GARRY KASPAROV ©» MODERN CHESS ie PART ONE 4 EVERYMAN CHESS |GARRY KASPAROV ON MODERN CHESS PART ONE REVOLUTIO “10s Gloucester Pubshers ple want everymanchess.co a EVERYMAN CHESSFirst published in 2007 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2007 Garry Kasparov English translation © 2007 Ken Neat First published 2007 by Gloucester Publishers ple The right of Garry Kasparov to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 4221 ISBN 13 978 185744 4223 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Translation by Ken Neat. ‘Typesetting and editing by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in America by Sheridan Books.N waryraunw 10 44 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 Foreword: Era of Great Changes ‘Hedgehog’ System (Game Nos.1-9) Chelyabinsk Variation (Game Nos.10-29) ‘Monologues by Evgeny Sveshnikov and Gennady Timoshchenko Najdorf Variation - 6 2e3 (Game Nos.30-41) Dragon Variation - 12...h5! (Game Nos.42-49) Classical Scheveningen (Game Nos.50-61) Neo-Scheveningen without ...a7-a6 In the Sicilian Labyrinths Main Variation of the Griinfeld Defence (Game Nos.62-82) The ‘Hungarian’ Grinfeld Caro-Kann with 4...25 (Game Nos.83-86) Caro-Kann with 3 e5 (Game Nos.87-90) Sicilian 2 ¢3 French with 3 e5 Zaitsev Variation of the Ruy Lopez (Game Nos.91-95) Arkhangelsk Variation of the Ruy Lopez Metamorphoses of the Nimzo-Indian Defence (Game Nos.96-99) Queen’s indian Defence with 4.a3 (Game Nos.100-101) Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3 e4 (Game No.102) Semi-Slav Circle Sergey Makarichev’s Triptych 105 cary oo 232 240 243 259 264 281 291 303 31721 22 23 24 The Chebanenko Line 324 Volga Gambit 334 Odds and Ends 340 The Opinions of 28 World Experts 349 Yuri Averbakh: ‘The revolution is the computer!’ 350 ‘Mark Taimanov: ‘All the global discoveries have already been made’ 352 ‘Alexander Matanovic: ‘The secret of chess will not be revealed in the near future’ 353 Alexander Nikitin: ‘The opening has become the guarantee of success’ 354 Lajos Portisch: ‘How to save the future of chess?” 356 igor Zaitsev: ‘The fruits of professionalisation’ 358 Dragoljub Velimirovic: ‘Analytical talent is a great rarity’ 359 Genna Sosonko: ‘The revolution is continuous’ (Game No.103) 361 Yuri Razuvaev: ‘Remember Lasker's legacy’ 367 Lev Alburt: ‘I like exceptions to the rules’ 369 Boris Gulko: ‘A surge in the openings was made by Kasparov’ 372 Andy Soltis: ‘The players are the main problem, not computers’ 374 William Hartston: ‘Deep understanding of the position’ 375 Mark Dvoretsky: ‘The driving forces of opening revolutions’ 376 Raymond Keene: ‘English chess of the 1960-19703" 380 Robert Hidbner: ‘Accelerated development’ 383 Walter Browne: ‘There will alwajs be fresh ideas!’ 384 Evgeny Sveshnikov: ‘A system of opening principles’ 385 Andras Adorjan: ‘Chess is unlimited!” 392 Lubomir Ljubojevic: ‘Against the background of social upheavals’ 394 Ulf Andersson: ‘Fashion is dictated by the champions’ 398 Jan Timman: ‘We were imbued with the analytical spirit’ 398 Oleg Romanishin: ‘There was a change of generations!" 401 Sergey Makarichev: ‘Fischer tore away the shroud of mystery’ 404 Alexander Beliavsky: ‘Work with your brainl’ 406 Adrian Mikhalchishin: ‘Endless searches’ 407 John Nunn: ‘Still plenty of scope for human innovation’ 409 Jonathan Spelman: ‘New leaders - new ideas!” 411 Epilogue 412 Index of Complete Games 414Foreword Era of Great Changes With this volume I open a new, essentially autobiographical ‘Modern Chess Series’, which will also cover all my matches with Anatoly Karpov, my selected games, and my matches with computers. Initially the history of the openings revolution of the 1970-1980s and of the battles with Karpov was conceived as the final part of the project My Great Predecessers, but the chapter about the 12th world champion brought this to a natural conclusion. What will now be described are events in which I took a direct part. The first of these events was the global change in the field of the opening, which began in the 1970s. True, as was shown by my poll of nearly thirty specialists, who were playing at that time and took an active part in the development of the new systems, many do not consider those times to be revolutionary. They would argue that any revolution presup- poses an upheaval in consciousness, and a revision of old dogmas which have been refuted by time itself - and this supposedly did not happen. However, in my view, the reassess- ment of chess values that occurred can well be called a revolution. Glancing through the history of the development of chess thinking, we see that earlier such breakthroughs, beginning with Philidor’s L’analyse du jeu des Echecs, were always as- sociated with the names of titans. Steinitz created a theory of positional play and tried to place the playing of the opening onto scientific lines. Tarrasch conveyed Steinitz’s ideas to the broad masses, and Rubinstein brilliantly developed these ideas in practice. The hyper- modernists - Nimzowitsch, Réti and Griinfeld - revealed to the world openings which ‘overturned previous conceptions about control of the centre and ‘correct’ pawn structure. ‘And these openings were brought to the fore by Alekhine himself! Then Botvinnik intro- duced an aggressive conception for Black: instead of the usual struggle for equality, a de- liberate disruption of the positional equilibrium and sharp play for seizing the initiative. Finally, Fischer demonstrated the need for the further refining and deepening of opening preparation for both colours. Although, after becoming world champion, Fischer gave up playing, and many of his schemes soon became outdated, the tectonic shifts that he had caused generated a power- ful avalanche, which over a period of ten years redrew the entire opening ‘map of the world’. Between 1972 and 1975 alone the progress in this field was more significant than in the entire preceding decade! Later the acceleration merely increased. The dynamics of theRevolution in the 70s game increased sharply and, above all, there was a change in the very approach to the solving of opening problems. This was undoubtedly assisted by the rapid growth in the number of tournaments, the number of qualified players and the quantity of chess infor- mation (which was part of the worldwide information boom). From then on, all the information no longer belonged only to a narrow circle of the cho- sen few, and it was not just the great players who were able to be the motivators of chess progress. In the era of the technological revolution, in chess a specialisation in research also occurred, and dozens and later hundreds of grandmasters and masters joined in the creative work. The outcome was not only a triumph of innovatory systems, which dis- dained centuries-old theoretical canons (the ‘Hedgehog’ and the Chelyabinsk Variation), but also a reassessment of existing tabiyas in the classical openings, where original schemes also emerged, based on new tactical ideas and new typical methods of fighting for an opening initiative or neutralising the opponent's initiative. These changes were most vividly illuminated by the failure of the opening classification used in Informator - the reference book of all the participants in the revolution. This care- fully devised system of indexes, developed on the basis of age-old experience, unexpect- edly ceased to reflect existing reality. Whereas in the early 1970s it appeared that in general all the openings had been already examined and the ‘weight’ of each of them had been roughly determined, it later transpired that both theory and practice were proceeding along completely different lines. As a result, old main variations, which in the Encyclopae- dia of Chess Openings had been allotted numerous pages, were removed to the periphery, whereas the currently most popular variations previously occupied... no more than one or two lines! Opening preparation was imperceptibly but rapidly raised to a qualitatively different level. It no-longer simply required play move by move, but the development of your ‘own’ variations, and a deep understanding of a whole class of standard positions, arising from different openings (for example, with an isolated d-pawn or ‘Hedgehog’-type). The regular transformation of one opening into another and their mutual integration was one of the main results of the revolution: chess theory became an organically integrated whole! As a result, conforming with dialectical development, grandmasters and masters made a step away from narrow specialisation towards a broad range of knowledge. Universal plans and set-ups appeared. Thinking in schemes, in categories of typical middlegame positions, now took on a universal character. This openings revolution was conclusively established in my matches with Karpov (1984-1990), which, in turn, made the game more accurate and specific, and became a kind of prologue to the computer era. In one volume it is hardly possible to describe all the innovations of the 1970-1980s, but I will try to give as full an impression as possible of this important stage in the enormous progress that chess has taken from Philidor to the present day. In conclusion | should like to thank the leading world chess experts for their interesting replies to my questions, and also national master Alexander Shakarov and grandmaster Yuri Dokhoian for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript for publication.Chapter One ‘Hedgehog’ System Virtually the greatest ‘hit’ of the 1970s was the truly innovatory and (what is especially important) universal system arising from different openings, which, following the example of William Hartston, became known as the ‘Hedgehog’. We are talking about the black set-up ~ after the exchange of the cS-pawn for the d4-pawn ~ with pawns on e6, d6, b6 and a6 against white pawns on c4 and, ideally, e4. Here is a typi- cal position from the source game Opocen- sky-Samisch (Bad Pistyan 1922): < WY AN BA SS) Y “ Black has entrenched himself on the back three ranks, and his pawns do indeed re- semble the spines of a rolled-up hedgehog, which, given the opportunity, may pain- fully jab the opponent: ...d6-d5 or ...b6-b5 But is not such a voluntary conceding of space too dangerous? Similar compressed spring strategy, only for White, was practised in his time by Richard Réti, one of the founders of hy- permodernism. He developed his pieces no further than the 3rd rank, allowing his op- ponent to create a strong pawn centre, and began playing actively only after thorough preparation. A striking example is his win over Yates (cf. Game No.98 in Volume I of My Great Predecessors, note to White’s 8th move). The hypermodern idea of pressure on the centre instead of occupying it with pawns also lies at the basis of the ‘Hedge- hog’ System. It occurred sporadically back in the 1920s. and 1930s, and a number of games even saw the introduction of some valuable ideas, which became widely known only half a century later. But in that distant era the chess world did not accept the ‘Hedge- hog’: such a set-up was considered to be only a mischievous prank, a surprise for the opponent. And sometimes it arose acciden- tally, causing its creator a mass of anxiety: what sort of opening is this, where Black immediately concedes the centre and has no counterplay, while also being behind in development?! A typical irregular opening,Revolution in the 70s leading to a passive, cramped position... In short, for the serious study and develop- ment of such an original system, the chess ground was not yet ripe. Things changed only in the 1970s, when several talented players, searching for new, untried schemes, began studying the ‘Hedgehog’, hit upon an accurate move order in the opening, and from their own - quite successful! - experience determined some promising plans of counterplay in the middlegame. It transpired that Black’s lack of space may well be compensated by the flexibility of his pawn structure and the harmonious coordination of his pieces. From that point onwards the ‘Hedgehog’ became not simply one of the most fashion- able systems, but also a deliberate choice, involving an entire philosophy of play in the spirit of hypermodernism. The first pioneer of the modern ‘Hedge- hog’ to come to the fore in 1972 was the bold experimenter Ljubomir Ljubojevic. His best-known games of that period, in the nature of historic landmarks, were against Hort (Wijk aan Zee 1973), Polugayevsky (Hilversum 1973), and Uhlmann, Portisch and Pomar (Madrid 1973). Ljubojevic's ex- perience interested Ulf Andersson, and he asked his friend to show him ‘this non- sense’. Today Ulf remembers: ‘After seeing Ljubomir’s games, I fell in love with the “Hedgehog” system and I later employed it many times, although without any particu- lar ideas: I simply liked the positions that arise there.’ Soon the baton was seized by Gheorghiu, Portisch, Ribli, Adorjan, Polugayevsky and other prominent grandmasters. An impor- tant part in the establishment of the system was played by two ‘Black’ games of the young Karpov ~ against L.Grigorian (Riga 1975) and Torre (Bad Lauterberg 1977). This was a kind of stamp of quality: the champi- ons always dictate opening fashions to the chess world. Not surprisingly, the ‘Hedge- hog’ was adopted by me, Psakhis, Ftacnik and other leaders of the new wave. However, many - in particular Uhlmann and Korchnoi - regarded the appearance of this audacious scheme as a personal chal- lenge, and they tried to refute it at every available opportunity. Karpov too went hunting for the ‘Hedgehog’ on many occa- sions - White's strategy in this set-up obvi- ously suited his style: he had a keen feeling for its dangers and liked playing for suffo- cation. So, what are the pluses of the ‘Hedge- hog’? As Korchnoi has remarked, whereas the old masters thought that the side who is cramped for space has problems with ma- noeuvring his pieces, the ‘Hedgehog-ites’ have modified the formula: the side who has occupied space has problems with the defence of his outposts - the c4- and e4- pawns. There is one more plus: an opponent who does not like playing 1 e4 is lured in this way into a complicated, Sicilian-type position. The player with White is always in danger of falling into a psychological trap: he involuntarily develops the feeling (objectively correct) that his position is su- perior — and with it an eagerness to attack! A couple of sharp, incautious moves - and the coordination of White's forces is de- stroyed, his rear is exposed, and after the sudden opening of the game Black's pieces burst into the rarefied space and capture the white king. For Black it is much easier to play this compact system: each of his pieces knows its place. After due preparation he can calmly make a number of moves, hardly calculating any variations and not wasting time in thought: there is a pattern, a set of standard, perfectly safe manoeuvres, gradually preparing ...d6-d5 or ...b6-b5. All the time White is obliged to watch out for‘Hedgehog’ System these two advances, as a result of which he often ends up in time-trouble. Therefore it is better for Black not to open up the game immediately on emerging from the opening — he should follow the principle ‘the threat is stronger than its execution’ and blow up the centre only closer to time-trouble or ina critical position. In addition, contrary to the well-known rule about simplification being advanta- geous to the cramped side, in the ‘Hedge- hog’ by no means all exchanges are favour- able for Black - thus, without the queens the opening of the centre ceases to be dan- gerous for the white king. In striving to maintain the tension, Black must often seek not the objectively strongest moves, leading to obvious equality, but moves that are neutral or provoke the opponent into pre- mature aggression. In short, Black needs to be able to wait, creating the appearance of some kind of action. For this he should have a good knowledge of the possible plans for the two sides in the middlegame. During the past 30 years the number of these plans has grown so much, that it is now possible to talk about an entire theory of the ‘Hedgehog’. But here, until things come to a direct conflict, there are no rigor- ous, forcing variations: instead there is vis- cous, manoeuvring play, and both players are obliged to take intuitive decisions. There is where understanding is necessary - how much strength and energy it can save a player for the coming complications! I should add that the ‘Hedgehog’ is al- ways a product of the two sides’ mutual desire: White need not allow it. If he does allow it, then he has in mind one of the ap- proved set-ups. The first is with &e2 and £2-f3 (cf. the diagram above); the second is with g2-g3 and 2g? (originating from the English Opening); the third is with £43, £2 f4 and an attempt to attack the king; there are also other plans - even with queenside castling! It is in this order that the following colourful examples are given, demonstrat- ing the basis ideas of the system. White bishop on e2 An important landmark in the develop- ment of the ‘Hedgehog’ was the following fighting game, which was of great competi- tive importance. The victim was none other than Anatoly Karpov - the leader and fu- ture winner of the Milan tournament of 1975. It stands to reason that with White he was playing only for a win, but as a result he suffered his first defeat as world cham- pion. Game 1 A.Karpov-U.Andersson Milan 1975 1 e4 5 2 Df3 e6 3 d4 cxda 4 Dxdg Acé 5 ®bs (nowadays 5 @c3 is more often played) 5...d6 6 c4 @f6 7 D1c3 a6 8 Baz By retreating his knight to the edge of the board, White inhibits both ...d6-d5, and b7-b5. If 8 @d4 Black has the good reply 8...Re7 9 Re2 0-0 10 0-0 &d7 (10...d5!? Ehlvest-Bacrot, Dubai rapidplay 2002) 11 Re3 Dxd4 (11...Wb8!?) 12 Wxd4 &c6 13 £3 ‘Wb8! 14 Wd3 b5! (Krogius-Korchnoi, 30thRevolution in the 70s USSR Championship, Erevan 1962) or 13 Sfd1 Wb8! 14 a4 a5 (G.Kuzmin-Tal, 42nd USSR Championship, Leningrad 1974). 8...e7 In my second match with Karpov (1985) I tried the risky gambit 8...52! (this double- edged line will be examined in the next volume). 9 Se2 0-0 100-0 b6 11 Re3 2b7 Later 11...Qe5 with the idea of ...Ded7 came into fashion, as 1 played against ‘Tseshkovsky (47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979) and Gufeld (Baku 1980), but here 12 £4 Ded7 13 £43 followed by g2-g4 turned out to be dangerous for Black, and from 1986 he began carrying out this plan by 8..b6!2 9 Le? £b7 10 0-0 AbS! 12 Hea Subsequently Karpov employed only 12 Wh3! (including against me, 3rd_match- game, Moscow 1984/85), trying to force 12...d7 and hinder the regrouping ...2\c6- e5-d7. His game with Small (Lucerne Olympiad 1982) is very typical: 13 Hfd1 Bc5 14 We2 We7 15 Wd2 Had8 16 Ac2 Des 17 £3 Acd7 18 Hacl Df6 19 Dd4 Wb8 20 Dad BDed7 21 b4! Hc8 22 L£2 BfeS 23 Ab3! &c6 24 Db2 Vb7 25 a4 d5 26 exd5 2d6 27 g3 exd5 28 <5! bxe5 29 bxc5 £f8 30 2d4, and the passed c-pawn decided the outcome. 12...He8 ‘An ambush: now after the careless 13 £37! there follows 13...d5! And yet it would have been more advisable to transpose immedi- ately into the classical ‘Hedgehog’ set-up by 12...e5 and ...Aed7. 13 Wb3 Qd7 14 Bfda cs If 14..AcS, then not 15 &xc5 bxc5! 16 ‘Wxb7? 4a5! and the queen is trapped, but simply 15 Wc2 and Wd2 with the potential threat of b2-b4. 15 Hd2 Wc7 An accurate move. Andersson switches his queen to its ‘rightful’ place — the b8- square, taking account of the nuance that the typical stroke 16 2d5? does not work in view of 16...exd5 17 cxd5 Ac5, and after 18 &xc5 De5! White remains a piece down. 16 Wada! Wbs8 17 f3 Reinforcing the e4-pawn. After the hasty 17 £4 Dc5 18 RE3 (18 Dc2 #66!) 18..Bed8 and {6 Black has excellent counterplay. 17...£.a8 (by no means obligatory) 18 Wfa ww Lg \ be ~ \ PY Yi, 2 i, al The white queen is also aiming for its ‘rightful’ place — the f2-square (usually this occurs after Wd1-d2, &e2-f1 and Wf2). ‘How I should play, I worked out before- hand. Andersson regularly runs short of time, and I played specifically so as to give him food for thought. And everything worked out as planned.’ (Karpov) 18...Dce5 Opening the way for the bishop at b7 and the rook at c8. For such an improve- 10ment in the coordination of his pieces Black does not begrudge wasting tempi! In the ‘Hedgehog’ the two players often spend tempi far more generously than in open positions, where the slightest delay can be fatal. 1g Dabs The exiled knight returns to life by a roundabout way. In the given situation the standard route 19 @c2 is dangerous in view of 19...Wc7 20 b3 b5, exploiting the weak- ness of the knight at c3. 19...Df6 20 fh h6 Consideration should have been given to the active plan, introduced by Ljubojevic: 20...n5!? and ...n5-h4, trying to provoke a weakening of White's kingside. 24 Eddi &f8 (as is evident from Game Nos.2 and 3, in such set-ups 21...&d8!? and .&ac7 is more appropriate) 22 Adz The knight has finally been centralised, but for the moment it is blocking the view of the rook at dl. ‘We reached a position which, although level, was very compli- cated, containing many tricks, so that all the time it was necessary to calculate move by move. Andersson began thinking for long periods - and he ended up there, where I had pushed him.’ (Karpov) 22...8¢d8 (White’s plan could have been opposed by 22...ed7 and ...c7 with the idea of ...Hec8) 23 Wf2 Ded7 ‘Hedgehog’ System With a loss of time Black has achieved the desired set-up, but not in the optimal version. His 17th and 20th-22nd moves, made on general grounds, were too mod- est. Standing still and ignoring the potential threats of the opponent is not possible even in the ‘Hedgehog’! 2443! With the logical plan of an offensive on the queenside: b2-b4, Qb3 and so on (roughly as in the aforementioned game with Small). Karpov: ‘Ulf saw that if things were to continue the same way, he would lose from an equal position simply through running out of time. He was no longer able to contain himself, and he threw himself at me...’ 24.051? A classic counter in the centre, although in the given instance it is more probably a desperate attempt to confuse matters by a sacrifice. I think that after 24 a3! Andersson. felt that without an immediate ...d6-d5 his position would steadily deteriorate. 25 exd5 exd5 26 exds 2d6 ‘A thematic bishop manoeuvre,’ writes grandmaster Shipov in his fundamental book on the Hedgehog (Moscow 2005). “Black does not immediately regain the d5- pawn, but exploits the lines that have been opened - the e-file and the dark-squared diagonals - for an attack on the white king.’ 44Revolution in the 70s Especially since after 26...Axd5 27 Axd5 &xd5 28 &xa6 he has no compensation for the pawn. 27 Sal Defending the h2-point. I am sure that Karpov would not even have considered the dangerous variations with 27 Ddet Sxh2. 27..2xe3?! In time-trouble Andersson makes a posi- tional exchange sacrifice in the style of Pet- rosian, counting on his domination of the dark squares. And this brings him success! But the patient 27...b5 was objectively bet- ter, when Black retains hopes of regaining the pawn or obtaining at least some com- pensation for it. 28 Axes? Karpov rated his position excessively op- timistically (playing against the ‘Hedge- hog’, this is not unusual!). If he had mod- estly returned the exchange ~ 28 Wxe3! 2f4 29 Wd4 xcl 30 Excl, in the simplified situation it would have been hard for Black to regain the pawn and achieve equal chances: 30...c5 31 &c4 De6 32 Wd2 b5 33 2a2, or 30..b5 31 Dg3, and if 31..b6 (B1...g6 32 Dged; 31...Wb6 32 Hd1), then 32 DLS Dbxd5 33 Dxd5 &xd5 34 Dxh6+. 28...2xh2 29 Dfr After 29 DS RF4 30 d6 g6 31 Ae7+ g7 32 Wd4 e5 Black also has appreciable compensation for the exchange. 29.524 30 He2 bs! Play over the entire board. ‘The main thing in such situations is not to bustle about, not to try and regain the material immediately, but to endeavour methodi- cally to accumulate positional pluses. De- sirably, keeping the position closed. And then the material will return itself. As hap- pened in the present game!’ (Shipov) It is curious that at the time Karpov con- sidered Black’s position to be... almost hopeless! His explanation of the subsequent events is very interesting from the view- point of chess psychology: “Ulf did not gain sufficient compensa- tion, and I quickly extinguished his initia- tive. Now it was only a matter of winning. But at that moment I had something of a brainstorm: | felt that I had to win quickly. Why should I torment him, I thought, when he was ready to be taken? He was in severe time-trouble: one or two minutes for some ten moves. A bad state of affairs! And I, the exchange up (true, not without problems over converting it) and with more than an hour on my clock, began playing, like a child, on his time-trouble... When a player is in time-trouble, he is squeezed into a ball, and all his thoughts are concentrated on one thing: he tries to guess what move his opponent will make, and how he should 12‘Hedgehog’ System answer it. The intensity of his thinking in- creases several times, everything is worked out beforehand, and for each eventuality a reply is prepared. But for me, everything was just the opposite. Involuntarily, you begin to weaken. The thought gnaws at you: alright, let's make a couple more moves, I have heaps of time, I'll manage to devise, find something... I made one “sim- ple move”, a second “simple move” ~ until I made what was at first sight an obvious move, but after it I thought for the entire remaining hour, without being able to de- vise anything - my position was lost...” Later such a relaxation let Karpov down more than once in his match with Korchnoi (Baguio 1978). But in the given instance it still remains unclear: are White’s prospects really so good? 31 2d3 Dds 32 Leg Ac4 33 a4 He8 34 axbs axbS 35 He2 Ses! (with the threat of .Dxb2) 36 Wes DE An ideal blockading post for the knight. 37 a2? (this is probably that ‘obvious’ move, after which White's game unexpect- edly goes downhill) 37...ddxeq 38 fred Rd6! 39 We2 Hes! Andersson's play with his flag about to fall creates a great impression! Black's threats grow with every move. 40 g3 We8! (the strongest piece comes into play) 41 dea £b7 42 &ga Dh7! 43 Oca Des The triumph of the dark-squared strat- egy. The pressure on the e4-pawn reaches its maximum: White has to watch for wStxd5, as well as ...{7-£5, and in passing ... {3+ is threatened. 44 Dd2 &bat Another unpleasantness: after ...2xd2 White's central pawns will be destroyed and the bishop at b7 will become fearfully strong. 45 Sf In order to retain at least the d5-pawn, Karpov decides to return the exchange. It is easy to see that there is nothing better: if 45 @cb3, then 45...2xd5! 45...Axd2 46 Exd2 Axeg+ 47 Bxeg Exeg Black is now a pawn up with a strong initiative. On the 80th move, after a tena- cious adjournment session lasting move than four hours, White resigned (0-1). Often in the ‘Hedgehog’ system Black transfers his bishop along the route e7-d8- 7, which occurred back in the ‘prehistoric’ games Opocensky-Samisch (cf. the intro- duction) and Treybal-Flohr (Budapest 1934). One characteristic touch: in both of these games a Sicilian Defence was played, but very often the same tabiya arises from an English Opening, as in the following game. 413Revolution in the 70s Game 2 K.Grigorian-G.Agzamov Chelyabinsk 1981 lish Opening A31 1 dq Df6 2 4 €5°3 DEB (avoiding 3 5, which signifies an unwillingness to play against the Benko Gambit or the Modern Benoni) 3...cxd4 4 Dxd4 b6 (after 4...e6 5 g3 and &g2 White kills the ‘Hedgehog’) § e3 2b7 6f3 Preparing e2-e4. 6 25 a6 7 &xf6 gxt6 8 4 is also popular, or even the gambit 7 e4!? Incidentally, 6 &g5 first occurred back in the game Alekhine-Sémisch (Baden-Baden 1925), and later this was played by Smyslov against Botvinnik (Moscow 1967), where after 6...d6 7 £3 (7 &xf6! is better) 7... Abd7 8 ef 6 9 Wd2 a6 10 Be2 Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Efd1 c8 13 Zacl We7 14 bhi Beds 15 261 WS 16 £e3 (a familiar picture!) 16...68 17 WE2 £a8 18 b3 Hc7 19 a4 Ac5 20 Wa2 a5 the players soon agreed a draw. This, the only instance of a ‘Hedgehog’ in the games of the 6th and 7th world champions. remained almost unnoticed... 6.4.46 6.452 7 cxdS (7 Wads!?) 7...0xd5 8 Dxd5 Wxd5 9 e4 leads to a stable advantage for White. 14 7.e4e6 8 Rez Dbd7 After 8...e7!2 9 £e3 0-0 10 0-0 a6 the thrust 11 a4 is neutralised by 11...Ac6! (Zsu-Polgar-Kudrin, Salamanca 1989), but here Black has to reckon with 9 Wa4+, forc- ing the unattractive reply 9...fd7. 9 £e3 £e7 100-00-0 s “ ya at LA At oN \Y WY > AWS ids Wij, Nw 21 Hea (11 a4! is more energetic and more dangerous for Black, Gelfand-Smirin, Vil- nius 1988) 41...a6 12 Wd2 The two players carry out their typical piece arrangements, for the moment not coming into conflict, 12...0e8 A flexible and popular move, although not an essential one. 12...c8 13 Bfd1 We7 14 £1 Wb8 is also possible, and if 15 W2, then 15...@h8 16 @c2 2d8! and ...2c7 (Opo- imisch, Bad Pistyan 1922), or ely 15...2d8!, for example: 16 b3 &c7 17 Wh4 Se5 18 &g5 &d8 (Treybal- Flohr, Budapest 1934). 13 Bfda Ec8 14 &fa We7 (this queen move is better than 14...2c7?! 15 W{2 Wb8 Po- lugayevsky-Ljubojevic, Hilversum 1973) 15 Wf2 (15 @hi! is more subtle ~ Game No.3) 25...Wb8 16 &h1 £48! The thematic manoeuvre of Samisch and Flohr! 16....2{8 (Hort-Ljubojevic, Wijk aan Zee 1973) is more passive. Black supports his b6-pawn and intends first to set up a queen and bishop battery on the b8-h2 di-‘Hedgehog’ System agonal, and only then open the centre or initiate play on the flanks. 17 b3 2c7 18 Wha?! (Treybal also defended his h2-pawn in this way, but 18 Wgl is sounder) 18...De5 19 Wh3 Dgé! When there is no pressure on the b6- pawn and the queen's knight does not have to stand at d7, then g6 is the best square for it: from here it may be able to join an attack ‘on the white king. 20 2g5 (with gain of tempo - &xf6 is threatened - escaping from the ‘X-ray’ of the rook at e8) 20...2d8 21 Zea 22...0c5! An excellent attacking idea: Agzamov exploits the unfortunate position of the en- emy queen, 22 &d2 Zhs! 23 Wg3 Ac7! “Now three black pieces are trained on the h2-pawn. There is also a pair of knights in the vicinity. There is a terrible threat im- pending over White's king: after almost any move there will follow ...d6-d5!’ (Shi- pov) 24 £4! (the only defence: now if 24...d5 there is 25 e5) 24...e5! 25 fxes If 25 5 there was the good reply 25..@xe4 26 Dxe4 Exf5 27 Wh3 Bxfa! 28 &xf4 Dxf4 with two pawns and an attack for the exchange. But after the move in the game Grigorian encounters an unpleasant surprise. «< AN ‘f 25...d5Hl (a very fine stroke, opening a path for the bishop) 26 exds Hexes! 27 h3 Exds! Also opening a path for the second bishop. Threatened with mate, White is forced to give up his queen. 28 Wxc7 (if 28 We3, then 28...Exd4! 29 Wxd4 Exh3+ 30 dg] Mh2+ 31 We2 We3+ 32 wer 263+!) 28...Wxe7 (28...Bxh3+! 29 gxh3 Hixd4+ 30 Wxb7 Wxb7+ etc. was simpler) 29 exd5 Wd7! 30 &g1 Dxd5, and Black con- verted his material advantage (0-1). The system's wealth of ideas was en- riched by Bobby Fischer, who in the ‘pre- Hedgehog’ era played a textbook game with the young Andersson (Siegen 1970). It is annotated in detail in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors (Game No.83). I should remind you that the future world champion 45Revolution in the 70s set up a ‘Hedgehog’ with White, and after staggering his opponent with a whole se- ries of unusual moves @h1, Bgl, ¢2-¢4, Bg3, Hagl and so on, he won with a direct attack on the king, strengthened by the timely central blow d3-d4. Subsequently this original plan — with reversed colours! - acquired considerable popularity. I have already given the finish to the following model example (Game No.84 in the same volume), but it undoubt- edly deserves a more detailed coverage. Game 3 M.Taimanov-A.Yusupov Kislovod 82 2 dq Df 2 c4 c5 3 DEB cxda 4 Dxda4 b6 5 c3 Qb7 6 f3 6 7 e4 dé B Le2 a6 9 Lez @Dbd7 (9...Re7!) 10 0-0 Re7 11 Wa2 (11 a4! Ivanchuk-Adams, Dortmund 1992) 14...0-0 12 Rfda Bc8 13 Haca We7 14 21 Efes As in the previous example, without wasting time Black could have played 14..Wb8 immediately, followed by ...&d8- 7, ...h8 and ...Bg8. 15 hal (this move order, in contrast to 15 ‘Wé2 — Game No.2, gives White an additional possibility on the 16th move) 25...Wb8 16 Wf2 The prophylactic 16 gi!? is interesting, with the idea of 16...2(8 17 b4 De5 18 a4 Dfd7 19 a3 (Yusupov-Tseshkovsky, 49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981), 16...h6 17 ba Hc7 18 a3 Be5 19 Dad (Sveshnikov- Psakhis, Erevan Zonal 1982), or 16...Ae5 17 Dat Dfd7 18 b4 h6 19 a3 (Sveshnikov- Tseshkovsky, Erevan Zonal 1982), and White has the better prospects. Evgeny Sveshnikov comments: ‘In my view, the Hedgehog is an incorrect system, despite its popularity. If you remove one pair of minor pieces from the board, it is playable, but with a board full of pieces it is not good for Black: the too significant spa- tial concession makes his position difficult. I have never played closed set-ups as White, but in the 1982 Zonal tournament I twice — against Psakhis and Tseshkovsky — specially opened 1 d4, knowing that my opponents would employ the ‘Hedgehog’. And both times I gained a clear advantage, although then, being in poor form, I squan- dered it’ This is the paradox of this system: dry statistics show that with amazing constancy White proves to be ‘in poor form’! Al- though objectively Black is worse, he wins more often, because it is easier for White to go wrong. Such a divergence of objective and subjective factors is in the nature of the “Hedgehog... But the energetic plan with b2-b4 is in- deed good (cf. Game No.1, note to White’s 12th move). I have also had occasion to use it - against Kramnik in the Botvinnik Me- morial (Moscow 2001), where we reached a ‘Hedgehog’ from different openings: 1 e4 c5 2 D3 6 3 da cxd4 4 Axd4 a6 5 c4 D6 6 Dc3 We7 7 a3 dé?! 8 Re3 b6 9 Bel Dbd7 10 Le2 Lb7 11 £3 Le7 12 0-0 0-0 13 hi Hac8 14 b4 Wb8 15 Wd2 £d8 16 Bc2 Be8 17 Dad Rc7 18 gl Bed8 19 Ebi! (2nd matchgame); 1 d4 Df 2 c4 06 3 Dc3 Abd 4 We2 55 dxc5 0-0 6 a3 &xc5 7 Df3 We7 8 Bg5 2e79 16‘Hedgehog’ System e4 d6 10 &e2 a6 11 0-0 Abd7 12 Adé b6 13 acl &b7 14 Re3 Hfe8 15 (3 De5 16 Dad Hab8 17 Wd2 Dg6 18 Shi Dd7 19 b4 (6th matchgame - blitz). In both cases White also held the initia- tive, and yet the resources of Black's flexi- ble set-up are, of course, still far from ex- hausted. 16...2d8! 17 2)b3?! (too passive: the knight blocks the path of the b-pawn) 17...8¢7 18 ‘Wea as WY, 18...2h8! Black begins carrying out Fischer’s plan — he prepares the advance of his g-pawn. For the moment the typical breakthrough 18...d5 is unfavourable on account of 19 exd5 exdS 20 Axd5 Dxd5 (if 20..Rxd5 21 exd5 bS the simplest is 22 £f2) 21 exd5 Bxh2 22 Bxc8 &xc8 23 Wxh?2 Hxe3 24 Wxb8 ®xb8 25 Bel! and Bc7 with the better end- ing for White. 19 Hc2 gs! 20 Ncd2 gs! ‘Black seizes space on the kingside and provides work for his rooks, without open- ing the centre.’ (Shipov) Genna Sosonko comments: ‘In olden times the collection of moves ...Wb8, ...£e7- d8-c7, ...h8, ...Hg8 and ...g7-g5 looked com- plete rubbish! There is no doubt that the entire “Hedgehog” system introduced a new, psychological aspect into Black’s open- ing strategy. He as though provokes White into attacking and revealing his cards, But it only needs the opponent to stand gaping - and the counterattack begins... | didn’t like playing the “Hedgehog” with either colour. With Black, being a player of classical style, I did not like “crawling round” on the 7th and 8th ranks, awaiting an opportunity for ...d6- 5 or ...b6-b5. And when playing White, I realised that a blitzkrieg would not work here and that I had to gradually strengthen my position, patiently preparing energetic action. I was afraid that at the decisive mo- ment of the game I would already be tired and exasperated - and that I would blunder something, It is this that Black is hoping for!” 21 2d4 Quite reasonably wanting to tie down Black’s forces by pinning his knight. The attempt to avoid this by ...e6-e5 will seri- ously weaken the d5-square. t a Pee, “eat 21...2g6! Exactly as in Fischer's set-up: first the rooks are doubled, since the threat (...g5-g4) is stronger than its execution. ‘After the hasty 21...g4 it is good, for example, to re- ply 22 f4, when Black is not able to capture the e4-pawn: 22...e5 (22..Wa8 23 WI2!) 23 fxe5 dxeS (23...Dxe5 24 2xb6) 24 e3, and the knight at d7 is en prise. White’s central- ised pieces are better prepared for the opening of the position.’ (Shipov) 22Dc1 17Revolution in the 70s Transferring the inactive knight to the place of the expected battle. As an alterna- tive Yusupov suggests the radical 22 g4, and Shipov - the cool-headed 22 £43. 22...Eicg8 23 Dd3 If 23 g4 there could have followed 23...h5 24 gxh5 Bh6 (Yusupov) or first 23...De5. 23.0481? Black again defers the ...g5-g4 break- through and altogether gives up the idea of ..d6-d5, increasing the pressure by switch- ing his queen to the kingside. In the event of 23...g4 a defence was offered by 24 2e2!, but not 24 WF2? d5! 25 cxd5 &xh2 with a mating attack for Black. 24 Be?! White instinctively supports his e4- pawn, but it was better to do this by 24 Df2 (Yusupov), in order that the knight should not interfere with the work of the rooks. ‘The mechanical 24 g4 is also interesting, to answer 24... h5 25 gxh5 &h6 by 26 Df2, with sharp play. WN WV \ & 24...g4! (at last!) 25 fxg4 There is nothing better: after 25 £4 g3! 26 3 e5 (Taimanov) the e4-pawn would be lost, while if 25 Re2 there was a choice be- tween 25...d5 (with the threat of ...sxh2!) and the preparatory 25...28h6. 25..e5 (25...2ixg4 was also good) 26 £e3 Dxga 27 Dds? In time-trouble White drives the bishop to where it was itself aiming. 27 D2 was more tenacious (Yusupov). 27...S.d8! (threatening to go to h4, or, after »-Dxe3, to g5) 28 Af2 (28 Hc2 (5!) 28...ah4! This is stronger than 28..xe3 29 Dxe3 gS. Now Black's pressure is unbearable. 29 Hee2? Another manifestation of time-trouble. However, it is now hard to offer White any good advice: both 29 Axb6? Dxb6 30 Rxb6 @xh2! (Yusupov) and 29 g3? Dxe3 30 Axe3 Wh6! (Shipov) are bad for him, while after moves by the rook at d2 Black would retain an attack by 29...f5! 29...Axe3 It would have been simpler to play 29...xd5! 30 Hxd5 (30 exd5 Axe3 and £5; 30 Dxg4 &xc4 and wins) 30...2xe3 31 Bxe3 fo, winning the exchange and the game. 30 xe3 Axf2 31 Wef2 (31 Bxf2 Acs!) 31...2xe4, and after errors by both sides Black nevertheless gained a deserved win (0-1): in the end, under the pressure along the g-file and the long diagonal, the g2-point collapsed - the triumph of Fischer's plan! Of course, in the above games White’s play was not the best. Over the years it transpired that he has a number of more promising plans. Two of them have already been mentioned: the first - with b2-b4 (and a possible Qd4-b3 with the prospective idea of c4-c5; it is important that after ...d6-d5 he can reply e6xd5 and c4-c5!), and the second - with an early a2-a4-a5, and if ...b6xa5, then 2d4-b3xa5 and, after preparation, b2- b4-b5, creating a powerful passed pawn. Two other plans, which appeared in the 1980s, also come into consideration: 1) the g2-g4 attack with the idea of driv- ing the knight from £6 by g4-g5. If this suc- ceeds, White will gain a serious advantage in the centre and will no longer have to fear the counter ...d6-d5; 2) an attack in the centre: after b2-b4 and 18d4-b3 White plays &e3-F4, threatening the d6-pawn. It is unfavourable for Black to weaken his d5-square by ...e6-e5, and so he replies ...2d7-e5. But then comes the unex- pected &xe5, and after ...d6xe5 White ob- tains a queenside pawn majority. If he should succeed in advancing c4-c5 and keeping an eye on the d4-square, he will gain an obvious advantage. This plan is especially good when Black's bishop is at 7, where it hinders his heavy pieces and runs up against his own pawn at e5. White bishop on g2 Here is a classic duel between a fervent op- ponent and a fervent advocate of the ‘Hedgehog’. White’s failure in the present game is partly explained by the fact that it was played at the very dawn of the system's development, when the correct methods of play were only just being probed. Game 4 W.UhImann-L.Ljubojevic Amsterdam 1975 En; A30 14 c5 2 Df3 DFE 3 Dc3 e6 ‘The reply 3...b6 allows White additional resources, for example: 4 e4 d6 5 d4 cxd4 6 @xd4 2b7 7 We2, as in my game with Salov (cf. the end of this chapter). 4g3 This move indicates White's readiness to fight against the ‘Hedgehog’. After 4 d4 exd4 or 4..d5 the play takes a different turn. And if 4 e4, then 4...Acé is good. 4..b6 5 2g2 2b7 6 d4 The usual 6 0-0! £e7 7 d4 (Game Nos.5-7) or 7 Hel!? (Game No.8) is more accurate, but in the present game it all reduces to a sim- ple transposition of moves. 6...cxd4 7 Wxd4 a6 Ljubojevic creates his favourite set-up, not paying any attention to nuances. ‘Hedgehog’ System Meanwhile, 7...Dcé 8 WE4 &b4! 9 &d2 0-0 10 0-0 &e7! (Uhimann-Andersson, East Germany v. Sweden 1977) gives Black an excellent game, for example: 11 Bfd1 d6 12 b3 Bc8 13 cl Bc7 14 a3 Bd7 15 e4 Wb8 (Suba-Adorjan, Szirak 1986). 8 0-0 (Shipov recommends 8 £e3!, forcing 8...2c5 9 WF4, when it is hard for Black to complete his development, while covering all his weaknesses) 8...d61 (the ‘Hedgehog’ is ready) 9 b3 Now 9 fe3 is pointless in view of 9...2\bd7, and the greedy 10 Aad Re7 11 ®xb6? loses a piece after 11...e5! Soon af- terwards Uhlmann developed the plan with 9 e4!? Dbd7 10 We3 Be7 11 Dd4! 0-0 12.b3 We7 13 &b2 (Game No.6). 9...\bd7! The classical set-up. At c6 the knight would have blocked both the bishop at b7, and the rook at ¢8, which will put pressure on the c4-pawn, very vulnerable with the white bishop on g2 (rather than e2). 10 &b2 (if 10 &a3, then 10...2c5, but it was not yet too late for 10 e4 with the same idea of We3 and 4)d4) 10...2e7 11 Hfd1 0-0 azeq Now this is slightly late. It is not surpris- ing that a few rounds later, in a game with Gheorghiu, Uhlmann preferred 12 Wd2 We7 13 Dd4 xg? 14 xg? Wh7+ 15 £3 Bc8 with equality. It is hardly any better to play 19Revolution in the 70s 12 Dg5 Rxg2 13 dexg? Wh8 14 Ages Hds 15 Axf6+ 2xf6! 16 Wxd6 Wb7+ 17 dg1 Des 18 Wa3 Ac6! with good play for the pawn (Kovacevic-Ljubojevic, Titovo-Uzice 1978). 12...Wb8! Avoiding the stereotyped —12...Wec7, Ljubomir aims for ...b6-b5, which Black succeeded in playing ~ true, with his knight at c6 and the white queen at f4 — in the old game Portisch-Larsen (Santa Monica 1966). 13 Dd2 “Not the most dangerous arrangement of the white pieces for Black: from d2 the knight defends the e4- and c4-points, but at the same time it gets under the feet of the rooks and, especially important, it does not control the b5-square.’ (Shipov). It is possi- ble that after 13 We3 (intending Dd4) UbImann was afraid of 13...b5. 13...8¢8 (13...Hd8 is also suitable ~ Game No.7) 14 We3 With the intention of We2, but this does not achieve its aim. Ljubojevic recom- mended 14 h3!? 14...b59? A. typical ‘Hedgehog’ counter-stroke with the white bishop on g2. In the set-up with 2-£3 and £e2 this is almost ruled out. 45 cxb5 (not allowing ...b5-b4 and ...2c5) 15...axb§ 16 a3 16 @xb5 is more critical, with double- edged play after 16...Bc2: then 17 Ded Dgat 20 or 17 &d4 Zaxa2 is unfavourable for White, while if 17 Bdb1, then 17...Ag4 (Ljubojevic) is possible, but the thematic 17...d5! (Shi- pov) is better. 16...2¢6 (exploiting the fact that the oppo- nent does not have the reply 2d4) YJ Ma m ean ZB 17 bal? A double-edged weapon: White fixes the b5-pawn and prepares b3, but he irrepa- rably weakens the c4-square. ‘The alterna- tive was 17 Of3, and if 17...b4 18 axb4 Wxb4 19 Ad4 £b7, then 20 Da! with the threat of &c3. Therefore 17...e5!, restricting the knight at £3, is stronger; in the given in- stance the weakening of the d5-square is purely nominal.’ (Shipov) 27...2)b6 (in Shipov’s opinion, the move 17..De5, with the idea of 18 h3 2d8!?, is also not bad) 18 Haca (18 h3!? Ljubojevic) 18...Dgal This is more aggressive than the imme- diate 18..d5, which may only give equal chances. 19 Wa?! 19 We2 De5 20 AxbS was nevertheless better, when Shipov recommends 20...2a4 21 Sxe5 dxe5 22 Rfl (22 Dc3 Ab2!) 22...g5!, ‘and it is very hard for White to untie his pieces without losing material.’ 19...De5 20 &fa Abes It is already difficult to offer White any good advice.21 Dxc4 Les! (a spectacular zwischenzug!) 22 Axes! ‘There is nothing else: in the event of 22 Dxd6 (22 Wxg5? Df3+) 22...Axf4 23 exfa 23+ 24 deg? Hd8! Black wins material. 22...Sxf4 23 Dxcé Qxca! 24 Dxbs Lxb2 25 @xbs After 25 Dc6!? Bxc6 (25...Kx03? 26 De7+) 26 @xb5 g5! White would have had slightly better chances of saving the game. 25..KexbB Black has the exchange for a pawn, and after ...2xa3 he was ultimately able to con- vert his advantage (0-1). The following spectacular game occurred at the finish of the 1979 Interzonal tourna- ment, where Tal played brilliantly and Po- lugayevsky finished second. In order to cling on to the third qualifying place, An- dras Adorjan had to win ‘to order’ with Black against Tony Miles! At this critical moment to the aid of the Hungarian grand- master came the ‘Hedgehog’. Game 5 A.Miles-A.Adorjan Riga Interzonal 1979 English Opening A30 1 Df3 DFE 2 4 c5 3 g3 b6! (creating a coun- terweight to the bishop at g2) 4 2g2 2b75 ‘Hedgehog’ System 0-0 e6 6 Ac3 Re7 The main move. 6...d6 and 6...a6 are also played, ruling out certain schemes for White, but also restricting Black’s possibili- ties. “After we had exchanged smiles several times, the spectators could have gained the false impression that we were in a peaceful mood. But the point was that up to here our game coincided with the Polugayevsky- Gheorghiu encounter which was being played alongside. In addition, Miles and I were in the habit of recording the time spent on each move. Here I wrote down 6 minutes, but he wrote 7, and I started a jocular argument with him about which of us was right.’ (Adorjan) 74 The aforementioned - also classic! — game Polugayevsky-Gheorghiu went 7 b3 (7 Bel!? — Game No.8) 7...0-0 8 &b2 d6 9 d4 exd4 10 Axd4 &xg2 11 dxg2 We8! 12 e4 Wb7 13 £3 a6! 14 We2 Bc8 15 Bfd1 Acé! 16 ®Dxc6 Hxc6 17 Hd2! Hac8 18 Dd1 b5 19 De3 ®e8 with equality. 7..0xdg 8 Wxdg A tabiya of the English ‘Hedgehog’. Black's strategy after 8 Dxd4 Sxg? 9 dexg2 is apparent both from the preceding note, and from some older examples: 1) 9...0-0 10 e4 Wc8 11 b3 Wb7 12 £3 Ac6 13 Qb2 Hfd8 14 fel Dxd4 15 Wxd4 2c5?! (15...d6!) 16 Wd3 &e7 17 Hadi d6 (Capab- lanca-Vidmar, New York 1927). ‘Despite the numerous inaccuracies, Black's position is quite solid, since in this variation, as is well known, in the middlegame the d6-point can be defended without difficulty.’ (Alekhine) 2) 9...We8! 10 Wd3 Acé! 11 Axcé Wxc6+ 12 e4 0-0 13 &d2 Bac8 14 b3 Hfd8 15 WES a6 16 Bfel dé! (threatening ...b6-b5) 17 Bact Whb7 18 We2 Bb8 19 a4 Rbc8 20 £f4 h6 with a comfortable game - if 21 Ecdi?!, then 21..d5! 22 exd5 bf! 23 Rd2 (23 RS @®xd5}!) 23...exd5 24 WE3 &xc3 25 2xc3 Ded! 24Revolution in the 70s 26 &d2 £5! and White has to fight for a draw (Hort-Tal, Havana Olympiad 1966). 8...d6! An accurate move, which was intro- duced in 1975. After 8..0-0 9 Edi! the ‘Hedgehog’ is no longer good - 9...d6 10 &g5 Dbd7 11 Db5!, and so Black has to fight for equality by 9...c6 10 Wid Wb8, which is far less interesting. 9b3 Supporting the c4-pawn and threatening, a possible &a3. If 9 Bd1, then 9...a6! (Game No.7). The variation 9 25 a6 (Karpov- Kasparov, Moscow 1981) will be examined in the next volume. 9...0-01 The optimal move order. If 9...a6, then 10 £a3 is unpleasant, while if 9..2bd7 - 10 @b5!, as Korchnoi played against Hjartar- son (6th matchgame, Saint John 1988) and A.Greenfeld (Game No.43 in Volume V of My Great Predecessors). 10 2a3 A crude attack on the d6-pawn. 10 Hd1 (10 e4 - Game No.6) merely leads to a trans- position of moves after 10...bd7! (but not 10...a6? 11 a3) 11 a3 cd. 10...Da6l Exploiting the absence of the pawn from a6. ‘From the expression on my opponent's face I realised that he did not like this reply: now the bishop move to a3 loses all its point.’ (Adorjan) 14 Bfda If 11 &b5 Dc5 12 Bad], then 12...Afed! is possible, and 13 b4 does not achieve any- thing in view of 13...a6! 14 Dxd6 &xd6 15 bxc5 &xc5 with equality. 11...D¢5 a2 Baca “Although the rooks are arranged in the familiar way, this move smacks somewhat of routine.’ (Adorjan). And indeed, the immedi- ate 12 b4! is more energetic, for example: 12..Dced 13 Ded Bxed 14 b5! We8! 15 Rxd6 Bd8 16 c5! bxc5 17 We5 &xd6 18 Hxd6 W7! with approximate equality (Yermolinsky- Adams, Elista Olympiad 1998). 12...a61 (subtly exploiting the tempo granted) 13 b4?l (now this weakening is a double- 22edged weapon; instead 13 2b2 is a quieter alternative) 13...0c¢d7! Playing for a win, in contrast to 13...0ce4 14 Dxe4 &xe4 with equality. 14 2b2 ‘A step forward and a step back: such a two-faced policy leads to disaster for Tony. 14 bS was no longer timely: 14...axb5! 15 AxbS (15 &xd6 b4!) 15...Ac5, and White has at least as many weaknesses. 14 Dg5 was the only active possibility, although with accurate play by Black this too would not have given any advantage: 14...0xg2 15 bxg2 We7! 16 ced h6! 17 AB Axed 18 Wxed Hfc8, or 16 Ages Bfc8! 17 Axdé Lxd6 18 Wxd6 Wxd6 19 Bxd6 Bxc4, and “thanks to” the @a3 + b4 construction Black has at least equal chances.’ (Shipov) 14... Wb8I? Making way for the king’s rook. ‘During the game I had the feeling that the black pieces were themselves proceeding to their appointed places, and I was merely fulfill- ing their desires.’ (Adorjan) as Dd2 By defending the c4-pawn in good time, Miles allows the exchange of the light- squared bishops, which is advantageous to Black. According to Adorjan, this was ‘nec- essary, but... insufficient’, whereas accord- ing to Shipov 15 e4!? Hc8 16 a3 was better. 15...2xg2 16 &xg2 HB 17 £37! ‘Hedgehog’ System ‘A non-enforced weakening. It was better to try and simplify the situation by 17 @de4, and if 17...Wb7, only then 18 £3. But Adorjan was intending to maintain the ten- sion by 17...2e8! 17...b5! (again this typical flank blow) 18 xb5, Jf 18 a3 there could have followed 18...Be5 (Adorjan) or 18...bxc4 19 Dxc4 d5! (Shipov) with the idea of a pawn offensive in the centre. 18...axb5 19 Wd3?! White attacks the pawn, but this idea turns out to be faulty. 19 Dde4 d5! was also bad for him, but Adorjan’s recommenda- tion 19 a3 was preferable. 19...De5! 20 Wxbs Wa7! A clever pawn sacrifice. Adorjan thought that this move would lead to the goal more 23Revolution in the 70s quickly and effectively than the simplifying 20...Wxb5 21 DxbS Heb 22 Ac3 Exb4, 214?! “A way must be opened for the queen to return.’ (Adorjan). No, the queen could have returned in a different way - 21 Wa5! with the idea of 21...We3 22 Sf1! ‘However, after this, apart from variations with the exchange of queens, 21...Wd7!? 22 Wb6 Bcb8! 23 Wd4 Acé followed by the capture ‘on b4 was possible, with the initiative for Black.’ (Shipov) 21...We3! (with the terrible threat of ...d3) 22 Wa OF course not 22 We2? Bxc3! White is ready to parry 22...2d3 with 23 cdl, but... 22...g51 (excellent: ...g5-g4 is threatened) 23 Bez? A mistake in a difficult position. ‘White is in zugzwang. If 23 h3 there would have followed 23...n5, threatening not only ...g5- g4, but also ...n5-h4. If instead 23 g4, then 23...0d3 24 Ded Dfs+ 25 gs Bxc4 26 Wed h5 etc. White no longer has any good moves,’ writes Adorjan. In his opinion, it was also bad to play 23 Db3 g4 24 fxgd (Shipov adds 24 f4 Hxc3! 25 Exc3 Wxed+ with a strong attack: 26 £2 Bxa2!) 24...Dfxg4 with crushing threats, or 23 a3 g4 24 £4 Dd3 25 Act WE3+. Although, according to Shipov, in this last variation it was still possible to continue the struggle 24 with 26 Wxf3 gxf3+ 27 &xf3 Dxcl 28 Abel, but after 28...Bxc3+! 29 &xc3 Hxa3 30 Excl d5 Black would have retained the initiative and winning chances. 23...Exa2! 24 Dd5 A desperate attempt: 24 @xa2? Bxc?, 24 Hel? Wd3 or 24 Adb1 Bxb2 and ...Bxc3 was hopeless. Now, however, Black sacrifices his queen. 24...Hxc2! 25 Dxe3 Hexb2 (the attack with the rooks along the 2nd rank is irresistible) 26 We2 g4! (this breakthrough nevertheless takes place!) 27 £4 Dxe4 28 Defa Dud2 (28.43 was simpler) 29 Hxd2 Hxd2 30 @xd2 Df3! 31 Wes Nxd2+ 32 of LF6! 0-2 White resigned, in view of the threat of wSid4 and ...Hf2 mate. Another classic ‘Hedgehog’! Now a pleasant memory from my own games, one of my first attempts to employ the ‘Hedgehog’ at the top level. Game 6 R.Hiibner-G.Kasparov Tilburg 1981 English Openin, A30 1 4 Df6 2 Dc3 c5 3 Df3 (if 3 g3 e6 4 2g2, then 4..d5 is good) 3..e6 4 g3 b6 5 gz &b7 60-0 £e7 744 7 Eel!? (Game No.8) is more cunning.7..cxd4 8 Wxdd d6! 9 b3 9 e4 (9 Bdi a6! - Game No.7) is also played, for example: 9...a6 10 Bd1?! (here this is a superfluous move) 10...bd7 11 We3 We7 12 b3 0-0 13 &b2 Hac8! 14 Hacl Wb8 15 dd Bfe8! 16 h3 218, and Black’s defences are very flexible. The hasty 17 £4? is weak on account of 17...e5! 18 45 d5! with the threat of | ...dtc5 (Cserma-Portisch, Hungarian Championship 1975), therefore it is better to lose time on 17 Bel! g6 18 Hcd1 cS etc. (Karpov-Gheorghiu, Leningrad 1977). 9...0-0 is also interesting: 10 We3 Abd7 11 2d4 He8!? 12 b3 d5! (an idea of Gelfand) 13 exd5 exd5 14 (5! bd! with sharp play (Uhimann-Atlas, Austria 1996). 9..0-0 10 e4 (10 a3 Da6! - Game No.5) 10...\bd7 11 We3 a6 12 Dd4 A more accurate interpretation of Uhlmann’s system than in the note to White's 9th move, although even this posi- tion is not so dangerous for Black as the variation with 7 Hel. 12...We7 13 &b2 After 13 2a3 Bfe8t 14 h3 Af8 15 Bfel Had8 16 Bad1 4ic5 17 £3 (17 4 e5!) 17...g6! 18 g4 2g7 19 &b2 a8 20 He2 ho 21 Edel ‘WS Black has an excellent game: it is bad to play 22 Wd2?! e5! 23 c2 b5! 24 exb5?! (24 @e3 is better) 24..d5!, when the ‘Hedgehog’ bristles with all its spines (UhImann-Bénsch, Halle 1976). 13...Rfe8! 14 h3 Useful prophylaxis, although the imme- diate 14 Bfel is also possible, with the same idea of He2 and Wd2-el. Another of Uhimann’s ideas - 14 @h1 28 15 f4 leads after 15...g6! 16 Hael g7 to double-edged play. 14...52f8! With the intention of ...g7-g6 and ...&g7. This plan looks more harmonious than 14..Bad8 15 Eifel Wb8 16 Ze? ho 17 Zael ®h7 (Uhimann-Kuligowski, East Germany v. Poland 1981). 15 Efe1 15 £4?! again runs into 15...e5! 16 D5 d5! ‘However, here it is not all so simple: 17 fxeS &c5 18 Dd4 WxeS 19 AxdS &xd5 20 cxd5 Axd5 21 Wi2 A5f6 22 Had1 with roughly equal chances.’ (Shipov) Black also has a good game after 15 Bael Dc5 16 dh2 Bad8! 17 He? g6 18 Dc? 2g7 19 Sal d5! 20 eS Afd7 21 cxd5 (21 £4 dxcd) 21...Dxe5 22 £4 exd5! 23 fxed da! 24 Axdd Hxe5 25 Wf2 d3 (Uhlmann-Gheorghiu, Manila Interzonal 1976). By BR Oi528 @ 15...Had8 Clearly hinting at the ...d6-d5 break- through. A year later in Berlin (1982) Vaiser and Ermenkov played 15...2ac8 16 Ze2 Wb8 against Uhimann. The first of these games went 17 Wd2 5 (17...Wa8! with the idea of ..d6-d5 is more accurate) 18 Hd1 Wa8 19 25Revolution in the 70s Well, and the second — 17 Hd1 Wa8! 18 Wd2 Wb8?! 19 2a1 a8 20 Well, in both cases with some advantage to White. But Er- menkov could have equalised by 18...d5! 16 He2 After 16 Bad1 g6 White has the good re- grouping 17 Wel Wb8 18 Wal! 27 19 2c2! a8 20 Be2 and e3 (UhImann-Vilela, Halle 1981), but 16...Wb8! is more subtle: 17 Wel (17 He2!?) 17...2c5 and ...Wa8, pressing on the e4-pawn (Uhimann-Akesson, Po- lanica Zdroj 1981). 26...g6 (16...Wb8!?) 17 Haea It was still possible to play 17 Bd1 (UhImann-Petran, Budapest 1982) or 17 Wd2, in order to hide the queen at el. 17...Wb8 18 Wd2 297 18...Ac5 19 Wd1 Wa8 is also quite good, for example: 20 @c2 &g7 21 Bal h5!? 22 b4 @cd7 23 Wxd6 hd! with lively counterplay (Uhimann-Adorjan, Budapest 1982). 19 Wda Acs ‘Everything is ready for the break- through. But without the help of the oppo- nent it is not easy to carry it out. Any at- tempt by White to play for a win will pro- vide this help!’ (Shipov) 20 &c1?! (a dubious venture; 20 Wb1 or 20 d2 was sounder) 20...%¢8! Exploiting the fact that the knight at c3 is undefended, Black intensifies the threat of sub6-b5 or ...d6-d5. 21 Sgs h6 22 &ca Bed8! (again looking from afar at the white queen) 23 &b2 An inglorious return home: as a result of this loss of time the black rooks have taken up their optimal positions, whereas White's are firing into thin air. The following reply could have been avoided by 23 £2, but then with 23...Wa8 Black would have advantageously main- tained the tension and the threat of ...d6-d5. 23..b51? 1 think that this spectacular move and the next one came as an unpleasant sur- prise to Hiibner. The immediate 23...d5! suggested itself, but — perhaps wrongly ~ I was afraid of the drawing tendencies in the variation 24 exd5 exd5 25 cxd5 Axd5 26 Dxd5 Rxd5 27 Hd2! &xg? 28 dxg2 Wo7+ 29 WES (29 Gh2 Hd6!) 29...Wxf3+ 30 dexf3. In fact, after 30...2d5! 31 Zed1 Ecd8 in view of the pin on the d-file White would still have had to fight for a draw (for example, 32 she? Ded 33 Hd3 a5 etc.) 24 cxb§ d5 (only now!) 25 exd5 (it is unfa- vourable to play 25 bxa6? &xa6 26 Ed2 dxe4, or 25 5?! Dfe4 and White loses his e5-pawn) 25...0xd5 26 Dxd5 Rxd5, Black’s counterplay is based on the op- position of rook and queen on the d-file: ..€6-e5 is a constant threat. But for the mo- ment Hiibner maintains the balance. 2627 ba! 27 &xd5 Exd5 28 b4 Ad7 29 Wall!, elimi- nating the pin on the knight, is also not so clear: 29...axb5? 30 @xe6! or 29..Ae5 30 Dc6! Df3+ 31 Fl etc. 27...S2xg2 28 Sxg2 e5! 29 bxc5 exda ‘Hedgehog’ System BiB (I should add 31...Wa8+ 32 Bled!) 32 bxa6 Hb5 does not work on account of 33 W3! Exb2 34 a7 Wd8 35 Re8!, and the a- pawn queens (to see this at the board was not easy!). Therefore Black should include 30...Wa8+! 31 gl (31 Hle4? £6), and then play 31...2xc5 32 Wb3 E83 33 bxa6 Wxa6 or 31..axb5 32 Wb3 Hf8 (in order to parry 33 Ble6!? by 33...h7 or 33...Bxc5 34 Bxg6 Wd5), but in both cases White has not even a hint of any problems. 30..Exc5 32 bxa6 (31 &xd4? Wa8+ and »licd5) 34...Wa8+ 32 WF3 32 dh2 Wxa6 33 &xd4? is not possible on account of 33...cd5 34 £e3 Exd2 35 &xd2 ‘Wd3! with a fatal pin on the d-file. 32...Wxa6 (now it is not easy for White to combat the d4-pawn) 30 Bd2? An important moment, which indicates that the opponent is ruffled! In Informator I suggested 30 Wd3 (but not 30 bxa6? d3!) 30...axb5 31 Hc2 with an ‘=’ evaluation, but after 31...Wa8+! in view of the threats of .Wxa2 and ...2d5 Black nevertheless has the better chances (the white queen cannot leave the blockading square on account of wd4-d3). The correct decision was the active 30 He7!, since the reply which I recommended twenty-five years ago - 30...0xc5 31 Wb3 33 Beda “33 Re4 came into consideration, in order if possible to eliminate the powerful pawn at the cost of the exchange, for example: 33...Wa8 (33...Wa4 34 Wb3!) 34 &xd4! Ecd5 35 Sxg7 Exd2 36 &xh6 Hxa2 37 He7 with an almost drawn position.’ (Shipov) 33..2f5 34 Wea Wag! 35 a3 (35 &xd4? Efd5!) 35..He8?! (a time-trouble error; 35...h5! was stronger) 36 Wb7 Rds! Reverting to the correct plan. If 36...2e2?! White had the reply 37 Hxe2 Wxd1 38 Wc8+ &h7 39 We2! with equality. 37 Hd32l (37 Wet or 37 &gl was more 27Revolution in the 70s solid) 37...h5 38 Kid2 We8! (threatening Hb8) 39 &f1? Not wishing to conduct a cheerless de- fence the exchange down after 39 &xd4 Bfd5, Hiibner commits a fatal error. 39 #h2 was more tenacious, after which [ was planning 39...h4! 39...2b8 40 We7 40...2xb2! (a decisive stroke on the last move before the time control) 41 Bxb2 We4 42 We4 Whit 43 de2 Wg1 (43..He5+ 44 <éd2 Bel! was simpler) 44 Rb8+ 2h7 45 £4 hat da Wfa+, and in view of 50 &c2 We2+ 51 Hd2 d3+ or 50 dd? g2 51 Hg3 &h6! White resigned (0-1). Another memorable game for me is the following, vivid ‘duel of the generations’, which brought together one of the greatest opening theoreticians of that time and a talented young grandmaster, skilled in the subtleties of the newly fashionable scheme. Game 7 L.Polugayevsky-L.Ftacnik Lucerne Olympiad 1982 English Opening A30 1 Df3 Dfe 2 c4 c5 3 Dc3 e6 4 g3 b6 5 Rez &b7 6 0-0 Re7 7 da (7 Bel!? - Game No.8) 7...cxd4 8 Wxd4 d6 9 da Another continuation of pressing interest (9 b3 0-0! ~ Game Nos.5, 6). 9..a6! (preventing @b5) 10 b3 (but now a3 is threatened) 10...@\bd7! (the knight is ready to screen the d6-pawn from the at- tack by the white bishop) 11 e4!? 46 Hbs Or 46 Bbb3 Hf6! 47 dd2 (47 Exd4 hxg3) 47...W#g2+! (creating the threat of ...Bc6) 48 Sd Wii+ 49 dc2 hxg3, and the curtain comes down. 46...1xb5 47 Wxb5 hxg3 48 Wes Wf2+ 49 11...Wb8 White's idea is seen in the variation 11...0-0? 12 a3 Bc5 13 €5! dxeS 14 Wxd8! Efxd8 15 Dxe5 &xg2 16 exg2, and in view of the weakness of his queenside, Black has a difficult ending: 16...2f8 17 &xc5! &xc5 18 a4 (a typical trick), or 16..de8 17 28Dat, as, for example, in the textbook game Vaganian-Nogueiras (Rotterdam 1989). If Black wants altogether to avoid the ex- change of queens, he makes the rather strange looking move 11...Wc8, in order to parry 12 2a3 Ac5 13 eS with 13...2xf3! 14 &xf3 dxe5, when 15 Wxe5? is not possible because of 15...Dcd7. 42 2b2 Now after 12 &a3 Dc5 13 e5 dxeS 14 Wxe5 Qcd7! (the eccentric 14...Wa7 can hardly equalise) 15 Wxb8+ Exb8 Black has a reasonable endgame: 16 2b2 0-0 17 Hd2 b5! (UhImann-S.Garcia, Polanica Zdroj 1975), 16 2d6 &xd6 17 Bxd6 @e7 18 Hadi Bhc8! with the threat of ...b6-b5 (Lobron- Gheorghiu, Biel 1982), 16 &c1!? Bc8 17 &b2 Hg8!? 18 Ae? g5! (Pelts-Browne, New York 1986), or 16 &xe7 Sxe7 17 Dd4 Ehc8 18 acl g5! - an idea of Gheorghiu, which was successfully carried out in the game Lau- tier-Kamsky (Groningen 1995). 12...0-0 13 Dd2 13.0481? A novelty. Not long before this the game Polugayevsky-Portisch (Mar del Plata 1982) went 13...8c8 14 We3 &cé6 (for some reason avoiding the sharp 14...b5!? - Game No.4) 15 a4 Ha7 16 h3 with some advantage to White. 1434 ‘A hardly justified weakening of the ‘Hedgehog’ System queenside. After 14 We3 (and then We2) Black would still have been unable to play .b6-b5.’ (Shipov) 14...We7 15 We3 Hac8 16 We2 Des 17 h3 Preparing £2-f4. The immediate 17 £47! is unfavourable on account of 17...Wc5+ 18 Shi Degs, but with the same aim 17 $h1 (Ftacnik) came into consideration. aS at 17.45! The move of an expert on the system: now the destruction of White's kingside by .-h5-h4 will be constantly threatened (and he does not want to play h3-h4 in view of the weakening of the g4-square). Such thrusts are especially effective with time- trouble imminent! 18 £4 Dg6 19 DFS 0g Mims It would appear that for the moment White has no reason for complaint, except 29Revolution in the 70s that his g3-point is somewhat weakened. And Ftacnik immediately exploits this fac- tor! 19..d5I (this sets the opponent a difficult choice) 20 exd5? Releasing the genie from the bottle. 20 e5 Det 21 Dred dred 22 Dd4 hd 23 fixed would appear to be more solid, in the hope of 23...xe4 24 Wed hxg3 25 #2, seizing the initiative (25...@h4 26 £5!). However, Ftacnik had in mind 23...hxg3! — now 24 Rxb7?! Wxb7 25 We2 Bc7! is dangerous for White, as is 24 &xg6 fxg6 25 Wg4 2c! 26 Wrest (26 Wxg3 is worse: 26...Wc6 27 &h2 Wed 28 Hel? Hxd4!) 26...#h7, and the white king comes under the deadly X-ray of the enemy bishops. Apparently it was better to try and neu- tralise Black's attack after exchanges in the centre - 20 exd5!? exd5 (20...fc5+ 21 #h1) 21 Dxd5 Dxd5 22 cxd5 Sxd5. » vy \ \\ ww Uy, Ve Yh, iB ‘Yiny Y/R Y 20...hal An unexpected zwischenzug. The routine 20...exd5 21 @xd5 (21 exd5 h4!; 21 e5 Ded 22 Dxed dxed 23 Dd4 h4! 24 Lxed hxg3! is also risky) 21...Qxd5 22 exd5 &xd5 would have transposed into the previous varia- tion, which is relatively acceptable for White. 21 Dxhs The fruit of agonizing hesitation. Noth- ing good was promised by either 21 dxe6 30 Rc5+ 22 dhl (22 dh? hxg3+) 22...Dh5!, or 21 e5 Sc5+ 22 dhl (22 Dd4 Axd5) 22...0h5 23 De4 Exd5! with a fearfully strong attack. 21...2xh4 22 gxh4 Wxf4 23 dxe6 (23 Wi looks more tenacious, but 23...Wxh4 or 23...We5!? and ...c5+ leaves White few chances) 23...fxe6 24 e5?! Ina difficult position, trying to wrest the initiative from his opponent, Polugayevsky commits a final weakening. However, after 24 Bxd8+ Hxd8 25 Bd (Ftacnik) 25...Bxd1+ 26 Wxd1 Sc5+ 27 @h1 £6! or 25 BE Bc5+ 26 #h1 Wxh4 White also has no defence. 24...2¢5+ (Black’s spectacular attack re- sembles the one that Rubinstein carried out in his famous game with Rotlewi - Game No.59 in Volume I of My Great Predecessors) 25 eh1 25.051 26 Wxh5 Wg3! (another wonder- ful resource - a quiet move with irresistible mating threats) 27 @d5 (desperation) 27...Exd5 28 Efi Wxg2+! 29 dxg2 Bd2+, and in view of 30 dg3 Hg2+ 31 bf4 Rys+ White resigned (0-1). From the second half of the 1970s, in- stead of the immediate 7 d4 White increas- ingly often began employing the subtle waiting-cum-developing move 7 Hel, which in the event of 7...d6 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cxd4 10 Qxd4 gives him a markedly more favourable version of the ‘Hedgehog’: hehas the active plan of an offensive with his f and g-pawns, and in addition, as we will now see, the position of the rook on el cre- ates the preconditions for the pretty and typical stroke Dd5! Game 8 N.Tolstikh-A.Gipslis Katowice 1993 lish Opening A30 1 Df3 Df 2 4 5 3 Dc3 e6 4 g3 b6 5 Rg2 I recall my encounter with Gipslis (Mos- cow 1979), which went 5 e4 &b7 6 d3 d6 7 2g2 Dbd7 8 0-0 Be7 9 Bel a6 10 b3 0-0 11 4 cxd4 12 Dxd4 We7 13 &b2 Bfes 14 Wd2 2f8 15 Had] Bad8 16 h3 Wb8 17 221 Wa8 18 @h2 Dc5 19 We2 Bc8 20 Wb1 Hed8 21 He3 g6 22 f4 &g7, and after making all the usual ‘Hedgehog’ moves, Black obtained a comfortable position. 5..£b7 6 0-0 £e7 (after 6...a6 7 Hel d6 8 e4 Dbd7 9 d4 cxd4 10 Axd4 We7 the detention of the black king in the centre increases the effect of 11 Dd5!, Cvitan-Foisor, Biel 1990) 7 Beal? An iy Ton Here there is more than one way of avoiding the main line: 1) 7...d5 8 cxd5 @xd5 (8...exd5 9 d4 leads to a well-known variation of the Queen's Indian Defence) 9 e4, when Black can ‘Hedgehog’ System choose between exchanging and moving his knight: a) 9...xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 d4 Bd7 (it is no better to play 11...cxd4 12 cxd4 Acé 13 &b2 or 11.206 12 d5) 12 Sf4, and White's strong, mobile centre gives him some initia- tive: 12...cxd4 (12...0f6 13 De5 or 13 Wd3 Anand-Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 1996) 13 cxd4 Df6 (13..c8 14 d5) 14 De5 Abs 15 Be3 Hc8 16 dS! (Kramnik-Anand, Las Pal- mas 1996); b) 9...ab4 10 d4 cxd4 11 Axd4 D8c6 12 Axc6 Wxd1!? (after 12..Dx06 13 e5! Wxd1 14 Bxdi Bb8 15 DbS White has a small but enduring advantage, _Larsen-Gligoric, Bied/Portoroz 1979) 13 Bxd1 &xcé 14 &f4 5 15 Bd6 Rxd6 16 Bxd6 Bd8 with an al- most equal endgame (Van Wely-Leko, Monaco blindfold 2006); 2) 7...2e4 (Adams's favourite move), and since after 8 Dxe4 Lxe4 9 d3 Rb7 10 e4 0-0 (or 10...206 11 d4 cxd4 12 Dxd4 Qxd4 and 0-0) 11 dd exd4 12 Dxd4 12 Dxd4 d6 13 b3 a6 Black has no particular problems (say, 14 Re3 Dd7 15 £4 Bes 16 262 We7 17 Bel 266 18 Wd2 Bad8 19 g4 Dc5 20 b4 g6! Vallejo- Adams, Linares 2002), White tries 8 Wc2 @xc3 9 dxc3 (an idea of Vaganian), or 8 d4 ®xc3 9 bxc3, as, for example, in the games Kramnik-Yudasin (Erevan Olympiad 1996) and Topalov-Adams (San Luis 2005). 8 e426 It is possible to block the position by 8...e5, but after 9 Dh4! Acé (9...g6 10 £4!) 10 @f5 White retains a strategic initiative: 10...2f8 11 Wad! g6 12 d4l! Bd7! 13 dxed dxe5 14 Dh6 Dd4 15 Ad5 Rc6 16 Wal £g7 17 h4 (Vaganian-Minasian, 58th USSR Championship, Moscow 1991), or 10...0-0 11 d3 Ad4 12 £4 Be8 13 Axe7+ Wre7 14 5 (Illescas-Ulybin, Chalkidiki 1992). 9 da cxd4 10 Dxd4 We7 11 Le3 Dbd7 12 £4 0-0 In the alternative variation 12...2c8!? 13 ‘Hcl Wb8 apart from the usual 14 We2 the 34Revolution in the 70s unexpected 14 d5!? is also possible (Va- ganian-Wojtkiewicz, Belgium 1996). 13 Hea Bfes Black more rarely plays 13...Bac8 14 g4, or 13...2fc8 14 g4 @f8 15 g5 D6d7 16 Ads! exd5 17 £5! with an attack (Zhu Chen- Bischoff, Waischenfeld 2000). 14 gal The immediate 14 d5 is ineffective in view of 14..exd5 15 oxd5 Wb8 16 cb £xc6 17 dxc6 Bc5, for example: 18 c7 Wxc7! 19 €5 dxe5 20 &xa8 Bxa8 21 b4 exfd 22 Sxfd (Ftacnik-Browne, San Francisco 1991) 22... Wo7! 23 bxc5 Mxc5+ 24 Re3 Sb4 with good compensation for the exchange. In the game Kramnik-Annageldiev (Moscow Olympiad 1994) with 14 £2 White created the threat of e4-e5, but after 14..h6 15 b3 (little is promised by 15 €5 dxe5 16 fxe5 Dh7, or 15 £5 £d8!) 15...Hac8 16 h3 Wb8 17 g4 Dh7 18 2g3 £d8! Black achieved comfortable play. 14 D5 Experience has shown that if 14...g6 there is the unpleasant 15 g5 @h5 16 f5!, and if 14...h62! ~ 15 g5! (but not 15 ha? De5 16 RE2 5! Iskusnykh-Shipov, Maikop 1998) 15...hxg5 16 fxg5 @h7 17 g6 DhsB (17... 18 &h3!) 18 gxf7+ Sxf7 19 Hel+ eg8 (the popular recommendation 19...8/6 is dubi- ‘ous on account of 20 e5!) 20 dS! exd5 21 cxd5 Wd8 22 Bc6 (Vaganian-lonescu, Sochi a 1986), or immediately 19 2d5!? exd5 20 exd5 with a powerful attack (Pogorelov- R Rodriguez, Spain 1999). 15 2f2 6 15...h6? is again bad: 16 b4 Dcd7 17 g5 hyxg5 18 fxg Dh7 19 g6 DhsB 20 gxi7+ dxi7 21 @d5! (Pogorelov-Kovacevic, Carboneras rapidplay 1999). 16 ba! Bads! An important novelty by Gipslis, who had a good knowledge of the subtleties of this system. In the game Lobron- AGreenfeld (Ljubljana/Portoroz 1989) 16...@\cd7 was met by the thematic 17 Dd5! exd5 18 cxd5 Wd8 19 Dcé Lxc6 20 dxc6 8, and here with 21 c7! Wc8 22 &xbé6 White would have retained a clear advan- tage. 17 We2 Removing the queen from the opposition with the rook on the d-file. 17 bxc5 dxc5 18 Dxe6 fxe6 19 WE3 2f8! is unfavourable for White, and 17 Wf is well met by 17...Dexed! 18 Axed Axed 19 Bxed Lxe4 20 ‘Wxe4 d5! (Krivosheya-Shipov, Yalta 1996). But 17 g5!? Qh5 18 WIS deserves serious consideration, as well as 17 £5!? 17...Ded7 18 Ddst? Now this is no longer so terrible. Appar- ently, 18 &f3 sets Black more problems, when 18...n6 is sensible, preparing the h7-square for the knight in the event of g4-g5. 18...exd5 19 cxd5 Wb8 20 Dcé Was 21 WHS (21 €5?! dxe5 22 fxe5 is weak on account of 22...d6, and if 23 &d4, then 23...Axe5!) 21...2c8?! 22 e5 dxe5 23 fxe5 &xc6 (or 23...,xb4 24 exf6!) 24 dxc6 &xb4 is hardly acceptable in view of 25 exf6! &xel 26 &xel with a powerful initiative. 22 DxdB (not 22 a4?! Hc8) 22...Wxd8 23 gS Dhs 24 Lh3 If 24 a4 (with the idea of meeting 24...b5 with 25 a5), then 24...h6 followed by ...a6-a5 is good, regaining the c5-square for the knight. 24...b5! (now the knight comes into play via b6) 25 He2 Db6 26 Aga Dg7 27 Rxbé Wxb6+ 28 W2 Wa8! 29 Wd4 fs With 29..Qh5!? intending ...2g7 Black could even have fought for an advantage: 30 &xh5 gxh5 31 {5 He5! (threatening ww Sixd5) 32 BEI H6 33 gxh6 bh7 etc. 30 Wf2 2g7 31 Wda Afs Draw in view of the threefold repetition of the position (¥a-¥2). Thus, the most dangerous continuation for the English ‘Hedgehog’ is 7 Zel, whereas in the classical variation with 7 44 cxd4 8 Wxd4 Black has no reason for com- plaint: against any plan by the opponent he finds a way of gaining good counterplay, or, at the worst, a very solid position. White bishop on d3 The most aggressive set-up for White looks to be the one with the bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal. Here he has real prospects of an attack on the kingside. This type of position usually arises from the Sicilian Defence (a vivid example: Khalifman-Rublevsky, Ka- zan 2001) or the English Opening. The dangers awaiting Black are illustrated by the following fine game, which became a landmark for many generations of supporters ‘Hedgehog’ System and opponents of the ‘Hedgehog’. Strictly speaking, it does not even come within the framework of the given topic, since the open- ing itself is highly original: at that time few ventured to play £f1-d3 with pawns on d2 and 4. This looked like a beginner's move! Adrian Mikhalchishin testifies to this: ‘I helped Romanishin prepare the “bomb” against the great Tigran. And, I remember, Oleg, asked with a laugh: what do you think, when the packed auditorium sees this - will they begin whistling at me or at the demon- strator?” Game 9 O.Romanishin-T.Petrosian 43rd USSR Championship, Erevan 1975 English Opening A17 1.4 Df6 2 Dc3 e6 3 Af3 b6 4 e4 (instead of the usual 4 g3) 4...2b7 5 2d3!? ‘In the years when players of strict posi- tional style ruled, this eccentric move pro- voked general astonishment! The bishop stands in front of the d2-pawn, blocking the development of its own army. But this is a temporary phenomenon; withdrawing the bishop is no problem! In this way Roman- ishin supports his e4-pawn and continues his development.’ (Shipov) It is interesting that during the last 30 33Revolution in the 70s years a similar motif has also regularly oc- curred in the Sicilian Defence after 1 e4 52 13, for example: 2...e6 3 b3 b6 4 c4 (or 4 Bb2 Rb7 5 Hd3) 4...Rb7 5 Dc3 Df6 6 Ld3, or 2...d6 3 c3 Df6 4 &d3 (and £c2), or even 3 &d3!? immediately (Aronin-Grischuk, Monaco rapidplay 2006). 5.6 Typical of Petrosian, who avoids the immediate clash in the centre after 5...d5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 e5 Dfd7, as Gulko (in that same championship) and then Robatsch (Malta Olympiad 1980) played against Po- lugayevsky, or 5...c5!? (Korchnoi-Polugay- evsky, Ist and 9th matchgames, Evian 1977; 3rd matchgame, Buenos Aires 1980). In general, Polugayevsky and Korchnoi quickly seized on the idea of 5 2d3 and made a significant contribution to the de- velopment of this variation. 6 &c2! c5 (preventing d2-d4-d5) 7 da cxd4 8 Dxd4 Le7 (not 8...g6 9 0-0 a6 on account of 10 Af3! and &£4) 9 0-0 0-0 203! Both prophylactic defence of the weak c4-pawn, and preparation for the develop- ment of the bishop on its best square b2. 10...D6 Aiming to ease the defence by exchang- ing a pair of knights, After 10...bd7 White operates in accordance with the following scheme: £b2, (2-f4, @hi, We2, Hadi(el), £3 and then e4-e5, beginning an attack in the centre and on the kingside. Alas, here it is hard for Black to create counterplay. 41 &b2 ‘The pair of powerful bishops (b2 and c2) trained on the opponent's king - this is the cornerstone of White's strategy in this vari- ety of the ‘Hedgehog’. 11...a6 (not hurrying with ...Dxd4, to avoid activating the white queen) 12 #h1 Useful prophylaxis, anticipating £2-f4. The immediate 12 Dxc6 Lxc6 13 Wd3! is sharper, although after 13...g6 (13...b5?! 14 Dd5!) 14 a4 We7 15 f4 Mad 16 We2 Bfes 17 Bad1 £b7 (17...2d7!?) all the same 18 whi is appropriate (Polugayevsky-Petrosian, Kislovodsk 1982). Ss oe Pe 12...We7 12...Wb8?! 13 £4 b5 is bad in view of 14 e5! dxe5 15 Axc6 &xc6 16 fxe5 Dd7 (not 16...Wxe5? 17 d5! or 16...4d8 17 We2 DeB 18 &xh7+!) 17 Ad5! exd5 18 cxd5 with an overwhelming advantage for White (Po- lugayevsky-Gheorghiu, Manila Interzonal 1976). However, the best defence was soon dis- covered — 12...Wd7! with the idea of ...b6-b5. True, even here after 13 Axcé &xc6 14 Wd3! (an ambush!) 14...b5 (14...g6 15 a4!) 15 cxb5 (it is too early for 15 4d5? on account of 15..exd5 16 exdS bxe4 17 bxc4 Sad!) 15...4xb5 (now if 15...axb5, then 16 d5! is 34strong, forcing 16...xd5 17 exd5 e5 18 f4! with a clear initiative) 16 Qxb5 Wxb5 17 acl (Mecking-Polugayevsky, 12th match- game, Lucerne 1977) or 17 Wd4!? (Smejkal- Petursson, Reykjavik 1978) White neverthe- less retains a slight advantage. 13 fq Had 24 ca (with a potential threat to the black queen) 14...Wb8 Here the commentators recommended. 14...Axd4 15 Wxd4 We5 with the evaluation ‘=, but after 15 Wd3 Black remains with similar problems, 15 Df3 With the obvious intention of 8g3(h3). But in view of the irrational nature of the subsequent complications, 15 Dxc6!? 2xcb6 16 Wd3 came into consideration, creating the threat of 17 Qd5! exd5 18 exd5, and if 16...,Rb7, then 17 cel or 17 Wh3 with good attacking chances. 15.86 True to his passive waiting strategy, Pet- rosian substantially weakens the al-h8 di- agonal, which is immediately exploited by his young opponent. But what should Black have done? After 15...xd4 16 Wxd4 b5 17 xb5! (17 Bd5!2) 17...axb5 18 Dxb5 Lxed 19 skxe4 Wxb5 20 a4 White has a pair of passed pawns together with the threat of an attack on the king. Black should possibly have decided on 15..d5!? (although this was not in Petro- ‘Hedgehog’ System sian’s style), for example: 16 e5 Ded 17 Dxc6 Bxc6 18 cxd5 exd5, or 16 cxd5 Dxd4 17 Wxd4 exd5 18 Dxd5 (18 e5 &c5 and .Be4 is unclear) 18...8xd5 19 exd5 Bxd5 with chances of a successful defence (if 20 Wec3, then 20...e8 or 20...Wc8 is satisfac- tory, but not 20...2c8? 21 @xh7+ dxh7 22 Bh3+1), 16 Ddsi? Lightning from a clear sky - a splendid positional piece sacrifice with a far from clear outcome! The tactical nuances here are completely different from those in the variations from the previous game (Game No8). 46...exd5 (after 16..@xd5? 17 cxd5 Black perishes with material equal) 17 exd5! The commentators of the 1970s sug- gested the ‘decisive’ sacrifice of the second knight — 17 £52! However, after 17...dxe4! the continuation 18 Zxe7+ @xe7 19 Wd is refuted by 19...d5! 20 Wxf6 dt, blocking the ‘diagonal of death’, while if 18 Bg3, then 18...d5! 19 @xe7+ (19 Wh5? Wxia!; 19 Dho+ Gh8 20 cxd5 Abs is also bad) 19...xe7 20 &xf6 dxc4 or even 20...2f5, and White's hopes are dashed. 17...2xd4 (if 17...b4?, then 18 DFS! We7 19 He3! is now indeed decisive) 18 Wxd4 des! Great defensive skill: the e7-bishop, which is supporting the knight at (6 35Revolution in the 70s (Black's last bulwark!) can now be hidden at d8. 18...Ec8 is clearly inferior, since the coun- terplay on the c-file is too late: 19 5! b5 20 Bel! &d8 21 Wh4 bxcd 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 Axgét hxg6 24 Hh3! Dh5 25 Wed and wins, or 20..We7 21 Bfe3 &d8 22 Wh4 bxc4 (22...2h5 23 Wxh5! and 22...%g7 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 Rxg6! hxg6 25 Hh3 Hg8 26 Reb etc. are weaker alternatives) 23 Rxf6 Rxf6 24 Wxf6 2xd5 (24...cxb3 25 £xb3 is also insuf- ficient) 25 He7 We6 26 fxg6 hxg6 27 &xg6!, and White is the first to reach the enemy king. ie \ y NP 19 #571 This move suggests itself, but it concedes the e5-point to Black. Shipov recommends 19 g4 (he gives it a ‘t'), considering only 19...b5? 20 g5 &d8 21 gxf6 with an obvious advantage for White. But 19...Wa8!, pointed out a long time ago by Romanishin and Mikhalchishin, intending the counter- sacrifice of the bishop on d5, is better, for example: 20 g5 &xd5! 21 cxd5 Wxd5 - after returning the piece, Black remains a pawn up and, in my view, after 22 Wd1 Wxd1+ 23 Bxd1 @hS he should be able to hold this slightly inferior ending. The only way to prevent this is 20 2d3!? (but not 20 Hd1 We8 21 g5 &xd5!, or 20 Red We8 21 g5 We5! 22 We3 d8 23 &d3 &xd5!) 20...d8 21 Hd2, but then after 21...Wc8! 36 (21...h6? 22 Hgi! and g4-g5) 22 g5 (22 Bgl? We5) 22...Wh3 Black gains real counterpl: 23 Hg2 (23 gxf6 He6!? and ...2xf6) 23...Be3 24 gxf6 Bfe8 intending 28, or 23 HE2 &cB 24 gxf6 2f5 with compensation for the pawn deficit. 19...2d8 (19...g5?! 20 h4 with an attack) 20 Wha Zest A counter-sacrifice of the exchange, neu- tralising the dangerous bishop. Black would have lost ignominiously after both 20...2xd5? 21 Wxh7+! and 20...0h5? 21 Wxhs! 21 Wh6 (if 21 fxg6 fxg6 22 Hcfl, then 22...Wic7 is good) 21...We7? With time-trouble approaching, Petro- sian misses an excellent drawing chance — 21...Dg4! 22 Wr4(h3) Df6, and it is doubtful whether White has anything better than to repeat moves by 23 Whé. Ys 0 om aoe nine £ V7 22 Bgst (now the attack is irresistible) 22.88 If 22..Qe8, then 23 Rfl!, for example: 23...We7 24 Hh3 @f6 25 Rxe5 dred 26 fxg fxg6 27 Rxg6! hxg6 28 Exf6! with crushing threats, or 24...f6 25 fxg6 Wg7 26 &xe5 dxe5 27 Wxh7+ Wxh7 28 Exh7, and the white pawns begin the march to the queening square. 23 Axes dxes 24 fxg6 (it was more accurate first to play the diverting 24 d6!, and only after the queen moves ~ 25 fxg6 fxg6 26ixg6!) 24...fxg6 25 2xgél Dga! ‘The great defender fights to the last bul- let. After 25...hxg6 26 Rxg6+ £7 27 Bg7+ sbe8 28 Uxc7 &xc7 29 Hf 2d8 30 h3! and g2-g4-g5 Black has insufficient compensa- tion for the queen.’ (Shipov) 26 2hs5 Bfé 27 Wd2 Bfa (if 27...Wg7, then simply 28 &ixg4 &xg4 29 h3) 28 d6l? A sharp move in the opponent's time- trouble. A player such as Karpov would most probably have chosen the quiet 28 h3. 28...Wg7! 29 d7 29 fixed Bxgd (29...dixg4 30 h3) 30 Wd5+ h8 31 Bxgs fxg4 32 Efl! would have won more quickly. 29.867? A blunder with the flag about to fall. 29...Wxd7! (but not 29....xd7 30 &xg4!) 30 Wrxd7 &xd7 31 &xgd Hxg4 32 Bdl! hd! 33 Bxd7 &xg3 34 hxg3 Exg3, was more tena- cious, although after 35 Hd6! (Romanishin, Mikhalchishin) Black nevertheless has a lost endgame. Shipov gives 35..g6 36 Bxg6+ hxg6 37 g4 £7 38 g2, winning thanks to the outside passed pawn on the queenside, and also 35...b5 36 cxbS axb5 37 Eb6! etc. \ tl 30 Wxf4l, and in view of 30...exf4 31 Exg4 5 32 Ed Black resigned (4-0). As we see, if Black allows the opponent to develop his forces in the optimal way, ‘Hedgehog’ System his position can fairly quickly become hopeless. True, in the opening he had the possibility of obtaining a different pawn structure (cf. the note to Black’s 5th move). Queenside castling?! By the mid-1980s, after the ‘Hedgehog’ had been successfully employed for a decade, chess public opinion finally recognised it as a fully correct system. Moreover, on a wave of enthusiasm players increasingly often began transposing into it from the most varied, at times quite unexpected openings ~ for example, the King’s Indian Defence: 4 44 Df6 2 c4 g6 3 Dc3 2g7 4 e4 d6 5 30-06 &e3 Dbd7 (for the moment there are no traces of a ‘Hedgehog’) 7 Dge2 5 8 Wd2 a6 9 Eda Was 10 Aca (stubbornly rejecting d4- 5, to avoid ‘Benko-like’ counterplay with wb7-b5) 10...cxd4 11 Rxd4 De5 12 Dbz We7 13 Hci e6 14 22 b6 15 0-0 2b7 — and now we have a ‘Hedgehog’ (Christiansen-Nunn, Bundesliga 1989). Concrete opening feature also gave birth to new plans, which organically blended in with the overall theory of the ‘Hedgehog’ system. Thus in the Nimzo-Indian Defence after 1 d4 Af6 2 4 e6 3 Ac3 ba 4 We2 655, dxc5 the exchange of the d4-pawn for the c5-pawn suggested to Black the idea of re- plying 5...2xe5 6 Df3 Wb6 7 e3 Wec7, then withdrawing the bishop to e7 and arrang- 37Revolution in the 70s ing his pawns along the 6th rank: 8 2e2 a6 9 0-0 b6 10 b3 &b7 11 &b2 Se7! 12 Baca d6, and we have a solid ‘Hedgehog’ (Sei- rawan-Romanishin, Brussels 1986). It stands to reason that White did not let this go unanswered, and he soon found a sharp plan of attack: 8 b3 (he has also played 8 @d2, and even 8 gf) 8...a6 (8...b6!2) 9 &b2 (9 g4!? Bareev-Sakaev, Mos- cow 2001) 9...b6 10 £e2 (the alternative is 10 &d3 &b7 11 Ded or 11 0-0-0!) 40....8b7. 11 gal? (threatening to drive the knight from f6) 14...0xg@ (11...h6!?) 12 Ega Dxh2 13° Dgst Dc6 14 0-0-0 (Carlsen- Shaposhnikov, Moscow 2004). Queenside castling is something unprecedented in the classical ‘Hedgehog’! Similar exotic happenings also occur in the Queen’s Indian Defence, where the ‘Hedgehog’ arises more often: 1 d4 Df6 2 ¢4 e6 3 Af3 b6 4 a3 (or 4 g3 Rab 5 Wad 2b76 Bg? c5! 7 dxc5 Rxc5 8 0-0 0-09 Ac3 Le7! 10 &f4 a6 11 Bfdi d6 with equality, Leko- Kramnik, 11th matchgame, Brissago 2004) 4.246 5 We2 2b7 (a typical manoeuvre: the white queen no longer controls the d5- point) 6 43 517 e4 (after 7 d5 exd5 8 cxd5 Black can boldly play 8...xd5 — if 9 Wed+ he has 9...We7!) 7...exd4 8 Dxd4 d6l? 9 Rez £e7 10 2e3. Here the usual 10 0-0 and £2-f3 is harm- less, since White has played Wc2 and a2-a3, not the most useful moves. 10...a6 11 0-0-0 (an attempt to make use of the queen’s position at c2: subsequently, depending on the situation, White plans either the central strike e4-e5 or the flank advance g2-g4-g5) 11...0fd71 Prophylaxis against both threats. After 12 g4 Dc6 13 Dxc6 Axc6 14 f4 Wb8! with the idea of ..b6-b5 (Dreev- Lerner, Vienna 1996) or 12 &b1 Ac6 13 f4 (after 13 Axc6 &xc6 14 Bd2 0-0 15 Bhdi ‘Wh8! 16 f4 the simple 16...2fd8 is possible, or else the gambit 16...b5!? 17 e5 b4 18 axb4 Wexb4 19 exd6 2f6 20 Bd4 Rxd4 21 Bxd4 Hab8) 13...0-0 14 Db3 Wb8l 15 es DcsI (Notkin-Lerner, St Petersburg 1996) Black has good counter-chances. In this sharp scheme the battle follows Sicilian rules: both sides, not begrudging pawns, are eager as soon as possible to be- gin a mating attack. The situation in the centre is also unstable, so that the confla- gration engulfs the whole board. In this connection I cannot help recalling my game with Salov (Barcelona 1989), where after 1 Dfs Dfe 2 c4 b6 3 Dc3 c5 4.04 d6 5 d4 xd4 6 @xd4 £b7 I played 7 Wea, in order to answer 7...2c6 with 8 Axc6 Lxc6 9 Lg5 e6 10 0-0-0! with the threat of e4-e5. My oppo- nent preferred 7..abd7 8 g3 Hc8? (8...c6 was better) 9 &g2 a6 10 0-0 Wc7?l 11 b3 6, but he went from the frying pan into the fire. 38‘Hedgehog’ System 12 Dd51 Wb8 (White also has a strong at- tack after 12...exd5 13 exd5+ &d8 14 2b2) 13 Edal g6 14 Sigs! g7 (14..exd5? 15 exd5+ Me7 16 Dcé etc.) 15 Axfél Dxfe (15....Rxf6? 16 Dxf6+ Dxf6 17 €5!) 16 Dxbs Rd8? (16...2c7 17 Bad was more tenacious) 17 e5! Sxg2 (17...dxe5 18 Dc6!) 18 exfé xfé 19 Qxe6! with crushing threats. This happened on 13th April, the day of my 26th birthday. Sergey Makarichev comments: “The amazing “Hedgehog” system, which appeared in the 1970s, is comparable in the psychological sense with a whole series of “unobtrusive” schemes for White that ap- peared at the same time. All of them, one way or another, speculate on a person’s bio- logically inherent striving to set himself con- crete aims and carry out some plan. It was for this reason that, for the greater part of the 20th century, the complete surrendering of the centre, which occurs in the “Hedge- hog”, was thought to be an inadmissible strategic concession: when you are held in a vice, sooner or later the opponent will break through somewhere, when means that you will inevitably suffer substantial losses. ‘In order to invent the “Hedgehog”, it was necessary, as they now say, to shift the paradigm. Possibly it all began when, against his will, some unfortunate player found himself under terrible pressure in the Maréczy system. But he managed to retain his composure and behaved not like a sheep that was doomed to be made into kebabs, but like the staunch garrison of a besieged fortress. Indeed, if you are con- vinced that your defences are impregnable, the psychological advantage passes to your side. From a nervous, desperate object, you are transformed into a fearless, self- confident fighter. Incidentally, the plan you should follow also becomes absolutely clear: you must coolly stand your ground! ‘There is also another version of how the legendary scheme was born. Long, long ago, back in the 1960s, one of the future grandmasters - perhaps the young Ljubo- mir Ljubojevic - was so captivated by the play of Inter Milan under the management of Helenio Hererra, that he firmly decided: “When I grow up, I will think up some- thing similar in chess. My pieces, just like the Italian footballers, will completely con- cede space, but at the same time, when standing in defence, they will be constantly pressing, and when my opponent hesitates, even for an instant, they will punish him with a deadly counterattack.” ‘All that was needed was a clear under- standing of where best to place the minor pieces and heavy pieces and how to ma- noeuvre with them. And in addition, re- member religiously that the reason you got mixed up in this business was not at all in order to squeeze out a pitiful draw. Al- though, if a draw nevertheless occurs, this is also not a disaster... “In a certain sense the “Hedgehog” is very simple: it is easy to obtain, and it is easy to prepare with Black. At the 1980 USSR Championship in Vilnius, Lev Psakhis gave me exhaustive recommenda- tions about this in literally five minutes. Following them, without loss of time and effort(!) I obtained a good position, and 39Revolution in the 70s then even an enormous advantage against ‘Yuri Balashov: 1 Df3 Df6 2 4 b6 3 g3 5 4 fig? 2b7 5 0-0 e6 6 Dc3 Re7 7 d4 cxdg B Wid4 d6 9 b3 a6 10 &b2 Abd7 11 Efda 0-0 12 h3 We7 13 e4 Hfes 14 Maca 2f8 15 We3 Bac8 16 We2 Wb8 17 Hei Acs 18 Dd2 La8 19 dh2 g6 20 Hedi Ag7 21 Afi Rc6 22 be Dad 23 Dxad Rxag 24 Gc1 Rc6 25 Ac3 ‘25..b5 26 cxbS &xb5 27 Wb2 Zxc3l 28 Bxc3 DAd7 29 De3 Axc3 30 Wxe3 Hc8 32 Wd2 Des 32 Eda Lag 33 Mea Dcg 34 Dnc4 Eixc4 35 a3 Hc2 36 Wa Wb6 37 Ze3 Wd4 38 ha? (38 B63 was correct) 38...Wd2I 39 Zf3 ‘39 hg] £5! 40 €5 (40 exf5? e5) 40...d5 was also bad for White. *39...Wixf4 40 gxf4 (or 40 Bxf4 Sc6!) 40...26 41 He3 Exf2 42 &g3 Ha2 43 2f1 bs 44 &xb5 axb§ with an extra pawn in the rook endgame, although then Black played badly and was unable to win. ‘Nevertheless, I remembered for ever the main impression of this game: how much easier it was to stay coolly behind the walls of the fortress, than to risk your life trying to storm its impregnable bastions! That is, to do that which my opponents occasion- ally forced me to engage in when playing White, A brief résumé. Today, at the start of the 2ist century, the ‘Hedgehog’ is firmly es- tablished and has become a basic element in the erudition of strong players. Its key ideas are now known not only to a narrow circle of devotees. A good fifty per cent of grandmasters play the ‘Hedgehog’ for both colours, and there are few who doubt that it is positionally well-founded. And, largely thanks to this system, the very concepts of “positional play’, ‘solid handling of the opening’, and ‘correct chess’ have been immeasurably expanded over the last quar- ter of a century. 40Chapter Two Chelyabinsk Variation Perhaps the most amazing metamorphosis that occurred in the 1970s was in a once condemned, ‘anti-positional’ variation of the Sicilian Defence: 1egc5 2 Df3 Acé 3 da cxd4 4 Duda Af 5 Ac3es Here is a brief history of it. 6 Adbs! The best way of exploiting the weakening of the d5-square. The well-known game Schlechter-Lasker (9th matchgame, Berlin 1910) went 6 b3 (Tarrasch called this move ‘ugly’, and in the given instance his custom- ary directness is quite appropriate) 6...,2b4! 7 2d3 d5! with excellent play for Black. It is weak to play 6 Dxc6 bxc6 7 2g5?! Ebs! (Meligren-Alekhine, Orebro 1935). Also, little is achieved by 6 @f5 d5! 7 exd5 2xf5 8 dxc6 bxe6 (after 8...Wxdl+ 9 @xd1 bxc6 10 Be3 White has slightly the better endgame) 9 Wf3 Wd7 etc. 6...d6! 6...a67! 7 Dd6+ &xd6 8 Wxd6 h6 9 Le3 is advantageous to White (Hannah-Loewe, match, London 1857). But now Black in- tends 7...a6, driving back the knight to a3 - it was not without reason that after 1910 this was called ‘Lasker's Hunt Variation’. 7 Rags The plan: White fights for the d5-square. Schlechter’s old recommendation 7 a4 fairly quickly went out of use. The solid 7 @d5 still occurs today, although it does not cause Black any particular discomfort. 44Revolution in the 70s In the period when these variations were more highly valued, Black often avoided them by 5...e6 (or 2...e6 and 5...@c6, which also avoids 2...2\c6 3 &b5), reaching the starting position a move later - after 6 Dabs (here he also has to reckon with 6 ®xc6) 6...d67 &f4 €5 8 &g5. Because of this, the authors of reviews and commentaries had to bring together the texts of games with different move numbers. This is also the case here: all of the following annotated games have been reduced to the classical \c6 and 5...e5 (and where there was a different move order, this is mentioned in parentheses). Tn ‘The Kishinyov master Chebanenko used to uphold 7...&e6?! with the idea of 8 a3?! 51, along the lines of the Ist game of the Fischer-Petrosian match (cf. Game No.29, note to Black's 6th move), but here 8 ®d5! and c2-c3 is stronger. 7 Ui Z ¢ Gat ay le “8 Deb pate Ss NS ae Se, 8 Daz! When in the middle of the last century 5...e5 was played by the Argentineans Pe- likan, Pilnik and Rossetto, their games usu- ally went 8 &xf6 gxf6 9 a3 d5?! ~ the so- called ‘Argentine Variation’ or ‘Pelikan Variation’. But the ‘Chelyabinsk’ 9..b5 is better. And there is also the additional resource 9...£5! (Tarrasch-Janowski, Vienna 1898). ‘Black has weaknesses in the centre and on both flanks ~ and nothing more is required. The two bishops and the temporarily bad position of the knight at a3 do not give him sufficient compensation’, wrote Tarrasch in his notes to the game, which he won after 10 WhS bS 11 Daxb5 axbS 12 &xb5 Lb7 13 Rcd WI6 14 DdS We6 15 Dc7+ SAB 16 Wxgo fxg6 17 Dxa8 Lxa8 18 2d5 etc. But many years later it transpired that this endgame is not at all simple: after 18...c7 with the idea of ...fh6! and ...b4(e7) White’s rook and two pawns are hardly stronger than the two minor pieces (Game No.44 in Vol- ume I of My Great Predecessors). 8...b5! Janowski’s move 8...,te7?! is insufficient on account of 9 Ac4! (Averbakh-Korchnoi, Tula 1950). After 8...2e6 (the Bird-Larsen Variation) again 9 @c4 is good. But now the knight at a3 is temporarily out of play. The tabiya of a variation which was ex- tremely rare in the 1940-1950s, but which had gained unprecedented popularity by the end of the 20th century, following the example of two Chelyabinsk players, the future grandmasters Evgeny Sveshnikov and Gennady Timoshchenko. The birth of a variation Evgeny Sveshnikov recalls how the Chely- abinsk Variation was conceived: 42| played the Sicilian Defence right from my childhood ~ I began with the Paulsen Variation, but I preferred more forcing play. At the end of 1962, in an opening book by Pachman, I saw an exotic variation, where in the position from the previous diagram 9 &xf6 gxf6 10 @d5 was recom- mended. “And if 10...2e6 - 11 DxbS axb5 12 &xbS “with an obvious advantage for White” But, as it is easy to see, after 12...c8 Black has excellent counter-chances. Besides, 10...f5! is better, and if 11 @xb5 axb5 12 &xb5, then 12...2b7(d7). And I began play- ing 5...e5, hoping to catch someone in the knight sacrifice. ‘In the summer of 1965 I was successful with Black after 9 Ad5 &e7 10 &xf6 &xf6 in the Ist game of a training match with Gen- nady Timoshchenko, although he was on. the verge of becoming a master, whereas I was only a first category player. A year later I shared my ideas and analyses with him, and Timoshchenko also began playing this variation. ‘Evidently I did not understand what was meant by the weakness of the d5-square. When in the early 1960s Larsen played 5...e5, and 8...fe6, he wrote: “The variation was intended to be a surprise weapon, and if it ‘was not 100 per cent correct I didn’t mind.” In his time that was how Botvinnik also rea- Chelyabinsk Variation soned: “So long as the variation is bringing results, it should be employed.” My results were more than satisfactory. ‘I remember a photograph in a magazine from the match-tournament of three USSR Teams (1973): 1 am playing Stein, Tal is sit- ting alongside, and Tukmakov is walking past. And the caption reads: “The young cause surprise”. The game with Stein was one of the first at such a level where I em- ployed 5...e5. Everyone was staggered that after 6 Adb5 dé I obtained a good position. Bronstein commented: “It is not so easy for White to exploit the weakness of the d5- point: for this he is forced to withdraw his knight to a3. Perhaps 6 @f5 should be played.” But it turned out that this merely forces rapid equality and that more is prom- ised by 6 DdbS. ‘In the 1973 USSR Championship I was crushed by Spassky in this variation (Game No.22) and “tormented” by Karpov (cf. Game No.13, note to Black's 16th move). Anatoly sympathetically said to me: “Why spend so much effort on such a difficult variation? Find something a little easier.” ‘And on one occasion Petrosian asked with a surprised smile, having in mind Karpov and Geller: “Have they really not yet re- futed your invention? Perhaps I'll have to start playing 1 e4...” But he did not in fact carry out his threat. Moreover, in the 1976 USSR Championship no one ventured to play 1 e4 against me, and I regarded this as amoral victory. “Yes, the d5-point had a magic attraction. But, after looking through my games, you will easily see that I never lost the battle for it. There is nothing surprising about this: it is the main idea of the entire variation! It is another matter, if Black gains material compensation in the form of the exchange or a piece... And it is a particular instance, when the knight at d5 is transformed into a “paper tiger”: not attacking anything and 43Revolution in the 70s “defending” the opponent's main weakness - the d6-pawn. Then Black bypasses this knight and after placing his bishop, say, on 8, he feels perfectly comfortable. Gennady Timoshchenko also shared his vision of the Chelyabinsk Variation: ‘Before 1965 this variation was employed very rarely, and not one well-known player chose 5...e5 more or less regularly. In that distant era there were no computers, the books published games that were virtually a hundred years old, while new games ap- peared in magazines only after a great de- lay, and there were very few of them. ‘And then in the summer of 1965 in Chelyabinsk I played a training match with Evgeny Sveshnikov. From that time the variation began to be intensively devel- oped, and so it was then that it was con- ceived in its present-day form. To be hon- est, I was rather amused when in the very first game of the match I saw the move 5.05 on the board. Indeed, to weaken the key d5-square in such a way! My opponent obviously had a poor understanding of chess and did not read books at all... But, after underestimating my opponent, un- derestimating the variation and making some specific mistakes, I lost that game. This greatly hurt me, and a few days later I played far more confidently against 5...e5 and gained revenge. “However, the 5...e5 variation itself ap- pealed to me from Black's side. Nearly eve- rything of the little that was written in the books of that time proved on serious verifi- cation to be rubbish. I was attracted by the unusual nature of the variation, its bold- ness, and the fact that it was completely unexplored. In practically every line, masses of new ideas were found, and a player who knew these ideas had a great advantage over an opponent who was playing by the usual concepts. Soon the first tests of the variation took place, and the results exceeded all expectations: even masters did not know how to play with White! Among my first experiences were games against Kotkov (1967) and Podgaets (1968), which can be found in databases (incidentally, I also won against Kotkov, but for some reason in the databases the ‘opposite result is given; I should like to take the opportunity to correct this). ‘Naturally, we were also familiar with those dangers which could threaten Black, who is sometimes walking literally on a knife edge. Therefore I was sometimes able to win amusing games with White. Thus late in 1966, when I was in Moscow and was preparing to travel with Botvinnik to the tournament in Hastings, for training purposes it was suggested that I should play a game with Alexander Nikitin, Kas- parov’s future trainer. He unexpectedly chose 5...e5 6 Ddb5 d6 7 £g5 a6 8 a3 bs, and here I decided to “test” my opponent in the line with 9 @xf6. There quickly fol- lowed 9... Wxf6?! 10 Dd5 WB 11 4. ‘Here Black artlessly replied 11..b4? (11..Qe7 is better, Adorjan-Sveshnikov, Budapest 1967). The punishment was se- vere: 12 Wad! &d7 13 Db5! axbS 14 WxaB and White won. I did not gain any useful training. ‘Roughly at that time one of the main ideas of the variation was formulated: since 44Chelyabinsk Variation in the Sicilian White very often gains an attack on the king by e4-e5, the move 5...e5 is good if only for the reason that it elimi- nates this danger. It was than that I ex- pressed the idea that in the Sicilian Defence (and specifically in the Chelyabinsk Varia- tion!) the move 3 d4, apparently, eases Black’s game (just as 3 d4 eases his game in the open variations after 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Dc6). It is no accident that for a long time Sveshnikov has persistently fought for an advantage for White with 2 c3. Although I had in mind 2 Af3 Ac6 3 &bS (as we will see on pp. 326 and 390, Sveshnikov also stands up for this -G.K.).. “A new impetus to the study of the Chelyabinsk Variation occurred in 1972, when I became a professional chess player and began devoting considerably more time to the game. A year earlier, after com- pleting my course at the Chelyabinsk Poly- technic Institute, 1 had moved to Novosi- birsk, and therefore Sveshnikov and I ana- lysed together rather rarely - and, not sur- prisingly, we had a different approach to the solving of a number of opening prob- lems. After 9 Ad5 I made quite a thorough analysis of 9...Wa5+; in the main line with 9.807 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 11 c3 0-0 12 Dc2 1 played 12...g5, not fearing the opening of the a-file (after 13 a4 bxa4 14 Bxad), whereas Sveshnikov also employed 12...8b8. Of course, there were also other lines where we differed.” Relying on the two bishops After 8...b5 White has two main continua- tions ~ 9 d5 and 9 &xf6. The choice of the first usually signifies a striving for purely positional play, an attempt to gain a slight but enduring advantage, by exploiting the occupation of the d5-point after 9...2e7 10 ixf6. However, White has also tried 10 Qxe7 - perhaps the two bishops will be sufficient to give him an advantage? Game 10 A.Semenyuk-E.Sveshnikov Sverdlovsk 1975 Sicilian Defence B33 1d c5 2 Af3 Dcé 3 d4 cxdg 4 Dxda Df 5 Dc3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 &gs a6 8 Daz bs 9 Dds 9..RO7 The usual reply. 9...%e6? (Olafsson- Larsen, Ziirich 1959) is bad in view of 10 Qxf6! gxf6 11 c3, intending 2c2-e3. However, White also has to reckon with ‘Timoshchenko's 9...Wa5+ 10 &d2 Wd8. Af- ter 11 &g5 Wa5+ many games have ended in a draw, without essentially having be- gun. It was some time before a convincing reply was found: 11 c4! Axed 12 cxb5 Leb! 13 Bcd! De7 14 Se3!, and Black cannot avoid loss of material. But the position is so dynamic, that he nevertheless gains coun- terplay, albeit objectively insufficient - even in the ‘wild’ variation 14...Kc8 15 &b6 Wd7 16 bxa6 Hxc4 17 a7 Dxd5 18 abW+ Bc8, where for the second white queen he has only two minor pieces! It is interesting that my trainers and I made a serious analysis of these complica- tions before my second match with Karpov (1985). There the Chelyabinsk Variation did not occur, but in the second half of the 45Revolution in the 70s 1980s I played it many times in clock simul- taneous displays, and the analyses of 9...Wa5+ came in useful. 10 @xe7 (10 S&xf6 - Game Nos.11-17) 10...Axe7! The critical reply: Black allows the break- up of his pawn chain, but continues the fight for the centre. After 10...Wxe7 11 c4 b4 12 @c2 manoeuvring play begins, and thanks to his two bishops, the weakness on d6 and his control of the d5-point, White retains the initiative. 11 Rxf6 gxf6 12 4 2b7 \ p> \\e> bit SS ‘yy YN Ue, Ww BN ee NN RE \\ > NY ai Sveshnikov allows the opponent to eliminate all his queenside pawns, but Black gains excellent prospects thanks to his powerful pawn centre. Today it is another line that is being more actively developed - 12...f5!? Black resorts to this move if he wishes to avoid a possibility indicated in the next note. 13 cxbs?! Experience has shown that after the bet- ter 13 £d3 things are not so easy for Black. However, in what was virtually the first game played with this variation, it was hard to avoid the obvious capture: its drawbacks are not at all evident. 13...2xe4 14 Wad d5 15 bxab+ f8 One of the paradoxical ‘Chelyabinsk’ po- sitions. White has an extra, protected pawn on a6(!), connected passed pawns and an ideal pawn structure, whereas Black has doubled pawns and his king is unable to castle. And yet it would appear that, in all the known games where the diagram position oc- curred, White lost! In Black's favour here are dynamics - the element that is the most difficult to take into account when evaluating a situation. Only on a deep investigation does it be- come clear how Black can easily bring his pieces out to attacking positions, and how for White's, by contrast, it is hard to coor- dinate their actions. To exploit dynamic factors at such an early stage of the game, before the completion of development - this was a new approach. Nowadays this has become commonplace, but at that time it was a revolutionary breakthrough! 16 Wb4 White’s choice is not easy, for example: 16 h42! Hg8! 17 £3 B65 18 g4 BB 19 0-0-0 Wvé6 with strong counterplay (Izvozchikov- Sveshnikov, Riga 1975), or 16 (3 £5 17 Bd1 Hg8 18 b4 Wo6 19 Wb3 &g7 20 b5 (De Fir- mian-Blocker, New York 1984), and al- though White has securely defended his passed a6-pawn, after 20...gc8! he has no defence (the threat is ...Wa5+). 16 Wb4 looks a sound move: the b6- square becomes inaccessible to the black queen, even if only temporarily, the knight 46Chelyabinsk Variation is pinned, and when the black king goes to g7 White will be able to develop his bishop, without sacrificing his g2-pawn. x Y a Tag G y RK 16...887 When the position is very good, more than one solution is possible: 16...2g8 17 £3 RES 18 g4 cB 19 0-0-0 &xa6 20 Sb1 dg7, and Black’s chances on the queenside are more real (Ljubojevic-Adorjan, Riga Inter- zonal 1979). 17 Re2? (17 &b5, preventing ...Ac6-d4, was correct) 17...Ac6 18 Wd2 Ddq 19 0-0 Wb6 7m Z a WY, amy male Now White loses his a6-pawn and he is still unable to solve the problem of his bad knight at a3. 20 Efca Bhb8 21 2fa After 21 b3 Black has the strong 21...Bxa6! 22 2xa6 (if 22 Dc2 there is the combinative stroke 22...Exa2! 23 Hxa2 Dxb3 24 Wd1 @xcl 25 Wxcl Wb1) 22...Wxa6. 21...Wxb2 22 Wxb2 Bxb2 In this difficult endgame White’s down- fall was ultimately caused by his knight, which ended up on h8! (0-1). Quiet strategy After 9 Qd5 £e7 the strategically most solid method, as already mentioned in the notes to the game Karpov-Dolmatov (Game No.1 in Volume V of My Great Predeces- sors), is 10 Sxf6 &xf6 11 ¢3. White does not aim for a direct refuta- tion of the variation, but plans to slowly build up the pressure, after weakening the ‘opponent's queenside by c2 and a2-a4. But, as experience has shown, Black retains considerable possibilities for counter-action thanks to his two bishops and the move ..f7-f5. Moreover, he can employ various arrangements of his forces: 1) 11...0-0 12 Dc2 &g5 is the most obvi- ous, and this is how the theory of the varia- tion began. But then White is able to play a2-a4 unhindered. 2) 11...0-0 12 Bc2 Kb8, preventing a2-a4. But then with 13 h4 White can restrict the bishop at {6 and secure the e3-square for his 2-knight to control the outpost at d5; 3) 11..2g5 12 c2 Hb8, activating the bishop and preventing a2-a4 before castling. We will examine these set-ups in turn. 47Revolution in the 70s Game 11 G.Kasparov-L.Van Wely Wijk aan Zee 1999 Sicilian Defence B33 Leg c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Axd4 D6 5 Dc3 eS 6 Ddbs d6 7 Kgs a6 8 a3 bs 9 @Qd5 Re7 10 Axf6 Rxf6 11 c3 0-0 12 Dc2 igs 13 aa! After the sharp 13 h4 &h6 14 g4 Black has the good reply 14...f4! 15 WI3 2e6 16 @xfa Wi6! 17 g5 Wxf4 18 Wxf4 exf4 with equality (Minic-Langeweg, Budva 1963). 13...bxa4 14 Bxag aS The first critical position of the variation. 15 &bS In the source game Estrin-Kimelfeld (Moscow 1967) White tried immediately to take the bull by the horns - 15 b4, but after 15...2e6 16 b5 Db8 17 Ke2 Dd7 it tran- spired that Black, after comfortably deploy- ing his pieces, can now think about more than equalising. 15 &b5 was first employed by Smyslov against Sveshnikov (45th USSR Champion- ship, Leningrad 1977). It is tempting to de- velop the bishop with gain of tempo and at the same time clarify what Black will do with his knight at c6. And yet the tradi- tional 15 &c4 is better (Game Nos.13-15). 15...&b7 (the battle for the d5-point should not be deferred even by one move: accord- ing to Sveshnikov, 15...Qe7! is correct — Game No.12) 16 2ce3 White fails to exploit the opponent's in- accuracy. 16 0-0 Se7 17 &c4! would have given him a slight but enduring advantage. 16...2xe3 17 Dxe3 De7 However, Van Wely too misses a chance opportunity ~ 17...Wbé6!? After 18 We2 (if 18 Wd3 the proposed manoeuvre is even more effective) 18...Ad8!? 19 0-0 De6 Black has good counterplay. 18 0-0 Xba?! And here Black overlooks another inter- esting possibility - 18..Wb6 19 Wd3 Bfds!?, intending ..d6-d5. After both 20 &c4 £c6 21 Ba2 Wb? and 20 c4 Zcé! 21 Dd5 Wd4 he would evidently have had equal chances. 48But the immediate 18...d5?! would have created problems for him, for example: 19 exd5 Dxd5 20 Dxd5 x5 (20...WWxd5? loses to 21 Wxd5 &xd5 22 Bfal) 21 h3! (White cannot manage without an escape square) 21...f6 22 cf Re6 23 Wxd8 Mfxd8 24 Hfal Bac8 25 b3 Hd3 26 Bb1, and in the endgame the weakness of the a5-pawn is appreciable. 19 Wd3 Wb6 20 2ca! Now White succeeds in stabilising the situation: the weakness of the d5-point and the a5-pawn will determine the evaluation of the position, since Black is unable to cre- ate counterplay. 20...&¢6 21 Ba2 HfdB 22 b3 y If 22...Wb7 (hoping for 23 {3 d5 24 exd5 Axd5 25 BxaS Wo6 26 Exd5 Bxd5 27 Axd5 Exd5 28 Wxd5 Wxe3+ 29 Shi Wxc3 with a draw), then 23 4d5 is strong - although after 23...Dxd5 24 exd5 &b5 25 ExaS &xct 26 bxc4 White’s extra pawn is doubled, he has real chances of preparing the cf-c5 breakthrough. 23 Efai Ba8 24 ha! Black has everything defended, but he has been reduced to passivity. Therefore White begins a demonstration on the kingside, hoping, at the least, to seize new space. 24..h6 Avoiding 24...h5 due to a fear that after 25 We2 g6? 26 Wf3 or 25...2xe4 26 WxhdS Chelyabinsk Variation White's initiative will grow into an attack. 25 hs! &b7 26 Eda &c6 27 dat 2b7 28 2d5! (beginning the creation of a passed pawn on the queenside) 28...2xd5 29 exd5 Edc8 30 bg Wxe3 31 Wxc3 Bxc3 32 Hxas with a serious advantage in the endgame, which I was able to convert into a win (1-0). In the following game Black responded to 15 &b5 much more confidently. Game 12 L.Dominguez-P.Leko Erevan 2001 Sicilian Defence B33 14 ¢5 2 D3 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Dxd4 Df 5 Dc3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Ags a6 8 Daz bs 9 Dds Le7 10 Axf6 Qxf6 11 3 0-0 12 Dc2 g5 13 a4 bxag 14 Bxag a5 15 bs De7! 16 Acq Preparing a replacement for the knight at d5. In the aforementioned Smyslov- Sveshnikov game White had not yet dis- covered this basic idea, and after 16 Dxe7+ Wxe7 17 0-0 Wb7 Black easily solved his opening problems. me nam a — ae ; gt 16...2h3! An original idea of Adorjan, which was first employed in this game. In the lines with 16...0xd5, 16...2b7 and 16...Re6 Black encountered difficulties. 49Revolution in the 70s Thus, after 16...e6 17 Dxe7+ Wxe7 18 &c6 a7 19 AdS Sxd5 20 &xd5 White's advantage in the position with opposite- coloured bishops is obvious, but Black can sharpen the play with the help of an ex- change sacrifice - 18...ac8 19 Bxa5 Bxc6 20 @xc6 Wb7. Now after 21 Wxd6?! Hd8! 22 WeS Od2+ 23 G1 Wxb2 24 Dxd8 Of, de- spite White’s enormous material advan- tage, he is fighting only to save the game: 25 ga! Sxg4 26 Wd5! 2h3+ 27 wel Wo1+ 28 cbe2 Sg4+ 29 £3 We2+ 30 fl! &h3+ 31 Bel Wxc3+ with perpetual check. But already in the source game Raisky- Yakovich (Tashkent 1978) Black encoun- tered the strong intermediate move 21 h4! ‘The continuation was 21...£f6 (playing the exchange down after 21...Wxc6 22 hxg5 Wxe4+ 23 £1 is unpromising) 22 Wxd6 3c8. Here, reluctant to part with his knight at c6, White played 23 2c5, and 23....d7! 24 De7+ Qxe7 25 Wxe7 Wxedt led to a draw. Although, even in the simple varia- tion 23 a7 Wxc6 24 Wxc6 Bxc6 25 Ha8+ Black would have faced a difficult defence, since White's rook and two connected passed pawns are stronger than the two bishops. Subsequently two clear-cut ways to equalise were found - the move in the game and also the line 16...8d7! 17 Dxe7+ ‘&xe7 18 &xd7 (or 18 Dc6 We8! Tiviakov- Cifuentes, Hoogeveen 2000) 18..axb4 19 hc6 Hxad 20 Wxad bxc3 21 bxc3 Wb8 22 0-0 &d8 4-14 (Svidler-Ivanchuk, Polanica Zdroj 2000). 17 Dxe7+ After 17 gxh3 the continuation given by Leko suggests itself: 17...axb4 18 Dxb4 Bxad 19 &xa4 £5, and the white king’s defences are insecure. 17...Wxe7 18 Ads The seemingly powerful 18 &c6 Bac8 19 Bxa5 xg? 20 Bgl £h3 21 WhS would have left Black with a single, but adequate de- fence ~ 21...,2h4 22 Ad5 Wd8 23 Wh6 g6. 18...Wb7 19 24 2d7 20 Baz 20...2h8 This and Black’s next are routine moves. Leko points out that he would have had a promising position after 20..Bfc8 21 Wd3 We6 22 b3 a4. 210-0 f5 22 exf5 xfs 23 Des Wa7?! Here Dominguez was over-hasty in agreeing a draw (¥Ya-¥4): the queen move gave him a chance for more - 24 Dxf5 Hxf5 25 Wd5(g4). Instead of 23...Wd7 Black should have sacrificed the exchange: 23...2xe3! 24 2d5 Qxf2+ 25 whi (25 Exf2 Wh6 26 &xa8 &b1! 27 Wd4! leads to a draw) 25...1Wb5 26 BxaB (26 c4 gal?) 26...8c2! 27 Wal a4 with sufficient compensation to maintain the balance. The right place for the bishop The last two examples have clearly shown the importance of both the struggle for con- trol of the d5-point, and the degree of effort spent on this. In this sense 15 £&b5 is not the optimal move, and it is not surprising that the main battles are conducted in the lines with 15 &c4, The following game is mainly of interest for the fact that, against a formidable op- ponent, Sveshnikov was able to carry out many of the thematic ideas of the Chelyab- insk Variation. 50Chelyabinsk Variation Game 13 E.Geller-E.Sveshnikov 46th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1978 Sicilian Defence B33 1 ed c5 2 Df3 Dcé 3 dq cxda 4 Dxdg es 5 Dbs D6 6 D1c3 dé 7 Ags a6 8 Daz bs 9 Dd5 Be7 10 Sxf6 dxf6 11 3 0-0 12 Der 2g5 13 a4 bxag 14 Hxag a5 15 2cq Here White securely controls the d5- square, and Black has to show how he can neutralise this control. First of all he needs to prepare ...£7-£5. 15...21b8 16 b3 @hsl “As far as I know, the plan with ...eg8-h8 and ...£7-£5 was first employed by Ti- moshchenko in 1969.’ (Sveshnikov) In Karpov-Sveshnikov (41st USSR Cham- pionship, Moscow 1973) the altogether un- necessary move 16...£2e6 was made, and after 17 Wal g6 18 0-0 Wd7 19 Ed1 £5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 b4 axb4 22 cxb4 $h8 23 b5 White gained a serious advantage (although the game nevertheless ended in a draw). 170-0 At the present time the more aggressive 17 ce3 g6 18 h4!? has come into fashion, or, in another version, 16 Ba2 #h8 17 @\ce3 g6 18 h4!? — earlier too this was played, but, as usual, the plan became the focus of at- tention only after a top-level game, which in addition was quite a spectacular one: 18...axh4 19 g3 £6 20 b3 &g7 (20...s%g7 looks sounder) 21 f4 exf4 22 gxf4 Ze8 23 W/3 (the immediate 23 Hah2! is more ener- getic) 23..8g8 24 Hah2 - incredible nim- bleness by this rook, which has already op- erated on its own flank, but now rapidly joins the attack on the king (Ponomariov- Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2005). The attempt to carry out this advance with maximum comfort — 17...g6 allows White to retain a solid position in the cen- tre, and Black's initiative on the kingside is usually insufficient for equality. This was shown, for example, by two Topalov- Kasparov ‘advanced chess’ games (Leon 1998): 18 Wd3 £d7 19 Ba2 £5 20 £3 Bh6 21 Edi Wh4, and after both 22 Dde3 and 22 2ce3 with accurate play White retains the better chances. 18 exf5 Sxf5 19 We2 (showing a certain cunning; 19 Dce3 &g6 - Game Nos.14 and 15) 19...Wd7 The more modern method is 19... &g6!? Without hurrying to determine the position of his queen, Black prepares ...e5-e4 and Ded. 20 Ace3 Re6 21 Hda 21...0d8! A very important manoeuvre: the bishop 541Revolution in the 70s is switched from its active position to the rear, defending the a5-pawn and preparing to contest White's domination in the centre with ...Qe7. Subsequently the bishop may come out either to b6, or h4. 22 Baz Wf7 23 Wd3 ‘A strong move, preparing @fl-g3-e4. The immediate 23 Df did not work be- cause of 23...e7!" (Sveshnikov) 23...Whs In Sveshnikov's opinion, 23...8e7 with the threat of ...2g6 came into consideration, forcing 24 Dxe7. But as it is, Black’s pieces are very well placed. 24 fal In order after Ag3-e4 to achieve com- plete domination in the centre on the light squares. Black needs to hurry! 24...e4! A typical breakthrough, giving Black strong counterplay on the kingside. 25 We2 Rh4! 26 Dg3 S&xg3 27 hxgs 27..De5!? Playing very energetically, Sveshnikov begins an interesting combination, How- ever, he himself gives a simpler solution - 27...g4 28 Hel De5 with the threat of 29...23+! In the event of 29 Wxed Hbe8 30 f4 Whe White does best to sacrifice his queen (with reasonable compensation), since after 31 Wb1 g5! he is forced to give up the exchange in a worse situation (32 LPs Exe5 etc,). 28 Dfa Ext4 29 ext Geller is still hoping to win. It is bad to play 29 &xe6? Hf6 30 Exd6? Eh6 31 Sf Wh1+ 32 e2 Wxg2 with irresistible threats. After 30 2h3 the attack 30...2f3+ is uncon- vincing in view of 31 @hi! (31..Dg5 32 Hd5), but the simple 30...d3 gives Black an obvious advantage. 29... Df3+! 30 gxf3! If 30 Sf1 in Informator Sveshnikov gave 30...g4! 31 gxf3 Whit 32 de2 Wxf3+ 33 sbd2 Wxf4+ 34 del e3 35 fxe3 with a ‘-' sign, but after 35...Wxe3+ 36 e2 Wg3+ 37 €d2 &xe2 White is in trouble. 35 Hd3 exf2+ 36 Sf is stronger, although here too after 36...Ef8 37 Wxf2 Wel+ 38 tg2 Exf2+ 39 Bxf2 g6 he faces a fight to save the game. 30...2xe4 31 Wxed After 31 bxc4 exf3 32 Hxa5! Wxa5 33 Bd5 White would have gained a draw, but Geller thought that it was now Black who had to try and save the game! 31...2xb3 32 Hba Le8 33 Uxas ds Yh, Va 34 Het? A spectacular time-trouble move, which would won for White, had it not been... a blunder! 34 Wxe8+ Wxe8 35 Exb3 Wg6+ would have led to a draw. 34...Wg6+! No less spectacular, but more effective. White resigned (0-1).Chelyabinsk Variation After the natural 19 Qce3 Black has re- treated his bishop both to g6, and to e6. Game 14 R.Hiibner-A.Adorjan Candidates Match, 3rd game, Bad Lauterberg 1980 Sicilian Defence B33 Led c5 2 AFI Dcé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxdg DE 5 c3 es (the game went 5...e6 6 Ddb5 etc.) 6 Ddbs dé 7 Ags a6 8 Daz bs 9 Ads Le7 10 Axf6 Axf6 11 c3 0-0 12 DAc2 Kgs 13 a4 bxa4 14 Exaq a5 15 2c4 Eb8 16 b3 Wh8 17 0-0 £5 18 exf5 xf5 19 Aces 0 yw 19...0g6! Subsequently, under the influence of Hiibner’s model win in this game, Black switched to 19...e6 20 Wd3 2b7 21 Hd1 267 22 £3 &g6 23 We2 with some advantage for White (Mortensen-Adorjan, Riga 1981). 20...Wd7 also did not give full equality. This type of position does not allow Black to play actively and promises White a slight but enduring initiative. Thus in this branch of the ‘Karpov’ variation with Dd5 and &xf6 White achieved his main aim. 20 Re2 Since 20 b4 leads to the activation of the black pieces ~ 20...axb4 21 cxb4 Bd4, White manoeuvres, preparing ££3 or Act, de- pending on the opponent's reply. 20...e47! Not the best (20...£7! - Game No.15), di- rectly provoking the advance of the b- pawn: Black has deprived himself of ...Ad4. 21 b4 axb4 22 cxb4 b7? A very weak reply, which conclusively compromises Black’s position. The natural follow-up to 20...e4 was 22...e5, intending after 23 b5 the invasion 23...Ad3 24 &xd3 exd3. Here in the event of 25 b6 the ex- change sacrifice 25...Exb6 26 xb6 Wxb6 gives quite good counterplay, while after 25 f4 &f6 26 Eb4 White's plans may be upset by 26...Wa5. 23 bS Des 24 Waal Powerful centralisation. Now b5-b6 can- not be prevented. 24...Wd7 No better is 24..2@d3 25 b6 or even 53Revolution in the 70s 24...Dd7 25 b6! Dxb6 26 Hb4 W£6 27 Dxtot Exf6 28 Ads with a decisive advantage. 25 b6, and White had no problems in ex- ploiting the strength of his far-advanced passed pawn (1-0). It is interesting that the bishop retreat to 6, which because of this game was consid- ered for many years to be a second-rate move, is today deemed to be clearly best! Game 15 P.Leko-B.Gelfand Polanica Zdroj 1998 Sicilian Defence B33 14 c5 2 Df3 Dcé 3 da cxdg 4 Dxdg AE 5 De3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Sgs a6 8 Daz bs 9 Das Be7 10 Axf6 Qxf6 11 c3 0-0 12 Ac2 gs 13 a4 bxag 14 Exag a5 15 Acq Eb 16 b3 Sh8 17 0-0 f5 18 exfs Axfs 19 Dce3 g6 20 Re2 20...S267! A key improvement, which drew atten- tion after Shirov-Kramnik (Monaco rapid- play 1998) and rehabilitated the 19...026 line. 20...2£7! is a move that seems com- pletely natural when it has already been made. Black sets his sights not only on the knight at d5, but also the b3-pawn, which has unexpectedly become weak after the withdrawal of the bishop from c4, 2124 As often happens, the original game was in fact one that went unnoticed — Kinder- mann-Birnboim (Munich 1987), in which after 21 &£3 Rxe3 22 fxe3 De7 23 Led Lxd5 24 Bxf8+ Wot8 25 &xd5 Wd8 Black main- tained the balance. 22....g8 is even simpler (Stefansson-Filippov, Chalkidiki 2002), when it is hard to imagine how in general White can hope for an advantage. In the event of 21 b4 Black gains coun- terplay in a familiar way ~ 21...axb4 22 cxb4 @d4 (or 22...SRxe3 23 fxe3 We5). 21...e4! But this is an improvement by Gelfand: for a start, the knight is cut off from the support of the bishop at £3. Against Shirov, Kramnik immediately carried a relieving operation: 21...d4? 22 cxd4 Sixd5 23 dxe5 Bixc4 24 Bxcd dxe5. Its inaccuracy could have been revealed by 25 Wel - White wins a pawn, with quite good winning chances. 22¢h1 After 22 f4 exf3 23 &xf3 Black was plan- ning 23...e5!, when 24 @xa5?? loses to 24...b5, while after the exchange 24 Axe5 dxe5 he is ready to seize the initiative. 22...g8 23 Ha3 (the vulnerability of the b3-pawn restricts White) 23...0e7! Even at the cost of a pawn Black evicts the knight from e5. 24 Qce3Chelyabinsk Variation If 24 4xe7 Gelfand was intending 24...Wixe7 25 @xa5 d5 26 b4 Bb6 with the switching of the rook to the kingside, but Leko did not like 24...xe7 25 Dxa5 We7 26 b4 d5. In both cases Black has an excellent position, although at the cost of a pawn... 24..Dxd5 25 Dxds Hfs! 26 4 Qxd5 27 exds Wb6 Black has the initiative, but in the subse- quent play both sides made mistakes, which in the end led to a draw (%-'%). Prophylactic measure Thus the game Hiibner-Adorjan (Game ‘No.14) gave rise to doubts about the sound- ness of the Variation that allows a2-a4. It appeared that White gained too many chances on the quéenside: after all, in this game he so easily converted them! In order to neutralise the undermining move a2-a4, Black turned to 11...0-0 12 4c2 Zb8. Game 16 G.Kasparov-J.Lautier Moscow Olympiad 1994 Sicilian Defence B33 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Ac6 (the game went 2...e6 and 5...Dc6) 3 d4 exd4 4 Dndg D6 5 De3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Rgs a6 8 Da3 bs 9 Dds Le7 10 Axf6 2xf6 11.3 0-012 Ac2 Zb8 Instead of 12...S¢g5 (Game Nos.11-15). 13 hat Of course, White can develop by 13 £e2 &g5 14 0-0, as in the aforementioned Kar- pov-Dolmatov game (Amsterdam 1980), but practice has shown that here Black has adequate resources. Searches for White led to the move 13 h4!, depriving the black bishop of its favourite post at g5. In the mid-1990s this plan caused Black serious problems. WY, Ja at & 13..De7 Immediately initiating a fierce struggle for the d5-point. This was first played in the old game Dvoiris-Kozyrev (Chelyab- insk 1978), where White did not risk reply- ing 14 @xf6+. However, on one occasion in a similar situation, with the inclusion of the moves a2-a3 and ...a6-a5, I too played un- certainly against Kramnik (Moscow rapid- play 1994). Black has also tried other, not so commit- ting continuations. For example: 13...g6 14 g3 Reb 15 h5 £g7 16 &h3 (the struggle has switched to purely positional lines, and White offers the exchange of light-squared bishops, increasing the significance of the knight on d5) 16...a5 17 ce3 Wg5 18 Ac7! (practically forcing the desired exchange) 18...2xh3 19 Bxh3 Bfd8 20 #1, and in the end the difference in strength between the knight at d5 and the bishop at g7 played the decisive role (J.Polgar-Illescas, Leon 1996). 55Revolution in the 70s An earlier game Shirov-Illescas (Linares 1994) went 13 a3 a5 14 h4 g6 15 g3 g7 16 h5, and White also achieved success in ex- emplary fashion. But at the start of the 21st century a de- velopment scheme avoiding the doubling of the pawns has become popular: 13...Se7 14 Dce3 Leb, intending ...Wd7, ...&d8 and + De7. 14 Dxf6+ gxf6 A crucially important position. The weakening of his king’s defences is the only drawback for Black, who is well developed and ready to advance his d- and {-pawns. But the king - that is a serious matter! a5 ad3 Intending the piece set-up Se3, WhS and 0-0-0. Against Kramnik in the summer of that same year (Novgorod 1994) | made another natural move - 15 Wd2 and after 15...2b7 16 &d3 d5 17 exd5 Wxd5 18 0-0-0 e4 19 2e2 Wxa2 20 Whé I won. But during the course of the struggle the situation was rather unclear. 15.45 (or 15...£5 16 exfS &xf5 17 Bxf5 Dxf5 18 Wd3 Wd7 19 0-0-0 with the initiative) 16 exds Wxd5 17 De3 Wes 18 Wh5 18...e4? An important moment. Lautier concedes the f4-point, for some reason rejecting the more forceful 18...{5. Analysis shows that this was the only way to contest White's advantage. After 19 0-0-0 (19 g4 is uncon- vincing because of 19...Wg6!) 19..Wg6 White has a reasonable choice between a favourable endgame - 20 Wg5 £6 21 Wxg6+ hxg6 22 &c2, and 20 Wi3!? with interesting, although not altogether clear, play with the queens on. 19 &c2 ba Now if 19...f5 there is the strong reply 20 Wg5+! dhs 21 W4 (better than 21 &b3 We5 22 Qg4 Wg7) 21..Bb6 22 0-0-0, and 22...g6? will not do because of 23 Wh6 — there is no good defence against the threat of 245. 20 c4 GhB 21 0-0-0 f5 22 Wes (the queen is aiming for f4 - an excellent square, pre- sented to White by the move 18...c4?) 22...0b6 If Black mechanically tries to prevent White’s plan ~ 22...We5, all the same after 23 Dg4 Web 24 Df6 he ends up in a difficult situation: 24...g8 25 Dxg8 Hxg8 26 Eds. 23 hs Ecé6?t It was possible to resist longer after the exchange of queens - 23...g8 24 Wi4 Wh6 24 &b1 Hc5 25 h6! Wes 26 Shs! Zgs 27 Dgat 1-0 A spectacular concluding combination: 27...8xgS 28 DxeS Exh5 29 Bd8+ Dgs 30 ®xf7 mate. Although 1 managed to win quite 56quickly, things are not so bad for Black in this variation. True, White still retains some initiative. At any event, initially 13..2e7 went out of use, and then Black also began avoiding 11...0-0 12 Ac2 Hb8, often in fa- vour of the move combination ...sg5 and -.HIb8 before castling. Game 17 P.Leko-M.lllescas Madrid 1998 Sicilian Defence B33 14 5 2 Af3 Dc 3 da cxd4 4 Axnd4 Df 5 Ac3 e5 6 DAdbs dé 7 gs a6 8 Daz bs 9 2d5 &e7 10 &xf6 xf 11 c3 Hb8 12 Acz Ses ‘Apparently avoiding both the plan with h2-h4, and the plan with a2-a4, but... 13 a4 (nevertheless this move is possible!) 13...bxa4 14 Deb4 Black is threatened with the loss of both his a-pawns, as well as the opponent's complete domination of the light squares in the centre and on the queenside. He has to go in for extraordinary measures. 14...2xb4 14...,2d7 15 &xa6 Axb4 16 Axb4 merely transposes. After 16 cxb4 0-0 17 0-0 206 in the game Barua-Lalic (Ubeda 1998), White tried to gain an advantage with the ex- change sacrifice 18 Exa4, although the Chelyabinsk Variation benefits of it are not at all obvious. 15 Dxb4 2d7 16 2xa6 Was!? The bishop at a6 is attacked and an ex- change sacrifice is planned, but the d6- pawn has been left en prise. These are the extraordinary measures that were men- tioned (however, they are typical of the Chelyabinsk Variation). If Black simply defends his d6-pawn, he risks having to defend his other weak pawn at a4 with all his pieces for the rest of the game, for example: 16...0-0 17 0-0 Wc7 18 &d3 a8 19 Ha3 Ha5 20 We2 #h8 21 Bfal Wa7 22 2c? Ba8, as in an internet blitz game Shirov-Kramnik (1999). QA 17 Wxd6 The game Novikov-Efimov (Sochi 1980) where 16...Wa5 first occurred, went 17 2d3? with the idea of roughly the same regrouping as Shirov was able to carry out. But then came the planned 17...Bxb4! 18 exb4 Wxb4+ 19 de2?! d5! 20 We2 dxe4 21 ixe4 0-0, and White's position was unen- viable. 17..b6 18 Wd3 (18 Wd5?! Wxd5 19 exd5 Re7)18...2e7 It is obvious that Black will regain his pawn and he may even obtain a passed pawn on the arfile. But the question is whether the activity of the white pieces will Prove more important. 19 Dds Exb2 200-0 57Revolution in the 70s Depriving the opponent of the right to castle - 20 Axe7? txe7 followed by the ‘winning’ double attack 21 0-0-0 would prove to be the shortest way to disaster: 21...hb8! 22 Wxd7+ &f8 23 Wd6+ dg8 24 Wec6 (24 Bd3 a3 is even worse) 24...22b6 - with material equal, the white king is too badly placed. Nowadays many games begin(!) from this position, and Black usually, although not without difficulty, maintains the bal- ance. 20...We5! (20...Sc5 is weaker: 21 Wg3 &f8 22 &c4 with a dangerous initiative) 24 Baba White has devised an operation aimed at winning the a-pawn. If 21 Wg3 Black sim- ply replies 21...0-0, sacrificing the e5-pawn, and after 22 Wxe5 &d6 23 Wd4 Za8 (23...e8!?) his passed pawn, supported by all his pieces, becomes an important trump. 21...xb1 22 Zxb1 0-0 23 &b5 (this position too is known from several games) 23...2e8 It has not yet been decided which is safer - Illescas’s subtle move or 23...sxb5. In both cases he is faced with extinguishing, White's slight activity by accurate play. One of the recent games went 23...2xb5 24 Exb5 Wa7 25 We3 Wd7 (the only move) 26 HaS Hb8 27 Dxe7+ Wxe7 28 g3 (now it is hard for Black to avoid the loss of a pawn) 28...Wd62! (according to analysis by Rogoz- 58 enko, 28..Wd8 is better, planning ...2a8 with the activation of the a4-pawn) 29 Wa7! g6 30 Ed5! (not 30 Bxa4 Wd1+ 31 dg2 Zbl) 30..Bb1+ 31 dg2 We6 32 Bxe5 Wxc3? (32...Eb6! intending ...Ha6) 33 He8+ g7 34 We7! with an irresistible attack (Volokitin- Van Wely, Merida 2005). 24 Sxe8 Exes 25 b7 The alternative is 25 Wa6 a3 and now, if there is nothing better, 26 Dxe7+ Wxe7 27 ‘Hb3. Black inevitably loses a pawn, but he would appear to gain sufficient counter- play: 27...Wh4 28 Wa4 Hd8 29 g3 Weg4 30 Bxa3 hs! 25...2.g5? Mlescas, like Van Wely, defends unsuc- cessfully. 25...8{8?? was even worse on ac- count of the crushing 26 Wf3! £62 27 WhS We6 28 WI7+ $h8 29 @xf6! But the accurate 25...d6! would have solved all Black's problems. If 26 W#3, then 26...8f8 is sound, while after 26 Wa6 a3 in the game Motylev- Timofeev (Moscow 2004) the players agreed a draw in view of 27 Eb4 £8 - the a3-pawn defended by the bishop guaran- tees Black's safety. 26 We3? But Leko, in contrast to Volokitin, does not exploit the chance offered: 26 Wd1! with a double threat - Wxa4 or Wh5. Black would have had to give up a pawn (for ex- ample, 26...W#c6 27 Eb6 Wa8 28 Xb4).26...Wa3 (now the game heads for a draw practically by force) 27 hq We1+ 28 dh2 fa 29 Dxfa exf4 30 Wd3 We1 32 Wds Bf 32 Waa We2 33 Za7 Wga 34 Wxag Yi-% Apiece sacrifice From the very start, attempts to refute the Chelyabinsk Variation were associated with the aggressive 9 2xf6 gxfé 10 Dds. If 10 @abl (the source game: Bogoljubow- Fahrni, Triberg 1956), there is all the more reason for 10...£5! The immediate exchange on {6 has sharpened the situation: Black’s pawns have been broken up and it is hard for his king to find a secure shelter, but his dou- bled pawns are ready to attack the centre! At one time 10....2e6? was played here - this wastes an important tempo, which af- ter 11 c3! &g7 12 Dc2 £5 13 exf5 xf5 14 ce3 gives White an obvious advantage (Boleslavsky-Kotov, Moscow 1942). In 1970 the ‘Chelyabinsk’ move 10...f5 emerged onto the world arena (although the source game was Tal-Shamkovich, Riga 1955), and then in 1980 came the Novosi- birsk variation with 10...%g7 and ...de7, where Black plays ...f6-f5 only after evicting, the white knight from d5. Both these trends have been the subject of heated debates, which are continuing to this day. There was a great temptation to try and Chelyabinsk Variation refute Black’s risky venture, but the more games that were played, the more apparent it became that his position contains great potential. Dynamic factors - the two bish- ops and the mobile pawn mass in the centre - often enable him to build up a strong at- tack on the king virtually out of nothing (this was mentioned in the notes to the game Robatsch-Larsen, No.34 in Volume IV ‘of My Great Predecessors). Usually after 10...f5 White has replied 11 exf5 or 11 &d3, but the most radical at- tempts to destroy the opponent's defences have involved the sacrifice of one of the minor pieces on b5, immediately solving the problem of the bad knight on a3. At one time, under the influence of the Tarrasch-Janowski game, in which instead of @c3-d5 White played Wdl-h5 (cf. the start of this chapter), Black’s ‘perforated’ set-up was condemned because of 11 @xb5 axb5 12 &xbs. After 12,..@d7(b7) 13 exf5 White has three pawns for the piece and a seemingly dangerous attack: after all, there is nowhere for the black king to hide behind its pawns. But Sveshnikov and Timoshchenko were not afraid of ghosts, and the praxis of the variation with the knight sacrifice, begin- ning with the games Murey-Radashkovich (Netanya 1977) and Bronstein-Kim (Dau- gavpils 1978), confirmed that here every- 59Revolution in the 70s thing was in fact unclear. A bishop is worth rather more than three pawns - in our ‘con- crete’ time this is now understood by nearly everyone! Even the expansive 12...&b7 (12...8d7 occurs far more often) 13 exf5 Ba5!? (a rela- tively fresh plan is 13...g7 14 0-0? 0-0 Shulkis-Van Wely, Moscow 2004) 14 a4 BxbS 15 axb5 Dd4 gives Black a dangerous initiative (Chiburdanidze-Sveshnikov, Tashkent (blitz) 1980). After 14 Wd3 &g7 15 Wet Sveshnikov recommended 15...2xb5 16 WxbS Wa5+, while the game Efimov-Eljanov (Ohrid 2001) went 16...2a8, in both cases with sharp play. But 15...2f6! is even better, with complications advantageous for Black: 16 b4 (the exchange of the queen for three Pieces - 16 &xc6 Hc5 17 Wxc5 dxc5 18 &xb7 is not good: after 18...Wd7 one of them is lost) 16...d4 17 bxaS WxaS+ 18 fl Was! (stronger than 18...Wxb5) 19 De3 Axbs. It is probable that, instead of 15 We4, the immediate 15 b4 is better, for example: 15..e4 16 Wxe4+ $8 17 bxaS Wxa5+ 18 Sdl! Bxal 19 Bxc6 &xcé 20 We7+ Sg8 21 We5+ with a draw! But had White played 18 #f12, in the final position there would have been the reply 21...g7 (and if 22 De7+ wf8 23 ®xcé, then 23...1Wb5+ winning a piece). The knight sacrifice is also employed in other variations. For example: 11 ¢3 &g7 Vs Z a at ae: 12 Dxbs axbS 13 xb. The source game Velimirovic-Cvitan (Borovo 1981) contin- ued 13...,2d7 14 exf5 Bb8 15 a4 0-0 16 0-0 ‘$h82! 17 WS with the initiative for White. Nowadays they usually play 16..Be8 17 Wg (if 17 Wf3 Black has the promising pawn sacrifice 17...e4 18 Wg3 @h8 19 Wxd6 &e5, Karjakin-Kuzubov, Kharkov 2004) 17...8h8 18 We4 ~ this interesting position is currently being tested both practically and analytically. However, here too Black retains the same choice (as after 11 @xb5): between 13..2d7 and 13...2b7, the latter, in my view, being more attractive (an example: A Sokolov-Lautier, Val d’Isere 2004). The third modification is the most cun- ning — 11 &d3 2e6 12 c3 &g7 13 Dxbs!? axbS 14 &xbS, practically forcing 14...2d7 and thereby denying Black the aggressive set-up with his bishop on b7. Of course, this achievement is not a definite one; White’s successes here are clearly not stable, and the variation is still in the development stage. A happier fate has been enjoyed by the variation with 141 2xbS, which was initi- ated by the games Peresypkin-Sveshnikov (Kiev 1973) and Sveshnikov-Timoshchenko (Chelyabinsk 1974). The bishop sacrifice offers a wealth of chances and periodically causes Black problems. Game 18 Y.Griinfeld-J.Fleck Lugano 1980 Sicilian Defence B33 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Axd4 AfE 5 Dec3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 gs a6 8 Daz bs 9 Rxf6 gxf6 10 Dds fs 11 &xbs axbs 12 @xbs After capturing two pawns, White is threatening a check at c7, against which there is no normal defence - only by giving up material. 60Chelyabinsk Variation 12...Hagl A counterattacking idea of the Moscow master Sergey Gorelov. Initially 12...2a7 13 ®xa7_@xa7 was played, but subsequent tests showed that after 14 c3 or 14 exf5 (Vi- tolins) White's chances were slightly better. At any event, Black switched to other con- tinuations, and in particular to 12...a4. 130-0 The source game Levchenkov-Gorelov (Yurmala 1977) went 13 Dbc7+ (13 b4 — Game No.19) 13...8d7 14 exf5?! (14 0-0!) 14...Be7 15 0-0? Hd4, and Black won. 13...Hxeq 14 Abe7+ Sd7 The most natural and most usual move, with a triple function: a way for the king to the queenside is opened, the f5-pawn is defended, and the exchange of the knight at d5 is threatened. However, even the reckless 15...Wh4!? 16 ‘Wxf7+ 2e7, which occasionally occurs, has not been refuted. After 17 Wxf5+? &d8 Black seizes the initiative, while if 17 g3, then 17... g4! is good. Perhaps the best is 17 Dxe7!? Dxe7 18 Dd5 &d8 19 Df6 or 19 g3 Bg4 20 Af6. The variation with 15...Wh4 would require additional analysis, if there were a practical need for it. 16 Wxt7 dc6 17 4 Wd7 After trying 17..Qxd5 and 17..Bg8, Black settled on this move, which prepares .Dxd5, as well as ...&eb7, ...We6 and ...Dg6. 18 DaBl (now three of the four indicated moves lose!) 18...\g6! 18...xd5?? allows a mate, 18...8b7?? 19 Dab6 We6 20 Dxc8! leads to major loss of material, while after 18..We6? 19 We8+ Wd7! (19.8867? 20 Wb5+ or 19...27? 20 Wb8 with a rapid mate) 20 Dxe7+ db7 21 Wxc8+ WxcB 22 AxcB &xcB 23 Abst gb7 24 DS Exct Black can merely prolong the resistance. 19 Dba+ &b7 20 Wd5+ Hbs a5 Whs The f5- and f7-pawns are attacked and Black’s king is under fire, but... he is a bishop up! 15...De7 21 Dcé4! This sacrifice of a second piece forces a draw. 21 @b6? is weak: 21...Wb7 22 WbS fd! (the white king is also in danger) 23 £3 641Revolution in the 70s (or 23 D4d5 Le7! 24 ad Bd8 25 a5 Dxd5 26 exd5 Bd4 27 Hfcl &xb6 28 axb6 Wxd5 and wins ~ Fleck) 23...Re2 24 g3 h5 25 th Zg8! 26 c5 (26 gxf4? Bgl+! with mate; if 26 Dxc8 WxbS 27 cxb5, then 27..h4! 28 gxf4 Bgg? Shulskis) 26..dxc5 27 Dc6+ wc7 28 gxf4, and here instead of 28...Bgg2? 29 Dd5+ ted6 30 fxe5+ (Shulskis-Gagunashvili, Batumi 2002), 28...Wxb6 29 Wxe2 Waco 30 Wxe5+ £d6 would have given Black a clear advantage. 21...@xa8 22 Wbs Wb7 (22...Wc7 23 Wad+ &b7 24 Da5+ etc.) 23 Was+ Wa6 24 We7 Wb7 25 Was+ Ya-Ye Attempts by White to breath new life into the variation with the bishop sacrifice and 12...a4! have involved additional sac- rifices, now of pawns - 13 b4 or 13 c4, try- ing to cut off the aggressive rook or open lines on the queenside. But here too, as of- ten happens in very sharp variations, the final verdict of theory is a draw! Although, if desired, it can be avoided... Game 19 A.Shirov-G.Kasparov Linares 2002 Sicilian Defence B33 14 c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 da cxda 4 Axda AE 5 Dc3 e5 6 DAdbs d6 7 &gs a6 8 Da3 65 9 Axf6 gxf6 10 Dds f5 11 Rxbs axbs 12 Dxb5 Baa 13 b4 This dramatic move, which dates back to the games Tringov-Svetkovic (Vrnjacka Banja 1979) and Baljon-Dolmatov (Amster- dam 1979), was employed by Shirov’s compatriot, the Latvian master Vitolins — a great lover of wild complications, which in the pre-computer era did not lend them- selves to exact evaluation even in home analysis. 13...Wh4 A fresh idea of McShane, which, how- ever, signifies a rejection by Black of at- tempts to refute the piece sacrifice and an agreement to an early draw. Of course, one would like to capture the b4-pawn, but what with? 13...2xb42! 14 Dbe7+ ed7 15 <3 is deemed to be dangerous - after 15...Axd5 16 Wxa4+ &xc7 17 exd5 or 15...Ha7 16 cxb4 Exc7 17 0-0! Black is alright as regards ma- terial, but the open position of his king causes him a mass of problems. The situation after 13...xb4 14 Dbc7+ ‘$7 15 0-0 is more complicated. Here Black has a wide choice of continuations. Analysis diagram After 15...Bxe4 16 Wh5 DAd4 17 c3 De2+ 18 @h1 &c6 19 Hfb! or 15...2b7 16 WhS De7 17 Wxf7 Bxc7 (17...@c6 18 Habl Shirov- Lautier, Monaco blindfold 2000) 18 Ab6+ 62c6 19 Efbl the open b-file does indeed make Black’s defence more difficult. In the aforementioned Baljon-Dolmatov game there first occurred a sacrifice of the queen for three minor pieces (essentially, an exchange): 15...Wxc7 16 Dxc7 wxc7 17 Wh5 Exed 18 Wxf7+ 27 with a draw after an interesting struggle. It seemed that this risky method of play had been struck a serious blow in the ad- vanced chess game Shirov-Topalov (Leon 2002): 16 c3! (although two bishops down, White does not immediately capture the queen!) 16..2xe4 17 Wh5 &d8 18 Axc7 &xc7 19 Wxf7+ 2e7, obtaining ‘Dolmatov’s position’, only with the pawn on c3. It de- prives the opponent's pieces of the b4- and d4-squares, which in principle should make it harder for Black to manoeuvre. After 20 Babl 2a6 21 Bfd1 Hf8 22 Wb3 Rb8 23 We6 Exbl 24 Exbl £43 25 Edi £4? 26 Wd5 2c2 27 Bcl He? 28 a4 Topalov went on to lose. But the game Naiditsch-Jakubiec (Gri- esheim 2002) showed that the original evaluation of the variation had hardly changed: 23...2c4! (23...xb1 24 Exbl 2ct is also possible) 24 Wxf5 Bxb1 25 Exbl &d3 26 Bfl d5, and Black’s chances are not worse. Another current line goes 15..Bg8 16 @xb4 (16 g3 is weaker: 16..Hb7! 17 Wh5 Wg5! Luther-Leko, Essen 2002) 16...2xb4. Now 17 @d5 @xd5 18 Wxd5 we7 19 Habi?! Seb 20 Wo7+ chf6 21 4 (if 21 extS Rxf5 22 £4, then 22...e4) 21..deg7! 22 Hbd1 fixed 23 seh HHS 24 Wed We7 25 fre5 dxe5 26 cf £5! is advantageous to Black (Vitolins-Kishnev, Yurmala 1981), but 19 a4! 206 20 Wb7+ df6 21 a5 is better, with sharp play. And after 17 <3 (the fashion of the 2ist century), both 17..Wg5 18 g3 Dc and 17..Wxc7 18 cxb4 ‘Wh7 (18....fxe4!?) 19 Wh5 #e8 are unclear. All the questions in the controversial variations with 13...8xb4 had been far from resolved, when the move 13...Wh4 ap- Chelyabinsk Variation peared. 140-0 ge a: wae 15 fal? 15 3 fa! 16 Wxa4 Bxg2+ leads to perpet- ual check (Luther-McShane, Lipstadt 2000). There is a slightly longer road to the same result after 16 Di6+ Wxf6 17 Wxad We5 18 g3 fxg3 19 hxg3 Wh4 with the transparent aim of ...Bxg3. The ambitious 15 f4 looks threatening: White prevents ...{5-f4 and opens up the position (if 15...exf4? 16 ¢3 Black is in trou- ble). At any event, here I spent about an hour in thought. 15...0¢d8! It is curious that the computer immedi- ately suggests this move, a difficult one for a human. Black needs to coordinate his pieces and defend against the imminent checks and other attacks (for example, 16 ¢3), and it turns out that the best place for the king is at d8! 16 c3? As intended. But as a result of this move, made largely through inertia, Shirov not only loses the initiative compensating for the piece, but also himself comes under a swift attack. But how should White play? The reckless 16 @xd6? &xd6 17 Dbé6 is refuted by 17...d4 18 Oxad fxe4, and the white king is defenceless. 63Revolution in the 70s Perhaps best was a manoeuvre that was not possible on the previous move: 16 Abé! Exb4 17 Axc8 txc8 (a move earlier, after 15 De? Exb4 16 Axc8 Black would have won by 16...Bxb5 17 Dxd6+ 2xd6 18 Wxd6 Ad4, but now, with his king on d8, after 17...Bxb5? 18 Dxd6 he has to resign!) 18 Was. Analysis diagram A game from 2005 went 18...4\d4 19 Wa8+ &d7 20 Wb7+ dd8 21 Wc7+ de8 22 We8+ de7 23 Dc3 £6 24 DdS+ hA7 25 Wd7+ &g6 26 Axb4 De2+ with perpetual check. But White was over-hasty in capturing the rook ~ 24 Hf2!? would have retained an at- tack. In the diagram position the situation is again stabilised by a king move ~ 18...d7! If 19 Wexf7+, then 19...2e7, and after 20 Dxdé6 - first 20...Wg4! (defending the rook at g8 and freeing the knight from this task) and then 21..¢exd6. After 19 Bad1, apart from the cautious 19...Wf6 20 fxe5 We6, 19...8g6 is good, and Black is better after both 20 Wxf7+ e7 21 Wxf5+ &d8, and 20 exf5 Zh6 21 Wxf7+ £e7 (the combination 22 Exd6+ Bxd6 23 Axd6 Sxd6 24 fxeS+ dc7 25 f6 is refuted by a counter-combination — 25..Wd4+ 26 $h1 Wf2!). However, there is also 19 exf5, maintaining the tension. 16...Ha6 17 a4?! Of course, Shirov realised that if 17 @dc7? there follows 17...fxe4! 18 Axa6? 2h3! with an irresistible attack (19 Wel ‘Exg2+ 20 dh] We4 21 Hf2 exf4), while if 17 exf5 ~ 17...8b7! (the g-file plus the long di- agonal). Although in the latter case White would have had more opportunities for complicating the play. 17...fxe4 18 f5 (defending against ...2h3 or nde g4-f3) 18...2b71 Things are difficult for White, and ten moves later he resigned (0-1). Activation of the knight We will now turn to one of the main plans in the variation where Black's pawns are spoiled - 11 exf§ followed by c2-c3 and 2c2-23. Game 20 A.Rodriguez-A.Yusupov Amsterdam 1978 Sicilian Defence B33 245 2 Df3 Acé (the game went 2...e6 and 5.6) 3 dg cxd4 4 Dxd4 DE 5 Dc3 5 6 Dabs dé 7 2g5 a6 8 Da3 b5 9 2x*6 gxf6 10 Dds f5 11.03 Instead of the unsophisticated 11 exf5 Axf5 12 c3 &g7 13 Dc2 White sets a little trap. 64Now by transposition of moves the usual set-up is reached, whereas 11...fxe42! would have allowed a more favourable version of the thematic bishop sacrifice: 12 &xb5! axb5 13 DxbS Le6 14 Dbc7+ Sd7 15 DxaB Bxd5 16 Wxd5 Wxa8 17 Wxe4 with advantage. 12 exfs Sxfs G Z Y L, , YN 13 De2 In the aforementioned ‘prehistoric’ en- counter between two Soviet masters, the young Mikhail Tal and the experienced Leonid Shamkovich, White chose the ex- travagant 13 Wf3 and after 13..2g6 14 h4 he outplayed his opponent in an interesting struggle, although it is obvious (now it is obvious!) that the simple 13...2e6! gives Black a good game. 13...0-0 \ds to a comparatively n= experience has shown that here too Black has sufficient counter-chances. 14 Dce3 Re6 After 14...8g6 15 h4 or 14...d7 15 g4!? White retains the initiative. It is better to keep the d5-knight under fire. 1584 15 &d3 (Game No.21) is quieter, but in those years direct attempts were also made to gain immediate control of the light squares. Black managed to neutralise this plan, creating adequate counterplay. 15...ba! Not the only good reply, but the most energetic. With g2-g4 White has taken too much of a liberty, and the pawn sacrifice by Black is justified: the position is opened up and sharpened, the black knight invades at d4, and nowhere will the white king any longer feel completely safe. 16 cxb4 In the modern game J.Polgar-Gelfand (4th matchgame, Pacs rapidplay 2003), in order not to allow the excessive activation of the opponent's pieces, White declined the pawn sacrifice and continued the course of control- ling the light squares with 16 &g2 bxc3 17 bxc3 Hc8 18 Wd3, but after another sacrifice ~ 18..e4! 19 Wxe4 De5 (attacking the queen, the g4-pawn, and in a number of variations also the c3-pawn) she failed to cope with the difficult defensive problems. 16...2b8 17 a3 a5 18 b5 Dd4 19 a4 (the ex- tra pawn is White’s only trump, but it is hardly sufficient, since his entire house is beginning to burn) 29...f5 20 gxfS &xd5! 22 Oxds Exfs 22 Wea! Covering the h4-square. It is bad to play 22 Rcd? Wh4! 23 De7+ Sh8 24 Dxf5 Wed+ 25 dd2 WxfS or 22 Qh3? Bxf2! 23 wxf2? Wh4+ 24 g2 Weds, in both cases with an irresistible attack. But in this second variation after the i terposition of 23 &e6+! (vacating the h3- 65Revolution in the 70s square for the king and diverting the knight at d4 from its attacking position) Black’s task is significantly more difficult. 23...)xe6 24 dexi2 Wh4+ 25 dig? B16 26 EAl We4+ 27 sgl Bxfl+ 28 &xfl leads to a draw. There- fore he should play 23...¢¢h8! 24 dxf2 Wh4+ 25 tg2 Wed+ 26 $h3, and only now, when the king has moved to h3, capture the bishop - 26...dxe6, retaining dangerous threats (...2g8, ...f8 and ...Wxd5). ae es RO DEE! Yi 22...e4! 23 De3 Df3+ 24 Hda Res 25 2g2? 25 Hcl! is correct, with the idea of 25...Wb6? 26 Hc8+. Black can continue the attack with 25...h5, intending 26 Wh3? Wb6 27 Yc8+ &h7! White does better to play 26 Wee, although after 26...h4 27 Wg3 Wi6 28 Bc7 Af3 29 &c4+ wh8 the problem of his King’s safety is still acute, for example: 30 E72 Hd5+! 31 we2 Wxb2+ 32 bfl Bgs 33 Wxd6 Wel+ 34 Wdl (34 #e2 Wxh1 35 Wxb8+ $h7) 34..Wadl+ 35 Dxd] Dd2+, winning the bishop. 25...b6 Such positions cannot usually be saved, but because of inaccuracies by Black the battle went on for a long time (0-1). Today White almost exclusively plays 15 &d3 £5 16 0-0, and Black, after trying both 16..e4 and 16..%h8, finally settled on 16...a7, preparing the concentration of his forces on the kingside and in the centre. Game 21 ‘V.Anand-P.Leko Wijk aan Zee 2005 Sicilian Defence B33 Led c5 2 Df3 Acé 3 da cxdd 4 Axd4 D6 5 2c3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Lgs a6 8 Daz b5 9 Sixf6 gxf6 10 Dds f5 11 c3 Rg7 12 exfs xfs 13 Ac2 0-0 14 Ace; Le6 15 2d3 f5 16 17 a4 ‘The most critical. After 17 WhS Haf7 18 g4 in the game Svidler-Kramnik (Linares 1998) there followed 18...e4 19 c2 fxg4? 20 xed £5, and in the event of 21 h3! gxh3 22 f4 Black would have been in difficulties. But by the exchange sacrifice 19...2e5! 20 @f4 &d7 21 &b3 fxg4 he gains excellent counterplay. This happened, for example, in an anonymous internet blitz game of mine with Svidler (1998). 17..De7! An interesting idea: Black sacrifices his b-pawn, effectively allowing the destruc- tion of his queenside (the source game: Svidler-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1999). 18 Dxe7+ Hxe7 19 axbS axb5 20 Lxb5, A few months earlier (Moscow 2004) Anand chose 20 Ha6 d5 21 4c? against me, having decided that the pawn would not run away and that the knight manoeuvre to 66Chelyabinsk Variation b4 would strengthen his position. But he was not able to demonstrate this: 21...ic8! (a successful regrouping; 21...f4?! is dubi- ous on account of 22 Ab4! We8 23 Be2 Wi7? 24 Dxd5! &xd5 25 Rh5) 22 Has (a pawn can also be won by 22 Hc6 &b7 23 Hc5, but after 23...e4 24 2xb5 Wd6 25 b4 Hc7 it is already lost) 22...Wd7 23 @b4 (if 23 We2 I was in- tending 23...f4! 24 &xb5 (3 25 gxf3 Wh3 with a forced draw ~ 26 @h1 He6! 27 gi Wxh2+! 28 Sxh2 Hh6+ 29 dg? Bg6+, since ‘playing for a win’ by 30 #f1? is bad in view of 30...@h3+ 31 tel Exgi+ 32 dd2 Bxa8) 23..e4 24 Be2 Bb7 25 HaS dd 26 cxd4, and here Anand offered a draw, re- lieving me of the need to choose between 26..Wxd4 27 Exb5 £4 and 26...f4!? 27 &xbS Wd8 with sufficient compensation for the sacrificed material. 20...45 In return for the pawn Black has ac- quired a powerful and mobile pawn centre. 21 Ba6 In the aforementioned source game Svidler made the poor move 21 ®c2?! and after 21...8b7 he could not bring himself to again play his knight to the edge of the board - 22 4a3 (after which both 22...e4 and 22...f4 were good), and the immedi- ately returned the pawn - 22 &c6 Hxb2. 21...f4 22 De2-Kc8! 23 Has Wd6 24 Abs b7 25 Baz It is probable that here Anand was al- ready ‘planning’ his mistake on the next move. 25 Exf8+ 2xf8 26 WhS suggests itself, with the hope of further simplification. However, after 26...2g7 27 Hel d4 28 &fle4 Black’s position looks attractive, and even, for example, in the event of 29 &c4+ $h8 30 d5 d3 31 Rxb7 d2 32 Bd1 Bxb7 33 Wes €3 34 fxe3 EBb8 35 Wed fxe3 36 Wxe3 £h6, when he is now two pawns down, he is not in danger of losing. 25...d4! 26 a6? 26 £c6 was correct. After 26...8xc6 27 Exe7 Wxe7 28 Dxc6 Web 29 Db4 there can follow 29...£3 30 gxf3 Wh3. Further analysis gives, among others, this spectacular varia- tion: 31 hl Bxf3 32 cxd4 exd4 33 Bgl Bxf2! 34 Bxg7+! df8! 35 Bg8+! 217! 36 Bg 7+! fs! — draw! yy y 26...&xg2! (Anand saw this sacrifice, of course, but he clearly miscalculated in the evaluation of its consequences) 27 &c4+ hs 28 Haé Now White is forced to play on with a “bad’ king and equal material. But there is no choice ~ after 28 Hxe7? Wg6! 29 Re6 26 he would have had to resign. 28...We5 29 Sxgz f3+ 30 Sha Wxc4q 31 Hc6 ‘Ws 32 Rd6 eq! 33 xd4 axd4 Perhaps it was worth keeping the queens on: 33...Wh5 34 Bd5 Wh3 35 Hgl e3 36 Rd8 EY7 37 &xf8+ Exf8. But Leko preferred to 67Revolution in the 70s switch to technical lines. 34 Wxdg+ Wes 35 Wxes+ Ixes, and Black won the endgame (0-1). Dangerous queen foray Another tabiya of the 1970-1980s was the position after 11 2d3 2e6. Immediate aggression on the queenside with 12 ¢4 was quite quickly rejected. After 12... Wa5+ 13 fl fxed 14 &xe4 287 nothing is given by either 15 cxb5 axb5 16 cl Ka6! (as in the source game Balashov-Geller, 45th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1977), or 15 De3 HcB 16 Wxd6 Dd4 (Tseshkovsky-Sveshnikov, Krasnodar 1978). And in the event of 15 Af6+ &xf6 Black can even fight for the initiative, not fearing 16 &xc6+ $e7 17 &xa8 Bxa8 or 16 Wxd6 De7 17 &xa8 0-0, since White, despite his material advantage, has problems on account of his lag in development. The main move in those years was the queen foray 12 WhS, and for a long time Black would automatically reply 12...8g7. Game 22 B.Spassky-E.Sveshnikov 41st USSR Championship, Moscow 1973 Sicilian Defence B33 14 5 2 Df3 Acé 3 dg cxd4 4 Dxdg Df 5 @c3 e5 (the game went 5...e6) 6 Ddb§ d6 7 gs a6 8 Da3 bs 9 Lxfé gxfé 10 Dds f5 11 2d3 2e6 12 Whs £g7 13 0-0 h6?! 13...0-07? is not possible on account of 14 exfS &xd5 15 £6, and so Black makes a move that prepares castling and keeps in reserve the typical ‘Chelyabinsk’ idea of .»f5xe4 plus ...f7-f5. But this turns out to be a significant delay. 13...f4 is correct (Game Nos.23 and 24). Sveshnikov: ‘I suggested this possibility in the notes to my game with Stein (1973), and at the very end of the same year it was played by Timoshchenko in his match- games with Lukin (USSR Cup, Moscow 1973). 14 3! (14 Had1?! is less good: 14...0-0 15 <3 Hc8 16 Ac2 fret 17 Axed £5 18 Wg6 2d7! Stein-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1973) 14...0-0 15, Dez freq? It was for the sake of this that 13...h6 was played. 15...2{c82! 16 @ce3 was unfavour- able for Black, but 15...f4 was the lesser evil. 16 Rxea f5 Black has carried out the main idea of the variation, but here came a stunning blow... 17 fa! Rd7!2 After 17...exf4 18 &xc6 the strategic de- fects of Black’s position are too significant, and so Sveshnikov offers an exchange sacri- fice, relying on his two bishops and mobile pawn centre. 68Chelyabinsk Variation 18 2d5+ &h7 19 Wg6+ whs 20 Dhs! Spassky does not fall in with his oppo- nent’s wishes and he conclusively rejects the fork on e6 (after 20 &xc6 2xc6). All the same loss of material for Black is inevitable. 20...We7 If 20...Wg5 White has a good choice be- tween 21 Wxd6 with an overwhelming ad- vantage, and 21 Wxg7+ Wxg7 22 2xg7 sbxg7 23 Db4s Bfc8 24 Bad1 a5 25 Axcé &xc6 26 Le6, obtaining a technical end- game with an extra pawn. 21 Dba! Dxb4 22 RxaB Hgs? 23 cxb4 1-0 After the best move 13...f4, depriving the white knight of the e3-square, 14 cA! or 14 3 0-0 is most often played - the popularity of this position, usually reached via a dif- ferent move order (cf. the note below to 12 Wh5), increased at the end of the 20th cen- tury. Game 23 N.Short-G.Sax Candidates Match, 1st game, Saint John 1988 Sicilian Defence B33 1e4 cS 2 Df3 Dc6 3 dg cxda 4 Dxdg Dfe 5 Dc3 e5 6 DAdbs d6 7 &gs a6 8 a3 b5 9 Rxf6 gxf6 10 Ads fs 11 2d3 2e6 12 Whs In order to avoid the variation 12 Wh5 Hg8! (Game Nos.25 and 26), White has often played 12 c3 and only if 12...8g7 - 13 Whs. But after 13...0-0! (it is too early for 13...f4?! on account of 14 g3!) Black has no reason to complain of the results: 1) 14 exf5 &xd5 15 £6 e4 16 fxg7 He8 17 ‘e2 Be5 18 Wh6 (a practically forced varia- tion) 18...b4 (at one time 18...1g5 was con- sidered best, but 19 Dc2 Exg2 20 Ae3 Bg 21 Wf4 2e6 22 hd leads to complicated posi- tions, not without dangers for Black) 19 ®c2 (in the event of 19 Dcd Rxcd 20 Bxc4 bxc3 21 bxc3 of the several alternatives I would prefer a pawn sacrifice ~ 21...45!? 22 Wxc6 Hc8 23 Wxa6 Excd 24 Wa3 e3) 19...bxc3 20 bxc3 Wg5 21 Wxg5 Exg5 22 0-0 e623 Bfdi Hc5, and Black easily gained a draw in the game Beliavsky-Sveshnikov (Lvov 1978), and a quarter of a century later in the twin game Anand-Van Wely (Wijk aan Zee 2003); 2) 14 0-0 f4 15 Had] @h8 16 g3 Bg 17 shi 28 18 &e2 Bg5 19 WES £5 with a dou- ble-edged struggle. This position became topical only in the new century, beginning with the game Anand-Leko (Wijk aan Zee 2001). 12...2.g7 13 0-0 f4 14cal The strongest. ‘This invention of the Czech master Prandstetter is one of the most serious attempts to “refute” the Chelyabinsk Variation.’ (Sveshnikov) 14...bxe4 (after any other reply White rein- forces his knight on d5, and his other knight comes into play via c2) 15 &xc4 Retaining the possibility of exchanging the invading black knight at d4 by @c2. 15 Axc4 is pointless: after 15...0-0 and ...dd4 Black can always eliminate the powerful white knight by ...2xd5. 15...0-0 If 15...2d4 16 Haci £3, then all the same 17 Qc2!, for example: 17...£xg2 18 sxg2 Dxc2 19 Bxc2 0-0 20 Bgl h8 21 hl or 18 69Revolution in the 70s Bid] Dxc2 19 Bxc2 0-0 20 £3 wh8 21 Bxg2. The resulting situations are similar and they promise White the initiative, thanks to the greater activity of his pieces. 16 Zaca De7 (a typical way of combating the outpost at d5; 16...b8 - Game No.24) 17 Bfda Hc8 18 Dxe7+ Wxe7 19 Hc3! The old game Matanovic-Sax (Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978) went 19 We2, and after 19..d¢h8 20 xa6? Bxcl 21 Excl £5 Black successfully carried out the idea of the variation: a pawn offensive in the centre supported by the two bishops brought him complete success. Many years later, also against Sax, Short employs a novelty, with the help of which he is able to cast doubts on Black's plan. White consolidates and strengthens his po- sition, rather than chasing the a6-pawn: on the agenda is the simple b2-b3, Hcd3, &ixe6 and Bcd. 19...@h8 20 b3! Black could have exploited the temporar- ily undefended knight at a3 and rook at c3 by 20..d5? 21 exd5 Sxd5 22 Bxd5 Wxa3, but after 23 &d3 he would have had to re- sign. Sax plays as he did against Matanovic, but... 24 Bh3 h6 22 &xe6 Wxe6 23 Hhd3! As on the 21st move, Short exploits an at- tack to make a necessary regrouping. 70 23..Bcd8 It is very important that after the ex- change of the d6- and e4-pawns White re- tains an advantage. Although, apparently, 23...fxe4 24 Hxd6 would have left Black with better chances of somehow changing, the unfavourable course of events. Now he ends up ina vice. 0, “yey Loy Ua, Mi, Y ling the light squares and threatening Ac4) 25...f3 (the last chance) 26 Dca! (after 26 x/3? d5 the play could have become more complicated) 26...2f4 27 Wd5 Wg4 28 Exf3 Exf3 29 Wxf3 Wxf3 30 gxf3 d5 31 Sf1, and White won (1-0). Since the pressurising of the knight at d5 by 16...De7 proved to be unsuccessful, Black began to look more closely at other moves that enable him to continue his de- velopment. The following game is of par- ticular interest, in that the ‘guru’ of this variation, Evgeny Sveshnikov, was play- ing White! Game 24 E.Sveshnikov-A.Vyzhmanavin Moscow 1987 Sicilian Defence B33 1e4c5 2 Af3 Dcé 3 d4 cxda 4 Dxda Afe 5 Dc3 e5 6 Ddbs d6 7 Lgs a6 8 Daz b5 9Axt6 gxfé 10 Ads f5 12 2d3 Reb 12 Whs g7 13 0-0 £4 14 cA! bxc4 15 &xc4 0-0 16 aca Eb8 (covering the b6-square, in order to play ...Wd7) 17 b3 17...Wd7 The unusual double attack 17...axd5 18 &xd5 Db4 looks tempting. It appears that White loses his piece control of d5, but he has a strong rejoinder: 19 Hfdl! Zxa2 20 Hc6 (threatening Hxd6) 20...8b6 21 Bxb6 Wxb6 22 Ded and Dxdé6, quickly gaining a decisive advantage (Stean-Sax, Las Palmas 1978). 17..Wa5, which appeared in the 1980s, is also insufficient. 18 Hfda! There is nothing to prevent this thematic move, since if 18...&g4 White has the reply 19 Wigs. 18...@h8 19 Wha! (the threat of Df6 is un- pleasant, and Black does not have a wide choice) 19...0xd5, Aiming for counterplay, Black has sev- eral times sacrificed a pawn: 19...f5 20 Axf4! exf4 21 Bxe6 Wxe6 22 Bxc6 fxed 23 Hexd6 We8. An analysis of the position arising after 24 Dc4 e3 25 fxe3 fxe3 26 Hel WE7 27 @®xe3 Bbe8 has shown that White is able to repel the opponent's threats and retain a material advantage. 20 &xd5! (20 Exd5 is weaker: 20...2b4! 21 Bd? £5 22 exf5 d5! Dvoiris-Gorelov, Barnaul 1984) 20...d4 Chelyabinsk Variation Later Black almost exclusively played 20...2\b4 21 Hd2 £5, after which the play was more tense. But in the end, here too the superiority of the better mobilised white army was confirmed: 22 Ac4 (22 Wh3 Dxd5 23 Bxd5 Wb7 24 cd fxed 25 Hedi also looks good) 22..xd5 23 Bxd5 fxe4 24 Hxd6 WIS 25 h3, and in the game Renet- Korchnoi (Lugano 1988) Black saved him- self only by a miracle. 24 Hcal (preparing Dc2) 21...f5 22 Aca! freq Instead of 22...2xc2 Vyzhmanavin al- lows the doubling of his pawns, so that his passive g7-bishop can occupy a more at- tractive position at e5. In the middlegame this would have been important in order to generate play, but it quickly transpires that the difference in the strengths of the bish- ops is so great, that to avoid the worst Black has to go into an endgame, and there his broken pawn chain renders his saving chances minimal. 23 Duda exd4 24 Sxe4 Les 25 Whs! Very strong: White prevents ...d6-d5 (25 Edcl? d5) and threatens Hdel, and this can- not be opposed by 25...2bc8 on account of 26 Bxc8 Rxc8 27 A265. 25...WE7 26 Wxf7 Bxf7 27 Rdei e728 ef In this difficult ending, despite the oppo- site-coloured bishops, Black did not hold out for long (1-0).Revolution in the 70s The Rook comes into play The favourable development of events for White in the variation 11 2d3 2e6 12 WhS was disrupted by 12...lig8!, flouting all the customary rules. It would appear that it first occurred in the summer of 1978 in a game from the Canadian Championship, but it acquired world renown after the fol- lowing drawn miniature. Game 25 R.Hiibner-G.Sax Rio de Janeiro Interzonal 1979 Sicilian Defence B33 Leg c5 2 Df3 Dcé 3 da cxd4 4 Dxda DE 5 Dc3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Lgs a6 8 Daz b5 9 Axf6 gxf6 10 Dds f5 11 2d3 Le6 12 Whs ge! Rejecting castling and initiating irra- tional play. Its correctness was hard to be- lieve, and therefore it was some time before it earned recognition. 13 £4 This was probably played both on gen- eral grounds (to open the centre as quickly as possible, since there is effectively no- where for the black king to castle), and after concrete calculation. Which, however, let Hiibner down... 13 g3 is better (Game No.26). 13...cing2 14 Dez If first 14 0-0-0, then 14...d4, as -oc- curred by transposition of moves (13 0-0-0 Hxg2 14 f4) in the game Brodsky-Kramnik (Kherson 1991). After 15 De3 Ef2 16 exfS Rxa2 17 fxe5 dxeS 18 Dxb5 Lhél! 19 Bhei (19 Wxh6 allows a problem-like mate in two moves - 19..Bxc2#!) 19...axb5 20 &xb5+ Se7 21 Wh4+ £6 22 Wxf2 27 White’s great material advantage is of no significance - his king cannot be defended. 15 @b1, not giving up the a2-pawn, is more circumspect. But then 15...2xd5 16 exd5 Hg! looks strong, with the threat of trapping the queen (.,..2h4). In the event of 17 Bdf1, Black, who is already a pawn up, can exchange the queens - 17...Wh4 18 Wxh4 Exhd4, since after 19 fxe5 dxe5 20 &xf5 b4 the knight is trapped, while if 19 c3 he has 19...e4. 14...Wa5+ 15 &f1 Bg7 16 exf5 Wb4!? 16...8d7? 17 £6 is bad for Black, while Sax’s move leads by force to a draw. For the moment it is an unresolved question: cart Black hope for an advantage by playing 16...exf4!? or, a move earlier, 15...2d2!? In any event, the variation with 13 f4 does not promise White any great dividends. 17 fxe6 Wxf4+ 18 Se2 Dd4e (it is already too late to avoid the repetition of moves: 18...e4? 19 Bafl exd3+ 20 cxd3) 19 dd2 @3+ (19...8g2+? 20 ddl) 20 bez DAda+ Yh 72Chelyabinsk Variation In the 1990s the leading move was the solid 13 g3. Game 26 A.Beliavsky-A.Shirov Groningen 1993 Sicilian Defence B33 14 c5 2 Df3 Ac (the game went 2...e6 and 5...Dc6) 3 dg exd4 4 Dxd4 AE 5 Dc3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Ags a6 8 Daz b5 9 Oxf6 gxf6 10 Dds f5 11 2d3 Re6 12 Whs Begs! 13 g3 White simply removes the attack on his g-pawn, but in so doing he weakens the (3- square, for which the black knight can aim (...2c6-d4) supported by the bishop (...f5xe4 and ...Se6-g4). However, the h7-pawn is en prise... 13..d4 The source game Sideif-Zade-Dolmatov (Frunze 1979), played just a week after the Hiibner-Sax duel, went 13...h62!, and after 14 3 Axd5 (14...fxe4? 15 Axed Bg4 16 Wh4 ~ the f6-point!) 15 exd5 De7 16 Wl (show- ing concern for material equality; play in classical style, with the sacrifice of a pawn, is also possible: 16 0-0!? Bg5 17 Wh3 Dxd5 18 dh1 followed by £2-f4) 16...e4 17 Be? 2g7 18 @c2 Wb6 19 a4 Black encountered serious problems: the coordination of his forces is disrupted, and the advanced queenside pawns are under attack. Against me (Linares 1992) Salov initially played better - 13...8c8 14 c3 gé, covering the £6-point (in contrast to 14...h6?!). But after 15 @c2 he made a poor choice - 15...Hh6?! 16 We2 &xd5 17 exd5 De7 18 £3, and Black, with his king in the centre and vulnerable pawns at f5 and b5, found him- self in difficulties. An important variation, exploiting the superiority of 14..lfg6 (over 14...h6) re- mained off-stage: 15...fxe4! 16 &xe4 gd 17 Wh4 Wxh4 18 gxh4 f5 19 h5, and now not 19...g5 20 h4 Bxh5 21 £3! and not 20...2g7 21 £3!, but immediately 19...2g7! with an unclear endgame. However, the main reply to 13 g3 never- theless became the knight foray, leading by force to a sharp ending. 14 c3 fxea 15 Sxeq 2g4 16 Wxh7 Hg? 17 Whe Df3+ 18 Bez Into all the discovered checks! White also tried the more natural 18 @f1, but after 18...22g5! 19 Dor e7 20 Wh8 Dd2+ 21 Hg2 ®xe4 22 Dxe4 Bgo it turned out that even after his best line 23 Wh4+ de6 (23...f6!2) 24 Wxd8 Hxd8 Black’s activity fully compen- sates for the missing pawn. 18...Dg5+ 19 £3 Dxe4 20 fuga We8! 21 Wes (not 21 Wh3? We5 22 De3 Axc3+) 21...Wxga+ 22 Wf3 Wxf3+ 23 dxf f5 24 Dez &f7 25 Dees 73Revolution in the 70s The endgame looks better for White: he has a powerful knight at d5, supported by the other knight from €3, and also the pos- sibility of attacking the f5- and b5-pawns (a2-a4). YZ Va, ae 4 ict . pm wna eo Ay 7. 25...e6? Overlooking a tactical stroke which wins a pawn. After this game, the first with 18 ‘#e2, Black adopted 25...2f6!, breaking up the d5-e3 knight link, and demonstrated that in this sharp endgame his chances are not worse (examples: Kulaots-Smirnov, Istanbul 2003; Acs-Van Wely, Plovdiv 2003). 26 Axfs! Dgs+ (26...exf5 27 De3+ or 26...2d2+ 27 Se2 is no better) 27 &g4 Sf7 28 Bhfa In the subsequent play both sides made mistakes, but White went on to win (1-0). Castling first To avoid the variations with 12...2g8!, in which defects have not yet been found, in- stead of 12 Wh5 White began playing 12 0-0, hoping for a simple transposition of moves - 12...@g7 13 Wh5. And again White’s plans were disrupted by Sax, who a month after the Interzonal tournament in Rio de Janeiro, staggered the same oppo- ment with the paradoxical 12...&xd5! 13 exd5 Qe7 (although this plan had first oc- curred in a game between two little-known players at the 1978 Olympiad in Buenos Aires). Game 27 R.Hiibner-G.Sax Tilburg 1979 Sicilian Defence B33 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Dxd4 Af 5 Dc3 e5 6 Ddbs dé 7 Ags a6 8 Daz bs 9 Anf6 gxf6 10 Ads f5 11 &d3 Se6 12 0-0 Axds! 23 exds De7 al “I b> ~ \\ so oy y ee Y \ \ PP . \ A Ky Y Yi, “HOR om \ a WSN ws —“ De Black no longer has the advantage of the two bishops and he is well behind in devel- opment, but he is relying on his mobile e5- and f5-pawn pair and the bishop at g7, which will become strong after ...e5-e4. 14.04 Another unusual feature of the exchange on d5 is that it involves a pawn sacrifice - 14 Dxb5. But after 14..0g7 15 Ac3 e4 16 ‘&c4 Black has achieved good results both with the simple 16..Wc7 followed by ..4xc3, and the gambit move 16...g6 with dark-squared domination. In addition, in the diagram position White has tried practically everything — from 14 3 or 14 Wh5 (Game No.28) to the plan with c2-c4 after the preparatory 14 Hbl1 or 14 Hel (in order after ...e5-e4 to re- treat the bishop from d3 to f1). 14...2g7 15 Wd2 74Of course, White has also tried the ex- change sacrifice - 15 cxb5 e4 16 Re2 Rxb2 17 cd 2xal 18 Wxal. Analysis of the posi- tion after 18...0-0 19 b6 Dxd5 20 Bdi Af4 21 &£1 d5 shows that Black is out of danger. 15...e4 16 Re2 bxc4 17 Axc4 0-0 18 Baca Nowadays this is a well-known position, in which various piece arrangements have been tried - 18 Habl, 18 Hacl, 18 Hadi, 18 Hfdi and others. There is no prescription for achieving an advantage, but in the present game, despite the novelty of the situation, Hiibner reacts fairly well for the time being. Carrying out one of Black’s main ideas in the variations with c2-c4: an attack on the d5-pawn by ...2b8-b5. 19 b4 The threat of a5 forces matters. Inci- dentally, if White were to defend his b2- pawn in advance by 18 Habl, after 18...2b8 he would nevertheless discover that if 19 a5, then 19...&ixb2 20 Exb2 &xb2 is possi- ble. And after 21 Ac6 @xc6 22 dxc6 Re5 23 2xaé d5, despite the simplification, the po- sition remains double-edged. 19...Rb5 20 De3 fa! After 20...2b6 White would have had a choice: to advance immediately (21 a4), or first prevent ...f5-f4. 21 Sxbs Qbtaining a rook and two pawns against Chelyabinsk Variation knight and bishop - a problematic material balance. In the 21st century 21 @c2!? has also oc- curred, after which Black can maintain ma- terial equality by 21..e3 22 fxe3 Bxd5 (but then after 23 2d3 fxe3 24 Wxe3 He5 25 WI2 White has the initiative), or sacrifice a pawn = 21..2txd5 22 Wrf4 Be5 23 fxa6 Dd5 24 Wad2 Wh4 or 23..d5 24 Bcd Dgo, with quite good counter-chances on the king- side. 21...fxe3 22 Wxe3 axb5 23 Wxeq Dge ae a_i, ei a aimee a a aie ‘ a a Ma Sy i 24f4 For the moment the black pieces are modestly played, but White, not without reason, is afraid that they will soon become active and therefore he takes control of the e5- and g5-squares. For example, after 24 Efel DeS now 25 f4? Ded is bad for White, while if 24 Wd3 apart from the cautious 24...Wb8 Black can also play 24...Wg5, since in the event of 25 Wxb52! Dh4 26 g3 Dia+ 27 $g2 WIS he is able to attack with the draw in hand. 24...He8 25 Wd3 We7!? (25...Wd7 is not bad, with the ideas of ...Wa7+ and ...Wg4) 26 ‘Wxb5 @xf4 with a complicated battle, which after a number of mistakes ulti- mately ended in a draw (Ys-¥2). In the following dramatic game Black used the e5+f5 pawn pair to quickly open 75Revolution in the 70s up the position of the white king and ob- tain an attack on the dark squares. It is said that it was after this defeat that Mikhail Krasenkow became a fervent supporter of the Chelyabinsk Variation... Game 28 M.Krasenkow-S.Gorelov Moscow 1982 Sicilian Defence B33 1e4c5 2 Df3 Dcé6 (the game went 2...e6 and 5...2c6) 3 d& cxd4 4 Axd4 Af6 5 Ac3 e5 6 Ddbs d6 7 2g5 a6 8 a3 b5 9 Axf6 gxfé 10 ds f5 11 2d3 Le6 12 0-0 Axd5! 13 exd5 Be7 14 Whs Nowadays White's play is more refined: first 14 c3 &g7 and only then 15 WhS. This position has been virtually the main tabiya of the Chelyabinsk Variation over the last 10-15 years! After 15..e4, apart from 16 &e2, there is the additional, more interest- ing possibility 16 2c2. 14...e4 15 Re2 287 16 c3 16...0-0 The over-hasty 16..b4?! runs into 17 exb4! &xb2 18 Hab] @xa3 19 Hb3 - White regains the piece, retaining the initiative (G.Kuzmin-Sveshnikov, Erevan 1982). 17 Be2 Hoping in the subsequent play to exploit the weakness of the pawns and squares in the opponent's position. Say, after 17...Wd7 18 Had! Hac8 19 £3. 17...f4! y, 18 aq?! Nowadays they don’t play so impul- sively! They employ either the impeding 18 £3 (Sadvakasov-Babula, Bled Olympiad 2002) or 18 Wg5, a move with a hidden idea — by crudely attacking the f4-pawn at a moment when the opponent is not yet ready for gambit play (18...3? 19 gx{3), White wants to provoke the exchange of queens - 18...g6?! 19 Wxd8 Mixd8, and after 20 a4 the weakness of the black pawns will be perceptible. But instead of going into an inferior end- game, Black can successfully complicate the play in the middlegame - 18...f5! If 19 Wxf4 @xd5 20 Wd2 Db6 21 Kadi d5 22 Abs Wade he succeeds in supporting the d5-pawn, while after 19 Bid] £3 20 gxf3 Bf6 he gains good play against the white king in retum for the pawn (Nijboer-Avrukh, Plovdiv 2003). 18...f51.19 axb5? It is curious that five years later Krasenkow had this position with Black against Yurtaev (Tashkent 1987), and after 19 Bfel? £3 20 gxf3 Dxd5 21 fxed Ata 22 WES fxe4 23 Wg3 #h8 he built up a winning attack. The best way out of the situation is still 19 Wg5, although here this leaves Black 76with quite a good choice: a double-edged endgame - 19..Dxd5 20 Wxd8 Bfxd8 21 axb5 axb5 22 &xb5 Be7, or the same pawn sacrifice - 19...£3 20 gxf3 Bf6. 19...f3! Now Black's attack develops unhindered. 20 cq (20 gxf3? Ago! is totally bad) 20..axb5 22 Qxb5 (or 21 Bxa8 Wxa8 22 Axb5 fxg2 23 Bd Wa2) 21...Eb8 22 Qcé (if 22 cA, then 22...Axd5 23 cxd5 fxg2 24 dexg2 Exb5 or 22...fxg2 23 Bfd1 Dgé) 22...fxgz 23 sexgz Ef6 with a decisive attack (0-1). In the late 1990s the variation with 12...2xd5! became incredibly popular, and now it is hard to think of an important event (with either the classical, or rapid time control) where it did not occur. How- ever, Black's position retained its viability even after being tested in the strongest tournaments. Thus, today Black’s basic counterplay in the main line of the Chelyabinsk Variation is comprised of two brilliant moves by Sax ~ 12...2g8! and 12...axd5! Instead of an epilogue The authors of the original variation have developed different attitudes to their brain- child. Gennady Timoshchenko remembers: ‘I analysed the Chelyabinsk Variation quite extensively and I regularly and suc- Chelyabinsk Variation cessfully employed it until 1980. By that time the novelty effect had completely worn off. Solid ways had been found for White to gain a slight but stable advantage. Even competent candidate masters, familiar with theory, had learned to made a draw with White against grandmasters. There- fore against 1 e4 I began playing schemes with more flexible pawn chains and a richer strategic struggle (for example, the Scheveningen or the classical Ruy Lopez). ‘On the other hand, Sveshnikov contin- ued playing 5...e5 for a long time, but then he switched to 4...e5 (strictly speaking, this is already a different line). With this, in my opinion, he indirectly admitted that things are not so easy for Black in the Chelyabinsk Variation. He has published several books on the 5...e5 variation, and so the name “Sveshnikov Variation’ has become firmly established. I have to give Sveshnikov his due: in his books he repeatedly emphasises my serious role in the development of the variation.” It is very interesting and instructive to hear how Evgeny Sveshnikev himself ex- plains the reason for his rejection of 5...e5 in favour of 4...e5: 6y pudlishing a monograph on ie 5...eF system in 1988, I practically exhausted this variation. Since that time only some details have been developed, without introducing anything particularly new: the evaluations of the main lines have hardly changed. I described everything in such detail, that it became hard playing 5...e5 even against first category players. ‘Therefore I switched to the variation with 4...e5, In some sources it is for some reason called the “Kalashnikov Variation’. However, at the master level I don’t know of any such player. Perhaps this is a joke, a comparison with the formidable rifle of the same name?! 77Revolution in the 70s ‘In fact the move 4...e5 was first made by La Bourdonnais in one of his matches with McDonnell (1933/34), and then it was played by Staunton and other English mas- ters. Therefore back in 1990 in the magazine Baltic Chess I suggested calling this the “La Bourdonnais Variation”, although he did not play many games with it. ‘A couple of years ago, Boris Gelfand, an excellent theoretician, who was trained by Kapengut (a pupil of Boleslavsky!), said to me: “The 5...e5 system is indeed okay, but .e5 is not as good!” But in my opinion, it is: after 4...e5, without the knight on f6, the cl-bishop cannot take part in the fight for the d5-point (by Sg5), there is also not the dangerous line with the spoiling of the pawns (2g5xf6), and Black has more possi- bilities for controlling the key point. ‘Ihave now played more games with the 4..e5 variation than with 5...e5. And a book on this topic would be twice as thick. But for the moment I am not publishing one, because this is my main opening weapon. For those wishing to study the methods of fighting for the d5-point, I can suggest the following instructive game. Game 29 G.Sax-E.Sveshnikov Saint Vincent 2000 Sicilian Defence B3 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Dxd4 e5 5 Obs! ‘In the old days they used to reply 5 Df3 or 5 Axc6 bxc6 6 Sc4 with double-edged play, as in the famous games McDonnell-La Bourdonnais (Game No.1 in Volume I of My Great Predecessors) and Morphy- Lowenthal (London 1858). “The move 5 Db5! (fighting for the weak d5-point) was recommended in his com- mentaries by Staunton - nearly quarter of a century after the source game. This shows the development of chess theory in action! 5.6! ‘The tabiya of the variation with 4...e5. The defence of the d6-point is undoubtedly more logical than 5..a6 6 Dd6+ &xd6 7 Wxdo Wi6. 6 ez?! ‘The main lines are 6 Dic3 a6 and 6 c4 &e7. Sax chose a continuation which was popular at the turn of the century and known from the times of Morphy and Staunton, although this position is more often reached in a different way: 1 e4 c5 2 DIB e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 Dcé 5 DS dé 6 2 £42! (6 c4) 6...e5 7 &e3. Fischer played this several times - in particular, against Tai- manov and Petrosian in his 1971 Candi- dates matches. And against me this varia- tion has been employed by Leko, Ivanchuk and the Frenchman Marcelin. On the whole, the statistics are not bad for Black. 6...a6 “Of course, following the advice of Che- banenko, it was possible to repeat the Ist game of the Fischer-Petrosian match: 6...Df6 7 2g5 Leb (7...26!) 8 D1c3 a6 9 Lxf6r! (9 Da3 Be7 with equality) 9...gxf6 10 Ba3 d5! (Game No.98 in Volume IV of My Great Predecessors). But 8 &xf6! gxf6 9 Dd2 is better {Leko-Portisch, Budapest 1997). Apparently it was not by accident that Leko began play- ing 6 £e3: it is said that he had contact with Fischer, and Ivanchuk too is also no mug in the opening. Therefore, after a little thought, 1 found a fresh solution to the problem. 7 Dsc3 D6 8 Dd2 “A rare move. 8 &g5 Re7 9 Axf6 Rxf6 10 d5 is usually played, although here too Black has no problems. 8..ga?! ‘By weakening his control over the d5- point, Black creates certain difficulties for himself. 8..d5 was more logical, for example: 9 Dxd5 Dxd5 10 exdS Wxd5 11 Act (11 cf ‘Wa5 is also not to be feared) 11...Wxd1+ 12 78Exdi £e6, reaching an equal endgame. 9 Aca Dxe3 10 Axe3 Le6 11 Dcd5 ‘11 Bcd Le7 12 Bxeb fxe6 13 Wed HI7!7 was interesting. 11...g6!? 12 c3 &h6 13 ha?! (a non-essential move) 13...0-0 ‘The alternative was 13...Axe3 14 Dxe3 Wh6 15 Wd2 (15 &c4 Wxb2!?) 15...0-0-0 16 h5 De7 with counterplay. 14 h5 &xe3 15 Dxe3 Wes (after this White is obliged to forget about an attack) 16 hxgé hxgé 17 g3 Had@ 18 Wd2?! (18 2g2 was more solid) 18...d5 19 exd5 &xd5 20 Oxd5 Wxd2+ 21 &xd2 Exd5+ 22 Se3 Zfds 23 Se2 Ed2 24 Baba Chelyabinsk Variation “Now 24..Qe7 (instead of the move played 24...2a5?!) would have retained a slight advantage; in view of White's time- trouble, things would have been difficult for him. As it was, on the 41st move the game ended in a draw (‘4-¥2). ‘It is interesting to follow: 1) 10 @xe3 - complete control of the d5-point; 2) 10...se6 - Black begins the battle for this point: 3) 11...g6, 12...@h6 and 14...2xe3 - the ex- change of a piece controlling the d5-point; 4) 15...Wg5 - the queen comes into play; 5) 1 lad8 and 18..d5 - the triumph of Black’s strategy! In the battle for the d5- point he had two more resources ~ ...e7 and ...f7-£5. ‘For these reasons I came to the conclu- sion that the move 3 &b5 offers White more chances of an opening advantage (cf. p.390). In the introduction to my book in 1988 I wrote: “I will venture to give an analogy. It is considered that after 1 e4 e5 2 @f3 Dc6 3 d4 White has no advantage and that 3 &2bS should be played. We also see the Scotch set-up in the Sicilian De- fence. Is it possible that here too 3 &b5 will replace the hackneyed 3 d4 ? At any event, the popularity of the bishop move is continuing to grow.’ A brief résumé. Nowadays the Chelyab- insk Variation, which took off back in the 1970s, is virtually the main symbol of mod- ern chess. In its ultra-sharp lines the evalua- tion of the position is extremely concrete and very changeable, since it depends on a great variety of dynamic factors. And largely thanks to the intense development of the Chelyabinsk Variation, the scrupulous re- gard for such factors has become an indeli- ble part of overall strategic evaluation. 79Chapter Three Najdorf Variation - 6 &e3 The Najdorf Variation in the Sicilian De- fence - 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 dé 3 da cxd4 4 Dxda @f6 5 De3 a6 - was developed from the late-1950s largely through the efforts of Fischer and Polugayevsky. To combat it White always had a wide choice of methods. Players of attacking style, who were also inclined towards sharpening their opening weapon in home analysis, usually played 6 £g5 or 6 Sc4 Those who were not very fond of analytical work and the need to remember much could resort to 6 f4. And at the service of those who liked positional manoeuvring were the variations with 6 2e2, 6 g3 and 6 a4. At the very height of the various attempts to refute the Najdorf Variation, primarily with the help of 6 £85 - the most aggressive and heavily-studied continuation, in the se- rious tournament play of the 1970s the more modest 6 Se3 also began to appear. How- ever, this move is only outwardly modest - in fact it intends rapid queenside castling and active play on the kingside. In the fight for the initiative, here the classical £2-f4 followed by e4-e5 or f4-f5 is by no means obligatory: the attacking set- up with (2-f3 and g2-g4 is also capable of causing Black a mass of problems. More- over, the reinforcement of the e4-pawn re- duces the effectiveness of typical counterat- tacking methods for Black (for example, the exchange sacrifice on c3). 80Najdorf Variation - 6 2e3 Today the arrangement with 2e3, £2-£3, Wd2, 0-0-0 and g2-g4 is considered com- pletely natural and, above all, universal (it is even employed in the Paulsen Variation: 2.06 3 d4 exd4 4 Dxd4 Deb 5 Dc3 We7 6 Se3 a6 7 Wd? etc.). Evidently in this set-up there is some internal ‘Sicilian’ harmony: White develops his queenside, reinforces his centre, and begins an attack on the king- side. But at that time such a method of development was so innovatory, so distant from traditional impressions, that even in the 1980s it was still felt to be only tempo- rary. It appeared that at any moment it would fade into the background - 6 2g5 or 6 &c4 looked far more dangerous for Black... The classical 6...e5 According to the classical canons of the ‘Najdorf’, to the moves 6 £e3, 6 Re2, 6 {4,6 g3 and 6 a4 it is customary to reply with an immediate 6...e5. After 6 2e3 e5 initially 7 2f3 was popular, and this is also sometimes played now. But in the ma- jority of cases Black succeeds in solving the slight positional problems that he faces in this line fairly easily. After 7 Qb3 &e6 8 Wd2 (or first 8 £3) bd7 it may seem that Black can easily create counterplay on the queenside. But the very first games on this theme showed this is by no means so. White's fortifications in the centre and on the queenside are fairly solid, and when the two sides’ armies come into conflict, it quickly transpires that it is hard for Black to find a suitable shelter for his king: the advance of the white g- and h- pawns makes the normal kingside castling dangerous. In the first game at grandmaster level, routine play in the opening led to a rapid disaster for Black. Game 30 R.Byrne-Yu.Balashov Moscow 1971 Sicilian Defence B90 14 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 da cxdg 4 Dxdg Df6 5 Dc3 a6 6 Le3 e5 7 Db3 Re6 8 Wd2 Dbd7 9 £3 £e7 10 0-0-0 RcB A typical Sicilian developing move. As it later transpired, Black should not be in a hurry to make it: often it looks better to have the king’s rook on this square - after 10..0-0 11 g4 We7 and ...Hfc8 both black rooks are operating on the queenside. 11 g4 Db6 12 g5 ZZ gras a. 12...Dfd7? Too optimistic. Black should place his knight in the path of the advancing white pawns - 12...h5, and then castle. Nowa- days the double-edged position after 13 81