttJc4 14 g4 c5 15 dxc5?
This slip gives Black time to create
counterplay. White's other idea was much
stronger: 15 ith6! gxh6 (not 15 ... ii'a5? 16
gxf5 'ifxa2 1 7 ltxg7+ �h8 1 8 :xh7+! �xh7
19 f6+ mates) 16 gxh5+ �h8 17 fxe6 itxe6
(or 17 . . . ii'b6 18 b3 itxe6 19 ctJg6+ hxg6 20
ii'xg6 :f7 21 ctJf4) 18 ctJg6+! hxg6 19 'ifxg6
(Zezulkin) when 19 . . . IH7 20 ctJf4 'iff8 2 1
ctJxe6 'ii'g 8 2 2 'ifh5! 'ifh7 2 3 :g6 wins.
15 .. .'�Va5 ! 1 6 �b 1 �xc5?
A serious mistake which returns the
tempo to his opponent. Black h ad to play
132
16 . . . .ixg5! (Zezulkin) 17 hxg5 (not 1 7
ctJxg5? ctJxb2! 1 8 �xb2 'ifb4+) 17 .. .fxg4 and
then if 18 ltJxd5 'ii'b 5 19 ctJe7+ �f7 20 b3
ctJa3+ and . . .ii'xd3, or 18 g6 h6 19 ctJxd5
'ifb5 (not 19 ... 'ifxc5? 20 ltJf6+!, though
19 ... .ib5!? is possible) 20 ctJe7+ �h8 2 1 b3
ctJa3+ 22 �b2 gxh3! 23 'ifxd7 ctJc4+ 24 �cl
'ifxc5 when 25 bxc4 'ifa3+ 26 �b 1 ii'b4+ is
perpetual check.
17 gxf5 llxf5 18 j_f6!
Not wasting any more time.
18....if8
White is also better after:
a) 18 . . . g6? 19 ctJxg6 .ixf6 (not 19 ... hxg6?
20 :xg6 �f7 21 :g7+) 20 ctJe7+ �h8 2 1
ctJxf5 ctJxe5 2 2 ctJh6! since i f 2 2 . . . ctJxd3? 23
ltJf7 mate.
b) 18 . . . .ixf6 19 exf6 g6 (not 19 ... :xf6?
20 ctJh5 Mf7 21 ctJg5) 20 h5 (not now 20
ctJxg6? hxg6 21 :xg6+ �f7!) 20 .. .'ti'b4 (or
20 . . . ctJe5 2 1 'ife2 ii'c4 22 'ife3) 21 b3 ctJa3+
22 �b2 ctJc4+ 23 �a1 ctJe5 24 ii'g3 .
c) 1 8 . . . :xf6 19 exf6 .ixf6 20 ltJh5 (if 20
ctJg5 itxg5 2 1 1:lxg5 'ii'b 4 22 'if d4 ctJa3+! 23
�c l 'ifxd4 24 Mxd4 ctJb5 and Black has
chances to defend after . . JU8 and ... ctJe4)
20 ... Mf8 2 1 ltJg5 itxg5 22 :xg5 :f7 23
ctJxg7 �f8 (23 ... Mxg7? 24 :dg1) 24 'ifc3 .
19 �g3 I:txf6
19 ... 'ifb6 leads to an unexpected draw
after 20 ttJd3? g6 2 1 h5 I:!xh5 22 ti:Jhf4
.ih6! 23 ttJxh5 ttJa3+, but simply 20 b3
leaves White on top, e.g. 20 ... ttJd6 (or
20 ... ttJa3+ 21 �b2) 2 1 itxg7 ttJe4 22 'ii' g4
�f7 23 Md3 .
20 exf6 l:tc8 2 1 f7+!
White takes the simplest route to victory.
If 2 1 . . . �h8 22 ttJg6+ hxg6 23 'ifxg6.
2 1...wxf7 22 ttJg5+ we8
If 22 ... �g8 23 'ifd3 or 22 . . . �e7 23
ttJxd5+! wins.
23 ttJgxe6 �b4 24 �c3
And Black is lost after 24 ... ii'xc3 25 bxc3
..ta3 26 CLJxg7+ �f7 27 krxdS. Instead he
hastens the end by blundering.
24 ... Lt:Ja3+? 25 �xa3 1 -0
Main Line w ith 4
i.g5 i. e 7 5 e 5
CU fd7
Summary
In the 6 .1Lxe7 ifxe7 main lines 9 dxcS CLJc6 10 .1Ld3 seems to create most problems for
Black. With 9 'ifd2 CLJc6 10 dxcS the flexible line 10 ... ctJxc5 1 1 0-0-0 a6 may be Black's best.
Against 10 . . . 'i:Vxc5 or the currently popular 10 . . .f6, White can again hope for some
advantage. Whereas with 9 Ji..d3 White has nothing better than a return to 9 dxcS lines, and
Black can avoid the transposition if desired. 7 ... a6 is not played quite so often, but can be
recommended for Black due to its flexibility, particularly as regards king deployment. For
White, if ifd2 main lines are intended after 7 ... 0-0, then 7 ifd2 is worth considering, when
7 . . . a6 can be met by 8 CLJd1 ! ? cS 9 c3 .
The Chatard Attack, 6 h4, remains sound as White gets sufficient compensation if the
proffered pawn is accepted. Black is okay as well after 6 . . . .1Lxg5 7 hxgS ifxgS, but this
position requires patient handling in defence. For more immediate counterplay Black should
decline the pawn, to which end the pseudo-classical 6 ... cS 7 .1Lxe7 \t>xe7! is the safest choice.
Other moves, such as 6 . . . a6 or 6 . . . 0-0, up the stakes so that any inaccuracy in the defence
can lead to Black being demolished.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 'Uc3 Cl:Jf6 4 i.g5 i.e7 (D) 5 e5 Cl:Jfd7
6 i.xe7
6 h4 (D)
6 . . . .1Lxg5 7 hxgS ifxgS - Game 60
6 . . . c5 - Game 61; 6 ... a6 - Game 62; 6 . . . 0-0 - Game 63
6 ...-vixe7 7 f4 0-0
7 . . . a6 - Game 59
8 cuf3 c5 (D) 9 'i*'d2
9 dxcS - Game 51; 9 .i.d3 - Game 58
9 . Cl:Jc6 10 dxc5 'iix c5
10 . . . CLJxc5 - Game 55; 10 .. .f6 - Game 56
1 1 0-0-0 - Game 54
.
.
4
. . .
�e 7
6 h4
B
. . .
c5
I CHAPTER EIGH T I
The M cCutcheon Variation
4 � g 5 �b4
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lZJc3 lZJt6 4 .tg5 .tb4
Whereas in the Burn variation (4... dxe4)
and Classical proper (4 . . . �e7) White can
count on at least a positional plus due to
greater space or some strategic control, that
is not the case in the McCutcheon where
the assessments are generally 'equal' or
'unclear'. So it is surprising that 4 ... .i.b4 has
not, hitherto, been seen more frequently on
the tournament stage. Partly this was due to
the popularity of the Winawer (3 ... �b4), of
which the McCutcheon has been regarded
as an ugly sibling - as someone once said of
the variation: 'both players stand worse'.
When 3 ...'2Jf6 again came to be playeq more
often in the 1980s, White's overwhelming
preference was for 4 eS; while if 4 �gS was
ventured then Black opted in the main for
4 . . . dxe4.
At the turn of the millennium, however,
the McCutcheon is having a second youth.
In the early 20th century, Alekhine and
Marshall were fond of 4 ... ii.b4, and now it
appears regularly in games by such
uncompromising players as Morozevich,
Korchnoi, Vaisser and Mikhail Gurevich.
The most persistent practitioner is GM Igor
Glek who has defended the McCutcheon
for many years.
The main line occurs after 5 eS h6 6 i.d2
1 34
�xc3 7 bxc3 ctJe4 8 'iVg4 as seen in Games
64-66. Since White has not proved any
advantage here, deviations are common.
The remaining games in this chapter see: 7
�xc3 (Game 67), 6 .i.e3 !? (Game 68) , 6
exf6 (Game 69) , 5 exd5 (Game 70) and 5
ctJe2 (Game 7 1) .
Game 64
B . Svensson-Brynell
Swedish Championship 1990
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lZJc3 lZJf6 4 .tg5 .tb4
5 e5 h6 6 il.d2 .txc3
Virtually forced, so that the attacked
knight can come to e4. 6 ... '2Jfd7?! 7 'i¥g4
�f8 and 7 . . . <;.t;f8 are both very passive,
while if 7 . . . g6 Black has weakened the
kingside dark squares without getting
anything from White in return.
7 bxc3
White views this recapture not so much
as weakening the queenside as reinforcing
the centre; a white rook may later utilise the
half-open b-file. Black of course begs to
differ.
7 l2Je4 8 �g4!
Hitting g7 and exploiting the absence of
Black's dark-squared bishop. Since 8 . . . 0-0?
is not possible due to 9 .i.h6, Black is
. . .
Th e McCu tch eo n V ar iatio n: 4 ii. g5 il.. b 4
forced to make a concession: either to
weaken the dark squares by advancing the
g-pawn or to misplace the king with ... �f8.
8 'ifg4 is the starting position for the main
line of the McCutcheon. Earlier deviations
are covered in Games 67-71 , as noted in the
introductory remarks to this chapter.
White does not have to play 8 'if g4 but
nothing else creates any problems for Black.
In the Winawer (3 . . . .i.b4) White has
positional continuations (e.g. a2-a4, t2Jf3)
based on dark-square control, but these are
ineffective in the McCutcheon as White's
own dark-squared bishop is about to be
removed, e.g. 8 .i.d3 tt:Jxd2 9 'ifxd2 cS 10 f4
(if 10 tt:Jf3 c4 or 10 dxcS 'ifc7) 10 . . . ctJc6 1 1
tt:Jf3 'ifaS 1 2 h4 h S 1 3 �b 1 c4 1 4 .i.e2
'ifxa2 15 �f2 iVa3 16 �bg1 .i.d7 17 g4
hxg4 18 �xg4 'iWf8 19 �hg1 g6 20 �h 1
0-0-0
and White
had
nebulous
compensation for the pawn, though he
managed to draw in Degraeve-Radziewicz,
Cappelle la Grande 1998.
White sometimes retreats 8 .i.c l, but
after 8 . . . ctJxc3 or 8 ... c5 9 .i.d3 ctJxc3 then
'if d 1-g4 is necessary after all in order to
justify the sacrifice.
8 g6
The alternative, 8 ... �f8, is seen in Game
66.
. . .
9 il..d3
The first major point of departure .
Sometimes White plays first 9 h4 or 9 ctJf3,
but these soon return to main lines after
9 ... cS 10 .i.d3 tt:Jxd2 1 1 �xd2.
The only significant alternative is 9 i.cl ,
b y which White keeps the dark-squared
bishop at the cost of a pawn. After 9 ... c5 10
.i.d3 it is risky to play 10 ... cxd4 1 1 ltJe2
dxc3 12 .i.xe4 dxe4 13 ctJxc3 . De Vreugt­
Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999, continued
13 .. .'ii d4!? 14 i.b2 i.d7 15 �b1 .i.c6 16 0-0
iVc4 17 'ifg3 tt:Jd7 18 i.a3 ctJcS 19 tt:Jd 1
ltJa4 20 iVf4 0-0-0 2 1 ltJe3 'iVa6 22 'ifxf7
�he8 23 .i.d6 .i.d7 24 �b4 and White won.
It is safer for Black to play 10 ... ltJxc3 1 1
dxcS 'ifaS 1 2 i.d2 'ifa4! and i f 1 3 'iVf3 ctJe4!
14 .i.xe4 'ifxe4+ (or 14 ... dxe4 15 'ifc3 i.d7)
1 5 'ifxe4 dxe4 16 ltJe2 i.d7 and ... i.c6, or
13 h3 ltJe4 (13 ... h5!? - Keres) 13 h3 tDe4 14
ctJe2 ctJxcS 1 5 'iff3 'ifd7 16 0-0 b6 17 a4
i.a6 1 8 aS i.xd3 19 cxd3 tt:Jb3 with mutual
chances in Arbakov-D.Gurevich, USSR
1978.
If immediately 9 . . . ltJxc3 then 10 .i.d3 cS
transposes, but White can also try 10 'iVh3!?
ctJa4 11 'ifb3 ctJb6 12 t2Jf3 ctJc6 13 h4 i.d7
14 'ifc3 with dark-square control as
compensation in Chandler-Glek, German
Bundesliga 1995.
9 ct'Jxd2 10 'it>xd2 c5 11 ct'Jf3
White has two major alternatives:
a) 1 1 iff4, eyeing the kingside dark­
square weaknesses. Black can play according
to taste either 1 1 . . .ctJc6 (transposing below
after 12 tt:Jf3) or 1 1 . . . .i.d7 (for which see
Game 65) . Instead 1 1 . ..cxd4 12 cxd4 'iVaS+
13 c3 seems premature while White can still
support the centre with ltJe2. Nevertheless,
Kindermann-Piskov, German Bundesliga
1996, ended in a draw after 13 . . . b6 14 h4
.i.a6 15 i.xa6 'ifxa6 16 ctJe2 tt:Jd7 17 �hb 1
�c8 1 8 �b4 �c4 19 l:.xc4 'ifxc4 20 'iVe3
�e7 21 'iVd3 �c8 22 'ifxc4 �xc4 lh-lh .
b) 1 1 h4 with possibilities of h4-h5 to
attack the kingside at some point. 1 1 .. .i.d7
is again in Game 65, while 1 l . ..ctJc6 12 tt:Jf3
transposes below, though White has other
options:
. . .
F rench Classical
b 1) 12 iff4 cxd4 13 cxd4 ifaS+ 14 c3 and
again the plan with ... b7-b6 and ... .ia6 lacks
force while White can still has CLJe2, so
Sutovsky-Glek, Essen 2000, saw 14 ... bS! 1S
iff6 l:if8 1 6 CLJe2 b4 17 �hc 1 .ia6 1 8 .ixa6
i¥xa6 19 cxb4 CLJxb4 20 i¥f3 CLJc6 2 1 l:icS
CLJaS 22 .i:t.ac l :b8 23 �e 1 CLJc4 24 ct:Jf4
'i¥a4 with an unclear position. The game
ended entertainingly with 2S CLJd3 gS 26
'ii f6 i¥xa2 27 �fl CLJd2+ 28 �g1 CLJe4 29
�c7 CLJxf6 30 exf6 'iid2 3 1 :e7+ �d8 32
:cc7 ifxd3 lh - lh .
b2) 12 hS gS 13 f4 is the most direct but
Black seems okay, e.g. 13 ... 'ii aS 14 fxgS
cxd4 1 S �e2 'it'xc3 16 CLJf3 .iLd7 17 'it'f4
(17 g6 0-0-0 is unclear) 17 ... 0-0-0 1 8 g4
hxgS 19 CLJxgS f6 20 i¥xf6 :hf8 21 ct:Jf7
�xf7 22 'ikxf7 CLJxeS 23 'i¥f4 CLJc4 24 .ixc4
eS 2S 'i¥f3 'ifxc2+ 26 �e 1 dxc4 and Black's
pawns were much faster in Wedberg­
Brynell, Stockholm 1990.
1 1 t2lc6
. . .
The traditional and natural method for
Black, further attacking the centre. The
modern development with 1 1.. . .i.d7 is seen
in Game 6S . 1 1 . . ."�c7 has a trick defence in
mind: 12 h4 cxd4 13 cxd4 CLJc6 14 'i¥f4 and
now 14 .. .fS! exploiting the pin on the eS­
pawn. After 1S 'i¥g3 CLJe7 16 :hc l .id7 17
�e2 .ic6 18 CLJg1 0-0-0 19 ct:Jh3 'i¥d7 20 a4
�b8 21 aS ..tbs 22 ct:Jf4 :c8 23 l:rab 1
CLJc6!? 24 �e3? ..txd3 2S cxd3 l:rhg8 Black
assumed the initiative with ... g6-g5 in
1 36
Aseev-Dolmatov, USSR Championship
1989.
12 'i!Vf4
In this game Black plays 12 . . . cxd4 13
cxd4 'iVaS+! This plan is also viable against
other moves. For example:
a) 12 h4 cxd4 13 cxd4 ifaS+ 14 �e3 b6
1S 'iff4 ..ta6 16 a3 :c8 17 :hc l CLJe7 18 g4
:c3 19 CLJd2 gS 20 'i¥f6 CLJg6 21 hS? (2 1
CLJb 1 was necessary) 2 1 . .. 'it'bS! 22 hxg6?
:xd3+ 23 �e2 :e3+ 2 4 �xe3 'i¥e2 0- 1
Balcerak-Glek, Senden 1998.
b) 12 :ab 1 cxd4 13 cxd4 'iVaS+ 14 �e2
(if 14 �e3 b6 1S i¥f4 iL.a6 16 :hc l 'i¥a3!)
14 ... b6 1S :hc l (1S 'it'f4 .i.a6 16 h4 returns
to the main game) 1S ... .i.a6 16 a3? ifxaJ 17
:a1 .ixd3+ 1 8 cxd3 'i¥b2+ 19 �e3 CLJe7 20
l:rcb 1 'i¥c2 2 1 ct:Je 1 ifc3 22 �e2 ct:Jfs 23
:a4 0-0 and having failed to win or draw
against the queen White was just a pawn
down in Kayumov-Glek, Dubai 200 1 .
Against 1 2 :hb 1, however, 12 . . . cxd4 13
cxd4 'WiaS+ 14 c3 b6 is less good as White
can play 1S a4! .iLa6 16 ..tbs. Gallagher­
Schwartzman, Bern 1990, continued
16 ... :c8 17 'i¥f4 �f8 18 'iie 3 �g7 19 ct:Jg1
:c7 20 CLJe2 lihc8 2 1 g4 CLJe7 22 h4 .ib7
23 hS gS 24 :a3 a6 2S .iLd3 bS 26 f4! gxf4
27 'it'xf4 with a big advantage.
Instead Black can consider 12 . . . c4!? 13
iLe2 b6 14 h4 ..td7 1S CLJh2 'i¥e7 1 6 hS
0-0-0 17 hxg6 f6 1 8 ct:Jf3 fxeS 19 CLJxeS
CLJxeS 20 dxeS hS 21 i¥d4 :dg8 22 a4 .iLc6
23 aS bS with a sound position in Sutovsky­
Daly, Isle of Man 1999.
12 cxd4
This is the most direct and safest choice.
Other moves give White a better chance for
advantage.
a) 12 ... 'i¥c7 13 h4?! fS! equalising in
Fischer-Rossolimo, US Championship
196S, but 13 'i¥f6 l:rg8 14 h4 is good for
White.
b) 12 . . . c4!? 13 .ie2 .id7 is a bit stodgy,
though it led to an unusual game in
Busemann-I.Carlsson,
correspondence
. . .
T h e McCu tch eo n V ariatio n: 4 i.. g5 i.. b 4
1994: 14 h 4 � e7 1 5 ttJh2 0-0-0 16 ttJg4 hS
1 7 ttJf6 �a3 1 8 f3 ttJaS 19 :thb 1 �a4 20
�gS bS 21 g4 ttJc6 22 gxhS gxhS 23 �e3
ttJe7 24 f4 ttJfS 2S 'ii' g l aS 26 'iYc l 'iYf8 27
'iYe 1 �a3 28 'ifc l �f8 29 Vi'e l :h6 30 a3
:txf6 3 1 exf6 eS 32 �fl exd4 33 �h3 dxc3+
34 �xc3 d4+ 3S �b2 c3+ 36 �a2 :e8 37
�xfS+ �c7 3 8 'iYh 1 'iYcS 39 �d3 b4 and
remarkably Black found sufficient play to
draw a rook down.
c) 12 ... 'iYa5 1 3 h4 may arise via different
move orders (i.e. h2-h4, ttJf3 and �f4
might be played in any order) . Here
13 ... cxd4 14 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 1S ifxd4 is
passive (c.f. 12 . . . cxd4 13 ttJxd4 below) as
White can build up an initiative on the
queenside, e.g. 1S . . . �d7 16 :thb 1 i.c6 17
:b4 0-0-0 18 :tab 1 :td7 19 a4 as in
Hebden-Vaisser, Bern 1992 .
If instead 13 . . . b6 White can play on
either side of the board: 14 hS gxhS 1S
l:.xhS .i.a6 16 �xa6 ifxa6 and now 17
l:.xh6 :txh6 18 ifxh6 0-0-0, though Black
drew in Kovalev-Glek, German Bundesliga
1994. Or 14 �hb 1 i.a6 1S a4 �xd3 16
cxd3 a6 17 dxcS ifxcS 1 8 d4 Vi'c4?! (though
18 ... �a5 19 �d3 l:k8 20 Vi'c l gS 21 Vi'b2
gxh4 22 'iYxb6 was still good for White in
Aseev-Piskov, Berlin 199 1) 19 iff6 :h7 20
:txb6 �f8 21 :ab 1 :tc8 22 �e 1!? �g8 (if
22 .. .'iVxc3+ 23 �fl ttJxd4 24 ttJxd4 ifxd4
25 �gl intending :b8 or :xe6) 23 :t 1b3
ttJaS 24 ttJd2 'iYc7 25 :b 1 ttJc4 26 :tb7
'ii'c 6 27 �b8 llg7? 28 Vi'd8+ 1-0 Chandler­
Fernandes, Santo Antonio 200 1 .
13 cxd4
Supposedly White is slightly better here,
but in truth Black has very few worries and after 13 ... if aS+! in the database Black
scores 82% with no losses at all.
Instead 13 ttJxd4!? was tried in
Przewoznik-Cichocki, Polish Championship
1990, and after 1 3 ... �d7 14 ttJbS �f8 1S h4
�g7 1 6 ttJd6 fS 17 exf6+ 'i¥xf6 1 8 'ii'xf6+
�xf6 19 ttJxb7 eS 20 ttJcS White had the
advantage. But Black is okay with 13 .. l2Jxd4
.
14 cxd4 �aS+ and 1 5 . . . b6 etc., or if 14
ifxd4 Vi'gS+!? or 14 ... �d7.
13 .'tlUa5+!
The results make this almost compulsory,
and whatever White's response Black will
follow with 14 ... b6 planning to exchange
light-squared bishops with ... �a6. Without
this White can hope for an advantage. For
example, 13 . . . 'ti'c7 14 Vi'f6! :g8 1S :ab 1
�d7 16 h4 :c8 17 �e2 ttJe7 1 8 'ii'f4 i.a4
19 :thc 1 :h8 20 Vi'f6 :tg8 2 1 hs
(Kindermann-Knaak, Dortmund, 199 1; or
13 . . . �d7 14 h4 (14 'ii'f 6!?) 14 . . . :c8 1S hs
gxhS 16 :txhS 'ti'aS+ 17 \t?e2 ttJb4 and
rather than 18 �fl �bS 19 �xbS+ ifxb5+
20 �g1 with an unclear position (Bryson­
C.Williams, correspondence 1984-8S),
instead 1 8 ttJgS looks good for White.
..
14 <it>e2
In Lane-Vavrak, Austrian Tearn
Championship 1999, White tried to attack
the kingside but Black's play on the other
side was much swifter: 14 We3 b6 1S h4
.i.a6 16 �f6 :g8 17 �ab 1 :c8 18 hS gxhS
19 :xhS .i.xd3 20 cxd3 'JJixa2 21 :c 1 'Jiib 2
22 :tg1 ttJb4 23 :xh6 'ii'c2 24 lle 1 'ii'xd3+
2S �f4 :tc4 26 :th8 :xd4+ (mate in six) 27
ttJxd4 �xd4+ 28 �f3 'ii'g4+ 29 �e3 �e4+
30 Wd2 �d3+ 0-1 .
White does better to contest matters on
the queenside by 14 c3 b6 1S a4 i.a6 16
i.bS .i.xbS 17 axbS ifxbS 1 8 �hb 1 ifc4 19
:xb6, so m N.Johnson-D.Phillips,
Fr en ch Clas s ical
correspondence 2000, Black chose to force
a draw with 19 ... 0-0! 20 'ifxh6 (or 20 .:b7
l;Iab8) 20 ... ct:Jxd4! 21 ctJxd4 axb6 lh-lh.
After 22 ctJxe6! perpetual follows either
22 .. .fxe6 23 'ik'xg6+ or 22 . . ..:a2+ 23 .:xa2
'ifxa2+ 24 <ft>c l .
14...b 6 15 l:.hd 1
A sensible precaution. The attacking
gesture 15 'ii' f6 .:g8 16 h4 again led to
disaster in W ahlbom-Brynell, Swedish
Championship 1998: 16 . . . i.a6 17 'iff4 .:c8
18 �hc 1 ctJb4 19 'ifd2 .:xc2! 20 .:xc2
i.xd3+ 2 1 'ifxd3 ctJxd3 22 .:c8+ <ft>d7 23
�xg8 'i¥a6 24 �e3 'ii'a3 25 �f1 ctJcl+ 0- 1 .
1 5...i.a6 1 6 �f 1 l:.c8 17 �g 1 i.xd3 18
cxd3 'ii'a3 19 h4
Having removed his king to safety White
now starts something on the kingside.
Unfortunately the h-pawn thrust lacks
potency without the rook behind it on h 1.
19...'�e7 20 l:.ac 1 �d7!
Black seeks the endgame so that he can
safely advance his a- and b-pawn duo.
2 1 l:.c3 lLlb4 22 l:.xc8 �xc8 23 a3 t2Jc6
24 l:.c 1 Wb7 25 l1c3 l:.c8 26 'i'c 1
Not 26 Vi'xh6? ctJxe5! 27 �xc8 ctJxf3+ 28
gxf3 �xc8 and White's pawn structure is
the worst imaginable.
26...'i'f8 27 g3 t2Je7 28 l:.xc8 t2Jxc8 29
Wg2 t2Je7 30 'i'f4 t2Jc6 3 1 'i'f6 b5
With the rooks gone Black st.arts his
pawns gomg.
32 g4 a5 33 'i'f4 a4
1 38
34 t2Jd2?
Better was 34 "ifc l since it is suicide to
let the a-pawn go. 34 . . . 'ifxa3 3 5 "iff7+ 'ik'e7
36 Vi'xg6 a3 37 ctJb3 a2 intending ... ii'a3
again is already good. Black throws in a
zwischenzug to strengthen his hand even
more.
34...g5! 35 hxg5 hxg5 36 'i'xg5 'i'xa3
37 'i'g8 'i'e7! 0-1
3 8 . . . a3 39 ctJb3 a2 will follow and White
cannot cover all of . . . 'ifa3, . . . Vi'b4 and
... ctJxd4.
Game 65
Sutovsky-Zifroni
Israe/ 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 i.g5 i.b4
5 e5 h6 6 i.d2 i.xc3 7 bxc3 t2Je4 8
'i'g4 g6 9 i.d3 t2Jxd2 10 �xd2 c5 1 1
t2Jf3 i.d7!?
This is the currently popular method of
development. Black intends to follow with
... i.c6, ... ct:Jd7, . . . Wie7 covering his
weaknesses at b7, f6 and f7, and then castle
long. This scheme is quite new - too recent
to make it into Harding's 199 1 book - and
appears to stem from a brief note by
Fischer in his My 60 Memorable Games:
'1 1 . . .B-Q2 12 PxP deserves testing', though
the plan is not explicitly defined.
1 1 . . .i.d7 can also be played against other
1 1th moves. 1 1 iVf4 i.d7 12 ct:Jf3 i.c6 13
h4 tt:Jd7 is another route to the game.
Similarly 11 h4 i.d7 12 ct:Jf3, while 12 h5!?
g5 13 f4 ctJc6 14 fxg5 'ii'xg5+ 15 Wlxg5 hxg5
16 �e3 g4! and Black defended in Leko­
Short, Batumi 1999: 17 �fl We7 18 �h4
�ag8 19 �b 1 b6 20 i.e2 cxd4+ 21 cxd4 f5
22 exf6+ �xf6 23 �f1+ �e7 24 �xg4 Mxg4
25 i.xg4 ctJxd4 26 �xd4 1h -lh , since Black
regains the material after 26 ... e5+ and
27 ... i.xg4.
One drawback of playing . . . i.d7-c6
immediately is that it weakens e6, which
White can try to exploit by sacrificing
T h e Mc Cu tc h eo n V ariat io n: 4 .ii. g5 .ii. b 4
�d3xg6. While the sacrifice is not decisive
it does allow White either to force a draw or
try for more with three pawns for the piece.
It was presumably in order to avoid this that
Zifroni played 1 1 . .. 'ii' e 7, reaching the game
after the further 12 h4 �d7 13 'ii' f4 �c6 14
ct:Jh2 ct:Jd7, but would have had to do
something else against 12 l:ab 1 or 12 l:hb 1 .
Black can also insert . . . cS-c4 before ... i.c6,
but this is obviously committal.
Again Black should be aware that 1 1 l:b 1
prevents Black's plan of development with
... i.d7. Instead 1 1 . .. tLlc6 12 tLlf3 cxd4 13
cxd4 'ii'aS+ reaches positions in the previous
game.
12 h4
White has tried other moves:
a) 12 'ii' f4 i.c6 13 h4 CDd7 is the current
game.
b) 12 dxcS!? 'ii'e 7 13 l:ab 1 i.c6 14 h4
tLld7 1S .:he 1 lLlxcS 16 tLld4 l:c8 17 lLlxc6
bxc6 1 8 �b4 aS 19 �bb 1 0-0 20 hS 'ii'g S+
21 'ii'x gS hxgS and Black was okay in
Spassky-Relange, French Team Champion­
ship 199 1 .
c) 1 2 �ab 1 i.c6 and then Klovans-Glek,
German Bundesliga 1998, saw 13 l:he 1
'ife7 1 4 h4 tLld7 1 S dxcS lLlxcS 16 tLld4
0-0-0 1 7 .:b4 "Yilc7 1 8 'ii'f4 fS 19 'ii'e3 aS 20
�b2 CDe4+ 2 1 �c l i.d7 22 i.xe4 dxe4 23
f4 �b8 24 Zld1 �c8 2S tLle2 �c6 26 .:d6
i.dS 27 tLld4 'ii'x c3 28 'ii'x c3 l:xc3 29 lLlxe6
i.xe6 30 �xe6 gS with an unusual endgame.
Here, though, White gets the chance for
13 il.xg6!? fxg6 14 ifxe6+ "i:Ve7 1S "ifxg6+
(1S "ifc8+ "Yild8 lh -lh Stefanova-Hamdouchi,
Pulvermuele 2000) 1S ... �d8 16 e6!
intending M he 1, tLleS (Gara-Goczo,
Hungarian Women's Championship 1999).
Black may be able to defend but has little
chance to win.
12 ...�c6 13 'iYf4
13 il.xg6!? is again possible. If Black
wants to avoid this then 12 .. ."i¥e7 should be
preferred, especially as ... i.d7-c6 can no
longer be prevented.
13 . CLJd7
.
.
14 CLJh2
Intending tLlh2-g4 to attack the weak
dark squares f6 and h6. Previously White
had floundered for a plan in the face of
Black's flexible, prophylactic development.
For example:
a) 14 l:h3 Wie7 1S dxcS 0-0-0 16 tLld4
CDxcS ! 17 lib 1 (if 17 tLlxc6 bxc6 18 lib 1
l:d7! intending .:b7) 17 . . . Wic7 18 i¥f6 .:Ihf8
19 f4 tLle4+! 20 i.xe4 dxe4 21 llb4 �d7! 22
�c l .:Ifd8 23 a3 aS!? (23 ...iYaS! 24 �b2
iYcS 2S CDxc6 bxc6! 26 :xe4?! aS! with an
attack on the b-file having prevented the
rook returning to b4) 24 .l::t c4 'i¥b6 2S l:e3
�b8 26 lle 1 ? (In time trouble White
capitulates; the only defence was 26 tLlxc6+
bxc6 27 l:d4) 26 ... i.dS 27 l:ta4 .:c8
(27. . .il.a2 is also very strong) 28 �d2 'i¥b2
29 lle3 i.b3 ! (exploiting multiple pins) 30
:xaS �xd4+! 0- 1 Spraggett-Glek, Cappelle
la Grande 1998.
b) 14 .l::th e 1 'i¥e7 1S a4?! c4! 16 il.e2 aS
(fixing the a-pawn as a target for attack,
threatening ... tLlb6) 17 lla2 0-0-0 18 tLlh2 gS
19 hxgS iYxgS 20 "ifxgS hxgS 2 1 tLlg4 .l::t h 7
22 g3 �c7 23 i.f3 �f8 24 �e3 fS 2S exf6
lLlxf6 26 tLleS tLld7 27 i.g4 <it>d6 28 tLlxd7
i.xd7 29 .l::t a a1 l:rh2 30 :e2 i.c6 and White
was reduced to passive defence (Degraeve­
M.Gurevich, Belfort 1998).
c) 14 dxcS "Viie 7 1S tLld4 tLlxc5 16 f3 .i.d7
17 a4 a6 18 aS �c8 19 g4 .:c7 20 g5 h5 2 1
French Clas s ical
ii'f6 �g8 22 �hb 1 .i.c8 23 ii'xe7+ �xe7 24
�b4 �d8 and a draw by shuffling was soon
agreed in Olivier-Sharif, Lyon 1995 .
14 . ..�e7!
After 1 4 . . .'�Va5 1 5 ctJg4 cxd4 16 ifxd4
0-0-0 1 7 �he 1 tt:Jc5 1 8 ifb4! ifb6 19 ifxb6
axb6 20 �eb 1 d4 2 1 f3 White was always
slightly
better
in
Madl-Feigin,
Recklinghausen 1999, though the game was
drawn.
15 4.Jg4 0-0-0!
Rather than try and defend the h-pawn
Black sacrifices it for the initiative. Werner­
Bohnenblust, Bern 1999, had seen 15 ... iff8
1 6 '2Jf6+ tt:Jxf6 17 ii'xf6 �g8 1 8 h5 and
White was better. 1 5 . . . h5? is worse because
of 16 tt:Jf6+! tt:Jxf6 17 ifxf6 ifxf6 18 exf6
and the white king will march forward
strongly on the dark squares.
16 4.Jxh6
If 1 6 tt:Jf6 Sutovsky gives 16 . . . cxd4 17
cxd4 ctJb6 or 16 . . . g5 !? 1 7 hxg5 hxg5 18
ifxg5 l:thg8 as unclear. Wynn Zaw Htun­
Hoang Thanh Trang, Vietnam 2000, saw
instead 16 ... cxd4 17 cxd4 ifb4+ 18 �e3
ctJ b6 19 Iiab 1 ifa4 20 ctJg4 ctJc4+ 2 1 �e2
ctJa3 22 �b3 g5 23 �xa3 !? (if 23 ifxf7
ifxd4) 23 . . . gxf4 24 �xa4 .txa4 25 �f3 with
good compensation since the knight is a
strong piece.
16...f5!
This is the novelty, probably prepared at
home. Black attempts to corral the knight,
while if White captures the pawn the black
knight rushes to f6 and e4 creating strong
counterplay.
17 exf6
If 17 g4 Sutovsky's notes include an
entertaining draw: 17 . . . cxd4! 1 8 cxd4 fxg4
19 tt:Jf7 �df8 20 .i.xg6 �hg8 2 1 h5 �g7 22
h6! �x g6 23 h7 �xf7 24 h8'i!V + �f8 25
'i!Vhxf8+ ctJxf8 26 �h8 ifb4+ 27 �d 1 �c7
28 �xf8 �h6! 29 �f7+ �b6 30 'i!Vxh6
'i!Vxd4+ 3 1 'i!Vd2 'i!Vxa1+ 32 'i!Vc l 'i!Vxe5 33
'i!Ve3+ 'i!Vxe3 34 fxe3 .
1 7 ...4.Jxf6 1 8 4.Jg4
1 8 f3!? does not prevent the black knight
coming forward. Black can play anyway
18 . . . cxd4 19 cxd4 ctJe4+! since 20 fxe4 dxe4
2 1 .i.xe4? loses to 2 1 . . .�xd4+. Or if 20 �e2
'i!Vb4 with threats on the dark squares.
18 ... 4.Je4+ 19 j,xe4 dxe4
With the white king to be opened up by
... c5xd4 Black has full compensation for the
pawn. In fact White must play carefully to
keep the game level.
20 4.Je5! cxd4 2 1 4.Jxc6 bxc6 22 .l:.ab 1
Aiming for counterplay against the black
king. It was also possible to capture 22
'i!Vxe4 and if 22 ... dxc3+ 23 \t>e 1 (not 23
�xc3? 'i!Va3+ 24 �c4 'i!Va4+ winning the
queen) 23 . . . 'i!Vd6 24 �h3 defends, e.g.
24 ... �h5 25 �fl or 24 ... 'i!Vd5 25 'i!Vxd5 exd5
26 �e2 intending �d3 .
22 ...dxc3+ 23 �e 1
Exposing the king to attack 23 �xc3 !?
would be risky, e.g. after 23 ... 'i!Vg7+ 24 �b3
�h5 (intending . . . �b5) 25 a4 �c5 with a
heavy piece pincer movement.
23 ...'iid6! 24 'iixd6
Forced. Not now 24 'i!Vxe4? since Black
has gained a tempo (on 22 ii'xe4) so that
24 . . . �h5 25 <it>f1 �e5 or 25 f4 �f5 26 g3 e5
is very strong.
24....tixd6 25 .tih3!
Again the only move, since otherwise
Black infiltrates on the cl-file by 25 l:.b3
l:.hd8 or 25 l:.dl l:.xd 1+ 26 <it>xd1 .:d8+.
25 ...e3 ! ?
T h e McCu t ch eo n V ariat io n: 4
A last attempt to win by 26 fxe3? �d2.
26 l:rxeJ! l:.xh4 27 l:rbJ !:rh 1 + 1h - 1h
After 28 <i.t>e2 �d2+ 29 �f3 �xc2 30
�bxc3 �xc3 3 1 �xc3 Black will not keep
the extra pawn for long as he his own are
too weak.
Game 66
Anand-Korchnoi
Dos Hermanas 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ltJcJ ttJt6 4 ii.g5 ii.b4
5 e5 h6 6 ii.d2 ii.xcJ 7 bxcJ l2Je4 8
�g4 �fS!?
Long thought to be inferior, 8 ... �f8 has
recently been revived by Korchnoi. Black
refuses to weaken the dark squares by 8 ... g6,
hopes to defend the king with moves such
as . . . �g8, . . . i.dl-e8, meanwhile creating
counterplay on the queenside with ... cS-c4,
. . . al-aS and ... bl-bS-b4.
9 ii.dJ
9 h4 cS 10 i.d3 tt:Jxd2 1 1 �xd2 is
another route to move 1 1 in the game, but
then Black has an alternative in 9 .. .fS!? 10
exf6 'ifxf6. The game move 9 i.. d3 avoids
this by hitting the knight straightaway, but
gives Black another possibility in 9 . . . tt:Jxd2
10 �xd2 'iVgS+!? Similarly, if White wants to
play 1 1 tt:Jf3, then 9 tt:Jf3 cS 10 i.d3 tt:Jxd2
1 1 �xd2 is the simplest route as Black will
not deviate - although White might:
Zsu.Polgar-Korchnoi, Munich Schuhplattler
ii. g 5
iLb 4
2000, saw instead 10 Vi'f4 c4!? 1 1 i.e2 ctJc6
12 0-0 'Uxd2 13 'i'xd2 <i.t>e8!? 14 g3 <i.t>dl 1 S
'Uh4 �cl 16 f4 g 6 11 ctJg2 hS 1 8 ctJh4 'i'el
19 cuf3 'i'a3 20 lUgS 'Ud8 21 h3 and at last
came 2 1 . . . bS 22 �ab 1 �b8 23 �g2 i.dl 24
g4 hxg4 2S hxg4 aS with the initiative on
the queenside.
The pawn sacrifice 9 i.c l , hoping to
cause problems with a later i.a3, is not
dangerous after 9 ... cS 10 i.d3 t2Jxc3 1 1
dxcS 'i'aS 1 2 i.d2 'i'a4! (c.f. 8 . . . g6 9 i.cl).
9 l2Jxd2 10 �xd2 c5
Presumably Anand did not fear
10 ... 'i¥gS+!?, as he gives the note 1 1 'ifxgS
hxgS 12 �fl without assessment. The gS­
pawn is an obvious target for f2-f4 or h2-h4
or cuh3, and certainly the statistics favour
White who scores a healthy 11% after
10 ... 'i¥g5+.
1 1 h4
1 1 tt:Jf3 often arises via 9 tt:Jf3 cS 10 i.d3
'Uxd2 1 1 �xd2, when 1 1 .. .c4 12 i.e2 t2Jc6
is thematic.
The position after 13 h4 bS 14 a3 i.dl
arose in two more of Korchnoi 's games.
J .Polgar-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 2000, saw
15 'i¥f4 �el! 16 hS i.e8 11 t2Jh4 aS 1 8 "ii' g3
�g8 19 'i'e3 i.dl 20 f4 b4 2 1 �hb 1 bxc3+
22 'i'xc3 'i'cl 23 g4 �gb8 24 fS 'i'al 2S f6+
gxf6 26 exf6+ �xf6 21 �f1 + �el 28 �f4 a4
29 i.xc4!? dxc4 30 dS, when Fritz suggests
30 . . . eS!? but it is very complicated to risk
over-the-board. For instance, after 3 1 dxc6
exf4 32 �e 1+ �e6 33 CZJfS+ �d8 34 "iff6+
�cl 35 'i'el+ �b6 36 'i'b4+ Black would
have to foresee the subtlety 36 ... <i.t>a6! so
that after 31 'i'xa4+ �b6 38 �b4+ �xc6 39
�d6+ �bS 40 �e5+ does not win because
the king can now go to a4. Understandably
Korchnoi took the safer path 30 .. .'�a5 3 1
dxc6 i.xc6 32 'i'xaS �xaS and the game
was drawn. Three months later, Christian­
sen-Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2000, saw instead
15 hS aS 16 �hb 1 �b8 11 'i'f4 �el 18 g4
'i'f8 19 'i'e3 �d8!? 20 tt:Je l Wcl and only
then did Black initiate queenside play with
. . .
141
French Cl assical
... bS-b4.
White can also play 13 a4. Short­
Morozevich, German Bundesliga 1998,
continued 1 3 . .. .td7 1 4 h4 a6 lS 'iff4 bS 16
g4 b4 17 cxb4 CDxb4 1 8 c3 CDc6 19 Mhb 1
l:b8 20 i.dl CDaS 2 1 �et CDb3 22 i.xb3
cxb3 23 'ii'c t ! intending 'ii' a3 and White
gained the upper hand. However,
Khalifman-Short (!) , Merida 200 1 , saw
instead 13 . . . a6 14 �hb l Mb8 lS h4 bS 16
axbS axbS 1 7 'i'f4 'ife7 1 8 'i'e3 �e8 19 hS
�d8 20 CDgl b4 2 1 f4 i.d7 22 cxb4 Mxb4
23 Mxb4 'ii'xb4+ 24 'ifc3 �xc3+ 2S �xc3
�cl and the game was soon drawn.
If Black delays ... cS-c4 White may decide
to prevent it by taking on cS. For example,
1 1 . .. CDc6 12 dxcS! 'i'aS 13 'i'f4 'i'xcS 14
CZJd4 i.d7 lS :thb 1 when White takes the
initiative on the queenside, as in Leko­
Hi.ibner, Dortmund 2000, following 1S ... b6
16 a4 CZJaS 17 i.a6 i.c8 18 .tbS 'Wie7 19
CDc6 CDxc6 20 i.xc6 .i:.b8 21 aS with a clear
advantage; or 1S . . . CDd8! 16 a4 Mc8 17 Mb3
a6 18 h4 Mc7 19 g4 CDc6 20 CDxc6 i.xc6
and now Morozevich-Vallejo Pons,
Pamplona 1999, continued 21 'i'b4 'ifxb4
22 cxb4 i.d7 23 l:Ic3 Mxc3 24 �xc3 �e7
2S �d4 hS! with counterplay for Black.
Hence Morozevich later preferred 21 hS
keeping control of the position, though
Black is not easy to break down.
.
But note that 1 1 dxcS?! would have been
too soon as Black has 1 1 ...CDd7!, e.g. 12 CZJf3
CDxcS 1 3 'ifd4 b6 14 h4 i.a6 lS 'ii'b 4 �g8
16 a4 Mc8 and Black was already better in
Medvegy-Salmensuu, Stockholm 200 1 .
1 1 ... c4
Declaring his intentions forthwith. In a
later game Korchnoi played first 1 1 . .. CDc6
12 CZJf3 then 12 . . . c4 13 i.e2 as in the
previous note. However, 12 Mh3 c4 13 .te2
would transpose back to the game and
Black has had no success with anything else.
12 �e2 li:Jc6 13 �h3 �g8
A small novelty, the point of which is
seen in the next note. Previously Black had
142
played immediately 13 ... bS and if 14 l:Xg3
Mg8, 14 l::. f3 aS or 14 'ii'f4 .td7 1S i.hS
i.e8.
14 'iff4
Against 14 Mf3 Korchnoi made use of
... Mg8 to play 14 ... �e7!? Jenni-Korchnoi,
Zurich rapidplay 200 1 , continued lS CZJh3
if as 16 'ii' f4 .:f8 17 l:g3 .:g8 18 .ths CZJd8
19 l::te 1 bS 20 a3 'ii'xa3 21 l:xg7 �xg7 22
'ii' f6+ �d7 23 'i¥xg7 b4 24 .:e3 b3 2S .:te l
Mb8 26 CZJf4 'ifa2 27 i.xf7 'ii'xc2+ 28 <&t>e3
'ii'e4+ 0-1 .
14...�d7 1 5 i.hS .lieS
First defending f7, and allowing Black to
play 16 .. .fS due to the opposition of
bishops.
16 lt:Je2 fS 17 g4?!
Anand later recommended 17 i.xe8!
�xe8 1 8 g4 CDe7 19 .l:gl ! with the initiative.
17 ...tt:Je7 18 :!g 1 i.xh S
Black could of course have played this a
move sooner.
19 gxhS 'ife8
To judge from Anand's notes this whole
game is a series of inaccuracies. Here he
thinks Black should have played first
19 ... .l:c8! to answer 20 'ii'f3 with 20 ... �f7;
similarly in the game, after 19 .. .'�e8 20 'ii'f3
.:c8 2 1 CZJf4 he prefers 2 l . .. �f7! 22 �hg3
:c6. The black queen can just as easily
defend g7 from f8, and on the back rank
can more easily switch to defend the
queenside if necessary.
Th e McCu t ch eo n V ariat io n: 4 ii..g5 ii.. b 4
However, Black's position is very solid in
any case. White certainly has no way in on
the kingside as Anand discovers as he
aimlessly triples on the g-file.
22 l1hg3 �a6 23 Vig2 "YJflf7 24 Vif 1
White's one chance to probe the
queenside was by 24 �b 1 , while Black
cannot reply ... 'iVc8, whereas 24 ... b6 blocks
the rook's defence of e6 and White can
contemplate 25 l:g1 .l:.xa2 26 �xg7! �xg7
27 'iVxg7+ 'iVxg7 28 ctJxe6. Even so, Black
seems okay.
24...Vie8 25 l::t 1g2 �f7
Now Korchnoi switches the defence to
�f7 and 'iVf8, White's small chance on the
queenside is gone.
26 l1g 1 nxa2 27 'ifg2 Vif8 28 l::tb 1
Hoping for 2 8 ... b6? when White has 29
�g6! and if 29 ... ctJxg6? 30 'ifxg6+ �e7 3 1
'ifxe6+ �d8 3 2 'iVxdS+ wins, or 29 ... 'ife8 30
�g1 ctJxg6 3 1 �xg6+ �f8 32 ctJxe6+ �e7
33 ctJxg7 with a clear advantage.
28 ...Vic8 ! 29 l:tg 1 Y2 - Y2
Game 67
Svidler-Morozevich
Frankfurt rapid 1999
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 'Uc3 'Uf6 4 i.g5 i.b4
5 e5 h6 6 �d2 �xc3 7 �xc3
This is perhaps the most natural
recapture, preserving the queenside pawn
structure. However, after 7 .. .Cue4 White still
has to do something about the bishop,
giving Black time to generate counterplay
against the centre with . . . c7-c5 .
Harding writes with apt dismissal: '7
�xc3 !? is revived occasionally' - with the
obvious implication that as soon as Black
has dealt adequately any new wrinkles, the
variation is put back in its box.
7 . .'Ue4 8 cue2
8 �g4 would now be met by 8 . 0-0 since
White does not have �h6. Similarly 8 i..d3
ctJxc3 9 bxc3 cS 10 'i¥g4 0-0.
8 �b4 looks very logical, preserving the
bishop on a useful diagonal. However,
Black has the tactical resource 8 ... c5!
(Pillsbury) when 9 dxcS? is refuted by
9 . . . CL\xf2! 10 �xf2 'ifh4+ collecting the
bishop and leaving White with a lot of weak
pawns; while after 9 i.. xcS ctJxcS 10 dxcS
White has failed in his objectives and any
one of 10 . . . CL\d7, 10 . . . �c7 or 10 . . . 'ifa5+ is
fine for Black.
Fischer once tried 8 i.. a S, with the idea
8 ... b6 9 i.. b 4 cS 10 i.. a3!, but after 8 ... 0-0! 9
i.. d3 ctJc6 10 i.. c 3 ctJxc3 1 1 bxc3 f6 12 f4
fxeS 13 fxeS ctJe7 14 CL\f3 cS 1 5 0-0 �aS
Black was better in Fischer-Petrosian,
Curacao 1962.
8 ...0-0
Black has also succeeded with:
a) 8 . . . cS 9 dxcS ctJxc3 (better than
9 . . . ctJc6 10 i.. d4!) 10 ctJxc3 0-0 1 1 'ifd2 f6!
12 exf6 'ifxf6 13 i.. b S (or 13 0-0-0 'ifxf2 14
�e2 'iff4) 13 ... a6 14 i.. a4 ctJd7 15 i.. xd7
i..xd7 16 0-0 �ac8 17 CL\d 1 �xcS 1 8 c3
�bS 19 �e 1 �c4 20 f3 'i¥g6 21 'iVe3 �e8
22 'ifeS 'iff6 Y2-Y2 Lanka-M.Gurevich,
Cappelle la Grande 1999.
b) 8 . . . ctJc6!? 9 CL\f4 �e7 10 �d3 ctJxc3 1 1
bxc3 �d7 1 2 ltJhS �g8! 1 3 i.. h 7 �h8 14
i.. d3 �g8 - a tacit draw offer which White
refused and came out worse after 15 0-0
0-0-0 16 a4 ct:Jas 17 f4 cS 18 �bS �b8 19
�xd7 'ifxd7 20 'ifd3 'ifc7 in Sutovsky­
Psakhis, Tel Aviv 1999.
9 ii..b4
.
.
.
1 43
French Classical
If 9 f3?! ctJxc3 1 0 ctJxc3 c5 1 1 dxc5
'ifh4+! 12 g3 'ifb4 13 'ii'd3 ctJc6, as in Koch­
Murey, Paris 1989.
Or 9 'ifd3!? b6 10 �b4 c5 11 .ia3 and
rather than 1 1 . . .f6? 1 2 f3 ! .ia6 13 'ife3 fxe5
14 fxe4 exd4 1 5 'ifh3 and White won in
Qstrowski-Hnyudiuk, Zakopane 2000,
Black should have tried 1 1 . .. .ia6 12 'ife3
ctJc6! 13 c3 (if 13 f3 .i. xe2 14 .ixe2 'ifh4+)
1 3 . . . �e8 when 1 4 f3 can be answered by
14 ... cxd4 15 cxd4 'ifg5.
9 ...c5 10 j_aJ t:bc6!
Morozevich had previously lost in this
variation after 10 . . . cxd4?! 1 1 .ixf8 'ifxf8 12
f3 d3 (or 12 ... 'ifb4+ 13 c3 dxc3 14 bxc3
ctJxc3 15 'ifd2) 13 fxe4 dxe2 14 'i¥xe2 ctJc6
15 exd5 exd5 16 0-0-0 and Black had no
compensation for the exchange in G,alkin­
Morozevich, N ovgorod 1997. So it was very
unlikely that he would play this again, even
in a rapidplay game, without an
improvement in mind.
11 f3 b5 !
Ignoring the threat the his knight Black
targets the .ia3 with ... b7-b5-b4. If now 12
c3 b4 13 .ixb4 Black inserts 13 . . .'i¥h4+! 14
g3 ctJxg3 1 5 ctJxg3 cxb4. No better was 1 1
c3 b5! 1 2 .i.xcS ctJxc5 1 3 dxc5 ctJxe5.
12 fxe4 b4 13 j_xb4
Thus White wins a pawn, but Black's lead
in development ensures him of full
compensation, and the break .. .f7-f6 will
open lines and keep the white king in the
1 44
centre. As for example, after 13 exd5 'i¥xd5
14 .ixb4 cxb4 1 5 c3 f6! 16 exf6 �xf6.
13 ...t:bxb4 14 c3 t:bc6 15 exd5
If 1 5 'i¥a4!? Finkel proposes 15 ... 'i¥b6! 16
�d1 cxd4 17 exd5 exd5 1 8 cxd4 f6! again
with excellent compensation for Black.
15 ...'�xd5 16 dxc5 ifxc5 17 t:bc 1
If 17 'ifd6 'i¥b6! and the threat of
18 ... �d8 keeps White from castling long, i.e.
18 0-0-0? �d8 19 'i¥a3 'ife3+ 20 <iitc2 .ib7
with decisive threats. So Svidler gives up the
e-pawn to prepare 0-0-0, but with no
lessening of Black's initiative.
17...ii'xe5+ 18 ii'e2
White cannot castle short since if 18 .i.e2
�d8 19 'ifa4 .i.b7 20 0-0 then 20 ... l:d2 wins
material (if 21 �f2 'i¥e3 !) .
18 ...ii'c7 19 t:bd3 j_a6 20 0-0-0 l:tfd8? !
Better was 20 ... ctJb4!, exploiting the two
pins. After 2 l . ..ctJxa2+ Black may open the
king up further with ... ctJxc3 or first bring
up more forces by ... 'i¥a5 and .. J�ab8, when
it is hard to see how White can survive.
2 1 'iff2
White side-steps the pin from the bishop
and thus forestalls ... ctJb4.
2 1 ... j_c4
22 'iff4!?
22 b3 (Finkel) may be technically more
accurate as after 22 ... .i.xd3 23 .i.xd3 has
good chances to defend, e.g. 23 ... CLJe5 (or
23 . . . lLJb4 24 .ic4 lLJd5 25 'i¥f3) 24 'i¥c2
�xd3 25 �xd3 CLJxd3+ 26 'ir'xd3 l:Ic8 27
Th e McCu tch eo n V ariatio n: 4 ii.. g5 iLb 4
�b2.
However, 22 iVf4 shows nice
psychology. White forces the exchange of
queens, thus negating Black's hopes of
winning by direct attack. True, Black gets an
extra pawn for the endgame, but realising
this advantage will be less easy, especially in
a rapidplay game. In the end White manages
to hold on for a draw.
22 . . .'�xf4+ 23 ltJxf4 l:xd 1 + 24 �xd 1
ii..xa2 25 �c2 l:b8 26 b4 g5 27 ltJh5
�f8 28 �b2 ii..d5 29 ltJt6 �e7 30
ltJxd5+ exd5 3 1 ii..e2 a5 32 iLf3 axb4
33 ii..xd5 ltJe5 34 cxb4
With the queenside pawns eliminated
White's task becomes simpler.
34 . . . .l:txb4+ 35 �c3 l:a4 36 l:f 1 h5 37
ii..b3 l:e4 38 ii..d5 :e2 39 �d4 f6 40
ii..e4 h4 4 1 h3 ltJf7 42 :a 1 liJd6 43 iLf3
:d2+ 44 �c3 :t2 45 �d3 f5 46 l:a5
�e6 47 ii..d5+ �f6 48 ii..f3 Sb2 49 �d4
nd2+ 50 �c3 :t2 5 1 �d4 Yz - Yz
Game 68
Lanka-Morozevich
Kishinev 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ltJc3 lbt6 4 iLg5 iLb4
5 e5 h6 6 ii..e3
White can also sacrifice by 6 �c l!? ctJe4
7 iVg4, with the added point that after 7 ... g6
8 ctJe2 cS 9 a3 iVaS (as with 6 �e3 below)
White can simply play 10 axb4! iVxa1 1 1
ctJxe4 dxe4 1 2 bxcS with advantage. So
Black must choose between:
a) 9 . . . �a5?! 10 b4! ctJxd (10 . . . cxb4 1 1
ctJxe4) 1 1 ctJxd cxd4 (or 1 1 . . . cxb4 1 2 ctJbS
b3+ 13 �d2) 12 ttJbs il.c7 13 f4 ctJc6 14
�d3 a6 15 ctJxc7+ iVxc7 16 0-0 il.d7 17
iVh4 iVd8 18 iVf2 iVb6 19 �b2 0-0-0
(Borriss-Hiibner, German Bundesliga 200 1)
when 20 d ! is good for White.
b) 9 . . . �xc3+ 10 bxd cxd4 1 1 cxd4 and
now 1 1 . ..iVc7 12 f3 CLJc3 13 �d2 ctJxe2 14
�xe2 �d7 15 �d3 was good for White in
S.Hector-Pedersen, Oxford 1998. In
Rytshagov-D.Anderton, Gausdal 2000,
Black improved by 1 1 ...'ifa5+ 12 c3 Jid7 13
f3 �bS! 14 fxe4 �xe2 15 �h3 �xf1 16
�xf1 dxe4 17 �f2 CLJd7 18 �g1 �h7 19
iVe3 iVdS 20 �e1 �c8 with an unclear
position.
7 . . .�f8 also improves line 'a', since after
8 CLJe2 cS 9 a3 �aS 10 b4 ctJxd 1 1 CLJxc3
cxd4 12 ct:JbS?! does not threaten check at
d6, giving Black time to play 12 ... �b6! with
advantage. White would have to play 12
iVxd4 with an unclear position after
12 . . . �b6 13 'ifd3 .
6 . . .ltJe4 7 �g4
It is noteworthy that Glek, in a rare game
on the white side of the McCutcheon, chose
here to play 7 ctJge2 cS (7 . . b6!?) 8 dxcS!? (8
a3 is more usual) 8 ... CLJc6 9 a3 �xc3+ 10
ctJxc3 ctJxd 11 bxd ctJxeS 12 �d4 'ifgS 13
h4 �fS 14 �e2 0-0 15 0-0 ctJc6 16 f4 ltJxd4
17 cxd4 Jid7 18 g4 'iff6 19 gS "iff e7 20 �d3
g6 2 1 'ife 1 with the advantage in Glek­
Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest 1998.
7 . . . �f8
As White is still going to have a dark­
squared bishop it seems more logical for
Black to defend g7 with the king rather than
weaken the dark squares by 7 ... g6, though
the latter is played. Iordachescu-Vysochin,
.
This signals a different approach by
White, who wants to keep the dark-squared
bishop for attacking purposes, even at the
cost of a pawn at c3 .
1 45
French Classical
Kiev 2000, continued 8 a3 i.xc3+ (if 8 ... i.a5
9 lt:Jge2) 9 bxc3 lt:Jxc3 10 i.d3 lt:Jc6 1 1 h4
'Vii e 7 12 lt:Jh3 i.d7 13 hS gS 14 f4 gxf4 1 5
i.f2 'iVf8 1 6 �xf4 0-0-0 (one advantage of
not playing ... �f8) 17 i.h4 l:.e8 18 0-0 lt:Je4
19 lt:Jf2! lt:Jxd4 20 lt:Jxe4 dxe4 2 1 'ifxe4 tt:Jfs
22-l:.ab 1 'iVcS+ (not 22 ... i.c6? 23 'iVxc6!
bxc6 24 i.a6+ �d7 25 l:.fd1+ lt:Jd6 26 exd6
wins) 23 i.f2 'ti'dS 24 c4 'iVxe4 25 i.xe4 b6
26 cS .i:eg8 27 l:.fc l �d8 28 .i.f3 l:.gS 29
l:.b2 l:.hg8 30 l:.d2 and White won.
8 a3!?
The critical move. 8 lt:Je2 is easily met by
8 ... c5 9 a3 'iVa5 10 l:.d1 i.xc3+ 1 1 lt:Jxc3
lt:Jc6 12 .i.b5 lt:Jxc3 13 i.xc6+ bxc6 14 i.d2
cxd4 15 'ii'xd4 'Jiib 5, while against 8 i.d3
lt:Jxc3 9 a3 Euwe recommended 9 . . . lt:Ja2+!
10 �fl i.e7 1 1 l:.xa2 b6 12 lt:Je2 i.a6 13 h4
c5 with equality.
8 . . . �xc3+
The insertion of 8 a3 i.a5 means that 9
lt:Jge2! is now good for White after 9 ... c5 10
dxc5! lt:Jc6 (or 10 ... lt:Jxc3 11 lt:Jxc3 i.xc3+ 12
bxc3 lt:Jc6 13 i.d4) 1 1 b4! lt:Jxc3 12 lt:Jxc3
lt:Jxe5 13 'JJid 1 .i.c7 14 lt:Jb5 .i.b8 15 c4 a6
16 lt:Jc3 'iVf6 1 7 l:.cl lt:Jxc4 1 8 .i.xc4 dxc4
19 lt:Je4 'ile7 20 l:.xc4 �g8 2 1 :d4 i.a7 22
lt:Jd6 g6 23 0-0 with a big advantage to
White in Mohrlok-Kilgour, correspondence
1992-96.
9 bxc3 c5 10 �d3 lt:Jxc3
10 . . . h5!? was a resounding success in its
first appearance: 1 1 iVf3 CLJxc3 12 CLJh3
146
lt:Jc6 13 lt:Jf4? �g8 14 lt:Jxh5 'i'h4 1 5 g4
lt:Jxd4 16 'i'f4 i.d7 0-1 Van Mil-Murey,
Amsterdam 1983. It recently appeared again
in
Kasparov-Korchnoi,
Kopavogur
rapidplay 2000, with Black making a quick
draw after 1 1 'iff4 'ifa5 12 lt:Je2 lt:Jxc3 13
0-0 lt:Jxe2+ 14 i.xe2 lt:Jc6 1 5 c4 cxd4 16
i.xd4 lt:Jxd4 17 'iVxd4 i.d7 1 8 cxd5 exd5
19 i.f3 i.c6 lh -lh . F ressinet-Vaisser,
French Team Championship 200 1, saw
instead 1 1 'ifh3 lt:Jxc3 12 dxc5 d4 13 i.d2
'i'd5 14 f4 lt:Jc6 15 i.xc3 dxc3 16 lt:Je2
'ifxc5 17 i.e4 i.d7 18 l:.d1 i.e8 19 'ifxc3
'ifxc3+ 20 lt:Jxc3 when Black unravelled by
20 . . . lt:Ja5! 21 0-0 l:!c8 22 l:.d3 g6 23 i.f3
�g7 24 l:.f2 l:.c7 25 lt:Je4 i.a4 26 lt:Jc3 �c4
27 g3 l:.hc8 and now stood quite well.
11 dxc5 lt:Jc6 12 lt:Jf3 f5 13 exf6 'ifxf6
1 4 'it'h5
14 lt:Jh4 �g8 1 5 lt:Jg6 l:.h7 is only a
temporary inconvenience for Black as the
knight cannot be maintained on g6, e.g. 16
ifh4 (if 16 ifh5 i.d7 intending ... .i.e8)
16 . . . e5 17 i.d2 lt:Je4 1 8 i.xe4 dxe4 19 'iVxe4
i.f5 20 ifd5+ 'iff7 2 1 'ifxf7+ �xf7 and the
knight has to withdraw.
14 ...e5 15 �g6
If 15 lt:Jh 4 Black can sacrifice the
exchange by 15 ... e4 16 lt:Jg6+ �g8 17 lt:Jxh8
exd3 with good play. Similarly after 15 i.g5
hxg5 16 'ifxh8+ �e7 17 h4 g4 18 lt:JgS e4,
though here 15 .. .'ii' f7 16 i.g6 i.g4! 1 7
i.xf7 .i.xh5 1 8 i.xh5 hxg5 i s also
acceptable.
15 . . . �e6!?
A new and logical move. The bishop
heads for f7 to fight for the g6-square. If
instead 15 ... i.d7 (intending ... i.e8) then 16
0-0 �g8 17 i.d2! lt:Je4 1 8 c4 lt:Jxd2 19
lt:Jxd2 d4 20 lt:Je4 and White is better
(Gufeld) .
15 ... e4?! is weak as it provides White with
a target: 16 lt:Jh 4 \tg8 17 0-0 i.e6 1 8 f3 !
CLJe2+ 19 \th 1 l:!f8 20 l:!ae1 '2Jf4 2 1 i.xf4
iYxf4 22 g3 'i¥g5 23 fxe4 J:!xf1+ 24 �xfl
dxe4 25 'ifd1 "i¥d5 26 'i!Vxd5 .i.xd5 27 �d1
T h e McCu t ch eo n V ari at io n: 4 ii.. g5 iLb 4
.i.f7 28 .i.xe4 g5 29 ct:Jf5 and White won in
Hall-Barnsley, correspondence 1993-95.
White is also for preference after
15 . . . �g8 1 6 0-0 ctJe2+ 17 �h 1 ctJf4 18 .i.xf4
�xf4 19 h3 .i.e6 20 c3 .i.f7 2 1 l:.ab 1 .i.xg6
22 �xg6 'ii'f7 23 'iixf7+ �xf7 24 Mxb7+
\tt f6 25 .:fb 1 �hb8 (Filipenko-Volkov,
Moscow 1999) and now 26 �g1 !
(Filipenko) . Or i f 1 6 ... .i.e6 1 7 Mae1 Md8 1 8
.i.d2 ctJe4 19 c 4 ctJxd2 2 0 ctJxd2 1i'g5 (lh-lh
Fressinet-Vallejo Pons, Mondariz 2000)
then 2 1 'if xg5 hxg5 22 cxd5 i.xd5 23 .i.e4
or 22 . . . �xd5 23 ctJb3 again looks good for
White.
16 0-0
The tactical j ustification of 15 . . . i.e6 is
seen after 16 i.g5 i.g4! 17 i.xf6 .i.xh5 18
.i.xe5 .i.xg6 19 i.xc3 i.xc2 or 1 8 i.xg7+
�xg7 19 i.xh5 �hf8 with compensation.
16...ii..f7 17 tbh4 l!e8 18 .l:1ae 1
Of course White would like to open the
f-file, but 18 f4 is met by 18 ... e4, while if 1 8
i.d2, with the idea 1 8 ... ctJe4? 19 f4, Black
responds 18 . . . ctJe2+! 19 'ifxe2 i.xg6 or 19
�h 1 ctJed4.
18 ...'it'g8 19 f3 .l:1e6
Expelling the bishop from g6.
20 ii..xf7+ 'ifxf7 2 1 �g4 lU6!
A strong consolidating move, covering f4
and c4 (with the queen). The routine
21 ... �h7 would allow White to take the
initiative with 22 i.d2 lLJbS 23 c4! hS 24
ii'h3 dxc4 25 f4! White tries this in any case,
as he has to do something before Black
completes development, when his strong
central pawns will give him a clear
advantage.
22 ii..d2 tbb5 23 f4! e4 24 c4? !
If now 24 . . . dxc4?! 25 a4! ctJbd4 26 Ihe4
White gains a dangerous initiative with f4f5, e.g. 26 ... �h7?! 27 f5 Md8 28 i.c3
intending Mff4, or 26 .. .'ii dS 27 f5 h5!
(otherwise Me8+ wins) 28 'iff4 (if 28 Me8+
�f7) 28 ... �h7 29 i.c3 J:td8 with an unclear
position.
However, 24 .i.cl, intending i.b2, was
better as Black can play:
24...tbxa3 ! 25 cxd5 �xd5 26 1le3?
White cannot play 26 i.c3 because of
26 .. .'i¥xc5+, so first he needs to close the g1a7 diagonal. But 26 kte3 was a definite
mistake as the rook merely invites the black
knight to c4. Better was 26 .l:.f2 when with
27 i.c3 to follow White still has his
chances.
26 ...h5 27 �e2 tbc4 28 lld 1 tbd4!
If Black takes the exchange he still has
some problems to solve after 28 . . . l2Jxe3!? 29
i.xe3 and 30 f5, as 30 ... �h7 would allow 3 1
i.g5! B y driving the queen back Black is
able to extricate his rook, counting on the
strong e4-pawn to win the game.
29 'iff 1 �h7 30 l1c3 tbxd2 3 1 .l:1xd2
�d8 32 f5 g5 !
Forcing White to open the f-file for the
black rooks.
33 fxg6+ 'it'g7 34 �e 1 .l:1df8 35 l:c1
�g8 !
Black cannot yet play 3S ... IH1+? 36 ifxfl
Mxfl+ 37 Mxfl �gS due to 3 8 Mxd4 �e3+?
39 �h 1 'ifxd4 40 ctJfS+. Hence the
preliminary king move.
36 g7
Setting the trap 36 ... l:Ifl+ 37 ii'xf1 :Ixfl+
38 Mxf1 'if gS? 39 llxd4 Vi'e3+ 40 �h 1
'i¥xd4 4 1 Mf8+ wins, while 36 . . . �xg7? 37
ii'e3 gets a draw after 37 ... 'ii'c 4! 38 'ii'gS+.
36 .. J�8f7 37 h3
Not 37 �e3 ? 'ifc4! and wins.
French Classical
37 ...�e5 38 'ife3 t2Jc6 39 l:.e2 �xg7 40
Wixe4 WigS!
With a semi-fork on �cl and ctJh4, since
.. J�f4 wins the knight.
41 'ifc4 �g3! 42 'i'a4
42 �e4 �f4 43 �xf4 �xf4 44 �f1 1s
equally hopeless after 44 ... �xc4 45 ctJf5+
�g6 46 ctJxg3 �xc5 and the queenside
pawns will win easily.
42 ..JH4 43 'ifa 1+ �7f6 44 �d 1 'i'xh4
45 �d7+ �h6 46 �h2 �f2 47 �c 1+
'iff4+ 48 Wixf4+ �6xf4 49 ne8 nf7 50
ne6+ �g7 0-1
Game 69
Landa-Morozevich
Samara 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 ii.g5 ii.b4
5 e5 h6 6 exf6
White has two other minor possibilities:
a) 6 .i.xf6 gxf6 7 ctJf3 ctJd7 8 exf6 ifxf6
9 a3 .i.f8 10 i¥e2 c6 1 1 g3 �g7 12 i.g2 0-0
13 0-0 e5 and Black had no problems in
Agur-Dreev, Oviedo rapidplay 199 1 .
b) 6 i.h4 g 5 7 �g3 ctJe4 8 ctJge2 c 5 9 a3
(or 9 'i¥d3 ctJc6 10 a3 'ii a5) 9 . . . �xc3+ 10
ctJxc3 i¥a5 11 iVd3 ctJc6 12 dxc5 i.d7 13
0-0-0 ctJxc3 14 i¥xc3 ifxc3 1 5 bxc3 �c8 16
h4 :g8 17 hxg5 hxg5 1 8 f3 g4 19 fxg4 �xg4
20 Mh3 with a level position in Landa­
Minasian, Linares 1 999.
6 . ..hxg5 7 fxg7 �g8
8 h4
The standard plan - after the usual
8 ... gxh4 White gets the h-file for the rook.
The h-pawn advance can be delayed. In
Kholmov-Nikolenko, Moscow 1999, White
first played 8 ctJf3 iVf6 (or 8 .. J�xg7 9 ctJe5
ctJd7) 9 h4 gxh4 10 'ifd2 ctJc6 1 1 a3 .i.xc3
12 'i!Vxc3 �d7 13 �xh4 'ii'x g7 14 g3 0-0-0
with a level position.
De Weerd-Glek, Korinthos 2000, saw
instead 8 'i!Vh5 'i!Vf6 9 ctJf3 'i!Vxg7 10 a3
�xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 ctJd7 12 h4 g4 13 ctJh2 g3 14
ctJf3 gxf2+ 1 5 �d1 with a clear advantage to
Black, although he lost in the first of several
disasters at this tournament (c.f. 8 'i!Vg4 in
Game 70) .
8 ...t2Jc6!?
This must have come as quite a shock to
his opponent. The theoretical j ustification
of White's opening moves is that the h­
pawn must be taken as otherwise it will
advance further and tie Black down on the
kingside. ECO for many years gave simply
'8 . . . �xg7 9 h5 clear advantage to White'
(though that has been revised in the new
edition).
The old theory saw 8 ... gxh4 9 'ii'g4 'i¥f6
10 �xh4 "ifxg7 1 1 iVxg7 �xg7 12 �h8+
when after 12 . . . �d7 13 ctJf3 ctJc6 or
12 ... i.f8, Black is passive, leaving White
with whatever winning chances exist.
The rook recapture, 10 ... �xg7, was also
thought to be bad as after 1 1 �h8+ �e7 12
'i!Vh3 White has an attack. This assessment
may also need to be revised following
Barczay-Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest
200 1 , which saw 12 . . . ctJc6 13 0-0-0 �xc3 14
'i!Vxc3 �xg2 15 'i!Va3+ \t>d7 16 .txg2 'i!Vxh8
17 ctJf3 b5 18 'ii'c 5 a6 19 ctJe5+?! ctJxe5 20
�xd5 (20 dxd5 .i.b7) 20 .. .'iVh6+ 2 1 f4? (2 1
�b 1 exd5 22 'i!Vxd5+ 'ifd6 23 "ifxa8 ctJc6)
2 1 . .. exd5 22 dxe5? (22 'i!Vxd5+) 22 . . . 'i!Vxf4+
23 �b l .i.b7 0- 1.
9 hS
Naturally, White advances his h-pawn as
intended. However, h e could have tried 9
Th e McCu t ch eo n V ar iat io n : 4 i1.. g5 i1.. b 4
ct:Jf3 !? and if 9 ... g4 10 CLJe5 CLJxe5 1 1 dxe5
�xg7 12 'ifd3 with the initiative (Finkel) , or
if 9 ... gxh4 10 l:.xh4 'iff6 transposes to the
known line 8 ... gxh4 9 ct:Jf3!? 'iff6 10 �xh4
CLJc6, with which White has not fared badly.
Hodgson-Garbarino, Benidorm 199 1 ,
continued 1 1 'ifd2 i.d7 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 1 3
�b 1 'i¥xg7 1 4 a3 i.e7 1 5 l:h3 �h8 16 g3
i.f6 17 .:xh8 .tlxh8 1 8 i.g2 with a level
position. Hodgson later won after a typically
speculative sacrifice.
9 ....Uxg7 10 h6
If 10 'ifd3 'i¥f6 1 1 h6 .tlg8 12 h7 �h8 13
0-0-0, intending 13 . . . i.d7 14 CLJb5!? 0-0-0 15
'i.Vg3, Black has adequate time for 13 . . . a6
(and if 14 'ife3 i.e7) .
10 ...:h7 1 1 i1..d3 l:.h8 12 �h5 !?
White seeks to utilise his only asset, the
h-pawn, before Black gets it under control,
and cannot afford the worry about the cl­
pawn.
12 ...iif6
12 ... ct:Jxd4 13 CLJh3 'iff6 1 4 CLJxg5
transposes.
13 t2Jt3 t2Jxd4 14 t2Jxg5
Continuing with his kingside play and
threatening 15 ct:Jxf7! The greedy 14 ... i.xc3+
1 5 bxc3 CLJxc2+? would also create serious
problems for Black after 16 �e2! CLJxa1 17
ctJxf7.
14 ...t2Jf5 15 h7 !?
Presumably White did not care for 15
i.xf5 'ifxf5 16 0-0-0 i.d7, when with the
two bishops and strong centre Black is
clearly for preference, e.g. 16 ... i.. d7 17 i:.d3
(threatening �f3) 17 .. i.e7! 18 CLJf3 iVxh5 19
�xh5 f6.
15 ...i1..xc3+ 16 bxc3 'ifxc3+ 17 �e2
'ife5+ !
Again Black must not be too greedy:
17 ... CLJd4+? 18 �d1 ! 'i¥xa1+ 19 �d2 and f7
cannot be defended.
18 �d2 'iff4+ 19 �e2 tt:Jd6 !
With f7 now protected Black is able to
complete development. However, with
continued pressure on f7 and a big pawn at
h7 White is still able to put up a fight.
20 �ae 1
With the idea 2 1 0-0-0, 22 CLJxe6, so
Black quickly evacuates his king.
20...i1..d7 2 1 �f 1 0-0-0 22 'ifh6!
Threatening 23 �h4 �d2 24 CLJxf7!
22 ...i1..b5
If now 23 �h4 i.xd3+ 24 cxd3 'ifd2 25
CLJxf7? Black wins with 25 . . . ifxd3+.
Otherwise the exchange of bishops allows
the black queen on to the kingside light
squares.
23 i1..xb5 t2Jxb5 24 lth4 'iff5 25 �g7?!
The threat to f7 is not very dangerous.
White could still have created trouble with
25 �h5!? threatening CLJxe6, while if 25 ... e5
26 CLJe4 'ifg6 27 CLJg5 'i¥xh6 28 k!xh6 leaves
e5 and f7 in need of protection, or
25 ... �de8 26 CLJe4 �g6 27 CLJf6 'iVxh6 28
Mxh6 Md8 29 Me5 intending .:g5-g7.
25 ...t2Jd6 26 g3
Not yet 26 Me5 'ifxc2 27 ct:Jxf7 due to
27 . . . CLJf5! and wins after 28 'iff6 ct:Jxh4 29
CLJxh8 'ifd3+! 30 �g1 'ifb 1+ 3 1 �h2 'ifxh7
threatening the CLJh8 and 32 . . . CLJf3+.
26 ...:de8 27 c3?
A final mistake. Better was 27 Me5 'ii'xc2
28 CLJxf7.
27 ...'iid3+ 28 �g 1 'ifd2
Or 28 . . . ct:Jf5 .
29 :e5 ifxc3 30 �f4 ifc2 3 1 �g2 b5
32 a3 a5 33 �f6
White's kingside clamp is now irrelevant
French Classi cal
as the queenside pawns will win the game.
33 ...b4 34 axb4 axb4 35 l:.exe6 fxe6
36 l:.xe6 l:.xh7 37 :xe8+ t"Llxe8 38 Wie5
t"Lld6 0- 1
Game 70
Jenni-Giek
Bad Worishofen 2001
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t"Llc3 t"Llf6 4 it.g5 i£.b4
5 exd5
This spoiling move is surprisingly one of
the very few lines assessed in ECO as
slightly better for White (after 5 . . .'ifxd5) . It
was a favourite of Emanuel Lasker, and
GMs Chandler and De la Villa Garcia have
also scored well with 5 exd5 . If Black
recaptures 5 ... exd5 (which receiv.es an
exclamation mark in ECO) White has an
slightly improved Exchange variation as
Black's pieces are not on their best squares.
If Black takes back with the queen he gives
up some influence in the centre.
5 ...'ifxd5
The usual choice of McCutcheon players.
After 5 ... exd5 6 'iff3 intends to damage
Black's structure by 7 .i.xf6 after which
Black would be slightly worse. So Black
usually replies 6 ... t2Jbd7 and then if 7 0-0-0
not 7 ... i.xc3?! 8 'ife3+ 'ife7 9 'ifxc3 'ifd6 10
�e 1+ <it'f8 1 1 f3 h6 12 i.d2 b6 1 3 lZ'le2 with
a definite advantage in Ye Rongguang­
R.Rodriguez, Cebu 1992, but 7 ... il.e7 8 �el
1 50
0-0 9 i.d3 �e8 10 t2Jge2 c6 1 1 t2Jg3 l2Jf8 12
t2Jf5 i.xf5 13 .i.xf5 t2J6d7 14 i.xe7 �xe7
15 .i.h3 'ife8 which was soon agreed draw n
in Galkin-Alavkin, St Petersburg 1999.
6 it.xf6
The only worthwhile move. Not 6 'ifd2??
.i.xc3 7 bxc3 l2Je4 winning a piece, while
White has nothing after 6 t2Jf3 l2Je4 7 i.d2
.i.xc3 8 bxc3 l2Jxd2 9 'ifxd2 l2Jd7 or 9 ... b6.
6 ... it.xc3+!
6 ... gxf6 gives White the chance to protect
his own structure by 7 l2Jge2! and if 7 ... c5 8
a3 ! .i.xc3+ 9 t2Jxc3 'ifxd4 10 'ifxd4 cxd4 1 1
l2Jb5 is good for White, e.g. 1 1 ...t2Ja6 12
l2Jxd4 l2Jc7 13 0-0-0 .i.d7 14 i.d3 0-0-0 15
�he 1 .i.c6 1 6 l2Jxc6 bxc6 17 �a4
(Chandler-Carton, Blackpool Zonal 1990) .
If instead 7 . . . l2Jc6 8 a3 .i.xc3+ 9 l2Jxc3
'ifxd4 10 'ifxd4 t2Jxd4 1 1 0-0-0 c5 12 l2Je4
b6 13 c3 t2Jf5 14 g4 l2Jh4 15 t2Jxf6+ <it'e7 16
g5 was also good for White in Chandler­
King, Hastings 1990. However, 13 ... t2Jb3+!
is better after 14 <it'c2 l2Ja5 15 l2Jxf6+ r:Ji;e7
(King) or if 15 b4 l2Jb7 16 l2Jxf6+ r:Ji;e7 17
l2Je4 i.d7 and Black was not worse in
Morozevich-Kovalev, Moscow rapidplay
1994.
For White, 8 'ifd2 improves this line,
since after 8 ... .i.xc3 9 l2Jxc3 ! 'ifxd4 10
'ifxd4 l2Jxd4 1 1 0-0-0 c5 12 l2Je4 b6 13 c3
Black does not have . . . t2Jb3+.
7 bxc3 gxf6 8 'ifg4
Probably the best try in this variation. As
in the main lines with 5 e5, White tries to
exploit the missing i.f8 and come in at g7
with the queen. White also has the
possibility of 'iff4 (as after 8 'ifd2) .
Of the alternatives, 8 t2Jf3 b6! does not
trouble Black at all; nor does 8 'iff3 'ifxf3 9
l2Jxf3 b6. However, 8 'ifd2 is an important
option, which Black should not take too
casually.
a) 8 . . . lt:Jd7 9 c4 'ife4+ 10 l2Je2 lt:Jb6
(10 . . . b6) 1 1 f3 'ifc6 12 c5 lt:Jd5 13 c4 lt:Je7
14 lZ'lc3 fS 15 i.e2 �g8 16 0-0 i.d7 17 'i/e3
b6 18 �fd1 bxcS 19 dS 'ifd6 20 dxe6 'ifxe6
Th e McC u tch eo n V ariatio n: 4 i.. g5 i.. b 4
2 1 'ii'xcS with an extra pawn in Capablanca­
Alekhine, New York 1924, though
Capablanca was unable to convert it.
b) 8 ... b6 9 �e2! (intending ..if3) 9 ... CLJc6
10 'ii'f4 'ii' aS 1 1 �d2 'iVgS 12 'ii'xgS fxgS 1 3
h 4 gxh4 14 l:.xh4 CLJe7 lS �f3 l:. b 8 16 CLJe2
ClJg6 17 l:.h2 �b7 18 ..ixb7 l:.xb7 19 l:.ah l
and the h-pawn proved a terminal weakness
in Khlusevich-Glek, correspondence 198891.
c) 8 . . . 'ii'a S has been Glek's preference,
preventing 'ii' f4 by hitting c3 . This was
successful in van der Wiel-Glek, Bundesliga
2000, after 9 g3 �d7 10 i.g2 �c6 1 1 Ct:Jf3
ct:Jd7 12 0-0 0-0-0 13 l:.fd l Ct:Jb6 14 'ifh6
'ii'x c3 1 5 'ifxf6 l:.hf8 16 CLJe l �xg2 17
�xg2 Ct:Jds 1 8 'iff3 l:.d6! with advantage to
Black, but White did better in Lanka-Ellers,
German Bundesliga 2000, with 13 l:.fb 1 !?
Ct:Jb6 14 a4 'ifhs l S Ct:Je l l:.d6 16 'ii'd3 'ii'g6
17 'iVfl eS 18 aS Ct:JdS 19 l:.b3 e4?! 20 c4
CLJe7 2 1 dS �d7 22 l:.ab 1 with a big attack.
d) 8 ... CLJc6!? is more in keeping with the
main game. Black doesn't worry about the f­
pawn, intending simply ... �d7, ... 0-0-0 and
to break with ... e6-eS. If 9 Ct:Jf3 �d7 10 'iff4
0-0-0 1 1 Vi'xf6 eS Black has obvious
compensation. Or if 9 'ii' f4, hitting c7 and
f6, Black can defend by 9 ... 'ii' aS and
10 . . . �e7.
8 ....id7!?
a) 8 ... Vi'gS 9 'ii'x gS fxgS 10 h4 g4 1 1 CLJe2
cS 12 Ct:Jf4 (Keres) . In Verney-Hall,
correspondence 199S-97, White opted for 9
'ii' g 3 !? 'ifaS (if 9 . . . 'ii'xg3 10 hxg3 White gets
the h-file) 10 CLJe2 �f8 (if 10 ... �e7 1 1 CLJc l !
and 12 CLJb3) 1 1 'ii'e 3 .td7 12 CLJg3 i.c6 1 3
f3 CLJd7 14 �f2 l:.d8 lS c 4 'i!ig S 16 l:.e 1 l:.g8
17 �d3 'ifxe3+ 18 .:xe3 fS 19 Ct:Jhs Ct:Jb6 20
c3 CLJa4 21 ..ie2 b6 22 l:.b 1 l:.g6 23 Ct:Jf4
l:.h6 24 �g l .i.e8 (if 24 . . . eS!? 2S dxeS l:.d2
26 l:.al l:.c2 27 il.d l !) 2S .i.dl l:.d6 26 ..ib3
..td7 27 �bel aS 28 .: 1e2 �g7 29 g3 �f8
30 �g2 �g7 3 1 g4 fxg4 32 fxg4 and Black
was slowly ground down in the endgame.
b) 8 ... ctJd7 9 .i.d3 �f8 is worse still after
10 'iff4! hS (if 10 . . . eS 1 1 �e4!) 1 1 'ifxc7
'ifxg2 12 0-0-0 'ifxh l 13 CLJe2 and White is
better after 14 l:.g l, winning the queen for
the second rook. But this was better than
13 . . . 'ifc6?? 14 'ii'd8+ 1-0 Turov-Glek,
Korinthos 2000, as l:.g1 now gets the king.
c) 8 . . . �e7!? is more enterprising,
intending 9 'ii'g7 (if 9 �d3 CLJc6 intending
10 ... eS) 9 . . . l:.d8 (9 . . .'ife4+ 10 �dl does not
help Black) 10 'ifxh7 'if aS 1 1 'ifd3 (1 1 CLJe2
l:.xd4!) 1 1 . . .cS 12 'ifd2 CLJc6 13 CLJf3 cxd4 14
cxd4 'ifxd2+ 1S �xd2 CLJxd4 and Black
regains the pawn, although the passed h­
pawn means White still has the better
chances.
d) 8 ... 'ii'a5 is more accurate, since after 9
CLJe2 �e7! 10 'ii'g7 .:td8 Black already
threatens ... .:txd4, or if 10 'ii' g3 ..id7 1 1
CLJcl Black has 1 1 ... l:.g8!; while 9 'ifg3 �d7
or 9 �d2 cS!? 10 'ii'g7 .:tf8 1 1 'ifxf6 cxd4 12
'ifxd4 CLJc6 are also fine.
Glek's move, 8 . . . i.d7, is similarly
dynamic, and after a number of reverses in
the S exdS variation, he has clearly had
enough of positional continuations.
9 �g7
The only consistent move after 8 'i¥g4.
Otherwise Black will simply play 9 ... CLJc6
and 10 ... 0-0-0; or if 9 ..id3 possibly
9 . . . ..ic6!? and 10 ... CLJd7.
9...l:.f8 10 �xf6
If White takes the h-pawn, 10 'ifxh7,
Black can choose between 10 . . . CLJc6 1 1 Ct:Jf3
0-0-0 intending 12 . . . 'ifaS, 13 ... eS; or again
10 . . . �c6!? planning . . . CLJd7, . . . 0-0-0. For
instance, if 1 1 Ct:Jf3 Ct:Jd7 12 i.d3 0-0-0 and
the white queen is embarrassed in face of
... l:.h8, or 1 1 'ifd3 Ct:Jd7 12 Ct:Jf3 0-0-0 13
i.e2 'ii'aS 14 0-0 CLJcS! 15 'ii'e 3 CLJe4 16 c4
CLJc3 causes problems.
10 .. i..a 4 1 1 �f4
Similarly 1 1 �d2 ct:Jd7 12 'iff3 'ifgS+! 13
'ii'd2 'ii' aS and 14 . . . 0-0-0 with play against
the king in the centre.
11 ... �a5 12 �d2 tDc6 13 i..d3 0-0-0
With a lead in development and ... e6-e5
.
French Cla ssi ca l
to follow Black has good compensation for
the pawn.
14 f4 f6 15 lt:Jf3 e5 16 fxe5?
The advance of f-pawns, if not the
exchange, has helped White a little, who
now had to play 16 0-0 exd4 17 cxd4 �xd2
18 ct:Jxd2 ct:Jxd4 19 ct:Jb3 and if 19 . . . .tb5 20
c4! CLJxb3 2 1 �f5+ �d7 22 .txd7+ .:txd7 23
axb3 with an equal game.
16 ...fxe5 17 0-0 exd4
18 lt:Jg5
Presumably White only at this point
realised that if 18 cxd4? Black has 18 ... .:txf3!
19 �xa5 .l:.xfl+ winning a piece. White
could now have maintained material parity
by taking the h-pawn, but this would further
open the kingside for the black rooks. As it
happens Black later forces the capture by
advancing the pawn.
18 ...dxc3 19 'ife3 .i:.g8 20 lt:Je4 tt:Jd4 2 1
l!f2 'i!Ve5 22 l:laf 1 i.c6 23 'iff4 'i4Vg7 24
lt:Jg3 h5 25 'ifh4 'irg5 26 �xh5 �e3 27
wh 1 .i:.h8 28 �g4+ �b8 29 'iff4 �e6 30
'ifg5?
White should have returned the knight to
e4. The players must have been short of
time since both missed that 30 � g5 loses
immediately to 30 .. .'iHh3.
30...a6? 31 a3? 'ifh3 !
Black spots it second time around. White
has to give up a material to prevent the
mate on h2.
32 'Yixd8+ �xd8 33 j(_e4 j(_xe4 0-1
1 52
Game 71
Zsu . Polgar-M. Gurevich
Holland 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 4 i.g5 i.b4
5 lt:Je2
A quiet continuation which has featured
in the games of all three Polgar sisters, and
avoids the rigid structures of the
McCutcheon main lines.
White has two lesser moves:
a) 5 f3 h6 6 �xf6 �xf6 7 CLJge2 dxe4 8
fxe4 e5! and Black already stood well in
Lasker-Tarrasch, Berlin match 19 16.
b) 5 .i.d3, when the simplest response is
5 . . . dxe4 6 .txe4 ct:Jbd7! 7 CLJe2 h6 8 �xf6
CLJxf6 9 �f3 0-0 10 0-0 c6 (playing for . . . e6e5; 10 . . . c5 is also fine) 1 1 CLJe4 CLJxe4 12
�xe4 �d6! 13 �d3 f5 14 .tf3 e5 1 5 dxe5
i.. x e5 16 �c4+ �h7 17 .:tad 1 �f6 18 CLJd4
.td7 19 c3 .:tae8 and Black developed an
initiative, advancing all his kingside pawns
. . .f5-f4-f3-f2,
... g5-g4,
. . . h5-h4xg3
(Romanishin-Beliavsky, Belgrade 1993) .
This game in fact arose via 3 ... �b4 4 �d3
dxe4 5 .i.xe4 'Df6 6 �g5.
5 CLJe2 is also seen in the Winawer:
3 .. .i.b4 4 ct:Je2 ct:Jf6!? 5 .tg5 .
5 ...dxe4
5 . . . h6!? has been castigated due to 6
�xf6 �xf6 7 a3 .txc3+ 8 CLJxc3 dxe4 9
CLJxe4 when Black is slightly (and needlessly)
worse. 8 . . . c6 is better, when 9 e5 �e7
reaches a classical position, 4 . . . �e7 5 e5
ct:Jfd7 6 .txe7 �xe7 7 f4 with the king's
knights removed and ... c7-c6 and . . . h7-h6
vs. a2-a3 included, which clearly does not
disfavour Black. Hector-Piskov, Copenha­
gen 199 1 , saw instead 9 �d2 0-0 10 f4 b6
1 1 i.. e 2 .i.b7 12 .i.f3 �e7 13 0-0-0 b5 14 f5
aS 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 exd5 exd5 17 :de 1 �d6
and Black had no cause for complaint.
Piskov later came up with 7 . . . .i.a5!? and
equalised after 8 exdS 0-0 9 'iWd3 Md8 10
dxe6 i.. x e6 11 0-0-0 'i¥xf2 12 tt:Je4 'i¥f5 13
.
T h e McCu t ch eo n V ar iat io n: 4 il. g5 il. b 4
ttJcS 'ifxd3 14 �xd3 .tc8 1 S g3 ttJd7 16 b4
.tb6 1 7 .i.g2 c6 1 8 ttJf4 aS 19 �b2 ttJf6 in
Unzicker-Piskov, German Bundesliga 1992.
Subsequent games have not managed to
show anything for White either, e.g.
M.Kuijf-Rogulj , German Bundesliga 1999,
saw 8 b4 ..tb6 9 eS 'ife7 10 ttJa4 0-0 11 ttJf4
.i.d7 12 c3 .i.xa4 13 'ifxa4 ttJd7 14 .td3 aS
1 S bS l:tfc8 16 0-0 cS 17 bxc6 �xc6 1 8 ttJe2
..td8 19 'ifd1 ttJb6 20 a4 ttJc4 and Black
was fine.
6 a3 il.e7
Taking the game into a sort of Burn
variation, where the white knight is
misplaced on e2. This allows Black to
equalise without too much trouble. Instead
6 ... .i.xc3+ 7 ttJxc3 ttJc6 8 i.bS is good for
White, while 6 . . . i.aS 7 b4 .tb6 8 ttJxe4
makes a poor comparison with S ... h6 above.
7 il.xt6 il.xf6!
The most appropriate recapture - playing
against the central dark squares which the
ttJe2 does not control. As in the Burn, Black
can also take back with the g-pawn, but here
ttJe2 has some point (even if it is not best) ­
it might probe with ttJg3-hS or ttJf4 or
sacrifice itself on fS. For instance, 8 ttJxe4
b6 (8 .. .fS 9 lt:J4c3 b6 10 dS) 9 ltJ2c3 i.b7 10
'iff3 (threatening lt:Jxf6+) 10 ... c6 (10... �f8!?)
1 1 0-0-0 f5 (1 1 . . .lt:Jd7) 12 lt:Jg3 lt:Jd7 13
�c4! 'ifc7 14 �he 1 lt:Jf8? 15 lt:Jxf5 ! exf5 16
'ifxf5 lt:Je6 17 �xe6 fxe6 1 8 :xe6 is strong
(Grzeskowiak-Herrmann, Germany 1954),
or if 14 ... ttJf6 1S .txe6!? (1S 'ife2) 15 . . .fxe6
16 l:.xe6 0-0 with an unclear position
(Unzicker-Keller, Bad Pyrmont 1963) .
8 lt:Jxe4 0-0
Black has two possible pawn breaks
against the white centre: either . . . c7-cS or
. . . e6-eS. By castling Black postpones making
a decision for a move or two.
In an earlier game Gurevich inserted
8 ... ttJc6 9 c3 before 9 . . . 0-0 10 f4 i.e7
(Hutters-M.Gurevich, Tastrup 1992), but
now instead of the time-consuming 1 1
ttJg1?! ttJb8 1 2 ttJf3 ttJd7 1 3 .td3 allowing
Black to break with ... c7-cS, Gurevich
suggested 1 1 g3 ttJb8 12 i.g2 ttJd7 13 b4!
with a slight advantage. If instead 9 ... e5!? 10
dS ttJb8 1 1 ttJxf6+ 'ifxf6 12 c4 intends lt:Jc3,
.te2, 0-0 and again White is slightly better.
Black could play 8 ... eS immediately, since
if 9 ifd3, rather than play 9 ... exd4 10 lt:Jxf6+
ifxf6 1 1 'ifxd4 'ifxd4?! (1 1 . . .lt:Jd7) 12 lt:Jxd4
i.d7 13 0-0-0 (or 13 lt:Jb5) 13 . . . 0-0 14 lt:Jb5
.txbS 1S i.xbS when White has the
superior minor piece in the endgame, simply
9 ... 0-0 returns to the game.
9 'iVd3
Preparing 0-0-0 followed by f2-f4 and/ or
g2-g4 with kingside attacking possibilities. 9
f4 prevents the immediate . . . e6-e5, but
Black is not committed to this. J .Polgar-De
la Villa Garcia, Salamanca 1989, continued
9 . . . ttJd7 10 g3 c5 1 1 ifd2 cxd4 12 0-0-0 eS!
(after all) 13 fxeS i.xe5 14 ttJxd4 lt:Jf6 15
lt:Jc3 ifb6 and Black was better.
"9 e5
A consequence of the knight being
missing from f3 is that Black is more easily
able to achieve this freeing advance.
10 'ift3!?
A new move. White clears the d-file for
the rook, attacks f6 and creates possibilities
on the long light-squared diagonal.
Previously there had been 10 0-0-0 exd4 1 1
lt:Jxf6+ 'ifxf6 1 2 'ifxd4 lt:Jd7 1 3 lt:Jc3 c6 14
i.e2 �e8 15 �f3 11 - 11 U nzicker-Glek,
Moscow 199 1.
. . .
French Classical
10 ...lt:Jd7 1 1 0-0-0
In this game White always seems to be
thinking a move behind. Here 1 1 lt:Jxf6+ is
preferable with a structural advantage after
1 1 . .. 'ifxf6 12 'ifxf6 gxf6 13 0-0-0. Gurevich
was considering 1 1 . . .lt:Jxf6!? 12 dxe5 lt:Jg4,
e.g. 13 \i'e4 c6! 14 f4 (not 14 h3 'ifa5+ 1 5
lZJc3 lZJxe5) 14 . .. \i'b6 1 5 \i'd4 l:d8 16 'ifxb6
axb6 with compensation as White is a long
way from co-ordinating her forces. 13 \i'c3
intending 14 f4 seems better, and if 13 .. .f6
(Gurevich) 14 exf6 with some advantage
however Black recaptures: 14 ... \i'xf6 1 5
'ifxf6 l:xf6 1 6 f3 lt:Je3 17 �d2 lt:Jc4+ 1 8
�c3 , or 14 . . . :xf6 1 5 f3 lt:Jh6 16 lt:Jg3 or
14 ...lt:Jxf6 15 'ilid4.
1 1 . ..exd4 12 lt:Jxf6+
This now aids Black's development.
Instead 12 lt:Jxd4 i.xd4 13 l:xd4 'ife7
intending . . . lt:Je5 concedes equality.
12 . ..lt:Jxf6 13 �xd4
Now if 13 ctJxd4? i.g4.
13 ...'ife7 14 h3
Since if 14 ctJc3 i.g4! 1 5 l:xg4 'ife 1+ 16
lt:Jd1 lt:Jxg4 17 'ifxg4 l:ad8 threatens
... 'ifd2+ and wins, or if 18 'ife2 l:fe8.
14.....id7 !
If 14 . . . c5 1 5 l:d3 ! i.e6 16 ctJf4 and Black
has to attend to the positional threat of 17
l:e3 , allowing White to develop her pieces.
15 lt:Jg3 ..ic6 16 �d 1? !
Rather than retreat the queen White
could have come forward with 16 lt:Jf5! \i'e5
17 'ii' f4 'ifxf4+ 18 l:xf4 l:fe8 and then 19
i.d3 and 20 f3 is level, since 19 ... i.xg2?
loses to 20 :g1 . This was the only
opportunity for lt:Jf5 as Black now takes the
square away.
16 .. . g6! 17 :g 1 b5 !? 18 i..e2 �e5 19
�d2 �fe8 20 �f4 a5 !? 2 1 �xe5 .:txe5
22 �d3 �ae8 23 i..f3 i..xf3 24 .:txf3
\t>g7 25 �d 1 h5 26 h4 .:t8e7 27 a4!?
Seeking either to block the queenside or
give her pieces something to attack.
27 ...bxa4 28 �f4 tt:'lg4 29 f3 tt:'le3 30
�d2 �d5 3 1 �xa4
If 3 1 l:xd5 lt:Jxd5 32 l:xa4 l:e1+ 33 �d2
l:g1 with a clear advantage.
3 1 .. .l�txd2 32 \t>xd2 lt:Jxg2 33 lt:Je2 .:td7+
34 \t>c3 .:td6 35 .:tc4
If 35 l:xa5 lt:Jxh4 36 lt:Jd4 l:f6 picks up
the f3-pawn with a winning kingside pawn
majority.
35 ...lt:Je3 36 �c5
36 .. .<:t:Jf5? !
Black has slowly built up a powerful
position, but now time trouble intervenes.
36 . . . a4! (Gurevich) was better, intending
37 ... lt:Jd1+ 38 �b4 lt:Jxb2 or 38 ... l:d2 and
39 . . . l:d4+ after the lt:Je2 moves.
37 .:txc7 lt:Jxh4 38 lt:Jd4 ti:Jg2
Similarly to the previous note, 3 8 . . . l:d5
39 �c4 l:e5 keeps hold of the a-pawn.
39 .:tc5 ti:Jf4?
And now 39 . . . l:a6.
40 .:txa5 h4 41 \t>c4!
White prepares to advance her pawns 41
�c4 was accurate, since if first 41 l:al
lt:Jd5+ then 42 �c4 now fails to 42 . . . lt:Je3+
43 �c3 l:xd4! 44 �xd4 lt:Jxc2+ and wins.
41...h3 42 .:ta 1 \t>h6 43 b4 \t>h5 44 b5
\t>h4 45 c3 !
Accurate play. If 45 �c5 l:d5+! 46 �c4
l:d7 47 b6 ttJd5 threatens to take the b­
pawn, thus gaining time for Black.
45...h2 46 \t>c5 .:td8 47 b6 \t>g3 48 b7
\t>g2 49 ti:Jc6 �h8 50 \t>d6 h 1 'fi 5 1 .:txh 1
Wxh 1 52 c4 Wg2 53 We7 ct:le6 54 b8�
�xb8 55 ct:Jxb8 Wxf3 56 Wxf7 ct:Jc5 % - %
T h e McC u tch eo n V ariatio n: 4 ii. g5 ii. b 4
Summary
Since its inventor first brought out 4 . . . �b4 in one of Steinitz's simultaneous displays, the
McCutcheon has resisted White's attempts to prove even a slight advantage. This appears
still to be true today, with the defence showing its resilience in all variations, so that Black
need fear nothing in particular. However, there is still plenty of territory to be explored after
4 ... �b4, and White does hold one trump in being able to choose the nature of the game:
whether to play quietly with 5 ctJe2 or 5 exd5, to initiate complications perhaps with 6 �e3,
or to take on the main lines after 6 �d2.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tbc3 tbt6 4 iL.g5 ii.b4 (D)
5 e5
5 exd5 - Game 70; 5 ctJe2 - Game 71
5 ...h6 (D) 6 ii.d2
6 �e3 - Game 68; 6 exf6 Game 69
6 ...iL.xc3 7 bxc3
7 �xc3 Game 67
7 ... t2Je4 8 'ii'g4 g6
8 . \t>f8 - Game 66
9 iL.d3 tbxd2 10 \t>xd2 c5 1 1 CiJf3 (D) 1 1 ... t2Jc6
1 1 . . i.. d 7 - Game 65
12 �f4 Game 64
-
-
.
.
.
-
4
. . .
�b4
5
. . .
h6
1 1 ti:Jf3
CHAPTER NINE
I
Odds and Ends
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 CZJc3 CZJt6
This chapter fills in the odds and ends of
the Classical French - where either White
or Black chooses not to enter the Classical
main lines following 4 i.g5 i.e7 5 e5 t2Jfd7
or 4 e5 t2Jfd7 5 f4. For White this means
eschewing either e4-e5 or f2-f4. The most
noteworthy alternative, 4 e5 t2Jfd7 5 t2Jf3, is
the subject of Games 72 and 73 , while
White's fourth move alternatives are
covered in Game 78. For Black to deviate
requires putting the f6-knight on a different
square to d7 after e4-e5 with 4 e5 l2Je4
(Games 74 and 75) , or 4 i.g5 i.e7 5 e5 and
5 . . . l2Je4 (Game 76) or 5 . . . t2Jg8 (Game - 77) .
4 . . . t2Jg8 is rare after 4 e5 and appears only as
a note to Game 74.
Game 72
Zakharov-Bashkov
Perm 1997
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2lc3 CZJt6 4 e5 CZJtd7
5 ctJf3
With 5 t2Jf3 White plans a slightly
different strategy to 5 f4. Rather than
defend the pawn centre White intends
immediately to scuttle it, i.e. if ... c7-c5 then
d4xc5, and if .. .f7-f6 then e5xf6. By
concentrating his pieces in the centre (4Jf3,
i.f4, 'iVe2 and �e 1) White hopes to restrain
the Black's central pawns and occupy the
e5-square with his pieces. However, without
the f4-pawn supporting e5, White is less
able to contest the d4-square, which lies
under Black's control with . . . t2Jc6, . . . i.c5
and sometimes . . . 'iVb6.
This position often arises via the Two
Knights: 1 e4 e6 2 t2Jf3 d5 3 t2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 e5
t2Jfd7 5 d4 (the current game did in fact take
this route) and occasionally via Alekhine's
Defence 1 e4 t2Jf6 2 t2Jc3 d5 3 e5 t2Jfd7 4 d4
e6 5 t2Jf3 .
White has one more option in the old­
fashioned Gledhill variation, 5 'iVg4,
pressurising the g7-pawn to keep the f8bishops at home. This was long ago
neutralised and now does not even rate a
note in ECO. For instance, 6 t2Jb5 (or 6
t2Jf3 t2Jc6 7 i.b5 cxd4 8 t2Jxd4 t2Jdxe5 9
'iV g3 a6!) 6 . . . cxd4 7 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 8 t2Jd6+ i.xd6
9 'iVxg7 i.xe5 10 t2Jxe5 'iVf6 1 1 'iVxf6 t2Jxf6
and Black was better in Bogolyubov-Reti,
Maehrisch Ostrau 1923.
5 ...c5 6 dxc5
Sometimes White attempts to fight for
the central dark squares by 6 .ib5 . This
causes Black few problems after 6 . . . t2Jc6 7
0-0 cxd4!? (or 7 . . . .ie7) 8 CLJxd4 VJi/c7 9 l:t.e 1
a6 10 .ixc6 bxc6 1 1 .if4 4Jb6 12 VJi/g4 c5
O dds and E nds
13 'Llb3 h6 14 a4 Jtb7 1S 'LlaS 'Llc8 16
'Llxb7 �xb7 17 :ad1 'Lle7 (not 17 ... �xb2?
18 'LlxdS!) 18 aS? �xb2 and Black won in
Martorelli-Baburin, St Vincent 2000.
However, 8 . . . 'LlxeS?! is risky after 9 :e1 a6
10 i.a4 bS 1 1 i.b3 i.e7 12 'Llxc6 'Llxc6 13
'LlxdS ! �d6 (if 1 3 ... exdS 14 i.xdS i.b7 1S
�f3) 14 �f3 i.b7 1S �g4 �f8 16 i.gS hS
17 �h4 �aS 1 8 'Llf4 with a clear advantage
in Gysi-Siviero, correspondence 199S.
6 lt:Jc6 7 j_f4
. . .
7 ,j_xc5
7 ... 'LlxcS is also okay, though it is played
less often. From cS the black knight may
later move on to e4 or exchange off the
white bishop if it comes to d3 . White
should decide what to do quickly as Black
has more waiting moves. For instance, 8 a3
a6 9 h4 bS 10 hS h6 1 1 'Lle2 �b7 12 'Lled4
'Lla4 13 �b 1 'LlaS 14 c3 'Llc4 1S �c2 :c8
16 Jtxc4 dxc4 17 'Llxe6 �dS 18 'Llxf8 �e4+
19 'ii'x e4 Jtxe4 20 :d1 'Llxb2 with a clear
advantage to Black in Bielczyk-Apicella,
Cappelle la Grande 199S.
Instead 8 �d3 i.e7 9 h4 was gloriously
successful in Rogers-Delay, Martigny 198S,
after 9 ... b6 10 i.bS �d7 1 1 hS 'Lle4? 12
'LlxdS ! �cS 1 3 h6 gxh6 14 :xh6 i.xf2+ 1S
�f1 'Llb8 16 'Lld4! �xd4 17 :xe6+ fxe6 1 8
�hS+ �f8 19 .i.h6+ �g8 2 0 i.xd7 'Llxd7
21 �g4+ �f7 22 �g7+ �e8 23 �xh8+ 'Llf8
24 �xf8+ �d7 2S �f7+ �c6 26 �xe6+
�b7 27 �f7+ �c6 28 CLJe7+ 1-0. Black has
. .
done better since then with mutual chances
after 9 .. .f6!? 10 exf6 gxf6 1 1 Jth6 'i¥b6 12
0-0 i.d7 13 a3 'Llxd3 14 cxd3 �f7 (Giaccio­
J acimovic, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) and
9 . . . d4!? 10 'Lle4 'Llxd3+ 1 1 cxd3 �aS+ 12
<it>fl b6 13 �b3 i.a6 14 �h3 'ii'b s 1S �xbS
.i.xbS 16 We2 (Kosteniuk-Romero Holmes,
Wijk aan Zee 2000) .
Black can also delay . . . 'LlcS, awaiting
i.fl-d3 , e.g. 7 ... a6 (or 7 ... Jte7) 8 i.d3 'LlxcS
9 0-0 i.e7 10 :e1 0-0 1 1 a3 (1 1 i.fl !?)
1 1 . . .fS 12 exf6 i.xf6 13 'LleS 'LlxeS 14 i.xeS
i.xeS 1S :xeS �b6 with threats against b2
and f2. After 16 :e3 'Llxd3 17 'i¥xd3 �xb2
18 :ae 1 �xa3 19 :h3 g6 20 :g3 :fs Black
consolidated his extra pawns in A.Ledger­
Kruppa, Ubeda 1998.
8 j_d3 h6!?
8 ... h6 is a useful move, preparing a
possible . . . 0-0 by pre-empting the i.xh7
sacrifice, or a kingside advance with ... g7-gS.
Several others are worth mentioning:
a) 8 .. .f6! 9 exf6 is the main line and is
covered in Game 73 .
b) 8 . . . 'i¥b6?! sets Black up for a trap after
9 0-0! - the b-pawn is untouchable due to
9 . . . �xb2? 10 'LlbS when White threatens
'Llc7+ and i.d2-c3 .
c) 8 . . . a6 9 0-0 �cl sets a counter-trap: if
10 :e 1 ? �b6! 1 1 .i.g3 'i¥xb2 is safe since
White does not have 12 'LlbS. However,
White can safely leave the eS-pawn en prise
with 10 i.g3! since if 10 ... 'LldxeS? 1 1 'LlxeS
'LlxeS 12 �hS i.d6 13 'LlxdS ! exdS 14 �fe 1
recoups the material with a clear advantage.
d) 8 . . . .i.e7!? threatens 9 . . . gS and clears
the way for . . . lt:JcS . After 9 h4 a6 10 hS bS
1 1 �e2 0-0 12 0-0 h6 13 'Lle4 'Llb4 14 'Llg3
.i.b7 15 'Lld4 i.gS 16 i.xgS �xgS 17 :fe 1
:ac8 an unclear position was reached in
Becerra Rivero-Thorhallsson, Bermuda
200 1. If 9 .i.g3 lt:JcS!? 10 0-0 'Llxd3 1 1 cxd3
Black has wasted a tempo on ... .i.cS-e7, but
White only has .i.g3 as an extra move
(Arizmendi Martinez-Karatorossian, Ubeda
2000) .
French Cla ssica l
e) 8 . . . 0-0!? may not be the catastrophic
blunder that was previously thought. After 9
i.xh7+ �xh7 10 tLlgS+ �g6 1 1 ii'd3+ (if 1 1
ii'g4 tLldxeS o r 1 1 h4 tLldxeS 1 2 hS+ �f6)
1 1 . ..£5 12 tLlxe6 (or 12 'ii'g3 tLldxeS! or 12
exf6+ �xf6) 12 ... tLldxeS! 13 'ii' g3+ ctJg4 14
tLlxd8 i.xf2+ or 14 tLlxcS 'ii'e7+ Black is
okay.
9 �g3
A useful prophylactic move. White
removes the bishop from possible attack by
... g7-g5 and defends f2 in case of a later
. . . 'ii'b 6. 9 h4 a6 10 i.g3 also reaches the
game. Note that the two h-pawn moves
have not improved 9 ... 'ii'b 6? 10 0-0 'ifxb2
1 1 tLlbS for Black, as White again threatens
ctJc7+ or i.d2-c3 .
9 .a6
9 . . . g5 is supposed to be bad after 10 h3.
However, Black might try 10 ... i.b4!?
(threatening 1 1 . .. d4) and if 1 1 0-0 hS!? with
a messy position (c.f. 10 0-0 gS!? in the next
note) . If White doesn't like this then 9 h4!
a6 10 i.g3 should be preferred.
10 h4
Gufeld-Spassky, USSR Championship
1960, saw instead 10 0-0 bS 1 1 l:.e 1 0-0 12
ctJe2 b4 13 c3 bxc3 14 bxc3 aS 15 ctJf4 �a6
1 6 i.c2 l:.c8 17 'ii'd2 l:.e8 1 8 tt:Jhs i.f8 19
l:.acl ctJe7 20 ctJd4 ctJcS 21 i.h4 'ii'd7 22
i.xe7 'i¥xe7 23 �e3 �ed8 24 �g3 �h8 25
'iff4 ctJd7 26 .i.a4 when, for no apparent
reason, Black gave a piece away: 26 ... ctJxeS?
27 'ifxeS 'ifc7 28 'ife3 eS 29 tt:Jf3 e4 30
'ifd4 exf3 3 1 Mxg7 'ifcS 32 'ifg4 l:.d6 33
l:.g8+ �h7 34 i.c2+ 1-0.
Apart from move 26, Black can perhaps
improve earlier by, for example, 12 ... ctJb4!?
1 3 tLlf4 tLlxd3 1 4 tLlxd3 i.b6 15 c3 i.b7 16
i.f4 �c8 17 i.e3 l:!c4 1 8 'ifd2 _ge4 19
i.xb6 'ifxb6 20 ctJd4 with mutual chances
in Drozdov-Danielian, Moscow 1996. Or
even 10 . . . g5 !? 1 1 h3 hS 12 �e1 g4 13 hxg4
hxg4 1 4 lt:Jh2 'ifgS 15 'ifxg4 iVxg4 16 lt:Jxg4
�g8 17 i.e2 lt:Jd4 18 i.d 1 lt:Jxc2 19 i.xc2
l:txg4 and Black was okay in Buchenau-
Putzbach, German Bundesliga 199 1 .
10 ...b5
10 . . . 'ii'c 7 1 1 0-0 tLldxeS fails again to 12
tLlxeS tLlxeS 13 tLlxdS! etc.
1 1 'i'd2 �b7 12 h5
. .
Another useful and typical move. White
gains space on the kingside and the h4square for his pieces. The use of h4 can be
seen in the next note.
12 .. J2jb6 13 'iff4 l2Jc4
Black has to be careful about castling
short. If 13 . . . 0-0? 14 i.h4 ii'c7 15 i.f6!
followed by l:.h3-g3 gives White a decisive
attack.
14 i..xc4 dxc4?!
Black opens up the diagonal for his
bishop and gains an outpost on dS. On the
downside White gets an complimentary
outpost on e4 and the cl-file for his rook.
Safer is 14 ... bxc4 intending queenside
probing with . . . 'ifb6 or ... 'ifaS.
15 !1d 1 'i'b6 16 l2Je4 l2Jb4
The knight is very strong on e4,
threatening to come in on d6, or f6 should
Black castle short. Therefore Black prepares
to remove it from the board as soon as
possible.
White could move in without waiting
with 17 ctJd6+, but after 17 ...i.xd6 18 �xd6
'ifaS 19 0-0 0-0 20 i.h4 i.xf3 ! 2 1 'ifxf3
'ifxa2, this time 22 i.f6 is only good
enough for a draw: 22 . . . gxf6 23 exf6 �h8
24 'ii'f4 �h7 25 'ii'e 4+ <ith8 26 'i¥f4 etc., and
O dds and E nds
White lacks the ammunition for anything
better. So, instead, White removes his king
from the centre.
17 0-0 j_xe4
The greedy 1 7 ... ctJxc2? is a mistake due
to 18 l:Id6! (Bangiev) and if 18 .. .'ifc7 19
�fd1 i.xd5 (or 19 ... i.xd6 20 exd6) 20
�6xd5 exd5 2 1 �xd5 with a dominating
position, or if 18 .. .'ifa7!? 19 �fd1 i.d5 20
�6xd5 exd5 21 �xd5 i.e7 22 ct:Jd6+ i.xd6
23 exd6 0-0 24 �d2 surprisingly traps the
knight on c2.
18 'ii'xe4 0-0 19 j_h4!
Once again the bishop manoeuvres into
the attack, controlling d8 and preparing the
i.f6 sacrifice with such ideas as 20 i.f6
gxf6 2 1 exf6 �fd8 22 �g4+ �f8 23 ctJe5
Jaa7 24 �g7+ �e8 25 �g8+ i.f8 26 ctJg6!,
or 2l. .. �h8 22 'iff4 �h7 23 ctJe5!
threatening 24 l:.d7 or 24 'ii'g4 �g8 25
'ii' e4+ �h7 26 ctJxf7 mate. Black next
prevents i.f6 but White's crude attack is
still strong.
19 .. .':t:Jd5! 20 g4 :ae8 2 1 g5 hxg5?
Black wants to clear the ranks to allow
lateral defence by his heavy pieces, but this
also grants the enemy pieces more access
into his position. 2 l . .. �h8 seems better
when 22 gxh6 gxh6 23 i.f6+ ctJxf6 24 exf6
'iV c7 25 ctJe5 fails to 25 ... l:.g8+ and 26 ... l:.g5.
The exchange sacrifice 23 l:.xd5 is no good
since the black queen then covers f6 and h6,
while if <it>h 1 simply . . . l:.g8 prepares the
defence.
22 tbxg5 f5 23 exf6 t2Jxf6 24 �g6
Threatening 25 :d7! and wins.
24 ... �c7 25 �g2
Breaking the pin on the f-pawn so that
the bishop can re-route again via g3 . The
straightforward 25 h6!? was possible,
intending 26 .:g.fe 1 e5 27 �d5 . Black's only
defence is 25 .. Jie7 preparing 26 l:tfe l 'iff4!
27 :e4 'iff5, though after 28 'iVxf5 exf5 29
�xe7 i.. xe7 30 hxg7 and White is better in
the endgame.
25 ...ne7 26 j_g3 �c6+ 27 f3 �e8 28
nte 1 �xg6 29 hxg6
By exchanging queens Black averts the
danger of being mated. Nevertheless, White
remains with a clear advantage due to
Black's weak e-pawn and his own g6-pawn
which pins the black king to the back rank.
29 ...nte8 30 j_d6
30 ctJe4 was also strong since if the i.c5
moves White has either �d6 or i.h4, while
after 30 . . . ctJxe4 3 1 :xe4 White threatens to
mate by �h4, :dh 1 etc. or otherwise to win
the e-pawn or infiltrate starting Iie5 .
30 ... j_xd6 3 1 nxd6 t2Jd5 32 �g3
Of course not 32 ctJxe6?? �xe6! with
... ctJf4+ to follow.
32...c3 33 bxc3 aS 34 t2Jf7!
With ideas of 35 :h l and 36 :hs mate.
Another good choice was 34 :exe6 �xe6
35 ctJxe6 ctJxc3 36 :d7 rendering Black
helpless in the endgame.
34...�f8
So that the king can escape after . . . �c7.
35 tbd8! tbxc3?!
35 . . . 4.Jf6 was necessary.
36 nh 1 �g8 37 tt:Jt7??
Presumably time pressure prevented
White from finding his win: 37 �d2! and
there is no defence to ndh2 and l:.h8. If
37 ... Mc7 38 ctJxe6! keeps the king in the
trap, since 38 . . .:xe6 39 l:.d8+ would mate
immediate! y.
37 ...nxf7! 38 gxf7+ <it'xf7 39 nc6 lbxa2
40 �a 1 lbb4 41 �c5 a4 42 nxb5 lbxc2
Frenc h Cl assic al
43 .l:.xa4 t2Je3
With the queenside pawns eliminated
Black has better chances to hold the game,
which he in fact managed to do.
44 Wf4 t2Jd5+ 45 'iii'e5 l:1e7 46 l:1ba5
t2Je3 47 1:1a6 g5 48 .l:.e4 ctJf5 49 l:1c4
.l:.b7 50 .l:.ac6 .l:.b3 5 1 .l:.c3 l:1b5+ 52
l:16c5 .l:.b6 53 .l:.c7+ 'iii'g6 54 l:17c6 .l:.b5+
55 .:!3c5 l:1xc5+ 56 nxc5 ctJh4 57 l:1c3
Wf7 58 .l:.c7+ �g6 59 .l:.c3 Wf7 60 l:1a3
t2Jg6+ 6 1 �d6 wf6 62 l:1e3 wf5 63
l:1xe6 t2Jh4 64 wd5 t2Jxf3 65 l:1e8 'it>f4 66
.l:.f8+ 'iii'g3 67 'it>e4 g4 68 l:1d8 l2Jh4 69
'it>e3 ctJf3 70 l:1a8 ctJg5 7 1 na5 ctJh3 72
na2 t2Jg5 73 na 1 t2Jh3 74 nb 1 'it>h2 75
nb2+ wg3 76 .l:.b4 l2Jg5 77 we2 t2Jf3 78
'it>f 1 t2Jh2+ 79 we2 t2Jf3 80 na4 t2Jh2 8 1
we3 t2Jf3 82 na2 l2Jg5 � - �
Game 73
Benjamin-J . Sarkar
New York Open 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 e5 ctJfd7
5 '2Jf3 c5 6 dxc5 t2Jc6 7 �f4 �xc5 8
�d3 f6!
8 . . .f5 9 exf6 is equivalent.
9 exf6 '2Jxf6
The normal recapture. Not 9 . . . gxf6?! 10
lt:Jh4 and 11 ifh5+ (if 10 . . .'i¥e7 11 ifh5+
iff7? 12 �g6 wins) , but 9 . . .ifxf6 is
reasonable. If 10 �gS \iff7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12
jL,h4 'ifhs (12 . . . h6!?) 13 Jtg3 is 9 . . . 4:Jxf6 10
0-0 0-0 11 .,tg3 with the impossible double
move 1 1 ...'ifd8-e8-h5!? which cannot be too
bad for Black. Morozevich-Bareev, Sarajevo
1999, saw instead 1 1 'ife2 0-0 12 0-0-0 h6
13 .,th4 (13 .,td2) 13 ... a6 (13 ... �b4!?) 14
i.g3 ct:Jb6 15 �b 1 .td7 16 .S:hfl 'ifh5 17 a3
.S:ac8 1 8 .S:de 1 .S:f6 19 'ifd2 'ii'f7 with a
balanced game. 10 �g3 0-0 1 1 0-0 ctJd4!
(not 1 1 . .. ctJde5? 12 ctJxe5 ctJxe5 13 .txh7+
�xh7 14 'ifh5+ etc.) 12 ctJxd4 �xd4 is also
okay for Black, e.g. 13 'ifd2 a6 14 .S:ae 1
ctJc5 15 ctJd1 ctJxd3 16 cxd3 .td7 17 'i¥b4
.,tb5 18 .,td6 .S:f7 and Black took over the
initiative in Dittmar-Yu, Gyula 2000.
10 0-0 0-0
The critical tabiya for 5 ctJf3 . White's
main strategy is to keep control of the e5square and see what turns up.
1 1 t2Je5
White has nothing better than to occupy
the outpost at once. If 1 1 'ti'e2 .td7 12
.S:ae1 'ti'e7 13 ctJe5 returns to the game in
any case, but also allows Black to try
1 1 . .. 4Jh5!? 12 .,tg5 ct:Jf4, as in Pozin­
Volkov, Ekaterinburg 1996: 13 'ti'd2 'ifc7
14 .S:ae 1 ctJxd3 15 'ti'xd3 h6 16 ctJxd5 'ti'd6
17 ctJf4 hxg5 18 ctJxg5 'ti'xd3 19 ctJxd3 .tb6
20 ctJxe6 .,txe6 21 .S:xe6 ctJd4 22 .S:e7 ctJxc2
23 .S:xb7? .S:ad8 24 ctJe5 .S:xf2 0- 1 .
Similarly i f 1 1 .,tg3 Black can choose
between 1 1 . . . .,td7, 1 1 . . .ctJh5 or even
1 1 . .. ctJg4!? 12 h3 ctJh6 intending ... ct:Jf5.
11 ...�d7
This is the most obvious and flexible
move, enabling Black to develop smoothly.
Black must be wary of 1 1 . . .ctJe4? 12
.txe4 �xf4 13 ctJd3 ! and after 13 . .. �xf2+ 14
.S:xf2 .S:xf2 15 .txh7+ �xh7 16 'ifh5+ �g8
17 lt:Jxf2 e5 18 .S:d1 d4 19 lt:Jfe4! 'ti'e8 20
.S:fl! dxc3 21 ctJg5 White won in Ljubojevic­
Bednarski, Skopje Olympiad 1972; or
13 .. J!xe4!? 14 lt:Jxe4 �b6 15 ctJg3 e5 and
the centre gave insufficient compensation
for the exchange in Vogelmann-Glek,
Eupen 1994.
As an alternative W atson has suggested
O dds and E nds
1 1 . .. 'ilie8!? intending . . . ct:Jh5. Then 12 ct:Jb5
doesn't achieve anything after 12 ... i.b6 13
ct:Jd6 'ilie7 14 ctJxc8 Maxc8 (NCO) , or
12 ... 'ilie7 or 12 ... 'ilih5!? 13 ctJc7 Mb8 14
ctJxc6 (not 14 ctJxd5? 'ilixd1 15 Maxd1
ctJxd5 16 ctJxc6 Ma8!) 14 ... bxc6 15 ctJxd5
'ilixd1 16 Maxd1 Mxb2, or even 14 . . . ctJg4!?
(Watson) . So White should try 12 ctJxc6!
bxc6 13 ctJa4! Jl.e7 (or 13 ... e5 14 ctJxcS exf4
1 5 Me 1) 1 4 i.e5 (or 14 c4 Jl.a6 15 'ilie2! Baker) 1 4 . . . ctJd7 15 i.g3 e5 16 c4 'ilif7 1 7
cxd5 cxd5 1 8 Mc l with an advantage
(Zhelnin-Kiseleva, Krasnodar 1997) . If
Black plays 12 ... 'ifxc6 13 i.e5 i.d7 (or
13 ... Jl.d6 14 Me 1) 14 'ilff3 Mae8 15 'ii'h 3
Me7 16 Mae l i.e8 17 a3 'ii'b 6? (A.Ledger­
Harley, 4NCL 1997) and now White had 18
b4! Jl.d6 19 Jl.xf6 since the planned
19 ... gxf6 loses to 20 ctJxd5!, otherwise
19 ... Mxf6 20 'ilixh7+ with the advantage;
while 1 8 . . . Jl.d4 19 Jl.xf6 Mxf6 20 CUxd5 ! is
even worse.
In Drozdov-Morozevich, Krasnodar
1997, Black prepared ... ct:Jh5 by 1 1...g6!? and
gained a clear advantage after 12 iVd2 ct:Jh5
13 i.g5 Jl.e7 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 15 Mae l ct:Jf4
16 'ilie3 'ifg5 1 7 iVg3 ctJxe5! 1 8 'ilixgS ct:Jf3+
19 gxf3 ct:Jh3+ 20 <it>g2 ctJxg5 . This idea has
not received any further tests though.
1 2 �e2
12 ctJxc6 .i.xc6 13 'ilV e2 'ii e7 14 Mae l
�ae8 would return t o the game (see 15
CUxc6 in the notes), but the immediate
exchange allows Black to play more strongly
with 1 3 . . . ctJe4! and then: 14 g3 ctJxf2! 1 5
�xf2 i.xf2+ 16 <it>xf2 'ii'b6+ i s very good for
Black (Vogt-Farago, Kecskemet 1979) ,
similarly 14 i.e3 Jl.xe3 1 5 iVxe3 (15 fxe3
ctJxc3) 15 ... d4 16 'ilie2 dxc3 17 i.xe4 cxb2
18 �xb 1 'ii'f6 (Bellon Lopez-Speelman,
Amsterdam 1978), while if 14 i.g3 ctJxg3 15
'iYxe6+ <it>h8 16 hxg3 Mxf2! (Watson) .
1 2 .. ."VJ/ie7
Still not 12 . . . CUe4?? 13 CUxe4 dxe4 14
'ii' xe4, or 1 3 ... l:.xf4 14 CUxc5, or 13 ... ctJxe5
14 CUxcS CUxd3 15 CUxd3 and White wins.
12 ... ctJd4?! looks tempting but after 13 'ifd2!
Black has merely put his knight on a more
vulnerable and less influential square.
12 . . . ctJxe5 13 Jl.xe5 'iYe7 is acceptable, but
there is no need to capture on e5 so soon.
Black would prefer to see his opponent
waste a tempo on i.g3 first.
13 gae 1 gae8
1 4 a3
A semi-useful waiting move, preventing
anything arriving at b4, and preparing a
possible b2-b4(-b5) to drive away Black's
dark square defenders. GM Ian Rogers has
preferred to spend the tempo on 14 <it>h 1 ,
breaking the pin o n the f-pawn s o that it
may later advance to f4 after all. Black can
continue to wait with 14 . . . a6, and after 15
i.g3, choose between 1 5 . . . Jl.d4 as in the
game, 15 ...ctJxe5 16 i.xeS i.c6 17 a3 (at
which point a draw was agreed in I.Rogers­
Psakhis, Wijk aan Zee 1997) , while
I.Rogers-C.Morris, 4NCL 2000, saw
15 ... g6!? 16 f4 ctJxe5 17 'iYxe5 i.d6 18 i¥e3
cuhs 19 ctJe2 e5 20 fxeS Mxfl+ 21 l:.xf1
ctJxg3+ 22 hxg3 ifxe5 23 ifxe5 :xe5 24
ctJf4 when 24 . . . i.g4! keeps Black totally in
control.
14 ..a6
Black too can wait and in turn prevents
anythin � (in �luding a pawn) arriving at b5.
15 �g3
Another semi-useful move, retreating the
bishop from any tricks on the f-file. Instead
French Clas s ical
15 tl:lxc6 �xc6 16 �g3 transposes to
Spassky-Petrosian, World Championship
1966, which continued 16 .. .'�f7 17 b4 i.. d4
1 8 ii.e5 .i.xe5 19 'iVxe5 tl:ld7 20 'iVg3 e5 and
Black should have had no problems as the
centre can easily be defended. I.Rogers­
Glek, German Bundesliga 1996, saw instead
15 �h 1 ii.d4 16 tl:ld 1 (if 16 tl:lxd7 'iVxd7 17
.id2 e5) 1 6 ... tl:lxe5 17 .ixe5 .ixe5 18 'iVxe5
tl:lg4 19 'tlfh5 tl:lf6 20 'iVe5 tl:lg4 2 1 'iVh5
with a draw by repetition.
15 ...il.d4!
Having completed his development,
Black begins to fight for the e5-square.
16 l2ld 1 tt:Jxe5
Black plays a simple improvement on
Drozdov-Kastanieda, Briansk 1995, which
saw 16 ... tl:le4? 17 .ixe4 tl:lxe5 18 i.xe5
�xe5 19 .i.xh7+ �xh7 20 'iVh5+ 'it;g8 2 1
l:txe5 and with an extra pawn, control o f e5,
and a good knight, White went on to win.
17 il.xe5 il.xe5 18 �xe5 il.c6
Vacating d7 for the knight and defending
the d5-pawn in preparation for ... e6-e5 . If
Black achieves this advance with impunity it
is a clear sign that White's strategy has
failed. The logical 19 f4 does not prevent
... e6-e5 after ... ct:Jd7 or ... ctJg4, e.g. 19 ... ctJd7
20 'iVc3 e5 2 1 .i.xa6!? 'tlfc5+ 22 'iVxcS ctJxcS
and the f-pawn drops.
19 tt:le3? !
Threatening 'LlfS and adding pressure to
the centre in readiness for c2-c4. However,
the threat is easily answered and the
position of the CDe3 means that after c2-c4
Black gains a tempo with . . . d5-d4. It was
better to play 19 c4 immediately, or possibly
19 b4!? l2Jd7 20 'iVh5 g6 2 1 'iVh3 e5 22 c4
d4 23 f3 intending CDf2 to blockade e4.
However, this is a holding strategy with
little hope of more than a draw - in the
third round of an open against an opponent
rated 275 points below, White is
understandably reluctant to play for a draw.
19 ...l2Jd7 20 �g3 e5 2 1 c4 d4! 22 l2Jg4
'lig5 23 h4 '¥Wf4 24 '¥Wxf4 l:bf4 25 f3
tt:Jc5 26 iLc2 e4! 27 b4 tt:Ja4 28 g3
Hoping for 28 ... .Mxf3? 29 Mxf3 exf3 30
Mxe8+ i.. x e8 31 CDe5 when White will
regain the pawn.
28 .. Jbg4!
This is only nominally a sacrifice as the
passed pawns will recoup the material with
interest.
29 fxg4 l2lc3 30 il.b3 e3 3 1 b5
3 1 c5+ i.. d5 does not achieve anything
for White either.
3 1...axb5 32 cxb5+ il.d5 33 il.xd5+
tt:Jxd5 34 .l:Id 1!?
White can't yet bring himself to resign.
34...e2 35 .l:Ixd4 exf 1 'YW + 36 'it>xf 1 l2lb6
37 'it>f2 .l:Ia8 38 1:1d3 tt:Jc4 39 a4 l2lb6 40
a5 .l:Ixa5 4 1 .l:Id8+ 'it>f7 42 l:1b8 .l:.a7 43
'it>e3 l2ld7 44 nd8 b6 45 g5 l2lc5 46 1:1d6
.l:Ie7+ 47 'it>d4 .l:Id7 48 .l:Ixd7+ tt:Jxd7 49
'it>d5 tt:Jc5 50 �d6 tt:Ja4 5 1 g4 l2lc3 52
�c6 'it>e6 53 �xb6 �e5 0- 1
Intending 54 ... CDxb5 and 55 .. .'�tf4 with a
trivial win. A big grandmaster scalp for the
young FM with his favourite French
Defence.
Game 74
M .Johnson-Ha. Olafsson
correspondence 1994
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:lc3 tLlf6 4 e5 tLle4!?
Just as White might have been gearing up
for a heavyweight contest after 4 ... 'Llfd7 5
O dds a nd E nds
f4, Black suddenly changes the nature of the
game, sharpening the play considerably.
4 ... ttJe4! ? had a burst of popularity in the
early 1990s, following an article in New in
Chess Yearbook 1 7 by the Polish players J an
Przewoznik
and
Damian
Konca,
appropriately entitled 'Jumping somewhat
differently'.
Black can also choose to jump
backwards: 4 . . . ttJg8!? This is equivalent to
the Winawer variation 3 . . . �b4 4 e5 �f8!?,
though there it is better to wait for
prompting (i.e. a2-a3 or 'i¥g4) before
retreating the bishop. Nevertheless, with the
centre closed Black's position is solid
enough to stand a few indiscretions. White
has a free hand to do more or less anything.
So here are two examples of deployments
for Black:
a) 5 ii.e3 ttJe7 6 f4 ttJf5 7 ..tf2 h5 8 ttJf3
b6 9 g3 ii.a6 10 .1Lxa6 ttJxa6 1 1 ttJe2 'iYd7
12 0-0 c5 13 c3 c4 14 h3 b5 15 �g2 b4 16
g4 hxg4 17 hxg4 ttJh6 1 8 !.!h 1 .:tg8 19 g5
ttJf5 with an unclear position in Berg­
Bronstein, Gausdal 1990.
b) 5 f4 b6 6 ttJf3 'i¥d7 7 �e3 c6 8 h3 h5
9 :g1 �a6 10 i.xa6 ttJxa6 11 'ife2 ttJc7 12
g4 0-0-0 1 3 0-0-0 �b7 1 4 �b 1 .:tc8 15 ttJg5
ttJh6 16 'i¥f3 ? f6 17 ttJxe6 'i¥xe6 18 f5 hxg4
19 hxg4 'i¥e8 20 .:th 1 fxe5 2 1 dxe5 'i¥xe5
and Black went on to win in Macieja­
Gonzalez Rodriguez, Dos Hermanas
Internet Qualifier 2000.
5 'Llxe4
5 i.d3 ttJxc3 6 bxc3 just damages
White's pawns. The only alternative worth
considering is 5 ttJce2! ? threatening to win
the knight by 6 f3 ttJg5 7 h4. Black replies
5 .. .f6! striking at the centre and giving the
knight a retreat square at f7. After 6 f3 ttJg5
Black stands okay after 7 i.xg5 fxg5 8 'i¥d2
c5 9 h4 gxh4 10 f4 c4 1 1 tt:Jf3 iLe7 12 c3
CLJc6 (Nijboer-M.Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 199 1)
or 7 exf6 'ifxf6 8 iLe3 CLJc6 9 'ii'd2 cof7 10
0-0-0 i.d7 1 1 CLJg3 0-0-0 12 f4 h5 (Lau­
Kersten, German Championship 1994) .
While if 6 ttJf4!? Black can choose between
6 . . . g6 7 ttJf3 i.g7 and 6 . . .fxe5!? 7 'ii'h 5+
�d7 f3 ttJg5.
5 ...dxe4
The altered pawn structure, with Black's
d5-pawn now on e4, is the crux of the
variation. Of course Black's pawn is more
vulnerable on e4, and White can gang up on
it with moves like 'ii'e 2, ttJe2-g3 and i.b3c2. But Black hopes to gain counterplay
with the added pressure against d4 down
the half-open d-file.
White has two main choices: either to
support the central dark squares with 6 i.e3
(as in this game) or to work around the
centre on the light-squares with 6 i.c4
(Game 75) .
6 .lle3 c5!
Black gets straight to business attacking
the centre. Anything else is too passive as
White quickly targets e4, e.g. 6 . . . b6 7 ttJe2
i.b7 8 ttJg3 c5 9 dxc5 'ii'x d1+ 10 .:txd1
i.xc5 1 1 i.xcS bxc5 12 .i.b5+ �e7 13 0-0
i.c6 14 i.xc6 ttJxc6 15 ttJxe4 ttJxe5 16
ttJxc5 with an extra pawn in Kasparov­
Galle, World U-16 Championship 1976.
7 dxc5
White shifts the target from d4 to c5. If
instead 7 c3 cxd4 8 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 9 i.xd4
ttJc6 White is tied to defence. The exchange
of bishops does not help: 7 iLb5+ iLd7 8
iLxd7+ CL\xd7 9 c3 cxd4 10 cxd4 iLb4+ 1 1
�f1 0-0.
French Classical
7 ...tt:Jd7
Blocking the d-file and attacking the c5and e5-pawns.
8 'iYg4
The critical move. White puts pressure
on e4 and g7. Instead 8 'ilfd4 �xc5 9 'ilfxe4
..txe3 10 'ilfxe3 'ifa5+ 1 1 c3 'ilfxe5 is totally
equal; similarly 8 f4 exf3 9 ti:Jxf3 �xc5 or 8
ctJe2 .i.xc5 9 ..txc5 ctJxc5 10 'ilfxd8+ �xd8
1 1 0-0-0 + �e7; while 8 b4?! b6! or 8 c6?!
bxc6 are just worse for White.
8 .. tt:Jxc5
This is the thematic capture in the
4 ... ctJe4!? variation. Nevertheless 8 ... 'i¥a5+ 9
c3 �xc5 is possible and can arise via 4 �g5
i.. e 7 5 e5 ctJe4!? 6 ctJxe4 dxe4 7 il.e3 c5 8
dxc5 ti:Jd7 9 'i!Vg4 'ifa5+ 10 c3 i.. x c5 where
both sides have used an extra tempo with
their bishops. Then 10 'ilfxe4 i.. xe3 1 1
'ilfxe3 'ilfxe5 1 2 'ifxe5 ctJxe5 is again equal
(A. Viaud-Ha. 0 lafsson, correspondence
1992-95) , while 1 1 'ilfxg7 Mf8 12 i..x c5
'ilfxc5 13 0-0-0 'ifxe5 14 'ifh6 ti:Jf6 15 Md8+
�xd8 16 'ilfxf8+ �c7 17 ti:Jh3 e3 18 i.. c 4
rather than 18 . . . b5? 19 'ilfxf7+ .i.d7 20 f4!
'i!Ve4 2 1 'ilfxf6 bxc4 22 ctJg5 e2? 23 ctJxe4
1-0 Iordachescu-Popescu, Tusnad 1997,
Black should have played 18 ... exf2 19 'ilfxf7+
.i.d7 with an unclear position.
.
9 i.b5+
9 .i.xc5 .i.xc5 is similar to the previous
note, but even more promising for Black. If
10 'Yi'xg7 'Yi'aS+ 1 1 c3 Mf8 12 ctJe2 the
1 64
missing . . . ti:Jd7 enables Black to develop
more swiftly, with a dangerous attack after
12 ... .i.d7 13 'ilfxh7 ..tc6 14 'i!Vh4 Md8 or if
13 'i!Vf6 .i.c6 or 13 . . . .i.a4. If instead 10
'ifxe4 there is no bishop on e3 to take, but
Black is again perfectly fine after 10 . . .'ii' d4
or 10 ... 'i!Vb6!? (attacking f2) 1 1 0-0-0 ..td7 12
ti:Jf3 .i.c6 13 'i!Vg4 0-0 14 .i.d3 .i.xf2 1 5
� b 1 h6, as i n Bologan-Rahman, Calcutta
1992.
9 ...tt:Jd7 !
A key retreat. Black is clearly worse after
9 . . . .i.d7 10 0-0-0 ctJd3+ 1 1 i..xd3 exd3 12
Mxd3 'ilfa5 13 �b 1 (Matulovic-Maksimovic,
Nis 1977) and if 13 ... 'ilfxe5 14 ti:Jf3 'ilfa5 1 5
Mhd l.
10 tt:Je2 'iYa5+ 1 1 4:Jc3
A critical position in the variation. Konca
and Przewoznik write that 'Black has the
pleasant choice between 1 1 . ..a6 and
1 1 . .. .i.b4.' The latter looks very risky after
12 'ii'xg7 .i.xc3+ 13 bxc3 Mf8 14 .i.xd7+
i.. xd7 15 0-0 and if 15 ... 'ilfxc3 (or 15 ... 0-0-0
16 Mab 1) 16 Mab 1 0-0-0 (16 ... .i.c6 17 l:.fd1)
17 �xa7 Mg8 18 'ilfxf7 Mdf8 19 Mb3 (not
19 'i!Ve7 Mxg2+!) 19 . . . 'i!Vxe5 20 'i!Ve7.
1 1 ...a6 ! 12 i.xd7+ i.xd7 13 i.d4
If 13 'ilfxe4 .i.c6 14 'ilff4 Black plays
14 ... .i.a3 ! 15 .i.cl .i.xg2 16 Mg 1 .i.c6 17
Mxg7 0-0-0 18 Mg3 .i.c5 still with plenty of
compensation in Tolnai-Samovojska,
Makarska 1994, which continued 19 .i.e3
.i.a3 20 .i.c 1 .i.c5 21 Md3 :hg8 22 Mg3
i.. d4 23 'ilfxd4 Mxg3 24 'ilfxd8+ �xd8 25
hxg3 'ilfxe5+ 26 .i.e3 .i.f3 and Black won.
13...i.c6 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 Wb 1
Having defended a2, White is at last
ready to capture on e4. Since this pawn
cannot be defended it seems as if Black has
finally come out worse. However, GM
Malaniuk has found a way to rejuvenate
Black's prospects.
15 �xd4!
Black gets the two bishops and a strong
kingside majority for the exchange.
16 �xd4 iVxe5
. . .
O dds and E nds
17 l:.hd 1
A. Ivanov-Malaniuk, USSR 198 1, saw 17
�c4!? fS 18 'ii'e 2 �cl 19 f3?!, when instead
of 19 . . . i.c5? 20 fxe4 bS 21 ctJdS+! <itd6 22
�xcS �xcS 23 'ife3+ winning, Black should
have played straightaway 19 ... b5! and White
has to give back the exchange. Instead 19
'ife3 offers White better prospects, or if
18 . . . i.c5 19 f4! �d6 20 �d1 'ife7 21 ctJa4
i.a7 22 �xc6+ bxc6 23 'ifxa6+ 'ii'b 7 24
'ifc4.
17 ....5ic5 18 l:14d2
1 8 �c4 is worse now as the rook lacks
squares after 18 .. .f5 19 'ii'e2 �d8 20 b4
�xd1+ 2 1 ctJxd1 i.b6 22 a4 <itb8 23 aS i.d8
24 'ifd2 ..tf6 25 c3 ..tds 26 �cS i.e7 27
�xdS exdS 28 ctJe3 i.gS 29 'iixdS 'ii'x c3 30
ctJxfS 'ifc l+ 31 <ita2 'ii'c2+ 0- 1 Kholmov­
Malaniuk, USSR 198 1 .
Fritz's suggestion 1 8 �dS !? i.xdS 1 9
�xdS 'ii'c 7 2 0 'iix g7 �f8 2 1 �hS also seems
okay for Black after 2 l...f5! 22 'iixc7+ <itxc7
23 �xh7+ <itc6 24 ctJd 1 f4 etc.
18 ...h5
Konca and Przewoznik suggest that
either 18 .. .f5 or 18 ... i.b4 'gives Black
excellent compensation for the exchange.'
However, after 18 ... i.b4 White has the trick
19 f4! 'ii'f6 20 ctJdS! removing one of the
bishops with advantage; White is also better
after 19 . . . hS 20 'ii' g3 'ii'f6 2 1 ctJxe4 i.xe4 22
�d4 or 19 .. .f5 20 'ii' g 3 'ii'f6 2 1 J:d4. The
former is more acceptable since if 18 .. .f5 19
'ii' g S (or 19 'ifh4) 19 ... <itt b 8! answers the
threat of 20 l:.d8+ (if necessary the king can
hide on a7) and then Black can advance the
kingside pawns.
With 18 . . . hS Black tries to improve on
this further, with the idea 19 'ifh4 gS, so the
white queen goes instead to the queenside.
19 �e2 f5 20 �c4 b5!?
The potential pin on the c-file is
annoying to Black, so he breaks it with
tempo and accelerates his initiative - albeit
at the cost of weakening his queenside
defences. It was also possible simply to
remove the king from the c-file by 20 ... <ittb 8,
and only then to advance the kingside
pawns. 20 . . . <itb8 also avoids a trick with 2 1
ctJdS !?, which would now lose to 2 l . . .i.xd5
22 'ifxcS? i.xa2+, or if 2 1 ctJa4 e3! 22 fxe3
i.xe3 23 l:.d6?! i.dS! 24 'ifb4 <itc7 traps the
rook.
21 'ifb3 f4 22 .:1e 1 e3 23 fxe3 fxe3 24
.:1de2 .:1f8?
Black intends to defend the e6-pawn
from f6 and free his queen, but this is too
slow, allowing White to start an attack with
a2-a4. 24 ... �d8! was better, controlling d3,
so that if 25 a4? b4 26 'Lld 1 i.dS! 27 1Wd3
loses to 27 ... i.a2+, so White would have to
play 27 l:.xe3 i.xe3 (27 . . . 'iff4!?) 28 'ii'xe3
'ifxe3 29 ctJxe3 i.b7 with a level endgame.
If White tries to prepare by 25 <ita1 then
25 ... l:.d6! parries by defending the rook, so
that after 26 a4 b4 27 ctJd1 i.dS 28 'ifd3 ?
Black can play 28 ... i.xg2 and 29 ... i.f3 with
advantage.
25 a4!
The e3-pawn is under control and White
attacks the weakness created on move 20. If
now 25 . . . b4 26 ctJd1 i.dS does not do
anything after 27 'ifd3 .
25 ....:1f6 26 axb5 axb5 27 t2Jxb5 �b8
27 . . . 'ifxh2? loses a piece to 28 'ifc3 or 28
'ifc4.
28 c4 'ifxh2 ?!
Since the c-pawn closes off 'ifc3 or "ilic4
Black is able to take on h2, but now White's
French Classical
attack is strong enough to win. Instead
28 . . . .i.xb5 29 cxbS merely opens lines
further. Relatively best was 28 . . . .i.e4+ 29
�a2 'ifa8+ (if 29 ... .i.xg2 30 l:.xg2 'ifa8+ 3 1
tL'la7+! and White keeps the exchange) 30
tL'la3 'iVaS, but after 3 1 g3! and 32 l:.xe3
Black has no compensation for the pawn
and should lose, if not so quickly.
29 'ifa4!
Threatening variously 30 tL'la7+ or 30 b4
or 30 l:.dl.
29....i.xg2 30 b4 i.fS 31 l1d 1!
Shutting the door to the kingside and
threatening 32 tL'la7+, e.g. 32 ... �b7 33 'iVbS+
�xa7 34 l:Ia2 mate.
31 ... i.e4+ 32 Wc 1 1 -0
Game 75
Onischuk-Hertneck
Bie/ 1997
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jd2 ctJf6 4 e5 t2Je4
One advantage of 4 ... ctJe4 for Black is
that it can also be played against the
Tarrasch: 3 ctJd2 ctJf6 4 eS ctJe4 when 5
tL'lxe4 dxe4 is the same position as the
Classical, thus cutting down on learning.
Note however, that in the Tarrasch move
order White can also play 5 .i.d3 with a
slight advantage.
5 t2Jxe4 dxe4 6 i.c4
Rather than try to deter ... c7-c5 White
makes ready for it, intending to answer
6 . . . c5 with 7 dS!
6...c5!?
Black accepts the challenge. Otherwise
6 . . . a6 is usual, intending . . . b7-b5 (or if 7 a4
b6) and to defend the e4-pawn with ... i.b7.
White must not be too eager in this line.
For instance, if 7 a4 b6 8 dS? ! fails to
8 ... i.b7! 9 dxe6 'ifxd1+ 10 �xd1 fxe6 1 1
.i.xe6 ctJc6 1 2 .i.e3 tL'lxeS and Black was
better in Imanaliev-Malaniuk, Frunze 1987.
If instead 8 ctJh3 (or 8 ctJe2) 8 . . . .i.b7 9
ctJf4, preparing to answer 9 ... cS again with
10 dS, Black has found counterplay with the
manoeuvre ... ctJc6-e7-f5. Aseev-Lputian,
USSR Championship 1984, continued 10
.i.e3 ctJe7 11 0-0 g6 12 'ife2 tt:Jfs 13 z:Ifd1
.i.h6 14 aS 0-0 with an unclear position.
Probably White should forget about d4d5 and leave the knight on e2, with a slight
advantage after 8 ctJe2 i.b7 9 0-0 cS 10 c3
ctJc6 1 1 .i.e3 l:c8 12 .i.b3 cxd4 13 cxd4.
However, in this case it seems preferable
not to play 7 a4 either, as this weakens the
queenside slightly. White has done better
supporting the centre by 7 ctJe2, planning
c2-c3 and .i.e3, when the e4-pawn can be
targeted by Ji£.c2, etc. White has also started
with 7 c3 and 7 Ji£.b3 - the actual choice
makes little difference.
After 7 ctJe2 bS (or 7 . . . c5 8 c3 ctJc6 9
i.b3) 8 i.b3 cS 9 c3 i.b7 10 0-0 ctJc6 1 1
.i.e3 .i.e7 12 ctJg3 hS!? 1 3 tL'lxhS (13 .i.c2 is
also good) 13 ... g6 was Korneev-Lima,
Elgoibar 1997, and now 14 ctJg3 was
simplest with a clear advantage after
14 . . . cxd4 15 cxd4 ctJaS 16 .i.c2 ctJc4 17 JiL.c l
l:h4 1 8 l:.e l . In the earlier game Mortensen­
Binham, Helsinki 1983, Black had tried
1 1 . .. 'ifh4! ? 12 f4 l:d8 (better 12 . . .exf3 1 3
l:.xf3 cxd4 14 cxd4 tL'laS 1 5 l:.f4 'ifd8) 1 3
'ife 1 'ifxe 1 14 l:axe 1 cxd4 15 tL'lxd4 ctJaS 1 6
.i.c2 ctJc4 17 i.c l e 3 18 fS! ( 1 8 b 3 ? ctJd2!)
18 . . . exf5 19 b3 CDxe5 (now if 19 . . . CL\d2 20
:xf5) 20 �xe3 �e4 21 .1Lf4 f6 22 �xe4
fxe4 23 :xe4 :ds 24 �fe 1 .1Ld6 25 CL\f3
and White regained the extra pawn.
O dds and E nds
Exchanging dark-squared bishops does
not help Black: 9 . . . cxd4 10 cxd4 iLb4+ 1 1
.l1,d2 �xd2+ 1 2 "ifxd2 .tb7 1 3 �c2 f5 14
exf6 gxf6 1 5 0-0 CZJd7 16 CZJf4 CZJf8 (or
16 ... "ife7 1 7 d5) 17 "ife3 f5 1 8 f3 exf3
(Kuporosov-Przewoznik, Karvina 1992)
with a clear advantage after 19 .l1,xf5! "if g5
20 .l1,xe6.
In general Black is slightly worse after
6 . . . a6, being unable to drum up sufficient
counterplay to compensate for the weakness
on e4.
7 d5!
If now 7 ... exd5?! 8 "ifxd5 "ifxd5 9 .l1,xd5
CLJc6 (or 9 . . . CZJd7 10 .l1,f4 f5 1 1 f3 !) 10 .l1,xe4
CLJxe5 1 1 .l1,f4 CLJc6 12 CZJf3 and White has a
useful lead in development.
7 �b6!?
This was a novelty; theory had
concentrated on 7 . . . CZJd7 8 dxe6 fxe6
. . .
1 1 CZJg5 "iff6 12 .l1,b5+) 1 1 tLlg5 g6 12 'ii' g 4!
with a clear advantage to White in all lines:
a) 12 . . . tLlxg5 13 .l1,xg5 "ifd4? 14 .l1,b5+!
<it'f7 15 "iff4+ <it'g8 16 .l1,e8! wins.
b) 12 . . . CLJe5 13 .l1,b5+ <it'e7 (13 . . . iLd7 14
"ifxe6+) 14 "ifh4! "i+'a5+ 15 .l1,d2 "ifxb5 16
.l1,c3 .tg7 17 CLJxe4+ <it'f8 18 0-0-0 tLlf7 19
.txg7+ <it'xg7 20 iff6+ <it'g8 2 1 tLlg5 1-0
Kindermann-Dobosz, Bern 1995.
c) 12 ... h5 13 .tbS+ <it'e7 14 "iff4 tLld6 15
'ii'e 5 (or 1 5 tLlxf7! CZJxf7? 16 'ifh4+)
1 5 . . . .th6 16 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 17 .l1,xh6 1-0
Dvoirys-Florath, Berlin 1996.
d) 12 ... .tg7 13 .txe6 lt:JeS (if 13 ... 0-0 14
"ifh3) 14 "ifxe4 "i+'e7 1 5 .txc8 �xc8 16 0-0
0-0 17 .tf4 and White was a pawn up for
nothing in Kveinys-Crouch, Katowice 1992.
9 .tf4 is also good for White, as is 9 f4
(for which see the note to Black's 8th
below).
8 c3
Preventing 8 ... "ifb4+. White can also play
8 'i¥e2 and if 8 ... exd5 9 i.xdS .tfS 10 "ifc4.
8 . CLJd7
Black is playing a 7 .. .Ci:Jd7 variation with
the extra moves c2-c3 and ... "i+'b6. This
would appear to favour him, since if 9 dxe6
fxe6 10 tLlh3 tLlxe5 1 1 "ifhS+ lt:Jf7 12 lt:Jg5
g6 13 "i+'g4 then 13 . . . tLlxg5! 14 .txgS .tg7
defends. 10 .txe6 is not possible since the
queen defends the pawn, while if 10 .tf4
Black can capture 10 . . . 'ii'xb2 .
In turn 10 "ifa4!? makes use of White's
extra move, e.g. 10 ... .te7 (or 10 ... g6 1 1 li:Jh3
.tg7 12 tLlgS) 1 1 .tb3 ! 0-0 (1 1..."ifc7 12
iLf4) 12 "ifxe4 with advantage, and if
12 ... c4!? 13 .te3 (not 13 i.xc4? "ifxf2+)
13 ... .tc5 14 i.c2 g6 1 5 0-0-0.
Alternatively if 9 ... tLlxe5 10 exf7+ lt:Jxf7,
as 1 1 .txf7+ no longer wins the queen, 1 1
iVa4+! <it'e7 12 .tds is good for White.
9 f4
In the line 7... lt:Jd7 8 fxe6 dxe6 9 f4 Black
answers 9 . . . exf3 10 lt:Jxf3 CLJb6!, though
White is still better after 1 1 'ii'xd8+ <ittxd8 12
-td3 c4 13 -te4 <iit c 7 14 lt:JgS .tcS
.
when Black's ideas are seen after 9 .l1,xe6
"i+'e7! 10 .l1,xd7+ .l1,xd7 1 1 f4 0-0-0 12 "ife2
g5 ! 13 "ifxe4 �g8 14 "ife2 gxf4 15 .l1,xf4
iLh6 1 6 i.xh6 "ifh4+ 17 "iff2 "ifxh6 18 li:Jf3
�b5 19 a4? (but if 19 "ifxc5+ <it'b8 20
ifxb5? �xg2, or 20 �g1 �d5!, or 20 �d1
�xd1+ 21 <it'xd1 �d8+ 22 <it'e 1 �d5! is
strong) 19 . . .�xg2 20 'ifxc5+ .l1,c6 21 �d1
Mxd1+ 22 <it'xd1 <it'b8 0-1 Riifenacht-Konca,
correspondence 1986-87.
White's play has since been improved: in
particular 9 lt:Jh3 ! (intending ctJg5) 9 ... ctJxe5
(9 ... �c7 10 �f4) 10 �h5+ ctJf7 (if 10 .. .lt:Jg6
.
French Cla s s ica l
(Kunsztowicz-Konca,
correspondence
1983) and now 15 l:lf1 ! intending l:lf7. In
the current game Black cannot play this way
since his queen is on b6.
9...exd5?!
Black should probably play 9 ...exf3 in any
case, though after 10 ctJxf3 exd5 1 1 'ifxd5
'ii'e 6 White is better following either 12
'ifxe6+ fxe6 1 3 0-0 ctJb6 14 ii.d3 or 12 ii.f4!
'ifxd5 13 ii.xd5 ctJb6 14 ii.e4.
10 'ifxd5 'i¥g6 1 1 lt:Je2!
The knight heads to g3 to attack the e4pawn.
11 ...iLe7
Black has nothing better. 1 1 . .. 'i¥xg2 is
unplayable due to 12 'ifxf7+ <itt d8 13 l:lg1
'ifxh2 1 4 ii.e3 and Black cannot hope to
survive after 1 5 0-0-0. If 11 ... ctJb6 12 i.b5+
�d7 13 �xd7+ ctJxd7 14 ctJg3 and the e4pawn drops. 1 1 . . . a6 12 ctJg3? ctJb6 works
for Black, but 12 0-0! ctJb6 13 f5 ! wins.
12 lt:Jg3
12 0-0 is also strong, when both 12 . . . 0-0
and 12 . . . ctJb6 are answered by 13 f5 !
12 ...iLh4
If 12 . . .f5 then either 13 exf6 ctJxf6 14
'ife5 or 13 ii.b5 a6 14 ii.a4 l:la7 1 5 e6 b5 16
ii.c2 ctJb8 1 7 'ifxf5 is good for White.
13 0-0 iLxg3 14 hxg3 0-0 15 f 5 'ifxg3?
Losing quickly, but 15 .. .'ifc6 16 e6 'ifxdS
17 ltxdS ctJf6 18 exf7+ �h8 19 lte6 b6 20
�f4 offers little hope for Black in the long
run.
1 68
16 iLf4 'ifg4 17 e6!
If 17 . . . ctJb6 18 exf7+ <itth 8 19 'ifxc5 ii.xf5
20 ii.d6 wins easily. Instead Black allows the
pretty finish:
17 ...fxe6 18 fxe6 li:Jb6 19 e7+! li:Jxd5
20 exf8'if + �xf8 2 1 ii.d6+ �ea 22
ii.b5+ ii.d7 23 :ta mate 1-0
Game 76
Carleton-Ha . Olafsson
correspondence 1992-95
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 ttJf6 4 ii.g5 iLe7
Not even Alekhine could make 4 . . . h6?!
work after 5 ii.xf6 'ifxf6 (5 ... gxf6 6 exd5
exd5 leaves terrible a terrible structure) 6
exd5 ii.b4 7 ii.b5+ c6 8 dxc6 ctJxc6 (or
8 ... bxc6 9 ii.c4) 9 ctJge2 0-0 10 0-0 with a
clear extra pawn in Capablanca-Alekhine, St
Petersburg 19 14.
5 e5
White has a few lesser lines to dispose of:
a) 5 ii.d3?! drops a pawn after either
5 ... ctJxe4 6 ii.xe7 ctJxc3 or 5 . . . dxe4 6 ctJxe4
ctJxe4 7 ii.xe7 'ifxe7 8 ii.xe4 'ifb4+ and
9 . . .'ifxb2 (Gunsberg-Noa, Hamburg 1885) .
b) 5 exd5 exd5 is covered in Game 78
below, unless Black wants to try 5 ... ltJxd5! ?
6 �xe7 'ifxe7, e.g. 7 'ifd2 'ifb4 8 ctJxd5
'ifxd2+ 9 <ittxd2 exdS 10 �e 1+ �f8 1 1 �d3
ctJc6 12 c3 �d7 13 ltJf3 (or 13 ctJe2 l:e8)
13 . . . f6 14 �e3 �e8 15 �he 1 Mxe3 16 �xe3
<itt f7 17 �b5 �e8 lh - lh Kmoch-Spielmann,
Budapest 1928.
c) 5 .txf6 is the only significant other,
but Black is fine after 5 ... ii.xf6 and then: 6
e5 ii.e7 7 'ii'g4 0-0 8 0-0-0 (or 8 .td3 cS 9
dxc5 ctJc6 10 f4 f5) 8 . . . c5 9 dxcS ltJd7 10
ltJf3 ctJxc5 11 h4 f5 12 'i¥g3 .td7 13 ctJg5
�c8 14 f4 'ifc7 15 �xd5? ctJe4 16 �xd7
ctJxg3 17 .Mxc7 .Mxc7 18 ltJbS ii.xg5 19 hxg5
.Mc5 0-1 Kenworthy-Baker, 4NCL 1999. Or
if 6 8f3 cS! 7 exdS exdS 8 �b5+ CDc6 9 0-0
0-0 10 dxcS 'if aS 1 1 .Mb 1 �xc3 12 bxc3
'ifxc3 13 'ifxdS �e6 14 'ifd3 'ifxc5 1 5
�xc6 bxc6 1 6 llb2 ll fb 8 17 �fb 1 llb6 with
O dds and E nds
a slight advantage to Black in Matkovic­
Dizdar, Solin 1994.
5 ...t2Je4!?
Tartakower was fond of this move,
which he used with success (a draw) against
Capablanca and Marsh all, and it sometimes
bears his name.
6 �xe7
6 tt.Jxe4 dxe4 7 i.xe7 "ifxe7 is another
route to the game, but both sides have a
chance to deviate. White can try 7 i.e3 !?
when 7 . . . c5 8 dxc6 tt.Jd7 9 "ifg4 "ifa5+ 10 c3
i.xc5 transposes to 4 e5 tt.Je4 5 tt.Jxe4 dxe4
6 i.e3 c5 7 dxc5 tt.Jd7 8 "i¥g4 "ifa5+ 9 c3
i.xc5 as seen in Game 74 (note to
8 . . . tt.Jxc5) ; or if 8 ... "ifc7 9 "iid 4!
For his part Black has 6 ... i.xg5 6 ...i.xg5
7 tt.Jxg5 "iix g5 8 tt.Jf3 'JJie 7 with a fairly level
position after 9 c3 c5 10 dxc5 'ifxc5 1 1 i.d3
i.d7 12 "ife2 tt.Jc6 13 0-0 0-0 14 :ad1 f5 1 5
exf6 :xf6 16 tt.Je5 tt.Jxe5 17 "ifxe5 Y2-Y2
Ivkov-Geller, Leningrad 1957.
6...'�xe7
If 6 ... tt.Jxc3! ? White has no need to enter
the complications after 7 "iig4!? 'ifxe7 8
"iix g7 'ifb4 9 "ifxh8+ �d7, e.g. 10 :d1
'i¥xb2! ? 1 1 'i¥xh7 tt.Jxd1 12 'ifxf7+ �c6 13
�xd 1 'ii'b 1 + 14 �e2 'JJib5+ etc., but can play
for a slight advantage by 7 .i.xd8! tt.Jxd1 8
.i.xc7 tt.Jxb2 9 :b 1 tt.Jc4 10 i.xc4 dxc4 1 1
tt.Jf3 tt.Jc6 12 i.d6 b6. In Spassky-R.Byrne,
Moscow 1975, Black was slowly ground
down after 13 '1t>d2 �b7 14 <;t>c3 ::i:c8 15
ctJd2 f5 16 f3 �f7 17 g4, although Black
should not necessarily expect to lose.
7 t2Jxe4 dxe4 8 'i'e2
The alternative 8 c3 has long been
disregarded because of Capablanca­
Tartakower, Budapest 1929, which
continued 8 ... 0-0 9 'ifg4 fS ! 10 exf6 'ifxf6 1 1
0-0-0 'ifh6+ 1 2 �b 1 e5 when White had to
work for a draw. If instead 9 "ife2 f5 10 f3
b6! 1 1 0-0-0 .i.b7 12 h4?! cS! and Black
seized the m1t1at1ve in Golmayo­
Tartakower, Barcelona 1929.
8 ...b6
After 9 0-0-0 White will be ready to take
on e4 so Black hurries to defend the pawn.
8 ... .i.d7 9 0-0-0 .i.c6 is less good since after
10 g3 Black lacks counterplay with the c­
pawn and hence must play 10 ... ctJd7 1 1 .i.g2
f5 12 exf6 ctJxf6 with a poor structure.
9 0-0-0 �b7 10 g3 c5 1 1 �g2 t2Jc6 12
dxc5 �g5+
In Tseshkovsky-Lputian, Kropotkin
1995, Black tried 12 ... 0-0!? 13 i.xe4 (not 13
'i¥xe4? ctJa5) 13 ... ctJxe5 14 f4 i.xe4 15
'i¥xe4 ctJg4 16 'i¥f3 ctJf6 17 c6!? (or 17 cxb6
axb6 18 �b 1 b5 19 ctJe2 tt.Jd5 20 tt:Jd4
intending f4-f5) 17 ... :ac8 18 ctJe2 'i¥c5 19
tt:Jd4 tt:Jd5 20 :he 1 :l:fd8 (20 ... tt:Jb4!) 21 f5
exf5 22 :es g6 23 tt:JxfS 'i¥xc6 24 c3 gxf5
25 :exd5 and White was clearly better.
13 �b 1 �xe5 14 �xe4 �xc5 15 et:Jf3
This was given as good for White by
Keres, although it is not clear that White
French Cl assical
has much after 1 5 .. J:td8!, e.g. 16 :lxd8+
tt:Jxd8 17 i.xb7 CLJxb7 or 16 i.xc6+ i.xc6
17 l:.xd8+ \t>xd8 18 :ld 1 + \t>e7 19 CLJeS :lc8
20 CLJxc6+ 'ifxc6 21 'ifd3 h6 lh -lh Pavicic­
Samovojska, Caorle 1982.
Olafsson, however, had a more
interesting idea:
15 . . J�b8!?
Black prepares kingside castling. If
immediately 1 5 . . . 0-0 White plays 16 :ld7
:labS 17 :lhd l . By defending the bishop in
advance Black prepares 16 ... 0-0 so that if 17
:ld7 fS ! 18 i.xc6 'ifxc6 forks rook and
knight.
16 'iVd3 !
The critical response. White prevents
16 . . . 0-0 by attacking h7 and also threatens
17 'ifd7+.
16 . . Jid8!?
The only way to j ustify his previous
move, even though it allows White to gain a
material advantage of rook, bishop and
knight for the queen.
17 ..5txc6+! We7 1 8 .ltxb7
Better than 1 8 'ifxd8+ :lxd8 19 i.xb7
'ifxf2.
18 . . . .Uxd3 19 .Uxd3 .Ub8
Now if 19 ... 'ifxf2? 20 l:!hd1 Black has no
initiative and no useful square for his rook.
20 .lta6
Not 20 i.e4? fS 2 1 .:Xc3 'ifxf2 22 .CLJe5
fxe4! 23 CLJc6+ \t>f6 24 CLJxb8 e3 and the e­
pawn will cost White a rook.
20 . . .b5
This is the point of Black's play - he
hopes to trap the bishop. If now 21 :lhd1
'ifc6! 22 �d7+ \t>e8 (not 22 ...\t>f6? 23 l:!xf7+!
and 24 CLJe5+) or 22 l:!a3 l:!d8 23 :lxd8
\t>xd8 (threatening . . . b4) 24 b4 'ifc4 creates
difficulties.
2 1 tbd4!
Now if 2 1 . .. l:!b6 22 i.xbS! l:!xbS 23
CLJxbS 'ifxbS 24 l:!hd1 and the rooks
together with the passed c-pawn will win
the game for White. Faced with this it
seems that Black's imaginative opening is
1 70
unsound and all he can do is try to create
problems for White.
2 1 . . . e5!? 22 cutS+ 'iiit6 23 'Ue3 'iic6 24
.Uhd 1 'ite6 25 'UdS �c S 26 f4
26 :l1d2 threatening 27 :lc3 'i¥f8 28 :lc7
seems fairly decisive.
26 . . . exf4 27 'Uxf4+ 'ite7 28 a3 'itf8 29
.l:d S 'ifc6 30 .l:d6 'ifc S 3 1 b4 �f2 32
.l: 1d2
Here 32 tt:Jd3 also looks good, e.g.
32 ... 'ifxh2 33 CLJcS or 32 ...'ife3 33 i.xbS!
l:!xbS 34 l:!e 1 or 32 .. .'�f3 33 CLJeS.
32 . . . 'ife 1+ 33 'ita2 g6 34 l16d5 .l:b6 35
.l:e2 �c3 36 .Uc S �d4 37 c3 �d7 38
i..c8 �d 1 39 .ltg4 'itg7 40 c4!?
Was this deep calculation or simply a loss
of patience? By clearing the queenside
White may win, but it seems a little
premature.
40 . . .bxc4 41 .l:xc4 aS 42 .l:eS �d2+
Not 42 . . . 'ifxg4? 43 tiJhS+! and White
liquidates to a trivial rook endgame.
43 'itb3 axb4 44 axb4 'iVxh2 45 'Ue2
�h 1 46 tt:Jc3 'iVg 1 47 .lte2 'it'xg3 48 .l:e7
�d6 49 .l:a7 �e6 50 .ltg4 'iVe3 5 1 .l:d7
.l:f6 52 bS
Having surrounded his king with
bodyguards, White now manages to
advance his pawn.
52 .. .h5 53 .lte2 .l:f2 54 .Ue4 �h3 55
.Ud3 �f S 56 .l:dS �c8 57 b6
And again.
57 . . . 'iib7 58 .l:bS .l:f6 59 .l:e7! "Wixe7 60
b7 �d8
Or 60 ... :le6 6 1 b8'iV .:xe2 62 CLJxe2
'ifxe2 63 'ifeS+! 'ifxeS 64 :lxeS and the rook
wins against the pawns as the white king
comes hurrying across.
61 b8� ifxb8 62 .Uxb8
Now with two pieces against the pawns
White brings his king over and consolidates
to victory.
62 . . JU2 63 <it'c4 h4 64 'itd3 f5 65 'ite3
1Ih2 66 CLJd5 1Ih 1 67 1Ib7+ 'ith6 68 'itf4
:.a 1 69 C2Je7 1Ia4+ 70 Wf3 h3 7 1 1Ib6
<it'g7 72 1Ib7 <it>f6 73 CLJd 5+ 'iteS 74 CLJb4
O dds and E nds
g5 75 �g3 g4 76 ltJd3+ �f6 77 ltJf4
:e4 78 llb6+ �f7 79 :c6 l:te5 80
il.c4+ �g7 8 1 ii.d5 :e 1 82 ltJh5+ �h7
83 �f4 lld 1 84 �g5 1-0
Game 77
Pfrommer-M . Heidenfeld
German Bundesliga 1992
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ltJc3 ltJf6 4 ii.g5 ii.e7
5 e5 ltJg8!?
The French is full of such strange
manoeuvres. The closed nature of many
French positions enables both sides to
indulge in esoteric moves for no other
reason, it seems, than because they can.
Then comes the enjoyable attempt to prove
the moves viable - and for S . . ..�:Jg8!? this
was the work of W olfgang Heidenfeld, and
hence the variation now bears his name.
6 ii.e3
White retreats the bishop to its most
natural square and deters ... c7-c5. Playing in
Albin-Chatard style by 6 h4 is less good,
since after 6 . . . i.xgS 7 hxgS 'iVxgS, the black
knight is usefully placed on g8, preventing
White's .a:h6 in the event of . . . g7-g6, e.g. 8
l2Jh3 Wie7 9 'ifg4 fS (not 9 ... g6? 10 ctJxdS)
10 'ifg3 l2Jd7 1 1 l2Jf4 l2Jf8 12 0-0-0 c6 13
l2Ja4 l;t2 - l;t2 Spassky-Bischoff, German Bun­
desliga 1988.
6 i.xe7 ctJxe7 7 f4 creates a pseudo­
Classical (5 .. l2Jfd7 6 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7) position
.
with ctJe7 /'ifd8 as opposed to ctJd7!Wie7.
Theoretically White might therefore claim
an advantage, but in practice Black has had
few problems, e.g. 7 . . . b6 8 l2Jf3 'ifd7 9 'ifd2
i.a6 10 i.xa6 ctJxa6 1 1 0-0-0 0-0-0 12 'ife2
l2Jb4 13 �b 1 �b7 14 g4 Mc8 15 �hfl g6 16
lLJgS h6 17 l2Jf3 a6 18 l:Xd2 �a7 19 a3 ctJbc6
20 ltJd1 ctJaS 21 l2Je3 cS with mutual
chances
(Walsh-M.Heidenfeld,
Irish
Championship 2000) or 1 1 0-0 cS 12 ctJe2
ctJc7 13 c3 aS 14 J:ab 1 0-0 15 �h l fS 16
.a:g1 c4 17 h3 bS 1 8 a3 .a:fb8 19 g4 b4 with
advantage to Black (Moutousis-Gonzales,
Novi Sad Olympiad 1990).
6 ...b6
Having invested some time encouraging
White to play e4-e5, Black trusts to the
closed centre for protection while carrying
out the positionally desirable exchange of
light-squared bishops with . . . i.a6. This is
more akin to the Modern Winawer (3 ... i.b4
4 eS b6) than the Classical, and is a
favourable version for White. Compared
with 3 . . . j(,b4 4 eS b6 5 a3 i.f8, in the
Heidenfeld 6 j(,e3 is clearly more useful for
White than a2-a3, while Black's extra move
... i.e7 is rather unhelpful as it obstructs the
knight from emerging at e7.
7 h4
With 7 h4 White threatens 8 'i¥g4 g6 9
hS! with a clear advantage, or similarly after
7 . . . i.a6 8 j(,xa6 l2Jxa6 9 'ifg4 g6 10 h5.
Therefore Black has generally felt obliged to
play 7 . . . h5 (as in the game) . However, in
Cam pora-J. Gonzales, Seville 1990, Black
ignored the threat, playing instead 7 ... 'ifd7!?
8 hS j(,a6 9 'iVg4 j(,f8! when the game took
the form of a Modern Winawer: 10 ltJge2
ctJc6 1 1 g3 ctJaS 12 ctJcl i.xf1 13 �xf1
0-0-0 14 ct:Jd3 �b8 15 .a:h3 .a:c8 16 �gl
ctJe7 17 ctJe2 ltJfS 18 j(,d2 ctJc4 and Black
was fine.
7 ...h5 8 ii.e2
With 'ii'd 1-g4 forestalled White instead
targets the h-pawn to encourage another
weakness. Again Black has to oblige with
French Classical
8 . . . g6, since if 8 ... i.a6 9 i.xh5 g6 10 i.g4
(or 10 .i.e2) 10 . . . �xh4 1 1 �xh4 i.xh4 12
ct.Jf3 and White gets first to the h-file
following ifd2, 0-0-0 and �h 1 .
The brutal approach 8 g 4 does not
achieve much, unless Black falls for 8 ... g6 9
gxh5 l:txh5 10 ct.Jf3 i.xh4?? 1 1 �xh4 �xh4
12 i.g5 1-0 Velimirovic-Ree, Amsterdam
1994. Of course 10 . . . i.a6 is perfectly okay.
8 ...g6 9 'i'd2 ..ia6 10 ..ixa6
Mostly White has allowed Black to
exchange the bishops on e2, playing 10 ct.Jf3
i.xe2 1 1 ctJxe2 ctJc6, when the critical line is
12 ctJg5! 'ifd7 13 f3 intending g2-g4. Haubt­
Engel, German Bundesliga 1987, continued
13 . . . 0-0-0? ! (not 13 ... ctJh6? 14 ctJxe6!) 14
ct.Jxf7 i.xh4+ 15 �xh4 'ifxf7 16 i.g5 �f8 17
0-0-0 ct.Jce7 18 �b 1 ct.Jfs 19 �h3 :h7 20
�dh 1 c5? 21 dxc5 bxc5 22 g4 and White
won.
10 ...4:Jxa6 11 4:Jf3 �d7 12 0-0 Wf8
The point of this side-step is to move on
. . . �g7 and enable the knight to be
developed at h6. Another idea might be to
re-route the queen's knight as in the
Winawer by 12 ... ctJb8!? intending ...ctJc6-a5.
13 4:Je2 Wg7 14 nac 1 4:Jh6 15 4:Jg3
16 c4! dxc4 17 l:.xc4 l:Iac8 18 ..ig5
..ixg5 19 'ifxg5
Threatening 20 ctJxh5+, so the ... ct.Jh6 has
to retreat again.
19...4:Jg8 20 4:Je4 nc7 2 1 nfc 1 cxd4 22
l:bd4
White gets pressure down the cl-file. 22
ct.Jf6! is also very strong: if 22 . . . 'i'c8? 23
�xc7 ctJxc7 24 l:txc7 'ifxc7 25 ctJe8+ wins,
so Black has to capture 22 . . .ct.Jxf6 23 exf6+
and after 23 . . . <it>f8 (if 23 ... Wg8 24 ctJe5 and
ctJxg6) 24 �xd4 iie8 (or 24 .. J�xc 1+ 25
'ifxcl 'ife8 26 'ifd1 and 27 :d8) 25 :cd1
�c8 26 z:td7 White wins by 27 :e7, l:txf7+
etc.
22 ... nxc 1+ 23 �xc 1 �e7 24 'iid2 4:Jb8
24 . . . ctJc5 25 ctJxc5 'ifxc5 offers little
hope either after 26 b4 followed by 'iff4.
25 .i:.d8 4:Jc6 26 :d7 �e8 27 4:Jd6
Winning the queen, but the crowd might
have liked 27 ct.Jfg5 ! creating a pretty mate
after 27 . . . ctJh6 28 ct.Jf6 'ifc8 29 ctJxe6, while
if 27 . . . ctJge7 28 'iff4 or 27 ... ctJxe5 28 l:.xa7
intending 'iff4 wins.
27 ... �xd7 28 4:Jf5+ gxf5 29 'i'xd7
4:Jge7 30 �d2 4:Jg6 3 1 'i'g5 :d8 32
'ifxh5 .i:.d 1 + 33 wh2 :d5 34 'iig5
Black can put up no resistance to the
advancing h-pawn.
34...wf8 35 h5 4:Jgxe5 36 h6 4:Jg4+ 37
Wg3 4:Je7 38 h7 4:Jg6 39 'i'xg6 1-0
Game 78
Muel ler-Luther
German Championship 1998
15 . . .c5?
Opening the position only assists White,
who is more ready to make use of the open
files. 15 . . . c6 16 c4 Cjj c 7 would have been
more stubborn, or else 15 ... {jj g4 freeing the
king's rook from the knight's defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 4:Jc3 4:Jf6 4 ..id3
An old-fashioned and harmless variation
which Lasker used on occasion.
4 exd5 is similarly tame - 4 ...exd5! is just
equal, e.g. 5 i.f4 (5 i.g5 i.e7 6 i.d3 ctJc6 7
ctJge2 ctJb4 8 {jj g3 Cjje 4 9 i.xe7 {jj xcJ 10
i.xd8 ctJxd1 11 J:lxd1 �xd8 and was soon
drawn, Short-Morozevich, Sarajevo 2000)
5 . . . 1Le7 6 Jl.d3 0-0 7 'iYf3 Cjjc 6 8 {jj ge2 Cjjb 4
9 h3 Cjj xd3+ 10 'ii'xd3 Cjj h 5, again soon
O dds and E nds
draw, Landa-Morozevich, Tomsk 1998
4 ...c5
4 . . . i.b4 is not good due to 5 e5 lt:Je4 6
�g4 (Schlechter) and if 6 . . . 4:Jxc3 7 �xg7
�f8 8 a3 i.aS 9 i.d2 with a decisive
advantage.
5 exd5
Returning to a tedious Exchange
variation. Instead S lt:Jf3 cxd4! (5 . . . lt:Jc6 6
exdS lt:Jxd5 is the note to Black's 6th) 6
lt:Jxd4 lt:Jc6 7 i.b5 i.d7 8 exd5 exd5 9 0-0
i.e7 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 lt:Jb3 a6 12 i.xc6 bxc6
13 i.c5 �e8 was equal in Lasker-Bogolyu­
bov, Zurich 1934.
5 ...lbxd5!?
Black feels like fighting. This time
S ... exd5 is not so dull, since after 6 dxcS
i.xc5 7 lt:Jf3 0-0 8 0-0 h6 the isolated
queen's pawn livens things up a bit enough for Black to outplay his opponent
in Sayber-Kacheishvili, Istanbul Olympiad
2000: 9 h3 lt:Jc6 10 i.f4 i.. e 6 1 1 a3 lt:Jh5 12
i.h2 �f6 13 lt:Ja4 i.. e 7 14 b4 lt:Jf4 1 5 lUeS
aS, though the position is still objectively
equal.
6 tt:Jf3 cxd4 7 �b5+
White initiates more exchanges and
apparently is happy to make a draw.
If 7 lt:Jb5 lt:Jc6 8 lt:Jbxd4 lt:Jxd4 9 lt:Jxd4
lt:Jb4 (or 9 . . . i.b4+) 10 0-0 lt:Jxd3 1 1 �xd3
i.. e 7 12 i.f4 0-0 and Black was fine in
Ljubojevic-Bednarski, Bath 1973 .
7 ...�d7 8 �xd7+ tt:Jxd7 9 tt:Jxd5 �a5+
10 c3 ifxd5 1 1 ifxd4 ifxd4 12 tt:Jxd4
With an extremely equal position. Black,
however, wants to play on.
12 ...�c5 13 tt:Jb3 �b6 14 ..tf4 0-0-0 15
�e2 e5 16 ..tg3 h5 17 ..1h4 f6 18 f3 g5
19 �f2 �xf2 20 �xf2 ctJb6 2 1 .l:l:he 1
CLJc4
Black has managed to achieve a little: his
knight is more active and he controls the cl­
file and has gained some space with his
kingside majority.
22 lle2 .l:l:d5 23 .l:l:b 1 h4 24 h3 .l:l:hd8 25
.l:l:b e 1 .l:l:b5 26 .l:l:b 1 �c7
Better was 26 . . .f5 to take control of e4
and prevent White's next.
27 .l:l:e4
27 ...ctJd2?!
Black decides to pack it in. He had the
better knight so exchanging must be
incorrect. Better 27 ... lt:Jd6 intending ... lt:Jf5
to gaze at new outposts on the kingside, or
similarly if 28 �a4 lUeS (not 28 . . . a6? 29 c4)
planning ... �bd5, . . . a7-a6 and . . . lt:Je7-g6.
28 tt:Jxd2 .l:l:xd2+ 29 l:Ie2 .l:l:d7 30 �e3
.l:l:bd5 3 1 �e4 'iiid 8 32 .l:be 1
White does not need to contest the cl-file
since Black can do nothing with it.
32...�e7 33 'iiif5 �f7 34 .l:l:e4 l:Id2 35
.ti 1e2 l:Id 1 36 l:If2 1:!1d5 37 .l:l:fe2 .l:l:5d6
38 l:Ic4 .l:l:d5 39 .l:ce4 .l:l:d 1 40 �f2 .l:l:c7
41 l:Ib4 l:Id5 42 .l:l:e2 .l:l:e7
Black threatens mate by 43 . . . e4+ 44 �g4
<it>g6 45 fxe4 �d3 and ... �g3.
43 l:lbe4 l:Ied7 % - 112
Since 44 �e 1 returns to the position at
move 34.
1 73
French Classical
Summary
None of the variations in this chapter is as reliable as the main lines. On the other hand,
none requires as much study as the main lines. If a surprise system is desired for one, two or
ten games, this chapter is the place to look. For White, 4 e5 ct:Jfd7 5 ct:Jf3 seems to score well
for its regular practitioners, for no apparent reason since Black equalises fairly easily with
8 .. .f6! For Black, 4 e5 ctJe4 offers the best winning chances, albeit at greater risk; it has an
added advantage in being equally applicable against 3 ctJd2. The other lines 4 i.g5 i.e7 5 e5
ctJe4 and 5 . . . ctJg8 are unlikely to reap more than a draw at best.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 'Llc3 'Llf6 (D)
4 e5
4 i.g5 1Le7 5 e5
5 ... ct:Je4 - Game 76; 5 ... ct:Jg8 - Game 77
4 i.d3 - Game 78
4 'Llfd7
4 ... ctJe4 5 ctJxe4 dxe4 (D)
6 i.e3 - Game 74; 6 i.c4 - Game 75
5 'Llf3 c5 6 dxc5 'Llc6 7 i.f4 i.xc5 8 i.d3 (D) 8 h6
8 . . .f6 - Game 73
9 i.g3 - Game 72
. . .
. . .
3 . . ctJ f6
.
1 74
5. dxe4
. .
8 j_d3
1 /NDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I
Almasi-Andersson,
Ubeda 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Dortmund 1 992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Altand-Bareev, L inares 1 993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Altand-Bareev, Sherryang 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Altand-Korchnoi, Dos Hermanas 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 1
Altand-Morozevich, Frankfurt 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Altand-Shirov, FIDE Knockout, Tehran 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Altand-Shirov, Frankfurt 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
Altand-Shirov, Leon 2000
16
Apicella-Bricard, Besancon 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
Arakhamia-Volkov, Isle of Man 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4
B enjamin-Sarkar.J, New York Open 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 60
Carleton-Olafsson.Ha, correspondence 1 992-9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68
Chandler-Gurevich.M, Leningrad 1 98 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Chuprov-Gleizerov, St Petersburg 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
de Firmian-Hiibner, Polanica Zdroj 1 99 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . 4 1
Degraeve-Gurevich.M, Belfort 1 99 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 6
Dolmatov-B areev, Elista 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Enders-Knaak, Bundesliga 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5
Fedorov-Volkov, S t Petersburg 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Feletar-Kovacevic, Pula 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
Finkel-Meessen, Budapest 1 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Glek-Morozevich, Russian Championship 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7
Hort-Knaak, Dresden 1 995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9
Ivanchuk-Morozevich, Amsterdam 1 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Jenni-Glek, Bad Worishofen 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50
Johnson.M-Olafsson.Ha, correspondence 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 62
Kaplan-Bronstein, Hastings 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Kasparov-Bareev, Novgorod 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Kasparov-M.Gurevich, Sarajevo 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8
Kasparov-Shirov, A stana 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Altand-Bareev,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 75
French Classical
Kasparov-Shirov,
Frankfurt 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A msterdam 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Khalifman-Gulko, Reykjavik World Cup 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7
Kindermann-Bareev, Pardubice 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
King-Short, Birmingham 4NCL 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2
Klimov-Kruppa, St Petersburg 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Labutin-Ulibin, Kstow 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1
Lalic-Korchnoi, Calcutta 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
Lalic -Speelman, Hastings 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Landa-Morozevich, Samara 1 998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8
Lanka-Morozevich, Kishinev 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 5
Leko-Khalifman, Budapest 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Leko-Korchnoi, Wijk aan lee 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Lutz-Morozevich, Elista Olympiad 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Lutz-Zifroni, Tel A viv 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Magem-Vaisser, Escaldes 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Milos -Shirov, Las Vegas 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Mrdja-Gleizerov, Turin 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 04
Mueller-Luther, German Championship 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 72
Nataf-Ulibin, Stockholm Rilton Cup 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 22
Nijboer-Glek, Wijk aan lee 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Onischuk-Hertneck, Biel 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 66
Ovetchkin-Morozevich, MoscCYW 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Pavlovic-Sakaev, Vrnjacka Banja 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Pfrommer-Heidenfeld.M, German Bundesliga 1 992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 71
Polgar.J-Bareev, Hastings 1 993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Polgar.J -Hemandez.G, Merida 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Polgar.J-Shirov, Prague 1 999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Polgar.Zsu-Gurevich.M, Holland 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 52
Rozentalis -Vaganian, Budapest 1 9 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Sakaev-B areev, Elista 1 998
9
Sedlak-Antic, Subotica 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8
Shaposhnikov-Alavkin, Samara 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
Shirov-Topalov, Sarajevo 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Short-Psakhis, MoscCYW Olympiad 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Sutovsky-Morozevich, Pamplona 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Sutovsky-Zifroni, Israel 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Svens son.B-Brynell, Swedish Championship 1 990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Svidler-Morozevich, Frankfurt rapid 1 999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 43
Szilagyi-Harding, correspondence 1 987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0
Tebb -Gurevich.M, 4NCL 1 998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Topalov-B areev, Linares 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Topalov-Morozevich, Sarajew 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Ulibin-Bagirov.R, Dubai 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7
Van den Doel-Gurevich.M, Wijk aan lee 1 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
Z akharov-B ashkov, Penn 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 6
Zezulkin-Lempert, CzestochCYWa 1 991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Kasparov-Short,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 76