Batsford Chess Library

The Leningrad Dutch

Jaan Ehlvest

An Owl Book

Henry Holt and Company '\..._ . ' New York Henry Holt andCmnpany , Inc. Publishers since1866 115 West 18th Street New York, New York 10011

Henry Holt® is a registered trademark of Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Copyright© 1993 by jaan Ehlvest All rights reserved. First published in the Unjted States in 1993 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Originally published in Great Britainin 1993 by B. T. Batsford Ltd.

Ubrary of Congress Catalog Card Number: 93-77841

ISBN G-8050-2944-3 (AnOwl Book: pbk.)

FirstAmerican Edition-1993

Printed in the United Kingdom All first editions are printed on acid-free paper. a::l

10 9 8 7 6 s 4 3 2

Adviser: R D. Keene, GM, OBE Technical Editor: Andrew Kinsman Contents

Symbols 6

Introduction 7

1 Main line with 7 ... �e8 9

2 Main line with 7 ... c6 42

3 Main line with 7 ... � 61

4 Avoiding the Main lines 79 s Systems with an early b3 89

6 Systems with 4Jh3 m

7 Systems with c3 123

Index of Variations 135 Syn1bols

+ Check ++ Double check mate Checkmate Good move !! Excellent move ? Bad move ?? Blunder !? Interesting move ?! Dubious move ± Small advantage for White + Small advantage for Black ± Clear advantage for White + Clear advantage for Black +- Winning advantage for White -+ Winning advantage for Black The position is equal co The position is unclear co With counterplay 1-0 White wins G-1 Black wins 1 f24 Draw ol Olympiad izt Interzonal zt Zonal Ch Championship corr Correspondence Introduction

The Dutch Leningrad system (1 d4 fS 2 g3 4::f6 3.Qg2 g6) was first regularly studied and played in Leningrad during the mid 1930s. For a long time it was quite unpopular, although some top players occasionally used it as a reserve opening. However, the Dutch Defence, and particularly the Leningrad system, appeared more and more often in tournaments in the 1980s. This was due to the fact that, compared to many classical openings, the Dutch Defence in general, and the Leningrad system in particular, are much less heavily analysed. Unlike many other openings, the Leningrad rarely results in symmetrical positions leading to drawish endgames; play instead revolves around strategic situations in which creative solutions are required from both sides. This book has taken into account the opinion and practice of Mikhail Botvinnik and Mark Taimanov who greatly influeneced the development of the Leningrad system. A great deal of attention has also been paid to the games of grandmasters Mikhail Gurevich and Vladimir Malaniuk - the modem innovators of the Leningrad variation. Naturally all the important games of recent years are included. How should you read this book? Dear chess-friend, you should not take the analysis presented here as the final word but learning these ideas will help to develop your skills in understanding irregular positions. One should not concentrate on memorising every variation, although their importance should not be under­ estimated, but should instead learn the meaning of plans, themes and manoeuvres. After careful study the Leningrad system will be an invaluable addition to your repertoire, leading to dynamic positions with plenty of scope for original ideas. 1 Main Line with 7 ... tye8

1 d4 fS A 2 g3 4:)£6 8 dS (2) 3 ,Og2 g6 4 4:13 ,Og7 s o-o o-o 2 6 c4 d6 B !! 7 4Jc3 �e8 (f) 1 � J.��� � ?��f!:J�}--�

w �.L·m.. w Il-L

� w �.L�.. . � � �1:� �:it�� -� � � �. N.."� �.r.--,. ·m. "'"�� � �. ��� · .. . . 9 "'� ""� � 9 · "'� ""� � ?'F '". Here Black has: 8 �. . 8 �:;a.�. . . .  . ���ttm. · A1 8 ... 4Ja6 The system characterised by A2 8 ... aS 7 ... �e8 began to appear regu- larly in tournaments at the A1 startof the 1980s and has been 8 4Ja6 used often and successfully by Grandmaster Vladimir Malan- Now White usually chooses iuk. We will explore the fol- between: lowing lines for White: A11 9 4Jd4 A 8dS A12 9 Wl1 B 8b3 A13 9 �e3 and others C 8 �e1 D 8 4JdS A11 E 8�b3 9 4Jd4 (3) F 8 e4 In recent years 9 c£Jd4 has 10 Main line with 7 ... �e8 been seen relatively infrequent­ fxg3 17 fxg3 cxd5 18 cxd5 .Qg4 ly, as 9 frb1 has become the 19 '/tid2 and Black has difficul­ standard choice. ties in defending his pawn

weaknesses; Sveshnikov - Gab­ 3 darkhmanov, USSR 1984. B b) 10 e3 c6 11 b3 (More active seems 11 ;gb1!? ;gb8 {11 ... cfJc7 12 b4 cxd5 13 cxd5 lJ.cB 14 a4 cf)aB 15 �b3t Gavrilov - Gurevich, USSR19 82} 12 a3 {12 b4 c5} 12 ... {F5 13b4 4jce4 14 {Jxe4 {Jxe4 15 '/tid3 c5 16 � .Q.xe6 17 dxe6 cxb4 18 axb4 '/ticS 19 .Q.xe4 fxe4 20 '/tixe4 gf6 21 �b 2 '/tixe6 22 9 .Q.d7 '/tid3 gff8 and Black has suc­ Instead of thls move there ceeded in maintaining the has also occurred 9 . . . c£jc5 10 balance; Knaak - Espig, East b3 (10 b4!?) 10 ... .Q.d7 11 .Q.b 2 a6 Germany 1984) 11 . . 4jc7 12 .O.b 2 12 '/tic2 ;gb8 13 gael � 4 14 e3 c5 13 4)le2? (Better would be 13 g5 15 b4 @4 16 {Jxa4 .Q.xa4 17 c£Jf3 bS 14 '/tic2 with the idea of '/tie2 �d7 18 f4 with a slight 4)l2, f4, gael, e4 - Malaniuk) 13 advantagefor White; Uebert - ... b5 14 '/tic2 ;gb8. Already it is Okhotnik, Halle 1987. White who has problems and 10 e4 after 15 gael? bxc4 16 bxc4 This position has been much �4 Black gained the advan­ played and deeply analysed. tage in Beliavsky - Malaniuk, Instead of 10 e4, Botvinnik has USSR Ch 1983. suggested 10 c£jb3. In practice c) 10 b3 c6 (10 ... c5!? 11 4Jc2?! four more variations have been {11dxc6 bxc6 121J.b2 J1c8 13 !fb1 tried: cf'F5 14 b4 c£'Fe4 15 c£Jb3 �f7=

a) 10 ge14jc5 (If 10 ... c6 11 e4 Magai - Petelin, USSR 1988} 11 fxe4 12 {Jxe4 {Jxe4 13 .O.xe4 ... 4:Je4 {11 ... bS!} 12 {Jxe4 �xa1 t;J::-7 14 ;gbt c5 15 4:Je2 with 13 c£jxa1 fxe4 14 -'lxe4 and equal chances, Kindermann - White has a slight initiative - Wegner, Hamburg 1991) 11 b3 (11 Tukmakov) 11 .Q.b2 {F7 12 '/tid2 '/tic2 c6 12 c£jb3? 4jce4! 13 {Jxe4 (12 gd ;gb8 13 '/tid2 c5 14 c£Jf3 a6 fxe4 14 .Q.xe4 '/tif7! 15 �e3 cxd5 {Dubious is the immediate 14 ... 16 cxd5 gfc8 17 '/tid3 {Jxe4 18 bS 15 cxbS cfJxbS16 cfJxbS !1xb5 '/tixe4 ,O_f5 19 '/tih4 .O.xb2+ Prak­ 17 1J.xf61J.xf6 18 �c2 with the hov - Bertholdt, Bad Salzungen idea of cfJi2 - c4 with a slight

1960) 11 . .. c6 12 .Q.b2 aS 13 ;gb1 g5 advantage for White according 14 e3 f4 15 exf4 gxf4 164jce2 to Kremenietsky} 15 '/tic2 bS 16 Main linewith 7 ... �eB 11 012 e5!? 17 dxe6 .O,xe6 18 .O,a1 {13 t£1;2?! b5 14 cxb5 fjxbS 15 {18 e4? is not suitable, e.g. 18 ... f)xb5 1J.xb5 16 f)a3 aS+ Larsen bxc4 19 bxc4 fxe4 20 cfjcxe4 - Yrjola, Espoo zt 1989 or 13 !!xb2+ - Kremenietsky} 18 ... fy61J.xe6 14 dxe6 [fbB= Cvet­ tt;Je7and a complicated position kovic - Malaniuk, Vmjacka with equal chances has arisen; Banja 1991} 13 ... �8 14 � b5 F. Lengyel - Kremenletsky, 15 cxb5 4JxbS 16 4Jc4 g5 17 Satu-Mare 1983) 12 ... cS 13 4Jf3 {jxbS�xbS 18 tt;Jc2 f 4 19 tt:;f5 h6 a6 14 gael bS 15 tt;Jd3 �8 16 .O,a1 20 gxf4 �d7 and Black has h6 17 � �4 18 e3 (Stefanov good prospects of counter­ - Marasescu, Romania 1983) play; Ry shk.ov - Zarubin, Lenin­ and White has an opportunity grad 1983) 12 .. . e5 13 dxe6 (13 to obtain a dominating position dxc6 {13 cfjb3cxdS} 13 ... exd4 14 in the centre with the plan h3, cxd7 tt;Jxd7 15 4ja4 4Je4 16 �b 2 f4 and e4. bS+ - Tukmakov) 13 ... 4Jxe6 14 d) 10 �1!? (Apart from the 4Jh3!? (14 e3) 14 ... �4 15 �b 2 main line, this is the most 4]25 16 4Jd2 with an unclear logical plan, preparing action position; Tukmakov - Gurevich, on the queenside) 10 .. . c6 (4) USSR 1982. (Not 10 ... c5? 11 4Je6!±) and d2) After 11 b4 Black found now: the interesting 11 .. . 4Jxb4 and after 12 gxb4 c5 13 {)::b5 cxb4 14 4Jc 7 tt;Jc8 15 4Jxa8 4]24 16 �xe4 fxe4 17 �5 gf7 18 4Jc2 tt;Jxa8 19 4Jxb4 .O,h3 achieved a superior position in Karasev - Cherepkov, Leningrad 1984. Other games with 11 b4 show Black is able to achieve an active position, e.g. 11 ... c5 12 4Je6 cxb4 13 4Jxf8�8 14 4Jb5 .O,xbS 15 cxbS tt;JxbS 16 tt;;d2 gc8, as in Boguslawsky - Beim, Voskresensk 1992, where Black had very active play for the exchange and went on to win. d1) 11 b3 {[j::. 7 12 b4!? (Serious Or 11 b4 gc8 12 .O,a3 �f7 13 e3 attention should be paid to 12 cxd5 14 4Jxd5 gxc4 15 4Jxf6+ dxc6!? bxc6 13 b4 e5 14 4Jb3tt;Je7 Roder - Santo Roman, Lyon 15 e4!? with a somewhat better Open 1990, with complications. position for White. Dubious, d3) 11 a3 gc8 (11 ... 4Jc 7 12 e4 however, is 12 .Q.b2?! c5 13 4Jf3 e5 - Meulders) 12 b4 c5 13 4Je6 12 Main Line with 7 .. . �eB

�xe6 14 dxe6 cxb4 15 axb4 gxc4 16 �xb7 gxc3 17 �xa6 6 with an unclear position; Shvid- B ler - van Mil, Belgiwn 1987. Returning to the position after 10 e4 (5).

5 B

gc8 15 �e3 aS 16 �d2 a4 17 gab1 e5 led to equality in Portisch - Gurevich, Moscow GMA t

12 .Q.xe4 (6) (Correct was 21 .. . gf5! after This is one of the critical which White's centre would positions of the 7 ... �e8 varia­ have been destroyed) Yrjola - tion. Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987.

12 ... 4Jc5 b) !2 . . . c5?! 13 4:Je6! (Less Alternatively: promising is 13 dxc6 bxc6 14

a) 12 . . . c6 13 �e3 (13 dxc6 gb1 c£jc5 {Also possible is 14 . . . bxc6 is considered below under gc8 15 �e3 'l:jfl 16 'l$e2 eS 17 b' whilst 13 h4!? 4):5 14 !lg2 4Jh3 t-;$7 18 1Jg2 dS with an Main line with 7 ... �eB 13 obscure position; Schmidt - A position with equal chan­ Grigorov, Prague 1985} 15 �2 ces has arisen; van der Sterren e5 16 4Je2 �e7 17 Qe3 4Je6 18 - Beliavsky, Wijk aan Zee 1984. �d2 gfc8 19 ;gbd1 �f8 20 4)::1 �7 21 4Jd3 gc7 22 f4 exf4 23 A12 �xf4 with a superior position 9 IDJ1 (8) for White; Vukic - Minic, Yugo­ A fashionable and dangerous slavia 1984, but as Vukic added move. in his comments, Black had a golden opportunity to play 18 ... 8 c5 19 Qxa8 gxa8 with gcxxl B compensation) 13 ... Qxe6 14 dxe6 �8 15 h4! bS 16 h5 gxh5 17 �g2 Qd4; van der Sterren - Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987. Here White could have gained great advantage by 18 Qh6! (Kijk), for example 18 ... gf6 19 Qg5 gf8 20 f4 bxc4 21 �1 with the idea of ;gh1 x h5 with a winning attack. 9 cS Returning to the position Instead: after 12 ... 4Jc5 (7). a) 9 ... Qd7 10 b4 (10 c£jd4 transposes to the variation 9 7 {}l4.(ld7 10 �1 whilst 10 b3 c6 w 11 .Q.b2 4Jc7 12 a3 h6 13 4Jd4 �8 14 b4 e5 15 dxe6 4:Jxe6 16 @3 'ff;e 7 = Matamoros - Horvath, Gausdal 1986 and 10 gel?! also fails to cause problems for Black: 10 ... c6 11 b3 h6 12 Qb2 'ffJf7 13 4Jd4 ;gac8= Stone - Chernin, St John 1988) 10 ... c6 (10 ... c5 11 dxc6 is considered 13 .Q.g2 aS below under the move order 9 14 .o,gs ... c5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 b4, but not 14 Qe3! with the idea of �d2, 10 .. . e5? 11 dxe6 Qxe6 12 c£jd4 Qh6, gael - Simic. Qxc4 13 Qxb 7 gb8 14 Qc6± 14 t!Jf7 Rukavina - Cvitan, Yugoslavia 15 �d2 �xd4!? 1986) 11 'ff;d3!? (Other variations 16 �xd4 eS! are not promising for White: 11 17 �c3 �fS �b3 6i:F7 124Jd4 c£Jfxd5 13 cxd5 18 f4 �xd4 14 dxc6 .Q.e6 15 c£jd5 bxc6 14 Main line with 7 ... �eB

16 4:Jxc7 .clxb3 17 4:Jxe8 �a2 18 a4 Qd7 14 ;gbe1 � 15 e4 fxe4 .clb2 .clxb1 19 .clxd4 ,O_e4 20 f3 16 4::}xe4 4Jh 7 17 ;ge3 ,O.xb2 18 with equal chances in Karimov �b2 �g7 19 �g7+ �g7± 20 - lvanchuk, Tashkent 1984; 11 4::}xd6 ?? exd6 o-1 Tunoschenko dxc6 bxc6 transposes to the - Bareev, Irkutsk 1986) 10 ... variation 9 .. . cS 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 cxd5 11 4::}xd5 �4 12 4:Jg5 4:Jc3 b4; but recently Mikhail Gure­ 13 4Jxc3 .O,xc3 14 �b3!? (14 c5!) vich has experimented with 11 14 ... .O,.f6 (No better is 14 ...... O.xc6 to avoid this variation: .O.Xb4 15 c5+ �g7 16 cxd6 ,O.xd6 17 12 bS.O.xf3 13 .0.xf3 4:Jc5 14 .O,e3 :9:fd1 and White has a good :9:c8 15 .O.xc5?! {15 tfjd5;t} 15 ... position andcan exert pressure) :9:xc5 16 �b 7 :9:xc4co Gelfand - 15 c5+ � 7 16 cxd6 exd6 and Gurevich, llnares 1991; 11 a3 4:Jc 7 Black's pawn weakness, badly 12 4):14 cxd5 13 cxd5 � 14 positioned pieces, and open 4Jb3 and a draw was agreed in king position ensure a great Pigusov - Casper, Moscow advantage for White; Yrjola - 1987) 11 . . . 4je4 12 4Jd1 (12 Gurevich, Tallinn 1987. 4::}xe4?? fxe4 13 �xe4 .0.f5) 12 ... c) 9 . . . e5 has been the sub­ t;$. 7 (If 12 . . . c5 then 13 b5 ject of experimentation in the retains an edge and not 13 a3?! last few years: 10 dxe6 .clxe6 11 because after this move Black 4:1f4 c6 (11 ... 4:Jc5±) 12 b4! (12 himself plays 13 . .. bS) 13 .O.b2 4Jxe6 t1Jxe6 13 b3 ;gada 14 .a_a3 � (13 ... cxd5 is not good: 14 gfe8 15 �c2 4:Jc7= jo. Horvath .O.xg7 �g 7 15 cxd5 � 16 �5! - Santo Roman, Novi Sad ol

�d5?? 17 Qxe4 fxe4 18 �c3+ 1990) 12 . . �c4 13 b5 cxb5 14 and White wins - Vogt) 14 4:1fxh5 ;gda 1s .a_a3 ds 16 4Jl6 .clxg7 �g 7 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 4je3 with a winning position for �6 17 � 4:Jxd2 (17 ... t;$.3? 18 White; Salov - Gurevich, Reggio ;gb3 4::}xa2 19 �c2) 18 �xd2 f4 19 Emilia 1991192. t;$.2 4P> 20 b5 ;gaca 21 4Jb4 Returning to the position �d4 22 :9:fd1± Vogt - Casper, after 9 ... c5 (9) EastGermany 1987. b) 9 ... c6 10 b4 (10 dxc6 9 transposes to line 'c' in the next w note, but more modest is 10 b3 t;$. 7 {10. . . J)_d7!? 11JJ.b2cf)c5! ? 12 b4 cf)ce4 13 cfjxe4 fx e4 14 cfE5 cxd5 15 cxd5 J;.f5 16 c£je6 i}_xe6 17 dxe6 e3 with an unclear position; Skalkotas - Kw-tesis, Greece 1988} 11 ,O.b2 h6 12 �d2 c5 {12... JJ.d7is more natural} 13 Main line with 7 ... &eB 15

10 b3 vich, Manila izt 1990. In this line Again White has several Black also fails to equalise alternatives: after 13 ... �d8 14 bS (14 {yj4 e5 a) 10 a3 h6 11 b4 g5 12 e3 �h5 15 4:Jb3 �e6 with an unclear 13 �e1 �4 14 @5 �d7 15 �b2 position- Bareev; 14 �d3 f4!, �xb2 16 �xb2 �fc8 17 �e2 CiY:-7 for example 15 �4? is now 18 0Jxc7 �xc7= Jelen- Psakhis, not possible: 15 .. . {jxe4 16 Portoroz 1987. .clxg7 �g7 17 �e4 Qf5 18 b) 10 �e1 �7 11 e4 fxe4 12 �d4+ e5) 14 ... � 15 a4 ;gb8 16 �5 �4 13 �xe4 �f7 14 �e2 .cla3! with the idea of �d3± h6 15 h3 �5 with an unclear. (Bareev) and not 16 �c2 f4!co, position; Gorin- Dzuraiev, Sim­ as in the game Damljanovic - feropol 1989. Bareev, Sochi 1988. c) Very fashionable nowa­ Mter 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 b4 .cld7 days is 10 dxc6!? bxc6 11 b4 (10) White can also push on with 12 bS CiY:-5 13 c£jd4 4:Jfe4 (13 ... cxb5 10 14 .clxa8 �xa8 15 c£jdxb5 �c8 16 B {yj5± Piket- Gurevich, Gronin­ gen 1992) 14 c£jxe4 {jxe4 15 bxc6 .clxc6 16 � �c8!co Hracek - Malaniuk, Kecskemet 1991. 10 ... tt:Jc7 Others: a) 10 ... 4:Jh5 11 .clb2 f4 12 �4± - Gufeld. b) 10 ... h6!? 11.clb2 g5 12 �d2 Mikhail Gurevich reached this (If 12 e3 �g6 13 �e2 �f714 gbe1 position twice within a few �4 15 �c1.cld7 16 4Jd2 4Jxc3 17 weeks against Predrag Nikolic in �xc3 and White is slightly 1990. In the first game he tried better; Panzalovic - Cvetkovic 11 ... c5 (11 . .. ;gb8 runs into Yugoslavia 1991) 12 ... �h5 13 e3 trouble after 12 bS 4)::5 13 c£jd4 �d7 14 �1 f4 15 exf4 gxf4 16 cxbS 14 cxb5 �f7 15 �± Cvet­ �2 fxg3 17 {jxg3 �g6 112-if2 kovic- l..egky, Belgrade 1988) 12 Novikov- Malaniuk, Lvov 1988. bxc5 c£jxc5 13 �5 ,O_a6 14 �xa8 11 a4 �a8 with some compensation An interesting alternative is for the exchange; Nikolic - 11.clb2 b5 12ciJxbS {jxb5 13 cxb5 Gurevich, Moscow GMA 1990. �b5 14 4:Jd2 4:Jd7 15 .clxg7 Then he played 11 ... Qd7 12 a3 �g7 16 �e1 �b4 17 e4 with 4)::7 13 �b2 �h8?! 14 c5! dxc5 15 advantage to White; lvanchuk bxc5 4Jg4 16 4::J;t4 with advan­ - l..egky, USSR1987. tage to White; Nikolic - Gure- 11 b6 16 Main line with 7 ... &jeB

More promising than 11 ... A13 �d7 12 Qb2 b6 13 Wd2! (13 e4 9 ,O.e3 (12) fxe4 14 0.g5 e3 - Garzia Mar­ tinez; 13 4:Jb5 Wd8! {13 ... cfjxbS 14 axbS;t } 14 f;jxc7Wxc7 15 0.g5 h6 16 � .Q.xe6 17 dxe6 and White still has the advantage)

13 . .. a6 14 e4 fxe4 15 4Jg5 h6 (15 ... e3 16 Wxe3 4Jg4 17 We2 with a great advantage to White) 16 0.gxe4 (± - Vanheste) 16 ... 4Jh7? (16 ... b5 was slightly better) 17 cbe2! and White has a clear advantage; Garcia Martin­ White also hopes to seize ez - Lin Ta, Dubai 1986. the initiative in this position. In 12 e4!? comparison with the well­ On 12�b2 Black plays ... a?- analysed moves 9 cbd4 and 9 a6 and ... b 7- b5. �1, this variation is relatively

12 ... fxe4 rare. More rare is 9 Wc2 which 13 4JgS e3! creates no problems for Black, After 13 ... �4 White retains e.g. 9 ... Qd7 (Or 9 ... c6 10 �1 the advantage by 14 �c2 e3 15 t;5 7 11 gd1 h6 12 b4 cxd5 13 �e3 i:if5 16 c£Jge4- Ttmosch­ cxd5 i:id7 14 cbd4 gc8 15 Wd2 enko. Wf7 16 4:Jb3 4)24 17 f;jxe4 fxe4 14 ,O.xe3 ,O.fS 18 �4 Wxf4 19 Qxf4 4:Jb5 20 15 4Jge4 4:Jxe4 gbc1 cbc3 21 gd2 gc4 and 16 4:Jxe4 a6 (11) White's position is critical; Gladysh - lvanchuk, Tashkent 1984) 10 a3 c6 11 cbd2 gc8 b4 11 12 !':;5:7 13 Wb3 cxd5 14 cxd5 c£jb5 w with advantage to Black; Porth - Gross, Saarlouis 1986. 9 h6 The most fashionable move. Others: a) 9 ... �d7 has also been seen: 10 Wd2 4Jg4 11 .Q.f4 cbc5 12 h3 cbf6 13 cbd4 c6 with chances for both sides; Ker - Zsu. Black's position is not worse; Polgar, Wellington 1988.

Timoschenko- Malaniuk, T ash­ b) 9 .. . c6 10 gd (An inter­ kent 1987. esting possibility is 10 Wb3!? c5 Main line wi th 7 ... �eB 17

{10 ... l!)hB 111fae1 h6 121J.d4 eS olsk 1990} 11 �f 4. h6 12 h3 gS 13

13 dxe6 �xe6co Na wnkin - ,O.xg5 hxg5 14 hxg4 fxg4 {14 ... To zer, London 1991} 11 gael h6 f4 15 cfjxgS fxg3 16 f4:t} 15 12 �c1 t;J.:7 13 e4 f xe4 14 0f2 4:Jxg5 .O,h6 16 45e4 and the idea � 15 {Jdxe4 ;gb8 16 4:Jxf6+ of 17 f4 gives the advantage to exf6 17 i:lf4 gd8 18 �4 .klf8 19 White - Marin) 11,klh6 �f? (11 ... �c3 �g7 20 b4 and Black faces bS!?) 12 �xg 7 �xg7 13 4Jg5;t serious difficulties; Naumkin - Marin - Timoshenko, Tallinn Dreev, jaroslavl 1983) 10 ... 4:Jg4 1989. (10 .. . h6 ?! 11 cS! 112� Petrosian to f!c1 - Psakhis, Erevan 1986. Sher and Or: Lysenko considered this posi­ a) 10 �cl \llh7 11 ;gbt e5 12 tion to be better for White, clxe6 �xe6 13 c£jd4 c6 14 4Jxe6 justifying their assessment tt;xe6 15 b3 4)::5 16 �c2 4Jfe4 17 with the following variation: 11 c£jxe4 4Jxe4 18 �1 and White ... 4:Jg4 12 �d4 �xd4 {12.. . dxcS has slightly the better game; 13 1J.xg71!}xg7 14 dxc6 �c6 15 Larsen - Vasiukov, Graested c[yS} 13 4:Jxd4 dxc5 14 dxc6 1990. cxd4 15 cxb 7) 11 Jlf4 (Also b) 10 ;gb1 �h7 11 b4 e5 12 possible are 11 �d4? �h6! with dxe6 �e6 13 cS gd8; Kalan­ the idea of ... cS or 11�d2 t;J.:5!? tarian- Ryskin USSR Team Ch with the idea of ... c£F5- e4 - 1991, where White has good Petro sian) 11 .. . h6 12 h3 4Jf6 13 chances of an attack on the i:le3 gS 14 {5l4 fld7 ...04 c5!? 15 queenside. �! - Petrosian) 15 f4! (15 'ffjc2 10 ... gS c£jh5 intending .. . f 4) 15 ... c£jh5 Less committal is 10 ... fld7, 16 \llh2 eS!? 17 dxe6 flxe6 18 as in Andersson - Kasparov, 4Jxe6 t!Jxe6 19 fld4 �g6 20 Madrid (rapid) 1989, which �g7 �g 7 21�d4+± Petrosian continued: 11 a3 c5 12 dxc6 bxc6 - Kotronias, Lvov 1988. 13 b4 4:Jc7 14 c5 4Jg 4 15 fld2 d5 c) 9 .. . cS 10 �d2 (Less pro­ 16 h3 {Jf6 with balanced chan- mising is 10 �cl c£F7!? 11 �h6 b5 ces.

12�xg 7 �g7 13 cxbS ;gb8 {13 .. . 11 �d4 �hS (13) cf)xh5!?} 14 a4 4Jcxd5 15 4JxdS 12 .Q.xf6! .Q.xf6 4JxdS16 4:Jd4 ctJb4 17 t;J.:6 4Jxc6 13 4Jd4 18 flxc6 �f?= Djukanovic - With the idea of f2- f 4. Blagojevic, Belgrade 1988) 10 ... 13 f4 i:ld7 (Dubious is 10 ... �4?! {10 14 a3 .Q.xd4

... cf)c711 a4 f;g4 121J.f4 1J.d713 15 �xd4 4Jc5 e4 1J.xc3 14 �c3 and lVhite has 16 f!ce1 �h3 the more active fXJSition; Pet­ 17 f3 rosian - Gabdrakhmanov, Pod- White has a slight advantage; 18 Mainline with 7 ... �eB

'f!;}xe4 �d8 18 �5 d5 19 cxd5 13 cxd5 20 'f/Je1 e4 21 Qxd8 �xd8 w 224:Jf4 Qxa1 23'f/Ja1 'f!;jd7; Krem­ enietsky- Piskov, Moscow 1989. In view of the threat 24 ... �xf4, White has no time to deal with the black centre. The position is balanced. b) 9 �e1 4Ja6 10 e4 fxe4 11 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 12 �xe4 {jc5 13 �4 (13 �e1 'f!;}f7 with the idea Petro sian - V asiukov, Novi Sad of ... �4) 13 ... a4! 14 4Jd4 (The 1988. only move) 14 ... �f6 15 �6 'f!Jf7 16 Qe3 Qd7!+ Krasnov- Piskov, A2 Moskow 1989. 8 aS (14) c) 9 e4 4Jxe4 10 4:Jxe4 fxe4 11 �S a4! (Sometimes threatening 14 ... a4 - a3) 12 4:Jxe4 Qf5! and w with . .. 4:Ja6 - cS following Black is able to transfer his pieces into good positions. d) 9 ;gb14Ja6 10 b3 �d7 11 a3 (11 c£jd4 4):5 12 a3 c6 13 �b2 �c8 14 �at g5 and Black has an

active position; Tunik - Gagarin,

Smolensk Cup 1991) 11 . .. c6 12 b4 axb4 13 axb4 c5 14 bxc5 1bis an interesting alterna­ 4:JxcS 15 �e3 �c8 16 �d4 h6 17 tive to the standard 8 .. . 4Ja6. 4:Jj2 g5 18 e3 f4 and Black has Black anticipates White's activ­ seized the initiative; Donchenko ity on the queenside and in - Vyzmanavin, USSR1986. some cases is ready to advance e) 9 Qe3!? 4Ja6 (9 ... h6 10 his pawn to a4 and a3. White's 4JbS {Or 10 cS fja.6 11 cxd6 exd6 hopes are associated with 121J.d4 b6 fNo t 12 ... bS? 13 a4 activity in the centre. b4 14 cf)bS but playable is 12 ... 9 4Jd4 gS 13 c£!12f4 14 cf)c4?! b6 15 a4 No less than five other moves 1J.d7 16 c£)a3 �g 6 with active have been seen here: play; A. Pe trosian - Glek, USSR a) 9 {Je14Ja6 10 4Jd3 e5 11 e4! Team Ch 19911 13 �c2 cf}::S 14 (11 dxe6 c6+) 11 ... c6!? 12 dxc6 Jjad1 1J.d7 15 cfjh4 c0£4 16 12,xg7 bxc6 13 b3 fxe4 14 4Jxe4 4:Jxe4 (!}xg7 17 e3 bS with a good 15 �xe4 !J.f5 16 'f/Je2 �xe4 17 game fo r Black; Ha ritonov - Main lJne with 7 ... �e8 19

Rskov, Moscow GMA 1989} 10 More passive is 10 b3 �d7 11 ... � 11 �d2 c£Jg4 12 �d4 b6 �b2 and now: and here, according to Piskov, a) 11 ... g5 12 e3 (Probably White has a slight advantage) better are 12 f3 or 12 f4 with 10 �d2e5 (Possible is 10 ... �d7 advantage to White) 12 ... f4 13 {Worse is 10 ... cfjg4 n 1J.f4 cf)c5 exf4 gxf4 14 4:Je6 �xe6 15 dxe6 12 h3 ij6 13 JJ.h6 e5 14 dxe6 c6 16 �2 fxg3 and Black has ije4 15 c£)xe4 c£)xe4 16 �e3 'good attacking chances. The JJ.xh6 17 �6 and Black 's king gamel.ukacs - Szabolcsi, Buda­ is somewhat exposed; Fo ­ pest 1991, continued 17 hxg3 minyh - Szaoolcsi, Budapest �4 18 .Q_h3�xb2 19 .Q.xg4 �xa1 1992} 11 .Q_h6 {11 )gael!?} 11 ... 4Jc5 20 �xa1 �g6 21-0_h3�h5 (}-1. rn ... �17 ?! 12 .tJ.xg7 �xg 7 13 b) 11 ... 4JcS 12 0}bS �c8 UJ4cfFS 14 f4! wi th advantage intending ... e7 - e5 with equal to Wflite; Kiimer - Raud, Haap­ chances. salu 1987} 12�xg 7 �g 7 13 4Jd4 c) 11 ... c6 12�d2 4Jc 7 13 gael e5 14 dxe6�xe6=) 11 dxe6 �e6 c5 14 4:Je{>! �xe6 (14 ... cfjxe6!?) 124Jg5 �e 7 ( 12... �xc4? 13 4Jd5) 15 dxe6 gb8? (Slightly better 13 0}5cfjxd5 14 �xd5+ (14 cxd5 was 15 ... cfjxe6 16 �xb 7 gb8±) b6) 14 ... �h8 14 �xaS�xb2 and 16 e4 f4 17 �h3 and the weak­ Black maintains the balance, ness of the square e6 gives e.g. 16 gabl�f6! White a clear advantage; Aru­ Now we return to the main laid- Raud, Haapsalu 1987. line with 9 0}4. Black's next 10 fxe4 move follows on naturally 11 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 from 8 ... aS. 12 .Q.xe4 ,C.h3 9 4Ja6 (15) Not 12 ... 4Jc5 13 �2 �d7 14 �5 h6 15 �e3 a4 16 �d2 �h7 17 gael �f? 18 �2! and Black has no compensation for his posi­ 15 tional weaknesses. w 13 �2 A recent game went 13 gel!? c£J:5 14 �hl � 15 �e3 e5 16 dxe6 cfjxe6 17 �d2± Otero - L. Valdes, Cuba 1992. 13 ... ,C_xg2 14 �g2 4JcS (16) This was the continuation of Cvitan - Piskov, Moscow GMA 1989. According to Piskov, the 10 e4 game should now have gone: 20 Main line with 7 ... �eB

below, things are not so easy. 16 w 17 w

15 �e1 t/Jf7 16 f4 9 dxeS dxeS With a slight advantage for 10 e4 White but Black has also some Placing the knight in the hope to organise counterplay centre gives White nothing, e.g. with 16 ... .,Clxd4. Not, however, 10 4JlS?!{jxdS 11 �dS+ �h8 12 15 �e3?! �f7 (15 ... e6) 16 �1 Qa3 �8 13 e4 t;J:i) 14 exfS gxfS c6!, when, as in the above­ 15 Qb2 tff}e7 (Thorsteins - Mala­ mentioned game, Black has niuk, Warsaw 1989) 16 {]xeS (16 already gained an edge. gfe1!?- Mala.niuk) 16 ... QxeS 17 gae1.Q.xb218 gxe7 �e7 19 tf}cS B c£::g6 20 tf}xc7 .,CleS with an 8 b3 obscure position. Black again has a wide 10 .,Cla3 also makes little choice here: headway, e.g. 10 ... gf7 11 ct:gS (11 e4 � transposes to the

B1 8 ... eS variation 10 e4 tLJ:i> 11 Qa3 gf7

B2 8 ... �a6 considered below) 11 ... gd7 12

BJ 8 ... h6 tf}c1h6 and the positionis equal.

B4 8 ... �c6 and others 10 ... �c6 (18)

B1 8 eS (17) In this section we shall examine Black's straightfor­ ward attempt to solve his problems by advancing ... e7 -­ eS immediately. Once it was thought that by this method Black should gain at least equality. But, as we shall see Ma in line with 7 ... �e8 21

10 ... fxe4 is to be avoided, gxf5 and Black has control of e.g. 11c£jxe4c£jxe4 12 �d5+ �e6 the centre; Temirbaev - Beliav­ 13 �xe4 4Jc6 14 4Jg5± - Van­ sky, USSR Team Ch 1991. heste. d) 12 �5 B,d7 13 �bt h6 14 11 4JdS 4:Jf3 f4 15 gxf4 �5 with com­ Alternatively 11 .Q.a3 gf7 and plex play; Tsarev - Malaniuk, now: Kiev 1989. a) 12 h3 f4 (12 ... h6!?) 13 �d3 11 �d7 (19) .Q.e6 14 gadl h6 15 gfel?! (15 g4 B,d8 16 4JdS g5 with the idea of 19 ... 4:Jh7- f8 - g6=) 15 ... fxg3! 16 w fxg3 4:Jh5 17 �h2 4Jd4 18 B,f1 B,d8+ Casafus - lin T a, Dubai 1986. b) 12 gel f4 (A typical conti­ nuation of the attack) 13 gxf4 ?! (Here Beliavsky offers the variation 13 �5! B,d7 14 0:15 h6 15 4Jf3 g5 with equal chances; also possible is 13 4Jd5 ,Og 4 14 Others: .O,b24:Jh5c:o Arbakov - Malaniuk, a) 11 ... fxe4 12 4Jg5c£jxd5 13 Budapest 1990) 13 ... ,Og4 (13 ... cxd50i4 14 4Jxe4± .

�5 14 f5 {14 ExeS 1Jg4 1S h3 b) 11 .. . gf7 12 �5 c£jxe4 (12 1J.xf3 16 1J.xf3 cfjf417 )/jh2tfjxeS} ... B,d7 13 exf5 gxf5 14 �b2 h6 14 ... gxf5 15 4Jg5 gd7 16 0:15 {No better is 14 ... cfjg4 1S h3 �g6 17 h4 4Jd4 {17 ... cfjf4 18 4Jh6 16 �e2 �g6 17 f4 )/jh8 18 exES'lf;xf S 191J.e4± - Belia vsky} )/jh2cf:£8 19 l!a d1; Lechtynsky - 18 .Q.h3 B,f7 and Black has suc­ Psakhis, Tm ava 1988} 15 c£jxf6+ ceeded in escaping the worst; .O,xf6 16 .O,d5+ �g 7 17 4:Jf3 e4 18 Meduna- Beliavsky, Sochi 1986) .O,xf6+ �6 19 �d exf3 20 gel! 14 h3 (14 fxe5 c£jxe5 with the - Balashov) 13 c£jxf7 � 14 idea of 15 ... {Jh5+) 14 ... �xf3 15 Qb2 fle6 15 �e2 and Black lacks Qxf3c£jd4?! (15 ... exf4!? and: 16 sufficent counterplay for the e5c£jxe5 17 �xb7 B,d8 18 �c2 c6 exchange; Balashov - Y rjola, 19 .O.xc6 �xc6 20 B,xe5 4Jh5 Voronez 1987. intending 21 .. . �f3+; or 16 0:15 c) 11 ... c£jxd5!? 12 cxd5 (12 4)iS 17 �b2 c6+ - Vanheste) 16 exd5 e4; 12 �d5+ fle6 13 �b5

@5 with an unclear position; a6! 14 �xb7? B,a7+) 12 . . . fxe4

Balashov- Vyzmanavin, Irkutsk (12 ... {Jd4?! 13 4:Jxd4 exd4 14 1986. Qb2 {141J_a3!1!17 1S eS f4 16 e6 c) 12 exfSQxf5 13 gel B,d7 14 lfFS 17 lfc1 fxg3 18 hxg3 and �d gad8 15 4:Jh4 e4 16 4Jxf5 ltflite has a winning position; 22 Main line with 7 ... rgyeB Baburin - Ronin, No vosibirsk �h5! .O.xat (Others also fail, e.g. 1989} 14 ... fxe4 15 .O.xd4 .0.f5 16 16 ... 4)14 17 c£jxh7± - Pinter; or .O.xg7 �g7 17 �d4+ with the 16 ... �dS 17 �ad1 4Jd4 (20) idea of �ae1±) 13 4Jg5 (13 dxc6 exf3 14 .0.xf3 e4) 13 ... 4Jd4 14 20 {jxe4 (14 .O.a3!?) 14 ... �hS 15 w .O.b2 .O.f5 16 �d (A mistake would be 16 f4?, e.g. 16 ... Qxe4 17 .O.xe4 exf4 1S �e1 �e5) 16 ... �cS (16 ... � 17 �5! b6 1S {Je6± - Blagojevid 17 �e1 � 1S f 4 �d5 19 {Jc5 e4 20 {jxe4 with an obscure position; Gav­ rikov - Blagojevic, Prague 19SS. 12 exfS 1S �xd4!! and Black had noth­ Or: ing better than to resign in a) 12 {jxf6+!? .O.xf6 13 �d7 Magerramov - Malaniuk, War­ (13 .Q.h6�eS= 14 �e1 �e7 15 �d saw 19S9, because 1S ... .O.xd4 19 4:Jb4 16 c5 .O.e6 17 �c3

15 �+ � 16 .O.b2=) 13 ... e4 or 23.. . �fS+! 24 �f4 �d3+ (24 ... (13 ... gxf5 14 4Jh4D 14 �5 (14 !lfS 25c£jxh7± ) 25 �e2 .O.fS 26 cfjh4?g5!+) 14 ... gxf5 (14 ... �5 4Je4 Qxe4 27 �4+ with a 15 f 4 exf3 {15 . . . f)xdS 16 cxdS quick mate - Pinter.

1J.xa1 17�xa 1 �dS 18 lfd1 rgyaS b2) 12 . .. gdS 13 exfS e4 14 19 rgyf6!:t} 16 4:Jxf3 {jxd5 17 cxd5 fxg6? (Better is 14 4JgS gxfS ,O_xa1 1S �xa1 �d5 19 �6 with and now not 15 4Je3?! �eS 16 an attack) 15 c£jxf6+ .Q.xf6 16 �et 4Je5 17 �d1 4)13 1S �e2 Main line with 7 ... �eB 23 �g6 19 h4 ,O_h6+ Arkhipov - - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1989. Videki, Gyor 1990, but instead 15 15 cxdS �xa1 4Jx{6+ ,O_xf6 16 �h5 Qxa1 17 16 �xa1 ttfxdS �xa105 as given by Forninyh 17 �d1 ttfeS andSchipkov) 14 ... exf3 15 ,O_xf3 18 �ct (21) hxg6 16 �e1 �f7 17 4Jxf6+ �xf6 18 �d5+ �h7 with a decisive 21 advantage for Black; Pergericht B - Karolyi, London 1989.

12 ... e4 It is not good to capture at once: 12 .. . ,O_xf5?! 13 Qb2 e4 14 �5 4Jxe5 15 Qxe5±- Shabalov. 13 4Jg5 gxfS Possible is 13 ... 4Jxd5 14 cxd5 Qxa1 15 Qa3 Qf6 (15 ... �xf516 �xa1 �xg5 17 dxc6 'ff1x,c6 White has good attacking 18 �d �d7 19 �c3 with the idea chances for the sacrificed of 20 �b2±) 16 dxc6±(Shabalov material- Piskov. in Infonnator 47), but after 16 ... 'ff]xd1 17 gxd1 �xg5 Black is B2 simply a piece up. 8 4Ja6 (22) 14 .Q.eJ If instead 14 ,O_f4 h6 15 {Jh3 22 (15 4:Je6? 'ff1x,e6 16 4Jxc7 � 17 w 4Jxa84:Jh,5+ ) 15 ... 4Jxd5 16 cxd5 4):14! (16 ... � 7?!= Shabalov- Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1989) 17 Bel c6 18 d6 (18 dxc6 bxc6 with the idea of ... ,O_a6=) 18 ... b6 with a good game for Black - Shabalov. 14 ... 4Jxd5 Consideration should also be Black started to play in this given to 14 ... h6!? 15 4Jxf6+ way in 1988 and 1989, when the -'lxf6 16 �d7 (16 4:Jh-3 Qxa1 17 forcing variations after 8 ... e5 'ff1x,a1 �g7 18 �d �h7 and began to seem dangerous for White has compensation for him (see the previous section). the sacrificed material) 16 ... Since then a great amount of �xd7 17 gad1± - Piskov. practical material on the vari­ However, simply bad is 14 ... ation has accumulated. We � 4? 15 �c5 ge8 16 f3± Piskov shall try to find a path through 24 Main line with 7 ... rf$e8 this labyrinth. b) 10 e3 gb8 114je1 (11 �d b5 9 .O,a3 12 cxbS cxbS 13 4Je2 b4 14 .Q.b2 Alternatively: �5 15 fii 4 c£Jac 7 16 4Jxd5 a) 9 a4!? has only been seen 4Jxd5 17 gel h6 with equal once: 9 ... h6 (Kramnik recom- chances; Arbakov - Kramnik, mends 9 ... 4Jb4 10 aS {10JJ.a3?! Belgorod 1989) 11 . . . b5 12 cxbS aS} 10 .. . e5! 11 �a3 c5 12 dxe5 cxbS 13 4Jd5�b7 14 4Jxf6+ �xf6 dxe5 13 e4 �d7co) 10 �a3 4Je4 11 15 .Q.xb7gxb7 16 4Jd3 b4 17 �b2 ��2 4Jxc3 12 �c3 4Jc5 13 !l,xc5 �bS 112 ...it,_ Huzman- Malaniuk, dxc5 14 e3± Mochalov - Kalin­ Baku 1988. ichev, USSR 1988. c) An interesting possibility b) 9 .Q.b2 .Q.d7 (9 ... h6 10 e4 is 10 gel h6 (Malaniuk suggests fxe4 11 4J::l2 _og4 12 �b1 e3 13 here 10 ... .Q.d7!? and 10 ... gb8 fxe3 c6 14 a3 t;J:_7 15 �d3 g5 has also been tried: 11 .Q.b2 bS 12 with unclear play; Kaunas - cxbS cxbS 13 d5?! 4Jc7 14 b4 aS Chernin, Klaipeda 1983) 10 d5 15 a3 axb4 16 axb4 ,klb7 17 �b3 transposes to chapter 5, varia­ �h8 18 gfd1 h6 with an obscLU"e tion A1111, whilst 10 �c2 c6 11 position; Gdanski - Horvath, e4? {Jb4! 12 �e2 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 Leningrad 1989) 11 e3 .Q.e6 12 �e2 4Jxe4 14 �e4 .Q.f5 15 �e2 .Q.d3 �d7 13 4J::l2 05-7 14 �d3 gab8 was winning for Black in l.og­ 15 .Q.b2 �h8 16 dS cxdS 17 4Jxd5 inov - Arkhipov, Odessa 1987. t;J:_xdS 18 cxdS± Gavrikov - 9 c6 Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1988.

10 �d3 10 ... �8 The alternatives are: Other tries: a) 10 �c2 gb8 (10 ... bS 11 .Q.b2 a) 10 ... t;J:_7 (10 ... �h8!?) 11 .Q.d7 12 e4 4Jb4!? 13 �d2!? fxe4 e4 fxe4 12 4Jxe4 Qf5 13 4Jxf6+ 14 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 with an obscLU"e exf6 14 �d2 �d7= Vegh - position- Piskov) 11 e4 b5 (The Zysk, Budapest 1989. exchange in the centre leaves b) 10 ... .Q.d7 11 �fel gd8?! (11 White with a slight advantage: ... dS!? 124Je5± ) 12 gadl �h8 13 11 .. . fxe4 12 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 13 e4± fxe4 14 4Jxe4 .Q.fS 15 4Jxf6 �e4 �f5 14 �e3; Schipkov - .Q.xf6 16 �e3 �f7 17 h3 4Jc7 18 Gerbakher, Yalta 1988) 12 e5! b4 ge2 .Q.c8 (18 ... gfe8!?) 19 �S (12 ... 4Jd7 13 cxb5 cxb5 14 �g8 20 �d2! � 21 4Jxe6.Q.xe6 �5±) 13 exf6 .Q.xf6 14 �b2 22 gde1 .Q.d7? (More stubborn bxc3 15 .Q.xc3 � (15 ... e5? 16 resistance could be put up by dxe5 dxe5 17 4Jxe5! .O.xeS 18 22 .. . .Q.c8!?) (23) �ae1 4Jb4 19 .Q.xb4 �xb4 20 23 �xe7! ,klxe7 24 gxe7 gf6 25 �e2± ; 15 ... �7) 16 �d2!?± d5 �f8 26 ge3 �8 27 ,klb2 gfS Bablll"in - Grigorov, Staroza­ 28 �d4 ge5 29 gxe5 dxe5 30 gorski Bani 1989. �e5 � 31 d6! ,klf5 32 cS hS 33 Main line wi th 7 ... �e8 2S b4 14 exf6 flxf6 15 fld bxc3 16 flh6 gf7 17 �5 .Q.xg5 18 flxg5 4:Jb4!? and White has no hope of an advantage; Danner - Zysk,

Budapest 1989) 12 ... b4 13 exf6 flx£6 14 fld (More modest is 14 flb2, bxc3 15 flxc3 g5 {15 ... '{;jf7 16 J!fe1 g5 17 '{;jd2 h6 18 d5 c5 19 Jfe2 lfb?;t Lerner - Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1989} 16 d5 �5 17 �c2 cxdS 18 flxf6? gxf6 19 cxd5 g4! hxg4 34 hxg4 .Q.d3 35.Q.d5+! g4 20 4jd4 �h5 and Black has 1-0 Karpov - Malaniuk, USSR an attack, or 16 �d2! �h5 17 1988 (comments by Karpov and 4Y1 with the idea of 4jd3± - Zaitsev). Dautov) 14 ... bxc3 15 flh6! c) An interesting move for (Dokhoian) 15 ... � 7 (15 ... gf7 Black is 10 ... h6!? 11 gfe1 ?! 16 c£jg5) 16 flxg7�g7 17 �c3± (Malaniuk suggests 11 4Jh4!?. - Kishnev. Alternatively, a position with b2) 11 ... fxe4 12c£jxe4 (24) equal chances occursafter 11 e4 fxe4 12 c£jxe4 4:Jxe4 13 �e4 flf5 14 �e3 g5 15 h3 �f7 16 gael; Dzhandzhgava - Basin, Simferopol 1988) 11 ... g5 12 e4 fxe4 13c£jxe4 4:Jxe4 (13 ... �g6!?) 14 �xe4 �h5 and the position is difficult to evaluate; J. Cooper - Kotronias, Thessaloniki ol 1988. 11 4Jd2

White has had varied success 12 . . ..Q.f5 (12 . . . 4:Jxe4 13 �e4 with other tries: .Q.f5 14 �e3 �d? {14 ... '{;jf7 15 a) Nothing is gained by 11 Jffe1 with chances for both gel?! bS 12 flb2 4jb4 13 �b1 sides; Lechtynsky - Salai, Cz ech bxc4 14 bxc4 h6 15 a3 {Ja6 16 Ch 1990. Also in teresting is 14 �c2 e5 and Black's position is ... JJf6, preventing c£)h4: 15 Jfadl not worse; Wilder - Lund, cf57 16 J!fe1 '{;jd? 17 Jfd2 lfbe8 Preston 1989. 18 .t).b2 a6 with equal chances; b) In the event of 11 e4 Black Basin - Kranmik, Belgorod must play accurately: 1989} 15 4:Jh4 .Qg4 16 f4 with a

bD 11 .. . b5?! 12 e5 (Less slight advantage to White - promising is 12 cxbS cxb5 13 eS Bareev) 13 4jx£6+ flxf6 Ut is 26 Mainline with 7 ... �eB incorrect to take the knight {jxe4 1B �e4 .,O_b7 19 �e2 6LJ:-7 with the pawn: 13 ... exf6? 14 and Black's position is not �d2 �dB {14 ... �d7 15 �f4 worse - Timoschenko. lfbd8 16 f)h4 1J.h3 17 1J.xh3 11 �c7 tflxh3 18 1J.xd6 gS 19 �fS:t } 15 Again Black has a choice: �fe1�f7 16 �e2�feB 17 �xeB+ a) 11 .. . c5? 12 e3 (12 4:Jf3 e5!) �eB 1B �e1 �B 19 �aS {19 12 ... !ld7 (12 ... g5 13 4JbS! �aB f)h41J.c8 20 �aS {5 21 0/31Jf6 14 dxc5 dxc5 15 �ad1±) 13 �act 22 b4:t} 19 ... �aB!! 20 b4 �dB (13 4JbS cxd4 14 exd4 �dB!) 13 21 �a4 6LJ:-7 22 d5 cxd5 23 cxd5 ... �cB? 14 f!:fd1 b6 15 4:Jf3 (15 �d7 24 �d1! {24 �b3 lfeB 25 4Jb56LJ:-7 16 {jxc7 �c7 17 b4±) lfc1 1J.e4=} 24 ... �4 2S �d3 15 ... h6? (Dautov - Basin, Minsk :g:eB 26 �xeB+ {26 lfcJ JJ.FS 27 19BB) 16 4Je5!±- Dautov. �c4 cfjbS 28 1J.b2 lfcB=} 26 ... b) 11 . .. bS!? 12 cxbS cxbS 13 �eB 27 �c4! and, in spite of 4):l5c£}xd5 14 �xd5+ e6?! (Better the exchanges, Black has not is 14 ... �hB 15 �ad �b7 16 improved his position; Klinger ­ �xb7 �xb7 17 4Jf3 6LJ:-7 1B e4 Bareev, Moscow GMA 19B9. (25) Comments by Bareev) 14 �e3 (14 �d2!? 6LJ:-7 15 �ae1 �d7 16 25 h4!?± lbragimov - Kramnik, B Herson 1991) 14 ... bS 15 :g:ac1 (15 �5 bxc4 16 bxc4 �d7± - Kramnik) 15 ... !;$7 (15 ... �d7?! 16 cxbS! cxb5 17 �5± Kishnev - Buhman, Budapest 19B9) 16 �fe1 �d7 17 �cd1 �4?! (17 ... �cB with the idea of ... �a6 - Kramnik) 1B �d3!± Miles - Kramnik, Moscow GMA 19B9. Dautov considers the diagram c) A further possibility is 11 position more favourable for �ad1 bS 12 .O,.d h6!? (Others are White and Piskov thinks that good for White: 12 ... bxc4 13 the chances are equal. How­ bxc4 6LJ:-7 14 4.)i2�a6 15 �c2± ; ever, we can agree with neither 12 ... b4 13 4ja4 e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 of them, because after 1B ... � 15 4.)i2± - Tunoschenko) 13 a3 there seems to be no good g5 (1bis is Alekseev - Tunosch­ continuation for White: he is enko, USSR 19BB. Instead 13 ... threatened with the exchange b4 14 axb4 c£}xb4 15 �b1 e5 16 on e4 and Black gains control dxe5 dxe5 17 .,O.e3!? results in an over the white squares in the unclear position) 14 cxb5 cxb5 centre. Black's control over 15 b4 e6 16 e4 fxe4 17 c£}xe4 .5quare d5 makes his position Main line with 7 ... 'f$e8 27 even more favourable) 15 Qg2 {Jxe4 again with an unclear b4 16 �b2 6;57 17 6;54 �d7 JX>Sition,

(Dautov - Malaniuk, Minsk c) 14 cxb5 cxbS 15 b4 �h5 16 1988) 18 gael (18 f4 ?! .kla6 19 d5?! f4 17 4Jb3 c£:g4 18 h3 {Je5 �d2 4:Jd5 20 gael gfc8= Sav­ and Black wins a pawn- Topa­ chenko - Malaruuk, SimferoJX>l lov. 1988) 18 ... .kla6 19 �d2 4:Jd5 20 14 cxbS gc2 �b7 21 gfd± (Dautov). 15 e4 �hS 12 r!ac1 bS 16 f4

Andrianov suggests 12 .. . Not 16 f3?! fxe4 17 fxe4 b4 18 g5!?. Also JX>Ssible is 12 ... �h8 �c4+ .kle6 19 'ftixc7 4Jg4 and 13 gfel bS 14 cxbS cxbS 15 b4 Black gains the opJX>rtunity for � 16 4Jb3 .kle6, as in Kiss- an attack- Topalov. Malaniuk, Budapest 1989. 16 gxf4 13 �b 2 17 r!xf4 fxe4 Topalov suggests 13 4:Jdi, 18 4Jdxe4 (27) and if 13 ... .kld7, then 14 e4 fxe4 15 {Jxe4 with a slight advantage to White. 13 gS Alternatively: a) 13 ... .kle6? (13 .. . b4!? - Andrianov) 14 cxbS cxbS 15 d5! flf7 16 b4 with a clear advan­ tage in the centre and on the queenside; Dautov - Kramnik , Moscow GMA 1989. b) 13 ... .0.d7!? 14 e4? (Correct The JX>Sition promises equal would have been 14 i:la1! or 14 chances; Topalov - Kramnik , cxbS! cxbS 15 b4) 14 . . . fxe4 15 Puerto Rico 1989. 45xe4 {Jxe4 with the idea of ... bxc4- Dautov. B3 c) 13 ... �a6!? 14 �a1 gd8! 15 8 h6 (28) �3 bxc4 16 'ftjxc6 �xc6 17 �xc6 The move examined in this cxb3 18 {Jxb3± - Kramnik. section has all but superceded 14 cxbS 8 ... e5 and 8 ... c£ja6. Black does Here three more variations not tzy to force events, but deserve consideration: instead waits to see White's a) 14 e4 �h5 15 exf5 .klxf5 16 plan in order to choose the �e2 bxc4 and it is difficult to right method of counterplay. evaluate the JX>sition. At the time of writing this b) 14 4)11 �d7 15 e4 fxe4 16 modest move with the pawn 28 Main Line with 7 ... �eB

use of the c- file after cxd6) 12 ... .Q.h3 13 cxd6 cxd6 14 �4 c0g4 (Georgiev suggests 14 ... 4Jbd7!? 15 4Jxf6+ 'gxf6 16 'gc7 �af8 17 4Jj2! with an unclear position, or 14 ... 4):6!? 15 4Jxf6+ �xf6 16 dS 4JeS 17 {JxeS �xeS 18 'gc7 �f7 19 .Q.xh3 t§Jxh3 20 t§}g6+ Bg 7 21 t§}e6+ t£1xe6 22 dxe6± ) 15 'gc 74Jc6 16 Qb2 (If 16 gxb7, then it is good to play 16 seems the surest way of con­ ... dS 17 4Jed2 gf7! with the idea tinuing. of ... 'gaf8, ... c£jxd4) 16 ... gf7 17 9 4JdS gxb 7 gaf8 18 get �8?! (18 ... This is the most aggressive dS) and in any case White's reaction to Black's move. Let position remains preferable; us examine five other vari­ Kir. Georgiev - Lukov, Bulgaria ations: 1989. a) 9 t§}c2 4Jc6 10 �b2 eS!? (10 c) 9 Qb2 gS (9 ... � 10 dS . .. gS?! 11 dS 4Jb4 12 t§}d2 cS 13 {A nother promising variation dxc6 bxc6 14 {Jd4 .Q.d7 15 e4 for Mite is 10 lfe1 gS 11 a3 �fl and Black finds himself under 12 e4 c[)xe4 13 c[)xe4 fxe4 14 pressure in the centre; Zak­ tfxe4 cf:FS 15tfe2 1Jg4 16 tfe3 harov- Avshalumov, Lvov 1986) tfaeB 17 h31J,h5 18 �e2 eS 19 g4

11 dxeS dxeS 12 e4 with obscure e4 20 cfjxgS:f: Baburin - Shab­ play- Avshalumov. alov, Leningrad 1989} 10 ... cS b) 9 .Q.a3 gS (9 ... 'gf7!? with (Better is 10 .. . c6, keeping all the idea of ... eS- Shabalov or 9 options open and waiting for

. .. ttJ[710 t§}d3 gS 11 'gadt c6 12 cS White to commit himself in the 'gd8 13 cxd6 exd6CX) Blatny - centre before deciding whether Malaniuk, Alma Ata 1989) 10 to take on dS or play . .. cS) 11 'get ( 10 e3 c6 {No t so good is 10 �1! gS 12 4Jd3 t§}g6 13 e3 f4? ... f4 11 exf4 gxf4 12 !;fe1 - 14 exf4 QfS 15 4Je1 gxf4 16 Georgiev} 11 t§}e2 � 12 'gfet {Je2!± Espig - Malaniuk, Kosz­ ,db8 13 4Jd2 bS 14 cxbS cxbS 15 komot 1989) 10 dS! (Too modest 4JjS {JxdS 16 .(lxdS+ �h8 17 is 10 e3 c£:p.6 11 dS {Preventing 11 �act t§}d8! and Black's position ... eS} 11 ... Qd7 {11 ... cS!?} 12 t§}e2 is not worse; Kishnev - Shab­ c6?! {12 ... cS!?; 12 ... f)cS!?} 13 alov, Debrecen 1989. Georgiev 4Jj4fLF7 {13 ... cS 14 cfy();t} 14 also offers another suggestion: f4± Chekhov - Vyzmanavin, 10 t§}d3!?) 10 ... f 4! 11t§}d3 t§}hS 12 Moscow 1989) 10 ... �?! 11 cS! (With the idea of making 4Jj4f4 12t§}c2 4Jg4 13 4Je4t§}hS A-fain LJnewith 7 ... �e8 29

14 h3 {Je5 15 g4 �g6 16 c£jf3! A sharp position occurs after 4Jxf3+ 17.clxf3 and White has an 12 ... �h7, e.g. t3 dxc6 bxc6 (t3 undisputed advantage due to ... 4:jxc6?! 14 d5± ) t4 get ,O_e6 15 the unfortunate position of e4 fxe4 t6 gxe4 Qd5 t7 gf 4 Black's knight; Rozentalis - �e8 t8 �c2! - Shirov. Galdunts, Podolsk t989. 13 h4!? g4

d) 9 get is interesting: 9 ... g5 · 14 {Jet �h7 tO .clb2 (tO e4? 4:Jxe4 11 {Jxe4 t4 ... h5 t5 Qh6!? cxd5 t6 fxe4 12 4Jg5 .clf5 t3 ge3 c5! t4 Qxg7 �g7 t7 4Jd3 �h7 18 ,O_b2 {Jc6 intending ... g4+) tO ... 4:::f4?! (Better was t8 b4! {Jc6 19 � 11 e4 fxe4 12 {Jxe4± Mag­ e3= ) t8 .. . e6 t9 �a3 gd8 20 erramov - Vyzmanavin, Bala­ gael 4)=6 2t gfdt?! (21 e3 aS 22 tonbereny t989, and Beliavsky - gc3=) and Black gained the Bareev, Moscow GMA t990. advantage in Shirov - Malaniuk, e) Fm ally, Shirov suggests 9 Moscow GMA 1989 (comments �d3!? e5 tO dxe5 dxe5 11 e4 {Jc6 by Shirov) . 12 �b2±. 15 dxc6 9 4:Jxd5 15 �c4 should also be taken 10 cxd5 (29) into consideration: 15 . .. . b5 16 �d3 cxd5 17 �xbS e6 18 �d3 Qa6 19 �e3 c£jc6 20 Qc3+ . 15 4:Jxc6 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 thxc6 �8 18 �c3 ,O.b 7 Black has dangerous threats - Shirov.

B4 8 4Jc6 (30) 10 ... thf7! 11 .Q.d2 30 A mistake is 11 {jet? 4Jd7 12 w 4):13 g5 13 'f!1c2 Jlxd4 t4 �1 4Jh6 and White has inadequate compensation for his pawn, e.g. t5 h4 Qf6 16 hxg5 hxg5 17 4Jb4 aS 18 'f!Jxc7 axb4 t9 �xb6 gxa2 20 'f!Jxb4 gxe2+ Savon - Mala­ niuk, Moscow GMA 1989. 11 c6 12 thct g5 In addition to the other 30 Main line with 7. .. tf!jeB variations considered, 8 ... c6!? times recently: 10 �a3 {Je4 11 has been seenin recent tourna­ �b2 h6 12 e3 \tlh7 13 �ct �d7 14 ment play: 4):3 4Jxc3�xc3 15 e5 16 d5 4Je7 a) 9 �a3 h6 10 Vf}c2 (Also 17 {jet and Black has a solid possible are 10 Vf;jd3 g5 11 e4 position; Budnikov - Vyzmana­ fxe4 124Jxe4 Vf}g6= Polugayev­ vin, USSR Ch 1991; 10 d5 �5 11 sky - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA �b2 4Jxf3+ 12 �xf3 �d7 13 �4 1990, and 10 �ct � 11 Vf;jd3 g5 Vf}e8 14 �d3 c6 15 �ab1 h5 16 12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 Vf]g6 14 �2= Dzandzgava - Ioseliani, 4Jxf6+ Vf}xf6 15 �ce1 = Gomez - Thilisi 1991; and finally (10 d5 Sanz, Salamanca 1991) 10 ... g5 �5) 11 4:jxe5 dxe5 12 �b 2 a6 13 (10 ... 4:Ja6 11 e4 fxe4 124:Jxe4 g5 4:Ja3 e4 14 f3 exf3 15 exf3 f 4 16 13 �ae1± Neverov - Piskov, �e1 4Jh5 17 �xg7 with an un­ Minsk 1990) 11 e4 fxe4 12 4:Jxe4 balanced position; V. Neverov - �g6 (12... 4:Jxe4 13 Vf}xe4�f5 14 Malaniuk, Warsaw 1992) 10 d5 �e3 �d7! 15 �ae1co Neurohr - c£:yj8 11 �b2 e5 12 dxe6 4Jxe6 13 Glek, West Germany 1991) 13 4Jfd4 c£jc5 14 c£jc3 c6 15 �c2 4Jxf6+ Vf}xf6 14 �ae1 and White Vf}e7 16 b4 c£jce4 17 4Jxe4 fxe4 has the advantage; Shestoperov 18 �ad1± Vyzmanavin - Maka­ - Makarov, Smolensk 1991. rov, Gorky 1989. b) 9 �e1!? h6 10 e4 fxe4 11 b) 9 �a3 4Je4 10 �5 (Equal­ 4:Jxe4 tfff7 12 �b2 g5 13 Vf;jd2 ity results from 10 ;get, e.g. 10 4:Ja6 14 h4 �f5= Pigusov - ... 4Jxc3 11 �xc3 f4! 12 �d3 �4 Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990, 13 �d2 h6= Kiselev - Makarov, and Ruban - Malaniuk, Sibenik Podolsk 1989) 10 ... Vf;jd8 11 e3 1990. (More modest is 11 �c1 aS 12 e3 9 �b2 transposes to Chapter e6 13 4Jf4 4Jb4 14 Vf}e2 �e7 15 5, variation A1111. �1 c6 16 f3 4Jf6 with a com­ Before moving on to the plicated position; Gurevich - main variation we should men­ Vyzmanavin, Palma de Mallorca tion that 8 ... 4Jbd7 leaves 1989) 11 ... �e8 12 4Jd2 4:Jxd2 13 Black with difficult problems: 9 Vf;jxd2 e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 �ad1 4:Jh5�d8 10 .clb2 and, as point­ �e6 16 �ct Vf}c8 17 Vf}a1 �xd5?! ed out by Beliavsky, White has 18 �d5+ and White gained the a large advantage. advantage in Anastasian - Mak­ 9 dS! arov, Podolsk 1989. A natural reaction, but there c) 9 c5 allows Black to carry are three other possibilities: out his plan with 9 ... e5 10 d5 a) The move 9 4JbS!? has c£:yj8 11 �ct. as in Summermat­ also been put to test: 9 ... Vf;jd7?! ter - Vanka, Prague 1991. (Natural and more exact would 9 4Je4! be 9 .. . Vf}d8!? as seen three 9 ... {Je5 is better for White: Main line with 7 . .. �e8 31

10 4Jxe5 dxe5 11 a4!?± or 10 The chaotic position of the 4)14!?± - Baburin. black pieces gives White the 10 4JbS advantage. Theonly move. 10 ... .Q.xa1 c Not: 8 �e1 (32) a) 10 ... �d8? 11 dxc6 .O.xa1 12 �d5+ e6 13 cxb7 gb8 14 bxc8(�) 32

�c8 15 �d3 £,lf6+- Baburin - B Belousov, Voronez 1989. b) Also bad is 10 .. . gb8?! 11 .Q.e3 .O.xa1 12 �xa1 a6 (The only move) 13 4Jxc7 �d8 (13 ... �d7 14 4:Je6±) 14 .Q.b6 ! �f7 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 c5! 4Jxc5 17 �5 �xb6 18 �h8+!+- Baburin. 11 ttJxc7 Less accw-ate is 11.Q.h6 .clf6 12 This move, preparing to 4Jxc7 �d8 13 4Jxa8 �e8 14 dxc6 advance the e-pawn, was for bxc6 15 �c2 .Q.b 7 16 4Jd2 4Jxd2 some time considered the route 17 .Qxd2 �a8 if24 Hasin - to obtaining the advantage for Makarov, Gorky 1989. White. After 8 ... e5 (not 8 ... 11 �d8 �4? 9 4Jxe4 fxe4 10 4:::::g5 12 ttJxa8 {JeS winning) White indeed had 13 .Q.h6 .Q.c3 a noticeable advantage, but 14 ,O.xf8 �f8 soon an effective reply, 8 ... 15 4Jd4 .Q.d7 �� was found for Black and 16 .Q.xe4 fxe4 as a result the system has 17 4Je6+ .Q.xe6 disappeared from practice. 18 dxe6 �xa8 Nevertheless, some questions 19 �c2 (31) concerning this variationremain unresolved. 31 8 �f7 B Other moves: a) 8 ... e5 (White's eighth move was designed to prevent this logical reply) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 e4 fxe4 (Somewhat better is 10 .. . 0f:iJ 11 4Jd5! fxe4 {Black cannot avoid a disadvantage by

11 . . . J1f7, e.g. 12 exfS gxfS 13 �a 4?! cf)e4 14 cfjgS cfJxgS 15 32 MainLJne with 7 ... &e8 1J.xg5 1J.e6 16 1J.e3;t Abramov - White retains a slight advan­ Petelin, Dimitrograd 1988, or 13 tage; Gheorghiu - Grigorov, tfjxe5 tfjxe5 14 ciJxf6 + 1J.xf6 15 Prague 1985. f4±} 124:gS �d8 {12 . . . c£yxd5 13 c) Of all the options here 8 cxd5 014 141J.e3! c[jf3+ 15 c£yw3 ... �!? is the most worthy of exf3 16 1J.xf3! e4? 17 1J.c5! with a consideration: 9 dS (The varia­ winning position} 13 {jxf6+ tion 9 e4 4.Jxe4 10 4Jxe4 fxe4 11 �6 14 {Jxe4 � 1S �e3! �xe4 ilfS is not the best plan though White's position is still for White) 9 ... 4:::¢ (Weaker is favourable) 11 4JgS (And not 11 9 . .. �S 10 {:)xeS dxeS 11 cS 4Jxe4? 12 �xe4 � when Black �h8?! 12 b4 ild7?! 13 Qb2 gS 14 gets out of his difficulties) 11 ... bS e4 1S c6 bxc6 16 bxc6±

4.)::6 (11 ... �4 is of no use: 12 Ricardi - Remon, Havana 1986) �b3 � 13 ile3! 0:14 14 Qxd4 10 b3 cS 11 Qd2 a6 12 e4 fxe4 13 exd4 1S 4Jcxe4 - Lukacs, and 11 4:g S Qg 4 14 �cl bS 1S 4.Jcxe4

... c6 does not work either: 12 4Jxe4 16 �xe4 QfS 17 c£je6 ilxe6 4):xe4 {Jxe4 13 4Jxe4 c£):16 14 18 �xe6 ilxa1 19 �a1 4.Jb7 and b3 4.Jb4 1S ile3 @6 16 0:16 �e 7 White has good compensation 17 4.Jxc8 and positionally Black's for the sacrificed material; set-up has no prospects; Mich­ Petran - Grigorov, Thilisi 1986, aelsen - Lauterbach, Munich e.g. 20 h4 4J:l8 21 ilh3 �f7 22 1988) 12 Qe3! h6 13 4Jgxe4 �h 7 ilh6 with advantage to White. 14 4.Jxf6+! �xf6 1S 4J:lS �f7 16 Now we return to the posi­ h4! (33) tionafter 8 ... �f7 (34).

33 34 B w

White has a great advantage; 9 �d3 Lukacs - Vaiser, Sochi 1984. Others: b) 8 ... c6 9 e4 {Jxe4 10 4.Jxe4 a) 9 b3?! gives Black an fxe4 11 �xe4 ilfS 12 �e3 0:17 13 opportunity for a useful knight b3 ,0g4 14 Qb2 Qh6 1S �e4 ilxf3 deployment: 9 ... �4 (9 ... h6 10 16 �xf3 �f7 17 \ttg2 eS! 18 dxeS ilb2 gS 11 e4 fxe4 12 4Jxe4 flfS

4JxeS 19 �xeS dxeS 20 �e2 and {12 . .. c6is playable: 13 �d2 cf}a6 Main line with 7 . . . �eB 33

14 h41J.f5 15 c£)xf6 + exf6 16 lfe3 White hopes by 9 4Jg5!? to lffeB= Pigusov - Malaniuk, exploit the insecure position of Moscow GMA .1990} 13 4Jxf6+ the black queen: 9 ... 'ff]xc4 10 �6 14 �e3 4)ID 15 �c3 �f7 16 ,O_ft and now: 'ff}e2 �af8 17 get with advantage b1) 10 ... 'ff]b4 meets more of to White; Beliavsky - Bareev, White's needs than Black's: 11 Moscow GMA 1990) 10 �b2 a3'ff]as (11 ... 'ffjb6!?- Tukmakov) � (Or 10 ... c5!? 11'ffj d3 {Jc6 12 12 b4 'ffjb6 13 'ffjb3+ d5 14 e4! (If c£jxe4 fxe4 13 'ff}xe4 cxd4 14 �W 14 c£jxd5, then 14 ... c£jxd5 15 !J.f5 15 'ffjd5 'ffjxd5 16 cxd5 c£jb4 'ffjxd5+ e6 with the following 16 with an unbalanced position ... �xd4 and White's initiative is inChabanon - Hoffmann, llpp­ neutralised - Tukmakov) 14 ... stadter 1991, but not 10 ... @6?! fxe4 15 {}xd5 {}xd5 16 'ff]xd5+ e6 11'ff}c2 c£jxc3 12 �xc3 h6 13 e4!± 17 'ff}xe4 'ffjxd4 18 ;g:a2 (35) Lukacs - Schroll, Kecskemet 1991) 11 �d (Two other alterna­ 35 tives have been played here: 11 B e3 e5 12 get 4:Jxc3 13 .O,.xc3 e4 14 4:Jj2 aS with an active position for Black in Hulak - Bareev, Marseille 1990; and 11 'ffjd3 4Jxc3 12,O_xc3 e5 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 �5 'ff}e7 15 �d5+ �h8 16 �xc6 bxc6 when Black has the bishop pair as compensation for his weak pawns; Shneider - Bareev, Here White has a promising USSR Ch 1990, and Hulak - position; Huzman - Vyzman­ Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990) avin, Novosibirsk 1986;. 11 ... h6 (Vanheste analyses the b2) The modest 10 ... �h8 variation 11 .. . e5 12 d5 6;y 7 13 should also be taken into con­ �ft 4:Jxc3 14 -'lxc3 h6 with a sideration: 11 d5 (11 e4!? 'ffjg8 12 good game for Black) 12 ;g:ft e5) 11 ... 'ff}c5 12 Qe3 'ffjaS 13 a3 c6 (Analternative would be 12 d5!? 14 b4 'ffjd8 15 dxc6 {Jxc6 16 �b3 4Jb413 c£jd4 {Theonl y move: 13 �4! with advantage to Black; a3 JJ.xc3 14 1J.xc3 c[)a2; 13 c£)xe4 Huzman - Malaniuk, Novosi­ J;.xb2} 13 ... c£jxc3 14 �xc3 4Jxa2 birsk 1986. 15 ;g:e3! with an unclear position b3) 10 ... 'ff}c6 11 e4 (Neverov - Vanheste) 12 ... 4:Jxc3 13 �xc3 suggests here 11 �b3+!? d5 12 e5 and Black has equalised; ,Clf4) 11 ... fxe4 12 QbS �b6 13 Gavrikov - Malaniuk, USSR Ch Qc4+ �h8 14 c£jf?+ gxf7 15 �xf7 1986. Qf5 (15 ... ,Og4 16 �a4 {16 �b3 b) At the cost of a pawn, �! f16 ... Qf3 17 cfJdSJ 17 �b6 34 Mainline with 7 ... �eB fNo t 17 cf)xe4? c£)xd4 18 rffYxb6 axb6Jand in the closedposition 36 l-Vhite has difficulties in making B use of his rooks} 16 ... � 17 �e3 with advantage to White, for example: 17 ... �b2 18 4Jb5 �b4 19 �xb4 4:Jxb4 20 4:Jxc7 �c8 {20 ... JjfB 21 1J_b3} 21 4Je6 4):2 22 �ad) 16 �e3 c6 (After 16 ... �lxl7 17 d5 �a6 18 �e6 �8 {18 ... JJ.xe6 19 dxe6 fJ£8 20 cf}JSJ 19 �xf5 gxf5 20 �d 4 and Legky and Moskalenko con­ White stands better) 17 d5 �a6 sider the endgame slightly 18 .0.d 4 �lxl7 19 .[le6 �f8! and favourable for White. Black has overcome his most 10 b3 serious difficulties; Neverov - 10 d5 is not suitable: 10 ... e5 Gurevich, Baku 1986. 11 dxe6!lx e6 12 c5 � 13 cxd6 9 h6 �ad8 14 �c2 �xd6 and Black Risky is 9 ... � 10 cfjg5�b4 has a slight advantage; Kotro­ (10 ... �e8 11 4Jd5 4:Jxd5 12 cxd5 nias - Casper, Moscow 1987. 4):18 {12 ... c£)xd4 13 e3 cfJbS 14 10 ... 4Jc6 a4 and Black has to give up his Possible is 10 ... � 11 �a3 knight; or 12 ... c£Jb4 13 �c4± c6 12 �ad1 g5 13 e3 �7 14 4:Ji2 lnkacs - Espig, Leipzig 1986} 13 .cld7; Maiorov - Bareev, Minsk �c4 h6 14 �3 bS!? 15 �xc7 !J.b 7 1986. Anotheridea is 10 ... c5!?. 16 4Jd2 .O.xd4 17 4Jh3�7 18 �c2 11 �a3 e6 19 .O,e3 �f7 20 �d2 g5 and Less well analysed is 11 �b 2 here, in the game between e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 e4! �e6 14 Lukacs and Pyhala, Espoo 1987, ;gad1 ;gada 15 �e2 4Jd4 16 �d4 White could have attempted to exd4 17 exf5 .[lxf5 18 4Jd5± gain an advantage by 21 f 4! - Hamann - Yrj ola, Copenhagen Lukacs) 11 4Jxf7 4:Jxd3 12 �6+ 1987 . .[lxh6 13 exd3 .clxd 14 �axd e6 11 4Je4 (The only move) 15 f 4! (There is Others: no advantage in 15 c5!? dS 16 c6 a) 11 ... �e8 12 d5!. b6! Neverov - Legky, USSR b) 11 ... g5 12 d5!. 1987) 15 ... �e8 (15 ... �d7 16 {Jb5 c) 11 ... aS 124Jb5 {je8 13 ;gad1 4je8 17 d5 exd5 18 �d5+ �h8 4Jb4 14 �b1 c6 15 �3 e5 16 19 �e7± - Legky) 16 �bS (16 dxe5 dxeS 17 �b2 e4 18 4Jd4 d5?! a6 17 dxe6 c6!) 16 ... �e7 17 with chances for both sides; d5 (36) Neverov - Vasiukov, Voskres­ ensk 1990. Main linewith 7 ... �eB 35

d) 11 . . . e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 Also worth mentioning are: �xf8 e4 14 �d2 �xf8 (14 ... exf3 a) 13 ... e5 14 dxe5 �e5 15 15 �xg7) 15 4:Jd4 �d7 (15 ... �c5 {'yj4± . 16 4:jxc6 bxc6 17 e3) 16 {Jxc6 b) 13 ... ge8 14 e4!? (14 �c2 �xc6 17 e3 and Black has in­ e5 15 d5 Ci'J27!? 16 c5!±) 14 ... e5! sufficent compensation for his (14 .... fxe4 ?! 15 gxe4) 15 dxe5 material losses - Lukacs. dxeS 16 exf5 gxf5 (16 ... e4? 17 12 �ad1 fxg6 �xg6 18 �e3!) 17 �e3 with Or: an unclear position - Lukacs. a) 12 4Jh5 e6 13 gad1 ge8 c) 13 ... g5 14 e3 f4?! 15 exf4 (less dangerous is 13 ... a6 14 g4 leads to an unclear position, {F3 4:Jxc3) 14 d5! and Black Lukacs - van Mil, Copenhagen came under slight pressure in 1987. Farago - Yrjola, judenburgh 14 �d2 1987. Instead 14 e3 fxg3 15 fxg3 e5 b) 12 4::]xe4 fxe4 13 �e4 16 d5 (16 gf1 �e8) 16 ... e4 17 �d4 14 4:Jxd4 �2+ 15 �w {'yj4 4Jxd4 18 exd4 �4 gives �d4 16 �xe7 Qf5 (16 ... �b6 17 nothing to White. �d5+ �h8 18 �b2! with a win­ 14 ... �4 ning position; 16 ... gf7 17 �e8+ 14 ... g5!? deserves consider- {17 �dB+ f!Jh 7!} 17 ... gf8 18 ation. �g6 �f5 19 �h5 gae8 20 15 dS {JeS gad1±) 17 �xc7 .Q.e4 with a 16 �xf4 �xf4 powerful attack, but not 17 ... 17 gxf4 �xf3 �a1 18 .Q.d5+ �h8 19 gxa1 �xa1 18 fxeS �xg2 20 �xd6 with better chances 19 �g2 �xeS for White. The game is equal; Dokhoian Returning to the position - Malaniuk, Moscow 1989. after 12gad1 (37). D 37 8 {JdS (38) B

12 4jxc3 13 �xc3 f4 36 Mainline with 7 ... �eB

White attempts to strength­ - T. Georgadze, Malaga 1991. en his central position with the c2) 10 ... �b6 11 �e3 ;gb8 (11 ... exchange of knights. 4:Ja6 12 �d2±) 12 h4! aS 13 �d2 8 cfjxdS with good attacking chances It is risky to leave the knight for White. in the centre: 8 ... 4:Ja6?! 9 �5 c3) 10 ... @6 11 h4 (11 a4 �b6

(9 c£jxf'6+ -'lxf6 10 �h6 �7 11 12 e3 h6 13 4Jh3 g5aJ) 11 . .. c5 12 �d2 c612b4 4):7 13 �xg7 �g7 dxc6! (12 dxc5 4:}xc5 13 ;gb1 14 d5! with the idea of continu­ �d7 aJ Pinter - Norri, Debrecen ing with ;gfel and e4 and White 1992) 12 ... bxc6 13 a4 �b6 14 d5 gained the advantage in the c5 15 h5± Malaniuk. game lllilmann - Banas, Stary c4) 10 .. . h6!? 11 a4 �b6 12 Smokovec 1985) 9 ... c6 10 c£jxf6+ 4j-'3aS! 13 �e3 4:Ja6 14 �d2 �h 7 -'lxf6 11 -'lh6 .clg 7 12 -'lxg7 �g 7 15 4Je1 4:Jb4 L. B. Hansen - 13 �d2 tff1f7 14 ;gael and, thanks Malaniuk, Copenhagen 1992. to the badly placed knight, d) 10 4)21 (39) and now Black White stands better, Knezevic - has some interesting alter­ Remon, Havana 1986. natives: 9 cxdS c6 Formerly Black successfully 39 played 9 ... �bS but the advan­ B tages of the white knight re­ treat, 10 4:'Je1,b ecame apparent: a) Simply bad is 10 �b3 �b3 11 axb3 c6 12 �5 ;9.e8 13 gfd e6 14 dxe6 �xe6 15 ;9.c3 4)17 16 -'lf4 4:Jf6! and Black has an indisputable superiority in the endgame; Zukhovitsky - Mi. Tseitlin, Kalinin 1986. d1) 10 ... aS!? 11 e3 (Worse is b) An interesting try is 10 11 �e3 4:Ja6 12 �d2 !ld7 13 6;52 a4!? �d5 11 4:Jg5 �c4 (11 ... c5 14 dxc5 4:Jxc5+ Dumitrache �d4? 12 �b3+ �h8 13 �xb7) 12 - Malaniuk, Baku 1988) 11 ... a4 .O,e3 c6 and now Perelstein - 12 6;52 c6 13 4:Ja3 �b6 14 b3 Glek, Budapest 1991, continued cxd5 15 �d5+ e6 16 �3 axb3 17 13 ;9.c1 �b4 14 b3 d5 15 h4 aS 16 axb3�d8 18 -'lb2 d5 with equal­ 4Jh34Jd7 17 4:Jf4 4:Jf6 and Black ity; Lputian - Malaniuk, Sim­ went on to win. feropol 1988. c) Recently 10 4:Jg5 has come d2) 10 ... c6!? 11 a4 �a6 12 e3 into vogue. Black has: (12 6;52 e6 13 dxe6 �xe6 14 d5 d) 10 ... c6 11 e4!? fxe4 12 !lf7 15 c£jb4 �b6 16 dxc6 4:}xc6 4:}xe4�c4 13 ,O.e3± linen Bueno 17 4Jd5± lsaev - Galdunts, Main linewi th 7 ... �eB 37

Podolsk 1990) 12 .. . �b6 13 aS �d2 e5 and Black has overcome bS 14 �d3 Qd7 15 dxc6 �c6 his opening difficulties; Ba.la­ 16 .Q.d2 e5 17 Qxc6 bxc6 and shov - Malaniuk, USSR Ch Black seized the initiative in 1986) 11 .. . �b6 12 .(le3 �b4

Groszpeter - Gurevich, Palma (Dangerous is 12 ... �b2, e.g. 13 de Mallorca 1989. 4)13 �c3 14 gel �a3 15 �c2 d3) 10 ... �b6 11 e3 (11 Qe3!? 4Jb4 16 �b4 �b4 17 Bb1!�aS

�b2 {11 ... c6 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 18 .(ld2 �a6 19 e3 and Black is !fbi aS 14 �c2 Jld715 cfjd3 cf)a6 not able to defend his queen­ 16 a3 jJfcB 17 b4;t} 12 4)13 {12 side) 13 4Jd3 �d3 (Bad is 13 ... a4!?} 12 ... �a3 13 �c2 c6 and aS 14 �b4 axb4 15 �b3) 14 White has compensation for �d3 aS?! (14 �d7 b4!) 15 gfd the saaificed pawn) 11 . . . c6 12 .(ld7, as in Dautov - Legky,

4)13 cxd5 (12 . . . �d7 13 Qd2 4Ja6 Tashkent 1987, and now White 14 �b3 and according to Chek­ could have played 16 gc3! gfc8 hov and Dautov, the position 17 h4!? (Nothing is achieved by favours White) 13 Qxd5+ e6 14 17 Bb3 �a6 18 �a6 bxa6 19 gc3 �b3 (40) . gabS 20 b3 e5 and Black main­ tains the balance) 17 ... �a6 18 40 �d2 bS (Even worse is 18 ... c5 B 19 dxc5! Qxc3 20 �c3 dxc5 21 _Qg5) 19 Qh6± - Dautov. Returning to the position after 9 ... c6 (41).

The diagram position appeared in the game between Dautov and Ragozin, USSR 1986, and is slightly better for White. d4) 10 ... 4Ja6 11 a4 (11 e3 Qd7 12 4)13 {12 &b3?? &xb3 13 axb3

.Q.bSJ 12 . . . c5 {12 . . . c6?13 a4 or 10 �bJ 13 �b3} 13 dxc6 �xc6 14 �xc6 Also possibleis 10 dxc6 bxc6 bxc6 15 �b3+ gf7! {If15 ... &xb3 11 gel (11 �c2 {11 dS!?} 11 ... �h8

16 axb3 and White has better 12 .(le3?! {12 Jld2!?) 12 . . 4Ja6 chances in the endgame} 16 with ... 4Jb4 or ... �7 to fol­ �b5 {16 Jld2 lfbB 17 &xbS low, putting pressure on the J:fxbS 18 J:ffcJ cS=} 16 ... cxb5 17 d5-square but not 12 ... �d7 13 38 Mainline with 7. . . �eB

�c4+, as was played in the This position is considered game between Semkov and as equal by Hjartarson. Grigorov in Sofia in 1984) 11 ... �7 12 e4 fxe4 13 �5 cfjf6 14 E 4::}xe4 4::}xe4 15 !lxe4!ld7 16 .klg5 8 �b3 (43) ;gb8 17 !lxe7!? �xb2o:J Ortega ­ Remon, Havana 1986. 10 ... cxdS Not 10 ... �h8?! 11 4Jg5 � 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 �a4 and White enjoyed clear superiority in lllilmann - S. GrUnberg, Kecs­ kemet 1984. 11 �dS+ 11 e4!? has beensuggested. 11 �h8 12 .Q.d2 {}c6 The queen move, introduced 13 .Q.c3 {}dB by Grandmaster Lerner and If 13 ... �d7?! (13 ... f4!?) 14 taken up by Anatoly Karpov, �b3 e5 (14 ... 4:Jd8? 15 d5) 15 indirectly prepares the advance dxe5 dxe5 16 �xb7 gb8 17 �c7 e2 - e4, accompanied by a e4 (Hjartarson - Beliavsky, dynamic development of pieces. Szirak izt 1987) and now 18 �fdt Recently this idea has been retains the pawn - Hjartarson. abandoned, because Malaniuk 14 �b3 has found excellent possibilities In the case of 14 �ad, then of organising counterplay for

14 ... �e6 15 �aS b6 with the Black with 8 . .. �- idea of ... �d5+ - Hjartarson. 8 {}a6 14 eS According to Lerner, two 15 dxeS dxeS other lines do not enable Black 16 e3 (42) to maintain the balance: 8 ... �h8 9 4:Jd5! and 8 ... �4 9 c£)xe4 fxe4 10 4:Jg5 _klxd4 11 4J.x e4. More recently 8 . . . c6 has been tried: 9 d5 4Ja6 10 .O,e3 � 4 11 .O.f4 (an attempted improvement on 11 �d 4 e5 12 dxe6 c£je5! 13 gadt �e6o:; Karpov - Gurevich, Reggio Emilia 1989/90) 11 ... 4Jc5 12 �c2 h6 13 h3 e5 and Black comes Main line with 7 ... �e8 39 out of the complications slight­ USSR Ch 1986} 12 ... e5? {Cor­ ly better; Karpov - Gurevich, rect was 12 ... f/lh B!?} 13 dxe5 Amsterdam 1991. dxe5 14 e4! f4 15 gxf4 exf4 16 e5 9 .QgS C3th8!? gb8 17 gfe1 �e6! {17... JJ.e6? 18 In addition to this extrava­ c£jf6 +} 18 ge4 {Malaniuk claims gant move, Black has other that White could have gained continuations to consider: advantage by 18 �d3, when 18 ... a) 9 ... 4:Jh5 10 4Jd5 gf7 11 c5 g5? runs into 19 c£jxg5 �h6 20 e6 12 4Jf4 (It is not clear who c£jf6 + 1J.xf6 21 �d5+ with a will stand better after 12 4Jb4 decisive superiority} 18 ... g5! 19 4Jxb4 13 �b4 aS 14 �a3 ga6) 4Jxg5 �h6 with compenstion 12 ... 4Jf6! 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 cxd6 for the sacrificed material; cxd6 15 h4 �g7 16 gael h6 17 l.putian - Malaniuk, Novosibirsk gfet e5 18 dxe5 dxe5 19 4:)35 1986) 12 'lj}c2 (Tukmakov offers e4= Vyzmanavin - Malaniuk, the line 12 e4 cxd4 13 4jxd4 f4 Novosibirsk 1986. 14 gxf4 4Jc5 15 'lj}c2 �xd4 16 b) 9 . . . cS 10 .(lxf6 (10 d5!? - gxd4 4:Je6+) 12 . . . gb8 13 e4 (13 Lerner) 10 ... .Q.xf6 11 gadt (11 �d2!? - Tukmakov) 13 ... fxe4 gfdt .c1g 7 12e3 �h8 13 gael h6 (Bad is 13 ... cxd4 14 4jxd4 f4 15 14 dxc5 4JxcS 15 �c2 �d7 16 gxf4 �xd4 16 gxd4 gxf4 17 4):14gb8 17 'lj}e2 a6 18 b3 g5 19 4:)35 with advantage for White 4):15 e5 20 4Jc2 bS and Black - Malanuik) 14 �e4 (According has a better position; Vainer­ to Malaniuk, on 14 4Jxe4 an man - Malaniuk, USSR 1986) 11 equal game would be achieved . . . �h8 (11 ... .a,g 7 {11 .. . e5?! 12 by 14 ... �7; Tukmakov sug­ dxe5 dxe5 13 e4 f4 14 gxf4 exf4 gests 14 ... .O,f5 15 �e2 �xe4 16 15 e5 .a,g7 16 lJfe1 and Whites �e4 and Black has several superiority in the centre is promising replies: 16 ... 'f!ff?, 16 decisive - Lerner} 12 4Jd5 {12 e3 ... cxd4!? and 16 ... b5!?) 14 ... [12 !Xfe1 intending e2 - e4 is �d7 (Weaker is 14 ... .O,f5 15 �e3 worth consideration according - Tukmakov) 15 4Jd5 .O,c6 and to LernerJ 12 ... h6 [An unclear chances are equal; Tukmakov - position arises after 12 ... f/lh B Malaniuk, Novosibirsk 1986. 13 !Xd2 h6 14 !Xe1 rtj/7 15 c£jJ5 g5; Returning to the position Ubilava - Malaniuk, Tbilisi after 9 ... �h8 (44). 19861 13 dxcS [13 h4!? - LernerJ 10 4Jd5 13 ... c£jxc5 14 �c21J.e6 15 b3!XcB If White now exchanges on 16 £1141J.f717 e4 ?! f17f4 J 17 ... f6, Black has sufficient possi­ f4! 18 fFe2 a6! when Black bilities: 10 �xf6 .(lxf6 11 e4 e5 12 plans to play ... g6 - g5 and ... gfe1 (White could have tried 12 e7 - e5 with a complicated dxe5 dxe5 13 gfe1, whilst 13 position; Lerner - Malaniuk, exf5 gxf5 14 gfe1 4Jc5 leads to 40 Main IJnewith 7 ... �eB

an unclear position) 12 ... exd4 Tallinn 1987. 13 exf5 �d8 14 {JbS c£jc5 15�a3 15 ... exf4 ,O_xf5 (Weaker is 15 ... d3?! 16 16 e5 g5! fxg6 hxg6 17 �adl) 16 4Jbxd4 lbe pawn cannot be taken Qg4 17 �ad1 �d7 18 h3 �xf3 because of 17 ... �g6. (The text move leads to a 17 �fe1 4Jc5 drawn endgame, but 18 ... �xh3 18 �aJ 4Jd3 would have been too risky: 19 19 4Je4 ,O.xh3 �xh3 20 b4 c£P7 21 0¢ White lacks sufficent coun­ �feB 22 4Jfg5 �xg5 23 4Jxg5 terplay for the exchange; Lerner with a dangerous attack) 19 - Malanluk, Tallinn 1987. No 4Jxf3�a4! 20 �a4 4Jxa4 21 b3 better would have been 19 �e2 and the game soon ended in a g4, nor 19 �e4 �f5, nor 19 �d1 draw; Lputian - Vyzmanavin, 4JxeS. In each case White loses Irkutsk 1986. material. 10 ... 4Jg8 Strangely enough, this re- F treat gives Black good chances. 8 e4 (46) 11 -'ld2 e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 46 13 e4 c6 B 14 4Jc3 f4 15 gxf4? A critical moment! Better . seems to be 154Ja4!? (4S) 15 . . . �e 7?! (15 . . . h6!?) 16 gxf4 exf4 17 ,O.c3 g5 18 c£P4 g4 19 �fe1 4Jh6 20 gad1 'ti1f7 21 e5 f3 22 e6 �h5 23 ,O.f1 and Black's attack on the kingside has In this last section we shall failed; Kravtshenko - Malaniuk, examine variations that have Main line with 7 ... �e8 41 not been endorsed in master �h4 h6 18 � g5 19 {jxg7 practice. gxh 4 20 4:Jxe8 gaxe8 21 b3 h3 The text move seems to be 22 �h1 �4 23 f4 4Jd3 24 .Q.e4 the most direct way to under­ 4)::5 2S gael and the advantage mine Black's strategy. Never­ of White's extra pawn is clear; theless, White cannot achieve D�uban - Legky, USSR 1985. his goal by such unprepared 11 �b3 pawn advances. Black also has good play Even if e4 is prepared by 8 after 11 Wd2 Wd7 12 4Jgxe4 �c2 Black has no problems: 8 4:'Jxe4 13 ilxe4 .Q.f3 14 �xf3 ... eS 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 e4 ?! 4):6 11 .:§.xf3, as in Afifi - Yusupov, .0.e 3 f4! 12 gxf4 {Jh5, as in Tunis 1985. Reilein - Zysk, Munich 1987. 11 �d7 Also to be considered is 8 12 4Jgxe4 4Jxe4 �e3 e5 (The continuations 8 ... 13 .O.xe4 .Q.f3 aS 9 d5 and 8 ... c6 9 d5 lead to 14 ,O_xf3 �xf3 the variations examined above, 15 �ad1 (4 7) but 8 ... 4Jg4!? deserves exam­ ination) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 .O.c5 .:§.f7 47 11 4Jg5 .:§.d7 12 �b3 and White B has a minimal advantage. 8 fxe4 9 4Jg5 4Jc6 10 .O.e3 �4 Black can also attempt to solve his problems in the cen­ tre: 10 ... e5!? 11 d5 �4 12 �d2 �4?! 13 .O.xd4 exd4 14 �xd4 �7 15 �e3 4:Je5 16 �xe4 �f5 17 Black has a goodgame. 2 Main L ine with 7 ... c6

1 d4 fS C 8lde1 2 g3 4:)£6 D 8b3 3 .Q.g2 g6 E 8 .Q.gS and others 4 4:)£3 !Jg7 5 o-o o-o A 6 c4 d6 8 dS 7 4Jc3 c6 (48) Normally Black reacts to this with the immediate 8 ... eS 48 but other lines are sometimes w tried:

A1 8 ... eS A2 8 ... 'f!Jc7 A3 8 ... .Q.d7 andothers

A1 8 eS (49)

This move has a long his­ 49 tot)'. If we compare it with the w move 7 . . . 4:):6, play is less forcing here, but unlike 7 ... �e8, where Black retains a choice of several plans, the move 7 . . . c6 is usually con­ nectedwith the advance ... e7 - eS. The main reply for White is 8 dS, which we shall examine first, though White has several possibilities: And now:

A 8d5 A11 9 dxe6 B 8 tf1c2 A12 9 dxc6 and others Main line with 7 ... c6 43

AU 4:Jxg7 with advantage to White; 9 dxe6 Davis - Gallego, lisbon 1986, The most natural move. nor by 11 ... d5 12 4Jg5 Qg8 13 9 �xe6 cxd5 cxd5 and Black has a Again White has a choice potential weakness on dS, here: Shvedchikov - Alleva, Moscow 199i) 12 4JgS ,Og8 13 e4 4Ja6 14 A111 10 �d3 gad1 4)::5 15 �e2 �e7 16 gfe1 A112 10 bJ andothers with an unclear position; HUb­ ner - Akvist, Oslo 197 4. A111 b) 10 ... c£Jg4 11 b3 (11 �5 10 �dJ (50) �e7 12 ct:P5.Q.xd5 13 cxd5 c5 14 � and White has a strong­ so hold on e6; Ostenstad - Gret­ B arsson, Gausdal 1992) 11 ... 4Ja6 12 �b2 (12 4!?.O,.f 4)::5 13 �d2 �aS 14 gael± Aseev - Kalini­ chev, Berlin 1991) 12 ... 4Jc5 13 �d2 �e 7 14 4Jg5 .Qc 8 15 �ad1, and the position is more fa­ vourable for White; Scanavina ­ Pelikan, Argentina1961. c) 10 ... 4je4 11 0:f4 (Accept­ White's intention is to ex­ ing the pawn sacrifice leads to ploit Black's potential weak­ equality: 11 4:Jxe4 fxe4 12 �e4 ness - the d6-pawn. A draw­ .Qf5 13 �h4 {13 �e3 i(gb6 f13 ... back of the plan is that the JleB 14 i(gb3c£)a6 15 i(gxb7cfjc5 16 white queen may be vulnerable i(gb4 l!xe2 with good counter­ to attack by the black pieces. play for the sacrificed pawn] 14 The basic theory of the varia­ a4 c£)a6 15 i(gxb6 axb6 and Black tion was worked out many has sufficent compensation; years ago, but recent tourna­ Margolit - Leonidov, USSR ment practice has made several 1960} 13 ... �4 14 4:Jxh4.O,e6 =) important additions. 11 ... fJ.f? 12 flxe4 (12 4Jxe4 fxe4 10 ... {Ja6 13 flxe4 ct:P7 with counterplay Black has tried several other for the pawn) 12 .. . fxe4 13 moves here: 4:Jxe4 (13 �e4 �e8 14 �g4 a) 10 ... �h8 11 �f4 �8 ct:P7 1s �5 {Jes 16 �h4 �b6 (Neither will equality be achiev­ and Black regains his pawn in a ed by 11 ... 4Jh5, e.g. 12 .O,xd6 good position} 13 ... 4Jd7 14 �S .Q.xc4 13 �c4 �d6 14 �5 (14 4:Jxd6?! 4)::5 15 4Jxf7 �xf? 16 �c7 15 � � 16 �b3 �e8 17 �a3 �xd4 17 Qe3 �b2 18 �c5 44 Main line with 7 ... dJ

Vjjxe2, and the position favours �)! gives White a dangerous Black; 14 4:Jf3 d5 15 cxd5 �xd5 initiative; Simagin - Hasin, 16 ilg5 �b6 with counterplay) Moscow 1956) 12 ... h6 13 {Jf3 14 ... c£)=5 154Jxf7 gxf7 16 �c2 Qe6? (13 ... c£je8 or 13 ... c£je4! 14 �d7 17 �f4 and Black is behind {Jxe4 fxe4 15 �e4 Qf5 16 �h4 in material - l.eonidov. g5 17 �h5 �6 with good com­ d) 10 ... {Jlxl7 11 �f4 {Jb6 12 pensation - Bellin) 14 �xd6 b3 c£je4 13 4:Jd4 {Jxc3 14 {Jxe6 �d6 15 gxd6 .0.Xc4 16 c£)=5 Qf7 �e 7 15 �d2 Vjjxe6 16 .0.Xc3 gae8 17 �xh6 with an extra pawn for 17 �xg7 �g 7 18 e3± Uhlmann White; lvkov - Sahovic, Zemun - Zwaig, Halle 1967; Botvinnik 1982. suggests that Black should b) 11 ... ge8 12 .elf4 �b6 13 b3 play 16 ... �xc3 17 �c3 d5!?. with a more favourable position 11 !J.f4 for White; Smejkal - Lutikov, White can also try to gain an Leipzig 1977. advantage by 114Jg5 (51) : c) 11 ... � 12 {Jxe6 {Jxe6 13 gd1 �e8 14 b3 with a better 51 position for White - Taimanov. B d) 11 ... �e7 12Qf4 gad8 (12 . .. c£)=8?13 c£:P5�xd5 14 cxd5 c5 15 � and the white knight vigorously limits Black's chan­ ces) 13 gadt {Jh5 (13 ... c0g4 14 {Jxe6 {1 4 f)dS! ? r!fjeB 15 r!fja3c£)e5 with complications - Knezevic} 14 ... �xe6 15 e4 {15 b3 cfy:S 16 r!fjc2 r!fjf6 [16 ... §feB!?J and the a) 11 . . . �c8 (This bishop game is equal; Ubilava - Knez­ retreat is unpleasant for Black) evic, Trencianske Tep lice 1985} 12 gd1 (12 �f4 {jh5 {12 ... cfY:B 13 15 ... c£jc5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 �c2 !1fd1 h6 14 fJ£3 1J.e6 15 r!fje3! c£)=5 18 b3± Fridstein - Lutikov, JJ.xc4 16 J}.xh6± Keene - WJr - Moscow 1958) 14 4:Jd5 (Too thenson, Hannover 1977} 13 spectacular) 14 ... �d7 15 �e3 Vjjxd6 {No more than equality is 'itJh8 16 {Jf4 {Jxf4 17 gxf4 (17 gained by 13 J1a d1?! cfjxf4 14 �xf4!? - Suetin) 17 .. . �8 18 gxf4 h6 15 c£)f3 J1F6 16 !1d2 �c2 �c7 19 a3 4:Jc5 20 b4 4):17 J}.e6= Csom - Sax, Budapest 21 .0.d4 4Jb6 with an excellent 1973} 13 ... {Jxf4 14 �xf4 h6 15 game for Black; Kremenietsky - c£jf3 g5 16 �cl �e6 17 gdt �6 Berkovich, Moscow 1983. 18 4:Jd4 with better chances for Tu nid is 11 gd1 c£)::5 12 �d6 White, because 18 ... .O.xc4 19 �d6 13 gxd6 �xc4 with no 4Y4 fxe4 20 Vjjxc4+ 'itJh8 21 problems for Black; Radev - Main line with 7 ... c6 45

Kaiszauri, USSR1977. Returning to the position 11. 4Je4 after 11 ... 4Je4 {52) . This move considerably sharpens the struggle. Others  "� are indifferent or just plain bad: w .��::t� � � -�� ....+ a) 11 ... geS!? 12c£jg5?! �4 13 4l�� .t: ...... �A"\�< � � ....+� {jxe6 gxe6 14 gad1 4:Je5 15 tf}c2 tfjaS 16 e4?! c£jxc4 and White � � �::t� gained no counterplay for his �jt�4)� � pawn; Bany - Kuczynsky, Pola­ � ·�0���·�/.'\���. nica Zdroj 19S7. ;it� �;it���·'/- b) 11 ... tfjaS 12 �5 (Also �� � ��g �--'l� good is 12 .Q.xd6 gfdS 13 gad1 LJ �f7? 14 �5 4:Jes 15 4Jxf7 � 12 {jxe4 16 c5 4:'Jxc5 17 .Q.d5+ and the The attempt to play 12 @4 black king remained exposed in does not give anything more Shneider - Palatnik, Herson than equality: 12 ... Jlf7 13 4Jxe4 19S9) 12 ... gfeS (If 12 ... 4Jc5?! 13 fxe4 14 tflxe445:5 15tf}e3 �xc 4. tf}b1! and 13 ... .Q.xc4 loses to 14 12 ... fxe4 b4 tfja3 15 bxcS �xc3 16 gd 13 �xe4 4Jc5 tfjd4 17 .Q.e3+-) 13 �d6 gadS 14 13 ... .Q.f5 14 tf}e3 flxb2 (Pos­ {jxe6 gxe6 15 b4 tfja3 16 c5± - sible is 14 ... tfjb6 15 'ttJx.b6 axb6 Taimanov. 16 flxd6 gfe8 17 4:Jh4 �xb2 1S c) 11 ... d5?! 12 c£jg5 4Jc5 13 4jxf5 .Q.xa1 19 4Je7+ � 20 gxal tf}c2 d4 14 {Ja4 4:Jfd7 15 gad1 gadS 21 .kla3 gd2 22flh3 4Jc5 23 �e7 16 4:'JxcS4:jxcS 17 b4 4Jd7 1S QxcS bxc5 24 4JcS gexe2 and e3 dxe3 19 gfe1 with advantage the active black rooks maintain to White; Andersson - Marovic, the balance; Berg - Fleck, West Banja Luka1979. Germany 19S7) 15 gad1 geS 16 d) 11 ... 4jeS 12 {jg5 (Passive tfjd2 tf}f6 17 e3! Qa3 1S 4Jd4 flb 4 is 12 b3 �f6 13 gad d5 14 cxd5 19 tf}e2 fld7 20 h4 with good 4jb4 15 tfjd2 4:jxd5 16 �e5 tf}e 7 attacking chances; Vukic - 17 �xg7 4:'Jxg7 1S 4Jd4 4:'Jxc3 19 Kaiszauri, Skara 19SO. gxc3 !l.f7= Neverov - Malan­ 14 �e3 iuk, Herson 19S9) 12 ... tfjd7 Not 14 �c2? Qf5 15 �d2 c£je4 (Consideration should be given 16 tf}e3 geS 17 tfja3 tfjb6 1S �d to 12 ... 4Jc5 13 {jxe6 4Jxe6 - d5 with a strong initiative for Taimanov) 13 b3 h6 14 4Jxe6 the pawn; Nordstron1 - Niklas­ '{tJxe6 15 .,Cle34:Jf6 with a slightly son, Sweden 197 4. more comfortable position for 14 �xc4 White; Romanishin - Vaganian, 15 �ad1 �e8 USSR 1976. 16 �c1 �xe2 46 Mainline with 7.. . dj 17 rxxd6 �aS 18 .Q.d2 �bS 54 19 4Jd4 4Jd3 B Weaker is 19 ... �d3?! 20 .O,e3 �4 ?! 21 gd7 c5 and now White should have played 22 gel! cxd4 23 gxg7+ �g7 24 �h6+ � 2S �4+ 4j'6 26 ,O_d5+ winning; Y usupov - Barbero, Mendoza 1985. 20 4Jxb5 4Jxc1 21 4Jc7 �xf1 h3 !JJ7 12 .O,a3 �8 13 4Jxf7 22 .Q.xf1 rxed8 gxf7 14 gel 4:)t6 15 h4 4:)tc7 16 23 rxxd8+ rxxd8 e4 f 4+ Ribli - Sax, Hungary 24 .Q.xc1 rxd1 1971. 25 -'l_e3 �7 (53) b) 10 4Jd2 (Artificial) 10 ... 4Jbd7 11 �c2 4Jb6 12 4:)t4 �a4 53 13 �a4 �e7 and White had w wasted time on the queenside in Etruk - Holmov, Moscow 1%5; Botvinnik suggests 12 b3 d5 with equality. c) Nothing more than equal­ ity is gained by 10 �f4 ,O.xc4 11 .O,xd6 ge8 12 �d4 (12 �5 .O,e6 13 �d3 4Jbd7 14 �d7 {Jxd7 15 gfdl '{1Jf6= Aronson - Hasin, Black's chances are by no Moscow 1956) 12 ... -'ld5 13 .Q.xb8 means worse in the endgame; �xf3 14 �xd8 gxd8 15 �xf3 Shneider - Berkovich, Nikolaev gaxb8= larsen - Palatnik, 1987. Palma de Mallorca 1989.

10 ... 4Ja6 A112 Other moves have also been 10 b3 (54) tried (Botvinnik recommends 10 White tries to gain a posi­ ... aS!?): tional advantage with quiet a) 10 ... h6 11 �4 !J..f7 12 !J..b2 moves, not risking complicated 4:J:t6 13 gel ge8 (13 .. . d5!? - tactical variations. Other tenth Botvinnik) 14 gc2 d5 15 cxd5 moves are not promising for {Jxd5 16 �d5 �xd5 17 gd2 White: with advantage to White; a) 10 c:£:g5?! (The pawn sac­ Spiridonov - Stanciu, Bucharest rifice is incorrect) 10 . . . �c4 11 1973. Main IJne with 7 . . . c6 47

b) 10 ... �h8 11 �a3 (More 15 �xf6 gxf6 16 {jxc8 �> 17 passive is 11�b 2 4Jab 12 e3 d5 13 � 7 + �8 18 {jxc6 bxc6 19 cfjeS cxd5 4:]xd5= Najdorf - Panna, with a White advantage; Syre - Mar del Plata 1%8) 11 ... �8 12 Paehtz, EastGermany 1975. t/Jc2 4Jab 13 gacil t/JaS (13 ... Returning to the position t/Je7!? - Botvinnik) 14 �b2 gd8 after 10 ... {Jab (55). 15 e3 t/Jc7 16 c£je2 �5 17 4Jf 4 �8 18 {JgS t/Je7 19 h4± Chap­ 55 linsky - Dmitriev, USSR 1973. w c) 10 ... �4 ?! (Unjustified active play) 11 4:]xe4 �xa1 (11 ... fxe4 12 �4 !J.f1 13 �xe4 t/Je7 14 .o,g2 cS 15 �2 �xa1 16 4:]xa1 4):.:6 17 4):2 with more than sufficient compensation; Kar­ ner - Etruk, Parnu 1%7) 12 t/Jxd6 (Alternatively: 12 {Jxd6 �7 {12 ... �e7 13 e4 with an 11 -'lb 2 unclearposition - Botvinnik} 13 Also possibleare: 4:Jxb7 t/Jxd1 14 gxd1± Krogius - a) 11 �e3 t/Je7 12 gel 4):5 13 Elizarov, USSR 1967; or 12 �hb �d4 �d7 (13 ... aS!?) 14 t/Jd2 � � 7 13 !J.xg7 �g 7 14 t/Jd4+�8 with possibilities for both 15 4:]xd6t/Je7 16e4 fxe4 17 4:Jxe4 sides; Vaganian - Knezevic, 4:::-P7 18 ge1co Bukhman - Leningrad 1977. Blekhtsin, Leningrad 1%8; or 12 b) 11{Jg5!? �e 7 (The retreat �5!? {12 frgS!?} 12 . . . 'lf1c7 13 11 ... �c 8!? deserves considera­ t/Jxd6 - Botvinnik) 12 ... t/Jxd6 tion: 12 ;gb1 {12Jlb2 cfjcS 13 �c2 (Others are bad: 12 ... �f7 13 �e 7 14 f1a d1 Jld7 15 �d2 cfYB 16 �5 'lf1d7 14 !J.h6± - Leonidov; lffe1 lfd8 17 f4 and Whiteis on or 12 .. . ge8 13 t/Jxd8 gxd8 14 top; Gulko - Dolmatov. Mos­ 4):5± ; or 12 ... t/Je8 13 4Jc5 �c 8 cow GMA 1990} 12 ... �e 7 13 14 !J.hb !J£7 15 �xg7 �g7 16 'lf1c2�d7 {13 ... h6 ?! 14 cfJ£3c£)c5 �5 with an attack - Malich) 13 15 iJ.a3? [15 cfjh4!? - Ta im ­

{Jxd6 !J.c8 (13 ... bb 14 �5 !J.fb anov1 15 ... 1J.e6 16 lfbd1JXa dB 17 {14 ... JJ.c3 15 JJ.e7 cfja6 16 c[ES e31J.f7 wi th an excellent game JJ.d7 17 jJ.xfB J1xf8 and Black for Black; Petrosian - Knezevic, has no real compensation for Banja Luka 1979} 14 e3 gadS 15 thepaw n; Ibragimov - Beshu­ gd1 !J.c8 16 4Jf3 gfe8 with an kov, Sm olensk 1991} 15 �xfb equal game; Paehtz - Kuczyn­ gxf6 16 �8 gf7 17 �5 ge7 18 sky, Dresden 1988) 12 4:]xe6 (12 {jxeb with a decisive advantage �b2 is considered under the for White - Malich) 14 .Qg5 !J.f6 move order 11 .O,.b 2 �e 7 12 4JgS) 4S Main line with 7 ... c6

12 ... tfitxe6 13 .cla3 gadS 14 get 12 4Jg5 with an unclear position - 12 4):14 leads to equality Taimanov. after 12 ... �f7 13 _kla3 c£jcS 14 c) Mter the forcing 11 .cla3?! gel gad8 1S e3 gfe8 16 cfFe2tf}c7 tf}aS 12 tf}xd6? gfe8 13 .clb2 4Y4 17 tf}c2 a6 1S {Jf4 c£jce4 1f2� 14 4Jxe4 .clxb2 15 4:JegS gadS Pinter - Dolmatov, Beersheva White loses the exchange. 1991. d) 11 .clf4!? 4:JhS 12 !,ld2 A tnore complicated alter­ (White gains nothing more native is 12 tf}c2 dS 13 cxdS and than equality after 12 .QgS tf}aS now: 13 4):14 tf}xc3 14 4Jxe6 tfftxa1 15 a) 13 ... 4JxdS 14 {Ja4 (14 tfftxa1 .klxa1 16 4jxfS _klhS 17 {Je6 {JxdS _klxdS 15 Qxg 7 tfftxg 7 geS 1S {Jf4 {jxf4 19 Qxf4 gxe2 rK.immelfeld - leonido v, USSR 20 �xd6 gxa2) 12 ... c£jcS 13 tf}c2 1969} 16 gadt when the follow­ aS 14 gadt f4 15 �c1 tf}e7 (Tuk­ ing 4JgS gives White a slightly makov recommends 15 ... _klfS!? preferable position according 16 tf}d2 fxg3 17 hxg3 tf}b6 18 to Kir. Georgiev) 14 ... {Jf6 (14 ... �4 _kld7CX)) 16 4:Jd4 _kld 7 17 a3 4]ili4= - Kir. Georgiev) 15 gadt with an unbalanced position; gadS 16 c£jc3 �5 17 4Jxd5 lllilmann - Vaiser, Szirak 1985. -'lxdS 18 -'lxg7 �g 7 (1S ... tfftxg 7 11 't!Je7 19 {JxgS±) 19 tf}c3+ tf}f6 20 Vf1e3 Very serious consideration b6 21 {JeS {Jb4 22 f 4 with should be given to 11 . .. {JcS!? 12 slightly better chances for 4:::::gS tf}e7 13 tf}d2 gadS 14 {Jxe6 White; Kir. Georgiev - lvkov, tfftxe6 15 gad1 gfe8 16 tf}c2 (56) Sarajevo 1986. b) 13 ... 4:Jb4! 14 tf}ct 4JfxdS 15 56 4)14 gadS 16 .clxg7 tf}xg7 17 a3 B 4JID 18 e3 -'lc 8= Scheeren - Kovacevic, Thessaloniki 1984.

12 ... cijcS Also playable are:

a) 12 ... gadS!? 13 4jxe6 tfitxe6 14 tf}c2± Farago - Bomgasser, Dortmund 197S. b) 12 ... _kld7 13 tf}c2 (or 13 tf}d2 gadS 14 gad1 _klcS 15 gfet h6 16 This position arose in the game {f3± Dorfman - Dolmatov, Bukic - Rakic, Lj ubljana 1981. Moscow GMA 1990) 13 ... gadS The situation should be con­ 14 gad1 h6 15 4Jf3 ,O.e6 16 gfe1 sidered equal, as Black's pieces cfF5 17 0f4 gives White a control the central squares, but slightly better game; Farago - White has a useful bishop pair. Renner, Bad Worishofen 1991. Main Line with 7 ... c6 49

13 tt;Jc2 �d7?! tage for White; Bertok - Knez­ 14 z;radt z;radB evic, Yugoslavia 1%7) 10 cxd5 15 b4 4Je6 {Ja6 11 exf5 (11 �5?! h6 12 Qxf6 16 4:Jf3 �6 13 exf5 gxf5 and Black's The exchange on e6 gives chances are better; Cvetkov - Black a good game: 16 {Jxe6 Kotkov, Bulgaria - USSR 1957)

�xe6 17 b5 �xc4 18 bxm bxm 11 ..·. gxf5 (After 11 ... �xf5 12 19 �xm �e6 20 �bS gc8 21 r0g5 �e7 13 h3 h6 14 {Jge4 �xc4 �c4= O'Kelly - Botvin­ White has a powerful central nik, Palma de Mallorca 1%7. knight; Magerramov - Vaiser, 16 �c8 Nimes 1991) 12 c£Jh4· (12 {Jg5!?) 17 e3 with possibilities for both sides White has a slight spatial - Botvinnik. advantage; Uhlmann - l.utikov, 9 bxc6 leipzig 1977. Also interesting is 9 ... {Jxm 10 cfjbS?! (10 �5!?) 10 ... e4 11 A12 4:Jfd4 d5 12 c5 4Je8 13 gb1 a6 14 9 dxc6 (57) cfjxm bxm 15 4:Jd4 �6 16 e3 aS+ Glek - Palatnik, Tallinn 57 1986. B 10 b3 There is no danger in 10 �d2 e4 11 4:Jd4�e 7 124Jc2 �e6 13 b3 @6 14 ,O_a34Jc5 15 gadl gfd8 16 f3 �f7 17 �e3 with an obscure position; Chikovani - Holmov, Vani 1985. 10 e4! (58)

In this section we shall 58 examine the possibilities where w White avoids the usual 9 dxe6 and chooses more off-beat continuations. Black normally achieves an equal game without toomany difficulties. No problems for Black arise after 9 e4 cxd5 (9 ... c5?! 10 exf5 gxf5 11 cfjh4 {li c£Jg5!? - Botvin- nik} 11 ... c£Ja6 12 f4 e4 13 �h3 After 10 ... e4 Black gains �8 14 a3 t;5lc7 15 �e3 intend­ space for manoeuvre. Other ing �h5; with a slight advan- moves are weaker: SO Main linewith 7. .. c6

a) 10 ... �e8 11 �a3 d5 12 cxd5 variation is not often seen cxdS?! 13 �d !lb7 14 4Jh5�c6 15 nowadays. {Jl6 �e6 16 c£Jc4 �4 17 �b 2 9 4Jd4 and Black finds himself in a It is too early yet to play Y critical situation; Vogt - Cas­ e4 cxd5 10 cxd5 fxe4 11 �5 per, East Germany 1979. 4Ja6 (The deployment of the b) 10 ... 'tfJe7 11 �a3 �d8 12 e4 black bishop with 11 ... �4 12 4Ja6 13 �e1 {Jxe4 14 4Jxe4 fxe4 �e1 � 13 4:J:xe4 4Jxe4 14 15 4:Jd2 �5 16 4jxe4 {jxe4 17 �e4 �fS 15 'tfJh4 h6 {S. Sokolov �xe4 �b7 (Dvoretsky - Kais­ - Antoshin, USSR 1963} 16 4Je6 zauri, Vilnius 1978) 18 'tfJf3 with gives White a slight initiative) a more active position for 12 4):xe4 {jxe4 13 {jxe4 !lf5 White. and, according to Antoshin, the 11 4Jd4 the7 game is equal. 12 -'la3 ,O.b 7 9 cS 13 t!Jd2 4Ja6 Black remains under attack 14 !!ad1 r_tad8 following Y ... �e8?! 10 e4 fxe4 15 4Ja4 r_tfe8 11 {jxe4 c5 12 � �xe6 13 dxeb Black maintains equality; {jxe4 14 �xe4 c£Jc6 15 h4; Chap­

Eingom - Dolmatov, USSR Ch linsky - Yablanovsk y, Moscow 1989. 1968. Even worse is Y ... e5? 10 dxe64Ja6 11Slf4 4Jh5?! 12 c£jdb5! A2 with a winning position for 8 t!Jc7 (59) White; Gaprindashvili - Gurieli, USSR 1Y80. 59 10 4Jc2 w An inappropriate attacking move is 10 4Je6?! �xe6 11 dxe6 � 12 e4 (Mter 12 ;gb1 �ab8 13 b3�c8 14 �b2 �h8 15 -'ld5 4Jf4 White lost a pawn in Barcza -

Antoshin, USSR 1964) 12 . .. fxe4 13 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 14 .O,xe4 �h8 15 h4 �d 4 16 �g2 'tfJc8 17 !ld5 {Jb4 and Black is fine; Bertok - Black avoids forcing the Antoshin, Zagreb 1965. course of the game by ... e 7 10 ... 4Jbd7 - e5. His positional plan is 11 ID>t analogous to the variation 7 ... The immediate 11 f 4 is not �e8, but in this case, if White sufficient for an advantage: 11 ... plays accurately, Black runs a6 12 a4 �e8 13 �d3 4Jf8= into difficulties and thus this Szabo - Antoshin, Budapest Main line with 7 . . . c6 51 1973. 11 � 61 12 b3 4Je5 w 13 .Q.b 2 ID>B Also better for White is 13 ... .Q.d7 14 f4 �g4 15 e4 gae8 16 h3 4Jh6 17 exfS gxfS 18 {Je3, as in Vyzmanavin - Antoshin, Moscow 1983. 14 f4 liJf7 15 a4 15 �d3?! (This allows Black a) 8 . . . cxdS 9 cxdS 4.Ja6 (9 ... to relieve the pressure) 15 ... bS aS 10 Qe3 4:Jlxl7 11 �d4 {):S 12 16 t[je3 Qd7= Toran - Tal, a4 �d 7 13 �xeS dxcS 14 �b3 Skopje 1972. �h8 15 gad1 �8 16 e4 with a 15 .Q.d7 marked advantage to White; 16 �d3 (60) Vaganian - Borngasser, Mex­ ico 1977) 10 !le3 (10 4514{):S 11 60 h3 {11b31J.d7 121J. b2 �b6 13 ;gel B aS with an equal game in Schmidt - Pytel, Poland 1974; or 11 c£)b3 cf)ce4 12 JJ.e3 cfjxc3 13 bxc3 1J.d7 14 lJel �eB 15 c4 b6= Ka valek - Ciocaltea, Harrachov 1966} 11 ... aS {11 ... 1J.d7 12 tf;h2 lJcB= Pytel - Eisling, Wijk aan Zee 1974} 12 �e3 !ld7 13 �h2 4:JhS 14 f4 a4 15 gel �aS and Botvinnik considers this Black has no problems; Dun­ position slightly preferable for kelblum - Ciocaltea, Netanya White. 1%5) 10 ... !ld7 11�d4 h6 12 4512 gS 13 e4 fxe4 14 4:Jdxe4 !JJS 15 AJ �d2 4:Jxe4 16 4:Jxe4 Qxd4 17 8 .Q.d7 (61} �d4 �b6= l.angeweg - Pytel, In this section we shall look Dortmund 1975; 15 gel 4:Jc7 16 at continuations for Black that �d2 �d7 17 gael± - Botvinnik. lost their popularity long ago b) 8 .. . cS?! (A clear loss of and are important only from time) 9 �c2± - Botvinnik. the point of view of the de­ c) 8 ... �b6?! 9 ;gbt �d 7 10 velopment of Leningrad theory. !le3 �b4 11 �d3 4Ja6 12 a3 �aS Here are the remaining 13 b4 �d8 14 4514 and White branches on the eighth move: is better; Ruehrig - Buecker, 52 Main line with 7 ... c6

West Germany 1987. lombardy. d) 8 ... �aS (62) and now: d5) 9 4Jd4 �cS and now: d51) 10 �e3 4:}g4!? 11 {jxf5 c£jxe3 12 c£Jxe3 �h8 13 a3 aS 14 ;gc1 �a7 15 �d2 a4 with some compensation for the sacrificed pawn in Gauglitz - Lukov, Halle 1987; whilst after 10 ... �c4 White seizes a decisive initia­ tive: 11 ;gc1�a6 12 dxc6 c£Jxc6 (12 ... bxc6 13 4)::b5) 13 �b3+ �h8 14 c£jcbS c£jxd4 15 ,O_xd4 �aS 16 {57 gb8 17 c£Je6 �xe6 18 �e6 d1) Black gains a slight ;gfe8 19 �c2 c£jh5 20 �xg 7 + advantage after 9 �b3?! cxd5 10 ctJxg7 21 �f7 �d8 22 ;gfd ;gf8 cxd5 4:Ja6 11 �e3 �d7 12 ;gfd 23 �d5. ;gfc8 13 �d1 [[y:_5 14 4Jd4 @4 d52) 10 Qg5 Uansa) 10 ... h6 11 with an active game; O'Kelly - �xf6 �xf6 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 Uebert, Varna 1962. c£jxc6 c£jxc6 14 �d5+ �d5 15 d2) Also ineffective is 9 a3 �xd5+ �7 16 Qxc6 gb8 with �a6 10 � cxd5 (10 ... e5 11 b4 counterplay for the pawn - e4! 12 dxc6bxc6 with the initia­ Taimanov. tive; Dolezal - Uebert, Dresden dS3) 10 �d3?! 4Jg4 11 c£Jf3 1957) 11 cxd5 c£jlxl7 12 a4 c£je5 13 ( Ogaard - Akvist, Oslo 197 4) 11 4Jh5�b6 14 c£Jf3 {jxf3+ 15 �xf3 ... c£Jd7 with a favourable posi­ �d7 16 �e3 �aS= Gheorghiu - tion for Black - Botvinnik. lombardy, Buenos Aires 1979. d54) 10 QX c6 bxc6 11 4Jdb5 d3) Interesting is 9 �!? �b6 with possibilities for both �a6 10 ;gb1 cxd5 11 cxd5 c£jlxl7 sides in Langeweg - Jansa, Am­ 12 �e1 bS 13 a3 �b6 14 c£Jf3 sterdam 1974, e.g. 12 c5 dxcS 13 4:J:S?! 15 ,O_e3 and Black's posi­ �b3+ �h8 14 �f4 c£ja6 with an tion is very constricted; An­ unclear position. dersson - Panna, Buenos Aires 9 ro>t 1979. Other moves are: d4) Another idea is 9 �d2!? a) 9 4Jd4 �b6 10 e3 (10 4:Jh3 �b6 (9 ... �a6 10 b3 cxd5 11 cxd5 4:Ja6 11 �e3 c5 12 gb1 c£jc7 13 4:Jhd7 with equal chances; 4):12�a6 14 �c2 and Black has Wr rthensohn - Jansa, Caorle no problems; Kestler - Bueck­ 1972) 10 ;gb1�h8 11 �e3 �a6 12 er, Bundesliga 1990/91) 10 ... b3 cxd5 13 cxd5 c£jlxl7 14 a4 and 4)m 11 Bb1 (11 b3 {55 12 �b 2 the threat of 15 4:Jh5 gives aS= Spiridonov - Akesson, Po­ White the advantage; lvkov - lanica Zdroj 1981) 11 ... {55 (11 ... Main line with 7 ... c6 S3 {F 7 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 b4- e5a:) 14 �fd1 Harding) 12 b4 4Jce4 13 c£yt4 White's chances are slightly �a6?! (13 ... �c7 14 f3 c£::gs 15 preferable; Ribli - Mestel, Lon­ e4± Palatnik - Gulko, Kiev don 1986. 1973; 15 ... e5!?) 14 f3 c£::g5 15 b5 cxbS 16 cxbS �aS 17 .,(ld2 Wd8 18 B �b3 with a good game for 8 �c2 (64) White; lvkov - Buecker, Dort­ mund 1989. 64 b) 9 �e3 4Ja6 10 �d2 0g4 11 B .of 4:Jc54 12 h3 �6 13 �h6 {Fe4 14 {}xe4 fxe4 15 4:Jh4?! gf7+ Kaemer - Gavrikov, Tallinn 1987. c) Also ineffective is 9 Wc2 c£yt6 10 a3 cxd5 11 cxd5 gc8 12 4)144:JcS+ - Harding. 9 4Ja6 10 b3 In the present section we If 10 b4 {[y:.7 11 4):14 e5 12 discuss 8 �c2 which prepares dxe6 {}xe6 13 e3 f 4 14 {[y:.e2 the advance e2 - e4. In com­ fxg3 15 hxg3 c:£:g5 and Black has parison with the usual 8 dS, good counterplay; Schoen - this presents less difficulties Buecker, Bundesliga 1990/91. for Black who usually intends 10 {JcS to play ... e 7 - e5; the surest 11 �b 2 aS way to equality. In practice this 12 �d2 �b6 variation has not been particu­ 13 {Jd4 (63) larly successful for White. Black has several alternative eighth moves:

Bt 8 ... �c7 B2 8 ... 4Ja6 B3 8 ... \tlh8 and others

B1 8 �c7 9 e4 Others fail to impress: 13 �ad8?! a) 9 dS does not give the Probably 13 ... cxdS!? is advantage: 9 ... cxdS 10 cxdS worth trying. 4]24 11 Qd2 Qd 7 12 gad gc8 54 Main line with 7 ... c6 with equality; Soloviev - Alek­ 12 �h4 eS seev, Moscow 1972. 13 dxeS dxeS b) 9 �S eS 10 dxeS dxeS 11 14 .Q.h6 4Ja6 e4 � 12 exfS 1lxfS 13 �e2 15 Z;!ad1 Z;!ae8 gae8 14 4Jd2{FS and the black 16 thgS .Q.xh6 pieces are well developed; 17 �xh6 �4 Fuderer - Dimic, Yugoslavia 18 .Q.h3 �xh3 1953. 19 thxh3 c) 9 b3 eS 10 dxeS dxeS 11 1la3 The game is equal; Gofstein gd8 ( 11 . . . ge8 12 gad1 1lf8 13 - Bikhovsky, USSR 1977. �xf8 gxf8 14 e4 f4 with an unclear position in Scherbakov B2 - Volovic, USSR 1966) 12 e4 8 4Ja6 (65) fxe4 13 c:£jgS £lfS 14 c:£jgxe4 c£jxe4 15 4Jxe4 4:Jd7= Keller - 65 Nilsson, Munich 1958. w d) 9 gel 4:):16 10 e4 fxe4 11 c£jxe4 �fS 12 4Jh4? (Equality is achieved after 12 4:]xf6+ exf6 13 �c3 - Botvinnik) 12 ... c:£jg4 with a black initiative in Urbanec - Vesely, Prague 1957. e) 9 gdl also results in equality: 9 ... aS 10 b3 � 11 a3 eS; l.Dkvenc - Hort, Marian­ Black's last move leads to a ske l.azne 1962. slow position in which White 9 fxe4 has no reason to hope for the The ilnmediate 9 ... eS!? is advantage. possible: 10 dxeS dxeS 11 exfS 9 Z;!d1 �S (Problems arise after 11 ... Four other possibilities have gxfS 12 gel 4Je813 �e2 4:Jd7 14 been tried without success: �S e4 15 �f4± Koblencs - a) 9 dS?! eS (9 ... cxdS 10 cxdS Ostrauskas, USSR 1961) 12 �e2 1ld7 with a good game for 4Jhd7 13 �e3 gae8 14 h3 4Je4 15 Black) 10 dxe6 �xe6 11 b3 {Jb4?! c£jxe4�x e4= Fi lip - Nei, Bever­ (11 .. . �e7 (JJ ... �-5 } 12 £la3!? wijk 1966. and if 12 .. . c£je4, then 13 {Jxe4 10 �e4 �e4 fxe4 14 �e4 �xa1 15 gxa1 and Not bad is 10 ... 1lfS 11 4Jh4 White has adequate compensa­ c£jxe4 12 1lxe4 e6 13 �e3 4:Jd7 14 tion) 12 �d2 �e7 13 �a3 aS 14 {jxfS exfS 15 �2 4Jf6= Starck 4::.gS gad8 15 c£jxe6 �xe6 16 - Uebert, East Germany 1962. gad1± Maliutin - Oratovsky, 11 �xe4 .o_rs jurmala 1989. Main line with 7 ... c6 SS

b) 9 �d2?! 4:Jh5 10 d5 e5 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 b3 f 4 13 gad1 .Q.f5 66 14 �cl g5 15 �e1 �e7 with a w black initiAtive; Usitsin - Luti­ kov, USSR 1955. c) 9 a3?! �e8 (Black has several satisfactory alternatives here: 9 ... t;J::_7 10 gdt �h8 11 dS .kld7 12 dxc6 bxcb 13 h3 {Jet> 14 b4 aS= Averbakh - Hasin, USSR 1956; 9 ... 4:JhS 10 e4 ?! {10 JXdl �e8 11 dS= - Botvinnik} 10 11 .0.b 2 gS ... f 4 11 �2 e5 12 dxe5 dxeS 13 11 . . . e5 should also be taken c5 � 7 and Black has good into account here: 12 dxe5 dxe5 prospects of becoming active 13 e3?! (13 Qa3 gf7 14 Qd6co - on the kingside; Hernandez - Botvinnik) 13 ... e4 14 �1 4Jg4 Knezevic, Varna 1976; or 9 ... 15 �2 �5 and Black is better; �h8 10 .Qg5 .Q.e6 11 b3 gc8 12 Goldenberg - Pelikan, Argen­ �d3 .Qg8 13 gad1 �aS and after tina 1YOO. ... e7 - e5 Black's position may 12 dS cS be considered preferable; Zam­ 13 4Je1 �hS ikovsky - Borisenko, USSR 14 e3 f4 1956) 10 dS eS 11 dxe6 .Q.xe6 12 b3 15 exf4 gxf4 d5 13 cxdS {Jxd5 14 .Q.b2 f4 and 16 �e2 Black seized the initiative in A state of dynamic equili­ Beninson - Pelikan, Argentina brum exists on the board; 1959. Goldenberg - Pelikan, Mar del d) 9 b3 �e8 10 .Q.a3 gb8 11 b4 Plata 1961. � 7 12 gadt �h8 13 d5 cxd5 14 cxdS �d7 15 4:Jd4 gc8 with an B3 equal game; Doda - Bertholdt, 8 �h8 (67) I..eningrad 1960. 9 �e8 (66} 10 b3 Also possible is 10 dS h6?! (10 ... cxdS 11 cxdS Qd7 12 4:Jd4 gc8= ; 10 ... eS!? - Botvinnik) 11 4):14 eS 12 dxe6 .Q.xe6 13 e4 �xc4 14 exf5 with advantage to White; Eliskases - Pelikan, Argentina 1960.

10 ... h6 56 Main line with 7 . .. c6

Here we conclude our survey Botvinnik) 14 ... 4jc5 15 4Jb3 (15 of the variations with 8 tf1ic2. !J..xf6 .O,.xf6 16 e3= - Botvinnik) First, we consider some ex­ 15 . .. 4jce4 16 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 17 amples where Black chooses Qxe4 fxe4 18 Qe3 gfS with rarely-seen possibilities on his advantage to Black; Mecking - eighth move. Botvinnik, Hastings 1966/67. a) 8 ... h6? 9 �4 (9 gd1 tf1ie8 10 ... 4Jbd7 10 d5 cxd5 11 cxd5 4)ID 12 c£jd4 11 �ad1 dS! .,O.d7 13 b3 "ttff1 with equal chan­ With equal chances; Beliav­ ces; Polugayevsky - liebert, sky - Y usupov, Reykjavik 1988. Reykjavik 1957) 9 ... tf1ie8 10 f4 with e4 to follow (;t) - liebert. c b) a ... �5 9 b3 (9 d5± - 8 �e1 (68) Botvinnik) 9 ... e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 .,O.a3 ge8 12 gad1 �6 13 gd6 .O,.e6 (llievsky - Knezevic, Skopje 1967) 14 �5!±. 8 ... �h8 is a useful but rarely seen alternative to the popular 8 ... tf11c 7 and 8 ... 4Ja6. 9 .Q.gS More solid is 9 b3 !J..e6 10 .,O.b 2 (10 �5!? Qg811 e4 fxe4 12 4):xe4 4Jbd7 13 Qb2 worked out well for White in Neverov - In this short section we shall Savchenko, Herson 1989) 10 ... take a glance at the unfashion­

4Jbd7 oo ... _ega 11 :gac11 4Jbd7 able rook move which, as with 12 e3 gc8 13 4Je1 bS 14 cxb5 8 tf1ic2, creates no serious prob­ cxbS 15 tf1ie2 a6= Bolbochan - lems for Black, as White is not Apschneek, Buenos Aires 1939) easily able to achieve e2 - e4. 11 e4 fxe4 12 4Jxe4 ,O.f5 13 4Jh4 8 4Je4 .O,.xe4 14 .O,.xe4 4Jxe4 15 �e4 e5 Black takes advantage of the 16 gad1 (16 dxe5 dxe5 17 gad1±; lack of protection of the e4- 16 ... 4Jxe5= ) 16 ... 4Jf6 17 tf1ig2 square. Since e2 - e4 is not e4+ Arbakov - Palatnik, Uz­ threatened hnmediately, other gorod 1988. moves are possible: 9 .Q.e6 a) 8 ... 4Ja6 9 b3 (9 a3 tf11c7 {9

10 b3 ... .(J_e6} 10 b4 ,O_d7 11 tf1ib3 gae8 Better than 10 d5 cxd5 11 12 cS+ with a better game for 4)i4 �8 12 cxd5 4Ja6 13 gfd1 White - Schwarz) 9 ... tf11aS (9 ... gc8 14 tf1id2 ( 14 4)ibS 4Jb4 15 �4!? - Botvinnik) 10 .O,.d2 tf11c7 tf1Jb3 aS with equal chances - 11 e4 4Jxe4 12 4Jxe4 fxe4 13 Main line wi th 7 ... c6 57 :9:xe4�S 14 :9:e3 cS (14 ... eS!? - anov. Botvinnik) 15 .Q,c3 �4 16 h3 9 4jxc3 cxd4 17 .Q,xd4 with a slight Not 9 ... {jao 10 4:jxe4 {jb4 11 advantage to White; Popov - {Jf6+ .Q.xf6 12 'ffjb3 4Jao 13 .O,h6 Eisling, Wijk aan Zee 197 4. :9:e8 14 cS+ and White maintains b) 8 ... 'ffjc? (Black in his tum a slight initiative; Renman - prepares to play ... e? - eS, Kristiansen, Copenhagen 1991. relieving the pressure) 9 e4 10 bxc3 fxe4 10 4:jxe4 4:jxe4 11 :9:xe4 eS Or10 'ffjxc3 eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 12 dxeS dxeS 13 .o.,gs h6 14 �d2 e4 f4 13 cS 'ffje? 14 b4 aS 15 a3 .O.fS 15 :9:e1 4Jd7 with the inten­ axb4 16 axb4 :9:xa1 17 'fflxat {Jab tionof ... :9:ae8= Bondarevsky - 18 'ffja3 ,Og 4 and Black seized llebert, Rostov 1961, the initiative in Hillarp Persson c) 8 ... {JhS (With the idea of - Kaiszauri, Stockholm 1988. answering e2 - e4 with ... fS - 10 ... eS f4) 9 h3 (9 dS f4 10 4)14'ffjbb 11 11 e4 �aS e3 fxg3 12 hxg3 cS 13 4Jebco K. Botvinnik recommends two Arkell - Pein, British Ch 1989) 9 other possibilities: 11 ... fxe4!?

... eS 10 dxeS (10 e4 exd4 11 and 11 ... dS!? . 4:jxd4 f 4 12 g4 4:Jf6 13 4:Jce2 12 .Q.gS dS

'ffjb6 and Black's position is not Not 12 ... �e8? 13 {Jh4 f4 14 worse; Gheorghiu - Sax, Tees­ gxf4 h6 15 .O,xh6 �h6 16 �g3 side 1972) 10 ... dxeS 11 'ffjxd8 � 7 17 'ffjxg6 :9:f8 18 4:Jf'S .Q,xfS :9:xd8 12 e4 :9:e8 and Black 19 exfS e4 20 f6 and Black's maintains the balance - Taim­ game is under strong attack; anov. Holmov - Bannik, USSR 1962. 9 �d3 13 cxdS fxe4 Alternatively, 9 'ffjc2 4:jxc3 (9 14 �xe4 cxdS ... dS!? 10 e3 and according to 15 �c2 e4 Taimanov, the manoeuvre 4:Jc3 16 4JeS 4Jc6 - e2 - f4 - d3 gives a slight According to Taimanov, advantage to White. But this Black has a promising game. takes a great deal of time and evidently Black's chances of D equality after ... �eb and ... 4)17 8 b3 (69) are good; or 10 �S e6 11 f3 lbis is a natural developing 0f6 12 b3 4Jd7 13 4:jxd7 'ffjxd? move. We should like to call 14 .0.e3 b6 15 cxdS exdS and the reader's attention to the Black has no real weaknesses; fact that in the present section are Burmakin - Vasiukov, Leningrad variations examined in 1991) 10 bxc3 eS and the chances which White is not in a hurry are equal according to Taim- to move his bishop to b2. Posi- 58 Main line with 7 ... c6

13 4Jxd2 e4 14 �fd1 �e8 15 cS bS 69 16 cxb6 axb6 17 4Jc4 4):15 and B Black has no problems; Prze­ woznik - Dolmatov, Dortmund 1992) 11 ... f4! (11 ... fxe4 12 4):12?! e3 13 fxe3 �4 14 �e1 4Jbd7 15 4):le4 4Jxe4 16 4Jxe4 �xf1 + 17 .O,xf1 �c7! with a good game for Black; H. Olafsson - Dolmatov, Moscow 1989) 12 �d6?! (Correct was 12 a3 �c7 13 b4 with an un­ tions after the premature �b 2 balanced position - Dolmatov; are dealt with elsewhere. not so good was 12 4ja4?! �e8 8 �c7 13 �e1 �4 14 �d6 4:Pd7 15 .O,c3 Planning to meet 9 �b2 with �dB 16 �ad1 .O,f8 17 �d3 �c 7 18 9 ... eS. Alternatively: gxf4 c£jh.S 19 fxeS 4Jf4 and a) 8 ... aS 9 �a3! (For 9 ,klb 2 Black has good prospects see Chapter 5, variation A1113) 9 against the white king; Browne ... 4:Ja6 (9 ... �e8 10 �d3 4:Ja6 11 - Dolmatov, Reykjavik 1990) 12 �ad1 4Jb4 12 �b1 eS 13 dxeS ... 4Je8 13�d3 4Ylli 14 a3 0J::5 15 dxeS 14 4ja4 e4 15 4Jd4 bS 16 �c2 �c 7 16 b4 4Je6 17 �b3 4):16 4:P6 with advantage to White; 18 cS {§7 and Black achieved Chekhov - Vasiukov, Palma de his goals on the kingside; D. Mallorca 1989) 10 �d .O,d7 11 dS Gurevich - Dolmatov, Palma de cxdS 12 4Jxd5c£je4 13 4Jd2 �5 Mallorca GMA 1989. 14 �c2 e6 15 4:Jf4 4Jb4 16 �b1 c) 8 ... 4:Ja6 9 .O,b 2 transposes flc6 17 .O,b 2 (Busch - Ditt, West to Chapter S, variation A1112. Germany 1989) 17 ... eS!? 18 4):15 d) 8 .. . �e8 transposes to 4Jxd5!? 19 cxdS fle8 with equal Chapter 1, variation B4. chances. 9 �a3 aS b) 8 ... �aS!? 9 �b2 (An Alternatively: alternative is 9 .O,d2 �c7 10 dS a) 9 ... �dB 10 �c2 eS 11 dxeS 4YID 11�d 0J::5 12 .O,e34Jce4 13 dxeS 12 �ad1± - Euwe. 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �d4 eS 15 dxe6 b) 9 ... 4Jg410 �d2 4Jd7 11 h3 .O,xe6 16 ,O_xg 7 �xg 7 17 4Jd4 4Jh6 12 dS cS 13 4JgS{j6 14 flb 2 �ae8 with an equal game; and White has the better chan­ Lerner - Dolmatov, USSR 1989) ces; Wojtkiewicz - Donguines, 9 ... eS 10 dxeS (10 �d2 �c7 11 Bacolod 1991. dxeS dxeS 12 e4 4Ja6! 13 exfS 10 �c1 4Ja6 ,O_xfS= Polugayevsky - Dolma­ In this position Karpov tov, Reykjavik 1990) 10 ... dxeS 11 found an important innovation. e4 (11 4ja4 4Jbd7 12 �d2 �d2 11 �d2! (70) Main line with 7 ... c6 59

chapter we shall examine rare possibilities for White's eighth move.

71 B

The older move was 11 dS �S (Bad is 11 ... �dB 12 4:Jj4 eS 13 dxe6 4Jc:S 14 �d2 a4 15 b4 {}xe6 16 4JdS!± Pirc - Fuderer, In addition to the diagram Yugoslavia 1953; Taimanov move White has chosen several recommends 11 ... !ld7!?) 12 4:Jd4 other possibilities: eS?! (12 ... !ld7 - Taimanov) 13 a) 8 !lf4?! h6 9 �c2 �e8 10 dxe6 �e8 14 4:JdbS cxbS 15 dS gS 11 !ld2 �hS 12 e3 cS 13 a3 {}xbS �b6 16 �d6 �d6 17 4Jbd7 14 4JbS 4)28 15 !lc3 4:JeS {}xd6 {Jxe6 18 {}xe8 4:Jxe8 19 with initiative to Black; Stahl­ �fd1 with advantage to White; berg- Nei, Erevan 1965. Gulko - Kaiszauri, Vilnius 1978. b) 8 �b3?! �h8 (Consider­ 11 .Q.d7 ation should be given to 8 ... 12 �fe1 4Jb4 �b6 9 �b6 axb6= Keller - 13 .O.b 2 eS?! Bogoljubow, Dortmund 1951; 8 A mistake would have been ... 0Pf> also leads to equality: 9 13 ... 4:Je4?! 14 {}xe4 fxe4 15 �d1 �c7 {fu tvinnik recom­

�S± . Karpov recommends 13 mends here 9 ... c£F7!? and 9 ...... �ae8!?± . 'lfjeB!?} 10 dS �S 11 tfjc2 eS 12 14 a3 4Ja6 dxe6 !lxe6 13 !l£4 �ad8 14 {:gS 15 dxeS dxeS tfje7= Novotelnov - Hasin, 16 4Jb5! cxbS USSR 1956) 9 �d1 (9 !lf4?! h6 10 17 cxbS 4Jc5 �ad1 tfjeB 11 !ld 4:Ja6 12 a3 eS 13 18 .Q.xeS �b6 dS �S 14 tfjc2 cxdS 15 cxdS 19 .Q.xf6 !ld7 with advantage to Black; White has the advantage; Wexler - Panno, Mar del Plata Karpov - Yusupov, Unares 1989. 1%8) 9 ... {Jab 10 dS (10 h3?! tfjeB 11 tfja34:Je4 12 �S {}xc3 13 E bxc3 h6 14 4Jf3 � 15 dS cS+ 8 .o,gs (71J Naranja - Larsen, Manila 197 4) In the last section of this 10 ... 4Jc:S 11 tfjc2 cxdS 12 Qe 3 60 Main line with 7 ... c6

4):e4 13 CLjxdS c£jg4 14 {}i2 Also playable is 9 �b3 �c 7?!

62Jxe3 15 62Jxe3 �6+ Marovic - (Y . . . h6!?) 10 gad1 eS 11 cS dS 12 Lombardy, Banja Luka 1976. {JxeS {JxeS 13 dxeS �xeS 14 c) 8 ID>1?! 4"Je4 (8 ... aS 9 a3 .Q.e3 �e 7 15 Qd4 Qeb 16 e3 gf7

�4 {9 ... cf)hS?! 10 b4 axb4 11 17 4Je2 gSco (17 ... 4Y4!?) Nedelj­ axb4 f4 12 e3 eS 13 cS!::t Mar­ kovic - Fuderer, Yugoslavia 1951. schner - Gallinns, West Ger­ 9 eS many 1988} 10 CLjxe4?! fxe4 11 Alternatively, Y ... �c7 10 4::gS dS 13 �e3 h6 13 4jl3 gS 14 gad1?! (10 Qh6 eS 11 .Q.xg7 �g7 cxdS �dS and Black seized the 12 dxeS dxeS 13 e4! fxe4 14 �S initiative in Hergott - Kuczyn­ with better prospects for sky, St john 1988) 9 -'lf4 h6 10 White - Botvinnik> 10 ... eS 11 tf11c2 62Jxc3 11 bxc3 (11 �c3!? - dxeS dxeS 12Qh6 Qxh6 13 �6 Botvinnik) 11 ... gS 12 �c1 eS 13 e4 14 4:Jd4 4"JeS 15 �c1 �d7 16 b3 ,O_a3 _ID7+ Suetin - Smejkal, �ae8 and Black has the initia­ Ljubljana 1973. tive; Usachi - Stein, USSR 1YS7. d) 8 b4 aS 9 bS eS= - Botvin­ 10 ,O.h6 nik. less effective is 10 dxeS dxeS e) 8 tff1d3 �h8 9 �s Qeb 10 11 .Q.h6 e4 12 Qxg 7 �xg 7 13 4Y1 �fe1 @d7 11 b3 dS 12 cxdS 4YS 14 �c1 Qeb 15 b3 tf11a5 and �xdS 13 CLjxdS cxdS 14 Qf4 tff1b6 Black has more space; Szabo - 15 �eel�a c8= Bilek - Holmov, Hasenfuss, Kemeri 193Y. Havana 1%5. 10 �e7 8 4Jbd7 11 ,O_xg7 �g7 Alternatively: 12 dxeS dxeS a) 8 ... tff1e8!? Y Qxf6 Qxf6 10 13 rtad1 4Jc5 e4 tff1f7 11 eS � 7 12�e2 f 4 13 h3 An interesting possibility is dxeS 14 dxeS 4:Ja6 15 �ad1 h6 13 ... e4!?. and Black has sufficient coun­ 14 �d6 (72) terplay; Sideif-Zade - MaJaniuk, Baku1983. b) 8 ... h6!? 9 .,Clxf6 .Q.xf6 (9 ... exf6?! 10 e3 ;ge8 11 �d2 4:Jd7 12 �fd1 4Jf8 13 b4 aS 14 bS hS 15 �1± Lutckis - Pelikan, Argen­ tina 1969) 10 e4 eS 11 exfS gxfS 12 dxeS dxeS 13 �c2 4Ja6 14 �ad1 �e 7 15 �h3 ( Guimard - Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1%8) 15

... � 7 16 c£jh4 �6= - Botvin­ nik. The game is equal; Abroshin 9 �d2 - llebert, corr. 1957. 3 Main Line with 7 ... 4Jc6

1 d4 fS Black can choose between: 2 g3 4:Jf6 3 .OZ2 g6 A1 8 ... 4Je5 4 4:Jf3 !Jg7 A2 8 ... 4Ja5 5 o-o o-o 6 c4 d6 A1 7 4Jc3 4Jc6 (73) 8 4Je5 The sharpest continuation 73 which Whitecan meet by: w A11 9 {jxeS A12 9 �b3 and others

A11 9 {jxeS dxeS (74)

74 w 1bis popular system favour­ ed White in the past and seem­ ed to have been thoroughly analysed. However, a number of new ideas have been intro­ duced and now the situation is less clear. Invariably White responds 8 dS but other moves have been tried on occasion: White must choosebetween:

A 8d5 A111 10 e4 B 8 �c2 and others A112 10 �b3 and others

A A111 8 dS 10 e4 62 Main 11ne with 7 ... €/:6

Here Black can choose be­ Black) 12 . . . �h8 13 {)hS c6 14 tween the sharp 10 ... f4 and �3 �e8 15 �dl �d7 16 b4 gd8 the more conservative 10 ... e6. 17 ,klb2 c2:g4 18 h3 �h5 19 gxf4 gxf4 20 hxg4 �g4 21 f3 .O,c822 A1111 10 ... f4 �2 cxd5 23 Bhl �g6 24 exd5 A1112 10 ... e6 and others e4 and Black gained a formid­ able attack in Wells - C. Han­ A1111 sen, Kiljava 1984. 10 f4!? (75) b) 11 b3 gives chances for both sides: 11 ... g5 12.O,a3 g4 (12 75 ... h5?! 13 gel h4 14 gxf4 exf4? w {14 . . . gxf4} 15 e5 4Jg4 16 e6! f3 17 .O,h3 {)h6 18 �4 g4 19 ,klf1 {)f5 and it is not clear how Black can develop his queen­ side without great losses; Vukic - Knezevic, Baj mok 1975) 13 gel f3 (13 ... h5?! 14 gxf4 exf4 15 e5 {)d7 16 e6 .O,xc3 17 exd7 _klxd7 18 �d3± - Botvinnik) 14 The question of whether the ,klf1 h5 15 c5 (Black has satisfac­ variation beginning with 8 ... tory replies in other variations �5 is playable or not largely too, for example: 15 gel h4 16 depends on how Black's last gc2 {)h7 17 c5 �e8 18 �d3 �hS move is evaluated. For a long {18 . .. c6 - Ciric} 19 ,O_d {Ciric time chess books unanimously recommends 19 d6 exd6 20 considered the position after 10 cxd6 cxd6 21 'lfJxd6 with a safe ... f 4 to be favourable for position, but after 21 ... cf::gS White. During the preparation Black has good chances} 19 ... of this book no new informa­ _kld7 20 ,O_e3 {20 c6!} 20 .. . .Q_h6 tion has emerged to overturn and Black has a powerful at­ this verdict. tack; Sieglen - Wessein, West 11 b4 Germany 1989) 15 ... h4 16 d6 White again has a choice of (Taim anov suggests 16 .clc 4 but several alternatives: if we continue with 16 ... hxg3 a) An immediate break­ 17 hxg3 �h7 then it seems through with 11 c5 has also that Black still has a very been tried: 11 ... g5 12 �b3?! (12 strong attack) 16 ... hxg3 17 b3 �e8 13 d6 ?! exd6 14 cxd6 c6 hxg3 c6! 18 ,O_xc4+ e6 19 �d2 15 .cla3 �d7 16 b4 OOrillov - _kld7 20 �g5 � (76) Raud, Latvia - Estonia 1990} 16 In the diagram position Black's h5!? with chances of attack for attack will soon reach a critical Main line with 7 ... cfjc6 63

d) Not to be recommended is 76 11 f3?! cO 12 dxcb �bb+ 13 �h1 w bxcb 14 b3 g5 15 .Q.a3 \ttl! 16 gxf4 gxf4 17 {Ja4 �c7 18 �el gg8+ Hjartarson - Plaskett, Hastings 1985/86. 11 gS Black cannot afford to lose time with 11 ... e6?! 12 -'lb2 exd5 13 exd5 !J.f5 14 ;get and due to the control over the e4-square point, when the h-file can be White's position is better; used to great effect; Douven - Bannik - Yukhtman, Ukraine Plaskett, Groningen 1980. Ch 1%4. c) 11 gxf4{Jh5 (11 ... exf4!? 12 12 l!et e5 {12JJ.xf4 fjxe4 13 1Jg3 �g3 12 c5 has also been played: 12 14 hxg3 e6= Hodakowsky - ... h5?! (12 ... g4!?) 13 -'lb2 h4 14

Hubner, Aibling 1965} 12 . . . 4Jg4 gxf4 h3 15 !J.f3 exf4 16 e5 4):17 13 e6�5 14 ;get {14 &b3 f3 15 17 e6 and White managed to JJ.h3 b6! with the idea of JJ.a6+} paralyse Black's queenside in 14 ... 4:Jxc4! {A mistake would D'Amore - Fernandez, Andorra be 14 ... f3? 15 J;_fl c££4 16 cfY4 zt 1987. h6 17 h3 cfY5 18 c££3 b5 JY 12 g4!?

&c2± Zajcik - Bjelajac, USSR - Mter 12 . . . ab 13 �b2 �e8 Yugoslavia 1977} 15 ge4 4Jd6 16 White can choose between: ;gxf4 cboo) 12 fxe5 \12 f5 4Jf4 a) 14 ;gc1 4:Jg4 15 f3 (15 ;gc2?! with unclear complications - �h5 16 h3 f3 and Black has the Avshalumov) 12 ... Qxe5 13 �2 attack; Farago - Poutiainen, �d6 14 f4! 4.Jxf4 15 4.Jxf4 �xf4 Budapest 1975) 15 ... �3 (15 ... 16 �xf4 ;gxf4 17 ;gxf4 �xf4 18 �h5! with a difficult game - �d4 e5!? (Alternatively: 18 ... Kristiansen, but after 15 ... �g5 19 �h1 {19jJfJ?! 1J.h320 &f2 4:Jxh2 16 g4 Black does not have JJ.xg2 21 &xg2 &e3+ 22 �h 1 jJf8 sufficient compensation for his 23 jJxfB+ rrt;xfB+ Ta enav - knight) 16 ;gxe3 fxe3 17 g4 with Raud, Estonia 1990}19 ... ,Og4 20 excellent compensation; Reicher e5 {20 jJfJ ? JJ.e2 21 !Je1 &g 4 22 - Ungureanu, Rumania 1975. h3 �h5 23 e51J.f3+} 20 ... ;gf8 21 b) 14 c5 �f7 (14 .. . -'ld7?! 15 db+ ; or 18 ... �4!? 19 ;gn �g5 cb! bxcb 16 dxcb �xc6 17 4Jd5) 20 �f2 �h3= - Avshalumov) 19 with an unclear game and �c5 �g5! 20 �h1 �d8 21 ;gn bb possibilities for both sides - 22 t/1f2 �e7 23 c5! �a6 24 �fb!± Kristiansen. Nizynsky - jzdebski, corr 1990. 13 cS fJ 64 Main line witl1. 7 .. fr:6

14 �f1 hS .(ld 4 ge8 14 gel b6 15 f3± Col­ The chancesare equal; White lins - Sherwin, New York 1952) attacks on the queenside and 12 gel (Instead of this, consid­ Black on the kingside. eration should be paid to 12 �S!? and 12 b3!?) 12 ... e4 13 f3 A1112 exf3 14 .klxf3 eS! 15 gxeS?! 10 ... e6 (77) (Taimanov suggests 15 cS!?) 15 . .. cfje4 16 gxe4 fxe4 17 {jxe4 77 �e7 with possibilities for both w sides. b) 11 b3 exd5 12 {JxdS (12

exdS) 12 . . .. {Jxe4 (12 ... 4Jxd5 13 cxdS f4 14- ya3 ;9:f7 15 gel;±;

rvteduna - Pederzolll, Olmoutc 1977) 13 .O,a3 ge8 14 f3 4):l6 (14

. .. r$.Jf 6? 15 Qe7) 15 (£jxc7 �c7 19

�xcl6 �= - Taimanov. c) 11 cS exd5 12 exdS h6 13 b4. Compared to 10 ... f4, con­ �h7 14 �b3 e4 with possibil­ sidered in the previous chapter, ities for both sides; Berliner - this move has long been con­ Hearst, Omaha 1959. sidered weak, but it is not as d) 11 f3 exdS 12 cxdS c6 13 bad as has been thought. dxc6 �b6+ 14 �W '@

4Jxe4 4Jxe4 12 .Q.xe4 ,O_h3 ( 12 . . . e) 11 dxe6 c-6 12 exfS gxfS 13 ,O.fS 13 �e2 �d7 14 .o,gs gf7 15 Wxd8 (13 gel �d1 14 c£jxd1 e4= gael with the disadvantage of - Botvinnik) 13 ... gxd8 14 e7 double pawns; Menchik - Seitz, ge8; Kozma - Franko, Ober­ England 1930) 13 gel �d7 14 hausen 1961. ,O.e3 ,O_fS 15 �c2 with a clear f) 11 .QgS h6 12 Qxf6 �6 (12 advantage for White in Radulov ... Jjxf6!? - Botvinnik) 13 �b3 f4 - Kolarov, Varna 1%8. 14 f3 gd8 15 eSt Ingerslev - 11 �bJ Milner-Barry, Moscow 1956. There are many other pos­ 11 exdS sibilities here: This is better than: a) 11 exfS gxfS! (After 11 ... a) 11 . .. f 4? (Schroeder - exfS White stands better: 12 joppen, West Gem1any 1%7) 12 .Q.e3 {12 �e2 e4 13 {3 exf3 14 gxf4 exf4 D .Q.xf 4 4JxdS 14 �3 �e7 15 �e2 �e2= Tordi1 cxdS gxf4 15 dxe6 �h8 16 e7± - Larsen, Hastings 1956/57} 12 - Botvinnik.

... e4 {12 ... c£g4!? 13JJ.cl lJ.eB} 13 b) 11 . . . �h8 12 ,O_e3 �e 7 13 Main line with 7 ... cfJc6 6S f3± Donner - johanessen, Bev­ This queen move was for a erwijk 1965. long time considered to be 12 cxdS (78) good for White. Here, however, we will examine some new ideas that Black has found for counterplay. 1bis section also includes unusual possibilities for White on move 10: a) 10 b3 e4 (10 . .. a6 11 .(lb 2 �e8 12�d2 h6 13 f4 e4 14 e3 e6 15 gfdl �d7 16 �f1 g5 and Black has active play; Pavlovic - Nikac, Yugoslavia 1991) 11 �c2 (11 �a3!? 4Jg4 ?! {11 ... !Jf7 12 f3! 12 �h8 exf3 13 exf3 f4 14 lfc 1± Dlugy - Without this prophylactic Gallego, Sharjah 1985} 12 �c2 a6 move White can advantageous­ 13 gadt �d7?! {13 ... tf!jeB} 14 cS ly open the centre: 12 ... �8?! �e8 15 c6!? bxc6 16 dxc6 �xc6 (Rovner - Vinogradov, Lenin­ 17 {Jd5 �xd5 18 gxd5 c6 19 gddl grad 194 7) 13 exf5 gxf5 14 d6+ with excellent compensation �h8 15 dxc7 4:Jxc 7 16 gd1 �e8 for the pawn as Black's queen­ 17 .Q.e3 � 18 4Jb5± - Botvin­ side is completely destroyed; nik. Palatnik - Avshalumov, Baku 13 �eJ 4Je8 1988) 11 ... c6 (11 ... e6 12 �a3 gf7 14 exfS gxfS 13 dxe6 {13 lffdl exdS 14 cxdS 15 f4 e4 cfyB 15 lfac1 1J.d7 16 e3 JJ.eS 17 With equality; Tartakower cfy2 tf!jf6 18 cfY4 cfjd6 and Black -Alexander, Hastings 1953/54. gained the better position in Cvitan - Raud, Bela Crkva 1990} A112 13 ... �xe6 14 gad1 �e8= Ivkov 10 �bJ (79) - Larsen, Palma de Mallorca 1968) 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 �f4 4Jh5 79 14 gadt�aS 15 �d2 �e5 16 �4 B with equal chances. b) Here 10 f4?! is not appro­ priate: 10 . .. e4 11 �e3 � 4 12 ,O_d4 e5 13 �c5 b6! (13 ... exf4 14 gxf4 gf7 15 e3 g5 with possibil­ ities for both sides; Krasnov - Vinogradov, USSR 1962) 14 �xf8 �8 and Black has ex­ cellent counterplay on the dark 66 Main line with 7 ... c£J::6 squares - Vinogradov. f4 16 fie1 �6 17 c£je4 .Qg4 18 c) 10 .:g:e1 e4! with an unclear �bS with the advantage; An­ position - Botvinnik. dersson - Mascarinas, Rio de d) 10 b4 e4 11 �b3 e6 12 gdt Janeiro 1985. �e 7 13 .O,.f4 e5 14 ,O.e3 �f7 15 c) 10 ... 4):17?! 11 gd1 aS (Al­ �cS .:g:e8 16 b5 b6 17 �a3 with ternatively: 11 ... �h8 12 a4 aS 13 an unbalanced position, Cram­ �a3 e4 14 .Qg5gf7 15 4:JbS�6 ling - Parnes, Terrassa 1990. 16 .O,.f4± Griego - Salman, e) 10 �c2 e6=. Philadelphia 1991; or 11 ... h6 12 10 h6!? (80} �a3 gf6 13 c5 �8 14 b4 g5 15 �b3 �h8 16 ,O.b 2± Kavalek 80 - Mack, West Germany 1986) 12 w .Q.e3 f 4 13 .Q.d2 c£F5 14 �a3 b6 15 d6 .ID>8 16 dxc7 �xc7 17 4Jh5 �d7 18 .Q.xf4 �g4 19 f3 �e6 20 43:7 �c4 21 ,O_e3± Saidy - Ivanov, St John 1988.

d) 10 ... e6 11 gd1 (11 ,O_e3 exd5 {11 ... &e 7? does not lead to equalit;_y: 12cfjbS ab 13 cfja7J1xa 7 14 .Qxa 7 b6 15 cS �xeS 16 J1ac1 With this move, Black pre­ �e7 17 .Qb8 exdS 18 .Qxc7 wi th a vents the troublesome �5 and decisive material advantage in gains good prospects for coun­ Rgusov - Meister, Voronez terplay. 1Y88} 12 cxd5 {Je8 13 c£jb5 4)]6 Other moves are sometimes 14 a4 a6 15 c£jxd6 cxd6± Darga seen: - Toran, Madrid 1957) 11 ... �e 7 a) 10 ... �h8 11 gd1 (11 c5 a6! (11 ... exd5 12 c£jxd5 {12 cxdS 12 gdt .ID>8 {Intending ... bS} 13 f!;h B [12 . . . cfje8 does not work a4 h6 14 .O,.d2 g5 was fm e for because of 13 d6+ f!;h8 14 d7 Black in Hardicsay - Mi. Tseit­ U,xd7 15 �xb 7 - Ta imanov] 13 lin, Budapest 1992) 11 ... a6 (11 ... JJ.e3 cfjeB 14 iJ.cS f)d6 [White h6!? is considered under the will also gain the advantage move order 10 ... h6 11 .:g:dt �h8) after 14 ... J1f6 15 J1a c1 ab 16 d6! 12 �d2?! �e8 13 .:g:ad h6 14 ,O.e1 �db 17 f)d51J.e6 181J.xdb JJ.xdS g5 15 c5 e4 16 d6 c6 17 4ja4 e5 1Y J1xd5 J1xd6 20 �%'b7 Karasev 18 f3 f4 19 d7? c£jxd7 20 gd6 - Kondratiev. Leningrad 19591 15 4Jf6 and White has no compen­ cfPS ab 16 cfjxdb cxd6 17 JJ.b6 sation for the pawn; Dresen - �{6 18 J1ac1 and due to the Ingenerf, Wuppertal 1986, control of the c-file wmte has b) 10 ... c£jh5?! 11 gdt �h8 12 an advantage - Ta imanov} 12 ... a4 aS 13 c5 h6 14 ,O.d2 g5 15 gael c6 13 .(lg5 cxd5 14 ,O.xd5+ �h8 15 Main line with 7 . .. c£jc6 67

�xb7 �d1+ 16 gxd1 gb8 17 �a3 and Black seized the initiative in �xb7 18 ,O_xf6 Qxf6 19 �a7± Magerramov - Avshalumov, Ribli - Barbero, Lugano 1985) 12 USSR 1987 . .,O,g5 (12 �d2!? - Donaldson) 12 c) 11 e4 f4 12 gxf4 4Jh5 13 . .. h6 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 e4 (81) fxe5 e6 (13 ... Qxe5 14 {Je2 - Donaldson) 14 f4 �h4 15 4Je2 81 exdS 16 cxd5 and White has B imposing central pawns; jas­ nikowski - Pyda, Warsaw 1990.

82 B

1bis position appeared in the game Schmid - Menvielle, Tel Aviv 1%4. White has slight advantage after Botvinnik's recommendation 14 ... gb8, i.e. 11 gS 15 {JbS! with the idea of d6 is 11 ... �h8 12 Qd2 g5 13 c5 a6 powerful, e.g. 15 . .. c6 16 d6 �d8 transposes to the next note. In 17 4Jc7± (17 0:,xa7? Qd7 18 c5 this line 13 Qe 1 is strongly met '{fJaS 19 �b6 �b6 20 cxb6 Qd 8 by 13 ... h5 14 c5 h4, as in Vukic and the knight is lost). - lllincic, Cetinje 1992. 11 x:Idt (82) 1Z cS Or: .Alternatively, 12 �d2 a6 13 c5 a) 11 c5 �h8 12 gd1 g5 trans­ \tlh8 14 Qe 1 �e8 (Black contin­ poses to the main line. ued on similar lines in Adianto b) 11 Qe3 �hH 12 gad1 g5 13 - Spraggett, Novi Sad 1990: 14 ...

Qc5 (13 c5 a6 14. '{jJb4c! &e8 {14 . . . gb8 15 a4'{jJe8 16 d6 exd6 17 f4 is suggested by Malyshev) 15 cxd6 c6 18 aS Qe6 , whilst 14 ... d6 exd6 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 �d6 e4 15 gad left White slightly f4 18 QcS �h5?! 19 �8!! Qxf8 better in Petrosian - Y agubov, 20 gd8± Fominyh - Malyshev, Berlin 1991) 15 d6 cxd6 16 cxd6

Miskolc 1989) 13 . . . a6 14 e3 4):17 e4 17 4)14 exd6 18 gxd6 f4 and 15 Qa3 e4 16 f3 (Bad is 16 c5 {JeS Black has some attacking 17 d6 c6 18 {Ja4gf6! 19 4Jb6 .O.e6 chances, Stangl - Arkhipov, 20 '{fJc2 gb8+) 16 ... exf3 17 gxf3 Kecskemet 1990. 4Y5 18 gfft �e8 19 {Je2Qd 7! 20 12 �h8 �c2 '{fJh5 21 4Jd4{::g4 22,(lf3 f4! 13 �c4 68 Main Line with 7 ... cf):;6

Probably not the most ac­ Morovic - Avshalumov, Bel­ curate choice here. Alternatives: grade 1988. a) 13 �d2 usually transposes to the previous note after 13 ... A12 a6 since 13 ... f4 14 .cle1 .clf5 15 9 �b3 �b 7 ;gb8 16 �a? !Xxb2 17 �a3 Here White rejects the op­ worked out badly for Black in portunity to take the black lbragimov - Glek, USSR Team knight and seeks other ways to Ch 1991. seize the initiative. Practice to b) 13 �a3 �e8 14 d6 c6 15 b4 date would suggest that it is exd6 16 cxd6 �h5 17 bS f4 18 not fully effective. bxc6 bxc6 19 f3 e4 and Black is To begin with let us consider prising open the kingside; other, less useful moves for Wilson - Djurhuus, Gausdal White. 1992. a) 9 b3? (This loses material) c) 13 4JbS a6 14 �a3! �d7 15 9 ... {Je4 10 4Jxe4 c:£jxf3+ and 4:F3 �e8 16 d6!± l.agunov - Black wins. Malyshev, USSR 1989. b) 9 cS?! c:£jxf3+ 10 �xf3 dxcS 13 a6 11�e3 {Jd7 12�b3 (12@4 b6 13 14 b3 �e8 d6 ;gb8 with an extra pawn for 15 �a3 e4 Black) 12 ... �h8 13 �2 a6 14 16 c6 b6 !Xadt gb8 15 �c4 b6 16 �5 {Je5 17 .O.b 2 4Jg4 17 �h4 �f6 18 e4 4Jf7 19 �xf6 18 4:Ja4 4Je5 exf6 20 gfe1 4Jd6 and White 19 t/1c2 �g6 has no compensation for the 20 .Q.d4 �dB pawn; Dydyshko - Zhuravlev, 21 4Jc3 e6 Tallinn 1980. 22 t/1b2 4Jf7 c) 9 4Jd2 leads to positions 23 .Q.xg7+ t/1xg7 with equal chances: 9 ... c5 24 dxe6 .Q.xe6 (83) (Also possible are: 9 ... 4Jfd7 10 f4 4Jg 4 i1�bf3lijc 5 12 h3 4Jf6 18 83 -�  gxf4 �d 7 with counterplay on w�� � ��4) ��-�� the black squares: Schuh - .L ..�'.�jt . � .l� � ...... Borngasser, West Germany � � �.L��. 1985; and 9 ... c6 10 b3 {10 h3 � � � .. . �b6 [Dubious is 10 ... �c7 n � �.L� � f!)h2 c£Jed7 12 €/3 fjcS 13 cfjd4 � ;tt n� � �. JJ.d7 141J.e3 eS?! 15 d'

Vin ogradov, Leningrad 1946} 10 However, 9 ... 4:::jd7 allowed ... cxdS 11 -=xdScfje4 {11 ... cf)hS12 White a slight advantage after JJ.b2 f4 ro Bellin} 12 c£yjxe4 fxe4 10 {lxe5 cfjxe5 11 gd1 �h8 12 f4 13 �xe4· .Q,h3 14 .o,gz �xg2 15 c£:g4 13 h3 4::f6 14 Qe3 in Mor­ �g2 {'jg 4 and in compen­ tazavi - Flear, l.Dndon 1985. sation for the pawn Black has 10 .Q.e3 good play; Horowitz - Kostic, Botvinnik has suggested 10 Prague 1931) 10 h3 (10 t;]c2 gb8 4):14 c5i:F5 1l �c2 {jxd5 12 Qxd5+ 11 a 4 ?! �e8 12 f4 4.:Yg4 13 4:::f3 e6= . 4Y4 14 {Jxe4 fxe4 15 c£jg-S Qd 4+ 10 ... z:le8 16 e3 �xe3++ Uebert - Holm, ECO mentions 10 .. . c5i:FS 11 Aarhus 1971) 10 ... Qd7 11 Bb1 t;]c2 aS 12gad1 Qd7 with equal­ �8 12 f 4 !0J_7 13 'ff;c2 c5i:F 714 e4 ity; Troianescu - Ciocaltea, eS 15 dxe6{Jxe6 16 �d3 4:Yi4= Romania 1952. However, White Vaganian - Bomgasser, Athens can play 11 �xeS dxc5 12 �5!, 1971. as in Seirawan - Pellant, 1983, Retunling to the position which finished: 12 ... gb8 13 �a3 after 9�b3 (84). a6 14 �c5 b6 15 �b4 h6 16 4Jf3 h5 17 {Je5 1-0. 84 K�.t!iT 1� e!1 11 �ad1 4Jf8 .:t � .:t 12 4Jd4 \tlh8 B��...... � ��W?...... �. ·/ �� . � �� Y.�·.i:� 13 .Q.c1 eS � �.ft.� �� � "� 14 dxe6 4Jxe6 � W@ � .:t m 15 �e6 �xe6 · � � � �� 16 cS c6 I �0�.ft �tt� �'t.J� � 17 cxd6 z:1xd6 � �/.'\ � .. 18 .Q.f4 �� �···� � w ;/� · �� � � �I 18 �7!? - Botvinnik. LJ �!j�:fi: 18 ... �xdt 9 �4Jed7 19 �xd1 t/;Je7 Also perfectly playable is 9 The game Alatortsev - Vin­ . .. c£jxf3+ 10 exf3 (10 Qxf3 ogradov, Odessa 1951, demon­ 4):17=) 10 ... eS 11 dxe6 .O.xe6 12 strated that the position is gel (12 �xb7 Qxc4 13 gd1 �d7 equal. 14 f4 aS 15 b3 gabS 16 �a? 4Y4 17 4Jxe4 �xa1 18 �S with A2 tactical possibilities for both 8 sides; Anic - Santo Roman, White has two main ways to Montpellier 1991) 12 ... t;]d7 13 f4 meet the threat to his c-pawn: c:614 Qe3 �f7 15�a3 .Q.xc4 with an equal game; Pilnik - Tarta­ A21 94Jd2 kower, Paris 1954/55. A22 9 �d3 and others 70 Main line with 7 ... c£y::6

A21 dian Defence. At present, 9 4Jd2 cS theory considers that this Not 9 ... c6? 10 b4 �dS 11 creates no serious problems for cxdS �xc3 12Bb1 .Q.xd2 13 �d2 Black. 4):4 14 t!fc3 when White regains 11 a3 the pawn, with a pair of bishops Or: and good attacking chances - a) A modest alternative is 11 Botvinnik. b3 e4 12.Q.b2 t!fe7 13 4Jd1 �d7 14 Mter 9 ... cS White has: ,Clc3 bb with a good game for Black; Palmason - Ghitescu, A211 10 thc2 Havana 1966. A212 10 a3 and others b) An interesting possibility is 11 dxe6!? ,Clxe6 12 gd1 (The A211 pseudo-active 12 45fS?! back­ 10 �c2 fires, e.g. 12 ... � 13 e3 £lf7 14 Here Black can choose be­ a3 ;gc8 15 gd1 {JxdS 16 cxdS tween: �S 17 a4 c4 with a good game for Black; Grunberg - l.utikov. A2111 10 ... eS Lasi 1976. Mter the passive 12 A2112 10 ... a6 and others b3?! dS! 13 cxdS {JxdS 14 �b 2 4Jb4 Black seizes the initiative; A2111 Suba - Bjelajac, Pernik 1978) 12 10 eS (85) ... t!fe7 (12 ... � 13 4Jh3! {Al­ ternatively: 13 a3?! f}i4 14 'lfyb1 85 f4 15 gxf4 1J.f5 16 e4 1Jg4 17 {3 w 1J.e6 with good compensation in flic - Knezevic, Yugoslavia 1977: or 13 e3 'life ? 14 'lffa4 cfY5 f14 ... [!fd B! 15 .Qxcb bxc6 16 'lfyxcb d5 wi th an active game for the pawn - Vukic] 15 f4 c£)d3?! 16 c£{1 �cJ 17 [!axel and White stood better in Vukic - Bj elajac, Novi Sad 1978} 13 ... t!fe7 This position is similar to {Bro wne's suggestion is an the Yugoslav variation of the impro vement: 13 ... cfjb4!? 14 King's Indian Defence, with 'lfyb1 'lfyb6!1J.f4 15 ]Ja d8} 14 1l,f4 Black having played . . . f7 - fS. {14 'lfyd2! ? - Browne} 14 ... ;gad8 The present section is devoted {14 ... ]JfdB 15 a3 f15 c£)d5! ? 1J.xd5 to the variation in which White 16 cxd5J 15 . . . 1J.xc4 16 JJ.xcb employs a strategy analogous bxc6 17 c[)a5 'lfye6 and it is not to that used in the King's In- clear which side has the better Main line with 7 ... cfJc6 71 position; Jezek - Mi. Ts eitlin, Now after the redeployment corr 1987-91} 15 �xc6! bxc6 16 of the queen's knight into the � �c7 17 �a4 4j15 {Unsuit­ game the chances become able is 17 ... cfje4?! 18 c[)xe4 fx. e4 equal. 19 c[)xcb JJ.d7 [19 ... [jxf4? 20 14 4Jd8 c[)xd8 1J.d7 21 c[yb:± - Browne] 15 e3 l;j£7 20 cfje7+:±} 18 4jxc6 4jxf4 {No 16 f4= betteris 18 ... [jd7 19 OfS! iJ.xdS Vaganian - Tal, USSR 1970. 20 cxdS JJ.xb2 21 [ja b1:± - Browne} 19 4jxd8± Browne - A2112 Cripe, USA 1987) 13 b3 4:Jc6 14 10 ... a6 (87) �b2 (14 e3 {jb4 15 �b1 d5 16 a3 d4 with an excellent game for 87 Black - Zlochevski) 14 ... 4Jd4 w 15 �d3 f4! and Black seized the initiative in Piket - Gurevich, Lucerne 1989. 11 b6 12 b4 4Jb7 13 !l,b 2 Nor does White gain the advantage after 13 {Jb3 �e7 14 bxcS bxc5 15 a4 �d7 16 aS a6 17 In contrast to the course of {Ja4 �xa4 18 ;g:xa4 e4; Gheor­ the game in the previous sec­ ghiu - Ghitescu, Romania 1961. tion, here Black does not con­ 13 tfle7 solidate his position in the Also possible is the aggres­ centre but tries to organise an sive 13 ... g5 14 e3 ,O.d7 15 b5 �e8 immediate counterplay on the

16 ;g:ae1 �h5= Kraidman - Mi. queenside. Tseitlin, Tel Aviv 1992. If White plays correctly, he 14 �ae1 (86) can gain the advantage. The following are examples of 86 incorrect play: B a) 10 . . . ;gb8 11 a3 b6 12 b4 {Jb 7 13 �1 (13 ,O.b 2!? - Botvin­ nik) 13 ... e5 14 dxe6 ,O.xe6 15 4:):15 �d7 16 ,O.b2;±; Lundquist - Blom, Marianske l.azne 1961. b) 10 ... �d7 11 b3 �e8 12 Q.b2 g5 13 e3 �h5 14 ;g:ae1 ;g:f7 15 f4 hb 16 h3 ,O.h8 17 �2 b6 18 e4 with a clear advantage to 72 Main linewi th 7 ... {jc6

White in Neverov - Akopian, Other rook moves also give lbilisi 1989. White the advantage: 11 b3 a) 13 gfe1 bxc4 14 bxc4 gb8 Not 11 gb1gb8 12 a4 c(ld7 13 15 gab1± Kluger - Haag, Hun­ �d3 � 4 14 {j3 {Jb3 15 !J.f4 gary 1958. h6+ Reilly - Pietsch, Madrid b) 13 gael gb8 14 4Jd1 bxc4 1960. 15 bxc4· e5 16 dxe6 !J.xe6 (Naj­ 11 .Q.d7 dorf - Pelikan, Argentina 1973) Alternatives are: 17 .Q.c3± - Botvinnik.

a) 11 . . . e5 has been ttied: 12 13 ... Wl8 dxe6 !J.xe6 13 !J.b 2 45'6 14 fr.ad1 14 e3 4):l4 15�d3± A verkin - jansen, Also good is 14 h3!? e5 15 Dresden 1969. dxe6.Q.xe6 l6 4):15.Q.x d5 17 cxd5 b) 11 ... gb8 12 gb1 (Also gc8 18 .Q.c3± (18 gbd!? - Bot­ good is 12 !J.b2 b5 13 gael bxc4 vinnik) Bozic - Friedgood, Hol­ 14 bxc4 e5 15 0f1! �c 7 16 !J.c3 land 1968.

4Jb7 17 f4 e4 18 4.Je3 !J.d7 19 g4 14 ... t!Jc7 and White has seized the initi­ Other possibilities are no ative both in the centre and on better for Black: the kingside) 12 ... b5 13 !J.b2 a) 14 ... �e8 15 {je2 e5 (Leng­ (Less promising is 13 cxbS axbS yel - johanessen, Beverwijk 14 b4 cxb4 15 frxb4 �c7 with 1%5) 16 dxe6± - Botvinnik. possibilities for both sides; b) 14 ... bxc4 15 bxc4 gb4 16 Bolbochan - Matulovic, Siegen {!_J22 �c7 17 .Q.c3 gxb1 18 gxb1 1970) 13 . . . e5 14 dxe6 !J.xe6 15 @5 19 .klxg7 {Jxg7 20 �b2± 4):15 !J.xd5 16 cxd5 gc8 17 !J.c3 Gerber - Kane!, Switzerland ge8 18 gfe1 b4 19 !J.b 2 with a 1988. better game for White in Vukic 15 4Je2 eS - Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1978. Declining to make this ad­ 12 .Q.b 2 bS vance does not enable Black to 13 �abt (88) equalise: a) 15 ... {Jb7 16 4Jf4 4):18 17 88 h4 and White has a useful B space advantage, as confirmed by the two games Averbakh - Spassky, USSR 1958, and Ribli - Horvath, Hunga.I)' 1976. b) 15 ... gb6 16 !J.c3 {Jb7 17 {Jf 4 and again the initiative is with White: Reshevsky - Grefe, USA Ch 1975. 16 dxe6 -'lxe6 Main line with 7 ... cfjct} 73

17 4Jf4 !J.f7 the exchange 12 . .. �xd5 13 cxd5 18 flxf6 flxf6 bS or 12 . . . c£jxd5 13 cxd5 �d7 19 4JdS �d8 White gains the advantage by 20 b4 14 b4 - Taimanov) 13 b3 bS 14 White's chances are better; c£Jf4 �f7 15 cxbS Z!xbS 16 e4 gS Zliger - Lombardy, New York 17 4JdSc£jxd5 18 exd5 �a8 (89) 1987. 89 A212 w 10 a3 Two other alternatives have been tried: a) 10 b3?! {J.xd5 00 .. . a6!? 11 �b2 �8 12 e3 b5 13 cxbS?! axb5 with a gd position for Black; Sliwa - Ghitescu, Marianske l.azne 1%2) 11 .Q.xd5+ e6 12 �b2 (124:Jdb1 exd5 13 �xd5+ �f7 14 In this position the game �4 �! with powerful coun­ Karlsson - Knezevic was agreed terplay - Taimanov) 12 .. . exd5 drawn, but, according to Taim­ 13 cxd5 f4 14 t/Jc2 .Q.h3 15 �fe1 anov. White could have at­ fxg3 16 hxg3 �6 17 4:Jd1�f7 18 tempted to gain the advantage �xg7 �g7 19 �c3 bS 20 �g7 by 19 �f3. �g7=. White managed to c) 10 dxcb bxcb has been parry Black's attack in the seen twice recently. .Kamsky - game Serper - Makarov, USSR lin Ta, Manila izt 1990, contin­ 1989. ued 11 b3 dS! 12 �b2 dxc4 13 b4 b) 10 ,IDJ1 e5 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 4)15! 14 �xdS cxd5C:O and in 4)15 (Alternatively: 12 b4 cxb4 Lobron - lin Ta from the same 13 �xb4 �f7 14 4)15 �c8 15 �b 2 event White played the more c£jxd5 16 cxd5 with a balanced sedate 11 ,IDJ1 �e6 12 b3 �c 7 13 position in Rechlis - Mi. Tseit­ �b2 �h8 14 �cl and secured a lin, Ostrava 1991; or 12 b3 leads slight advantage. to an unclear game: 12 ... d5 13 10 ... fld7 .Q.a3 �c8 14 4)14 b6 15 b4 cxb4 Others: 16 .O.xb4 dxc4; Pinter - Bjelajac, a) 10 ... {'g4 11t/Jc2 �d7 12 e3 Pernik 1978) 12 . . . ,IDJ8 (Worse is a6 13 b3 b5 14 �b2 bxc4 15 bxc4 12 ... �c8 1.3 b3 �xd5 14 cxd5 b5 ,IDJ8 16 4Jd1± Miralles - Haik, 15 b4 cxb4 16 �xb4 �d7 17 @3 Budel zt 1987. 4Jxb3 18 �b3 �fe8 19 �f3 a6 b) 10 .. . bo 11 �c2 .Q.d7 12 b3 20 a4± H. Olafsson - Tseitlin, a6 13 �b2 b5 14 4Jd1 �8 15 �c3 Belgrade GMA 1988. Even after e5 1& dxe6 �xe6 17 4Je3 Z!e8 18 74 Main line with 7 ... � fl:fd1 ,0.h6 and Black went on to win in a difficult ending in 90 Vianin - Keserovic, Geneva 1991. B 11 �c2 The attempt to take the piece by 11 b4? is unsuccessful after 11 . .. cxb4 12 axb4 4:Jxc4 13 4:Jxc4'f!Jc7 14 'f!Jb3fl:fc8. 11 t!;;c7 12 b3 a6 After 12 ... e5 13 dxe6 .O.xe6 14 �b2 White has the better posi­ 12'f!Je1 Qg 7 13 �d2 b6 14 e4 c£jb7 tion. 15 exfS gxf5 16 'f!Je2 with com­ 13 ,O.b 2 bS pensation; Udovdc - Gufeld, 14 4Jd1! Leningrad 1967. Thethreat is 15 cxbS axbS 16 b) 9 'f!Jc2!? is an interesting b4 - Botvinnik. idea since 9 ... {Jxc4 10 c£Jh5 a6 14 bxc4 11 4Jbd4 4Jb6 12 {JgS is clearly 15 bxc4 �ab8 better for White. After 9 ... cS 16 ,O_c3 4Jg4 White has 10 dxc6! (10 {Jd2 eS 11 A probable improvement is dxe6 �xe6 12 ;gd1 'f!Je 7! 13 b3 16 ... gb7, when after 17 gb1 �aJ Piket - Gurevich, Lucerne fl:fb8 18 ;gxb7 ;gxb7 19 4Jb2 'f!Jb8 1989) 10 ... bxc6 11 ;gd1 gb8 (11 ... Black was slightly better in {Jxc4 12 �4±) 12 �4 1l.d7 13 Magerramov - Mi. Tseitlin, cS± Agadzarjan - Nadanyan, Balatonbereny 1989. USSR1991. 17 ,O.xg7 �g7 c) 9 'f!Ja4 cS has been seen 18 t!;;c3+ �g8 more often recently (Not 9 ... 19 4Jb2 W>7 b6 10 'f!Jc2! .O,d7 {10 ... t£jxc4? 11 20 4Jd3 cfjJS a6 12 cfjlx14 bS 13 cfJgS and White has a slight but evi­ \Vhite controls the white dent advantage; Botvinnik - squares; Schmidt - Matulovic, Matulovic, Belgrade 1970. Helsinki 1972} 11 b3 cS 12 c£Jd2 {No t bad is 12 dxc6 t£jxc6 13 A22 1J.b2} 12 ... a6 13 �b 2 bS 14 e3 9 �d3 (90) gb8 15 ;gab1± Averbakh - 9 'f!Jd3 is the most trouble­ Lutikov, USSR 1959) 10 dxc6 some alternative to 9 c£Jd2 for 4Jxc6?! (10 ... bxc6!? 11 4Jd4 Black but others have also been {Pinter recommends 11 lfdl �c7 seen: 12 cS!;t, but Black can impro ve a) Rarely played is 9 b3!? with 11 . . . cS 12cfjeS lfbB 13 cfJc6 �4 10 {Jxe4 �xa1 11 4Jeg5 cS cfjxc6 14 1J.xc6 .Q.d7! with good Main line with 7 ... � 75 chances according to Mi. sterdam 1980) 12 .Q.b2 (12 �S

Ts eitlin} 11 ... ,O_d7 {11 ... cS 12 .Q.d7 13 Qb 2 h6 14 4:Jf3 {Je4 15 tfy:JbS lfb8 13 cf)xa 7 1J.d7 14 �c2 �6 16 4Jd1 �f7 17 � �b5 �h8 15 1Jg5 and "White 4)=:5 18 .Q.xg7 �g7 19 �c3 4Jd4 has made inroads into Black 's 20 .Q.dS+ 7�h 21 \tlg2 �e2 22 position; Larsen - Tisdall, �g7+ �g7 and the liquid­ London 1990} 12 �c6 �c6 13 ation of pieces gives an ending �xc6gc8 14 �xd7 �xd7 15 �b3 where Black has good chances; �h8 with an initiative for the Dorfman - Zsu. Polgar, Debre­ sacrificed pawn - Kuzmin) 11 cen 1990) 12 ... 4Jd7 13 4Jd4 �8 gd1 �aS (Alternatively: 11 ... 14 gad1 {JeS 15 �c2 4:Jac6 16 @5? 12 c5 �d7 13 �a3 4Je8 14 �c6 bxc6 17 cS± Azmaiparash­ _ogs± Keres - Korchnoi, USSR vili - Akopian, Belgrade 1988. Ch 1952; not much better is 11 ... 10 b3 4Y4?! 12 �e4 fxe4 13 �S This is one of the funda­ 4)14 14 cS dxcS 15 �c4+ e6 mental positions of the 7 ... {ljp tay - Bilek, Hungary 1965} 16 4:Ji> 8 dS @5 variation. White .O,e3 with a white advantage - has to choose between imme­ Botvinnik) 12 �b3 (12 �aS diate action in the centre and �aS 13 4)15�dS 14 cxdS .Q.d 7 a slower build-up aimed at 15 ;gbl ;gfc8 and chances are exploiting the misplaced black equal; Vladimirov - Gastonyi, knight on aS. Black aims for Leningrad - Budapest 1961) 12 ... counterplay with ... a6, ... ;gb8, �b4 13 �b4! �b4 14 4Jd4 ... �d7 and ... bS, similar to the �4 (14 ... ;gb8±) 15 ;gb1 4JeS 16 King's Indian Defence. �S± Yusupov - Gurevich, a) Serious consideration linares 1991. should be given to 10 e4!? (91) 9 cS Parrying the threat of 10 b4. 91 The opening of the centre is B advantageous for White: 9 ... eS

10 dxe6 .Q.xe6 11 b3 �h8 (11 ... 4:Ji> 12 ,O_a3, with the idea of 13 gael and advantage to White - Taimanov, or 12 -'lb 2 4Je4 13 gael ge8 {13 ... c£)b4 14 't!Yb1 �c3 15 .£lxc3.£lxc3 16 lJxc3 't!Yf6 17 �al lJa eB and Black has no problems; Gomez - Zsu. Polgar, 10 ... a6 (10 ... eS!?) 11 gel gb8 12 San Sebastian 1991} 14 gfdl .Q.f7 eS 4Jg4 13 �f4 bS 14 cxbS axbS with a sound position for Black; 15 h3 �eS 16 �eS dxeS 17 van Scheeren - Chernin, Am- .O.xeS �xeS 18 gxeS b4 19 4:::Ji4 76 Main line with 7 .. . cfY:tj

�d6 20 !!ae1 and Black had to 10 ... a6 (92) face some difficulties in Saeed Neither can Black achieve - Bouaziz, Damascus 1989. equality after 10 ... �4 11 !lb 2 b) On the other hand, weaker a6 12 gael (12 4)12 b5 13 4Jdxe4 is 10 {:g5 a6 (10 ... h6 11 CiJ=-6 fxe4 14 .O.xe4 bxc4 15 bxc4 ;gb8 .O.xe6 12 dxe6 � 13 e4± Pod­ with unpleasant threats, de­ gaets - Mozes, Ybbs 1%8) 11 e4 spite the pawn deficit in Udov­ (Alternatively, 11 ;gb1 ;gb8 12 cic - Matulovic, Yugoslavia .Q.d2 �e8 13 b3 bS 14 a3 {:g4 15 1%0) 12 . . . bS 13 ,Cla1 ± - Botvin­ 4:Jf3 bxc4 with a black initiative nik. in Benko - Tal, Bled 1959; or 11 �!? .O.xe6 12 dxe6� and in Euwe's estimation both sides have chances) 11 .. . bS 12 cxb5 axbS 13 c:£jxbS fxe4 14 c:£jxe4 c:£jxe4�xe4 15 .O.a6 16 a4 c4 and Black has counterplay for the pawn; Dely - Gufeld, Debrecen 1970. c) A fw-ther possibility is 10 .0.d2 a6 11 !!ad (11 gab1 b6 {11 ... c£y4? 12cf)xe4 fxe4 13 �e4 1J.f5 11 �b 2 ,IDl8 14 t!$h 41J.xb1 15 cfjg5 h6 16 cfJe6 12 {}gS g5 171J.xg5 t!!jeB181J.d2 :t Andric Others: - lvkov, Yugoslavia 1953} 12 b3 a) 12 gael bS 13 -'la1 (13 cxb5 ;gb8 13 4jh4?! {:g4 14 f4 bS 15 axbS 14 {jxbS {The gain of the h3 4:Jh6 16 e4 bxc4 17 bxc4 ;gb4! pawn is temporary} 14 ... �a6 15 with an unclear position in a4 �b6) 13 ... bxc4 14 bxc4 ;gb4 Wr rtensohn - Kanel, Switzer­ (14 ... e5!? - Botvinnik; 14 ... land 1976) 11 .. . �d7 12 b3 ;gb8 13 ct:g4!? - Bellin) 15 4Jd2 4Jg4 16 e4 b5 14 e5± Bikov - Tolush, a3 ;gb8 17 'f!}c2.O,d 7 18 e3 4Je5 19 USSR1957. �2 �e8 20 ;gb1 .O,a4 21 'f!}a2 d) Recently 10 ;gb1 has be­ and, due to the bad position of come quite fashionable, e.g. 10 the knight at aS, White stands . . . 4je4 11 ct:g5! 4Jxc3 12 bxc3 better; Nikolac - Bertok, Yugo­ �e8! 13 HbS b6 14 CiJ=-6! .O.xe6 15 slavia 1%9. dxe6 ;gb8 16 �d5± Sergeev - ] . b) 12 4:Jd2,Cld7 13 gab1 (13 a4? Novikov, USSR 1991. �4! 14 ga3 {Inadequate is 14 e) Fm ally, White can try 10 1J.xe4 fxe4 15 �e4 .{J.fS} 14 ... � a6 11 a3 4Jg4 12 e3 .0.d7 13 �b6 - Taimanov) 13 ... bS 14 h3 a4± Petursson - Tisdall, Reyk­ (The advantage cannot be javik 1990. obtained with 14 e3 �c7 15 .0.a1 Main line with 7 . . . c£Jc6 77 �4 16 4je24je5 17 tfjc2 bxc4 18 Havana 1%2) 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 bxc4 zrxb1 19 gxb1 ;gb8 20 � with chances for both gxb8 �b8= Valvo - Ivkov, sides - Botvinnik. New York 1987) 14 ... tfje8 15 b) 8 tfjb3?! (The queen is .0.a1 g5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 b4 4Jb 7 misplaced here) 8 ... 4:Je4 9 .Q.e3 18 a3 c4 19 tfje3tfjg6 20 f4 with c£jxc3 10 bxc3 e5 11 c5+ �h8 12 a better game for White in D. cxd6 cxd6 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 .Q.cS Gurevich - Kontic, Belgrade gf6 15 gfd1 tfje8+ Kuzminyh - 1988. Vinogradov, Leningrad 1945. 12 �4 c) 8 h3 a6 9 Qe3 h6 10 d5 (10 13 4je6 .O.xe6 gel g5 11 d5 4Je5 12 4:Jxe5 dxe5 14 dxe6 bS 13 c5 �h8 14 tfjb3 tfje8 15 tfjb4 15 cxbS axbS f4 and Black has good possibil­ 16 t/ic2 ities on the kingside; Golombek Thanks to the greater ac­ - Gufeld, Kecskemet 1%8) 10 ... tivity of the his pieces, White's �5 11 4:Jxe5 dxe5 12 f 4= - position is preferable; Petkevich Botvinnik. - Arhipkin, Riga 1976. d) 8 �5 {je4 9{Jxe4 fxe4 10 � {Jxd4 (10 ... .O.xd4!?) 11 B {Jxe4!JJ S= Cuellar - Alexand­ 8 t/ic2 (93) er, Amsterdam 1954. e) 8 b3 �4 (Possible is 8 ... 93 e5!? 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Qa3 ge8 B {Or, even 10 ... e4 11 1J.xf8 'f/xfB .12 cfJd4 c[)xd4 13 �d4 JJ.e6co Spa cek - A1otwani, 11Jxembourg 19

Before considering the diag­ Nice 1931} 15 gac1± -· Botvinnik) ram position, let us tackle 13 �xd8 gxd8 14 �5 ge8 other possibilities: (Worse is 14 ... gf8?! 15 flxc6 a) 8 ;gb1 4Je4 9e3 e5 10 4Je2 bxc6 16 gfd1 e4 17 4Jf7 +�g8 18 �h8 11 b4 a6 12 a4 tfje8 13 bS .O,xg7 gxf7 19 fle5Qe6 20 f4! �8 � 14 tfjc2,O.e6 (Garda - Haag, 21 gd2 �8 22 gad1 gc8 23 �2 78 Main linewith 7.. . fY::6 with advantage to White in for White, as in Toran - de Groszpeter - Videki, Kecskemet Greiff, Mar del Plata 1955; and

1988) 15 �ad1 (15 .Q.xc6 bxc6 16 12 . . 4Jd4?! 13 4:Jxd4 exd4 14 �ad1 e4 {16 ... f!Jg8 17 JJ.aS h6 18 .O,f4!±) 13 .O,e3 �e8 (A JX>or 4)/13f4 19 f!Jg2:t - Botvinnik or move is 13 ... Ci§l? 14 �act e4 15 16 ... f4 17 f3 aS 18 lfd2 f!JgBco 4:):14 with a clear advantage; Vladimirov - Mi. Tseitlin, Has ­ Benkner - Parliazos, Amster­ tings 1991} 17 Ci§l+ �8 18 �xg7 dam 1954) 14 gael e4 15 4:):14 c6 � 19 �h6 aS 20�f4 �a7=) 15 16 dxc6 4:Jxc6 174:Jxc6 bxc6 18 ... -'lf6!= - Taimanov. Worse are �cS! (Mter 18 �c6 �e6 19 b3 the following: 15 ... e4 16 .Q.xg7 aS and Black has a good game �g7 17 f3±; and 15 ... h6 16 for the lost pawn; Koskinen - lif?+ �g8 17 .Q.xc6 bxc6 18 Ciocalatea, Prague 1954) 18 ... 4:):18± Pomar - Paredes, Bar­ tf1f7 19 b3 !J.e6 20 e3 aS and celona 1977. White stood better in lisenko 8 eS - Tseitlin, Lvov 1983. Pointless is 8 ... �h8 9 b3 11 .Q.e3 -'ld7 10 -'lb2 a6?! (10 ... e5!?) 11 d5 A bad mistake is 11 4JdS? e4 4::JaS 12 e4 with an obvious 12 4Yd'6+ !J.xf6 13 c£je1 4Jd4 14 advantage for White; Sudoplat­ �d2 !J.a4 15 b3 !J.xa3!+ Bertok - ov - Vasiukov, USSR 1960. Ghitescu, Reggio Emilia 1968/69. 9 dxeS dxeS 11 �4 10 �d1 (94) Also to be considered is 11 ... e4 124Jd4 4:Jg4 13 4:Jxc6 (Action 94 with 13 t;y:6?! backfires after 13 B ... 4:Jxe3 14 fxe3 .O,xe6! 15 �xd8 �axd8 16 4Jd5 when 16 ... c£je5 gave Black more than enough compensation for the queen in Peev - Nikolayevsky, Varna 1968) 13 . . . 4:Jxe3 14 tf}c1 �e8 15 �e3 �xc6 16 �d2= - Botvin­ nik. 12 �s theB 10 �d7 13 4:]dS �c8 A risky attempt to seize the 14 h3 4:Jf6 initiative is 10 ... tf}e7?! 11 4:):15 15 4Jxf6+ .O.xf6 4:JxdS 12 cxd5 4Jd8 (Consider­ 16 .O.xf6 �xf6 ably worse are 12 . .. 4:Jb4? 13 17 thc3 �f8 tf}b3 �d6 14 4Jd2 b5 15 a3 � With equality; Sofrevsky - 16 �xbS with a winning JX>sition Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1966. 4 Avoiding the Main Lines

1 d4 fS pity that this variation is so 2 g3 4Jf6 rarely employedin tournaments 3 .Q.g2 g6 because it is very interesting. 4 4Jf3 !Jg7 s o-o o-o 96 6 c4 (95) w

95 B

7 dS According to Botvinnik, there is nothing to be gained by Both White and Black can 7 4Jc3c£je4! (7 ... dS {For 7 ... b6 avoid the main variations which 8 d5, see 7 d5 b6 8 O;:JJ 8 cxd5 arise after 6 .. . d6 7 4Jc3, and cxdS 9 c£jeS�e6 10 �f4 4Jc6 {]n we shall consider their possibi­ Botvinnik's opinion it is better lities to do so here. to play 10 ... cfpd7!?} 11 cfja4 cf)i7 12 c£jxc6 bxc6 13 �d2 !J.f? A 6 ... c6 14 �ac1 4:Jb6 15 4Jc5 �4 16 �c3 B 6 ... d6 �e8 17 cf)i3 �b6 18 e3 �ec8 19 b3± Miles - Bronstein, Hastings A 1975/76) 8 �c2 (More active, 6 c6 (96) but not better is 8 d5 c£jxc3 9 A shrewd move order pre­ bxc3 4Ja6 {Risky is 9 ... JJ.xc3 10 tending to gain a tempo by 7 ... lfb1 fY.6 11 JJ.h6 1Jg7 12 JJ.xg7 dS, but in fact the intention (f}xg 713 '($d4+ f!}g8 14 e4 Sham­ after 7 �3 is to equalise im­ kovich - Kotkov, USSR 195& 10 mediately with 7 ... �4. It is a e4 d6= - Botvinnik) 8 ... d5 80 Avoiding the Main lines

(Possible is 8 ... c:£jxc3 9 �c3 {9 _kla3± - Botvinnik) 11 _klf4 gf? 12 bxc3!? - Taim anov}9 ... d6 10 b3 �5 ge7 13 �d6 with advantage 4)17 11 Qb2 e5 12 dxe5 {jxe5 13 to White; Grigorian - Kundshin, 4Jxe5 {13 �d2 f4!? with coun­ USSR 1960. terplay - Taimanov} 13 ... Qxe5 9 �e3 (97) 14 �d2 �f6 15 gb1 Qe6= Whiteley - Zwaig, Hastings 97 1976/77) 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 _klf4 B 4)i) 11 :Q:.fd1 Qe6 12 gac1 gc8 13 �b3 4:)aS 14 �b4 gc4 15 �a3 4)j)= langeweg - Zwaig, Am­ sterdam 1977. Thepos sibility 7 b3 d5 8 Qb2 is considered in the next chap­ ter. 7 4Ja6 An original idea is 7 ... b6?! 8 9 4Jfe4 4)::3 Qb7 (8 ... cxd5 9 cxd5 Qb 7 No better is 9 ... �aS 10 �d2 10 e4 fxe4 11 4Jg5 4ja6 12�xe4 4)14 11 c:£jxa4 �4 12 b3 �a6 13 gc8?! {12 ... cf)xe4!? - Botvinnik} _kld4 cxdS 14 cxd5 �d6 15 gfd1 13 c:£jxf6+ exf6 14 Qe3 4Jc5 15 �ds 16 �b4 � 17 �s �e8 b4± Korchnoi - Marszalek, 18 .Q.xb7± Darga - Coho, Ha­ Oberhausen 1961) 9 4:Jd4 (9 vana 1964. d6!?±) 9 ... cxd5 10 cxd5 (10 10 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 4jxd5!? 4je4) 10 ... 4Ja6 11 Qf4 11 4Jd2 cxdS (11 d6!? Qxg2 12 dxe 7 �xe 7 13 11 ... Qxb2 (11 ... Qd4!? - �g2 4Jc5= ; 11 �5!? h6 12Qxf6 Botvinnik) leads to great con­ Qxf6 13 e3 - Tukmakov) 11 ... fusion: 12 c:£jxe4 fxe4?! (More 4)::5 12 �d2 4)::e4 13 4Jxe4 exact is 12 . . . .,Clxa1) 13 Qxe4? {Jxe4 14 Qxe4 fxe4 15 d6 exd6 (For some reason Taimanov 16 .Q.xd6 e3 17 �xe3 ge8 18 does not consider the possibil­ �b3+ �h8 19 gad1 aS 20 f3 ity 13 gb1! with the idea of with an edge for White; Rash­ .Q.xe4, �d3 h4, �2 with an kovsky - Tukmakov, Sverdlovsk attack on the kingside as well 1987. as superiority in the centre) 13 If 7 ... {j€4, then Botvinnik ... .clxa1 14 �xa1 �e8 and now recommends 8 4Jfd2! whilst 7 possibly 15 Qh6 gf6 or 15 �d4 . . . d6 transposes to variation B1 d6. below. 12 cxdS 4Jd6 8 4Jc3 4JcS 13 �b3 Or 8 ... �e8 9 gb1 eS 10 dxe6 According to Botvinnik, the dxe6 (10 ... �xe6 11 b3 d6 12 position favours White. Avoiding the Main lines 81 B 8 4Jd4 �b6 6 d6 The main line is 8 . .. cS 9 The standard move, after c£]:2 (Alternatively: 9 c£jf3 which White normally chooses {Compared to the variation 7 dS between: cS, lVhite has a tempo less} 9 ...

4:Ja6 {9 ... h6!?} 10 4Jc3 4Jc7 Bt 7 dS {According to aimanov, T cor­

B2 7b4 rect was 10 . . . b6} 11 a4 �h8 12 B3 7 4Jc3 �1 b6 13 b3 a6 14 b4! and White seized the initiative in A fourth possibility, 7 b3, is Kochiev - Tal, USSR 1978; or considered in the next chapter. 9 4Je6?! {Tal} 9 ... �xe6 10 dxe6 0J:;6 11 4Jc3 �c8 12 �s �h8 13 Bt �xf6 .clxf6 14 ,O_dS 4Jd4 and 7 dS White has insufficient compen­ Now Black usually responds sation for the pawn - Taim­ with: anov) 9 ... bS!? (Suggested by Tal. Worse is 9 ... 4:Ja6 10 4Jc3 B11 7 ... c6 �8 and White has won a B12 7 ... 4Ja6 tempo compared to 7 dS cS 8 B13 7 ... cS c£]:3 4Ja6 9 4:Je1 Bb8 10 4Jc2) 10 cxbS a6 and Black has good B11 compensation; the position 7 c6 (98) resembling that of a Benko Gambit. 9 4Jc3 9 4Jb3is quite playable. 9 4Je4 10 4Jxe4 �xd4 More accurate than 10 ... �xd4 11 4:::gS � 7 12 �1± Borisenko - Nikolaevsky, USSR 1966. 11 �xd4 �xd4 (99) 12 X!dt White's aim with his seventh Before this game theory only move is to prevent 7 . . . 6i'.J:jJ. considered the variation 12 4:::gS Mter 7 ... c6 the game need not �d7 with the idea of ... 4:Ja6 necessarily transpose into the (Taimanov) or 12 ... cS (Yudo­ system 7 c£]:3 c6 8 dS, White vichl and judged the position as can take the game into unusual equal. lbis game does not alter paths. this general assessment. 82 Avoiding the Main lines

In Taimanov's opllllon this plan is the simplest way to 99 equalise, though 7 ... 4:Jbd7 may w also lead to equality. 8 4Jd4 Mter 8 4Jc3 �e8 9 ;gb1 4Jc5 10 4)14aS 11 b3 Qd7 12Qa3 c6 13 �xeS dxc5 14 4P> �xe6 15 dxe6 �b8 16 4ja4 �e5 rllack has no problems; Mohr - Vasiukov, Voskresensk 1990. 8 4JcS 12 cS Worthy of consideration is 8 13 4Jg5 aS ... �d 7!? 9 4Jc3 �e8 which 14 ID>1 4:Ja6 transposes into a well-known 15 a4 4Jb4 position of the variation 7 4Jc3 16 .a_d2 .Q.d7 �e8 8 d5 Qd7 9 4:Jd4. 17 .Q.xb4 axb4 9 4Jc3 aS 18 b3 h6 Also possible is the imme­ In the game Naumkin - diate 9 . . . e5!?, for example: 10 Berkovich, Moscow 1986, Black dxe6 c611b3 �e7 12 .Q.f4 4:Jfe4?! tried to seize the initiative by 18 (12 ... �d8) 13 4:Jxe44:Jxe4 14 ;get ... f4, but after 19 gxf4 f;..f5 20 ;gd8 15 �d3± Cvetkovic - llin­ e3 �xbl 21�xb1 �c3 22 4Je6 �f6 dc, Yugoslavia 1992. 23 �e 4 found himself in a 10 b3 eS! difficult position. 11 dxe6 c6 In the main line chances are 12 .a_b 2 equal. No advantage is to be had by 12 .Q.a3 �e 7 13 �d2 (13 ;get a4

B12 {Necessary is 13 ... ilxe6 as the 7 4Ja6 (100) pairof bishops is no advantage} 14 b4 4:Jxe6 15 e3 {jg4 16 b5 with a White advantage; Eisen­ stadt - Novikov, Leningrad 1956) 13 ... a4!? (13 ... .clxe6) 14 ;gfcl1!? (14 b4 �e6 15e3) 14 ... axb3 15 axb3�xe6 with a good position for Black, Aronson - Kuzminyh, Leningrad 1958. 12 t/Je7 13 e3 .a_xe6 14 4Jxe6 �e6 Avoiding the Main lines 83 15 4Je2 a4 b) More interesting, however, Black has equalised; Novikov and worthy of consideration is - Kuzminyh, Leningrad 197 4. 9 {jet ;gb8 10 4:}:2 (10 '{:!Jd3?! .Q.d 7 11 b3 {Je4 12 ,O_b2 {12 1J.xe4 ? B13 fxe4 13 �c2 .(J.h314 cf:g2 f)b4 15 7 cS (101) �d2 e3 16 fxe3 [1xf1 + 17 f!lx£1 e6!+ Rukavina - Larsen, Lenin­

101 gradizt 197 3} 12 ... c£jb4 {12 ... bS w 13 JJ.xe4 with an unclear posi­ tion - futvinnik} 13 �e3 �c3 14 ,O.xc3 f4= - larsen) 10 ... 0f:-7 11 a4 b6 (Incorrect is 11 ... a6?! 12 aS4:Jg4 13 �a3 b5 14 axb6 gxb6 15 4)14 ;gb8 16 b3 !J.d7 17 f3 ,O.xa4 18 H.xa4 0{6 19 �d3 '{:!Jd7 20 .0.d2± Vaganian - Matulovic, Vmjacka Banja 1971) 12 ;gb1 4:Jg4

Black seizes the opportunity (Interesting is 12 . .. e5 13 dxe6 to switch into a position remin­ ,O_xe6 or 13 b4!? with possibil­ iscent of the King's Indian ities for both sides - Taimanov) Defence, where his advanced t3 h3 �5 14 4Ja3 a6 15 �d2 f-pawn may prove useful. (Botvinnik believes that White 8 4Jc3 4Ja6 has the advantage after 15 f 4 Illogical is 8 ... 4Jhd7?! 9 '{:!Jc2 {J:l7 16 e4! fxe4 17 g4! but 4Jb6 10 b3 e5 11 dxe6 d5 12 cxd5 Taimanov adds that after 15 ... 0fxd5 13 �d5 �d5 14 �5! c£jf7 16 e4 e5 Black has no '{:!Jb6 (14 ... '{:!Jd6 15 e7 �e7 16 problems) 15 ... �d7 16 f 4 c£jf7 17 �ad1 '{:!Jc717 4Jd4 - Taimanov) 15 �h2 e5 18 dxe6 .O.xe6= Korch­ e 7 �e8 16 gadt !J.e6 ( Minev - noi - Tal, Moscow 1968. larsen, Halle 1963) and now 17 c) There is no sense in the .Q.d with a threat of 18 �5 move 9 4:Jg5?! 4:):: 7 10 �c2 '{:!Je8 would have given White the 11 a4 h6 120{3 4Ja6 13 �1 c£jb4 advantage - Taimanov. 14 '{:!Jdt g5 with an unclear 9 Wl1 game; Pavlovic - Tu noshchenko, Others: Belgrade 1988. a) White cannot hope for d) A different strategy advantage by opening the cen­ would be called for after 9 a4 tre, e.g. 9 e4 fxe4 10 4:Jg5 .Qg4 (102). 11 '{:!Jb3 '{:!Jb6 12 4:Jgxe4 �e4 13 This position occurred in the .Q.xe4 '{:!Jxb3 14 axb3 4Jb4= game Ubilava - 011, USSR 1986, Bouwmeester - Bronstein, Am­ which continued: 9 ... t;$,7?! sterdam 1968, (The knight could be useful on 84 Avoiding the�fain lines blum - Szabo, Tel Aviv 1958. 10 12 ... bS B 13 t;je2 aS!? Not bad is 13 ... �d7 14 �c3 4:Ja8! (14 ... 4:J:-'e8 15 c£jg5± - Botvinnik or 15 CLJ4± - Keene) 15 CLf4 (15 4jg5 �h6 leads to an unclear position; Keene - Ree, Paignoon 1970) 15 ... �4 16 �xg7 �g7 17 �c2 bxc4 18 bxc4 �aS= Keene - the b4-square in order to coun­ Matulovic, Siegen 1970. ter Ubilava's plan. Therefore 14 4Jf4 a4 the prophylactic 9 ... �h8! is 15 h4 axb3 interesting) 10 �d3 ;gb8 11 ;9.a3 16 axb3 bxc4 �h8 12 e4 fxe4 13 4:Jxe4 {jxe4 17 bxc4 �4 14 �e4 e6? {14 ... e5!?) 15 4::g5 18 t;jd2 �a6 t11f6 16 dxe6 h6 17 0f7+ �h7 18 19 �c2= t11f4 with an extra pawn for Keene - Jansa, Nice 1974. White. 9 �8 B2 Similar play occurs after 9 ... 7 b4 (103) �d7 10 b3 t;J:; 7 (More accurate is 10 ... ;gb8 11�b 2 {i:J:;7 12 a4 a6 10 13 aS {):e8 14 ;9.a1 c£:g4 15 ga3± B H. Olafsson - Larsen, Reykjavik 1985) 11 a4 a6 (Botvinnik recom­ mends 11 ... b6!?) 12 b4! cxb4 13 ;9.xb4 ;gb8 14 �b3 and due to the pressure on the b-fue White has a slight advantage; Petrosian - Matulovic, Sarajevo 1972. 10 b3 t;jc7 As it is not easy for White 11 �b 2 a6 to gain the advantage in the Not 11 ... b5 12 cxbS {jxbS 13 main variations, new possibil­ 4:JxbS ;9.xbS 14 {jd2 �a6 15 ;9.e1 ities are being sought all the ;gb8 with advantage to White; time. One of them involves an Novikov - Alekseev, USSR 1974. early advance of the b-pawn. 12 e3 Before dealing with this pos­ Or 12 �c2 b5 13 4)12 b4 14 sibility, let us consider the 4:)11e6 15 dxe64:Jxe6= Dunkel- move 7 �c2. This should pre- Avoiding the Main lines 85 sent no problems for Black, development gives him a slight e.g. 7 ... � 8 d5 4jeS 9 4Jd4 advantage; Vladirnirov - Mala­ �d7 10 gd1 cS 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 niuk, Tashkent 1987. 4):3 ge8 (12 ... c£jxc4 13 c£jxc6±) 9 ,O.b2 13 b3 li§7 14 4:Jf3 �a5 with an Clearly bad is 9 cfjxeS? 4Jfd7 unclear position; Drasko - (And not 9 ... �4?! 10 'f11xd8 Maksimovic, Zagreb 1982. gxd8 11 4Jxg4 fxg4 12 �S ge8 7 eS 13 cf)i2 �xa1 14 gxal with good The most logical reply, compensation - Vladimirov) 10 although other possibilities 'f11d5+ �h8 11 i'lf4 c6 with a win have beentried too: of material. a) Vladirnirov recommends 9 e4 7 ... a5 8 bS and only then 8 ... 10 4Jd4 4Ja6 e5. Also possible is 10 . . . 'f11e 7 11 b) 7 ... �4!? 8 �b2 c5 9 b5 'f11b3 �h8 12 @3 � 13 {jac2 cf)i7 (9 ... a6!? 10 a4 axb5 11 axb5 �S 14 gad1 �d7 15 bS with a gxal 12 ,O_xal 'f11a5 {12 . . . c[jd7!?} slight advantage to White; 13 �b2 {13 cfjlx12 cfjc3}13 ... 'f11b4 Bangiev - Tokariev, Simferopol 14 tf1c2. In this complicated 1988. position White's chances are 11 bS slightly preferable - Bangiev) 10 11 'f11b3 cS! - Bangiev. � {jb6 11 'f11c2!? cxd4 (A 11 4.Jc5 mistake would be 11 ... 4Jxc4? 12 4Ja3 t!;Je7 12 c£jxe4 4Jxb2 13 4Jed2; White 13 4Jac2 ,O.d7 could gain a slight advantage 14 ,O_a3 �ad8 after 11 . . . {}xc3 12 �xc3 4Jxc4 15 t/;Jc1 �feB 13 dxc5 - Bangiev) 12{}xe4 fxe4 16 �d1 13 {}xd4 e5 14 {jb3 �e6 15 �xe4 This position arose in Bang­ c£)xc4 (15 ... gc8 16 cS!) 16 �xb 7 iev - Legky, Sirnferopol 1988. In gb8 17 �c6 and White is better; Bangiev's opilllon, White's Bangiev - Karpman, Lvov 1988. chances are somewhat better. 8 dxeS dxeS Worse is 8 ... 4:Jfd7?! 9 4Jc3 B3 (9 Qg5 e8 'f11 10 4Jc3 {}xeS 11 7 4Jc3 (104) c£)xeS .O.xe5 12 4Jd5 gf7 = ) 9 ... In this final section we shall 4Jxe5 (9 ... dxe5 10 �5 Qf6 {10 deal with variations where ... �eB ilfjdS:t J 11 yxf6'f11 xf6 12 Black rejects the classical e4 with a slight advantage to possibilities 7 ... 'f11e8, 7 ... c6 White) 10 c£)xe5 Qxe5 (10 ... and 7 ... � and chooses dxe5 11 �d8 gxd8 12�5 with something else. the idea of gad1± - Vladimirov) To begin with, let us con­ 11 �b2 and WPJte's lead in sider two very rarely played 86 Avoiding the Main lines

a good game for Black; Cafure - Pelikan, Argentina 1%5. 8 4Jbd7 Or 8 ... {iy:fJ 9 d5 c:£je5 10 4Jxe5 dxe5 11 �d2 e4 12 gad1 (12 Qh6 .Q.xh6 13 �6 e6 14 gfd1 �e 7 15 �e3 4Jg4= Rossetto - Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1966) 12 ... � 4 13 f3 c:£je5 14 ru and, as in the main variation, White gains the advantage; Smyslov - Peli­ possibilities: kan, Mar del Plata 1966. a) 7 ... �h8 8 .,Og5!? �e8 9 9 �d2 c6 �d2 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 e4 fxe4 10 r!ad1 �c7

12 {jh4 � ?! (12 . . . 4):6!?) 13 11 .Q.h6 4Jb6 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 .O.xe4 {F5 15 12 .Q.xg7 '3;xg 7 .,Og2�f7 16 gae1 ge8 17 b3 t;J=:6 13 b3 a4 18 .0.h64:Jd4 19 �xg7+ �g7 20 14 !\fe1 axb3 f 4 cS 21 fxe4 and Black has lost 15 axb3 4Je4 a pawn; Suba - Erenska, Palma 16 �c2 de Mallorca 1989. White's position is more b) 7 ... .0.d7 8 ,O.g5!? 0FfJ 9 d5 comfortable; Guimard - Pelikan, 4JaS 10 �d3 cS 11 dxc6 4Jxc6 12 Mar del Plata 1966. gad1 �aS 13 Qxf6 Qxf6 14 4Jj5 Qxb2 15 Bb1�7 16 gxb7 gfd8 17 B32 �5 gac8 18 6i§ 4 Qf6 19 Qd5 7 e6 (105) with a winning position for White; Murshed - Hjorth, Cop­ enhagen 1982. Slightly less rare, although still highly unusual are:

B31 7 . . . aS B32 7 ... e6

B31 7 aS

8 .Q.gS!? 7 . .. e6 was played by Bot­ There is little sense in 8 �b3 vinnik with Black against Tal in 4):6 9 d5 4Jb4 10 �5 � 11 1960. The move is directed

.Q.e3 · (11�c2= - Botvinnik) 11 . . . against the advance d4 - d5, on

�4 12.Q.d2 c£'FS 13 �c2 h6 with which Black could reply ... e6 - Avoiding the Main lines 87 eS. Regrettably, this modest Tal . move is too passive and, as b) 9 b3 �e 7 10 �b2 eS 11 dxeS recent practice has shown, the dxeS 12 c£JdS �d6 13 gfd1 �dS advance d4 - dS is, in fact, 14 cxdS 4Jb4 15 �c4± Johans­ ineffective. son - Menville, Havana 1966. 8 �c2 9 �e7 {J(X)) 8 b3 is passive and allows Black some chances to equalise, for example: a) 8 ... 4Jc6.(lb2 9 (9 .(la3 �4 10 �d3 4Jxc3 11 �c3 ,O_d7 12 gad1 and White has a space advantage; lonov - Zysk, Dort­ mund 1992) 9 ... eS (Sharper is 9 ... �e7 10 dS 4Je4! 11 �d �c3 12 �xc3 c£Jd8 13 -'lxg7 �g7 14 e4 eS± Dautov - Zysk, Dort­ mund 1992) 10 dxeS dxeS 11 10 ldb1 �d8 gxd8 12 gfd1 gxd1+ 13 Others: gxd1 e4 14 4Je1 -'le6= lvkov - a) Not good is 10 dS? 4JeS 11 Menvielle, Havana 1966. dxe6 �c4 12 4JbS a6 13 �c4 b) If instead 8 ... �e8 9 �a3 axbS 14 �bS 4Je4 15 4)14 c6 16 h6 10 �c2 gS 11 gad1 c£ja6 12 �b3 dS+ Altshul - Vinogra­ gfe1 �hS 13 b4 !iJ::-7 with chan­ dov, Leningrad 1940. ces for both sides; Summer­ b) Nothing more than equal­ matter - Gavrikov, Berne 1991. ity is gained by 10 e4 fxe4 11 8 4Jc6 �e4 eS 12 dxeS �e4 13 �e4 Less good is 8 ... �e7 9 e4 dxeS= Podgaets - Tal, USSR �e4 10 4Jxe4 fxe4 11 �e4 1%9. !iJ::-6 12 .o.,gs � 13 gad1 �d7 14 c) Botvinnik recommends 10 �h4 gae8 15 �h6 .0.xh6 16 �6 a3!?. �g7 17 �d2 with advantage to 10 aS White; Gligoric - Stoltz, Hel­ Other possible moves are sinki 1952. worse: 9 �d1 a) 10 ... eS? 11 dxeS dxeS 12 White has other possibilities: 4)15 �dS 13 cxdS c£Jd8 14 b4 a) 9 dS?! 4Jb4 10 �b3 c£ja6 11 or 14 �e3. These are Euwe's .(le3 (11 dxe6 4JcS 12 �c2 .(lxe6 and Fi lip's recommendations 13 b34Jfe4 14 -'lb2 �c3 15 -'lxc3 and both give White the advan­ .Q.xc3 16 �c3 �4 17 �c2 �e7 tage. 18 c£Jd2 dS= Cvitan - Bjelajac, b) 10 ... �d7? 11 b4 gae8 12 bS

Belgrade 1988) 11 . .. �4= - 4)18 13 .Q.a3 ± - Botvinnik. 88 A voiding theMain lines

11 a3 4Jd8 15 .O,h3 'fbf6 12 e4 fxe4 16 .0.d2 dS

12 . . . eS 13 ,O.gSd) 14 cS! is not Botvinnik suggesLc;; 16 . .. eS!?. helpful - Tal . 17 �e2 dxc4 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 18 .O.f4 4Jd6 14 �xe4 t;}£7 19 4:Jg5 Or 14 ... eS 15 dxeS .ofS 16 White ha

1 d4 fS A 2 g3 4jf6 6 d6 3 ,O,g2 g6 Normally White now fian­ 4 ciJ£3 ,O,g7 chettoes immediately but we s o-o o-o also consider 7 c4 (which often 6 b3 (107) arises via 6 c4 db 7 b3) .

A1 7 .O,b2 A2 7 c4

A1 7 ,O.b2 Obviously Black has a wide choice here too:

A11 7 ... c6 A12 7 ... �e8 and others

The development of the A11 bishop to the b2-square has 7 c6 (108) always been a popular counter to the Leningrad variation. In the lines considered in this w section, move order is import- ant, as identical positions fre­ quently arise from different sequences. The material has been ar­ ranged as follows:

A 6 ... d6 B 6 ... 4Je4 Here White usually chooses C 6 ... c6 and others between: 90 Sy stems with an early b3

A111 8 c4 A112 8 4Jbd2

A111 8 c4 Now Black has:

A1111 8 ... �e8 A1112 8 ... 4Ja6

A1113 8 ... aS

Simen Agdestein has suc­ Wijk aan Zee B 1990. cessfully tried 8 . . . �c 7 here: 9 10 dS 4Jbd2 {jg4!? (Not 9 ... ;ge8? 10 Alternatives are: dS!) 10 e4 (According to Ribli a) 10 �c2 4Jb4? (10 ... h6!?) 11 White should play 10 h3 c£jh6 11 �d2 aS 12 a3 4)l6 13 b4 with a e4±) 10 ... f 4 11 �c2 (Again 11 h3 great positional superiority for is recommended by Ribli) 11 ... White; Zaitseva - 11torenko, fxg3 12 hxg3 eS 13 dxeS dxeS 14 Moscow 1984. cS bS 15 a4 aSco 16 b4 axb4 17 b) 10 a3 leads to an unclear axbS;gxa1 18 ;gxa1cxbS 19 �b3+ position: 10 ... eS 11 e3 e4 12 4):12 �h8 20 �b4 .O,d7+ 21 ;gd � �e6 13 b4 �7 14 ;gel gS 15 ..(lf1 22 �b3 h6 23 4Jb1 b4 24 4Jlxl2 �f7 16 a4 ;gd8 17 �c2 .O,h S 18 gS 2S �4 i'le6 26 �d3 b3 27 ;gab1 ;gf7 19 aS dS 20 bS f4, as 4):16 4Jb4 28 �e2 4:'Ja2! 29 ;gc4 in Adonov - Ermenkov, St john �2 30 4JxeS �h7! 31 �hS 1988, when 21 a6 is possible.

,O.xeS32 �xeS {jg4 33ilh3 i'lxc 4 10 . . . -'l_d7 34 �xg4 �xeS+ 0-1 Stohl - After 10 . . . cS 11 �d2 h6 12 Agdestein, Manila izt 1990. ;gael �f7 13 e4 fxe4 14 4Jxe4 White stands better; Todorcevic A1111 - Arendbia, Leon 1991. 8 �e8 (109) 11 �c1 Black's last move is popular White may also try: in other lines as well (compare a) 11 4:Jd4 also serves well in with Chapter one, for example) . the fight for the advantage: 11 This variation is very common . .. 4JcS (11 ... �7 12 b4±) 12 gb1 in modem practice. ;gc8 13 b4 4Jce4 (13 ... 4)l6?! 14 9 4Jc3 4Ja6 �2?! {More exact was 14 illogical is 9 ... h6 10 ;gel eS 11 dxc6!? bxc6 15 bS cxbS 16 cxbS e4 fxe4 12 dxeS dxeS 13 4Jxe4 cfFS 17 4Jc6;1; - Titov} 14 ... 4Jc7 4Jxe4 14 ;gxe4 �fS 15 ;ge3 �4, 1S �d2 �7 16 f4?! {16 a4} 16 ... as in Damljanovic - Zsu. Polgar, cxdS 17 cxdS 4)l8 18e4 fxe4 19 Systems with an early b3 91

4Jxe4 4Jxe4 20 �xe4 4Jb6 21 13 �d2 45:5 (13 ... � 14 e4± ) {123 �4!+ Titov - Basin, 14 b4 45:e4 15 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 16 Belgorod 1989) 14 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 �xe4 fxe4 17 4Je6 �xb2 18 (14 ... fxe4 15 � �xe6 16 dxe6 �b2 �xe6 19 dxe6 gf6 20 �d4 with the idea of �d4± - Titov) gxe6 21 �a?;;!;; - Malaniuk. 15 4Je6! �xe6 16 �xg? �g? 17 12 tic8 dxe64Jf6 18 �d4 b6 19 cS �d8 13 {)d4 't/1f7 20 Bfd1 bxc5 21 bxcS d5 22 gb? 14 .O,a3 cxdS with advantage to White; Resh­ 15 {)xdS {)e4 evsky - Vasiukov, Palma de 16 f3 {)ecS (110) Mallorca 1989. b) 11 �c2 h6 12 gad1 gac8 13 �b1 g5 14 014 4Jg4 15 h3 4Je5 16 f4 gxf4 17 gxf4 �6 with an unclear position; Sandie - Sav­ chenko, Belgrade 1988. c) 11 �d2 gc8 12 gad1 cxd5 13 4Jxd5 4Jxd5 14 �xg 7 {123 15 fxe3 �g 7 16 e4 45:5 and Black has a good game; Danielian - Rublevsky,jurmala 1991. d) 11 gb1gc8 12 01445:7 13 17 {)bS e3 c5 14 4Jc2 b5co Wl. Schmidt A suitable move for seizing - Vyzmanavin, Copenhagen 1991. the initiative is 17 e4!? - Malan­ 11 h6 iuk. Also perfectly playable are 11 17 .Q.xbS

. .. gd8 12 -'la34Jc5 13 0f2 aS 14 18 cxbS {)c7 b4 axb4 15 �xb4 e5co , as in 19 {)xc7 tixc7 Lobron - Yusupov, Hamburg 20 .Q.xcS dxcS SKA 1991; 11 ... fiF 7 12 �d2 h6 13 21 f4 {121 �f? 14 4Jd3 gfd8 15 gfd1;;!;; A draw was agreed here in Portisch - Malaniuk, Moscow Kasparov - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990; and 11 ... gc8!? 12 1988. 014� 13 -'la3 g5 14 e3 f4 15 exf4 gxf4 16 4Jce2 4Jh5 17 �f3 A1112 �e5 18 �xh5 �5 19 4Jxf4 8 4Ja6 �d1 20 gfxd1 �xf4 21 gxf4 9 {)c3 (il1J gxf4 22 gd3 �f? 23 gel gg8;;!;; lhis variation is somewhat Moldobaiev - Kramnik, Belgo­ similar to the system 7 ... c6 rod 1989. considered in Chapter 2. There 12 e3 is limited material on this More active is 12 4Jd4!? gc8 variation from recent practice. 92 Sys tems with an early b3

The alternative knight develop­ exf6 20 c£jf3 with a more ad­ ment 9 c£jbd2, is considered in vantageous position for White; variation A11211, whilst 9 dS cS Schmidt - Espig, Dresden 1985) 10 4Jc3 h6 11 gb1 gS 12 e3 �d 7 11 dxe6�xe6 12 c£jgS�c 8 13 �d2 was unclear in Wl. Schmidt - h6 14 c£jf3 4JcS 15 ;Q.ad1± Bir­ Malaniuk, Copenhagen 1991. brager - Lutikov, USSR 1966. d) The t.ransferrence of the 111 knight to the wing is interest­ B ing: 9 ... �S!? 10 dS eS 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 �d2 �e 7 13 gad1 gadS 14 0f4 �c8 15 a3 4)::5 16 b4 4Y4 17 c£jxe4 fxe4 18 f4 exf3 19 exf3 �f7= Razuvaev - l.utikov, USSR 1976. e) 9 ... 4Y4 10 �cl eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 c£jxe4 fxe4 13 c£jgS �h6 14 h4 �fS 15 �xeS �e7 16 �b 2 9 E;jc7 gfe8 17 �e3 and White is much Many other moves are pos­ better; Csom - Maenner, Lenk sible here: 1991. a) Worse is 9 ... .Q.d 7 10 gel f) 9 ... �c7 10 gel (10 ;Q.e1 eS bS ( 10 ... '{f;jaS 11 e4 fxe4 12 c£jxe4 11 e4 and the slight lack of gae8 13 4JegS{Jc 7 14 '{f;jd2 �d2 harmony between the 4Ja6 and 15 {}xd2 h6 16 4Jgf3 gS {Panna - �c 7 gives White the better Bronstein, Amsterdam 1956} 17 game - Taimanov) 10 ... eS 11 ge2± - Botvinnik) 11 cxbS cxbS c£jbS?! (With this move White 12 c£jd2 gb8 13 e4±. obtains no more than equality) b) 9 ... �h8 10 �d2 �7 11 dS 11 . . . �d8 12 dxeS dxeS 13 4):16 cxdS (11 ... eS!? - Botvinnik) 12 e4 14 4:JgS�e 7 15 h4 h6 16 c£jxc8 c£jxdS 4:J:_'X dS 13 cxdS �d7 14 gaxc8 17 c£jh3 c£jhS with an gael �b6 15 .Q.d4 �a6 16 gc7± equal game; van Schlechtinga - Csom - Ciocaltea, Lj ubljana van der Weide, Wijk aan Zee 1973. 1973. c) 9 ... �8 10 dS (10 a4 c£jb4 g) 9 ... �e8 transposes to 11 e3 aS 12 �e2 h6 13 gad1 gS 14 variation A1111. dS cS 15 4Je1 f4 16 exf4 gxf4 17 10 t/Jc2 4):l3�4 with some complica­ Here 10 gel, with the inten­ tions; van Doeland - Bhend, tion of opening the centre by Lenk 1991) 10 ... eS (10 ... .Q.d7 11 e2 - e4, as &tvinnik recom­ �1 cS 12 '{f;jd2 0f::-7 13 a4 b6 14 mends, does not seem bad. e4 fxe4 15 �S a6 16 {Jcxe4 bS 10 ... ID>B 17 axbS axbS 18 .Q.c3 h6 19 c£jxf6+ Black has no problems either Sy stems with an ear�v b3 93 after: reputation than the text move: a) 10 ... 4Jh5 11 d5 e5 12 dxe6 10 gd d5 11 cxd5 cxd5 12 6i'f-5 .O.xe6 13 e3 �e 7 14 .Q.a3 gadS 15 .Q.e6 13 {Ja4 4Jj7 14 f3 4jef6 15 �ad1 a6 16 gd2 cS 17 gfd1 bS �d2± Portisch - Zwaig, Raach with equal chances; Pelc - 1969. Lutikov, USSR 1961. b) Y ... tjc7 10 d5 {)16 11 4Jd4 b) 10 ... �h8 11 gadl �d 7 12 e3 �d 7 (11 ... e5 12 dxe6 4)=5 13 gd

�e8 13 gfe1 gd8 14 gd2 4JhS 15 4Jxe6?! {13 ... JJ.xe6} 14 c£jxeb d5 'ff1f7 and again Black has .Q.xe6 15 �d2 gfd8 16 gfd1 � equal chances; Brzozka - Bron­ 17 {Ja4± Csom - Casper, Berlin stein, Miskolc 1963. 1979) 12 gb1 (Approximately 11 a4 aS equivalent to the text is 12 e4 12 Jjad1 4:Ja6 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �xe4 13 dS t(1b6 4)=5 15 �2 a4 with an unclear 14 4Jd4 .cld7 position; Baumbach - Ghitescu, 15 e3 4JcS Zinnowitz 1964) 12 ... 4:):5 13 16 Zibt Zibe8 �c2 f4 14 ;glxil fxg3 15 hxg3 Black has a sound game; �b6 16 �a1 gac8 17 e3 a4= Smyslov - Lutikov, Thilisi 1976. Averkin - Knezevic, Dubna 1976. 10 �c2 A1113 This is probably a better 8 aS choice than: 9 4Jc3 (112) a) Unfavourable is 10 a3?! �d 7 (10 ... �c 7 11 gd e5 12 @5 �e7 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 .Q.xe5 gd8 15 �c2 f4 16 cfjbd4 fxg3 17 hxg3 4:):5 18 gcd1 �4 with active play for Black; Tosic - Berko­ vich, Pula 1990) 11 d5 4:Je4 12 4Jj44Jxc3 13 .Q.xc3 �b6 and the initiative is with Black, Zivko­ vic - Sahovic, Yugoslavia 197 4. b) 10 gd .Q.d7 11 tf!}c2 (11 d5?! 4:):5 12 'ft:jc2 'ft:jb6 13 c£Jd2 a4 14 lbis rather solid system has bxa4 tja6 15 'ft:jbt cfjxa4 with not been examined recently, a slight advantage to Black; either in theory or in practice. Jakobsen - Zwaig, Raach 1969 The alternative, 9 c£Jd2, is con­ or 11 �d2 ge8 12 gfd1 'ft:jc7 13 e4 sidered in variation A1122. gadS= Mednis - Ftacnik, Am­ 9 4:Ja6 sterdam 1988) 11 ... 'ft:jc7 12 gfd1 Alternatively: e5 13 c5 e4 14 cxd6 'ft:jxd6 15 4:Je5

a) 9 . . . 4:Je4 has a worse @4 16 'ft:jd2 �e6 with a good 94 Systems with an early b3 game for Black; Kozlov - Ber­ 13 cxd6 �xd6 kovich, Moscow 1986. 14 4JeS 4Jb4 c) 10 �d2?! .(ld7 11 �fe1 b5 12 15 �b1 .Q.e6 cxbS cxbS 13 �ac1 (Fauland - According to Botvinnik, the Buecker, Budapest 1988) 13 ... game is equal. ;gb8 and Black has a good position. A112 10 ... t/Jc7 (113) 8 4Jbd2 (114) Mter this move, as after 8 c4, Black has a choice:

114 B

Black paves the way for equalising the chances in the centre. This is more logical than 10 ... 4Jb4?! 11 �b1 with the A1121 8 ... 4Ja6 idea of a2 - a3± - Botvinnik. A1122 8 . .. aS 11 �adt eS A1123 8 ... \ti>h8 and others There are some other pos­ sible moves: Now White has: a) 11 ... �d7 12 a3 �ae8 13 d5 e5 14 dxe6 �e6 15 4:Jd4 �c8= A11211 9 c4 Stoltz - Kostic, Bled 1950. A11212 9 4Je1 and others b> 11 ... �h8 12 d5 �5 13 4:Jd4 �d7 14 e3 �ac8 15 �b1 �b6= A11211 Kovacs - Knaak, Polanica Zdroj 9 c4 (115) 1975. White plays c4 having al­ 12 cS e4 ready stationed the knight on Clearly this is better than: the d2-square. In spite of the a) 12 ... exd4 13 cxd6 �xd6 14 somewhat passive position of 4Jxd4± - Botvinnik. the pieces White has surpris­ b) 12 ... dxc5 13 dxe5 4::g4 14 ingly good prospects of emerg­ 4Ja4 with a better position for ing from the opening with an White; Pachman - Gerusel, advantage. Mannheim 1975. 9 �e8 Sy stems with an early b3 95

Here attention should also be paid to other possibilities: a) 10 gel 6z5-7 (10 . .. d5?! 11 �5 Qe6 12 f3 with a positional advantage to White; Stohl - Kontic, Vrjncka Banja 1989) 11 e3 b5!? 12 �e2 bxc4 13 bxc4 �8 14 Qc3 Qa6 with possibil­ ities for both sides; Ilic - Geor­ giev, Wijk aan Zee 1984. b) 10 e3!? �7 11 �e2 h6 12 e4 This is the most common fxe4 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �e4 reply, although not necessarily Qf5 15 �e3 and White has the best. Instead: occupied the e-file; Akhmilov­ a) 9 ... e5?! has been tried: 10 skaya - Stepanovaya, Sochi dxe5 4)17 11 Qa3 �e5 12�e5!? 1987. (12�1 c£jxf3+?! {It would have c) 10 gel h6 11 �c2 gS 12 gfe1 been better to avoid the ex­ �h5 13 a3 �7 14 dS? cxd5 15 c5 change by 12 ... c£j7! ?} 13 Qxf3 �e8 and White did not obtain 4):5 14 b4±) 12 ... Qxe5 13 4:Jf3 adequate compensation for the Jlxa1 14 �a1 �5 15 gd1 �6 16 sacrificed pawn; Okkanen - j. �el �e7 17 il.b2�4 18 �e3 and Polgar, Columbia 1989. Black has difficulties in defend­ 10 . . . ti:Jc7 (116) ing his king; Shirov - Bareev, Lvov zt 1990. 116 b) 9 ... Qd7 10 gel �h8 11 a3 w d5 12 �c2 fle6 13 �5 gc8 14 b4 (14 c5!?) 14 ... 4:Jd7 15 4:Jd3 �b6± Mikhalchishin - Vasiukov, USSR 1982. c) 9 ... �h8 with the idea of ... ,O_e6 - g8 - Mikhalchishin. d) 9 ... �c7!? 10 a3 ,O_d7 11 b4 (11 gel gae8 12 b4 �b8 13 �b3 �h8 14 a4± Csom - Espig, Instead of this, 10 . . . h6!? can Kecskemet 1972) 11 ... gae8 12 c5 be recommended, when Smejkal �b8 13 �4 fle6 14 gel �h8 15 - Topalov, Altensteig 1990, e3 gd8 16 �e2 Qd5 17 �5 Qxg2 continued 11 a3 g5 12 e3 �h5 13 18 �g2 6z5-7 19 f3 �c8 20 2:fe1 gf7 14 4:j1 Qd7 15 ge2 4Jh3= Balashov - Bareev, Mos­ gaf8 with good attacking cow 1989. chances for Black. White does 10 �c2 better to prepare the e4-break % Sys tems with an early b3 with 11 gael gS 12 e4 fxe4 13 chances) 11 {y3.3 �g6 (11 . . . �hS {Jxe4± Dreev - Motwani, Berlin 12 �S 4JxhS 13 f4!? or 12 f3 1991. and in both cases White has a 11 !Xae1 ,O_d7 slight advantage - Ftacnlk) 12 12 e4 fxe4 �e2 �h8?! (Ftacnik suggests 12

13 4Jxe4 !J..fS . .. �d7!? with the idea of ... 14 4Jxf6+ .O.xf6 gd8) 13 gael?! (White does 15 'tttd2 �d7 better to play 13 c4!? with the 16 !Xe3 z;{ae8 idea of b4 - bS) 13 ... �d7 with 17 rlfe1 rlf7 an unclear position. 18 dS cS 9 .O.e6 19 4Jh4 Black has two good alter­ White's pressure on the natives: e-ft1.e is obvious; Pigusov - a) Consideration should be Odeev, Minsk 1986. given to the possibility of 9 ... cS!? 10 dS �7 11 c4 a6 12 {y3.3 A11212 bS 13 e4 bxc4 14 bxc4 fxe4 15 9 4Je1 (117) {Jxe4 ;gb8 16 4Jxf6+ �xf6 17 �xf6 (118)

White again plays 4Jb1 - d2 temporarily rejecting c2 - c4. 17 ... gxf6?! (Preferable was the The lines presented below are elimination of the weakness on very complicated. Before the the e-file with 17 ... exf6!?=) 18 manoeuvre with the knight it is get with a positional advantage also possible to play 9 e3 �e8 to White; Torre - Meulders, and only now 10 4Je1. For ex­ Brussels 1987. ample: 10 ... gS (Possible is 10 ... b) Also possible is 9 .. . fi:J::-7 eS!? 11 4).:4 exd4 12 exd4 {12 10 {y3.3�e8 11 e4 ?! (Slightly too cf)xd6 ? �e6 13 cf)xcB dxe3! with early; 11 c4!?) 11 ... fxe4 12 {Jxe4 the idea of 14 ... e2 Or 13 �xd4 {Jxe4 13 �xe4 �= Espig - cf'ftB and Black wins - Ftacnik} Chekhov, Berlin 1988.

12 ... �d8 13 4Jd3 with equal 10 4Jd3 'ttth6!? Sy stems with an early b3 97

11 c4 �adB �2± Udovdc - Dime, Yugo­ 12 �c2 Jlf7 slavia 1953. 13 !!adt !!feB c) 9 a4 {):ill 10 {Jet (10 e3 14 �ct �d7 �h8 11 4Je1 4Jb4 12 c3 4Jbd5 13 15 �at �dB 4):13 tJjb6 14 gel cf57 15 c4 _kle6 16 4Jf3 4Je4 with an unclear position; Milic With an unclear position and - Bronstein, Beverwijk 1963) 10 possibilities for both sides; .. . 4Jb4 (Serious consideration Vegh - Vasiukov, Budapest should be given to 10 ... e5!? 11 1986. dxe5 0g 4 124Jd3 4Jxe5 13 4jxe5 dxe5 14 e4 tf1c7 15 tf1e2 f4 16 �a3 A1122 ge8 17 gadl .clf8= Romanishin B aS (119) - Kovacevic, Sarajevo 1988) 11 c3 �d5 12 4):13 tJjb6 13 e3 �d7 14 gd gad8 15 �a3 tJja6 16 c4± Panno - Gheorghiu, Varna 1962. d) 9 a3 4)i6 (Alternatively: 9 ... a4 {This aims to blockade the queenside and the centre} 10 b4 bS 11 c4 d5 12 c5 tJjc7 13 4Je5 �d7 14 4Jd3 4Je4 15 f3 4Jxd2 16 tJjxd2 ctf6 17 tJjf4 tJjxf4 18 gxf4 and neither side was able to break the pawn chain in Panno Similar to 8 ... @6, this is - Dolmatov, Moscow 1989; or 9 another solid reply to the plan ... 4Je4 10 c4 tJjb6 11 e3 4Jxd2 12 chosen by White. This variation 4Jxd2 {):ill {12 . .. cfjd7!?} 13 4Jc3 makes frequent appearances in ,Cle6 14 tf1c2�f7 15 gfbl e5 16 c5 practical play. dxc5 {16 ... �a 7 17 b4;t}17 dxe5± 9 c4 Ree - Bohm, Amsterdam 1980) White has four other pos­ 10 e3 (Also: 10 gel {This at­ sibilities here: tempt to open the centre is a) Seldom seen is 9 e3 @6 unsuccessful} 10 ... 4Je4 11 4jxe4 10 4Je1 �d7 11 tf1e2 �h8 12 c4 {11 e3 c£)c7 12 c4 fYB 13 �c2 �7 13 4):13 a4 14 gfe1 tf1e8 15 cf'/Jf6 14 lfa cJ c£Jg4 15 §e2 1J.d7 f3 bS 16 f4 bxc4 17 bxc4 tf1f7± with a balancedposition; Kallai Bogdanovski - Kontic, Belgrade - sax, Hungary 1991} 11 ... fxe4 1988. 124Jd2 d5 13 f3 exf3 14 �xf3 {14 b) 9 {jet tf1c7 (Taimanov exf3 cS - Taimanov } 14 ... 4Jc5 recommends 9 ... a4!?) 10 4):13 with an unclear position; Biel­ �d7 11 4:f4! �6 12 e4 fxe4 13 icki - Pelikan, Mar del Plata c:£jxe4 4Jxe4 14 .clxe4 d5 15 1960; or 10 4Je1 tf1c7 11 4):13�d7 98 Systems with an early b3

12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 {Jxe4 14 -'le6 (Weaker is the following .O.xe4 .0.h3 15 ;Q:el �d7 and White continuation: 14 ... dxc5 15 dxc5 has a vel)' slight advantage; 4Jxc5 16 4Jxa_S �aS 17 b4± - Gerusel - Gallinnis, West Ger­ Botvinnik) 15 gfdl �4 16 many 1988) 10 ... �7 (Or 10 ... {jd2= Portisch - Uhlmann, �d7 11 �e2 �c 7 12 e4 fxe4 13 Stockholm izt 1962. {Jxe4 fl:ae8 14 gael; &lbochan 11 dxeS {Jd7?! - R Garcia, Mar del Plata 1Y66) Black wo:..tld be better ad­ 11 �e2 �h8 12 4je1 .(leb 13 c4 vised to play 11 ... {Jg4!? 12 h3 .Qg8 14 {Jd3 {Jd7 and White, {JxeS= 13 �c2 cDxf3+ 14 cDxf3 with the plan of f2 - f4, is �xb2 15 �xb2 �f6!. slightly better; Sanguinetti - 12 {Jd4 {jxeS Pelikan, Argentina 1968. 13 tf1c2 .Q.d7 9 4ja6 14 .Q.c3 {Jc7 10 a3 (120) 15 e3 'tf1e7 16 �fe1?! It would be preferable to occupy space in the centre with the plan 16 h3!? intending f4, gael, e4±. 16 4:Jg4 17 h3 4:Jf6 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 dS Andersson - Dolmatov, Cler­ mont-Ferrand 1989. The game Instead of the text move, soon ended in a draw . one could also try 10�c 2!?. 10 ... eS A1123 The most logical continua­ 8 �h8 (J2V tion. Also possible are: a) 10 ... t;J:7 11 gel (11 �c2) 11 .. . �d7 12 �c2 ;gb8? (Black cannot find a plan) 13 -'lc3 {Jab 14 �al �h8± Hofmann - Gal­ linns, West Germany 1988. b) 10 ... �c7 11 �c2 (11 gel .Q.d7 12 e4 {Jxe4 13 {Jxe4 fxe4 14 gxe4 .0.f5 15 gel gae8= Bouwmeester - Stahlberg, Zev­ enaar 1961) 11 ... .Q.d7 (11 ... �h8) 12 c5 �h8 13 gael gae8 14 4):4 Here we will continue to Sy stems with an early b3 99 consider the positions ansmg initiative could have been gain­ after 8 l£jbd2, concentrating on ed by 21 cS!?, followed by e3 - those variations where Black e4 - eS when Black's pieces plays neither 8 ... 4Ja6 nor 8 ... would have been out of the aS. game) 21 ... !J.xd4 with an un­ The text is a popular king clear position; Ribli - Yusupov, move, but two other examples Belfort 1988. should also be considered: 9 dS a) 8 ... l£jbd7 (The start of an Black switches to a Stone­ original manoeuvre) 9 e3 Vjjc7 10 wall formation, even at the �s 4Jb6 11 c4 h6 12 4Jf3 fle6 13 cost of a tempo. :gc1 !J.f7 14 :gc2 l£jbd7 15 :gel eS Not good is 9 ... eS?! 10 dxeS 16 dxeS dxeS 17 e4 f4 18 gxf4 4Jfd7 11 fla3 {)xeS 12l£JxeS flxeS 4JhS 19 fS 4Jf4 20 !J.f1 gae8 21 13 gel with the idea of {jf3± - :ge3 with a complicated posi­ Malaniuk; or even 13 4Jf3!?. tionin Orlov - Shabalov, Lenin­ 10 {JeS �e6 grad 1989. 11 {JdJ {Jbd7 b) 8 ... Vjjc7 9 c4 4JhS (With 12 �c1 this move Black achieves ... e7 - Or 12 f3 Vj;b6 13 e3 cS!? with eS, but he does not reach an unclear position - Malaniuk. equality) Vj;c210 eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 4Je4 12 cS e4 13 4Jd4 Vj;e7 14 b4 0f7 13 4:]£4 �f7 ts 4):4 �s 16 4Jd6 b6 17 f4 14 cxdS cxdS exf3 18 exf3 bxcS 19 bxcS fla6 15 fJ 4Jd6 20 :gfe1 Vj;d7 21 :gad1 and Black Chances are equal; Yusupov lacks an adequate defence; - Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1987. Dreev - Dolmatov, USSR Ch 1989. A12 9 c4 7 �e8 (122) The most logical move in every respect. 9 :get has also been played

(As ... d6 - dS coincides with Black's plans anyway, the move with the rook seems unneces­ sary) 9 ... dS (9 .. . aS 10 a3± Najdorf - Schweber, Mar del Plata 1968) 10 �s fle6 11 {):13 {jbd7 12 f3 Vj;b6 13�h1 :gaes 14 c4 Vj;c7 15 Vj;c2 Vj;d6 16:gael 4JhS 17 cxdS Vj;xdS 18 e3 �d6 19 {F4 In this section we shall .Q.xc4 20 bxc4 gS 21 e4 ?! (The consider the variation where 100 Sys tems with an early b3

Black rejects the traditional 4Jbd2 g5 9 e3 c6 10 4Jel �e8 11 advance ... c7 - c6. In addition 4):13 'ljjg6 12 �e2 4Je4 13 4):4 to the text move, Black has no 4):17 14 f3 �f6 15 e4 fxe4 16 less than nine other possible fxe4 4:Jh6 17 e5 �8 and Black continuations. remained under relentless Hrst of all we deal with the pressure; Nogueiras - Mill, lu­ more unusual possibilities. It cerne 1989. should be added here that d) 7 ... e5? (Too early) 8 dxe5 Black can play 7 ... 4:Ja6 in con­ �4 9 h3 4Jxe5 10 �d5+ 0f7 junction with the advance ... c7 (Mter 10 ... �h8 11 4Jxe5 dxe5 - c6, transposing to material 12 .Q.xe5 Black loses a pawn we have already covered, and - Taimanov) 11 .Q.xg7 �g7 12 can transpose to variation B1 by 4):3 �6 13 �d2 4Je5 14 4):15 playing 7 ... 4Je4. and White has a superiority in a) 7 . . . e6!? (This move is not the centre; van Geet - van in accord with modem plans Baarle, Holland 1971. but it cannot be considered bad e) 7 . .. 4Jbd7?! 8 4Jbd2 ge8 for this reason alone) 8 4Jlxi2 (Also 8 ... �e8 9 e4 4Jxe4 10 aS 9 a3 Zi56 10 gel 4Je4 with c£jxe4 fxe4 11 �5 4Jf6 12 4Jxe4 chances for both sides; Torre - gives White a good game; llmaz, Dubai ol 1986. Sokolov - Simic, Yugoslavia b) 7 ... � (Provoking the 1971) 9 4Jc44Jb6 10 �d3 c6 11 a4 advance d4 - d5 and aiming for fle6 12 4Jxb6 Vjjxb6 13 4Jg5 .Q.d 7 counterplay on the queenside - 14 �c4+ and the initiative is Taimanov) 8 d5 4:JaS 9 4Jfd2 c5 with White; Najdorf - Quinter­ 10 a4 .Q.d7 11 c3 (This square for os, Buenos Aires 1968. the pawn is better than the f) 7 . . . aS 8 c4 (Black is fm e square c4 - Taimanov) 11 ... after 8 a4 4Jc6 9 4Jlxi2 �e8 10 gc8?! (Instead of this move gel 4Je4co Tukmakov -D.

Taimanov recommends 11 . .. Gurevich, Reykjavik 1990, and 8 �8!, e.g. 12 ga2 gc8 13 b4 4Jbd2 a4 9 c4 c6 10 �c2 �e8 11 cxb4 14 cxb4 .Q.xb2 15 gxb2 b4 a3co Dreev - D. Gurevich, 4):4 16 c£jxc4 gxc4 17 �b3 Vjjc7 New York 1990) 8 ... 4:Ja6 9 a3 with good prospects for Black) cS 10 4Jc3 4Je4 11 e3 4Jxc3 12 12 b4 cxb4 13 cxb4 4):4 14 flxc3 ;gb8 13 �d2 b6 14 gfe1 4Jxc4 gxc4 15 �b3 gc8 16 4):12 .Q.b 7 15 d5 .Q.xc3 16 �c3 4Jc7 17 Vjje8 17 e3 h6 18 �d4 bS 19 axb5 b4 and White enjoys a great .Q.xbS 20 gfd and Black's posi­ positional advantage; Gofstein - tion is difficult; Larsen - Reyes, Nevednichi, Tbilisi 1983. illgano 1968. g) 7 ... �h8?! 8 4Jbd2 4Jc6 9 c) 7 . . . h6 (This move is c4 e5 10 dxe5 4Jg411 �c2 4Jgxe5 evidently a loss of time here) 8 (11 ... dxe5±) 12 gad1 aS 13 cS± Systems with an early b3 101

Najdorf - Canobra, Mar del gfe1 �d8 18 cxhS and Black has Plata 1%9. lost a pawn; Krasenkov - Zaru­ h) 7 ... c£jh5!? 8 e3 Uvkov bin, Moscow 1984) 11 ... h6 suggests 8 c4) 8 . . . tzF6 9 c£Ja3 (According to Matsukevich (9 c4 e5+ - Ivkov; 9 4:Jc3 e5 10 equality can be achieved by 11 .. : dxe5 dxe5 11 �d5+ �d5 12 bS 124JxbS .O.xbS 13 cxb5 �b5 4:Jxd5 e4 13 4Jd44:Jxd4 14 .O.xd4 14 4:}l2) 12 4je1 gS 13 e4 ?! (13 c6 15 c'0F7!? gb8!= Cebalo - �3) 13 ... �g6 14 �e2 fxe4 15 Ivkov, Cetinje 1977) 9 ... e6 10 c4 4Jxe4.Q.g4! 16 �e3 (16 f3 cfj,xe4; �e7 11 CiJ::,2 aS (123) 16 4jxf6+ exf6 17 �g4 �b1 18 �e6+ 2:f7 19 �c3 �7! 20 �d6 �f8 - Matsukevichl 16 ... �f5 17 f3 h5 and Black seized the initiative in Konopka - Malan­ iuk, Frunze 1987. b) 8 �d3 t;J:6 9 �c4+ e6 10 b4 a6 11 �b3 �h8 12 a4 e5 13 dxeS dxeS 14 bS �e6 15 �e3 and White has wasted valuable tempi with his queen; Muse - Videki, Kecskemet 1990. 12 �d2 (lvkov and Sokolov c) 8 c4!? (In practice this recommend 12 a3!? with the move is the best for White) 8 ... idea of b4) 12 . . . �d7 13 Q:ab1 eS?! (Better is 8 ... 4Ja6 {8 ... h6 4:}18 14 gfd1 c£jf6 with an un­ 9 cfJc3gS 10 e3 �hB [10 ... aScoJ clear position; Franco - Haag, 11 dS! aS 12cfj:14 led to a crush­ Oberhausen 1%1. ing win for Mlite in Shirov - 8 4Jbd2 Rskov, Moscow 1991} 9 0,c3 Also worth consideration {Alternatively: 9 dS cS 10 c£Jc3 are: h6 11 fje1 gS 12cf)d3 �g6 13 �d2 a) 8 d5 (Preventing 8 ... c'0F6) 1J.d7 14 f4 cf:g4 and Black had 8 ... 4Ja6 (8 ... c6 9 c4 4Ja6 10 sufficient counterplay in Tuk­ c'0F3�d7 11 gel gd8 12 .Q.a3 CiJ::,5 makov - Malaniuk, Lvov zt 13 4Jd2 aS 14 b4 axb4 15 -'lxb4 1990; or 9cfjlx12eS 10 dxeS cf::£4 e5 16 4Jb3 4:Jxb3 17 axb3 c5 18 11lfb1 dxeS 12h3 c[)h6co Velikov .Q.a3 e4 19 �b 2 �4 and Black - Baree v, Marseille 1990} 9 ... c6 begins his kingside attack; Lob­ with transposition into varia­ ron - Yusupov, Hamburg 1991) 9 tions already considered above; c4 cS!? 10 c'0F3 -'ld7 11 ;gb1 (Also but 8 .. . c£jh5?! cannot be re­ possible is 11 �d2 CiJ::,7 12 e4 commended: 9 c'0F3 f 4 10 �d2 bS?! 13 e5 �4 14 exd6 exd6 15 c6 11 dS {With simple moves 4JxbS 4JxbS 16 .Q.xg7 �g 7 17 Mite gains a great advantage} 102 Sys tems with an ear�y b3

11 . .. � 12 c£)a4 cS 13 .Q.xg7 (17 c4 4::J:6+ - Malaniuk) 17 ... �g 7 14 e4 h6 15 e5. Black's �xh3 18 .Q.xh3 �3 19 gxe6 knights are badly positioned on �5 (Consideration should be the wings and there is a threat given to 19 ... gxf3 20 gxe7 gaf8 of 16 e6 which may spoil the 21ge 8+ , and not 21 gxc 7 h5 22 co-operation of his pieces. gxb7 h4 Z3 gb8 hxg3 24 gxf8+ Black is thus strategically lost; �xf8 and Black wins) 20 4:Jh2! Romanishin - Gurevich Tallinn gf7 (20 . .. 4jf6 21ge7± - Mal­ 1987) 9 dxe5 c£jg4 10 4Jc3 4Jxe5 aniuk) 21 �g4 112 4 Yusupov - 11�d2 (White will gain a slight Malaniuk, Moscow 1988; if 21 . .. advantage after 11 �c2 � 12 �g4 22 4Jxg4 4Jf6 23 4Jxf6+ gad1 f4 13 �5 �f5 14 �d2 fxg3 gxf6 24 ge7 gt7, then the 15 hxg3 gd8 16 4Jxe5 .Q.xe5 17 game is equal. �3 c6 18 4Jxf5 gxf5 19 .Q.d4 b6 9 �h8 20 �b2± Loginov - Malaniuk, Other moves have also been Tashkent 1987) 11 ... � 12 gadt tried: 4Jxf3+ 13 exf3!? 4:JcS 14 gfe1 a) 9 ... h6 10 �1 (Critical is �d8 15 b4 �7 16 4Jd5 .Q.xb2 17 10 d5 �b4 11 4Je3 cS 12 dxc6 �b2 gt7 18 f4 c6 19 �3 {Jf6 bxc6 13 a3 � 14 b4 gb8 15 c4 20 b5± Lputian - Malaniuk, c5o:> Efunov - Malaniuk, Kiev Sverdlovsk 1987. 1989) 10 ... g5 11 �3 �h8 12 e3 8 �c6 (124) �e6 and Black has completed his development; Tal - Sakaev, Moscow 1991. b) 9 ... e6 10 a4 �d7 11 e3 h6 12 �1 g5 13 4Jd3 a6 14 aS gb8 15 �e2 �7 16 gae1 4Jg6 17 f3?! (Enklaar- Chernin, Amsterdam 1980); instead of this, Masuke­ vich recommends 17 f4!? with an unclear game. c) 9 ... .Q.e6 10 ct:g5 .Q.xc4 11 bxc4 4Jd8 12 �d3 h6 13 4Jf3 e6 9 �c4 14 c5 dxc5 15 dxcS 4::J:6 16 gab1 Alternatively, 9 get h6! (9 ... gd8 17 �b3 b6 18 gfdt gxdt+ 19 e5?! 10 e4) 10 e4 fxe4 11 4Jxe4 gxdt �4 20 Qxg7 �g7 21 4Jxe4 12 gxe4 g5! (And Black cxb6 axb6 22 �b2+ e5 (Sosonko stands better already - Malan- - Beliavsky, Ti lburg 1984) 23 iuk) 13 �e2 (13 ge3!?) 13 ... �h5 4:Ji2± 4Jxd2 24 .klxc6 4):4 (24 14 gft .Qg4 15 ge3 e6! (15 ... gt7 ... 'fijxc6 2S �e5+) 2S 'fijbS 'fije6 and 15 ... �h8 are unpleasantly 26 gd5 with advantage to White met with 16 d5) 16 c3 fi:.t27 17 h3 (worse would be 26 .kld5 4Jd6) . Sy stems with an early b3 103

10 dS {)b4 7 eS 11 {)e1 c6 Black tries to exploit the 12 dxc6 {)xc6 absence of the bishop at once. 13 {)d3 ,O.e6 Also worth considering is 7

14 {)£4 .Q.gB . .. c6 8 {jbd2 (8 ,O.b 2 transposes 15 {)dS �dB to Atll) 8 ... e5 9 e3 e4 10 �1 16 4:Jxf6 ,O.xf6 d5 (White has let Black gain 17 il,xf6+ �xf6 (125) the upper hand in the centre) 11 a4 aS 12 4):2 .Q.e6 13 Qa3 gf7 14 tfje2{Jbd7 15 gfb1 g5 16 f4 exf4 17 Qxf3 g4 18 .Qg2 �4 19 {Jxe4 fxe4+ Donchenko - Orlov, Bel­ gorod1989. 8 dxeS 8 {Jc3 is not advisable, e.g. 8 ... 4Jc6 9 Bb1 e4 10 c£je1 d5 11 t;52 .Q.e6 12 ;get dxc4 13 bxc4 4)1.5 14 c£ja3 �4 15 e3 c5 with advantage to Black; Csom - The game is equal; Sosonko Planinc, Amsterdam 197 4. - Korchnoi, Brussels 1987. 8 dxeS (127)

A2 7 c4 (126)

Instead of the text, attention should perhaps be paid to 8 ...

Mter b2 - b3 White does not {:g4 9 4):3 dxe5 10 ,O_a3 e4 need to transfer the bishop (According to Taimanov, worse immediately to b2. This can be for Black is 10 ... ;ge8?! 11 tfjxd8 delayed or sidestepped alto­ ;gxd8 124:Jd54:Ja6 13 ;gad1�e6 14 gether in favour of ,O_a3!? - a {:g5) 11 Qxf8 tt1xf8 12 4:Jd4± e3 possibility which we will exam­ 13 f 4 4Jf214 gxf2 exf2+ 15 �2 ine here. 4:::JID with counterplay; Wexler - 104 Sys tems with an early b3

Uhlmann, Buenos Aires 1960. BH 9 il,a3 8 c4 (128) Also fine for Black is 9 tf}c2 (9 �d8 gxd8 10 {jxe5 ge8 is bad for White) 9 ... 4jc6 10 ,kla3 Bf7 11 {2g5 gd7 12 4:Je6 4)1.4!= Savon - Lutikov, USSR 1969. 9 �d1 10 �xd1 Z!e8 11 �c3 e4 12 �e1 c6 13 f3 4Jg4 14 fxg4 .Q.xc3 15 r!ac1 .Q.xe1 In this section, White coun­ 16 r!xe1 fxg4 ters Black's plan of occupying 17 Z!ed1 .O,fS e4 by delaying the development 18 jjd4 �d7 of the queenside knight. White has sufficent coun­ 8 �c6 terplay for the pawn; Anasta­ Other possibilities offer sian - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA White more chances for an 1989. advantage: a) 8 ... cS?! (There is no sense B in opening the centre) 9 �d 6 �e4 cxd4 10 {jxd4 tfjb6 (Botvinnik Here we consider variations suggests 10 ... 4:Jd>!? asabetter in which Black tries to interfere possibility) 11 {JbS a6 12 4JSc3 in White's plans by activating t;F> 13 {jxe4 fxe4 14 .O.xg7 his king's knight. �g 7 15 ,O.xe4 and White has an 7 .O,b2 extra pawn; Portisch - Gaston­ Here Black can hold back his yi, Hungary 1957. d-pawn or support the knight b) 8 . . . 4Jd7 9 �c2 0:lf6 (9 ... in the centre: e610 {Jbd2 {jxd2 11 �xd2 tf}e7= - Bellin) 10 {Jbd2 e6 11 4Je1 B1 7 ... d6 {jxd2 12 �d2 �e7 13 4Jd3± B2 7 ... dS and others Petrosian - Kaiszauri, Vilnius 1978. B1 c) 8 .. . e6 9 4):3 {jxc3 10 7 d6 .Q.xc3 4Jd7 11 gel tf}e7 12 �b 4 Now White has: gb8 13 ge1 b6 14 e4 fxe4 15 gxe4 .O.b 7 16 d5 e5 17 ge1 ,0_h6 18 Btl 8 c4 .0.d2± Gligoric - Benko, Buenos B12 8 �bd2 Aires 1955. Sy stems with an early b3 105 9 4Je1 stood well in lllescas - de la 9 c.£jbd2 is considered later Villa, Panplona 1990, and A. under B121, whilst 9 4.):3 is Sokolov - Avshalumov, Nimes considered under variation B in 1991. Chapter 3 (8 b3 4_je4 9 .O,b2). 9 4Jg5 Or 9 ... e5 10 d5 {[J=7 11 e3 with the idea of f3 or f4± - Botvinnik. 10 e3 eS 11 dS 4Je7 12 f4 4Jf7 Conceding the centre is worse: 12 ... exf4 13 �xg 7 �g 7 14 exf4± - Botvinnik. 13 4Jc3 gS 10 dxeS 14 4Jd3 4Jg6 10 d5 is also interesting: 10 .. .

15 �d2 .Q.d7 c.£jxd2 11 t/Jxd2 (11 dxc6!?) 11 .. . 16 �ae1 �7 (Also fine is 10 ... 4Jb8 12 White has a slight advantage; �ac1 {12 t£:£5 �e7 13 lfa d1 c[ja6 Csom - Holm, Skopje 1972. fNo t 13 ... h6 14 c£J=6 1J.xe6 15 dxe6 cfjc6 16 cS and the white B12 pawns are penetrating Black's

8 4Jbd2 4Jc6 position; Skembris - Santo Now White can choose Roman, Athens 19921 14 b4? between: cfjxb4! 15 c£jxh7 �xh 7 16 �xb4 f4 + Moutousis - Santo Roman, B121 9 c4 Athens 1992} 12 ... t/Je7 13 b4 B122 9 4Jc4 and others 4517 14 cS 4Jf6 15 �fd1 f4 16 gxf4 4Je4 17 cxd6 cxd6 18 t/Jc2 B121 �xf4 and Black's activity on the 9 c4 eS (129) queenside and White's activity This is an interesting line. on the kingside counterbalance The viability of the whole one another; Romanishin - system starting with 6 ... �4 Casper, junnala 1987) 12 gael may depend on it. However, h6 13 �fd1 g5 14 c5 {:g6 15 e3 Black can also consider 9 ... �f7 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 �c2 f4 18 c.£jxd2 (Or 9 ... e6 10 e3 t/Je7 11 exf4 gxf4 19 4Je1 .0.f5 and White {iy1 c.£jxd2 12 tfjxd2 e5 13 f4 e4 has to organise a defence; when Black has few problems; Akhmilovskaya - Utinskaya, Umanskaya - Gusev, Moscow lbilisi 1987. 1991) 10 c.£jxd2 e5 when Black 10 ... 4Jxd2 1(() Systems with an early b3

11 �xd2 dxe5 _klxd> bxc6 17 gfd1 .Q.f6 18 �l 12 �d5+ l{!th8 gc2 19 _klxeS flxeS 20 0f7+ � 7 13 �dB �xd8 21 4:JxeS and White has a signi­ It is interesting to note that ficant advantage in the end­ this position is analogous to garr.e; Smejkal - Fleck, Munich the variation 6 c4 d6 7 4:):3 t;J:n 1987. 8 b3 - the only difference being 16 Z:'!ac1 Z:'!xc1 that the white bishop is placed 17 �xct e4 on b2 instead of c3. 18 f3 4Jd4 14 4Jg5 18 ... h6 19 4:Jh3 4)14 20 �2 14 �ad1 leads to an equal exf3 21 exf3 fle6 22 f 4 c6 23 endgame: 14 ... gxd1 1S gxd1 e4 �d1± -· Ftacnik. 16 ,O_xg7+�g7 17 4::P44:Jxd4 18 19 �2 h6 �xd4 fle6 19 f3 exf3 20 !J.xf3 20 �d1 c5 (20 exf3 gb8 21 f 4 bS 22 cxbS 21 e3 hxg5 �bS 23�2 �aS 14 �d2 ga3 2S 22 exd4 exf3 �c6 �aS 26 �c2 �6 27 �3 23 �xf3 W>B �7 28 @:14 @:16 1f2� Schoen 24 Z:'!d3 g4 - Mi. Tseitlin, Budapest 1989) 25 .Qg2 cxd4

20 ... c6 21�2 �6 22 e4 �f8 23 26 ,O.xd4 ,O_e6 �3 cS 24 �d2 b6 2S h4 fxe4 27 �e3 b6 with a quick draw; Polugayev­ 28 �d6 sky - Bareev, Moscow 1987. The endgame favours White; 14 ... �d2 (130) Ftacnik - Henley, Hastings 1982/83. 130 i � j_� � '/1 f.� + �_(< � + B122 w � ..... �.-� � ?.��- ·- -�� ..&. �4)� �.L� 9 �c4 (131) � � �--···/.�_ _ -�.L� � 131 �;It� � � B �;It� � � �- -� ��u;� r'fi '<"/� 01''/. 1!:�-� ?.� :It���. ?.��� � �Ci � rp!? �ffl. 'Y;,; Instead of Black's last move, more exact would be 14 ... ge8 (see the analogous line 7 ... t;J:n 8 b3, considered under variation B in Chapter 3). There are some interesting 15 .a_c3 �c2 possibilities here. White rejects Dangerous is 15 .. . gxe2?! 16 c2 - c4 and instead uses the Sy stems with an early b3 107 c4-square as a basis for knight manoeuvres, ignoring the knight at e4 and at the same time preventing the liberating ad­ vance ... e7 - e5. Also playable are: a) 9 e3 �d2 10 �d2 e5 11 d5 4Jb8 (11 ... {[j27 is strongly met by 12 f4, as in Ftacnik - Banas, Tmava 1984) 12 f4 4J:l7 13 4:F4 b6?! (13 ... exf4!?) 14 �e1± Pigusov - Vyzmanavin, 12 ... cfjxd4 leaves White Togliatti 1985. slightly better: 13 e3 4Jf3+ 14 b) 9 {je1 d5 (9 ... �d2 10 �3 �xb2 15 �ad1 'tf1e7 16 �d2 e5 11 �xc6±) 10 4Jdf3 f4 ?! 4Jxb7. 114J:l3 gS c412 e6 13 �d {[j2 7 14 13 �b7 .O,xb7 4)12 and Black is forced to 14 .O,xd4 �xd4 concede his position in the 15 �xd4 �d4 centre; l.putian - Gurevich, 16 .O,xb7 �ad8 USSR 1983. 17 .O,a6 c3 9 e6 The game is equal; Hausner 10 4jfd2 - Tseitlin, Kecskemet 1985. Also roughly equal are: a) 10 e3 'tf1e7 11 c£je1 �d8 12 B2 4J:l3 eS 13 f3 {Jg5= Gerusel - 7 dS (133) Clemens, Solingen 197 4. b) 10 a4 aS 11 e3 b6 12 'tf1c1 �d7 13 �d1 'tf1e7 14 4Jfd2 cfjb4?! (According to Haritonov, equal­ ity results from 14 ... dS) 15 4Jf1 4J:l5 16 c3± Haritonov - Legky, USSR 1987. 10 ... dS White threatened 11 cfjxe4 fxe4 12 d5. Not 10 ... cfjxd2 11 �d2 {je7 12 f3. 11 �e4 (132) This is the last section on 11 dxc4!? the move 6 ... 4Je4. Black de­ Preferable to 11 ... fxe4 12 clines to play ... d7 - d6 and {[j23 with a slight advantage to instead a Stonewall-type pawn White. chain appears on the board. 12 4Jc5 ,O_xd4!? Rarely seen are: 108 Sys tems with an early b3

a) 7 ... cf5:6 8 4Jbd2 dS (8 ... 14 c4 fle6 15 �c2 4Je4 16 cxd5 d6 turnsinto variations already cxdS?! (16 ... {:)xd2= ) 17 4:Jf3± considered above) 9 e3 e6 10 lonescu - Zsu. Polgar, Bulgaria 4Y1 b6 11 4Jd3�a6 12 4Jf3 ;gcs 1990. 13 ;get= Donner - Alexander, Hastings 1954/SS. b) 7 ... cS 8 e3 (Other moves have been tried: 8 c4 cf5:6 9 e3 d6 10 4Jc3 e6 11 �d3 4Jxc3 12 .Q.xc3�e 7 13 dxcS dxcS 14 Qxg 7 �g 7 and Black's chances were not worse in Pfleger - Santo Roman, Royan 1988; and 8 �el cxd4 9 {:)xd4 dS?! {9 . .. rgb6!?} 10 4Jf3 4Jd7 11 Qxg7 �g7 12 �b2+ 4Jdf6 13 4Jbd2 �b6 14 c4 8 c6 Qe6 15 cxdS .O.xdS 16 {:)xe4.Q.xe4· 9 4Jbd2 17 �e5± Csom - Kuczynsky, Alternatively: Warsaw 1987) 8 ... cf5:6 9 �e2 a) 9 4':J::3 leads to an equal dS?! 10 c4 dxc4 11 �xc4+ �h8 12 position: 9 ... Qe6! 10 cxdS {:)xc3 4):3 cxd4 13 {:)xe4 fxe4 14 11 Qxc3 .Q.xd5, as in O'Kelly - {:)xd44YS 15 �c2 {:)f3+ 16 4Jxf3 Zwaig, Sandelfjord 1975. exf3 17 �xg7 + �g 7 18 �c3+± b) 9 cxdS cxd5 10 � Ci5'6 11 Najdorf - Alexander, Amster­ �2 fle6 12 {Jce1 with the idea dam 1954. of 4)13± - Botvinnik. 8 c4 (134) 9 .Q.e6 Consideration should be Worse is 9 ... 4Jj7 10 ;gel given to the immediate attempt 4Jjf6 11 �c2 �4 12 cxdS cxd5 to exploit the weakness of the 13 h3 4:Jgf6 14 {JeSQe6 15 {:)xe4 square eS and play f2 - f3 later {:)xe4 (Gligoric - joppen, Bel­ to remove Black's active knight: grade 1954) 16 �c7± - Botvin­ 8 4JeS4Jd7 (Overly sharp is 8 ... nik. f4 9 � �s 10 4Jdf3 4Jxf3+ 10 e3 {10 ... cfje6!? - lvkov, Sokolov; In the recent game Ruban - but not 10 ... c£jh3+? 11 r!}h l fxg3 Malaniuk, USSRCh 1991, White 12 hxg3 rfJc6 13 r!}h2 with a tried 10 �c2 4Jd7 11 :!dfd1 :!deB 12 winning position in Najdorf - e3 4Jdf6 13 {Je5 g5 14 ;gac1 4Jj6 Rodriguez, Mar del Pla ta 1969} 15 4Jj3 h6 16 �a3 with a slight 11 4Jxf3 with a solid advantage advantage. to White - lvkov, Sokolov) 9 f3 10 ;gel does not lead to any {:)xeS 10 dxeS �S 11 f4 c6 12 advantage: 10 ... 4Jd7 11 �c2

� h6 ?! (12 . . . Qe6 !?) 13 e3 g5 �h8 12 ;gfd1 ;gcs 13 e3 �8 14 Sy stems whh an early b3 109 �5 �e8 15 {Jxd7 �xd7 16 03 if.;_� Marin - Kuczynsky, Dres­ 135 �lim �� � den 1989. w �:t�-il���f�" · •. 10 ... 4Jd7!? �:t�.l�.L� An interesting posibility here is 10 ... �h8!? 11 {Jxe4 fxe4 12 � �:t�:t� �5 ,Og8 13 h4 @6 14 cxd5 1t�1t� m ·� cxd5 15 �d2 {is.? 16 gael h6 17 ���1t�4J��� ���� 4Jh3� 18 0 4 4Jxf 4 19 exf4. �.�·u�. �% M �.·-./� �. ''/1. � ��"/. �0� ��0.. . fle6 with an equal game; Wu-­ · . ... thenson - Holzl, Biel 1980. � �ft{, ...../ }j��· -�: :'l�1 11 �c1 17 �xd2 dxc4? A complicated position is According to Antoshin, reached after 11 4Jxe4 dxe4 equality could still be achieved (Bad is 11 ... fxe4 12 4Jg5 Jlf5 {12 by 17 ... g5.

. . . 1J.f7 13 iJ,h3} 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 18 bxc4 4Jb6 g4 h6 {A piece is lost after 14 ... 19 4Je5! e6 15 c£)h3; 14 ... eS 15 gxfS �gS White ha5 a clear advantage;

16 dxeS and Black :S position Haritonov - Bareev, Sochi 1987. breaks up} 15 gxf5 hxg5 16 fxg6± Haritonov) 12�5 Jlf7 13 c {Jxf7 gxf7 14 f3 exf3 15 �:xf3 6 c6 (136) e5 - Haritonov. 11 \t1h8 12 �c2 Worse is 12@1?! �aS.

12 ... aS! 13 a4 Also possible are: a) 13 a3 a4 14 b4 bS!= . b) 13 4Je1 a4 14 0fl3 axb3 15 axb3�b6= (15 ... �aS?! 1603± ). 13 �e8 14 �fd1 �c8 It is unusual for Black to 15 4Je1 t/1f7 avoid both 6 ... {Je4 and 6 ... d6, 16 4Jd3 but in the diagram position Black has nothing to fear Black is attempting to play his after 16 cxd5 flxd5. d-pawn to d5 in one go. It is 16 . . . {)xd2?! also possible to play 6 . .. d5 Instead, Black should have immediately of course. played 16 ... g5! 17 cxd5 (17 Bent larsen has experiment­ {j3!?) 17 ... flxd5. ed with the extravagant 6 ... b5 110 Sys tems with an early b3

7 .Q.b2 (In F. Olafsson - Larsen, White does not gain any­ Wijk aan Zee 1961, the game thing after the exchange 13 went 7 c4 bxc4 8 bxc4 c5 9 cxd5 cxd5 14 �bS e6 15 4:)a4 .Q.b2 �b6 10 �d {Jc6 11 dxcS � 16 4Jc54:Je4! + - Portisch. �c5 12 {Jbd2 ;gb8 13 {jb3 �b6 13 ... 4Jbd7 14 4:Je5 �b 7 with an obscure 14 cxdS position) 7 ... .Q.b7 8 4:Jd2 with In the game Portisch - Smy­ the idea of c2 - c4 and White slov, Portoroz match 1971, play has prospects to achieve an ad­ continued 14 e4? dxc4 15 bxc4 vantage - lvkov, Sokolov. c£jb6! and Black seized the 7 .a.b 2 dS initiative. More consistent than 7 ... 14 ... 4JxdS �e8 8 4Jbd2 h6 ?! 9 4:Je5 d6 10 Bad is 14 ... cxd5? 15 e4. 4):13 �f7 11 e4 fxe4 12 {Jxe4 15 4JxdS �xdS (137) and Black has difficulties in choosing good plan; Tal - Meulders, Brussels 1987. 8 c4 .Q.e6 After 8 ... �h8!? 9 4Jc3 .Q.e6 10 �d3 4Jhd7 11 gael the posi­ tion was fm ely balanced in Vladimirov - Spraggett, Moscow GMA 1990. 9 4JgS .Q.f7 10 4Jc3 �e8 11 �d3 h6 12 l;jx£7 �xf7 With equal chances accord­ 13 f3 ing to Portisch. 6 Systen1swi th 4Jh3

1 d4 fS A Sc4 2 g3 4j£6 B 54Jf4 3 ,Og2 g6 4 4Jh3 ,Og7 (138) A 5 c4 o-o Black can also try the im­ mediate 5 ... c6. Seirawan - Gurevich, Belgrade 1991, contin­ ued 6 0f4 d6 7 d5 e5! 8 dxe6 �e7 9 {Jd2 o-o 10 o-o �xe6 with equal chances. 6 4Jc3 Now Black has:

A1 6 ... d6 A2 6 ... 4Jc6 A3 6 ... e6 The development of the knight to h3 (known as the A1 Karlsbad system) is a very 6 d6 popular way to fight against 7 dS the Leningrad Variation. Both White has little chanceof an White and Black have a number advantage if this is delayed. of different possibilities to a) 7 o-o (Enables Black to develop their pieces. The fol­ carry out the equalising ad­ lowing sequence may be con­ vance) 7 .. . e5 (7 ... 4:F6, 7 .. . c6 sidered to be the main varia­ and 7 .. . e6 are also playable) 8 tion: 5 c4 o-o 6 4:F3, after dxe5 dxe5 9 �d8 �xd8 10 4)15 which play usually continues �d7! u �5 � 12 f4 (In Bot­ 6 ... d6 7 d5. However, it is vinnik's opinion 12 ,O_xf6 is possible for Black to delay or worth trying: 12 ... �xf6 13 e4!?) avoid 6 ... d6 and for White to 12 ... {:Jg4 13 fxe5 ,O_xe5 14 �f4 delay c4. �xf4 15 �xf4 c6= Byrne - 112 Sy stems with cfjh3

Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1961. b) 8 4Jf4 �e8 (Interesting b) 7 4j'4{Jc6 8 h4 e5 9 dxe5 are both 8 ... {J-:5!? 9 .0.e3 eS 10 dxe5 10 4j'd5 4)34 11 �5 c6 12 dxe6 4Jxe6 11 {Jxe6 Qxe6 12 {jxf6+.O,xf6 13 e3 .O.xg5 14 hxg5 Qxb7 gb8 13 Qd5 QxdS 14 cxd5 � 15 �d8 gxd8= Bannik - gxb2 15 o-o�e 7 16 Qd4 ;gb4 17 Savon, USSR 1962. e3 4je4- 18 Qxg7 �xg7 19 4Jxe4= After 7 d5 Black can choose Uhlmann - Espig, Berlin 1988, between: and 8 ... eS!? 9 dxe6 c6 trans­ posing to the variation 7 ... c6 8 A11 7 ... 4:Ja6 tzj4 eS 9 dxe6 {Ja6 considered A12 7 ... c6 below) 9 h4!? (Trying to exploit A13 7 ... cS the weakness of 7 ... {Ja6. Less active is 9 o-o c5 {9 . . . g5 10 Dolmatov has suggested 7 ... cf):J3 f!jh S 11 e4;;t - Chernin} 10 �4!?. dxct) ?! bxc6 11 �a4 {Jb8 12 c5? eS 13 4Jfd5 cxd5 14 �e8 gxe8 A11 15 {Jxd5 e4 16 4Jc7 4Ja6 17 {Jxa8 7 4:Ja6 (139) dxcS and the white knight is lost; Espig - Malaniuk, Buda­ pest 1989) 9 ... c6 10 o-oQd7 (10 ... e5 11 dxc6 {An unclear [XJSi­ tion is reached after 11 dxe6 .Qxe6 12 f!jxd6 .Qxc4} 11 .. . bxc6 12�xd6 exf4 13 Qxc6 �e6 {13 ... 1J.d7 14 iJ.xaB f!jxaB 15 .Qxf4!�} 14 Qxf4 ;gb8 15 �xe6+ Qxe6 16 Qxb8 4Jxb8 17 Qd5 {Jxd5 18 cxd5 .O,f7 19 gfd1± - Chernin) 11 e4 fxe4 12 {Jxe4 {Jxe4 13 .O.xe4 This is quite a well-trodden {F5 (13 ... e5 14 dxe6 Qxe6 15 path. Black tries to manage gel± - Chernin) 14 �2 (14 without ... c7 - c6 in this varia­ Qc2!?) 14 ... � 15 Qe3 with a tion, but White has several slight advantage for White; plans to develop the initiative. Chernin - Bareev, USSR 1987. 8 o-o 8 4Jc5 (140) Let us consider other pos­ The most accurate choice at sibilities: this point. Less effective are: a) 8 ;gb1?! 4Jc5 9 4Jf4 e5 10 a) It is not enough to play 8 dxe6 c6 11 o-o�e 7 12 �c2 g5 13 ... eS?! 9 dxe6 c£jcS 10 {Jg5 gb8 {Jh3 h6 14 f4 g4 15 4j'2 .O.xe6 11 .0.e3�e 7 12c£Jd5 4:Jxd5 13 cxd5 with an unclear position; Tabo­ Qxb2 14 gb1 Qf6 15 h4 with a rov - Gurevich, USSR 1982. positional advantage; Kotov - Systems with cfjh.3 113

Tolush, USSR 1958. �xeS dxcS 14 e4 Qh6 15 4):13 b) Too slow is 8 ... �d7?! 9 fxe4 16 {)xe4 .Q.xd 17 �d b6 �e1 c6 10 ;gb1 4JcS 11 �e3 {)::e4 18 �h3 c6 19 �xg4 �xg4 20 �h6 12{}xe4 {)xe4 13 4:Jg5{[f6 14 cS with excellent compensation �4 15 �b3 (15 Qd4!?) 15 ... �h8 for the exchange in Santos - lln 16 -'ld2 dxcS 17 �b7 ;gb8 18 Ta, Dubai 1986) 10 dxe64jxe6 11 �a? cxd5 19 �aS± Lutz - �s 4Jg4 12 {}xe6 4Jxe3 13 Zysk, West Germany 1988. 4Jxd8 {jxd1 14 �axd1± - Bot­ vinnik. c) 9 ;gb1 aS 10 Jle3 eS 11 dxe6 4Jxe6 (The recapture with the bishop is worse: 11 ... Qxe6 12 b3 4Jfd7 13 Qd 4± - Botvinnik) 12 4):lS �4 13 .Q.d2 c6 14 �d4= Ragozin - Lutikov, USSR 1955. 9 aS Full equality is not achieved by 9 ... eS 10 dxe6 .(lxe6 (10 ... 4Jxe6 11 b3 �4 12 �b2 f4 13 9 �c2 4):lS± - Botvinnik) 11 4Jf 4 �xc4 Also possibleare: 12 {Ja4 !J..f7 13 4Jxc5 dxc5 14 a) 9 {[f4 e5 10 dxe6 c6 11 Qe3 .O.xb7 (After 14 �e3 b6 15 �adl (Incorrect is 11 �d2 g5 12 4Jh3 �e7 16 �a8 �xa8 Black has h6 13 �d1 �xe6 14 �d6 �d6 15 good counterplay for the ex­ �xd6 �xc4 16 �e3 c£):e4 17 change; Toth - Dely, Kecskemet 4Jxe4{)xe4 18 �d7 �f7 19�adl 1972) 14 ... ;gb8 15 ,Og2± - Bot­ �xa2 winning a pawn in Siegel vinnik. - Fleck, West Germany 1988; 10 01'4 and 11 �c2?! is not good either: Also good is 10 b3!? e5 11 11 ... 4Jxe6 12 �d1 4Jg4 13 4Jxe6 dxe6 4Jxe6 12-'lb2 �e 7 13 gadl �xe6 14 c5? d5 15 e3 �e7 16 �2 �e8 14 e3 c£):5 15 4Jf 4 with �ae8 17 �d2 f4 18 4:Jxf4 4:Jxf2! advantage to White in Szabo - with advantage to Black; Taim ­ Blom, Marianske Lazne 1961. anov - Lutikov, USSR 1955) 11 ... 10 eS 4Jxe6(11 ... �e7 12 h3 g5 13 4):13 11 dxe6 c6 4Jxe614 �d2 h6 15 f 4 4Jh5 with 12 b3 tf1e7 chances for both sides; van der 13 .O,a3 (141) Sterren - van Mil, Dutch Ch 13 ... gS?! 1991) 12�d2 4Jg4 13 {)xe6 4Jxe6 After 13 ... {)xe6 14 4Jxe6 14 �5= - Botvinnik. Qxe6 15 gad1 �ad8 16 �d2 4)28 b) 9 .O,e3 eS (9 ... aS 10 4Jf4 17 cS d5 18 {Ja4 t/;Jc7 19 .Q.b 2 �8 11 gel �d 7 12 b3 4Jg4 13 White would have a slight 114 Sy stems withcf)h3

advantage. More serious con­ two). The positionof the knight sideration should be paid to t3 at h3 instead of f3 promises ... a4!?. White certain advantages. 14 4Jd3 4Jce4 8 eS 15 �ad1 �xe6 Most common but evidently 16 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 not the best possibility. Also 17 �xe4 fxe4 played is 8 ... �h8 (8 ... �d 7 18 4Je1 't!Jf7 9 get {Ja6 tO e4 fxe4 11 c£)xe4 19 �xd6 �feB c£)xe4 12 gxe4 4J::5 t3 get±) 9 20 �cS bS e4 (9 4Jf4!?) 9 ... e5 tO f4 cxd5 11 21 �d4! bxc4 cxd5 {Ja6 12 fxe5 dxe5 t3 �W 22 bxc4 �xc4 �b6 t4 �e2 fxe4 t5 {jf2 .O.,f5 23 �xg7 rJ]xg7 with equality; Thorbergsson - 24 4Jg2 Vasiukov, Reykjavik t968. White has an overwhelming 9 dxe6 advantage; Trm oshchenko - Nothing is gained by 9 dxc6 Chemin, USSR t981. bxc6 tO b4 .O..e6 11 bS e4 12 �a4 4j'd7 t3 �5 {Jb6 t4 �c2 �e8 t5 A12 gad1 c£)xc4 with a slight advan­ 7 c6 tage to Black; Doda - Dobosz, Now White can opt for Sandomierz t976. either 8 o-o or the immediate 8 9 �xe6 4§4. 10 'tf1b3 White has two complex A121 a o-o alternatives: A122 8 4Jf4 a) An unclear position is reached after tO �d3 4::Jhd7!? 11 A121 �d6 �xc4 12 �b4 �a6 13 4::g5 a o-o 042) c5 t4 �b3+ c4 t5 �dt �e8 t6 Black's play is analogous to {:P5 gc8 Magerramov - Palat­ the variation 7 .. . c6 (Chapter nik, Baku t988. Sy stems withfjh3 115

b) Another possibility here is 15 ... �5 does not save 10 b3 4Ja6 (10 ... {)e4?! 11 �e4 Black either: 16 b4! 4Je6 17 ,O.d ,O.xal 12 �xd6) 11 ,O.f 4 (11 4:::g5 - Taimanov, and 15 ... g5 was

�e7 {11 ... JJ.cB 1J.b2 12 �e7 13 met by 16 �d± in Suba - lvkov, cf)a4 JJ.d7 14 e3 lfadB 15 fjh3 New York 1987. cfF716 �e1 cfJe6 17 lfd1 1J.e8 18 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 f4;t Taim anov - Knezevic, 17 t/1xa6 .Q.xc3 Slanchev Brjag 1974} 12 4Jxe6 18 bxc3 cS �e6 13 ,O.b2 4je4 {13 ... lfadB 14 19 �fet IDJ8 e3 c£jc715 �c2 dS 16cxdS tfjcxdS 20 f3 IDJ6 17 cfjxdScfjxdS 18 1J.xg7 �g 7 19 21 t/1a4 4Jf6 lfadJ with equal chances; C 22 �d3 Hansen - Lobron, Hamburg Black does not have suffi­ 1991} 14 �d d5 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 cient compensation for the 4Jxe4 dxe4 17 ,O.xg7 �g7= pawn; Ree - Rakic, Maribor Taimanov - Holmov, USSR 1980.

1975) 11 ... 4Jh5 12 �d2 4Jxf4! 13 {jxf4 ,O.f7 14 �ad �e8 15 �fdt A122 �aS 16 4Jh3 �5 17 4:::g5 �ad8 8 4Jf4 (144) 18 e3 �b4 19 4je2 �d2 20 �xd2 and the position favours White; Karpov- Holmov, Rostov 1980. 10 t/1e7 (143)

White rejects castling, aim­ ing to prevent the advance ... e 7 - e5. But as we have stated above more than once, Black 11 4JgS fJJ7 does not need to hurry with On 11 ... ,O.c8 it is fme to play this move. Consequently, it is 12 e4! threatening c4 - c5 - questionable whether White Taimanov. should try to prevent it at all. 12 t;}xf7 �xf7 8 tf1e8 13 .Q.f4 4ja6 Or: 14 �ad1 4Je8 a) Another possibility to 15 t/1a3 t/1e6 strengthen the square c6 is 8 ... 116 Sy stems withc£jh 3 .Q.d7 9 �0 (9 h4 is critical, as in Andorra 1991} 12 {jxhS c£jxhS 13 Kasparov - Speelman, london ;gxhS �e6 14 .O,h6 �xh6 15 1989, which continued 9 ... �h8 gxh6 �gS 16 ;gh4 f4 17 �d2 10 e4 {10 'tfjd2! - Kasparov} 10 ... �xc4 18 b3 �xe2 19 c£jxe2 �eS {Ja6 11 hS gS 12 4Je6 �xe6 13 with an unclear game; Eingom dxe6 c£jxe4 14 �xe4 �xc3+ 15 - V asiukov, Belgrade 1988. In bxc3 fxe4 16 �xgS 4JcS and the game Spassky - Santo

Black stood well) 9 ... 4:Ja6 (9 ... Roman, French Ch 1991, White �h8?! 10 e4 cxdS 11 exdS 4.Ja6 12 varied with 18 ��0 and lost .Q.e3 gc8 13 b3 4JcS 14 �d4 gS 15 quickly after 18 ... .Q.xa2 19 �d6 c:tP3 b6 16 4je2 eS 17 dxe6 c£jxe6 fxg3+ 20 f4 �xh4 21 �cS Qb 3 18 .O.b2 4:g4 19 .Q.xg7+ �g7 20 22 gfl gxf4 23 Bht�6 24 �4 �d2 and there is no counter­ gxe4 25 Qxe4 � 4+ Q-1) 10 o-o play for Black's positional (10 h4!? Qxe6 11 hS - Botvinnik) weakness; Schlosser - Weide­ 10 ... 4:J:ID (Black does not gain mann, West Germany 1989) 10 equality by 10 ... �xe6 11 c£jxe6 gel (10 ;gb1 �h8 11 b3 �e8 12 �e6 12-'tf 4 �c4 13 �xd6 4.Ja6 �b2 gS 13 c:tP3 �hS 14 e3 �h6 15 14 gfdl 4jlS 15 ,OgS± Popov - 4je2 gac8 16 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 17 f4 Sahovic, Plovdiv 1975 and Kas­ with an unclear game in Benja­ parov - Gurevich, Amsterdam min - Fishbein, New Yark 1989. 1991; or by 10 ... gS 11 {idS! cxdS The immediate opening of the 12 cxdS 4Je8 13 f4 gxf4 14 �xf4 centre does not promise any with excellent compensation; advantage either: 10 e4 fxe4 11 Seirawan - Tisdall, Reykjavik c£jxe4c£jxe4 12�xe 4 �e8 13 �f3 1990) 11gel (Worse is the open­ � 14 �4 .O.xg4 15 �g4 t;s_7 ing of the centre by 11 e4 ?! fxe4 16 �d7 gac8 17 4Je6 c£jxe6 18 12 c£jxe4 {Jxe4 13 �xe4 t;s_s 14 dxe6 �6 19 �xb7 �xe6 and �2 4Jxe6 15 gel �f7 16 ;gb1 White has made no real gains; c£jxf4 17 .O,xf4 .O,fS and White Beutigam - Zysk, West Ger­ has certain difficulties; Kova­ many 1988) 10 ... t;5:.7 11 �b3 cS cevic - Suba, Haifa 1989. Tempt­ 12.Q.d2 ;gb8 13 a4 a6?! 14 aS WeB ing is 11 b3!? 4Je4 12 c£jxe4 Qxa1 15 e4 4:g4 16 c:tP3± Gunawan ­ 13 �d6 �d6 14 c£jxd6 Qf6 15 Kovacevic, Sarajevo 1988. e4 and Black has no reason to b) The third possibility is the be pleased about his material immediate 8 ... eS 9 dxe6 �e 7 (9 advantage; Hartoch - van rle,Baa

... 4:Ja6 rNo w Black has to Holland 1971) 11 .. . Qxe6 (Black reckon with the advance of the had to face even greater diffi­ h-pawn}10 h4!? 4JcS 11 hS gxhS culties after 11 ... gS?! 12 c:tP3 rn . .. gs 12 h6JJ.hB 13 cfJhJ g4 14 �4 13 c£jxe4 fxe4 14 Qxe4 c£f4 and Black's king is very .O,xe6 15 �c2± Portisch - Nar­ exposed; Kaidanov - Dunworth anja, Palma de Mallorca 1970) 12 Sy stems with fjh3 117

e4 and, according to Botvinnik, _kld 7? (9 ... 4Ja6co)10 cS! � 11 White's position is better. cxd6 exd6 12 dxc6 _klxd) 13 Returning to the position �d6!± Co. lonescu - S. GrUn­ after 8 ... �e8 (145) berg, Eforie Nord 1989. 9 eS 10 4Je6 10 dxe64Ja6= - Botvinnik. 10 �xe6 11 �xb7 4:Jbd7 12 dxe6 'thxe6 13 �xc6 4Jb6 14 ,O.dS 14 b3? e4!?. 14 ... 4JfxdS 15 cxdS �c8 9 �b3 Botvinnik recommends 15 ... Other continuations are also �f6!?. promising: 16 �xc8 ZXfxc8 a) 9 o-o @6 10 dxc6 (Con­ Black has compensation for sideration should also be paid his material defidt - Kovacevic. to 10 gb1 Qd7 11 h3 l;J:_7 12 �b3 gb8 13 cS �h8 14 cxd6 exd6 15 A13 dxc6 bxc6 16 �a3 and Black 7 cS (146) loses material; Donchenko - Panchenko, USSR 1985) 10 ... bxc6 11 �a4 @8 and the posi­ tion is difficult to evaluate; Nowak - Sydor, Sandomierz 1976. b) 9 h4 e5 10 dxe6 Qxe6 11 �b3 (Alternatively: 11 {Jxe6 �e6 12Qf4 @6 13 �d6 �c4 14 �d2 gadS 15 �d {Jg4 and Black was better in Korchnoi - Aronson, USSR 1957; or 11 b3 The move 7 ... 4:Jlxl7 has no 4:Ja6 {11 ... cfje4 12c:£jxe4 1J.xa1 13 individual importance, because ila3 and \.\.1lite has a gocx.J after 8 o-o@S a position from game - futvinnik; or even 11 ... the variation 6 ... 4Jc6 7 o-o d6 �e 7! ? - Botvinnik} 12 �d6 Qf7 8 dS 4JeS occurs. with compensation for a pawn) 8 4Jf4 11 ... gf7 12 h5 gd7=. As usual, White can simply c) 9 gb1 (the latest try) 9 ... castle: 8 o-o 4Ja6 9_kld2 (9 4:Jf4 118 Sys tems withcfjh3

�7 10 �e1 {Jg4 11 �c2 fDJ8 12 a4 4:Je5 13 4JbS a6 14 4Jxc7'fjjx. c7 15 .Q.d2 b5 and Black has quite active play; Scherbakov - Kor­ zuoov, Moscow 1991) 9 ... �7 10 �c2 fDJ8 11 a4 �d7 12 4:Jf4 a6 13 aS with better chances for White in Taimanov - Tal, USSR 1969. 8 4Ja6 9 o-o .�c7 Or 9 ... ,8b8 10 Bb1 �4?! 11 been popular in recent practice. 4Jh5�b6 12 .Q.d2 4:]e5 13 b3 ,O_d7 7 o-o 14 �e1 with the advantage to Castling can be postponed: White in Farago - Holzl, Hun­ a) 7{Jf4 d6 8 d5 4:Je5 9 b3 (9 gary - Austria 1975. �b3 c5 10 o-ofDJ8 11 a4 �aS 12 10 �1 4).:13 Qd7 13 .0.d2 �d8 14 4Jxe5 Equality was the outcome of dxe5 15 �a3 b6 16 aS 4:Je8 with 10 �c2 fDJ8 11 a4 b6 12 Bb1 ,O_d7 equal chances; Uhlmann - 13 �d2 a6 14 b4 cxb4 15 �xb4 Yrjola, Tallinn 1987) 9 ... 4:Je4 10 aS 16 ,8bb1 4)i6 17 4JbS �e8 18 4Jxe4 fxe4 11 �e3 g5 12 c£jh5 4).:134:]e4; Hasin - Naivelt, Len­ .Q.h8 13 h3 �e8 14 g4 �g6 15 ingrad 1984. �3 {Jf3+ 16 .Q.xf3 exf3 17 �d 10 �8 fxe2 18 �c2 � 19 �xe2= 11 a4 a6 Legky - Kontic, Vrjancka Banja 12 b4! cxb4 1989. 13 �xb4 �d7 b) 7 d5 �5 8 �b3 (8 b3 4:Jf7 14 �d2 aS 9 �b 2 e5 10 dxe6 dxe6 11 �xd8 15 �1 �eS gxd8= Osnos - Legky, Lvov 16 �b3 4Ja6 1984) 8 ... c5 (8 ... 4:Jf7 9 Q-0 17 �d3 .Q.d7 c£jh5 10 gd1 d6 11 �e 3 �d7 12 c5 18 �bS dxc5 13 .O,xcS b6 14 Qd4 with a White has a slight advan­ favourable position for White; tage; Uhlmann - Paehtz, Halle Korchnoi - Kuzminyh, USSR 1974. 1951) 9 o-o 4:]e8 10 .O,e3 d6 11 gad1 fDJ8 12 {Jg5 t;J:_7 13 4:Jf3 A2 �d7 14 {/jxe5 .O.xe5 15 .0.h6 ge8 6 �c6 (147) 16 �c2 bS with an unclear Black intends to play . . . d7 - position; Kloss - Haag, corr. d6 and ... e 7 - e5. In antidpation 1959. of these moves White has to c) 7 .QPt!? d6 8 ds �s 9 b3 play d4 - d5. 1bis variation has cS (9 ... a6 10 a4 c5 11 o-o fDJ812 Systems with c£jh3 119

.0.d2 ! �d7 13 �c2± Scherbakov - reached by 10 �d8 gxd8 11 Kramnik, USSR 19) 10 o-o 4::fd5 gd7 - Tukmakov) 10 ... .0.d7?! (More exact is the im­ �8 (10 ... 4Jj4 11 f4!? 01 1Jg5 mediate 10 ... a6 with the idea c6 12cfjxf6 + 1J.xf6 = - Tukmak­ of ... �8, ... b6 and ... 4::f6 - e8 ov} 11 ... {Jh5 12 fxe5 .O,xe5 13 - c7) 11�c2 a6 12 a4 ;gb8 13 .O,d2 �h6 ge8 14 e3 t;y=6 15 gxf5 �8 14 4::f4 (14 �ht?! b6 {14 ... gxf5 16 �5 c6 17 ;gd1 .O,d7 18 r:f57enables White to fix the 4::f 4 �e7 19 �5 0{8 20 �h5 queen:S wing: 15 aS!:!: Kozlov �7 21 �4 with a slight ad­ -l.egky, Tallinn 1987} 15 f4 4::f7 vantage to White; Yuferov - {15 ... c0g4?! 16 cfjf2 cfjx£2 17 Piskov, Moscow 1989) 11 b4!? c4

!1xf2� Nenashev - Malaniuk, 12 bS c£Jd4 13 �e3 with an ob­ Ta shkent 1987} 16 0{2 4:Jh6!? scure position in Tukmakov - and Black's position is not Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk 1987. worse; Haritonov - Malaniuk, 8 4JeS Moscow 1988) 14 ... tLJ::-7 (14 ... 9 b3 b6!?) 15 aS and White has a Probably the most logical spatial advantage; Suba - Er­ course of action. Also: menkov, Tunis izt 1985. a) In one of the original 7 d6 games with this variation White An unusual idea is 7 ... e6!? 8 opted to defend the pawn with d5 �5 9 b3 (9 �b3 - Speelman) his queen. However, after 9 9 ... 4::f7! 10 �a3 ;ge8 11 ;get (11 �b3 4::fd7 Black has chances of dxe6±) 11 ... e5 12 d6 c6 13 b4 b6 an active game: 10 �e3 (10 14 e4 ?! (14 c5 with a compli­ 4::Ji4 loses time, e.g. 10 ... �e8 11 cated game) Tu nman - Speel­ �5 4Jb6 12 4Jxb6 axb6 13 �c2 man, London match 1989. h6 14 {Jh3 c4 15 �d2 {15 a4? 8 dS JJ.d7+} 15 ... bS and Black seized Less effective is 8 0{4 (This the initiative in Yurenok - enables Black to free himself in Golubenko, Erevan 1983) 10 ... the centre) 8 .. . e5 (It is not �4 11 �d2 6LF5 (11 . .. e5! 12 good to capture 8 ... 4Jxd4?! 9 �57! 6LF5 13 �a3 e4! 14 b4 �d4 e5 10 �d3 exf4 11 .O,xf4 �5!!+ Poldauf - Glek, Erfort �e7 12 ;gadt ;ge8 13 c5! dxc5 14 1989) 12 �c2 aS 13 ;gadt .O,d 7 14 4Jh5 c6 15 6LF7 .O,e6 16 4Jxa8 4::f4 ;ge8 with an equal game; ;gxa8 17 .O,d6 and Black loses Bogolyubow Tartakower, material; Hort - Sikora, Trecian­ Karlsbad 1923. ske Teplice 1979) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 b) The pawn may also be 4::fd5 (Nothing is gained by 10 defended indirectly: 9 'f11c2 .cld 7 .O.xc6 bxc6 11 �xd8 ;gxd8 12 (Possible is also 9 ... c5 10 b3 a6 4Jj3 4Jd7; Dizdar - Malaniuk, 11�b2 ;gb8 12 a4 b6 13 0{4 �8 Baku 1988. An equal position is 14 h4 tLJ::-7 15 ;gfb1 h6 16 4Jd1 120 Systems with c£jh3

�e8 with an unclear gan1e; bxcb 11 .1lb2 .:gb8 12 �c2 'fjjc7 13 Dzhandzhava - Kramnik, Bel­ gadt c£f7! 14 .Q.d e5co I. Haus­ gorod 1989) 10 b3 c5 11 c£1 4 cfje8 ner - Glek, W. Germany 1991. 12 .O.b2 t;J::7 13 a4 {Jab 14 h4 10 ... a6 4Jb4 15 �d2 ab 16 h5 g5 17 cfJe6 11 4Jf4 ID>B!? .Q.xe6 18 dxe6 f 4 19 �b7 gb820 Not 11 ... gS?! 12 4Jd3 {Jg6 13 .O.e4 and Black has counterplay 'fjjd2 h6 14 f4 g4 15 e4 cfjxe4 16 for the pawn; Georgadze - 4Jxe4 fxe4 17 .Q.xg7 �g7 18 Savchenko, Simferopol 1988. .Q.xe4 QfS 19 �c3+ �h7 20 .Q.xfS 9 cS (148) gxfS 21 {J£2 hS 22 h3! gxh3 23 It is inappropriate to play 4Jxh3 with an overwhelming acth �.ly: 9 ... cfje4?! 10 4Jxe4 advantage for White; Radulescu fxe4 (Even worse is 10 ... {j3+? - Fasil, corr. 1987. 11 exf3 fxe4 12 .(lg5! ,Clxa1 13 12 a4 b6 �a1 exf3 14 :get :gf7 15 .Q.f1 and With a complicated gan1e. White wins; Portisch - Men­ vielle, las Palmas 1972) 11 gb1 AJ .1lf5 12 �5 �d7 13 cfjxe4 gae8 6 e6 (149) 14 .O.b 2 e6 15 dxe6 and Black's counterplay for the missing pawn is insufficent; Taimanov - Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1970. The immediate 9 ... c5 seems more accurate than 9 ... .cld7. e.g. 10 .Q.b2 (10 .cld2 c5 11 a4 gb8 12 aScfje8 13 f3 CiJ:-7 with typical play; Gavrikov - Spraggett, Moscow GMA 1Y90) 10 . . . c5 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 c5!± Glek. On d4 - d5 Black intends to

play . . . e6 - e5, but there are additional _IX)ssibilities for White to gain a lead in develop­ ment. Recentl) some unsuc­ cessful attempts have been made to resurrect this line. 7 dS In several gan1es 7 o-o do has been played (Unsuccessful is 7 ... 'fjje7 8 d5 eS 9 d6 �xd6 10 10 .Q.b 2 �d6 cxd6 11 4JbS � 12 gdl Another possibility is 10 dx dJ 4:Je8 13 .Q.e3 e4 14 :gabt {JeS 15 Systems wi th cfjh3 121 b3 a6 16 4:Jxd64:Jxdo 17 gxd6 bS 18 cS with a positional advan­ tage for White; Taimanov - Iiebert, Rostov 1%V 8 b3 (8 4Jf 4 c6 9 �b3 c£ja610 gd1 �e7 11 e4 (11 0Jd3!?) 11 ... fxe4 12 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 13 .O.xe4 eS 14 dxeS 4JcS 15 �e3 4:Jxe4 16 �e4 �xeS+ Nikolic - Bjelajac, Novi Sad

1982) 8 . . . c6 9 .O.a3 (Less effic­ ient is 9 �c2 aS 10 Qa3 c£Ja6 11 gad1�c 7 12 4Jf4 {Jb4 13 �b1 eS no problems for Black. with an equal game; Averbakh ­ Another possibility is the Gulko, USSR 1976) Y . . . tfjaS immediate s dS do (S ... o-O!? (Better is 9 . . . aS) 10 t/Jcl gd8 11 with the idea of ... e 7 - eS) 6 b4 �c7 12 gd1 {Jbd7 13 cS dS 14 4Jf4 cb! (6 ... cS 7 h4 o-0 8 hS c£:gS ge8 15 f4 with a better t/Je8 Y hxgo hxgo 10 4Jl2 4)16 11 position for White; Ree - HUb­ 4Jf3 {Je4 with an obscure ner, Wijk aan Zee 1975. position; Solmundarsson 7 't/Je7 Padevsky, Siegen 1970) 7 4Jc3 In Gleizerov's and Samarin's o-o 8 o-o cxdS 9 {JfxdS {JxdS opinion 7 ... eS is slightly better. 10 �dS+ �h8 11 e4 4Jc6 12_kle3 After 8 d6! White's advantage is .Q,d7 13 t/Jd2 fxe4 14 4:Jxe4 t(JaS not as great as in the mainline. 15 c3 {JeS and the black pieces 8 Q-0 e5 co-operate effectively - Taim­ 9 d6 anov. lbis is more effective than Y White can also try S c3 with e4!?. sinlilar play to chapter 7, e.g. S 9 �xd6 ... 4Jc6 6 4Jl2 d6 7 dS {JeS 8 On Y ... cxd6 Gleizerov and @3 cS! 9 dxcb {Jxcb 10 {Jd4 Samarin suggest 10 �S! with {Jxd4 11 cxd4 t/JaS+= Douven - the idea of �d2 and gad1. Vanheste, Holland 1Y86/87. 10 �xd6 cxd6 5 4Jc6 11 4Jb5 4Jc6 Three other moves have also 12 �d1! been seen: White has a great advantage; a) Interesting is S . . . e6 6 c3 Gleizerov - Legky, USSR1987. cb 7 0P2 d6 8 4Jd3 �c7 9 e4 eS 10 dxeS dxeS 11 exfS .clxfS 12 B 4)::5 {Jbd7 13 4Jce4 o-o-o 14 5 4Jf4 (150) o-o hS 15 h4 .O.ho. Unusual and Here White tries to get by imaginative play has led to an without c2 - c4. lbis presents interesting position; Levin - 122 Systems with f)h3

Shabalov, Leningrad 1989. �d4 db (151) b) Satisfactory is S . . . db 6

o-o (b . .. c6 7 dS!? eS! {7 ... 4:FJ 151 cxdS 8 cfJfxdS!} 8 dxeb dS 9 h4 w tf}e7 10 hS gS 11 hb .Q.f8 12 4JhS!?co Korchnoi - Gurevich, Rotterdam 1990) 7 e4 c6 8 o-o 4)i6 9 dS e5 10 dxeb fxe4 11 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 12 �xe4 �e8 13 c4 4:FS 14 -'lg2 {Jxe6 15 tf}b3 tf}bb 16 bel �d7 17 �e3 tf}xb3 18 axb3 {Jxf4 19 �xf4= Eingom - Malaniuk, Odessa 1989,

c) It is risky to play S . .. o-o and the position is not at all b h4 f0J:;6 (The two remaining clear; Alekhine - Tartakower, possibilities are weaker: 6 ... db Karlsbad 1923. 7 c3 c6 8 tf}b3+ dS 9 hS gS 10 hb 6 dS �eS -'lh8 11 4:Jd3 g4 12 �f4 {jbd7 13 7 �c3 4):12± Savchenko - Malaniuk, A sharper alternative is 7 h4 Herson 1989; and b ... .Q.h8?! 7 c6 8 c£F3 o-o 9 hS cxdS 10 hxgb 4):12 e6 {Even worse is 7 ... cfJc6 hxg& 11 4Jcxd5 {JxdS 12 �xdS 8 c3 e6 9 dSexdS 10 f)xdS cf)e7 ebco Pugachev - Rublevsky, 11 tfjxf6+ 1J.xf6 12 ij3 dS 13 hS USSR 1991. c6 14 hxg6 f)xg6 15 1J.e3 �e 7 16 7 c6 � JJ.e6 17 c£g5:t Fokin - 8 �d3 017 Vy zmanavin, Smolensk 1989} 9 o-o o-o 8 c3 c6 9 e4 db 10 exfS exfS 11 10 f4 cxdS o-o � 7 12 dS �e8 13 c£F4 �f8 11 �dS �dS 14 a4 4:)e4 15 .Q.e3 4)i6 16 �e1 12 �xdS e6 c£F7± Bagaturov - Galdunts, 13 .o,gz ds Belgorod 1989) 7 hS tf}e8 (7 ... The position is equal; Rubin­ gS 8 h6! - Taimanov) 8 hxg& stein - Bogolyubov, Karlsbad hxgb 9 4Jc3 � 10 dS 4:)eS 11 1923. 7 Systeiils with. c3

1 d4 move may be delayed: 2 g3

3 .Qg2 At 5 ... o-o

4 c3 A2 5 . . . d6

A1 w 5 o-o 6 o-o Instead of castling Beliavsky has tried 6 �5 c6 (One can also play more actively: 6 ... �4!? 7 �f4 d6 with the idea of

... �e8 and . . . e7 - e5 - Gure­ vich) 7 4:Jhd2 (White intends to play 8 .Q.xf6 .O,xfo 9e4) 7 ... d5 8 The modest advance of the �5 4Jbd7 9 ,O.f 4 4Jxe5 10 �e5 c-pawn introduces a popular .Q.ho 11 4Jf3 �b6 12 �c2 .O,e6 13 variation in which White's play o-o �7 14 ,0f4 �7 <14 ... .O,xf4 is to a large extent based on 15 gxf4±) 15 �d2 !J.f7 16 b3 the weakness of the diagonal �feB 17 �ac1 e5 and there is no g8 - a2. The chapter is divided longer any sign of White's into three sections. The first initiative, Beliavsky - Gurevich, two are quite significant but Moscow 1988. the thirdis rarely seen: After b o-o Black may con­ sider: A 54Jf3 B 5�b3 A11 6 ... d6 C 5 .Qg5 andothers A12 6 ... c6 and others

A A11 5 4Jf3 6 d6 Now Black usually chooses to castle at once, although this Now White has: 124 Sy stems with c3 A111 7 �bJ+ h6 11 4Jh3 g5 12 {Je5 4Jxe5 13 A112 7 4Jbd2 dxe5 4Y4 14 f3 �5 15 �dt Qe6 16 �d4 b6 17 b4 4Jd7 18 Qxg5! A111 and White has gained a winning 7 �bJ+ (153) attack; Gutman - Knezevic, Wuppertal 1986. 9 e6 10 4Jf3 10 4Jc3 also has good pros­ pects: 10 ... 4Jc6 11 cxd6 4jxd4 12 �c4 4jxd5 13 4Jxd5 exd5 14 QxdS f4?! (Better was 14 ... 4jxe2+ 15 �e2 �d5 16 ;gdt �g8 with an unclear position) 15 Qxf4! (15 4Jfl+ ;gxf7 16 Qxf7 Qd 7!) 15 ... 4Jxe2+ 16 �xe2 �d5 Although 7 4jbd2 is more 17 ;gfdl �f5 18 ;gad h6 19 4Y4 common in practice, this queen Qd7? (19 ... c6 20 c£ji6�g4!?) 20 move poses very serious prob­ ;gxc7 Qb 5 21 �e3 and White has lems. White's idea is simple: an extra pawn; Miralles - Santo Black is soon forced to play ... Roman, Royan 1988. d6 - d5 and the White game 10 ... cS?! (154) will be based around the weak squares. First, let us consider a rare continuation: 7 a4 (White usu­ ally plays this in answer to ... a7 - aS)7 ... h6 (7 . .. aS)8 a5 a6 9 �b3+ �h 7 10 4Jbd2 0f> 11 d5 4Y5 12 4Jd4 �e8 13 �3 c5 14 t;y6�xe6 15 dxe6 4jxf3+ 16 exf3 �c6 17 c4 ;gabs 18 ;get b5!? with an unclear position; Cebalo - Avshalumov, Belgrade 1988. This is too impatient. Evid­ 7 �h8 ently 10 ... c6 or 10 ... 4Y4 8 4Jg5 should have been played, in­ Both 9 4Jfl+ and 9 4Je6 are tending to fight for the e5- threats to Black. square. 8 dS 11 dxcS 4Ja6 9 c4 12 .O.eJ 4Jg4 Also possibleis more peace­ 13 .o,gs �e8 ful plan by 9 4)12{Ly:iJ 10 4Jdf3 14 cxdS 4Jxc5 .S) sten1s with c3 12S 15 tfta3 8 eS The opening up of the posi­ The slow 8 ... �h8 is hardly tion has favoured White; Dok­ essential, but is interesting hoian - Akopian, Vilnius 1988. nevertheless: 9 e4 e5 (9 ... f 4!? - Matsukevich; or 9 .. . fxe4 {The A112 exchange itJ the cen tre is not 7 4Jbd2 recommended here} 10 4jxe4 Here Black has: 4jxe4 11 gxe4 e5 12 �5 Wd7 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 �e2 � 15 gh4 A1121 7 ... 4Jc6 fle6 16 !le3! �f6 17 �5 with a A1122 7 ... �h8 and others solid advantage for White; Gligoric - Rajkovic, Yugoslavia A1121 1975) 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 exf5 (11 7 4Jc6 (155) �b3 {Thjs enables Black to

cany out a typical attack} 11 . . . f4 12 gxf4 {Jh5 13 f5 4:Jf4 14 4:Jf1 4Jxg2 15 �g2 gxf5 16 exf5 !J.xf5 17 �5 �d7 18 �1 !le6 19 �hS !ld S+ 20 f3 gxf3 21 4Jxf3 �g4+ and White resigned in

Tataev - Kramnik, Belgorod 1989) 11 .. . e4 12 �5 gxf5 13 @3 �e8 14 f3 h6 15 {Jh3 {Je5 16 4:Jf4� 17 fle3 fld7 18 fld 4 gae8 19 {Jc5± Schussler - Silva, Black chooses the most Thessaloniki ol 1984. active plan. 7 ... 4Jd) is played 9 dxeS 4JxeS with the intention of advancing Capturing with the pawn is a . . . e 7 - e5. If Black plays cor­ mistake: 9 . .. dxe5? 10 e4 f 4 11 rectly here, he can expect to gxf 4 exf 4 12 e5± - Gurevich. equalise. 10 4JxeS dxeS 8 �e1 11 e4 f4 Also possible is 8 �b3+!? 12 4Jc4 �h8 9 d5 {JeS (9 ... �! 10 �a3 Or 12 gxf4 {Jh5 13 fxe5 �h4 c5 - Bellin) 10 4):1.4 4:Jfd7?! (Bad 14 4:Jf3 gxf3!! 15 �xf3 .{lxf5 16 is 10 ... gb8?! 11 h3; but 10 ... h3 !le6 with the idea of . . . gf8 �e8, with the idea of ... c7 - c5, and ... 4:Jf4 with serious threats is worth trying) and in the -Gurevich. game Neckar - Pribyl, White 12 fxg3 could have continued by 11 13 hxg3 tfte7 4:Je6!? {Jc5 12 c:£jxcS dxc5 13 14 b3 �e8 �a3± . 15 .O,a3 tftf7 126 Systems with c3 16 �c2 aS! (156) 12�c2 4:Jxe5 13 4:Jxe5 :§g8 ( 13 ... {yj7!?) 14 4Jd3± Tempone - Rubinetti, Buenos Aires 1979. b) 7 ... �e8 (This falls in with White's plans) 8 �b3+ e6 9 .8:e1 d5 10 4::ft5 g5 11 c4 c6 12 cxd5 exd5 13 e4! fxe4 14 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 15 .8:xe4\tih8 16 get �d8 17 .O,d2 and due to the active knight at e5 White has the advantage; &hussler - Ochoa, Palma de Mallorca 1989. Black has overcome his 8 �e1 opening difficulties; Kaplun - After 8 �b3 � 9 4:Jg5 d5 10 Gurevich, USSR 1983. f4 b6 11 4Jj£'3 e6 12 �bS�e8 13 b3 h6 14 4:Jh3 4je4 15 �d3 aS A1122 Black has a good game; Sprotte 7 �h8 (157) - Tukmakov, Biel 1991. 8 dS 9 4Je5 c6 10 4Jdf3 4Je4 11 !J.f4 !J.e6 12 4Jg5 4Jxg5 13 !J.xgS 4Jd7 14 4Jxd7 �xd7 15 �d2 .Q.g8 16 ,O_h3 �c7 17 ,O_f4 (158)

Here we consider this prophylactic king move and other possibilities for Black, with the exception of 7 ... �· First of all some deviations:

a) 7 ... c6?! (This proves to be a loss of tempo) 8 .8:e1 (8 a4!?

�h8 {8 ... aS} 9 aS �c 7 10 c£F4 �e6?? 11 4:Jb6 and White wins material; Yailjan - Orlov, Bel­ gorod 1989) 8 ... d5? (8 ... 4:Jh5!? 17 �b6?! with the idea of 9 e4 f4) 9 4Je5 Equality would have been �h8 10 4Jdf3 il_e6 11 �f4 4:Jbd7 achieved by 17 ... e5. Sy stems wi th c3 127

18 �e3 ldae8 dS 10 4jeS 4Jlxl7 11 4Jdf3 {jxeS 19 ,O_eS ,O_xeS 12 {JxeS 4:Jd7 13 {jxd7 �d7 14 20 �xeS+ ldf6 ;gdt �d7 15 c4 Qe6 16 cxdS QxdS 21 b4 17 ,O_xdS cxdS 18 �dS ;gfd8 19 With an ovetwhelming ad­ �bS;gxd4 20 ;gxd4 .0.xd4 with vantage to White in Spasov - an equal game; Kozul - Kovac­ Glek, Moscow 1989. evic, Sarajevo 1988. c) A less flexible, but quite A12 possible alternative is 7 ... dS 8 6 c6 (159) �S 4Jlxl7 (A modern, though For the time being Black not fully appropriate plan is 8 leaves it open whether to play ... Qe6 9 4):lf3 4Je4 10 .0.f4 @7 ... d7 - d6 or ... d7 - dS. 11 4Jxd7 �d7 12 ;gel ;gfd8?! Artificial is 6 . . . aS 7 4Jbd2 {Better was to aim for equality:

� (7 ... d6!?) 8 4)::4 c6 9a4 (9 12 ... cfy16 with the idea of 13 ... �b3 a4!) 9 ... d6 10 �b3 Qe6 11 t£j7} 13 4JeS �e8 14 4:Jd3 Qf7 15 �S Qxc4 12 �xc4+ dS 13�d3 QeS Qf6 16 f3 4:Jd6 17 b3 �8 18 �d7 14 Qf4 ;gae8 15 QeS± g4 h6 19 'it)h1'it)h7 20 Qh3 fxg4 Gligoric - Kovacevic, Bugojno 21Qxg4 �g8 22 ;gg1 and Black 1984. remained under pressure in Ko­ vacevic - Fishbein, New York 1989) 9 @3 �4 10 4Jf3 e6 11 {jfeS {JxeS 12 4JxeS 4:Jd6 13 a4 aS 14 b3 !if7 1S 4):13 eS 16 dxeS {JxeS= Nemet - Bhend, Switz­ erland 1988. 8 cijeS Too slow is 8 ;gel?!dS 9 {JeS 4Jhd7 10 @3 eS (Black has alleviated his difficulties) 11 dxeS �4 12 4Jf3 �xeS 13 7 4Jbd2 �h8 4JfxeS 4JxeS 14 4JxeS QxeS 15 Alternatively: Qe3 and here the players agreed a) The transfer of the knight a draw in Gligoric - Gurevich, 7 ... 4je4 is unsuccessful, e.g. 8 Belgrade 1989. 4Jxe4 fxe4 9 4Je1 dS 10 f3 exf3 8 d6 11 exf3 QfS 12 �e2 �d7 13 g3 Instead of Black's last move, fle6 14 4:Jd3 and Black's centre consideration should have been is blocked; Djuric - Todorovic, given to 8 ... dS, for example 9 Pula 1988. 4):lf3 4Jlxl7 10 4Jd3 4Je4!? with b) Consideration should be the idea of ... 4Jd6 - f7. given to 7 ... aS 8 a4 'it)h8 9 �b3 9 4Jd3 4Jbd7 (160) 128 Systems with c3

10 e4 More peaceful moves are Lessactive is 10 a4 eS 11 dxeS also possible: 4JxeS 12 {jxeS dxeS 13 {Jc4 (13 a) 6 {j1xl2 c6 7 �b3 �b6 8 e4!?) 13 ... e4 with equality; c£F4�c7 9 4JgS! h6? (9 ... dS) 10 Szilagyi - Gurevich, Budapest @6! hxgS 11 {jxa8�d7 12 �xgS 1987. b6 13 {jxb6 axb6 14 �b6 and 10 4Jxe4 White's rook and three pawns 11 4Jxe4 fxe4 have more value than Black's 12 .Q.xe4 eS two knights; Szabolcsi - Gas­ 13 dxeS dS tonyi, Hungary 1988, 14 ,Og2 {)xeS b) 6 o-o aS (An original idea) 1S {)xeS .Q.xeS 7 a4 e6 8 �b3 0:iJ 94JgS �e7 16 �e1 !JE7 10 {jxe6 r:f1xe6 11 dS �d7 12 dxc6 17 .O.e3 ,O.fS bxc6 13 {jd2 dS 14 {jf3 c£je4 and 18 .Q.d4 �d7 the black knight in the centre 19 �d2 a6 compensates for the pawn 20 �e3 �ae8 weakness; Kachur - Gofstein, 21 �ae1 �g8 Belgorod 1989. 22 .Q.cS �xe3 6 c6 23 �xe3 �dB Attention should also be 24 h4 paid to 6 . . . e6 7 4JgS dS 8 White has a minimal advan­ �a4+?! 0:iJ 9 b4o-o 10 bS 4:Je7 tage, the realisation of which is 11 Q-0 a6 12 bxa6 �xa6 13 �b3 rather doubtful; Gavrikov - t;J:iJ 14 gdl !ld7 15 �c2 4Y4 and Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987. White has wasted time on the queenside; Black already has a A2 slight advantage, Ristic S d6 06V Buecker, Dortmund 1989. Black does not hurry to 7 4:JgS castle at once. 7 4::P2 is more solid. The 6 �b3 game Dlugy - Lean, New York Sy stems wi th c3 129 19Y2, continued 7 ... �bb 8 �c2 B2 5 ... c6 (8 {)=4�c7!) 8 ... o-o Y o-o dS! BJ 5 ... d5 10 c4± . 7 dS An interesting recent idea is 8 h4 o-o S ... cS 6 .Q.xb7 (6 dxcS �6) 6 ... 9 ,O.f4 �b6 c4 7 �b4 �6 8 .Q.xa6 .Q.xa6 Y 10 4Jd2 �xbJ 4)12 ;gb8 10 �a4 .clbS 11 �c2 11 axbJ h6 o-o with compensation for the 12 ,O_xbB �xbB pawn; Henkin - Glek, USSR 13 4Jgf3 �aB 1990. 14 4JeS �h7 15 f4 4Je4 B1 16 ,O_xe4 fxe4 5 4Jc6 17 b4 6 4Jh3 e6 White's early activity has not 7 {J£4 proven successful. The game White could also tl)' 7 4)12 Gross - Psakhis, Minsk 1986, (White aims to prepare the was equal. attack more carefully) 7 ... d6 (Alternatively: 7 ... o-o 8 4Jf4 B �h8? 9 h4 eS 10 dxeS 4.JxeS 11 s �bJ (162) 4Jf3{jeg4 12 hS gxhS 13 4Jd4 dS 14 {yle6 with a winning position for White in Flear - Minic, Bel­ grade 1988; or 7 . . . dS 8 4Jf3 �4 9 tzf 4 �e 7 10 4Jd3 o-o 11 h4 b6 12.Q.f4 .O.b 7 13 �c2 4Jd8 14 QeS tzf7 15 Qxg 7 \t'xg7 and the control of the eS-square is promising for White; Gavrikov - Vyzmanavin, Irkutsk 1986) 8 tzf4 (Opening the centre gives no advantage: 8 e4 eS Y exfS White makes a queen move gxfS 10 dxeS dxeS - Vanheste) before developing the knight, 8 ... �e 7 9 4.Jxe6! �eb 10 dS which may emerge on the f4- 4.JxdS 11 .O.xdS �e7 (With the square. Practice suggests that idea of ... 4Jd8, . . . c6, . .. .cle6 ) 12 Black is the main beneficiary of �bS �d7 13 e4 {jeS! 14 �e2 this sequence. (And not 14 �d7 .O.xd7 15 Qxb7 Black has three main alter­ {yl3+ 16 �2 {Jxd+ 17 ghxd natives: ;gb8 with an overwhelming

advantage to Black) 14 . .. c6 15 B1 S ... 4Jc6 .O.b3 fxe4 16 4.Jxe4 dS 17 f4 with 130 Systems with c3 16 �c2 After 16 �b4 it is more appropriate to play 16 ... t;$6 than 16 ... b6 ?! 17 :9g1! �xfS 18 f3! 4)16 19 ,O_h3. 16 ... exfS 17 �1 (164)

7 o-o In Malaniuk's opinion atten­ tion should be paid to 7 ... dS!? 8 h4 4Je4 9 hS gS (9 ... �6!?) 10 17 ... .Q.f6! h6 .Q.xd4 11 cxd4 gxf4 12 ,O_xf4 1bis leaves the king a secure c£jxd4 with unclear position. place on the h8-square - Mal­ 7 h4 �e8 aniuk. 8 hS gS 18 f3 Hxing the centre by 9 ... dS Malaniuk considers the 10 hxg6 hxg6 11 4):12 gives variation 18 1lxe4 fxe4 (18 ... White a slight advantage - dxe4 19 ,O_xgS exd3 20 .C.xf6+ Malaniuk. � 21 �xd3 �6 22 �g3 with 10 h6 .Q.h8 possibilities for both sides) 19 11 4Jd3 .O,xgS �h8! 20 .O,xf6+ �xf6 21 After the retreat 11 4Jh3?! g4 �s 0:f>! 224Jxc6 bxc6 23 �d2 12 {Jf4 4Je7 and 13 ... �6 �hS with compensation for the Black's problems are solved - pawn. Malaniuk. 18 4Jd6 11 4Je4 19 f4 g4

11 . . . g4 ?! gives White chan­ 20 .Q.xdS+ .Q.e6 ces for attack: 12.C.f4 d6 13 4):12 21 .Qg2 c6 with the idea of opening the Black has sufficent counter­ centre with e2 - e4. play for the pawn; Varga - 12 g4! dS Malaniuk, Budapest 1989. In 13 gxfS 4Ja5 this particular game there 14 �b4 4Jc6 followed 22 ,O_e3? .Q.xa2 23 4JeS 15 �b3 4JaS .O,b3 and Black won. Sy stems with c3 131 B2 10 4Jd2 s c6 (165) Maybe this move is too modest? 10 �d7 11 4Jd3 �e6 Black has successfully neg­ otiated the opening; lonescu - Malaniuk.

BJ s dS (166)

A flexible and interesting possibility on Black's part, but analysis of this variation is thin on the ground. 6 {JhJ 6 4Jf3 and 6 c£:yj2 d6 7 4Jgf3 lead to variations already con­ sidered earlier. 6 �b6 Ionescu recommends 6 ... e6!?. With this move Black fixes 7 4Jd2 d6 his pawn structure in the cen­ 8 4Jc4 �c7 tre. However, White will have 9 4Jf4 chances to exploit the weak­ Y �S!? also leads to an ness of the eS-square. advantage, e.g. 9 ... 4:JdS (Y ... dS 6 {JhJ

10 {)eS {)e4 {10 ... f:g4!? - 6 �3 leads to variations Malaniuk} 11 4Jgf3 with advan­ already considered above, but tage to White; Groszpeter - an interesting possibility is b

Yrjola, Keckemet 1987) 10 h4 hb h4!?, for example 6 . .. c6 7 �3 11 4Jh3�e6 12 tfic2 4Jf6 13 c£:yj2 tfibb 8 4:Jd2 �4 9 {Jf3 eS 10 dS 14 4Jf3 �bd7 15 4:Jf4 !J.f7 16 �eS �eS 11 dxeS tf1xb3 12 0f3 4JhS 17 �f4 4Jxf4 18 gxf4 axb3 �xeS 13 �e3 a6 14 {Jf W4 and White stands better; Kap­ 15 b4 4:Jd7 16 bS± Bischoff - stan - Hartman, Canada 1986. Yrjola, Kecskemet 1988. 9 4Ja6 6 c6 Bad is Y ... eS? 10 dxeS dxeS 7 4Jd2 �b6 11 0f3�bd7 (11 ... �e6 12 tfixb7) Castling brings no relief

12 a4 with a positional advan­ either: 7 . .. o-o 8 4:Jf3 �4 9 tage for White. {Jf �hb4 10 0f3 �e8 11 h3 �6 132 Sy stems with c3 12 h4 t;§7 13 hS 4:Jd7 14 hxg6 hxg6 15 �f4 �b3 16 axb3 eS 17 !J.xeS 4):lxeS 18 4:JdxeS 4JxeS 19 4JxeS �xeS 20 dxeS gxeS 21 ga4! �d7 22 gah4 and the endgame is very difficult for Black; Baikov - Piskov, Moscow 1989. 8 {J£3 White may also try: a) 8 c:£jf4 {je4!? 9 c:£jf3 �f6 10 h4 4:Ja6 11 o-o � 12 c4 �b3 advance of the h-pawn. 13 axb3 !J.e6 14 !J.e3 h6 15 gfc1 gS 16 4JhS4Jc7 17 4Jxf6 exf6 18 c 0124Jxd2 19 !J.xd2 ;ghc8 and it S .Q.gS (168) is not clear whether the pair of bishops grants White any ad­ vantage; BOnsch - Kuczynsky, Dresden 1988. b) 8 o-O?! (There is no rush for this) 8 .. . o-o 9 c:£jf3 {je4 10 c:£jf4�d7 11 h4 4:Ja6 12 4:Jd3 4Jc7 13 c:£jfeS �c8 14 �h2 4Jef> 15 f3 �6 16 e3 4:Jd8 17 �c2 �f? 18 f4 with an equal game; Skem­ bris - Kontic; Vmjacka Banja 1989. In this fm al section we shall 8 4Jg4 consider some rare alternatives In Groszpeter's opinion Black on White's fifth move. Natur­ had to exchange the queens ally, these create few problems and be satisfied with a some­ for Black. what worse endgame. One possibility here is S� 9 {J£4 eS o-o 6 �b3+ dS?! (Correct was 10 4jxeS 4jxeS 6 ... �h8; the text move gives 10 ... !J.xeS 11 �b6 axb6 12 White an opportunity to attack dxeS 4JxeS 13 !J.e3 - Knezevic. in the centre) 7 e4! fxe4 8 11 dxeS .Q.xeS (167) {Jxe4 4Jxe4 9 !J.xe4 c6 10 f4 This was the game Grosz­ �d6 (Even the weakness in the peter - Knezevic, Maribor 1987. centre is not always dangerous White would have had good for Black. We now follow the chances for attack after 12 �c2, game Skembris - Murey, Bel­ intending to follow up with an garaok 1988, where, after some s_vstems with c3 133 complications, White finds 11 �xd8+ �dB himself in a hopeless position) 12 .O,e3 c6 11 �2 bo 12 4:Jf3 .Q.a6 13 {JeS 13 4Jf3 fxe4 4)17 14 4Jxc6 'f/Jc7 15 {JeS _klc 4 And Black gradually frees 16 'f/Jc2 .O.xeS 17 fxeS 4Jxe5! 18 himself from the pressure. dxeS 'f!jxeS+ 19 �d1 'f!jhS+ 20 �1 14 c£)d2 .O,e6 gf6 21 .Q.e3 gaf8 22 'f/Jd2 ge6 23 15 4Jxe4 c£)d7 b3 gf3 24 .Q.xf3 'f/1xf3 2S bxc4 16 o-o-o rtic7 gxe3+ 26 'f/Jxe3 'f!jxe3- + . 17 b3 4Jf6 5 c£)e4!? 18 ,C_c5 4Jxe4 6 ,O.f4 d6 19 .O,xe4 �8 7 c£)d2 �d2 20 ,O.xf8 Z!hxf8 8 thxd2 h6 Here the players agreed a 9 e4 e5 draw; Nikolic - Beliavsky, Reg­ 10 dxe5 dxe5 gio Emilia 1987. Index of Variations

1 d4 fS 2 g3 4Jf6 3 -'lg2 g6

4 {jh3.Qg7 S c4 c6 111

5 . . . o-o 6 4:Jc3 d6 7 o-o 111 7 c£Jf4 111 7 d5 @6 112

7 ... c6 8 o-o 114 8 c£Jf4 115 7 ... c5 117 6 ... � 118

6 . . . e6120 s c£Jf4 121 4 c3 .Qg 7 S {jf3 o-0 6 .klgS 123 6 o-o d6 7 �b3+ 124 7 4Jbd2 0§:;6 125 7 ... \t1h8 126 7 ... c6126 7 ... �e8 126

6 . .. c6 127

6 . . . aS 127 s ... d6 128 5�b3 cS 129 s ... 0§:;6 129

s . . . c6 131 S ... dS 131 5 .o,gs 132

4 ... -'lg7 5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 136 Index of Varia tions

6 b3 d6 7�b 2 c6 8 c4 �e8 90 8 .. �c7 90 8 ... {)3.6 91

8 . .. aS 93 8 4Jbd2 4Ja6 9 c4 94 9 4Je1 96 9 e3 96

8 ... aS 97 8 ... �h8 98 8 ... 4Jbd7 99 8 ... �c7 99 7 ... �e8 99 7 ... e6100 7 ... �100 7 ... h6 100 7 ... eS 100 7 ... 4Jbd7 100

7 . .. aS 100 7 ... �h8 100 7 ... {JhS 101 7 c4 103 6 ... {Je4 7�b2 d6 8 c4 104 8 4Jbd2 � 9 c4- JO.S 9 {Jc4 1CXJ 9 e3 107 9 {je1 107 7 ... dS 107 7 ... �108 7 ... cS 108 6 ... c6 109 6 .. bS 109 6 ... d6 6 ... c6 79 74Jc3 7 dS c6 81 7 ... 4Ja6 82 7 ... cS 83 7b4 84 7 b3 103 A 7 ... �e8 B 7 ... c6 C 7 ... 4Jc6 Index of Va ria tions 137 7 ... �h8 86 7 ... Qd7 86 7 ... a586 7 ... e686

A 7 ... �e8 8 dS 8 b3 eS 20

8 ... 4:Ja6 23 8 ... h6 27 8 ... �29 8 .. c6 30 8 ... ctPd7 30 8 gel 31 8�535 8�b3 38 8 e4 40 8�c2 41 8 Qe3 41 8 ... 4Ja6

8 ... aS 18 94Jd4 9 gb1 Qd7 13 9 ... c6 14 9 ... eS 14 9 ... cS 14 9 Qe3 16 9�c2 16 9 ... .0.d7 9 ... {JcS 10 10 e4 10 ge1 10 10 e3 10 10 b3 10 10 gb1 11

10 ... fxe4 10 ... 4:Jxe4 12 10 ... cS 12 11 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 11 ... cS 12 12 .O.xe4 12 138 Index of Variations

B

7 ... c6 8 dS 8�c2 �c7 53 8 ... 4Ja6 54 8 ... �h8 55 8 ... h6 56 8 ... {jhS 56 8 ge1 56 8b3 57 8QgS 59 8 ,klf4 59 8�b3 59 8 gb1 60 8b4 60 8�d3 60

8 ... eS 8 ... �c? 50 8 ... �d? 51 8 ... cxdS 51 8 ... cS 51 8 ... �b6 51 8 ... �aS 52 9 dxe6 9 dxc6 49 9 e4 49

9 ... .O.xe6 10 �d3 43 10 b3 46 10 �5 46 10 �46 10 �f4 46 c

7 ... �c6 8 dS 8�c2 77 8 gb1 77 8�b3 77 8 h3 77 8QgS 77 8 b3 77 Index of Variations 139

8 . . . {JeS

8 ... 4:JaS 9 {jd.2 cS 10 �c2 eS 69

10 ... a6 71 10 a3 73 10 b3 73 10 ;g\)1 73 10 dxc6 73 9�d3 74 9b3 74 9�c2 74 9�a4 74 94JxeS 9�b3 68 9b3 68 9 cS 68 9{jd.2 68 9 ... dxeS 10 e4 10 �b3 65 10 b3 65 10 f4 65 10 ge1 65 10 b4 65 10 �c2 65

10 . . . f4

10 . . . e6 64 10 ... fxe4 64 11 b4 62