IOPENINGSI

WINNINC
WITH
THE
PETROFF

ANATOLY KARPOV

Winning With the

Petroff
ANATOL Y KARPOV

An Owl Book
Henry Holt and Company
New York

Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Publishers since 1866
115 West 18th Street
New York, New York 10011
Henry Holt is a registered trademark
of Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Copyright 1993 by Anatoly Karpov
All rights reserved.
First published in the United States in 1993 by
Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Originally published in Great Britain in 1993 by
B. T. Batsford Ltd.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-56754
ISBN 0-8050- 2 633- 4 (An Owl Book: pbk.)
First American Edition-1993
Printed in the United Kingdom
All first editions are printed on acid-free paper.oo
10

Adviser: R. D. Keene, GM, OBE

Technical Editor: Andrew Kinsman

Contents

Introduction

Main Line with 6 ... tt:lc6 and 7 ... il..e7

Main Line with 6 ... tt:lc6 and 7 ... ..tg4

48

Main Line with 6 ... il..e7 and 7 .. 0-0

64

Main Line with 6 ... ..td6

68

White Fourth Move Alternatives

81

3 d4

87

Index of Variations

112

Introduction

number of games won by Black is

hardly less than the number of
wins for White.
Incidentally, in four of my five
matches with Kasparov this com
paratively rare opening was
encountered, and the seven games
played have made an appreciable
contribution to its theory. It can
be said without exaggeration that
throughout its history the Petroff
has never been studied with such
intensity as after my duels with
Kasparov.
Although the reader is possibly
familiar with all our games with
the Petroff(except the one in New
York) from my book The Open
Game in Action, I have of course
inc!uded them in a special book
dedicated to this opening, all the
more so because recently many
important examples, Improve
ments to variations, and new ideas
have appeared. They are all
reflected in this new book.
As in my previous work Beating

The Petroff is defined as early as

Black's second move: I e4 e5 2
lilf3 lilf6, and already the opening
appears on the board. What
distinguishing features does it
have? Perhaps only one
between two opponents of equal
strength Black 'risks' finding him
self with the safety of a draw
straight away - 3 lilxe5 d6 4 lilf3
lilxe4 5 1!Ve2 1!Ve7 6 d3 and White
exchanging queens almost guaran
tees a half-point. But is this really
a deficiency of the Petroff? I recall
that in one of the current vari
ations of the Ruy Lopez White
can bring the game to an immedi
ate end (. . . JH8-e8, lilf3-g5, . . .
l!e8-f8, lilg5-f 3 etc.) as, in fact,
many of my opponents have done
when I have had Black. But in
practice the player against whom
the Petroff is played generally tries
to take the initiative. In this case
Black can fully expect an enthral
ling struggle with equal chances.
As a result, as statistics show, the
7

Introduction

the Griinfeld, I have included in

this book 25 contemporary games
as a foundation, the majority of
which were played in the second
half of the 1980s and the beginning
of the 1990s(but the commentaries
to them, as before, refer to many
valuable examples from the past).
According to the modern stan
dard Informator classification of
openiogs, the Petroff is divided
into,two sections - C42 and C43.
The first of these is characterised
by the capture of the pawn - 3
lLlxe5 (and also by various rare
continuations), and the second
by refusing this capture with 3 d4.
It is worth pointing out that in
recent years the C42 system has
been considerably more popular,
and therefore it is given more
attention and space in this book.
One might recall that one of the
variations beginning with the cap
ture of the e5-pawn (3 lLlxe5 d6 4
lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 lLlc6)
was subjected to a thorough exam
ination in my first three matches
with Kasparov, and in the fifth
match there was an interesting
game played with 3 d4.
The main line of the Petroff is
divided into four basic variations,
each of which is covered by a
chapter of this book. Chapter one
deals with the system 3 lLlxe5 d6
4 lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 lLlc6

(6 . . . .i.e7) 7 0-0 .i.e7 (7 . . . l0c6)

which has proved to be by far the
most fashionable choice for Black
in recent times. A sharper possi
bility is discussed in chapter two,
in which Black attacks the centre
with 7 . . . .i.g4 without spending
time developing his king's bishop
first. Chapter three deals with the
6 . . . .i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 system which
gives Black a solid, if rather unin
spiring position, whilst chapter
four i concerned with the interest
ing 6 . . . .i.d6 which has been very
fashionable of late. In chapter five
we look at White's alternatives on
the fourth move, and the final
chapter deals with 3 d4, which is
also very much in vogue.
Does the title of the book do
justice to its contents? Of course,
learning off by heart countless
variations, which there are in this
book, will be of some use. How
ever, I believe that familiarity with
the games included in this book
and close study of them, will give
the reader a contemporary under
standing of the opening, and in
this sense one can certainly think
that the book will develop under
standing of how to play, and win
with, the Petroff.
Finally I want to thank chess
master and writer Evgeny Gik for
his help in preparing the manu
script.

Main Line with 6 ... CZJc6

and 7
il.e7

Game No. I

debate in the Petroff which

unfolded m my battles with
Kasparov.
It is now quite clear why I
included this game, played com
paratively long ago - ten years
- in the book. I hope that the
reader familiar with it from other
publications will not be offended,
since this book is devoted to the
Petroff.
e4
eS
1
li:lf6
2
li:lf3
li:l xeS
3
As we have said already, here
the Petroff branches into two main
systems - 3 li:lxe5 and 3 d4, and
the first (larger) part of the book
is devoted to taking the pawn on
e5.
3
d6
4
li:lf3
The continuations 41i:lxf7 and 4
li:lc4, to which chapter 5 is devoted,
are comparatively rare.

Karpov-Portisch

Turin 1982
In 1982 I had an original theoreti
cal duel with Lajos Portisch on
the theme of the Petroff : Turin,
Tilburg, Lucerne. Although the
difference in points was mini
mal - 2 :I in my favour, the
opening battle, one can say, was
won by White with a clean
sheet.
The following game opened the
discussion and in the notes to it
are the two other duels (that is,
our opening 'triptych' collected
together). Although the variation
I played three times with Portisch
was not subsequently encountered
at the highest level, it should be
mentioned that this was largely
due to the results achieved in those
games. I also think that this theor
etical argument with Portisch pre
pared the ground well for a new
9

Main Line with 6 ... CiJc6 and 7 . . . .1ie7

10

4
5

d4

lLl xe4

Possibly only Boris Spassky

nowadays at the top level uses the
old move 5 '*e2. As far back as
1 969 in his match for the chess
crown, Tigran Petrosian demon
strated a clear plan of arranging
his pieces.
In fact, at the same tournament
in Turin in my game with Spassky
I succeeded in equalising easily : 5
. . . '*e7 6 d3 lLlf6 7 ..tg5 xe2+
8 ..txe2 ..te7 9 lLJc3 c6 (I) (This
is Petrosian's idea. Black avoids
symmetry and the loss of tempo
loses significance.)
1
w

10 0-0 lLJa6 I I .!:!: fe I lLl c7 1 2

il..f l lLJe6 1 3 ..te3 0-0 1 4 d4 .!:!: e8
1 5 d5 lLlxd5 1 6 lLlxd5 cd 17 ..tb5
.!:!: d8 18 .!:!: ad l ..tf6 19 c3 lLl c7 20
..te2 .!:!: e8 2 1 lLld4 ..td 7 22 ..tf3
.t xd4 23 ..txd4 ..tc6 24 .te3

!-1.

Several months later against

Yusupov (Toluca 1 982) Spassky
preferred 1 2 d4 instead of 12 "tfl .

There followed : 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 ..td3

lLJ e 6 14 ..te3 0-0 1 5 .!:!: ad l ..td6
1 6 lLJe5 lLJe8! 1 7 lLJe2 f6 1 8 lLJf3
lLJ 8c7 1 9 b3 ..td7 (more accurate
was at once 1 9 . . . b5! 20 c4 be 2 1
be ..ta6) 20 c4 .!:!: fe8 2 1 c 5 ..tf8
22 lLJc3 b5 23 lLJe2 a5 24 a3 g6 25
h3 lLJd8 26 g4 lLlf7 27 >t>g2 lLJe6
28 lLl f4 lLlxf4 29 ..txf4 .!:!: xe I 30
.!:!: xe l a4 31 b4 .!:!: e8 32 .!:!: xe8 ..t xe8
33 lLlg I lLJd8 34 lLJe2 g5! 35 ..tb8
.tg6 36 .t xg6 hg 37 '01<f3 !-1.
In another tournament (Ham
burg 1 982) Spassky chose a new
move 9 c4 against me, but it also
gave White nothing: 9 . . . h6 1 0
.tf4 lLJ c6 (Possible i s 1 0 . . . 0-0
I I lLJ c3 .!:!: e8 1 2 0-0 J..f 8 1 3 .!:!: fel
lLJa6 1 4 a3 ..td7 15 b4 c6 with
equality. Here I got nothing out
of it as White, Karpov-Smyslov,
Tilburg 1 982.) I I lLJc3 ..tf5 1 2
0-0-0 0-0-0 1 3 .!:!: he l g 5 14 ..te3
lLlg4 1 5 lLJd5 lLlxe3 16 lLlxe7+
lLlxe7 17 fe .!:!: de8 with full equality.
It m ust be said that Spassky
still uses 5 '*e2, although without
particular success. Here is one
recent example : Spassky-Salov
(Barcelona 1 989) 5 . . . e7 6 d3
lLlf6 7 il..g 5 xe2+ 8 ..t xe2 .ii.e. 7
9 lLl c3 c6 10 0-0-0 (castling long is
hardly better than castling short)
I 0 . . . lLl a6 I I lLle4 lLl xe4 12 de
lLJc5 13 ..txe7 '01<xe7 14 .!:!: he l
.!:!: e 8 1 5 lLld4 '01<f8 ! -!.
5
6

d5

.td3

lLl c6

Main Line with 6 . . . ltlc6 and 7 . . . .i .e 7

7
8

0-0
.!:t e l

e7

f5 (2)

2
w

In all six Petroff Defence games

of my first three matches with
Kasparov, Black's light-squared
bishop either came to g4 (consid
ered in the next game) or stayed
at home. The debate with Portisch
was solely devoted to the develop
ment of the bishop on f5. This
move was introduced into practice
by Robert H i.ibner in his quarter
final Candidates match with
Andras Adorjan in 1 980. In fact,
this move was known to me from
my own game with Kasparov our first meeting, three years
before our duels for the crown
(Moscow 1 98 1 , 'three generations'
team tournament). I had Black
and events unfolded in the follow
ing way : 9 tt:l bd2 tt:l xd2 1 0 'W'xd2
xd3 I I 'W'xd3 0-0 1 2 c3 ..W d7
(H i.ibner continued with 1 2 . . .
'W'd6, and after 1 3 ..Wf5 .!:!ad8 1 4
f4 a draw was agreed) 1 3 f4
a6 14 .!:!e3 .!:!ae8 1 5 .!:!ae l d8

II

16 h3 .!:! xe3 1 7 .!:!xe3 f6 1 8 .!:!e2

.!:!f7 19 tt:ld2 e7 20 tt:Jfl ..H8 2 1
..Wf3 .!:!e 7 with a minimal advan
tage to White.
I also encountered 8 . . . f5 in
the fourth game of the World
Championship match in Merano
in 1 98 1 , when after 9 b5 Korch
noi played the important improve
ment against me 9 . . . .if6 (In
Timman -Portisch, Moscow 1 98 1 ,
Black chose 9 . . . 0-0 I 0 xc6
be I I lile5 .ih4 1 2 ..te3 ..Wd6?
{better was 1 2 . . . .!:!e8 ] 13 ..W h5!
and got into a difficult position).
The point of the bishop
manoeuvre to f6 is that now White
cannot strengthen his knight on
e5, as after 10 .xc6 + be I I tt:le5
..txe5 12 de 0-0 Black can develop
freely and White still has to be
careful to slow down the move
ment of the enemy c- and d-pawns.
In the Merano game the position
was equal after I 0 lZJ bd2 0-0 I I
tt:Jfl . It is true that my opponent
shortly after made several inaccur
acies and in the end even lost;
however the opening was not the
reason for this. The result clearly
had a psychological effect on
Korchnoi, and he never returned
to the Petroff for the rest of the
match. What a pity! The following
move had been specially prepared
for him.
9

c4! (3)

Igor Zaitsev and I had prepared

Main Line with 6 . . . Ci'Jc6 and 7 . . . li. e 7

12

3
B

precisely this opening surprise for

the match in Merano but it
remained unused. So, the novelty
was sprung on Portisch . . .
tt:lb4
9
10

.HI

Of course not I 0 cd tt:lxf2!.

Because of this strike I began to
doubt 9c4, but White is not
obliged to hurriedly clarify mat
ters.
10

0-0

Later, at Tilburg 1 982, Portisch

tried a different continuation
I 0 . . . de, but after I I tt:lc3! tt:lf6 1 2
j_xc4 0-0 1 3 a 3 tt:lc6 1 4 d 5 I
succeeded in obtaining a clear
advantage. The game continued :
1 4 . . . tt:la5 1 5 j_a2 c5 1 6 j_g5
J:!.e8 1 7 'iWa4 j_d7 1 8 'iWc2 h6 1 9
j_h4 tt:lxd5 20 tt:lxd5 j_xh4 2 1
J:!.xe8+ j_xe8. Here I could have
increased my advantage with 22
J:!.e l or 22 J:!.d l , but I thought I
saw an effective variation which
unfortunately contained a flaw.
After Black's precise reply I prob-

ably still had a draw, but I mech

anically sacrificed a piece and
quickly lost : 22 'iWe4? j_f6 23
j_b 1 <;Pf8 24 'iWh7 'iWxd5 25 j_e4
'iW d6 26 'iWh8+ 'lt>e7 27 j_c2 tt:lc6
29 j_a4 tt:ld4 29 tt:lxd4 j_xd4 30
J:!.e l + <;Pf6 3 1 j_xe8 'iWf4 32 J:!.fl
'iWe5 and White resigned.
To be honest, when we met
at the Olympiad in Lucerne and
Portisch again played the Petroff,
I was surprised at his stubborn
ness. Apparently, the outcome of
our last meeting had encouraged
the Hungarian grandmaster.
11
a3
tt:lc6 (4)
Now approximately the same
structure arises as in my game with
Lubosh Kavalek in the previous
round (I was Black) : 9 a3 0-0 1 0
c4 j_f6 I I tt:l c 3 til xc3 1 2 be j_xd3
1 3 'iWxd3 de 14 'iW xc4 tt:la5 1 5
'iWa4 b6 with equality, although
nowadays White wins a few games
with this type of structure from
time to time.

12

tt:lc3

Main Line with 6 ... l2Jc6 and 7 . . . 1Le7

Although this move brought me

a splendid victory in Turin, at the
Olympiad in Lucerne I decided
not to test my opponent's home
preparation and deviated first, hit
ting d5. Since I promised to bring
you the whole 'triptych', I shall
digress and tell how our last meet
ing on this theme turned out. It
was also fairly interesting.
Karpov-Portisch, Lucerne ( ol)
1 982:
1 2 c d f!ixd5 13 t:Uc3 t:Uxc3 1 4 he
. tg6

Black's pieces are precariously

arranged, for example : 14 . . . ri.e8
1 5 t:Ue5 (with the threat of 1 6 .tc4)
1 5 . . . tUxeS 1 6 ri.xe5 f!Jd7 1 7 f!Jf3
with a double attack; 14 . . . .td6?
1 5 c4 f!la5 16 .td2 winning; 14
. . . ri.ad8 15 .tf4 with a clear
advantage to White. It is difficult
to blame Black for a move which
parries
threats,
im mediate
although it does not solve the
cardinal problems.

at the edge of the board : 1 8 .td2

b6 19 .txa5 ba 20 t:Ue5 f!ld6 2 1
t:Uc6, o r 1 8 t:Ue5 .txe5 1 9 ri. xe5
b6 20 .t f4 ri. fe8 21 ri.ae2, b ut the
appearance of the bishop on f4 is
more energetic.
18 . . . ri.fe8 19 ri.ae2. 1 ri.ec8?

Surrendering the positiOn.

Black didn't like 19 . . . ri.xe2
because of 20 f!Jxe2 with the threat
of 21 t:Ue5 .txe5 22 ..W xe5, but this
wasn't so dangerous for Black.
20 t:Ue5 f!lj5?
Only 20 . . . .txe5 offered any
resistance.
21 . td2!

Creating the irresistible threat

of g2-g4. If 21 f!ld2 with the same
idea, then 21 . . . .t h5 22 f3 g5 23
.tg3 b6 prolongs the struggle.
2 1 . .. t:Uxc4 (5)

After 2 1 . . . b6 22 g4 f!Jc2 23
f!Jxc2 .t xc2 24 .txa5 .txe5 25
ri.xc2 Black is a piece down. Now
22 t:Uxc4 f!Jxd5 23 .tf4 leads to
victory, but even stronger is . . .

15 c4 f!Jd7

After 1 5 . . . f!Jd6 1 6 d5 .tf6

comes the tactical blow 1 7 c5!.

5
w

16 d5 . tf6 1 7 ri.a2

The tempting sacrifice of the

excha nge brings no real advan
tage : 1 7 .tg5 ..txa I 18 de f!lxd I
1 9 ri.xd 1 .tf6 20 cb ri.a b8, and
the b7-pawn cannot be defended.
17 . . . t:Ua5 18 .tj4
It was possible to exploit the
unfortunate position of the knight

13

22 g4! t:Uxe5

14

Main Line with 6 . . . CUc6 and 7 . . . Ji.e7

Neither 22 . . . 'tlfc2 23 'tlfxc2

..t xc2 24 tt:l xc4, nor 22 . . . 'tit' xe5
23 .!:!: xe5 tt:J xe5 24 g5 is of any help.
23 gf tt:Jf3+ 24 g2 ..th5 25
'tlt'a4 tt:Jh4+ 26 g3 ..txe2 and
Black resigned.

Let us finally return to the battle

with Portisch in Turin.
12
13

be

tt:Jxe3
de

14

..txe4

..td6 (6)

has disappeared, but Black can do

nothing about the d-pawn .
15 ..tg5
'tlfd7
16

tt:Jh4! (7)

7
B

It is difficult for Black to man

age without this exchange.

6
w

Moving the knight to the edge

of the board allows White to firmly
seize the initiative.
tt:Ja5

16

A preliminary summary can be

made : White has more purpose
fully arranged his forces and has
clear pressure on the centre.
In the game Ehlvest-Khalif
man, M insk 1 987, Black played 1 4
. . . tt:Ja5, but was unable t o solve
his opening problems. This is what
happened : 1 5 ..ta2 c5 16 tt:Je5
..tf6 17 g4 ..td7 1 8 ..H4 ..txe5
19 .!:!: xe5 cd 20 cd tt:Jc6 21 .!:!: d5
'tlfc8 22 h3 Si.e6 23 .!:!: c5 ..t xa2 24
.!:!: xa2 'tlfd7 25 d5 tt:Je7 26 .!:!: d2.
The advantage of the two bishops

In response to 1 6 . . . ..t g4 there

is a choice between the simple 1 7
f3 ..t h5 1 8 g4 and 1 7 'tlfb l tt:Ja5
1 8 ..td3 followed by the seizure
of the f5-sq uare.
17

..b2

b5

Black's pieces are loosely placed

and Portisch is trying to create
footholds for them. White must
act energetically.
18

a4

a6

In the event of 1 8 . . . ba I had

a pleasant choice between 1 9 ..td5
.!:!: ae8 20 .!:!: xe8 .!:!: xe8 21 tt:J xf5 'tlfxf5
22 'tlfxa4 .!:!: b8 23 .!:!: e l and 1 9 c4
c5 20 de (or 20 tt:J xf5 'tlfxf5 2 1 h4
tt:Jb3 22 ..t b l 'tlfd7 23 de tt:l xc5
24 .!:!: a2 with excellent attacking
chances) 20 . . . ..t xc5 21 .!:!: e 5

Main Line with 6 . . . li'lc6 and 7 . . . it. .e7

'ilt'xd 1 + 22 l:l:xd 1 ..tg4 23 l:l:xc5

_txd 1 24 1:1: xa5.
19
20
21

ab
lLlxf5
..te7

ab
'ilf xf5
l:l:fb8 (8)

against the threat of 26 1:1: ae 1 and

27 l:l:e7, for example : 25 . . . l2Jc6
26l:l:ae 1 l:l:e8 27'ilfxf7+ with mate,
or 25 . . . l:l:a6 26 l:l:ae l l:l:f6 27 'ilfg3
with irresistible threats.
22
23

8
w

15

'ilt'd7
..txf7 + !

The bishop cannot be touched :

23 ". w xf7 24 l:l:xa5! l:l:xa5 25
'iit' b 3 + ..t>g6 26 l:l:e6 + with
unavoidable mate.
23
24
25
26

After 2 1 . . . J.. x e7 22 1:1: xe7 c6

23 'ilfe2 lLl c4 24 l:l:e 1 'ilfd5 25 l:l:e5
(also strong is 25 ..tb3) 25 . . .
l:l:xa2 26 'ilfxa2 lLl xe5 27 'ilfxd5 cd
28 l:l:xe5 l:l:d8 29 l:l:e7 l:l:c8 30 1:1: b7
and White has won a pawn. If 2 1
. . . l:l:fe8 2 2 ..txd6 cd 2 3 ..t b 1
'ilt'h5 the weakness o f the back
rank is revealed : 24 1:1: xe8 + 1:1: xe8
25 g4 'ilfh3 26 l:l:xa5 'ilfxc3 27 l:l:a2!.
Also bad is 21 . . . l:l:fc8 - 22 ..t b1
'ilfd7 2 3'ilff3 g 6 24 J.. a 2! However,
moving the rook to b8 also meets
with an unexpected and strong
reply.
22

..txd6
l:l:e7
..tc5

wh8
'ilf xf7
'ilt'f8

White has a material and positional advantage. The outcome is

already decided.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

'ilfe2
l:l:e4
l:l:e5
l:l:xa8
l:l:f5
'ilfe4
h3
wg2
.tb4
..txd6
'iit' d3
f3!

'ilt'f4
h6
'ilt'f7
lLlc4
l:l:xa8
'ilfg6
wh7
l:l:a1 +

l:l:c l
l2Jd6

cd
d5
1--{)

g4!!

The ideas behind this extrava

gant move are revealed in the
follow ing variations : 22 . . . 'ilff4 23
..txd6 'ilfxd6 24 'ilff3 'ilt'd7 (24 . . .
l:tf8 25 ..txf7 + ! o;t>h8 26 'ilfg3!)
25 l:l:e2, and it is difficult to defend

Game No. 2
Sax-Yusupov
Thessaloniki (of) 1984

I
2

e4
lLlf3

e5
l2Jf6

Main Line with 6 . . . {jj c6 and 7 . . . .1i.. e 7

16

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

tUxeS
tt:lf3
d4
.t d3
0-0
J:t e l

c4
cd
Wxf3

d6

tt:l xe4
dS

.t e7
tt:lc6
.tg4
tt:l f6
.t xf3
WxdS (9)

9
w

My first World Championship

battle with Kasparov lasted a long
time, five whole months, and many
opening ideas which were
encountered were refined during
the marathon, particularly at the
Olympiad in Thessaloniki where
this game was played. The reader
might well remember that this pos
ition arose in the 28th game of
that match, where after 1 2 Wh3
matters quickly ended peacefully
(see the next game). But the queen
also has other moves.
12
Wg3
More than once exchanging on
d5 has been played, yet it doesn't
promise White much : 1 2 Wxd5

tt:lxd5 1 3 tt:lc3 0-0-0! (if 1 3 . . .

tt:ldb4 White manages to get the
advantage: 14 .te4 tt:lxd4 1 5 .te3
c5 1 6 .t xd4! cd 17 ttJ b5 >tf8 1 8
a3! tt:lc6 1 9 J:t ac I d 3 20 .txd3
.tf6 21 b4 g6 22 .te4, Popovic
Kurajica, Yugoslavia 1 984; or 1 5
. . . J:t d8 1 6 .t xd4 J:t xd4 1 7 a3 tt:lc6
1 8 tt:l b5 J:t d2 1 9 tt:lxc7+ >td8 20
ttJ b5,
Abramovic-Rukavina,
Yugoslavia 1 985) 14 .t e4 .t b4
1 5 .t d2 tt:lf6 (also sufficient for
the draw is 1 5 . . . tt:lxd4 1 6 tt:lxd5
.t xd2 17 J:t ad l c6 18 J:t xd2 cd 19
J:t xd4) 1 6 a3 tt:lxe4 1 7 J:t xe4 .t xc3
18 be tt:la5 with full equality (Ehlv
est-Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1 984). In
the game Lobron-Mikhalchishin,
Dortmund 1 984, White took on
c6 (instead of 16 a3), and after 1 6
.txc6 be 1 7 a3 J:t xd4! 1 8 ab J:t xd2
19 J:t xa7 J:t e8! Black even stood
better.
Before moving on I should men
tion that the move 12 Wh3, which
Kasparov preferred in game 28,
was first seen in the game Velimi
rovic-Kurajica (Bela Crkva 1 984 )
In that game Black took on d4
with the queen, and 1 2 . . . Wxd4
1 3 tt:lc3 J:t d8 14 .tf5 h5 1 5 g3
>tf8 1 6 .te3 Wb4 1 7 a3 W a5
led to approximate equality. 1 4
.tb5!? i s worth examining. One
way or another I decided to avoid
surprises and changed the flow of
the game myself by taking on d4
with the knight, which delivered
.

Main Line with 6 . . . {Jc6 and 7 . . . it. .e7

Black from any problems.

12
13

tt:l c3

10
w

Up until now everything had

followed
H iibner-Smyslov
(Velden 1 983) - the original
source game of the exchange on
f3. In that game Black continued
13 . . . .!:t d8 and still had to work
hard for the draw. Thanks to
castling Black now not only equal
ises, but even takes the initiative.
14

tt:lb5

'llt'xg4

Hardly good is 1 5 'llt'x c7 Ji.c5!

with a Black attack, but after 1 5
tt:lxc7 .!:t ad8 1 6 Wxg4 tt:l xg4 1 7
il.e2 the game is level.
15
16

tt:l xg4
.H5

And here 1 6 il.e2 is better. but

1 6 tt:l xc7 is dangerous because of
1 6 . . . c5 !

tt:lxc7
e3

tt:lf6
.!:t ad8

Not 1 8 tt:lb5 because of 1 8 . . .

.!:t d5.
18
a6
An accurate move. After 1 8 . . .
.td6 1 9 tt:lb5 xh2+ 20 ..t>xh2
.!:td5 21 tt:l xa7 White is better.
19
.!:t ac t
A mistake, after which Black
gains the upper hand. Correct was
19 .!:t ed ! d6 20 b6 e5 2 1
.!:t xd8 .!:t xd8 22 tt:lxa6, and equality
is maintained.
19

J&.b4!

20 .!:t ft
If 20 .!:t ed 1 then 20 . . . a5!
tt:ld4!

20

If 20 . . . .t a5 White continues
with 21 tt:l xa6 tt:le7 22 c5! tt:lxf5
23 xf8.
21
22
23

'llt'g4

In the game Abramovic-Kura

jica (Yugoslavia 1 984) there fol
lowed 1 4 . . . 'llt' b4, and a draw was
quickly agreed.
15

16
17
18

'llt'xd4
0-0 ( 10)

17

.!:t c4
.!:t xb4

tt:lxf5
.!:t d7

.!:t e l
f4 loses to 23 . . . .!:t c8 24
.!:t xb7 tt:ld5 25 e5 tt:l xc7 26 .!:t e l
tt:le8!
23

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

.!:t bc4
h3
fe
e4
.!:t b4
.!:t xd t
wr2
e5 +

.!:t c8
.!:t cd8
tt:lxe3

..t>f8
<;t>e7

.!:t d l +
.!:t xdl+

<;t>d6

In time trouble White makes

18

Main Line with 6 . . . CiJc6 and 7 .. . e 7

the decisive mistake. The ending

is unpleasant, but after 3 I e2
it was possible to offer stubborn
resistance.
31
32
33
34
35
36

tt:la8
a4
J::t b3
J::t b7
<ot>f3
0-1

Game No. 3
World Ch (41)
Mosco w 1984

Kasparov and I have played seven

Petroff Defences in our battles for
the chess crown, and I think that
they have all clearly influenced the
development of theory. In six of
them
all from the first three
matches - 3 tt:lxe5 was played.
Three games are included in the
main text and three in the notes
to them. This opening did not
make an appearance in Seville,
and in our fifth match the move 3
d4 was tried. That game will be
examined in detail later on.
-

e4
tt:lf3
tt:lxe5
tt:lf3
d4
.td3

tt:lc6 ( 11)

0-0

II
w

<ot>xe5
b5
tt:ld5
ba
J::t b 1
a3

Karpov-Kasparov

1
2
3
4
5
6

e5
tt:lf6
d6
tt:l xe4
d5
J..e7

A key moment. The system of

defence with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . .
J.. e 7 (or these two moves reversed,
as in this game) was worked out
by the Russian master Jaenisch
back in the last century. M ore
aggressive seems 6 . . . tt:lc6 7 0-0
J.. g4 with immediate pressure on
the centre. However, this idea is
not new either. In his Handbuch
of I 922 Carl Schlechter gives the
following variation with the moves
transposed : 6 . . . J.. g4 7 0-0 tt:lc6
8 J::t e i f5 9 c4! J..d6 IO cd J.. x f3
I I "W xf3 tt:l xd4 I2 We3 Wf6 I 3
J.. xe4 fe I 4 Wxe4+ >t>f7 I 5 J.. g 5!
'it' xg5 I6 Wxd4 with advantage
to White (Capablanca-Marshall,
match I 909). Instead of the unsuc
cessful move 8 . . . f5 he rec
ommended 8
..te7! and then 9
J.. xe4 de I O J::t xe4 .hf3! I I ..W xf3
tt:lxd4 I 2 Wd3 tt:le6 with an equal
game.
Decades have passed and theory
has not stood still, but possibly
.

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . iLe7

only in our time has it become so

clear how important every tempo
is in this opening system. The two
moves by the black bishops - the
black-squared one to e7 and the
white-squared one to g4, it can
be said, define the two separate
channels in this branch of the
Petroff. We shall look in more
detail later at the bishop coming
to g4, which was introduced in the
last game. I have noticed that in
recent years that side by side with
Black's plan of action against the
enemy centre the symmetrical
variation has been widely used, in
which the c6-square is not occu
pied by the knight but by the
pawn, with the bishop coming to
d6 : 6 . . . .1t.d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6.
Black's position is a little passive
but solid enough. We shall also
look at this system later.
Now that we shall concentrate
on my six games with Kasparov,
I shall set out the opening of
each of them (in brackets are the
n u mber of the match and the num
ber of the game).
( 1 , 28): 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 ..tg4
8 J:t e 1 .1t.e7 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 cd;
(2, 1 5) and (3, 6) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6
7 0-0 .1t.g4 8 c4 ti:Jf6;
( 1 , 30) : 6 . . . .1t.e7 7 0-0 ti:Jc6
8 J:t e l .1t.g4 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 ti:Jc3;
( 1 , 4 1 ) : 6 . . . .1t.e7 7 0-0 ti:Jc6
8 c4 ti:Jb4;
( 1 , 48) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.e7

19

8 c4 ti:Jf6 9 ti:Jc3 0-0.

The two games of the first match
(which are referred to a little later),
where Kasparov played White
probably convinced him that the
variation was safe for Black, and
the third time he chose to play with
the opposite colo ur. H owever, I
had laid a small surprise in store.
8

c4 (12)

12
B

White quickly attacks the cen

tre. In our previous games with
this opening, White had played
J:t e l before moving the c-pawn
and had achieved nothing. Here
are those games.
Kasparov-Karpov (1, 28): 6 . . .
ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.g4 8 J:t e 1 .1t.e7 9 c4
ti:Jf6 1 0 cd .1t.xf3 (this move was
introd uced by Smyslov in his Can
didates match with Hiibner,
Velden 1 983. Earlier 1 0 . . . ti:Jxd5
had been preferred) 1 1 "ilt'xf3 "iit' x d5
(a more detailed commentary on
this position can be found in the
previous game) 12 "iit' h 3 ti:Jxd4 1 3
ti:Jc3 "iit' d 7 1 4 "iit' x d7 + 'it>xd7 1 5

20

Main Line with 6 . . . ti'Jc6 and 7 . . . .it..e 7

e3 4Je6 1 6 l:lad 1 ..id6 1 7 ..if5

e7 1 8 4Jb5 l:l, h d8 19 4Jxd6 cd
20 h3 b6 21 g4 h6 22 ..id4 l:lac8
23 ..ic3 g6 24 ..ic3 h5 2 5 f3 t-1.
Kasparov-Karpov ( 1 , 30) : 6
. . . ..ie7 7 0-0 4Jc6 8 l:le l ..ig4
(after 8 . . . i.f5 9 c4 the game fol
lows Karpov- Portisch which was
featured earlier) 9 c4 4Jf6 10 4Jc3
(instead of 10 cd - 28th game) 1 0
. . . d e I I xc4 0-0 1 2 e3 xf3
1 3 'ihf3 4Jxd4 14 ..bd4 'ihd4 1 5
1:1 xe7 'ihc4 1 6 'ihb7 c6 1 7 'ilt' b3
'ilt'xb3 1 8 ab l:lab8 1 9 l:la3 l:lfe8
20 l:lxe8 + l:lxe8 1-t.
Much earlier, in game six of the
Candidates final with Korchnoi
(Moscow 1974) I played the more
restrained 9 c3 f5 I 0 'ilt'b3 (13).

especially amusing incident once

happened to the young chess star
Vasily I vanchuk. In the game
I vanchuk-Anand, Reggio Emilia
1 988/9, Black played 10 . . . 'l!t'd6
instead of castling short and events
turned out rather unusually: I I
4Jfd2!? -0 1 2 f3 ..i h4 1 3 l:lfl
..i h3 (the continuations 1 3 . . .
..if2+ 14 l:lxf2 4Jxf2 1 5 ..t>xf2
'ilt'xh2 1 6 tt:J fl and 1 3 . . . ..ih5 14
fe fe 1 5 ..ixe4 d e 16 4Jxe4 'ilt'g6 1 7
4Jc5 are joyless for Black) 1 4 'ilt'c2
(if 14 gh 'l!t'g6+ 1 5 <;t;>h I then 1 5
. . . 4Jf2 + 1 6 l:lxf2 ..ixf2 1 7 'ilt'd I
l:lhe8 decides) 14 . . . 'ilt'g6 1 5 4Jb3
J:t hf8 1 6 4Ja3 l:lde8 (14).
14
w

13
8

After 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I 4Jbd2 h8

1 2 h3 h5 13 'ilt'xb7 Black lost
quickly, although the opening was
not responsible. The position in
the diagram is currently often
encountered in grandmaster tour
naments, and in general the game
turns out in White's favour. An

In this unconventional struggle

White has outplayed his opponent
and could have obtained a decisive
advantage here: 1 7 ..if4! ..ig5 1 8
..ixg5 4Jxg5 1 9 g h 4Je6+ 20 h i
4Jf4 2 1 l:lae l . But he unexpectedly
moved the king - 1 7 h I ??
4Jf2 + ! 1 8 l:lxf2 .txg2 +, and
White resigned (if 1 9 1:1 xg2 or 1 9
g1 then 1 9 . . . l:le I + follows).

Main Line with 6 ... lbc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

Instead of I 0 . . . 1!fd6 and I 0 . . .

0-0 Black also has the move 10 . . .
'Wd7. However, in the recent game
Rotterdam
Ehlvest-Yusupov,
1989), White dictated the play: I I
tilfd2 0-0-0 1 2 f 3 tilxd2 1 3 tilxd2
i.hS 14 1!fa4 J:!he8 I S tilb3 a6
16 i.d2 i.g6 !7 i.f4 tilb8 1 8
1!fxd7+ tilxd7 19 "'f2 i.f6 20 g3
lH8 21 a4 J:!f7 22 aS h6 23 tileS
etc.
Let us at last return to the 41st
game.
tilb4 (15)
8
In the 48th game, the last of the
first match, Kasparov was appar
ently ready to use my "prompting"
(see the White bishop's next
move) - this time Kasparov was
playing White. I did not carry out
the . . . tilc6-b4 manoeuvre of the
41st game and decided to play the
old move with the other knight.
Kasparov-Karpov (I, 48):
8 . til/6 9 tilc3 0-0 10 h3
Once and for all stopping
i.g4.
counterplay
with
Although the move h3 has fairly
lofty principles, one can manage
without it, for example Kudrin
Wolff, USA Ch 198S: 10 cd tilxdS
I I :tel i.e6 12 a3 i.f6 1 3 i.e4
tilde?? (the wrong knight goes to
e7 - 13 .. . tilce 7! equalises) 14
i.gS! i.xgS IS tilxgS i.fS (and
now I S . . . h6 is correct) 1 6 dS
i.xe4 17 J:!xe4 tilb8 18 "l!fhS h6
19 llael tilxdS 20 tilxf 7 tilf6 21
.

21

tilxh6+ "'h7 22 1!fh3 and Black

resigned.
10 ... de
After 10 . . . tilb4 (following 1 0
. . . i.e6 good is II cS) I I i.e2 cS
12 a3 tilc6 1 3 de de 14 i.e3
White has a definite advantage
(Velimirovic-Schiissler, Smeder
evska Palanka 1979).
11 i.xc4 tila5 12 i.d3 i.e6 13
J:!e1 tilc6
Later the interesting try 1 3 . . .
cS!? was discovered. After 14 i.e3
J:!c8 I S 1!fe2 cd 16 tilxd4 i.c4 1 7
J:!adl White i s better, but if 1 4
. . . c4 I S i.c2 tildS Black has
equalised
(Fedorowicz-Kogan,
USA 198S). Possibly 14 i.gS h6
I S i.h4 offers White better
chances. Now if I S . . . c4 i.xf6
i.xf6 17 i.e4 White dominates
the centre of the board.
14 a3 a6
In the game Lobron- Handoko,
Yugoslavia 1 98S, after 14 . . . J:!e8
I S i.bS 1!fd6 (White is also better
after I S . . . a6 16 i.xc6 be 17 tileS)
16 i.gS! J:! ed8 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 8
tile4 White obtained a noticeable
advantage and turned it into a
Will.

15 i./4 1!f d7
A serious mistake. Correct was
I S . . . tildS, for example: 16 i.g3
i.f 6 17 i.c2 tilce7 18 tile4 i.fS
19 tilxf6+ tilxf6 20 i.b3 c6 21
tileS tilfdS 22 1!ff3 i.e6 23 J:!adl
tilfS 24 i.xdS t-t Gufeld-

Main Line with 6 . . . tuc6 and 7 . . . e 7

22

Schussler, Havana 1 985.

16 lbe5! lbxe5 1 7 de lbd5 18 lbxd5
it..xd5 19 'ikc2 g6

16

On 1 9 . .. h6 play might continue

20 l:.ac l c6 2 1 l:.e3 with a strong
attack.
20 :adl c6

This leads by force to a difficult position for Black. It was

necessary to submit to a worse
ending with 20 . . . '*c6 21 xc6
if..x c6 22 if..c4.
21 it.. h6 :jd8 22 e6! fe

No better is either 22 . .. if..xe6

23 if.. xg6!, or 22 ... 'ike8 23 '*c3
f6 24 f4!
23 if..xg6 if../8 24 if.. x(8 :x(8 25
if.. e4 :j 7 26 :e3 :g7 27 :dd3
:j8 28 :g3 <i;h8 29 .c3 :.[7 30
:de3

Black's position is strategically

lost, and although the game con
tinued for almost another forty
moves, Kasparov gained the vic
tory deep in the endgame.
15
w

only

this

de

The interesting possibilities 9 . . .

if..e 6 I 0 'Uc3 0-0 (or the trans
position - 9 .. . 0-0 10 tt:Jc3 if.. e 6)
will be examined in the notes to
other games.
0-0
10
if..xc4
tt:Jc3
11
A lso 1 1 'Ue5 tt:Jc6 1 2 tt:Jxc6 be
1 3 'Uc3 'Ud6 14 if.. b3 tt:Jf5 1 5
d 5 c 5 1 6 :e l tt:Jd4 1 7 if..e 3 has
occured, with advantage to White
(Sindik-Ianaccone, Italy 1 985).
Black's correct response is the
immediate 1 1 ... tt:Jd6! After 1 2
Jt.. b 3 tt:Jf5 1 3 a 3 'Ud5 1 4 'Uc3 if..e 6
1 5 :e l c6 16 if..c2 tt:Jc7 the game is
level (Sindik-Zysk, Baden-Baden
1 985).
11
12

if..e 2! ( 16)

Strictly speaking,

move, with the intention of avoid

ing the exchange of the bishop,
was a real novelty in this bygone
match. Before then 9 cd had been
played (see game 1 0).

tt:Jd6

Jt.. b3
it..f6
After 1 2 ... if..g4 1 3 h3 it..h 5 1 4

Main Line with 6 . . . lLlc6 and 7 . . . 1L e 7

g4! ,ig6 1 5 tt:le5 followed by f4,

White is clearly better, but 1 2 . . .
.t>h8 ! deserves attention. In the
game Mnatsakanian-Diez, Varna
1 98 5, after 1 3 tt:le5 f6 14 tt:Jf3 ..ig4
1 5 h3 ..ih5 1 6 ..ie6 ..ixf3 1 7 gf
'llt"e8 1 8 ..if4 f5 1 9 c;t;>h2 'llt"g6 20
,i b3 ..ig5 Black had a senous
initiative on the kingside.
13

de

tt:Je4

1 7 . . . tt:J xb2 1 8 xb2 ..ixc3

doesn't work - 19 cd! ..i xb2 20
j.xf7 +! c;t;>xf7 21 W" d 5 + with an
unstoppable attack.
18

17

h3

Later, in the game A. Sokolov

Agzamov, 52nd USSR Ch 1 985,
White played the even stronger 1 3
tt:Je5! and after 1 3 . . . tt:Jc6 (more
accurate was 1 3 . . . c5 1 4 ..if4 c4
1 5 tt:lxc4 tt:lxc4 1 6 ..ixc4 ..ixd4
17 tt:Jb5, but bad is 1 3 . . . tt:Jf5 1 4
tt:Jxf7! xf7 1 5 ..ixf7+ wxf7 1 6
1Wb3 + , o r 1 3 . . . ..ixe5 1 4 de tt:Jf5
1 5 ..ixf7 + ! ) 1 4 ..i f4 tt:Jf5 1 5 tt:lxc6
be 1 6 d5 c5 1 7 tt:Ja4 ..ia6 1 8 e l
j.e7 (better i s 1 8 . . . c4 1 9 ..ic2
tt:ld6) 1 9 c l ..id6 20 ..ig3
achieved a large advantage.
13
..if5
e8
14
..i e3
15
a3
tt:Jd3 ( 17)
A pseudo-active move. More
reliable was 1 5 . . . tt:Jc6.
c5
b1
16
17

23

..ic2!

tt:Jxb2

On 1 8 . . . tt:Jg3 strong is 1 9 fg
l::tx e3 20 W"d2 ..id4 2 1 tt:Jxd4 W" xd4

22 c;t;>h2 ..ig6 23 tt:ld5!

l:t axd8
19
1W xd8
..i xc 3
20
xb2
21
tt:Jxc5
l:t xb7
22
..ixc5
..i xc2
23

l:t xa7

As a result of the mass ex

changes White has won a pawn,
but this could have been done
better in another way : 23 :te l
d l + (23 . . . ..ie4 24 xa7) 24
xd l ..i x d l 25 xa7.
23
..i d 1
24
25
26
27

l:t e7
..ixe7

tt:lg5

xe7
l:t d3
..ib2

..ib4

The threat was 27 . . . ..ic2,

winning the a3-pawn. Now 27 . . .
..ic2 is met by 28 e l !
27
28
29
30

tt:le4

h6
f5
d5
f4?

tt:Jc5
e 1
In time trouble Black makes the
losing move. 30 . . . c;t;>f7 or 30 . . .
..ic2 was required.

24

Main Line with 6 . . . lt:Jc6 and 7 . . . iie7

31

a4!

J:td4

3 1 . . . ..te5 does not help : 3 2 a5

..td6 33 a6 ..t xc5 34 ..t xc5 xc5
35 J:t e 8 + wf7 36 a7.
32

a5

xb4 (18)

18
w

This can be considered an his

toric position. By moving the a
pawn one square forward White
wins : 33 a6! ..tb3 (33 . . . ..ta4 34
a7 ..tc6 35 J:t e6 ..t d5 36 d6; 33
. . . J:t b8 34 l:t xd l ..t a 3 35 ttJb7!)
34 ttJxb3 l:t a4 (34 . . . l:t xb3 35
J:t e8 + and 36 a7) 35 ttJc5 l:ta5 36
e4! wf7 37 a4! xa4 38 ttJxa4
..td4 39 ttJc3 ! and Black loses the
bishop.
At this moment I had already
secured five victories and winning
this game would have secured vic
tory in the match with a score of
6 : I . However, the game concluded
in another fashion and chess h is
tory took a completely different
turn.
33
34
35

J:txd1?
liJe6
nd7

..td4
..ta7

35 ttJxg7 b2 36 ttJf5 ..txf2+

37 wfl is no better.
35
bl +
36
37
38

wh2
ttJxf4
ttJe6

..txf2
l:t a I
xa5

Black makes life more compli

cated for himself. As Josef Dorf
man pointed out, an easier path
to a draw was 38 . . . g5! 39 g7 +
(39 J:td5 .te l ) 3 9 . . . ..t> h8 40 J:t g6
..t> h7 41 ttJf8 + ..t> h8 42 a6 (42
J:t xh6 + 'Wt>g7 43 l:t g6 + ..t> xf8 44
f6+ ..t>g7 45 xf2 J:txa5) 42 . . .
..tgl + ! 43 ..t>g3 J:t a 3 + 44 "'g4
l:ta4+!
39
J:t xg7 +
whs
40
41

J:tf7

..te3

w g3
Here the game was adjourned
and in my home analysis I con
vinced myself that it is impossible
to realise the extra pawn. For
another thirty moves I tried to do
it, but, alas, without success.
41
42
43
44
45
46

d7
..t>f3
ttJf4
..t>e4
J:td8 +

..td2
..tc3
..t>g8
f5
f7!

There were more chances in

the minor-piece ending: 46 xf7
..t>xf7 4 7 ..t>f5. I n fact my
opponent's trainers, Dorfman and
Vladimirov, shortly afterwards
published some interesting analy
sis showing Black's best method

Main Line with 6 . . . lllc6 and 7 . . . i. e 7

of defence in this ending.

46 . . . wh7 47 d3 e7 + 48
w f3 b2 49 l:t b3 c 1 50 tl:ld5
:te5 51 tl:lf6 + wg6 52 tl:le4 l:t f5 +
53 <;Pe2 l:t e 5 54 l:t b4 l:t e 7 5 5 l:t c4
l:te8 56 g3 b2 57 wf3 e6 58
:tcS d4 59 l:td5 e5 60 b5
c7 61 l:t c5 b6 62 l:tc8 d4
63 l:tg8+ g7 64 h4 l:ta6 65 <;t;>f4

Alas, after 65 h 5 + 'ii;> x h5 66

l:txg7 l:t a 3 + 67 wf4 l:t f3 +
Black's fantastic rook appears.
65 ... l:t a5 66 l:t e8 :tf5 + 67
we3 l:t e5 68 :tg8 l:t e7 69 <;1;>f4
:tf7+ 70 '1Pg4 h5+ 71 ..t>h3-

Game No. 4
Khalifman-Arkhipov

Moscow 1985
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

e4
tl:lf3
tl:lxe5
tl:lf3
d4
d3
0-0
c4

e5
tl:lf6
d6
tl:lxe4
d5
e7
tl:lc6

It could be supposed that the

4 1 st game would for a long time
discourage Black from putting his
knight on b4, but shortly after
wards, instead of the 9 . . . de
played by Kasparov, something
else was devised and the variation
rapidly developed.
8
9

e2

tl:lb4
e6

25

This is the novelty (another

order of moves is 9 . . . 0-0 I 0 tl:lc3
e6). Whose novelty is it? At
the 1985 Moscow international
tournament, international master
Arkhipov three times made this
bishop move and in the notes
to his game with Tseshkovsky in
Informator there is the symbol N
(novelty). H owever, only one
month before, Christiansen had
played it in Linares against Ljubo
jevic. So it can be considered that
this opening discovery was inde
pendently made by two players.
10
11

0-0
tl:lc3
e3 (19)

The move I I cd will be dis

cussed later.
19
B

Black has many continuations

here : I I . . . f5, I I . . . tl:lxc3, I I
. . . f5, I I . . . f6. We shall look
at them all. In the next three
main games we shall discuss the
developing move I I . . . f5,
games 7 and 8 will be devoted to
I I . . . f5, and game 9 to I I . . . .ltf6.

26

Main Line with 6 . . . li:lc6 and 7 . . . it..e 7

In the second game o f the Candidates match Ehlvest-Yusupov,

St. John 1 988, Black exchanged at
once on c3. After I I . . . 4Jxc3 1 2
be 4Jc6 1 3 cd .Jt xd5 1 4 'ilt'c2 f6
( 1 4 . . . f5 deserved attention) 15
4Jd2 .rr e8 1 6 .rr ae I e6 1 7 d3
g6 18 f4 Jt .g7 1 9 4Je4 d5 20
4J c 5 .l:rxe l 2 1 .l:rxe l l:l. b8 White
has a clear positional plus, which,
according to Ehlvest, could be
strengthened by 22 g3 ! , prepar
ing 23 h4!
Let us look at a few more moves
of this very sharp game, where
Ehlvest preferred 22 'ilt'd2. There
followed : 22 . . . t2la5 23 'ilt'e2 .l:r c8
24 Jt .e5 j_xe5 25 de (commenting
on the game, Yusupov criticised
White's last two moves. More
accurate was 24 h3, and now an
equal game is preserved by 25
'ilt'xe5. Taking on e5 with the pawn
gives Black a good game) 25 . . .
'ilt' e7! 26 'ilt'g4 .!:rd8 (Yusupov
remarked that 26 . . . .l:!.f8! 27 'ilt'd4
{ 27 4Jd7? Si.e6 28 'ilt'a4 'ilt' xd7
etc. } 27 . . . .rr d8 gives Black the
advantage) 27 4J e4 'ilt'xe5 28 'ilt' h4
g5 29 'ilt'h5 4Jc6 (20) (exchanging
on e4 was better).
30 f4! (a nice try to exploit the
slight weakness of the enemy king)
30 . . . 'ilt'g7 (the only move as 30
. . . gf 31 'ilt' xe5 4J xe5 32 4Jf6+ g7
33 4Jh5+ and 34 .l:rxe5 loses) 3 1
fg Jt .xe4 32 xe4 4Je5 3 3 h4 4Jg6
34 Jt .xg6 hg 35 W f3 'it' f8 36 'ilt'e3

20
w

'iit' d 6 37 .l:rfl (37 'ilt'e7 equalises)

Now after 37 . . . b6 (37 . . . 'ilt'b6 +
is also good) Black again obtained
the better chances but the game
was finally drawn on move 60.
1I
f5
12
'iit' b3 (21)
Ivanov played 1 2 a3 against
Arkhipov (M oscow 1 985) and
after 12 . . . 4J xc3 1 3 be 4Jc2 14
.l:ra2 4Jxa3 ( 1 4 . . . 4Jxe3 1 5 fe with
a small advantage to White) 1 5
.l:!.xa3 xa3 1 6 c5 Jt .b2 1 7 'iit' b3
Jt .xc3 1 8 'ilt' xc3 c6 1 9 .l:ra I .!:re8 20
.!:ra3 'ilt'c7 2 1 4Jd2 b5 22 .!:ra6 the
game is complicated but in White's
favour. However, after 1 6 . . . b5
1 7 'ilt'b3 xc5 1 8 de c6 19 4Jd4
d7 20 Jt .f4 a5 2 1 .Jtd6 .rr e8
Black's game is fine.
From b3 the queen fixes on the
centre and on the b7-pawn. Now
the variation 12 . . . 4Jxc3 1 3 be
4Jc2 14 .!:rae I 4J xe3 15 fe is no
longer good for Black, for example
15 . . . g5 1 6 4Jxg5 'ilt' xg5 17 .!:rf4
j_e4 1 8 g3. Game 6 is devoted to

Main Line with 6 ... lilc6 and 7 . . . _j_e7

15

21
B

27

.1i.xf7+?!

The timid move 1 5 .1i.e2 loses

a pawn : 1 5 . . . .1i.e6 1 6 'it'd ! ti:Jxc3
1 7 llxc3 .1i.xa2 1 8 b3 a5 and a4,
or 1 7 be ti:Jxa2 1 8 llc2 b4. But the
bishop sacrifice is incorrect.
15
16

ti:Je5

llxf7
ti:Jd5

If 1 6 . . . ..We8, there follows 1 7

g4 ! tLJ xc3 1 8 be etc.
17

1 2 llc l .
12

c6

For 1 2 . . . de see the following

game.
13

llac1

1 3 cd cd 1 4 llac l a5 1 5 a 3 li:Jxc3
1 6 n xc3 a4 1 7 'it'd 1 ti:Jc6 leads to
equality, but 1 3 c5 ti:Jxc3 14 be
l/Jc2 1 5 nac 1 ti:Jxe3 1 6 fe is poss
ible. The waiting move with the
rook gives the initiative to Black.
13

de

Compared to the immediate 1 2

. . . de this exchange gains in
strength as Black has prepared the
. . . b7-b5 manoeuvre.
14
22
w

.1i.xc4

b5! (22)

ti:Jxe4

In the variation 1 7 ti:Jxc6 li:Jexc3!

18 ti:J xd8 ti:Je2+ 19 >th l li:Jxc l
Black retains a material advan
tage.
17
18

.1i.xe4
nxc6

Better is 1 8 ti:Jxf7 >txf7 and

only then 1 9 nxc6.
18
19

..We8!
llccl

19 nfc l is no good because of

1 9 . . . ti:J xe3 20 ti:Jxf7 .1i.d5!
19
20
21

ti:Jxf7
llc6

.1i.d6
..W xf7
lld8

There is formal equality on the

board, but the tangle of black
pieces holds together well.
22

.1i.g5

ti:Jf4!

This forcing move leads by a

series of exchanges to a winning
bishop ending.
23
24
25
26
27

..W xf7+
.1i.xd8
.1i.g5
d5
lld 1

.txf7
.1i.xc6
ti:Jxg2!
.1i.xd5
e6

28

Main Line with 6 . . . lUc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

28

J:!xdS

xdS

29

xg2

e4

The difference in the activity of

the two kings is too great and this
decides matters.
30
a6
.i.e3
31

Game No. 5
Timman-Hjartarson

Rotterdam 1989
1

e4

lilf3

lilf6
d6

h3

.i.eS

lilxeS

eS

32

b3

.i.d4

lilf3

lilxe4

33

.i.gS

d3

d4

d5

34

f3

c2

.i.d3

lilc6

35

.i.e3

.i.f6

0-0

.i.e7

36

e4

b2

c4

lilb4

37

d3

xa2

.i.e2

0-0

38

c2

aS

10

lilc3

39

.i.b6

a4

40

b4

40 ba loses at once to 40 . . . b4.

40

a3

41

.i.cS

42

.i.f8

hS
g6

43

.i.cS

gS

44

f3

On 44 .i.d6 there follows the

breakthrough 44 . . . g4! 45 hg h4,
followed by . . . h4-h3 and . . . .i.e7
with capture of the b-pawn.
44
.i.eS
45
.i.e7
.i.g3
46

.i.xgS

xb4

47

f4

c4

48

fS

dS!

49

.i.d8

.i.d6

50

.i.h4

51

f6

fS

52

c3

.6

53

.i.gS

b4+

54

c4

b3
0-1

The following recent game ts

interesting, in which White tried a
new approach, quickly playing
a2-a3:
Sznapik-Tischbierek,
Warsaw 1 990, went I0 a3 lilc6 I I
cd1!1'xd5 12 lilc3 lilxc3 1 3 be .i.f5
( 1 3 . . . lila5 is good) 14 c41!1'e4 15
lla2 .i.f6 1 6 lld2 !ladS 17 .i.b2
lile7 IS !lei 1!1'f4 19 g3 1!1'd6 20
.i.fl .i.g4 2 1 h3 .i.xf3 22 1!1'xf3
c5 23 d5 . i_xb2 24 llxb2 b6 25
llbe2 IileS 26 lle5 1!1'd7 27 .i.d3
lild6 2S 1!1'h5 g6 29 1!1'h4 lldeS 30
lle71!1'dS 3 1 llxeS llxeS 321!1'xdS
llxdS 33 lle7 b5 34 cb c4 35 .i.fl
lilxb5 36 a4 lild6? (The game has
flowed with a slight initiative to
White, but now after 36 . . . lila31
37 lle3 lilc2 3S Jlc3 lild4! 39
.i.xc4 ll xd5! it must end in a
draw. But now Black gets a lost
ending.) 37 ll xa7 Jlc8 38 ll a6! c3
39 .i.d3 lilc4 40 llc6 llxc6 4 1 de
lilb6 42 c7 fS 43 a5 IileS 44

Main Line with 6

fl ! and Black resigned (44 . . .

e7 45 r;t;>e2 'itd7 46 ..ia6 tt:Jd6
47 c8 (W')+ etc.).
In the middle of that game the
queen went from d5 to d6 in three
moves, but . . . W' d5-d6 can be
played at once : Hjartarson-Yusu
pov, Barcelona 1 989, 14
W' d6
1 5 d5 tt:Je5 1 6 tt:Jd4 ..id7 1 7 .l:tb 1
b6 1 8 tt:J b5 ..ixb5 1 9 l hb5 1-1.
0

liJc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

29

last game.
13

..t xc4

a5

After 1 3
ttJ xc3 1 4 b e tt:Jc2 1 5
:ad 1 tt:J xe3 1 6 fe White has strong
pressure on f 7.
0 0

a3 (23)

I4
23
B

..te6

IO

The bishop nearly always goes

to f5 in two moves, but in Ljubo
jevic-Yusupov, Barcelona 1 989,
Black played the bishop straight
to f5 and demonstrated a clear
path to equality : 1 0
..if5 11 a3
tt:lxc3 1 2 be tt:Jc6 1 3 l:t e 1 de 1 4
..bc4 ..id6 1 5 ..ig5 W'd7 1 6 tt:J h4
tt:Ja5 1 7 ..ia2 ..ig4 1 8 W' c2 l:t ae8
1 9 h3 ..ie6 20 c4 ..ie7 2 1 ..i xe7
Wxe7 22 tt:Jf3 1 -1 .
Several months later the players
continued their theoretical dis
cussion. In Ljubojevic-Yusupov,
Belgrade 1 989, they repeated
moves up to 1 3 l:t el. Then the
black player, possibly fearing
home preparation, played a
different move - instead of
exchanging on c4 he played 1 3 . . .
..if6. Again matters quickly ended
peacefully : 1 4 ..if4 J:!.c8 1 5 W' a4
a6 1 6 W' b3 tt:Ja5 1 7 W' b4 c5 1 8 de
tt:lc6 1 9 W' b 3 tt:Ja5 1-1.
0

II
I2

...

..ie3
W' b3

..if5
de

1 2 . . . c6 was discussed in the

In the tournament where the

move . . . ..ic8-e6 was first fully
tested ( M oscow 1 985) Arkhipov
used his idea three times. We have
already talked about two games,
in the third Tseshkovsky played
14 a3 against him and the position
in the diagram arose. There fol
lowed 14
tt:Jxc3 1 5 be a4 1 6
W'b2 tt:Jc2 17 l:t a2 tt:J xe3 1 8 fe ..id6.
Now it was correct to play 1 9
tt:Je5! ..ie6 20 ..i xe6 fe with un
doubtedly better chances for
White. However, after two con
secutive inaccurate moves -- 1 9
W' xb7? .l:tb8 20 W' d5? (if 20 W'a6
'W/d7 and Black's position is active
enough) 20
..i d 3!, White was
losing - 2 1 W' c6 (21 ..id3
..ixh2 + , 2 1 .!:!. d 1 c6! 22 'WI xc6 .l:tc8)
21
..i xfl 22 'itxfl l:t b 1 + etc.
0

30

Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . i.. e 7

In the game we are following

Timman played a new move,
answering 1 4 . . . tt:Jxc3 by taking
the other knight - 1 5 ab. How
ever, before we move on, we
should note that a half-move
earlier an important novelty
for Black had been adopted in
the game Efimenko-Vzdvizhkov
tournament
(correspondence
1 989). In the diagram position
followed 14 . . . tt:Jd2!?. After 1 5
..txd2 ..tc2 1 6 ..txf7 + l:t xf7 1 7
'jj'e 6 ..tf5 1 8 'jj' b 3 ( 1 8 'jj'e 5 .d6)
18 . . . ..tc2 1 9 'jj'e 6 the game was
agreed drawn -- neither player
could avoid repeating moves.
Evaluation of 1 4 . . . tt:ld2 of
course, depends on the variation
1 5 tt:Jxd2 ..tc2 1 6 ab ..txb3 1 7
tt:Jxb3 ab 1 8 tt:Jd5. The sides are
approximately equal on material,
but I would prefer to play with
the three minor pieces against the
queen. If you don't like the white
position, it is clear that 1 2 a3 or
1 2 l:t c 1 should be preferred to
placing the queen on b3 (see the
next game).
14
15
15
16

tt:Jxe3
a b (24)
b5
ba!

Not so clear is 1 6 ..txf7+ l:t xf7

1 7 be a4, but the continuation 1 6
be be 1 7 'jj' xc4 ..ie6 1 8 ..-b5 ab
19 l:t xa8 'jj' x a8 20 cb ..td5 is in
Black's favour.

24
B

16
17
18

'jj' xe3
l:t fe1

be
..td3

Now White has material superi

ority and in the long term can
march the a-pawn. Hjartarson
offers desperate resistance.
18
19
20

l:t b8
e5
..tf6
Insufficient is 20 . . . ..t xc5 2 1
..td2
de

'jj'e 5! l:t b 5 2 2 ..te3 (22 'jj' g 3? l:t xb2

2 3 ..tc3? .xf2+ !) 22 . . . l:t e8 23
'jj' x e8 + ! 'jj' x e8 24 ..txc5 'jj'a 8 25
..id4 with the threat of ..ic3.
21
tt:Je5
'jj'd 5
22

..t f4 !

Premature is 2 2 b4? cb 23 'jj' x d3

'jj' x d3 24 tt:Jxd3 ..ixa 1 25 l:t xa 1
l:t bd8, and Black is winning.
22

l:tfe8 (25)

Neither 22 . . . l:t b3 23 ..-d2 l:t fb8

24 a6 l:t xb2 25 a7! nor 22 . . . 'jj' x c5
23 tt:Jxd3 work, but more practical
chances were retained by 22 . . . g5,
creating an opening for the king.
In fact, it seems that Black doesn't

Main Line with 6 . . . ttJc6 and 7 . . . iLe 7

3I

26
B

:!5
w

stand so badly now.

23

b4!!

A brilliant reply! Three passed

pawns are too much.
cb
Wxd3
Wxd3
..txal
tt:lxd3
b2
J::tx a l
tt:l xb2!
But not 27 n bl n b3 28 tt:l xb2
(28 tt:le5? n a3) 28 . n xb2.
27
J::t x b2
28
h3
J::t c2
29
a6!
g5
23
24
25
26
27

29 . . . J::t xc5 doesn't help : 30 a7

J::t a8 (30 ". J::t cc8 31 n bl J::t a8 32
J::t b8 etc.) 31 J::t b l J::t cc8 32 J::t b8
g5 (32 . . . wf8 33 wh2!) 33 ..td6
(it's too early for 33 J::t xc8 + J::t xc8
34 b8 .!:t e l + 35 wh2 .!:t a l ) 33
g7 34 wh2.
30
31
32

33
34

..td6
a7
na6
c6
..tb8 (26)

J::ta 8
f5
w f7
we6
1 -0

The final position is worth sav-

ouring. After 34 . . . >td5 35 c7

transferring the white rook to the
eighth rank decides, and if 34 . . .
h5 there follows 35 c7 + <;t;>d7 36
J::t g6 <;t;>c8 37 J::t xg5.
Game No. 6
Hiibner-Tim man
Sarajevo 1990
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

e4
tt:lf3
tt:l xe5
tt:l f3
d4
..td3
0-0
c4
..te2
tt:lc3
..te3
.!:tel (27)

e5
tt:lf6
d6
tt:lxe4
d5
tt:l c6
..te7
tt:l b4
0-0
..t e6
..tf5

The moves 1 2 a3 and 1 2 Wb3

have already been covered. Notice
that the Dutch grandmaster will
ingly chooses the Petroff with
either colour. However, if in the
previous game he played beauti-

32

Main Line with 6 . . . tuc6 and 7 . . . i.. e 7

xe4 1 8 tt:Jxf7 .txf7 19 l:t xc6

.tg8 with advantage to Black.

27
B

14
1S
16

be
'Wf3

tt:Jxe3
tt:JdS

White's pieces are more active,

but Black is gradually managing
to consolidate.
16
e6
17

fully with White, now matters

don't turn out so well with
Black - in this encounter Tim
man struggled to draw.
12

de

The move 1 2 :t e l was first

played by Short, again against
Timman (Hilversum (6) 1 989). In
it the tactical skirmish after 12 . . .
tuxc3 1 3 be tuxa2 1 4 l:t c2 xc2
1 5 'W xc2 tuxc3 1 6 'W xc3 c6 1 7 l:t b l
a 5 1 8 l:t xb7 a4 1 9 tue5 d6 20
tuxc6 'W c8 2 1 l:t b6 brought some
advantage to White. After inaccur
acies on both sides it eventually
ended in a draw. In any case,
Timman prepares for complica
tions by postponing the exchange
on c3 for a few moves.
13
14

xe4
tZ:leS

e6

Nothing is gained from 1 4

'W b3?! with pressure on f7. Hubner
gives the variation 14 . . . b5 1 5
xf7 + ( 1 5 e2 e6 1 6 'W d l
tt:Jxc3 1 7 be tt:J xa2 1 8 l:t c2 b4!) 1 5
. . . l:t xf7 1 6 tt:Je5 tt:Jd5 1 7 tt:Jxe4

d3

If 1 7 l:t fe l, 1 7 . . . tt:Jxe3 18 l:t xe3

xc4 equalises immediately.
17

d6

Exchanging on e3 is to White's
ad vantage - 1 7 . . . tt:Jxe3 1 8 fe
d6 1 9 tt:Jc4 c7 20 e4.
18

d2

'Wh4!?

Decisive measures are needed

to reduce White's queenside press
ure: 1 8 . . . xe5 1 9 de tt:Je7 20
g5!
20

19

l:tfe1
a4

21
22
23

f4
xeS
'WfS

tt:Jf6
tt:Jg4

With exchanges Black makes

things easier for his pieces (20 . . .
d5 2 1 'Wg3 'Wxg3 22 hg with
better prospects for White).
tZ:lxeS
dS
xeS

White gets a slightly better

ending from 23 . . . l:t ad8 24 l:te3
g6 25 'Wf6 'W xf6 26 xf6 f4 27
xd8 l:t xd8 28 l:t b l xe3 29 fe
b6.
24

l:t xeS

g6

The retreat 24
e6 covers
the invasion squares to the eighth

Main Line with 6 . . . ti:Jc6 and 7 . . . 1t..e 7

r ank, although after 25 'ilt'f3 g6 26

J:tb l nab8 27 J:t a5 a6 28 J:t e5
Wh ite has the freer game.
25
26

'i!t"d7
nb1

nabS
nfdS?!

.te6 27 'ilt' c7
And now 26
J:tfc 8 28 'ilt' a5 a6 deserves attention,
dri ving the persistent queen away
from the black cam p.
27
28
29
30

'ilt'c7
.tfl
J:t e7
J:t xc7

'ilt'g4
'i!t"d7
'ilt'xc7
a5 (28)

33

J:t bd8 37 w c3 c5 (or 37 . . . .tf5

38 J:l: xc6 J:t e3 39 J:t d l ) 38 d5 .tf5
39 .txf5 gf 40 J:l: xb6 - brings the
long-awaited prize (this game took
place in the Candidates match,
and had Hubner won the scores
would have been levelled).
31

J:l: e8

Now if 32 f3 the rook can activate itself: 32 . . . J:t e 1 33 ..tf2 J:l: c l .

32
33
34
35

c4
J:l: bxb7
J:t xb7
d5

.te6
J:l: xb7
J:t d8

There is no danger for Black in

35 J:l: c7 J:!:xd4 36 J:l: xc6 J:!:d l .

28
w

35
36
37
38
39
40
41

An important moment. After

the obvious 3 1 n bxb7 J:t xb7 32
J:txb7 c5 33 J:l: b6 (33 J:l: b5 cd 34
cd ..tc6 35 J:l: xa5 J:t xd4) 33 . . . cd
34 cd, there follows 34 . . . ..te4!
35 J:l: b5 J:t xd4 36 J:l: xa5 .,tc6 and
with the a-pawn the last chance
disa ppears.
31

J:t b6?

A fatal delay, letting go of the

nrebird. Meanwhile, the inclusion
of t he king in the hunt - 3 1 f3!
b6 3 2 wf2 wg7 33 ..td3! h5 34
c4 ..te6 35 <;t>e3 J:t e8 36 w d2

c5
J:!:b5
..td3
xf5
wfl
c6

cd
J:t c8
d4
..t5
gf
J:t e8

The continuation 4 1 J:l: xa5 d3

42 J:t b5 J:t e4! 43 a5 d2 44 J:t b l
J:l: a4 immediately forces a draw.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

J:t d5
J:!:xd3
J:t d5
J:l: xa5
J:t a8
a5
a6

d3
J:l: c8
J:l: xc6
J:t c4!
wg7
J:t b4
J:t a4

The king's 'dance' in front of his

own pawns doesn't promise much :
48 w e2 J:l: a2 + 49 wf3 J:t a3 + 50
..tf4 J:t a2 5 1 <;t>g3 J:t a3 + .

34

Main Line with 6 ... Ci"Jc6 and 7 . . . Ji.e7

48
49
50

g3
h4

.!:l:a2
h6

And if 50 <;t>g2 .!:l:a3 5 1 h4 <;t>h7

the king is unable to escape his
incarceration.
50
51
52
53

gf
a7
<;t>g2

f4
.!:l:a4
.!:l:a2

The king moves out, but the

result of the game is already determined.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

f3
<;t>g3
<;t>f2
<;t>e3
<;t>d3
<;t>c4
<;t>d 4
<;t>c4

.!:l:a3
.!:l:a2+
.!:l:a3
.!:l:a2+
.!:l:a4
.!:l:a3 +
.!:l:a l
.!:l:a5

In the same tournament i n

Brussels Lj ubojevic somew h at
crudely played I I cd against Seira
wan. After I I . . . li:lxc3 I 2 be 8xd5
13 '1Wc2 ( 1 3 d 2 li:lb6 leads to
equality) 1 3 . . . c5 14 c4 li:lb4 15
"t\t'e4 'llt' d7 1 6 de? .t5 1 7 '1Wd4 'l!!t'e6
I 8 b2 f6 19 'tWd2 xb2 20
'Wit' xb2 li:lc2 Black had the ad van
tage, which he converted into a
full point. When the game finished,
the opinion was put forward that
16 J.. b2 was a better chance for
White.
f5!? (29)

11
:!9
w

1 1
r2

Game No. 7
Karpov-Seirawan

Br ussels 1986
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

e4
li:lf3
li:lxe5
li:lf3
d4
d3
0-0
c4
e2
li:lc3
e3

e5
li:lf6
d6
li:lxe4
d5
e7
li:lc6
li:lb4
e6
0-0

A curious idea : thanks to the

energetic movement of the f-pawn.
Black obtains active counterplay
on the kingside. Let us remind
ourselves that the other main
possibilities are
I I . . };JS
(games 4-6), I I . . . f6 (game 9)
and I I . . . li:lxc3 (note to game 4).
In the game A. Sokolov-Smys)ov.
Moscow I 987, yet another con
tinuation was encountered
II
. . . li:lf6, but this knight retreat can
-

--

Main Line with 6 . . . CZlc6 and 7 . . . .1u 7

hardly be recommended. There

followed 1 2 a3 CZlc6 1 3 b3 tt'le4.
Exchanging on c3 when the white
pawn is on b2 is not favourable
for Black as it strengthens the
opponent's centre, but now, when
the b-pawn has moved one square
forward and the be capture is not
pos sible, the black knight returns
to e4 to attack c3. However, White
takes the knight himself and the
loss of two tempi does Black no
favours at all : 14 tt'lxe4 de 1 5 d5
ef 1 6 xf3 d7 1 7 de xc6 1 8
.xc6 be 1 9 '!Wf3 '!Wd3 20 ab l
'!Wg6 2 1 a4 a5 2 2 f4 d6 23
i.xd6 "i!Wxd6 24 bd I '!Wb4 25
J:I d7 ab8 2 6 xc7 W' xb3 27
'l!Hxc6. Although Smyslov saved
himself in the ending, hardly
anyone would want to repeat his
opening experiment with Black .
12
13
14

a3
be
..Wa4

tt'lxe3
tt'le6

We shall look at 14 cd in the

next game.
14
15

f4
.d2

It was later established that it

is better for the bishop to return
ho me: 1 5 cl ! <;t>h8 1 6 b l b8
1 7 e l ! (now 1 7 . . . de 1 8 <\bc4
.1 g4, as was played in my game
Wi th Seirawan, is not possible
because of 19 d5! winning) 1 7 . . .
a6 1 8 d3 de 1 9 xh7 and White
h as a la rge advantage (Kayumov-

35

Serper, USSR 1 987).

15
16
17
18
19

>t>h8
b8
abl
de
fe l
xe4
g4
e2 (30)

30
B

An i mportant moment. Look

ing ahead, one should note that
after 1 9 . . . kd6 20 h3 h5 the
white rook carried out an unusual
manoeuvre : 2 1 b5! .lte8 22 '!Wc2
a6 23 f5!. There took place an
exchange of rooks, the light
squares in the enemy camp were
noticeably weakened, and in the
end I made use of this situation.
Shortly afterwards Seirawan
found a way to improve Black's
play, and the relevant game is
worth giving in full (Rohde-Seira
wan, USA Ch 1 986). In the diag
rammed position Black replied
19 . . . a6!
Not a complicated move, but
now it is clear that the b5-square
is not available to the white rook,
which is not insignificant.

36

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:Jc6 and 7

20 h3 .fl.h5 21 li:Jg5'
Meeting the unexpected, White
becomes lost. After 21 J:! bdl (also
interesting is 2 1 li:Jh2) he still has
the initiative.
21 . . . .fl.xe21
Significantly stronger than 21
. . . ..bg5 22 ..bh5 f3 23 ..bg5
'l!fxg5 24 ..bf3! J:! xf3 (24 . . . li:Jxd4
25 'l!fxd4 J:! xf3 26 J:!xb7 J:! bf8 27
J:! xc7 J:! xh3 28 'l!fd6 J:!g8 29 'l!fe6
with the terrible threat of 'l!fxg8+)
25 'l!fxc6! and White has a clear
advantage.
22 li:Je6 'lll d5 23 J:! xe2 f3'
By sacrificing the exchange
Black creates dangerous threats.
24 J:! ee1 fg' 25 ii:Jxf8 J:! xf8 26
'lll d1 '111/5'
Black already has a won game,
but it is interesting to watch the
game to the end.
27 wxg2 'lllxf2+ 28 wh1 l:!/3
In order to avoid mate White
must give up a piece.
29 J:!e3 J:! xe3 30 .fl.xe3 'lllxe3 31
'lllg4 g61 32 l:!/1
Of no help is 32 'l!fc8+ wg7 33
J:!xb7 .fl.d6 34 J:!xc7+ .fl.xc7 35
'l!fxc7+ li:Je7.
32 . . . <J<g7 33 J:!f3 '111 e 1+ 34 <J<g2
.fl.xa3 35 '111/4 'lll e 7 36 J:!e3 '111/7
37 'llle4 .fl.d6 38 J:!e2 li:Je71 39
'lllxb7 li:Jd5 40 l:!/2 li:Je3+
White resigned now in view of
the eff ective 4 1 wg1 .fl.h2+! 42
wxh2 'l!fxf2+ 43 whl 'l!fg2+!
I t is time to go back to the game

il.. el

against Seirawan.
19

.fl.d6

I'll remind you again that 1 9 . . .

a6 is correct here.
20

h3

.fl.hS

20 . . . .fl.f5?! is no better.
21

l! bS!

il.eS

If 2 1 . . . .fl.g6 then 22 c4 is very

unpleasant.
22

'l!fc2

a6

A bit too late. In White's favour

is 22 . . . .fl.g6 23 il.d3 .fl.xd3 24
'l!fxd3 with threats of J:! h5 and
li:Jg5.
23

l! fS!

l! xfS

24

'l!fxfS

il.g6

25

'l!fg4

1!ff6

26

.fl.c4

l!fS

An exchange of queens by 26 . .
.fl.f5 27 'l!fg5 'l!fxg5 28 li:Jxg5 does
not ease the black position.
27

a4

il.c2

28

'l!fhS

h6

If 28 . . . .fl.xa4 then 29 li:Jg5 h6

30 li:Jf7+ wh7 31 J:!e6! decides.
29

J:!e8!

.fl.fS

Again the a-pawn is untouch

able because of 30 li:Jg5!
30

.fl.dS!

31

.1:1 xf8+

.fl.d7
'l!fxfS

If 3 1 . . . .fl.xf8 there follows 32

li:Je5.
32

li:Jh4

33

'l!fe2

.fl.e8

Without rooks it is harder for

my opponent to defend the ligh t
squares. There is no point in hurry
ing. Instead after 33 li:Jg6+ il.xg6

Main Line with 6 . . . ttJc6 and 7 . . . e 7

J4 'l>Wxg6 8 e 7 White has lost most

o f his ad van tage.
33
34
35
36

'l\fe4
lLlg6+
'lW xg6

lLld8
'1We7
il.xg6
e6

Stra tegically Black's position is

ho peless. However, he has man
aged to organise stubborn resist
ance and the game lasted another
40 moves - enough for a whole
game!
37
38
39
40
41
42

b3

.t>fl
e2
b3+
h4
e4

b5
'lWf8
.t>g8
.t>h8
lLlb7
'lWg8 (31)

31
w

44
45

45
46
47
48

'lWd3

43

'ii' h7

il.e7
ab
.ta5

ab
h5

cl
And here 48 'l\fxh7 + was correct
with an easily won ending. For
victory it was now necessary to
create a small study.
48
49

'l\fe7+
.t>dl

After 49 .t>f3 g4+ ! Black can

already count on victory : 50
.t>xg4 'lW g5 + 51 .t>f3 (5 1 .t>h3
'lWxh5 mate) 51
'lWxh5 + 52 g4
(52 .t>e4 W'g6+, 52 .t>xf4 'l\fg5 +)
52
'lW h 1 + .
0

49
50
51
52
53

43

g5

.t>e2
e5

It would have been better to

exchange q ueens at once.

This retreat did not affect the

res ult, but because of it the whole
ev eni ng was wasted finishing the
game. After 43 c2! with the
t:lrcat of ..tc3 d5 and '!Wxh6 mate
it W o uld hav been finished muc h
quicke r.

37

.t>e2
.t> b l
'ii' xg3
.t>e2

'lWei +
'lW xf2+
'lW g3
fg

At last the queens are

exchanged; Black, it is true, has
an extra pawn, but the minor
piece ending holds no prospects
for him.
53
54
55
56
57
58

d5
.tb2+
de
.ta3 +
e6!

<;t>g7
lUxeS
.t>f8
lLla6
<;t>e8

An elegant way of cutting off

the king from the pawn.

Main Linc with 6

38

. . .

'Llc6

and 7 . . . J u 7

b4

58

Of course, not 58 . . . li:lb4+ 59

xb4 xb4 60 c7.
59
60
61
62
63
64

b2
d7+
e5
wd2
e6
f7

f8
wds
li:l b4+
li:ld5
li:lc7
li:le8 (32)

The last chance rested in 64 . . .

li:la6. Now follows the study I
promised.
32
w

65
66

xe8!
f6!

wxe8

The other white bishop cuts the

king off from the pawn. After 66
c7 cS! Black ts still holding
on.
66
67
68
69
70
71
n

73

wc3
g7
w b4
wxb5
wc5
wd5
f8

g4
d6
f4
wd8
wc7
e3 +
f4

Black is in complete

zugzwang.

73
74
75

d6
xg3

>t;>b6
g5
1 -0

Game No. 8
Hiibner-Yusupov

Rotterdam 1988
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

e4
li:lf3
li:lxe5
li:lf3
d4
d3
0-0
c4
e2
li:lc3

e5
li:lf6
d6
li:lxe4
d5
li:lc6
e7
li:lb4
0-0

The Petroff is one of grand

master Artur Yusupov's favourite
openings, and he achieves good
results with it, often with great
artistry. Three months later in the
World Cup in Rotterdam, Nunn
played a new move in this position
against Yusupov - I 0 li:le5?! The
knight's sudden attack caused
Black no harm - 10 . . . cS I I
e3 fS 1 2 a3 li:lc6 I 3 li:lxc6 be
14 cd cd 1 5 de xeS 1 6 xeS
li:lxcS 1 7 li:ld2 d4. Black's posit ion
is already preferable, i t's true, but
after ten more moves it all ende d
peacefully : 1 8 .:t e l J:t c8 1 9 0b3
li:lxb3 20 J:t xc8 'ilt' xc8 21 'iit' xb3
c2 22 tt' f3 ..Wb8 23 b4 J:tc8 24
a6 J:t c3 25 ..W dS J:t xa3 26 e4
g6 27 ..W xd4 ..W b6 1 - 1 .

Main Line with 6

10
11
12

e3

e6
f5

33
w

lt:lc6

and 7 .

_ _

Ji.. e 7

39

h3 c4 39 be f7 40 tUgS f6 4 1
l:l: xf8+ 1 -0.

a3

If 12 cd tUxd5 13 tUxe4 fe 14
cud2 cuxe3 1 S fe g5 and Black
has everything in order, but White
can play the stronger 1 3 tUxd5
xd5 14 Sl.f4 c6 (33) , obtaining
a minimal positional advantage.

_ _ _

tUxc3

12

But not 1 2 . . . tUc6?! 1 3 tUxd5

with a strong initiative for White.
13
14

be
cd

tUc6

A novelty. To 1 4 l:l: b 1 Black

replies 1 4 . . . l:l: b8!, and then 1 5 cd
.lt xd5 1 6 c4 e4! with an unclear
game ( 17 l:l: b5 a6). The previous
game was devoted to 14 a4.
14
15

xd5
c4 (34)

34
B

In fact, in the game Dvoiris

Sorokin, Chelyabinsk 1 990, this
advantage was quickly increased :
1 5 1Le5 b6 (here the queen is
out of the action; another
ma noeuvre,
d8--e8--g6,
deserved attention) 1 6 c2 l:l: ad8
17 b3 a5 1 8 c4 tUd6 19 tUd2
1Llf7 20 .IH4 f6 2 1 l:l: ae1 xd4
22 xf5 c3 23 c2 tUd6 24
.hd6 l:l: xd6 25 tUe4 xe 1 26
<Llxd6 .llb4 (the intense skirmish
in the middlegame has left a
difficult ending for Black) 27 tUe4
h8 28 xd5 xd5 29 l:l: d 1 f5
3 0 f3 e7 3 1 d3 l:l: f7 32 d4
b6 33 c4 c5 34 a4 .IH8 35 e8
:l e7 36 a8 <;t>g8 37 l:l: d8 l:l: e6 38

According
to
Makarichev
White retains better chances with
1 5 l:l: b 1 !?. Less clear is 1 5 f4 ( 1 5
Wd2? tUa5!) 1 5 . . . g5! 1 6 .c 1
.i.f6!, b u t not 16 . . . g4?! 1 7 tUd2
d6 18 c4 xh2+ 19 wxh2
Wh4+ 20 wg1 .txg2 21 wxg2
h 3 + 22 <;t>g1 I.Llxd4 23 l:l: e 1 and
Black's attack is beaten off (23 . . .
g3 24 tUf1).
In the game Dvoiris - Mikhal
chishin, Lvov 1 990, Black answ
ered 1 5 .U4 with 1 5 . . . d6.

40

Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

After 16 ..bd6 'l!l' xd6 17 lild2

White obtained the slightly better
ending, finally ending in a draw.
It is instructive to see how this
happened: 17 . . . l!ae8 1 8 ..H3 b6
19 'l!l' a4 lila5 20 l! fe I .i.c6 2 1
.i.xc6 'l!l'xc6 2 2 'l!l'xc6 lilxc6 23
lilc4 g5 24 f3 l!e7 25 q,f2 l!fe8
26 lile3 l! f8 27 h4 gh 28 l! h I f4
29 1ild5 l!d7 30 lilb4 1ile7 3 l l!xh4
c5 32 lilc2 lilg6 33 l! h5 cd 34 cd
l!c8 35 l!a2 l!dc7 36 lilb4 a5 37
lild5 l!c2+ 38 l! xc2 l! xc2+ 39
<;!;gl b5 40 lilf6+ q,g7 4 1 lile4
b4 42 l! xa5 b3 43 <;!;> h2 lil h4 44
<;!;> h3 b2 45 l! b5 lilf5 46 lilc5 lilxd4
47 l! b7+ M6 48 lild3 l!c3 49
lilxb2 lilxf3 50 gf l! xf3+ 5 1 q,g4
l! xa3, and White soon had to
resign himself to a draw.
Moving the c-pawn allows
Black to carry out an advantage
ous simplification. A year later
Belyavsky
chose
the
more
restrained 1 5 'l!l'c2 against Yusu
pov (Barcelona 1989) and also
achieved nothing. There followed
1 5 . . . q,h8 1 6 l! fd l 'l!l'd7 1 7 .i.f4
.i.d6 1 8 lile5 (now Black seizes
the initiative. White had to
exchange on d6) 1 8 . . . .i.xe5 1 9
d e 'l!l'e6 2 0 c4 .i.e4 2 1 'l!l'c3 lile7
22 .1ld4 l! ae8! 23 f3 .i.b6 24 .i.g3
g5 25 .i.d3 f4 26 .i.f2 lilf5 27
.i.xf5 l!xf5 28 l!adl wg8 29 l!d8
1Hf8 30 l!xe8 l! xe8 31 'l!l'd4 'l!l'xe5?
(Throwing away the advantage.
Correct was 3 1 . . . b6.) 32 'l!l'xe5

l! xe5 33 .i.xa7 l!e8 34 .i.c5 <;l; f7

35 wf2 wf6 36 .i.b4 h5 (A care
less move, allowing White to get
the advantage. In fact, everything
turns out favourably for both play..
ers.) 37 h4! gh 38 l!d4 <;!;g5 39
.i.a5 b6 40 .i.d2 l!f8 41 c5 l!f5
42 cb cb 43 l! c4 .i.d7 44 <;!;gl b5
45 l!d4 .i.e6 46 wh2 .i.c8 47
.i.a5 h3! 48 l!d6 l!c5 49 .i.d8+
wf5 50 l! h6 l!d5! (the presence
of opposite-coloured
bishops
guarantees Black a peaceful out
come) 5 1 l!h5+ q,e6 52 l!xd5
<;!;xd5 53 gh .i.f5 54 .i.c7 .t bl
55 .i.xf4 <;!;e6 56 <;!;g3 .i.f5 57
.i.g5 .i.bl 58 M4 .i.f5 59 h4
.i.bl 60 h5 q,d5 !+
15
16

.i.xf3
.i.xf3

f4

q,hs
.i.dS+
18
.i.e!
lilxd4!
More accurate than 1 8 . . . .tf6
1 9 .i.b2 lilxd4 20 .i.xd4 .hd4
2 1 'l!l'xd4 c6 22 !!ad I cd 23 cd with
a better ending for White.
17

19

l! bl

Bad is 1 9 'l!l'xd4 because of 1 9

. . . .i.f6! , and 1 9 .i.b2 c5! leads to
equality.
19
.i.cS
But not 19 . . . c6 20 .i.e4 with
the threat of 2 1 'l!l'h5.
20

l!xb7

Now 20 .i.b2 leads to a draW

after 20 . . . 'l!l' f6!
20
21

f3
.i.xf3

lilxf3+

Main Line with 6 . . . lt:\c6 and 7 . . . i.e7

t-t
After 22 gf d6! White's extra
pawn has no significance.
Game No. 9
Ljubojevic-Karpov
Bugojno 1986
e4

1
2

tt:Jf3

lU xeS

4
5

tt:Jf3

eS
tt:Jf6
d6
tt:J xe4

5
6

dS
d3

e7

0-0
c4
e2

tt:Jc6
tt:J b4

After game 4 1 of my match with

Kasparov, it seemed that no one
would want to play this position
as Black in future. But, as you
see, theory quickly develops and
possible antidotes appear for
Black. Eventually, I myself
decided to play the variation as
Black.

d4

In Informator 44 in the commen

tary to one of the games, reference
is made to M iles-Christiansen
(San Francisco 1 987), which went
5 tt:Jc3 f5 6 tt:Jxe4 xe4 7 d3
i.g6 with a quick draw. The
bishop move to f5 is noted as
a novelty. As is related in the
magazine Chess Life, Miles and
Christiansen it seems, had agreed
a draw beforehand and therefore
it wasn't worth taking their moves
seriously. Viswanathan Anand fell
into the 'trap' - several months
after Jnformator appeared (at Biel
1 988) he tried the 'reliable' move 5
. . . f5 and after Zapata's obvious
reply 6 'tlr'e2! he had to resign (6
We7 7 tt:Jd5!). This is possibly
the quickest grandmaster defeat in
history! The incident will no doubt
be added to the treasure trove of
openi ng curiosities.

7
8
9

41

9
10
11

tt:J c3
e3

0-0
e6
f6 (35)

35
w

This was first seen in another

game by the Yugoslav grand
master, Ljubojevic-Christiansen
(Linares 1 985 ). After 1 2 .!:!: c 1 c5 1 3
a3 cd 1 4 tt:Jxd4 xd4 1 5 xd4
tt:Jxc3 1 6 .!:!: xc3 tt:Jc6 1 7 cd lLl xd4
1 8 de fe (less dangerous is 1 8 . . .
tt:Jxe6, when White has only a
minimal advantage) 1 9 d3 .!:!: f7
20 Wd2 ..Wf6 2 1 .!:!: fc 1 White
obtained a clear advantage.
In the game we are following

42

Main Line with 6 . . . 0.c6 and 7 . . . e7

Ljubojevic decided to take on e4.

Other paths are completely safe
for Black : 1 2 cd 1Llxc3 1 3 be 1Llxd5
and Black is simply better; 12 a3
lbxc3 1 3 be 1Dc6 14 cd xd5 with
an equal game.
12
13
14
IS
16

lt:lxe4
Del
b3
a3
lt:le2

de
e6
e7
1Da6
l:Hd8

Possibly better is 1 6 . . . "*d7 1 7

.iHd l 1Llc7, preparing . . . b7-b5.
17
18

l:Hd l
a4

J:t ae8
eS!

Not allowing 1 9 b4 with queen

side pressure.
19

J:t ae l !

After 19 d 5 d 7 2 0 "* b 3 "* d 6

followed b y . . . e 5 Black's pos
ition would have fully suited me.
Now White, having over-protec
ted the c4-pawn, renews the threat
of b4.
19
20

lt:l xd4

ed
ILleS (36)

Sacrificing a pawn, I get some

play. Irrespective of what happens
now, the opening moves have been
in White's favour.
21

xa7

lt:ld3

Insufficient is 2 1 . . . xd4 22
n xd4 n xd4 23 xd4 1Lld3 24
.i:t c2 with advantage to White.
22

36
w

xd3

After 22 1Llxe6 "* xe6 23 .i:t c2 (23

Sl.xd3 ed 24 \i' xb7 J:t b8 with an
equal game) 23 . . . b5! Black has
enough counter-chances.

22
23
24

.,ixd4
J:t xd3

.,ixd4
ed
J:t xe4

Bad is 24 . . . .i:t a8 because of 25

"* b6 J:t a6 26 \i' b3 J:t ad6 27 'i!Vc3.
2S
26

n xe4
J:t e3

.,ixe4
d6

27
28

h3
eS

f6

M aybe it was worth playing 26

. . . d7 with the idea of 27 h3 f6
28 "*c5 il.e6 followed by . . . J:t e8
and . . . f7.
Another possibility was 28 -.b6
. d l + 29 .t;h2 \i'd6+ 30 J:t g3
.i:t b8.
xeS

28

28 . . . "* xd4 fails because of 29

J:t e8 + .t;f7 30 "*e7 + .
29
30

.-beS
il.b4

bS

30 b3 il.f7 3 1 a4 .i:t d 1 + 32
.t;h2 ba 3 3 ba J:t a l 34 a3 J:t a2
would lead to a draw.

30
31

hS
J:t e7?

For the whole game White had

had pressure on the enemy pos-

Main Line with 6 . . . tUc6 and 7 . . . Ji.. e 7

i t i o n a-sd even now could keep the
better chances : 3 I wh2 l:td7 32
h4 with the threat of '.tg3, f3 and
<;!?[4. After the rook move I was
at iast able to breathe easily.

31
32

'.th2

l:t d 1 +
l:t c l

B u t not 32 . . . l:t fl 33 el !
33
34

Sl.c3
d4

l:t c2

If 34 '.tg3 there follows 34 . . .

h4+.
34
35

l:t d7

l:td2
l:t d3

7
8

0-0
c4

43

e7
lLlb4

Smyslov always plays the

Petroff inventively. Here is one
example, where the ex-World
Champion quickly obtains a draw,
having chosen the quiet move 8
. . . Sl.e6 : Short-Smyslov, Has
tings 1 988/89, 9 l:t e I lLlf6 10 c5
0-0 I I lLlc3 .1Lg4 12 e3 (3 7) .
37
B

Also possible is 3 5 . . . h4 36
J: d8 + wh7 37 Sl.xf6 l:t xf2.
36
37
38
39
40

h4
f3
l:t d8
b6
..txd8

wh7
'.tg6
wf7
l:t xd8
'.tg6

Or 40 . . . f5 4 I wg3 wf7 42
wf4 we6.
41
42
43
44

'.tg3
'.tf2
we3
c7+

I I
z-z

'.tf5
'.te5
b3
wd5

Game No. 10
Belyavsky-Smyslov

Reggio Emilia 1986/87

1
2
3
4
5
6

e4
lLlf3
lLlxe5
lLlf3
d4
..td3

e5
lLlf6
d6
lLlxe4
d5
lLlc6

At first glance White, having

moved the c-pawn forward, has a
solid advantage, but Smyslov has
prepared a beautiful operation,
quickly relieving the situation on
the board : 1 2 . . . .1Lxc5! 1 3 de d4
14 Sl.xd4 lLl xd4 1 5 Sl.xh7+ lLlxh7
16 "i!f xd4 .1Lxf3 17 "i!fxd8 l:t fxd8
1 8 gf lUgS 1 9 l:t e7 l:t ac8 20 l:t e3
l:td2 2 1 lLle4 ! - ! .
9

cd

This capture, allowing the

exchange of the light-squared
bishop, was known before the 41 st
game of the match with Kasparov.
But this sequence is still fashion
able today .
9

lLlxd3

44

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . fi.e 7

10

't1Yxd3

't1Yxd5 (38)

38
w

This position has been known

for at least twenty years, so there
is no point in going into very much
detail. We, of course, are interested
in the most up-to-date material.
11
.!:! e l
.H5
Before reproducing Belyavsky's
move on the board, let us
remember that in recent years
White has in this position almost
exclusively chosen 1 2 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3
1 3 't1Y xc3. Here are two important
examples of these theme.
(a) H i.ibner-Smyslov, Velden
(m) 1 983 : 1 3 . . . e6 (The move
1 3 . . . c6 ( 39) suggests itself, but
has long been disproved because
of a most effective response.
14 it..h6!! .!:! g8 { 1 4 . . . gh 1 5
.!:! e5 't1Yd7 1 6 Y ae l e6 1 7 d5! cd
1 8 .!:! xe6 fe 1 9 't1Yxh8 + f8 20
't1Yf6 etc.; 1 4 . . . .e4 1 5 xg7 .!:! g8
1 6 .!:! xe4! 't1Yxe4 1 7 .!:! e l 't\Y xe l + 1 8
't\Yxe l .!:! xg7 1 9 't1Ye5 } 1 5 .!:! e5 't1Yd7
1 6 .!:! ae l e6 17 tt:lg5! 0-0-0 1 8
tt:lxf7!, and White won in Browne
Bisguier, USA Ch 1 974) 1 4 't\Y xc7

39
w

d6 1 5 "ifc2 0-0 1 6 d2 f5!

(also good is 1 6 . . . 't1Yh5 17 h3
d5 18 't1Yd3 f6) 17 't1Y b3 't1Y xb3 1 8
ab f6 1 9 c3 wf7. White's extra
pawn is not felt, especially as Black
has two active bishops. The game
ended in a draw.
(b) Van der Wiei-Short, Biel
1 98 5 : 1 3 . . . e6 14 .!:!e5 (perhaps
this is better than taking on c7,
but neither is it very dangerous
for Black) 14 . . . 't1Yc6 (Black also
has a strong position after 14 . . .
't1Yd7 1 5 g5 f6 1 6 .!:! e3 fg 1 7 .!:! ae 1
0-0 1 8 .!:! xe6 f6) 1 5 't\Y e l (if 1 5
't1Y xc6+ be the slight weakness of
Black's pawn chain is compen
sated by the two bishops) 1 5 .
0-0-0 1 6 il.. g 5 xg5 1 7 .!:! xg5
d5 1 8 tt:le5 't1Y b6 ( 1 8 . . . 't1Y h6 1 9
.!:!g3 f6 i s also acceptable) 1 9 .!:! xg7
.!:! hg8 20 .!:! g3 't1Yxb2 (was it no
better to take the d4 pawn?!) 2 1
.!:! d 1 .!:! xg3 22 hg xa2? (After 22
. . . .!:! e8 Black shouldn't lose. By
grabbing the a2-pawn he virtuall y
excludes his bishop from the game,
and White's threats rapidly
.

Main Line with 6 . . . li:Jc6 and 7 . . ft.. e 7

become extremely dangerous. In

principle, we could place a full
stop here, but the finish is worth
savouring, so it's worth showing
it to the end. 23 W"a5 'it> b8 24 tt:ld3
w- b3 25 J:t c 1 b6 26 W"e5 J:t c8 27
tt:l f4 W"b2 28 J:t c6 wb7 29 <it>h2
W"xf2 30 tt:ld3 W"d2 3 1 W"e4 <it>b8
(more stubborn than the immedi
ate 31 . . . J:t d8) 32 tt:le5 J:t d8 33
ttJd 7 + ! 'it>c8 (40) .
40
w

34 J:t d6!!. The death blow : 34

. . . J:t xd7 3 5 W"a8 mate; or 34 . . .
cd 3 5 W" c6 mate.
White won this game beauti
fully, but not, of course, as a result
of the opening. Now in our free
narrative it's time to return to the
main game.
12
tt:le5!? (41)
The knight thrust has been well
known in theory for a long time,
though the Encyclopedia of Chess
Openings only gives it a few lines.
After 1 2 . . . f6 Paul Keres' recom
mendation is given - 1 3 W"f3 'with
a slightly better position for White'
(and in brackets it is stated that if

45

41
B

1 2 . . . h4? 1 3 g3 tt:lxg3 the move

14 't!ff3 decides the game, Zui
dema-Barendregt,
Amsterdam
1 966). However, the move 1 2 . . .
f6 deserves closer investigation. In
fact after 12 . . . f6 13 "1Wf3 Black
replies 1 3 . . . g6! and when the
knight on e5 retreats he has no
particular problems, but in the
variation 14 g4 fe 1 5 gf gf things
are pretty bad for White ( 1 6 W"xf5
J:t g8 + 1 7 wfl 't!fc4+).
What should one do against 1 2
. . . f6? I n the game Makropoulos
Toth, Budva 1 9 8 1 , there followed
1 3 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 14 'it" xf5 tt:lb5 1 5
W" h 5+ g6 1 6 W"h3 fe 1 7 J:t xe5 W" xd4
1 8 't!fe6 't!f d 1 + 19 J:t e 1 W"d7 20
g5 with equal chances.
A novelty was introduced in the
game
de
Firmian- Plaskett,
Copenhagen 1 985: 1 5 'it" g4!?. After
1 5 . . . tt:lxd4 1 6 tt:ld3 Black went
after the exchange -- 1 6 . . .
tt:lc2? - and fell into a mating
attack : 1 7 tt:lb4! tt:lxb4 1 8 W" xb4
c5 1 9 't!f g4 wf7 20 h6! gh (20
. . . J:t hg8 2 1 J:t ad 1 gh 22 W" xg8 + )

46

Main Line with 6 . . . liJc6 and 7

21 l:tadl h5 (21 . . . 1!fc622 l:txe7+!

wxe7 23 1!fg7+ we6 24 l:tel +
with utter destruction) 22 1!fe2 1!ff5
23 1!fxe7+ wg6 24 J:td7 h4 25 h3
l:t ag8 26 l:te4 wh5 27 1!ff7+ l!g6
28 l:t d5 and Black resigned.
Commenting on the game in
Infor mator, de Firmian suggested
16 . . . wf7 17 l:txe7+ wxe7 1 8
1!1'xg7 + with a n unclear game. But
it turned out that this position is
extremely clear! A game between
the young masters Ulybin and
Serper (Sochi 1986) continued
only another seven moves: 18 . . .
1!ff7 1 9 1!fg4 l:tad8 20 b3 1!fg6 2 1
1!fxg6 hg 22 -".a3+ wf7 23 lilel
l:t h5 24 b2 lile6 25 lilf3 l:t hd5
and White resigned.
So, the sacrifice 17 lhe7 is
unsound and, possibly, the whole
variation is safe for Black. It could
possibly be concluded that in
response to 12 lile5 the move 12
. . . f6 is fully sufficient for equality.
So what was Belyavsky thinking
of when he put his knight on e5,
and what did Smyslov fear when
he avoided 12 . . . f6!? We shall
probably find out in the future.
12

g6

It should be pointed out that

there is not a big choice here.
According to Arkhipov, 12 . . .
0-0-0 is insufficient, because of 1 3
1!ff3 ( 1 3 lilc3? 1!fxe5) 13 . . . g6 14
g4 -".h4 1 5 lilc3 (in Black's favour
is 15 lild3 lilxf2 16 1!fxd5 lilh3+
17 wg2 l:txd5 18 gf kxel 19

. .
.

..tel

lilxel l:te8) 1 5 . . . lilxc3 1 6 be

ke6 17 1!fxd5 l:txd5 18 g5 with
advantage to White. Also after 12
. . . lild6 13 lilc3! 1!fa5 ( 1 3 . . . 1!fxe5
14 de kxd3 15 ed cd 16 lild5) 14
1!fe3 (or 14 1!ff3) Black comes
under a powerful bind.
Judging by the quick cessation
of hostilities in the game, one can
conclude that Smyslov's . . . g7-g6
novelty was a success. However.
before achieving the draw, Black
had to overcome a few hurdles, so
moving the neighbouring pawn is
nevertheless more reliable.
13
1!ff3
An important moment. 13 g4 is
no good because of 13 . . . lilxf21
But why not 1 3 lilc3? At first sight
the inclusion of the moves lJe5
and . . . g6 compared with the
games already looked at is in
White's favour. Indeed, after 1 3
lilc3 lilxc3 14 1!fxc3 bad is 14 .
-".e6 because of 15 .i.h6 0-0-0 16
lilxf7! xf7 17 l:t xe7 with an
extra pawn and a better position.
14 . . . c6 loses to 15 lilc4! with
the threat of 16 lile3 and 17 d5.
However, correct is 14 . . . 0-0-0
with a good game for Black, since
1 5 lilxg6 is ruled out because of
1 5 . . . hg 16 l:t xe7 1!fd6! with an
attack on both the rook and the
h2-pawn.
It appears that after the queen
manoeuvre chosen by Belyavsk y,
White's initiative is very danger
ous. But Smyslov calmly takes the

Main Line with 6 . . . li'lc6 and 7 . . . .1t.e 7 4 7

pawn .

13
14

tt:J c3

'it'xd4
'it'xe5

Black continues to pick up any

thin g that comes to hand. The
material will soon be won back,
but meanwhile the board is being
completely cleared.
15

(c) 18 . . . 0-0 19 gf gf ( 1 9
tt:Jf6 20 .lth6) 20 ..t> h l with an
unstoppable attack.
Nevertheless, Black finds the
only, but well-deserved defence.
42
B

..tf4

If 1 5 tt:Jxe4 Black manages to

slip away with 1 5 . . . 0-0.
15
16

'it'a5
b4 (42)

After 1 6 tt:Jxe4 there is again

time for 16 . . . 0-0 - 1 7 tt:Jg3 .lte6.
Belyavsky had probably calcu
lated the b-pawn thrust when he
played 1 3 'llr' f 3. If now 16 . . . 'l/ixb4
( 1 6 . . . 'l/ib6), then 1 7 tt:Jd5! decides.
This knight leap also follows the
queen's retreat to a6. The vari
ations that arise then are worthy
of our attention : 1 6 . . . 1!Va6 1 7
l2:ld5! .ltd8! (there i s n o alterna
tive) 1 8 g4! ( 1 8 .lhe4+ .txe4 1 9
'llr' xe4+ 'l/ie6 20 'llr' d4 0-0 2 1 .lth6 f6
22 ..txf8 ..t>xf8 23 'llr' d 2 'it>g7 24
:!:t e l 'llr' d 7 is in Black's favour). Now
Black has three possibilities, but
none of them hold good prospects :
(a) 1 8 . . . c6. Closing the queen's
route to the e6-sq uare, which
White quickly makes use of. 1 9
l:t xe4+ .ltxe4 20 'l/i xe4+ ..t>d7
(20 . . . ..t>f8 21 ..th6+ <;t>g8 22
'iif e8 mate) 21 .l:t d l winning) :
(b) 1 8 . . . .lte6 1 9 'llr' xe4 0-0 20
.i h 6 .!:!: e8 (20 . . . .ltxd5 2 1 'l/ixd5
wi nning the exchange) 21 'llr' e 5;

16
17

1!Va3!
tt:Jd5

Alas, now this move involves

exchanging queens, but 17 tt:J xe4
'l/ixf3 leads to a better ending
for Black, as it's hardly worth
counting on 1 8 tt:Jf6+ ..t>f8?? 1 9
.th6 mate.
17
18
19

1!Vxf3
..td8!

gf
fe

It remains for White to be proud

that for five moves he carried out
an attack a piece down.
19
20
21
22
23

l2:l xc7+
..txc7
a3
.:t:t ac l

1 1
r2

..te6
..txc7
f6
.:t:t c8
..t>f7

A short skirmish, but you certainly couldn't call it a grand

master draw!

Main Line with 6 ... 'Llc6

and 7 .. g4
.

Game No.

fully interact in the centre. Here

are two examples from the 1985
international tournament in Frunze:
(a) 9 h3 J:!e8 10 f4 (against
10 li:lc3 Makarychev had prepared
10 . . . li:lxd4! I I li:lxd4 .hd4 12
'i!l'xd4 li:lxc3 13 'lifxc3 J:! xe2) 10 .
[5 I I J:! el 'l!l'd7 1 2 li:la3 .il.xh3
13 gh 1!fxh3 14 e3 li:lg3 with an
attack for Black (Chiburdanidze
Makarychev);
(b) 9 e3 (9 d5 li:le7 10 d3
.il.f5 I I J:! el li:lc5 and 9 d3 f5
10 J:! el J:!e8 also lead to a good
game for Black) 9 . . . J:!e8 10 li:lbd2
[51 I I li:lb3 d5! 12 J:!el de 13
xc4 li:ld6 14 e2 li:lb4 and
Black has the advantage (Kup
reichik--Makarychev).

II

Kasparov-Karpov

World Championship Match (15)

Moscow 1985
I

e4

e5

li:lf3

li:lf6

li:lxe5

d6

li:l f3

li:lxe4

d4

Sometimes another order of

moves is encountered - 5 c4. The
main reply was suggested by
Makarychev - 5 . . . li:lc6L Now if
6 d4, 6 . . . d5 is good, for example:
7 li:lc3 .il.b4 8 1!fc2 1!fe7 9 .il.e3
.il.g4 10 'l!fcl li:lxc3 I I be .il.a3 12
1!fd2 li:lb4! with a decisive advan
tage to Black (Kupreichik-Mik
halchishin, Kuibyshev 1986). If 6
li:lc3 Black equalises easily with 6
. . . li:lxc3 7 de .il.f5 8 li:ld4 li:lxd4 9
1!fxd4 1!fe7 + 10 .il.e2 1!fe4 (Chibur
danidze-Agzamov, Frunze 1985).
Also after 6 e2 e7 7 0-0 0-0
8 d4 f6! Black's pieces success-

5
6

d5
.il.d3

li:lc6

(43)
And so, we move on to look at
another contemporary plan in the
Petroff, connected with the quick
7

48

0-0

.il.g4

Main Line with 6 . . . ti'Jc6 and 7

43
w

development of the light-squared

bishop on g4 and the black
squared bishop staying at home
for the moment. It would seem
that the difference is not great, but
nevertheless, at times the game
takes on a completely different
character. Saving a tempo by
omitting . . . J.e7, Black puts seri
ous pressure on the d4-pawn, but
at the same time his king is stuck
in the centre and can be subject
to enemy attack. So there are both
plusses and m inusses for Black
in this variation. Curiously, the
position in diagram 43 is not even
mentioned in the Encyclopedia of
Chess Openings ( 1 98 1 ).
tt:lf6
8
c4
Having retreated the knight to
f6 (and expecting the reply tt:lc3)
Black, as we shall see, will
e xchange on f3 and take the cen
tral d4-pawn. But isn't it possible
to take on f3 and then straight
away on d4, that is without
re trea ting the knight beforehand?

. . .

" g4

49

The following elegant game shows

what can happen.
Psakhis- Martinovsky ( Phila
delphia 1 989) : 8 . . . Jixf3 9 l'i xf3
tt:lxd4 I 0 "l:\Ye3 tt:lf5 I I "l:\Ye2 tt:ld4 1 2
"!lr'e3 tt:lf5 1 3 h 3 (of course, White
is not happy just to repeat moves)
1 3 . . . "!Wd7 14 cd tt:led6 1 5 tt:lc3
0-0-0 1 6 J.f4 tt:le7 1 7 "!Wh5 tt:lg6
1 8 J.g3 wb8 1 9 a4 J.e7 20 a5
J.f6 21 tt:la4 ttJ b5 22 l:tfc I "!Wxd5
(44) .
44
w

23 .bb5! xh5 24 .bc7+ '01<c8

(24 . . . '01<a8 25 tt:lb6+ ab 26 ab
mate) 25 J.e5 mate!
As the reputation of 8 . . . tt:lf6
has been under some doubt
recently, in the fourth game of
the Candidates match Ehlvest
Yusupov (St. John 1 988) Black
chose a rarer move order - 8 . . .
j__ e 7. Now after 9 tt:lc3 J.xf3 (9
. . . tt:lxd4 loses - 1 0 j__ xe4 de 1 1
"!W xd4) 1 0 gf ( 1 0 "!Wxf3 tt:l xd4 1 1
g4) 1 0 . . . tt:lf6 1 1 cd tt:lxd5 1 2
j__e 4 a position would have arisen
from an ancient game Schiffers-

50

Main Line with 6 . . . tLlc6 and 7

K ulomzin, played back in 1 90 1 .

White has a definite advantage :
1 2 . . . xc3 1 3 be 0-0 1 4 f4 etc.
But 90 years on we play rather
differently.
9 cd xd5 1 0 tt:Jc3 tt:J xc3 I I be
0-0 1 2 J::! e I bf3 1 3 ifxf3 if xf3
1 4 gf d6 1 5 il.e3 (45) .
..

45
B

. . . i.g4
dangerous for Black. See game 1 5
for 9 cd. I t i s clear that after 9
J::! e l + il.e7 we have by transposi
tion Kasparov-Karpov ( I , 28). As
you will recall, 10 cd xf3 I I
xf3 "Wxd5 1 2 "Wh3 tt:J xd4 1 3 tt:Jc3
"Wd7 1 4 "Wxd7 + xd7 led to a
quick draw. Of course, such an
outcome suits Black, and there
fore, after 46 minutes thought,
Kasparov chose another path,
deciding it wasn't worth rushing
to give check, better to save it for
the future.
9

W hite has the advantage of the

two bishops, which determines the
position in his favour. In this game
Yusupov continued 1 5 . . J::! ad8,
but several months later against
Timman (Belfort 1 988) he played
1 5 . . . tt:Je7. In both games Black
got a draw in a long endgame, but
not without some difficulty. From
then on, when playing the Petroff,
Yusupov has no longer chosen
this variation.
.

tt:Jc3

Black has created pressure

against the d4-pawn and for the
sake of rapid piece development
Kasparov decides to give it up
straightaway - an idea which,
although not new, is not really

xf3

Other continuations can lead to

serious problems : 9 . . . e7 I 0 cd
tt:Jxd5 I I e4 ; 9 . . . tt:J xd4 1 0
if e 1 + (the check comes i n handy
here!) 1 0 . . . e7 ( 1 0 . . . tt:Je6 I I
tt:Je5) I I tt:J xd4 de 1 2 tt:J f5 cd 1 3
tt:J xg7 + f8 1 4 h6 g8 1 5 f3
with a strong initiative for White.
tt:J xd4
10
"Wxf3
11

J::! el +

After this check the game goes

off the beaten track, albeit only
for one move! The interesting
continuations I I e3 + and I I
"Wh3 will be looked at later on
(games 1 2- 1 4).
e7 (46)
11
12

"W d l !?

In the game Lobron-Karpov,

Hannover 1 983, there followed 1 2
"Wg3 de 1 3 xc4 ( 1 3 "Wxg7 loses
to 1 3 . . . tt:Jf3 + 1 4 h i J::! g8 1 5
ifxf6 tt:Jxe l ) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 g5

Main Line with 6 . . . Cilc6 and 7

..ltg4

51

47

46
w

d6 ( 1 4 . . . tt:lc2 1 5 .!::tx e 7!) 1 5

'iit' h4 h6! 1 6 ..lt xf6 'ilt' xf6 1 7 'ilt'xf6
gf 1 8 .!:I e4 c5 1 9 .!:I h4 rbg7 20 tt:le4
..lte7 2 1 tt:lg3 f5 22 .!:I h3 ..lt d6 23
f4 b5 24 ..lt d3 c4 25 ..lt xf5 .!:I fe8.
The pawn is finally surrendered,
but Black's positional advantage is
vast, and it easily brought victory.
The queen manoeuvre to d 1
unquestionably complicates mat
ters but, as we shall soon see, it is
also not very dangerous for Black.
tt:le6!

12

In this way Black is able to

simplify the position. If 12 . . . de
1 3 ..ltxc4 0-0 ( 1 3 . . . c5 14 'ilt' a4 + )
14 .!:I xe7 'ilt'xe7 15 'ilfxd4 Black i s
o n t h e brink o f defeat, a n d White
als o has a big advantage after 1 2
. . . 0-0 1 3 cd, or 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 ..te3
ti:Je6 14 cd tt:lxd5 15 tt:lxd5 'iit' x d5
1 6 'i!t'c2.
13
14
15

cd
..ltb5+
tt:lxd5

tt:lxd5
c6
cb (47)

The position has become

clearer. White has a powerful

knight in the centre, Black has

an extra, although doubled, pawn.
One compensates the other and
peace quickly ensues.
16

'iit' b3

1 6 ..lt f4 looks tempting, hinder

ing Black in castling : 1 6 . . . 0-0 ( 1 6
. . . ..ltd6 1 7 ..ltxd6 'iit' x d6 1 8 tt:lf6 +
<3;e7 1 9 tt:ld5+ rbf8 20 'iit' f 3, and
Black's king is stuck in the centre;
if 16 . . . .!:I c8, 1 7 ..lte5! is unpleas
ant) 1 7 tt:lxe7+ 'iit' x e7 1 8 ..lt d6.
However, by bravely playing 1 6
. . . tt:lxf4 1 7 .!:I xe7+ rbf8 1 8 .!:I e5
'iit' d 6!, Black avoids all problems,
for example : 19 .!:I f5 .!:I d8 20 .!:I xf4
'iit' x d5 etc.
16

0-0

There is no time to defend the

pawn; 1 6 . . . a6 1 7 ..lte3 0-0 1 8
.!:l ad 1 with a full bind.
17

tt:lxe7 +

If 1 7 'iit' xb5 then 1 7 . . . ..ltc5 is

good.
17
18

'iit' x b5

'i!t' xe7
a6

More accurate than the immedi-

52

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7

ate 1 8 . . . l:Hd8 1 9 ..t e3 Wd7 20

Wxd7 l:txd7 2 1 J:t ad l .
J:t fd8
19
Wb3
20

J..e 3

. .i.g4
.

48
B

::t ac8

20 . . . b5 leads to equality.
21
22

J:t ac l
h3

h6
lLld4

t-t
After 23 J.. xd4 J:t XC 1 24 J:t XC 1
J:t xd4 the fighting resources of
both sides are exhausted.
Game No. 1 2
Kasparov-Karpov

World Championship (6)

London 1986
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

e4
e5
lLlf6
lLlf3
lLlxe5
d6
lLlxe4
lLlf3
d5
d4
lLlc6
J.. d3
J.. g4
0-0
lLlf6
c4
lLlc3
..txf3
lLl xd4
xf3
11t'e3 + (48)

Until now we have followed the

1 5th game of our previous match.
Now Kasparov brings out a pro
duct of home preparation. But
the queen check on e3 had been
suggested the previous year, so the
surprise was for me not completely
unexpected.
11
12

cd

lLle6
lLlxd5

If 1 2 . . . J.. c 5 then 1 3 Wf3 lLld4

1 4 J:t e l + <ot>f8 1 5 Wf4 lLlxd5 1 6
lLlxd5 Wxd5 1 7 Wxc7 lLle6 1 8 't\l' g3
J:t d8 19 J:t d 1 h5 20 h4 is possible,
with advantage to White.
13
14
15

lLl xd5
J.. e4
a4

Wxd5
W b5

If 1 5 Wf3? Black replies with 1 5

. . . lLld4.
15

W a 6 (49)

White has the advantage of the

two bishops and the initiative for
his pawn. In order not to lose the
b7-pawn, Black has only one move
but the black queen finds itself at
the edge of the board. In the game
Ivanchuk-Serper, Sochi 1 986,
which can be considered as the
source of Kasparov's idea, Black
tried 1 5 . . . Wc5, when 1 6 xb7
J:t b8 1 7 b4! Wb6 ( 1 7 . . . W xe3 1 8
..t c6+ we7 1 9 ..txe3) 1 8 "llf x b 6
cb led to a worse ending for Black :
1 9 ..t c6 + '1t;d8 20 J:t d l + w c 7
2 1 b5 J:t d 8 22 .:t xd8 lLl xd8 23
..t d5 lLle6 24 J.. xe6 fe 25 J.. f4 + .

Main Line with 6 . . . c6 and 7 .

By all accounts, the novelty in

o ur game can be considered not
the check by the white queen on
e3. but the retreat of the black
queen to a6.

. . i..g4

53

50
B

49
w

16
J:t d l
The immediate 1 6 b4 does
nothing - 1 6 . . . ..bb4 1 7 J:t b l
i.c5 1 8 W'f3 c6 1 9 J:t xb7 0-0. If
1 6 'Wf3 tt::l d 4! 17 W'e3 Kasparov
advises Black not to take the
exchange - 17 . . . tt:Je2 + 1 8 ;t> h I
tt:lg3+ 19 hg W' xfl + 20 ..t>h2 with
an unclear game, but recommends
1 7 . . . 0-0-0! with an extra pawn
and excellent chances.
16

.il.. e7

Ma ny theoreticians have stud

ied this game (Dlugy, Makary
chev, Nunn, Timman etc.). but I
t h ink that exhaustive analysis is
Impossible without a computer.
Interesting variations arise after
1 6 . . . .t c5 1 7 W'f3 c6 1 8 J:t d 7!?
150) .

T he rook sacrifice cannot be

ac cepted : 1 8 . . . '01<xd7? 1 9 W' xf7+

.i.e7 20 .f5 c5 (no better is 20

. . . W'e2 2 1 .i.e3 or 20 . . . W'c4 2 1
.i.g5 J:t he8 22 J:t d l + '01<c7 23
.i.xe7) 21 .i.g5 W'd6 22 .i.xe6+
W' xe6 23 J:t d l + .
Black must calmly complete his
development : 18 . . . 0-0 19 .il.. d 3
( 1 9 b4 .i.d4) 19 . . . W' b6 (but not
19 . . . W'a5 20 .i.d2! W' b6 21 b4
.i.d4 22 a5 or 19 . . . b5 20 b4
.i.xb4 2 1 W'e4) 20 aS W' b4 2 1 J.d2
W' h4 (bad is 21 . . . W' xb2 22 .c3
W'b3 23 W'h5 g6 24 .i.xg6) 22 g3
W'f6 (22 . . . W'h3 23 .i.f5) 23 't't' xf6
gf, and everything is under control.
Nothing comes from 24 J:t xb7
J:t fd8 25 J:t b3 tt:Jd4 26 J:tc3 .,i b4
etc.
17

b4 (51)

White sacrifices another pawn,

but it is very dangerous to take i t :
1 7 . . . .i.xb4 1 8 W' f 3 c6 ( 1 8 . . . tt::l c 5
19 J:t d4) 19 J:t d7 0-0 20 W'h3 g6
(20 . . . h6 21 .i.xh6) 21 .il..xg6!
hg 22 .il..b2 tt:Jg7 23 W'h6 with
unavoidable m ate. Another way
to play is 1 8 .i. b2 0-0 19 W'h3 g6

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . i..g4

54

variation is Black's only defence.

In the game Aseev-lvanchuk,
Irkutsk 1 986, Black tried to play
more sharply - 19 Wc3 cS?! , a n d
after 20 ..tb2 4Jd4 2 1 ..td3 Wb 6
22 aS Wc7 23 be ..txcS 24 j_fJ
J:t fd8 2S J:t a4 came under deadly
pressure; 2S . . . J:t ac8 26 J:t axd4
etc.

51
B

19

( 1 9 . . . fS 20 ..txfS tUgS 2 1 W b 3 +
c;t> h 8 22 J:t d7 etc.) 2 0 J:t d3! hS (20
. . . tUgS 2 1 W h6 f6 22 .idS + c;t>h8
23 WxgS!) 2 1 WxhS! gh 22 J:t g3 +
with mate.
Besides the march forward of
the b-pawn, 1 7 Wf3 was later
adopted - see the next game.
17
18

0-0

18

g6

Wh3
If 18 bS Black has the strong
intermediate move 1 8 . . . J:t ad8!,
which seizes the initiative, and
which is also the reply to 1 8 Wf3.
Bad is 1 8 . . . h6 1 9 WfS g6 20
WeS or 20 Wf3 with threats of
..txb7 and ..txh6.
19

i.. b 2

Other continuations do not

bring success : 1 9 bS J:t ad8! 20 J:t e I
(20 ..th6 J:t xd l + 2 1 J:t xd l Wxa4)
20 . . . Wb6; 1 9 Wc3 tUgS! 20 ..txgS
(20 ..tb2 ..tf6!) 20 . . . ..t xgS 2 1
'lfll xc7 J:t ad8, and White has only
a symbolic advantage. The knight
manoeuvre to gS in the second

Wc4!

The queen finally breaks free,

and Black's torment comes to a n
end. There is nothing in 1 9 . . . tt:lf4
20 We3! We2 (20 . . . ..tgS 2 1 '11t h ! )
2 1 Wd4 f6 2 2 ..tf3!. A s before the
pawn is untouchable: 1 9 . . . ..txb4
20 J:t d3! with the deadly threat of
2 1 W xh7+ xh7 22 J:t h3 + .
20
J:t d7
White could win back the pawn
with 20 ..txb7, but after 20 . . .
J:t ad8 he has nothing. Of course,
after the queen went to c4 it was
necessary to consider 20 .idS, but
Black has an important tempo 20 . . . Wc2, securing at least equal
ity : 21 ..teS ( 2 1 J:t ab l J:t ad8) 2 1
. . . J:t ad8 2 2 J:t ac l (22 J:t d 3 i.. g 5
23 J:t ad l c6 24 W xe6 J:t xdS!; 22
J:t dc l Wd2! 23 ..txe6 fe 24 Wxe6 +
J:t f7) 22 . . . W xc l ! 23 J:t xc l J:t xd5 .
20

J:t ae8!

Although this is the only mo ve,

it completely cools White's attack
ing ardour. As before, the b4-pa wn
is untouchable: 20 . . . Wxb4 20 .
W xe4 2 1 Wc3 f6 22 J:t xe7 or 2 1 . . .
4Jd4 22 J:t e l ! Wf4 23 J:t xd4 -wf6
.

Main Line with 6 . . . 1Uc6 and 7

24 .:t xe7 'W xe7 25 .!:t e4! with a

win ning position) 2 1 xg6 t2lg5
( 2 1 . . . fg 22 'W xe6+ .!:1: f7 23 f6!
n e8 24 .!:t e l ) 22 xh7+ ti:lxh7 23
a3! Wh4 24 xe7 'Wxh3 25 gh
a nd 26 .!:t a3.
d5
21
No w White needs to play accur
a tel y. If 2 1 xb7 Wxb4 22 a3
'i'xa4 23 .!:1: xe7 .!:1: xe7 24 Wc3 c5!
2 5 .t b2 t2ld4 26 .!:1: xa4 t2le2 + 27
wfl ti:lxc3 28 xc3 .!:t xb7 it's all
over for White.
21
22

'Wxb4
c3

If 22 a3, then 22 . . . Wd4, but

not 22 e5 as 22 . . . f6! 23
xf6 t2lf4 is good.
t2lf4! (52)

22
52
w

24
25

gh
.!:t xc7

...

1Lg4

xb4
b6

Possibly more accurate was 25

and transfer of the rook
to f5 and pressure on f2.
. . . .!:1: e5

26
27

.!:t xa7

g7

.!:t d8
.!:t d7
If 27 . . . .!:t e 5 White defends with
28 .!:t a2! .!:tf5 29 .!:1: b2 c5 30 J:t c2!
(with the threat of a4-a5) 30 . . .
.!:t c8 3 1 e6!
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

.!:t xd8

.!:t d 1
.!:t d3
wn
g2
wn
c4
.!:t f3
<;tg2
b3
.!:t d3
.!:t c3
.!:t c4
.!:t c2
c4

.!:t xd8
d6
h5
.!:t d7
c5
h4
l:t e7
d6
.!:t c7
f5
c 5
f6
g5
'lte5
1 1
2-2

Game No. 1 3
Howell-Ivanchuk

The roles are now reversed in

view of the threats of . . . 'W xc3
and . . . t2le2 + . White's attack has
peterred out and after many
exchanges Black gets the better
en di ng. Even so, a draw is
un av oidable.
23

xb4

t2lxh3+

55

Groningen 1986/8 7

1
2
3
4
5-

6
7

e4
ti:lf3
t2l xe5
ti:lf3
d4
d3
0-0

e5
ti:lf6
d6
t2l xe4

d5
ti:l c6
g4

56

Main Line with 6 . . . 4Jc6 and 7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

c4
tt:Jc3
'ii x f3
'ii e 3+
cd
tt:J xd5

..te4
a4
.:t d 1

tt:Jf6
..txf3
tt:J xd4
tt:Je6
tt:Jxd5
'ii xd5
'ii b 5

'ii a6
..t e7

'iWf3 (53)
The active move 1 7 b4 gave
White nothing in game six of the
1 986 World Championship match.
As we have seen, I q uickly repelled
the attack and even took the
initiative. Therefore something
new had to be tried. 1 7 'iWf3 was
first tried in Timman-Yusupov
(Hilversum match 1 986). The
game lasted only six more moves :
1 7 . . . .l:t d 8 1 8 ..td3 ( 1 8 .l:t xd 8 +
tt:Jxd8 1 9 ..tf4 deserved attention)
1 8 . . . 'iia 5 (bad for Black is 1 8 . . .
tt:Jd4 1 9 'ii g 4! {more accurate than
19 'ii g 3 tt:Je2 + 20 ..txe2 'ii x e2 2 1
l:t xrl8 + ..txd8 2 2 ..te3 0-0 23
..td4} 19 . . . 'iWf6 20 i.e3 tt:Je6 2 1
'ii e4!; a s is 1 8 . . . 'ii b 6 1 9 ..te3
'ii x b2 20 .l:t ab 1 'ii a 3 {20 . . . 'ii c 3
has to be played} 2 1 'ii xb7 0-0 22
'ii e4 g6 2 3 ..txa7) 19 ..td2 (now
19 'ii x b7 unexpectedly loses to 1 9
. . . .!:txd3!) 1 9 . . . ..tb4 20 ..te3
0-0 (if 20 . . . c6 White retains
the initiative: 21 'ii e4 g6 22 ..tc4
.l:t xd l + 23 .l:t xd 1 'iWf5! 24 'iW xf5 gf
25 ..t xa7 <i;e7 26 ..tb6. Now the
game instantly becomes level) 2 1

...

g4

'iit' xb7 tt:Jc5 2 2 ..t xc5 ..txc5 2 3

'iit' b 5 - - t .
So, 1 7 . . . J:t d8 i s not bad , but
I vanchuk chooses a more venom.
ous
continuation,
modestly
defending the b7-pawn.
53
B

17
18

J:t b8!
b4

After 1 8 'iih 3 the game could

transpose into Kasparov-Karpov
(3, 6), which we have already dis
cussed.
18
19

0-0
J:t d7?

19 ..tb2 was necessary. After

the mistaken incursion of the
white rook to d7, the appearance
of the black rook on d8 gains i n
strength.
19
20

.:t bd8! (54)

..t xb7

It appears that the bishop on e7

is untouchable. Ivanchuk gives the
following variation: 20 J:t xe7?
'ii d 6! (stronger than 20 . . . tt:Jd4 2 1
..txh7 + <i;h8 2 2 'ii d 3 tt:Je2 + 23
.l:t xe2 l:Xd3 24 ..txd3 'ii xd3 2 5

Main Line with 6 . . . lUc6 and 7 . . . fi.g4

57

h6, although Black is a healthy

pawn up.

54
w

24
25
26

h4
.!:! e 1

'ilf xc5
d4
'tifxa4

lvanchuk carries out the techni

cal stage simply and convincingly.
27

J;t 1 ) 2 1 .ta3 xe7 22 b5 tt:Jc5 23

.txh7+ (23 .!:! e 1 g6!) 23 . . wxh7
24 't!t'f5 + (24 't!t' h5 + g8 25 xc5
'i'f6!) 24 . . . g6 25 .txc5 'ilfe2!, and
Black gains the upper hand. The
bishop is also untouchable in
other variations : 20 .td3 c6 2 1
'iWh3 g6 2 2 .!:! xe7 c3! 2 3 .!:! xe6
n xd3; 20 b5 'l!t'a5! 2 1 .td2 .tb4
22 .!:! xd8 .!:! xd8 23 e3 c3.
0

20
21

If 21 .!:! xe7 then the effective 2 1

. . . 't!t'd4! o r 2 1 . . . c3! decide.
21
.!:! xd8
22
23

e3
..te4

xb4

23 1Lxa7 is bad - 23 . . . c5 24
a5 .if6 or 23 .td5 - 23 . . . .tf6
24 .!:i c 1 xa4 25 xe6 fe 26 g3
.1 e5 (lvanchuk).
23
24

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

c4
.!:! xd8

c5
1Lxc5

More stubborn was 24 .td5

.txe3 25 .txe6 .txf2 + 26 'ilf xf2
fe 27 xa7 c5 28 .!:! fl d4+ 29
h 1 'ilff4 30 'ilf g 1 e3+ 3 1 h 1

h5

27 .txh7+ doesn't help - 27

. . . xh7 28 'ilf xf7 .!:! d6! 29 'iff5 +
g6 30 'i!ff7+ tt:Jg7.
'ilff5
.!:! xe4
wh2
hg
'ilfg5
'ilff6
.!:i h4
0-1

tt:Jg5
tt:Jxe4
't!t' d 1 +
g6
hg
.!:i d5
'fi'h5+
'ilfxh4 + !

Game No. 1 4
Kupreichik-Yusupov

USSR Ch ( Minsk) 198 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

e4
tt:Jf3
tt:J xe5
tt:Jf3
d4
.td3
0-0
c4
tt:Jc3

e5
tt:Jf6
d6
tt:Jxe4
d5
tt:Jc6
.tg 4
tt:Jf6

So, we return again to the sharp

and fascinating variation connec
ted with the pawn sacrifice. This
game, played in the 54th Soviet

58

Main Line with 6 . . . Ci:Jc6 and 7

Championship,
remains
an
important milestone in the
development of this variation.
9
10

..W xf3

..txf3
tt:Jxd4

So that the reader doesn't get

confused before we show Kuprei
chik's novelty, let us remind our
selves of the information we have
before this game.
After 1 1 .!:!. e 1 + ..te7 1 2 ..W d 1
w e arrive a t Kasparov-Karpov
(2, 1 5) - game 1 1 in this book which ended in a draw; and after
1 2 g3 de 1 3 .bc4 0-0 1 4 .tg5
..td6, Lobron-Karpov, Hann
over 1 983, Black also didn't
encounter any difficulties. The
immediate 1 1 g3 is hardly suc
cessful, as this is met by 1 1 . . . tt:Je6
and Black can win time thanks to
the move . . . il.f8- d6.
Kasparov gave me the surprise
1 1 e3+ in our return match
(3, 6) -- game 1 2 in this book but after 1 1 . . . tt:Je6 1 2 cd Ci:Jxd5
1 3 tt:Jxd5 xd5 14 il.e4 'l!Nb5 1 5
a4 a6 1 6 .!:!. d 1 il.e7 1 7 b4!? 0-0
1 8 h 3 g6 Black fought off the
attack and 'demanded' the draw
from a position of strength.
An attempt to strengthen the
variation for White was made in
Timman-Yusupov
(Hilversum
match 1 986). Instead of the sudden
attack with b2-b4, White played
1 7 'lif3, but after 1 7 . . . .!:!. d8 the
game also quickly finished drawn.

...

it..g 4

However, Black was not limi te d

to this move, and in Howell-Iva n.
chuk, Groningen 1 986/87, Black
found a way to fight for the initia
tive by playing 1 7 . . . .!:!. b8. The
pawn is defended and White nee ds
to think about how to win ba ck
the material. After the 1 8 b4 thrust,
Black took the initiative and
gained the upper hand.
So, one can conclude that I I
e3+ is not dangerous for Black
and neither is 1 1 .!:!. e 1 + . A more
decisive try to justify the pawn
sacrifice was adopted by Kuprei
chik against one of the leading
specialists in the Petroff.
11
h3! (55)
55
B

Curiously, this move had been

recommended by Igor Zaitsev and
myself. Black has saved a tem po
on . . . .U8--e7, and White on
.!:!.fl -e l + .
11

de

Hardly good for Black is 1 1 . .

c6 1 2 .!:!. e 1 + ..te7 1 3 ..tg5 CLJe 6
1 4 ..txf6 ..txf6 1 5 cd cd 1 6 .tf5,

Main Line with 6 . . tiJc6 and 7

or 1 3 . . . de 1 4 xc6 gf 1 5 xc4
wi th m ore than enough compens
ation for the pawn.
After I I . . . e7 1 2 g5 de 1 3
xc4 the position in the game
we a re looking at is reached by
transp osition, and if 1 2 .!:t e l de 1 3
xc4 0-0 ( 1 3 . . . ti:lc2!?) 1 4 g5
h 6 15 xh6 gh 16 it'xh6 a sharp
position arises in which it is hard
to prefer one side in favour of the
other. Stronger, however, is 1 2 cd
tZlxd5 1 3 .!:t e l ti:le6 14 g6! ti:ldf4
15 xf4 ti:lxf4 1 6 xf7 + wxf7
1 7 it'f5 + , when White wins back
the pawn and retains the initiative
in the centre.
12

xc4

Also interesting is 1 2 .l:t e I + ti:le6

13 g6.
12

i;..e7

Exchanging queens is not

easy --- 12 . . . it'd7 1 3 .!:t e l + e7
( 1 3 . . . <;t>d8 14 it'xd7+ wxd7 1 5
il d l c5 1 6 xf7, winning back
the pawn and keeping the advan
tage of the two bishops) 1 4 it' xd7 +
tZlxd7 ( 1 4 . . . <;t>xd7 1 5 .!:t d l ) 1 5
tZld5 ti:le6 1 6 .l:t xe6!, and White
has the upper hand.
0-0
13 g5
14
15

c5
.!:t ad 1
.l:t fe1 (56)

Dangerous for Black now is

. .!:t e8 1 6 b5 ( 1 6 il.. d 3 'i!fc8
'i' h4 h6 1 8 .l:Lxh6 ti:lf5 with
u ncl ear game) 1 6 . . . ti:lxb5
lh d8 xd8 1 8 .l:t xe8+ ti:lxe8

15
17
an
17
20

..

g4

59

56
B

wfl . Despite the material equal

ity, White has the advantage
thanks to the manoeuvrability of
the queen.
15
16

h6
xh6!?

The bishop sacrifice comes to

mind, but apparently White
ought to continue 1 6 .l:t xe7! and
after 1 6 . . . hg ( l 6 . . . it' xe7 1 7 ti:ld5
etc.) 17 .l:t xb7 White's chances are
better.
16
17
18
19

'i!fxh6

gh
ti:lh7

.!:t d3

g5

'i!fh5

If 1 9 .!:t g3 ti:lf5 20 '1Wg6+

ti:Jg7 Black's fortress cannot be
taken.
19
20

it'f6

.!:t g3
Stronger is 20 .l:t h3! "i/g7 2 1 f4
xf4 22 ti:ld5 g5 23 ti:Je7 +
xe7 24 .l:t xe7 with dangerous
threats. M aster Mochalov took
this variation further: 24 . . . ti:lf6
25 it' xc5 ti:lg4 26 .!:t g3 .l:t ac8 27

60

Main Line with 6 . . . tiJc6 and 7 . . . Ji..g4

..txf7 + >ith8 28 J:t h 3 + tt:l h6 29

J:t xh6+ Wxh6 30 Wxd4+ Wg7 3 1
W h4+ Wh7 3 2 Wxh7+ xh7 33
.ie6+ winning.
20

J:t ae8

Here Black could play the more

accurate 20 . . . tt:lf5!. After 2 1 tt:le4
Wg7 22 J:t g4 (22 J:t xg5 tt:lxg5 23
ttJ xg5 tt:ld6!) 22 . . . tt:lh6! 23 J:[ g3
tt:lf5 the game could end by rep
etition of moves if the players
agreed.
21

tt:le4

..t>h8 (57)

Yusupov considers that this was

the decisive mistake, and that 2 1
. . . .tg7! was correct. The game is
very difficult, and in such a sharp
struggle inaccuracies are unavoid
able on both sides.
57
w

22

h4

J:t xe4

No better is 22 . . . Wh6 (g6) 23

J:t xg5, or 22 . . . .ixh4 23 tt:lxf6
J:t xe 1 + 24 .t h2.
23
24

J:t xe4
J:t g4

.if4
.ih6

24 . . . .id6 does not save him 25 J:t xd4! cd 26 .id3. Black has

many pieces, but, alas, they are all

disconnected.
tt:lc6
25
W xcS
Wd6
26
W hS
27
.fi.xf7
Wd1 +
Wd6+
28
<;t;>h2
29
f4
Wc7
Wd6
30
..tb3
31
32
33

J:t e8
g3
..t>h3

..txf4+
.i.xg3+

1-0
Black ran out of time, but there is
no avoiding mate.
For several years this game was
regarded as the last word on the
move 1 1 Wh3 - White has a
dangerous initiative. But there
recently took place a game
between Howell and van Kemen
ade, England 1 99 1 , in which Black
played the valuable novelty 1 1 . . .
tt:le6! There followed a series of
exchanges - 1 2 cd tt:lxd5 1 3 J:!: e l
tt:lxc3 1 4 b e Wf6 1 5 .fi.f5 .Yl,e7
(Howell suggests 1 5 . . . 0-0-0!? 1 6
.i.xe6+ fe 1 7 J:!: xe6 <ot>b8! with a
good game for Black) 1 6 .ie3 h6
1 7 .ixe6 fe 1 8 .Yl,d4 Wf7 1 9 J:t xe6
0-0. Here 20 W g4 .Yl,g5 2 1 h4
..txh4 22 .Yl,xg7 .Yl,xf2+ 23 ..t>hl
h 5 2 4 Wg5 Wf5 2 5 J:t g6 W xg5 26
J:[ xg5 J:[ f7 led to equality, but
Howell's move 20 Wg3? led to
catastrophe - 20 . . . ..lth4! 2 1
W xh4 W xe6 and Black has a win
ning position.
At present this is the latest wo rd
on this variation.

Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . Jt..g4

J:t fe8 and Black wins.

Game No. 1 5
Timman-Yusupov
Tilburg (2) 1 986
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

e4
tt:J f3
tt:Jxe5
tt:J f3
d4
d3
0-0
c4
cd

e5
tt:Jf6
d6
tt:Jxe4
d5
tt:Jc6
g4
tt:Jf6

9 tt:Jc3 .ltxf3 1 0 i!r' xf3 tt:Jxd4

leads, as we have seen, to a sharp
tactical struggle, so taking on d5
can be considered a positional
decision.
9
10
11

iir' xf3
iir'e2+

..txf3
iir' xd5

A novelty, prepared by Timman

specially for the Candidates semi
final rna tch. After 1 1 J:[ e 1 + e 7
a position arises which we have
already seen more than once from
Kasparov-Karpov ( 1 , 28) - 1 2
'ilfh3 tt:Jxd4 1 3 tt:Jc3 iit'd7 1 4 iit' xd 7 +
xd7 with a quick draw.
11
12

..tb5

J..e 7
"iWd6!

Taking the pawn - 1 2

'ilfxd4 - i s too risky as White
plays 1 3 tt:Jc3 with a considerable
i niti ative.
13

tt:Jc3

Of course 1 3 J:[ e 1 0-0 14 xc6

be 1 5 iir' xe7 is bad in view of 1 5

61

13
14

xc6

15

..te3

0-0
be (58)

58
w

White strengthens his d4-pawn,

hoping to then use the vulner
ability of his opponent's doubled
pawns along the c-file. We shall
return to this position again at the
end of this game.
15
16

J:t ac l

tt:Jd5
J:t fe8

Plaskett took the other half

open file in two games : 1 6 . . .
J:t ab8 1 7 b3 tt:Jxe3 1 8 iir' xe3 J:t fd8
19 J:Hd 1 c5 ( 1 9 . . . J.. f 8 20 g3
with strong pressure on Black's
position, Mestel-Plaskett, Lon
don 1 986) 20 d5 .tf8 21 tt:Je4
and White has a clear advantage
(Short-Plaskett, London 1 986).
17

tt:Jxd5!

An unusual decision. Black now

has an opportunity to undouble
h is pawns, but after 1 7 . . . cd 1 8
iir'c2 and then 1 9 iir' c6 he has no
counterplay at all. However, in

62

Main Line with 6 . . . Ci"Jc6 and 7

response to W hite's unexpected

move, Black replies with one of
his own . . .
17
18
19

'!i'c4
b3 (59)

'!i'xd5!
..t d6

59
B

...

g4

After 2 1 'ii' x c6 l:!. ae8 22 d5 l:!. e4

23 ..tc5 h5 Black has sufficie n t
compensation for the pawn. With
an intermediary move. Timman
drives the enemy queen away from
the comfortable f5-square.
'ii' h5
21
22
23
24

After 1 9 '!i' xc6 comes the reply

1 9 . . . '!i'xa2.
19
20

l:!.e6
g3

The pawn is still untouchable:

20 '!i'xc6? j,xh2 + .
20
'!i' f5
Yusupov's trainer, international
master M ark Dvoretsky, com
pared this purely positional sacri
fice to the pawn sacrifice in the
M arshall Attack. The opponent's
small material gain is fully com
pensated for by the activity of
Black's pieces. If 20 . . . l:!. ae8,
White would have rather not
taken the pawn, but limited him
self to the quiet 21 '!i'xd5 cd 22
1:1. c6. The move 20 . . . 'iW h5 also
deserved attention.
21

'!i'c2

'!i'xc6
'!i' g2
1:1. fe1

l:!. ae8
l:!. e4
'iWfS

f3
l:!. xe1
.lk.xe1
'iWf2

l:!. xe1 +
l:!. xe1 +
'ii' d3
.b3!

24 . . . ..tb4 is useless because of

25 ..td2 ! , exploiting the weakness
of the back rank. However, it was
worth interfering with Timman's
intended exchange of rooks with
24 . . . 'liaS! 25 a4 h5 or 2 5 I! e2
'!i'f5 with . . . h7-h5 to follow. I n
this case White already needs to
be accurate to avoid mishaps.
h5
25
..td2
26
27
28
29

White's extra pawn makes no

difference.
30
31
32

wg2

'li ft

..tel
'!i' xd4

'ii' e2

More dangerous for Black is 32

..tf2 ..te3 (32 . . . 'ii' b 2 33 'ii' b5!)
33 '!i'e2 ..txf2 34 '!i' xf2, forcing the
pawn ending - 34 . . . 'ii' b6 3 5
'ii' x b6 ab. But, as Timman's
second, Grandmaster Ulf Anders
son established, White has no
chances for success in this ending:
36 wf2 wf8 37 we3 we7 38

Main Line with 6 . . . (/Jc6 and 7 . . . 1i.g4

M4

wd6!
32
33
34

63

60

'llt' x b2
g4

'llt' b2
xb2
g6

But not 34 . . . hg 35 fg, and

White gets a distant passed pawn.
35

gh

gh

In the bishop ending the weak

ness of Black's queenside pawns
gives White a definite advantage,
although not enough to win.
Exchanging another patr of
pawns,
Timman
eases
his
opponent's task considerably.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

'.tg3
'.th4
'.txh5
'.tg5
'.tf5
c3
e5
d4

e5 +
xh2
d6
'.tf8
'.te8
c6
e7

t-t
And so, White's interesting pos
itional plan linked with the
doubled enemy c-pawns and the
exchange on d5, was not wholly
successful in this game. However,
Nigel Short later came up with a
prepared improvement. Let's
return to the position in the dia
gram after Black's 1 4th move.
Reykjavik
Short-Olafsson,
1 987 : 1 5 l:t d l ! (clearly a more
exact way of defending the d-pawn
than 1 5 ..te3) 1 5 . . . l:t fe8 1 6 'llt' f3
li:l d5 1 7 t2lxd5 'llt' x d5 1 8 'llt' x d5 (this
t im e White willingly exchanges
queens) 1 8 . . . cd 19 ..tf4 c6? (60)

How surprising it is that this is

the decisive mistake. One passive
move puts Black in a critical pos
ition. The active 1 9 . . . ..tf6
deserved attention - 20 ..t xc7
l:t e4. Now Short realises his pos
itional advantage in a technical
manner:
20 l:t ac l l:t ac8 21 '.tfl f6 22
:t d3 wf7 23 f3 ..tf8 24 :t b3 h5
25 h4 l:t e6 26 a4 '.t;>e8 27 :t e l
l:t xe l + 2 8 '.txe l c 5 2 9 d e ..txc5
30 l:t b7 ..td4 31 r,t;>d2 ..tb6 32
b4! l:t c4 33 ..td6 g5 34 a5 ..tg l
34 hg fg 36 b5 l:t a4 37 a6 l:t a2 +
38 r,t;> d 3 r,t;>d8 3 9 ..t b8 l:t a3 + 40
'.tc2 l:t a5? 4 1 ..tc7 + 1 -0.
Black quickly managed to
improve his game as early as move
1 6 : 1 6 . . . l:t ab8! (instead of 1 6 . . .
tLJd5) I 7 b3 'llt' d 7 1 8 d5 cd 1 9 tLJxd5
t2lxd5 20 l:t xd5 ..tf6 21 ..te3 'i xd5
22 'llt' x d5 ..txa l 23 g3 a6 24 'llt' c 6
l:t e 6 25 'llt' x c7 ..te5 26 'llt' c4 h5 27
b4 ..td6 28 a3 ..tf8! and Black
survived (Lobron-Georgiev, San
Bernardino 1 987).

Main Line with 6

and 7
0-0
.

Game No. 16

aan

e4

e5

li:lf6

li:lf3
li:lxeS

d6

li:lf3

li:lxe4

d4

il..e7

Jie7

dS

0-0

0-0

c4

li:lf6

de

After 9 . . . li:lc6 I 0 li:lc3 a position

from Kasparov-Karpov ( I , 48)
arises by transposition. I took the
pawn on c4 and White obtained a
small advantage. Korchnoi prefers
to exchange pawns immediately,
but develops the knight on d7 ,
then on b6, to strengthen the
blockade of the d5-square.

Once upon a time Black con

tinued 6 . . . li:lf6, leaving the pawn
on d6. In the fifth game of the
Fischer-Petrosian match (Buenos
Aires 1 971) after 7 h3 0-0 8 0-0
l!e8 9 c4 1i:lbd7 10 li:lc3 c6 I I l!el
li:lf8 12 11..f4 a6 13 'l!fb3 li:le6
a complicated struggle developed
with roughly equal chances, but
later on it was established that 1 3
b4! gives White a clear advantage.
7

h3

A good prophylactic move.

Other continuations allow Black
to pin the knight on f3.

Usually 5 . . . d5 is played
immediately.
11..d3

centre with 8 . . . li:lc6 and

withdraws the knight from the
centre.

Zee 1990

Sax-Korchnoi

Wijk

10

11.. xc4

li:lbd7

11

li:lc3

li:lb6

12

11.. b3

li:lbdS

13

l!e 1

c6

14
il.. gS
11..e6 (61)
The strategies of opening vari
ations are very interesting: on the
board we have a position from the

Korchnoi avoids action in the

64

Main Line with 6

. . .

it.. e 7 and 7

. . .

0-0

65

become a good object of attack.

But it's not as easy as that. White's
pieces have a free game, his knights
can take up wonderful outposts
on e5 and c5. Undoubtedly, the
initiative is on his side.

61
w

16

tt:le5

tt:ld7

Black tries to simplify.

J:l: xe7
17
..txe7
18

Queen's Gambit Accepted which

arises after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 de 3 e3
e5 4 .bc4 ed 5 ed tt:lf6 6 tt:lf3
i,e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3 ttJ bd7 9 tt:lc3
ttJb6 1 0 ..tb3 tt:lbd5 1 1 J:l: e 1 c6 1 2
.tg5 ke6. But the players have
taken two moves more to reach
this position! In principle we could
stop here and direct the reader
to a monograph on the Queen's
Gambit, but that is not our job. ( I
have used some o fmaster Zlochev
sky's notes).
15

tt:lf8

19

tt:lc5

'liteS

Better is 1 9 . . . J:l: c8 followed by

20 . . . 'i!!i' d 6 or 20 . . . 'llf a 5. On
e8 the queen stands opposite the
enemy rook.
20
'llf f3!
J:l: d8? (62)
62
w

J:l: ac1

In the game Razuvayev-Bagi

rov, Yaroslavl 1 982, a Queen's
Gambit, there followed 1 5 tt:le5
l:i:Jc7 (or 1 5 . . . tt:lxc3 1 6 be ..bb3
17 'i'xb3 J:l: b8 1 8 ..tf4 with a small
ad vantage) 1 6 ..tc2 J:l: e8 1 7 'llf d 3
g6 18 'llf f 3 w i th attacking pros
pects.
15

tt:le4

After 1 8 . . . tt:lxe5 1 9 de White

has been relieved of his isolated
pawn and has an excellent outpost
on d6 for a knight.

J:l: e8

At first sight Black has no prob

lem s. All his minor pieces are
developed, the d5-square is block
aded and the pawn on d4 can soon

I t is hard to say whether this

is an oversight or an incorrect
evaluation of the position arising
as a result of White's combination.
But apparently, Black did not
want to go back - 20 . . . 'llf d 8,
admitting his mistake (which

66

Main Line with 6

...

_j_e7 and 7

would have been the best move).

21
22

l2lxb7!
l2lxc6

J::t xb7

...

0-0

63
w

Now Black has to give up a rook

and two pawns for two pieces, as
23 xd5 J::t x d5 24 '1Wxd5 threatens.
22
23
24

"i!t' xb3
"i!t'a3

J::t xb3
J::t d7

It is possible that both players

aimed for this position. Approxi
mate material equality has been
maintained, but all White's pieces
are placed extremely actively, and
his queenside pawns are ready to
quickly rush forward.
24
25
26
27

b4
bS
"i!t'f3

"i!t'a8
l2l g6
h6
"i!t' b7

27 . . . l2lf6 intending 28 . . . d5
fails to 28 l2Je7 + .
28
29
30
31
32
33

J::t cS!
a4
"i!t' g3!
"i!t' b8 +
l2Jxb8
J::t e8 + !

l2lf6
dS
l2Je4
"i!t' xb8
lLl xcS

An important intermediary
move. If 33 de Black would have
played 33 . . . J::t d8.
33
34

de

wh7
J::t e7 (63)

Sax has transformed his advan

tage : White now has only two
pawns for the piece, but his con
nected passed pawns on the queen
side are very threatening. The only

chance to stop the enemy 'in fan try'

is to exchange rooks.
l2lxe7
J::t xe7
35
36

aS

wg6

Black's king is too far away, and

without him Black can't handle
the pawns.
37

a6!

It is not easy to decide which

pawn to queen. Sax plays the
ending particularly accurately.
l2Jc8

37

If 37 . . . wf5 38 b6 we6 39 b7
Black is in zugzwang. After the
preliminary f2 -f3 the white king
comes to the queenside with decis
ive effect.
38
l2ld7
wrs
38 . . . e6 is no help beca use
of 39 b6! xd7 40 b7.
39
40

b6
ba

40
41

l2Jb6

l2le7

If 40 b7?, then 40 . . . l2Jc6 4 1

b8(W) l2lxb8 4 2 l2lxb8 we6, and
the knight is trapped in the co r ner.
l2lc8
l2Jxa7

Main Line with 6 . . . ..tel and 7 . . . 0-0

42

lilxdS

We could draw a close here.

43

lile3

wes
hS

44

wh2

g6

42

45

<;l;g3

wd4

46

M4

f6

47

g4

1-0

67

If 47 . . . hg then 48 lilxg4 f5 49
l2Je5 etc. is sufficient.

Main Line with 6 . . . jL d 6

Game No. 1 7

64

Timman-Salov

St. John (4) 1988

I
2
3
4
5
6
7

e4
tt:lf3

tt:Jxe5
tt:Jf3
d4
..td3
0-0

eS
tt:Jf6
d6

tt:Jxe4
dS
..td6
0-0

This variation, the symmetrical

variation, was known long before
the opening itself got its name.
H owever, in recent years it has
again acquired great popularity,
even at grandmaster level. Black
avoids active, but slightly risky,
variations, linked with attacking
the centre with . . . tt:Jb8-c6, and
tries to strengthen his centre sol
idly with . . . c7-c6.
8

c4

harmless continuation for Black 9

l:t e 1 , is now rarely met). Corres
pondingly, material relating to the
symmetrical variation is divided
into three games; this game deals
with 9 Wc2, game 1 8 with 9 l2Jc3
and game 1 9 with 9 cd.
9

Wc2

tt:Ja6

After 9 . . . f5 White can success

fully seize space on the queenside,
for example: 1 0 tt:Jc3 tt:Ja6 1 1 a3
tt:Jc7 1 2 c5 ..te7 1 3 ..tf4 g5 1 4
..txc7 W xc7 1 5 l:t ad 1 g4 1 6 t;J e l
..tg5 17 g3 (Burkov--Varlam ov)
or 1 0 c5 ..tc7 1 1 tt:Jc3 tt:Jd7 1 2 t;Je2
We8 1 3 ..tf4 ..td8 14 tt:Je5 j.f6

c6 (64)

Here White has three main

possibilities at his disposal - 9
Wc2, 9 tt:Jc3 and 9 cd (the last two
moves ofte transposed, and the
68

Main Line with 6 . . . d6

1 5 t2Jxd7 .txd7 1 6 f3 (Geiser

Kot schil). Curiously, both these
ga m es were played in the USSR
bet ween 1 985 and 1 987 in a the
m atic correspondence tournament
devoted to the symmetrical vari
a tion of the Petroff!
10

69

65
w

a3

Earlier opening books recom

mended taking the pawn sacrifice :
10 .txe4 de 1 1 "1Wxe4 .!::!. e8 1 2 "1Wd3
1Ub4 1 3 "1W b3 ..t5 14 .tg5 with
advantage to White. However,
recently Black has found several
antidotes. I nstead of 1 2 . . . t2l b4
better is 1 2 . . . .tg4 1 3 ..tg5 "iW d 7
1 4 t2J bd2 h6 1 5 ..te3 f5 (Kruppa
Rozentalis, Lvov 1 98 5).
The knight's jump to b4 is even
stronger a move earlier : I I . . .
!Ub4. Let us look at the game
Klaich-Grodzensky, Corr 1 9878 9, 12 t2Jg5 ( 1 2 a3 .!::!. e8 1 3 t2Je5
/Ua6 14 "1Wc2 .txe5 1 5 de .!::!. xe5
with advantage to Black) 12 . . . f5
1 3 "ilfe2 f4 1 4 t2Jf3 (or 14 t2le4 f3
1 5 gf .t h3 1 6 .!::!. e l Wc7 17 a3
.hh2 + 18 'it> h l t2Ja6 19 t2Jg5
. US 20 t2Jc3 h6 21 t2Jge4 .tg6 22
j, e3 .!::!. f5 23 g2 .!::!. af8 with
compensation for the pawn, K ra
mov-Raetsky, same correspon
de nce tournament as above) 14 . . .
ig4 1 5 a3 .t xf3 1 6 gf W h4 1 7
'ie6 + h8 (65) .
He re 1 8 "ilfg4 "1Wxg4+ 1 9 fg t2Jc2
20 .!::!. a2
t2Jxd4 leads to equality.
White risked grabbing the piece

and came to grief: 1 8 ab ( 1 8 "iW xd6

.!::!. f6 19 "ii d 7 t2lc2 20 .!::!. a2 t2Jxd4)
1 8 . . . .!::!. f6 19 "1Wd7 .!::!. g6+ 20 h i
.!::!. d8 2 1 "1Wf5 .!::!. g5 2 2 "1W e 6 "iW h 5 23
t2ld2 .!::!. g6 24 "iW xg6 hg 25 .!::!. xa 7
.txb4 26 .!::!. xb7 .txd2 27 .t xd2
"1Wxf3+ 28 gl .!::!. xd4 0- 1 (29
.tc3 "1Wg4 + 30 h i f3 3 1 .!::!. g l
"ii x g l + !).
.tg4 (66)
10
Salov played this piece of home
preparation (although not a
novelty!) in game four of this Can
didates match, but the second
game had gone differently: 10 . . .
f5 I I t2Jc3 t2Jc7 1 2 t2Je2 t2Je6 I 3 b4
h8 1 4 .t b2 "ii e 8 1 5 .!::!. ae l "1Wh5
16 t2Je5 f4 17 f3 t2l4g5 1 8 cd (a
hasty exchange as Black has no
threats on the kingside { if . . . .!::!. f6
then t2lg4 } , so the immediate 1 8
.t e l i s better) 1 8 . . . cd 1 9 .t e l
.txe5 2 0 d e .td7 2 1 ..t b2 a 6 22
"iid 2 (the consequences of the 1 8th
move start to tell : now White has
to contend with . . . .td7-b5) 22
. . . .!::!. ad8 23 .!::!. c l .te8! 24 .t d4

70

Main Line with 6 . . . d6

..tg6 25 ..tb6 .r.:t d7 26 ..txg6 hg

27 ..tc5 .r.:t f5 28 ..td6 tt:lf7 29
.r.:t c 8 + <J;>h7 30 tt:ld4 l2l xd4 3 1
'ilr' xd4 l2lxe5 32 ..txe5 .r.:t xe5 33
'ilr' xf4 when Black had managed to
gain equality and a draw was soon
agreed.
66
w

11

c5

Tim man liked 1 0 . . . ..tg4, and

a month after the end of the match
he chose it himself against Ljubo
jevic (Linares 1 988), after which a
fascinating
tactical
struggle
ensued : 1 1 ..txe4? de 1 2 tt:lg5 ..tf5
1 3 tt:lc3 .r.:t e8 14 .!:t e l ..tc7 1 5 'ilr' b3
W' xd4 1 6 ..te3 tt:lc5 1 7 W' b4 'ilr'd6
1 8 'ilr' xc5 'ilr'xh2+ 19 <;t>fl ..tg4 20
tt:lh3 .r.:t e5 21 tt:ld5 ..txh3 22 gh
b6 23 tt:lxb6 .r.:t xc5 24 tt:lxa8
'ilr'xh3+ 25 'it>e2 .r.:t xc4, and ten
moves later White resigned.
In the game Short-Hort, West
Germany 1 988, there followed 1 1
l2l bd2 tt:lxd2 1 2 tt:lxd2 'ilt' h4 1 3 f4
.r.:t ae8 1 4 c5 ..tb8 1 5 tt:lb3 .r.:t e7 1 6
d2 .r.:t fe8 1 7 .r.:t f2 tt:lc7 1 8 g3 'ilt'h5
1 9 f5 f6 20 a4 ..tf3? 2 1 .r.:t afl ..te4

22 tt:la5! tt:la6 23 ..txe4 de 24

'ilr'b3+ 'ilr'f7 25 'ilr' xf7+ 'it>xf7 26
.r.:t e2 and White obtained the
advantage. Correct was 20 . . .
tt:la6! 2 1 .r.:t afl ( 2 1 tt:la5? ..tf3 ! 22
.r.:t afl ..txg3! loses) 2 1
..t h3
with an equal game.
An active, although not very
dangerous, continuation occurred
in Ljubojevic-Hort, Amsterdam
1 988. After 1 1 tt:le5!? ..txe5 1 2 de
tt:lac5 1 3 f3 ( 1 3 b4 l2lxd3 14 'i!fxd3
f5 1 5 cd cd 1 6 'ilr'd4 .r.:t c8 and
Black is better, Hazai-Vladimi
rov, Rotterdam 1 988) 1 3 . . . l2lxd 3
1 4 'ilr'xd3 tt:lc5 1 5 'ilr'd4 tt:lb3 1 6
'ilr' xg4 tt:l x a l 1 7 ..th6 g6 1 8 ..txf8
'ilr' xf8 1 9 cd cd chances were equal,
although, thanks to a mistake by
his opponent Hort managed to
win : 20 'ilr'd4 tt:lc2 2 1 'ilr'f2 .r.:t c8 22
'ilr' xa7? (correct was 22 .!:t e l 'l!l'c5
with equality) 22 . . . d4! 23 li:ld2
'i!fe7 24 f4? tt:le3 25 .r.:t b l 'ilr'd7! 26
tt:le4 'it>g7 27 'ilr' b6 .r.:t c6 28 'l!l' b3
'ilr'f5! and several moves later
White resigned.
After 1 1 c5 Salov, with accurate
moves, also managed to equalise.
11
12
13

tt:le5
de

.tc7
xe5
tt:lexc5

In the original game Shakarov

Rozentalis, USSR Corr 1 986) the
other knight took on c5 and Black
was quickly routed : 1 3 . . . tt:lax c5?
14 f3 'ilr' b6 1 5 e3 d4 1 6 xd4
.r.:t fd8 1 7 ..t xc4 .r.:t xd4 1 8 .,txh 7 +

Main Line with 6 . . . .1t.. d 6

h 8 1 9 fg l2J b3 20 'it> h 1 l2lxa 1 2 1

'llf [5 c 5 2 2 *'xf7 'it>xh7 2 3 e6 .rt d5
4 <'2Jc3! .rt e5 25 l2Je4 ! <;t>h8 26
8g 5! and Black resigned (26 . .
;:t xg 5 2 7 .rt f3).

71

67
B

14
15

xh7 +
b4

<;t>h8
*'h4

After 1 5 . . . l2Jd7 1 6 b2 g6 1 7
fg 1 8 *' xg6 White's attack
i ncreases.

_tx g6

16
17
18
19

d3
*'xd3
h3
f4

l2Jxd3
l2Je7
h5
f5

Also possible was 1 9 . . . f6 20

j_b2 fe 2 1 xe5 l2Je6 with
chances for both sides.
20
21

l2ld2
l2l b3

l2le6
b6

Salov claims that a more accur

ate way to equality is 2 1 . . . d4 22
8xd4 .rt ad8 23 l2lxf5 "ir'xf4.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

l2ld4
*'xd4
e3
.!:t act
.rt e3
.rt fe l
<;t>f2
<;t>g3
a4

l2Jxd4
f7
.rt ae8
.rt e7
.rt fe8
*'e7
e6
<;t>g8

W hite has improved the pos

iti on of his pieces to the full and
now needs to open a line to pen
etrate Black's position.
30
31
32

a5
ba (67)

<;t>f7
ba

With a pawn sacrifice Salov

now initiates a general exchange
of all the major pieces and turns
the game into an opposite
coloured bishop ending.
32
33
34
35
36

.rt xe5
.rt xe5
*'xeS
xeS

e5
.rt xe5
.rt xe5
*' xeS
a6

For another 45 moves Timman

tries in vain to find success, but in
the end he is forced to make peace
all the same. For the sake of
completeness we give all the
remammg moves.
37 b6 d7 38 d4 g6 39
'it>h4 e6 40 'it>g5 d7 41 'it>h6
e6 42 e5 d7 43 b6 e8
44 e3 d7 45 f2 e8 46
a7 d7 47 e5 e8 48 d4
e6 49 e3 d7 50 b2 e8
51 a t d7 52 <;t>g5 e6 53
b2 e8 54 e3 d7 55 a 1
e8 56 b2 e6 57 e3 e8
58 h4 d7 59 d4 e6 60 e3
d7 61 f2 e8 62 b6 d7

72

Main Line with 6 . . . j_d6

63 ..te5 ..te6 64 ..tf2 ..td7 65 h5

gh 66 xh5 ..tb5 67 g5 e6
68 g4 ..td3 69 gf+ ..t xf5 70 ..td4
..te4 71 ..te3 ..td3 72 g4 ..te2
73 f3 ..tb1 74 e3 ..th7 75
d4 ..tg6 76 ..td2 ..tf5 77 ..te3
e4 78 e5 b1 79 b6 ..td3
80 e6 ..te2 81 e5 !-

Game No. 1 8
A. Sokolov-011

Odessa 1989
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

e4
tLlf3
t/Jxe5
tLlf3
d4
..td3
0-0
e4
t/Je3 (68)

e5
tLlf6
d6
t/Jxe4
d5
..td6
0-0
e6

gets a draw. In fact, thanks to

his discovery this game won t h e
Jnformator award for the bes t
novelty!
9
10

be

t/Jxe3
de

The position after I 0 . . ..t g4

I I cd cd will be looked at in detail
in the following game. Of course, if
White wants to avoid exchangin g
pawns on c4, then instead of 9
t/Jc3 he should himself begin by
exchanging in the centre - 9 cd
cd and only then play I 0 t/Jc3.
.

11
12

..t xe4
"Wd3

..tg4

If 1 2 J:t b l good is 1 2 . . . b5! , for

example : 1 3 ..td3 tLld7 1 4 l:!: e l
t/Jb6 1 5 ..t c 2 J:t e8! with equality
(Short- Makarychev, Rotterdam
1 988).

68
B

12
13
14
15

t/Jg5
h3
f4

tLld7
tLlf6
..th5
h6 (69)

16

g4

hg

69
w

Developing the knight on c3

was regarded as fairly dangerous
for Black before this game, but
here 011 manages to play a valu
able theoretical novelty and easily

If 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 ..tb3 c5!? 1 8

Main Line with 6 . . . it.. d 6

_td5 !? ..t g6 1 9 'i!t' xg6 hg 20 'i!t' xg5

a nd White's chances are better.
Als o in White's favour is 1 6 . . .
_txg4 1 7 tt:lxf7! .!:! xf7 1 8 ..txf7 +
-;; xf7 1 9 hg tt:lxg4 20 'i!t' f5 + .
17
18

fg

<ot>f2

.l:! ae8

If W hite had played 2 1 <;t;>h2

t his move would have led to vic
tory for Black. Now the threat is
22 . . . .l:! e2 + 23 'i!t'xe2 'i!t'g3 mate.
'i!t'h4+
22
.!:! g1
23

70
B

bS

..tb3
1 8 gf be 1 9 'i!t'd2 ..tg6 20 fg
-;; xg7 2 1 'i!t'h6+ 'itg8 22 ..tg5
_t e7 etc. loses.
18
tt:lxg4
This knight sacrifice was first
seen in Short-Hiibner, Tilburg
1988, although the moves . . . b7b5 and ..tc4-b3 were played later.
The finish of that game is given
below.
'i!t'd7!
19
hg
After 19 . . . ..txg4 there follows
20 g6 ..te6 2 1 .!:! xf7! with very
strong threats.
20
gh
In Nunn-Salov, Brussels 1 988,
20 'i!t'f5 ..txg4 21 'i!t' xd7 .bd7 22
l hf7 .l:! xf7 23 g6 ..te8 gave White
nothing.
20
'i!t'g4 +
21

73

<;t;>g2 (70)

At this point both games coin

cide again. Here H iibner played
23 . . . c5 and after 24 .!:! h 1 resigned.
I n deed, if 24 . . . 'i!t'g4+ 25 wfl (25

'1tf2? ..tg3 + ) 25 . . . c4 26 ..td l

.!:t e l + 27 'it xe l 'i!t'g2 28 'i!t'e2!
'i!t' x h l + 29 <;t;>d2 Black's attack is
beaten off and he has nothing.
23 . . . .l:! e4 looks dangerous, but
here also, by continuing with 24
'i!t'f3! W hite defuses any dangers,
for example : 24 . . . ..th2 (24 . . .
.l:! fe8? 25 ..txf7 + ) 25 ..td2! .l:! g4+
( 2 5 . . . ..txgl 2 6 .l:! xg l ) 26 'i!t' xg4
'i!t' xg4+ 27 'itxh2 'i!t' h4+ (27 . . .
'i!t'xh5+ 28 <;t;>g3) 28 'itg2 'i!t'e4+
(28 . . . .!:! e8 29 ..td 1 ) 29 '1tf2 'i!t'f5 +
(29 . . . .!:! e8 3 0 .l:! g2!) 3 0 we2
.!:! e 8 + 3 1 'itd l . The checks have
ended and White has a decisive
material advantage.
However, not so good is 25 .!:! h 1
.l:! g4+ 26 <;t;>fl .l:! g3! 27 'i!t' xc6
'i!t' h 3+ 28 '1tf2 ..tf5 + 29 ..tel .
This position arose i n Psakhis
M ikhalchishin ( Klaipeda 1988).
After 29 . . . ..tgl ! 30 ..td 1 'i!t'd3+
31 ..td2 ..te3 Black would have
gained the upper hand, but Black
played 29 . . . .!:! c8? (71), believing
that this also led easily to victory.

74

Main Line with 6 . . . il.. d 6

25
26
27
28

71
w

.t>xel
'it>e2
.ll xcl !

.!l e i + !
xg l +
.txcl

After 28 'it>d3 xg5 Black simply remains a pawn up.

28
29
30
31

But here came the effective

strike 30 .te6! and Black soon
had to resign.
So, it seems that the following
conclusion might be made : the
knight sacrifice is unsound. 011
got the award for refuting this
conclusion : he proves that Black
can easily draw a piece down.
A n important improvement,
which puts into doubt the future
of the whole variation from 1 2
Wd3.
24

.t>fl

.tf4!

The whole point, threatening

1:1. e8-e 1 +, and after 25 ..ixf4
*' xf4+ 26 'it>g2 .ll e3 the question
remains whether White can beat
off the attack.

25

f3

The only move. 25 ..id 1 ? loses

immediately to 25 . . . .ll e 1 + !. The
same result comes from 25 g6?
l:l. e 1 + 26 'it>xe 1 W xg l + 27 <;t>e2
l:l. e8 + . Now Black forces a draw,
and this outcome also suits White.

xcl
.ll e8 +
. bl +

Obviously not 3 1 .tc2? xa2

and f7 is defended.
31
32
33

'it>d3
'it>d2

1 1
z--z-

Game No. 1 9
Dvoiris-Rozentalis

Lvov 1 990

h2 + !

23

g6
'it>d3
.td2

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

e4
tt:Jf3
tt:Jxe5
tt:Jf3
d4
.t d3
0-0
c4
cd
tt:Jc3

e5
tt:Jf6
d6
tt:Jxe4
d5
.td6
0-0
c6
cd

The most popular move order,

which gives Black quite a few
problems : White builds a stable
centre and his opponent needs to
play accurately.
10
11

be

tt:Jxc3
.tg4

Main Line with 6 . . . i.d6

12

J:t b1 (72)

72
B

12

b6

1 2 . . . tt:ld7 is also often played.

Let's look at the most interesting
examples of recent years :
13 h3

Of course not 1 3 J:t xb7 tt:lb6

with the threat of 1 4 . . . ..tc8.
13 . . . ..th5 (73)

Worse is 1 3 . . . ..txf3 1 4 xf3

tt:lb6 1 5 g3 J:t c8 1 6 h4 J:t c7 1 7 h5
with a clear advantage to White
(Dvoiris-Yakovich, Kiev 1 986).
73
w

Now the b-pawn can be taken.

If 14 J:t xb7 tt:l b6 1 5 ..td2 then
1 5 . . . c8 is bad because of 1 6
.txh7 + ! xh7 ( 1 6 . . . h8 1 7

75

J:t xb6 ab 1 8 ..t b l ) 1 7 tt:lg5+ g6

18 g4 ..t xg4 ( 1 8 . . . xb7 19 gh+
f6 20 J:t e l ) 19 hg xb7 20 J:t e l
with the threat o f 2 1 'ilr'c2+. Also
insufficient is 15 . . . ..tg6 1 6 ..txg6
hg 1 7 '*e2 and Black has difficulty
in exploiting the 'isolation' of the
rook on b7. However, by playing
the preliminary 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 J:te I
and only now 1 6 . . . c8, Black
gets an equal game, for example:
1 7 ..ta6 '*c6 18 tt:le5 xb7 1 9
..txb7 ..txd I 20 ..txa8 ..txe5 2 1
de (no better i s 2 1 J:t xd l ..txd4 22
..txd5 tt:lxd5 23 cd J:t b8) 21 . . .
..ta4 22 ..tb7 ..tb5! 23 J:t b l ..tc4
with a quick draw (Serper-Akop
yan, Tbilisi 1 989).
In A. Sokolov- Rozentalis,
Minsk 1 986, White played 1 5
..ta6 immediately, but after 1 5 . . .
'*e8 1 6 '*e2 '* c6 1 7 '* b 5 xc3
1 8 ..tb2 '*c2 1 9 J:t c l '*e4! 20 .!:t e l
.-g6 2 1 .-e2 tt:lc4 2 2 ..txc4 d e 2 3
g4 ..txg4 2 4 h g xg4+ 2 5 fl
'* h 3 + the game ended in per
petual check.
14 J:t b5!
The strongest move in the dia
gram position. Moving the rook
to the fifth rank gives the opponent
several problems. We shall look
at the valuable theoretical game
Belyavsky-Petursson, Reykjavik
1 988.
14 . . . ttJb6 15 c4! ..t xf3
Dangerous is 1 5 . . . de 1 6
..txh7 + xh7 1 7 J:t xh 5 + , but if

76

Main Line with 6 . . . .i.d6

1 5 . . . IL\xc4 there comes 1 6 I! xd5

h2+ ( 1 6 . . . xf3 1 7 'l!l'xf3 with
advantage to White) 1 7 IL\xh2!
'l!l'xd5 1 8 xc4 'l!l'xc4 19 'l!l'xh5,
and Black is left with nothing.
Interestingly, this position first
occurred in Mahia-Pia (Mar del
Plata 1988) and was repeated
in Dvoiris-Vladimirov (Barnaul
1988).
16 1!1' xf3 de 17 c2!
Having opened lines, White
develops a dangerous initiative.
1 7 . . . a6
This naive move allows an
effective finale.
18 g5! ab
Bad is 1 8 . . . f6 because of 1 9
1!1'h5 h 6 20 xh6 ab 2 1 'l!l'g6, and
if the queen retreats 19 f6 is
decisive. But, of course, without
the queen Black has no chance
either.
19 xd8 '!J.fxd8 20 1Wh5 g6 21
'l!l'xb5 c7 22 a4 '!J. xd4 23 'l!l'c5
I! d7 24 g3!, and White won shortly
afterwards.
The game Kudrin-Machago,
Thessaloniki (ol) 1988, finished in
a similar way: 1 7 . . . l!b8 1 8 a4
a6 19 g5 'l!l'c7 ( 1 9 . . . f6 201!1'h5
h6 21 xh6) 20 xh7+ 'i!<xh7
21 1!1'h5+ 'i!<g8 22 f6! h2+
(22 . . . e7 23 xg7! 'i!<xg7 24
'l!l'g4+ <i<f6 25 l! f5+ we6 26
l!c5+ f5 27 'l!l'e2+) 23 'i!<hl 'l!l'd6
24 xg7 'i!<xg7 25 l!g5+ Wf6
26 l!el! 'l!l'e6 (26 . . . l!h8 27 '!J.f5+

'i!<g7 28 'l!l'xf7+) 27 l!xe6+ fe 28

l!g6+ 'i!<e7 29 l!g7+ 1-0 (29 .
wd8 30 'l!l'g5+ 'i!<c8 3 1 'l!l'c5+).
Belyavsky recommends 1 7
'l!l'c7 straight away - 1 8 a4 a6 1 9
l! h5 g 6 2 0 h6 l! fe8 2 11!1'f6 fs
22 xf8 I! xf8 23 I! c5 'l!l'd8 24
'l!l'xd8 l! axd8 25 l! b l l! d6 26 a5
li:ld7 27 l!xc4 b5 28 ab li:lxb6 with
a level ending.
In Timman-Anand, Tilburg
1991, Black placed the queen on
the neighbouring square - 1 7 .
'l!l'd7. There followed 1 8 a4 c7
1 9 l!c5 d6 20 l!b5 c7 21
l!c5 d6. White now rejected a
repetition of moves and after 22
a5 ILleS 23 f5 'l!l'd8 24 a6 li:le7
25 ab I! b8 26 g5 f6 27 e6+
wh8 28 f4 xf4 29 'l!l'xf4 l!xb7
30 d5 IL\g6 3 1 'l!l'xc4 got a slightly
better ending on account of the
passed d-pawn.
Nevertheless,
White was unable to make use of
it, and, unsurprisingly, was barely
able to retain it in the long ending.
13

I! bS

Threatening 14 l!xd5 xh2+

1 5 IL\xh2.
13
c7
14

h3

Luring the Black bishop on g4

to the fifth rank, in order to play
c4 comfortably. What happens if
White pushes the c-pawn forward
at once? This occurred in the game
Short-Timman, Hilversum 1989:
14 c4 (74)

Main Line with 6 . . . it.d6

74
B

14 . . . de!

Worse is 1 4 . . . 'iit' d 6 1 5 .!:!. e 1 !

.bf3 1 6 'iit' x f3 "ili'xh2+ 1 7 wfl
t/Jc6 1 8 .!:!. xd5 (75).
75
B

77

hand. However, in the game he

made an error - 1 9 e3? and
Salov could have already gained
an advantage by 1 9 . . . f5! with
many different threats - 20 . . .
lLl b4; 20 . . . lLle7 or 20 . . . f4. But
Black in turn made a serious slip,
moving the wrong pawn - 19 . . .
g6?. After 20 a3! White got the
initiative back and quickly took
the upper hand : 20 . . . 'tit' h 1 + (20
. . . f5 2 1 'iit' h 3 'iit' x h3 22 gh f4 23
d2 .!:!. d8 24 c3 - Short) 2 1
we2 'iit' h 4 2 2 g4 f5 2 3 .!:!. d7 f4 24
.!:!. h 1 'iit' f6 25 'iit' d 5+ .!:!. e6 26 g5
lLlxd4+ 27 wd 1 1 -0.
Let us return to Short-Tim
man :
15 .1t... e4 lLJc6! 16 .!:!. g5

This position arose in Short

Salov (Amsterdam 1 989). In
response to 1 8 . . . .!:!. ae8, Short
gives the following beautiful vari
ations: 1 9 .!:!. xe8! 'iit' h 1 + ( 1 9 . . .
l:t xe8 20 .!:!. h5 ) 20 we2 .!:!. xe8 + 2 1
.1e3 l:t e7 22 .!:!. d7! .!:!. xd7 2 3 'iit' x c6
'i' h5 + 24 f3 or 2 1 . . . "i/i' a 1 22 'iit' f5
l:t e6 (22 . . . g6 23 'iit' d 7; 22 . . .
QJx d4+ 23 .!:!. xd4 'iit' xd4 24 'iit' x h7+
f8 25 "i/i' h 8 + and 26 "ili'xe8 + ) 23
'i'r. h7 + wf8 24 'iit' h 8 + we7 25
'i' xg7, and White gets the upper

If 1 6 xc6 there follows 1 6 . . .

"iit' d 6! threatening . . . xf3.
16 . . . x/3 17 'iit' x/3 'iit' d6 18 .!:!. g 3
No better is 1 8 g3 lLl xd4 1 9 'iit' e 3
.!:!. ae8 20 a3 lLJe2+ 21 wg2 'iit' d4
or 1 8 .!:!. h5 g6 1 9 a3 tLJ xd4 20
'iit' h 3 lLJe2 + 2 1 w h 1 'iit' d4 (Tim
man).
18 . . . lLlxd4 19 'iit' g 4 g6 20 .1t... xa8
.!:!. xa8?

Black throws away a large

advantage, which he would have
retained after the preliminary 20
. . . f5 and then 2 1 'iit' d 1 (2 1 a3
'iit' e 5 22 'iit' d 1 lLle2 + ) 21 . . . .!:!. xa8
22 .!:!. e 1 b5 23 .1t... b 2 .!:!. d8 and
White is defenceless.
21 n d1 n d8 22 wf1 'iit' d5 23 n eJ
/5?

78

Main Line with 6 . . . .i.d6

Now, moving the f-pawn leads

to defeat. It was necessary to play
23 . . . c3 24 l hc3 'i!fb5 + .
24 h4 f4

Now after 24 . . . c3 25 l:t xd4

xd4 26 l:t e 8 + White wins.
25 1:t e 7 h5 26 f6 1-0.
a 6 (76)

14

Before retreating the bishop

Black wants to drive the enemy
rook from the fifth rank. If 14 . . .
h5 there comes 1 5 c4, and after
the passive 1 4 . . . e6 1 5 tt:Jg5 h6
1 6 'i!fh5 'i!fd6 1 7 g3 tt:Jd7 1 8 f4
'ilfc6 1 9 tt:J xe6 tt:Jf6 20 e2 White
has a clear positional plus
Barnaul
(Dvoiris-Rozentalis,
1 984).

following interesting game took

place in the Candidates quarter
final in Brussels.
Short -Gelfand, Brussels 1 99 1 :
15 hg!?

The same idea as in the game

we are looking at, but in a slightly
different format.
15 . . . ab 16 c2 g6 1 7 h6 1:t e8
18 xb5 1:t e4

1 8 . . . tt:Jd7 1 9 c6.
19 g5 d6 20 tt:Je5 e6 2 1 f4 (77)
77
B

76
w

Now if the rook retreats to b 1

o r b 3 Black replies 1 5 . . . h 5
and chances are equal.
15

l:t xd5!?

An interesting possibility. In
return for the exchange White will
get a pawn and a strong initiative.
It is interesting that when this
book was almost complete, the

The position looks fairly dan

gerous for Black - his queenside
is sealed and there is no future at
all in exchanging on e5. Mean
while d3 and f4-f5 threaten.
However, Gelfand finds an elegant
way of escaping from his tricky
position with the help of a piece
sacrifice.
21 . . . tt:Jc6! 22 tt:Jxc6

22 xc6 xeS 23 xa8 xf4

with dangerous threats. There is
nothing in 22 f5.
22 . . . 1:t xf4 23 1:t xf4 xf4

Two minor pieces against a

Main Line with 6 . . .td6

rook - generally speaking, a con

siderable advantage, but taking
into account that the bishop on
h6 is hopelessly incarcerated, the
chances can be considered equal.
24 fbe5 $.. xe5 25 de 'l!l'xe5 26 a4
'l!l'el+ 27 wh2 J:! c8 28 'l!l'd3 'l!l'e5+
29 'l!l'g3 'l!l'xc3 30 'l!l'j4 'l!l'c7 31
wg3 'l!l'c3+ 32 <t<h2 'l!l'c7 33 'i<g3

'i'c3+ j--j.
In recent commentaries to this
game Gelfand and his second,
International Master Kapengut,
have made a number of improve
ments. Instead of 19 g5? there are
better prospects in 1 9 c4!. Black's
move 20 . . . 1We6? is inaccurate.
After the immediate 20 . . . fbc6! 21
.li.xc6 (21 f3? l:!xe5 22 .li.xc6 J:!e7!
etc.) 21 . . . J:! xe5 22 de (22 .i.xa8?
loses to 22 . . . J:! e2!) 22 . . . 'l!l'xc623
f4 J:!a3 Black's position is better.
Finally, White also made a mis
take on move 23: 23 'l!l'd2! J:! xfl +
24 wxfl .li.g3 25 a4 'l!l'e4 26 .li.d3
'llh4 27 'l!l'e3! would lead to an
advantage for White.
15
16

lil'xd5
hg

The only
sufficient.

fbc6!

move,

17

fbg5

18

fbe4

but

quite

h6

White has created a range of

threats - 1 9 .li.xh6, 1 9 g5, 19 'l!l'f3,
but Black has a way of repelling all
of them.
18

.!! adS!

19

79

g5

1 9 'l!l'f3 is unsuitable because

of 1 9 . . . fbe5! and 1 9 .li.xh6 IS
answered by 1 9 . . . fbxd4.
l! feS

19
20

l!e1

fbxd4!

21

cd

'l!l'xd4

22

'l!l'c2!

22 fbf6+ comes up against 22

. . . gf 23 llxe8+ llxe8 24 .li.h7+
wxl]7 25 'l!l'xd4 J:!e1 mate.
22
23

'l!l'xd3
'l!l'xc7

l!cS

But not 23 . . . hg 24 .li.xg5 f6?

25 .li.xf6!
24

'l!l'b7

J:!xcl

And here if 24 . . . hg 25 .li.xg5

f5 the bishop manoeuvre 26 .li.f6!
decides.
25

J:!xcl

'l!l'xe4

26

'l!l'xb6

'l!l'f4

27

J:! fl

lle6

28

'l!l'd8+

h7

29

'l!l'd3+

'l!l'e4

30

'l!l'xe4+

ll xe4

gh

xh6

31

As a result of this wild skirmish

an equal rook ending has emerged.
Black's rook is a little more active
and so he decides to make his
opponent suffer a little. But, of
course, a peaceful outcome IS
unavoidable.
32

l!d1

lla4

33

l!d2

g5

34

g3

g6

35

g2

f5

36

ll b2

l!a3

80

Main Line with 6 . . . .i.d6

37

l:tc2

'.t>h5

44

l:tc2

'.t>f5

38

l:td2

aS

45

l:tb2

l:tc3

39

l:tc2

a4

46

l:tb4

a3

40

l:td2

g5

47

l:ta4

g4

41

l:tc2

>t;>g4

48

l:ta8

'.t>f5

42

l:tc4+

f4

49

l:ta4

'.t>e5

gf

gf

43

1 1
2-2

White Fourth Move

Alternatives

Game No. 20
Vitolins-Raetsky

Naberezhnye Chelny 1988

1

e4

eS

lilf3

lilf6

lilxeS

This game is devoted to the rare,

but fascinating knight sacrifice
variation - 3 lilxe5 d6 4 lilxf7?!
We are also using it to examine
other rare continuations, which
are almost never met in serious
particular,
tournaments.
In
instead of 3 lilxe5 the following
moves are possible to avoid the
main lines - 3 d3, 3 .i.c4 and 3
lilc3. (The 'correct' move 3 d4 will
be given considerable attention
later).
(a) If White plays 3 d3 he is
playing a Philidor's Defence with
H extra tempo. But in this open
Ing, even having an extra tempo,
it is hard to expect much. After 3
lilc6 4 .i.e2 Black has a choice
. .

between 4 . . . .i.e7, 4 . . . d5, 4 . . .

g6 and 4 . . . .i.c5. In each case the
position is roughly level.
(b) 3 .i.c4 lilc6 leads to the
Two Knights Defence, but Black
has the good reply 3 . . . lilxe4!.
Looking in in opening books you
will find that after 4 lilc3 (4 d3, 4
1!1'e2 and 4 lilxe5 give nothing at
all) 4 . . . lilxc3 (the quiet 4 . . . lilf6
and 4 . . . lild6 are also possible) 5
de f6 White has some initiative for
the sacrificed pawn, but hardly
sufficient.
(c) Finally, to 3 lilc3 Black's
best reply is 3 . . . lilc6 giving
a Four Knights Game, which is
perfectly satisfactory. The con
tinuations 3 . . . .i.c5 and 3 . . .
.i. b4, once well regarded by
theory, allow White to obtain a
definite advantage, for example: 3
. . . .i. b4 4 lilxe5 0-0 5 .i.e2 J:te8
6 lild3 .i.xc3 7 de lilxe4 (78) .
The critical position. After 8
81

White Fourth Move A lternatives

82

78
w

0-0 d5 9 lt:l f4 c6 1 0 ..ie3 lt:ld6! the

game is level, but White can play
the immediate 8 lt:lf4!, preventing
. . . d7-d5. In Psakhis-Yusupov,
V ilnius 1 980/8 1 , there followed 8
. . . c6 9 c4 d6 1 0 0-0 ..tf5 1 1 a4
a5 1 2 l:ta3 lt:ld7 1 3 l:t e3 lt:ldc5 1 4
g4 ..te6 1 5 f 3 lt:lf6 1 6 'iW d4 'iWc7
1 7 b3 h6 1 8 ..tb2 l:t ad8. Here
White played 1 9 l:!. d 1 which led
to equality. However, in Blum
Pilinyan, Corr 1 98 2-83, White
preferred 1 9 l:t f2! and won.
3

the long theoretical varia tio ns

arising from 4 lt:lf3 - White h as
two pawns for the knight an d a
pawn roller in the offing. However
before looking at the knight sac ri
fice variation, let us refer to one
more possibility for White - 4
lt:lc4!?
The idea behind retreating the
knight to c4 is its future transfer
to e3, from where it will exert
pressure on the centre. Let us l ook
at how events can develop. 4 . . .
lt:lxe4 5 d4 (the old continuations
5 lt:lc3, 5 d3 and 5 'iWe2 lead to
equality) 5 . . . d5 6 lt:le3 'iWf6 (the
favourite move of Makarychev,
the usual choice being 6 . . . e6,
as was played in the last century)
7 'iWe2 ..ie6 8 c3 lt:lc6 9 lt:ld2
0-0-0 (79) .
79
w

d6

I t is well known that taking

the pawn straight away does not
work : 3 . . . lt:lxe4? 4 'iWe2 'iWe7 5
'iWxe4 d6 6 d4 de 7 de lt:lc6 8 lt:lc3!
(the simplest) 8 . . . 'iWxe5 9 'iWxe5
lt:lxe5 10 ..tf4 ..td6 1 1 ..ig3! and
then lt:lb5 or lt:le4 with an exchange
on d6, which leads to an unavoid
able break up of Black's pawns.
4
lt:lxf7?!
This knight sacrifice can be rec
ommended to players with a sharp
style who don't like remembering

After 1 0 g3 (but not 1 0 tt:lxe4

de 1 1 g3 1:1. xd4!) the positio n is
roughly level.
In Smagin-Makarychev, Mu r
cia (rapid) 1 990, there followed th e
reckless 10 lt:lxd5?! ..txd5 1 1 tt:lx e4

White Fourth Move A lternatives

1 2 tt:lg3 and in this position

.
1 2 . . h 5! would have given Black
ex ce llent chances. He played 1 2
. . . ,.td6? and White took the
i nitia tive with 1 3 tv h5.
<;t>xf7
4
'i' g 6

d4 (80)

This gambit bears the name of

the Scottish master of the last
century Cochrane. He himself
chose only 5 .tc4+ in this pos
ition, which invariably brought
v ictory (after 5 . . . <;t>e8 6 0-0 or 5
. . . .te6 6 xe6+ <;t>xe6 7 0-0).
The correct reply to the bishop
check is 5 . . . d5! and now 6 ed
d6 7 0-0 .!:!: f8 8 d4 <;t>g8 or 6
b3 e6! 7 e5 tt:le4 8 d4 c5 9
'1Wf3+ <;t>e8 with sorry reper
cussions for White.
80
B

c5

Naturally the e4-pawn cannot

be touched - 5 . . . tt:l xe4 6 tf h 5 +
<e7 ( 6 . . . g6 7 "i!t' d 5 + ) 7 "We2 d 5
8 .i g 5 + ! . This is exactly how
Lazarev-Kundyshev,
Moscow
1 982, amusingly finished.

83

The move 5 . . . e7 allows

White to organise a dangerous
pawn roller more easily after 6
tt:lc3, for example : 6 . . . .!:!: e 8 7
c4+ <;t>f8 8 0-0 g4 9 f3 h5
10 g4 .H7 I I xf7+ <;t>xf7 12
f4 o r 6 . . . c6 7 c4+ e6 ( 7 . . .
d5 8 ed cd 9 tt:l xd5 e6 I 0 tt:le3
xc4 I I tt:l xc4 tt:lc6 12 c3 .!:!:e8 1 3
0-0; 9 . . . tt:lxd5 1 0 tv h 5 + g6 I I
xd5 + <;t>e8 1 2 "Wf3 .!:!: f8 1 3
"Wb3 and Black has problems) 8
xe6+ <;t>xe6 9 "Wf3 "Wa5 1 0
g 4 - in both cases the pawn roller
looks promising, and W hite's
threats more than compensate for
the material deficit.
Apart from 5 . . . c5, Black often
replies 5 . . . g6 and if 6 tt:lc3 then
6 . . . <;t>g7 or 6 . . . "We8 (if 6 . . . e7
there comes 7 h6!? d5 8 tt:l xd5!
tt:lxd5 9 c4 c6 10 ed cd I I "Wf3 +
<;t>e6 1 2 "W e4 + ). Let us look at
one example each of these moves.
Schulman-Schmudlers, Riga
1 98 6 : 6 . . . <;t>g7 7 e2 (after 7 f4
White has sufficient compensation
for the piece, but this bishop move,
which carries the struggle into the
middlegame, is venomous enough)
7 . . . e7 (7 . . . tve8 8 f3) 8 e3
e6 9 "i!t' d2 h6 (losing time; better
was 9 . . . .!:!: e8) 10 f3 tt:l bd7 I I
0-0-0 c6 1 2 g4 a6 1 3 h4 b5 1 4 d5!
(81).

White's pawns begin to move,

and Black's lack of queenside
counterplay and lack of protection

84

White Fourth Move A lternatives

81
B

for his king makes his position

difficult.
14 . . . cd 1 5 ed b4 1 6 de be 1 7
'ihc3 l:t c 8 1 8 'i!i'd2 tt:l e 5 1 9 g 5 tt:l h 5
2 0 f4 with a decisive advantage.
Vitolins-Domuls, R iga 1 98 3 : 6
. . . ..We8 7 ..td3 (7 ..tc4+ J.. e 6 8
d5 ..tc8 9 0-0 ..tg7 1 0 :t e l J:t f8
I I f4 is not bad) 7 . . . J.. g 7 8 0-0
J:t f8 9 e5 tt:lg4 1 0 h3 tt:lh6 I I ed
.,Pg8 ( I I . . . cd? 1 2 J:t e I 'i!f c6 1 3
..te4) 1 2 de tt:lc6 (more precise was
1 2 . . . tt:la6) 1 3 d5 tt:le5 1 4 J.. e 4
tt:l ef7 1 5 d6 ..Wd7 1 6 ..te3 tt:l xd6
1 7 ..td5+ c;t>h8 1 8 j_c5 J:t f6 1 9
J:t e I with a sharp game.
6 de
The opening books only con
sider 6 ..t c4+? d5 7 ed J.. d 6 8
0-0 l:t e8 9 de J.. x c5 1 0 tt:lc3 J.. g4
I I ..Wd3 tLl bd7 with advantage to
(Yandemirov-Plisetsky,
Black
M oscow 1 983).
tt:lc6
6
Recommended by Grodzensky
and Grandmaster Makarychev. 6
. . . ..We8, 6 . . . d5, 6 . . . ..tg4 and 6

. . . ..Wa5+ have also been met i n

practice, and in each case a lively
game with chances on both sides
has occurred.
dS? (82)
7
..tc4+
In this position this cou nter
strike in the centre is not so good
for Black. The cornct respo n se
is 7 . . . J..e6 8 J.. x e6+ .t>xe6.
Apparently, the three pawns do
not compensate for the piece here,
and moreover, Black brings all his
force into the battle.
Let us look at how the game
Vitolins-Dautov, Minsk 1988,
continued : 9 0-0 d5 (9 . . . de is
dangerous because of I 0 'i!fe2 with
the threat of advancing the e- and
f-pawns combined with 'i!fc4+) 10
e5 (10 tt:lc3 deserves attention) 10
. . . tt:le4 I I '1Wg4+ c;t>f7 1 2 'lll' f5 +
c;t>e8 (having wandered around
the board, the king returns home,
and Black is ready to reap his
harvest) 1 3 tt:lc3 tt:ld4! 14 ..Wh3 'iWd7
1 5 e6 '1Wxe6 16 ..Wd3 tt:lxc3 17 be
tt:le2+ 1 8 c;t> h l tt:lxc l 1 9 rt axc l
c;t>f7 20 J:t fe l ..W c6 2 1 ..Wf5+ <;t>g8
22 J:t e6 ..Wd7 23 ..We5 ..txc5 . He re
the centralisation of White's fo rces
still doesn't sufficiently c om pen
sate his material losses. It seems
that Black managed to use h is
trumps in this game, and, o f
course, the reader should n ot thi. n k
that the piece sacrifice 4 ttJx.f?
gives White a forced w i n .
Nevertheless, to attract ]ove rs

White Fourth Move A lternatives

o f sharp play to the Cochrane

g a m bit, we have chosen a game in

which Vitolins managed to gain a
fin e victory. We should note by the
way that the International Master
from Riga, a fervent admirer of
this gambit, has played scores of
games with it and won the major
ity of the m.

12
13
14

..t>f7
"tlr'c4+
tt:l dS

<;t> g 6
..td6

Preventing tt:lf4+, but 14 . . . h6

was more tenacious, when W hite
would still have a strong attacking
position.
1S

..tf4

J::t ad8

Bad is 1 5 . . . ..txf4 1 6 tt:lxf4 +

..t> h6 because o f 1 7 "tie6.
16

82
w

85

J::t ad1

"ticS

If 1 6 . . . tt:lxd5 1 7 J::t xd5 "tlr'c7 then

18 J::t xd6! J::t xd6 19 "ticS decides.
17
18
19

"tib3
..te3
"W xb7

20

b4!

tt:l xe4
"tWaS
J::t c8 (83)

83
w

..t xdS+

Tak ing

with the pawn is weaker

because of 8 . . . tt:la5 or 8 . . . tt:le5.
8

..te 6

After 8 . . . tt:lxd5 9 ed White has

man y active pawns for the piece.
9
10
11

..txe6+
"tie2
tt:lc 3

..t>xe6
"tWa S+
..txcS

Bla ck's king doesn't feel too

com fort able in the centre and
'
W h Ite
a l rea dy has three pawns for
t he p ie
ce .

12

tt:lxb4

20
0-0

1 2 -. c 4 + 'lt> e7 1 3 0-0 isn't bad

ei t h e
r g JVmg
. .
Black's king no
h
c a n ce to slip
out
of the dan ger
l o ne
.
'

Diverting one of the m inor

pieces out of position. If 20 . . .
"tid8 or 20 . . . "ti xa2 there follows
21 b5.
20 . . . ..txb4 also loses: 2 1
tt:lf4 + ..t>f6 2 2 tt:l h 5 + <;t>g6 23
"tixg7 + ..t>xh5 24 "tlr'h6+ 'lt> g4 25
"tlr'h3 mate.
21

tt:lf4 +

..txf4

86

White Fourth Move Alternatives

22

1!1xe4+

1!1f5

23

1!1xb4

..US

24

xa7!

xa7

25

lld6+

26

1!1b7

26
27

White elegantly wraps up the

game.
24

1!1 xa7 are threatened.

q,bS

A double blow! 27 lld5 and 27

ll xc2
lldS

White could still go amusingly

wrong here: 27 1!1xg7?? 1!1xf2+'
27

llxf2

But this idea doesn't work now.

28

ll xfS+

llxf5+

29

1!1xa7

1-0

3 d4
Game No. 2 1

84

Kasparov-Anand

Linares 1991
1
2
3

e4

e5

tt:Jf3

tt:Jf6

d4

Finally, we come to look at

White's other continuation at
move three, which is connected
with a system known as the Stein
itz Attack.
3

White) 4 . . . de 5 tt:Jxe5 .lte7

(inferior is 5 . . . .ltd6 6 tt:Jc3
i!f e7? 7 tt:Jd5 iir'd8 8 c4 e6 9
tt:Jxf6+ gf 1 0 .ltxe6 .ltxe5 1 1 de
iir'xd 1 + 1 2 .l:txd 1 fg 1 3 .ltc8 with a
won position for White, Basanta
Schwarzmann, St. John 1 988). 6
.ltc4 0-0 7 0-0 tt:Jfd7 8 .ltf4 tt:Jxe5
9 de iir'xd 1 10 iir'xd 1 e6 1 1 .ltb3
.ltxb3 12 ab f5 1 3 tt:Jc3 f7?
(more accurate was 1 3 . . . c6 with
approximate equality) 14 tt:J b5
(better was 14 tt:Jd5! .ltd8 1 5 e6+
xe6 16 .lt xc7 tt:Jc6 17 b4) 14 . . .
tt:Ja6 1 5 e6+ f6 1 6 .ltd2 c5 1 7
c3 + xe6 with equal chances

tt:Jxe4

The other main possibility - 3

. . . ed will be looked at in detail in
the last game of this book. The
rare move 3 . . . d5 (84) , maintain
ing full symmetry, is worthy of
attention. White has to play accur
ately to make use of the right to
move first.
4 .ltg5 (after 4 tt:Jxe5 tt:Jxe4 5
i. d3 a position from our main
game arises. Theory recommends
4 ed ed 5 .ltb5 + c6 6 ilfe2+ .lte7
7 de be 8 .ltc4 0-0 9 0-0 .ltg4 1 0
c3 w ith a minimal advantage for
87

88

3 d4

for both sides (Smirin-Akopyan,

Vilnius 1 988).
4

J.. d 3

After 4 tt:lxe5 d6 5 tt:lf3 a position

arises that we studied in detail
earlier by transposition (3 tt:lxe5
d6 4 tt:lf3 tt:lxe4 5 d4). In the
opening monographs there is evi
dence that Black easily equalises
after 4 "ilfe2 or 4 de. In the game
Balashov- Mikhalchishin, Minsk
1 985, as a result of 4 de d5 5
tt:l bd2 J.. f5! 6 tt:lxe4 ..txe4 7 ..td3
tt:lc6 8 0-0 .i.e? 9 .!:t e l tt:l b4 ! 10
"ilfe2 tt:lxd3 I I cd .1Lxf3 12 "ilfxf3
Black obtained excellent chances.
4
5

"ilf xe5 ! - ! (Romanishin-Mak a ry.

chev, Frunze 1 98 5).

d5
tt:lxe5

Here 5 de is not approved of

by theory. Possibly only Grand
master Romanishin plays this
move today : 5 . . . tt:lc6 6 0-0 .1Lg4
7 tt:l bd2 (in Romanishin-Ehlvest,
Yerevan 1 988, after 7 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3
8 be .i.e? 9 .!:! e I Black made a
series of inaccurate moves - 9 . . .
"ilfd7 1 0 h3 ..th5 I I .!:! b l tt:ld8 1 2
e2 c6 1 3 c4 dc 1 4 "ilfxd7 + ;t>xd7,
having overlooked the thrust 1 5
e6 + ! . After only five more
moves - 1 5 . . . wc7 { 1 5 . . . fe 1 6
tt:le5 + } 1 6 ef tt:lxf7 1 7 ..t xc4 ..td6
18 tt:ld4 .!:! he8 19 tt:le6+ ;t>d7
20 .!:! x b7 +, Black resigned) 7 . . .
tt:lxd2 8 .i.xd2 tt:ld4 9 .1Le2 tt:lxe2+
10 "ilfxe2 "ilfd7 I I h3 ..txf3 12 "ilfxf3
.i.c5 1 3 c4 0-0-0 1 4 .!:! ad I "ilfe6 1 5
J.. g 5 .!:! d 7 1 6 .!:! xd 5 .!:! xd5 1 7 cd

J..d6 (85)

85
w

The continuation 5 . . . it_ e 7 is

somewhat passive, so therefore
Black has a choice between the
old 5 . . . ..td6 and the modern 5
. . tt:ld7. Games 22 -24 are devoted
to the more popular knight move.
.

0-0

An amusing novelty I prepared

with Igor Zaitsev at one of our
training sessions long ago was 6
"ilff3!?. This idea was tried out in
Zaitsev-Yusupov, Yerevan 1 982,
but it turned out that after 6 . . .
"ilfe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 9 be
..t xe5 I 0 de "ilfxe5 I I ..tf4 'Wf6 1 2
"ilfg3 tt:lc6 White has nothing better
than repeating moves - 1 3 g 5
"ilf d6 1 4 J.. f4 "ilff6.
Efim Geller has played 6 .!Ll c3
several times in this position, fo r
example: 6 . . . tt:lxc3 7 be 0-0 8
0-0 c5 9 "ilfh5 f5 1 0 J.. g 5 "ilf c7 1 1
"ilff3 J.. e 6 1 2 .!:! fe l c4 1 3 f l eS
14 tt:lxc4! ..txh2+ 1 5 wh l .!Lld7

3 d4

1 6 !2J e3 with a decisive advantage

White
(Geller-Yusupov,
for
US S R Ch 1 983). Yusupov later
fo und Black's correct defence : 8
. . . !2ld7! 9 !2lxd7 "ilfxd7 1 0 "ilfh5 g6
1 1 "ilt' f3 J:t e8 1 2 ..lth6 ..tf8 1 3
_txf8 J:t xf8 1 4 J:t fe 1 "ilf c6 1 5 h4
twxc3 1 6 "ilf xd5 ..lte6 and here
Short-Yusupov, Plovdiv 1 983,
was agreed drawn.
6
7

0-0

12

xdS

89

rs

The last five moves, as was

established long ago, are the best
for both sides, and there is no
sense in either White or Black
deviating from them.
13

g4

xg4 (86)

Worse is 1 3 . . . ..ltg6 1 4 f4 with

a strong initiative for White.
86
w

c4

White knight moves to c3 or d2

promise little, as theory shows
these variations to be fully accept
able for Black.
7

..ltxeS

In recent years this capture has

completely supplanted all other
moves. Here are the basic vari
ations given in the Encyclopedia
of Chess Openings : 7 . . . f6 8 cd! ;
7 . . . tt:lf6 8 ..ltg5 d e 9 ..ltxc4 ..txe5
10 de "iit' x d 1 1 1 J:t xd 1 ; 7 . . . !2l c6 8
cd !2lxd4 9 ..ltxe4 ..txe5 1 0 !2lc3
.ifS 1 1 ..lte3 ..ltxe4 12 ..ltxd4
.t xd4 1 3 "iit' x d4 ..tf5; 7 . . . c6 8
li:l c3 !2lxc3 9 be ..txe5 1 0 de de 1 1
hc4 "iit' x d 1 1 2 J:t xd 1 ..ltf5 1 3
.t a3 J:t e8 1 4 f4. White's advan
tage is unquestionable. In fact,
this last position occurred at
the beginning of the century in
Maroczy-M arshall, Paris 1 900.
8
9
10
11

de
cd
"ilfc2
..ltxe4

!2lc6
"iit' xdS
!2l b4
!2J xc2

The critical position of the vari

ation.
14

e4

Bad is 14 !2la3 !2lxa 1 1 5 e4

..lte2! 1 6 J:t e 1 J:t ad8, and Black
already has the upper hand. 1 4
..ltf4 !2l xa 1 1 5 ..lte4 transposes,
but Sveshnikov prefers 1 5 J:t c 1 .
Sveshnikov-Belov, Moscow 1 987,
continued 1 5 . . . J:t ad8 (worse is
1 5 . . . c6 1 6 ..lte4 f5 1 7 ef J:t xf6 1 8
..lte3 ..te6 1 9 !2ld2 ..txa2 20 J:t xa 1
..td5 2 1 ..txd5 cd 22 J:t xa7 J:t xa7
23 ..ltxa7 J:t f4 24 fl with a
difficult ending for Black) 1 6 !2lc3
b5 ( 1 6 . . . c6 1 7 ..lte4) 1 7 ..lte4 b4
1 8 !2ld5 J:t d7 19 f3 ..lte6 20 !2lxb4
J:t b8 2 1 !2ld3 ..td5 22 !2lc5 J:t dd8

90

3 d4

23 b3 ..be4 24 fe and White had

slightly the better chances.
14
tL:lxal
15

.H4

Equality is reached after 1 5 tL:lc3

h3 1 6 n e 1 f5 17 ef n ae8 1 8
e3 n xe4 1 9 tL:lxe4 tL:lc2 2 0 n c I
tL:lxe3 2 1 fe n c8 22 f7 + <t<f8 23
tL:lg5 f5 24 n fl h6 25 n xf5 hg
(Psakhis-Makarychev, USSR Ch
1 980/8 1 ) or 21 . . . c6 22 tL:lg5 f5
23 f7 + <t<h8 24 n fl g6 (Tal
Timman, Reykjavik 1 987).
15
f5 (87)
In Smagin-Schiissler, Copen
hagen 1 988, Black preferred 1 5 . . .
f6. There followed 1 6 tL:lc3 fe 1 7
g3 n ad8 1 8 n x a l n d2 1 9 b4
[3 20 a3 xe4 2 1 tL:lxe4 n e2
(2 1 . . . n d5 was correct) 22 tL:lc5
b6 23 tL:le6 n c8 24 n e t ? (After 24
n d 1 ! c5 { 24 . . . wf7 25 tL:ld8+
<tt f6 26 tL:lc6} 25 be be 26 nd7
n e t + 27 <;tg2 c4 28 n xg7 + <;th8
29 n e7 c3 30 h4 White obtains
a winning position - Sveshnikov.
Now matters quickly come to a
peaceful conclusion) 24 . . . c5 25
be n c6! 26 tL:ld8 n xc5 27 n d t
n cc2! 2 8 tL:le6 n ed2 29 n e 1 n e2
30 n d 1 n ed2 ! - 1 .
White attempted to improve in
the decisive game of the rapid
chess final between Kasparov and
Timman, Paris 1 99 1 , with 1 7
e3!?. This i s how events turned
out : 1 7 . . . f3 1 8 n xa l xe4
1 9 tL:lxe4 b6 20 b4 a5 2 1 b5 n ad8

22 n c 1 n f7 23 a4 h6 24 g2
n d3. White has some initia tive
but was unable to turn it i nt
anything concrete. Fifty mo ves
later a draw was agreed. As a
result, Timman became the win ner
of this intriguing mini-match.
87
w

16
d5+
More accurate than 16 xb7
tL:lc2! 17 f3 h5 1 8 d5+ >t>h8
19 xa8 nxa8 20 n d t c5 2 1 >t> f2
tL:ld4 with equality (Romanishin
Kochiev, USSR C h 1 978).
t6
17

whs

net
c6
If 1 7 . . . n ad8, then 1 8 tL:lc3 b5
1 9 e6! n fe8 20 xc7 n c8 21
tL:lxb5 ne7 22 n xa l n exc7 23
tL:lxc7 n xc7 24 n e t ! n e7 25 b4 !
with a clear advantage for W h ite
(Glek-Varlamov, USSR Corr
1 987).
18 g2
1 8 e6 is playable - 18 . . g 5
1 9 xg5 n ae8 20 h6 n xe6 2 1
xf8 h3 22 n c3 n g6 + 23 .t:t g3
'itg8 24 e7 f4 25 n xg6 hg
.

3 d4

J6 tJ a3 f3 with equality (Oli

K h alifm an, Vilnius 1 988). U nclear

is 20 c4 b5 (20 . . . f4? 2 1 f6+)
2 1 _i f!. Here 2 1 . . . l:! xe5? is
bad - 22 d2 l:! e6 23 c3 +
g 8 24 tt:ld2! (van der Wiei
M ik halchishin, Lugano 1 987), but
21 . . . f4, chosen in Rozentalis
Jvanch uk, Minsk 1986, gives an
a pproximately equal game - 22
.tf6+ 1:! xf6 23 ef ..t5 24 f7 1:! f8
25 l:! xc6 xb l 26 l:! c l (Bykhov
sk y).
l:! fd8
18
There is nothing in 1 8 . . . 1:! ad8
1 9 tt:lc3 1:! d4 20 e3 1:! b4 21 c5
wmnmg.
19
tt:ld2 (88)
There is no danger for Black in
19 tt:lc3 l:! d4 20 .ie3 l:! b4 or 1 9
f3 .ih5 2 0 tt:la3 1:! d4 2 1 ..t e 3 1:! b4
22 tt:lc4 l:! a4 23 tt:la3 !-! (Sax
Yusupov, Thessaloniki (ol) 1 988).
88
B

19
l:! xd2!
A sharp-witted method of
rest oring material equality. As
Practice has shown, the quiet 1 9

91

. . . h 6 2 0 h4 l:! d3 i s dangerous for

Black. This position arose twice in
the Candidates Semi-final between
Timman and Yusupov, Linares
1 992. In the second game a draw
was agreed after 21 l:! xa l g5 22
hg hg 23 ..txg5 l:! g8 24 ..tf6 +
w h 7 2 5 tt:lfl f4 (25 . . . ..tf3 2 6
tt:lg3 f4 2 7 ..txf3 1:! xf3 2 8 wg2
l:! d 3 29 l:! h l + wg6 30 tt:le4!
wf5 + 31 tt:lg5 l:! xg5 + 32 ..txg5
wxg5 33 l:! e l loses - Rozentalis)
26 wh2 l:! g6 (worse is 26 . . . ..tf3
27 ..th3 ..tg4 28 ..txg4 1:! xg4 29
wh I !? with the threat of tt:lh2) 27
l:! e l l:! h6+ 28 w g l l:! g6 29 wh2
l:! h6 + 30 w g i l:! g6 31 wh2.
Timman
introduced
an
important new move in game six.
Instead of 21 1:! xa 1 he first played
2 1 ..tfl l:! d4 22 ..te3 l:!d5 and
only then took the knight - 23
l:! xa l. There followed 23 . . . l:! xe5
24 tt:lc4 1:! d5 25 ..tg2 1:! b5. Whilst
the black rook has somewhat
unsuccessfully manoeuvred along
the fifth rank, the white pieces
have now taken up ideal positions.
After 26 l:! e l l:!d8 27 ..txa7 l:! d l
2 8 l:! xd l ..txd l 2 9 ..td4 f4 30
..te4 1:! b4 3 1 b3 ..te2 32 ..tc3
1:! b5 33 tt:ld6 1:! h5 34 f3 ..ta6 35
tt:lf5 wg8 35 tt:lf5 wg8 36 tt:lxg7
l:! xh4 37 l:! f5, White went on to
realise his material advantage.
l:! d8
20 ..txd2
l:! d l +
21
..tc3
22 l:! xd l
..txd1

92

3 d4

The presence of the two bishops

fully compensates White for the
pawn deficit and in addition the
black knight feels uncomfortable
on a t .
23

89
w

f4

Matsukevich's
recommendation, 23 fl , might have kept
a slight initiative.
23
24
25
26

<;t;>f2
a4
xa5

tt:lc2
'it>g8
a5

Otherwise the knight simply

jumps to b4.
tt:ld4

26

For the price of a pawn the

black knight breaks free.
27

fl

I I
z-z

..tb3!

Game No. 22
Sax-Salov

Brussels 1988
I
2
3
4
5

e4
tt:lf3
d4
..td3
tt:lxe5

e5
tt:lf6
tt:lxe4
d5
tt:ld7 (89)

Nowadays one of the most

popular positions in the Petroff,
occurring in grandmaster tourna
ments more often than any other.
6

tt:lxd7

Nowadays this capture is

almost automatic, but there are
other moves that have been tried :

6 tt:lc3, 6 0-0, 6 'i!fe2 and 6 tt:l xf7.

With examples from several con
temporary games let us look
briefly at each of these.
(a) Sax-Nunn, Brussels 1988: 6
tt:lc3 tt:lxe5 (the exchange of the
other pair of knights is also poss
ible at once : 6 . . . tt:lxc3 7 be tt:lxe5
8 de e6 9 0-0 f5! 10 l:t b l t:i b8
I I ..lte3 c5 12 ..ltb5+ <;t;>f7 13
..lte2 ..lte7 1 4 f4 'iir' d 7 15 ..ltf 3
l:t hd8 16 l:t f2 'iir' a4 with excellent
counterplay for Black, King
Da vidovic, Thessaloniki 1988) 7
de b4 8 0-0 tt:lxc3 (or 8 . . . j_xc3
9 be ..lte6 10 f4 'iir' d 7 I I 'i!ff3 g6
1 2 c4 tt:lc5 1 3 ..lte2!? Wc6! with a
roughly equal position in Sax P.
Nikolic, Brussels 1 988) 9 be xc3
1 0 l:t b I ( I 0 ..lta3 .txa I I I '1!1' xa l
..lte6 1 2 'iir' b 2 'iir' c 8 1 3 f4 g6 lead s
to a sharp game) 10 . . . w e 7 l l
l:t b3. Now, after I I . . . .It b4 1 2 f4.
there arises a complicated positi o n
in which White has compensation
for the pawn. However, Nun n
carelessly took the pawn
II ..
--

3 d4

.,txe 5 and after 1 2 .!::!. e I 0-0 1 3

'iW h5 f5 1 4 ..if4 he had to resign.
( b) Adams- Petrovic,
Paris
:
6
0-0
tt:lxe5
7
de
tt:lc5
8
tt:lc3
89
9
!
tZJxd3 9 'iWxd3 c6 10 tt:le2 ..ie7 I I
"llf g3 g6 I 2 c3 0-0 1 3 ..th6 .!::!. e8 1 4
f4 .,tf5 1 5 .!::!. ad ! 'iWd7 1 6 h3 .!::!. ad8
J7 tt::J d4 c5 18 tt:lxf5 'iWxf5 19 'iWf3
'ilt'e6 20 .!::!. d2 .!::!. d7 21 "lig4 f5 22
"iW g 3 - .
(c) Fedoseiev-Raetsky, Corr
1983-84 : 6 "!We2 tt:lxe5 (I recall my
own game with Hort at Amster
dam in 1 980, where after 6 . . . 'iWe7
7 ..txe4 de 8 ..if4 tt:lxe5 9 ..ixe5
..tf5 10 tt:lc3 0-0-0 I I 0-0-0 "!We6
12 'iWe3 h5 1 3 h3 f6 14 ..th2 g6 1 5
wbl ..ih6 1 6 "lig3 .!::!. h7 1 7 .!::!. he!
the Czechoslovakian Grand
master as Black was in a fairly
difficult position) 7 ..ixe4 de 8
'ihe4 ..ie6 9 'iWxe5 "!Wd7 (90) .
90
w

For the pawn Black gets the

advantage of the two bishops and
a free game : 1 0 .,ie3 (inferior is
1 0 tt:l c3 0-0-0 I I ..te3 ..t b4 1 2
0-0 f6 1 3 'iW g3 ..txc3 1 4 be h 5 1 5

93

h4 g5! 1 6 f3 .!::!. dg8 and I was

unable to hold this position
against Larsen, Tilburg 1 980. Kiril
Georgiev tried to improve on
move 1 2 against Salov at Lenin
grad in 1 987 - 1 2 c3 f6 1 3 'iWg3
..ie7 14 tt:ld2 h5 15 f3 g5 1 6 c4 f5
1 7 'iWe5 ..id6 1 8 'iWa5 f4 1 9
..txf4 'iW xd4+ 20 .!::!. f2 gf 2 1 tt:lb3
'iW b6, but again Black has excellent
chances) 1 0 . . . ..i b4+ (more
active than I 0 . . . 0-0-0 I I 'iW a5
'iWc6 12 tt:lc3 b6 13 'iWa6+ ..tb8 14
tt:lb5 ..tc4 15 a4 ..t b4+ 16 c3
..td6 17 'iW xa 7 + wc8 18 0-0-0
"li xg2 1 9 d5 ..txd5 20 .!::!. hg t 'iWxh2
21 a5 with an extremely sharp
game in which White had the
better chances in Hort-Short,
West Germany 1 987) I I c3 ..td6
12 'iWa5 (after 12 'iWxg7 0-0-0 1 3
tt:ld2 'iWc6! Black has a strong
counter-attack for the pawn) 1 2
. . . 'iWc6 1 3 f3 (castling is prema
ture : 1 3 0-0 .idS 1 4 f3 b6 1 5 'iW a6
..tc4 1 6 d5 'iWxd5 1 7 'iWa4+ b5 1 8
'iW dl 'iWe5 1 9 '1t>f2 'iWxh2 20 f4
xfl 0- 1 Klinger-Wolff, Baguio
City 1 987) 13 . . . d5 14 tt:ld2
0-0 15 0-0 .!::!. fe8 16 .!::!. fe l b6 1 7
'iWa6 j_xh2+ 1 8 ..txh2 .!::!. xe3 1 9
.!::!. xe3 'iWh6+ 20 'it>g3 'iWxe3 and
Black had a clear advantage.
(d) Malanyuk-M. Gurevich,
Tallinn 198 7 : 6 tt:lxf7 'it>xf7 (long
ago the game I. Zaitsev-Karpov,
Leningrad 1 966, finished 6 . . . 'iWe7
7 tt:lxh8 { it was later established

94

3 d4

that White gets the advantage with

7 'l!l'e2!} 7 . . . lilc3+ 8 wd2 lilxdl
9 :tel lilxf2 1 0 .bh7 {the queen
sacrifice cannot be accepted: 10
J:txe7+ 1Lxe7 I I 1Lxh7 iLgS+
and Black takes the upper hand}
10 . . . lile4 I I J:txe4! de 12 1Lg6+
wd8 1 3 lilf7+ we8 14 lild6+
wd8 I S lilf7+, with a draw by
perpetual check. However, Black
can calmly take the knight on f7
and White has nothing better than
a draw) 7 'l!l'hS+ we7 (also poss
ible is 7 . . . we6 8 1Lxe4 de 9 dS+
we7 1 0 iLgS+ lilf6 I I lilc3 'l!l'e8!
12 d6+! { 1 2 'l!l'h4? iLfS 13 0-0-0
Wf7 1 4 J:t hel 1Le7, and Black
had a large plus in Dozorets
Kishnev, Jurmala 197S} 12 . . . cd
13 lildS+ wd8 14 lilxf6 'l!l'xhS
with approximate equality) 8 'l!l'e2
(if 8 'l!l'xdS the position resembles
the Cochrane Gambit. In Demi
dov-Makeyev, USSR Corr 198790, after 8 . . . lilef6 {more accurate
than 8 . . . lildf6 9 'l!l'b3 1Le6 10
'l!l'xb7 iLdS 11 'l!l'a6 Wf7 1 2 f3
lild6 1 3 lilc3 1Lb7 14 'l!l'aS with
an unclear position, Nenashev
Baikov, Moscow 198S} 9 'l!l'f3 1ilb6
10 'l!l'e2+ Wf7 I I c3 1Ld6 12 0-0
J:te8 1 3 'l!l'c2 <;!;>g8 White's initiat
ive had dried up) 8 . . . wf7 9
'l!l'hS+ we7 10 'l!l'e2 with a draw.
6
7

1Lxd7
0-0

There is nothing to be gained

from 7 'l!l'e2 'l!l'e7 8 0-0 0-0-0 9 1ild2

lilgS (9 . . . lilxd2 is also good) 10

'l!l'xe7 1Lxe7 I I f4 lile6 12 lilf3
J:[ df8 1 3 fS lild8 14 IileS 1Le8 1 5
lilg4 f6 1 6 1Lf4 1Lf7 with equality
(Geller-Arkhipov, Moscow 1986).
7
'l!l'h4
The queen move to h4 is the
most up-to-date continuation. But
before we proceed let's look at two
other moves - 7 . . . 1Ld6 and 7
. . . 'l!l'f6.
(a) Sveshnikov-Mikhalchishin,
Kuibyshev 1986: 7 . . . 1Ld6 8 c41
c6 9 lilc3 0-0 (weaker is 9 . . . lilxc3
10 be de I I :t e l + il..e7 12 .b3
1Le6 13 1Lxe7 1!t'xe7 14 1Lxc4
0-0 I S l!eS 'l!l'a3 1 6 1Lxe6 fe with a
difficult ending for Black in Short
Hiibner, Wijk aan Zee 1986) 10
'l!l'hS iilf6 I I 'l!l'h4 d e 12 1Lxc4 J:[e8
13 iLgS h6 14 1Lxf6 'l!l'xf6 I S 1!t'xf6
gf 1 6 J:t fe l 1Le6 1 7 lile4 il..e 7 1 8
1Lxe6 fe 1 9 IileS JLxcS 20 de
J:tad8 21 :tad! Wf7 t +
(b) Korolev-Glek, USSR Corr
Ch 1986--88: 7 . . . 'l!l'f6 (involving
a pawn sacrifice) 8 1Lxe4 de 9 lilc3
0-0-0 10 lilxe4 'l!l'g6 (bad is I 0 .
'l!l'b6 I I :tel h5 12 'l!l'd3 h4 13 h3
J:thS 1 4 c4 J:te8 1 S J:t e2, A . Jvanov
Rozentalis, Klaipeda 198S) I I f3
fS (no better is 1 1 . . . hS 1 2 il..f4'
h4 13 1!t'd3 h3 14 g4 'l!l'b6 IS a4'
1Le6 16 J:tfdl a6 1 7 a5 1!t'xb2 1 8
lilc3 'l!l'b4 1 9 J:ta4 'l!l'e7 20 d5. A.
Jvanov-Kochiev, Kostroma !985;
more resistance was offered by 1 7
. . . 'l!l'c6 1 8 'l!l'c3 'l!l'xc3 19 lilxc3 and

3 d4

W hite goes into the ending with

an ex tra pawn, but the two bishops
mak e it hard to realise this advan
tage) 12 tt:lf2 ..tb5 1 3 .!:t e l ..td6
1 4 tt::J h 3 .!:! de8 1 5 ..tf4 .!:! xe l + 1 6
't'f'xe l .!:! e8 1 7 'Wg3 'ili'f6 1 8 c3 .!:! e2
1 9 b3 .!:! c2 20 ..txd6 cd 2 1 'Wet and
White had a distinct advantage.
8

c4

After 8 'W e t 0-0-0 9 f3 'ili'xel 1 0

J:t xe l tt:ld6 the game becomes level
immediately, but 8 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 9
be 0-0-0 leads to a complicated
position.
0-0-0 (91)

95

The reason behind this active

move will become clear later. 9 . . .
tt:lxf2 1 0 .!:! xf2 'Wxd4 doesn't work
because of 1 1 c6 or 1 1 b4! 'Wxa 1
1 2 ..tb2 'W xa2 1 3 tt:lc3. 9
tt:lf6
is passive - 1 0 tt:lc3 g6 ( 1 0
'W xd4 1 1 c6!) 1 1 tt:le2 ..th6 1 2
..txh6 'Wxh6 1 3 .!:t e l .!:! he8 1 4 b4
wb8 1 5 b5 ..tf5 1 6 .!:! c3 etc.
(Prasad-Ravikumar, India 1 987).
9 . . . g6 leads to White's advan
tage - 10 tt:lc3 ..tg7 1 1 tt:le2
tt:lf6 12 b4 tt:lh5 13 b5 (Timman
H iibner, Til burg 1 983).
0

10

tt:lc3

The other possibility, driving

the knight from the centre straight
away with 10 f3, will be examined
in game 24.

91
w

..t g 7

10

10 . tt:lf6, 10
f5 and 10 .
.!:! g8 have also been tried :
(a) Am. Rodriguez-Arkhipov,
Belgrade 1 98 8: 10
tt:lf6 I t tt:le2
(if 1 1 g3 there follows not 1 1 . . .
'W xd4 1 2 c6!, but 1 1 . . . 'Wh3 and
if 12 ..txg5, then 12
tt:l g4 ! ;
unclear is 1 1 'Wf3 ..tg7 1 2 ..tf5
wb8 1 3 g3 'W xd4 1 4 ..txg5 'We5
1 5 ..txd7 .!:! xd7 1 6 h4 tt:le4 1 7
..tf4 'We6 1 8 .!:! fe l f5 1 9 tt:lb5 a6
20 a4 ..te5 21 .!:! a3 d4 Griinfeld
Mikhalchishin, Palma de Mal
lorca 1 989) 1 1
tt:lg4 1 2 h3 tt:lh6
13 ..td2 .!:! g8 14 f3 f5 15 'Wet 'Wh5
16 b4 .!:! e8 17 "Wf2 g4? (correct was
1 7 . . . f4!) 1 8 tt:lf4 ! 'W f7 19 g3! with
a clear advantage for White.
0

cS

A comparatively new idea :

White avoids playing in the centre
and intends to create dangerous
threats on the queenside. If 9 cd
strong is 9 . . . ..td6 10 g3 tt:lxg3
1 1 fg ..txg3 1 2 'Wd2? ..txh2+! 1 3
'i!fxh2 'W xd4+ and 1 4 . . . 'ili'xd3
with advantage to Black in view
of the draughty position of the
wh ite king.
9

g5

96

3 d4

(b) Wedberg-Schneider, Tor

shavn 1 98 7 : 10 . . . f5 I I tt:Jxd5
tt:Jxf2!? 12 n xf2 "iW xd4 13 xg5
xc5 14 tt:Je3 f4! 1 5 xf4 l:l: hf8
16 Wfl "i!fxe3! 1 7 xe3 xe3 1 8
"i!fe2 xf2+ 1 9 whl l:l: de8, when
Black has definite compensation
for the queen.
(c) Am.
Rodriguez-Casafus,
Buenos Aires 1 990: I 0 . . . 1:1: g8!?
(a novelty which brings Black suc
cess in this game) I I tt:Je2? (better
is I I tt:Jxd5 l:l: g6 12 f3 l:l: h6 1 3
xe4 Wxh2+ 1 4 wf2 Wh4+ 1 5
<J;>e3 { 1 5 we2 b5+, 1 5 wgl
Wh2+ with a draw} 1 5 . . . f5 with
a complicated position - Casafus,
Morgado. Now Black gets a
strong attack) I I . . . 1:1: g6! 1 2 f3
l:l: h6 1 3 fe de 1 4 c2 "i!fxh2+ 1 5
wf2 wh4+ 1 6 g3 ( 1 6 w g l w h l +
1 7 wf2 l:l: f6 + ; 1 6 we3 g4 ! 1 7
xe4 l:l: e6) 1 6 . . . "i!fg4 1 7 a4
l:l: h2 + 1 8 wei e6! and White's
position is hopeless.
11
tt:Je2
Recently g2-g3 has also been
played, diverting the queen from
the central squares.
Geller-Howell,
Reykjavik
1 990 : I I g3 Wh3 12 tt:Jxe4 (worse
is 1 2 tt:Jxd5 l:l: he8 { 1 2 . . . g4? 1 3
xe4 xd l 1 5 f5 + } 1 3 Wf3
f5 14 tt:Je3 g6 1 5 c6? l:l: xd4
with advantage to Black, Smagin
H. Olafsson, Sochi 1 988; correct
is 1 5 d5 tt:Jd2 1 6 xd2 xd3
with an unclear position) 12 . . . de

1 3 xe4 b5 14 xg5 1:1: X d 4

1 5 g2! (more accurate than 1 5
Wb3 l:l: xe4 1 6 "i!fxb5 h 6 1 7 e3
l:l: h4 18 l:l: fd l "i!fxh2+ 19 w f!
Wh3 + 20 we i l:l: e4 2 1 c6! l:l: xe3+
22 fe "i!fxg3+ 23 we2 "i!fg2 + 24
wei Wg3 + !-! Dolmatov
A kopyan, Yerevan 1 988) 1 5 . . .
Wf5 1 6 Wb3 c6 1 7 e3 xfl 1 8
l:l: xfl l:l: d7 (deserving attention is
1 8 . . . l:l: hd8 1 9 xd4 xd4 and
the position is level) 1 9 "i!fa4! (in
the game A. Ivanov-Makarychev,
Reykjavik 1 990, where 1 5 g2
was first played, after 19 "i!fa3 w b8
20 b4 Black could play 20 . . .
l:l: hd8, preparing 2 1 . . . l:l: d l . Now,
however, the d l -square is covered
and Black has additional prob
lems because of c6) 1 9 . . . w b8 20
b4 (92) (materially, the sides are
roughly equal, but Geller attacks
decisively on the queenside).
92

20 . . . Wd3 2 1 f4+ wa8 22

d6! l:l: xd6 (22 . . . Wb5 23 tvb3
a5 24 h3; 22 . . . f8 23 xc6! ;
22 . . . l:l: hd8 23 l:l: d l do not hel p)

3 d4

23 cd 'iif x d6 24 b5 cb 25 'iif x b5

g b8 26 .!:!. b l 'iif c 7 27 a4 ..tc3

2 8 .!:!. c l 'iif e 5 29 ..Wb3 ..td4 30
_t xb 7 + ! 1 -0.
Black tried an interesting
n ovelty in Arencibia-Vladimirov,
Lyon 1 99 1 : after I I g3 there fol
lowed I I . . . ..W h6!? and then 1 2
xe4 de 1 3 ..txe4 f5 1 4 ..tg2 f4!
1 5 d5 .!:!. hf8 1 6 .!:!. e l wb8 1 7 d6
cd 18 c6 ( 1 8 'iif x d6+ ..Wxd6 1 9 cd
_td4) 1 8 . . . be 1 9 .!:!. e4 d5 20 .!:!. a4
wa8 2 1 ..td2 ..th3 22 ..t h l ..Wf6
led to a clear advantage for Black .
11

f5

The next game is devoted to

other moves, primarily I I
.!:!he8.
12

f3 (93)

93
B

12

.!:!. hf8!?

Not an obvious sacrifice, this

idea was devised by one of the
leading Petroff specialists Grandmaster Makarychev. Previ
ously the modest 1 2 . . . lLlf6 was
encountered, and White obtained
the advantage, for example : 1 3

97

..te3 f4 14 ..tf2 ..Wh6 15 ..Wd2

.!:!. he8 16 .!:!. ac l lLlg8 17 b4 <t<b8
18 b5 lLle7 19 lt:lc3 lLlf5 20 c6 ..tc8
21 cb <t<xb7 22 ..txf5 ..txf5 23
lLla4 ..tf8 24 ..Wa5 ..Wg7 25 lt:lc5 +
..txc5 26 de and White won
quickly in Tivyakov-Raetsky,
Makhachkala 1 987.
13

a4

13 fe fe 14 ..tc2 .!:!. xfl + 15 ..W xfl

.!:!. f8 is poor. Now White prepares
the b5-square for the bishop and
also opens a path for the rook
to go to a3. However, 1 3 ..W e i !
deserves attention and was seen in
van der Wiel-Sisniega (Thessa
loniki ( ol) 1 988). Let us have a
look at a few moves from that
game: 1 3 . . . ..Wh5 14 ..Wa5 (in a
similar position {see the notes to
Black's 1 4th move in the main
game} the move c5-c6 brought a
quick draw) 1 4 . . . <t<b8 1 5 ..W b4
.!:!. f6 1 6 fe fe 1 7 lt:lg3 ..Wh4 1 8 ..txe4
fe 19 .!:!. xf6 ..txf6 20 ..te3 (but not
20 d5 e3! 21 lLle4 ..td4! and Black
gets the upper hand) 20 . . . ..tc6
21 .!:!. fl ..W h6. In this sharp position
chances are equal. Exchanging
queens on e l is worse for Black :
1 3 . . . 'iif x e l 14 .!:!. xe l f4 1 5 fe de
1 6 ..txe4 .!:!. de8 1 7 lt:lc3 ..txd4+
18 wfl f3 19 gf g4 20 c6 be 21 f4
g3 22 'itg2 c5 23 hg ..t xc3 24
be .!:!. xe4 25 .!:!. xe4 ..tc6 26 ..te3
..txe4+ 27 <t<h3. White's position
is slightly preferable (K veinis
Fedoseiev, USSR Corr 1 987-90).

98

3 d4

It is also worth noting the move

1 3 ..te3, played in Rodin-Fedose
iev (USSR Corr 1 987-90). After
13 . . . f4 1 4 ..txe4 de 1 5 ..tf2 'iir' h 5
16 fe ..tg4 17 .!:t e l ..txe2 18 .!:t xe2
f3 19 .!:t d2 'ilr'g4 20 W'fl 'ilr'xe4 2 1
.!:t e l W'f4 2 2 ..te3 fg 2 3 'ilr'xg2
W'h4 24 .!:t ed ! .!:t fe8, White has a
minimal advantage.
13
14

c6! (94)

94
w

.!:t de8

14

'ilr'xe1

In van der Wiel-Miralles, Lyon

1 988, the queens stayed on the
board, but a draw was soon
agreed : 14 . . . 'iir' h5 15 c6 ..txc6 1 6
fe de 1 7 ..tb5 .!:t e6 1 8 'iir' d l f4 1 9
d 5 .!:t d6 20 lt:lc3 f3 2 1 lt:lxe4 t - t .
.!:t xe1
fe
..tc4

f4!
de
f3

But not 1 7 . . . e3 because of 1 8

.!:t fl !
18

.!:t xe2

'iir' e l !

In the source game Sveshnikov

Makarychev, Moscow 1 987, there
followed 1 4 .!:t a3 f4 1 5 c6 ..txc6
1 6 fe de 1 7 ..tb5 f3 1 8 ..txc6 fe
1 9 ..txb7+ wxb7 20 'ilr'xe2
.!:t xfl + 2 1 'ilr'xfl .!:t f8 22 'iir' e 2
..txd4+ 23 ..te3 'ilr'f4 24 h4 'iir' d 6
25 hg .!:t d8. In this sharp ending
Black's chances are no worse. In
our main game White offers the
exchange of queens in order to get
a slightly better ending after a
series of exchanges. But Black eas
ily holds the ending.

15
16
17

19

A pair of pawns on the fift h

rank could give Black problems.

..te3

fe

20

d5!

White, in turn, does not accept

a backward d-pawn and hastens
to exchange it.
20
21
22

..txd5
.!:t d2

cd
h6

Contemplating
intervention
along the central file, but his
opponent easily repels such feeble
threats.
22

.!:t d8

22 . . . ..tc6 23 ..txc6 be 24 n d6
is dangerous.
23

.!:t ad 1

Of course 23 ..txe4 .!:tfe8 24

..td4 ..tg4! loses.
23
24

..txb7 +

..t xa4
wc7

The final subtlety. After 24 . . .

wxb7 25 .!:t xd8 ..txd l 26 nd7 +
Black still has to be careful in t he
ending.
25

.!:t xd8

.!:t xd8

3 d4

26
27
28
29

l:!. xd8
..txe4
c6
..t d3
I

.t>xd8
.t> c7
a6
..txb2

-z - z

Game No. 23
Howell-Makarychev

Frunze 1989
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

e4
tLJ f3
d4
..t d3
tLJxeS
tLJxd7
0-0
c4
cS
tLJ c3

eS

tLJ f6
tLJxe4
dS
tLJd7
..txd7
'W'h4
0-0-0
g5
..tg7

tLJe2 (95)

95
B

The off-shoots that can arise

over the previous five moves were
looked at in detail in the commen
tary to the previous game, which
Was devoted to the 1 1 . . . f5 1 2 f3
l:t hf8 variation. Now we shall look

99

at another order of moves intro

duced comparatively recently :
Black avoids the immediate storm
on the kingside and prefers to put
his rooks on the e-file. In this game
there follows 1 1 . . . 1:!. he8, but
before we go any further, let's
consider two other important
examples. As the black knight
must retreat from e4 after f2-f3,
it can do it straight away, without
waiting to be asked. But there is
no need to hurry - here is the
proof.
Makarychev-Kuijpers, Match
CSKA-Eindhoven 1 986: 1 1 . . .
tLJf6 1 2 ..td2 (If 1 2 f3 then quite
good is 1 2 . . . tLJh5 1 3 g3 { 1 3 ..te3
tLJf4; 1 3 .t>h 1 g4! 14 g3 'W'e7} 1 3
. . . ..txd4+ 1 4 .t> h l tLJxg 3 + ! { 1 4
. . . 'iit' h 3? 1 5 c6! ..txc6 1 6 tLJ xd4
tLJxg3 + 1 7 <;t> g 1 tLJxfl 1 8 ..tf5 +
winning} 1 5 tLJxg3 ..txc5 and then
. . . ..tc5-d6, when Black has three
pawns for the piece and the sides
are roughly level. As the knight
has moved from e4 by itself, there
is no sense in White wasting time
with f2-f3.) 1 2 . . . l:!. hg8 (It was
possibly better to play 1 2 . . . tLJg4
1 3 h3 tLJh6 at once) 1 3 l:!. c 1 tLJg4.
(If 1 3 . . . c6, then 14 f3 is already
possible followed by 'W' a4 and
..td2-e 1 -g3 with a strong initiat
ive.) 14 h3 tLJh6 1 5 c6! ..txc6 1 6
l:!. xc6 be 1 7 'W' a4 l:!. d6 1 8 'l!f xa7
..tf6 19 b4! and White has an
unstoppable attack. After 19 . . .

100

3 d4

.:t e8 20 b5 .:t xe2 2 1 oc .:t xc6 22

..t xe2 'i!t'xd4 23 'i!t'a8+ he quickly
won.
Besides 1 1 . . . .:t he8 the e8square can also be occupied by
the other rook - 1 1 . . . .:t de8
(96) . The following game, Ulibin
Akopyan, Borzhomi 1 988, is of
particular value :
96
w

.:t xf2

Jumping ahead we notice that

in a similar position (the other
rook is on d8) Howell took on f2
with the king, not wishing to
return the exchange. However,
here it is dangerous to take back
the exchange - if 1 6 . . . ..txd4
there comes 1 7 ..tc3! and after 1 7
. . . ..txf2+ 1 8 >t>xf2 White has
better chances thanks to the
advantage of the two bishops.
16 . . . CiJf4 1 7 i.x/4 gf 18 c6 1
So that, if 1 8 . . . be or 1 8 . .
.

..txc6 White gives check with the

bishop and defends the d4-pawn.
18 . . . ..te6! 19 cb + >t>b8 20 >t>hl
i.xd4 21 .:t c2 i.e3 22 b4 >t>xh7

12 f3

After 1 2 a4 the rook manages

to get to h6 - 1 2 . . . .:t e6 1 3 f3
.tt h6! 14 fe de 1 5 ..tc4 'i!t'xh2+ 1 6
<;t>f2 .lH6 + 1 7 ..t>e1 'i!t' xg2 1 8 .lhf6
..txf6 1 9 ..te3 ..tg7. Again Black
has three pawns for the piece and
equal chances (Ioseliani-Gaprin
dashvili, Borzhomi 1 990).
12 . . . CiJf6 13 ..td2 .:t xe2!

This move was also seen in our

main game. The game Ulibin
Akopyan was going to be included
in the main contests of the book,
but the later Makarychev game
took its place because there Black
manages to fully realise his plan.
14 'i!t'xe2 CiJh5 15 'i!t'f2 'i!t' xf2+ 16

For the exchange Black has a

pawn and two active bishops
which allow him to easily hold the
position.
23 g3 fg 24 hg h5 25 .:t e l d4 26
.1Le4 + 'it> c8 2 7 .:t c5 .:t g8 28 .:t xh5
.:t xg3 29 .:t a5 >t>d7 30 ..t d5 <t;> d6
31 ..txe6 fe 32 :t a6 + >t>d5 33
.:t xa 7 .:t xf3 34 .:t xc 7 e5 35 b5 d3
36 .:t d7+ >t> c4 3 7 b6 .1Lxb6 38
.:t e l + ..t>b4 39 .:t b l + ..t>c5 40
.:t el + <t;>b4 41 .:t b l + i - f .
11
.:t he8
12

f3

There is an interesting game J.

Nov i
Polgar-Gaprindashvili,
Sad (ol) 1 990, where White played
1 2 'i!t' e 1 , when 1 2 . . . CLJf6 (po or is
12 . . . ..txd4? 1 3 CiJxd4 CiJxc5 1 4
W"c3 CiJa4 1 5 CiJf5! and White get s

3 d4

101

the upper hand) 13 W'd2 tt:le4 ! 14

97
'llfe 1 tt:Jf6 would lead to repetition
B
of m oves. However, the youngest
of the Polgar sisters shunned the
'grandmaster draw', replying 14
'llf a5!?. After 1 4 . . . ..t> b 8 15 f3 tt:Jf6
White re-evaluated her chances
and played 1 6 g3?! ( 1 6 d2 tt:Jg4
1 7 fg l he2 1 8 xe2 xd4 + 1 9
c;t> h 1 .te5 2 0 h 3 'i!t'g3 2 1 ..t>g1 led
to a forced draw. Gaprindashvili
recommends 16 . . . tt:Jg8!) 1 6 . . . even greater effect in this game.
'llf h 5 1 7 a4? (Gaprindashvili now Curiously, the assault on the for
energetically carried out the finale) tress of the white king is only a
17 . . . tt:Jg4! 1 8 fg .bg4 19 tt:Jf4 sideline; the main idea is to loosen
(White loses immediately after 1 9 the foundations in the centre,
12Jc3 .bd4 + 20 ..t>g2 W'h3 + 2 1 which is not particularly charac
c;t> h 1 f3 + 2 2 J::!. xf3 J::!. e 1 + with teristic of the variation.
W'xe2
mate) 19 . . . .bd4+ 20 ..t>g2 gf
14
21 ..ixf4 ..ie5 (even stronger was
In the case of 14 xe2 there
21 . . . J::!. c8 22 c6 J::!. e2+ 23 xe2 also arise beautiful and interesting
.th3 + 24 ..t> h 1 lt'xe2 or 22 J::!. ae1 variations. Black's quintessential
.! he1 23 ..W xe 1 ..ih3 + etc.) 22 c6 plan is the destruction of the d4i.c8 23 W' b4 d6! (it IS pawn, not by the queen ( 1 4 . . .
important to drive the queen from W'xd4+ is not good because of
b4) 24 W'b3 .bf4 25 J::!. xf4 J::!. e3 1 5 <;t> h 1 h6 1 6 b4), but by the
26 ..Wc2 ..W h 3 + 27 ..t> h 1 (there is fianchettoed bishop after 1 4 . . .
no salvation in 27 ..t>f2 lt'xh2+ tt:Jg4!!. Now after 1 5 fg the white
28 ..t>xe3 'lWxg3+ 29 J::!. f3 d4+ 30 king flies from his sanctuary to
'it> e2 g4+) 27 . . . J::!. xg3 28 cb the centre of the board, where he
hb7 29 J::!. xf7 J::!. c8 30 ..ib5 d4+ meets his end : 1 5 . . . ..ixd4+ 1 6
3 1 ..ic6 J::!. c3! 0- 1 .
..t> h 1 e5 1 7 f4 ( 1 7 g 3 xg3
tt:Jf6
18 ..t>g2 'i!f xh2+ 19 ..t>f3 J::!. e8!; 1 7
12
13
d2 (97)
h3 lt'g3 1 8 w g 1 W'h2+ 1 9 lt>f2
After 1 3 ..W e 1 W'xe1 the chances d4+ 20 ..t>f3 f5 !) 1 7 . . . xf4
are roughly equal.
1 8 J::!. xf4 gf 1 9 ..W xd5 J::!. e8 ! , and
13
White's position is hopeless
J::!. xe2!
Ak opyan's idea is used with (Sherzer-Halasz, Budapest 1 990).

102

3 d4

Correct is 1 5 ..tf4 ! gf? 1 6 fg,

closing the breach, or 1 5 . . . lLlxh2?
1 6 ..txh2 ..txd4+ 1 7 <t;> hl e5
18 f4 xf4 19 l hf4 and Black is
in a bad way. Stronger, however,
is 1 5 . . . lLlf2! with a wonderful
game in all variations : 1 6 xg5
lLlh3 + ! 1 7 gh "lhg5 + 18 <t;> h l
"Wf4; 1 6 g 3 "1W h 6 1 7 l hf2 gf 18 g4
"Wf6; 1 6 ..tg3 lLlxd l 1 7 xh4
..txd4+ 18 <t;> h l lLle3 19 ..txg5
J:t e8 20 xe3 J:t xe3 (Makary
chev).
lLl h5!
14
Of course, 14 . . . "tixd4+ fails to
1 5 e3.
15

"1W f2

White has only one move. After

1 5 .tel "tixd4+ 1 6 f2 lLlf4! he
is already worse.
15
16

"1W xf2 +
<t;> xf2

As we recall, Ulibin took with

the rook against Akopyan - 1 6
J:t xf2 and to 1 6 . . . xd4 would
have answered 1 7 c3. But now
Black has no rook on h8, and after
1 6 J:t xf2 ..t xd4 1 7 ..tc3, before
taking the exchange, he can take
a pawn by 1 7 . . . ..txc5.
16
17

lLlf4!
xf4

gf (98)

In a fairly quiet position White

has a material advantage and it is
his turn to move, but has to look
for a draw since he cannot avoid
the loss of two pawns.
18

J:t fe1

..t xd4+

98

19

wn

..t xb2!

The bishop remains on the long

diagonal and doesn't let the rook
to e5 (as 19 . . . ..txc5 would give
White counterplay). Besides, it is
useful to leave the opponent with
isolated pawns.
20

J:t ab l

More exact was 2 0 J:t a d I and

Black has only a minimal advan
tage.
20

..td4

If 20 . . . a3 the rook gets to

e5.
21
J:t e7?
After 2 1 J:t bel ..te3 followed by
. . . c7-c6 and . . . b7-b6 Black
generates connected passed c
and d-pawns, but White neverthe
less would have had chances to
save himself. Now his rook is
ambushed.
21

J:t f8!

The immediate attempt to tra p

the rook could cost Black dearly :
2 1 . . . ..te6? 22 c6! c5? (bett er
is 22 . . . b6) 23 J:t xb7 _txe7 24

3 d4 103
wmnmg.
Makarychev
j.a6
defends his f7-pawn and keeps
control of c6 with the bishop.
22

..bh7

Now the rook will certainly per

ish in jail, but its release would
involve losing the c5-pawn and
soon Black would have had not
two, but three connected passed
pawns. Of course, White's passed
h-pawn cannot compensate this
Joss.
22

j.e6

l:t el
j.e3!
Preventing the double capture
on e6.
23

24

g4

J:! h8!

There is no harm in first training

his sights on the h-pawn.
25

j.f5

26

J:! xe6

d8

If 26 j.xe6 Black forces the

exchange of rooks with an easy
win in the bishop ending - 26 . . .
wxe7 27 j.xd5 l:t xh2 28 l:t e2
l! xe2 29 wxe2 c6 30 j.c4 j.xc5.
Something similar happens in the
game.
26

fe

27

j.xe6

J:!xh2

28

J:tdl

J:thl +

White resigned due to 29 we2

l!xdl 30 wxdl c6.

Game No. 24
Dolmatov-Makarychev

Reykjavik 1990

e4

e5

IL\f3

IL\f6

d4

IL\xe4

j.d3

d5

IL\xe5

IL\d7

IL\xd7

j.xd7

0-0

'l!fh4

c4

0-0-0

c5

g5

10

f3

In the two previous games 1 0

IL\c3 j.g7 I I IL\e2 and then I I . . .
f5 or I I . . . J:the8 were played.
Black, as we have seen, obtained
sufficient counterchances. The aim
of the move f2-f3 is essentially to
counteract Akopyan's idea of . . .
l:t xe2! and . . . IL\h5.
Besides I 0 f3 and I 0 IL\c3 both
10 IL\d2 and 10 j.e3 have been
encountered.
Pinkas-Kuczinski,
Wroclaw
1 987: 10 IL\d2 IL\xd2 I I j.xd2
J:tg8 12 l:t cl (a very sharp pawn
sacrifice) 12 . . . 'l!fxd4 13 j.c3 'l!fh4
14 j.f6. Here Black replied 14 . . .
l:t e8
and lost
unexpectedly
quickly: 1 5 f4 j.e7 1 6 c6 be 1 7
j.xe7 l:t xe7 1 8 'l!fb3 'l!fg4 1 9 h3
'l!fe6 20 l:tcel 1 -0. 14 . . . j.g7!?
deserves attention, and after 1 5
j.xd8 l:t xd8 Black has the two
bishops and a pawn for the
exchange; the game is roughly
level.
As for 10 j.e3, it usually trans
poses (f2-f3 and . . . IL\e4-f6 are
put back a move). There are also

104

3 d4

the following independent vari

ations: 1 0 ..lte3 f5 1 1 f3 tt:lf6 with
an unclear position or 10 . . . l:t eS
1 1 tt:ld2 ( 1 1 tt:lc3 1:!: e6! with the
standard threat of . . . 1:!: h6) 1 1 . . .
..ltg7 1 2 tt:lf3 ..Wh5 1 3 tt:lxg5 ..Wxd 1
1 4 l:t axd 1 tt:lxg5 1 5 ..ltxg5 ..ltxd4
1 6 c6! ..ltg4! 1 7 ..ltf5 + with
approximately equal chances.
tt:lf6
10
11
..lte3 (99)
99
B

l:t e8
11
Interestingly, in a previo u s
encounter between these two play
ers the novelty 1 1 . . . l:t gS was
played and Black won quick ly .
Our main game took place th ree
months later, and M akarychev
decided not to wait for his
opponent's improvement and
played the other rook manoeuvre.
Although Dolmatov gained rev
enge in this sharp skirmish, this was
not, as we shall see, due to the
opening. First of all let us have a
look at the previous game between
the Moscow grandmasters.
Dolmatov- M akarychev, Palma
de Mallorca 1 9S9 :
11

l:!: g8 12 tt:lc3

After 1 2 ..ltf2 ..Wh6 Black threat

ens . . . g5-g4- g3.
12

Now Black has a choice

between 1 1 . . . l:t gS and 1 1 . . .
l:t eS; however the novelty 1 1 . . .
..ltg7 was tried in van Riemsdijk
Finegold, Dieren 1 990, although
not very successfully. There fol
lowed 12 tt:lc3 1:!: deS 13 ..ltf2 ..W h6
14 g3 ..W h3?! (more accurate was
14 . . . g4 or 14 . . . tt:lh5) 15 ..Wc2 h5
16 l:t fe 1 h4 17 c6! be 1S ..lta6+
'>t>dS 19 ..W b 3 ..lte6 20 ..ltfl ! ..Wf5
2 1 l:t e5! ..Wg6 22 ..W b7! tt:lh5 23
..W xc6 hg 24 hg ..ltxe5 25 de ..Wc2
26 ..WaS+ 1 -0 (26 . . . ..ltcS 27
..W xd5 + ..ltd7 2S ..WaS+ cS 29
l:t d 1 +).

g4!

1 2 . . . l:t eS -- 1 3 ..ltf2 h 6
1 4 ..Wd2 and White has a clear
advantage.
13 ..Wei? (100)
100
B

An important moment; 1 3 g3

3 d4
'lW h3

1 4 f4 lLl h5 (better was 1 4 . . .

.!:[ e8) was necessary and only now
1 5 'We1 !. This position arose
sho rtly after in van Riemsdijk
Casafus, Buenos Aires 1 990. There
.!:te8 1 6 'Wf2 lLlf6
followed 1 5
1 7 .!:t fe 1 g7 1 8 'W c2 .!:t e7 1 9 f2
.!:[ ge8 20 .!:t e5 c6 and now, instead
of 21 .!:[ ae l lLlg8 22 b4, 21 b4! wins
at once. We can guess now why,
in this second encounter with Dol
matov, Makarychev rejected 1 1 . . .
.!:t g8 in favour of 1 1 . . . .!:t e8.
0

13

and White resigned in view of 20

'We2 .!:t xg2 + 2 1 'Wxg2 'Wf2+ 22
'1tt hI 'lW xg2 mate.
1 2 'Wd2 (10 1 )
101

g3!

Makarychev, commenting on
the game, suggested that his
opponent had expected 1 3 . . 'lW h5,
considering the following beautiful
variation after 1 3 . . . g3 : 1 4 hg
.!:t xg3 1 5 lLle2! .!:t xg2 +? 1 6 '1t;>xg2
'iWh3 + 1 7 '1t>g1 d6!? 18 cd
.!:t g8 + 1 9 g5!! and White wins
by running away with the king
g l -f2-e3-d2.
.

14 hg

A surprise, prepared b y Dolma

tov especially for this game (the
queen not only defends the bishop,
but also sets the aS-square in its
sights. Curiously, his opponent
once played 1 2 f2 with White
in this position (Makarychev-Ye
Rongguarg, Belgrade 1 988). After
12
'Wh6 ( 1 2
'Wh5 1 3 lLlc3 g4
1 4 fg lLlxg4 1 5 h3) 1 3 lLlc3 g4 1 4
f4 g 3 ! 1 5 xg3 .!:t g8 1 6 'Wf3 g4?
1 7 'lW f2 lLle4 1 8 xe4 de 1 9 .!:[ fe 1
f5 20 d 5 'Wa6 2 1 'We3 'Wc4 22 f2
f3 23 g3 .!:t d8 24 .!:t ac l 'Wa6 25
d6 c6 24 b4 a fairly sharp struggle
developed in which White had
some initiative, but Black finally
gained the upper hand. Makary
chev gives the following variation :
16
lLlh5!? 1 7 'Wxd5 c6 1 8
'iW f5 + '1ttb 8 1 9 e4 lLlxg3 20 hg
'Wg7 21 xc6 'Wxd4+ 22 '1t>h2
be 23 .!:t ad 1 'iWxc5 24 'iWxc5 with a
0

Or 1 4 h3 xh3 1 5 gh 'Wxh3 1 6
'i'd2 g 2 1 7 .!:t fd 1 'W h l + 1 8 '1t>f2
g l ('ll)+ 19 .!:t xg 1 'Wh2+ 20 '1t>fl
.!:tx g l + winning.
1 4 . . . .!:t xg3 15 'W d2
If 1 5 lLle2 then decisive is 1 5 . . .
.td6! 1 6 cd .!:t xg2 + 1 7 wxg2

.!:t g8+ 1 8 g5 .!:t xg5 + 19 lLlg3

.1h3 + etc.
15 . Sixe5.1 16 de .!:t dg81
Of course, not 1 6 . . . d4 right
a way - 1 7 f4! and White is
already better.
.

105

1 7 .!:t.fd1 d4! 18 c6 de 19 ed+ wdB

106

3 d4

minimal advantage to White.

12

.!:!: xe3!?

102
w

White doesn't manage to catch

his opponent unawares. Alterna
tively, 1 2 . . . .!:t g8 1 3 f2 'i!t'h6 1 4
'i!fa5 ..t>b8 1 5 g3 .!:t c 8 1 6 tLlc3
g4? 1 7 f5! xf5 18 tLlb5 a6 1 9
xc7 + ..t>a8 20 'i!t' b6 ab 2 1 'i!fa5
i s mate, but after 1 6 . . . lLlh5 1 7
e5 g7! a complicated position
anses.
13

'i!f xe3

lLlh5

The only response, as after 1 3 . . .

g7? 1 4 g3 Black's counterplay
comes to a dead end.
14

.!:t d1

An inaccuracy. M akarychev
also showed that 14 f5, 1 4 'i!t'f2,
14 tLla3 and 1 4 tLld2 hold no
danger for Black, and that the
correct move is 14 tLlc3 g7 1 5
tLle2 .!:!: e8 1 6 'i!t'f2 and now two
sharp variations arise:
(a) 16 . . . lLlf4 17 .!:t ad ! 'i!fxf2+
1 8 ..t>xf2 .!:t e6 19 .!:t fe l with the
threat of b2-b4;
(b) 1 6 . . . .!:!: xe2!? 1 7 'i!fxh4 gh
1 8 xe2 xd4+ 19 'it> h 1 lLlf4 !
20 .!:t ad 1 xb2 2 1 .!:t d2 c3 22
.!:t c2 tLlxe2 23 .!:t xe2 b5.
g7
14
15 fl
g4 ( 102)
1 6 'i!t'f2 was threatened, disper
sing all danger.
16

c6

A reckless move. After 1 6 fg

.!:t e8 1 7 'i!t'd3 xg4 1 8 tLlc3! xd l
1 9 .!:!: xd 1 a draw is in prospect.

This vanatton is played in the

game, the only difference being
that White has surrendered a
pawn.
16
17
18
19

fg
'i!t' d3
tLl c3

be
.!:t e8!
xg4

He cannot keep the exchange 1 9 .!:!: c 1 h6 followed by 20

e3+ 2 1 ..t> h l tLlg3 mate.
19
20

.!:t xd1

xd1
'i!f g5

The dust has settled and Black

ts a pawn up.
21
..thl
tLlf6
22

e2

h5

A loss of time. Better was 22 . . .

lLlg4 at once .
23

b4

White tries his only chance counterplay on the queenside which unexpectedly j ustifies itself.
23
24
25
26

xg4
'i!t' a6 +
b5

lLl g4
hg
..td7
'i!t' h6

3 d4

27
28
29

be +
'iir' d3
1:1 fl

'ilr' xc6
'ii e6

41

c6?

tt:la4
tt:lc5
'iir' bl
'ii f5
a4

<;t>d8
'ii e2
'iir' b5
l:! e7
'iir' b4??

In time trouble Black makes the

decisive mistake. After 34 . . . 'ilr'e2
(threatening 34 . . . ..txd4 and not
letting the rook on f1 out of his
sights) 35 'iir' b l ..t>c8 36 'iir' f5 +
<;t>d8 3 7 'iir' b l >t>c8 the game
would have ended with a rep
etition of moves.
35
36
37
38

f4!
'iir' d 6+
'ilr' xc6+
'iir' c 8+

..txd4
'it>e8
>t>f8
l:! e8 (103)

38 . . . >t>g7 also loses to 39

"i'xg4+ ..t>h7 40 h4+ and 'ilr'xe7.
103
w

1-0

Game No. 2 5

An unnecessary weakening of
his own king. After 29 . . . a6 White
stil l has to work for the draw.
30
31
32
33
34

'ilr' xf7+

107

Kasparov-Karpov

World Ch ( 10)
New York 1990

This game is the last so far in

my recent debate on the Petroff
with Gary Kasparov. It is natural
to end this book with it.
I
2
3

e4
tt:l f3
d4

e5
tt:lf6

Until now our debate had begun

with 3 tt:lxe5. This time Kasparov
changes the direction of the game,
but does not catch me unawares.
ed

Theory gives the capture 3 . . .

tt:lxe4 as preferable. In the previous
four games we have examined that
move quite closely. I chose 3 . . .
ed especially for this match
because we had prepared an inter
esting novelty. Although the game
wasn't particularly exciting its
theoretical value is beyond doubt.
4
5

e5
'iir' xd4

tt:le4

At different times 5 'ilr'e2, 5 d3

and 5 ..tb5 had all been popular
here before it was discovered that
centralising the queen was the
most dangerous continuation.
39
40

tzle6 + !
'ilr'c7+

>t>e7
'it>xe6

5
6
7

ed
tt:lc3

d5
tt:lxd6

108

3 d4

The standard move, but 7 ..ltg5

and 7 ..ltd3 have also been thor
oughly investigated.
7
tt:lc6
The bishop move 7 . . . ..ltf5
was rejected thirty years ago - 8
We5 + We7 9 tt:ld5 W xe5 1 0 tt:l xe5
f6 1 1 tt:lf3 d7 1 2 Jtf4 with
a clear advantage for White in
Bronstein-Borisenko, USSR Ch
1 96 1 .
8
Wf4 (1 04)
104
B

9 . . . We7+

The defence 9 . . . ..lte7 10

..ltxc6 + be 1 1 tt:le5 0-0 1 2 tt:l xc6
We8 1 3 tt:lxe7+ Wxe7 + 1 4 .i e3
..ltxc2 1 5 .!:t e l ..ltd3 1 6 tt:ld5 't!t'd 8
1 7 Wd4! led to an advantage for
White in Sax-Yusupov, Rotter
dam 1 988.
10 ri;;f1

The forcing theoretical vari

ation - 1 0 ..lte3 tt:lxb5 1 1 tt:lxb5
Wb4 + 1 2 W xb4 ..ltxb4+ 1 3 c3
..ltd6 14 tt:lxd6+ cd 1 5 0-0-0 .ie6
16 .l:t xd6 ..ltxa2 gives White the
better chances, but the position is
rather simplified, which is not to
everyone's liking.
10 . . . .1L e4 11 .1Lxc6+

I n this well-known position

many m oves have been tried - 8
. . . We7 + , 8 . . . ..lte7, 8 . . . g6, 8 . . .
Jtf5. They have all been studied
inside-out, and it has been estab
lished that White gets a tangible
advantage in every variation.
Limiting ourselves to one interest
ing example, let's look at the most
recent attempt for Black.
K lovans-Harman, European
Corr Ch 1 983-87 :
8 . . . ..li./5 9 ..li.b5
This bishop move also brings
White the advantage after 8 . . . g6.

1 1 ..lta4 0-0-0 1 2 ..lte3 f6 1 3

tt:lxe4 W' xe4 1 4 .l:t d 1 is usually
played, and W hite is better (an old
recommendation of Paul Keres').
11 . . . ..li.xc6 12 tt:le5 0-0-0
Black has to move the king to
the weakened queenside. Other
moves promise nothing : 12 . . .
..ltb5 + 1 3 tt:lxb5 tt:lxb5 1 4 tt:lxf7
W xf7 1 5 We5 + ; 1 2 . . . We6 1 3
tt:lxc6 be 1 4 Wf3 Wd7 1 5 tt:la4.
13 tt:lxc6 be 14 W'a4 tt:lb5 15 Wa6+
rt;; b 8 16 ..li.e3 Wb4

1 6 . . . tt:ld4 is poor - 1 7 .!:td 1

We5 ( 1 7 . . . c5 1 8 tt:lb5) 1 8 .ii. xd4
.l:t xd4 1 9 .!:t e l .
1 7 W'xc6 tt:ld4

This position has been known

for a long time in theory and used
to be thought pleasant for Black.

3 d4

In fact, after 1 8 ..txd4? J::!: xd4 or

18 ..We4 ..tc5 (with the threat of
. . J::!: he8) 19 a3 ..Wc4+ 20 ..Wd3
..Wxd 3 + 21 cd tt:lc2 Black's initiat
i ve can even become dangerous.
18 ..W a6 ( 105)

109

problems?) It transpires that Black

has a fifth possible move, invented
by Igor Zaitsev!
tt:lfS!? ( 106)

8
106
w

105
B

By playing this move Klovans

radically altered the evaluation of
the position. Here Black guessed
his opponent's clever plan : 1 8 . . .
J::t d6 1 9 ..Wd3! and 1 9 . . . ct:lb3 is
bad because of 20 ..txa 7 + , and
after 19 . . . ..te7 20 a3 Black has
no compensation for the pawn.
18 . . . J.. c5 19 a3 h 7 20 ..W xh7+
xh7 21 l:l:cl

So, the opening contest is

resolved in White's favour as he is
simply a pawn up - although it
took White almost five years to
realise the extra pawn ( ! ), as the
game was played by correspon
de nce.
Why did I choose a variation
which gives Black serious prob
lems? (Which of the alternatives
on move 8 do not give serious

A completely logical, although,

according to formal rules, para
doxical move, which nobody had
thought of before. 'What is logical
is immediately apparent. And
what is paradoxical . . .' It has long
been well known that losing time
by moving already developed
pieces, especially in open pos
itions, is not a good idea. Of the
eight moves made, the black
knight has made four of them,
and it seems unbelievable that this
cannot be dangerous for Black.
9

..tbS

After 9 ct:lb5 ..tb4+ 1 0 c3 ..ta5

1 1 g4 ct:lfe7 Black is in no danger.
9
..td6
10
e4 +
..We7 ( 107)
11
..tg5
White doesn't hurry to disfigure
Black's position with 1 1 ..txc6 + :
in that case tt:lxd6+ will not be

110

3 d4

107
w

have the final position from t he

main game, with the only differ
ence that Black's f-pawn is stil l i n
its initial position. Now, after 1 7
. . . tt:le7 o r 1 7 . . . e7 the move
1 8 tt:le5 is possible, and Wh ite
retains a small initiative.
11

threatened after the exchange on

e4.
I I 0-0 suggests itself, when after
I I . . . 0-0 ( I I . . . d7 1 2 xc6
be is also fine for Black) 1 2 xc6
be 1 3 'ilhc6 Black plays 1 3 . . .
.!:!. b8, with good compensation for
the pawn. White gets nothing from
1 2 W xe7 tt:lfxe7 ( 1 2 . . . tt:lcxe7) 1 3
tt:le4 b4.
I I g5 f6 1 2 d2 was played
in our game, and the position of
the pawn on f6 is possibly in
Black's favour. Therefore, it was
better to play I I d2 straight
away, and then I I . . . d7 1 2
0-0-0 Wxe4 1 3 tt:lxe4 e7 1 4 .!:!. he !
0-0-0. Now 1 5 tt:leg5?! .!:!. df8! 1 6 g4
xg5 1 7 xg5 tt:ld6 1 8 xc6
xc6 19 tt:ld4 ( 19 tt:le5 f6 20 tt:lxc6
fg with equality) 19 . . . d7 20
e7 .!:!. e8 2 1 xd6 cd 22 f3 with
a likely draw, but after 1 5 c4!?
White's position is preferable.
Incidentally, after 14 g4 (instead
of 1 4 .!:!. he ! ) 14 . . . a6 1 5 c4 tt:ld6
16 tt:lxd6+ xd6 17 .!:!. de I+ we

f6

Of course not I I . . . Wxe4+

1 2 tt:lxe4 e7 13 xc6+ be 1 4
xe7 and 1 5 0-0-0 when the
ending can hardly be saved.
12
13

d2
0-0-0

d7
W xe4!

The only move. 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 is

bad because of 14 xc6 and 1 3
. . . 0-0 because of 1 4 Wxe7 tt:lfxe7
( 1 4 . . . xe7 1 5 f4!) 1 5 tt:le4.
14
tt:lxe4
e7
The corresponding square!
When the knight is on c3 the
corresponding square for the
bishop is d6, and when the knight
is on e4 the bishop must move to
e7. 14 . . . 0-0-0 is worse - 1 5 g4
tt:lfe7 1 6 tt:lxd6+ cd 1 7 g5 g4 1 8
e2.
15

g4

The last attempt to fight for the

initiative. If 1 5 f4 0-0-0 1 6 g4
then 1 6 . . . g5 doesn't look bad.
15

a6?!

Less clear was 1 5 . . . tt:lh6 1 6

tt:lxf6 + ! ( 1 6 xh6 g h 1 7 h3 h 5!
18 gh f5 or 1 8 g5 fg 1 9 tt:lexg5 h 6,
and Black has an excellent ga me)
1 6 . . . gf ( 1 6 . . . xf6? 1 7 g5 i, g4
1 8 gf xf3 1 9 fg .!:!. g8 20 j_xh 6

3 d4

_txh 1 2 1 l:t x h 1 with winning

chances for White) 1 7 ..bh6
_txg4 1 8 .l:t d3 and White has
the initiative. H owever, after the
ste ady 1 5 . . . tt:ld6 1 6 tt:l xd6+
_txd6 17 .!:t de 1 + wf8 1 8 .l:t hg1
J::t e8 19 .l:t xe8 + wxe8 the position
is completely level.
16 c4?! (108)
Here Kasparov could have
played more accurately. After 1 6
.ta4 b 5 1 7 b3 ( 1 7 gf b a 1 8 tt:lg3
0-0-0) 1 7 . . . tt:lfd4 Black has no
problems either, but by continuing
16 xc6 xc6 1 7 .l:t he 1 xe4
( 1 7 . . . tt:ld6? 1 8 tt:lxd6+ cd 1 9
tt:ld4) 1 8 .l:t xe4 tt:ld6 1 9 .l:t e2 White
obtains a positional plus in view
of the threatened tt:lf3-d4-e6.
108
B

111

16
tt:ld6
1 7 tt:lxd6+
xd6
1 8 .l:t de 1 +
In this positiOn Kasparov of
fered a draw which was accepted.
A fair result, but all the same it
was worth White waiting for the
reply. The fact is, that of four
possible continuations which at
first glance appear of equal merit,
only one is correct. After 1 8 . . .
wf8? 1 9 .l:t hg 1 .l:t e8 20 g5 .l:t xe 1 +
2 1 .l:t xe 1 or the corresponding 1 8
. . . wd8 1 9 .l:t hg 1 .l:t e 8 20 g5
.l:t xe1 + 2 1 .l:t xe1 Black has trouble
consolidating his forces. For
example, in both variations 21 . . .
tt:le5 is bad because of 22 tt:l xe5
xeS 23 f4. White also has a clear
initiative after 1 8 . . . tt:le7?! 1 9
.l:t hg1 0-0-0 20 tt:ld4. But I , of
course, intended the bishop retreat
1 8 . . . e7!, when 1 9 d5 0-0-0
20 xc6 xc6 2 1 .l:t xe7 xf3
22 .l:t g 1 .l:t d 7 leads to full equality.
And so, the continuation of our
discussion in the Petroff is post
poned until our future battles.

Index of Variations
1 e4 e5
2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6

A 3 li:Jxe5
B 3 d4
A

3 li:Jxe5

3 d3 81; 3 c4 81; 3 li:Jc3 81

3 . . . d6

3 . . li:Jxe4 82
.

4 li:Jf3
4 li:Jc4 82; 4 li:Jxf7 <t>xf7 83
4 . . . li:Jxe4
5 d4

5 'We2 10; 5 li:Jc3 41; 5 c4 48

5 . . . d5

5 . . . e7 6 d3 d5

see

A2

6 d3

A l 6 . . . li:Jc6
A2 6 . . . e7

A3 6 . . d6
.

Al

li:Jc6
6 . . . li:Jf6 64

7 00 e7
7 . . . g4 8 .!:!. e l 18
8 c4 xf3 49
8 . . e7 49
8 . . . li:Jf6 9 .!:!. e l + 50
9 cd 61
9 li:Jc3 5060
.

Index of Variations II3

8 c4

8 l:t e 1 .i.f5 I 1
8 . . . .i.g4 9 c3 20
9 c4 lt'lf6 1 0 lt'lc3 20
1 0 cd 15-19
8 . . . lbb4

8 . . . lt'lf6 21; 8 . . . .i.e6 43

9 .i.e2

9 cd 43
.i.e6
9 . . . de 22
9 . . . 0--0 1 0 a3 28
1 0 lt'lc3 .i.f5 29
10 . . . .i.e6 - see below
10 lt'le5 38
10 lt'lc3 0-0
1 1 .i.e3
1 1 cd 34
1 1 . . . .i. f5
1 1 . . . lt'lxc3 25
] 1 . . . lt'lf6 34
1 1 . . . f5 1 2 cd 38
1 2 a3 35-40
1 1 . . . .i.f6 41

12 'Wb3

12 a3 26; 1 2 J:!.c1 3 1
12 . . . c6

1 2 . . . de 29
13 l:tac1 26

A2

.i.e7
7 0-0 0-0
8 c4 lbf6 64

A3

6
.i.d6
7 0-0 0-0

. .

8 c4 c6
9 'Wc2

9 lt'lc3 72; 9 cd 74

114 Index of Variations

9

. .

!Oa6

9 . . . [5 68
10 a3

10 xe4 69
10 . . . g4

10 . . . [5 69
1 1 c5 70
B

3 d4 !Oxe4
3 . . . d5 87; 3 . . . ed 107
4 d3

4 !Oxe5 - see A ; 4 'iie2 88; 4 de 88

4 . . . d5
5 !Oxe5

5 de 99
5

. .

!Od7

5 . . . d6 88
6 !Oxd7

6 !Oc3 92; 6 0-0 92; 6 'ii e2 92; 6 !Oxf7 93

6

R.xd7

7 0-0
7 'iie2 94
7 . . . 'ii h4
7 . . . d6 94; 7 . . . 'ii f6 94
8 c4

8 'ii e 1 94; 8 !Oc3 94

8

. . .

0-0-0

9 c5

9 cd 95
9

g5

9 . . . !Oxf2 95; 9 . . . !Of6 95; 9 . . . g6 95

10 !Oc3

10 f3 103
10 . . . g7

10 . . . !0[6 95; 10 . . . [5 95; 10 . . . .!:l.g8 95

1 1 !Oe2 96-103

An Owi Book

Botsford Chess Library

$1 6.95

WINNING WITH THE PETROFF

Until recently, Petroff's Defence had always been regarded as a
safe and solid way for Black to play for equality in the opening.
Now, however, its reputation has been completely transformed
and it features in the arsenal of some of the world's most
attacking players who have introduced a wealth of aggressive
new ideas for Black.

Ideal opening for club and tournament players

Regular choice of World Championship Candidates Jan
Timman, Artur Yusupov, Boris Gelfand, and Anatoly Karpov
himself
Completely illustrative games explain all the new ideas
Unique insights into Karpov's opening preparation

Now you can play to win with Petroff's Defence!

Anatoly Karpov is one of the greatest players of all time.

During his time as World Champion between 1 975 and 1 985,
his tournament record was unprecedented as he outclassed his
contemporaries time and again. His fierce rivalry with Gary
Kasparov endured for five matches for the world title and he
must still be rated as one of the leading contenders.

Other Winning With . . . books from Henry Holt include:

Winning With the Closed Sicilian
Gary Lane

Winning With the King's Gambit

Joe Ga llag her

Winning With the Nimzo-lndian

Raymond Keene

Winning With the Philidor

Tony Kosten

Winning With the English

Winning With the Bishop's Opening

Gary Lane

Zoltan Ribli and Gabor Kallai

For a list of other titles in the

Botsford Chess Library, write to:
Henry Holt and Company, Inc.,
1 1 5 West 1 8th Street, New York,
New York 1 001 1 .

I S B N 0 - 80 5 0 - 2 6 3 3 - 9
90000>

Chess
9 780805 026337