The Open Spanish

THE OPEN
SPANISH
CADOGAN CHESS SERIES

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov
Editor: Andrew Kinsman
Russian Series Editor: Ken Neat
Other openings titles for the competitive player include:
Vl adimir Bagirov
English Opening:
Classical and Indian
English Opening:
Symmetrical
Michael B asman
The Killer Grob
The New St George
Drazen Marovic
Play the King's Indian
Play the Queen's Gambit
David Norwood
The Modern Benoni
Lyev Polugayevsky
The Sicilian Labyrinth
(2 volumes)
John Donaldson and

Jeremy Silman
Accelerated Dragons
Ivan Sokolov
Nimzo-Indian: Classical Variation
Svetozar Gli goric

The Nimzo-Indian Defence
Shaun Taulbut
The New Bogo-Indian
For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books (which in

cludes the Pergamon Chess and Maxwell Macmillan Chess lists)
please write to:
Cadogan Books pIc, London House, Parkgate Road, London SWU 4NQ.
Tel: (0 171) 738 1961 Fax: (0171) 924 549 1
THE OPEN
SPANISH
MIKHAIL KRASENKOV
CADOGAN CHESS
LONDON, NEW YORK
Cadogan Books
Distribution
UK/EUROPE/AUSTRALASWASWAFRICA
Distribution: Grantham Book Services Ltd, Isaac Newton Way,

Alma Park Industrial Estate, Grantham, Lincs NG3 1 9SD
Tel: (01476) 67421 Fax: (01476) 590223
USA/CANADA/LATIN AMERICA/JAPAN
Distribution: Paramount Distribution Center, Front and Brown
Streets, Riverside, New Jersey 08075 USA
Tel: (609) 461 6500 Fax (609) 764 9122
First edition published 1995 by Cadogan Books pic, London House, Parkgate Road, London
SW114NQ
Copyright @ 1995 Mikhail Krasenkov
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, me
chanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the
publishers.
British Library Cataloguing In Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 185744 141 9
Typesetting by ChessSetter.
Printed at Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire.
Contents
Symbols and Abbreviations
Bibliography
Introduction: The Basic Strategy' of the Open Spanish
1 Turning to One Side (early deviations)
11
2 So Many Ways... (9 a4, 9 .te3 etc.)
20
3 Made by Karpov (9 lDbd2)
25
4 In an Antique Shop (9 'ii'e2)
37
5 With Germanic Consistency (9 c3 lDc5)
50
6 The Discussion of Decades (9 c3 .tc5)
69
7 From Alekhine to Dolmatov (9 c3 .te710 .te3 etc.)
94
8 The Main Road (9 c3 .te710 lDbd2)
111
Theoretical Conclusions (and Index of Variations)
119
Play Like a Grandmaster!
122
Symbo ls and Abbreviations

!
!!
?
??
!?
?!
(D)
corr
a good move
an excellent move
a bad move
a serious error
a move deserving attention
a dubious move
diagram follows
correspondence game
Bibl i ography
ChessBase Magazine, Hamburg, 1984-1995.
Ekspress-shakhmaty, Moscow, 1991.
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (vol 2), Belgrade, 198 1.
Keres P., Suetin A, Nei I. , Spanisch bis Franzosisch, 3 Aufl., Berlin,
1974.
Malchev A, Ispanskaya parliya (vol. 2), Sofia, Meditsina i

Fizkul'tura, 1981.
New In Chess Yearbook, Alkmaar, 1986-1995.
Sahovski Informator (vols. 1-6 1 ) , Belgrade, 1966-1994.
Shakhmaty v SSSR, Moscow, 1936-1991.
Shakhmatnyj biulleten, Moscow, 1955-1990.
Shakhmatnyj vestnik, Moscow, 1992-1993.
Suetin AS., Ispanskaya partiya, Moscow, Fizkul'tura i sport, 1982.
The Chess Herald, Moscow, 1994-1995.
Introduction: The Basi c

Strategy of the Open Span ish
Dear Reader,
I am delighted that you have cho
sen this book in preference to a
number of monographs attrac
tively named 'Winning with . . . ' .
Perhaps you have been disap
pointed by the strange fact that
the openings described in them,
instead of leading to victory, often
bring rather the opposite result.
So now you are searching for a
solid (especially for Black) , posi
tionally well-founded and at the
same time active system, a good
remedy for meeting both higher
rated and lower-rated players . I
hope this book will meet your ex
pectations.
A hundred years ago players
had no doubt as to Black's best re
ply to 1 e4. Everybody knew the
basic principles of the opening
strategy: develop pieces and fight
for the centre! If somebody had
asserted that the Sicilian, French
or Caro-Kann Defence gave Black
better chances to win than 1 . . .e5
(and had published a book about
it) he would have been considered
rather less than sane!
Things have changed in the
course of the 20th Century. The
ideas of the hypermodern school
gave proof of the ' diversionary'
strategy. Nowadays grandmas

ters choose openings according to
their tastes. However, even such a
loyal adherent of the Sicilian as
GM Sveshnikov has been forced
to admit: 'Well, 1 . . .c5 is the second
best reply to 1 e4, certainly best is
1 . . .e5. '
So, let us consider the following
sequence, seen thousands of times
at all levels of play: 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3
tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0
These logical moves (both sides
develop their pieces and actively
apply pressure to the centre)
have crystallised as the main road
in the jungle of variations . How
should Black respond if White
plays otherwise? You can find the
answer in different books, which
will introduce you to the fascinat
ing world of open games . . . where
you can choose to explore the ro
mantic or restrict yourself to the
most simple and effective lines!
But what should you do now? If
you wish to cowardly potter about
in your own camp for some 30
moves then, sorry, you have made
a poor purchase - close this book
and play 5 . . . .ie7. If you prefer ac
tive counterplay then take the
central pawn and hold on to your
hats!
tZ)xe41
5
8 Introduction
a...t.
- - g
.,-,.,-,
,... . .
v
a
a
ii.B
_ttJa
RAR
A(AH
",,"'
coc
ttJ..
.:
O OU
This was the choice of Wilhelm

Steinitz when Bird and Gelbfuss
played 5 0-0 for the first time
against him in Vienna, 1873. Here
is how those stem games went:
a) Bird-Steinitz : 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3
d5 8 lDxe5 lDxe5 9 dxe5 c6 10 c3
i.c5 1 1 lDd2 lDxd2 12 .ixd2 'ii'h4
13 'iti>h l 0-0 14 f4 i.g4 15 'ii'e l
'ii'x e1 1 6 1:taxel .if5 17 .ie3 i.xe3
18 1:txe3 1:tad8.
b) Gelbfuss-Steinitz : 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6
'ii'xe7 1 7 i.xd5 1:td8 18 'ii'e 3 .ixd5

19 'ii'x a7 i.xf3 20 gxf3 'ii'g5 + 2 1
'iti>hl 'ii'xe5 .
As you can see, this maiden try
was quite successful for Black.
The position in the second dia
gram has become the basic start
ing-point for a whole system,
which became known as the
' Open Spanish'. Immediately giv
ing back the captured pawn,
Black obtains substantial posi
tional benefits, viz . a powerful
knight on e4 and chances to com
fortably develop his pieces. The
price he pays for this is the
slight weakening of his queen
side, which, incidentally, was the
reason Capablanca didn't like the
Open Spanish. However, the list
of outstanding players who have
included it in their repertoires
proves that this time the great
Cuban was not necessarily right:
Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Euwe, Fine,
Reshevsky, Botvinnik, Keres, Kor
chnoi, Yusupov etc. Even the lat
est pretender to Garry Kasparov's
throne, Vishwanathan Anand, has
used it in several important
games.
Now look at the last diagram
again.
Which of his opponent's active
possibilities should Black take
into consideration in the basic
position?
1) An attack on the queenside
(a2-a4) . Usually Black can com
fortably reply . . . b5-b4. Failing
that, you can often simply leave
Introduction 9
your pawn on b5. The opening of

the a-file in itself is rarely profit
able for White since Black is bet
ter prepared to seize it.
2) An attempt to expel Black's
knight from the centre straight
away by means of lbb1-d2, c2-c3,
.tb3-c2 . Later White tries to acti
vate his knight by lbd2-b3 or lU1e1, lbd2-fl -g3 (e3)-f5 . Black has
five following possible counter
plans:
a) An exchange on d2. This is
positionally justified when Black
can immediately neutralise the
white bishop by . . . i.e6-f5 . Other
wise, after Black has castled,
White plays 'ii'd 1-d3 making Black
weaken his kingside (. .. g7-g6) and
thereby obtains good attacking
chances.
b) The radical . . .f7 -f5. However,
this somewhat weakens Black's
kingside, creates a strong passed
e5 pawn for White and restricts
Black's active possibilities.
c) The most common counter
plan is . . . lbe4-c5 and . . . .te6-g4, af
ter which Black's knight obtains a
comfortable placement on e6, and
the bishop can be transferred via
h5 to g6. This plan can be com
bined with a break in the centre
. . . d5-d4 (see below) . Its drawback
is slowness and a certain passiv
ity.
d) An attempt to strengthen
Black's knight on e4 by means of
. . . .te6-f5. This is usually a tempo
rary measure, which requires ac
tive tactical support.
e) A sacrifice of two pieces for

a rook and a pawn: .. . i.f8-c5 and
. . . lbe4xf2 followed by . . . f7-f6 .
Of course, it depends on the spe
cific position which plan should
be chosen.
3) The plan of pressure on the
d5 pawn: 'ii'd 1 -e2, l:tfl-d1 fol
lowed by c2-c4 or lbb1-c3 . Black's
reaction depends on the concrete
position. It often includes the ex
change of White's bishop by . . . lbe4c5 or . .. lbc6-a5.
4) The idea proposed by Capa
blanca: c2-c3 followed by lbf3-d4,
and if Black swaps knights on d4
then c3xd4, after which White
attempts to fix Black's backward
pawn on c7 (or c6) and attack it.
Black should either avoid the ex
change on d4 entirely or quickly
push . . . c7 -c5 after the exchange.
Meanwhile, what are Black's
active possibilities?
1) A breakthrough in the cen
tre: . . . d5-d4 or . . . c7-c5 followed by
. . .d5-d4.
2) An attack on the e5 pawn by
. . . f7-f6.
3) A queenside attack via . . . a6a5, . . .b5-b4 etc.
Usually, White attempts to de
velop his initiative on the king
side, while Black leans towards
the queenside (however, some
times it happens just the other
way round) and both fight for the
control of the centre!
Usually the exchange of queens
rather suits Black as it nullifies a
possible attack on his king.
10 Introduction
These simple rules are not al
ways valid but they will certainly
help you to find your way in the
mire of complex variations.
Finally, I would like to draw
your attention to a very important
new principle concerning open
ings that lead to semi-open posi
tions with a tense fight in the
centre (to which the subject of our
research indisputably belongs). It
has been recently discovered that
quiet developing moves, including
castling, are not always good in
such positions and may turn out
to be a loss of time. That ' s why
recent years have brought a new
concept in some variations of the
Open Spanish : before castling
Black tries to strengthen his position in the centre, e.g. . . . 'lVd8-d7,
. . . :a8-d8 and possibly . . . .ie6-f5 .
We shall examine these lines espe
cially closely.
So, welcome to the fascinating
world of the Open Spanish!
How to use this book
The worst thing you can do is sit
at a board worrying your head
with the numerous variations
cited in this book. Nobody can re
member them all at once. So, first
learn as much as it is necessary
for playing the opening - the most
important lines of play in each
variation and, above all, the basic
strategical ideas explained in the
introduction. Be sure to atten

tively examine the games of the
final chapter to remember typical
plans, strategical and tactical
methods of play in the Open
Spanish.
But the great thing is to play!
Nobody and nothing instructs you
like your own practice. So, play
the Open Spanish as often as you
can. Don't be afraid to experiment
even if you have only a little
knowledge - your opponent is un
likely to be an expert either. This
monograph will be of great help to
you as a reference book: on play
ing a game refer back to the ap
propriate section to compare your
play with the theoretical recom
mendation. Don't take it to heart
if you have played differently. At
tentively analyse both your game
and the theoretical interpreta
tion - perhaps your plan is more
appropriate : after all, there is
justification for calling the theory
'a short-sighted lady'! As you pick
up experience, you will better
comprehend all the niceties of dif
ferent lines.
As you learn to love the Open
Spanish, analysing and playing it
regularly, success will soon come!
The material provided covers
the state of the theory to 1 April
1995.
Mikhail Krasenkov
April 1995
Turning to One Side
In general, attempts by one side

or another to evade the basic posi
tion are not approved of by theory.
However, there are some interest
ing and instructive traps and vari
ations which are certainly worth
acquainting yourself with.
Section 1
Lines without 6 d4
( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.ta4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4)
9 .tc5?! 10 ':d1 "fIe7 1 1 tZ)c3 0-0

12 tZ)e4 .tb6 13 tZ)g3 f5 14 c3 .td7
15 'i'c2 led to an advantage for
White in Walbrodt-von Bardele
ben (Hastings 1895) . Black should
continue 9 tZ)d4!, e.g. 10 tZ)xd4
"fIxd4 1 1 ':d1 .tg4 12 ':xd4 .txe2
13 tZ)c3 .th5 14 .tg5 h6 15 .tf4
':d8 16 ':xd8 + 'at>xd8 1 7 .te3 .tg6
with an excellent endgame (Lian
gov-Shekhtman, Albena 1989) .
1 1 . . :g4 ! would probably have
been even stronger.
tZ)c5
6
7 .txc6
One must also be aware of the
interesting move 7 tZ) c3 . The re
ply 7 tZ)xa4? falls into a trap : 8
tZ)xe5! .te7 (8 . . . tZ)xc3? 9 tZ)xc6 +
.te7 10 tZ)xe7 tZ)xd 1 1 1 tZ)g6 + "fIe7
12 tZ)xe7 and wins) 9 tZ)d5 0-0 10
tZ)xc6 dxc6 1 1 tZ)xe7 + 'at>h8 12 b3
tZ)b6 13 'ii'h 5 with a difficult game
for Black. In Myers-Pena (Santa
Domingo 1968) he quickly lost af
ter 13 . . . "fId4 14 .ta3 "fIg4 15 'ii'e 5
.te6 16 h3 'ii' h4 17 'ii'c 7 etc.
Instead of the inferior 7 . . . tZ)xa4,
Black should play 7 .t e 7 8 tZ)d5
0-0, as in Tal-Yusupov (Montpel
lier 1985) when after 9 .txc6 dxc6
10 tZ)xe7 + "fIxe7 1 1 d4 tZ)e6 12
tZ)xe5 f6 13 tZ)d3 'ii' f7 14 tZ)f4 .td7
he had no problems . Also play
able is 8 e4!? 9 .txc6 dxc6 10
tZ)xe7 "fIxe7 1 1 d4 tZ)d7 12 .tg5 f6
13 tZ)d2 0-0 with equal chances
6 ':el
White sets out to recapture the
pawn in the simplest way but
Black obtains the opportunity to
comfortably develop his pieces
without making any positional
concessions. However, a few accu
rate moves are still required.
Mter 6 "e2 tZ)c5 7 .txc6 dxc6
8 d4 (8 truce5 .te7) 8 tZ)e6 9 dxe5,
Black must also play carefully, as
12 Turning to One Side

(Schweber-Savon, Mar del Plata
197 1).
dxc6
7
8 lDxe5
Now 8 d4 tDe6 9 dxe5 is even
more fruitless than was the case
with 6 'iVe2 . Black immediately
liquidates to a favourable endgame
(or queenless middlegame?). Here
is an example: 9 ... 'iVxdl 10 1hd l
i.e7 1 1 tDc3 i.d7 12 i.e3 0-0-0 13
nd2 i.e8 14 nxd8 + i.xd8 15 tDe4
h6 16 ndl i.d7 17 'itfl i.e7 18
'ite2 ne8 19 c4 c5 20 'itfl i.c6 21
tDc3 f5 and Black stood slightly
better (McShane-Morris, London
1993).
i. e 7
8 ...
tDe6
9 d4
...
10 i.e3
The alternative 10 c3 is rather

passive, and leads to equality,
though an interesting plan was
demonstrated by Black in Izsak
Z. Szabo (Hungary 199 1 ) : 10 . . . 0-0
1 1 i.e3 f6 12 tDd3 nf7 13 tDd2
tDf8 14 tDe4 tDg6 15 'iVd2 tDh4
followed by 16 . . . tDf5 with a good
game.
10
11 c4?!
12 tDf3
..
0-0
f6
f5! (D)
This attack (introduced by Chi
gorin in similar positions) breaks
up White's configuration. Both 13
i.d2 f4 ( 1 3 . . . i.f6!? 14 i.c3 tDf4
was suggested by Korchnoi) 14
i.c3lt'lg5 15 tDxg5 i.xg5 16 f3 i.f5
1 7 tDa3 'iVd7 18 'iVd2 nae8 (Gip
slis-Averbakh, USSR champion
ship, Riga 1958) and 13 tDc3 f4 14
Section 2
6 d4 without 6 b5
...
(1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4

i.a4 tDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4)
6 d4
Turning to One Side 13
after 7 :el d5 B trurd4 .id6 9 tDxc6

xh2 + (this is the point) 10 'at>hl !
'ii' h 4 1 1 :Xe4 + dxe4 12 'ii'dB +!
'ii'xdB 13 tDxdB + 'at>xdB 14 'at>xh2
the endgame is better for White.
Here is an example: 14 . . . .ie6 15
.ie3 f5 16 tDc3 'at>e7 1 7 :dl (or 17
g4 g6 IB 'at>g3 , as in Capablanca
Ed.Lasker, New York 1915) 17 . .. c6
IB b3 xb3 19 axb3 and White
has a clear advantage (Krasnov
Tarasevich, Moscow 1960) .
The text, known as the Wal
brodt variation, leads to positions
favourable for White but strate
gically complicated. It might be
worth using against weaker play
ers who will hardly understand
its niceties. Moreover, even grand
masters sometimes fail with it, as
I saw with my own eyes when GM
Smagin lost to Finnish 1M Pyhala
(Odessa 19B9).
7 :el
Neither 7 d5 nor 7 dxe5 are dan
gerous, e.g. 7 d5 tDbB B trure5 tDc5
9 b3 tDxb3 10 axb3 d6 1 1 tDd3
0-0 12 c4 i.f5 13 tDc3 tDd7 14 i.e3
.if6 15 'ii'd 2 tDe5 (Radev-Sydor,
Varna 19 77) or 7 dxe5 0-0 B i.f4
tDc5 9 tDc3 tDxa4 10 tDxa4 f6 1 1
exf6 .ixf6 12 'ii'd 5 + 'at>hB 13 tDg5
xg5 14 xg5 'ii'eB 15 l:tael 'ii'g6
(Brustman-Litinskaya, Tskhal
tubo 19BB) with a fine position for
Black in both cases.
7 'ii'e2 is interesting but weaker
than 7 :el . Black usually replies
7 f5 8 dxe5 0-0, when he in
tends to create counterplay on
the kingside by . . . 'ii'eB-g6, . . . f5-f4,
. .. b 7-b5 and . . . .icB-b7. If White

takes on c6 then after d7xc6 all
Black's problems are over. Here
are some illustrative variations:
a) Lasker-Walbrodt (Nurem
berg IB96) : 9 :dl 'ii'e B 10 b3 +
'at>hB 1 1 tDbd2 tDc5 12 tDc4 'ii' h 5
13 :el f4 14 i.d2 'ii'g6 15 c3 b6
16 :adl b7 1 7 'at>h l :aeB , and
Black has carried out his plans.
b) Romanishin-Smejkal (Len
ingrad 1977): 9 .ieS! 'at>hB 10 tDbd2
tDc5 1 1 xc5 .ixc5 12 c3 'ii'e 7 13
b4 a7 14 :fel tDdB 15 tDfl b5 16
b3 b7 17 tDe3 and White is on
top.
However, instead of 7 ... f5, 7 b5!
is stronger. Now 8 tDxe5 (B 'ii'xe4
is met by B d5) B . .. tDd6 9 tDxc6
dxc6 10 b3 0-0 11 i.f4 tDf5 12 c3
d6 (van Mil-Piket, Eindhoven
1993) is harmless, and after 8 d5
tDc5 9 .ib3 (9 dxc6 tZnra4 10 cxd7 +
i.xd7 1 1 tDxe5 0-0) 9 . . . e4 10 dxc6
exf3 11 'ii'xf3 tDxb3 12 axb3 dxc6
13 'ii'xc6 + i.d7 14 'ii'f3 0-0 15 f4
c5 16 tDc3 e6 17 :Cdl 'ii'cS 18 tDd5
(Zapata-Litinskaya, Biel 1988)
White's advantage is minimal.
f5
7
7 d5 is barely playable as af
ter B tDxe5 d7 9 tDxd7 'ii'xd7 10
c4! tDf6 11 tDc3 ! Black faces huge
problems of development.
Another interesting possibility
is 7 b5!? 8 :xe4 (or 8 d5 tDc5 9
b3 tDa5 10 tDxe5 d6) 8 d5 9
tDxe5 tDxe5 10 :xe5 (10 xb5 +
axb5 1 1 :xe5 0-0, followed by
. . . c7-c6 and . . . i.e7-d6, yields Black
sufficient compensation for the
. .

pawn) 10 bxa4. For a long time
the most topical line here was 1 1
tZ)c3 O-O !? 12 lhd5 .id6 1 3 .ig5
"iWe8 . Still, it turns out that after
14 "iWd3 Black's initiative is not
worth a pawn, e.g. 14 . . . a3 15 b3
.ie6 16 .!:ta5 .ib4 17 .!:ta4 a5 18
tZ)b5 "iWb8 19 c4 .i d 7 20 .ic1 c6
21 tZ)xa3 (Kuczynski-Litinskaya,
Katowice 1993 ) . GM Smirin once
played in even simpler fashion
with 1 1 c4 and also obtained an
advantage: 1 1 . . . dxc4 12 "iWxa4 +
.id7 13 "iWxc4 0-0 14 tZ)c3 .id6 15
.ig5 "iWb8 16 .!:te2 (Smirin-Piket,
Wijk aan Zee 1994).
S dxe5
White prefers dull prose to the
poetry of a beautiful line S d5
tZ)a5!! 9 tZ)xe5 0-0 10 d6!? .ixd6
1 1 "iWd5 + 'iti>hS 12 tM7 + (12 "iWxa5
b 5 ! ) 12 .!:txf7 13 "iWxf7 .ixh2 +
14 'iti>f1 (14 'iti>xh2 "iWh4 + ) 14 b5 !
(the justification for 8 . . . tZ)a5 ! )
which was popular in the 1970s.
.
axb3 .ib7 17 tZ)c3? ( 1 7 g3 !? .ixg3 ! )

1 7 . . . "iWh4 18 "iWxf5 tZ)xf2 ! with a
strong attack for Black (Planinc
Parma, Banja Luka 19 76 illus
trative game 1) or 15 "iWh5 .id6 16
"iWxf5 .i.b 7 17.!:txe4 .i.xe4 18 "iWxe4
bxa4 19 .ig5 "iWf8 with an unclear
position (Salov-Krasenkov, Zhi
tomir 1977).
Instead of 10 d6, the quiet 10
c3 is probably better, e.g. 10 . . . .ic5
11 tZ)d3 ( 1 1.!:te2 d6 12 tZ)f3 tZ)c4 13
.ic2 .!:te8 14 b3 tZ)e5 15 tZ)d4 "iWh4
is less convincing, Karpov-Ni(!ev
ski, Skopje 1976) 1 1 . . . .ia7 12 .ie3
.ixe3 13 .!:txe3 b5 14 .ib3 tZ)xb3 15
axb3 .ib7 16 f3 "g5 17 .!:tel tZ)f6
18 c4 (Lederman-Pytel, Le Havre
1977) or 13 . . . cG 14 .ib3 'iti>h8 15
tZ)d2 tZ)xb3 16 axb3 cxd5 1 7 tZ)f4
(UKaminski-Krasenkov, Odessa
1989). In both cases the f5 pawn
slightly compromises Black's po
sition and guarantees White, who
controls the important e-file, a
small edge.
After 10 dxe5 Black also needs
to justify the advance of his fpawn.
S
0-0
Black's general plan of counter
play is the same as after 7 'iVe2
f5 : . . . 'iti>h8, . . ...e8-g6 (h5), . . . b 7-b5
(b6), . . . .ib7 etc. White usually
tries to increase his pressure in
the centre. Less good is S tZ)c5 9
.i.b3 tZ)xb3 10 axb3 0-0 1 1 tZ)c3 b6
12 tZ)d5 .ib7 13 c3 h6 14 b4.!:tf7 15
.if4 g5 16 .i.c1, which yielded
White an advantage in Dolmatov
Bisguier (New York 1989) .
-
It seems that Black obtains

good counterplay for the material
sacrificed, e.g. 15 .i.b3 tZ)xb3 16

9 .ib3 +
Here is how White should not
play: 9 li)bd2? li)c5 10 .ixc6? dxc6
11 li)b3 li)e6 12. li)bd4 c5 13 li)xe6
.ixe6 14 'lVxd8 lIaxd8 15 .ig5 f7
16 b3 h6 17 .ixe7 xe7, and Black
is more than okay (Knoppert
Piket, Dutch championship 1992).
In the event of 9 .ie3 'lVe8 10
c3, instead of 10 . . .'lVg6 11 li)bd2
d5 12 exd6 .ixd6 13 li)c4 h8 14
li)xd6 cxd6 15 .if4, and White
won in Glek-Krasenkov, Moscow
1989, the usual plan of 10 . . . h8
followed by . . . b7-b5 and . . . .ic8-b7
was preferable.
Finally, 9 li)c3 li)xc3 10 bxc3
'ltt h 8 1 1 c4!? is not dangerous: af
ter 1 1 . . .li)a5! 12 'lVd3 b6 13 .ie3 f4
14 i.d4 i.b 7 Black obtains coun
terplay (Kristiansen-Smyslov, Co
penhagen 1985).
9
h8
10 li)c3!?
Instead 10 .id5 li)c5 1 1 li)c3 b6
12 li)e2 .ib7 13 li)f4 "e8 14 h4
li)d8 15 li)g5 .ixg5 16 hxg5 .ixd5
17 li)xd5 li)ce6 results in a solid
position for Black (Griinfeld-Sy
dor, Gausdal 1978).
10
li)xc3
1 1 bxc3 (D)
'ii'e 8
11
But not 1 1 h6?! 12 a4 a5 13
lIb1 b6 14 i.d5 i.b 7 15 li)d4 lIb8
16 li)b5 .ic5 17 'ii' h 5 with a clear
advantage (Geller-Kurajica, Wijk
aan Zee 1977).
The text move occurred in Roh
de-Bisguier (New York 1976) when
after 12 .ig5 f4 13 'ii'd3 .ixg5 14
li)xg5 'lVh5 15 h4 li)d8 16 g3 b6

1 7 lIad 1 li)e6 White ' s advantage
soon slipped away.
Section 3
Deviations on move 7
( 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4)
6
b5
7 .ib3
7 li)xe5 was condemned a long
time ago, because after 7 . . . li)xe5 8

dxe5 li)c5 9 i.b3 li)xb3 10 axb3
i.b7 1 1 li)c3 'ii'e 7 12 lIe1 0-0-0 13
i.f4 g5 the initiative belongs to

Black (Meitner-Schlechter, Vienna
1899) . 7 d5 is dubious as well: the
continuation 7.Ji::J e 7 8 :e1 bxa4 9
:xe4 d6 gives Black a slight ad
vantage (Korchnoi) .
7
.ie7?!
With this move Smyslov beat Tal
in a famous game (USSR champi
onship 1977). However, a refuta
tion was soon found.
7,. .exd4 8 :e1 d5 is also insuf
ficient due to 9 tbc3 ! , e.g. 9 . . . dxc3
10 .ixd5 i.b7 11 .ixe4 .ie7 12 'iVe2
f8 13 bxc3 (Polaczek-Gunnars
son, Reykjavik 1990) or 9 . . . .ie6 10
tbxe4 dxe4 1 1 :xe4 .ie7 12 .ixe6
fxe6 13 tbxd4 0-0 14 'iVg4 (Fischer
Trifunovic, Bled 196 1). In both
case White holds a clear edge.
tbxe5
8 tbxe5!
9 dxe5
.i.b7
0-0
10 'iVg4
1 1 :el !
I n the aforementioned game,
Tal continued 1 1 f3 tbg5 12 f4
tbe4 13 f5 h8 14 :f3 but Black
successfully parried the attack by
14 . . . .ic5 + 15 f1 d6 16 f6 g6 1 7
'iVh4 dxe5.
11 ,..
.ig5
If 1 1 ,..tbg5 then either 12 f4 or
12 tbc3 . However, Gufeld's sug
gestion 1 1 , . .d5!? also deserves at
tention.
12 tbc3!
N ow White is in pole position,
for example 12 . . . i.xc1 13 tbxe4
i.xe4 14 :axc1 i.c6 15 :e3 h8
16 :h3 gives him a decisive at
tack (Mikh.Tseitlin-Pukshansky,
USSR 1978) .
Section 4
Deviations on move 8
( 1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

.ia4 tbf6 5 0-0 tbxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3)
7
d5
8 tbxe5
This seems to be the only al
ternative to the normal 8 dxe5 .
However, human inventiveness
is truly boundless, as the follow
ing p.xamples show:
a) 8 tbc3?! tbxc3 9 bxc3 e4 10
liJg5. Now the simplest way for
Black is to give back the pawn by
10 . . . .if5 1 1 f3 e3 ! 12 f4 'iVd7! 13
'iVf3 :d8 14 'iVxe3 + .ie7 15 h3 0-0
1G. g4 .ixg5 1 7 fxg5 i.e6, and
Black is practically a piece up
(i.b3), as occurred in the game
Shatskes-Zhuravlev (Riga 1962).
b) 8 c4?! .
eral different ways to play (but
not 8 . . .bxc4? 9 i.a41):
b1) 8,..i.g4!? 9 cxd5 tbxd4 10
:e1 f5 1 1 h3 leads to unclear com
plications with 1 1 . . . .ic5 !? 12 hxg4
Turning to One Side 1 7
lbxb3, followed by 13 . . . i.x2 + , de

serving serious attention.
b2) 8 i.e6 also leads to a com
fortable position for Black after
the continuation 9 cxd5 i.xd5 10
lbxe5 lbxe5 11 dxe5 c6 12 i.c2
i.c5 13 e1 h4 14 i.e3 0-0 (Vito
linsh-Sideif-Zade, USSR 1979) .
b3) Finally, 8 dxc4 9 i. c2
fS!? or 9 lbf6 10 dxe5 xd 1 1 1
1:1xd 1 lbd7 (Levenfish) i s interest
ing.
c) 8 a4!? Now Black can play
8 b4 9 dxe5 i.e6 transposing to
a line from the next chapter. How
ever, Schlechter's move 8 lbxd4!
is stronger. Mter 9 lbxd4 exd4
10 axbS ( 10 xd4 i.e6) 10 . . . i.c5
11 c3 0-0 12 cxd4 i.b6 13 lbc3
i.b7 14 bxa6 1:1xa6 15 1:1xa6 i.xa6
16 1:1e1 i.b7 (Lasker-Schlechter,
World Championship match, Vi
enna 1910 illustrative game 2)
or 10 lbc3!? lbxc3 11 bxc3 c5 12
axb5 i.e7 13 f3 i.e6 14 cxd4
axb5 15 1:1xa8 xa8 16 dxc5 0-0
(Mewig-Wagner, Cologne 1911)
Black enjoys an excellent game.
The main defect of the text,
compared to 8 dxe5 , is that Black
now has no problems with his c
and d-pawns.
lbxeS
8
9 dxeS
c6
The most popular move. How
ever, Black can develop his bishop
at once:
a) 9 ie6 10 c3 (10 lbd2 lbc5!?)
10 i. e 7 l l lbd2 (in my opinion,
this is stronger than 1 1 i.e3 f5
12 exffi lbxffi 13 lbd2 0-0 14 e2
...
...
...
...
'it>h8 15 i.g5 i.g8 with equal chan

ces, as in the game Bondarevsky
Gurgenidze, Moscow 1960). Now
1 1. fS is risky due to 12 lbxe4
fxe4 13 f3! but also after l l ...lbcs
12 i.c2 or 1l ...lbxd2 12 i.xd2
White's chances are preferable.
That's why 9 . . . c6 is more accu
rate: Black retains the possibility
of developing his bishop to f5 in
one move.
b) 9 i.b7. Now the bishop
doesn't control the diagonal c8h3. However, Black saves a tempo
for development hoping to quickly
create active counterplay. Now 10
i. e3 is met by 10 . . . i.c5 11 i.xc5
( 1 1 g4? i.xe3 12 xg7 g5 ! 13
xh8 + 'it>e7 14 xh7 i.xf2 + 1 5
'it> h 1 1:1g8 and Black was o n top in
Rokhlin-A. Zaitsev, USSR 1954)
11 . . .lbxc5 12 lbd2 0-0 13 h5 d4
14 f4 lbxb3 15 axb3 d5 16 1:12 c5
with a good game for Black (Sa
von-Shiyanovsky, USSR champi
onship, Erevan 1962), so White
should prefer 10 c3 i.c5 11 lbd2
(less effective is 11 g4 e7 ! 12
lbd2 xe5 13 lbxe4 dxe4 14 i.f4
f6 with equality, as in Cherep
kov-Bronstein, USSR champion
ship, Moscow 196 1 ) 1 1 . . .h4 (the
line 11 . . . 0-0 12 lbxe4 dxe4 13 g4
e7 14 i.f4 'it>h8 15 1:1ad 1 f5 16
g3 h6 17 h4 yields White a mini
mal plus, as in Vasiukov-Savon,
USSR 1970) 12 lbxe4 dxe4 13 e6
fxe6 14 i.xe6 1:1d8 15 e2 i.d5
16 g3 e7 1 7 i.xd5 1:1xd5 18 c4
1:1f5 19 cxb5 0-0 20 i.e3 i.xe3 21
xe3 axb5 with an equal position,
...

Sanakoev-Karker, corr 1968. How
ever, 18 b4 !? followed by 19 c4
yields White better chances, ac
cording to Korchnoi.
Returning to the main line (af
ter 9 . . . c6) .
(Short-Timman, EI Escorial 1993

- illustrative game 3).
10
e7
10 ...e5 is inferior because of
11 liJd2 ! liJxd2 (not 11 . .. xe3 12
liJxe4 nor 11 . . . 'ilt'b6 12 liJxe4 dxe4
13 'ilt'h5 ) 12 'ii'xd2 'ii'b 6 13 xc5
'ii'xc5 14 c3 0-0 15 'iVd4 'ilt'e7 16 c2
(Trifunovic-Karaklaic, Yugoslavia
1955). Exchanging dark-squared
bishops is rather in White' s fa
vour.
However, 10 'ii'h 4!? deserves
attention. In Plachetka-Brinck
Claussen (Copenhagen 1987) an
equal position arose after 11 c3
e7 12 liJd2 liJxd2 13 'ii'xd2 f5
14 .i.c2 'ii'h 5 .
1 1 liJd2
White can also choose a sharper
plan which avoids simplification :
1 1 e3 0-0 12 f3 (12 liJd2 liJxd2 13
i.xd2 i.f5 14 fe1 'ilt'd7 with
equality, Trifunovic-Donner, Wag
eningen 1957) 12 . . . liJc5 13 i.c2 f5
( 1 3 . . . liJe6 14 f4) 14 exffi xf6 15
d4 f7 16 liJd2 liJe6 1 7 e5 i.d6
which led to an equal position in
the game Barle-Tukmakov (Yu
goslavia-USSR match 1976). Tuk
makov indicates that White could
have maintained an edge by 15 f4!
Therefore 1 1. f5!? 12 exf6 liJxf6
or 1 1 liJe5!? (instead of 1 1 . . .0-0)
would probably be better.
liJxd2
11
Mter 1 l i.f5 White 's knight
becomes dangerous: 12 liJf3 .i.g4
13 h3 h5 14 g4 g6 15 liJd4 !
with an unpleasant initiative. Now
15 . . . 'ii'c 8 doesn't work due to 16
Black's plan now consists of

taking the light squares under
control.
10 e 3
The most common line. Other
possibilities are:
a) 10 e3 c5 1 1 liJd2 (or 1 1
'ilt'e2 0-0 12 e3 f5 1 3 liJd2 'ilt'b6
14 liJxe4 xe4 15 fe1 ad8 with
no problems for Black in Keres
Korchnoi, USSR championship,
Moscow 1973) 11 . . . liJxd2 12 i.xd2
f5 ! ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 13 'ilt'h5 ! is slightly
better for White, Spassky-Keres,
Kiev 1965 ) 13 e1 0-0 14 i.e3 i.e7
15 a4 'ilt'd7 with equality (Hort
Karpov, Bugojno 1980).
b) 10 liJd2!? liJxd2 1 1 i.xd2
e7 ( 1 1 . . . c5 !?) 12 'ilt'h5 i.e6 13
c3 'ilt'd7 14 g5 f5 15 fe1 ( 1 5
.i.xe7 g6 ! ) 15 . . . .i.g6 16 'ilt'h4 i.xg5
1 7 'ilt'xg5 0-0 with equal chances
..
...
...
lDxc6! 'ii'xc6 1 7 .ixd5 'ii'c8 18 'ii'f3

(Ciocaltea-Sydor, Bucharest 1971).
The interesting 1l lDc5!? has
not yet been tested.
0-0
12 'ii'xd2
This was played in the game

Fischer-Addison (New York 1967).
Black controlled the light squares
and White's attempt to seize dark
squares by 13 'ii'c3 (13 f4 .if5 is
not dangerous either) was unsuc
cessful due to the terrible posi
tion of his b3 bishop; 13 . . . .ib 7 14
f4 (14 .ic5 ! ? lUe8 was equal in
Gligoric-Matanovic, Monte Carlo
1967) 14 . .. a5 15 a3 b4 16 'ii'd 2 a4
17 .ia2 bxa3 and the great Ameri
can had to fight for a draw.
So, neither side can derive any
real advantage by avoiding the ba
sic position. However, the above
lines might be worth exploring
against unprepared opponents.
So Many Ways...
( 1 e4 e5 2 lL\f3 lL\c6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i.a4 lL\f6 5 0-0 lL\xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b 3 d5)
8 dxe5
i.e6
x. ._ _
_.
_
1..
.. .
-
.. .lb.
"
U.
""
4
"lb1i'.':
_
d
In this chapter we deal with

less popular continuations from
the basic starting-position, which
still require exact play for Black.
Section 1
9 a4 and the rest
9 a4
9 lL\c3 was refuted in Bogol
yubow-Tarrasch (Vienna 1922) :
9 ...lL\xc3 10 bxc3 lL\e7 1 1 a4 c5 12
i.a3 c4 13 i.a2lL\f5 14 i.xfB c;t>xfB
and Black stood clearly better.
9 :el was played in the game
Kupreichik-Yusupov (USSR cham
pionship, Frunze 1981). Mter the
moves 9 ...lL\c5 10 i.g5 (if 10 lL\g5
'ii'd 7; for 10 lL\bd2 see Chapter 3)
10...i.e7 1 1 i.xe7lL\xe7 12 c3lL\xb3
13 'ii'xb3 ( 1 3 axb3 c5 14 b4 cxb4

15 cxb4 0-0 is equal) 13 ...c5 14 a4
O-O! 15 axb5 'ii'b6 Black obtained a
good position.
White's early queenside attack
is somewhat premature and also
allows Black sufficient counter
play. Specifically, he can make
use of the b-file after b5-b4xc3.
9
b4
9 lL\a5 is worse: 10 axb5 axb5
1 1 lL\d4! i.c5 12 c3 i.b6 13 i.c2
lL\c4 14 :xa8 'ii'xa8 15 f3 lL\c5 16
f4 with a strong attack for White
(I.Zaitsev-Savon, Moscow 1969)
or 1 2 ...0-0 13 i.c2 'ii' h4 14 b4
i.xd4 1 5 cxd4 and again White is
on top (Grigorov).
10 a5
This is the idea behind 9 a4.
However, the threat of 11 i.a4 is
easily parried, and then White's
a5-pawn can be more vulnerable
to attack than Black's pawn on
a6.
In case of 10 c3 Black can
transpose to the line described in
Chapter 7 by means of 10...i.e7.
However, 10 i.c5!? is an inter
esting move. In Rigo-Conquest
(Vienna 1989) after UlL\d4 'ii' h4!?
12 i.e3?lL\xe5 13 cxb4 i.d6 14 h3
i.xh3 Black won easily; instead
12 g3! 'ii' h3 13lL\xc6 lL\xf2 14 :xrn
i.xf2 + 15 c;t>xf2 'ii'x h2 + leads to a
position which is difficult to as
sess.
.
So Many Ways. . . 2 1
lbc5
10
1 1 i.g5
Or 1 1 i.e3 lbxb3 12 cxb3 d4! 13
lbxd4 lbxd4 14 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 15
i.xd4 0-0-0 16 i.e3 i.xb3 1 7 lbd2
i.e6 with equal chances (Campora
Murey, Moscow 1989).
11
'ii'd7
h6
12 lbbd2
13 i.h4 (D)
If 1 3 i.f4 then not 1 3 ... g5?! 14
i.e3 d4 15 i.xe6 fxe6 16 lbxd4!
lbxd4 1 7 'ii' h 5 + 'itt d8 18 ad1, as
in LZaitsev-Honfi, Moscow 1971,
but simply 13 i.e7 equalising.
i.e7
13
Besides this move, Black used
to play:
a) 13 b8 14 c3 bxc3! 15 bxc3
i.g4 16 i.c2 g5 17 i.g3 i.e7 18
ne1 0-0 19 lbb3 lbe4 with unclear
play (King-Kaidanov, Budapest
1989).
b) 13 g5 14 i.g3 iLg7 (another
possibility is 14 ... i.e7!? with the
idea of ...h7-h5) 15 c3 0-0 16 i.c2
bxc3 17 bxc3 iLf5 18 i.xf5 'ii'xf5
19 lbb3 (Kindermann-Marin, Novi
Sad 1990) . Now, according to

Kindermann, 19...lbxb3 20 'ii'xb3
fd8 was the most solid, with
equal chances.
14 i.xe7
'ii'xe7
14 ... lbxe7 is also possible, for
example 15 lbd4 0-0 16 c3 bxc3 1 7
bxc3 i.g4 18 'ii'b 1? (Yusupov sug
gests 18 'ii'e 1!?) 18...nab8 19 f3 i.f5
20 'ii'a 2 lbd3 ! , and Black seized
the initiative in the game Kris
tiansen-Yusupov, Esbjerg 1980) or
17 ... ab8 18 i.c2 i.g4 19 'ii'e 1 nb2
20 'ii'e 3 i.f5 ! , with a balanced po
sition (Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Lina
res 1991).
15 c3
..
15 ...
bxc3
Or 15 ... 0-0 16 i.c2 iLg4 1 7 h3,
as in Kindermann-Tukmakov, Biel
1988, when White obtained an
edge after 17 ... i.h5?! 18 'ii'e 1! bxc3
19 bxc3 f6 20 lbd4 iLe8 2 1 lb2b3;
however, 17 ...iLxf3 18 lbxf3 bxc3
19 bxc3 lbxe5 20 'ii'x d5 lbxf3 + 2 1
'ii'xf3 fe8 leads t o equality (Kin
dermann).
liJxb3 !
16 bxc3
22 So Many Ways ...
0-0
17 li)xb3
Black has sufficient counterplay
along the b-file, for example 18
:el :ab8 19 li)fd4 li)a7! , prepar
ing . . . c7-c5 with a good position
(Ljubojevic-Hjartarson, Amster
dam 1991 illustrative game 4).
-
Section 2
9 .ie3
(1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6)
9 .ie3
This developing move, enabling

White 's bishop to take the stra
tegically important dark squares
d4 and c5 under control, usually
leads to the line described in
Chapter 7 after 9 . . . .ie7 10 c3. In
this section we deal with side variations.
9
li)c5
Black has several other alterna
tives:
a) 9 li)a5 is dubious due to 10
li)d4 'iVd7 1 1 'iVel li)xb3 12 axb3
.ie7 13 b4 c5 14 li)xe6 fxe6 15 f3

d4 16 .ic1 li)g5 1 7 bxc5 (Kuprei
chik-Slutsky, Moscow 1979) .
b) 9 .i e7 10 li)bd2?! li)c5 leads
to a variation described below.
c) After 9 .ic5!? White has
the following possibilities:
c1) 10 .ixc5 li)xc5 11 li)d4
li)xd4 (the alternative 11 . . . 'iVd7!?
deserves attention) 12 'iVxd4 li)b 7
13 c3 c5 14 'iVf4 0-0 15 li)d2 (Im
analiev-Mamadzhoev, Azov 199 1 )
and now Black should probably
play 15 . . . f6.
c2 ) 10 'iVd3 0-0 1 1 li)c3 ( 1 1
li)bd2 .ixe3 1 2 'iVxe3 leads t o a
position examined in Chapter 4,
variation 9 'iVe2 .ic5) 1 1. . .li)b4 12
'iVe2 li)xc3 13 bxc3 .ixe3 14 'iVxe3
li)c6 15 a4 with an edge (Khol
mov-Antoshin, USSR champion
ship, Kharkov 1967).
c3) 10 :e l!? 0-0 1 1 c3 .ixe3 12
:xe3 li)e7 ( 1 2 . . . li)a5 !?, Glek) 13
li)bd2 .if5 14 li)h4! li)xd2 15 'iVxd2
.ie6 16 :d1 ! c5 17 f4 d4 18 cxd4
c4 19 .ic2 li)d5 20 li)f3! with an in
itiative for White (Glek-Gorelov,
Katowice 1992).
Therefore the early exchange of
Black's important bishop does not
provide him with sufficient activ
ity to compensate for the weaken
ing of the dark squares.
The text move (with the obvi
ous idea of exchanging White's
light-squared bishop) was consid
ered a very solid reply to 9 .ie3
until White found a way to make
use of its main defect, Black's lag
in development.
...
So Many Ways. . . 23
10 tZ)c3!
Besides this (undoubtedly best)
move White can also play:
a) 10 tZ)bd2 e7, and now:
al) 11 tZ)g5?! 0-0 12 'ii'h 5 i.xg5
13 xg5 'ii'd 7 14 Aae1 Afe8 15
'ii'f3 h6 ( 1 5 . . . d4 ! is even stronger)
16 f4 Aad8 1 7 'ii'g3 c,th7 18 c3
(Dvoirys-Kaidanov, USSR 1984).
Now Black could have continued
18 . . . d4! with good counter-play.
a2) 1 1 i.xc5 xc5 12 c3 0-0 13
i.c2 b6 14 tZ)b3 i.g4 1 5 Ae1 f6
16 'ii'd 3 g6 1 7 exf6 xf3 18 'ii'xf3
'ii'd 6 yields Black good counter
chances (Marjanovic-Stean, Sme
derevska Palanka 1980) .
a3) 1 1 tZ)d4 tZ)xd4 12 xd4
'ii'd 7 13 c3 tZ)a4 14 Ab1 c5 15 e3
0-0 16 tZ)f3 Aad8 17 'ii'e2 f5 with
equality (Tseshkovsky-Balashov,
USSR 1980) .
a4) 1 1 c3 tZ)d3 (this was once
considered to be the refutation of
1 1 c3 but this conclusion proved
premature) 12 'ii'b 1 (the continu
ation 12 'ii'c2 tZ)dxe5 13 tZ)xe5 tZ)xe5
14 i.d4 f6 15 Afe1 f7 leaves
Black slightly better, but not
15 . . . 'ii'd6 Tseshkovsky-Kaidanov,
Moscow 1985 illustrative game
5) 12 . . . tZ)dxe5 13 tZ)xe5 tZ)xe5 14
d4 f6 ( 14 . . . tZ)g6!?) 15 f4 tZ)c6 16
c2 (Kosak-Daniliuk, Karvina
1993/94), and the position is un
clear.
b) 10 c3 tZ)xb3 ( 1 0 . . . e7 1 1
c2 g4 leads to a variation from
Chapter 7) 1 1 axb3 i.e7 (the im
mediate 11 . . . i.g4 is less common
but hardly worse, e.g. 12 h3 .th5
-
13 'ii'e 2 e7 14 Ad1 tZ)xe5 15 g4

tZ)xf3 + 16 'ii'xf3 g6 17 Axd5 d6
18 c4 bxc4 19 bxc4 'ii'e 7 with suffi
cient counterplay in Zaichik-Tuk
makov, Tallinn 1988 or 12 f4
c5 13. tZ)bd2 0-0 14 h3 h5 15
Ae1 d4 etc., as in J.lvanov-Kra
senkov, Pazardzhik 1988) 12 tLlbd2
(or 12 h3 0-0 13 b4 'ii'd 7 14 tZ)bd2
d4 15 tZ)xd4 tZ)xe5 16 tZ)xe6 'ii'xe6
with equal chances in A.Kuzmin
Sorokin, Blagoveshchensk 1988;
while the correct antidote to 12
tZ)d4 was demonstrated by Yusu
pov: 12 . . . tZ)xd4 13 cxd4 0-0 14 tZ)c3
f6! 15 f4 fxe5 16 fxe5 Axfl + 1 7
c,txfl i.b4! 18 c,tg1 xc3 19 bxc3
a5 201M3 'ii'd 7 2 1 c1 f5 ! , and
Black seized the initiative in
Ghinda-Yusupov, Dubai 1986 il
lustrative game 6; White should
have preferred 14 f4 with a more
or less equal position according
to Yusupov) 12 . . . g4 ( 12 . . . 0-0 is
also possible: 13 b4 d4! 14 tZ)xd4
tZ)xd4 15 xd4 xb4 16 tZ)e4 'ii'd 5
17 .f3 Afd8 18 Afd1 f8 with
equality in A.N.Panchenko-Soro
kin, Chelyabinsk 199 1) 13 'ii'c2
'ii'd 7 14 g5 f5 15 'ii'd 1 xg5 16
tZ)xg5 0-0 17 Ae1 Afd8 18 tZ)gf3 d4,
and Black had no problems in the
game Timman-Yusupov, Tilburg
1987.
Besides these variations, White
can continue 10 'ii'e 2 e7 11 Ad1 ,
transposing t o the Keres variation
(Chapter 4) .
Now we return to the main line
after 10 tZ)c3!
tZ)xb3
10 ...
-
24 So Many Ways . . .
1 1 cxb3 !
'lVd7
12 Ac l
13 lbe2
Clearing the c-file. White can
also maintain a slight edge by 13
h3 0-0 14 lbe2 Afc8 15 lbf4 a5 16
a3 lbd8 17 lbd3 (Groszpeter-Brun
ner, Biel 1990) or 13 'lVd2 0-0 14
Afdl Aad8 15 i.g5 d4 16 lbe4 i.d5
17 "f4, as in Winsnes-Krasenkov,
Stockholm 1989/90.
i. g4
13
13 Ac8 was tried in Smagin
Mikhalchishin (Moscow, 1989), but
White had slightly better chances
after the continuation 14 lbf4 0-0
15 i.c5 Afd8 16 i.xe7 lbxe7 1 7
'ii'd4 i.g4 1 8 lbel.
The text leads to interesting
variations indicated by Smagin :
14 lbf4 0-0-0 15 'lVxd5 'lVxd5 16
lbxd5 Axd5 1 7 Axc6 i.xf3 18 gxf3
Axe5 19 Afcl or the more interest
ing 14 d4 15 h3 ! ! dxe3 16 hxg4
exf2 + 17 xf2 ! , with a favourable
endgame for White in both cases.
The conclusion is that both
sides have nothing better than the
transposition to the line examined
in Chapter 7, i.e. 9 . . . i.e7 10 c3.
In all probability, the author

ship of this idea belongs to Sos
onko. White plans to occupy the
central c- and d-files and the c5
square. Black's backward c7 pawn
soon becomes weak.
In any case 1 1 axb3 is harm
less, for example 1 l . . . i.e7 12 h3
0-0 13 lbe2 'lVd7 14 lbf4 f6 15 exf6
i.xf6 with no problems for Black
(Lanka-Tukmakov, Riga 1988).
i.e7
11
If 1 1 'lVd7 12 Acl Ad8 then
simply 13 i.g5 i.e7 14 i.xe7 lbxe7
15 'lVd4 leaves White on top.
Made by Karpov
( 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .i b5 a6 4
.i.a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe 4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .i.e6)
9 ll)bd2
Section 1
9 J..e7 and others
.
The most common answer to 9

ll)bd2 is 9... ll)c5. Here we examine
other possibilities, which are, in
my opinion, undeservedly under
rated.
9
.i e7
The alternatives are:
a) 9 ll)xd2 (this rare move is
probably better than its reputa
tion) 10 .i.xd2 (10 'i'xd2 appears
artificial; true, after 10 ... .i.e7 1 1
:dl 0-0 12 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 13 'i'xd5
'i'xd5 14 :xd5 :ad8 15 l:ld2 f6 16
exf6 .ixf6 17 c3, Romanishin-Kai
danov, Lvov 1987, Black has in
sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn, but 10...'i'd7 fol
lowed by ... :a8-d8 is quite solid)
10....i.e7 ( 10....i.c5 looks too bold;
in Smirin-Kaidanov, Norllsk 1987,
White did not discover a refuta
tion: 1 1 'i'e2 0-0 12 :adl :e8 13
.i.e3 i.xe3 14 'i'xe3 ll)a5 15 ll)d4
'i'e7 16 c3 c5 with good counter
chances for Black, but by means
of 15 h3 White could have main
tained the better prospects) 1 1
'i'e2 ( 1 1 c 3 i s more precise - see
Chapter 8) 1 1... 0-0 12 :adl 'i'd7
13 c3 ll)a5 14 .i.c2 c5 15 :fel ll)c6
(15... .i.f5 16 e6 !?) 16 .i.cl :fe8 ,
and White's advantage is minimal
if it exists at all (Geller-Kaidanov,
Belgrade 1988).
This move was drawn out of the

backwaters of opening theory by
Anatoly Karpov and his coach Igor
Zaitsev during their titanic bat
tles with Viktor Korchnoi in 1978
and 1981. Korchnoi failed to with
stand the deep preparation of his
opponent ' s team and even now,
in spite of players and theorists
having found good counter-argu
ments for Black, this line is still
a formidable weapon for White.
The main point is that White im
mediately pressurises Black's
well-centralised knight. Accord
ing to Black' s reaction (Korch
noi preferred 9... Nc5, but other
moves are certainly possible) ,
White can continue with a vari
ety of diffrerent plans.
26 Made by Karpov
b) 9 i.c5!? is an aggressive
move which invites White into the
sharp line described in Chapter 6,
which arises after 10 c3. However,
White can liquidate into a pleas
ant endgame instead by 10 li)xe4
( 1 0 'ii'e 2 yields Black sufficient
counterplay: 10 . . . i.f5 1 1 a4 l:tb8
12 axb5 axb5 13 li)xe4 dxe4 13 . . . i.xe4 deserves attention - 14
l:td1 exf3 !? 15 l:txd8 + l:txd8 16
'iVel 0-0 1 7 i.g5 li)d4 18 i.xd8
l:txd8 with compensation for the
sacrificed material in the game
Wahls-A.Mikhalevsky, Biel 1992 ,
but 10 'iVe1 ! ? is more crafty as
10 . . . i.f5?! now fails due to 1 1
li)xe4 i.xe4 1 2 li)g5 which would
not work with White's queen on
e2 in view of 12 . . . li)d4, so Black
should prefer 10 . . . li)xd2 1 1 i.xd2
0-0 - 11 . . . i.g4? ! 12 i.e3 ! , Luther
Flear, Lenk 1992 - as in variation
a) 10 dxe4 11 i.xe6 'iVxdl (after
1 1 . . . fxe6 White has the additional
possibility of 12 li)d2, e.g. 12 . . .'i'd5
13 'i'h5 + g6 14 'i'h4 e3 15 li)e4 i.e7
16 li)fG + i.xfG 1 7 exfG e2 18 l:te1
li)d4 19 f7 + xf7 20 'i'f4 + c,tgB 2 1
'i'xc7 with a distinct advantage to
White, Marj anovic-Torre, Novi
Sad 1985) 12 l:txdl (White gains
nothing after 12 i.xf7 + xf7 13
li)g5 + c,tg6 14 l:tfxdl e3! 15 li)e6
exf2 + 16 c,tfl i.b6 with equal
chances) 12 fxe6 13 li)g5 0-0
(Black intends to compensate for
his pawn weaknesses by active
piece placement) (D)
14 li)xe4 (the exchange of Black's
threatening bishop is a healthy
positional idea for White in this

line . That' s why an immediate 14
i.e3 ! ? deserves serious attention,
e.g. 14 . . . i.xe3 15 fxe3 li)xe5 16
li)xe6 l:tf7 17 b3 li)g4 18 l:te1 with
a slight advantage for White in
Prasad-Krasenkov, Gausdal 1991)
14 ... i.b6 15 i.e3 (the most solid
continuation in this position, too :
15 g3 l:tf5 ! 16 c3 li)xe5 1 7 c,tg2
l:tafB 18 f4 li)g6 19 li)g5 l:t5fG, as in
Glek-Korneev, Krumbach 1991, or
15 b3 li)xe5 16 c,tfl - not 16 i.b2
l:tf4! as in Vogt-Haba, Halle 1987 16 . . . li)g4 17 f3 li)fG 18 li)g3 li)d5 19
c4 bxc4 20 bxc4 li)fG 2 1 i.b2 l:tad8
of Topalov-Leko, Etoiles 1994, or
15 a4 li)xe5 16 h3 - 16 fl ! ? was
suggested by V.Mikhalevsky 16 . . . li)c4 1 7 l:te1 l:tac8 ! , as played
in Y. Griinfeld-V.Mikhalevsky, Tel
Aviv 1994 are all unconvincing
and allow Black sufficient counter
chances) 15 . . . i.xe3 16 fxe3 l:tf5 ! (a
remarkable manoeuvre with the
aim of activating this rook; it is
important that the rook has the
strong d5 point at its disposal) 1 7
l:td7 (or 1 7 a 4 l:txe5 1 8 axb5 l:txe4
Made by Karpov 27
19 bxc6 l:tc4 with an equal posi

tion, Wahls-Haba, Germany 199 1).
Mter the text move, instead of
1 7 . . . l:txe5 18 l:txc7 l:txe4 19 l:txc6
:Xe3 20 l:t1 with a slight edge for
White, as in Avshalumov-Kra
senkov, Nimes 1991 , Black should
play 17 . . . l:tc8 ! with equal chances
(Haba) .
So it seems 14 .ie3, with a
small edge for White, is probably
more accurate (see above).
Now we move on to 9 . . . .ie7 .
With this move Black invites his
opponent to the main line from
Chapter 7, which would arise af
ter 10 c3 . But again White has the
option of destroying Black's pawn
structure. Black must rely on his
temporarily better development
and the possibility of centralising
his pieces.
dxe4
10 ll)xe4
fxe6
1 1 .ixe6
.i xgS
12 ll)gS!
The endgame after 12 :1i'xd l
13 l:txdl .i.xg5 14 .ixg5 l:tf8 15
.ih4 e3 16 fxe3 l:tf5 1 7 a4 b4 18
.ig3 is slightly better for White
(Sax-Tarj an, Hastings 1977/78),
while 12 'ifdS!? is interesting,
though after 13 'ifh5 + g6 14 'ifh4
.ixg5 15 .ixg5 ll)xe5 16 'ifg3 ll)f7
17 .iffi 0-0 18 l:tadl White has suf
ficient compensation for the pawn
(Geller-Unzicker, Bern 198 7) .
13 'ii'h S +
g6
14 'ifxgS (D)
A critical position, to which no
body has paid much attention yet!
0-0
14
, .
?
.
.
",,,,,v
.
_
?
.
_,
.,.
mf
"
iiQ'f.
,..,.,.
. .,. .

9.
DD
"
A
.:
This move looks quite natural

and is in fact the most common.
However, 14 'ifdS!? is an inter
esting alternative, depriving White
of the most comfortable way of
arranging his pieces. In the corre
spondence game Betker-Tronhjem
( 1990) Black obtained a comfort
able position after 15 .if4 l:td8 16
a4 0-0 17 axb5 axb5 18 l:tfel ll)d4
19 l:tacl 'ifc4. The onus is on White
to come up with something.
IS 'ifg4
'ifdS
16 l:tel!
This is better than 16 .if4
l:tad8 1 7 h4 ll)xe5 18 'ifg3 l:tf5 19
l:tfel l:td7 20 l:te2 ll)c4 21 l:tael! e5
with sufficient counterplay for
Black (Subit-A. Rodriguez, Cuban
championship 1990) .
l:tfS
16
Or 16 ll)xeS 1 7 'ifxe4 and now
White is slightly better.
17 .ih6!
But not 17 l:txe4 l:taf8 ! when
Black was already slightly better
in Hazai-Chekhov, 1985. White
should deprive Black's rook of the
key f8 square.
28 Made by Karpov
lillte 5
17
After 17 'ii'c5 18 l:te2 l:td8 19
h4 ! l:td5 20 l:tfl 'ii'c4 21 b3 (Geller
Krasenkov, Cappelle la Grande
1992 - illustrative game 7) or
17 'ii'd4 18 'ii'e 2 'ii'xb2 19 'ii'xe4
'ii'c 3 (Naumkin-Krasenkov, Novo
gorsk 1982) 20 f4 White's chances
are preferable.
18 'ii'xe4
The endgame structure after
18 l:td8 19 .i.f4 'ii'xe4 20 l:txe4 is
in principle slightly better for
White, but here Black slips away
by tactical means : 20 . . . li)c4! 2 1
.i.xc7 l:tc8 22 .i.g3 li)xb2 2 3 l:txe6
a5, and White cannot maintain
his material advantage (Chand
ler-Beckemeyer, Germany 1990) .
Still 14 . . . 'ii'd 5 (see above) looks
more promising for Black.
Section 2
9
..
li)c5
sidelines
(1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .i.b5 a6 4

.i.a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 .i.e6 9 li)bd2 )
li)c5 (D)
9
This move contains two differ
ent ideas:
- an attempt to immediately
break loose by . . . d5-d4;
- the standard plan of . . . .i.e6-g4.
In this section we deal mainly
with the second concept. The plan
with . . . d5-d4 will be examined in
the next section.
10 c3
10 l:tel is not dangerous, for ex
ample 10 . . . .i.e7 11 c3 d4 12 .i.xe6
K_ 5i..
.
..
. -
""
4&\ .t. _
_ .
U
,,

ai.. .lD.
U
!tU
p
U
U
a miVB:=
li)xe6 13 cxd4 li)cxd4 14 a4 0-0 15

axb5 axb5 16 haB lDxf3 + 17 'ii'xf3
'ii'xaB and Black was already bet
ter placed in Timoschenko-Kra
senkov, Moscow 1989.
.i. g4
10
The exchange 10 lilltb3 only
improves White's development: af
ter 1 1 li)xb3 .i.e7 (if 1 1 . .. .i.g4, 1 2
h3 l ) 12 li)fd4! li)xe5 13 l:tel li)g6
14 li)xe6 fxe6 15 li)d4 li)f8 16 'ii'g4
White is on top (G.Kuzmin-Beli
avsky, USSR 1977) .
The same can b e said about
10 li)d3 1 1 'ii'e2 li)xcl: 12 l:taxcl
li)a5 13 li)d4 li)xb3 14 axb3 c5 15
li)xe6 fxe6 16 'ii'g4 with an identi
cal conclusion (Kir.Georgiev-Uva
nov, Montreal 1986) .
Korchnoi's experiment 1 0 g6
resulted in a disaster in one of the
games of his match against Kar
pov (World Championship match,
Baguio 1978): 11 'ii'e2 .i.g7 12 li)d4!
li)xe5 13 f4 li)c4 14 f5 gxf5 15
li)xf5 l:tg8 16 li)xc4 dxc4 1 7 .i.c2
with a strong attack. In Fishbein
Murey (Moscow 1989) Black im
proved with 12 . . . li)xd4 13 cxd4 li)b7
Made by Karpov 29
but still after 14 c2 c5 15 f4 cxd4

16 ttJb3 b6 1 7 f2 0-0 18 ttJxd4
White's chances proved to be su
perior.
After 10 . . . g4 White usually
replies 1 1 c2 ! moving on to lines
described in Chapter 5. Here we
deal only with side variations.
Alas! It's probably inevitable that
similar positions must be exam
ined in different parts of the book
because move transpositions are
very common in the Open Span
ish.
1 1 h3
After 1 1 el Black can play
11 ... d7 or 1 1...e7, which trans
poses into lines from Chapter 5 .
1 1 ttJxb3 is also possible, e.g. 12
ttJxb3 e7 13 d3 ! d7 14 ttJfd4,
as in Kosashvili-Haba, Haifa 1989,
and now instead of 14...ttJd8?! 15
h3 ! h5 16 ttJf5 Haba recommends
14...ttJxd4 15 cxd4 a5 with equality.
h5
11
12 g4?!
This move dangerously weak
ens White's kingside. However, 12
c2 ttJe6 13 el d7 14 ttJn i.c5
15 b4 b6 16 a4 d8 (Madl-I.Sok
olov, Palma de Mallorca 1989) and
12 el i.e7 13 a4 b4 14 a2 d7
15 ttJn d8 1 6 ttJg3 g6 (Pola
czek-G.Garcia, St John 1988) are
also quite satisfactory for Black.
i. g6
12
tiJxd4
13 ttJd4
14 cxd4
ttJe6
d3 (D)
15 f4
In this sharp position Black
stands better, e.g. 16 f31 (16 f3
.
..
c4!) 16 ... xn 1 7 xd5 (Perez

Grivas, Dubai 1986), and now the
continuation 1 7... b8 ! 18 i.c6 +
cJ;;e 7 gives Black a clear plus.
Section 3
1 0 d4
...
( 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
b3 d5 8 dxe5 e6 9 ttJbd2
ttJc5 10 c3)
d4
10
..
For many decades this reply

was considered an easy means of
equalising. It is thanks to Karpov
30 Made by Karpov
and his analysis team that a num
ber of new active possibilities for
White were found.
1 1 .ixe6
White has an interesting alter
native, viz. a brilliant piece sacri
fice 1 1 tDg5!? invented by Igor
Zaitsev and first tried by Karpov
against Korchnoi in their 1978
match in Baguio. Despite the time
that has passed, theory has still
not drawn a final conclusion about
this idea.
Black's quiet replies yield a
minimal edge for White:
a) 1 l tDxb3 12 tDxe6 fxe6 13
'ii'xb3 'lVd5 14 'lVxd5 exd5 15 tDf3
dxc3 16 bxc3 .ie7 17 :dl (Angan
tysson-Pokojowczyk, Copenhagen
1980).
b) 1 l dxc3 12 tDxe6 fxe6 13
bxc3 'lVd3 14 tDf3 'lVxdl 15 .ixd l
.ie7 16 .ie3 tDd3 17 .i.b3 cJ;f7, and
Black gradually equalised (Kar
pov-Korchnoi, World Champion
ship match, Baguio 1978). 16 . . . 0-0!?
also deserves attention. This is
probably the most solid line for
Black.
If Black takes the knight the
variations are very complicated
indeed:
c) 1 l 'lVxg5 12 'lVf3 and now:
c l ) If 12 cJ;d7 13 .id5 ! .ixd5
14 'lVxd5 + .i.d6 then not 15 tDc4
'lVg6 16 exd6 'lVe6 ! 17 'lVxc5 'lVxc4
when White is only slightly better
(Pujols-Gonzalez , Havana 1993)
but simply 15 cxd4, e.g. 15 . . . tDxd4
16 tDc4 tDe2 + 17 cJ;hl 'lVf5 18 tDxd6
'ii'd 3 19 fflxf7 + is good for White
(Brondum-Brinck-Claussen, Den
mark 1979).
c2) 12 .id7 was left under a
cloud by the game Wolff-G. Flear
(London 1990) : 13 .ixf7 + cJ;e7 14
.id5 tDxe5 15 'lVe2 d3 16 'lVel c6 1 7
f4 'lVh6 1 8 .if3! cJ;d8 1 9 fxe5 .ie7
20 tDb3 'lVg6 21 tDd4 with a strong
attack for White.
c3) Mter 12 0-0-0 Black not
only gives back his extra piece but
also sacrifices another one to liq
uidate into a sharp endgame with
strong passed pawns: 13 .ixe6 +
(or 13 'lVxc6 'lVxe5 14 tDf3 'lVd5 !
with equality) 13 . . . fxe6 14 'lVxc6
'lVxe5! 15 b4 'lVd5 16 'lVxd5 exd5 1 7
bxc5 dxc3 18 tDb3 d4
19 .i.a3 (White should prepare

the opening of the a-file as 19 :d l
.i.e7 20 tDxd4 does not work in
view of 20 . . . c2 21 :d3 :xd4! 22
:xd4 .if6 with the idea of 23 .ie3
.ixd4 24 .ixd4 :d8 - Smyslov)
19 . . . .i.e7 20 .ib4 .i.f6 21 a4 cJ;d7!
22 axb5 axb5 and now 23 :a6
(Timman-Smyslov, Germany 1979)
can be met by 23 . . . :a8 ! . However,
Made by Karpov 3 1
White can block Black's pawns and

thereby maintain an edge by 23
lUd 1 'it>e6 24 l:tac1 l:td5 25 l:td3 c6
26 l:ta1 rJitf7 2 7 'it>f1 (Harley-Ernst,
London 199 1).
d) 11 d5 !? (a new idea from
Ivan Sokolov) 12 i.xd5 'ii'xd5 13
ttJb3 ttJxb3 14 axb3 i.e7 15 ttJf3,
and now, instead of 15 . . . ttJxe5 16
ttJxd4 ttJg6 1 7 'ii'f3 ! with a small
plus for White (Anand-I.Sokolov,
Lyon 1994), 15 . . . d3 leads to a dou
ble-edged position (Dorfman).
N ow we return to the main line
with 11 i.xe6.
ttJxe6
1 1 ...
12 cxd4
12 ttJb3?! dxc3 13 'ii'c 2 is poor:
13 . . . 'ii'd5 14 l:td 1 ttJb4 ! 15 'ii'e 2 'ii'c4
16 'ii'xc4 bxc4 1 7 ttJa5 ttJc2 18 l:tb1
ttJa3 19 l:ta1 ttJc2 20 l:tb1 l:tb8 and
Black was already clearly better
(Sax-Tal, Tallinn 1979 illustra
tive game 8).
12 a4 dxc3 13 bxc3 b4 14 'ii'c2
'ii'd5 15 c4 'ii'd 7 16 ttJb3 l:td8 17 'ii'e4
e7 (G.Kuzmin-Dorfman, USSR
championship, Tbilisi 19 78) or 14
cxb4 ttJxb4 1 5 a3 'ii'd 5 16 l:tb1
a5 17 ttJb3 e7 18 'ii'd 2 'ii'c6 ! 19
ttJxa5 l:txa5 20 l:txb4 'ii'a8 ! (Ro
manishin-Marin, Dresden 1988)
presents no problems to Black.
ttJcxd4 (D)
12
N ow White is slightly ahead in
development and should try to
make use of this.
13 ttJe4
This move was introduced by
Karpov in his 14th match game
against Korchnoi (Merano 1981).
..
After 13 ttJxd4 'ii'xd4! Black i s

out o f danger, for example 14 'ii'f3
l:td8 15 'ii'c6 + 'ii'd 7 16 'ii'xa6 'ii'd5 !
with strong counterplay (Anand) ,
or 14 a4 l:td8 15 'ii'f3 i.b4 16 ttJb3
'ii'c4 17 axb5 axb5 18 l:ta8 0-0 with
an equal position (Luther-Haba,
Germany 1993), or 14 'ii'e 2 l:td8
15 a4 'ii'd5 16 axb5 axb5 17 'ii'e4? !
(17 ttJf3 is equal) 1 7 . . . i.c5 18 'ii'xd5
l:txd5 19 ttJe4 i.d4, and the initia
tive had passed to Black (Adams
Anand, Linares 1994).
However, there is a stronger al
ternative, viz . 13 a4, also intro
duced by Karpov in Merano (the
18th game) , with the following
possibilities:
a) 13 c5 is too optimistic, as
it takes the bishop away from the
defence of the kingside: 14 ttJe4
(after 14 ttJb3 ttJxb3 15 'ii'xb3 0-0
16 axb5 axb5 17 l:txa8 'ii'xa8 18
'ii'xb5 h6 19 'ii'c4 l:td8 White failed
to make use of his extra pawn due
to the active position of Black's
pieces in Adams-I.Sokolov, Mos
cow 1994) 14 . . . b6 15 ttJfg5! (pre
cise, though 15 ttJxd4 is possible
...
32 Made by Karpov
as well, e.g. 15 .. . i.xd4 16 ttJg5! 0-0
1 7 axb5 ttJxg5 18 i.xg5 i.xf2 + 19
xf2 'ikxg5 20 bxa6 with a slight
edge for White in the game Tisch
bierek-Chekhov, Potsdam 1985)
15... tLlxg5 (15 . ..0-0 16 'ikh5 is obvi
ously better for White) 16 i.xg5
'ikd7 17 e1 ! (a move that was rec
ommended by Am.Rodriguez be
cause 1 7 axb5 'ikxb5 18 ttJc3 'ikd7
19 'ika4 allowed Black to equalise
by 19 . . .'ikxa4 20 ttJxa4 h6! 21 tLlxb6
cxb6 in Am. Rodriguez-Korneev,
Barbera del Valles 1994) 1 7 . . .0-0
18 a3 ! , transferring the rook to
the kingside and obtaining good
attacking chances (Am. Rodriguez).
b) l3 i.e7 and now:
...
1 7 i.e3 'ikb6 18 a4 fb8 19 ttJa5

c8 equalising, Sax-Yusupov, Sofia
1984) yield White any advantage
after 15 ... 0-0 16 i.e3 c5 1 7 a4
'ikb8 18 'ika1 ttJbd4! (Hiibner-Yusu
pov, Tilburg 1987).
b3) 14 ttJxd4! (this interesting
idea lies at the centre of White's
plan : he lures Black's knight to
the centre where its position will
be less solid and less harmoni
ous) 14 . . . ttJxd4 (after 14 ...'ikxd4?!
15 axb5 'ikxe5 16 bxa6 0-0 17 'ika4 !
Black cannot easily regain the a6pawn, e.g. 17 . .. fb8 18 a7 b7 19
ttJf3 'ikd5 20 i.e3 i.c5 2 1 ad1
'ikb3 22 'ikxb3 xb3 23 i.xc5 tLlxc5
24 ttJd4, as in the game Ehlvest
Marin, Tallinn 1989 or even 18
ttJf3 'ikb5 19 a7 b7 20 'ikxb5 xb5
2 1 .te3 i.f6 22 a2, Hjartarson
Smejkal, Germany 1990) 15 ttJe4
( 1 5 axb5 ttJxb5 16 'ikc2 0-0 1 7 ttJf3
ttJd4! 18 ttJxd4 'ikxd4 19 'ikxc7 .tb4!
led to equality in Kindermann
Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1993)
15 ...0-0 (in the stem game Karpov
Korchnoi, World Championship
match, Merano 1981 illustrative
game 9 White obtained an edge
after 15 . . . ttJe6 16 .te3 0-0 1 7 f4
'ikxd1 18 fxd1 fb8 19 d7 i.f8
20 f5 ttJd8 2 1 a5 ! ; the text move
is stronger but Black is slightly
worse anyway: White obtains a
better pawn structure while main
taining a space advantage) 16 axb5
ttJxb5 1 7 i.e3 'ikc8 18 'ikd5 (if 18
'ikc2 'ike6 19 f4 f6 20 exf6 i.xf6 21
f5 'ike5 22 .tc5 ttJd6, and Black de
fended successfully in Ivanchuk-
b1) 14 ttJe4 is harmless due to

14 . . . 0-0 15 axb5 (15 tLlxd4 'ikxd4! ;
or 1 5 i.e3 c5 1 6 i.xd4 cxd4, As
trom-Krasenkov, Stockholm 1989)
15 ... axb5 16 llxa8 ttJxf3 + 17 gxf3
'ikxa8 18 'ikd7 'ike8 with an equal
position in Dutreeuw-Ernst, Vi
enna 199 1 .
b 2 ) neither does 1 4 axb5 tLlxb5
1 5 ttJe4 (or 15 'ikc2 0-0 16 ttJb3 c5
Made by Karpov 33
Yusupov, Linares 1989) 18 . . J:td8?!

19 'ilt'c6 'ilt'f5?! 20 f4 h5 21 h3 and
White was on top in Chandler
Yusupov, Hastings 1989/90. Black
should have played 18 . . .'ilt'f5 19
ltJg3 'ilt'g6 with some counterplay
(Yusupov).
c) 13 l:tbS! (Black cedes his op
ponent the a-file - with no objects
of attack on it - but maintains the
interaction of his pieces. Besides,
the rook is safer placed on b8 for
tactical considerations; this line
has been less investigated than
the 'natural' 13 . . . .te7, but is prob
ably more solid) 14 axb5 axb5
15 ltJe4 (15 ltJxd4 'ilt'xd4) 15 .te7,
and now:
..
c1) 16 .te3 is not dangerous

due to 16 . . . ltJf5 ( 1 7 'ilt'c2 ltJxe3 18
fxe3 'ilt'd5). In this variation the po
sition of Black's rook on b8 proves
provident since 18 'ilt'c6 + can be
met by 18 . . . 'ilt'd7.
c2) 1 6 ltJxd4 promises nothing
in view of 16 . . . 'ilt'xd4.
c3) 16 ltJd6 + cxd6 17 ltJxd4
ltJxd4 18 'ilt'xd4 dxe5 19 'ilt'xe5 0-0
leads to equality (Nunn-Timman,

Amsterdam 1985).
The main variation (13 ltJe4 with
the idea of quick development) is
more popular than 13 a4, so let's
return to this.
13
.t e7
Development first! If 13 ... 'ilt'd5
then 14 ltJxd4 ! ltJxd4 15 ltJc3 'ilt'd7
16 .te3 .tc5 1 7 'ilt'h5 ( 1 7 ltJe4 i.a7
18 l:tc 1 0-0 19 ltJc5 i.xc5 20 l:txc5
l:tfd8 is less dangerous for Black,
Beliavsky-Dorfman, USSR cham
pionship, Frunze 1981), for exam
ple 1 7 . . . 'ilt'e6 18 l:tad1 l:td8 19 l:td3
i.b6 20 l:tfd 1 c5 2 1 ltJe4 with an
overwhelming attack for White,
Thipsay-Bhave, Calcutta 1991.
ltJf5!
14 .te3
14 ... ltJxf3 + 15 'ilt'xf3 0-0 16 l:tfd1
'ilt'e8?! (16 . . . 'ilt'c8 is better but still
clearly worse for Black) led to a
crushing defeat for Black in Kar
pov-Korchnoi (World Champion
ship match, Merano 198 1 ) : 1 7
ltJf6 + ! .txf6 18 exf6 'ilt'c8 1 9 fxg7
l:td8 20 h4 etc.
15 'ilt'c2!
0-0
15 ... ltJxe3? is poor due to an in
termediate check 16 'ilt'c6 + ! .
1 6 l:tadl
Other moves are not dangerous:
a) 1 6 ltJeg5 i.xg5 1 7 ltJxg5 g6
( 1 7 . . . ltJxg5 18 'ilt'xf5 ltJe6 19 'ilt'e4
c5 20 f4 f5 2 1 exf6 'ilt'xf6 22 f5 ltJd4
23 'ilt'd5 + 'ilt'f7 is also satisfactory
for Black, according to Larsen) 18
ltJxe6 fxe6 19 l:tae1 'ilt'd5 20 b3
l:tac8 with equality (Karpov-Kor
chnoi, World Championship match,
Merano 1981).
.
34 Made by Karpov
b) 16 lDf6 + i.xf6 17 'ii'xf5 i.e7
18 l:tfdl (18 l:tadl 'ii'c8 19 lDd2 l:td8
20 f4 c5 with an unclear position
is Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Sara
jevo 1984) 18 . . . 'ii'c8 19 l:tacl l:td8
20 l:txd8 + 'ii'xd8 2 1 'ii'e 4 c5 equal
ising (R.Bellin-Botterill, England
1987).
16 l:tadl allows Black to destroy
White's pawn structure. However,
White completes the development
of his pieces and obtains a formi
dable attacking position. Which is
more important?
lDxe3
16
'ii'c8
17 fxe3
17 'ii'e8 is less exact, e.g. 18
lDd4 l:td8 19 lDxe6 (19 lDf5 ! ? l:txd l
20 'ii'x dl i.d8 2 1 'ii'g4 h8 22 lDd4
is also unpleasant, Andrijevic-Mi
i!ic, Belgrade 1988) 19 . . . l:txdl (Van
der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee
1987) when, according to Van der
Wiel, instead of 20 l:txdl?! White
could have obtained a slight ad
vantage by 20 li)xf8 l:txfl + 21
i.xfB 22 lDg5 g6 23 'ii'xc7. Black
should prefer 19 . . . fxe6 20 l:txfB +
i.xfB 2 1 l:t1 , although White still
holds a slight edge here.
The position after 1 7 . . . 'ii'c8 (D)
is the most popular of the whole 9
lDbd2 system.
White attempts to make use of
his better development, space ad
vantage and the d- and f-files.
Black hopes to simplify the game
so that his trumps come into play,
viz . the weakness of White's dou
bled pawns and Black's pawn ad
vantage on the queenside. White's
knight on f3 is still passive; but

Black has some problems with ac
tivating his rooks.
18 lDd4
The most natural move but
there are also other possibilities:
a) 18 lDg3!? is an idea of Sax's
which deserves serious attention.
However, in the game Sax-Hellers
(Haninge 1989) Black's position
after 18 . . . l:td8 19 lDd4 lDxd4 20
exd4 c6 2 1 lDf5 i.fB 22 l:td3 'ii'e 6
23 'ii'd2 l:td7 proved very solid.
b) 18 l:td3 (with the intention
of doubling rooks along the d-file)
18 . . . c5 (18 . . . l:td8!? is worth consid
ering) 19 lDd6 'ii'c 7 (if 19 . . . 'ii'b 8 20
b3 l:ta7 21 l:tfdl l:td8 - planning
. . . i.e7-fB and . . . l:ta7-d7 - then 22
lDxf7!? xf7 23 l:txd8 is possible,
as in Stoica-Marin, Eforie-Nord
1988, though, according to Stoica,
the complications after 23 . . . i.xd8 !
lead to a draw) 20 l:tfd l l:tfd8! 2 1
l:td5 .i. fB ! 22 b 3 l:ta7 2 3 'ii'2 ?! (23
l:tld2!? followed by 'ii'c 2-dl was
suggested by Beliavsky) 23 . . . 'ii'c 6
24 e4 l:tad7 with good counterplay
for Black, as in Short-Beliavsky,
Made by Karpov 35
Barcelona 1989 - illustrativegame

10. A remarkable plan for Black!
c) 18 h3 !? (this is one of Kar
pov's typically 'mysterious' moves;
White prepares the manoeuvre
f3-h2-g4, so Black, without los
ing time, starts to simplify the
position) 18 J!d8 (after 18 . . . a5,
Klovans-Levin, Groningen 1991,
19 h2 !? should be considered)
19 h2 (19 .l:r.c1 c5 20 'ii'f2 'ii'b 7 2 1
h2 'ii'xe4 2 2 'ii'xf7 + 'iti>h8 2 3 'ii'xe6
g5 ! was equal in Karpov-Yusu
pov, Linares 1983) 19 .l:r.xdl 20
'ii'xd l 'ii'e8 ! (this square is now a
very comfortable place for Black's
queen; 2 1 . . . c5 is poor due to 22
'ii'd5!) 2 1 g3 (21 'ii'h5 is harmless
due to 2 1 . . .c5 22 g3 a5 ! 23 f5
- 23 'ii'f3 !? is a suggestion of Tal's
- 23 . . . .l:r.a6 24 g4 .l:r.g6 25 b3 i.d8
26 f2 'ii'c 6 with enough counter
play for Black in Tal-Korchnoi,
Reykjavik 1987 - illustrative game
1 1 while 2 1 g4 .l:r.d8 22 'ii'c2 c5
23 g3 c4 - 23 . . . .l:r.d7 24 f5 was
slightly favourable for White in
Mokry-Ernst, Gausdal 1989 - 24
'ii'e4 .l:r.c8 25 f5 b4 26 fh6 + ! ?
gxh6 2 7 xh6 + 'iti>h8 28 xf7 +
'it?g8 29 'ii'g4 + g7 30 e6 c5 ! led
to a draw in Prasad-Ernst, Gaus
dal 199 1 ; in this last variation
2 1 . . .a5 !? was even better) (D)
2 1 . . .a5! (this is the same idea
as in Tal-Korchnoi: Black's rook
is activated along the sixth rank;
instead 2 1 . . . .l:r.d8 22 'ii'c2 c5 23 g4
leads to the last variation) 22 g4
(or 22 f5 .l:r.a6 23 'ii'd 5 d8 24
g4 h 5 ! , and Black equalised in
the game Watson-Flear, London

1990) 22 . . . .l:r.a6 23 h5 f8 24 'ii'f3
g6 25 'ii'b 7 'ii'c6 26 'ii'c8 + i.f8,
and White had to force a draw by
27 .l:r.f6 gxf6 28 h6 + in Mokry
Haba, Germany 1992 .
By means of 18 d4 White man
ages to straighten out his pawn
structure. However, the exchange
of knights gives Black more room
for manoeuvres.
18
xd4
19 exd4
'ii'e 6!
20 g3
Taking the c7 pawn is risky for
White: 20 'ii'xc7 .l:r.ac8 (20 . . . .l:r.fc8 !?)
36 Made by Karpov
21 'lVa5 c2 22 f2 (22 d2? c4
23 a3 .td8) 22 . . . fc8! (22 . . . 'lVg4 is
less exact: 23 'lVe1 ! i.b4 2 4 .!Dc3
:xf2 25 xf2 to 26 exf'6 + 2 7
gl and White was slightly better
in de Firmian-Hellers, Bie1 1989)
23 'lVel (Hiibner-Ljubojevic, Til
burg 1985), and now instead of
23 . . .'lVxa2? 24 .!Dd6 ! Hiibner rec
ommends 23 . . . xf2 24 'lVxf2 'lVxa2
2 5 d5 'lVb3 ! with good counterplay.
Also satisfactory for Black are
20 d3 to 2 1 'lVxc7 fxe5 2 2 'lVxe5
xf1 + 23 xf1 f8 + 24 m3 'lVc4 +
25 f2 i.h4 + (Chandler-Yusupov,
Minsk 1982) and 20 f3 c6 2 1
dn (2 1 a3 to ) 2 1 . . .ad8 22 .!DtO +
i.xf6 23 exf6 xd4 (de Firmian
Hiibner, Oslo 1984).
c6
20
The trap 20 f6? 21 .!Df5 ! fxe5?
22 'lVb3 ! proved to be fatal for two
grandmasters : Yusupov (against

Tseshkovsky, Erevan 1982) and
Nunn (against Chandler, Nrestved
1985).
20 . . . c5 2 1 dxc5 fc8 22 b4 a5
23 a3 axb4 24 axb4 'lVxe5 2 5 fe1
gave White a slight edge in Wed
berg-Morovic (New York, 1988) .
After the text move Black's po
sition is very solid. In Smirin
Mikhalchishin (Klaipeda 1988) 2 1
tM5 fe8 2 2 .!Dxe7 + xe7 2 3 f3
d7 24 c3 'lVxa2 25 xc6 ad8
26 c8 'lVd5 led to equality.
We have examined one of the
most topical lines of the Open
Spanish, which has been devel
oped quite deeply. However, as we
saw in Section 1, Black has good
possibilities to avoid a theoretical
discussion and still obtain good
counter-chances.
In an Antique Shop
( 1 e4 e 5 2 tM3 lDe6 3 .ib5 a6 4

J.a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
J.b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6)
9 'lVe2
White's basic idea is clear and

simple: l:tfl-d1 followed by c2-c4
or lDb1-c3 attacking the d5 pawn.
Section 1
Different ways for Black
Black usually plays 9 . . . J.e7 here,
but in this section we deal with
other possibilities.
9
J.e5
Black's other alternatives are:
a) 9 g5? is refuted by 10 c4!
bxc4 1 1 .ia4 .id7 12 e6! fxe6 13
.ixc6 .ixc6 14 lDe5 with a clear
advantage for White, as in Boles
lavsky-Stoltz, Saltsjobaden 1948
or 10 . . . g4 1 1 cxd5 .ixd5 12 lDg5
lDd4 13 'lVe3 J.c5 14 i.xd5 ! lDf3 +
15 'lVxf3 gxf3 16 lDxe4 again with
a clear advantage (Nikitin-Sav
eliev, USSR 1962).
As it has been said in the intro
duction, it is useful for Black to
exchange White 's light-squared
bishop. However, in this position
it is apparently somewhat prema
ture:
b) 9 lDa5 led to an edge for
White in the game Hort-Grey (USA
1974) : 10 c3 lDxb3 1 1 axb3 lDc5 12
lDd4 'lVc8 13 b4 lDd7 14 f4, while
10 lDd4!? c5 1 1 lDxe6 fxe6 12 c3
(Euwe) is also better for White.
c) 9 lDe5 leads to a line exam
ined in Section 2 (after 10 l:td1
.ie7), which is not considered to
...
...
The first time this line ap

peared in top-level practice was in
Keres-Euwe (World Champion
ship, Hague/Moscow 1948) ; it was
then named after the great Esto
nian grandmaster. It remained
popular until the seventies, when
it quite suddenly went out of fash
ion. These days the Keres vari
ation is a rare visitor to top-level
tournaments. Incidentally, the fact
that its popularity peaked before
the period of the chess informa
tion explosion means that it has
not been developed as deeply as
other lines, so there are still many
relatively unexplored avenues.
Who can predict whether one day
this system will not rise from the
ashes like a Phoenix?
38 In an Antique Shop
be quite satisfactory for Black.
Instead of 10 ltdl, 10 .ig5 is harm
less due to 10 . . . .ie7 1 1 .ixe7 iDxe7
12 iDd4 0-0 13 iDd2 iDd7 14 c3 c5
CMinic-Karaklaic, Yugoslav cham
pionship 1957). After 10 ltdl Black
has the following possibilities,
besides 10 . . . .ie7:
cl) 10 iDa5 11 .ig5 ..d7 12
iDc3 c6 13 ltd4 .ie7 14 ltad l 0-0
15 "d2 with a slight advantage
CS.Nikolic-Gyozos, Hungary 1969).
c2) 10 b4 11 .ie3 iDxb3 12
axb3 "c8 13 c4 dxc4 14 bxc4 h6
15 iDbd2 .ie7 16 iDb3 again with a
slight advantage for White (Smys
lov-Reshevsky, World Champion
ship, Hague/Moscow 1948).
c3) 10 iDxb3!? 11 axb3 ( 1 1
cxb3 "d7 12 h3?! i s dubious be
cause of 12 . . . .ic5 13 iDc3 .ib6 14
.ie3 d4 and Black already had the
better game in Matulovic-Ujtumen,
Palma de Mallorca 1970) 1 1 . . ...c8
C 1 1 . . . .ie7 12 c4! leads to a position
from Section 2)
Smyslov. White 's attack is based

on his advantage in development)
12 . . . dxc4 C I 2 . . . bxc4 13 bxc4 iDb4
14 iDc3 dxc4 15 .ig5 iDd3 16 b3, as
given by Keres or 12 . . . iDh4 13 cxb5
axb5 14 ltxa8 "xa8 15 .id2 c6 16
iDd4, as in the game Pisek-Rato
listka, Czechoslovakia 1957, are
promising for White) 13 bxc4 .ixc4
14 "e4 'ii'b 7 C14 . . . iDe7? is poor due
to 15 iDa3, as in Smyslov-Euwe,
World Championship, Hague/Mos
cow 1948 illustrative game 12)
15 iDc3 .ib3 16 ltd2 ltb8 1 7 e6 !
fxe6 18 iDg5 with a strong initia
tive for White.
9 . . . .ic5, with the exchange of
dark-squared bishops, turns out
rather favourable for White as
well.
10 .ie3
Of course! 10 iDbd2 iDxd2 1 1
.ixd2 0-0 1 2 ltadl lte8 1 3 a4 ltb8
14 axb5 axb5 15 .ie3 .ixe3 16
'it'xe3 iDe7 17 c3 c6 18 .ic2 'iib 6 did
not yield White any advantage in
the game Ljubojevic-Larsen (Li
nares 198 1).
0-0
10
The capture on e3 leads to lines
considered below. The other possi
bilities are:
a) 10 iDa5 1 1 iDbd2 .ixe3 12
"xe3 iDxd2 13 iDxd2 0-0 14 ltadl
'it'e7 15 f4 f5 16 iDf3 and White is
slightly better (Lobron-Cladouras,
Germany 1984) .
b) 10 iDe7 1 1 .ixc5 tbxc5 1 2
iDd4 0-0 13 iDd2 iD d 7 14 f4 c 5 15
iDxe6 fxe6 16 c3 'it'b6 1 7 .ic2 iDf5
18 h l again with a slight edge
-
12 c4! (a strong pawn sacrifice

that was introduced by Vassily
In an Antique Shop 39
(N evostruev-Petelin, Vladivostok
1990).
c) 10 'fIe7 1 1 :dl :d8 12
lDbd2 ( 1 2 a4 .ixe3 13 'fIxe3 lDc5
is equal) 12 . . . .ixe3 ( 1 2 . . . lDxd2 13
:xd2 h6 14 :adl yields White a
clear plus, Parma-Korchnoi, Rome
198 1 ) 13 'fIxe3 lDc5 14 c3 .ig4 15
:el 0-0 16 lDd4 lDxd4 1 7 cxd4 lDe6
18 f4 again with a clear plus (Ros
setto-Schweber, Argentina 1970).
d) 10 .i g4 11 :dl ( 1 1 a4 !?)
11 . . . lDe7. Now instead of 1 2 c3 c6
13 .ic2 'fIc7, as in A.Ivanov-Aseev,
USSR 1983, 12 h3! .ih5 13 g4 .ig6
14 lDbd2 was very strong.
1 1 :dl
11 c3 is weaker - see Chapter 6
(9 c3 .ic5 10 'fIe2 etc.).
11 lDbd2 is another natural
move, to which Black has reacted
in different ways:
a) 1 1 :e8?! yields White an
edge after the straightforward 12
lDxe4 dxe4 13 .ixe6 fxe6 (13 . . . exf3
14 iLxf7 + ! ) 14 lDg5 iLxe3 15 'fIxe3
lDxe5 16 :ad l 'fIe7 1 7 lDxe4 (Tal
Korchnoi, Brussels 1987).
b) 11 .ixe3 12 'fIxe3 lDxd2
13 'fIxd2 lDe7 (D) and now:
bl) The attempt to seize dark
squares on the queenside at once
does not succeed: 14 'fIc3 a5 15 a4
b4 16 'fIc5 'fId7 followed by . . . c7-c6
and . . . 'fId7-a7 with an equal posi
tion, as in Lobron-Yusupov, Sara
jevo 1984.
b2) Against 14 'fIe3!?, which
yielded White a small plus after
14 . . . c6 15 c3 'fIc 7 16 a4 (Grigorov
Vukic, Shumen 1988), Yusupov
recommends the continuation

14 . . . lDf5 15 'fIc5 'fIe7 16 'fIc6 :fd8
followed by 17 . . . 'fId7.
b3) White should activate his
bishop with 14 c3 c5 and now not
15 h3 a5 16 :adl b4 17 .ia4 bxc3
18 bxc3 'fIc7 with equal chances
Katowice
(Balashov-Korneev,
1992) , but 15 .ic2, with the idea
of b2-b4, which promises White a
slight edge according to Yusupov.
However, Black has a stronger
reply to l 1 lDbd2 :
c) 1 l lDxd2! 12 'fIxd2 d4 (Black
must avoid the exchange of dark
squared bishops ! ) 13 .ig5 'fId7 14
h3 :fe8 15 :fel iLb4 16 c3 dxc3
1 7 bxc3 'ii'xd2 18 iLxd2 .ia3 19
iLcl iLfB with a good endgame for
Black (Schmid-Korchnoi, Lucerne
1982) . This explains why 1 1 :dl,
taking the d4 square under con
trol, is more accurate.
lDe7
11
Or:
a) 1l lDa5 12 lDbd2 .ixe3 13
'ii'xe3 lDxd2 14 :xd2 c6 15 c3 'fIc7
16 lDd4 with a slight plus (Minic
Honfi, Vrnjaka Banja 1966).
b) 1 l d4!? 12 lZ)c3 ! lZ)xc3 13

bxc3 dxe3 14 l:txd8 exf2 + 15 ..t>f1
ltaxd8 (Antunes-Flear, Pau 1988).
Now instead of 16 'lVe4 White
could have maintained an edge
by means of 16 .ixe6 fxe6 1 7 lZ)g5
(Antunes).
c) 11 .ixe3 12 'lVxe3 lZ)e7 13
lZ)bd2 lZ)f5 14 'lVe2 lZ)xd2 15 'lVxd2
c6 16 a4 'lVb6 1 7 axb5 axb5 18 c3
with a minimal edge for White
(Balashov-Smyslov, Tilburg 1977
illustrative game 13) . 13 c3 fol
lowed by .ic2 was probably even
stronger, by analogy with the fol
lowing game.
12 c3!
strategically complicated and be

cause of this quite playable.
N ow we move on to the main
line of the Keres variation.
Section 2
9 .i.e7
...
( 1 e4 e5 2 lZ)f3 lZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4

.ia4 lZ)f6 5 0-0 lZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 'lVe2)
9
.ie7
...
Preparing both lZ)f3-d4 and

.ib3-c2 , e.g. 12 c6 13 lZ)d4 .i.b6
14 .ic2 'lVc7 15 f3 lZ)c5 16 f4 lZ)e4
17 lZ)d2 lZ)xd2 18 l:txd2 c5 19 lZ)f3
and White was slightly better
(A Sokolov-Korneev, Bad Woris
hofen 1992).
Generally, the lines examined
in this section yield White a mini
mal advantage. However, the posi
tions appearing are little-studied,
10 l:tdl
For 10 c3 see Chapter 7.
10 c4?! is dubious: 10 ... bxc4 1 1
.ia4 .id7 1 2 e6 fxe6 1 3 .i.xc6 .ixc6
14 lZ)e5 ..tb7 15 'lVh5 + g6 16 lZ)xg6
lZ)f6 1 7 'lVh4 l:tg8 18 lZ)e5 d4 and
Black held the advantage (Keres
Bronstein, Moscow 1946) or 1 2
lZ)c3 lZ)c5 13 e 6 fxe6 1 4 .i.xc6 .i.xc6
15 lZ)e5 'lVd6 16 'lVh5 + g6 17 lZ)xg6
hxg6 18 'lVxh8 + ..t>d7 with an in
itiative for Black (Abroshin-Rad
chenko, corr 1954).
Black's most common reply to
10 l:tdl is 10 ... 0-0, which we shall
deal with in the following section.
Here we examine another natural

move.
.!Dc5
10
Preparing to immediately get
rid of White's b3 bishop . Still,
White maintains better chances
due to his lead in development.
1 1 c4!
Consistently following the gen
eral plan. However, there are many
other options :
a) 1 1 c3?! .!Dxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13
.!Dbd2 d4 14 b4 d3 15 'ii'e3 'ii'd5 16
h3 l:tfd8 is favourable for Black
(Abramovic-Agzamov, Belgrade
1982 - illustrative game 14).
b) 11 i.xd5!? i.xd5 12 .!Dc3
(this temporary piece sacrifice
was worked through to almost a
forced draw back in the fifties)
12 i.c4! (not 12 . . ..!Db4? 13 .!Del
'ii'd 7 14 a3 'ii'c 6 15 axb4 i.c4 16
'ii'g4 .!De6 1 7 .!De4 and White was
on top in Kotkov-Gurgenidze,
Tbilisi 1956) 13 l:txdS + l:txdS 14
'ii'e 3 b4 15 b3 i.e6 (15 . . . bxc3 16
i.a3 ! ) 16 .!De4 ( 1 6 .!Da4?! .!Dxa4 17
bxa4 is met by 17 . . . .!Dxe5 ! ! 18 h3 18 'ii'xe5 i.ill - 18 . . . lDc4 19 'ii'e2 h6
and Black stood slightly better
in Eriksson-Altshuler, corr 1968)
16 l:td l + 1 7 .!Del .!Dd4 IS i.b2
(18 i.d2 is bad due to 18 . . . l:txal 19
'ii'xd4 lDxe4 20 'ii'xa1 lDxd2, e.g. 2 1
f3 i.f5! 2 2 f2 0-0 23 e2 l:td8 24
.!Dd3 i.g5 25 g3 i.h6 26 .!Dxb4
i.h3 ! , Harrison-Sasek, corr 1961)
IS lDxc2 19 'ii'e2 ]hal 20 i.xal
.!Dxal 2 1 .!Dxc5 i.xc5 22 lDd3
(this and the following moves are
considered to be practically forced)
22 i.b6 23 lLlxb4 0-0 24 .!Dc6 f6!

25 h4 !xe5! 26 'ii'xe5 :f6 27 .!DdS
.
This endgame position (which

is nothing special for an opening
monograph! ) appeared in Timman
Yusupov (Montpellier 1985) . Now
Suetin recommends 2 7 . . . i.c8, but
Yusupov preferred 27 . . . i.f7 28
lDxf7 xf7 29 'ii'xa1 l:txf2 30 h2
a5 31 'ii'e 5 h6 32 a4 g6 with an un
assailable fortress.
c) 11 .!Dc3 (a logical move re
quiring exact play from Black, be
cause otherwise White's pressure
along the central files can become
unpleasant; this and the following
line often occur when White starts
with 9 i.e3) 1 1 .!Dxb3 12 cxb3
(opening the c-file for the white
rook; 12 axb3 is insipid: 12 . . . 0-0
13 i.e3 .!Db4 14 lDa2 .!Dxa2 15 l:txa2
c5 etc., as in the game Aronin
Keres, USSR championship, Mos
cow 1949) 12 0-0 13 i.e3 (13 i.f4
is not dangerous for Black, e.g .
13 . . . 'ii'd 7 14 l:tac1 l:tad8 15 i.g3
.!Da5 16 .!De4 .!Db7, as in Barczay
Stoica, Moscow 1977, but 13 h3!? is
an interesting alternative. White
tries to win a tempo after 13 . . . 'iVd7
14 .ig5 ! , as in Tatai-Cortlever, Am
sterdam 1970, when Black should
have played 14 . . J!ad8 . Pay atten
tion to this typical way of exchang
ing dark-squared bishops! Only
slightly more accurate for Black
is 13 . . . ll)b8 14 'iVd3?! c6 15 .if4
ll)d7 with good counterplay in the
game Tatai-Ornstein, Le Havre
1977, as 14 ll)d4 was obviously bet
ter, while 13 . . . ll)a5 also fails due
to 14 ll)d4 c5 15 ll)xe6 fxe6 16 'iVg4
'iVc8 1 7 .ih6 1!f7 18 ll)xd5 ! exd5 19
e6, when in Matulovic-Todorovic,
Vrnjaka Banja 1990, White held
a distinct advantage. 13 . . . h6 !? 14
.ie3 'iVd7 is probably the best op
tion for Black) 13 'iVd7 (Black
intends to strengthen his position
in the centre and prepare . . . f7-f6
or . . . d5-d4)
tempo! - 14 . . . 1!ad8 15 1!ac 1 1!fe8

16 .ixe7 1!xe7 17 h3 d4 18 ll)e4
.id5 as in Matulovic-Savon, Skop
je 1968) 14 . . . f6 (just in time, as af
ter 14 . . . 1!ad8 15 1!ad1 1!fe8 16 h3
f6 1 7 ll)xd5 .ixd5 18 1!xd5 'iVxd5
19 1!xd5 1!xd5 20 exf6 .ixf6 2 1
'iVc2 White was slightly better in
A. Sokolov-Marin, Manila 1990)
15 exf6 .ixf6 16 1!ad1 .ixc3 17 bxc3
1!ad8 18 ll)d4 ll)xd4 19 .ixd4 (19
cxd4!?) 19 ... .ig4, and Black has
equalised (Ivkov-Suetin, Yugosla
via-USSR 1963).
d) 11 .ie3. This important po
sition often appears from another
move order: 9 .ie3 ll)c5 10 'iVe2 .ie7
11 1!dl . Black now has two op
tions:
d1) 11 0-0 12 c4 (12 ll)c3 b3
13 cxb3 leads to the 1 1 ll)c3 line)
12 bxc4 13 .ixc4 ll)a5 ! (the only
move since 14 ll)c3 was threat
ened; however, White obtains a
new tactical possibility) 14 .ixd5!
( 14 .ixc5? ! .ixc5 15 .ixa6 f6! 16
ll)c3 fxe5 1 7 .ib5 c6 18 'iVxe5 'iVd7
yielded Black an excellent position
in Krasenkov-Sorokin, Kemerovo
1985) 14 .ixd5 (D)
15 ll)c3 (15 b4 is less dangerous:
15 ... .ixf3 16 gxf3 - or 16 'iVxf3 ll)d 7
1 7 'iVh3 .i.xb4 18 a3 ll)b3 19 1!a2
.i.c5 20 1!xd7 'iVc8 with good coun
terplay in Shevechek-Sapundziev,
corr 1971 - 16 . . ...e8 1 7 .i.xc5 .ixc5
18 bxc5 "c6 equalising according
to Euwe) 15 . . . .ixf3 (15 . . . c6 is insuf
ficient: 16 b4 ll)e6 17 d5 cxd5 18
bxa5 "xa5 19 l1)d4 with a clear ad
vantage in Schmidt-Sydor, Poland
14 1!d2 (Black equalises after

14 1!ac1 1!ad8 15 a3 ll)a5 16 b4
ll)c4 1 7 .ig5 .i.xg5 18 ll)xg5 "fIe7,
as in Shamkovich-Radashkovich,
Netanya 1975, or 14 .i.g5 - losing a
1966) 16 'ikxf3 'ike8 17 b4 lbd7 (not

1 7 . . . lba4? 18 lbd5 ! lbc4 19 lbxc7
'ikb8 20 lbxa8 'ikxa8 2 1 'ikf4, as in
Jansa-Sydor, Bucharest 1971) 18
bxa5 lbxe5 19 'ikf5 lbg6 20 ac1
.ta3 2 1 b1, and White retained a
certain amount of pressure (Hiib
ner-Korchnoi, Solingen 1973).
d2) 11 lbxb3! (this is appar
ently more accurate) 12 axb3 (12
cxb3 ! 0-0 13 lbc3 transposes to the
l 1 lbc3 line ; the text move is less
dangerous) 12 . . . 'ikc8 ( 1 2 . . . 'ikb8 13
lbc3 lbb4 14 .tg5 c5 15 .txe7
<3;xe7 16 lbg5, A. Sokolov-Condie,
Copenhagen 1982, or 12 . . . 0-0 13 c4
lbb4 14 lbc3 c5?! - 14 . . . c6, leading
to the 11 c4 variation, is also bet
ter for White - 15 cxd5 lbxd5 16
'ike1 ! b4 1 7 lbxd5 .txd5 18 d3 ,
Kurajica-Cortlever, Wijk aan Zee
1969, promise White the better
prospects) 13 lbc3 lbb4 14 .tg5
i.xg5 ! (but not 14 . . . h6? ! 15 i.xe7
<3;xe7 16 lbb1 c5 17 c3 lbc6 18 'ike3
with clearly better chances for
White in Matanovic-Rabar, Yugo
slav championship 195 1 ; after
14 . . . c5 15 i.xe7 <3;xe7, instead of
...
16 'ikd2 d8 17 lbe2 .tg4 18 c3

.txf3 19 gxf3 lbc6, Jo.Horvath
Agzamov, Sochi 1985, 16 lbb1 de
served attention; the text move
enables Black to castle) 15 lbxg5
0-0 16 lbce4 h6! 1 7 lbxe6 'ikxe6 18
lbg3 c5 19 f4 f5 , and Black has no
problems, as in the game Novik
Sorokin, USSR championship,
Moscow 199 1 .
Now we return t o the main line
(11 c4).
11
d4 (D)
This move was introduced by
Tolush. 11 lbxb3 12 axb3 lbb4
(inferior is 12 . . 0-0 13 cxd5 .txd5
14 lbc3 .txf3 15 gxf3 'ikc8 16 lbd5
with a clear advantage for White,
Keres-Alatortsev, USSR champi
onship, Moscow 1947) 13 lbc3 c6
14 .te3 0-0 (14 . . . 'ikc8 15 .tg5 !
.txg5 16 lbxg5 0-0 1 7 cxd5 lbxd5
18 'ike4 is also better for White,
according to Shamkovich) is fa
vourable for White : 15 ac1 ( 1 5
lbe4 i s weaker due t o 15 . . . .tg4! 1 6
lbc5 'ikc8 1 7 ac1 f6 18 e6 fe8,
Wedberg-Tukmakov, New York
1988) 15 ... 'ikb8?! (15 . . . h6!?) 16 .tg5!
with a distinct advantage (Keres
Alexander, match USSR-England
1947).
The intention behind 11 . . . d4 is
to push this pawn as far as possi
ble to disturb the co-ordination of
White's pieces. However, this con
cept does not succeed if White plays
accurately.
12 cxb5
12 lbbd2? is poor, e.g. 12 . . . .tf5
13 lbfl b4 14 lbg3 i.g6 and Black
...
...
1 7 bxa6
is already better (Boleslavsky-To

lush, USSR championship, Mos
cow 1950) .
d3
12
12 xb3 13 axb3 (13 bxc6? !
xa1 14 xd4 'ii'c8 is risky for
White, according to Novopashin)
13 . . . axb5 14 l:txa8 'ii'xa8 15 i.g5 !
i.xb3 1 6 l:tc1 i.xg5 1 7 xg5 h6 18
d2 ! (18 f3 0-0 19 'ii'xb5 i.a4 20
'ii'c 5 l:tb8 is less strong, Mecking
Korchnoi, Augusta 1974) 18 . . . hxg5
19 xb3 0-0 20 e6 yielded White
an edge in Am. Rodriguez-Agza
mov (Cienfuegos 1984).
13 'ii'f1 !
13 'ii'e 3 xb3 14 axb3 b4 15
d4 is refuted by 15 ... i.g4! (Gross
Euwe, Berlin 1950).
b3
13
13 i.xb3 14 axb3 b4 15 i.d2!
c2 ( 1 5 . . . xb3 16 i.xb4) 16 l:ta5
(Boleslavsky) or 13 d4 14 liJxd4
'ii'xd4 1 5 i.xe6 fxe6 16 i.e3 ! 'ii'xe5
1 7 d2 (Korchnoi) promise White
better chances.
b4
14 axb3
e2
15 i.d2
lha6
16 lha6
i.xb3
18 i. g5!
18 i. e3 i.c4 19 bd2 xa6 20
b3 0-0 21 c4 'ii'b 8 is fine for
Black (Am. Rodriguez-Yusupov,
Toluca 1982).
The text move (recommended by
Henrique Mecking) is much more
dangerous . In the game Green
feld-Pyernik (Israel 1983) Black
failed to equalise after 18 . . . i.c4 19
i.xe7 'ii'xe7 20 a7 0-0 21 bd2 i.a6
22 b3 l .
This explains why 1 0 . . . 0-0 i s a
more common reply to the Keres
variation.
Section 3 .
1 0. . .0-0 Ekstrom variation
( 1 e4 e5 2 f3 e6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.a4 f6 5 0-0 xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 'ii'e2 i. e7
10 l:tdl )
0-0
10
Development is the top prior
ity!
1 1 e4
1 1 c3 leads to a harmless line

from Chapter 7. 1 1 .ie3 is also too
slow, for example 1l . . ll)a5 12 ll)d4
.
c5 13 ll)xe6 fxe6 14 c3 ll)xb3 15

axb3 'i'e8 16 ll)a3 'i'g6 1 7 f3 ll)g5
18 ..ti>h l ll)f7 with equality (Ciric
Zuidema, Amsterdam 1967) .
11
12 .ixc4
bxc4
Black's d5 pawn is now out of

direct danger as White's knight
can be exchanged when it appears
on c3. However, the pin along the
d-file somewhat restricts Black's
active possibilities.
12
'i'd7
Another important continuation

( 12 . . . .ic5) will be examined sepa
rately (Section 4). The other pos
sibilities are inferior, for example
12 ... ll)a5?! 13 i.d3 ll)c5 14 i.c2
ll)c6 15 a3 with a clear advantage
(Vogt-Troianescu, Lublin 1970) or
12."dxc4?! 13 lhd8 l:1fxd8 14 tlXa
( 14 h3 !? was suggested by Boles
lavsky) 14 . . . ll)xc3 15 bxc3 h6 16
i.f4 l:1d3 15 ll)el l:1d5 16 l:1d l, and
here Black's compensation for the
material is insufficient (Augustin

Petras, COIT 1968).
12 ... 'i'd7 was introduced into
practice by the Swedish 1M F.Ek
strom.
13 3
Both of Black's pawns are ined
ible: 13 .ixa6? ll)c5 1 4 .i.b5 ll)b3
or 13 .ixd5? i.xd5 14 'i'xe4 .ixe4
15 l:1xd7 l:1fd8, etc. (Ekstrom) . 13
.ib3 ll)c5 and 1 3 a3 ll)a5 1 4 .ia2
c 5 15 ll)bd2 'i'b 7 (Larsen) are
quite poor, too.
ll)xc3
13 ...
f6
14 bxc3
14 ...l:1fd8 was tried in the game
S chriifer-Wis skirch en (Germany
1984) , but after 15 i.xa6 i.g4 16
.id3 'i'e6 1 7 .if4 i.xf3 18 'i'xf3
ll)xe5 19 i.xh 7 + ..ti>xh7 20 'i'h5 +
..ti>g8 2 1 'i'xe5 White finally man
aged to realise his extra pawn.
14".ll)a5 is equally insufficient,
for example 15 i.d3 ( 1 5 .ixa6 is
les s dangerous due to 15 . . . i.g4! 16
i.d3 ll)b3, as suggested by Kotkov)
15 . . . c5 ( 1 5 . . . f6 16 c4 is clearly fa
vourable for White - Hecht) 16
i.g5 ! (or 16 h3 l:1fd8 16 ll)g5 and
again White is better, Ghizdavu
Nacht, Romania 1970) 16 . . . i.xg5
1 7 ll)xg5 h6 18 ll)xe6 fxe6 19 i.c2,
preparing 'i'e2-d3 with an edge
for White (Kotkov).
15 exf6
15 .ixa6 ll)xe5 16 ll)d4 i.g4 1 7
f3 i. h 5 is obviously comfortable
for Black (Messere-Eriksson, COIT
1965).
.bf6
15 .. .
16 ll)g5 !
The most dangerous reply se
curing White the advantage of a
pair of bishops. The other possi
bilities are harmless:
a) 16 'iVxe6 + ?! 'iVxe6 17 .txd5
'ilt'xd5 18 l:txd5 .txc3 19 l:tb1 ttJb4
20 l:tc5 ttJxa2 2 1 'it>f1 l:tfb8 and
Black's position was slightly bet
ter in Kr. Georgiev-Ekstrom, Ber
lin 1988.
b) 16 .tg5
. a a a
a _iVa _ .
. aa.t..
a
aiLa
a
a .lD.
a
"
a'iV
.
d:.
d
This move looks formidable,

but Black can obtain good counter
play by a typical regrouping ma
noeuvre : 16 . . . 'it>h8 ! (16 . . . ttJa5? 1 7
'ilt'xe6 + 'iVxe6 18 .txd5 'iVxd5?! 1 9
l:txd5 .txc3 2 0 l:tc1, Fischer-Ree,
N etanya 1968 illustrative game
15 16 . . . 'iVd6? 17 'iVxe6 + 'iVxe6 18
i.xd5 'ilt'xd5 19 l:txd5 i.xc3 20 l:tc1 ,
Zhidkov-Yuferov, USSR 1974, and
16 . . . l:tae8? 1 7 .txf6 l:txffi 18 i.xd5
.txd5 19 l:txd5, Grefe-Estrin, Al
bena 1974, are all inferior, while
16 . . . .txc3 1 7 l:tac1 .tf6 18 .txf6
l:txf6 19 ttJg5 ttJe7 20 l:te1 dxc4 2 1
ttJxe6 also allows White an initia
tive, according to Euwe) 17 .txf6
-
(17 'iVe3 ttJa5 18 .tb3 .txg5 19

ttJxg5 .tg8 is also unclear, accord
ing to Szmetan) 17 . . . l:txf6 18 ttJg5
( 1 8 l:td2? is met by 18 . . . l:txf3 ! 19
gxf3 'ilt'f7 20 l:te1 .th3 with a dan
gerous attack, Young-G. Garcia,
New York 1989) 18 . . . .tg8 (18 . . . ttJa5
is also possible, e.g. 19 .txa6 .tg4
20 f3 l:tfxa6 2 1 fxg4 h6 22 ttJf3
ttJb3, Sigurjonsson-F.Olafsson, Ge
neva 1977, or 19 'iVd3 .tg8 20 ttJe4
.tg6 with equal chances according
to Korchnoi) 19 .txa6 (or 19 .txd5
.txd5 20 c4 i.xc4 2 1 'iVxc4 'iVf5 2 2
ttJf3 ttJe5 with equality, Morovic
Fernandez-Milos, Buenos Aires
1992 ; after 19 . . . l:te8 20 1M2 ttJe5
2 1 .te2 l:tef8 22 f3 l:tg6 23 'it>h1
h6 24 ttJh3 l:tgf6 Black obtained a
sufficient initiative for the sacri
ficed pawn (Laisaari-Iversen, corr
1980) .
.txg5
16
h6
17 .txg5
17 l:tae8 18 'ilt'd2 ttJe5 19 .txd5
.txd5 20 'iVxd5 + 'ilt'xd5 21 l:txd5
l:tf5 22 l:td8 yielded White an edge
in the game Geller-Larsen (Co
penhagen 1966) .
ttJe5
18 .te3
Centralisation! 18 'ilt'd6 leads
to transposition of moves after 19
.tb3 ttJe5, but 19 .txa6? (instead
of 19 i.b3) is bad due to 19 . . . ttJe5
20 .td3 i.g4 21 f3 ttJxf3 + ! and so
on.
19 i.b3
'iVd6 (D)
The critical position of the Ek
strom variation. Does the activity
of Black's pieces compensate for
White's bishop pair?
..
...
The text move leads to a dou

ble-edged position after 23 'ii'd2
tZ)ffi 24 lIh4 lIa 7 (Korchnoi) . Black
seems to have sufficient counter
play.
Section 4
Main line with 1 2 .i.c5
...
20 lId4!
Black's rooks are very active on
the e- and f-files, so White tries to
exchange one pair of rooks.
20 b3 lIae8 2 1 'ii'h 5 .i.f7 22 'ii'h4
c5 23 'ii'g3 c4 24 i.c2 .i.h5 yielded
Black good counter-chances in Iv
kov-Addison, Maribor 1967.
c5
20
tZ)d7
21 lIf4
For 2 1 ..ti>bS?! 22 lId 1 tZ)d7 see
below. Instead 2 1 . g5 22 lIxfB +
lIxfB 23 f3 .i.f5 24 lIdl! c4 25 i.xc4
tZ)xc4 26 'ii'xc4 'ii'x h2 + 2 7 ..ti>xh2
dxc4 yields White a slightly better
endgame (Sydor) .
22 lIdl
Or 22 lIel .i.f7 23 lIdl tZ)f6 24
i.c2 lIac8 25 'ii'd3 lIfe8 26 lIa4 lIc6
with an equal game (Jansa-Mar
tens, Gothenburg 1968).
'ii'c6
22
Now 22 ..ti>bS is useless. Both
23 'ii'd 2 tZ)f6 24 lIh4 lIa 7 25 .i.f4
'ii'd8 26 .i.e5 ( Sevei:ek-Karker, corr
1968) and 23 'ii'f3 tZ)f6 24 c4 lIac8
25 cxd5 i.g8 26 i.c4 (Schmid
Kritinsson, Siegen 1970) are un
pleasant for Black.
( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .i.b5 a6 4

i.a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.i.b3 d5 S dxe5 .i.e6 9 'ii'e2 .i.e7
10 lIdl 0-0 1 1 c4 bxc4 12 .i.xc4)
12
.i.c5
.i.xe3
13 .i.e3
14 'ii'xe3
'ii'bs
By means of this manoeuvre

Black gets rid of the unpleasant
pin, and this is considered his most
solid retort to the Keres variation.
Incidentally, 14 tZ)b4 is prema
ture, e.g. 15 .i.b3 c5 16 tZ)c3 c4 1 7
tZ)xe4 cxb3 1 8 'ii'xb3 , and White
wins a pawn (van Scheltinga-Cua
drado, corr 1950).
tZ)a5
15 .i.b3
The idea of swapping the 'Span
ish' bishop now works perfectly!
Besides this move, Black has the
following possibilities:
a) 15 'iVa7!? 16 'iVxa7 &iJxa7
(16 . . . lha7 is risky due to 17 xd5,
e.g. 17 ... xd5 18 lhd5 b4 19 l:td4
c2 20 lhe4 xal 2 1 lDa3 l:tb7 22
l:tel l:txb2 23 l:txal l:td8 24 h3) 1 7
bd2 ( 1 7 xd5? l:tad8) 17 . . . c5
18 c2 l:tab8 with counterplay for
Black (Turner-Mohrmann, Krum
bach 1991) .
b) 15 e 7!? 16 c3 xc3 17
'iVxc3 a5 18 :acl (18 'iVc5!?) 18 . . . a4
19 c2 'iVb6 20 l:td4 with a slight
plus for White (Winterstein-Wag
man, Forli 1991).
These two lines require further
examination.
c) 15 'iVb6 16 'iVe2 (exchanging
queens is quite pleasant for Black:
after 16 'iVxb6 cxb6 1 7 a3 l:tfd8
18 c2 a5 neither 19 cd4 c4
20 llabl lIac8 2 1 h3 h6 22 l:tel
c5 , Ivanovic-Timman, Belgrade
1987, nor 19 b4 c4 20 xc4
dxc4 2 1 xa6 lIxd l + 22 lIxdl h6
23 b4 l:ta4 24 a3 c3, Tukmakov
Korchnoi, USSR championship,
Moscow 1973 yields White a plus)
16 . . . lIad8 1 7 c3 xc3 18 bxc3
'iVc5 (or 18 . . . e7 19 lIabl 'iVa5 20
c4 dxc4 21 xc4 with a slight edge
for White in Vogt-Strobel, Vraca
1975) 19 h3 i.. c 8 20 'iVd3 lIfe8 2 1
lIel g6 2 2 lIadl (Hubner-Korch
noi, Solingen 1973) . Now, accord
ing to Suetin, Black should have
played 22 . . . e7, when White's
edge is minimal.
Coming back to 15 . . . 5.
16 lLIel
White threatens 17 f3 and pre

pares el-d3 . Another possibility
is 16 bd2. Now both 16 liJx:d2
17 l:txd2 xb3 18 axb3 lIc8 19 l:tcl
c5 20 lhc5 lhc5 21 'iVxc5 'iVxb3 22
d4 (Keres-Euwe, World champi
onship, HaguelMoscow 1948) and
16 'iVb6 17 'iVxb6 cxb6 18 d4
c5 19 c2 c4 20 b4 (Wegner
Hegeler, Hamburg 1988) yield
White an edge. Black should play
16 'iVa7! (to exchange queens see the introduction! - without
isolating his d5 pawn) with the
following possibilities:
a) 17 lIac l 'iVxe3 18 fxe3 c5

with equality (Kr.Georgiev-Lalic,
Berlin 1988).
b) 1 7 liJx:e4 'iVxe3 18 fxe3 b3
19 axb3 dxe4 20 d4 :tb8 21 lIdcl
(2 1 lIa3 c5 ! 22 xe6 fxe6 23 lId6
f7 with equality) 2 1 . . .i.. xb3 22
lIxc7 e6 23 lIdl lIb6 24 b4 h6,
equalising in Tal-Sturua, Erevan
1982.
c) 17 'iVxa7 lIxa7 18 lIacl (18
lLIxe4 xb3 19 axb3 dxe4 20 4
c5 is equal, Chekhov) 18 . . . c5 19
xe4 xb3 20 axb3 dxe4 2 1 d2

e3! 22 fxe3 ltb7 23 e4 ltxb3 24
xc5 ltxe3 with balanced chances
(Matanovic-Korchnoi,Yugoslavia
USSR 1966).
d} 17 d4 xd2 18 'ii'x d2 (18
ltxd2 c5 19 f3 xb3 20 'ii'xb3
ltab8 2 1 'ii'a3 ltb5, with equality
Ivanovic-Beckemeyer, Berlin 1988)
18 . . . 'ii'b 6 19 i.c2 c5 (19 . . . 4!? 20
'ii'e 2 c5 was suggested by Geller)
20 f5 i.xf5 2 1 .ixf5 ltad8, again
with equal chances, Kavalek-Kar
pov, Montreal 1979 illustrative
game 1 6.
b3
16
16 'ii'b6 1 7 'ii'xb6 cxb6 is pos
sible as well, for example 18 f3 (18
i.c2?! c4 19 f3 c5 20 b4 d 7
2 1 f4 ltac8 and Black had the ad
vantage in the game Lenz-Kolev,
Vienna 1990) 18 . . . xb3 19 axb3
c5 20 b4 d7 2 1 d3 (Karpov
Korchnoi, World Championship
match, Baguio 1978) . Now either
2 1 . . .a5 (Smyslov) or 2 1 . . . .if5 (Sue
tin) would have lead to equality.
f5
17 axb3
First of all, to prevent 18 f3
(18 . . . f4!).
18 ex:f6
18 d 3? is poor due to 18 . . . d4!
19 'ii'xd4 ltd8 20 'ii'e3 'ii'b 6 2 1 lta3
ltd4, and Black seizes the initia

tive (Ude-Kuuskmaa, corr 1978) .
If 18 d2 then 18 . . . c5.
lbf6
18
d6
19 f3
20 d2
lth6
Black's pieces are now well

placed, and his counterplay is suf
ficient, e.g. 2 1 ltdcl c5 ! 22 M c4
(Sakharov-Oim, corr 1977), or 2 1
1 i. d7 2 2 d3 f5 2 3 'ii'c 5 'iWb6
with equal chances (Kuuskmaa),
or 21 d3 (Oechslein-Lanka, corr
1986) 2 1 . . .c5! etc.
We have now completed our ex
amination of the Keres variation.
It seems Black has nothing to fear
from it. But will our conclusions
stand the test if the system be
comes popular again?
With German i c Consistency
( 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i. a4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6)
9 c3
The great diversity of lines ex
amined in the first four chapters
is nothing compared to the jungle
we are entering now. The simple
text move clears the way of retreat
for the 'Spanish' bishop and takes
the central d4 square under con
trol so that the positional threat
lbf3-d4 becomes concrete.
Black has an extensive choice of
plans. He can directly start to re
group his pieces (9 . . . lbc5 followed
by . . . i.e6-g4) or prefer develop
ment, either aggressive (9 i.c5)
or reserved (9 i.e7) . In this chap
ter we deal with the first of these
plans.
9 g6?! looks too slow. After 10
lbbd2 (10 a4 i.g7 11 axb5 lbxe5 12
lbxe5 i.xe5 13 lbd2 is double
edged, Karasev-Shamkovich, USSR
1968) 10 . . . lbc5 ( 10 . . . lbxd2 !?) we
reach a position from a game be
tween Karpov and Korchnoi that
is favourable for White (see Chap
ter 3).
9
lbc5 (D)
This idea of regrouping pieces
goes back to the beginning of the
century and suited the taste of
the German international mas
ters H. Lehmann and R. Teschner.
Its clarity and logic are indeed
.
..
...
a
.
..
;;;.. . ...' ?
1fiJ
;
' ;.
..
_ . _
' _ _.i._ _
,.
,. . "
"
_
"
.
W
- - - .i.. _ltJ.
"
"
.
.
"
"
"
ltJ'tW_ :
quite 'Germanic' . A result of their

research 9 . . . lbc5 is often called 'the
Berlin variation'.
At the end of the seventies, the
Berlin variation started to come
into its own, when a solid retort to
the Karpov system (9 lbbd2 lbc5
10 c3 - see Chapter 3) was being
searched for. A lot of players be
gan to investigate the manoeuvre
10 . . . i.g4, which leads to the Ber
lin variation after 11 i.c2 . So, as
long as the Karpov system is in
fashion, the Berlin variation is
sure to remain topical!
It turns out that it is not so
easy for White to take advantage
of Black's delay in development
since the position remains quite
closed, and Black's pieces are suf
ficiently active. Therefore White
usually exploits his extra tempi
for activating his pieces, espe
cially his queen's knight (lbb1-d2fl-g3 or e3 or else lbb1-d2-b3) .
With Germanic Consistency 51
Black should consider the break

through in the centre (. . . d5-d4 or
. . . f7-f6) and the transfer . . . i.g4h5-g6 . The strategically complex
positions which usually arise are
quite suited to a positional style of
player. However, the Berlin vari
ation has a certain defect: it is
somewhat passive and gives White
greater board room.
If White plays 9 c3 , Black can
start with 9 . . . i.e7 and transpose
to the Berlin variation after 10
lDbd2 (10 . . . lDc5 11 i.c2 i.g4) to
eliminate some side lines. How
ever, he gains nothing this way as
White has many possibilities be
sides 10 lDbd2 (see Chapter 7), so
9 . . . lDc5 is the best way of reaching
the desired position.
Section 1
Step by step (deviations)
In this section we examine differ
ent ways for both sides.
10 i.c2
10 lDbd2 yields Black a wider
choice of possibilities (see Chap
ter 3). Other moves are not dan
gerous :
a) 10 lDg5 lDxb3 l 1 lDxe6?! ( 1 1
axb3!?) 1 1 . . . fxe6 1 2 axb3 'lVh4 13
lDd2? lDxe5 14 'ii'e 2 i.d6 15 f4 'lVg4
and Black was clearly better (Pil
nik-Szabo, Mar del Plata 1948).
b) 10 :el lDxb3 11 axb3 i.e7
12 b4 0-0 13 lDd4 lDxd4 14 'lVxd4
a5 ! with a slight edge (Goldenov
Makogonov, USSR champion
ship, Leningrad 1947).
c) 10 i.g5 'lVd7 11 i.c2 (also not

dangerous for Black is l 1 lDa3 b4
12 lDc2 bxc3 13 bxc3 lDa5 14 lDcd4
lDaxb3 15 axb3 h6 16 i.h4 g5 1 7
i.g3 i.g7, a s i n Schmittdiel-Flear,
Luxembourg 1988, or l 1 lDbd2 h6
12 i.h4 lDd3 13 'ii'e2 lDxb2 14 a4,
Mortensen-Pokojowczyk, Malta
1980, and now 14 . . .:b8, gives Black
an excellent game) 1 1 . . . i.g4 (or
11 . . . h6 12 i..h4 g5 13 i.g3 i.. g4! 14
h3 i.h5 15 lDbd2 i.g7 16 'lVbl 0-0
with an unclear position, Byrne
Wedberg, New York 1987) 12 :el
lDe6 13 i.h4 i..e 7 14 i.xe7 lDxe7
14 lDbd2 :d8 with equal chances
(Aronin-Smyslov, USSR champi
onship, Leningrad 1947).
d) 10 lDd4. A typical pawn sac
rifice. In this position, however,
Black manages to maintain good
counter-chances after 10 lDxe 5
(1O . . . lDxd4 1 1 cxd4 lDxb3 12 'lVxb3
c5 is insufficient due to 13 dxc5
i.xc5 14 'lVg3!, for example 14 ...'lVc7
15 lDd2 ! 0-0 16 lDb3 i..b 6 1 7 i.e3
:ac8 18 :adl with a slight edge,
Ivkov-Lehmann, Yugoslavia-West
Germany 1954) 1 1 f4 ( 1 1 'lVe2?!
lDc4 12 i.c2 'lVf6 13 a4 bxa4 14
:el i.. d 6 15 'lVh5 g6 16 'ii'h 6 i.. f8
1 7 'lVh3 i..e 7 yielded Black an edge
in the game Tal-Ree, Wijk aan Zee
1968) (D)
1 1 . . . lDed3 (but not 1 1 . . .lDc4 in
view of 12 f5 i..d 7 13 'lVh5! lDe4 14
lDd2 ! lDf6 15 'lVg5 , e.g. 15 . . . i..e 7 16
'lVxg7 :gs 17 'ii'h6 c5 18 lD4f3 i..xf5
19 lDh4 with a strong attack for
White in the game M.Mukhin-Ru
derfer, USSR 1972) 12 f5 i..c 8 13
52 With Germanic Consistency
i.. c 2 ( 1 3 lbc6! ? 'lVd6 14 'lVe2 + d7

1 5 lbd4 leads to an double-edged
position, according to Korchnoi)
13 . . . lbxc 1 14 lIe1 + lbe4 15 i..xe4
dxe4 16 lIxe4 + i.. e 7 17 f6 gxf6 18
'lVxc 1 i..b 7 19 lIe2 'lVd5 with good
counter-chances for Black (Hatt
lebakk-Petterson, Ybbs 1968).
i.. g4
10
1 1 lbbd2
White begins his general plan
(lIfl-e1, lbd2-fl or b3 etc. ) . Natu
rally, he can first play 1 1 lIel .
Other plans are harmless:
a) 11 h3. This is somewhat pre
mature. White just helps Black's
bishop to reach the g6 square and
restricts his own possibilities. Gen
erally, Black must almost always
reply . . . i..g4-h5 to h2-h3 ; so White
should look for the most favour
able moment for this inclusion.
1 1 i..h S. Now White has no way
in which to cause Black any prob
lems:
al) 12 'lVe2 'YWd7 13 lId1 lId8 14
b4 lbe6 15 a4 i..e 7 16 axb5 axb5
1 7 i.. d 3 i..xf3 18 gxf3 i.. g5 when
Black holds a slight advantage
...
(Klovan-Ruderfer, USSR 1970) or

13 i.. f4 i.. e 7 14 lId1 0-0 15 lbbd2
lIadB 16 lbb3 lbe6 17 'lVe3?! to and
Black is clearly better (Lyavdan
sky-Bukhman, Leningrad 1969).
a2) 12 b4 lbe6 13 i..b 3 d4 14 g4
i..g6 15 a3 h5 16 lIe1 hxg4 17 hxg4
i.. e 7 with an initiative for Black,
as in the game Westerinen-Ujtu
men, Lugano 1968.
a3) 12 lbbd2 i.. e 7 - see 1 1
lbbd2.
a4) 12 i.. f4 i.. e 7 (12 . . . d4! ? was
suggested by Korchnoi) 13 lbbd2
d4 ! 14 lbe4 d3 15 lbxc5 dxc2 16
'lVxd8 + lbxd8 (Pilnik-Spassky, Am
sterdam 1956). Now instead of 1 7
i..e3? lbc6 when Black was on top,
White should have played 1 7 lbb3
lbe6 with an unclear position
(Korchnoi) .
b) 1 1 'lVe2. The arrangement
of pieces 'according to the Keres
variation' does not really fit in
with the idea of c2 -c3 and i.. b 3c2 . Black's d5 pawn can easily be
protected. Besides, Black can try
to make use of the pin along the
d1-h5 diagonal: 1 1 . . .'lVd7 ( 1 1 . . . i..e 7
12 lId1 0-0 is less exact, e.g. 13
lDbd2 'lVd7 14 lbfl lIad8 15 .!De3
lDxe5 16 lIxd5 i..xf3 17 gxf3 'lVe6
18 i.. f5 'lVf6 19 lDg4 and White
was slightly better, Shamkovich
McLaughlin, Chicago 1988) 12
lId1 lId8 13 lbbd2 (or 13 b4 .!De6
14 a4 i.. e 7 15 axb5 axb5 16 i.. d 3
i.. xf3 17 gxf3 i..g5 ! 18 i..xb5 i.. xc1
19 lIxc1 0-0 with good counter
play for Black, Liberzon-Y.Gure
vich, USSR 1964) 13 . . . i..e 7 14 lbfl
d4! 15 .!Dg3 d3 16 "e3 .ixf3 1 7

gxf3 "e6 with equality (Shamko
vich-Radashkovich, Israel 1974).
c) l l l:tel
Now Black has a choice:

c1) 1 l g6 12 .!Dbd2 .ig7 13 h3
with a clear advantage (Simagin
Makogonov, USSR champion
ship, Leningrad 1947).
c2) 1 1 lbe6 12 a4 .!Da5 13 axb5
axb5 14 "d3 c6 15 .!Dd4 and again
White is clearly better (Bronstein
Alatortsev, USSR championship,
Leningrad 1947).
c3) 1 1 "d7 12 .!Dbd2 (also 12
i.e3 !? deserves attention, for ex
ample 12 . . . .!De6 13 .ib3 l:td8 14
.!Dbd2 .ie7 15 "bl .!Da5 16 .!Dd4
with a slight edge in Agzamov-Ru
derfer, USSR 1974) . After the text
move both 12 .ihS 13 .!Db3 .!De6
14 .if5 .ig6 (Levenfish-Alatortsev,
USSR championship, Leningrad
1947) 15 g4 and 12 d4 13 .!De4
.!Dxe4 14 .ixe4 dxc3 15 "c2 ! (Sue
tin) are unsatisfactory for Black.
12 l:td8 13 .!Db3 ! is also unfavour
able (see below) . Instead, Black
should transpose to the main line

by means of 12 .ie7!.
c4) 1 1 d4. This break looks
clearly premature. However, it re
quires precise play by White to
demonstrate this: 1 2 h3 .ih5 13
e6! (13 .ig5? does not work due to
13 . . ...xg5 14 .!Dxg5 .ixd1 15 .ixdl
.!Dd3 16 .if3 O-O-O! 1 7 .ixc6 lbxel
18 .!Dxf7 .!Dc2 , Vasiukov-Kliavins,
USSR 1956; while 13 .if4 d3 14
.ib3 .!Dxb3 1 5 axb3 .ie7 is com
fortable for Black, as in the game
Matanovic-Teschner, Oberhausen
1961) 13 . . . fxe6 (13 . . . lbxe6 is worse
due to 14 i.e4! ..d7 15 cxd4 0-0-0
16 i.xc6 "xc6 1 7 .!De5 with a dis
tinct edge, Gutkin-Kliavins, USSR
1968) 14 cxd4 .ixf3 15 "xf3 .!Dxd4
16 'ii'h 5 + g6 17 .ixg6 + hxg6 18
"xh8 .!Dc2 19 .ih6 with a slight
advantage (Unzicker-Lehmann,
Berlin 1953).
c5) 1 1 .ie7 12 h3 (neither 12
.ie3 .!De6 13 .ib3 .!Dxe5 14 "xd5
"xd5 15 .ixd5 .ixf3 16 .ixf3
.!Dxf3 + 1 7 gxf3 f5, Tseshkovsky
Tal, USSR championship, Tbilisi
1978, nor 14 i.xd5 c6 15 .!Dxe5
.ixd1 16 .ixc6 + 'it>fB 17 .!Dd7 + ..to>g8
18 l:txdl .ig5, Shmit-Kliavins, Riga
1969, nor 12 .if4 0-0 13 .!Dbd2
.!De6 14 .ig3 h5!? 15 h3 h4 16 .ih2
.ih5, Scholz-Mephisto Almeria,
Porz 1989, create any problems
for Black) 12 .ihS 13 b4 (13 .if4
is harmless, e.g. 13 . . ...d7 14 .!Dbd2
0-0 15 "bl .ig6 16 .!Dd4 .ixc2 1 7
"xc2 .!De6, Chan Peng Kong-Torre,
Jakarta 1987) 13 .!De6 14 a4 (this
typical attack looks somewhat

premature here) 14 :b8 15 axb5
axb5 16 :a6 (a rook intrusion
without enough support) 16 "d7
Black has good counter-chances

here : 1 7 tZ)bd2 ( 1 7 tZ)a3 tZ)cd8? ! 18
.if5 0-0 19 tZ)c2 .ig6 20 tZ)fd4 :e8,
Kupreichik-Haba, Prague 1990,
would yield White a slight edge
after 2 1 g4 ; but 1 7 . . . 0-0, not fear
ing 18 tZ)xb5 in view of 18 . . . tZ)xb4! ,
was better, according t o Haba)
17 . . . 0-0 (or 17 . . . tZ)g5 18 "e2 0-0 19
.id3 tZ)d8 20 'lVe3 tZ)de6 21 tZ)d4
tZ)xd4 22 cxd4 f5 with unclear com
plications in Beliavsky-Dorfman,
USSR championship, Tbilisi 1978)
18 tZ)1 :a8 19 :xa8 :xa8 20 .id3
:b8 21 tZ)g3 i.g6 22 tZ)f5 d4 with
an equal position (Short-Yusupov,
Reykjavik 1990).
As has been already said, White
can (and probably should) prefer
12 tZ)bd2, transposing to the main
plan.
11
.ie7
There have been some cunning
attempts to do without this natu
ral move:
a) 1 1 tZ)e6 ( 1 l . . . d4? ! is clearly

premature due to 12 tZ)b3 ! d3 13
.ibl) 12 :e l .ic5 and now:
al) 13 tZ)f1 .ih5 14 tZ)g3 .ig6 15
.ib3! tZ)e7 16 h4 h6 17 h5 .ih7 18
tZ)d4 ! .ixd4 ( 18 . . ...d7!? was sug
gested by Kovalev) 19 cxd4 0-0 20
'lVg4 'at>h8 2 1 .ie3 "d7, preparing
. . . c7 -c5 with counterplay (Kovalev
Kaidanov, Blagoveschensk 1988) .
a2) 13 tZ)b3 .ia7 ( 13 . . . .ib6 14
a4) 14 .ie3 ( 14 a4 !?) 14 . . . .ixe3 15
:xe3 tZ)e7 16 h3 .if5 17 tZ)fd4 .ixc2
18 'lVxc2 0-0 19 :1 with a slight
advantage (Wahls-Rhodin, Ham
burg 1987). 16 . . . .ih5 was clearly
better, however.
a3) 13 a4!? tZ)e7 ( 13 . . . :b8!?) 14
tZ)b3 .ib6 (14 . . . i.a7!?) 15 axb5 axb5
16 :xa8 'lVxa8 17 'lVd3! c6 18 tZ)fd4
'lVc8 19 'lVg3! tZ)xd4 20 tZ)xd4 i.xd4
2 1 cxd4 with a strong attack for
White (Am . Rodriguez-Sorin, Ma
tanzas 1993 ).
The whole plan with . . . .ifB-c5
does not really look appropriate.
The activity of this bishop does
not fit in with the rest of Black's
pieces.
b) 11 .....d7 12 :el :d8 (D)
Pay attention to this typical ma
noeuvre by Black. You should be
very careful with it because the d8
square may prove useful for the
c6 knight! That's why 12 . . . :d8 is
somewhat premature here. White
is now presented with a typical di
lemma: which route should his
knight take? tZ)d2-b3 is usually
connected with queenside activity
(a2-a4, "dl-d3, tZ)f3-d4) , while if
the knight goes to f1 moving to

wards f5, then White looks to the
kingside, which is often more at
tractive for him . . . but not in this
position!
b1) 13 lDn d4! . This is now very
opportune! 13 . . . i.h5 is worse, e.g.
14 lDg3 i.g6 15 lDd4 lDe6 16 .i.e3
lDcxd4 17 cxd4 i.b4 18 lle2 c5 19
lDf5 0-0 20 a3 cxd4 2 1 lDxd4 with
a clear pull (Kotronias-I.Sokolov,
Dortmund 1989). 14 h3 i.h5 15
lDg3 i.g6 16 i.xg6 (or 16 cxd4
lDxd4 1 7 lDxd4 'ii'xd4 18 'ii'xd4
llxd4 19 i.e3 11d7 20 lDf5 lDd3 2 1
i.xd3 llxd3 2 2 g4 h 5 with equality,
Shulman-Sagalchik, USSR 1988)
16 . . . hxg6 17 cxd4 lDxd4 18 i.g5
i.e7 19 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 20 lDxd4 lDe6
2 1 lDge2 c5 recapturing the piece
and solving all his problems (Kve
inys-Sagalchik, Minsk 1988);
b2) 13 lDb3! Why is this better
than 13 lDf1? First, White needs
to prevent . . . d5-d4. Second, the
departure of Black's rook prompts
White to turn his attention to the
queenside (a2-a4 etc . ) . Last (but
not least), after 13 . . . lDe6 White
has a typical plan: h2-h3 . . . i.g4h5, then i.c2-f5 and lDb3-d4 pres
surising Black's e6 knight, which
Black cannot support by . . . lDc6d8 ! . 13 . . . lDe6 ( 1 3 . . . i.e7 14 lDxc5
i.xc5 15 a4 is obviously not good
for Black) 14 a4 (as has already
been said, White can also play 14
h3 .i.h5 15 i.f5 , e.g. 15 . . . i.e7 16
lDbd4 0-0 17 i.xh 7 + 'it>xh 7 18
lDg5 + i.xg5 19 'ii'x h5 + i.h6 20
lDf5 with a strong attack, as in
V.lvanov-Sagalchik, Kramatorsk
1989) 14 . . . i.e7 15 axb5 axb5 16
'ii'd 3! llb8? ! 17 lDfd4 lDcxd4 18
cxd4! c5 19 'ii'g3 i.h5 20 lDxc5
i.xc5 2 1 dxc5 with a distinct in
itiative (Am. Rodriguez-Kharito
nov, Bayamo 1989). According to
Am. Rodriguez , even after the su
perior 16 . . . i.h5 17 'ii'xb5 i.xf3 18
gxf3 lDxe5 19 'ii'x d7 lDxd7 White
maintains a plus in the endgame.
Now we come back to 1l . . . i.e7.

Jl.e7 1 7 1Iad l c6 with an equal po
sition (Kestler-Hort, Baden-Baden
198 1).
b) 12 "e2 ..d7 13 lIel 0-0 14
lDb3 lDe6 15 h3 .ih5 16 g4 .ig6 1 7
Jl.f5 lDcd8 18 Jl.e3 lDb7 ! 19 h 4 c5
with sufficient counterplay for
Black CY.Griinfeld-Korchnoi, Brus
sels 1986) . Pay attention to this
typical manoeuvre!
c) 12 "el 0-0 13 lDd4 lDxd4
( 14 . . . lDxe5?! , with the idea of 14
"xe5 Jl.d6 15 "e3 lIe8, is refuted
by 14 h3! lDed3 15 Jl.xd3 lDxd3 16
"e3 lDxc l 17 hxg4 .ig5 18 f4 c5
19 lDc6 with a clear edge in Ak
opian-Todorovic, Niic 199 1) 14
cxd4 lDe6 15 lDb3 a5 with a level
position (Gligoric-Miagmasuren,
Tel Aviv 1964) . 12 . . . lDe6! 13 h3
Jl.h5 is probably even better (see
below).
d) 12 h3 (this is still prema
ture) 12 Jl.h5 and now:
d1) 13 g4 Jl.g6 14 lDb3 "d7 15
lDbd4 Jl.xc2 16 "xc2 lDxd4 17 lDxd4
h5 18 f3 lDe6 19 g2 c5 20 lDxe6
"xe6, and Black has no problems
(Ioseliani-Hort, Monaco 1994).
d2) 13 "e2 lDe6 14 1Iel (Szna
pik-Pinkas, Polish championship
1987) 14 . . ... d7 with a good posi
tion for Black.
d3) 13 "el lDe6 14 lDh2 (or
14 Jl.f5 Jl.g6 15 Jl.xg6 fxg6 16 lDb3
0-0 1 7 lDbd4 lDcxd4 18 lDxd4 "d7
with a slight advantage for Black
in Y. Griinfeld-Stean, Skara 1980)
14 .Jl.g6 15 hg6 (15 .ib1, Fahrni
Kostic, Karlsbad 19 11, can be met
by 15 . . . lDf4!?)
15 . . . fxg6 ! (a typical recapture,

clearing the f-file !) 16 lDb3 0-0 (or
16 . . . g5 17 Jl.e3 0-0 18 lDf3 "d7 etc.,
Alekhine-Rubinstein, Vilno 1912
illustrative game 1 7) 17 f4 a5 18
.ie3 a4 19 lDd4 lDcxd4 20 cxd4 c5 ,
and Black seized the initiative in
the game Prasad-R.Rodriguez,
Dubai 1986.
d4) 13 1Iel "d7!? (after 13 . . . 0-0
play transposes to lines analysed
below) 14 lDfl 0-0 15 lDg3 .ig6 16
.ie3 lIad8 17 .ixc5 .ixc5 18 a4
(Borngasser-Behrmann, Germany
1985), and now 18 . . . b4 is equal.
After 12 1Iel Black usually plays
12 0-0 (see Section 2) or 12 "d7
(see Section 3). The lines 12 Jl.h5
13 lDb3 lDe6 14 .if5 "d7 15 "d3
.ig6 16 lDfd4 .ixf5 17 lDxf5 0-0 18
a4 (Hellers-Fishbein, New York
1987) and 12 lDe6 13 lDfl .ih5
14 lDg3 .ig6 15 .ib3 d4 16 .ixe6
fxe6 17 lDxd4 (Daniliuk-Kislov, Vor
onez 199 1) are unsatisfactory for
him.
To finish the present section we
consider one other possible move.
d4
12
-
instead? lS lDxb3 (15 . . . .ig6?! is

condemned on the basis of an old
game Chajes-Wolf, Karlsbad 1923 ,
which saw 16 tl)bd4 tl)xd4 17 cxd4
tl)e6 18 i.xd3 'lVd5 19 .ixg6 fxg6
20 'Wb3 with a clear edge) 16 axb3
i.g6 17 i.e3 0-0 18 .id4! tl)xd4
19 cxd4 .ib4 20 :e3. Now after
both 20 d2 2 1 .ixg6 hxg6 22 :d3
'lVd5 23 tl)xd2 :fd8 24 tl)f3 (Liber
zon-Radashkovich, Israel 1974)
and 20 cS 21 :xd3 cxd4 22 :e2
(Klovans-Ruderfer, USSR 1971)
White maintains a secure edge. The
latter game continued 22 . . . i.h5?!
23 g4! (justifying 13 h3 l ) 23 . . . .ig6
24 i.xg6 fxg6 25 :e4 i.c5 26 'lVd3
:a7 27 e6 ! , and White obtained a
clear advantage.
However, by refraining from 13
h3 White obtains some additional
possibilities which are even more
advantageous for him.
d3
13
Mter 13 dxc3 14 tl)xc5 i.xc5
15 i.e4 'lVxdl 16 :Xd1 i.d7 17 bxc3
0-0-0 18 .ig5 tl)e7 19 tl)d4 White
obtained the better position in
Liberzon-Korchnoi, Buenos Aires
1979.
14 .ib1
14 lDxcS?! dxc2 15 'lVxd8 + lhd8
16 tl)xa6 :dl 17 i.e3 :Xal 18 :xa1
'at>d7 is a distinctly risky continu
ation for White (Chandler-Wiss
kirchen, Germany 1985).
lDxb3
14
.ifS
IS axb3
0-0
16 .ie3
16 'lVdS 17 tl)d4 tl)xd4 18 cxd4
.ib4 19 :f1 'ii'e4 20 "c1 ! followed
This early break in the centre

doesn't succeed if White plays
precisely.
13 tl)b3 !
More accurate than:
a) 13 tl)e4?! is poor in view of
13 . . . d3 ! , forcing 14 tl)xc5 (see be
low) . The same reply works in
case of 13 b4 : 13 . . . d3 ! 14 bxc5 dxc2
1 5 'lVxc2 'lVd5 16 .ia3 :d8 17 h3
i.h5 18 'lVf5 .ig6 1 9 'lVf4 0-0 20
tl)b3 a5 with enough compensation
for the pawn (Geo.Timoschenko
Sorokin, Cheliabinsk 1989).
b) The main alternative to the
text move is 13 h3 .ihS, and now
14 tl)b3 (the sense of such an or
der of moves will be seen below)
14 d3 IS i.b1 (15 tl)xc5 is still
bad, e.g. 15 . . . dxc2 16 'lVxd8 + :xd8
17 tl)b3 i.xf3 18 gxf3 a5 with a
slight advantage to Black, Euwe).
Mter the text move it seems that
Black has managed to squeeze
White's pieces out. However, he
has no means to hold his gains.
His pawn on d3 will soon be encir
cled and captured. The question
is: what will Black manage to get

by f1-d1 gives White an edge ac
cording to Larsen.
17 d4!
Preparing e1-e3. 17 lbd4 lDxd4
18 cxd4 i.b4 19 f1 c5 leads only
to equality (Larsen).
17
lbxd4 (D)
1 7 . . .'ikd5 is insufficient because
of 18 e3, e.g. 18 . . . ad8 19 i.xd3
lbxd4 20 cxd4 g4 2 1 e4 with a
clear edge (Geller-Anand, New
Delhi 1987), while 18 . . . e4 is an
swered by 19 c4 ! i.xf3 20 "xd3
e4 2 1 xe4 with the same assess
ment (Oll-Sorokin, Norilsk 1987).
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 e6 9 c3 lbc5 10

i.c2 i.g4 l l lbbd2 e7 12 el )
0-0
12
Black plans to define his plan

later, depending on White's inten
tions. It is difficult to say whether
it is better or worse than the im
mediate consolidation of the cen
tre with 12 . . ...d7.
13 lbfl
Except this natural move, White
has the following options:
a) 13 h3 (this is still too early! )
13 h5 and now:
a1) 14 lbfl ..d7 15 lbg3 g6
16 e3 ad8 17 xg6 fxg6 ! 18
i.xc5 xc5 19 "d3 b6 20 lbd4
de8 yielded Black strong coun
terplay in Yurtaev-Anand, Frunze
1987.
a2) To 14 lbb3 Black can re
spond with:
a21 ) 14 lbe6 15 g4 (or 15 .i.f5
g6 16 "d3 "d7 17 e3 xf5 18
'ixf5 ad8 19 ad1 f6 with equal
chances, OIl-G. Garcia, Zaragoza
1992) 15 . . . g6 16 f5 "d7 17 e3
( 1 7 h4? ! h5 ! ) 17 . . . fd8? ! 18 'ifc2
.
18 cxd4? now leads to rough

equality: 18 . . . i.b4 19 e3 c5 20
xd3 cxd4 (Jansa-Boudre, Paris
1989), and 2 1 e2 can be met by
2 1 . . . i.g4. But 18 lbxd4! brings
White an extra pawn after 18 . . . i.g6
19 xd3! xd3 20 lbc6 etc.
Section 2
1 2 . . . 0-0
( 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7
'i'e8 19 ad1 id8 20 'itg2 'ith8 2 1

h4 !, and White obtained a danger
ous attack (de Firmian-Agzamov,
Stara Paz ova 1983). Black should
have played 17 . . . ttJcd8 transposing
to a line from Section 3 ( 1 2 . . . 'i'd7
13 ttJb3, variation c2 ).
a22 ) 14...ttJe4!? 15 i.f4 (or 15
i.xe4 dxe4 16 'i'xd8 axd8 17 he4
d1 + 18 'ith2 f6 ! with good coun
terplay for Black, Mikhalchishin
Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986). The
text move was played in Kotro
nias-Kaidanov, Moscow 1987. Af
ter 15 . . . f5 16 exf6 ttJxf6 1 7 g4 i.f7
18 ttJbd4 White maintained some
pressure. However, 15 . . . i.g6 looks
quite sufficient for equality.
b) 13 ttJb3!. A good move which
poses serious problems to Black.
The idea is, after removing Black's
c5 knight, to weaken his kingside
by means of 'i'd1-d3 .
b 1 ) 13 'i'd7 14 ttJxc5 i.xc5 1 5
h 3 i.e6 1 6 ttJd4 ttJxd4 17 cxd4 i.e7
18 i.e3 with a slight pull (Ivan
chuk-Haba, Debrecen 1988) .
b2) 13 e8 14 h3 ttJxb3 (but
not 14 . . . i.h5? 15 i.xh7 + ! ) . Now
instead of 15 'i'd3 (Sax-Hiibner,
Budapest 199 1 ) , to which Black
replied with 15 . . . i.f5 ! 16 'i'xf5 g6,
White could have maintained a
slight edge by 15 axb3 i.h5 16 b4
'i'd7 1 7 i.b3 (Korchnoi).
b3) 13 ttJe6 14 'i'd3 g6 15 ttJfd4
(15 i.h6 e8 16 ad1 i.f5 1 7 'i'd2
i.xc2 18 'i'xc2 'i'd7, as in Geller
Unzicker, Bad W6rishofen 1991, is
less convincing) 15 . . . ttJcxd4 16
ttJxd4 ttJxd4 17 cxd4 c5 18 'i'g3 'i'd7
19 dxc5 i.xc5 20 i.g5, again with

a slight edge (Chandler-Wedberg,
Haninge 1988) .
b4) 13 ttJe4
...
The Romanian 1M Marin has

recently managed to combine this
old reply with a positional pawn
sacrifice: 14 i.f4 e8 !? (14 . . . f5 15
exf6 ttJxf6 16 'i'd3 'i'd7 1 7 ttJg5 h6
18 ttJh7 f7, Large-G. Flear, East
bourne 1990, is risky due to 19
ltJxf6+ hf6 20 'i'h7 + 'itf7 21 i.g3)
15 i.xe4 dxe4 16 xe4 'i'xd 1 +
(16 . . . 'i'c8!? was proposed by Marin)
1 7 l:1xd1 i.xf3 18 gxf3 ad8 19
ee1 g5 20 i.g3 'itg7, and White
failed to make use of his extra
pawn (Kuczynski-Marin, Budapest
1993). However, after 19 xd8,
followed by 20 ttJd4, Black's com
pensation for the sacrificed pawn
is in some doubt (Murshed).
Most White players prefer 13
ttJf1 to 13 ttJb3, by analogy with
the 12 . . . 'i'd7 line where 13 ttJf1 is
White's strongest reply (see Sec
tion 3).
13
i.h5
.

Black's bishop retreats 'with
out invitation' . At the very least
this represents a psychological suc
cess for White! But how should
Black parry the positional threat
of 14 lLle3? If, say, 13 f6 then 14
lLle3 ! lLlxe5? (although 14 . . . .ixf3
is obviously not very attractive
either) 15 lLlxg4 lLlxg4 16 lLld4 lLle5
1 7 f4 with material gains, as in
the game Siichting-Cohn (Berlin
1897) . Still, Black has some de
gree of choice:
a) 13 .. :lVd7 14 lLle3 i.. xf3 (if
14 . . . :d8, then 15 lLlxg4 'ii'xg4 16
.ie3 lLle6 1 7 a4 followed by 'ii'd l
d3 is slightly in White's favour,
Filip) 15 'ii'xf3 lLlxe5 16 'ii'h5 (even
better than 16 'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 17 lLlxd5
.id6 18 .if4 :fe8 19 b4 lLlcd7 20
.if5 :ad8 2 1 :ad1 as in G.Garcia
Haba, Thessaloniki 1988) 16 . . . tZ)g6
1 7 tZ)xd5 i.. d 6 18 .ie3 with a clear
edge for White (Ingerslev-Guld
berg, corr 1985).
b) 13 ...d4. This typical break
now meets with a beautiful refu
tation: 14 h3 .ih5 15 lLlg3 (15 g4
d3 16 gxh5 dxc2 1 7 'ii'xc2 f6 18
exf6 :xf6 19 :d1 'ii'e 8 is favour
able for Black, Mortensen-Wed
berg, 1987) 15 .ixf3 ! 16 'ii'xf3 d3
(Black now seems to have weath
ered the storm, e.g. 17 "xc6 dxc2
18 'ii'f3 tZ)d3 19 :e2 .ig5 20 .ixg5
'ii'xg5 2 1 :xc2 tZ)xe5 with equal
chances (Vehi Bach-Wedberg, Biel
1990). However, Am. Rodriguez
found a brilliant retort (D) :
1 7 b4! ! dxc2 18 bxc5 'ii'd 7 19 lDffi
..ti>h8 20 'ii'g4 g6 2 1 lLlxe7 "xg4 22
hxg4 tZ)xe7 23 .ig5 tZ)d5 24 :ac l

with a distinct plus for White in
the game Am.Rodriguez-Wedberg,
New York 1988.
c) 13 ...:e8!? One of numerous
ideas from Artur Yusupov. Black
plans to pressurise the e5 pawn .
Now White can play:
cl) 14 tZ)g3?! looks dubious in
view of 14 . . . i..fB .
c2) Also not very promising is
14 .if4?! .if8 15 tZ)e3 .ixf3 16
'ii'xf3 tZ)xe5 1 7 'ii'g3 f6 18 b4 tZ)e4
with a slight plus for Black, Za
pata-G. Garcia, Bogota 199 1 .
c3) 1 4 h 3 i..h 5 15 lLlg3 (both 15
b4 tZ)e4! 16 tZ)e3 .ixf3 1 7 gxf3
tZ)xf2 18 ..ti>xf2 .ih4 + 19 ..to>fl i..xel
20 'ii'x el tZ)xe5 , Sznapik-G. Garcia,
Salamanca 1988, and 15 g4!? i.. g6
16 i.. xg6 hxg6 1 7 tZ)e3 'ii'd 7 18
'ii'xd5 :ad8 19 :d1 'ii'e6 20 'ii'xe6
fxe6, Wahls-Hiibner, Munich 1991,
yield Black good compensation for
the sacrificed material ) 15 . . . i.. g6
16 .ie3 (16 tZ)f5 .ifB 17 .if4 tZ)e6 18
.ih2 tZ)a5 19 tZ)e3 c6 20 tZ)d4 lLlxd4
2 1 cxd4 tZ)c4 is equal, Wahls-Hiib
ner, Germany 1991) 16 . . . 'ii'd 7 1 7
.i.xg6 (Sznapik-Marin, Budapest

1993) . Now, according to Marin,
17 . . . fxg6! leads to equality.
c4) 14 tl)e3 tl)xe5! (this works
now!) 15 i..xh 7 + ! c.fi>xh 7 1 6 'lVc2 +
g8 17 lDxe5 i..e6 and now 18
'lVd6 19 tl)xe7 + :xe7 20 b3 tl)d7!
(Wang Zili-Yusupov, Novi Sad 1990
illustrative game 18) leads to an
equal position. 18 tl)f5!? is inter
esting. In Daly-Glodeanu (Bucha
rest 1993) White had a minimal
edge after 18 . . . i.. xf5 (18 . . . i.. f8 !?) 19
'lVxf5 .i.f6 20 i.. f4 .i.xe5 2 1 .txe5
c6 22 :e3 .
13 . . . .i.h5 is more common but is
it more comfortable for Black?
14 tl)g3
Mter 14 .te3 Black can reply
with 14 . . . tl)xe5! (14 . . . i..g 6?! 15 tl)g3
transposes back to the main line)
15 .i.xc5 tl)xfa + 16 'lVxf3 ! .txf3 1 7
.i.xe7 'lVd7 18 .i.xf8 .txg2 ! 19 .tc5 !
(19 xg2?! :xf8) 19 . . . .i.xf1 ! 20
xf1 'lVh3 +, forcing a draw (lvan
chuk) .
.i. g6
14
-
15 .i.e3
The alternatives are less attrac

tive:
a) 15 tl)d4 tl)xd4 16 cxd4 tl)e6
17 .i.b3 a5 18 a3 c5! 19 dxc5 .i.xc5
20 'ii' x d5 'lVb6, and the initiative
had passed to Black (Wahls-Renet,
Altensteig 1987).
b) 15 tl)f5 'lVd7 16 g4 :ad8
(16 . . . :fd8 !? 17 tl)3d4? ! tl)xd4 18
cxd4 tl)e6 19 .te3 c5! yielded Black
a good position position in Thip
say-Agzamov, Frunze 1985; how
ever, 17 h4 was better) 17 h4 tl)e4!
(the complications after 1 7 . . . h5 18
tl)3d4 tl)xd4 19 cxd4 tl)e4 20 f3 end
in White's favour, as in Arnason
Wedberg, 1987) 18 tl)xe7 + tl)xe7
19 tl)h2 tl)c5 20 .i.e3 (Kupreichik
Kaidanov, Kuibyshev 1986) , and
now, instead of 20 ... ?! 21 .i.b3! ,
Black could have played 2 0 . . . .i.xc2
21 'lVxc2 tl)e6 with good counter
chances.
.d7
15 ...
15 ... :e8 is worse, since Black
cannot hurt the e5 pawn, and after
the eventual . . . tl)c5-e6 the rook
will be placed in a disharmonious
position. White has the following
possibilities:
a) 16 :cl i.. f8 (16 . . ..d7!? was
a suggestion by Matanovic) 17 b4
i.. xc2 18 .xc2 tl)e6 19 :cd1 .d7
20 tl)e4 tl)e7 21 h4! .c6 22 tl)c5
with a small pull for White (Ljubo
jevic-Torre, Brussels 1987).
b) 16 h4 .i.f8 (16 . . . .txc2 1 7
'lVxc2 tl)d7 1 8 .i.f4! tl)f8 1 9 h5
20 .te3 tl)a5 2 1 :ad1 tl)c4 22 .i.c1
is slightly better for White, Ivan
chuk-Tukmakov, New York 1988 -

illustrative game 19) 17 i.g5 'i'd7
18 h5 ( 18 i.xg6!? hxg6 19 h5 was
recommended by Henao) 18 . . . i.xc2
19 'i'xc2 h6 20 :ad1! 'i'g4 2 1 i.c1
with some pressure (Henao-Milos,
Bogota 1991).
15 ... 'i'd7 Ieads to a position that
often appears when Black starts
with 1 2 . . . 'i'd7 ( 1 3 tDfl i.h5 etc. see Section 3 ) . This way he elimi
nates the line 12 . . . 0-0 13 tDb3 (see
above) but yields White some new
possibilities (see below) .
16 h4 (D)
16 b4 is also possible, for exam
ple 16 tDa4 1 7 i.xa4 bxa4 18 a3 !
:fd8 19 i.g5 :e8 20 i.xe7 :xe7
2 1 :a2 with a slightly better posi
tion for White (Geller-Agzamov,
USSR championship, Riga 1985).
16 tDe6!?, with the idea . . . f7-fS,
deserves more attention. The plan
with b2-b4 is more formidable if
Black's rook has gone to d8 (see
Section 3).
of Black's king by h4-h5-h6, so

Black's counterplay should be
connected with . . . tDc5-e6 and . . . f7fS. Here are some possible lines of
play:
a) 16 1U'e8 (this is too passive)
17 h5 i.xc2 18 'i'xc2 h6 19 :ad 1
i.fB (19 . . . :ad8 !? was proposed by
Short) 20 i.xc5 i.xc5 21 'ii'd2 :ad8
22 'i'f4 with a dangerous attack
(Short-Torre, Brussels 198 7).
b) 16 :ad8 1 7 h5 i.xc2 18
'i'xc2 tDe6 19 :ad1 fS 20 exf6 i.xf6
2 1 h6! (inferior is 2 1 tDe4 h6 22
tDc5 tDxc5 23 i.xc5 :fe8 with an
equal game, Psakhis-Kharitonov,
Sochi 1987) 2 1 . . .g6 22 tDe4 'i'f7 23
tDxf6 + (23 tDeg5 i.xg5 24 tDxg5
tDxg5 25 i.xg5 :d7 with a slight
edge, Anand-Torre, Thessaloniki
1988) 23 . . . 'i'xfS 24 a4 bxa4 25
'ii'xa4 :d6 26 c4! d4 27 c5! with a
clear pull (Vitomskis-Palmo, corr
1989) .
c) 16 i.xc2 1 7 'i'xc2 tDe6 18
:ad1 fS 19 exfS i.xfS 20 tDe4 and
White obtained a slight advantage
(Emms-Krasenkov, Cappelle la
Grande 1990).
d) 16 tDe6!. This move-order
looks most exact. After 17 h5 i.xc2
18 'i'xc2 fS! (18 . . .:fe8 is slightly
better for White : 19 :ad1 h6 20
tDf5 i.g5 21 'i'd2 ! i.xe3 2 2 tDxe3 ,
Am.Rodriguez-Xu Jun, Subotica
1987, or 20 . . . i.fB 2 1 tDh2 ! with
the idea 22 tDg4, Am. Rodriguez)
19 exfS :xfS we arrive at a posi
tion from the game Mokry-Yusu
pov, which is quite satisfactory for
Black (see next section).

It is not so easy for Black to neu

tralise his adversary's initiative.
White plans to cripple the position
So it seems White's most seri

ous argument in this line is 13
ll)b3 .
Section 3
1 2 'ii'd7
...
( 1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .tb5 a6 4

.t a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 c3 ll)c5 10
.tc2 .tg4 l l ll)bd2 .te7 12 :el)
'ii'd7
12
Black does not allow the ma

noeuvre ll)d2-b3 and 'ii'd 1-d3 and
at the same time prepares to play
. . . :a8-d8 in the event of 13 ll)f1 .
Unfortunately, Black's position
remains constricted, and White
manages to maintain his initia
tive with a series of precise moves.
13 ll)f1 !
13 b4 is not yet dangerous, for
example 13 . . . ll)e6 14 a4 0-0 15 'ii'e2
i.h5 16 axb5 axb5 17 :xa8 :xa8
18 ll)b3 i.g6 19 i.xg6 bxg6 20 :d1
ll)cd8 21 g3 c5 with a balanced po
sition (Chandler-Morris, London
199 1).
As usual, the main alternative

to the text move is 13 ll)b3 (13 h3
.th5 14 ll)b3 ll)e6 leads to line c
below) . However, unlike the
12 . . . 0-0 line, this is not so worth
while here . After 13 ll)e6 White
has the following possibilities:
a) 14 a4 b4! 1 5 'ii'd 3 .th5 16
ll)fd4 ll)cxd4 1 7 ll)xd4 .tg6 18 ll)f5
c6 19 'ii'f3 0-0 with a solid position
for Black (Boleslavsky-Konstanti
nopolsky, Sverdlovsk 1943).
b) 14 'ii'd3 .th5 15 ll)fd4 ll)cxd4
( 1 5 . . . .tg6 is less exact due to 16
ll)f5, e.g. 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 'ii' h 3 :fe8 18
i.d1 i.f8 19 ll)h4 :ad8 20 f4 i.e4
21 .te3 with an initiative for
White, Zso. Polgar-Hral!ek, Brno
1991) 16 ll)xd4 i.g6 1 7 ll)f5 (or 1 7
'ii'e 2 ll)xd4 1 8 cxd4 c 5 1 9 dxc5
.txc5 20 .txg6 hxg6 2 1 e6 'ii'c6
with equality in Schmid-Korchnoi,
London 1979) 1 7 . . . c6 18 f4 .tc5 +
19 ..t>h 1 0-0 20 'ii' h 3 :ad8 2 1 i.b1
b4 with good counterplay for Black
in the game Zso. Polgar-Grivas,
Corfu 1990.
c) 14 h3 .th5 15 .tf5 (White
pins Black's strong knight, first of
all, to press on the important d4
and c5 squares) and now:
c1) 15 ll)cd8 This is a typical
manoeuvre. Black additionally pro
tects his strong e6 knight and in
tends to prepare . . . c7-c5 either by
means of . . . ll)d8-b7 or by pushing
White's knight from b3 ( . . . a6-a5a4). The latter plan is generally
preferable since Black thus keeps
the possibility, in case White ex
changes knights on e6 , to capture

with the other knight maintain
ing the blockade. 16 Jte3 (for 16
g4 i.g6 see variation c2) 16 . . . a5
(after 16 . . . 0-0 17 g4 i.g6 18 'lVe2 ! see c2 - or 16 . . . tl)b7 1 7 'lVe2 c5 18
l:tadl l:td8 19 tl)bd2 'lVc6 - the al
ternative 19 . . ti)a5!? was suggested
by Korchnoi - 20 g4 .tg6 2 1 tl)n
0-0 22 tl)g3 , Sigurjonsson-Stean,
Munich 1979, White maintains a
slight edge as well, but 16 . . . .tg6 !
1 7 g4 a5! i s probably the best op
tion for Black - see variation c2 )
1 7 .tc5 (or 1 7 tl)c5 'lVc6 18 tl)d3
i.xf3 19 'lVxf3 g6 20 .tg4 h5 2 1
i.xe6 tl)xe6 22 l:tadl with a slight
plus for White, Ehlvest-Hjartar
son, Belfort 1988) 17 . . . a4 18 .txe7
'lVxe7 19 tl)bd4 (19 tl)bd2 is harm
less, e.g. 19 . . c6 20 b4 tl)g5 21 'lVe2
g6 22 i.g4 .txg4 23 hxg4 tl)de6
with equal chances, Karpov-Kor
chnoi, 28th matchgame, Baguio
City 1978 - illustrative game 20)
19 . . c6 20 'lVc2 .txf3 2 1 liJxf3 g6 22
.txe6 followed by 23 tl)h2, and
White maintains a some pressure,
as in Astrom-Wedberg, Stockholm
1990/9 l .
c2} 1 5 .t g6 !. This move looks
more precise. It is important for
Black to have the possibility to ex
change White's bishop at any mo
ment. 16 g4 ( 1 6 tl)fd4, Nunn-Tal,
Nrestved 1985, is not dangerous
due to 16 . . . tl)cxd4 17 tl)xd4 0-0 and
then ... c7-c5) 16 lOOd8 17 .te3 (D)
1 7 . . . a5 ! . An important improvement suggested by Haba. (17 . . . 0-0
yielded Black a good position in
the game Tseshkovsky-Agzamov,
.
- B _..
B _ikB . _ .
.t.. B
B ' . ' Di.. B
B B.
Bl2)B ml2)B
"
.
.
u
d
U
.'ti'
USSR championship, Frunze 1981,

after 18 'at>h1?! a5 19 'lVe2 a4 20
tl)bd4 l:tb8 2 1 i.d3 .txd3 22 'ii'xd3
tl)c5; however, 18 'lVe2! causes some
trouble, for example 18 . . . tl)b 7 19
tl)bd4 ! c5 20 tl)xe6 fxe6 21 .txg6
hxg6 22 l:tad 1 ti)a5 23 h4 with a
slight advantage, Dimitrov-Marin,
France 1991, or 18 . . . a5 19 l:tad 1
a4 20 tl)bd4 c6, Popovic-Marin,
Manila 1990, 2 1 'lVd3 ! again with
a slight pull according to Marin) .
After 17 . . . a5 White has not enough
time for this arrangement, and
Black manages to push . . . c7 -c5
keeping his knight on d8. So you
see how important the order of
moves is in this line. 18 'lVe2 (18
'lVd3?! c5 !) 1 8 . . . a4 19 tl)bd4 l:tb8 20
tl)xe6 tl)xe6 2 1 tl)d4 c5 22 tl)c2 0-0,
and Black is not worse (Zielinski
Haba, Cappelle la Grande 1989).
c3} 15 0-01? deserves atten
tion, e.g. 16 'lVd3 (16 i.xh7 + 'at>xh7
1 7 tl)g5 + .txg5 18. 'lVxh5 + .th6
19 .txh6 gxh6 20 'lVf5 + 'at>h8 2 1
'lVf6 + 'at>h7 2 2 'lVf5 + with an equal
game, Ilincic-Lalic, Yugoslav cham
pionship 1989) 16 . . . .txf3 1 7 'lVxf3
g6 18 ii.c2 ffi 19 exffi ii.xffi 20 'it'g4

ttJe5 2 1 'it'g3 ttJc4 22 ii.f5 .l:i.fe8 !
with equality (Przewoznik-Kotliar,
Netanya 1987).
Returning to 13 ttJf1 .
.l:i.d8
13
13 ii.h5 leads to a transposi
tion of moves after 14 ttJ e3 .l:i.d8 .
White can also proceed to vari
ations examined in Section 2 : 14
ttJg3 ii.g6 15 h4 0-0 16 ii.e3! and
so on. 15 ttJd4 (instead of 15 h4)
15 . . . ttJxd4 16 cxd4 ttJe6 is satisfac
tory for Black, for example 17 ii.e3
c5 18 ttJf5 0-0 19 dxc5 ii.xc5 20
ii.xc5 ttJxc5 2 1 .l:i.c1 ii.xf5 22 ii.xf5
ttJe6 (Short-G. Garcia, Dubai 1986).
If White plays 16 h5 (after 15 h4
0-0) then Black can answer with
16 . . . ii.xc2 17 'it'xc2 f5 !, e.g. 18 exffi
ii.xffi 19 ii.e3 ttJe6 20 .l:i.ad1 .l:i.ad8
21 ttJe4 'it'f7 with equality (Mokry
Yusupov, Dubai 1986). Still, ac
cording to Yusupov, in the event of
19 h6! (instead of 19 ii.e3) 19 . . . g6
20 ii.g5 White maintains a slight
edge.
14 ttJe3
14 ttJg3 is met by 14 . . . d4! 15 h3
d3, for example 16 hxg4 dxc2 1 7
'it'xc2 'it'xg4 18 'it'f5 'it'xf5 19 ttJxf5
ttJe6 20 ii.e3 (Heinatz-Stark, Kec
skemet 1989), and now 20 . . . g6
with a solid position.
If 14 h3 ii.h5 15 ttJg3 ( 1 5 ttJe3
ii.g6 ! ) 15 . . . ii.g6 16 ttJd4 ( 16 ii.e3
ttJe6 17 'iVe2 0-0 18 . .l:i.ad 1 ii.xc2 19
'it'xc2 ffi is equal, Sznapik-Flear,
Dortmund 1989) then Black can
play both 16 . . . ttJxd4 17 cxd4 ttJe6
18 ttJf5 c5 19 i.e3 'iVa 7! 20 .l:i.c1
...
...
ii.xf5 21 ii.xf5 cxd4 22 ii.d2 'iVb6!?

(de Firmian-Agzamov, Vrsac 1983)
and 16 . . . 0-0 17 ii.f5 ( 1 7 ttJgf5!? was
suggested by Korchnoi) 1 7 . . . ttJe6
18 ii.g4 ttJcxd4 19 cxd4 c5 20 ttJf5
'iVa7 (Hiibner-Korchnoi, Tilburg
1986), with a good position in both
cases.
ii.h5 (D)
14
Not 14 ii.xf3? 15 'iVxf3 ttJxe5
16 'iVg3 ttJg6 1 7 ttJf5 ttJe6 18 h4
with a clear pull.
..
15 b4!
A relatively new strong plan in
this position. 15 ii.f5 is not very
formidable, for example 15 . . . ttJe6
16 g4 ii.g6 17 a4 b4 18 'iVe2 bxc3 19
bxc3 ii.c5 20 ii.a3 i.xa3 21 .l:i.xa3
a5 with equality (Salai-Priehoda,
Czechoslovakian championship,
Brno 1990) or 16 ttJc2 0-0 17 a4
.l:i.fe8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'iVd3 ii.g6 20
ii.xg6 hxg6 21 ii.e3 b4, again with
balanced chances (Chandler-Hjar
tarson, Novi Sad 1990) .
The main alternative to the text
move is 15 ttJf5. White intends to
swap his opponent's dark-squared

bishop and thus weaken the dark
squares in Black's camp. Black
usually replies 15 . . . 0-0. However,
15 tZ)e6 deserves attention, too,
for example 16 a4 (16 b4!?; 16 h3!?)
16 . . . b4 ! 17 a5 tZ)a7 18 'ifd3 tZ)b5 19
tZ)3d4 .ig6 with sharp play (Woda
Hrai!ek, Poznan 1987).
Mter 15 0-0 the following vari
ations are possible:
a) 16 b4 tZ)e6 leads to the main
line with 15 b4; however, the move
16 . . . tZ)e4!? is probably stronger.
b) 16 h3 is too slow. In the
game Brodsky-Marin (Bucharest
1994) an equal position arose after
16 . . . tZ)e6 1 7 .ie3 lIfe8 18 g4 .ig6
19 a4 .ic5 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 .tZ)5d4
.ixd4 22 cxd4 .ie4 23 tZ)g5 tZ)cxd4
24 tZ)xe4 dxe4 25 .ixe4 tZ)c5.
c) 16 h4!? .ig4 17 tZ)xe7 + tZ)xe7
18 'ifd4 .ixf3 19 gxf3 tZ)e6 20 'ifg4
d4 led to a position with balanced
chances in Ady-G.Flear, Barnsdale
1989.
d) 16 tZ)xe7 + tZ)xe7 (but not
16 . . . 'ifxe7? 17 .i.g5 ! 'ifxg5 18 tZ)xg5
.ixd1 19 .i.xh 7 + h8 20 lIaxdl,
and White wins a pawn, Am.Ro
driguez-G. Garcia, Bayamo 1987,
as 20 . . . '6 fails to 21 exf6 gxf6 22
tZ)e6! ) 17 .i.e3 (17 'ifd4 is harmless,
for example 17 . . . .ixf3 18 gxf3 tZ)e6
19 'ifh4 tZ)g6 20 'ifg4 d4 2 1 .i.e4
lIfe8 22 'ii'g3 dxc3 23 bxc3 tZ)c5
etc., Y. Griinfeld-Korchnoi, Zagreb
1987, and if 17 b4 then 17 . . . tZ)e4!
not 17 . . . tZ)a4?? 18 .i.xh7 + ! 7 19
e6 ! , winning, Hiibner-Korchnoi,
Tilburg 1987 - 18 .i.xe4 dxe4 19
'ifxd7 llxd7 20 tZ)g5 .ig6 21 e6 lId3
22 exf7 + .ixf7 23 tZ)xe4 tZ)d5 24 f3

- 24 a3 tZ)xc3 25 tZ)xc3 llxc3 26 .ie3
lIe8 27 lIed 1 .ie6 with chances for
both sides, Hiibner-Zak, Lugano
1989 - 24 . . . .ig6 25 f2 lIe8 recap
turing the pawn and equalising,
as in A. Sokolov-Korchnoi, Til
burg 1987 - illustrative game 21 )
17 tZ)a4 ( 1 7 . . . tZ)e6? ! yields White
a strong attack after 18 .ixh7 + !
xh7 19 tZ)g5 + g6 20 g4, for ex
ample 20 . . . .ixg4 2 1 'ifxg4 tZ)xg5
22 'ifxg5 + h7 23 'ifh5 + g8 24
.ig5! 'iVf5 25 lIe3 , Geller-Hazai,
Sochi 1982 , but 17 . . . tZ)e4!? worked
in Mestel-Korchnoi, Beer-Sheva
1988, after 18 'ifd3 tZ)g6 19 .icl
lIde8 20 tZ)d4 tZ)c5 2 1 'ifg3 tZ)e4
with sufficient counterplay)
.
Practice has proved that this

position is satisfactory for Black.
18 .ixh7 + ? does not work now:
18 . . .'ihh7 19 e6 .i.xf3 20 'ifc2 +
.i.e4 and Black wins. To 18 'ifd3
Black replies 18 . . . tZ)g6 (this is bet
ter than 18 . . . .i.g6 19 'iVd2) 19 b3 (19
e6?! fxe6 20 tZ)e5 tZ)xb2 21 tZ)xd7
tZ)xd3 22 trud'8 tZ)xel 23 .ixg6 .ixg6
24 lDxg6?! lDc2 , Marjanovic-Kor

chnoi , Belgrade 1987, or 24 lDxe6
:d6 ! , Korchnoi, is favourable for
Black) 19 . . . .ixf3 20 gxf3 'ii' h 3! 2 1
d2 c5 22 'ii'f5 'ii'xf5 23 .ixf5
:fe8, and the initiative passes to
Black (van der Wiel-Hjartarson,
Rotterdam 1989) . White should
probably play 18 .ixa4 bxa4 19
.ic5 but after 19 . . . :fe8 Black has
nothing to be displeased with.
So, the continuation 15 lDf5 does
not promise White any advantage.
Therefore 15 b4 is more popular at
present, a move with which White
badly restricts Black's pieces.
15
lDe6
16 g4
1 6 lDf5 is another good move,
e.g. 16 . . . 0-0 (16 . . . d4? is poor due to
17 e4!, e.g. 17 . . . .ig6 18 g4! h5 19
h3 'at>f8 20 a4 ! hxg4 2 1 hxg4 'ii'e 8
22 axb5 axb5 23 :a6 ! and wins,
Hjartarson-Korchnoi, Saint John
1988; also unsatisfactory for Black
is 16 . . . ltJxb4? 17 cxb4 xb4 18 :1
.ic3 19 :bl d4 20 .ia3 d3 2 1 :b3 ! ,
Ivanchuk-Chekhov,Frunze 1988)
17 a4 :fe8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'ii'd3
g6 20 'ii'xb5 ! (but not 20 :dl fB
21 .ie3 :a8 22 h3 :xal 23 :xal
d4 with equal chances, Balashov
Portisch, Moscow 198 1 ) 20 . . . lDxe5
21 'ii'x d7 lDxd7 2 2 lDxe7+ l'Xxe7 23
.ixg6 ! (an important improvement
over the game C.Horvath-Kuczyn
ski, Dresden 1988, in which 23
b3 was played, and Black ob
tained a good counterplay after
23 . . . e4 24 lDd4 lDxd4 25 cxd4
:e6 26 .if4 :g6) 23 . . .hxg6 24 lDd4
:ee8 2 5 lDc6, and White kept a

small but clear advantage in the
endgame (Am. Rodriguez-Marin,
Novi Sad 1990 illustrativegame
22).
16
.i g6
0-0
17 lDf5
17 h5!? looks risky but in
Abramovic-Flear, Val Maubuee
1989, Black managed to defend
after 18 h3 hxg4 19 hxg4 'at>fB ! 20
'at>g2 ill 21 lDg3 .ixc2 22 'ii'xc2 fxe5
23 'ii'f5 + 'at>g8 24 lDxe5 lDxe5 2 5
'ii'xe5 'at>f7 . This line deserves fur
ther examination.
18 a4 (D)
This queenside action is now
well-prepared. 18 'ii'e 2, with the
idea of pressing on the d5 pawn
by l:t1-dl, is also interesting. In
Pavlovic-M. Trifunovic (Vrnjaka
Banja 1988) White obtained a
strong attack after the continu
ation 18 . . . :fe8 19 :dl h5?! 20 h3
hxg4 2 1 hxg4 lDfB 22.lD3d4 lDxd4
23 cxd4 xb4 24 'at>g2 . Of course,
19 . . . .ifB or 19 . . . lDf8 was better
but Black has very little space.
-

Black' s position is extremely
constricted. An attempt to break
loose by 18 d4 leads after 19
axb5 axb5 20 i.e4 lUe8 21 "d3
(after 2 1 i.e3 i.f8 22 "d2 h5 23
h3 ll)xb4 24 cxb4 dxe3 25 "xd 7
exf2 + 26 'it?xf2 l:!xd 7 27 i.c6 l:!dd8
the winning of an exchange yields
White no advanatge, Palkovi-Ma
rin, Stara Zagora 1990) 2 1 . . .ll)b8
(2 1 . . . ll)xb4!?, Marin) 22 cxd4! (not
22 i.d2 c5 23 cxd4 ll)xd4 24 ll)3xd4
i.xf5 25 ll)xf5 "xd3 26 i.xd3
l:!xd3 with a probable draw, Haba
Marin, Budapest 1993) 22 . . . i.xb4
23 l:!dl c6 24 i.e3 to a position
that is slightly better for White,
according to Marin.
18 l:!fe8 is considered insuffi
cient due to 19 axb5 axb5 20
i. d3 l:!b8 2 1 "e2 ll)cd8 22 l:!a7,
e.g. : 22 . . . i.f8 23 i.e3 ll)c6? 24
i.xb5 with a clear edge for White,
as in the game Zagrebelny-Neve
roY, Barnaul 1988; or 22 . . . d4 23
cxd4 i.xb4 24 l:!dl "c6 25 i.e3
i.c3 26 h3 "d5 27 i.g5 ll)xg5 28

ll)xg5 with a dangerous attack for
White in the game Shabalov
Vukic, USA 1993. In the latter
variation, if 23 . . . i.xf5 (instead of
23 . . . i.xb4) then 24 gxf5 ll)xd4 2 5
ll)xd4 "xd4 26 l:!xc7 i.xb4 27 i.b2
"f4 28 i.c3 i.xc3 29 l:!xc3 , and
White maintains an edge thanks
to Black's awkward d8 knight
(Shabalov-Sorin, BieI 1992).
Instead of 20 . . . l:!b8, 20 ll)b8
deserves attention. In Pavlovic
Sorokin (Moscow, 1988) Black
managed to release himself after
2 1 "e2 d4! 22 l:!a7 "d5 23 i.e4
"c4 24 "xc4 bxc4 25 i.d2 dxc3 26
i.xc3 i.f8. 1f 2 1 l:!a7 then 2 1 . . .d4!?
is possible, too.
The conclusion of this chapter

is: when playing the Berlin vari
ation, you must be ready to accu
rately defend in a slightly worse
position, looking for a chance to
seize the initiative.
The Discussion of Decades
( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4

.i a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3)
.ic5
9
B ..
..
,W
.
.
..
...
...
.
.
a.1. .
.
...
... ,,
-
'
fif .
.aR
.i."
Bl2).
,0;i%
w
u
A R
g
o
R A R
U
o
lD '''iV.
",
. ':
When reading the last chapter,

you probably felt that something
was wrong with Black's concept.
Does seizing territory (5 . . . lDxe4,
6 . . . b5, 7 . . . d5), especially at the
cost of weakening Black's queen
side, make any sense if he imme
diately gives up his gains ( . . . lDe4
-c5-e6 etc.) and finds himself in a
constricted position? Black has
taken positional risks to achieve
easy development; so why not go
the whole hog and play actively?
Active development with 9 . . . .ic5
looks more suitable for the Open
Spanish. Indeed, it has always been
one of the most topical lines of
this opening. At least, it is hardly
less popular than 'the main vari
ation' which starts with 9 . . . .ie7
(Chapters 5-7), and it was in this

variation that the first deep open
ing analysis of the Open Spanish
(ending up on moves 25-30) ap
peared back in the forties.
The drawback of the text move
is that the c7 pawn loses the pos
sibility to advance to c5. Besides,
the e4 knight is now deprived of
its only retreat square (c5), and
therefore badly needs active sup
port. Black usually renders this
by means of . . . f7-f5 or the break
. . . f7-f6. His additional possibility
is the sacrifice of two pieces for a
rook and a pawn on f2. White tries
to oust Black's pieces by means of
lDb1-d2, .ib3-c2 , possibly lDd2-b3 ,
lDf3-d4 and f2-f3 . Both sides have
been playing their trumps for
many decades already, and their
packs seem to be endless . . .
Section 1
Side lines
Usually White automatically plays
10 lDbd2. However, in this section
we examine some alternatives.
10 'ii'd3
Other moves are rarely seen in
practice:
a) 10 a4 b4 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 is less ex
act: n lDbd2 b4 12 .i.c2 ! bxc3 13
lDxe4 dxe4 1 4 .i.xe4 'ii'xd 1 1 5
l:txd1 l:tfd8 16 l:te1 cxb2 1 7 .ixb2
l:tab8 18 .i.a3 with a minimal edge,
70 The Discussion of Decades

Kupreichik-Mikhalchishin, Lvov
1988) 1 1 tZ)d4 ( 1 1 .tc2!?) 1l . . . tZ)xe5
12 cxb4 .txd4 13 'ifxd4 'ifto 14 .te3
tZ)c6 15 'ifxffi tZ)xffi 16 :cl tZ)xb4
1 7 :xc7 0-0, and the endgame is
pleasant for Black (Castro-Wed
berg, Manila 1992).
b) 10 .tf4. This continuation
was brought back into practice by
the late B.Perenyi. 10 g5 (an en
ergetic reply that enables Black to
win a pawn at a price of weaken
ing his kingside; 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 tZ)d4!
i.xd4 12 cxd4 ffi 13 exffi 'ifxffi 14
.te3 yielded White a small advan
tage in Szalanczy-Krasenkov, Bala
tonbereny 1989, but 10 . . . tZ)e7! ?
deserves serious attention, for ex
ample 1 1 tZ)d4 tZ)g6 12 .te3 tZ)xe5
13 'ife2 tZ)d7 14 f3 tZ)effi 15 tZ)c6
'ifc8 16 f4 'ifb 7 17 tZ)d4 g6, and
White 's compensation for the sac
rificed pawn is in some doubt, as
in Tolnai-Babu, Novi Sad 1990)
11 .te3 ! .txe3 12 fxe3
bl) 14 tZ)c5 led to a complex

game in Perenyi-Mikhalchishin,
Lenz 1988: 15 'ii'e l 'ifd6! 16 e4 0-0-0
17 exd5 .txd5 18 tZ)f5 ; besides, 15
e4 deserves attention, for example
15 . . . tZ)xb3 16 axb3 0-0, and now,
instead of 17 'ifel tZ)g6 18 'ife3 :e8!
19 :ael c5 ! 20 tZ)xe6 :xe6 21 'ifxc5
d4! with a slight plus for Black, as
in Gofstein-Y.Mikhalevsky, Beer
Sheva 1994, White should have
continued with 17 'ife2 to meet
17 . . . tZ)g6 with 18 tZ)xe6 fxe6 19
'ifxg4 CY.Mikhalevsky). Mikhalchi
shin also suggests another possi
bility for White, viz. 15 a4!?
b2) 14 tZ)xd2 15 'ii'xd2 'ii'g5
( 1 5 . . . 0-0 16 e4 ! ) 16 a4 (or 16 'iff2
g3 !? 17 hxg3 :g8 18 tZ)f3 tZ)xf3 +
19 'ifxf3 0-0-0 with equal chances,
Szalanczy-Haba, Debrecen 1988)
16 . . . tZ)c4 17 .txc4 bxc4 18 tZ)xe6
fxe6 19 'ifd4 :f8 20 :xf8 + 'iti>xf8
21 'iVh8 + 'ifg8 22 :n + 'iti>e7 23 'ife5
'iti>d7 with mutual chances (Per
enyi-G.Garcia, Saint John 1988) .
c) 10 'ife2 . White intends to
exchange the dark-squared bish
ops in similar fashion to the Keres
variation. However, the early c2c3 is not the most useful move
there, and Black has enough time
to create counterplay. 10 0-0 1 1
.te3 ( 1 1 i.c2 is harmless, for ex
ample 1 1 . . .ffi 12 exffi 'ifxffi 13
tZ)bd2 tZ)xd2 14 .txd2 :ae8 15 'ifd3
i.f5 with an equal game, Usak
ovsky-Kogan, USSR 1963 ; while
11 tZ)bd2 transposes to a line from
the next section) 11 16 (the most
active move; 11 . . . i.xe3 12 'ii'x e3
12 g4 (12 . . . 0-0!? was proposed

by Mikhalchishin) 13 tZ)d4 tZ)xe5
14 tZ)d2 and now:
The Discussion of Decades 71
will be examined later - in the 10

'ii'd 3 variation ; 11 . . . 'ii'e 7 12 .ixc5
'ii'xc5 13 lLlbd2 .ig4 14 lLlxe4 dxe4
15 'ii'xe4 .ixf3 16 'ii'xf3 lLlxe5 1 7
'ii'e 4 l:tad8 leads t o equality, Mata
novic-(,xeller, Zagreb 1958 ; also af
ter 12 l:tdl l:tad8 13 .ixc5 'ii'xc5 14
lLld4 'ii'b 6 15 f3 lLlc5 16 hl l:tfe8
Black's advantage in development
compensates the weakness of his
dark squares, Kamsky-Anand,
Las Palm as 1995 ; however, White
can simply play 12 lLlbd2 to
maintain a slight advantage after
12 . . . .ixe3 13 'ii'x e3 - see 10 'ii'd 3)
12 exf6 ( 1 2 lLld4 .ixd4 13 cxd4
fxe5 14 dxe5 'ii'e 7 15 lLlc3 lLlxc3 16
bxc3 lLlxe5 is promising for Black,
Gligoric-Unzicker, Oberhausen
196 1) 12 'ii'xf6 13 lLlbd2 .id6
( 13 . . . .ixe3 14 'ii'xe3 leads to a line
considered, which is also satisfac
tory for Black - see 10 'ii'd3)
against Mikhalevsky, Beer-Sheva

1992) 14 . . . l:tae8 15 a4 lLle5 16
axb5 lLlxd2 17 lLlxd2 lLlg4! 18 lLlfl
axb5 19 .id4 'ii' h 4 20 g3 'ii' h 3 2 1
'ii'xb5! and the complications ended
in White's favour. 14 . . . lLle5 !? looks
stronger.
Now we come back to 10 'ii'd3 .
With this move White maintains
both possibilities, viz . .ic1-e3 and
lLlbl-d2 . In the last case the white
queen's position on d3 prevents
. . . .ie6-f5.
0-0
10
The most accurate. Alterna
tives are:
a) 10 'ii'd7 is hardly good in
view of 11 lLlbd2 ! , e.g. 11 . . . lLlxd2
12 .ixd2 d4? ! ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 !?) 13 xe6
fxe6 14 l:tac1 0-0 1 5 lLlg5 l:tf5? 16
cxd4 .ixd4 17 'ii'e4 with a winning
position (R. Rodriguez-Baquero,
Thessaloniki 1988) .
b) 10 .ib6 is also insufficient:
1 1 .ie3 lLlc5 12 .ixc5 .ixc5 13 a4
b4 14 lLlbd2 0-0 15 l:tfel l:te8 16 lLld4
with a clear edge (Olland-Spiel
mann, Stockholm 1912).
c) 10 f6 1 1 exf6 'ii'xf6 12 .ie3
leads to a line considered below af
ter 12 . . . 0-0 ; in the latter variation
12 . . . 0-0-0? ! is risky due to 13 a4
lLla5 14 .id4! 'ii'h 6 15 .ic2 .id6 16
.ie5! (Korchnoi) .
d) Finally, 10 lLle 7 is possible.
After 1 1 .i e3 ( l 1 lLld4 ! ? was sug
gested by Keres) 1 1 . . . f5 ( 1 1 . . . lLlf5
12 d4 xd4 13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 14
'ii'xd4 is slightly better for White,
according to Korchnoi) 12 'ii'e 2
.ixe3 13 'ii'xe3 c5 14 l:tdl 0-0 15
14 l:tfel (in the game Bertok

Geller, Stockholm 1962, a draw was
agreed after 14 a4 lLlxd2 15 'ii'xd2
lLle5 16 lLlxe5 'ii'xe5 17 f4 'ii' h 5; the
text move was played by Yudasin

li)h4 (Trifunovic-Karaklaic, Bel
grade 1954) or 1 1 li)bd2 i.f5 12
'ii'e 2 'ii'd 7 13 li)xe4 i.xe4 14 li)g5
i.f5 15 i.e3 i.xe3 16 'ii'xe3 h6 1 7
li)f3 0-0 18 'ii'c 5 (A. Sokolov-Yusu
pov, Belfort 1988) White main
tains a small edge.
1 1 i.e3
1 1 li)bd2 is another possible
plan. Now both 1 1 lDxf2?! 12
:xf2 f6 13 li)e4! and 1 1 li)xd2 12
i.xd2 li)e7 13 li)d4 i.b6 14 a4! (Yur
taev-Thipsay, Frunze 1985) are
preferable for White; so Black usu
ally plays 1 1 f5 12 exf6 (or 12
i.c2 'ii'd 7 13 li)b3 .i.a7 14 i.e3
i.xe3 15 'ii'xe3 li)d8 16 li)c5 'ii'e 7
with equal chances, Pilnik-Euwe,
Buenos Aires 1947) 12 li)xf6. The
position opens up and Black ob
tains the f-file for his rook and a
comfortable d6 square for his
queen. On the other hand, his king
side defences arouse some appre
hension. White has the following
possibilities :
a) 13 .i.c2?! i.f7 14 li)h4 li)e5

15 'ii' h 3 'ii'd 7 16 i.f5 'ii'd 6 and
Black is okay (Puc-Trifunovic, Yu

goslav championship 1946).
b) 13 li)g5 li)e5! (centralisation
in reply to a flank attack; 13 . . . i.f7?!
is inferior, for example 14 li)xf7
:Xf7 15 li)f3 'ii'd 6 16 i.g5 :d7 1 7
:ael with a clear edge for White
Gonzales-G. Garcia, Colombian
championship 1988) 14 'ii'g3 'li'd6
15 i.c2 ( 1 5 :fel?! li)fg4 16 li)de4
dxe4 17 i.xe6 + c,th8 18 i.e3 li)xf2,
Zagorovsky-Taimanov, USSR 1947,
is favourable for Black; while 1 5
li)df3 li)xf3 + 16 fuf3 'ii'xg3 1 7
hxg3 li)e4 18 li)d4 i.xd4 1 9 cxd4 c5,
Blau -Trifunovic, Hilversum 1947,
leads to equality) 15 . . . i.d7 16 li)b3
i.b6. Now the attempt 1 7 li)d4 ( 1 7
i.f4 :ae8 i s unclear according to
Korchnoi) 17 . . . :ae8 18 i.f4 is met
by 18 . . . li)h5 ! , e.g. 19 i.xe5 :xe5
20 i.xh 7 + c,th8 2 1 'ii' h4 g6 22 f4
.i.xd4 + 23 cxd4 :ef5 24 g3 c,tg7,
and White was relieved to find a
nice draw: 25 :ael! li)xf4! 26 gxf4
:xf4 2 7 :xf4 :xf4 28 :e7 + c,tf8
29 :e8 + ! etc. (Khalifman-Yida
nov, Kuibyshev 1986).
c) 13 a4 :b8 (13 . . .i.f7 was tried
in two games between Andrei So
kolov and Artur Yusupov; in their
matchgame - Riga 1986 - after 14
li)g5 li)e5 15 'ii'g3 'ii'd6 16 .i.c2 h6 16 . . . .i.g6 was obviously stronger 17 li)xf7 li)xf7 18 li)b3 'ii'xg3 19
hxg3 .i.b6 20 li)d4 White obtained
a better endgame; and in Tilburg
1987 Sokolov preferred 16 li)xf7
li)xf7 1 7 li)f3 with a slight edge for
White after 1 7 . . . 'ii'xg3 18 hxg3 c6
19 li)d4 i.xd4 20 cxd4; 13 . . . :b8
enables Black to avoid simplifi

cations) 14 axb5 axb5 15 liJg5 (15
-ic2 is again harmless due to
15 . . . -if7, for example 16 liJb3 i.d6
17 liJbd4 liJxd4 18 'iVxd4 c5 19 'iVh4
liJe4 with chances for both sides,
Puc-Milie, Yugoslav championship
1946) 15 liJe5 16 'iVg3 'iVd6 1 7
i. c2 -id7! (this i s the same ar
rangement of pieces as after 13
liJg5 ; the open a-file does not yield
White any profit) 18 liJb3 -ib6 19
-i f4 l:tbe8 .
..
draw after 28 . . ...e5 29 gxf5 -ixd4 +

30 cxd4 'iVxd4 + (Timman).
1 1 -ie3 leads to quieter lines of
play.
f61
11
This is the principal difference
from the Keres variation. Black
makes use of his small develop
ment advantage to break loose.
1 1...f5 leads to the same line after
12 exf6 but is this capture forced
then?
The other options are less fa
vourable:
a) 11 liJe 7 12 liJd4! i.xd4 13
cxd4 .i.f5 14 'iVdl h6 15 f3 liJg5 16
liJc3 with a clear edge (S. Garcia
Cordova, Cienfuegos 1984).
b) 11 -ixe3 12 'iVxe3 liJe7 (the
lines 12 . . ...d7 13 1:1dl l:tad8 14
liJbd2 f5 15 liJxe4 fxe4 16 liJg5 l:tf5
1 7 f4 exf3 18 liJxf3 'iVe7 19 liJd4,
Solozhenkin-Kislov, Leningrad
1989, and 12 . . . f6 13 liJd4 ! liJxd4 14
cxd4 fxe5 15 dxe5 'iVe7 16 f3 liJc5
17 l:tcl liJb 7 18 liJc3 , SchOneberg
Briickner, Germany 1992, yield
White the better prospects, while
after 12 . . . liJa5 13 liJbd2 liJxd2 14
liJxd2 'iVd7 15 l:tadl -if5 16 liJe4 c6
1 7 liJc5 White maintained a small
edge in Hecht-NeunhOffer, Ger
many 1987) 13 ltdl (Short's im
provement; however, 13 .i.c2 liJg6
14 l:tel f5 15 exf6 'iVxf6 16 -ixe4
dxe4 1 7 liJg5, Gligorie-Trifunovie,
London 1951, or 13 liJbd2 liJf5 14
'iVe2 liJxd2 15 'iVxd2 c5 16 1:1adl
"e7 1 7 'iVf4, Kupreichik-Karsa,
Copenhagen 1988, provide White
with a more pleasant position as
This sharp position was the sub

ject of a subsequent discussion be
tween Sokolov and Jan Timman
in 1988. In Belfort after 20 liJd4
liJh5 2 1 -ixe5 l:txe5 22 -ixh7 +
h8 23 ft4 'iVh6? 24 liJdf3 l:tee8
2 5 l:tfel White obtained a danger
ous attack, but in Reykjavik (1988)
Timman unveiled an important
improvement: 23 g6! (see the 13
liJg5 line above) 24 f4 l:txg5 25
'iVxg5 xh7 when, instead of 26
l:tael? liJg7! illustrative game 23
White should have played 26 f5 !
l:txf5 27 l:txf5 .i.xf5 28 g4 forcing a
..

well) 13 . . . h6 14 ll)bd2 .if5 15 a4
c6 16 ll)d4 .igS 1 7 ll)xe4 .ixe4 18
e6? ! c5! 19 exf7 + l:hf7 20 ll)e6
'ii'c 8 ! , and Black successfully de
fended (Short-Yusupov, Linares
1990). According to Yusupov, White
could have obtained the better
chances by means of 18 .ic2 ! '
c ) 1 l Ji'e7 1 2 ll)bd2 .ixe3 1 3
'ii'x e3 ll)xd2 14 'ii'xd2 also offers
White good prospects, for example
14 Jad8 15 :fel ll)a5 16 .ic2
ll)c4 17 'ii'c l c5 18 b3 ll)b6 19 ll)g5
g6 20 f4 with a clear edge (Sigur
jonsson-Honfi, Cienfuegos 1976) or
14 ll)a5 15 .ic2 ll)c4 ( 1 5 . . . c5? 16
ll)g5 h6 1 7 ll)h7 :fd8 18 f4 is good
for White, S. Garcia-Antoshin, La
Habana 1968) 16 'ii'c l (R.Byrne
Martinowski, USA 1968).
d) 1 l 'iVd7!? 12 ll)bd2 .ixe3
13 'ii'x e3 ll)xd2 14 'ii'x d2 ll)a5 15
.ic2 c5 16 'ii'f4 ( 1 6 ll)g5 .if5 - the
point! ) 16 . . . h6 17 h3 ll)c6 18 :ad l
f5 with equal chances (Prasad-Ag
zamov, Calcutta 1986). In this line
12 :dl looks stronger.
12 exf6
12 ll)bd2 ll)xd2 13 'ii'xd2 .ixe3
14 'ii'xe3 ll)xe5 15 ll)xe5 fxe5 16
'ii'x e5 'ii'd 7 led to equality in the
game Bolbochan-Teschner, Stock
holm 1962.
'ii'xf6
12
13 ll)bd2
The capture of the pawn is
risky: 13 .ixd5 :ad8 14 i.xe6 +
( 1 4 .ixc5? ll)xc5 15 .ixe6 + "xe6
16 'ii'e 3 'ii'x e3 17 fxe3 ll)d3 and
Black is better, Korchnoi) 14 . . ...xe6
15 'ii'e 2 (15 ll)d4?! ll)xd4 16 cxd4
.
.ixd4 17 .ixd4 c5 with a slight ad

vantage, Medina-Karaklaic, Casa
blanca 1974) 15 . . .ll)xf2 16 'at>xf2
:de8 17 :el 'ii'd6 18 'ii'd2 :xf3 + ! ,
and White should settle for 19 gxf3
'ii'xh2 + with perpetual check (Kor
chnoi).
.ixe3
13
But not 13 ll)e5 14 ll)xe5 'ii'xe5
15 .td4 .ixd4 16 cxd4 'ii'd6 17 :acl
with slightly better chances (Tal
Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 1968).
ll)xd2
14 'ii'xe3
15 'ii'xd2
Or 15 ll)xd2 :ad8 16 'ii'c 5 .if7
17 :adl 'ii'd6 18 ll)e4 'ii'xc5 19 l1)xc5
a5 with an equal position (Zago
rovsky-Estrin, corr 1968) .
:ad8
15
16 :fel
In the game I vkov-Geller (Za
greb 1955) 16 ll)d4 .if7 1 7 .ic2
ll)a5 led to equality.
h8!
16
16 .ig4 1 7 :e3 'at>h8 18 ll)d4
ll)a5 19 h3 i.c8 20 :ael yielded
White a small edge in Rittner-de
Carbonnel (corr 1968) .
The text move (a typical ma

noeuvre, preparing . . . .ie6-gS) was
played in the 4th match game be
tween Kamsky and Anand (Las
Palmas 1995). Mer 17 :e3 .ig8
18 :dl d4! 19 :eel ( 1 9 cxd4?
ll)xd4! 20 ll)xd4 :xd4) 19 . . . dxc3 20
'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 2 1 bxc3 ll)a5 Black ob
tained an excellent position.
Section 2
1 0 ll)bd2: deviations on
moves 10 and 1 1
( 1 e 4 e 5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5)
10 ll)bd2
In this small section we exam

ine various side lines after 10
ll)bd2.
10
0-0
Concrete actions are still pre
mature: 10 ll)xd2 1 1 .ixd2 0-0
12 .i.g5 'ii'd 7 13 'ii'd3 .ie7 14 :adl
:ad8 15 :fel ll)a5 16 .ic2 g6 1 7
'ii'd4 (Muchnik-Lashmanov, USSR
1 9 5 1 ) and 10 ll)xf2 1 1 :xf2 ffi
12 'ii'e 2 0-0 13 exffi 'ii'xffi 14 ll)n

.ixf2 + 15 'ii'xf2 ll)e5 16 .ie3 ttJxf3 +
17 'ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 18 gxf3 :Xf3 19 .ic5
(Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Reykjavik
1987) both give White the better
chances.
Surprisingly, nobody yet has
tried 10 'ii'd 7!? in this position.
1 1 .ic2 (D)
Another possibility is 1 1 'ii'e2 .
After 1 1 . . . .if5 12 ll)xe4 ( 1 2 e6? !
fxe6 13 ll)xe4 dxe4 14 ll)g5 'ii'ffi 15
ll)xe4 'ii'e5 16 .ic2, Angelov-Lorenz,
corr 1971, could have been fol
lowed by 16 . . . :ad8 ! 17 h l .ixe4
18 f4 .ixg2 + and Black is on top,
Sapundzhiev) 12 . . . dxe4 13 ll)g5
ll)xe5 14 ll)xe4 .ig4 (or 14 . . . 'ii'd 3
15 'ii'xd3 ll)xd3 16 ll)xc5 ll)xc5 with
equal chances, Boleslavsky-Botvin
nik, LeningradIMoscow 1941) 15
'ii'd2 ( 1 5 'ii'c 2 .ib6 16 .if4 ll)d3 17
.ig5 'ii'd 7 and Black is slightly
better, Leow-Milos, Manila 1992)
15 . . . 'ii'x d2 ! 16 .ixd2 .ib6 1 7 .ie3
.ixe3 18 fxe3 :ad8 19 l1)c5 .ic8 an
equal position arose in the game
Horowitz-Pilnik (Hollywood 1945).

This position is a starting-point
for three deeply developed sys
tems of counterplay. We shall ex
amine them as follows : Section 3
( 1 1 f5), Section 4 ( 1 1 i.f5) and
Section 5 ( 1 1 ... lbxf2 ) . Here we
deal with a fourth possible move,
which is considered to be some
what weaker.
ll)xd2
1 1 ...
12 'it'xd2
But not 12 i.xd2 d4! equalis
ing, Keres.
f6
12 ...
12 ... ll)e7 13 b4 i.b6 14 ll)g5 i.f5
1 5 i.xf5 ll)xf5 16 'it'd3 g6 17 'it'h3
(Smyslov-Ragozin, USSR champi
onship, Moscow 1944) and also
12 ... i.e7 13 'it'd3 g6 14 i.h6 l:te8
15 'it'd2 f6 16 exf6 i.xf6 17 l:tadl
ll)a5 18 ll)d4 (Pillsbury-Albin, Nur
emberg 1896) can hardly be satis
factory for Black.
12 ... l:te8!? deserves further ex
amination since the most recent
example is from the game Fliam
berg-Bernstein (Vilno 1912 1 ) : 13
l:tel 'it'd7 14 ll)d4 i.f8 15 a4 g6 16
axb5 axb5 17 l:txa8 l:txa8 18 'it'e2
b4 with a satisfactory position for
Black. Still, this line looks some
what passive.
12 . . . f6 (brought back into prac
tice by Antoshin) seems not to
provide Black with sufficient coun
terplay either.
13 exf6
To 13 'it'd3 Black should not re
spond 13 ... f5 in view of 14 a4 b4
15 a5 with a clear advantage (Si
magin-Langeweg, Sochi 1967). The
best reply is 13 ... g6 14 exf6 i.f5

15 'it'dl i.xc2 16 'it'xc2 'it'xf6 1 7
i.h6 'it'f5 1 8 'it'd2 l:tf7 1 9 l:tadl l:td8
and now Black has good equalis
ing chances (Janowski-Englisch,
Berlin 189 7) .
l:txf6
13 ...
14 ll)g5
14 ll)d4 is too stereotyped :
14 . . . ll)xd4 15 cxd4 i.d6! 16 'iVe2
'it'd7 17 a4 l:te8 18 i.g5 i.f5 19 'it'd2
i.g6, and the initiative has passed
to Black (Juckert-Friedch, corr
1957). 14 b4!? is more promising.
Mter 14 . . . i.b6 15 a4 l:tb8 16 'it'e2
h6 (16 . . . 'it'd7 17 i.g5 l:tf7 18 l:tadl
i.g4 19 i.b3 i.xf3 20 gxf3 ll)e7 2 1
a 5 i. a 7 22 i.xe7 'it'xe7 23 'it'xe7
l:txe7 24 l:txd5 with a clear edge,
Klovan-Shereshevsky, USSR 1974)
1 7 i.f4 i.g4 18 i.g3 d4 19 axb5
axb5 20 'it'xb5 White's position is
preferable.
i.f5
14 ...
15 a4
The alternatives 15 i.xf5 l:txf5
16 ll)e6 'ii'd6 1 7 ll)xc5 'it'xc5 18 'it'e2
d4 CA. Rodriguez-Antoshin, Cien
fuegos 1977) and 1 5 b4 i.b6 16
i.b3 ll)e7 1 7 a4 c6 18 l:tel i.g6 19
ll)f3 ll)f5 20 ll)e5 i.e8 (Karpov-An
toshin, USSR championship, Riga
1970) do not promise White any
advantage.
The text move yielded White an
overwhelming position in Sue
tin-Antoshin (Sochi 1974) after
15 ...ll)e7 16 i.xf5 ll)xf5 1 7 'iVd3 h6
18 axb5! axb5 19 l:txa8 'it'xa8 20
'it'xb5. However, 1 5 ... l:tb8!? looks
more accurate (Korchnoi).
Section 3
11
...
f5
( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 b5 a6 4
i. a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b 5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.c5 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 i.c2)
f5
11
This system was topical a cou

ple of decades ago, but is now a
rare guest in tournament prac
tice. Later on I'll try to explain
why.
12 tZ)b3
12 en6 just clears files for
Black's pieces: 12 . . . tZ)xfG 13 tZ)b3
(13 tZ)g5? i.g4! 14 i.xh7 + tZ)xh7 15
'lVxg4 trurg5 16 tZ)b3 does not work
due to 16 . . Jbf2 ! 17 tZ)xc5 xf1 +
18 xf1 'ii'fB + 19 i.f4 'lVxc5 20
'lVxg5 fB with a dangerous attack
for Black, according to Levenfish)
13 . . . i.b6 14 tZ)g5 (14 a4? is poor in
view of 14 . . . i.g4! 15 axb5 tZ)e5, as
in Bannik-Estrin, USSR 1945 ;
while 14 tZ)fd4 tZ)xd4 15 cxd4 'lVd6
16 'lVd3 c6 1 7 'lVg3 'ii'd 7 18 tZ)c5
i.xc5 19 dxc5 i.f5 20 i.b3 ae8
yielded Black an edge in Lilien

thal-Botvinnik, LeningradIMos
cow 194 1 ; and 14 tZ)bd4 tZ)xd4 15
tZ)xd4 i.g4 16 'lVd3 c5 1 7 tZ)f5 'ii'd 7
brings the same outcome, Gre
chkin-Radchenko, USSR 195 1 ; fi
nally, 14 i.g5 'lVd6 15 tZ)fd4 tZ)xd4
16 tZ)xd4 i.g4 17 f3 i.d7 18 h1
c5 19 tZ)e2 tZ)h5 proved quite sat
isfactory for Black in Siichting
Marco, Berlin 1897) 14 . . . 'lVd7 (or
14 . . . i.g4, e.g. 15 i.xh 7 + h8 16
'lVc2 'lVd6 1 7 i.f5 tZ)e5 18 tZ)d4 c5
19 tZ)de6 tZ)e4 with unclear com
plications, Derenkov-Radchenko,
USSR 1963) 15 trure6 'lVxe6 16 tZ)d4
tZ)xd4 1 7 cxd4 ae8 18 i.e3 'ii'd 6
19 'ii'd3 c6 20 g3 'lVe6, and Black is
not worse (Nicht-Einax, corr 1989).
12 tZ)b3 is connected with the
idea tZ)f3-d4 and 2-f3 . Black must
now resort to tactical measures to
maintain the balance.
12
b6
12 i.a7 makes no difference :
13 tZ)fd4 tZ)cxd4 14 tZ)xd4 i.xd4
etc. If White plays 14 cxd4 f4 1 5
f3 tZ)g3 16 hxg3 fxg3 1 7 'lVd3 i.f5
18 'ii'xf5 xf5 19 i.xf5 'lVh4 20
i.e6 + h8 2 1 i.h3 xd4 + 22
h1?! (22 tZ)xd4 leads to the main
line with 15 cxd4) then Black ob
tains a splendid position: 22 . . . xe5
23 f4 fB 24 tZ)c5 g5 ! 25 tZ)d7 i.g7
26 tZ)xfB g4 with a strong attack
(Boey-Estrin, corr 1972) .
13 tZ)fd4
13 a4 is not dangerous due to
13 . . .'lVd7 (but not 13 . . .b4 14 a5 a7
15 tZ)bd4 tZ)xd4 16 tZ)xd4 xd4 1 7
cxd4 f4 1 8 f3 tZ)g3 19 2 'lVh4 2 0

1:.a4! with a clear plus for White,
as in Boleslavsky-Szabo, Gronin
gen 1946) 14 lDbd4 lDxd4 15 lDxd4
c5 16 lDe2 d4 (Suetin-Nei, USSR
championship, Tbilisi 1966/6 7)
or 14 axb5 axb5 15 1:.xa8 1:.xa8 16
i.e3 (Suetin-Faibisovich, USSR
1975), and now Korchnoi recom
mends 16 . . . b4 with equal chances.
lDxd4
13
i.xd4
14 lDxd4
The quiet 14 .'i'd7 is insuffi
cient for equality: 15 f3 lDc5 16
'it?hl (or 16 i.e3 f4 1 7 i.12 i.f7 18
'i'd2 lDe6 19 i.f5 with a slight
edge, Rantanen-Ornstein, Hel
sinki 1979, although the prophy
lactic text move is more flexible)
16 . . . 1:.ae8 ( 1 6 . . . lDb 7?! 1 7 i.e3 c5

18 lDxe6 'i'xe6 is refuted by an
overwhelming 19 a4 ! ! , for exam
ple 19 . . . lDa5 - 19 . . . 'i'xe5 20 1:.e1
i.c7 21 .tg1 - 20 .t12 'it>h8 21 1:.e1
1:.a7 22 'i'e2 ! , which gave White a
clear edge in the famous game
Stein-Keres, Moscow 1967 - illus
trative game 24) 17 b4 lDa4 18 'i'd3
c5 19 lDxe6 :Xe6 20 .txa4 bxa4 2 1
bxc5 with a slight advantage (Kie

ninger-Bogolyubow, Krakow 1941).
15 'i'xd4!
Decades of investigation and
discussions have finally proved
that this move is stronger than
the more natural 15 cxd4. This
pawn capture leads to an interest
ing forced variation : 15 f4! (nec
essary; if White manages to calm
down the position he will have a
huge positional plus) 16 f3 lDg3!
17 hxg3 (in the event of 1 7 1:.12
Black can create counterplay by
means of 1 7 . . . 'i'h4; now 18 'i'd3? !
1:.f5! - 1 8 . . . .tf5?! 19 'i'c3 - 1 9 i.xf4
.l:r.xf4 ! 20 hxg3 'i'xg3 21 'i'xh7 + cM7
forces White to fight for equality,
e.g. 22 1:.d 1 ! 1:.h4 23 'i'd3 c5 24
dxc5 1:.ah8 25 'it>f1 1:.h1 + 26 'it>e2
.l:r.xd1 27 i.xd1 'i'xe5 + with a good
position for Black, Napolitano-Sa
pundzhiev, corr 1973; so 18 i.d2 !
is probably better, when after
18 . . . 1:.ae8 19 .tb4 1:.f7 20 a4 i.c8
21 axb5 1:.e6, Geller-G. Garcia, Bo
gota 1978, White could have ob
tained an edge by 22 h3; however,
20 . . . i.d7! , recommended by Filip,
would have lead to an unclear po
sition. It was Boleslavsky who dis
covered that Black's knight can
safely be taken, thanks to White's
18th move) 17 fxg3 18 'i'd3! i.f5
19 'i'xf5 1:.xf5 20 i.xf5 'i'h4 2 1
.th3 'i'xd4 + 22 'it>hl "xe5 (D)
For several decades this position
was a real object of pride for chess
theorists. This position was the
first to be subject to a theoretical
debate of such length. Which are
stronger: White's pieces or Black's

queen and passed pawns? N owa
days a novelty on move 25 is noth
ing special, but at that time, in
the forties, analysing this position
during one's opening preparation
was a fantastic concept!
However, for many players it
was a kind of bogey. To start play
ing on move 25? Heaven forbid!
That's why, in my opinion, this
position has never been analysed
up to the final conclusion, and the
whole 11 . . . f5 line has lost its popu
larity. It even seems to me that
Black players simply did not want
to search for an adequate defence
to the strongest 15 'ii'xd4! .
23 .id2 (Suetin 's recommenda
tion 23 l:tb1 ! ? is very interesting
but no-one has ever plucked up
the courage to play it) 23 . . :ii'xb2
(23 . . . c5 is inferior; true, 24 l:tae1
'it'xb2 25 i.f4 'it'f6 - 25 . . . d4 26
i.e6 + 'it>h8 27 i.d5 followed by 28
l:te7 is favourable for White - 26
i.xg3 d4 2 7 l:te6 'it'g5 28 i.e5 d3 ,
Teschner-Honfi, Monte Carlo 1969,
or 28 'it>h2 d3 ! leads to an unclear
position, but 24 .ic3 ! - Pachman 24 . . . d4 25 l:tae1 'it'f4 26 l:te4 'it'h6

27 .ia5 or 27 .ie1 is quite convinc
ing) 24 .if4 d4 ! (but not 24 . . . c5?
25 .ie6 + 'it?h8 26 i.xd5 l:td8 2 7
l:tad1 and White i s winning, Smys
lov-Reshevsky, USSR-USA 1945;
Black should quickly push his d
pawn, as first played by Yacob
Estrin) 25 .ixg3 (25 .ixc7 d3 26
.ie6 + 'it>h8 27 l:tad1 l:te8 28 .id7
l:te2 29 .ixg3 d2 ,Tseshkovsky-Tal,
USSR championship, Leningrad
1974 - illustrative game 24 is
clearly in Black's favour, but here
26 .ixg3 is stronger, e.g. 26 . . . d2 2 7
i.e6 + 'it>h8 2 8 f4 l:td8 29 l:tad1 l:td3
30 l:tf2 'ii'b4 with equality, Batu
rinsky-Estrin, corr 1946; while 25
l:tfe1 c5 26 l:tad1 c4 2 7 .ie6 + 'it>h8
28 .ie5 l:td8 also yields Black suf
ficient counter-chances, Unzicker
Schmid, Munich 1947) 25 . . . c5 (the
line 25 . . . d3 26 l:tad1 d2 27 .ie6 +
'it>f8 28 .ixc7 'it>e7 29 .id5 l:tf8 30
.ia5 l:tf5 - 30 . . . b4 is met by 3 1
l:tf2, Suetin - 3 1 l:txd2 led to a win
ning position for White in Pelitov
Estrin, Albena 1973 ; 27 . . . 'it>h8 28
.ixc7 l:te8 should be considered)
26 l:tae1 d3 2 7 l:te7 (Beliavsky-Orn
stein, Le Havre 1977). Now in
stead of 2 7 . . . 'it'f6 28 l:td7! Black
should have played 27 . . . d2 28
i.e6 + 'it>h8 29 l:td7 c4 with an un
clear position (recommended by
MaIjanovic).
Now we move on to the alterna
tive 15 'it'xd4.
c5
15
16 'it'dl
f4?!
-

This 'theoretical ' move is not
the best option for Black. Tim
man's experiment 16 h6 deserves
attention. After 17 f3 tZ)g5 18 .ie3
:c8 19 'i'd2 a5 20 :adl 'i'e7 2 1
.ibl 'iii> h 8 2 2 :fel :c7 23 .if2 b4
(Short-Timman, EI Escorial 1993)
Knaak recommends 24 'i'd3, main
taining a slight edge thanks to the
awful position of Black's knight.
However, Speelman's suggestion
19 . . . d4! ? is waiting for tests. For
his part, White can try 18 a4!?
Suetin considers that Black can
also reply with 16 'i'e7 , 16 a5
or 16 c4. A wide choice but . . . no
practical tests!
17 f3
tZ)g5
Now 17 tZ)g3 18 hxg3 fxg3 19
'i'd3 is clearly in White's favour.
18 a4!
Undermining Black's queenside
pawn structure. 18 b4 is harm
less: 18 . . . 'i'b6 19 bxc5 'i'xc5 + 20
'i'd4 'i'xd4 + 21 cxd4 .ic8 22 a4
.ib 7 with equal chances, Aarseth
de Carbonnel, corr 1968 .
18
b4 (D)
18 bxa4 19 :xa4 c4 20 b3
'i'b6 + 21 'iii>h l :ad8 22 'i'd4 'i'xd4
23 cxd4 .id7 24 :b4 also yields
White an edge (Haag-Estrin, COIT
1979).
19 cxb4!
After 19 h4 tZ)h3 + 20 gxh3
'i'xh4 2 1 :f2 .ixh3 22 :h2 :ae8
23 'i'xd5 + 'iii> h 8 24 .id2 :xe5 25
'i'xe5 'i'g3 + Black forces a draw
as in the game Averbakh-Szabo,
NeuhausenlZurich 1953.
c4
19
ill
x.
_ _ ", _ .
' B _1.8 _
.
_
11
_
. ;;
.
",.
"'''
.
"
fQ?
.
.
"
' i..
-
"
,iV.
) :
;." "
19 cxb4 20 'i'd4 .if5 2 1 .ib3

tZ)e6 22 'i'xd5 'i'b6 + 23 'it>hl :ad8
is insufficient in view of 24 a5 !
'i'c7 25 'i'c4! (Nokso Koivisto-Kau
nonen, COIT 1986). 19 . . . c4 was rec
ommended by Bronstein back in
the fifties. However. . .
20 b3!
20 'i'd4 .if5 ! (Bronstein) is fa
vourable for Black, but the strong
text move clarifies the situation.
After 20 d4 21 bxc4 .ixc4 22
.ib3 ! (Rantanen-Ornstein, Reyk
javik 1981) or 20 'i'b6 + 2 1 'iii> h l
d4 2 2 a5! White has a clear plus.
Radical ways to improve this
variation for Black should be
searched for on move 16.
Section 4
1 1 ... .ifS
( 1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4

.ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2)
.if5
11 ...
This defence has been popular
in recent years. Black intends to
.a.
%
-*
k
l
'
E
.
;:;
j:.
,,, " "
/" ,, &
z" " ,
. _4&\. _ _
.,_
, '/tt.
_
W"
.4&\.

-ttJ.
;;
x ,,
;%{@
A fi ?>. ' ''
O U :
w%;%
fi A
o ,,
.
"
M
_:
keep his centralised knight by tac

tical means such as the break
. . . f7-f6 etc. Still, White manages
to carry out Capablanca's idea,
i.e. to force the exchange of pieces
on d4 with Black's c-pawn delayed
on its initial square. Despite the
fact that Black also obtains some
counterplay, White maintains a
minimal edge (on condition of pre
cise play, of course ! ) .
12 ll)b3
White's plan is the same as in
the 11 . . . f5 line: ll)f3-d4 and f2-f3 .
i. g6!
12
12 i.b6 13 ll)fd4 is clearly in
White 's favour. However, there
are two more moves:
a) 12 i.g4 A subject of debate
in the seventies. White mostly
played 13 ll)xc5 ll)xc5 14 :el (or
14 i.e3 ll)e4 15 h3 i.h5 16 g4 i.g6
17 i.b3 "fie7 with unclear play, as
in the game Tseshkovsky-Geller,
USSR championship, Moscow
1976). The 1978 World Champi
onship match in Baguio eventu
ally proved that Black could
equalise by means of 14 . . . i.h5! 1 5
h3 :e8 16 i.f4 ll)e6 (Karpov-Kor

chnoi, Baguio City 1978) .
However, just a few days after
the latter game Karpov refuted the
whole line: 13 h3! i.h5 (13 . . . i.xf3
14 gxf3 xf2 + 15 :xf2 ll)xf2 16
xf2 'ii' h 4 + 17 g2 ll)xe5 18 ll)d4
is favourable for White, according
to Filip) 14 g4 i.g6 15 i.xe4 dxe4
16 ll)xc5 exf3 17 i.f4! 'ii'x dl 18
:axdl ll)d8 19 :d7 ll)e6 20 ll)xe6
fxe6 2 1 i.e3 :ac8 22 :fdl (or 2 2
i.c5 :fe8 23 :el h5, a s i n Timo
schenko-Sideif-Zade, Frunze 1979,
and now 24 gxh5 ! i s slightly bet
ter for White) 22 . . . i.e4 23 i.c5
:fe8 24:7d4 i.d5 25 b3, and
White's chances in this endgame
are clearly preferable (Karpov
Korchnoi, Baguio City 1978 il
lustrative game 26) .
b) 12 i.xf2 + !? One of the
numerous opening inventions by
Yacob Murey. Its idea is similar to
that of the Dilworth variation de
scribed below in Section 5 : to cre
ate an attack on White 's king by
means of . . . f7-f6 . The exchange of
light-squared bishops is quite sat
isfactory for Black. However, in
comparison to the Dilworth vari
ation, White's pieces are placed
somewhat better; besides, he can
avoid the opening of the f-file: 13
:xf2 ll)xf2 14 xf2 i.xc2 15 "fixc2
f6 16 e6 (the most solid way for
White; 16 "fif5 ll)xe5 1 7 i.e3 :e8
18 :dl c6 19 i.c5 ll)c4 20 "fibl
"fic7 2 1 ll)bd2 ll)a5 22 "fid3 ll)b 7
led to a position with chances for
both sides in the game Ljubojevic-
82 The Discussion ofDecades

Piket, Monaco 1994; and 16 exf6
allows Black counterplay as well
after 16 . . .'ilVxffi 17 'it>gl ttJe5 . Now
18 'ilt'f2 ae8 19 e3 ttJxf3 + 20
gxf3 'ilt'xf3 21 xf3 xf3 22 c5
e6 leads to a good endgame for
Black, Arnason-Murey, Brighton
1982, and 18 'ilt'd1 ae8 19 'ilt'xd5 +
'it>h8 20 d2 ttJxf3 + 2 1 gxf3 e2
22 e1 xb2 to an unclear posi
tion, Seirawan-Zak, Lugano 1989 .
In Korchnoi ' s opinion, 18 ttJbd4 !
h6 19 e3 is good enough to main
tain a small edge) 16 . . . 'ilt'd6 1 7
e3 'ilt'xe6 18 ttJbd4 (18 ttJc5 -v.fie7
19 'ilt'b3 'ilt'f7 20 d1 proved harm
less in view of 20 . . . ttJe5 ! , Apicella
Murey, Paris 1989) 18 . . . ttJxd4 19
ttJxd4 -v.fie5 ( 19 . . . -v.fid6 20 ttJf5 'ife5
2 1 'it>gl fe8 22 f1 'ife4 23 'iff2
yielded White better chances in
the game Morovic-Murey, Thessa
loniki 1984) 20 ttJf3 (20 ttJf5!? was
suggested by Piket) 20 . . . 'ifh5 2 1
a4 c 6 22 b 4 fe8 23 'ifd3 ad8 24
h3 e4 25 axb5 axb5 26 i.d4
de8, and Black managed to hold
his ground (Leko-Piket, Dortmund
1994). The whole variation re
quires further analysis.
N ow we come back to the main
line (after 12 . . . g6) (D).
13 ttJfd4
13 xe4 dxe4 14 ttJxc5 'ilt'xd1
15 xd1 exf3 is clearly harmless
for Black. The same can be said
about the other alternatives:
a) 13 f4 i.b6 14 a4 (14 ttJfd4
ttJe7 15 f3 c5) 14 . . . -v.fid7 (14 . . . b4!?)
15 axb5 axb5 16 xa8 xa8 1 7
ttJfd4 b 4 ( 1 7 . . . ttJd8!? 18 f3 c5) 18
d3 bxc3 19 b5 ttJxf2 ! 20 xf2

ttJxd4! 2 1 xd7 ttJxb3 22 bxc3
a1, and White had to fight for a
draw in Short-Timman, Tilburg
1988; remarks by Kovacevic.
b) 13 e6!? f5 ! ? ( 13 . . .fxe6 14
xe4 dxe4 15 ttJxc5 exf3 16 ttJxe6
is slightly better for White) 14
xe4 fxe4 15 ttJxc5 exf3 16 e7
ttJxe7 17 ttJe6 'ilt'd7 18 ttJxf8 xf8
19 h3 e4 with enough compensa
tion for the exchange (Loshakov
Abloukhov, corr 1987). Abloukhov
suggests that 14 ttJxc5 !? ttJxc5 15
g5 'ilt'd6 16 e7! fe8 1 7 e1 ttJe4
18 b3 yields White a slight edge.
However, isn't 13 . . . b6 (instead
of 13 . . . f5) the simplest reply for
Black? (Typesetter 's note - per
haps then 14 ttJfd4. )
c ) 13 'ife2 e8 ! 14 ttJxc5 (14
ttJfd4 doesn't work: 14 ... ttJxe5 15
xe4 xd4 16 xg6 ttJxg6 or 15
f3 ttJd6 16 ttJxc5 ttJd7 17 'ilt'f2 ttJxc5
18 xg6 hxg6 19 ttJc6 'ilt'd7 20
-v.fixc5 ttJb7, and Black wins a pawn
in both cases - Timman) 14 . . . tDxc5
15 xg6 hxg6 16 g5 'ifd7 1 7
ad1 ttJe6 18 'ifd2 ttJxg5 19 -v.fixg5
'iIIe 7 with equality in Ljubojevic

Timman, Hilversum 1987.
d) 13 a4 i.b6 14 ttJbd4 (14
axb5 axb5 15 xa8 'iIIxa8 16 'iIIxd5
ttJxc3 1 7 bxc3 i.xc2 proves to be
in Black's favour, Tukmakov-Sa
von, USSR championship, Mos
cow 1969) 14 . . . ttJxd4 (or 14 . . . 'illd 7
15 i.e3 ttJa5 16 axb5 axb5 17 ttJh4
ttJc4 with equal play, Ivanovic-To
dorovic, Yugoslav championship
1990) 15 ttJxd4 'iIId 7 ( 1 5 . . . c5 does
not work owing to 16 ttJc6 ! ttJxc3
1 7 ttJxd8 ttJxd 1 18 i.xg6 axd8 19
i.f5, and White wins a piece, Tim
man-Geller, Moscow 1981) 16 i.e3
ttJc5 17 a5 i.a7 18 f4 i.xc2 19 ttJxc2
f6 20 exf6 l:1xf6 with equality (Van
der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee
1983) .
e) 13 ttJbd4. This is less logical
than 13 ttJfd4 since f2-f3 is not
threatened. 13 . . . ttJxd4 (13 . . . i.xd4
is equally good, for example 14
cxd4 f6 15 i.e3 i.h5 16 'iIIc l 'iIId 7
17 i.dl i.xf3 18 gxf3 ttJg5 19 f4
ttJe6 with a fine position for Black,
Ziegler-Ernst, Swedish Champi
onship 1989; concerning 14 ttJxd4,
see 13 ttJfd4 i.xd4 14 ttJxd4) 14
cxd4 (if 14 ttJxd4 then 14 . . .i.b6 15
i.e3, and now Zsofia Polgar recommends 15 . . . 'illd 7 or 15 . . . 'ille 8 !?
instead of 15 ... l:1e8?! 16 a4 'iIId 7 1 7
axb5 axb5 18 l:1xa8 xa8 19 i.d3
c6 20 f4 with a slight plus, Zso.Pol
gar-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee
1990) 14 . . . i.b6 15 i.e3 l:1c8 16 b4
'iIIe 7 17 a3 a5 with chances for
both sides (Apicella-Korneev, Paris
1991).
Returning to 13 ttJfd4.
i.xd4
13
Black is forced to exchange his
bishop since 13 ttJxd4? is now
poor: 14 cxd4 i.b6 15 f3 ttJg5 16
i.xg5 'iIIxg5 17 f4 'iII h4 18 f5 with a
clear edge (Kostro-Pioch, Poland
1973) .
14 cxd4
To 14 ttJxd4 Black should reply
14 'illd 7! , after which White can
play:
..
a) 15 f4 ttJxd4 16 cxd4 f6 (or

16 . . . f5 1 7 i.e3 i. f7 18 c l i.e6
19 i.d3 c6 20 c2 ac8 with a
very solid position, Popovic-Ernst,
Tilburg 1992) 17 i.e3 l:1ad8 18
'iIIe 2 'it>h8 19 l:1acl c6 (Klovan-Dorf
man, USSR 198 1 ) or 17 fxe5 18
fxe5 l:1xfl + 19 'iIIxfl l:1f8 20 'iIIe 2
'iIIe 6 (Leko-Korchnoi, Leon 1994)
with easy equality in both cases.
b) 15 a4 ttJxe5 16 f4 ttJc6 1 7
ttJxc6 'iIIxc6 18 f5 (J. Polgar-Hel
lers, Wijk aan Zee 1990), and now
instead of 1 8 'illb6 + ?! 19 'iIId4
'iIIxd4 + 20 cxd4 i.h5 2 1 i.f4 etc.
Judit Polgar suggests 18 'illc5 + !
.

19 'ii'd4 i.h5 20 i.f4 'ii'c6 main
taining an extra pawn. Therefore
White should play first 16 axb5
axb5 1 7 1:!xa8 l:txa8 and only now
18 f4. However, the positions after
18 . . . tZ)c6 19 tZ)xb5 or 18 . . . c5 19
fxe5 cxd4 20 cxd4 are hardly in
White's favour.
c) 15 c6 'ii'xc6 16 i.e3 MeS.
Now both 1 7 f3? tZ)xc3 ! 18 'ii'd 2
( 18 bxc3 'ii'xc3) 18 . . .i.xc2 19 'ii'xc2
l:txe5 20 l:tael tZ)e2 + 21 l:txe2 'ii'xc2
22 l:txc2 l:txe3 (Speelman-Timman,
London 1989) and 1 7 f4? tZ)xc3
18 bxc3 'ii'xc3 19 i.d4 'ii'xc2 (Pop
ovic-Ernst, Tilburg 1992) are in
Black's favour. White should play
17 i.d4 tZ)c5 with equal chances.
After the move 14 cxd4, in view
of White's unmistakable threat 15
f3 , Black should urgently create
counterplay on the queenside.
a5l
14
14 f5 15 f3 tZ)g5 is poor due to
16 i.xg5 'ii'xg5 17 f4 with a clear
plus. The text move enables Black
to strongly meet 15 f3?! with the
reply 15 . . . a4! .
1 5 i.e3
15 f4?l f5 16 a4 tZ)b4 17 axb5
'ii'b 8 18 tZ)c5 tZ)xc5 19 dxc5 i.h5 !
20 'ii'd 2 'ii'xb5 yielded an edge for
Black in the game Kapengut
Sideif-Zade, USSR 1980. 15 i.d3
(with the idea of 15 . . . a4 16 i.xb5)
has not yet been tried in practice.
Sideif-Zade recommends 15 . . . 'ii'b 8
16 i.f4 'ii'b 6 17 l:tcl tZ)b4 18 i.bl
a4 19 tZ)c5 tZ)xc5 20 dxc5 'ii'e6 with
a slight plus for Black but 16 i.e3
looks more natural.
15
a4 (D)
15 tZ)b4? is wrong as after 16
i.bl a4 1 7 tZ)d2 a3 White has the
strong move 18 'ii'c l ! (Karpov-Sa
von, Moscow 1971) when even the
best line 18 . . . c5 19 bxa3 cxd4 20
axb4 dxe3 21 tZ)xe4 followed by 22
'ii'xe3 yields White an extra pawn
(Karpov) .
Mter 15 . . . a4 White finds him
self at the cross-roads.
16 tZ)d2
A quiet continuation. 16 tZ) c l
looks less natural a s i t temporar
ily disturbs the co-ordination of
White 's pieces. However, it has
some merits, too. White avoids
simplification and maintains the
{2-f3 threat. The knight can later
come back to the game via e2 or
d3 . Generally, 16 tZ)cl gives the
game a sharper character. Black
can reply to it in different ways:
a) 16 tZ)b4 is still premature:
17 i.bl a3 18 b3 c5 19 dxc5 tZ)c6
20 tZ)e2 'ii'e8 21 f4 with a clear plus
(Tseshkovsky-Geller, USSR cham
pionship, Vilnius 1980/81).
b) 16 f6 is possible, with the

idea of a double-edged piece sacri
fice. In Wojtkiewicz-Sideif-Zade
(USSR 1981) Black obtained a
clear edge after 17 f3 fxe5 18
dxe5? d4! 19 .txd4 tDxd4 20 .txe4
.txe4 21 fxe4 l:txfl + 22 "ii'xfl tDc2 .
Sideif-Zade analysed the variation
18 fxe4 l:txfl + 19 "ii'xfl ( 19 <i&?xfl
is worse due to 19 . . . exd4 20 .i.xd4
dxe4 2 1 .te3 "ii'f6 + 22 'it?gl l:td8 23
"ii'e 2 tDd4) 19 . . . exd4 20 "ii'xb5 tDa7
21 "ii'x d5 + "ii'x d5 22 exd5 dxe3,
which leads to a probable draw.
Nunn against Grivas (Thessa
loniki 1988) presented another
approach : 17 exf6 "ii'xf6 18 tDe2
tDb4 19 .tb1 tDd6 20 tDf4 .txb1 2 1
"ii'xb1 with an unclear position.
17 tDd3 !? deserves serious at
tention.
c) However, after Korchnoi's fa
mous victory over Karpov in their
sixth match game (Merano 1981),
16 a3 became the most popular.
Black attacks White's queenside
pawn structure to seize the im
portant b4 and c3 squares. On the
other hand, White should now
try to oust his opponent's active
pieces to expose Black's weak
points, especially the c7 pawn. AB
17 l:tbl?! f6 ! is favourable for
Black, for example 18 f3 fxe5 19
fxe4 l:txfl + 20 'ii'xfl exd4 2 1 .td2
(Unzicker-Korchnoi, Beer-Sheva
1984) 2 1 . . .dxe4! 22 "ii'xb5 "ii'd6 and
Black is on top, White has only
two moves left to choose between:
c1) 17 bxa3 l:txa3 18 .tb3 (but
not 18 tDd3?! tDc3 19 1i'd2 tDa5 20
.tb3 lDxa2! with a clear plus, Hickl

Van der Sterren, Munich 1990)
1 8 . . . tDc3 1 9 'iVd2 b4 (so, Black
has consolidated his outposts in
White's camp, but for how long?)
20 tDd3 .txd3 (20 . . . tDxa2? does
not work yet due to 21 tDc5 ! l:txb3
22 tDxb3 tDc3 23 tDc5 with a clear
plus, Ljubojevic-Timman, Bugojno
1984, 2 1 'iVxd3 tDa5 (2 1 . . ."ii'a8! ?
deserves attention, e.g. 22 .i.d2
tDxa2! 23 l:tfe1 tDa5 24 l:txa2 tDxb3
25 .txb4 l:txa2 26 .txf8 l:ta1 with a
pleasant endgame for Black or 22
.tc2 g6 with good counter-play,
analysis by Marin) 22 .tc2 'iVh4 23
.tc1 l:txa2 24 l:txa2 tDxa2 2 5 .tg5
'iVe4! (25 . . . 'iVh5? is poor in view of
26 .te7 l:tb8 27 'iVa6, Short-Yusu
pov, Belfort 1988) 26 'iVd2 tDc4 2 7
'iVd1 tDc3 2 8 .txe4 tDxd 1 29 .txd5
tDb6 30 .te7 l:te8 31 .tc6 l:txe7 32
l:txd1 l:te6 33 .te4 g5! 34 l:tb1 f6,
and the endgame proved equal
(Hellers-Wedberg, Malmo 1988).
c2) 1 7 b3 f6 and White has a
choice (D) :
c2 1) 18 f3 fxe5 ! 19 fxe4 l:txfl +
20 'iVxfl (20 <i&?xfl? is losing due to
20 . . . exd4 2 1 .txd4 dxe4, Solomon
Van der Sterren, Sydney 199 1 )
20 . . . exd4 2 1 'iVxb5 leads t o un
clear complications but Black can
prefer 18 . . . tDc3 19 'iVd2 b4 20 .txg6
hxg6 2 1 e6 l:te8 22 tDd3 l:txe6 23
tDxb4 tDxb4 24 "ii'xc3 l:tb8 with a
good position (analysis by Tisdall
and Adams) .
c22) 18 exf6 has little pros
pects, too : 18 . . . "ii'xf6 19 tDe2 tDb4
(or 19 . . . "ii'e 7 20 l:tc1 tDb4 2 1 .i.b1
l:tae8 22 lbc3!? lbxc3 23 l:txc3 i.xb1

24 xb1 c6 with a good position
for Black, Speelman-Timman, Lon
don 1989) 20 ii.b1 l:tae8 (20 . . . e7
2 1 e1 l:tfe8 2 2 lbf4 ii.f7, Karpov
Korchnoi, Merano 1981 - illustra
tive game 2 7 is less convincing
due to 23 lbd3 ! , as recommended
by Nunn) 2 1 lbg3 l:te6 22 ii.xe4? !
(22 c1 is equal) 22 . . . dxe4 23 d2
lbd3 24 f3 exf3 2 5 l:txf3 'fIIe 7, and
the initiative passed to Black in
Liberzon-Stean, Beer-Sheva 1982.
c23) 18 lbd3!? (this is the lat
est twist, whereby White doesn't
allow Black's knight to b4) 18 . . . b4
( 18 . . . fxe5 19 lbxe5 lbxe5 20 ii.xe4
ii.xe4 21 dxe5 d7 22 f3 ii.f5 23
l:tc1 yielded White a secure edge in
the game Aseev-Korneev, Krum
bach 199 1 , while 18 . . . l:te8 !? has
also proved insufficient for equal
ity: 19 f3 - 19 lbf4!? fxe5 20 lbxg6
exd4 2 1 ii.xd4 hxg6 22 f3 with a
slight edge, Haba - 19 . . . fxe5 20
lbxe5 lbxe5 - 20 . . . lbc3 !? 2 1 d2
lbxe5 22 xc3 lbd3 23 d2 and
again White is slightly better,
Haba - 2 1 fxe4 lbd7 22 e5 i.xc2 23
-
xc2 and White holds a slight plus,

Aseev-Haba, Germany 1994 ; with
the text move Black attempts to
seize the c3 square, but the b4
pawn is by no means an adorn
ment to his position) 19 e1 ! fxe5
(19 . . . l:tb8 20 f3 lbc3 2 1 lbxb4 lbxb4
22 i.xg6 lbbxa2 23 ii.c2 fxe5 24
l:tf2! or 19 . . .e7 20 f4 fxe5 2 1 dxe5
d4 22 ii. d2 does not guarantee
Black equality either, Chekhov)
20 lbxe5 lbxe5 21 dxe5 e7 22 f3
lbc3 23 i.xg6 hxg6 24 i.d4 with a
certain plus for White (Chekhov
Gorelov, Wisla 1992). The onus is
on Black to find an improvement
after 16 lbcl.
Now we move on to examine 16
lbd2 .
f6
16
Passive play such as 16 lbe7
1 7 f3 lbxd2 18 xd2 c6 19 l:tac1
d7 20 ii.d3 h6 21 l:tfe1 (Ernst
Conquest, Gausdal 1991) is clearly
in White's favour.
16 a3 was extremely popular
a couple of years ago. Still, after
17 lbxe4 axb2 18 l:tbl ii.xe4 19
l:txb2 d7 20 i.d3 (20 ii.xe4 dxe4
2 1 l:txb5 lbxd4 2 2 l:tc5 l:tfd8 is
equal, A. lvanov-Yusupov, Frunze
1979) 20 ii.xd3 (20 . . .b4? 21 ii.b5 ! )
2 1 xd3 White ends up in a quiet
position with a minimal edge:
a) 2 1...b4 22 l:tc 1 l:tib8 23 b1
l:tb7 24 h3 l:ta4 25 l:tc5 h6 26 d1
l:ta5 2 7 'fIIc 1 l:txc5 28 xc5 with a
small advantage (Lobron-Korch
noi, Paris 1984) .
b) 2 1 . .. l:tfb8 22 l:tib1 b4 23 l:tc1
(23 a3 bxa3 24 l:txb8 + l:txb8 25
..
ltxb8 + lbxb8 26 'ii'xa3 yields White

a slightly better endgame as well,
Hiibner-Korchnoi, Chicago 1982)
23 . . . ltb6 24 'ii'b 1 h6 25 h3 lta7
(25 . . . ltab8 26 ltc5 ttJd8 2 7 ltcc2
with a slight pull, Karpov-Yusu
pov, USSR championship, Mos
cow 1983 illustrative game 28)
26 ltc5 ! with some pressure for
White (Popovic-Timman, Sarajevo
1984).
By means of 16 . . . f6 Black at
tempts to keep up the sharpness
of the position.
pawn to free himself from the pres

sure: 25 . . . ttJe7 26 ltxb5 ltab6 2 7
ltxb6 "xb6. Still, White's chances
look somewhat preferable.
Section 5
11
...
ttJxf2
17 f4
1 7 ltc l fxe5 18 ttJxe4 dxe4 19
d5 ttJe7 20 ii.g5 ltf7 21 ltel 'ii'xd5
(Ernst-Marin, Tallinn 1989) or 1 7
ttJxe4 dxe4 18 exf6 'ii'xf6 19 "d2
ltad8 20 ltad l ltd5 2 1 f3 "e6
(M. Schlosser-Kolev, Vienna 1990)
yield Black excellent prospects.
The text move was played in
Prandstetter-Haba (Prague 1990).
Mter 17 fxe5 18 dxe5 ! ttJxd2 19
ii.xd2 ..d7 20 i.xg6 hxg6 21 "c2
"e6 22 ltac1 lta6 23 "d3 ltb8 24
'itt h 1 ltb 7 25 ltc5 Black sacrificed a
..
( 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i.a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 ii.e6 9 c3 ii.c5 10
ttJbd2 0-0 11 i.c2)
ttJxf2
11
...
This minor sacrifice (intro

duced by English correspondence
player Vernon Dilworth) is the
most principled option for Black.
He makes use of his temporarily
better development to start an
attack on the kingside. Moreover,
if the game reaches an ending,
Black's rook can be as strong as
two White's pieces.
This variation has another at
tractive feature: a minor mistake
by White can lead him to a crush
ing defeat!
f6
12 ltxf2

13 exfG
Otherwise White cannot fight
for an edge, e.g. 13 lDd4?! lDxd4
14 cxd4 .txd4 15 'fih5 g6 16 .txg6
'fie7 and Black is on top (I. Larsen
Eriksson, Denmark 1965), or 13
lDfl .txf2 + 14 'lttxf2 fxe5 15 'it?gl
.tg4 16 lDe3 .txf3 17 gxf3 lDe7 as
in Janoevic-Honfi, Yugoslavia
Hungary 1964, or 13 'fiel(e2 )
!xe5 14 lDb3 .txf2 + 15 'fixf2 .tf5
16 .txf5 ltxf5 17 'fic5 'fid6 (Tsvet
kov-Trifunovic, Hilversum 1947) ,
or 14 lDfl (in the last variation)
14 . . . .txf2 + 15 'fixf2 'fid7 16 'fig3
e4 1 7 lDd4 U6 18 .tg5 Ag6 (To
canita-Ofstad, corr 1986), with a
fine position for Black in all cases.
.txf2 +
13
This is the most exact move or
der. 13 'fixf6 leaves White with
an additional possibility 14 'fif! !,
which is considered favourable for
him:
a) 14 g5 15 h3 h5 16 lDb3
.txf2 + 17 'fixf2 g4 18 hxg4 hxg4
19 'fig3 with a clear edge (Euwe) .
b) 14 b4 15 .ta4 bxc3 16 .txc6
cxd2 17 .txd2 Aab8 18 .tc3 'fif4
19 Adl, again with a distinct plus
(Husak-Eriksson, corr 1965).
c) 14 lDe5 15 lDd4 'fih4 16
lD2f3 lDxf3 + 1 7 Axf3 .tg4 18 Af2
g5 (otherwise 19 .tf4) 19 g3 'fih5
20 .te3 and White is better (Rich
ter-Messere, COIT 1965).
d) 14 .t g4 . This was played
in the famous game Smyslov-Bot
vinnik (Moscow 1943), when after
15 h l .txf2 16 'fixf2 Aae8 1 7
'fig3 lDe5 18 .tdl lDd3 19 h 3 .th5
20 .tc2 lDf4 (20 . . . lDe5 !?) 21 lDgl

White managed to parry his oppo
nent's attack and obtain an ad
vantage
illustrative game 29.
However, after 18 . . . h5 ! 19 h4 lDd3
White would have faced serious
problems. White can eliminate this
possibility by playing 17 h3 ! .th5
18 'fig3 . But even better is 15
'fid3! 'fif5 16 'fixf5 with an edge
in the endgame (recommended by
Fine) or 15 h3! lDe5 ( 1 5 . . . .th5 16
'fid3) 16 lDd4 'fih4 17 'fiel 'fih5 18
.tb3 c6 19 lDe4 with a clear plus
(Medina-Lupi, 1946) .
'fixf6
14 xf2
-
. _
.
.
..
, -;
' .4&\ .t

.
..
;g
m
";,,,,!';
A R
O 2 "" ;
'
" " "
f',wd "l..J
;1i'.
"';
o r,Q
15 lDfl
The most solid continuation
preparing the development of
White's dark-squared bishop. The
alternatives are:
a) 15 'fifl? g5 16 gl g4 1 7
lDd4 lDxd4 18 'fixffi lDe2 + 19 f2
Axffi + 20 xe2 Aaf8 with a won
game (Krutik-Klompus, COIT 1986);
b) 15 h3?! . This is clearly pas
sive. Mter 15 . . . lDe5 16 a4 Aae8 1 7
axb5 axb5 18 Aa6 'fih4 + 19 gl
'iVg3 (Perera-Es.Torre, Dubai 1986)

or 16 'iVe2 l:tae8 17 'it>gl ii.xh3
(Cuasnicu-Rossetto, Buenos Aires
1968) Black's advantage is obvi
ous.
c) 15 liJb3!? liJe5. Now 16
liJbd4 ii.g4 1 7 b4 l:tae8 (Weir-Dil
worth, corr 1941), 16 'iVd4 l:tae8
17 ii.e3 ii.g4 18 liJbd2 'iVf7! (Kon
dov-Sapundzhiev, corr 1966/67),
or 16 ii.e3 l:tae8 1 7 ii.d4 'iVh4 + 18
'it>gl lbxf3 + 19 gxf3 l:tf4 (Ardbring
Losa, 1948) yield Black a strong
attack. A move deserving atten
tion is 16 'it>g3!? (introduced by
Hort) . At least, after 16 liJxf3 1 7
gxf3 g5 18 liJd4 ii.d7 19 b 4 'iVh6 20
'iVg1 'iVh4 + 21 'it>g2 White success
fully defended and shortly won
(Hort-Niermann, Neuenkirchen
1987) . Black should rather prefer
16 l:tae8!? or even 15 ... l:tae8!?
with unclear consequences.
d) 15 'it>gl l:tae8 (15 . . . ii.g4 is fa
vourable for White: 16 liJf1 ! ii.xf3
17 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 18 gxf3 lhf3 19 ii.e3,
Korchnoi ; but 15 . . . g5 !? deserves
attention, e.g. 16 'iVe1 - 16 liJb3 g4
1 7 'iVd3 l:f.f7 18. ii.g5 'iVg7 19 liJfd4
liJxd4 20 liJxd4 'iVxg5 2 1 liJxe6 'iVf6
yields Black better chances, Walther-Dilworth, corr 19 79 - 16 . . . g4 !
1 7 'iVh4 - 1 7 liJg5 i.f5 - 1 7 . . . i.f5
18 'iVxf6 l:f.xf6 19 i.xf5 l:f.xf5 20
liJh4 l:f.e5 with a good endgame for
Black, Radoslavic-Dilworth, corr
1979) and now:
d1) 16 h3?! liJe5 is bad for
White, for example 1 7 liJxe5 'iVxe5
18 liJf3 'iVg3 19 'iVd3 ii.f5 20
'iVxd5 + 'it>h8 21 ii.xf5 l:f.e2 with a
.
..
won game, Miranbell-Encenarro,

corr 1969.
d2) 16 liJb3 llJe5 is pleasant
for Black, too, for example 1 7
ii.d3 ii.g4 1 8 ii.e2 l:f.f7 19 ii. d 2 liJc4
20 h3 liJxb2, Michel-Medina, Mar
del Plata 1948, or 1 7 i.e3 liJxf3 +
18 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 19 gxf3 l:f.xf3 20
ii.f2 ii.h3, Gebhardt-Leonardo
Maestro, Porz 1987.
d3) To 16 'iVf1 Black responds
16 ii.f5 , e.g. 17 ii.b3 'iVd6 18 'iVf2
ii.d3 19 'it>h 1 liJe5 20 'iVg3 c6 with
a clear plus (Medina-Wade, Palma
de Mallorca 1966) or 17 ii.xf5 'iVxf5
18 b3 d4 19 ii.a3 ( 1 9 cxd4?! liJxd4 !
20 liJxd4 'iVc5 is better for Black,
Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Tilburg 1987
- illustrative game 30) 19 . . . dxc3 !
20 i.xf8 l:f.xf8 2 1 ttJc4! 'iVc5 + 22 'iVf2
'iVxf2 + 23 'it>xf2 bxc4, and Black
has the better endgame (analysis
by Yusupov) .
d4) 16 liJf1 liJe5 . Now 1 7 ii.e3
liJxf3 + 18 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 19 gxf3 l:f.xf3
leads to one of the main lines aris
ing after 15 liJf1 - the move we
proceed to analyse.
liJe5 (D)
15
Black can first activate his rook
and then the knight ( 1 5 . . . l:f.ae8 16
ii.e3 liJe5 ) . The break 15 d4 is a
little-explored but dubious alter
native: 16 'it>gl (16 i.e4? ! dxc3 1 7
bxc3 'iVxc3 18 ii.e3 l:f.ad8 19 'iVc1
'iVxc1 20 l:f.xc1 liJe5 was better for
Black in the game Monsalvo-Roth,
corr 1977) 16 . . . liJe5 ( 1 6 . . . dxc3 1 7
ii.g5 'iVf7 18 bxc3 o r 16 . . . ii.g4 1 7
'iVd3 g6 18 ii.g5 'iVd6 19 liJxd4 also
lead to an edge for White) 17 cxd4
..

lbxf3 + 18 gxf3 ad8 19 i.e3 c5 20
d 3 ! g6 2 1 lbd2 with a clear plus
for White (Short-Popovic, Belgrade
1987).
--
A ?:Q,,
W
!}, .
.
An
_ _ _ _i
i _ _.t _
_i_i. _
- - - _ rJj _ttJ _
Q
'iW.ttJ.
. .
Now we return to 15 . . . lbe5.

16 i.e3
16 ..t>gl is less exact because af
ter 16 lbxf3 + 1 7 gxf3 'ii'xf3 18
'iVxf3 xf3 19 i.e3 Black can con
tinue 19 . . . .th3 20 .td4 (20 .tc5 e8
leads to a position from the main
variation, favourable for Black see 1 7 ..t>gl and later 20 .tc5)
20 . . . af8!?, for example 21 lbg3
h5 22 .tc5 8f6 23 el g6 with
good counter-chances (Fischvoigt
Rohland, Michigan 1986) or 2 1
lbe3 8f4 2 2 .te5 f8 2 3 .td4
8f4, with an equal position (Noor
da-Sprenger, corr 19 76).
19 i.dl (instead of 19 i.e3 ) is
harmless as well, e.g. 19 ... f7 20
.th5 g6 21 .te2 e8 22 i.h6 i.h3
(Vujevic-Estrin, Strasbourg l975)
or 20 lbg3 .th3 2 1 i.e2 e8 22 .td2
c5 23 i. fl .txfl 24 xfl xf1 + 25
..t>xf1 ..t>f7 (Morovic-Yusupov, Tunis
1985 - illustrative game 31 ) , with
..
better prospects for Black in both

variations.
ae 8
16 ...
16 'iVh4 + proves insufficient
for equality: 17 ..t>gl lbxf3 + 18 gxf3
f6 19 .td4 'iVg5 + 20 ..t>hl .th3 21
lbe3 f7 22 'iVgl (Kupreichik-Stoi
ca, Kirovakan 1978) or 18 . . . c6 19
.tc5 f7 20 'iVe2 .td7 2 1 el xf3
22 'iVxf3 'iVxel 23 'iVh5 h6 24 'iVg6
(Richardson-Estrin, corr 1978). In
each example White is clearly bet
ter.
16 lbxf3 is not quite suffi
cient either, e.g. 17 gxf3 ae8 18
f4 'iVh4 + 19 ..t>gl c6 20 'iVd2 .th3
2 1 lbg3 (Liebert-Haag, Zinnowitz
1966) or 1 7 . . . c6 18 .tc5 f7 19
'iVe2 .tg4 20 lbd2 a5 21 el .td7 22
'iVe5 (Rogulj-Ekstrom, Mendrisio
1988), with better prospects for
White in both cases.
.
The Discussion of Decades 9 1
other alternatives are less danger

ous:
a) 1 7 i.d4 .ig4 ( 1 7 . . . 'lVh4 + is
also possible, for example after 18
'at>gl lDxf3 + 19 gxf3 'lVg5 + 20 lDg3
.ih3 2 1 a4 ! Black can continue
2 1 . . .g6 - 2 1 . . .h5? 22 f4! - 22 axb5
axb5 23 .if2 .ie6 - not 23 . . . h5? 24
l:ta6 with a clear edge, Tseshkov
sky-Chekhov, Rostock 1984 - 24
'ii'c 1 'lVxc1 + 2 5 l:txc1 l:txf3 or even
better 2 1 . . .l:te6 22 axb5 axb5 23 f4
l:txf4 24 'lVh5 'lVxh5 25 lDxh5 l:tf3
26 .ixg7 'at>f7 2 7 .id4 l:te2 with a
good endgame for Black, Enders
Chekhov, Dresden 1985) 18 lDd2
'lVf4 ( 1 8 . . . 'lVh4 + is not bad either:
19 'at>g1 lDxf3 + 20 lDxf3 - 20 gxf3
.ih3 2 1 lDfl 'lVg5 + 2 2 . lDg3 g6 23
h1 'lVf4! - 20 ... 'lVh5 2 1 'lVd2 i.xf3
22 gxf3 'lVxf3 23 'lVd3 'lVg4 + 24
'at>h 1 g6 25 l:tg1 'lVh5 26 .id1 'lVf5
with equality, Ertl-Widenmann,
corr 1988 ; besides, 18 . . . 'lVg5 de
serves attention, as in Greig-Dil
worth, corr 1945, Black obtained
a strong attack after 19 .ixe5 l:txe5
20 lDfl?! - 20 'at>g1 'lVe3 + is also
good for Black - 20 . . . 'lVh5 21 'lVd3
.ixf3 22 gxf3 l:tef5 ) 19 'at>g1 .ixf3
20 lDxf3 lDxf3 + 2 1 gxf3 'lVxf3 22
'lVxf3 l:txf3 23 a4 l:te2 24 i.b3 l:tf5,
and it is White who must fight for
a draw (Berggreen-Steinwender,
COIT 1990) .
b) 1 7 gl. White liquidates to
an endgame and thus parries the
threat of an attack. However, in
the process he gives up another
pawn: 17 lDxf3 + 18 'lVxf3 'lVxf3
19 gxf3 lbf3
This is the typical 'Dilworth

endgame' . Black's chances are not
worse, though he has to be wary
of White's trump, the bishop pair,
which can become formidable, es
pecially if supported by the other
pieces remaining on the board.
That's why Black should aim for
further sim plifications, especially
the exchange of light-squared
bishops. The following continu
ations have been tried in practice:
b1) 20 .idl l:tf7 2 1 .ib3 c6 22
.id4 .ih3 23 lDg3 (23 lDe3? l:tf4 24
l:te1 l:te6 25 .ic2, Arnason-Peturs
son, Reykjavik 1980, could have
led to a defeat after 25 . . . l:txe3 ! ! )
2 3 . . . g6 (23 . . . h5 ! i s even stronger,
according to Chekhov) 24 .ic2
l:te6 25 i.d3 h5 followed by . . . h5h4, with better chances for Black
(Geller-Chekhov, USSR champi
onship, Vilnius 1980/81).
b2) 20 i.c5 .ih3 2 1 lDg3 h5 !?
(or 21.. .g6 22 l:td1 l:te5 23 .id3 i.g4
24 l:td2 h5 25 i.f2 h4 with equal
ity, Richter-Samarian, corr 1962)
22 i.g6 l:te5 23 .ixh5 l:txg3 + 24
hxg3 l:txh5 and Black holds a small

advantage (Dekker-Van der Zijpp,
Beverwijk 1984).
b3) 20 .id4 .ih3 21 ll)g3 g6
( 2 1 . . Je6!?) 22 a4 <:Ji;f7 23 axb5
axb5 24 :dl h5 25 .id3 h4 26
.ixb5! with equality (Savon-Ser
per, Moscow 1990).
b4) 20 i.f2 .ih3 (also 20 ... .if5
proves sufficient for equality : 2 1
.i d l :d3 2 2 .ic2 :f3 2 3 .ib3 c6
24 :el :xel 25 .ixel .id3 26 i.f2
.ic4, as in Aseev-Ivanchuk, Frun
ze 1988) 2 1 ll)g3 (21 ll)d2 :f6 22
.id3 h5! 23 :el :xel + 24 i.xel
c5 led to a good ending for Black
in the game M. Kaminski-Chek
hov, Lubniewice 1993) 2 1. g6 22
:dl (or 22 :el :xel + 23 .ixel h5
24 .i d l :f7 2 5 .if2 h4 26 ll)f1 c6
with an equal position, Aseev-Ag
zamov, SevastopoI 1986).
Viktor Korchnoi in the Encyclo

paedia of Chess Openings as
sesses this position as slightly
better for White . Indeed, in the
game Matanovic-Wade (Palma de
Mallorca 1966) his edge became
clear after 22 . . . c6 23 :d2 h5?! 24
.ixg6 :e5 25 :d4 .ig4 26 h4. How

ever, the pawn sacrifice was in no
way necessary. 23 . . . :e5 24 :d4 g5
would have given Black quite suf
ficient counter-chances .
Mter the strongest move 1 7
.ic5 Black can move the rook or
first exchange knights.
ll)xf3
17
17 ...:f7 enables White to pro
tect the f3 knight: 18 ll)ld2 (18
'ii'd4? ! is dubious, e.g. 18 ... .ig4 18 . . . .if5 ! ?, Liberzon - 19 ll)ld2
'lVh6 20 .idl 'lVxh2 with a clear
advantage, K.Andersson-Darmo
gray, corr 1977, and if 18 ll)g3
then also 18 . . . .ig4 19 'lVxd5 ll)xf3
20 gxf3 .ixf3 is advantageous for
Black, as in Wittman-Espaola, COIT
1975) 18 . . . .ig4 (18 . . . .if5 19 <:Ji;gl
ll)d3?! 20 .id4 'lVd6 2 1 'lVbl 'lVg6
22 ll)h4 led Black to defeat in
Liberzon-Rosino, Venice 1974; he
should have preferred 19 . . . ll)xf3 +
20 f3 .ie4, although after 2 1
i.d3! - Liberzon - 2 1 . . . .ixf3 2 2
gxf3 'lVxf3 2 3 'lVxf3 :xf3 2 4 :d l a
typical endgame arises, in which
White' s bishop pair, in the ab
sence of Black's bishop, guaran
tees him a small but clear edge.
The same endgame appeared in
the game Boogaard-Thorn Lee
son, corr 1979, after 18 . . . 'lVh6 19
<:Ji;gl .ig4 20 'lVf1 i.xf3 21 ll)xf3
ll)xf3 + 22 gxf3 'lVg5 + 23 <:Ji;hl
'lVd2 24 'lVd3 "xd3 25 i.xd3 :xf3
26 dl) 19 <:Ji;gl ll)xf3 + 20 ll)xf3
.ixf3 2 1 gxf3 'lVg5 + 22 <:Ji;hl "h5
23 'lVf1 :xf3 24 'lVg2 :f7 . Black
has avoided the exchange of queens
but still White's chances are pref

erable (Poulsen-Tronhjem, corr
1985).
1 7 ... tbxf3 eliminates the idea of
tbf1 -d2. However, White's king
obtains the g2 square.
lU7
18 gxf3
19 g2
The most natural defence to
19 . . . i.g4. 19 i. d3 is worse due to
19 . . . i.h3 ! 20 tbg3 h5 ! 2 1 i.f1 ! (2 1
tbxh5? 'ifg5 22 tbg3 d4! 23 i.xd4
c5) 2 1 . . .i.g4!? 22 i.g2 h4 23 tbf1
(Short-Yusupov, Belgrade 1989),
and now, instead of 23 . . . h3?! 24
i.h1 e4 25 tbg3 with a small plus
- illustrative game 32 - Yusupov
recommends 23 . . . 'ifg6 ! ? with good
counter-chances for Black.
Ivanchuk against Yusupov (Li
nares, 1990) played 19 tbg3 i.g4
20 g1 and obtained an edge after
20 . . . 'ifxf3 (20 . . . i.xf3 100ks risky in
view of 21 'ifd3) 21 xf3 i.xf3? 22
f1 ! f6 23 b4 ! . However, Yusu
pov improved Black's play in his
game against Leko (Horgen 1994) :
2 1 . . J1xf3 ! 22 g2 h5, and here
White couldn't find anything bet
ter than 23 i.g6 e6 24 i.xh5
xg3 + 25 xg3 i.xh5 26 a4 with
a hard fight for a draw.
The diagram is a critical posi
tion for the Dilworth variation.
'ifg5 +
19
Several alternatives have been
tried:
a) 19 i.f5 20 .txf5 'ifxf5 2 1
tbg3 'ifg5 22 'ifd3 yields White the
upper hand, since 22 . . . h5?! is now
poor in view of 23 h4! 'ifxh4 24 h1
.
'ifc4 25 'iVxc4 bxc4 26 xh5 with a

clear edge (IlinCic-Todorovic, Yu
goslav championship 1990) and
22 . . . d4 23 i.xd4 c5 doesn 't work
owing to is 24 i.f2.
b) 19 :'h4 is also insufficient:
20 tbg3 i.h3 + 21 g1 c6 22 a4 'iff4
23 axb5 axb5 24 'ifd3 g6 25 i.d1
with a big plus (Polster-Winkel
mann, corr 1987).
c) 19 h5 20 'ifd3 'ifg5 + 21 h1
i.f5 22 'ifxd5 c6 23 'ifxc6 i.d7 is
met by 24 'iVg6! 'ifxc5 25 i.b3 ee7
26 tbg3 i.c6 (26 . . . 'ife3 2 7 'ifxh5
i.e6 28 tbf5 xf5 29 'ifxf5 is bet
ter for White, Kupreichik-Sher
eshevsky, Minsk 1978) 27 tbe4 !
(Vojna-Eriksen, corr 1987), and
now Black should have preferred
27 . . . i.xe4 28 fxe4 'iff2 29 'ifxh5
xe4 30 'ifxf7 + 'ifxf7 3 1 i.xf7 +
xf7 32 f1 + e6 33 g2 (Vojna)
33 . . .M with good drawing chances.
The text move ( 1 9 . . . 'ifg5 + ) was
played in the game Y. Griinfeld
V.Mikhalevsky (Israeli champion
ship 199 1 ) . After the moves 20
h1 (20 tbg3 h5) 20 . . . d4 21 'ifxd4?
xf3 22 i.e4 f4 Black brilliantly
won. However, White could have
simply replied 21 i.xd4 i.d5 22
i.b3 ! . The position after 22 . . . c5 !
needs further examination.
So, 9 . . . i.. c 5 (especially the Dil
worth variation) leads to sharp
and double-edged play, in which
both sides have their chances for
a victory. This is very important
when playing a weaker opponent:
he can hardly block up the posi
tion! So, analyse and play it!
From Alekh i ne to Dolmatov
( 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4

.i a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3)
.ie7
9
This natural move is consid

ered ' the main line' of the Open
Spanish. Black continues his de
velopment leaving the c5 square
accessible for his knight or pawn.
White now has a big selection of
plans, but only two of them (those
starting with 10 .ie3 and 10 li)bd2)
have remained in wide use today.
10 li)bd2 will be examined in
Chapter 8. Here we mostly deal
with 10 .ie3 . But first we take a
look at the alternatives.
Section 1
Different ways for White
10 .ic2
The other possibilities for White
are:
a) 10 li)d4?! (a premature pawn

sacrifice) 10 . . . li)xe5 1 1 f3 ( 1 1 li)xe6
fxe6 12 'iVh5 + li)f7 13 'iVg4 'iVd6 or
11 f4 ..tg4 12 'iVc2 li)c4 are equally
favourable for Black, according to
Keres) 1 1 . . .li)f6 ( 1 1 . . . li)c5 12 .ic2
.id7 13 b4 li)a4 is also satisfactory,
Engels-Kieninger, Barmen 1938)
12 'iVe2 li)c4 13 .ic2 'iVd7 14 b3 li)b6
15 :el 0-0. Now both 16 li)xe6
fxe6 17 'iVxe6 + 'iVxe6 18 :Xe6 :ae8
and 16 ..tg5 :fe8 1 7 li)d2 li)h5 18
.ixe7 :xe7 (Alekhine-Fine, Am
sterdam 1938) yield Black better
prospects.
b) 10 .if4 (this move is worse
in this position than after 9 . . . .ic5)
10 . . . g5 (10 . . . 0-0 is poor due to 1 1
li)d4 ! li)a5 12 f3 li)c5 1 3 .ic2 li)d7
14 b4! with a clear edge, but
10 . . . li)c5 is quite good, for exam
ple 1 1 .ic2 .ig4 12 h3 .ih5 1 3
'iVe2 li)e6 14 .i h 2 .i c 5 15 li)bd2
li)e7 16 :adl 'iVc8, Petrosian-Kor
chnoi, USSR 1965, or 13 li)bd2
li)e6 - for 13 . . . d4 !?, see Chapter 5
- 14 .ig3 .ic5 15 'iVbl ..tg6 16 li)b3
..tb6 17 :dl 0-0, Perenyi-Karsa,
Zalakaros 1988, with a fine posi
tion for Black in both cases) 1 1
.ie3 g4 12 li)fd2 ( 12 li)d4 li)xe5 1 3
li)xe6 fxe6 1 4 .id4 'iVd6 15 li)d2
li)xd2 16 'iVxd2 :g8 does not give
White enough play for the pawn,
Trifunovic-Kostic, Ljubljana 1938)
12 . . . li)g5 ( 1 2 . . . li)c5 - 12 . . . li)xd2?!
13 li)xd2 li)xe5 14 ..td4 .id6 15 f4)
From Alekhine to Dolmatov 95
13 'ii'e 2 'ii'd 7 14 l:tdl ttJxb3 15

ttJxb3 ttJxe5 16 ttJld2 ii.d6 1 7 .ltd4
f6 18 ttJc5 led to an unclear posi
tion in Averbakh-Korchnoi, USSR
championship, Riga 1958) 13 f4
gxf3 14 ttJxf3 ttJxf3 + 15 'ii'xf3
ttJxe5 16 'ii'h 5 ttJg4 17 .ltd4 l:tg8 18
ttJd2 c5 19 'ii'xh7 'itd7, and the in
itiative belongs to Black (analysis
by Euwe) .
c) 10 a4 b4 (after 10 . . . l:tb8 1 1
axb5 axb5 12 ttJd4! i s strong, for
example 12 . . . tDxe5 13 f3 ttJc5 14
ii.c2 ii.d7 15 b4 ttJb7 16 'ii'e 2 ttJc4
1 7 l:tel , and White's compensa
tion for the pawn is more than
sufficient, Alekhine-Rogacek, Mu
nich 1941) 1 1 ttJd4 (now, after
weakening the c4 square, this
sacrifice works but Black still ob
tains a good position; in any case
11 l:tel ttJc5 12 .ltc2 ii.g4 13 h3
.lth5 14 g4 ii.g6 is in Black's fa
vour, Perlis-Em. Lasker, St Peters
burg 1909; and after 1 1 ii.e3 0-0
12 cxb4 ii.xb4 13 'ii'c 2, Murey-De
marre, Paris 1990, Black could
have simply replied 13 . . . ttJa5!) (D).
1 1 . . . ttJxe5 ( 1 1 . . . 'ii'd 7 is now in
sufficient: 12 f3 ttJc5 13 .ltc2 bxc3
- 13 . . . ttJxe5 14 f4 - 14 bxc3 0-0 1 5
f4 ttJxd4 16 cxd4 ttJe4 17 ttJd2 with
a clear edge, Sanguinetti-Rossetto,
Portoroz 1958; but 1 1 . . .ttJxd4 is
quite possible, for example 12
cxd4 c5 13 f3 c4 14 .ltc2 ttJc5! 15
ttJd2 ttJb7 16 f4 'ii'b 6 1 7 ttJf3 g6,
Kliavins-Ostrauskas, USSR 1955 ,
or 14 ii.xc4 ttJg3 ! 15 ii.xd5 'ii'xd5
16 hxg3 l:td8 17 ii.e3 i.c5 - Korch
noi - with good counterplay in both
IR
..

R
4)R.tR R
R R'
t3J .
4&\.
."uy;
.
_ _
.i..
%%
iL.
R
AR
Uo
U
lZJ;'iV
.
.
. .:
0 .
..
variations) 12 f4 ii.g4 (12 . . . ttJc4 13

'ii'e 2! ttJa5 14 ii.c2 0-0 15 ttJd2 !
yields White an edge, Riumin) 13
'ii'c2 c5 (Black gives back his extra
pawn to comfortably finish his de
velopment. 13 . . . ttJg6!? 14 cxb4 0-0
deserves attention as well) 14
fxe5 cxd4 15 cxd4 0-0 (15 . . .l:tc8? is
premature: 16 'ii'd 3 0-0 17 ttJd2
ttJg5 18 :f2 l:tc6 19 ttJf1 and White
is better, Keres-Levenfish, USSR
championship, Moscow 1949 ; af
ter the text move Black manages
to hold his strong e4 point by tac
tical means) 16 ttJd2 (or 16 i.e3
ii.h5 ! 17 ttJd2 i.g6 18 ttJxe4 ii.xe4
19 'ii'd 2 l:tc8 20 :f4 i.g6 with a
good position for Black, Koch
Arnlind, corr 1956) 16 . . . ii.e2 ! 1 7
:el :c8 (White's queen has n o d3
square! ) 18 'ii'b l i.h5 ! 19 ttJxe4
ii.g6 20 i.c2 dxe4 2 1 i.e3 ii.h4 22
g3 .ltg5 23 ii.xg5 'ii'xg5 24 ii.xe4
'ii'd2 with an initiative for Black
(Poletaev-Zbandutto, corr 1956).
d) 10 'ii'e2 and now:
dl) 10 0-0 1 1 :dl ( 1 1 i.c2
leads to the 10 ii.c2 line; 11 ttJd4
'ii'd 7 12 f3 is favourable for Black
.
96 From Alekhine to Dolmatov

owing to 12 . . . tZ)c5 13 i.c2 f6 ! , e.g.
14 exf6 i.xf6 15 tZ)xe6 'ii'xe6 16
'ii'x e6 + tZ)xe6 1 7 i.b3 l:tad8 18
l:tfd1 tZ)e7, Suetin-Korchnoi, USSR
1960; and the position after 1 1
l:td1 often appears in another
move order - 9 'ii'e 2 i.e7 10 l:td1
0-0 11 c3 - still, the Keres plan
does not quite fit the quiet c2-c3)
11 . . . f5 (11 ... 'ii'd 7 12 i.e3 f5 13 tZ)bd2
tZ)a5 14 tZ)d4 c5 - 14 . . . l:tad8 !?, Filip
- 15 tZ)xe6 'ii'xe6 16 f4 l:tad8 is also
quite solid for Black, Kurajica-Di
esen, Osijek 1978; while 11 . . . tZ)c5
is possible, too, for example 12
i.c2 i.g4 - perhaps 12 . . . 'ii'd 7!? 13 b4 - 13 tZ)bd2 f6!? - 13 . . . tZ)a4 14
i.f4 'ii'd 7 15 'ii'd3 - instead 15 c4!?
tZ)xb4 16 i.xa4 bxa4 1 7 a3 'ii'f5 18
i.g3 deserved attention, accord
ing to Speelman - 15 . . . g6 16 'ii'xd5
'ii'x d5 1 7 l:txd5 tZ)b6 18 l:td1 l:tad8
19 l:te1 - or 19 l:txd8 l:txd8 20 e6
tZ)d5 21 exf7 + 'at>g7 ! , Sax-Mikhal
evsky, Benasque 1993 - 19 . . . tZ)d5 ,
and Black obtained sufficient
compensation for the pawn in the
game Short-Timman, EI Escorial
1993, though 18 l:td2 !? was prob
ably stronger - Speelman) 12 exf6
i.xf6 (l2 . . . l:txf6 13 i.e3 tZ)a5 14
i.c2 'ii'e 8, Ragozin-Ravinsky, Mos
cow 1957, looks somewhat risky
due to 15 i.d4 or 15 tZ)bd2) 13 i.e3
'ii'd 7 14 tZ)bd2 tZ)xd2 15 'ii'x d2 tZ)e7
16 i.c5 c6 1 7 tZ)d4 i.f7 18 a4 l:tfe8
19 l:te1 tZ)f5, and Black had equal
ised in A. Ivanov-Wedberg, New
York 1992 .
The variations examined above
look fine for Black. However, after
10 'ii'e 2 0-0 White can play 1 1

tZ)bd2 ! transposing t o a line from
Chapter 8, which is rather favour
able for him. Therefore Black
should consider another idea:
d2) lO tZ)c5!
With two ideas: to swap White's

b3 bishop and to push ... d5-d4. 11
i.c2 ( 1 1 tZ)bd2 d4! , or 1 1 l:td1
tZ)xb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 b4 f6!, or 1 1
tZ)d4 tZ)xd4 1 2 cxd4 tZ)xb3 13 axb3
0-0 14 tZ)c3 c5, as in Bronstein
Nikitin, USSR championship,
Tbilisi 1959, are favourable for
Black) 1 1 . . . d4 ( l 1 . . .i.g4!?) 12 cxd4
( 1 2 i.e4 tZ)xe4 13 'ii'xe4 'ii'd 5 ! ,
O.Moiseev-Atanasov, corr 1979 or 12 l:td1 i.c4 13 'ii'e 1 d3 14 tZ)a3
'ii'c8 15 i.b1 i.d5! 16 i.xd3 i.xf3
1 7 gxf3 tZ)xd3 18 l:txd3 'ii'f5 Euwe - give Black an advantage;
in the last variation Korchnoi rec
ommended 14 b3, which loses di
rectly after 14 . . . 'ii'c8! , Peters-Van
Kempen, corr 1985) 12 . . . tZ)xd4 13
tZ)xd4 'ii'xd4 14 l:td1 'ii'c4 15 'ii'xc4
i.xc4 16 tZ)c3 l:td8 17 lhd8 + 'at>xd8
18 i.e3 'at>c8 19 b3 i.e6 with a
good endgame for Black (London

Wedberg, New York 1987).
e) 10 :el 0-0 ( l0 . . . 'ii'd 7!?) 1 1
ll)d4 (this so-called Breslau vari
ation is one of the oldest and well
forgotten analyses in the Open
Spanish, leading to sharp play,
in which Black's counter-attack
guarantees him good chances; 1 1
ll)bd2 i s examined i n the next
chapter - 10 ll)bd2 etc.) 1 l ll)xe5!
(not just grabbing a pawn but pre
paring to sacrifice a piece! Black
intends to make use of his advan
tage in development, and in any
case 1 1 . . . ll)xd4 - equally ineffec
tive is 1 1 . . . ll)a5 12 .ic2 - is insuffi
cient for equality: 12 cxd4 .ih4 13
:1 f5 14 f3 ll)g3 15 hxg3 .ixg3 16
f4 'ii' h 4 1 7 :f3 with a clear edge
for White, Maroczy-Weenink, Sch
eveningen 1923, or 12 . . . h6 13 f3
ll)g5 14 ll)c3 c5 15 f4 cxd4 16 ll)e2
d3 17 'ii'xd3 i.c5 + 18 ll)d4 i.f5 19
'ii'xf5 ll)e6 20 .ie3 ll)xd4, Hiibner
Piket, Dortmund 1992, and now,
according to Hiibner, he could
have obtained a strong attack by
2 1 .ixd4 .ixd4 + 22 hl .ixb2 23
:adl d4 24 :d3 ! ) 12 f3 .i d6! (but
not 12 . . . c5? 13 fxe4 cxd4 14 exd5
.ig4 15 'ii'xd4 with a clear advan
tage, Kramer-E. Griinfeld, 1919)
13 fxe4 (after 13 i.f4 ll)c4 14
i.xd6 ll)exd6 15 :Xe6 fxe6 16 ll)xe6
'ii'f6 1 7 ll)xf8 :xrs 18 'ii'xd5 + h8
19 ll)d2 ll)e3 Black obtains enough
compensation for the pawn - analy
sis by E.Griinfeld) 13 .i g4 (D)
14 'ii'c2 ( 14 ll)f3? 3 + 15 gxf3
'ii' h4 16 fxg4 'ii'xh2 + 1 7 1 'iVh3 +
18 'itt e 2 dxe4 19 'ii'd4 loses after

19 . . . .ic5 ! - Keres - and 14 "YWd2
'ii' h4 15 h3 - 15 g3 'ii' h 5 16 'ii'g5
'ii'xg5 1 7 .ixg5 c5 ! is also good for
Black - 15 . . . c5 ! 16 hxg4 - 16 'ii'f2
'ii'x f2 + 1 7 xf2 .id 7 and Black
already has an edge, Kollijn 16 . . . cxd4 17 'ii'f2 'ii'xg4 18 .idl
'ii'g6 19 'ii'xd4 i.c7 20 .ie3 dxe4
yields Black a strong attack, Wolf
Tarrasch, Karlsbad 1923) 14 . . . c5
(14 . . . 'ii' h 4!? 15 g3 'ii' h 3 deserves
attention) 15 .ixd5 cxd4 16 .ixa8
'ii'h4 17 :1 d3 18 'ii'f2 'ii'xf2 + 19
:xf2 :xa8 20 .if4 :e8 with suffi
cient compensation for the ex
change (John-Teichmann, Breslau
1913) .
Now we move on to 10 .ic2.
0-0
10
10 ll)c5 was played in a match
game Karpov-Korchnoi (Baguio
City 1978) . White preferred the
quiet 1 1 h3 and obtained an edge
after 1 1 . . .0-0 12 :el 'ii'd 7 13 ll)d4
ll)xd4 14 cxd4 ll)b7 15 ll)d2 c5 16
dxc5 ll)xc5 1 7 ll)f3 i.f5 18 .ie3
:ac8 19 :cl. Suetin indicates that
White can play more dynamically:

1 1 lDd4! lDxe5 12 "h5 preparing
to push f2-f4, with a strong at
tack.
10 i.g4!? is interesting. In the
game Bannik-Shiyanovsky (USSR
championship, Erevan 1962) White
obtained an edge after 1 1 h3 i.xf3
( 1 1 . . .i.h5 12 g4 i.g6 13 i.b3 lDa5
14 i.xd5 c6 15 i.xe4 i.xe4 16
"xd8 + lIxd8 1 7 lDbd2 i.d5 18 1Iel
with a clear plus, Fischer-F. Olafs
son, Havana 1966) 12 gxf3 lDc5 13
f4 "d7 14 "f3 g6 15 lIdl lId8 16
i.e3 lDe6 1 7 a4 0-0 18 axb5 axb5
19 lIa6 . However, Black's play
was improved in J.Polgar-Hiibner,
Munich 199 1 - illustrative game
33: 14 . . . lId8 ( 1 4 . . . f5 !? is probably
more exact as now White could
have prevented this move by 15
i.e3 - Judit Polgar) 15 lId 1 f5 ! 16
i.e3 (if 16 exf6 then 16 . . . i.xf6 followed by . . . lDc6-e7) 16 . . ...e6 1 7
lDd2 0-0 1 8 lDb3, and now, instead
of 18 . . . lDa4? 19 lIabl lId7? ! 20
hl g6 21 i.d3! followed by i.d3fl -g2, with better chances for
White, Black should have contin
ued 18 . . . lDe4! 19 "g2 (19 "e2 g5! )
19 . . . lIf7! (preparing . . . g7-g5 and
. . . lIf7 -g7) 20 f3 lDf6 with a good
position (analysis by Judit Pol
gar).
10 .....d7!? has not yet been
tried in this position.
All these side lines need serious
consideration as castling is not
necessarily Black's best option.
The point is that after 10 . . . 0-0
White can transpose to the main
line (Chapter 8) by means of 1 1
lDbd2 !, which seems t o yield him

a slight edge.
Here we examine another pos
sibility for White after 10 . . . 0-0.
1 1 'ii'e2 (D)
Not just to take a pawn on e4
but to prepare lDf3-d4! . Mter 1 1
lIel f5 12 exf6 llxf'6 13 lDbd2 Black
can sacrifice a piece: 13 . . . lDxf2 14
xf2 i.c5 + 15 fl "d6. The cor
respondence game Tomizov-Hun
ter ( 1 9 70) ended in a draw after
16 lIxe6 "xh2 ( 16 . . ...xe6 !?) 1 7
llxf'6 ftl + 1 8 e2 "xg2 + 1 9 d3
gxf6 20 lDfl ! lDe5 + 21 lDxe5
"e4 + .
"d7
11
1 1 f5 is possible. If White now
plays 12 exf6 1Ixf6 (12 . . . i.xf6? 13
lDbd2 is obviously better for White,
Bronstein-Korchnoi, USSR 1962)
13 lDg5 then Black replies 13 ... i.c5!
14 lDxe4 (14 lDxe6 lIxe6 15 lDd2
lDg5 ! , Suetin) 14 . . . dxe4 15 lDd2 (15
i.xe4 i.c4 16 "h5 does not work
due to 16 . . . i.xf2 + ! 1 7 1Ixf2 g6 18
"g4 h5, Korchnoi) 15 ... e3 ! with
an initiative (Steiner-Bogolyubow,
1939). 12 ll)d4! "d7 leads to a

line considered below. As this is
not quite satisfactory for Black,
he might instead try 12 . . . ll)xd4! ?
13 cxd4 c5.
1 l ll)c5 also leads to a trans
position of moves after 12 ll)d4 (or
12 :dl) 12 . . ... d7. In the event of
12 b4 ll)a4 13 "d3 g6 14 .ixa4
bxa4 15 .ih6 :e8 16 ll)bd2 f6 1 7
:fel .if5 the position i s unclear
(Aronin-Kots, USSR champion
ship, Erevan 1962 ).
12 ll)d4
12 .ixe4 dxe4 13 "xe4 .id5 14
'ii'e 3 "e6 yields Black sufficient
compensation for the pawn, while
12 :d l f5 13 ll)bd2 h8 14 ll)b3
.if7 15 ll)bd4 .ih5 (Tal-Keres, Mos
cow 1967) or 12 ll)c5 13 .ie3 :ad8
14 ll)bd2 .if5 15 ll)b3 .ixc2 16 "xc2
ll)e6 (Shamkovich-Korchnoi, USSR
1966) leads to a good position for
Black, too.
12
ll)c5 (D)
Preparing . . . f7-f6 . Mter 12 f5
13 f3 ll)g5 14 .ixg5 .ixg5 15 ll)xe6
"xe6 1 6 f4 .i e 7 1 7 ll)d2 (Sham
kovich-Vera, La Valetta 1980) or
13 ll)c5 14 .ie3 f4 15 .if2 iof7 16
:el ll)e6 17 ll)d2 (Shamkovich-Tar
jan, Hastings 1977) White main
tains a minimal edge since Black
has no active counterplay.
13 ll)d2 !
13 ll)xc6 "xc6 14 ll)d2 "d7 1 5
ll)b3 ll)xb3 16 axb3 c 5 (Sakharov
Shiyanovsky, USSR champion
ship, Leningrad 1963) or 13 f4
ll)xd4 14 cxd4 ll)e4 1 5 ll)d2 f5 16
ll)f3 h6 (Sakharov-Gufeld, from
the same event) yields Black the

better prospects.
Mter 13 :dl ll)xd4? ! 14 cxd4
ll)b7 15 ll)c3 f6 16 "h5 f5 17 .ig5
White stood better in the game
Tringov-Korchnoi (Havana 1966) .
However, after 13 . . . f6! the posi
tion would have remained equal.
The text move yields White a
sure edge as he is now well-pre
pared to meet the . . . f7-f6 break.
f6
13
Or 13 f5 14 ll)xe6 ll)xe6 15
ll)f3 ll)a5 16 :d l c5 1 7 a4, and the
initiative belongs to White due to
his pair of bishops and passed
pawn on e5 (Yudovich-Shiyanov
sky, USSR 1971).
14 b4!
This move, which drives Black's
knight to the edge of the board, is
most accurate. 14 exf6 ioxf6 15
ll)xe6 ll)xe6 16 ll)f3 ll)c5 17 :dl
:ae8 18 .ie3 "d6 leads to equal
ity (Stein-Savon, USSR champi
onship, Leningrad 1963).
The text move (14 b4) was used
by Short against Unzicker (Ger
many 1987) and yielded White an

edge after 14 . . . lDa4 15 lD2f3 lDxd4
16 lDxd4 c5 1 7 exf6 lIxf6 18 lDxe6
'it'xe6 19 'it'd3 lIg6 20 .if4.
This variation (with 10 ... .ig4
or possibly 10 . . . 'it'd 7 instead of cas
tling) needs further theoretical ex
amination.
Section 2
1 0 .ie3 0-0
( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4
a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .i e7)
10 .i e3
.. '*l .
.
" -.
..
:W.
1..
.'.'D

.ll ' +1Ll

""
";, .
U
u
lLl..
. .:m
;,;",,1'-'
"
I'-'
" ,, '
;,;",,1'-' ..
, ,, '
This system (played by a num

ber of famous players over the
years including Alekhine) has
lately become extremely popular
and nowadays mostly arises by an
other move-order: 9 e3 .ie7 1O c3.
White plans to quickly develop his
pieces, keeping the central squares
under control. The interpretation
of this line has undergone serious
changes during the last five years,
after the Candidates match Dol
matov-Yusupov (1991).
In this section we examine the

old continuation 10 0-0, and in
Sections 3 and 4 we cover the mod
em lines 10 lDc5 and 10 'it'd7
0-0
10
10 lDa5 1 1 lDd4 0-0 12 lDd2
lDxd2 13 'it'xd2 is favourable for
White - see below.
'it'd7
1 1 lDbd2
Black has a wide choice of alter
natives but not all of them are
quite satisfactory:
a) 1 1 ... lDa5 12 lDd4 lDxd2 13
'it'xd2 - see below.
b) 1 1 ....if5 12 lDd4 lDxd4 13
cxd4 a5 14 lIc1 a4 15 .ic2 f6 16
lDxe4 dxe4 1 7 .ib1 'YWd7 18 'it'c2
with a clear advantage (A.Soko
lov-G.Garcia, Thessaloniki 1984).
c) 11 ...f5 12 exf6 lDxf6 13 lDg5
'YWd7 14 lDde4! lIad8 15 lDc5 xc5
16 .ixc5 lIfe8 17 lDxe6 lIxe6 18
lIe1 and again White stands bet
ter (A.Rabinovich-Alekhine, Mos
cow 1918);
d) 1l ... lDc5 12 .ic2. At this
point 12 ... .ig4 makes no sense
owing to 13 'it'b1, and if 12 ...lDd7
then 13 .if4 is possible, but after
12 ...'it'd7 13 'it'b1 is not so effec
tive : 13 . . . g6 14 lIe1 lIfb8 15 a3 a5
16 lDg5 b4, with equality (Ab.Kha
sin-Jensen, corr 1986) . 1 3 lDb3!?
deserves attention. The line is
still awaiting further tests.
e) l 1 ... lDxd2 12 'it'xd2 'it'd7 (if
12 . . . lDa5 then White can play both
13 lDd4 lDc4 - 13 . . . lDxb3 14 lDxb3
f6 15 exf6 lIxf6 16 .ig5 lIg6 1 7
i.xe7 'it'xe7 1 8 f4 with a clear ad
vantage, Pilnik-Najdorf, Mar del
Plata 1945 - 14 .ixc4 dxc4 15 f4

.id5 - 15 . . . .id7 16 f5 - 16 l:tad1
with a clear edge, as in the game
Unzicker-Euwe, Dubrovnik 1950,
and 13 .ic2 tZ)c4 14 'lVd3 - a typi
cal plan in this kind of position 14 . . . g6 15 .ih6 tZ)xb2 - 15 . . . l:te8 16
'lVd4 aiming to go to f4 - 16 'lVe3 preparing tZ)f3-d4 and 2-f4 with a
strong attack - 16 . . . tZ)c4 1 7 'lVf4
f6 ! - the best chance - 18 .ixf8
'lVxfB 19 tZ)d4 'lVf7 20 exffi .ixf6 2 1
a4, and Black's compensation for
the exchange is insufficient, Psak
his-I.Zaitsev, Erevan 1982) 13 'lVd3
(preparing 14 .ic2 ; 13 l:tad1 l:tad8
14 'lVd3 is less precise in view of
14 . . . f5 ! 15 'lVe2 .ie4, with equal
chances, Keres-Unzicker, Zurich
1956, but 13 .ig5 l:tad8 14 l:tfe1
l:tfe8 15 .ic2 .if5 16 .ixf5 'lVxf5 1 7
.ixe7 l:txe7 18 tZ)d4 'lVg6 19 f4 is
good enough for an edge, Cornu
Schuller, corr 1989) 13 . . . tZ)a5 14
.ic2 g6 15 .ih6 .if5 16 'lVe2 Rte8
1 7 tZ)d4 with better chances for
White as Black's kingside is weak
(Keres-Dyckhoff, corr 1936).
o 1 l .ig4 This continuation
looks timely but White has an un
pleasant tactical retort (D) :
12 tlme4 (but not 12 h3?! tZ)xd2
13 'lVxd2 .ixf3 14 gxf3 tZ)xe5 15
'lVxd5 .id6 with a good position
for Black, Reti-Spielmann, 192 1 )
12 dxe4 13 'lVd5! (Here i t i s ! 1 3
.i d 5 i s harmless due t o 13 . . . tZ)xe5
with balanced chances) 13 'lVxd5
( 1 3 . . . exf3 14 'lVxc6 fxg2 15 "xg2
'lVd7 - 15 . . . .if5? 16 d5 h3 1 7
xf7 + - i s met b y a nice trick 1 6
.ih6! gxh6 1 7 f3, and White re

captures the bishop maintaining
an advantage in the arrangement
of pieces and obtaining pressure
along the open f-file, e.g. 1 7 . . . h5 17 . . . l:tae8 18 l:tae1 h5 19 'iii> h 1 'lVc6
20 l:te4 with a clear plus, Nunn
Heidrich, Germany 1984 - 18 l:tad1
'lVf5 19 fxg4 'ii'xe5 20 l:tde1 ! 'lVc5 +
2 1 'iii>h 1 with a clear advantage,
Kasparov-Yusupov, USSR cham
pionship, Minsk 1979 - illustra
tive game 34 - or 18 . . . 'lVc6 19 fxg4
'lVxg2 + 20 'iii>xg2 l:tad8 2 1 l:txd8
.ixd8 22 gxh5 with a clear edge,
C. Horvath-Zlatoglavek, Gausdal
1986; after 15 . . . 'lVc8!? 16 .ih6 gxh6
17 f3 h5 18 l:tad l White's chances
are preferable as well) 14 .ixd5
exf3 15 .ixc6 fxg2 16 'iii>xg2
l:tad8 1 7 a4 (D)
White's pieces are clearly more
active. 17 f6 yields him a posi
tional edge after 18 axb5 axb5 19
.ixb5 fxe5 20 c4 + 'iii>h8 21 f3, as
in Alekhine-Teichmann, Berlin
192 1 . However, after 17 h4 18
cxb4 .ixb4 19 a5 .ie6 20 l:tfc1 f6
21 b7 .id5 + 22 .ixd5 + l:txd5 23
. 'I
'.
.
,J
,, , " "
_ & &
' _B a B
a.a D B
B B B-*-a
"
.
0 'd
'
,.o... D
%
n B B:a
o
1',
r,::
0
I'"
W0
"",
,,
'0
,,
:xc7 fxe5 24 .ib6 :f7! Black man

aged to hold his ground (Mitchell
Malmgren, corr 1950).
Now we examine 1 1 . . .'ii'd 7.
12 .ic2
12 lDd4? is a poor sacrifice:
12 . . . lDxd2 13 'iVxd2 lDxe5 14 f4
lDc4 15 .ixc4 dxc4 16 f5 .id5 17 f6
.ixf6 18 :xf6 gxf6 19 .ig5 'ii'g4! ,
and Black won in Tal-Korchnoi,
Curac;ao 1962.
12 lDxe4 leads to an equal posi
tion : 12 . . . dxe4 13 "xd7 .ixd7 14
e6 exf3 15 exd7 :ad8 (O'Kelly-Po
mar, Varna 1962).
Mter 12 :el f5 ( 1 2 . . . :ad8! ?
transposes t o a line from Section
4) 13 exf6 lDxf6 14 .ic2 .if5 15
lDd4 lDxd4 16 cxd4 i.d6 17 f3
:ae8 a level position arises (Golu
bovic-Popov, Cetinje 1991).
f5
12
The exchange 12 lDxd2 13
"xd2 , followed by 14 'iVd3, is fa
vourable for White.
lDxf6
13 en6
14 'iVbl
14 .if4?! lDh5 15 .ig3 .ig4 16
:el lDf4 1 7 "bl h6 yields Black
excellent counter-chances (Morten

sen-I.Sokolov, Thessaloniki 1988).
The text move is a typical ma
noeuvre which prevents the plan
. . . .ie6-f5 . Black's reply will also
come as no surprise to you.
h8!
14
15 lDg5
. a a II
_
_if
a
-*-.
a
a
a a a
.
"
.
d fQ;;
.
_
A R % ' A n
.
"'tW.
.:
-
Until recently White's chances

in this complicated position were
considered preferable, for exam
ple 15 .ig8 16 .if5 "e8 1 7 lDdf3
.id6 18 :el lDe7 19 .ie6 "h5 20
h3, as in Sherzer-V.Mikhalevsky,
Mamaia 199 1 . However, in Szie
bert-Karsa, Hungary 1993, Black
played 16 .....d6!, not disturbing
the co-ordination of his rooks, and
after 1 7 lDb3?! ( 1 7 :el is unclear)
1 7 . . . g6 18 .ih3 lDh5 19 lDd4 lDf4
20 .ixf4 :xf4 Black seized the
initiative. Besides the automatic
15 . . . i.g8, Ivan Sokolov recently
found a much stronger reply:
15 lDg4!, e.g. 16 lDxh7 ..d6 1 7 g3
lDxe3 18 fxe3 "e5 or 16 lDgf3 "d6
(Almasi-I . Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee
1995) with an obvious advantage
for Black. The onus is on White to

find an imprvement.
So, 10 . . . 0-0 is quite a solid con
tinuation. It will undoubtedly be
come popular again.
Section 3
1 0 ttJc5
...
( 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i. a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10
i.e3)
ttJc5
10
1 1 l:te1 is harmless because of

1l . . . ttJxb3 12 axb3 i.g4, and 11 h3
ttJxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 ttJa3 (Mago
medov-Sagalchik, Frunze 1989)
13 . . . f6 ! is also satisfactory for
Black.
ttJd7
11
Mter 1 1. .. i.g4 12 ttJbd2 ttJe6
( 1 2 . . . ttJxe5? 13 i.xc5 i.xc5 14 'iVe1
or 12 . . . 0-0 13 h3 i.h5 14 i.xh7 + !
is bad for Black) White's queen
runs away from Black's bishop :
13 'iVb1, and the latter has noth
ing to do but to set off to g6 :
13 i.h5 . By comparison to the
Berlin variation, White has more
room to manoeuvre - that's why
his chances are preferable. Here
are some of the variations seen in
the tournament practice:
a) 14 i.f5 i.g6 15 l:td1 (or 1 5
ttJb3 !? i.xf5 16 'iVxf5 'iVd7 1 7 l:tad1
with an edge; Klinger-Opl, Vienna
1984) 15 . . . 'iVd7 (after 15 . . . 0-0 16
a4 - 16 g4 !? - 16 . . . 'iVd7 1 7 axb5
axb5 18 l:txa8 l:txa8 19 ttJf1 l:td8 20
ttJg3 b4 2 1 h4 White maintains a
slight edge as well, Jansa-Bernal,
Thessaloniki 1984) 16 g4 (16 'iVc2
0-0 17 ttJf1 ttJa5 18 ttJg3 c5 19 h4
ttJc4 20 i.c1 l:tfe8 leads to an un
clear position, Dolmatov-Yusupov,
Wijk aan Zee 199 1 ) 16 . . . 0-0 1 7
ttJe4 l:tad8 1 8 h3?! ttJa5 1 9 b 3 c 5 20
ttJg3 'iVb7 21 i.d2 d4, and Black
obtained counterplay in Malan
iuk-Agzamov, USSR champion
ship, Moscow 1983. Instead of 18
h3?! White should have immedi
ately played 18 ttJg3 and then h2h4 (Agzamov) .
..
In former times this move was

usually connected with an arrange
ment of pieces similar to the Ber
lin variation (Chapter 5): . . . i.e6-g4,
. . . ttJc5-e6 etc. This plan proved in
sufficient for equality but another
one was devised ( 1 l . . . ttJd7) .
1 1 i.c2
1 1 ttJd4?! is poor here: 1l . . . ttJxe5
12 ttJxe6 fxe6 13 i.d4 ttJxb3 14
axb3 ttJf7 15 'iVe2, as in Leow
Torre, Thessaloniki 1984, and af
ter 15 . . .'iVd6 16 i.xg7 l:tg8 Black
would have stood clearly better.

b) 14 l:tdl ll)g5 15 i.xg5 ! i.xg5
16 l:te1 i.xd2 17 ll)xd2 'ii'g5 18 ll)e4
'ii' h 6 19 ll)g3 i.g6 20 i.xg6 hxg6
2 1 h3 was clearly preferable for
White in Chandler-Grzesik, Ger
many 1984. Black should play
14 . . . 'ii'd 7 15 i.f5 i.g6 - see 14 i.f5 .
c) 14 b4 'ii'd 7 (14 . . . i.g6 15 ll)b3
0-0 16 a4 'ii'd 7 17 axb5 axb5, Stoica
Staller, Val Thorens 1980, and
now 18 .txg6 hxg6 19 'ii'd3 yields
White a small edge - Korchnoi) 15
a4 l:tb8 16 axb5 axb5 1 7 l:td1 i.g6
18 i.f5 0-0 19 ll)b3 i.xf5 20 'ii'xf5
l:ta8 2 1 'ii'd3 l:txa1 22 l:txa1 f6!
equalises (Wolff-Torre, San Fran
cisco 1991).
d) 14 a4 b4 15 a5 (threatening
16 i. a4 ; 15 c4 d4 16 i.e4 'ii'd7 1 7
i.xc6 'ii'xc6 18 ll)xd4 ll)xd4 1 9
i.xd4 i.g6 yields Black good coun
terplay - Keres - but 15 i.f5 i.g6
16 l:td1 0-0 17 'ii'c 2 'ii'b 8 18 i.xg6
hxg6 19 ll)b3 yielded White an
edge in the game Chiburdanidze
Chekhova, USSR 1980) 15 i.g6
16 c4! (now this is very strong;

16 ll)b3 'ii'b 8! - 16 . . . bxc3 17 bxc3
'ii'b 8 18 'ii'a 2 0-0 19 i.xg6 hxg6,

Gligoric-Szabo, N euhausen/Zurich
1953, would have given White an
edge after 20 l:tfb1 ! , as proposed
by Euwe - 17 l:td1 bxc3 18 bxc3
'ii'b5 19 i.xg6 hxg6 20 'ii'c2 'ii'c4 2 1
ll)bd4 ll)exd4 22 i.xd4 ll)d8 - Kar
ker-Nyman, corr 1968 - or 16
i.xg6 hxg6 1 7 'ii'd3 l:th5 18 l:tfd 1
ll)xe5 19 ll)xe5 l:txe5 20 ll)f3 l:te4,
Zakharov-Chekhov, USSR 1980,
leads to equality. After 16 c4 !
Black is in trouble. Both 16 d4
1 7 i.xg6 dxe3 ( 1 7 . . . hxg6 18 'ii'e 4! )
1 8 i.e4! exf2 + 19 l:txi2 'ii'd7 2 0 ll)b3
and 16 0-0 17 l:td1 dxc4 18 i.xg6
hxg6 19 'ii'e4 ll)a7 20 ll)xc4 (Jansa
Kelei!evic, Sarajevo 198 1) yield
White a big advantage.
1 l . . . ll)d7 was introduced into
practice by Grigory Kaidanov, He
noticed that it was not so conven
ient for White to protect his cen
tral pawn.
12 l:tel
12 i.f4?! is bad due to 12 . . . g5 !
13 i.e3 ll)dxe5 14 ll)xe5 ll)xe5 15
i.d4 f6 16 ll)d2 i.d6 1 7 l:te1 0-0 18
h4 c5, with a clear edge (A.Soko
lov-Kaidanov, Vilnius 1984) .
12 i.d4 is little-investigated.
In Kholmov-Kaidanov (Smolensk
1986) Black continued 12 . . ..tg4 13
l:te1 ll)c5 14 ll)bd2 ll)e6 (14 . . . ll)xd4!?
15 cxd4 ll)e6) 15 h3 i.h5 16 'ii'b 1
'ii'd7 17 i.f5 .tg6 18 i.e3 0-0. Com
pared to the 1l . . . i.g4 line, White's
pieces stand worse, which allows
Black counterplay.
12 ll)d4 ll)dxe5 ( 1 2 . . . ll)cxe5 13
f4 ll)c4 14 .tf2 ll)b8 15 l:te1 with a
From Alekhine to Dolmatov
clear plus, Imanaliev-Sagalchik,

Frunze 1989) 13 f4 li)c4 14 li)xc6
li)xe3 15 li)xd8 li)xdI 16 li)xe6 li)e3
1 7 li)xc 7 + d7 18 li)xa8 li)xc2 19
li)d2 i.c5 + 20 hl li)xaI 2 1 l:txal
l:txa8 leads to an equal endgame
(Tal-Timman, Montpellier 1985).
li)dxe5
12
12 0-0 is illogical. After 13 i.f4
li)b6 14 li)d4 (14 li)bd2!?) 14 . . . li)xd4
1 5 cxd4 c5 16 li)d2 ( 16 dxc5 i.xc5
17 i.xh7 + xh7 18 'ii'c2 + g8 19
'ii'xc5 d4 yields Black some com
pensation for the pawn sacrificed)
16 . . . li)c4 1 7 li)b3 !? li)xb2!? 18 'ii'b l
c4 19 i.xh 7 + h8 20 l:te3 ! White
obtained a strong attack (Dolma
tov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee 199 1).
13 li)xe5
li)xe5
14 i.d4! (D)
14 f4 was played in two games
by M.Novik: 14 . . . li)c4 (14 . . . li)g4!?
deserves attention ; according to
Novik, 15 i.d4 c5 16 i.xg7 l:tg8 1 7
l:txe6 l:txg7 18 l:te2 c 4 19 'ii'd4 f8
20 i.f5 ! leads to a double-edged
position) 15 i.d4 c5 (after 15 . . . 0-0
16 b3! c5 - 16 . . .li)d6 17 'ii'h 5 g6 18
'ii'e 5 wins for White - 1 7 i.xg7
xg7 18 bxc4 dxc4 19 'ii' h 5 l:th8
20 f5 i.d7 2 1 li)d2 White obtains a
strong attack according to N ovik,
and 15 . . . 'it?fB 16 f5 i.d7 1 7 b3 li)d6
18 'ii'f3 i.f6 19 'ii'x d5 i.xd4 + 20
cxd4 h5 2 1 li)d2 yields White a
slight advantage, Novik-Sokolin,
USSR 199 1) 16 i.xg7 l:tg8 17 f5
i.xf5 18 i.xf5 l:txg7 19 b3 li)b6 20
li)d2 . White has compensation for
the pawn but hardly more (N ovik
Sagalchik, Chorzow 1991).
105
14
li) g6
14 li)c6 Ieads to sharper play:
15 i.xg7 l:tg8 16 'ii' h 5! (16 i.d4 is
harmless: 16 . . . li)xd4 17 cxd4 i.d6
18 li)d2 'ii'f6 19 li)f3 0-0-0 20 'ii'd 3
l:tg4 with an equal game, Watson
Kaidanov, Moscow 1985) 16 ... d7
(16 . . . 'ii'd 7!? and 16 . . . 'ii'd 6!? deserve
attention) 17 i.h6 ( 1 7 'ii'xh7? i.f6)
1 7 . . . i.g5 ! ( 1 7 . . . i.d6?! is inferior
due to 18 f4! c8 19 li)d2 b 7 20
f5 i.d7, and now, instead of 2 1
li)f3? f6 22 l:tadl li)e5 ! with an un
clear position, as in Dolmatov-Lev
in, Dortmund 1992 - illustrative
game 35, White could have ob
tained a slight advantage by 2 1
i.b3 li)e7 22 f6 li)f5 23 i.xd5 + Dolmatov) 18 f4 ! i.xh6 19 'ii'xh6
c8 20 f5? ! i.d7 2 1 li)d2 l:tb8 ! 2 2
li)f3 l:tb6! 23 'ii'xh 7 'ii'fB 2 4 'ii'h4 b4!
with good counterplay for Black
(Miranovic-Mikhalchishin, Yugo
slavia 1992 ) . However, after 20
li)d2 (indicated by Mikhalchishin)
White's chances would have been
preferable.
Coming back to 14 . . . li)g6.
15 i.xg7

15 i.xg6 hxg6 16 i.xg7 prom
ises White no edge : 16 . . J!h7 1 7
i. e 5 i.d6 18 .!Dd2 i.xe5 19 lIxe5
"d6 20 "e1 'at>d7 21 .!Dfl lIah8
with a good position (A Kuzmin
Egin, Kishinev 1987).
lIg8
15
lIxg7
16 i.xg6
bIgS
17 lIxe6
B B
.B

i.
iB B:BiB
BiBi. B
B B
. . .
" rQ/,
'
.
"
U
lb .
H
.

" ", ,!i:'
This simplified position is ap

parently crucial for the whole line.
Black must organise the co-ordi
nation of his pieces but how?
a) 18 lIe5 This move is com
mon but hardly best, as sooner or
later, Black will have to play . . . c7c6 anyway: 18 c6 19 .!Dd2 'at>f8
20 .!Df3. Now inaccurate play can
be fatal, e.g. 20 i.f6 2 1 lIe2 lIh7
22 "d2 "d6 23 g4 ! lId8 (alterna
tively, 23 . . . g5 24 'at>h2 followed by
h2-h3, ASokolov) 24 g5 i.g7 25
lIael c5 26 h4 with a considerable
advantage for White, as Black's
rook on h7 is out of play (A Sok
olov-Flear, Clichy 1993).
Instead of 22 . . ...d6, 22 'at>g7
was better with the idea of 23 g4
"c8 24 "f4 "b8 ! . An interesting

plan was attempted by Gyimesi:
21 lIg8 !? (instead of 2 1 . . .lIh7) .
Mter 22 .!De5 "d6 23 .!Dg4 'at>g7 24
"d2 lIh8 25 lIae1 lIh4 26 h3 lIah8
a complicated position arose (Sti
sis-Gyimesi, Saanen 1993). Still,
White, with his centralised pieces,
has slightly better chances.
But the best option is probably
an immediate 20 lIh7. If now 2 1
"d2 then 21...i.d6 22 lIe2 i.xh2 + !
Therefore White must play 2 1
'ii'd3, when 2 1 . . .i.f6! (2 1 . . .i.d6?!
22 lIe2 "f6 23 g3) 2 2 lIe2 "d6 23
lIael (Ernst-Todorovic, Vienna
199 1) 23 . . ...f4 ! leads to a solid po
sition for Black.
b) 18 lIe2 ! This was played in
the game Tolnai-Gyimesi (Kec
skemet 1993 ) . Mter the standard
reply 18 . . . 'at>f8 19 .!Dd2 i.f6 20 .!Df3
"d6 2 1 a4 White obtained a tiny
advantage. 19 . . . d4!? deserves at
tention.
.
Section 4
1 0 ..d7
...
( 1 e4 e5 2 .!Df3 .!Dc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i.a4 .!Df6 5 0-0 .!Dxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10
i.e3)
10
"d7 (D)
This is the modern interpreta
tion of the 10 i.e3 system, which
we are going to examine especially
closely. Black postpones castling
to strengthen his centre. In com
parison with the line 10 . . . 0-0 1 1
.!Dbd2 "d7, White cannot seize the
c) 1l i.f5!? 1 2 lDxe4 (per

haps 1 2 lDd4!?) 12 . . . i.xe4 13 lDg5
i.xg5 14 i.xg5 lDa5 15 i.c2 lDc4
16 b3 lDxe5 17 l:tel 0-0 18 i.xe4
dxe4 19 'ii'x d7 lDxd7 20 l:txe4 with
a small plus (Stefansson-Hraek,
Manila 1992).
12 l:tel
White's other attempts are:
a) 12 lDd4?! (a dubious pawn
sacrifice) 12 . . . lDxd2 13 'ii'xd2 lDxe5
14 f4 lDc4 15 i.xc4 dxc4 16 f5 i.d5
17 f6 ( 1 7 l:tael f6 ! ) 17 . . . i.xf6 18
l:tael i.e6 19 'ii'f2 0-0 20 'ii'g3 'ii'd 6
and Black is on top (Zapata-Korch
noi, Wijk aan Zee 1987).
b) 12 i.c2 i.f5 (12 . . . lDxd2 !? 13
'ii'xd2 i.f5) 13 lDb3 ( 1 3 lDd4 i.g6)
13 ... i.g4 14 lDbd4 lDxd4 15 cxd4
0-0 16 'ii'c l ( 16 'ii'd3 !?) 16 . . . c5 1 7
dxc5 i.xf3 18 gxf3 lDxc5 with a
good position for Black (Zetocha
Glodeanu, Homorod 1993 ) . This
line needs practical tests.
c) 12 lDxe4 dxe4 13 lDd4 ( 1 3
'ii'xd7 + causes Black little trouble,
for example 13 . . . i.xd7 14 lDg5 - 14
e6 i.xe6 15 lDg5 i.xb3 16 axb3
i.xg5 17 i.xg5 l:td5 18 i.f4 d7 19
l:txa6 l:te8 20 l:tcl lDe5 2 1 c4, Dvoi
rys-Krasenkov, Katowice 1992, or
15 i.xe6 exf3 16 i.h3 lDe5 leads to
equality - 14 . . . lDxe5 15 i.d4 - 15
lDxe4 lDd3 16 l:tabl c5 is equal 15 ... i.xg5 16 i.xe5 0-0 17 i.xc7 l:tc8
18 i.b6 l:tfe8 19 l:tfel - 19 l:tadl i.e6
20 l:td6 i.f4! equalising, Korchnoi
- 19 . . . h5 20 i.d4 - 20 l:tadl i.c6
with equality - 20 . . . i.c6 21 l:te2
l:tcd8 22 h3 h4 23 a4 b4 24 i.c4 i.b7
with an equal position, Timman
diagonal bl-h7 since i.b3-c2 can

now be always met by . . . i.e6-f5.
l:td8
1 1 lDbd2
This is the point! Other moves
are weaker:
a) 1 l lDxd2 12 'ii'x d2 lDa5 13
i.g5! c5 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 15 i.c2 (15
lDg5 lDxb3 16 axb3 0-0 1 7 f4 g6 18
h3 l:tfd8 19 'ii'f2 h6 20 lDf3 i.f5 21
b4! yields White an initiative as
well, A.Sokolov-Yusupov, Mont
pellier 1985) 15 . . . l:td8 16 a4 lDc6
17 axb5 axb5 18 l:ta6 'ifb7 19 l:tfal
0-0 20 h3 d4 2 1 i.e4 i.d5 22 'ii'f4
with a clear plus (Dvoirys-Beikert,
Cappelle la Grande 1994) .
b) 1 l lDc5 12 i.c2 i.g4 (not
12 . . . i.f5? 13 i.xf5 'ii'xf5 14 i.xc5
i.xc5 15 lDb3) 13 'iibl i.h5 (13 . . . h6
14 lDd4 lDxe5 15 f4 lDc4 16 lDxc4
dxc4 1 7 f5 i.h5 18 b4 with a clear
edge, Hulak-Hort, Wijk aan Zee
1983) 14 i.xc5 ! i.xc5 15 l:tel 'ii'e 7
16 b4 i.b6 1 7 a4 l:td8 18 axb5
axb5 19 i.d3 i.g6 20 i.xg6 hxg6
2 1 'ii'd3 lDa7 22 lDb3 0-0 23 l:ta6
with a clear advantage (T.Horvath
Karsa, Hungarian championship
1982).

Korchnoi, Reykjavik 1987). Keep
ing the queens on after opening
the position on his previous move,
White hopes to make use of his
advantage in development. By 13
lDd4 he forces the opening of the
a-file for his rook: 13 . . . .ixb3 14
axb3 lDxe5 15 'ii' h 5 lDc6 16 :txa6
lDxd4 17 .ixd4 0-0 18 'ii'e 5 f6 19
'ii'xe4 c5 20 .ie3 with a doubled
but extra pawn for White (Tim
man-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987).
Instead of 15 ... lDc6, the continu
ation 15 . . . .id6!? deserved more at
tention. This variation requires
further tests, too.
d) 12 h3!? 0-0 ( 1 2 . . . lDxd2 13
'ii'x d2 lDa5 yields White a slight
edge after 14 .ig5 ! , e.g. 14 . . . c5 15
Ue1 - 15 .ixe7!? 'ii'xe7 16 lDg5,
Kovaevic - 15 . . . lDc6 16 l:tad 1 h6
1 7 .ixe7 'ii'x e7 - 1 7 . . . lDxe7 18
lDh4 ! ? - 18 .ic2 0-0 19 'ii'd 3 g6 20
'ii'e 3 rj;;g7 21 a3 , as in Short-Ljubo
jevic, Linares 1989) 13 l:tel. Now
13 lDxd2 14 'ii'x d2 lDa5 15 .ig5
c5 16 .ic2 .ixg5 17 lDxg5 .if5 18
e6 (or 18 g4 lDc4 19 'ii'c 1 e4 20
lDxe4 dxe4 2 1 xe4 l:tfe8 22 'ii'c2
g6 23 f4 with a clear advantage,
Short-Yusupov, Thessaloniki 1984)
18 . . . fxe6 19 .ixf5 l:txf5 20 lDxe6
l:tc8 2 1 b4! lDb7 22 l:te3 !? cxb4 23
cxb4 lDd6 24 'ii'd3 'ii'f7 25 g4 yields
White a clear edge (Levit-Shich
irev, corr 1989). Black should pre
fer 13 JUe8!, and after 14 .ic2
lDxd2 15 'ii'x d2 .if5 16 l:tad1 the
main line arises. Now we return
to the main line with 12 l:te1 (D).
0-0
12
Mter 12 lDxd2 13 'ii'xd2 0-0

14 l:tad1 lDa5 15 .ic2 .if5 16 lDd4
.ig6 17 .ixg6 fxg6 18 e6 'ii'd6 19
.ig5 c5 20 lDf3 lDc6 Black held his
ground in Kotronias-Stefansson
(Reykjavik 1992 ) . However, the
typical 14 .ig5 promises White bet
ter prospects.
13 .ic2
13 a4 b4 14 lDxe4 dxe4 15 'ii'xd7
.ixd7 16 lDd2 lDxe5 17 lDxe4 lDd3
18 l:te2 .if5 19 lDg3 .ig6 yielded
Black a good position in Timo
schenko-Marin (Bucharest 1993).
lDxd2
13
Black can also play:
a) 13 .if5 14 lDxe4 ( 14 lDb3
hardly promises more: 14 . . . .ig6
15 lDbd4 lDa5 16 e6!? 'ii'd6 ! 1 7
exf7 + l:txf7 18 a4 lDc4! 1 9 axb5
lDxe3 20 l:txe3 axb5 2 1 lDxb5 'ii'b 6
22 lDbd4 c5 23 lDb3 .if6 with ex
cellent counterchances for Black,
Fedorowicz-Kamsky, USA cham
pionship 1991). The text move en
ables White to upset Black's pawn
structure : 14 . . . .ixe4 (or 14 . . . dxe4
15 'ii'x d7 l:txd7 16 lDd4 lDxd4 1 7
cxd4 with a slight pull, Dvoretsky)
...
15 xe4 dxe4 16 'ii'x d7 l:txd7 1 7

e 6 ! fxe6 18 lbd2 lbe5 19 lbxe4 lbd3
20 l:te2 c5 2 1 g3, and the endgame
is slightly better for White, as in
Dolmatov-Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee
199 1 .
b) 1 3 f5!? 14 exf6 lbxf6 al
lows 15 'ii'b 1! (15 lbb3 g4 16 .ic5
d6 17 h3 h5 18 'ii'd 3 g6 19
'ii'd 2 .ixc2 20 'ii'xc2 lbe4, Khalif
man-Hubner, Manila 1990, or 15
lbg5 f5 16 f4 c5 1 7 lbb3 ! - 1 7
.ixf5 'ii'xf5 18 lbe6 .ixf2 + ! 1 9
lbe4 + - 17 . . . xf2 + 18 xf2 xc2
19 'ii'xc2 lbe4 + 20 lbxe4 l:txf4 + 2 1
gl dxe4 22 l:txe4, Khalifman
Hj artarson, Lucerne 1993 leads
to equality) 15 . . . h6 ( 1 5 . . . h8 16
lbg5 lbg4!? deserves attention,
Ivanchuk) 16 lbh4 lbe5 !? 17 lbb3
lbfg4 18 lbc5 'ii'c 8 19 lbxe6 'ii'xe6
20 .ih7 + h8 (Kir.Georgiev-Ivan
chuk, Manila 1992). Now instead
of 2 1 f5? 'ii'f7 22 lbg6 + lbxg6 23
xg4 lbe5 24 e2?! c5 25 l:td1
lbc6, with an initiative for Black,
White could have continued 2 1
g5 ! ! ' According to some analysis
by Kiril Georgiev, after 2 1 . . .c5 !
(2 1 . . .'ii'b 6? 22 xe7 and 2 1 . . .l:tf6 !?
22 f5 ! is favourable for White)
22 lbg6 + 'ii'xg6 23 xg6 .ixf2 +
24 h1 .ixe1 25 'ii'x e1 lbf2 + ! 26
gl lbh3 + ! the game would have
ended in a draw. This line shows
the margin of safety of Black's po
sition.
N ow we return to the main line
after 13 . . . lbxd2.
14 'ii'xd2
f5
15 l:tad1
..
15 xf5?! 'ii'xf5 16 lbd4 is some

what favourable for Black in view
of 16 ...lbxd4 17 cxd4 c5 18 dxc5 (af
ter 18 'ii'a 5 c4 19 'ii'xa6 b4 Black's
initiative is undoubtedly worth his
sacrificed pawn) 18 . . . d4 19 f4
.ixc5 20 l:tac1 l:tc8 with a slight
plus (Kharlov-Krasenkov, Rostov
on Don 1993 illustrative game
37) . White should not let Black's
queen to an active position.
l:tfe8
15
15 lba5 is somewhat prema
ture: 16 lbd4! .ie4 17 xe4 dxe4 18
'ii'c2 lbc4 (Chernyaev-Krasenkov,
Dolgoprudny 1992), and now, in
stead of 19 .if4? ! c5, 19 'ii'xe4
lbxb2 20 l:ta1 ! would have yielded
White better prospects.
16 h3 (D)
After 16 f4 xc2 1 7 'ii'xc2 f6
18 e6? ! 'ii'c 8 the e6 pawn is rather
weak, according to Dvoretsky.
-
..
This position arose in two

match games between Dolmatov
and Yusupov (Wijk aan Zee 1991).
In the earlier of them Yusupov
played 16 h6?! 17 f4 f8 (now
1 10 From Alekhine to Dolmatov

1 7 . . . .ixc2 18 'lVxc2 to? 19 e6 'lVc8
is poor due to 20 'iVg6) 18 .ig3 !
(preparing 19 .ixf5 'lVxf5 2 0 lbh4
followed by f2-f4) 18 . . . .ixc2 19
'iVxc2 'lVe6. Now the simplest way
for an edge for White was 20 .ih4!
(the game saw 20 lbd4 lbxd4 2 1
cxd4 lIc8! 2 2 f4 c 5 2 3 f5 cxd4! with
a slight edge) 20 . . . lId7 (20 . . . .ie7
21 .ixe7 followed by 22 lbd4 with
a clear edge) 2 1 lbd4 lbxd4 22
cxd4 with the inevitable f2-f4-f5
(recommended by Dvoretsky) .
The weakening of Black's king
side does not go unpunished.
16 .ixc2 1 7 'lVxc2 to was not
quite sufficient either, as after 18
extO .ixto 19 .i.g5 ! lIxe1 + 20 llxe1
'lVf7 2 1 .ixto 'lVxto 22 'lVd3 White

maintains some pressure along
the e-file (Dvoretsky) .
In the later game Black pre
ferred to play 16 'lVe6 . Mter 17
.ig5 .ixc2 18 'iVxc2 'lVg6! 19 'lVxg6
hxg6 20 .if4 .i.c5 2 1 lbd4 lbxd4 22
cxd4 .ib6 23 lIe2 lIe6 24 lIc2 to
the endgame proved equal. Dvor
etsky recommends 17 .if4. Then
17 .ixc2 18 'lVxc2 'lVg6 is risky in
view of 19 'lVxg6 followed by 20 e6.
However, after 17 'lVg6 Black
has little to worry about.
So, all the three ways after 10
.ie3 yield Black counter-chances.
Which one should you choose?
Follow your taste!
The Mai n Road
( 1 e 4 e 5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 b 5 a6 4
a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
b3 d5 8 dxe5 e6 9 c3 e7)
10 ttJbd2
Section 1
B lack's 1 0th move alternatives
The lines examined in this section
deserve serious attention. The gen
eral idea of consolidating Black's
centre before castling (like 10 . . .'iVd7
in the previous chapter) has only
just started to develop in the main
variation. The results are quite sat
isfactory so far.
ttJc5
10
10 ... ttJa5?! is dubious in view
of 1 1 ttJd4 ! . The alternative reply
10 ...ttJxd2 also yields White bet
ter chances, e.g. 11 'iVxd2 ttJa5 12
c2 c5 13 'iVf4 0-0 14 'iVg3 g6 15
h6 ne8 16 nadl (Nijboer-Grant,
Groningen 1983 ).
10...'iVd7!? is the most impor
tant alternative. Then 11 ne1 ttJc5
12 ttJd4 (for 12 c2, see 10 . . . ttJc5)
is not dangerous due to 12 . . . ttJxb3
13 ttJ2xb3 ttJd8, for example 14 f4
c5 15 f5 cxd4 16 fxe6 ttJxe6 17 ttJxd4
ttJxd4 18 'iVxd4 0-0 19 i.e3 nac8
20 nadl nfd8 with equal chances
in Plaskett-Krasenkov, Hastings
1992/93. In the stem game J.Pol
gar-Anand, Munich 1991, White
played 1 1 c2, to which Black re
plied unsuccessfully 1 1 ... ttJxd2?!
12 'iVxd2 .i.g4? ! , and after 13 'iVf4
xf3 (13 . . . 0-0 14 ttJg5) 14 .i.f5 'iVd8
15 'iVxf3 (15 gxf3 !?) 15 . . . ttJxe5 16
'iVe2 'iVd6 17 nel ttJc6 18 g5 <t>f8
This is the so-called ' main' or

'classical ' variation of the Open
Spanish, which has been in wide
use since the last century. White
intends to oust Black's knight
from the centre and simultane
ously continue with the develop
ment of his queenside. However,
nowadays it occurs fairly rarely in
practice. Modern Black players pre
fer other lines such as 9 c3 .i.c5 or
9 ttJbd2 ttJc5 .
The most common move in the
diagram position is 10 . . . 0-0. In this
section we deal with Black's other
possibilities, section 2 considers
10 . . . 0-0 11 'iVe2 and other unusual
White 11th moves, while section 3
concentrates on the main line
10 . . . 0-0 11 c2.
1 12 The Main Road

19 .ie3 White obtained a strong
initiative for the sacrificed pawn
illustrative game 38. 1 1 .if5! was
much stronger, for example 12
ll)b3 .ig6 or 12 :el ll)xd2 (or sim
ply 12 . . . ll)c5 transposing to the
10 . . . ll)c5 line). This variation is
waiting for your games and analy
ses, dear Reader!
1 1 .ic2
1 1 'lVe2 is completely harmless
due to 11 . . . d4 ! , e.g. 12 .ixe6 fxe6
13 cxd4 ll)xd4 14 ll)xd4 'lVxd4 15
ll)b3 ll)xb3 16 axb3 0-0 with equal
ity (Bemstein-Tarrasch, St Peters
burg 1914) .
The pawn sacrifice 1 1 ll)d4 is
interesting but hardly promising,
for example 1 1 . . .ll)xe5 12 f4 ll)c4
(not 12 . . ..i.g4? 13 'ii'el ll)ed3 14 'ii'g3
with a clear edge) 13 'lVe2 (or 13 f5
.id7 14 'lVh5 c6 15 ll)2f3 ll)e4 16
.ic2 ll)f6 with a solid defence, Lo
bron-Hort, Biel 1981) 13 . . . .id7 14
:el (Bryson-Flear, Dundee 199 1),
and now Black should have played
14 . . . ll)xb3 15 axb3 ll)xd2 16 .ixd2
c5 or 15 ll)2xb3 'itt fB , when his ex
tra pawn compensates for White's
initiative.
d4
11
1 1 .ig4 transposes to the Ber
lin variation (Chapter 5 ) . 1 1 0-0
yields White a certain edge after
the line 12 ll)b3 'lVd7 13 ll)bd4
ll)xd4 14 cxd4 ll)e4 15 ll)el f6 16 f3
ll)g5 1 7 ll)d3 (Am.Rodriguez-To
dorovic, Pan(!evo 1987).
11 'lVd7 12 :el (12 b4 ll)a4 ! )
12 .i.f5 gave Black a satisfactory
position in Boleslavsky-Korchnoi
-
(USSR 1966) after 13 .ixf5 'ii'xf5

14 ll)f1 'lVd3 15 .ie3 0-0-0 16 'ii'c l
'iti>b 7. However, White' s play was
improved in the game Zapata
Am. Rodriguez (Bogota 199 1 ) : 13
ll)fl . Mter 1 3 .ixc2 14 'lVxc2 0-0
15 .ie3 ll)e6 16 :adl f6 17 exf6
.i.xf6 18 ll)g3 :ad8 19 ll)e4 White
obtained a minimal edge. How
ever, by means of 1 3 :d8 14 ll)g3
.ig6 Black could have obtained
the Berlin variation with an extra
tempo! 14 .ixf5 'lVxf5 looks quite
solid for him, too.
Instead of 12 :el , 12 ll)b3!? is
probably stronger. However, this
move has not yet been tested in
practice.
The break 11 . . . d4 was casti
gated by none other than Capa
blanca! It took a couple of decades
to find an improvement for Black.
Still, White manages to obtain
some edge in the endgame.
12 ll)b3
12 ll)e4 d3 doesn't change any
thing.
d3!?
12
This is the point! 12 dxc3? 13
ll)xc5 .ixc5 14 .ie4 'lVd7 1 5 'lVc2
.i.d5 16 bxc3 :d8 17 .ig5 is clearly
in White's favour (Capablanca
Chajes, New York 1916).
13 ll)xc5
13 .ibl ll)xb3 14 axb3 .i.f5 1 5
.i.e3 0-0 16 .id4 (16 ll)d4 ll)xd4 1 7
cxd4 c 5 ) 16 . . . 'lVd5 1 7 .ixd3 .ixd3
18 'lVxd3 'lVxb3 leads to a position
with chances for both sides (Maus
Pieper-Emden, Germany 1989).
13
dxc2
.
The Main Road 1 13

14 'ii'xdS +
15 lDxe6
l:bdS
fxe6
. . . :fB-a8, . . . b5xc4, . . . :d5-b5, . . . a6a5-a4 etc. Still, there is a long way

to go to obtain equality.
The most promising of all the
lines in this section is probably
10 . . . 'ii'd 7.
Section 2
1 0 ... 0-0
side lines
( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4

.ta4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.tb3 d5 S dxe5 .te6 9 c3 .te7 10
lDbd2)
0-0
10
White can hope for a small edge

in this endgame due to his better
pawn structure. However, he needs
to play extremely carefully.
16 .te3
16 .tf4?! is risky: 16 .. JU8 1 7
.tg3 g5 ! 18 h 3 ( 1 8 lD e l h5 19 h3
:d2 with the threat . . . h5-h4 and
. . . :fBxf2 ) 18 . . . :xf3 ! 19 gxf3 b4 20
:fc1 :d2 2 1 'iti>f1 bxc3 22 bxc3 .ta3
with an edge for Black (Cuijpers
Pieper-Emden, Germany 1990) .
:d5
16
17 :ac l !
After 1 7 :fc l lDxe5 18 lDxe5
:Xe5 19 :Xc2 0-0 20 c4 i.c5 21 cxb5
i.xe3 22 fxe3 axb5 Black equal
ised in Luther-Beckemeyer, Ger
many 1990).
The text move yielded White an
edge in Akopian-Daniliuk (St Pe
tersburg 1993 ) after 17 lDxe5 18
lDxe5 :Xe5 19 :Xc2 'iti>f7 (19 ... 0-0 20
c4, etc . , now favours White) 20 c4
:c8 21 :fcl i.d6 22 g3 . Daniliuk
recommends 20 . . . i.d6 followed by
1 1 'ii'e 2
The most frequently seen move
in this position is 1 1 .tc2 . We'll
examine this in the next section.
1 1 lDxe4 dxe4 12 .txe6 fxe6 13
lDd4 'ii'd 5 is clearly harmless. 1 1
lDd4 lDxd4 1 2 cxd4 lDxd2 1 3 .txd2
c5 14 dxc5 .txc5 15 :c1 :c8 16
:Xc5 :xc5 17 i.b4 'ii'c7 18 'ii'd4 :cl
19 i.xfB 'iti>xfB led to a draw in
Keres-Fine (Amsterdam 1938). Af
ter 1 1 :el lDc 5 White has nothing
to show either:
1 14 The Main Road

a) 12 .ic2 d4 13 cxd4 ( 1 3 ll)e4
is now bad for White because of
13 . . . dxc3 14 ll)xc5 .ixc5 15 .ie4
"xdl 16 l:txd l l:tad8, as given by
Keres) 13 . . . ll)xd4 14 ll)xd4 "xd4
15 "e2 (15 ll)b3 ll)xb3 16 axb3
"xd1 1 7 l:txdl c5 is in Black's fa
vour, Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, St Pe
tersburg 19 14) 15 . . . l:tad8 16 ll)f3
"c4 17 .ie3 "xe2 18 l:txe2 .ic4 19
l:td2 ll)e6 with a good position for
Black (Kir.Georgiev-Piket, Biel
1993).
b) 12 ll) d4 ll)xd4 13 cxd4 ll)d3
14 l:te3 ll)f4 ( 14 . . . ll)xcI 15 l:txc1 c5
16 dxc5 l:tc8 also gives Black good
counterplay, Geller-Suetin, USSR
championship, Moscow 195 1) 15
ll)f3 ( 1 5 i.c2 c5 16 l:tel - for 16
ll)b3? ! , see illustrative game 39
16 . . . c4 1 7 ll)n ll)g6 18 "h5 "d7
19 h3 f5 is pleasant for Black, Va
siukov-Suetin, USSR champion
ship, Kiev 1964/65) 15 . . . .ig4 16
h3 .ih5 1 7 .ic2 ll)e6 18 .if5 c5 19
dxc5 .ixc5 20 l:td3 "b6, and Black
has no problems, Ye Jiangchuan
Norri, Helsinki 1992 .
Coming back to 1 1 "e2. With
this move White prepares ll)f3-d4,
not allowing . . . ll)e4-c5-d3 .
ll)c5
n
1 1 ll)xd2 12 .ixd2 ll)a5 13
.ic2 ll)c4 14 "d3 g6 15 i.h6 Ieads,
strangely enough, to a position
from Chapter 7 ( 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1
ll)bd2 ll)xd2 12 "xd2 ll)a5 13 i.c2
ll)c4 14 "d3 g6 15 i.h6), favourable
for White. After 13 . . . c5 14 "d3 g6
15 i.h6 l:te8 16 l:tadl ll)c4 1 7 i.cl
f6 18 exf6 .ixf6 19 l:tfel (Vasiukov-
...
Lukic, Reykjavik 1956) White's

chances are better as well.
n .if5 12 l:tdl ll)c5 13 ll)d4
ll)xd4 14 cxd4 .i d3 ( 14 . . . ll)e6 is
risky for Black: 15 ll)n i.g6 16 ll)g3
c5 1 7 dxc5 d4 18 f4 ! with a clear
edge, Arakhamia-Boog, Bie1 1990)
15 "g4 ll)xb3 16 ll)xb3 .ic2 (Gli
goric-Bozic, Yugoslav champion
ship, Ljubljana 1947) could have
yielded White a slight edge after
1 7 .ih6! .ig6 18 .ie3 (Korchnoi).
12 ll)d4!
Again 12 .ic2 d4 ! is good for
Black.
ll)xb3
12
12 ll)xd4 13 cxd4 ll)xb3 14
ll)xb3 l:tc8 15 .id2 ! l:tfc8 16 l:tfcl
.if5 1 7 a3 c6 18 .ib4 (Sakharov
Olifer, USSR 1960) with a favour
able position for White. In this line
13 ....!tJa4!? deserves attention.
If 12 ..d7 then 13 i.c2 ! , and
White maintains the initiative
(see Chapter 7, Section 1). The text
move simplifies the position.
13 ll)xc6!
13 ll)2xb3 leads to equality:
13 .....d7 14 lDxc6 "xc6 15 i.e3 i.f5
(15 . . ...c4 16 "c2 "g4 is worse due
to 1 7 f3 , Korchnoi) 16 l:tfdl 'fj'g6
1 7 ll)d4 (or 1 7 f3 c6 18 "f2 l:tfe8
19 l:tel f6 with equal play, Keres
Averbakh, USSR championship,
Moscow 1951) 17 . . . .id7 18 b4 "e4
19 i.d2 "xe2 20 ll)xe2 l:tfe8 2 1
i.f4 c6 2 2 ll)d4 a5 (Mecking-Korch
noi, Augusta 1974).
ll)xc l
13
14 l:taxcl
"d7
15 ll)xe7 +
"xe7
...
.0.
...
The Main Road 1 15
In this position White main

tains a small advantage since the
dark squares in Black's camp are
weakened. The game Janoevic
Lukic (Yugoslavia, 1955) saw 16
f4 f5 1 7 exf6 'YWxf6 18 'YWe3 .if5
19 'YWd4 with some pressure for
White.
So, after 1 1 'YWe2 Black goes
through certain difficulties. The
strangest thing is that it has been
practically abandoned nowadays !
1 1 .ic2 is usually played, which is
hardly stronger. We have met a
similar case in Section 3 (Zaitsev's
piece sacrifice is correct but un
popular). The capricious nature of
fashion?
Section 3
1 1 .ic2
( 1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ie7 10
lDbd2 0-0)
11 .ic2 (D)
White manoeuvres his bishop to
an active position, attacks Black's
knight, and clears a square for his

own.
f5
11
The other possibilities for Black
are:
a) 11 .if5 12 lDd4! lDxd4 13
cxd4 f6 ( 1 3 . . . c5 is insufficient due
to 14 lDxe4 .ixe4 15 .ixe4 dxe4 16
d5 l:te8, Geller-Korchnoi, Budva
1967, when instead of 1 7 l:tel
White should have played 17 f4 !
with a clear advantage, as recom
mended by Korchnoi) 14 lDxe4
.ixe4 15 .ixe4 dxe4 16 'YWb3 + h8
17 .ie3 fxe5 18 dxe5 'YWc8 19 'YWc2
'ii'b 7 20 l:tfd l l:tad8 2 1 'YWc3 with a
small edge for White CWalker-Pich
ler, COIT 1990) .
b) 1 l lDxd2 12 'lVxd2 f6 13
'lVd3 (or 13 exf6 .ixf6 14 lDg5 with
a small pull, Korchnoi) 13 . . . g6 14
exf6 .ixf6 15 i.h6 l:te8 16 l:tfel
h8 1 7 'lVd2 'lVd6 18 .if4 (Suetin
Korchnoi, Moscow 1966) . White
maintains better prospects in this
line.
c) 1 l lDc5 12 lDd4!? lDxe5 13
b4 lDa4 14 'YWh5 lDg6 15 f4 lDxc3
16 f5 i.xb4 1 7 fxe6 fxe6 18 lD2f3
1 16 The Main Road

with an initiative for White (Iva
novic-Cvetkovic, Yugoslav cham
pionship 1974). White can also play
more simply: 12 li)b3!? li)xb3 13
axb3 'lVd7 14 'lVd3 g6 15 .ih6 .if5
16 'iVd2 l:Hd8 17 l:Hel with a small
advantage (Am. Rodriguez-Karl,
Chiasso 1993).
Black strengthens his central
knight by means of 1 1 . . .f5. How
ever, it turns out to be a temporary
measure as White can eventually
prepare f2-f3 . On the other hand,
Black is now deprived of some ac
tive possibilities like the break
. . . f7-f6 or the activation of his
light-squared bishop via f5 or g4.
White's passed e5 pawn becomes
quite formidable as Black's bishop
and later his queen are not good
blockaders.
These considerations explain
why Black can hardly attain full
equality in this variation.
12 li)b3
Besides this positional move,
White has two other possibilities:
a) 12 exf6 has no positional
basis and doesn't yield White any
edge: 12 lDxf6, and now:
al) 13 li)g5?! .ig4 14 f3 .ic8
15 l:tel 'lVd6 16 'lVe2 .id7 is favour
able for Black (Kotov-Averbakh,
USSR 1952).
a2) 13 l:tel .ig4 14 M 'lVd7 15
li)e3 .ic5 16 li)xg4 li)xg4 1 7 .ie3
.i.xe3 18 fxe3 l:tad8 with a good
position for Black (Godena-Brun
ner, Novi Sad 1990) .
a3) 13 li)d4!? li)xd4 14 cxd4.
Now 14 c5 is doubtful, e.g. 15
dxc5 .ixc5 16 li)b3 .ia7 1 7 li)d4

.ig4!? 18 f3 'lVb6 19 .ie3 l:tae8 20
.if2 li)e4 !? 21 .ixe4 dxe4 22 fxg4
l:txf2 23 'iti>xf2 'lVxd4 + 24 'iVxd4
.ixd4 + 25 'ltte 2 .ixb2 26 l:tadl
with a clear plus for White (Gar
mendez-Gunderman, Los Angeles
1991). Black should probably play
14 'lVd7 or at once 13 'lVd7.
This line needs more tests.
a4) 13 li)b3 .ig4! 14 'lVd3 li)e4
(Black can also continue quietly:
14 . . . .ih5 1 5 li)bd4 li)xd4 16 li)xd4
.ig6, Boleslavsky-Euwe, Gronin
gen 1946, or 14 . . . 'lVd7 15 li)bd4
li)xd4 16 cxd4 .ixf3 17 'lVxf3 g6 18
.ih6 l:tf7 19 l:tael li)g4 20 'lVh3
.if6, Rohde-Korchnoi, Beer-Sheva
1987, with equal chances in both
cases) 15 li)bd4 li)xd4 16 li)xd4
.id6
1. - _ _ . _
_ . _ ..
.- . . _._.. .
.
411
- .t.. -
1 7 h3 ( 1 7 li)c6? is bad due to

1 7 . . . 'lVh4. 1 7 li)xb5? yields Black a
strong attack: 17 ... .i.xh2 + 18 <itxh2
'lVh4 + 19 'iti>gl l:tf5 20 .ib3 'iti>h8, as
in Arseniev-Zhukhovitsky, Lenin
grad 1967, and 17 .i.b3?! is risky
as well: 17 . . . 'iti>h8 18 h3 'lVh4 19 f4
"iV.
"
8u
"
8u
i.. .
u
_
.

:
The Main Road 117
liJc5 20 'iVe3 ae8 with an initia

tive for Black, Gipslis-Suetin, Tal
linn 1959) 17 . . . 'iVh4 18 liJxb5 liJx2
19 g5 ! liJxd3 20 xh4 axb5 2 1
xd3 d 7 with equality (Rago
zin-Ravinsky, Moscow 1947) .
b) 1 2 liJd4 prematurely simpli
fies the game: 12 . . . liJxd4 13 cxd4
c5 14 dxc5 liJxd2 (14 . . . xc5 is pos
sible as well, e.g. 15 liJb3 a7 16
e3 - 16 liJd4 'iVb6! - 16 . . . xe3 1 7
fxe3 'iVc7 18 xe4 dxe4 19 'iVd6
'iVxd6 20 exd6 fd8, when a draw
was agreed in Lein-Lutikov, USSR
championship, Kiev 1964/65) 15
xd2 xc5 16 b3 ( 16 c1 'iVd7)
16 . . . 'iVb6 (alternatively, 16 . . . 'iVd7
17 c1 fc8 18 c3 a5 19 a3 b6
20 c2 a4 21 a2 d4 22 xd4
xa2 23 xb6 'iVxd 1 24 xc8 +
l:f.xc8 25 xd1 b3 led to a draw
ish endgame, Ivanchuk-Hjartar
son, Tilburg 1989) 17 'iVf3 l:f.ad8
18 ac 1 b4 19 c2 'itt h 8 20 fcl
c8 2 1 i.f4 fd8 with equality
(Short-Prasad, Subotica 1987).
12 liJb3 is connected with a fa
miliar plan: liJf3-d4 and 2-f3.
'iVd7
12
13 liJfd4
13 liJbd4 yields Black an addi
tional possibility 13 . . . liJa5 !?, e.g.
14 liJxe6 'iVxe6 15 liJd4 'iVxe5 16 f3
d6 1 7 g3 f4! 18 fxe4 fxg3 19 liJf3
g2 ! 20 'itt xg2 xf3 , forcing a draw
by perpetual check (Boleslavsky
Zagorovsky, USSR 1954) .
13 el is not dangerous, for ex
ample 13 . . . a5 ( 1 3 . . . ad8 14 'iVe2
fe8 15 liJfd4 liJxd4 16 liJxd4 c5 1 7
liJxe6 'iVxe6 18 f3 liJg5 19 a 4 gave
White an edge in the game Nunn

Wedberg, Novi Sad 1990) 14 i.d3
ab8 15 'iVe2 a4 16 liJbd4 liJxd4 1 7
liJxd4 c6 1 8 f3 liJc5 with a solid po
sition for Black (Akopian-Krasen
kov, Vilnius 1988).
liJxd4
13 ...
13 liJxe5 is hardly possible
owing to 14 f3.
14 liJxd4
14 cxd4 doesn't succeed due to
14 . . . a5! 15 f3 a4 16 fxe4 axb3 1 7
xb3 fxe4 1 8 i.e3 xf1 + 1 9 'iVxfl
c6 20 c1 'iVb 7 with equal play,
Bogolyubow-Rubinstein, Gothen
burg 1920.
After 14 liJxd4 White is ready to
play both on the queen 's (a2-a4)
and kingside (2-f3-f4, g2-g4).
c5
14
14 ad8 15 f3 tZX:5 16 e1 liJb7
17 b4, followed by a2-a4, is fa
vourable for White, according to
Boleslavsky and Suetin.
15 liJxe6
15 liJe2 is weaker: 16 . . . ad8 16
liJf4 'iVc6 17 a4 iLc8 18 axb5 axb5 19
'iVh5 g6 20 'iVh6 f7 2 1 f3 f8 22
'iVh3 liJg5 (Fischer-Unzicker, Santa
Monica 1966) or even 16 . . . 'itt h 8! ?
17 a4 d4 1 8 cxd4 cxd4 1 9 axb5 axb5
20 'iVh5 f7 (Anand-Prasad, In
dian championship 1988), with
good play for Black in both cases.
'iVxe6
15
liJg5
16 f3
17 a4 (D)
17 xg5 is somewhat prema
ture: 17 . . . iLxg5 18 f4 e7 19 'iVf3
c4 20 fd1 ad8 etc. (R. Korsun
sky-Chekhov, USSR 1979).
.
1 18 The Main Road

(Beliavsky-Tarjan, Bogota 1979 illustrative game 40).
c) 17 c4 18 axb5. Now the re
ply 18 . . . axb5? is a blunder: 19 :xas
l::txa8 20 .ixg5 .ixg5 2 1 f4 .ie7 22
xf5 ! (Gheorghiu-Korchnoi, Ro
mania 1968). The position after
18 . . . 'lVb6 + 19 'it>h1 'lVxb5 (O' Con
nell) is slightly better for White.
Now we come back to 17 . . . g6.
18 .ixgS!
White radically deprives Black's
knight of a possibility to block the
e5 pawn by exchanging it! Other
wise Black obtains a strong coun
terplay, e.g. 18 'lVe2 c4 19 l::te 1
"b6 + 20 'it>h1 liJe6 21 l::td 1 l::t ad8,
preparing . . . d5-d4 (Nunn-Korch
noi, Cologne 1989).
.ixgS
18 . . .
.ie7
19 f4
Now both after 20 'lVf3 b4 2 1
l::tfe1 l::tfd8 22 cxb4 c4 (Balashov
Korchnoi, Germany 1980) and 20
axbS axb5 21 l::txa8 l::txa8 22 g4
fxg4 23 f5 gxf5 24 l::txf5 l::t a6 2 5
'it>h l 'it> h 8 (Hiibner-Korchnoi, Co
logne Cup 1989) Black held his
ground.
So, the classical interpretation
of the main line ( 10 . . . 0-0) yields
White slightly better chances af
ter both 1 1 'lVe2 and 1 1 .ic2 . Fu
ture debate will probably concern
10 . . . 'lVd7!?
White stands slightly better as

he holds the initiative on both
flanks. However, Black's position
is very solid.
17
g6
Black protects his weak pawn
on f5. Here are some other lines of
play:
a) 17 b4?! 18 cxb4 c4 19 b3!
c3 20 'lVd3 l:bc8 (Geller-Savon,
Skopje 1968) . Now, according to
Korchnoi, White could have ob
tained a slight advantage by means
of 2 1 .ixg5 .ixg5 22 f4 .ie7 23
l::ta d1 ! '
b) 17 l::tad8 18 axb5 axb5 1 9
'lVe2 ( 1 9 'it>h 1 l::t d 7 2 0 'lVe2 "c6 2 1
xg5 .ixg5 22 f4 .ie7 2 3 "f3 c4 is
not so convincing, Haba-Unzicker,
Germany 1990) 19 . . . c4 ( 19 . . :ii'c6!?,
Beliavsky) 20 .ie3 b4 21 'lVd2 b3
22 .id1 h6 23 h4 liJf7 24 f4 g5 25
.id4, and White started an attack
Theoreti cal Conclusions

We have now finished examining the theory of the Open Spanish.
What are your initial reactions? There can hardly be any doubt - it's
just a muddle in your head! All those variations and move transposi
tions would drive anyone mad. In order to help you better understand
the ideas of the Open Spanish, forty illustrative games are included in
the next chapter, and here I'd like to offer you a consolidated table re
flecting the interrelation of all the important lines of the Open Span
ish and their current theoretical state.
In this table we use the following symbols:
5.2
;1;
OK
?
*
**
chapter and section numbers where the line is examined;

a slight advantage for White;
a clear advantage for White;
the line is satisfactory and yields Black at least equal chances;
the assessment is not completely reliable;
a deeply developed line in which a final reliable assessment has not
yet been found;
a new line with insufficient practical material;
a line of great theoretical importance;
transposes to
Assessments are given to the lines containing no further branches.

THE OPEN SPANISH
1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 tDfS 5 0-0 tDxe4

C hapter 1
1 . 1 : 6 'iVe2, 6 lIel etc. - OK
1 . 2 : 6 d 4 i.e7 ;1;
1.3: 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 i.e7 (or 7 . . . exd4 )
1 .4: 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 tDxe5 (8 c4 and 8 a4 - OK) 8 . lDxe5
9 dxe5 c6 (9 . . . i.e6 ;1;; 9 . i.b7 ;1;) - OK
11
12
15
. .
..
16
The rest of the book deals with the position arising after 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6
120 Theoretical Conclusions

C hapter 2
2 . 1 : 9 a4 - OK
2 . 2 : 9 i.e3 tbc5 (9 . . . i.c5 ;1;; 9 . . . i.e7 10 c3 - Chapter 7) 10 tbc3 !
( 10 'iVe2 i.e7 1 1 nd1 - OK) ;I;
C hapter 3
3 . 1 : 9 tbbd2 i.e7 (9 . . . tbxd2 ;1; ?* * ! or 9 . . . ii.c5 ;1; ) 10 tbxe4
( 10 c3 - Chapter 7) - OK ?**!
3 . 2 : 9 tbbd2 tbc5 10 c3 ii.g4 11 h3 ( 1 1 ne1 - OK; 1 1 ii.c2
- Chapter 5) - OK
3 . 3 : 9 tbbd2 tbc5 10 c3 d4 11 ii.xe6 ( 1 1 tbg5 !? OK?*)
1 L . tbxe6 12 cxd4 tbcxd4 13 a4 (13 tbe4 - OK) 13 ... nb8!?
(13 ... ii.e7 ;I; ) OK ?**
C hapter 4
4. 1 : 9 'iVe2 tbc5 (9 . . . ii.c5 etc. ;1;) 10 nd1 tbxb3
(10 . . . i.e7 - Section 4.2) ;I;
4.2: 9 'iVe2 iLe7 ( 10 c3 - Chapter 7) 10 nd1 tbc5 1 1 i.e3
( 1 1 ii.xd5 - OK ; 11 tbc3 tbxb3 12 cxb3 0-0 13 ii.e3 'iVd7 - OK;
11 c4! ;1;) 1 L .tbxb3! ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 ;1;) - OK
4.3: 9 'iVe2 ii.e7 10 nd 1 0-0 11 c4 bxc4 12 ii.xc4 'iVd7 - OK
4.4: 9 'iVe2 i.e7 10 nd 1 0-0 11 c4 bxc4 12 ii.xc4 i.c5 - OK
Chapter 5
5 . 1 : 9 c3 tbc5 10 i.c2 (10 tbbd2 - OK?) ii.g4 and now:
A) 11 tbbd2 ii.e7 ( 1 1 . . . tbe6 ;1;; 1 L .'iVd7 ;1;) 12 ne1 d4 ;I;
B) 1 1 ne1 iLe7 12 h3 (12 tbbd2 - line A and 5.2) - OK
C) Other White 1 1th moves ( 1 1 'iVe2, 1 1 h3, etc.) - OK
5 . 2 : 9 c3 tbc5 10 ii.c2 ii.g4 1 1 tbbd2 i.e7 12 ne1 0-0 13 tbb3!
( 13 tbf1 i.h5 14 tbg3 i.g6 - OK) ;I;
5.3: 9 c3 tbc5 10 iLc2 ii.g4 1 1 tbbd2 ii.e7 12 ne1 'iVd7 13 tbf1!
(13 tbb3 tbe6 - OK) ;I;
C hapter 6
9 c3 ii.c5 and now:
6 . 1 : 10 'iVd3 and other White 11th moves - OK
6 . 2 : 10 tbbd2 0-0 11 'iVe2 tbxd2 ;I;
6.3: 10 tbbd2 0-0 11 iLc2 f5 12 tbb3 iLb6 13 tbfd4 tbxd4
14 tbxd4 ii.xd4 15 'iVxd4 (15 cxd4 - OK?* ) ;I; ?*
6.4: 10 tbbd2 0-0 1 1 ii.c2 ii.f5 12 tbb3 i.g6 (12 ... i.xf2!? * *;1; ?)
13 tbfd4 ii.xd4 14 cxd4 a5 15 ii.e3 a4 16 tbc1 (16 tbd2 ;1;) ;I; ?*
20
22
25
28
29
37
40
44
47
51
58
63
69
75
77
80
Theoretical Conclusions 121
6.5: 10 lbbd2 0-0 1 1 .tc2 lbxf2 12 l:txf2 to 13 exf6 .txf2 +

14 xf2 'ii'xtO 15 lbfl lbe5 16 .te3 l:taeB 17 .tc5
( 1 7 gl - OK) - OK ? * !
C hapter 7
9 c3 .te7 and now:
7 . 1 : 10 .tc2 (10 'ii'e 2 lbc5 ! - OK; 10 l:te1 0-0 - OK) 10 . . . 0-0
(l0 . . . .tg4 - OK ? * * I ) 1 1 'ii'e 2 ( l 1 lbbd2 - Chapter B) ;!; ?*
7 . 2 : 10 .te3 0-0 l 1 lbbd2 ;!;
7.3: 10 .te3 lbc5 1 1 .tc2 lbd7 ( 1 1 . . ..tg4 ;!;J) OK?;!; ?*!
7.4: 10 .te3 'ii'd 7 l 1 lbbd2 l:tdB ( 1 1 . . . lbxd2 ; 11 . . . lbc5 ;
1 1 ... .tf5!? ;!; ?**) 12 l:te1 0-0 13 .tc2 f5 !?
(13 ... lbxd2 - OK) - OK ? * * !
C hapter S
9 c3 .te7 10 lbbd2 and now:
B . 1 : 10 . . . lbc5 (10 . . . 'ii'd 7!? OK? * * I ) 11 .tc2 d4 ( 1 1 . . . .tg4
- Chapter 5 ; 11 . . . 'ii'd 7 ;!; ? * * I ) 12 lbb3 =/;!;
B . 2 : 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 'ii'e2 ( 1 1 l:te1 - OK) ;!; ? *
B.3: 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .tc2 ;!;
B7
94
100
103
106
111
1 13
1 16
Play Like a Grandmaster!

This chapter contains 40 grand
master games which illustrate
nearly all of the most important
lines of the Open Spanish. It was
far from easy to choose the cream
of the many thousands of Open
Spanish games played at the top
level during more than a century.
However, I hope you will find this
selection instructive; it will ac
quaint you with many of the key
ideas and with the players who
have made the most valuable con
tribution to the theory of the
opening.
Black has obtained a develop

ment advantage and an initiative
on the kingside. Now 1 7 g3 i.xg3 !
18 l:txe4 i.xe4 19 fxg3 i.xc2 or 18
fxg3 lDxg3 + 19 gl i.e4 would
have left him a good position. How
ever, after the text move Black
simply obtains a decisive attack.
17 'Yi'h4 18 'Yi'xf5
Game 1
Planinc - Parma
8anja Luka 1976
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 i.e7?!
7 l:tel f5 8 d5 lDa5! 9 lDxe5 0-0
10 d6?!
10 c3 ! yields White better pros
pects - see Chapter 1, Section 2 .
The outcome o f the complications
that follow the text move is quite
satisfactory for Black.
10 i.xd6 1 1 'Yi'd5 + h8 12
lDf7 + l:txf7 13 'Yi'xf7 i.xh2 + 14
<;WI b5!
This is the point of Black's sac
rifice.
15 i.b3 lDxb3 16 axb3 i.b7
1 7 lDc3
18 lDxf2! 19 'Yi'f7
19 'Yi'xf2? is bad due to 19 . . . i.g3 .
Mter 19 .tg5 'Yi'g4! o r 19 'Yi'xd7
lDe4 White is in serious trouble as
well.
19 h6 ! 20 l:te7 l:tg8 2 1 i.xh6
'Yi'xh6 22 xf2 i.d6! 23 l:te8
l:txe8 24 'Yi'xe8 + h7
The game has been simplified.
However, the position of White's
king is so bad that he is unable to
find an adequate defence.
25 'Yi'e3 'Yi'h4 + 26 'it?e2 b4! 2 7
'Yi'd3 + g8 28 lD d l 'Yi'g4 + 2 9
d2 'Yi'xg2 + 30 cl?
Play Like a Grandmaster! 123

According to Parma, this is the
decisive mistake, after which White
loses by force. 30 'ii'e 2 was the
only way to battle on.
30 .if4 + 3 1 <iti>bl .ie4 32
'ii'e4 + d5 33 'ii'e6 'ii'd2 34 <iti>a2
'ii'xe2 35 'ii'e 8 + <iti>h7 36 'ii'h5 +
.ih6 37 lZ)e3 'ii'e5 38 lZ)e4 'ii'e6 39
lZ)d2 (39 lZ)e5 'ii'b 5) 39 .ig6 40
'ii'e2 'ii'b6 White resigned.
13 .ib7 14 bxa6 xa6 15

xa6 .ixa6 16 e l .ib7
Game 2
Lasker - Sch lechter

World Championship,
8th match game, Vienna 19 10
Karl Schlechter and Siegbert Tar
rasch are the players who made
the most significant contribution
to the foundation of the strategi
cal concept of the Open Spanish.
Even the great Emanuel Lasker,
after this match and especially af
ter his game against Tarrasch in
St Petersburg ( 19 14), had to ad
mit that he was unable to oppose
Black's defensive strategy.
1 e4 e5 2 lZ)f3 lZ)e6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 lZ)f6 5 0-0 lZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 a4 lZ)xd4!
This move averts any danger
White's previous move might cause
(see Chapter 1, Section 4).
9 lZ)xd4 exd4 10 axb5 .ie5 1 1
e3 0-0 1 2 exd4 .ib6 1 3 lZ)e3
According to Schlechter, 13 'ii'd3
.i.e6 14 xa6 xa6 1 5 bxa6 c5 is
quite comfortable for Black. If,
say, 16 .i.e3 then 16 . . . c4! 1 7 .ixc4
.if5 ! .
Black's minimal advantage af

ter the opening is his better pawn
structure. White should play care
fully to neutralise it.
17 lZ)a4
This decentralising manoeuvre
looks somewhat dubious . 17 .if4
was more solid.
17 'ii'f6 18 .ie3 .ia7 19 f3
lZ)g5 20 lZ)e5 .ixe5 2 1 dxe5 lZ)e6
22 'ii'd3 d8 23 .ie2 g6 24 b4 d4
25 .iel h5
Black's plan of playing . . . h5-h4h3 proves unrealisable . 25 . . . .i.d5 !
was more exact, with the idea 26
.ib3 .ixb3 27 'ii'xb3 d3 (recom
mended by Schlechter) .
26 .ib3! .id5 27 .ixd5 xd5
28 h3 e5
This exchange is the only active
possibility for Black. However, the
position becomes too simplified.
29 xe5 'ii'xe5 30 'iW2 'ii'd5
30 . . . g5 !? was better.
3 1 h4! 'ii'a2 + 32 'ii'e2 'ii'b l 33
'ii'b2 'ii'd3 34 'ii'e 2 'ii'b 3 35 .id2
124 Play Like a Grandmaster!
..ti>h7 36 ..ti>el 'lVbl + 37 'lVdl 'lVf5

Black's knight is placed quite
passively - that's why Black has
no winning chances.
38 'lVe2 'lVc2
38 . . . ll)f4 does not work due to
39 'lVe4! (Neishtadt).
39 'lVdl 'lVf5 40 'lVe2 'lVbl + 4 1
'lVd l 'lVf5 4 2 'lVe2 'lVb l + 4 3 'lVdl
'lVf5 Draw agreed.
Game 3
Short
Ti mman
8th match game, EI Escorial 1993
1 5 .ig6 1 6 'lVh4 .ixg5 1 7

'lVxg5 0 - 0 18 ad l fe8 19 e3
'iVf5!
As usually, the exchange of
queens is favourable for Black.
20 'lVxf5 .ixf5

I. . . 1. .*.

D .t.. .

.
0 a
'
" % ,.
_
.
_
?f:l .
'
A
A P!iD
,
;(.
" ", ,"
mra , '
N
Jan Timman is one of the most

devoted adherents of the Open
Spanish. His most important con
tribution to its theory concern the
system 9 c3 .ic5 . Nigel Short used
to try different ways against the
Open Spanish, including some rare
lines. That's why their match (Can
didates' final) was quite signifi
cant for theory.
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 ll)xe5 ll)xe5 9 dxe5 c6
10 ll)d2 !?
The main theoretical line is 10
.ie3 (Chapter 1, Section 4).
10 ll)xd2 11 .ixd2 .ie7 12
'ii'h5 .ie6 13 c3 'iVd7
Black is preparing to occupy the
light squares ( . . . .ie6-f5). White has
no time for 14 .ic2 as 14 . . . .ig4 is
threatened.
14 .ig5 .if5! 15 lUel
1 5 .ixe7 yields nothing due to
15 . . . g6! .
0 0
v"
Vt
,, ,@
B:.
W,$
""
0 ",0
!/I
,,
"d
!/;'
Black has carried out his

strategical idea. His bishop is no
weaker than its white opponent,
and his pawns enjoy better mobil
ity. White must play carefully to
avoid running into trouble.
2 1 h3 h5 22 de l
An inaccuracy. The most pre
cise course was to exchange the
bishops by means of 22 d2 ! e7
23 .tc2 (Timman).
22 ad8
Intending to push Black's cen
tral pawns.
23 .idl g6 24 b4!
Well played! White plans to re
duce the number of pawns on the
queenside.
24 c5
After 24 . . . d4 25 cxd4 xd4 26 a3
or 24 . . . a5 25 bxa5 a8 26 a4 White
also equalises, Timman.

25 bxc5 l:tc8 26 a4 l:txc5 2 7
axb5 axb5 28 g4
By means of 28 . . . hxg4 29 i.xg4
i.e6 Black could now have main
tained a minimal edge, which was
hardly sufficient for the victory.
Therefore Timman decided to
agree a draw.
Game 4
Lj ubojevic - Hjartarson
Amsterdam 199 1
Ljubomir Ljubojevic i s not always
lucky when contesting the Open
Spanish. He often tries rare sys
tems and not always success
fully. . .
As for Johann Hjartarson, he
has produced a number of good
games in the Open Spanish both
as Black and White.
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i. a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 a4 b4 10
a5 ll)c5 11 i. g5 'ii'd 7 12 ll)bd2
h6 13 i.h4 i.e7 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7
15 c3 bxc3 16 bxc3 ll)xb3! 1 7
ll)xb3 0-0 18 l:te 1 l:tab8 19 ll)fd4
Black has obtained an excellent
game after the opening (see Chap
ter 2, Section 1) (DJ.
19 ll)a7!
A remarkable manoeuvre in or
der to avoid the exchange on d4
and prepare . . . c7-c5.
20 ll)e2?
White could have kept the bal
ance by means of 20 ll)xe6 fxe6 2 1
'ii'd4 ll)b5 22 'ii'c 5 (Hjartarson).
Now Black's central pawns become

dangerous.
20 c5 2 1 ll)f4 l:tfd8 22 'ii'c 2
ll)c6 23 ll)xe6 !xe6 24 f4 l:tb5 25
c4?
Now White 's position becomes
lost but after 25 ll)d2 c4! (Hjartar
son) it was clearly worse in any
case.
25 ll)b4 26 'ii'e 2 dxc4 2 7
'ii'xc4 ll)d3 28 l:tebl l:tb4 29
'ii'xa6 c4 30 ll)d4 'ii'c5 3 1 'ii'xe6 +
h8 32 h3 'ii'xd4 + 33 h1 +
3 4 h2 'ii'xf4 + 3 5 gl 'ii'd4 36
h2 l:txb1 37 l:txb1 c3 38 l:tb7
'ii'f4 + 39 g3 ll)g4 + 40 hxg4 l:td2 +
41 h3 'ii'fl + 42 h4 l:th2 mate.
Game S
Tseshkovsky - Kaidanov
Moscow 1985
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 i.e3 i.e7
10 ll)bd2 ll)c5 11 c3 ll)d3 12
'ii'c 2?! ll)dxe5 13 fue5 fue5 14
i.d4 f6 15 Me l 'ii'd6?

As was pointed out in the theo
retical part (Chapter 2, Section 2),
1 5 . . . .t f7! 16 .txe5 fxe5 1 7 xe5
0-0 yields Black an excellent posi
tion. Mter the text move White
obtains a strong attack.
16 adl d8 17 .txe5 fxe5
22 'ife2 .tf6 23 lbf3 'it'f8 24

g4!
Tseshkovsky plays brilliantly.
24 . . . 'it'g7 is now impossible due to
25 g5 .te7 26 lbxe5 .txg5 2 7 lbf7 .
24 . . . h6 is too slow, e.g. 25 'ife4
'it'g7 26 .tc2 etc. 24 . . . g5 was prob
ably the only way to continue
Black's resistance.
24 e4?! 25 'ifxe4 'it'g7 26 g5
.txb2 27 'ife2 ! A final accord.
Black resigned.
..
Game 6
G h i nda
Yusupov
Dubai 1986
18 e4!
This break razes Black's posi
tion to the ground.
18 ... .tg4
Mter 18 . . . c6 19 lbe4 'ilt'd7 20
cxd5 cxd5 21 lbc5 .txc5 22 'ilt'xc5
Black's position is equally poor.
19 exd5!
Of course, White sacrifices the
exchange to gain an important
tempo.
19 .txdl 20 'iVxdl e5?
The threat 2 1 lbe4 looked terri
ble but the alternatives 20 . . . g6
(Kaidanov) or 20 . . . 'it'f8 were more
tenacious. Mter the move played
White obtains a dangerous passed
pawn.
2 1 dxe6! g6
2 1 . . .'iVxd2 Ioses due to 22 'iVh5 +
g6 23 'ifxe5.
The contribution of Artur Yusupov

to the Open Spanish is enormous,
both in terms of conceptual inno
vations and theoretical discover
ies. Almost every variation has
been touched by his mind.
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbe6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.ta4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 .te3 lbe5
10 e3
10 lbc3! is much stronger (Chap
ter 2, Section 2).
10 liJxb3 1 1 axb3 .te7 12 lbd4
lbxd4 13 exd4 0-0 14 lbe3 (D)
14 f4 'ifd7 15 lbc3 was better.
A top player's strength often
lies in keen strategical vision.
He sees which position he should
aim towards and how it can be
achieved.
The deep plan which Yusupov
now starts is indeed the canvas of
a genius!
.
14 f6!
Black wants to provoke 15 f4 to
weaken the e4 square.
15 f4 fxe5 16 fxe5 l:txf1 + 1 7
1 .tb4!
A protector of light squares
should be exchanged!
18 'at>gl .txe3 19 bxe3 as
Not just preparing . . . a5-a4 . . .
20 'it'd3
According to Yusupov, White
should have preferred an immedi
ate 20 .tel! to block Black's a
pawn.
20 'it'd7 2 1 .tel .tf5 22 'it'd2
h6 23 .ta3 l:ta6!!
This is th e point! After . . . .tf5e4 an d . . . l:ta 6-g6 Black achieves a
strong attacking position. This is
the idea of th e wh o l e p l an started
with 14 . . . f6 1 .
24 l:tfl l:tg6?!
This is a regrettable inaccuracy.
24 . . . .te4! was much stronger. Af
ter the text move White manages
to exchange rooks and almost
equalises the game.
25 l:tf3 .te4 26 l:tg3 l:txg3 2 7
bIg3 a4 28 bxa4 bxa4 2 9 .tb4
'it'g4 30 'at>h2 'it'f5 31 'at>gl 'at>h7

32 .te5 'it'g4 33 'at>h2 .tf5 34 'it'a2
'it'h5 + 35 'at>gl 'it'd1 + 36 'at>h2
'it'b3
The only chance to play for a
win.
37 'it'xb3 axb3 38 .ta3 'at>g6 39
'at>gl .te4 40 e6?
It is not easy to define over the
board which pawn arrangement is
better. According to analysis by
Yusupov, after 40 'at>f2 White could
have made a draw, e.g. 40 . . . 'at>f5 41
'at>fl h5 42 'at>f2 'at>e6 43 'at>f1 'at>d 7 44
f2 g6 45 'at>f1 c6 46 e6 .tf5 47
e7 'at>d7 48 'at>e2 ! .te4 49 'at>e3 g5 50
'at>f2! c5 5 1 dxc5 'at>xe7 52 c6 + 'at>d8
53 'at>e3 ! 'at>c7 54 'at>d2 'at>xc6 55 'at>cl
.txg2 56 .te7 h4 57 gxh4 g4 58 h5.
40 'at>f6?
40 . . . .tf5 ! was more exact. Now
the victory has slipped away again.
4 1 e7 'at>f7 42 'at>f2? (42 g4! )
42 'at>e8? (42 . . . .tf5! ) 43 g4! g5 44
g3??
A fatal error. After 44 'iWl. c5 45
dxc5 'at>xe7 46 c6 + 'at>d8 4 7 e2
.txg2 48 'at>d2 'at>c7 49 .tfB a draw
was not far off (Yusupov). Now
Black's bishop comes to e6, and
White's pawn on g4 falls due to a
zugzwang.
44 .t g6 45 e3 .tf7! 46 'at>d2
(despair) 46 .te6 47 'at>d3 e6 48
'at>d2 .txg4 49 'at>e 1 h5 50 'at>b2
.td1 51 .td6 h4 52 gxh4 gxh4 53
'at>a3 d7 54 'at>b2 .te2 55 'at>a3 h3
56 b2 .tg6! 57 .te5 'at>xe7 58
'at>xb3 .td3 59 b2 'at>e6 60 e1
'at>f5 61 'at>d2 'at>e4 62 'at>e1 f3
White resigned.
Game 7
Geller - Krasen kov

Cappelle la Grande 1992
Efim Geller was Karpov's assistant
during his matches against Korch
noi, so he must have explored many
interesting ideas in the Open Span
ish during their pre-game prepa
ration, especially in the 9 ll)bd2
system.
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 ll)bd2 .ie7
10 ll)xe4 dxe4 1 1 .ixe6 fxe6 12
ll)g5 .ixg5 13 'lVh5 + g6 14 'lVxg5
0-0
14 . . . 'lVd5 is probably more pre
cise (Chapter 3, Section 1).
15 'lVg4 'lVd5 16 lIel lIf5 17
.ih6!
This had undoubtedly been pre
pared against Korchnoi. 17 lIxe4?!
lIaf8! is fine for Black.
1 7 'lVc5
From this moment Black tries
to avoid simplifications such as
17 . . . ll)xe5 18 'lVxe4 but fails to
achieve anything better.
18 lIe2!? lId8 ( 1 8 . . . ll)d4? ! 19
lId2 ) 19 h4! lId5 20 lIft 'lVc4 2 1
b 3 'lVc3 2 2 h5! ll)xe5 2 3 'lVxe4
l!xh5 24 .if4 (D)
White has sacrificed a pawn,
obtaining a strong centralised po
sition. Besides, the pawn will soon
be taken back on e6. Black should
now have played 24 . . . lIf5 to or
ganise the co-operation of his
pieces. Instead he tries to break
,W$; .

1. _ . 1.
@"
\ii1BiYm
. . .
B.D.
.
f;
.
d
.
d
loose by tactical means and . . .

blunders!
24 lId4? 25 'lVa8 + 'if;f7 26
.ixe5!
At this point Black noticed that
26 . . . lIdh4 didn't work in view of
27 'lVf3 + ! 'if;e8 28 'lVxh 5 ! and had
to resign.
Game 8
Sax - Tal
Tallinn 1979
Mikhail Tal often played the Open

Spanish since positions with ac
tive counterplay suited his taste.
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 ll)bd2
ll)c5 10 c3 d4 1 1 .ixe6 ll)xe6 12
ll)b3?
A risky experiment. 12 cxd4 is
normal (Chapter 3, Section 3).
12 dxc3 13 'lVc2?! 'lVd5!
Centralisation!
14 lId 1
14 'lVxc3 .ib4 is in Black's favour.
14 ll)b4! 15 'lVe2 'lVc4 16 'lVxc4

bxc4 1 7 ttJa5 ttJc2 18 l:tb1 ttJa3
19 l:ta1 ttJc2 20 l:tb1 l:tb8!
Of course, Black evades the
repetition of moves.
2 1 ttJxc4 ttJa3! 22 ttJxa3 ii.xa3
23 ttJe1 cxb2 24 ttJc2 bxc1'ii' 25
l:txb8 + <tIe7 26 l:txc 1 l:txb8 27
ttJxa3 l:tb2 28 l:tc2 l:txc2 29 ttJxc2
44,..ttJe3 45 ttJb8 <tId3 46 ttJc6

a4 47 ttJd8 ttJd5 48 e6 fxe6 49
ttJxe6 a3 50 ttJc5 + <tIc4 51 ttJe4
ttJb4 52 <tIbl <tId4 White resigned.
Game 9
Karpov - Korchnoi
World Championship,
18th match game, Merano 198 1
As a result of a forcing line of

play, Black has obtained a favour
able endgame with a passed pawn
and an 'extra' king. Now he should
activate his piece s .
29 <tId7 30 g3 c5 3 1 f4 ttJd4!
The pawn endgame is hopeless
for White.
32 ttJe3 <tIe6 33 <tIf2 ttJf5! 34
ttJd1
34 ttJxf5 <tIxf5 35 <tIf3 is losing
because of 35 . . . g5! . But now Black's
king obtains a possibility to move
forwards.
34 <tId5 35 g4 ttJh6 36 <tIf3
<tId4 37 ttJe3 g6 38 g5 ttJg8 39
ttJg4 c4 40 <tIe2 c3 41 <tIdl ttJe7
42 ttJf6 ttJf5 43 <tIcl a5 44 ttJd7
44 ttJxh7? is impossible due to
44 . . . <tI d3 followed by 45 . . . ttJd4.
..
Two World Championship matches

between Anatoly Karpov and Vic
tor Korchnoi provided valuable
material in nearly all variations of
the Open Spanish. The high qual
ity of the novelties introduced was
guaranteed by the fact that both
players were helped by powerful
brigades of assistants. Undoubt
edly, a good deal of their analysis
has never been revealed.
1 e4 e5 2 ff3 ttJc6 3 ii.b5 a6 4
ii.a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
ii.b3 d5 8 dxe5 ii.e6 9 ttJbd2
ttJc5 10 c3 d4 1 1 ii.xe6 ttJxe6 12
cxd4 ttJcxd4 13 a4
This was the first game this
move was tried. Despite the time
lapse since this game, it is still not
clear which of Black's possible re
plies is most solid (see Chapter 3,
Section 3).
13 ii.e7 14 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 15
ttJe4 ttJe6?! (15 ... 0-0) 1 6 ii.e3 0-0
17 f4
White has obtained an advan
tage in development and an initia
tive on both flanks. Black is forced
to liquidate into an inferior end
game.
1 7 'iVxdl 18 l:tfxdl l:tfb8 19

l:td7 f8?!
19 . . . d8 was more tenacious ;
however, both 20 a5 and 20 axb5
l:txb5 2 1 l:tad1 enable White to
maintain his edge (Karpov) .
20 f5 ll)d8 2 1 a5!
This pawn is about to become
passed!
2 1 ll)c6 22 e6 fxe6
33 l:txa6 7
An intermediate 33 . . . l:td1 + was
relatively better, according to Kar
pov.
34 l:ta7 + g6 35 l:td7! l:te8 (the
exchange of rooks is impossible)
36 a6 l:ta8 37 l:tb7 f5 38 l:txb5
e5 39 l:tb7 d5 40 l:tf7! f5 4 1
l:tf6 e5. The game was now ad
journed, and Black resigned. Kar
pov indicated that 42 ll)d7! was
the simplest way to win, for exam
ple 42 . . . l:td8 43 a7 l:ta8 44 l:ta6 e4
45 b5 e3 46 l:ta4 ! .
Game 1 0
Short
Beliavsky
Barcelona 1989
23 f6!
This is the point of White's
break started on the previous
move. Now 24 f7 + h8 25 ll)g5 is
threatened.
23 ll)e5 24 l:txc7 l:tc8
24 . . . ll)c4 doesn't help due to 25
i.c5 l:tc8 26 f7 + h8 27 l:txc8 l:txc8
28 b4 ! . The text move leads to a
difficult endgame for Black.
25 l:tacl l:txc7 26 l:txc7 l:td8 27
h3! h6 28 l:ta7
So, White's kingside action has
brought him dividends. . . on the
queenside! This is Karpov's cun
ning strategy!
28 ll)c4 29 b6 l:tb8 30 i.c5
i.xc5 + 3 1 ll)xc5 gxf6 32 b4! l:td8
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i. a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 ll)bd2 ll)c5
10 c3 d4 1 1 i.xe6 ll)xe6 12 cxd4
ll)cxd4 13 ll)e4 i.e7 14 i.e3 ll)f5
15 'iVc2 0-0 16 l:tadl ll)xe3 1 7
fxe3 'iVc8 1 8 l:td3 c5 1 9 ll)d6 'iVc7
Black should play very carefully
here. 19 . . . 'iVc6? is premature and
yields White an edge after 20 ll)f5
l:ta 7 21 d4! ll)xd4 22 exd4.
20 l:tfdl l:tfd8 2 1 l:td5 i.f8 22
b3 (D)
Black's problem is now to acti
vate his rooks. Beliavsky begins a
strong manoeuvre.
22 l:ta7! 23 'iVf2?!
According to Beliavsky, White
should have supported his knight
on d6 by 23 l:t1d2 followed by
'iVc2-dl .

35 "xe6 36 e6 :xd6 37 e7
:e8
To 37 . . . iDxd4 (recommended by
Beliavsky) White could have re
plied 38 "xd4! :e8 39 "xd6 and
so on.
38 :xd6 iDxd6 39 "e6 "e5 +
40 <i&i>h l iDb7??
This time-control move lets the
victory slip ! 40 . . . c3 ! 41 "xd6 c2
(John Nunn) or 41 :d5 "c4 42
:Xd6 "1 + 43 <i&i>h2 c2 would have
been an attractive finish to the
game.
4 1 :d7 "e5
After 4 1 . . . 'i'c8 42 "d5 c3 43
"xb 7 "xb 7 44 :xb7 <i&i>g8 45 :c7
(but not 45 :a7 c;&;>f7 46 :xa6? :c8!)
Black's chances to win are also
minimal.
42 "ilf7 :g8 43 :xb 7 e3 44
:e7 "el + Draw agreed. A disap
pointing finale!
23 :ii'e6 24 e4 :ad7
White's ' active' pieces are now
hanging and pinned. Black is ready
to push his c-pawn.
25 h3 f6?
But this ' active' move on a side
Black should firmly defend is prob
ably wrong. 25 . . . c4 would have
yielded Black a good game.
26 "g3 e4 27 bxe4 bxe4 28
"g4 iDe7 29 iDd4 "a8 30 iD4f5?
A mistake. Beliavsky indicates
30 iDe6! h5 31 "f5 iDxd5 32 iDxd8
:xd6 33 exd6 iDe3 34 "e6 + <i&i>h7
35 "e8 iDxd1 36 "xh5 + with a
draw. However, after 35 :e1 ! (in
stead of 35 "e8) 35 . . . "xd8 36
:xe3 .i.xd6 37 <i&i>f1 ! 'ii'b 6 38 <i&i>e2
White keeps the better chances.
32 . . ...xd8 33 "e6 + 'ii?h 7 34 :xd5
c3 35 exf6! is even worse for
Black. After the text move Black
successfully parries the attack
and obtains a material advantage.
30 .....a7 + 3 1 .:5d4 .i.xd6 32
exd6 iDb5 33 iDe7 + <i&i>h8 34 iDe6
"b6 35 e5
35 ltJxd8 :Xd8 was equally hope
less.
Game 1 1
Tal
Korchnoi
Reykjavik 1987
Victor Korchnoi has been faithful
to the Open Spanish since his
youth. However, his deep under
standing of the opening has not
always protected him from the oc
casional crushing defeat.
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 iDe6 3 .i.b5 a6 4
.ia4 iDf6 5 0-0 iDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .i.e6 9 iDbd2 iDe5
10 c3 d4 1 1 .ixe6 ltJxe6 12 exd4
iDexd4 13 iDe4 .i.e7 14 i.e3 ltJf5
15 "e2 0-0 16 :ad l iDxe3 1 7
fxe3 'ii'cs IS h3 l:!dS 19 It)h2

l:!xdl 20 'ii'xdl 'ii'e S!
This multi-purpose move was
played for the first time in this
game. Black protects his pawn on
f7, clears the way for his rook and
reserves the possibility to activate
his queen by means of . . . 'ii'e8-c6.
2 1 'ii'h5
2 1 lt)g3 or 2 1 lt)g4 was more ex
act (see Chapter 3, Section 3).
21 lt)c5 22 It) g3
.iV

.
-.

' ."if
,.
",,,,,!,:,
", , !,:,

"
.
"
y,
. : . !':'
22 a5!
A deep decision ! After . . . l:!a8a6-g6 Black's kingside will be ef
fectively defended.
23 lt)f5
According to Tal, 23 'ii'f3 ! ? was
preferable. However, the text move
is not bad either.
23 l:!a6 24 It)g4 l:!g6
If Black manages to defuse out
White's initiative, his better pawn
structure will become the domi
nant factor. However, there's still
a long way to go!
25 b3 .idS 26 It)f2 'ii'c6 2 7 e4
'ii'eS
White 's pawn on e4 could be

taken but White maintains suffi
cient counterplay: 2 7 . . . lt)xe4 28
l:!dl ! (28 'ii'd l?! It)d6! 29 It)g4 It)b 7
with a clear edge, Tal) 28 . . . lt)d6
(after 28 . . . lt)d2? 29 It)e3 'ii'c3 30
'ii'e 2 Black loses a piece) 29 g4 l:!g5
30 'ii'h 4 'ii'e 8 (but not 30 . . . 'ii'a 8? in
view of 31 'ii'g3 ! It)xf5 32 'ii'f3 ! 'ii'c8
33 'ii'b 7! ! ) 3 1 exd6 l:!xf5 32 d7 'ii'fB
33 'ii'g3 etc. After the text move
White is out of danger, too.
2S 'it'dl .ie7 29 'it'd2 .ifS
Black sacrifices a pawn to acti
vate his pieces.
30 'ii'xa5 'ii'xe5 3 1 'ii'xb5 l:!e6
32 'ii'bs h5 33 'ii'dS g6??
A fatal mistake. After 33 . . . l:!e8 !
34 'ii'g5 g6 Black would have main
tained sufficient compensation for
the missing pawn. Now he finds
himself under a decisive attack.
34 lt)g4!
This is stronger than 34 lt)h6 +
rl;g7 35 It)xf7.
34 hxg4 35 It)h6 + rl;g7 36
l:!xf7 + rl;xh6 37 'ii'xfS + rl;g5 3S
h4 + 4 39 'ii'h6 +
According to Tal, 39 l:!h 7 + was
more exact, e.g. 39 . . . rl;g5 40 'ii'h6 +
..tf6 41 'ii'h4 + 'it'g5 (41 . . .g5 42 'ii'h6
mate) 42 'ii'f2 + rl;e5 43 'ii'xc5 + ..tf6
44 l:!f7 + and wins.
39 'ii'h 5 40 g3 + g3 4 1
'ii'f4 + rl;h4 4 2 'ii'f2 + ! g3
After 42 . . . rl;g5 Tal gives the vari
ation 43 'ii'xc5 + 'it?h6 44 'ii'fB + rl;g5
45 'it'd8 + rl;h6 46 'ii'd2 + g5 47 'ii'd7
'ii'g6 48 l:!f8, and White wins. 46
l:!xc7, with decisive threats, is even
simpler.

43 l:U4 + c,tg5 44 'ii'xg3 + c,th6
45 l::t h4 l::txe4 46 l::txh5 + c,txh5
47 'ii'xc7 lDe6 48 'ii'b 7 l::t e5 49 a4
lDf4 50 'ii'f3 + c,tg5 5 1 b4 l::t e l +
52 c,tf2 l::tb 1 53 b5 l::tb 2 + 54 c,tel
f5 55 'ii'c 3 l::tb 4 56 b6 lDd5 57
'ii'c8 + Black resigned.
Game 1 2
Smyslov - Euwe
World Championship,
Hague/Moscow 1948
Vassily Smyslov has played many
famous games in the Open Span
ish: in the forties as White, in the
seventies as Black!
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 'ii'e 2 lDc5
It was after the present game
that this move went out of fashion.
10 l::td l lDxb3 1 1 axb3 'ii'c8 12
c4!
White sacrifices a pawn to open
up the position, after which his
advantage in development assumes
a very real character.
12 dxc4 13 bxc4 .ixc4 14
'ii'e4 (D)
14 lDe7
Besides this move, Black had
several other possibilities but none
of them was quite satisfactory for
him:
a) 14 . . . 'ii'e 6 15 l::t d6 ! (a deadly
blow) .ixd6 16 'ilxc6 + c,te7 1 7
exd6 + 'ii'xd6 1 8 'ii'e4 + .
b ) 1 4. . . lDb4 1 5 i.g5 c6 (15 . . ..ic5
16 lDa3! i.b3 1 7 l::tdc1) 16 l::td8 + .
c) 14 . . 'fIb7 15 lDc3 .ib3 16 l::td 2

l::tb8 17 e6! fxe6 18 lDg5 e5 19 l'Dxh7.
In each of these variations ('a'
and 'b' were indicated by Smys
lov) White's chances are clearly
better. However, the text move
leads to a completely hopeless po
sition for Black.
15 lDa3! c6
Or 15 . . . .ib3 16 l::t d 3 i.e6 1 7
lDxb5 etc.
16 lDxc4 bxc4 17 'ii'xc4 'ilb7
18 e6! f6 19 l::t d 7 'ii'b 5 20 'ilxb5
cxb5 2 1 lDd4 (White is playing al
most with an extra rook) 2 1 l::t c8
22 .ie3 lDg6 23 l::txa6 lDe5 24
l::tb 7 .ic5 25 lDf5 0-0 26 h3!
This prophylactic move empha
sises the desperation of Black's
position. Euwe had nothing to do
but resign.
.
Game 1 3
Balashov - Smyslov
Tilburg 1977
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 e6 9 "e2 .ic5

As we know (Chapter 4, Section
1 ) , this move, leading to an early
exchange of dark-squared bish
ops, does not promise Black full
equality.
10 .ie3 0-0 1 1 lIdl .ixe3 12
"xe3 tbe7 13 tbbd2 tbf5 14 "e2
tbxd2 15 "xd2 c6 16 a4 'ii'b6 17
axb5 axb5 18 c3
The outcome of the opening is
usual for the 9 . . . .ic5 line: White
has a small but firm edge, viz . a
better bishop and a greater board
room.
18 b4?!
Black sacrifices a pawn to cre
ate counterplay on the queenside.
White could have safely taken it
( 1 9 cxb4) . Instead he plays more
passively:
19 .ic2 bxc3 20 bxc3 lIxal
According to Balashov, Black
should not have given up the a
file. 20 . . . lIa5 deserved attention.
2 1 lIxal lIb8 22 h3 tbe7 23
lIb 1
White decides to exchange rooks
and transfer his positional gains
to the endgame.
23 .....a7 24 lIxb8 + "xb8 25
"d4 'ii'b2 26 .id3 i.f5? (D)
This unexpectedly loses by
force. After 26 . . ...a1 + 27 h2 "a5
White could have played for a win
by developing his initiative on the
kingside.
27 "a7! "c l + 28 .ifl tbgS 29
tbd4!! .ie6
Alas! 29 . . . i.d3 is strongly met
by 30 e6! (indicated by Balashov) ,
..
.
.
.
,.
-.
.'E E
. . 01..
?m
Oio.l2JE
"E
U
d
.
for example 30 . . ...xf1 + 31 h2

h6 (3 1 . . . ..xf2 32 'ii'b 8 + tbfS 33 e7)
32 exf7 + h7 33 tbe6 or 30 . . . fxe6
31 tbxe6 "xc3 32 "d7! h6 33
.ixd3 . But after the text move
White wins a pawn maintaining a
strong attack.
30 'ii'b 8 + tbf8 3 1 tbxc6 gS 32
"b4 f(1 33 "d4 g5 34 tbb4 tbg6
35 tbxd5 .ixd5 36 e6 + 'iii>h6 37
"xd5 fxe6 38 "d4 e5 39 "e3
"al 40 g3 g7 4 1 c4 h6 42 c5
tbe7 43 "e4 "d4
Black has to exchange queens,
reaching a hopeless endgame.
44 "xd4 exd4 45 .ig2 c,W'6 46
fl tbgS 47 e2 tbe5 48 e4
e7 49 f4 gxf4 50 gxf4
Despite the limited material,
White wins quite easily. His bishop
is stronger than Black's knight as
there are passed pawns on the
board!
50 ... tbd7 51 c6 tbc5 52 i.d5
d6 53 f5! d3 + 54 e3 d2 55
e2 tbd3 56 xd2 tbf4 57 i.h l
tbxh3
Black has exchanged another
pair of pawns but . . .

58 f6
The game was adjourned here,
and Black resigned. According to
Balashov, to 58 . . . li)g5 White wins
by 59 .id5 ! , e.g. 59 . . . <.ii>x d5 60 c7
li)e4 + 61 <.ii>e3 li)d6 62 f7 or 59 . . . h5
60 <.ii>e3 .
Game 1 4
Abramovic - Agzamov
Be/grade 1982
Georgy Agzamov (who tragically
died in 1986) was a great special
ist in the Open Spanish, especially
in the Berlin variation, which per
fectly fitted his counter-attacking
playing style. The author has man
aged to discover 12 games played
by Agzamov as Black with the
Open Spanish in 1982-86. In these
games he scored no less than 10lh
points!
1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 "ii'e 2 li)c5
10 l:tdl .ie7 1 1 c3?!
This passive move passes the
initiative to Black. 1 1 c4! is the
best option (Chapter 4, Section 2 ) .
11 li)xb3 12 axb3 0-0 13
li)bd2 d4 14 b4 d3
This passed pawn rapidly be
comes Black's main trump.
15 "ii'e3 (or 15 "ii'e4 "ii'd7 followed
by 16 . . . .if5) 15 ..."ii'd5 16 h3 l:tfd8
17 li)f1 a5
To open the a-file and to pre
pare . . . c7-c5-c4 .
18 bxa5 li)xa5 19 "ii'f4 c5 20
"ii'g3 (20 li)e3 deserved attention)

20 ... li)c6
According to Agzamov, 20 . . . li)c4!
was even better.
2 1 .ih6 .if8 22 .ig5 l:te8 23
li)1d2 .if5
Agzamov recommends 23 . . . h8
followed by . . . h7-h6 and . . . li)c6-e7f5. 23 . . . c4 !? was possible as well.
24 .if4 .i g6 25 b3 c4 26 bxc4
bxc4 27 "ii'h4
White could still have obtained
some counterplay by 27 "ii'g4! (Ag
zamov) .
27 ... .ie4 28 li)xe4 (28 li)g5
.if5 ! ) 28 ... "ii'xe4 29 li)d2 "ii'd5 30
.ig3 l:txa1 3 1 l:txal li)a5!
This knight is aiming for b3.
32 l:tdl h6 33 "ii'g4

."iV

,.
/,
,
.if
"
u
",'
d F
ttZ.J;
u
"
.
B
B
IFP
B
m
-.
Black should now force an exchange of queens. It is easier for

him to make use of his d-pawn in
the endgame.
33 ... l:te6! 34 <.ii>f 1 l:tg6 35 "ii'e 4
"ii'xe4 36 li)xe4 li)b3 37 li)d6?
Losing immediately but after 37
.if4 White is clearly worse all the
same.
37 .ixd6 38 exd6 'iW8 39 .ie5

'at>e8 40 f4 f6 4 1 .id4 ll)xd4 42
cxd4 f5 43 :el + 'at>d7 44 :e5 c3
White resigned.
Game 1 5
Fischer - Ree
White 's rooks now comfortably

occupy the seventh rank.
2 1 :ac8 22 :a7! :c2
Or 22 . . . :a8 23 :xaB :xa8 24 a3!
.ic3 25 :c5 and wins.
23 :dd7 .ic3 24 :ac7! h6 25
.ie3 Black resigned.
Netanya 1968
Game 1 6
This is the most famous game by

Fischer in the Open Spanish.
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.i a4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
b3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 'ii'e 2 .ie7
10 :dl 0-0 1 1 c4 bxc4 12 xc4
'ii'd 7 13 ll)c3 ll)xc3 14 bxc3 f6 15
exf6 .ixfG 16 .ig5 ll)a5?
16 . . . 'at>h8 is the best reply (Chap
ter 4, Section 3 ) . Mter the text
move White wins a pawn.
Kavalek - Karpov
Montreal 1979
So far, this game is probably the
only case of Karpov playing the
Open Spanish as Black. Despite a
favourable outcome, he never came
back to it.
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 'ii'e 2 .ie7
10 :dl 0-0 11 c4 bxc4 12 .ixc4
.ic5 13 .ie3 xe3 14 'ii'xe3 'i'b8
15 .ib3 ll)a5!
Mter the present game this re
ply was evaluated as more exact
than 15 . . . 'i'b6 (see Chapter 4, Sec
tion 4).
16 ll)bd2 'ii'a 7 1 7 ll)d4
White avoids drawish lines like
1 7 ll)xe4; however, Black's mobile
central pawns ensure him a suffi
cient counterplay.
17 ll)xd2 18 'i'xd2 'i'b6 19
.ic2 c5
19 . . . ll)c4!? 20 'i'e2 c5 deserves
attention, according to Geller.
20 ll)f5 .ixf5 2 1 xf5 :ad8
22 b3 :fe8 23 :el c4 24 'i'g5?!
This attack is hardly correct. 24
bxc4 dxc4 25 'i'c3 'i'c5 26 :e3 lead
17 'ii'xe6 + ! 'ii'xe6 18 .ixd5

'ii'xd5?
Black is clearly confused. Ac
cording to Fischer, 18 . . . :ae8 was
much more tenacious.
19 :Xd5 .ixc3 20 :cl .ib4 2 1
:Xc7

to an unclear position, according
to Kholmov.
24 :ii'c7
24 . . . cxb3 25 axb3 ttJxb3 26 l:tab1
a5 is risky for Black in view of 2 7
e 6 ! (Kholmov) . Both sides must
now play very accurately.
25 e6 f6 26 'ii'h4 g6 27 e7
27 'ii'xf6? did not work in view
of 2 7 . . . l:tf8 ! . 2 7 i.c2 ! ? deserved at
tention.
27...l:td6! (but not 27 . . . l:txe7? 28
'ii'xf6)
32 l:te3 f5?
Black unnecessarily opens his
king's position. A cool 32 . . . d4 ! was
better.
33 'ii'h 8 + l:tg8 34 'ii'e 5 'ii'd 7 35
l:tf3 'ii'e6 36 l:txf5 + ?
Strangely enough, all annota
tors have missed this important
moment. Mter 36 'ii'x e6 l:txe6 3 7
lhf5 + cJ;;g7 3 8 bxc4 the game could
hardly have ended in Black's fa
vour. Mter the game continuation
he wins easily.
36 ... cJ;; e 7 37 'ii'f4 ttJc6 38 bxc4
dxc4 39 l:f.bl l:tb8 40 l:tcl ttJd4
4 1 l:te5
White resigned in view of
4 1 . . . ttJe2 + .
Game 1 7
Alekh i ne - Rubi nstein

Vi/no 19 12
28 'ii'g3?!
28 l:te6 ! was preferable but af
ter 28 . . Jhe6 29 i.xe6 + cJ;;g7 30
i.xd5 c3 ! Black would have main
tained better chances.
28 ... l:txe7 29 i.xg6?!
This sacrifice fails. White should
have played on a pawn down: 29
h4 ! (Geller) .
29 ... hxg6 30 'ii'xg6 + cJ;;f8 3 1
'ii'h6 + l:tg7!
Now it turns out that White has
no compensation for the piece. How
ever, Black still needs to play ex
tremely accurately.
Take a look at the game that be

came one of the milestones in the
history of the Open Spanish.
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10
ttJbd2 ttJc5 11 i.c2 i.g4 12 h3
This move is now considered
premature (Chapter 5, Section 1).
12...i.h5 13 'ii'e l ttJe6 14 ttJh2
Preparing 2-f4.
14 ... i.g6 15 i.xg6?! (D)
White's only logical move was
15 i.bl .
15...fxg6!
This was the first time such an
'irregular' capture was tried in this
10 c3 i.e7 1 1 .ic2 .ig4 12 :el

0-0 13 tZ)f1 :eS
This looks more accurate than
13 . . . .ih5.
14 tZ)e3 tZ)xe5 15 .ixh7+! 'at>xh7
16 'ii'c2 + 'at>gS 17 tZ)xe5 .ie6 IS
tZ)c6 (for 18 tZ)f5 - see the theo
retical part) IS 'ifd6 19 tZ)xe 7 +
:Xe7
line. White 's plan now loses any

sense, and the initiative passes to
Black, due to his strong pressure
along the f-file.
16 tZ)b3 g5 17 .ie3 0-0 IS lM:i?!
Black now could have immedi
ately captured on f3.
IS 'ifd7?! 19 'ifd2?
19 'ife2 was necessary, to sup
port the knight on f3.
19 J:txf3!
A typical exchange sacrifice, de
stroying white king's defence.
20 gxf3 tZ)xe5 2 1 'ife2 US 22
tZ)d2 tZ)g6
With the irresistible threat of
. . . tZ)e6-f4.
23 :fel .id6 24 f4 tZ)exf4 25
'iff1 tZ)xh3 + 26 'at>h l g4 2 7 'ife2
'iff5 White resigned.
Game 1 8
Wang Zi l i
Yusupov
Nov; Sad 1990

1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4
.i a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 S dxe5 .ie6 9 tZ)bd2
The opening battle has led to a

roughly equal but strategically
complicated position. Black's plan
is now clear - to make use of his
extra pawn in the centre. White
should try to create counterplay
by means of a2-a4. The game
shows Black consequently mak
ing use of his trumps and White. . .
passively waiting!
20 b3 tZ)d7 2 1 .ib2?!
2 1 a4 was clearly better.
2 1 . :aeS 22 :adl c5 23 f3?!
(this is an unnecessary weaken
ing) 23 tZ)e5! 24 'iff2 c4! (creat
ing an outpost on d3) 25 'ii'g3
According to Yusupov, it was al
ready time to give up an exchange:
25 tZ)c2 ! ? tZ)d3 26 .ia3 tZ)xf2 2 7

.txd6 lDxd 1 2B lIxd 1 lId7 29 .tb4,
and it would have been difficult
for Black to make use of his
material advantage. After the text
move Black soon crushes his op
ponent.
25 f6! 26 lId4 (26 lDc2 ! would
still have been clearly better for
Black) 26 ... 'iVc5 27 bxc4 dxc4 28
lDc2 a5! (threatening 29 . . . lDd3)
29 .ia3 b4 30 cxb4 'iVa7 31 b5
lId7 32 lIee4
Or 32 lId 1 lDd3 33 .td6 lIedB.
32 ... .if5 33 'iVf2 .txe4 34 l!xd7
'iVxd7 35 fxe4 'iVd1 + 36 lDe1 lDd3
White resigned.
choice for Black. His rook has

nothing to do on eB.
16 h4! .txc2 17 'iVxc2 lDd7 18
.tf4! lDf8
It was risky to grab a pawn by
1B . . . .txh4? ! 19 lDf5 .te7 20 e6 ! ,
giving White a strong attack.
Game 1 9
Ivanch u k - Tu kmakov
New York 1988
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.t a4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 lDbd2 lDc5
10 c3 .te7 1 1 .tc2 .t g4 12 lIel
0-0 1 3 lDfl
13 lDb3 is an important alter
native (Chapter 5, Section 2).
13 ....th5 14 .te3?!
After this inexact move Black
could have immediately forced a
draw: 14 . . . lDxe5! 15 .txc5 lDxf3 +
16 'iVxf3 ! .ixf3 1 7 .ixe7 'iVd7 1B
.txfB .txg2 ! 19 .tc5 ! .txf1 ! 20 'iti>xf1
'iVh3 + 21 'iti>gl 'iVg4 + 22 'iti>h1 'iVf3 +
(Ivanchuk) . However, Tukmakov
decides to proceed to usual lines.
14 ... .ig6?! 15 lDg3 lIe8
The plan of . . . 'iVdB-d7, . . . lDc5-e6
and . . . f7-f6 was probably a better
Now it turns out that 15 . . . lIeB

has been useless. White can com
fortably create threats on the
kingside and at the same time put
pressure on the d-pawn.
19 h5 lDe6 20 .te3 lDa5 2 1
lIadl lDc4 2 2 .tc1 c5 2 3 'iVf5
lIa7?!
According to Ivanchuk, 23 . . . 'iVd7
was a better defence, e.g. 24 lIe4
lIadB 25 lIg4 'iti>hB ! .
2 4 lDe4! lDb6 25 lDeg5 .txg5
26 .txg5! 'ii'c8 27 .te3
White has managed to exchange
Black's dark-squared bishop, pre
serving one of his own knights.
Now he is ready to transfer it to
d6.
27...h6? (D)
A careless slip. 2 7 . . . lId7 was es
sential to meet 2B lDh4 by 2B . . . d4!

Black tries to simplify the game
and simultaneously clears a square
for his second knight.
2 1 'ii'e2 g6 22 .tg4?!
22 .td3 ttJde6 23 'ii'e3 (Filip) was
clearly better but would hardly
have given White any edge.
22 .txg4 23 hxg4 ttJde6 24
'ii'e3 h5 25 ttJxg5?!
White assesses the endgame er
roneously. 25 ttJh2 ! was a better
option.
25 'ii'xg5 26 'ii'xg5 ttJxg5 2 7
gxh5
27 f4 ttJe6 28 f5 ttJg7 29 fxg6
hxg4! yields Black better pros
pects. However, the text move
doesn't guarantee White equal
chances either. Black's pieces are
better positioned, and his pawn
structure is more elastic. These
factors are typical for an Open
Spanish endgame.
27 l:txh5 28 ttJf1 l:th4 29 l:tadl
<t;e7 30 f3 ttJe6 3 1 ttJe3 l:td8
Black's active plan is based on
the break . . . d5-d4. However, it
must be well-prepared. Black tries
to confuse his opponent and ob
tain the most favourable situation
for himself by means of leisurely
manoeuvring .
32 ttJg4 ttJg5 33 ttJe3
33 'it>f2? does not work due to
33 . . . ttJe4 + ! 34 fxe4 l:txg4 35 exd5
l:txd5 with advantage to Black.
33 ttJe6 34 ttJg4 ttJg7 35
ttJe3?!
This time 35 'it>f2! was possible
and much better than the text.
35 ttJf5!
..
28 ttJh4! l:tc7?
This loses at once. 28 . . . 'it>h8!
(Ivanchuk) was the only chance to
play on.
29 'ii' g4 ttJg5 30 ttJf5! l:txe5 3 1
.tf4! (this i s the point!) 3 1 'ii'xf5
32 'ii'xf5 l:txf5 33 .txc7 ttJd7 34
f4 ttJe6 35 g4 ttJxc7 36 gxf5 'it>f8
37 l:te2 ttJb8 38 l:te5 Black re
signed.
.
Game 20
Karpov - Korch noi

World Championship,
28th match game, 8aguio 1978
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.t a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.tb3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 c3 ttJc5 10
.tc2 .tg4 11 l:te l .te7 12 ttJbd2
'ii'd7 13 ttJb3
The reply 13 ttJf1 is more promis
ing in this position (Chapter 5,
Section 3).
13 ...ttJe6 14 h3 .th5 15 .tf5
ttJcd8 16 .te3 a5 17 .tc5 a4 18
.txe7 'ii'xe7 19 ttJbd2 c6 20 b4
ttJg5
..

What now? 36 tDxf5 + gxf5 3 7
:d4 f4 leads to a pleasant endgame
for Black. White should probably
have admitted his inaccuracy by
playing 36 tDg4 ! , e.g. 36 . . . tDg3 3 7
tDe3 etc. However, Karpov eventu
ally succumbs to his opponent 's
pressure.
36 tDc2?! :c4 37 :d3

. . _

f
OK.
O:..
.ltJ. . .
37 d4!
At last! Black now obtains a fa
vourable rook ending.
38 g4 tDg7 39 tDxd4 tDe6 (re
gaining the pawn) 40 :edl tDxd4
4 1 cxd4 :xb4 42 ..t>f2 c5! 43 d5
43 dxc5 :xd3 44 :xd3 :b2 + is
hopeless for White.
43 :b2 + 44 ..t>g3 lha2
44 . . . g5 ! (Filip) was more exact,
e.g. 45 f4 gxf4 + 46 ..t>xf4 :xa2 47
:e3 :2 + 48 ..t>g3 :b2 ! .
4 5 :e3 ! b 4 4 6 e 6 :a3 47
:e2?!
47 :Xa3 bxa3 48 exf7 would
have yielded White good drawing
chances, according to Filip.
47 fxe6 48 :xe6 + ..t>f7 49
:del (or 49 g5 :d7!) 49 :d7! 50
:b6 :d3 51 :ee6 :3xd5 52 :xgs

a3
White's counterplay proves in
sufficient to oppose Black's pawn
avalanche.
53 :bf6 + ..t>e7 54 :e6 + ..t>i8 55
:ef6 + ..t>e7 56 :e6 + ..t>d8 57 :a6
:b7 58 :g8 + ..t>c7 59 :g7 + :d7
60 :g5 b3 6 1 :xc5 + ..t>b8 White
resigned .
Game 2 1
A . Sokolov - Korchnoi
Tilburg 1987
Despite the fact that Andrei Sok
olov is one of the leading exponents
of the continuation 9 i.e3, his con
tribution to the teory of the Open
Spanish is not confined to that
system only. Unfortunately, in the
present game the young grandmas
ter is outplayed by 'an old lion'.
1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.a4 tDf6 5 0-0 tDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 tDc5 10
i.c2 i.g4 11 :el i.e7 12 tDbd2
'ii'd7 13 tDfl :d8 14 tDe3 i.h5 15
tDf5 0-0 16 tDxe7 + tDxe7
It is known that 16 . . . 'ii'xe7? loses
due to 17 i.g5 ! 'ii'xg5 18 tDxg5
i.xdl 19 i.xh7 + ..t>h8 20 :axdl.
17 b4 tDe4! (the alternatives are
worse - see the theoretical part)
18 i.xe4 dxe4 19 'ii'xd7 :Xd7 20
tDg5 i.g6 2 1 e6 :d3!?
Black prefers this pawn sacri
fice to a quiet 2 1 . . .fxe6 22 tDxe6
:f7.
22 exf7 + i.xf7 23 tDxe4 tDd5
24 f3
Mter this move Black has abso
lutely no problems . 24 a3 was bet
ter. In the endgame with bishops
of opposite colour White would
have maintained a better pawn
structure.
24 .ig6 25 ..w2 :e8 26 a4
White should have preserved
his strong knight (26 lDc5 ! ) .
26 .ixe4 2 7 :xe4 :xe4 28
fxe4 lDxc3 29 axb5 axb5
Unexpectedly White is in a cer
tain amount of trouble. His pawn
structure is in danger, and his
bishop is clearly less active than
Black's knight. However, a draw
was still possible : 30 :a7! lDxe4 +
3 1 e2 :c3 32 .if4 (Kovai!evic) .
White misses this opportunity and
ends up in a difficult position.
30 e5?! f7 3 1 :a6 lDe4 + 32
e2 :c3 33 .ie3 e7? 34 .id4?
An exchange of mistakes. White
could now have obtained sufficient
counterplay by 34 :a8 ! followed
by 35 :g8. Black could have elimi
nated this possibility by 33 . . . :c4!
(indicated by Kovai!evic) .
After the text move Black stands
clearly better. His plan includes
the activation of his king.
34 :c4 35 d3 lDg5 36 .ic5 +
d7 37 :a5 c6 3 8 :a6 + d5
39 :a5 lDe6 40 :xb5 tl)xc5 + 4 1
bxc5 :Xc5 (D)
42 :xc5 + ?
The pawn endgame proves hope
less for White. He should have
agreed to play a rook endgame a
pawn down.
- - -
-.
"" .
. . .
- . - :
. '
B
- - . - -- .
_ . LS D
- - -
42 ...xc5 43 e4 c6! 44 h4
According to Kovai!evic, 44 d4
is losing as well: 44 . . . d7 45 d5
c6 + ! 46 c5 g5 ! 47 e6 + xe6 48
xc6 h5 49 c7 h4 50 d8 g4 5 1
e8 f5 5 2 f7 f4 5 3 g6 (or
53 e6 g3 ! ) 53 . . . h3! 54 gxh3 gxh3
55 f6 3 and wins.
44 d 7! 45 d5 h5! 46 e6 +
e7 47 c6 xe6 48 xc7 5
49 d6 g4 50 e5 'itxh4 5 1 M4
Or 51 f5 g5 52 g4 53 g6
h4 54 h6 f4 5 5 h5 f5 , win
ning (Kovai!evic).
51 g6! 52 f3 g5 White re
signed.
Game 22
Am . Rodrig uez - Mari n

Novi Sad 1990
The participants of this game are
probably the most prolific players
today in the field of the Open Span
ish. Amador Rodriguez is one of
its principal opponents, specialis
ing in the 9 lDbd2 system, while
Mihai Marin is a loyal supporter

of the Open Spanish as Black. The
numerous novelties and improve
ments invented by both of them
form a considerable part of the
modern theory of the opening.
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i. a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i. b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 ttJbd2 ttJc5
10 c3 i.e7 1 1 i.c2 i.g4 12 el
'ikd7 13 ttJf1 d8 14 ttJe3 i.h5 15
b4 ttJe6 16 ttJf5 0-0 17 a4
For more information on this
line - see Chapter 5, Section 3.
1 7 fe8 18 axb5 axb5 19
'ikd3 i.g6 20 'ikxb5! ttJxe5 2 1
'ikxd 7 ttJxd 7 2 2 ttJxe7 + xe7 23
i.xg6 hxg6 24 ttJd4!
Ai; a result of simplifications,
White has obtained a pleasant end
game. His pieces are more active,
and his bishop is very strong.
24 ... ee8 25 ttJc6 ttJd4! (not
25 . . . a8? 26 ttJe7 + ) 26 ttJe7 + cJi>f8
2 7 cxd4 xe7 28 i.f4! xel +
28 . . . c8 29 ec1 ttJb6 30 c6 was
equally unpleasant for Black.
29 xel c6 30 c l e8
If Black now had time to play
3 1 . . .e6, his position would not
have been so bad. However, this is
not possible. Therefore 30 . . . ttJb8
looks more tenacious.
3 1 i.d6 + ! cJi>g8 32 f3 ttJb8
Black's pieces are now com
pletely passive, and White can un
hurriedly improve his position.
33 cJi>f2 d8 34 i.c7! c8 35
i.f4 (threatening 36 b5) 35 ... e8
Black does not let White's king
move to the queenside.
36 h4!
.
White 's pressure on the queen

side is insufficient for a win. He
should create new active possibili
ties (a so-called 'second weakness'
in Black's camp) .
36 ttJa6 37 i.d6 ttJb8 38 g4
d8 39 i.c7 c8 40 i.f4 d8
Mter 40 . . . e8 White would have
continued 41 h5 etc.
41 cJi>e3! ttJa6 42 bl! d7 43
b5 cxb5 44 xb5
White has transformed his ad
vantage. Black's weak pawn on c6
has been exchanged but now he is
in trouble due to his terrible a6
knight.
44 cJi>f8 45 b6 a7
The endgame after 45 . . . ttJc7 46
i.d6 + cJi>g8 47 b8 + cJi>h7 48 i.xc7
xc7 49 d8 is apparently lost for
Black.
46 i.d6 + cJi>e8 47 cJi>f4! f6 48
g5! cJi>f7 49 c6 a8 50 b6 a7
5 1 c6 a8
..
..
52 e8 53 l:tb6 l:ta7 54 gxf6

gxf6 55 h5 gxh5 +
Or 55 . . . f7 56 hxg6 + xg6 5 7
i.e5 and wins (Rodriguez) .
56 h5 f7 57 l:tc6! l:ta8 5 8
g4 e8 5 9 f5 d7 60 l:tb6
iDc7 6 1 xf6! l:te8 62 i.c5 l:te3
63 f4 iDe8 + 64 g5 l:tg3 + 65 <M5
l:te3 66 l:tb7 + d8 67 g6 l:tg3 +
68 5 l:te3 69 l:ta7! l:te1 70 g6
l:te6 + (70 . . . l:tgl + 71 f7!) 71 g5
iDd6 72 i.xd6 l:txd6 73 f5 Black
resigned. A classic endgame!
Game 23
A. Sokolov - Ti m man
Reykjavik 1988
_ B
_ .1.B
B
BiB
.
.
tii
ii411
.
"
.
BiBiB
B
'
7- , v,
.
.
U
.
. .
. .:
An unobtrusive mistake in such

an unclear position which proves
decisive. White could have forced
a draw by 26 f5! l:txf5 27 l:txf5 i.xf5
28 g4 'ii'e5 29 gxf5 i.xd4 + 30 cxd4
'ii'xd4 + 3 1 hl 'ii'e4 + (Timman).
26 iDg7!
White's threats are now par
ried, and Black consequently real
ises his material advantage:
27 h 1 i.xd4 28 cxd4 i.f5 29
l:te7 g8 30 ft4 i.e4 31 h3 'ii'd8!
(threatening 32 . . . l:tf7) 32 f5 i.xf5
33 l:tc1 i.e4 34 gl M7 35 l:txe4
g5 36 'ii'g4 dxe4 37 'ii'xe4 l:tf4 38
'ii'e 5 'ii'xd4 + 39 'ii'xd4 l:txd4 40
l:txc7 l:tb4 41 f2 l:txb2 + 42 3
l:tb4 43 l:tb7 h7 44 g4 g6 45
l:tb6 + f7 46 l:th6 iDe8 47 e3
iDf6 48 l:th8 g7 White resigned.
1 e4 e5 2 iDf3 iDc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

i. a4 iDfG 5 0-0 iDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.c5 10
'ii'd3 0-0 n iDbd2
This sharp line is hardly promis
ing for White (Chapter 6, Section 1).
11 15 12 exfG lDxf6 13 a4 l:tbS
1 4 axb5 axb5 15 iDg5 iDe5 16
'ii' g3 'ii'd6 1 7 i.c2 i.d7 18 iDb3
i.b6 19 i.f4 l:tbe8 20 iDd4 iDh5
2 1 .txe5 l:txe5 22 i.xh7+ h8
23 'ii' h4 g6!
But not 23 . . . 'ii'h6? - see the theo
retical part.
24 f4
Timman indicates that 24 l:tfel
loses due to 24 . . . l:txel + 25 l:txel
l:tf4. 24 l:ta8 l:txa8 25 iDf7 + xh7
26 iDxd6 cxd6 2 7 g4 i.d8 is in
Black's favour as well.
24 l:txg5 25 'ii'xg5 xh7 (D)
26 l:tae1?
Game 24
Stein - Keres
Moscow 1967
This is one of the most famous
games by the outstanding Ukrain
ian Grandmaster.

1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)e6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i. a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 e3 i.e5 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 i.e2 f5 12 tZ)b3
i.b6 13 tZ)fd4 tZ)xd4 14 tZ)xd4
'ii'd7 15 f3 tZ)e5 16 'at>h l tZ)b7?
Now this knight finds itself on
a passive position. 16 .. J:tae8 was
preferable (see Chapter 6, Section
3).
17 i.e3 e5 18 tZ)xe6 'ii'xe6
pawns. Besides, White has two

bishops, and Black's pawn struc
ture is quite weak. It is not sur
prising that White wins without
major problems.
21 lta7 22 'ii'e 2 ! b4 23 exb4
exb4 24 i.xb6 'ii'xb6 25 ltad l
'ii'e5 26 i.d3 'ii'b 6 2 7 i.bl ! 'ii'e 6
(27 . . . 'ii'c 5 28 'ii'd 3) 28 'ii'd2 'ii'xa4
29 'ii'xd5 tZ)e6 30 i.xf5!
Now 30 . . . tZ)e7 does not work due
to 31 'ii'c5 ! . It means that the game
is over.
30 'ii'b 5 3 1 'ii'd6 'ii'b 8 32
'ii'xe6 ltxf5 33 e6 lte7 34 ltd7
lte8 35 ltb7 'ii'e8 36 lte7 'ii' b 8 37
'ii'd7 ltg5 38 f4 ltg6 39 f5 ltg5 40
f6 Black resigned.
Game 25
Tsesh kovsky
19 a4!!
This is a very deep move, much
stronger than a standard 19 f4.
White can start his attack on the
queenside without protecting his
e5 pawn as 19 . . . 'ii'x e5 opens the
game in favour of White's bish
ops: 20 ltel ! i.c7 21 i.gl 'ii'd6 22
axb5 axb5 23 ltxa8 ltxa8 24 i.xf5,
recapturing the pawn with a clear
advantage.
19 tZ)a5 20 i.f2! 'at>h8
20 . . . tZ)c4 is poor due to 21 b3
tZ)xe5 22 ltel ! (Gufeld)
2 1 ltel
It is well known that the queen
is not a good blockader of passed
Tal
USSR championship,
Leningrad 1974
1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)e6 3 i. b5 a6 4
i.a4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 e3 i.e5 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 i.e2 f5 12 tZ)b3 i.b6
13 tZ)bd4 tZ)xd4 14 tZ)xd4 i.xd4
15 cxd4
This old variation (see Chapter
6, Section 3) again acquired some
popularity in the seventies.
15 f4 16 f3 tZ)g3 17 hxg3 fxg3
18 'ii'd3 i.f5 19 'ii'xf5 ltxf5 20
i.xf5 'ii'h4 21 i.h3 'ii'xd4 + 22
'at>hl "xe5 23 i.d2 'ii'xb2 24 i.f4
d4!
In the present game Black per
fectly realised the idea of this

move : to pin down White's pieces
with this passed pawn and to cap
ture his queenside.
25 .txc7 d3 26 .te6 + ?
This check just helps Black to
win a tempo by . . Ja8-e8. 26 .txg3
was better.
26 'iti>hS 27 :adl :eS 2S .td7
(not 28 :xd3?? 'ii'e 2) 2S :e2 29
.txg3 d2
Game 26
Karpov - Korchnoi
World Championship,
14th match game, 8aguio 1978
1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .tb5 a6 4
.ta4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.tb3 d5 S dxe5 .te6 9 c3 .tc5 10
li)bd2 0-0 11 .tc2 .tf5 12 li)b3
.tg4 13 h3!
This move starts a plan which
refutes the whole 12 . . . .tg4 line.
13 .th5
13 . . . .txf3 14 gxf3 ! is in White' s
favour (see Chapter 6, Section 4) .
14 g4 .tg6 15 .txe4 dxe4 16
li)xc5 exf3 1 7 .tf4!
N ow Black must swap queens
as 17 .. :iie 7 18 'iVd5! is clearly poor.
17 'iVxdl IS :axdl li)dS! 19
:d7 li)e6 20 li)xe6 !xe6 2 1 .te3
Despite the bishops of opposite
colours, White's active pieces and
better pawn structure yield him
good winning chances.
2 1 :acS
2 1 . . .:f7 did not help due to 2 2
:fdl.
22 :fd l (22 .tc5 !?) 22 .te4
23 .tc5 :feS 24.:7d4
White's rook is forced to retreat
but Black's rooks are now awk
wardly placed.
24 ... .td5 25 b3 a5 26 'iti>h2
White's idea is to sacrifice an
exchange by :d4xd5 . First he im
proves the position of his pieces.
Strangely enough, Korchnoi under
estimates his opponent's active
possibilities.
Black's d-pawn proves to be the

decisive factor in this position.
30 f4 h5! 31 .tc6 'ii'xa2 32 .tta
:e3 33 'iti>h2 "c2 34 :2 :d3
But not 34 . . . :xf3?? 35 :fxd2
with advantage to White.
35 :e2 :dS 36 :e5
The tactical 'blow' 36 :dxd2
results in a hopeless endgame:
36 . . . 'ii'xd2 (but not 36 . . . :xd2? 37
:e8 + 'iti>h7 38 .te4 + and White
wins) 37 :xd2 :xd2 38 .tel :d4
etc. But after the text move the
advance of the b-pawn decides.
36 b4 37 .th4 :d4 3S .txh5
b3 39 .t2 :xf4 40 .tg3 :f6 4 1
.te2 b 2 4 2 :eS + 'iti>h7 43. :bS
'it'e4! White resigned.

26 :a8 2 7 g3 :a6
A wrong plan. According to
Karpov, 27 . . . a4! 28 c4 .ic6 was bet
ter.
28 h4 :c6?
52 :d8 + xc7 53 e 7 . Therefore

Black resigned.
. ""
. ""
B
' . _
%
"
_ . ,, + .L
a
tfl'
;", j
D
World Championship,
6th match game, Merano 198 1
&. ?ai '''0' lI.
7" , , , 1&
" ,
" , , , 1&
i;:7}:i({:i
h '
.
. . .
z , I&
B B Il .
29 ltxdS! exdS 30 :xdS

This is not even a sacrifice as
White can easily capture Black's
pawn on f3 . Now it turns out that
Black's rook on c6 stands badly,
and his queenside pawns are weak.
30 :ce6 3 1 .id4 c6 32 :cS!
ltf8 33 a4! bxa4 34 bxa4
The a5 pawn now falls.
34 g6 3S :xaS :ee8 36 :a 7!
Precisely played. 36 . . . :a8 is now
hopeless due to 37 a5 ! (Karpov) .
36 :f7 37 :a6! :c7 38 .icS!
:cc8 39 .id6 :a8 40 :xc6 :xa4
4 1 3
The rest is a matter of tech
nique, which Karpov hardly lacks.
4 1 hS 42 gxhS gxhS 43 c4
:a2 44 :b6 7 4S cS :a4 46 c6
e6 47 c7 d7 48 :b8 :c8 49
e3 :xh4 SO e6 + !
50 . . . xe6 is now met by 5 1 .ig3 ! .
50 . . . xd6 10ses after 5 1 :xc8 :c4
Game 27
Karpov - Korchnoi
1 e 4 e S 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib S a6 4

.ia4 tZ)f6 S 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 bS 7
.ib3 dS 8 dxeS .ie6 9 c3 .icS 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 .ifS 12 tZ)b3
.i g6 13 tZ)fd4 .ixd4 14 cxd4 as
IS .ie3 a4 16 tZ)cl a3 17 b3 f6
18 exf6 'ii'xf6 19 tZ)e2 tZ)b4 20
.ibl 'ii'e 7
For more on this variation, see
Chapter 6, Section 4. White now
has a better pawn structure but
the activity of Black's pieces is ex
tremely unpleasant. White should
try to neutralise this before Black
can convert his initiative into
something permanent.
2 1 'ii'e l! :fe8 22 tZ)f4 .if7 23
'ii'c l?! (D)
Too slow. According to Nunn,
Karpov could have solved his stra
tegic problems by 23 tZ)d3!
23 cS!
This is a correct pawn sacrifice.
24 i.xe4 'ii'xe4 25 'ii'xc5 tZ)c2! (Tal)
is now in Black's favour, so White
has to allow his opponent a passed
pawn and the initiative.
24 dxcS 'ii'f6 2S .ixe4 ltxe4
26 tZ)e2?!
This natural move proves inac
curate. Black's passed pawn now
becomes extremely dangerous.

. 1.
W;_
i!m.
",0 %1
",
. .tl
% '%1 i

.i.i.
rQ;;
"411
_

.
'
z. " " ,,
.
-
,.
n
!;;::
'" " . ,"
"Nn
.
-
.
"
.
"
_
_
uu
.
i
J
.
:
Nunn recommends 26 'ii'd 2! with

mutual chances.
26 d4 27 ll)g3 :ee8 28 'ii'd2
ll)c6 29 .ig5 'ii'e 5 30 :ac 1 d3 3 1
:fd 1 .ig6 3 2 e3 :e6 3 3 .if4
'ii'f6 34 :e1 :ae8 35 :xe6 :xe6
36 :b1 h5 37 h3 h4 38 .ig5 'ii'd4
39 e3 'ii'd5??
Korchnoi had already been in
serious time-trouble for a couple
of moves. Therefore this blunder
was not surprising. Mter the con
tinuation 39 . . . 'ii'e 5 40 ll)f1 'ii'd 5
Black would have maintained a
clear edge, with White's extra
pawn being of no importance at
all.
40 ll)f1??
Unbelievable! White, who was
not even in time-trouble, misses
his chance! Mter 40 ll)e2 ! :e8 4 1
ll)f4 the advantage would have
passed to him! Now the game ends
in Black's favour.
40 ... .ie4! 4 1 .if4 (41 f3 xf3
42 gxf3 ll)e5 ! ) 4 1 ... .ixg2
The sealed move. The variation
42 ll)e3 'ii'f3 43 ll)xg2 :e2 is quite
convincing so White resigned.
Game 28
Karpov - Yusupov
USSR championship,
Moscow 1983
1 e4 e5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 ll)f6 5 0-0 ll)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10
ll)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 f5 12 ll)b3
.i g6 13 ll)fd4 .ixd4 14 cxd4 a5
15 .ie3 a4 16 ll)d2 a3 17 ll)xe4
axb2 18 :b1 .ixe4 19 :Xb2 'ii'd7
20 .id3 .ixd3 2 1 'ii'xd3 :fb8 22
:fbI b4
A quiet position with a minimal
advantage for White has arisen (see
Chapter 6, Section 3 ) . For Karpov
it is quite enough to play for a
win!
23 h3 h6 24 :c 1 :b6 25 'ii'b 1
:ab8 26 :c5 ll)d8 2 7 :cc2 ll)c6
28 'ii'c 1 :8b7 29 :c5 ll)e7 30
'at>h2
What typical Karpov-like ma
noeuvres! It is not so easy to bear
such a play. Most of his opponents
usually try to break away and . . .
get killed at once! This game is no
exception.
30...ll)f5?
An incorrect pawn sacrifice.
30 ... :b5 was the best option.
31 :bc2 :g6 32 :Xc7 :Xc7 33
:xc7 'ii'b 5 34 g4! ll)h4 35 :c8 +
'at>h7 36 'ii'd 1 'ii'a 6 37 :c2 f5? (D)
According to Karpov, 3 7 . . . 'ii'a3
38 'ii'e 2 b3 was the only chance to
play on. Now White wins a piece.
38 'at>g3! fxg4 39 'at>xh4 gxh3
40 f4 'ii'e6
White 's king seems to be in

trouble . . .
4 1 'lVh5! "lie7 + 4 2 xh3 'lVf7
43 :h2 ! "lid7 + 44 f5 Black re
signed.
threats and maintains his mater

ial advantage.
19 h3! .ih5 20 .i c2 li)f4 2 1
li)gl! c5 2 2 li)df3 li)e2 2 3 li)xe2
:Xe2 24 .idl :e6
After 24 . . . .ixf3 26 gxf3 :e6 26
.id2, followed by f4 and .if3,
White clears the way for his rook
to swing over to the kingside.
25 .id2 h6 26 'ifi>h2 :e4?
This allows White to exchange
Black's bishop and destroy his
pawn structure, after which the po
sition becomes winning for White.
According to Smyslov, 26 . . . .ig6 !
was necessary.
Game 29
Smyslov - Botvi nnik

Moscow 1943
1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .i b5 a6 4
.ia4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10
li)bd2 0-0 1 1 .ic2 li)xf2 12 :xf2
f6 13 exfG 'lVxfG?!
13 . . . .ixf2 + ! is more exact (see
Chapter 6, Section 5).
14 'fj'fl .ig4 15 'ifi>h l ( 1 5 h3 or
15 "lid3 was better) 15 .ixf2 16
'lVxf2 :ae8 1 7 'lVg3?!
An inaccuracy, which Black does
not exploit. 17 h3 should have
been played.
17 li)e5 18 .id1 li)d3?!
This is premature. 18 . . . h5! 19
h4 li)d3 would have yielded Black
better chances. Now White accu
rately fends off his opponent's
27 li)g5! hxg5 28 .ixh5 :e5

29 .if3 'lVe7 30 a4! 'ifi>h7 31 axb5
axb5 32 :a7 "lid6 33 .ig4 (threat
ening 34 .ixg5) 33 :d8 34 'ifi>h l
(34 .if4 ! ) 34 d4 35 cxd4 cxd4
36 .if4! (at last! ) 36 :el + 37
'ii'xel 'lVxf4 38 :d7 :xd7 39
.ixd7 d3 40 .ig4 d2 4 1 'lVe2 b4
42 'lVd3 + g6 43 'ifi>gl 'ifi>h6 44 b3
'ifi>g7 45 .if3 'lVf7 46 'ifi>f2 'lVe6 47
'ii'e 3 'lVd6 48 .idl "lid5 49 g4
'ifi>h7 50 'ifi>e2 Black resigned.
Game 30
Lj ubojevic - Yusupov
Tilburg 1987
1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 tZ)xf2 12 :xf2
f6 13 exfG i.xf2 + 14 xf2 'ii'xfG
15 gl ae8 16 'ii'f l
16 tZ)f1 is both more natural and
more exact (Chapter 6, Section 4).
After the text move the arrange
ment of White 's pieces becomes
somewhat disharmonious.
16 .if5 17 .ixf5 'ii'xf5 18 b3
d4 19 cxd4?!
19 .ia3 dxc3! 20 .ixf8 xf8 2 1
tZ)c4! (Yusupov) was best.
A blunder. 25 tZ)2f3 was the last

chance.
25 'ii'e5 +
White resigned due to 26 . . . c5.
Game 3 1
Morovic - Yusupov
Tunis 1985
1 e4 e5 2 tZ)f3 tZ)c6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 tZ)f6 5 0-0 tZ)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10
tZ)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 tZ)xf2 12 :xf2
f6 13 exfG .ixf2 + 14 '1ttxf2 'ii'xf6
15 tZ)fl tZ)e5 16 gl tZ)xf3 + 1 7
gxf3 'ii'xf3 18 'ii'xf3 xf3 19
.id1?!
This is somewhat premature.
Theory recommends 19 .ie3 (see
Chapter 6, Section 4) .
19 f7 20 tZ)g3 i.h3 2 1 .ie2
e8 22 .id2 c5
Black's edge is now clear as his
opponent has no counterplay.
White decides to liquidate into an
ending but it is in Black's favour
as his rook and two pawns prove
stronger than his opponent's two
minor pieces.
23 .ifl i.xf1 24 xf1 xf1 +
25 1
Black should now improve the
position of his pieces and create
passed pawns.
25 f7 26 f2 e6 2 7 .ie3
f8 + 28 e2 d6 29 tZ)h5 f7
30 tZ)f4 d4 31 cxd4 cxd4 32 .id2
g5 33 tZ)d3 g4
Yusupov considers that the move
33 . . . h6 was more precise. Instead
19 tZ)xd4! 20 tZ)xd4
This leads to a favourable end
game for Black. After 20 .ib2 or
20 i.a3 Black would have main
tained a strong initiative, too.
20 'ii'c5 2 1 .ib2 xf1 + 22
xf1 e2 23 f2 xf2 24 xf2
"d5 25 e3??

of White's next move he could
have effectively blocked Black's
pawns by means of 34 .iel.
34 .ih6 e6 35 lt)c5 + (35 .if4!)
35 f5 36 It)d3 l:tc7 37 d2 l:tc6
38 .ig7?
This was the last possibility for
Morovic to play 38 .if4! e4 39
.ig3.
Game 32
Short - Yusupov
Be/grade 1989
8
. . . ; .
1. 8

B
B alba
A rtt%
o
u
"'
g
38 h5!
This pawn is much more impor
tant than that on d4 ! .
3 9 .ixd4 e4 4 0 .ic5 h 4 4 1
e2 a5 4 2 It)f2 + d5 4 3 b 4 g3
44 hxg3 hxg3 45 It)d3
The continuation 45 It)g4 e4
46 It)e3 was hopeless, too: 46 . . . axb4
47 .ixb4 l:th6 48 It)g2 l:th2 49 f1
l:th 1 + 50 'i!i>e2 l:ta1 51 a3 .l:.a2 + 52
. 'i!i>f1 'i!i>f3 53 It)e1 + 'i!i>g4 followed
by 54 . . . h3.
45 axb4 46 .ie3 (or 46 .ixb4
l:tc2 + 47 .id2 d4 48 lt)e1 l:txa2)
46 l:tc2 + 47 dl l:tc3 48 e2
e4 49 c5 + 'i!i>f5 50 It)d3 e4
5 1 lt)c5 + 'i!i>d5 52 It)d3 l:tc2 + 53
'i!i>dl l:th2 54 .igl l:thl 55 It)f4 +
'i!i>e4 56 It)e2 3 White resigned.
1 e4 e5 2 It)f3 It)c6 3 .i b5 a6 4
.ia4 It)f6 5 0-0 It)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ic5 10
It)bd2 0-0 11 .ic2 It)xf2 12 l:txf2
f6 13 exf6 .ixf2 + 14 'i!i>xf2 'ii'xf6
15 lt)f1 lt)e5 16 .ie3 l:tae8 17 .ic5
3 18 gxf3 M7 19 .id3
This is 'too subtle' . 19 g2 looks
stronger - see Chapter 6, Section 4.
19 .ih3!
White's king is now in danger.
Say, 20 i.e2? leads to a striking
defeat: 20 . . . 'ii'g5 2 1 lt)g3 d4! ! (indi
cated by Yusupov) . Now 22 'ii'xd4
l:tf4, 22 .ixd4 c5 and 22 cxd4
l:txf3 + ! 23 'i!i>e1 l:txe2 + ! 24 'ii'xe2
l:te3 are equally unsatisfactory.
20 It)g3 h5! (starting an attack)
2 1 .ifl !
If 2 1 It)xh5?! then 2 1 . . .'ii'g5 22
It)g3 d4! 23 .ixd4 c5 and Black is
better.
2 1. .ig4!? 22 .ig2 h4 23 It)f1
h3?!
This is premature and should
have been prepared by means of
23 . . . 'iVg6 ! . Now White's knight ob
tains a perfect square on g3 .
24 .ihl l:te4
Black now intends to concen
trate his pressure on the f3 pawn.
25 It)g3 M4 26 gl?!
According to Yusupov, White
should have preferred 26 'iVxd5
i.xf3 27 i.xf3 l:txf3 + 28 'i!i>gl. Now
he simply loses a pawn.
26 'lVc6! 27 i.e3 i.xf3 28 'lVf1

:e4?!
An inaccuracy in reply. 28 . . . :4ffi
was stronger. Now, according to
Yusupov, White could have simply
taken the exchange: 29 li)xe4 i.xe4
30 'lVxh3 i.xh l 3 1 :1 with good
drawing chances. Short misses this
opportunity.
29 'lVd3? :g4 30 i. d4??
30 i.xf3 was the only move.
Now Black could have won imme
diately by means of 30 . . . :xg3 + !
3 1 hxg3 h2 + ! . Both players over
looked this tactical blow.
30 i.e4?? 3 1 'lVe2 'ii'g6 32
i.xe4 dxe4 33 a4?!
Underestimating his opponent's
threats. 33 :1 ! was necessary.
33 1U3 34 axb5 axb5 35 b4?
This is losing. 35 'iti>h l ! was the
only chance to play on.
35 :gxg3 + ! 36 bIg3 :xg3 +

37 'iti>hl e3
White resigned. Yusupov indi
cates a nice variation: 38 'ifa2 +
'iti>h8 ! 39 'lVd5 'iti>h7 ! , for example
40 :el (40 'iti>h2 e2 is also winning)
40 . . . c6 4 1 'ife5 'lVg4 42 :el e2 and

wins.
Game 33
J . Polgar - H ubner
Munich 199 1
D r Robert Hubner gladly plays the
Open Spanish both as Black and
White. However, in this game he
was completely outplayed by the
famous Hungarian girl, who is es
pecially strong in sharp, compli
cated positions.
1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i.a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 c3 i.e7 10
i.c2 i. g4 11 h3 i.xf3 12 gxf3
li)c5 13 f4 'ifd7 14 'lVf3 :d8
As was mentioned in the theo
retical part (Chapter 7, Section 1),
an immediate 14 . . . f5! was stronger,
as now White could have played
15 i.e3 0-0 16 :dl, and Black can
not push . . . f7-f5 (indicated by Ju
dit Polgar).
15 :dl f5!
Making use of the fact that 16
exffi i.xffi is not dangerous for
Black, he obtains a solid, blocked
position, even retaining some ac
tive possibilities such as . . . g7-g5 .
However, he must be very careful
with his d5 pawn, which is still in
sufficiently defended.
16 i.e3 'lVe6 17 li)d2 0-0 18
li)b3 li)a4?
Black didn't wish to risk playing
18 . . . li)e4 and was wrong! True, 19
'lVg2 (otherwise 19 . . . g5) 19 . . . g5?

20 f3 was in White's favour but
Hubner probably underestimated
19 . . JH7! (preparing 20 . . . g5) 20 f3
lDf6 followed by 2 1 . . .lDh5, with
sufficient counterplay (Judit Pol
gar).
Mter the text move Black's
knight is offside.
19 lIabl lId7 20 hl g6
26 g5 26 lIgl c5 27 lDf3 lDg6

28 fxg5 f4 29 .id2 'iff5 30 b3
lDb6 31 lIbel lIfe 8 32 i.f1 d4 33
cxd4 cxd4 34 .ia5 'ife6 35 lIg4
lId5 36 'ifd2 lDd7 37 lDxh4
lDdxe5 38 .ig2 Black resigned.
Game 34
Kasparov - Yusupov
USSR championship, Minsk 1979
Now White begins a strong plan

of attack against Black's d5 pawn.
2 1 .id3!
White's bishop aims for g2!
2 1 i.h4?!
Black could have protected the
d 5 pawn at the cost of raising the
blockade: 2 1 . . .'iff7 22 .ifl lDd8 23
.ig2 c6 24 lDd4! i.c5 25 e6 lDxe6
26 lDxc6 with a clear edge (J.Pol
gar). After the text move his bishop
finds itself in danger.

22 i.f1 lIdd8 (otherwise .ifl
g2, lIdl-d2, lIbl-dl etc.) 23 .ig2
liJe7 24 lDd4 flf7 25 'ife2!
The 26 lDf3 threat is irresist
ible as 25 . . . lDc8 26 lDc6 lId7 27
lDb8 is completely hopeless. The
rest is agony.
Strangely enough, Garry Kasparov

has almost never had to play
against the Open Spanish. This
game between two young players
took place in a tournament where
each of them attained one of his
first outstanding successes (19year-old Yusupov was second, 16year-old Kasparov shared third
place).
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ib5 a6 4
.ia4 lDf6 5 0-0 lDxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 8 dxe5 .ie6 9 .ie3 .ie7
10 lDbd2 0-0 11 c3 .ig4 12 lDxe4
dxe4 13 'ifd5 exf3 14 'ifxc6 fxg2
15 'ifxg2 'ifd7 16 .ih6!
This is the point of the whole
manoeuvre started with 12 lDxe4
(see Chapter 7, Section 2).
16 ph6 1 7 f3
White recaptures the bishop and
obtains better chances due to a
more active position of his pieces
and strong pressure along the f
file.
17 h5
17 . . . i.c5 + 18 h l lIae8 was re
latively better, according to Kas
parov.
18 l:tadl 'lVfS 19 fxg4 'lVxeS

( 19 . . . 'lVxg4 20 l:td7 leads to a diffi
cult ending)
Game 35
Dol matov - Levi n

Dortmund 1992
20 l:tdel!
White's general plan consists of
doubling rooks along the f-file to
exert pressure on the f7 point. So,
what's the idea behind the text
move? To force the black pieces
into inferior positions!
20 'lVcS + 21 'at>hl l:tad8?
2 1 . . .l:tae8 22 l:tf5 'lVd6 23 gxh5 +
'at>h8 24 l:txf7 is also very good for
White. Black's only chance to play
on was 2 1 . . . .th4! However, after
22 l:tf5 'lVd6 23 l:tefl (Kasparov)
his position remained difficult.
After the move played he simply
loses a piece.
22 l:tfS 'lVd6 23 l:tdS 'lVg6 24
l:txe7 l:txdS 2S i.xdS hxg4 26
'lVe4 'lVxe4 + 27 .txe4 l:td8 28
l:txc7 hS 29 .tc2 l:tdS 30 .tb3
l:tfS 3 1 'at>g2 as 32 l:txf7 l:txf7 33
'at>g3 a4 34 .txf7 + 'at>xf7 3S 'at>h4
'at>g6 36 b3 a3 37 c4 bxc4 38
bxc4 'at>fs 39 'at>xhS 'at>e4 40 'at>xg4
'at>d4 4 1 h4 Black resigned.
Sergey Dolmatov's name is in

separable from the 9 .te3 system.
1 e4 eS 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .tbS a6 4
.ta4 li)f6 S 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 bS 7
.tb3 dS 8 dxeS .te6 9 .te3 .te7
10 c3 li)cS 11 .tc2 li)d7 12 l:tel
li)dxeS 13 li)xeS li)xeS 14 .td4
li)c6?!
14 . . . li)g6 is more solid (Chapter
7, Section 3).
IS .txg7 l:tg8 16 'lVhS 'at>d7 17
.th6
White should now combine his
attack of Black's destroyed king
side with making use of the un
safe position of Black's king.
17 i.d6?!
Black underestimates his oppo
nent's threats. He should have
simplified by 17 . . . .tg5 ! (see the
theoretical part) .
18 f4! 'at>c8 19 li)d2 'at>b7 20 fS
.td7 2 1 li)f3?
White misses the possibility of
21 .tb3 li)e7 22 f6 with an over
whelming position (indicated by
Dolmatov) . Now Black manages
to activate his pieces.
21 f6 22 l:tadl li)eS ! 23 ll)xeS
.txeS 24 l:txdS l:txg2 + 2S 'at>xg2
.tc6 26 .te4 .txdS 27 'lVf3 c6?
A grave error. After 27 . . . 'lVg8 +
28 'at>f2 l:td8 Black could have suc
cessfully defended, for example 29
l:tgl 11f7 30 l:tg7 .txe4 3 1 l:txf7
i.xf3 32 'at>xf3 l:td3 + 33 i.e3 h5

with chances for both sides (Dol
matov).
28 ii.xd5 'ikxd5 29 'ikxd5 cxd5
text move White obtains strong

pressure on the kingside.
18 i.c2 0-0 19 'ikd3 g6 20 'ike3
<Ji?g7 2 1 a3 a5 22 'ikf4 l:td7 (note
that 22 . . . b4? ! is a poor choice due
to 23 ii.a4 ! ) 23 l:td2 a4 24 h4 f5
25 exf6 + l:txf6 26 'ikg3 'ikd6 2 7
lbe5 lbxe5 28 l:txe5
30 l:txe5!
Mter 30 . . . fxe5 31 f6 the pawn
promotion is inevitable, therefore
Black resigned.
Game 36
Short - Lj ubojevic
Linares 1989
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 ii. b5 a6 4
ii.a4 lbf6 5 0-0 lbxe4 6 d4 b5 7
ii.b3 d5 8 dxe5 ii.e6 9 ii.e3 i.e7
10 c3 'ikd7 l l lbbd2 l:td8 12 h3
lbxd2
A premature exchange. 12 . . . 0-0
is better (Chapter 7, Section 4).
13 'ikxd2 lba5 14 ii.g5!
A typical means of exchanging
these bishops to weaken the dark
squares in Black's camp.
14 c5 15 l:tfe l lbc6 16 l:tadl
h6 1 7 ii.xe7 'ikxe7
1 7 . . . lbxe7!?, preparing . . . i.e6f5 , looks more exact. Mter the
White's edge consists of a bet

ter arrangement of his pieces and
an insufficient defence of Black's
king. Still, after 28 . . . ii.f7 Black
could have firmly defended. In
stead he liquidates to an end
game, which proves lost because
of White's outside passed pawn.
28 i.f5? 29 l:tdxd5 'ikxd5 30
l:txd5 l:txd5 3 1 c4! bxc4 32 i.xa4
h5 33 ii.b5 i.e6 34 f3 (White is
intending to continue with the ad
vance of his a-pawn) 34 l:tff5 35
i.c6 l:tdl + 36 <Ji?h2 i.d5 37 'ikc7 +
<Ji?h6 38 'ikd8 ! <Ji?g7 39 a4 l:td4 40
'ike7 + <Ji?h6 41 ii.e8 l:tdf4 42 <Ji?g3!
ii.xf3 43 'ike3 ii.xg2 44 'ikxf4 +
l:txf4 45 <Ji?xf4 <Ji?g7 46 <Ji?g5 ii.e4
47 a5 ii.d3 48 ii.c6 <Ji?f7 49 ii.b7
Black resigned.
..
..
Game 37
Kharlov - Krasen kov

Rostov on Don 1993
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 .t b5 a6 4
.t a4 liJf6 5 0-0 liJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
.t b3 d5 8 dxe5 .te6 9 .te3 .te7
10 c3 'ii'd7 11 liJbd2 l:td8 12 l:te1
0-0 13 .tc2 liJxd2 14 'ii'xd2 .tf5
15 .txf5?!
It was not a good idea to allow
Black's queen such an active posi
tion. Theory recommends 15 l:tad1
(Chapter 7, Section 4).
15 'ii'xf5 16 liJd4 liJxd4 1 7
cxd4 c5!
Let me remind you that this
move is usually necessary after
the exchange on d4.
18 dxc5?!
18 'ii'a5 was preferable, and if
18 . . . 'ii'e 6 then 19 dxc5 d4 20 .td2 .
However, a pawn sacrifice 18 . . . c4!?
19 'ii'x a6 b4 would have allowed
Black to maintain his initiative.
18 ...d4! 19 .tf4 .txc5 20 l:tac1
l:tc8
Now it is not so easy for White
to fight against Black's strong d
pawn. Black's plan includes . . . d4d3 and . . . l:tc8-c2 . White tries to
create some counterplay.
2 1 h3 ( 2 1 g3 was stronger)
2 1.. .tb6 22 .tg3
The endgame which would occur
after the continuation 22 l:txc8
l:txc8 23 l:tc1 l:txc1 + 24 'ii'xc1 h5 is
favourable for Black.
22 h6 23 'ii'b4 d3 24 l:txc8
l:txc8 25 'ii'd6
25 e6 fxe6 26 'ii'd 6 didn't work

due to 26 . . . d2! 27 'ii'xd2 l:tc2.
25 .ta5 26 b4 l:td8 27 'ii'c5?!
White could have justified his
queen's sally by seizing an oppor
tunity to exchange material: 2 7
'ii'xa6 .txb4 2 8 l:td1 d 2 2 9 'ii'xb 5
'ii'c2 30 'ii'e2 'ii'xa2, and Black's vic
tory is not guaranteed. Now White
loses an exchange for a pawn, with
out reducing Black's pressure.
27 d2 28 l:td1 'ii'e 4! 29 bxa5
'ii'e 1 + 30 l:txe1 dxe1'ii' + 3 1 h2
..
..
..
In this position Black's main

problem is to restrict his oppo
nent's active possibilities.
3 1 g5 !
But not 3 1 . . .'ii'x a5?! 32 'ii'e 7!
l:tf8 33 e6 ffi 34 d7 with a strong
counterplay for White.
32 f4?!
This loses at once but 32 f3 was
not enough to save the situation
either, e.g. 32 . . . 'ii'e2 33 'ii'c6 'ii'e3 !
34 'ii'xh6 l:td1 35 h4 'ii'c 1! 36 'ii'xg5 +
'ii'xg5 3 7 hxg5 l:ta1 with an easily
winning endgame for Black.
32 ...'ii'e4!

Black's centralised queen now
dominates the board.
33 fxg5 lId2 34 .if2 lIc2 35
'ii' b 6 'ii'x e5 + 36 .i g3 'ii'd5 37
'ii'bS + (despair) 37 'iti>h7 3S gG +
'iti>g7 39 .ie5 + f6 40 .ixf6 + 'iti>xg6
4 1 'ii'e S + 'iti>xf6 42 'ii'fS + 'iti>g6 43
'ii'e S + 'iti>g7 44 'ii'e 7 + 'ii'f7 45
'ii'e5 + 'ii'f6 White resigned.
20 .ih6 + 'iti>gS 21 'ii' g4 'ii'f6 22

.ic2 .ifS 23 .i g5 'ii'd6 24 .if4
'ii'dS 25 lIadl li)a5
Game 38
J . Polgar - Anand
Munich 199 1
1 e 4 e 5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 .ib5 a 6 4
.i a4 li)f6 5 0-0 li)xe4 6 d4 b5 7
.ib3 d5 S dxe5 .ie6 9 c3 .ie7 10
li)bd2 'ii'd7
This was probably the first at
tempt to play this move.
l l .ic2 li)xd2
1 1 . . . .if5 1ooks better (see Chap
ter 7, Section 1).
12 'ii'xd2 .ig4?!
Now White obtains the two bish
ops and a strong initiative.
13 'ii'f4 .ixf3
After 13 . . . 0-0 14 li)g5 h6? 15 li)h7
lIfeB 16 h3! followed by 17 li)f6 + !
White's attack is very strong (Ju
dit Polgar) .
14 .if5 "dS 15 'ii'xf3
15 gxf3 !? g6 16 .i.c2 0-0 17 'ii'g3
was an easier way for White to ob
tain the better prospects.
15 li)xe5 16 'ii'e2 'ii'd6 17 lIel
li)c6 IS .ig5 'iti>fS 19 .ie3 gG?
A premature weakening. The
best defence would have been
19 . . . .if6 (Ftanik) .
White' s ideally placed pieces

resemble a harmoniously co-ordi
nated orchestra; Black's instru
ments sound just cacophonic. It is
time for White to start a direct at
tack.
26 h4! c6 27 h5 li)c4 2S hxgS
bIgG 29 b3 !
It is necessary to divert Black's
knight from the important e5 and
d6 squares. Then the sacrifice on
g6 will work.
29 li)d6 30 .ixg6! fxg6 3 1
lIe6! lIh7
3 1 . . .li)eB does not help due to 32
lIxg6 + .i.g7 33 'ii'e 6 + 'iti>fB 34 .i.g5
'ii'c 7 35 lId3.
32 .ixd6 .ig7
32 . . . .i.xd6 33 lIxg6 + loses at
once.
33 lIdel lIh6 34 g3 'ii'd7 35
.if4 g5 36 .ixg5 lIg6 3 7 'ii'f5?!
(37 f4 wins) 37 l!xe6 3S 'ii'xe6 +?
Judit Polgar points out that
White should have kept queens

on: 38 l:txe6! l:te8 39 l:txe8 + 'iVxe8
40 i.f6 with a won ending. With
out queens White unexpectedly
faces serious technical problems.
38 'iVxe6 39 l:txe6 l:te8 40
i.d2 eM7 41 l:tel e5 42 'ittfl e4 43
bxe4 l:txe4?
Mter 43 . . . bxc4! 44 l:tbl d4 Black
could have tenaciously defended.
N ow he gradually loses.
44 l:tel 'itte6 45 'itte2 d4 46 exd4
i.xd4 47 i.e3 i.b2 48 l:txe4 bxe4
49 'itt d2 i. g7 50 'itt e 2 'itt d5 5 1 f3
i.f6 52 i.h6 i.e5 53 g4 i.d4 54
i.d2 i.b6 55 i.el i.a5 56 a4 'itte5
57 i.g5 'ittd5 58 i.d2 i.e7 59 i.e3
i.f4 60 i.f6 i.g3 6 1 g5 i.h4 62
i.d8 i.f2 63 g6 i.d4 64 i.a5 'itte 6
65 i.e3
Black resigned as 65 . . . i.b6 66
f4 or 65 . . . i.e3 66 i.h8 is hopeless.
.
up to today (see Chapter 8, Sec

tion 2).
15 i.e2 e5 16 ttJb3?!
White loses two tempi to pro
voke . . . c5-c4, which Black intends
to play anyway! 16 l:tel was better.
Incidentally, 16 dxc5 i.xc5 1 7
i.xh 7 + i s a poor choice, for exam
ple 17 . . . 'ittxh7 ( 1 7 . . . 'itth 8 18 l:tf3
'iVg5 is another interesting idea)
18 'iVc2 + 'itt g8 19 'iVxc5 d4 20 l:te4
l:tc8 21 'iVa3 'iVg5 22 g3 (or 22 'iVf3)
22 . . . ttJh3 + followed by 23 . . . l:txcl + ,
and Black wins (indicated by Ale
khine) .
16 e4 17 ttJd2
Game 39
Flamberg - Alekhine
Mannheim 1914
1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJe6 3 i.b5 a6 4
i. a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 e3 i.e7 10
l:tel
This move is apparently not re
ally appropriate in the Open Span
ish in general. White king's rook
is often better placed on dl or
even . . . on n !
10 ...0 - 0 1 1 ttJbd2 ttJe5 12 ttJd4
ttJxd4 13 exd4 ttJd3! 14 l:te3 ttJf4
This knight's manoeuvre has
been considered Black's best re
tort to White's construction right
Before starting active operations

on the queenside Black should
build an unassailable fortress for
his king.
17 f5! 18 ttJfl l:tf7 (clearing
the f8 square for Black's knight)
19 l:tg3 ttJg6 20 f4 a5 2 1 i.e3 b4
22 ttJd2 'iVb6 23 lDf3 i.d7 24 ttJg5
i.xg5 25 l:txg5 a4
According to Alekhine, White
should now have turned to defence
by 26 l:tg3 . Instead he continues
..

his attack but Black's pawn ava
lanche comes much faster.
26 'ith l?! liJe7 27 'ikh5 b3 28
axb3 cxb3 29 d3 a3! 30 l:txa3
l:txa3 3 1 bxa3 b2 32 'ikd l (a be
lated retreat) 32 l:tf8 33 l:tg3 l:ta8
34 bl l:txa3 35 gl l:tal 36
l:tc3 a4 37 'ikd3 (or 3 7 'ikel b3)
37 b5 38 'ikdl
38 'ikc2 is hopeless because of
38 . . . c4 39 e6 g6 etc.
38 'ika6
Alekhine is now threatening
39 .. Jhbl! 40 'ikxbl 'ikaI . Neither 39
l:tb3 'ika4 nor 39 l:te3 a4 (Alek
hine) enables White to continue
his resistance. Therefore White
resigned.
.
Game 40
Beliavsky - Tarjan
h6 23 h4 liJf7
Black's knight has not man
aged to place itself in a blockade
position on e6 . White's general
plan now consists in creating pres
sure on Black's backward d5 pawn
(which holds Black's position to
gether) and at the same time pre
paring g2-g4. The open a-file is
another factor in White's favour.
24 f4 g5
After 24 . . . xh4 25 i.. f3 followed
by 26 l:tfdl White recaptures the
pawn on d5 with inevitable fur
ther gains.
25 d4 'ith7?
25 . . . g4 was necessary. White
would have continued 26 g3 l:ta8
27 i.. e 2 followed by l:tfdl and n
g2 with strong pressure (Beliav
sky).
Bogota 1979
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 liJf6 5 0-0 liJxe4 6 d4 b5 7
b3 d5 8 dxe5 e6 9 c3 e7 10
liJbd2 0-0 1 1 c2 f5 12 liJb3 'ikd7
13 liJfd4 liJxd4 14 liJxd4 c5 15
liJxe6 'ikxe6 1 6 f3 liJg5 1 7 a4
l:tad8 18 axb5 axb5 19 'ike2 c4
This line (see Chapter 8, Section
3) grants White a certain positional
edge . His pair of bishops and pro
tected passed pawn in the centre
should not be underestimated.
Beliavsky criticises Black's last
move. An early stabilisation of the
centre deprives him of active coun
terplay. 19 . . . 'ikc6 was better.
20 e3 b4 2 1 'ikd2 b3 22 i.. d l
26 g4!
This blow is now extremely ef
fective. Black can never capture
on g4 in view of f4-f5 so White can
simply maintain pressure on the
f5 point.
26 gxh4 27 'ithl l:tg8 28 'ike3
:d 7 29 .te2 li)d8
Or 29 . . . :b7 30 :a5 :d7 31 'i'f2 ,
then :fal etc. (Beliavsky).
30 :a8 h5 3 1 g5
This pawn has already played
its role on g4 - White's positional
gains (especially the invasion of
his rook) are decisive.
3 1 ... li)b7 32 :a7 li)d8 33 :xd7
'i'xd7 34 'i'f3 'i'e6 35 :al g7
Black now loses his d5 pawn and
the game but even after the reply
35 . . . li)c6 36 :a6 :c8 3 7 'i'xh5 +

g7 38 .tf3 h3 39 h2 ! White's
threats (first of all, 40 :xc6! :Xc6
41 i.xd5 ! ) would have been irre
sistible.
36 :a5 li)c6 37 :xd5
The rest is easy.
37 ... :cS 38 .tc5 li)d8 39 i.xe7
'i'xe7 40 'i'xh5 li)e6 41 'i'h6 +
g8 42 .tf3 li)xf4 43 :d6 :d8
44 .td5 + li)xd5 45 :g6 + 7 46
e6 + Black resigned.

The Open Spanish

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Open Spanish

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE OPEN

CADOGAN CHESS SERIES

John Donaldson and

Svetozar Gli goric

For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books (which in

Distribution: Grantham Book Services Ltd, Isaac Newton Way,

British Library Cataloguing In Publication Data

Introduction: The Basic Strategy' of the Open Spanish

1 Turning to One Side (early deviations)

2 So Many Ways... (9 a4, 9 .te3 etc.)

3 Made by Karpov (9 lDbd2)

4 In an Antique Shop (9 'ii'e2)

5 With Germanic Consistency (9 c3 lDc5)

6 The Discussion of Decades (9 c3 .tc5)

7 From Alekhine to Dolmatov (9 c3 .te710 .te3 etc.)

8 The Main Road (9 c3 .te710 lDbd2)

Theoretical Conclusions (and Index of Variations)

Play Like a Grandmaster!

Symbo ls and Abbreviations

Malchev A, Ispanskaya parliya (vol. 2), Sofia, Meditsina i

Introduction: The Basi c

strategy. Nowadays grandmas

This was the choice of Wilhelm

'ii'xe7 1 7 i.xd5 1:td8 18 'ii'e 3 .ixd5

your pawn on b5. The opening of

e) A sacrifice of two pieces for

introduction. Be sure to atten

Turning to One Side

In general, attempts by one side

9 .tc5?! 10 ':d1 "fIe7 1 1 tZ)c3 0-0

12 Turning to One Side

The alternative 10 c3 is rather

(1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 .tb5 a6 4

Turning to One Side 13

after 7 :el d5 B trurd4 .id6 9 tDxc6

. .. b 7-b5 and . . . .icB-b7. If White

14 Turning to One Side

axb3 .ib7 17 tZ)c3? ( 1 7 g3 !? .ixg3 ! )

It seems that Black obtains

Turning to One Side 15

li)xg5 'lVh5 15 h4 li)d8 16 g3 b6

time ago, because after 7 . . . li)xe5 8

16 Turning to One Side

( 1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4

Turning to One Side 1 7

lbxb3, followed by 13 . . . i.x2 + , de

'it>h8 15 i.g5 i.g8 with equal chan

18 Turning to One Side

(Short-Timman, EI Escorial 1993

Black's plan now consists of

Turning to One Side 19

lDxc6! 'ii'xc6 1 7 .ixd5 'ii'c8 18 'ii'f3

This was played in the game

( 1 e4 e5 2 lL\f3 lL\c6 3 i.b5 a6 4

In this chapter we deal with

13 'ii'xb3 ( 1 3 axb3 c5 14 b4 cxb4

Sad 1990) . Now, according to

22 So Many Ways ...

This developing move, enabling

.ie7 13 b4 c5 14 li)xe6 fxe6 15 f3

13 'ii'e 2 e7 14 Ad1 tZ)xe5 15 g4

In all probability, the author

The most common answer to 9

This move was drawn out of the