A LINE FOR WHITE

number
The

1 e4 c5

Anti-Taimanov

>f3 e6
5

3 d4 cxd4

Zhb5 d 6

Af4!

^xd4

Matthias Wahls

Series Editor:

Grandmaster Murray Chandler

Many club players would love to experiment with difficult opening systems,
but simply lack the time and resources to delve through dozens of reference
works. This Line for White and Line for Black opening series aims to change
that by covering a variation f r o m only one sides' point of view. Extraneous
material is further eliminated by a strong player, in this case F M Matthias
Wahls, recommending an exact alternative at each m a j o r juncture. The result
is a concise booklet, similar to the files some Grandmasters maintain for their
own private use. With the minimum of home study, it is possible to learn an
entire system that can be used at the club that same evening we hope with
success!
Matthias Wahls is a very fast improving West German player who plays for
H a m b u r g in the Bundesliga. He recently obtained Grandmaster norms at both
Budapest and Berlin.

Published by:
T.U.I. Enterprises Ltd.,
Lower Ground Floor,
51 Eardley Crescent,
London
SW5 9JT
England

TUI Enterprises Ltd 1988

A line f o r White

The Anti Taimanov

ECO code B4

NIC code Si39.2

1 e4 cS 2 j f 3 e6 3 d4 cd 4
\d4 >c6 5 >b5 d6 6 f 4 !

In
today's
tournament
practise,
one
almost
exclusively meets 6 c4 as the
response t o 5 ... d6, although
it appears t o me t h a t this
line does n o t succeed in
preventing
black
from
maintaining the balance.
The alternative 6 j2.f4, after
which we reach our starting
position, h a s experienced
much less attention. My
task is t o prove t h a t t h e
neglect of 6 ,Q.f4 is by no
means justified, or, t o put it
into bolder words, that 6
,Qf4 guarantees a t least a
slight opening advantage.
The bishop move directly
evokes a Pelikan-type of
position,
which
is
positionally demanding and
provides both players with
tactical ideas.
This fact alone means t h e
whole
line
is t o be
recommended f o r players
who feel unhappy with the
long-winded
positional
manoeuvring required by the
hedgehog positions arising
a f t e r 6 c4.
For some people there might
be still another kind of

The Taimanov s e t - u p in the

Sicilian has always been a
very popular line for black.
Many eminent grandmasters
belong t o its following, with
Mark
Taimanov,
Ulf
Andersson, Gary Kasparov
and Anatoly Karpov perhaps
the
most
well-known
exponents. Black's f o u r t h
move leaves white with two
principal options; 5
and
S
the latter of which is
the subject of this treatise.
After 5
black has the
choice either t o transpose t o
the Sicilian Four Knights
Variation by 5 ... i^fb or t o
play the true Taimanov move
5 ... d6.
3 -

& d 8 10 OOOi, or 7 ... <f6 8

ileS de 9 $d8 &d8 10 g d l e7
ll>d6

attraction hidden in this

variation: it was chosen,
elaborated and popularised
by Robert James Fischer.
Fischer, however, wasn't the
f i r s t who opted f o r this line,
as the following miniature
powerfully proves:

2.e3

1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 3 Q c 6 4
)d4 e6 5 }b5 dG 6 f 4 e5 7
e 3 f5? 8 }lc3!+- f 4 9 >d5
f e 10 )bc7 & f 7 11 & f 3 <&f6 12
c 4 >d4 13 )f6 d5 14 &dS
g6 IS i$jh5 f 6 16 fe <c2 17
e2 1-0
In this position black has the
choice
of
three
approximately
equivalent
continuations:

Morphy-Andersson,
1858!
1
2
3
4
S
6

e4
f3
d4
d4
&f4

A) 7
B) 7
C) 7

...
...
...

a6
>f6
Qe6

A) 7

...

a6

Paris

c5
e6
cd
d6
eS

6 ... <)e5 leads t o a clear

disadvantage for black a f t e r
the strong answer 7 )la3!
e.g. 7 ... a6 8 e 5 de 9 # d 8

Before developing any piece

black chases away white's
knight, thus talking
the
4 -

pressure off the d - p a w n .

This
action
is
on
no
account unmotivated, as it
is this pressure t h a t plays
an
important
part
in
section B3.
The disadvantage, however,
is evident - white's knight
gets driven t o its favoured
square d5.
8 )5c3 >f6
9
jjc4

4jd5 leaves t h e knight rather

awkwardly placed on the
rim.
In
Wahls
Cladoras,
Bundesliga
1988,
there
followed 9 ... Qe6 10 ,dS
J2.d5 and now 11 J2d5 would
have been very satisfactory
for white e.g. 11 ... >d5 12
^ d 5 Qe7 [12 ... b 4 13 $ b 3
d5 14 a3 d4 15 jld2 c 6 16
$ b 7 +-] 13 c 3 , 11 ... e 7
12 c 3 , 11 ... b 4 ? ! 12
Qb3\ >e4 13 c3 <^c6 14

10 >dS
11 QdS
12 4 > 3

At this point white

wide
range
of
available.
9 4 > 3 , 9 jg5, 9 e 2
4^d2 have all been
but the t e x t move
only possibility t o
successfully
for
advantage.
9

...

)dS
00

12
Spiriev-Wegner,
Budapest 1987, 12 00
12 ...
&h8
12
...
Qe6
13
c3
Hellers-Gdanski,
Bagiuo
1987.
13 00
f5
14 f3
f4
15 Qf2
Hf6
16 >c4

has a
moves
and 9
tested,
is the
fight
the

&e7

9 ... <\a5?! is an interesting

attempt,
since a f t e r 10
J2.b3?! Q.e6,
equality
is
within reach e.g. 11 <^5
\d5 12 d 5 <c4-.
Fortunately 10 j2.e2 Qe6 11
- 5 -

Trepp-Krnic, Rome 1986.

B) 7

...

>f6

The positions d i f f e r in so f a r
as t h e fact t h a t white is a
t e m p o down in our line,
which
is
actually
no
disadvantage at all.
The explanation f o r this
curiosity is t h a t t h e c3
square remains vacant f o r
t h e retreating knight, so
t h a t white is able t o avoid
its misplacement on a3.
Black now has three choices,
each giving t h e game a
distinct character.

With this natural developing

move, black introduces the
main line of the whole
system.
8

By moving this piece three

times in a row, white obtains
a position which strongly
resembles the main line of
the Pelikan variation, which
is brought about by the
moves 1 e4 c5 2 >f3 jc6 3 d4
cd 4 )d4 <f6 5 <c3 eS 6
d b S d6 7 2&S

- 6 -

Bl)
B2)
B3)

8
8
8

a6?!
&e6

Bl)

a6?!

A l t h o u g h this is t h e normal
move in t h e Pelikan position,
it
turns
out
to
be
disadvantageous f o r black in
t h i s line. (8 ... e 7 ? 9 f 6 gf
is clearly b e t t e r f o r white,
since
the
dark-squared
bishop is poorly placed on
e7)
9
10

Qf6
c3

11 ... Qg7 12 4jd2 is also very

attractive f o r white, as t h e
following line illustrates: 12
... 00 13 ef! [13 000 d 4 14
J2.d3 f e IS <2e4 h 6 ] <^d4 14
&d3 d5 15 f6 e4 16 , d e 4 + 12 c 4
13 4^d2
14 e2
15 Hal
16 }d5
17 ja,b3

gf
f5

&c7
4V1
b5
&d8

No improvement is 10 ...
fcg7 11 <d2! b5 12 a4 b4 13
& d 5 f5 14 c 4 00 15 ^?h5
d4
16 00
fe
17
c3
(Sanguinetti - Polugayevsky,
Havana 1966), or 10 ... ;Qe6
11 <d5 Qjg7 12 <bc3 00 13
Qd3 >d4
(Peresipkin
Suetin, USSR 1972) 14 # h 5 ,
with a clear advantage t o
white in b o t h cases.
11

&hS

According t o Polugayevsky,
white p o s s e s s e s a huge
advantage.

At t h i s stage white has t o

pay a t t e n t i o n t o a possible
black queen sortie t o g5,
which proved sufficient f o r
black a f t e r 11 ^ c 4 ? e.g. 11 ...
# g 5 12 g3 fe 13 }e4 \$g6 14
<bc3 <d4 15 00 h 3 16
S e l 000 17 f3 (Stein Taimanov, USSR 1971) d5T,
or 11 ... d 4 12 d 2 ^fg5
13 g3 J2.h6* Balinas
Korchnoi, Lugano 1968 (ol).
11

...

B2)

}d4

- 7 -

...

#aS!?

Qb7 15 f 4 f6 (15 ... c 6 ) 16

f e f e 17 e2!? g 2 18 Hbgl
h 3 19 <^e4 and now 19 ...
g6 20 Jlb5 &c7 21 Hd3
would have led t o
an
unclear position.
Instead of 12 <^lc3, white
should play t o recover t h e
l o s t material, t h u s securing
s o m e advantage.

This
move
is
very
enterprising and produces a
position
which
requires
accurate play f r o m both
sides.
9

Unambitious players might

try 9 Jd2 # d 8 10 QjgS, hoping
f o r a quick draw.

12
9
...
10
5
11 Qe3

<}e4
>a5
d7

f3!

>f6

12 ... )C5?? loses a f t e r 13 b4

and 12 ... a6? 13 fe ab 14 QbS
gives white a c o m f o r t a b l e
game.

A f t e r 11 ... <>d8? Mikenas

gives the line 13 f3 >f6 14
jQLa7 }d5 15 c4+-

13 jQa7

Since the idea of capturing

on a7 has, oddly enough, not
occurred
in
tournament
practice, all t h e following
lines are based on analysis.

This diagram shows the

crucial position.
Theory
recommends
the
pawn sacrifice 12 )lc3
13 jc3,
and
estimates
white's chances as superior.
This assessment is, in my
opinion, r e f u t e d by the
game Wedberg - Sjberg,
Stockholm 1985/86 which
continued 13 ... b6! 14 000

13

...

d5

Inferior is 13 ... c 6 ? ! 14 b 6
Ha6 [14 ... d5 15 <c7 S b 8 16
}lc3 ilb4 (16 ... d4 17 000
- 8 -

A c 4 , f 4 ) 17 7 d 5 }d5 18
000 (c3 19 S d 5 e6 20 J l c 4 ;
14 ... d 5 15 Qf2 A)lc3,
0 0 0 e.g. 15 ... d b 4 16 <la3
d5 17 000 (17 c3? &a6 18 000
e6co) 4^a2 18 b l 4 > b 4 19
c3 4 > 6 20 S d 5 + - ] 15 Qf2 d5
16 }lc3 b 4 [16 ... d4 17 000]
17 000 d4 [ 17 ... 4 > 7 18 a3
QflS 19 4}d5 <7d5 20 c 4 + - ] 18
4 > 4 <2?e7 19 c3 dc 20
14

15 >lc3

15 ... c6 is an interesting
alternative, since 16 )d4
$?d7! leaves
white
with
nothing b e t t e r t h a n 17 <)db5
[17 b 5 ? ? &c7 and t h e hero
on a7 perishes]. 16 .Qd4,
however,
promises
some
advantage due t o black's
demolished pawn s t r u c t u r e
and vulnerable king.

f4!
16

This is t h e key move of t h e

variation. W i t h t h e aid of a
pawn
sacrifice,
white
d e s t r o y s black's imposing
pawn c e n t r e .
14

&b4

...

&d4

The position in t h e above

diagram is favourable f o r
white, as black has t o worry
about t h e s a f e t y of t h e king
and pawns.
Consequently
8 ... 1^a5 does n o t equalise.

ef

A f t e r 14 ... e4? white should

a t t e m p t t o exploit black's
dangerously placed monarch,
and go f o r a b r e a k t h r o u g h
with c4 - 15 d 2 ! &c6 16 d 4
[16 c4? b61 He6 17 f5! d 7 [17
... f 5 ? ! 18 Qf6 gf 19 4^d4+~]
18 c 4 + -

B3) 8

...

see following

Qe6
diagram

In c o n t r a s t t o 8 ... a6?! or 8
^a5!?
this
solid
continuation
leads t o
a
calmer game. However, as in
the previous lines, black is
- 9 -

9 ... Hc8 10 <c4 }d4 [10 ...

dS 11 ed d 5 12 Jlf6 gf 13 c3!
A13 ... a6 1 4 b d 6 ] lljQ.f6 gf
12 <}d4 _Qc4 13 <f5
14
c3 Qe6 15 ^ f 3 Petrushin Zaharov, USSR 1972.
9 ... a6 10 f 6 gf 11 , c 3 Qh6
12 <c4 d 4 (Wahls-van Mil,
Bad W o r i s h o f e n 1988) 13
&d3

unable
to
equality.
9

achieve

10 jQif6
11 4 V 4
12 &d6

full

>d2!

By capturing on d6, white

carries o u t t h e plan which
was indicated by his ninth
move.
His
lead
in
development,
however,
enables black t o regain t h e
l o s t material.

This is the m o s t cunning way

t o handle t h e position. By
launching
the
knight
t o w a r d s c4, white creates
s t r o n g pressure against t h e
black d-pawn. 9 )lc3 a6 10
Qf6 gf 11 4 > 3 d5! leads t o
a very unclear position as
in
the
famous
game
Fischer-Petrosian,
Buenos
Aires 1971.

B31) 12
B32) 12

...
...

a6?
&c8

B31) 12

...

ah?

see following
9

Qf6
00

...

diagram

Qe7
This
- 10 -

move

is

recommendation

of

Gary

In his analysis Kasparov now

gives t h e unmotivated move
16 a3? which provides black
with t h e opportunity t o
obtain great activity by 16 ...
g6 17 d 5 d 5 18 ed Qe7 19
4 > 4 f5 etc.
For this reason 16 a3? should
be replaced by 16 jf5 which
yields white some advantage:
a) 16 ... &f5? 17 ef Hac8 18

Kasparov, printed in t h e
Russian
version
of
his
book on t h e Sicilian with
e6, d6. The world champion
evidently failed to properly
analyse t h e consequences.

b) 16 ... g6? 17 d 4 ed 18
4>2+c) 16 ... >f5? 17 ef e4 [17 ...
ild7 18 Jle4+-, 17 ... b4 18
}e4+-] 18 He4 [18 4 > 4 ? Qb2
19 g b l j2f5, 18 fe? ed 19 ef
Hf7 20 cd b4)S e.g. 21 <e4
J2.b2 22 Hbl <2.a3!]
19 be
nae8 20 00 a 2 21 Jld3+Black's b e s t a t t e m p t a f t e r 16
f 5 is t o play 16 ... b4 17
d 4 be 18 4 > 6 cb 19 Hbl fe
but despite tangible drawing
chances, his task remains
unpleasant.

000 +-

13 >c3
14 jd6

&d6
d4

14 ... 4^b4 doesn't manage t o

avoid a clear disadvantage: 15
000
2 C15 ... a 2 16 b3+-]
16 }a2 a 2 17 b3 g f d 8 18 b2
Qe7 19 <f5 S d l 20 >e7 f 8
21 <d5 b 3 [21 ... &bl 22 >c3,
21 ... S c 8 22 >e3] 22 b3
A4>3, h4, Hh3
15 Qd3
b5

B32) 12

- 11 -

...

&c8

13

c3

where white obtained more

t h a n a slight advantage.

It is absolutely necessary t o
limit t h e scope of black's
knight.
13

...

17

Hfel

&c4

13 ... Hd8? 14 ^ c 7 + 14 c 4
15 ,a3

a6
&g4

As t h e r e s u l t of his pawn
majority on t h e queen-side,
and black's weakness on dS,
white is provided w i t h a
small
but
long-lasting
advantage.
C)

...

Qe6

Thus black regains t h e pawn.

The s o - f a r u n t e s t e d 15 ...
Sd8,
however,
deserves
attention: 16 # c 5 e 7 17 ^/e3
Qa.3 C17 ... d 4 ? 18 cd Qp3 19
^ b 3 + - l 18 ba <,aS [18 ... ,b4
19 Qf7 f 7 20 ab <$c4 21 Hcl
A\^e2+-] 19 ^ d 5 and white
has only a small edge.
16

00

#e4

16 ... 5 a d 8 would be a
mistake due t o 17
S d 7 18
h3 &g2 19 g2 Hc7 20
g a d l which is Peresypkin Timoshchenko, USSR 1973,

This interesting developing

move
has
not
been
a t t e m p t e d hitherto.
The idea is simply t o avoid
- 12 -

t h e pin on the knight (see

line B). 7 ... Qe7 has the same
intention, but allows white
t o develop 'normally' with 8
l c 3 a6 C8 ... >f6 9 QjgS A10
j2.f6] 9 <a3 b5 [9 ... <f6 10
sc4 All b 6 ] 10 4^d5 S b 8
11 b l ! A l c 3
8

9 ... bS 10 a4 b4 ll<^d5
10 ^ c 4

10 ... Qe7 11 b 6 Hb8 12 Q.e2

promises white a bright
future.
11 >b6
12 >bdS

4^d2

bS

Hb8

8 4^)lc3 is also possible here,

since both 8 ... <f6 9 d 5 !
JldS 10 cd >b8 [ 10 ... e 7 11
c3! A$fa4, a 7 ] 11 c4 and 8
... a6 9 4ja3 A 10 <y:4 are fine
f o r white. The tempting 8
c4, however, enables black
to
achieve
strong
counterplay with 8 ... <}f6
e.g. 9 >lc3 a6 10 a 3 <g4!
or 9 f3 e 7 10 e 2 <hS!

...

ah

8 ... >f6 9 (2g5 - see line B

9

,c3

The control of t h e d5-square

and the weakness of black's
queen-side pawns ensure
white a distinct advantage.

Illustrative games
In t h i s section are a n u m b e r of games f o r f u r t h e r
study. Looking a t t h e s e g a m e s will reinforce t h e ideas
b r o u g h t o u t in t h e earlier sections.

A) Lengyel B - S t o n e R
H a m b u r g HSV1987
1 e4 cS 2 f 3 e6 3 d4 cd4 4
, d 4 <c6 5 <^b5 d6 6 f 4 eS 7
e 3 >f6 8 )lc3 a6 9 j a 3 bS
10 <d5 S b 8 11 d 3 <e7 12 c4

A) Hellers F-Gdanski J
Baguio WJ 1987
1 e4 c5 2 3 e6 3 d4 cd4 4
}d4 }c6 5 b 5 d6 6 f 4 e5 7
<2.e3 a6 8 ,5c3 <f6 9 c 4 <2e7
10 4^d5 4jd5 11 d 5 0 - 0 12
4^a3 Qe6 13 c3 j^gS 14 c 4
jle3 15 <e3 4 > 7 16 Qb3 # b 6
17 0 - 0 Had8 18 g e l $ c 6 19
d5 20 ed5 <d5 21 }f5

b c 4 13 ) f 6 g f 6 14 4jc4 Qb7

15 ^ a 4 j2.c6 16 ^ a 6 j i g 7 17 0 - 0
0 - 0 18 H f d l S a 8 19 ^ b 6 gfd7
20 ^ b 4 d5 21 b 6 ^ b 7 22 ed5

j*f5 22
f 4 23 $fe4 ^fe4
24 He4 d 3 25 He2 S f e 8 26
g3 c 5 27 c 2 f6 28 b4 e 6
29 f 4 c 7 30 fe5 5 e 5 31 He5
fe5 32 Qb3 & h 8 33 flel S e 8
34 a4 gb 35 Hdl Se7 36 Hd8
g 7 37 f 2 f 6 38 & e 3 fS
39 h3 4^e8 40 jflLdS >f6 41 b 3
gS 42 Jldl 5 c 7 43 d 3 h5 44
Qc2 e4 45 d4 b5 46 ab5 ab5
47 J2.b3 0 e 7 48 &e3 Hc7 49
d 4 S e 7 50 e3 Hc7 51 d4
Vfe-Vi

1-0

A) W a h l s M - C l a d o u r a s M
Bundesliga 1988
1 e4 cS 2 4^f3 e6 3 d4 cd4 4
d 4 )c6 5 4jb5 d6 6 & f 4 e5 7
Qe3 a6 8 <5c3 f 6 9 c 4 e 6
10 4^)d5 d 5 11 ed5 <b8 12 0 - 0
Qe7 13 a4 0 - 0 14 a5 <bd7 15
Qfi2 4 > 8 16 ^ d 2 f5 17 f 4 J2.F6
18 c4 Hc8 19 c 3 e f 4 20 JJf*
g6 21 H f f l He5 22 b4 ^ h 4 23
14 -

16 d 3 He3 17 4 > 3 }c5 18 QJol

)e7 19 b4 d 7 20 &d7 d7 21
&e2 Hc8 22 Sdi e8 23 d2
f5 24 Hei Hd8 25 cl f7 26
Sdi S c 8 27 b2 f 4 28 f l
& dS 29 Hcl <^b6 30 &c2 c 4
31 al # f 6 32 S d i }a3 33 Qd3
Bd8 34 Sd2 3 c 8 35 S d i c 4
36 Qji* Bc7 37 4^d2 Qe2 38
Sei lg4 39 f3 Bd7 40 Se2
Qf5 41 QfS <f5 42 4je4 S d i
4 3 $ b 2 <c4 44 b3 b5 45 a4

f 4 4 > f 6 24 g3 # h 3 25 H a d
g f e 8 26 Sc2 <g4

27
# g 4 28 e 2 }f6 29
^ d 3 <e4 30 &g2 g 7 31 c l
_Q.eS 32 f 4 f 4 33 S f 4 ^ g 5
34 c5 # e 7 35 c6 & f 6 36 <2.b2
}g4 37 ^ d 4 <e5 38 Hfl Bf8
39 Hel Hce8 40 Bce2 *$f7 41
He5 de5 42 Be5 1-0

B2) Kengis E-Romanishin O

Jurmala 1987
1 e4 c5 2 >f3 e6 3 d4 cd4 4
d 4 >c6 S b 5 d6 6 Qf4 e5 7
Qe3 f 6 8 jXg5 ^ a 5 9 $ d 2
e 4 10
S <aS 11 &e3 d7
12 }lc3 4^c3 13 }c3 b6 14 f 4
Qb 1 15 0 - 0 - 0 e4 16 QbS c 6
17 g4 S e 8 18 Sd2 f6 19 Hhdl
h5 20 g5 fgS 21 fg5 Se5

B) Fleck R-Calvo R
Bayern Munchen Bochum
1986
1 e4 c5 2 4^f3 }c6 3 d4 cd4 4
4^d4 e6 5 Q h 5 d6 6 Qf4 e5 7
J2e3 \fb 8 l c 3 a6 9 <a3 dS
10 <dS e 4 11 c 4 J2.e6 12
<db6
13 Hdl Bd8 14 Bd8
d 8 15 c3 j2.cS

22 Q f 4 S f 5 23 &d6 e3 24 Bd3
c8 25 Be3 d 6 26 Sd6 Bd8
27 S d 8 >d8 28 h4 5 f 4 29 Be7
Bh4 30 J2d3 S f 4 31 <b5 a6 32
d 6 &b8 33 Bg7 Qd5 34 g6
h4 35 Bh7 S g 4 36 f 5 Bgl 37
d2 _Qe6 38 Qe4 h3 39 c3
- 15 -

 d 4 64 Hb4 c 3 65 g b 5 f 7
66 Hc5 d 4 67 S f 5 g5 68 &g4
e 5 69 g5 Hg6 70 h 4 Hg2
71 d l Hg8 72 Jlg4 e 4 73
g 3 Hg7 74 H f 4 d5 75 Ha4
g 6 76 Ha6 e 5 77 f 4 R f 7
78 g 5 S g 7 79 fS Hf7 80
S f 6 Hf6 81 f 6 &e4 82 c 8
f 4 83 h4 <f3 84 h5 <g5 85
Qf5 f 3 86 h6 g 5 87 &g6
>f3 88 h7 e 5 89 f 6 1-0

Hg2 40 &d4 S g 5 41
Qf7
42 gf7 4 > 6 43 e3 Hg3 44
f 2 1-0
B2) Fischer. R-Taimanov. M
Vancouver qf (2) 1971
1 e4 cS 2 j f 3 )c6 3 d4 cd4 4
}d4 e6 5 4^b5 d6 6 JJ.f4 e5 7
i l e 3 >f6 8 LgS &a5 9 ^ d 2
e 4 10 # a 5 & a 5 11 e 3 &d7
12 )lc3 >c3 13 j c 3 d 8 14
}b5 Q<s6 15 0 - 0 - 0 b6 16 f 4
e f 4 17 J l f 4 b 7 18 e 2 j2.d7 19
Hd2 Jle7 20 g h d l <2.b5 21 JlbS
$ c 7 22 Se2 Qf6 23 S d e l Hac8
24 c 4 Hhf8 25 b4 a5 26 d 5
& b 8 27 a3 S f d 8 28 Qf7 J2c3
29 Jld2 d5 30 S d l d4 31 c 3
Hc3 32 b2 d3 33 c3 de2 34
E e l d 6 35 h 5 }b5 36 b2

B3) Fischer R-Najdorf M

S a n t a Monica 1966
1 e4 c5 2 }f3 c 6 3 d4 cd4 4
}d4 e6 5 b 5 d6 6 f 4 e5 7
Qe3 f 6 8 JlgS e 6 9 l c 3 a6
10 Qf6 gf6 11 <a3 d 4 12 c 4
b5 13 &e6 fe6 14 >e2 c 6 15
& g 3 \$d7 16 c4 <d4 17 0 - 0 b4
18 <c2 c 2 19 ^ c 2 h5 20
S f d l h4 21
Hg8

ab4 37 ab4 g d 4 38 c3 Hh4 39

Qe2 <d6 40 S d l c7 41 h3
S f 4 42 5 f l g e 4 4 3
ge5
44 Hf2 h5 45 c4 S g 5 46 c3
d7 47 Ha2 c 8 48 &d4 c7
49 g a 7 d 8 50 c5 bc5 51 bc5
4 > 8 52 5 a 2 c 7 53 c 4 d7
54 Hb2 c6 55 J2.b3 ^ b 5 56
e3 c5 57 f 4 Hg6 58 <2dl
h4 59 f 5 g h 6 60 g5 }d6 61
Q.c2 f 7 62 g 4 <e5 63 f 4

22 a3 h3 23 g3 ba3 24 g a 3
^ c 6 25
fS 26 c5 ^ e 4 27
l$e4 fe4 28 cd6
29 S a 5
d 7 30 He5 Qjs7 31 g e 4 b 2
32 4 > 3 a5 33 ,c4 Hgb8 34
Hh4 c6 35 Hh7 &d4 36 &c7
& d 5 37 d7 a4 38 b 6 g b 6 39
S c 8 Sd6 40 S a 8 S d 7 41 ga4
e5 42 f l g b 7 43 f 4 e6 44
- 16 -

feS S f 7 45 e2 g f 2 46 &d3
Jle5 47 Hel 1-0

e4 23 # f 5 # e 3 24 hl 0 - 0 25
e4 Bce8 26 c 2 Be5 27 &f6
$ d 2 28 Bacl BgS 29 <2e4 Be5
30 c 2 Sg5 31 j2.e4 Se5 32
Bc2 &g5 33 # g 5 Sg5 34 g3
Se5 35 &f3 f5 36 g2 g7 37
c4 ,e7 38 cb5 ab5 39 Bc7
Bf7 40 S d l g 6 41 Bc6 fla7
42 a3 b4 43 ab4 Bb7 44 Bd4
Se3 45 Sc3 Bel 46 Bb3 &e5
47 b5 f6 48 b6 d 7 49 Bc4
Be8 50 Bc6 1-0

B3) Fischer R-Petrosian T

Buenos Aires [ml 1971
1 e4 c5 2 f 3 e6 3 d4 cd4 4
d 4 c 6 5 b 5 d6 6 f 4 e5 7
e 3 4^f6 8 Qjg5 e 6 9 >lc3 a6
10 <2f6 gf6 11 a 3 d5 12 ed5
a 3 13 ba3 # a S 14 ^fd2 0- 0 - 0
15 c 4 S h g 8 16 S d l f S

B3) Fischer-Taimanov
Vancouver qf (6) 1971
1 e4 c5 2 }f3 }c6 3 d4 cd4 4
4^d4 e6 5 >b5 d6 6 f 4 e5 7
Qe3 <0f6 8 Q_g5 e 6 9 }lc3 a6
10 f 6 gf6 11 }a3 >d4 12 c 4
f5 13 ef5 <^f5 14 &d3 Sc8 15
JlfS Bc4 16 e 6 fe6 17 &e2
Bd4 18 0 - 0 # g 5 19 Badl ^ f S
17 (2.d3 Hd3 18 # d 3 & d 4 19
0 - 0 $ b 8 20 hl
21 f 4
Bc8 22 }e4 # d 3 23 cd3 Sc2
24 Bd2 Bd2 25 <d2 f5 26 feS
S e 8 27 Bel c 2 28 Be2 d 4
29 Be3 ,c2 30 Bh3 Be5 31
>f3 Bd5 32 Bh7 Sd3 33 h4
4 > 3 34 Bf7 S d l 35 h2 S a l
36 h5 f4 37 B f 4 Ba2 38 Be4
g 2 39 g3 Ba5 40 e S 1-0
B3) Wahls M-van Mil j
B a d W o r i s h o f e n 1988
1 e4 c5 2
e6 3 d4 cd4 4
)d4 4^c6 5 >b5 d6 6 Qf4> e5 7
Qe3 }f6 8 QgS Qe6 9 <d2 a6
10 J2.f6 gf6 11\c3 <2h6 12 <c4
4jd4 13 }d5 J^dS 14 ed5 S c 8
15 c3 b5 16 4 > 3 e 3 17 fe3
>f5 18 # f 3 <h4 19
<g6
20 Qe2 ^ b 6 21 0 - 0 f5 22 Jld3

20 S d 4 ed4 21 <e4 Qe7 22

Sdl # e 5 23 ^ d 3 S f 8 24 # d 4
^/d4 25 Bd4 d5 26 <c3 c 5 27
Bd2 B f 4 28 g3 Bc4 29 <^e2
Ba4 30 a3 &d7 31 $ g 2 b5 32
c3 a5 33 <d4 b4 34 <b3 Hb6
35 ab4 ab4 36 c4 <?c6 37 c5
Q.c7 38 <d4 d7 39 f4 e5 40
c6 c8 414^)b5 Ba2 42 f5 d 8
43 Bd5 Bb2 1-0
17