Forum

Of Mice and Jackals

The FORUM
is a platform for discussion
of developments in chess
opening theory in general A Mouse Slip
and particularly a letter by Pavel Skatchkov
in variations
QI 16.11 (E15) YB 87
discussed in previous
Yearbook issues. In Yearbook 87, Dejan Antic pub-
lished the Survey ‘Try the Flexible
Contributions to these 12...Õb8!’. I have studied this con-
pages should be sent to:
tribution with great interest. On
the whole I agree with the author,
Editors Yearbook
that 12...Õb8 is seldom played at
P.O. Box 1093 top level and that it is hard to refute
NL 1810 KB Alkmaar and maybe not worse than
The Netherlands. ‘normal’ continuations. At the
same time, 12...Õb8 looks strange.

NEW IN CHESS ARCHIVES

Or by e-mail to:
editors@newinchess.com
When I saw it for the first time, I
thought it was a mouse slip!
Antic examines the main varia-
tions, except the one I’d like to of-
fer: 13.Õc1. The idea of this move
is to block the black pawn on b5
and, with it, the Ãa6, thus enabling
the transfer of the white knight to
c5 combined with the central break
e2-e4. Now, the utmost accuracy is
required from Black.
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 b6 4.g3
Ãa6 5.b3 Ãb4 6.Ãd2 Ãe7
7.Ãg2 c6 8.0-0 d5 9.Àe5 Àfd7
10.Àd7 Àd7 11.Ãc3 0-0
12.Àd2 Õb8 13.Õc1
.t.d.tM_
j._SlJjJ
LjJ_J_._
_._J_._.
._Ii._._
_Ib._.i.
I_.nIiBi
_.rQ_Rk.
Pavel Skatchkov
13...b5 13...Ãa3 14.Õc2 b5
15.cd5 cd5 16.b4 ©e7 17.©b1
Õfc8 18.©b3 Õc3 19.Õc3 Ãb4
20.Õc2 Ãd2 21.Õd2 Àb6;
13...Àf6 14.Õe1 b5 15.cd5 cd5
16.b4 Õc8 17.Àb3 Àe4 18.Àc5
Ãc5 19.dc5 Àc3 20.Õc3 Ãb7
21.Õd3 ©f6 (21...f5) 22.e4 de4
23.Ãe4 Ãe4 24.Õe4 Õfd8
25.Õed4 Õd4 26.Õd4 14.cd5 cd5
14...ed5 15.b4 Ãc8 16.Àb3 Àb6
17.Àc5 Ãc5 18.dc5 Àc4 19.e4
Ãe6 20.©d4; 14...b4 15.d6!
15.b4 A new idea. 15...Àb6
16.Àb3 Àc4 16...Àa4 17.Àc5
Ãc5 18.dc5 Àc3 19.Õc3 Ãb7
20.Õd3 17.Àc5 Ãb7 18.a4 Ãc6
18...ba4 19.©a4 19.ab5 Ãb5
19...Õb5 20.©d3 a5?! 21.ba5 Àa5
22.Ãa5 Õa5 23.Àe6 fe6 24.Õc6
20.Õa1 ©c7 21.Õe1 and 22.e4.
Pavel Skatchkov
Togliatti, Russia

10

Exit 5...d5!
by A.C. van der Tak
RL 6.10 (C63) YB 49, 68
Recently in the Jaenisch Variation,
after 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 f5
4.Àc3 de4 5.Àe4, attention has
shifted towards 5...Àf6 (see
Alexey Kuzmin’s Survey in Year-
book 88), but for a very long time
the hyper-sharp 5...d5 6.Àe5 de4
7.Àc6 ©g5 8.©e2 Àf6 and now
9.f4, was the main line. In Year-
books 49 and 68 we discussed
9...©f4 10.Àa7 Ãd7 11.Ãd7
®d7!. The conclusion in the latter
Survey was that Black has suffi-
cient counterplay.
However, in Christoph Scheerer’s
book The Greatest Ever Chess
Opening Ideas (Everyman 2008),
in the final chapter, entitled ‘A
Tricky Transposition’, the author
comes up with an improvement on
White’s play which is as surprising
as it is simple: first 9.Àa7 and only
then f2-f4! The important point is
that after 9...Ãd7 10.Ãd7, Black
cannot very well capture on d7
with the king in view of 11.©b5,
and therefore has to play 10...Àd7.
Now, after 11.f4 ©f4 12.Àb5, the
same position appears on the board
as after 9.f4 ©f4 10.Àa7 Ãd7
11.Ãd7 Àd7?! 12.Àb5, which is
already known to favour White.
So Black should look for an alter-
native to 11...©f4, but sadly for
him none of the alternatives are
convincing – certainly not
11...©c5, which looks good for
White after 12.Àb5 ©c2 13.d4.
This transposition idea is not en-
tirely new, since it had already oc-
curred in a number of games, and
moreover, Leonid Shamkovich and
Eric Schiller had already pointed
emphatically at this possibility in
their book Schliemann Defence,
Volume 2, Classical Variation
(Chess Enterprises 1996), but
apparently this had gone unnoticed.
It had also escaped the attention of
yours truly while I was working on
the Surveys in Yearbooks 49 and
68! Incidentally, in Kaissiber 7
(1998), Volker Hergert did briefly
mention the transposition.
White’s task is still not easy, but
the three games given below illus-
trate how difficult it is for Black to
prove real compensation for his
pawns.
Ostergaard,Allan
Simmelink,Joop
cr 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 f5
4.Àc3 fe4 5.Àe4 d5 6.Àe5 de4
7.Àc6 ©g5 8.©e2 Àf6
9.Àa7!? Ãd7 9...c6 10.Àc6
©g2 11.Àe5 Ãd7 12.Õf1å;
9...®d8 10.Àc8 ©g2 11.Õf1 ®c8
12.f3 ef3 13.©g2 fg2 14.Õg1å
Shliakhtin-Faibisovich, Lenin-
grad 1964 10.Ãd7 Àd7
10...®d7? 11.©b5ê
T_._Ml.t
nJjS_.jJ
._._._._
_._._.d.
._._J_._
_._._._.
IiIiQiIi
r.b.k._R
11.f4!? 11.Àb5?! ©g2 12.©f1
©f1 13.Õf1 0-0-0¤ Faase-
Welling, Dieren 1987; 11.©e4
®d8 12.d3 (12.©b7? Õa7!
13.©a7 ©g2î D.Thomas-
Mi.Boskovic, USA 1975; 12.d4
©a5 13.Ãd2 Ãb4! 14.0-0-0º
Hergert-Leisebein, cr 1997)
12...©a5 13.Ãd2 ©a7 14.0-0 Àf6
15.©e6 ©c5 16.Õae1º
Yakovenko-Karpatchev, Tomsk
1998 11...©f4 11...©h4 12.g3
©h3 13.Àb5 0-0-0 14.b3å
J.R.Koch-Marciano, Strasbourg
ch-FRA 1992; 11...©a5 12.Àb5
Ãc5 13.©e4 (13.c3 c6 14.Àd4
Ãd4 15.©e4 ®f7 16.©d4 Õhe8
17.®d1å V.L.Ivanov/Kulagin)
13...®d8 14.©b7 Õe8 15.®d1
Õb8 16.©c7 ©c7 17.Àc7 ®c7
18.c3å Scheerer 12.Àb5 12.d4
©h4 (12...©f5 13.©b5å Goed-
Forum
hart-Rohde, cr 1991) 13.g3 ©e7
14.Àb5 0-0-0 15.Ãf4å Brustman-
Krupkova, Timisoara zt W 1993
12...0-0-0 12...®d8 13.d4 ©f5
14.Õf1 ©g6 15.d5å D’Alessan-
dro-Lykke, cr 2000 13.d4 ed3
13...©f6 14.Ãe3å Ruderfer-
Agzamov, Soviet Union 1966 –
YB/49-71; 13...©f7 14.Õf1 Àf6
15.Ãf4 c6 16.Àa7 ®d7 17.d5
Àd5 18.0-0-0 Ãc5 19.c4 Ãa7
20.Ãb8!ê Hristov-Angelov, cr
1982 14.Ãf4 de2 15.®e2
15.Àc7?! g5 16.Ãg5 ®c7 17.Ãd8
®d8 18.®e2 Õg8º Stopher-
Goedhart, cr 1991; 15.Ãc7?! Õe8
16.a3 Õe6 17.Ãg3 Ãe7 18.Õa2
Àc5º Heesen-Goedhart, cr 1997
15...Õe8 16.®d2 Õe4 16...Ãb4
17.c3 Ãa5 18.Õae1å Santa-
maria-Moline, cr 1998 17.Õhf1
Àf6 18.a3 c6 19.Àc3 Õd4
20.®e2 Ãc5 21.Õf3! 21.Ãe3?!
Õe8 22.®f3 Õc4 23.Ãc5 Õc5
24.Õae1 Õf8 25.®e2 Õd8 26.g3
Àd5= Kuhlmann-Goedhart, cr
1997 21...Àg4 22.Õe1 Ãd6
23.Ãe3 Àe3 24.®e3 Ãc5
25.®e2 Õhd8 26.Õd1 Õe8
27.®f1å Õd1 28.Àd1 Õe7
29.a4 ®d7 30.b3 g6 31.c3 b6
32.h3 h5 33.Õf6 Õe6 34.Õe6
®e6 35.®e2 Ãd6 36.®d3 ®e5
37.Àe3 ®f4 38.b4 Ãc7 39.Àc4
b5 40.a5 1-0
Pilalis,Christos
Nikolov,Yordan
cr Wch-25 sf 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 f5
4.Àc3 fe4 5.Àe4 d5 6.Àe5 de4
7.Àc6 ©g5 8.©e2 Àf6
9.Àa7!? Ãd7 10.Ãd7 Àd7
11.f4!? ©c5 12.Àb5 ©c2
13.Àc3 13.Àd4 ©d3 14.©d3
(14.Àe6 Õa5!?ÿ) 14...ed3 15.b3
(15.Àe6 Ãd6 16.Àg7 ®f7
17.Àf5 Ãf4 18.0-0 Ãe5â
Hanison-Conde, cr 2003)
15...®f7 16.Ãb2 Ãc5 17.0-0
Õhe8 18.Õf3 Õe4 19.Õd3 Õf4
20.Õf1 Õf1 21.®f1 Õa2 22.Àb5
Àf8 ½-½ Hergert-Leisebein, cr
1998 13...Àc5 13...0-0-0 14.©e4
©e4 15.Àe4 Àc5 16.Àc5 Ãc5
17.®d1 Õd4 18.Õf1 Õe8
11
(18...Õf8 19.g3 g5 20.d3 Õd3
21.®c2å) 19.b3 Õde4 20.Ãb2
Õe2 21.Õc1 Ãb4 22.Õc2 Õg2
23.Ãe5 c6 24.d4å Kaminski-
Henris, Pardubice 1996 14.©h5
®d8 15.0-0 ©d3
T_.m.l.t
_Jj._.jJ
._._._._
_.s._._Q
._._Ji._
_.nD_._.
Ii.i._Ii
r.b._Rk.
16.©g5 16.©d5 ©d5 17.Àd5
Àb3 (17...Ãd6 18.Àc3 Õe8¤
V.L.Ivanov/Kulagin) 18.Õb1 Ãc5
19.®h1 Õa2 20.Àc3 Õa6 21.Àe4
Ãd4 22.d3 Õe8º Lindholm-De
Ridder, cr 1998; 16.Õe1 ©d4
17.Õe3 c6?! (17...g6! 18.©g5
(18.©e2 Ãg7¤) 18...Ãe7
19.©d5 ©d5 20.Àd5 Õe8¤)
18.©e5! ©e5 19.fe5 Àb3 20.Õb1
Àc1 21.Õe4 Àa2 22.Õa1 Ãc5
23.d4 Ãb6 24.Õa2å Mrugala-
M.Lane, cr 2001 16...®c8
16...Ãe7!? 17.©g7 Õf8 18.©g3
(18.b4 Õa6!Å) 18...©g3 19.hg3
Ãf6¤ Hanison-Boronka, cr 2001
17.Õe1 17.©f5 ®b8 18.©f7º
Kaminski 17...Àb3 17...®b8!?
18.Õb1 Ãc5 19.®h1 Õa2
19...Ãd4 20.ab3 Ãc3 21.©f5
®b8 22.©e4å 20.©f5 20.Àa2
©b1 21.Àc3 ©c2 22.Àe4 Õd8º
20...®b8 21.©e4 ©e4 22.Õe4
Õa6 23.d3 Õd8 24.f5 Õd3
25.Õe8 ®a7 26.Ãf4 c6 27.Àe4
Õa1 27...Ãe3 28.Õa1 Àa1
29.g4 Ãd4 30.Ãe5 Ãe5 31.Õe5
Àc2 32.Àc5å Õe3 33.Õe3 Àe3
34.h3 Àc4 35.b3 Àd6 36.Àe6
Àe8? 36...b5 37.®g2ê ®a6
38.®f3 ®b5 39.®f4 1-0
Rodriguez,Keith
Satici,Aydin
cr Rochade 51-71 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãb5 f5
4.Àc3 fe4 5.Àe4 d5 6.Àe5 de4
7.Àc6 ©g5 8.©e2 Àf6
12
9.Àa7!? Ãd7 10.Ãd7 Àd7
11.f4!? ©c5 12.Àb5 ©c2
12...0-0-0 13.c3 (13.Àc3 Àf6
14.a4!å Scheerer) 13...Ãd6
(13...©f5 14.0-0 Àf6) 14.Àd6
©d6 15.0-0 Àf6 16.a4 h5 17.b4
h4 18.a5 h3 19.a6 hg2 20.ab7
®b7 21.©b5 ©b6 22.©b6 cb6
23.Õf2å Shamkovich/Schiller
13.d4!?
T_._Ml.t
_JjS_.jJ
._._._._
_N_._._.
._.iJi._
_._._._.
IiD_Q_Ii
r.b.k._R
13...Ãb4 13...©e2 14.®e2 Ãd6
15.Àd6 (15.Õd1!? £ 16.d5å)
15...cd6 16.Ãe3 0-0 17.Õhc1 Àb6
18.a3 (18.Õc7 Õf7 19.Õf7 ®f7
20.f5 (20.a3 ®e6 21.Õc1 Àd5=)
20...Àd5 21.a3 h5 22.Ãg5 Õc8
23.Õd1 b5=) 18...Àd5 19.g3 Õa6
20.Õc2 Õb6 21.Õe1 Õb3 22.Ãg1
®f7 23.®d1 Õe8 24.Õce2 ®g6
25.®c2 ½-½ Yasakov-Sabean, cr
2000 14.®f2 ©e2 15.®e2 0-0-0
16.Ãe3 Àf6 17.Õac1 c6
17...Àd5 18.Àc3 Õd6 19.Àd5 Õd5
20.g4 c6 21.h3 ®d7 22.f5 Ãe7
23.Õhf1 h5 24.a4 (24.a3!?)
24...hg4 25.hg4 Õh2 26.Õf2 Õh3ÿ
J.Horak-M.Larsson, cr 2005 18.a3
18.Àc3 Ãa5 19.Õhd1 Àd5
20.Àd5 Õd5 21.Õc5 Ãb6 22.Õd5
cd5 23.Õc1å/ê Pilgaard-
O.Simonsen, Klaksvik 2003, the
game given by Scheerer 18...Ãe7
19.Àc3 Õhe8 20.Õhd1 Àd5
21.h3 g6 22.g4 Àc3 23.bc3!
Ãa3 24.Õa1 Ãb2 25.Õa8 ®c7
26.Õd8 Õd8 27.Ãd2 Õe8 28.f5
Ãa3 29.Õf1 gf5 30.gf5 Ãd6
31.Ãg5 ®d7 32.®e3ê c5 33.f6
cd4 34.cd4 b5 35.f7 Õa8
36.Ãh6 Ãf8 37.Ãf8 Õf8 38.®e4
®d6 39.Õf6 ®e7 40.®e5 1-0
In the past 15 years a number of
correspondence tournaments on
the theme 3...f5 have been slogged
out. I cannot exclude the possibil-
ity that there is new material from
recent tournaments that is un-
known to me, but I would be sur-
prised if there was.
Readers’ reactions are welcome!
But for the moment: exit 5...d5?
Adjourning within Theory
by Tibor Karolyi
SI 8.13 (B97) YB 86
In my Queen’s Indian Survey in
Yearbook 86 I mentioned that in-
ternational master Laszlo Cserna
once adjourned in a position which
was still known from the theory
books. The game score had been
lost in the mist of time, but thanks
to Gabor Pirisi, who was White in
that game, we have managed to re-
cover it from oblivion.
I used to know both players well
and as I remember, both were am-
bitious. The game at hand was
played in the city championship of
Budapest, a well-respected event
at that time. I analysed for days on
end with Laci (the pet name for
Laszlo), but honestly I do not re-
member any specifics about the
19...Õa7 line as I was marvelled by
Szekely’s intermediate 19...Ãh4
check, followed by 21...h4. I
looked at it with Laci as well.
NEW IN CHESS ARCHIVES
Gabor Pirisi, the first prize winner
of the ECI Tournament, Eeklo 1975

During the old socialist system,
strong masters made a living from
chess and had time to work on their
openings. Nowadays, Hungarian
superstars believe they have be-
come so strong because they are
talented, but the knowledge that
was obtained in earlier days was
quite well transferred and built in.
Laszlo Cserna’s widow told me
she was thinking how Laci would
fare in the new system these days.
Gabor Pirisi gave up being a pro-
fessional a long time ago...
The line with 10.f5 got a huge
boost in 1977 when Alvis Vitolins,
a genius in finding new and ex-
tremely sharp opening ideas, intro-
duced the incredible knight
sacrifice 18.Àf6!? against Viktor
Gavrikov in the All-Union Cham-
pionship of Farmers’ Sports Clubs.
Many great players adopted the
Vitolins line with either colour.
Pirisi-Cserna followed Kasparov-
Rashkovsky, USSR Champion-
ship, Minsk 1979, till the end.
Cserna took a huge risk when he de-
viated from a forced draw. Still, that
was how this exciting game ended.
Pirisi,Gabor
Cserna,Laszlo
Budapest ch-city 1980 (12)
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cd4
4.Àd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãg5 e6
7.f4 ©b6 8.©d2 ©b2 9.Õb1
©a3 10.f5 Àc6 11.fe6 fe6
12.Àc6 bc6 13.e5 de5 14.Ãf6
gf6 15.Àe4 Ãe7 16.Ãe2 h5
17.Õb3 ©a4 18.Àf6 Ãf6 19.c4
T_L_M_.t
_._._._.
J_J_Jl._
_._.j._J
D_I_._._
_R_._._.
I_.qB_Ii
_._.k._R
19...Ãh4 20.g3 Ãe7
19...Õa7
21.0-0 Õa7 (21...h4!? is an idea to
which we will return on page 24)
22.Õb8 Õc7 23.©d3 (23.®h1!?
Pirisi-Szymczak, Hungary 1981)
23...Ãc5 (23...©a3!? 24.Ãh5 Õh5
25.©g6 ®d8 26.©g8 ®d7 27.Õd1
Ãd6 28.©f7 ®d8 29.©f8
(29.©h5 Õd7 30.Õd6 ©d6
31.©h8 ®e7 32.©g7=) 29...®d7
30.©f7 ®d8 31.©f8 ½-½ Hart-
mann-Hünerkopf, Germany Bun-
desliga 1982/83) 24.®h1 (ã
24.®g2 ®e7 G.Garcia-Grigorian,
Baku 1980) 24...®e7 25.©g6 (no
25.©g3 here; 25.©f3 Õe8!
(25...®d6? is always mentioned as
losing, but 26.Õd1 Ãd4 27.Õd4
ed4 28.©f4 e5 29.©f6 Ãe6
30.Õh8 ©a2! 31.©d8 Õd7
32.©b8 (ê Nunn) 32...®c5
33.©e5 Ãd5 34.cd5 ©d5 35.©d5
Õd5 may not be clear) 26.©f6
®d6=; 25.©e4 (Beliavsky)
25...Õd7! 26.©e5 Ãd4=) 25...®d6
26.©f6 (26.Õd1 Ãd4 27.©f6= c5
28.Õd4 cd4 29.©h8 Ãb7 30.®g1
Õd7) 26...Õe8 27.Ãh5í Õce7
28.Õd1í Ãd4 29.Õd4 ed4 30.©d4
®c7 31.©b6 (½-½ Beliavsky-
Platonov, Tashkent 1980) 31...®d7
32.©d4 ½-½ is the stem game
Vitolins-Gavrikov, Kalinin 1977
20.0-0 Ãe7 20...Õd7 and 20...Õf7
are well-known alternatives
21.Õb8 Õc7 22.©d3 Better than
22.Ãd3?! or 22.®h1 (Wojtkiewicz,
1980) 22...Ãc5 22...e4? 23.©c3!
J.Muller-Vigneron, cr 1995 –
YB/53-27; 22...©a3? 23.Ãh5 Õh5
24.©g6 ®d8 25.©h5! – with the
pawn on g2 this wins; 22...h4!?
23.Ãh5 Õh5 24.©g6 ®d7 25.©h5
Ãc5 26.®h1 h3!º 23.®h1 ®e7í
.rL_._.t
_.t.m._.
J_J_J_._
_.l.j._J
D_I_._._
_._Q_._.
I_._B_Ii
_._._R_K
24.©g3! ®d6í
24.©g6
(24...Õe8? 25.©e5 Ãd6 26.©g5
®d7 27.c5ê (RR) 27...©a5
Forum
28.Õd1 Õb7 29.©g7 1-0
Mamedov-Jojua, Urgup jr 2004)
25.Õd1 ©d1 26.Ãd1 Õf7! (½-½,
49) Hübner-Portisch, Tilburg 1979;
24.©f3 ®d6!? (24...Õe8 25.©f6
®d6 26.Ãh5!=) 25.Õd1?!
(25.©f6=) 25...Ãd4 26.Õd4 ed4
27.©f4 e5 28.©f6 Ãe6 29.©h8!
(29.Õh8? Õf7 30.c5 ®c5 31.©e5
Ãd5 32.h3 ©a2î) 29...Õf7 (£
30...©d1î) 30.Õb3! ©a5
31.Õb1=; 24.©e4 Õd7! 25.©e5
Ãd4 26.©f4= 24...®d6 25.Õd1
25.©f6 Õe8 26.Ãh5 Õce7
(26...Õee7?! 27.©h8! (27.Õd1??
©d1 28.Ãd1 Õf7î) 27...©c4
28.Õd1 Ãd4 29.Õc8Ç) 27.Õd1
Ãd4 28.Õd4 ed4 29.©d4 ®c7
30.©b6= 25...Ãd4 25...©d1?!
26.Ãd1å 26.Õd4 ed4 27.©g3
The difference with the line with
...Ãh4 and g3 inserted 27...e5
27...®d7? 28.©g7ê 28.c5 ®d5
29.Ãf3 e4 29...®c4 30.Ãe2!
(30.©e5?! Õb7! 31.Õb7 Ãb7
32.©h8 ®c3ç) 30...d3 31.©e5
Õd8 32.©f4 Õd4 33.©c1 ®d5
34.©g5 Ãf5 35.©f5 ®c4 36.Ãd3
Õd3 37.©f4 Õd4 38.©c1 ®d5
39.©g5= 30.©g5 ®c4 31.©c1
®d5 32.Ãd1 32.©g5= 32...©a2!
32...©a5? 33.Ãb3 ®e5 34.©g5
Ãf5 35.©g3 ®f6 36.Õh8ê;
32...©d1!? 33.©d1 ®e5 33.©g5
33.Ãb3? ©b3 34.Õb3 e3!î
33...®c4 33...®e6 – move 41!
34.©c1 ½-½ Kasparov-
Rashkovsky, Minsk ch-URS 1979
34...®d5 35.©g5 ®c4 36.©c1
®d5 37.©g5 ®c4 38.©c1 ®d5
39.©g5 ®c4 40.©c1 ®d5
41.©g5 Fifth repetition 41...®e6
Black deviates! 42.©g6 The
sealed move.
.rL_._.t
_.t._._.
J_J_M_Q_
_.i._._J
._.jJ_._
_._._._.
D_._._Ii
_._B_._K
13
 42...®e5 42...®d5 43.©g5=
43.©g5 ®e6 43...Ãf5 44.Õh8
©f2 45.Õe8 ®d5 46.Õd8 ®c5
47.©c1 ®b6 48.©b1 ®a5
49.©a1 ®b6 50.©b1= 44.Ãb3!?
Black is not the only one who is
being brave 44...©b3 45.Õb3
Õf8! 45...e3? 46.Õe3! de3 47.©e3
®d5 48.©d3 ®c5 49.©c3 ®b5
50.©h8å 46.h3 Õb7? 46...e3
47.©g6 ®d5 48.Õe3!=; 46...a5;
46...Õd7; 46...Õf1 47.®h2 e3=
48.Õe3? de3 49.©e3 ®f7!ç
47.Õb7 Õf1 48.®h2 Ãb7
49.©g7? 49.©g6! is decisive –
all pawns drop off with check
49...®d5 50.©b7 d3 50...e3
51.©a6 Õf2å 51.©a6?! 51.g4! is
the only way for White to play for
a win 51...®d4= 52.©c6 d2
53.©d6 ®e3 54.©h6 ®e2
55.©h5 ®e3 56.©h6 ®e2
57.©h5 ®e3 58.©h6 ®e2
59.©a6 ®f2 60.©f6 ½-½
Can Black Recapture?
a letter by Ademola Sorungbe
GI 5.8 (D87) YB 86
As I was going through Alberto
Moreno’s 7.Ãc4 Grünfeld contri-
bution ‘A Surprising Point‘ in the
FORUM of Yearbook 86, I noticed a
new possibility for Black before
NEW IN CHESS ARCHIVES
Ademola Sorungbe
14
getting to Sakaev and Moreno’s
18.h3: Black can recapture the
pawn on c5 without any problem
and then try to take advantage of
his better pawn structure. But to
my surprise I found out that with
best play White’s advantage was
quite ‘stable’, even up to move 28.
Below are some analyses I have
done on this recapturing line.
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 g6 3.Àc3 d5
4.cd5 Àd5 5.e4 Àc3 6.bc3 Ãg7
7.Ãc4 c5 8.Àe2 Àc6 9.Ãe3 0-0
10.0-0 Ãd7 11.Õb1 a6 12.dc5
Àa5 13.Ãd3 ©c7 14.Àd4 Õfc8
This move has only been played
once, in Gustafsson-Cs.Horvath,
Austrian Staatsliga 2002/03. But
Horvath obviously wasn’t trying to
demonstrate any idea; after playing
...Õfc8 on move 14, he returned the
rook to d8 on move 18, and then
agreed to a draw on move 19.
T_T_._M_
_JdLjJlJ
J_._._J_
s.i._._.
._.nI_._
_.iBb._.
I_._.iIi
_R_Q_Rk.
My idea is to remove the f8 rook
from the threat of a Àe6 in case
Black decides to take the pawn on
c5. Fortunately, Black has time for
that, since White cannot play Àb3
because of …Ãc3 regaining the
pawn with a better game (pawn
structure). 14…Õfd8 would still
fall victim to a future Àe6.
15.©e2 ©c5
The point behind 14…Õfc8,
which might not be an outrightly
bad move. Csaba Horvath played
15...e6 and the game concluded
16.Àb3 Àb3 17.Õb3 Ãc6 18.f4
Õd8 19.e5, draw.
16.Àf5!
16.Àb3 ©a3 (16...©c7Ç) 17.Ãc1
©a4 18.Àa5 ©a5 19.Õb7 Ãc6
20.Õb3 Ãc3 21.Ãe3 Ãb5=.
16...©a3
16...©c3? 17.Àe7 is useless.
17.Àg7 ®g7 18.Ãd4 ®g8
19.©d2 ©d6 20.f4 Àc6
RR Better is 20...b5å.
21.Ãb6 Àa5
T_T_._M_
_J_LjJ_J
Jb.d._J_
s._._._.
._._Ii._
_.iB_._.
I_.q._Ii
_R_._Rk.
22.e5!
22.Ãa5 ©c5 23.®h1 ©a5 24.Õb7
Õd8!? 25.f5 ©e5 26.©c2
(26.©g5 ©c3= RR: 27.fg6 hg6
28.Õb3 ©c6 29.e5 (29.©e7 Ãe6
30.Õa3å) 29...©e6 30.©h6å
Olthof) 26...Ãc6 27.Õb4 ®g7
28.Õf3 Õab8, with compensation
for Black. Black will most likely
be better if he succeeds in trading
off a pair of rooks or doubling
rooks on the d-file.
22...©d5 23.Õf2 Ãg4
This bishop turns out to be Black’s
biggest problem.
24.h3 Ãe6 25.f5! Àc4 26.©h6
Ãf5 27.Ãf5 gf5 28.©g5å
It’s interesting to see how stable
White’s advantage is, and how he
can maintain it for a long while in
this 10…Ãd7 Grünfeld sub-line.
The major turning-point is
17.Àg7, which makes the black
king quite weak.
Much more interesting it will be if
Grünfeld players find a way out for
Black in this recapturing line.
Ademola Sorungbe
Lagos, Nigeria
Win ‘The Jackal Attack’ !
a letter by Adrian Skelton
FR 4.5 (C00) YB 61
To ten faithful Yearbook readers,
we offer an issue of Adrian

Skelton’s new e-book The Jackal
Attack (1.e4 e6 2.Àf3 d5 3.Àc3
Àf6 4.e5 Àfd7 5.d4 c5 6.Ãg5).
TsLdMl.t
jJ_S_JjJ
._._J_._
_.jJi.b.
._.i._._
_.n._N_.
IiI_.iIi
r._QkB_R
All you have to do is give the right
answers to the following questions
about this book. If there are more
than 10 winners we will raffle.
1. Glenn Flear has asked, ‘What is
the bishop doing on g5 while the
centre dissolves?’ Which of the
following was the author’s reply?
a) Praying at Notre Dame.
b) Preying on Black's dark
squared weaknesses.
c) Praying for it.
d) Preying on Black’s inexperi-
ence with the line.
2. What animal does the author re-
fer to in order to argue against the
use of computer-based analysis?
a) A laughing hyena
b) A jackal
c) A monkey
d) A silly goat
3. In the line 1.e4 e6 2.Àf3 d5
3.Àc3 d4 4.Àce2 c5 5.c3 Àc6
6.cd4 cd4 7.©a4 what move does
the author suggest Black should
consider trying in the absence of
any clear-cut or convincing refuta-
tion for White?
4. In the spoof memo concerning
the discovered assassination plot,
what warning is given to ensure
that the memo's contents are never
revealed?
a) ‘I shall say this only once...’
b) ‘The existence of this memo
will be denied hereafter...’
Forum
c) ‘Guard the contents with your A Change of Italian Scenery
life...’
d) ‘Read it; then forget everything by A.C. van der Tak
you have seen...’ IG 2.4 (C54) YB 54
e) ‘Access; strictly limited...’
f) ‘Covered by the Official Se- About twenty years ago, White
crecy Act...’ scored significant successes in the
Tie-break questions: In each of the
Italian line 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6
3.Ãc4 Ãc5 4.c3 Àf6 5.d4 ed4
following positions, Black played 6.cd4 Ãb4 7.Àc3 Àe4 8.0-0 Ãc3
a winning combination. 9.d5 Ãf6 10.Õe1 Àe7 11.Õe4 d6
12.Ãg5 Ãg5 13.Àg5 h6 14.©e2
Question 5 (Black to play) hg5 15.Õe1 Ãe6 16.de6 f6 17.Õe3
followed by Õh3, especially in cor-
respondence games. Lately, there
._MtT_._ appears to be more and more reason
jJj._.jJ to doubt White’s concept, espe-
._._._._ cially when Black plays 17...c6.
Nevertheless, white players keep
_Q_N_S_. trying this line. Below two recent
._._.b._ examples are given. In the first, a
_._._Di. rapid game, after 18.Õh3 Õh3
19.gh3 g6 the exchange sacrifice
IiI_._._ 20.©f3 ©a5 21.©f6 is quite inter-
_.kR_._. esting, but unfortunately not en-
tirely correct. And in the second
Question 6 (Black to play) game, the idea 18.Õb3 does not of-
fer White many chances after the
taciturn reply 18...©c7.
._._TtM_
_._._.l. Dgebuadze,Alexander
J_._._Ij Wemmers,Xander
Bunschoten rapid 2007 (17)
_._Ln._. 1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãc4 Ãc5
I_.d._._ 4.c3 Àf6 5.d4 ed4 6.cd4 Ãb4
_Bj._.qI 7.Àc3 Àe4 8.0-0 Ãc3 9.d5 Ãf6
._._R_.k 10.Õe1 Àe7 11.Õe4 d6 12.Ãg5
Ãg5 13.Àg5 h6 14.©e2 hg5
_._R_._. 15.Õe1 Ãe6 16.de6 f6 17.Õe3
c6 18.Õh3 Õh3 19.gh3 g6
Question 7 (Black to play) 20.©f3 ©a5
.tLdTsM_ T_._M_._
j._.lJjJ jJ_.s._.
._.j.s._ ._JjIjJ_
_.jIj._. d._._.j.
._I_._I_ ._B_._._
_._BiI_. _._._Q_I
IbQnN_.i Ii._.i.i
r._.k._R _._.r.k.
Send your answers before October 21.©f6 21.Õd1 ©f5 22.©a3 (!Ê
17 to editors@newinchess.com. Palkövi, but this opinion looks
15
too optimistic. 22.©g3 d5
23.©c7 ©e6 24.©b7 ©c8ç
Silver-Matsuura, Vitoria open
1998) 22...©c5 23.©c3 ©e5
24.©a3 d5 25.Ãd3 ©e6 26.©b4
©d7 27.Õe1 ®f7ç Rubio
Doblas-Marquez Molina, Malaga
1996 21...©e1 22.Ãf1 0-0-0
22...©e5 23.©f7 ®d8 24.©f8
®c7 25.©e7 (25.©a8 Àc8î)
25...®b6 26.©d7 ©f5 27.©d6
©f4ç 23.©e7 ©e5 23...©e4
24.b4 ©f4 25.Ãg2 (25.Ãe2 Õf8
26.©d7 ®b8 27.f3 ©e3
(27...Õc8!?) 28.®f1 ®a8 ½-½
Morkisz-Kaula, Poland tt 1995)
25...©b4 26.Ãf3 ©a5?! (26...g4!
27.Ãg4 ©e1 28.®g2 ©e4
29.®g1 ©f4ç) 27.Ãg4 ©c7?
(Hardarson-Livshits, Olomouc
2001) 28.©f8!å 24.©f7 ©h8?!
24...©f5 25.©e7 Õf8 26.©d7
®b8 27.©d6 ®a8 28.©d4 ©e6ç
25.e7?! 25.h4! g4 26.Ãd3 ©g8
27.Ãg6 ©f7 28.Ãf7 Õh8 29.e7=
25...Õe8 26.h4 g4?! 26...©g8!
27.©f6 ©h7ç 27.Ãc4! d5?
27...a6 28.Ãe6 ®c7º 28.Ãe2
©g8 29.Ãg4 ®c7 30.©f4 ®b6
31.©b4? 31.Ãd7! Õe7
32.©b4ê 31...®c7 32.©f4
®b6 ½-½
Gonzalez Perez,Arian
Guerra Mendez,Jose
Havana 2007 (7)
1.e4 e5 2.Àf3 Àc6 3.Ãc4 Ãc5
4.c3 Àf6 5.d4 ed4 6.cd4 Ãb4
7.Àc3 Àe4 8.0-0 Ãc3 9.d5 Ãf6
10.Õe1 Àe7 11.Õe4 d6 12.Ãg5
Ãg5 13.Àg5 h6 14.©e2 hg5
15.Õe1 Ãe6 16.de6 f6 17.Õe3
c6 18.Õb3
T_.dM_.t
jJ_.s.j.
._JjIj._
_._._.j.
._B_._._
_R_._._.
18...©c7! 18...b5 19.Õh3! Õh3
20.gh3 g6 21.Ãb5 cb5 22.©f3
®f8 23.©f6 ®g8 24.©f7 ®h8
25.©f6 ®h7 26.h4º/=
A.Herrera; 18...d5 19.Õb7 ©d6
20.g3 dc4 21.Õd1 Àd5 22.Õg7
f5? (22...©e5 23.©e5 fe5
24.Õe1º/= Herrera) 23.Õd7 ©b8
24.©c4 ©b6 25.Õ7d5 1-0
A.Herrera-V.Popov, cr 2006
19.Ãd3 d5 20.g3 20.h3 b6
(20...g6!?) 21.Ãc2?! (21.©c2)
21...0-0-0 22.a4 Õh4 23.a5 b5ç
Chouari-Timkin, cr 2005 20...g6
21.©f3?! 21.©g4 c5 (21...®f8
22.©b4Ç) 22.Ãb5 ®f8 23.Ãf1
®g7 24.Ãg2 c4â 21...f5 22.©e3
g4â 23.©d4 0-0 23...Õh7!?
24.Õa3?! 24.Õc3 ©d6 25.b4 a5
26.a3 ab4 27.ab4 b6â 24...c5
25.Õc3 c4ç 26.Ãf1 b5 27.Ãg2
©b6 28.Õd1 ©d4 29.Õd4
Õfd8ç/î 30.Õc1 Õd6 31.a4
a6 32.Õa1 Õad8 33.ab5 ab5
34.Õa5 Õb6 35.®f1 ®g7
36.Õa7 ®f6 37.Õd1 d4 38.f3
gf3 39.Ãf3 Õe6 40.g4 Àd5
41.gf5 Àe3 42.®e2 gf5 43.Õh1
c3 44.®d3 Àc4 0-1
So, no great news for White here.
Still, the pawn on e6 could remain
a nuisance for Black. Are there
still readers who believe in White
here?
Three Times Is Too Much
by IM Jose L. Vilela
FR 7.4 (C10) YB 64, 75
In the recent 43rd edition of the
Capablanca Memorial Tournament
in Havana, a curious thing hap-
pened in a game between Leinier
Dominguez and Jesus Nogueiras,
which was also important for the
theory of the Rubinstein Variation
of the French Defence. Nogueiras,
who is a renowned expert of the
Rubinstein, decided to repeat a line
beit not without suffering. This
time Dominguez had some new
ideas in mind and he was finally
able to defeat his stubborn oppo-
nent.
Dominguez,Leinier
Nogueiras,Jesus
Havana 2008 (5)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 de4
4.Àe4 Àd7 5.Àf3 Àgf6 6.Àf6
Àf6 7.c3 c5 8.Àe5 a6 9.Ãe3
©c7 10.©a4 Àd7 11.Ãb5 cd4
12.Ãd7 Ãd7 13.©d4 f6 14.Àd7
©d7 15.©d7 ®d7 16.0-0-0 ®c6
17.Õd4 b5 18.Õhd1 Ãe7
19.Õd7 Õhe8
T_._T_._
_._Rl.jJ
J_M_Jj._
_J_._._.
._._._._
_.i.b._.
Ii._.iIi
_.kR_._.
Here it is. After 19 moves and
quite a number of exchanges, an
endgame position arises which has
been the subject of controversy be-
tween these two grandmasters.
White is, of course, slightly better
and he does not risk losing, but
JORIS VAN VELZEN

which he had played twice before

Ii._QiIi against the same opponent. In both
_._.r.k. previous encounters Nogueiras had
managed to draw in the long run, al- Jesus Nogueiras in 1987

16

converting the advantage into vic-
tory requires a lot of hard work and
possibly the opponent’s collabora-
tion.
20.b3
T_._T_._
_._Rl.jJ
J_M_Jj._
_J_._._.
._._._._
_Ii.b._.
I_._.iIi
_.kR_._.
This is where Dominguez deviates
from previous games. In both ante-
cedents, 20.g4, followed by 21.h4,
was played, Dominguez prefers
not to commit himself so early on
the kingside and plays in a more
flexible way. With the move 20.b3
White gets ready for an advance on
the queenside at any moment he
considers adequate.
For the sake of completeness I will
give the two previous games:
A) 20.g4 e5 21.h4 g6 22.®c2 h5
23.gh5 gh5 24.b4 a5 25.®b3 ab4
26.cb4 Õed8 27.Õd8 Õd8 28.Õc1
®b7 29.Õg1 Õd3 30.®c2 Õd7
31.Õg6 Ãb4 32.Õf6 Ãe7 33.Õb6
®c7 34.Õb5 Ãh4 35.Õe5 Õf7
36.f4 Ãg3 37.Õe4 h4 38.®d3 h3
39.Õc4 ®d6 40.®e4 h2 41.Õc1
Õc7 42.Õh1 Õc2 43.®f3 Ãh4
44.a4 Õa2 45.®g4 Ãe7 46.®f5
Õa4 47.Õh2 ®d7 48.Õh7 Õa5
49.®g6 Õa6 50.®f7 Õf6 51.®g7
®e6 52.Õh5 Ãf8 53.®g8 Ãd6
½-½, Dominguez-Nogueiras,
Cuban National Championship,
Santa Clara 2006.
B) 20.g4 g6 21.h4 h5 22.f3 Õad8
23.Õa7 Õa8 24.Õdd7 Õa7 25.Õa7
hg4 26.fg4 f5 27.gf5 gf5 28.h5 e5
29.h6 ®d5 30.h7 Ãf6 31.Õa6 Ãh8
32.Ãg5 Õf8 33.®d2 Õf7 34.Õh6
®e4 35.®e2 f4 36.Ãd8 Õd7
37.Ãb6 f3 38.®e1 Õg7 39.Õh2
®f4 40.®f2 Õd7 41.Ãe3 ®g4
42.Õh1 b4 43.Õg1 ®f5 44.Õg5
®e4 45.Õh5 bc3 46.bc3 Õb7
47.Ãc1 Õb1 48.Õh1 Õa1 49.Õe1
®f5 50.®f3 Õa2 51.Õg1 Õh2
52.Õg5 ®f6 53.®e4 Õh7 54.Õe5
Õc7 55.Õh5 Ãg7 56.Õh3 ®e6
57.Ãd2 Õd7 58.Õh2 Ãf6 59.Õe2
Õd5 60.Õg2 Õd7 61.Õh2 Õd5
62.Ãe3 Ãc3 ½-½, Dominguez-
Nogueiras, Carlos Torre Memo-
rial, Merida 2007.
20...h5
Please note that it is not possible to
simplify with 20...Õad8? because
of 21.Õa7! and the weakness on a6
makes itself felt; of course, if then
21...Õa8 22.Õdd7!.
21.h3
A more restricted approach this
time.
21...e5 22.®c2 a5
Intending further simplifications
with ...a5-a4.
23.a4
Fixing Black’s pawn on a dark
square.
23...ba4 24.ba4 Ãf8
The attempt at simplification by
24...Õad8 would just lose at once
to 25.Õe7!.
25.g4
Trying to fix Black’s pawns on
dark squares.
25...hg4 26.hg4 Õeb8
26...g6 was not good because then
27.Õf7 increases the pressure.
27.Õf7
Intending to double rooks by
Õdd7.
27...Õb7 28.Õb7 ®b7 29.Õb1
In spite of the material reduction,
White keeps pressure.
29...®c6 30.Õb6 ®d7
30...®d5 also deserves consid-
eration.
31.®d3 Ãe7 32.Õb7 ®e6
33.Õb6 ®d7 34.c4
Finally the pawn is set in motion.
34...Õc8 35.Õb7 ®e6
Protecting with the rook by
35...Õc7 leads to a losing bishop
ending after 36.Õc7 ®c7 37.®e4.
36.Õb6 ®d7 37.Õa6 Ãb4
38.Õa7 ®e6 39.Õa6 ®d7
40.Õa7 ®e6 41.Õg7 e4 42.®d4
Ãc5 43.®c3 Ãe3
Also hard to crack is 43...Ãb4
44.®b3 Õb8, when the outcome is
still not clear.
Forum
44.fe3 Õd8 45.c5 ®d5
I fail to discover how White would
have won after 45...Õd3. A possi-
ble variation would be: 46.®c4
Õe3 47.c6 Õe1 48.c7 Õc1 49.®d4
®d6 50.®e4 ®e6 51.Õh7 Õe1
52.®d4 Õc1 53.Õh5 Õc7 54.Õa5
Õd7 (54...Õg7? 55.Õa6ê)
55.®e4 Õd1 56.Õa6 ®e7 57.a5
Õg1 58.Õa7 ®e6 59.®f3 f5
60.Õa6 ®e5 61.gf5 ®f5ì.
46.Õa7 Õg8 47.Õa5 Õg4 48.c6
®c6 49.Õf5 ®d6?
._._._._
_._._._.
._.m.j._
_._._R_.
I_._J_T_
_.k.i._.
._._._._
_._._._.
Now Black is clearly lost. Essen-
tial was 49...Õg6, when the win
still has to be proved.
50.Õf6 ®e5 51.Õb6 Õg1 52.Õb5
®d6 53.®d4 Õg4 54.Õd5 ®c6
55.Õf5 ®d6 56.Õf6 ®d7 57.Õf4
Õg1 58.®e4 ®e6 59.Õh4 Õa1
60.®f3 Õf1 61.®e2 Õa1 1-0
In my opinion, the story of this
endgame is far from over, as Black
still has ways to improve.
Queenless not Clueless
by Peter Boel
QG 6.13 (D24) YB 70, 80
In Yearbook 80, Nenad Sulava
wrote a Survey about the bizarre-
looking line 4...c5 5.d5 e6 6.e4 ed5
7.e5 Àe4!? in the Two Knights
Variation of the Queen’s Gambit
Accepted. After 8.Àd5 this led to
wild complications.
Carpathian Warrior Bogdan Lalic
likes to play such crazy lines and
even had an improvement in store
at Hastings 2007/08. Or was it...?
17
 Malakhatko,Vadim 21.a3 Àb3 22.ab4 Àa1 23.Ãc3
Lalic,Bogdan Ãg2 24.e6 fe6 25.Õg1 Àc2
Hastings 2007/08 (7) 26.®d2 Ãa8 27.®c2 Ãe4 28.®d2
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dc4 3.Àf3 Àf6 ab6=;
4.Àc3 c5 5.d5 e6 6.e4 ed5 7.e5 B) 18.Ãc2 does not seem to be
Àe4 8.Àd5 b5 9.b3 Ãe6 10.bc4 the best square for the bishop:
Àc6 11.Ãd3 ©a5 12.Àd2 Àc3 18...Ãc5 19.Ãd2 Ãd4 20.Õc1
13.Àb3 Àd1 14.Àa5 Àb7 (20...Õa8 21.Ãh7 Àa2
22.Õd1 Àb3 23.Ãe3 Àc3 24.Õd4
Àd4 25.Ãd4 Àb5 26.Ãe4 Õd8
T_._Ml.t 27.Ãe3=) 21.Ãc3 Ãc3 22.®e2
j._._JjJ Ãe5 (22...Õa8 23.Ãe4å) 23.Ãe4
._S_L_._ Àc5 24.Ãc6 ®d6 25.Õhd1 Àd3â;
C) 18.Ãd2?! cd3 19.Ãc3 Àc4â
nJjNi._. is pretty alright for Black;
._I_._._

_._B_._.
I_._.iIi
r.bSk._R
14...Àa5!?
This is Lalic’s new move. 14...Àe5
was played in Malakhatko-Sulava.
Now, after 15.Ãe4! 0-0-0, Sulava
gave 16.Ãf4 in his analysis of
Malakhatko-Sulava, San Marino
Open 2006, with a perpetual after
16...Àc4 17.Àe7! Ãe7 18.Ãb7
®d7 19.Ãc6. White could try to
fish in muddied waters with
16.Ãg5 f6 17.Õd1 fg5 18.cb5 c4
19.0-0, when Black has the bishop
pair but White the much safer
king...
15.Àc7 ®d7 16.Àa8 Àc3
N_._.l.t
j._M_JjJ
._._L_._
sJj.i._.
._I_._._
_.sB_._.
I_._.iIi
r.b.k._R
17.Ãd2
Rybka suggests 17.cb5!?, when
after 17...c4 White faces a difficult
choice in a tactical labyrinth:
A) The desperado 18.Ãh7 does
not yield anything substantial:
18...Õh7 19.Ãd2 Ãb4 20.b6 Ãd5
18
D) Best may be 18.Ãe2! to keep
an eye on Black’s c-pawn as well
as the long diagonal: 18...Àb5
19.0-0 Ãc5 20.Õd1 ®e7 21.Ãf3
c3 22.Ãg5 f6 23.ef6 gf6 24.Ãf4 c2
25.Õd2Ç Àd4 26.Àc7 Àc4
27.Àe6 Àd2? 28.Àd4!.
17...b4 18.Ãc3
Interesting is 18.a3!? Àc6
(18...Àb3 19.Ãc3 bc3 20.Õb1
Àd4 21.Õb8Ç) 19.f4 g6 20.Ãc3
bc3 21.Õb1! ®c8 22.Ãe4Ç – see
also the note to the next move.
18...bc3 19.Õb1
Steve Giddins wrote in a
humorous report in British Chess
Magazine that ‘Black’s prepara-
tion seems to have produced satis-
factory results, since although he
is nominally an exchange down,
the errant steed on a8 looks to have
a limited shelf-life. However, ap-
pearances can sometimes be de-
ceptive.’
White could have shaped a better
future for his ‘errant steed’ with
19.f4 Àc4 (19...Ãc4? 20.0-0-0!)
20.Õc1 Àb2 (less clear is
20...Àa3!? 21.Õd1 Ãe7 22.f5 Ãa2
23.Ãb1 (23.Õa1? c4!) 23...®c8
(23...®c6 24.Ãe4! (24.Ãa2? c4!ç)
24...®b5 25.Õa1 c2 26.®f2! Ãg5
27.Ãc2 Àc2 28.Õa2 Õa8 29.Õc2
and White may be better) 24.Ãa2
c2! 25.Õa1 c4 26.®e2 ®b7 27.Àc7
®c7?! (27...Õd8! 28.Àb5 Àb5
29.Ãc4 Àc3 30.®f3 Õd1 31.Ãb3
Õd3 32.®g4 Õd2 33.Õhc1 Õd4=)
28.Ãc4!Ç) 21.Ãe4 Àa4 22.0-0!
and now it’s Black’s knight that is
errant.
NEW IN CHESS
Vadim Malakhatko
Less good may be 19.0-0-0!? Àc6!
20.f4! g6 (otherwise 21.f5, even
after 20...Àd4!) 21.Ãg6 Àd4 and
this knight gives Black great play,
for instance: 22.Ãd3?? Ãh6!.
But the text looks quite logical as
well and turns out to have a few
nice points.
19...®c8 20.0-0
N_M_.l.t
j._._JjJ
._._L_._
s.j.i._.
._I_._._
_.jB_._.
I_._.iIi
_R_._Rk.
20...Ãe7?
Giddins suggests 20...Àc6! here,
although he isn’t sure how the
white knight can be caught. After
21.Õfc1 Àe5 22.Ãe4! it probably
won’t happen: 22...Àc4 23.Õc3
Ãd6 24.Õb7 Ãe5 25.Õc1 and
White has an edge. Not 25.Õc4!?
Ãc4 26.Õa7 ®b8 27.Õb7 ®a8
28.Õe7 ®b8 29.Õe5 with just a
draw.
21.Õfc1 Ãg5?
Again, 21...Àc6 (Giddins) was
best, but now White is already

clearly better after 22.Õc3 Àe5
23.Ãe4 Àc4?! (23...Õd8 24.Ãb7
®d7 25.Õa3! followed by the dev-
astating 26.Õxa7) 24.Õb7 and the
attack on the bishop gives White
the extra tempo for a crushing at-
tack: 24...Ãd8 25.Õa7 ®b8
26.Õb7! ®a8 27.Õcb3!, winning.
22.Õc3 Ãd2 23.Õa3
Now something must give on the
a-file.
23...Õd8 24.Ãe2 Õd4 25.Õb5
Ãc4 26.Õc5 ®d8 27.Õaa5 Ãa5
28.Ãc4 Ãb4 29.Õd5 Õd5
30.Ãd5 ®d7 31.Ãf7 1-0
Despite Black’s painful loss,
Lalic’s 14...Àa5 does not seem to
be a bad alternative to 14...Àe5.
Plenty of possibilities – to go
wrong!
Just an Observation
a letter by Bogdan Lalic
QI 4.19 (E12) YB 34, 36, 80
I have observed that more and
more players sitting behind the
white pieces apply the innocent-
looking move 5.©c2 in the
Queen’s Indian Defence. Just to
name a few: not only GM Mirzoev,
but also Israeli GM Roiz. From a
psychological point of view I can
see that those players would be
quite pleased to see 5...Ãb4 ap-
pearing on the board, which virtu-
ally transposes to the Classical
4.©c2 Nimzo-Indian Defence –
the quiet system with 8.e3 – so
with black I prefer 5...d5. This
transposes to the Petrosian Varia-
tion after 6.cd5 Àd5 7.a3.
The following game was played in
a very strong rapid tournament in
Spain (15 minutes per game)
which, by the way, I won together
with GM Granda Zuniga. As well
as the miniature game Jobava-
Kramnik included in the notes, it
shows how dangerous it is for
White to fall behind in develop-
ment in this line. Of course
Jobava-Kramnik seems quite nice
for Black, because he took on c5,
not wasting time on ...Ãe7, but I
feel that even in the game Mir-
zoev-Barria White did not have a
trace of an opening advantage.
Mirzoev,Azer
Barria Zuniga,Daniel
Utebo rapid 2008 (6)
1.d4 Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 b6
4.Àc3 Ãb7 5.©c2 5.a3 d5 6.cd5
Àd5 7.Ãd2 Àf6!? 8.©c2 c5
9.dc5 Ãc5 10.b4 Ãe7 11.e4 Àc6
12.Ãf4 0-0 13.Õd1 ©c8 14.e5?
(¿ 14.Ãd3 Àh5! 15.Ãe3 ©b8
16.0-0 Àf4=) 14...Àb4! 15.ab4
Àe4!ç 0-1 Jobava-Kramnik,
Dortmund 2006 5...d5 5...Ãb4
6.a3 Ãc3 7.©c3 0-0 8.e3 –
4.©c2 Nimzo-Indian 6.cd5 Àd5
7.a3 Ãe7 8.Ãd2 0-0 9.e4 Àc3
10.Ãc3 Àd7 11.Ãe2 11.Õd1 c5!
12.dc5 ©c7 13.cb6 ab6 14.Ãb5
Àc5¤ 15.Ãg7!? (ã 15.e5?!
Ãd5â) 15...®g7 16.Õd7 ©f4
17.Õe7 Ãe4 18.©c3 ©f6!
19.©f6 ®f6 20.Õc7 Õg8º
11...c5 12.Õd1 cd4 13.Àd4
©c8 13...©c7 14.Àb5 ©c6
15.Àd4 ©c7=; ã 15...©e4?!
16.©e4 Ãe4 17.Àe6 14.0-0 a6
15.Õc1 15.f4 Àc5 16.Ãf3º
15...©c7 16.f3 16.f4 16...Ãd6
T_._.tM_
_LdS_JjJ
Jj.lJ_._
_._._._.
._.nI_._
i.b._I_.
.iQ_B_Ii
_.r._Rk.
17.h3? ¿ 17.g3! Ãg3 18.hg3
©g3 19.®h1 ©h3 20.®g1 ©g3=
17...Õac8! 18.Õfd1 Àf6 ¿
18...Ãf4! 19.®h1? Àh5Å
20.Ãf1 Àg3 21.®g1 Ãf4ç
22.Ãd2í ©e5 23.Ãf4? ¿
23.©d3 Õc1 24.Ãc1 Ãc1
25.Õc1ç 23...©f4 24.©b1??T
¿ 24.Ãc4! b5 (24...Õfe8
25.©b1) 25.Àe6 ©h6! 26.Àc5!
Forum
Õc5 27.Ãf7 ®f7í 28.©c5 Àe2
29.®h1 Àc1 30.Õd7 ®g8 31.Õb7
Àe2 32.Õd7!ç 24...©e3î
25.®h2 Àf1 0-1
Bogdan Lalic
Sutton, England
Hönsch’s Hunch
a letter by Vincenzo Giacopelli
SI 18.4 (B78) YB 75, 79
It would be wonderful if you could
have a look at the following Sicil-
ian Dragon game, played in 2007
by my very good friend Matthias
Hönsch from Germany.
RR: brief comments provided by
the Editors.
Hirneise,Jens
Hönsch,Matthias
Tübingen 2007 (8)
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cd4
4.Àd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 g6 6.Ãe3
Ãg7 7.f3 0-0 8.©d2 Àc6 9.Ãc4
Ãd7 10.0-0-0 ©a5 11.®b1 Õfc8
12.Ãb3 Àe5 13.g4 Àc4 14.Ãc4
Õc4 15.Àb3
T_._._M_
jJ_LjJlJ
._.j.sJ_
d._._._.
._T_I_I_
_Nn.bI_.
IiIq._.i
_K_R_._R
15...©e5!?
The books give as the main moves
15...©a6 and 15...©d8. Some-
times 15...©c7 is played.
16.f4
In two games, White reacted with
16.g5 Àh5 17.f4 ©e6º. The first
game with 15...©e5, Luk Luen
Wah-Cochrane, Dubai Olympiad
1986, saw 18.Àd4 ©h3 19.Àce2
Ãc6 20.©d3 b5 21.Õhf1 Ãb7
22.Õf3. Here, in Denisov-Siunia-
kov, Novokuznetsk 2007, the
19
queen sacrifice 22...©f3 23.Àf3
Ãe4 24.©d2 Ãf3 didn’t work
(1-0, 39).
An alternative is 16.Ãd4, the move
which is also recommended if
White has played h2-h4 instead of
g2-g4. Hafner-Habibi, Kassel
Open 1999, went: 16...©e6 17.h4
Õac8 18.h5 b5 19.hg6 fg6 20.g5
Àh5 21.Ãg7 ®g7 22.Àd4 ©e5
23.Àd5 Õf8 24.b3 Õcc8 25.©e3
Àf4 26.Àf4 ©f4 27.Àf5 Õf5
28.©a7 Õfc5 29.©d7 ©g5 with a
draw after some more skirmishes.
T_._._M_
jJ_LjJlJ
._.j.sJ_
_._.d._.
._T_IiI_
_Nn.b._.
IiIq._.i
_K_R_._R
16...©c3!!
This beautiful queen sacrifice was
first played by Habibi against
Hamberger, Austria Staatsliga B
1997/98, according to the
databases.
17.bc3 Àe4 18.©d3 Àc3 19.®c1
Àa2 20.®b1 Àc3 21.®c1 Àa2
22.®b1 Àc3 23.®c1
T_._._M_
jJ_LjJlJ
._.j._J_
_._._._.
._T_.iI_
_NsQb._.
._I_._.i
_.kR_._R
Here, Habibi contented himself
with a draw after 23...Àa2.
Hönsch, however, had the hunch to
try for more.
23...Õac8!? 24.Õd2?!
Taking away badly needed squares
from the white king. Better may be
20
24.Õdg1 although Black will be
able to regain material by 24...Àa2
25.®d1 Àb4 26.©d2 Ãc6; but
much better is 26...Ãa4 or 26...Àc2.
24...Ãg4 25.Ãd4 Ãf5 26.©e3
Àd5!
Just about equal is 26...Ãc2!?
27.Õc2 (27.Ãg7 ®g7 28.Õc2 Àa2
29.®b1 Õc2 30.©d3 Õg2 31.Àd2
Àc3 32.®b2 Õc5 still with great
compensation) 27...Àd5 28.©e2
Õc2 with 5 pawns for the rook.
27.©f2 e5!?
27...Ãh6!? 28.®b2 Ãf4 29.Õe2
Õc2 30.Õc2 Õc2 31.©c2 Ãc2
32.®c2 b6â.
28.Ãb2 Àb4 29.c3 Ãh6!?
Simply 29...Àa2 30.®d1 Àc3
31.Ãc3 Õc3 would have been
crushing.
30.®d1?
More stubborn was 30.©a7 Ãf4
31.®d1 Ãd2 32.Àd2 Ãg4 33.®c1
Àd3 34.®c2 Àb2 35.Àc4 Àc4
and Black retains plenty for the
queen.
30...Ãg4
._T_._M_
jJ_._J_J
._.j._Jl
_._.j._.
.sT_.iL_
_Ni._._.
.b.r.q.i
_._K_._R
Although there is no direct win in
sight for Black, White, probably
disgusted with his position, re-
signed! After 31.®c1, Rybka
gives the sadistic 31... b6.
Vincenzo Giacopelli
Ostfildern, Germany
Under Shakhriyar’s Influence
a letter by Endre Végh
TD 1.3 (D32) YB 84
I’m sending you a really interest-
ing game. Under the influence of
two of Shakhriyar Mamedyarov’s
games I also tried this very rare
sacrificial line against the
Tarrasch. I think White’s concept
is worthy of attention.
Végh,Endre
Adams,Nick
Budapest 2008 (2)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Àc3 c5 4.cd5
ed5 5.e4!?
A rare variation with a lot of poi-
son...
5...de4 6.Ãc4
The older continuation doesn’t
promise anything for White: 6.d5
f5! 7.Ãf4 Ãd6 8.Ãb5 ®f7 9.Àh3
Àf6 10.Ãc4 a6 11.a4 h6! 12.f3 g5
13.Ãd6 ©d6 14.fe4 f4!ç.
6...cd4
6...Àc6 7.d5 Àd4 (7...Àe5 looks
better: 8.Àe4 Àc4 9.©a4 Ãd7
10.©c4 ©e7 11.Ãg5 with a com-
plicated position, Summerscale-
Gershon, Israel 1997) 8.Àge2
Àe2 9.©e2 Àf6 10.Ãg5 Ãe7
11.0-0-0 ©d6? (the queen is not a
very good piece for blockading.
11...0-0 12.d6! Ãd6 13.Àe4ê;
11...h6 12.Ãf6 Ãf6 13.©e4å)
12.Àb5 ©d7 (12...©e5 13.f4!ê)
13.d6 Ãd8 14.Àc7! Ãc7 15.Ãb5
Ãd8 16.Ãf6 Ãf6 17.©e4 ®f8
18.Ãd7 Ãd7 19.©b7 Õd8
20.Õhe1 g6 21.Õe7! Ãe7 22.de7
®e7 23.©c7 f6 24.©c5 ®f7
25.©a7 ®e7 26.©c5 ®f7 27.©d5
NEW IN CHESS ARCHIVES
Endre Vegh plays 5.e4!?

1-0 Mamedyarov-Boricsev, Abu
Dhabi Open 2005 – YB/84-170.
7.©b3 Àf6
7...©d7 8.Àe4 Àc6 9.Ãd2 a5
10.a4 Ãb4 11.Ãb4 ab4 12.Ãf7
®f8 13.Ãg8 Õg8 14.Àe2 ©e6
15.©d3 b6 16.Õc1 Ãa6 17.©f3
®e8 18.Õc6! ©c6 19.Àf6 ©f6
20.©a8 ®f7 21.©a6 1-0
Mamedyarov-G.Ginsburg, Mainz
rapid 2007.
8.Ãf7 ®e7 9.Ãf4
The following game was played ten
days after ours: 9.Àb5 (I don’t like
this move too much) 9...Àc6
10.Ãd2 (10.Ãf4?? Àa5î) 10...a6
11.Àa3 a5 12.Õc1 Àe5 (12...a4!?
13.©c4 ©b6 looks good for Black)
13.Ãc4 Àc4 14.Õc4 (14.Àc4!?)
14...Ãe6 (14...d3!?) 15.©b7 ®e8
16.Õd4 ©d4 17.©a8 ®f7 18.©b7
©d7 (18...Ãe7 is more ambitious)
19.©d7 Àd7 20.Àe2 Ãa3 21.ba3
Õb8 22.f3?! (22.Àc3 was about
equal) 22...ef3 23.0-0? (23.gf3)
23...Õb2î 24.Õf3 Àf6 25.Õd3
Ãc4 0-1, Mamedyarov-Genba,
Pardubice rapid 2008.
9...dc3
9...Àc6 10.Ãc4 Àa5 11.©b4 ®e8
12.©b5 Ãd7 13.©e5 Ãe7 14.©d4
Àc4 15.©c4å Williams-William-
son, Liverpool Open 2007.
10.Õd1 ©b6 11.Ãd6 ©d6
12.Õd6 ®d6
TsL_.l.t
jJ_._BjJ
._.m.s._
_._._._.
._._J_._
_Qj._._.
Ii._.iIi
_._.k.nR
13.Àe2
This position was labelled as un-
clear by Simon Williams in Year-
book 84.
13...c2?!
13...cb2!?º.
14.0-0 Àc6 15.©g3 ®e7
16.Ãb3 ®e8 17.Õc1 Ãd7
17...Ãg4 18.©c7!º; 17...g6!?º.
Forum
18.Õc2 Õc8 19.h3 g6 29...Àc5 30.©c3ê; 29...Õce8
19...®d8!? 20.Õd2 Ãb4 21.©g7 30.Õc6 Ãc6 31.©d4 Àf6 32.g5
(21.Õd1!? Õc7 22.©g7 Õf8º) Õd8 33.©c3 ®g7 34.h4å.
21...Ãd2 22.©h8 Àe8 23.©h7º. 30.Õc8!
20.Àc3! Ãe7 30.Õe5 Õc1 31.Ãd1 Àf2 32.©a3!
20...a6!? came into consideration: Õd1 33.®h2 Õf7 34.©c3 is proba-
21.Àd5 (21.Õd2!?º) 21...Àd5 bly also good, but the text is more
22.Ãd5º. convincing.
21.Àb5 ®f8 30...Àf3
21...Õf8 22.Õd2º. 30...Àd3 31.Õf8 ®g7 32.Õf7ê.
22.Àd6 Ãd6 31.®h1!
22...®g7!?. 31.®f1?? Ãc8.
23.©d6 ®g7 24.g4! g5 25.Õc5 31...Àf2
25.h4!? was possible too: 25...Ãg4 31...Õc8 32.©e4 Ãc6 33.©e7
26.hg5 Õhf8 (26...Àg8? 27.©f4 Àd4 34.®h2 Àb3 35.©f6 ®g8
Ãh5 28.©d2ê) 27.©g3 (27.gf6 36.©e6ê.
Õf6 28.©g3 Õd8Ç/º) 27...Õcd8 32.®g2 Àe1
28.©h4 Ãf3 29.gf6 (29.Õc6!? bc6
30.©h6 ®h8 31.gf6 Õg8 32.®h2
Õg6 33.©f4Ç) 29...Õf6 30.Õc5å.
._R_.t.m
25...Õhf8! jJ_L_._J
25...h6 26.Õc6! Õc6 27.©e7 ®g6 ._._._._
28.©f7X; 25...®g6 26.h4!ê. _._._._.
26.Õg5 ®h8 27.Õc5
It was difficult to decide which
._._._I_
rook move is better. Maybe the _B_Qi._I
other one: 27.Õb5! and now: Ii._.sK_
A) 27...Àd4 (I was afraid of this _._.s._.
possibility) 28.©d4 Ãb5 29.g5
®g7 30.©e5å; 33.®f1 1-0
B) 27...Õcd8 28.Õb7 Àa5 Endre Végh
29.Õd7 Àd7 30.Ãe6 Àb7 Budapest, Hungary
(30...Àf6 31.©a6 Õd1 32.®g2
Àd5 33.Ãf5 e3 34.®f3 Àe7 Editorial Postscript:
35.©a5 Õd5 36.©c3 ®g8 37.fe3 The crucial test remains 6...Àf6!
Àf5 38.gf5 Õdf5 39.®e4å) 7.©b3 Àc6!, banking on rapid de-
31.©d5 Àbc5 32.©d4 Õf6
33.Ãd7 Àd7 34.g5 Õg8 35.®f1
velopment.
Õg5 36.©d7å.
27...e3?
27...Õcd8í 28.©c7 Ãc8 (Black My Most Beautiful Move
can complicate the game with
28...Àd4!? and after 29.©b7º his by Willy Hendriks
chances are at least not worse) IG 4.16 (C24) YB 85, 87
29.Õg5 Õd7 30.©f4 and now:
A) 30...Õg7 31.Õg7 ®g7 32.©g5 A few years ago I was looking at a
®h8 33.©h6 Àd7 34.Ãc2! Õf6 line in the Bishop’s Opening that
(34...Õe8 35.f3!å) 35.©e3å; was discussed in Yearbooks 85 and
B) 30...Õdd8 31.©c7 Õd7 87. I got rewarded for my efforts –
32.©f4 Õdd8=. not only with a novelty but most of
28.fe3 Àe4 all with a brilliant move. Not a di-
28...Õcd8 is not as strong now: rect winning move, but a move that
29.©c7 Ãc8 30.Õc1 and Black helped White out of a seemingly
has to suffer for the draw. Still my desperate situation into a position
opponent should have played this. with a small advantage. The most
29.©d3 Àe5 beautiful move of my career, as I
21
described it in an article for the
Dutch magazine Schaaknieuws.
But I’m afraid I am not going to
make it to the top lists of most
beautiful moves ever played. Not
only did I not find the move myself
(Fritz did) but, more importantly, I
did not get the chance to play it.
Still, I came close! Half a year after
I discovered my move, I was only
one move away, but alas, my oppo-
nent, playing a bit too fast, missed
the critical move.
Hendriks,Willy
Spanton,Timothy
Hastings 2005/06 (5)
1.e4 e5 2.Ãc4 Àf6 3.d3 c6
4.Àf3 d5 5.Ãb3
TsLdMl.t
jJ_._JjJ
._J_.s._
_._Jj._.
._._I_._
_B_I_N_.
IiI_.iIi
rNbQk._R
5...Ãb4
The main line is 5...Ãd6 after
which White plays 6.Àc3 or takes
on d5, see Evgeny Vladimirov’s
Survey in Yearbook 85. The text
renders 6.Àc3 impossible in case
of White’s reply 6.c3.
Another interesting option is
5...a5, introduced by Bareev
against Kasparov, Linares 1993,
and revived by Svidler in recent
times – see Konstantin Landa’s
Survey in Yearbook 87.
6.Ãd2 Ãd2 7.©d2
White is scoring well with 7.Àbd2
although it is not looking very dan-
gerous. But in these slow Italian
games the white player sometimes
has to be satisfied with an advan-
tage that is not perceivable with the
naked eye.
7...de4
After 7...©d6 slow methods prom-
ise White little. In a recent rapid
22
game Leko opted for 8.©g5 against
Gelfand and managed to win, Ka-
ren Asrian Memorial 2008.
8.Àe5 0-0
TsLd.tM_
jJ_._JjJ
._J_.s._
_._.n._.
._._J_._
_B_I_._.
IiIq.iIi
rN_.k._R
9.de4N
The direct sacrifice 9.Àf7 is what
Mitkov played against Murey,
France tt 1994. That game contin-
ued 9...Õf7 10.de4 ©e7 11.Ãf7
®f7 12.f3 Ãe6 13.0-0 (later – and
also a year after my own game –
Rodney Perez managed to throw
up some kind of blockade against
the inventor of the line after
13.Àc3 Àbd7 14.©e3 Àb6 15.b3
©a3 16.0-0 Õe8 17.Õad1 Àbd7
18.Õd2 ©c5 19.©c5 Àc5 20.Õfd1
®e7 21.Õd4 Ãc8 22.Àe2 Õf8
23.Õ4d2 Àe6 24.Õe1 Àh5 and
managed to draw on move 44,
Carlos Torre Memorial 2006)
13...Àa6 14.Àc3 Õd8 15.©e3
©c5 16.©c5 Àc5 17.Õad1 and
White won the endgame with ease.
9...©e7
After 9...©d2 10.Àd2, e4 is pro-
tected and White is simply a pawn
up. But after the text move White’s
novelty on move 9 looks like non-
sense. Black has played only natu-
ral moves and threatens to win back
pawn e4 with very good play. The
only move to prevent this, 10. ©f4,
looks impossible.
10.©f4 Àh5 11.Ãf7 Õf7
Having made my last move my
heart started pounding. After the
critical move 11...®h8 I already
saw people crowding around the
board, wondering how I would save
myself, and then looking at my re-
ply in utter disbelief.
In training sessions and elsewhere
I have showed this position to pu-
NEW IN CHESS
Willy Hendriks
pils and also stronger players, and
most of them, even after long
thinks, didn’t find the move Fritz
had come up with half a year ear-
lier, when I looked at this varia-
tion. It would have been my most
beautiful move ever:
TsL_.t.m
jJ_.dBjJ
._J_._._
_._.n._S
._._Iq._
_._._._.
IiI_.iIi
rN_.k._R
12.©g3!!.
White moves his queen back to a
square where it is still attacked.
Black has no better than 12...Õf7
(12...Àg3? leads to a beautiful sym-
metrical line-opening: 13.Àg6 hg6
14.hg3 and mate follows) 13.Àf7
(13.©g5!?) 13...©f7 14.©d6 and
now we have the rook+two pawns
versus bishop and knight with
queens still on the board. I guess
White has the better chances.
12.©f7 ©f7 13.Àf7 ®f7
Again we have the familiar end-
game where White has rook+two
pawns versus bishop+knight.
White is clearly better since his two
pawns do count in this position.

14.Àd2 Ãe6?! 15.f4 g6 16.0-0
Àf6 17.f5!å gf5 18.ef5 Ãd5
19.c4 Ãe4 20.Õf4
20.Àe4! Àe4 21.Õad1ê.
20...Ãd3 21.Õd4 Ãf5?
21...Ãc2 22.Õc1 c5! with small
hopes for survival.
22.Õf1 Ãg6?!
22...Ãe6 23.Àe4 Àd7 24.Õd7
Ãd7 25.Àf6ê.
23.Õd6 1-0
From the Internet Forum
a letter by Viktor Moskalenko
FR 4.4 (C11) YB 33
While I was playing the Montcada
Open in June/July, I found an in-
teresting discussion on the Classi-
cal French with 7...©b6 on the
Forum page of Chesspublishing.
Curiously, I was able to take advan-
tage from an idea suggested there,
in the last and decisive round, when
this same line appeared on the
board against Bulgarian grandmas-
ter Julian Radulski. I wanted to sur-
prise my opponent with a sharp
variation of the French.
Here is what Milen Petrov wrote:
‘Hello, it would be interesting for
me to learn what Moskalenko says
(in his book The Flexible French)
about the following line:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 Àf6 4.e5
Àfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Àf3 Àc6 7.Ãe3
©b6!? 8.Àa4 ©a5 9.c3 cd4
10.b4 Àb4 11.cb4 Ãb4 12.Ãd2
Ãd2 13.Àd2 0-0 14.Ãd3 b5
15.Àb2
This line is mentioned in
Khalifman’s book Opening ac-
cording to Anand Vol. 6, but he
only mentions 15...Àc5 and
15...©c3. I think that Black has a
very interesting and better alterna-
tive to these two moves, namely
15...Àb6!?. I analysed the result-
ing position for some time but
cannot find any good ideas for
White. It would be interesting to
hear your opinion about this line
(especially after 15...Àb6)...’
The line looks very risky. In my
book The Flexible French I don’t
really recommended it for Black.
I did not have much free time to
prepare, but curiously, I found an
interesting idea, to be used in one
game only...
Radulski,Julian
Moskalenko,Viktor
Montcada 2008 (9)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Àc3 Àf6 4.e5
Àfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Àf3 Àc6 7.Ãe3
©b6
T_L_Ml.t
jJ_S_JjJ
.dS_J_._
_.jJi._.
._.i.i._
_.n.bN_.
IiI_._Ii
r._QkB_R
I mention this in Game 39 of The
Flexible French as an almost for-
gotten idea.
8.©d2!
White sacrifices the b2 pawn. This
is the second popular move in this
line, with 142 games in MegaBase.
My opponent had always played
this move in previous games.
A) More frequent is 8.Àa4!?
(MegaBase = 850 games) 8...©a5
9.c3 cd4 10.b4 Àb4 11.cb4 Ãb4
12.Ãd2 Ãd2 13.Àd2 ‘and Black
does not get enough compensation
for the piece’ – as I summarized in
the book, after analysing many
games) 13...0-0 14.Ãd3 (14.Õc1
f6ÿ) 14...b5!? 15.Àb2
T_L_.tM_
j._S_JjJ
._._J_._
dJ_Ji._.
._.j.i._
_._B_._.
In.n._Ii
r._Qk._R
Forum
15...Àb6!? (Petrov) 16.0-0 Àc4
17.Ãh7!! ( – Moskalenko. White
must attack immediately. An inter-
esting line is 17.Àb3 ©a3í
18.Ãh7 ®h7 19.©h5 ®g8 20.Õf3
f6!? (20...©b2 21.Õg3! £ 22.Õxg7
looks drawish) 21.Àd3 fe5º)
17...®h7 18.©h5 ®g8 19.Àf3 f6í
(19...g6 20.©h6 ©c7 21.Àd3¤)
20.ef6 ©c7í 21.Àc4 dc4 (21...bc4
22.fg7 ©g7 23.Àe5 Õf5 24.©h4Ê)
22.fg7 ©g7 23.Õae1¤. Personally,
I don’t like this type of position,
where my king is exposed.
Two other popular answers don’t
help White to gain an advantage:
B) 8.a3 cd4 9.Àd4 Àd4 10.Ãd4
Ãc5 11.Àa4 ©a5 12.b4 ©a4
13.bc5 b6!ÿ 14.cb6 ab6 15.Ãe2
Ãa6 16.Ãa6 ©a6 and Black won
this favourable endgame, Kobalia-
Bareev, Moscow 1999;
C) 8.Ãe2 cd4 9.Àd4 Ãc5
10.Àa4 ©a5 11.c3 Àd4 12.Ãd4
Ãd4 13.©d4 b6 (13...Àb8!?
Ivanchuk-Borges Mateos, Sharjah
Wch-jr 1985; 13...0-0 14.0-0
b6ÿ) 14.Ãd1 Ãa6 (14...©b5!?
Dreev-Moskalenko, Lvov 1985)
15.b4 ©b5 16.Àb2 ©c6 17.Ãa4
(17.a4 ©c7ÿ Mitkov-Paredes
Galan, Lalin 1994) 17...©c7
18.®f2 (Mitkov-Shmeliov, Las
Vegas 2007) and now 18...0-0!
with a good position for Black.
8...©b2
If 8...Ãe7 9.0-0-0!. The main line
is first 8...cd4 and then 9...©b2.
9.Õb1 ©a3 10.Ãb5!?
A sharp and very interesting move.
10.Ãe2 a6! 11.f5 cd4 12.fe6?
de3î and Black wins too much
material, Fluvia Jordi-Vaganian,
Barcelona 2007.
T_L_Ml.t
jJ_S_JjJ
._S_J_._
_BjJi._.
._.i.i._
d.n.bN_.
I_Iq._Ii
_R_.k._R
23
10...c4
My (and Fritz’s) main idea for this
game. But now I am not sure if it’s
the best practical choice.
A) 10...a6!? may be a clearer op-
tion: 11.Ãc6 (11.Ãa4 Àa5!?)
11...bc6. In our post-mortem anal-
ysis Radulski mentioned 12.0-0!?
(ã 12.dc5 Ãc5 Fleurdumal-
Wornath, Internet 2004) 12...c4
13.f5 ef5 14.Àh4 g6 15.g4 with a
strong attack (’must be wining’, in
Radulski’s words). However, here
my ‘home Fritz’ value is about –
2.00 in Black’s favour!;
B) Inferior seems to be
10...Àdb8?! (Shomoev-Volkov,
Sochi 2004) 11.Õb3 ©a5 12.dc5Ê.
11.0-0!?
Unfortunately I hadn’t been able to
surprise my opponent but landed
in his preparation! From here he
started showing me that his knowl-
edge was better. 11.f5!?.
11...Ãb4 12.Õb4
Another key moment.
T_L_M_.t
jJ_S_JjJ
._S_J_._
_B_Ji._.
.rJi.i._
d.n.bN_.
I_Iq._Ii
_._._Rk.
12...©b4
12...Àb4!? 13.f5! ef5 14.Àh4 g6
15.g4!? a6 (15...fg4 16.Ãh6!Ê)
16.gf5!Å Radulski. But this posi-
tion must also be checked with an
engine. For example: 16...©b2!?
17.Àd1 c3º.
13.f5! ef5?
This leads to a favourable end-
game for White. But what to do?
My recommendation is to study
deeply alternatives like:
A) 13...h6!? 14.Àh4 Àf8
15.Àe4 ©d2 16.Àd6 ®e7 17.Ãd2
Àd4 18.Ãb4 Àb5 19.Àb5 ®d8
0-1 Vialaret-Couttet, Cannes
1995;
24
The Flexible French
B) 13...Àb6 14.f6 gf6 15.Ãc6
bc6 16.ef6¤.
14.Àd5
14.Õb1!?.
14...©d2 15.Àd2 0-0
15...c3.
16.Àc4Ç
Here my opponent offered a draw.
But I wanted to improve my score.
Unfortunately Radulski also
played strongly technically!
16...Àb6 17.Àcb6 ab6 18.a4
Ãe6 19.Àb6 Õad8 20.c3 h6
21.Ãc1 Àa7 22.Ãa3 Àb5
23.ab5 Õfe8 24.Ãd6 f6Ç ½-½
After, for example, 25.c4! fe5
26.de5 Õa8í 27.Àa8 Õa8 28.c5
Õa2, Black has practical chances
of a draw.
As we can see after some fresh ana-
lytical work, White continues to
dominate in this line. However, the
ideas of the Bulgarians Milen
Petrov and Radulski (who knows
they are friends or neighbours!) de-
serve great attention. Clearly, old
games do not help to comprehend
these positions, nor do modern
modules understand them well.
8.©d2 may be White’s best op-
tion, whereas 8.Àa4!? is interest-
ing, if White continues 17.Ãh7! or
first 17.Àb3!?.
I was caught unprepared in this
game, but still the French remains
Flexible!
Viktor Moskalenko
Barcelona, Spain
I’m First!
by Luiz Roberto Da Costa Jr.
SI 8.13 (B97) YB 87
I read the challenge to write about
the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn in the
FORUM (Yearbook 87, pp.19-20).
So I decided to check the position
of the diagram on move 21.
1.e4 c5 2.Àf3 d6 3.d4 cd4
4.Àd4 Àf6 5.Àc3 a6 6.Ãg5 e6
7.f4 ©b6 8.©d2 ©b2 9.Õb1
©a3 10.f5 Àc6 11.fe6 fe6
12.Àc6 bc6 13.e5 de5 14.Ãf6
gf6 15.Àe4 Ãe7 16.Ãe2 h5
17.Õb3 ©a4 18.Àf6 Ãf6 19.c4
Ãh4 20.g3 Ãe7 21.0-0 h4!
T_L_M_.t
_._.l._.
J_J_J_._
_._.j._.
D_I_._.j
_R_._.i.
I_.qB_.i
_._._Rk.
I agree that this position is
hopeless for the white side after
any of the queen moves. The last
attempt is the bishop move which
was not mentioned in the
contribution by Mr. Alberts:
22.Ãd3 If 22.©d3 ©a2!î or
22.©c2 ©a5!î and finally
22.©d1 Ãc5! 23.®h1 Ãd4!î
22...Õg8! 22...Ãc5? 23.®h1!
Õg8í 24.©h6¤ 23.©f2 ®d7!
24.Õd1 ©a5! 25.Ãh7 ®c7
26.Ãg8 Ãc5 27.Õe3 Ãd7
28.®g2 Õf8 29.©e2 Õg8
30.Õe5 hg3 31.hg3 ©b6ç
Luiz Roberto Da Costa Jr.
Campinas, Brazil
Editorial Postscript
There is far more ‘old’ theory on
this line, introduced in 1980 by the
late Peter Szekely (1955-2003),
than Messrs. Alberts and Da Costa
Jr seem to be aware of. We will re-
turn to this in the next issue.