GREAT GAMES Masterpieces of Postal and E-Mail Chess Tim Harding

Chess Mall

64 Great Chess Games

Instructive classics from the world of

by Tim Harding

With contributions by grandmasters Alexander Baburin, Hans-Marcus Elwert and Jorn Sloth

Edited by Jonathan Tait

Chess Mail Ltd., Dublin 2 64 Great Chess Games

First published in 2002 © Tim Harding 2002 ISBN 0953853640 The right of Timothy David Harding to be identified as the sole author of this work has been asserted under the laws of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher, Chess Mail Ltd., 26 Coolamber Park, Dublin, Ireland. Editor-in-Chief: Tim Harding Sales and distribution enquiries (other than USA) to the publisher at +353 1 4939339 (fax/phone) or [email protected] (email) USA sales and distribution enquiries to ChessCafe.com, PO Box 30, Milford, CT 06460 USA Toll-free: 1-866-301-CAFE Fax: 1-309-273-0302 Information about this book is available on the Internet at: . Printed in Ireland by Leinster Leader Ltd., Naas, Co. Kildare. Acknowledgments

Numerous people have sent in games or notes, or provided facts or transla- tions either specifically for this book or for my ‘Chess Mail’ magazine and my ‘Megacorr’ series of database CDs. To thank everyone who has assisted me in various ways during the three years this book has been gestating would take too much space and I would be sure to forget some names. So please forgive me if you did assist but do not see your name below. Many masters and grandmasters provided notes to their games or permission to quote from their published notes, and are acknowledged in the introductions to the games concerned. However, I particularly want to mention here Volker- Michael Anton, Alexander Baburin (for more than one game), Hans Berliner, Hans-Marcus Elwert, Peter Hardicsay, Olita Rause, Jørn Sloth, Gert Timmer- man, Mikhail Umansky and Max Zavanelli. In particular, Elwert and Sloth have essentially contributed original notes to their games especially for this book. The book you are now going to read will, I hope, become a classic of chess literature; if it does, much of the credit will be due to my editor CC-SIM Jonathan Tait who has made countless improvements to my analysis and raw text. When I invited him to perform this role, I expected a keen eye for detail and rigorous checking of my analysis, but his contribution has been immense and far beyond the call of duty. Any mistakes that still remain are entirely my fault. Philip Penney gets the credit for the cover design. Finally, I wish to thank my wife Joan and daughters, Angela and Claudia, for tolerating my long disappearances into the study over a period of many months. 64 Great Chess Games 3 Contents

Introduction 5 Symbols and Abbreviations 8 1 J.J.van Oosterom—G.J.Timmerman, Wch15 Final, 1996 9 2 City London—City Vienna, intercity, 1872 13 3 G.Nielsen & W.Nielsen—A.van der Linde, friendly, 1875 19 4 W.Steinitz—M.I.Chigorin, thematic match, 1890 24 5 G.Maróczy—A.Csipkés, Hungary Ch, 1893 30 6 K.K.Betins—E.Shiffers, Shakhmatny Zhurnal, 1894 33 7 J.S.Hale—M.Morgan, Continental tourney final, 1896-7 36 8 R.Mikulka—F.Chalupetzky, Schweizerische Schachzeitung, 1910 40 9 A.Becker—F.Redeleit, Wiener Schachzeitung, 1914 44 10 T.Demetriescu—F.Becker, friendly postal, 1919 48 11 Alekseev—V.V.Ragozin, USSR, 1929 52 12 R.Rey Ardid—H.Geiger, IFSB Ch, 1932 56 13 N.Johansson-Tegelmann—R.Rey Ardid, Sweden-Spain, 1933 60 14 P.Keres—E.Weiss, IFSB Ch, 1935 66 15 C.Meyer—G.Stalda, Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1936 70 16 P.Keres—E.Dyckhoff, IFSB EU-OL, 1935-37 74 17 F.Herzog—M.Vidmar, IFSB ch, 1936-37 82 18 G.Barcza—J.Balogh, Hungary Jubilee, 1943 86 19 C.J.S.Purdy—M.Napolitano, Wch1 Final, 1950 90 20 T.Sanz—K.Gumprich, Dyckhoff Memorial, 1954 98 21 Y.B.Estrin—H.R.Rittner, Ragozin Memorial, 1963 105 22 P.Dubinin—A.M.Konstantinopolsky, Ragozin Memorial, 1963 109 23 M.Jago—J.E.Littlewood, England tt, 1964 114 24 A.Sundin—E.Andersson, WT/M/974, 1964 120 25 Y.B.Estrin—H.Berliner, Wch5 Final, 1965 124 26 H.R.Rittner—V.Simagin, Eberhardt Wilhelm Cup Final, 1966 135 27 C.H.O’D.Alexander—P.H.Clarke, England tt, 1969-70 140 28 R.Z.Altshuler—S.Gilezetdinov, USSR Cht, 1971 144 29 T.Mueller—N.A.Preo, NAICCC-1, 1971 147 30 H.Heemsoth—C.S.Hunter, CCOL7 Final, 1973 150 31 V.Zagorovsky—E.Arnlind, Wch8 Final, 1975 156 32 J.S.Morgado—Y.B.Estrin, Wch10 Final, 1978 159 33 J.A.Muhana—J.S.Morgado, Wch10 Final, 1978 164 34 I.A.Kopylov—S.I.Korolëv, Dobrovolsky Memorial, 1981 167 35 H.Tiemann—A.Khasin, Finjub-20, 1981 171 4 64 Great Chess Games

36 E.Arnlind—K.B.Richardson, Axelson Memorial, 1984 175 37 M.Neumann—G.Lambert, WT/M/GT/221, 1987-90 179 38 J.Penrose—R.Goldenberg, Wch13 Final, 1989 183 39 O.Ekebjærg—G.J.Timmerman, NBC-25, 1991 188 40 P.J.Sowray—G.C.van Perlo, CCOL11 Final, 1992 191 41 J.Sloth—K.Honfi, CCOL11 Final, 1992 195 42 G.Gottardi—V.N.Gritsaenko, Konstantinopolsky Memorial, 1993 198 43 G.J.Timmerman—U.Andersson, NPSF-50, 1994 202 44 V.Milvydas—S.Muravyev, EU/MSM/V prelims, 1994 206 45 G.K.Sanakoev—T.Õim, Wch14 Final, 1994 210 46 H-M.Elwert—H-E.van Kempen, Wch ¾-Final, 1995 213 47 M.M.Umansky—H.Burger, H-W von Massow Memorial, 1996 218 48 V-M.Anton—D.D.van Geet, H-W von Massow Memorial, 1996 221 49 E.B.H.Bang—M.M.Umansky, H-W von Massow Memorial, 1996 225 50 J.R.Vitomskis—J.J.Carleton, Wch15 Final, 1996 228 51 J.J.van Oosterom—R.I.Reynolds, Wch15 Final, 1996 232 52 C.Léotard—G.Rotariu, Amici Sumus GM, 1998 237 53 J.Hector—C.Hansen, Korning Memorial, 1998 241 54 P.Hardicsay—H-W.May, Hungary-Denmark, 1999 246 55 M.Zavanelli—J.Canibal, Reg Gillman Memorial E, 1999 251 56 G.Kasparov—The World, MSN Internet Challenge, 1999 257 57 A.Haugen—C.A.McNab, EU Cht6 preliminaries, 1999 265 58 V.V.Palciauskas—V.Andriulaitis, LIT-USA, 1999 270 59 I.Firnhaber—D.Schade, German CC League, 1999 275 60 T.Hamarat—E.B.H.Bang, Wch16 Final, 1999 278 61 O.V.Rause—R.Álvarez, CAPA-X, 1999 284 62 H.Tarnowiecki—J.J.van Oosterom, Millennium Email, 2000 289 63 Yin Hao—The World, Internet, 2001 293 64 T.D.Harding—A.P.Borwell, ICCF Officials IM-A, 2001-2002 298

Select Bibliography 302 Index of Openings 303 Chess Mail Publications: Information 304

Dedication

This book is dedicated to the memory of my mother Sandra Harding (1916- 2002), who died when it was nearing completion. Introduction

This book presents 64 exciting and requirements of championship play by instructive chess games played by cor- the end of the present decade. respondence. Many of these games have Traditionally, CC players may con- extraordinary depth, subtlety and beauty; sult chess literature and they enjoy the some are lighter but have moments of liberty to move the pieces on the board high drama. What makes all the games while analysing and make notes of different is that they were played over their calculations. These factors and the a period of weeks and months between absence of the clock beside the board opponents who were not seated facing enables the CC player to create games one another. of a much higher standard than he or she Chess has been played by correspond- might be capable of in an ordinary club ence since the 18th century, with the or tournament context. Deep strategies postal service being the usual method of or complex sacrificial combinations can transmitting moves between distant op- be worked out in detail, sometimes over ponents. The actual method of sending days or even weeks, and the intended the moves does not change the essential move double-checked for blunders be- nature of correspondence chess (CC) as fore it is sent to the opponent. a mode of play where hours or even days I have aimed to make this book acces- may be spent in analysing the position sible to chess players of all standards, and and selecting the best move. to be valuable even to those players who Many active OTB players participate do not play CC. When analysing games, in CC too, but correspondence play par- original annotations (where available) ticularly suits people with heavy business were critically re-examined both by me or family commitments, or who live in and the book’s editor and we made many remote locations far from opponents of new discoveries, in some cases overturn- their skill level. The drink in the pub af- ing the accepted view of what was going ter the game is replaced by international on in some famous games. friendships that develop with messages The book would be over 400 pages accompanying the moves. long if I retained in the text all the open- In recent years, email has become the ings research and critical variations primary method of sending CC moves (at which we examined when trying to find least in international competition), mak- the truth about many of these games. ing the process both faster and cheaper Necessarily, in many places the varia- (once you have access to a computer). tions that illustrate or support my assess- CC played by Internet web server looks ments have been omitted or truncated. A set to become the “next big thing”: it is few games have been left with a lot more already very popular for casual games detail than the others, to give a flavour of and the software may be adapted to the the depth of CC analysis at master level. 6 64 Great Chess Games

If you have not yet tried CC and age player is most evident. It is true that would like to do so, I recommend certain simplified positions (with only that you seek out information and five or six men on the board) have been contact addresses on the Internet, start- solved, so that a computer able to access ing with www.chessmail.com and these ‘tablebases’ will play perfectly. www.iccf.com (which have contact Until the late 1990s, however, most details for national federations) and CC players did not have access to these correspondencechess.com. bases, and anyway they are only relevant to a small minority of games. Most end- games cannot be reduced to such posi- About computers tions and many programs still play them like weak club players. In the late 1980s, database programs Computers have changed the nature first appeared and soon made a big dif- of CC in recent years. To see this, you ference to openings research and prepa- only have to compare such exciting ration for individual opponents. More games as numbers 23 and 27, in which controversial is the use of programs the player with the greater imagination which analyse positions and suggest and tactical ability came out on top moves to the players. — but where the attacks would have Some CC players consider their use failed against a computer — with mod- unethical and a few CC organisations ern games like numbers 48 and 62 where even try to ban them, but this is unen- strategy is paramount and computers forceable. Inevitably, many of the top give little help. players do now use analysis engines, Here I quote CC- Gert but with caution. At the almost infinite Timmerman from an interview he gave time allowances of CC, the machine’s me just after becoming the world cham- advantage over the human in speed of pion at the end of 2001. calculation is nullified. “I do not use a chess-program to Computers are virtually flawless at search for the moves for me. I am short-range tactics but can give very mis- constantly looking for a principal running leading results in quiet positions, where thread to give ‘structure’ to a game. The strategy predominates, and in very deep difference between CC-players is not and complex positions too, where their made any more by tactical opportunities, calculations can go wrong at the ‘ho- but by ‘seducing’ the adversary into a rizon’ or where unusual characteristics — for him, wrong — (positional) ‘train’ of a position can cause their assessment from which there is no escape anymore... algorithms to prefer the wrong move. I think that an opponent who relies only The power and weakness of the on the choice of a computer, and does not computer is seen at its most extreme start from his own ‘natural’ resources, in the endgame, where traditionally the will very quickly reach his chess peak superiority of the master over the aver- with no room for improvement.” Introduction 7

About this book players in books that I recommend in my bibliography. In particular, it is exceed- This book is a showcase of the best of ingly difficult to write notes on games correspondence chess but I don’t claim by Grigory Sanakoev and Jonathan Ed- that my selection is the “64 greatest” CC wards that can compare with their own. games ever played. I am suspicious of Certain games are classics which attempts to rank games quantitatively. demanded to be included “warts and My criteria stressed variety: a good all”: in particular, Games 13, 19 and 24. spread of openings, players from many Moreover, no chess game would ever be countries, many types of game, and a won if the loser did not make a mistake good spread in time also, but with the or two, and few ‘sound’ draws have the emphasis on the period 1990-2002. same interest as a good decisive game Furthermore, games had to be at least (Game 16 being a notable exception). 25 moves long to qualify; I have already In order to arrive at the final 64 written a book of CC miniatures. games, many apparently strong candi- The sequence is roughly chronologi- dates fell by the wayside when subjected cal, apart from the first game. A word is to 21st century scrutiny. Hitherto unsus- necessary about dates because CC tour- pected blunders, overlooked defences naments usually begin on a specified day and missed wins were revealed. Such but take months or years to complete. It discoveries usually meant a game had is often uncertain when a game ended to be rejected, but sometimes the reasons and when games are first published, in- why errors were overlooked by the play- correct information is often given. I am ers are in themselves instructive. confident the start year of all games is So the book does include some less- correct, but when I do not know (or can- than-perfect games of an unusual char- not make a reasonable guess at) the end- acter, such as Game 20 (still fascinating year, I have given only the first date. although it should not have been a ) No player has more than three games and Game 32, which was the subject of in the book and only Timmerman has a notorious controversy. The very best more than one win. I also avoided (with games, however, are probably those in one exception) games that have appeared which the loser puts up strong resist- in previous books that I have written, and ance and is outplayed without making games due to appear in ICCF’s jubilee any obvious mistake except, perhaps, book. I also excluded games from the an unwise opening choice. If I have to USSR CC Championships, because a pick a ‘Top Ten’, I offer this subjective book on that important series of events is selection: 1, 25, 26, 43, 47, 48, 49, 56, being written for Chess Mail at present. 60 and 61. Because I wanted to be able to say I hope that readers will derive as something new about every game, I also much enjoyment and benefit to their excluded a few masterpieces that have practical play from reading this book as I been very well dealt with by certain have done from writing it. 8 64 Great Chess Games Symbols & Abbreviations

+ EU European event # WT World event ! good move Wch World Championship !! brilliant move OL olympiad ? bad move CCOL Correspondence Olympiad ?? sf semifinal !? interesting move zt zonal tournament ?! dubious move izt ˆ White is winning ct ‹ large White advantage tt team tournament Ÿ small White advantage ICCF International Correspond- ‰ Black is winning ence Chess Federation Œ large Black advantage IECG International Email Chess å small Black advantage Group ¢ unclear position (D) see next diagram £ intending/ threatening/ W White to play in diagram with the idea B Black to play in diagram CC correspondence chess 1-0 game ends, White wins corr correspondence game 0-1 game ends, Black wins OTB over-the-board ½-½ game ends in a draw GM Grandmaster ‘BCO2’ Batsford Chess Openings IM International Master (2nd edition) CC-GM ICCF Grandmaster ‘ECO’ Encyclopaedia of Chess CC-IM ICCF International Master Openings CC-SIM ICCF Senior International ‘MCO’ Modern Chess Openings Master (14th edition) Ch championship ‘NCO’ Nunn’s Chess Openings Cht team championship Game 1 White: Joop J. van Oosterom (Netherlands) Black: Gert Jan Timmerman (Netherlands) 15th CC World Championship Final, 1996-98 ’s (E99)

The Players: These two great Dutch About this game: This was one of rivals have had parallel careers in CC the most important games in the 15th for two decades. Timmerman, a math- World Championship Final, in which ematician, is the current (15th) Cor- van Oosterom was also a contender respondence Chess World Champion for a high placing. At the time this and has also won several other major game was played, he had never beaten tournaments. Timmerman, a psychological factor For several consecutive years, he that may have counterbalanced his was the world’s highest rated active colour advantage. correspondence player. As Timmer- The world champion commented: man is world champion, I have made “Van Oosterom is always a tough a special exception and he is the only opponent, but I had the ‘luck’ that player with two wins in this book. the outcome of the opening against Van Oosterom (founder of Volmac him turned out favourably for me. software, which is now part of the Cap The searching for the win remained, Gemini corporation) is a wealthy man however, very difficult.” We shall who lives with his family in Monaco. see that luck played very little part. He is well known as a sponsor of both For the annotations, I have drawn OTB and correspondence tournaments on comments that I wrote when the (e.g. the Melody Amber series, named game was first released by ICCF, on for his daughter, the NBC Millennium GM Hans Ree’s annotations for his email tournament, and the ICCF Jubi- column ‘Dutch Treat’ on the Chess lee Champions and Elite events). Café website, and on world champion Van Oosterom was just starting Timmerman’s own comments for the 14th World Championship Final ‘Chess Mail’ magazine. in 1994 when illness forced him to 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 g6 3 Èc3 ƒg7 4 e4 d6 defer his place and so he was fated 5 Èf3 0–0 6 ƒe2 e5 7 0–0 Èc6 8 d5 once more to be thwarted by Timmer- Èe7 9 Èe1 Èd7 10 ƒe3 f5 11 f3 f4 man in the next final which began two 12 ƒf2 g5 13 a4 (D) years later. White follows a system introduced 10 64 Great Chess Games by . Compared with The best-known example was older lines of the classical King’s Yusupov-Kasparov, Yerevan OL Indian, White has a ƒ rather than 1996, which went 17 …a3!? ƒd7 18 a „ on f2. This makes it easier for Èb5 ‡h8!? 19 ƒe1 …g8 20 g4! fxg3 Black to prepare ...g4 but the ƒ plays 21 hxg3 g4 and the complications a useful defensive role and also is resolved themselves to a draw after a actively placed to help the queenside few more moves. 17 Èb5!? and 17 attack, compared with the older lines Èd3 are also sometimes played. where this piece finds itself on d2. 17...Èxc6 18 dxc6 †e8 19 Èd5 Timmerman did not like set-ups …f7 for Black in which White can play Timmerman found for himself the an early a4-a5, so he blocked the defence suggested by Burgess. An queenside. example of what White would like is XIIIIIIIIY 19...Èxd5 20 cxd5 †g6 21 a5 bxa5 9r+lwq-trk+0 22 ƒe1 a4 23 …xa4 …xa4 24 †xa4 g4 B 25 †a7 gxf3 26 ƒxf3 ƒg4 27 ƒxg4 9zppzpnsn-vlp0 †xg4 28 h3 †e2 29 †xc7 f3 30 gxf3 9-+-zp-+-+0 ƒh6 31 †xd6 ƒe3+ 32 ƒf2 †xf3 9+-+Pzp-zp-0 33 †e6+ ‡g7 34 †g4+ 1–0 J.Irvin- 9P+P+Pzp-+0 N.Fischer, ICCF EM/C/A009 1996. 9+-sN-+P+-0 20 a5 bxa5 21 †a4 g4 (D) 9-zP-+LvLPzP0 GM Hans Ree observed that “It is always a success for Black when he 9tR-+QsNRmK-0 can play this without the preliminary xiiiiiiiiy ...h7-h5, for on h5 the would be in the way of his pieces.” 13...a5 14 Èd3 b6 15 b4 XIIIIIIIIY In ‘The New Classical King’s 9r+l+q+k+0 Indian’, recomm- ended 15 ƒe1, but that book only W9+-zp-+rvlp0 came out in 1997, by which time the 9-+Pzp-sn-+0 game had probably developed beyond 9zp-+Nzp-+-0 this position. 9Q+P+Pzpp+0 15...axb4 16 Èxb4 9+-+-+P+-0 16 Èb5 Èf6 17 Èxb4 g4 18 ƒh4 9-+-+LvLPzP0 was also suggested in that book. 16...Èf6 17 Èc6 9tR-+-+RmK-0 Quite possibly this is not the best xiiiiiiiiy move, but theory of the 13 a4 line was at an early stage of development when 22 †b5 this game started. Ree observed that interesting and Game 1: van Oosterom-Timmerman 11 difficult lines can also arise after 22 26 ‡f2?! Èxf6+ …xf6 23 fxg4 †g6 24 ƒh4 This is a strange-looking move but followed by 25 c5. 26 …xa5 …xa5 27 †xa5 …g7 28 ƒf2 As he pointed out, van Oosterom’s ƒh3 is unsatisfactory for White. novelty 22 †b5 saves a 26...†e7 27 …h1 †g5 compared with a drawn game played Ree now commented: “His novelty in the Netherlands in December 1996, hasn’t helped White much, for Black slightly ahead of the progress of our has a dangerous attack. The postal game: 22 ƒh4 Èxd5 23 cxd5 that White now makes is g3! 24 hxg3 fxg3 25 ƒxg3 †e7 26 defensive in nature. He hopes to build †b5 ƒh6 27 …xa5 …xa5 28 †xa5 a .” …g7 29 ƒf2 ƒh3 30 †a8+ †f8 31 28 …xh6 †xf8+ ‡xf8 32 …b1 …xg2+ 33 ‡f1 If instead 28 ƒh4 †e3+ 29 ‡f1 …h2+ 34 ‡g1 …g2+ 35 ‡f1 …h2+ (hoping for 29...†xe4 30 ƒf2) then 36 ‡g1 …g2+ 37 ‡f1 …h2+ 38 ‡g1 29...ƒa6! 30 ƒf2 †d2 31 ƒe1 †c2 with a repetition of moves (Kiriakov- avoids the repetition draw and puts Lobzhanidze, Groningen 1996). White under pressure. Timmerman, however, was not 28...†xh6 29 …xa5 …xa5 30 †xa5 concerned about the tempo, saying ‡h8 31 †a3 †g6 “it is not necessarily the case that the This threatens both 32...†xe4 and black † on the 8th rank is worse placed 32...…g7. (where she is then better protected) 32 †a8 …f8 33 ƒh4 than she is on the 7th rank.” To answer 33...†xe4 with 34 22...Èxd5 23 cxd5 (D) ƒf6+. XIIIIIIIIY 33...†h6 34 g3 (D) 9r+l+q+k+0 XIIIIIIIIY 9+-zp-+rvlp0 9Q+l+-tr-mk0 B 9+-zp-+-+p0 9-+Pzp-+-+0 B 9zpQ+Pzp-+-0 9-+Pzp-+-wq0 9-+-+Pzpp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9+-+-+P+-0 9-+-+P+-vL0 9-+-+LvLPzP0 9+-+-+PzP-0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 9-+-+LmK-+0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy Now comes a line-opening pawn sacrifice, typical of the classical 34 ƒe7 is an alternative here. King’s Indian. Timmerman then intended 34...…e8, 23...g3 24 hxg3 fxg3 25 ƒxg3 ƒh6 pointing out that the more aggressive 12 64 Great Chess Games

34...…g8 leads to a draw after 35 54 ‡f2 …a1 55 ƒf1 †b6+ 56 ƒe3 †a7! †g7 36 †xc7 †xg2+ 37 ‡e3 †b1 57 ‡g2 (D) †g1+ 38 ‡d2 †d4+ 39 ‡c2. After the immediate 57 †d3 Black After the move played by van wins by 57...…a2+ 58 ‡g3 †xd3 59 Oosterom, the black ƒ can become ƒxd3 …a3. more active and the rest is (high-class) XIIIIIIIIY technique. 9-+-+-+-+0 34...ƒf5! B Ree observes that: “Step by step 9+-zp-+-mkp0 Black improves his position. He has 9-+Pzp-+l+0 forced the white † to the 8th rank and 9+-+Pzp-+-0 now makes use of this to free his ƒ.” 9-+Q+P+P+0 35 †a4 ƒg6 36 †c2 ‡g8 37 ƒd3 9+-+-vLP+-0 ƒh5 38 ƒe2 ƒg6 39 ƒd3 9-+-+-+K+0 Black now switches play to the other wing. Timmerman explains: 9trq+-+L+-0 “From now on the heavy black pieces xiiiiiiiiy will occupy strategic positions on the queenside which was opened up by Now the final phase begins: White. Ultimately, a of the white pawn chain. the white pieces will play a decisive 57...h5 58 gxh5 ƒxh5 59 ƒf2 ‡f7 factor.” This is the final preparatory step. 39...…b8 40 ƒe2 †f8 41 ƒg5 …b4 The ‡ has to be near c7 to protect his 42 ‡g2 †b8 43 ƒh6 …b2 44 †c4 base after the coming liquidation to a †a7 simple endgame. Black’s pieces take all the strategic 60 †d3 †xf1+ 61 †xf1 …xf1! heights. Contrary to the normal situation, it 45 ƒc1 …a2 46 ƒe3 †a5 47 ƒh6 will be much easier for Black to win ‡f7 48 g4 …a1 49 ƒf1 †a7 50 the opposite-coloured ƒ endgame †d3 than the … vs ƒ ending arising after Timmerman found an amusing 61...ƒxf3+?, when Black would be in refutation of 50 †b5 by the door- for a lot more work. opening 50...ƒxe4! 51 fxe4 ‡g6! 52 62 ‡xf1 ƒxf3 63 ƒe1 ‡e8! 64 ƒd2 …a2 53 †d3 †a5‰. ƒa5 ‡d8 0–1 50...…a3 51 †c4 …a2+ 52 ƒe2 Timmerman’s final comment is: “A †a5 53 ƒc1 ‡g7 nice picture after 64 moves (a magic This takes away the square h6 from number in chess!). The black ƒ will White’s dark-squared ƒ. White’s now remove from the board the whole moves run out now. white pawn chain.” Game 2 White: City of London (England) Black: City of Vienna (Austria) Inter-city challenge match, 1872-74 (A21)

The Players: Such matches between . There was also a break clubs were frequent by the mid-19th of more than three months in mid- century. London’s team originally 1873 in connection with the Vienna consisted of Blackburne, Horwitz, Chess Congress (won by Steinitz). J.J. Löwenthal, John Wisker, chess The match concluded in March journalist William Norwood Potter 1874 when Vienna proposed a package and future world champion Wilhelm deal whereby they would resign this Steinitz. As a contemporary source game if London agreed a draw in the has it, “For various reasons, Potter other (where they stood better). While and Steinitz were eventually left the draw was tactical, with London practically alone to sustain the match”. defending the Scotch with Steinitz’s Two signatures of team members were pet variation 4...Ôh4, the present required for a move to be valid. game, which actually decided the Vienna originally submitted the match, was played in a very different following team list: Dr. Meitner, and actually more modern style. The Ignaz Kolisch, Dr. Max Fleissig, decisive factor was almost certainly O.Gelbfuhs, Josef Berger and Adolf the superior strategic sense of Steinitz Csank but Csank and Meitner who at this time had no equal in the eventually resigned their places on world in positional games. the committee. The final resignation 1 c4 message from Vienna was signed by The English, now one of the most Berger and Fleissig. important openings, was then in its About this game: London issued infancy. It got its name from Howard the challenge and after Vienna asked Staunton’s adoption of 1 c4 in his to play for money, the substantial 1843 match with French champion stake of 100 Pounds was agreed. St. Amant. As was customary, two games were 1...e5 2 Èc3 ƒb4 (D) conducted simultaneously. The 2...Èf6 is normal, when two match did not really get under way important variations are 3 g3 ƒb4 until late July because of an agreed and 3 Èc3 Èf6 4 g3 ƒb4. Vienna’s 14 64 Great Chess Games move is not deeply studied even †xc3+ 13 Èxc3 favoured White in today. Kasparov-Shirov, Novgorod 1994) 6 XIIIIIIIIY Èxe7 †xe7 7 f3 exd4 8 †xd4 Èc6 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 (8...c5 9 †d2 ƒe6 10 ƒd3 Èc6 11 Èe2 Karpov-Illescas, Dos Hermanas W9zppzpp+pzpp0 1992) 9 †c3 0–0 10 Èe2 Èh5!? 11 9-+-+-+-+0 g4 †h4+ 12 ‡d1 Èf6 13 Èg3 ƒe6 9+-+-zp-+-0 14 †e3 gave White an edge in Lali™- 9-vlP+-+-+0 Shirov, Moscow OL 1994. 9+-sN-+-+-0 5 ƒf4!? 9PzP-zPPzPPzP0 Hansen’s book reckons White may get an edge with 5 Èf3!?, while 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 London avoided 5 †xd4 which they xiiiiiiiiy thought drawish. 5...c6 6 Èxe7 3 Èd5 White cannot win material by 6 The London team avoid the Èc7+ because of 6...†xc7! 7 ƒxc7 doubling of their c-pawn and make ƒb4+ 8 †d2 ƒxd2+. So London Vienna reveal their plan. simply obtains the ƒ pair and regains 3...ƒe7 the pawn. This is best according to Carsten 6...Èxe7 7 †xd4 0–0 8 e4 Hansen’s recent ‘Guide to the English The pawn-snatch 8 ƒxb8 …xb8 Opening 1...e5’, which has far more 9 †xa7 was rightly rejected because detail on the 2...ƒb4 line that any of 9...d5!, after which grabbing the … other book I have seen. is fatal: 10 †xb8 (10 cxd5 would be 4 d4 somewhat better.) 10...†a5+ 11 ‡d1 Many books do not mention this dxc4 12 Èf3 (12 †f4 loses the † to natural follow-up. a after 12...…d8+ 13 ‡c2 †a4+ 4...exd4 14 ‡c3 Èd5+.) 12...…d8+ 13 ‡c1 This positionally suspect capture †d5‰. has rarely been repeated. Instead, 8...d5 9 0–0–0 ƒe6 Hansen recommends 4...d6 with the If 9...†a5 instead, White can ignore comment: “Black does best to keep the attack on his a-pawn and play 10 the situation in the centre fluid; the ƒd2! †xa2 11 ƒc3 when the mate alternatives lead to more comfortable threat forces a serious weakening of positions for White.” Black’s defences by 11...f6. Steinitz Whether Black can equalize is and Potter then intended 12 cxd5 a different matter, e.g. 4...d6 5 e4 cxd5 13 exd5 ƒf5 14 ƒc4 †b1+ 15 Èf6 (5...c6 6 Èxe7 †xe7 7 Èe2 ‡d2 †c2+ 16 ‡e1 “with a winning f5 8 dxe5 †xe5 9 exf5 Èf6 10 attack”. †d4 ƒxf5 11 ƒf4 †a5+ 12 †c3! 10 Èf3 Èd7 11 Èg5 (D) Game 2: London-Vienna 15

XIIIIIIIIY the understanding of today’s much- 9r+-wq-trk+0 vaunted computers, which either want 9zpp+nsnpzpp0 to play 14 Èd6 or (at move 12) to B9-+p+l+-+0 exchange the È for the inferior ƒ on e6. 9+-+p+-sN-0 Steinitz was a great man for grand 9-+PwQPvL-+0 concepts, for which opponents in his 9+-+-+-+-0 heyday could rarely find the antidote 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 at the board, but as we shall see in 9+-mKR+L+R0 Game 4, imagination and accurate xiiiiiiiiy analysis could sometimes reveal flaws in his thinking. 11...h6!? 14...Èb6! (D) Despite London’s ingenious 14...dxc4 would at best equalise subsequent play, Vienna could have since White can choose between 15 held the balance with this move. ƒxc4 and 15 ƒd6; Vienna hoped to Steinitz, however, thought it incorrect: expose the white ‡ by creating more “We should have considered 11...c5 complications. followed by ...d4 preferable, as Black XIIIIIIIIY would then have obtained a passed 9r+-wq-trk+0 pawn, though White would still have 9zpp+-snpzp-0 kept a good game even in that case.” W 12 exd5 ƒf5 9-sn-+-+-zp0 12...hxg5 loses a pawn to 13 dxe6 9+-+p+l+-0 while 12...cxd5 13 Èxe6 fxe6 14 9-+PwQ-vL-+0 cxd5 will leave Black with a weak 9+-sN-+-+-0 in the centre. 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 13 Èe4 Not 13 d6? Èg6 14 Èf3 †a5Œ 9+-mKR+L+R0 because if 15 ƒd3 Black wins xiiiiiiiiy material by 15...c5 (and if 16 †e3? …fe8 17 †d2 †xd2+). The position looks unclear. White’s 13...cxd5 14 Èc3 pressure on the d-file and kingside Steinitz explained that 11 Èg5, chances will only be of value if he can apparently creating kingside threats, control the counterplay against his was a feint by means of which this own ‡. It looks hazardously placed piece was transferred from f3 to c3 since there is no on b1 without loss of tempo, in order to and therefore opening the c-file is a protect White’s exposed ‡. Thus a danger for White. The really critical 19th century world champion devised moment seems to be Black’s 21st a concept which is totally beyond move where there is a tactical flaw 16 64 Great Chess Games in London’s plan, which the Viennese XIIIIIIIIY failed to spot but which was found in 9r+-tr-+k+0 analysis afterwards. 9zpp+n+pzp-0 15 ƒe5!? B9-+-+-+qzp0 Steinitz and Potter congratulated themselves on this choice but their 9+-zPN+l+-0 analysis of the alternatives was not 9-+-wQ-zP-+0 wholly convincing: 9+-+-+-+-0 a) 15 cxd5 …c8 16 d6 Èed5 “with 9PzP-+-+PzP0 a splendid attack”, but 15...Èexd5 9+-mKR+L+R0 seems better for Black. xiiiiiiiiy b) 15 c5 Èd7 16 ƒd6 ƒe6 was another line London wanted to avoid 21...‡f8? but 15...Èc6 seems OK as well. The decisive mistake; the correct 15...Èc6 move is 21...†e6!, when Steinitz 15...ƒe6 16 ƒxg7 Èf5 would and Potter planned 22 Èc7?! but have been of no avail, said Steinitz, underestimated Black’s counterplay. because of 17 ƒf6 Èxd4 18 ƒxd8 They originally printed the …axd8 19 …xd4 dxc4 20 …xd8 …xd8 following line which cries out for 21 ƒe2 when the endgame is dubious a refutation: 22...†xa2 23 Èxa8 for Black because of their many vul- …e8 (If 23...…c8 24 ‡d2 but I think nerable pawns. 23...…xa8 and 23...†b1+ are both 16 †f4 Èxe5 17 †xe5 †g5+ 18 f4 good for Black.) 24 ƒd3 ƒxd3 25 †g6 19 c5 †xd3 Èxc5 26 †a3 Èb3+ 27 ‡c2 Not 19 cxd5? …ac8 20 ƒb5 a6 and …c8+ 28 ‡d3 Èc5+ 29 ‡e3 †e6+ Black wins. 30 ‡f2 Èe4+ 31 ‡g1 “and White 19...Èd7 20 †d4! are out of danger”. Not 20 †xd5?! …ac8 21 †xb7? This all looks like typical Steinitz Èxc5 and ...Èe4 “with a fine game” wishful thinking. Even near the end, according to Steinitz and Potter. as pointed out by the ‘Illustrated 20...…fd8 London News’, 28...Èc1+! saves 20...Èf6 would defend the d-pawn Black, e.g. 29 ‡e3 (29 …xc1? †d5+ for the time being, but there does not 30 ‡e3 …e8+ 31 ‡f2 †d2+ 32 ‡g3 seem to be a good reply to 21 g4! …e3+ 33 †xe3 †xe3+ and wins.) because if 21...†xg4 (21...ƒxg4 and 29...†e6+ 30 ‡f3 †c6+ 31 ‡f2 21...ƒe4 are also met by 22 …g1.) 22 (31 ‡e3 …e8+) 31...†c2+ 32 ‡f3 …g1 †h4 23 Èxd5 ‡h8 (23...Èe8? (32 ‡g3 Èe2+) 32...†c6+ 33 ‡f2 24 ƒb5) 24 Èxf6 “and Black must drawing by repetition. submit to an awkwardly doubled Perhaps London would have noticed pawn”. the dangers in time had 21...†e6! 21 Èxd5 (D) actually been played. Then if 22 ƒc4! Game 2: London-Vienna 17

“Black could safely sacrifice the „” the game would have proceeded thus: by 22...Èxc5!, which liquidates to 26...Èf6 27 †xd8+ …xd8 28 …xd8+ an endgame where White’s pawns are ‡h7 29 c6 ƒxc6 30 …d6 ƒe4 31 g4 slightly better but Black has ƒ versus followed by h4, winning easily.” This È: 23 †xc5 …ac8 24 Èc3 …xd1+ variation is not altogether convincing; 25 …xd1 …xc5 26 ƒxe6 ƒxe6 27 29 g4 is stronger, intending 30 f5 …d8+ ‡h7. It is hard to see any result †g5 31 ƒxf7. other than a draw here, but objectively Computers prefer 26...†xd6 27 this is what White should play. …xd6 Èf6 28 …xd8+ …xd8 29 cxb6 22 Èe3! axb6 but the tricky endgame that This is the for the È, actually arose was maybe Vienna’s both for attack and defence. best practical chance. 22...‡g8 27 †e7 cxb4 28 …xd7 …e8 29 †d6 If 22...Èf6, White would have †xd6 sacrificed the † for two …s, “If Black had played here 29...…e6 “followed by …d6 with a splendid White’s only reply would have been game”. … checks followed by †f8, as it 23 ƒc4 …ac8 24 …he1 ƒe4 would have been fatal for them to If 24...ƒe6 25 g4 Èxc5 have made the more natural-looking (25...ƒxc4 26 Èxc4 Èxc5 27 move of 30 †d4?? …xc4+ 31 Èxc4 †xd8+ …xd8 28 …xd8+ ‡h7 29 ƒb1 32 Èe3 …xe3”. …ee8 Èd3+ 30 ‡d2) 26 †xd8+ 30 …xd6 (D) …xd8 27 …xd8+ ‡h7 28 f5 †f6 29 XIIIIIIIIY fxe6 †xd8 30 exf7 b5 31 …f1 Èd7 9-+r+r+k+0 32 …d1 bxc4 (If 32...†g5 33 …xd7 †xe3+ then 34 ‡d1 †~+ 35 ƒe2 B9zp-+-+pzp-0 may ultimately win.) 33 …xd7 †f6 34 9-+-tR-+-zp0 Èf5 c3 35 b3. Steinitz summed up: 9+-+-+-+-0 “The foregoing variations afford most 9-zpL+lzP-+0 striking illustrations of a principle... 9+-+-sN-+-0 namely that … and one minor piece 9P+-+-+PzP0 and a well-supported on the 7th rank win in the large majority 9+-mK-tR-+-0 of cases against the †.” xiiiiiiiiy 25 b4 b6 26 †d6 bxc5 “This move involves the loss 30...ƒxg2!? 31 …d4 of a piece for three pawns, leaving London thought 31 ‡d2!? …xe3 Black two pawns ahead. Vienna must 32 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 33 …xe3 was too otherwise either have submitted to the drawish. They calculated that by exchange of †s, with a bad position, giving up their kingside pawns they or else, if attempting to win the †, could win with their a-pawn. 18 64 Great Chess Games

31...ƒd5 32 …xd5 …xc4+ 33 Èxc4 chance of drawing the game; for if …xe1+ 34 ‡c2 …e4 35 …d8+ ‡h7 London had not given the check in 36 ‡b3 …xf4 37 …a8 g5 38 …xa7 h5 the last move, Vienna, queening first, 39 ‡xb4 g4 40 a4 …f2 41 a5 h4 42 would have been able to draw the …d7! …xh2 game by ”. An important alternative was XIIIIIIIIY 42...g3 43 hxg3 hxg3 44 …d1 f5!, 9N+-+-+-+0 when London planned 45 a6 …a2 46 Èa3 …b2+ 47 ‡a5 …b8 (best) 48 B9zP-+-+-+-0 Èb5 f4 49 a7 …a8 50 …d7+ ‡g6 51 9-tR-+-+k+0 Èd4 “and wins, as the È and … stop 9+-+-+-+-0 the two pawns, while White brings 9-mK-+-+p+0 the ‡ to the support of his pawn and 9+-+-+-+-0 attacks the … at b7”. 9-+-+-+-zp0 43 …xf7+ A Viennese newspaper reported 9+-+-+-+-0 that White could not win after 42 xiiiiiiiiy …d7, overlooking that White would be able to leave the … en prise. The point of White’s last move, and 43...‡g6 44 a6 …e2 the reason for Vienna’s resignation, If 44...‡xf7, White plays 45 a7 can be seen in the variation 49...‡g5 and Black cannot then stop the pawn 50 Èc7 h1† 51 a8† †xa8 (“If from promoting, e.g. 45...…a2 46 Black, instead, here begin to check Èa3 …b2+ 47 ‡c3 and wins. with the †, White will be able to If at once 44...…a2 London reach the square b7, and afterwards analysed 45 a7 (threatening Èa3 move to a7, where … or È can as above) 45...…xa7 (best) 46 …xa7 interpose; for which purpose the … h3 47 Èe3 g3 (If 47...‡g5 instead, has been removed on White’s 49th White wins by 48 …g7+ and Èxg4!) move.”) 52 Èxa8 g3 53 Èc7 g2 54 48 …a1 ‡g5 49 …f1 h2 50 ‡c3 ‡h4 Èe6+ and wins, for if Black moves 51 ‡d3 ‡h3 52 ‡e2 g2 53 …f3+ the ‡ to g4 or h4 or f5 White wins by “and wins as È takes g-pawn with Èd4, threatening check with the … or a check”. with the È accordingly. Against all 45 a7 …e8 46 …b7 …a8 47 Èb6 h3 other moves, Èf4 wins. “Several variations arise here from Steinitz and Potter evidently put in 47...…xa7 but London wins in all of hundreds of hours of work on these them, being able to force the same line two games, and also met quality of play as last above mentioned, by , which accounts for a bringing the È to c4 and then to e3.” standard of play that was a good deal 48 Èxa8 h2 49 …b6+! (D) 1-0 higher than most CC games of the 19th “Vienna were playing for their last century. Game 3 White: Govert Nielsen & Wilhelm Nielsen (Denmark) Black: Antonius van der Linde (Netherlands) Private correspondence game, 1875 Göring (C44)

The Players: Govert Nielsen and ƒb4+ 7 Èc3 Èf6. Black has eaten his cousin Wilhelm were members two pawns; the question is whether he of the then 10-year-old Copenhagen can digest them. This line is risky to Chess Society. The chess historian defend OTB but in CC Black may be Antonius van der Linde (1833-97), able to hold the attack. from Arnhem, lived much of his life XIIIIIIIIY in Germany. His library formed the 9r+lwqk+-tr0 basis of the great chess collection at the Royal Dutch Library in The W9zppzpp+pzpp0 Hague. As a player, however, he was 9-+n+-sn-+0 probably below master strength. 9+-+-+-+-0 About this game: The 9-vlL+P+-+0 was very popular at the time. White 9+-sN-+N+-0 offers pawns, then a piece and finally 9PvL-+-zPPzP0 a … in the romantic style of that era. 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 ƒc4 9tR-+QmK-+R0 cxb2 5 ƒxb2 Èf6 xiiiiiiiiy The position reached after move 7 in the game could also arise via 8 †c2 5...Èc6 6 Èf3 ƒb4+ 7 Èc3 or This seems stronger than 8 0–0 5...ƒb4+ 6 Èc3 etc. although White as played by Dr K.Göring against can try 6 ‡f1 in that case. Many W.Paulsen in 1877. The † prepares players prefer to return a pawn by queenside and eyes h7. 5...d5 to limit White’s attacking ideas. 8...d6 6 Èc3 Èc6 8...†e7!? is a rare alternative. Again 6...d5 7 ƒxd5 ƒe7 is a way 9 0–0–0 0–0 of avoiding the main lines. Afterwards, 9...ƒxc3 was tested, 7 Èf3 ƒb4 (D) when the critical line goes 10 †xc3 We now have a Göring Gambit, ƒe6 (10...†e7? 11 e5 Èxe5 12 reachable via 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 d4 Èxe5 dxe5 13 …he1 Èd7 14 f4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 ƒc4 cxb2 6 ƒxb2 0-0 15 …xd7!‹ P.Vinogradov-S. 20 64 Great Chess Games

Antushev, Russia corr 1901) 11 …he1! 13...ƒe6 14 h3 ƒxd5 15 …xd5 „f6 ƒxc4 12 †xc4 0–0 13 e5 Èe8 when 16 …f5) 14 h3 „h6 15 g4 f6. there are many aggressive possibilities 11...h6!? but nothing clear for White. The Niels Bohse Hendriksen annotated ‘Handbuch’ gave 14 h4!? †c8 15 this game in 1978 for the magazine e6 fxe6 16 …xe6 ‡h8 17 Èg5 Èf6 ‘Nordisk Postsjakk Blad’ in the 18 †d3 (18 †f4 †d7 19 ƒxf6 traditional way, implying all paths lead Èd8!Œ) 18...†d7 (to meet …xf6 by to White’s victory. For example, he ...gxf6) 19 …de1‹ but the assessment commented here: “To prevent the severe is wrong because of 19...Èb4! 20 threat Èg5. The e5-pawn is taboo”. †b3 †c6+ 21 ‡b1 Èbd5Œ (from 21st century players are more Firnhaber, ‘Nordisches Gambit’). Here sceptical. We shall see later in the game 18 h5!¢ looks better but Black has at that Èg5 may still come, in which least a draw. case ...h6 becomes a weakening loss of 10 e5 Èg4 (D) tempo. If Black is to refute the attack, XIIIIIIIIY surely he must capture the e-pawn either 9r+lwq-trk+0 here or next move? a) 11...Ègxe5 appears to fail. W9zppzp-+pzpp0 After 12 Èg5 g6 (12...Èg6? 13 9-+nzp-+-+0 Èd5 ƒe6 14 f4!) 12...g6 White can 9+-+-zP-+-0 consider 13 Èce4 (or 13 Èd5!? ƒf5 9-vlL+-+n+0 14 Èe4!¢) 13...ƒf5 (13...ƒg4 14 9+-sN-+N+-0 f4! ƒxd1 15 …xd1 Èxc4 16 †xc4 9PvLQ+-zPPzP0 h6 17 Èf6+ ‡g7 18 Èg4ˆ) 14 f4 †e7 15 fxe5 Èxe5 when his 9+-mKR+-+R0 extra attacking piece should be more xiiiiiiiiy valuable than Black’s four pawns. b) 11...Ècxe5!? may be right. White 11 h4! must go 12 Èg5! (12 Èd5 ƒc5 13 White signals his intention to Èg5 g6 14 Èe4 ƒf5 15 f4 c6!Œ sacrifice a piece at h7 or g5. Many Klovans-Suetin, Riga 1962) when: books later gave 11 Èd5 ƒc5 12 b1) 12...Èg6 13 Èxh7 (13 exd6 cxd6 13 h4 as the refutation of Èxf7!?) 13...‡xh7 14 h5 shows one Black’s play, because 13...h6 14 Èg5! point of White’s 11th move. Firnhaber gives White a very strong attack, but gives 14...†g5+ 15 ‡b1 ƒf5 16 I don’t trust it. Not only must White hxg6+ ‡xg6 17 ƒd3 Èe5 but 18 contend with Botterill’s suggestion …h3! looks ‹. 13...Èce5!? 14 Èg5 g6 15 Èe4 ƒf5!, b2) 12...g6! 13 Èce4 ƒf5 and Firnhaber’s line 13...ƒxf2!?, but (13...c6!? 14 h5 is not entirely clear Black can also play 12...ƒxd6!?, e.g. either.) 14 †b3 (D) was given by 13 …he1 (£h3, †c3) 13...‡h8 (or Schlechter. Game 3: Nielsen-van der Linde 21 XIIIIIIIIY h5! gxh5 27 Èe4 dxe4 28 …xd7 exf3 9r+-wq-trk+0 29 gxf3 …e3 30 …g1+ ‡f8 31 …xh7 B9zppzp-+p+p0 …ae8 32 …gg7 …e1+ 33 ‡c2 …1e2+ 9-+-zp-+p+0 34 ‡b1 …8e5 35 ƒxe5 …xe5 36 …b7 9+-+-snlsN-0 ‡g8 37 …hg7+ ‡f8 38 …gc7 1–0. 9-vlL+N+nzP0 12 ‡b1!? 9+Q+-+-+-0 It is not obvious that this precaution (against a later ...†xg5) is necessary; 9PvL-+-zPP+0 however, 12 Èd5 might be met by 9+-mKR+-+R0 12...ƒc5 13 exd6 ƒxd6!. xiiiiiiiiy 12...…e8? (D) This line was once reckoned to Although Schlechter praised this give White a very strong attack, but move, Black may now be lost. It is the assessment is not certain: true that Black’s ‡ gained a flight b21) 14...ƒxe4 15 Èxe4 Èxc4 square but he also weakened f7 and 16 †xc4 ƒa5 (Levy) but Black is left the e5-pawn alive. in trouble after 17 h5 (or 17 f3 — It makes sense to the long Botterill) 17...g5 18 f3 b5 19 †xb5 diagonal b2-h8 with a È. Nobody 1–0 Hälsig-Huybrecht, corr 1980. seems to have considered 12... b22) 14...Èxc4 15 †xc4 when Ègxe5!?, but a sample variation is 15...a5 16 f3 transposes to b23 below. 13 Èg5 g6 14 Èd5 ƒa3 15 ƒxa3 Instead 15...c5?! protects the ƒ and hxg5 16 †c3 g4 17 h5 b5 and the stops †d4, but concedes control of complications may favour Black. a key square: 16 Èxd6 must give Old analysts did indeed look at 12... White good practical chances. Ècxe5! 13 Èg5! but they probably Finally if 15...ƒa5 16 f3 Èe3 overestimated White’s attack. White is probably winning with 17 a) It always looks fatal for Black †d4 (not 17 Èf6+? †xf6 18 ƒxf6 to open the h-file, but 13...hxg5!? still Èxc4) 17...f6 18 †xe3 fxg5 19 †d4 has to be refuted. After 14 hxg5 g6! †e7 (19...†d7 20 …de1!) 20 Èxg5 15 Èe4 ƒf5 Hendriksen gave 16 f4 …f6 21 g4 (not 21 †xf6?? †e3+ and Èe3 17 fxe5! Èxc2? 18 exd6 and mates). White mates in 5. I call this fantasy b23) American master Mark Morss rather than analysis. After 16...†e7 or said 14...a5! is ‰, but 15 f3 Èxc4 16 16...ƒa3 White may have difficulty †xc4 b5 (16...ƒxe4 17 Èxe4 is like proving his sacrifices sound. line b21) 17 †c6 ƒd7 does not look to b) 13...ƒf5 14 †xf5 g6 and White me like a winning line for Black. Mairal- must liquidate by 15 ƒxf7+ …xf7 16 Gimenez, Argentina corr 1998, went 18 „xf7 gxf5 17 „xd8 …xd8 into an †d5 c6 19 †d4 Èe5 20 a3 f6 21 unclear endgame with axb4 d5 22 Èxf6+ †xf6 23 †xe5 against two pawns. †xe5 24 ƒxe5 …fe8 25 ƒb2 axb4 26 c) 13...g6 looks very precarious, 22 64 Great Chess Games but may be playable. Play could go 18 †xg7+ ‡e7 19 …xd5 †c8 14 Èxf7 …xf7 15 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 16 If 19...…g8 20 ƒf6+ Èxf6 21 †b3+ (best?) 16...ƒe6 (16...‡e8 17 gxf6+ ‡e6 22 †h7! (£†f5#) is …he1) 17 †xb4 Èxf2 18 …hf1 ƒf5+ quickest, e.g. 22...‡d7 23 †xf7+ 19 ‡a1 Èxd1 20 Èxd1 when White ‡c8 24 …h7ˆ. is three pawns down but has attacking 20 …e1+!? chances which are hard to evaluate. The purpose of the romantic gift is to d) 13...Èf6?! 14 Èd5 g6 15 divert the black ƒ from the defence of ƒxe5 Èxd5 (15...dxe5? 16 Èxf7!, d6, because 20 ƒf6+?! Èxf6 21 †xf6+ e.g. 16...…xf7 17 †xg6+ ‡h8 18 doesn’t work on account of 21...‡d7. Èxb4‹) 16 ƒxd5! (White has little However, we shall see later that Black advantage, if any, after 16 Èxf7.) can just answer the ƒ check by moving 16...ƒf5 17 ƒe4 and White is on top. the ‡. It was unnecessary for White to Now we return to the game after force matters. Straightforward moves Black’s 12th move. were probably at least as effective: 20 XIIIIIIIIY g6! …f8 21 gxf7 looks strong and 20 9r+lwqr+k+0 f3!? might also have been better. 9zppzp-+pzp-0 20...ƒxe1 W It is no good declining the …: 9-+nzp-+-zp0 20...‡d8 21 …xe8+ ‡xe8 22 †g8+ 9+-+-zP-+-0 ‡d7 (22...‡e7 23 ƒf6+ Èxf6 24 9-vlL+-+nzP0 gxf6+ ‡xf6 25 †g5+ ‡e6 26 …f5+ 9+-sN-+N+-0 d5 27 …xd5ˆ) 23 †xf7+ ‡d8 (or 9PvLQ+-zPP+0 23...Èe7 24 ƒb5+ ‡c7 25 †xe7+ ‡b8 26 ƒd7ˆ — Collijn) 24 …b5 9+K+R+-+R0 Èce5 25 ƒxe5 Èxe5 26 †f6+ ‡c7 xiiiiiiiiy 27 …xb4 and White is ahead on material, holding all the trumps. 13 Èd5 ƒe6 14 Èg5! hxg5 15 hxg5 21 ƒf6+ ‡d7 ƒxd5 16 †h7+ ‡f8 17 exd6 cxd6 21...Èxf6? allows forced mate Others lose quickly said Hendriksen: starting 22 †xf6+ ‡f8 (22...‡d7 23 a) 17...†xd6 18 †xg7+ ‡e7 19 †xd6#) 23 †h6+ ‡g8 24 g6. …xd5 †g6+ 20 †xg6 fxg6 21 …h7+ 22 †xf7+ …e7 ‡f8 22 …f7+! ‡g8 23 …dd7 Èce5 Black perhaps should have given 24 …g7+ (24 …h7+ Èxc4 25 …h8#) up his † here by 22...Èe7 23 ƒb5+ 24...‡f8 25 …g8#. †c6 24 ƒxc6+ bxc6 but after 25 b) 17...ƒxd6 18 †xg7+ ‡e7 19 …d3 White’s pawns, together with the ƒxd5 ‡d7 20 †xf7+ ‡c8 21 ƒe6+ possibility of threatening the black ‡, …xe6 22 †xe6+ †d7 23 …h8+ Èd8 give him winning chances. 24 †xd7+ ‡xd7 25 g6 and the pawn Heemsoth said that 22...Èe7 can’t be stopped without material losses. should be met by 23 ƒxe7 but I am Game 3: Nielsen-van der Linde 23 unsure that White has enough to force ‡e8 26 …xe5 and now 26...†d8 a win after 23...…xe7 24 ƒb5+ †c6. allows mate in 8 starting 27 ƒb5+, 23 ƒxe7 Ège5 (D) while 26...†d7 27 ƒb5 wins the It is probably now too late for the black †. † sacrifice. 23...Èxe7 24 ƒb5+ 25 ƒxd6 Èxd6? †c6 25 ƒxc6+ bxc6 26 …d4 is hard This is a blunder. Black could have to meet; if 26...Èxf2 27 g6. created a more chaotic situation by my XIIIIIIIIY new discovery 25...Èd2+!, with two 9r+q+-+-+0 possibilities after 26 ‡c1: a) 26...†g8 27 †f5+ ‡e8 is not W9zpp+kvLQ+-0 quite sufficient: 9-+nzp-+-+0 a1) 28 …e5+!? leads to a draw after 9+-+Rsn-zP-0 28...Èxe5 29 †xe5+ ‡d7 30 †e7+ 9-+L+-+-+0 ‡c6 31 †c7+ ‡d5 32 †c5+ ‡e6 33 9+-+-+-+-0 †e5+ etc. and 28 g6 …d8 also looks 9P+-+-zPP+0 like it will end in perpetual. a2) However, White has a spectacular 9+K+-vl-+-0 winning try in 28 ƒb8!!, hoping for xiiiiiiiiy 28...…xb8?? 29 †d7+ ‡f8 30 …f5+ mating, while 28...†xd5 29 †xd5 24 †f6?! …xb8 30 g6! (30 †e6+!?) also looks This went uncriticised in the past. like a win, e.g. 30...‡e7 (30...Èe7 31 a) Presumably the Nielsens rejected g7!) 31 †f7+ ‡d6 32 g7. 24 †f5+!? because it only draws: Finally, if 28...Èe7 29 †d7+ ‡f8 24...‡xe7 25 †f6+ ‡e8 (25...‡d7? 30 ƒd6 should work in the end, e.g. 26 …xe5 dxe5 27 ƒe6+ ‡c7 28 30...†g6 (30...†g7? 31 …f5+!) 31 †f7+.) 26 …xd6 Èxc4 27 †h8+ ƒxe7+ ‡g8 32 †xb7 †b1+!? 33 (After 27 …e6+ †xe6 28 †xe6+ †xb1 Èxb1 34 ‡xb1 ƒxf2; White Èe7 White can only take one of the still has to win the endgame but minor pieces.) 27...‡e7 28 †f6+ probably can do so. ‡e8 29 †h8+ ‡e7 30 †f6+ ‡e8=. b) On the other hand, 26...Èb4+! b) 24 …xd6+! ‡c7 25 ƒd8+ ‡b8 really does seem to draw, e.g. 27 26 †f4 offers the best objective ƒc5+ Èxd5 28 †d6+ ‡e8 29 †f8+ chances of victory: 26...ƒb4 ‡d7 30 †d6+ with no significant (26...†g4 27 †xg4 Èxg4 28 g6 advantage for White. ƒc3 29 ƒe6 looks lost for Black) 26 †xd6+ ‡e8 27 †g6+! ‡f8 28 27 …xc6 †xc6 28 †xe5+ with ƒ …f5+ †xf5+ 29 †xf5+ 1–0 and two dangerous pawns against an I can certainly agree with Hen- undeveloped …. driksen’s final comment on this classic 24...Èxc4 game: “What an Odyssey through the 24...Èxe7? is hopeless: 25 †xd6+ beautiful country of combinations!” Game 4 White: (USA) Black: (Russia) Telegraph thematic match, 1890-91 Two Knights Defence (C59)

The Players: Wilhelm Steinitz (1836- from his 1889 book ‘The Modern 1900), whom we first met in Game Chess Instructor’. 3, was now the first official World As an experienced correspondence Chess Champion. Born in Prague, player in Russian events, as well as Steinitz had moved to London in a painstaking analyst of complicated 1862 and to New York in 1882. He positions, Chigorin was in his element defeated Chigorin in matches played in this contest against his great rival in 1889 and 1892, before surrendering and deservedly won it 2-0. The match the world title to in ran from October 13, 1890 to April 1894. Steinitz is generally considered 28, 1891 and created tremendous the forerunner of 20th century interest worldwide. It was unusual for positional chess. However, he had a a CC event in that it was played by stubborn dogmatic streak which was professionals for money: the winner thoroughly exposed in this match. received US$750. Mikhail Chigorin (1850-1908) was Both games were annotated by the greatest player of combinational Steinitz as a serial while they were attacks in the last quarter of the 19th in progress; his optimistic comments century as well as an original thinker seem ironic in the light of his eventual where openings were concerned. crushing defeat. Throughout the About this game: ‘Thematic’ events, match, you get a misleading view of in which the players agree to play events if you only read what Steinitz a particular opening, have long thought. For the Russian viewpoint, been a popular part of CC activity. I studied the extensive analysis of Here Chigorin challenged Steinitz the game in ‘Shakhmatny Bulletin’ to uphold his published opinions 2/1958 (edited by Romanov). about two different controversial 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒc4 Èf6 4 variations; in each case the Russian Èg5 d5 5 exd5 Èa5 6 ƒb5+ c6 7 gambited a pawn. Steinitz played dxc6 bxc6 8 ƒe2 h6 9 Èh3!? (D) Black in an and White This was the agreed starting point. in the present game, where the world Of course the white „ normally champion followed a recommendation retreats to f3 but then it is hit with Game 4: Steinitz-Chigorin 25 tempo again in the variation 9 Èf3 two ƒs and the extra pawn on the e4 10 Èe5, a main line about which queenside secure him the advantage”. debate still continues. Chigorin saw it differently. He Steinitz had written: “Much better didn’t want to capture the È because than 9 Èf3 which seems to have “my ƒ is needed for the attack, while been assumed, hitherto, as the only the È will soon be forced to go back move for White.” His opinion was, to g1. That seemed to be all the more however, largely disregarded until favourable for me as I could, for a revived 9 Èh3 in a long time, prevent the È coming to famous game against GM Bisguier in f3, and it is only after this move that 1963, which can be found in Fischer’s White can develop properly”. book ‘My Sixty Memorable Games’. 10 d3 Nowadays, the move is considered 10 0–0 was preferred by Steinitz playable, if eccentric. in the 6th game of their 1892 match, XIIIIIIIIY continuing 10...0–0 11 c3? (For 11 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 Èc3 see below, but 11 d3, as in Fischer-Bisguier, is better.) 11...Èb7 B9zp-+-+pzp-0 12 †a4 ƒxh3 13 gxh3 †d6 14 d3 9-+p+-sn-zp0 Èd5! and Black won. Note that 9sn-+-zp-+-0 Chigorin only captured the È after 9-+-+-+-+0 White had castled. 9+-+-+-+N0 10...0–0 11 Èc3 9PzPPzPLzPPzP0 If 11 c3 (threatening the fork b2- b4) Chigorin considered it to be of 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 paramount importance to prevent xiiiiiiiiy White carrying out the manoeuvre Èh3-g1-f3 followed by 0-0, and so 9...ƒc5 he intended 11...Èb7! to rule out Black targets f2 and gets ready White’s fork tricks. Steinitz would to castle without delay. Chigorin’s then be unable to play either 12 b4 choice has given good results in (because of 12...ƒxb4 13 cxb4 †d4) practice. or 12 Èg1 (because of 12...†b6 13 9...ƒxh3 might seem the obvious d4 exd4 14 b4 ƒd6 15 †xd4 †xd4 reply, but 10 gxh3 †d5 11 ƒf3 e4 16 cxd4 ƒxb4+ when Black regains 12 Èc3 †e5 13 ƒg2 was given in his pawn with a good position). Steinitz’ book, e.g. 13...ƒd6 14 †e2 11...Èd5! 0–0 15 d3 exd3 16 †xe5 ƒxe5 17 Fischer-Radoi›i™, played a few cxd3 with the comment “White is a rounds later than the Bisguier game Pawn ahead, and after bringing out in the New York State Open 1973, his ƒ to e3 he may castle on the varied with 11...…e8?! 12 0-0 ƒxh3 queenside or even play ‡e2 and his 13 gxh3 †d7 and now White played 26 64 Great Chess Games

14 ƒg4! Èxg4 15 hxg4, undoubling Steinitz observed: “Take a look at the pawns with advantage. the board now... I have six pawns on 12 Èa4?! their initial squares which, according To drive the c5-ƒ away from its to my theory, is a great advantage, attack on f2, as a preparation for Èg1, especially in the endgame... but better is 12 0–0!, as played in the Furthermore, for a long time not 20th century revival of the variation. one of my pieces can be attacked by Black has several possibilities then. opposing pawns.” Steinitz did foresee 12...ƒd6 that the main danger was Chigorin Not 12...ƒb6 13 Èxb6 axb6 14 advancing his pawn to f3. Èg1 and, with the dark-squared ƒ 13...f5 14 c3 eliminated, Steinitz could bring his Central expansion by 14 c4 Èf6 plan to fruition. 15 d4? does not work because of 13 Èg1 (D) 15...exd4 and if 16 †xd4?? ƒb4+ If the retreat is delayed any longer, winning the †. However, Bogoljubow Black would be ready to capture the suggested 14 Èf3 e4 15 Èd4 e3 16 È. For example: Èf3 exf2+ 17 ‡xf2 £…f1. a) 13 c3 ƒxh3 14 gxh3 †h4 15 14...ƒd7 15 d4 ƒf1 f5 16 ƒg2 e4 17 0–0 Èf4å or The value of Black’s last move 16 b4 e4 17 ƒg2 e3!. is seen in the variation 15 Èf3 e4 b) An attempt to gain space on the 16 Èd4 c5 17 dxe4! cxd4! 18 exd5 queenside by 13 c4 would also fail †e8!. tactically: 13...ƒxh3 14 gxh3 (14 Now Steinitz envisaged the cont- cxd5 ƒd7) 14...Èf4 15 c5 ƒc7 16 inuation 15...exd4 16 †xd4 †e7 ƒxf4 exf4 17 b4 Èb7 18 0–0 and 17 ‡f1 but Chigorin replied with a now 18...†g5+ 19 ‡h1? f3! 20 ƒxf3 completely different idea. †f4 is a clearer win that Romanov’s 15...e4 16 c4 Èe7! variation. Better is 18 ƒf3, though Steinitz had expected 16...Èf6. Black has normal . The underestimation of Chigorin’s XIIIIIIIIY ...Èe7 move has a lot to do with 9r+lwq-trk+0 Steinitz’s difficulties later; his position was already inferior. Afterwards, he B9zp-+-+pzp-0 said 17 b3 ƒe6 18 c5 would have 9-+pvl-+-zp0 been better in this position than what 9sn-+nzp-+-0 he actually played. 9N+-+-+-+0 If 17 Èc5 ƒxc5 18 dxc5 Èb7 19 9+-+P+-+-0 †d4 f4 20 b4 a5 21 a3 Èf5 — and 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 after the † moves, Black plays ...axb4 or ...Èh4 — White has a bad game. 9tR-vLQmK-sNR0 17 Èc3 ƒe6 18 b3 xiiiiiiiiy Bogoljubow suggested 18 Èh3 Game 4: Steinitz-Chigorin 27 intending to meet 18...Èxc4? by 19 22 gxf3 †b3 …b8 20 ƒxc4 …xb3 21 ƒxe6+ Here the obvious move for White ‡h8 22 ƒxb3. might appear to be 22 Èxe4, which 18...ƒb4 19 ƒb2 f4! 20 †c2 discovers an attack by the white ƒ on Steinitz returns the pawn, an Black’s †. However, after 22...fxe2+ admission that his opening has failed. 23 †xe2 Black can hold the extra If 20 a3, Chigorin intended 20...ƒxc3 piece by 23...†b6 24 Èf6+ ‡f7 21 ƒxc3 Èf5 22 ƒg4 …b8! (and not (or 24 c5 †b5 25 †xb5 cxb5 26 a3 22...‡h8 as indicated by Steinitz). Èxb3 27 axb4 Èxa1 28 ƒxa1 a5!). On 20 ‡f1 Steinitz analysed a line 22...exf3 23 ƒxf3 beginning 20... f3 but Chigorin hinted “Besides the intricacies that will that he might have preferred 20...e3, arise with the move actually made, the meeting either 21 fxe3 or 21 Èf3 by consequences of 23 Èxf3 had to be 21...Èf5. well considered. 23...ƒh3+ 24 ‡e1 20...†xd4 21 ‡f1 …xf3, which looks very dangerous a) If 21 …d1 †f6, followed by for my game, was not to be feared in ...†g6. reality,” claimed Steinitz. b) Or 21 a3 f3! 22 gxf3 e3! 23 Chigorin disagreed; he then fxe3 (23 axb4 exf2+ 24 ‡f1 fxg1†+ intended to meet 25 ƒxf3 by 25...…e8 25 …xg1 ƒh3+ 26 …g2 †g4‰) (£...Èd5+) 26 ƒe2 Èg6 27 …d1 23...†h4+! as both players saw. Then (27 †d2 …xe2+ 28 ‡xe2 †g4+!) if 24 ‡f1, Steinitz feared 24...ƒf5 or 27...†f6 leading to great material 24...ƒh3+ but neither seems deadly. advantage for Black. Instead 24...Èf5(!) 25 †e4 †xe4 This bears out my point that, apart 26 Èxe4 ƒe7 when Black is two from handicapping himself with pawns down but will get one back dubious opening variations that suited immediately with more than enough Chigorin’s style, Steinitz was not his for the other. opponent’s equal as an analyst in 21...f3 (D) sharp positions. XIIIIIIIIY 23...ƒf5 24 Èe4 9r+-+-trk+0 Black now decides the game with a † sacrifice inaugurating a stream of W9zp-+-sn-zp-0 combinations. 9-+p+l+-zp0 If instead 24 …d1 †h4 25 Èe4 9sn-+-+-+-0 (25 †e2 Èg6) 25...…ad8 26 …xd8 9-vlPwqp+-+0 …xd8 (threatening ...…d2 followed 9+PsN-+p+-0 by ...ƒxe4) 27 †e2 (27 ƒc1 …d4) 9PvLQ+LzPPzP0 27...Èg6 28 h3 †f4!, when the threat of ...Èh4 forces White to give up the 9tR-+-+KsNR0 exchange by 29 h4 Èxh4 30 …xh4 xiiiiiiiiy †xh4 — Chigorin. 28 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 24...ƒxe4! 25 †e2! (D) 9r+-+-tr-+0 Not 25 ƒxe4 …xf2+ 26 †xf2 W9zp-+-sn-zpk0 †xe4 when: 9-+p+Q+-zp0 a) Vasiukov and Nikitin (in their book on Chigorin) give 27 Èf3 …f8 9sn-+-+-+-0 28 ‡g2 Èg6 (Steinitz gave 28...Èf5 9-vlPvL-+-+0 instead.) 29 …he1 (29 …hf1 …xf3) 9+P+-+-+-0 29...ƒxe1 30 …xe1 Èh4+ 31 †xh4 9P+-+-zP-zP0 †xf3+ 32 ‡g1 …f4 winning the † 9tR-+-+KsNl0 or mating. xiiiiiiiiy b) Computers prefer 27 ƒxg7!? †xh1 (27...‡xg7 28 †g2+) 28 moves in the diagram position above: ƒxh6 though Black must still be a) 28 a3 Èf5 29 axb4 Èxd4 30 winning with 28...†e4. †h3 Èaxb3 31 †d3+ ‡h8 32 …b1 XIIIIIIIIY ƒe4!. 9r+-+-trk+0 b) 28 Èe2 Èf5 29 ƒb2 (29 9zp-+-sn-zp-0 ƒc3 c5) 29...…ae8 30 †d7 …e7 31 B †d3! ƒe4 32 †h3! (32 †d1 Èe3+) 9-+p+-+-zp0 32...ƒc5 with a strong attack, e.g. 33 9sn-+-+-+-0 ƒc3 (33 ‡g1 ƒxf2+ 34 ‡xf2 Èd4+ 9-vlPwql+-+0 35 ‡e1 ƒf3‰) 33...Èe3+ 34 ‡g1 9+P+-+L+-0 Èc2‰. 9PvL-+QzP-zP0 c) 28 f3 Èf5 29 ƒf2 …ae8 30 †d7 Èe3+ 31 ƒxe3 …xe3 32 †d4 9tR-+-+KsNR0 (32 †xa7 …d3 and White cannot xiiiiiiiiy meet the threat of ...…d2 followed by ...ƒg2+) 32...…fe8 33 …d1 …3e5 34 25...ƒxf3!! f4 …f5‰. Black could also have sacrificed d) 28 †g4 Èf5 29 Èe2 …ae8 his † in a different way, but this £...…e4. is best, keeping more pieces on the e) 28 †d7 Èf5 29 ƒxa7 …ae8 30 board with a stronger attack. After Èe2 …e7. 25...ƒc3 26 …d1 ƒxf3 27 †e6+ Steinitz tried something else. …f7 28 …xd4 ƒxd4 29 Èxf3 ƒxb2 28 †h3 Èf5 29 ƒe5 Black’s advantage is relatively small. Again White had other possibilities 26 †e6+ ‡h7 27 ƒxd4 ƒxh1 (D) but most are hopeless. Numerous pretty variations, a) 29 …d1 …ad8 pins the ƒ, stemming from Russian sources, threatening ...c5. illustrate how Chigorin would have b) 29 Èe2 c5 (or 29...ƒe4) 30 a3 overcome the world champion’s cxd4 31 axb4 Èc6. resistance if he had tried various c) 29 ƒb2 …ae8 30 Èe2 ƒf3 31 Game 4: Steinitz-Chigorin 29

Èf4 (31 †xf3 Èe3+) 31...Èd4. b) 31 ƒd2 ƒxd2 32 †d3+ Èf5 d) 29 ƒc3 might have been 33 †xd2 Èe3+. somewhat better, e.g. 29...c5 30 ƒxb4 c) 31 ƒxh6 gxh6 32 †d7+ …e7 33 cxb4 31 a3 (but 31 …e1!? is some †xd4 …g8 34 f3 (34 †d3+ ƒe4 35 improvement) 31...…ae8 brings the †h3 …eg7 36 Èf3 ƒd3#) 34...ƒg2+ last attacker into play again, e.g. 32 35 ‡f2 Èb7 36 †d3+ ‡h8 37 Èe2 Èe2 (32 …e1 …xe1+ 33 ‡xe1 bxa3 ƒc5+ 38 ‡e1 …e3‰. 34 †c3 Èc6 35 b4 a2 36 b5 Èb4) 31...ƒe4 32 †xd4 32...ƒf3 33 Èc1 (33 Èf4 Èd4) If 32 †g3 …f6 33 f3 ƒd3+ 34 33...Èe3+ 34 ‡g1 Èc2‰ (Soviet ‡f2 Èc2 and, if the … moves, then analysis from the 1950s). 35...ƒc5+ 36 ‡g2 …g6. 29...…ae8 30 ƒf4 32...…xf4 33 f3 Not 30 f4 with the pretty finish If 33 †xa7 …g4 34 f3 ƒd3+ 35 30...…xe5 31 fxe5 Èg3#. ‡f2 …g5 £...ƒc5+ (Chigorin). 30...Èd4! (D) 33...…ef8 34 †xa7 c5 35 †c7 Èc6 Chigorin prefers the most elegant 36 a3 …xf3+! 37 Èxf3 …xf3+ 38 path to victory, but 30...…e4 31 Èe2 ‡g1 ƒd2! 0–1 …xe2! is also efficient, e.g. 32 ‡xe2 With the threat 39...ƒe3+ 40 ‡g2 Èd4+ 33 ‡d3 (33 ‡e3 Èc2+) …f7+. If 39 h4 Èd4 or if the † hides 33...…xf4 establishing a decisive by 39 †b6 then 39...ƒe3+ 40 ‡g2 material advantage. …f5+ and mate in 5. XIIIIIIIIY Steinitz wrote “White might spin 9-+-+rtr-+0 out the game by 39 †g3, but as the result was only a question of W9zp-+-+-zpk0 time in a correspondence game, and 9-+p+-+-zp0 considering that the position was too 9sn-+-+-+-0 simple to admit of chances, I deemed 9-vlPsn-vL-+0 it best to resign”. 9+P+-+-+Q0 After 39 †g3 Russian sources give 9P+-+-zP-zP0 39...ƒe3+ 40 ‡g2 …f5+ 41 ‡h3 …h5+ 42 ‡g4 (or 42 †h4 ƒf5+ 43 9tR-+-+KsNl0 ‡g3 …xh4 44 ‡xh4 ƒf2+ 45 ‡h5 xiiiiiiiiy g6#) 42...Èe5+! 43 ‡xh5 g5! forcing a neat mate. 31 †d3+ On the basis of this win, Chigorin White is also lost after: may be considered the unofficial CC a) 31 †g3 …e4. world champion of the 19th century. Game 5 White: Géza Maróczy (Hungary) Black: Arpad Csipkés (Hungary) 1st Hungarian CC Championship, 1893-96 (A85)

The Players: Géza Maróczy (1870- cluding until 1896. Maróczy had to 1951) is not known as a CC player, win this game to catch his friend and but he and his great but short-lived rival. Afterwards, unfinished games rival Rudolf Charousek (1873-1900) (of which there were many) were shared first prize, each scoring 16/18. adjudicated and the final result was The event was an important stage in declared in 1897. the development of the future GM, 1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 Èc3 Èf6 4 e3 who won the Hastings 1895 minor ƒb4!? tournament midway through this CC This must have all been very event. His breakthrough to the ranks experimental in the 1890s. 4...b6 and of the world’s top players followed 4...ƒe7 are possible too. in 1899 while Charousek was dying 5 ƒd3 0–0 6 Èf3 b6 7 0–0 ƒxc3 8 of tuberculosis. Csipkés finished a bxc3 ƒb7 (D) respectable fifth with 13/18. This line of the Dutch has affinities About this game: Very few round- with the Nimzo-Indian. Many years robin CC tournaments were held in later, Maróczy reached this position the 19th century (except in Russia) with Black by a different move order so this was a pioneering event, slow (3 e3 Èf6 4 ƒd3 b6 5 Èc3 ƒb7 6 and chaotic though it was. Chess his- Èf3 ƒb4 7 0–0 ƒxc3 8 bxc3 0–0). torian V.Charushin states that as Cha- XIIIIIIIIY rousek’s father was a telegraph opera- 9rsn-wq-trk+0 tor, he had the advantage of being able to send moves quickly without even W9zplzpp+-zpp0 leaving home! 9-zp-+psn-+0 In the early middlegame, Maróczy 9+-+-+p+-0 established an advantage. After Csip- 9-+PzP-+-+0 kés missed a couple of opportunities 9+-zPLzPN+-0 to create some complications, he was 9P+-+-zPPzP0 subjected to a demonstration of stra- tegic superiority. This was one of the 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 longest games of the event, not con- xiiiiiiiiy Game 5: Maróczy-Csipkés 31

9 Èe1 18...…f7? This is rather a tame move. Black unpins his È and thinks Presumably the idea is to play f3 later about ...g5 but he misses the chance to eject an invading È from e4, but of a tactical shot, 18...ƒxf3!, taking the prospects for White’s own È are advantage of the unfortunate position not great. 9 ƒa3 is sometimes played of the … on e2. After 19 …xf3 bxc5 20 here instead, but 9 a4! is probably †b7 White still has queenside chances best. Rubinstein-Maróczy, Teplitz- but Black now has kingside counterplay. Schönau 1922, continued 9...Èc6 10 Other recaptures are more weakening: 19 Èd2 d6 11 Èb3 Èe7 12 a5 c5 13 f4 gxf3 bxc5 20 †b7 cxd4 21 exd4 Èh5 Èe4 14 †c2 †c7 15 Èd2 Èxd2 16 or 19 Èxf3 bxc5 20 †b7?! Èg4, and ƒxd2 ‡h8 17 …fe1‹ (1–0, 33). certainly not 19 ƒxe7?? ƒxe2‰. 9...Èc6 19 ƒa3 Èh5 20 ƒc1 g5 21 g3! Black could also play 9...d6 Maróczy avoids unnecessary keeping the option of ...Èbd7 and tactical complications; e.g. 21 e4 f4 ...c7-c5, but the fact that Maróczy 22 …ff2 Èg3! 23 …b2 (23 hxg3?? copied the ...Èc6-e7 manoeuvre fxg3) 23...…f6! 24 hxg3 fxg3 25 …fc2 against Rubinstein suggests he †h2+ 26 ‡f1 Èf5! is his analysis. thought Csipkés’ plan was good. 21...Èg6 22 a4 ƒa8?! 10 ƒa3 d6 11 …b1 …b8 12 …b2 This is a complete waste of time Èe7 13 †b1 and makes it hard to contest the a-file White’s intention is to crack open later. Since Black is trying to work up the b-file, while the line-up on the some kingside play, 22...e5!? would b1–h7 diagonal deters ...e5. be logical, albeit risky. 13...†e8?! 23 e4 (D) This standard Dutch Defence man- White starts to take command. oeuvre leaves White a free hand in XIIIIIIIIY the centre. 13...c5! keeps the position 9l+-+r+k+0 blocked for the Ès and shows why Rubinstein’s treatment was better. 9B zp-zp-+r+p0 14 f3 †h5 15 c5 9-zp-+p+nwq0 White dissolves his doubled pawn 9+-+-+pzpn0 and starts to probe for weaknesses. 9P+PzPP+-+0 15...dxc5 16 ƒxc5 …be8 9+-+L+PzP-0 16...bxc5? 17 …xb7 clearly creates 9-+-+R+-zP0 new weaknesses and increases the scope of White’s pieces. 9+QvL-sNRmK-0 17 c4 †h6! 18 …e2 xiiiiiiiiy 18 Èc2!Ÿ was obvious and good. Relatively best would be 18...ƒa8 19 23...f4 24 g4 Èf6 ƒa3 g5!? or 18...Èd7. 24...Èg7 may be a bit better but 32 64 Great Chess Games with the kingside blocked, White now 39...…f7 40 h4 has a free hand. A bonus from inducing ...Èf8: 25 a5 Èd7 26 …a2 e5?! White gets some kingside play too. 26...c5!? looks like Black’s last 40...h6 chance for counterplay, trying to get 40...gxh4 may be better, but 41 …h2 e5 for the „s, while if 27 d5 perhaps …e7 42 …xh4 is very good for White. 27...exd5 28 cxd5 Ège5 £...c5-c4. 41 ƒa4 …e7 42 hxg5 hxg5 43 …h2 (D) 27 axb6 axb6 28 d5 …b8 XIIIIIIIIY Black has managed to get his pawns 9-tr-+-snk+0 fixed on the opposite colour to his ƒ, but it still has no scope; 28...ƒb7 B9tRl+ntr-+-0 would be a marginal improvement. 9-zp-wq-+-+0 29 …a7 c5!? 9+-zpPzp-zp-0 This anti-positional move leaves 9L+P+PzpP+0 Black with a backward b-pawn on 9+-vLN+P+-0 an ; probably not many 9-+-+-+-tR0 players understood such concepts in the 1890s. At least it gives him some 9wQ-+-+-mK-0 space; he is strategically lost anyway xiiiiiiiiy and no move is really any better. 30 …f2 ƒb7 31 ƒb2 †f8 32 ƒc3 White dominates the whole board. †d6 33 …b2 43...†f6 44 ƒb5 …ee8 45 †b2 With a clear target, Maróczy Cat and mouse: White could play methodically increases the pressure. a with 45 Èxe5!?, e.g. 33...…f6 34 ƒe2 Èe7 35 Èd3 Èc8 45...Èxe5 (45...…xe5? 46 ƒc6) 46 36 …a3 Èe7 37 ƒd1 ƒxe8, although 46...Èxf3+ and The ƒ heads for the a4-e8 diagonal ...Èd4 prevents an immediate loss, where it threatens to undermine the but why take any risks of miscal- defence of b6. It is not important culation when he has a totally actually to win the pawn; the principal crushing position? objective is to put Black more and 45...…e7 46 ‡g2 …ee8 47 …h3 …e7 more on the defensive. 48 …h5 37...Èg6 38 …a7 Ègf8 Now there is another weakness to The idea is to have a reserve defend. White just keeps probing and defender of b6, but Black reduces the waits for a defensive slip. defenders of his e-pawn and is now 48...†g6? totally passive. There does not seem The position was hopeless anyway. to be a better defence. 48...†g7 would be met by 49 ƒc6 39 †a1 ƒxc6 50 dxc6 and it all falls apart. White now has a masked 49 Èxe5! Èxe5 50 ƒxe5 …c8 51 against the e5-pawn. ƒf6 1–0 Game 6 White: Karlis Karlovich Betins (Latvia) Black: Emmanuil Stepanovich Shiffers (Russia) 4th Shakhmatny Zhurnal CC tourney, 1894-96 Petroff Defence (C42)

The Players: Betins (1867-1943) was position but if Black is going to play the father of the great chess tradition ...d5 eventually, this would be the in Latvia which culminated in Tal. He logical time to make that move. was much involved in early analysis 7 Èbd2 of the Latvian Counter-Gambit. White’s idea is to transfer the È to Shiffers (1859-1904) was Chig- g3 as a preparation for controlling f5 orin’s chief Russian rival. From 1894- and an eventual kingside attack. 98 Shiffers edited the Petersburg 7...Èc6 periodical ‘Shakhmatny Zhurnal’. Since White did not play the usual Grodzensky & Romanov’s CC his- 7 h3, the move 7...ƒg4 would be tory, ‘Khod v Konverte’, reports that consistent. Or Black could play simply Shiffers won the third of its tourna- 7...0-0, as recommended in the Petroff ments, in 1893-4, with 15½/18. monograph by Forintos & Haag, when About this game: Betins beat if 8 Èf1 …e8 9 Èg3 ƒf8+. Schiffers 2-0 in this event. With a 8 c3 d5 score of 9/12 he was second behind According to Yusupov’s book on Romashkevich. From a quiet begin- the Petroff, 8...0-0 would be better, ning, the pressure mounts and then continuing the waiting strategy. White launches a murderous attack 9 Èf1! with a … sacrifice. Clearly 9 0–0 is standard but since 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èf6 3 Èxe5 d6 4 Black is unready to challenge the e- Èf3 Èxe4 5 d4 ƒe7 file, Betins decides to accelerate his 5...d5 is more usual. plan and save a move (…e1). 6 ƒd3 Èf6 9...0–0 10 Èg3 ƒd6 11 0–0 ƒg4?! The Petroff Defence was developed This achieves nothing. Black principally by Russians in the 19th should try 11...…e8 or 11...h6. He century; Black’s 5th and 6th moves are could double White’s g-pawn by attributed to Semyon Alapin (1856– 12...ƒxg3 but he needs his ƒ to 1923). Retreating the È instead of defend the dark squares. defending it avoids weakening the 12 h3 ƒe6 13 ƒg5 34 64 Great Chess Games

Forintos & Haag suggest that “13 19 Èe5 Èg5 or 13 Èf5 would have given White offers a pawn sacrifice, White a slight advantage”. which is declined. 19 ƒxe4 dxe4 20 13...ƒe7 †xe4 is a questionable pawn-grab With a symmetrical , since Black continues 20...f5 21 †h4 White has no immediate threats but ƒc4 and wins the exchange on f1. also nothing to fear, so he is able to 19...Èxe5 20 dxe5 †c6?! build up at leisure. Now White has a kingside pawn 14 †c2 h6 15 ƒe3 ƒd6 majority, which gives him the makings Black’s ƒs and f6-È have of an attack. Shiffers apparently squandered several tempi and yet rejected 20...†xe5 on account of 21 there is no sign of real counterplay. ƒc5, presumably fearful of White’s 16 …ae1 †d7 17 Èf5 (D) subsequent f2-f3 to exploit the on XIIIIIIIIY the e-file. In fact the trap is tactically 9r+-+-trk+0 unsound, because after 21...…fe8 22 f3 Black has 22...†h5 and if 23 fxe4? B9zppzpq+pzp-0 dxe4 attacks both ƒs. Therefore 21 9-+nvllsn-zp0 ƒd4 is superior, when White has 9+-+p+N+-0 compensation for the pawn but there 9-+-zP-+-+0 is a lot of play left. 9+-zPLvLN+P0 21 f3 Èc5 22 ƒh7+ ‡h8 23 f4 9PzPQ+-zPP+0 Betins could have delayed this, keeping control of e4. However, his 9+-+-tRRmK-0 plan to attack with opposite-coloured xiiiiiiiiy ƒs appears correct. 23...Èe4! Now Black must beware of a The ‘Riga Tageblatt’ said that sacrifice on h6 or g7. White will at 23...g6 24 ƒxg6 fxg6? loses to least obtain the ƒ pair. 25 †xg6. Black might instead try 17...Èe4 18 Èxd6 †xd6 24...ƒxh3 but then 25 e6! seems the If 18...Èxd6 19 Èe5 Èxe5 right solution: 20 dxe5 Èf5 21 ƒc5 Black starts a) 25...fxg6? 26 †xg6 Èxe6 27 to feel the lack of a dark-squared †xh6+ ‡g8 28 †xh3ˆ. ƒ. Contemporary sources give the b) 25...Èxe6 26 f5 fxg6 (26...Èg7 variation 21...…fe8 22 g4 Èh4 23 27 f6 Èe6 27 ƒh7) 27 fxe6, e.g. f4 ƒxg4 24 hxg4 †xg4+ 25 ‡h2 27...ƒf5 28 e7 …f7 29 ƒd4+ ‡g8 Èf3+ 26 …xf3 †xf3 27 …f1 (‘Riga (29...‡h7? 30 g4!) 30 †d2. Tageblatt’) which may be better for c) 25...ƒxe6 26 ƒd4+ f6 27 f5 White despite his exposed ‡, but he ƒf7 28 …e7 ‡g7 29 †e2 with a very could also play more cautiously and strong attack for the sacrificed pawn, not allow ...ƒxg4. for if 29...…ae8 White can choose Game 6: Betins-Shiffers 35 between 30 ƒxf7 …xe7 (30...…xf7 of the ’s …, a consequence of 31 …xe8) 31 †xe7 …xf7 32 †xc5 the time wasted with the minor pieces winning a piece, or perhaps even in the early stages. better 30 ƒe3! ‡g8 (30...…xe7 31 29 …h4! gxh4 ƒxh6+) 31 ƒxh6 Èe4 32 †g4. Acceptance is forced. If 29...‡h7 24 ƒxe4 dxe4 25 f5! ƒc4 26 …f4 30 …xh6+ ‡xh6 31 †h4+ and mates, †d5 while if 29...…g6 30 ƒxg5! …xg5 (If If 26...ƒd3 then 27 †f2 prepares 30...e3 31 ƒxe3 and Black has lost for a dark square breakthrough, two pawns for nothing) 31 …xh6+ against which the d3-ƒ is useless. ‡g8 32 †h4ˆ. 27 f6 g5 30 †xh4 …g6? Black does not want White to Black should return the spare … capture on g7, exposing his ‡ to for a little counterplay, even if it is attack. 27...g5 was presumably played insufficient. After 30...…xg2+! 31 to prevent …h4, e.g. 27...g6 28 …xe4 ‡xg2 …g8+ the correct reply is 32 and if 28...ƒd3? 29 …h4 ƒxc2? ‡h1! …g6 33 b3 when: 30 ƒxh6 and mates by ƒg7+ etc. a) After 33...ƒd3 the futility of — but in the game White plays …h4 Black’s ƒ is underlined by 34 …g1! anyway! …xg1+ 35 ‡xg1 with forced mate. 28 †f2! (D) b) Or if 33...ƒa6 34 c4 (not 34 XIIIIIIIIY ƒxh6?? e3+ mates) 34...†d8 35 9r+-+-tr-mk0 ƒxh6 ‡g8 36 ƒg7 …xg7 (the point of ...†d8) 37 e6! (£38 e7 and 39 B9zppzp-+p+-0 fxg7) 37...…g6 (or 37...fxe6 38 f7+ 9-+-+-zP-zp0 and 39 †xd8) 38 exf7+ ‡xf7 39 9+-+qzP-zp-0 †h7+ ‡xf6 40 …f1+ wins. 9-+l+ptR-+0 31 ƒxh6 ‡g8 32 ƒg7 …xg7 9+-zP-vL-+P0 32...†c5+ 33 ‡h1 does not alter 9PzP-+-wQP+0 the situation. 33 fxg7 f5? 9+-+-tR-mK-0 If 33...‡xg7 34 …xe4 but the text xiiiiiiiiy is desperation. White can win in more ways than one. 28...…g8 34 exf6 …e8 35 b3 ƒd3 36 …e3 ‡f7 Not 28...gxf4? because 29 †xf4 37 …g3 e3 soon mates, while 28...…ad8 is too Tantamount to resignation. But if slow and would also be met by 29 37...…g8 38 …g5 wins. …h4. Black takes steps to defend 38 g8†+ …xg8 39 …xg8 1–0 his loosened ‡ position, but White Black resigned in view of has another … offer to break down 39...‡xg8 40 †g3+ ‡f7 41 †g7+ resistance. Black never does make use ‡e6 42 †e7+ ‡f5 43 f7. Game 7 White: J.S. Hale (Canada) Black: Mordecai Morgan (USA) Continental Tournament final, 1896-97 (C44)

The Players: I have no information interesting game... not until the 29th about Hale. Mordecai Morgan (1862- move was Mr. Morgan enabled to 1931) was a leading player of his day obtain any advantage. At that point in Philadelphia. a brilliant play, apparently involving About this game: The first great the sacrifice of a pawn, gave him a North American postal tournament winning position. The play from this was a two-stage event, starting 1894, point to the end abounded in intricate organised by Walter Penn Shipley complications, and it required skill and others for the Continental and accuracy to force a win...” Correspondence Chess Association. 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 c3 Èf6 4 d4 70 players from the USA and Èxe4 5 ƒd3 Canada contested five sections, the 5 d5 is the usual move. leaders of which played off for the 5...d5 6 Èxe5 Èxe5 7 dxe5 Èc5 championship. The final winner was 8 ƒc2 ƒe6 9 0–0 ƒe7 10 f4 g6 11 C.W. Phillips from Chicago. ƒe3 †d7 12 †d4 This game is the most interesting EK: “12 †e2, followed by Èd2 one I have seen from the event; and …ad1, was probably better.” Nimzowitsch would have loved to 12...b6 13 Èd2 Èb7 annotate it. It was rediscovered by This introduces a theme persistent US chess historian John S. Hilbert, throughout most of the game, who republished it on The Campbell Black’s attempt to play ...ƒc5 under Report website with contemporary favourable circumstances. notes by Emil Kemeny (indicated by 14 Èb3 c5 15 †d2 f5 16 a4 “EK”), a Hungarian emigrant to the Opening the centre would lead to USA. I find these were accurate about a different type of game but White’s the general shape of the game but his weakness on the diagonal g1-a7 attempts at analysing variations were would persist. usually poor. 16...a5 17 ƒd1 ‡f7 18 †f2 h6 19 EK’s introductory remarks to the Èd2 …ag8 20 ƒe2 Èd8 21 ƒb5 game were as follows: “An unusually Èc6 (D) Game 7: Hale-Morgan 37 XIIIIIIIIY ƒxd4 †xd4 25 ƒxc6 Black may 9-+-+-+rtr0 be temporarily a pawn down but he 9+-+qvlk+-0 actually has some advantage! Possible W9-zpn+l+pzp0 continuations are 25...†xb2 26 Èe4 9zpLzppzPp+-0 †xf2+, 25...…d8, and 25...†xf2+ 26 9P+-+-zP-+0 …xf2 …c8. 9+-zP-vL-+-0 22...g5 23 †d2 23 …fe1 would free f1 for the ‡ 9-zP-sN-wQPzP0 but in reply to ...g4 the È would have 9tR-+-+RmK-0 to return to d2. xiiiiiiiiy Now 23 …ad1 may well be good, foll- Black has some strategic advantage owed by Èe1-c2 and then …fe1. After — chiefly because the pawn levers 23...g4 24 Èe1 play would probably go ...g5 and ...d4 may be prepared, 24...†c7 or 24...h5. The snag about 23 whereas White’s options b2-b4 and †d2 is that Black could consider the g2-g4 can be discounted: both moves pawn sacrifice 24...g3 25 hxg3 …g6 (or would be too weakening. ...…g4) followed by the advance of the h- Nevertheless, White is by no means pawn to force open kingside lines rather lost. He has ...d5-d4 well under restraint than blocking the flank. for the time being, with his b5-ƒ pinning 23...g4 24 Èe1 h5 the È and other pieces eyeing the 24...d4 is premature as White can crucial square. If White can find the best answer 25 cxd4 cxd4 26 ƒf2, while arrangement of his pieces, then perhaps 24...g3? 25 h3 blocks the flank in the Black will not find a way through, and wrong way. Black at least wants to force might sacrifice unsoundly. a weakness on the h1-a8 diagonal. 22 Èf3! 25 Èc2 h4 26 …ad1 h3 EK’s objection that “the text EK liked this move but my view is move invites the advance of Black’s somewhat different. Black cannot win g-pawn” seems rather vague; Black the game in one sector of the board is going to play ...g5 soon whatever alone. Since Black has no immediate White does. threats and can play ...h3 later anyway, The manoeuvre Èf3-e1-c2 may it would seem sensible to leave the seem laborious but it does bring the kingside fluid for the time being and È to a good square for restraining prepare the central breakthrough. That ...d4 without getting in the way of would force White to be watchful on White’s other pieces. two fronts without the attacker making EK preferred 22 …ad1 saying any irrevocable commitment. “Black could hardly answer 22...d4”, 27 g3 †b7 28 †f2 but it seems to me that this thrust EK suggested 28 …fe1, planning might be Black’s best move! At the ‡f1 and ƒg1. end of his variation 23 cxd4 cxd4 24 28...…d8 (D) 38 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 30 ƒxc6 9-+-tr-+-tr0 EK did not analyse 30 cxd4 in any 9+q+-vlk+-0 detail but his view that Black wins is W9-zpn+l+-+0 correct. Best is 30...cxd4! when: 9zpLzppzPp+-0 a) 31 Èxd4? Èxd4 32 ƒxd4 9P+-+-zPp+0 …xd4!, e.g. 33 …xd4 ƒc5 34 …fd1 9+-zP-vL-zPp0 …d8 35 ƒf1 …xd4 36 …xd4 ƒb3 when White has absolutely no moves (37 9-zPN+-wQ-zP0 †e3? †d5). 9+-+R+RmK-0 b) The exchange sacrifice 31 …xd4 xiiiiiiiiy Èxd4 32 Èxd4! is unlikely to save 29 …d2 White in the long run, but he can fight This seems to be the critical on, having averted disaster on the moment. EK suggested 29 ƒc1 saying light squares, e.g. 32...ƒc5 33 ƒc6 “the advance of the d-pawn would then †c8 34 Èxe6 †xe6. be less dangerous”. 30...†xc6 31 cxd4 †e4 32 …fd1 I do not agree, since after 29 ƒc1 ƒb3! 33 …c1 d4 30 cxd4 cxd4!, prospects look EK thought White had nothing rather bleak for White. (Note that better than this unsatisfactory move. Black would rather exchange his È It is true that White cannot allow 33 for a white ƒ than the opposing È.) dxc5 ƒxc2 (winning a piece), but his 31 …fe1 may be best but Black stands comment, “Nor can he play 33 d5, well with 31...ƒc5. for 33...ƒxa4 would win”, is hard to Accepting the pawn seems to lose, understand in view of 34 d6; instead e.g. 31 ƒxc6 †xc6 32 Èxd4 …xd4! 33 Black obtains a good game with …xd4 ƒc8 34 …e1 ƒb7 (threatens mate 33...…xd5 or 33...ƒxd5. on h1) 35 ‡f1 ƒc5 36 ƒe3 ƒxd4 37 If 33 †e2 ƒxc2 34 …xc2 cxd4 ƒxd4 …d8 and wins (38 ƒe3 †h1+ 39 (EK), e.g. 35 ƒc1 d3 36 †xe4 fxe4 ‡g1 ƒa6+ or 39 ‡e2 ƒf3+), or if 36 or 35 †c4+ …d5 36 ƒc1 d3. e6+ ‡g6 37 ƒe3 …e8. 33...…d7 34 †e2 29...d4! If 34 Èa3, to defend d4 from b5, EK: “This well-timed advance of the Black reroutes the ƒ to remove the d-pawn gives Black a winning position... offending È: 34...…hd8 (34...ƒxa4?! The move opens the diagonal for the 35 e6+! †xe6 36 Èc4 with an black † and queen’s ƒ. Since White at e5) 35 Èb5 ƒd5! (35...ƒxa4? 36 is forced to capture the pawn, Black Èc3) 36 ‡f1 ƒc6 and ...ƒxb5. will be enabled to play ...ƒc5. White 34...…hd8 35 †d3 ƒxc2 36 …cxc2 cannot well gain the pawn, for if ƒxc6 cxd4 37 †xe4 fxe4 38 f5 and cxd4, Black answers ...†xc6 and EK: “...quite ingenious. Black ...†e4, threatening ...ƒd5, followed by cannot capture the ƒ on account of mating in a few moves.” e6+ winning the ….” Game 7: Hale-Morgan 39

38...…d5 39 ƒxd4 43 ƒe3 If 39 ƒf4 ƒc5 and Black advances EK: “43 ƒa3, threatening f6 and f7, the centre pawns (EK). could not be played, Black’s answer 39...ƒc5!? would have been 43...e3 forcing White Black cautiously wants to avoid com- to play 44 ‡f1 and Black continues plications resulting from White having a 44...…f2+ and 45...…xf5, winning pair of advanced passed pawns following easily.” Once more, his analysis 39...…xd4 40 …xd4 …xd4 41 …c7. EK was too casual: 44...…xh2! is more then claimed “White was quite sure to decisive. regain his piece by f6.” However, Black The critical line is 43 ƒxb6 (not has 41...‡e8 which, given care, wins mentioned by EK) 43...…xb2 when whatever White does, e.g. 42 f6 ƒc5 Black hopes that his …, assisted 43 ‡f1 (43 e6?? …d1#) 43...e3 44 e6 by the e-pawn, will again mop up …d1+ 45 ‡e2 …d2+ 46 ‡e1 ƒb4 47 White’s pawns before they can f7+ ‡f8 48 …c8+ …d8+. become dangerous, e.g. 44 ƒc5! (44 After the text move, Black has to ƒxa5? e3 45 ‡f1 …xh2) 44...…c2 45 win a more technical endgame of … ƒb6 and now: versus ƒ without mating threats in the a) 45...…g2+?! does it the hard air and White definitely misses his best way: 46 ‡f1 …xh2 47 f6 …c2 (forced, chance at move 43. Objectively, there- to stop ƒc5+ after f7+) 48 f7+ ‡f8 fore, 39...…xd4 must be considered the 49 ƒe3 …c8 (Other moves actually stronger move. lose for Black after 50 ƒh6+.) 50 40 e6+ ƒg5 e3! (50...h2 may win but is less Similar play arises by 40 ƒxc5 clear.) 51 ƒxe3 ‡e7 52 ƒh6 …h8 53 …xd2 41 …xd2 …xd2 42 ƒxb6 …d5, ƒg7 h2 54 f8†+ …xf8 55 ƒxf8+ unless White tries 43 ƒc7 which would ‡xf8 56 ‡g2 ‡e7 and Black wins be met by 43...e3 44 ‡f1 …d2. the ‡ and pawn ending but there are 40...‡e8 41 ƒxc5 …xd2 42 …xd2 a few places where he could have …xd2 (D) slipped up on the way! XIIIIIIIIY b) 45...‡e7 seems to be good 9-+-+k+-+0 enough, preventing the pawns advancing further. W9+-+-+-+-0 c) 45...…c3 46 f6 …c6! 47 f7+ 9-zp-+P+-+0 ‡f8 48 ƒxa5 …xe6 and the e–pawn 9zp-vL-+P+-0 should decide. 9P+-+p+p+0 43...…e2 44 ƒxb6 e3 45 ƒxa5 …g2+ 9+-+-+-zPp0 46 ‡f1 …xh2 0–1 9-zP-tr-+-zP0 EK: “Causes White to surrender. Black wins easily with ...…f2+, followed 9+-+-+-mK-0 by ...…xf5 or ...…xb2 and ...h2.” xiiiiiiiiy Game 8 White: Rudolf Mikulka (Czechoslovakia) Black: Ferenc Chalupetzky (Hungary) 2nd Schweizerische Schachzeitung international, 1910-11 Closed (C77)

The Players: Mikulka (1889–1958) This avoids the Open Variation. came from the Moravian town of White threatens to win a pawn by Uhersky Brod, east of Brno. In ƒxc6 followed by Èxe5, but the 1946-48 he played on one of the slow build-up does not put Black Czechoslovak teams in the 1st CC under great pressure. Olympiad. Ferenc Chalupetzky was 5...d6 6 c3 ƒe7 an active postal player both before Alternatives are 6...g6 and 6...ƒd7 World War I and in the 1930s. breaking the pin on the È. About this game: I found this 7 ƒxc6+?! game in the excellent book ‘Historie White gives up the ƒ pair for Korespondencniho Sachu 1870–1999’ the sake of doubling Black’s pawns. edited by Jan Kalendovsky and Rudolf The normal plan would be 7 0–0 or Sevecek, dealing with the history of 7 Èbd2 followed by bringing the ƒ CC in Czechoslovakia. back to c2 and using it to support a The game is representative of gradual central advance or kingside CC in the last decade before World attack. War I, when most European postal 7...bxc6 8 †c2 events were organized by periodicals White prepares d4 by protecting and genuine masters were rarely the e-pawn with his †. involved. The opening play is not 8...Èd7 9 d4 f6 of a high standard but an interesting Black strongpoints e5 and avoids middlegame develops. the danger of being left with doubled The 2nd international tournament isolated c-pawns after d4xe5. Also of the Swiss chess paper had 31 worth considering were 9...ƒf6, players (!) and Mikulka scored 16½ 9...0–0, 9...…b8 and 9...c5. points, finishing 15th. The winner 10 Èh4!? was Heinrich von Hennig of Danzig, This does have a certain logic. 10 Poland, with 26/30. 0–0 or 10 Èbd2 would be a more 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 routine approach. Èf6 5 d3 10...c5 (D) Game 8: Mikulka-Chalupetzky 41 XIIIIIIIIY remove the ‡ from the file that White 9r+lwqk+-tr0 plans to open. Black also sets an 9+-zpnvl-zpp0 “offside trap” to catch the white minor W9p+-zp-zp-+0 pieces but Mikulka spots the danger. 9+-zp-zp-+-0 The original notes gave 15...f5? 16 9-+-zPP+-sN0 Èxf5 with the continuation 16...gxf5? 9+-zP-+-+-0 17 gxf5+ ‡h8 18 †h5 †e8?? 19 ƒg7+! forcing mate, but Black has 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 18...ƒf8 19 †xf7 ƒxh6 instead. 9tRNvL-mK-+R0 White might prefer 16 Èxg6!?, xiiiiiiiiy hoping for 16...hxg6? 17 gxf5, while 11 †e2!? if 16...fxe4 17 Èxe7+ †xe7 18 g5 White threatens †h5+. His idea is ƒf5 19 c4 planning a later h4-h5 and to force castling, then close the centre g6 with a dangerous attack. and attack on the kingside. Of course Black can do better than Instead, 11 Èf5 looks consistent. this. 15...ƒf8!? 16 ƒxf8 †xf8 17 Black should answer 11...0-0 as Èd2 ƒd7 18 0–0–0 would create 11...g6? 12 Èg7+ ‡f7 (attempting a tense situation with opposite side to trap the È) would fail to the pretty castled ‡s, but Black’s chances shot 13 Èe6!, when Black must move should not be worse. 15...…b8 may the † because 13...‡xe6 walks into a be best of all, to start queenside mating net by 14 †b3+. counterplay without delay. 11...0–0 12 d5 Èb6 13 g4!? 16 Èd2 †g8 The notes from ‘Lidove noviny’, Both 16...…b8 and 16...ƒf8 once 1910, praise this advance but White’s more come into consideration. development is backward, so it should 17 …g3! have failed. The alternative 13 0–0 This is an ingenious move, is sensible but, on the other hand, it consistent with White’s plan. Instead hardly puts Black under any pressure. 17 0–0–0? allows Black’s threat of 13...g6?! 17...g5 18 Èf5 †g6. Now, however, A weakening reaction typical of that can be met by 19 …h3. the time; I would prefer 13...c6 (or 17...f5?! maybe 13...ƒd7 allowing 14 Èf5 c6) Black unwisely provokes a tacti- to counter White’s flank attack with a cal crisis in the one area of the board central break in the classic manner. where White is really prepared. 14 ƒh6 …f7 15 …g1!? 17...a5!? or 17...…b8 come into con- White continues to avoid conventional sideration, to create counterplay if moves and proceeds consistently with White castles queenside. his plan to open the g-file. 17...ƒf8 looks safest. After 15...‡h8!? 18 ƒxf8 (18 g5 ƒxh6 19 gxh6 This is a sensible precaution to f5) 18...†xf8 Black will hold the 42 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY kingside and seek counterplay on the queenside, using the half-open b-file, 9r+-+q+-mk0 especially if White castles. Then: 9+l+-+r+p0 a) 19 …h3 tries to keep the attack B9psn-zpNvl-vL0 going (threatening Èxg6+), but 9+-zppzpP+-0 after 19...†h6 (threatening ...g5) 9-+-+P+Q+0 20 †e3 †xe3+ 21 fxe3 ƒxg4 22 9+-zP-+-tR-0 Èxg6+ ‡g7 23 …g3 hxg6 24 …xg4 …h8 Black evidently has the better 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 endgame prospects. 9+-mKR+-+-0 b) 19 Èg2! ƒd7 20 h4 (20 Èe3!?) xiiiiiiiiy 20...c6 or 20...f5!? gives counterplay 24...Èc8? but the game remains complex. White threatened Èf8 to block the 18 Èxf5! gxf5?! back rank, when Black would have to Otherwise Black remains a pawn give up his † to prevent mate at g8 down but accepting the sacrifice (...…xf8? would lose to ƒg7+ etc.). immediately is too risky. Instead This is not in itself decisive as Black 18...ƒf8 19 †e3! and White can would get three pieces for the †, then either retreat the È to h4 again, which in fact would represent his best or just leave it there and attack with chance, if he could arrange favourable 0-0-0 and h4-h5. Better possibly circumstances. 18...Èxd5 19 exd5 (19 Èxd6 cxd6 However, White does not need to 20 exd5 g5 and ...†g6 as planned!) play Èf8 yet as he can first strengthen 19...gxf5 20 gxf5 †e8 (£...ƒxf5) his attack, e.g.: despite 21 f6! ƒxf6 22 †e4Ÿ. a) 24...d4 25 …dg1! …c8 and now 19 gxf5 †e8 20 †g4 26 Èf8! †xf8 27 ƒxf8 …fxf8 28 Threatening 21 ƒg7+ ‡g8 22 †h3! (£29 †xh7+ ‡xh7 30 …h3#) ƒf6+ and mates. 28...…c7 29 †g2! …cc8 30 …g7 20...ƒf6 21 Èf3 ƒb7 22 Èg5 c6 followed by 31 …xh7+ and mates. Black decides to offer some b) 24...dxe4 25 …xd6! (better material back. If 22...…e7 23 0–0–0 than 25 Èf8 †xf8 26 ƒxf8 …axf8 with a menacing build-up or 22... 27 …xd6‹) 25...†b5 intends 26 ƒxg5 23 †xg5 †g8 24 †h5 †e8 Èf8? …axf8 27 …xf6 †f1+ 28 ‡c2 25 f6 with a very strong attack. †xf2+ and draws, but White has 26 23 0–0–0 ƒg5! ƒg7 (if 26...ƒxg5 27 †xg5 White is better after 23 Èxf7+ or 26...Èd7 27 †h5) 27 Èd8! …d7 †xf7 24 dxc6 ƒxc6 25 0-0-0 and (27...…c7 28 ƒf6) 28 …xd7 Èxd7 if 25...d5 26 ƒg5!, but it also makes 29 ƒd2! †f1+ 30 ‡c2 †d3+ 31 sense for White to complete his ‡d1!ˆ. development first. c) 24...†g8 25 †h5 †e8 26 …dg1 23...cxd5 24 Èe6 (D) dxe4 prevents 27 Èf8?? …xf8‰, Game 8: Mikulka-Chalupetzky 43 XIIIIIIIIY but allows the alternative 9r+n+q+-mk0 27 ƒf8! and mates after 27...…xf8 28 †xh7+! or 27...†xf8 28 Èxf8 9+l+-+r+p0 …axf8 29 †xf7!. B9p+-zpNvl-vL0 d) 24...…c8 25 …dg1! dxe4! allows 9+-zppzpP+-0 Black to defend by 26 Èf8 †xf8 27 9-+-+P+Q+0 ƒxf8 …fxf8 28 †h3 …c7 29 †g2 9+-zP-+-tR-0 ƒd5, but 29 c4! takes control of d5, 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 thus threatening †g2 etc., while after 29...…g7 (not 29...Èxc4? 30 †h6 9+-mK-+-tR-0 …cf7 31 …g6! and 32 …xf6ˆ) 30 xiiiiiiiiy …xg7 ƒxg7 31 †b3 wins material; comes 27 ƒg7+ ‡g8 28 ƒxf6+. e.g. 31...ƒh6+ 32 ‡d1 e3 33 fxe3 26 †h3!? ƒf3+ 34 ‡e1 Èd7 (or 34...…b8) 35 White wants mate rather than the e4! ƒxe4 36 †h3 ƒg7 37 †g4ˆ. crude win 26 Èc7. 26 Èf8 is again e) 24...ƒc6!? may be the best, pre- less effective because 26...†xf8 paring to defend by 25 …dg1 dxe4 26 collects a lot of material for the †. Èf8 †xf8 27 ƒxf8 …fxf8 28 †h3 26...Èg8 …a7, avoiding the ƒ+È on 26...dxe4 illustrates White’s prin- the b-file (as after 24...…c8), or with cipal threat: 27 ƒg7+ ƒxg7 28 …xg7 a reasonable position after 25 Èf8 and mate on h7 can only be prevented by †xf8 26 ƒxf8 …axf8. Unfortunately giving up the † for a … (i.e. 28...†g8). White can improve his position by Something similar will happen in the 25 b3! (£26 c4 to take control of game too, but White is forced to find d5 again) and after 25...c4 26 bxc4 two accurate moves first. Èxc4 27 exd5 ƒxd5 (If 27...ƒb5 28 27 ƒg7+! ƒxg7 28 …xg7 Èf6 …dg1 and 29 Èf8 etc.) 28 Èf8 …c7 28...h6 fails to 29 …xg8+ †xg8 29 …xd5 †f7 30 Èe6 White regains 30 …xg8+ ‡xg8 (or 30...…xg8 31 his material with a clear advantage. †xh6+ …h7 32 †f6+) 31 †xh6 …h7 With the text Black intends to 32 †g6+ ‡h8 33 Èg5. answer 25 Èf8 with 25...Èe7 cover- 29 †h6! ƒc8 ing g8, but it allows White a free hand Nothing helps now. to create new threats with: 30 …xf7 †xf7 31 …g7 …a7 32 …xf7 25 …dg1! (D) …xf7 33 Èg5 ‡g8 34 Èxf7 ‡xf7 Black is threatened with mate in 2 White now has † versus ƒ and and is now lost. È; the rest is just mopping up. 25...Èe7 35 exd5 ƒxf5 36 c4 ƒg6 37 †h3 25...Èb6 only delays the mate Black stabilised the kingside but a because White interferes with the queenside invasion will end the game. back rank defence by playing 26 37...Èe8 38 †d7+ ‡f8 39 b4! cxb4 Èf8! again, when after 26...…xf8 40 c5 1–0 Game 9 White: Professor Albert Becker (Austria) Black: F. Redeleit (Germany) Wiener Schachzeitung tournament, 1914 Queen’s Pawn, (D02)

The Players: Albert Becker (1896- 1 d4 d5 2 Èf3 c5!? 1984) had a very long career as a writ- Black may be taking on too many er and player; he was only a teenager commitments with this, so 2...Èf6 is when he played this game. He worked more popular. If White intends to play with Ernst Grünfeld on the tournament ƒf4 anyway, then the first diagram book of Teplitz-Schönau 1922 and position may ultimately result, e.g. participated in various master events 3 ƒf4 c5 (3...e6 4 e3 c5 5 c3 Èc6 between the wars. Becker played 6 ƒd3 ƒd6 7 ƒg3 0–0 8 Èbd2 board 4, in both the preliminaries and also transposes.) 4 e3 e6 5 c3 Èc6 final, of the Austrian postal side that 6 Èbd2 ƒd6 7 ƒg3 returning to the came second in the IFSB team tourna- game. However, 4...Èc6 5 c3 †b6 is ment of 1935-39 and he was Austrian possibly a superior plan for Black and OTB champion in 1937. 4...†b6!? is also playable. At the 1939 Olympiad in Buenos 3 ƒf4 Aires, he played board 4 for Germany Rubinstein liked to reply 3 c4, and he was one of several masters who usually with a after decided to remain in South America 3...e6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Èc3 Èc6 6 g3 at the outbreak of war. Becker was into the Tarrasch Defence against the awarded the FIDE IM title in 1953. Queen’s Gambit. Black also has to be Redeleit was an amateur destined prepared for 3 dxc5!?. only to be remembered on the losing 3...e6 end of some interesting games. It is extremely risky to win material About this game: Before World War by 3...†b6 4 dxc5 †xb2? (4...†xc5 I, postal tournaments tended to be is safer) and both players would organised by chess periodicals or by have known the celebrated miniature newspapers and magazines. The se- Schlechter-Leonhardt, Karlsbad 1911, ries of events organised by the Vienna where Black’s greed was punished: 5 chess paper began early in the 20th ƒe5 †b4+ 6 Èc3 e6 7 …b1 †xc5 century, and the series continued into 8 Èb5 Èa6 9 e3 f6 10 ƒd4 †e7 the 1930s when Becker himself was 11 Èxa7 Èc5 12 Èxc8 …xc8 13 the journal’s editor. ƒb5+ ‡f7 14 0–0 †c7 15 c4! dxc4 Game 9: A.Becker-Redeleit 45

16 ƒxc4 Èe7 17 Èe5+! fxe5 18 8...†e7?! †f3+ ‡g6 (18...‡e8 19 ƒxc5 †xc5 Although often played, I think this 20 ƒxe6) 19 ƒxc5 †xc5 20 ƒxe6 is the wrong place for the †, as we h5 21 ƒf7+ 1–0. shall see from the sequel. It is hard to Less well known is GM believe that this position can be bad Schlechter’s recipe for Black to avoid for Black, but having played both this disaster: 3...cxd4! 4 ƒxb8 (If 4 sides of it in recent years, I can testify Èxd4 f6! £...e5 or 4 †xd4 Èc6.) that it is not as simple as it looks. 4...†a5+! 5 c3 …xb8 (but not 5...dxc3 Generally speaking, Black must 6 Èxc3 …xb8 7 e4 and White gets a avoid tension-releasing moves like good attacking game for the pawn) 6 ...c4 and ...cxd4 unless they achieve †xd4 Èf6 7 Èbd2 e6 8 e3 †c5=. something definite. He has to play a However, in this game Redeleit is waiting game, and be ready to meet content to let the game transpose into any threats that arise. White, on the ordinary channels. other hand, can quickly find some 4 e3 ƒd6 5 ƒg3 Èc6 6 c3 Èf6 7 straightforward moves and launch a Èbd2 0–0 fierce attack if Black slips up. That 7...ƒxg3 8 hxg3 †d6 (£...0-0) makes this opening quite suitable (as was suggested by Becker & Grünfeld White) for players who have limited in 1922, but Black is reluctant to open time for study, or no taste for modern the h-file if he is going to castle. In theory battles. fact, White may be able to retain an The flexible 8...b6 is possible, e.g. edge by 9 ƒb5, which prevents ...e5 9 Èe5 ƒb7 10 f4 (10 0-0 is perfectly for the time being. playable.) 10...Èe7 11 †f3 Èf5 12 8 ƒd3 (D) ƒf2 ƒe7 13 Èg4 Èxg4 14 †xg4 If Black does not play an early Èd6= Raki™-Makarichev, Novi Sad ...†b6, then this position is quite 1983. Black’s main problem in this line likely to arise irrespective of minor is that White will develop an automatic move order differences. attack on the kingside against which XIIIIIIIIY Black’s queenside pieces cannot 9r+lwq-trk+0 contribute much. I think that 8...…e8 9 Èe5 †c7 B9zpp+-+pzpp0 is a better plan for Black. Now 10 9-+nvlpsn-+0 Èxc6 was ineffective in Harding- 9+-zpp+-+-0 M.O’Cinneide, Bunratty 1998, but 10 9-+-zP-+-+0 f4 is much more testing. Nevertheless, 9+-zPLzPNvL-0 careful play should hold the balance 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 for Black. After 10...b6 play can go: a) 11 0–0 h6? 12 ƒh4 Èd7 and 9tR-+QmK-+R0 now White can play his programmed xiiiiiiiiy attack: 13 †h5 Èf8 14 …f3 ƒb7 15 46 64 Great Chess Games

…g3 1–0 K.Pedersen-F.Christensen, I believe this a position that Black corr 1986. If instead 11...ƒe7 White should definitely avoid because it continues to build up by 12 Èdf3, but now becomes very hard to develop 11...ƒb7 (leading to the next note) is the queenside. probably OK for Black. 9...ƒxe5 b) 11 ƒh4 ƒe7 12 0–0 ƒb7 should ‘ECO’ shows White getting an be all right too, although 13 g4!? has advantage after 9...…d8 10 f4 Èd7 11 to be calculated carefully. Instead 0–0 Èf8 12 †e2 f6 13 ƒh4 ƒd7 14 I played 12...a5?! in M.Rechtman- Èxd7 …xd7 15 ‡h1 …e8 16 …ae1 in Harding, Heidenfeld Memorial corr Bisguier-Frias, Lone Pine 1981. 2000. This was, in retrospect, a 10 dxe5 Èd7 11 f4 f6 positional mistake but I was worried In ‘ECO’, this move gets an about White’s kingside attacking exclamation mark and an assessment chances. The game continued 13 †e2 of “slight advantage to White”. I ƒb7 14 ƒb5! (This switch of focus have seen games in which White now would not have been possible had I played 12 †b1 or 12 †h5 but Becker played ...ƒb7 at once.) 14...Èd7 (To does not resort to crude threats. He provoke a big swap-off as other moves believes that his advanced e-pawn seem unsatisfactory, e.g. 14...…ec8 15 will cripple Black’s position and so he f5!?Ÿ and if 15...Èxe5? 16 dxe5 calmly completes his development. †xe5? 17 ƒg3 traps the black †, Puschmann-Szekely, Hungary 1972, while 16...Èe4 17 ƒxe7 †xe7 18 varied with 11...f5?! 12 Èf3 c4? 13 Èxe4 dxe4 19 f6 is a nasty attack.) ƒc2 b5 14 ƒh4 †e8. Black has a 15 ƒxe7 (15 †h5 g6 16 †g4 Èf6 very bad ƒ now with all those pawns should be OK.) 15...…xe7 16 Èxd7 placed on light squares. Here 15 …xd7 17 Èf3. White may have a Èd4 is positionally good, but I am slight pull but with a little care I was not convinced by the actual game able to draw in 27 moves. continuation: 15 g4?! fxg4 16 Èg5 9 Èe5! (D) h6 (Why not 16...†h5 here?) 17 XIIIIIIIIY †xg4! hxg5? (Black must take on 9r+l+-trk+0 e5.) 18 †xg5 Èc5 19 ƒg6 1–0. 12 Èf3 fxe5 13 fxe5 g6 14 0–0! B9zpp+-wqpzpp0 I suspect Black was following the 9-+nvlpsn-+0 theory of the day. Schlechter-Rotlewi, 9+-zppsN-+-0 Karlsbad 1911, had gone 14 h4!? 9-+-zP-+-+0 †g7 15 h5 gxh5 16 ƒf4 Èdxe5 9+-zPLzP-vL-0 17 Èxe5 Èxe5 18 ƒxh7+ †xh7 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 19 ƒxe5 …f5 with a messy position where Black is holding an extra pawn. 9tR-+QmK-+R0 After more complications, Rotlewi xiiiiiiiiy eventually won. Game 9: A.Becker-Redeleit 47

It looks to me as if Viennese 17 ƒc2 dxe4 18 Èg5 Èc5 19 †d4 players had worked out an effective b6 20 …xf8+ †xf8 21 ƒxe4 …b8 system for beating weaker players and now instead of 22 …f1, more with this opening. Becker may have useful is 22 ƒc2!? (£b2-b4) and if thought up the game continuation 22...Èf5 23 ƒxf5 gxf5 White has himself or he could have got it from †xc4 because there is no skewer with Schlechter or from Grünfeld. ...ƒa6. 14...†g7 15 e4! (D) 16 Èxe5 Èxe5 So simple! Instead of the risky h- If 16...…xf1+ 17 ƒxf1 Èxe5 pawn thrust, White just plays in the 18 exd5 and not now 18...exd5? 19 centre and exploits Black’s backward †xd5+ Èf7 20 ƒc4. queenside development. 17 …xf8+ ‡xf8 18 ƒxe5 XIIIIIIIIY This is good enough but not best. 9r+l+-trk+0 After 18 exd5 exd5 19 ƒb5! Black cannot defend d5, i.e. 19...ƒe6 (or 9B zpp+n+-wqp0 19...d4) 20 †e2. 9-+n+p+p+0 18...†xe5 19 †f3+ ‡e7 9+-zppzP-+-0 19...‡g8 20 …f1 †g7 21 exd5 9-+-+P+-+0 ƒd7 22 ƒc4ˆ. 9+-zPL+NvL-0 20 exd5 exd5 9PzP-+-+PzP0 The alternative 20...†xd5 is no better, there could follow 21 ƒe4 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 †d7 22 …f1. xiiiiiiiiy 21 †f2! White has threats of …e1, †xc5+ 15...Èdxe5 and †h4+. Black finds a move to Argentinian chess historian Dr stave these off for the moment, but the Alfredo Lejarza, who compiled the white has grown too strong. book ‘Praxis eines Theoretikers: 21...‡d6 22 …e1 †g5 23 h4! †d8 Ausgewahlte Partien von Schach- 24 ƒb5! c4 meister Albert Becker’, gave here If 24...ƒe6 25 †f4+ ‡e7 26 †e5 15...dxe4 16 ƒxe4 Èdxe5 17 Èxe5 wins (26...†b6 27 †g7+ ‡d6 28 …xf1+ 18 †xf1 Èxe5 19 ƒxe5 †f6). †xe5 20 …d1! †c7 21 †f6 ƒd7 25 †f4+ ‡c5 26 …e8 †d6 22 †e7 …d8 23 ƒxb7 and Black If 26...†b6 (or ...†a5) 27 a4 cannot stop the killing move 24 ƒc6. threatening 28 †e3+ and mate can However, 20...†g5! defends, so only be avoided by giving up the †. White should instead play 18 ‡xf1! 27 b4+! 1-0 Èxe5 19 †d8+ ‡f7 20 ‡e2. Mate is imminent, so Black A.Becker-Hatscheck, corr 1914, resigned. His c8-ƒ and a8-… never went instead 15...Èe7 16 †d2 c4 moved. Game 10 White: Th. Demetriescu (Germany) Black: Friedrich Becker (Romania) Friendly postal game, 1919-20 Queen’s Gambit Accepted (D20)

The Players: Demetriescu was a well-known (even in 1919!) position resident of Berlin who played in sev- arising from the QGA (1 d4 d5 2 c4 eral postal tournaments in the 1920s dxc4 3 e3 e5), Exchange French (1 and 1930s. Friedrich Becker (not e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 c4), and to be confused with the winner of also the Petroff (1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èf6 Game 9) was an amateur player from 3 Èxe5 d6 4 Èf3 Èxe4 5 d4 d5 6 Stützerbach, in eastern Germany, ƒd3 ƒe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 Èf6 9 Èc3 who wrote a book called ‘Fernspiel dxc4 10 ƒxc4). und Schachschulung’ (‘CC and chess 7...0–0 8 0–0 b6 9 Èg3 Èc6 training’, 1926) about his CC experi- 9...ƒb7 looks consistent but Becker ences and his philosophy of chess. wanted to keep the È out of f5. About this game: Demetriescu and 10 †f3 Becker met the previous year in a Becker calls this rash because the tournament organised by the ‘Deut- † will become exposed to attack. Still, schen Wochenschach’. Afterwards White seems to hold some initiative they played this friendly game. It is throughout the early middlegame. far from perfect, but entertaining and 10...ƒd7 11 ƒe3 Èa5 12 ƒd3 ƒc6 instructive — watch out for the travels 13 †f4 Èe8 14 …ad1 ƒd6 15 †f5 of White’s ‡! g6 16 †h3 ƒd7 17 †h6 Èf6 18 h3 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 Èc3 …e8 19 ƒg5 ƒe7 This is an unambitious move, Best, because after Becker’s sugg- declining the Albin Counter-Gambit. estion 19...ƒf8 White gets a big 3...dxc4 4 e3 exd4 5 exd4 Èf6 6 advantage with 20 †h4, e.g. 20...ƒe7 ƒxc4 ƒe7 7 Ège2 21 …fe1 ƒe6 22 Ège4 Èxe4 (22... White has opted for an isolated Èd7 23 d5 ƒf5 24 d6) 23 Èxe4 ƒxg5 d-pawn position with an open e-file, 24 Èxg5 h5 25 g4 is probably ˆ. but this follow-up with 7 Ège2 is 20 …fe1 quite unusual. White obviously felt This allows some simplification. like trying something different in this Becker observes that White evidently friendly game. overlooked 20 ƒxf6 ƒxf6 21 Èh5! Instead 7 Èf3 0-0 8 0-0 is a when after 21...ƒh8 (not 21...gxh5?? Game 10: Demetriescu-F.Becker 49

22 ƒxh7+ ‡h8 23 ƒg6+ ‡g8 24 Black takes advantage and †h7+ ‡f8 25 †xf7# or 21...ƒxd4 22 threatens to invade on e3. When this ƒxg6) 22 Èe4 (£Èg5) complications is prevented, he makes a speculative flare up. He gives no continuation but ƒ sacrifice for a strong initiative. if 22...f5? 23 Èg5 …e7 24 b4! †f8 31 ‡f2 ƒxg4!? (24...Èc6? 25 ƒc4+ mates) 25 †xf8+ Certainly surprising, as Becker ‡xf8 26 Èf4 Èc6 27 Èd5 wins the says, but this is not clear. Either 31... exchange. So 22...†h4 23 g4 looks the †f6 or 31...h5 would have assured critical line, when 23...…xe4!? 24 ƒxe4 Black of good chances with less risk. …e8 could be the best practical chance. 32 fxg4 Èxg4+ 33 ‡g1 f5!? 20...Èg4! 21 hxg4 A risky winning try; 33...h5 gives After 21 ƒxe7 Èxh6 22 ƒxd8 roughly equal chances. …axd8 (Becker) or 22...…xe1+ 23 34 ƒb1? …xe1 …xd8 White’s active pieces still Becker’s only note here is that 34 compensate for the isolated d-pawn ƒf3 fails to 34...†e3+ 35 ‡h1 Èf2+, but Demetriescu evidently believed he but White could have played 34 d6! need to keep †s on the board. because 34...fxe4?? loses to 35 Èxe4 21...ƒxg5 22 †h3 …xe1+ 23 …xe1 †f4 36 †xg4! with a fork on f6. ƒe6 (D) The critical reply is 34...cxd6 35 XIIIIIIIIY ƒd5+ when the white ƒ is much 9r+-wq-+k+0 better placed than in the actual game W but both sides have chances. After 9zp-zp-+p+p0 35...‡f8 36 †g3 …e8 there are many 9-zp-+l+p+0 complicated possibilities; 37 Èb5 may 9sn-+-+-vl-0 be best, and if 37...f4 38 †c3. White 9-+-zP-+P+0 should have tried this anyway, because 9+-sNL+-sNQ0 after the text move Black could win. 9PzP-+-zPP+0 34...…e8?! 34...†f4! (£ 35... …e8, 36...†f2+, 9+-+-tR-mK-0 37...…e1+) and if 35 …f1 †d4+ 36 xiiiiiiiiy ‡h1 Èf2+ 37 …xf2 †xf2, followed by ...…e8, looks winning for Black. These moves do not deserve much 35 d6 comment; the real fun is yet to come. If 35 †g3 …e3 36 †xc7 †h4‰. 24 ƒe4 …b8 25 d5 ƒd7 26 Ège2 35...cxd6 ƒd2 27 …d1 ƒxc3 Not 35...…e3 36 dxc7 …xh3 (36... Becker gave up the ƒ pair in order …e8 37 …d8) 37 c8†+, but 35...†f4! to attack the weakened white pawns. still looks strong. I think Becker did 28 Èxc3 Èc4 29 b3 Èe5 30 f3 not want to play this because he had Now the † looks really out of play. foreseen his flashy 36th move! 30...†g5 36 Èd5 (D) 50 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY pawn. On 39...†g3 or 39...†h4, 9-+-+r+k+0 White has a good answer in 40 †f4. 9zp-+-+-+p0 40 †c4 B9-zp-zp-+p+0 40 Èf4 takes away the f4-square 9+-+N+pwq-0 that the † needs and so would be 9-+-+-+n+0 answered by 40...†e3+ 41 ‡h1 †g3 9+P+-+-+Q0 42 †c4+ ‡g7 43 Èe6+ ‡f6. 40...†h2+ 41 ‡f1 †h1+ 42 ‡e2 9P+-+-+P+0 †xg2+ 43 ‡e1 9+L+R+-mK-0 Contrary to the trend of Becker’s xiiiiiiiiy notes, it is not clear to me if Black’s Black has three pawns for the ƒ, advantage is really that great. The but they are immobile and do not crucial moment seems to come after constitute a fighting force equivalent White’s 48th (see below). in value to a minor piece. White 43...†g1+ 44 ‡d2 †h2+ 45 ‡c3 possibly thought he had refuted the ‡g7 46 Èf4 ‡h6 47 †d4 †g3+ sacrifice, but his † and ƒ are still 48 ‡c4 poorly placed and he had overlooked This was a mistake; White had to the point of Becker’s combination. block the check with 48 Èd3. 36...†d2!! 48...Èe3+? Magnificent! White cannot take 48...†e3 (£...†c1+) 49 †xe3 the … because of 37...…e1 with an Èxe3+ may be good for Black, but unusual “back rank” checkmate where I prefer 48...†e1 49 ƒd3 Èe5+! 50 the black È controls the squares of ‡d5 (50 ‡b5? †a5#) 50...Èf3 51 the absent f- and h-pawns. †f6 †e5+ 52 †xe5 dxe5 and Black If he takes the È instead then 37... gets the † exchange he wants, and …e1+! 38 ‡h2 †xd1 39 †xd1 …xd1 connects the d-pawn with the kingside and White loses either his ƒ or È. passed pawns. After Becker’s move, 37 Èf6+? is useless because there White is suddenly back in the game! is no continuation after 37...‡f8! 38 49 ‡b5 †e1!? Èd7+ ‡g7, e.g. 39 †f3 …e1+ with An alternative is 49...‡g5 50 mate in 5, or 39 …f1 …e1 (£...†f2+) Èe6+ ‡h5 51 Èf4+ ‡g5 52 Èe6+ 40 †f3 when Black can win prosaically with a draw by repetition. by 40...…xf1+ (as given by Becker) or 50 Èe6! force mate by 40...†d4+ 41 ‡h1 Black overlooked this strong move, …xf1+ 42 †xf1 †d2 £...†h6+. So which creates mate threats. Becker White found his only move. gives barely any further comment on 37 †f3! …e1+ 38 …xe1 †xe1+ 39 the game, but he still had chances to †f1 †e5 save it! Analysing such positions with Becker says this lays the basis for wide-open walking ‡s, active †s and a win through the capture of a fourth unbalanced material is very hard. Game 10: Demetriescu-F.Becker 51

50...‡h5 This is a terrible blunder. The † Neither 50...†xb1?? 51 †h4# nor occupies the square that should have 50...Èg4?? 51 †f4+ is playable. been reserved for the black È to 51 †f6! †f1+ fork. Instead 53...†d2+! 54 ‡c6 (54 Black can possibly do better here, ‡e7?? Èd5+) 54...‡g4 holds the but even this should not lose if he balance, e.g. 55 †g5+ ‡f3 56 †f4+ can keep his pawn chain intact. The ‡e2 57 Èd4+ ‡d1 or 55 ‡b7 †d7+ best try is 51...†b4+! and if 52 ‡xb4 56 ‡a6 †c8+ 57 ‡xa7 †d7+ etc. Èd5+ or if 52 ‡a6 †h4 53 †g7 h6 54 ‡e7! (no ...†h1+ this time). So 52 ‡c6 Now White threatens †g5# and if †h4! (with ideas of winning the white ...†g2 to stop that, it is White who ƒ with a fork at h1) 53 †c3!? †h1+ has the È fork. 54 ‡d7 and now not 54...†xb1?? 55 54...†b7+? †xe3ˆ, but 54...†b7+. However, The last chance was 54...†g2!? it is very hard to be certain of anything 55 Èf4+ ‡g4 56 Èxg2 and now in this crazy position. it’s Black’s turn: 56...Èd5+ 57 ‡e6 52 ‡c6! †g2+ (D) Èxf6 58 ‡xf6. However, I don’t Perhaps 52...†f3+ is best, and if think Black could save this against 53 ‡d7 ‡g4! 54 †g5+ ‡h3. correct play, e.g. 58...f4 59 ‡g7 XIIIIIIIIY ‡g3 60 Èxf4 ‡xf4 61 ‡xh7 (and 9-+-+-+-+0 if 61...g5 62 ‡g6 g4 63 ƒf5 g3 64 ƒh3ˆ) or 61 ‡f6!ˆ. 9zp-+-+-+p0 55 ‡f8 †c8+ 56 ‡g7 †d7+ 57 W9-zpKzpNwQp+0 ‡h8 9+-+-+p+k0 Excelsior!! The white ‡ reaches the 9-+-+-+-+0 8th rank corner and is promoted to a god 9+P+-sn-+-0 that eats black pawns. Black is lost. 9P+-+-+q+0 57...†e8+ If 57...‡g4 58 ƒe4! (£ 59 †g5+ 9+L+-+-+-0 and mates) 58...fxe4 (if 58...‡h3 59 xiiiiiiiiy ƒc6! or 58...‡g3 59 †e5+ ‡h3 60 ƒc6!ˆ) 59 †f4+ ‡h3 60 Èg5+ 53 ‡xd6 ‡g2 61 †xe4+ ‡f2 62 †f3+ and 53 ‡d7 is certainly better, giving 63 †xe3+. the ‡ more cover from checks, e.g. 58 ‡xh7 1–0 53...†b7+ 54 ‡e8 (not 54 Èc7?? Black resigns because †g5# is †xc7+) 54...†c8+ 55 ‡f7 †d7+ 56 threatened. After 58...‡g4 59 Èg7 ‡g8 †e8+ 57 ‡xh7 is similar to the White breaks the defence of g6 and game. However, it’s not easy to prove soon the f-pawn will also fall. It was a win after 53...†g3. sporting of Becker to show the world 53...†d5+? this amusing defeat. Game 11 White: Alekseev (USSR) Black: Viacheslav V. Ragozin (USSR) USSR postal event, 1929 Dutch Defence (A86)

The Players: I do not know anything 1 c4 f5 2 Èf3 Èf6 3 g3 d6 about the loser of this game. The Black rules out a Stonewall formation winner, ‘Slava’ Ragozin (1908-62) but he threatens ...e5 and forces White to was one of the few Soviet players decide whether he wants an English or a involved in IFSB competitions. Af- Dutch. He chooses the latter option. ter World War II he was trainer and 4 d4 c5!? second to world champion Mikhail Nowadays Black would choose Botvinnik and was awarded the FIDE 4...g6 here, but that line did not start grandmaster title in 1950. Despite to appear with any regularity until a poor result in the 2nd USSR Cor- around 1936. respondence Championship 1952-55 5 d5 (where he scored 8/16), the Soviet 5 dxc5 might be met by 5...†a5+, Chess Federation nominated him for regaining the pawn with 6 Èc3 the place they were granted in the 2nd †xc5, or by the pawn sacrifice World Championship Final, which 5...e5!? 6 cxd6 ƒxd6 7 ƒg2. began in 1956. Ragozin duly won this 5...e6 event after defeating the favourite, Black intends to lever open the Lothar Schmid, rather easily. centre and obtain a half-open e-file. If this suggests to you that he may 6 ƒg2 have been the ‘front man’ for a com- If 6 dxe6, as would be normal in mittee of GMs, I will not disagree, but the Dutch, then 6...ƒxe6 attacks the maybe his CC technique was rusty c-pawn and Black’s pieces get active and he needed a warm-up event. before White is ready. After 7 †b3 About this game: Ragozin’s game (7 †d3 Èc6 or 7 b3 Èe4 8 ƒb2 with Schmid is well known; the Ger- †a5+) 7...Èc6 8 †xb7 Black could man handicapped himself with an force a draw by 8...Èa5 9 †b5+ ƒd7 inferior opening variation. I prefer a 10 †a6 ƒc8 11 †b5+ ƒd7 etc., but game from his early days that shows I am pretty sure Ragozin would have Ragozin did have some CC track preferred 8...Èb4!, with excellent record and the talent to win the cham- compensation for the sacrificed pawn. pionship unaided. 6...exd5 7 cxd5 ƒe7 8 Èc3 0–0 (D) Game 11: Alekseev-Ragozin 53 XIIIIIIIIY d) 9 0–0, preferred in contemporary 9rsnlwq-trk+0 notes in the Russian chess paper W9zpp+-vl-zpp0 ‘64’, is simpler and more flexible. 9-+-zp-sn-+0 Afterwards White can work on the 9+-zpP+p+-0 queenside or play for e2-e4, depending 9-+-+-+-+0 on Black’s response. 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9...Èa6 10 0–0 Èc7 11 a4 b6 Ragozin is able to carry out his fluid 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 development scheme unchallenged. 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 The d5-pawn is threatened with a xiiiiiiiiy third attacker by ...ƒb7, while ...ƒa6 Black is weak on the light squares is also in the air. and his king’s ƒ is on the ‘wrong’ 12 †b3 square. Ragozin soon re-routes it to g7. This clears d1 for the … and thereby Nevertheless he does exert pressure on reinforces the d-pawn but it places the the centre. † badly so far as future kingside play It is not obvious whether White should is concerned. Instead 12 Èd2 £Èc4 try to prepare central play (eventual e2- was suggested in ‘64’, but this may be e4 pawn lever) or a queen-side minority ineffective as White has no pressure attack (b2-b4 lever) or just get his pieces against d6 and a later a4-a5 would be met to good squares and wait. by ...b5. Ragozin might reply 12...ƒb7 9 e3? (12...ƒa6 13 …e1 †e8 14 e4) 13 Èc4 There is no immediate threat of ...f4 †e8, to continue with ...†f7 or ...†h5, and this just encourages the opponent and Black seems to be doing OK. by showing White is rather timid. Also 12...…e8! 9 e3 does nothing about solving his main This is a deep move. Ragozin development issue: the future of his ƒ recognises that the obvious moves of on c1. White has more direct options. the c8-ƒ can now be countered and so a) 9 Èg5!? may be over-sharp. he decides on a regrouping to bring the After 9...Èa6 10 Èe6 ƒxe6 11 dxe6 other ƒ to a more active post on g7. He Èc7 12 ƒxb7 …b8 13 ƒg2 d5 Black will use the … on the half-open e-file is well developed and controls space, instead of dreaming of a later ...f4. which counterbalances White’s ƒ 13 …d1 ƒf8 14 †c4 pair. The e6-pawn will eventually be 14 Èg5 is possible, to probe for absorbed by Black. weaknesses, but Black would simply b) 9 †b3 decentralises, while 9 continue with his plan of 14...g6 †c2 is met by 9...Èa6 10 a3 Èc7. and if 15 a5 Black might play for c) 9 b3?! has a tactical drawback complications by 15...b5 16 Èe6 (16 because White is loose on the dark Èxb5? …b8) 16...ƒxe6 17 dxe6 c4 squares: 9...Èe4! 10 ƒb2 ƒf6 11 18 †c2 d5. …c1 †a5. 14...g6 15 Èd2? 54 64 Great Chess Games

Since the d-pawn does not need the future champion has the measure protection at this time, White should of his opponent and decides a direct have taken his last chance for queenside attack will bear fruit. On g4, the È activity by 15 b4. Then he is just in time evidently thinks about occupying e5 to meet 15...ƒg7 by 16 ƒb2, linking his but there is also a latent threat which …s and avoiding the coming disaster. White overlooks. 15...ƒg7 (D) 17 h3?! XIIIIIIIIY Yudovich recommended 17 exf5. 9r+lwqr+k+0 However, rather than a recapture or ...Èe5, 17...ƒd4!? might be the reply, W9zp-sn-+-vlp0 and the trap 18 …f1 ƒa6 19 Èb5 9-zp-zp-snp+0 †d7 could be the reason Ragozin 9+-zpP+p+-0 did not want to play 16...ƒa6. White 9P+Q+-+-+0 must probably answer 18 fxg6 ƒxf2+ 9+-sN-zP-zP-0 19 ‡h1 (19 ‡f1? loses the † to 9-zP-sN-zPLzP0 19...ƒa6 20 Èb5 Èe3+.) 19...hxg6 with complications that look like they 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 will go Black’s way. xiiiiiiiiy 17 Èf1 would be an attempt to regroup for defence and would enable the The future GM is outplaying the forgotten ƒ to play a role. Nevertheless, amateur. The question of how to develop Black’s game is preferable after 17...ƒa6 the queen’s ƒ is clearly going to be 18 †b3 ƒd4 19 Èe3 ƒxe3!? forcing a easier for Black to solve than White. weakness on the e-file. 16 e4?! 17...Èxf2! White’s È on d2 doesn’t make Doubtless White had expected 17... much sense without this move, but his Èe5, but the sacrifice cracks open the kingside is looking too bare for this shell, subjecting White’s ‡ to an attack impatient opening of the position. he is ill-prepared to counter with his 16 b4 is too late now that Black cluster of pieces on the queenside. is first on the long diagonal, e.g. 18 ‡xf2 ƒd4+ 19 ‡f1? 16...Èg4! 17 ƒb2 Èe5 18 †b3 This is probably the decisive cxb4 19 †xb4 Èd3 and ...Èxb2, or error; it costs a tempo as the ‡ has 17 bxc5 ƒa6 18 †b3 bxc5 19 ƒb2? to go to e1 soon in any case. White …b8 20 †c2 f4! 21 exf4 (or 21 gxf4 should have played immediately 19 †h4) 21...Èxf2! 22 ‡xf2? ƒd4+ 23 ‡e1, when after 19...ƒa6 20 Èb5 ‡f3 …e3+ 24 ‡g4 ƒc8+ and mates. (20 †b3!? £Èc4 is also possible.) 16...Èg4 20...†d7 21 …a3 (21 †c2!? Èxb5 16...ƒa6 is certainly possible, 22 axb5 ƒxb5 23 Èc4 fxe4 24 …d2 as suggested in Yudovich’s 1984 is another try.) 21...fxe4 22 Èxe4 (If monograph on Ragozin. However, 22 …b3 †f7 23 †e2 ƒxb5 24 axb5 Game 11: Alekseev-Ragozin 55

Èxd5.) 22...Èxb5 23 axb5 ƒxb5 new front. If 24 Èc4 Black prevents 24 †c2 …xe4! 25 ƒxe4 †xh3, the a blockade by 24...e3!, with threats extra move (…a3) means that White including ...…f8, ...†f7 and ...e2. can put up a defence with either 24...…xe4+! 25 ƒxe4 26 …dd3 …e8 27 †e2 or 26 …f3. 25 †xe4? …e8 would be worse, Nevertheless, Black is hardly worse in but now the black † invades. any of these lines, so his sacrifice was 25...†xh3 26 …xd4 perfectly sound. White decides the only hope is 19...ƒa6 20 Èb5 †d7 21 ‡e1 to return some material and try to Maybe White intended 21 Èb3 exchange light-squared ƒs. If 26 …d3 Èxb5 22 Èxd4 cxd4 (22...Èc7 23 …e8! 27 …f3 †g4. Or if 26 ƒf4 …e8 Èb5 Èxb5 24 ‡g1 at least allows 27 ‡d2 …xe4 and then 28 ‡c1 (28 White to develop) 23 ‡e1 and if †xe4 allows mate in 3 by 28...†h2+) 23...Èc3 24 †xa6 or 23...Èc7 24 28...…e2 29 ƒd2 a6 is a good †xd4, but changed his mind in view of consolidating move. Black has several 23...Èa3! 24 †b3 (If 24 †xa6 Èc2+ pawns and an attack for the exchange, and ...Èxa1.) 24...…xe4! 25 ƒxe4 fxe4 while White can hardly move at all. 26 …xa3 †xh3 with a decisive attack. 26...†f1+ 27 ‡d2 cxd4 28 ƒd3 Instead 21 e5 (£21...Èxb5? 22 †f2+ e6!) would keep the f-file closed, but Black wants his † on a safe square after 21...…xe5 Black has two pawns and then he will win by ...…e8. for the È and a growing attack, and 29 ‡d1 †g1+ 30 ‡e2 ...Èxb5 is again threatened. 30 ‡d2 …e8 forces mate. 21...Èxb5 22 axb5 ƒxb5 23 †c2 30...…e8+ 31 ‡f3 ƒxd3 32 †xd3 fxe4 24 Èxe4 (D) †h1+ XIIIIIIIIY Black has just two pieces left but 9r+-+r+k+0 they are so active that they give him a mating attack which can only be B9zp-+q+-+p0 staved off by hopeless sacrifices. 9-zp-zp-+p+0 33 ‡f2 9+lzpP+-+-0 If 33 ‡f4 …f8+ and mates, while 9-+-vlN+-+0 after 33 ‡g4 comes 33...†h5+ 34 9+-+-+-zPP0 ‡f4 …f8+ 35 ‡e4 †e5#. 9-zPQ+-+L+0 33...…f8+ 34 ƒf4 The ƒ gets moving too late. This 9tR-vLRmK-+-0 would have been a good time to resign. xiiiiiiiiy 34...†xa1 35 ‡g2 Otherwise 35...g5. White only needs one more tempo 35...†xb2+ 36 ‡h3 …xf4 0–1 to stave off the attack, but Black makes The last finesse: Black wins easily good use of his spare move to open a after 37 gxf4 †c3. Game 12 White: Dr Ramon Rey Ardid (Spain) Black: Dr Hans Geiger (Austria) IFSB Championship, 1932 Queen’s Gambit, Slav Defence (D18)

The Players: Dr Ramon Rey Ardid 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Èf3 Èf6 4 Èc3 (1904-88), a medical doctor from dxc4 Zaragoza, was one of Spain’s Dr Dyckhoff criticized Black’s strongest players for three decades. choice of defence in ‘Fernschach’ He represented his country at the — yet in the 21st century, the Slav is 1924 Paris Olympiad, won the still considered a solid and respectable Spanish Championship four times and choice for Black. in 1944 he played a short match with 5 a4 ƒf5 6 e3 Èa6?! world champion Alekhine, losing only Black wants to exploit the weakness one game. Dr Rey only seems to have on b4 but this is the wrong way to do played CC for a brief period in the it. Dr Dyckhoff commented: “also early 1930s and is best remembered 6...Èbd7 or 6...e6 are insufficient”. in CC literature for a game he lost However, that is where a modern (Game 13). I have no information reader would disagree with him as about Dr Geiger. 6...e6 is the main line and perfectly About this game: The 1932 ‘Bun- playable, as was to desmeisterschaft’ of the IFSB was demonstrate later in the 1930s. the first of that series representative Smyslov’s 5...Èa6 is a better form enough to be considered a true Euro- of the idea, inviting White to play e4 pean CC Championship. Moreover, it if he wants to. In that case, the ƒ may is the first major CC event from which be developed on g4. all games are preserved, thanks to the 7 ƒxc4 Èb4 publication of a tournament book. Black has a crude threat on c2 but The event was won by Hans Müller, nothing to back it up after White’s the Viennese OTB master and chess obvious reply, whereas in the line writer, ahead of German CC specialist 5...ƒg4 6 Èe5 ƒh5 7 h3 Èa6 8 g4 Dr Dyckhoff and future grandmaster ƒg6 9 ƒg2 Èb4 10 0-0, Black has , all of whom were 10...ƒc2 11 †d2 ƒb3. unbeaten. In this field, Geiger scored 8 0–0 5/11 and Dr Rey only 4½/11. White could even consider 8 Game 12: Rey Ardid-Geiger 57

Èe5 because Black still cannot play that formation is more flexible than 8...Èc2+ (due to 9 †xc2! ƒxc2 the one chosen by Geiger. 10 ƒxf7 mate!), while 8...e6 9 0-0 9 Èe5! transposes to the game. This is a natural move, since Black Not, however, 8 e4? Èxe4 9 does not have a È on d7 to exchange Èxe4 ƒxe4 10 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 11 the intruder, yet it took some years of †b3+ (or 11 Èg5+ ‡e8 12 Èxe4 this 6...Èa6 line being played before †xd4! because of 13 †xd4 Èc2+) that was understood. 11...e6! 12 Èg5+ ‡e8 13 Èxe4 Instead 9 Èh4 ƒc2 10 †d2 †d5! — all analysis by GM Efim Èe4 was better for Black in the Bogoljubow, one of the strongest stem game Morrison-Geo. Marechal, players of this era. Toronto 1924. 9 †e2 was also seen 8...e6 (D) in various games in the 1930s. 8...Èc2? is no good now because 9...ƒe7 of 9 e4! winning material: 9...ƒxe4 9...ƒd6 10 †e2 Èbd5 11 f3! (9...Èxe4 10 †xc2 Èd6 11 †e2) †c7 12 e4 Èxc3 13 bxc3 ƒg6 14 10 Èxe4 Èxa1 11 Èxf6+ gxf6 12 ƒa3 ƒxa3 15 …xa3 0–0 16 Èd3! ƒe3 — Marchisotti. had favoured White in Bogoljubow- XIIIIIIIIY Pirc, Bled 1931. 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 10 †e2 0–0 11 e4 ƒg6 12 …d1 †a5 13 ƒg5! W9zpp+-+pzpp0 This is sharper than 13 ƒb3 as 9-+p+psn-+0 Bogoljubow had recommended. 9+-+-+l+-0 13...…ad8 9PsnLzP-+-+0 Some other examples from 9+-sN-zPN+-0 contemporary practice: 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 a) 13...…fe8 14 Èxg6 hxg6 15 e5 Èd7 (or 15...Èfd5 16 ƒxe7 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 …xe7 17 Èe4 Èb6 18 ƒb3 …d8 19 xiiiiiiiiy †g4‹ Flohr-Chodera, Prague 1931) 16 Èe4! c5 17 ƒb5 Èc6 18 †g4! If you compare this position with cxd4 19 ƒxe7 …xe7 20 †h4 Èdxe5 the line considered normal for the 21 Èg5 …ee8 22 …a3! …ad8 23 …h3 past 50 years or more (6...e6 7 ƒxc4 ‡f8 24 f4 with a strong attack (Peter ƒb4 8 0–0 Èbd7), you can see that Korning-Bjorn Nielsen, corr Denmark Black’s ƒ should be on b4, hindering 1935). White’s e3-e4 advance, while the b) 13...ƒh5 14 f3 c5 15 d5! exd5 È stands ready to support central 16 exd5 Èfxd5 17 ƒxe7 Èxe7 18 operations. In that case, White has …d7 …ae8 19 Èe4!‹ Lorens-Kern, various tries for advantage, but they corr 1933-34. can be fairly well countered because 14 Èxg6 hxg6 15 e5 Èfd5 16 Èe4 f6 58 64 Great Chess Games

Not 16...…fe8 because of 17 †g4! White disdains the easy win of a (preventing ...f6), e.g. 17...c5 18 pawn (24 ƒxb4 Èxb4 25 ƒxe6+ …a3! ƒxg5 19 Èxg5 †c7 20 †h4 followed by …e3) as he expects to ‡f8 21 …f3! 1–0 Hermann-Engels, gain more by direct attack. Bochum 1937. 24...‡f7 25 h4! Èf4 26 †e3 Èbd5 17 exf6 gxf6 18 ƒh6 …fe8 27 ƒxd5 Èxd5 28 †h6 …g8 29 h5 The square f7 is required by the ‡. Èe7 30 ƒg5! …d5 (D) If 18...…f7? 19 †g4 and Black cannot XIIIIIIIIY defend both e-pawn and g-pawn. 9-+-+-+r+0 19 …a3! This … lift emphasises the failure W9zppwq-snk+-0 of Black’s opening strategy. With the 9-+p+p+pwQ0 a3-f8 diagonal clear for Black’s dark- 9zP-+r+pvLP0 squared ƒ, this manoeuvre would be 9-+-zP-+-+0 impossible. 9+-+-+-tR-0 19...f5 20 Èg5 ƒxg5 21 ƒxg5 …d7 9-zP-+-zPP+0 (D) 9+-+R+-mK-0 XIIIIIIIIY xiiiiiiiiy 9-+-+r+k+0 W9zpp+r+-+-0 31 †h7+ 9-+p+p+p+0 Dr Rey thought the obvious con- 9wq-+n+pvL-0 tinuation 31 ƒxe7 †xe7 32 hxg6+ 9PsnLzP-+-+0 was not good enough. 9tR-+-+-+-0 However, Black now defends 9-zP-+QzPPzP0 himself in a very skilful way, commented Dyckhoff, obliging 9+-+R+-mK-0 White to find a series of strong xiiiiiiiiy moves. 31...…g7 32 †h8 †c8! 22 ƒd2! Other moves lose quickly, for Black is forced to give ground on example: the queenside because this threatens a) 32...…d8 33 hxg6+ …xg6 34 ƒxd5 followed by †e1. †h7+ …g7 35 †xg7+ ‡xg7 36 22...†b6 23 a5 ƒf4+ and ƒxc7. 23 †e5 might be more precise b) 32...gxh5 33 †xg7+ ‡xg7 34 as Black could now have tried ƒf4+. 23...†xd4!? 24 ƒxb4 Èf4! 25 …xd4 c) 32...…g8 33 †f6+ ‡e8 34 h6! Èxe2+ 26 ƒxe2 …xd4, though the …f8 35 h7! …xf6 36 ƒxf6ˆ. ƒs would probably win. 33 hxg6+ …xg6 34 †h4 f4 23...†c7 24 …g3 Black finds an ingenious, but Game 12: Rey Ardid-Geiger 59 insufficient, resource. The attacked If 38...Èf5 39 d5!! breaks through: È cannot move: 34...Èg8 35 †h7+ 39...…xd5 (39...cxd5 40 …c1 Èe7 41 …g7 36 †h5+ ‡f8 (36...…g6 37 …g3) 40 …xd5 cxd5 41 …c3 ‡d8 ƒh4!) 37 ƒh6 Èxh6 38 †xh6 and (unpins the …) 42 †h2! (defends Black cannot save the …, because g2 and threatens ƒf6+!) and Black of 39 †h8+ in reply to ...…dd7 or cannot keep out the white …. ...†d7 (according to analysis by Rey 39 †f3 Ardid and Dr.Dyckhoff). Now White’s threat is to win the Or if 34...†c7 35 ƒxe7 …xg3 36 black † by …h8. †f6+ ‡e8 37 †f8+ ‡d7 38 fxg3 39...†e8 (Marchisotti in ‘Joyas del Ajedrez If 39...Èf5, Marchisotti gives 40 Postal’). …h8 †f7 41 …b8 …b5 42 …c1! (£ 35 ƒxf4 †g8 36 ƒe5! 43 …xb7+ …xb7 44 †xc6+) but I This renews the attack. Now think 40 d5! works again because all 36...Èf5 forks … and † but White three captures lose: 40...cxd5 41 …h8 continues 37 …xg6 †xg6 38 †h8! †f7 42 †c3, 40...…xd5 41 …xd5+ …xa5 39 †c8! (Rey/Dyckhoff). cxd5 42 …h8 †f7 43 †b3 and So Black regains his sacrificed 40...exd5 41 †xf5+. pawn and thus requires White to play 40 †b3 ‡c8 accurately. If 40...b5 41 †b4, or 40...b6 41 36...…xa5 37 †h5 ‡e8 †b4 …d5 42 …a1 †a8 43 …h7 c5 44 If 37...Èf5 38 …g5 followed †b5+ ‡d8 45 ƒc7+! ‡c8 46 †e8+ by g4, e.g. 38...…b5 39 g4 Èe7 ‡b7 47 ƒb8!?. Finally, if 40...…b5 (if 39...Èh4 40 …d3! £ƒg3, or 41 †a3 (threatening both †xa7 and 40...‡e7 41 †xh4 …xg5 42 f4) 40 †d6+) 41...†f7 once more 42 d5! …d3 (£…f3+, …f6) 40...‡e8 41 is the killer. This time there are four d5! (to close the rank) followed by captures but they all lose: 42...exd5 43 ƒd6xe7 winning a piece. …e1, 42...cxd5 43 …c1, 42...Èxd5 43 38 …h3 ‡d7 (D) …h8, 42...…xd5 43 †xb7+. XIIIIIIIIY 41 …h8 Èg8 42 …h7! 1-0 9-+-+-+q+0 Black resigned, because of 42... …xg2+ 43 ‡xg2 †g6+ 44 ƒg3 9zpp+ksn-+-0 †xh7 45 †xe6+ ‡d8 46 †d6+ W9-+p+p+r+0 †d7 47 †f8+ †e8 48 ƒc7+!. Or 9tr-+-vL-+Q0 if 42...…b5 (42...Èe7? 43 †b4 with 9-+-zP-+-+0 a double threat against … and È) 43 9+-+-+-+R0 …c7+ ‡d8 44 †a3 …d5 45 †xa7 9-zP-+-zPP+0 …xe5 46 †b8#. Dr Rey considered this at the time 9+-+R+-mK-0 to be “the best and most logical game xiiiiiiiiy that I have ever played”. Game 13 White: Nils Johansson-Tegelman (Sweden) Black: Dr Ramon Rey Ardid (Spain) Sweden-Spain postal match, 1933 Closed Ruy Lopez (C98)

The Players: Nils Johansson (who 11 a4! (as in Keres-Reshevsky, later changed his name to Tegelman) Stockholm 1937) is the main reason was a Stockholm railway official. for Black to avoid the early ...Èa5, Born in 1897, he learned chess in since the attack on b5 cannot be 1911 and began his first CC tourn- ignored. ament in 1927. In 1930 he won the 11...0–0 12 Èbd2 Èc6 13 d5 annual congress of the Swedish Chess Closing the centre: this is an Federation and earned the title of important decision, which went out Swedish master. Dr Rey Ardid was of fashion for many years but was introduced in Game 12. revived by Spassky and Karpov. About this game: This is one of the Instead 13 dxc5 (introduced by most famous postal games of the Rauzer in 1936) leads to play with an 1930s, and it has appeared in many open central file where White hopes books. In an article he wrote in 1947, to control d5 and f5 with his Ès. Cecil Purdy even called it “the greatest 13...Èd8 14 a4 (D) correspondence game ever played”. XIIIIIIIIY Although critical analysis has re- 9r+lsn-trk+0 vealed flaws in the play of both sides, this classic is worth republishing, B9+-wq-vlpzpp0 primarily for the wild tactical battle 9p+-zp-sn-+0 that commences around White’s 27th 9+pzpPzp-+-0 move. The advantage shifts back and 9P+-+P+-+0 forth and it is not easy to establish 9+-zP-+N+P0 exactly where Black goes wrong. 9-zPLsN-zPP+0 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 Èf6 5 0–0 ƒe7 6 …e1 b5 7 ƒb3 d6 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 8 c3 Èa5 xiiiiiiiiy This move is the original Chigorin Defence, but a standard position arises 14...b4 after White’s 12th move. This may actually be the best 9 ƒc2 c5 10 d4 †c7 11 h3 move. Purdy preferred 14...…b8 but Game 13: Johansson-Rey Ardid 61 later games have shown White can 19...ƒxf6 20 Èfd2 ƒd8 then obtain an advantage: The ƒ had no role on f6; now it a) 15 axb5 axb5 16 b4 Èb7 17 joins in the attack on White’s a-pawn. Èf1 ƒd7 18 ƒe3! …a8 19 †d2‹ 21 Èb3 Karpov-Unzicker, Nice OL 1974. With the a-pawn thus protected, b) 15 b4!? (Geller) keeps the option cxb4 followed by …c1 looks like of a4-a5 as well a4xb5 transposing to becoming a threat. So Black now 15 axb5 lines; e.g. 15...c4 16 Èf1 exchanges on c3 to close the c-file. Èe8 17 axb5 axb5 18 È3h2 f6 19 21...bxc3 22 bxc3 †e7?! f4 Èf7 20 Èf3 g6 21 f5 Èg7 22 g4 This loses time. The † should go ƒd7 23 ƒe3 …a8 24 †d2Ÿ Karpov- to d7 at once. Spassky, USSR Ch 1973. 23 Èe3 †d7 24 †c2 ƒc7 15 Èc4 Èb7 If 24...ƒg5 25 Èd2 ƒxe3 26 This was an attempt to improve upon …xe3 ƒxd3 27 †xd3Ÿ according to Capablanca-Vidmar, New York 1927, in Spanish analysis. which White obtained a clear advantage 25 Èc4?! after 15...a5? 16 Èfxe5! ƒa6 17 ƒb3 White is not showing much regard dxe5 18 d6 ƒxd6 19 †xd6 †xd6 for tempi either, having now conceded 20 Èxd6‹. 15...bxc3!? may be best: two with Èc4-e3-c4. Better was 25 16 bxc3 Èb7 17 …b1 Èd7 18 ƒd2 ƒxb5 †xb5 26 …eb1. …a7 19 †e2 Èa5 20 Èe3 …e8 21 c4 25...†d8 26 †a2 g6! (D) g6 22 ƒc3 Èb7 23 …b2 Èb8 24 a5 XIIIIIIIIY Èd7 25 †d2 ƒd8 (The a5-pawn has 9-tr-wq-trk+0 become weak.) 26 …a1 Èf6 27 ‡h2 Èh5 28 ƒa4 …f8 29 ƒc6 f5 with W9+nvl-+p+p0 great complications (0-1, 58) H.Kaiser- 9p+-zp-+p+0 B.Bierwisch, Germany corr 1987-90. 9zPlzpPzp-+-0 16 a5!? 9-+N+P+-+0 This is somewhat risky because 9+NzPL+-+P0 the pawn is isolated. According to 9Q+-+-zPP+0 Golombek’s book on Capablanca, White should play 16 cxb4 cxb4 17 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 b3 Èa5 18 Èfd2, and maybe that xiiiiiiiiy is better than Johansson’s plan of playing with two Ès and allowing Here the game really begins. Tired of Black to open the b-file. manoeuvring in a cramped space, Black 16...…b8 17 ƒg5 seeks kingside expansion by ...f5 and his Not 17 Èb6?! Èxa5. opponent takes up the challenge. 17...ƒd7 18 ƒd3 ƒb5! 19 ƒxf6 27 g4? Avoiding the trap 19 Èfd2? bxc3 This move is frequently adorned 20 bxc3 Èxd5!. with a ‘!’; it is certainly a fighting 62 64 Great Chess Games move but very weakening and might g4-g5 Black will then have only the well have been answered by 27...f5. g-file to work with. 27 †c2!? does seem better, as a The move can also be criticized on line like 27...f5?! 28 exf5 gxf5 29 the grounds that it puts yet another Èe3 ƒxd3 30 †xd3 f4 31 Èc4 pawn on the same colour as the c7- f3 32 g3 should not be dangerous to ƒ. Probably Black’s main mistake White, who gains control of e4 while is strategic: he tries to win by attack his ‡ has more protection. instead of keeping his ‡ as safe as 27...†h4 28 …e3 f5 29 exf5 gxf5 30 possible and aiming to consolidate Èbd2 (D) a material advantage. What should Who really stands better here? Old Black do instead? annotations, which praise this game a) 30...‡h8 is a reasonable so highly, pass over in silence the preparatory move, but it seems that Dr crucial phase of the next few moves Rey did not want to let his opponent — in which Black misses several capture on f5. lines that would possibly have won, b) 30...e4!? is another idea but spoils his strong position, and lays Black has no piece ready to take ad- the foundation for White’s beautiful vantage of the vacated e5-square after counter-attack. 31 ƒf1! and the game is unclear. XIIIIIIIIY c) 30...fxg4! therefore looks like 9-tr-+-trk+0 the critical possibility, and if 31 …g3 ‡h8 (not 31...…f4? 32 Èxe5!) 32 B9+nvl-+-+p0 hxg4 Èxa5! wins a pawn (33 Èxa5? 9p+-zp-+-+0 ƒxd3 34 …xd3? †xf2+‰) and 9zPlzpPzpp+-0 keeps the initiative, while 31 Èe4 9-+N+-+Pwq0 seems to give Black a choice of 9+-zPLtR-+P0 winning moves. In particular, both 9Q+-sN-zP-+0 31...…f3 and 31...‡h8 look like safe ways for Black to play for a win, and 9tR-+-+-mK-0 even 31...gxh3 may be playable. It is a xiiiiiiiiy mystery why previous annotators did not highlight Black’s choice of the 30...f4!? incorrect plan at move 30. This gains space without loss of 31 …f3 ‡h8 time but, to my way of thinking, it is This move allows both …s to a superficial move that looks suspect come to the g-file. Note that 31...h5 once you have seen the rest of the is premature because of 32 Èxe5, game. The idea is apparently to take when Black dare not take on e5 control of g3, so that Black’s later because of d6+. One may ask whether breaking move ...h5 will be more the ‡ really belongs on the h-file effective. The drawback is that after when Black evidently needs ...h5 as Game 13: Johansson-Rey Ardid 63 a pawn lever, but it does preserve ‡f1 because of 37...e4! 38 ƒxe4 Èxa5 the initiative, whereas the alternatives 39 ƒd3 †xd5‰ but he may do better 31...…f7!? 32 Èe4 ƒd7 and 31...ƒe8 with 35 Èg3! …gg8 36 Èf5 followed 32 Èe4 ƒg6 are unclear. by 37 ‡h2, 38 …g1 and the position of 32 ‡g2?! the black ‡ on the h-file makes ...hxg4 White prevents ...h5xg4 and pre- less effective (due to …h3). pares his next move, but as the game 35 g5 …g6 36 ‡h2 (D) shows, this only holds up Black’s XIIIIIIIIY attack temporarily. 32 Èe4 h5 33 g5 9-tr-+-+-mk0 (now forced) may be a better chance in view of 33...…g8 (33...Èxa5 34 B9+nvl-+-+-0 Èxe5! dxe5 36 d6 ƒd8 37 †e6) 9p+-zp-+r+0 34 ‡h2 which is similar to the 9zPlzpPzp-zPp0 game after White’s 36th move — the 9-+N+Nzp-wq0 differences being in White’s favour. 9+-zPL+R+P0 However, Black has a better response 9Q+-+-zP-mK0 in 33...ƒd7!, to meet 34 ‡g2 by 34...ƒf5 or 34 ‡h2 by 34...ƒg4, so 9+-+-+-+R0 it seems that White cannot hold the xiiiiiiiiy balance whatever he does. 32...h5!? 36...ƒd8? “Opens lines for the attack,” says This usually gets an ‘!’ but is my Spanish source, while Purdy almost certainly a bad move. Not wrote: “Both sides flirt with death”. only does Black fail to spot White’s Black encounters problems in driving combination at move 38; he misses home his attack because the pawn his own last winning chance. The ƒ structure makes it easier for White to looks bad on c7 but it was performing feed reinforcements to the kingside, a defensive function; the È would be and in particular because Black’s 30th much better on f7, defending d6/e5 move ceded the fine e4-square to the and attacking the g-pawn. È. Even so, 32...h5 should probably There are two reasonable moves: have won if followed up correctly. 36...ƒd7!? may offer Black winning The alternative 32...ƒd7 looks chances. Considerable complications sensible, as White has shown himself could arise by 37 …b1 (If 37 …g1 ready to meet ...h5, but it does not ƒg4 38 Ècd2 Èxa5Œ) 37...ƒg4 38 give a clear advantage after 33 Èe4. Ècd2 …xg5 (38...ƒxf3?? 39 Èxf3 33 …h1 …f6 34 Èe4 …h6! traps the †.) 39 Èxg5 †xg5 but 37 Black’s plan is to provoke g4-g5 Èf6!?¢ is possible. and then attack the pawn. After the Even better, 36...Èd8! (£...Èf7) alternative 34...…g6, White cannot play was suggested by a Spanish annotator, 35 g5? …xg5+ 36 Èxg5 †xg5+ 37 and it really puts White in trouble. 64 64 Great Chess Games

a) 37 Ècd2 Èf7 38 c4 ƒd7 39 was suggested in a Spanish source, Èxc5? dxc5 40 ƒxg6 Èxg5‰. claiming equality. However, White b) 37 Èxc5 …g7 38 Èe4 but can refute that by 38 Èexd6 and if then still 38...Èf7! 39 …g1 Èxg5 38...…xd6 39 †e2! followed by the 40 …xg5 …xg5 41 Ècxd6 Èxd6 decisive 40 †e4. 42 ƒxb5 axb5 43 Èxd6 …bg8! Another crucial point is that while 44 Èf7+ ‡g7 45 Èxg5 †xg5 46 ...Èf7xg5 threatened to win by †b1 e4! 47 †xe4 ‡h8 48 †d4+ ...Èxf3+, after ...ƒxg5 Black has no …g7‰. immediate threats. Possibly he should c) 37 ƒb1 Èf7 38 Èe3 Èxg5 admit his mistake and go back with 39 Èxg5 †xg5 40 h4!? †f6! (40... 37...ƒc7. †xh4? 41 …h3) 41 c4 ƒd7 42 38 Èxe5!!? ƒxg6 †xg6 43 †c2 (43 Èg2 †g4 This move, bursting open Black’s or †e4) 43...†xc2 44 Èxc2 …b2 centre, launches the Swede’s fine and Black’s pieces dominate in the counter-attack. However, whether endgame. Johansson’s move is really the best d) 37 …g1 Èf7 38 †e2 is too slow depends on the analysis of Black’s after 38...…xg5!. correct defence at move 40. e) 37 †e2 may be White’s best, Previous commentators have intending 37...Èf7 38 Èe3! Èxg5? been so impressed by the finish that 39 Èf5ˆ, but after 37...ƒxc4! they failed to notice that 38 Èxc5 38 ƒxc4 Èf7 39 ƒd3 …bg8 (not (discovering on the g6-…) may be 39...Èxg5 40 Èxg5 …xg5 41 †e4) an objectively stronger combination. followed by 40...Èxg5 Black has a Thereby White regains his pawn with big advantage even if White should an indisputable advantage, though a hold off the kingside attack. lot of play remains after 38...…h6 39 37 …g1 Èe6. 37 †e2 is also possible. 38...dxe5 39 c4 37...ƒxg5?! (D) 39 ƒxb5 axb5 40 a6 loses to 37...ƒd7 followed by ...ƒf5 40...Èd6 41 a7 …a8 42 †a6 …xa7 XIIIIIIIIY according to Spanish analysis, e.g. 43 9-tr-+-+-mk0 †xa7 Èxe4 44 †b8+ ‡h7 45 †c7+ 9+n+-+-+-0 …g7 46 †xe5 Èd2. W9p+-zp-+r+0 39...ƒd7 40 †b2! …g7 41 †b6! (D) This is the point of White’s last 9zPlzpPzp-vlp0 move and indeed it is the only move. 9-+N+Nzp-wq0 White threatens Èxg5 followed by 9+-zPL+R+P0 the arrival of Her Majesty on h6, but 9Q+-+-zP-mK0 Black fights to the death, blocking 9+-+-+-tR-0 the g-file and bringing his second … xiiiiiiiiy belatedly on to the battlefield. Game 13: Johansson-Rey Ardid 65 XIIIIIIIIY †xe5+ ‡h7! (not 49...‡xg8 50 9-tr-+-+-mk0 †b8+ and 51 †xb7+) and Black has 9+n+l+-tr-0 good drawing chances, e.g. after 50 B9pwQ-+-+-+0 fxg3 †xc4 or 50 Èf6+ ‡g6. 9zP-zpPzp-vlp0 If this is right, then White should 9-+P+Nzp-wq0 have played 38 Èxc5. 9+-+L+R+P0 42 Èxg5 †xg5 After 42...ƒxf3 43 †h6+ ‡g8 44 9-+-+-zP-mK0 †e6+ ‡h8 45 Èf7+ ‡g8 46 Èxe5+ 9+-+-+-tR-0 mates, or if 42...…xg5 43 †c7 …g7 xiiiiiiiiy 44 †xb8+ Èd8 45 †xe5ˆ. 41...ƒg4? 43 hxg4 …f8 In the ‘ICCA Monthly Resumé’ Not 43...hxg4? 44 …h3+! and wins. (1947), Erik Larsson wrote: “On other Black’s pawns suddenly threaten moves, White wins quicker.” Also again. White’s answer is surprisingly Marchisotti gives ...ƒg4 an ‘!’ and cool; he creates a queenside passed discusses no alternatives. pawn and waits for Black to fall into However, Black missed 41...ƒf6! the kingside ambush. when: 44 †xa6! a) 42 †xf6 †xf6 43 Èxf6 …xg1 44 The double exclamation mark ‡xg1 leads to a roughly level ending. generally awarded to this move seems b) 42 …xg7 does not win either: excessive. 44 …h3 should also win, e.g. 42...ƒxg7 43 Èxc5 ƒg4 44 †g6 44...h4 45 f3 or 45 †xa6. ‡g8 45 Èe6 ƒxe6 46 †xe6+ ‡h8. 44...hxg4? c) White surely would have played 44...h4! is better but White is a 42 Èxf6 …xg1 (42...ƒxh3? 43 …xg7! passed a-pawn up and should win ƒe6+ 44 ‡g2 ‡xg7 45 Èxh5+! eventually with the kingside closed. †xh5 46 dxe6ˆ or 43...ƒc8+ 44 He should avoid 45 …h3 f3 46 …gg3 ‡g2 ‡xg7 45 Èh7!ˆ) 43 ‡xg1 when 46...e4! creates complications. but now comes 43...ƒxh3!!, which is 45 …h3+ ‡g8 46 †e6+ …ff7 equal according to Spanish source. I If 46...…gf7 47 …xg4 †xg4 48 continue the analysis: †xg4+ …g7 49 ƒh7+ mates. c1) 44 …xh3 †xh3 45 †c7 only 47 …xg4!! 1–0 draws: 45...…g8+! 46 Èxg8 †g4+ Black resigned as 47...†xg4 allows 47 ‡h2 †h4+ or 47 ‡f1 †d1+ etc. mate in four: 48 †e8+ …f8 49 …h8+ c2) 44 †c7 …g8+ (not 44...†g5+ ‡xh8 50 †xf8+ …g8 51 †h6#. If 45 …g3!ˆ) 45 Èxg8 †g4+ 46 …g3 47...Èd8 48 †e8+ …f8 49 ƒh7+ and †d1+ 47 ‡h2 fxg3+ 48 ‡xh3 and if 47...†e7 it is mate in three by 48 now 48...†xd3! (48...†h1+ 49 ‡xg3 …xg7+. Finally if 47...†f6 48 †e8+ †g1+ 50 ‡f3 †g4+ 51 ‡e3 †d4+ …f8 49 ƒh7+ ‡h8 50 ƒf5+ ‡g8 51 52 ‡e2 e4 53 ƒc2 is less clear) 49 ƒe6+ mates. Game 14 White: (Estonia) Black: Edwin Weiss (Germany) IFSB Championship, 1935 , Advance Variation (C02)

The Players: Keres (1916-75) was After 4...Èc6 5 dxc5 ƒxc5 6 ƒd3 one of the world’s top half-dozen the strongpoint on e5 gives White the players from 1938 to the mid-1960s. somewhat better game, said Keres. The foundations for his success were After losing as Black against Stalda in laid in a few years of intensive postal this line in a 1934 postal tournament, chess, developing his tactical flair and he played it in several OTB games openings knowledge. The pinnacle of with White, e.g. against Fine at the his CC career was his victory in the 1935 Warsaw Olympiad. IFSB Championship, with 10/13 in After the alternative 4...cxd4, a true European championship field. Keres-Euwe, Zandvoort 1936, went 5 His result is all the more impressive †xd4 (5 ƒd3 is the modern gambit when you consider that he was only treatment, similar to the game.) 19 years old, was playing about 70 5...Èc6 6 †f4?! (6 †g4!?) 6...f5 games at the same time and was also 7 ƒd3 Ège7 8 0–0 Èg6=. Keres commencing his illustrious OTB ca- only played the line as a gambit reer while this event was in progress. when Black forced it with this move Weiss was treasurer of IFSB and order; White cannot now reply 5 dxc5 a Jew. Presumably he did not survive because ...ƒxc5 attacks the f-pawn. the Holocaust. 5 ƒd3 cxd4 6 0–0 Èc6 (D) About this game: It is a sad fact that XIIIIIIIIY anthologies of Paul Keres’ best games 9r+l+kvlntr0 rarely include his best postal games; we have two of them in this book. W9zpp+-+pzpp0 This was a typical attacking game by 9-wqn+p+-+0 the young grandmaster. Black offers a 9+-+pzP-+-0 Dutch (2 c4 f5) but Keres switches to 9-+-zp-+-+0 his pet line against the French. 9+-+L+N+-0 1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 Èf3 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 4 c3 is more usual. 4...†b6 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy Game 14: Keres-Weiss 67

Swedish GM Gideon Stahlberg because of 8 exf6 Èxf6 9 Èg5! with innovated with 6...Èd7 against Keres strong threats, said Keres. at Warsaw 1935. That game continued b) 7...Ège7 is bad because 8 7 Èbd2 Èe7 8 Èb3 Èc6 9 …e1 h4! deprives this È of further with good chances for White in a development possibilities. Keres- complex position. Malmgren, also from the IFSB Ch 7 …e1! 1935, continued 8...ƒd7 9 a3 a5 10 Keres learns from experience. c3 (not yet 10 a4?! Èb4) 10 c3 …c8? He got this position twice in the (Black missed the opportunity to get championship, winning both games. counterplay with 10...a4!.) 11 a4 7 Èbd2?! was played in a 1934 Èg8 12 Èa3 ƒxa3 13 …xa3 Ège7 game against his regular sparring 14 Èh2 Èg6 15 Èf3 †c7? (Black partner Leho Laurine. Keres won a should return with 15...Ège7 so as famous brilliancy: 7...Ège7? 8 Èb3 to answer 16 h5 with 16...h6; White Èg6 9 †e2 †c7? (9...ƒd7 Kosten) would then have to find another way.) 10 Èbxd4! Ègxe5 11 Èb5! Èxf3+ 16 h5!‹. White won in 30 moves. 12 †xf3 †d7 13 ƒf4 e5 14 …fe1 f6 c) 7...ƒc5, followed by ...Ège7, 15 …ad1! ƒe7 16 ƒc4 d4 17 ƒe6! is better according to Keres; then 8 a3 †d8 18 ƒxe5! ƒxe6 19 Èc7+ ‡f7 a5 9 Èbd2 was played in two Keres- 20 Èxe6 †a5 21 ƒxd4 †xa2? Laurine OTB games in Tallinn around 22 ƒxf6!! ƒxf6 23 …d7+ Èe7 24 this time. Now we return to the game …xe7+ ‡xe7 25 †xb7+ ‡d6 26 with Weiss. †c7+ ‡d5 27 †c5# 1–0. 8 Èbd2 ƒd7 9 a3 (D) However, he did not repeat his XIIIIIIIIY 7th move because Black should have 9r+-+k+ntr0 blown up the centre with 7...f6!. Sur- prisingly, GM Tony Kosten in his B9zpp+l+pzpp0 1998 book ‘The French Advance’ 9-wqn+p+-+0 gives that game as his example for the 9+-+pzP-+-0 variation; he does not seem aware of 9-vl-zp-+-+0 the improvements for both players at 9zP-+L+N+-0 move 7 which were demonstrated in 9-zPPsN-zPPzP0 Keres’ own practice and annotations more than 60 years previously. 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 7...ƒb4 xiiiiiiiiy It seems to me that the position after 7 …e1 is just good for White and Now the drawback of 7...ƒb4 is Black should probably avoid ...†b6 apparent. The ƒ lacks a comfortable in this line. retreat and when Black captures Others: on d2, White increases his lead in a) 7...f6?! is very suspicious development. 68 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 9...ƒxd2 10 †xd2 0–0–0 Queenside castling is risky in view 9-+k+r+ntr0 of the coming attack, but the threats 9+p+l+Q+-0 11 †g5 and 11 b4 were irksome, said W9pwqn+p+-zp0 Keres. For example, if 10...Ège7 he 9+-+pzP-zp-0 intended 11 †g5 Èg6 12 h4 etc. 9-zP-zp-+-+0 11 †g5 g6 9zP-+L+N+-0 It would have been better to return the pawn immediately by 11...Ège7. 9-vLP+-zPPzP0 12 b4 a6 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 This gives White a clear target but xiiiiiiiiy otherwise Black cannot defend his ‡, 16 b5!! e.g. 12...Ège7? 13 b5 or 12...h6 13 Thus begins a strong attack on the †f4 Ège7 14 b5 followed by †xf7 black ‡, involving a second pawn after, for example, 14...Èa5. sacrifice. 13 ƒb2 h6 16...axb5 17 a4! b4 This move surrenders a pawn but it Black decides not to accept the was already difficult to find anything second pawn. better. Black’s opening strategy in After 17...bxa4 18 …eb1! “White this game was evidently unfortunate. has a wonderful attacking position,” 13...Ège7 might be better but White wrote Keres in ‘Fernschach’; “for answers 14 a4!. example if 18...†a5 19 ƒxd4 Èxd4 14 †f4 g5 20 Èxd4 with an overwhelming After 14...Ège7 White simply attack, or 18...†c5 19 …xa4, captures the centre pawn by 15 Èxd4 or 18...†a7 19 ƒb5 with many with a much superior game. threats”. 15 †xf7 …e8? (D) In the first of those lines, I am not Now White can continue the attack sure if the advantage White obtains in an interesting manner. At this point, after (17...bxa4 18 …eb1 †a5) 19 15...Ège7! was definitely preferable, ƒxd4 …e7! 20 †f8+ †d8 21 †xd8+ trying to complete his development. Èxd8 22 ƒb6 is as great as he could Perhaps Black feared 16 ƒxd4? Èxd4 get with 19 Èxd4!?, e.g. 19...Èxe5 17 Èxd4 †xd4 18 †xe7 but this is 20 †g7 Èxd3 (just opens more lines) not dangerous for him because of 21 cxd3 Èe7 22 …c1+, or 19...Èxd4 18...…hf8! with counterplay. Instead, 20 ƒxd4 Èe7 21 c3 †c7 (21...Èf5? Keres planned to meet 15...Ège7 by 22 …xb7) 22 †f3 intending †e2, the continuation 16 †h5 …df8 17 a4!, ƒb6, ƒb5. for example 17...†xb4 18 …eb1 †c5 18 a5! †c5 19 a6 bxa6 19 ƒa3 †a7 20 a5 threatening …b6 If 19...Ège7 the response given with an attack, and if 20...Èf5 21 by Keres is not convincing: 20 a7 …b6 Èxa5 22 ƒc5. ‡c7 21 †xe8! …xe8 22 a8† …xa8 Game 14: Keres-Weiss 69

23 …xa8 because Black can play Not 21...‡xc6? 22 ƒb5+!. 23...Èc8 to stop the … getting at his 22 Èxd4 †a8 kingside pawns. White does stand If 22...†c5 23 †xe8 or 22...†b6? better, however, and the right way 23 Èb5+ ‡d8 24 ƒd4 †b8 25 seems to be 20 Èd2! (£ 21 Èb3 …a1!. So Keres said that the relatively †b6 22 axb7+ ‡xb7 23 …a6), while best move was 22...…e7!, when White if 20...…ef8 21 †g7!? (or simply would continue the attack by 23 †f8 21 †h5) 21...…fg8 22 †f6 …f8 23 †b7 24 c3! †b8 25 †f3 etc. with Èb3! …xf6 24 Èxc5 …ff8 25 axb7+ decisive opening of lines. ‡c7 26 …eb1 planning 27 ƒxd4 23 Èb5+ ‡c6 Èxd4 28 …xb4 Èdc6 29 Èa6+ This shortens Black’s suffering, ‡d8 30 b8†+ Èxb8 31 …xb8+ with but the variation 23...‡d8 24 …a1 a winning endgame. †b8 25 ƒd4 Èe7 26 ƒc5! ƒxb5 20 …xa6 ‡c7 (D) 27 ƒxb5 †xb5 28 ƒxe7+ …xe7 XIIIIIIIIY 29 …a8+ ‡d7 30 …a7+ was also 9-+-+r+ntr0 hopeless for Black. 24 …a1 …e7 W9+-mkl+Q+-0 If 24...†d8 (24...†c8? 25 Èa7+) 9R+n+p+-zp0 25 …a6+ ‡b7 26 …a7+, or 24...†b8 9+-wqpzP-zp-0 25 …a6+ ‡b7 26 …a7+, or 24...†b7 9-zp-zp-+-+0 25 Èd6 (not the only way to win) 9+-+L+N+-0 25...†c7 (25...†b8 26 ƒb5+) 26 9-vLP+-zPPzP0 …a6+ ‡c5 27 Èb5 and mates. 25 …xa8! 9+-+-tR-mK-0 At first sight, a blunder, but in xiiiiiiiiy fact it exploits the bad position of the black ‡. This enables an elegant finish for 25...…xf7 26 …a6+ ‡b7 White, but if 20...Ège7 21 …ea1 g4 A worthy end to the game would (21...…hf8 22 †h5) 22 Èxd4! Èxd4 have been 26...‡c5 27 ƒd4# with a (or 22...Èxe5 23 Èxe6) 23 …1a5. pretty mating position. 21 …xc6+! 27 Èd6+ 1–0 This exchange sacrifice is the Black resigned because after quickest way to win. 27...‡b8 (or 27...‡c7) he will lose 21...†xc6 both …s. Game 15 White: Dr Christian Meyer (Germany) Black: G. Stalda (Italy) Deutsche Schachzeitung M–195, 1936 Nimzo-Indian Defence (E23)

The Players: I have no information Akopian and Malaniuk, but meeting about Meyer. Stalda was on the Italian 6...h6 by 7 ƒxf6! †xf6 8 Èf3. team in the 1st postwar CC-Olympiad. 6...Èe4 7 ƒd2 Èxc5!? About this game: The DSZ tourna- Black decides to regain his pawn ments attracted many strong players in and hound the white †, which the 1930s. There are some fascinating commits both sides to a sharp tactical variations and tremendous pawn play struggle. 7...Èxd2, which obtains the by Black in this game, which was ƒ pair, is often preferred (e.g. by included in Marchisotti’s book ‘Joyas Emms) but I am not convinced it is del Ajedrez Postal’. best. After 8 Èxd2 play can go: 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 a) 8...ƒxc5 9 e3 (Euwe v Nimzo- †b3!? witsch, Zürich 1934) or 9 Ède4!? This move is rare nowadays but it Schaefer-Breuer, corr 1929. could have surprise value. GM John b) 8...0–0 9 e3 ƒxc5 10 ƒe2 b6 11 Emms takes it seriously in his 1998 …d1 f5 12 Èf3 †f6= (Christiansen- ‘Easy Guide to the Nimzo-Indian’. Speelman, Munich 1992) is current White’s idea is not only to avoid ‘book’ but 9 g3!? (Trifunovi™) offers the doubling of his c-pawn (as after White chances of a slight edge in a 4 †c2) but also to gain time by position reminiscent of the Catalan attacking the ƒ; however, the † and anti-Benoni (1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 c5 3 proves exposed to attack on b3. Èf3 cxd4 4 Èxd4 e6 5 g3). 4...c5 8 †c2 0–0 4...Èc6 (threatening 5...Èxd4, Castling is the most flexible move. since if 6 †xb4?? Èc2+) 5 Èf3 8...f5 9 a3 ƒxc3 10 ƒxc3 0–0 just d5 was thought a reliable way of transposes to the game, but once equalising, although White can more the kingside looks complicate matters a bit with 6 ƒg5. like White’s best strategy. 9 g3 0–0 5 dxc5 Èc6 6 Èf3 10 ƒg2 d6 11 …d1 e5 12 a3 ƒxc3 Botvinnik’s 6 ƒg5 has featured in 13 ƒxc3 favoured White in Winter- recent revivals of the 4 †b3 line by GMs Sultan Khan, Hastings 1930/31. Game 15: Meyer-Stalda 71

9 a3 XIIIIIIIIY White wants the ƒ pair. Other options 9r+lwq-trk+0 here include 9 e3 (maybe best), 9 e4 9zp-+p+-zpp0 †f6 10 0–0–0 b6 (Stahlberg-Kashdan, B9-zpn+p+-+0 Hamburg OL 1930) and 9 g3 d5! 9+-+-+p+-0 (Spielmann-Pirc, 5th match game 1931) . 9-zPP+n+P+0 9...ƒxc3 10 ƒxc3 f5 10...a5, to maintain the È on c5, 9zP-+-+N+-0 has often been played but White obtains 9-vLQ+PzP-zP0 an edge with 11 g3!, as in Stahlberg- 9tR-+-mKL+R0 Nimzowitsch, 3rd & 5th match games, xiiiiiiiiy Göteborg 1934 (both won by White) and This wild move has two objectives: Euwe-Evans, Hastings 1949/50. The text to weaken the black outpost on e4 and move envisages a piece sacrifice to keep to open the g-file for a …, to combine the white ‡ in the centre. with the b2-ƒ against the focal point 11 b4 g7. However, it creates weaknesses After 11 e3 a5! 12 ƒe2 (12 b4? and gives Black a tempo for action. axb4 13 axb4 Èxb4!) 12...†e7 13 a) 13 e3 ƒb7 14 ƒe2 …c8 (= Èd2 e5! Black had good play in according to ‘ECO’) 15 0–0 Èe7 16 Eliskases-Herzog, corr 1932. …ad1 †e8 17 †a4 Èc6 18 c5 bxc5 11...Èe4 12 ƒb2 19 b5 Èd8 A.W.Dake-H.Steiner, White wants to justify his previous Mexico City 1935 (0–1, 34) is often play by keeping his ƒ. 12 e3 was cited, but it is not clear to me that tried later, e.g. 12...Èxc3 13 †xc3 White is doing badly here; he just b6 14 ƒd3 ƒb7 (Stahlberg-Alekhine, grabbed the a-pawn (not forced) Hamburg 1939), or 12...b6 13 ƒb2 and defended badly later. However, ƒb7 14 ƒd3 †e7! 15 ƒxe4 fxe4 16 14...†e7 is also possible, as in Èd2 (16 †xe4 Èxb4) 16...†h4 with R.Dührssen-M.Seibold, corr 1941. counterplay (Meyer-Seibold, corr 1948). b) 13 g3! ƒb7 14 ƒg2 …c8 15 Èd2 12...b6 (Euwe-Mulder, Amsterdam 1933) e.g. 12...d6, to continue with ...e5 and 15...Èxd2 16 †xd2 Èa5! 17 ƒxb7 ...ƒe6, is given as equalising in ‘ECO’. Èxb7 18 …c1Ÿ Euwe (cited in ‘ECO’). Black has a good share of the centre but H.Meyer-B.Rozinov, USSR-Germany his d-pawn is backward and d5 requires corr 1957-61, continued 18...d5 19 cxd5 watching. The fianchetto, bearing down …xc1+ 20 ƒxc1 †xd5 21 †xd5 exd5 against the white kingside, appealed 22 ƒf4 …c8 23 ‡d2 ‡f7 (½-½, 43). more to the players of the 1930s. 13...Èxf2! 12...a5 13 b5 Èe7 14 e3 b6 15 Black sacrifices a piece for two ƒe2 ƒb7= is also in ‘ECO’, but why pawns and White will have to defend should White develop his ƒ on e2? against a strong attack. Other tries: 13 g4?! (D) a) 13...Èd6 14 0–0–0 and White gets 72 64 Great Chess Games the type of game he wants (1–0, 49 in ‡g1 and 18...†f4! by 19 ‡e1!. But Berthoud-Iliesco, Buenos Aires 1931). 17...†h4+ 18 ‡e3 †h6+ 19 ‡f2 is b) 13...fxg4? 14 †xe4 gxf3 15 an immediate draw by repetition, so it …g1 …f7 16 0–0–0 and Black is in a is likely that 17 ‡d3 was played as a precarious position. This was tested in a winning try by White! few games at the time, e.g. Blum-Baron 17...d5! von Feilitzsch, corr 1931. If 17...e5?! 18 †d2! †g6+ 19 c) 13...Èg5 14 †c3 (14 ƒg2!?) ‡c3 the white ‡ finds a secure 14...Èxf3+ 15 exf3 †e7 (15...e5!?) position (Marchisotti). 16 gxf5 exf5+ 17 ‡d2 …f6 18 …g1 18 …d1 …d6+ 19 ƒd3 Èd4 20 c5 Èxf3+ 21 This was a dubious innovation in ‡c2 Èxg1 22 cxd6 †g5 23 …e1 ƒb7 this game. Also bad are 18 …xg4? e5 24 …e7 …c8 25 ƒc4+ 1–0 Moller- or 18 Èe5? d4! 19 ƒxd4 (19 Èxg4 Mezgailis, Stockholm OL 1937; a Èe5+!) 19...Èxd4 — von Feilitzsch; lively if unconvincing “hack”. while 18 †d2 †g6+! 19 ‡c3 †e4 14 ‡xf2 20 †d3? (20 cxd5) 20...gxf3! 21 cxd5 14 …g1 Èxg4 15 h3 Èf6 16 0–0–0 exd5! 22 †xe4 dxe4 23 ‡d2 g6 gave looks less suicidal but clearly Black is Black a favourable ending in Egli- doing OK, whereas accepting the Stalda, corr 1933. piece forces Black to justify his play. Instead 18 †c1 is reckoned to be 14...fxg4 15 …g1 †h4+ 16 ‡e3 critical. Black has two tries here: Not 16 …g3 gxf3 17 ‡g1 Èd4‰, a) 18...dxc4+ 19 †xc4 (19 ‡xc4 nor 16 ‡g2 gxf3+ 17 ‡h1 Èd4Œ. …f4+ 20 ‡b3 e5) 19...…d8+ when 16...†h6+ (D) according to ‘ECO’ Black has XIIIIIIIIY an attack and a clear advantage. 9r+l+-trk+0 Marchisotti’s view that this line is good for White seems doubtful. Play W9zp-+p+-zpp0 can go 20 ‡c2 (20 ƒd4? …xd4+!) 9-zpn+p+-wq0 20...ƒb7 21 †xg4 (21 …xg4 is 9+-+-+-+-0 probably not good against 21...…ac8 9-zPP+-+p+0 — though White can take on g7, 9zP-+-mKN+-0 Black will hit back on the c-file.) 9-vLQ+P+-zP0 21...Èxb4+! and now: a1) 22 axb4 …ac8+ 23 ƒc3 (not 9tR-+-+LtR-0 23 ‡b1 …d1+ or 23 ‡b3 †e3+ xiiiiiiiiy and mates) 25...…xc3+! 26 ‡xc3 †e3+ 27 ‡b2 (or 27 ‡c2 ƒe4+) 17 ‡d3!? 27...…d2+! 28 Èxd2 †xd2+ 29 ‡b1 17 ‡f2 is safer and sets a trap: 17... †d1+ 30 ‡b2 †d2+ with a draw †xh2+? (not 17...gxf3? 18 …xg7+) by perpetual check in Botvinnik- 18 …g2 meeting 18...†h4+ by 19 Miasodov, Leningrad 1931 (though Game 15: Meyer-Stalda 73 XIIIIIIIIY with 17 ‡f2 †h4+ 18 ‡e3 †h6+ 9r+l+-trk+0 inserted before 19 ‡d3). 9zp-+-+-zpp0 a2) 22 †xb4!? …ac8+ 23 ƒc3 B9-zpn+-+q+0 ƒxf3 24 exf3 a5 and here Dr Meyer proposed 25 †c4 “!” (25 …xg7+ 9+-+pzp-+-0 †xg7) 25...…xc4 26 ƒxc4 †xh2+ 9-zPP+-+p+0 27 ‡b3 g6 28 ƒxe6+ ‡f8 29 a4 with 9zP-mK-+N+-0 an endgame favourable to White. I 9-vL-wQP+-zP0 don’t believe this, because of 25...b5! 9+-+R+LtR-0 26 †e2 (not 26 †xb5? †d2+ or 26 xiiiiiiiiy …xg7+ ‡f8!) 26...…xc3+! 27 ‡xc3 †f6+ followed by 28...†xa1 and If 20 ‡e3 d4!+ 21 ‡f2 †h5‰. Black wins. In this line White should 20...d4+! 21 ‡b3 prefer 24 …d1! which leads to a draw 21 Èxd4 exd4+ or 21...Èxd4 after 24...…xc3+! 25 †xc3 ƒe4+ 26 leaves Black a clear pawn ahead. …d3 …xd3 27 exd3 †xh2+ 28 ƒg2!. 21...ƒe6! b) 18...…f4! is stronger. Dührssen- The white ‡ becomes a target Schmidt, corr 1939, continued 19 again. Black threatens 22...ƒxc4+ 23 †e3 ƒa6 20 Èe1 …d8 21 ƒg2 ‡xc4 Èa5+ and mates, e.g. 24 bxa5 …f3 22 ƒxf3 dxc4+ 23 ‡e4 †g6+ …ac8+ 25 ‡b3 †e6+ (or ...†f7+) 26 24 ‡f4 and now Black could have ‡a4 †c6+ and 27...†c4#. taken a draw by 24...†h6+ 25 ‡e4 22 Èg5 †g6+ says Marchisotti; but in fact This rules out the ƒ sacrifice by Black could have won with either preventing a black † check from e6 or 21...Èd4! or 19...e5!‰. White is f7 (as in the last note). If 22 ‡a2 a5!. also in difficulties after 19 Èe5 ƒb7, 22...b5 23 Èxe6 e.g. 20 Èxc6 ƒxc6 21 ƒe5 †g6+ 23 e4 …xf1 24 …gxf1 ƒxc4+ 25 ‡c2 22 ‡d2 …xc4 23 †b2 …f8, while ƒxf1 26 …xf1 h6 regains the piece. 19 Èd2 can be met by 19...†xh2 or 23...bxc4+ 24 ‡a2 †xe6 25 ‡b1 a5 19...e5. 26 ƒg2 18...e5 If 26 b5 …ab8! 27 a4 c3! 28 ƒxc3 18...d4 £...†g6+ is also strong; (28 †c2? Èb4!) 28...†b3+ 29 ‡a1 White dare not capture on e5 because (29 ƒb2? Èb4 or 29 †b2? †xd1+) of the reply ...ƒf5+. 29...dxc3‰. 19 †d2 †g6+ 26...axb4 27 ƒxc6 19...…f4!? also comes into If 27 axb4 …a2! and 28...c3. consideration, but not 19...e4+? 20 27...c3! ‡c2 exf3 21 †xh6 gxh6 22 exf3 This crushes all resistance. with a superior ending for White 28 ƒxa8 cxd2 29 ƒe4 bxa3 30 ƒxa3 — Marchisotti. †b3+! 31 ƒb2 †e3 32 ƒd5+ ‡h8 20 ‡c3! (D) 33 …g2 d3! 0–1 Game 16 White: Paul Keres (Estonia) Black: Dr Eduard Dyckhoff (Germany) IFSB Olympiad preliminary A board 1, 1935-37 Ruy Lopez, Open Variation (C83)

The Players: Keres was introduced in chances right down to the endgame. Game 14. Dyckhoff (1880-1949) was My analysis reopens the question of greatly involved as a player, writer and whether Keres missed a win at move organiser in popularising postal chess 32; I think not, but the reply Dyckhoff in Germany. IFSB champion in 1930, said he intended would have lost! he made several important contribu- 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 tions to the development of Tarrasch’s Èf6 5 0–0 Èxe4 6 d4 b5 7 ƒb3 d5 Defence to the Queen’s Gambit, 1 d4 8 dxe5 ƒe6 9 c3 ƒe7 10 ƒe3 0–0 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Èc3 c5, which he played 11 Èbd2 all his life. In 1954-56 a large tourna- Although lines like 9 Èbd2 Èc5 ment was held in his memory, with 10 c3 d4 have become more critical, about 2,000 players from 30 countries this position is also quite popular and including a top section (won by GM can arise via 9 ƒe3. Lothar Schmid) that was as strong as 11...Èxd2 a world championship. Black need not fear the immediate About this game: This, one of the exchange on e4 and nowadays most famous drawn games, is also a 11...†d7 is more usual. This move clash of the generations, and a strug- was played against Keres in another gle between a CC specialist and a postal game around the same time: great talent who was fast approaching 12 ƒc2 f5 13 exf6 Èxf6 14 †b1 one of the first peaks of his career, the ƒg4? (14...‡h8!) 15 h3! ƒxh3?! 1938 AVRO tournament. 16 Èg5! (Accepting the sacrifice This game has been analysed by would be dangerous.) 16...Èg4!? many people but never completely 17 Èxh3 †d6 18 …e1! d4 19 cxd4 “solved”. After White achieves a †h2+ 20 ‡f1 ƒb4 21 ƒb3+! ‡h8 slight opening advantage and launch- 22 †e4! ƒxd2 23 †xg4 ƒxe1 24 es an attack, Black finds a courageous …xe1 …ae8 25 Èg1 †d6 26 Èf3 defensive plan. Keres declines to take with two ƒs for a … (1–0, 36) Keres- an easy draw and the resulting struggle G.Friedemann, Estonia corr 1935. gives both players winning and losing Later Keres proposed 12 …e1. Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 75

12 †xd2 †d7 13 †d3 Baburin: “The only drawback of Many years later, Keres tried both this plan is that Black weakens his 13 …ad1 and 13 ƒg5 in games against kingside while one of his pieces is Unzicker, but Hungarian writer Egon idle on the opposite wing. This factor Varnusz says that Keres himself later begins to influence the game from regarded the move he had played now on.” against Dyckhoff as best. This position does not seem to 13...Èa5 14 ƒc2 g6 15 ƒh6 ƒf5 16 have occurred in OTB master games, †e2 …fe8 17 Èd4 (D) but CC players (knowing this game) XIIIIIIIIY have sometimes followed it and a few 9r+-+r+k+0 examples are mentioned below. 20 †d3 fxe5 B9+-zpqvlp+p0 An unsuccessful attempt to improve 9p+-+-+pvL0 for Black was 20...ƒc5+ 21 ‡h1 ƒf8 9snp+pzPl+-0 22 ƒxf8 …xf8 23 f5 fxe5 24 fxg6 c6 9-+-sN-+-+0 25 Èe3 Èc4 26 gxh7+ †xh7 27 9+-zP-+-+-0 Èf5 …ae8 28 †g3+ ‡h8 29 †g5 9PzPL+QzPPzP0 …f7 30 Èh6 …g7 31 †h4 Èe3 32 …f6 …xg2 33 …f7 1–0 A.Poulsen- 9tR-+-+RmK-0 S.From, Danish CC Ch 1984. xiiiiiiiiy 21 f5 Baburin wrote that “if White would GM Mikhail Krasenkov in his 1995 be looking for safety, he could have book on the Open Spanish assesses played 21 †xd5+ †e6 22 Èe3. Yet, this position as follows: “With better then after 22...exf4 23 ƒxf4 ƒxf4 24 chances for White as Black’s kingside …xf4 …ad8 Black is OK. Here in a is weak”. OTB game Black might feel uneasy, 17...ƒxc2 18 Èxc2 but I guess that playing CC he had ‘Chess Mail’ gave FIDE GM more time to work out the sequences Alexander Baburin this game to of his idea with 18...ƒd6 & 19...f6!”. annotate, without telling him who the 21...ƒc5+ players were. His comment here was: 21...e4 22 †xd5+ †f7 23 Èe3 “White’s plan is interesting — he is led to a † exchange and a draw in going to play something like …ad1, O.Smith-G.Lagland, 4th CC World Ch Èe3 and f2-f4-f5. On e3, White’s sf 1958-61 (½-½, 52). È will be much more useful than on Baburin makes the interesting f3 and this is the whole point of his suggestion of 21...c6. “After 22 fxg6 17th move. Black has to do something e4 Black is fine. Maybe then White about this plan soon and his reaction would have to play 22 b3, limiting the seems to be logical.” a5-È for a while.” 18...ƒd6 19 f4 f6 22 ‡h1 e4 23 †g3 ƒd6 24 †g5 76 64 Great Chess Games

White wants to retain the threat the game, but the hasty 25...Èc4? of fxg6 and build up pressure, while loses in view of 26 Èg4 …xf5 27 Black is trying to create a situation Èf6+ …xf6 28 †xd5+. If 25...†e7 where his passed e-pawn will be White probably does best to play 26 significant. Both sides want to imp- †g4! †f7 27 ƒf4 transposing to the rove the position of their queenside previous note. …s and Ès without losing time. 26 †h4! 24...…e5! Heidenfeld wrote: “The peak of Not 24...ƒe7? 25 f6 ƒd8 26 the attack. White threatens 27 fxg6 Èe3 and 24...†e7 25 †g4! †f7 26 †xg6 28 …f6 followed by †g3+”. Èe3 …e5 (Better 26...Èc4) 27 ƒf4! However, since the attack does not simply loses Black a tempo. win, attempts have been made to find Then Wolfgang Heidenfeld, in a stronger line for White: his book ‘Draw!’, gave the variation a) Baburin wrote that: “At first it 27...…ee8 (27...…e7 28 ƒxd6 cxd6 seems that the endgame after 26 fxg6 29 f6 …ee8 30 Èf5) 28 ƒxd6 cxd6 †xg6 27 †xg6+ hxg6 28 ƒf4 …e6 29 fxg6 †xg6 but here I disagree 29 Èxd5 is better for White, as his with his continuation 30 †xg6+ hxg6 pawn structure is more sound. Yet, 31 Èxd5 “and wins” because after after 29...c6 30 Èe3 ƒc5 Black has 31...…e5 Black is back in the game. enough play, threatening to continue Instead, White should probably with ...ƒxe3 and ...Èc4. If White play 30 †h4 (30 †d1!?) 30...…e5 tries to stop it by 31 b3 then after and now 31 …f6 or 31 …ad1. 31...…d8 32 …ad1 …d3 Black is fine Also, White might do without again.” ƒxd6, i.e. 27...…ee8 28 fxg6 †xg6 Heidenfeld gave similar play but 29 †xg6+ hxg6 30 Èxd5‹, though instead of 30...ƒc5, he suggested there’s still a lot of play left. 30...ƒxf4 31 …xf4 …d8 32 …d1 …d3, 25 Èe3 †f7 (D) which seems even better. Black needs to bring the È into This compares unfavourably for White with the 24...†e7 25 †g4 †f7 XIIIIIIIIY 26 Èe3 …e5 variation, as there (27 9r+-+-+k+0 ƒf4) 27...…e6! was impossible since 9+-zp-+q+p0 he still had a pawn on f5. Furthermore, W9p+-vl-+pvL0 26 †g4(?) here reaches the same position but with Black to move! 9snp+ptrPwQ-0 b) Heidenfeld gave quite a lot of 9-+-+p+-+0 space to a scornful rebuttal of 26 b3, 9+-zP-sN-+-0 which seeks to shut the black È out 9PzP-+-+PzP0 of c4. This move was recommended 9tR-+-+R+K0 by Dr Edmund Adam in the German xiiiiiiiiy magazine ‘Caissa’, May 1949. Now: Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 77

b1) Heidenfeld dismisses Adam’s White nothing, said Dyckhoff. 27 26...‡h8 as “at this stage quite sense- Èxc4 bxc4 28 fxg6 †xg6 29 …f6 is less”. His opinion is borne out by the also met by 29...…h5 30 …xg6+ hxg6 continuation of a game Adam may and Black’s chances seem better with have seen, H.Ahman-H.Brynhammar, the Ès off the board than in the game. Swedish CC Ch 1948: 27 †h4 gxf5 27...†xg6 28 …f6 …h5 28 ƒf4 …e6 29 ƒxd6 cxd6 30 …xf5 Black allows his † to be captured †g7 31 …af1 …h6 32 †f4 …g6 33 with check; this is the only saving …f7 †h6 34 Èxd5 †xf4 35 …1xf4 line. Far from this being a last-minute …g5 36 Èf6 …g7 37 Èxe4 …xf7 38 inspiration, Baburin says: “I am sure …xf7 …e8 39 …xh7+ ‡xh7 40 Èf6+ that both players foresaw this move ‡g6 41 Èxe8 Èb7 42 ‡g1 1–0. a long time ago, perhaps as early as b2) 26...Èc6! 27 †h4 Èe7 around move 19, when play on the 28 fxg6 (28 f6? …h5!) 28...†xg6 kingside started.” (28...Èxg6) and if 29 …f6 †h5 30 29 …xg6+ hxg6 30 †f6 †g3+ Èg6 31 ƒf4 (31 Èg4 …g5!) White plays for more complications 31...‡h8 was Heidenfeld’s line, because the endgame arising after which seems to give Black a good 30 †xh5 gxh5 31 Èxd5 ‡h7 game. The main question is whether (31...Èxb2!?) 32 ƒf4 c6! only offers White can improve on it by 28 g4 or winning chances to Black. 29 g4, or earlier by 27 …ad1. Baburin made the comment that: 26...Èc4 “As computer analysis shows, in this Dyckhoff gave his move ‘!!’ and game both players never really left the analysed the alternatives as follows: ‘safety zone’, despite all the tactical a) 26...ƒe7 27 †g3 ƒd6 28 fireworks.” When I mentioned this ƒf4 …ee8 29 ƒxd6 cxd6 30 Èg4!. opinion to Estonian master Valter However 30...‡h8 defends, so instead Heuer, friend and biographer of White should play either 30 b3, or Keres, he said he was sure Keres was else 29 fxg6 †xg6 30 †xg6+ hxg6 really trying to win this game. 31 Èxd5 with the same endgame as 30...…xh2+ 31 ‡g1 …xh6 (D) after 24...†e7. XIIIIIIIIY b) 26...‡h8 27 ƒg5 ƒe7 28 9r+-+-+k+0 †g3, or 26...ƒf8 27 fxg6 †xg6 28 …f6 †h5 29 †g3+ ‡h8 30 …xf8+, W9+-zp-+-+-0 or 26...…xf5 27 Èxf5 gxf5 28 9p+-vl-wQptr0 †g5+ †g6 29 …xf5 (Dyckhoff), or 9+p+p+-+-0 26...gxf5 27 ƒf4 …e6 28 ƒxd6 cxd6 9-+n+p+-+0 and here 29 …xf5 seems better than 9+-zP-sN-+-0 Dyckhoff’s 29 Èxf5. 9PzP-+-+P+0 27 fxg6 27 Èg4 …xf5 28 Èf6+ ‡h8 gives 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 78 64 Great Chess Games

This is a critical moment to take Èf5 repeats the position, but instead stock. White has “won” his opponent’s 34 Èe6! has a threat of mate and †, but in return Black has …, ƒ and White looks much better here (e.g. two pawns which is a full material 34...ƒh2+ 35 ‡f2 ƒe5 36 †g5 …h7 equivalent. Each side has an insecure 37 ‡e2!). ‡ position and an undeveloped …. So Black would reply 33...…f8 There are also weak pawns on both 34 †e6+ ‡h7 35 †d7+ ‡h8 36 sides but the passed black e-pawn is a …f1! …h1+ 37 ‡xh1 …xf1+ 38 ‡h2 real danger to White. (D) bringing about what I see as the 32 †g5! critical position for the 32 Èf5 line. Instead 32 Èg4 ƒc5+ 33 ‡f1 XIIIIIIIIY Èe3+ (33...…h1+) 34 ‡e2 Èxg4 35 9-+-+-+-mk0 †e6+ ‡g7 36 †d7+ ‡h8 37 †xg4 …f8 38 …f1 …xf1 39 ‡xf1 ƒb6 40 B9+-zpQ+-+-0 †e6 …h1+ 41 ‡e2 ‡g7 42 †xd5 e3 9p+-+-+p+0 is a line from Heidenfeld’s book. 9+pvlp+-+-0 Dyckhoff said Keres’ move 32 9-+nsNp+-+0 †g5 was probably best, but his 9+-zP-+-+-0 analysis of the alternative 32 Èf5!? 9PzP-+-+PmK0 was deeply flawed. Since 32...gxf5? 33 †xh6 is out of the question, Black 9+-+-+r+-0 must play 32...ƒc5+ and now there xiiiiiiiiy are two lines. a) 33 ‡f1 is worth considering, Dyckhoff does not have a perpetual because after 33...Èe3+ (where check, several of his pawns are Heidenfeld stops) 34 ‡e2 (34 vulnerable, and the white È threatens Èxe3?? …f8) 34...Èxf5 35 †e6+ to go to e6 creating mate threats. Black will lose his ƒ! For example, So Black needs a definite forcing 35...‡h7 (35...‡g7 36 †xd5) 36 continuation. What should he play? †f7+ (36 †xd5?! …h2) 36...Èg7 37 b1) Dyckhoff said he intended †xd5 …h2 38 †xc5 (Not 38 †xa8?? 38...ƒd6+? 39 g3 Èe3 (Not 39... …xg2+ and ...…g1+ wins the a1–….) Èe5? 40 †h3+ picking up the ….) 40 38...…xg2+ 39 ‡e3. However, Black Èe6 Èf5 41 †e8+ ‡h7 42 †f7+ can obtain sufficient counterplay here ‡h6, and here previous annotators by 39...Èf5+ 40 ‡f4 (40 ‡xe4? examined 43 †g8 (£†h8#) …e8+) 40...…e8 with a strong passed 43...ƒxg3+ 44 ‡g2 …f2+ 45 ‡g1 e-pawn and play against the exposed ‡h5 46 †h7+ Èh6 when 47 Èg7+! white ‡. ‡g5 48 Èe6+ draws by perpetual b) Therefore 33 Èd4 is the main check, but overlooking the defence try, which has received the most 43...ƒe5! stopping all threats (e.g. 44 attention: Now if 33...ƒd6 then 34 Èf8 ƒxg3+ 45 ‡h3 …h1+ 46 ‡g2 Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 79

…h2+ followed by 47...Èh4) and …xb2) 40...Èd6 41 †xc7 Èf5 may giving Black good chances. be sufficient to draw, because if 42 However, that is academic because †e5+ ‡h7 43 ‡g1 (Again 43 †xd5? it was also overlooked that 43 †f6! …xg2+!) 43...…xa2 44 g4 Èe3 White wins. On f6 the † still threatens 44 cannot create a passed pawn. †h8#, but prevents the 43...ƒe5 Furthermore, Black has an earlier defence, while 43...Èg7 allows 44 alternative that may even be better. †h4#. After 43...ƒxg3+ 44 ‡h3 After 32 Èf5 ƒc5+ 33 Èd4 …f8 …h1+ 45 ‡g2 …h2+ 46 ‡g1 Black 34 †e6+ there is 34...‡h8!? 35 …f1 has run out of useful moves. …h1+ 36 ‡xh1 …xf1+ 37 ‡h2 ƒd6+ This does not mean that Keres 38 g3 and now 38...‡g7!å although would have won the game if he had White may be able to draw. played 32 Èf5!. It is well known in So it seems Keres made the right chess that players may plan a certain call again. Let us now return to the continuation but never critically actual course of the game. examine it if the opponent diverges, 32...‡h7 (D) and so the incorrect analysis appears XIIIIIIIIY in their published notes. Yet if the 9r+-+-+-+0 position had actually arisen in the game, they would have taken a deeper W9+-zp-+-+k0 look and maybe seen what they had 9p+-vl-+ptr0 previously missed. 9+p+p+-wQ-0 In the diagram position, Black has 9-+n+p+-+0 two other moves worth considering, 9+-zP-sN-+-0 which I have never seen analysed in 9PzP-+-+P+0 print: b2) 38...e3!? 39 Èe6 ƒd6+ (If 9tR-+-+-mK-0 39...ƒf8 40 †e8! e2 41 Èxf8 e1†? xiiiiiiiiy 42 Èe6+ ‡h7 43 †e7+ mates, or 40...Èd6 41 †xg6 and White is Now Black’s various strong threats making progress.) 40 g3 ƒe5 41 Èg5 (...ƒc5+, ...…f8 and ...ƒh2+) make it ‡g8 42 †xd5+ ‡f8 (or 42...‡g7 43 hard for White to avoid a draw. †d7+ ‡f8) but now 43 †d8+ ‡g7 33 Èg4! 44 †e7+ ‡g8 (44...‡h6 45 Èf7+) This seems to be the only move. 45 †h7+ ‡f8 46 Èe6+ ‡e8 47 Again there are serious mistakes †xg6+ ‡e7 48 Èc5! looks good in Dyckhoff’s notes, which were for White. republished in the book of his mem- It seems that Black must eliminate orial tournament. the attacking È: a) 33 …f1 Èxe3! 34 †xe3 ƒh2+ b3) 38...ƒxd4! 39 cxd4 …f2 40 35 ‡f2 …f8+ 36 ‡e2 …xf1 37 ‡xf1 b3 (If 40 †xd5 …xg2+! 41 ‡h3 ƒd6å seems correct. 80 64 Great Chess Games

b) 33 Èxc4? bxc4 34 †xd5 …f8. but will also lose after 43 †h5+ ‡g8 Here Dyckhoff’s notes say the game 44 †xe5 c6 45 †e6+ and †xc6.) 43 will end in perpetual check, but Black †h5+ ‡g8 44 †xd5+ and †xa8. is winning easily. 34...…f8 threatens 38 †f6+ ‡h7 39 †h6+ ‡g8 40 35...ƒh2+ 36 ‡h1 ƒf4+ 37 ‡g1 †g5+ ‡h8 ƒe3#, while if 35 g4 (or 35 g3) Against correct defence, Keres has 35...…h3! followed by 36...…g3+ and been unable to break down the black White will soon have to give up his † position. However, he did not want to avoid mate. to take the immediate draw since c) 33 †xd5? …f8 is another line he can probe a bit more. That suited which Dyckhoff says is a draw, but Dyckhoff too, as Black can set his actually wins for Black, for if 34 Èg4 own traps. …h5! enables ...ƒc5+. 41 †xd5!? (D) Even after the move given by XIIIIIIIIY Dyckhoff, namely 34...Èe3, White 9r+-+-+-mk0 is losing. Presumably he was thinking of 35 Èxe3 ƒh2+ but this leads to B9+-zp-+-+-0 mate, not a perpetual; i.e. 36 ‡h1 9p+-+-+-+0 ƒf4+! 37 ‡g1 ƒxe3#. 9+pvlQ+-+-0 33...ƒc5+ 34 ‡f1 …h1+ 9-+n+p+N+0 Black could decline the … offer. 9+-zP-+-+-0 After 34...Èe3+ 35 Èxe3 …h5 9PzP-+K+P+0 36 †g4 ƒxe3 37 ‡e2 ƒb6 38 …f1 it’s Black who may need to be careful 9tr-+-+-+-0 according to Baburin. Dyckhoff’s xiiiiiiiiy analysis continues 38...…g8 39 …f7+ (possibly not best) 39...…g7 40 …f8 Keres finds the best way to keep ƒc5 and his final comment was “but the game going. In other lines it is in this variation, White has more risky for White to spurn the perpetual winning chances”. check, e.g. 41 Èe5 …f8 and if 42 So Keres would have welcomed Èg6+?! ‡h7 43 Èxf8+ ƒxf8 44 34...Èe3+ as giving Black an opp- †f5+ ‡g7 (Heidenfeld), or 41 †h6+ ortunity to go wrong. ‡g8 42 †g6+ ‡h8 and if 43 Èh6? 35 ‡e2 …xa1 36 †h6+ …f8 44 Èf7+ …xf7 45 †xf7 ƒd6. 36 Èf6+ ‡g7 37 Èh5+ ‡h7 is The main alternative was 41 just a draw, as Dyckhoff pointed out. Èf6 …h1 42 Èh5 ƒf8 and now if 36...‡g8 37 †xg6+ ‡h8! 43 †xd5!? (43 †f6+ still draws.) Dyckhoff avoided a trap here: Black can choose between the safe 37...‡f8? 38 †f6+ ‡g8 39 Èh6+ 43...…b8 44 b3 Èd6 45 †e5+ ‡h7= ‡h7 40 Èf5! ƒf8 41 †f7+ ‡h8 (Dyckhoff), and 43...c6!? leading to 42 Èh4! ƒg7? (42...Èe5 is better a messy ending where Black has a Game 16: Keres-Dyckhoff 81 nominal material advantage but must XIIIIIIIIY cope with White’s passed pawns: 44 9-+-+-+-+0 †xc6 …xh5 45 †xa8 ‡g8 46 †xa6 9+-+-+-+-0 Èd6, e.g. 47 a4 …g5 48 ‡f2 bxa4 49 W9p+-+-+k+0 †xa4¢. 9+p+-+-+-0 41...…f8 42 †h5+ ‡g7 43 †xc5! 9-+-+p+N+0 Black wanted to tempt his opponent into an unsound winning try with 43 9+-zP-+-+-0 †g5+ ‡h7 44 Èf6+? (44 †h5+ still 9Psn-+-+P+0 draws.) 44...…xf6 45 †xf6 and now: 9+-+-mK-+-0 a) 45...ƒd6! when White no longer xiiiiiiiiy has a clear draw because the black 48 ‡d2 ‡ will find refuge on the queenside; White still tries to create diffic- e.g. 46 †f7+ ‡h8! 47 †f6+ ‡g8 48 ulties. 48 Èe3 ‡f6 49 Èd5+ ‡e5 †g6+ ‡f8 49 †f5+ ‡e7 50 †xe4+ 50 Èc7 Èa4 51 Èxa6 (or 51 ‡d7, while White does not have time ‡d2 e3+ Heidenfeld) 51...e3 will to advance the g-pawn, i.e. 47 g4 quickly lead to a draw, according to …xa2 48 g5 …xb2+ 49 ‡e1 e3 50 g6? Dyckhoff. ƒg3+ and mates. 48...‡f5 b) 45...ƒe3 (given by Dyckhoff) 48...Èc4+ 49 ‡e2 followed by is inferior as White can then again Èe3 would give White a few chances, draw by 46 †f7+ or 46 g4 …xa2 47 said Dyckhoff. Black improves his ‡ †f7+ (instead of the blunder 47 g5? position instead. …xb2+). 49 Èe3+ ‡f4 43...…ff1 44 †xc7+ This is more forcing than 49...‡e5 44 †d4+? ‡g6 45 †xe4+ ‡g5 50 g3 when White might be able to was another pitfall that had to be make use of his outside passed pawn. avoided. 50 Èd5+ ‡e5 44...‡g6 45 †g3 50...‡g3? 51 ‡e3! gives White White threatens to break his winning chances because his ‡ is opponent’s coordination with much closer to the queenside pawns. discovered È checks or b2-b3, so the 51 Èc7 Èc4+ 52 ‡e2 Èa3 reply is forced. This threatens ...a5, so forcing the If instead 45 Èe5+ Èxe5 46 reply, but either way Black is able to †xe5 …ae1+ 47 ‡d2 e3+ 48 ‡d3 reduce the material. …d1+ 49 ‡c2 (49 ‡e2 …de1+ 53 Èxa6 Èb1 54 Èb4! repeats the position.) 49...…d2+ 50 54 c4 bxc4 55 Èb4 would set ‡b3 …ff2 White has nothing better up a passed a-pawn but 55...Èa3 now than to seek perpetual. blockades it, and White has still not 45...…ae1+ 46 †xe1 …xe1+ 47 made certain of the draw. ‡xe1 Èxb2 (D) 54...Èxc3+ 55 ‡d2 Èb1+ ½-½ Game 17 White: Franz Herzog (Czechoslovakia) Black: Professor Dr (Yugoslavia) IFSB Championship, 1936-37 Queen’s Gambit Declined (D61)

The Players: Herzog (born 1897) was 5 ƒg5 Èbd7 6 e3 ƒe7 a Sudetenlander (ethnic German) who Masters now consider Black’s played in several IFSB Champion- variation passive but, as Steinkohl ships. He emigrated to Germany in rightly remarks, Dr Vidmar belonged 1946 and I don’t know what happened to that generation, along with Lasker to him after that. and Capablanca, who sought to use Vidmar (1885-1962), the chess their great knowledge of chess in hero of Slovenia, was a distinguished the middlegame and the subtleties of engineer. He was recognised as a GM the endgame. Now 7 …c1 is a major after coming second to Rubinstein at alternative. San Sebastian 1911 and further excel- 7 †c2 0–0 lent results followed after the First Because Black reached this World War. He played little postal position via the Semi-Slav, he lacks chess, but won the only major event some options available after the in which he competed. standard sequence 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 About this game: The 1936 IFSB Èc3 Èf6 (or 3...ƒe7 4 Èf3 Èf6 5 Championship took almost two years to ƒg5 0–0 6 e3) 4 ƒg5 ƒe7 5 e3 0–0 complete, and there were complications 6 Èf3 Èbd7 7 †c2. There, 7...c6 is due to withdrawals, particularly of Paul regarded as passive compared with Keres due to his increasing involvement the normal 7...c5 or 7...h6. in professional chess. This helped Dr 8 …d1 a6 Vidmar to finish (with 11½/14) a point 8...b6!? is the modern line. ahead of Dyckhoff in a field that includ- 9 ƒd3 ed eminent masters such as Napolitano, Pachman (1963) recommended 9 a3 Balogh and Adam. …e8 10 ƒd3 b5 11 c5 h6 12 ƒf4 (12 Vidmar first annotated this game in ƒh4 e5! 13 dxe5 Èg4=) 12...ƒxc5! ‘Fernschach’ 4-5/1938 and later in his 13 dxc5 e5 14 ƒg3 e4 15 ƒe2 exf3 book ‘Goldene Schachzeiten’. It also 16 gxf3! Èe5 (16...Èxc5? 17 Èxb5) appears in ‘Faszination Fernschach’ 17 f4 Èg6 (17...Èc4 18 ƒh4) 18 by Ludwig Steinkohl. …g1Ÿ (Bogoljubow-Spielmann, Sliac 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Èc3 Èf6 4 Èf3 e6 1932). In view of his comment at move Game 17: Herzog-Vidmar 83 XIIIIIIIIY 11, below, I think it is safe to assume Vidmar knew that game and had some 9-+r+r+k+0 improvement in mind. 9+l+-+pzp-0 Another plan is 9 c5!? h6 10 ƒh4 9pB wq-+p+-zp0 …e8 11 b4 e5 12 dxe5 Èg4 13 ƒg3 9+p+p+-+-0 ƒf8 14 e4 Ègxe5 15 Èxe5 Èxe5 9-+-zP-+n+0 16 ƒe2 and White was better in Curt 9+-+LzP-zP-0 Hansen-Seitaj, Thessaloniki OL 1984, but Hansen suggested 11...b6!?. 9PzP-+NzPP+0 9...h6 9+QtR-+RmK-0 9...b5?! is premature because of 10 xiiiiiiiiy cxd5 cxd5 11 Èe5 — Pachman. 20 Èxg3 was possibly better but 10 ƒh4 White wanted to play his È to c5. Black has little to fear after this retreat. 20...…xc1 10 ƒf4 is more testing and 10...dxc4 11 Due to the tournament situation at ƒxc4 b5 12 ƒe2 †b6 13 g4! was this stage (he was losing to Keres), good for White in Pachman-Kholmov, Vidmar had to avoid a draw. White Moscow 1947. However, ‘ECO’ cites threatens 21 …xc8 …xc8 22 …c1 Botvinnik analysis that goes 10...c5 11 and would stand better if Black then cxd5 Èxd5 12 Èxd5 exd5 13 dxc5 conceded the c-file. Therefore Black Èxc5=; Black’s active pieces balance must play for ...e5 and this determines the weakness of the isolated d-pawn. the choice here. 10...…e8 11 0–0 b5 21 Èxc1 Vidmar said in ‘Fernschach’ that Consistent with his 20th move. If he studied to learn this variation, “one White recaptures with the …, then the of the hardest in the orthodox defence manoeuvre ...†d8-f6 attacks f2. to the Queen’s Gambit”, in detail. 21...†d8 22 Èb3 g6 12 cxb5 This waiting move sets a little White should play 12 c5, despite positional trap. Black cannot play Vidmar’s 12...e5, as he can continue ...e5 at once, because the È could go 13 dxe5 Èg4 14 ƒg3 ƒxc5 (14... from b3 into d4, but if the È is on ƒf8 15 e6!) 15 Èe2! (£ 16 h3) 15... c5 then the ...e5 advance will be more †b6 16 …c1 ƒf8 and now either powerful (see move 24). 17 †xc6 †xc6 18 …xc6 Ègxe5 23 Èc5 19 Èxe5 Èxe5 20 ƒxe5 …xe5 21 If 23 ƒxg6 †g5! followed by Èd4, or better 17 e6! fxe6 18 ƒg6 ...†h5 after the ƒ goes away. …e7 (or ...…d8) 19 †xc6. 23...ƒc8 24 a4 e5! 25 axb5 12...cxb5 13 ƒg3 ƒb7 14 …c1 If 25 dxe5 Vidmar intended 25... …c8 15 †b1 †b6 16 Èe5 Èxe5 †e7, but it allows White a trick with 17 ƒxe5 Èg4 18 ƒg3 ƒd6 19 Èe2 26 e6! (26...†xc5? 27 exf7+ ‡xf7 ƒxg3 20 hxg3 (D) 28 ƒxg6+ ‡f8 29 ƒxe8 ‡xe8 30 84 64 Great Chess Games

…c1ˆ). Better again 25...†g5! and the complicated reply 31...ƒxe2 if then 26 ƒe2 Black has 26...Èxe3! 32 a8† ƒxf1 but he later decided 27 fxe3? †xe3+ and ...†xc5. that 31...…a8 32 …a1 (or 32 ƒxg4 25...†g5 26 ƒe2 Èxg4 33 †xd5 …xa7 34 …e1 †f6) Forced; otherwise 26...†h5 etc. 32...ƒxe2 33 †xe2 …xa7Œ would be 26...exd4 27 bxa6 dxe3 28 f4 a simpler continuation. Black has created a very difficult 31...h5 32 ‡f1 position with all kinds of threats. The idea of this is to help blockade White’s hopes rest with his queenside the advancing black e-pawn. passed pawns; Black has the prospect 32...ƒxe2+ 33 †xe2 of breaking through in the centre with Not 33 ‡xe2? Èe4‰. his central pawns and active pieces. 33...d4 34 a7 (D) The text is probably best, Vidmar XIIIIIIIIY says, because ...†h5 would not be so 9-+-+r+k+0 effective now. If instead 28 a7 perhaps he intended 28...ƒf5 29 †a1 …a8 30 B9zP-+-wqp+-0 ƒxg4 ƒxg4 31 †a5 exf2+ followed 9-+-+-snp+0 by ...†e7 winning the a-pawn. 9+-sN-+-+p0 28 ƒxg4 ƒxg4 29 †c2 might be 9-zP-zp-zP-+0 better; e.g. 29...e2 30 …e1 …c8 31 b4 9+-+-zp-zP-0 †e5 32 b5 †d4 33 a7! and White’s 9-+-+Q+P+0 pawns start to look dangerous. After 33... †b4! (to stop b6) White can simplify 9tR-+-+K+-0 with 34 Èd3 †a5 35 …xe2! †xa7 36 xiiiiiiiiy †a2 to a position where he has some drawing chances. No doubt, however, According to Steinkohl’s book, Herzog was playing for a win. “Herzog later told Vidmar that when 28...†e7! 29 b4 Èf6 he played 34 a7 he believed he had Vidmar said this retreat was the the win in his pocket. The reply must hardest move of the game. Its purpose have been a terrible awakening for was to retain the È, guarding d5, and him.” Unfortunately Steinkohl does arrange the exchange of the ƒs. not say what White was expecting and 30 †a2 ƒg4! 31 …a1 it is hard to see how Herzog can have Not 31 ƒxg4 Èxg4 32 a7? e2 33 thought he was winning even after …e1 †e3+ 34 ‡h1 †xg3‰. 32 …e1 34...…a8. For example, 35 †a6? loses is less clear, though probably winning; to 35...Èe4!, while if 35 †b5 (as in e.g. 32...†f6 33 a7 (33 †xd5? †b2, the game) Black is fine after 35...†d8 or 33 †e2 †f5! £...†h5 again) intending ...d3, ...e2+ or ...†d5. 33...…a8 34 †xd5 …xa7 (£...…a1) 34...Èe4!? 35 †b5? 35 †d1 †c3 36 Èd3 …d7. The first point is that 35 a8† If 31 a7, Vidmar originally gave Èxg3+ 36 ‡e1 Èxe2 is clearly Game 17: Herzog-Vidmar 85 XIIIIIIIIY winning for Black. The win after 35 9r+-+-+k+0 ‡e1 Èxg3 is not so straightforward; 9+-+-+p+-0 nevertheless if 36 †b5 ‡h7! 37 ‡d1 W9-+-+-+p+0 e2+ 38 ‡e1 …a8 39 †b7 †e3! 40 Èe6 (40 †xf7+ ‡h6) 40...†c3+ 41 9+-+-+-+p0 ‡f2 Èe4+! 42 †xe4 †xa1‰. 9-+-zp-zP-+0 It probably seemed to Herzog that 9+-+-+-zP-0 the text move would lead to a dead 9-+-mK-+P+0 drawn … endgame, but now Vidmar 9+-+-tR-+-0 really displays his GM touch. xiiiiiiiiy White could still have saved the game at this point by 35 Èxe4 42 ‡d3 …a3+! †xe4 36 †f3. Neither of Vidmar’s At first sight, this is surprising. suggestions wins, so far as I can see: However, the key factor is that the a) 36...†e7 leads by force to a white ‡ will be cut off from the g- † ending after 37 a8† e2+ 38 ‡g1 pawn and a zugzwang will ensue. e1†+ 39 …xe1 †xe1+ 40 ‡h2 43 ‡xd4 …xg3 44 …e2 …xa8 41 †xa8+ ‡g7 (41...‡h7 42 A … ending with 3 v 2 all on the same †a7) when, despite Black’s advanced side and no passed pawn is generally passed pawn, 42 b5! seems to hold, drawn said Fine, but this is no ordinary e.g. 42...d3 43 †d8! d2 44 †d4+ case. The white ‡ cannot get to h2. ‡h7 45 †d7 d1† 46 †xf7+ etc. 44...‡g7 45 ‡e5 h4 46 ‡e4 f5+ 47 b) 36...e2+ 37 ‡e1 †e7 is foiled ‡e5 …d3! 0-1 by 38 †a3! and if 38...d3 (38...…a8 White resigned after Vidmar sent 39 b5) 39 a8† d2+ 40 ‡xd2 e1†+ him his analysis of the final position. 41 …xe1 †xe1+ 42 ‡c2 and Black The white … cannot leave the e-file has no more than a draw. because of ...…e3+ followed by ...…e4 It seems that Black’s much-praised when ...‡g7-h6-h5-g4 quickly dec- 34th move should perhaps have been ides the game, e.g. 48 …f2 …e3+ 49 replaced by 34...…a8å after all. ‡d6 ‡h6 etc. The … cannot leave the 35...e2+! second rank either: 48 …e1 …d2 49 Computers suggest 35...Èxg3+ …h1 …e2+ 50 ‡d5 …xg2 51 …xh4 but Vidmar had seen a complete …g4 52 …xg4 fxg4 53 ‡e4 ‡h6. liquidation to a winning endgame. Therefore it must remain at its post on 36 ‡e1 Èxc5 37 a8† Èd3+! 38 e2, but that means the ‡ must move. †xd3 †xb4+ 39 †d2 †xd2+ 40 If 48 ‡e6, Vidmar first gave 48... ‡xd2 e1†+ 41 …xe1 …xa8 (D) …d4 49 ‡e5 …d8! 50 …e3 …d2‰, Black’s combination has resulted while later 48...…d8 (threatening to in a winning … ending with an extra skewer the …) 49 …f2 …e8+ 50 ‡d5 pawn and the superior kingside pawn …e4 followed by the ‡ march to g4 structure. via h5. Game 18 White: Gedeon Barcza (Hungary) Black: Dr János Balogh (Hungary) Hungarian Jubilee CC tournament, 1943-44 Réti Opening, Barcza System (A11)

The Players: Gedeon Barcza (1911- cian who loved unorthodox openings: 86) was a FIDE GM and an IM of for example, one of his experiments ICCF (1966). He was a subtle posi- was 1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5?!. Undoubtedly, tional player and a great master of the this self-handicapping is the main endgame. From 1952-72 he edited the reason why he never became a CC principal Hungarian grandmaster but he was a dangerous ‘Magyar Sakkelet’. opponent for anyone. Although primarily an OTB player About this game: This battle of (nine times champion of Hungary be- chess styles took place in a tourna- tween 1942 and 1959), Barcza was a ment held, during the difficult years member of the Hungarian teams that of World War II, to commemorate the won the IFSB Olympiad (where he 50th anniversary of the first Hungarian played board 4 in the final, 1937-39) CC event (see Game 5). There was and the 1st global olympiad organised another game, with reverse colours, by ICCA after World War II (playing which ended in a draw. board 2 in both rounds). 1 Èf3 d5 2 g3 Dr János Balogh (1892-1980) was In contrast to the traditional Reti one of the world’s top postal players opening, 2 c4, Barcza preferred to for more than 30 years and played the fianchetto his ƒ first. game from his youth until advanced 2...Èf6 3 ƒg2 ƒf5 age. He played in the first three CC 3...c6! is more precise from a World Championship Finals, yet Dr defensive point of view and also Balogh never got the GM title. Un- preserves the option of developing the like later Olympiads, the best result ƒ at g4. on top board in CC Olympiad I did 4 c4! not qualify. An ethnic Hungarian who When Black has not played ...c6, found himself a Romanian citizen af- there is no reason to delay this move. ter the Treaty of Versailles, he moved It needs no more preparation because to Budapest in 1934. He played OTB of the weakness at b7. for both countries. 4...c6 In style, Balogh was the complete 4...e6 may be better. Or else contrast to Barcza: a romantic tacti- 4...dxc4 5 †a4+ c6 6 †xc4 Èbd7 or Game 18: Barcza-Balogh 87

5 Èa3!? ƒe6!, e.g. 6 Èg5 ƒd5 7 e4 against Smyslov (Moscow 1956; 1-0, ƒc6 8 Èxc4 h6 (Dizdar-Korchnoi, 40) although, in a later game, Malich Sarajevo 1984). got a draw. 5 cxd5! cxd5 6 †b3 (D) a2) 9...ƒb4?! 10 0–0 0–0 11 …ac1 XIIIIIIIIY †d7 12 e4 ƒg6 13 Èe5 Èxe5 14 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 ƒxe5 ƒxc3 15 †xc3 dxe4 16 ƒxf6 gxf6 17 dxe4 e5 18 f4‹ (1–0, 46) B9zpp+-zppzpp0 Barcza-Kopetzky, Baden-Vienna 9-+-+-sn-+0 1961. 9+-+p+l+-0 a3) 9...Èd7 10 0–0 Èc5 11 †d1 9-+-+-+-+0 f6?! 12 e4 dxe4 13 dxe4 ƒg4 14 9+Q+-+NzP-0 h3 ƒh5 15 e5‹ (1–0, 33) Barcza- 9PzP-zPPzPLzP0 E.Nievergelt, Belgrade 1954. b) 6...Èbd7 7 Èc3 e5 8 Èxd5 9tRNvL-mK-+R0 Èc5 9 Èxf6+ †xf6 10 †e3 Èe6 xiiiiiiiiy 11 d3 ƒd6 12 0–0 0–0 13 ƒd2 Èd4 14 …ac1 ƒe6 15 ƒc3 Èc6 16 a3 h6 Black already faces an awkward 17 d4 and Black has nothing for the choice. sacrificed pawn (Barcza-Rossolimo, 6...†c7?! Leipzig OL 1960). This move soon loses a tempo, c) 6...†b6 7 †xb6 axb6 8 Èc3 and in later years 6...†c8 was mostly Èc6 9 d3 e6 10 ƒf4 (More energetic played. You cannot blame Balogh for is 10 Èb5! Portisch-Smyslov, Wijk getting it wrong. This was probably aan Zee 1974.) 10...ƒc5 11 0–0 was one of the first, if not the earliest, another line where Barcza won several game where what came to be known games, e.g. against Gawlikowski, as the Barcza System was employed. Sczawno Zdroj 1950. Anyway, Barcza almost always won d) 6...ƒc8 7 d3 Èc6 8 ƒf4 e6 9 from this position, whatever Black Èc3 ƒd6 10 ƒxd6 †xd6 11 Èb5 did. Here are some examples: †e7 12 …c1 0–0 13 Èbd4 ƒd7 14 a) 6...†c8 7 Èc3 e6 8 d3 Èc6 9 0–0Ÿ (1–0, 48) Barcza-Rossolimo, ƒf4 and now: Venice 1949. a1) 9...ƒe7 10 0–0 (10 Èb5 0–0 11 7 Èc3 e6 8 d3! Èbd7 9 ƒf4 †b6 Èd6 ƒxd6 12 ƒxd6 …d8 13 ƒf4Ÿ 10 †xb6! Botvinnik) 10...0–0 11 …ac1 †d7 10 Èb5? allows Black to simplify 12 e4 (12 Èe5!? Korchnoi-Karpov, by 10...Èc5! 11 Èc7+ †xc7!. 15th match game 1974) 12...dxe4 13 10...Èxb6 11 0–0 a6 12 …ac1 ƒe7 dxe4 Èxe4 14 Èxe4 ƒxe4 15 Èe5 13 e4! dxe4 14 dxe4 ƒxe4 15 Èxe4 Èxe5 16 ƒxe4 Èc6 17 …fd1 †c8 Èxe4 16 Èd2! Èc5 18 †a4 and Barcza proved that his If 16...Èxd2 17 ƒxd2 Èd5 18 initiative is worth more than the pawn ƒxd5 exd5 19 …c7 …d8 20 …xb7 88 64 Great Chess Games

…d7 21 …b6 …d6 22 …b8+ …d8 and …dc1 Ècd3 27 …b1 — Barcza. White achieves nothing. However, 20 23 …fd1 ƒa5! wins the pawn back with a clear Black has two pawns for the advantage since 20...…d7? 21 …c8+ exchange but the white …s are very ƒd8? 22 …e1+ ‡f8 23 ƒb4+ mates. active and the black Ès somewhat 17 ƒe3 insecure. Rather than castle, Balogh According to the book ‘Reti tries to claim more space and establish Opening’ by Viacheslav Osnos, White an outpost on d4. already has a clear advantage here. 23...e5!? 17...…c8 18 Èc4 Èd5 (D) 23...Èe4 24 f3 Èf6 25 ‡f2 h6 XIIIIIIIIY was a suggested improvement from 9-+r+k+-tr0 Barcza. If 23...0–0 24 Èd7. 24 ƒe3 Èe6 25 …d7 Èed8 26 W9+p+-vlpzpp0 …cd1 f5 9p+-+p+-+0 If 26...0–0 Barcza indicated 27 …c7 9+-snn+-+-0 £ 28 …dd7. A more incisive option 9-+N+-+-+0 is 27 Èd5!, which wins material: 9+-+-vL-zP-0 27...ƒf6 28 ƒc5 …e8 29 Èc7, or 9PzP-+-zPLzP0 27...ƒb4 28 Èxb4 Èxb4 29 ƒc5, or 27...ƒa3 28 …d3 ƒb4 29 Èxb4 9+-tR-+RmK-0 Èxb4 30 …xd8. xiiiiiiiiy 27 Èc8 ƒf6 28 ƒb6 Èd4 (D) XIIIIIIIIY Up to here, it might seem that 9-+Nsnk+-tr0 White has only a minimal advantage, but Barcza was in his element. His W9+p+R+-zpp0 first objective had probably been to 9pvL-+-vl-+0 curtail Black’s ambitions and achieve 9+-+-zpp+-0 an edge that he could work with in a 9-+-sn-+-+0 simplified situation. 9+-+-+-zP-0 19 b4! 9P+-+-zP-zP0 Since 19...Èd3 is answered by 20 Èd6+, Black must take on b4 but this 9+-+R+-mK-0 costs him the exchange. Black obtains xiiiiiiiiy nominally sufficient compensation, but Barcza has judged that this is a This strong È placement has position where the …s can dominate. been bought at the price of White’s 19...Èxb4 20 Èb6 …c7 21 ƒf4 queenside piece invasion. Can Barcza …c6 22 ƒxc6+ Èxc6 make a concrete gain in that region? If 22...bxc6 23 ƒe3 Èbd3 24 If Black could liquidate the white a- …c3‹, e.g. 24...0–0 25 …d1 Èb2 26 pawn, he might have a draw but it is Game 18: Barcza-Balogh 89 XIIIIIIIIY hard to see how he can do this. 29 …c7 0–0 30 Èe7+ ‡h8 9RtR-vl-tr-+0 The ƒ is needed to hold key points 9+-+-+-zpk0 like e5 and g7. If 30...ƒxe7 31 …xe7 W9-+-+n+-+0 and a pawn will soon be lost. 9zp-+Nzpp+p0 31 Èd5! 9-+-+-+-+0 If 31 ƒxd4 exd4 32 Èxf5 Èe6 9+-+-+-zP-0 33 …xb7 …d8 (Barcza) and the passed pawn offers some hope, although 9P+-+-zP-zP0 it is still doubtful whether Black 9+-+-+-mK-0 could hold the ending in the long xiiiiiiiiy run because of the weakness of his 39 …xf8 Èxf8 40 …xf8 ƒd6 a-pawn (34 …b6). Not 40...‡g6?? 41 …c8 and the ƒ 31...È8e6 is lost; equally 40...g6 is impossible, The outpost must be maintained, so Black cannot defend the f-pawn. even at the cost of the b-pawn. Black 40...f4 is also insufficient in view will still have one pawn for the of 41 gxf4 (or 41 …f7) 41...exf4 42 exchange. …f7 and another of the black pawns 32 …xb7 h5 must fall: 42...ƒb6 (42...ƒd6? 43 … Against 32...ƒd8 White intended f5) 43 ‡g2 (better than 43 …f5 ‡g6) 33 …b1 Èc6 34 Èb4. 43...‡g6 44 …d7! (44 …xf4 would 33 ƒxd4! also be good enough) and Black has Barcza decides to let the ƒ live no good move. and force off a pair of …s instead — 41 …xf5 ‡g6 42 …f3 a4 excellent judgment, as his remaining Balogh makes a final attempt to … can control the width of the board. create a compact formation where If 33 Èxf6 …xf6 (the point of the everything can be defended but this last move) and Black may defend his is doomed once the white ‡ gets into a-pawn along the rank. the action. 33...Èxd4 43 …c3 ‡f5 44 …c4! a3 45 f3 g5 46 h3 33...exd4? 34 …b6 costs a pawn. In order to take control of g4 34 …db1 ‡h7 35 …b8 ƒd8 36 …a8 (preventing any slight annoyance with a5 37 …bb8 Èe6 (D) ...g5-g4) so that White can force the White now forces a simpler winn- black ‡ back (with g3-g4+) under the ing endgame by a typical combinative most favourable circumstances. liquidation. 46...ƒe7 47 ‡f2 h4 48 g4+ ‡e6 49 38 Èc7! ƒxc7 ‡e3 ‡d5 50 ‡d3 ƒd6 51 …a4 ƒe7 If 38...ƒxc7 39 …xf8 Èxa8 40 52 …a5+ ƒc5 53 ‡c3 ‡c6 54 ‡c4 …xf8. ƒd6 55 …a6+ ‡d7 56 ‡d5 1–0 Game 19 White: Cecil J.S. Purdy (Australia) Black: Dr Mario Napolitano (Italy) 1st CC World Championship Final, 1950-53 Nimzo-Indian Defence (E26)

The Players: Cecil Purdy (1906- 1 c4 Èf6 2 d4 e6 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 a3 79) was born in the Middle East but This Sämisch variation is rarely moved early in his life to Australia, seen nowadays, because most players where — as player, writer and teacher consider that the doubling and fixing — he made an enormous contribution of White’s c-pawns is more serious to the game of chess in that region. than gaining the ƒ pair. So spending His place in chess history is secure. the tempo 4 a3 to encourage Black to Not only was Purdy a FIDE IM and do it is hardly justified! winner of numerous events (including 4...ƒxc3+ 5 bxc3 c5 6 e3 Èc6 four Australian OTB Championships), 6...b6 and ...ƒb7 is an alternative. he was also the first World CC Cham- 7 ƒd3 e5 8 Èe2 d6 pion. After that success, he played In Spassky-Tal, 25th USSR Ch only one more postal game. 1957, Black tried 8...e4 but this is Dr Mario Napolitano (1910-95) probably premature and after 9 ƒb1 was a major figure, with a career as a b6 (9...0-0!? Kasparov) 10 Èg3 ƒa6 postal player spanning half a century 11 f3! White took the initiative in the starting in the 1930s with IFSB. He centre although Tal eventually won. played his last major event in the mid- 9 e4 Èh5 1980s. Joint second place in this world Black wants to install his È on an championship was his best result. advanced post. Kasparov-Beliavsky, About this game: This game was USSR 1983, went instead 9...exd4 10 the most important one that decided cxd4 cxd4 11 0-0 †a5? 12 ƒf4 †c5 the championship. At move 31, both 13 Èc1 Èa5 14 ƒxd6 †xd6 15 e5 players faced a crisis. Each player although White later missed a win. (not knowing the state of the other’s Kasparov indicated that 11...0-0 12 positions) feared that a draw would ƒg5 h6 13 ƒh4 g5 could be unclear. cost him the title. So Napolitano made 10 0–0 his fatal error — because as the other An alternative is 10 d5 Èa5 11 f4 results later transpired, a draw in this aiming for some kingside initiative. game would have been sufficient for 10...g5 11 ƒc2 Èf4 12 ƒa4 ƒd7 13 him to become world champion. Èg3 (D) Game 19: Purdy-Napolitano 91 XIIIIIIIIY Both players were aiming for this position, which had arisen in Bronstein- 9-+-tr-trk+0 Smyslov, Budapest ct 1950, when Black 9vL-+-+p+-0 played 13...†f6. Bronstein won that W9-+p+-wq-+0 game but current theory has swung back 9+-+-zpnzp-0 to preferring Black’s chances here. 9P+P+-+-zp0 13...cxd4!? 9+-+-+-+-0 Napolitano’s moves 13–15 follow- ed a suggestion in ‘Ceskoslovensko 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 Sach’ after the Bronstein game. 9+R+R+-mK-0 14 ƒxc6 bxc6 15 cxd4 †f6 16 ƒe3 xiiiiiiiiy h5! 17 dxe5 dxe5 18 …b1 …d8 25 a5?! If 18...h4 19 Èf5 and after Purdy defies Tarrasch’s advice: the exchanges on f5 the white † gets to wrong decision, as he admitted in his d6. So Black wants to drive her off notes later. He wrote that he should the d-file before proceeding with his indeed have played 25 h3 “with a kingside attack, even though this may small but sure advantage”. Instead, cost him his a-pawn. now “White gets a passed pawn 19 †c2 h4 20 Èf5 ƒxf5 21 exf5 rapidly to the 7th rank: but it does not 0–0! outweigh the disruption of the castled Purdy observes that, despite the position.” kingside pawn advances, the black 25...h3 26 a6 …a8 king is safer on g8 than in the centre. Black has to take a defensive “Both sides now pursue their own measure because of the threat of plans, each seeming to ignore the 27 …xd8 …xd8 28 …b8 when the other”. … exchanges would reduce Black’s 22 …fd1 Èh5 23 ƒxa7 Èg7 24 a4 attacking potential and make the a- Èxf5 (D) pawn much more dangerous. Black did not want to play ...h3 until 27 ƒc5 …fe8 28 a7 e4! he had captured this pawn, because Black’s † and È are troublesome, g2-g4 could be the reply. Now, and now the e8-… is not entirely however, Purdy wrote: “White faced restricted to defence. a question discussed by Tarrasch, 29 …b7 Èh4 whether to let a pawn come to h3 or Threatening ...Èf3+. stop it by h2-h3. He says to let it come 30 †b3 †f5! 31 …dd7!? (D) and then play g3 is ‘better for the Purdy now realised that his endgame’ but then makes his famous queenside play could not force a win epigram ‘...between the opening and because Black’s counterplay was the endgame the gods have placed the getting too strong. He rejected 31 …b8 middlegame’. He concludes with the †g4 32 g3 e3! as very good for Black, advice to play h3.” and indeed it is, although 33 ƒxe3! 92 64 Great Chess Games

(33 …xa8 …xa8 34 †b8+ ‡g7 35 are misleading because Black could †b2+ f6å) 33...†f3 (33...Èf3+ 34 now have played a move that not ‡h1) 34 ‡f1 Èf5 35 ‡e1 (35 …d3? only would have kept the draw in Èxg3+!‰) 35...Èxe3 36 †xe3 hand but also in practice (if not for might give drawing chances. certain) would almost certainly have XIIIIIIIIY won the game — and the world 9r+-+r+k+0 championship! In the diagram position, there B9zPR+R+p+-0 are at least four “candidate moves” 9-+p+-+-+0 for Black: 31...e3, 31...†xc5, 9+-vL-+qzp-0 31...Èf3+?! (the fatal move actually 9-+P+p+-sn0 played by Napolitano) and 31...hxg2. 9+Q+-+-+p0 (Note that 31...Èxg2? is no good 9-+-+-zPPzP0 because after 32 …xf7 †c5?? White has a forced mate beginning …g7+.) 9+-+-+-mK-0 However, in ‘How Purdy Won’ and xiiiiiiiiy in other sources where this game is annotated, you will only find analysis We now reach a point where the of the first three of those moves. published comments of the players do It is evident that neither during the not easily tally with the realities of the game, nor immediately afterwards nor situation as analysed by 21st century many years later did either player see masters with the aid of computers. In 31...hxg2! as a real possibility. Yet ‘ASPC’s Guide to Correspondence it is such an obvious move, which Chess’, Purdy says “in playing this, modern computers quickly select I almost resigned myself to a draw, as best, that surely they must have and yet I realised that a player examined it? of Napolitano’s style is usually Can it be that both thought it had optimistic, so I had good hopes of his an obvious refutation, so obvious that going after a win”. How is this remark it wasn’t worth mentioning in their to be reconciled with the true situation annotations? No such refutation exists that White was close to lost? and it is hard to imagine what it could Frank Hutchings and Kevin be. I suspect that subconsciously they Harrison, the editors of the book ‘How both thought Black needed to keep the Purdy Won’, explain: “Dr Napolitano white ‡ confined to the back rank, to thought he could probe a little, still create mating threats there, and ...hxg2 keeping the draw in hand. Purdy did not fit in with that concept. welcomed this, since he believed it First, let us look at the moves the would turn the scales in his favour”. players did consider. Then I will show That is indeed what happened. the actual end of the game and finally However, all these comments I will analyse 31...hxg2. Game 19: Purdy-Napolitano 93

a) Napolitano said he should have played this move as a winning probably have played 31...e3 (D). try. Now if 32 †xh3? e3 33 fxe3 This is the easiest of the possibilities …xe3‰ while if 32 †c3 …f8 Black about which to form a firm conclusion. has an extra piece. White has few options. The correct Purdy planned to answer 32 …xf7 reply draws and everything else (D). loses: XIIIIIIIIY XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+k+0 9r+-+r+k+0 9zPR+-+R+-0 9zPR+R+p+-0 W W 9-+p+-+-+0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-wq-+-zp-0 9+-vL-+qzp-0 9-+P+p+-sn0 9-+P+-+-sn0 9+Q+-+-+p0 9+Q+-zp-+p0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy xiiiiiiiiy Now: a1) 32 †b2?? e2! and Black wins. b1) 32...e3!? 33 …g7+ (33 †b2?? a2) Likewise 32 …xf7? e2! 33 exf2+ 34 †xf2 …e1#) 33...‡h8 34 …g7+ ‡h8 34 …h7+ †xh7 etc. or 32 …h7+ ‡g8 when White must give ƒxe3? †g4+ 33 g3 Èf3+ 34 ‡h1 perpetual check with the rooks, Èe5‰ (Harrison & Hutchings). because if 35 …bg7+ ‡f8 36 †b2?? a3) So White must play 32 fxe3! exf2+ 37 †xf2+ Black wins by †xc5 33 …xf7 …xe3 (33...Èf5 also 37...Èf3+!! and 38...…e1+. draws: 34 †c3 †xe3+ 35 †xe3 b2) Purdy’s notes include the Èxe3 36 …g7+ etc.) 34 …g7+ ‡h8 variation 32...†e5 33 …fd7! †a1+ 34 (not 34...‡f8?? 35 …bf7+ ‡e8 36 …d1?! …xa7 35 c5+ ‡h8 36 …bd7! †b8+! and White wins) 35 …h7+ †a3 37 †f7 winning for White, but ‡g8 and now give perpetual check Black’s 36th in this line is a blunder. to avoid being mated, e.g. 36 …bg7+ Harrison and Hutchings point out the ‡f8 37 …f7+ ‡g8 38 (either) …g7+, improvement 36...Èf3+ 37 gxf3 exf3 since 38 †b8+?? loses to the cross- leading to a draw, they say. check 38...…e8+. Black has an even stronger move b) Napolitano also rejected the — 36...e3! after which the position obvious 31...†xc5 because he is a total mess but Black may very believed that it only drew. However, well be winning. If 37 fxe3 †a3 is I think the published analysis is strong because now 38 †f7 fails to probably wrong here too; Black could 38...†xe3+. 94 64 Great Chess Games

In view of this, White might have to stands better. Anyway, it is academic play instead 34 †d1!, which probably because Purdy’s move wins. is good enough to draw: 34...†xd1+ 33...†xc5 (D) 35 …xd1 intending 36 …dd7 and The main point is that 33...†g4, (...Èf5) …f7 after preventing any trying to reach the foregoing lines, back rank tricks (...…ed8). 34...†c3 does not work because of 34 ƒe3 35 †d2 or 34...†f6 35 †d4 makes …ad8 35 †d3!. Purdy has now no difference. surmounted the main crisis in the To sum up, Napolitano has so far game although he still had much rejected one clear draw and another careful analysis to do in order to line where he had at least a draw, if clinch the full point. not more, and we haven’t even looked XIIIIIIIIY at his best move yet! This makes his 9r+-+r+k+0 actual choice even more incredible. 31...Èf3+?? W9zPR+R+p+-0 Sometimes designated ‘!?’ but this 9-+p+-+-+0 was the blunder that decided the first 9+-wq-+-zp-0 CC World Championship! At the end 9-+P+-+-+0 of the game, we shall see what Black 9+Q+-+p+p0 should have done. 9-+-+-zP-zP0 32 gxf3 exf3 33 ‡f1! This was the move that Napolitano 9+-+-+K+-0 had underestimated. His main line xiiiiiiiiy went 33 ƒe3 …ad8 34 †d1 (34 …xd8 …xd8 35 ƒd4+! may also Purdy now rejected 34 …xf7 †e5! hold but would be no fun for White.) 35 …g7+ †xg7 etc. because it is not 34...†g4+ 35 ‡f1 and now: a clear win for the † against the …s a) Purdy rejected this line because although he can pick up some loose of 35...†xc4+ drawing. pawns. However, the improvement b) Napolitano believed that 35... at Black’s 37th in the actual game †g2+! 36 ‡e1 …xe3! would have suggests that he made objectively the been winning for him, but he was wrong decision here. wrong about this too. First, T.J.Bogan 34 †c3? …f8 35 †d3! †e5! found a surprising draw by 37 ‡d2 “Indirectly parrying the threat of …xd7+ 38 ‡xe3! …xd1 39 a8†+ …xf7! and starting new devilment,” ‡g7 40 …xf7+?! ‡xf7 41 †b7+ wrote Purdy. when possibly Black cannot escape 36 †xf3 …ae8! 37 …b1 (D) perpetual check, but why not instead Although the danger pawn on f3 40 †a7! when Black cannot defend is gone, White must still be wary of f7, and after his only check (40...…e1+ threats to his ‡. 41 ‡d2) the † defends f2, so White Also around this time, Purdy set up Game 19: Purdy-Napolitano 95 the wrong position in his game with †e3 (41 †g3 does not offer much Graham Mitchell of England, as a either.) 41...†f5 42 f3 (as given in result of which he knew he was going ‘How Purdy Won’) Black has 42... to lose that game and really needed to …fe8 43 †c1 †d5= or 43 †f2 †f4= win this one. and sets the trap 43 …b8?? †xb1+! Purdy later wrote that, had this 44 …xb1 …xe3 45 …b8+ …e8‰. game already been out of the way 38 …b3 †e5 39 †xh3 †f4 as a draw, “I should almost certainly Napolitano later thought there not have made my subsequent quasi- were drawing chances by 39...†e2+ clerical blunder against Mitchell”. 40 ‡g2 …e4 41 …g3 g4 but 42 †h5 That remark does not get to the full (even stronger than 42 †h6ˆ, given truth either. In ‘How Purdy Won’, in ‘How Purdy Won’) wins easily, Harrison proves that Mitchell was e.g. 42...…e6 43 …xf7 †e4+ 44 ‡h2 probably winning that game anyway! …xf7 45 a8†+. At this point, Napolitano made a After the text move, wrote Purdy: final error, which eased Purdy’s task “I wrote out analysis for 20 possible considerably. 40th moves. At first I could not make XIIIIIIIIY any of them win. Finally I found a 9-+-+rtrk+0 curious one.” If the queen captures the c-pawn on c5 instead of c4, Black B9zP-+R+p+-0 will soon run out of checks. 9-+p+-+-+0 40 c5!! †c4+ 9+-+-wq-zp-0 If 40...†c1+ 41 ‡g2 …e1 then 9-+P+-+-+0 42 †f3! and if 42...…h1 43 †xf7+! 9+-+-+Q+p0 followed by promoting the a-pawn. 9-+-+-zP-zP0 41 ‡g2 …e4 The ‘curious win’ was by 41...†xc5 9+R+-+K+-0 42 †h6! g4 (to stop …h3) 43 …g3 xiiiiiiiiy …e4 44 †h4 and if then 44...†f5 45 …d8. However, 44 †f6 (£ 45 37...†xh2? a8†) also works: 44...†e5 45 †xe5 Napolitano is trying to mobilise his …xe5 46 …xg4+ ‡h8 (46...‡h7 47 h-pawn, but he possibly could have …xf7+) 47 …d3 …h5 48 …b3 and 49 saved the game with 37...†e6 when …b8, with an amusing line 48...‡h7 the key move for White is 38 …db7! 49 …b8 …a5 50 a8†! (50 …xf8ˆ) e.g. 38...†xc4+ 39 ‡g1 and now: 50...…xa8 51 …b3 and …h3#. a) 39...g4 40 †f5! †e2 41 …f1 42 †f5 †xb3 …e5 42 †f4 …a5 43 …b8! †f3 44 This accelerates the defeat but if †xf3 gxf3 45 ‡h1!ˆ. 42...…g4+ 43 …g3 …xg3+ 44 ‡xg3 b) White probably cannot win after †c1 45 ‡g2 and 46 a8† decides 39...†e6 40 †c3 …a8 because if 41 the game. 96 64 Great Chess Games

43 †xe4 ‡g7 44 †f5 g4 45 †xg4+ choices? Moreover, his reference to 1-0 rejecting a draw apparently refers to If 45...‡h7 46 …d1 mates or gets 31...†xc5 or possibly to 31...e3. † for …, or if 45...‡f6 46 …d6+ with Surely if Napolitano had seen similar consequences. 31...hxg2 (D), he must have reckoned Purdy’s final comment was: “A it gave him more practical winning wild game. In CC a simple style won’t chances than the move he actually win a world title.” (Later, Jørn Sloth played? Here is the position that was to disprove that theory.) would then have arisen. Napolitano, on the other hand, XIIIIIIIIY wrote in his contribution to the ASPC 9r+-+r+k+0 booklet that: “Purdy was a very strong CC player. He played his best against W9zPR+R+p+-0 me, and justly won. In our game, 9-+p+-+-+0 there was at one time the thought 9+-vL-+qzp-0 that it was a draw, but I lost. I played 9-+P+p+-sn0 all my games in this event without 9+Q+-+-+-0 the thought of playing for the draw! 9-+-+-zPpzP0 My view is: Correspondence chess is not only a school for technique 9+-+-+-mK-0 or an academy for virtuosity; it is xiiiiiiiiy a discipline of deep thought, of research, of tenacity. There is no place Black threatens ...Èf3+ leading to for the easy and convenient draw by mate. White’s choice is very limited agreement, but there is always the since most moves that stop the mate search for the best.” allow ...†xc5. There speaks the romantic amateur a) 32 †g3? e3! 33 ƒxe3 (33 …xf7 — highly talented and brilliant, but an e2) 33...…xa7 34 ƒxa7 (34 …xa7 amateur nonetheless. Purdy, as chess †b1+) 34...…e1#. writer and teacher, was a professional b) 32 …xf7? Èf3+ 33 †xf3 (33 and would not have handicapped ‡xg2 †g4+ and mates) 33...exf3 himself with the thought that a draw 34 …g7+ (34 …xf5 …e1#) 34...‡h8 was an invalid aim for the game, had White has nothing and will soon be he believed a draw would make him mated. World Champion. c) 32 †b1? †xc5 33 …xf7 †e5 Napolitano’s comments, written since if now 34 …g7+ †xg7 35 …xg7+ at least two decades after the event, ‡xg7 White has no threats: 36 †b7+ may contain an element of post-hoc (or 36 †b2+ ‡g6) 36...‡g8 37 rationalisation. If he had known that †xc6 …ad8‰. Or 33 c5 (£†a2) Mitchell was beating Purdy, would 33...…ad8 followed by ...†d5. this not have affected his move d) 32 †d1! is the key line: Game 19: Purdy-Napolitano 97 XIIIIIIIIY d1) 32...†xc5 33 †h5! and White 9r+-+-+k+0 draws. d2) 32...†h3 33 …xf7 Èf3+ 9zPR+-+-+-0 34 …xf3 exf3 (34...†xf3?? 35 W9-+p+-+-+0 †d7ˆ) 35 ƒd4! and White has 9+-+-tr-mK-0 threats, e.g. 35...†f5 36 †a1 or 9-+P+-+-+0 35...…ad8 36 †b1. 9+-+-+p+-0 d3) 32...Èf3+ 33 ‡xg2 is there- 9-+-+-zP-zP0 fore critical. ‘Chess Mail’ published analysis on this a few years ago, to 9+-+-+-+-0 which a major contribution was made xiiiiiiiiy by American SIM, John Timm. I have …b8) 42 …b8+ …e8 43 …b7 Black further refined these analyses now. is paralyzed, and White will make d31) 33...†xc5? 34 …xf7 leaves the bind even stronger by pushing the Black hurrying to draw. It seems that h-pawn up the board. The extra … is best play is 34...†e5! 35 †d6 †xd6 useless except for defence! 36 …g7+ with perpetual check. One variation is 43...‡h8 (If 43... d32) 33...†g4+ is not clear after …ad8 44 c5 prevents ...…d6+) 44 h4 34 ‡f1 (34 ‡h1? †h3) says Timm, …g8 45 h5 …ad8 46 c5 …d2 47 h6 (47 e.g. 34...Èxh2+ 35 ‡e1 Èf3+ …b8?? …a2‰) 47...…a2 (47...…xf2 36 ‡f1 †h3+ 37 ‡e2 Èe5! 38 doesn’t win because of 48 h7 …a8 49 …d6 Èxc4 39 …dd7 Èe5 40 …d6. …b8+ ‡xh7 50 …xa8 …a2 51 …f8 Apparently Black cannot win this, …xa7 52 ‡e5.) 48 h7 …g2 49 …b8+ given that White still has the a-pawn ‡xh7 50 a8† …xa8 51 …xa8 …xf2. firmly defended. Now Black has an extra pawn in the d33) 33...Èh4+ 34 ‡g3! was … ending but he cannot win because the main line of Timm’s analysis, of threats to his ‡: 52 …a7+ ‡h6 53 leading to another fantastic position …a8 ‡h5 54 ‡f5 ‡h4 55 ‡f4 ‡h3 after 34...†xc5 35 …xf7 †e5+ 36 56 …g8=. ‡g4 †e6+ 37 ‡xg5! Èf3+ 38 …xf3 My personal conclusion about exf3 39 †d4! †e5+ 40 †xe5 …xe5+ this game, though maybe it’s harsh, (D). is that Napolitano did not deserve to Computers generally say this be world champion, because he made position is won for Black, but such a hash of analyzing the crucial according to Timm it’s a clear move 31 position (as well as missing positional draw because Black will the saving chance later). If Napolitano never find an effective means of had played 31...hxg2, maybe Purdy getting even one of his three pieces would have found John Timm’s line off the 8th rank. For example, 41 and held the game anyway. So I think ‡f6 …e2 (41...…ae8? loses to 42 justice was done. Game 20 White: T. Sanz (Spain) Black: K. Gumprich (Germany) Dyckhoff Memorial 3/M, 1954-56 King’s Indian Defence (E70)

The Players: Gumprich was one of Blocking the centre like this the stronger German postal masters is rarely seen in any line of the of the 1940s and early 1950s. He King’s Indian nowadays, as White’s won the third section of the Dyckhoff straightforward attack with g2-g4 and Memorial with 6½/8 ahead of strong h2-h4 is faster than Black’s queenside masters including Endzelins. I have counterplay. Nevertheless it is not so no information about Sanz. easy to break into the black kingside. About this game: This was one of the Until recently 7...e6 8 ƒd3 exd5 three postal games included in Heiden- was thought to be a simple equaliser feld’s book ‘Draw!’ but I have come for Black, following Szabo-Fischer, to some new conclusions about it. He Leipzig OL 1960: 9 Èxd5 ƒe6 10 praised it as a good example of the Èe2 ƒxd5! 11 exd5 (11 cxd5? c4! 12 high standard of play that amateurs can ƒc2 Èbd7 13 0–0 Èc5) 11...Èbd7 achieve in CC. Although the game has 12 0–0 Èe5 13 f4?! (13 Èc3 is even flaws, I agree with that opinion. The po- — Fischer) 13...Èxd3 14 †xd3 h6 sitions reached after Black’s unusual and 15 ƒh4 …e8 16 …ae1 †b6 17 ƒxf6 courageous † sacrifice are extraordinar- ƒxf6 18 f5 g5 19 b3 †a5 20 …c1? ily complicated. Even today’s powerful (20 †b1 — Fischer) 20...†xa2 21 computers do not easily find their way …c2 …e3! 22 †xe3 †xc2 23 ‡h1 through the maze of tactics. a5 24 h4 a4 0–1. But 9 cxd5 may give 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 g6 3 Èc3 ƒg7 4 e4 White the better chances, e.g. 9...a6 d6 5 ƒg5 10 a4 †a5 11 …a3 …e8 12 Ège2 This variation is rarely played Èbd7 13 Èg3! Èe5 14 ƒe2Ÿ Ni- nowadays. If Black replies 5...h6 the kitin-Hausrath, Dortmund 1993. ƒ will go to h4, while 5...c5 6 d5 0-0 More critical is 7...b5!? 8 cxb5 7 †d2 transposes to the game. a6 9 a4 †a5 10 f3 transposing to a 5...0–0 6 †d2 sharp variation of the Sämisch; e.g. The usual continuation, taking 10...Èbd7 11 Ège2 Èb6 12 Èc1 control of h6. Instead 6 ƒe2 would axb5 13 ƒxb5 ƒa6 14 È1a2 ƒxb5 transpose into the Averbakh variation, 15 axb5 Èh5! 16 …b1 ƒd4 17 ƒh6 while Bisguier opts for 6 f4!?. …fe8 18 b3 e6 19 dxe6 (Ivanchuk- 6...c5 7 d5 e5!? Kasparov, Linares 1997) and now Game 20: Sanz-Gumprich 99

19...fxe6 20 ƒe3 e5 21 0–0 Èf4 or would be answered by ...Èb3+ 19...d5!? — Ivanchuk. winning the white †. 8 0–0–0 Èa6 9 f3 Èc7 10 g4 a6 22...ƒe8 23 Èf5! “With about equal chances,” said The idea is not to take the ƒ on GM Ernst Grünfeld in the tournament g7 but to rid White of the troublesome book. Gumprich commented that: d4-È. “Both sides are proceeding with 23...Èxf5 urgency because with opposite side 23...gxf5?? 24 gxf5 would open castling, speed with the attack is the g-file for a crushing white attack. above all necessary.” 23...ƒh8 severely limits Black’s 11 h4 ƒd7 12 h5 b5 13 Ège2 bxc4 options as he must keep guard against 14 Èg3 Èb5 (D) Èe7#, so ...Èd7 or ...…xb2, for XIIIIIIIIY instance, are now impossible. After 9r+-wq-trk+0 23...ƒh8, 24 †g5 may be the most accurate, so that 24...†a5 (£ 25 W9+-+l+pvlp0 †h4? Èxf5 26 gxf5 …xb2!) can be 9p+-zp-snp+0 answered by 25 …hh2. 9+nzpPzp-vLP0 24 gxf5 9-+p+P+P+0 White’s attack appears to be making 9+-sN-+PsN-0 the greater progress and a † exchange 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 on e3 or b6 would lead towards a favourable endgame for him, the g7- 9+-mKR+L+R0 ƒ being restricted by its own pawns xiiiiiiiiy and the e8-ƒ not having much greater prospects. Therefore Black must take his 15 ƒxc4 chances in the middlegame and he finds Sanz considered sacrificing a piece ingenious tactics. by 15 Èf5?! but he was right to reject 24...†d4! this. 15...Èxc3 16 bxc3 gxf5 17 gxf5 Not 24...Èxh5? 25 …xh5 †xe3+ †a5 followed by ...…fb8 probably 26 ƒxe3 gxh5 27 f6ˆ. wins for Black. 25 hxg6! 15...Èd4 16 †e3 ƒb5 17 ƒb3 c4 18 Black would welcome a † swap ƒc2 †b6 19 …dg1 …fb8 20 …g2 on d4, opening the long diagonal This could be a prelude to … and giving him a dangerous pawn doubling on the h-file, but …g2 is pair. Thus play could go 25 †xd4? primarily a defensive move designed exd4 (25...ƒxh6+ 26 †d2 ƒxd2+ to hold the weakest spot in White’s 27 …xd2 Èxh5 is a materialistic position: the b2-pawn. variation not mentioned in the notes 20...…b7 21 ƒd1 …ab8 22 ƒh6 of Gumprich or Heidenfeld.) 26 ƒxg7 This does not really threaten to ‡xg7 and in view of 27 Èa4? …b4 exchange ƒs yet because ƒxg7 28 b3 ƒxa4 29 bxa4 …b1+ 30 ‡d2 100 64 Great Chess Games

…8b2+ winning a …, Heidenfeld’s White can force a draw or try for more alternative 27 Èb1 c3 actually seems with no assurance of success: less disastrous. a) 29 …xh7 leads to a fairly 25...fxg6 26 †e1 (D) straightforward perpetual check: 29... XIIIIIIIIY ‡xh7 (or 29...…xb2 30 …xg6+ ‡xh7 9-tr-+l+k+0 31 †h4+ ‡xg6 32 †g4+ etc.) 30 †h4+ ‡g7 31 †e7+ ‡h8 32 …h2+ B9+r+-+-vlp0 ‡g8 33 †e6+ ‡g7 34 †e7+. 9p+-zp-snpvL0 b) 29 Èa4!? and now if 29...Èc5 9+-+PzpP+-0 anyway then 30 Èxc5 †xc5 31 †c3 9-+pwqP+-+0 (threatens a breakthrough with f3-f4) 9+-sN-+P+-0 31...…g7 leaves the d1-ƒ restricted by 9PzP-+-+R+0 its own pawns. If 32 ƒe2? ƒxe4 33 …xg7+ ‡xg7, but White can target the 9+-mKLwQ-+R0 c4-pawn more slowly and maybe get a xiiiiiiiiy plus by 32 …hh2! followed by 33 …c2. However, 29...‡g7! 30 …hh2 (30 …d2 Heidenfeld praises this move, and †a7 31 …dh2 †d4 repeats) 30...Èf6 there doesn’t seem to be anything may be safe for Black, activating his better. If White prevaricates, Black È while White’s is offside, e.g. 31 will strengthen his attack with …d2 †a7 32 …c2 …b4¢. ...Èd7-c5. If 26 †g5, hoping for 27 ƒe3 Èc5 28 ƒc2 26...Èd7 27 fxg6 ƒxg6 28 ƒxg7 Essential, although it interferes with Èc5 (28...‡xg7? 29 …xh7+ mates) the defence of b2. Not 28 ƒxd4?? 29 …xh7! Èd3+ 30 ‡b1 …xb2+ Èd3+ 29 ‡b1 (29 ‡d2 …xb2+) 29... 31 …xb2 …xb2+ 32 ‡a1ˆ, then Èxe1 30 …xe1 exd4‰. 26...…xb2! 27 …xb2 †xc3+ 28 …c2 White offered the conditional †a3+ 29 ‡d2 †d3+ gets at least a “if 28...Èd3+ then 29 ƒxd3”, but draw (30 ‡e1? Èxe4!). Gumprich saw the trap (though 26...Èd7!? his analysis was inaccurate). After This move gets two exclamation 29...†xd3 play can go: marks from previous annotators, but a) 30 …d2?? †xc3+ 31 bxc3 …b1+ is it not too good to be true? I expect 32 ‡c2 …8b2# was the bait. that both men were playing for a win! b) 30 …c2 “followed by …h1–h2- Gumprich’s notes say he had sought the d2” (Gumprich), but Heidenfeld coming complications when he played pointed out that Black could free his ...†d4 and it is indeed these that give † by 30...gxf5 31 …hh2 f4. the game its special character. c) White’s correct continuation is I am surprised Heidenfeld did not 30 fxg6! ƒxg6 and only now 31 …c2 analyse 26...ƒxh6+ 27 …xh6 Èd7 (Heidenfeld) e.g. 31...ƒf6 32 …hh2 (£...Èc5-d3+) 28 fxg6 ƒxg6, when ƒe8 33 …hd2 ƒh4 34 †g1+ …g7 35 Game 20: Sanz-Gumprich 101

…g2 …bb7 36 …cd2 and the jaws of 32 ‡d1 d3!? — see 31 ‡d1 below) the trap finally close on the black †. 32...Èd3+ (If 32...dxc3 33 †xh5 28...…xb2! ƒxf4+ 34 ‡d1 or 32...dxc3 33 …h3.) Planned since move 24; White had 33 ‡d1 Èxf4 34 …g5! dxc3 35 overlooked the † sacrifice and there †xf4ˆ. is no choice but to accept it. b) 31 †e7!? dxc3 32 ‡d1 (32 29 ƒxd4 exd4 30 †h4 (D) …hg1? ƒa4!‰) 32...ƒd4! (32... Black has only a ƒ and pawn for …xa2 33 †xd6 Èd7 34 …hg1 …bb2 his † at present, but White must 35 †e6+ seems good for White) when still be very careful. For example, 30 the position is very messy but Black Èd1 would have led to insuperable may have sufficient play to draw, difficulties after the simple 30... e.g. 33 †xd6 …2b6 34 †c7 Èd3 …xa2‰ (Heidenfeld) followed by and perpetual check is in the air after ...c3. 30...…xc2+!? 31 …xc2 Èd3+ such (unforced) continuations as 35 is less clear. f6 …8b7 36 †c8 …b1+ (36...‡f7!?) XIIIIIIIIY 27 ƒxb1 …xb1+ 38 ‡c2 …b2+. Or 9-tr-+l+k+0 if first 33 f6 …2b7 34 †xd6 …b6 35 †f4 then 35...…b1+ 36 ‡e2 …1b2 37 B9+-+-+-vlp0 …d1 Èd3 (not 37...…xc2+ 38 ‡f1 9p+-zp-+p+0 …xg2 39 f7+!ˆ) 38 †c7 ƒxf6 39 9+-snP+P+-0 ‡f1 …2b7 and the … will return to b2 9-+pzpP+-wQ0 after the † retreats. 9+-sN-+P+-0 c) The prophylactic 31 ‡d1!? is also 9PtrL+-+R+0 possible; this side-step will be necessary very soon anyway. Then 31...dxc3 32 f6 9+-mK-+-+R0 reaches the note to White 32nd move in xiiiiiiiiy the game. Or Black can try 31...d3!? 32 f6 ƒh6 when White does not have an 30...dxc3 immediate kingside breakthrough so the This is an interesting moment passed obscure fight goes on; e.g. 33 f4! dxc2+ over by previous commentators. Gum- (33...‡h7!?) 34 …xc2 Èd3 35 …xb2 prich says the È must be captured …xb2 (£...ƒxf4 and …d2#) 36 …h2! because it is an important defender in …xh2 37 †xg2 ƒxf4 38 †g1 ƒe5, some lines. But it cannot run away and and although Black has two strong ƒs Black could have first played 30...h5!?, for the †, I suspect there should be a with three possibilities: way for the † to triumph in the end. a) 31 f6! is simplest, transposing to 31 f6! the game after 31...dxc3 or 31...Èd3+ Black allowed the obvious 31 32 ‡d1 dxc3 33 fxg7 ƒa4. Black †xh7+!? ‡f8 because he believed can try 31...ƒh6+!?, but this seems it to be a blind alley and White insufficient after 32 f4! (Better than avoided it for the same reason. The 102 64 Great Chess Games old annotators don’t give specific unclear, as is 33 †h2 ƒe5. variations, so it is impossible to know c) 33 …gh2!? …xa2 34 f6 ƒxf6 how much they actually saw; a clue 35 †c7 (threatening mate in two by to the direction of their thinking is …h8+ etc.) is a rollercoaster ride: Heidenfeld’s remark that “f6 must 35...…a1+ 36 ‡e2 …xh1 37 …xh1 be played while the † is still on h4”. …b2 38 †xd6+ ‡g7 39 †c7+ ‡f8 32 f6? ƒxf6 was probably the line 40 f4 …xc2+ 41 ‡e3 g5! 42 fxg5 they looked at, and if 33 †h6+ Black ƒxg5+ 43 ‡d4 ƒf6+ 44 ‡xc4 defends with 33...ƒg7 or 33...‡e7!? Èe5+ (44...ƒb5+ 45 ‡b3 …b2+ 46 (but not 33...‡g8?? 34 …xg6+ˆ). ‡a3) 45 ‡b4 (45 ‡b3?! …b2+ 46 Other 33rd moves for White gives ‡xc3 Èg4+ 47 e5 ƒxe5+ 48 †xe5 nothing clear either. Èxe5 49 ‡xb2 will end in a draw) White can instead play 32 ‡d1! 45...…b2+ (45...…e2!?) 46 ‡a5 …b2+ (D), which is motivated by the 47 ‡b6 Èd7+ 48 ‡a7 (48 ‡b7 important detail that ...Èd3 will now …b2+ 49 ‡xa6 …a2+) 48...ƒd4+ 49 not be check, and in turn means that ‡a8 ƒe5 followed by 50...…b2 and Black’s key shot at move 32 in the Black should draw. actual game does not work. After the d) 33 †h4! is critical. Surely Black ‡ escapes the worst of the danger, cannot have enough for the † here? White can pursue winning attempts. d1) 33...…b1+ fails because after XIIIIIIIIY 34 ƒxb1 …xb1+ 35 ‡e2 c2 36 …gg1 9-tr-+lmk-+0 …xg1 37 …xg1 c1† 38 …xc1 Èxc1+ 39 ‡e3 Black’s three pieces cannot 9+-+-+-B vlQ0 combat the †. He is faced with the 9p+-zp-+p+0 threat of f5-f6, his pawns are all loose 9+-snP+P+-0 and his È is too far from safety. 9-+p+P+-+0 d2) 33...ƒe5! seems the only try, 9+-zp-+P+-0 setting more traps: 9PtrL+-+R+0 d21) 34 …hh2? …b1+ 35 ƒxb1 (35 ‡e2 …8b2) 35...…xb1+ 36 ‡e2 9+-+K+-+R0 c2‰. xiiiiiiiiy d22) 34 …gh2!? ƒa4!? 35 ƒxa4 (35 f6 ‡f7!) 35...…xh2 36 …xh2 Now 32...…xa2 fails to 33 …xg6 …b1+ 37 ‡e2 …b2+ and White may ƒxg6 34 †xg6 threatening both f6 have to settle for the draw. and †xd6+. So 32...Èd3 is probably d23) 34 f6 …b1+ 35 ƒxb1 (35 the best try in the diagram above and ‡e2 Èf4+ 36 ‡f2 ƒd4+ 37 ‡g3 then: Èh5+) 35...…xb1+ 36 ‡e2 …b2+ a) 33 ƒxd3? cxd3 and Black has draws, because if 37 ‡e3 ƒf4+ 38 forced mate in 9. ‡d4 ƒe5+ 39 ‡xc4?? walks into a b) 33 e5 ƒxe5 (or ...Èxe5) is surprise mate: 39...ƒb5#. Game 20: Sanz-Gumprich 103

d24) 34 fxg6! …b1+ (34...ƒa4 Now with the black pieces 35 g7+! ƒxg7 36 …xg7!ˆ) hopes swarming around his ‡, it starts for 35 ƒxb1 …xb1+ 36 ‡e2 …b2+ to look as if White could even be 37 ‡f1 …b1+ draws, while 37 losing. Gumprich found out later that ‡e3 …xg2 is very risky for White. his opponent was a However, 35 ‡e2! spoils the fun; composer — but did Sanz think the the fatal detail (compared with the task was “White to play and win” or previous note) is that 35...Èf4+ does “White to play and draw”? not work because 36 †xf4 is check! XIIIIIIIIY After 35...…xh1 36 †xh1 Èf4+ 37 9-tr-+-+k+0 ‡e3 Èxg2+ 38 †xg2 and 39 f4 it will soon be all over: e.g. 38...…b2 39 W9+-+-+-zP-0 f4 ƒf6 40 †g4 …xc2 41 e5ˆ. 9p+-zp-+p+0 To sum up, there is a win after 31 9+-+P+-+p0 †xh7+, but it is long and difficult, so 9l+p+P+-wQ0 Sanz actually played the best move, 9+-zpn+P+-0 forcing the reply. 9PtrL+-+R+0 31...h5 32 fxg7 White had another option that 9+-+K+-+R0 previous annotators overlooked: 32 xiiiiiiiiy ‡d1! — and I don’t see any good continuation for Black here. If 32... 34 †f6? ƒh8 33 †xh5 ƒxf6 34 …xg6+ White settles for a draw. This is or 32...…xa2 33 fxg7 ƒa4 34 †f6 given an exclamation mark by both ƒxc2+ 35 …xc2 …b1+ 36 ‡e2 …xc2+ Gumprich and Heidenfeld, but in fact 37 ‡e3ˆ. So Black plays 32...Èd3 it is a mistake because White still had when White can transpose to the game two chances to win: by 33 fxg7 ƒa4 or play 33 …hg1!? Firstly — and simplest — 34 †h2! …xa2 34 fxg7 ƒa4 35 †f6, which (covering c2 and attacking d6) 34... should be good enough to win. …8b6 35 …hg1! …xa2 36 ‡e2 …xc2+ 32...ƒa4! 37 ‡e3 and White should win, e.g. At last the problem ƒ comes to 37...…xg2 38 †xg2 c2 39 †xg6 life and strikes an effective blow. It c1†+ 40 …xc1 Èxc1 41 †xh6ˆ. cannot be captured because of mate; 34 …f1 should also have won i.e. 33 ƒxa4?? Èd3+ 34 ‡d1 …xg2 — the point being that by providing with the double threat of 35...…d2# further cover to f2, it rules out the and 35...…b1#. game continuation. Now 34...Èb4! 33 ‡d1! Èd3 (D) seems the best answer and then: 33...…xa2? is too slow; White wins a) 35 …fg1 Èxc2 (or 35...ƒxc2+ easily by 34 †f6 etc. (as after 32 ‡d1 36 ‡e1 ƒa4 37 †f6! Èd3+ 38 ‡f1 …xa2 above). ƒd7 39 …xb2 cxb2 40 ‡g2 Èc1 41 104 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY †xg6 b1† 42 †xh5 †b8 43 ‡h1 9-tr-+-+-+0 †xg1+ 44 ‡xg1) 36 ‡e2 Èb4+ 37 9+-+-wQ-mk-0 ‡e3 …xg2 38 …xg2 c2 39 …g1 Èxa2 B9p+-zp-+p+0 40 †f6 c1+ 41 …xc1 Èxc1 42 †xd6 and although Black has …, ƒ + È for 9+-+P+-+p0 the † his pieces are again so scattered 9-+p+P+-+0 that the † can reap havoc. 9+-zp-+P+-0 b) 35 ƒxa4! is possible now as 9P+-+-tr-+0 well; it’s an exchange sacrifice but 9+-+K+-+R0 White can afford it as Black’s attacking xiiiiiiiiy force has been reduced, e.g. 35...…xg2 36 …f2 g5! 37 †xh5 …g1+ 38 ‡e2 †e7+ ‡h5 ½–½ …e1+! 39 ‡xe1 Èd3+ when, despite Black decides that enough is Black’s ingenious tactical play, he enough. 41...‡f4!? is less safe, but probably has a lost endgame. could have been tried to set one last After White misses these chances, trap: 42 †xd6+?? ‡e3 43 †xb8 Black gets to demonstrate his idea in c2+! (Heidenfeld) 44 ‡c1 ‡d3 45 its full glory. ‡b2 c3+ etc, which is more clear-cut 34...ƒxc2+ than 43...‡d3 (Gumprich), though Neither player cannot afford to that should also win. diverge from the straight and narrow Instead White would play 42 †f6+ path. Not 34...…b1+?? 35 ‡e2 …xh1 ‡e3 (42...‡g3? costs a … after 43 36 †e6+ and mates. †xd6+) 43 †xc3+ and Black has 35 …xc2 Èf2+ 36 …xf2 lost a pawn, but it should be a draw White draws by a series of accurately anyway after 43...‡f4. calculated moves. 36 ‡e2 …xc2+ 37 To conclude: this is not a perfect ‡e3 Èxh1 38 †xg6 probably draws draw, as Heidenfeld supposed, as well but is less forcing. because White missed a clear win — 36...…xf2 37 †e6+ ‡xg7 38 but it is an excellent example of how †e7+ (D) top amateurs played CC around 50 The draw would now be obvious years ago. The ideas that the players after 38...‡g8 39 †e6+ ‡g7 40 and previous annotators missed are †e7+. the kind of sly moves that computers 38...‡h6 find almost effortlessly but which the Black threatens ...c2+ and forces human mind tends to disregard, unless White to find one last good move. a player penetrates very deeply into 39 …xh5+! ‡xh5 40 †h7+ ‡g5 41 the secret logic of a position. Game 21 White: Yakov Borisovich Estrin (USSR) Black: Horst Robert Rittner () Ragozin Memorial, 1963 French Defence, Winawer Variation (C17)

The Players: Yakov Estrin (1923-87), this particular clash is memorable for was at this time an international mas- his delicate endgame play. Analysis ter well known for his writings, most- in this game is based on Estrin’s ly on classical 1 e4 e5 open games and own notes and the less useful ones by . Estrin divided his energies R.Mari™ in ‘Informator 2’. between OTB and postal play and 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 e5 c5 5 his results were therefore somewhat †g4 Èe7 6 dxc5 Èbc6 7 ƒd2 erratic. His main CC achievement As a professional writer, Estrin up to this time had been a tie for first was at a disadvantage in that his place in the 5th USSR Championship. published views and analysis could He later won the 7th CC World Cham- be used against him. I know from pionship — under somewhat contro- my own experience that this can lead versial circumstances, discussed in the to the choice of an inferior, or less- notes to Game 32. explored alternative, in order to avoid Horst Rittner, still an active grand- the opponent’s preparation, and that is master and now in his seventies, went what happened to Estrin here. on after this event to become the 6th In two articles he had examined CC World Champion. He has achieved the possibility 7 Èf3, as played more ICCF grandmaster norms than in a game Bronstein-Boleslavsky, any other player: 10 so far. Kiev 1944. Estrin suspected that his About this game: The Ragozin Me- opponent was acquainted with this morial was an elite tournament held in analysis and so he chose a quiet line memory of the 2nd CC World Cham- instead. Indeed, Aarseth-Rittner in pion. Rittner won it with 8/10, two the 6th World Championship, 1968, clear points ahead of Estrin and the saw summary execution by 7...d4! 8 3rd World Champion, O’Kelly. Rittner ƒb5 †a5 9 ƒxc6+ bxc6! 10 †xg7 worked as a chess editor for the Berlin …g8 11 †xh7 ƒa6! 12 Èg5 ƒxc3+ publishing house and had access to 13 ‡d1 0–0–0 14 Èxf7 d3! 0-1 (15 the latest theory, which made him a Èd6+ …xd6! 16 exd6 †a4 17 b3 very dangerous opponent. However, †g4+ and wins). 106 64 Great Chess Games

7...0–0 14 †f3 †xe5 In the game Batygin-Khasin, Not 14...†xf3 15 gxf3 Ègxe5 16 Leningrad 1954, there occurred Èexd4‹. 7...ƒxc5 8 Èf3 0–0 9 ƒd3 f5 10 15 0–0–0 †g5! (D) exf6 …xf6 11 ƒg5 with about equal XIIIIIIIIY chances. Instead, Rittner follows 9r+l+-trk+0 an idea of his compatriot, and great exponent of the French Defence, GM W9zpp+-+-zpp0 Wolfgang Uhlmann. 9-+n+p+n+0 8 Èf3 9+-zP-+-wq-0 In later games, Rittner faced 8 9-+-zp-zp-+0 0-0-0 which is probably a better plan 9+N+-+Q+-0 for White (e.g. Heemsoth-Rittner, 9PzPP+NzPPzP0 Bernard Freedman Memorial 1985). 8...f5 9+-mKR+L+R0 Black tries to seize the initiative xiiiiiiiiy based on his safer ‡ position and mobile pawns. White now has difficulties. He Now 9 exf6 …xf6 10 0-0-0 e5! cannot prevent ...e5, which would (Pietzsch-Uhlmann, East German Ch give Black complete hold of the 1963) was known to be unfavourable centre. Therefore White decided on a for White. Estrin improves on that. piece sacrifice. 9 †h4 d4 16 Èexd4 Èxd4 17 Èxd4 Èh4 Later Mednis played 9...Èg6!?, 18 †e4 f3+ 19 ‡b1 fxg2 20 ƒxg2 which may be an improvement, Èxg2 21 …hg1 …xf2 22 c6! avoiding the possibility for White at Estrin had hopes in this position. move 13. He said that White’s threats are 10 Èe2 ƒxd2+ 11 Èxd2 †d5 12 very dangerous and now only one Èb3 Èg6 13 †g3? move enables Black to maintain his Estrin had overlooked Black’s advantage. 15th move; he should have preferred 22...†f4! 13 †h3 although whether this really Computers nowadays suggest gives White an advantage, as some either 22...bxc6 or 22...†g6 (but books claim, is questionable. Black did not want doubled g-pawns). 13...f4! However, Rittner was willing to give Black must make haste to justify up a pawn to get the right endgame. his earlier play, because if White He allowed White’s little combination can succeed in completing his because he had seen further. development by 0–0–0 he will have 23 Èxe6! †xe4! a better position as well as material Not 23...ƒxe6 24 †xe6+ ‡h8 25 superiority. cxb7 and White has the initiative. Game 21: Estrin-Rittner 107 XIIIIIIIIY 24 …d8+ ‡f7 25 Èg5+ ‡e7 26 Èxe4 …f4! 9-+-+-+r+0 At this point Estrin’s notes are a bit 9+k+-+l+-0 strange. He says that, “After 26...…e2 B9p+p+-+-+0 27 Èc3 …f2 28 c7! or 26...‡xd8 27 9+-+-+-+-0 Èxf2 Èf4 28 cxb7 ƒxb7 29 …xg7 9-+-+-+-+0 ƒd5 30 …xh7 White could even play 9+P+-+-+-0 for a win.” It would be more accurate to say that he might not be losing, and 9PmKP+R+-+0 in the line 26...…e2 27 Èc3 Black 9+-+-+-+-0 has a much stronger continuation in xiiiiiiiiy 27...‡xd8! 28 Èxe2 ƒh3!. Estrin still had hopes of a draw Nevertheless, Rittner was probably because the a-pawn’s queening square right to avoid such complications is of the opposite colour to the ƒ. because after 26...…f4! White’s back “If Black exchanges one of his really was to the wall. pawns, he loses all winning chances. 27 …g8 bxc6! But in what way is the white ‡ to Also adequate for a win was reach its ideal position? My opponent 27...…xe4, but Black’s chosen con- conducted this difficult endgame tinuation is the best, said Estrin. magnificently, discovering a fine and 28 …xg7+ ‡f8 29 …7xg2 …xe4 30 surprising win, which fully deserves …g8+ ‡e7 31 …h8 ‡d6 32 b3 to be placed in theory books on After 32 …xh7 ƒf5! Black wins similar endings.” easily. With the text move, White “I showed this position to the attempts to play on the pin of the leading endgame expert, GM black ƒ. Averbakh, who told me that if the 32...…e7 33 …gg8 ‡c7 34 h4 ‡b7 position were indeed winning for 35 h5 …c7 36 h6 a6! Black, the method must be very An important subtlety! The natural painstaking.” I think that was a polite 36...a5? would have deprived Black of way for Averbakh to tell Estrin he the fruits of all his hard labour up to believed the ending was really won. now, as will soon become clear. 45...ƒd5 46 …e7+ ‡b6 47 …e2 …g2 37 …g7 …xg7 38 hxg7 ƒe6 39 …xh7 48 …e3 …f2 49 …e8 ‡c5 50 …e3 …g8 40 ‡b2 …f3 51 …e2 …g3 If the black pawn now stood on White manoeuvres while Black a5, then White would have had good tries to realise the following plan: chances of a draw by 40 …h5 ‡b6 41 1. To displace the white … from the …g5. third rank. 40...ƒf7 41 ‡c3 ƒg6 42 …h2 2. March his ‡ to the centre to …xg7 43 …g2 …g8 44 ‡b2 ƒf7 45 enable the important move ...ƒe4, …e2 (D) from where it attacks both c2 and g2. 108 64 Great Chess Games

3. Prepare the decisive ...…g2. But he is not correct that 57...‡d4 52 …e1 ‡d4 53 …d1+ ‡e5 54 …d2 in the game would have drawn. Black ƒe4 still wins after 58 c3+ (58 ‡a5 ƒe4 Estrin still did not see how Rittner 59 ‡xa6 ƒxc2 50 b4 ƒa4 51 ‡a5 was going to overcome his defence! ƒb5 52 a4 ‡c4! 52 axb5 cxb5‰) 55 ‡a3 (D) 58...‡d3! 59 ‡a5 (If 59 c4 ‡c2 50 XIIIIIIIIY ‡c5 ‡b2 51 b4 ‡xa2 62 b5 cxb5 9-+-+-+-+0 63 cxb5 a5‰ or 59 ‡c5 ‡xc3 60 b4 ƒd5 61 a4 ƒe4 62 b5 cxb5 63 B9+-+-+-+-0 axb5 a5‰) 59...‡xc3 60 ‡xa6 c5 9p+p+-+-+0 61 ‡b5 ‡d4‰ as his c-pawn is out 9+-+-mk-+-0 of danger; e.g. 62 ‡a4 (If 62 b4 c4 or 9-+-+l+-+0 62 a4 ƒd5) 62...ƒe4 (£...ƒb1-a2) 9mKP+-+-tr-0 63 ‡a3 ƒc2 64 ‡b2 (64 ‡a4 c4) 9P+PtR-+-+0 64...‡d3 65 a4 ƒxb3! 66 ‡xb3 c4+ and the pawn promotes. 9+-+-+-+-0 It seems to me therefore that Estrin xiiiiiiiiy was lost anyway, but the win is much clearer after Rittner’s move. 55...…g2! 58 ‡a5 ƒe4 The decisive move. After 55...c5 The decisive tempo; Black gains 56 c4! White achieves a draw. time to attack the pawns from behind. 56 …xg2 ƒxg2 57 ‡b4 ‡d6! 59 c3 ƒb1 0–1 (D) Defending the precious c-pawn, XIIIIIIIIY while keeping the white ‡ out of 9-+-+-+-+0 c5. Estrin wrote: “The last finesse. It had appeared to me that Black was W9+-+-+-+-0 obliged to play 57...‡d4 but in that 9p+pmk-+-+0 case the win would be gone. If the 9mK-+-+-+-0 white pawn already stood on c3 then 9-+-+-+-+0 White could be content. Now Black 9+PzP-+-+-0 wins the decisive tempo.” 9P+-+-+-+0 Estrin is correct to say that the position is drawn with the white pawn 9+l+-+-+-0 on c3 (or c4), as then White can win xiiiiiiiiy the a-pawn without problems; e.g. (with the pawn on c3) 57...‡d6 58 Here the game had to be broken off ‡a5 ƒf1 59 c4 ‡c5 60 ‡xa6 ‡b4 and the adjudication was in Black’s 61 ‡b6 ƒg2 62 ‡b7 and Black is favour. It is not hard to see that tied to the defence of his remaining pawn White’s position is hopeless. After 60 (62...‡a3 63 ‡b6 ‡xa2 64 b4=). a3 or 60 a4 there follows 60...ƒc2. Game 22 White: Piotr Dubinin (USSR) Black: Aleksandr Konstantinopolsky (USSR) Ragozin Memorial, 1963 Caro-Kann Defence (B14)

The Players: Piotr V. Dubinin (1909- Black chooses a hybrid system. 83) was already a USSR Champion- Konstantinopolsky wrote: “I do not ship finalist OTB in the 1930s. He share the popular theoretical opinion became a FIDE international master that this move loses by force to 7 c5. in 1950 and an ICCF grandmaster The resources of the black position in 1962. His best result was finishing seem to me to be fully adequate.” runner-up to A.O’Kelly de Galway in Nowadays the normal moves are the 3rd CC World Championship. 6...ƒb4 (transposing to a variation Aleksandr M. Konstantinopolsky of the Nimzo-Indian) and 6...ƒe7, (1910-90) won the first USSR CC which Konstantinopolsky used to play Championship (1948-51) and he earlier in his career. became an ICCF international master The latter usually transposes to a in 1966 and eventually a FIDE Queen’s Gambit Semi-Tarrasch (7 grandmaster (1983). He was one of cxd5 Èxd5), but his famous win the USSR’s leading chess trainers and against Keres from the 16th USSR a noted theoretician. Championship (Moscow 1948), which About this game: This game, the most had parallels to the present game, went exciting in this elite event, featured 7 a3 0-0 8 c5 Èe4 9 †c2 f5 10 ƒe2 in the 1985 Russian monograph on Èc6 11 ƒb5 ƒf6 12 ƒxc6 bxc6 13 Konstantinopolsky’s career. 0-0 g5 14 Èe5 ƒxe5 15 dxe5 Èxc3 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 Èf6 16 †xc3 f4¢ (0-1, 50). 5 Èc3 7 c5 White plays the Panov-Botvinnik Dubinin plays the recommended Attack, which can lead to a great move and avoids isolated d-pawn variety of positions. Alternatives here positions that result from the normal 7 are 5...g6 (which Konstantinopolsky cxd5 Èxd5 8 ƒc4 or 8 ƒd3; instead played against Estrin in this event) he creates a 3-2 queenside pawn and 5...Èc6 which can be met either majority. The general plan is ƒf1- by 6 Èf3, when Black usually plays b5xc6 to take control of e5, followed 6...ƒg4, or by 6 ƒg5. by a queenside pawn advance. Black 5...e6 6 Èf3 Èc6 hopes to make use of his majority of 110 64 Great Chess Games pawns on the kingside but first he has played in Estrin-N.Kopylov, USSR Cht to solve the problem of developing his 1953, and many other games. According pieces in a cramped space. to the book ‘Caro-Kann’ by A.Veits and 7...ƒe7 A.Konstantinopolsky (Moscow 1983) Konstantinopolsky’s move order “Black can fight for the initiative”. was probably influenced by a belief Now S.Toldaev-L.Gusev, from the 10th that he could improve upon 7...Èe4 8 USSR CC Cht 1991, continued 12 Èe5 ƒb5! Èxc3 9 bxc3 ƒd7 10 0–0 ƒe7 †c7 13 f3!? (a pawn sacrifice to get 11 ƒf4 b6?! 12 †a4 …c8 13 c4‹ play on the dark squares and the c-file) (1–0, 23) Dubinin-V.Bergraser, 4th CC 13...Èxc5 14 ƒf4 ƒd6 15 …ac1 …b8 World Ch 1962. It is often a good idea 16 †d2. While this is an interesting to encourage opponents to repeat lines idea, it is not so clear and I expect that where they have had an easy success, Black would have found something, because they may be uncritical. e.g. 16...Èa6 now, instead of Gusev’s 8 ƒb5 0–0 16...ƒd7?. ‘ECO’ and ‘NCO’ instead rec- 9...Èe4 10 0–0 ommend an unconvincing line: 8... In an OTB game in Finland, double ƒd7 9 ƒxc6 (White usually prefers CC world champion Tõnu Õim played 9 0–0 0-0 10 …e1 and has had good 10 ƒxc6 Èxc3 (10...bxc6!?) 11 bxc3 results with it.) 9...ƒxc6 10 Èe5 bxc6 12 †a4 †e8 13 0-0 f6 16 …fe1 (This is also not forced.) 10...Èd7! g5 with a messy position, (1-0, 60) 11 Èxc6 bxc6 12 0–0 (Z.Franco- Õim-Mertanen, Savonlinna 1990. M.Voiska, Zaragoza 1993) 12...e5 13 10...g5! (D) ƒe3 0–0 14 b4 ƒf6= — Voiska. XIIIIIIIIY 9 ƒf4 9r+lwq-trk+0 Instead of this, theory now recommends 9 0–0 Èe4 when: W9zpp+-vlp+p0 a) 10 ƒxc6 Èxc3 11 bxc3 bxc6 12 9-+n+p+-+0 †a4‹ (Foltys-Opocensky, Munich 9+LzPp+-zp-0 1941) is cited, for example, in the 9-+-zPnvL-+0 book on the Caro-Kann by Egon 9+-sN-+N+-0 Varnusz. However, that example is 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 very misleading and I think Black is OK here. After 12...†c7 13 Èe5?! 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 ƒxc5! 14 dxc5 †xe5 15 †xc6 and xiiiiiiiiy here the immediate 15...†e2!? (and if 16 †xa8 ƒa6 or ...†xf1+) looks Konstantinopolsky wrote that: “Black stronger than Opocensky’s 15...…b8 can thank the move c4-c5 for making 16 †d6 †e2?, which loses the this advance possible. Black’s centre is exchange to 17 ƒh6! ƒa6 18 †g3. very secure and the flank attack is not b) 10 †c2 f5 11 ƒxc6 bxc6 was merely permissible, but necessary.” Game 22: Dubinin-Konstantinopolsky 111

11 ƒxc6 bxc6 12 ƒg3 f6! 24...ƒg7 “This is more flexible than 12...f5, Black now plans to advance ...e6- which would be met by 13 ƒe5. Black e5 using the sacrifice of his a-pawn as maintains control of the central square a , but the variations in his book e5 and anyway the time has almost don’t all check out with a computer. arrived to exchange the outpost È.” He rejected 24...ƒg6 25 …1b2 e5!? 13 …e1 Èxg3 14 hxg3 …b8 15 †d2 26 dxe5 ƒxc5 because of 27 Èb5! †c7 16 b4 …f7! but 27...ƒxf2+ looks like a good Not 16...…xb4? 17 Èxd5. reply. Also Black stands well after 27 17 …ab1 ƒd7 18 a4 a6 Èxd5 cxd5 28 exf6 d4, but 27 b5!? Black wants to delay White’s b4- could be more awkward to meet. b5 advance while he completes his 25 †e2 e5! 26 †xa6 preparations on the other wing. Black judges that the absence of the 19 †e2 †b7 20 g4 white † from the centre will enable To block Black’s kingside advance him to get his own attack moving. by Èc3-e2-g3-h5 or else Èf3-h2-f1– 26 dxe5 would probably be met by g3-h5, and maybe White did not wish to 26...fxe5 27 Èxg5 ƒg6 28 …1b2 e4. allow ...g5-g4. Black replies by doubling 26...e4 27 Èe1 f5! 28 gxf5 on the b-file to create threats there. If 28 Èc2 f4 29 †e2 (29 f3 exf3 20...ƒf8 21 †d2 †c8 22 …b2 ƒe8 30 gxf3 ƒg6) 29...f3 30 gxf3 exf3 31 23 …eb1 …fb7 (D) †xf3 ƒg6 and Black is better after, XIIIIIIIIY e.g., 32 …1b2 ƒxc2 33 …xb2 …xb4. 9-trq+lvlk+0 28...ƒxd4 29 Èc2 This sets a trap or two: 29...ƒxc5? W9+r+-+-+p0 30 Èxe4! dxe4 31 †c4+ ƒf7 32 9p+p+pzp-+0 †xc5 ƒxb3 33 …xb3 …f7 34 Èd4 9+-zPp+-zp-0 and Black’s position is fragmented; or if 9PzP-zP-+P+0 29...ƒe5 30 Èe3! £Èg4. Instead 29 9+-sN-+N+-0 Èxd5 fails to 29...cxd5 30 c6 †xf5 31 9-tR-wQ-zPP+0 Èf3 exf3 32 cxb7 fxg2 33 †e2 ƒh5!. 29...ƒg7! 9+R+-+-mK-0 In exchange for the a-pawn, xiiiiiiiiy Black has gained space in the centre (especially control of d4) and now, 24 …b3 to prevent ...†xf5, White must 24 a5 was another plan, to block the b- compromise his kingside. One point file by Èa4-b6. Konstantinopolsky said illustrated by the next stage of this he intended to counter that by 24...ƒg6 game is that the player with a space 25 …e1 e5 but it seems to me that ...e5 advantage (here, Black) finds it easier needs more preparation, in view of 26 to switch play between the wings. dxe5 ƒxc5 27 b5! axb5 28 exf6¢. 30 g4 112 64 Great Chess Games

30 Èe3!? is not mentioned in K’s Previously this was always given notes: 30...ƒf7 (30...d4 31 Èxe4 a “!” but in view of the next note, dxe3 32 Èd6 exf2+ 33 ‡xf2 †d7å) Black should find another move here. 31 b5 and now 31...ƒxc3!? is trappy, With 35...†xf5!, Black avoids the because of 32 bxc6 …xb3 33 …xb3 † exchange and retains his threats, †xa6? (better 33...ƒe5) 34 …xb8+ White’s counterplay apparently being ‡g7 35 c7‹. Instead, 31...d4 is insufficient. For example, 36 bxc6 (36 good for Black but very complicated. Èxc6? ƒxc6 37 bxc6 …xb3 or 36 31...…a8 is safer, leading to an Èe2 cxb5) 36...g3! and now: advantage for Black without risk. a) 37 cxb7 d4 38 †e2 †h3+ 39 30...†c7 31 †e2 ‡e1 dxc3 (£ 40...†h1#) 40 †xe4 31 Èe2?? (intending the desirable (40 †c4+ ƒf7 or 40 ‡d1 ƒh5) Èg3) loses the † to 31...…a7. 40...gxf2+ 41 ‡xf2 †g3+ 42 ‡f1 31...†f4 32 b5 ƒe5 33 ‡f1 h5 34 ƒb5+! 43 axb5 …f8+ and mates. Èb4 b) 37 c7 d4! 38 cxb8† …xb8 and 34 b6 is too slow (34...hxg4 35 a5 White is lost despite his extra …, viz. …h7) and if 34 gxh5 †h4 and ...ƒxh5. 39 †xe4? †xf2#, or 39 †e2 †h3+ If 34 gxh5, the best reply is probably 40 ‡e1 dxc3 etc. 34...…h7! (similar to the game). c) 37 Ècxd5 …f7 38 c7 …c8 34...hxg4 35 †e3 (D) (£...†h3+) 39 ‡g2 gxf2. XIIIIIIIIY d) 37 Èe2 d4! 38 Èxd4 (38 Èxg3? 9-tr-+l+k+0 †h3+ and 39...dxe3) is the best defence but Black seems to win by 38...†h3+, B9+r+-+-+-0 viz. 39 ‡e2 (If 39 ‡g1? †h2+ 40 ‡f1 9-+p+-+-+0 g2+ 41 ‡e2 ƒh5+ 42 ‡d2 ƒf4 or 39 9+PzPpvlPzp-0 ‡e1 gxf2+ 40 †xf2 …xb4 41 …xb4 9PsN-+pwqp+0 …xb4 42 …xb4 ƒg3‰) 39...†h5+ 40 9+RsN-wQ-+-0 ‡d2 (40 ‡e1 g2) 40...…xb4 41 …xb4 9-+-+-zP-+0 …xb4 44 …xb4 ƒf4‰. 36 Èe2? 9+R+-+K+-0 Konstantinopolsky wrote that “36 xiiiiiiiiy †xf4 (not 36 b6? g2+) 36...gxf4 37 fxg3 f3 (£...…h7) leads to defeat for The best defence, preparing to bring White” but unfortunately he published a È over to g3. The game is now at no further analysis to justify that view. a critical moment because White’s The exchange of †s was a better queenside majority is potentially very defence than the two players thought. dangerous, while Black has mobile The critical line goes 38 g4! (38 bxc6?! pawns. It is hard to get to the bottom …h7! 39 Ècxd5 ƒd4! threatens mate, of the tactics here. and if 40 ‡e1 …h1+ 41 ‡d2 …h2+ 42 35...g3?! ‡e1 f2+ 43 ‡f1 …h1+ 44 ‡e2 ƒh5+ Game 22: Dubinin-Konstantinopolsky 113

45 ‡d2 ƒd1‰) 38...…h7 39 ‡f2! 41 Èxb8 also fails: 41...ƒxe3 which, even if it fails, is much better 42 …xe3 …h2 (or 42...d4) and if 43 than the game continuation, which …g3 e3! 44 …b2 (44 …xe3? †g2+ loses by force. or 44 fxe3 †e4 or 44 …xg5+ ‡f8) Black only draws by ƒ checks (39... 44...exf2+ 45 …xf2 …xf2 46 ‡xf2 ƒd4+ 40 ‡g3 ƒe5+), but 39...…h2+! 40 †h2+ 47 …g2 †xb8‰. ‡e3 f2 seems just good enough to win, 41...…h2! e.g. 41 b6 ƒg7 42 Èa6!? d4+ 43 ‡xe4 Threatening 42...†g2+ 43 ‡e2 ƒh5+. …h3 and 44 Èxb8? fails to 44...…e3+ 42 Èe7+ ‡h7 43 …h3+ 45 ‡f4 …e1‰ (analysis with Junior7). If 43 Èg6 to block the ƒ, then There are many other possibilities for 43...†g2+ 44 ‡e2 †g4+ 45 ‡f1 both sides, but the massed black forces ƒxg6 46 fxg6+ ‡xg6‰ £...e3. are strong (especially with the white ‡ 43...…xh3 44 †xd5?! so exposed), whereas White’s queenside This permits a quick finish but play seems a bit too slow. evidently Dubinin wished to set a 36...g2+! 37 ‡xg2 †h2+ 38 ‡f1 final trap rather than “go quietly”. …h7 (D) Objectively best was 44 Èxd5, but 38...†h1+? 39 Èg1 ƒh2 40 †h3!. it’s obviously hopeless after 44... XIIIIIIIIY ƒc6!, clearing the back rank for the 9-tr-+l+k+0 b8-… to prevent †h8+, so that the ‡ can escape up the h-file and Black can W9+-+-+-+r0 consolidate his extra …. 9-+p+-+-+0 44...ƒh5! 9+PzPpvlPzp-0 Black parries the mate threat on g8. 9PsN-+p+-+0 45 †d7 9+R+-wQ-+-0 Apparently threatening a dangerous 9-+-+NzP-wq0 discovered check, but... 45...†xg1+! 0–1 9+R+-+K+-0 In fact, two moves force mate. xiiiiiiiiy a) After 45...†xg1+ 46 ‡xg1 ƒf3 there are several variations, but the 39 Èg1! black ‡ always escapes the checks, “The inventive analyst P.Dubinin, e.g. 47 Èc8+ ‡h6! 48 †e6+ ‡h5 in this difficult situation, found a 49 †e8+ ‡g4 or 47 Èg8+ ‡h8! remarkable counter-chance. The main 48 †d4+ ‡xg8 49 †d5+ ‡f8 or 47 point is to prepare the diversion sacrifice Èd5+ ‡h8! or 47 Èg6+ ‡h6!. of the … at move 43. However, Black b) Unfortunately there is a “cook” met the challenge and found on the board as 45...ƒf3 also wins, and after a hidden and paradoxical combinational the checks finish Black can choose resource leading to a mating finale.” between ...†xg1+, ...…h1# and 39...†h1 40 Èxc6 ƒf4 41 †d4 ...†g2+, ...†xg1#. Game 23 White: Dr Maurice E.M. Jago (England) Black: John E. Littlewood (England) English Minor Counties CC Championship, 1964 King’s (Mason/Pärnu) Gambit (C33)

The Players: John Littlewood is “The interesting background to the a FIDE Master and British Master game was that I wrote an article in who represented England many times ‘Chess’ about my idea round about OTB, especially in the 1960s when 1954 and answered a few letters about he was one of the country’s strongest it... When I was asked to play a postal players. (He famously gave Botvinnik game against Jago about ten years a fright at Hastings one year.) I have later, it seemed like fate, so I just no information about Jago. couldn’t resist trying out this wild line Very aggressive at the , knowing that Jago would have read yet very friendly off it, Littlewood my original article!?” somehow never won an IM title 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Èc3!? †h4+ 4 — probably because he tended to ‡e2 prefer lively games to maximising This is sometimes known as the results. He has played on British CC Pärnu Gambit because it was deve- Olympiad teams but most of his postal loped by the young Paul Keres and his chess has been played in England. friend Martin Villemson (1897–1933) About this game: This is essentially in their home town in Estonia, but is a tactical battle of some theoretical also called after the Irish master James interest, which is very enjoyable to Mason. It is an attempt to improve play through and analyse, even if the upon the Steinitz Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 game has flaws. It represents a style of Èc3 Èc6 3 f4 exf4 4 d4 †h4+ etc. CC play that was very popular in the In that case after 5 ‡e2 d5 the move pre-computer era. 6 exd5 is critical; 6 Èxd5 is not good I consulted the original notes because of 6...ƒg4+ 7 Èf3 0–0–0. by Littlewood in ‘Chess’ 487-8, On the other hand, in the main line and the opening monograph ‘Das of the Mason Gambit, Black does not angenommene Königsgambit mit have time to castle and White retains 3.Sc3’ by Alexander Bangiev and the option of playing d3 rather than d4 Volker Hergert (Reinhold Dreier in many cases. 1993). John read a draft of this chapter 4...d5 and added a few comments. This move has received most Game 23: Jago-Littlewood 115 attention but may not be best. Those where White blundered with 10 readers who want more detail on this …g1?. According to his biographer, wild gambit should consult my article Valter Heuer, Keres decided to get the in ‘Chess Mail’ 5/2002. game over with quickly as he had “no 5 Èxd5 ƒg4+ 6 Èf3 Èc6 money for stamps”. Instead, Bangiev In Mason-S.Rosenthal, Paris 1878, & Hergert suggest 10 †e1!?. Black played 6...Èa6, which seems The game Littlewood knew was a reasonable move, defending c7. M.Jago-A.R.B.Thomas, England 6...ƒd6!? is another way of saving the 1954, where White innovated with …, when 7 d4 Èc6 is the critical line. 10 d4!? Èxf3 11 gxf3 ƒxf3+ 12 7 Èxc7+ ‡xf3 †h5+ 13 ‡g2 †xd1 14 ƒd3 This is the typical move of the †h5 15 ƒxf4 and Dr Jago won after Mason Gambit. 7 d4 0–0–0 transposes 15...Èe7 (15...Èf6!?) 16 …hf1 f5? to the aforementioned line of the 17 …ae1 ‡d7 18 …f2 fxe4 19 …xe4 Steinitz Gambit. †d5 20 ƒg3 g6 21 Èc7 †xa2 22 d5 7...‡d8 8 Èxa8 (D) a6 23 …f7 …g8 24 b3 …g7 25 …exe7+ XIIIIIIIIY ƒxe7 26 …xg7 †a5 27 d6 1–0. 9N+-mk-vlntr0 However, Arkhipkin-Klovans, Riga 1974, saw an improvement for Black B9zpp+-+pzpp0 in 16...Èg6! 17 ƒg3 (17 ƒc7+ 9-+n+-+-+0 ‡c8 18 e5 Èh4+ with counterplay) 9+-+-+-+-0 17...ƒe7 (17...Èh4+! 18 ƒxh4+ 9-+-+Pzplwq0 †xh4¢) 18 a4? (18 Èc7!¢) 9+-+-+N+-0 18...Èh4+ 19 ‡h2 g5 20 ƒc4 g4 21 9PzPPzPK+PzP0 hxg4 †xg4 and Black won. a2) Littlewood pointed out that Black 9tR-vLQ+L+R0 can at least draw by 9...ƒxf3+ 10 gxf3 xiiiiiiiiy †g3, i.e. 11 d4! †xf3+ 12 ‡e1 †g3+ 13 ‡e2 †f3+ with perpetual check is 8...Èd4+!? very old analysis (but not 13...f3+? 14 This was the move Littlewood had ‡d2 ƒb4+ 15 c3 †f2+ 16 ƒe2 fxe2 17 cooked up 10 years previously. 8...f5!? †xe2 †xd4+ 18 ‡c2ˆ— Bangiev). 9 †e1 “!” (Bangiev & Hergert) is 11 d3!? †xf3+ 12 ‡e1 (not 12 ‡d2?? another hugely complicated line. Èc4+!) 12...†g3+ 13 ‡e2 †f3+ Most theory concentrates on draws too, but in this line 12...†xh1 8...Èe5, which is analysed in more comes into consideration. detail in my CM article. Then 9 †e1!? 9 ‡d3 †f6! has been revived recently but White Littlewood wrote that “as a brash has normally played 9 h3 when: young man” he decided Black could a) 9...ƒh5 was played in a famous do better than the 8...Èe5 line of CC miniature Keres-Menke, 1933, Jago-Thomas. He had sent in analysis 116 64 Great Chess Games

“trying to show that after 8...Èd4+ “At this juncture, my thoughts were White had no way of dislodging gloomy. So I decided to take the bull by this È. Now, after all these years, I the horns and blast open the white ‡ suddenly had an opportunity to try out position by a fantastic series of moves.” my line for the first time in a game... 11...ƒc5 12 b4! Èf6 13 bxc5 Èxe4! Being older and wiser, I was no longer (D) entirely convinced of my plan.” XIIIIIIIIY 10 c3! 9N+-mk-+-tr0 “The first surprise: this seemingly innocuous move cleverly leads to the W9zpp+-+pzpp0 displacement of my †”. 9q+-+-+-+0 Bangiev & Hergert also suggest 9+-zP-+-+-0 10 b3!? and if 10...†a6+ 11 c4 9-+Psnnzpl+0 White has the extra move b2-b3 on 9+-+K+N+-0 the game, while after 10...Èxf3 9P+-zP-+PzP0 (not 10...Èxb3? 11 cxb3! †xa1 12 †c2) 11 gxf3 †xa1 12 fxg4 White 9tR-vLQ+L+R0 will be a pawn up even without the xiiiiiiiiy Èa8. M.Fuegert-M.Barz, corr 1998, saw 10...ƒc5 11 ƒb2 (£b2-b4) Littlewood: “White is faced with 11...†a6+ (If 11...†d6 12 ƒxd4! a difficult choice. Should he capture ƒxf3 13 †xf3 †xd4+ 14 ‡e2 †xa1 one of the cheeky Ès or plump for the 15 †xf4ˆ — K.Morrison.) 12 c4 apparently safer move of the game?” Èe7 13 b4! f5 14 bxc5 Èxf3 15 gxf3 14 †e1?! fxe4+ 16 ‡c3 †a5+ 17 ‡b3 ƒxf3 Contemporary notes give this 18 ƒe2 ƒxh1 19 †xh1 f3 20 ƒxf3 “!” but perhaps this is where White exf3 21 †xf3 †xc5 22 †xb7ˆ. missed the win. 10...†a6+ 11 c4 If 14 ‡xd4 †f6+ 15 ‡d3 Èf2+ Not 11 ‡xd4 †d6+ and mate in 16 ‡c2 Èxd1 “is enough to win two: 12 ‡c4 ƒe6+ 13 ‡b5 †a6#. but there may well be better” — Here Littlewood explained: “Black’s Littlewood. (In this line, White might game suddenly looks most precarious. consider 15 Èe5.) If 11...Èe7 12 b4! or 11...ƒb4 12 14 ‡xe4! is critical line, when: a3! or 11...Èf6 12 ‡xd4! †d6+ 13 a) 14...†f6 15 ƒb2! (15 ‡d3? ‡c3 Èxe4+ 14 ‡c2 Èf2 15 †e2 Èxf3 16 gxf3 ƒf5+ 17 ‡e2 …e8+ ƒf5+ 16 d3 ƒxd3+ 17 †xd3 Èxd3 18 ‡f2 †d4+ 19 ‡g2 …e6 0–1 18 ƒxd3 and White has a won game. Dammkoehler-Romanski, IECG 1995) This last variation is a good example of 15...ƒf5+ (15...…e8+!?) 16 ‡xf4 ƒc2+ the dangers of Black’s position: White 17 ‡g3 ƒxd1 18 ƒxd4 and Black has is happy to give up his † if sufficient paid too high a price for the white †. compensation is forthcoming. b) Littlewood intended 14...…e8+: Game 23: Jago-Littlewood 117

b1) 15 ‡xd4 †f6+ 16 ‡d3 ƒf5#. crunching has the advantage over b2) After 15 ‡xf4 he said he was human selective thinking!) hoping to find a win but had not yet 14...…e8 (D) found it. It looks to me that 15...ƒxf3! XIIIIIIIIY 16 gxf3 †f6+ draws immediately, 9N+-mkr+-+0 which is clearer than the Bangiev & Hergert line 15...†g6!? 16 d3 ƒxf3 W9zpp+-+pzpp0 17 gxf3 f6 18 h4 …e5 (£...Èe6#) 9q+-+-+-+0 because 19 ƒh3 prevents the mate 9+-zP-+-+-0 and after 19...Èe2+ 20 †xe2 Black 9-+Psnnzpl+0 is unlikely to have better than a draw. 9+-+K+N+-0 b3) 15 ‡d3! ƒf5+ 16 ‡c3 †a5+ 9P+-zP-+PzP0 and now: b31) 17 ‡xd4 …e4+ 18 ‡d3 (18 9tR-vL-wQL+R0 ‡d5 ‡c8!‰ — Littlewood) 18...b6! xiiiiiiiiy £ 19...…e3+ 20 ‡d4 †xc5#. If 19 ‡c2 Black mates by 19...…xc4+ 20 15 †xe4 ‡b2 †b4+ 21 †b3 …c2+ 22 ‡b1 Dr Jago gives up his † for much …xd2+ 23 ƒd3 ƒxd3#. An amusing material but misses Black’s 17th move. corollary is that if instead 18...…e6+? 15 †h4+ g5! was also critical: 19 ‡e4 b6 White can try the insane a) Dr Jago thought afterwards that 20 Ìa3!!? and if then 20...…e4+ he should have played 16 †xg4 Èf2+ (20...†xa3 21 †b3 †xc5+ 22 ‡c3 17 ‡c3 Èxg4 18 Èxd4 with at least wins) 21 ‡d5 †xa3 22 d4!!ˆ when … and two ƒs for the †. Littlewood the white ‡ defends halfway down said that “I would not be unduly the board in front of his pawns! depressed with Black’s position. b32) White has 17 ‡b2!, which There might even be an improvement unfortunately wins for him, e.g. with 17...†a5+ 18 ‡xd4 Èxg4 17...†b4+ (or 17...ƒc2 18 †xc2 when Black has mating threats, e.g. Èxc2 19 ‡xc2 †a4+ 20 ‡c3 †a5+ 19 ƒb2? Èf2 20 …g1 …e4+ 21 ‡d5 21 ‡b3) 18 †b3! Èxb3 19 axb3 ‡c8 22 ƒe5 †a4! 23 Èd4 †d7+ 24 †xc5 20 d4 and White probably has too ƒd6 †e6+! 25 Èxe6 fxe6#.” much material in the end. I believe this In that line, 20...‡c8! is stronger book is the first time that the winning immediately. Another possibility line for White against Littlewood’s is 17...Èd1+! 18 ‡b4 (18 ‡xd4? ingenious idea has been shown. †f6+ 19 ‡d3 †g6+ 20 ‡d4 †e4#) In the game White also gives up 18...Èc2+ 19 ‡b3 Èxa1+ 20 ‡b4 the † (albeit for …+È). But 18 Èc2+ with an unusual perpetual. †b3, just putting the † en prise, b) 16 Èxg5! was the line that is much more difficult to see. (One worried Littlewood far more, e.g. example of where computer number- 16...Èxc5+ 17 ‡xd4 (Not 17 ‡c3 118 64 Great Chess Games

Èa4+ 18 ‡b4? †d6+ 19 ‡xa4 a chance to justify his 10th move by ƒd1+ 20 ‡a5 †c5#) 17...†f6+ 18 playing the startling 17 Èb6! shutting ‡xc5 when if 18...…e5+? 19 ‡b4 my † out of the game for some time.” …xg5 20 †xg5! †xg5 “and White Littlewood gave no analysis, but it is has much better chances than in the true that 17 gxf3 makes things easier game. Again I was hoping to find some for Black. 17 Èb6 gains a couple of improvement”. Later it was noticed moves but White needs at least four that Black can draw by 18...†e7+! 19 moves to get his pieces out. ‡d4 †f6+. There is another, prettier Rather than 17...axb6 18 gxf3 bxc5 perpetual after 18...†e5+ 19 ‡b4 a5+ 19 fxg4 (19 ‡xf4? ƒh5) 19...†c6+ 20 ‡a3 †c5+ 21 ‡b2 (or 21 ‡b3 and 20...†xh1, when the † has only ƒd1+) 21...†b4+ 22 ‡c2 and now infantry support, a strong continuation 22...ƒd1+! 23 ‡d3 (not 23 ‡xd1 is 17...Èh4! 18 ‡xf4 ƒe6 for †a4#) 23...†d6+ etc. example: 15...…xe4 a) 19 ƒb2 axb6 20 ƒxg7 bxc5 21 Not 15...ƒf5? 16 †xf5 Èxf5 ‡g5 †d6 22 ƒf6+ ‡e8 and 23...h6+ 17 ƒb2 and White holds on to his and White is completely lost. material advantage — Littlewood. b) 19 …b1 axb6 20 …xb6 †a5 21 16 ‡xe4 …b5 †a4 22 d3 †d1. As long as If 16 Èxd4 …xd4+! 17 ‡xd4 Black has one piece to support the †f6+ 18 ‡d3 ƒf5+! 19 ‡e2 †xa1 † (currently he has two pieces) the 20 ‡d1 (20 ƒa3 †xa2 wins the ƒ) white ‡ is in great danger. 20...†xa2 21 d3 ƒg4+ 22 ‡e1 g5 17...†c6+ followed by 23...†c2 wins for Black This was the move that White did — Littlewood. not foresee. If now 18 ‡d4 Littlewood 16...Èxf3 (D) intended 18...†f6+ (18...ƒxf3 19 XIIIIIIIIY ‡c3 †xc5 20 d4 †a5+ 21 ‡c2 9N+-mk-+-+0 ƒxh1 also comes into consideration) 19 ‡e4! (19 ‡d3 ƒf5+ 20 ‡e2 W9zpp+-+pzpp0 †xa1 21 ƒg2 †xa2‰ Littlewood) 9q+-+-+-+0 19...†f5+ 20 ‡d4 ƒxf3 21 …g1 9+-zP-+-+-0 †f6+ 22 ‡d3 †xa1 and Black 9-+P+Kzpl+0 should win. So White gives up his 9+-+-+n+-0 h1–… instead. 9P+-zP-+PzP0 18 ‡d3 †xf3+ 19 ‡c2 †xh1 20 ƒb2 f6! 21 ƒd3 †xh2 9tR-vL-+L+R0 “It would appear that Black should xiiiiiiiiy have little difficulty in winning this ending, but Dr Jago makes the most 17 gxf3?! of his chances and forces me to play “Here, if anywhere, Dr Jago had with the utmost circumspection”. Game 23: Jago-Littlewood 119

However, modern computer 26...†xf5+ 27 d3 †xc5 28 Èb5 a6 analysis sees extra resources for both wins a piece. sides. Maybe White missed a fighting 24 …xb7? chance at move 24 and therefore After this move White is definitely Black should have chosen another lost. He should have taken the 23rd move. chance to get his È back into play 22 ƒc3 f3 23 …b1 (D) by 24 ƒa5+ ‡c8 25 Èc7, when if XIIIIIIIIY 25...†h3 26 Èb5 Black cannot play 9N+-mk-+-+0 26...ƒf5 because of 27 Èd6+. 24...†h3! 25 …b8+ ‡d7! 26 ƒe4 B9zpp+-+-zpp0 Littlewood pointed out that if 9-+-+-zp-+0 26 c6+ ‡xc6! 27 ƒe4+ ‡d7! (not 9+-zP-+-+-0 27...‡c5 28 d4+ ‡xc4? 29 …b4#). 9-+P+-+l+0 Now if 28 …b7+ ‡c8 29 …xa7 f1† 9+-vLL+p+-0 30 Èb6+ ‡d8 31 …a8+ ‡c7 32 9P+KzP-+-wq0 Èd5+ ‡d7 33 …a7+ ‡e8 and the checks soon run out. 9+R+-+-+-0 26...ƒf5 27 c6+ ‡d6 28 ƒb4+ ‡e5 xiiiiiiiiy 29 …e8+ ‡f4 30 d3 f1† Black has two †s and White 23...f2!? has none, yet he doesn’t resign. The Littlewood explained that if position is too interesting to give up 23...‡c8 24 …e1! ‡d8 25 …b1! just yet. “so I decided to give up the b-pawn 31 ƒd2+ ‡g4 32 ƒxf5+ ‡xf5 33 rather than play the passive 23...ƒc8. …d8 From now on, everything is exactly If 33 …e3 †xe3 34 ƒxe3 †g2+ calculated and despite White’s and ...†xc6. threatening build-up his pieces are 33...†hh1 34 c7 always on the wrong squares in each 34 …d5+ ‡g6 35 c7 †a1! with critical variation.” mate to follow. However, Fritz 7 thinks the 34...†b1+ 35 ‡c3 †a1+ 36 ‡b4 immediate 23...†h3 (£...ƒf5) †b7+ 37 ‡c5 †e5+ 38 …d5 †xa8 is much better, e.g. 24 …xb7 ƒf5 39 …xe5+ ‡xe5 followed by ...f2-f1†, or 24 ƒd4 This would have been a reasonable ƒf5 25 ƒxf5 †xf5+ 26 d3 f2 27 …f1 time to draw down the curtain, but †c8 and ...†xa8, while if 24 ƒa5+ maybe White was collecting stamps? ‡c8 25 Èc7 ƒf5 26 ƒxf5 (26 Èb5 40 d4+ ‡e6 41 d5+ ‡d7 42 ƒf4 h5 ƒxd3+ 27 ‡xd3 †f5+ wins the …) 43 ‡d4 g5 44 ƒh2 †b7 0–1 Game 24 White: Arvid Sundin (Sweden) Black: Erik Andersson (Sweden) WT/M/974, 1964-65 French Defence, Winawer Variation (C16)

The Players: Sundin (1914-99) was distracting the defenders, while the a famous pianist and an enthusiastic rest of his pieces break through on the postal player, who worked his way kingside. up from Third Class to become a The fact that Black could have de- CC International Master. He won fended much better at one point does the tournament in which this game not seriously detract from the origi- was played (scoring 5½/6) and then nality of the winning attack. tied first in a World Championship 1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 e5 semifinal to qualify for the 7th CC †d7 5 ƒd2 World Championship Final. There he White prevents the thematic finished 9th with 8½ points from 16 doubling of the c-pawn. games, which seems to have signalled 5...b6 6 f4 his retirement from international play. One of many moves to be tried The loser Erik Andersson (born June here, but not objectively dangerous. 8, 1917) was also Swedish. 6...Èe7 7 †g4 g6? (D) About this game: Everyone loves XIIIIIIIIY a † sacrifice and this game, which 9rsnl+k+-tr0 became known as ‘The Swedish Immortal Correspondence Game’, was W9zp-zpqsnp+p0 widely published when it first became 9-zp-+p+p+0 known. For example, it featured in 9+-+pzP-+-0 the book ‘Freude Am Fernschach’ 9-vl-zP-zPQ+0 by Werner Heinrich as an example 9+-sN-+-+-0 of the victory of spirit over material. 9PzPPvL-+PzP0 Certainly the position before the final move — where Black has two †s and 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 White has none — cannot have had xiiiiiiiiy many parallels outside the world of chess composition. White allows his This is usually a serious mistake † to be trapped on the queenside, when the dark-squared ƒ is outside Game 24: Sundin-E.Andersson 121 the pawn chain; better 7...Èf5 8 Èf3 white †’s return to the centre and ƒa6=. thence to the kingside — but White 8 ƒb5 c6 9 ƒd3 ƒa6 10 ƒxa6 doesn’t need the † for the attack! Èxa6 11 †e2 †b7 12 Èf3 …b8?! 18 f5! Èc4 19 f6 Èc7 Heinrich observes that it is better Black must not let the † out of the not to speculate about the meaning box: 19...Èa3? 20 †e2 Èxb1? 21 of this secretive move. Alex Dunne, †e3 followed by †h6 and mates. in ‘’ (1996), suggested 20 †b3 †c6 12...ƒxc3 (£...c5) while 12...0–0–0 Dunne and others say 20...Èxd2 was preferred in the Dutch magazine was the only move here. The ‘Schakend Nederland’ and other “official” view of the game is that contemporary annotations. Black makes a poor position worse by 13 ‡f2 ƒxc3 failing to eliminate the dark-squared Not 13...c5? 14 Èb5. ƒ. However, Black may have missed 14 bxc3 c5 a draw at move 25, in which case that Heinrich suggests that it was more opinion must be revised. urgent to play 14...h5 followed by 21 ƒh6 …fc8 22 h4 a5 (D) ...Èc7 to hold the kingside. Now there is a direct threat of 15 †b5+ 23...a4 to trap the † and if White This lures the e7-È to c6, so prevents this by 23 a4 then 23...b5 making it easier to advance f4-f5. 24 h5 g5! when, compared with the 15...Èc6 16 …ab1 0–0?! game, Black gets play down the b-file Castling into the attack was after 25...bxa4. brilliantly punished in the sequel that XIIIIIIIIY redeems the rather poor play in the 9-trr+-+k+0 earlier part of the game. While it is true that improvements for the defence have W9+-sn-+p+p0 been found lately, in the pre-computer 9-zpq+pzPpvL0 era it is not surprising that Black could 9zp-zppzP-+-0 not defend after this move. 9-+nzP-+PzP0 A more prudent policy (suggested 9+QzP-+N+-0 in several sources) would have been 9P+P+-mK-+0 16...c4 followed by ...Èc7 and the ‡ will find safety on d7, or at once 9+R+-+-+R0 16...Èc7. xiiiiiiiiy 17 g4! Èa5 Heinrich observes that ...Èe7 23 h5! a4 would probably not hold the position 23...g5 is ineffective: White will any longer in view of h4-h5, so Black parry the threat of ...a4 (by moving plays for swindling chances on the the b1–…) and then capture the g- queenside. The idea is to obstruct the pawn at leisure. 122 64 Great Chess Games

24 hxg6 fxg6 a) 25...†d7 is an interesting Not 24...hxg6 25 ƒg7 or 24...axb3 defensive attempt, met by 26 ƒg7! 25 gxh7+ ‡xh7 26 ƒg7+ ‡g8 27 (not 26 f7+ †xf7+ 27 Èxf7 axb3) …h8#. when: 25 Èg5! (D) a1) 26...Èe8 27 †xa4! and if An interesting alternative way 27...†xa4 28 f7+ ‡xg7 29 …xh7+ to offer the † is 25 ƒg7!? when ‡f8 30 Èxe6+ ‡e7 when more 25...axb3? 26 …xh7! forces mate elegant than the crude to a and 25...h5? 26 gxh5 gxh5 allows † would be 31 f8ƒ+ ‡xe6 32 …e7#. various combinations, e.g. 27 …bg1 a2) 26...h5 27 gxh5 gxh5 (27...axb3 and the † escapes because 27...axb3 28 h6!) 28 …xh5 †xg7 29 †xa4. 28 ƒh6+ mates in 8. However, a3) 26...Èd2 27 †a3 and the † Black can minimise the damage with lives to fight another day; 27 …xh7!? 25...Èd2! (since sacrificial tries now is also quite strong. fail for White.) 26 †b2 Èe4+ 27 a4) 26...†xg7 with two possibilities ‡g1 (or ‡g2) 27...cxd4Ÿ. for White, both mentioned by The question is whether White’s Heinrich: advantage is greater here or in note a41) 27 †xa4! …f8 (27...b5 28 c) to Black’s 25th move. I still tend †a7 £fxg7, …xh7) 28 ‡g3 …xf6 29 to favour the move played by Sundin exf6 †xf6 30 †d7ˆ — ‘Schakend because it makes it much harder for Nederland’. This shows that 25...†d7 Black to see the point of the attack, is insufficient to save Black. and hence find the right defence. a42) Dunne gives 27 fxg7 which XIIIIIIIIY is not so clear-cut, because after 9-trr+-+k+0 27...axb3 28 …xh7 Black need not allow 28...Èe8 29 …bh1 Èxg7 30 B9+-sn-+-+p0 …h8# or 28...bxc2 29 …bh1 c1† 30 9-zpq+pzPpvL0 …h8+ ‡xg7 31 …1h7#. Instead he 9+-zppzP-sN-0 can play 28...cxd4, but even so 29 9p+nzP-+P+0 cxd4 Èb5 30 axb3 should be winning 9+QzP-+-+-0 for White. 9P+P+-mK-+0 b) 25...…f8? is no defence because of 26 ƒxf8 (or 26 ƒg7 — Heinrich) 9+R+-+-+R0 26...…xf8 27 …xh7 and …bh1 xiiiiiiiiy (‘Schakend Nederland’). c) 25...†e8! 26 ƒg7! h5! is 25...axb3? the critical line and seems to keep This is the critical position where Black’s disadvantage to an absolute Black appears finally to have lost the minimum: game. There are various tries of which c1) 27 gxh5 gxh5 (27...axb3?? 28 one is a real improvement. hxg6 forces mate by …h8) 28 †xc4 Game 24: Sundin-E.Andersson 123 dxc4 29 f7+ †xf7+ 30 Èxf7 ‡xg7 minor piece. (probably better than ...‡xf7) and 26 f7+! Black defends. 26 ƒg7 would spoil everything: c2) 27 †xc4! dxc4 28 …bg1! may 26...Èd2 27 …xh7 Èe4+ 28 Èxe4 give White some advantage: 28...Èd5 dxe4 (but not 28...‡xh7? 29 …h1+ 29 gxh5 gxh5 30 f7+ †xf7+ 31 Èxf7 ‡g8 30 …h8+ ‡f7 31 Èg5#) 29 ‡xf7 32 …xh5 (D). …bh1 e3+ and 30...†xh1!. XIIIIIIIIY 26...‡h8 27 Èxh7! bxc2 9-trr+-+-+0 27...‡xh7 28 ƒf8#. 9+-+-+kvL-0 28 Èf6 cxb1† 29 f8†+ 1-0 B Black resigned because White 9-zp-+p+-+0 announced mate in three moves: 9+-zpnzP-+R0 29...…xf8 30 ƒg7+! ‡xg7 31 …h7# 9p+pzP-+-+0 (D). 9+-zP-+-+-0 XIIIIIIIIY 9P+P+-mK-+0 9-tr-+-tr-+0 9+-+-+-tR-0 9+-sn-+-mkR0 xiiiiiiiiy B9-zpq+psNp+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 This is certainly very different 9-+nzP-+P+0 from what actually happened in the 9+-zP-+-+-0 game. Now if 32...Èxc3? 33 …h7 9P+-+-mK-+0 ‡g8 34 …h3 and Black is caught in the crossfire: 34...cxd4 (34...‡f7 35 9+q+-+-+-0 …xc3) 35 ƒf6+ forcing mate. xiiiiiiiiy However, Black has chances of reaching a drawn endgame with Black has two †s, … and „ more 32...…g8 33 …h7 ‡e8 if he is careful. than his opponent but it’s checkmate. Other possibilities are 32...‡e8 at A variant on the mating position was once, or 32...cxd4 33 …h7 ‡g8 34 incorporated in a Swedish 3 kroner …h6 ‡f7 35 ƒf6 …f8 36 cxd4 with postage stamp issued on October 12, pressure for White although Black 1985, in a series of stamps with other might be saved by having the better board game motifs. Game 25 White: Yakov Borisovich Estrin (USSR) Black: Dr Hans Berliner (USA) 5th CC World Championship Final, 1965-68 Two Knights Defence, Fritz Variation (C57)

The Players: Estrin was introduced three pawns each, apparently offering in Game 21. Berliner (born in Ger- drawing chances. After the tempestu- many in 1929) had a distinguished ous crescendos of the preceding play, academic career and was a pioneer Berliner now treated the chess world to in writing games-playing computer a “slow movement” in which he forced programs. A member of the US team the win by delicate manoeuvres. This at the 1952 FIDE Olympiad, he took endgame will repay careful study. up postal chess and three times won In recent years there have been the CCLA Golden Knights before intensive efforts to “bust” Berliner’s winning the World Championship by variation, which he has resisted by a record margin of three points. He strengthening Black’s play in several was recently persuaded out of retire- places. I suspect White is now close ment to meet all the other living CC to proving a refutation, although Ber- world champions in an ICCF Jubilee liner himself denies this. If you show tournament. positions from early in the game to a About this game: GM Soltis judged computer running commercial soft- this enduring classic the best game ware, you will almost invariably be ever played. It also featured in ‘The told White is winning, yet continue Mammoth book of The World’s down some of Berliner’s lines for a Greatest Chess Games’ by Burgess, few more moves and you may see the Emms and Nunn while in 1998-9 program suddenly change its evalua- ‘Chess Mail’ readers voted it the best tion to ‘equals’ or ‘better for Black’. CC game ever played. I recommend you to play through This is a symphony in three con- the whole game, skipping the theory trasting movements, beginning with debates, and come back to them later. a sensational sacrificial innovation, 1 e4 e5 which Berliner had prepared specially CC means “playing the board, for Estrin. That was followed by an not the man” but if you know your extremely dynamic middlegame in opponent’s style and preferences which White came off worse but man- then opening choices can be made aged to simplify to a … ending with accordingly. In his other World Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 125

Championship games, Berliner played the start of play I was delighted to Alekhine’s Defence but he had a learn that I had Black in the game special surprise in store for Estrin. in question. My work then began in 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒc4 Èf6 4 Èg5 earnest...” Berliner was fairly confident that 9 Èg3 ƒg4 10 f3 e4! Estrin would play this move, on the This was the first new move and basis of the Russian master’s writings the start of the special preparation and previous practice. for Estrin. Previously 8...†h4 was 4...d5 5 exd5 b5!? 6 ƒf1 condemned on the basis of 10...Èf5? Paradoxically, this is the best reply 11 ƒxb5+ ‡d8 12 0–0! ƒc5+ because 6 ƒxb5 would be met by (12...Èxg3 13 hxg3 †xg3 14 †e1!) 6...†xd5, but now neither capture on 13 d4 exd4 14 Èe4. d5 is satisfactory for Black (6...†xd5 11 cxd4 7 Èc3). 11 fxg4!? has been ignored by 6...Èd4 7 c3 Èxd5 8 Èe4 (D) theory; it should be weak but this This is generally reckoned to be the requires proof. After 11...ƒd6 12 ‡f2 critical move. the black ‡ is probably happier on the XIIIIIIIIY kingside, so a possible continuation is 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 12...0-0 (£...f5!) 13 cxd4 ƒxg3+ 14 hxg3 †xh1 15 „c3¢. B9zp-zp-+pzpp0 11...ƒd6! 9-+-+-+-+0 Black threatens ...ƒxg3+. 9+p+nzp-+-0 12 ƒxb5+ 9-+-snN+-+0 It seems obvious to develop a piece, 9+-zP-+-+-0 snatch a pawn and prevent castling. 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 The alternative 12 †e2, which creates a pin on the e-file and vacates 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 d1 for the white ‡, was devised by xiiiiiiiiy Walter Muir to avoid the central complications of Black’s attack. In 8...†h4!? practice Black has answered 12...0–0 With the simpler alternative 8... (not 12...ƒxg3+? 13 hxg3! †xh1 14 Èe6, Black only gives up a pawn †xb5+ and wins), e.g. 13 fxg4 and but his attack is slower. Back in 1946, now if 13...ƒxg3+ 14 ‡d1 Èf6 15 Berliner had lost a game with White Èc3 (“White wins quite comfortably” that convinced him “the whole 4 — Berliner) or 13...Èb4 (J.Timman- Èg5 variation was unsound”. When E.Arikok, Zürich simul 1988) 14 †f2 he knew he would be playing Estrin, Èc2+ 15 ‡d1 Èxa1 16 Èxe4 “wins he began to study the line again. handily” (Berliner) but 14 ‡d1 ƒxg3 “When the tournament pairings were 15 „c3ˆ is also perfectly good. announced about two weeks before b) Berliner took up the challenge of 126 64 Great Chess Games trying to refute 12 †e2 and his book On the other hand, White has ‘The System’ (, a shattered pawn structure, his 1998) has mind-boggling analysis of queenside development is nonexistent, 12...ƒe6! (“the only sensible move”) his own ‡ is not particularly safe and continuing to move 25 and claiming Black threatens ...ƒxg3+. Black is that Black should at least draw. preparing to open the e-file for a … However, after 13 †xb5+ ‡d8 check (after driving away the ƒ from I see nothing wrong with 14 fxe4 b5) and his È is eyeing promising ƒxg3+ 15 hxg3 †xh1 16 exd5‹ squares on b4 and f4. The next two (Tait). Also, in his main line 13 fxe4 or three choices for each side will Èb4! Berliner fails to consider the determine the assessment. possibility 14 e5!? „c2+ (14...0-0-0 13 0–0 15 d3) 15 ‡d1 ƒg4 (or 15...„xa1 Castling seems obvious but a huge 16 †xb5+ ƒd7 17 †d5) 16 ‡xc2 amount of theory has developed ƒxe2 17 ƒxe2 which looks ‹. without a firm conclusion in White’s Since practical tests are lacking, this favour. Although 13 fxg4? ƒxg3+ 14 jury will return the Scottish verdict hxg3 †xh1+ 15 ƒf1 Èb4! 16 Èc3 “not proven”. I expect detailed anal- (better 16 d3!) 16...Èd3+ hardly ysis of this and some other critical looks playable for White, two other possibilities to be published by Jona- moves that have been getting serious than Tait next year in a book he is attention recently. writing on the Two Knights. a) The move 13 †b3!? (D) is the 12...‡d8 (D) reason why the Hungarian theoretician XIIIIIIIIY József Pálkövi rejects 8...†h4 in his 9r+-mk-+-tr0 1999 book, though he was apparently unaware of Dr. Berliner’s privately W9zp-zp-+pzpp0 published 1998 monograph ‘From 9-+-vl-+-+0 the Deathbed of the Two Knights 9+L+n+-+-0 Defense’ which goes deeper. 9-+-zPp+lwq0 XIIIIIIIIY 9+-+-+PsN-0 9r+-mk-+-tr0 9PzP-zP-+PzP0 B9zp-zp-+pzpp0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 9-+-vl-+-+0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+L+n+-+-0 9-+-zPp+lwq0 At this stage, Black has sacrificed a 9+Q+-+PsN-0 piece and a pawn, he has lost the right 9PzP-zP-+PzP0 to castle and a ƒ is en prise. So is Berliner right to be confident that his 9tRNvL-mK-+R0 attack is worth at least a draw? xiiiiiiiiy Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 127

The critical continuation here N.Pedersen, Danish Ch, Greve 2002, seems to be 13...ƒxg3+ 14 ‡d1 ƒe6 continued 17...gxh1†+ 18 ƒxh1 15 ƒc6 (15 fxe4 †xe4) 15...exf3 †xg3 19 hxg3 …b8 20 d3 h5 21 ‡c2 (Berliner) and now: f6 22 d5 ƒg4 23 ƒe3 h4 24 gxh4 a1) 16 ƒxa8? fxg2 17 …g1 †g4+ …xh4 25 Èd2 ‡d7 26 ƒe4 f5 27 18 ‡c2 †e4+ wins for Black. ƒg2 …h2 28 …g1 …g8 29 ‡c3 g5 30 a2) 16 gxf3 †xd4 is unconvincingly Èc4 ƒe2 31 Èe5+ ‡c8 32 ƒxa7 analysed by Berliner. His more plaus- f4 33 ƒe4 g4 34 ƒd4 …h5 35 Èg6 ible alternative 16...„e7 may offer …xg6 36 ƒxg6 …g5 37 ƒe4 g3 38 Black enough compensation; he gives ƒf6 …h5 39 ƒd4 …g5 40 ‡d2 f3 41 17 †b7 …c8 18 d5 ƒf5 but of course ‡e3 f2 42 ‡xe2 fxg1È+ 43 ƒxg1 there are many other possibilities. ‡d7 44 ‡f1 ‡d6 45 ƒe3 …g4 46 a3) Even if line a2 can be salvaged ‡g2 ‡e5 47 ‡f3 …g7 48 ƒf4+ ‡d4 for Black, there is 16 ƒxd5!. In his 49 ƒxg3 c5 50 dxc6 1–0. 1960s analysis, Berliner thought that Dr Berliner would call this a 16...†h5?! won for Black, but White misinterpretation of his intentions. He replies 17 †xf3! ƒg4 18 ƒxa8 gett- says Black should continue 17...†xg3 ing too much material for the †. Or if 18 hxg3 ƒxd5 19 …g1 when he 16...c6 17 ƒxe6! fxg2 18 …g1 †xh2 claims “If Black can keep the white 19 …xg2! †xg2 20 †b7ˆ (Tait). ‡ from crossing to the kingside while Therefore Berliner now recommends he advances his pawns, he gets a fine 16...fxg2! and after 17 †xg3! (D) game”. So he continues 19...…e8! 20 Pálkövi stops, claiming clear advantage Èc3 ƒf3+ 21 ‡c2 …b8!. to White — a reasonable assessment I think this may be the critical since White is material ahead and the position of the Berliner variation. The †s are coming off. most plausible move is 22 d3, when: XIIIIIIIIY a31) 22...h5!? might be considered 9r+-mk-+-tr0 but clearly White has some advantage. B9zp-zp-+pzpp0 a32) 22...…b6 23 ƒf4 (23 ƒd2 9-+-+l+-+0 …g6 24 ƒe1 …h6!å) 23...h5 seems 9+-+L+-+-0 to fail to 24 Èe4 f5! 25 Èc3 …g6 26 9-+-zP-+-wq0 ‡d2 …g4 27 …ae1! …xe1 28 ‡xe1 9+-+-+-wQ-0 h4 29 ‡f2 ƒb7 30 d5 h3 31 …e1 g5 9PzP-zP-+pzP0 32 ƒe5 f4 33 ‡g1 fxg3 (“and Black is in great shape” — Berliner) 34 …e4! 9tRNvLK+-+R0 (Tait) and Black can resign because xiiiiiiiiy his pawn masse is going nowhere and will eventually be eaten. I have only seen one game that a33) It’s very hard to follow the reached this position. K.Pilgaard- analysis in Berliner’s monograph but 128 64 Great Chess Games he now seems to prefer 22...…b4!? found a better answer: 13...exf3!. when Black’s hopes rest partly on His main line (as of 2001) goes 14 winning back a pawn or two, but gxf3 ƒd7! 15 ƒxd7 (15 †a4 Èb6 principally on supporting the outpost or 15 ƒe2 †xd4+) 15...†xd4+ 16 on g2 and trying to break the blockade. ‡e1 (16 ‡f1 Èe3+) 16...‡xd7 17 Berliner continues 23 ƒf4 …xd4 24 Èc3 …ae8+ and he gives lots of ƒxc7+ ‡d7 25 ƒf4 h5 26 …ae1 (26 complicated lines mostly leading to …ge1 …xe1) 26...…xe1 27 …xe1 h4 big advantages for Black. 28 ƒe3 h3 — but the placement of Possibly White can escape al- the ƒ on f4, encouraging this ...h4 though it won’t be easy, e.g. 18 „ge2 tactic, is obviously faulty in my f5 19 „e2 …xe4! 20 fxe4 †xe4 21 view. A similar objection applies to …g1 „f4! 22 …xg7+ ‡c8 23 d4 his alternative line 25 …ae1 …xe1 26 „d3+ 24 ‡d2 „f4 (£...„xe2 and …xe1 …g4 27 ƒf4 h5. ...†xd4+) 25 ‡e1 „d3+ with a draw After 22...…b4 I do not see a — Berliner. satisfactory plan for Black against 13...exf3 (D) 23 Èe4! because if 23...h6 (to stop XIIIIIIIIY Èg5) comes 24 Èd2!? (24 ƒf4!?) 9r+-mk-+-tr0 24...ƒd5 25 Èc4 (heading for e3 to mop up the g-pawn) 25...…e2+ W9zp-zp-+pzpp0 26 ƒd2 …f2 27 a3 …b8 28 …ae1 9-+-vl-+-+0 with some advantage to White. Or 9+L+n+-+-0 if 23...…xd4 24 ƒg5+ ‡d7 25 ƒe3 9-+-zP-+lwq0 or 25 …ae1 and Black seems to be 9+-+-+psN-0 running out of viable tactical ideas. 9PzP-zP-+PzP0 In my view, 13 †b3 is the most critical line of the Berliner variation at 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 present, and could even turn out in the xiiiiiiiiy end to be a bust of the whole idea. b) Moreover, 13 ‡f2!? cannot be 14 …xf3 lightly dismissed. The white È is Of course not 14 gxf3? ƒxg3. The still pinned but the threat ...ƒxg3+ line 14 †e1 fxg2 15 …xf7 …b8 was is no longer serious because the white analysed by Burgess in the Mammoth … is guarded and next move it can book, but he reckoned Black was go to e1. Originally, Berliner said OK, e.g. 16 ƒa4 (not 16 a4? …xb5 that 13...f5 “yields an overwhelming 17 axb5 …e8‰) 16...Èf4 17 …xf4 attack” but the move is unsound (17 †e4?? Èe2+) 17...ƒxf4 and if and White can choose between four now 18 †f2 ƒxg3 19 †xg3 †f6 20 promising replies: 14 †b3, 14 fxg4!?, ‡xg2 …f8‰) or 16 ƒc6 „b4! 17 14 Èc3!? and 14 ƒc6. ƒa4 c6! 18 d3 …e8 19 ƒe3 †h6! 20 So he has changed his mind and ƒxh6 …xe1+ 21 ‡xg2 gxh6Œ. Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 129

There is one important alternative. Berliner now prefers 15...…b8! (also Estrin claimed after the game that 14 the right reply to most of White’s other †b3!? would have won, and in the likely moves such as 15 a3 and 15 7th World Championship he easily †xf7). Now 16 †xf7 …xb5 is good defeated Julius Nielsen with this move. for Black, 16 …e3 now only draws However, Nielsen reacted badly (with (16...…xb5 17 „c3 …h5 18 „xh5 14...Èf4?). In 1979 Berliner revealed †xh2+ etc.), while the only game I’ve his 14...Èb4!? idea; critical analysis seen with 15...…b8 (E.t’Jong-Markus, began and Berliner has had to revise Dieren 2000) continued 16 a4? ƒxf3 some of his lines as a result. 17 †xf3 a6 18 „c3 axb5 19 „ce4 The critical reply is 15 …xf3! (D). „c2‰ (though White won). XIIIIIIIIY The critical line goes 16 Èa3 (a small 9r+-mk-+-tr0 victory for Black who has ruled out the È-c3-d1 manoeuvre) 16...c6 when: B9zp-zp-+pzpp0 a) A rapid draw can come about by 9-+-vl-+-+0 17 …xf7 cxb5 18 …xg7 …e8 19 …g8 9+L+-+-+-0 ‡d7 20 …g7+! ‡d8! 21 …g8 ‡d7. 9-sn-zP-+lwq0 b) 17 ƒe2 …e8 18 …e3 ƒxe2! 9+Q+-+RsN-0 19 …xe8+ ‡xe8 20 †e3+ ‡f8! 9PzP-zP-+PzP0 21 †xe2 …e8 “and White is in dire difficulties. It was the idea of 20...‡f8 9tRNvL-+-mK-0 and its consequences that I overlooked xiiiiiiiiy when originally analysing this line” — Berliner, 1999. Berliner originally advocated c) 17 ƒf1 Èd5 18 †d3 ƒxf3 15...c6!?; however, there are one or 19 †xf3 …e8 20 Èc2 …e6 21 d3 two problems with it. The most serious (Berliner, 1999) may be Ÿ with is 16 …e3! (played successfully by the two ƒs, and White also has 20 Swedish CC player Mikael Westlund); „c4!. Berliner’s ‘Deathbed’ monograph d) 17 …e3 (not mentioned by analyses seven replies to 15...c6 but Berliner) is again possible, e.g. this isn’t one of them. White does not 17...„d5 18 …e5! ƒxe5 (18...a6? 19 bother about keeping the b5-ƒ and …xd5!ˆ or 18...„f6 19 …e4 †~ 20 reduces the material advantage to a †a4 cxb5 21 „xb5‹) 19 dxe5 a6 20 single doubled pawn, but he removes †c4 axb5 21 †xc6 „c7 22 †e4Ÿ. all Black’s attacking threats. The … is After all this, the best reply to 14 very well placed on e3, controlling the †b3 may in fact be 14...fxg2!? when: e-file and covering the g3-„. White a) The standard ‘refutation’ 15 …f2 has excellent chances with the black (Estrin, Pálkövi) is virtually a forced ‡ stuck in the centre. loss after 15...…b8! 16 †xd5 …xb5! Returning to the last diagram, 17 †xb5 …e8 — Pliester. 130 64 Great Chess Games

b) 15 ‡xg2 ƒe6! (£ 16...„f4+ for a drawn endgame. There are four 17 …xf4 †h3+ — Heyken, Fette) 16 important alternatives here: ƒc4! ƒh3+! 17 ‡h1 …e8! is roughly a) 15 Èc3 is discussed by Burgess equal. in the Mammoth book as “an attempt c) 15 …e1!? ƒe6 16 …e4 †f6¢ to give back some material to get the £...h5-h4 (Tait). queenside developed”. The main line d) 15 …xf7! ƒe6 16 …d7+! ƒxd7 of his analysis continues 15...Èxc3 16 17 †xd5 …b8 (better than 17...ƒxb5 dxc3 …xb5 17 †d3 …h5 (17...ƒxf3? 18 d3! £ƒg5+) 18 ƒxd7 ƒxg3 19 18 †xb5 ƒxg3 19 ƒg5+) 18 Èxh5 ƒh3+! ƒd6 20 †f5! and now, rather †xh2+ 19 ‡f2 †xh5=. If White tries than 20...†xd4+ 21 ‡xg2 ƒc5‹ to vary he gets into trouble, e.g. 18 (Schüler-Leisebein, corr 1998), 20... …xf7?! (or 18 ƒf4? †xh2+ 19 ‡f2 †e1+ 21 ‡xg2 †e2+ 22 †f2 ƒxf3 20 †xf3 …b5) 18...ƒe6! 19 †xf2+ 23 ‡xf2 ƒxh2 (Tait) may Èxh5 ƒxh2+ 20 ‡f1 ƒxf7 21 †b5 not be so bad. White has „+ƒ for …, h6 (stopping ƒg5+ and retaining but Black has two useful connected threats) when if 22 †b8+ ‡d7 23 passed pawns on the kingside. †xh8?? ƒc4 is mate. To summarise, †b3 at move 13 b) 15 ƒf1 is tougher. In 1999, looks like a refutation of Berliner’s Berliner commented that both here line. At move 14, matters are not so and in the analogous line below (15 clear although Berliner’s case for a4 a6 16 ƒf1), “best play has been 14...Èb4!? is unconvincing. difficult to find”. 14...…b8 (D) b1) Initially Berliner believed XIIIIIIIIY 15...…e8 was correct but 16 Èc3 9-tr-mk-+-tr0 (D) has caused him to revise his view 9zp-zp-+pzpp0 more than once. W9-+-vl-+-+0 XIIIIIIIIY 9+L+n+-+-0 9-tr-mkr+-+0 9zp-zp-+pzpp0 9-+-zP-+lwq0 B 9+-+-+RsN-0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9PzP-zP-+PzP0 9+-+n+-+-0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 9-+-zP-+lwq0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+-sN-+RsN-0 9PzP-zP-+PzP0 15 ƒe2? 9tR-vLQ+LmK-0 Not surprisingly, confronted xiiiiiiiiy by such a complicated and novel situation, Estrin quickly went wrong. b11) The problem with the old Perhaps he thought he was heading recommendation 16...c6?! is 17 d3 Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 131

Èxc3 (17...f5 18 Èxd5 cxd5 19 corr 1999, won by White). Fabrizi ƒd2) 18 bxc3 …b5 and now 19 d5!!, had studied the theory deeply but still as on 19...…xd5 20 †a4 “pins the lost this game; he suggests that maybe g4-ƒ, and White survives easily” 21...…h6! now gives Black hope; a — Berliner, e.g. 20...g5 (20...…h5 21 possible continuation is 22 †b8+ ƒf4!) 21 …e3 ƒc5 22 †xc6 ƒe6 23 ƒc8 23 …f3 †h4 24 …d3 …e8!, or …b1 ƒb6 24 …xb6 axb6 25 c4 …d7 22 …f3 †h4! 23 d4 …g6, or 22 „e2 26 †xb6+ …c7 27 …e4 1–0 Kroner- …e8 23 …f3 …he6. Schuhler, DDR corr 1986. Instead of 17 Èxd5, Tait points b12) Berliner’s next try 16...Èf6!? out that White might try 17 „b5!? doesn’t quite work after 17 d3! ƒxf3 and if 17...ƒc5 18 ‡h1; or even 17 18 †xf3 Èg4!? (18...†xd4+ 19 †e1!? ƒxf3 (if 17...…e8 18 …e3) 18 ‡h1 probably favours White, for if gxf3 …e8 19 †f2 ƒc5 20 ‡h1. 19...†h4 20 „ce2!) 19 h3 ƒxg3. c) 15 a4 is also important. White He had analysed 20 †xg4 ƒf2+! makes his opponent pay a price for 21 ‡h2 †xg4 22 hxg4 …e1 but 20 driving the ƒ from b5. Black must †d5+! “upsets this”. Now 20...‡c8 is answer 15...a6! (D). not immediately disastrous but White XIIIIIIIIY probably wins in the end. 9-tr-mk-+-tr0 b13) 16...„b4 17 d3 ƒxf3 18 †xf3 „c2 19 …b1 †xd4+ 20 ‡h1 B9+-zp-+pzpp0 runs into 20...ƒxg3 21 †xg3 †xc3!! 9p+-vl-+-+0 (cf. 15 a4 a6 16 ƒxa6 …e8 17 „c3 9+L+n+-+-0 „b4!? etc.) 22 bxc3 …b1 (Sax- 9P+-zP-+lwq0 Wagman, Montecatini Terme 1998); 9+-+-+RsN-0 but 19 „ce4! or 17 „b5!? look good 9-zP-zP-+PzP0 for White. b2) Berliner later recommended 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 15...…b4! in a supplement correcting xiiiiiiiiy his 1998 monograph. Now if 16 d3? …e8! (but not 16...…xd4??) “and it is c1) 16 ƒe2? “White loses as in difficult to find a move for White”, the Estrin game”: 16...ƒxf3 17 ƒxf3 so the main line goes 16 Èc3 …xd4 †xd4+ 18 ‡h1 ƒxg3 19 hxg3 …b6 17 Èxd5 …xd5 (“with a very strong 20 d3 Èe3 — Berliner. attack”) 18 †a4 …h5! 19 …d3 †xh2+ c2) 16 Èc3 Èxc3 17 dxc3 axb5 20 ‡f2 ƒd7!. Now if 21 …xd6 cxd6 18 axb5 …e8 19 ƒd2 f6 — Berliner. 22 †d4! …h6! 23 †xg7 …e8 24 c3) 16 ƒc6 Èb4 17 d5 Èxc6! 18 †g5+ ‡c8 25 ƒa6+ ‡b8 26 Èf1 dxc6 …e8 19 Èc3 ƒxf3 20 †xf3 †h1 27 †f4 ƒc6 (Berliner, 1999) …e1+ 21 ‡f2 …e6! with a draw by but a tougher test seems to be 21 †b3 perpetual, e.g. 22 ‡g1 …e1+ or 22 (as in M.Lane-Fabrizi, BFCC Open †d5 †f4+ — Berliner. 132 64 Great Chess Games

c4) 16 ƒxa6 …e8 17 Èc3 gives 26 ‡h2 (Tait) seems OK for White Black a wide choice of attacking — so a draw may be the right result possibilities: from the last diagram. c41) 17...ƒxf3 18 †xf3 †xd4+ c5) 16 ƒf1! (once more, the best was recommended by E.Heyken & square for the ƒ) and if 16...…e8 17 M.Fette in their 1989 edition of Euwe’s Èc3, we have a similar situation to book, but 19 ‡h1 …e1+ line b1 above: 20 „f1 is unclear according Burgess, c51) 17...c6 (the old move, about while Fritz suggests 19 ‡f1!?‹. which I have serious doubts) 18 d3 f5! c42) 17...Èb4?! 18 ƒf1! creates a maze of complications again, (Kasparov & Keene in ‘BCO2’) seems but 19 Èxd5!? seems to require to defend successfully. Berliner’s old attention, e.g. 19...cxd5 20 ƒd2 …xb2 line 18...ƒxf3 19 †xf3 „c2 20 …b1 21 ƒa5+ ‡d7 22 †c1 (an idea of the …e1 21 „ce4 „xd4 22 †d3 „e2+?? German CC player Schüler). misses simply 23 „xe2ˆ (Tait). c52) 17...Èf6!? (Pliester, ‘NIC c43) In his monograph, Berliner Yearbook 6’) was preferred by recommends 17...Èf6!! (D). Berliner in his 1998 monograph. XIIIIIIIIY However, it seems to be afflicted 9-tr-mkr+-+0 with the same flaw as in the line with an immediate 15 ƒf1, viz. W9+-zp-+pzpp0 18 d3 ƒxf3 19 †xf3 Èg4 20 h3 9L+-vl-sn-+0 ƒxg3 21 †d5+!. Another snag is 9+-+-+-+-0 18 „ce2, when Berliner’s 18...ƒxf3 9P+-zP-+lwq0 19 gxf3 „h5 (as per 15 ƒf1 …e8) 9+-sN-+RsN-0 fails because White has 26 …a3! 9-zP-zP-+PzP0 threatening …d3 and wins (Tait). This brings us back to 16...…b4!? 9tR-vLQ+-mK-0 (by analogy with Berliner’s new line xiiiiiiiiy against 15 ƒf1, note b2 above) 17 „c3 …xd4 when the inclusion of 15 There are many complicated a4 a6 rules out some of White’s ideas, variations, e.g. 18 ƒe2 ƒxf3 19 e.g. 18 „b5 or (18 „xd5 …xd5) 19 ƒxf3 †xd4+ 20 ‡h1 ƒxg3 21 †a4. However, 18 †e1!? is still hxg3 (21 Èe2 †f2) 21...†f2 22 possible, and also there is the unique Èe2 (22 ƒe2 Èe4) 22...Èe4 23 try 19 ƒxa6!? ƒxf3 20 †xf3 ƒc5 ‡h2 Èg5 24 ƒh5 g6 25 d4 gxh5 26 21 „xd5 …f4+ 22 „e3 …xf3 23 gxf3 ƒxg5+ f6 27 ƒxf6+ †xf6 28 …a2 (Tait) with three pieces for the †. h4‰ Berliner, 1998. There are some d) Finally, there is 15 ƒc6; possible improvements here — e.g. Berliner says the ƒ will get kicked 23 d3! „xg3+ 24 „xg3 …e1+ (or around a lot after this. 24...†xg3 25 †f1) 25 †xe1 †xe1+ d1) 15...ƒxf3!? is the only move Game 25: Estrin-Berliner 133 tried in practice, e.g. 16 †xf3 †xd4+ probably simpler, even though the 17 ‡h1 Èb4 18 ƒe4 ƒxg3 19 hxg3 endgame took a lot of work. …b6 20 †e3Ÿ but Black eventually 17 ‡h1 ƒxg3 18 hxg3 …b6 19 d3 won in two German postal games: Èe3 20 ƒxe3 †xe3 21 ƒg4 h5 22 W.Rehe-Bruder, Germany 1974 and ƒh3 g5 K.Behrendorf-P.Leisebein, 1988. 22...h4? worked in a later game but d2) 15...„b4 (15...„e7!?) and White should have replied 23 †d2 now 16 ƒa4 c6! 17 „c3 …e8 18 d3 when Black is no longer winning. (not 18 „ce4? …xe4! 19 „xe4 ƒxf3 23 Èd2 g4 24 Èc4 †xg3 25 Èxb6 20 gxf3 †xh2+ 21 ‡f1 „d3‰) gxh3 26 †f3 hxg2+ 27 †xg2 †xg2+ 18...ƒxf3 19 †xf3 †xd4+ seems 28 ‡xg2 cxb6!! about equal (20 ‡f1 †xd3+), while Black must not allow White to Fritz’s try 18 „ce2 looks drawn after eliminate more pawns by a4-a5. 18...ƒxf3 19 gxf3 „d3 20 ƒc2 …b5! 29 …f1 21 ƒxd3 …h5 22 f4 †xh2+ 23 ‡f1 A.Lopukhin-A.A.Semeniuk, …h3 (Tait). Cheliabinsk 1975, reached this pos- 15...ƒxf3 (D) ition too, but how White thought he After all that theoretical discussion, could improve is a mystery. That Black has a terrific game. We are game went 29 ‡h3 …e8 30 …f1 …e3+ ready to see how he went on to win. 31 ‡h4 ‡e7 32 ‡xh5 ‡e6 33 ‡g5 XIIIIIIIIY …g3+ 34 ‡f4 …xd3 (0–1, 50 moves). 9-tr-mk-+-tr0 29...‡e7 30 …e1+ ‡d6! 31 …f1 9zp-zp-+pzpp0 (D) W9-+-vl-+-+0 XIIIIIIIIY 9+-+n+-+-0 9-+-+-+-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+-zP-+-wq0 B 9+-+-+lsN-0 9-zp-mk-+-+0 9PzP-zPL+PzP0 9+-+-+-+p0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 9-+-+-+-+0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+-+P+-+-0 9PzP-+-+K+0 Berliner wrote that the next 14 9+-+-+R+-0 moves were forced on each side. xiiiiiiiiy 16 ƒxf3 †xd4+ Actually 16...…e8!? (Tait) is a seri- 31...…c8!! ous alternative but I cannot find any Berliner wrote: “One of the best forced win, or significant improve- moves I have ever made... Instead of ment for White later in the actual tying down the … to defend the weak game. So Berliner’s 16...†xd4+ is kingside pawns, Black gives up one 134 64 Great Chess Games of them in order to reach a situation 41 …f2+ ‡b3 42 ‡f4 …b5! 43 ‡e4 where Black has the outside h-pawn ‡a2! 44 …f7 a6 45 …a7 …a5! 46 …b7 versus the worthless white d-pawn... b5‰. The rest of the game will be played 34...‡d4 35 a5 ‡xd3 36 …f3+ ‡c2 on the queenside with the white ‡ 37 b4 unable to join the fight there.” 37 axb6 axb6 38 …f6 …b7 after 32 …xf7 …c7! which the black b-pawn can advance The ‡ and pawn ending would and the white b-pawn can be picked of course be lost for White because off later. Black’s ‡ would eat all the white 37...b5! 38 a6 …c4 39 …f7 …xb4 40 pawns while the white ‡ marched to …b7 h5 and back. If 40 …xa7 …a4 and the black b- 33 …f2 ‡e5! 34 a4? pawn gains the ‡’s protection before White has a vague hope of White is ready with a7-a8Ô. For exchanging pawns but this weakening example, 41 …b7 b4 42 a7 b3 or 41 move eases Black’s task. …c7+ ‡b2 42 …b7 (42 a7 b4 43 ‡f2 When deciding on his 31st move, b3) 42...b4 43 a7 b3. Berliner had to calculate all the 40...…g4+ 41 ‡f3 b4 42 …xa7 b3 following “extremely difficult” 0–1 variations: 34 ‡g3! ‡d4! 35 ‡h4 A titanic achievement, especially ‡xd3 36 ‡xh5 …c2! and now: when you consider that many of the a) 37 …f3+ ‡d2! when: complicated variations in the notes a1) 38 b4 …c3! 39 …f2+ ‡e1! 40 were found by Dr Berliner before the …h2 …a3! 41 ‡g5 …a4 42 …b2 ‡d1 game had even begun! It can hardly and wins. be expected that he could anticipate a2) 38 b3! ‡c1! 39 a4 …b2 40 and overcome every later discovery of a5 (Otherwise Black plays ...a5) players and armchair analysts, so even 40...b5 41 a6 b4 42 ‡g4 ‡c2 43 …f7 if Black’s opening idea is ultimately …xb3 44 …xa7 …a3 45 …b7 b3 46 a7 refuted — which would be rather b2‰. sad — the game will still remain a a3) 38 …a3 a5 39 …b3 …c5+ 40 masterpiece. ‡g4 b5 41 ‡f4 ‡c2 42 ‡e4 ‡b1 If professional and amateur analysts 43 ‡d4 …h5 44 …a3 a4 45 ‡c3 alike often try to “bust” the Berliner …h4!‰ (Berliner). Or 42...a4 since variation, it is not because they want if 43 …b4 …c4+ 44 …xc4 bxc4 45 to spoil the game but because the ‡d5 a3! wins (Tait). complications represent a massive b) 37 …f7 …c5+! 38 ‡g4 …a5 39 intellectual challenge: something like …f3+! ‡d2! 40 a3! (If 40 …f2+ ‡e1 the chess equivalent of climbing the or 40 b3 …a3! stopping a4) 40...‡c2 North Wall of the Eiger. Game 26 White: Horst Robert Rittner (East Germany) Black: Vladimir Pavlovich Simagin (USSR) Eberhardt Wilhelm Cup, Final 1966-68 , Sozin Attack (B88)

The Players: Rittner was introduced it appeared in ‘Chess in the USSR’ in Game 21. December 1968, by which time the Grandmaster Simagin (1919-68) talented GM was already dead. These was a remarkable talent who died too notes also appeared later in German in young. After competing in the first ‘Fernschach’ 5/1969. The monographs USSR CC Championship in the late on Simagin by Voronkov (in Russian) 1940s, he played virtually no postal and by Woodger (in English but based chess in the 1950s, when he was prob- on Voronkov) are not so reliable. ably at his peak as an OTB player. 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Returning to CC in the 1960s, he won Èxd4 Èf6 5 Èc3 d6 6 ƒc4 the very strong 6th USSR CC Champ- Earlier, in the Ragozin Memorial, ionship with 13/17 and played several Rittner had beaten Simagin with 6 other events, while still active as an ƒg5. The Eberhardt Wilhelm Cup OTB player. He died during the 1968 was an event for teams representing Kislovodsk grandmaster tournament, cities all over Europe. shortly after this game ended. 6...e6 7 0–0 GM Yuri Averbakh wrote that This is the classical interpretation “Vladimir Pavlovich was a passionate of the Sozin Attack, but 7 ƒb3 and analyst ... This passion was ... a great 7 ƒe3 are more flexible moves. boon for him as a correspondence Subsequently, Velimirovic’s attack player. Here his analytical talent was involving †e2 and 0-0-0 became more brought to the fore, and he succeeded popular (see Game 58). Nowadays, in creating a number of splendid when the Sozin variation arises, Black works of art, in particular his game either defends by 6...†b6!? or plays with Rittner.” an early ...a6, leading to positions that About this game: I have seen various also sometimes arise via the Najdorf sets of notes, some inaccurate or mis- Variation (5...a6 6 ƒc4 e6). leading. It was in fact the last game 7...ƒe7 8 ƒe3 0–0 9 ƒb3 Simagin annotated for publication and Before starting active operations, 136 64 Great Chess Games

White must withdraw the ƒ to avoid the opponent’s pieces. However, this tricks like ...Èxe4 and ...d5. The is but the prelude to a -like immediate 9 f4 is bad, as Black has display of escapology! at his disposal the counterblow 9...d5! Rittner, as a professional chess 10 exd5 exd5 11 ƒe2 …e8 12 ‡h1 editor and CC specialist, achieved ƒa3! 13 bxa3 …xe3Œ (E.Grünfeld- great success by following main Taimanov, Sczawno-Zdroj 1950). lines (especially in the Ruy Lopez This is why Bobby Fischer favoured 7 and Sicilian) where he knew all the ƒb3 when he could meet 7...a6 by 8 latest theory and regularly refuted f4!? or 7...ƒe7 with ƒe3 and 0–0. misguided attempts by his opponents 9...Èa5 10 f4 ƒd7 to avoid, or improve on, the books. In 10...b6 is the alternative, when this case, however, he met his match. after 11 e5: Simagin was an original analyst a) 11...Èe8 12 f5! (Geller’s move, who was often willing to take on improving on 12 …f3 Èxb3 13 Èc6 the defence of Sicilian positions †d7!Œ Neikirch-Botvinnik, 1966.) supposedly bad for Black and, by 12...dxe5 13 fxe6 when: giving them a new twist, would a1) 13...fxe6 should be met by 14 breathe new life into them. Sometimes …xf8+! according to the recent book these ideas (as is the way with the on the Sozin by Mikhail Golubev, open Sicilian) might not stand the test and not 14 Èxe6?! †xd1 15 Èxf8+ of time but would only be effective Èxb3 16 …axd1 Èd4. for a game or two. a2) 13...Èxb3! 14 Èc6 †d6 11 †f3 …c8 (D) and now, since 15 Èd5 is refuted XIIIIIIIIY by 15...ƒh4! 16 exf7+ …xf7 17 9-+rwq-trk+0 …xf7 Èxa1 18 †f1 ƒf6‰ (Bilek- Petrosian, Oberhausen 1961) White W9zpp+lvlpzpp0 seemingly must be content with 9-+-zppsn-+0 15 †xd6 ƒxd6 16 axb3 ƒxe6 17 9sn-+-+-+-0 Èxa7!?, with some advantage in the 9-+-sNPzP-+0 ending (Fischer-Korchnoi, Curaçao ct 9+LsN-vLQ+-0 1962). 9PzPP+-+PzP0 b) 11...dxe5 12 fxe5 Èe8! is better and has been revived in recent 9tR-+-+RmK-0 years by Ruslan Sherbakov (but not xiiiiiiiiy 12...Èd7? 13 …xf7!). Instead of all this, with which both 12 g4?! players were undoubtedly completely Simagin wrote: “This continuation familiar, Simagin employs a new gives the game great interest. Does continuation, which allows White White have the right to launch a pawn the possibility of a strong bind on attack against the ‡? I believe that Game 26: Rittner-Simagin 137 from the positional point of view this advance by 16...Èg7. Yudovich, on decision is mistaken.” the other hand, suggested 16 h5. 12 …ad1 Èc4 13 ƒc1Ÿ is an Instead the threat to win a piece by improvement credited to GM John f5-f6 forces matters and if 16...exf5 Nunn by Golubev, but it was actually 17 exf5 (conceding the d5-square a post-mortem suggestion by Rittner. to White) looks like an unpleasant 12...Èc4 13 g5 Èe8 14 ƒxc4 …xc4 position for Black. Simagin, however, 15 h4 had prepared an answer which looked Again, Rittner said afterwards that like desperation but was based on a 15 …ad1 would be better, but not 15 sound plan and precise calculation. †h5 g6 16 †h6 e5! 17 f5!? exd4 18 16...gxf5! 17 exf5 e5 …f3 f6!. Voronkov commented: “So this is 15...g6! (D) the plan! The pawn centre advances, XIIIIIIIIY and this gives Black counter- 9-+-wqntrk+0 chances.” Golubev stops here, saying the position is unclear. Indeed, White W9zpp+lvlp+p0 did miss one or two chances after this 9-+-zpp+p+0 to stay in the game. 9+-+-+-zP-0 18 Èd5! 9-+rsNPzP-zP0 This is certainly the best move in 9+-sN-vLQ+-0 view of: 9PzPP+-+-+0 a) 18 f6 exd4 19 Èd5 (Voronkov’s suggestion 19 fxe7 is rubbish, e.g. 9tR-+-+RmK-0 19...†xe7 20 Èd5 †e6.) 19...ƒxf6 xiiiiiiiiy 20 Èxf6+ Èxf6 21 gxf6 dxe3 and if 22 †g3+? …g4 — Simagin. Voronkov comments here: “The b) 18 Ède2 ƒc6 19 †g3 (19 black minor pieces are thrown back Èd5 Èc7!) 19...d5Œ — Simagin. and constrained. A is 18...exd4 19 †e4 threatened. Black’s previous move If 19 f6 ƒxf6 20 Èxf6+ Èxf6 looks strange since it seems to (Simagin) and Voronkov’s proposal weaken the castled position. Simagin 20 b3 is no better: 20...…xc2 21 analysed the ensuing position for a Èxf6+ Èxf6 22 gxf6 ‡h8. long time and came to the conclusion 19...dxe3 20 †xc4 that the complications after 16 f5 are Simagin had obviously discussed favourable to Black.” the game afterwards with his 16 f5! opponent. He wrote here: “Black has Once more Rittner thought two minor pieces for the … but he with hindsight that he should have cannot hold the material advantage. centralised his queen’s …, although In the light of the following moves of Black could then hold up his pawn Black, underestimated by him, Rittner 138 64 Great Chess Games afterwards preferred the continuation avoided, the dangerous lines which 20 Èxe7+ ‡h8 21 †xc4 †xe7.” computers show as good for White. 20...ƒxg5! 24 ‡h2 Simagin forestalls the threat of Not 24 †f4 …g8+ 25 ‡h2 Èg4+ 21 f6. Now, of course not 21 hxg5? and Black wins (Simagin), while 24 †xg5+ 22 ‡h2 †h6+ 23 ‡g3 †h6 …g8+ 25 ‡h2 leads to the same ƒc6!‰, but White finds a way to position as in the game, as Simagin’s gain a piece under more favourable notes clearly state. circumstances. Instead Voronkov, for no good 21 †g4! ƒc6 22 Èxe3? reason, wrote that in the event of 24 After this error, Black forces the †h6 Black “wins without difficulty” win. The right move was 22 c4! ƒxd5 by 24...…g8+ 25 ‡h2 Èg4+ etc. 23 cxd5 with the idea 23...Èf6 24 — not only did he overlook the †xg5+ ‡h8 25 †xe3 and White transposition but he gives an incorrect has adequate defensive resources, said 25th move for Black. Simagin. Seeing that 25...Èg4+ fails, Of course, as he pointed out, Black Woodger and his colleague Fabrizi doesn’t have to play 23...Èf6; he try to salvage Black’s game by the might prefer 23...‡h8 24 hxg5 …g8 irrelevant 25...†e7 which only leads 25 †d4+ †f6! or 23...e2 24 …f2 to equality. Èf6 25 †xg5+ ‡h8, but here the 24...…g8 25 †h6 (D) chances are reciprocal. XIIIIIIIIY 22...Èf6! 23 †xg5+ ‡h8 (D) 9-+-wq-+rmk0 XIIIIIIIIY 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+-wq-tr-mk0 B9-+lzp-sn-wQ0 9zpp+-+p+p0 W 9+-+-+P+-0 9-+lzp-sn-+0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9+-+-+PwQ-0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9PzPP+-+-mK0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9tR-+-+R+-0 9PzPP+-+-+0 xiiiiiiiiy 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 25...d5! Simagin commented: “The only At this point we get an apparent possibility to continue the attack. wide divergence between the contem- White threatened 26 …g1 which now porary analysis and the view of the can be met by 26...d4! 27 …xg8+ game in Woodger’s monograph. It Èxg8 when Black wins the È.” seems that Simagin was aware of, and Black’s 25th move passes without Game 26: Rittner-Simagin 139 comment from Woodger but it was b) 28 Èc4 Èg4+ 29 ‡h3 Èf2+! the key move that showed Simagin 30 ‡h2 …g2#. understood what the position required. c) 28 ‡h3 †e5 29 Èc4 ƒg2+ 30 Voronkov’s 25...Èg4+ could be met ‡h2 Èg4+. by 26 Èxg4 …xg4 27 ‡h3 which 28...†e5 29 Èc4 Èg4+ 30 ‡h3 looks fine for White (M.Fabrizi). †e1! 26 …ad1 Ignoring the † and threatening The only move. On 26 c3 Black 30...†h1+. White’s reply is forced. had prepared 26...Èh5! 27 …f4! (27 31 …xg4 †h1+ 32 ‡g3 †g1+ 33 †xh5 †d6+ 28 ‡h1 d4+ mates) ‡f4 27...†b6! with decisive threats, but If 33 …g2 †xg2+ 34 ‡f4 †h2+ now in the event of 26...Èh5 there and mates. would follow simply 27 …f4! †c7 28 33...…xg4+ 34 ‡e5 …e4+ (D) …d4 and the result is still in doubt. XIIIIIIIIY 26...d4 27 …f4 9-+-+-+-mk0 As before, on 27 …g1? †d6+ wins (28 ‡h3 †e5). On the other hand, the W9zpp+-+p+p0 pawn on d4 is now hanging. 9-+l+-+-wQ0 27...†d6 9+-+-mKP+-0 By tying down the … on f4, Black 9-+Nzpr+-zP0 keeps the white † out of the game, 9+-+-+-+-0 and this decides matters. 9PzPPtR-+-+0 However, contrary to the contemporary notes, 27...†e7! would 9+-+-+-wq-0 also win, because after 28 …fxd4 xiiiiiiiiy Black plays 28...Èh5! (and not 28... †e5+ 29 †f4!) threatening ...†e5+ 35 ‡d6 again, and if 29 ‡h3 …g3+ 30 ‡h2 On 35 ‡f6 Black wins by the †e5. “klingon” move 35...†g8! (pointed 28 …d2 out by Simagin himself) after which This modest move provides the there is no satisfactory defence to the best defence, but it leaves Black with threat of 36...†d8+ 37 ‡xf7 †e7#. a decisive advantage. 35...†g3+ 36 ‡c5 …e5+! 37 Èxe5 White cannot take the pawn by 28 Again forced; if 37 ‡b4 …b5+ 38 …dxd4 in view of 28...†e5!, when ‡a4 …xf5+. there is no defence to the threat of 37...†xe5+ 38 ‡c4 29...…g2+ 30 Èxg2 Èg4+ winning If 38 ‡b4 †b5+ 39 ‡a3 †a4#. the †. Other lines are: 38...†d5+ 0-1 a) 28 c3 †e5 29 cxd4 †xe3 30 White resigned, in view of the †xf6+ …g7 31 †d8+ ƒe8 32 …f3 mate in 6 beginning 39 ‡d3 †e4+! †e2+ with mate to follow. 40 ‡c4 b5+. Game 27 White: Conel Hugh O’Donel Alexander (England) Black: Peter H. Clarke (England) Sinclair Trophy team tournament, England 1969-70 Spanish, Centre Attack (C84)

The Players: Alexander (1909-74) was was also included in the collection born in Cork, Ireland, but lived nearly of Alexander’s games, edited by Gol- all his life in England. He was one of ombek & Hartston. Alexander himself several chess players involved in the was probably the source for most of WW2 ‘Ultra’ codebreaking operation at the lines cited in both books. Bletchley. When its Cold War successor, 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 GCHQ, was established in Cheltenham, Èf6 5 0–0 ƒe7 6 d4 Alexander moved there; he and several Nowadays this variation is rare in colleagues were the nucleus of strong master chess because it lacks strategic Gloucestershire teams of the 1950s and depth compared with the 6 …e1 line. 1960s. He was twice British Champion In the pre-computer era, however, such and a FIDE IM as well as an excellent sharp opening variations often paid off. writer on the game. In the last decade of First, the opponent’s opening knowledge his life he concentrated on postal chess would be tested, and then his analytical and earning the ICCF IM title in 1970, abilities. In this game, Clarke passes the playing on England’s olympiad team. first examination but fails the second. Clarke (born 1933) wrote the first 6...exd4 7 …e1 books in English on Petrosian and Tal. This move allows Black to castle and A British Master OTB, he played many retreat his È to e8, but on the principle times for England; he had a reputation that you cannot have an attack without for being an extremely hard player to development, it gives more prospect of a beat. In the 1970s he took up CC more lasting initiative than 7 e5 Èe4. seriously and obtained the ICCF IM 7...0–0 8 e5 Èe8 title (1976) and then GM (1980) before 8...Èd5 9 Èxd4 Èxd4 10 †xd4 giving up the game for health reasons. Èb6 11 ƒb3 d5 12 exd6 used to About this game: It first appeared be thought good for White, but the in ‘Gloucestershire Correspondence reputation of the move has improved. Chess 1954-81’, which records Instead of 12...ƒxd6 13 ƒf4 or 12... the feats of that team in the annual †xd6 13 †e4 (£ƒf4‹), ‘ECO’ inter-county competition organised gives 12...ƒf6! 13 †e4 cxd6! 14 by the British Chess Federation. It Èc3 ƒxc3 15 bxc3 d5 16 †e7 Game 27: Alexander-Clarke 141

†xe7 17 …xe7 Èc4= Feistenauer- 1978.) 17 Èxe5 Èxe5 18 †e2! Donev, Götzis 1990. Èg6 19 Èe7+! Èxe7 20 ƒxe7 9 c3!? ƒxe7 21 …xe7 †c6 22 …d1! ƒb7 23 9 ƒf4 is a more solid alternative. ƒd5 †b6 24 ƒxb7 †xb7 25 …dd7 9...dxc3 10 Èxc3 d6 11 exd6 Èxd6 …ac8? (25...†b6 — Gipslis) 26 †e6! (D) †b6 27 …xf7! ‡h8 28 †e7! 1–0 TV XIIIIIIIIY viewers-Radio listeners, Latvia corr 9r+lwq-trk+0 1978; now if 28...…xf7 29 …d8+! or 28...…fe8 29 …f8+! …xf8 30 †xg7#. W9+pzp-vlpzpp0 12...…e8 9p+nsn-+-+0 12...ƒe6¢ is theory today, following 9+-+-+-+-0 Timman-Beliavsky, Moscow 1981. 9L+-+-+-+0 13 Èe5 9+-sN-+N+-0 Alexander did not want to capture 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 on c6 — obtaining positional comp- ensation through Black’s split pawns 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 — because he believed it would lead xiiiiiiiiy to a drawn endgame at best. I am sure he knew that Clarke would conduct This is now the book main line; a positional game very ably and so White is challenged to justify his preferred to rely on his tactical powers gambit. Others, according to the to exploit what should have been only theory of those days: a temporary initiative. a) 11...†xd6 12 Èd5!Ÿ Castagna- 13...ƒd7 14 Èxd7 †xd7 15 ƒf4 Limbos, Varna OL 1962. ƒf8 16 †d3 …xe1+ 17 …xe1 …d8 b) 11...cxd6 12 Èd5 (Kholmov- Clarke hopes for counterplay on Lein, 29th USSR Ch 1961), but later the d-file rather than simplification by this was shown to be playable with 17...…e8 18 …xe8 †xe8 and then: 12...ƒe6 13 Èxe7+ †xe7 in Mini™- a) 19 Èxc7 †e1+ 20 †f1 “regains Masi™, Yugoslav Ch 1972. the pawn when the ƒ pair gives White c) The Alexander book said the better prospects”, according to “11...ƒxd6 is safest for Black when Alexander. Computer analysis doesn’t 12 ƒg5 Èf6 13 Èe4 ƒe7 leads to a support that view as Black continues very drawish ending”. 20...†e4 21 ƒxc6 †xf4å, e.g. 22 ƒf3 12 Èd5 Èf5 23 Èd5 †d2 24 †b1 ƒc5. 12 ƒf4 was preferred a few years b) 19 ‡f1 is better, e.g. 19...†e4 later, e.g. 12...b5 13 ƒb3 Èc4 20 †xe4 Èxe4 21 ƒxc6!? bxc6 22 14 Èd5! ƒd6 15 ƒg5 †d7 16 Èxc7 Èc5 23 ‡e2Ÿ K.Howard- …e4 È6e5 (16...f6 17 ƒf4 ƒxf4 18 A.Tankel, British CC Ch candidates …xf4 …d8 19 †e2!‹ Romanishin- 1987. Tukmakov, 46th USSR Ch, Tbilisi 18 ƒc2 f5 19 …d1 ‡h8 (D) 142 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY can still regain his pawn and draw by 9-+-tr-vl-mk0 21 ƒxd6! cxd6 22 †xf5 and this may 9+pzpq+-zpp0 be the best he has”. Actually, White W9p+nsn-+-+0 may be slightly better in that case but 9+-+N+p+-0 21...cxd6 seems the worst of the three 9-+-+-vL-+0 recaptures and after both 21...ƒxd6 9+-+Q+-+-0 and 21...…xd6 Black’s position is certainly not inferior. 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 Black’s mistakes here and at the 9+-+R+-mK-0 next move are forgiveable, however. xiiiiiiiiy They stem from the same source: 20 g4! Clarke’s failure to see White’s Here the Alexander book explains: stunning 22nd move. “White appears to have a great deal 21 ƒg5 …c8? of pressure but it is another matter Black should have played 21...…b8 finding something to do... Thus this with fairly good chances of escaping thrust is really the only attempt to with a draw as White’s next move increase the pressure”. White has would then not attack the …. Alexander a variety of moves that might be could then choose between: marginally better positionally (20 a) 22 Èe7 Èe5 23 †c3 ƒg7 24 a4 or 20 a3 for example), but which gxf5 and now the computer world would offer less hope of victory; champion program Shredder6 comes again the note to White’s 13th move up with the defence 24...…e8 (If applies. 24...gxf5 25 ƒxf5 †e8 26 …xd6!) 25 20...g6?! f4 Èg4 26 Èxg6+ hxg6 27 †h3+ “Having defended well, it was ‡g8 28 †xg4 gxf5 29 ƒb3+ ‡f8=. time for Black to be thinking b) 22 ƒf6+ ƒg7 23 g5 could result more actively,” say Golombek & in a draw after 23...ƒxf6 24 Èxf6 Hartston, while the Gloucestershire †e7 25 ƒa4 Èe4 26 ƒxc6 bxc6 27 book here says, “Better 20...†f7 Èxe4 fxe4 28 †d4+ ‡g8 29 †c4+ — the weakening of the long diagonal ‡h8= (analysis with Shredder6). proves fatal”. 22 Èe7!! (D) Indeed 20...†f7! was much better, This is the sort of counter-intuitive when: shot that required imagination and a) The Alexander book correctly calculating skill before the era of the says that 21 gxf5! (21 ƒg5! …e8) chess engines. 21...Èb5! gives Black some initiative “A beautiful and totally surprising through the threats of ...Èb4 or combination,” wrote Hartston; “a ...Ècd4. 21...†h5 also comes into bolt from the blue which wins in all consideration. variations,” says the Gloucestershire b) Alexander believed that “White book. Game 27: Alexander-Clarke 143 XIIIIIIIIY pieces but cannot be taken by any of 9-+r+-vl-mk0 them, as analysis shows”. 9+pzpqsN-+p0 26...…d8 B9p+nsn-+p+0 The Gloucestershire book says 9+-+-+pvL-0 that “the plausible 26...…f8 would be 9-+-+-+P+0 brilliantly refuted by 27 Èxc6 bxc6 9+-+Q+-+-0 28 †f6+ ‡e8 29 …e1+ Èe4 30 ƒxe4! …xf6 31 ƒxc6+! and wins”, 9PzPL+-zP-zP0 while 27...†xc6 28 †f6+ ‡e8 29 9+-+R+-mK-0 …e1+ Èe4 30 †xc6+ bxc6 31 f3ˆ xiiiiiiiiy is a variation from the Hartston & 22...…e8 Golombek book. Alexander demonstrated wins Other finishes worked out by against the alternatives. Alexander were: 26...‡xe7 27 a) 22...ƒxe7 23 †c3+ ƒf6 (23... †f6#; 26...†xe7 27 ƒb3+ ‡f8 28 ‡g8 24 ƒb3+ ‡f8 25 †h8#) 24 †h8#; 26...Èxe7 27 ƒb3+ˆ; and ƒxf6+ ‡g8 25 ƒb3+ ‡f8 26 …e1 26...…xe7 27 ƒb3+ …e6 28 †f6+ Èf7 27 ƒg7+ ‡g8 28 ƒh8!ˆ. ‡e8 29 ƒxe6 †d8 30 †h8+ ‡e7 b) 22...Èxe7 23 ƒf6+ ƒg7 24 31 ƒg8!ˆ. ƒxg7+ ‡xg7 25 †c3+ ‡h6 26 g5+ 27 Èxc6 †xc6 ‡xg5 (26...‡h5 27 f4) 27 f4+ ‡h6 27...bxc6 leads to long forced 28 …d3 and he has no defence to the mating variations after either 28 ƒb3+ threat of …h3#. (or 28 †f6+) 28...‡e8 29 †h8+ ‡e7 c) 22...Èe5 23 †c3 ƒg7 24 30 †e5+ ‡f8 31 …xd6ˆ cxd6 32 Èxc8 also wins for White, e.g. 24... †h8+ ‡e7 33 †g7+ ‡e8 34 †g8+ †xc8 (or 24...Èxg4 25 Èxd6 ƒxc3 ‡e7 35 †f7#. 26 Èxf5! †xd1+ 27 ƒxd1) 25 …xd6 28 ƒb3+ ‡e8 Èf3+ 26 †xf3 cxd6 and White Clarke prefers a pretty finish. emerges a piece up. 29 †e5+ 23 ƒf6+ ƒg7 24 ƒxg7+! The Gloucestershire book says White prefers to play for mate; there Black resigned here, giving the is still one more surprise in store. The remaining moves in a note, but the Alexander book says 24 Èxg6+ hxg6 book of Alexander’s games says that 25 †h3+ ‡g8 26 ƒb3+ ‡f8 27 †h7 Clarke “surely felt it would be churlish allows Black to fight on with 27...ƒxf6 to deny his opponent the pleasure of 28 †xd7 …e7! 29 …xd6 cxd6 but I giving mate”. I suppose the most likely think White is winning that. explanation for this discrepancy in the 24...‡xg7 25 †c3+ ‡f7 26 g5!! accounts is that the remaining moves A very pretty echo of the 22nd were sent as a conditional. move; the Gloucestershire book points 29...‡f8 30 †f6+ ‡e8 31 …e1+ out that “the È is now en prise to four Èe4 32 †f7# 1–0 Game 28 White: Roman Zinovievich Altshuler (USSR) Black: Sh. Gilezetdinov (USSR) 2nd USSR Team Championship, corr 1971 French Defence, Tarrasch Variation (C07)

The Players: Roman Altshuler (born central tension for as long as possible. 1919) was famous in the USSR for Instead 5 exd5 leads to standard organising a series of CC contests positions. by radio in 1959 between Moscow, 5...cxd4 where he lived, and teams from Sov- Black has many other moves here, iet Arctic and Antarctic bases; later he though some of them are dubious. organised similar events for players a) 5...ƒd6 6 e5! ƒb8 7 dxc5 on Navy ships. He became an ICCF Ège7 8 0–0 0–0 9 …e1 is known to international master in 1967. I have no be a difficult line to defend. information about Gilezetdinov. b) 5...a6 6 exd5 axb5 7 dxc6 bxc6 About this game: Apparently Altshul- 8 dxc5 ƒxc5 9 †e2 Èf6 10 0–0 0–0 er retired from international play after 11 Èb3 †e7 12 …d1 and White had the 5th CC World Championship but the initiative (1–0, 34) in Alekhine- played this fine attacking game a few B.Rabar, Munich 1941. years later. It was published in the c) 5...ƒd7 was a move Alekhine Latvian magazine ‘Shakhmaty’ sev- met several times and he considered it eral years later, on the occasion of his a serious mistake; Black rapidly gets reaching the age of 60. into difficulties due to the open e-file. 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Èd2 c5 4 Ègf3 Alekhine-M.Bartosek, Prague 1943, This is often played although 4 went 6 exd5 exd5 (6...Èxd4? 7 Èxd4 exd5 is the main line. cxd4 8 dxe6! ƒxb5 9 †h5ˆ) 7 0–0 4...Èc6 Èxd4 8 Èxd4 cxd4 9 †e2+ ƒe7 10 4...Èf6 is a common alternative, Èf3 ƒxb5 11 †xb5+ †d7 12 †e2 while 4...a6 transposes to 3 Èd2 0–0–0 (12...Èf6 13 …e1) 13 ƒf4!‹ a6 4 Ègf3 c5, which is a perfectly (1–0, 34). playable line for Black. d) 5...Èf6 is probably best, e.g. 6 5 ƒb5 exd5 †xd5 7 c4 †d6 8 dxc5 †xc5 This was Alekhine’s favourite line 9 0-0 ƒd7 (½-½, 48) Alekhine- against the French in his later years. B.Thelen, Prague 1942. White is determined to maintain 6 0–0!? Game 28: Altshuler-Gilezetdinov 145

Most books nowadays only hine had played instead 7 e5 Èd7 8 mention 6 Èxd4, transposing to 4 Èb3 a6 9 ƒxc6 bxc6 10 †xd4 †c7 Ègf3 cxd4 5 Èxd4 Èc6 6 ƒb5, but 11 …e1 …b8 12 ƒd2 c5 13 †h4 ƒe7 castling was Alekhine’s gambit idea. 14 †g3 ‡f8 15 c4 ƒb7 16 ƒa5 †c8 6...Èf6 (D) 17 Èbd2 d4 18 b3 ƒd8 19 ƒxd8 6...a6 or 6...dxe4 would be better †xd8 20 Èe4 †e7 21 …ad1 h6 said Altshuler. 22 …d3 and a strong kingside attack For example, GM Suetin’s book was brewing in Alekhine-K.Urbanec, on the French gives 6...a6 7 ƒxc6+ Prague 1943 (1-0, 46). bxc6 8 Èxd4 c5 9 È4f3 Èf6 10 7...†b6 exd5 exd5 11 …e1+ ƒe7 12 Èe5 Altshuler said that 7...ƒd7 8 ƒxc6 ƒb7= Pu›-Matanovi™, Yugoslavia ƒxc6 9 e5 Èd7 10 f4 is advantageous 1951, although it is worth noting that to White. This has been seen in a few early in his career, Gert Timmerman postal games: won with White from this position in a) 10...ƒe7 11 È2f3 0–0 12 ƒe3 a Dutch postal game. ƒc5 13 †d3 †b6 14 Èg5 g6 15 H.Westerinen-A.Khasin, Moscow ƒf2 h6? 16 Ègxe6 and White soon 1970, went 6...dxe4 7 Èxe4 ƒd7 8 won in A.Wollmann-J.Klinghammer, †e2 Èf6 9 ƒg5 ƒe7 10 ƒxf6 gxf6 Germany corr 1986, but Black’s play 11 …ad1 †b6 12 Èxd4 0–0–0¢, but was very poor. White won in 50 moves; this game b) 10...†b6 11 È2b3 Èc5 may be found in ‘’ (L.Mittag-C.Schwieger, DDR CC Ch volume 10. 1976) and now 12 ƒe3 or 12 f5!? 6...ƒd6!? has also been tried, e.g. 7 would be more dynamic than 12 ‡h1 …e1 Ège7 8 e5 ƒc7 9 Èxd4Ÿ Mik. which White actually played. Tseitlin-Fershter, USSR 1978. 8 exd5 Èxd5 XIIIIIIIIY If 8...exd5 then 9 …e1+ causes 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 some embarrassment, but now White gains a tempo with his È. W9zpp+-+pzpp0 9 Èc4 †c7 10 Èe5 ƒd7 9-+n+psn-+0 Altshuler did not comment on 9+L+p+-+-0 alternatives here. Black could try: 9-+-zpP+-+0 a) 10...ƒd6 11 Èexc6 (instead 9+-+-+N+-0 of 11 Èdxc6? 0–0 as in M.Trepp- 9PzPPsN-zPPzP0 B.Sorensen, Copenhagen 1982) 11...0–0 12 c4 Èf6 13 ƒg5 and 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 the complications appear to favour xiiiiiiiiy White. b) 10...a6 11 ƒxc6+ bxc6 12 7 Èxd4 c4!? (If 12 Èdxc6 ƒd6!) 12...†xe5 Altshuler goes his own way. Alek- 13 Èxc6 †d6 14 cxd5 †xd5 15 146 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY †xd5 exd5 16 …fe1+ ƒe6 17 ƒf4 when Black looks dangerously 9r+-+k+-tr0 undeveloped. 9+-wq-+pzpp0 11 Èxd7 †xd7 12 c4 Èb6 W9psnNvlp+-+0 It is understandable that Black 9+-+-+-+-0 did not want to block his ƒ but 9-+P+-+-+0 12...Ède7 would give more support 9+-+-+Q+-0 to c6. After White’s next move, the attack really revs up. 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 13 †f3! a6 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 Black tries to reduce the pressure xiiiiiiiiy by giving up a pawn, since 13...…c8 17 …xd6! †xd6 18 ƒf4 †d7 19 14 …d1 is very bad for him. Èe5 †c8 After 13...†xd4 White would play To prevent †c6+. neither 14 ƒxc6+? bxc6 15 †xc6+ 20 ƒe3 †d7 nor 14 ƒe3 †d7, but once more The pressure is relentless. White 14 …d1! and there is no defence. threatens both †xf7+ and ƒxb6; For example, 14...†e5 (14...†f6? the black † cannot assist as it must 15 ƒxc6+ bxc6 16 †xc6+ ‡e7 defend the …. 17 †c5+ ‡e8 18 †b5+ ‡e7 19 20...f6 21 †h5+ ‡e7 22 †f7+ ‡d6 ƒg5ˆ, or 14...†c5 15 ƒe3 †f5 23 …d1+! 16 ƒxc6+ bxc6 17 †xc6+ ‡e7 18 The last piece comes into play. ƒxb6ˆ) 15 ƒf4 †f5 (15...†c5 16 23...‡xe5 24 †h5+ ƒe3) 16 g4! (Better than 16 ƒxc6+ White has now sacrificed a … but bxc6 17 †xc6+ ‡e7) 16...†g6 mate is forced. Here 24...g5 lasts (16...†c2 17 …d2) 17 ƒxc6+ bxc6 longest but is refuted by 25 ƒxg5! 18 †xc6+ ‡e7 19 ƒd6+ ‡f6 20 fxg5 26 †xg5+ ‡e4 27 f3#. †f3+ ‡g5 21 h4+ and mates. 24...f5 25 †g5 14 ƒxc6 bxc6 15 Èxc6 ƒd6 This cuts off the retreat at f6 and Possibly Black can do a little better threatens †xg7 mating. However, 25 with 15...†b7 (not 15...Èxc4? 16 ƒf4+! mates quicker, i.e. 25...‡xf4 Èe5), though he would be a pawn 26 †h4+ ‡e5 27 †d4# or 25...‡f6 down without compensation. Now he 26 ƒg5+ ‡e5 27 †e2#. is now utterly overwhelmed. 25...Èd5 26 …xd5+!? 1–0 16 …d1 †c7 (D) This is good enough. Black Black escapes the pin on the d- resigned as his † is lost, e.g. file (15...0-0? 16 ƒf4) and attacks 26...exd5 27 †e7+ †e6 28 f4+, but the h-pawn, but in CC, it is perfectly sadly Altshuler missed the mate by feasible to analyse a combinative pos- 26 ƒf4+! Èxf4 (26...‡e4 27 f3#) 27 ition like this to a clear win. †xg7+ ‡e4 28 …d4#. Game 29 White: Thomas Mueller (USA) Black: Nicolas A. Preo (USA) 1st North American CC Championship, 1971-72 Open Spanish, Dilworth Variation (C82)

The Players: Thomas Mueller is a Èf6 5 0–0 Èxe4 6 d4 b5 7 ƒb3 d5 very experienced US master. He was 8 dxe5 ƒe6 9 c3 ƒc5 the CCLA’s Grand National champion For 9...ƒe7 see Game 16. in 1964 and 1966 and achieved joint 10 Èbd2 0–0 11 ƒc2 Èxf2! (D) fourth place in the 3rd modern series XIIIIIIIIY US CC Championship (1978-80). 9r+-wq-trk+0 Russian-born Nicolas Preo (1904- 88) won USCF’s 1951 and 1952 W9+-zp-+pzpp0 Golden Knights championships and 9p+n+l+-+0 then became one of the first Ameri- 9+pvlpzP-+-0 cans to win the ICCF international 9-+-+-+-+0 master title. He represented USA with 9+-zP-+N+-0 distinction in numerous individual 9PzPLsN-snPzP0 and team events and continued play- ing into his 80s. After his death, his 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 son Nicolas N. Preobrajensky con- xiiiiiiiiy tinued playing master CC for over a decade using the father’s identity: an This is the Dilworth Variation, in extraordinary story told in the 3/2002 which Black exchanges (you might issue of ‘Chess Mail’ magazine. say, sacrifices) two minor pieces for About this game: The NAICCC is a … and pawn to disrupt the white ICCF’s continental championship for ‡ position and create dangerous North America. Preo finished sixth chances. The chief drawback from out of the 15 players in this the first Black’s point of view is that he cannot of the series, scoring 8½ out of 14, reach this position after the popular and Mueller scored 6. In March 2002, modern reply 9 Èbd2 to the Open I was sent numerous game records Defence, because in that case 9...ƒc5 discovered by family members among can be answered by 10 Èxe4. the Preo effects; this previously un- 12 …xf2 f6 13 exf6 ƒxf2+! 14 ‡xf2 published game is one of them. †xf6 15 ‡g1 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 15 Èf1! Èe5 16 ƒe3 …ae8 148 64 Great Chess Games is now considered the critical line, 18 a4 but many experts believe Black has This was possibly a novelty. It is sufficient play. 17 ‡g1 transposes hard to find a good move for White. to the next note while after 17 ƒc5 a) Recent theory books cite 18 b3 Èxf3 18 gxf3 …f7 19 ‡g2 d4! Black d4! (Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Tilburg may even stand better. 1987), e.g. 19 ƒa3 dxc3! 20 ƒxf8 15...…ae8 16 †f1 …xf8 21 Èc4! †c5+ 22 †f2 †xf2+ The dangers White faces are 23 ‡xf2 bxc4 with a better endgame illustrated by the fact that ex-world for Black — Yusupov. champion Spassky lost to a German b) 18 Èb3? Èe5 19 Èbd4 amateur after 16 h3? Èe5 17 Èxf3+ (19...†g4 20 b4!) 20 Èxf3 Èxe5 †xe5 18 Èf3? (18 Èf1 is †c2 “...with chronic paralysis of the necessary.) 18...†g3 19 †d3 ƒf5! white camp” as GM Glenn Flear says 20 †xd5+ ‡h8 21 ƒd3 (21 ƒxf5 in his book ‘Open Ruy Lopez’. The …e2 22 Èd2 †f2+ 0–1 Miranbell- cited game (A.Müller-Cruz Lopez, Ecenarro, corr 1969) 21...ƒxd3 22 France Cht 1998) continued 21 ƒd2 †xd3 …xf3! 23 †xf3 …e1+ and …xf3 22 †xf3 †xd2 23 …f1 †e3+ Black eventually won in Spassky- 24 †xe3 …xe3 25 ‡f2 …e4 26 …d1 Neunhoeffer, Bundesliga 1983. c6 and Black won on move 52. 16 Èf1 Èe5 17 ƒe3 Èxf3+ 18 18...b4 19 †xa6? gxf3 †xf3 19 †xf3 …xf3 20 ƒf2 is If 19 h3 …f6 or 19 a5 †c2, so a well-known endgame. Theory gives White snatches a pawn but leaves his 20...ƒh3=, but Potter-Preo, from the ‡ weakly defended. 19 †xa6 may NAICCC, went 20...…ef8!? and after appear to be the point of 18 a4, but 21 ƒc5 (maybe not best) 21...…8f4 Preo shows that it loses by force. 22 Èg3 …f7 23 …f1 …xf1+ 24 Èxf1 Although this game is 30 years ƒf5 25 ƒb3 c6 26 Èg3 ƒd3 Black old, it is unknown to theory because, won in 97 moves. apparently, tournament director John 16...ƒf5 17 ƒxf5 †xf5 (D) F. Cleeve never received a copy of the XIIIIIIIIY game score. Preo’s record was found 9-+-+rtrk+0 in 2002 among his son’s papers. Stapled to it were several slips of W9+-zp-+-zpp0 paper bearing variations of analysis 9p+n+-+-+0 (without move numbers) in English 9+p+p+q+-0 . They begin at 9-+-+-+-+0 this point, so the inference is twofold. 9+-zP-+N+-0 The game was all theory for him up to 9PzP-sN-+PzP0 this point, and now he saw the chance of forcing victory by direct attack. All 9tR-vL-+QmK-0 the lines below are from these notes, xiiiiiiiiy unless stated otherwise. Game 29: Mueller-Preo 149

19...…e1+ 20 ‡f2 d) 21 Èe4 dxe4 22 ‡xe1 exf3+ 23 If 20 Èf1 Èe5 21 Èxe1 †f2+ 22 ‡d1 b3! (£...†c2#) 24 †c4+ ‡h8 ‡h1 †xf1+ 23 †xf1 …xf1#. Or 20 25 †xb3 †d3+ 26 ƒd2 …e1+! 27 Èxe1 †f2+ 21 ‡h1 †xe1+ and mates. ‡xe1 †e2#. 20...…fe8 21 g4 (D) e) 21 Èb3 Èe5 22 Èbd4 (After XIIIIIIIIY 22 ‡xe1 Preo found another mate 9-+-+r+k+0 starting 22...Èxf3+ 23 ‡f2 Èd2+.) 22...Èd3+ 23 †xd3 †xd3 24 Èxe1 B9+-zp-+-zpp0 †d1 25 Èdf3 …e2+ 26 ‡g3 bxc3 27 9Q+n+-+-+0 bxc3 …xe1 28 Èxe1 †xe1+ 29 ‡f4 9+-+p+q+-0 †xc3 30 …b1 †d4+ etc. 9Pzp-+-+P+0 21...†e6! 9+-zP-+N+-0 Preo also looked at the consequen- 9-zP-sN-mK-zP0 ces of taking the pawn. He wrote down some variations beginning 21...†xg4 9tR-vL-tr-+-0 22 Èxe1 †h4+ 23 ‡g2 †xe1 and xiiiiiiiiy 23...†g4+ 24 ‡f1 Èe5 but at some point, he must have realised the attack White offers a pawn to unpin the was much stronger with 21...†e6. f3-È. Other possibilities were: 22 Èxe1 a) 21 †xc6 …8e2+! 22 ‡g3 …g1 If 22 †d3 Black’s best is 22...bxc3 23 Èxg1 †g5+ 24 ‡h3 †xg2+ 25 23 bxc3 …f8! (£ 24...Èe5) winning. ‡h4 g5+ 26 ‡h5 †xh2+ 27 ‡xg5 Preo’s notes have 22...Èe5 but White †g3+ 28 ‡f5 …e5+ 29 ‡f6 †g7#. could then escape by 23 Èxe5 †xe5 b) 21 h3 Èe5 22 g4 (If 22 ‡xe1 24 Èf3 …f8 25 ƒf4!. Èd3+ 23 ‡f1 …e1# or 22 ‡d1 22...†xe1+ 23 ‡g2 Èf2#) 22...Èd3+ 23 ‡g3 †f4+ If 23 ‡f3 …f8+ 24 ‡f2 …f2+ 25 24 ‡h4 …8e6 and “OK” is written ‡h3 †e3+ and mates. on Preo’s note. Actually, it is not White’s position is hopeless but OK, because 24...…8e6 is an error according to the scorecard Mueller (allowing 25 †a8+ and 26 †xd5). played on until mate. More likely, Black should play either 23...…g1+ when playing his 26th move, Black sent or (after 23...†f4+ 24 ‡h4) 24...g5+ a conditional sequence leading to the to force mate, but he would surely checkmate and recorded this as played. have re-analysed more accurately had 23...…e2+ 24 ‡h3 g5 25 †c8+ White in fact played 21 h3. …e8 26 †a6 …e3+ 27 Èf3 †h4+ c) 21 g3 Èe5 22 ‡xe1 Èxf3+ 23 28 ‡g2 †xg4+ 29 ‡h1 †xf3+ 30 ‡f2 (23 ‡d1 …e1#) 23...Èxd2+ 24 ‡g1 …e1+ 31 †f1 …xf1# 0–1 ‡g1 Èf3+ 25 ‡g2 Èe1+ 26 ‡g1 It was an eerie experience to ‘hear’ Èc2 27 …a2 …e1+ 28 ‡g2 …xc1 a master explaining his game from “followed by ...Èe3#”. beyond the grave! Game 30 White: Hermann Heemsoth (West Germany) Black: Dr Charles Hunter (England) 7th CC Olympiad Final, board 4, 1973-74 English Opening (A25)

The Players: Heemsoth (born 1909) This over-ambitious tempo- set a record when he became the old- sacrifice is the cause of Black’s later est person ever to become a CC-GM troubles. The main line is 8...†d7 9 — at the age of 78. The veteran mas- Èd5 0–0 10 0–0 Èd8 11 b4 Èxd5 ter and chess writer from Bremen had 12 cxd5 ƒh3 13 †b3 ƒxg2 14 been a strong player OTB and CC for ‡xg2 c6 (Averbakh-Szabo, Budapest more than half a century, playing his 1970) and now 15 e4!Ÿ. Black can first postal game in 1931 and his last probably do better with 9...Èd8 in 1994. although White, in turn, must have Hunter (1922-82) was one of the an improvement upon Barcenilla- first English players to earn the CC- Tiviakov, Singapore 1990, which IM title. He found that CC “is ideal continued 10 h4?! c6 11 Èxe7 †xe7 for a medical man, whose time for 12 b4 0–0 13 0–0 †f6. over-the-board matches is too lim- 9 b3! ited, but who can spend evenings and Opening the game by 9 cxd5 Èxd5 weekends on call analysing games”. 10 0–0 Èdb4! or 10 Èxd5 ƒxd5 11 About this game: Dr Hunter called 0–0 ƒxg2 is inferior for White. this “The best game I have ever lost, 9...0–0 a magnificent fighting game”. I have John Watson proposed 9...a5!? in found some flaws in the players’ notes his classic work on the English. that appeared in ‘Fernschach’ and in 10 ƒa3! …e8 the book ‘British Chess’, but few Black meets the threat of 11 cxd5 classic games of the period (CC or without committing himself by 10...d4 OTB) are immune to ‘deconstruction’ 11 Èe4. in this way. 11 0–0 a5 12 e4! 1 c4 g6 2 Èc3 ƒg7 3 g3 e5 4 ƒg2 Black must now make an unwel- Èc6 5 e3 d6 6 Ège2 Ège7 7 …b1 come decision about his d-pawn. ƒe6 8 d3! Heemsoth avoided 12 d4 because A reversed Closed Sicilian; 8 Èd5 of 12...exd4 13 exd4 ƒf5! 14 cxd5 is more usually seen. (14 …c1 dxc4) 14...Èb4! (but not 8...d5?! 14...ƒxb1? 15 dxc6 ƒf5 16 cxb7 …b8 Game 30: Heemsoth-Hunter 151 with an unclear position since White 20...d3!? has two pawns for the exchange). Black offers a second pawn in 12...dxe4 order to enhance the scope of his g7- If 12...d4 13 Èd5 when the advances ƒ. Instead, Heemsoth thought that b4 and f4 become positional threats. with 20...†a5, which strengthens the 13 dxe4 threats against the white position, the After 13 Èxe4 ƒc8! White’s d- “margin of draw” would not yet have pawn remains backward. been overstepped. Here 21 Èxe6 13...Èd4 14 Èxd4 fxe6 22 e5 seems to give White Black loses his outpost but gains a an edge but he may well be right. passed pawn which, however, appears Similarly, if 20...†b6 I suppose that to be less important than White’s 21 Èxe6 must give White somewhat kingside pawn majority which soon the preferable position. gets moving. The aggressive computer program 14...exd4 15 Èd5 Èc6 16 f4 Èb4!? 7 suggests 20...b5?! 21 cxb5 Black burns his boats with this d3 which offers a third pawn! This is pawn sacrifice, not liking 16...ƒxd5 a very interesting idea to strengthen 17 cxd5 Èe7 (or 17...Èb4 18 ƒxb4 the Black attack by seizing control axb4 19 e5 …xa2 20 †xd4 †e7 of the d5-square, but after 22 Èxd3 21 …fc1‹) 18 e5 Èxd5 19 †xd4 ƒc3 23 f5 gxf5 (hoping for 24 exf5 but it seems to me that 16...†d7, ƒd4+ 25 ‡h1 ƒd5 26 †g4+ ‡f8 maintaining the tension, is more with a strong attack for the three sensible, with chances of holding the pawns sacrificed) 24 Èf4! is right, balance. However, this would not suit e.g. 24...fxe4 (24...†b6+ 25 ‡h1) 25 Hunter — an aggressive player who †h5 or 25 Èxe6 (but not 25 †xd8 liked gambits and would have been …xd8 26 Èxe6 fxe6 27 ƒxe4 …dd2) looking for a way to play for a win. and Black does not seem to have 17 ƒxb4 axb4 18 Èxb4 c5 19 Èd3 enough compensation. …xa2 20 Èxc5 (D) 21 Èxd3 ƒc3! XIIIIIIIIY This move not only threatens 9-+-wqr+k+0 22...…d2 (winning a piece) but also, for example, after 22 Èf2 Black B9+p+-+pvlp0 plays 22...†b6! followed by ...…d8 9-+-+l+p+0 and ...…dd2 when White’s position 9+-sN-+-+-0 would be totally paralysed. 9-+PzpPzP-+0 After other moves, White soon 9+P+-+-zP-0 repulses the attack, e.g. 21...…e7 9r+-+-+LzP0 (£...…d7) 22 f5 or 22 †f3 …d7 23 …fd1 ƒg4 24 †xg4 …xd3 25 ‡h1, 9+R+Q+RmK-0 or 21...†a5 22 †f3 or 21...†d4+ 22 xiiiiiiiiy ‡h1. 152 64 Great Chess Games

22 f5 (D) complications of 22...f6 23 fxe6 …d2 White’s extra pawns are no good (or 22...…d2 23 fxe6 f6)”. for defence (22 Èf2? †b6! £...…e8- Heemsoth claimed to have refuted d8-d2) so he must react immediately. this idea with the † sacrifice 24 XIIIIIIIIY Èf4!! …xd1 25 …fxd1 †b6+ 26 ‡h1 9-+-wqr+k+0 ƒe5! 27 …d7 ƒxf4 28 gxf4 …xe6 29 e5 with good chances of victory. An B9+p+-+p+p0 ingenious plan, indeed, but Black’s 9-+-+l+p+0 defence could be improved. One 9+-+-+P+-0 possibility is 25...†a5!?; others are to 9-+P+P+-+0 play ...†a6 at either move 26 or 27. 9+PvlN+-zP-0 Black has to approach the defence 9r+-+-+LzP0 schematically: his aim should not be to exchange ƒ for È but rather to use 9+R+Q+RmK-0 his … to eliminate the È and passed xiiiiiiiiy e-pawn. The black † can achieve considerable nuisance value operating Here is the moment where Black on the a-file, and while the ƒ will be must try to justify his sacrifices. a defensive bastion on e5 it does not 22...gxf5?! have to go there as immediately as On the immediate 22...ƒc8 follows Heemsoth supposed. 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 †f3 and eventually It is hard to give exhaustive Èd3-f4-d5 and White holds the extra variations, but here is a sample line material. On 22...ƒxc4 there comes showing how Black’s resistance will 23 bxc4 …d2 24 fxg6! fxg6 (if 24... be very hard to overcome: 24 Èf4 …xd1 White wins by 25 gxf7+ ‡g7 …xd1 25 …fxd1 †b6+ 26 ‡h1 26 fxe8È+! †xe8 27 …bxd1 with †a6!? when: two …s and a „ for the †) 25 †f3 a) 27 e7 ƒe5! (not 27...…xe7?? 28 …xd3 26 †f7+ ‡h8 27 …xb7ˆ. Èd5) 28 …d8 (28 Èd5 see line b) In view of this, Black played to 28...†a2 29 …f1 ‡f7 30 Èd5 †xb3 regain a pawn on the 25th move. 31 c5 …xe7 32 Èxe7 ‡xe7 33 …fd1 He also obtains the open e-file and †a4 (stopping the mating net). threatens to double …s on the 7th rank. b) 27 Èd5 ƒe5 28 e7 †a2 or 27 “It was hardly possible to calculate …d7 †a2 28 …bd1 †xb3. that the disadvantage of the weakened 23 exf5!? ‡ position weighs heavier in certain Heemsoth rejected 23 Èf4 variations,” commented Heemsoth. because of 23...…d2, but this does not After the game, Dr Hunter stated work because 24 †h5 fxe4 25 Èxe6 that 22...gxf5 was the decisive error, †b6+ 26 Èc5 saves the piece, e.g. “Seeing no risk of losing — and after 26...ƒd4+ 27 ‡h1 Black cannot here lay my mistake — I avoided the take the È because of the threat to f7. Game 30: Heemsoth-Hunter 153

However, White has no certainty of …d2 ƒxb3 nor 28 ƒxb7 ƒxb3! set winning the endgame after 23...fxe4 White on the royal road to victory, and 24 ƒxe4 †d4+ 25 †xd4 ƒxd4+ 26 28 …de1 ƒxb3 29 ƒd5 is countered ‡h1 ƒxc4 27 ƒxh7+ ‡xh7 28 bxc4 by 29...b5! White is left with only the b6 29 …fe1Ÿ. ghost of his advantage. 23...ƒc8 White can play more subtly but I Others are weaker as White can hold don’t see an obvious way to get real his material advantage. Two examples: winning chances. For example, if 26 a) 23...ƒd7 24 †g4+! ‡h8 25 …bc1 ƒb2 27 …ce1 Black forces …f2! †b6 26 c5 (26 ‡f1? †e3! 27 exchanges by 27...…d2, e.g. 28 …e2 …d1 …xf2+!) 26...†a6 27 ƒf1 ƒb5 ƒd4+ 29 ‡h1 …xe2 30 Èxe2 …xe2 28 Èb4 ƒxb4 29 ƒxb5 †xb5 30 31 …xf5 …e1+! when after 32 …f1 …xa2 ƒxc5+ 31 ‡g2‹. …xf1+ 33 ƒxf1 b6 he finds salvation b) 23...†d4+ 24 ‡h1 ƒxf5 (24... in an opposite-coloured ƒ ending a ƒd7 25 Èf4!ˆ) 25 …xf5 …d2 26 pawn down, while if 32 ƒf1 …b1 33 †h5! and, in view of the mate threat, …f3 …b2 and it’s not clear how White Black has no time to take the È. can improve his position. 24 Èf4?! Black must have his plan led to a Heemsoth rejected 24 †g4+ draw by perpetual check, so he saw no because of 24...‡h8 25 Èf4 †d4+ need to examine unclear lines leading 26 ‡h1 …ee2!, but White continues to endgames a pawn down. White, 27 †xe2! (27 †h5!? is also having won the game, probably never interesting.) 27...…xe2 28 Èxe2 †e3 found reason to re-examine notes of 29 Èxc3 †xc3 30 f6!, obtaining …s variations that never occurred. and two pawns for a †, with Black’s 25 ‡h1 ƒxf5 26 Èd5!! (D) ‡ in dire straits. This must be winning XIIIIIIIIY for White, sooner or later. Now Black 9-+-wqr+k+0 missed a defensive possibility. 24...ƒd4+?! B9+p+-+p+p0 Played to avoid the † exchange, 9-+-+-+-+0 but Black should have welcomed it. 9+-+N+l+-0 Of the various other lines examined 9-+Pvl-+-+0 by Heemsoth and Hunter, there is only 9+P+-+-zP-0 one we need to examine. 9r+-+-+LzP0 The right line for Black was 24... ƒxf5! 25 †xd8 …xd8 26 …bd1 ƒd4+ 9+R+Q+R+K0 27 ‡h1 (threatening both Èd5 and xiiiiiiiiy ƒxb7) when instead of 27...ƒc8? 28 ƒd5 (which should lead to a winning White’s play is very fine from this endgame for White), 27...ƒc2! gives point to the end. Now that it is still a good drawing chances. Neither 28 middlegame after all, he is back in the 154 64 Great Chess Games driving seat — but with Black’s …s and After 28...‡h8 29 ƒd5! Black can ƒs active, it is no easy matter to find have an early bath, e.g. 29...…ee2 30 the right line. Logic tells us that the È Èg4+! f6 (30...‡g8 31 ƒxf7+) 31 …xf6 must be activated to the maximum, …e1+ (31...ƒe4+ 32 …f3+) 32 …f1+. but this move offers the exchange and 29 Èd7+!? surrenders e2 to the black …s. Heemsoth thought White has no 26...ƒxb1 win after 29 Èxh7+ ƒxh7 30 †h8+ Not 26...…ee2 27 †xd4 …xg2 ƒg8 31 †h6+ ‡e7 32 …e1+ ‡d7 28 …xf5 when Black can resign, but 33 …d1+ ‡c8 34 …xd8+ …xd8. He 26...…xg2!? is interesting: gave the continuation 35 h4 …d1+ 36 a) Heemsoth planned another † ‡h2 …dd2, but after 37 †f8+ and an sacrifice: 27 …xf5!? …g1+ 28 †xg1 exchange of ƒs, the † and passed h- ƒxg1 29 ‡xg1, which both he and pawn are probably winning in fact. Dr Hunter assessed as strategically 29...‡g8 (D) won for White because of his central XIIIIIIIIY È, but instead of Heemsoth’s line 9-+-wqr+k+0 29...…f8 30 …bf1 †a8 31 Èf6+ ‡g7 32 …g5+ ‡h8 (32...‡h6? 33 h4ˆ) W9+p+N+p+p0 33 …h5! ‡g7 34 …xh7+ ‡g6 35 h4! 9-+-+-+l+0 …h8 36 h5+ ‡g5 37 Èe4+ ‡g4 38 9+-+-+-+-0 …f4+ ‡h3 39 …h4#, Black has the 9-+PwQ-+-+0 better defence 29...‡g7 30 …bf1 †d7 9+P+-+-zP-0 because the white queenside pawns 9r+-+-+LzP0 become vulnerable if he goes in for a liquidation on f7. 9+-+-+R+K0 b) If 27 ‡xg2 ƒe4+! 28 ‡h3 †g5! xiiiiiiiiy £...†h6+ (Heemsoth gave 28...…e6, but then 29 †xd4 …h6+ 30 ‡g4 …g6+ This is the position on which Dr 31 ‡f4ˆ) 29 …f4 …e6 30 …xe4 …xe4 Hunter had pinned his hopes, but he and Black’s activity is worth the pawn. totally misjudged it! Consider the Maybe White should try 28 …f3 here. statement in ‘British Chess’ (based 27 †xd4 ƒg6 on Heemsoth’s notes) that: “After 30 27...…xg2 does not work: 28 Èf6+ ƒxb7 …ae2!, threatening ...…e1, the ‡h8 29 Èd7+ ‡g8 30 ‡xg2 …e2+ tables are quickly turned and White (30...ƒg6 31 Èf6+ ‡h8 32 †b2!, or must seek the draw”. 31...‡f8 32 Èxh7+! ƒxh7 33 †h8+ On the contrary, after the awful ƒg8 34 †h6+ ‡e7 35 …e1+, or 30...…ae2?! White’s winning chances 33...‡e7 34 …e1+ wins) 31 ‡g1 ƒe4 markedly revive by 31 Èf6+ ‡f8 32 32 Èf6+ ‡g7 (32...†xf6 33 …xf6!) †h4 and Black does not have time to 33 Èh5+ ‡h6 34 †g7+ and mates. play ...…e1. Instead, given a glass of 28 Èf6+ ‡f8 his favourite whisky, Dr Hunter would Game 30: Heemsoth-Hunter 155 surely have found 30...ƒf5! 31 Èf6+ Èf6+ ‡g7 is also fatal on account of ‡h8!! (not 31...‡f8? 32 Èxh7+ the discovered check after 36 †e5!, ƒxh7 33 †h8+ ‡e7 34 …e1+ ‡d7 e.g. 36...†b8 37 Èe8+ ‡h6 38 35 …xe8 †xe8 36 ƒc6+!) 32 Èd5+ †g7+ ‡h5 39 Èf6# (Heemsoth). f6!! (not 32...‡g8, hoping for that c) 33...…h8 fails to 34 Èxh5+ perpetual, because of 33 ‡g1! and ‡h7 35 …xf7+! followed by mate. Black’s counterplay vanishes) and d) 33...†e7 34 Èxh5+ ‡h7 35 Black is saved, maybe even with some Èf6+ ‡g7 and now in the original advantage. For now if 33 †xf6+ †xf6 notes, 36 Èxe8+ †xe8 37 ƒd5! ‡h7 34 Èxf6 …ee2 with the notorious 38 h5?? is given, overlooking 38... “blind swine”, while if 33 ‡g1 Black ƒe4+! and White gets mated. Instead, sinks his anchor with 33...…e5. 36 h5ˆ as 36...…h8 does not work Also, where is the perpetual check because of 37 h6+ …xh6 38 †xh6+! and that Dr Hunter expected White to take? a È fork on g8 picks up the black †. True, a draw by repetition could come e) 33...…a6! was not considered about via 30 Èf6+ ‡f8 (30... ‡h8? 31 in the players’ notes but may be ƒd5!) 31 Èd7+ ‡g8 32 Èf6+ etc. the lesser evil: 34 Èxh5+ ‡g8 35 but after the first check White could Èf6+ …xf6 36 †xf6 †xf6 37 …xf6 transpose to the note to White’s 29th …e3. However, the … ending must be move by 31 Èxh7+! ƒxh7 32 †h8+ winning for White, given the extra ƒg8 33 †h6+ ‡e7 34 …e1+ ‡d7 35 pawn on each wing. …d1+ ‡c8 36 …xd8+ …xd8 37 h4. 34 Èxh5+ ‡g8 30 h4!! After 34...‡h7 Heemsoth found an The threat is 31 h5 ƒxh5 32 Èf6+ elegant refutation in 35 …xf7+! …xf7 etc., so Black’s reply is forced. 36 †xd8 ƒxh5 37 †d5 ƒg6 38 h5. 30...h5 31 Èf6+ ‡f8 32 †f4! 35 ƒd5! ‡h7 Threatening 33 †h6+ ‡e7 34 Èd5+ This is the only defence against ‡d7 (34...‡d6 35 …xf7) 35 ƒh3+ White’s double threat of 36 †xg6+ winning. Black now tries to conciliate and 36 ƒxf7+, because 35...†d6 fails White by returning the exchange, but to 36 Èf6+ ‡g7 37 Èe8+! …xe8 38 White builds up his position move by …xf7+ ‡g8 39 …d7+. move, renouncing distractions. 36 Èf6+ ‡g7 37 Èg4! 32...‡g7 33 †g5! The last and most decisive move After 33 Èxe8+ †xe8 the strong of the È, threatening 38 †h6+ ‡g8 black … hinders winning attempts, e.g. 39 Èf6#. 34 †f6+ (34 ƒxb7? †e2) 34...‡h7 37...†d6 35 †f3? (35 †f4 †e2) 35...…xg2!. The mate in two is thus prevented 33...…e7 but the h-pawn will strike the decisive a) Not 33...…ee2? 34 Èxh5+ and blow, as the culmination of the 35 †xd8. combination begun at move 30. b) 33...…f8 34 Èxh5+ ‡g8 35 38 h5 1–0 Game 31 White: Professor Vladimir Zagorovsky (USSR) Black: Eric Arnlind (Sweden) 8th CC World Championship Final, 1975 Taimanov Sicilian (B44)

The Players: Zagorovsky (1925-94) 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Èxd4 was already a master when he took up Èc6 5 Èb5 d6 6 c4 Èf6 7 È1c3 a6 postal play in the 1950s. He became the 8 Èa3 ƒe7 9 ƒe2 0–0 10 0–0 b6 4th CC World Champion in the 1960s This form of the Taimanov and was also a FIDE IM. He continued Variation was considered at that time to play at the highest level up to his to be reliable for Black. death, competing in five consecutive 11 Èc2 world championship finals with a good Nowadays only 11 ƒe3, 11 ƒf4 placing in each. He also led the USSR and 11 f4 are considered here by theory. team to Olympiad success and played White’s plan is to hold the e-pawn by in numerous invitational GM tourna- f2-f3 and transfer his È to e3 where ments with distinction. it restrains Black’s ...d5 counterplay. Arnlind (1922-98) had a long ca- However, this has gone out of fashion reer, including two world champion- compared with lines where White plays ship finals many years apart. He earned f2-f4 and posts his ƒ on e3. the IM title in 1959 and became a 11...ƒb7 (D) CC-GM in 1968. His best result was XIIIIIIIIY first prize in the BdF-25 German jubi- 9r+-wq-trk+0 lee (1971-74) where he won a classic game against Russian GM Yudovich, W9+l+-vlpzpp0 which can be found in my earlier book 9pzpnzppsn-+0 ‘Winning At Correspondence Chess’. 9+-+-+-+-0 About this game: Professor Za- 9-+P+P+-+0 gorovsky only failed on tiebreak to 9+-sN-+-+-0 regain the world title. This game il- 9PzPN+LzPPzP0 lustrates his logical positional style with the white pieces. (With Black, he 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 preferred unusual variations and was xiiiiiiiiy willing to ‘mix it’ in complications designed to negate White’s advantage 12 Èe3 of the move, which is particularly pro- 12 f3 might be met by 12...d5. nounced in modern master CC.) Earlier, White had failed to get any Game 31: Zagorovsky-Arnlind 157 advantage by 12 b3 †c7 13 ƒb2, e.g. Defending the e-pawn while Robatsch-Penrose, Varna OL 1962, keeping the f-pawn’s options open. went 13...…fd8 14 Èe3 …ac8 15 …c1 14...ƒc6 †b8 16 ‡h1 ƒf8 17 Èg4 Èxg4 The game M.Kopec-V.Palatchik, 18 ƒxg4 b5 19 cxb5 axb5 20 Èxb5 USSR corr 1991, showed that 14... ƒa6 21 a4 d5 22 exd5 …xd5 23 †e1 b5!? is playable immediately: 15 f3 Èb4 and Black has broken out with a bxc4 16 ƒxc4 …fd8 17 ‡h1 d5! 18 temporary pawn sacrifice (½–½, 45). exd5 exd5 19 ƒd3 ƒd6 20 …c1 †b8 In a game played shortly after 21 †a4 (21 g3?! ƒxg3) and now the present one, Zagorovsky tried Black should have played 21...ƒe5! unsuccessfully to improve for White: according to Kopec. 14 …c1 …ac8 15 ‡h1 Èe5 16 f3 15 f3 b5 †b8 17 †e1 Èg6 18 Èe3 Èf4 19 A good move, said Zagorovsky: †d2 Èxe2 and Black held the draw “The advance ...d5 was impossible, by a waiting strategy in Zagorovsky- so instead Black develops a queenside M.Roos, Europe-Echecs 20th Jubilee initiative. White cannot count on corr 1979. any opening advantage; the game is 12...†c7 13 ƒd2 approaching equality.” Zagorovsky doesn’t fianchetto 16 …c1 bxc4 17 ƒxc4 †a7 18 ‡h1 his ƒ but develops more rapidly by …ab8 19 b3 …fd8?! delaying b2-b3. He gets sufficient con- This dubious move was suggested trol of d5 but does leave Black free to as unclear by GM Polugaevsky make an aggressive move with his È. in an early edition of ‘ECO’ but 13...Èd4 Zagorovsky refutes it. He said Black Here the È supports the thematic underestimated the effectiveness of advance ...b5 but 13...Èe5 looks more the reply and should instead have obvious, to threaten the e-pawn, and it chosen 19...ƒb5 with active play on is surprising that Zagorovsky’s notes the queenside. don’t mention the possibility. Then 14 20 Èed5! (D) f4 is too loosening after 14...Èg6 so XIIIIIIIIY 14 f3! followed by queenside play was 9-tr-tr-+k+0 probably his intention, keeping the f3- f4 possibility in reserve. Then: 9B wq-+-vlpzpp0 a) 14...†c5? falls into a trap, 9p+lzppsn-+0 15 b4! †xb4? 16 Èxd5! †c5 17 9+-+N+-+-0 ƒb4ˆ. 9-+LsnP+-+0 b) 14...…fd8! may be met by 15 9+PsN-+P+-0 …c1 (intending the set-up b4, †b3, 9P+-vL-+PzP0 …fd1, ƒe1-f2/g3) though it looks a bit slow. 9+-tRQ+R+K0 14 ƒd3 xiiiiiiiiy 158 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY This is only a pseudo-sacrifice: after 20...exd5 21 exd5 White regains 9-+-tr-+-+0 his piece because of the threat ƒe3. 9+l+-wqp+-0 Still, Black should have taken the È. W9p+rzp-snkzp0 20...Èb5? 9+-+-zp-zp-0 20...exd5 21 exd5 (£ƒe3) 21... 9-+L+P+-+0 Èxb3! 22 ƒxb3 ƒd7 23 …e1 ƒf5 9+P+RvLP+-0 would have given Black chances of equalizing, according to Zagorovsky. 9P+-wQ-+PzP0 After the text move, White has a clear 9+-+R+-+K0 advantage. xiiiiiiiiy 21 Èxe7+ †xe7 22 ƒg5 h6 23 ƒh4 31 a4! Èxc3 24 …xc3 ƒb7 25 …d3 31 h4 might look strong, but White’s positional advantage is Black could answer 31...g4!, when now evident. If now 25...…d7? 26 e5. the complications might favour him. 25...g5 Professor Zagorovsky explained that Black tries to complicate in order White’s plan is not to get involved to loosen the noose around his neck, in combinations but to use positional but his struggle is in vain. He could threats. hold back ...g5 hoping for a better Now if Black tries to sit tight White moment — for instance by playing will prepare a decisive advance on the 25...…bc8. Then: queenside, e.g. 31...…d7 32 a5 †d8 a) 26 †d2 g5! 27 ƒg3 d5 or 26 33 ƒb6 †b8 34 †e2 †c8 35 …c3 …e1 (not 26 …f2? Èxe4!) 26...a5!? followed by …dc1, †d3 and b4-b5. 27 …e2 a4 28 …ed2 g5! 29 ƒg3 d5. 31...Èe8 32 ƒd5 …cc8 33 ƒb6 b) Arnlind maybe felt he had …d7 34 ƒc4 f5?! better chances to defend with the Weakening, but what can he do? game continuation than after 26 35 exf5+ ‡xf5 36 …e3! ƒxf6 gxf6 27 †d2 ‡h7 28 …d1. This forces material gains. Note that the trick 26...†xf6 27 36...…xc4 …xd6 ƒxe4!?, intending 28 fxe4? If 36...‡f6 37 …xe5! ‡xe5 38 …xd6 29 †xd6 …xc4 30 †d3 …d4 ƒd4+ ‡f5 39 †d3+ or 36...‡g6 37 31 †xa6 †e5 with counterplay (e.g. †d3+ ‡g7 38 …xe5!. Or otherwise 32 †b7 †f4!), fails to 28 ƒxa6 and 37 †d3+ ‡f6 38 ƒxa6 and the White’s queenside pawns would win. queenside pawns win. 26 ƒg3 e5 37 bxc4 Èf6 38 …de1 ‡g6 39 c5 This further weakening is necessary dxc5 40 †c2+ e4 41 fxe4 †e5 42 as otherwise White would soon open †xc5 †b2 43 †f5+ ‡g7 44 ƒa5 the kingside with f3-f4. 1–0 27 †d2 …bc8 28 …d1 …c6 29 ƒf2 Black resigned because of the ‡h7 30 ƒe3 ‡g6 (D) deadly threat of ƒc3. Game 32 White: Juan Sebastian Morgado (Argentina) Black: Yakov Borisovich Estrin (USSR) 10 th CC World Championship Final, 1978-84 Queen’s Pawn, Pereyra System (A48)

The Players: Estrin was introduced in 0–0, h3, c3 and the queen’s „ is Game 21. Morgado won the GM title developed on d2 in most cases. 4 c4 by taking second place in this cham- would allow Estrin to reach a main pionship. In the mid-1990s he was line of his favourite Grünfeld Defence one of the pioneers of email CC with after 4...0–0 5 Èc3 d5. both ICCF and IECG. His ‘Ajedrez de 4...Èh5! Estilo’ is one of the leading Spanish- Most of Pereyra’s opponents chose language chess websites. 4...d5 (transposing to the Barry) and About this game: I include this some played 4...d6. Estrin takes the flawed battle partly for the unusual game down independent paths, but opening and middlegame, and partly this cost him a lot of reflection time. because of the background story. 5 ƒe5 1 d4 5 ƒg5 h6 is the alternative: Morgado opened 1 e4 in other a) 6 ƒh4 g5 7 ƒg3 d6 8 †d3 games but wanted to avoid Estrin’s Èxg3 9 hxg3 c6 10 e4 e5 11 dxe5 theoretical knowledge of open games. dxe5 12 †xd8+ ‡xd8 13 ƒc4 ‡e7 1...Èf6 2 Èf3 g6 3 ƒf4 14 Èd1! Èd7 15 Èe3 Èc5= and Morgado decided to play an Black eventually won a tough struggle irregular queen’s pawn game that was in Pereyra-Rinaldi, LIPEAP-15 the patent of his countryman, Manuel Peruvian Jubilee corr 1988-91. White Pereyra Puebla. This is similar to the tried 16 Èd2 (£ 17 g4!) but Black Barry Attack, which is popular among got in first with 16...g4. British amateurs. The Barry goes 3 b) 6 ƒd2 d6 7 Èe4?! (White Èc3 when Black must either play should have played 7 e4.) 7...e5 8 3...d5, or allow White to carry out his dxe5 dxe5 9 ƒc3 †e7 10 †d2 Èc6 “threat” to transpose to a 11 Èg3 ƒg4 12 Èxh5 ƒxh5 13 after 3...ƒg7 4 e4 d6. e4 …d8 14 †e3 0–0å was 0–1, 29 3...ƒg7 4 Èc3!? in K.Vickers-S.Gerzadowicz, USCF This is the Pereyra System. In the Absolute Ch 1986; that game is in normal London System, White plays Gerzadowicz’s ‘Journal of A Chess 4 e3, 5 ƒe2 (or ƒc4) followed by Master’. 160 64 Great Chess Games

5...f6 6 g4?! bad position of the black ‡ on h6.” Better 6 ƒg3 d6. He said that “the normal move (if 6...fxe5 7 gxh5 exd4 8 Èxd4 d5 one can speak of ‘normal’ in this Several unclear alternatives are position) would be 10 Èb3 c6 (or 8...c5 9 Èf3 †a5 10 †d3 gxh5 11 10...d4 11 Èe4 ƒf5 12 ƒg2 unclear) …g1 ƒf6 12 ƒh3 Èc6 13 ‡f1¢, or 11 hxg6 0–0 12 gxh7+ ‡h8 strongly 8...e5 9 Èf3 d6 10 …g1¢, or 8...c6 threatening ...†f6.” 9 …g1 e5 10 Èf3¢, or 8...0–0? 9 10...exd4 11 gxh7 ‡f8!? hxg6 hxg6 10 †d3‹, or 8...Èc6 9 Another possibility in what Èxc6¢ (Rinaldi). Morgado called “this tactical inferno” Maybe Black’s best is 8...e6 9 …g1 is 11...dxc3 12 …xg7 and now not (9 †d3 †f6 10 0–0–0¢) 9...†f6 10 12...cxb2? (or 12...ƒe6 13 †d4 cxb2 Èdb5 0–0Œ. 14 †xb2 Èd7 15 ƒh3!) 13 …g8+ 9 …g1?! ‡e7 14 …xd8ˆ, so Black would Morgado: “This seemed strong to play 12...‡f8, transposing to the note me but the evaluation was incorrect”. to Black’s 12th move below. 9 Èb3 is probably better, and if Neither player saw at the time 9...c6 10 †d3 ƒf5 11 e4 dxe4 12 the strongest continuation, which is †xd8+ ‡xd8 13 0–0–0+ ‡c7 14 11...…f8!!. Then if 12 …xg7 †f6 ƒg2 ƒxc3 15 bxc3 although in any when the white position collapses, or case Black’s game is superior. 12 †d3 †f6! with the main point 13 9...e5 (D) Èxd5? †xf2+ 14 ‡d1 †xg1‰. Or XIIIIIIIIY if 12 Èxd5 ƒh8 13 e4 †h4!. 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 12 …xg7 ‡xg7 Other fantastic variations are W9zppzp-+-vlp0 produced by the line 12...dxc3 13 9-+-+-+p+0 †d4 cxb2 14 …g8+ …xg8 15 h8† 9+-+pzp-+P0 bxa1†+ 16 †xa1 …xh8 (16...†g5 9-+-sN-+-+0 17 †hf6+ †xf6 18 †xf6+ ‡e8 19 9+-sN-+-+-0 †e5+ ‡f7 20 †h5+ also probably 9PzPP+PzP-zP0 draws) 17 †xh8+ ‡e7 18 †h4+ with a draw by perpetual check 9tR-+QmKLtR-0 — Morgado. xiiiiiiiiy Also 16...d4!? 17 †h6+ and 15... …xh8 16 †xh8+ ‡f7 17 †h7+ ‡e6 10 hxg6?! 18 ƒh3+ ‡d6 19 †h6+ ‡c5 20 Morgado was “seduced by the †e3+ d4 21 †a3+ ‡c6 22 ƒg2+ position that arises after move 14 but ‡d7 23 †h3+ are probably draws, but I did not diagnose the consequences in the latter variation 17...‡d6 seems well. It appeared to me that White to offer Black winning chances. had compensation because of the White’s 12th move had to be repeat- Game 32: Morgado-Estrin 161 ed by registered post due to its having perpetual check, but through this got lost in the mails; this was a com- return of material Black retains his mon frustration when playing against advantage (White cannot play 20 USSR opponents. On account of the Èxe7 …hd8 21 Èf5+ ‡f6‰). serious postal problems, Morgado At this point, Black (who had spent later requested that both he and Estrin 57 days thinking time so far) originally be obliged to play by registered post sent a card with an impossible move, for the remainder of the game, which which incurred a 5-day penalty and was approved by the Tournament Di- caused him to exceed the time limit. rector. After move 21 Morgado sent (In ICCF postal play, it is necessary to all his moves by registered post with exceed the time limit twice before you “advice of delivery”. lose the game.) This meant that a new 13 †xd4+ ‡xh7 14 †d3+ ‡h6 time count started for Estrin, who had (D) 30 days more to reach move 29. XIIIIIIIIY 20 †xe7+ †xe7 21 Èxe7 …cf8! 22 9rsnlwq-+-tr0 …d1 22 0–0–0 was the alternative, with W9zppzp-+-+-0 a similar position. 9-+-+-+-mk0 22...…xh2 23 …d7 …fxf2 24 Èd5+ 9+-+p+-+-0 ‡f8 25 Èc3 …f7 26 …d8+ ‡g7 27 9-+-+-+-+0 ‡d2 …e7 9+-sNQ+-+-0 The game began at the end of October 9PzPP+PzP-zP0 1978 and it was now April 1981. 28 b3 b5?! 9tR-+-mKL+-0 Here Morgado claimed Black xiiiiiiiiy exceeded the time limit again, but this was rejected by the appeal judge. This was the position Morgado Meanwhile, this move gives White envisaged at move 10. hope. A better plan was 28...‡f7 and 15 ƒh3!? ...‡e6, preparing ...…d7. The best possibility. If 15 0–0–0 29 a3 a5 †g5+ 16 f4 †xf4+ 17 e3 †c4 18 On this 29th move, the last of the †d2 †h4Œ. new count, Estrin spent one day. On 15...Èc6! 16 ƒxc8 …xc8 17 Èxd5 Morgado’s calculations it seems to be Without this move, the checks of irrefutable that the Russian had used the white † would be ineffectual. 31 days on moves 19-29 and therefore 17...†g5 should have forfeited the game. ICCF A critical moment. The position is did not agree, so the game continued extraordinarily rich in possibilities. with Estrin having a further 30 days 18 †h3+ ‡g7 19 †d7+ Èe7! to reach move 39, on top of any time It appears that White has a accumulated. 162 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 29...c5!? was possible because if 9-+R+-+-+0 White captures on b5, his ‡ gets W9+-+-+-mk-0 trapped on the back rank by the 9-+-+-+-+0 doubled …s and he will probably lose all his pawns. But White would 9+N+-+-+-0 answer 30 b4 as in the game and 9-+-+-+-+0 30...a5 transposes to the next note. 9+p+-+-+-0 30 b4 axb4 9-+P+r+-tr0 30...c5 was possible here too but 9+-mK-+-+-0 after 31 bxc5 b4 32 axb4 axb4 33 xiiiiiiiiy Èd5 …exe2+ 34 ‡xd3 …xc2 35 …d7+ (35 Èxb4?? …hd2+) White no accumulated time left from the probably has a draw. If he is ever previous count, and apply the time- able to give a check on d6, then the doubling rule (later abolished) that … is protected and he can play Èxb4, after 12 days reflection time, every while if the black ‡ stays back it extra day counted double. On this cannot get out of check. basis, Morgado counted 24 days for 31 axb4 c5?! Estrin, making a total of 33: exceeding Objectively, this is an error that the allowance by 3 days. The three permits the liquidation of the game, days difference between when Estrin but Estrin was presumably concerned actually received Morgado’s move chiefly with finding a way not to lose. and when he said he received it Forcing exchanges suited that policy. are doubled to 6 days and that is 31...c6 32 …d6 …c7 would have what makes the difference between kept chances for Black, but not 32... exceeding the time limit or not. …h6?! 33 …xh6! ‡xh6 34 e4! ‡g6 Since Estrin’s conditional left only 35 ‡e3 ‡f6 36 Èe2! followed by bare ‡s on the board, Morgado had to Èd4 with an excellent disposition of stop playing and make his final claim, the white forces. The white ‡ can go which was ultimately refused. Estrin’s to d3 and threaten c2-c4 (Morgado). conditional had its desired effect and 32 …c8! ICCF declared the game a draw, This is a clear drawing variation. presumably on the grounds that you 32...cxb4 33 Èxb5 cannot win on time with a bare ‡? Now the pawn on c2 is defended. The row and the decision 33...…exe2+ 34 ‡c1 b3 (D) ½–½!? Argentina’s ICCF vice-president Estrin proposed the continual Carlos Germán Dieta made an official conditional 35 Èd4 …xc2+ 36 Èxc2 complaint but it was rejected. Estrin …xc2+ 37 …xc2 bxc2 38 ‡xc2 and produced a hand-written certificate offered a draw. Simultaneously he from a Russian post office official exceeded the time limit for the fourth to support his case. Dieta claimed occasion, if you agree that he had that Estrin’s certificate must be false Game 32: Morgado-Estrin 163 because it showed a Sunday receipt There is not room in a book date for a registered letter, and like this to present all the evidence asked why ICCF accepted the postal that Morgado later published in his certificates produced by the Russians magazine. It is impossible to prove and not by the Argentinian PO. anything conclusively because many Of course in postal chess, where of the leading protagonists are dead time is concerned, a great deal — not only Estrin himself, but also depends on the honesty of the players. tournament director Karl-Heinz Boese If Estrin was lying, either about when (West Germany) and appeal judge he received Morgado’s move 29 or Dr Vandorffy (Hungary). It must be about move 32, then he should have remembered that this was the time of lost on time, and the certificates the Cold War and Dr Vandorffy was produced by the Argentinians showed living in the Soviet bloc. that he was lying in both cases. ICCF showed — if not political bias There was already reason to believe — then certainly an excessive reluctance Estrin was dishonest. In the 7th World to enforce its own rules in the face of Championship Final (1972-75), which several pieces of evidence that indicated he won by half a point from Josef Boey a Soviet player was cheating in the world of Belgium, Estrin’s game against his championship, and not for the first time. compatriot M.M.Yudovich does not bear Ultimately, they let the matter rest for serious scrutiny. over a year before announcing their At move 13, Estrin made a mistake decision in favour of Estrin. and stood clearly worse. At move 20, The principal factor, judging from Yudovich exceeded the time limit for a comment made to me by a senior the first time and on move 30, still ICCF official of the time, is that they holding some advantage, Yudovich lost wanted the world championship to on time; this free point helped to ensure be won “at the board” and not on a Soviet victory. At that time Yudovich a technicality, which might have was a senior figure in the USSR chess happened in the “worst case” that establishment and co-author with Morgado was awarded a win and grandmaster Kotov of the propaganda Dr Palciauskas had lost his critical book ‘The Soviet ’. game to Sanakoev. If Morgado In Estrin’s defence in that case, if an had not been in contention, maybe opponent really wants to lose to you, it Estrin probably would have been is hard to stop him — but the evidence forfeited. As it turned out, Palciauskas of collusion is strong. Most likely, the saved the crucial game and won the two Russians had agreed to play slowly championship by a whole point. Had in order to see how the event shaped up Morgado been awarded the win that and which of them would be in a better was his right, the top placings in the position to win the tournament. Then tournament would not, as it happens, they arranged the result accordingly. have been altered. Game 33 White: Julio Alberto Muhana (Argentina) Black: Juan Sebastian Morgado (Argentina) 10 th CC World Championship Final, 1978 Bird’s Opening (A02) XIIIIIIIIY The Players: Julio Muhana, who 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 retired from play after the world 9zpp+pzppvlp0 championship, received the ICCF B9-+-+-snp+0 international master title in 1984, but probably should have received it 9+-zp-+-+-0 much earlier when he won the Latin- 9-+-+-zPP+0 American (CADAP) zonal tournament 9+P+-zP-+-0 to qualify for the final. GM Morgado, 9PvLPzP-+-zP0 who was runner-up to him in that 9tRN+QmKLsNR0 event, has already been introduced in xiiiiiiiiy connection with Game 32. About this game: After the contro- versial Game 32, it is best to see a Muhana also played Bird’s game showing the positive side of Opening with an early b3 and g4 Morgado’s play. I saw this game for against English grandmaster Keith the first time when I was editing the Richardson in the same event, official book of the first ten CC World winning eventually, although he got Championships. I was considerably a poor opening. Morgado considers surprised by the fierce battle between that the idea is quite interesting but the Argentinian rivals. questionable because of the loss of Could one really play in this “cof- time and weakening of the kingside. fee-house” style in a world final? The 5...Èc6 6 ƒg2 d5 7 g5 Èh5 8 Èc3 notes are based on analysis supplied White will later regret that he did by Morgado at that time and when I not take the opportunity to exchange interviewed him in 1996. ƒs on g7. However, he is attacking 1 f4 Èf6 2 e3 g6 3 b3 c5 4 ƒb2 ƒg7 the black d-pawn and the h5-È seems 5 g4!? (D) offside. If Black proceeds quietly, Game 33: Muhana-Morgado 165

Muhana’s ideas could work. Instead Other possibilities include 11 †e2 Black seizes the initiative. e5, 11 exd4 cxd4, 11 †f3 e5 and 11 8...ƒf5! †f3 c4!. “This game was played with 11...e5 the inspiration of Tal, about pawns The alternative was 11...ƒg4 but and attacking the ‡,” commented after 12 …f1 (£ƒf3) the game is not Morgado. so clear says Morgado. 9 …c1 12 Èg3 (D) The first point is that Black wins Simple play by 12 0-0 exf4 13 material in the line 9 ƒxd5 Èb4 10 exf4 leaves White at a disadvantage. ƒxb7 Èxc2+ 11 ‡f1 Èxa1. White His b2-ƒ is shut out of the game, cannot hope for compensation with and his offside È on a4 has more his ‡ in the open air. problems (once Black defends c5) 9...d4 10 Èa4 than the black È on h5, which is White loses a pawn in the variation attacking f4. 10 Èd5 dxe3 11 ƒxg7 exd2+ 12 Therefore, Muhana decides to †xd2 Èxg7. Also 10 exd4 cxd4 intensify the complications. If Black and 10 Èce2? d3 and 10 Èe4 †a5 now exchanges on g3, White’s centre 11 Èg3 dxe3! are awkward for him. would be bolstered and he might be Exchanging on c6 would weaken able to make use of the h-file later. Black’s pawns but the weakening XIIIIIIIIY effect on White’s kingside would be 9r+-wq-trk+0 more severe. So Muhana probably found the best move. B9zpp+-+pvlp0 10...0–0! 9-+n+-+p+0 Morgado rejected 10...†a5 because 9+-zp-zplzPn0 of 11 c3! and decided to get his ‡ into 9N+-zp-zP-+0 safety before opening the game. 9+P+-zP-sN-0 11 Èe2 9PvLPzP-+LzP0 Morgado analysed many complex variations here, favourable to Black. 9+-tRQmK-+R0 For example: xiiiiiiiiy a) 11 Èxc5 dxe3! 12 dxe3?? †a5+. 12...exf4!! b) 11 Èf3 e5 12 fxe5 (If 12 Èxc5 This complicated piece sacrifice dxe3 or 12 exd4 Èxf4 or 12 ƒa3 gives Black a strong attack. exf4 13 ƒxc5 …e8) 12...Èxe5 13 13 Èxf5 †xg5 14 ƒxc6 gxf5! Èxe5 ƒxe5 14 ƒxb7 †xg5. The È is more important than c) 11 ƒxc6 bxc6 12 †f3 (If 12 the ƒ. Èxc5 dxe3 or 12 Èf3 ƒg4) 12... 15 ƒxb7?! dxe3 13 dxe3 ƒxb2 14 Èxb2 †a5+. This was an important moment as 166 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY White misses his best chance to make a fight of it by 15 ƒf3. Then Morgado 9-+-+r+k+0 intended 15...fxe3; although 15...dxe3 9zpL+-+pvlp0 also seems playable, he wanted to B9-+-+-+-+0 keep his king’s ƒ. 9+-zp-+pwqn0 After 15...fxe3, White dare not 9N+-zp-+-+0 take a second piece by 16 ƒxh5? 9+P+-tr-+-0 because Black replies 16...†h4+ 17 ‡e2 and now 17...d3+! 18 ‡xe3 9PvLPwQ-+-zP0 …fe8+ is even stronger than the line 9+-+R+K+R0 in Morgado’s note, 17...†xh5+ 18 xiiiiiiiiy ‡d3 c4+. 20...…8e4! However, it seems to me that 16 Black is playing for mate. ‡f1 would be less suicidal. Black Also 20...†g4, with the double still has to prove a win, e.g. Black threat ...…f3+ and ...…e2, would has three pawns and good play after have won. Morgado then gave the 16...exd2 17 …g1 †f4 18 …g2 variation 21 …g1 …f3+ 22 ƒxf3 Èf6 19 …xd2 Èg4 20 ‡g1 but his †xf3+ 23 †f2 †xd1+ 24 ‡g2 advantage is not as clear as in the †e2. game. White’s ‡ has reached relative 21 ƒxe4 fxe4 22 †f2 †g4 safety and he can play. This is stronger than the immed- 15...…ae8 iate ...…f3. This was the position Black had 23 …d2 …f3 24 …g1 †h3+ 25 ‡e1 aimed for. He now has every piece …xf2 26 …xf2 e3 27 …fg2 ‡f8 28 active on open lines and it would be …e2 surprising if White could survive. After 28 Èxc5 Èf4! 29 …xg7 16 †f3 fxe3 17 ‡f1 †xh2 30 Èe6+! ‡e7!, mate is 17 ‡d1 exd2 18 …a1 …e3 is very unavoidable. bad for White, whose …s are not 28...Èf4 29 …g3 †h4 0-1 contributing to the war effort. This was a highly original game 17...exd2 18 …d1 …e3 19 †f2 …fe8 — with White’s unorthodox opening 20 †xd2 (D) matched by Black’s daring attack. Game 34 White: Igor Aleksandrovich Kopylov (USSR) Black: Sergey Ivanovich Korolëv (USSR) Dobrovolsky Memorial, 1981-83 Sicilian Defence, Nimzowitsch Variation (B29)

The Players: Both these ICCF grand- cosmonaut-pilot Georgi Dobrovolsky masters are often confused with other (1928–1971) was commander of the Russian players having similar names. fateful Soyuz 11 mission. Along with Igor Kopylov, who won the 17th cosmonauts Volkov and Patsaev, USSR CC Championship (1986-88), he perished when a valve on their was a finalist in the 13th World Cham- spacecraft malfunctioned on re-entry. pionship and again in the 16th Final, 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 Èf6 which is still in progress. His name- This is the provocative and rare sake, CC-IM Nikolai G. Kopylov died Nimzowitsch Variation. a few years ago; ‘ECO’ incorrectly 3 e5 Èd5 4 Èc3 e6 (D) attributed this game to N.Kopylov. XIIIIIIIIY S.Korolëv (approximate pronun- 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 ciation “Korolyoff”) has also played in many important events and is in W9zpp+p+pzpp0 the 17th World Championship Final, 9-+-+p+-+0 which began in March 2002. He gets 9+-zpnzP-+-0 confused with CC-IM A.V. Korolëv 9-+-+-+-+0 and with CC-GM A.P. Korelov. 9+-sN-+N+-0 About this game: This is one of 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 the best-known of all modern CC games, but the finish makes it too spe- 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 cial to omit. For example, it was one xiiiiiiiiy of only three CC games to be included by Burgess, Emms and Nunn in their 5 Èe4!? ‘The Mammoth Book of the World’s Kopylov decides to bypass the Greatest Chess Games’, though they critical complications which arise wrongly stated that it was played in a from 5 Èxd5 exd5 6 d4, when USSR Championship. Black usually sacrifices a pawn by In fact, this was the decisive 6...Èc6 (6...d6!? 7 ƒb5+) 7 dxc5 game in another Soviet event, the ƒxc5 8 †xd5 †b6 (8...d6!? 9 exd6 Dobrovolsky Memorial. Soviet †b6 is probably the last hope for the 168 64 Great Chess Games

Nimzowitsch variation) in order to here, e.g. ‘NCO’ cites 7 d4!? cxd4 8 detain the white ‡ in the centre after 9 c5 Èd5 9 ƒg5¢ Smirin-Bruk, Israel ƒc4 ƒxf2+ 10 ‡e2 0–0 11 …f1 ƒc5 Cht 1996; 6...Èf4 is also possible. 12 Èg5. White probably has some 7 a3 †a5 advantage because of the weakness at This move is criticised by Kopylov f7, but to prove it you have to analyse in ‘Informator 36’ but despite the very accurately and Kopylov may result of the present game Korolëv did have been afraid his opponent would not abandon his variation. know an improvement. If 7...Èa6 8 d4Ÿ — Kopylov. The main line goes 12...Èd4+ 13 8 †b3 ‡d1 Èe6 when the critical contin- Not 8 …b1 Èa2! and 8 ƒe2 Èd4 uation 14 Èe4 d6 15 exd6 …d8 9 0–0 Èxf3+ 10 ƒxf3 Èc6! 11 b4!? occurred in D.Bryson-Dr F.Baumbach †c7 12 bxc5 †xe5 13 …b1 Èd4 14 on first board in the friendly match ƒb2 ƒxc5 turned out OK for Black ICCF v Perthshire played during the in A.O’Duill-Korolëv, CCOL 11 1994 ICCF Congress in Scotland. prelims 1987-92. Bryson-Baumbach continued 16 Kopylov said that 8 Èc3 was †f5!? (16 ƒd3 ƒxd6 17 †h5 is the better, e.g. 8...d5 9 exd6 ƒxd6 when: line normally recommended in theory a) 10 d3 Èe5 11 Èg5! ƒe7 12 f4! books.) 16...ƒxd6 17 Èxd6 †xd6+ Èec6 13 ƒe3 Èd4! 14 ƒxd4 cxd4 18 ƒd3 Èf8 19 †xf7+ ‡h8 20 †h5 15 axb4 †xb4 16 …a4 †xb2 17 Èe2 (£…xf8+; the old move was †f4.) ƒd7¢ led to a draw in 51 moves in 20...g6 21 †h6! ƒf5 (21...ƒg4+ 22 D.Barash-Korolëv, 17th USSR CC Ch ‡e1 †d4 23 †e3!) 22 ƒd2! …d7 1986-88. (22...ƒg4+ 23 ‡c1 ‡g8 24 ƒc3 b) 10 Èb5 ƒb8 11 b3 Èd4 12 …d7 25 †h4‹) 23 ƒxf5 gxf5 24 Èbxd4 cxd4 13 ƒb2 Èc6 14 b4 †f5 †xd6 …xd6 25 …xf5 …ad8 26 …f2 15 b5 Èe5 16 ƒxd4 0–0 17 ƒxe5 Èe6 27 ‡e1 Èc5 28 ƒf4 …e6+ 29 ƒxe5 18 d4 with initiative to White; …e2 …de8 30 …xe6 Èxe6 and now I am not sure if this is Kopylov’s White avoided the traps 31 ƒe3?? analysis or a later game he played. Èd4! and 31 ƒe5+?? Èg7, Instead 8...d5 9 exd6 e5 Bryson played 31 ƒg3 and Black Black should play 9...f5 10 Èxc5 resigned. †xc5 11 axb4 †xb4 with at best After this digression, we return to a slight advantage to White said Kopylov-Korolëv. Kopylov. Amazing complications 5...Èc6 now follow as both players soon 5...f5!? is an interesting idea which forsake the right to castle. was successful in Karker-Hamarat, 10 …b1 Èa6 11 g4?! 15th CC World Ch sf2 1984-90. Later Kopylov was a bit doubtful 6 c4 Èdb4!? about the correctness of his play 6...Èb6 is reckoned to be critical but no clear refutation has been Game 34: I.Kopylov-S.Korolëv 169 demonstrated yet. White’s idea is to of thing Black wants is 15 g5? h4! 16 maintain the d6-pawn by preventing Èxh4 …xh4 17 ƒxh4 †g4! or 15 the move ...f5. If 11...ƒxg4? then 12 gxh5? f5 16 ƒh3 …xh5. †xb7 is awkward to meet. 15...hxg4 16 …e1 ‡d8 17 Èe5 11...†d8 12 d4 (D) Èxe5 18 ƒxe5 †c6 19 Èg5! …h5! XIIIIIIIIY (D) 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lmk-vl-+0 B9zpp+-+pzpp0 9n+nzP-+-+0 W9zpp+-+pzp-0 9+-zp-zp-+-0 9n+qzP-+-+0 9-+PzPN+P+0 9+-zp-vL-sNr0 9zPQ+-+N+-0 9-+Pzp-+p+0 9-zP-+-zP-zP0 9zPQ+-+-+-0 9+RvL-mKL+R0 9-zP-mK-zP-zP0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+-+-tRL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 12...exd4?! If 12...cxd4 13 c5 (Kopylov) 13... This ingenious counterplay is a Èxc5 14 Èxc5 †a5+ 15 ƒd2 †xc5 natural sequel to Black’s 14th. Not 16 Èg5 †xd6 17 †xf7+ (17 Èxf7? 19...†xh1 20 Èxf7+ ‡d7 (20...‡e8 †g6 forking the È and the b1–…) 21 Èxh8) when White probably has 17...‡d8 18 †c4 ‡e8 White can several winning lines. 21 †b5+ †c6 choose between a draw by repetition 22 Èxh8 (Kopylov) is less conclusive or 19 ƒg2 with good compensation than 21 Èxh8 ƒxd6 (if 21...†f3 22 for the exchange — Nunn. †b5+ with a tempo up on Kopylov’s 12...ƒxd6 is probably the critical line) 22 ƒxd6 ‡xd6 23 †g3+ line: 13 d5 Èd4 14 Èxd4 exd4 15 (Nunn). 21 ƒe2! is also strong. †b5+ ‡f8 is unclear according to 20 ƒxg7! Nunn. Kopylov intended to continue 20 Èxf7+? ‡e8! traps the È. 16 h3 †e7 17 ƒg2 f5 18 ƒg5!. 20...ƒxd6! 13 ƒf4 †d7 14 ƒg3 h5! The only reasonable alternative is Black wants to get another piece 20...ƒd7 (covering b5) but after 21 into the fight and with his queenside ƒxf8 †xh1 22 ƒd3 †g2 White has all gummed up, the king’s … is the 23 …e2! £f3 or ƒe4. most likely candidate! If 14...†xg4 Others look hopeless: 15 Èfg5 £ 16 ƒh3. a) 20...ƒxg7 21 Èxf7+ ‡d7 22 15 ‡d2! …e7#. White also wants to activate a …, b) 20...†xh1 21 Èxf7+ ‡d7 22 so he vacates the e1-square. The sort †b5+ †c6 23 ƒxf8 forces mate. 170 64 Great Chess Games

c) 20...…xg5 21 ƒxf8 †xh1 22 The rest of the game is a spectacular ƒe7+ wins — Kopylov. exhibition of attacking calculation. d) 20...ƒe6 21 ƒxf8 †xh1 22 f3 22 Èxd6 †xd6 23 ƒg2 …g5 24 †xh2+ (22...‡c8 23 †b5) 23 ‡d1 ƒh8 †h6 25 †g3+ ‡b6 b6 24 †b5 Èb8 25 Èxe6+ fxe6 26 If 25...‡d8 26 ‡d1 †xh8 27 …xe6 Èd7 27 †c6ˆ — Nunn. †d6+ ƒd7 28 †e7+ or 25...‡d7 21 Èxf7+ (D) 26 †f4 …g6 27 †xh6 …xh6 28 ƒe5 XIIIIIIIIY — Kopylov. 9r+lmk-+-+0 26 ‡d1 †xh8 27 †d6+ ‡a5 28 ‡d2! B9zpp+-+NvL-0 Threatening 29 b4+ ‡a4 30 ƒc6+! 9n+qvl-+-+0 bxc6 31 †xc6+ ‡b3 32 …b1+ and 9+-zp-+-+r0 mates. 9-+Pzp-+p+0 28...ƒf5 29 ƒxb7 …g6 30 b4+ ‡a4 9zPQ+-+-+-0 31 ƒc6+ ‡b3 32 †g3+ ‡b2 (D) 9-zP-mK-zP-zP0 Or 32...d3 33 …b1+ ‡a2 34 …a1+ ‡b3 35 …hb1+ ‡xc4 36 †f4+ †d4 9+-+-tRL+R0 37 …c1+ ‡b3 38 †xd4 cxd4 39 ƒb5 xiiiiiiiiy with unavoidable mate — Kopylov. XIIIIIIIIY 21...‡c7? 9r+-+-+-wq0 This fatal error is excusable as it leads to the beautiful finish. 21...‡d7! W9zp-+-+-+-0 is counter-intuitive (it blocks the c8- 9n+L+-+r+0 ƒ), yet was necessary to avoid the † 9+-zp-+l+-0 check at move 25. After 22 Èxd6: 9-zPPzp-+p+0 a) Not 22...†xh1? when I think 9zP-+-+-wQ-0 23 Èe8! is much stronger than 23 9-mk-mK-zP-zP0 Èe4 †xh2 24 Èf6+ ‡c7 25 Èxh5 †xh5 26 ƒe5+ ‡d7 27 †b5+ ‡d8 9+-+-tR-+R0 28 ƒxd4‹ as given by Nunn. For xiiiiiiiiy now 23...†xh2? allows mate in 2 by 24 †b5+ ‡d8 25 ƒf6#. White now weaves a problem-like b) 22...†xd6! 23 †g3 (The game mating net. continuation does not work because 33 …b1+!! ƒxb1 34 …xb1+ ‡xb1 the black ‡ is on a light square.) 35 †b3+ ‡a1 36 ‡c1! 1–0 23...†xg3 24 fxg3 ‡d6 25 ƒg2 Not 36 ‡c2?? d3+ and the black …b8 and, while White retains some † defends. After 36 ‡c1! it is all advantage through his ƒ pair, it will over, for if 36...†h6+ 37 ‡c2 d3+ probably not be enough to win with 38 †xd3 and Black has only spite best play, says Nunn. checks left. Game 35 White: Hagen Tiemann (Germany) Black: Abram Iosifovich Khasin (Russia) Finjub-20, 1981-84 French Defence, Exchange Variation (C01)

The Players: Hagen Tiemann, from and the pawn structure often remains eastern Germany, is a Senior Inter- symmetrical. However, that is not true national Master who first got his IM after White’s plan in this game, which title in 1967. A dangerous tactician, involves accepting an isolated d-pawn he likes to experiment with gambits in in exchange for a lead in development thematic tournaments. and extra space, which can create A veteran of the old Soviet school, attacking chances. Abram Khasin (born in the 5...Èf6 6 Èc3 dxc4 7 ƒxc4 0–0 8 in 1923) is a FIDE IM and ICCF GM 0–0 (D) (since 1972). After being seriously XIIIIIIIIY wounded at the battle of Stalingrad, 9rsnlwq-trk+0 Khasin worked as a chess coach to many leading players. He won several B9zppzp-+pzpp0 GM-level CC tournaments. 9-+-vl-sn-+0 About this game: This game demon- 9+-+-+-+-0 strates the class difference between a 9-+LzP-+-+0 talented amateur IM and a professional 9+-sN-+N+-0 GM. First Khasin defuses a potentially 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 explosive opening variation and then his refined endgame technique brings 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 home the point from a position where xiiiiiiiiy a lesser player might have settled for a draw. My notes are based on analysis The ‘Encyclopaedia of Chess by Khasin in the Swedish magazine Openings’ (‘ECO’) classifies this as ‘SSKK Bulletinen’ 4/1984. a Queen’s Gambit Accepted (D20) 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 Èf3 because the same position can arise via ƒd6 5 c4 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e3 (a deceptively The Exchange Variation of the simple move) 3...e5 4 ƒxc4 exd4 5 French Defence used to have a very exd4 ƒd6 6 Èf3 Èf6 7 0–0 0–0 8 drawish reputation, because many Èc3. However, the diagram position piece exchanges usually take place more often arises via the French, as in 172 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY the QGA Black usually prefers to play ...ƒb4+. Game 10 reached a similar 9-tr-wq-trk+0 position (with Bƒe7 and WÈe2) via 9zpLzp-+pzp-0 a completely different move order. W9-+-+-sn-zp0 8...Èc6!? 9+-+Nvl-+-0 In this line the isolated pawn will 9-+-sn-+-vL0 soon be dissolved after exchanges. 9+-+-+-+-0 8...ƒg4 followed by ...Èbd7 is often played, but White has good chances 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 after 9 h3 ƒh5 10 g4 ƒg6 11 Èe5. 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 9 ƒg5 xiiiiiiiiy White mostly prefers 9 h3 to prevent this move, which protects both Ès. the pin ...ƒg4, when Black replies in 15 …e1 kind with 9...h6. This ancient line has An important point is that Black been seen recently in high-level games, can meet 15 f4 …xb7 16 fxe5 by notably those of GM Morozevich. 16...†xd5 17 exf6 …xb2! which 9...h6 seizes both a pawn and the initiative Black puts the question to the ƒ. thanks to the threat of mate on g2. If 9...ƒg4 10 Èd5 ƒe7 11 Èxe7+ 15...†d6 16 f4 …xb7! White has achieved a gain with no 16...Èxd5?! is not as good, since pain, as in Marshall-Janowski, New after 17 fxe5 †c5 18 ƒf2 …xb7 19 York 1924. Surprisingly, Black ƒxd4 Black at best gets equality; while repeated this in Lputian-Romanishin, 17...†b6? 18 ƒxd5 Èf3+ 19 ‡h1 Manila OL 1992. White won both Èxh4 is a further mistake, as Black is in games. danger of losing after 20 e6!. 10 ƒh4 ƒg4 11 ƒd5 17 …xe5 11 d5 Èe5 12 ƒe2 Èg6 breaks White steers towards an endgame the pin on the È, while if 11 Èd5? that he hopes to hold. 17 fxe5 †xd5 g5 wins a pawn. So 11 h3 seems best. 18 exf6 …xb2 once again leaves Black 11...ƒxf3 12 ƒxf3 a pawn up with the more active game. Instead 12 †xf3 Èxd4 13 †d3 c5 17...Èxd5 18 †xd4 Èxf4! 19 †xf4 14 …fe1 (not 14 ƒxb7? …b8) might …b4 20 ƒe7!? offer White some play for the pawn. This is his idea. 20 †g3 …xh4! 12...Èxd4! 13 ƒxb7 simply leaves Black a pawn ahead. Of course not 13 †xd4?? ƒxh2+ 20...…xf4 21 ƒxd6 cxd6 22 …e7 14 ‡xh2 †xd4‰. White offered a draw when playing 13...…b8 14 Èd5 this natural move, which takes the 14 ƒd5 looks more natural, but 7th rank with tempo. However, 22 Black obtains good play by 14...c5å. …a5! was more precise, and Black’s 14...ƒe5! (D) winning chances then really would be Possibly White had underestimated minimal, according to Khasin. Game 35: Tiemann-Khasin 173

22...a5! … endgame because he loses quickly Despite the reduced material, in the line 29 …dd7? …a1+ 30 …f1 Black runs no risk in playing for a …xf1+ 31 ‡xf1 …xh2. win and is able to teach his opponent a 29...…xf2 30 ‡xf2 …a2+ 31 ‡g1 (D) lesson in technique. Since there would XIIIIIIIIY normally be no winning chances in a 9-+-tR-+-+0 single … ending with 3 pawns versus 2 on the kingside, Black’s plan is to B9+-+-+-zpk0 exchange the white queenside pawns 9-+-+-+-zp0 for his d-pawn and f-pawn, creating a 9zp-+-+-+-0 strong passed a-pawn. This would not 9-+-+-+-+0 have been possible against 22 …a5. 9+-+-+-zP-0 23 …d1?! 9r+-+-+-zP0 23 …a7 would have been more consistent with White’s previous move, 9+-+-+-mK-0 or else 23 …c1 seizing the open file. xiiiiiiiiy 23...…c8! Black’s second … takes an open The key point in this ending is the line. 24 …xd6?? is impossible because trapped white ‡. The usual defence of 24...…c1+ and mates. would be for White to capture the 24 g3 kingside pawns while the black ‡ is White gives his ‡ a square with away supporting the passed a-pawn; to tempo. The drawback is that should a sacrifice the … for the a-pawn (at the black … later control the 7th rank (as last possible moment); and rush his own does occur in the game), the ‡ will kingside pawns forward (supported by not be able to move off the back rank. the ‡) to win the … back and draw. Possibly 24 …e2 was better. Unfortunately here, the white ‡ 24...…a4! cannot advance off the back rank and White still does not have time for has nowhere to hide. This means that 25 …xd6 as Black can choose between once the a-pawn reaches a3 the white … 25...…xa2 and 25...…c2. must stay in attendance, otherwise Black 25 a3 …c2 26 …xd6 would win by ...…b2, ...a2 and ...…b1+. 26 …f1 was also possible, when 31...‡g6! 32 …d5! Black 26...f6 is probably best. White If White uses his … correctly, Black has some counterplay after 27 …f2 will not be able to advance his pawn …xf2 28 ‡xf2 …c4 29 ‡e3 …c2 30 beyond a3 without the assistance of b4, but probably the kingside pawns the ‡ because the black … is on the win after 30...…xh2. “wrong” side of the passed pawn. 26...…xb2 27 …d8+ ‡h7 28 …xf7 32...‡f6 33 …b5 a4 34 h3 a3 …xa3 29 …f2! Black threatens 35...…b2 followed White correctly goes for the single by ...a2, ...…b1+ and ...a1†. 174 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 35 …b3! White will hold the third rank for 9-+-+-+-+0 as long as possible. 35 …a5 is met by 9+-+-+-+-0 35...‡e6 marching the ‡ to b6 and B9-+-+-+-zp0 then down the b-file. White never has 9+-+-+-zp-0 time to take the g-pawn. 9-+-+-+-+0 35...‡e5 36 ‡f1 ‡d4 37 ‡g1 9zp-+-tR-zPP0 The defending ‡ can only wait for fear of being caught in midstream: 37 9r+-mk-mK-+0 ‡e1? …a1+ 38 ‡f2 (38 ‡d2) 38...a2 9+-+-+-+-0 39 …a3 …h1 40 …xa2 …h2+ wins. xiiiiiiiiy 37...‡c4 38 …e3 g5! 39 ‡f1 45...…a1 46 …e6 The ‡ must move as after 39 …f3 There is nothing better: ‡b4 White has no check on the 4th rank. a) 46 …b3 ‡c2 47 …e3 a2 48 39...‡b4 …e2+ (48 …a3 ‡b2) 48...‡d3! 49 This is the start of a …e3+ ‡d4 50 …a3 …h1! 51 …xa2 manoeuvre, typical of such endgames …h2+ wins the …. where “losing a move” and “gaining a b) 46 …f3 ‡c2! when White has move” can be equivalent. no check and now: 47 …f6 (47 ‡g2 40 …e4+ ‡c3 41 …e3+ ‡c4 42 a2 48 …f2+ ‡b3 49 …f3+ ‡b4 50 ‡g1 …f2 …g1+! 51 ‡xg1 a1†+) 47...a2 This is what Black was waiting (£...…f1+) 48 …a6 ‡b3 49 …b6+ for, but there is nothing better. The ‡c4 50 …a6 …h1. position of … can only be disimproved, c) 46 …e2+ ‡c3 47 …e3+ ‡d4 as while if 42 g4 the black ‡ goes round in line a). again: 42...‡b4 43 …e4+ ‡c3 44 46...…b1 47 …e2+ …e3+ ‡c4, and now White has to If 47 …a6 …b3 and the black ‡ move the ‡. marches to b2 and promotes the pawn. 42...‡b4 43 …e4+ ‡c3 44 …e3+ 47...‡c3 48 ‡f3 ‡b3 49 …e3+ ‡d2! ‡a4 This was unplayable before the Now a check on b4 can be met by white ‡ moved to g1, because of the interposing the …. reply …e2+. Now the end is in sight. 50 …e6 a2 0–1 The final phase involves bringing the White gives up as he has only a few ‡ to support the passed pawn so that spite checks before Black promotes the … can move out of its way. the pawn: 51 …a6+ ‡b3 52 …b6+ 45 ‡f2 (D) ‡c4 53 …c6+ ‡b5. White threatens a skewer. After 45 This was an instructive ending in …f3 Black wins by 45...…a1+! 46 ‡g2 which GM Khasin was able to exploit ‡c2 47 …f2+ ‡b3 48 …f3+ ‡b4. a couple of small inaccuracies. Game 36 White: Eric Arnlind (Sweden) Black: Keith Richardson (England) A.E. Axelson Memorial, 1984-86 Modern Defence (B06)

The Players: Eric Arnlind was intro- d5 20 g4 and, having quenched any duced in Game 31. queenside counterplay and blocked CC-GM Keith Richardson (born the centre, White went on to win on 1942) is a typical English amateur, the kingside (1–0, 44). Black’s play in combining chess with family life and the opening was miserably passive. a career as a bank manager. He has b) 4...c6 5 †d2 b5 is a main line the best record of any British player but it had not been doing well at the in CC world championships: two third time. After 6 Èf3 (6 f4!?) 6...Èd7 places, in the 7th and 10th Finals. He 7 ƒd3 ‘The Ultimate Pirc’ by Nunn has played seldom in recent years. and McNab recommends 7...h6, e.g. 8 About this game: The Axelson Mem- ƒe3 Ègf6 9 h3 e5 10 0–0 a6 11 dxe5 orial was an all-GM tournament or- dxe5 12 …ad1 †e7 13 a4 h5 14 axb5 ganised by the Swedish CC federation axb5 15 …a1 …xa1 16 …xa1 0–0= and the strongest postal event ever Atanasov-Todor›evi™, Varna 1977. held until the mid-1990s. 5 ƒb5 1 e4 g6 2 d4 ƒg7 3 Èc3 d6 4 ƒg5 White meets the counter-attack on This is a slightly unusual move in his d-pawn with a pin. An original the Modern Defence but Richardson situation has developed already. Other had played it himself not long before possible moves are 5 d5 and 5 Ège2. — with White. 5...ƒd7 (D) 4...Èc6 Since Black ends up recapturing Black could transpose to a Pirc with the b-pawn when White takes Defence by 4...Èf6 but that would lose the È, he should have preferred a the point of his move order. Richardson- different move here. A.Backlund, NBC-15 Volmac-A 1982, 5...a6 accepts the doubled pawn went instead 4...h6 5 ƒe3 Èf6 6 f3 c6 but plans to use the b-file and ƒ pair 7 †d2 †a5 8 Ège2 b5 9 Èc1 Èbd7 later: 6 ƒxc6+ bxc6 7 Ège2 …b8 10 ƒe2 †c7 11 Èd3 ƒb7 12 0–0 a6 8 b3 Èf6 9 0–0 and now 9...ƒb7 13 a4 Èb6 14 b3 Èfd7 15 a5 Èc8 (Winants-Speelman, Brussels 1988) 16 b4 0–0 17 …ad1 e6 18 f4 f5 19 e5 or 9...h6!? (Nunn). 176 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY point of view, leaving Black with 9r+-wqk+ntr0 doubled isolated pawns. And his 9zppzplzppvlp0 structure is even worse after 9...Èg4 W9-+nzp-+p+0 10 h3 f6 11 ƒf4! fxe5 12 dxe5 0-0 9+L+-+-vL-0 (or 12...Èxe5 13 Èxe5 dxe5 14 9-+-zPP+-+0 ƒg3 0-0 15 †e2) 13 †d2 Èxe5 9+-sN-+-+-0 14 Èxe5 dxe5 15 ƒh6 with a clear advantage to White despite his pawn 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 minus; while if 10...Èh6 11 …e1! 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 puts pressure on e7 as in the game, xiiiiiiiiy e.g. 11...0-0? 12 exd6ˆ or if 11...d5 6 Èf3 12 †d2 (12 Èa4!?) 12...Èf5? 13 g4 White does not want to exchange h6 14 gxf5 hxg5 15 e6. until Black spends a tempo on ...a6, 10 Èxd5 cxd5 11 …e1 so he must defend the d-pawn. ‘The This pinpoints a serious weakness Ultimate Pirc’ gives instead 6 Ège2 in Black’s position at e7, preventing a6 7 ƒxc6 ƒxc6 8 †d2 Èf6 9 f3 e5 castling (11...0-0? 12 exd6ˆ). 10 0–0 0–0 11 …ad1 exd4 12 Èxd4Ÿ 11...ƒe6 Itkis-R.Gallego, Yerevan OL 1996. Black tries to mask the weakness 6...Èf6 and retain the ƒ pair. However, Arn- The timing of this move is a little lind indicates that 11...dxe5 12 Èxe5 strange. Black might have played ƒxe5 13 …xe5 ƒe6 was the lesser 6...a6 7 ƒxc6 ƒxc6 and if 8 †d2 evil, and maybe in this line 12...f6!? Èf6 counter-attacking e4 since, might be considered, e.g. 13 Èxd7 unlike the previous note, White cannot †xd7 14 ƒf4 0-0 playing for ...e7-e5. defend the e-pawn by f2-f3 and since 12 c4! he has not castled, he cannot defend Very forceful play, again it by …e1. For this reason, Arnlind preventing castling, i.e. 12...0–0? 13 would perhaps have played 8 0–0, cxd5 ƒxd5 14 exd6ˆ. when Black might reply 8...h6 or even 12...…a7? (D) 8...f6!?. XIIIIIIIIY 7 0–0 a6 8 ƒxc6 bxc6?! 9-+-wqk+-tr0 Black is trying to create a fluid, 9tr-zp-zppvlp0 unbalanced situation but 8...ƒxc6 W would have been more consistent. 9p+-zpl+p+0 White’s next move highlights the 9+-+pzP-vL-0 fact that d7 is unavailable to the 9-+PzP-+-+0 black È. 9+-+-+N+-0 9 e5 Èd5 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 There is little choice since 9...dxe5 is clearly undesirable from a structural 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy Game 36: Arnlind-Richardson 177

The idea is that if White now tries Not 17...‡f8 18 d7 ƒe6 19 †c5+ 13 cxd5 ƒxd5 14 exd6, then 14... ‡g8 20 †xa7ˆ but 17...‡f6 is cxd6 leaves the … defending e7, after tricky: which Black can castle, followed by a) 18 dxc7 “and wins” was given undermining the white centre and in Arnlind’s notes, but is not best exploiting his ƒ pair. The logic of because 18...ƒh6!, allowing the black Black’s last few moves is that he was ‡ to retreat to g7, is unclear. playing for a win and just did not see b) 18 †d2 (preventing ...ƒh6) the danger, a failing for which he is would be met instead by 18...ƒf8! now murderously punished. and if 19 d7 ƒd6 20 †g5+ ‡g7 21 Since 12...dxc4? 13 d5 ƒg4 14 exd6 …e8 …xe8 22 dxe8† †xe8 23 †xd5 also breaks through to e7, the move †b5 and Black is still in the game. 12...h6 looks like Black’s last chance. c) 18 d7! is the right way: e.g. 18... Then at least Black can get castled ƒh6 (or 18...…d8 19 …e8 …xe8 20 and fight on with some disadvantage; dxe8† †xe8 21 †xd5) 19 …e8 (or e.g. 13 ƒh4 g5 14 ƒg3 0-0 (or first 19 †c5 ‡g7 20 …e8 …xe8 21 dxe8† 14...dxc4), or 13 ƒf6!? exf6 14 exf6 †xe8 22 †xa7) 19...…xe8 20 dxe8† †xf6 (or 14...0-0) 15 cxd5 0–0. †xe8 21 †xd5 and White is a pawn 13 †a4+! up with a dominant position, while This begins a combination that if now 21...†b5? 22 †d8+ ‡g7 23 forces a win, and it is quite possible …e1 £…e8 and wins, e.g. 23...†c6 that Arnlind had worked out a win 24 …e8 †c1+ 25 Èe1 ƒg5 26 †b8! in all variations before playing 13 ƒd2 27 †xa7 ƒxe1 28 †xa6ˆ. †a4+. Black has to move the ‡ 18 Èe5 (D) since 13...ƒd7 would block the …’s XIIIIIIIIY defence of e7, when Black loses a 9q+-+-+-tr0 central pawn after 14 †a5. 13...‡f8 14 cxd5 ƒxd5 15 †a5 †a8 B9tr-zp-+pvlp0 Another point of Black’s ...…a7 9p+-mk-+p+0 was to allow this move with a 9wQ-+lsN-+-0 counter-attack against f3, which he 9-+-zP-+-+0 perhaps hoped would give him time 9+-+-+-+-0 to extricate the h8-… by ...h6 and 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 ...‡g8-h7. Unfortunately the Swedish GM totally refutes Black’s concept. 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 16 ƒxe7+! xiiiiiiiiy This is an instructive piece sacrifice against the black ‡, which is 18...ƒxe5 driven into the centre and subjected to 18...c6 looks like a tougher defence a mating attack. at first but it also fails: 19 †c5+! 16...‡xe7 17 exd6+ ‡xd6 ‡c7 20 Èxc6! ƒxc6 (20...†xc6? 178 64 Great Chess Games

21 †xa7+) 21 …e7+ ‡b8 22 †d6+ 23 …e7 ƒd7 24 †d4 …g8 ‡c8 23 …xa7 †xa7 24 …c1 †d7 25 If 24...…f8 25 †g7ˆ. …xc6+ ‡d8 26 †b8+ ‡e7 27 †b4+ 25 †f6 ‡c8 26 …xd7! (D) ‡e8 (27...‡d8 28 …d6) 28 †c5 XIIIIIIIIY £…c8+ and wins. 9q+k+-+r+0 19 †c5+! This is the only winning move here B9tr-zpR+p+p0 too. 19 …xe5 would give Black time 9p+-+-wQp+0 to get his † to a more useful square 9+-+P+-+-0 by 19...†c6. 9-+-+-+-+0 19...‡d7 20 …xe5 ƒxg2 9+-+-+-+-0 If 20...ƒe6 21 d5 ƒf5 22 …ae1 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 ‡d8 23 …e7 as in the game. 21 …ae1! 9+-+-tR-mK-0 This is another accurate attacking xiiiiiiiiy move; if 21 …e7+ ‡d8 22 †g5 then either 22...‡c8 23 †xg2 †xg2+ 24 26...‡xd7 27 †xf7+ ‡d6 ‡xg2 f5 or 22...h6! 23 †f6 †f3! 27...‡c8 28 †xg8+ ‡b7 29 …e8 24 †xh8+ ‡xe7 25 …e1+ ‡d6 26 wins the black †. †e5+ (or 26 …e3 †d5) 26...‡c6 27 28 †e6+ †c5+ ‡b7 28 …e3 †d1+! 29 ‡xg2 The Swedish GM has played very †g4+ 30 ‡f1 †d1+ 31 …e1 †a4 well but unfortunately this is not quite gives White unnecessary difficulties the most accurate finish: 28 †e7+! in the endgame. ‡xd5 29 b4! (£ 30 †c5# or 30 21...ƒh3 †e4+ ‡d6 31 †e6#) forces mate Black has the brief enjoyment of slightly quicker. threatening mate. 21...‡d8 would 28...‡c5 29 …c1+ 1–0 be met by 22 d5, blocking the long Black resigned in view of mating diagonal and threatening ‡xg2 or lines such as 29...‡b5 (or 29...‡d4 †e3 (and …e8+), when 22...ƒh3 (the 30 b3! †e8 31 …c4+ ‡d3 32 †h3+ only move) transposes to the game. ‡d2 33 †c3+ ‡e2 34 …d4!) 30 22 d5 ‡d8 a4+! ‡a5 (30...‡xa4 31 †e4+) 31 If 22...…d8 23 …e7+ ‡c8 24 …e8 †e1+ ‡xa4 32 …a1+ ‡b5 33 …a5+ then 25 …xd8+ ‡xd8 26 †f8+ ‡d7 ‡b6 (33...‡c4 34 †c3#) 34 †b4# 27 …e7+ ‡d6 28 …e8+ etc. — Arnlind. Game 37 White: Manfred Neumann (Germany) Black: Grant R. Lambert (Australia) WT/M/GT/221, 1987-90 Two Knights Defence (C55)

The Players: Grant R. Lambert is an dangers for both sides, they have been untitled Australian player with a lot very deeply explored which, in my of international experience; his cur- opinion, is more to Black’s benefit rent ICCF rating is 2397. Manfred in CC. 5 e5 has also been deeply Neumann, from eastern Germany, analysed but earlier departures from is a regular competitor in European theory are more likely to be possible and World master class postal tourna- than after 5 0-0. ments; at the time he was rated 2220 5...d5 6 ƒb5 Èe4 7 Èxd4 ƒc5 but by early 2002 this rose to 2377. (D) About this game: This was voted XIIIIIIIIY the “Best Played Game — 1989” by 9r+lwqk+-tr0 the Correspondence Chess League of Australia. When ‘Fernschach’ 9zppzp-+pzpp0 magazine ran a readers’ competition W9-+n+-+-+0 in 1998, where games were published 9+LvlpzP-+-0 without notes or players’ identities 9-+-sNn+-+0 — this game yet again came out top. 9+-+-+-+-0 I am unconvinced by Lambert’s 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 opening innovation (at move 12) but the decisive † sacrifice is highly 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 original and sound. xiiiiiiiiy 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒc4 Èf6 4 d4 Instead of 4 Èg5, as in Game 25, This sharp continuation for Black White opens the centre. has largely replaced the older line 4...exd4 5 e5 7...ƒd7. Black does not bother to After 5 0-0, Black can either choose defend his c-pawn, trusting in tactical 5...Èxe4 (see Game 55) or defend deterrents to its capture. Of course the Max Lange Attack by 5...ƒc5 8 ƒxc6+?! bxc6 9 Èxc6? is not a 6 e5 d5 7 exf6 dxc4. Although the serious option because of 9...ƒxf2+. complications in either case hold Great complications can arise if 180 64 Great Chess Games

White takes up the gauntlet by 8 Black with a bad light-squared ƒ. In Èxc6 ƒxf2+! 9 ‡f1 †h4 when: practice, this plan is harder to carry a) 10 †xd5 ƒc5! was analysed by out, if Black is aware of the dangers, Dr Herman Keidanz in the ‘Wiener than it is in the lines with 7...ƒd7. Schachzeitung’ of 1904. A significant 10 0–0 American postal game R.Clark- The alternative is 10 Èd2 — first M.Morss, USCF 1992, continued 11 played by Yugoslav GM Bojan ƒe3! (improving on Keidanz’ analysis Kurajica in 1982; instead 10 f3?! and previous games) 11...Èg3+! †h4+ creates complications fav- 12 hxg3 †xh1+ 13 ‡f2 ƒxe3+ 14 ourable to Black. ‡xe3 0-0 15 Èe7+ ‡h8 and now, 10...†e7! instead of 16 Èxc8? †c1+ 17 †d2 There is no need for automatic †xb2, White should have played castling. White is forced to think 16 †e4! †c1+! 17 ‡f3 †xb2 18 about the defence of his e-pawn; ƒd3 g6 19 †f4 …g8 20 †f6+ …g7 another point is that 11 f3 can be 21 Èxg6+! forcing a draw (Morss). answered by 11...Èd6. 10...ƒb6 is also fine for Black (most 11 …e1 0–0 12 f3 Èg5 lines just transpose to 10...ƒc5). So far this is all a well-trodden b) 10 Èd4+ c6 11 Èf3 Èg3+ 12 route. Theory books overlook White’s ‡xf2 Èe4+ 13 ‡e2 †f2+ 14 ‡d3 next, though it appears reasonable, ƒf5 (Keidanz) is given as a winning preferring 13 †d2 or 13 f4!? (Sax- line for Black in many books, but Smejkal, Vrbas 1977). after 15 Èd4 ƒg6 16 …f1! the most 13 Èd2 f6!? (D) direct line 16...Èd2+ 17 ‡c3 †e3+ In Ljubojevi™-Averbakh, Palma de 18 ƒd3 Èe4+ 19 ‡b3 Èc5+ 20 Mallorca 1972, Black played 13...ƒb6 ‡c3! Èe4+ leads only to perpetual 14 a4 c5 15 Èe2 c4 (drawn in 26 check (analysis done independently by moves), while Gligori™ suggested Morss and by GM ), so the 14...Èe6å. Maybe White’s space question is whether 16...†xg2 17 ‡e3 advantage roughly compensates for cxb5 (suggested by GM ) Black’s two ƒs. is viable as a winning try for Black. XIIIIIIIIY 8 ƒe3 9r+-+-trk+0 During the 1980s, this ƒ move began to supersede the older 8 0-0 in W9zp-zplwq-zpp0 practice. 9-+p+-zp-+0 8...ƒd7 9 ƒxc6 bxc6 9+-vlpzP-sn-0 Black has the ƒ pair but his 9-+-sN-+-+0 queenside pawns are fractured. 9+-+-vLP+-0 Control of the c5-square is important 9PzPPsN-+PzP0 in this variation as White would like to exchange dark-squared ƒs and leave 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy Game 37: Neumann-Lambert 181

Lambert observes that “the pawn on 16...ƒb6 17 †d2 e5 cramps Black’s game, so removing Lambert explains: “A standard it is the first aim.” However, for move in this variation, interrogating tactical reasons, his move is not really the „ on g5. In this type of position as good as 13...ƒb6. Black usually retreats the „ to e6, 14 exf6? to exchange the centralised white „ Lambert’s notes pass over this on d4. Analysis convinced me that moment in silence, so unfortunately 17...Èf7 was a much better plan. The we do not know how he would black „ now comes to e5, from which have answered 14 È2b3, which square it is difficult to dislodge. By is the usual move for White in the contrast, the white „ on d4 can easily variation, putting the question to the be repulsed by a timely ...c5.” dark-squared ƒ. Black cannot play 17...Èf7! 18 …ad1 Èe5 19 b3 c5 20 14...fxe5? because the exchange is Èe2 ƒc6 21 Èfg3 (D) lost after 15 Èxc5 †xc5 16 Èe6, XIIIIIIIIY while if 14...ƒb6 (the normal retreat) 9-+-+rtrk+0 the advance 15 e6! lames Black’s position. If instead 14...ƒxd4 15 B9zp-zp-+-zpp0 ƒxd4 fxe5 White can either play 16 9-vll+-wq-+0 …xe5 with an edge, or accept Black’s 9+-zppsn-+-0 speculative sacrifice by 16 ƒc5 9-+-+-+-+0 Èh3+ 17 gxh3 †g5+ 18 ‡h1. Other 9+PzP-vLPsN-0 possibilities for Black are 14...Èe6 9P+-wQN+PzP0 and 14...ƒb4 but I do not see a fully satisfactory position for him. 9+-+RtR-mK-0 14...†xf6 15 c3 xiiiiiiiiy Lambert does say that 15 È2b3 would be more active, but it’s a move The black pieces have all reached too late and Black’s game is already their best squares and a sacrifice is more than satisfactory. now needed to open up the white ‡’s 15...…ae8 position. Here Lambert thought Black stood 21...†xf3! 22 gxf3 Èxf3+ 23 ‡g2 better, having mobilised his troops d4 more rapidly. This genuine sacrifice of the 16 Èf1 black † is clearly the strongest This is a very strange square for the continuation but maybe it is not the È and if this was why White did not only way to play for a win. play È2b3 earlier, it shows he did not Lambert’s comment here, that understand the variation. Against 16 23...Èxd2? 24 ƒxd2 d4+ 25 ‡g1 È2b3 Lambert intended 16...ƒd6!?, leaves Black a piece for two pawns with a battery against the white ‡. down in the ending, seems strange 182 64 Great Chess Games since the piece can be regained by 30 ƒf4 c5, but clearly Black stands to 25...d3 with a favourable position. win with his extra pawn and superior White loses if he tries to save the „: pieces. Also note that 24 ƒg1 is no 26 Èf4 (not 26 Èc1 c4+ with mate good; Black does not even take the in 4) 26...c4+ 27 ‡f1 g5 and the piece † because 24...Èg5+ 25 Èe4 …xe4 is won back anyway. forces mate. 24 †c1 (D) 24...Èxe1+!? XIIIIIIIIY This is a sure sign that the game 9-+-+rtrk+0 was played before the computer age in CC: Black does not play the forced B9zp-zp-+-zpp0 mate! 9-vll+-+-+0 Lambert wrote: “Tempting here is 9+-zp-+-+-0 24...Èg5+ instead, so as to answer 25 9-+-zp-+-+0 ‡g1 by 25...Èh3#. However, with 9+PzP-vLnsN-0 the reply of 25 Èe4, White prolongs 9P+-+N+KzP0 the game by giving up a piece to make a flight square on g3 for his ‡.” 9+-wQRtR-+-0 However, 25 Èe4 fails to 25...…xe4! xiiiiiiiiy 26 Èf4 (or 26 ‡g3 …f3+ 27 ‡g2 …g4+ 28 Èg3 …f8+ 29 ‡g1 Èh3#) Lambert wrote: “Reasoning that 26...…exf4+ 27 ‡g3 …f3+ 28 ‡g4 since his ‡ will suffer anyway, he ƒd7+ 29 ‡xg5 h6+ 30 ‡h5 …h3+ may as well have a † to show for 31 ‡g6 ƒe8#. it. The alternative is 24 ‡h3 (to By technically imprecise play, avoid the discovered check) when Lambert actually managed a quicker 24...Èxd2 25 ƒxd2 …f2 now gives mate, because his opponent did not a strong attack. Here I was unable to play the most tedious defence at move calculate a forced win, but White’s 27. position is unenviable. A possible 25 ‡g1 continuation is 26 Èf4 ƒd7+ 27 The alternative 25 ‡h3 ƒd7+ 26 ‡h4 …xh2+ 28 ‡g5 …f8!, when the ‡h4 Èg2+ 27 ‡h5 Èxe3 leaves noose has tightened around the white Black with a mating attack against the ‡ on g5. The threats include ...h6+ lonely white ‡. followed by ...…f6# or ...c6 followed 25...Èf3+ 26 ‡f1 dxe3 27 c4 by ...ƒd8+.” 27 Èg1 would have prolonged the The computer program Fritz7 game — albeit hopelessly. thinks 26 Èf4 is a blunder and gives 27...Èxh2+ 28 ‡e1 instead 26 Èxd4 cxd4 27 …xe8+ 28 ‡g1 …f2 with a mating attack. ƒxe8 28 Èh1 …e2 29 cxd4 ƒxd4 28...…f1+ 29 Èxf1 Èf3# 0–1 Game 38 White: Dr Jonathan Penrose (England) Black: Richard Goldenberg (France) 13th CC World Championship Final, 1989 Scandinavian Defence (B01)

The Players: Penrose (born 1933) is 4 but wanted Black to show his hand a grandmaster of both ICCF and FIDE first (4...g6 is a major alternative). (being awarded that title retrospec- 5...Èb6 6 ƒe2 Èc6 7 0–0 e6 8 Èc3 tively). An academic psychologist ƒe7 9 d5! exd5 10 cxd5 Èb4 by profession, he holds the record If 10...Èb8 White can choose for winning the greatest number of between 11 ƒf4 and 11 Èe5. If British OTB championships (ten). He 10...ƒxf3 11 ƒxf3 Èe5 12 ƒe4 is took up postal play in the mid-1970s, somewhat better for White. winning several master tournaments 11 †d4 ƒxf3 12 †xg7 and becoming ICCF’s top-rated play- GM John Emms wrote in ‘The er. Dr Penrose retired from CC soon Scandinavian’ (1997) that: “This after coming third in the 13th World leads to fantastic complications, Championship. which seem to favour White.” Goldenberg has been an ICCF IM The quieter alternative for White is since 1986. 12 ƒxf3 when: About this game: Penrose, typically a) 12...Èc2? 13 †xg7 ƒf6 14 for his style of play with White, finds †g4 Èxa1 15 …e1+ ƒe7 16 ƒg5 a direct and aggressive line which is Èc8 (16...…g8 17 ƒxe7! …xg4 18 still of theoretical relevance today. His ƒc5+ ‡d7 19 ƒxg4+ and mates) 17 original notes were greatly expanded Èe4! (£18 Èf6+ ‡f8 19 ƒh6#) in ‘Chess Mail’ 6/2000. Most of the 17...ƒxg5 18 Èf6+ ‡f8 19 †xg5 variations below stem from him. h6 20 Èh7+ and †xd8+. 1 e4 d5 b) 12...0-0 13 †d1 Èc4 14 …e1 Goldenberg was a specialist in this …e8 15 a3 Èa6 16 ƒe2 Èd6 17 defence — not as popular then as it †c2 ƒf6 18 ƒe3Ÿ (Lau-Bücker, later became. Bundesliga 1993-94) was discussed in 2 exd5 Èf6 3 d4 Èxd5 4 Èf3 Stefan Bücker’s German history-and- ƒg4 5 c4 theory magazine ‘Kaissiber’ (1/1996 White can also play this at move page 13). 184 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 12...ƒf6 13 ƒb5+ c6 14 …e1+ ‡d7 15 dxc6+! 9r+-wq-+-tr0 White’s alternatives include: 9zp-+k+pwQp0 a) 15 †g3 ƒxd5 16 †g4+ ƒe6 W9-snp+-vl-+0 17 †xb4 ƒxc3 18 …d1+ Èd5 19 9+L+-+-+-0 bxc3 ‡c8 20 †c4 †e8 21 ƒa6 9-sn-+-+-+0 (Kukk-Kularts, Estonia Email Ch 9+-sN-+l+-0 1999) 21...…b8¢ — Penrose. b) 15 †xf7+ ‡c8 16 †e6+ Èd7 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 17 dxc6+ and now: 9tR-vL-tR-mK-0 b1) 17...bxc6 18 ƒc4 and White has xiiiiiiiiy compensation thanks to the exposed 16 †g3! position of Black’s ‡ according to Babachanov criticized this move, Karen Babachanov (Armenia) in but Penrose’s analysis vindicates his ‘Kaissiber’. He gives the following choice. continuation: 18...ƒxc3 19 bxc3 ƒd5 He thought his opponent might 20 ƒxd5 Èxd5 21 †xc6+ Èc7 22 have met the obvious 16 †xf7 in …d1 …b8 (22...…e8? 23 ƒg5) 23 ƒg5 previous games. After 16...‡c8 17 †e8 24 ƒf4 †d8 25 …d4 …b6 26 †c4 †e6+ gives nothing on 17...‡b7 (26 †a4! …a6 27 †c4 Bücker) 26... (Babachanov), while if 17 ƒc4 Èxc4 …e8 27 …ad1 …be6 28 ‡f1 threatening 18 †e6+ ‡b7 19 †xc4 a5 20 †f7+ to win material by ƒxc7. ‡a6 21 †c4+ ‡b7 22 †f7+ ‡a6 b2) If 17...ƒxc6 (Goldenberg) then: 23 †c4+ ½-½ P.Kerkhof-J.De Wolf, b21) Bücker recommended 18 ƒf4 Belgium Cht 1996/97. Or 17 gxf3 (£Èe4-d6+) but Penrose suggests †g8+ 18 †xg8+ …xg8+ 19 ‡f1 18...†g8¢ in reply. cxb5. Bücker suggests 17 ƒf1!?. b22) 18 ƒxc6 Èxc6 (18...bxc6? 16...ƒxc3 19 a3) and now the possible moves a) Not 16...cxb5 17 †h3+! when include: if 17...‡c7 18 ƒf4+ ‡b7 19 †xf3+ b221) 19 Èb5 (Babachanov) ‡a6 (19...‡c8 20 …ac1!ˆ) 20 a4! 19...†e7! (Penrose) 20 Èd6+ with a very strong attack. Or 17...‡c6 ‡c7 21 ƒf4 †xe6 22 …xe6 …hf8 18 †xf3+ È4d5 (18...‡c7 19 †f4+ (Bücker). £†b4) 19 Èxd5 Èxd5 20 ƒh6 b222) 19 Èd5¢/‹ — Penrose. ƒxb2 21 …ad1 …g8 22 …e2 ƒc3 23 Black’s moves were coming back …e3! ƒb4 24 …e5! “seems to win” almost by ‘return post’ so, Dr Penrose (Emms), and White has other tries too. remembers, “I was looking for a line of b) Babachanov’s suggestion 16... play that might be unexpected for him, ƒxg2 is interesting and may be while still being reasonably good for Black’s best hope in this line. After 17 White.” †g4+ ‡c7 18 ƒf4+ ‡b7 19 †xg2 15...bxc6 (D) (D), Penrose’s assessment is Ÿ. Game 38: Penrose-Goldenberg 185 XIIIIIIIIY or 24 …ab1 †d7 25 …xb5 †c6. It’s 9r+-wq-+-tr0 a big mess, but there doesn’t seem 9zpk+-+p+p0 anything devastating for White. B9-snp+-vl-+0 Instead of this, 20 ƒxc6+!? 9+L+-+-+-0 ‡xc6 21 …ad1 can be considered. 9-sn-+-vL-+0 Another possibility is 20 Èe4!? (£ 9+-sN-+-+-0 21 Èc5+ ‡c8 22 ƒa6#) 20...ƒe7 21 …ad1! but maybe Black can 9PzP-+-zPQzP0 hold with 21...…c8! 22 Èc3 …g8! 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 23 ƒg3 ƒb4! 24 Èxd5 ƒxe1! 25 xiiiiiiiiy Èb4! ƒxb4 26 …xd8 …gxd8 27 From the analysis diagram above: †f3Ÿ. b1) 19...È6d5 20 ƒxc6+ ‡xc6 21 So maybe Babachanov’s 16...ƒxg2 …ad1 (Penrose) or 21 …ed1, leaving is a reasonable try but I think the whole the other … to go to c1; or else 21 5...ƒg4 line is looking unhealthy for ƒg3!? leaving all options open (the Black. black ‡ isn’t going anywhere!). 17 bxc3 cxb5 b2) 19...ƒxc3 20 bxc3 È4d5 17...ƒxg2 18 †g4+ ‡c7 19 ƒf4+ (the end of Babachanov’s analysis) ‡b7 20 †xg2 transposes to line b3) and now Penrose gave 21 ƒxc6+! just above. (21 c4 Èxf4 22 †xc6+ ‡b8 23 18 ƒg5 (D) c5!Ÿ Bücker) 21...‡xc6 22 c4 …g8 XIIIIIIIIY 23 ƒg3 Èxc4 24 …ac1 ‡c5 (or 9r+-wq-+-tr0 24...…g4 25 …e4) 25 …xc4+ ‡xc4 9zp-+k+p+p0 26 †e4+ ‡c5 27 …c1+ ‡b6 28 B …b1+ ‡a5 (If 28...‡c6 29 †a4+ or 9-sn-+-+-+0 28...‡c5 29 †c2+) 29 †e1+ ‡a4 30 9+p+-+-vL-0 †d1+ ‡a5 31 †d2+ ‡a4 32 †c2+. 9-sn-+-+-+0 b3) 19...È4d5 is harder to refute 9+-zP-+lwQ-0 although White evidently has more 9P+-+-zPPzP0 activity and can consider various tactical ideas, but I don’t want to fill 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 several paragraphs with inconclusive xiiiiiiiiy analysis. If you intend to play this line, look at it for yourself. This attack on the black † is Penrose’s line 20 …ed1!? ƒxc3 an essential in order 21 bxc3 cxb5 22 a4 does not quite to stop Black playing ...†f6 at convince after 22...…g8! 23 ƒg3 …g5 some appropriate moment, observes — having protected the d5-È Black Penrose. If instead 18 †xf3 È4d5 19 can answer 24 a5 with 24...Èc4, †xf7+ ‡c8. while if 24 axb5 …c8, or 24 h4 …f5, We are now at the really critical 186 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY juncture of the game, though you would never guess from reading 9r+k+-+r+0 Emms’ book, which has no comments 9zp-+-+p+p0 on any of the moves from numbers 17 B9-snq+-+-+0 to 21. 9+p+-+-+-0 18...f6 9PzP-+R+-zP0 Bücker’s 18...…g8! 19 †xf3 9+-+-+Q+-0 †xg5 20 cxb4 ‡c7 is the critical reply, as analysed in ‘Kaissiber’ and 9-+-+-zPP+0 ‘Chess Mail’. I have no space for all 9+-+R+-mK-0 the ramifications, but here are the xiiiiiiiiy salient points arising from White’s Now Penrose’s main line goes best line 21 h4!. 25...bxa4 (If 25...Èxa4 26 …c4 a) 21...†d8 22 †xf7+ Èd7 (or or 25...a5 26 axb5 or 25...…e8 26 22...‡b8 23 …e7 …f8 24 †g7 …g8 …xe8+ †xe8 27 a5) 26 b5 †c7 (or 25 †e5+ ‡c8 26 …c1+) 23 …ac1+ 26...†xb5 27 …e7 …b8 28 †xf7 or ‡b8 24 …ed1. 26...†c5 27 †f4 ‡b7 28 †xf7+) 27 b) 21...†xh4 22 †xf7+ Èd7 23 …de1 …d8 (or 27...‡b8 28 …e7 Èd7 …ac1+. 29 …e8+) 28 …e7 …d7 29 …e8+ …d8 c) 21...†g4 22 …ac1+ Èc4 30 …1e7 …xe8 31 …xe8+ ‡d7 32 (22...‡b8 23 …e8+) 23 †xf7+ †xf7+ ‡d6 33 …e6+. ‡b8 (23...‡d8 24 †d5+) 24 g3! There is one other possibility, †g6 (Other moves are no better: namely 25...…d8. 24...†g7 25 …e8+; or 24...†c8 25 Against this, Penrose gave 26 …e7; or 24...…c8 25 …e7 Èd6 26 †f5+ …d7 27 axb5 but Bücker …xc8+ †xc8 27 †d5 †d8 28 …g7; showed that Black has the resource or 24...…d8 25 …e7 Èd6 26 …b7+ 27...†xe4, and he suggests instead Èxb7 27 †c7#) 25 †f4+ ‡c8 (If 26 …xd8+ ‡xd8 27 …d4+ ‡c7 28 25...†d6 26 …xc4, or 25...Èd6 26 †xf7+ Èd7 29 axb5 †xb5 30 …d5 h5 †d3 27 …ed1, or 25...‡b7 26 winning (‘Kaissiber’ 15, page 8). …e7+ ‡a6 27 …xc4.) 26 …xc4+ Now we return to the actual finish bxc4 27 †xc4+ ‡d7 (27...‡b8 28 of the game after 18...f6. …e7 …c8 29 †f4+) 28 †d5+ †d6 19 †xf3 È4d5 20 ƒe3 29 †b7+. Threatening ƒxb6 and …ad1. If d) 21...†d5 22 …e7+ ‡d8 (If 20...Èxe3 21 †b7+ ‡d6 22 …xe3 22...‡c8 23 …c1+ ‡d8 24 …e4 or ‡c5 23 …e6 and the black ‡ is 22...‡c6 23 …c1+ Èc4 24 …c7+ surrounded. ‡d6 25 …d7+.) 23 …e4 ‡c8 (If 20...‡c7 21 …ad1 …e8 22 a4! 23...‡c7 24 …d1 †c6 25 …e7+ or White’s whole plan (starting with 23...f5 24 …d1 fxe4 25 …xd5+ Èxd5 16 †g3) depended on this a-pawn 26 †d1‹.) 24 …d1 †c6 25 a4! (D). thrust to disrupt the black queenside. Game 38: Penrose-Goldenberg 187

White soon regains his piece, and because of the variation 30 †xc6+ Black will still have problems because ‡xc6 31 …xd7 …xd7 32 …xd7 ‡xd7 of his weakened pawn structure 33 ƒxc7 ‡xc7 34 g4 ‡d6 35 f4 and slightly insecure ‡ position. ‡d5 36 ‡f2 ‡c4 37 g5 fxg5 38 fxg5 However, White must be careful not ‡xc3 39 h5 b4 40 g6 hxg6 41 h6 and to let his back rank become weak, e.g. White queens with check.” 22 ƒxb6+? Èxb6!. Black might have just waited with 22...†d6 his ‡ but White can make gradual If 22...bxa4 23 c4!. progress, e.g. with 29...‡c8 White 23 a5 …ed8 24 axb6+ axb6 25 g3 can play 30 †e4 ‡b7 (30...Èe7 31 †c6 26 ƒf4+ ‡b7 27 …d3 …d7 28 †xh7) 31 …d4 and/or h5-h6 followed …ed1 …ad8 29 h4 (D) by preparing the advance of his g- XIIIIIIIIY pawn. 9-+-tr-+-+0 30 †e4 The h-pawn cannot be captured yet B9+k+r+-+p0 but it will become a target after some 9-zpq+-zp-+0 consolidation. 9+p+n+-+-0 30...‡c8 31 …d4 ‡b7 32 ‡h2 9-+-+-vL-zP0 †c5 33 †f5 †c6 34 …4d2 †c4 9+-zPR+QzP-0 35 †xh5 9-+-+-zP-+0 It can be taken now, since Black’s counterplay proves to be insufficient. 9+-+R+-mK-0 35...†e4 36 †g4 f5 37 †g6 Èxf4 xiiiiiiiiy 38 …xd7+ …xd7 39 …xd7+ ‡c8 40 …d8+! 29...h5?! This final tactic enables White to Penrose observed that: “Black avoid disruption of his pawn structure continues to have difficulty finding in the † ending. playable moves. It is unfortunate for 40...‡xd8 41 †d6+ ‡c8 42 †xf4 him that 29...Èc7 does not work †e6 43 h5 1–0 Game 39 White: Ove C. Ekebjærg (Denmark) Black: Gert Jan Timmerman (Netherlands) NBC-25, 1991 Vienna, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation (C27)

The Players: Ekebjærg was runner-up once. First Black gains a little space in the 14th CC World Championship, a and time. few years after this game. Timmer- 6...g6 7 †f3 f5 8 †d5 †e7 9 Èxc7+ man is the 15th CC World Champion. ‡d8 10 Èxa8 b6 11 d3 About this game: NBC-25 was a A book like this cannot discuss the mammoth tournament held to cele- intricacies of such a wild variation. brate the Dutch CC Federation’s 25th The unbalanced nature of the position jubilee. Timmerman was the winner makes computers an unreliable guide and Ekebjærg was fourth. The game to what is going on. Ekebjærg follows features a famous variation, in which a plan pioneered in the 1960s by his Black sacrifices his … on a8. countryman, Julius Nielsen, who had 1 Èc3 some impressive wins with White. The Danish GM always opens with 11...ƒb7 12 h4 this move, which is also a favourite of The idea of this move is to avoid Dutch CC-GM van Geet. Timmerman being cramped on the kingside, but makes the most flexible reply. the less explored 12 †f3 Èd4 13 1...Èf6 2 e4 †h3 is also playable. White offers the choice of an 12...f4 13 †f3 Èd4 Alekhine’s Defence (2...d5), a Pirc An alternative is 13...ƒh6 14 (2...d6) or a Vienna. †g4? e4! as in J.Ost Hansen-J.Nunn, 2...e5 3 ƒc4 Èxe4 4 †h5 Èd6 5 student olympiad, Teesside 1972, but ƒb3 Èc6 14 ƒd2 is an improvement for White. This line is really an exchange Timmerman prefers to post his ƒ on sacrifice by Black. A quieter game the long diagonal. can result from 5...ƒe7. 14 †g4 ƒg7 15 ƒd2 6 Èb5 In T.Wibe-Timmerman, from White has a crude threat to capture NBC-25, White played 15 Èxb6 on d6 and then checkmate on f7. axb6 16 ƒd2 È6f5 17 c3 and Obviously the È cannot be taken managed to draw. and if 6...†e7 White wins the … at 15...ƒxa8 (D) Game 39: Ekebjærg-Timmerman 189

At last there is nothing better than ƒxg5 23 hxg5 †e7 24 ƒa4 …h7! to capture the trapped È and see what 25 0–0–0 †xg5 26 f3 †g3!. Black White intends. aims for an ending that emphasises XIIIIIIIIY the advantages of his position: the 9l+-mk-+-tr0 potential ...g5-g4 break, active ‡ on the dark squares and the passivity of W9zp-+pwq-vlp0 the white …s. He won in 40 moves. 9-zp-sn-+p+0 16...ƒf6 17 ƒb4 9+-+-zp-+-0 Possibly 17 h5 first is better, as 9-+-sn-zpQzP0 Wibe played against J.van Oosterom 9+L+P+-+-0 in NBC-25. 9PzPPvL-zPP+0 A more recent idea for White is 17 …e1 when: 9tR-+-mK-sNR0 a) 17...È6f5 18 h5 g5 19 Èe2 xiiiiiiiiy Èh6 20 †h3 g4 (Again, Black is looking for tactical solutions.) 21 16 0–0–0 †h2 g3 22 †g1! Èg4 23 f3 Èxb3+ M.V.Fiorito-Timmerman, 10th Dutch 24 axb3 Èf2 25 Èxf4 †c5 26 ƒe3 CC Ch 1981-82, had gone instead 16 †c7 27 Èe2 Èxd3+ 28 ‡b1 Èxe1 h5?! g5 17 c3 È4f5 18 …h2 Èh6 19 29 †xe1 …g8 30 …h3 and White, †e2 g4 20 0–0–0 Èdf5 21 d4 ƒb7 having returned the exchange, is now 22 …e1 …e8 23 d5 ƒf6 24 ƒc2 and winning the g-pawn (M.Larsson- Black took the initiative by 24...g3 25 J.A.Tait, North Sea tt corr 1998-99). fxg3 Èxg3 and went on to win. b) An OTB team game M.Okkes- In J.J.Carleton-Timmerman, 15th Timmerman, Amstelveen-Volmac2, Wch Final 1996, White instead tried 1993 went instead 17...†g7 18 ‡b1 16 Èh3 hoping to follow Carleton- (18 h5 g5 19 h6!? may be stronger.) J.A.Tait, British Postal Cht 1994, 18...h5 19 †h3 È6f5 20 Èe2 which went 16...È6f5? 17 Èg5 h5 Èxe2 21 …xe2 Èxh4 22 g3! Èf3 18 †h3 …f8 19 c3 Èxh4 20 †xh4 (22...ƒg2 23 †h2) 23 ƒc3 Èg5 24 Èxb3 (20...Èf5 21 Èe6+!) 21 axb3 †h2 ƒxh1? (24...„f3 25 †h3 „g5 ƒf6 22 …xa7 and White stood better. repeats.) 25 gxf4! ƒf3 26 fxe5 †f8 Timmerman’s comment on 27 exf6 †c5 28 …e5 †c7 29 †f4 this is that Tait sought a tactical 1–0. No doubt Timmerman has found solution whereas Black should trust an improvement on this, perhaps his positional compensation for involving 22...g5 or 22...ƒf3. the exchange. So he improved by 17...a5 18 ƒxd6 16...ƒf6! (attacking h4 and guarding After 18 ƒa3 b5 19 c3 Èxb3+ 20 g5) 17 ƒb4 ‡c7 18 c4? (18 c3 È4f5 axb3 b4! 21 cxb4 Èb5 Black is much is critical.) 18...a5 19 ƒa3 †g7 20 better. Èg5 h5 21 ƒxd6+ ‡xd6 22 †h3 18...†xd6 19 Èh3 †c6 190 64 Great Chess Games

Timmerman does not fall for the 27...†c2+ 28 ‡a1 a3! 29 …b1 (D) naïve 19...e4? 20 Èg5 Èxb3+ 21 Not 29 bxa3? e4‰. Instead the axb3 †d4 when 22 Èe6+! dxe6 23 Danish GM sets a devious trap; Black dxe4 wins the black †. could even lose this position. 20 Èg5 XIIIIIIIIY After 20 c3 †xg2 21 †xg2 9l+-+-+-vl0 Èxb3+ 22 axb3 ƒxg2 23 …h2 ƒf3 24 …e1 h6 (not 24...ƒxh4? 25 Èg1 B9+-mkp+-+p0 attacking both ƒs) 25 Èg1 ƒg4 26 9-+-+-+-+0 Èe2 …e8 Black’s two ƒs and pawn 9+-+-zp-zpP0 are at least the equal of White’s … 9-+-zP-zpQ+0 and „. 9zp-+p+-+-0 20...a4! 21 ƒc4 9PzPq+-zPP+0 It would be unwise for White to repeat the trick of capturing a … in 9mKR+-+-+R0 the corner. After 21 Èf7+ ‡c7 22 xiiiiiiiiy Èxh8? axb3 23 c3 bxa2 24 ‡d2 Èb3+ 25 ‡e2 ƒxh8 Black is 29...ƒe4! winning. Now Black insists on giving Timmerman avoids 29...d2? 30 up the second exchange. †d1! ƒe4 31 †xc2+ ƒxc2 32 21...b5! 22 Èf7+ …hc1! dxc1† 33 …xc1 when after White may as well accept the offer, the simplification Black would have since after 22 c3 bxc4 23 dxc4 †xc4 a bad ƒ v … endgame. the square f7 is guarded. 30 †d1 exd4! 22...‡c7 23 Èxh8 ƒxh8 24 h5! g5! Now a subsequent ...d3-d2 can be The Dutchman comes off better backed up by ...d4-d3. from the struggle but to win against 31 †f1! d6! his tough opponent is far from easy. Yet another trap had to be If instead 24...bxc4 White must circumvented. 31...d2? is still prem- not play 25 hxg6?? (as given in the ature because of 32 †b5! axb2+ 33 tournament book) because of the †xb2 and ...d3 is prevented because strong reply 25...c3!, but 25 c3! g5! the h8-ƒ would be en prise. The idea transposes to the game. of the text move is to place the ƒ 25 c3 on the protected square e5. White is Probably best because if 25 †xg5 running out of defensive resources. bxc4 26 dxc4 †xc4 27 …xd4 †xd4 32 f3 ƒf5 33 †c1 d2 34 †xc2+ ƒxc2 28 †g8 e4 29 c3 ƒd5! 30 †xh7 (or 35 …hd1 d3 36 …xd2 ‡b6! 0–1 30 cxd4 ƒxg8Œ) 30...†e5 31 …d1 White is still two exchanges ahead e3 Black has all the winning chances. but his situation is hopeless in view of 25...bxc4 26 cxd4 cxd3+ 27 ‡b1 37 h6 ‡b5 38 …f2 ‡b4 39 …d2 axb2 27 ‡d2? †c2+ 28 ‡e1 f3!‰. 40 …xb2 ‡a3‰. Game 40 White: Peter J. Sowray (England) Black: Gerardus C. van Perlo (Netherlands) 11 th CC Olympiad Final, 1992-93 King’s Gambit (C36) XIIIIIIIIY The Players: Sowray is a FIDE Mas- 9r+-wq-trk+0 ter and a strong CC player although 9zppvl-+pzpp0 he has no ICCF title. Ger van Perlo is B9-+n+-+n+0 a very experienced Dutch player who earned the ICCF IM title in 1977. He 9+-+-+-+-0 got the GM title in 1985 after his best 9-+-zPNzpl+0 result, second prize in the Bernard 9+LzP-+N+P0 Freedman Memorial. 9PzP-+-+P+0 About this game: The ancient King’s 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 Gambit has made a comeback in re- xiiiiiiiiy cent years. This complicated battle, position seemed to offer White good featuring a positional † sacrifice, is chances, but Sowray made the wrong still highly relevant to theory a decade choice! In the light of the present after it was played. game, he should have followed 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 c6 4 Èc3 Hebden-Nunn, London 1987, with 13 4 dxc6 is rarely seen because Black Èf2 ƒf5 14 Èd3 Èa5 15 Èfe1 to gets free piece play after 4...Èxc6. round up the f4-pawn. People don’t play the King’s Gambit 13...ƒf5 to go on the defensive at move 4. If 13...ƒh5 White unpins by 14 4...exf4 5 Èf3 ƒd6 6 d4 Èe7 7 ƒc4 †d3, while 13...ƒxf3 gives up the ƒ cxd5 8 ƒxd5 pair without a fight and leaves White 8 Èxd5?? Èxd5 9 ƒxd5 †a5+ in possession of a strong centre. wins the ƒ. 14 Èfg5 8...0–0 9 0–0 Èbc6 10 ƒb3 ƒg4 11 14 Èc5 is quieter but not King’s Èe4 ƒc7 12 c3 Èg6 13 h3 (D) Gambit style says van Perlo. Now Black has to decide what to do 14...h6 15 †h5 Èxd4! about his threatened ƒ. Both players Instead 15...hxg5? 16 Èxg5 Èh8 probably studied Joe Gallagher’s 17 Èxf7! Èxf7 18 †xf5 gave book on the King’s Gambit which was White a strong attack in Westerinen- published around the time this game Motwani, London 1988. began. He said that two moves in this 16 Èxf7 (D) 192 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 22 ƒxf4 ƒxf4 23 …xf4 Èg6 24 …f3 9B zppvl-+Nzp-0 and White won the ending in Asquith- 9-+-+-+nzp0 Sardella, EU/H/1248 corr 1997. b2) 18...Èe2+! 19 ‡f2 Èxh4 20 9+-+-+l+Q0 Èfd6 (20 ‡xe2 …e8) 20...Èg3 21 9-+-snNzp-+0 Èxg3 fxg3+ 22 ‡xg3 g5 23 ƒf4 9+LzP-+-+P0 gxf4+ 24 ‡xh4 ƒxd6 — Johansson. 9PzP-+-+P+0 16...Èxb3! 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 Gallagher did not mention this xiiiiiiiiy possibility! Sowray said he had this position several times before but White must play this, wrote Galla- nobody dared the † sac until now. gher, because 16 cxd4 †xd4+ is good The line White is trying to get for Black, and if 16 …d1 hxg5 then 17 goes 16...…xf7 17 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 18 Èxg5 Èe2+! (‰ Gallagher) or 17 Èg3!! which Gallagher was able …xd4 ƒb6 18 Èxg5 ƒxd4+ 19 cxd4 to test in a game after he wrote his †xd4+ 20 ‡h1 Èe5 21 Èxf7 Èxf7 book: 18...ƒd3 19 ƒxf4 ‡g8 20 22 †xf5 †f6 and White doesn’t have ƒxc7 †xc7 21 cxd4 ƒxf1 22 †xg6 quite enough for the exchange. ƒb5 23 Èf5 and White duly won in On the other hand, GM Neil J.Gallagher-A.Sorin, Biel 1992. McDonald’s 1998 book on the King’s 17 Èxd8 Èxa1 18 Èxb7 ƒxe4 Gambit advises White to play 16 (D) ƒxf7+ …xf7 17 Èxf7 since after 17... XIIIIIIIIY ‡xf7 we transpose to Gallagher’s idea 9r+-+-trk+0 in the note to Black’s move 16, which 9zpNvl-+-zp-0 seems to be good for White. W However, the transposition can be 9-+-+-+nzp0 avoided by 17...†h4!! “and the com- 9+-+-+-+Q0 plications are enormous” (van Perlo). 9-+-+lzp-+0 Thomas Johansson, in his much 9+-zP-+-+P0 superior book, ‘The King’s Gambit 9PzP-+-+P+0 for the Creative Aggressor’, actually prefers Black and I agree with him. 9sn-vL-+RmK-0 a) 18 Èxh6+ gxh6 19 cxd4 ƒxe4 xiiiiiiiiy 20 †xh4 Èxh4 21 ƒxf4 ƒb6 22 ƒe5 (£…f4) 22...…d8 23 …f4 “Black has more than enough for Èg6 24 …xe4 Èxe5 25 …ae1 Èc6 the †” — McDonald. It can seem hard — Johansson. to believe, until you actually try to find b) 18 †xh4 and now: a way for White to get out of jail. For b1) Not 18...Èxh4 19 Èxh6+! example, 19 b4 loses to 19...ƒxb7 20 gxh6 20 Èf6+ ‡f7 21 cxd4 ‡xf6 †xg6 …ae8 or 20...…f6. Game 40: Sowray-van Perlo 193

19 Èc5 ƒb6 20 ‡h2 ƒxc5 21 28 b4 is an alternative but not a †xc5 ‡h7 22 †d4 clear improvement. 22 …e1 might be considered. 28...…d8 29 †b7 Èe1 22...…ae8! 23 †xa7 f3 24 gxf3 The black minor pieces swarm White probably hoped his oppo- around the white ‡ and … like nent would now capture on f3 with ƒ hornets, but how is Black to break or …, but van Perlo wants to capture through and win? Van Perlo conducts with the È to set up stronger threats. the latter phase of the game superbly. 24...Èh4!? Probably there is no defence against While it is not clear that it forces best play by Black from this point. a win, it creates more complications 30 ƒd2 than 24...ƒxf3, which is also 30 b4 Èh4 31 f4 ƒf5 sets up playable. Simplification helps White, a new target at h3: 32 †e7 (not so 24...…xf3? would not be good. 32 ‡g3? …d3+ 33 ‡xh4? …xh3#) 25 ‡g3 32...Èef3+ 33 ‡g3 …fe8 (£...…d3) If 25 ƒxh6 ‡xh6 26 …xa1, trying and White is becoming encircled. to avoid the terrible bind that arises in 30...…fe8 (D) the game, then 26...ƒd5! (£...…e2+) XIIIIIIIIY 27 †a6+ …e6 28 †d3 Èxf3+ 29 9-+-trr+-+0 ‡g3 …g6+ and White must give up the †. If instead 25 f4 Èc2 threatens W9+Q+-+-zpk0 ...Èe1!, and all the troops are massing 9-+-+-+-zp0 for the final assault. 9+-+-+n+-0 25...ƒd3 9-+-+-+-+0 Black keeps up the pressure by 9+-zPl+P+P0 avoiding exchanges. Black does not 9PzP-vL-tR-mK0 want to play an endgame in which White has a † and connected queen- 9+-+-sn-+-0 side passed pawns. 25...Èxf3 might xiiiiiiiiy give White a rescue opportunity with 26 †d7! (preventing ...…e6, and also 31 ƒxe1 ...…f6) 26...Èc2 27 ƒf4 and there White takes the chance to exchange seems nothing conclusive for Black, a pair of pieces but Black now gets an e.g. 27...Èce1 28 ƒd6 or 27... h5 28 h4. entry for his …s to the 8th rank. Maybe 26 …f2 Èf5+ 27 ‡h2 White was afraid of a collapse on f3, If 27 ‡g2, inviting Black to take but this is equally serious. a draw by repetition, he would avoid However, there seems no way that with 27...Èc2 or 27...…e7, for White to get his pawns moving working on improving the placement without allowing a breakthrough: and coordination of his pieces. If 31 b4 ƒb1! (frees d3 while 27...Èc2 28 †d7 protecting the f5-È) then: 194 64 Great Chess Games

a) 32 †f7? Èxf3+ wins. (If 36 ‡g4 …e4+ and 36 ‡h2 ƒf5 is b) 32 a4 (or 32 b5) 32...Èd3 not much better.) 36...…e4+ 37 ‡h5 (32...…e7 33 †xe7! Èxf3+ 34 ‡g2 …xh3#. Èxe7 35 ‡xf3 …d3+ 36 ‡g2 is less 33 †d7 conclusive.) 33 …g2 Èe5 34 ‡h1 This threatens two pieces but there (After 34 a5 …e7 White can no longer is a simple answer. defend f3.) 34...…e7 35 †b6 …d3 36 33...…8e3 a5 (36 †g1 ƒa2 £...ƒd5) 36...…xf3 Black has everything defended. 37 ‡g1 …xh3‰. The È defends the one weak spot c) 32 ƒxe1 …xe1 33 …b2 (or 33 in his game, g7, while controlling h4 …dd1 34 ‡h3 ƒd3) 33...…dd1 g3. In turn the ƒ defends the … and 34 †a7 (to cover g1) 34...…h1+ the transfer of …s to the deadly d1-e1 35 ‡g2 ƒd3 (£...…df1, ...Èh4+ line-up cannot be long prevented. winning) 36 b5 …df1 37 …b4 ƒe2 White’s best defence is 34 †a4! 38 …f4 ƒxf3+ 39 …xf3 Èh4+ 40 (preventing ...…d1) and if instead ‡g3 …xf3+! 41 ‡xh4 …hxh3+ 42 34...…b1 (say) 35 †a7 …ee1 36 …d2 ‡g4 when 42...h5+ 43 ‡g5 …hg3+ and the † covers g1. Then 36...…h1+ 44 ‡xh5 …g6 45 ‡h4 …f1 46 †a8 37 ‡g2 …hg1+ 38 †xg1 Èh4+! 39 …h1+! 47 †xh1 …h6+ and ...…xh1 is ‡f2 …xg1 40 …xd3 (40 ‡xg1 Èxf3+ one way to win. 41 ‡f2 Èxd2 42 ‡e3 ƒb1 is easier) Instead 31 †c7 …d5 (31...Èh4? 40...…g2+ and ...…xb2 should win, or 32 ƒxe1) 32 †f7 tries to harry Black similarly 38 ‡h2 Èh4 39 †f2 (39 but it fails to 32...…de5 (32...Èxf3+ …f2? ƒe2!) 39...g5! forces 40 …xd3 33 …xf3 …e2+ 34 ‡g1 ƒe4 also …h1+ 41 ‡g3 …bg1+ 42 †xg1 wins.) 33 a4 (33 ƒxe1 …xe1 34 …xg1+ 43 ‡f2 …g2+ and ...…xb2. …g2 …8e3 will win as in the game.) 34 b4 …d1 35 †c7 …e7?! 36 †c5 33...…8e7 34 †h5 Èd4 followed by …ee1 37 …b2 …h1+ 38 ‡g2 …df1! the capture on f3. 0–1 31...…xe1 32 †c7 White resigned although he can stave Or 32 …g2 ƒb1 followed by off mate for a while with 39 †f2. ...…dd1 and wins. Therefore 35...…ee1! was a 32...…de8 more precise finish, forcing mate White’s situation becomes critical. in 10 moves at most. The threat is Once Black doubles …s on the 8th 36...…h1+ 37 ‡g2 …dg1#, and if rank, he will create mating threats White makes room with 36 …b2 (as before the white pawns can become in the game) then 36...…h1+ 37 ‡g2 dangerous, e.g. 33 b4 …d1 34 a4 …dg1+ 38 ‡f2 …f1+ 39 ‡g2 Èh4+ …ee1‰. 40 ‡g3 …xf3+ etc. as in the 33 …d2 Also 33 …d2 is useless because of note; here 41 ‡g4 …g1+ 42 ‡xh4 (42 33...…f1! 34 ‡g2 (34 …xd3? …e2#) ‡h5 Èg6) 42...…f4+ 43 †xf4 g5+ is 34...Èh4+ 35 ‡g3 …xf3+ 36 ‡xh4 the prettiest mate! Game 41 White: Jørn Sloth (Denmark) Black: Károly Honfi (Hungary) 11 th CC Olympiad Final, board 1, 1992-94 Polish Defence (A46) Notes by Jørn Sloth

The Players: Jørn Sloth (born resigned the game in mid-August 1944) won the 8th European CC 1994. Thus Sloth got his revenge. Championship, which qualified him They had met once before, but OTB for the 8th CC World Championship — “in the Nimzowitsch Memorial Final (1975-80). He won that too, in Copenhagen 1965, a strong GM on tie-break from Zagorovsky, tournament, which I (very young) was after tough opposition from USSR lucky to qualify for. I missed getting players. Sloth has remained an active the IM title by only half a point — and player but rarely plays more than one I lost with White against Honfi in 59 tournament at a time. He is also a moves (making the decisive mistake FIDE Master. at move 58).” Károly Honfi (1930-1996) was an 1 d4 Èf6 2 Èf3 e6 3 g3 b5! IM of both FIDE and ICCF. He was I agree with Dr Berliner that 2 c4 twice runner-up in the Hungarian is the correct move for White. But I’m OTB championship. not always in the mood to fight for About this game: I am grateful to principles... Jørn Sloth for providing extensive 4 ƒg2 ƒb7 5 ƒg5 c5 6 ƒxf6 original notes especially for the book. In the Axelson Memorial, 1984- We chose this game, as a contrast to 85, I had a good experience with 6 the many tactically complex games c3 against Klaus Engel: 6...†b6?! in this book, as a little-known 7 ƒxf6 gxf6 8 0–0 h5?! (1–0, 26). example of the positional and Against Sanakoev in the ICCF-50 endgame skills that won him the Champions tournament, I returned to World Championship. 6 c3, but could prove no advantage The Olympiad Final started on after 6...cxd4 7 ƒxf6 gxf6 8 cxd4 d5 December 15th 1992, but only one 9 0–0 Èd7 10 Èbd2 ƒe7 11 a4!? move was played in 1992. Honfi bxa4. 196 64 Great Chess Games

6...†xf6 Èd2! 0–0 17 Èc4 †c7 18 †d2 f5 6...gxf6 7 c3 usually returns to the He is anxious to get counterplay. previous note. I am not sure if this is a mistake. If 7 0–0 d6?! White gets f2-f4 in first, Black could 7...cxd4! 8 Èxd4 ƒxg2 9 ‡xg2 be in trouble. a6 is good enough for Black. 19 exf5 …xf5 20 ƒh3 …f6 (D) I looked at it again before choosing XIIIIIIIIY 6 c3 against Sanakoev. Also 7...†d8 9r+-+-+k+0 is better than Honfi’s move. 9+lwq-vl-zpp0 8 e4! (D) W XIIIIIIIIY 9p+-zp-tr-+0 9rsn-+kvl-tr0 9+-zpPzp-+-0 9zpl+-+pzpp0 9-+N+-+-+0 B9-+-zppwq-+0 9+-+-+-zPL0 9+pzp-+-+-0 9-zPPwQ-zP-zP0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 9+-+-+NzP-0 xiiiiiiiiy 9PzPP+-zPLzP0 21 …e4 9tRN+Q+RmK-0 A very difficult move; after 19 xiiiiiiiiy days I decided on a slow approach. 21 f4 exf4 22 †a5! looks good, Now 8...ƒxe4 9 Èc3 ƒc6 10 d5 but I didn’t like 21...…h6. 21 Èa5 is very promising for White, I think. was also interesting, but here I 8...Èd7 9 …e1 †d8! 10 d5! considered 21...c4!? to be possible. Starting long-term play against 21...…af8 22 …f1 …h6 23 ƒg4 ‡h8 the badly placed ƒ at b7. Curiously 24 f4!? enough, the ƒ never gets into I convinced myself that this was play... the only chance to play for a win. 10...e5 11 a4!? Black’s problem with the b7-ƒ Trying to ‘win’ c4. Honfi gives should become more serious after in at once, but if 11...a6 12 Èa3!? the exchange of †s and …s (one probably. pair or both). 11...bxa4 12 Èc3 Èb6?! 13 ƒf1! 24...exf4 25 …fxf4 …hf6 26 †a5! With the threat of ƒb5+. And the †d8 ƒ was now without work at g2. 26...†xa5? 27 Èxa5 and both ƒs 13...a6 are hanging. Maybe 26...…xf4!? is Making the b7-ƒ a little more worth looking at, but Honfi retreated unhappy. the † without hesitation. 14 Èxa4 ƒe7 15 Èxb6 †xb6 16 27 †xd8 ƒxd8 28 ƒe6 …xf4 (D) Game 41: Sloth-Honfi 197

XIIIIIIIIY 35 Èc4 ƒc7 36 ƒc8 a5 37 Èa3! 9-+-vl-tr-mk0 (D) 9+l+-+-zpp0 XIIIIIIIIY W9p+-zpL+-+0 9l+L+-+-+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 B9+-vl-+-mkp0 9-+N+Rtr-+0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9zp-zpP+-+-0 9-zPP+-+-zP0 9-+-+KzP-+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 9sN-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 9-zPP+-+-zP0 29 …xf4 At first my plan was 29 gxf4 — to 9+-+-+-+-0 have one … left to do the winning job xiiiiiiiiy (if possible). However, here Honfi proposed With the idea 37...‡f6 38 Èb5 the conditional sequence 29 …xf4 ƒb8 — and both ‘proud’ black ƒs are …xf4 30 gxf4 and now 30...ƒe7. unable to move! White should win, I I had only expected 30...ƒc7!, and think. In some variations the white ‡ 30...ƒe7? could be the decisive goes after the black a-pawn... mistake. 37...a4 38 Èb5 ƒd8 29...…xf4 30 gxf4 ƒe7? 31 ‡g2 g6 He doesn’t want to both Here (or on the next move) Black ƒs with ...ƒb8, but this is hopeless. should probably play ...a5, giving up 39 Èxd6 ƒf6 the pawn to free the ƒ. But Honfi was He was hoping maybe for 40 Èc4? not that desperate yet. ƒxb2!. 32 ‡f3 ‡g7 33 Èa5 40 Èe8+ 1–0 33 ‡e4 is possible — with the With the proposal 40...‡f7 threat 34 Èa5 ƒa8 35 ƒc8 winning 41 Èxf6. The ƒ endgame after a pawn — but Black then has another 41...‡xf6 is very easily won, for chance to try 33...a5!?. instance with 42 c4 (‡e7 43 ‡e5); 33...ƒa8 34 ‡e4 ƒd8 the black ƒ is still trapped in the The only way to prevent ƒc8. corner. Game 42 White: Gottardo Gottardi (Switzerland) Black: Vladimir N. Gritsaenko (Russia) Konstantinopolsky Memorial, 1993-95 Sicilian Defence (B22)

XIIIIIIIIY The Players: Despite his name, Got- tardi (born 1961) is actually from the 9r+-+kvl-tr0 German-speaking part of Switzerland. 9zpp+-zppzpp0 He joined the CC elite when he won B9-snnwql+-+0 the Konstantinopolsky Memorial with 9+-+-+-+-0 13/14 and then scored an unbeaten 9-+-zp-+-+0 11/15 in the 15th World Championship 9sNLzP-+N+-0 Final. He is currently taking a break from competition but I expect to see a 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 strong comeback from him in future. 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 Gritsaenko is a CC-IM. xiiiiiiiiy About this game: Gottardi’s play is 10...dxc3 characterised by imaginative com- Black can also decline the offer with binative attacks and deep openings 10...ƒxb3, meeting 11 axb3 by 11...a6, preparation, but theory has moved and 11 †xb3 by 11...e6 or 11...†d5. on since the game was played. I 11 †e2 ƒxb3 12 Èb5 †b8 13 particularly like the instructive final axb3 e5 attack with reduced material. In the same event, Gottardi- 1 e4 c5 2 c3 Brzózka went 13...e6 14 g3 (£15 Despite its quiet appearance, this ƒf4) 14...†c8!?, but Gottardi found move can lead to complications. a way forward: 15 Èg5!? a6 16 2...Èf6 3 e5 Èd5 4 d4 cxd4 5 Èf3 †h5 Èd8 (16...g6 17 †f3 †d7 18 Èc6 6 ƒc4 Èb6 7 ƒb3 Èe4! Èd5 19 …d1 ƒg7 20 …xd5!) White offers a gambit instead of 17 Èxc3 h6 18 ƒe3 Èd7 19 …fd1 recapturing on d4. Black can avoid Èe5? 20 …xd8+! ‡xd8 (20...†xd8 this line playing ...e6 at move 5 or 6. 21 Èxe6) 21 Èxf7+ Èxf7 22 †xf7 7...d6 1–0. This reaches the same position as 14 Èbd4 Èxd4 after the usual 7...d5 because White Alternatives are: captures in that case. a) 14...f6!? as in Rytshagov-Sadler, 8 exd6 †xd6 9 0–0 ƒe6 10 Èa3 (D) EU Cht Pula 1997. Game 42: Gottardi-Gritsaenko 199

b) 14...ƒd6 15 bxc3!? (Rüfenacht- pleasant endgame after 26...ƒxb4?! S.Jardorf, 4th EU Cht Final corr 1994- 27 …xb4 …d8 28 c5! †xc5 29 …xb7+ 95) 15...f6 16 Èf5 g6 17 Èxd6+ ‡g8 30 †g4 †c1+ 31 ‡h2 †f4+ 32 †xd6 18 ƒa3 †e6¢. †g3 †xg3+ 33 ‡xg3Ÿ Rüfenacht- 15 Èxd4 f6 16 bxc3 ‡f7 D.Orseth, 4th EU Cht Final 1995, and White gets a strong attack after 1-0, 45 as Black missed a draw. 16...ƒd6 17 Èf5 — Chandler, e.g. A more recent game, D.Marciano- 17...g6 18 Èxd6+ †xd6, as the I.Nataf, French Ch, Vichy 2000, saw exchange of Ès means that White can instead 26...ƒd4!, after which Black attack straight away with 19 f4!. defended carefully and was eventually 17 Èb5 a6 18 ƒe3 axb5 19 ƒxb6 rewarded with a full point as White …xa1 20 …xa1 †e8 21 …a5 (D) tried too hard to win a † endgame. XIIIIIIIIY However, I do not rule out the possibility 9-+-+qvl-tr0 that Gottardi has some idea in reserve against that possibility! When you look B9+p+-+kzpp0 at Black’s deficit in development in the 9-vL-+-zp-+0 diagram, it is hard to believe he can have 9tRp+-zp-+-0 simple equality within two moves. 9-+-+-+-+0 22 †xb5! 9+PzP-+-+-0 This seems much stronger than 9-+-+QzPPzP0 22 …xb5 as played in Rozentalis- Dydyshko, Poland Ch 2001, with 9+-+-+-mK-0 an early draw. This is yet another xiiiiiiiiy example of FIDE professionals being ignorant of CC discoveries. 21...†c6 22...†xc3 23 †d5+ ‡g6 This move, suggested in Black threatens checkmate on e1. ‘Informator 47’, would appear to be 24 h4! inferior, but that was not clear until This move was judged the Best after the present game. The main line Novelty of the tournament. Former then and now was 21...b4 22 c4 (22 theory was 24 g4 †c6! (½-½, 30) cxb4 brought White no advantage Blauert-Jirovsky, 2nd Bundesliga 1993. after 22...†e6! in Luther-Sadler, 24...†c6 Gausdal 1994.) 22...†c6 23 …b5 There may be nothing better: ƒe7 24 ƒa5 …a8 25 h3 and now: a) 24...ƒb4 25 h5+! ‡xh5 26 †f7+ a) 25...‡g8 26 †e1 ƒc5 27 ƒxb4 g6 27 †xf6! ƒxa5 28 ƒe3!!ˆ ƒd4 led to a draw in Lautier-Gelfand, (Gottardi, ‘Chess Mail’ 3/1999). Linares 1994. b) Inserting 24...†c1+ 25 ‡h2 b) 25...ƒc5 26 ƒxb4 was played makes little difference. A later game by Gottardi’s Swiss team colleague, won by a Swiss CC master continued GM Matthias Rüfenacht, reaching a on parallel lines: 25...†c6 26 h5+! 200 64 Great Chess Games

‡xh5 27 †f7+ g6 28 ƒe3 ƒh6 White is still a pawn in arrears but 29 …c5! †d6 30 …d5 †f8 31 †e6 he will try to proceed with his attack ƒxe3 when White took advantage of where possible. Two major factors are his extra ‡ move to win by 32 †h3+ in his favour: the perilous situation of the ‡g5 33 †xe3+ ‡h5 34 †h3+ ‡g5 black ‡ and the absence of a defensive 35 †g3+ ‡f5 (35...‡h5 36 f4!) contribution from Black’s … and ƒ. 36 †d3+ ‡e6 (36...‡g5 37 f4+ or 27...ƒh6!? 36...‡g4 37 †e4+ ‡h5 38 …d3) This sets a very nasty trap. Other 37 †c4 ‡f5 and now 38 g4+! ‡g5 lines analysed by Gottardi were: 39 ‡g3 1–0 G.Walker-A.Backlund, a) 27...ƒb4? 28 …a8!!ˆ …xa8? NBC-30 1997-98. 29 †xh7+ ‡g4 30 †h3#. 25 h5+! ‡xh5? b) 27...b6?! 28 …d5 (£…d8) and 25...‡f5 looks a better defence. if 28...ƒh6 29 g4+ ‡xg4 30 ƒxh6 Gottardi says: “White can play 26 †d8 …a8 31 ƒe3 …a1+ 32 ‡h2 ‡f5 33 followed by the options 27 ƒc5, 27 …a4 †xh7! †xd5? 34 †h3+ ‡e4 35 and 27 …a8”. However, after 26...‡e6! †g2+ wins. (26...g6 27 b4!? ‡e6 28 ƒc5) 27 ƒc5 c) 27...b5 when 28 …a7? ƒh6 29 (27 …a8 g6 28 …c8 †d7) does not work …c7 (Gottardi) does not seem to win because of 27...ƒxc5! 28 †xh8 ƒxf2+ after 28...ƒh6. Instead 28 …xb5! 29 ‡h2 †c3, so 27 …a1 may be the ƒh6 (28...†xb5? 29 †xf6 mating, or best continuation. White’s game remains 28...†d6 29 …b6 †e7 30 †c4ˆ) preferable but there is no win in sight. 29 …c5 and White wins as in the 26 †f7+ g6 game (the absent black b-pawn makes Gottardi showed ‡ moves fail: absolutely no difference). 26...‡g5? 27 …xe5+! fxe5 28 ƒe3+, d) 27...†d6!? 28 g4+! ‡h4 (28... or 26...‡h4? 27 …xe5! fxe5 28 †f5!, ‡xg4 29 †c4+ ‡f3 30 †f1!ˆ) 29 or 26...‡h6? 27 ƒe3+ g5 28 …a4ˆ. ‡g2! †c6+ 30 f3 †c2+ 31 ƒf2+ ‡g5 27 ƒe3 (D) 32 †e6! (threatening to mate by 33 f4+ XIIIIIIIIY ‡xf4 34 †xf6+) 32...b5 (32...†b2 33 9-+-+-vl-tr0 f4+ or 32...†d2 33 …d5) 33 …a6 ƒc5 34 f4+! ‡h6 (34...‡xf4 35 †xf6+) 35 B9+p+-+Q+p0 g5+ fxg5 36 fxg5+ ‡xg5 37 †xe5+ and 9-+q+-zpp+0 38 †xc5 winning. 9tR-+-zp-+k0 28 …c5! 9-+-+-+-+0 White cannot win a piece by 28 9+P+-vL-+-0 g4+? ‡xg4 29 ƒxh6 because of 29... 9-+-+-zPP+0 ‡h3! (threatening mate on g2) and if 30 †d5?? …d8! (31 †xc6 …d1#) 9+-+-+-mK-0 or 30 f3?? †b6+ 31 ‡f1 †xa5‰ xiiiiiiiiy though White can just escape with 30 …d5 and get a draw. Game 42: Gottardi-Gritsaenko 201

28...†d6 and 34 †h3#) 33...g5 (33...†c8 34 If 28...†e8? 29 †xf6ˆ or 28... fxe5 †e6 35 †e2+ ‡h6 36 †d2+ g5 †a6? 29 …xe5+! ƒg5 (29...fxe5 37 exf6ˆ) 34 †h3+ ‡g6 35 f5+ ‡f7 30 †f3+ ‡h4 31 †h3#) 30 …xg5+ 36 …d7+ ‡g8 37 †h5! †c5+ 38 ‡h2 fxg5 31 †f3+ ‡h6 32 †h3+ ‡g7 33 †f8 39 b4! “and Master Zugzwang ƒd4+ and wins. decides the game” — Gottardi. 29 …d5 33 †d3+ ‡g5? This not only threatens the † but This blunder shortens the game; makes the threat of g2-g4+ effective, either Black overlooked the reply or forcing the reply. It is still too soon else just wanted to get it over quickly. for 29 g4+? because of 29...‡h4! 30 However, as Gottardi comments: “The ƒxh6 †d1+ 31 ‡h2 †f3! 32 ƒe3 black ‡ can no longer cope with the †h3+ 33 ‡g1 †xg4+ with perpetual alarming activity of the white †”. check, while on 29 …c3 Black has a If 33...‡g4 34 †e4+ ‡h5 (or choice between 29...f5 and 29...ƒf4. 34...‡g5 35 g3 h5 36 †f4#) 35 g3 29...†f8 30 †e6! (D) g5 36 g4+ ‡h6 37 …d7 or 33...‡f4 It might seem that White has in- 34 g3+ ‡g5 35 †e4 ‡h6 36 †h4+ sufficient firepower to win but Gottardi ‡g7 37 …d7+ˆ. demonstrates otherwise. His centralised Black could have fought much force of †+… is concentrated against harder with 33...‡e6! 34 †c4 ‡f5 the black ‡ while the black … never 35 f3! and now Gottardi gives: gets into the fight. a) 35...h5 36 g4+ ‡g5 37 †c1+ XIIIIIIIIY ‡h4 38 †e1+ ‡g5 39 †e3+ ‡h4 9-+-+-wq-tr0 40 …d2ˆ. b) 35...g5 36 g4+ ‡g6 37 †c2+ e4 B9+p+-+-+p0 (37...‡f7 38 …d7+ or 37...f5 38 †c7!) 9-+-+Qzppvl0 38 †xe4+ ‡g7 (38...‡h6 39 f4!) 39 9+-+Rzp-+k0 …d7+ ‡h6 40 ‡g2!! and there is no 9-+-+-+-+0 answer to the threatened manoeuvre 9+P+-vL-+-0 †b1–h1 (if 40...†c8 41 †f5!). 9-+-+-zPP+0 c) To those lines, I would add 35... ‡g5 36 †c1+ ‡f5 (36...‡h5 37 g4+ 9+-+-+-mK-0 ‡h4 38 †e1+ ‡g5 39 †e3+ ‡h4 xiiiiiiiiy 40 ‡g2 followed by …d1-h1 mate) 37 g4+ ‡e6 38 †c4 and wins because 30...ƒxe3 31 †h3+ ‡g5 32 †xe3+ this time around ...‡f5 is illegal. ‡f5 34 f4+! 1–0 If 32...‡h4? 33 …d3ˆ or 32... Black resigned in view of 34...‡xf4 ‡g4? 33 f3+ ‡f5 34 †e4+ ‡e6 35 35 g3+ ‡g5 36 †e4 ‡h6 (or 36...h5 †c4!. On 32...‡h5 White wins with 37 †f4#) 37 †h4+ ‡g7 38 …d7+ 33 f4! (with the double threat 34 fxe5 ‡g8 39 †c4+. Game 43 White: Gert Jan Timmerman (Netherlands) Black: Ulf Andersson (Sweden) NPSF-50, 1994-96 Sicilian Scheveningen, Keres Attack (B81)

The Players: Timmerman was intro- is reckoned to give White an edge, so duced in Game 1. Andersson, one of 8...d5 must be the critical continuation the world’s top FIDE GMs for thirty for the fight in the centre. It forestalls years, hardly needs any introduction. White’s threat of g4-g5. This was his first postal tournament XIIIIIIIIY and he won it convincingly, playing 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 in a dynamic style not usually associ- ated with his peaceful endgame-based 9zpp+-+pzp-0 approach to OTB chess. W9-+n+psn-zp0 About this game: This was not only 9+-+p+-+-0 a significant clash between two of the 9-+-sNP+PzP0 favourites for this tournament — the 9+-sN-+-+-0 strongest postal event ever staged up 9PzPP+-zP-+0 to that time — but it was a creative masterpiece by Andersson. 9tR-vLQmKLtR-0 Timmerman had just won three xiiiiiiiiy major CC tournaments in a row with- out losing a game; moreover, he had 9 ƒb5 the white pieces. Andersson sprang an White must look to 9 exd5 for important theoretical novelty, over- prospects of an advantage. However, turning analysis by Karpov, and sacri- ‘ECO’ gives 9...Èxd5 10 Èxd5 ficed a pawn for a powerful initiative †xd5 11 ƒg2 †a5+ 12 ƒd2 which he drove home to victory. †e5+ 13 ƒe3 (Beliavsky-Ghinda, For my notes to this game, I also Bucharest 1980) 13...Èb4!? 14 c4 draw on analysis in ‘SSKK Bulletin- ƒc5! as unclear (Kasparov). en’ (based on a conversation its editor Also 10...exd5!? was successfully Lars Grahn had with Andersson). played against Timmerman by van 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Èxd4 Wely in a 1993 Dutch OTB game. Èf6 5 Èc3 e6 6 g4 h6 7 h4 Èc6 8 Maybe Andersson did not know that. …g1 d5! (D) 9...ƒd7 10 exd5 Èxd5 11 Èxd5 The usual move is 8...h5 but that exd5 12 ƒe3 ƒe7 Game 43: Timmerman-U.Andersson 203

12...†xh4 (Makarichev) is an 14...d4! alternative given in ‘ECO’. Andersson always prefers to go his 13 †d2 own way in the openings and while In his book ‘Chess at the Top’, he often does not know what other Karpov analysed 13 †e2 0–0?! but players have written, he probably he showed Black can improve by knew Karpov’s book very well. This 13...†a5+ 14 c3 Èxd4 15 ƒxd7+ pawn advance is the move which ‡xd7 16 ƒxd4 …he8 17 ‡f1 ƒf6 the former world champion Karpov, 18 †f3 …e6. Also possible is Yugoslav analyst Krni™ and many 14...0-0-0 (H.Niedermaier-V.Hort, others missed. Bundesliga 1987). Old theory following Karpov was 13...0–0! 14...ƒxf5 15 gxf5 ‡h7 16 0–0–0 with Until this game, theory followed a clear advantage for the first player. Karpov-Spassky, Tilburg 1980 (White On 14...ƒf6, Karpov’s mysterious got the advantage after 13...ƒxh4?! claim that 15 Èxh6+?! gxh6 16 g5 14 0–0–0 ƒf6 15 Èf5) and Black’s gives a decisive attack for White has attempts to improve with 13...Èxd4 never been tested but simply 15 0-0-0 14 ƒxd7+ †xd7 (as in Marjanovic- looks good. Cebalo, Yugoslav Ch 1962, and Kind- 15 ƒxh6!? ermann-Vogt, Baden-Baden 1993). Most people might stop analyzing Andersson prefers to castle, which after seeing this; White’s attack looks threatens ...Èxd4. This move was dangerous. Inferior alternatives are: dismissed in analysis by Karpov in a) 15 Èxe7+ †xe7 16 0–0–0 (16 1980, and by Krni™ in ‘Informator’. ƒxc6? dxe3 17 †xd7 †b4+ 18 ‡f1 Andersson’s novelty is in showing †xb2 19 …d1 †f6 20 †f5 †xc6 it to be playable; instead of capturing and Black has a clear advantage.) White’s h-pawn, he will sacrifice 16...dxe3 17 †xd7 e2!. his own for the initiative, based on b) 15 ƒxd4 Èxd4 16 Èxd4 fantastically deep calculation. ƒxb5 17 Èxb5 †b6 18 c4 …ad8 19 14 Èf5 (D) †c2 ƒxh4 and one can’t be envious XIIIIIIIIY of White’s position. 9r+-wq-trk+0 c) 15 Èxd4? Èxd4 and White 9zpp+lvlpzp-0 loses a piece. B 15...ƒb4 9-+n+-+-zp0 This is the point of Andersson’s 9+L+p+N+-0 play: he counter-attacks against 9-+-+-+PzP0 White’s ‡. Capturing on h6 is 9+-+-vL-+-0 not good because after 15...gxh6? 16 9PzPPwQ-zP-+0 †xh6 ƒf6 17 g5 …e8+ 18 ‡f1 ƒe5 9tR-+-mK-tR-0 19 g6 Black will be mated. xiiiiiiiiy 16 c3 dxc3 17 bxc3 Èe5 204 64 Great Chess Games

The threat of the family fork by the should have been used to improve the È and the second threat to b5 give position of one of the …s or, as Grahn White no time to take on g7 or b4. suggests, to move the white † out 18 ƒe2 of the reach of the black …: 23 †b2 Obviously not 18 Èd4?? ƒxb5 †d5 24 ‡g1 ƒc5 25 ƒe3 b6, with 19 cxb4 Èd3+. So Timmerman tries just a small advantage for Black. to control the square f3, as 18 …g3 23...Èc6 24 ƒe3 fails to 18...ƒxb5 19 cxb4 Èd3+, Grahn pessimistically thinks this is or if White exchanges the †s at d8 forced because after 24 Èxc6 ƒxc6 instead, the ƒ at h6 gets lost, e.g. 19 25 …d3 …xe2! Black wins easily, e.g. †xd8 …axd8 20 ƒxg7? …fe8 and 26 ‡xe2 (26 †xe2 ƒb5 27 …ad1 Black wins. †a6) 26...†a6 27 c4 (27 …d1 …xd3 18...…e8 28 †xd3 ƒb5) 27...†xc4 28 …d1 This renews the threat of ...Èf3+ …xd3 29 †xd3 †xf4. and forces White’s ‡ to move. In ‘Chess Mail’ 1/1997, I suggested 19 ‡f1 ƒf8 (D) that with 24 …d3 White has chances The first phase of direct threats is of equality despite the difficulties on over; everything is protected, White the light squares. This was seen in has lost castling rights, and for the O.Lorentzen-E.Sterud, Norway corr pawn Andersson has great piece Ch 1997: 24...Èxd4 25 …xd4 ƒc5 activity. Now it is time for the active 26 …xd8 …xd8 27 †b2 ƒd6 28 ƒs to retire. ƒxd6 †d5 29 f3 †xd6 30 †xb7 XIIIIIIIIY †h2 31 †xa7 …e8 32 …e1 ½-½. 9r+-wqrvlk+0 24...Èxd4 25 ƒxd4 …e4 26 †b2 ƒc5 27 …b1 W9zpp+l+pzp-0 If instead 27 ƒxc5 †xc5 28 9-+-+-+-vL0 …d3 …de8 (Harding, 1997) when 9+-+-snN+-0 Portuguese CC-GM Alvaro Pereira 9-+-+-+PzP0 analysed further in ‘Peao Distante’: 9+-zP-+-+-0 29 …e1 (29 …d2 …xe2 30 …xe2 ƒb5 9P+-wQLzP-+0 31 …ae1 †d5‰ or 29 ƒf3 ƒb5! 30 ƒxe4 …xe4 31 …ad1 …xg4‰) 9tR-+-+KtR-0 29...ƒb5 30 …e3 …xe3 31 fxe3 ƒc6 xiiiiiiiiy with clear advantage to Black. 27...ƒxd4 28 cxd4 ƒc6 29 …d1 …f4 20 ƒf4 †a5 21 …g3 …ad8 22 Èd4 30 d5? ƒa4 23 h5 White returns the extra pawn in the White tries to generate some hope of simplification but Andersson attack but this move gives Black keeps the initiative. At this point, the opportunity of an advantageous White had a better move that could exchange on d4. So perhaps this tempo have kept his chances alive. Game 43: Timmerman-U.Andersson 205 XIIIIIIIIY 30 †d2! is a better way of giving up the pawn. After 30...†xd2 31 9-+-+-+k+0 …xd2 …fxd4 32 …xd4 …xd4 Black 9zpp+-+pzp-0 surely has a better position, but will it W9-+l+-+-+0 be enough to win the game? 9+-tr-+-+P0 Black can try for more by 30...†g5 9-+-+-+P+0 when the threat is ...ƒa4 and if the … 9+-+-mKPwq-0 leaves the square d1 then Black can play ...…xf2+ as well as ...…dxd4. 9PwQ-+L+-+0 However, Timmerman could reply 31 9+-+R+-+-0 ƒc4! and the ƒ tries to go to b3 and xiiiiiiiiy put pressure on f7; for example: Pereira comments: “The white a) 31...†f6 32 g5! †xd4 33 †xd4 ‡ cannot get back under cover. …dxd4 34 …xd4 …xd4 and White’s Andersson plays the attack very ƒ is much more active than in the well.” Now that the retreat to f2 is 30...†d2 variation. cut off, Black’s threat is 38...…e5+, b) If 31...ƒd5 32 ƒxd5 …xd5 33 followed by ...ƒxf3. …e1 the black ‡ is in danger. Also 38 …d8+ ‡h7 39 ƒd3+ f5! 40 †d4 not 31...…fxd4? 32 †xg5 …xd1+ 33 40 ƒxf5+ fails to 40...…xf5 41 ‡e2. So maybe there would be nothing gxf5 †g5+ and ...†xd8. better than 30...†xd2 after all. 40...†xf3+ 41 ‡d2 †g2+ 42 ‡e3 30...…xd5 31 …gd3 †c5 32 f3 …xd3 After 42 ƒe2 …d5 43 …xd5 †xd5 33 …xd3 †g5 44 †xd5 ƒxd5 Black has a winning Black threatens ...†xg4 and ƒ endgame — Grahn. definitely stands better now. White’s 42...†g3+ 43 ‡d2 †h2+ 44 ƒe2 kingside pawns are meant to be an Not 44 ‡e3? …e5+ but Black offensive weapon in the Keres Attack demonstrates a forced win against the but now they are his problem. If the text move also. black † can filter in behind them, 44...…e5 45 †c4 ƒf3 then the game is over. This wins a piece, so the game 34 ‡e1 …c4 could have ended here. Andersson begins the final assault. White still has a series of checks 35 ‡f2 but the pawns on g4 and h5, meant The ‡ returns to the kingside to attack the black ‡, now serve as because 35 ‡d1 ƒa4+ 36 ‡e1 his shield. …c2 37 †d4 †h4+ is even worse 46 †g8+ ‡h6 47 †h8+ ‡g5 48 for White. †xg7+ ‡h4 49 †f6+ ‡h3 0-1 35...†h4+ 36 ‡e3 The black ‡ reached safety and Not 36 ‡g2?? …xg4+ and White resigned. This was a fine win checkmate. by Andersson who revealed that he 36...…c5 37 …d1 †g3 (D) mostly analysed in his local cafe. Game 44 White: Viktoras Milvydas (Lithuania) Black: Sergey Muravyev (Ukraine) 5th European Cht Preliminaries, 1994-97 Spanish, Marshall Attack (C89)

The Players: Muravyev was a finalist 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 in the 20th USSR Championship and Èf6 5 0–0 ƒe7 6 …e1 b5 7 ƒb3 0–0 is an ICCF international master. Mil- 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Èxd5 10 Èxe5 Èxe5 vydas is also a CC-IM. His best result 11 …xe5 c6 12 d4 ƒd6 13 …e1 †h4 was fourth place in the 27th European 14 g3 †h3 15 ƒe3 ƒg4 16 †d3 Championship in the mid-1980s. …ae8 17 Èd2 …e6 18 a4 (D) About this game: Theory battles fre- XIIIIIIIIY quently decide high-level CC games. 9-+-+-trk+0 Both players gladly enter well-known sharp lines in the Sicilian Defence, B9+-+-+pzpp0 King’s Indian or (in this case) the 9p+pvlr+-+0 Spanish Marshall with a view to a 9+p+n+-+-0 complicated struggle and a good 9P+-zP-+l+0 chance of a decisive result. 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 The player who does his research 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 better and/or analyses most accu- rately can expect to win. Sometimes 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 the player who gets his theoretical xiiiiiiiiy improvement first is the one with the greatest hope of victory but points are This is a standard position in the often scored by refuting dubious in- Marshall Attack. novations. 18...f5? Paradoxically, the result of this Black should play 18...†h5!, as theory battle is a draw. Black’s brill- introduced by Spassky against Tal in iant novelty — improving on analysis the 1965 Candidates Final; 18...bxa4 by that great Marshall expert Dr John and 18...b4 are less reliable, but safer Nunn — is matched by defensive than 18...f5 which many books give as tactics of extraordinary ingenuity that the main line although Spassky never save White just when he seems to be played it. doomed. 19 †f1? Game 44: Milvydas-Muravyev 207

White follows accepted theory. A †xg3+ 30 hxg3 ƒe6 31 ƒf2 …xe1+ few years later, a big improvement 32 ƒxe1 Èc7 33 ƒxe6+ …xe6 34 for White was analysed by an …a1. After a sequence virtually forced American expert, Daniel Quigley, on since 25 Èc4!, Black has to grovel the Internet. After 19 axb5! f4 (the in an endgame a pawn down; White supposed refutation) he found 20 won in J.Nemec-V.Talla, Czech Cht ƒxf4! sacrificing a piece to break the corr 1997. attack and obtain dangerous queenside XIIIIIIIIY pawns. After 20...ƒxf4 21 …xe6 9-+-+-tr-mk0 ƒxe6 White’s most accurate line is 22 bxa6! ƒxd2 23 †xd2 Èc7 24 W9+-+-+-zpp0 †c2! …a8 (24...h5 25 …e1!) 25 a7 9p+pvlr+-+0 †h6 26 ƒxe6+ †xe6 27 c4 †d6 28 9+-+n+p+q0 †e4 †b4 29 b3 †c3 (29...†xb3? 9R+-zP-zPl+0 30 …b1) 30 …a4 †xb3 31 †xc6 and 9+LzP-vL-zP-0 he went on to win in M.Barbosa de 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 Oliveira-U.Maffei, 4th Coppa-Latina Europe-America tt 2000. 9+-+-tRQmK-0 19...†h5 20 f4 bxa4 21 …xa4 xiiiiiiiiy Many critical positions formerly considered by theoreticians under 18 Returning to our game at the a4 f5 can still be reached via 18 †f1 diagram above, Muravyev succeeds †h5 19 a4. This is one of them: the in reviving the ‡ move that had been Old Main Line in the Marshall. It is written off by GM John Nunn a few like a railway junction because many years earlier. CC theory battles often routes lead to it and many lines stem proceed in this way. The best chance from it. Black now has a wide choice. of springing an effective surprise on 21...‡h8!? (D) an opponent in a sharp opening is In recent years, Black has mostly to find a move which changes the played 21...…fe8 but there are some evaluation of a condemned line. In problems with it. Also 21...g5 and this case, Muravyev had found a 21...…b8 have been deeply analysed novelty at move 24. and played in the past. 22 Èc4?! As in other lines of the Marshall, As is often the case in the Marshall, CC players have made important when Black unpins by moving his ‡ contributions to the theory of this into the corner, White has to weigh up move, for example 21...…fe8 22 which minor piece is superior, his ƒ †f2 g5 23 fxg5 f4 24 gxf4 ƒh3 on b3 or the black È, which is now (thought good for Black 10 years ago) free to make attacking moves or to 25 Èc4!! ƒxf4 26 Èe5 ƒxe5 27 capture on e3. dxe5 …xe5 28 †g3! †xg5 29 …xa6! Milvydas decided to retain his ƒ, 208 64 Great Chess Games but in view of the present game 22 White cannot take the È yet ƒxd5 seems to be necessary. After because of 24 gxf4? ƒh3 (£...…g6+) 22...cxd5 23 …xa6 …fe8, a position and if 25 Èe5 …xe5 26 dxe5 †g4+ arises which used to be treated in or 25 …xe6 †g4+ 26 ‡h1 (26 ‡f2 theory books as a transposition to †xf4+) 26...ƒxf1. 21...…fe8 22 …xa6 ‡h8 23 ƒxd5 24...Èh3+!! cxd5. After 24 †b5!, Black needs Nunn only analysed 24...Èxe6 25 an improvement upon 24...…h6!? 25 Èe5! f4 26 ƒxe6 ƒxe6 27 …xa6 Èf1 ƒf3 26 ƒc1 …f8 27 …e3 ƒe4 ‡g8 28 Èxc6! ƒh3 29 …a5! †h6 (Unzicker-Nunn, Bundesliga 1991) (29...†g4 30 Èe5) 30 †f3ˆ. because of 28 b3!, which still awaits 25 ‡g2 Èg5! practical tests. Black is a whole … down but Fortunately, it is by no means a this does not matter for the moment death-blow to the Marshall if this with the white … offside on a4. line fails for Black, because he Black’s minor pieces are generating has 18...†h5 as well as interesting tremendous firepower. The most sidelines such as 15...…a8, 15...…a7 obvious threats are 26...Èxe6 and or 11...ƒb7 to fall back on. 26...ƒh3+ followed by ...ƒxf1 but 22...ƒxf4!? these are not the only ideas Black This ingenious move was analysed has. by GM John Nunn in 1989. He thought 26 †f2! it was inadequate but Muravyev’s 26 ‡g1 Èf3+ would be very shocker at move 24 seems to mean unpleasant for White, who would have Black draws and could easily win to choose between giving up his † or if White goes wrong. 22...Èxe3 23 else playing 27 ‡f2 when the black … Èxe3‹ was prior theory. also enters the attack by 27...f4. 23 ƒxf4 26...ƒf3+! If 23 gxf4? …g6 — Nunn. Black could take the … on e6 but 23...Èxf4 24 …xe6 (D) that would give White time to get XIIIIIIIIY organised. Given his success in the 9-+-+-tr-mk0 game so far, Black will certainly be trying to win this position and he may B9+-+-+-zpp0 have other ways of trying to do so, 9p+p+R+-+0 here or over the next few moves. 9+-+-+p+q0 Care is required, however. For 9R+NzP-snl+0 example, after 26...f4?! White has the 9+LzP-+-zP-0 amusing 27 …e3! when Black may 9-zP-+-+-zP0 be losing (27...Èh3 28 †f1 †d5+ 29 …f3). 9+-+-+QmK-0 27 ‡f1 f4 xiiiiiiiiy 27...Èxe6!? 28 …xa6 f4 29 ‡e1 Game 44: Milvydas-Muravyev 209

…e8 30 ‡d2 fxg3 is a suggestion a) 32 Èxc6?? †d3 33 …a1 Èf3+ from Dutch chess journalist John 34 †xf3 †xf3 35 ‡d2 †e2+ 36 Elburg. ‡c1 †e1+ 37 ‡c2 ƒf5#. 28 g4 b) 32 …xc6?? Èe4. 28 ‡e1 comes into consideration c) 32 Èxg4?? †xg4 33 h3 …e8+ but after 28...Èxe6 (28...fxg3!? 29 34 ‡d2 †g3 35 †xg3 fxg3‰. †xg3 Èxe6) 29 …xa6 …e8 30 ‡d2 32...Èe4 Èg5 31 Èd6 (as in a computer test Black can still try to win in other game Nimzo-Rebel, 1999), Black can ways but it may be risky. If 32...g6 (to improve by 31...†h6. stop the perpetual check) 33 Èxg4 28...†h3+ 29 ‡e1 Èxe6 30 Èe5 †xg4 34 †e2 and 32...f3 33 …a7! are Èg5 (D) unclear (but here not 33 ƒd3 ƒe6 34 XIIIIIIIIY …xc6 †g2 nor 33 …xc6?? Èe4‰ 9-+-+-tr-mk0 nor 33 Èxg4 †xg4‰). 33 †f3!! W9+-+-+-zpp0 White puts his † en prise to 9p+p+-+-+0 two black pieces but she cannot be 9+-+-sN-sn-0 captured because of White’s ‘drawing 9R+-zP-zpP+0 machine’ involving a from 9+LzP-+l+q0 the c8-h3 diagonal. Thus if 33...†xf3 9-zP-+-wQ-zP0 (33...ƒxf3 34 Èf7+ is essentially the same.) 34 Èf7+ ‡g8 (not 34... 9+-+-mK-+-0 …xf7?? 35 …a8+ and mates, because xiiiiiiiiy Black now lacks sufficient control of c8.) 35 Èh6+ etc. again draws by Things look bleak for White but repetition. now he comes up with an amazing 33...†h4+ 34 †g3!! ½–½ drawing idea. This time the † can be captured in 31 …xa6!! ƒxg4 32 ƒc4!! three different ways, but it makes no Surprisingly, in view of Black’s difference: 34...fxg3 35 Èf7+ ‡g8 options to vary in the latter stages, 36 Èh6+. this whole game was later repeated A complete overview of the in a game from the Slovak CC Marshall, and as much detail as you Championship. could want on the theory of this One of the players involved, exciting gambit variation, can be CC-IM Pavel Eiben, then published found on the CD-ROM electronic the following variations that he had book ‘The Total Marshall’ by Janis analysed, which show the traps White Vitomskis, Tim Harding & Martin must circumvent: Bennedik (Chess Mail, 2002). Game 45 White: Grigory K. Sanakoev (Russia) Black: Tõnu Õim (Estonia) 14th CC World Championship Final, 1994-99 Spanish, Classical Defence (C64)

The Players: Grigory Sanakoev was it specially for the 14th Final. The the 12th CC World Champion, while point is to advance in the centre after, Tõnu Õim had won the 9th Champi- for example, 7 ƒg5 c6 8 ƒa4 d5 9 onship and the Axelson Memorial, e5 ƒg4 “with interesting play” says which was of comparable strength to GM Glenn Flear in his book ‘Offbeat a world final. Winning the 14th Final, Spanish’. White’s next move forestalls he became the first man ever to regain this plan. the world title. 7 d5! a6 8 ƒa4 Èf6 9 Èc3 0–0 10 e5 About this game: This was the deci- The critical alternative is 10 d6 sive game of the championship. Õim when Õim indicates 10...cxd6 11 had never beaten Sanakoev, and twice †xd6 ƒc7 12 †d3 b5 (12...d5!?)¢. lost, so here he made a special effort, Instead 10...Èg6 11 0-0 cxd6 12 ƒg5 beginning with an opening surprise. (Timmerman-Õim, won by White) The notes are based on comments and 12 †xd6 ƒc7 13 †d4 (Franzen- Tõnu Õim submitted to ‘Chess Mail’ Õim, both from the Hans-Werner just after the game ended. I also von Massow Memorial 1996-99) are looked critically at the comments in somewhat in White’s favour. the book ‘Sajandi Parim Kirimaletaja 10...Èg4 11 0–0 d6 12 ƒf4 Èg6 13 Tõnu Õim’ edited by Taivo Kastan ƒg5 f6 14 exf6 (D) (Tallinn, 1999) where the game was XIIIIIIIIY analysed by computers. 9r+lwq-trk+0 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 ƒc5 4 c3 ƒb6 5 d4 B9+pzp-+-zpp0 White can’t win a pawn by 5 ƒxc6 9pvl-zp-zPn+0 dxc6 6 Èxe5 because of 6...†g5= 9+-+P+-vL-0 attacking e5 and g2. White can play 9L+-+-+n+0 5 0-0 but it leaves Black a freer hand 9+-sN-+N+-0 after 5...d6 6 d4 ƒd7. 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 5...exd4 6 cxd4 Èce7!? This move was revived a few years 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 ago by Hector; Õim prepared xiiiiiiiiy Game 45: Sanakoev-Õim 211

14...gxf6! championship. He would play 24 fxe5 The new idea. It is clear that after †g7 25 exd6 †xb2 26 †xd5 ƒh3 14...Èxf6 White’s position is better. 27 d7 with the point that if 27...†xc2 15 ƒc1!? the game ends in a draw: 28 d8†+ This looks a bit odd at first sight as …xd8 29 †xd8+ …g8 30 †f6+ …g7 15 ƒd2 (£ƒc2, Èe4, ƒc3) is the 31 †f8+ with perpetual check. obvious retreat although it restricts the b) 23...Èe3?! would fall into a scope of the †. It makes sense on the trap: 24 fxe5 †g7 25 Èg5 Èxd1 assumption that Sanakoev had decided 26 Èf7+ †xf7 27 …xf7. Now the to develop his … via a3 and therefore line 27...…xg2 (not 27...Èxb2?? 28 reasoned that the ƒ would interfere …xh7#) 28 ‡xg2 Èxb2 29 …xh7+ less with his other pieces by going to ‡g8 30 …a3, where this … comes the long diagonal via c1-b2 rather than strongly into play, may indicate why d2-c3. Õim would presumably have Sanakoev wanted to play 18 a4. continued much as in the game. Instead 27...Èf2+ is relatively best 15...‡h8 16 ƒc2 …g8 17 Èe4 †f8 but after 28 …xf2 ƒxf2 29 exd6+ 18 a4!? …g7 30 dxc7 Black, despite his extra The immediate 18 b4 followed by …, must fight hard even to draw. ƒb2 is better according to Õim; Sana- 24 Èg5 Èxf4! 25 h4 …f8 koev perhaps rejected this because Preparing the sacrifice ...…f8-f5xg5. 18...ƒd7 19 ƒb2 È4e5 blocks the 26 ƒxh7 ƒf5 27 ƒxf5 …xf5 28 diagonal and leaves Black in control †g4 (D) of f4. Now, however, Black switches XIIIIIIIIY focus and attacks the d5-pawn. Maybe 9r+-+-+-mk0 18 h3 also came into consideration. 18...Èe7 19 b4 †f7 20 ƒb2 Èe5 21 B9+pzp-+-wq-0 Èxe5 fxe5 22 ‡h1! Èxd5 23 f4 9pvl-zp-+-+0 “Now we see why a2-a4 was a 9+-+-zprsN-0 waste of tempo for White,” wrote Õim. 9PzP-+-snQzP0 He meant White is not quite ready for 9+-+-+-+-0 the complications that are breaking 9-vL-+-+P+0 out. Some variations favour White, but not the most important ones. 9tR-+-+R+K0 23...†g7! xiiiiiiiiy There are two complicated alt- ernatives that Õim did not mention. 28...…xg5! a) 23...…xg2!? is possible, but This sacrifice gives Black a long- probably premature since Black is lasting initiative. trying to win this game. 29 †xg5 †xg5 30 hxg5 ‡g7! Of course White won’t fall into 24 With the point that 31 …xf4 fails to ‡xg2?? Èe3+ and ...Èxd1 in a world 31...…h8+ and mate. 212 64 Great Chess Games

31 ‡h2 Èd5 32 …a3 ƒe3 39 ƒb2 when play could go Õim said maybe 32...Èxb4 is 39...ƒxb2 (39...…xf1 40 ƒxe5+ better, but it is risky after 33 g6 and dxe5 41 …xf1 Èxb4 42 …c1 is not …a3-h3!. This comment is unclear to a winning endgame for Black either.) me; after 33...…h8+ 34 …h3 …xh3+ 40 …xa1 and now: 35 ‡xh3 ‡xg6 Black may have good a) 40...ƒxa1 41 …xd5 ƒc3 42 winning chances. Instead, 33 a5 is ‡g4 ƒxb4 43 …xb5 (43 …d4 is the only move analysed in the Est- another possibility.) 43...ƒc5 and onian book, e.g. 33...…h8+ 34 ‡g3 now Estonian master Harry Pohla ƒc5 35 …af3 Èd5 36 …f7+ ‡g6 overrules his computers and suggests when White’s counterplay may be 44 …xc5! dxc5 45 ‡f4 with an insufficient. inevitable draw. 33 ƒc1 ƒd4! b) 40...Èe3 (or 40...Èe7 leading The ƒ takes up its ideal position. to the same position next move) 41 Now if 34 ƒd2 e4!. …b1 Èxf5 42 …xb2 Èd4 43 ‡g4 34 …b3 b5 35 axb5 axb5 36 ‡h3 e3 44 …b1 e2 (£...Èc2) 45 …e1 c5 …a1? 46 ‡f4 ‡g6 47 bxc5 dxc5 48 ‡e5 Õim says that this move is ‡xg5 49 ‡d5=. inaccurate because it gave White a 39...‡g6 40 …f8 …a2 chance of saving himself at move Finally the … found its right place. 39. The Estonian book only analyses 41 …g8+ ‡h7 42 …b8 …xg2 43 36...…a4 and 36...c6, but Õim told me …xb5 c6 44 …b7+ that the best move is 36...…a2. 44 …xd5 cxd5 45 b5 d4 46 b6 37 …bf3 e4 38 …f5! ƒe5 (D) …g3!‰. XIIIIIIIIY 44...‡g6 45 b5 e3 46 …f3! 9-+-+-+-+0 46 bxc6 e2 47 …e1 ƒg3+ 48 ‡h3 ƒxe1 49 ‡xg2 ƒa5‰. W9+-zp-+-mk-0 46...e2 47 ƒd2 …g1 48 bxc6 …d1 49 9-+-zp-+-+0 ƒa5 Èc3! 50 ƒxc3 9+p+nvlRzP-0 The final disappointment for Sana- 9-zP-+p+-+0 koev. Against 50 …e3, Black pre-pared 9+-+-+-+K0 50...…d4+ 51 ‡h3 …d3!‰. 9-+-+-+P+0 50...ƒxc3 51 …e7 e1†+ 52 …xe1 ƒxe1+ 53 ‡g4 …d4+ 54 …f4 …xf4+ 9tr-vL-+R+-0 55 ‡xf4 ƒa5 56 ‡e4 ƒc7 0-1 xiiiiiiiiy White resigned. After 57 ‡d5 ‡xg5 58 ‡e6 ƒb8! (not 58...‡f4? 39 ‡h4?! 59 ‡d7!=) and the black pawn queens Now the e-pawn becomes very while the ƒ eliminates White’s pawn: strong and White is probably lost. 59 ‡d7 d5 60 ‡c8 (60 c7 ƒxc7) White should try the very complicated 60...ƒf4 etc. Game 46 White: Hans-Marcus Elwert (Germany) Black: Heinz-Erich van Kempen (Germany) 17th World CC Championship ¾-Final-4, 1995-96 (E04)

The Players: Grandmaster Elwert, 4...b5!? is a playable alternative from Hamburg, has been one of the but Black prefers a transposition to most successful correspondence play- Reti/Catalan lines. ers in the past ten years. In 2000-01, 5 d4 he won the NBC Millennium Email The Catalan Opening is seen more tournament ahead of five great op- frequently in master chess than in ponents, earning the distinction of amateur games. This position can being the only player so far to defeat also come about via, for example, 1 GM Ulf Andersson in a correspond- d4 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 ƒg2 dxc4 ence game. The author of a theoretical 5 Èf3 when 5...a6 is the most popular openings book ‘Das Tschechische move in recent years, whereas 5...ƒe7 System’, Elwert is qualified for a is the old move. World Championship Final but as yet The characteristic formation, seen he has not played in one. after White’s fifth move, is a hybrid Van Kempen is also a very experi- of the Queen’s Gambit pawn structure enced postal and email player who has with a kingside fianchetto. In many held the CC-GM title since 1999. His lines White allows his c-pawn to be best result is second prize in the Pap- captured without an immediate return, pier Memorial A email tournament. trusting to the increased scope of his About this game: Elwert kindly light-squared ƒ after ...dxc4. responded to my request to submit Black can also adopt closed a previously unpublished game to formations, but the a-pawn move is a include in this book. This was one clear signal that he intends to capture of the games that brought him sec- and try to hold the pawn, because it ond place in the tournament. After rules out the immediate recapture by the opening notes, the variations are †a4+ and †xc4. almost entirely by him; the text is al- 5...dxc4 6 0–0 most entirely by me. For 6 Èe5 see Game 64. 1 Èf3 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 a6 4 ƒg2 6...Èc6 d5 This is “the most popular and it 214 64 Great Chess Games seems the strongest move” according Minsk 1985, although 13...ƒxc3 14 to GM Janjgava in his recent book on bxc3 c6 (leading to a 35-move draw) the Queen’s Gambit and Catalan. This was subsequently seen in Tkachiev- game is at the cutting edge of new Beliavsky, Enghien-les-Bains 1999. ideas in the variation. 11 …d1 0–0 12 ƒf4! (D) 6...b5 7 Èe5 Èd5 8 a4 ƒb7 9 e4 XIIIIIIIIY is another possibility. 9r+-wq-trk+0 7 e3! The point of this move is to defend B9+-zplvlpzpp0 d4 so that 7...…b8 can be met by 8 9p+n+psn-+0 Èfd2 making ...b5 impossible. Since 9+p+-+-+-0 that would make ...a6 look very silly, 9-+pzPPvL-+0 Black must first protect c6. 7 Èc3!? 9+-sN-+NzP-0 …b8 8 e4 is the alternative. 9PzP-+QzPLzP0 7...ƒd7 8 Èc3 ƒd6 Here 8...Èd5?! is suspect as after 9 9tR-+R+-mK-0 Èd2 Èxc3 10 bxc3 the white centre xiiiiiiiiy is strengthened and Black might miss this È on the kingside later. A strong move, which earlier had 8...…b8!? is possibly better, but been played against Elwert. He varies the relevant games were played long from 12 Èe1 e5 13 dxe5 Èxe5 14 after Elwert and van Kempen passed h3 c5 15 f4Ÿ (Krzyszton-Sterud, this point, e.g. 9 Èe5 Èa5!? 10 CCOL10 Final, 1988-93). Elwert’s e4!? (10 †e2 b5) 10...ƒe7 (10...b5 plan is more direct. He intends to 11 g4!, e.g. 11...b4 12 g5 bxc3 13 advance in the centre where he has a bxc3! Sosonko-Piket, Dutch Ch 1997) space advantage, while Black opts for 11 Èxd7 (11 ƒe3 0–0 12 †f3 b5 queenside counterplay. 13 …ad1 b4 14 Èe2 ƒb5 15 …fe1 12...Èa5 Èc6! Bernard-Korneev, Paris 1996) Black does not like the idea of 11...Èxd7 12 †g4 h5 13 †e2 h4 14 passive defence with an extra pawn ƒe3 h3 15 ƒh1 b5 16 …ad1 ƒb4 17 and seeks, with his next move, to †g4 ƒxc3 18 †xg7 †f6 19 †xf6 disrupt White’s flow with a queenside Èxf6 20 bxc3 b4 21 ƒf4 (½–½, 32) demonstration. However, this plan Gulko-Korneev, Mondariz 1997. puts the È on a poor square and 9 †e2 b5 10 e4 ƒe7 loosens Black’s pawn structure. It was well known that 10...e5 12...†c8!? (getting the † off the 11 dxe5 Èxe5 12 Èxe5 ƒxe5 line of White’s …) is very interesting, 13 f4 led to a quick win for White as played in R.Sielaff-Elwert, after 13...ƒd4+ 14 ƒe3 ƒc6 15 47th EU CC Ch 1992 and earlier, e5! ƒxg2 16 ‡xg2 ƒxc3 17 exf6 unconvincingly, in Levin-Novikov, †d2 18 …f2! in Khalifman-Basin, Ukrainian Ch 1986 (½-½, 30). Game 46: Elwert-van Kempen 215

13 d5 b4 15...Èh5 If 13...exd5 White does not If 15...bxc3 16 exf6 ƒxf6 17 bxc3 recapture but continues 14 e5 Èg4 with massive control of the centre. (14...Èh5 15 Èxd5) 15 Èxd5 ƒc5 16 ƒd2 16 Èe3 Èxe3 (16...†c8 17 †d2! Of course White does not want with a double attack on the d7-ƒ his ƒ to be captured on f4. This and a5-È) 17 ƒxe3 ƒxe3 18 †xe3 temporary piece sacrifice exploits when Black has serious weaknesses. Black’s pair of “„s on the rim”. If 13...†c8 comes into consideration Black captures the white È, he will still, but after 14 Èe5 (or 14 Èd4!? soon lose the material back with a c5 15 Èc2Ÿ) 14...b4 (14...ƒe8 worsening position: 16...bxc3? 17 15 ƒh3‹) 15 dxe6 (15 Èxd7!?) ƒxc3 Èc6 18 Èg5 (18 Èe1!?) 15...ƒxe6 (15...fxe6 16 ƒh3‹) 16 18...†e8 19 …xd7! †xd7 20 …d1 Èd5 ƒxd5 (16...…e8!?) 17 exd5 †e8 21 Èxe6ˆ. ƒd6 18 Èxc4 ƒxf4 19 Èxa5‹ 16...†e8! White has regained the pawn. This is the best defence. Black 14 dxe6 protects the h5-È and unpins his White creates a new weakness on ƒ. Now if 17 Èd4 (to open the long e6 and sets up a pin on the d-file. diagonal) he has 17...c5!. The alternative was 14 e5 at once: Instead 16...ƒc6?! would be met a) 14...Èh5? 15 ƒd2! bxc3 by a neat ƒ switchback: 17 ƒg5! (15...…b8 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 Èe4) 16 †e8 18 ƒxe7 (or 18 Èe4) 18...†xe7 ƒxc3 exd5 17 …xd5 Èb7 18 …ad1 19 Èe4 with an attack. Èc5 19 e6ˆ. 17 Èe4 ƒa4 (D) b) 14...bxc3? 15 dxe6 cxb2 16 Elwert points out that this move †xb2 fxe6 (16...…b8 17 †c2‹) 17 is a loss of time — however, Black exf6 ƒxf6 (17...gxf6 18 †d2 ƒa4 must calculate extremely far in order 19 †e1 ƒxd1 20 …xd1ˆ) 18 Èe5 to see why. White anyway has a clear …b8 (not 18...†b8? 19 †xb8 …axb8 advantage after 17...ƒc6 18 ƒg5 or 20 Èxd7ˆ nor 18...c6 19 …ab1‹) 17...ƒb5 18 Èd4. 19 †a3 ƒxe5 20 ƒxe5 …b5 21 XIIIIIIIIY ƒc3‹. 9r+-+qtrk+0 c) However, Black can defend better by 14...Èxd5! 15 Èxd5 exd5 W9+-zp-vl-zpp0 16 …xd5 c6 ¢. 9p+-+p+-+0 14...fxe6 15 e5 9sn-+-zP-+n0 The focus of play starts to shift 9lzpp+N+-+0 towards the kingside, where Black 9+-+-+NzP-0 hopes the half-open f-file gives him 9PzP-vLQzPLzP0 some activity. If instead 15 Èb1 ƒc5!. 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 216 64 Great Chess Games

18 Èeg5!? 22 †xe3ˆ. If 20...h6!? 21 Èxe6 White had a choice of aggressive ƒxf3 (21...ƒd7 22 ƒxb4 ƒxb4 23 continuations. Elwert also analysed 18 Èfd4) 22 ƒxf3 †xe6 23 ƒe3 †xe5 Èfg5 (18 ƒh3 ƒxd1 19 …xd1 †g6! 24 …d5 †f6 25 …xc5 †xf3 26 †xf3 20 Èfg5 transposes.) 18...ƒxd1 19 …xf3 27 …xa5 White stands clearly …xd1 †g6 (19...ƒxg5 20 Èxg5 …b8 better. 21 ƒh3‹ or 19...…f5 20 Èxe6) 20 21 Èe4 ƒb6 (D) ƒh3 (After 20 Èf6+!? gxf6 21 exf6 Not 21...†g6? 22 Èfg5ˆ nor ƒxf6 22 ƒxa8 …xa8 23 †xe6+ ‡g7 21...ƒxe4 22 †xe4 g6 (22...h6 23 White probably only has perpetual ƒe3) 23 ƒg5 with an attack. check.) 20...Èc6!! (20...ƒxg5 21 XIIIIIIIIY Èxg5 c3 22 bxc3 bxc3 23 ƒc1Ÿ) 9r+-+qtrk+0 21 †xc4 (Better than 21 f4 c3! 22 bxc3 bxc3 23 ƒxe6+ ‡h8¢ or 21 W9+-zp-+-zpp0 ƒxe6+ ‡h8 22 ƒg4 Èxg3 23 hxg3 9pvl-+p+-+0 Èxe5¢) 21...Èxe5 22 †xe6+ 9sn-+lzP-+n0 †xe6 23 ƒxe6+ ‡h8 24 f4 Èd3 25 9-zpp+N+L+0 Èf7+ …xf7 26 ƒxf7 Èf6 27 Èxf6 9+-+-+NzP-0 ƒxf6 28 b3‹. 9PzP-vLQzP-zP0 18...ƒc5! 18...ƒxd1? should lose: 19 …xd1 9tR-+R+-mK-0 ƒxg5 (19...ƒc5 20 ƒh3) 20 Èxg5 xiiiiiiiiy (20 ƒxb4!?) 20...…b8 21 ƒh3 ‡h8 (21...g6 22 Èxe6 …f7 23 ƒxb4!ˆ Black has held on to his queenside or 21...…b6? 22 Èxe6 …xe6 23 majority until now. Here he sets a ƒxe6+ †xe6 24 ƒxb4ˆ) 22 Èxe6 trap: if the b-pawn is captured then …g8 23 ƒg4ˆ. Black gets tactical chances on the 19 ƒh3! ƒc6! 20 ƒg4!! kingside (22 ƒxb4 Èf4!). It is important to play this at once 22 Èfg5 and not be tempted by the e-pawn: 20 White unleashes the battery against ƒxe6+?! ‡h8 21 ƒg4 h6! (21...Èf6 the È, which must be sacrificed. 22 22 ƒh3 Èd5 23 †e4ˆ) 22 Èe4 …e1!? also came into consideration. (22 Èe6 ƒxf3 23 ƒxf3 †xe6¢) 22...Èxg3 22...ƒxe4 23 †xe4 Èf6 24 †f5 22...g6? saves the È but costs the Èxg4 25 †xg4¢. exchange: 23 ƒxh5 gxh5 24 Èf6+ Other lines Elwert looked at were 20 …xf6 25 exf6. …ac1?! ƒd5¢, 20 Èe4? c3!! 21 bxc3 Also if 22...†b5 23 ƒxh5 Èc6 bxc3 22 ƒxc3 †g6! with an attack, and (23...h6 24 †g4ˆ) 24 ƒf4 h6 25 20 ƒe3? ƒxe3 21 †xe3 h6¢. †c2ˆ, or 22...Èc6 23 ƒxh5 Èd4 20...ƒd5 24 †g4 g6 25 ƒxb4 gxh5 26 †h4 Not 20...…d8? 21 ƒe3 ƒxe3 with an attack. Game 46: Elwert-van Kempen 217

23 hxg3 Èc6 comes to the h-file to give checkmate. Now White has a piece against Or if 28...†xe5 29 ƒxc6 …ad8 30 two pawns but must be on his guard †c5 †xc5 (30...†xb2 31 …f1ˆ) against counterplay. 31 Èxc5 …d6 32 Ège6ˆ. 24 ƒe3! 29 Èd6!! White starts to neutralise Black’s Black probably expected 29 ƒxc6, activity. Not 24 ƒh5? Èd4 25 †g4 but White finds a spectacular move to g6¢. create mating threats. 24...ƒxe3 29...cxd6 30 †e4 g6 24...†g6 fails to 25 ƒxb6 cxb6 If 30...hxg5? 31 †h1+ and mates. 26 ƒxe6+!, e.g. 26...ƒxe6 27 Èxe6 31 ƒxc6 †e7 †xe6 28 …d6 winning material 31...†xe5 leaves Black a piece (28...†xe5 29 †xc4+). in arrears in the endgame after 32 25 †xe3 h6 †xe5+ dxe5 33 Èe6ˆ. After 25...Èxe5 26 ƒe2 Black has 32 Èf3 ‡h7 three pawns for the piece, but Èc5 is Also 32...…xf3 33 †xf3 †xe5 going to be hard to meet. will not save Black after 34 †f7, for 26 …xd5! if 34...d5 35 …d1 or 34...†xb2 35 In order to protect and increase …e1 and the last piece comes strongly his gains, White must sacrifice the into play. exchange. 26 Èf3 would be a tactical 33 e6 error because 26...†g6 threatens two The material balance is now pieces. slightly in White’s favour (ƒ+È v 26...exd5 …+pawn) but — more to the point Not 26...hxg5 27 …c5ˆ. — White commands the strategic 27 ƒe6+ ‡h8 28 ƒxd5 …d8 (D) heights: d4, d5 and e4. XIIIIIIIIY Moreover, he has a strong passed 9-+-trqtr-mk0 pawn whereas numerous black pawns are vulnerable. The rest is just W9+-zp-+-zp-0 mopping up. 9p+n+-+-zp0 33...…f6 34 Èd4 h5 9+-+LzP-sN-0 If 34...c3 35 bxc3 bxc3 36 …b1ˆ, 9-zpp+N+-+0 or 34...…df8 35 f4ˆ. 9+-+-wQ-zP-0 35 …c1 …df8 36 f3 c3 37 bxc3 bxc3 9PzP-+-zP-+0 38 …xc3 …b8 39 …b3 …xb3 40 axb3 …f8 41 †h4 1–0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 Black resigns because he obviously xiiiiiiiiy cannot exchange †s (due to e6-e7 etc.) while after 41...…f6 White wins If 28...hxg5?? 29 ‡g2 and the … with 42 ƒd7 and 43 Èc6. Game 47 White: Mikhail M. Umansky (Russia) Black: Heinrich Burger (Germany) Hans-Werner von Massow Memorial, 1996-98 Fianchetto Grünfeld (D72)

The Players: Mikhail Umansky can Probably the most striking comment reckon, like Kasparov, that 13 is his that he made on that occasion was: lucky number. He won both the 13th “I think that in CC the outcome of USSR Correspondence Championship the game mostly depends on the (a very strong event) and later the 13th opening”. World Championship in which he was Important opening ideas are not the “dark horse” who outpaced the the sole preserve of sharp openings favourites, Bang and Penrose. Uman- like the Sicilian and King’s Indian. sky, who is also a FIDE International Novelties of a strategic character Master, has now emigrated with his are very important in high-level family to Germany. correspondence chess. The following Dr Hans Berliner has compared game, which began shortly after our Umansky’s style to ; the meeting, was played in the strongest Russian’s best games are very sharp postal tournament ever held. It shows and finely calculated but also have how Umansky applied his philosophy strategic depth. to beat a tough opponent. Heinrich Burger emigrated from 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 ƒg7 4 ƒg2 d5 West Germany to the East during the 5 cxd5 Èxd5 6 e4 Èb6 7 Èe2 e5 Cold War. After the reunification of This possibility is not even the country he found himself back in mentioned in the book ‘Fianchetto the Federal Republic and playing on Grünfeld’ by Mikhalchishin and the German national team! He became Beliavsky but a known position soon a CC grandmaster in 1996. arises by transposition. About this game: When I first met 8 d5 0–0 9 0–0 c6 10 Èbc3 Umansky in 1996 — at that time the This position more usually arises new World Champion — I made a from 7...0–0 8 0–0 c6 9 Èbc3 e5 short interview with him, which was 10 d5. published in ‘Chess Mail’ 2/1997. 10...cxd5 11 exd5 Èa6 (D) Game 47: Umansky-Burger 219 XIIIIIIIIY White has a very powerful central 9r+lwq-trk+0 passed pawn which breaks the 9zpp+-+pvlp0 opponent’s position into two halves W9nsn-+-+p+0 and all White’s pieces are better 9+-+Pzp-+-0 placed than their opposite numbers: 9-+-+-+-+0 Black’s ƒ has no target and his Ès 9+-sN-+-zP-0 are particularly badly situated on the edge of the board. 9PzP-+NzPLzP0 19 È2c3 h6 (D) 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 XIIIIIIIIY xiiiiiiiiy 9-+rwq-trk+0 12 †b3 A novelty. 12 b3 is known from 9zpp+-+pvl-0 Antoshin-Tukmakov, USSR 1972, W9n+-+-+pzp0 while 12 a4 has also been seen. Now 9sn-+Pzp-+-0 if 12...ƒg4 13 ƒe3 …c8 14 …fd1. 9-+-+N+-+0 12...Èc5 9+-sN-+-zP-0 12...ƒg4 13 ƒe3 …c8 14 …fd1Ÿ. 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 13 †a3 Èa6 14 …d1 Èc4 15 †b3 Èa5 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 15...Èd6 16 ƒe3 ƒd7 17 Èe4Ÿ. xiiiiiiiiy 16 †c2 ƒf5 If 16...f5 17 d6Ÿ or 16...ƒd7 17 Black prepares ...f5, ...e4 to bring d6 Èb4 18 †e4Ÿ. his position to life. White, however, 17 ƒe4 has seen further. Note how, whenever a black piece 20 b4 Èxb4 seems to come to an active square, Not 20...Èc4 21 d6 f5 22 d7 …c7 Umansky drives it back or (in this 23 Èb5 and wins, but now if 21 †a4 case) exchanges it, gradually gaining …c4 22 ƒa3 Èxa2. control of more of the board. However, Umansky found what The potential energy of White’s Kotov called a “creeping move”: a passed pawn and the fact that it short † sidestep which significantly controls key squares (especially c6) alters the tactical possibilities. limits Black’s possibilities. 21 †b1 Èa6 22 ƒa3! 17...ƒxe4 With the point that if 22...…e8 If 17...ƒd7 18 d6 f5 19 ƒd5+ then 23 d6 †d7 24 Èd5 is winning. ‡h8 20 a3 …c8 21 b4 Èc6 22 †a2 Instead 22 d6?! f5 23 Èd5 doesn’t Èab8 23 ƒb2. work because of 23...‡h7! 24 d7 18 Èxe4 …c8 …a8! (Umansky). The move chosen If 18...h6 19 b4 Èxb4 20 †a4 effectively gives up two minor Èa6 21 ƒa3 …e8 22 d6ˆ. pieces for a … but retains the strong 220 64 Great Chess Games d-pawn and creates serious kingside variation, the È is further from the weaknesses. passed pawn and if 30...Èbc6? then 22...f5 23 ƒxf8 ƒxf8 24 d6 …c4 31 †e8+ ‡g7 32 …d6 wins. It’s all tactics now. Black 30...…xe4!? 31 †xe4 Èac6 presumably did not like the look of 31...Èbc6? 32 †e8+ ‡g7 33 24...fxe4 25 Èxe4 b6 26 †d3 Èb4 …xa1 Èc4 34 …e1ˆ. 27 †b5, e.g. 27...Èbc6 28 †d5+ 32 †xg6! ‡g7 and now maybe 29 d7 …c7 30 This strips the black ‡ of more …ac1 £†e6, Èd6. cover. After 32 †e8+?! ‡g7 33 25 †b5 fxe4 26 Èxe4 ‡h8!? (D) …xa1 Èd3! Black has chances of The idea is to prevent the † achieving a blockade. invading on f7 with check: 26...‡h7 32...ƒe5 27 †d5 Èb4 28 †f7+ ƒg7 29 d7 The white † can beat three black …xe4 30 …d6 …g4 31 …e6 wins minor pieces after 32...ƒg7 33 …e1 according to Umansky. †xd7 34 …e8+ †xe8 35 †xe8+ XIIIIIIIIY ‡h7 36 f4 etc. 9-+-wq-vl-mk0 33 f4 ƒc3 Against 33...†b6+ 34 ‡g2 Èd8 W9zpp+-+-+-0 35 †e8+ ‡g7 the best line appears to 9n+-zP-+pzp0 be 36 †e7+ ‡g8 37 †xe5 Èbc6 38 9snQ+-zp-+-0 †f6 and White should win. If instead 9-+r+N+-+0 36 fxe5 Èbc6 37 …d6 (Umansky), 9+-+-+-zP-0 Black may hang on by 37...†b1!. 9P+-+-zP-zP0 34 …d6 1–0 (D) 9tR-+R+-mK-0 XIIIIIIIIY xiiiiiiiiy 9-+-wq-+-mk0 9zpp+P+-+-0 B Now White undoubtedly had to do 9-+ntR-+Qzp0 a lot of calculation to find the correct 9+-+-+-+-0 route through a maze of tempting 9-sn-+-zP-+0 variations. 9+-vl-+-zP-0 Umansky rejected 27 †xe5+ ƒg7 9P+-+-+-zP0 28 †e6 ƒxa1 29 d7 because after 29...Èc7 30 †xg6 …xe4 31 †xh6+ 9+-+-+-mK-0 ‡g8 32 †g6+ ƒg7 33 †xe4 Èc6 xiiiiiiiiy 34 …d6 ƒe5 Black’s pieces cooperate well, despite the denuded kingside. Black resigned. The final point is a 27 †d5! Èb4 28 †xe5+ ƒg7 29 mating attack after 34...†f8 35 …e6 †e6 ƒxa1 30 d7 †c5+ 36 ‡g2 †d5+ 37 ‡h3 †xd7 By comparison with the previous 38 f5 Èe7 39 †f7. Game 48 White: Volker-Michael Anton (Germany) Black: Dr Dick D. van Geet (Netherlands) Hans-Werner von Massow Memorial, 1996-2001 Leningrad Dutch (A81)

The Players: Volker-Michael Anton is the extra tempo expended on its has suffered since his youth from development. The idea of playing a muscular dystrophy, which seriously Leningrad Dutch with ...Èh6 was handicaps his lifestyle. Nevertheless, pioneered in the 1970s by the highly he has made friends all over the world original English IM Michael Basman. through CC, at which he excels. Van Geet, too, is unafraid of Dr van Geet is a FIDE IM and CC original concepts. His habitual -GM with a highly original style. opening is 1 Èc3 (he even played it About this game: The Hans-Werner against Spassky) and he once beat a von Massow Memorial, organised by CC-GM with 1 e4 Èa6!? (Dünhaupt- Germany in memory of the long-time van Geet, BdF-40 1986-92). ICCF President, was the strongest 7 ƒb2 0–0 8 †c1!? postal chess event ever played (in Anton avoids routine moves like 8 terms of rating). Every one of the 15 c4. He protects his b2-ƒ and prepares players was a grandmaster, and Anton to bring his … to the d-file. finished in first place ahead of seven 8...Èf7 9 …d1 Èd7 world champions. D.Komljenovi™-J.Bosch, Barcelona Mr Anton kindly gave me permis- 1993, went instead 9...†c7 10 d5 sion to base the notes to this game ƒh6 11 e3 e5 12 dxe6 ƒxe6 13 c4 on the comments that he wrote for Èa6 14 Èc3 …ad8 15 †d2 Èc5 ‘Chess Mail’ magazine. From move 16 Èd4 ƒc8 17 b4 Èe6 18 Èb3 17 onwards, most of the notes are his. Èe5 19 †e2 g5 20 f4 and White 1 d4 f5 2 g3 g6 3 ƒg2 ƒg7 4 Èf3 c6 eventually won. Anton’s approach 5 0–0 d6 6 b3 Èh6!? is completely different; he keeps his Black intends a rapid ...e7-e5 pawn on d4 so that after ...e5 and the and the „ — going to f7 instead exchange of pawns, Black has an e- of f6 — will not block the action of pawn not a d-pawn. the fianchettoed ƒ; the downside 10 c4 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 Èc3 †b6 222 64 Great Chess Games

12...e4 would be ineffectual and followed by ...Èh3+ might have lead to holes in Black’s position; such been more appropriate. pawns are usually stronger when they However, Anton considers that stand abreast. after 21...f4 22 Èc5 Èh3+ 23 13 Èa4 †c7 ‡f1 White’s chances are definitely Of course Black could have played preferable because of his control of his † to c7 on move 12 but he hopes the square e4. that the white È will be worse placed 22 Èc5 ƒf8 on a4 than on c3. Also, 12...†c7 There are many possibilities here, might have been met by 13 e4 which for example 22...Èd6 comes to mind. now would lose a pawn. Black chooses confrontation right 14 Èg5 ƒh6! away. This is more active than 14...Èxg5 23 Èb3 ƒd7 when after 15 †xg5 f4 16 †e7, for After 23...ƒg7 White has to example, Black has development consider the question, whether to problems and a ‘hole’ on d6. allow a draw by repetition of the 15 Èe6 position, or not? On the other hand, this is only I suspect he would have avoided possible because the È is on the draw. a4 protecting the ƒ in the line 24 Èd2 Èe6 25 e3 …ac8 15...ƒxc1? 16 Èxc7. “Here I should have tried 25...e4 15...†b8 16 †c2 …e8 17 Èec5 (D) with complications, but I was over- XIIIIIIIIY confident and made a poor move 9rwql+r+k+0 choice,” wrote van Geet in the players’ post-mortem analysis. B9zpp+n+n+p0 26 c5 b6 27 cxb6 axb6 28 …ac1 9-+p+-+pvl0 …ed8 29 †b3 9+-sN-zpp+-0 White’s advantage has steadily 9N+P+-+-+0 increased since move 23 and now 9+P+-+-zP-0 Black makes the losing move. 9PvLQ+PzPLzP0 To avoid the invasion of the white c3-È, exploiting the pin on 9tR-+R+-mK-0 the c-file, Black must move his † xiiiiiiiiy but he chooses the wrong square for her. 29...†a7 was best now, says 17...Èf8 Anton. Van Geet said later that it would 29...†b8? (D) have been safer to exchange Ès. “Now I am terribly punished,” 18 b4 †c7 19 Èb3 Èe6 20 a3 wrote van Geet; “I had completely Èeg5 21 Èc3 ƒg7 overlooked White’s next move. Yet Black said afterwards that 21...f4 at first I was not so pessimistic. Only Game 48: Anton-van Geet 223 XIIIIIIIIY 35 h4!! 9-wqrtr-vlk+0 “I kept thinking that I have a little 9+-+l+n+p0 light, but White always sees more and W9-zpp+n+p+0 deeper. A surprise in the following 9+-+-zpp+-0 play is that Black has no chance and 9-zP-+-+-+0 is lost,” commented van Geet. 9zPQsN-zP-zP-0 Anton left to readers the task of analysing the different variations and 9-vL-sN-zPLzP0 possibilities, so I will try to explain; 9+-tRR+-mK-0 but you can really understand that xiiiiiiiiy White is better only by looking for after 35 h4 did I realise how tragic my something for Black to do, slowly situation was.” realising (as van Geet did) that Black 30 Ède4!! cannot do anything. Anton said that to be able to Black has the nominal material play such a shock move against an advantage of the exchange for a pawn, opponent as strong as Dick van Geet but his È is awkwardly pinned. The makes it that much more special. h-pawn advance, protecting the È, “I discovered this sacrifice, perhaps creates a threat to capture on c6 and the best in all of my games, when I there are also various manoeuvres chose 29 †b3. I was at first surprised by which the light-squared ƒ could by the combination, and also by the move from g2 to reinforce the pin on nice follow-up move 35 h4 which I the a2-g8 diagonal. Here are a few found.” sample variations: 30...fxe4 31 Èxe4 ƒg7 a) Wholesale exchanges in which This is a better try than 31...‡g7 or White regains his material will leave 31...ƒe7 according to Anton. Black a pawn down in a hopeless ƒ 32 …xd7 …xd7 33 †xe6 …cc7 34 endgame, e.g. 35...…d1+ 36 …xd1 Èg5 †d8 (D) †xd1+ 37 ‡h2 †d7 38 ƒh3 †xe6 XIIIIIIIIY 39 ƒxe6 ‡f8 40 Èxf7 …xf7 41 9-+-wq-+k+0 ƒxf7 ‡xf7 42 a4. b) 35...…d2 36 …xc6 …xb2 37 W9+-trr+nvlp0 …xc7 †xc7 38 ƒd5. Black can 9-zpp+Q+p+0 sacrifice his … on f2 but he won’t get 9+-+-zp-sN-0 a perpetual check. 9-zP-+-+-+0 c) 35...h6 36 Èxf7 …xf7 37 ƒe4 9zP-+-zP-zP-0 building an attack against the black ‡ 9-vL-+-zPLzP0 on the weakened light squares. d) 35...‡h8 36 Èxf7+ …xf7 37 9+-tR-+-mK-0 ƒxe5 winning a second pawn for the xiiiiiiiiy exchange and heading for a superior 224 64 Great Chess Games endgame. If †s are exchanged, White his ‡ position. This will prove wise can advance his passed e-pawn and later on. Black’s c-pawn is weak. 47...ƒf8 48 ƒd5 ƒxb4 49 axb4! e) 35...…d6 (or 35...…e7) 36 †b3 This is much stronger than winning maintaining the pin. back the exchange. White now has a Van Geet tried for counterplay on powerful passed pawn. the queenside but this also failed. 49...…e7 50 b5 Èd6 51 †c5 †d7 35...c5 36 bxc5 bxc5 37 ƒc3 52 Èb8 †c7 53 Èc6 …e8 54 b6 Black has to meet the threat of †d7 55 †b4 Èb7 56 e4 †d6 57 ƒa5 and his passed pawn is firmly †b2 Èd8 (D) blockaded. XIIIIIIIIY 37...…a7 38 †b3! 9-+-snr+-mk0 The È comes to e6 and then 9+-+-+-+p0 eliminates the danger pawn. W 38...‡h8 39 Èe6 †g8 40 Èxc5 9-zPNwq-+p+0 …d8 41 ƒd5 (D) 9+-+Lzp-+-0 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+P+-zP0 9-+-tr-+qmk0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9tr-+-+nvlp0 9-wQ-+-zPK+0 B9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9+-sNLzp-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 9-+-+-+-zP0 9zPQvL-zP-zP-0 58 Èxd8! 9-+-+-zP-+0 The simplest. Naturally 58 Èa5 is also good, and the b-pawn will cost 9+-tR-+-mK-0 Black a piece. xiiiiiiiiy 58...†xd8 If 58...…xd8 59 f4. 41...…b8 59 ƒc6 …e6 60 b7 †b8 61 †a1 According to Black afterwards, …f6 62 f4 ‡g7 returning the exchange by 41...…xa3 On 62...‡g8 comes 63 †xe5 was perhaps better. However, it does †xe5 64 fxe5 …f8 65 e6. not save the game because White has 63 †xe5 1-0 an extra pawn and superior piece Black resigned because of the activity (42 †xa3 …xd5 43 Èe6). inevitable moves 63...†xe5 64 fxe5 42 ƒb4 …c7 43 …c4 †c8 44 ƒe6 …f8 65 ƒd7. He was the first to †e8 45 Èa6 …xc4 46 †xc4 …b7 congratulate Anton on winning the 47 ‡g2! tournament, remarking that the game White is in no hurry and improves deserved the beauty prize. Game 49 White: Erik B.H. Bang (Denmark) Black: Mikhail M. Umansky (Russia) Hans-Werner von Massow Memorial, 1996-98 Nimzo-Indian Defence (E42) Notes by Grandmaster Alexander Baburin

The Players: Erik Bang (born Octo- ‘Chess Mail’. A few additional ber 25, 1944) has been an ICCF opening references have been added. international master since 1974 and 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 Èc3 ƒb4 4 e3 c5 a grandmaster since 1979; he also 5 Ège2 b6 played many times for Denmark ‘over I am not an expert on this line, but the board’. His wins in strong CC I believe that here Black is currently tournaments include the Canadian 60th experiencing some difficulties. Jubilee tournament and best result on 6 a3 ƒa5 7 …b1 Èa6 8 ƒd2 top board in 8th Correspondence Ol- The latest fashion here is 8 f3, for ympiad Final. He was runner-up in the example 8...0–0 9 d5 …e8 10 ‡f2 13th World Championship and before exd5 11 cxd5 d6 12 Èg3 ƒxc3 13 that in the Axelson Memorial. bxc3 Èc7 14 c4 b5 15 e4 bxc4 16 Mikhail Umansky was introduced ƒxc4 with complicated play, as in the in Game 47. game Aleksandrov-Serper, New York About this game: Here Bang takes Open 1998. revenge for his loss to Umansky, 8...0–0 9 Èg3 ƒb7 which decided the top two places in This is the first important moment. the World Championship a few years Instead of the text move, 9...d5!? earlier. On that occasion an almost looks like a better try. For example, imperceptible strategic error by Bang in the game Knaak-Christiansen, in the opening was punished. This German Team Cup Final, Porz 1997, time it is Umansky who makes the Black obtained a reasonable position slight but fatal error. I am grateful to after 10 cxd5 cxd4 11 exd4 ƒxc3 12 FIDE grandmaster Alexander Baburin bxc3 exd5 13 f3 Èc7 14 ‡f2 …e8 15 for permission to reproduce the notes h4 ƒa6 16 ƒxa6 Èxa6 17 h5 †d7. he wrote specially for my magazine 10 ƒd3 (D) 226 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY Of course, it’s important to make 9r+-wq-trk+0 sure that Black cannot just snatch the 9zpl+p+pzpp0 pawn with 13...ƒxg2. However, just B9nzp-+psn-+0 a glance at the position arising after 9vl-zp-+-+-0 14 …g1 ƒb7 15 Èh5! confirms that 9-+PzP-+-+0 White’s attack is very strong and 9zP-sNLzP-sN-0 more than compensates for a minor material loss. White’s c3-ƒ can join 9-zP-vL-zPPzP0 the offensive after timely thrust d4-d5, 9+R+QmK-+R0 while Black has major problems with xiiiiiiiiy defence, where the awkwardly placed 10...…c8? a6-È does not play any role. I don’t quite understand the point I believe that the following of this move. It seems that Black is analysis is quite instructive: 15...g6 wasting a valuable tempo, jeopardising (15...Èxh5? 16 ƒxh7+! ‡xh7 17 his counterplay in the centre. †xh5+ ‡g8 18 †h6ˆ) 16 d5 Black later tried 10...d5 here. After Èxh5 17 †xh5 †e8. Now White can 11 cxd5 cxd4 12 exd4 ƒxc3 13 bxc3 win some material with 18 ƒf6 exd5+ †xd5 14 †e2 Èc7 15 f3 White 19 ‡f1 …c6 (19...†e6 20 ƒxg6!ˆ) stood better in the game Lautier- 20 …e1 …xf6 21 …xe8 …xe8 but the Beliavsky, Ubeda 1997. Then in final position is very unclear. Shulman-Marin, Excelsior Cup, It’s better to play 18 …g3! and Göteborg 1999, Black improved with then after 18...f5 19 ‡d2! e5 20 …e1 14...Èb8 15 f3 †a2 16 Èe4 Èxe4 d6 (20...e4 21 …eg1ˆ) 21 ƒxf5 17 fxe4 ƒa6! 18 0-0 ƒxd3 19 †xd3 …xf5 22 †xf5 …xc4 23 f4, White is †xa3 20 †g3 f6 21 ƒf4 e5 22 dxe5 winning. †c5+ 23 ‡h1 ½-½. I would be interested to know 11 †e2! why White preferred the strategically Now ...d5 is no longer an option riskier text move to 13 ƒxc3. for Black. Probably, though, this is a matter of 11...cxd4 12 exd4 ƒxc3 13 bxc3 style. This is not a trivial decision. 13...Èb8 Obviously White counts on the Of course the line 13...ƒxg2? 14 kingside attack and therefore wants …g1 ƒb7 15 ƒg5 gives White a to keep his ƒ on the c1–h6 diagonal. winning attack for a mere pawn. Still, I would probably have played 14 0–0 d6 15 ƒg5! h6 the more elastic 13 ƒxc3. Then This move seriously compromises Black cannot play 13...d5 because Black’s kingside, but after 15...Èbd7 of 14 cxd5. If he prepares it with 16 Èh5 h6 17 ƒh4 it would be 13...Èc7, then ...d5 can be met with almost impossible to break the pin. c4-c5. 16 ƒf4 ƒa6?! 17 …fe1 d5 (D) Game 49: Bang-Umansky 227 XIIIIIIIIY After 23...†f6 White has a 9-snrwq-trk+0 pleasant choice between 24 †xf6+ 9zp-+-+pzp-0 …xf6 (24...Èxf6 25 Èe7) 25 …e7, W9lzp-+psn-zp0 or 24 Èe7 †xf2+ 25 ‡h1 †xc2 26 9+-+p+-+-0 Èxc8, or (possibly the best) 24 †e3. 9-+PzP-vL-+0 24 †e3 (D) 9zP-zPL+-sN-0 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+QzPPzP0 9-snrwq-+-mk0 9+R+-tR-mK-0 B9zp-+-+-+n0 xiiiiiiiiy 9-zp-+-tr-+0 Here Black probably thought that 9+-+p+N+-0 he was doing OK. Yet, the revelation 9-+lzP-+-+0 was just around the corner. 9zP-zP-wQ-+-0 18 †d2!! 9-+L+-zPPzP0 This is a brilliant concept: White gives up a pawn to preserve his light- 9+R+-tR-mK-0 squared ƒ, which soon will play xiiiiiiiiy a key role in the kingside attack. I wonder whether White had foreseen Maybe when Black played this idea when he played 13 bxc3, 19...Èh7, he believed that he would though. still have reasonable chances here. 18...ƒxc4 19 ƒc2 Èh7 However, now he must have At first glance Black’s defensive realised that his position was task does not look too difficult, beyond repair: his ‡ has been but a closer examination shows stripped of his pawn shield, while that it’s nearly impossible to stop his pieces on the queenside are White striking on h6, for example absolutely idle. 19...Èbd7? 20 ƒxh6 gxh6 21 †xh6 24...Èc6 25 †h3! †d7 26 †h5! and Black cannot do anything about 1–0 the threat of 22 Èh5. Probably Black This nice † manoeuvre concludes had to return a pawn by playing the attack, as now Black cannot 19...Èe4 20 Èxe4 dxe4 21 ƒxe4 prevent 27 Èe7. Since the line with better chances for a defence. 26...†f7 (26...…e6 27 Èh4!) 27 20 ƒxh6! gxh6? †xf7 …xf7 28 Èd6 …cf8 29 Èxf7+ This is probably where Black …xf7 30 h4 is too grim, Black crossed the borderline. Better was resigned. 20...†f6 21 ƒf4 Èc6 when Black is This was a fine game where White still in the game. built up his attack on better strategy, 21 †xh6 f5 22 †xe6+ ‡h8 23 successfully exploiting Black’s not Èxf5 …f6 very obvious mistakes. Game 50 White: Janis R. Vitomskis (Latvia) Black: John J. Carleton (England) 15th CC World Championship Final, 1996 French Defence, Albin-Chatard-Alekhine Attack (C14)

The Players: Janis Vitomskis, from 5 e5 Èfd7 6 h4!? (D) Riga, is a very experienced player This gambit, which is usually with a penchant for attacks and gam- declined, aims to force the game bits. He became an ICCF IM in 1993 into more tactical channels than the and CC-grandmaster in 2001. He is a slower, strategic game that normally co-author with me of the theory CD, arises after 6 ƒxe7 †xe7 7 f4 0-0 ‘The Total Marshall’. (or 7...a6). John Carleton lives in Lancashire. XIIIIIIIIY He became a CC-IM in 1986 and Sen- 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 ior International Master in 1999. About this game: This game is light- B9zppzpnvlpzpp0 weight compared with many in the 9-+-+p+-+0 book, but I think readers need a varied 9+-+pzP-vL-0 diet and it is significant for the theory 9-+-zP-+-zP0 of the opening. The players test a 9+-sN-+-+-0 40-year-old suggestion to improve 9PzPP+-zPP+0 on a Spassky game. Vitomskis finds some brilliant moves to prove that 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 the idea is correct — which in turn xiiiiiiiiy means that the whole variation begun with Black’s 6th move is probably in 6...f6 doubt. I consulted the notes Vitomskis “Probably too sharp,” comments wrote for his Latvian magazine and Byron Jacobs in ‘French Classical’ ‘Informator 72’. (, 2001). This move 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Èc3 Èf6 4 ƒg5 was introduced by Maróczy as a way ƒe7 of counter-attacking in the centre This is the Classical variation of the without loss of time. French Defence where Black generally Accepting the pawn by 6...ƒxg5 aims for queenside counterplay with a 7 hxg5 †xg5 is a high-risk option blocked centre. because White has long-term pressure Game 50: Vitomskis-Carleton 229 on the h-file and his pieces develop Èc6 11 0–0–0 0–0 12 Èh3 (The rapidly after 8 Èh3 (Hector’s 8 Belarus master Silich recommended †d3!? is also interesting.) 8...†e7 9 12 Èf3 ƒd7 13 g3 …e8 14 ƒh3.) Èf4 (or 9 †g4!?). 12...ƒd7 13 ƒh6 …e8 14 f4 ƒxc5 Theory may say Black can survive, 15 h5‹ Sanguinetti-F.Benko, Buenos but one slip will be fatal and 6...ƒxg5 Aires 1954. cannot be recommended to most 8 exf6 Èxf6 players. Ironically, Carleton had Not 8...ƒxf6 9 Èh3! †e8 10 played this in an earlier game with †g4‹, e.g. 10...c5 11 Èb5 Èa6 12 Timmerman but went wrong, so Èf4 e5 (12...Èb6 13 ƒxf6 gxf6 14 understandably did not want to risk Èh5 †e7 15 †f4!) 13 Èd6 (Suetin) the line again. or 13 Èe6+ˆ. The critical continuation is 9...Èc6 9 †e2! 10 †g4 Èxd4 (10...g6!?) 11 0–0–0 White targets the weak e5-square Èf5 12 Èfxd5 exd5 13 Èxd5 and — the square in front of the backward now after 13...†xe5! 14 ƒb5 Black pawn — and leaves his È a choice should play 14...0–0 instead of between f3 and h3. 14...Èe3?? 15 Èxe3 c6 (15...†xb5 Perhaps surprisingly, until recent 16 Èd5ˆ) 16 …de1ˆ (Vitomskis- years White has usually preferred 9 K.Koistinen, Baltic Sea tt5 1986). †f3 c5 10 dxc5, when Black’s best Black has other ways of declining reply is probably 10...b6!? offering a the pawn — for instance 6...c5 or pawn for rapid development. 6...a6 — but I have no space to review 9...c5 all the theory here. This is probably best. 7 †h5+! 10 dxc5 (D) The reputation of 6...f6 was good XIIIIIIIIY in the days when White normally 9rsnlwq-mk-tr0 answered 7 ƒd3, after which 7...c5 leads to wild complications, or 7 exf6 B9zpp+-vl-zpp0 Èxf6 8 ƒd3 c5. 9-+-+psn-+0 For a time 6...f6 was even 9+-zPp+-vL-0 considered the refutation of 6 h4. 9-+-+-+-zP0 However, this view changed after 9+-sN-+-+-0 C.H.O’D.Alexander discovered the 9PzPP+QzPP+0 strength of the † check, which costs Black his castling rights. 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 7...‡f8 xiiiiiiiiy Black would prefer to play 7...g6 but 8 exf6! is a problem, e.g. 8...Èxf6 10...Èa6? (8...gxh5? 9 fxe7 †xe7 10 ƒxe7 After the present game, this move ‡xe7‹ Alexander) 9 †e2 c5 10 dxc5 can be considered refuted. 230 64 Great Chess Games

The pawn sacrifice 10...b6!? 9 Y.Smolensky-E.Epelman, 7th USSR †f3) was suggested by Zlotnik in Corr Ch sf (circa 1964) continued 1982, but there is little experience 16...†a5 17 ‡b1 Èe4 18 ƒe2! with it. ƒd7 (If 18...Èxf2 19 Èe5+! fxe5 20 After 11 c6 Èxc6 12 Èf3 ‡f7 13 ƒh5+ ‡g8 21 Èd6 ƒxd6 22 †g5+ ƒf4 Black needs to improve on H. mates.) 19 Èd2! Èxf2 20 ƒh5+ Stefansson-E. Bricard, France-Iceland ‡g8 21 …h3! Èxh3 22 gxh3 †b6 1993: 13...ƒd6 14 ƒxd6 †xd6 15 (22...ƒc5 23 Èe4!) 23 Èd6! 1–0 0–0–0 …e8 16 Èb5 †b8 17 h5 h6 (White is better but resignation seems (17...e5!? — Knaak) 18 Èbd4 Èxd4 a bit premature). 19 Èe5+ ‡g8 20 …xd4 Èd7 21 Instead 17...ƒd7! was a con- Èg4 †d6 22 †d3 †f8 (22...…e7 temporary suggestion, mentioned by 23 †g6 ‡h8 24 Èxh6 gxh6 25 Vitomskis as the reason for avoiding …g4ˆ) 23 †g6 1–0. this line. If instead 10...Èc6 GM Suetin 14...ƒd7 15 Èe5 ƒe8 recommended 11 0–0–0 †a5 12 Èf3 If 15...ƒxb5 Vitomskis gives 16 to be followed by ƒf4. ƒxf6 ƒxf6 17 †xc5+ †e7 18 ƒxb5 11 Èf3 Èxc5 12 0–0–0 ƒxe5 19 †c6 ƒf4+ 20 ‡b1 …d8 21 If Black plays passively, one plan …he1 with an attack. for White is g3, ƒh3 and …he1 Black can also try 16...gxf6 17 building up against the e6-pawn. †h6+ ‡g8 18 …d4 f5 19 …h3 ƒg5+! Hence Black seeks counterplay 20 hxg5 ƒxf1 but would not have full against the white ‡. compensation for the exchange. 12...b5 13 †e3! 16 Èd4 †b6 17 ƒd3! …c8 Spassky-Guimard, Göteborg izt Not 17...h6? 18 Èg6+ ƒxg6 19 1955, went instead 13 Èxb5?! …b8 ƒxg6 hxg5? 20 hxg5 …xh1 21 …xh1 14 Èbd4 †a5! (threatening both Èg8 22 †f4+ ƒf6 23 gxf6 gxf6 24 ...†xa2 and 15...…xb2 16 ‡xb2 …h7ˆ. Èa4+) 15 Èc6 †xa2 16 Èxb8 18 …he1 a5 (D) Èce4 17 c4 (17 Èd2? Èc3!) 17... XIIIIIIIIY Èc3 18 †d3 †a1+ 19 ‡c2 and now 9-+r+lmk-tr0 Black should have forced the draw by 19...Èxd1 20 †xd1 †a4+ 21 ‡c1! W9+-+-vl-zpp0 †a1+ 22 ‡c2 †a4+. 9-wq-+psn-+0 Afterwards, Spassky’s trainer GM 9zp-snpsN-vL-0 Bondarevsky suggested the move 9-zp-sN-+-zP0 played by Vitomskis. 9+-+LwQ-+-0 13...b4 14 Èb5! 9PzPP+-zPP+0 This is the first new move. Bondarevsky’s analysis went 14 9+-mKRtR-+-0 ƒxf6 gxf6 15 †h6+ ‡f7 16 Èb5Ÿ. xiiiiiiiiy Game 50: Vitomskis-Carleton 231

Black needs just two more moves (or ...‡f7) 22 ƒxg4 hxg4 23 ƒxe7, (...a4, ...b3) to set the queenside on but after exchanges on e6, Black has fire, but his h8-… is an idle bystander. too many weak pawns to survive, Now White has all his pieces in despite the opposite coloured ƒs. So position and it is time to explode the he prefers to hope for a middlegame kingside. . 19 Èg4! h5 Now if 22 ƒxe6 Èxe3 23 ƒxe7+ If Black accepts the piece by ‡xe7 24 ƒxc8 ‡d8 25 …xe3 ‡xc8 19...Èxg4 there comes 20 ƒxe7+ 26 …xd5 White has … + two pawns ‡xe7 21 †g5+ ‡f8 (21...Èf6 22 versus ƒ+È, but he wants more. †xg7+ ƒf7 23 Èf5+ wins) 22 †xg4 22 ƒxe7+! ‡xe7 23 †g5+ Èf6 24 with a strong attack, e.g. 22...ƒf7 23 ƒxe6 Èxe6 25 …xd5 ƒf7 (D) …e5 …e8 24 …de1 Èe4 25 ƒxe4 If 25...‡f7 26 †e5 …c6 27 †xd4 26 ƒf5!‹. …xa5ˆ. There is no time for 19...a4 because XIIIIIIIIY of 20 ƒxf6 gxf6 (or 20...ƒxf6 21 9-+r+-+-tr0 Èxf6 gxf6 22 Èxe6+) 21 Èxe6+ †xe6 22 †h6+ˆ. Now the black W9+-+-mklzp-0 … covers h6 and the È is en prise, so 9-+-+nsn-+0 White needs a new line of attack. 9zp-+R+-wQp0 20 ƒf5! 9-zp-+-+-zP0 The pressure on the e-file reaches 9+-+-+-+-0 breaking point. 9PzPP+-zPP+0 20...Èxg4 If 20...hxg4 21 Èxe6+ ‡f7 the 9+-mK-tR-+-0 most convincing line is 22 ƒxf6! xiiiiiiiiy ƒxf6 23 Èg5+ ƒxg5 24 hxg5ˆ, while if 20...ƒd7 or 20...ƒf7 then Black has three minor pieces for 21 Èe5 is strong. The text move sets the † — but not for long! the trap 21 ƒxg4?? ƒxg5+ but this is 26 …xe6+! 1–0 easily sidestepped. Black resigned for if 26...‡xe6 27 21 Èxe6+ †xe6 †e5#, or 26...ƒxe6 27 †xg7+ ƒf7 Black could have made more 28 …e5+, or 26...‡f8 27 …xf6 gxf6 work for his opponent by 21...‡g8 28 †xf6ˆ. Game 51 White: Joop J. van Oosterom (Netherlands) Black: Professor Robert I. Reynolds (USA) 15th CC World Championship Final, 1996 Budapest Defence (A52)

The Players: I introduced van Oost- positional player like van Oosterom. erom in Game 1. However, Reynolds had played the Professor Reynolds won the 6th US Budapest on his way to qualifying CC Championship Final (1985-87) for the final and perhaps believed he with the amazing score of 13½ out of understood it well. 14. He lost only one game on his way 3 dxe5 Èg4 4 ƒf4 ƒb4+ to the World Championship Final, 4...Èc6 5 Èf3 ƒb4+ 6 Èc3 †e7 qualifying for the IM title in 1994. 7 †d5 ƒxc3+ 8 bxc3 is another move However, his subsequent perform- order to the first diagram below. ances at the highest international level 5 Èc3 have been disappointing. 5 Èd2 is an important alternative, About this game: To do well in a avoiding the doubled c-pawn, but world championship, the contenders after 5...Èc6 6 Ègf3 †e7 7 e3 must score heavily against the back (not 7 a3 Ègxe5 8 axb4?? Èd3#) markers. Reynolds handicaps himself 7...Ègxe5 8 Èxe5 Èxe5 Black with an inferior opening variation and has regained his pawn with a fairly his attempts to complicate the early satisfactory position. For example, 9 middlegame are refuted by an im- ƒe2 and then: aginative, yet essentially quite simple, a) Morgado-Reynolds, CNEC-15 concept by White. corr 1993, went 9...d6 10 0-0 ƒd7 11 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e5 a3 ƒxd2 12 †xd2 g5!? 13 ƒg3 h5¢ The Budapest is considered not (1-0, 30, after a complicated struggle) entirely ‘respectable’ because it aims while S.Stolyar-Reynolds, Russia- at piece play without a deep strategic Rest of the World corr 1993, varied foundation. While it can be very from that with 11 Èb3 ƒa4 12 †c2 effective at rapid and blitz chess, its g5 and again White won in the end. positional shortcomings are liable However, I don’t think these games to be exposed in CC by a quality were published until some time after Game 51: van Oosterom-Reynolds 233 XIIIIIIIIY the World Championship Final began, and anyway, Reynolds presumably 9r+l+k+-tr0 would have improved upon them. B9zppzppwqpzpp0 b) A more standard treatment is 9-+n+-+-+0 9...0–0 10 0–0 a5 (10...d6 11 Èb3 b6 9+-+QzP-+-0 12 a3 ƒc5 13 Èxc5 bxc5 14 b4 Èd7 9-+P+-vLn+0 15 ƒg4Ÿ Karpov-N.Short, 1st match 9+-zP-+N+-0 game, Linares 1992) 11 a3 ƒxd2 12 †xd2 d6 which has been used by 9P+-+PzPPzP0 the one postal player to have success 9tR-+-mKL+R0 with the Budapest at a high level of xiiiiiiiiy competition, Swiss CC-GM Gottardo 8...†a3 Gottardi. GM Bogdan Lali™, in his 1998 b1) 13 b4 …e8 14 †c3 †f6 15 book on the Budapest, said this move ‡h1 ƒf5 16 c5 axb4 17 axb4 Èd3 is a waste of time. Black should not be 18 †xf6 gxf6 19 ƒxd3 ƒxd3 20 interested in winning the unimportant …fd1 dxc5 21 bxc5 ƒc2 22 …dc1 a-pawn. However, Reynolds’ plan is …xa1 23 …xa1 …d8 24 ƒxc7 …d1+ not to win the pawn but — he hopes 25 …xd1 ƒxd1 26 h3 h5 ½–½ in view — to disrupt White’s optimal set-up. of the opposite-coloured ƒs (P.Kindl- The alternative is the gambit-style Gottardi, Wch16 3/4F 1992). 8...f6 9 exf6 Èxf6, reckoning the b2) 13 b3 b6 14 e4 ƒb7 15 f3 †e6 extra white c-pawn is not worth much, 16 …fe1 f5 17 exf5 †xf5 18 ƒg3 but White has 10 †d3 d6 11 g3 0-0 …fe8 19 ƒf1 †f6 20 …ad1 …e6 21 12 ƒg2 Èe4 13 0-0 Èc5 14 †e3!Ÿ. …e3 h5 22 h4 …ae8 23 …de1 †g6 Compare the note to Black’s 12th and Black has managed to develop move below. I think the immediate all his pieces actively (½–½, 54) van 11...Èe4 is Black’s best try. Oosterom-Gottardi, Wch15 Final. 9 …c1! f6 Possibly van Oosterom did not 9...†xa2?! leaves Black too want to “put all his eggs into one undeveloped after 10 h3 Èh6 11 e4. basket” by playing the same 5th move Instead of 11...Èg8 12 c5! †a3 13 in both games — often a wise policy ƒc4 Èd8 14 ƒe3 Èe7 15 †d1‹ in CC events where games start (Gligoric-Westerinen, Venice 1971), simultaneously. Mik.Tseitlin and Glaskov suggested Maybe his game with the Swiss 11...†a3!? 12 c5 b6 in ‘The Budapest opponent developed more rapidly so for the Tournament Player’ (1992). he decided to switch variations after They analysed 13 e6? but Berliner failing to achieve an advantage with 5 recommended the very strong reply Èd2 against Gottardi. 13 Èd4! in ‘Kaissiber 13’, e.g. 13... 5...ƒxc3+ 6 bxc3 Èc6 7 Èf3 †e7 †xc5 (or 13...0–0 14 Èb5) 14 Èb5! 8 †d5 (D) 0–0 15 Èxc7 …b8 16 Èb5! when 234 64 Great Chess Games

“White holds all the trumps”. 11...Èe4 10 exf6 The black È gains a tempo by White has another option here in attacking c3 but really it is heading 10 …c2!?, but van Oosterom opts for for c5 where it will blockade the a more straightforward continuation, white queenside. Instead 11...0-0? first played by the Uzbek GM Alexei just loses a pawn to 12 ƒxc7, while Barsov. 11...d6 cuts the black † off from the 10...Èxf6 11 †d1! (D) centre and both 12 Èd4 and 12 †b3 This move “makes a lot of sense are promising for White. Finally, if White wishes to avoid any un- 11...†xa2 12 ƒxc7 †xc4 restores pleasantness with ...Èe4 and ...ƒf5,” material equality but Black has terrible wrote Lali™. Older moves are: holes in his position and it is hard for a) 11 †d2 d6 12 Èd4 0–0 13 e3? him to complete his development. (13 f3) 13...Èxd4! 14 cxd4 Èe4 15 Barsov-S. Kagirov, Uzbekistan 1993, †c2 †a5+ 16 ‡e2 …xf4!! 17 exf4 continued 13 e3 †f7 14 Èg5 †g6 ƒf5 18 †b2 …e8 19 ‡f3 Èd2+ 20 15 h4 d5 16 c4‹ and 1-0, 26. ‡g3 Èe4+ 21 ‡h4 …e6 22 ƒe2 12 †c2 †e7 …h6+ 23 ƒh5 …xh5+! 24 ‡xh5 The black † returns to e7, with ƒg6+ 0–1 is the classic Black win in a position similar to the 8...f6 9 exf6 this variation (Rubinstein-Vidmar, Èxf6 main line mentioned above; Berlin 1918). However, White can White’s … and † are on c1 and be a lot more sophisticated in his c2, rather than the usual a1 and d3. handling of the line, as the present The main difference is the position game shows. of the white † which, on c2, is not b) 11 †d3 0-0 12 g3 d6 13 ƒg2 disturbed by ...Èc5, but Black has at †xa2 (13...†c5? 14 Èg5!‹ van least avoided the possibility of †e3!, Wely-Sorin, Buenos Aires 1995) 14 and he hopes to regain lost time with c5!? dxc5 15 ƒxc7 (Y.Yakovich- a later ...ƒf5. Coret Frasquet, Seville 1992) 13 g3 d6 14 ƒg2 Èc5!? 15...ƒe6!¢ — Yakovich. 14...0–0 looks natural but XIIIIIIIIY presumably Black wanted to 9r+l+k+-tr0 avoid the possibility of 15 Èd4 B (which can now be met by ...Èe5) 9zppzpp+-zpp0 — the sharp line 15...Èxf2!? 16 9-+n+-sn-+0 Èxc6 bxc6 17 ‡xf2 g5 appears 9+-+-+-+-0 ineffective after 18 e3!. 9-+P+-vL-+0 The È retreat chosen by Reynolds 9wq-zP-+N+-0 also tempts White with some 9P+-+PzPPzP0 immediate tactical possibilities: a) 15 Èg5!? prevents Black from 9+-tRQmKL+R0 castling, and if 15...Èe5 16 0-0 Èg6 xiiiiiiiiy Game 51: van Oosterom-Reynolds 235

17 ƒe3 0-0 18 h4! c6 (18...ƒf5 19 18...Èed7 to reinforce the Èc5 or †d1! £ 20 ƒxc5 dxc5 21 ƒd5+ 18...Èxc4!?. Unfortunately White ‡h8 22 e4 ƒd7 23 †h5ˆ) 19 has made a more accurate assessment ƒxc5 dxc5 20 †e4‹, or 15...ƒg4 16 of the position. …b1! (£…xb7; not 16 Èxh7 ƒxe2! 18 e4! (D) 17 †xe2? Èd3+) 16...†d7 17 0-0 XIIIIIIIIY ƒf5 18 e4 ƒg6 19 ƒe3‹. However, 9r+-+-trk+0 15...…f8!? 16 †xh7 (not 16 Èxh7? ƒf5 or 16 0-0 h6 17 †g6+?! ‡d8 B9zppzp-wq-zpp0 18 Èh3 ƒf5) 16...ƒf5 17 †h5+ g6 9-+-zp-+-+0 18 ƒxc6+ bxc6 19 †f3 ‡d7 seems 9+-sn-snl+-0 to offer Black good compensation. 9-+P+PvL-+0 White might come to regret his pawn- 9+NzP-+-zP-0 grabbing excursion as his opponent 9P+Q+-zPLzP0 has active pieces and should be able to regain at least one of the sacrificed 9+-tR-+RmK-0 pawns. xiiiiiiiiy b) 15 ƒg5 †f7 16 Èd4 looks quite good for White, e.g. 16...0-0 17 White trades his † for three minor ƒd5 Èe6 18 ƒe3 or 16...Èe5 17 pieces and a pawn. If you go on the ƒd5 followed by 18 f4!?. old reckoning that a pawn=1, È=3, Van Oosterom decides to ignore ƒ=3, …=5 and †=9 you might think these complications, preferring a this is a good transaction for Black, longer-term plan to eliminate the but remember that he was already blockading È from c5. one pawn down and most masters 15 0–0! 0–0 16 Èd4 Èe5 17 Èb3! reckon that, other things being equal, From a strategic point of view, ƒ+ƒ+È is worth a good bit more this is the key move as it challenges than a †. I recall English CC-GM Black’s strongest piece, which can Adrian Hollis saying he believed no longer be maintained at c5. From that …=4.5 and †=8.5 is closer to a tactical point of view, White had the truth. to see at move 15 that the coming 18...Èxe4 19 ƒxe4 Èf3+ 20 ƒxf3 transaction is in his favour. ƒxc2 21 …xc2 c6 17...ƒf5 If Black could play ...b6 here This is the critical moment of the he might not stand so badly, but of game. Exchanging on b3 would just course the b-pawn is pinned to the improve White’s pawns so, consistent …a8; while if 21...…ab8 White can with his opening strategy Black smash up the queenside with c4-c5, attacks the exposed †, with the idea e.g. 22 …e2 †f6 23 c5 dxc5 24 Èxc5 18 e4 Èxe4 19 ƒxe4 Èf3+!, while †xc3 25 ƒd5+ ‡h8 26 …c1‹. if 18 †d1 he might continue either Therefore Black has to play 21...c6 236 64 Great Chess Games which, although reducing the scope of White anchors his ƒ and keeps …s the g2-ƒ, more significantly creates a on the board while he improves his new weakness at d6. position. 22 …d1 †f7 23 ƒg2 †xc4 24 29...h6?! ƒxd6 …fe8 25 ƒf1 †g4 I fail to see the point of this, which The exchange phase is over. The creates a hole on g6. However, Black rest of the game is a demonstration of doesn’t have any useful moves: he why three minor pieces should beat a cannot find a target for his heavy † if all else is equal. pieces, and 29...b6 would weaken c6. Three fighting units are more 30 Èd4 …d7 31 Èe2 …e4 32 Èf4 useful than one for attacking defended †e8 33 ‡h2 spots in the enemy position. The † The immediate 33 ƒd3 …e1+ 34 might be stronger if White had loose ‡g2 would be sufficient, but as Black pawns or an exposed ‡, but neither is cannot do anything White moves the the case here. ‡ first, threatening 34 ƒd3 …e1? 35 26 …cd2 …ad8 27 c4 ‡h8 28 h3 …xe1 †xe1 36 …e2ˆ. †h5 29 c5 (D) 33...b6?! XIIIIIIIIY This is even worse now as it costs 9-+-trr+-mk0 the exchange. 34 ƒg2 ‡h7 35 ƒe5 …xe5 36 …xd7 B9zpp+-+-zpp0 …e1 37 …d8 †e5 38 …1d6 1–0 9-+pvL-+-+0 Black has no defence to 39 Èg6 9+-zP-+-+q0 and 40 …h8# — if 39...†xc5 40 Èg6 9-+-+-+-+0 …e8 41 …xe8 †xd6 42 ƒe4ˆ. This 9+N+-+-zPP0 game is quite a good example of how 9P+-tR-zP-+0 a grandmaster can win economically against an IM who tries too hard to 9+-+R+LmK-0 make something happen. xiiiiiiiiy Game 52 White: Christophe Léotard (France) Black: Gheorghe Rotariu (Romania) ‘Amici Sumus LADAC/CAPA’ GM tournament, 1998 English Opening (A35)

The Players: Christophe Léotard 1 c4 won the French correspondence Léotard gives this an exclamation championship three successive times mark and says “only move”. That in 1995-96-97 and has also been very is Gallic hyperbole but certainly successful on the international stage. many players who are comfortable Victory in this tournament earned him against 1 e4 and 1 d4 are not so well the ICCF grandmaster title. prepared to meet the English. Ing. Gheorghe Rotariu is a veteran 1...c5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 Èc3 g6 4 e3 competitor in high-level postal events. ƒg7 5 d4 d6 6 ƒe2 cxd4 7 exd4 He became a CC-IM in 1975 and Èf6 grandmaster in 1981. His best result Black chose a poor variation that was second place in the 32nd European cedes a lot of central space and free Championship (1985-91), losing only piece play to his opponent. His idea is on tie-break. to induce d4-d5 and then regroup the About this game: Léotard has won È to c5 but this costs a lot of time. many fine games with his favourite 8 d5 Èb8 9 0–0 0–0 10 ƒe3 Èa6 11 English Opening. The notes are based Èb5 Èc5!? on his analysis in ‘Le Courrier des The game leaves the books. Black Echecs’, the magazine of the French has the idea to improve on the well- CC organisation. known game 11...b6 12 Èfd4 ƒb7 The tournament name requires 13 ƒf3 Èd7 14 †d2Ÿ Portisch- some explanation. ‘Amici Sumus’ Petrosian, San Antonio 1972. (“we are friends”) is the Latin 12 b4 motto of the ICCF and this event Black wants to anchor his È by was organised to seal a peace treaty 12...a5 so this must be prevented between Argentina’s two discordant at once. The following play is the CC bodies, LADAC and CAPA. The tactical justification for the move. tournament was a success but the 12...a6 13 Èxd6 exd6 14 bxc5 Èe4 peace was not so lasting. (D) 238 64 Great Chess Games

XIIIIIIIIY 16 †d2 Èxe2+ 17 †xe2 ƒxa1 18 9r+lwq-trk+0 …xa1 †xd6 9+p+-+pvlp0 After 18...…e8 19 c5 White’s W9p+-zp-+p+0 pawns give him a clear advantage, but 9+-zPP+-+-0 now he has a direct attack. 9-+P+n+-+0 19 ƒh6! …d8 20 †b2 f6 21 …e1! Léotard comments: “I like in this 9+-+-vLN+-0 game the way the white moves are 9P+-+LzPPzP0 connected together naturally and 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 simply, so the rhythm of the attack xiiiiiiiiy never weakens. It is important not to No doubt Black has relied on this let Black regain the e-file, by which move which opens the long diagonal route his …s could enter the game.” and controls c3, but we shall see that 21...b5! (D) it is very risky for Black to exchange XIIIIIIIIY his fianchettoed ƒ, even for a …, 9r+ltr-+k+0 because of the weakened dark squares remaining near the ‡. W9+-+-+-+p0 15 cxd6 9p+-wq-zppvL0 Léotard writes: “This is not the 9+p+P+-+-0 kind of decision one takes lightly in 9-+P+-+-+0 CC. I already had this in mind when 9+-+-+N+-0 I played 12 b4 and I had analysed it 9PwQ-+-zPPzP0 as far as 31 c6. I don’t like to engage in variations, the outcome of which 9+-+-tR-mK-0 seem too uncertain to me. Strangely, xiiiiiiiiy I often have the occasion to sacrifice the exchange.” 22 Èg5!! He justifies his decision by the Of course Black cannot capture fact that Black would have no the È because of checkmate on g7 problems in the alternative variation, and now the main idea is Èe4. On 15 ƒd4 Èxc5 16 ƒxg7 ‡xg7 17 that dominating square, the È will †d4+ †f6 18 †xf6+ ‡xf6. Then not only drive away the black † and the c8-ƒ is better than its opposite threaten f6 but also stand ready to number on g2 and the c5-È is very support the central pawns. well placed. 22 Èd2 might seem to accomplish 15...Èc3 the same end, but it is less threatening Not 15...ƒxa1 16 †xa1 …e8 17 in other ways. Léotard analysed ƒd3 †xd6 18 ƒxe4 …xe4 19 c5 22...ƒf5 23 g4 ƒd3 24 †b3 ƒxc4 and White has the initiative, because (not 24...bxc4 25 †b7ˆ) 25 Èxc4 19...†xd5 loses to 20 ƒh6. †xd5¢, or if 24 …e6 †d7 25 †xf6 Game 52: Léotard-Rotariu 239

ƒxc4 then 26 …e7 forcing a draw, 23...ƒd3?! e.g. 26...†xg4+ 27 ‡h1 †d1+ (not The black ƒ must continue 27...ƒxd5+ 28 f3 ƒxf3+ 29 Èxf3 to prevent the killing move, e.g. …d1+ 30 Èe1ˆ) 28 ‡g2 †g4+ 29 23...ƒxg4?? is impossible because ‡h1=. In the latter line, White might of 24 Èe4 †e5 25 Èxf6+. White try 26 Èxc4 bxc4 27 f3 †f7 28 †e5 is also much better after 23...…d7 with compensation, but probably not 24 gxf5 fxg5 25 …e6 or 23...†f4 enough for more than a draw. (trying to exploit the open air around 22...ƒf5!? White’s ‡) 24 †xf6! (24 gxf5 …e8 According to Léotard’s original might offer some swindling chances.) notes, the last hope for Black would 24...†xg4+ (24...…d7 25 gxf5 †g4+ be 22...…a7 23 Èe4 …e7 when: 26 ‡h1 is not much better.) 25 ‡h1 a) 24 Èxf6+?? is a blunder …d7 26 †e5ˆ (Léotard). because of the back rank mate foll- Therefore he called ...ƒd3 the only owing 24...†xf6 25 †xf6 …xe1#. move, but with the benefit of knowing 24 †xf6 †xf6 25 Èxf6+ ‡f7 26 how White refutes it, I think that …xe7+ ‡xe7 is also unsatisfactory Black might have done better. as a winning attempt for White, who 23...…e8! is a tougher defence, in may even stand worse. my opinion. When I sent him analysis b) 24 f3! is correct, but after below, GM Léotard confirmed it was 24...…xe4 25 fxe4 bxc4 the presence accurate and said that “this move of opposite-coloured ƒs means White leads to a better endgame for White, must be careful about what endgames but it is difficult to win”. Now 24 he reaches. Èe6 ƒxe6 25 †xf6 is possible, but 23 g4! (D) after 25...…a7 26 dxe6 bxc4 Black XIIIIIIIIY gets counterplay with his c-pawn. 9r+-tr-+k+0 Therefore the main line goes 24 …xe8+ …xe8 25 gxf5 when: B9+-+-+-+p0 a) 25...†e5 26 †xe5 …xe5 9p+-wq-zppvL0 (26...fxe5? 27 f6) 27 Èf3 …xf5 28 9+p+P+lsN-0 Èd4‹ but still with work to do. 9-+P+-+P+0 b) 25...†f4 26 h3 …e5 27 †b4 9+-+-+-+-0 (threatening mate on f8!) 27...…e8 9PwQ-+-zP-zP0 28 d6 …e2 (28...†xf5 29 †c3) 29 †c5 (This protects f2 and threatens 9+-+-tR-mK-0 †c8+.) 29...…e1+ 30 ‡g2 †xc4. xiiiiiiiiy Now after 31 †xc4+ bxc4 32 Èf3 White can hope the passed pawn White offers a pawn and risks will win the game, but he must still exposure of his ‡ in order to keep up overcome resistance by 32...…d1 or the momentum of his attack. 32...…e8 33 ƒd2 …d8 34 ƒb4 a5. 240 64 Great Chess Games

24 c5! 26...†xh6 Black has no time to get organised If 26...…xe4 27 ƒxf4 …xe1+ 28 and now faces a choice of two ways to ‡h2 and White threatens both †d2 lose. He can either let White’s † into and †xf6. f6 and be rapidly mated, or else let the 27 Èxf6+ ‡f7 28 …xe8! c-pawn live and be strangled by the White could still make things passed pawn duo. difficult for himself with the slip 28 24...†f4 Èxe8? …xe8 29 …xe8 †xh3! 30 This is the only move to cut across …e3 (30 †e5 †f1+ and Black draws) White’s plans. If 24...†xd5 25 30...†xg4+ 31 …g3 †d1+ 32 ‡g2 …e7ˆ or 24...†xc5 25 †xf6ˆ. ƒe4+ 33 f3 ƒxd5 when White’s 25 h3 winning chances are reduced. White must protect against the 28...…xe8 29 Èxe8 ‡xe8 check on g4 before beginning the If now 29...†xh3 30 Èd6+ ‡g8 final assault. 31 †d4ˆ. 25...…e8 (D) 30 †e5+ ‡f7 31 c6 XIIIIIIIIY The two passed pawns are too far 9r+-+r+k+0 advanced for Black to have any hope of escape. W9+-+-+-+p0 31...†c1+ 9p+-+-zppvL0 If 31...†xh3 32 †f4+ ‡g7 33 9+pzPP+-sN-0 c7ˆ. 9-+-+-wqP+0 32 ‡h2 9+-+l+-+P0 Not 32 ‡g2? †f1+ 33 ‡g3 †g1+ 9PwQ-+-zP-+0 34 ‡f3 †h1+ 35 ‡g3=. 32...†c2 9+-+-tR-mK-0 32...†c5 is not much better. White xiiiiiiiiy can answer 33 ‡g3 or 33 †e6+. 33 ‡g3 1–0 If instead 25...…xd5 26 Èxh7 Black resigned. Now 33...h5 34 c7 †xh6 27 Èxf6+ ‡f7 28 Èxd5ˆ. h4+ 35 ‡xh4 †xf2+ 36 ‡g5 †d2+ So at last, Black challenges the open 37 †f4+ would have been a neat file but it is too late. Now White lets finish. On 33...†c1 there could have off the dynamite. followed 34 †e6+ ‡g7 (34...‡f8 35 26 Èe4! †f6+ ‡g8 36 d6 †g1+ 37 ‡h4ˆ) A very satisfying unpin move, with 35 †e7+ ‡g8 36 c7 †g1+ 37 ‡f4 a on the †. Black †xf2+ 38 ‡e5 and Black will soon can capture the È in three different run out of checks. The white ‡ ways but they all lose; he must take and passed pawns provide mutual the ƒ instead. protection and the black ƒ is useless. Game 53 White: Jonny Hector (Sweden) Black: Curt Hansen (Denmark) Peter Korning Memorial, 1998-99 Caro-Kann Defence (B19)

The Players: This game features a XIIIIIIIIY CC clash between two active FIDE 9-+ktr-vl-tr0 grandmasters who both are also now 9zppwqn+pzp-0 ICCF GMs. Hansen had earlier played B9-+p+psn-zp0 several postal events in Denmark but 9+-+-sN-+P0 this was his first international tourna- 9-+-zP-+-+0 ment; he finished second on tie-break to van Oosterom. Hector finished 9+-+-+-sN-0 fourth, making the grandmaster . 9PzPPvLQzPP+0 About this game: Any prejudice that 9+-mKR+-+R0 the Caro-Kann is a dull defence would xiiiiiiiiy be challenged by the attack that Black This move became popular when develops after a long theoretical intro- Spassky employed it successfully duction. Hansen finds a remarkably in his 1966 world championship delicate manoeuvre ...Èb6-d5-b4-a2- match against Petrosian. Since after c1-e2, ultimately sacrificing the È to 14...Èxe5 15 dxe5 followed by f2-f4, wreck the white ‡’s defences. White has a clamp on the kingside, 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 Black generally prefers to avoid the The Caro-Kann is a good choice È exchange and go for counterplay against a gambit-lover like Hector. against the white d-pawn. 3 Èd2 dxe4 4 Èxe4 ƒf5 5 Èg3 14...Èb6 15 ƒa5 ƒg6 6 h4 h6 7 Èf3 Èd7 8 h5 White pins the È and threatens c2- This has been main line theory c4; Black’s response challenges the ƒ for decades; White gains space with to prevent this. tempo and makes the kingside an 15...…d5 16 ƒxb6 unattractive home for the black ‡. The normal response; White rarely 8...ƒh7 9 ƒd3 ƒxd3 10 †xd3 †c7 accepts the invitation to win the 11 ƒd2 e6 12 †e2 Ègf6 13 0–0–0 exchange because 16 b4 …xa5 (not 0–0–0 14 Èe5! (D) waiting for c2-c4) 17 bxa5 ƒa3+ 242 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 18 ‡b1 Èa4 19 †f3 ƒb4 20 …d3 †xa5 21 Èe2 Èd5! gives great 9-+ktr-+-+0 complications which is not what White 9+pwq-+pzp-0 wants normally in this opening. W9-zp-vlpsn-zp0 The ramifications were analysed 9+-zprsN-+P0 in detail by Kasparov & Shakarov, in 9-+-zP-zP-+0 their 1992 book ‘The Classical Caro- 9+-zP-+-sN-0 Kann’. 22 …h3?! is rejected by them as too risky after 22...ƒe7 or 22...f6. 9PzP-+Q+P+0 Their main line, improving on 9+K+R+-+R0 erroneous analysis in ‘ECO’, goes xiiiiiiiiy 22 †xf7! Èac3+ 23 Èxc3 Èxc3+ by Kasparov and Shakarov, instead 24 …xc3 (24 ‡c1? †xa2) 24...ƒxc3 of 19...‡b8 20 Èf1 ƒxe5 21 fxe5 25 †xe6+ ‡c7 (25...‡b8? 26 †b3! Èh7 22 Èe3 …5d7 23 Èc4 Èg5 £Èxc6+) 26 †f7+ ‡c8 “and White 24 …hf1 c5 25 Èd6Ÿ (½–½, 35) has no reason to avoid 27 †e6+ Romanishin-Bagirov, Lvov zt 1978. repeating moves”. The idea is to undermine the e5-È or 16...axb6 17 f4 (if White allows...cxd4) to give him This move was introduced by GM an isolated d-pawn, with Black solidly Romanishin in 1978 instead of the controlling the blockading square d5 older 17 c4 which deprives d4 of a in front of it. defender. 20 …d3 After 17...…a5 18 ‡b1 ƒd6 19 Hector tries a new plan. f4 …d8 White has tried a wide range a) 20 Èf1 cxd4 21 cxd4 ƒc5! 22 of moves in both CC and OTB play, Èf3 †xf4 23 …h4! (23 …c1 …xd4 e.g. 20 Èe4 Èxe4 21 †xe4 f5 24 Èxd4 …xd4 following Kasparov’s 22 †e2 b5 (¢ ‘NCO’, following recipe, led to a hard-fought 42- Tiviakov-Galkin, Russian Ch, Elista move draw in I. Teran Alvarez-F. 1996) 23 …he1 ‡b8 24 c5 ƒxe5 25 Izeta Txabarri, Spanish Cht 1999.) fxe5 …a4 26 †xc7+ ‡xc7 27 …xe6 23...†f5+ 24 ‡a1 Èg4! 25 …c1 …axd4 simplified to a drawn ending …xd4 26 Èxd4 †g5! 27 †e1 …xd4 in J.Barlow-V.Maes, 15th CC World 28 Èe3 ‡b8 “with chances for both Ch Final 1996. sides” — Kasparov & Shakarov. 17...ƒd6 b) 20 …c1 ‡b8 21 …hd1 cxd4 22 17...b5 is an alternative which cxd4 †e7 23 Èf1 ƒxe5 24 fxe5 Hector had faced in an OTB game. Èe8 (Kasparov & Shakarov). Black 18 ‡b1 …d8 19 c3 has a strong build-up on the d-file. 19 c4 …a5 transposes to the 17 20...‡b8 21 …c1 †e7 22 Èf1 cxd4 c4 line. 23 cxd4 …a5 24 …g3 19...c5! (D) Although consistent with White’s This active move was recommended 20th move, it appears from the sequel Game 53: Hector-Hansen 243 that this plausible move is a mistake. Black’s attack is getting too strong. White wastes time with this … as If 31 Èxd6 Èb4! 32 …a3 †c2+ 33 it turns out he cannot carry out his ‡a1 …xa3+ 34 bxa3 †c3+ 35 ‡b1 threat. Alternatives to consider are 24 †d3+ 36 ‡b2 †xd4+ 37 ‡b1 (37 Èe3, 24 …b3 and 24 a3. ‡b3 Èd3 and...Èc5+) 37...†d3+ 24...Èd5! (D) 38 ‡b2 †d2+ 39 ‡b1 Èd3 wins Black has doubled isolated b- the …. pawns but, as they are not on an open 31...ƒb4 32 …ee3 Èc1! 33 …f1 file, this is less significant than his This is the natural move, chall- chances against the white ‡. enging Black to prove his idea XIIIIIIIIY sound. 9-mk-tr-+-+0 a) 33 ‡xc1 …c8+ 34 …c3 (34 ‡b1? gets mated in 10 after 34...†d1+ 35 W9+p+-wqpzp-0 ‡a2 …c1, and 34 †xc8+ ‡xc8 is 9-zp-vlp+-zp0 evidently hopeless for White in the 9tr-+nsN-+P0 long run.) 34...ƒxc3 35 †d6+ ‡a8 9-+-zP-zP-+0 36 …xc3 …xc3+ 37 bxc3 and now 9+-+-+-tR-0 37...†b3! is best as it wrecks White’s 9PzP-+Q+P+0 structure, i.e. 38 †b4 (38 Èc2? …a2) 38...†xb4 39 cxb4 …xa3‰. 9+KtR-+N+-0 b) 33 †c4 costs a pawn after 33... xiiiiiiiiy …c8 34 †b5 †d1 (34...†xb5 35 Èxb5 …a5å) 35 …f1 †xd4 36 25 …f3 …e8 ƒxa3 37 …xc8+ ‡xc8 38 This concedes the initiative but …xc1+ ƒc5 and Black should win the if 25 …xg7 Èxf4 26 †f3 ƒxe5 27 endgame. dxe5 †f8! (Hansen) is very strong, 33...b5! as Black follows with 28...Èd3 and Tempting alternatives here: 29...Èxe5, or if 28 …h7 †g8 29 a) 33...ƒd2?! loses the initiative …xh6 Èd3. after 34 †e7! …c8 (Not 34...†xd4 35 25...f6 26 Èg6 Èb5 †d5 36 †c7+ ‡a8 37 †xd8+! This is the È’s final contribution †xd8 38 …e8 †xe8 39 Èc7+ and to the game; with hindsight, it might 40 Èxe8‹.) 35 †d6+ ‡a8 36 Èe7! have been better to retreat 26 Èd3. ƒxe3 37 Èxc8 with a messy, and 26...†d7 27 Èd2 Èb4 28 Èc4!? roughly level, position. Looking for counterplay as after 28 b) 33...ƒxa3!? must have come a3 Èc6 both d4 and h5 are en prise, into consideration, e.g. 34 …xa3 while if 29 …d3 …d5 30 Èb3 ƒc5 (34 …xc1!?) 34...†b5 (attacking wins the d-pawn. both …s) 35 …ff3 (35 †e7 †f5+ 28...Èxa2 29 …e1 …a6 30 †xe6 36 ‡xc1 …c8+ 37 ‡d2 †c2+ and †a4 31 Èa3 38...†xb2‰) 35...…xa3 36 …xa3 244 64 Great Chess Games

Èd3å. Black will win the d-pawn 35 …xe2 and has the more active È. An important detail is that 35 …e8 c) 33...Èe2 34 …xe2 ƒxa3 looks is refuted by the culmination of the È similar to the game; e.g. if 35 bxa3 manoeuvre, 35...Èc3+! when: †xa3 36 †a2 †d3+ 37 †c2 †xd4 a) 36 bxc3 †xa3 37 …xd8+ ‡a7 wins, but White might put up more 38 …f3 (38 cxb4? †a1+ 39 ‡c2 resistance with 35 …c1 ƒd6 (or …c6+‰) when Black can choose 35...ƒb4 36 †c4) 36 †c4 or 36 …e3 between 38...ƒxc3 39 …a8+ (the only †xd4 37 †e4. move) 39...‡xa8 40 †f8+ †xf8 41 By inserting 33...b5! Black limits Èxf8 ƒxd4 with two extra pawns the white †’s defensive options (albeit doubled) in the endgame, or and gains more possibilities for 38...†a1+ 39 ‡c2 …a2+ 40 †xa2+ himself: the …, currently limited †xa2+ and the black † dominates to the a-file, gains access to more the board. of the board, and the black ‡ can b) 36 ‡c1 …xe8 37 †xe8+ ‡a7 go to b6 to escape checks in some 38 Èe7 (38 d5 ƒxa3 39 †e3+ b6 variations. 40 †xc3 ƒxb2+! 41 ‡xb2 †a2+ 42 Also, if now 34 †h3 (or 34 †e4 ‡c1 †a1+ or 41 †xb2 †c4+‰) Èb3) 34...ƒd2 35 …e7 b4 wins, so 38...ƒxe7 39 †xe7 …c6 40 bxc3 White’s reply is forced. …xc3+ and White cannot save the 34 †f7 Èe2 (D) È, e.g. 41 ‡d2 (41 ‡b2 †b3+) XIIIIIIIIY 41...†xd4+ 42 ‡e2 †d3+ 43 ‡f2 9-mk-tr-+-+0 …xa3 and Black should win. 35...ƒxa3 36 bxa3 W9+p+-+Qzp-0 Now if 36 …c1 (as in the 33...Èe2+ 9r+-+-zpNzp0 variation) Black wins by 36...ƒb4! 37 9+p+-+-+P0 †c7+ ‡a7 38 †xd8 (38 Èe7 …e8 9qvl-zP-zP-+0 39 Èc8+ …xc8 40 †xc8 †a2+ 41 9sN-+-tR-+-0 ‡c2 …c6+) 38...†a2+ 39 ‡c2 †c4+ 9-zP-+n+P+0 40 ‡b1 (40 ‡d1? †d3+ mates) 40...†xe2 (£...†d3+ or...†e6) 41 9+K+-+R+-0 †c8 †e4+! 42 †c2 †d5 43 b3 xiiiiiiiiy …a3‰. 36...†xa3 37 †a2 †d3+ 38 †c2 The black È now offers itself to †xd4! 39 †b2 (D) decoy the white … from its defensive At first sight, it looks as if White post. White must act as his d-pawn has saved the game; he has a È for is threatened by both 35...Èxd4 and two pawns and 39...†d3+ 40 †c2 35...ƒxa3 36 …xa3 †xd4, but this †d4 41 †b2 †d3+ only leads to a means he can no longer use the a3-È draw by repetition. However, Black as a dyke to hold back the flood. has seen further. Game 53: Hector-Hansen 245 XIIIIIIIIY b) 41 …ec2 …d3 and now 42 …xc6 9-mk-tr-+-+0 bxc6 43 …c3 …d1+ 44 …c1 comes to 9+p+-+-zp-0 the same as the 41 …xc6 line, while B9r+-+-zpNzp0 if 42 …c3 †e4 43 …xd3 †xd3+ 9+p+-+-+P0 44 …c2 b4 (£...b3) 45 Èe5!? 9-+-wq-zP-+0 (hoping for 45...fxe5 46 †xe5+ with 9+-+-+-+-0 counterplay) then simply 45...†d1+ followed by ...†xc1+, ...…xc1+, 9-wQ-+R+P+0 ...fxe5 and Black wins trivially in the 9+K+-+R+-0 ‡ and pawn endgame. xiiiiiiiiy c) 41 …xc6 bxc6 42 …c2 is the best 39...†a4! 40 …c1 defence, but Black can force a win by If 40 …ee1 …d3 £...…b3 (or switching back and forth with † and ...…d4-b4) is a recurring theme in the …, threatening variously mate and final phase of this game. pins against White’s † and …, while In fact 40...…d3 would win against the out-of-play È is just a spectator. 40 …c1 as well, since White’s tricks One way — there may well be others are easily quashed. For example: 41 — for Black to win is 42...…d1+ 43 …e8+ ‡a7 42 Èe7 ‡b6 43 …b8 is …c1 †e4+ and now: refuted by 43...†e4! while 43 Èd5+ c1) 44 †c2 …d3 (£...…b3+) 45 (or 43 Èc8+ ‡a5) 43...…xd5 44 ‡a2 †d5+ 46 ‡b2 …d2‰. …e6+ ‡a7 45 …xa6+ bxa6 46 †f2+ c2) 44 ‡a2 …d4 45 †c3 (or 45 ‡b7 is clearly hopeless for White. …c3 …a4+ 46 …a3 †d5+ 47 ‡b1 However, in a CC game, the advice †d1+ 48 ‡a2 …e4) 45...…d3 46 “when you’ve found a good move, try †c5 …d2+ 47 ‡b3 †a4+ 48 ‡c3 and find a better one” should certainly †a5+ 49 †b4 …d3+ and 50...†xb4. be taken, as there is no ticking clock c3) 44 ‡a1 …d3 45 …c3 …d4 to worry about. And there is indeed a intending 46...†e1+ 47 ‡a2 …a4+ 48 better move: …a3 …e4 49 …c3 †d1 50 †c1 …e2+ 40...…c6!! 0-1 51 ‡b1 (or 51 ‡a1 †d4 and 52...b4) White resigned a little early. When 51...†a4 52 …c2 †e4 53 ‡b2 †b4+ this game was about to be published 54 ‡a2 …e1‰. in ‘Chess Mail’ 8-9/1999, Hansen told White has no defence. 46 f5 me “I found a forced win at the time, (hoping for a timely †f4+) does not but I don’t have the time to piece it help after 46...‡b7, while if 46 †c1 together again at the moment”. (46 †c2 †e1+ 47 ‡b2 …d2 or 46 … I have reconstructed Black’s c1 …a4+) 46...…a4+ 47 …a3 (47 ‡b2 winning method as follows: †b4+ 48 …b3 †d4+ 49 †c3 †f2+ a) 41 …ee1 …d3 (or 41...…d4) 50 ‡c1 …e4) 47...†d4+ 48 ‡a2 …c4 threatening to pin † against ‡. 49 †b2 †d1 and 50...…c2 wins. Game 54 White: Peter Hardicsay (Hungary) Black: Hans-Werner May (Denmark) Denmark-Hungary email match, board 4, 1999 Sicilian Sveshnikov (B33)

The Players: Peter Hardicsay (born Gábor Gyuricza translated for me the 1952) was Hungarian under-20 cham- notes by Hardicsay in the Hungarian pion in 1972 and has been a FIDE IM magazine ‘Távsakk’, where this game since 1986. He took up international first appeared, and Peter sent some email chess in 1999 and this game extra comments on the opening. was played in one of his first events. 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 H-W. May was a very experienced Èxd4 Èf6 5 Èc3 e5 6 Èdb5 d6 7 CC master; runner-up in the 55th ƒg5 a6 8 Èa3 b5 9 ƒxf6 European Championship, he got the 9 Èd5 leads to a different set of CC-IM title in 1997. May died in problems for both players. It may be March 2002, aged 59. somewhat easier for White to keep the About this game: A book of this kind draw in hand then but I suspect the without an example of the Sveshnikov winning chances are also reduced. Variation would be unthinkable; in 9...gxf6 10 Èd5 (D) the past 10 years it has been one of XIIIIIIIIY the most popular variations of the 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 Sicilian Defence in CC, rivalling even the Najdorf and Dragon. I cannot B9+-+-+p+p0 attempt here to give an overview of 9p+nzp-zp-+0 the complex and rapidly-changing 9+p+Nzp-+-0 theory of the variation, but I shall 9-+-+P+-+0 mention a few of the significant CC 9sN-+-+-+-0 games played with the Sveshnikov. 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 Hardicsay improves on earlier games played by both himself and 9tR-+QmKL+R0 May, who is soon forced to sacrifice xiiiiiiiiy a piece in the hope of promoting a pawn on the queenside. White keeps 10...f5 tactical control with some effective 10...ƒg7 leads to yet another nexus moves and conducts an attractive ‡ of complications. One recent example hunt, culminating in a … sacrifice. is 11 ƒd3 Èe7 12 Èxe7 †xe7 13 Game 54: Hardicsay-May 247

0–0 0–0 14 c4 f5 15 †f3 †b7! 16 †b6 30 …g5 †e3 31 ƒxf5 …xf5 32 exf5 †xf3 17 gxf3 e4! 18 ƒxe4 …xg6 …f7 33 Èd8 †d3 34 …g1 …e7 d5!¢ P.Hertel v Chessy Forum, 35 Èc6! …f7 36 †g4 …d7 37 h4 1–0 Internet exhibition corr match 2002. Readers of Chess Mail v Hamarat, 11 ƒd3 Internet exhibition corr 1999-2000. 11 exf5 ƒxf5 12 c3 ƒg7 is an 12...…g8 important main line position which Black forgoes castling and att- can be reached by various move empts to make use of the half-open orders, including 10...ƒg7. Black g-file, counter-attacking against g2. has reasonable chances, e.g. 13 Èc2 The h-pawn is left undefended but 0–0 14 Èce3 and now one idea after White’s reply Black must do is 14...ƒd7!? 15 g4 (15 ƒd3 f5) something about it. 12...ƒg7 was the 15...b4!?, offering the b-pawn to get older move, while 12...f4 13 g3 …g8 control of d4 (Harding-E.Bösenberg, transposes to the game. Heidenfeld Memorial 2000). I did not 13 g3 (D) take the pawn and the game was soon 13 c3 …xg2 14 †f3 …g4 is another drawn. Also relevant here is R.Bar- critical line. Hardicsay, Budapest 2000: 15 g4 e4 XIIIIIIIIY 16 ƒg2 …e8 17 †c2 b4!? (17...…c8) 9r+-wqkvlr+0 18 ƒxe4 bxc3 19 bxc3 …c8 20 0–0Ÿ Èd4 21 †d3 ƒb5 22 c4 ƒd7 23 B9+-+-+p+p0 …ab1 †h4 24 f3 ƒe6 25 …f2 …b8 9p+nzpl+-+0 26 …bf1 Èc6 27 ‡h1 ‡h8 28 †a3 9+p+Nzpp+Q0 ƒxd5 29 cxd5 Èb4 30 Èf5 †f6 31 9-+-+P+-+0 …b1ˆ (1-0, 46). 9sN-+L+-zP-0 11...ƒe6 12 †h5 9PzPP+-zP-zP0 This is an aggressive move but in view of Winckelmann’s improvement 9tR-+-mK-+R0 for Black (note d to his 13th move), xiiiiiiiiy 12 0–0 now looks more dangerous for Black. For example, 12...ƒxd5 13 13...f4?! exd5 Èe7 14 c3 ƒg7 (14...…g8!? and To play these sharp openings 14...†d7!? may be improvements.) in CC, you really have to keep up 15 †h5 †d7? (15...e4 is critical.) with theory, and this move has been 16 …ad1 …c8 17 Èc2 0–0 18 f3! superseded. Hardicsay mentions: h6 19 ‡h1 f4 20 …g1! f5!? (Better a) 13...h6 was seen regularly in the is 20...…c7 21 g4 f6Ÿ accepting a early days of the variation — Hardic- passive game — Hamarat.) 21 g4 …f6 say considers it unclear. 22 g5 hxg5 23 …xg5 …cf8 24 …dg1 b) 13...ƒxd5 14 exd5 …g5 15 …8f7 25 Èb4 †b7 26 †h3 a5 27 †xh7 Èe7 16 0-0-0 †b6 ¢ — …h5 …g6 28 …xg6 Èxg6 29 Èc6! Zezulkin, 1993. 248 64 Great Chess Games

According to Jacob Aagaard’s Hardicsay was dissatisfied with ‘Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov 14 c3 which he had played against Sicilian’ (Everyman, 2000), Black P.Horváth, Hungary OTB Ch 1992. should move his king’s …. 14...ƒg4 15 †xh7 …g7 16 †h8 c) 13...…g4 14 f4 exf4 15 Èxf4 ƒf3 (D) (15 0–0–0!?) 15...…xf4 16 gxf4 †a5+ This move had already been seen in 17 c3 b4 (Krasenkow) has been played some postal games before Krasenkow successfully by Chilean CC-GM Guill- suggested it. Neil McDonald’s assess- ermo Toro Solís de Ovando. Hardicsay ment in his 1999 book (“Black is intended 18 Èb1 ƒg7 (18...…b8 19 still struggling”) seems accurate in †e2 ƒg7 20 0–0‹ or 18...bxc3 19 the light of the present game. Other Èxc3 …b8 20 †e2 ƒg7 21 …c1) 19 moves for Black are unattractive too: 0–0 bxc3 20 Èxc3 which indeed proved a) 16...Èd4 17 ‡f1! …g6! 18 h3!! good for White in D.Evtin-H.Ivanov, …h6 (18...ƒf3 19 …g1 …h6 20 †g8‹) SEMI email 1999: 20...…b8 21 †e2 19 hxg4 …xh8 20 …xh8 (C.Horváth- †b6+ 22 ‡h1 †xb2 23 †xb2 …xb2 P.Horváth, Hungary 1989) and “White 24 exf5 Èb4 25 fxe6 Èxd3 26 exf7+ has more than enough compensation ‡xf7 27 Èe4 d5 28 Èg5+ ‡f6 29 for the †,” says Hardicsay. Èh3 Èb4 30 …ab1‹ (1–0, 62). b) 16...exf4 17 …g1 and if 17... Probably Black has better with 19... Èe5 18 …xg4!? Èxg4 (18... …xg4 ‡d7!? 20 †xh7 †c5+, e.g. 21 …f2! 19 Èf6+) 19 Èxb5! …c8 20 Èbc3 (21 ‡h1 †e3 22 †xg7 †xd3 23 …e1 (£ƒxa6, ƒb5+) 20...…c6 21 0–0–0 fxe4 24 cxb4 †f3+ 25 †g2 †xg2+ 26 Èxf2 22 …f1 Èxd3+ 23 cxd3‹ ‡xg2 Èxb4Œ Deforel-Toro, CADAP — McDonald. zt11 Final 1996) 21...ƒf6 22 exf5 XIIIIIIIIY ƒd5 23 Èd2!! …h8 24 Èe4 …xh7 25 9r+-wqkvl-wQ0 Èxf6+! ‡d8! 26 Èxh7¢ (Toro). d) 13...…g5! 14 †xh7 and now W9+-+-+ptr-0 a new idea since Aagaard’s book 9p+nzp-+-+0 appeared is 14...Èd4!! 15 c3 (If 15 9+p+Nzp-+-0 0–0–0 …g6 or 15 ‡f1 …g7 16 †h4 9-+-+PzP-+0 †xh4 17 gxh4 …c8!) 15...Èf3+ 16 9sN-+L+l+-0 ‡e2 ƒxd5! 17 exd5 (17 ‡xf3 …g7 9PzPP+-zP-zP0 18 †h4 †xh4 19 gxh4 ƒb7) 17...e4 18 …ad1 †f6 19 †h3 (19 ƒc2? 9tR-+-mK-+R0 ƒh6!‰) 19...b4! 20 Èb1 bxc3 21 xiiiiiiiiy bxc3 …b8! 22 †g2 †e5! 23 ƒxa6 17 …f1 Èd4 …b2+ 0–1 A.Satici-T.Winckelmann, Hardicsay could not find this move ICCF Email Wch sf 2001 (24 ‡f1 in his database but in fact May had Èh4 25 †h3 e3). played it previously and Black’s 18th 14 gxf4! move was his own invention. Others: Game 54: Hardicsay-May 249

a) 17...…g6 18 f5! …h6 19 †g8‹ 22...exf3 23 0–0–0 cxb2+ 24 — McDonald. ‡xb2 ‡f7 25 …de1 …g6 26 †h5ˆ b) 17...f5 18 †h6 Èd4 19 c3 fxe4 20 — Hardicsay. ƒxe4 ƒxe4 21 Èf6+ ‡e7 22 Èxe4 23 ƒh5+ ‡d7 24 …b1 †a5+ 25 Èf3+ 23 ‡e2 …f7 24 †g6 …xf4 25 ‡e2 †xa2 26 Èe3! (D) …ad1 d5 26 Èc2 …xe4+ 27 ‡xf3 Hardicsay: “The white ‡ is in a …f4+ 28 ‡e2‹ (1–0, 38) H.Borchers- very vulnerable position and must be G.Engelhardt, MN10 corr 1996. protected against an infinity of checks.” c) 17...exf4 18 Èb1 (18 ‡d2!?) XIIIIIIIIY 18...Èe5 (18...†a5+ 19 Èd2 0–0–0? 9r+-+-vl-wQ0 20 c3ˆ £ 21 Èxf3 or 21 Èb3.) 19 Èd2 ƒg4 20 Èxf4 †g5 21 Èd5 B9+-+k+-tr-0 Èg6 22 h4! Èxh4 23 …g1 0–0–0 24 9p+-zp-+-+0 ƒe2 Èg6 25 †h2 f5 26 ƒxg4 fxg4 9+p+-+-+L0 27 Èf3 (winning the black †) 1–0 9-+-+pzP-+0 K. Schreiber-R. Pfretzschner, ICCF 9+-+-sN-+-0 World Cup 6-7 sf9 1990. 9qzp-+KzP-zP0 18 c3 f5!? 19 Èc2! Probably the winning move, says 9+R+-+R+-0 Hardicsay. “Since the whole idea xiiiiiiiiy of the game revolves around the control of the light squares, White The position looks random. White sacrifices his two-pawn advantage has a È for two pawns; the opposite- and annihilates the black ƒ which coloured ƒs contribute to the takes care of those squares.” imbalance, but what is really striking 19 ƒb1 fxe4 20 †h6 ‡f7 21 is that all but two of the eight pawns ƒc2 …g6 22 †h7+ …g7 23 †h6 on the board are passed. However, ½–½ (E.Barfoed-May, Danish CC only one of Black’s pawns is far Ch 1994) was hardly a serious test of enough advanced to be significant, Black’s idea. Not 19 cxd4? †a5+ 20 while his ƒ is pinned and all his Èc3 exd4Œ — Hardicsay. …s are doing is a temporary holding 19...fxe4 20 Èxd4 exd4 21 ƒe2! action to keep the white † confined. dxc3! More importantly, the white ‡ Or 21...ƒxe2 22 ‡xe2 †c8 23 is actually quite comfortable on e2, †h5+ …f7 (23...‡d8 24 Èb6 d3+ whereas the black ‡ has little hope of 25 ‡d2ˆ Hardicsay) 23...…f7 24 survival. The only possible shelter is on b3 ƒg7 25 …g1 ‡f8 26 …g5 d3+ the a-file so it heads in that direction. 27 ‡e3! and if 27...†c5+ 28 ‡xe4! 26...a5 …e8+ 29 ‡xd3 †xf2 30 …f5 …xf5 The try 26...…c8 27 …fd1 …c2+!? 31 †xf5+ ‡g8 32 †h5ˆ. (£ 28 Èxc2? †c4+ 29 ‡e3 †c3+ 22 ƒxf3 cxb2 with perpetual) fails to 28 ‡f1, since 250 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY if 28...†xb1 29 …xb1 …c1+ 30 ‡e2 …xb1 31 †xf8 …e1+ 32 ‡d2! b1† 9-+-+rvl-+0 then White wins by 33 †xg7+ (or 33 W9+-+-+-tr-0 ƒe8+) 33...‡c8 (33...‡c6? 34 ƒe8+ 9-mk-zp-+-+0 ‡c5 35 †c3+ ‡b6 36 Èd5+ and 37 9+p+-+L+-0 †c7+) 34 ƒg4+ ‡b8 35 †f8+ ‡a7 9-+-+pzP-+0 36 †e7+ ‡a8 (36...‡b6 37 †d8+) 9zp-wQ-sN-+-0 37 †d8+ ‡a7 38 †c7+ ‡a8 39 †c6+ ‡a7 40 Èd5!ˆ as Black has 9qzp-+KzP-zP0 no useful check. 9+R+R+-+-0 27 …fd1 a4 28 ƒg4+ ‡c7 xiiiiiiiiy The ‡ races to support the b-pawn, The stage is set for the final which in turn creates a possible hiding combination. White is able to show place for the ‡ at a5. Black would that the Black ‡ is too exposed. like to get his pawn to a3, creating 34 ƒg6!! a threat of ...†xb1 followed by ...a2, Very precise. 34 †d4+ and 35 soon making a new †. ƒxe4 would allow Black some small 29 ƒf5! counterplay after 35...†b3 or 35... “Exactly at the right moment,” †e6, while 34 Èd5+ ‡b7 is not says Hardicsay. Now 29...a3 walls in immediately conclusive either. Black’s own †, so that after 30 ƒxe4, Now if 34...…e6 35 †d4+ and 36 White threatens to trap her with 31 ƒxe4 wins more easily (e.g. 36...†b3 ƒd5; the † sacrifice (30...†xb1) of 37 ƒd5! forking † and …), while if course fails now to 31 ƒxb1. 34...…c7 35 †d4+ followed by 36 29...…e8 30 †h5 …ee7 ƒxe8ˆ. So Black takes the ƒ. The only square to keep e4 34...…xg6 35 Èd5+ protected, but now d6 is no longer With the black … decoyed off the guarded by the ƒ. Now “the white 2nd rank, 35...‡b7 can now be met by † advances towards her goal with 36 †c7+ and mate next move, so the elegant dancing steps,“ comments black ‡ must advance to its doom on Hardicsay. the 8th rank. 31 †h6! …e8 32 †f6 35...‡a6 36 †c6+ ‡a5 37 †b6+ In two moves, White’s † went ‡a4 38 …d4+ ‡b3 39 †xb5+ ‡c2 from the oblivion of h8 to the very 40 Èe3+ ‡xb1 41 …d1# 1–0 strong square f6 while Black achieved The winner’s final comment on nothing; he never had time for ...†b3. this game is: “The dream of every 32...a3 chess player is to give a forced This is necessary to protect the b- mate, and this time the goal was pawn but now comes a direct attack achieved! My only regret is that this on the black ‡. variation (with Black) is also one of 33 †c3+ ‡b6 (D) my favourites.” Game 55 White: Professor Max Zavanelli (USA) Black: Dr Jaromir Canibal (Czech Republic) Reg Gillman Memorial E, 1999 Two Knights Defence (C56)

The Players: Professor Zavanelli Canibal heads for the Two Knights — respectfully known in American instead, but he gets a crazy position in CC circles as ‘Max the Axe’ because a few moves anyway! of his decisive solution to organisa- 5 0–0 Èxe4 6 …e1 d5 7 ƒxd5 †xd5 tional problems there some years ago 8 Èc3 †d8 — returned to active play recently. 8...†a5 and 8...†h5 are more He immediately won the Gillman ‘E’ popular but also complicated. with a huge score and qualified for a 9 …xe4+ ƒe7 10 Èxd4 f5 11 ƒh6! long overdue IM title. (D) Dr Canibal is ICCF delegate for the Zavanelli had been waiting 20 years Czech Republic. to play this move: White develops at About this game: Max is a very high speed, threatening ƒxg7; he will dangerous attacking player who likes wreck the black ‡ position by 12 original situations. Highly unbalanced †h5+ if the ƒ is captured. Black is positions that arise after Black is fine after the standard 11 …f4 0-0 12 forced to give up his †. Èxc6 †xd1+ 13 Èxd1 bxc6. 1 e4 e5 2 ƒc4 Èf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Èf3 XIIIIIIIIY Recently there has been a 9r+lwqk+-tr0 considerable revival of interest in Sergei Urusov’s gambit idea. B9zppzp-vl-zpp0 4...Èc6 9-+n+-+-vL0 Zavanelli-R.Pope, corr 1987, went 9+-+-+p+-0 4...Èxe4 5 †xd4 Èf6 6 ƒg5 ƒe7 9-+-sNR+-+0 7 Èc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 …he1 ƒe6 10 9+-sN-+-+-0 †h4 Èbd7 11 ƒd3 Èc5 (11...c5) 12 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 Èd4 Èg8 13 ƒxe7 †xe7 14 †g3 Èf6?! (14...g6) 15 Èf5 †f8 16 †c7 9tR-+Q+-mK-0 …d8 17 …xe6+! Èxe6 18 †xb7 g6? xiiiiiiiiy (18...Èd7) 19 †xc6+ …d7 20 †c8+ Èd8 21 …e1+ Èe4 22 Èxe4 gxf5 The ƒ shot is known from the 23 Èd6# 1–0. Canal Variation, 7 Èc3!? (instead 252 64 Great Chess Games of 7 ƒxd5) 7...dxc4 8 …xe4+ ƒe7 12...…f8 9 Èxd4 f5 and now 10 ƒh6!?. In Pálkövi suggests 12...‡f7, follow- that line Black has a c4-pawn, but in ing Keres’ 11...‡f7 in the Canal, with our game it is absent which improves a draw after 13 ƒxh8 †xh8 14 †h5+ White’s chances considerably. ‡f8 15 Èxc6 bxc6 16 †h6+ and 11...fxe4 now 16...‡f7! 17 †h5+ ‡f8 etc. After 11...gxh6? 12 †h5+ ‡f8 13 Black can also play 12...Èxd4!?, Èxf5 White has a very strong attack, when 13 ƒxh8 Èf5!? is possible or while 11...…g8 12 …f4 gxh6 13 †h5+ White can try 13 †h5+ ‡d7 14 …d1! ‡f8 is no real improvement, White and now: winning quickly after 14 …xf5+! a) 14...…f8? 15 …xd4+ ƒd6 16 ƒxf5 15 †xf5+ ‡e8 16 Èe6 in †xh7 …f7 17 †h3+ ‡c6 18 …c4+ Oren-Mishnayevsky, Israel corr 1997. ‡b6 19 Èd5+ ‡a6 20 …a4+ ‡b5 Zavanelli analysed 11...0–0 without 21 †b3+ ‡c6 22 …c4+ ‡d7 23 knowing the precedents. After 12 †h3+ ‡e8 24 …xe4+ ƒe7 25 †h5 Èxc6 bxc6 (not 12...†xd1+ 13 …xd1 †xd5 26 †xd5 …xg7 27 †h5+ 1–0 fxe4 14 Èxe7+) 13 …d4 †e8 14 ƒf4 A.Llopis-Palau Viol, corr 1988. ƒf6 15 …d3! (Not possible with the b) 14...ƒd6 15 …xd4 …e8 may black pawn on c4!) and now: improve, e.g. 16 Èxe4 …e6 17 a) 15...…f7 16 …e3 …e7 17 Èd5! Èc5+ ‡e7 18 ƒf6+ with a draw by …xe3 (or 17...cxd5 18 …xe7 †xe7 19 perpetual being the likely result. †xd5+) 18 Èxf6+ gxf6 19 ƒxe3‹ c) 14...c5 15 ƒxd4 cxd4 16 …xd4+ L.Schmid-Hooper, Hastings 1951/52. ‡e6 (16...ƒd6 17 Èb5ˆ) 17 b) 15...†f7 16 †f3 …b8 17 …b1 …xe4+ ‡d7 18 †b5+ ‡c7 19 †e5+ g5 18 ƒe3 ƒa6 19 …dd1 (½–½, 40) (following analysis by Estrin) and J.Mestel-D.Bronstein, London rapid now Black can defend by 19...ƒd6! 1976. 20 Èb5+ ‡b6 21 Èxd6 a6! and if 22 12 ƒxg7 (D) Èf7 †d1+ 23 …e1 …d8!¢. Threatening both †h5+ and ƒxh8. 13 †h5+ …f7 XIIIIIIIIY If 13...‡d7 14 Èxc6 bxc6 15 9r+lwqk+-tr0 Èxe4 and White wins on either 15...ƒd6 16 …e1 or 15...†e8 16 B9zppzp-vl-vLp0 …d1+ ƒd6 17 †g4+ ‡d8 (17...‡e7 9-+n+-+-+0 18 †g5+ ‡e6 19 …e1) 18 †g5+ 9+-+-+-+-0 †e7 19 ƒxf8. 9-+-sNp+-+0 14 …d1! ƒd7 9+-sN-+-+-0 14...†d6 may be correct, e.g. 15 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 Èdb5 †f4 16 Èd5 †xf2+ 17 ‡h1 ƒd7 18 Èf6+ ƒxf6 19 Èxc7+ ‡e7 9tR-+Q+-mK-0 20 Èd5+ ‡e6 21 Èc7+ ‡e7 22 xiiiiiiiiy Èd5+ ‡e6 with a draw by repetition. Game 55: Zavanelli-Canibal 253

Similarly, Black may have a draw 22...…xg7 23 †h8 ‡e7 with 14...ƒd6 15 Èxe4 Èxd4! 16 23...…f7 is very complicated but Èf6+ ‡e7 17 Èd5+ etc. Zavanelli found a White win “after Zavanelli says that chaos results two pages of analysis”. The best from Black’s more radical try 14... continuation seems to be 24 Èh7!, Èb4!?, e.g. 15 Èxe4 †d5 16 Èb5! e.g. 24...‡e8 (or 24...‡e7 25 †e5+! “and every piece including White’s † ‡d8 26 Èxf8 …xf8) 27 †g7 …e8 and Black’s † is in the breeze”. 28 h5 ƒe6 (28...…e7 30 †g5) 29 b3 15 Èxc6 bxc6 16 Èxe4 (D) …g8 30 †e5 ‡d7 31 †xc5‹. Zavanelli had analysed this posi- 24 Èd5+ ‡d6 tion before the game: “My plan was 24...‡e8 also fails after 25 h5. to win a third pawn for the … and then 25 h5 ƒe6 march my kingside pawns to glory”. The best move. If instead 25...ƒh3 XIIIIIIIIY (Not 25...ƒc6? 26 h6 …f7 27 9r+-wqk+-+0 †g8ˆ) 26 Èf4! ƒf5 (26...ƒe6 27 h6 …f7 28 Èxe6 ‡xe6 29 h7 …b6 9B zp-zplvlrvLp0 30 f4 ƒg7 31 †xg7ˆ) 27 h6 …f7 9-+p+-+-+0 (27...…e7 28 †f6+) 28 †g8 ‡e7 29 9+-+-+-+Q0 Èd5+ ‡e8 30 g4! and White “will 9-+-+N+-+0 win by the slow death march of the 9+-+-+-+-0 pawns”, e.g. 30...ƒe4 (30...ƒh7 31 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 †h8 or 30...ƒc2 31 †h8!) 31 f3! ƒb1 32 g5 ƒh7 (32...c6 33 g6 ƒxg6 9+-+R+-mK-0 34 †xg6 cxd5 35 h7 …b6 36 †xf7+) xiiiiiiiiy 33 †h8 ‡d8 34 g6 ƒxg6 35 †g8. 26 h6 …f7 16...…b8 17 c4 26...…g6 27 †h7 forks g6 and c7. To prevent ...…b5. 27 f4 ‡d7 28 h7 17...c5 18 †xh7 ƒf8 19 …e1! “Passed pawns must be pushed.” White keeps to the basic theme. 28...…c8! Black obviously cannot take the Other moves lose, e,g, 28...…g7 29 pinned ƒ (19...ƒxg7 20 Èd6# or Èf6+ ‡e7 30 Èh5 …f7 31 †g8 or 19...…xg7 20 Èf6+) and 19...ƒe6 28...ƒxd5 29 cxd5 c4 30 d6!! …g7 31 loses to 20 †h5 and 21 Èg5. So he †g8 …xb2 32 g4ˆ etc. (Zavanelli). must give up his †. Now 29 Èf6+ falls short after 29... 19...†e7 20 Èf6+ ‡d8 21 …xe7 ‡c6 because the … is defended, so …xe7 22 h4! that if 30 f5 ƒg7 31 †g8 ƒxf6 and “I thought I would win this easily Black has at least a draw, e.g. 32 g4 but now Black puts up stiff resistance ƒd4+ 33 ‡g2 …xg8 34 hxg8 ƒxc4. sending us into deep tactics and 29 f5 ƒxd5 miraculous moves...” 29...…xf5 takes the eye off the ball: 254 64 Great Chess Games

30 †f6! is followed by promotion on ‡c8 34 f6 or 33...cxb4 34 c5 White h8 because 30...…xf6 31 Èxf6+ is is again probably winning. The key check. Also hopeless is 29...ƒxf5 30 defensive move is 33...…e3! since if †g8 …xh7 31 Èf6+ and Èxh7. 34 †xe3 …xe3 35 h8† ƒg3! Black 30 †e5 ƒd6 threatens mate by ...…e1 and White Not 30...…xh7? 31 †xd5+ ‡e8 32 must keep checking. So 34 †d2 …3e5 †e6+ ‡d8 33 †g8 …e7 34 f6ˆ. 35 bxc5 (If 35 †h6 …xf5= or 35 †g5 31 †xd5 (D) cxb4=.) 35...…xc5 36 †g5 looks like Normally, two …s and a ƒ would White’s best try. “The position still outgun a † but here there is the little makes me dizzy; it would take hours matter of White’s three connected to figure out” — Zavanelli. passed pawns and also the fact that his c) 32...…e1+! 33 ‡f2 …e5 is ‡ has much more protection than its Black’s best defence, and now 34 opposite number. Nursing the pawns †f7+ …e7 35 †g8 …ce8! draws, since to victory is no easy matter, though. if 36 g3 …e2+ 37 ‡f1 …e1+ 38 ‡g2 XIIIIIIIIY …8e2+ 39 ‡h3 …h1+ 40 ‡g4 …e3! 9-+r+-+-+0 41 ‡g5 …xg3+ 42 ‡f6 …gh3 when 9zp-zpk+r+P0 White must take the perpetual by 43 B †e6+ ‡c6 44 †e8+. After 34 †d3 9-+-vl-+-+0 a possible line is 34...…f8 35 g4 cxb4 9+-zpQ+P+-0 36 †d4 c5 37 †d1 but I find it hard to 9-+P+-+-+0 believe that White can win this. 9+-+-+-+-0 So 31...…e7 would have saved the 9PzP-+-+P+0 game but it is very understandable that a player can become disoriented given 9+-+-+-mK-0 the unbalanced material situation, xiiiiiiiiy multiple passed pawns and almost infinite checking possibilities. 31...…ff8 32 †e6+ ‡c6 33 g4 …ce8 34 †h6 31...…xh7? would cost a … because Black draws if White slips, e.g. 34 of 32 †e6+ ‡d8 33 †g8+. †g6? …e1+ 35 ‡g2 …fe8 and White However, Black can do better with cannot escape the perpetual since if 36 31...…e7!. Now if 32 †g8 …ce8! †h6 …1e2+ 37 ‡f3? …h2!Œ. draws, while 32 f6 makes the pawn 34...‡d7 35 f6! too vulnerable after 32...…e1+ 33 Otherwise ...ƒe5 prevents the ad- ‡f2 …e6 and 34...ƒe5. Therefore vance of the f-pawn. Zavanelli intended 32 b4!? and then: 35...ƒe5 36 g5 ƒxb2 a) 32...cxb4 33 c5 …e1+ 34 ‡f2 To drive his pawns forward, White …e5 35 †f7+ …e7 36 †c4 “winning needs some support. Send for the ‡! later”. 37 ‡f2 a6 38 ‡f3 c6 39 ‡g4 ƒd4 b) 32...…ce8 33 †d3 and on 33... 40 ‡f5 ƒc3 41 ‡g6 ‡d6 (D) Game 55: Zavanelli-Canibal 255

XIIIIIIIIY target — the black a-pawn — and if 9-+-+rtr-+0 he can capture it then the † sacrifice 9+-+-+-+P0 will work, since Black cannot cope W9p+pmk-zPKwQ0 with the passed a-pawn as well as the 9+-zp-+-zP-0 kingside pawns. 9-+P+-+-+0 At the moment White cannot make progress against Black’s optimum 9+-vl-+-+-0 configuration, so he must force 9P+-+-+-+0 the black pieces onto less effective 9+-+-+-+-0 squares. He starts with a useful xiiiiiiiiy probing move. This is the critical endgame 42 †g7! a5 position. White has advanced his Already White forces a concession. pawns as far as he can and his ‡ Since Black cannot defend the pawn has come up to support them. The on a6 (43 †a7 …a8? runs into question now is, how does White 44 †e7#) he advances it into the advance them further? protection of his ƒ. Nevertheless, Currently Black has the pawns the pawn is not safe on a5 either, as it restrained: the …s control h8, the can now be attacked along the e1-a5 pressure on f6 prevents the g-pawn diagonal as well as the a- and b-files. advancing, while f6-f7 would lose the Thus Black will have to defend it with pawn after ...…e7 and, in any case, the ...…a8 at some point. f-pawn is not dangerous unless it can Black might give up the a-pawn and be supported by g6-g7. use the time taken for †a7 and †xa6 Rearranging the white ‡ and † to organise a counter-attack against — e.g. †f5, ‡h6 — is ineffective the white kingside. For instance, since after f7 and g6 then ...…e6 42...ƒd4 43 †a7 ƒe3 44 †xa6 prevents the g-pawn going on. One …e5 45 ‡g7 …d8 and now if 46 g6 formation that would work is with …h5 (£ 47...ƒh6+ 48 ‡f7 …f8#) †g8 and pawns on f7 and g6, but that 47 ‡f7 (48 f7?? ƒd4#) 47...…d7+ is impossible unless a black … leaves 48 ‡e8 …e5+ 49 ‡f8 …d8+ draws. the back rank. But White plays 46 †b7! …xg5+ It is no use White sacrificing his (46...ƒxg5 47 †b1ˆ) 47 ‡f7 …e5 † for a … to promote the h-pawn, 48 †e7+! …xe7 49 fxe7 …h8 50 e8† e.g. 42 †xf8 …xf8 43 ‡g7 …d8 (or …xe8 51 ‡xe8 ƒd4 52 ‡d8! and the 43...…xf6!) 44 h8† …xh8 45 ‡xh8 ƒ cannot stop both pawns. since Black’s ‡ and ƒ will mop up If 42...…h8 the counter-attack the f and g-pawns and win — though succeeds after 43 †b7 …e5 44 †xa6? this does mean the black ‡ cannot ƒd2 45 ‡g7? …xg5+ 46 ‡xh8 ƒc3 wander off to the queenside. and mates, but this time White plays Fortunately White has another 44 †f7! …ee8 (or 44...ƒd4 45 256 64 Great Chess Games

†g8!) 45 ‡g7 followed by g6, ‡h6, the e1-a5 diagonal, so that †e1 can †xe8, g7 and wins. The alternative be met by ...…ae8!, while if 44 †g7 43...ƒd2? also fails to 44 †b2! ƒe3 …h8 45 †a7 ƒd2! 46 †xa4 …e5 45 f7! …e5 46 ‡g7 or 45...…ef8 46 succeeds again. †h2+ and †h3+ or †e5+ wins the This is why 43 †h6 received ‘?’. ƒ. Thus Black has nothing better than White should have first played 43 a4!, 43...a5, with lines similar to those in fixing the black pawn at a5 before the next note. commencing his † manoeuvres. 43 †h6? Fortunately Black replies with an Now 43 †a7 (or 43 †b7) doesn’t even more careless move. achieve anything as Black simply 43...ƒe5? passes with 43...ƒb4, so the † Now White doesn’t have to returns to make manoeuvres. bother with subtleties since he has an As noted above, Black will have immediate win. to play ...…a8 to defend the pawn at 44 ‡f5! (D) some point — if 43...…h8 44 †h2+ XIIIIIIIIY ƒe5 45 †d2+ ƒd4 46 †xa5 …a8 9-+-+rtr-+0 47 †e1 …a7 48 †h4! and †h6-g7 wins — so we may as well make him 9+-+-+-+P0B play it immediately: i.e. 43...…a8 44 9-+pmk-zP-wQ0 †h2+ ƒe5 45 †d2+ ƒd4, but now 9zp-zp-vlKzP-0 White plays his key move, 46 †e1! 9-+P+-+-+0 £†e7# — the point being that 9+-+-+-+-0 46...…fe8? loses at once to 47 h8†!, 9P+-+-+-+0 and 46...…ae8 drops the a-pawn. Blocking the e-file by 46...ƒe5 9+-+-+-+-0 fails to 47 ‡f5, while 46...‡c7 47 xiiiiiiiiy †e7+ ‡b6 allows the sacrifice 48 †xf8! …xf8 49 ‡g7 since the black Exploiting the black ƒ as a target. ‡ is too far away to stop the pawns. Now if 44...‡d7 45 †xf8! …xe5 46 This leaves only 46...…a7, but ‡xe5 and the pawns overcome the …. then 47 †g3+ ƒe5 48 †d3+ ƒd4 44...ƒd4 45 f7+ ‡c7 46 g6 ‡d7 47 49 ‡h5! £g6-g7 etc., and if Black ‡g4! 1–0 defends against that, e.g. by 49... If the attacked … moves along …af7, then 50 †g6! and White finally the back rank White wins by 48 g7! achieves the winning formation after ƒxg7 49 †xg7 and 50 †g8 etc., 50...…d7 51 †g8! …dd8 52 f7. while if 47...…e4+ 48 ‡h3 …e3+ 49 The one spoiler in all this is †xe3 ƒxe3 50 g7 “with three pretty 43...a4!, removing the a-pawn from pawns like peas in a pod.” Game 56 White: (Russia) Black: Players of the World Internet Challenge, Microsoft Gaming Zone, 1999 Sicilian Defence (B52)

The Players: Garry Kasparov (born helped Kasparov but it also made 1963) needs little introduction. FIDE the event much more valuable for the World Champion from 1985-93 and promotion of chess than a slower pace unofficial world champion until his would have been. loss to Kramnik in 1999, he has GM Alexander Baburin annotated achieved the highest rating of any this game for ‘Chess Mail’ and the chess player so far in history. In this, notes presented here are partly a his only true correspondence game, synthesis of his comments (marked his opponent was — the World! AB), information on the official MSN About this game: CC matches be- site and my own views on the game. tween GMs and teams of amateurs However, the most important source have been played for many years, with is the in-depth analysis and com- varying formats, but the Internet has mentary presented by Irina Krush at made them especially popular. Play- the www.smartchess.com website. ers vote for their preference and the Krush — at the time a teenager, move that receives the most votes by though already US Ladies Champion the deadline is played. Game 63 is an- — was one of the expert advisers to other example of this type of contest. the World during the match. Other This game was played from June advisers included young French GM 21 to October 25, 1999, on the Mi- Etienne Bacrot, and as the game crosoft Network Gaming Zone, with progressed, more and more players sponsorship from a bank, FirstUSA. joined in, including numerous GMs. It received enormous publicity and at- 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 d6 3 ƒb5+ tracted more than 50,000 individuals, In such events, it is more enjoyable from over 75 countries worldwide, to for everyone if long theoretical main register and participate; many more lines are avoided and an original followed the progress of the game. situation arises early on. Not only Kasparov’s moves were posted did he not want to show future GM every 48 hours, with the World hav- opponents his preparation in a main ing 24 hours thereafter to post its line, the World Champion probably votes. I think this fast rate of play reckoned that the opposition would be 258 64 Great Chess Games analysing with computers extensively Gelfand match, Sanghi Nagar 1994. (as he did himself). In a quiet line, The World did very well to avoid where strategy was more important such scenarios.” than tactics, his experience and 11 Èd5 judgment were more likely to tell. 11 †b3 has been tried but looks Especially after being surprised at quite artificial and Black was fine move 10, Kasparov did well to steer after 11...0–0 12 Èf4 †c8 (12... the game to difficult positions where †d7!? — Krush) 13 Èfd5 e6 in B. it was not easy for his opposition to Damljanovi™-I.Stohl, Batumi 1999. agree on the right course of action. 11...†xe4 3...ƒd7 4 ƒxd7+ †xd7 5 c4 Èc6 AB: “Obviously this is the whole 6 Èc3 Èf6 7 0–0 g6 8 d4 cxd4 9 point of playing 10...†e6. Black will Èxd4 ƒg7 10 Ède2 †e6! (D) eventually have two pawns for the XIIIIIIIIY exchange. Should Black cover the 9r+-+k+-tr0 c7-square with 11...…c8?!, he would allow White to protect his central W9zpp+-zppvlp0 pawn and after 12 f3 0–0 13 ƒe3 9-+nzpqsnp+0 White stands better.” 9+-+-+-+-0 12 Èc7+ ‡d7 13 Èxa8 †xc4 14 9-+P+P+-+0 Èb6+!? 9+-sN-+-+-0 White wants to upset the 9PzP-+NzPPzP0 opponents’ pawn structure, but as the resulting position turns out fine for 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 Black, he should maybe use the tempo xiiiiiiiiy more constructively. In R.Antonio- M.Rytshagov, Istanbul OL 2000, Unluckily for Kasparov, the White tried 14 Èc3 …xa8 15 …e1 World came up with a novelty that and went on to win. Probably best is complicated the game after all. 15...…d8! (Krush) overprotecting d6. AB: “I am sure that the quality of 14...axb6 15 Èc3 …a8 Kasparov’s moves would be somewhat This was Speelman’s idea, plann- better than that of his opponents in a ing to activate the … via a5. Black has positional struggle, such as arises after many alternatives, such as 15...…d8, 10...0–0 11 f3 a6 12 a4, e.g. 12...…fc8 15...e6!?, or 15...b5!? (Krush) which 13 b3 †d8 14 ‡h1 Èd7 15 ƒg5 has been seen in several games since †a5 16 †d2 Èc5 17 …ab1 e6 18 the match. For example (15...b5!?): …fd1 …ab8 19 ƒh4 †b6 20 †xd6 a) 16 ƒe3 …a8 17 …c1 ‡e8 18 b3 ƒe5 21 †d2 Èxb3 22 †b2 Èca5 †g4 (Krush later preferred 18...†h4 23 Èd5 exd5 24 †xe5 Èxc4 25 with ideas of ...Èg4, or if 19 †e2 †xd5 and White eventually came out †h5 20 †xb5 †xb5 21 Èxb5 on top in the 3rd game of the Kramnik- …xa2.) 19 f3 †h5 20 a4 b4 21 Èb5 Game 56: Kasparov-The World 259 XIIIIIIIIY ‡f8 22 ƒf2 †d5 23 †c2 †f5 24 9r+-+-+-+0 †xf5 gxf5 25 …fd1‹ S.Rublevsky- B.Vuckovi™, Herceg Novi 2000. W9+p+kzp-vlp0 b) 16 ƒg5!? Èe4 17 Èxe4 †xe4 9-zpnzp-+p+0 18 a4 b4 (18...bxa4!? — Krush) 19 9+-+-+p+-0 …e1 †f5 20 †d2 …a8 21 ƒe3! ‡e8 9P+-+q+-+0 22 h3 …a5 23 ƒb6 …d5 24 †e2 †d3 9+Q+-+-+-0 25 †g4 e6 26 …ad1 (Not 26 …xe6+? 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 fxe6 27 †xe6+ Èe7 28 …c1 ƒc3! 29 bxc3 …e5! 30 †b3 †d2Œ) 26...†b3 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 27 …xd5 †xd5 28 …d1 †b3å Fritz6 xiiiiiiiiy v Stephen Ham computer challenge Although it looks loosening, this is match, corr 2000. very logical. White can no longer win 16 a4 a pawn on f7 (the doubled b6-pawn AB: “White has no open file for would be a less serious loss), and the his …s so he fixes the b6-pawn and f-pawn may advance again to f4 or f3, creates a post for his È on b5.” enhancing Black’s counterplay. This also negates Black’s … lift to Another possibility was 18...e6 the kingside (...…a5-f5), which Èb5 (Baburin) and if 19 †xb6 Èd4 Black would now thwart. has a playable, though less dynamic 16...Èe4 position. If immediately 18...Èd4?! GM Baburin commented: “This is White can seize the initiative by quite logical — Black opens up his ƒ returning the exchange: 19 †xf7 and exchanges one pair of pieces, after Èc2 20 ƒd2! Èxa1 21 …e1 †h4 which his ‡ will be safer. Another 22 †d5 …f8 23 †xb7+ ‡e8 when approach would be to advance his White can defend b2 by 24 †c6+ d-pawn with 16...d5. Then Black ‡f7 25 †d5+ ‡e8 26 †b5+ and might try to play ...e6 and, let’s say, then 26...‡f7 27 …xa1 gives him the ...‡e8-f8. Still, after 17 ƒg5 e6 18 better chances (Krush). …c1 play is very complicated and it’s English GM Danny King acted as hard to say whether it is a preferable moderator for the match, coordinating strategy for Black to keep the Ès on the advice of the young experts or trade them.” and making comments of his own. 17 Èxe4 †xe4 18 †b3!? In his overview of the game, he Aggressive, forking two pawns. 18 wrote that 18...f5 “was by far the …e1 would be calmer, to see where the most aggressive of a complex set black † is going, but after 18...†d4 of options. Nevertheless, Garry White should probably avoid the † Kasparov knuckled down to his exchange, so it seems better to move task, found counterplay with his †, the † immediately with a threat. and by move 28 could have forced a 18...f5!? (D) repetition of the position.” 260 64 Great Chess Games

19 ƒg5 for black g&h-pawns has given each AB: “After 19 †xb6 Black would side a dangerous passed pawn, around probably have played 19...Èd4 with a which the battle now revolves. very unpleasant threat of 20...…a6 (21 25 †f7 ƒd4 26 †b3 f4 †b4 Èe2+). In this case White might Before activating his prime asset, seriously fall behind in deployment of the h-pawn, White sought to neutralise his forces. Kasparov immediately Black’s queenside counterplay. With addresses this issue.” 26...f4!, Black prepares for action on Also if 19 †f7?! ƒd4 20 †xh7 (20 the other side, creating possibilities of ƒg5 †e6! forces the † exchange.) ...Èe5 and ...f3, while if 27 †b1? 20...…h8 21 †xg6 Èe5 followed by ƒxf2+! wins a pawn (28 ‡xf2? 22...Èg4 gives strong counterplay. †e3#). So the white † returns. Kasparov rules this out by playing 19 27 †f7 ƒe5 28 h4 ƒg5 first, when the threat of 20 …fe1 Kasparov is not interested in forces Black to move the †. forcing a draw by 28 †b3 ƒd4 29 19...†b4 †f7 in an exhibition game. 19...Èd4 can be met quietly by 20 28...b5 29 h5 †c4 †d1, as 20...Èe2+ 21 ‡h1 ƒxb2 The obvious 29...b4?! 30 h6 †c2 is 22 …e1 ƒxa1 23 …xe2 †xa4?! 24 met by 31 ƒxf4! Èd8 32 h7 ƒe5 33 …xe7+ should favour White (AB). †xe5 dxe5 34 h8† and White has a 20 †f7 ƒe5 superior endgame — the black pawns Blocking the e-file, with further are a shambles and the exchange of possibilities of ...f4 to strand the white ƒs reduces Black’s counterplay, ƒ, or to attack h2 after 21 †xh7?? while White now has another passed …h8 or 21 …fe1? h6! 22 ƒxh6 †h4. pawn (the g-pawn) to advance. Kasparov now scotches h-file count- Now after 29...†c4 Black is ready erplay, preparing to capture on h7. to push the b-pawn; e.g. 30 †f8 b4 31 21 h3 …xa4 22 …xa4 †xa4 23 h6 b3 32 †f5+ e6! 33 †f7+ ‡c8 34 †xh7 ƒxb2 24 †xg6 †e4 (D) h7 b2 35 †g6 ‡c7 36 …b1 ƒh8 and The exchange of white a&b-pawns both sides’ pawns are under control XIIIIIIIIY (if 37 ƒf6 †c1+ 38 ‡h2 Èe5! 9-+-+-+-+0 39 ƒxe5 ƒxe5 defends). So White 9+p+kzp-+-0 forces transposition into the endgame. W9-zpnzp-+Q+0 30 †f5+ †e6 31 †xe6+ ‡xe6 (D) Black has two pawns for the 9+-+-+pvL-0 exchange but this nominal material 9-+-+q+-+0 advantage is reduced for two reasons: 9+-+-+-+P0 firstly, the b-pawn is doubled and 9-vl-+-zPP+0 secondly, White has a passed h-pawn, 9+-+-+RmK-0 which in some cases can also be xiiiiiiiiy supported by a passed g-pawn. Game 56: Kasparov-The World 261

XIIIIIIIIY b2 37 g6 Èd4 38 h6 Èe2+ 39 ‡h1 9-+-+-+-+0 b1† 40 …xb1 Èxf4 41 …g1 (or 41 9+p+-zp-+-0 g7 ƒxg7 42 hxg7 ‡f7) 41...Èxg6! W9-+nzpk+-+0 42 …xg6+ ‡f7= (Kasparov). 9+p+-vl-vLP0 35 ‡h1! 9-+-+-zp-+0 This unexpected ‡ move has two purposes: to avoid È checks in some 9+-+-+-+-0 lines (e.g. after ...Èb4-d3xf4), while 9-+-+-zPP+0 leaving the g-file open for the …. 35 9+-+-+RmK-0 ‡h2 is inferior, as shown most simply xiiiiiiiiy by the line 35...b3 36 g4 Èb4 37 g5 Both sides can play for a win, Èd3 38 h6? Èxf4 39 …xf4 ƒe5 and but the situation favours Kasparov the … is pinned to the ‡. because he can make all his own 35...b3 decisions, whereas Black’s many 35...Èe5 36 ƒxe5 dxe5! was heads will not always agree. better said Kasparov. Black advances 32 g3! the e-pawn to distract the …, allowing Otherwise White’s ƒ might be in the black ‡ to cross the f-file and trouble; he also tempts Black with a capture the white pawns; e.g. 37 g4 b3 pawn. 38 g5 e4 39 h6 e3 40 g6 e3 41 …e1 b2 32...fxg3 33 fxg3 b4! 42 ‡g2 ƒe3 43 h7 ƒd4 44 ‡f3 ‡f5 Now White has connected passed 45 ‡xe2 ‡xg6=. pawns but grabbing the g-pawn After the text, Kasparov began to would give Kasparov valuable time; believe he was winning. However, the the ƒ would have to be sacrificed: World found a way to bring their È 33...ƒxg3?! 34 h6 ƒe5 35 h7 (£36 to blockade the white passed pawns ƒf6! ƒxf6 37 …xf6+ etc.) 35...ƒg7 and gain time to push their own. 36 …f8 b4 37 h8† ƒxh8 38 …xh8 36 g4 ‡d5 with a … against four pawns. The plan of ...b2 and ...Èb4-d3 Krush & Henley thought now fails, and the variations reveal 38...‡d5!, might hold, but the line the purposes of White’s 35 ‡h1! is unnecessarily difficult for Black. instructively, e.g. 36...Èb4 37 g5 Instead of getting involved in such Èd3 38 h6 b2 39 g6 Èxf4 (no dubious adventures, the majority of check) 40 g7 ‡f7 41 …xf4+ ƒf6 42 the World players followed the advice …f1 ‡g8 43 …g1! (open g-file) and of their ‘minders’ and got their own if 43...ƒg5!? 44 h7+ ‡xh7 45 g8†+ pawn moving. ‡xg8 46 …xg5+ and 47 …b5 wins. 34 ƒf4 ƒd4+ 37 g5 e6! According to King, 34...ƒh8 foll- Making room for the È to go owed by...Èd4 was “good enough to to the kingside via e7. The natural draw”, e.g. 34...ƒh8 35 g4 b3 36 g5 37...e5? would be a mistake as it 262 64 Great Chess Games does not support f5 as an outpost 39...e5 40 ƒe3 for the È; e.g. after 38 ƒc1 Èe7 If instead 40 ƒc1 the black ‡ can (not 38...b2? 39 ƒxb2 ƒxb2 40 h6 stop the white pawns: 40...‡e6! 41 Èe7 41 …f6ˆ) 39 …f7! ‡e6 40 ƒa3 ‡f5 (Khalifman), e.g. 42 ƒxd6 …f6+ ‡d7 41 ƒa3 b2 42 …f1 ƒe3 Èg6 43 h7 ‡xg5 44 ƒf8! b2 45 ƒg7 (42...Èf5 43 ‡h2!) 43 g6 ƒc1 44 b5 46 h8† Èxh8 47 ƒxh8 ‡g6! ƒxb2 ƒxb2 45 g7ˆ. shuts the white ƒ out of the game, 37...b2? also fails, as shown by the when the further ...b4, ...ƒc3, ...e4 following attractive line from Krush: forces White to give up the … on b2. 38 g6 Èd8 39 ƒe3! ƒe5 40 h6 Èe6 40...‡c4 41 ƒxd4 exd4 42 ‡g2 b2 41 ƒg5 Èg7 42 hxg7 ƒxg7 43 ƒxe7 43 ‡f3 ‡c3 44 h7 Èg6 45 ‡e4 ‡c4 44 ƒxd6 ‡b3 45 ‡g2 ‡a2 46 ‡c2 46 …h1 d3 ‡f3 b1† 47 …xb1 ‡xb1 48 ‡e4 ‡c2 After 46...b1†? 47 …xb1 ‡xb1 48 49 ‡f5 ‡d3 50 ‡e6 ‡e4 (If 50...‡c4 ‡xd4! b5 49 ‡e4 Black is helpless 51 ƒe5 ƒh6 52 ‡f7 b5 53 ƒf4ˆ) 51 — Baburin. ‡f7 ƒd4 52 ƒf8 b5 53 ƒg7 ƒxg7 54 47 ‡f5 b1† ‡xg7 b4 55 ‡f8 b3 56 g7 b2 57 g8† Baburin noted that in the line b1† 58 †h7+ and wins. 47...d2 48 ‡xg6 d1† 49 …xd1 ‡xd1 38 h6 50 h8† b1†+, queening with check AB: “White probably rejected 38 g6 is less significant than the misplacing because of 38...Èe7, where White’s of Black’s ‡. He explained that in † pawns are stuck, while Black is ready endings, if your ‡ cannot blockade the to support his b3-pawn with the ‡”; opponent’s passed pawn, it is usually e.g. 39 …d1 ‡c4 40 ƒxd6 Èf5 41 best to have it as far away as possible, ƒa3 Èg3+ 42 ‡g2 Èxh5 draws. in order to avoid cross-checks. In If 38 ƒc1 Krush gives 38...b5! 39 this case, that means a1. The same g6 Èe7 40 …f7 Èf5! 41 h6 Èxh6 42 principle should have guided Black at ƒxh6 b2 43 …f1 ‡c4 44 g7 (44 …b1 the crucial move 51. ‡c3) 44...ƒxg7 45 ƒxg7 e5 blocking 48 …xb1 ‡xb1 49 ‡xg6 d2 50 h8† the long diagonal long enough for d1† (D) Black to promote the front b-pawn. XIIIIIIIIY 38...Èe7 39 …d1 9-+-+-+-wQ0 By pressuring the È White forces 9+p+-+-+-0 Black to advance the e-pawn and W9-+-zp-+K+0 relinquish the f5 outpost. If now 39...Èf5? White wins by 40 h7 b2 9+-+-+-zP-0 41 ƒe5! b1† 42 …xb1 ƒxe5 43 9-+-+-+-+0 …b5+ and 44 …xe5, while 39...b2? 9+-+-+-+-0 is again premature due to 40 ƒe3! 9-+-+-+-+0 b1† 41 …xb1 ƒxe3 42 …xb7 Èg6 9+k+q+-+-0 43 …g7ˆ. xiiiiiiiiy Game 56: Kasparov-The World 263

AB pointed out that without After the text, according to Regan Black’s pawns it would be a draw, & Krush, 53 †e4! now wins by force as tablebases would verify. As it is, — one simple but crucial aspect is White can use them to escape checks. that after 53...b4? White captures the The complications of this endgame pawn with check. Instead Kasparov are almost unfathomable so it is played: not surprising that both sides made 53 †h2+? ‡a1! 54 †f4 b4? mistakes. However, Peter Farrer’s Black goes wrong for a third and new † endgame tablebases have apparently decisive time. The idea enabled IMs Regan & Krush to probe is to activate the † while trying (as this endgame in great depth and with after 52...‡c1) to reach a database seeming accuracy — anyone interested draw by giving up the d-pawn as should visit the smartchess.com well. But since this plan fails in the website. I give just the most salient game, Black should have preferred points below. either 54...†d5 (Bacrot) or 54...†d3 51 †h7! with good chances to hold; e.g. 55 g6 Kasparov conceded that the †c3+ 56 ‡f7 †c7+ 57 ‡f8 †b8+ game would have been drawn after 58 ‡g7 b4 59 ‡h7 †a7+ 60 g7 b3 51...‡a1!, e.g. 52 †xb7 (52 †g7+ 61 †c1+ ‡a2 62 †c4 ‡a3 63 ‡h8 ‡a2 53 †f7+ d5 is the main line) †e3! £ 64 g8†? †h6+ 65 †h7 52...d5 53 ‡f7 d4 54 g6 d3 55 g7 †f8+ 66 †cg8 †f6+ with a draw, or †f1+ 56 ‡e8 †e2+ 57 ‡f8 d2=. if 64 †a6+ ‡b2 65 †xd6 †h3+ 66 Further, this was the first time ‡g8 †f5. in 40 moves that The World had 55 †xb4 †f3+ 56 ‡g7 d5 57 †d4+ rejected the advice of Irina Krush ‡b1 58 g6 (D) and colleagues. This was the moment White’s passed pawn is well when allegations of “vote-stuffing” advanced, whereas Black’s d-pawn, began to arise. I am not in a position blockaded by the centralised white †, to adjudicate on allegations of “dirty is now just in the way. Black might tricks” in this game; people will have prevented †d4 with 56...†e3, believe what they want to believe. XIIIIIIIIY 51...b5?! 52 ‡f6+ ‡b2? 9-+-+-+-+0 A second weak move — intending 9+-+-+-mK-0 to support the black pawns as they 9-+-+-+P+0B advance, but in fact the ‡ just gets in the b-pawn’s way. This time 9+-+p+-+-0 52...‡c1! was correct, e.g. 53 †e4 9-+-wQ-+-+0 (53 †c7+ ‡b1 54 g6 †f3+ 55 ‡g7 9+-+-+q+-0 b4) 53...b4! 54 †xb4 †f3+ 55 ‡g7 9-+-+-+-+0 d5 56 g6 d4 and now 57 †xd4 is a 9+k+-+-+-0 ‘database draw’. xiiiiiiiiy 264 64 Great Chess Games but White would still win according to line for White with 68 ‡e6!, when Regan & Krush (the main line begins after a lot more obscure manoeuvres, 57 †a5+ ‡b2 58 †b5+!). the white ‡ captures the black d-pawn 58...†e4? and the database says “mate in 53”. This was the second controversial 59 †g1+ ‡b2 moment. Irina Krush suggested a The official website for the match better move — 58...†f5 — but it noted that: “On move 59, the Gaming was not posted on the match website Zone found indication of quite in time to influence voters. After this, significant ballot stuffing (improper she refused to participate any more, ratio of votes to unique PCs) for but the Microsoft Network organizers the sacrificial move ...†e1. ... We said that she was late submitting her disqualified this move from voting and analysis to the MSN site. recomputed the votes accordingly.” Later, Kasparov provided detailed This is one of the hazards of analysis to prove he was winning organizing such matches with a anyway after 58...†f5, saying “This large number of participants and I position has more to do with geometry believe there have been cases in other and mathematics than chess.” matches where organizers overruled Baburin explains: “White can the apparent majority choice for a gradually force his pawn up the board, similar reason. using the enemy pawn as a shield and MSN’s statements are disputed by also exploiting the fact that Black Krush, who suspected vote-stuffing cannot afford to trade †s. For those at move 51, but here says 59...†e1 interested in this line, Kasparov’s was chosen by The World as a protest main line goes like this: 58...†f5 59 against MSN’s failure to post her ‡h6 †e6 60 †d1+ ‡b2 61 †d2+ recommendation for 58...†f5. ‡b1 62 †d4! ‡a2 63 ‡g5 †e7+ 60 †f2+ ‡c1 61 ‡f6 d4 62 g7 1-0 64 †f6 †e3+ 65 †f4 †g1+ 66 ‡f6 Kasparov announced a forced †b6+ 67 ‡f7 †b7+ 68 ‡g8 †c8+ mate, discovered by the computer 69 †f8 †e6+ 70 ‡g7 †e5+ 71 †f6 program Deep Junior. The World †c7+ 72 †f7 †c3+ 73 ‡f8...”, team was given an option to vote for which concludes in a win for White resignation and 51% opted to do this, at move 96. ending the game after four months of However, Regan & Krush (using intensive analysis. the tablebases) criticise this variation, “It is the greatest game in the his- saying that 68 ‡g8 †c8+ 69 †f8 tory of chess. The sheer number of †e6+ 70 ‡g7? fails to win after ideas, the complexity, and the contri- 70...†e5+ 71 †f6 †c7+ 72 †f7 bution it has made to chess make it the †e5+! 73 ‡g8 †b8+ 74 †f8 †e5 most important game ever played.” 75 g7 d4!. Instead they give a winning — Garry Kasparov. Game 57 White: Arild Haugen (Norway) Black: Colin Anderson McNab (Scotland) 6th European Cht Prelims, 1999-2000 Modern Defence (B06)

The Players: Haugen is a Senior the loss of time with his d-pawn.” International Master. McNab is both Clearly McNab wanted to keep his a FIDE GM and ICCF SIM; he has own secrets! been a member of Scottish postal and 5...dxe4 6 Èxe4 ƒg7 7 ƒc4 Èh6 over-the-board teams for many years, 8 c3 including Scotland’s bronze medal- 8 h3 Èf5 9 c3 0–0 10 ƒb3 Èd7 winning team in CC Olympiad XI. 11 g4 Èd6 12 Èf2 c5 13 ƒe3 b6 14 About this game: McNab is a po- ƒd5 ƒb7 15 ƒxb7 Èxb7 16 †e2 sitional player who rarely varies his cxd4 17 ƒxd4 ƒxd4 18 Èxd4 e5 solid opening repertoire. Haugen 19 fxe5 …e8 and Black was OK in tackled the challenge of winkling him N.McDonald-McNab, Hastings II out of his shell with great creativity 1993/94 (0-1, 29). and created a position with enormous 8...0–0 9 Èe5 Èd7 10 h4!? problems for both players. Black sur- At last White is able to go his vived the first wave of the attack but own way. Haugen thought this direct the second washed him away. approach with the h-pawn was justified 1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 Èc3 c6 in view of the three tempi expended Haugen’s research showed that by Black on the manoeuvre ...d7-d6- it wouldn’t be possible to surprise d5xe4. So he varied from 10 0–0 Èf6 McNab. The Scotsman has faced for 11 Èf2 Èf5 12 †f3 Èd6 13 ƒb3 example 4 a4, 4 ƒe3, 4 ƒc4, 4 Èf3, a5 (A.Zanetti-McNab, CNEC–15 corr 4 g3 and 4 h4 in this position. 1993); Black seems OK there although 4 f4 d5 5 Èf3 White eventually won. Although McNab has been play- Instead 11 †e2 Èxe4 12 †xe4 ing 1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 Èc3 c6 since †d6 13 f5!? Èxf5 14 g4 ƒxe5 15 1992, his book ‘The Ultimate Pirc’ dxe5 †c5+ 16 …f2 Èg7 17 b4 †b6 (with GM John Nunn) says almost 18 ƒe3 †c7 19 ƒh6 ƒe6 20 ƒxe6 nothing about this line except the fxe6 21 …af1 …xf2 22 …xf2 …f8 23 explanation that after 4 f4 d5 5 e5 h5 …xf8+ ‡xf8 24 †d4 b6 25 a4 c5 “the benefit to Black from not having led to a draw in a 1992 OTB game played ...ƒg7 slightly outweighs Shirov-McNab. 266 64 Great Chess Games

10...Èf6 Èf7+ ‡g7 21 Èxd8 ƒxf5, Black Haugen reckoned that 10...Èxe5 probably has some advantage. 11 fxe5 would give him a winning 14...…xf7 attack after 11...ƒg4 (or 11...ƒf5 12 After 14...Èxf7 15 hxg6+ ‡g8 16 Èf2) 12 †d3 †d7 13 h5 gxh5 14 †h5 White’s attack is very strong, as Èg3. Haugen shows: 11 Èg5! Èd5 a) 16...Èh6 17 f5 †d7 18 g4 11...e6 would negate of Black’s e6 19 ƒxh6 ƒxh6 (If 19...exf5 20 strategy, leaving his c8-ƒ a very ƒxg7 …e8+ 21 ‡f2 †xg7 22 gxf5 limited future after 12 †c2!. b5 23 ƒxd5+ cxd5 24 †f3 followed 12 h5 by invasion on d5 or h7.) 20 †xh6 Now the real fight begins. The †g7 21 †xg7+ ‡xg7 22 …h7+. Viking plans to sacrifice his “wild Now Haugen just says White wins; horses”! Black has little choice but to presumably he means 22...‡g8 23 accept what is thrown at him and hope ‡d2 exf5 24 …e1 (not 24 …ah1 fxg4 to survive. 25 g7 …f7) 24...…d8 (24...fxg4 25 g7 12...f6 …f7 26 …e8+) 25 …eh1 (25 …ee7 Now 13 hxg6 fxe5 14 gxh7+ ‡h8 only draws.) 25...ƒe6 26 ƒd3 ‡f8 15 fxe5 is possible, with three pawns 27 …xb7. for the È, but White had a more b) 16...Èg5 17 fxg5 …e8 18 ƒf4! dramatic idea in mind. ‡f8 (To get out of the pin on the È, 13 Èxh7!! (D) because if 18...b5 19 ƒxd5+ †xd5 XIIIIIIIIY 20 0–0 ‡f8 21 ƒe5 followed by 9r+lwq-trk+0 an explosion on f6, or 18...ƒf5 19 0–0ˆ) 19 ƒe5 ƒe6 (19...Èe3 20 B9zpp+-zp-vlN0 ƒf7 fxe5 21 †h7 and mate on g8) and 9-+p+-zppsn0 now White has time to bring up the 9+-+nsN-+P0 reserves: 20 0–0 ƒg8 21 …ae1ˆ. 9-+LzP-zP-+0 So instead of accepting a whole 9+-zP-+-+-0 piece, McNab tries to calm the attack 9PzP-+-+P+0 by taking two minor pieces for the …. Positions with unbalanced material 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 and insecure ‡s are very difficult to xiiiiiiiiy judge and calculate exhaustively. 15 hxg6+ ‡g8 13...‡xh7 14 Èf7!! 15...‡xg6 also looked interesting This is the point. (for White) said Haugen, e.g. 16 14 hxg6+? might seem obvious but †h5+ ‡h7 17 †xf7 †f8 18 ƒxd5 at the end of the sequence 14...‡g8 15 cxd5 19 †xd5 †e8 20 f5. Now after …xh6 ƒxh6 16 †h5 ‡g7 17 f5 …h8 20...†c6 (the only move) White 18 ƒxh6+ …xh6 19 †xh6+ ‡xh6 20 plays for a bind with 21 †xc6 (Not Game 57: Haugen-McNab 267

21 …xh6+ ƒxh6 22 †f7+ ƒg7 as long castling, but in the end he did White can’t get the other … to the neither. h-file) 21...bxc6 22 ƒxh6 (22 g4 e6) 18...†d6 22...ƒxh6 23 …h5 ‡g7 24 ‡f2 ƒd7 18...†c7 was the most difficult 25 …e1! …e8 and now 26 c4 or 26 a4 possibility for White to analyse, if or 26 g4. after 19 ‡f2 (to cover g3) Black Whether Black sits tight or plays sought counterplay with 19...e5!, for ...e6 and a … exchange, White similarly to the game. will obtain at least one passed pawn Haugen analysed other lines to on the queenside and the defence will advantage for himself: be arduous. a) 18...†c7 19 ‡f2 e6? 20 ƒd3 16 f5 †xf7 21 …h7 ‡g8 22 †h3 †g6 23 More fuel on the fire: the dark- …h5 †f7 24 ƒd2 Ède7 (24...†c7 squared ƒ now enters the game. 25 ƒxf5 exf5 26 …h1 †b6 27 b3ˆ) 16...Èxf5 17 gxf7+ ‡f8 (D) 25 …h1 Èg6 26 †f3 Èfe7 27 ƒh6 XIIIIIIIIY f5 (27...ƒh8 28 ƒf8!) 28 ƒxg7 9r+lwq-mk-+0 †xg7 29 †g3 †f6 (29...‡f8 30 …h7 †g8 31 …1h6ˆ) 30 …h7 f4 31 †g4 W9zpp+-zpPvl-0 e5 32 †h5. 9-+p+-zp-+0 b) 18...e5 19 ƒd3 Èd6 20 b3! 9+-+n+n+-0 exd4 21 ƒa3 †e7+ (21...‡xf7 22 9-+LzP-+-+0 †h5+ ‡f8 23 0–0–0 †c7 24 …df1 9+-zP-+-+-0 with a strong attack) 22 ‡f2 ƒe6 9PzP-+-+P+0 (22...‡xf7 23 …ae1 ƒe6 24 …h7 †d7 25 †h5+ ‡g8 26 ƒxd6ˆ) 23 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 …h7 Èe3 24 …e1ˆ. xiiiiiiiiy c) 18...e6 19 …h7 ‡xf7 20 g4 ‡g8 21 †h3 and now: The black ‡ hopes to hide behind c1) 21...Èfe7 22 ƒd2 †d7 23 the pawn and capture it later. 17...‡xf7 0–0–0 Èg6 (23...e5 24 †h5) 24 …h1 might have been possible, as after 18 Èf8 25 g5 f5 (25...Èxh7 26 †xh7+ †h5+ ‡g8 19 †h7+ ‡f7 20 ƒd3 ‡f8 27 ƒxd5) 26 …h8+ ‡f7 27 †h5+ e6 21 g4 Èfe7 22 ƒd2 Haugen gives ‡e7 (27...Èg6 28 …h7) 28 …g8ˆ. 22...f5! (better than 22...†g8 23 †h5+ c2) 21...Èd6 22 ƒd3 Èf7 (22...f5 ‡f8 24 c4 Èb6 25 ƒb4Ÿ) 23 †h5+ 23 ƒh6 ƒxh6 24 …xh6 Èf7 25 ‡f8 24 gxf5 exf5 (24...Èf6 25 †g5 …g6+ ‡f8 26 †h7 ‡e7 27 …g7ˆ) Èxf5 26 0–0–0ˆ) 25 0–0–0 †e8, 23 †h5 f5 24 g5 Èd6 (24...†c7 25 calling the position unclear. g6 †g3+ 26 ‡e2 †g2+ 27 ‡d1 18 †f3 Èf6 28 gxf7+ ‡f8 29 †h1 †xh1+ Haugen said there were many inter- 30 …xh1 ‡xf7 31 ‡e2 with a clear esting variations with both short and advantage) 25 ‡e2 †e8 26 g6 Èf6 268 64 Great Chess Games

27 …xg7+ ‡xg7 28 †h6+ ‡g8 29 21...exd4?! ƒg5 †e7 30 …h1 †g7 31 ƒxf6 At last Black loses his way, perhaps †xf6 32 †h7+ ‡f8 33 †c7ˆ. dreaming of playing for a win? 19 ‡f2 e5 21...Èd6! would lead to equality Others are worse: according to Haugen, for after 22 a) 19...†d7?! 20 …h7 e5 21 ƒd3! ƒg6 Black has two fair possibilities: exd4 22 †g4 ‡xf7 23 ‡g1! (not yet a) 22...ƒd7 23 ƒh6 ƒxh6 24 23 ƒh6 Ède3!) 23...†e6 24 ƒh6 …h8+ ‡g7 25 …xa8 ‡xg6 26 f8† Ède3 25 ƒxf5 Èxf5 26 ‡f2 and ƒxf8 27 …xf8 exd4 28 …e1 (28 27 …e1ˆ. †g3+ ‡f5) 28...†f5 29 cxd4 ‡g7 b) 19...†e6 20 …h7 †xf7 21 ƒd3 30 …d8 Èf7 31 †xf5 ƒxf5 with a †e6 22 ƒd2 Èd6 23 …ah1 †g8 24 roughly level endgame, he believes. ƒg6ˆ. b) 22...Èxf7 23 ƒxf7 †xf7 24 c) 19...e6 20 ƒd3 (20 …h7!?) 20... ƒh6 †g6 25 ƒxg7+ ‡g8 26 …ah1 ‡xf7 21 †h5+ ‡e7 22 ƒxf5 exf5 23 ƒg4= because after 27 †g3 Black †h7 ‡f7 24 ƒh6 †f8 25 …ae1ˆ, has perpetual check. threatening 26 c4 or 26 ƒxg7 †xg7 22 b3! b5 27 †h5+ †g6 28 †h8, while if 25...f4 To stop the light-squared ƒ having 26 c4 (not 26 ƒxg7? †xg7 27 †h5+ access to c4. †g6 28 †h8? †g3+) 26...Èe3 27 23 †g4 Ède7 24 ƒf4 ƒxf4 Èg4+ 28 ‡g3 ƒd7 29 †h5+ White wins the battle to control the (29 c5? †h8) 29...‡g8 30 c5 f5 31 e3-square and opens the way for his †h7+ ‡f7 32 ƒd6ˆ. second …. The attack is reborn. 20 ƒd3 †e6 24...†xf7 25 …ah1 †g8 20...Ède7!? is also possible. It Once more the long variations is not obvious if White can play for start to unwind in White’s favour. a win, e.g. if 21 g4 Èxd4! 22 cxd4 An example given by Haugen is †xd4+. 25...†g6!? 26 †f3 ƒe6 27 …1h5! 21 …h7 (D) †e8 28 g4 ƒf7 (28...ƒg8 29 gxf5 XIIIIIIIIY ƒxh7 30 …xh7 ‡g8 31 …h4 dxc3 9r+l+-mk-+0 32 ƒh6ˆ) 29 …h8+ Èg8 30 ƒxf5 ƒxh5 31 …xh5 and now: B9zpp+-+PvlR0 (a) 31...Èe7 32 g5 †f7 33 g6 9-+p+qzp-+0 †d5 34 ƒe4 †e6 35 cxd4 …d8 36 9+-+nzpn+-0 ƒe3 ‡g8 37 †h1 ‡f8 (37...Èd5 38 9-+-zP-+-+0 ƒd2) 38 …h7 Èf5 39 …xg7 Èxg7 9+-zPL+Q+-0 40 d5ˆ. 9PzP-+-mKP+0 (b) 31...dxc3 32 ƒd6+ (32 †xc3 is also possible.) 32...Èe7 33 ƒe6 9tR-vL-+-+-0 †g6 (33...†d8? 34 †d3) 34 †xc3 xiiiiiiiiy †e4 35 ƒf5 †d5 36 †b4 …e8 37 Game 57: Haugen-McNab 269 XIIIIIIIIY ƒg6 †e6 38 ƒxe8 ‡xe8 39 ƒxe7 9r+l+-mk-+0 †xe7 40 †xe7+ ‡xe7 41 ‡e3 with 9zp-+-+qvlR0 a winning endgame for White. W9-+p+-zp-+0 26 †h5 Èd5 Neither 26...dxc3 27 ƒxf5 Èxf5 9+p+n+n+Q0 (or 27...ƒxf5 28 …xg7) 28 g4 Èe7 9-+-zp-+-+0 29 …xg7 †xg7 30 ƒh6ˆ, nor 9+PzPL+-+-0 26...†d5 27 c4 †d7 28 cxb5 Èe3 9P+-+-mKP+0 (28...cxb5 29 g4ˆ) 29 …xg7ˆ will 9+-vL-+-+R0 do. Also if 26...b4 27 ƒxf5 Èxf5 28 xiiiiiiiiy g4 †f7 29 …h8+ ƒxh8 30 †xh8+ White wins. 28...dxc3 Finally, 26...Èe3 27 ƒd6 ƒd7 Black also loses after 28...†e6 28 ƒxe7+ (If 28 †c5 …e8 29 ƒg6 29 g4, or 28...Èfe3 29 ƒa3+ b4 30 f5! 30 cxd4 È3d5 31 ƒxe8 ‡xe8 ƒxb4+ Èxb4 31 †d6+ †e7 32 … 32 ƒxe7 Èxe7 and Black is still h8+ ‡f7 33 ƒg6+, or 28...†g8 29 g4 in the game) 28...‡xe7 29 …e1ˆ Èfe3 30 ƒa3+ ‡e8 31 ƒg6+ ‡d8 intending simply cxd4 and …xe3. 32 †d6+ ƒd7 33 ƒf7 †f8 34 …h8. Moving the ‡ doesn’t help: 28...b4 was the move Haugen 29...‡f8 30 †c5+, 29...‡d8 30 †g6 had expected, and he would have Èg4+ 31 ‡f1, or 29...‡d6 30 cxd4. continued 29 cxb4 to be followed by Nor does 29...c5 30 †xc5+ ‡d8 31 ƒxf5, †d6+ etc., unless Black prefers †xd4 Èg4+ 32 ‡g1 followed by 33 to lose by 29...Èfe3 30 …xg7 †xg7 ƒf5ˆ, while if 29...ƒe8 30 †c5+ 31 †d6+ Èe7 32 †d8+ ‡f7 33 …h7 ‡d8 (If 30...‡f7 31 ƒg6+! ‡xg6 32 or 29...‡e7 30 b5 c5 31 ƒa3. †h5#) 31 †xd4+ Èd5 32 †g4 wins 29 g4 †c7 30 …h8+ ‡f7 31 †h5+ the g7-ƒ. ‡e7 32 …e8+ ‡d6 33 gxf5 27 ƒc1 Not 33 ƒxf5? ‡c5= (Haugen). Revealing another point of 22 b3: Actually this is not a clear draw but there can be a ƒ check on a3. the move he played is much stronger. 27...†f7 (D) The difference is that 33 gxf5 ‡c5 At last White could analyse to the 34 …g8 threatens 35 †h7ˆ (or 35 final victory. If now 27...Èfe3 28 …g1), but after 33 ƒxf5 ‡c5 34 …g8 ƒa3+ b4 29 ƒxb4+ Èxb4 30 †c5+ ‡b6 (say) 35 †h7 fails to 35...ƒxf5 ‡e8 (30...‡f7 31 cxb4ˆ) 31 ƒg6+ (and …g1 is obviously pointless). ‡d8 32 †a5+ ‡d7 33 †xb4ˆ. 33...‡c5 34 …g8! ƒb7 35 …xa8 1-0 28 †h2!! Black resigned in view of White has a new invasion route: d6. 35...ƒxa8 36 †g4 ƒf8 37 …h8. Game 58 White: Vytas V. Palciauskas (USA) Black: Vytautas Andriulaitis (Lithuania) USA-Lithuania match, board 1, 1999-2001 Sicilian Sozin (B89)

The Players: Palciauskas, a physicist, 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Èxd4 was the 10th CC World Champion. Èc6 5 Èc3 d6 6 ƒe3 Èf6 7 ƒc4 ƒe7 He was born in Kaunas, Lithuania, in 8 †e2 a6 9 0–0–0 †c7 10 ƒb3 0–0 1941, but has lived in America since Castling is a big commitment in he was 8 years old. He was delighted this variation. 10...Èa5, to eliminate to be offered top board in the match the white ƒ, is perhaps more prudent, for his adopted country against his thinks Palciauskas. native land. Andriulaitis was untitled 11 …hg1 Èd7 12 g4 Èc5 13 Èf5 when this game began but in 2000 he b5 14 ƒd5 ƒb7 15 g5 …fc8 16 …g3 became an ICCF IM and in 2001 he got ƒf8 (D) the CC-GM title after winning the Reg 16...Èe5 and 16...b4 are also Gillman Memorial B tournament. known. Now at last the game is about About this game: This game first to depart from theory. appeared in the French CC maga- XIIIIIIIIY zine, ‘Le Courrier des Echecs’. The 9r+r+-vlk+0 football commentators’ cliché “It’s a game of two halves” really applies W9+lwq-+pzpp0 here. After 17 moves of theory, White 9p+nzpp+-+0 offers a ƒ followed by a È to launch 9+psnL+NzP-0 a direct attack on the black ‡. In 9-+-+P+-+0 this intensely complicated tactical 9+-sN-vL-tR-0 phase (moves 18-26), Black avoids 9PzPP+QzP-zP0 numerous traps and White misses a tactical chance (move 21) that might 9+-mKR+-+-0 anyway not have turned out well. xiiiiiiiiy In the second half (move 27 onwards), White skilfully exploits 17 Èh6+ his advantage. The big question, not 17 †h5 g6 18 Èh6+ ‡h8 19 †h4 raised by the winner in his notes, is b4 was OK for Black in Onischuk- whether Black missed an equaliser in Shirov, Germany 1996. The move 17 first half injury time (move 26). Èh6+ was analysed by V.Bagirov Game 58: Palciauskas-Andriuliatis 271 XIIIIIIIIY but his suggestion 17...‡h8 18 ƒxc6 ƒxc6 19 †f3?! did not 9r+r+-vl-mk0 convince Palciauskas, who found an 9+lwq-+pzpp0 improvement. B9p+nzppsN-+0 17...‡h8 18 Èg4! 9+-snL+-zP-0 “On studying this position closely, 9-zp-+P+-+0 one discovers several important little 9+-sN-vL-tR-0 details: the h-file is a royal road towards the black ‡ isolated on h8. White must 9PzPP+QzP-zP0 sacrifice the d5-ƒ and/or the c3-È and 9+-mKR+-+-0 Black requires several tempi to capture xiiiiiiiiy them. How should White utilise this 19...h6 precious time? The key is to isolate the Two pieces are en prise but neither ‡ from the queenside pieces in order to can be taken, so Black finds what attack it down the h-file, and this can be seems to be the only defence. Here accomplished by posting the È at f6!” are some sample variations. 18...b4 a) 19...bxc3 20 Èxh7! (The È This is apparently best since Black is sacrificed to open the h-file.) cannot afford to weaken his centre by 20...cxb2+ (20...‡xh7 21 †h5+ capturing the ƒ. Palciauskas analysed: mates) 21 ‡b1 wins in all variations: a) 18...exd5 19 Èxd5 †d8 (19... e.g. 21...Èe5 22 †h5ˆ, 21...Èa4 †a5 loses rapidly to 20 ƒxc5 dxc5 22 Èf6ˆ, 21...f5 22 g6 ‡g8 23 21 …h3 £…xh7+) 20 …h3 (Again Èg5ˆ, 21...ƒe7 22 †h5 g6 23 with the threats of 21 ƒxc5 and 21 †h6ˆ, or 21...g6 22 Èf6 followed …xh7+) 20...Èd7 21 f4 Èe7 (21... by …h3ˆ, e.g. 22...ƒh6 23 …h3 †a5? 22 …xh7+ ‡xh7 23 Ègf6+ exd5 24 …xh6+ ‡g7 25 ƒxc5 bxc5 Èxf6 24 Èxf6+ gxf6 25 †h5+ ‡g7 26 …h7+ ‡f8 27 †f3. 26 f5ˆ) 22 ƒd4 Èxd5 (22... Èc5? b) 19...gxf6 20 gxf6 (not 20 †h5 23 …xh7+) 23 exd5 ‡g8 24 †d3 h6 f5!) 20...Èe5 21 …dg1 (21 …h3!? is 25 …g1 and the black ‡ is doomed! also very good) and now 21...Èg6 22 b) 18...Èa4 19 Èf6 with the …h3 (not 22 †h5? Èxe4!) 22...bxc3 same theme: 19...gxf6 (19...Èb4 20 (22...exd5 23 †h5 h6 24 ƒxh6) 23 †h5 gxf6 21 …h3 h6 22 gxf6ˆ, or †h5 mates, while if 21...Ècd3+ 22 19...Èxc3 20 bxc3 exd5 21 Èxh7!) cxd3 Èg6 23 …h3 bxc3 (or 23...ƒh6 20 gxf6 Èxc3 21 bxc3 Èe5 22 …dg1 24 …xh6 bxc3 25 …xh7+ˆ) 24 Èg6 23 …h3 exd5 (or 23...†xc3 24 …xh7+! (not 24 †h5? cxb2+) …xh7+) 24 †h5 mates. 24...‡xh7 25 †h5+ ‡g8 26 …xg6+ c) 18...ƒe7 19 …h3 b4 20 …g1 also leads to mate. bxc3 21 …xh7+ ‡xh7 22 Èf6+ ƒxf6 c) 19...g6 20 …h3 h6 21 †g4 bxc3 23 †h5+ ‡g8 24 gxf6 and mates. 22 …xh6+ ƒxh6 23 †h4 and mate 19 Èf6! (D) in three. 272 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY To these variations by Palciauskas, I would add: if 21...†e7 (hoping for 9r+r+-vl-mk0 22 …xh6+ ƒxh6 23 †h4 †f8) then 9+lwq-+p+-0 22 ƒxc6! bxc3 (or 22...ƒxc6 23 ƒd4 W9p+nzppsNpzP0 e5 24 ƒxc5 dxc5 25 Ècd5) 23 ƒd4 9+-snL+-+-0 e5 24 ƒxb7 cxb2+ (or 24...†xb7 25 9-zp-+P+-+0 ƒxc3) 25 ƒxb2 Èxb7 26 Èd5 †e6 9+-sN-vL-tR-0 27 …xh6+ etc. d) Also 19...Èe5 20 Èxh7! g6 21 9PzPP+QzP-zP0 …h3 ‡g7 22 Èf6 is an imaginative 9+-mKR+-+-0 defence but it can be refuted: 22 xiiiiiiiiy Èf6 ƒe7 23 …h7+ ‡f8 24 f4! 21 ƒxc6 bxc3 (if 24...exd5 25 Ècxd5ˆ White accepts that the explosive or 24...Ècd3+ 25 …xd3 Èxd3 26 phase of the game is now over and †xd3 bxc3 27 ƒb6!ˆ) 25 fxe5 seeks positional clarification. cxb2+ (if 25...exd5 26 ƒxc5 wins 21 ƒxe6!? would be an interesting by 26...†xc5 27 Èd7+ or 26...dxc5 attempt, not mentioned by Palciauskas, 27 †f3; and 25...ƒxd5 26 exd5 does to continue the attack. The sacrifice not help Black) 26 ‡b1 Èa4 27 ƒd4 works well after 21...Èxe6 22 Ècd5 dxe5 28 †f2! (£Èd7+). †a5 23 ‡b1 (£h4-h5) or 21...fxe6? The rest is forced: 28...ƒxf6 29 22 …xg6 (threatening mate on g8 gxf6 ‡g8 (29...‡e8? 30 ƒb3) 30 and forcing concessions) 22...ƒe7 …g7+ ‡f8 31 ƒb3 (£ƒxa4, †h4) (22...†f7 23 …g8+ †xg8 24 Èxg8 31...exd4 (or 31...ƒxe4 32 ƒxa4) bxc3 25 ƒxc5 ‡xg8 26 †h5ˆ) 32 ƒxa4 ƒxe4 33 …xd4 ƒxc2+ 23 †f3 (23 Ècd5!?) 23...Èxe4 34 ƒxc2 †c6 35 …d7!ˆ, i.e. (23...bxc3 24 …g7 or 23...Èe5 24 35...†h1+ 36 …d1 †c6 37 †d2. …g7!) 24 †xe4 ƒxf6 25 †xe6. The situation with 19...h6 is not so However, 21 ƒxe6 might be risky clear. Despite all White’s spectacular after 21...bxc3! 22 ƒxc8 cxb2+ 23 play, it is not really clear that he has ‡xb2 (23 ‡b1 may be safer.) 23... any significant advantage. If he has, …xc8, when Black has two minor then he must still prove it. pieces for … and two pawns, the 20 gxh6 g6 (D) white ‡ is also insecure and many Not 20...gxf6 because 21 ƒxc6 complications lie ahead. eliminates Black’s last defensive On the other hand, in the actual chance of ...Èe5/„e7 followed by game, Black missed a chance to do ...Èg6, so that if 21...bxc3 22 †g4 better at move 26. mates, while if 21...ƒe7 22 h7, or 21...bxc3! 21...f5 22 …dg1 (22 exf5 is also Once again, Black avoids bad strong) 22...ƒxc6 (or 22...bxc3 23 variations: 21...ƒxc6 22 ƒd4 e5 h7) 23 h7 wins. 23 Ècd5 ƒxd5 24 Èxd5 with a Game 58: Palciauskas-Andriuliatis 273 powerful bind for the sacrificed piece; Note that 26 h4 would not be as White threatens to break open the good because of 26...…ac8! 27 …b3 black ‡ position by h4-h5 or f4-f5. †c6 28 …xb2 ƒe7 29 Èd5 ƒxh4. Or if 21...†xc6 22 †h5! and now: The white … on b2 then only plays a a) 22...bxc3 23 …xg6 ƒe7 24 defensive role. …g7ˆ. 26...…ac8? b) 22...Èxe4 23 …xg6 Èxf6 24 This appears to be a serious …xf6 bxc3 25 b3 †e8 (25...…c7 26 mistake. Black should be thinking in …g1) 26 †g4!ˆ. terms of eliminating the mighty È c) 22...ƒe7 23 …xg6 …f8 without delay. (23...ƒxf6 24 …xf6 bxc3 25 …xf7 26...ƒxh6 was his best chance to cxb2+ 26 ‡b1 †xe4 27 f3) 24 …g8+ hold the game. …xg8 25 †xf7 ƒxf6 26 †xf6+ ‡h7 Now Palciauskas gives 27 …h3 27 †e7+ ‡h8 28 …xd6ˆ. ‡g7 28 †g4! …h8 (28...…xd5 is 22 ƒxb7 cxb2+ 23 ‡b1 †xb7 similar.) 29 †h4 …xd5! (29...g5 If 23...Èa4 24 ƒd4 †xb7 25 f4 30 †h5 †c6 31 …f3 †e8 32 with a strong attack. Èe3ˆ) 30 exd5 but does this 24 ƒd4 e5 position really favour White at all? Black cannot live constantly with His line is 30...†c8 31 …b3 ƒf4 the threat of a discovered check, but 32 †e7 …xh2 33 …b7 †f8 34 †c7 now the È has the ideal square d5 £…b8, but 30...†d7 or 30...†c7 available to it. (both preventing †e7) are possible 25 ƒxc5 …xc5 26 Èd5 (D) improvements for Black. XIIIIIIIIY 27 …b3 †a7 28 c3 9r+-+-vl-mk0 The c-file is effectively closed. Black belatedly decides to destroy the B9+q+-+p+-0 c-pawn’s protector with an exchange 9p+-zp-+pzP0 sacrifice. 9+-trNzp-+-0 28...…b5 9-+-+P+-+0 28...ƒxh6 29 h4 …b5 transposes 9+-+-+-tR-0 to the game, although 29...f5!? comes 9PzpP+QzP-zP0 into consideration. 29 h4! ƒxh6 9+K+R+-+-0 The pendulum swings back to xiiiiiiiiy White. Only now does Black begin the defensive scheme that he should have Material is level, except that instituted at move 26. Alternatives are White’s È, occupying the hole at worse: d5 (forced by 24 ƒd4) is superior a) 29...†b7 30 h5! …xb3 31 axb3 to Black’s ƒ. Both sides have some †xb3 32 †f3! g5 33 †f6+ ‡h7 34 weak pawns and slightly insecure ‡s. …e1 †c4 35 †xg5ˆ. 274 64 Great Chess Games

b) 29...…cb8 30 h5! …xb3 31 axb3 35 †b7 …c7 36 †b6 ƒg7 37 …d3 …xb3 32 †f3! ƒxh6 33 †f6+ˆ. White must continue to take care; c) 29...…xb3 30 axb3 a5!? (an for instance 37 …xd6 …xc3 38 …d1 interesting try) 31 h5 a4 32 b4! a3 †f3 would give Black more chances (32...gxh5 or 32...g5 would meet the than he deserves. same reply) 33 †f3! …a8 (or 33...a2+ 37...†c4 38 …h3+ ƒh6 39 †e3 g5 34 ‡xb2 ƒxh6 35 hxg6 fxg6 36 (D) †h3) 34 †f6+ ‡h7 35 hxg6+ fxg6 If 39...†f1+ 40 ‡b2 g5 41 †f3. 36 ‡a2ˆ. XIIIIIIIIY 30 h5! 9-tR-+-+-+0 White plays to open the h-file, while also undermining Black’s de- W9+-tr-+-+k0 fensive thrust ...f5 which could com- 9p+-zp-+-vl0 plicate the game after, for example, 9+-+-zp-zp-0 30 †f3 f5! 31 exf5 †f7. 9-+q+P+-+0 Now Black cannot keep the king- 9+-zP-wQ-+R0 side closed with 30...g5 because of 31 9P+-+-zP-+0 †f3 followed by 32 †f6+ or 32 †f5, while his queenside play is too slow 9+K+-+-+-0 in the face of White’s kingside attack. xiiiiiiiiy For example: a) 30...†b7 31 †f3! …xb3 32 At last, White can wrap things up with axb3 …f8 (If 32...†xb3 33 hxg6 fxg6 a combination forcing a ‡ and pawn 34 †f6+ ‡h7 35 †f7+ ‡h8 36 …h1, endgame that is hopeless for Black. or 32...f5 33 hxg6 fxe4 34 †h3 ‡g7 40 …xh6+! ‡xh6 41 †h3+ ‡g6 35 Èe3ˆ, or 32...…g8 33 †f6+ If 41...‡g7 42 †h8+ ‡g6 ƒg7 34 †xd6 †xb3 35 …h1 g5 (42...‡f7 43 …f8+ ‡e6 44 †g8+ 36 h6) 33 †f6+ ƒg7 34 †g5 or 34 ‡d7 45 …d8+ mates) 43 …g8+ and †xd6 †xb3 35 …h1ˆ. Black must give up his † to avert b) 30...…g8 31 †f3! gxh5 (or checkmate. 31...f5 32 fxg6 …xg6 33 exf5) 32 42 †f5+ ‡g7 43 †xg5+ ‡f7 †f6+ ‡h7 (32...ƒg7 33 †g5) 33 Or 43...‡h7 44 †h5+ ‡g7 45 Èe7 …g7 34 …xd6ˆ. †h8+ as in the previous note. Black decides that the only way to 44 †g8+ ‡f6 prolong the game is to eliminate the 44...‡e7 45 …e8+ ‡f6 46 †h8+. dominant „. 45 …f8+! …f7 46 …xf7+ †xf7 47 30...…xd5 31 …xd5 …c6 32 hxg6 †xf7+ ‡xf7 48 ‡c2 ‡e6 49 ‡d3 fxg6 33 †xb2 †f7 34 …b8+ ‡h7 d5 50 exd5+ ‡xd5 51 c4+ ‡c5 If 34...ƒf8 35 …d3 ‡g7 (35...†f4 If 51...‡c6 52 ‡e4 ‡d6 53 c5+ 36 …h3+) 36 †b3 …c7 37 †xf7+ ‡xc5 54 ‡xe5 ‡b4 55 f4ˆ. …xf7 (37...‡xf7 38 …f3+) 38 f3ˆ. 52 ‡e4 1–0 Game 59 White: Ingo Firnhaber (Germany) Black: D. Schade (Germany) German CC Cht, Division 1, 1999-2001 Najdorf Sicilian, Polugaevsky Variation (B96)

The Players: Ingo Firnhaber is a very Instead of playing the well-known experienced CC International Master 10 exf6 †e5+, White protects e5. whose postal chess career goes back He retains his dark-squared ƒ and to the 1970s. He played this game and forces Black to take a difficult on board 4 for the winning team, decision immediately. SV Osnabrück, in the 1999-2001 In the late GM ’s Fernschach-Bundesliga. His opponent own book about the variation was on the team SG Niederelbe. (‘Grandmaster Preparation’), he makes About this game: CC players only passing mention of this move — have made numerous theoretical probably because it was never played contributions to the theory of sharp against him in a significant game. On openings, especially the Sicilian the other hand, GM John Nunn wrote Defence. This game, which is another in ‘The Complete Najdorf 6 ƒg5’ recent example of this fact, turns the (Batsford, 1996) that: “This move spotlight on a promising sideline has been unfairly neglected — in fact against the extremely complicated it appears to be quite dangerous for Polugaevsky Variation. Black”. 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Èxd4 10...b4 Èf6 5 Èc3 a6 6 ƒg5 e6 7 f4 b5 8 e5 10...Èfd7 is the alternative. Then dxe5 9 fxe5 †c7 10 Èf3!? (D) “White has a choice between several XIIIIIIIIY dangerous moves,” wrote Nunn. 9rsnl+kvl-tr0 These include 11 ƒd3, 11 Èe4 (as in Tolush-Coolen, 4th CC World Ch Final B9+-wq-+pzpp0 1962) and Tal’s recommendation 11 9p+-+psn-+0 †d2 Èxe5 12 0–0–0. 9+p+-zP-vL-0 11 Èb5 axb5 12 exf6 Èd7 13 ƒxb5 9-+-+-+-+0 …a5 14 †d3! gxf6 15 ƒxf6 …g8 9+-sN-+N+-0 Now Nunn’s book recommended 9PzPP+-+PzP0 16 Èd4 †b6 17 †c4! but White has a new idea. 9tR-+QmKL+R0 16 0–0–0!! (D) xiiiiiiiiy 276 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY etc.) 19 †xb5 †xf6 20 †c6ˆ. 9-+l+kvlr+0 c) 16...…xa2 17 ‡b1 …a7 18 ƒd4 9+-wqn+p+p0 …b7 19 g3ˆ. B9-+-+pvL-+0 However, it seems to me that a 9trL+-+-+-0 different move, not mentioned by 9-zp-+-+-+0 Firnhaber, may be Black’s best try. 9+-+Q+N+-0 d) 16...…g6! probably does not equalise but there are so many 9PzPP+-+PzP0 possibilities it is hard to exhaust 9+-mKR+-+R0 them. For example, after 17 Èe5 xiiiiiiiiy Black would probably be unwise to Firnhaber explains in ‘Fernschach’ play 17...…xf6? 18 Èxd7, but he that he had planned this improvement could look into 17...b3 when there are for a long time after studying previous many traps and the critical line seems games in which 16 ƒxd7+ was to be 18 ƒxd7+ ƒxd7 19 †xb3. played, e.g. 16...ƒxd7 17 0–0–0? Also 17 ƒh4 leads to considerable (better 17 0–0) 17...…xg2 18 Èe5? complications. Let us just say that (18 ‡b1 was necessary) 18...…d5 16...…g6 is a theme for a new game 19 †e4? b3! 0–1 Firica-Berbecaru, in the future. Romania Ch 1965. He also rejected 17 ‡b1 16 Èe5 …xb5 17 †xb5 …xg2 18 Firnhaber observes that White …d1 (Tolush-Gipslis, Vilnius 1960) has all the time in the world because because of 18...†a7!‰. Black’s ‡ can never be safe. 16...…xg2 17...†b7 18 Èd4! Black faced a wide and difficult 18 ƒxd7+ is less good, e.g. choice in replying to the novelty 16 18...ƒxd7 19 †f1 …xc2! 20 ‡xc2 0–0–0. As so often happens, he did …f5 and Black has counterplay. not find a good solution. The lines 18...…g6 given by Firnhaber are as follows: Black is lost after 18...†d5 19 a3 a) 16...…xb5 (or 16...†f4+ 17 bxa3 20 †c3 or 18...…f2 19 …hf1 ‡b1 …xb5 transposing) 17 †xb5 …xf1 20 †xf1. †f4+ 18 ‡b1 †xf6 19 †c6 †d8 20 19 …hf1 Èe5 …g5 21 …he1 ƒe7 22 …e4 h5 At this point, White has sacrificed (White threatened to dislodge the … no material and — man for man — his by 23 h4 and 24 g4.) 23 †a8 …f5 24 pieces appear more actively posted …c4 Èb6 25 †c6+ ƒd7 26 Èxd7 than their opposite numbers. Èxd7 27 …cd4 …d5 28 …xd5 exd5 Black’s chances of counterplay lie 29 †xd5ˆ. in the vulnerability of a2 and the fact b) 16...b3 17 †xb3 †f4+ 18 ‡b1 that he might be able to win material …xb5 (18...†xf6 loses to 19 ƒxd7+ if he can break the pin on the a4-e8 ƒxd7 20 …xd7! ‡xd7 21 †xb7+ diagonal. Game 59: Firnhaber-Schade 277

19 ƒc6!? also comes into 21 ƒxd7+ †xd7 consideration for White. 21...ƒxd7 22 …xf6 ƒg7 23 …ff1 19...†d5 ƒxd4 (23...e5 24 †xh7) 24 †xd4 Neither 19...ƒc5 20 ƒc6 †a6 21 †xd4 25 …xd4 and White has … for Èb3 †xc6 22 Èxa5 nor 19...ƒg7? ƒ in the endgame. 20 ƒxg7 …xg7 21 Èc6 (or 21 †c4) 22 …xf6 …d5 21...…xb5 22 †d6 will save Black. This threatens to win a piece by 20 b3 (D) ...e5 but White simply allows it. XIIIIIIIIY 23 †xh7! e5 24 …df1 …xd4 9-+l+kvl-+0 Not only has White sacrificed a piece, but he must also cope with the B 9+-+n+p+p0 threat of ...…d1+. However, he has 9-+-+pvLr+0 calculated the solution. 9trL+q+-+-0 25 †h5! 9-zp-sN-+-+0 The square d1 is protected without 9+P+Q+-+-0 losing sight of the target at f7. 9P+P+-+-zP0 25...…e4 26 …xf7 1-0 Black resigned in view of 26... 9+K+R+R+-0 …e1+ 27 …xe1 †xf7 28 †xe5+ ‡d7 xiiiiiiiiy (28...ƒe7 29 †b5+ ‡f8 (29...ƒd7? 30 †b8+) 30 …f1 ƒf6 31 †c5+) 29 White has to spend a tempo to …e4 when his unsheltered ‡ cannot defend his ‡, but he can afford the be satisfactorily protected. time. A sample line from Firnhaber goes 20...…xf6 29...ƒd6 (29...ƒg7 30 …d4+ leads to Black gives up the exchange in a mate.) 30 †b5+ ‡d8 (or 30...‡c7 31 freeing attempt as “normal” moves …c4+ ‡d8 32 †a5+ ƒc7 33 †g5+ are no use in this desperate situation. ‡e8 34 …e4+ ƒe6 35 †b5+ ‡d8 36 For example, 20...ƒb7 unguards †xb4 ƒf5 37 …e1) 31 †a5+ ‡d7 the È and White plays 21 Èxe6 fxe6 32 †a7+ ƒc7 33 …xb4, for example (21...†xd3 22 Èc7#) 22 ƒxd7+. 33...†f1+ 34 ‡b2 ƒa6 35 …d4+ Or if 20...…a7 the … itself will be a ‡c6 36 a4 ƒd6 37 a5 †b5 38 …c4+ target: 21 †e3 …c7 22 Èxe6 †xe6 ƒc5 39 …xc5+ †xc5 40 †xa6+ 23 †f4 …b7 (23...…xf6 24 †xc7) 24 ‡d7 41 †d3+ and in the † ending, …fe1. White leads 4–0 on pawns. Game 60 White: Tunc Hamarat (Austria) Black: Erik B.H. Bang (Denmark) 16th CC World Championship Final, 1999-2002 Spanish, Closed Defence (C99)

The Players: Turkish-born Hama- 8 c3 d6 9 h3 Èa5 rat tied for 3rd place in the 14th CC Sometimes Bang has played World Championship and, at the 9...ƒb7, while other times he has time this book went to print, he was chosen 9...Èd7. leading the 16th Final with an excel- 10 ƒc2 c5 11 d4 †c7 12 Èbd2 lent chance of ultimately becoming ƒd7 World Champion. After university, he This move has been one of Bang’s moved to Austria where he worked in mainstays over the years but it came nuclear physics and now in electronic unstuck in this event. White is invited engineering. He is also a master at the to open the d-file by 13 dxe5 but ancient game of backgammon. Bang instead Hamarat transposes to the old was introduced in Game 49. main line. For 12...Èc6 see Game 13. About this game: At the start of the 13 Èf1 cxd4 14 cxd4 (D) tournament, both players were con- XIIIIIIIIY sidered among the favourites. Bang 9r+-+-trk+0 trusted in an opening variation he had played in the past but it let him down, B9+-wqlvlpzpp0 though it required some highly origi- 9p+-zp-sn-+0 nal play by Hamarat to overcome his 9snp+-zp-+-0 resistance. I am grateful to the winner 9-+-zPP+-+0 for checking my notes and adding 9+-+-+N+P0 some important details. 9PzPL+-zPP+0 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 Èf6 5 0–0 ƒe7 6 …e1 b5 7 ƒb3 0–0 9tR-vLQtRNmK-0 Bang often plays this as a feint, but xiiiiiiiiy he doesn’t continue with a Marshall Attack (8 c3 d5). Some players use 14...…ac8 15 Èe3 Èc6 16 d5 this move order to invite 8 a4 — if In Morgado-Bang, Axelson Memo- they think that is less dangerous than rial 1984, the position was repeated by the main line closed Spanish. 16 ƒb3 Èa5! 17 ƒc2 Èc6 and then Game 60: Hamarat-Bang 279

White tried 18 ƒb1 but it proved 21...g6 22 ƒd3! Èc7 harmless: 18...Èxd4 19 Èxd4 exd4 On 22...ƒd8 or 22...g6 Hamarat 20 †xd4 …fe8 21 ƒd2 †b7 22 ƒd3 planned 23 Èh2! while if 22...Èe8 ƒd8 23 Èf5 ƒxf5 24 exf5 ƒb6 25 23 †b3. White stands better in all †xd6 …ed8 26 †a3 †d5 27 ƒe3 these cases, he says. †xd3 28 †xd3 …xd3 29 ƒxb6 h5 23 Èc2! and ½–½, 42. This is a flexible idea from Tal. 16 a3 Èxd4 17 Èxd4 exd4 18 According to Black’s response, the È †xd4 was thought to be good until can go to a3 to attack the b5-pawn or Black discovered 18...d5!. it can be routed to a5 via a1 and b3. 16...Èb4 17 ƒb1 a5 18 a3 Èa6 19 23...Èh5 24 ƒe3 b4 axb4 Another Bang game from the 19...a4 20 ƒd3 would leave Black 16th Final followed the course of a passive. Black sometimes holds off on different Hjartarson game, viz. 24 ...axb4 for a few moves; e.g. 19...…a8 ƒh6 Èg7 25 Èd2 f5 26 Èb3 f4 27 20 ƒd2 axb4 (or 20...†b7) 21 axb4 Èa5 †b6 and now: †b7, while 19...g6 20 ƒd2 axb4 21 a) Stefansson-Hjartarson, Reyk- axb4 †b7 transposes to the game. javik 1999 (played around the time 20 axb4 †b7 Wch16 was starting) continued 28 20...Èxb4? loses the È to 21 ƒd2. ƒe2 ƒh4! 29 …f1 Èce8 30 †d3 21 ƒd2 (D) Èf6 31 Èe1 …c3! 32 †xc3 (32 XIIIIIIIIY †b1 Èxe4 33 †xe4 ƒf5 traps the 9-+r+-trk+0 †) 32...Èxe4 33 †f3 Èd2 34 †d3 Èxf1 35 ƒxf1 ƒxf2+ 36 ‡h2 Èf5! B9+q+lvlpzpp0 37 ƒxf8 e4 38 †a3 ƒg1+ 39 ‡h1 9n+-zp-sn-+0 Èg3+ 40 †xg3 fxg3 41 ƒxd6 †xd6 9+p+Pzp-+-0 42 ‡xg1 †b6+ 0–1. 9-zP-+P+-+0 b) In Mohrlok-Bang, White 9+-+-sNN+P0 improved upon this by 28 †d2 ƒh4 9-+-vL-zPP+0 29 …ec1 Èa6 but now the correct line was 30 …a2 …c7 31 …ca1 …fc8 9tRL+QtR-mK-0 32 Èb3 Èb8 33 Èe1 according xiiiiiiiiy to Dieter Mohrlok. Instead he lost a pawn by 30 Èe1? Èxb4 (since if This is a standard position. For the 31 †xb4? ƒxf2+ 32 ‡h1 …xc1 33 first time in several moves, Black has …xc1 ƒc5 34 †c3 b4Œ), though a choice. 21...ƒd8 (£...ƒb6) has Black eventually won went wrong in usually been played while 21...…a8 the complications that followed. and 21...Èc7 have also been tried. 24...…a8 25 †d2 f5 Bang prefers a move played by Bang’s idea is to improve on a Icelandic GM Johann Hjartarson. line in the contemporary notes to 280 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY Tal-Hjartarson, which had continued 25...…xa1 26 Èxa1! f5 27 ƒh6 Èg7 9-+-+-trk+0 28 Èb3 f4 29 Èa5 †b6 30 …c1 (30 B9+q+lvl-snp0 Èh2!?Ÿ £ƒe2-g4 — Tal) 30...…a8 9-sn-zp-+-vL0 31 †c2 Èce8 32 †b3 ƒf6 33 Èc6 9+p+Pzpp+-0 Èh5 34 †b2! ƒg7?! (34...…c8Ÿ) 35 9-zP-+-+-+0 ƒxg7 ‡xg7 36 …c5! †a6 37 …xb5! 9+-+-sNN+P0 Èc7 38 …b8 †xd3 39 Ècxe5! †d1+ 40 ‡h2 …a1 41 Èg4+ ‡f7 42 9-+-wQ-zPP+0 Èh6+ ‡e7 43 Èg8+ 1–0 (43...‡f7 9+L+-tR-mK-0 44 Èg5#). xiiiiiiiiy 26 ƒh6 Èg7! 30...…f7 This is Bang’s novelty. He is Black has the problem of how to playing as in Tal-Hjartarson, but by improve his position — essentially not exchanging on a1 the white È’s split into two forces, separated by the path to b3 is decelerated. Rather, by ƒ on d7, which cannot move without leaving White to exchange on a8, the losing a pawn. Rather than defend black È rushes to b6. passively, he decides to offer White 26...…fb8 27 exf5 gxf5 allows 28 the ƒ pair. Hamarat says that 30...ƒf6 Èxe5 dxe5 29 d6 ƒxd6 30 †g5+ would be well met by 31 …c1, while which Tal said was clearly better if 30...…f6 31 ƒxg7 ‡xg7 32 Èh4 for White. After 30...‡h8 31 †xh5 White’s advantage is very big. material is level, but Black’s ‡ is 31 Èg5 ƒxg5 32 ƒxg5 Èc4 exposed and he has vulnerable pawns. Black’s idea is to transfer this È 27 …xa8 Èxa8 from b6, where it is doing little, to a 27...…xa8 loses a tempo: after 28 potentially strong square on e5. Èe3 the f5-pawn requires protection. In the opinion of the computer 28 Èe3 program Fritz7, this is a mistake As Black solidly defends b5 the and should have been replaced by È has no immediate prospects on the pawn-grab 32...f4 33 Èg4 (33 the queenside and so it comes back. †d3!?) 33...ƒxg4 34 hxg4 †xd5. If Black releases tension by ...f4 he However, the endgame after opens a new square for the È at g4 35 †xd5 Èxd5 36 ƒa2 Èxb4 and White might later sacrifice on e5. (36...Èc3!?) 37 ƒxf7+ ‡xf7 38 28...Èb6 29 exf5 gxf5 30 ƒb1 (D) …b1 Èd3 (or 38...‡g6 39 ƒe7 This is a typical move in the Èc6 40 ƒxd6 b4 41 ƒxb4 Èxb4 Spanish. White must protect d5 but 42 …xb4) 39 …xb5 Èe6 40 …b7+ he doesn’t choose to play ƒc2 since ‡g6 41 ƒh4 is probably winning there could be lines where he would for White. like to put the † on that square, 33 †d3 e4 34 †d4 Èe5 35 ƒf4 creating a battery against f5 and h7. …e7 36 ƒc2 Game 60: Hamarat-Bang 281

The ƒ moves again, to give the … Once more f4 threatens, so again access to the a-file. Black counter-attacks the white pieces. 36...Èh5 37 ƒxe5 …xe5 38 …a1 41...†e8 42 ‡f2 †h5 Èf6 (D) By the manoeuvre ...†c8-e8-h5 XIIIIIIIIY Black hopes to attack a weak point in 9-+-+-+k+0 the white ‡ position. 43 …a6 W9+q+l+-+p0 Black is committed to his counter- 9-+-zp-sn-+0 attack so White brings his … into action 9+p+Ptrp+-0 with a temporary pawn sacrifice. Not 9-zP-wQp+-+0 43 f4? Èe4+ and if 44 ƒxe4 †h4+ 9+-+-sN-+P0 (not 44...…xe4? 45 …g1+ˆ) 45 ‡g2 9-+L+-zPP+0 (or 45 ‡e2 †xf4!) 45...…xe4. 43...†xh3?! 9tR-+-+-mK-0 If 43...†h6 Hamarat planned to xiiiiiiiiy give back the exchange by 44 …xd6 Èe4+ 45 fxe4 †xd6, and after 46 Black appears to have made some exf5 White has an good endgame progress since White no longer has the advantage, according to his analysis, ƒ pair and there is a cluster of black but he thinks Black should have tried pieces pressurising d5. Hamarat points this. 43...Èe8 would be only passive out that if 38...†c8 39 †b6 attacks defence and could be met by 44 †f4 the d-pawn, with a big advantage. or 44 h4 (but not 44 …xd6?? …xe3). 39 f4!! 44 †f4! When he showed me this game, To give a check at the critical Hamarat wrote: “A crazy move; moment! Some tactics had to be everyone would play here 39 g3 with calculated here. After 44 …xd6? a sound positional advantage.” After …xe3! 45 ‡xe3 (45 †xe3?? †h2+ 39 g3 Black cannot win the pawn and ...†xd6) 45...Èg4+ 46 ‡d2 with 39...Èxd5? because of 40 …a7 †h2+ 47 ƒe2 †xd6 48 fxg4 †h6+ †c6 (40...†b6 41 †xb6 Èxb6 42 Black should escape with a draw. …b7) 41 Èxd5 †xd5 (41...…xd5? 42 44...Èh5?! ƒb3) 42 †xd5+ …xd5 43 …xd7. The Is this the best defence? Not object of 39 f4, which needed careful 44...Èxd5? 45 Èxd5 …xd5 46 ƒc2 calculation, is to break up Black’s £ƒb3, but the Fritz7 computer defensive cluster. The pawn must be program suggests that 44...…xe3!? taken to avoid the loss of a piece. was a better try. Then after 45 †xe3 39...exf3 40 gxf3 (Not 45 ‡xe3?? Èxd5+) 45...†h4+ Now f3-f4 is threatened so Black (If 45...Èxd5 46 †g5+ or 45...†h2+ must react. 46 ‡f1 Èxd5 47 †g5+.) 46 ‡f1 40...†c8 41 ƒd3 Èxd5 (46...†h3+ 47 ‡e2 †h2+ 282 64 Great Chess Games

48 ‡d1 †h1+ 49 ‡c2 helps White.) XIIIIIIIIY 47 †g1+ ‡f7 it comes up with such 9-+-+-+k+0 variations as: 9+-+l+-snp0 a) 48 …a7 when: W9R+-zp-+-+0 a1) 48...†e7 49 †h2 (Not 49 †d4? 9+p+PtrpwQ-0 Èe3+ 50 ‡f2 Èd1+ 51 ‡g2 †g5+ 9-zP-+-+-+0 and Black escapes with a draw, since if 52 ‡f1? Èe3+ 53 ‡e2 †g2+! 9+-+LsNP+q0 54 ‡xe3? †g1+.) 49...‡g7 (Now if 9-+-+-mK-+0 49...Èe3+ 50 ‡f2 Èd1+ 51 ‡g2 9+-+-+-+-0 †g5+ 52 ‡f1 wins.) 50 f4 (denying xiiiiiiiiy g5 to the black †) 50...Èe3+ 51 ‡g1 46 ƒf1!! Èg4 52 †g3ˆ £ƒxf5. Hamarat says that of course White a2) 48...†h3+! 49 ‡e2 (Not 49 stands better, but he cannot see a clear †g2?? Èe3+) 49...Èf4+ 50 ‡e3 win for White after other moves. A (50 ‡d2 †xf3) 50...Èd5+ 51 ‡d4 few ideas: (or 51 ‡d2 †xf3 52 …xd7+ ‡e6 53 a) 46 …xd6 †h2+ 47 Èg2 …e2+ …xh7 †f4+) 51...†xf3 52 …xd7+ 48 ‡xe2 †xd6 is inconclusive. ‡e6 53 †g8+ ‡xd7 54 †xd5 †f2+ b) 46 Èg2 f4!? — Hamarat. 55 ‡c3 †e1+ draws. c) 46 …a8+ …e8 (or 46...‡f7!? 47 b) Hamarat says that due to a †d8 ƒe8 48 …a7+ ‡g8 49 †g5) computer crash he no longer has the 47 …xe8+ (47 …a7 h6 48 †g6 f4 49 analysis that he made during the game, Èg2 †g3+ 50 †xg3 fxg3+ 51 ‡xg3 but he looked at many lines “and I Èh5+ 52 ‡f2 Èf6) 47...ƒxe8 48 remember it was OK for White”. He Èxf5 †h2+ 49 ‡f1 (49 ‡e3 †e5+ thinks that the correct response begins 50 ƒe4 ‡f8) 49...†e5 (or 49...†h1+ 48 …xd6 ƒe6 49 …a6, which does 50 ‡e2 †h2+ 51 ‡d1 †e5) 50 seem to give winning chances, although Èh6+ ‡f8 (50...‡h8? 51 †xe5 the position is very complicated despite dxe5 52 Èg4ˆ) 51 †xe5 dxe5 52 the reduced material. ƒxh7 ‡e7. Now 49...Èxb4?? is a blunder “Maybe these variations might also because of 50 …a7+ mating or winning win, but I was not sure. After 46 ƒf1, a piece, and 49...†xb4 is dangerous which makes the white ‡ position because after 50 …a7+ Èe7 51 †h2 secure, I couldn’t find any way for the h-pawn will fall and Black’s ‡ Black to save this game.” is very exposed. The best defence is 46...†h2+ 47 Èg2 f4 49... ‡f6 50 …a7 (£†g7#) 50...ƒf7 Black discovers an attack on the and if 51 ƒxb5 †xb4 when Black white †. He prefers to give up the has drawing chances but no certainty f-pawn and gets some scope for his of survival. pieces. 47...…e8 allows the † to defend 45 †g5+ Èg7 (D) d6 but the second rank collapses: 48 Game 60: Hamarat-Bang 283 XIIIIIIIIY …a7 h6 49 †g6. Or 47...ƒe8 48 †f4 and the d-pawn falls. 9-+-tRn+k+0 48 †xf4 †h5 W9+-+ltr-wqp0 48...†xf4 49 Èxf4 …f5 50 …xd6 9-+-wQ-+-+0 …xf4 51 …xd7 …xb4 52 ƒd3 wins in 9+p+P+-+-0 all variations. 9-zP-+-+-+0 49 Èe3 †e8 9+-+LsNP+-0 49...†g6 permits a liquidation to a minor piece ending: 50 †xe5 dxe5 51 9-+-+-mK-+0 …xg6 hxg6 52 Èg4 ƒxg4 (52...e4? 9+-+-+-+-0 53 Èf6+ or 52...‡f7 53 Èxe5+ ‡e7 xiiiiiiiiy 54 Èxd7 ‡xd7 55 ƒxb5+ ‡d6 56 calculates that he can force off the †s ƒc6) 53 fxg4 Èe8 54 ƒxb5. and have a clear endgame win. 50 ƒd3 55 †g3!! †xg3+ 50 …xd6 was still dubious because 55...‡f8!? can be met by this nice after 50...…xe3 51 †xe3? †xe3+ 52 variation pointed out by Hamarat: 56 ‡xe3 Black has the fork 52...Èf5+. †xg7+ ‡xg7 57 …b8 Èd6 58 …b6 Here 51 …xd7 is better but the Èc8 59 …b7 winning the b-pawn and premature simplification jeopardises the game, because if now 59...Èd6 the win. 60 Èf5+!!. After 50 ƒd3, Black must defend 56 ‡xg3 …xe3 57 ƒe4! his d-pawn. The first point. Black cannot save his 50...†e7 51 …a8+ Èe8 52 †h6 ƒ but the key finesse is at move 60. †f7 57...‡f8 58 …xd7 Èf6 59 …a7 Black hardly has any moves. If Èxe4+ 60 ‡f4! 52...†g7 53 †xg7+ ‡xg7 54 …a7 This had to be seen before 55 …e7 (54...Èf6 55 ƒxb5) 55 Èf5+. †g3. White obtains connected passed 53 …d8 pawns with the black ‡ cut off. White wants to tie up his opponent 60...Èf6 to extract the maximum concession If the … moves, the central passed in the endgame. 53 †xd6 allows too pawns (after 61 fxe4) will be decisive. much counterplay after 53...†f4. 61 ‡xe3 Èxd5+ 62 ‡e4 Èxb4 63 53...…e7 54 †xd6 …xh7 Now the pawn can at last be White is always winning because captured because f4 is under control. he will collect the black b-pawn, and 54...†g7 (D) indeed Black is in danger of losing Here 55 ƒf5 looks strong but his È. Black’s † might get active, Hamarat 63...Èa6 64 ‡d4 1–0 Game 61 White: Olita Rause (Latvia) Black: Roberto Álvarez (Argentina) CAPA-X Jubilee email, 1999-2002 Najdorf Sicilian (B90)

The Players: Olita Rause is to CC Berdichesky 1½. It is a theoretically what Judit Polgar is to OTB chess: significant game in one of the main the first female player to compete lines of the Najdorf variation. successfully with male players at the Olita Rause kindly supplied some highest level. A FIDE women’s GM general remarks about the ideas and married to FIDE GM Igors Rausis, main turning points of the game, and she turned to postal chess when she I have added some extra comments, started a family. She won the three- mostly on the opening and the last stage ICCF World Cup VI and, more phase of the ending, without trying recently, the SSKK-60 and CAPA-X to second-guess her analysis. Some Jubilee events, earning the ICCF GM critical moments in the middlegame title and obtaining a CC rating above and double … ending are left for 2700, which puts her in the world’s readers to explore for themselves. top five players on recent results. 1 e4 c5 2 Èf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Èxd4 Roberto Álvarez was one of the Èf6 5 Èc3 a6 6 ƒe3 pioneers of email chess, and one-time In the era when the Najdorf was secretary of IECG. He obtained the popularised by GMs like Fischer and ICCF GM title in 1998 after winning Polugaevsky, 6 ƒe3 (now the main the Jiri Pelikan Memorial ‘A’ email line) was barely considered. GM event, and he afterwards won the 6...e5 Pappier Memorial ‘A’ too. This is one of three moves here. If About this game: The CAPA-X Ju- Black plays the Scheveningen-style bilee was a double-round elite event 6...e6, White has the English Attack, for six GMs celebrating the 10th an- involving 7 f3 followed by g4, sometimes niversary of the founding of CAPA, preceded by †d2, and eventual 0–0–0. one of Argentina’s CC organisations. 6...Èg4 7 ƒg5 h6! 8 ƒh4 g5 9 ƒg3 The last game to finish, this decided ƒg7 is a complicated alternative. the tournament in favour of Olita GM Najdorf’s original idea was to Rause who scored 7½ points from follow 5...a6 with ...e5 when possible, 10 games, ahead of Álvarez 6, Mor- and the system chosen by GM Álvarez gado 5½, Sanakoev 5, Elwert 4½ and follows his ideas. Game 61: Rause-Álvarez 285

7 Èb3 XIIIIIIIIY In the early days of the Najdorf 9r+-wqk+-tr0 White played the slow 7 Ède2, e.g. 9+-+nvlpzp-0 7...ƒe7 8 h3 ƒe6 9 Èg3 g6 10 ƒd3 W9p+-zplsn-+0 Èbd7 11 0–0 0–0 12 †f3 ‡h8 13 9+p+-zp-+p0 …ad1 b5 with counterplay (0–1, 69) 9-+-+P+-+0 Rossolimo-Fischer, USA Ch 1966-67. In ‘The Complete Najdorf: Modern 9+NsN-vLP+-0 Lines’ by Gallagher & Nunn, there 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 is lots of theory on both 7 Èb3 and 9+K+R+L+R0 7 Èf3 (the reasons why 6 ƒe3 was xiiiiiiiiy revived) but 7 Ède2 is not mentioned. 12 f4! 7...ƒe6 8 †d2 Èbd7 9 f3 h5 Olita Rause explains the context of Najdorf theory develops fast. This this game as follows: “The Najdorf game (started in December 1999) Variation is not only extremely topical features a move not even mentioned in very high-level OTB games, but in the book written a year earlier also in CC. This variation leads to very (principally by Gallagher). There 9...b5 unbalanced and complex positions. and 9...ƒe7 are the main lines while The last few years of debates around 9...…c8 also gets a mention. By playing 6 ƒe3 (or 6 f3 followed by ƒe3) 9...h5 Black rules out White’s principal provided a huge collection of high- idea of g2-g4 and forces a rethink. rated games but they showed that 10 0–0–0 White’s plan involving 0–0–0 was not a) Álvarez had the same position safe at all. Maybe 12 f4 (a novelty in with White against Sanakoev in the this game) could slightly change this CAPA Jubilee, but preferred 10 ƒe2 statistic.” Èb6 11 0–0–0 †c7 12 ‡b1 ƒe7 13 “Very soon in the game, White ƒxb6 †xb6 14 Èd5 ƒxd5 15 exd5 obtains a dangerous initiative against 0–0 16 g3 …fe8 17 …hf1 †c7 18 g4 the black monarch, so Black’s next …ac8 19 c4 e4 20 g5 exf3 which is move seems dubious.” unclear (½-½ in 59 moves). 12 g3, 12 †f2, 12 Èd5 have also b) 10 a4 has also been seen in been played. several games, to take advantage of 12...0–0?! 13 f5 ƒc4 14 h3 ƒxf1 the fact that Black delayed ...b5. Olita Rause said in a recent int- c) 10 Èd5 is a totally different erview that when starting a new event plan, e.g. 10...Èxd5 11 exd5 ƒf5 she always consults her husband about 12 ƒe2 a5 13 0–0 ƒe7 14 f4! when opening theory trends. Since 14...h4 White had a good position and went on ½-½ occurred in Rausis-A.Sokolov, to win in J.Neumann-R.Maliangkay, Schacknytt GM 2000, I guess there CCOL12 Final 1998-99. were non-chess reasons why White 10...b5 11 ‡b1 ƒe7 (D) did not play for a win there. 286 64 Great Chess Games

15 …hxf1 b4 16 Èd5 Èxd5 17 ‡h7 29 ƒxf6 ƒxf6 30 …f3 †e6 31 †xd5 h4 18 g4 hxg3 19 …g1 Èf6 20 h4 ƒe7 32 Èg3 d5 †d3 a5 21 …xg3 ‡h8! With this advance, gaining some Black plays very well in defence, scope for his ƒ, Black managed to says Olita Rause. minimise White’s advantage. Olita 22 …dg1 …g8 23 †e2 a4 24 Èd4! Rause explains that “in the resulting (D) complex heavy-pieces ending, XIIIIIIIIY White’s initiative was not very stable, 9r+-wq-+rmk0 and I had to take care by keeping all of my …s on the board (38 …c1!? and B9+-+-vlpzp-0 39 †f1!?).” 9-+-zp-sn-+0 33 exd5 †xd5 34 Èe4 …c4 35 Èg5+ 9+-+-zpP+-0 ƒxg5 36 hxg5 ‡g7 37 †f2 …d4 38 9pzp-sNP+-+0 …c1!? …h8 39 †f1!? …hh4! 9+-+-vL-tRP0 “After the game Mr Álvarez wrote 9PzPP+Q+-+0 to me that somewhere here, he made a decisive mistake, but I guess he played 9+K+-+-tR-0 excellently. For example, 39...…hh4! xiiiiiiiiy prevents any deadly concentration of White’s heavy pieces around his ‡. 24...†e8! So finally we had to enter a double … Black has found a good scheme ending, which I managed to win.” to hold the kingside; on e8 the † Presumably, if 39...…d8 (ceding supports the next move ...g6. Rause the h-file) then 40 …h3! and the believes she went wrong with her next pressure can start to build, e.g. 40... move. …d6 (not 40...…d1?? 41 †f6+) 41 Note that it is far too dangerous to …h1 (£†h3) and if 41...†e6 42 accept the È sacrifice: 24...exd4?? †g2 (£†h2) 42...…d2 43 †b7+ 25 ƒxd4 (£ƒxf6, †h5 and mates) and †xb4. 25...g6 26 fxg6 fxg6 27 …xg6 and 40 …f6 †c4 41 †e1 …de4 42 †f2 soon mates as the È is pinned. …d4 43 b3 †d5 44 …a6 †f7 45 25 †g2?! †xf7+ ‡xf7 46 bxa4 …hg4 With a direct threat to g7, also Olita Rause told me that she did vacating e2 for the È, but Black is not know if there were any drawing ready for this. Instead, White could chances for Black in the game after consider 25 ƒg5 and 25 h4. this, but she could not find a win if 25...g6! Black continued by 46...e4!?. On the Not 25...Èh5 26 †f3, e.g. 26... other hand, if that move had been Èxg3 27 …xg3 g6 28 f6 ƒd8 29 played, no doubt she would have …g5 and 30 …h5+ wins. analysed deeper and maybe found 26 Èe2 …c8 27 fxg6 fxg6 28 ƒg5 something. Game 61: Rause-Álvarez 287

Probably Black didn’t want to allow as a decoy to get his ‡ across to the 46...e4 47 …f1+ ‡g7 48 …ff6, but he queenside. can play instead 47...‡e7! 48 …xg6 58 …xg6 ‡c7 59 ‡b4 …e5 (D) e3 followed by ...e2 and ...…he4. For XIIIIIIIIY example, 49 …e1 …he4 50 a5 e2 51 9-+-+-+-+0 ‡c1 (only move) 51...…d5 52 a6 …a5 53 ‡b2 ‡d7 when swapping a6 and W9+-mk-+-+-0 g5 for b4 and e2 (with a … exchange 9-+-+-+R+0 on e2) should be a drawn … + a&c- 9+-+-tr-+-0 pawns v … endgame. 9PmK-+-+-+0 47 …h1! 9+-+-+-+-0 One of the golden rules of … 9P+P+-+-+0 endings is to avoid a purely defensive role for the pieces. Now the g-pawn 9+-+-+-+-0 falls and c2 is potentially vulnerable, xiiiiiiiiy but more importantly the white pieces cooperate to drive the black ‡ to a In the classic ending with only dangerous position on the edge. two pawns, it is known that the 47...…xg5 48 …h7+ ‡g8 49 …b7 stronger side often cannot win (unless …d8 50 …e6 e4 the pawns are far advanced or the White threatened to march the a- defending ‡ and … badly placed). pawn so Black must make a sacrifice Here, however, the third pawn gives in order to enable the g5-… to stop additional winning chances. a4-a5. 60 c4 …e2 61 a3 …b2+ 62 ‡c3 …a2 51 …xe4 …c8 52 …bxb4 63 ‡b3 …a1 64 a5 …b1+ 65 ‡a4 White has three pawns against …c1 66 ‡b5 …b1+ one, but the fact that the pawns White would like to use the extra are split on the a- and c-files (the a-pawn to shield the ‡ from vertical hardest files to gain a win in … checks, but Black insists that she endings) means that there is still a plays the ‡ to the c-file. lot of technical work to do. 67 ‡c5 …h1 52...‡f7 53 ‡b2 …c6 Álvarez follows the general advice Black needs to get his ‡ in front of of Botvinnik that the defending … the pawns to have drawing chances, should be stationed in the corner and would like to get counterplay opposite the advancing pawns. with ...…g2. White forces off a pair A variation illustrating how the of …s before attempting to advance backward a-pawn can be of use is the pawns. 67...…a1 68 …g7+ ‡b8 69 ‡b6 54 …ec4 …xc4 55 …xc4 ‡e6 56 (threatening mate) 69...…b1+ 70 ‡c6 ‡b3 …a5 57 …c6+ ‡d7 …a1 71 …b7+ ‡a8 72 …b3 and the Black must sacrifice his last pawn black … cannot defend on the a-file. 288 64 Great Chess Games

68 a6 the … on its ideal square because of White’s objective is to drive the ‡ the second a-pawn: 80...…h1 81 c7 from its optimum defensive position …h8+ 82 ‡d7 ‡b7 83 a6+. to the a-file. The position becomes 73 ‡b6 …b1+ 74 ‡c5 (D) critical once a pawn reaches the 6th XIIIIIIIIY rank. 9k+-+-+-+0 68...‡b8 The manoeuvre to a7 cannot be B9+-+-+-tR-0 delayed by 68...…a1 because of 69 9P+-+-+-+0 …g8! (cutting off the ‡) 69...…xa3 70 9+-mK-+-+-0 ‡b5 and then: 9P+P+-+-+0 a) 70...…b3+ 71 ‡a4 …c3 72 a7 9+-+-+-+-0 …xc4+ 73 ‡b5 and wins. 9-+-+-+-+0 b) 70...…a1 71 a7! …xa7 72 …h7+ followed by …xa7 and ‡c6 with a 9+r+-+-+-0 winning ‡ and pawn ending. xiiiiiiiiy 69 a4 ‡a7 70 ‡b5 …b1+ 71 ‡a5 This is an option not normally Now the black ‡ is on a8, it is OK available to White when there are to block the c-pawn. If 74...‡b8 then only two pawns. Normally the only 75 …b7+! and if 74...…h1 75 ‡c6 plan is to sacrifice the a-pawn to get …h4 (75...…h6+ 76 ‡b5 …h5+ 77 ‡c8, ‚c7 with the black … misplaced c5) 76 c5! …xa4 77 ‡c7 …xa6 78 (it stands best on h1), but the second …g8+ ‡a7 79 c6 with a book win. a-pawn greatly increases the winning Also sufficient, but slower, is 77 ‡b5 chances. Compared with the situation (The black … has lost its checking at move 67, the a-pawns are one rank distance.) 77...…a1 78 c6 with a further down the board and mating position that is known to be won even threats come into play. if the defending ‡ is on b8. 71...…c1 72 …g7+ ‡a8 74...…a1 75 a5 1–0 If 72...‡b8 White does not play White makes use of her extra pawn. 73 a7+?, allowing stalemate tricks It cannot be taken because of ‡c5-b6, (73...‡a8 74 ‡a6 …g1!), but makes while otherwise the ‡ will crawl progress with 73 ‡b6 …b1+ 74 down the board with the c-pawn, ‡c6 …a1 75 a5!, e.g. 75...‡a8 winning as in the note to Black’s 72nd (75...…xa5?? 76 ‡b6 and mates) 76 move. So finally Black resigned, after c5 …c1 77 ‡b6 …b1+ 78 ‡c7 with a about 26 months play, which is a very standard win after 78...‡a7 79 ‡c8+! long duration for a game played by ‡xa6 80 c6 …c1 81 c7. In this line email at the time limit of 10 moves Black cannot save himself even with in 40 days. Game 62 White: Dr Harald Tarnowiecki (Austria) Black: Joop J. van Oosterom (Netherlands) NBC Millennium Email Tournament, 2000 King’s Indian Defence (E90)

The Players: Van Oosterom was intro- advance his a-pawn before developing duced in Game 1. Dr Tarnowiecki got his È on a6, because he intends to the CC-IM title in 1991 and became a bring the other È to c5. GM in 1998. His best performance so 6...e5 7 d5 Èa6 8 ƒg5 †e8 far is his second prize (behind Elwert) 8...h6 is the other way to unpin in the very strong double-round Mil- but van Oosterom does not want to lennium Email Tournament organised expose his pawn on h6. He hopes the by the Dutch CC federation, NBC. He g5-ƒ will turn out to be misplaced. finished ahead of Andersson, Bang, 9 g4 Èd7 van Oosterom and Timmerman. Despite White’s g2-g4, Black About this game: This was the de- prepares his ...f7-f5 break, as otherwise cisive game for second prize and it he would have a passive position. The was van Oosterom’s only loss in the alternative method, 9...‡h8 followed tournament. I have annotated this by ...Èg8, and ...f5, might encourage game largely in terms of general ideas White to charge down with h4-h5. with a minimum of tactical variations. Reverting to ...Èc5 and ...a5 is now White plays a new idea in a rare varia- inferior, since 9...Èc5 10 Èd2 a5 11 tion of the King’s Indian and quenches †f3! is good for White. his opponent’s play on both wings. By 10 ƒe2!? (D) a little combination, he establishes a XIIIIIIIIY middlegame bind that leads logically 9r+l+qtrk+0 to an endgame win. 1 c4 Èf6 2 d4 g6 3 Èc3 ƒg7 4 e4 d6 B9zppzpn+pvlp0 5 Èf3 0–0 6 h3!? 9n+-zp-+p+0 White’s plan resembles the 9+-+Pzp-vL-0 Petrosian System (6 ƒe2 e5 7 d5) in 9-+P+P+P+0 which 7...a5 8 h3 Èa6 9 ƒg5 †e8 9+-sN-+N+P0 10 g4 Èd7 is superficially similar to 9PzP-+LzP-+0 the position reached after 10 moves in this game. However, there is a big 9tR-+QmK-+R0 difference: van Oosterom does not xiiiiiiiiy 290 64 Great Chess Games

In his 1996 book ‘Beating the Anti- castle into a compromised kingside. King’s Indians’, GM Joe Gallagher I think Tarnowiecki must have examines this variation in his second intended to meet 11...f5 by 12 b4! chapter. The moves considered in this when 12...fxe4! might be met by 13 position are 10 †d2, 10 …g1 and 10 Èd2 Èd3+ 14 ƒxd3 exd3 15 Ède4 Èd2. Most often White inserts 10 followed by 16 †xd3. Or if 12...Èxe4 …g1 ‡h8 and then decides what to 13 Èxe4! fxe4 (13...h6 14 ƒe3 fxe4 15 do. But there’s no harm in holding Èd2 or 14 Èf6+!?.) 14 Èd2! and now, back …g1, and it’s a clever choice since 14...h6 15 ƒe3 †e7 16 Èxe4 is by Tarnowiecki. Already we have not too promising, Black might consider an almost unknown position where 14...Èb8, or the exchange sacrifice Black has yet to find a good plan; in 14...…f4!? 15 ƒxf4 exf4, although I am particular, he must be careful he does sceptical of its soundness in a CC game. not find himself in an inferior line White probably does best to answer 15 should White throw in …g1 after all. †b3 deferring the capture of the …. 10...Èdc5 11 …b1 12 b4 Èa4 13 Èb5 White prepares b2-b4 and waits White does not want to exchange a for the thematic ...f5 advance. Then good È for a poor one. Tarnowiecki hopes to gain control of the 13...Èb6 square e4 for his pieces while Black will 13...ƒxb5 ruins Black’s position after not have the use of the corresponding f5- 14 cxb5 Èc3 15 †d3 Èxe2 16 bxa6. square because of the pawn on g4. 14 a4 Èc8 The usual method is a2-a3. By Black is still reluctant to play ...f5 but playing …b1, White moves the … off the his attempts to improve his queenside long diagonal (so that later tricks with jumble of pieces are laborious. The ...e5-e4 are eliminated), accelerates his È defends the a7-pawn so that the … queenside play (he can now play a2-a4 in may move to b8, after which ...c6 and one go), and the … might even be further eventually ...b5 might become possible. activated via b3. The drawbacks are that 15 Èc3 …b8 16 ƒe3 (D) White cannot castle on the queenside, XIIIIIIIIY and if (when) Black plays ...f7-f5, the 9-trn+qtrk+0 usual plan of taking twice on f5 is ruled out as ...ƒxf5 would attack the …. B9zppzpl+pvlp0 11...ƒd7 9n+-zp-+p+0 Black decides to play around the 9+-+Pzp-+-0 blocked centre rather than concede e4. 9PzPP+P+P+0 However, in view of the difficulties he 9+-sN-vLN+P0 experiences, perhaps he should play 9-+-+LzP-+0 the obvious 11...f5 after all, especially as White has now committed his ‡ 9+R+QmK-+R0 either to remain in the centre or to xiiiiiiiiy Game 62: Tarnowiecki-van Oosterom 291

This move eyes a7 and clears the 22...g5?! way for a kingside pawn advance. This could be the losing move. Not 16...c5!? 22...gxh5? 23 Èh4 but Black might On 16...c6, White chooses between have done better with 22...Èe7, 17 †d2 and 17 c5 cxd5 18 †xd5. avoiding what happens now. 17 b5 23 Èxg5! White prefers a blocked centre for White exchanges two pieces for … and his ‡ while he plays on the wings. pawn in order to establish a bridgehead 17...Èb4 and put Black on the defensive. The È ends up being badly placed 23...hxg5 here, but Black is cramped and does not If the black … moves away White see much future in a retreat either. follows with 24 h6 and 25 ƒh5ˆ. 18 g5 24 ƒxg5 ‡h8 25 ƒxf6 ƒxf6 26 In order to exchange his poorest ƒg4! piece — the light-squared ƒ impeded At last White exchanges his ‘bad’ ƒ. by its own pawns — White clears g4. 26...ƒxg4 27 †xg4 †f8 28 ‡e2 When Black plays ...f5, White will White links his …s in order to now be able to capture en passant and transfer the full weight of his forces to keep the central structure rigid. the kingside. 18...f5 28...Èe7 If Black still refuses to advance this 28...Èb6!? looks like a good spoiling pawn, White can build up with h3-h4, move since White can no longer defend Èh2 and ƒg4, after which the È has the c-pawn by †e2, but White might the useful square g4, and h4-h5 can have sacrificed it, e.g. 29 †h3 Èxc4 (or follow after preparation. 29...ƒe7 30 h6 Èxc4 31 …g7) 30 …g6 Black cannot easily manoeuvre and 31 …bg1 looks very strong. one of his Ès into contact with f6 to 29 h6 †f7 30 h7 challenge this plan. A clever move, preventing Black 19 gxf6 …xf6 20 h4 h6 21 …g1 a6 22 from challenging on the g-file with h5 (D) his …. Obviously the pawn cannot be XIIIIIIIIY taken as this would expose the black 9-trn+q+k+0 ‡ to White’s heavy pieces. 30...…f8 31 …bf1 †g7 32 f4 †xg4+ B9+p+l+-vl-0 33 …xg4 ƒg7 9p+-zp-trpzp0 33...exf4? 34 …gxf4 ‡g7 35 …xf6. 9+PzpPzp-+P0 34 …fg1 …f7 35 f5 ƒf8 9PsnP+P+-+0 If 35...‡xh7? 36 f6! wins a piece 9+-sN-vLN+-0 or mates (36...ƒxf6? 37 …h1+). 9-+-+LzP-+0 36 Èd1 Èc2 For the time being, the advanced 9+R+QmK-tR-0 pawn is still taboo. If 36...‡xh7? 37 xiiiiiiiiy 292 64 Great Chess Games

…h4+ ƒh6 38 Èe3 threatening Èg4 the minor pieces in the middlegame, and …gh1 to win the pinned ƒ. Even but is often good for the … in an worse is 36...…xh7? 37 f6 with mate endgame where it can attack enemy on g8 if the È moves. pawns. Qualitative factors are always 37 ‡d3 Èb4+ 38 ‡c3 axb5 39 axb5 important: the scope of Black’s pieces Strategically, Black is lost. White is restricted by the pawn structure and can use his passed pawns and piece White can set up a queenside threat activity to force kingside concessions which, in conjunction with his passed and then invade on the queenside. f-pawn, overstretches the defences. 39...Èc8 40 Èf2! Èb6 44...Èd7 45 …a1 ‡g8 46 …a7 ‡f7 This concedes control of a7, where 47 …xb7 ‡e8 48 …a7 the white … will later penetrate, but 48 b6 Èa6 49 …a7 Èab8 would what can Black do instead? If 40...ƒg7 give Black some hope of setting up a 41 Èh3 and 42 Èg5, or 40...Èe7 41 blockade on both wings. Èh3 ƒh6 42 Èg5 …f6 43 Èe6 b6 44 48...‡d8 49 f6! …g8+ ‡xh7 45 …b8ˆ. By this pawn sacrifice White forces 41 …g8+! transposition into a ‡ and pawn White decides to clarify the h-pawn ending, in which his protected, passed situation. He will simplify and win and extra b-pawn ensures no more Black’s b-pawn by means of …a1-a7. defence is possible. 41...‡xh7 42 …8g3! 49...ƒxf6 The threat of 43 …h3+ ƒh6 44 If 49...Èxf6 50 …xg7, so Black …gh1 …f6 45 Èg4 forces Black to has no choice. exchange …s. 50 …xd7+ ‡xd7 51 Èxf6+ ‡e7 52 42...…g7 43 …xg7+ ƒxg7 44 Èg4 Èg4 (D) Heading to d3 for the final piece XIIIIIIIIY exchange, which Black cannot avoid 9-+-+-+-+0 as his È is corralled by White’s b5- pawn and ‡. B9+p+-+-vlk0 52...‡d7 53 Èf2 Èa2+ 54 ‡d2 9-sn-zp-+-+0 Èb4 55 Èd3 Èxd3 56 ‡xd3 9+PzpPzpP+-0 White only needs to force 9-snP+P+N+0 penetration with his ‡ to win. 9+-mK-+-+-0 56...‡c7 57 ‡e2 ‡d7 58 ‡f3 ‡e7 9-+-+-+-+0 59 ‡g4 ‡e8 Black’s ‡ must not leave the square 9+-+-+-tR-0 of the protected passed pawn. So it xiiiiiiiiy cannot roam on to the f-file to keep the white ‡ out (59...‡f6 60 b6). White has …+pawn vs ƒ+È, a 60 ‡f5 1–0 material balance which tends to favour At last Black resigned. Game 63 White: Yin Hao (People’s Republic of China) Black: Players of the World Internet match at www.gamers.com, 2001 Symmetrical English Opening (A36)

The Players: Yin Hao (born January averaged at 20 players per move. 28, 1979) is an IM who was rated A previous game had ended in a 2576 by FIDE at the time of the fairly short draw, so when this game game. His country has many strong also looked as if dull equality might OTB masters but no tradition of CC, arise, Yin Hao took the brave decision although a few players recently began to complicate the game. With a fast entering ICCF email events. He was time-limit and the normal majority assisted by American CC player voting, this might have succeeded but Richard P. Fleming, so I refer to them the rate of play was slower than the sometimes as “YH+”. Kasparov match, with a basic three About this game: The match, which days per move. The game spun out of those involved describe as “a serious White’s control and the World team game among friends”, was coordinated found a strong attacking line, which by Tom Hendricks, who has helped YH+ were unable to withstand. me a lot in compiling a digest of 1 c4 c5 2 g3 g6 3 ƒg2 ƒg7 4 e3 Èc6 the players’ analysis from the game. 5 Èc3 e6 Further games are sometimes in play It is very hard for White to play for at the gamers.com site; a win in this 5 e3 line. YH+ expected the URL may still work. choosing the move was A.Anastasian- Unlike Game 56, this one involved B.Alterman, Rostov 1993, which then a relatively small team of 33 continued 6 Ège2 Ège7 7 0–0 0–0 8 players who kept in constant touch, d3 d6 9 a3 a5 10 …b1 ƒe6 (10...…b8 exchanging ideas and analysis on a is more accurate, to answer Èc3-d5 bulletin board. This set-up makes with ...b7-b5.) 11 Èd5 …b8 12 Èec3 it very hard for the master to win b6 13 ƒd2 †d7 14 †a4 …fd8 15 b4 because the players consult about axb4 16 axb4 ƒf5 17 bxc5 dxc5 18 the analysis and decision-making ƒe4 Èb4 19 †xd7 …xd7 20 Èxb4 instead of being isolated. Participation cxb4 21 Èd5 Èxd5 22 cxd5 ƒxe4 294 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY 23 dxe4 …c7 24 ƒxb4 and White won the endgame. 9r+lwq-trk+0 6 Ège2 Ège7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Èxd4 W9zpp+-+pvlp0 0–0 9-+n+-+p+0 Books tend to give 8...d5 but 9+-+-+-+-0 there seems nothing wrong with the 9-+-zp-+-+0 text move, which several GMs have 9+-+-zP-zP-0 played. Now White could return to standard positions with 9 0–0. 9PzP-+NzPLzP0 9 Ède2!? d5! 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 Instead of the known 9...a6, but xiiiiiiiiy the World offered a pawn! They Black must not become tied considered they had a tempo which to defending an isolated d-pawn. they should use immediately, and were White was probably hoping to make already looking ahead at the games something of the ƒ pair after 12... mentioned in the note to move 14. ƒg4 13 h3 ƒxe2 14 †xe2 although 10 cxd5 Èxd5 11 Èxd5 exd5 12 here too Black probably stands well 0–0 with 14...d4 15 …d1 (or 15 †b5). White cannot win the d-pawn: 13 ƒxc6?! a) 12 †xd5 †xd5 13 ƒxd5 Èb4 Theory in this line goes 13 Èxd4 when after 14 ƒb3 Èd3+ 15 ‡f1 Èxd4 14 exd4 †xd4 15 †xd4 ƒxd4 ƒh3+ 16 ‡g1 White is struggling 16 …d1 ƒg7 17 ƒe3 and now: for survival and Black has several a) Botvinnik-Stein, Moscow (USSR dangerous moves, e.g. 16...Èe1!?, Cht) 1966, went 17...ƒxb2 18 …ab1 £...Èf3# or ...ƒg2. Also 14 ƒc3 19 ƒxb7 ƒxb7 20 …xb7 a5 21 ƒe4 …e8 gives Black a very strong …d3 …ac8 22 ƒh6 ƒg7 23 ƒxg7 initiative for the pawn, because on 15 ‡xg7 24 …b5 …c7 25 …xa5 …b8 26 a3 …xe4 16 axb4 …xb4 Black regains ‡g2 …b2 27 …f3 h5 28 …f4 …d7 29 the pawn with the ƒ pair and better h3 …c2 30 g4 hxg4 31 hxg4 …dd2 32 structure, while after 15 ƒb1 Black ‡g3 …c3+ 33 ‡g2 …c1 34 a4 …c8 can choose between two promising 35 ‡g3 …c1 36 …a6 ½–½. moves, 15...ƒg4 and 15...ƒh3!?. The Team was aware of that game, b) 12 ƒxd5 Èb4 exposes the but they considered Black had a white ‡ to even more danger, e.g. 13 ‘cleaner draw’ by following: ƒg2 (If 13 e4 ƒh3 and White cannot b) 17...ƒg4 18 …d2 …ad8 19 castle.) 13...†xd1+ 14 ‡xd1 …d8+ …xd8 …xd8 20 ƒxb7 ƒxb2 21 …b1 15 Èd4 (15 ƒd2 Èd3) 15...ƒg4+! ƒd4 ½–½ R.Weyerstrass-J.Wright, and White is in big trouble, e.g. 16 f3 CCOL11 Final 1992. (In these games (16 ‡d2 …ac8) 16...ƒxd4 17 ‡e2 White only retreated his È to e2 at ƒf5 18 exd4+ …e8+. move 12.) 12...d4!? (D) YH+ recognized that playing 13 Game 63: Yin Hao-The World 295

ƒxc6 involved some risk of losing, YH+ began to feel some pressure but after all this was an exhibition here. They were worried about the game: “Our choice was a rather variation 15 ƒd2 ƒh3 16 …e1 ƒg4 ‘uneventful’ draw in the symmetrical 17 ƒc3 †e7 18 …c1 †e4 19 †d2 English or an exciting, analysis-filled †f3 but thought the move played was game with ƒxc6 ... We wished to satisfactory. keep the game in a positional struggle 15...ƒg4 16 †d2 and move toward an endgame where 16 …e1 was rejected because of we could have a slight edge.” 16...†f6 17 …c1 ƒf3å. 13...bxc6 14 exd4 (D) 16...ƒf3! This leaves White with an isolated The Team used its first time d-pawn, but it closes the long extension here. 16...c5 had some diagonal, restrains ...c5 and prepares support but they decided that this was to develop the queenside. If 14 Èxd4 a draw trap after 17 d5!. the Team liked 14...†b6 — not the To quote one of them: “The most most obvious reply, because 14... difficult point was when we decided c5 and 14...ƒh3 also came into early on to prevent f3 with ...ƒf3. His consideration. ƒ was far weaker on e3 than b2 and it XIIIIIIIIY allowed us to take over the e-file and 9r+lwq-trk+0 lever against that ƒ”. 17 Èf4 †d7 18 Èg2 …e7 B9zp-+-+pvlp0 Black plans to double …s with 9-+p+-+p+0 great pressure on the e-file. A critical 9+-+-+-+-0 moment has arisen. 9-+-zP-+-+0 19 a4?! 9+-+-+-zP-0 The plan begun with this move 9PzP-+NzP-zP0 may be to blame for White’s defeat, because the …a3 follow-up 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 compromises White’s back rank. xiiiiiiiiy YH+ was expecting Black to adopt an attacking strategy involving ...h6 and Now, in exchange for the sacrificed ...g5, against which this would have pawn, Black has the ƒ pair and a lot been effective. of open lines for his pieces: the b-file, Instead 19 ƒh6?! returns the pawn the e-file and a choice of diagonals for without equalizing after 19...†xd4, the c8-ƒ. Finding the most effective while White is certainly uncomfortable plan is quite a challenge, however, after 19 ƒg5 …e2. because it is a little too early to speak 19 †c3 is probably best and the of forcing variations leading to clear Team planned to meet it by 19... gains. …ae8. 14...…e8! 15 ƒe3 19...…ae8 20 …a3 h5! (D) 296 64 Great Chess Games XIIIIIIIIY ways to counter this and putting the … 9-+-+r+k+0 on the long diagonal means that it can 9zp-+qtrpvl-0 be vulnerable to Black’s dark-squared W9-+p+-+p+0 ƒ. Then 21...†h3 threatens mate and 9+-+-+-+p0 play could go: 9P+-zP-+-+0 c1) 22 Èe1 ƒd5 (£23...h4 foll- 9tR-+-vLlzP-0 owed by 24...hxg3 25 hxg3 ƒh6!), e.g. 23 f3 h4 24 †f2 hxg3 25 hxg3 9-zP-wQ-zPNzP0 and now 25...c5! explodes the white 9+-+-+RmK-0 centre: 26 Èc2 cxd4 27 Èxd4 (27 xiiiiiiiiy ƒxd4 …e2) 27...…xe3 (or 27...ƒxd4 The Team used their second time 28 ƒxd4 …e2) 28 …xe3 …xe3 29 extension to find this move, proposed †xe3 †xg3+ 30 ‡h1 †h4+ and by former Canadian CC champion wins the È. Kurt Widmann. Most attention had c2) 22 Èf4 †g4 (22...†c8!?) 23 focused on 20...f6 but ultimately they h3! (23 h4 g5 24 hxg5 h4 fractures the considered it to be another draw trap white ‡ position.) 23...†d7 and the after 21 †c3!, and they also found position is complicated although Black 20...h6 to be a dead draw. obviously has a lot of compensation. 21 b4 21...ƒxg2! Since the position of White’s pieces This was a unanimous choice by the cannot be improved, this is probably Team; as one of them put it: “his È best, trying to create some counterplay was peskier than our ƒ was strong”. and awaiting developments. Yin Hao admitted he underestimated a) The Team half-expected 21 it. Only after Black’s next move did he Èh4 which attempts to drive Black realise what had happened. “However, back; they would have answered 21... it was too late to save the game.” ƒd5 with the threat of ...†h3, then 22 ‡xg2 h4 23 d5? (D) ...g5, and ...h4. If White pushes his I would assess this as the choice queenside pawns, Black just presses that turns a difficult position into a on with the attack, while if 22 f3 clearly lost one but it was hard to †b7! preparing the ...c6-c5 pawn find a move here. For example, Yin lever at the right moment. Hao pointed out that if 23 †d1 h3+ b) 21 d5 also seems inadequate, 24 ‡f3 …e4‰ or 23 …g1 †d5+ 24 with 21...ƒxd5 22 Èf4 ƒc4 prob- ‡f1 h3 and “the … on g1 is really ably being the optimal reply. stupid”. c) 21 …c3, with minimal disad- Possible improvements are: vantage, is favoured by Fritz7, which a) 23 …d3 (Fritz7), but YH+ could had not been released at the time of the not find a way to hold after 23...h3+ game. There is a threat of ƒg5 attacking 24 ‡h1 †d5+ 25 f3 ‡h7!, which the f3-ƒ and e7-… but Black has many threatens 26...…xe3 27 …xe3 ƒh6. Game 63: Yin Hao-The World 297

b) 23 f3! looks like the best 23...h3+ defence but YH+ say it is not enough 23...cxd5 would be an attempt to to hold the position as it leaves the ƒ win on technique but Black believed unsupported. Black continues 23...h3+ in their attack. A Team member wrote 24 ‡f2 (If 24 ‡h1 †d5 “White is here: “The pawn on h3, combined tied up completely”) 24...†d5! which with the fact that our dark-squared ƒ maintains the tension and attempts to is so much more mobile than White’s, extract further concessions. leaves White with a bucketful of White’s problem is that the attempt problems with all the heavy pieces to hold all the weaknesses (e.g. the still on the board.” d4-pawn and the ƒ on e3) almost 24 ‡g1 cxd5 25 ƒc5 creates a zugzwang. For example: Black has regained the gambit b1) 25 …d1 g5 26 g4 a5 27 …d3 pawns and all his pieces are better †d6 28 ‡f1 axb4 29 ƒxg5 …e2‰. placed than their opposite numbers. Instead White could try 26 …d3 g4 27 25...…e2 26 †d3 ƒf4 (and if 27...gxf3 28 …e3) but it is 26 †f4 (Fritz7) transposes to game not too hopeful in the long run. after 26...d4 27 †f3. b2) 25 …e1 ƒxd4 (25...g5! is also 26...d4 27 †f3 …e1 28 …d3 strong.) 26 …d3 c5 27 ƒxd4 when If 28 g4 (trying to eat the h-pawn) YH+ gave the variation 27...…xe1 then 28...…xf1+ 29 ‡xf1 a5 30 g5 28 ƒe3 †xd3 29 †xd3 …8xe3 30 (If 30 bxa5? †c8 or 30 †xh3? axb4 †xe3 …xe3 31 ‡xe3 cxb4 32 a5 “=”. 31 ƒxb4 †b7) 30...axb4 31 ƒxb4 Actually Black can reach a winning †c7‰. † ending after 32...‡g7 33 ‡d4 ‡f6 28...†e6 0–1 34 ‡c4 ‡e5 35 ‡xb4 ‡d4 36 ‡b5 YH+ decided to resign in view of ‡e3 37 ‡a6 by leaving the f3-pawn 29 …d1 …xd1 30 †xd1 (30 …xd1? to block the long diagonal: 37...‡f2! †e1+ mates) 30...†d5 31 f3 d3 38 ‡xa7 ‡g2 39 a6 ‡xh2 40 ‡b6 and White is helpless, e.g. 32 ƒxa7 ‡xg3! 41 a7 h2 42 a8† h1†‰. ƒd4+ 33 ƒxd4 †xd4+ 34 ‡h1 (34 XIIIIIIIIY …f2 …e2 35 †f1 †e3) 34...†b2 9-+-+r+k+0 35 …g1 …e2 mates, or 32 ƒf2 ƒd4 (£...…e2) 33 ‡h1 d2 34 ƒg1 …e1 B9zp-+qtrpvl-0 wins. They summed up: “The World 9-+p+-+p+0 Team did a tremendous job of finding 9+-+P+-+-0 the best move in each situation.” 9PzP-+-+-zp0 The Team admit that YH+ set them 9tR-+-vL-zP-0 a lot of tricky problems and that the 9-+-wQ-zPKzP0 computers showed no clear path to victory: “had we followed them, it 9+-+-+R+-0 would be ½-½”. xiiiiiiiiy Game 64 White: Tim Harding (Ireland) Black: Alan Borwell (Scotland) ICCF Officials IM-A, 2001-2002 Catalan Opening (E04)

The Players: Tim Harding is the found in recent years. The sharp reply author of this book: ICCF IM (1997) 7 ƒe3!? is possible but 7 Èa3 seems and now Senior International Master to be played more often. (2002). He played on the Irish team at 7 Èc3 the 1984 FIDE Olympiad. Neishtadt, in ‘Katalonskoye Nach- Alan Borwell has been President alo’ (1969), observed that Black is of ICCF since 1997, doing a great job obliged to defend his extra pawn in a guiding the transition of the world’s way that strengthens White’s centre. most important CC organisation from 7...Èd5 8 ƒd2 b5 9 a4! the postal into the Internet era. An ac- 9 0–0 is possible but I preferred to tive player (CC-IM since 1993), Alan strike against Black’s pawn structure. was board 6 and captain of the Scot- 9...ƒxc3 tish team which won the bronze med- Neishtadt and ‘ECO’ warn against als in the 11th CC Olympiad Final. 9...ƒb7 because of 10 Èxd5 ƒxd2+ About this game: I found an open- 11 †xd2 ƒxd5 12 e4 ƒb7 13 ing novelty involving a surprising axb5 axb5 14 …xa8 ƒxa8 15 †a5, positional piece sacrifice which belies attacking both the a8-ƒ and the b5- the commonly-held view that CC has pawn. However, this is not clear after been killed off by computers. 15...0-0 (15...f6!?) 16 †xa8 †xd4 1 d4 Èf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 ƒg2 dxc4 when White’s best is 17 Èg4!Ÿ. 5 Èf3 a6 6 Èe5!? 10 bxc3 f6? I thought White was not scoring as I expected 10...ƒb7 11 e4 when: well lately with 6 0-0 (see Game 46). a) Neishtadt-Prokopp, ICCF M/54 6...ƒb4+ corr 1959, went 11...Èb6? 12 †g4 6...…a7 7 0–0 b6 (7...b5? 8 a4 or ‡f8 13 f4 È8d7 14 0–0 c5 15 f5 7...c5 8 ƒe3) 8 Èc3 ƒb7 9 †a4+ Èxe5 16 dxe5 exf5 17 †xf5 1–0. Èfd7 10 ƒxb7 …xb7 11 Èc6! was b) Neishtadt & ‘ECO’ like White good for White in Ya.Neishtadt- after 11...Èf6 12 †b1. Black even- G.Scheffer, 2nd EU CC Ch 1964. tually won in V.B.Quist-D.Bryson, b) 6...c5!? was thought bad but CCOL9 1977, after 12...0–0 13 Èxc4 improvements for Black have been (13 0–0!?) 13...c5 14 0–0 (Better 14 Game 64: Harding-Borwell 299 dxc5) 14...cxd4 15 ƒf4 dxc3 16 Èd6 Tukmakov played 12 Èg4 and ƒc6 but Alan did not want to see after 12...ƒb7 13 †b1 c6 14 Èe3 what improvement I had in mind; his †c8 15 0-0 0-0 he had no real advan- actual choice was a disaster. tage. Retreating the È to f3 does not I suspect my opponent looked for seem to offer much either but there is an interesting sideline and his search a third move. It was not possible, even turned up Tukmakov-Lputian, Rostov in CC, to analyse all the possibilities 1993, with the novelty 10...f6 to in the position after the È sacrifice. chase away the È. In that GM game, At first I thought it was just a very Black drew fairly comfortably and interesting idea, which Black would ‘Informant 57’ did not suggest any find it hard to counter, but soon I was major improvement for White. convinced Black was lost. To me, 10...f6 smelled fishy. 12 †h5+! g6 13 Èxg6! Èxg6 14 f4! Neishtadt did not mention it although I have looked at my attack with he had personal experience of the several computer programs but most line; and why had neither Lputian nor do not seriously consider 12 †h5+. anyone else ever repeated the move? An exception is Junior 7.0 but it does This situation in professional chess not find the best continuation, wanting can mean that a refutation was pointed to play 14 axb5 here, after which Black out in the post-mortem but kept secret, escapes the worst consequences. in the hope of scoring an easy point in White has no pawns at all for the future. Maybe that wasn’t the case, but sacrificed È but he threatens to regain once you start on this line of thinking the piece by f4-f5 and fxg6. There (which is completely outside computer are threats on the queenside too and terms of reference) it is evident where the black ‡ is vulnerable. It is hard the refutation (if one exists) must lie. to appreciate just how bad Black’s 11 e4 Èe7 (D) position is until you try to defend it. 11...fxe5 maybe should have been 14...ƒb7! tried, despite 12 exd5. This was expected. However, there XIIIIIIIIY were other possibilities that had to be 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 examined before taking the plunge: a) 14...0–0 gets out of the pin, but W9+-zp-sn-zpp0 15 f5 Èe7 16 ƒh6 puts the black ‡ 9p+-+pzp-+0 in a lot of danger. The critical line is 9+p+-sN-+-0 16...exf5 (If 16...…f7 17 †g4+ ‡h8 9P+pzPP+-+0 18 fxe6 Èg6 19 axb5 …e7 20 d5.) 9+-zP-+-zP-0 17 exf5 c6 18 †g4+ Èg6 when after 9-+-vL-zPLzP0 White takes back the exchange on f8 Black is under a lot of pressure for a 9tR-+QmK-+R0 very small material advantage. xiiiiiiiiy b) 14...Èc6? 15 f5 is hopeless for 300 64 Great Chess Games

Black, e.g. 15...Èce7 16 fxg6 Èxg6 exf5 ƒxg2 19 ‡xg2. 17 axb5 e5 18 ƒh6 †e7 19 0–0 or b) 15...f5? loses material after 16 15...Èxd4 16 fxg6 Èc2+ 17 ‡d1 exf5 ƒxg2 17 fxg6 ƒxf1 18 g7+. Èxa1 18 g7+. c) 15...0–0 would be a natural c) 14...†e7 is an attempt to hold ‘human’ defence. I was confident the extra piece after 15 0–0 †f7 16 White’s attack would be sufficient f5 Èe7 but I intended to play for after 16 f5, e.g. 16...Èe7 17 ƒh6, all-out attack by 15 f5! exf5 16 0–0 16...Èe5 17 ƒh6, 17 exf5 ƒxg2 18 where Black must try to keep files fxg6 †e7 19 ƒh6!, or 16...†e8 17 closed to protect his ‡, † and g6-È. fxg6 †xg6 18 †h3. After 16...f4 (not 16...fxe4? 17 ƒxe4 d) 15...‡e7 unpins the È but nor 16...†f7? 17 exf5) 17 e5 c6 18 White has a strong attack with 16 exf6 †f7 19 …ae1+ White brings f5 against the ‡ in centre that has enormous firepower to bear against lost castling rights, e.g. 16...exf5 17 Black’s ‡ in the centre. exf5 ƒxg2 18 †e2+ followed by 19 15 0–0! (D) †xg2 regaining the piece. This is not only to safeguard the ‡. 16 f5!? A vital point is that White threatens Since Black cannot break the pin f4-f5 once his ƒ is guarded. on his È, the worst that can happen to XIIIIIIIIY White now is to be a pawn down with 9rsn-wqk+-tr0 obvious compensation; the potential upside is huge. 16 axb5 may be B9+lzp-+-+p0 technically superior, e.g. 16...c5!? 17 9p+-+pzpn+0 †xc5 and White will soon have three 9+p+-+-+Q0 pawns for the piece, plus a strong 9P+pzPPzP-+0 central pawn mass and an initiative, 9+-zP-+-zP-0 but I saw nothing conclusive. 9-+-vL-+LzP0 16...exf5 16...e5 is no good because of 17 9tR-+-+RmK-0 fxg6+ hxg6 18 †xe5. xiiiiiiiiy 17 exf5 ƒxg2 18 ‡xg2 c6? This is the only point where Black 15...‡f7 might have significantly improved on Other possibilities: his defence after my È sacrifice. a) 15...‡f8? does not save the È a) The obvious 18...†d5+ pins the because after 16 f5 it cannot move f-pawn so that Black can unpin his È without disaster, e.g. 16...Èe5 17 after 19 ‡g1, but actually the black ‡ dxe5 †xd2 18 fxe6, or 16...Èe7 has nowhere to go to do this! 17 ƒh6+ ‡g8 18 †g4+, while if b) 18...b4 seeks to undermine 16...exf5 17 ƒh6+ ‡f7 play con- the white centre while also closing tinues similarly to the game with 18 the a-file, but gives White another Game 64: Harding-Borwell 301 XIIIIIIIIY tempo for his attack: 19 …ae1 bxc3?! (19...b3 20 ‡g1) 20 ƒxc3 †d5+ 21 9rsn-wq-+-tr0 ‡g1 ‡g7 22 †g4 …f8 23 fxg6 hxg6 B9+-+-+k+p0 24 …e7+ …f7 25 …xf6!ˆ. 9p+-+-zpn+0 c) 18...Èd7! is best, but under- 9+p+-+P+Q0 standably Black did not want to return 9-+pzP-+-+0 all the material and be left with 9+-zP-+-zP-0 doubled isolated pawns. However, White has few winning chances if he 9-+-vL-+-zP0 liquidates, e.g. 19 axb5 axb5 20 fxg6+ 9tR-+-+RmK-0 hxg6 21 †xb5 Èb6! £...†d5, or xiiiiiiiiy similarly 19 ‡g1 Èb6 20 axb5 axb5 20...Èd7 21 …xa8 †xa8 22 fxg6+ hxg6 23 Black offered a draw! I wondered †xb5 †d5. whether he did not see he was lost, or Instead, I would probably have just hoped that I did not know I was played for the attack with 19 …f4!, winning. e.g. 19...c6 20 …e1! Èb6 21 …g4 20...…a7 is met by 21 …f4 or 21 †d5+ (21...†g8 22 …e6) 22 ‡g1 …ae1, while 20...Èc6 gets crushed by …ag8 23 …ge4 Èc8 24 …e6 £g4- 21 ƒg5! …a7 22 fxg6+ hxg6 23 †g4. g5. While if 19...Èb6 20 ‡g1! Èd5 21 …f4! †b6 (20...c6 21 …g4 †g8 22 …e1 £…e6. Black cannot cope with the full or 20...Èxa4? 21 …af1!ˆ) 21 …g4 range of White’s threats, e.g. 21... Ède7 22 …e1 £23 fxg6+ hxg6 24 Èb6 22 …g4 †g8 23 …f1! and Black …xe7+!. Although as yet I did not cannot hold (23...…a7? 24 fxg6+ hxg6 find anything really clear here, it is 25 …xf6+! mates). 21...Èdf8 22 fxg6+ certainly more fun to be White; if Èxg6 23 …af1 also looks grim. Black makes one slip he will be dead. 22 …e1! †d6 19 axb5 cxb5 He cannot allow White to follow up If 19...†d5+ 20 ‡g1 (renews the fxg6 with †d5+. If 22...†b7 23 …fe4 or threat of fxg6) 20...‡g8 21 …fe1 and 22...†d8 23 …g4 Ède5 24 …xe5! fxe5 it’s murder if his È tries to escape, 25 fxg6+ with a winning attack. while if 21...†f7 22 ƒh6 is strong, or 23 …fe4 Èdf8 21...Èd7 then 22 …xa6 should win. To counter the threat of …e6. 20 ‡g1! (D) 24 ƒf4 †d7 25 fxg6+ Èxg6 26 It may seem strange that White can …e7+ †xe7 27 …xe7+ ‡xe7 28 follow up his sacrifice so calmly but †c5+! 1-0 ‡g1 underlines Black’s helplessness. Black temporarily has …+…+È+ He is deprived of play based on ...†d5, pawn versus †+ƒ but whatever he which is no longer check, and White does, either È or a … will be lost, retains all his options like … doubling after which he will be mated or lose on the e-file or f-file or ƒh6. his pawns. 302 64 Great Chess Games Select Bibliography It would take far too much space CC game yet published, together with for me to list every CC publica- many excellent games, articles about tion and general chess source that I the various national CC bodies, etc. consulted when preparing this work. While there are still relatively Moreover, a fairly thorough CC few readable books about CC (as bibliography is available at and several CC correspondence masters and GMs have titles are mentioned in this book in the annotated their own games excellently. annotations. The following should be For this reason, they are not represented taken principally as suggestions for in this book; go to the originals! In further reading. order of unmissability, these are: MegaCorr2 CD-ROM edited by World Champion at the Third Tim Harding, Chess Mail 2001. The Attempt by Grigory Sanakoev, largest and most authoritative CC da- Gambit Publications 1999 (also tabase currently available, with much available in German and Russian supplementary material in PDF and editions). Simply the best book ever HTML. See also page 304. published on CC before the year 2002. Winning at Correspondence A new edition with extra games is on Chess by Tim Harding, Batsford the way, I believe. 1996. Although written when the The Chess Analyst by Jon email chess scene was just beginning, Edwards, Thinkers’ Press 1998. I think this is still the best overview Princeton academic Edwards tells how of CC with advice on technique and he won the 10th US CC Championship rules, plus games and pen-pictures of in erudite and entertaining fashion. the world champions. 52-54-Stop Fernschach, Tips Startling Correspondence Chess und Tricks vom Weltmeister by Miniatures by Tim Harding, Chess Fritz Baumbach, Sportverlag 1991 Mail 2000. A slim companion to the (in German). The 11th CC World present volume, this has over 100 Champion on his rise to the throne. games of 25 moves or fewer, and Journal of a Chess Master by tactical exercises, plus advice on Stephan Gerzadowicz, Thinkers’ avoiding errors and how to exploit Press 1992. A highly original book opponents’ mistakes. with a literary flavour. ICCF Jubilee Book edited by 34-mal Schach Logik by Pedro Hegoburu, ICCF 2002. Due A.O’Kelly, Walter de Gruyter out in October 2002, I expect this to 1963 (in German). The third CC be the most complete historical and world champion annotates his most organizational reference work on the interesting postal games. Indexes 303 Index of Openings

Opening name and page number in Petroff Defence 6/33 bold; Game number in normal type. Polish Defence 41/195 Bird’s Opening 33/164 Ponziani Opening 7/36 Budapest Defence 51/232 QP London System 9/44 Caro-Kann Defence 22/109, 53/241 QP Pereyra System 32/159 Catalan Opening 46/213, 64/298 Queen’s Gambit Accepted 10/48 Dutch Defence 5/30, 11/52, 48/221 Queen’s Gambit Declined 17/82 English Opening 2/13, 30/150, 52/ Queen’s Gambit Slav 12/56 237, 63/293 Reti (Barcza System) 18/86 French Defence 14/66, 21/105, 24/ Ruy Lopez (Spanish) 8/40, 13/60, 120, 28/144, 35/171, 50/228 16/74, 27/140, 29/147, 44/206, 45/ Göring Gambit 3/19 210, 60/278 Grünfeld Defence 47/218 Scandinavian Defence 38/183 King’s Gambit 23/114, 40/191 Sicilian Defence 26/135, 31/156, 34/ King’s Indian Defence 1/9, 20/98, 167, 42/198, 43/202, 54/246, 56/257, 62/289 58/270, 59/275, 61/284 Modern Defence 36/175, 57/265 Two Knights Defence 4/24, 25/124, Nimzo-Indian Defence 15/70, 19/90, 37/179, 55/251 49/225 39/188

Index by ECO codes

ECO code and page number in bold; C14 50/228, C16 24/120, C17 21/105, Game number in normal type. C27 39/188, C33 23/114, C36 40/191, A02 33/164, A11 18/86, A21 2/13, C42 6/33, C44 3/19, C44 7/36, C55 A25 30/150, A35 52/237, A36 63/293, 37/179, C56 55/251, C57 25/124, A46 41/195, A48 32/159, A52 51/232, C59 4/24, C64 45/210, C77 8/40, C82 A81 48/221, A85 5/30, A86 11/52. 29/147, C83 16/74, C84 27/140, C89 B01 38/183, B06 36/175 and 57/265, 44/206, C98 13/60, C99 60/278. B14 22/109, B19 53/241, B22 42/198, D02 9/44, D18 12/56, D20 10/48, D61 B29 34/167, B33 54/246, B44 31/156, 17/82, D72 47/218. B52 56/257, B81 43/202, B88 26/135, E04 46/213 and 64/298, E23 15/70, B89 58/270, B90 61/284, B96 59/275. E26 19/90, E42 49/225, E70 20/98, C01 35/171, C02 14/66, C07 28/144, E90 62/289, E99 1/9. 304 64 Great Chess Games Other publications from Chess Mail

Chess Mail magazine. 8 issues per and Chess Assistant formats, plus a year. ISSN 1393-385X. 64pp. in printable PDF booklet with in-depth A5 format. Email, postal and inter- variation surveys, and HTML web net : annotated games, introducing the main ideas and most opening theory, tournament reports, important illustrative games. ISBN 0- interviews, player profiles, historical 9538536-3-2. articles, book & software reviews, and ICCF results. Mega Corr3 (CD-ROM, scheduled for April 2003). 500,000 CC game da- Mega Corr2 (CD-ROM, 2001). tabase in ChessBase, PGN and Chess 352,000 CC game database in Chess- Assistant formats. Enhanced and Base, PGN and Chess Assistant for- updated classic CC tournaments and mats. Classic CC tournaments and information web pages in HTML for- information in HTML format. Player mat. Player photographs. Chess Mail photographs. Chess Mail magazines magazines from 2001-2002 in Adobe from 1996-2000 in Adobe PDF. ISBN PDF. ISBN 0-9538536-6-7. 0-9538536-1-6. The Correspondence Champion- Copper Wire. By Robert Harding. ships of the Soviet Union. By CC- Non-fiction book, published Novem- GM Sergey Grodzensky and Tim ber 2001. Not a chess book, these are Harding. Book/CD, in preparation, the World War II memoirs of an RAF scheduled September 2003. The his- pilot who survived a plane crash and tory of 21 great events: the drama, prisoner of war camps in three coun- the best games, the personalities. tries. ISBN 0-9538536-2-4. With photographs. The CD will have a database with all the games that The Total Marshall (CD-ROM, have been found, linked to the tourna- 2002). By CC-GM Janis Vitomskis, ment crosstables for easy reference. Tim Harding and Martin Bennedik. Grodzensky’s original Russian text Electronic book dealing with the will be in PDF on the CD also. ISBN opening theory and practice of the 0-9538536-5-9. Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, 1 e4 e5 2 Èf3 Èc6 3 ƒb5 a6 4 ƒa4 Visit our www.chessmail.com web- Èf6 5 0-0 b5 6 …e1 b5 7 ƒb3 0-0 8 site regularly for news, games, infor- c3 d5. Database in ChessBase, PGN mation and special offers.