Kasparov's Fighting Chess

1993-1998

Tibor Karolyi and Nick Aplin

BATSFORD
Kasparov's Fighting Chess
1993-1998

Tibor Karolyi and Nick Aplin

BATSFORD
First published in the United Kingdom in 2006 by

Batsford
151 Freston Road
London
WI06TH

An imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd

Copyright Batsford 2006

Text copyright Tibor Karolyi and Nick Aplin

The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

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, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN 0 7134 8994 4

ISBN (13) 9780 7134 8994 1

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed and bound by Creative Print and Design

This book can be ordered direct from the publisher at the website:
www.anovabooks.com

Or try your local bookshop

 Contents
Introduction 5

Symbols 8

1993 9
Game 1 [C88] GK - Nigel Short PCA World Ch (I) II
Game 2 [C88] GK - Nigel Short PCA World Ch (3) 19
Game 3 [897] Nigel Short - GK PCA World Ch (4) 28
Game 4 [C88] GK - Nigel Short PCA World Ch (7) 35
Game 5 [E35] GK - Nigel Short PCA World Ch (9) 40
Game 6 [035] GK - Nigel Short PCA World Ch (15) 45
Game 7 [B87] GK - Nigel Short PCA World Ch (16) 50

1994 62
Game 8 [044] GK - Vassily Ivanchuk Linares 62
Game 9 [BI7] GK - Gata Kamsky Linares 68
Game 10 [885] GK - Viswanathan Anand Linares 74
Game II [000] Jan Timman - GK Moscow rapid 79
Game 12 [CII] GK - Nigel Short Amsterdam 80
Game 13 [C42] GK - Jan Timman Amsterdam 85
Game 14 [E97] Gata Kamsky - GK New York rapid 96
Game 15 [B33] GK - Vladimir Kramnik Novgorod 101
Game 16 [833] GK - Alexei Shirov Horgen 110
Game 17 [DJ9] GK - Vladimir Kramnik Paris rapid 117
Game 18 [882] Zoltan Almasi - GK EU-Cup fmal 118
Game 19 [A41] GK - Zurab Azmaiparashvili Moscow Olympiad 118
Game 20 [B92] Lembit 011 - GK Moscow Olympiad 121

1995 124
Game 21 [C51] GK - Viswanathan Anand Riga 124
Game 22 [B47] G K - Edvins Kengis Riga 133
Game 23 [817] GK - Vladimir Epishin Moscow rapid 136
Game 24 [B80] Veselin Topalov - GK Amsterdam 137
Game 25 [A48] Artur Yusupov - GK Novgorod 139
Game 26 [037] GK - Rafael Vaganian Novgorod 140
Game 27 [B92] GK - Nick de Firmian New York rapid 145
Game 28 [B85] Viswanathan Anand - GK PCA World Ch (9) 148
Game 29 [C80] GK - Viswanathan Anand PCA World Ch (10) 154
Game 30 [B78] Viswanathan Anand - GK PCA World Ch (11) 159
Game 31 [877] Viswanathan Anand - GK PCA World Ch (13) 163
Game 32 [BOl] GK - Viswanathan Anand PCA World Ch (14) 166
Game 33 [043] GK - Viktor Korchnoi Horgen 177
Game 34 [B65] Viswanathan Anand - GK Paris rapid 178

3
Game 35 [E92] Vladimir Kramnik - GK Paris rapid 184
Game 36 [851] Leonid Yudasin - GK EU-Cup final 185

1996 186
Game 37 [E89] J eroen Piket - G K Amsterdam 186
Game 38 [B"14] GK - Viswanathan Anand Amsterdam 188
Game 39 [892] GK - Boris Gelfand Amsterdam 190
Game 40 [884] GK - Viswanathan Anand Moscow rapid 200
Game 41 [882] Judit Polgar - GK Dos Hermanas 201
Game 42 [A43] GK - Alexander Graf Geneva rapid 205
Game 43 [890] Viswanathan Anand - GK Geneva rapid 209
Game 44 [852] Alexei Shirov - GK Yerevan Olympiad 215
Game45 [C45] GK - Ivan Sokolov Yerevan Olympiad 216
Game 46 [E32] GK - Anatoly Karpov Las Palmas 222

1997 232
Game 47 [C45] GK - Predrag Nikolic Linares 232
Game 48 [E59] GK - Vladimir Kramnik Linares 238
Game 49 [A25] GK - 80ris Gelfand Novgorod 243
Game 50 [Cll] GK - Evgeny Bareev Novgorod 250
Game 51 [CI8] GK - Nigel Short Novgorod 251
Game52 [A25] Loek van Wely - GK Tilburg 252
Game 53 [E25] GK - Judit Polgar Tilburg 256
Game 54 [890] Alexei Shirov - GK Tilburg 260
Game 55 [D27] GK - Jeroen Piket Tilburg 267

1998 275
Game 56 [817] GK - Viswanathan Anand Linares 275
Game 57 [D58] Veselin Topalov - GK Sofia rapid match 287
Game 58 [885] Emil Sutovsky - GK Tel-Aviv clock simul 290
Game59 [866] GK - Vassily Ivanchuk Frankfurt rapid 298
Game 60 [DI5] Jan Tirnman - GK EuroTel Trophy 305

Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998 309

Epilogue 314

Index of Openings 314

Index of Opponents 315

4
 Introduction
When (:hess pundits attempt the
daunting task of naming the greatest
players of all time, there are currently
only two candidates who stand a
chance of claiming the ultimate
accolade. Garry Kasparov is one of
them.
In many sports, the greatest player
is not necessarily the one with the best
competitive record. Muhammad Ali
lost a couple of fights and was floored
on a few occasions, most notably by
Henry Cooper. A few boxers have a
better record than the former Cassius
Clay, and yet Ali is considered the
greatest heavyweight fighter of all
time. There are many who think that
Garry Kasparov was the greatest in
chess. Others consider that Robert
Fischer at his best was slightly the
more dominant player. There will
always be a debate as to which of
these two was greater. What is indis-
putable is that Kasparov completed
the most successful competitive career
ever, as he was undoubtedly the best
player in the world for the longest
period of time, Garry gained the title
of World Champion from Karpov in
1985. He was ranked world number
one for two decades - a record that is
probably unparalleled in any other
sport. Moreover, not only was his
level of performance impressive, his
style of play too was as aggressive and
entertaining as could be imagined.
When this book was completed and
only the editing remained, we heard
the sad news that Kasparov had
announced his retirement. There
would be no more masterpieces over
the board, at least in regular games.
He had already produced such a rich
collection of games that it was indeed
a privilege and a challenge to review
5
them in detail. They are well known to
the public, and many in fact have been
analysed before. However, no anth-
ology has yet been published dealing
with the same period as the present
book. There have been many books
written about many great players, but
this one attempts to go into a degree
of detail that very few have attempted
before. Collectively, the games pro-
vide a new and interesting picture of
the Champion who becomes the
successor to his 'Great Predecessors'.
This book covers Garry's career
from 1993 to 1998. These were some
of his most inventive years. In the new
millennium he still produced a number
of astonishing games, but not with
quite the same frequency as in the
period marked by the matches against
Short and Anand, and by super-
tournaments such as Linares and Wijk
aan Zee. A second volume, covering
1999-2005, is also nearing com-
pletion.
Whereas in 1993 computer chess
programs were relatively weak, it is
interesting now to place some of
Garry's positions under the combined
scrutiny of human and computer.
Most of his own analyses, published at
the time when the games were played,
were documented with the aid of
symbols and accepted conventions,
but written text offers a more access-
ible elucidation of his art.
The book is very much a chess
book. Kasparov's political and chess-
political activities are not discussed.
Nor will there be any attempt to deal
with his personal life, although those
topics too would have been captiv-
ating. On the Internet you can dis-
cover Garry's opinions on the Roman
Empire, but while such matters are
Introduction
enlightening, they are not relevant to
this book. Incidentally, if you search
for Garry's name on the Internet, most
of the available sites relate to his
computer matches. This is a little sad,
as the chess community ought to
remember him for his splendid games
and results in human tournaments, not
his less appealing computer chess
activities. The gems he produced
should be treasures on permanent
display.
In the process of compiling our
analyses, many things came as a sur-
prise. Here are two examples. First,
Garry's predilection for play on the
flanks, notably along the h-file, had
not been recognized before. Secondly,
while Fischer's amazing run of
victories is well known, Kasparov's
own best undefeated sequence of 63
games (from round 10 at Wijk aan Zee
1999, to the second game of the
Kramnik match) has been less well
documented!
These and other surprises led to
some fundamental changes in our
approach to the material. After
working on a shortish list of 40
games, we realized we had already
written enough to fill one book.
Batsford kindly agreed to extend their
commitment to two volumes. I then
altered the scope of the work
by providing almost game-by-game
descriptions of Garry's tournament
performances during this phase of his
career. This provides a more realistic
impression of the environment and the
sporting factors that are involved.
One important topic emerged more
clearly during the process of study and
writing. It concerned the necessity for
professional players to protect and
even hide the fruits of long hours of
opening preparation. Chess has its
own vaults of highly confidential and
secret material. One wonders what
new surprises might have emerged
from these vaults if Garry had not
6
decided to retire. Will anyone else
become a beneficiary of this treasure
trove?
We hope to have avoided one
pitfall. Kasparov is a chess giant, and
the various elements of his play are
very hard to judge objectively. Yet we
have not tried to elevate his status
gratuitously. We cannot make him
into a larger figure than he is in
reality.
The 'I' in this book refers to Tibor
Karolyi, the chief author and also a
junior chess trainer. Earlier I spent a
dozen years as a professional player
travelling to tournaments and spend-
ing considerable time with other
chessplayers, but mainly with those
from England and the Soviet Union.
Garry was a participant in some of
those early tournaments - indeed he
was an opponent in one game played
some twenty-five years ago. This
contact with the chess world has made
it possible to share some relevant
experiences. The culture, including
chess culture, of my native Hungary
appears to lie somewhere in between
its English and Russian counterparts.
The co-author, Nick Aplin, has
no such professional connections
with chess, but as a long-standing
enthusiast and periodically a manager
of junior and senior chess teams
travelling from Singapore, he feels a
close attachment to the game. For
him, the study of Kasparov's games
was one thing that helped him in his
efforts to stay on terms with a fast
improving twelve-year-old son! It so
happens that the twenty-year period of
Garry's dominance coincides with the
duration of Nick's permanent resid-
ence in Singapore.
For a short while I was faced with a
dilemma: whether or not to contact
Garry personally about the book.
Naturally a time will come when he
documents his own perceptions of the

games, and the resulting anthology
will doubtless have a unique
approach. In the end, no contact was
made with him. It is clear from
experience that it is not in the personal
interest of the top players to have
someone else analysing their games.
From their viewpoint it is unfortunate
that they have no copyright on their
masterpieces like music composers.
They no doubt feel that when it comes
to analysing a chess career, it is better
for the material to remain in their own
domain. On a related note, it would be
surprising to hear that all the living
World Champions were delighted at
Garry writing books about them. If a
player is active, a highly detailed book
might provide useful information and
ammunition for his rivals, saving them
energy in the discovery of ideas and
tactical nuances.
Garry may not fully appreciate
some of the observations in our book,
even though their purpopse is to
7
Introduction
explain and celebrate his magnificent
play. Hopefully, as he loves chess, he
will be happy about the result and
agree that his games deserve searching
and sometimes critical scrutiny. He
must know that there is so much to
learn from him. Our general attitude is
that controversial opinions and even
misjudgements in analysis can stim-
ulate future commentators and make
positive contributions to our under-
standing and enjoyment of chess.
Significantly, Garry's games re-
mind me of the work of the great
Russian painter Surikov. In particular,
Surikov's masterpiece The Boyarin
Morozova creates the same intense
impression of exceptional artistic
value and power as Kasparov's magic
art. His games reveal the touch of the
chess genius and will remain in your
consciousness for the rest of your life.
Do not miss this experience - but
remember, sometimes you may think
you are dreaming!
 Symbols
+ check
;l; slight advantage for White
=+= slight advantage for Black
clear advantage for White
+ clear advantage for Black
+- decisive advantage for White
-+ decisive advantage for Black
equal game
good move
!! excellent move
!? move deserving attention
?! dubious move
? weak move
?? blunder

8
 1993
Garry Kasparov had captured the
world crown in 1985 at the age of 22.
Since that victory he had been sole
winner in ten of the eighteen major
tournaments he had contested. He had
shared fIrst place in another fIve of
those events. When Vassily Ivanchuk
won the 1991 Linares tournament,
Garry's winning record stretched back
9 years and 9 months. His worst result
came later in 1991 when he shared
third and fourth places in the Euwe
Memorial. It was there that Valery
Salov and Nigel Short scored three
wins each to Garry's two.
We join Kasparov's career two
years later, in 1993, as he was about to
face the challenger Nigel Short. The
Englishman was riding high on
impressive victories in the Candidates
series, and had the lUXury of home
advantage. The World Champion was
30 years old at the time, maybe the
best age for a man who has
accumulated considerable competitive
wisdom and energy. Incidentally,
1993 was to be the last year in which
the chess world had only one reigning
World Champion.
Garry had been the dominant player
since becoming the world's youngest-
ever World Chess Champion by
defeating Karpov. He not only
defended his title against Karpov in
three matches in a row but also
achieved better results in round-robin
tournaments than his illustrious pre-
decessor. Garry's last match against
the Russian ex-World Champion in
1990 had fInished with a score of
12:11, or4 wins to 3.
Garry's record during the fIrst three
years of the 1990s had been
impressive. The inability of his rivals
to beat him makes the point very
9
emphatically. In 1990 he lost just one
game - to Gulko. In 1991 he lost only
two 'regular' games - one to Ivanchuk
and one to Anand - as well as one
rapid game to Timman. In 1992, he
lost 3 games in all: to Anand, Kamsky
and HUbner. The loss to Anand was a
rapid game in the Paris Immopar fmal,
where Garry still managed to beat the
Indian grandmaster 3:1. In 1993, up
until the title match, he lost just one
rapid game to Michael Adams; that
was all.
As the reigning champion from
1985 until the Short match, Garry
played a total of 362 games and
registered a plus score - in some cases
a huge one - against all the top
professionals. He lost only 19 regular
games with Black and only 4 with
White. Of the 23 losses, only nine
were in round-robin tournaments. He
won 99 games with White and 68 with
Black.
In rapid chess he won 10 with Black
and lost only 4, while with the white
pieces his record was even more
impressive - he won 14 and lost only
one out of 3 7 games.
Kasparov holds many records, but
perhaps his greatest achievement is
that he has been the dominant player
for the longest period of time - at least
in the twentieth century. Emanuel
Lasker was not active in competitions
throughout his tenure of the World
Championship. Jose Raoul Capa-
blanca cannot be judged on his play
during World War I. He held the
world crown from 1921 to 1927.
Alexander Alekhine was the best from
1927-28 until 1934, but from 1935
until he regained his title from Max
Euwe two years later, he did not win a
single major tournament. Nobody
1993
established any form of domination in
that period, and then the development
of chess champions was held back by
World War II. Mikhail Botvinnik was
convincingly the best in 1948, but in
the 1950s he was just one of the
leading players along with Vassily
Smyslov and David Bronstein.
In the 1960s no one really domin-
ated, although if you had to pick one
player it would probably be Boris
Spassky rather than Tigran Petrosian
or Mikhail Tal. Bobby Fischer took
over for a period, but withdrew
mysteriously after 1972. Anatoly
Karpov was demonstrably the best
player from 1975 until 1985.
In comparison with these eminent
players Kasparov was the undisputed
star from 1985 until 1998 - a period
of nearly fourteen years. Viswanathan
Anand achieved superior results in
1998, but it was just for a single year;
Kasparov regained the mantle in 1999.
In 2000 Garry lost the title, so it
cannot be said that he produced the
best results that year. Then he came
back in 2001 as clearly the best.
Nobody matched his results. His
magic lasted until the end of 2002
with the annual Linares battle.
Since then his results have been no
worse than those of his rivals, and
indeed few of them can come close to
matching him. His performance in the
Bled Olympiad in 2002, where he
scored 71h. out of nine, was magical.
That said, Kasparov now no longer
shows himself to be indisputably the
best individual player on a year-by-
year basis.
One other point needs to be made
about his achievements: none of the
previous World Champions played
against such strong opposition. All
Kasparov's games are against chess
professionals, and the vast majority of
them have been against the top 25
players.
Nigel Short had surmounted many a
10
tough obstacle on his way to the title
match. He qualified from the Inter-
zonal in Manila when he had to beat
Mikhail Gurevich with Black, then
went on to win matches against the
very strong grandmasters Jonathan
Speelman and Boris Gelfand. After
that he eliminated the still mighty
Karpov, who was ranked number two
in the world. His score with White in
that match was outstanding: 41h. out of
five. In the World Championship
Candidates final, Nigel faced Jan
Timman. Again his performances with
White were generally incisive, and
they provided him with the plus score
that enabled him to meet Kasparov.
Nigel had needed skill and toughness
at critical moments in these matches,
and gained valuable experience from
them.
Virtually nobody gave Short any
chance at all against Kasparov, such
was the latter's dominance. Never-
theless, most games in the match were
extremely tense battles. The best of
them were very exciting and enter-
taining.
Kasparov-Short: The PCA
World Championship Final
FIDE was unable to raise a good
enough prize fund for the match. In
response, the Champion and
challenger broke away and est-
ablished a new organization. They
managed to raise one of the biggest
sums that had ever been made
available for a championship, though
this still fell short of the Fischer-
Spassky re-match of 1992. It seems
that a prize fund to the Champion'S
liking can only be found easily if a
Western player is involved. Such is
the sad reality.
The match took place in London
and attracted huge media attention.
Kasparov was a very clear favourite,

particularly as the draw gave him
White in the first game. He began the
match with what proved to be an
exciting and memorable encounter.
Game 1
G.Kasparov (2805) White
N.Short (2655) Black
PCA World Championship
(151 game), London 1993
Ruy Lopez [C88]
I e4
When facing an opponent who may
play any of several alternative open-
ings, you tend to rely on a narrow
range of preferences. Deep down
Nigel must have been uncertain about
Kasparov's first move, even though he
must have been well prepared for both
1 e4 and 1 d4. In his teenage years,
Garry had opened more often than not
with 1 d4 or 1 c4, and rarely with the
king's pawn. By 1993, he was playing
1 e4 more often than the closed
openings. In the Linares tournament
just before the PCA World Champ-
ionship in London, the last five
opponents in his games with White
were Bareev, Timman, Anand,
Gelfand and Kamsky. Of this group,
Anand did best - he lost in 65 moves!
The only game Garry lost with White
in the early 1990s was in the 1991192
Reggio Emilia tournament. He won
far more often with White than he
drew. Truly a remarkable perform-
ance.
1.. e5
Nigel's main weapon up to this
point in his career had been the
French. He clejlfly felt that it might be
too obvious a target - Kasparov would
have prepared himself for it extremely
well. In fact, Garry had had excellent
results against the French, winning 5
games out of 5 in 1992. Preparing a
new option in the Sicilian would have
been a risky venture. Consequently,
1... e5 was no surprise. Nigel
11
1993
obviously felt'that this opening would
make all the difference for him.
2 ctJt3 ctJc6 3 it b5
The variation 3 d4 exd4 4 ctJxd4
itc5 5 ite3 ctJf6 6 c3 ctJge7 7 itc4
0-0 8 0-0 itb6 9 ctJc2 d6 had been
played between the same opponents at
Linares 1992. Garry went on to win
that game as well.
3...a6 4 ita4 ctJf6 5 0-0 ~e7 6 l:el
b5 7 .tb3 0-0
Nigel's main variation in the Ruy
Lopez is usually the Zaitsev or else
7... d6 8 c3 0-0 9 d4 ctJd7. In 1991,
however, he had started to play the
Marshall Attack and used it with some
success; he had drawn all his games
against very strong grandmasters like
Karpov, Anand and Timman.
8a4
Interestingly, Kasparov had not
played this variation before the
present match. Later he became very
successful with it, conceding only two
draws out of 8 games and even
beating such a resolute player as Leko.
The Marshall would have arisen
after 8 c3 d5. It's quite remarkable
that in Garry's career this opening had
not occurred before in a game with
either colour. Was this purely by
chance, or by design?
8... b4
Avoiding the danger of a prepared
variation. In Anand-Short, Amsterdam
1992, Nigel had played differently
with 8 ...itb7. The continuation was
9 d3 d6 10 ctJc3 ctJa5 11 ~a2 b4
12 ctJe2l:tb8 13 ctJg3 c5 14 ctJf5 itc8
15 ctJe3 ~e6 16 Ji.d2 ctJe8 17 Ji.xe6
fxe6 18 c3 ctJc6 19 ctJc4 ctJc7 20 ite3
Ji. f6 21 lIc 1 bxc3 22 bxc3 d5
23 ctJcd2 ite7. This long game fmally
ended in a draw.
9d3
In My Great Predecessors, Garry
indicates that Yefim Geller helped
him prepare this particular line.
9..d6 10 a5 ~e6
This looks the most natural reply.
1993
Black can also play 1O ....Jtg4 or
10 .. J:Ib8.
11 ttJbd2
11 i.c4 is possible; Nigel was to
face that move 9 years later. There
followed 1 L.~c8 12 ttJbd2 l::ie8
13 ttJfl ttJd8 14 i.g5 i.xc4 15 dxc4
ttJe6 16 i.xf6 i.xf6 17 ttJe3 l::ib8
18 ttJd5 i.d8 19 ~d2, and Black
went on to lose a complicated game
(Stefansson-Short, 2nd match game,
Reykjavik 2002).
11 ...lIb8 12 i.c4! ~c8
It is natural to develop rather than
help your opponent's development.
The simpler 12 ... i.xc4 13 ttJxc4l:te8,
followed by l:tb8-b5, should be all
right too.
13 ttJn
After 13 c3 i.xc4 14 ttJxc4 l::ib5
15 i.d2 bxc3 16 bxc3, Black has a
number of playable options: primarily
16... ~d7 (also 16... ~e6, 16 ...l::te8).
13... l::te8
Ever since this game, opening
theory has shifted to the main
alternative: the prophylactic 13 ... h6.
In Leko-Grischuk, Dubai rapid 2002,
Black reached a pleasant position after
14 h3 J:Ie8 15 ttJe3 i.f8 16 i.d2
i.xc4 17 ttJxc4 ~e6 18 ttJh2 nb5
19 b3 g6 20 ttJg4 'it>h7 21 ttJxf6+
'iVxf6 22 .Jte3 ii.g7 23 :tta4 'iVe6
14 ttJe3
14...ttJd4?
12
Nigel wants to simplify the position
and reduce the tension. Players no
longer go in for this simplification, as
it leads to a somewhat passive pos-
ition. If Nigel had been playing the
French, he would have been much less
likely to make an incongruous move
like this. A better line was 14 ...i.xc4
15 ttJxc4 ttJd8, when according to
Garry the position is completely equal
(I5 ...:ttb5 looks attractive too; or even
15 ... h6).
15 ttJxd4 exd4 16 ttJd5!
An interesting situation arises after
16 .Jtxe6 ~xe6 (16 ... fxe6 17 ttJc4 d5
would create an unusual pawn
structure, but Black is probably all
right here) 17 ttJc4 c6 (after 17 ...d5
18 exd5 'iVxd5 19 i.f4, Black has to
be careful; on 17 ...ttJd7 - trying to get
rid of the knight on c4 - White plays
18 i.f4 and things aren't so simple,
though the most he can claim is a
slight edge) 18 i.f4 l::Ibd8 19 ~d2
ttJh5.
16...ttJxd5
If 16...i.xd5 (Black is certainly
worse without his light-squared
bishop), then 17 exd5 ttJd7 18 'iVg4!
and White is better.
16 ... c5 looks like a sensible option,
as it helps Black to build up his
position but doesn't reveal his intent-
ions. There can follow:
(a) 17 ~f3 ttJxd5 18 exd5 .Jtg4
19 'iVf4 i.g5! (a neat back-rank
combination) 20 l::txe8+ 'iVxe8
21 'iVe4 i.xcl 22 I:txcl 'iVxe4
23 dxe4 i.d7, and Black can
neutralize the bishop on c4.
(b) 17 ttJxe7+ l::txe7 18 i.f4 (or
18 i.g5 i.xc4 19 i.xf6 gxf6 20 dxc4
f5 21 ~d2 fxe4 22 'iVg5+ 'it>f8, and
Black is doing alI right), and now after
18 ... ttJe8 Black gets rid of the enemy
light-squared bishop and eases the
pressure on his position. If instead
18 ... 'iVc6 19 i.xd6 i.g4 20 f3 'iVxd6
21 fxg4 tiJd7, the position of the
knight on e5 will provide some com-

pensation, though it's hard to say
whether this is enough.
(c) However, thanks to some tactics,
the immediate 17 iH4! works for
White and keeps up the pressure:
17 ...~xd5 (or 17 .. .lllxd5 18 exd5
.tg4 19 .txa6 .txdl 20 .txc8 .txc2
21 ~xd6 and Black is in trouble)
18 exd5 ~f5 (the snag with this move
is that Black can't afford to E~ck
up the d5-pawn) 19 i.d2 Ma8
(l9 ...tllxd5 20 g4 wins for White)
20 f4 (intending ~dl-D) 20 ....i.d8 (if
20 .. .lllxd5, then 21 g4 again works)
21 l:txe8+ liJxe8 22 ~D, and White
will keep pressing while Black has to
wait passively.
17 exdSi.d7
17 ... ~ g4? would be a mistake.
Black would like to unsettle White's
pieces with this move or even force
t2-D, but unfortunately for him there
is a neat tactical riposte in 18 i.xa6!.
Nigel admitted missing this at move
14.
18.i.d2
18 ~D looks like one option,
keeping open the possibility of
developing the queen's bishop on f4.
However it does not prevent the same
simplification that occurs in the
game: 18 ...~f6 (18 ....i.b5 19 .i.d2)
19 :!::txe8+ i.xe8 20 i.f4 i.b5 21 :!::tel
i.xc4 22 dxc4 d3 23 ~xd3 .i.xb2,
and although Black is still a little
worse, he should be able to hold out.
18...i.f6
Black has to move this bishop
sooner or later. If he opts for
18 ....i.b5, to exchange the light-
squared bishops at once, White has
two ways of maintaining the pressure.
After 19 'ti'D 'ti'b7, or 19 i.b3 .i.d7
20 ~D, he has the edge.
19 :!::txe8+ .axe8 20 ~e2 .abS
21l:tel
The opening is over, and Garry has
the better position since he controls
the only open file. However Black has
no evident weakness, and if he
13
1993
manages to nullifY White's domin-
ation of the e-file he can easily hold
the game. That said, he will need to
play carefully over the next few
moves.
21 ...~xc4
21...\t>f8? is not the answer;
although it counteracts the pressure in
the e-file, it loses to a direct tactical
stroke: 22 .i.xb5 l:txb5 23 Vj'e4, and
White invades.
22 dxc4 h6
Black must defend patiently, and
sooner or later he has to rid himself of
his back-rank problem. Opening the
kingside with g7-g6 would allow
~d2-h6, and exchanging that bishop
would weaken d4. As Fta~nik has
pointed out, a drastic attempt to throw
off the pressure with 22 ... d3? would
fail to 23 Vj' xd3 i. xb2 24 :!::t b 1 i. c3
(after 24 ....i.a3 25 Vj'b3 Vj'e8 26 c3
Vj'e2 27 cxb4 Vj'xd2 28 ~xa3 I:te8
29 ~c1, Black is simply a pawn
down) 25 i.xc3 bxc3 26 I:tb3! and
White picks up a pawn.
23 b3
23 l{j'e4!? comes into consideration,
as it stops c7-c5 and prepares a pawn
onslaught on the kingside. Black still
can't get at the b2-pawn under
favourable conditions: after 23 ... d3
24 'iYxd3 i.xb2 25 lIbl etc., the fact
that Black has gained the move h7-h6
doesn't improve matters enough to
make his position attractive.
1993
23c5
After 23 ... ~d7 24 ~e4, the rook
must defend the b4-pawn for some
time to come. White has a free hand in
preparing a pawn onslaught on the
kingside, while Black's position re-
mains rather passive.
This is a pivotal moment in the
game. By his own admission, Garry
had thought 23 ... c5 unplayable.
Possessing the more promising pos-
ition, he now faces a difficult choice.
He decides to keep the position
closed.
241.f4!?
The key alternative is 24 dxc6!?
With 24 ... ~xc6, Black would hope to
obtain counterplay against the c2-
pawn. There could follow:
(a) 25 ~g4 d5 26 cxd5 ~xc2, and
Black is still alive.
(b) 25 ~h5 ~c5 (or 25 ...i.e5
26 'iVg4WfS, and it isn't easy to
improve White's position), and now if
26 ~xc5 dxc5 27 \iifl <oi7fS 28 iH4,
then 28 .. JId8 29 .Jte5 (29 .Jtc7 l:td7,
or 29 \iie2 l:te8+ 30 Wdl l:Ixel+
31 Wxe I \iie7, and Black is safe)
29 ....Jtxe5 30 l:txe5 d3 31 cxd3 lhd3
32 l:Ixc5 l:Ixb3 33 l:Ic6 l:tc3 and again
Black holds.
(c) 25 ~f3 represents an interesting
strategy. White tries to exchange
major pieces and then bring his king
tod3.
(cl) 25 .. ,vJlic7? 26 .ltxb4! (not
26 .ltxh6 d3!! 27 cxd3 .ltc3), and a
14
pawn is gone. It seems this relatively
simple tactic was overlooked at the
board. You can sense that there was
considerable tension during the first
game of the match. Even these very
strong players were missing tactical
opportunities.
(c2) 25 ... d5 26 'iVxd5 'iVxd5
27 cxd5 l:tc8 28 i.xb4 l:Ixc2 29 d6
and the passed pawn is dangerous.
(c3) 25 ... ~c5 26 i.xh6 (26 ne2
~xa5) 26 ... d5 27 cxd5 ~xc2, and
Black is still breathing.
(c4) 25 ...~xf3 26 gxf3 \iifS
(26 ... l:Ic8 27 i.xb4; or 26 ... g5
27 f4!?) 27 \iifl (27 f4!?) 27 ... g5 (or
27 ....Jte5 28 f4 .Jtf6, and now not
29 \iie2 \iie7 30 \iid3+ \iid7 31 i.cl
d5 32 cxd5 l:tb5, but 29 l:Ie4! - White
first cuts off the black king, and only
then approaches with his own: 29 ... g6
30 We2 i.g7 31 Wd3, and Black is in
trouble) 28 \iie2 (28 l:Ie4 i.e5)
28 ... We7 29 \iid3+ \iid7 produces an
endgame that is very difficult to judge.
Black's position is better than it seems
at first. If White plays 30 i.cl to go
after the d4-pawn, Black has the
resource 30... d5! 31 cxd5 l:tb5 with
counterplay
(c5) On 25 .. .'~c5, White is some-
what better. However, the position is
not easy to break open.
(d) 25 ~e4 (White's most import-
ant possibility) 25 ... llhe4 26 l:Ixe4 d5
(or 26 ... \iifS 27 \iifl, and White is
g~tting closer to the d4-pawn) 27 cxd5
lIc8 28 i.xb4 l:Ixc2 29 \iifl, with
decent winning chances.
24~d7
Keeping an eye on the a5-pawn
with 24 .. :~c7!? would be risky,
though playable: 25 ~ g4 (25 ~h5
\iifS, or 25 ~e4 l:td8 26 ~f5 i.e7
27 ~g4 \iifS 28 ~e2 i.f6 29 h3 ~e7
30 ~dl ~c7 and it isn't easy to see
how White makes progress) 25 ... \iifS
26 'iVf5 l:(e8 27 l:Ixe8+ \iixe8
28 i.xh6 ~xa5. Black is somewhat
worse, but his position is solid.

25 h3 ~d8
A practical decision, with a view to
the gradual consolidation of Black's
position. What are the alternatives?
(a) 25 ... 'iftf8? prepares to swap
rooks (26 ~d3 ~e8 27 ~xe8+ 'it'xe8
28 ~g3 'ifte7). This wish is
understandable, but it costs a pawn
after 26 ~f3! ~e8? 27 l:txe8+ 'iftxe8
28.txh6.
(b) 25 ....te5!? would be a typical
computer move, which many players
would be averse to making over-the-
board unless the situation was
desperate. On the other hand, this type
of move can sometimes equalize:
26 .txe5 l:':te8 27 f4 to 28 ~h5
(28 Ii'd3 l:te7) 28 .. .'~t7 29 'iVxt7+
cJ;;xt7 30 \t>t2 fxe5 31 'it'f3 'it'f6
32 g4 J:te7. In this variation Black
escapes.
26 'ile4
26... h5!
This prevents White from gaining
space, though it also slightly weakens
Black's own king.
27l:te2 g6
Tony Miles's recommendation was
27 ...h4. It isn't a move you would like
to make voluntarily, but it was
possibly better than the one played in
the game. At this point both players
were already short of time.
28~f3..tg7
If 28 ... ~f5, then 29 ~e4! keeps up
the pressure.
15
1993
It would be very risky for Black to
pin any hopes on obtaining perpetual
check in the difficult queen ending
after 28 ... 'it'g7? 29 .th6+ \t>xh6
30 'iVxf6l:te8 31l:txe8 'iVxe8 32 f4 (if
32 'iYxd6 then 32 ... 'iYel+ 33 'it'h2
'iVxt2, and now 34 'iVe5 h4 35 d6 f6
and Black will have perpetual, or
34 'iVg3 'iYf5 and it is far from over)
32 ...'it'h7 33 'iYxd6 (after 33 \t>h2
'iVd7 34 Wg3 'iVf5 35 'iVxf5 gxf5
36 Wh4 White can't penetrate)
33 ... 'iVe3+ 34 'it'h2 h4 35 'iVe5 'iVg3+
36 'it'gl d3 37 cxd3 'iVxd3. Black
might escape, but even with Short's
exceptional calculating ability it
would have been unwise to risk this
queen ending. So many variations, and
in all of them Black is barely alive!
29l:te4
A nice move with which White
gradually improves his position.
29 .....tf8 30 ~e2 ~c7
Nigel may well have been thinking
about taking the a5-pawn.
31..tg5
Tightening the screw. In Kasparov's
opinion, he was already winning here.
31 ~c8
Black mustn't give up the 8th rank
with 3l...l:td7? 32 ~e8. A line with
some tactical justification is 31...l:ta8;
we shall see in the notes to move 33
that the rook would be better placed
on this square. After 32 l:te8 :c8
1993

White is better, but he still has some has a move that would have been hard
work to do to crack Black's defence. to see in advance ....

39 l:.el!! (defending and simul-

taneously creating a deadly threat)
39 ....tg7 40 'iYxd6 .ixal
41 'iYxa6! (this wouldn't have been
32 g4!
possible if Black had played I:td8-a8
Garry knows how to attack! Up to
on move 31; to spot this point with
this point he has been gradually
improving the placing of his pieces; limited thinking time, and with the
now it is time to open up Nigel's king. huge pressure of the high stakes in this
32 hxg4 33 .i.f6?
event, would be asking too much even
Here Garry uncharacteristically from these marvellous players)
chooses an inferior attacking line, and 4l...l:lf8 42 'iYxal 'tWf4 43 ~dl, and
actually lets Nigel of the hook. After White has excellent winning chances
- as Fta(:!nik showed in his analysis.
33 hxg4! ~xa5 34 .if6, there can
follow: Now back to the game, where White
has just played 33 .tf6. There
(a) 34 ....tg7 35 J:te8+ Wh7
36 J:txc8 .ixf6 37 ~e8 ~al + followed:
33gxh3 34 ~g4
38 Wg2 ~dl 39 ~xf7+ .ig7 40 ~f4
and White wins.
(b) 34 .. :~c7 35 g5 (in his Informant
commentary Garry gives this a
question mark and analyses 35 f3; his
conclusion is that White holds the
advantage) 35 ... ~d7 36 ~f3 .ig7 (on
36...~f5 Garry misses 37 1:f4, which
wins: 37 ... ~xc2 38 l:i.h4 .ig7
39 I!i'h3 +-) 37 l:.e7 'iYf5 38 'tj'xf5
gxf5 39 l:i.d7 .t f8 40 l:ta7 is a forlorn
endgame for Black.
(c) 34 ... ~al+ 35 ~g2 d3!
(35 ... 'iYcl 36 g5 wins) 36 ~f3 (White
also stands better after 36 .txal dxe2 34.. J:ta8?
37 J:txe2) 36... dxc2 37 .txal cl=~ This is simply a bad move, but both
38 ~f6 'iYh6, and now it looks as if players were short of time. The correct
Black can survive, as 'iYh6-g7 will reply was 34 ....tg7!. In failing to
capitalize on the unprotected position play this, Nigel misses a splendid
of White's bishop on al. But White opportunity to set up a fortress - a

16

possibility that Kasparov had seen.
After 35 Ue7 kxf6 36 Mxc7 J:Ixc7
37 ~xh3, Black is probably able to
hold the position by doing nothing.
White has no access point for an
invasion with his queen, and it is very
hard to see how he could create one.
35~xh3?
Garry returns the favour - it is his
turn now to go wrong. Instead
35 ~g5!, with its direct mating threat,
would have prepared the knockout
punch. After 35 ....i.g7 36 txh4 tIe8
(in The Times, Garry gives 36 ... ~d7
37 kxg7 Wxg7 38 ~h6+ Wf6
39 J:If4+, and now 39 ... We7 40 ~h4+
or 39... We5 40 ~g5+ f5 41 f3 and
mate follows) 37 .i.xg7 Mel+
(37 ... Wxg7 38 ~h6+ Wf6 39 Uf4+
We7 40 Uxf7+ wins the queen)
38 Wh2 Wxg7 39 ~h6+ 'it'f6
40 Mf4+ We5 (or 40 ... We7
41 Mxf7+) 41 Wg3 l:.tgl+ 42 'it'f3
~d8 43 ~g7+ f6 44 ~f7, there is
nothing Black can do to avoid being
checkmated.
35....t g7 36 .t xg7?
This mistake in time trouble lets slip
a simple win. After 36 l:e7! it is all
over for Black, as 36 ... ~xa5 allows a
spectacular sacrifice:
37 Mxf7! - Garry either missed this
lovely mating blow or misjudged the
rook endgame that arises from
36.. .'''c8 (instead of 36... ~xa5)
37 ~xc8+ Uxc8 38 kxg7 <tJxg7
39 Ud7 Ue8 40 'it'fl. In this passive
ending, Black is lost.
17
1993
36.. .'~xg7 37tIh4
37.. J:tg8!!
A great defensive move, especially
considering that it was played under
severe time pressure. Black is pre-
paring to march his king to safety on
the queenside.
38 Mh7+ <tJf8
In playing this move, Nigel was
refusing Garry's offer ofa draw.
39-..g4?
Kasparov gives 39 Wg2 We8
40 Vj' e6+ as equal.
Fta~nik's move is 39 ~e6!, which
also secures the draw: 39... fxe6 (now
Black's b- and d-pawns will acquire
surprising strength; instead he could
have forced repetition right away,
with 39...,::tg7 40 Mh8+ ~g8 41 l:th7)
40 l:.xc7 exd5 41 cxd5 l:.h8! (active
play with the rooks!) 42 l:tc6! (not
42 J:d7? c4!, and Black forces a
winning breakthrough: 43 bxc4 b3!
44 cxb3 d3 45 liId8+ <tJe7 -+).
42 ... We7 43 tIxa6 c4, when White
has these choices:
(a) 44 llb6? (a tempting move,
which might seem to make White's
life easier than in variation 'b'), and
now:
(al) 44 ... cxb3 45 cxb3 d3 (45 ... tIh5
46 <tJfl l:.xd5 47 a6 l:Ia5 48 l:txb4
l:ha6 49 tIxd4 is an easy draw)
46 l:txb4 l:tb8 47 ttd4 l:xb3 48 a6,
and White holds.
(a2) 44 ... d3 45 cxd3 c3!! 46 l:xb4
1993
(46 l:tc6 l:th5 47 a6 l:txd5 wins)
46 ... l:tc8! 47 l:te4+ 'it'f6 48 l:tel c2
49 l:tcl 'it'e5 50 b4 (after 50 'it'fl
'it'd4 51 'it'e2 'it'c3 Black wins, thanks
to the dominant position of his king)
50 ... 'it'd4 51 b5 'it'xd3 52 b6 l:tb8,
winning.
(b) 44 l:tc6 (given by Fta~nik)
44 ... cxb3 45 cxb3, and now:
(bl) 45 ... l:th5 46 l:tc7+ (after
46 'it'fl l:txd5 47 'it'e2 i:!.xa5 48 l:tc4
l:ta2+ 49 'it't3 d3 50 l:txb4, Black is
better) 46 ... tJif6 47 a6 l:txd5 48 a7
r:t as 49 W g2 l:t a2 50 tJi t3 We5
51 l:te7+ 'it'd5 52 ~c7 d3 53 tJie3 d2
54 We2 and White should hold,
despite the pawn deficit.
(b2) 45 ... d3 46 l:tc4 d2 (after
46 ...I:tc8 47 J:td4 J:tc3 48 f4 I:txb3
49 tJit2 White doesn't lose) 47 I:td4
I:th3 48 I:txd2 l';Ixb3. White remains
worse, but there should be a way
to hold the position. Fta~nik gives
49 a6?!, though after 49 ... l:ta3 50 l:tb2
i:!.xa6 51 i:!.xb4 I:tal+ 52 Wg2 :dl
White has to struggle.
39...\f;e8
At this precise moment Nigel lost
on time! A shocking end to a great
battle (1-0). You could say that
Kasparov was lucky. Yes and no! Yes
it was a close thing, as Garry's flag
went down as well, but he was
probably helped by his previous plus
score (one loss, ten wins) against his
challenger. Nigel is a very tough
18
customer, but when playing with the
burden of such a negative score,
anyone's performance is bound to be
affected. Kasparov succeeded in
gaining an advantage from the
opening. Objectively this was no great
danger to Black, but the fact that
Nigel had to play carefully made him
play slowly. Of course, had Nigel won
this game, the whole complexion of
the match would have been different.
Let's return to the critical [mal
position. Would Black's extra pawn
have been sufficient to win?
40 lWe6+
This was Garry's suggestion to hold
the position, but later he admitted it
would fail. Instead, 40 \f;g2 is a
waiting move that allows Black to
solve the problem of his king. He can
safely place it on the queenside, after
which he should be winning. One way
to achieve this is 40 ... tJid8 followed
by VIilc7-e7.
40.. .fte641 J1xc7 exd5 42 cxd5 11j8
43 ~/?
A very interesting move, suggested
by Fta~nik in his excellent analysis of
the game. White brings his king to the
centre before starting to take the
pawns.
Against 43 lIc6, Black has:
(a) 43 ... 'it'd7 44 I:txa6 J:tf5 45 l::tb6
(45 l:ta8 l:txd5 46 a6 \f;c7 wins)
45 ... l:txd5 46 a6 d3, and according to
Kasparov Black should win.
(b) 43 ... I:tt3! 44 J:txa6 l:tc3
(Kasparov said this was the simplest
rejoinder) 45 i:!.a8+ (45 i:!.xd6 I:txc2
46 a6 d3 47 a7 l:ta2 48 l:te6+ Wd7
49 I:te3 d2 50 i:!.d3 I:txa7 51 I:txd2
tta3 is simple enough for anybody)
45 ... Wd7 46 I:tg8 tJic7 47 J:tg7+ '.tJb8
48 l::hg6 J:txc2 49 '.tJfl c4 50 bxc4 d3
51 tJiel b3 52 J:hd6 b2 53 J:tb6+
tJic7 54 Wdl l:tcl+ 55 tJid2 bl=~
56 J:hb 1 tlxb 1, and as the white
pawns are disconnected, Black's win
shouldn't be difficult.
43... 11/5/

The Slovakian grandmaster doesn't
analyse this possibility. He gives
43 ... Mf3, when there can follow:
(a) 44 J::ic6 J::ic3! (after 44 ... Wd7?
45 'ltJe2 l:'Ic3 46 Wd2 d3 47 cxd3
J::ixb3 48 Mxa6 J::ib2+ 49 We3 na2
50 Ma7+ Wc8 51 J::ia6 Wc7 52 J::ic6+
Wd7 53 a6 b3 54 ~b6 b2 55 a7 ~xa7
56 J::ixb2, Fta~nik evaluates the
position as equal; his analysis ends
here) 45 J::ixa6 (on 45 J:::rxd6 J::ixc2
46 WeI c4 47 bxc4 b3, White must
lose his rook) 45 ... l:hc2 46 .i:rxd6 d3
47 WeI c4 48 bxc4 b3 49 J:::rxg6 b2
50 .i:rb6 ~cl+, and Black should win.
(b) 44 We2! J::ic3 45 Wd2 d3
46 cxd3 J::ixb3 47 J::ic6 rJ;;e7 48 !::!.xa6
J::ia3 49 f4 and White is alive.
With 43 ... J::if5! Black follows
Garry's alternative plan from variation
'a' in the note to White's previous
move.
44 llc6 llxd5 45 'It'e2 rJld7
46 J1xa6 J1e5+ 47 rJld2
And Black has excellent winning
chances.
A dramatic game, in fact one of the
most dramatic first games ever
witnessed in a World Championship
match. The extreme tension un-
deniably left its mark on the quality of
the play. On the other hand, these
talented rivals also produced moves
that proclaimed their status as great
players.
In game two, Nigel played 6 .ag5
against the predictable Najdorf.
Kasparov switched to a very risky line
of the Rauzer. He managed to stabilize
the position, and Short allowed a
standard exchange sacrifice on c3. In
the ensuing endgame neither player
was able to take control. They agreed
a draw on the 51 sl move.
Games 3 and 4 of the match had
decisive results, so we will examine
them both in depth.
19
1993
Game 2
G.Kasparov (2805) White
N.Short (2655) Black
PCA World Championship
(3Td game), London 1993
Ruy Lopez {C88]
1 e4
Garry sticks to 1 e4. I wonder if he
would have been so faithful to this
move if his flag had been the first to
fall in game one?
1...e5
It is easy to criticize this reply. In
the previous games between these
opponents, Garry had rarely played
I e4 and yet performed extremely
well. A Paulsen or a Sveshnikov
would have made an interesting
alternative, because Garry had
obviously had less experience with
those lines.
2 ttJO ttJc6 3 .i. b5 a6 4 .aa4 ttJf6
50-0 i..e7 6 l:l el
The Ruy Lopez main line is a
suitable choice against Garry. The
only problem was that he had invested
a significant amount of time with
Geller in preparing this opening
against Karpov; from his games with
the latter, it was familiar territory.
This is one reason why Nigel ended
up with a catastrophic score of zero
from his first three Ruy Lopez games
in this match. It was especially
unfortunate that this happened within
the space of the first 7 games. After
that, the outcome was all but decided.
6... b5 7 .ib3 0-0 8 a4 .ab7
The early part of the fITSt game had
looked satisfactory for Nigel, but now
he decides in favour of the commonest
line in this variation.
9 d3 J:::re8
9 ... d5 is premature in this position,
so 9 ... d6 is the most widespread
continuation. However, Nigel hopes to
be able to carry out the thematic
advance d7-d5 later on. He had twice
faced 9 ...J::ie8 when playing White
1993
against Predrag Nikolic; both games
ended in a draw. John Nunn has
employed this move with convincing
results, and Michael Adams has also
played it periodically.
Interestingly, Garry doesn't develop
his queen's knight on c3, the most
obvious square.
10 lLlbd2
This is the move Garry chooses
instead. Let's look at two others:
(a) 10 lLlg5 d5 11 exd5 lLld4
12 .i.a2 lLlxd5 13 l'lxe5 .i.xg5
14 .i.xg5 'ilYd7 15 l'lxeS+ (15 .i.xd5
.i.xd5 161'1xeS+ lIxeS 17 .te3 .i.xg2
IS \it xg2 ~ c6+ 19 \it g 1 occurred in
Bacrot-Adams from the Europe
Internet Blitz Championship; instead
of 19 ...lLl f3+ 20 \it fl lLld4 with a
draw, the game continued 19... lLlxc2
20 lLlc3 lLlxal 21 'ilYxal I/:!;V g6+
22 \ithl 'ilYxd3, and Black stood
better) 15 .. Jhes 16 tlld2 lLlb4
17 .i.bl tlle2+ IS \itfl .txg2+
19 \itxg2l/:!;Vg4+ 20 'it'hl tllg3+. This
impressive attack featured in the game
Zapata-Nunn, Dubai 19S6.
(b) 10 tlla3!? has only been played
a few times, yet White has fared
extremely well with it. Ivanchuk-
Adams, Linares 2002, continued
1O....txa3 (on 1O....i.c5 11 .i.g5, the
pin is unpleasant) 11 bxa3 d5 12 exd5
lLlxd5 13 .Jtb2 tllf4 (13 .. :iVd6 looks
reasonable) 14 .i.cl. Now instead of
repeating with 14... tlld5, Black went
20
in for complications with 14 ...lLlxg2,
and after some fIreworks Vassily went
on to win: 15 lLlg5 tllxe I 16 I/:!;Vh5
'ilYd7 17 .i.xf7+ WfS IS .i.e3 tlld4
19 Uxel etc.
Kasparov himself developed the
knight in similar fashion in a Ruy
Lopez against Karpov. The ISth game
of the 1990 World Championship
match (Lyon/New York) went 1 e4 e5
2 tllf3 tllc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.a4 lLlf6
5 0-0 .i.e7 6 J::Iel b5 7 .i.b3 d6 S c3
0-0 9 h3 lLld7 10 d4 .i.f6 11 a4.Jtb7
12 lLla3 exd4 13 cxd4 lLlb6 14 .i.f4
bxa4 15 .i. xa4 lLl xa4 16 'iV xa4 a5
17 .i.d2 l:leS IS d5 lLlb4 19 .i.xb4
axb4 20 'iVxb4 l'lbS 21 'iVc4 ~cS
22 lLld4 .Jta6 23 I/:!;Vc3 c5 24 dxc6
.txd4 25 'iVxd4, and Garry went on to
win in 57 moves.
10..i.rs
10....i. c5 deserves consideration,
seeing that .i. c I-g5 is no longer
available. If 11 lLlfl, then 1l...h6.
11 c3 h6?!
In the present game this move
produces a poor result. Top-level
players have now switched to
11 ...lLla5. Shirov-Ivanchuk, Linares
2002, went 12 .i.a2 c5 13 d4 (13 lLlfl
could be met by 13 ... c4!?; the game
Kasimdzhanov - Onischuk, Moscow
rapid 2002, continued instead with
13 ... d5 14 exd5 .i.xd5 15 axb5 axb5
16 .i.g5 .i.xa2 17 l:lxa2 I/:!;Vd5 IS c4
bxc4 19 .i.xf6 cxd3 20 l'lxa5 llxa5
21 .i.xe5, and after neatly capturing
.i.lack's d- and c-pawns, the future
World Champion eventually won)
13 ... d6 14 b4 exd4 15 bxa5 dxc3 16
lLlfl with immense complications.
12.i.a2!
This move was a novelty at that
time. It injects serious threats into the
position, and it is certainly very
unpleasant to be confronted with it
over-the-board. What is the idea
behind the bishop's retreat? In the fIrst
place, White has completely elimin-
ated lLlc6-a5. Secondly, Nigel - who

has already been playing the opening
slowly - now has to devote time to
evaluating the consequences of ~ d 1-
b3, fuIly aware that they must have
been worked out by Garry and his
team.
12... d6
Finally revealing how many squares
his d-pawn will advance. Nigel
intends to sacrifice his b-pawn. He
avoids 12 ...1:IbS?! 13 axb5 axb5 14
~b3, when Black is in trouble.
Nigel doesn't want to go in for
12 ... d5?!, and we can well understand
why - considering his current match
position, and facing an opponent who
has the advantage of analysing the
position in advance. He must also
have had the frrst game on his mind -
the game in which he was holding on
in a complicated position but lost on
time. Was 12 .ta2 just a great
practical bluff, or does it really give
White an edge?
After 12 ... d5 13 exd5 lllxd5, White
has:
(a) 14 d4, and now:
(al) 14 .. .'~d6 IS llle4 (or 15 axb5
axb5 16 ~b3 :era5 17 llle4, and even
if Black can stay alive, it is a huge risk
to enter this variation) 15 ... ~d7
16 .txh6 exd4. Again, even with
Nigel's special instincts and his ability
to calculate accurately, it would be
dangerous to play like this.
(a2) 14 ... llla7 (a somewhat desper-
21
1993
ate attempt to keep the posItIOn
together) 15 b4! (better than IS d4
exd4, when Black manages to stay in
the game after either 16 cxd4 lllb4 or
16 ~xd4 lllb4!!) 15 ... lllf6 (l5 ... aS
16 bxa5 b4 17 ~b3 leaves Black's
pieces disunited) 16 ~b3 and, at the
least, White is a little better.
(a3) 14 ... ~d7! 15 dxe5 lllf4
16 l:Ie4 llle6 17 b4 l:tadS IS ~c2
(1S .ibl llle7 19 .l::tg4 c5) IS .. .'~Je7
19 l'.:Xe I lllg6, and Black obtained
reasonable compensation in Rasik-
Berzinsh, Czech team championship
1995.
(b) 14 llle4! (compelling Black to
take care of the threats of .Jtclxh6
and .ta2xd5) 14 .. .'~hS occurred in
Rytshagov - Sammalvuo, Helsinki
1994: 15 lllfg5 ~d7 16 ~h5 llldS
17 lllf3 lllc6 IS d4 f5 19 llleg5
(19 lllg3 lllf6 20 ~xf5 is also
horrible for Black) 19... exd4, and now
the simplest win is 20 I:txeS IixeS
21 .Jtxd5 with gain of material. White
missed this, and Black escaped with a
draw.
Nigel had an additional option in
12 ... b4!? This is a somewhat ugly
move as it gives up the c4-square, but
it does save the pawn and keeps the
position closed. It's interesting that
nobody has mentioned this possibility
in the analyses available up to now.
The continuation 13 d4 (if 13 lllc4 a5,
Black is just minimally worse and can
consolidate his position) 13 ...bxc3
14 bxc3 exd4 15 cxd4 lllb4 16 .Jtbl
a5 looks playable for Black.
13lllh4!?
Garry carries out a remarkably deep
plan, demonstrating once again his
inherent talent. However, the primit-
ive approach of simply capturing the
b-pawn was objectively stronger. We
can only speculate on what was going
on in Garry's mind. As long as he
plays professional chess, and especial-
ly if he wants to keep a particular line
in reserve, he is unlikely to disclose
1993
what he really thinks about a position.
Nobody can blame him for that. One
wonders who will be the beneficiary
of such information now that Garry
has announced his retirement.
12 .t a2 may even have been an
over-the-board invention. Garry and
his team may have anticipated a
different approach from Black. Or
possibly during the game his attention
was diverted - he found the game
continuation attractive, and simply
forgot about the simplest reply. Still,
13 tZ:lh4 is a powerful move, even if
not the best.
After the game, Kasparov himself
recommended 13 axb5! but didn't
suggest a follow-up. Tisdall says in
his survey of the match that Black
would gain decent compensation,
while Ftatnik thought this move
simply resulted in a position with
White a pawn up. There would follow
13 ... axb5 14 '*Vb3 ~d7 (Black can't
afford to lose the f-pawn; after 14 ... d5
15 ~xb5 dxe4 16 ~xb7 tZ:la5
17 ~b5 exf3 18 tZ:lxf3, White is
winning) 15 ~xb5, and now:
(a) 15 ...l:ta6 16 .txf7+ wins.
(b) 15 ....ta6 16 .txf7+ ~xf7
17 ~xa6 and it is all over.
(c) 15 ... :i:rab8 16 b4, and Black has
nothing for the pawn.
(d) 15 ... J:teb8 16 ~b3, and Black
can try to triple his major pieces on
the a-file, e.g.:
(dl) 16 .. J:ii:a7 17 ~c2 (Tisdall
doesn't analyse this move, while
Ftatnik correctly gives it a +-
evaluation; White is just a pawn up,
and he will eventually release the pin
on the a-file) 17 ... I:!.ba8 18 b4 .tc8 (or
18 ....ta6 19 tZ:lc4) 19 tZ:lc4, and White
is much better.
(d2) 16...:i:ra6 17 ~c2 :i:rba8 18 b4
tZ:le7 19 tZ:lc4 ~ a4 20 ~b 1 ~ e8
21 .tb2, and Black has nothing.
13iVd7?!
It would have been better to
preserve the bishop pair with
22
13 ...tZ:le7, when White has various
choices:
(a) 14 tZ:lb3, aiming to plant the
knight on a5; but this can easily be
stopped with 14 ... c5.
(b) 14 d4 is premature, as Garry
shows: 14 ... exd4 15 cxd4 tZ:lc6, and
White is unable to hold his centre
together.
(c) 14 axb5, winning the pawn, is no
longer convmcmg because of
14 ... axb5 15 ~b3 d5 16 c4 (16 ~xb5
.ta6), and now Black should do well
with the natural 16 ... c6. He can also
try 16 ... tZ:lc6 17 ~xb5 J::i.a7 (or
17 ... tZ:lb4 18 ~xb7 tZ:lc2) 18 cxd5
tZ:l b4, and there is no harmony among
White's pieces.
(d) 14 tZ:lfl d5 15 ~f3 ~h7
16 tZ:lg3 c5 and Black can just keep
his position together.
(e) 14 ~f3! (the move Garry
intended, exerting pressure on the
kingside) 14 ... ~d7 (14 ... d5 15 ~g3
looks unpleasant) 15 h3 (15 tZ:lfl
~g4) 15 ... d5 16 tZ:lfl (or 16 ~g3,
with some kingside initiative) 16... c5
17 .txh6 (17 tZ:lg3 c4) 17... c4,
resulting in a very complex battle.
14 tZ:lg6 tZ:le7
Refraining from 14 ... d5, since with
only one bishop he will naturally want
to keep the position closed.
15 tZ:lxf8 ~xf8
By keeping his rook on e8, Nigel
probably wants to exert pressure on

the e4-pawn. After 15 ... Mxf8 it might
look promising to secure the king
position and then play for f7-f5.
However, White's two bishops give
him the better prospects; 16 d4 would
be the natural continuation.
16 f3!
This is a great move that shows very
fine judgement. Garry says it wasn't
necessarily inspired by the same pawn
move in one of his games against
Karpov. In both cases the idea was to
bolster e4 and stifle the bishop on b7.
Here is the game in question: 1 e4 e5
2 tZJf3 tZJc6 3 il.b5 a6 4 .Jta4 tZJf6
5 0-0 .Jte7 6 Mel b5 7 .Jtb3 d6 8 c3
0-0 9 h3 .Jtb7 10 d4 I:te8 11 tZJbd2
.Jtf8 12 a4 h6 13 .Jtc2 exd4 14 cxd4
tZJb4 15 .Jtbl bxa4 16 lha4 a5
17 I:ta3 J:1a6 18 tZJh2 g6 19 j3 ~d7
20 tZJc4 "'b5 21 J:1c3 .Jtc8 22 .Jte3
~h7 23 ~cl c6 24 tZJg4 tZJg8
25 il.xh6 il.xh6 26 tZJxh6 tZJxh6
27 tZJxd6 ~b6 28 tZJxe8 ~xd4+
29 '.t>hl ~d8 30 Mdl ~xe8 31 ~g5
Ma7 32 Md8 ~e6 33 f4 .Jta6 34 f5
Wie7 35 ~d2 "'e5 36 ~f2 ~e7
37 Wid4 tZJg8 38 e5 tZJd5 39 fxg6+
fxg6 40 lhc6 ~xd8 41 ~xa7+ tZJde7
42 J:1xa6 Widl+ 43 ~gl ~d2 44 ~fl
1-0 (Kasparov-Karpov, 2 nd match
game, Lyon/New York 1990).
Another way to prepare against d6-
d5 was 16 ~f3. Black must then reply
16... d5, as otherwise tZJd2-fl-g3 is
23
1993
strong. After the follow-up 17 tZJb3
(the alternative 17 tZJfl would be met
by 17 .. .'~ c6) White will occupy the
a5-square - another way of unsettling
the black bishop.
16...nad8?!
Maybe it was better to stop b2-b4
with 16 ... c5!?, although sooner or
later the position should open up and
then the two bishops will become
dangerous. An immediate I 7 d4 in
reply is not so convincing, as White
isn't yet well enough developed:
17 ... exd4 (or 17 ... cxd4 18 cxd4 tZJc6
19 d5 tZJb4 20 .Jtbl a5, and Black is
all right) 18 cxd4 tZJc6 19 d5 tZJb4.
White has the bishop pair, and the
black bishop on b7 is badly placed;
still, Black's activity probably ensures
him a playable game.
On 16 ... d5, White can choose
between 17 b4, 1'7 tZJfl c5, and
17 tZJ b3 when he is a little better.
Garry would probably have chosen to
move the knight to the kings ide.
17 b4 tZJg6
If 17 ... d5, then 18 tZJb3 looks just as
strong as in the game.
18 tZJb3 .Jtc8
On 18 ... tZJf4, White has more than
one way to obtain an edge. After 19
il.xf4 exf4 20 ~d2, the bishop on b7
is almost dead. Other possibilities are
19 d4 and 19 .Jte3.
19i1.b1!
1993
This amounts to a very subtle way
of bringing the queen's rook into the
game. White could also have kept the
edge with 19 axb5 axb5 20 d4
(20 ~e3) 20 ... ~g8 (20 ...d5 21 liJc5)
21 ~c2 (or 21 .i.e3, and it is still very
hard for Black to match this bishop in
the long run). Garry's choice is
certainly a very imaginative one.
19...liJh5
Nigel decides not to wait passively;
the game continuation gives him
better chances. After 19... ~e7
20 ~e3 (or 20 axb5 axb5 21 l:a7 and
White can exert pressure in several
ways, including along the a-file)
20 ....lle6 21 liJa5 (21 d4) 2l...trc8
22 d4, White has the advantage.
If 19 ... ~g8 20 .i.e3, again Black is
passively placed.
20 axb5 axb5 21 .i.e3!
Maybe not a spectacular move, but
still very strong. It makes Black guess
whether exploiting the open a-file or
playing d3-d4 is White's main
intention.
21. liJh4
2l...liJhf4 was also an option, trying
to attack by playing h6-h5 and
bringing the queen to g5 The first
question is whether the sacrifice on g2
is a real threat or not:
(a) 22 :a7 liJxg2 23 ~xg2 ~h3+
24 ~hl liJh4 25 !{:!Ve2 (25 l:tgl liJxi3
26 1:g2 .i.g4 does indeed look
dangerous) 25 ... liJxi3 26 1:cl liJxh2
27 ~xh2 ~xe3. There is no point in
allowing Black so much counterplay.
(b) 22 d4 liJxg2 23 ~xg2 'iVh3+
24 Whl liJh4 25 1:a2 liJxi3 26 trfl
liJxh2 27 :xh2 !{:!Vxe3, and White is
probably better.
(c) 22 g3 liJh3+ 23 ~g2 liJg5
24 d4 (or 24 J:a7), and White will
slowly increase his advantage.
(d) 22 tra2!? is Garry's recom-
mendation.
221:ta2!
Garry's play during this phase
recalls the style of none other than
24
Karpov. Slowly but inexorably, he
improves his position.
22tre623 d4 trg6 24 ~hl
Not 24 dxe5, when 24 ...!{:!Vh3 is a
killer.
24 1:fl would also prevent 'ii'd7-h3
from destroying White's position, but
sooner or later the king would have to
step off the g-file anyway.
24..1:e8 25 dxe5
Garry probably felt that by now he
had made enough consolidating
moves, and it was time to strike more
aggressively.
However, with 25 il.d3!? he could
improve the placing of his light-
squared bishop while further securing
his king. If Black waits, the bishop
can withdraw to fl, making certain
that no tactics will work; afterwards
White can open the centre.
In reply, the sacrifice 25 ...liJxg2
would simply fail to 26 1:xg2 1:xg2
27 ~xg2!{:!Vh3+ 28 ~hl :e6 29 1:g1
1:f6 30 liJd2, and the attack is
repulsed.
25 ... f5 would also accelerate the
end: 26 exf5 liJxf5 27 i..xf5 !{:!Vxf5
28 g4 and White wins a piece.
25..trxe5
As the World Champion pointed out
in his ['!formant analysis, 25 ... liJxg2
again leads nowhere: 26 l:txg2 Uxg2
27 ~xg2 'iVh3+ 28 ~hl! liJg3+
29 ~gl :!:le6 30 hxg3, and wins.

26g4!
Now is the time to deliver the
knockout punch.
26 ttgl was a very promIsmg
alternative, as it stops the counter-
attack. The sacrifice 26 ... LZ:lg3+ would
fail to break through: 27 hxg3 ~xg3
28 f4 LZ:lf3 29 f5 (not 29 gxf3 l:th5+)
29 ... LZ:lxgl 30 Jixgl, and Black is
lost.
26 f4 is quite possibly a winning
continuation, but it would give
Black unnecessary attacking chances.
Kasparov gives the move a question
mark. There could follow:
(a) 26 ... LZ:lxg2 27 l:txg2 ~xg2
28 Wxg2 ~h3+ 29 Wgl Jig4
(29 ... tte6 30 f5) 30 ~d2 .tf3 31 lIfl
(31 fxe5?? allows mate in 5 moves:
3l...~g4+ 32 Wfl LZ:lg3+!!, and now
33 Wf2 LZ:lxe4+ 34 Wfl LZ:lxd2+
35 LZ:lxd2 ~ g2 mate, or 33 hxg3
~h3+ 34 ~gl ~hl+ 35 ~f2 ~g2
mate) 3l...l:te8 (after 31..:~g4+ 32
~f2 tte8 33 LZ:ld4 .txe4 34 Jixe4
ttxe4 White is a piece up, though it
would still be quite a task to convert
the advantage into a win) 32 LZ:ld4
(32 e5 .ta8) 32 ....txe4 33 .txe4
~xe4 34 ~f3, and White should be
able to sail home with the full point.
(b) 26 ...tLlg3+ 27 hxg3 lIxg3
28 fxe5 tLlxg2 29 l:hg2 l:txg2
30 ~xg2 ~h3+ 31 ~gl!! (the move
Garry missed; he ends his analysis
after 31 ~f2 ~h2+ 32 ~f3 ~h5+
25
1993
and considers the posItIon equal).
White is able to give up his queen in
order to stop the perpetual check, and
still has enough material to win:
31...~g3+ (or 3l...Jig4 32 ~xg4
~xg4+ 33 'liif2, and the rook and
three minor pieces easily defeat the
queen) 32 ~fl Jih3+ 33 'tt'e2 Jig4+
34 ~d3 and wins.
26..ttf6 27 Jid4?
The Champion has been playing
vigorously, but this is a mistake that
allows Nigel to stay in the game. Most
likely Garry saw that 27 LZ:ld4! was
winning, but he thought the game
continuation was just as good.
After 27 LZ:ld4 tLlf4 (or 27 ... c5
28 tLlf5, and the attack has been
repulsed) 28 tLlf5 tLlxfS 29 Jixf4
tLlh4 30 Jixe5 dxe5 31 ttd2, it is all
over.
27...tLlg3+!!
By sacrificing material, Nigel opens
up the king.
28 hxg3 tLlxt3 29 Axe5 ~xg4
30lIh2
The only move!
30..tLlxel! 31 ~xel
31 ~xg4?? would be a horrible
blunder in view of 31 ... ttfl mate.
31 ..dxe5?
A very sad inaccuracy on Nigel's
part. He probably thought he could
still bring his queen to f3 later, but his
mistake is a particularly costly one.
31...'iVf3+! was vital. White would
1993
then need to play some good moves to
stay alive, and those moves would
have to be selected from several
reasonable-looking 'candidates'. Also
it would have been so hard psycho-
logically for Garry to defend a tough
position, knowing he had blown a
golden opportunity earlier.
After 32 'litgl dxe5, White has the
following choices.
(a) 33 Ji.c2? J:Ig6 34 J:tg2 Ji.h3.
(b) 33 J:th4?! J:tg6 34 'lith2 l:d6
35 Ji.c2 g5 and Black wins.
(c) 33 J:te2 Ji.h3! 34 Cllc5 (if
34 'lith2, then 34.. JWh5 wins)
34... J:tg6 35 'lith2 Ji.fl 36 Clld7+ 'lite8
37 Cllxe5 ~h5+ 38 <;tgl i..xe2
39 Cllxg6 fxg6, and White comes out a
pawn down.
(d) 33 Cllcl!? l:g6 34 Clle2 'iVe3+!
35 ~t2 ~d2! 36 'lithl J:td6 37 Cllgl
~xc3. Black already has 3 pawns for
the piece, and White is struggling to
co-ordinate his forces.
(e) 33 J:td2, and now:
(e 1) 33 ...:tg6 34 r.'Id3.
(e2) 33 ...l:d6 34 J:te2 (34 J:txd6
cxd6 35 'lith2 f5 36 Clla5 f4 37 .tc2
g5 produces an endgame difficult to
judge; it should probably finish in a
draw), and now:
(e21) 34 ... .i.g4 35 J:te3 :tdl
36lhf3 l:xel+ 37 l:fl l:e3 38 ~g2
~xc3 39 Cllc5, and suddenly White
co-ordinates his pieces and takes over:
39 ... f6 (or 39 ...J:tc4 40 Ji.a2 :txb4
41 J:txf7+) 40 Ji.d3 c6 41 J:tal and
Black is in trouble.
26
(e22) 34 ...i..h3 35 ~h2 (35 i..c2
J:tg6) 35 ... i..fl 36 l:d2 'iVxc3
37 ~xfl J:txd2+ 38 Cllxd2 ~xd2+
39 'lith3 ~xb4 40 Ji.a2, and White's
activity secures him equal chances.
(e3) After 33 ...i..h3 34 Cllc5 l:tg6
35 'ltJh2 'iVh5, White is facing no
direct threats, but it's hard for him to
free himself from the pressure of
Black's aggressive pieces: 36 i..c2
(after 36 Ji.a2 'ltJg8 37 Ji.d5 'ltJh7
38 J:ta2, Black can at least force a
draw with 38 ...l:f6 39 l:tt2 l:g6, or
alternatively play 38 ... Ji.c8+ 39 'ltJg2
~h3+ 40 ~f3 lH6+ 41 ~e2 Ji.g4+
which would really hurt) 36 ... 'litg8
(Garry ends his analysis here and says
that there are counter-chances for
Black; maybe White's position can be
held, but it will take some effort)
37 Ji.b3 Wh7 38 J:ta2 Ji.c8+ (38 .. J:tf6
39 l::tt2 J:tg~) 39 ~g2 (39 'it'gl ~f3
40 'it'h2 Itg5) 39.. .'~h3+ 40 ~f3
J:tf6+ 41 'it'e2 i..g4+ 42 'ittd2 J:tfl
43 'iVe3 J:tf3 44 ~el l:txg3, and
playing this position will be no fun for
White.
32 Clld2!
Suddenly Black's attack has dis-
appeared. Still, he has two pawns for
the piece, and White has to be careful
if he wants to convert his advantage
into a win - for if he loses one more
pawn, Black probably draws. White
has a problem with the position of his
king, and Black has chances of

bringing about perpetual check.
Furthennore if Black manages to
exchange the queens ide pawns, then
despite White's extra piece the likely
outcome is a draw.
32...~d6
Stopping the bishop from crossing
to the kingside. After 32 ... ~g8
33 .td3 .td7 34 .tn, White should
slowly work his way out of the grip
and win.
33 .te2 .lte6 34 '.t>gl ~g8
35 tLln
Garry gradually improves the
placing of his pieces.
35...~g5
35 ... ~f3 was possible. If Black
makes waiting moves and does
nothing, this will eventually result in a
loss.
36 ~e3?!
According to Garry, 36 l':td2!
was even better: 36 ... l:rc6 (36 ... h5
37 Mxd6 cxd6 38 .ltd3 should win; or
36 ... .i.h3 37 l:rxd6 cxd6 38 .i.d3, and
again White wins) 37 ~al (after
37 l:!.dl Ita6 38 ~e3 Ita3 39 ~xg5
hxg5 40 .ltd3 ~xc3 41 .i.xb5 c5
42 bxcS l:rxc5 Black will at least
exchange the e-pawn, with drawing
chances; in this line, 40 l:rd8+ ~h7
41 l:rd3 .i.c4 42 l:re3 is a possibility)
37 ... ~h7 38 .i.d3 l:rd6 39 ~a5 c6
40 ~c7100ks like a win.
36...~d8?
Nigel wants to keep the queens on
27
1993
the board, which is understandable as
he is behind in materiaL However,
in this position it probably pays to
eliminate some pawns: 36... ~xe3+
37 lLlxe3 l:i.c6 38 lLldl .tg4 39 l:i.d2
1l.xdl (39 ... ~f8 40 tLle3 1l.e6 41l:td3
wins) 40 1l.xdl l:i.xc3 41 ~t2
(41 l:rd5 c6 42l:i.xe5 :ad3 also enables
Black to resist, at least for a while)
41 ...:ttc4 42 J::l:d8+ ~h7 43 Md5 Mxb4
44 :axe5 and Black has three pawns
for the piece, though his chances of
survival are limited
37l:td2 e6 38l:i.xd6 ~xd6
This way Black ends up with only
two pawns for the piece, and his
activity has been extinguished. One
hope remains: his position has no
serious weakness, and it isn't easy for
White to penetrate to attack c6 or f7.
39~e5 ~xe5+
Or 39 ... ~c7 40 lLle3 ~h7 (if
40 ... f6, then 41 lLld5; alternatively
40 ... g6 41 liJd5 ~d8 42 liJe7+ ~g7
43 liJxc6 ~g5 44 ~t2, and White
keeps his position together) 41 c4
bxc4 42 tLlxc4 f6 43 tLla5, and White
wins.
40 bxe5 h5
Black has only one weakness, and it
is deep inside his own position - but
unfortunately not deep enough. Garry
exposes this weakness in beautiful
style. If 40 ... ~f8 41 liJd2 ~e7
42 ~t2 g6 43 1l.b3 1l.c8 44 liJf3,
White quickly invades.
1993

41 tLld2 'itlf8 42 'itlf2 rj;;e7 rj;;e6 57 ~e3 g5

43~b3~d7
According to Garry, 43 ...~g4 puts
up better resistance.
44 tLl f3 '>il f6
44 ... f6 was no better because of
45 tZlh4.
45c4!
Opening a path to c6!
45... bxc4
Or 45 ...~e6 46 cxb5 Jl.xb3 47 b6
+-.
46~xc4~e6
Black is in Zugzwang after 46 ... g5
47 ~a6 ~e8 48 ~c8.
47 ~e2
Hinting that the attack may be
against h5 ....
47..~g4 48 ~dl
Or trying to make Black believe that
White is playing for Zugzwang.
48.. g6 49 ..ta4
Here is the real target. Ever since he
exchanged queens, Garry has been
aiming at this weakness. It took quite
some time and considerable skill to
expose it.
49 ..~d7 50 tZlel '>!fe6 51 ~b3+
Giving Black no chance. Garry first
drives the enemy king back and then
brings his knight to its best square.
51...'>ile7 52 tLld3 f6 53 tZlb4 f5
54..ta4
Mission accomplished. It is all over
now.
54... fxe4 55 ..txc6 ..txc6 56 tZlxc6+
28
57 ... ~d5 was also hopeless:
58 tZle7+ ~xc5 59 tZlxg6 ~d5
60 tZlh4.
58 ~xe4 h4 59 gxh4 1-0
In the opening Garry played
intelligently and powerfully. Irrespect-
ive of how much had been prepared
beforehand, it was an impressive
performance. In the early middle-
game he improved the placing of his
pieces very effectively.
Nigel was provoked into attacking
rather than waiting passively. In the
process he weakened his own
position. Garry then went for a direct
win, which was probably justified
although not immediately necessary.
Garry's error on move 27 allowed
Nigel to play some fluent attacking
moves. The chances he created may
have given him better practical
opportunities, but after one lapse the
flow of his play was halted. From then
on Garry gradually improved his
position and never again lost his grip
on the game. Once again, the opening
was the crucial factor.
Game 3
N.Short (2655) White
G.Kasparov (2805) Black
PCA World Championship
(4 th game), London 1993
Sicilian Defence [B97]
Almost two and a half decades have
passed since I competed against these
two wonderful players at the World
Junior Championships in Dortmund,
but I still clearly remember Garry's
comment on Nigel. He predicted that
Nigel's somewhat narrow opening
repertoire would eventually limit his
progress. Incidentally, the principle
behind this comment is one that I
often applied after becoming a trainer.
Nigel became strong enough to
challenge Garry for the World

Championship - but that same
comment still held good, thirteen
years down the line. Nigel continued
to rely on I e4, and this made Garry's
preparation for the match a good deal
easier. He didn't have to divide his
time by preparing replies to 1 c4 or
I d4.
1 e4 c5 2 lLlo d6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lLlxd4lLlf6 5lLlc3 a6
In his younger days Garry opened
with the Caro-Kann (~f5 variation),
but now he plays the Najdorf Sicilian.
This opening has served him well
throughout his career, especially when
facing Karpov. In fact Garry's play
forced Karpov to find an alternative to
I e4, which he had favoured all his
life! An interesting question is, did
Kasparov have another opening in
reserve in case things went wrong for
him in the Najdorf?
6 i.g5
Refraining from 6 i.e3, the English
Attack, which had brought Nigel a
victory in 1987. He obviously felt it
would be too easy a target for Garry's
preparations, and opted for a different
line which he had only used once
before. Garry had played 6 Jtg5 a few
times himself. Was he happy about
facing it? Though Krum Georgiev
beat him in a wild game in Malta
1980, he had done well against it. So
Nigel is taking a risk. He will try to
crack Garry with the aid of an
unexpected continuation.
6.. e6
In his first game of the match with
Black, which was drawn, Garry had
answered with 6 ... lLlc6 and employed
a new and risky variation to avoid
possible preparation. That game was
drawn. He now reverts to his normal
line. He had adopted it against Nigel
before, and felt confident enough to
use it a second time.
7 f4 ~b6
29
1993
In previous games Garry had used
three different lines: the Polugaevsky,
the early ~d8-c7 with b7-b5, and the
Poisoned Pawn variation which he
chooses now.
8~d2
In Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2001,
White didn't sacrifice his b-pawn but
chose 8 lLl b3. Garry eventually drew
the game although he was a pawn
down after 8 ... ~e7 9 ~f3 ti'lbd7
10 0-0-0 ~c7 11 i.d3 b5 12 a3 l:'!b8
13 l:'!hel b4 14 axb4 l:rxb4 15 '.t>bl
<~ b7 16 ~h3 lLlc5 17 ti'lxc5 dxc5
18 e5 lLld5 19 lLlxd5 jLxd5 20 c3
:i:tb3 21 i.c2 ~b7 22 jLxb3 ~xb3
23 nxd5 ~xd5 24 Axe7 ~xe7
25 ~h4+ '.t>d7 26 ~g4+ '.t>c6
27 ~e2 I:td8 28 ~xa6+.
Against Garry in the Brussels
OHRA tournament in 1986, John
Nunn tried sacrificing the pawn with
8 ~d3, but Garry virtually won the
game in the opening.
8 .. ~xb2
9lLlb3!
A smart idea, though not without
some risk against a player like Garry.
Of course, anything Nigel tries will
have risks attached. It's like boxing
against a heavyweight champion, who
could knock you out at almost any
stage. In this variation there are fewer
forced lines, and Black also has to
defend for a while. Incidentally,
1993
players have been using this line with
increasing frequency.
The main line is 9 l!t:bl ~a3 10 f5.
Nigel was to try this against Garry in a
later game: 10 ... tLlc6 (Black does
really well with the rarely played
move 1O ... b5; a critical position sems
to arise after 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 .Ii e2
lie7 13 lin ~a7) 11 fxe6 fxe6
12 tLlxc6 bxc6 13 lie2 (Garry's latest
game with this line went 13 e5 dxe5
14 .lixf6 gxf6 15 tLle4 ~xa2 16 l!t:dl
Jie7 17 lie2 0-0 180-0 l!t:a7 I9.l:.In
Wh8 20 ~g3 l!t:d7 21 ~h6 l!t:f7
22 ~h5 l!t:xdl+ 23 JixdI ~a5
24 Wfl ~d8 25 ~xf7 ~xdl+, and
Black achieved perpetual check;
Vallejo-Kasparov, Moscow 2004)
13 ...lie7 14 0-0 0-0 15 ~b3 ~c5+
16 lie3 ~e5 17 lid4 (17 lif4 was
Ivanchuk's try against Garry in
Linares 1990) I7 ... ~a5 18 i.b6, and
a draw was agreed in Short-Kasparov,
Novgorod 1995. Forcing a draw
against Garry is no bad result.
Ivanchuk tried going for the win, and
eventually lost.
9..:"a3
As a regular contributor to the New
in Chess Yearbook, examining an
important game in one of my recent
reviews, I concluded that the older
move 9 ...tLlc6 seemed playable. The
position after 10 lixf6 (10 a3? tLla5
wins) 10 ... gxf6 11 tLla4 ~a3 12 tLlb6
~b8 13 lllc4 ~a4 14 a3 b5
15 tLlxd6+ Jixd6 16 ~xd6 ~xe4+
17 Jie2 Jib7 (on 17 ... ~d5 18 ~xd5
exd5 White has compensation, as the
black pieces are somewhat passive)
18 0-0-0 ~xe2 19 tLlc5 ~e3+
20 Wb2 was reached in Guseinov-
Manakov, Baku 2001. If my analysis
is correct, Black can hold the position
with a surprising tactic and no longer
has to play an extremely complicated
middlegame. He continues with
20 ... .l:.Ic8!!, and if21 t'thel (Black has
the same answer to 21 lId3 or 21
tLlxb7) then 2I...tLle5!! guarantees a
30
winning advantage.
10 Jixf6 gxf6 11 iie2 tLlc6
Another game in the Poisoned Pawn
variation between these two advers-
aries occurred in the Tal Memorial
tournament, Riga 1995. In this
position, however, Garry varied with
I1...h5 120-0 tLld7 13 Whl h4 14 h3
iie7 15 l!t:adl b6 16 ~e3 Jib7 17 f5
l!t:c8 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 iig4 ~b2
20 l!t:d3 f5 21 l:bl ~xbl+ 22 tLlxbI
fxg4 23 hxg4 h3, and the game ended
in a draw.
Garry's defensive strategy was to be
'cooked' in the game Luther-Quezada,
Merida 2003, when White played
21 exf5 tLle5 22 f6 ~xc2 23 f7+
tLlxf7 24 l!t:f2 and soon won.
120-0 iid7
Garry employs the most orthodox
moves, not revealing where he intends
to put his bishop or, more importantly,
his king.
13Whl
White also tries to disclose as little
as possible of his development plan.
He retains the option of concentrating
on either wing; 13 lih5 puts pressure
on f7, but gets in the way of the attack
if Black castles short.
13,..h5
In Kasimdzhanov - Sadvakasov,
Samba Cup 2003, the continuation
was 13 ... ~c8 14 Jih5 (14 tLldl !?)
14 ....tg7 15 l!t:n 0-0 16l':tafl (instead
of 16 ~d I!? as in Am. Rodriguez-

Vera, Havana 1978) 16 ...LiJa5 17 5
LiJc4 18 ~f4 LiJe5 19 ~g3 ~h8
20 J::rxg7 ~xg7 21 ~g3+ ~h8
22 ~h4 J::rg8 23 !t.xf7 LiJxf7
24 ~xf6+ ~g7 25 fxe6 LiJe5 26 exd7
lLlxd7 27 ~d4 ~b2 28 lLld5 ~xc2
29 LiJe3 J::rcxg2 30 ~xd6 ~f2 O-\.
The final position is quite remarkable.
14liJdl
The famous 11 th game between
Spassky and Fischer at Reykjavik in
1972 went 14 tLJbl ~b4 (l4 ... ~b2!?
15 a3 J::rc8!) 15 ~e3 d5? There
followed 16 exd5 LiJe7 17 c4!
tLJ5 18 ~d3 h4? 19 !t.g4 tLJd6
20 tLJld2 5? 21 a3! ~b6 22 c5! ~b5
23 ~c3 fxg4 24 a4! h3 25 axb5 hxg2+
26 ~xg2 J::rh3 27 ~f6 LiJf5 28 c6
!t.c8 29 dxe6 fxe6 30 l':'Ifel !t.e7
31 1':txe6, and here the great American
resigned. In Jingxuan - Karpov,
Hanover 1983, Fischer's successor
improved Black's play with 15 ...LiJe7
and went on to win after 16 c4 f5
17 a3 ~a4 18 tLJc3 ~c6.
Another World Champion also had
his say in this variation: at Leningrad
1973, Tal played 14 Yj'e3!? against
Robert Byrne. The game was
eventually drawn.
14 l:te8
Black is renouncing the possibility
of castling for some time to come, but
it is not at all easy to demolish the
pawn chain in front of his king. White
is well placed after 14 ... ~b4 15. Yj'e3.
31
1993
15 LiJe3
15 J::rf3 is Ftacnik's interesting
recommendation. It keeps the e3-
square free for the queen.
15...~b4 16 c3 ~xe4
Garry takes the second pawn, which
is potentially a significant material
plus. In addition Black has the two
bishops, so White will have to be
careful when opening up the position.
On the other hand Black's queen is
under attack, his pieces are not well
co-ordinated, and his king has yet to
find shelter. After 16 ...~b6 17 liJc4
~c7 18 ~adl, his position would be
unpleasantly passive.
17 !t.d3
17 tLJc4 is also possible, though it
provides Black with opportunities to
rescue his queen from the danger
zone. In reply to 17 ... LiJd8 (White
has compensation after 17 ... ~ d5
18 it.d3), White can choose between:
(a) 18liJb6 J::rc7 19 tLJa8 (if 19 it.f3
~g6 20 nael, White again has
compensation, but it's very hard to tell
how it can be exploited) 19...l:c8
20 tLJ b6 and despite having 2 pawns
for the exchange, Back's best choice
is probably to repeat moves.
(b) 18 liJd4 ~g6 19 ii.d3 5
20 l:fel, with immense pressure on
the e- and d-files for the two pawns
deficit. After 20 ... it.e7 21 LiJxd6+
!t.xd6 22 tLJxf5 e5 23 fxe5 !t.xf5
24 exd6+ 'it'd7 25 l:e7+ ~c6
26 !t.x5 ~x5 27 J::rdl, the attack
becomes really dangerous.
17 ~a418 tLJe4 IIe7
18 ... l::td8 is also possible, but the
black king might want to escape to the
the queenside and the rook would be
blocking its way.
19liJb6 ~a3 20 J::rael?!
Ever since this game, players of the
White side have settled for a draw by
constantly attacking the queen (which
apparently can always evade an
attempt to trap it). If White wants to
obtain something more, the only way
1993
is to try to break through the strong
pawn chain and attack the king. But
that is not easy to achieve: -
(a) 20 'iVe3 lDe7 (on 20 ... i.e7,
White can force a draw with 21 lDc4
or 21 lDa8, perpetually attacking the
queen or rook; but he is unlikely to
have more than that) 21 f5 (21 lDc4
lDd5 22 VJiia7 'iVa4 is good for Black,
as Garry pointed out) 21...i.h6
22 ~e1 e5 23 lDc4 ~xc4 24 i.xc4
d5, and Black frees his position.
(b) 20 ~fel!? (the rook achieves
little on fl; despite this, putting the
other rook Qn e 1 may be better)
20 ... lDe7, and now:
(b I) 21 fS d5 (2l...e5 22 lDc4 l:txc4
23 i.xc4 i.h6 24 'iV12 leads to
another complex position, where
White might have somewhat better
chances) 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 ~f4, with
an attack.
(b2) 21 lDc4 lhc4 22 ~xc4 h4
23 :l:.:tad1 (th~ rooks are now pos-
itioned more favourably than in the
game) 23 ...i.c6 24 lDd4 h3 25 lDxc6,
and the position is balanced.
20lDe7!
Garry simply gives up the exchange
to loosen White's grip. He was behind
on the clock, so it was a practical
decision as well. Not 20 ...i.e7?
21 lDc4 ~a4 22 l:te4, and White at
last catches the queen.
A playable alternative, though not
risk-free, was 20 ... <t>d8. There could
32
follow:
(a) 21 f5 lDe5 22 fxe6 fxe6 23l:txf6
i.e7 and according to Garry, Black is
better.
(b) 21 ~t2 d5 (2l...lDa5 22 f5 ~e7
23 fxe6 fxe6 24 lDxd7 <t>xd7 25 lDd4
is dangerous) 22 f5 l:th6 (Black soon
starts to prise away White's grip)
23 lDa8 lDe5 (23 ... l:tc8 24 ~b6+
~e7 25 fxe6 fxe6 26 lDc5 is quite
powerful) 24 lDxc7 <t>xc7, and Black
is doing all right.
(c) 21 lDc4 ~a4 22l:te4?! (another
case where White fails to trap the
queen) 22 ... d5! 23 lDb6 ~a3 24 :a4
~d6.
21 lDc4
Alternatively:
(a) 21 fS ~h6! (better than 2l...e5
22 i.e4 i.h6 23 ~d3, when the white
queen is well placed) 22 ~e2 e5, and
Black is no longer in danger of losing
the game.
(b) 21 c4, and now:
(b1) 21...f5 (2l...kg7 is Tisdall's
suggestion, and it looks solid) 22 c5
(22 l:to kc6) 22 ...d5 (22 ...lDc8
23 lDd5) 23 i.xfS kg7 (after
23 ... lDxf5 24 lDxd5 ~d8 Black can
try to cross to the queens ide, but he
can't shake off the attack: 25 lDxc7
<t>xc7 26 :l:.:td1 kc8 27 ~d8+ <t>b8
28 :l:.:td7) 24 i.c2 ~b2 25 :0 and
maybe White's prospects are favour-
able.
(b2) 2l...i.c6 22 ke4 ~xe4
23 :l:.:txe4 fS 24 lIe3 kg7, and Black
will castle safely. The fact that this
possibility exists shows how complex
the position is.
21. .. l:txc4!
This exchange is forced, but it
comes as a relief as well. Not
2l...~a4 22 lDxd6+ and wins.
22 i.xc4 h4!
Not an obvious move, but a very
strong one. It is justified by the fact
that White has no direct threat. Black
has several options for bringing out
his pieces, but virtually any move to

that end would 'reveal his hand' and
inadvertently help the attacker. This
way, it may be possible to open up
White's king; in addition, the rook can
come into play via h5.
23 i.d3?
Black's cunning semi-waiting move
has confused Nigel, who now loses a
tempo. Maybe he wanted to stop an
eventualllJe7-f5-g3+. It is pure spec-
ulation, but if Garry had had White in
this position he might well have
offered a draw.
23 l:':tf3?! h3 opens up the White
king.
Nigel in tum could have concealed
his intentions by playing 23 Ae2!.
Then 23 ... d5! looks quite attractive.
(Black can follow up with b7-b5
forcing White to wait passively, as
there is no open file to occupy. Don't
forget that Black already has two
pawns for the exchange! Other options
include 23 ...i.g7, or 23 ...h3 24 g3 d5.
Even 23 ... f5 would satisty many
players.) Play could continue: 24 c4
(24 Ag4 f5 25 Af3 b5 is pleasant for
Black) 24 ... llJf5 25 Ag4 Ab4
(25 ...llJh6 26 Af3) 26 v.wxd5 (or
26 'iYdl?! llJg3+ 27 hxg3 hxg3+
28 i.h3 dxc4, and suddenly Black has
become the aggressor) 26 ... 'iYxa2
(26 ...i.xel 27 I:txel ~b4 28 'iYa5
isn't so clear) 27 'iYxf5 i..xel 28 'iYd3
i.c6 29 i..f3 i.b4, and Black has
decent winning chances. Of course
33
1993
these lines are not forced, but you can
imagine how unpleasant they must
have been to calculate for a player
who himself was thinking about
attacking a few moves earlier.
23 llJd4!? looks like a reasonable
alternative to 23 Ad3, but here too
Black shouldn't be worse.
23. f5!
So Garry has survived the pressure
and now slowly takes over.
24 Ae2 i.g7 25 c4
25 i.. f3 was not an attractive
alternative because of25 ...b5.
25 h3 26 g3 d5
It's remarkable how Black has now
taken control of the centre.
27 i.O?
Short yawns. "What's this? The
complications have driven the author
crazy," you may be thinking. "And
it's only the beginning of the book, so
what kind of nonsense is going to
emerge later?" But let me explain. In
Russian chess slang, to yawn is
another way of saying to blunder. The
spectators were certainly not yawning
from boredom. The games these
players had produced in the match so
far had been extremely exciting. Nigel
makes a losing move, but all credit
to Kasparov who turns defence
into attack with great vigour. After
27 cxd5 llJxd5 28 Af3 0-0 White has
a passive and joyless game, but it may
1993
not be over after 29 tLld4 (29 i..xd5
exd5).
27dxc4 28 J:[e3
Prompted by necessity, this move is
imaginative but it falls short. After
28 l:tdl tLld5 29 Axd5 exd5, there
could follow:
(a) 30 tLld4 0-0, and White is lost.
Remarkably, Black castles as late as
move 30 and it gives him a winning
position.
(b) 30 J:tfel+ i..e6 (if 30 ... Wf8,
then not 31111d4 .i.xd4 but 31 ~xd5!
~xa2 32 ~xb7) 31 ~xd5 0-0 (once
Black shelters his king, White will be
in dire trouble) 32 l:he6 fxe6
33 ~xe6+ ~h7 34 ~xc4 ~xa2 and
White is in a hopeless situation.
(c) 30 ~xd5 .i.c6 31l:tfel +
31...i.. e5 !!. Anyone could miss such
a beautiful IIJ.ove; this is probably
where Nigel 'yawned' (31... Wf8?
would be a horrible mistake in view of
32 ~xc6 bxc6 33 J:td8 mate). After
321:he5+ Wf8, White is totally lost.
28 c3
Garry takes a practical decision, and
his move wins the game. He says
28 ... cxb3 would have been a mistake,
but that move actually wins as well:
29 1:xb3 ~a4 30 l:txb7 i.c8
31 l:tdl O-O!! (Garry misses this very
fine defensive resource in his
Informant analysis; another example
of a 'killer' Qastling move) 32 J:txe7
~a3!' A lovely double attack! You
get the feeling that Kasparov's
published analysis was sometimes
34
written immediately after the game,
just putting in what he had calculated
over the board.
29 J:txc3 ..txc3 30 'it'xc3 0-0
31l:tgl
Or 31 g4 fxg4 32 i..xg4 ~xa2
33 l:tgl tLlg6, and again Black wins.
31...l:tc8 32"'f6
l:txc6 34 g4111g6
..tc6 33 ..txc6
According to Garry, 34 ... fxg4 was
even better.
35 gxf5 exf5 36 ~ xf5 'iV xa2
37~xb3 ~c2!
Finally the queen returns to the
centre, after behaving like a female
counterpart to a bull in a china shop.
38 IS :&tc3! 39 'it'g4?
39 llld4 would have lasted longer,
but without altering the result of the
game: 39 ... 'iYe4+ 40 'iYg2 ~xg2+
wins.
39...lhb3 40 fxg6 "'c6+ 0-1
Another very exciting game. This
time Nigel surprised Garry, who had a
two-pawn advantage but a passive
though defensible position. Nigel
avoided a draw, but was not able to
convert his pressure into a decisive
advantage. Garry gradually neutral-
ized the pressure, and when he
sacrificed the exchange he left his
troubles behind. He played this part of
the game very powerfully. In the
previous games he had allowed his
opponent to get back into the game
from an inferior position, but this time
he was not so obliging. Garry may
have made some slight inaccuracies,
but it appears that in this game he
moved into top gear.
But then it also seems that nothing
went Nigel's way in the first four
games of the match; the luck favoured
Garry. If fortune had smiled on Nigel,
the match would have been a much
closer contest, though one feels that
Garry, as the stronger player, would
still have come out on top. Sad for
English hopes - yet the match

produced somq truly great games.
In the fifth game Short introduced a
novelty on the Black side of the 'tVc2
Nimzo-Indian. Kasparov decided to
steer towards a draw. There was
nothing left to play for by move 18.
Facing the Najdorf again in the
sixth game, Short switched to 6 1l.c4.
He achieved a very promising
position, but was unable to break
down Garry's defences. Nigel
sacrificed a bishop, but had to settle
for perpetual check as his back rank
was weak.
In the seventh game, Garry's
special strength brought him another
victory.
Game 4
G.Kasparov (2805) White
N.Short (2655) Black
PCA World Championship
(7th game), London 1993
Ruy Lopez [CBB]
I e4
In the 5th match game Kasparov had
tried 1 d4, but Nigel surprised him and
achieved an easy draw. After that
game Kasparov's team tried to fmd a
hole in Nigel's preparation for the
'iYc2 Nirnzo-Indian. Garry's first
move here su~gests that they hadn't
yet had any success.
1. e5
Either this is a sign of stubbornness,
or else Nigel hadn't prepared an
alternative opening for this title fight.
If the latter was the case, was it the
result of not having enough time for
his preparations, or was it due to lack
of experience? Whatever the explan-
ation, Nigel's decision proves un-
fortunate. Of course he shouldn't have
gone so far as to borrow one of
Michael Basman's openings, but he
should certainly have switched to an
alternative defence.
2 llJo llJc6 3 ..a b5 a6 4 1I.a4 llJf6
50-0 ..ae7 6 l:tel b5 7 ..ab3 0-0
35
1993
So Nigel doesn't even choose a
different line within the standard Ruy
Lopez.
8 a4 ..ab7 9 d3 d6
Nigel is the first to deviate from the
third game, in which he played
9.. J::i.e8.
10 llJbd2llJd7
Playing in a style that recalls his
handling of the main variation with
S... d6 9 c3 0-0 10 h3. Ever since this
game, 10 ... tZ:ld7 has been gaining
popularity compared with the more
common 10... llJa5. The move helps to
strengthen e5, but on the other hand it
relinquishes some control over d5 and
e4.
11 c3!
Garry gives this move an
exclamation mark. In a lengthy
analysis of various lilies arising from
the alternative 11 llJ f1, he concludes
that the position is equal.
11 ..llJc5
11.. .'~:J b6!? is an interesting
recommendation of Ftacnik's. It has
yet to be put into practice.
12 axb5 axb5 13 l:t xa8 ..a xa8
Eleven years later (Linares 2004),
Topalov hit back with 13 ... 'ihaS. In
Russian as in English, the verb 'to
take' is used to indicate capturing a
pawn, but the Russians also often use
'to hit'; sometimes they even say 'to
eat'. The Kasparov-Topalov game
continued 14 .tc2 b4 (14 ....tf6 15 b4
1993
ctJe6 16 ctJfl g6 17 ctJe3 Jl..g7
18 JI.. b3 fi d8 19 h4 would transpose,
remarkably, into the present game)
15 d4 bxc3 16 bxc3 ctJ d7 17 ctJ fl JI.. f6
18 d5 ctJcb8 19 h4 ctJc5 20 ctJg3 Jl..c8
21 ctJg5 h6 22 ctJh5. Garry built up
his attack very nicely, but later
blundered and had to settle for a draw.
14 .te2 Af6?!
A game between two FIDE World
Champions went 14 ...ctJe6 15 ctJfl
ctJg5 (the knight's journey from f6 to
g5 is a remarkable manoeuvre)
16 ctJg3 (or 16 ctJe3 ctJxt3+ 17 'iYxt3
Jl..g5 and White is slightly better)
16 ... g6 17 b4 ctJxt3+ 18 'iYxt3 .tg5
19 Ab3 .i.xcl 20 ~xcl ~g5 21 ~al
(Kasimdzhanov-Khalifman, Moscow
rapid 2002). The game ended in a
draw.
15 b4! ctJe6 16 ctJO Ab7?!
According to Garry this move
deserves a question mark. Such a
comment puts other annotators on the
spot. To me, he seems to be judging
the move too harshly. It doesn't look
like a clear mistake, as the intention is
to bring the bishop to a defensive
position. Later, Garry omits to give a
question mark to 20 ... '.iJh8.
White is also better after 16... d5
17 exd5 ~xd5 18 ctJe3 'iYd8 19 ctJg4
e4 20 ctJxf6+ 'iYxf6 21 dxe4 'iYxc3
22 ~e3.
17 ctJe3 g618 .tb3 .tg719 h4!?
Just as in the first game of the
36
match, Garry stands a little better and
has a slight initiative. Nigel has to be
on his guard. Kasparov suggests that
the attempt to occupy the centre with
19 ctJc2!? was more effective. Then
after 19 ... ctJe7 (19 .. :iH6 20 ctJa3 is
also unpleasant) 20 d4 exd4 21 cxd4,
White is somewhat better.
19. ..i.e8
19... ctJe7 doesn't ease the pressure
either: 20 ctJg4 .i.c8 21 ctJg5 ctJf4
22 .txf4 exf4 23 ~t3 .txg4 24 ~xg4
Jl..xc3 25 ~xf4 d5, Onischuk-
Timman, Koop Tjuchem 1996.
20 h5 '.iJ h8?!
It is easy to criticize this move, yet
so hard to recommend anything better.
White keeps some advantage in all
lines, and choosing the best defensive
configuration is very difficult:
(a) 20 ... ctJe7 21 d4, and Black is
worse.
(b) 20 ... .i.h6 21 ctJd5 .txcl
22 ~xcl '.iJg7 23 ~e3 is a reasonable
alternative, as Black has managed to
exchange his passive bishop. Never-
theless he can do little more than wait
and see how White can mount an
attack.
(c) 20 ....td7 may be best, though
once again Black must simply watch
while White builds up his position.
21 ctJd5! g5?!
The consequence of putting the king
on h8 is that 21../iJe7 is no longer
available, for 22 h6 would win the

bishop.
White answers 2l ... gxh5 with 22 g3
i.f6 (as Tisdall points out, after
22 ... f5 23 exf5 ~xf5 24 tLlh4 l:l:f8
25 ~xh5 White is clearly better)
23 'it' g2 h4 24 I:th I! (Black has
attacking chances after 24 tLlxf6 h3+
25 'it'xh3 tLlf4+ 26 'it'h2 ~xf6)
24 ...hxg3 25 tLlxe5!! (Garry analyses
25 fxg3 only), and if 25 ... tLlxe5 then
26 ~h5. The fact that Garry missed
the winning shot suggests that in those
days he didn't use a computer to assist
him in his published analyses.
Maybe Ian Rogers's 21...'it'g8!?
was the best practical chance. It might
allow Black a wider range of choices
later.
22 tLle3 tLlf4
22 ...h6 might have prolonged the
game, but it is doubtful whether it
represents a viable alternative in a
contest at this level.
23 g3! tLl xh5
At least Black has gained a pawn in
compensation for his ugly position.
24 tLlfS
This time Oarry doesn't hide his
intentions but shows his cards
immediately; 24 'it'g2 looks like an
interesting alternative.
24...i.xfS 25 exfS ~d7
25 ...h6 would not have worked in
view of26 tLlxg5 +-.
25 ...tLlf6!? might well have been a
better choice than the game continu-
37
1993
ation, but White's bishop on b3 and
the open h-file would make Black's
life uncomfortable in the long run:
26 tLlxg5 (or 26 i.xg5 ~d7 27 tLlh4)
26 ...~d7 27 g4 d5 28 tLlh3, and
White is somewhat better.
As Tisdall mentions in his article
in the British Chess Magazine,
25 ...i.f6!? was Michael Adams's
suggestion in the analysis room.
White has quite a few playable replies,
and it is very hard to say which one is
best. He certainly has pressure, and
Black must be very cautious:
(a) 26 'it'g2 (the line given by
Tisdall) 26 ...tLlg7 27 J::thl tLlxf5
28 i.d5 tLlce7 29 tLlxg5 tLlxd5
30 I:txh7+ (after 30 ~h5 h6 31 tLle4
White has compensation for the pawn)
30 ... 'it'g8 31 ~h5. Here Tisdall and
Adams both missed the remarkable
move 3l ... tLlfe3+, winning for Black.
(b) 26 i.d5 tLle7 27 tLlxg5 tLlxd5
28 ~xh5 i.xg5 29 i.xg5 f6 30 i.d2
with a complex position.
(c) 26 tLlxg5 i.xg5 27 'ib'xh5 i.xcl
28 ~xcl ~f6 29 ~al (or 29 g4 ~g8
30 'it'fl l:g5 31 ~h3 and White is
probably somewhat better) 29 ... tLle7
30 l:l:a7 c6 31 g4, and White's position
is preferable.
(d) 26 tLld2! tLlg7 27 tLle4 '.ii>g8 (or
27 ...tLlb8 28 \ttg2) 28 ~g4 h5
29 ~ f3 is better for White.
26 i.xg5 h6?!
The alternatives are as follows:
1993
(a) 26 ...d5 27 tiJh2 tiJf6 28 Ji.xf6
Ji.xf6 29 ~h5 e4 30 d4 (if 30 tiJg4,
then 30... Ji.xc3 31 l:tc 1 Ji.d4 32 ~h6
i:tg8) 30...J:tg8 31 tiJg4 Ji.g5 32 Wg2
~xf5 33 tiJe3, and White is clearly
better.
(b) As Fta~nik shows, after
26 ... ~xf5? 27 Ji.d5 tiJb8 (White has
the same answer to 27 ... tiJd8, while
27 ...Wild7 loses a piece to 28 tiJh2)
28 i.e7 J::te8 29 tiJh4 Wild7 30 Wilxh5
i:txe7 31 tiJf5 l:te8 32 Wg2, White is
winning.
(c) 26 ... tiJf6! would have avoided a
direct loss.
(d) 26 ...i.f6! keeps Black in the
game as well.
27 tiJh4!?
27 ~g2!? i& another way to attack
in similar fashion, though the Black
position doesn't collapse: 27 ... 'i:Vxf5
(27 ...hxg5 isn't a real option as Black
is unable to hold the piece after
28 J::thl; if 27 ... Wg8, then 28 l:thl
tiJf4+ 29 gxf4 hxg5 30 fxg5 Wilxf5
31 i.d5 and White is clearly better)
28 l:thl, and now:
(a) 28 ...tiJf6 gives White these
choices:
(al) 29 Wilcl tiJg4 (putting up real
resistance; the difference between this
and 29 ...tiJg8 is that the knight isn't
taking a square away from the king.
According to Garry's analysis, White
wins after 29 ... tiJg8? 30 i.d5 tiJce7
31 i.xe7 tiJxe7 32 I:txh6+ i.xh6
38
33 ~xh6+ 'Oiig8 34 Ji.e4) 30 Ji.xh6
(30 i.d5 tiJb8 31 Ji.xh6 Wilxd3 does
look very risky, but it's impossible to
see how White can deliver checkmate:
32 'i:Vg5 tiJxh6 33 J:txh6+ i.xh6
34 'iVxh6+ ~g8 only gives perpetual
check) 30 ... tiJxh6 31 J:txh6+ <JIg8
32 l:thl tiJe7, and White is better but
Black is alive.
(a2) 29 i.xh6!? is no simpler than
the Champion's own suggestion, but it
may offer even better chances than
indicated in his analysis; 29 ...i.xh6 (if
29 ... <JIg8, then 30 i.xg7 <JIxg7
31 ~d2 tiJg4 32 i.d5 tiJe7 33 i.e4
breaks through) 30 :C:xh6+ <JIg7
31 ~d2 tiJh5 32 'ii;>gl! (after 32 .i.d5
tiJf4+!! 33 gxf4 tiJe7 34 fxe5 tiJx,d5
35 l:th4 l:th8, Black survives)
32 ... tiJf4 (or 32 ... l:ta8 33 i.d5 l:tal+
34 ~h2 and White wins) 33 ~h4
tiJg6 34 i..d5 tiJce7 35 'iVh6+ ~f6
36 g4, and White fmally catches the
black king.
(b) 28 ... 'iVg6 29 i.d5 tiJd8
(29 ...hxg5 30 tiJxg5) 30 tiJxe5! dxe5
31 Wilxh5 and Black makes it to the
ending, though White's domination is
obvious.
27...tiJf6 28 .txf6 .txf6 29 ~b5
~h7
30 tiJg2?!
Right after the game Garry said
30 tiJf3! would have been decisive,
yet in his Informant analysis he
doesn't mention this possibility (nor

does he append any sign to 30 LtJg2).
After 30 ... LtJe7, there could follow:
(a) 31 d4 exd4 32 LtJxd4 (32 cxd4
ttJg8) 32 ... LtJg8 33 .i.c2 and White is
better, but it isn't easy to crack
Black's position.
(b) 31 g4 c:j;;g7 32 J:!.e3 (32 c:j;;g2
~c6) and White holds the initiative;
32 .. :~e8 would condemn Black to a
joyless defence.
30...LtJe7 31 LtJe3 LtJg8
Alternatively:
(a) On 3l...d5, Ftatnik demonstrates
an entertaining win with 32 ttJg4 LtJg8
33 ~xh6+!'
(b) 3l....i.g5? 32 f4 exf4 33 gxf4
.i.xf4 (or 33 ...l:tg8 34 .i.xf7 J:Ig7
35 .i.g6+ LtJxg6 36 fxg5) 34 i.xf7
.i.g5 35 f6 .i.xf6 36 LtJg4 and wins.
(b) 3l...~c6 32 .i.xf7 c:j;;g7
(32 ...~xc3 33 l:tdl cJJg7 34 LtJd5 is
pretty) 33 .i.e6 ~xc3 34 :t:tdl and
Black's king is desperately vulnerable.
32 d4!?
A difficult move to evaluate. One
thing is clear - it brings down such a
strong opponent as Nigel within a
mere four moves! It is certainly full of
imagination and power, yet object-
ively it may relinquish the edge that
White has acquired. Again Garry
makes no comment and gives no
evaluation, nor does he mention any
other move. The idea behind d3-d4 is
clearly to open the b l-h7 diagonal for
the bishop.
39
1993
32 <t>g2 would indicate White's
intention to play ~e I-h I later on.
After 32 ... i.g7 (32 ... i.g5 33 llhl)
33 :!:Ihl (or 33 ~f3 c6 34 LtJg4 and
White has some initiative) 33 ...LtJf6
34 ~f3, White's position looks
somewhat better.
32... exd4 33 cxd4 i.xd4?
Nigel has wandered into a minefield
and immediately misses the hidden
path to safety: 33 ... i.g5! is a very
subtle defensive move, and according
to Garry it equalizes. Black provokes
12-f4, which would weaken the white
king's position. There can follow:
34 ~dl (after 34 f4 White is unlikely
to trap the king: 34 ....i.f6 35 LtJg4
c:j;;g7 36 c:j;;h2 i.xd4 is safe for Black)
34 ... J:!.e8 35 ~d3 <Jilg7 36 f4 i.f6
37 <Jilg2 (37 J:!.cl c6), and though
White might be a fr~ction better, his
king is no longer secure and it is hard
for him to make progress. After
37 ... c6 38 J:!.hl ~e7, Black has
counterplay.
34 LtJg4 cJJg7
There were three equally fateful
alternatives:
(a) On 34 ...i.f6, an obvious move
to block the b l-h7 diagonal, White
rips the bishop away with a combin-
ation we saw earlier: 35 ~xh6+!
LtJxh6 36 LtJxf6+.
(b) Black has no time to attack the
rook with 34 ....i.c3 because of 35 f6!
i.xel (or 35 ...i.xf6 36 ~xh6+! -
1993
oops, again - 36 ...lLlxh6 37 lLlxf6+
~g7 38lLlxd7 l:td8 39 l:te7 and wins)
36 .i.c2+ ~h8 37 lLlxh6, and Black
can't stop mate.
(c) 34 .. .'~'d8 35 f6! .i.xf6
(35 ...lLlxf6 36 ~xh6+ ~g8 37 .i.c2
again leads to mate) 36 .i.c2+ (if
36 .i.xfl then 36....i.g7; but 36 l::te6
fxe6 37 .i.c2+ ~h8 38 lLlxh6 brings
about mate in seven) 36... ~g7
37 ~f5 (37 l:te6 also wins) 37 ...l:te8
38 ~h7+ ~f8 39 l:txe8+ 'iYxe8
40 'iYxg8+! wins a piece.
3SlLlxb6!!
The Black position is now blown
apart. Nigel must have missed this
when he took on d4.
3S...i.f6
This allows another bombshell, but
35 ... lLlxh6 was no better and would
only have postponed the inevitable:
36 'iYg5+ ~h7 37 ..ac2! (37 f6
also wins easily) 37....i.f6 (37 ... f6
38 ~g6+ ~h8 39 ~xh6+ ~g8
40 l:te4 finishes the game brutally)
38 ~xf6 l::te8 39 l:te6! (Fta~nik's
analysis goes this far) 39... tZ:lg8
40 ~ g5, and White either wins the
rook after 40 .. .[6 41 ~ g6+ or mates
the trapped king after 40 ... ~h8.
36.axf7! 1-0
Black can't take either of the pieces
because there would be a quick mate.
Another game in which Nigel's
loss didn't result directly from the
problems of the opening, but his
difficulties started there and he was
struggling all the way. At one point
Garry let him off the hook, but it was
hard to find the right way to wriggle
clear.
After this game it was farewell to
the main line Ruy Lopez for the rest
of the match. It had turned out to be
an unfortunate choice for Nigel; it
decided the outcome of the match
within the fIT$t seven games. Garry
played the middlegames with great
skill and power, even if some mistakes
did creep in.
40
The eighth game was another
thriller. Nigel took a huge risk in the
.i.c4 Najdorf, and again played with
special imagination. Kasparov defend-
ed splendidly and put up very tough
resistance, but even that would not
have been enough if Short had found
24 ~ f6 instead of the beautiful
yet drawish rook sacrifice. Kasparov
stayed in the game, showing how well
he can defend, but one mistake crept
in at move 37 when he failed to force
a draw with a move that was very hard
to fmd. Nigel responded to this
mistake with an unfortunate move
which allowed perpetual check. Had
he retreated his bishop one square
further, he would probably have won.
In the ninth game Kasparov in-
creased his lead with the aid of some
devastating preparation.
GameS
G.Kasparov (2805) White
N.Sbort (2655) Black
PCA World Championship
(9th game), London 1993
Nimzo-Indian Defence [E35}
1 d4
Garry switches to 1 d4 to throw
Nigel off balance. Nigel and his team
must have devoted considerable time
to overhauling their response to 1 e4,
seeing that his defence to the Ruy
Lopez had been ineffective in the
earlier stages of the match.
1...tZ:lf62 c4 e6
Nigel must have had some worries
about whether the Kasparov team had
found a hole in the Nimzo-Indian
system he had used in the Sth game.
3 tZ:l c3 .i. b4
A resolute response - Nigel opts for
the Nimzo-Indian again. Prior to the
match, Garry had lost only one game
with White in this opening, when
Lerner beat him in 1979. Since this
match he has suffered only one more

loss against the Nimzo-Indian - an
astonishing record.
4~c2
Garry has employed several lines
with White here: 4 e3, followed by
1l.fl-d3 or lD~1-e2; 4 lDf3; and even
the Sfimisch. Of course, his con-
tribution to the Petrosian Variation of
the Queen's Indian should not be
forgotten either.
4... d5
4 ... 0-0 and 4 ... c5 are more popular
than this continuation.
5 cxd5 exd5 6 .ig5 h6 7.ih4
Capturing on f6 is more common,
for while the pin with the bishop is
certainly unpleasant, this piece does
remain somewhat out of the game.
With 7 .txf6 Garry wouldn't have
needed to risk anything. After
7.. .'ihf6 8 a3 .txc3+ 9 ~xc3 White
is a bit better, but not much. Garry as
always plays for a win.
7 ..c5
Both players are prepared to repeat
the opening from the earlier game in
the match.
8dxc5
8 0-0-0 was played in the famous
game from the 1941 Absolute
Championship of the USSR. when
Botvinnik, with Black, crushed Keres
in 22 moves. I wouldn't mind betting
that Garry, with his excellent chess
knowledge, could recite that game by
heart. It continued: 8....ixc3 (against
Mikenas in the 1940 USSR Champ-
ionship, Botvinnik had played 8... 0-0
and lost) 9 %Vxc3 g5 10 .ig3 cxd4 11
~xd4lDc6 12 ~a4 .if5, and Keres's
king was caught in the crossfrre.
8...gS
According to the database, this
move was introduced in 1989 by Joel
Lautier against Goldin in the GMA
Beleares Open.
9 .ig3lDe4 10 e3 ~a5!
This was Nigel's move in the 5th
game, and it appears to have been a
great novelty. It is remarkable to find
41
1993
such a novelty so early in such a well-
known opening. There have been few
games with this move since 1993, but
those who have played it were clearly
inspired by Short.
Black tries to force matters with
lively piece play; the only question is
what can be achieved by his
immediate threats. If White can
defend, Black will be left with a
decisively weakened pawn structure.
The exclamation mark is for the
strength of a move that has stood the
test of time. Eleven years on, it is still
a playable option, despite the efforts
of White players to refute it. Not-
withstanding its success in the 5th
game, it was risky to repeat it now,
after Garry and his team had had a
couple of days to come up with an
unpleasant riposte.
IllDge2!?
This is what Garry had prepared,
and in fact the move constitutes the
main line at the present moment. The
5ht match game had gone: 11 Ae5
0-0 12 Ad3 lDc6 13 .txe4 lDxe5
14 Axd5 (two years later Nigel
played a highly complicated game that
diverged with 14 .th7+ Wg7 15 Ad3
d4 16 exd4 Axc3+ 17 bxc3 lDxd3+
18 'iVxd3 .tf5 19 ~c4 :ctfe8+
20 Wd2 b5 21 'iVb4 "fIic7 22 lDe2 a5
23 "fIib2 .tg6 24 h4 "fIic6 25 f3 b4
26 :ctael :ad8 27 cxb4 %Vf6 28 h5
.th7 29 b5 :cte5 30 "fIic3 "fIie7 31lDcI
1993
~xc5, leading to an eventual draw;
I.Sokolov-Short, Hoogovens 1995)
14...i.g4 15 tiJf3 (with 15 i.xb7?!
White falls too far behind in
development; the game Carlhammar-
Kosten, Villerbanne masters 2003,
concluded 15 ...:ad8 16 i.e4 tiJc4
17 :acl tiJxb2 18 f3 tiJc4 19 tiJge2
tiJxe3 20 'iVbl i.e6 21 Wf2 f5 0-1)
15 ...i.xf3 16 i.xf3 tiJxf3+ 17 gxf3
:ac8 18 0-0, and at this point a draw
was agreed. Consciously or sub-
consciously, Garry was following
Karpov's match tactics when con-
fronted with a novelty: just make sure
you don't lose, even if the game
should end in a quick draw.
l l ...i.rs
Against Garry at Novgorod 1995,
Timman chose 11 ...tiJc6. Before
challenging Garry in such a well
analysed position, he must obviously
have examined it very carefully. The
game continued with 12 a3 i.f5
13 'iVcl tiJxc5 14 axb4 tiJd3+
15 Wd2 'iVxb4 16 lla4 tiJxcl
17 :xb4 tiJxe2 18 :xb7 tiJxg3
19 bxg3 d4 20 exd4 tiJxd4 21 tiJd5
tLd8 22 i.c4 0-0 23 Wc3 tiJe2+
24 Wb4. Timman reached this
position twice in the course of 1995.
In his game with Garry he played
24 ... tiJd4 and gained a draw. Against
Beliavsky in Madrid, he lost with
24 ... Wg7.
Understandably Nigel dido't feel
42
like playing in this particular style. It
may have brought Timman a draw,
but without adequate preparation you
would not normally choose to go
down such a narrow path.
12 i.e5
After 12 ~cl tiJd7 13 i.d6 tiJdxc5
Black is quite all right.
12. 0-0
Nigel was playing slowly, which
indicates that he was already out of his
analysis. Later, in the 2002 Eurotel
Trophy rapid, he played 12 ... tiJxc3?
against Karpov and suffered a horrible
defeat: 13 ~xf5 tiJe4+ 14 tiJc3 0-0
15 i.d3 tiJc6 16 0-0 l:fe8 17 tiJxe4
dxe4 18 i.xe4 :xe5 19 'iVh7+ 'Otf8
20 'iVxh6+.
A game Lazarev - Vonthron,
Germany 2003, went 12 ... f6 13 i.xb8
l:xb8 14 0-0-0 (14 tiJd4 i.h7)
14 ... 'iVxc5 15 llxd5 tiJxc3 16 J::txfS
tiJxa2+ 17 Wbl and White was
somewhat better.
In a game in 2004, Nigel played
12 ... 0-0 again. See the following note.
13 tiJd4
13...J.g6?
This looks like a natural
continuation, yet - as recent theory
has indicated - it is actually a mistake.
Over a decade later, facing the
same variation again, Nigel adopted
Yemelin's improvement 13 ... l::te8, and
there followed: 14 i.xb8 i.g6 (in
Inarkiev-Yemelin, St Petersburg 2001,

Black took on c3 instead; he also
drew) 15 i.d3 :!:raxb8 16 0-0 'iYxc5
17 l:Iacl J::tec8 18 f3 ttJxc3 19.txg6
ttJe2+ 20 'iYxe2 'iYxc I 21 i.f5 Vi'd2
22 il.xc8 l:Ixc8 23 'iYxd2 il.xd2
24 Wt2 .tcl 25 b3 i.b2 26 l:Iel
.txd4, with a draw (Atalik-Short,
Sarajevo 2004).
If 13 ...ttJxc3!?, Black does very
well after 14 ttJxf5 ttJe4+ 15 Wdl
ttJc6, but 14 'iYxf5 ttJe4+ 15 Wdl
ttJc6 16 ttJxc6 looks like a real test;
S.Ivanov-Maki, Stockholm 2001.
14lllb3! lllxc3
In the event of 14 ...~d8 15 ii.d3
ttJ c6 16 .t d4 III xd4 17 exd4 ttJ xc3
18 bxc3 tte8+ 19 <;t>d2, Black has no
compensation for the pawn.
IS .txe3 .txe2 16 lllxaS .txc3+
17 bxe3 b618 'OtJd2!
Not a very difficult move to find,
but a strong one all the same, as it
forces Black to consider the future of
his bishop. The move also defends the
c3-pawn.
18... bxa5
With a slight deficit in material, it
would be normal to avoid exchanging
pieces by playing 18 ...i.g6. Object-
ively that might be better than the
game continuation, but in a contest at
this level it should still lead to a loss.
After 19 tt:l b3 llld7 20 c6 (or 20 cxb6,
and Black is simply a pawn down)
20 ... ttJe5 21 .ta6, Black seems to
43
1993
have very little chance of holding the
position.
19 'ittxe2 J:e8 20 h4!
It is possible that Garry's team had
reached this position in their analysis.
Their good work resulted in what is
virtually a winning position.
20..llld7
20 ... g4 similarly commits Black to a
miserable endgame: 21 i.e2 (or 21 h5
J:xc5 22 l:Ih4) 2l...g3 22 f3 J:xc5
23 J:h3 ttJc6 24 J:xg3+, and White is
simply a pawn up.
21 hxgSlllxeS 22 gxh6llle4
At least Black increases the number
of his opponent's pawn islands, but
what matters is that White simply has
more pawns.
23 e4 lllxfl 24 J:h4 f5 25 J:d4!
dxe4 26 .txe4+ 'OtJh7 27 J:O lllg4
28 'ittd2 J:tab8 29 J:xfS
Now the position is completely won
for White. Nigel does well to avoid
having to resign for quite a long time
29..J:b2+ 30 'ittd3 J:xg2 31 .te6
J:e7 32 lhaS lllfl+ 33 'itte2 l:th2
34 'itt f3 III h 1
This move ~peaks for itself.
35 J:d7+ It.xd7 36 .txd7 'OtJxh6
37 J:xa7 'OtJgS 38 J:aS+ 'OtJr6 39 .te6
:!:re2
40J:f5+?!
Garry is playing to the gallery! A
ticket for the match cost 45 pounds, so
the spectators deserved some enter-
tainment. Garry isn't used to playing
1993
this type of winning endgame, and
although his move wins, his approach
at this point is not the most accurate.
As Jim Plaskett points out, a more
clinical fmish was 40 l:th5! lLlt2
(4o .. Johc6 41 l:th6+ wins the rook)
41 :h2 \ttg5 (Black still can't take
the bishop, while if 41...We5 then
42 .Jtb5 l:tb2 43 a4) 42 .Jte4. In his
own approach to chess, incidentally,
Jim is not exactly the best example of
someone who likes to convert small
positional pluses into wins. Still, his
remark shows how grandmasters are
all-round players, and even wild
tacticians know how to play endgames
well.
40... \tte7 41 .Jtd5 \ttd6 42 l:th5
Itd243lhhl
In Garry's opinion 43 a4 was better.
43..Itxd5 44 a4l:a5 45l:tal
45 J:!h4 (or 45 J:!h6+ <Jilc7 46 l:th4)
is more efficient. Usually this is an
inferior way for a rook to defend a
passed pawn, but in this case the a4-
pawn is still a long way from
promoting. The rook can go to d4,
cutting the black king off from one
side of the bod. Then the white king
will invade on whichever side Black
vacates.
45 <Jile5
46 e4??
For a moment Garry's concentration
fails him. He may have been thinking
about the next game already. What-
44
ever the reason, he commits a huge
mistake which could have resulted in
a draw. This would have been tragic
in a game where his opponent didn't
really survive the opening. Instead,
46 l:ta3 places Black in Zugzwang:
46 ...\ttf5 47 e4+ \tte5 48 \tte3, and
White wins easily.
46 <Jile6??
Nigel misses a golden opportunity
to free his rook and snatch a surprising
draw. Almost nothing went Nigel's
way in this match. When a player is so
far behind, and he has a lost position
from very early in the game, his heart
can go out of the struggle.
With 46 ... Itc5!! Black can win the
e-pawn, and once it goes he can hold
the game, thanks to his better king
~sition. After 47 l:ta3 l:tc4 48 a5
Ihe4 49 a6 :f4+ 50 <Jile3 l:tf8, he
stifles the advancing a-pawn and
draws easily.
47 <Jile3 <Jild6
After 47 ...\tte5 48 l1a3 l:tc5, Black
lacks the tempo required to go for the
e-pawn and then get back in time to
block the a-pawn: 49 a5 l:tc4 50 a6
l:txe4+ 51 \ttd3 lld4+ (51...llh4
52 na5+ \ttd6 53 a7 wins) 52 <Jilc3
l:td8 53 <Jilc4 (even simpler than
53 a7).
48 ..tld4 ..tld7 49 ..tlc4 Wc6
50 <Jilb4 l:te5 51 l:tcl+!
This move cuts the king off from
one of the pawns, making Black's
position hopeless.
Sl...Wb6 52 J:tc4 1-0
White's king would switch to f4 and
force through the advance e4-e5. After
the frontal checks from the black rook,
he would get to g6 and win.
After the fifth game Kasparov joked
that the match was not even, as he had
had to play one more game than
Nigel. He was alluding to the fact that
in that game Nigel didn't have to think
at all over the board; he merly came
out with his pre~game preparation.
Garry react~ to that preparation but

only equalized. In the ninth game he
achieved a winning position right
from the opening, so on this occasion
his own team did the better work.
When fortune suddenly smiled on
Nigel in the ending, he failed to take
advantage of it - a disappointing
blemish on the game from Garry's
point of view. For the spectators a
draw could have made the match more
exciting.
Game ten followed the pattern of
the previous ~c4 Sicilian. Short
played with remarkable imagination,
obtaining a winning position. This
time it was fairly simple, and he
missed several wins in time trouble.
Garry had survived another onslaught.
In the II th game Kasparov played
the Scotch and achieved slightly the
better ending, but Short held the
position.
In the 12th game, another Najdorf
Sicilian with 6 i.c4, Garry chose to
develop his knight on c6. He
sacrificed a piece and gained some
pawns in return. Nigel's king was
open, but after the exchange of queens
a spectacular endgame arose, in which
Short was a piece up and had an extra
pawn on the queens ide, while the
Champion had 4 passed pawn on the
kingside. It looked as if Nigel had the
better chances, but Black had enough
to hold the draw.
In game thirteen of the match,
Kasparov switched back to I d4. Nigel
played his first Slav, the queens came
off early on, Black equalized and the
game ended in a draw after 34 moves.
Game fourteen was another very
exciting Sicilian. Short created a
passed pawn on d6, blockaded by a
knight on d7 but protected from c7 by
a bishop. He had the prospect of
pushing his c-pawn to drive the knight
away. Kasparov created chances with
his passed e- and f-pawns. Short could
have stirred up almost unfathomable
complications but missed the chance.
45
1993
When Kasparov offered a draw, he
was safe and slightly better.
The fifteenth game was a very
impressive win by Kasparov.
Game 6
G.Kasparov (2805) White
N.Short (2655) Black
PCA World Championship
(15 th game), London 1993
Queen's Gambit Declined [D35}
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3lDc3lDf6
When Black intends to defend the
Orthodox Queen's Gambit, there are
various ways for him to begin, each of
which has its pros and cons. One way
is to adopt the Nirnzo-Indian move
order, and play that defence if
White complies. After his previous
experience with the Nimzo-Indian,
however, Nigel prefers not to repeat
that opening. The move-order in this
game is the one he has usually em-
ployed throughout his career.
Against 3 lDf3 (instead of 3 lDc3),
Kasparov and Karpov tend to play
either the Orthodox 3...lDf6 or else
3...i.e7. Nigel too has used the latter
move a few times, including once
against Garry himself, five years
before the current game. The earlier
encounter was vintage Kasparov:
4 cxd5 exd5 5 ~f4 c6 (after 5...lDf6
6 e3 0-0 7 ~d3 c5 8 lDf3 lDc6 9 0-0
.tg4 10 dxc5 .txc5 II h3 .txf3
12 'iYxf3 d4 13 lDe4 i.e7 14 I:Iadl
'iYa5 15 lDg3 dxe3 16 fxe3 'iYxa2
17 lDf5, Garry's kingside attack
brought him a crisp and significant
victory in Kasparov-Karpov, 8th match
game, London 1986) 6 'iYc2 g6 7 e3
i.f5 8 'iYd2lDf6 9 f3 c5 10 i.h6 cxd4
II exd4 a6 12 g4 i.e6 13 tZJge2
lDbd7 14 .tg2lDb6 15 b3 IIc8 160-0
1:c6 17 h3 lDfd7 18 tZJdl 1:g8
19lDf2 f5? 20 l:':tael g5 21 gxf5.tn
22 tZJg4 i.h5 23 tZJg3, and
1993
Black resigned; Kasparov - Short,
Thessaloniki 1988. Nigel certainly
committed at least one major error,
but the game showed Garry at his
best.
In the 7th game of the 1986 Karpov-
Kasparov match, Garry played the
Black side of this same opening
against his long-time rival, but failed
to equalize. In place of 8... QJf6 (as in
the game above), he continued
S... QJd7 9 f3 QJb6 lO e4 it.e6 11 e5
h5 12 .i.d3 ~d7 13 b3 it.h4+ 14 g3
.i.e7 15 rJ.if2! .i.f5 16 it.fl! rJ.if8
17 rJ.ig2 a5 18 a3 ~d8 19 QJh3!
.i.xh3+ 20 rJ.ixh3 rJ.ig7 21 rJ.ig2 QJd7
22 i.d3 QJf8 23 i.e3 QJe6 24 QJe2
QJh6. Up to here Karpov had played
superbly, but now he went wrong with
25 b4? The move gains space but
provides Black with a target to attack.
From this point on White had to pay
more attention to defending his
queens ide, and this prevented him
from focusing exclusively on the other
wing. This great game ended in a
draw after 25 ... ~b6 26 b5 c5 27 QJc3
cxd4 28 .i.xh6+ ~xh6 29 QJxd5 ~d8
30 .i.e4 h4 31 ~hfl hxg3 32 hxg3
l::tc8 33 I:thl ~xhl 34 Mxhl .i.g5
35 f4 lIc5 36 fxg5 l';Ixd5 37 it.xd5
~xd5+ 38 rJ.ih2 ~xe5 39 l::tfl 'iYxb5
40 ~f2 QJxg5 41 ~xd4+ ~gS
42 Y$d8+ rJ.ig7 43 'iYd4+ ~-~. A
better 25 th move for White was .i.c2!,
followed by a kings ide pawn storm
which would have been extremely
hard to meet.
4 cxd5exd5 5 .i.g5 i.e7 6 e3 0-0
Nigel once tried to free his light-
squared bishop with 6 ... c6 7 it. d3
i.g4, but although this brought him
success he did not repeat the same set-
up again. Vaganian-Short, Skelleftea
1989, continued 8 Y$c2 QJbd7 9 h3
it.e6 lO QJge2 h6 11 it.h4 QJh5
12 .i.xe7 Wlxe7 13 0-0-0 QJb6
14 rJ.i b 1 0-0-0 15 QJ a4 CiJ xa4
16 Y$xa4 rJ.ib8 17 l';Icl l::tc8 18 l';Ic3
l::tc7 19 l:!hcI .i.d7 20 ~a3 b6, and
46
Nigel went on to win this complicated
position.
7 i.d3 QJbd7 8 QJge2
This is the type of set-up Garry
likes. He wants a more complicated
battle than just pushing forward with
the minority attack.
8..1Ie8 9 0-0 QJ f8
Nigel postpones c7-c6, because he
may want to play g7-g6 followed by
QJf8-e6 and c7-c5. This way he he
would save a tempo in that sequence.
10 b4!
Tactics enable White to waste no
time on putting his rook on b 1.
10... a6
After lO....i.xb4 11 .i.xf6 gxf6
12 QJxd5 'iYxd5 13 'iYa4 i.h3 14 QJf4
'iVa5 15 exa5 i.xa5 16 QJxh3, White
is obviously better because of his
healthier pawn structure. Against
Bareev at Montecatini Terme 2000,
Lputian tried to free his position with
16 ... c5, but after 17 dxc5 QJe6
18 l::tacl l:!ecS 19 i.f5 I:txc5
20 i.xe6 Mxcl 21 .i.xt7+ Wxt7
22 l:.txcl l::tdS 23 rJ.ifl l::td2 24 a4 he
failed to obtain sufficient compens-
ation for the pawn.
11 a3!?
Garry consolidates his gain of space
on the queenside before turning his
attention to the centre. The alternative
moves II 'iYb3, 11 a4 or 11 Mbl
would keep the focus on this wing.
11 ...c6

Finally Black gives in and plays the
standard move. Tisdall says that
Il...CLle4 also deserved attention.
12~c2
A few years later Garry played
slightly differently in a blitz game
against Serper. After 12 t3 there
followed 12 ...ll'lh5 13 iLxe7 ~xe7
14 ~d2 f5 15 ~ael CLlf6 16 CLlcl
il.d7 17 il.bl 'V/iic7 18 CLld3 CLlg6
19 f4 CLle4 20 'V/ii c I and White had a
slight edge, but at this point Black
blundered: 20 ... l:t f8?? 21 CLlxd5 and
wins.
12...g6?!
Nigel prepares to exchange the
dark-squared bishops. Later, though,
the weakened f6-square will become a
major liability. Black had several
other options, which all look slightly
worse for him:
(a) 12 ... CLlg6.
(b) 12 ... CLlh5 13 il.xe7 ~xe7, and
White achieves a small plus with
14l:Iael.
(c) 12 ... CLle4 eases the position but
doesn't solve all Black's problems.
After 13 1H4 (13 Axe7 VIiIxe7 makes
it harder for White to build up a centre
than in the actual game) 13 ... CLlxc3
14 CLlxc3 ttJg6 15 Ag3, White is still
exerting some pressure and may
decide to play on either side of the
board.
13 f3 ttJe6 14 i.h4 ttJh5 15 .txe7
~xe7
47
1993
Garry indicated that 15 ... ~xe7!?
would have been more effective in
holding back the pawn onslaught in
the centre. However, White would still
be able to proceed with the advance of
his e- or f-pawns: 16 ~d2 (16 :ael
a5 recalls the way that Garry created
counterplay against Karpov; while in
the event of 16 e4 ~ g5 17 l:tad 1
ttJef4 18 ttJxf4 ttJxf4 19 g3,
the exchanges ease Black's game)
16 ... ~g5 17 :ael (17 ;gad 1 iLd7
18 f4 ~e7 gives an interesting
position in which White can adopt
either of the plans 19 e4 or 19 f5)
17 ... iLd7 18 f4, and White has the
initiative.
16~d2
16 ... b6?!
Nobody, including Garry himself,
liked this move; but none of the
commentators could recommend a
better one:
(a) 16 ...iLd7 17 e4 ~e8 18 il.c2,
and White is clearly better.
(b) 16... ~d6!?, and now:
(bl) 17 l:tadl Ad7 (l7 ... a5! gives
White the same kind of problems that
Garry gave Karpov) 18 e4 (after
18 iLbl a5 19 e4 axb4 20 e5 ~c7
21 axb4 ~b6 White has the upper
hand, but winning the game is no
simple task, as he has to take account
of the action on the queens ide)
18 ... dxe4 19 ttJxe4 ~c7 20 l:tfel and
White is somewhat better.
 1993
(b2) 17 .ltc2 (White does better to
keep his rook on al for the time
being) 17 ... a5 18 b5 ..t d7 19 e4, and
now that White has carried out this
, advance, his initiative in the centre
ensures him an advantage.
(c) Perhaps a better try is 16... a5!?
Then after 17 b5 (if 17 l:tab 1 axb4
18 axb4 ~d6 19 b5 c5, Black's
position is a harder nut to crack than
in the game) 17 ... tiJf6 (l7 ... c5 18 dxc5
tiJxc5 19 .i.c4 ..te6 20 Madl wins a
pawn for White) 18 J:iadl ~d6 19 a4
..td7, Black's position may be more
resilient than after the move actually
played.
17 I.:tadl! .ib7 18 .ibl!
Garry's last two moves were not
spectacular, but they were very
effective preparation for what follows.
18...tiJhg7
This move allows White to swap his
knight on e2 for the one on e6 - not an
easy manoeuvre to predict. After
18 ... ~d7!? White would have the
better prospects, but it was probably in
Black's interest not to allow a later
tiJe2-f4.
19 e4!
White has improved the position of
each of his pieces, so naturally he now
carries out his central advance. He
has truly been dictating the course
of events - a powerful display
throughout.
19...l'Ic8 20 ..ta2!
48
A point of 19 e4 was to increase the
power ofthis bishop.
20...Md7 21 tiJf4!
Garry exchanges one of the black
knights, and in so doing he removes a
piece which is protecting the king.
However, the strategic plan still
requires tactical skill for its execution.
2 L ..tiJxf4
According to the World Champion,
2l...dxe4 22 tiJxe6 tiJxe6 23 fxe4 (or
23 .ltxe6 fxe6 24 fxe4 c5 25 bxc5
bxc5 26 d5, and White is better)
23 ... tiJxd4 24 ~f2 c5 25 .ltxf7+ cJ;;g7
26 ii.e6 tiJxe6 27 ~f6+ cJ;;h6
28 ~ xe6 leaves White with a
considerable advantage. After the
further 28 ... Md4 29 bxc5 l:txc5
30 tiJd5, Black's king will be a
constant target.
22 ~xf4 tiJe6 23 ~e5l:te7
In this way Black keeps the white
queen away for the time being.
24 'eUg3 YJ!Jc7 25 'eUh4!
White obviously wants to keep his
queen on the board.
25...tiJg7
This is a passive response, but
Black's position offered little in the
way of an alternative. Nigel was
probably worried about an attack with
e4-e5 and f2-f4, and wanted to stop it
as soon as possible. Instead, 25 ... ~d8
would have brought some respite on
the kings ide by conceding some
control on the other wing; White's

advantage would of course remain
unquestionable. Black's problem is
that whatever he does, he cannot
really improve his position. It is very
hard to choose the most resilient
defence from the many options that
seem equivalent.
26l:Icl!
The evaluation of moves may be an
objective process, yet there are some
positions which permit no definite
verdict. This is a very effective
continuation because Garry picks out
a new target. It is often very hard to
predict how he will choose to develop
his advantage.
26...~d8
The poor queen is now condemned
to a life on the back rank.
27l:Ifdl J::tcc7
On 27 ... J::td7, Garry would aave two
possibilities:
(a) 28 ~xd8+ kicxd8, and now
after 29 e5 Black will have to suffer in
the ending. (However, the direct
attempt 29 exd5? would fail to bring
Black down; 29 ... cxd5 30 llla4 kid6
31 J::tc7l:Ib8, and Black holds.)
(b) 28 ~f4 (maintaining the
tension). If Black replies 28 ... llle6
(28 ... liWc7? 29 IiWxc7 J::tdxc7 30 llla4
wins), then 29 liWe5 ensures that
White will keep the initiative, even
though Black can still resist.
28llla4!
49
1993
White shows remarkable versatility.
Garry switches back to the queens ide.
28... dxe4?!
Playing on Kasparov's time short-
age, but this move opens up an
invasion route by conceding the e4-
square. If the white knight can occupy
that square, it will spell the end for
Black. On 28 ...lIcd7 29 e5, White still
has a very clear advantage.
29 fxe4 ~e8?
Once Black has taken on e4,
White can tum back to the centre.
On 29 ... J::tcd7, Kasparov planned
30 '.i1h1! which indirectly defends the
d4-pawn. Then 30... c5!? (Black's
position is unattractive after 30 ... llle6
31 i.xe6 fxe6 32 e5) at least gives
practical chances; though after 31 d5!
(not 31 bxc5?! i.xe4 32 lllxb6 lllf5!
33 1iWf2 l:txd4 34 l:Ixd4 IiWxd4, and
suddenly Black is back in the game)
3l...cxb4 32 axb4 kid6 33 l:te1 White
keeps the advantage.
30 lllc3
White wanted to bring the knight
back anyway_
30. J:tcd7 31 ~f2!
This stops any chance of breaking up
the white pawn chain. Now e4-e5 may
come at any time. The alternative
31 e5?! lllf5 32 IiWf4 c5 is less
satisfactory, as Black is still kicking.
31...llle6?
It was simply not Nigel's day_ His
position was no fun anyway, but this
1993
move lets White choose between two
direct winning lines. With 31..:~d8!
Black could have avoided a collapse.
32e5
White is also winning after 32 d5
cxd5 33 exd5 0,g7 34 ~xb6.
32... c5 33 bxc5 bxc5 34 d5
34..0,d4 35 0,e4
The position is horrendous for
Black. The knight, shielded by the
pawns, has arrived to deliver the fatal
blow.
35...~d8 36 0,f6+ Wg7 37 0,xd7
lIxd7 38 lIxc5 0,e6 39 J:tccl 1-0
This was power play again from the
Champion, aQd probably the worst
game by the challenger in the whole
match. The opening was problematic
for Nigel, and though he still
maintained a lifeline, his subsequent
defensive moves were below his
normal level. Strangely, the domin-
ation Kasparov achieved in this game
probably contributed to his defeat in
the following one, as he seemed to
lose his sense of danger. But this
game was a great illustration of his
strength: very strong opening play
followed by purposeful preparation
for the advanc~, and a clinical finish.
It took 16 games before the British
public could celebrate Nigel's first,
and only, win in the World Champ-
ionship final.
50
Game 7
N.Short (2655) White
G.Kasparov (2805) Black
PCA World Championship
(16th game), London 1993
Sicilian Defence [B87}
1 e4 c5 2 0,f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4
4 0,xd4 0,f6 5 0,c3 a6 6 .tc4
In a way Nigel is being true to
himself here, as this line resembles his
favourite - the English Attack - in its
aim of weakening the e6-pawn. It is
just that the attack comes from a
different angle. The English Attack
aims to soften the e6-square by
pushing the g-pawn to g6. In the .tc4
line, White usually plays f4-f5.
6.. e6 7 .t b3 b5
Finally, towards the end of the
match, Garry settles for the most
frequently played line in this position.
He had played it once before, in 1976.
Before going further, let us look at his
other choices.
(a) When the .tc4 system first
appeared in this match (it was in the
sixth game), Garry replied 7...0,bd7
and chose a set-up that he had not
adopted before: 8 f4 0, c5.
From the diagram, Nigel tried three
continuations: -
(al) In the sixth game he chose 9 f5,
which is the commonest way to
handle this position. There followed:
9 ....te7 10 ~f3 0-0 II .te3 e5
12 0,de2 b5 13 Ad5 (it seems this
move was a novelty at that time)

13 ...l:rb8 14 b4 lZlcd7 (14 ... lZla4!?
would have been an interesting
alternative, for if White decides to
take the exchange with 15 iLa7, Black
will certainly get good compensation)
15 0-0 lZlxd5 (Garry recommended
15 ... lZlb6 as slightly better for Black)
16 lZlxd5 iL b7 17 lZlec3 lZlf6 (the
interesting 17 ... l:rc8 occurred in
Sofronie - Badea, Romania 1994)
18 l::radl lZlxd5 19 lZlxd5 iLxd5
20 l::rxd5l::rc8 (according to Kasparov,
20 ... ~c7! gives Black an edge)
21 ~g4 f6 22 l:rfJ l':Ixc2 23 l::rh3
(Short's attack comes close to
breaking through, but Garry manages
to defend his dubious position)
23 ...11t7 24 ~h5 h6 25 ~g6 \tits
26 iLxh6 gxh6 27 Uxh6 ~b6+
28 llc5 iLd8 29 l::rh8+ \tie7 30 llh7
llxh7 31 ~xh7+ \tits 12-12.
(a2) In the eighth game Nigel
deviated with 9 e5. He obtained an
extremely dangerous and probably
winning attack, but Garry escaped
(and Nigel didn't repeat this 9th move
in his next game with White). The
game continued: 9 ... dxe5 10 fxe5
lZlfd7 II iLf4 b5 12 ~g4 (12 ~e2 is
played more often) 12 ... h5 (12 ... g5)
I3 ~g3 (13 ~h3!?) I3 ... h4 14 ~g4
g5 15 O-O-O!
15 ... ~e7? (after 15 ... gxf4 16 lZlxe6
lZlxe6 17 iLxe6 ~e7 18 lZld5 lZlxe5
19 lZlxe7 lZlxg4 20 iLxc8 lZlt2
21 iLb7 \tixe7 22 iLxa8 \tif6, Garry
judged the position to be equal in his
Informant analysis. Instead he recom-
51
1993
mended 15 ... l:rh6!, when 16 Vi'xg5
~xg5 17 iLxg5 l::rh5 leads to the
better position for Black. This idea
was later put into practice in the game
Moraru-Istrate, Timisoara 1995, and
the result confirmed Garry's opinion;
after 18 iLf6 iLb7 19 \tib1 lZlxe5
20 lZldxb5 axb5 21 lZlxb5 iLe7, Black
went on to win in 6 more moves)
16 lZlc6!! lZlxb3+ 17 axb3 Vi'c5
l8lZle4 ~xc6 19 iLxg5 iLb7
20 l:rd6!! iLxd6 (after 20 ... f5
21 exf6 iL xd6 22 ~ xe6+ \ti d8
23 lZlxd6 \tic7 24 iLf4 White has
tremendous play for the rook)
21 lZlxd6+ \tits 22 l::rfl lZlxe5
23 ~xe6 ~d5 (after 23 .. J:rh7
24 ~xe5 \tig8 25 llel White is much
better), and now:
(a21) The move actually played was
24l::rxt7+!!?
The exclamation marks are for
imagination, while the question mark
is there because the move allows
Black to survive with the aid of a
very subtle defence: 24 ...lZlxt7 (not
24 ... \tig8 25 l::rg7+ \tixg7 26 lZlf5+
1993
<jJf8 27 'iHe7+ <Jig8 28 'iHg7 mate)
25 il..e7+ ~g7 26 'iYf6+ ~h7
27 li:lxt7 'iYh5 28 li:lg5+ ~g8
29 'iYe6+ ~g7 30 'iYf6+ ~g8
31 'iYe6+ ~g7 32 il..f6+ ~h6
33 li:lt7+ (33 Wie7 is tempting, but
Garry's analysis shows that it would
let Black off the hook: 33 ...~ag8
34 li:lt7+ ~g6 35 li:lxh8+ l:txh8
36 il..xh8 'iYg5+ 37 ~xg5+ ~xg5
38 g3 hxg3 39 hxg3 il..d5 40 ~d2
il..t7 41 ~d3 il..g6+. White is unable
the carry out c2-c4, which means he
will not have a passed pawn on the
queenside; so Black holds on despite
the two pawns deficit) 33 ... ~h7
34 li:lg5+ (or 34 li:lxh8 l!txh8
35 .i.xh8 'iYh6+, and again Black can
survive in the endgame with opposite
bishops) 34 ... ~h6 35 il..xh8+ 'iYg6
36li:lt7+ ~h7
37 Wie7 (setting up this battery
brings Black to the verge of defeat)
37.. .v~lxg2? (fmally Garry makes a
mistake in his analysis; 37... ~g8,
stepping away from the battery, would
save him. Quite incredibly, after
38 'iYxb7 J::[f8 Black is still in the
game) 38 Ae5? (the winning
continuation was 38 il..d4!, as Nigel
showed in his Informant analysis:
38 ... 'iYhl+ 39 ~d2 'iYg2+ 40 ~c3
iVc6+ 41 Wb4 I:te8 42 l/j'g5! l/j'g6
43 'iYxh4+ ~g8 44 li:lh6+ ~f8
45 'iYf4+ ~e7 46 'iYc7+ and it is all
over for Bla,ck; in this line, if
39 ... 'iYxh2+ then 40 ~c3 i::!:c8+
41 ~b4 wins) 38 ... 'iYfl+ 39 ~d2
52
~t2+ 40 <jJd3 ~f3+ 41 ~d2 ~t2+
and the draw was agreed. This was
a great game, illustrating Garry's
defensive skill. Granted that his
strongest point is attack, this type of
game reinforces Garry's overall status
as number one.
(a22) The winning continuation is
24 'iYf6!, but it would have been very
difficult to calculate it all the way to
the end. After 24 .... i::!:h7 there are two
choices.
(a221) 25 il..h6+ was found by
Grandmaster Larry Evans: 25 ... ~g8
26 li:lf5 i!te8 (or 26 .. .tL'lg6 27 l:tdl
'iYxdl+ 28 ~xdl Ae4 29 il..g5 il..xf5
30 ~xf5 and White is winning)
27 l:1dl 'iVe6 28 l::td8 li:lg6
29 li:le7+!!, finishing the game beaut-
ifully. However, this is not the only
way to win the position.
(a222) 25 l:tf5 is Garry's way:
25 ... 'iVxg2 (or 25 ... ~g8 26 l::txe5
~xg2 27 Axh4) 26 ~xe5 ~g8
27 A f6 and wins.
Now, back to the ninth move!
(a3) The tenth game of the match
went 9 ~f3 b5 10 f5 Ad7 II fxe6
(since this game, players with White
have always tried to do without this
exchange, but Black seems to fare
quite well anyway) ll...fxe6 12 Ag5
Ae7 (12 ... b4!? is a possible improve-
ment) 13 0-0-0 (after 13 e5 dxe5
14li:lc6 il..xc6 15 'iYxc6+ ~t7 Black
will castle by hand with 'iYd8-c8,
l:1h8-f8 and ~t7-g8) 13 ... 0-0 14 e5
li:lfe4 {l4 ... li:ld5 15 Axe7 li:lxe7

16 ~e3 d5 looks like a very nice
position for Black, as the bishop on b3
is shut out of the game and the e5-
pawn is vulnerable) 15 i.xe7 V/iixe7
16 tLlxe4!! (Nigel comes up with a
most imaginative queen sacrifice)
16.. Jihf3 17 exd6 tLlxb3+ 18 tLlxb3
~f8 19 gxf3 ~xf3 (l9 ... i.c6!, and
now 20 tLlec5 .lid5 21 d7 l:td8
22 Ithel Vliifl 23 :Id2 :Ixd7 with
decent drawing chances; or 20 tLl bc5
.lid5 21 :Id3 l:td8, and again Black
can remove the d6-pawn) 20 tLlec5
i.c6 2Il:thel e5 22 d7.
Kasparov's game seems beyond
saving, but miraculously he escaped
again. Strangely, players with White
never copied Nigel's approach. It's
also interesting that Garry decided not
to repeat the 7 ... tLl bd7 variation
during the remainder of the match. He
did, however, play it on two later
occasions, losing with it to Topalov in
1996 and beating Bauer in 2001.
(b) 7 ... tLlc6.
In the I tit match game, Garry
switched to this move. He had tried it
53
1993
earlier in his career; doubtless he and
his team had been working on an
improvement. After 8 f4 i.e7
9 i.e3 0-0, the twelfth and fourteenth
games diverged.
(b 1) The twelfth continued with
10 ~f3 tLlxd4 11 i.xd4 b5 12 i.xf6
i.xf6 13 e5 i.h4+ 14 g3 l:tb8 15 gxh4
i.b7 16 tLle4 dxe5 17 l:tgl! g6
18 J:1:dl i.xe4 19 ~xe4 ~xh4+
20 \!te2 ~xh2+ (according to Garry,
20 ... exf4 had been analysed during
preparation; after 21 h3 White has
some advantage) 21 l:tg2 ~xf4
(the World Champion claimed that
21 ... ~h5+ was better) 22 ~xf4 exf4,
and the complicated endgame resulted
in a draw after it was Nigel who had
been pressing.
(b2) The 14th game went 10 0-0
tLlxd4 11 i.xd4 b5 12 e5 dxe5
13 fxe5
13 ...tLld7 (the players' debate on
this line did not end with this match.
In ShoTt-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1996,
Garry deviated with 13 ...tLle8, and
there followed 14 tLle4 i.b7 15 ~d3
~c7 16 c3 l:td8 17 i.c2 i.xe4
18 ~xe4 g6 19 b4 tLlg7 20 g4 h5
21 h3 a5 22 a3. Remarkably, it seems
that no matter how sharply they play
in this variation, it will be a draw in
the end. At certain points in this game
it looked as if Nigel was better)
14 tLle4 i.b7 15 tLld6 i.xd6 16 exd6
'ti'g5 17 ~e2 e5 18 i.c3 V/iig6
19 l:tadl \!th8 20 i.d5 i.xd5
21 l:txd5 ~e6 22 l::tfdl :Ifc8 23 i.a5
1993
r.tc6 24 b3 r.tacS 25 iL.c7. This game
too ended in a draw,even though
Nigel came close to having a winning
position. In Garry's view 25 ... f5 gives
Black a playable game.
We hope you didn't find that this
excursion into the intricacies of the
opening was too time-consuming. It
really helps to illustrate the complex-
ities of opening play in high-level
matches. You are left with the
impression that Garry and Nigel were
ideal opponents for this exciting
match. Now back to the 16th game.
80-0 iL.e7 9 ~f3
This represents the direct attacking
option, and it comes from another
giant, Bobby Fischer. Kasparov said
Fischer had a great influence on his
chess, and maybe the desire to build
up the Najdorf as a main answer to
1 e4 was itself borrowed from the
great American.
Garry had played this move himself,
using it to beat Gelfand at the 1991
Paris Immopar rapid and also in the
1993 Linares tournament. Adopting
this line for White certainly deepened
Garry's understanding of the iL.c4
system.
9..~c7
After the end of the championship,
the two protagonists played a 4-game
rapid match; this position arose in the
second game, and Garry deviated with
9 ... 'fWb6. He obtained the better
54
position and went on to win (in fact he
won all four games). After 10 iL.e3
~b7 11 ~g3 b4 12 tZla4 tZlbd7 13 f3
0-0 14 l:adl JifhS 15 l:tfel l:tbS
16 ~hl tZle5 17 tZle2 ~c7 IS c3
iL.d7 19 tZlf4 i.xa4 20 i.xa4 bxc3
21 bxc3 ~xc3, White has little com-
pensation for the pawn.
10~g3
After some extremely sharp, almost
wild games in the iL.c4 system, the
pair settle for a more positional line.
10...tZlc6
Other games saw 10... 0-0 11 iL.h6
tZleS 12 l:tadl i.d7, with these
continuations:
(a) 13 tZlf3, and now:
(al) 13 ... a5 14 a4 b4 15 tZle2
occurred in the ISth Short-Kasparov
match game. Nigel pressed but never
come close to winning: 15 ... tZlc6
16 tZlf4 iLf6 17 tZld3 e5 (after
17 ... tZld4 IS tZlxd4 iLxd4 19 llfel
iLc6 Black should do all right)
ISiLe3 iLe7 19 tZld2 tZlf6 20 f3 l:tfeS
21 ~hliLe6. Garry equalized and the
game ended in a draw; it was a
relatively smooth ride for him.
(a2) The Kasparov-Gelfand game
(Linares 1993) went l3 ... b4 14 tZle2
a5 15 tZlf4 ~hS 16iLg5 tZlf6 17 ~h4
iLb5 (players with Black improved
here with 17 ... tZlc6 IS tZlh5 tZlgS!)
IS tZld4 i.eS 19 tZldxe6 fxe6
20 tZlxe6 VJII a7 21 e5 dxe5 22 tZlxfS
.ltxfS 23 iL.xf6 gxf6 24 lldS tZld7
 1993

25 ~ g4, and Gelfand resigned. A In the event of 14 ~xg7, Black

truly ferocious finish by Garry; the creates counterplay with 14 ... ~g8
opening line is positional, but if ever 15 ~h6 d5. If instead 14 liJd5, then
there is an opportunity to attack, Garry 14 ... exd5 15 ~xg7 Wd7 16 exd5
will take it. That is what he knows liJxd5 17 ~g4+ Wc7 18 i.xd5 ~xd5
best. 19 Uxe7+ Wb8 with pressure against
(a3) With 13 .. .lZJc6 Gelfand held g2.
Garry to a draw one year later at the
Moscow Olympiad, 1994: 14 ~f4
~b7 15 :fel b4 16liJe2 e5 17 i.g5
~e6 18 liJh4 liJa5 19 i.d5 i.xd5
20 l::txd5 i.xg5 21 Vj'xg5 liJc4, and
Black can hold off the White attack.
(b) In the 20th game of the
championship match, Nigel deviated
with 13 a3 liJc6 14 liJxc6 i.xc6
15 i.f4 (an idea that came from
the German grandmaster HObner)
15 ... ~b7 16 l::tfel a5 17 e5 dxe5
18 i.xe5 i.f6 19 :d4 Ud8 20 Uxd8
i.xd8 21 liJe2. Nigel emerged from
14... 0-0
the opening with a small plus, but
It would not be a reasonable risk to
Garry never looked like losing the
leave the pawn undefended any
game, and with this draw he actually
longer.
retained his title.
IS i.h6liJe8 16 Whl
Nigel denies Garry the option of
exchanging queens in the event of a
later ~h6-g5. However, 16 ~adl is
more popular.
16... <i.7h817 i.gS!

llliJxc6 ~xc612l::tel i.b713 83

It is far from clear how much play
Black can gain from the pawn
sacrifice if White plays 13 ~xg7. The
following line seems to be the critical
one: 13 ... l::tg8 14 ~h6 0-0-0 15 ~h3 In positions of the Scheveningen
~b8 16 t3 l::tg6 17 i.e3 :dg8 type, Black is usually happy to
18 l:te2 h5 19 l:tdl. Black has exchange pieces, especially the bishop
pressure on g2, and the queen might on e7. In the current position White
be troubled by .i.b7-c8 and e6-e5. voluntarily offers a bishop swap.
13...J:td814 f3 Why? The reason is that the dis-
55
1993
appearance of Black's dark-squared
bishop makes the d6-square more
vulnerable.
17 ..ltxg5 18 ~xg5 tiJf6 19 %:tadl
l:td7 20 %:td3 %:tfd8 21 %:tedl
Rather an unusual Scheveningen
situation, as Black cannot gain space
with his pawns. None of the typical
advances (a6-aS, b5-b4, d6-d5 or e6-
e5) are possibh::. Black has less space,
so Garry decides to ease the position
further by encouraging exchanges.
21...~c5 22 ~e3
Nigel sees no way to improve the
placing of his pieces, so he doesn't
mind swapping queens.
22 Wg8
Nigel expected to have an equal
position after 22 .. .'~xe3 23 %:txe3,
when 23 ... '.iIg8 is safer than 23 ... d5
24 %:ted3. There is not much to play
for in the ending. Garry brings his
king to the centre fIrst.
23 'itt gl 'itt f3 24 ~ f2
Both players seem to be looking
towards the ending.
24....i.a8 25 tiJe2!
This looks like another innocent
move, but it cr~ates a threat. Garry has
parried some incredibly dangerous
attacks in this match and survived
some losing positions, but here
he succumbs to a harmless-looking
move.
25... g6?
If a player tends to get away with
56
transgressions, he can lose his sense of
danger. For once Garry falls asleep;
perhaps he was still experiencing the
effect of his convincing win in
the previous game, when Nigel had
played below par. Here Black should
have exchanged queens.
26 tiJd4 AVe5
This was not the kind of move
Kasparov wanted to play, but his
preferred 26 ... e5 would have failed to
keep the game balanced. After 27 %:tc3
vtlia7 28 tiJc6 vtlixt2+ 29 'ittxt2, White
has very plasant pressure; as Tisdall
explains, the natural 29 ... %:tc8?? loses
to 30 tiJxe5, while 29 ... %:te8 30 a4
leaves White better.
27 %:tel!
A very strong move; it makes sure
d6-d5 cannot be played, and from now
on Black has to reckon with f3-f4.
27..g5?!
This weakens the king slightly.
Having survived attacks by so many
pieces with hardly any of his pawns
around his king, Garry probably felt
he could afford this loosening move. It
might have beeen better to play a
waiting move - like variation 'a'
below - as f3-f4 is not that devastating
at the moment.
The following are two alternatives:
(a) 27 ... '.iIg8!?, and now:
(al) 28 f4?! (Black's position holds
out against direct attacks) 28 .. .'~Wc5
29 :c3 (Black does all right from
 1993

29 ltJxe6 ~xt2+ 30 '.itxt2 ltJxe4+) dry) White is better, though he has

29 ...ltJg4!, solving all the problems at some obstacles to overcome. It would
once. be dangerous to invade the queenside
(a2) The softening-up move 28 c4 without due preparation, as g5-g4 (or,
can be met by 28 ... ~c5! 29 cxb5 e5! if the white rook leaves the e-file, d6-
30 ltJe6 (or 30 ltJc2 ~xb5, and Black d5) could cause problems.
is likely to be able to carry out d6-d5)
30.. .'~hb5 31 ~h4 ltJh5, and Black
stays alive.
(a3) 28 a4!? softens the Black pos-
ition with a less direct move.
(a4) After 28 c3 White is somewhat
better. It is hard for Black to do
anything active, while White can
slowly improv~ his position.
(b) With 27 ... ltJe8!? Black can
think of transferring the knight to the
queenside, but this doesn't alleviate
White's small but enduring initiative:
28 f4 (or 28 c4 ltJc7, and White is a
little better) 28 ... ~f6 29 c3, and 30 ltJb3!
White will go for the kings ide as well. Nigel is playing at his best; 30 a4
was also possible.
30.<JtfS 31l::td4!
Preparing a3-a4 and strengthening
e4.
31 .<lJe732 a4!

28c3!
Nigel initiates a very powerful
regrouping of his pieces.
28...'itg7 29 .te2!
This too is a very strong move.
29..J:tg8?!
Garry starts a desperate attack. His
artillery is in place, but he lacks the
ammunition to assail White's defences
with sufficient fire.
Waiting with 29 ...h6!? would not be
much fun either. After 30 ltJb3 'ith8
(or 30....ib7 31 ktedl 'itg8 32 ~b6
g4, and White is not yet home and
57
32 ... hS
Waiting with 32 .. J:tb8 or 32 ... .ic6
would prolong the game, but neither
move gives any real hope of ultimate
survival.
33 axbS axbS 34:b4 h4 35 liJd4
As the result of his instructive play,
Nigel can soon can start to reap his
rewards.
1993
35...g4 36 IrJ.b5 d5?
Garry tries to stir the position up,
hoping Nigel may lose his way;
36... ~xh2+ 37 'It'xh2 g3+ 38 figl
gxt2+ 39 fixt2 was absolutely
hopeless too.
37 ~xh4 'ifh5 3SCLlf5+ 1-0
Garry resigned. There was no
reason to continue, as after 38 ... exf5
39 exf5+ White wins as follows:
(a) 39 ... fid8 40 ~xf6+ fic8
41 Irc5+ and mate in a few moves:
4l...fib7 42 ~c6+ 'It'b8 43 ~b6+
1i.b7 44 Iral.
(b) 39 ... fifS 40 ~xf6 1i.b7
41 l::txb7 (Lawson's move, which is
the most direct way to win) 4l...l:Ixb7
42 ~d8+ 'It'g7 43 f6+, leading to a
nice checkmate.
Once he had been allowed to avoid
a queen exchange, the Englishman
played superbly.
The match now ended with a run of
four draws. Both players could be
satisfied. Nigel had won a game,
which he certainly deserved. Garry
had managed to stabilize the Najdorf
and fulfilled his most important
objective by keeping his crown.
Generally Garry was not at his very
best; good fortune was on his side
during this match.
The 17th game was another Scotch
and another draw. Garry obtained a
somewhat better endgame. He pressed
but didn't get far, and when he missed
a lovely tactical shot by Nigel, he
eased his way towards the draw.
The eighteenth was a correctly
played game with a correct outcome.
Kasparov achieved a playable position
in the 1i.c4 Najdorf, and when the
game was about to reduce to a totally
drawn endinl' the draw was agreed.
In the 19 game, which turned out
to be Kasparov's last White in this
match, he switched back to the Ruy
Lopez. Nigel surprised him with the
3 ... a6 4 1i.a4 d6 line. Kasparov took
58
on c6, giving Black doubled pawns,
and recaptured on d4 with his queen.
Later an ending arose in which Short
had weak pawns as a consequence of
creating active play. Kasparov then
offered a draw, which was accepted.
In the last game, Nigel pressed and
had a clear though small advantage
again in the Najdorf. Kasparov de-
fended weIland gradually equalized,
after which the game ended a draw.
Nigel wanted to play the remaining
games with no stake at all, but Garry
opposed the idea. As a compromise
they played some friendly rapid
games.
Kasparov-Short: The Openings
It is a worthwhile exercise to
summarize the openings of the match.
Kasparov was already known to be an
awesome force in the opening. Short
too had a pretty good reputation, but
he never reached Garry's level in this
department. Nigel was brought up
playing frequent weekend tourn-
aments. They didn't provide him with
the same depth of opening knowledge
that could be gained from Soviet
events.
In top-level chess, like it or not, the
openings have a great impact on the
play, even though the game very
rarely ends in the opening phase. This
match was no exception. Players
sometimes allow their opponents back
into the game after a strong opening,
but it is the opening pressure that
creates the initial advantage. This
match was generally dominated by
White. With the white pieces
Kasparov registered a heavy plus
score - 5 wins plus 5 draws out of lO
games - while Nigel broke even. By
winning three of his first four White
games, Garry virtually decided the
match.
In game one, Garry opened with

1 e4. With 7 ...0-0, Nigel offered to
play the Marshall Attack. This must
have been one of the lines that Garry
anticipated; he replied with 8 a4 and
9 d3, because this system creates more
problems than one might imagine.
Players who play the main line Ruy
Lopez are not usually as scared of the
d3 lines as they are of the d4 lines.
Objectively Nigel may have achieved
equality in the early opening phase,
but with the transition to the middle-
game it was Garry who was pressing.
That pressure probably contributed to
Nigel overstepping the time limit in a
winning position. In terms of the
opening battle, it was 1:0 to the
Champion.
In the third game Garry introduced
a novelty, and although it appears that
White neglected the win of a pawn
and that Nigel came close to achieving
equality at one point, Garry still came
out of the opening on top, and went on
to win again.
One way of judging the players'
confidence in their own preparation is
by ascertaining who deviated earlier
or more often. Nigel deviated from the
first game, so 2:0 to the Champion. In
fact, in this match Nigel deviated
many more times with Black than
Garry.
In the fifth game Garry switched to
1 d4 and was met by a very strong
innovation. Nigel won this theoretical
battle, drawing the game with
consummate ease - 2: 1.
The seventh game was one of
Garry's best achievements in the
match. He was better right from the
start, and Nigel never came close to
equalizing in the opening - 3: 1.
In game nine, Garry switched back
to 1 d4. By this time he was ready for
Nigel to repeat his novelty in the
Nirnzo-Indian. Garry and his team had
prepared a strong continuation, though
practice has shown that objectively it
is not devastating. Nigel made a
59
1993
mistake very early, and never really
got back into the game, so 4: 1 to
Garry in the opening battles of his
games with White; in these games he
had scored 4Yz points out of 5.
In the eleventh game Kasparov
switched to the Scotch, and by means
of a novelty he achieved the better
ending. This time, however, Nigel
managed to hold the draw.
In the London/Leningrad match of
1986, Kasparov had squandered a 4: 1
lead and allowed Karpov to equalize.
Did Garry learn from those mistakes,
or was he following Fischer, who
played more conservatively towards
the end of his match with Spassky in
order to secure the title? At any rate,
increasing his massive lead was not
Garry's main concern, and so the
match lost some of its interest,
particularly for the home supporters in
England who were hoping for great
things from Nigel. Whatever his frame
of mind, Garry may not have had the
energy to sustain his drive; he visibly
slowed down. Nigel managed to
stabilize his play and reduced the
number of errors, and he avoided un-
necessary time trouble. Nevertheless,
in the theoretical disputes in Garry's
games with White, it was 5: I after
eleven games.
In game thirteen Garry switched
back to 1 d4, and Nigel defended with
the Slav. This was an opening he had
never used before, yet he obtained a
reasonable position and drew relat-
ively comfortably. So it was 5:2.
In the fifteenth game Nigel aband-
oned the Slav in favour of one of his
main weapons the Orthodox
Defence. Garry was better in the
opening, and he played the whole
game with great verve; it was possibly
his best game in the whole match. So,
6:2.
In game seventeen, the spectators
saw Garry returning to 1 e4. In the
Scotch that emerged, Nigel was the
1993
frrst to deviate, and although White
had some slight pressure, it is
probably fair to say that Nigel won
this opening ~ebate by holding the
position - 6:3.
In his last game with White, Garry
needed a draw to secure his title.
Nigel finally switched to the Steinitz
Deferred, but Kasparov came out of
the opening somewhat better. So it
looks like 7:3.
Nigel had faced an awesome task.
His preparation for Black was inferior
to his preparation for White. There
was one mistake in his analysis of the
Nirnzo-Indian, but the most unfortun-
ate thing was to choose one particular
variation in the Ruy Lopez which
Kasparov had anticipated. What else
could Nigel have tried? Maybe a line
of the French that he had never used
before. Mayb~ a .tf5 Caro-Kann,
although Kasparov had played it in his
youth. Maybe an Open Ruy Lopez,
and not one of the main lines.
By the end of the match, the idea
that Nigel should play the Najdorf
suggested itself. Garry obviously
knows that system extremely well, but
then he must believe it is good
for Black. Nigel must have been
thoroughly familiar with the 6 .te3
and 6 .te2 lines, as he played them
with White. As to 6 .tc4 and 6 .tg5,
he had prepared them for White in this
match, so he was well acquainted with
them too.
It is interesting to see which open-
ings they played against each other
after this match was over. With White,
Garry continued to vary between I e4
and I d4. Against 1 e4 Nigel never
returned to 1...e5. He tried the
Najdorf and the French, the Alekhine
and the Pirc, but was not able to break
Kasparov's domination. Against I d4
he lost with the Nimzo-Indian and
played one Meran.
Let us now scrutinize the match
games that Nigel played with White.
60
Though he didn't allow himself the
luxury of varying his first move, he
must have set high hopes on the white
pieces, with which he had been able to
hurt Kasparov before. Speelman, who
was Short's second, wrote in one of
his commentaries that Nigel was
hoping for more than a single victory.
It was obvious that Garry would
play the Najdorf Sicilian several
times. He might also play the
Scheveningen, Rauzer or Paulsen
variations, although Nigel has a good
record against these. Against the
Najdorf, Nigel had done a lot to
popularize the English Attack; it was
in large part due to him that the set-up
came to be called 'English'. You
could sense nevertheless that Garry
was going to pick up the gauntlet and
stick with the Najdorf. So in a way
Nigel's target was known. On the
other hand, within the Najdorf Garry
varies his lines. With his vast exper-
ience he has developed a very special
feeling for the middlegames that
emerge. They suit his style well.
If Nigel had not lost the frrst game
of the match, his opening selection
and approach might have been
different. As it was, he met the
Najdorf in the second game with
6 .tg5, which must have been at least
a small surprise as he had hardly
played it before. Kasparov decided to
develop his knight to c6, transposing
to a Rauzer. He went in for a rather
risky and sharp line, but drew
comfortably. So 0: I to Garry in the
opening battles with the Sicilian.
The fourth game saw 6 .tg5 again.
This time Kasparov deviated, con-
fronting the challenger with the
Poisoned Pawn variation. After
sacrificing the b2-pawn, Nigel opted
for the astute 9 lllb3. Garry fell
behind on the clock and was walking a
tightrope. However, Nigel was not
able to create mor~ than the chance of
a draw by repetition, and later Garry

took control and won. When the
opening was over, Garry had already
achieved a good position - so 0:2.
In the sixth game, Short played
6 ii.c4 for the first time in the match
and possibly in his life. Garry opted
for the line with e7-e6 and lLlb8-d7-
c5. Though there were possibilities to
improve for Garry and the line
objectively gives White no advantage,
Nigel was pressing at the end of the
opening phase, and came close to
breaking through with his attack - 1:2.
In the eighth game the players went
in for an extremely sharp opening line
after Nigel deviated from game six.
At one point in the complications
Kasparov was better, but Nigel's
highly imaginative play gave him a
winning position out of the opening -
2:2.
The ii.c4 Najdorf was repeated in
the next game. There was a way for
Black to gain an advantage, but once
more Nigel's imaginative opening
play landed Kasparov in a lost
position and the latter needed some
good fortune to escape. He had lost
the opening depate - 3:2.
In game twelve, Kasparov changed
his variation, developing his queen's
knight on c6. He sacrificed a
piece, acquiring enough pawns in
61
1993
compensation. The opening quickly
switched to an endgame, and Nigel
appeared to be exerting pressure - 4:2.
In the fourteenth game Nigel met
the 7 ...lLlc6 line in a different manner.
The play became double-edged.
Objectively Garry always had a decent
position, but he was forced to fmd
some difficult moves - 5:2.
In the sixteenth game Kasparov
changed his line again. He played an
early b7-b5 with i.f8-e7, and equal-
ized easily. After retaining queens,
Nigel played well and scored his only
win, but in the opening Kasparov was
safe - 5:3.
In game eighteen Garry deviated
with 10... 0-0 instead of 1O ... lLlc6. He
was not in any danger at any time -
5:4.
In the twentieth game Nigel
managed to put some pressure on his
opponent, though Kasparov was never
really in trouble. He just had to play
carefully - 6:4.
The ii.c4 system was well prepared
and worked well for the challenger.
His preparation with White was much
more effective than with Black. He
played with imagination and power in
some of the games, but fortune did not
favour him, and Kasparov was strong
in defence.
 1994
Linares
The result of the first tournament
after the Short match was a bitter pill
to swallow. G&IT)' came second equal
with Shirov, scoring 8 points from 13
games. He called it his worst tourn-
ament ever. The problem was not so
much his own chess as the fact that
Karpov had the tournament of his life.
He won with an incredible 11 out of
13. Karpov had dominated the chess
scene for a decade (1975-1985) and
battled in clo~ rivalry with Kasparov
thereafter, so this was a particularly
sweet victory.
When Kasparov and Short broke
away from FIDE in 1993, FIDE
responded by organizing a match
between the last two players to have
been eliminated in the previous
championship cycle. Karpov went on
to beat Timman, thus becoming the
new FIDE World Champion. It was
the second time he had become
champion of the world when there
was a clearly dominant player whom
he didn't have to confront and defeat.
Ljubojevic once commented that
whenever Karpov gets the World
Champion title for free, he feels he
has to prove himself and so it gives
him the motivation to play well.
In the tournament itself, Kasparov
and Karpov both started with two
wins. Garry had a huge piece of good
fortune in the first round: he surpris-
ingly played the Benko Gambit
against Bareev and was running out of
play for the pawn, when Bareev went
in for an aggressive continuation, and
in the complications Garry outplayed
him.
In round two he outclassed IIIescas
62
who opened with a Tarrasch Defence,
and the round 3 game with Topalov
ended in a draw.
Round four against Ivanchuk was a
great game.
Game 8
G.Kasparov (2805) White
V.lvanchuk (2805) Black
Linares 1994
Queen's Gambit Declined [D44]
1 d4
Prior to this game Garry had a
100% score with White against
Vassily. In addition to I d4 he had
ventured the other main openings I e4
and 1 c4.
1...liJf62 c4 c6 3 liJc3 dS 4 liJt3 e6
s.igS
Garry plays this more often than 5
e3, but he has a strong plus score with
both moves.
S... dxc4
Ivanchuk chooses the Botvinnik
System. Garry never employed this
variation himself, even though he was
trained by the first Soviet World
Champion, after whom it is named.
According to the database, the first
time this opening line occurred was at
Ostend in 1907, in the game Von
Scheve-Cohn. Botvinnik started to
employ it only in 1943 against
Zhivtsov, but he had a very high score
and some remarkable wins with it. He
took the idea from a game by Van
Scheltinga.
6 e4 b57 e5 h6 8 .ih4 gS 9 liJxgS
hxg5 10 .t xgS liJ bd 7
1O ....te7, which Smys10v had
played against Garry 10 years earlier
in their World Championship Cand-

idates match, is less popular than the
text move.
II exf6
Many players preface this with
Lilienthal's move 11 g3. The vari-
ations often transpose. The fianchetto
reduces Black's options, but does
allow 11 ..J:tg8.
1l ...i.b7 12 g3 c513 d5 ttJxf6
This variation, which cannot occur
when White plays 11 g3, was intro-
duced by Janjgava in 1987. In the
Botvinnik System the f7 -pawn is often
the weakness, but now that White's
f6-pawn has disappeared, it is no
longer that important.
14 i.g2
Other moves are seldom played, and
Black has good continuations against
all of them. The game Lobron-
Kramnik, Dortmund 1993, went
14 dxe6 i.g7 15 J:tgl '<i'b6 16 '<i'e2
'<i'xe6 17 ttJxb5 '<i'xe2+ 18 .i.xe2
ttJe4 19 0-0-0 ttJxg5 20 tLld6+ '.t'f8
21 tLlxb7 l:Ixh2=.
14.. Ah6
In Van Wely-Kramnik, Biel 1993,
Black played 14 ... i..e7 15 0-0 ttJxd5
16 Axe7 '.t'xe7 17 ttJxb5 '<i'b6
18 tLla3 l:Ih4!? It would have been
intriguing to see what Kasparov had
prepared against this most imaginative
move, which had been discovered a
year before the present game.
IS Axf6
15 i.xh6l:Ixh6 16 ttJxb5 is another
63
1994
testing continuation.
15...'<i' xf6 16 0-0 0-0-0
Black has to castle, otherwise his
king will be in serious danger.
17 ttJxb5
White seizes the b-pawn in front of
the black king. However, the king is
not exposed completely. If Black
manages to reach an endgame he
could do well, thanks to the presence
of the dark-squared bishop and the
possibility of invading on the d-fiJe.
From now on, the question is whether
White can remove the king's loosened
protective shield.
17... exd5
In the spirit of attack as the best
form of defence, Vassily gives up the
a-pawn to gain tempi. Let us look at
the alternatives:
(a) 17 ... l:'Ixd5? would cut the queen
off from the defence. Instead of
naively taking the exchange, White
would play 18 ttJxa7+ followed by
19 'ia4, after which the black king is
dangerously exposed to attack.
(b) After 17 ... i.xd5? 18 '<i'a4,
Black is again in trouble.
(c) 17 ... a6 however is a reasonable
idea, although the move has not
attracted attention and is rarely
played. Black forces the knight back
and keeps more pawns in front of the
king than in the game continuation.
An exchange of pieces would help, as
endgames in the Botvinnik System
1994
often favour Black. This is because his
pawns can be faster and he also has
the bishop pair. After 18 tllc3 exd5
19 ~a4, he has various possibilities:
(cl) 19 ....tg5 20 l:Ifdl ~h6
21 tllxd5 ~xh2+ 22 Wfl, and
Black's attack leads nowhere.
(c2) After 19....tg7 White may be
able to soften up Black's central
pawns and open the way to the
king. In a rapid game against Serna
(Villarobbledo 200 I), Beliavsky
achieved this object very effectively:
20 'iVa5! 'iVd6 21lIadi .td4 22 tlle2
.i.e5 (after 22 ... il.xb2 23 ~bl il.g7
24 l:Ifdl V/lic7 25 V/liaJ, White has
strong pressure on the pawn mass)
23 h4 V/lic7 24 V/liaJ 'it'b8 25 b4 cxb4
26 V/lixb4, with dangerous play against
the black king.
(c3) 19 ... V/lib6 may be a better way
to defend. And now:
(c31) 20 V/Ii c2 V/Ii g6 does not work
for White.
(c32) Nor does 20 b3, because of
20 ....tg7 21 l:Iacl .txc3 22 l:Ixc3
V/lib4.
(c33) After 20 l:Ifdl d4 21 il.xb7+
Wxb7 22 tlle2 d3 23 tllc3 ~b4,
White is in trouble.
(c34) With 20 l:Ifel! White can
keep up the pressure, although the
result is still far from clear. In the
event of 20 ... d4 (20 ... il.g7 is unclear
after 21 l:te7) 21 il.xb7+ 'it'xb7
22 ~xc4 (if 22 l:Ie7+ 'it'b8 23 tlldl,
then 23 ...il.g5 and White's attack is
stopped) 22 ... dxc3 23 Vllixt7+ 'it'a8 24
bxc3, the openness of Black's king
will cause problems later.
18 tllxa7+ 'it'b8 19 tllb5.tg7
Vassily clears the h-file in order to
invade, but 19 ....tg5 looks like a
better means to this end. There could
follow:
(a) 20 ~el l:Id7 21 b3 (if 21 f4,
then not 21...~h6 22 ~e5+ but 21...
.th6 22 V/lia5 V/lia6 and Black is in the
game) 21... V/lih6 22 V/Ii e5+ Was 23 h4
il.xh4 24 gxh4 f6 25 Vllic3 V/lixh4
64
26 ~a5+ ~b8 27 Vllia7+ ~c8
28 V/lixc5+ Wb8, and White could
obtain no more than perpetual check
in lonov-Popov, St Peterburg 1997.
(b) 20 f4 V/lih6 21 fxg5 (21 h3!?
deserves consideration) 21...V/lixh2+
22 Wt2 d4 23 l:tgl, and now in
Komljenovic-Lupu, Andorra 1994,
Black continued the attack with the
beautiful 23 ...lIh4!! and went on to
win.
20a4!
This is an extremely difficult move
to understand and explain. Possibly
Garry wanted to conceal his aggress-
ive intentions. He may have anticip-
ated the role of this pawn in a few
moves' time. It must have been
obvious that Ivanchuk would have
analysed the position at home; the
pawn move is rather an indirect way
of proceeding, and it might have
escaped Vassily's attention.
The most natural move in this
situation appears to be 20 l:Iel!? It
puts the rook on an open file where it
may join the attack against the black
king. It also makes room for White's
own king in case it needs to escape.
Black could reply 20 ... V/lib6 (if
20 ... 'iVh6 21 h4 il.f6, then 22 Vllia4).
20 V/liel!? also looks like a
promising way to start the attack at
once. After 20 ... 'iVh6 21 h4 V/lia6
22 a4, White has the better prospects;
capturing with 22 ....txb2 is rather

risky, as after 23 l:! b 1 l:!he8 24 ~ d2
the black king is in danger.
20...~h6
20 ... ~xb2? would just accelerate
White's attack. It would be useful to
remove the b-pawn in preparation for
an ending, but Black might not get
that far. After 21 ~bl v.i'f6, the
most attractive line seems to be
Kharitonov's suggestion: 22 ttJa3
(22 ~el l:!d7 23 ~a5 is also very
promISIng for White) 22 ... ~d4
23 ~t3, when White is on the verge
of destroying the black king.
21 h4 i.f6
Ivanchuk wants to deliver his
knockout punch first, rather than parry
Kasparov's attack. Taking the pawn
(2l...i.xb2) would have exposed the
king further and was not worth trying:
(a) 22 l:!a2 is Ernst's recommend-
ation; this could be one of the hidden
implications of White's pawn push to
a4. And now:
(al) 22 ... 'iYf6 23 a5 .lie5 (or
23 ... l:the8 24 ~c2 c3 25 ttxb2 cxb2
26 ~xc5 and White breaks though)
24 a6 i.xa6 25 ~a4 :cth6 26 :ctbl,
with a huge attack.
(a2) 22 ... c3 23 a5 (23 ~b3 is also
very promising) 23 ... ~a6 (after
23 ... l:d7 24 'iVb3 c4 25 'iYb4 ~f8
26 :ctxb2 cxb:? 27 ~xb2 White has
more than enough compensation for
the exchange) 24 ~b3 c4 25 'iYb4
l:Ihe8 26 ttJxc3, and White is simply
much better.
(b) 22 Iibl looks good enough, e.g.:
(bl) 22 ...i.f6 23 ttJa3.
(b2) 22 ... v.i'f6 23 'iYc2 c3 24 ':xb2
cxb2, and again White breaks through
with 25l/Wxc5.
(b3) 22 ... c3 23 ~c2 (Kharitonov
gives 23 ~b3) 23 ... ~g6 (23 ... ~f6
24 :ctxb2 cxb2 25 ~xc5 is again
strong) 24 :ctxb2 cxb2 25 ~xc5 ~d3
(25 ...bl=~ 26 ~a7+ Wc8 27 i.h3+
wins) 26 'iYa7+ Wc8 27 i.h3+ rs
28 'iYb6 Wb8 29 ttJd4, and Black is in
trouble.
65
1994
22 ~e1!
This is a sign of a great attacking
player. Garry's main aim right now is
to bring the queen across to harass the
black king; 22 :Ue I!? is not bad either.
22 ..i. xh4 23 ~ a5!
Not 23 'iVe5+? Was 24 ttJc7+ Wa7
25 ttJxd5?, which loses to several
different responses; 25 ...i. f6 is one of
them.
23 gxh4!? is less convincing than
the move played, but still gives decent
winning chances thanks to a great
move that shortly follows: 23 ... ~xh4
(23 ...:ctde8 24 'iVa5 'iYxh4 25 'iYa7+
Wc8 26 ~xc5+ Wb8 27 ~d6+ Was
28 ttJc7+ Wa7 29 ttJxe8 wins)
24 ~ e5+ Was, and now:
(a) Ernst analysed 25 l::!.fel :!::tdg8
26 Wfl :ctxg2! 27 ~e8+ l:he8
28 ':xe8+ i.c8 29 :ctxc8+ Wb7
30 l:c7+ Wb8 31 Wxg2 ~ g4+
32 Wfl ~h3+ 33 We2 ~d3+, and
Black can give perpetual.
(b) 25 'iYg3!! (a hard move to find;
it forces the queen to the sixth rank)
25 ...~h6 (White wins after either
25 .. :~h7 26 VJ!ic7 ttdg8 27 VJ!ia5+
Wb8 28 ~a7+ Wc8 29 ttJd6+, or
25 ... ndg8 26 'iYxh4 nxh4 27 t3)
26 ~c7, when Black can try:
(bl) 26 ... ndg8 27 ~a5+ Wb8
28 ~a7+ Wc8 29 ~xc5+ Wb8
30 ~d6+! (the point of 25 ~g3)
30.. :~xd6 31 ttJxd6 l:h6 32 ttJrs
l:hg6 33 ttJg3 rs 34 :Ufdl (on 34 b3
1994
f4 35 bxc4 fxg3 36 .ixd5, Black has
chances of survival) 34... f4 35 .ixd5
i.xd5 36lhd5 fxg3 37 f4, and White
is better.
(b2) 26 ....l:td7 27 Vi'a5+ ~b8
28 Vi'a7+ ~c8 29 Vi'xc5+ ~b8 30 f3!
(making room for the king) 30... Vi'h2+
(30 ... f5 31 .l:ta) 31 <;t>t2 .l:tg8 32 J:!gl,
and White will sail home with the full
point.
(c) 25 Vi'c7 .l:th6 (25 ... l':tdg8
26 'iVa5+ ~b8 27 Vi'a7+ ~c8
28 Vi'xc5+ ,*,b8 29 Vi'a7+ ~c8
30 ltJd6+ ~d7 31 Vi'xb7+ wins)
26 .l:tfel .l:tg8 27 Vi'a5+ Wb8
28 Vi'a7+ ~c8 29 Vi'xc5+ i.c6
30 <,f,{fl!! (~ exemplary defensive
move; it doesn't stop the sacrifice on
g2, but it does reduce its effectiveness
to zero. After 30 ltJa7+ ~d7 31 ~fl
.l:txg2! 32 .l:te7+ Vi'xe7 33 Vi'xe7+
~xe7 34 ltJJ{.c6+ l':txc6 35 ~xg2,
the p_osition is equal), and now if
30 ...lIxg2 (no check!), the queen on
the other side interferes with a huge
check - 31 'iVt8+!! - and demolishes
the Black position.
23..i.e7
Yassily is virtually forced to defend
the c5-pawn, as he can't afford to lose
it with check.
24 "'c7+ ~aS 25 "'a5+ ~bS
26 ~c7+ ~aS 27 .l:tfel .id6
The only move to prolong the game,
but it loses anyway. After 27 ....tf6
28 Vi'xc5 ~b8 29 Vi'c7+ ~a8 30 a5,
66
it would be all over for Black.
2S"'b6
As pointed out by Ernst, 28 ~a5+
was also a forced win: 28 ... ~b8
29 Vi'a7+ ~c8 30 a5 i.c6 31 a6l:Id7
32 Vj'b6 .txb5 (32 ... i.a8 33 a7) 33 a7
Vj'h2+ 34 ~fl c3+ 35 ~xb5.
2S.i.bS
On 28 ... Wb8, Fta~nik gives 29 a5
winning.
29a5!!
Did Garry really anticipate this kind
of role for the pawn when he played
20 a4 ? Whatever the answer, it is still
a glorious advance.
29. ltd7
Poor Ivanchuk defends the seventh
rank, as 29 ... ~c6 doesn't save him
from a quick checkmate: 30 l:te7
.l:the8 (or 30...l1d7 31 ~xc6 i.xc6
32 ttxd7 .txd7 33 i.xd5+ i.c6
34 i.xc6 mate) 31 a6!! ~xb6 32 axb7
mate. What a satisfying conclusion to
the march! It has the same touch of
genius that can be heard in the Turkish
March by Mozart.
30 lIeS!!
Recognizing that Black has left the
8th rank less well guarded. This is a
majestic way to exploit the weaken-
ing. White's move, which diverts the
queen from the sixth at the cost of the
rook, is certainly eye-catching
30...... h2+
If30 ... Ihe8 then 31 ~xh6.
31 'itln ~xg2+

The position after 31 .. .lhe8 would
be just like the famous Larsen-
Spassky game: a whole rook has been
invested in order to gain a tempo to
push a pawn. With 32 a6, the march of
the white a-pawn concludes with
devastating effect.
On 31...'iYh 1+ White mates in
8 moves, beginning with 32 ~xhl
J:Ixhl+ 33 'it'g2 d4+ 34 D.
32 'it'xg2 d4+
33 -..xb7+!
The most practical decision. Garry
simplifies into a won endgame, al-
though another winning method was
33 D :xe8 34 a6l';Ie2+ 35 'it'f] .1i.xD
36 -..xc5! (but not 36 a7?? ~xg3
37 ~xc5 :t2+ 38 'it'gl :g2+
39 'it'f], when Black has at least a
perpetual on the second rank and
might even want to try to win
with 39...:d8) 36 ...~xg3 37 ~c8+,
leading to mate in 9 moves.
33..J::txb7 34 l'.:xh8l:hb5 35 a6!
An endgame with the exchange up
can be extremely tricky in the
Botvinnik System, as the black pawns
are usually closer to promotion than
the white ones. This time, however,
thanks to the a-pawn, White can create
threats of his own.
35..'it'a7 36:1'8
The material is not as important
here as opening up the seventh rank.
This occurs with deadly effect.
36...l:txb2
67
1994
Or 36 ...SLd6 37 l:txf7+ '.!fa8 38 a7
l:txb2 39 kId7 and wins.
37l:txf7+ 'it'a8 38 a7
It took 19 moves to push the a-pawn
this far. Now it decides the game.
38... c3
After 38 ...~xa7 39 l:!.axa7+ 'it'b8
40 l:tae7 Was 41 l:!.f8+ l!tb8
42 l!txb8+ 'it'xb8 43 ~D, the king is
in the 'square' of the c4-pawn.
39l::tf8!
t-O
The a-pawn has grown strong and
mature. It even has discipline - it can
hold back and wait to promote, though
it doesn't have to wait too long. As
Napoleon once said, each of his
soldiers had to have the marshal's
baton in his knapsack.
Was the motif of pushing the a-
pawn an over-the-bOard idea? Did
Garry borrow it from a previous
game? Was he reproducing his home
analysis? We can only speculate - it is
impossible to get the full picture of the
game, as the players would not dis-
close how deeply they had analysed
the line in advance. It does not matter
- Garry played with great force and
won a very impressive game.
In round 5, Garry was involved in
the incident with Judit Polgar - when
he was alleged to have completed a
move with his knight and then placed
it on a different square. At that time I
1994
was training Sofia, Judit's sister, and
we saw the video together. Going
through it in slow motion several
times, you could see that Garry's hand
had left the piece for a fraction of a
second. He infringed the rules in the
heat of the moment, but did not mean
to cheat. The arbiter was there, but did
not intervene. According to Kasparov,
Judit did not protest and they analysed
together in the post-mortem. It was
unfortunate in the short term, as Judit
only scored a single half-point from
her next five games. The incident
became a news item, and perhaps
disturbed Kasparov's concentration.
In the next round he was unrecogniz-
able: in a slightly inferior position he
lost two pawns, and Gelfand needed to
make a big blunder not to win. After
luck had shone on him in that game,
Garry faced Karpov who had won all
his first six games. At move 13 in the
Caro-Kann, Kpov could have played
.lte7-a3 which in Kasparov's view
would have given him a winning
position (though Karpov doubts it).
Garry escaped with a draw. In the next
round he dr~w with Shirov after
having no chances at all to win.
In round nine he recovered his usual
level of play and beat Kamsky in great
style. Here is the game.
Game 9
G.Kasparov (2805) White
G.Kamsky (2695) Black
Linares 1994
Caro-Kann Defence [Bl7}
1 e4
Garry invariably opted for 1 e4
against Kamsky.
1... c6
During his teenage years and before
he changed to the Sicilian, Garry used
to play the Caro-Kann himself. It was
Nikitin who taught him to play 1... c6
for safety and 1... c5 to attack. Another
expert, Makagonov, was responsible
68
for developing Garry's feel for the
Caro-Kann.
2 d4
2 ttJe2 was played by the 13-year-
old Garry, and surprisingly he beat
Kaiumov with it.
2... dS 3 ttJd2
After 2000, Garry's attention turned
to 3 e5.
3 ... dxe4 4 ttJxe4 ttJd7 S ttJgS
This move was first played by
Semenova in 1983. The line is a bit
strange, in that White moves this
knight three times running. But chess
is a wonderful game, and thankfully
not always very logical. The move
became popular only in the late 1980s
as a consequence of the match
between Andrei Sokolov and Karpov,
in which Sokolov completely lost his
way against the Caro-Kann. The first
time Garry played this way with
White was against Karpov in 1988.
Later he lost his last game and the
whole match against Deep Blue when
the computer used this move.
S...ttJgf6 6 .i.d3!?
An alternative is 6 .ltc4 e6 7 ~e2
ttJb6 8 .ltb3 h6 9 ttJ5f3 a5 10 c3 c5
II a3 Vliic7 12 ttJe5 cxd4 13 cxd4 a4
14 .ltc2 .ltd7. Garry had played this
two rounds earlier with White against
Karpov, who forced him to fight hard
in order to draw.
6... e6 7 ttJlf3 .i.d6 8 'tWe2 h6
9 ttJe4 ttJxe410 ~xe4 ~c7
Both this and developing by
10 ...ttJf6 have their advocates. The
latter prevents White from going after
the only weakness in Black's position
- the g7 -pawn - but it gives up control
of the e5-square. There can follow:
(a) II Vliie2 V/JIc7 (after ll...c5
12 dxc5 .ltxc5 13 .ltd2 0-0 14 0-0-0,
White is somewhat better) 12 .i.d2 b6
13 0-0-0 .ltb7 14 :thel 0-0-0.
(b) 11 Vliih4 ~e7!? is an amazing
idea that came from Karpov, who
ironically had been forced to improve
his opening play after suffering

against Garry. (Before the two met
over the board, Karpov had not been
obliged to work 100 per cent on the
openings; Garry's pressure made him
come up with novelties like this one.)
The game Kamsky-Karpov, Dortmund
1993, continued 12 tileS AxeS
13 dxeS 'iV as+ 14 c3 'iV xeS+ IS ii. e3
b6 16 0-0-0 gS 17 ~a4 (17 ~h3!?
looks more testing) 17 ... cS 18 :!':the 1
.id7 19 ~a3 l::rhd8. Ever since this
game, Karpov's early king move has
been adopted and has spawned its own
variations.
11 'tWg4!
White makes a third queen move,
targeting the kingside. Interestingly,
the queen itself may also become a
target.
11 g5?!
This approach was fIrst adopted in a
game by the former French champion
Andruet, who died tragically and very
young. Kamsky probably acquired an
appetite for this move from Karpov.
However, the outcome here is not as
fortunate as in Karpov's experience.
Let us look at the alternatives.
(a) Speelman's surprising move
II...Wf8!? is played more often than
Il...gS. Black remains without a
weakness, but the question is whether
he can fInish his development in time
with b7-b6, Ac8-b7 and c6-cS. White
has to play carefully, as the queen can
be exposed to tactical threats in-
69
1994
volving tild7-f6 and g7-gS. The
variation was fIrst played in Gelfand-
Speelman, Munich 1992, which con-
tinued: 12 0-0 cS 13 b3 eS (even the
bishop on c8 can affect the queen on
g4) 14 dxcS tilxcs IS ii.f5 hS 16I{Wh3
tile6.
(b) While Garry has never faced
11...\t>f8, his reaction to a different
novelty was tested in his game against
Anand at Linares 1995. That game
went II...l::rg8 12 tild2 tilf6 13 ~f3
eS (13 ...b6 14 tilc4 Ab7, as in
Spasov-Meduna, Budapest 2000, is
interesting) 14 dxeS AxeS IS tilc4
Ae6 16 .i.d2 0-0-0 17 0-0-0 tild7
18 nhel nge8 19 <;!;bl g5 20 h4 i..f4
21 .i.xf4 gxf4 22 Af5!, and Garry
obtained a clear advantage. This
shows that he not only knows the
openings exceptionally well but is also
capable of reacting to a novelty with
panache. This ability results from a
mixture of factors; Garry's inherent
talent has combined successfully
with his amazing work-ethic. The
thousands of hours spent analysing the
opening have made him a giant in this
phase of the game.
12 ~h3!
Sticking to his idea, White happily
steps back to maintain his threat.
Overworking the queen might seem a
dubious idea; Garry has invested 4
moves out of his fIrst 12 to place the
queen at the edge of the board, just for
1994
a transparent t~eat. Clearly you have
to be very careful doing things like
this; a piece of advice to young
players is to make sure the queen
obtains something tangible and can
return home in time. An alternative
might well have been 12 ~e4 c5
13 h4, which is interesting too, but
Garry would certainly not have
retracted his pr~ious move like that.
12...l::tg8
The the earliest game featuring
ll...g5, the continuation was 12 ....tf4
13 0-0 i.xcl 14l::taxcl ~f4 15 l::tcel
b6 (or 15 ... g4 16 ~h4) 16 l::te4 ~f6
17l::tfel \t1d8 18 ~g3, and White had
a decisive advantage; Benjamin-
Andruet, Paris 1989.
13 ttJd2!
With two simple moves Kasparov
obtains an advantage - now Black
cannot castle. If instead 13 ~xh6?,
then 13 ...i.fS 14 ~h7 ttJf6 15 ~h3
g4 and Black is much better.
13....i.fS
In the event of 13 ... c5 14 LZJe4 cxd4
15 ~xh6, the black pieces don't look
well co-ordinated. However, 13 ...g4
looks like th~ best alternative; the
game Frolov-Ponomariov, Kiev 1997,
continued 14 ~e3 .tf4 15 ~e2 c5
16 g3 i.xd2+ 17 i.xd2 cxd4 180-0-0
LZJc5 19 i.f4, and the future knock-
out World Champion went on to win
this position; White was unable to
capitalize on the dangerous play he
gained in return for the pawn.
14 ttJe4
14 0-0 ttJf6 15 f4 e5 16 f5 exd4
17 ~el + also produced a very
promising attack in Palac-Arlandi,
Formia 1995.
14....i.g7
Or 14 ... b6 15 0-0 .tb7 16 f4; Black
isn't going to have fun here either.
150-0!
From several attractive options,
Garry picks the one that is probably
best. This sort of incisiveness is harder
to achieve when there is a reasonable
70
choice, e.g.:
(a) If 15 c3?! then 15 ... e5, and
Black obtains some chances.
(b) 15 'iV e3 !? was suggested by
Kharitonov. It leads to a slight
advantage after 15 ... b6 160-0 .tb7 17
f4!, but the game continuation aims
for more than that.
(c) In Schlosser-Reichmann, Austria
1994 (where the diagram position
arose after move 16, owing to the
insertion of 13 i.h7 Mh8 14 .td3
l::tg8) White did well with another
aggressive continuation: 15 i.d2 b6
16 0-0-0 .t b7 17 f4, although at this
point 17 ... c5 gives Black counter-
chances.
15...i..xd4
If 15 ...b6, then 16 f4! (Kasparov
castled so that he could open the
f-file as quickly as possible; White
could also play the preparatory
16 c3) 16....txd4+ (16 ... g4 17 'iVe3)
17 ~hl, and White has very good
play for the pawn.
16 i.e3!
White intends to exchange Black's
developed bishop and soften up the
d6-square. The move may well have
been the product of home preparation,
but this is hard to say. Garry's oppon-
ent also had the same opportunity to
prepare a counter.
Of course 16 'iVxh6?? would be a
horrible mistake because of 16... l::th8,
while 16 \t>hl was possible yet

less convincing; after 16 ... i.e5 Black
could offer more resistance than in the
game.
16...i.e5
Garry's win was so convincing that
there was no other game in which
Black repeated Kamsky's play. Black
does, however, have three other poss-
ibilities in this position:
(a) First, 16 ....tg7 17 f4 gxf4
IS i.xf4 e5 19 i.e3, and White has
no worries about obtaining enough for
the pawn.
(b) Secondly, 16 ....txe3 is given a
question mark by Kasparov. And now:
(b I) It is most likely that Garry
would have taken back with 17 'iV xe3
in order to keep the e-file open. After
17 .. :~Ve5 (l7 ... ~f4 IS ~e2) IS ~h3,
White has decent compensation for
the pawn.
(b2) Garry's own comment stops
after 17 fxe3 with the evaluation
"better for White", but after 17 ... f5!
things are not that simple. The
position is reminiscent of the ~b6
Najdorf, which Garry plays as Black.
Here Black threatens to take the
knight, and 'i'c7-e5 is a strong re-
source. It has not been possible to fmd
a convincing way to break open
Black's defence:
(b21) IS ttJg3 ttJe5, after which
Black most probably castles long and
isOK.
(b22) IS "iVxh6 ~e5 19 ttJg3 ttJf6
20 e4 f4 21 ttJh5 ttJg4, and again
Black does all right.
71
1994
(b23) IS ~h5+ ~e7 19 "iVxh6 (or
19 ttJg3 ~e5) 19 ... ~e5 20 ttJc3 ~hS
and the ending is harmless.
(b24) IS ttJc3 ttJe5 (l8 ... ttJf6
19 ~ xh6 ~ e5 should be satisfactory
for Black) 19 ~h5+ ~f7 20 ~xh6
~g6 21 ~h3 .Jid7, and Black must
be OK here too.
(c) In the third place, there is no
~,.
... ,.
forced refutation of 16....txb2.
.1 . . . . . . . .1.
.i.l...D..'if
.,.,. %
~
~
.:=
t::,-t::,.
_ wt::,%
U
There are thre main possibilities:
(c 1) 17 ~ae I!? (it is remarkable that
neither Kasparov nor Kamsky
mentioned this move) 17 ....Jie5 IS g3,
and now:
(cll) IS ... l::thS 19 f4 (White can
also think of making the preparatory
move 19 <;t>hl before unleashing f2-
f4) 19 ... gxf4 20 gxf4 (or 20 .Jixf4)
20 .. J::tg8+ 21 <;t>hl .Jig7 22 f5 (or
22 l::tgl !?) and White has nice com-
pensation in the centre.
(c12) IS ... b6 19~xh6 .tb7 (after
19 ... g4 20 ~h5 White's attack is
dangerous) 20 ttJxg5 (after 20 f4 gxf4
21 .txf4 0-0-0, Black enjoys some
safety at last) 20 .. JIhS 21 ttJxe6 and
White has an overwhelming attack.
(c2) 17 c3!? Garry gives this move
an exclamation mark. It is an amazing
idea; White is ready to sacrifice the
exchange as well, just to get rid of the
dark-squared bishop. After 17 ...J.xal
ISl::txal, Black has these choices:
(c21) 18... ~e5 19 I:tdl (or 19 .td4
~f4, when White can continue
20 J:tel c5 21 ttJxc5 ttJxc5 22 .txc5;
if instead 20 ~xh6 ~h4 21 ttJf6+
1994
CDxf6 22 ~xf6 ~f4 23 ~h6 ~h4,
Black can at least draw by repetition)
19 ... f5 (I9 ... g4 20 ~h4 f5 21 i.d4 is
dangerous) 20 .lid4 ~d5 21 ~h5+
<:t;e7 (2l...<:t;d8 22 lllf6 wins)
22 ~xh6 ~e4 23 ~h7+ <:t;f8
24 .lixe4 ~b5 (or 24 ... ~a5 25 l:i.d3
g4 26 .lie3, and White's attack breaks
through) 25 c4 ~a5, and now it is
difficult to see how to finish off the
attack, although White has all the play
and certainly enough compensation
for the rook.
(c22) 18 .. J~g6 is the only defens-
ive move KasPllfov mentions here.
After 19 lidl (19 :!::tel e5), Black
has these options:
(c22l) Garry only analyses 19... f5
20 ~h5 <:t;fl, and mentions 21 g4!?
(or 21 i.c2; on 21 .lixg5, Black plays
2l...~e5) as a possible means of
attack.
(c222) 19... e5! is suggested by the
computer as a way of easing the
pressure. White retains the initiative,
but the defence looks hard to break
down - and Black has such a huge
material advantage. White can try:
(c222l) 20 .Jtc2 lllc5 (or 20 ... CDb6
21 ~f3llld5) 21 ~f3lllxe4 22 .lixe4
l::i.d6, and Black is in no danger of
losing at all.
(c2222) 20 ~f5 b5 (alternatively
20 ... <:t;f8, and if 21 .Jtc4 then
2l...lllf6, or if 21 ~f3 then 2l...<:t;g8
22 .lic4 CDb6 23 lllf6+ <:t;h8 24 llle8
~e7 25 ~xf7 ~xfl 26 i.xfl .lif5,
and Black is out of danger) 21 .lic2
72
(21 c4 '>!7f8) 21...~f8 (or 21...c5)
22 ~f3 <tJg7 23 lllg3lllf6, and White
is left with no attack.
(c2223) 20 ~f3 b5 (or 20 ... <:t;f8
21 lllc5 :!::td6 22 lllxd7+ .lixd7
23 .lic5 <tJg7 24 .Jtxd6 ~xd6 25 Ji..c2
~e6 26 ~d3 .lie8 27 ~h7+ <tJf8
28 'iUh8+ We7 29 ttel <tJd6, and
Black gets away) 21 .lic2 (after
21 lllc5 :!::t f6 22 "iV e2 lllxc5 23 .li xc5
i.e6, White has little for the material)
2l...g4 22 "iVe2 lllb6 23 Ji..c5 lZld5
looks all right for Black.
(c3) However, White certainly gets
good compensation with 17 l':t ad 1! .
After 17 ... .lie5 18 <tJhl, Black has
these tries:
(c31) 18 ...b5 19 c4 bxc4 20 .lixc4
lllb6 21 f4 gxf4 (or 2l...g4 22 "iVxh6
l':th8 23 'iV g5 and Black is in trouble)
22 .lixf4 .lixf4 23 lllf6+.
(c32) 18 ...b6 19 .lic4 (or 19 g3
.lib7 20 f4 gxf4 21 gxf4 .lig7 22 f5)
19... :!::tg6 20 .lid4 .Jtb7 21 .lixe5
lllxe5 22 ~g3. Black is two pawns
up, but his pieces are uncoordinated
and his king is not safe.
(c33) 18 ... lllf6 19 lllxf6+ Ji..xf6 is
given as unclear. White has plenty of
compensation for the pawns: -
(c331) 20 f4 :!::th8 21 ~f3, and it
will be hard for Black to neutralize
White's initiative.
(c332) 20 "iVh5 b6 21 f4 :!::th8
22 i.c4 (22 f5 e5), and White has a
lasting initiative for his pawns.
(c333) 20 ~xh6, reducing the
material deficit; 20 ... l::th8 21 .lih7
 1994

J..eS (alternatively 21...VtlUe7 22 Jt..cS,
or 2l...g4 22 I{i'xf6 l:Ixh7 23 1(,[4 and
White is better) 22 .txgS .td7
23l:Id3, with tremendous play.
We now return to the game, after
16 ... .teS.
18 ... Jt..b7? 19 Jt..xe6 shows that the
bishop on c4 is not a paper tiger)
19 l:Id2!? appears a good option to
improve White's position. He can also
keep the initiative with 19 .te2 ttJf6
20 ttJxf6+ l::txf6 21 c3, or 19 .td4
.tf4 20 g3 when Black has to be very
careful.
(c) 17 .. .ttJ b6 is mentioned by
Kasparovas a possibility, and he also
gives the appropriate response: 18 c4
.t d7 (18 .. ,cLJa4 19 .t e2) 19 .t e2
0-0-0 20 .tc5, and White has a
pleasant game.
18 ttJ xf6+ .t xf6

17l:Iadl
Putting the ball back in Kamsky's
court. Now Black has to show which
way he wants to move his king, and
how he intends to bring his queen's
rook into the game. White certainly
has compensation for the pawn.
17...ttJf6?
As it turns out, this accelerates
defeat; Gata probably miscalculated. 19.th7!
Other moves may have been better, 19 ~xh6 would just transpose after
but they were still unattractive: 19... I'Ih8 20 .th7.
(a) 17 ...bS stops J..d3-c4, but weak- 19..I'Ih8 20 ~xh6 it.e7
ens the queenslde. Possible replies are This is virtually equivalent to
18 c4!?; or 18 c3 .t b7 19 Jt..c2; or resignation. Gata probably planned
18 Jt..e2 Jt..b7 19 VtlUxh6, when 20 ... ~e7, overlooking that Garry
19 ... l:Ih8? 20 ttJd6+ wins. would have a most impressive tactical
(b) Kharitonov recommended de- shot:
veloping with 17 ... b6, but White can
keep good prospects in more than one
way:
(b I) 18 g3 .t b7 19 VtlUxh6 0-0-0
(l9 ... l:!.h8 20 ~xgS) 20 .txgS l:!.de8
(or 20.J::tdf8 21 .te7 with some
advantage) 21 ttJf6 ttJxf6 22 Jt..xf6 cS
23 i::tfel, and White is somewhat
better.
(b2) 18 Jt..c4! l:Ig6 (Black has
managed to stop the direct threats, but
his pieces are disunited; the variation 21 .tcS! (21 ~d3 also gives good

73
1994
attacking chances) 21...J:Ixh7 (if
21...'tIVxc5 then 22 'tIVxf6 wins)
22 l:i.d8+!! (a most beautiful and
clinically effective combination. It
could be missed even at this stage, let
alone in advance. Most likely Kamsky
saw what was coming when it was too
late) 22 ... ~xd8 (on 22 ... Wxd8, the
bishop takes the queen with check)
23 ~f8+ (unlike in the game, Black
can't continue resistance here, as he
gets checkmated) 23 ... 'Ot>d7 24 ti.dl+
'Ot>c7 25 l:i.xd8 .ltxd8 26 ~d6 mate.
21 ~g7 J:If8 22l::td3 .ltd7 23 ~xg5
Here Gata could have resigned, as
his position is already hopeless.
23..ltxg5 24 ~xg5 ~d8 25 ~e5
'ige7 26 'i9c7!
Garry keeps playing accurately,
even though almost anything else
would work equally well. He forces a
weakening ofthe queenside.
26....ltc8 27 'i9a5 b6 28 'ige5!
White loses a tempo, but Black's
extra move weakens c6.
28.~a6
If28 ...il.d7, then 29 'tIVc7.
29~e4l:i.c8
Or 29 ....ltxd3 30 ~xc6+ <t>d8
31 l::tdl! and Black may as well
resign.
30 c4l::tg8
Black has no chance to take the
pawn: 30... il."c4? 31 ~xc6+ J:Ixc6
32 'tIVb8+.
31 b3 ~b7 32 J:Ifdl ~a8
74
33c5
What are you to do if your opponent
doesn't want to resign when com-
pletely lost? Stay focused, and enjoy
having a winning position. On no
account get upset and risk losing your
concentration! Anand calls this move
flashy!
33 bxc5
Black is similarly lost after
33 ...'tIVxc5 34 ~xc5 bxc5 35 J:d7.
341:td6c4
34 ...J:Ig5 would have allowed a
nicer finish: 35 ~h8+ ~f8 36 l::td8+
and wins.
35 bxc4 c5 36 j. xa8 1:t xa8
37 'iVxc5 l:.b8 38 g3 'iVb7 39 ~d4
'Ot>f8 40 1If6
Finally Black had had enough, and
resigned.
1-0
In round ten, Garry lost a complic-
ated King's Indian to Kramnik. In the
following round he beat Anand in a
great attacking game.
Game 10
G.Kasparov (2805) White
V.Anand (2715) Black
Linares 1994
A typical Scheveningen position has
arisen. Garry has acquired ample
experience of this type of position,
most notably when he held off Karpov
in the last game of their second

World Championship match! That
game secured him the title.
21 VWh4
In this game Anand's position has
evolved somewhat more slowly than
normal. Just like Ivanchuk in Game 8
(with the Botvinnik System), Garry
exerts considerable pressure along the
h-file. In a way White has actually
burned his boats, as the attack now
needs to deliver an immediate break-
through (as Ivanchuk's failed to do).
In the absence of White's heavy
pieces, Black is dominating the other
side of the board.
21...hS 22 .tf3!
Kasparov usually conceals his
intentions early in the game, but this
time he shows his cards. It becomes
clear that there is so much latent
power in the attack that even if Anand
saw what was coming, he could do
nothing about it.
22 ...i.f8
After 22 ... lZlxc2 23 .ixh5 the attack is
too strong; similarly 22 ... e5 23 f5
lZlxc2 24 i.xh5 leaves Black defence-
less on the h-file.
23 .ixhS! gxhS
The alternative 23 ....tg7!? gives
rise to the following analysis:
(a) With 24 .idI! White can con-
solidate his pawn advantage, although
this move alsp gives Black time to
consolidate his king position. There
can follow:
75
1994
(aI) 24 ....tb7 25 .td4!.
(a2) 24 ... ~e7! defends the king
even though it blocks the escape route.
And now:
(a2I) The direct attack by 25 .id4
no longer leads to a win: 25 ... e5 26 f5
lZlxb3 27 cxb3 (27 ~h7+ ~f8)
27 ... gxf5 28.tf2 'ilVe6, and Black is in
the game.
(a22) After 25 lZld2 .td7 White is a
pawn up and has much the better
position. However the game still has
to be won, as Black's position is
unlikely to collapse just yet.
(b) Kasparov gives 24 i. d4 as an
exciting option. However, with the
help of computer programs, doubt has
to be cast on his idea:
(bI) After 24 ... gxh5, White can
transpose into the game with
25 ~xh5, but he has more than one
way to conduct the attack:
(bII) 25 .txg7 ~xg7 26 VWxh5
(26 f5 :cth8) 26 ... ~f8 27 'iVh8+ ~e7
28 Vj'f6+ ~d7
29 g6!! (more convincing than
29 ~xf7+ ~e7 30 :cth7 lZlc6 or
30 ~xe7+ ~xe7 31 l::rh7+ ~d8
32 l:hc7 ~xc7) 29 ... lZlxb3 (or
29... lZlxc2 30 l::rh7 ~c6 31 J:IcIlZlb4
32 Z::!:xf7; White has considerable play
for the piece, and the pawn on g6 is
quite dangerous) 30 l::th7 ~c5+
31 ~hI lZlc6 (after 3l...d5 32 cxb3
i.b7 33 l'lxf7+ l'le7 34 f5, Black is in
danger) 32 :ctxf7+ lZle7 33 g7 d5
(White answers 33 ....tb7 or 33 ... Vj'f2
with 34 g8=~) 34 ~dI .ib7 35 f5
1994
~d6 36 cxb3 with a massive attack.
(bI2) 25 i.f6! e5 (25 .. .ciJd7 26 e5
dxe5 27 tXe5 lilxf6 28 gxf6 ~xe5
29 J:tg3 wins) 26 f5 i.xf5 27 exf5
lilxb3 28 'iYxh5 'iYc5+ 29 \t>g2 'iYc6+
30 \t>g3; Wltite escapes from the
checks, and delivers mate in 4 moves.
(b2) 24 ... e5 25 f5!, and now:
(b21) 25 ... gxf5 26 i.xc5 (26 g6 f6)
26 ... bxc5
27 g6! (Garry gives this move in his
Informant anaJysis) 27 ...f6 (27 ... i.e6
28 exf5 wins; or 27 ... tXg6 28 i.xg6
l:!e7 29 i.h7+ \t>ffl 30 i.xf5 .txf5
31 ttfl ttf7 32 exf5 i.f6 33 'iYc4, and
White is better) 28 i.e2, when Black
has various chqices:
(b211) 28 ... Ae6 29 exf5 i.xf5
30 ~h7+ \t>ffl 31ttf3 and wins.
(b212) 28 ... c4 29 lild2 tXe4
30 .txc4+ \t>ffl 31 l:!fl \t>e7
32 lildxe4 (32 'iYxf6+ i.xf6 33 l':th7+
\t>d8 34 l':txc7 \t>xc7 35 IiIxf6 l':td8
gives Black good chances of escaping)
32 ... i.xh3 (after 32 ...l::tffl 33 'iYh7
\t>d8 34 lIdl Axh3 35 IiIxd6+ \t>e8
36 ~xh3, White's attack is decisive)
33 lilxf6 ~a7+ 34 l:If2 .tf5
35 lilxe8+ <;i;>xe8 36 'iYh7, and Black
is in trouble.
(b213) 28 ... f4 29 .tc4+ '.t'ffl. Now
Black's position is hanging by a
thread, though it is not easy to prove
that he is necessarily lost: -
(b2131) 30 l':tdl Axh3 31 'ifxh3
l':te7 32 'iYh7 '.t'e8 33 i.f7+ l':txf7
34 gxf7+ '.t'xf7, and Black is far from
dead.
76
(b2132) 30 l':tf3 lilxc2 31 ~h7
(after 31 lild5 ~d8 32 l:c I lilb4
33 'iYh7 Ae6, Black's position
doesn't fall apart) 31 ... Ae6 32 lild5
'iYd7, and again it is not over.
(b2133) 30 ~h7 i.xh3 31 ~g8+
'.t'e7 32 'iYxg7+ '.t'd8 33 'iYxf6+
~e7, and Black is very much alive.
(b2134) 30 l':td3, and now:
(b21341) On 30 ... <.ii>e7, Garry gives
31 'iYh7 \t>d8 32 l':txd6+ 'iVxd6
33 l':tdl as most effective. Unfortun-
ately he doesn't mention what
happens if Black has no 'ear for
poetry' and simply takes the material:
(b21342) 30 ... lilxd3, when White
can try:
(b213421) 31 lild5 'iYd8 32 cxd3
(not 32 'iVh7? lilxb2) 32 ... i.e6,
bringing about a very complex pos-
ition in which White has some
compensation. Black's pieces have
limited mobility, though it is possible
to double rooks on the b-file. The
computer believes this position is
winning for Black, but for the analyst
the situation is not so straightforward.
Maybe Garry was satisfied that White
was better, but how can he improve
the placing of his pieces?
(b213422) 31 cxd3 is similar:
31....te6 32lild5 'iYd7 (32 ... 'iVa7 is
also unclear), and it is possible White
can slowly build up pressure, though
after 33 l::ta2 J::tb7 34 lild2 J::teb8
35 b3 ~e8 Black should be all right.
It is a pity Garry did not examine this
line.

(b22) 25 ... ~xd4 26 .txg6 fxg6
(26 ...dxc3 27 ~h7+ 'itf8 28 f6 wins)
27 ~h7+ 'it'f8 28l::Ifl!! gxf5 29 exf5.
And now:
(b221) 29 ... dxc3 30 f6 is decisive.
(b222) On 29 ... I:te1, the Champion
himself gives 30 J:txe 1 dxc3 31 J:tfl
LLlxb3 32 f6 'iVc5+ 33 Whl kb7+
34 l:t13!! and wins. Such fantastic
moves are Garry's hallmark.
(b223) 29 ... ~e5!! (this great move
was found by the computer. Devotees
of the Najdorf often have to be ready
to find moves just like this) 30 f6
(30 tllxd4l:e1)
30 ... 'it'e8!! (this is the point of the
77
1994
brilliant 29 th move; the rook has made
room for the king to slip away). White
can try:
(b2231) 31 tllxd4 kxh3.
(b2232) 31 Mg3. After this move an
extremely complicated position arises.
White has compensation, but Black
should at least be able to hold, e.g.:
(b22321) 31...tlle6 gives real
chances of weathering the storm:
32 f7+ 'it'd8 33 ~xg7 tllxg7
34 f8=~+ tlle8 35 tllxd4 ~c5, and
Black frees himself from the pressure.
(b22322) 31 ... :!::tb7 32 lLlxd4
(32 fxg7 ~xg7) 32 ...i..f8 (or
32 ... lLle6 33 fxg7 Wiixg7 34 'iYh5+
Wd8 35 LLlf5, and it is very hard
to judge the position accurately)
33 Wiixc7 l:txc7 34 g6 iL.g7, and
Black's position is difficult to destroy.
(b2233) 31 fxg7 l:txg5+ 32 l:tg3
'iYxg7 (Black escapes from the attack)
33 'iYxg7 J:txg7 34 J:txg7 dxc3
35 tlld4 (after 35 I:tg8+ 'it'd7 36 lLld4
Wc7, Black is safe) 35 ... cxb2
36 1:rg8+ <3;;e7 37 c3 (playing for a
win, but this is extremely risky;
instead White can give perpetual
check with 37 :!::tg7+)
37 ... tlld5!! 38 tllc6+ (or 38 ~g7+
'it'e8 39 :!::tg8+ Wd7 40 ~g7+ lLle7
41 tllf5 J:tb7 42 tllxe7 'it'e6 and
Black wins) 38 ... 'it'd7 39 tllxb8+
Wc7, and Black should win because
of the passed pawn on the second
rank.
Now back to the action in the game.
1994

Black has just played 23 ... gxhS. (c) 28 Ug3!! is more convincing:
(cl) 28 ... f6 29 gxf6 i.xf6

30 Ug8+!! (this beautiful stroke

finishes Black oft) 30 ... 'itxg8
24 'iixh5 i..g7 25 i.d4 e5
31 ~xe8+ <J;;g7 32 ~g6+ and Black
BOnsch shows how White can break
is completely lost.
through after the bishop exchange:
(c2) 28 ... c4 29 f6, and now:
2S ... i..xd4+ 26 tZlxd4 'itfS 27 g6! (a
(c21) 29 ... Ue6 30 fxg7+ 'itxg7
lovely shot found by the German
31 Mh3 wins.
grandmaster) 27 ... <J;;e7 (27 ... i..b7
(c22) 29 ... cxb3 30 ~h7 ~cS+
28 'iigS is decisive) 28 ~gS+ <J;;d7
31 <J;;hl Ud8 32 g6!! (what a move!)
29tIh7 and wins.
32 ... i..e6 33 gxt7, and again White
26 f5! liJxe4
wins.
Not 26 ... exd4? 27 ~h7+ <J;;fS 28 [6,
(c23) 29 ... i.e6 30 ~h7 Ued8
and Black cannot stop mate in 2.
31 tZldS! tZlxdS 32 exdS i..xdS
However, 26 ... 'itfS!? gives some
33 ~xg7+ <J;;e8 34 J:tdl with a very
practical chances after 27 AxcS (27 f6
good attacking position.
i..xh3) 27 ... dxcS.
(a) 28tIh4 f6!.
(b) 28 to i..xh3 29 ~h7, and now:
(bl) 29 ... tIed8 30 fxg7+ (on
30 ~xg7+ the black king escapes
with 30 ... <J;;e8 31 ~h8+ <J;;d7
32 ~xh3+ 'itc6) 30... <J;;e7 31 ~xh3
c4 (31..J::tg8 32 ~h6 ~d6 33 tIdl!)
32 ~fS ttg8 33 ~f6+ 'ite8 34 ttdl
cxb3 (34 ... ~e7 3S liJal) 3S tZldS
(3S g6 bxc2 36 gxt7+ ~xt7
37 ~xeS+ VIIe7 38 ~hS+ ~t7
39 ~eS+ leads to perpetual check)
3S ... liJxdS 36 :'xdS r!xg7 37 ~xg7
bxc2 38 ~h8+ <J;;e7 39 ~f6+, again 27 'iih7+ <J;;f8 28 liJxe4 i..xfS
with a perpetual. 29 ~ xfS exd4 30 tZl f6!
(b2) 29 ... l:te6 30 ~xg7+ <J;;e8 Black was probably lost when he
31 1:tdl 1:td6 (White has dangerous took on hS, yet only now has the truth
compensation, but a win is not so become crystal clear; 30 Ufl wins as
obvious) 32 ~h8+ 'itd7 33 ~xh3+ well.
<J;;c6 produces an interesting and 30... ~xc2 31liJxd4! ~xb2
unclear position. As Ftacnik demonstrated, 31 .. .'~xfS
78

32 lLlxf5 leads to mate by 32 ... l:Ied8
33 lLlh7+ \t>g8 34 tiJe7+ 'iiih8
35 tiJf6+ .th6 36 l:Ixh6+ 'iiig7
37 tiJf5+ 'iiif8 38l:Ih8.
32 Udl ~e5
Or 32 .. J:te1+ 33 ~xel 'iVxd4+
34 Uhe3 and wins.
33 lLld7+ 'iiie7 34 lLlxe5 .txe5
35 ~e4!
The final nail is driven into the
coffin. Black resigned (1-0).
In round 12 Kasparov faced his
former World Championship cand-
idate opponent Beliavsky. The King's
Indian ended in a fair draw.
Beliavsky, who can alternate between
magical play and bad play, scored
only two points in the whole
tournament.
In the last round Garry lost an
extremely complicated game against
Lautier. Shirov, who had suffered two
losses early on, caught up with Garry
by making a 'plus six' score from his
last ten games. Garry's play in some
games had been majestic, but he had
made more mistakes than usual and
had to be satisfied with sharing second
place.
MO$COW Rapid
Kasparov started by playing Tim-
man. In the first game the. Dutch
79
1994
grandmaster went in for a sacrificial
variation. The play he obtained was
comfortably neutralized, and Garry
went on to win. Now let us join the
second game.
Game 11
J. Timman (2620) White
G.Kasparov (2805) Black
PCA/lntel rapid, Moscow 1994
After losing the first game, Timman
had to win the second at any cost. He
adopted an interesting approach,
starting with 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c3. Garry
didn't treat the opening in his usual
way - seeking the initiative - but tried
to restrain the Dutch grandmaster. An
equal position arose, which maybe
caused Kasparov to be too relaxed.
Then he missed a tactical idea and lost
a pawn to a pin. White emerged a
pawn up, but his king was in the
centre. I think Timman should have
consolidated the position, but he opted
for further active moves. Very few
players can play Kasparov as though
he were just another opponent - most
are apprehensive. My impression is
that Timman wanted to take him apart
and teach him a lesson. Timman is,
after all, one of the very few players
who have 'damaged' Garry with
White! In this game Garry somehow
kept causing difficulties with active
queen moves, and Timman was
unable to make progress.
1994
35~c3?
Then in this position he chooses the
wrong moment to offer a queen
exchange. With 35 ~e3! White
probably retains a clear plus. It will
pay him to try to move his king to
safety and extricate himself from the
pin: 35 ... ~b4 36 \t>gl (or 36 ~e4
~xa4 37 e6) 36 ... ~xa4 37 \t>h2 ~d7
38 ~t3 l:te7 (after 38 ... ~d5 39 J:te4
l::tfS 40 tiJf4 White is better) 39 ~c4
~e6 40 l:tb4 with advantage.
35 ~xe3 36l::txc3
36l::txe5!
Kasparov r~covers his pawn and
draws comfortably.
37.ttf6
Not 37 dxe5 .l!tdl mate.
37...l:lh5?!
Garry activates his rook, making
sure of the draw and thus qualifying
for the next round. However, he
misses the chance to press for a win
with 37 .. .lhe2! 38 J:txb6 (after
38 \t>xe2 .i.xd4 39 J:tct3 .i.xf6
40 J:txf6 ~d4 White probably holds,
but he must work for it) 38... l::ta2 (or
38 ... axb6 39 ..t>xe2 llxd4 40 Uh3, and
now after 40 .. J:txa4 41 l:txh6 the
position is drawn owing to the
doubled b-pawns, but after 40 .. J:td6
41 \t>e3 \t>a7 White's drawing__ability
will be tested) 39 ttxh6 (39 IIb4 a5
40 l::tbc4 J:td2) 39 ... ~xa4 40 d5
(40 ~h7 l::taxd4) 40 ...~d4 41 tth7
l::t4xd5, and Black is a pawn up. The
80
win is not simple and might not even
be possible at all, but White is
struggling.
38 l:!e4 l::th1+ 39 Wf2 h5 40 J:tn
l:!bl 41 g3 l:tb2 42 Wf3 l:!b3+
43 Wg2 a5 44 ~h7 J:td5 45 I:lh8+
<j;a7 46 :tee8 .i.xd4 47 I:la8+ <j;b6
48 l::th6+ <j;e7 49 .tth7+ <j;b6
50 l::th6+ <j;e7 51 J:lh7+ Yz-Yz
In the quarter-final Garry faced
Kramnik. With White he acquired
little out of the opening, and Vladimir
drew comfortably. In the second
game, a King's Indian like their
Linares encounter, Kramnik did not
hold back, and castled long. Very
soon he gained an advantage. He
played brilliantly, sacrificing a rook,
and went on to eliminate Garry.
Amsterdam
In the first round, with White
against Ivanchuk, Garry gained
nothing from the Scotch. The game
ended in a draw on move 20. At one
point Ivanchuk could have obtained an
edge, and at the end he could have
played on. He was probably happy to
register his first draw with Black
against Garry after six losses.
In the second game Garry had
White against Short, who tried the
French - an opening he had never
used in their title match. That game
had to be selected for this book.
Game 12
G.Kasparov (2805) White
N.Short (2655) Black
Euwe Memorial, Amsterdam 1994
French Defence [C11J
1 e4 e6
Nigel is understandably curious to
find out what Garry had prepared
against the French for the World

Championship match, in which 1... e5
did not work well.
2 d4 d5 3 liJc3
This is the move Garry plays most
often. In the early I 990s he employed
the Exchange Variation (3 exd5) on a
few occasions. He actually tried it
against Nigel, who struggled to draw.
Of course Garry has played 3 liJd2 a
number of times as well - and not
without success.
3...liJf6
Short was later to play this move
more regularly, but up to this point in
his career he had only used it
occasionally.
4e5
Kasparov also has an impressive
score with 4 ~g5.
4..liJfd7
It is interesting that from now until
move IS both players choose the
moves that are most common; there
are no surprises.
5 f4 c5 6 liJrJ liJc6 7 ~e3 cxd4
There are very few lines in which
Kasparov has a minus score -
especially with the White pieces - but
against 7... a6 his record is dis-
appointing. His unfortunate blunder
against Radjabov at Linares 2003
contributed to this.
8 liJxd4 i..c5 9 ~d2 0-0
Another main line is 9 ... liJxd4
10 i.xd4 i.xd4 II ~xd4 ~b6. It is
worth remembering that Short's
strategy in the title match against
Kasparov was not to 'hold' him like a
boxer, but to fight. This is a line he
prepared for that match.
100-0-0
Despite the convincing nature of
this victory, Garry didn't repeat
queens ide castling against Shirov at
Astana 200 I. The game went 10 g3
'Iie7 11 0-0-0 liJb6 12 liJb3 ~xe3
I3 'Iixe3 i..d7 14 Wbl :tfc8 15 g4
lZ'lb4 16 Lfld4 Mc5 17 a3 lZ'lc6
18 lZ'lcb5 lZ'lxd4 19 liJxd4, and Garry
went on to win.
81
1994
10... a6 11 h4 liJxd4 12 i..xd4 b5
13l::th3!
According to the database, this was
only played for the first time in 1992
(on two occasions) and again in 1993.
White might transfer the rook to
the queens ide, or attack from g3. The
game Nunn-Lputian, Manila 1992,
saw instead 13 h5 b4 14 liJa4 Ji.xd4
15 'Iixd4 as 16 Ji.b5 J:tb8 17 Ji.d3
Ji.b7 18 h6 g6 19 f5, and the English
grandmaster won. Since then, how-
ever, White has scored very poorly
with this set-up.
13... b4
13 .. :iYb6 has also sometimes been
played. Many players choose to de-
velop first by 13 ...Ji.b7!?, and even
though b7 does not look a very
promising square, Black does reason-
ably well with this move; after 14 ... b4,
he has Ji.b7-c6 available.
14 liJa4
14 liJe2 as looks safe for Black.
14...i.xd4 15 ~xd4
15... f6?!
This was a prepared novelty.
Looking at the result of the game, you
might say that on this occasion the
investment of energy in pre-game
analysis did not payoff, but that
judgement would be superficial. The
truth is the opposite - Kasparov too
had analysed this move in advance,
and his preparation paid dividends.
It is easy to say with hindsight that
1994
Black's move was a mistake. Yes,
White is better developed and Black is
choosing to open the position. How-
ever, chess is so wonderful that
sometimes seemingly illogical moves
work. How ~an that happen? Top
players can violate one rule knowing
that another principle has greater
relevance. Furthermore the element of
surprise can playa significant part.
After 15 .. :~a5 16 b3 i.b7 (16 ... f6
now seems to be preferred) 17 c3
lUc8 18 '.ttb2 bxc3+ 19 l::txc3 Ihc3
20 Vliic3 Vliid8 21 g3 (butnot21:!lcl?!
:!lc8 22 ~b4 :!lxcl 23 '.ttxcl i.c6!),
White has an edge, as the bishop on
b7 will be a problem. Black scores
better with 15 ... a5 16 i.b5 :!lb8
17 il.d3 ~c7= (or again 17 ... f6!?, as
given by Shirov); theory has yet to
pronounce final judgement on this
line.
16 'tIVxb4!
With an increasing advantage, you
usually try to open the position.
Sometimes there is no chance to
exploit superior development, and you
can do nothing to prevent your
opponent catcl)ing up - but players in
difficulties do not usually catch up
against the likes of Tal, Shirov or
Kasparov.
After 16 l:t g3 fxe5 17 fxe5 VIii c7
18:!lellLlxe5 19l:txe5l':txf1+, Black
is not worse.
16 fxe517 Vliid6!
82
Bombing the fighter planes before
they manage to get off the ground!
Garry acts quickly, before Nigel can
develop. Instead, 17 fxe5 lLlxe5 would
be an example of failure to capitalize
on superior development: White
would have more pieces in play, but
he wouldn't be able to inflict any real
harm on his opponent.
17Vliif6
185!!
One single move could hardly
characterize a player better than this
one. It possesses the true hallmark of
Garry Kasparov, combining incredible
attacking verve with great calculation
and exceptional preparation at home.
Willingness to take a risk is also a
feature of this breathtaking move.
Why? First, it is possible that the line
was not analysed all the way to
the end, or if it was, Garry may
have known Black's best available
responses and still thought it was
worth trying. Secondly, he could not
have been exactly sure what Nigel
could come up with.
18Vliih6+
International Master J .Watson in-
dicates that after 18 ... :!le8 Black
still has play. On the other hand,
18... Vliixf5 19 l:tO Vliig4 20 :!lxflH
lLlxfB 21lLlb6 wins for White.
19 'it> b 1 l:t x5?
Chess history is written mainly by
the winners. It would be fascinating to

know how far Nigel had analysed the
opening at home, and what he had
missed or misjudged. The complic-
ations and the probable effect of
surprise have placed him under so
much pressurti, with such difficult
lines to calculate, that he loses his way
immediately.
A number of people searched for an
improvement, and came up with
19 .. .cD f6 as a particularly strong
candidate. There can follow:
(a) 20 fxe6? lZle4 21 ~xd5 lZld2+
22 l:Ixd2 (or 22 \t>al .txe6! -+)
22 ....txe6 23 ~d6 ~xd2 24 ~xd2
l:Ixfl + and Black wins.
(b) 20 lZlb6lZle4 21 VJJIc7 (21 VJJIc6
:ab8) 2l...:t:i.t7 (2l...lZlf2 22 .te2!)
22 ~xe5 :axf5 23 ~d4 (it is doubtful
whether Garry would have taken a
draw by 23 ~c7 l:It7 24 ~d8+), and
now:
(bl) Wedberg-Brynell, Link{)ping
2001, went 23, ..:ab8 24 :aD! :af4 (or
24 ... g6 25 lZlxc8 :t:i.xc8 26 .txa6, and
the bishop looks better than the
knight) 25 .tc4!! (25 lZlxc8 :axc8
26 kxa6) 25, ..:axO 26 gxO lZlf6
27 lZlxc8 :t:i.xc8 28 kxa6; White is
better, as he has the superior minor
piece.
(b2) 23 ... lZld2+ 24 l:Ixd2 'iYxd2
(after 24 ...:axfl+ 25 :ad! :axdl+
26 ~xdl :ab8 27 :ac3 :axb6
28 :!:!'xc8+ <3;;t7 Black can maybe get
his pieces organized, but you can
understand that even if Short had
calculated this far, he would not have
chosen to go in for this) 25 ~xd2
:axfl+ 26 ~c! l:txc\+ 27 <3;;xcl l:b8
28 l:Ib3, and White went on to win
this endgame in Van der Weide-
Stellwagen, Corus 2000.
(b3) 23 ...:axfl!? 24 Iixfl lZld2+
25 ~xd2 ~xd2, and it is not easy to
see how White obtains an advantage.
Did Garry kno~ how to proceed here?
Or was he taking a risk, seeing that
Nigel would, at best, only reach an
unclear endgame? Black looks all
83
1994
right after 26 :ahO (26 lZlxa8 h5)
26 ... h5 27 lZlxa8 kd7 (whereas
27 ....tb7 28 lZlc7 d4 29 :t:i.fS+ \t>h7
30 lZlxe6 leaves White somewhat
better).
20 kIm
Garry exchanges the key defending
piece and goes after the vulnerable
king. Believe it or not, he prepared
his novelty at least as far as the
20 th move. Nonetheless we should
emphasize that it is not only hard
work and dedication that bring results.
To find 18 f5, even at home, is a sign
of an inspired attacking maestro.
In the Chess base magazine Grand-
master Knaak wrote that the move
Kasparov and Makarychev had pre-
pared in advance was 20 ke2. White
can play for a win with this move as
his queen is paralysing the Black
queenside: -
(a) 20 ... <3;;t7? 21 ~c6 Iib8 22 :ab3
and the king blocks the return of the
rook to fS.
(b) 20 ... ~g6 21 h5 ~e8 22 h6, and
Black can hardly move on either side
of the board.
(c) 20 ... l:If2 21 kg4 <3;;h8 22 :aD.
Kasparov explains in My Great
Predecessors that people easily
understand the notion of material
advantage and also grasp the idea of
an advantage in development, but the
hardest thing is to achieve quality in
the positioning of the pieces. Black's
1994
poorly placed units here provide a
classic example.
(d) 20.JU4 21 ~c6 (trying to
undertake something concrete. An-
other interesting move is 21 ~D!?,
just keeping up the pressure; White
answers 2I...l:ha4? with 22 ~c6 )
2l...l:[b8 22 ~b3 l:[f8 23 J(.g4 Wh8
(after 23.Jhb3 24 J(.xe6+ ~h8
25 axb3, White has a plus) 24 J(.xe6
tZlb6 25 I:txb6 I:txb6 26 tZlxb6 J(.xe6
27 ~d6, and Black's pieces are still
not co-ordinated.
20...I:txfJ
Or 20 .. :iIIf6 21 l:[xf5! 'iUxf5
22 J(.e2 ~f7 23 ~g4, and now Black
cannot avoid losing material: 23 ... tZlf6
24 tZlb6 tZlxg4 25 tZlxa8.
21 gxfJ ~f6
Or 2l...~f7 22 J(.h3 a5!? (Fta~nik).
22~h3~f7
Not 22 ... tZlf8? 23 tZlb6.
23c4!
Black is so tied up that even a
waiting move could be embarrassing,
but Garry smells blood and goes for
the kill. If23 f4!?, then 23 ...~e7. The
other two possibilities are 23 a3 and
23 h5.
23... dxc4
23 ... d4 also looks suspect. It can be
met by:
(a) 24 f4 exf4 25 I:txd4 'iUg6+
26 ~al ~gl+ 27 l:!:dl ~e3 28 ~g2
(probably not the only way to hurt
Black) 28 ... l:[b8 (if 28 ... D, then
84
29 ~g3 i.b7 30 I:txd7+ ~e8 31 l:Idl
is strong) 29 ~c6 l\i'e5 30 ~xd7
~xd6 31 I:txd6 We7 32 l:txe6+
~xd7 33 I:te4 D 34 I:tf4, and Black
can escape to an endgame in which he
is just a pawn down.
(b) 24 c5 ~e7 25 ~c7 tZlf8
26 ~xe5 ~xh4 27 tZlb6 ~xh3
28 ~f4+ ~g8 29 tZlxa8 e5 30 ~xe5
~xD 31 l:tgl, and White is better.
24liJc3!
Black is lost. The knight has its eye
on the e4-s9.uare. This is better than
24 Vi'c6 nb8 25 ~xd7+ J(.xd7
26 ~xd7+ Wg6.
24 ...~e7
The only move.
25 ~c6:b8 26 liJe4liJb6
Kasparov showed that on 26 .. .'~f8
White wins by 27 ~xe6 1\i'b4
28 ~d6+ ~xd6 29 tZlxd6 We7
30 liJxc8+ Wxe6 31 l:d6+ Wf5
32liJe7+ Wf4 33 ~xd7.
In reply to 26 ... liJf8, Fta~nik gives
27 liJd6+ Wg8 28 tZlxc8 ~b4
29 ~xe6+!, finishing the attack
nicely.
27liJg5+ Wg8
Or 27 ... Wf8 28 tZlxh7+ Wg8
29 tZlg5 and wins.
28 ~e4 g6 29 ~xe5 I:tb7 30 I:td6!
Now it is all over. The hapless pawn
on e6 is the unwilling focus of
attention.
30...c3 31 .i xe6+
31 l:he6!? was also winning.

31...i.xe6
Finally the famous bad bishop
moves for the first time. Its late
emergence at move 31 turns out to be
Nigel's last move in the game.
32 Ihe61-0
A ferocious display of chess.
White could answer 32 ... tllc4 with
33 ~xc3! (the most clinical win
analysed by Fta~nik) 33 ... tlla3+
34 'it'cl ~f8 35 ~xa3.
Garry faced Timman in the last
game of the first cycle. The Dutch
number one player tried 1 d4 and
refrained from c2-c4, just as he had
done in Moscow. The position became
extremely complicated. The Dutch
grandmaster probably missed chances
to take control, and in the end
Kasparov won the game in the time
scramble.
In round 4, Ivanchuk played a new
set-up and Garry committed a blunder.
To save himself he tried to build a
fortress, but the young grandmaster
from the Ukraine laid a successful
siege using first-rate technique.
Then another amazing Kasparov
game followed. I know you have to be
brave to criticize, but I think the
players should have revealed more of
their calculations. Why did they not
do so? Sometimes great artists
underestimate their own masterpieces;
Beethoven experienced some worry
before the 'Ode to Joy' reached the
audience. But there is another possible
explanation: maybe because of the
'hot' opening, Kasparov and Timman
didn't want to disclose too much
analysis publicly.
Jan Timman was one of Garry's
most frequent opponents during the
early phase of his career. Only Karpov
has played more games against
Kasparov. Before 1994, Garry had a
convincing plus score with White
against Jan. Playing White himself,
however, Timman is one of the very
85
1994
few players, who have managed to
score against Kasparov consistently.
There have been many top players
who never beat Kasparov at all:
Geller, Portisch, Polugaevesky, An-
dersson, Ljubojevic, Gelfand and
Leko for example, and even two
World Champions - Tal and Smyslov.
Game I3
G.Kasparov White
J.Timman Black
Euwe Memorial, Amsterdam 1994
Petroff Defence [C42]
1 e4 e52 tlla tllf6
It's interesting that Timman, Anand
and Yusupov like to play the Petroff
and the Open Spanish. This is no
accident, as all three enjoy the piece
play that these openings guarantee.
3 tllxe5
3 d4 occurred in the first Petroff
between these players, a crucial game
which Garry needed to win in the
final of the Paris Immopar rapid
tournament. There followed 3... tllxe4
4 i.d3 d5 5 tllxe5 .Jtd6 6 0-0 0-0 7 c4
.Jtxe5 8 dxe5 tllc6 9 cxd5 ~xd5
10 ~c2 tllb4 11 i.xe4 tllxc2
12 .Jtxd5 .Jtf5 I3 g4 .Jtxg4 14 i.e4
tllxal 15 .Jtf4 f6 16 tllc3 fxe5
17 i.e3 i.f3 18 ~xal .Jtxe4 19 tllxe4
Garry pressed hard, but was unable
to win this endgame.
3.d6 4 tlla tllxe4 5 d4 d5 6.Jtd3
tllc6 70-0 .Jte7 8 ~el .Jtg4 9 c4lLlc6
10 lLlc3 dxc4?!
1994
This move is very rarely played.
11 .i. xc4 0-0-
Jan is taking quite a risk by
repeating an opening that Garry had
already played against Karpov. But
then, he does adopt that sort of policy
sometimes. For example, against
Karpov at Tilburg 1986 he defended
the same line of the 'ib3 Grilnfeld
which had once brought the former
World Champion a nice victory
(Karpov-Kasparov, 17th match game
1986).
12 d5!
This is much stronger than the
continuation Garry used against
Karpov in the 30th game of their fITst
match (Moscow 1994): 12 .i.e3 .i.xf3
13 ~xf3 lLi~d4 14 .i.xd4 ~xd4
15 l:txe7 'ixc4 16 'ixb7 c6 17 'ib3
'i.Vxb3 18 axb3 l:tab8 19 l:ta3 l:tfe8
20 I:txe8+ l:txe8 and a draw was
agreed.
Here White gains space with tempo,
and yet Black still has very good
chances of exchanging the d-pawn and
reaching a position with no pawns in
the centre.
12 lLia5
It is remarkable that nobody has
ever tried 12 ... lLib4!? It doesn't look
that much weaker than the move in the
game, e.g.:
(a) 13 .i.b3 controls the c2-square
but gives Black time for 13 ... c6
14 dxc6 (or 14 h3 .i.xf3, and in this
86
position you can see the positive
side of 12 ... lLib4; after 15 'ixf3
lLibxd5 Black is safe) 14 ... lLixc6 with
equality.
(b) 13 a3 .i.xf3 14 gxf3 lLia6, and it
would be interesting to know how
Garry would continue here:
(bl) One option is 15 b4!? Cutting
the knight off may give White an
edge, but he has an ugly structure with
the doubled pawns. The game con-
tinuation very well demonstrates the
potential danger of this kind of pawn
formation, only with reversed colours.
(b2) 15 'i e2 wins a pawn by
a double attack, although after
15 ... .i.d6! 16 .i.xa6 bxa6 17 ~xa6
'id7 Black has some compensation.
(b3) 15 iH4 .i.d6 16 .i.g3 lLic5 is
unclear.
13 .i.d3 c6 14 h3
Taking on c6 would relinquish any
hope of obtaining an opening advant-
age. White would still have a small
plus in development, but it would
signify very little.
14 .i.g5 is a move that first occurred
in Gutman-Bagirov, Baku 1977. Was
the 14-year-old Garry present when
that game was played? By that time he
was already too strong to be a
demonstration board boy. If he was
present at the post-mortem analysis,
he might have learned a lot. After
14 ...l:te8 15 l:txe7 'ixe7 16 d6 .i.xf3
17 'ixf3 'ixd6 18 .i.xf6 'ixf6
19 ~xf6 (19 ~h5 b6) 19... gxf6 20 b4
J:tad8 21 .i.fl l:te5 22 f4 l:te3 23 l:tc I
J::td4 24 bxa5 Mxf4 Black had the
better endgame, and went on to win.
14..i.h5
Alternatively 14 ... .i.xf3 15 ~xf3
cxd5 16 .i.g5 lLic6 17 .i.xf6 .i.xf6
18lLixd5. Ten years after the Gutman-
Bagirov game, Gutman obtained this
position against Hergott at Graz 1987.
Now Black should have settled for
somewhat the worse position with
18 ... .i.e5 19 ~adl J::te8 20 .i.c4 V!lVh4;
he has chances of getting away with

this, as White's small advantage in
development may evaporate.
lSUeS!?
This is a very imaginative move -
possibly the result of home analysis. It
protects the d5-pawn and creates
threats against the pieces on the fifth
rank. It unleashes the considerable
latent energy that exists in the
position. This game was so con-
vincing that no one has tried to defend
the Black side ever since. However,
according to the analysis, Black may
just be able to survive the onslaught;
he may have Ii playable line among
the many very difficult alternatives. If
this is the case, White's marvellous
rook move might have been a bluff.
15 i..g5 was played in the game
between two rising stars, Judit Polgar
and Gata Kamsky, at Las Palmas in
1994: 15 ... cxd5 (l5 ... h6! looks like the
simplest way to equalize; Black does
all right after 16 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 17 g4
i..g6, or 16 i..h4 cxd5 17 ~e5 d4
18 .txf6 .txf6. In this last line we can
see the advantage of the h7-h6 move)
16 l:Ie5 d4 (or 16 ... i..xf3 17 ~xf3
lllc6 18 .txf6 i..xf6 19 l:hd5; in his
commentary Kasparov stops here,
judging the position to be slightly
better for White. After 19.. :~c8 it is a
matter of pure speculation how best to
continue) 17 i.. xf6 .t xf3, and now:
(a) The __game continued 18 ~xf3
i..xf6 19 lId5 dxc3 (l9 ... 'ijVc~ is an
87
1994
option here) 20 ~xdS ~fxdS 21 bxc3.
Judit has obtained a clear advantage,
but she had yet to acquire the
technique to convert this into a win
against a very tough defender like
Gata.
(b) Kasparov points out that the
lovely tactical shot IS .txh7+!!
would have been winning for Judit:
IS ... <.t>xh7 19 ~d3+ <.t>g8 20 .txe7
'fIic7 (Garry once commented that
computers make players more precise.
That is a perceptive remark. In this
position, however, it seems that his
analysis was even better than the
computer's) 21 ~xa5! (21 ~ael gives
up a pawn for nothing) 21..:~xa5
22 .txfS. Garry stops here, evaluating
the position as winning. There could
follow: 22 ... dxc3 (after 22 ... ~xf8
23 ~xd4 .tc6 Whjte is a healthy
pawn up) 23 .txg7! (White needs this
move to keep the advantage)
23 ... <.t>xg7 24 ~xf3 cxb2 25 ~bl
iYxa2 26 ~c3+ <.t>h7 27 ~xb2, and
the black king is in danger.
lS..tg6
It is natural to exchange the
exposed bishop on h5 for the strong
one on d3, yet this turns out to be an
unfortunate decision. When there is
only a narrow path to stay in the
game, it isn't easy to avoid all the
tactical shots. Black had as many as
six alternatives to this move: -
(a) 15 ... cxd5? simply doesn't work:
1994
16 t2Jxd5 ~xf3 17 '(i'xf3 and Black is
in considerable trouble.
(b) 15 ...h6 stops assaults against the
king, but is not an attractive option:
16 g4! il.g6 17 il.xg6 fxg6, and now
White can choose between trans-
fonning his development advantage
into a material one (18 d6 il.xd6
19 l::txa5 'iVxa5 20 'iVxd6 l::tad8
21 'iVe6+ \t>h7 22 \t>g2, and White is
clearly better) or continuing to play
for complications: 18 g5 t2Jd7
19 l::te 1, with somewhat the better
game.
(c) 15 .. :~c7 prepares to bring the
rook across from a8, but allows White
to win material as in variation 'b':
16 g4 il.g6 17 il.xg6 fxg6 18 d6
~xd6 19 l::txa5 ~xa5 20 ~xd6 :&tad8
21 ~e6+ \t>hS 22 \t>g2, and White's
two pieces will be stronger than
Black's rook and pawn.
(d) 15 .. :~d6 looks promising. And
now:
(dl) 16 :&txh5 in this situation
brings White little: 16... t2Jxh5
17 t2Jd4 g6 (or 17 ... t2Jf6 IS t2Jf5 'iVe5
19 d6 il.dS) 18 t2Jf5 'iVdS 19 t2Jxe7+
'iVxe7 20 'iVa4 b6 and White has only
the barest advantage.
(d2) 16 g4 .tg6 17 il.xg6 hxg6
IS ~a4 (or IS g5 t2Jxd5 19 t2Jxd5
cxd5 20 :xd5 ~c7 and Black gets his
position together) IS ... b6 19 il.f4
~b4 20 ~xb4 ~xb4 and Black holds
the ending.
(d3) 16 i.f4!!. This fluent develop-
ing move is more embarrassing to
Black than appears at first sight:
16 ... ~b4 17 i.d2 'iVd6 (this may look
like a repetition, but White now has
his bishop on d2 instead of c I, and
this small difference in development
has a huge effect on the outcome. If
instead 17... i.xf3 IS 'iVxf3 'iVxb2
19 :&td 1, White has tremendous play
for the pawn) IS l':lxh5 (the imagin-
ative solution; there is also a prosaic
win with IS g4 i. g6 19 i. xg6 hxg6
20 g5) IS ... t2Jxh5 19 b4 'iVxb4
SS
20 t2Je4 'iUb2 21 ~c3 'iVa3 22 t2Jfd2
and White wins.
(e) 15.J::J:eS 16 i.g5!? (16 g4 i.g6
17 i.xg6 hxg6 IS d6 is adequately
met by IS ...i. fS) 16 ... h6 17 ~xf6
il.xf3 IS ~xf3 i.xf6 19 l:.xe8+
'iVxeS 20 'iVf5 and White has a very
dangerous attack.
(t) 15 ...i.d6!? We do not know
whether the move in the game was
prepared or was found while the clock
was ticking. This bishop move,
however, is a natural one, and we
know that it must have been studied
by Kasparov. It is worth a closer look:
(fl) On 16 :&te3 il.f4 (l6 ... cxd5 is
also sound), Black considerably eases
his position: 17 b4 cxd5 (or 17 ...il.xe3
IS i.xe3 t2Jxd5 19 t2Jxd5 ~xd5
20 bxa5 il.xf3 21 gxf3 l':lfdS, and
Black has a free game) 18 bxa5
d4 and suddenly White is under-
developed, though the position is still
equal.
(12) 16 :&txh5 is a sacrifice that
would cause trouble for any annotator.
It is certainly a dangerous and com-
plex continuation. It looks like the
logical follow-up to Kasparov's
15 I:!.e5, which itself looked like a
prepared move. However, the attack is
very hard to evaluate objectively. It
was not ultimately possible for us to
find a way to guarantee White an
advantage. After 16 ... t2Jxh5 White can
sacrifice again on h7, but first there is
an alternative to consider:
(121) 17 'iVa4, and now:

(t211) 17 ... cxd5 IS ..ltg5 ~b6
19 CZlxd5 'iixb2 20 l:rbl 'iVa3
21 'iVxa3 i.xa3 22 l:rb5 b6 23 i.e7
.llcl 24 .llxfS ~xfS, and Black is
safe.
(t212) 17 ... c5 is also reasonable, as
it keeps the position closed: IS i. g5
'iVb6 19 b3 ~b4 20 ~xb4 cxb4
21 CZle4 h6, and White no longer has
any attacking chances.
(t213) 17 ... b5 (this seems safest)
IS 'iVe4 (IS ~g4 g6) IS ... g6 19 dxc6
Me8 20 'iVd5 b4 21 .llg5 ..lte7, and
White's activity is neutralized.
(t22) 17 i.xh7+ was the move
Garry had in mind. We will first see
what happens if Black declines the
sacrifice:
(t221) 17 ... ~h8 IS CZlg5, and now:
(t22II) IS ... g6
19 CZlxf7+ (Garry would not miss a
devastating move like this) 19 ...l::txf7
20 .txg6, and White wins.
(t2212) 18 ... CZlf6, and White has
two choices:
(t22121) 19 'iVa4!? was recom-
mended by Grandmaster Ftatnik. Now
White's attack on the h-file must be
stopped:
(t221211) 19 .. :~e7 is answered by
20 .td2 with a decisive attack:
20 ... ~e5 (on 20 ....tb4 White wins
with 21 l:te 1) 21 ~h4 ~h2+ 22 ~fl
~hl+ 23 ~e2 .Jig3 24 fxg3 ~xal
25 CZlce4 J:ae8 26 ~t2 and wins.
(t221212) However, 19 ... g6 keeps
Black in the game: 20 'iYh4 ~g7
(White's attack is still extremely
89
1994
dangerous, but it isn't clear whether or
not he has an advantage) 21 CZle6+!
fxe6 22 'iVh6+ ~f7 23 CZle4! (or
23 .txg6+ ~g8 24 dxe6 ~c7
25 ~g5 CZlh7 26 'iVh4 and White is
not worse, having 3 pawns and an
attack for the rook; but the game is not
yet over) 23 ... ~e7 (after 23 ... ~e8
24 .Jig5, or 23 ... CZlxh7 24 ~xh7+
~e8 25 .tg5, White breaks through)
24 .Jig5 .te5 25 .Jixg6 ~d7. It is
quite possible that White can win this
position, but it is far from clear-cut.
(t22122) 19 ~d4! is the most
precise way to bring the queen to
the h-fiIe: 19 ... g6 (if 19 ... ~e7 then
20 .Jie3, and now after 20 .. .'iHe5
21 ~h4 or 20 ... g6 21 ~h4 ~g7
22l:tel, Black is lost) 20 CZlce4! (this
shows the advantage of 19 ~ d4 over
19 ~a4; White can play on the
diagonal) 20 ....te7 21 CZlxf6 (not the
only move, but it leads to a beautiful
continuation) 21 ....Jixf6 22 ~h4 .~ g7
23 .Jig8!! - would you believe it?
(t222) If Black accepts the sacrifice
with 17 ... ~xh7 18 CZlg5+ ~g6, there
can follow:
(t222I) 19 ~g4 f5.
(t2222) 19 b4 - it is quite possible
that Garry would have considered this
surprising attack; first he sacrifices on
h7, then he switches to the queenside.
Quite stunning, and yet it is difficult
to believe that Black is totally without
resources in this position. White is a
rook down and has only one knight
near the enemy king. Black should
1994
have a playable position, even though
his king is not 100% safe:
(f22221) After 19 .. .tiJf4!? 20 h4
cxd5 21 bxa5 (21 g4 ttJc6) 21...~f6
22 il.xf4 ~xf4 23 g3 'iVf5, Black will
soon solve the problem of his king.
(f22222) Similarly after 19 ... il.f4
White's attack runs out of steam:
20 h4 (in the event of 20 ttJf3 Wh7
21 bxa5 cxd5 White has some
compensation for the exchange, but
almost certainly he is not better)
20 ... f5 (or 20 ...il.xg5 21 il.xg5 f6
22 ~d3+ Wfl 23 il.e3 cxd5 24 bxa5
~d7, and Black should be OK)
21 ttJe6 (or 21 bxa5 ~xa5 22 g4 fxg4
23 ~xg4 ~h6, and White is unlikely
to catch the black king) 21...~xh4
22 i.xf4 ttJxf4 23 ~d4 ttJh3+ 24
gxh3 ~xd4 25 CLlxd4 CLlc4. Black
keeps the exchange and repels the
attack.
(f2223) 19 ~d3+ f5 - this looks
like the critical position for the
sacrifice:
After 20 CLle6 (20 g4 can be met
by 20 ... ttJf4 21 gxf5+ ~xf5; this
is simpler than taking the knight)
Black's king is still vulnerable, even
though White's forces are quite distant
and he has no- more than a pawn for
the piece. Let's see how Black can try
to resist the attack:
(f22231) 20 ...~b8!? 21 g4 ttJf4
22 il.xf4 il.J!:f4 23 CLlxf8+ ~xf8
24 b4!. White wins back the piece,
and the king on g6 is still vulnerable,
though after 24 ... il.e5 25 bxa5 ~d8
90
Black's position looks good enough to
hold on.
(f22232) 20 ...l::te8 (Fta~nik) 21 g4
~f6 22 gxh5+ ~xh5 (or 22 ... Wh7
23 il.g5 ~fl 24 il.d8 ~xh5 25 il.xa5
b6 26 ttJd4 bxa5 and Black is very
much in the game) 23 iI. g5 ~ fl
24 ~f3+ Wg6 25 'ii'g2 '1t>h7 26 il.d8
~xe6 27 dxe6 "iYxe6 28 .i.xa5 b6, and
the position looks balanced.
(f22233) 20 ... ~f6 21 g4 (after
21 il.g5 "iYfl 22 g4 Wh7 23 tZlxf8+
l::txf8 24 gxh5 cxd5 White has
no more than a playable position)
21...l:.h8 (2l...l:He8! transposes into
variation 'f22232') 22 .i.g5 o/iifl??
(22 ... tZlf4! 23 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 24 tZlxf4+
Wfl is unclear)
23 tZle4!! (a lovely shot indicated
by Fta~nik) 23 ... .i.c7 24 tZlf6! wins.
(f22234) 20 ...VoI;'d7!, and now:
(f222341) 21 ttJxf8+ (reducing the
material deficit, but the threat to the
black king is greatly diminished)
2l...l:.xf8 22 il.e3 (too slow, as Black
has a couple of ways of organizing
his pieces) 22 ... ttJf6 (or 22 ... cxd5
23 ~xd5 b6 24 l::td1 ~d8 25 b4 tZlb7
26 tZlb5 tZlf6, and Black saves the
piece) 23 l:!.dl c5 and White has no
compensation for the piece deficit.
(f222342) 21 g4 tZlf6 22 ~xf5+
Wfl 23 g5 Wg8 (or 23 ... cxd5 - here
too, it looks as if Black even stands
better) 24 gxf6 llxf6 25 ~h5 cxd5.
Black's king is a bit open, but White
should not have enough for the
exchange.

So it remains a mystery what
Kasparov wanted to do with his
initiative. It looks as if the sacrifice
does not deliver a win. Did he just
chance his arm, and hope the ensuing
complications would bring Timman
down? That would be a risky plan
against a world-class player. But then
it is also possible that there is a hidden
way to improve White's play, some-
thing missing from the above analysis.
Still, with the rook on a I and the
bishop on cl far away from the black
king, the whole drama looks more like
a mystery.
16 i.g5
As Garry shows, 16 i.xg6! is even
better: 16... hxg6 17 d6 .t xd6 18 I:!xa5
(now the Champion's own analysis
stops after UL~xa5 19 ~xd6 )
18.Ji:Je4!? This is the critical move,
discovered by Ftatnik who also came
up with the antidote: 19 ~b3!!
(White has several good-looking
options, but this is the only one
that guarantees a clear advantage)
19 ... ~xa5 20 tZlxe4, and White has a
commanding plus.
16...i.d6
Black had no real choice but to play
this. Other options surprisingly lead to
his collapse:
(a) 16 ... cxd510ses to 17 i.xg6 hxg6
18 tZlxd5.
(b) After 16... tZlxd5 17 i.xe7 tZlxe7
18 i.xg6, Black drops a piece.
91
1994
(c) 16 ... c5 may look like a good
idea, as it keeps the position closed.
However, after 17 i.xg6 bxg6, White
has the following astonishing tactical
blow which wins material:
18 d6!! ~xd6 (18 ... i.xd6 19 I:!d5!)
19 tZld5!! and White wins. I can't
recall seeing this motif before.
(d) 16... i.xd3 17 ~xd3 h6
(l7 ... cxd5 18 tZlxd5) 18 ~ael and
White has a massive advantage in
development.
17 I:!e2 i. b4
It is dangerous to make another
move with this bishop, but now it is a
necessity: 17 ... cxd5? 18 tZlxd5 i.h2+
19 ~xh2 ~xd5 20 i.xg6 bxg6
21 ~xd5 tZlxd5 22 I:!e5, and Black
loses a piece.
18 i.xf6!?
Garry decides to alter the character
of the position. He gives up his
advantage in development in order to
bring about doubled pawns on Black's
kingside. Alternatives were:
(a) 18 tZle4! cxd5 19 tZlxf6+ gxf6
20 i.h6 I:!e8 21 I:!xe8+ ~xe8
22 i.xg6 hxg6 23 a3, and White still
has the upper hand.
(b) 18 i.xg6! bxg6 19 dxc6 tZlxc6
(after 19 ... ~xdl+ 20 :t:txdl tZlxc6
21 i.xf6 gxf6 22 tZld5, Black either
drops a pawn or allows a white rook
to invade on the seventh) 20 ~b3!
i.xc3 21 ~xc3, and White clearly has
some pressure in the centre.
18... gxf6
As a junior player and as a young
1994
candidate, Garry himself learned some
remarkable lessons about taking on
the weakness of doubled pawns. His
teachers were two superb Soviet
players, Tseshkovsky and Beliavsky.
In the following very instructive
examples, Garry was beaten yet
managed to deepen his understanding.
This position arose in Tseshkovsky-
Kasparov, 46th USSR Championship,
Tbilisi 1978. There followed 18 d5!
exd5 19 'Lld4 ~a6 20 <ot>bl .td6
21 ~f3 .txf4 22 ~xf4 'Lle5 23 ~f5+
<ot>b8 24 f4 'Lld7 25 ~xd5 'Lle5
26 ~e4 'Llg4 27 Vlb'e2 'iYb6 28 c3 f5
29 J:Ihel ~c5 30 ~e7 ~xe7 31 J:txe7
l::the8 32 :!::tdel :!:txe7 33 J:Ixe7 'Llf6
34 l:txf7 'Llxh5 35 'Llxf5 J:Id3
36 l:tf8+ Wc7 37 l:tg8 'it'd7 38 l:tg6
b5 39 a3 J::1:dl + 40 <ot>a2 ~gl 41 l:Id6+
<Jilc7 42 !Ixh6 'Llxg3 43 'Lld4 'Lle4
44 'Llxb5+ <ot>d7 45 lih7+ <Jile6
46 J::1:xa7 'Llc5 47 CiJd4+ <ot>d6
48 'Llf5+ <ot>d5 49 'Lle3+ <ot>e4 50 !Ic7
qjd3 51 lie7+ 1-0.
This is a position from Beliavsky-
Kasparov, Candidates quarter-finals
92
(4th game), Moscow 1983: 20 .axd5
exd5 21 l:tc4 'iYd7 22 J:Ih4 ~f5
23 l'::txd5 'Lle5 24 h3 l:Ife8 25 qjd4
~g6 26 'iYf4 l:tad8 27 'Llf5+ Wh8
28 l:txd8 !Ixd8 29 ~e4 l:Ic8 30 Wh2
ktc4 31 Vlb'a8+ ~g8 32 ~xa7 :!:txh4
33 qjxh4 ~g5 34 ~a8+ ~g7
35 ~e4 h5 36 qjf5+ \t>g6 37 'Lle7+
~h6 38 f4 1-0.
But let us return to our main game,
where Black answered 18 .txf6 with
18 ... gxf6. He could also have played
18 ...~xf6:
Here Black opts for a healthy pawn
structure but a disadvantage in de-
velopment. After 19 .txg6, he again
has a choice of recaptures:
(a) 19 ...hxg6 20 CiJe4 ~d8 (on
20 ... Vj'f4, Kasparov gives 21 a3 cxd5
22 Vj'xd5 l:rad8 23 ~b5 'Llb3 24 l:rf1
winning) 21 ~d4! (or 21 d6!)
21...'iYb6 (or 2l...cxd5 22 'Lleg5, and
suddenly Black gets checkmated on
Garry's favourite h-fiIe) 22 a3 'Llb3
23 'iYxb6 axb6 24 l:rdl, and Black is
in trouble.
(b) 19 ... ~xg6 20 'Lle5! (the most
straightforward move; White acts be-
fore Black gets himself organized),
and now:
(bl) 20 ... ~f5 21 ~a4 .axc3
22 bxc3 b6 (22 ... l::tfe8 23 J:1:ael)
23 'Llxc6 qjxc6 24 Vj'xc6, and
White's d-pawn will be a monster.
(b2) 20 ...'i.Yd6 21 dxc6 ~ae8 (or
21...bxc6 22 'iYc2, and Black's
disadvantage in development has been
converted into a structural weakness)

22 ttJd7 ~xe2 23 'iYxe2 ~d8 24 c7!!.
A pleasing and surprising way to
divert the queen. Now after 24 ... 'iYxc7
(24.J::tc8 25 ~dl) 25 ttJf6+ \t>h8
26 ~e4 gxf6 27 ~xb4, Black will
have serous problems with the
shattered pawn structure in front of his
king.
19 ~cl!
Bringing his last undeveloped piece
into play, and making it possible to
take back on c3 with the rook. This
is an outstanding 'slow' move after
18 .txf6. Garry rightly awarded
himself an exclamation mark for it.
19...~c8?
This turns out to be a mistake.
Black shouldn't have missed the
opportunity to exchange his bishop
and eliminate the enemy knight with
19....txc3!. However, it required very
precise calculation: 20 ~xc3 cxd5
(after 20 ... ~xd5? 21 ~d2, develop-
ment is sudd~nly Black's problem
again - and the knight on a5 is
also in danger) 21 J..xg6 (this was
Kasparov's intention during the game.
After 21 ttJd4 ~b6 White undoubt-
edly has good play for the pawn, but
Black's position may be solid enough
to hold) 21 ... hxg6
-and now:
(a) After 22 ~d3 White is still
slightly better, but Black is likely to
catch up with his development and
equalize, e.g. 22 ... ~c7 (or 22 ...ttJc6
23 l:xd5 'iVb6 and Black holds on)
23 l:txd5 )lad8 24 ried2 ttJc6 25 rid7
93
1994
~b6, and Black escapes without any
special effort.
(b) With 22 ttJh4! Garry could have
used the h-file again! This stormy
move creates some extremely danger-
ous threats, not only against the g6-
pawn, which is obviously the main
target, but also against the unprotected
knight on a5. Black can try:
(bI) 22 ... l:c8? 23 l:xc8 ~xc8
24 ttJxg6 fxg6 25 ~xd5+ and
26 ~xa5.
(b2) 22 ... \t>g7? 23 ~d4! ttJc6
24 ttJf.5+ \t>g8 25 ~h4 (the invasion
comes on the h-file time and again)
25 ... 'iYd7 26 rif3, and Black gets
mated.
(b3) 22 .. J::te8 23 l:xe8+ ~xe8
24 ttJxg6 fxg6 25 ~xd5+ \t>h8
26 ~xa5 ~eI+ 27 \t>h2 'iVxt2
28 ~b4. Garry estimated that this
gave him 50% winning chances.
(b4) 22 ... ttJc6! is an example of the
wonder of chess. Black first needs to
parry not the main threat but a
secondary one, by bringing the knight
back to the centre to protect his
position. Of course, to discover this in
advance in your calculations is an
extremely difficult task, even for a
world class player like Timman. This
time in fact it was too much for him.
(b4I) 23 rid3 ~a5 (or 23 ... d4
24 ttJf.5 ~d5 25 ttJxd4 liJe5, and
Black is safe) 24 ~xd5 l:ad8 and
Black finally completes his develop-
ment.
(b42) 23 rig3 gives White no more
1994
than a balanced position: 23 ...tiJe7
24 lIge3 tiJc6 25 J:.g3 (if 25 'iVd2
then 25 .. :~a5, or if 25 tiJf5 then
25 .. :iVd7 or 25 ... tiJe5). After all these
complications Black seems to have
successfully repelled the onslaught.
The annotator faces a dilemma
concerning 18 .txf6. Objectively it
may not be the best continuation, but
it does show the attacking style of a
great maestro. It created incredible
complications and achieved its goal.
How far did Garry actually calculate?
It is possible he sawall the way to the
last diagram position (after 22 ... ltJc6),
but felt it was disadvantageous for
Black. There was also a possibility he
would have deviated earlier with
21 tiJd4, when he would have had
compensation for the pawn.
20 ltJe4!
White removes his knight, and
suddenly the bishop on b4 becomes a
target: it can no longer be swapped on
c3. Ever since playing 13 ... c6 Black
would have liked to insert c6xd5, as
this exchange would have eased his
position. Yet Garry's piece play has
forced Black to refrain from it. This
time 20 ... cxd5 doesn't work because
of some simple tactics: 21 :!::txc8
'iVxc8 22 ltJxf6+ ~h8 23 .txg6 fxg6
24 ltJxd5 and wins.
20. 5 21ltJg3 ~xd5
21...cxd5 was no fun for Black
either, because of22 a3 .i.d6 23 tLlxf5
94
with advantage.
22 a3 .t d6 23 ltJ xfS
With 23 b4?! White can win the
queen for a rook and a piece, but he
would be relinquishing much of the
pressure: 23 ... ltJb3 24 .tc4 lZJxcl!
25 'iVxcl (25 .txd5 tLlxe2+) 25 ... f4
26 .txd5 cxd5 27 ~dl fxg3 28 fxg3
.txg3, and Black is not worse.
23..1:tcd8?
Black doesn't stop White's threat,
but the game is already decided. There
were two alternatives:
(a) 23 ....txf5 24 Ji.xf5 ~xdl+
25 Ihdl 1:tcd8 26 ttd4, and White
has a very clear plus.
(b) 23 ... lZJb3 is the best try.
However, the resulting fIreworks
would still leave Black in trouble:
24 :!::te5! .txe5 (Black loses with
24 ... tLlxcl 25 l:txd5 cxd5 26 lZJxd6
lZJxd3 27 lZJxc8 ttxc8 28 ~b3)
25 ltJe7+ ~g7 26 lZJxd5 ltJxcl
27 .txg6 cxd5, and now, as Timman
shows, the the most effective method
is 28 ltJxe5! (28 Ji.f5 tiJb3! 29.txc8
l:txc8 30 ~ e2 is less convincing)
28 ... hxg6 29 ~xd5. Black's king will
be a huge problem, even if he man-
ages to save his queenside pawns.
24l:te5!
A pretty shot, and a nice echo of the
15th move. The rook exploits the
vulnerability of the knight on a5.
24...txe5
This loses just like other moves, but

at least Garry cannot play the same
rook to eS again in this game! If
24 ... ~xd3 2S ~xd3 AxeS, then
26 ~c2 wins.
25 l"lle7+
Now it is all over for Black.
25.. .'~g7 26 l"llxd5 Axb2 27 l"llf4
.ixd3
Black is mated after 27 ...Axcl
28 ~xcl Axd3 29 l"llhS+.
28 l"llxd3 Axel
Or 28 ... :!':!.xd3 29 ~xd3 Axel
30 ~c3+.
29 'til xci J:I xd3 30 'til g5+ 1-0
Timman finally loses the knight that
moved to the edge of the board on
move 12. White successfully com-
bined threats on the h-file with threats
against the loose knight on as. This is
a remarkable game, yet something of
an enigma. Has Garry prepared an
improvement on the line he intended
against Is ...Ad6 ? Did he make a
mistake in his ):tome analysis? Did this
analysis merely provide excellent
practical winning chances? Whatever
may be the answers to these mysteries,
the game remains a great attacking
display. While we were analysing it,
Hurricane Ivan was devastating the
islands of Grenada and Jamaica. On
the day this game was played, Hurric-
ane Garry hft Amsterdam. Unlike
Ivan, Garry left joy in the wake of this
game.
The last game of the tournament
was against Short. It was a strange
affair. In a complicated Sicilian, Short
sacrificed a piece and then the
exchange, so Kasparov was a rook up.
By move 21 he could have won rather
easily. On move 2S he let Short
snatch perpetual check; he could have
avoided this and preserved excellent
winning chances. On the other board,
Timman went on to beat Ivanchuk.
Grandmaster Timman made the
very interesting comment that Garry
was not as solid as he used to b~. This
95
1994
tournament suggests that Jan was
right. It seems the Linares disappoint-
ment had stayed with Garry, and he
was too intent on winning this contest.
He probably did not train enough.
Hence his performance included some
fantastic games and some uncharacter-
istic mistakes. Still, he did win the
tournament, demonstrating his class
once again.
I would not be surprised if it was
this event that prompted the idea that
Kasparov needed a full-time trainer -
perhaps 'helper' is a better word. To
employ an assistant was a great idea,
and a logical reaction to the huge
explosion of information on chess
openings. Kasparov said that he
started to work with Yury Dokhoian
in 1994; no other player adopted the
same approach until later. Maybe this
is one of the reasons why some
players who reach a 2700 rating find it
difficult to improve further. The
difference between Ivanchuk and
Anand is a case in point; maybe it has
something to do with the role
of Grandmaster Elibzar Ubilava,
Anand's second. I know that Ivanchuk
has never had this sort of constant
helper. Elsewhere the story is similar:
Topalov benefits from Danailov,
whereas Adams and Shirov do not
appear to have close support.
Yury Dokhoian
As Kasparov once said in an
interview, together they make a good
team; he mentioned that Yury is able
to work extensively and diligently. In
a way the work was all the harder for
Dokhoian as he gave up his own
ambitions and stopped playing com-
petitively. He played a few games in
1994, and one quick draw in the
German League in 1995; there are no
further games of his in the database.
On the bright side, he has been able to
1994
work in close collaboration with a
magnificent player. In addition he
held a steady job with a regular salary,
which is rare in chess.
Dokhoian was a respectable grand-
master; his skill certainly impressed
Kasparov. He is an Armenian - like
Kasparov's mother. Garry has played
for Armenia against the Rest of the
World, and he often engages in
activities in Israel; this shows his ties
with his parental lands of origin.
Chess involves highly confidential
work, so a relationship of this type
only functions well if the second is
initiated into the opening secrets.
Dokhoian is a I d4 player with his
own systems from which he never
strayed. His games show him to be a
very knowledgeable player - he rarely
lost games with White.
Some lines that Kasparov played
with White may have been used by
Dokhoian as well, but they differed in
their respective repertoires with Black
against 1 e4. Yury played the French
and the Rauzer, but not the Najdorf.
He showed remarkable solidity with
Black in the French - according to the
database he lost only one game out of
27 against 3 liJc3, and only two
against 3 liJd2 - although his Sicilian
was less secure. Against 1 d4 he
played the Nimzo-Indian with the
remarkable score of 17 points out of
21, losing only one game. His
Queen's Indian was safe, though less
remarkable. He also employed the
Slav. Garry once surprised Timman
with the Slav with devastating effect;
the preparation may have came from
Dokhoian. Gojng randomly through
the latter's games, you get the
impression that he is a positional
player. As Kasparov is a supreme
tactician, they complemented each
other. The fact that Dokhoian is not a
I e4 player may have been a
drawback, although no doubt he has a
good understanding of the relevant
96
positions. Dokhoian often analyses
Kasparov's games for magazines, and
almost always gives the variations
exactly the same evaluation that Garry
has given them himself. They seem to
have the seal of approval; only rarely
is there a divergence. Hopefully there
will one day be a book in which
Dokhoian's experience with Kasparov
is shared with the readers.
New York Rapid
In the New York Intel Grand Prix,
Kasparov's first opponent was
Kamsky. The opening quickly
transposed to an endgame. Interest-
ingly, nobody analysed this game in
print, at least according to the
database. Yet it is a fantastic ending.
Judge for yourselt1
Game 14
G.Kamsky (2655) White
G.Kasparov (2805) Black
PCAlIntel rapid, New York 1994
30Iraa2!
Doubling the black rooks on the
second rank is a classic thematic
approach. Normally, however, it
occurs when the white king is on the
back rank or the second, which is not
the case here.
31 f3!?
Should White give up the t2-pawn

in order to exchange a pair of rooks
and try to win the pawn on d6?
Kamsky probably didn't see all the
consequences of this policy, but he
obviously felt he should hold on to his
f-pawn - and ije was right.
When the pawns are placed on one
side of the board, the defender needs
to avoid exchanging all the pieces, as
the pawn ending would be lost. On the
other hand, the more pieces there are
on the board, the more chances it
gives to the attacker. In principle,
therefore, the best option for the
defender is to retain the minor pieces
only, but relatively few of them, so as
to be less vulnerable. Simply knowing
the principles does not ease the task of
calculation, however. In this case it is
more important for Black to eliminate
the f2-pawn than to retain both his
rooks.
White has two ways of exchanging
one of the attacking pieces:
(a) 31 nal (not the more precise
way) 3l...<Llg6+ (Black can also play
31 ...l::txf2 32 Iha2 l:Ixa2 33 l::tb I l::te2
34 l::tb6 l::txe4 35 l:Ixd6 l::te3 36 i..f5
l::tg3 and wins) 32 'iiJg4 (32 'iiJh5
l::txf2 33 l:hf2 ttxf2 34 l:Ia6 f3 wins)
32 ...l:hf2 33 l::txa2 (or 33 l::txf2l::txal
34 l::tb2 J:Ia3 35 'iiJh5 ttg3 36 .ig4
<Lle5 37 .if3 f5 38 exf5 'iiJf6 39 i..e4
l::te3) 33 ...lha2 34 'iiJf5
34 ... l:ta3!! (neatly exploiting the
fact that the f2-pawn is missing; Black
can go after the king) 35 l::tf2 (35l:Ibl
loses to 35 ...l:tg3) 35 ...l:tg3 36 .ig4
97
1994
lLle5 37 i..e2 f3 38 gxf3 <Llg6 39 e5
l:tg5+ 40 'iiJe4 l:!:xe5+ 41 'lifd4 <Llf4
42 i..c4 h5 and Black wins.
(b) 31 l:t b I allows B lack fewer
options, but it still loses; the lines
often transpose into variation 'a'. For
example: 3l...~xf2 (3l...<Llg6+ also
gives excellent winning chances. The
following line is the most interesting:
32 'lifh5 l:!:xbl 33 l::txbl l::txf2, and
Black wins after either 34 l::tb6 f3
35 gxf3 l:!:xf3 36 'iiJg4 <Lle5+ 37 'lifh4
lLlc4 or 34 'iiJg4 lLle5+ 35 'iiJh5 l::te2
36 l:tb4 l:te3) 32 l::txf2 l::txf2 33 l:Ib6
l::te2 (after 33 ...<Llc4 34 l:tc6 lLld2
35 I:Ixd6 lLlxe4 36 l:Id8, White's
drawing chances are perhaps better
than Black's chances of winning)
34 l::txd6.
From the diagram, Black has two
possible tries:
(bl) 34 ... l::txe4 35 l::ta6 (35 .if5?
f3+ 36 'iiJg3 f2 wins) 35 ... l::te3 (after
35 ... f3+ 36 'lifg3 fxg2 37 'iiJxg2,
White has chances of holding out)
36 d6lLlg6+ 37 'iiJg4, and matters are
not so clear-cut:
(bll) 37 ...l::td3, and now:
(bIll) 38 d7 l::txd7 39 'iiJf3, and
Black has decent winning prospects.
(b1l2) 38 'iiJf5 f3!, when White
may lose at once:
(b1l2I) 39 gxf3? I:Id4! leads to a
checkmate out of the blue on f4.
(bII22) 39 g3 l::td4, and it is
extremely hard for White to hold the
position. For example, 40 l:Ia3 f2
41 I:If3 l::txd6 42 'iiJe4 l::td2 43 'life3
1994

:!:ta2, and White can't take on 12:
44 l:x12 l:a3+ 45 '.te2 l:xg3 wins.
(bl13) 38 l:b6 (White just waits)
38 ...l:g3+ 39 '.tfS f3 40 d7 fxg2
41 .txg2 l:d3 42 I:tb7, and White
may escape.
(b12) 37 ... l:tg3+ 38 '.tf5 f3
(38 ... l:d3 39 '.te4) 39 d7 fxg2
40 J.xg2l:'!d3, and now:
(b121) 41 l:'I1l7liJh4+ 42 '.te4, and
again White escapes.
(b122) 41 .tc6??
wins the queen. Analysing an ob-
viously won position produces a
number of instructive wins!
(b222) 38 '.th3 f3 39 l:'Ia2 liJd3
40 ~h2 (40 e5 liJf4+ 41 ~h2 l:e1
42 d6 :!:te2+ 43 l:'Ixe2 fxe2 wins)
40 ... l:te1 41 d6 (41 .th3 l:e2+)
4l...l:e2+ 42 lIxe2 fxe2 43 d7 e 1=~
44 d8=~ Yj'12+ 45 ~hlliJf4 and it is
checkmate once more!
Now back to the game continuation.
31...liJg6+ 32 ~h4
If instead 32 <JIh5:

4l...l:d4!! (Black can set up a

32 ... l:xg2!! 33 .txg2 ~xg2 34 l:tgl
surprise mating net) 42 l:a4 (or
l:h2+ 35 <JIg4 '.tf6! and Black will
42 J.e4 :!!i:xd7, and with the minor
be able to checkmate with the h-pawn.
pieces on the board this should be an
They say that a pawn mate is the
easy win for Black) 42 ... liJe7+
pleasantest one to deliver, given the
43 '.te5 (the only square, but it allows limited power of the mating piece -
Black to capture the bishop with and the pawns with the least power of
check) 43 ... liJxc6+ and the rook goes
all are the ones on the edge: 36 e5+
next move. dxe5 37 d6 h5 mate.
(b2) 34 ... l:~3!! (even with such 32..~f6!
limited material Black can success-
fully chase the king) 35 J.f5 (35 :!:ta6
liJg6+) 35 ... l:g3 36 l:ta6 l:xg2, with a
threat:
(b21) 37 d6 liJf3+ 38 '.th3 :!!i:g3 is
another checkmate.
(b22) 37 :!!i:a3 l:tg1 and now:
(b221) 38 d6 f3 39 d7 12 40 d8=~
fl =~ 41 Mg3+ :!!i:xg3 42 '.txg3
~gl+ 43 '.th3 (43 '.tf4 ~12+
44 '.txe5 ~h2+! wins the queen)
43 ... liJf3, winning as follows:
(b2211) 44 ~a8 Yj'h2+ 45 '.itg4
liJe5 is a third checkmate.
(b2212) 44 ~b8 ~hl+ 45 '.tg4 This sets up a vicious threat that is
h5+ 46 '.tf4 ~h2+, and again Black easy to miss. Unfortunately we don't
98
 1994

know how much time the players had chances) 36 l:!xal l:!g8, and although
left at this point. White's position looks very dubious,
An alternative was 32 ... ~b8!? it appears that there is no win for
Black is playing to give mate by Black here: 37 x:ta6 l:!g3 (37 ... l:tg5+
transferring the rook to g5: leads to a draw after 38 ~xh6 l:.g6+
(a) White j:an't get rid of the 39 'lith5 I:tg5+; if instead 39 ... 'litg7
annoying f-pawn with 33 g3, on 40 J.g4, White is safe), and now:
account of 33 ... h5+ 34 'litxh5 ~h8+ (b21) 38 ~xd6+? 'litg7 39 Wh4
35 'litg4l:!h2, winning a piece in quite (or 39 ~xh6 f6 40 J.fS l:!g5+)
a remarkable manner. 39 ... liJg6+ 40 I:txg6+ fxg6 41 d6 h5
(b) 33 l:':i.hJ ~e8 34 g3 h5+ and Black wins.
35 'litxh5 l:!f2 36 gxf4 ~xf3 37 'litg4 (b22) 38 x:ta2 <:J:]g7 39 J.f5 liJg6
l:Ixf4+ 38 'litg3 :!:IfXe4 gives Black 40 J.g4, and White may get away
excellent winning chances. with it.
(c) After 33 'lith5 :!:Ie8 34 :!:IgI 33... h5+!!
l:!e5+ 35 J. f5 liJe7 36 'litg4 liJxf5
37 exfS Black is better, but it's hard to
say whether he can win it.
33~bl
The only move was 33 'lith5!, when
Black could try:
(a) 33 ...1hg2 34 J.xg2 ~xg2
35 l:!hl liJe5 36:!:Idgl ~xgl (White
also escapes afler 36... l:!g6 37 l:!xg6+
fXg6+ 38 'litxh6) 37 J:Ixgl liJxf3
38l:Ifl, and White holds.
(b) 33 ...liJe5, with these possib-
ilities:
(bI) 34 ~al :!:Ixg2 35 J.xg2 l:!xg2 Garry is at his best - he is going
36 x:thl liJxf3 37 'litxh6 (37 :!:Ihfl after the opponent's king.
liJe5 38 ~xf4+ 'litg7 threatens 34 ~xh5l:ta8!
39.J::tg5+, winning the rook. Then This is reminiscent of the finish
39 l:.ff1?? allows 39 ... l:!h2 mate, of a game played seventeen years
while after 39 l:tafl l:!g5+ 40 'lith4 earlier:
liJg6+ 41 'lith3 liJxf4+ 42 I:Ixf4 'litg6
Black should win) 37 ...l:!g6+, and
now:
(bll) 38 'lith5 'litg7!! sets up a new
checkmate.
(bI2) 38 'lith7 liJg5+ 39 'lith8
liJxe4, and Black has excellent
winning chanc\!s.
(b2) 34l:!gl! (White has to keep the
g2-pawn; if it goes, his whole position
is weakened too much) 34 ... l:tb8
35l:!all:!xal (after 35 ... l:tg8 36l:ha2
~g5+ 37 'litxil6 l:!g6+ 38 Wh7 l:!g7+ Karpov-Taimanov, Leningrad (Oct-
39 Wh6, Black has no more than ober Revolution 60th Anniversary)
perpetual check; while 35 ... l:tab2? 1977, concluded 37... l:!al!! 38 ~bl
36 l:ta6 allows White counter- lDg3+!! 0-1. On 39 bxg3, Black mates
99
1994
with 39 ...l:Ia8 ~d l:Ia8-h8.
35 Wg41:th8!!
Black leaves his other rook en prise.
36g3
If 36 ~xb2, then 36 ... l::th4 mate.
36~h2!
To spot this amazing win of a piece
requires great imagination (it is doubt-
ful whether Garry had seen this motif
before, thoug4 we can never tell),
together with a special faculty of
concentration during the game. The
same possibility arose in the note to
Black's 320d move.
37 l:1hl l:18xh3 38 l:1xh2 l:1xh2
39 gxf4 1:tg2+ 40 Wh3 tDxf4+
41 Wh4 We5 42 I:Ib7 Wd4 43 l:1xf7
We3 0-1
In the second game, Gata played for
a win - a necessity in order to avoid
being eliminated. The position he
achieved from the opening was
slightly inferior; he played too riskily,
and was punished.
In the second match Garry faced
Anand, and beat him in the fIrst game.
It was a long, close struggle, but Garry
came out victorious. He killed the
second game by playing for a draw
with White; Anand never had any
winning chances.
In the fIrst game of the semi-fInal
against Predrag Nikolic, Garry con-
verted a small positional advantage
into a win. In the second game
Predrag tried hard with White,
occupying a large amount of space in
the g3 King's Indian. Garry managed
to undermine the position and won a
nice game.
In the fInal match he faced
Kramnik, whom he rated highly. The
fIrst game began with an extremely
sharp line of the Botvinnik System.
Garry came close to winning, but the
young grandmaster managed to draw.
Surprisingly, in the second game
Kramnik opened with I e4. Garry
didn't play the Najdorf, but the
Paulsen. The position was not very
exciting; maybe in a round-robin they
would have agreed a draw, but here
they played on. Perhaps Garry should
somehow have exchanged Kramnik's
knight on c5. Slowly Kramnik's
queenside passed pawn became
stronger and stronger. He won the
ending, and so emerged as a problem
opponent for Kasparov.
Novgorod
The oldest Russian city, Novgorod,
which lies between Moscow and St
Petersburg, hosted another super-
tournament. Paradoxically the name
Novgorod means new city. Garry
started the tournament well by beating
Shirov in the fIrst round. He quickly
obtained the better ending with the
advantage of the two bishops. Thanks
to Shirov's one inaccuracy, he gained
the necessary tempi for an attack and
went on to win.
In round two, a Griinfeld with 5
~b3 and 7 ....JTr.. g4 produced a drawn
ending against Bareev.
In the third round, Ivanchuk played
the Paulsen Sicilian and produced an
improvement on a Kasparov-Anand
game from 1991. In a very complic-
ated middlegame Black hunted down
the b2-pawn. According to Kharitonov
he could have tried playing for a win,
100

with real chances of success. How-
ever, the move he played allowed
Garry to force a draw by perpetually
attacking the queen.
Game number four was a sens-
ational battle. Let's see how Garry
took his revenge on Kramnik.
Game 15
G.Kasparov White
V.Kramnik Black
Novgorod 1994
Sicilian Defence [B33J
This was Kasparov's first win
against the player who subsequently
dethroned him. The young Vladimir
had attended training sessions directed
by Kasparov, and Garry helped him to
be selected for the Russian Olympic
team. Kramnik made a remarkable
debut with 9!h out of 10. His talent
destined him to become a great player,
but without this help it might have
been much longer before he could
have challenged Garry to a match. The
true scale of the interaction between
these two play~rs is as yet unrevealed.
Kasparov's style cannot really be seen
reflected in Kramnik's play, but that
does not mean there was no infuence.
The knowledge that the World
Champion believed in him must
have given Vladimir plenty of confid-
ence and energy for work. In My
Great Predecessors, Kasparov writes
appreciatively about Botvinnik's
effect on his chess. It would also be
intriguing to know how that compares
with the influence ofNikitin.
1 e4 c5 2 ttJc3 ttJc6 3 ttJge2 ttJf6
4 d4 cxd4 5 ltixd4 e5
The Sveshnikov was Kramnik's
main defence against 1 e4 at that time,
so it would have come as no surprise
to Garry.
6 ttJdb5 d6 7 ..tg5 a6 8 ttJa3 b5
9 ttJd5
This line has yielded Garry four
101
1994
victories and two draws. He has also
played the other main line (9 .txf6),
but less frequently and less success-
fully.
9....i.e7 10 .txf6 ..txf6 11 c3 0-0
12 ttJc2 J:tb8 13 h4
This was first played by Borm
against King at Amsterdam 1982. For
a while it constituted the main line,
but then it became a mere sideline as
Garry did not advocate it. The main
idea is to restrict the black bishop, but
Garry also entertains the idea of
castling long. That is anything but a
self-evident plan; most of us would try
to weaken the b5-point. In addition
Garry has ideas of attacking on the h-
fIle, even though it is doubtful that he
had already anticipated his h-pawn's
glorious role.
An earlier game between these two
players (PCA Moscow 1994) con-
tinued with 13 a3. After 13 ...a5 14 h4
Garry didn't get much of an edge, and
the result was a draw.
13..ttJe7
Until the present game, this move
was the most popular option. Kramnik
is ready to accept doubled pawns in
exchange for active play. Black has a
couple of alternatives here, though it
is not clear which of them is better.
White seems to have a small plus
score in most lines.
14 ttJxf6+
With 14 ttJce3 White can keep
1994
control over the d5-square, though
only temporarily: 14."tiJxd5 15 tiJxd5
.J.e6 (15 ....J.b7 16 g3 l:tcs deserves
consideration; after 17 .J.g2 l:tc5,
Black is all right) 16 g3 l:tcs (this is
the simplest way to equalize) 17 a4
l:tc5 IS b4 (if IS tiJxf6+ 'iY xf6
19 ~xd6, then 19... ~tJ with danger-
ous activity) lS ....Jtxd51 19 bxc5
.J.xe4 20 tJ .J.c6 21 axb5 axb5
22 ~xd6 'iYc8, and Black has decent
compensation for the exchange.
14... gxf6 15 ~d2
Against Lautier in the same year at the
Moscow Olympiad, Garry played
differently: 15 .i. d3 ! d5 16 exd5
'iYxd5 17 tiJe3 'iYe6 IS 'iYh5 (playing
on his favourite h-file again) lS ... e4
(1S ... f5 looks better) 19 .J.c2 b4 20 c4
WhS 21 0-0-0 fS 22 'iYg5 l:tb6 23 h5
:~ ~ Wb1 :~ ~ M 'iY~
26 l:th5! (after this remarkable move
on the h-file, Black is defenceless)
26 .. JIg8
27 tiJg4!! - and after this beautiful
move, Lautier, who at one time was
Garry's 'problem' opponent, resigned.
The fmish could have been: 27 .. Yille6
(or 27 .. .I:hg5 2S llJxe5 1:txh5
29l:tdS+ tiJgS 30 llJxfl mate) 2Sl:td8
llJg6 (or 2S ... 'iYg6 29 UJlixe7 l:!.c6
30 llJe5, and again Black will
be checkmated) 29 l:t~gS+ WxgS
30 UJlidS+ llJffl 31 IIg5+ 'iYg6
32llJf6+, forcipg mate in two.
15....Jtb7
Slepankova-Sarana, Frydek-Mystek
open 1997, went 15 ... fS!? 16 UJlig5+
102
tiJg6 17 exfS 'iYxg5 18 hxg5 .J.xfS,
and now 19 tiJb4! with the better
ending for White.
If 15 ....J.e6, then 16 0-0-0 looks
unpleasant for Black; Feher-Priehoda,
Hungary 1995.
16 .J.d3 d5
After 16 ... WhS 17 0-0-0 a5 IS f3
UJlid7 19 llJe3 l:IfdS 20 .J.c2, White
was better and went on to win in
Campora-Bhend, Bern 19S7. As that
was played earlier than the present
game, castling long was not a new
idea of Garry's.
17 exd5 ~xd518 0-0-0
Winning a tempo with IS llJe3
looks very natural, but it also blocks
the queen's path to the h-file. Besides,
the knight is standing guard on c2 in
case of threats that may emerge after
White castles queenside. In response
to the knight move, lS .. .'~Ye6 looks
equal.
18.e4
lS .. :~xa2 would transpose into the
game continuation after 19 'riVh6 e4
20.J.e2.
On IS ...: fdS White has 19 'riVh6,
which forces e5-e4 anyway.
19.J.e2
19.. ~xa2
Vladimir picks up the gauntlet and
captures the pawn. There are three
other possibilities:
(a) 19 .. .'~'xd2+ 20 ~xd2, and the
ending favours White as he controls

the only open file - 20 ...i:!.fdS
21i:!.hdli:!.xd2 22l:Ixd2.
(b) 19 ... ~e5, and now:
(bi) 20 'ib'd6 llld5 21 'iYxe5 fxe5
22 J:I.d2 (22 g3 l:fdS is equal)
22 ... lllf4 23 llle3 i:!.fdS 24 i:!.hd1
l:xd2 25 i:!.xd2 <Jif8 26 g3 lllxe2+
27 l:xe2 <Jie7 2Si:!.d2 <Jie6 and Black
has a nice endgame position.
(b2) 20 J:i.h3 llld5 21 J:Ig3+ ~hS
22 <Jibll:tfdS, with an active position.
(b3) 20 llle3! keeps control of the
d-file and maintains an edge: 20 ... f5
21 g3 i:!.fcS 22 <Jibl. White has
excellent prospects of forcing a queen
exchange on the d-file, and can start
squeezing the Black position.
(c) 19 ...l: fdS (Black keeps a hand
on the d-file) 20 Vj'xd5! (if 20 ~h6
then 20 .. :~e5. and now not 21 h5??
lllf5, but 21 l:th3 lllf5 22 ~h5
l:hd1+ 23 i.xd1 ttdS and Black's
position looks all right) 20 ... lllxd5
(after 20... i.xd5 21 b3 lllg6 22 g3
llle5 23 llle3 White is a bit better)
21 g3 ~f8 22 l:td4, followed by i:!.fl-
dl; White's unspoilt pawn structure
promises somewhat the better
endgame.
20~h6
If20 Uh3, then 20 .. :~e6.
20. ~e6
Vladimir brjngs his queen back to
the defence, but it costs a tempo. The
alternatives were:
(a) 20 ... llld5?? 21 l:xd5 'iYxd5
22 l:th3 and wins.
(b) 20 ... f5, and now:
(bl) 21 l:h3!, bringing the rook into
the attack, simply wins: 21...f4
22 Vj'xf4 etc.
(b2) 21 ~g5+, attempting to win a
piece, is much less convincing:
2l...lllg6 22 h5 (Ftacnik claims that
this wins) 22 ... f6 (but this keeps
Black alive) 23 Vj'xf5 (23 Vj'g3 f4
24 ~g4??, persistently trying to pick
up the piece, would result in disaster
as 24 ... i.cS traps the queen) 23 ... llle5
24 l:td6, and White still h.as the
103
1994
better game.
(c) 20 ...h4!? This idea of a divers-
ion came to mind as a result of
studying Garry's games. However...
(el) 21 lllxb4 'iYe6 22 'iYf4 a5
23 lllc2 1td5. At the cost of a pawn,
Black has slowed down the attack and
opened the b-file.
(c2) 21 ~xf6 bxc3 22 'iYxc3 lllf5
(22 ... l;'Ucs is met by 23 i.c4!!, and
now 23 .. :~xc4 24 l:tdS+ wins, while
after 23 ... 'iYa4 24 b3 'iYc6 the position
is perhaps somewhat better for White
- although his king too is open)
23 i.c4 'i!la4 leads to a double-edged
position.
(c3) 21 c4!! stops Black's play in its
tracks and leaves his king vulnerable:
2l...b3 (if 2l...e3, then 22 1td3; or if
2l...l:t beS, then 22 l:th3 b3 23 llla3
and White has a trt;mendous attack)
22llla3 'i!la1+ 23lllbi 'i!la5 24 'iYxf6
lllg6 25 h5 'iYe5 26 'iYxe5 lllxe5
27 I:th3, and White has the better
ending.
21llld4
21 l:th3 would be premature owing
to 2l...lllf5 22 Vj'f4 ~e5.
21...Vj'b6
Staying closer to the king with
21..:~e5 looks more attractive, but
there is a price to pay, as Black cannot
prevent White from opening up the
kingside:
(a) 22 l::th3 at this moment is too
slow, because of 22 .. .'~hS (or
1994
22 ...tllg6 23 :!:Ig3 ~h8 24 lIg4 :!:Ig8
25 h5 llle7) 23f4! ext3! (23 ... lllg8!?
is pretty but not the best. After 24 fxe5
lllxh6 25 exf6 :!:Ig8, Black would be
wise to seize the f6-pawn as soon as
possible: 26 ~gl :!:Ig6 27 g4 lllg8 28
g5 lllxf6 29 lIfl ttJd5, and the
position is roughly equal) 24 .Jtd3
lllg6 25 g3 (to prevent a queen
exchange; if 25 gxt3 then 25 ... 'iYf4+)
25 ...l:g8 26 h5 lllf8. Black survives
the attack and stands better.
(b) 22 f4 (Fta~nik) 22 ... ext3
(22 ... 'iYc7 or 22 ...'iYc5 would be
answered by 23 lIh3; on 22 ...'iYd6
White plays 23 .Jtg4, and then
23 .. :~c5 24 J:Ih3 or 23 ... lllg6
24llle6!), with these possibilities:
(bI) 23 .Jtd3 is the only move to
have occurred in practice, but it is far
too hasty: 23 ... lllg6 (not 23 ... f5?
24 :!:I he 1 'iYg7 25 'iYxg7+ ~xg7
26 :!:Ixe7 fxg2 27 ~gl, and Black's
g2-pawn falls) 24 g3 (24 lllf5 allows
24 ... 'iYf4+!, while after 24 i.xg6 fxg6
25 l:Ihe I Yj'h5 ~ lack gets away)
24 ...i.e4, and now:
(b II) 25 ~xe4 ~xe4 26 h5 llle5
27 'iYxf6 'iYe3+ 28 ~bllllg4 29 'iYf5
ttJh6 30 ~f6lllg4 31 'iVf5, and in this
position a draw was agreed in Garcia
Gildardo-Illescas, Linares 1994.
(b12) 25 )!:thel is a possible im-
provement, but the matter is not
clear: 25 ... f5 26 h5 (or 26 ttJc6 'iYxg3
27 lllxb8 ~xb8 28 .Jtxe4 fxe4
29 I:txe4 t2, and the black f-pawn is
dangerous), and Black has various
choices:
(bI21) 26 ... ~xg3 27 hxg6 fxg6
28 i. c2 looks dangerous.
(b122) 26 ... t2 27 hxg6 fxg6 28l:Ie3
(28 ~e2 'iYxg3) 28 .. JUc8, and the
position is double-edged.
(b 123) 26 ...~bc8 27 hxg6 fxg6
28 :!:Ie3 t2 29 ~hl :t7, and Black
should not be worse. He has 3 pawns
for the piece, and White's king is in at
least as much in danger as Black's.
(b2) It looks more logical to open
104
the g-file with 23 gxt3!?, and now:
(b21) 23 ... ~h8 24 .Jtd3 (or
24 :!:Ihgl l:Ig8 25 .Jtd3 lllg6 26 Wbl)
24 ... lllg6 25 .Jtxg6 (25 <Ji>bl?! 'iYf4)
25 ... fxg6 26 l:thel ~h5 27 ~xh5
gxh5 28 :!:Ie7, and the rook on the
seventh gives White the edge.
(b22) 23 ...lllg6 24 ~hgl Wh8 (not
24 ... ~fd8? 25 h5 'tWh2 26 lllf5
winning) 25 '.ilbl J:Ig8 (not 25 ...~f4?
26 J:Ixg6 +-) 26 .Jtd3 'iYc5 (26 ...b4
27 h5 wins) 27 h5 ~f8 28lllf5 .Jtxt3
29 hxg6 fxg6 30 l:Idfl i.h5, and
White is still pressing.
22 Ith3
22 .Jtg4 is ineffective at the mom-
ent, because of 22 ....Jtc8! 23 .ixc8
l:tfxc8 24 J:Ih3 ~h8 and there is no
obvious advantage that White can
obtain.
22..~h8 23 .Jtg4J:Ig8
Now 23 ....Jtc8 would leave the rook
unprotected.
24llle6!?
This is a tremendous surprise. It
would have been very hard, even for
Kramnik, to anticipate this intrusion.
Black is left with little choice.
24...l:g6!
This is the only move that allows
Black to stay in the game. The other
four possibilities are unsatisfactory:
(a) 24 ... lllg6 25 l:td7 wins.
(b) 24 .. Jhg4? 25 lllg5!, with a
threat on the h-file that takes
advantage of an unprotected piece far

away on the queenside: 25 .. J::rxg5
(25 ... fxg5 26 ~xb6) 26 hxg5 ~g8
27 gxf6, and the black king is caught.
(c) 24 .. .'*,xf2 25 :!:tf3! (another fine
move) 25 .. J:tg6 26 ~xg6 ~xb2+ 27
~xb2 liJxg6 28 ~xf6 fxe6 29 Iihe6.
White is the exchange up and will win
the game one way or another, as there
are too many open ranks and files for
his rooks.
(d) 24 ... fxe6 25 ~xf6+ ~g7
26 Md7 :!:te8 (or 26 ... ~c5 27 l:tg3!
~c8 28 .ltxe6 ~f8 29l:l:xb7, winning
a piece; this line is not the only
possibility, b4t it is the most eye-
catching) 27 ~g3!, and White wins
easily. (But not 27 J:!:xe7?, which
would spoil everything with a single
move: 27 ... ~exe7 28 ~f8+ Mg8
29 VJlixe7 ~xf2, and Black takes
over.)
25~f4
25Me8?
Finding himself short of time,
Krarnnik commits what may well be
the only clear mistake of the game.
Here are the alternatives:
(a) 25 ... Iibg8 26 h5 l:Ixg4
27 ,*"xf6+ l::r4g7 28 h6 ,*"xe6
(28 ... fxe6 29 hxg7+ Mxg7 30 Mg3
liJg6 31 Md7 wins) 29 hxg7+ Mxg7
30 l::rd8+ liJg8 31 l:Ixg8+! \t>xg8
32 VJlid8+ ~e8 33 ~xe8 mate.
(b) It turns out that 25 ... .ltd5! - a
move that is not at all obvious - was
the only playable option. The knight
105
1994
on e6 has to be removed as soon as
possible. It is very hard to calculate
the consequences of this reply over-
the-board, and its evaluation caused
some debate afterwards.
(bl) 26 h5? ~xg4 27 ~xf6+ (or
27 ,*"xg4 .ltxe6) 27 .. SYg8 and Black
wins.
(b2) 26 liJg5 (Ftacnik's move) is
ingenious but fails to keep the
balance: 26 ... fxg5 (26 ... trbg8 is also
very strong) 27 ,*"e5+ :!:tg7 28 ~xe7
f5? (against this White can defend,
whereas after 28 ... f6 29 ~b4 ~xf2
30 !;1xd5 ~f4+ 31 ~bl "*,xg4 the
two-pawn advantage must be enough
to win, despite the weakness of the
black king. Black should also win
after 28 ....ltb3 29l::td6 ~xf2) 29 ~e5
fxg4 30 :!:txd5 gxh3 (30 ... Mf8!?)
31 :!:td7 :!:tbg8 32 :!:txg7 :!:txg7
33 ~e8+ with perpetual check.
(b3) 26 .lth5 .ltxe6 27 ~xg6, and
now:
(b31) 27 ... .ltxh3?? 28 :!:td6!.
(b32) 27 ... hxg6 28 ~xf6+ \tig8
29 ~xe7 ~xh3 30 gxh3 ~xf2
31 ~xe4. Kasparov claimed that
White could hold this position.
(b33) 27 ... liJxg6! (this capture was
analysed by Timman in New in Chess)
28 ~xf6+ Wg8 29 Mg3 (or 29 h5
~xh3 30 l::rd6 ~c5, and now, as the
Dutch grandmaster pointed out, Black
wins after 31 h6 ~ e5 or 31 hxg6 hxg6
32 gxh3 b4 33 :!:tc6 ~d5 34 trd6
~c4)
- and Black has two choices:
1994
(b331) 29 ...b4!? (Timman recom-
mends this move as winning) 30 c4!
(after 30 cxb4 'itxb4, White is lost:
31 h5 'itc5+ 32 ~bl Yi'xh5), and
now:
(b3311) 30.. :~c5! (the immediate
30... 'it a5 also looks strong) 31 b3
~a5 (the move recommended by the
former world champion candidate;
instead, 31 ... l:tc8 32 l:tg5 ~c7 33 h5
.i.xc4 34 bxc4 'itxc4+ 35 Wd2 h6
36 l:rxg6+ is equal) 32 :hl (after
32 ~e3!? there is no forced win for
Black, although White's position is
highly suspect) 32 ....i.xc4 (after
32 ... l:rd8 33 h5 ~a3+ 34 'itb2
~xb2+ 35 Wxb2 l:td2+ 36 WcI l:txt2
37 hxg6 hxg6 Black is no doubt
better, but it is questionable whether
he has enough advantage to ensure a
win) 33 bxc4 'ita2 34 l:rdl 'itxc4+
35 'it'd2 b3, with very good winning
chances.
(b3312) 30 .. J:tc8. This move was
suggested by the computer program.
There can follow:
(b33121) 31 b3 'ita5 32 l:te3 (Black
wins after 32 l:thl .i.xc4 33 bxc4
'ita2!, or 32 h5 'ii'xh5) 32 ....i.g4
33 l:td6. White appears to be in
trouble here, but no forced win can be
found.
(b33122) 31 h5 :xc4+ 32 'it'bl
l:tc8!! 33 b3 (33 hxg6 .i.a2+ wins
the queen) 33 ... 'itc7 (or 33 .. :~c5
34 l:td8+ l::txd8 35 ~xd8+ 'it'g7
36 hxg6 hxg6 37 lIe3 and again Black
is better, but White's position will not
collapse) 34 ~b2 e3 (or 34 ....lif5
35 hxg6 hxg6 36 l:te3, and it is not yet
over) 35 hxg6 .i.f5+ 36 ~al 'ita5+
(36 ...hxg6 of course leaves Black with
the advantage, but after 37 J::txe3 the
win is not certain) 37 'ita2 'itxa2+
38 ~xa2 l:tc2+ 39 ~al e2 40 gxh7+
~h8 41 l:thl! .i.xh7 42 f4 (42 lIgh3
'it'g8) 42 ... 1'1~ (after 42 ... a5 43 J:tgh3
'it'g8 44 l:txh7 el='ii'+ 45 l:txel, it
would seem that Black cannot win)
43 l:tgh3 l:tdl+ 44 'it'b2 l:tfl
106
45 l:txh7+ '.ti>g8 46 l:th8+ '.ti>g7
47 l:te8 and White is likely to get
away.
(b332) 29 .. .'~'a5!' This computer-
generated move provides a clinical
finish:
(b3321) 30 h5 .lib3 31 h6 ~al+
32 'it'd2 ~xdl+ 33 'iJe3 ~d3 mate.
(b3322) 30 l:td6 'iVaI + 31 ~d2
(31 ~c2 .i.b3+ 32 ~d2 ~xb2+
33 ~e3 .i.c4 transposes) 3l...'itxb2+
32 ~e3 .i.c4, and again Black wins.
(b3323) 30 b4 ~a3+ 31 ~d2 i.b3
32 'iVd6 (or 32 h5 'iVa2+, which leads
to 33 ~el i.xdl 34 'it'xdl ~d5+ or
33 ~e3 i.xdl 34 h6 'iVe2+ 35 ~d4
'iVc4+ 36 ~e3 ~d3 mate) 32 ... l:Ie8
33 ~d7 e3+ 34 ~el (34 fxe3 loses to
34 ... l:re5) 34 ... l:tfS and wins.
(b3324) 30 l:rd4 .i.b3 31 ~d2 (or
31 h5 'ital+ 32 'it'd2 'iVdl+ 33 ~e3
~el mate) 3l...'iVal! 32 Ild8+
l:txd8+ 33 ~xd8+ 'it'g7 34 'iVd4+ f6
35 ~a7+ 'it'fS 36 ~a8+ 'it'f7
37 ~b7+ tiJe7 wins.
Now back to the game position,
after Black's 25 ... l:te8.
26l:td6!
This is a very fine intermediate
move, and very unpleasant to deal
with - especially in increasing time
trouble. Not 26 h5?? l:txg4, and Black
wins.
26..tiJd5
Fta~nik considered 26 ... ~a7 27 h5
l:txg4 28 'iVxg4 fxe6 (28 ...l:!g8

29 gd8! leads to mate) 29 gg3!
(Black is defenceless) 29 ...i:g8 (or
29 ... liJf5 30 llxe6! winning) 30 gd8!.
A neat move to divert the rook and
finish off the game.
Ftatnik alsp looked at 26 .. :~a5
27 h5 ~al+ (or 27 .. J:hg4 28 ~xg4,
when White wins after either 28 ...t!.g8
29 ~f4 or 28 ... fxe6 29 ~xe6)
28 Wc2 ~a4+ 29 Wbl lIxg4, and
now 30 ~xg4! wins on the spot
(30 ... fxe6 31 ~xe6). However, in the
event of 30 ~xf6+? Wg8, the Slovak
grandmaster demonstrates a remark-
able line:
(a) 31 ~xe7 is beautiful, but not
decisive: 3l....Jic6! 32 :i:Id8 'iVdl+!
(it's simply amazing how these things
seem liable to happen in Garry's
games more often than in anyone
else's) 33 gxdl i:xe7, and Black
escapes.
(b) 31 t!.g3 e3 32 t!.xg4+ iVxg4
33 filxe7 Ac6! (Black is saved by the
fact that the white king is too
vulnerable) 34 lhc6 ~dl+ (Black
can't play for a win with 34 ... iVe4+??
in view of 35 Wcl ~xc6 36 iVg5+
Wh8 37 iVg7 mate) 35 Wa2 iVa4+
and Black gives perpetual check.
Now back to the game. Black has
just played 26 ...liJd5.
27 h5!!
This is a small Zwischenzug with a
very big effect. It must have been a
real thrill to play it. Anyone who can
107
1994
attack like this deserves to win! If
27 t!.xb6? liJxf4 28 liJxf4 t!.xg4,
Black is still alive.
27. .lLlxf4
There is no way for Black to sur-
vive. Either his queen eventually falls,
or he gets checkmated. There are six
tries apart from the move played:
(a) 27 .. J:1g7 28 iVh6 wins.
(b) 27 ...:gg8 28 l:txd5!, and again
White wins.
(c) 27 ... fxe6 28 hxg6 liJxf4
29 I:txh7+ Wg8 30 :xb6 with a
decisive plus.
(d) 27 .. :~a5 28 hxg6 ~al+
29 Wc2 liJxf4 30 :xh7+ Wg8
31 gxf7+ Wxh7 32 fxe8=~ wins.
(e) 27 ...:xe6 28 hxg6 liJxf4
29 :xh7+ Wg8 30 gxf7+ Wf8
31 gh8+ Wxf7 32 .Jixe6+ and the
queen falls.
(t) 27 .. J:hg4 28 iVxg4 :g8
29 iVxg8+ Wxg8, and now again
30 :xb6.
28 hxg6 iV xd6
If 28 ...liJxh3, then 29 gxf7! repres-
ents a rare and remarkable transform-
ation for an h-pawn.
If instead 28 ...liJd3+
29 J::thxd3! (Garry must have seen
this in advance; absolute precision is
needed to win. After 29 Wbl? iVxt2
30 :xh7+ Wg8 31 :g7+ White
has no more than perpetual check)
29 ... exd3 (29 ... iVxt2 loses to 30 gxf7,
while after 29 ... iVa5 30 gxf7 iVal+
31 Wd2 ~xb2+ 32 '.tJel ~cl+
33 .tdl there is no reasonable check
1994
left) 30 gxfl. And so the fonner h-
pawn, just an ordinary soldier, be-
comes a general and the decisive
force.
29~xh7+
The h-file is the avenue of invasion
again.
29...~g8 30 gxf7+ ~xh7
31 fxe8=~
An h-pawn converting itself into an
f-pawn is something that doesn't
happen every day, but then that
was not the end of the pawn's
transfonnation. It now concludes its
glorious marcQ as a queen - a role that
Garry could hardly have foreseen for
it when he first played 13 h4. By now
the game has become a tremendous
display of chesl>.
31...ttJxe6
Kramnik has so far avoided losing
and managed to exchange a number of
pieces, even ending up with a piece
extra. Sadly for him, Garry still has
two pieces left on the board.
32~f5+!
And one of them moves decisively.
32.. .'.t>g7 33 ~g6+ 'ii7f8 34 ~xf6+
'ii7e8 35 .Jtxe6 ~f8?
A blunder, but the position was
hopeless anyway: 35 ... e3 36 fxe3
i.xg2 37 ~fl+ Wd7 38 ~e8+
'ii7c7 39 ~g7+ <.t>d8 40 ~xg2 (or
40 i.xb5) 40 ... <.t>xe8 41 ~e4+, and
White can swap the queens.
Kramnik did not wait for 36 i.d7+,
108
which wins the queen, but resigned
instead (1-0).
Timman called this game phenom-
enal. We will not even try to find
a better superlative to describe it.
Even though the original plan with
0-0-0 appears faulty, you have to take
risks in order to stir up complications.
This game demonstrates Garry's
enonnous playing strength, his great
imagination and his strong desire to
win through a willingness to take
risks.
This game was followed by a win
with Black against Short. It was a
positional Sicilian. Nigel took a risk
by pushing his d-pawn too far for-
ward. Garry's calculation was super-
ior, and he won the pawn and the
game.
In the sixth round he faced Shirov
again. This time Kasparov had Black.
It was a Scheveningen resembling the
Keres Attack, except that Garry
developed his knight on e7. At one
point Alexei could have recaptured on
b3 with either the a- or the c-pawn. He
chose the fonner, and with profound
play Garry demonstrated what was
wrong with that decision. When the
win was close, he had several options
available. Garry headed for a position
where he was the exchange and a
pawn up. However, Shirov had a dark-
squared bishop which grew so power-
ful that he escaped with a draw.
In round seven, Kasparov beat
Bareev in a nice game. He acquired an
edge early on, and Bareev never
managed to extinguish Garry's init-
iative.
In the eighth round, against Ivan-
chuk, Garry drew comfortably on the
Black side ofa King's Indian.
In the penultimate round Short
surprised him with a Queen's Gambit
Accepted. Kasparov sacrificed a pawn
but had to exchange queens. At one
point, according to Ftocnik, Short

could have obtained a clear advantage.
As the game went, Garry created
counterplay, recovered his pawn and
was even pressing at the end, but
Nigel held on.
In the last rpund a sharp theoretical
position in the GrUnfeld arose.
Kasparov sacrificed the exchange and
obtained appropriate compensation.
Kramnik didn't try to hang on to the
material, but sacrificed a bishop in his
turn. When the dust settled, it was a
drawn endgame.
In the first half of the tournament
Kasparov had played truly great chess,
achieving a score of 4: I. In the second
half he started with a blemished game
against Shirov, then slowed down,
collecting 3 points from the 5 games.
In the end he shared first and second
prizes with Ivanchuk.
London Rapid
Kasparov was eliminated in the first
round by Chess Genius 3. Anand beat
the computer in the semi-final but
went on to lose to Ivanchuk in the
final.
Horgeo
In the Horgen tournament Garry's
first opponent was the promising
young Hungarian Peter Leko. Garry
aimed for a small advantahe and
gradually increased it. He outclassed
the future world-class contender.
The same thing happened to Lutz,
except that the German grandmaster
was playing with the white pieces.
The King's Indian Slimisch transposed
to a Benoni, but that was not the end
of the transformations, as Garry
sacrificed his b-pawn in Benko style
and gradually putplayed his opponent.
In the third round, Benjamin played
steadily but had slightly the worse
position out of the opening. Garry
109
1994
sacrificed two pieces for a rook and
pawn, but the American fought hard
and drew a long game.
Gavrikov, with White, faced Garry
in the fourth round. Garry played
actively in a g3 King's Indian and was
pressing, but Gavrikov never looked
to be in trouble and drew.
Garry's next game with White was
against Boris Gelfand. The Najdorf
Sicilian quickly reduced to an ending.
Black must have had an equal game
for a short while, but Garry soon
gained the upper hand and won.
Against Lautier, Garry played an-
other Slimisch King's Indian. The
French player offered an exchange of
dark-squared bishops on h6, which
Garry accepted. Joel played aggress-
ively, continuing with h2-h4. Garry
didn't react precisely and found him-
self in trouble. However, he managed
to save the game.
Against Nikolic in the following
round, Garry played the main line
7 ~ g4 in a Winawer French. The
Bosnian grandmaster renounced cast-
ling with 7 ... \t' f8 and Garry soon
sacrificed two pawns. He managed to
stir up considerable complications.
According to Ftatnik's analysis he
could have gained the advantage at
one point, but missed the chance. The
situation remained unclear, however.
Later, in a middlegame with oppposite
bishops, Predrag had a hard defensive
task. He made one mistake and he was
lost.
The quick draw with Black against
Korchnoi was a mutual effort. You
could even imagine that they agreed it
before the game. Incidentally Garry
praised Korchnoi's effort in the
tournament. This rest helped Kasparov
save some energy, and immediately
afterwards he came up with an incred-
ible game - a special masterpiece
even at Kasparov's exceptional level.
There is nothing all that special about
the combinations, but the strategic
1994
conception is tremendous, even if it
was home analysis. Let us take a close
look.
Game 16
G.Kasparov White
A.Shirov Black
Horgen 1994
Siciliay/ Defence [B33]
Kasparov has a very impressive
plus score against most of the top
players, but his most stunning
personal score is against Shirov. He
has not lost a single game to Alexei.
What lies behind his domination of
such a brilliant rival? The disparity of
scores is out of proportion to the
difference in playing strength. Maybe
the answer is that Alexei has a
somewhat similar style, and the
complications that he creates - which
work so well jlgainst others - do not
work so well against Garry. The
Champion seems better at playing
with fIre than the chess arsonist
Shirov. Again$t this opponent Garry
relatively seldom plays a closed
opening with White, but prefers 1 e4.
1 e4 c5
This was one of the frrst games in
which Shirov had played Black
against Garry.
2 tLlo e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlf6
5 tLl c3 tLl c6
Alexei has played many different
openings during his career, employing
the Sveshnikov between 1992 and
1994. After this game he gave it up for
9 years.
6 tLldb5 d6 7 i.f4 e5 8 i.g5 a6
9 tLlaJ b5 10 tLldS i.e7 11 i.xf6
i.xf6 12 c3 i.b7
This was not new from Shirov, as
he had already played this way in a
game against Zapata. At the time,
this variation occurred comparatively
rarely. Interestingly, Black rarely
implements his plan by playing
110
12 ...tLlb8 first. After 13 tLlc2 (13 c4!?
looks critical, and is certainly
interesting) 13 ... tLld7 14 a4 bxa4
15 ~xa4, Black could transpose to the
game with 15 ...1.b7 or else consider
alternatives like 15 ...tLlc5 or 15 ... 0-0.
13 tLlc2 tLlb8 14 a4 bxa4 Isl:ha4
15 tLlce3 was the move Zapata had
tried against Alexei two years earlier,
at the 1992 Manila Olympiad. There
followed 15 ... tLld7 16 ~xa4 0-0
17 l':tdl Jl.g5 18 ~c2 tLlc5 19 tLlf5 g6
20 b4 1.xd5 21 l':txd5 tLlb7 22 h4 1.f6
23 tLlh6+ Wg7 24 tLlg4. White's
position looks somewhat better here;
nevertheless Shirov went on to win
the game.
15..tLld7
15 ... 0-0 is possible and has been
played before. Then 16 1.c4!? follow-
ed by ~ d l-e2 and 0-0 looks like a test
of Black's scheme.
16l:tb4! tLlc5
After 16 ...1.c6? 17 l:tc4 i.xd5
(l7 ... l:tc8? 18 tLlcb4) 18 ~xd5, White
is somewhat better. The alternative
16 ...l:tb8 17 1.c4 0-0 18 ~e2 also
looks reasonable for White. Maybe
16 ...:a7 will gain in popularity in
time to come. So far Black has
achieved reasonable positions with
this continuation.
17J:hb7!
This was obviously home prepar-
ation. Even though we are already at
move 17, this doesn't look like a

middlegame position. White voluntar-
ily sacrifices his rook, in which he has
invested two moves, for the bishop on
which Black has expended one move
in the course of his development. It
looks irration~l, yet White gains
significant compensation from this
bold decision. Clear domination of the
White squares and a very strong
outpost on d5 are the pluses.
Furthermore Black's rooks have no
open files on which to invade, and his
well developed knight (which has
moved 5 times already) becomes
misplaced. In. 1994 this sacrifice
occurred in three other games, one of
them in a German team championship.
It is not easy to ascertain who played
it first. Quite probably it was Garry,
and the other players just followed in
his footsteps.
17...ttJxb7 18 b4.i.g5
IS ... 0-0 can be met by 19 Ad3!?
(with 19 h4 White could try to restrict
the black bishop, but it may be better
not to open up too many fronts). Black
might prefer lS ... a5!?, which doesn't
allow h2-h4 blJt renounces the right to
castle (in the ~vent of 19 .i.b5+ <;i7f8)
and fails to prevent the following
knight manoeuvre: 19 ttJce3 (this
hyperactive knight will get to c4 by its
seventh move; it just takes a different
route) 19... 0-0 20 ttJc4, and White
again has compensation.
19 ttJaJ 0-0
The alternative is 19... a5!?, im-
mediately trying to gain some freedom
for his rook at the expense of giving
up castling. White has the following
options:
(a) 20 .i.b5+ '>t>f8 is not the end of
the world fof' Black: 21 tZJc4 (not
21 i..c6? axb4!) 21...axb4 22 cxb4 g6
(after 22 ...l:.ta2 23 0-0 White still has
decent compensation), and now White
cannot play b2-h4. On 23 i..c6, Black
has:
(al) 23 ... l:.ta7 24 f4 (it's probably
too early to open the position; 74 0-0
111
1994
looks better) 24 ....i.h4+ (24 ... exf4
25 ~ d4 wins a rook in quite a
remarkable way) 25 g3 i.. f6 26 0-0
exf4 27 tZJxf6 ~xf6 2S .i.xb7
(2S l:txf4 ::tal) 2S ...l:txb7 29 l:txf4
~c3, and Black is safe.
(a2) 23 .. J:~cS!? 24 ~a4 kIaS
25 ~dl l:tcS. The repetition is
reasonable for both sides.
(b) 20 ttJc4 axb4 21 cxb4 l:ta2
22 i.d3 g6 is similar to the game, but
White can't easily play h2-h4; he must
play g2-g3 first.
20 ttJc4
The position is closed enough to
permit a seventh move with the knight
from gl. The white knights are domin-
ating a large part of the board. Black's
problem is that if he decides to open
the position - a plan suggested by his
superior development - he will be be
clearing lines for the enemy light-
squared bishop.
20. a5
If Black had decided to do nothing
but to act like a hedgehog with
20 ... g6, what was Garry's plan?
Maybe he knew that Alexei was
unlikely to respond so timidly. After
21 .i.d3 i..h6 (21...f5? 22 exf5 gxf5
23 h4 i..h6 24 .i.xf5 increases
White's advantage), White has more
than one way tOJ~roceed:
(a) 22 tZJcb6 lIa7 23 tZJd7 (23 tZJcS
is pretty, but leads nowhere after
23 ...l:.t38 24 ttJcb6; a better choice is
1994
23 O-O!) 23 .. :~g5, and now 24 0-0
looks preferable, playing on with the
exchange down. If instead 24 tllxf8
~xg2 25 \i(e2, White's king is rather
open and Black may continue
25 ...~g4+ 26 WeI ~g2.
(b) 22 0-0 \i(g7, and White's com-
pensation is undeniable. It would be
interesting to know where Garry
would have put his queen. Various
options look reasonable and have their
particular advantages: 23 ~a4!?, or
23 ~f3!? I:!:a7 24 I:!:al, or 23 ~e2!?
21.i.d3
A confident move. White has im-
proved his position in the centre and
on the queenside, so it is now time to
catch up with his development and
prepare to bring his rook into play. He
can also insert 21 h4 .i.h6, then play
22 .i.d3 axb4 23 cxb4 I:!:a2 24 g3.
This position occurred via a different
move order in the game Borge-
Christensen, ljafle 1995. It is very
hard to judge all the consequences of
weakening the f3-square, but in that
game it became an important factor;
the continuation was 24 ... 'tIeb8
25 ~b 1 ~ a7 26 0-0 I:!:a8 27 tllcb6
J:Id8 28 ~b3 ~a3 29 ~c4 Itd2
30 .i.bl ~f3 31 tlle7+ \i(h8 32 tllfS
I:!:dl, and Black held the position.
21. .axb4 22 c~b4
22...~b8?!
This may look like a mistake,
because it allows b2-h4 and seems
Il2
passive, but Alexei is a magician from
Riga just like Tal. His defensive
capabilities are very strong compared
with those of ordinary players, but his
skills in this department are not as
finely tuned as his attacking ones.
There were three main alternatives to
this move.
(a) 22 ..J:b8!? (Fta~nik's recom-
mendation; he wants to play ~d8-d7),
and now:
(al) 23 h4 (the possibility that
Garry will mount an attack on the h-
file must always be considered, as that
is what he very often likes to do)
23 ....i.h6 24 ~g4 \i(h8 25 I:!:h3
(25 0-0 'iVc8) 25 ... l:ta8 (this time,
however, Black is quick enough)
26 J:g3 l::tal + and Black is at least no
worse.
(a2) 23 ~g4 .i.h6 24 0-0 \i(h8 (this
is part of Black's plan to move his
queen and then improve the poor
position of his knight) 25 J:Idl 'tIec8,
and White still has compensation.
(b) 22 ... l::ta2!? 23 0-0 (23 h4 allows
23 ....i.xh4, while after 23 g3 ~d7!
Black frees the d8-square so that his
knight can be brought into the game:
24 h4 .i.h6 25 ~bl l:Ia7 26 wflllld8
- fmally the knight moves - 27 Wg2
llle6, and now Black is safe)
23 ...~d7!? (Black gives back a pawn
but gets some play in return. After
23 ... ~e8 24 ~g4 h6 25 h4 .i.d8
26 ~ c8, White has managed to
entangle Black's pieces. If instead
23 ... .i.h6 24 'tIeg4 Wh8 25 lllcb6,
Black can again do little) 24 i.bl (or
24 ~b3 when White retains some
compensation, though after 24 ...l:Ia7
25 l:tdl l'oIb8 Black has eased his
position) 24 ... l:tal 25 lllxe5 ~e6, and
the game looks balanced. To this
appraisal, one other point should be
added: in practice, players of the
Black side do not have an appetite for
this type of position. By playing the
sacrifice, Garry showed he agreed
with this opinion. Generally speakng

the line may somehow be playable for
Black, but from the practical point of
view he probably does better to look
for other methods.
(c) 22 ... g6 23 0-0 fS (Black could
also try waiting with 23 ... 'i!fg7, as it
would take an effort to crack his
position), and in the game Grujic-
Nedev, Vrbas 1994, the players agreed
a draw here. After 24 exfS (White can
also try 24 ~b3, or 24 ~c2 fxe4
25 i.xe4, but it is hard to tell what he
can achieve with his advantage)
24 ...gxf5 25 lLlce3 (25 ~h5 is not
convincing after 25 ... e4 26lLlcb6 l:ta3
27 i.c4 'i!fg7) 25 ... e4 26 i.c4 'i!fhS
White has compensation for the
exchange, but Black has fair chances
to escape.
Kasparov al~o mentions 22 ...i.h6!?,
a fourth possibility. The aim is to
bring the queen to g5. White has some
compensation after 23 0-0 (23 h4 i:Ia2
24 g3 is al~o possible) 23 .. :~g5
24lLlce3.
23 h4 i.h6
Ftatnik recommended a reasonable
plan with i.g5-dS-c7 followed by
lLlb7-dS. Let us look at it! Perhaps
Shirov originally intended this, and
simply changed his mind. If he had
planned i:Ia7-a2, it would have been
more natural to continue that way on
move 22.
On 23 ... i. dS, White has these
choices:
(a) 24 i:Ih3!? (our experience from
the first part of this book has taught us
to check the possibilities of using the
h-file for attack) 24 ... Ma2 25 lLlce3
(after 25 lLlc3 J::ta7 26 ~g4 J::ta1+
27 'i!fe2 VJlJa7 2S il.g3 g6 Black's
position may endure the _pressure)
25 ... ~a7 26 VJlJg4 i.b6 27 l:.1g3 (this
is an uncompromising way of putting
more force into the attack, but it also
leaves White's own king more
vulnerable; it is extremely difficult to
judge its merits) 27 ... l:tal + 2S 'i!fe2 g6
29 VJlJg5 i.dS (29 ... ~a2+ 30 'i!ff3)
113
1994
30 ~h6 ~a2+ 31 'i!ff3 ~d2 32 i.c4
i:Ia3 (now White has a drawing
combination at his disposal; both sides
could have played differently, of
course) 33 l:hg6+ bxg6 34 lLle7+
i.xe7 35 ~xg6+ and the analysis,
which is not at all forced, leads to
perpetual check.
(b) 24 0-0 provides the king with
safety and protects 12. On the other
hand, the rook is not helping the
attack against the black king. After
24... l:ta2 (24 ... i.xh4 25 lLlcb6 i:Ia7
26 lLld7 allows White to reduce the
material disadvantage while retaining
compensation; while after 24 ... i.c7
25 ~g4, Black's pieces are danger-
ously far from his king) 25 ~g4 VJila7
26 lLlce3 'It>hS, it is hard to say
whether the compensation is enough.
24lLlcb6 Ma2 2S 0-0 i:Id2
Or 25 ... ~a7 (Ftatnik) 26 i.c4
(26 ~f3 can be met by 26 ... i:Ial!?
or 26 ... i.d2!?) 26... i:Id2 27 ~al!
(switching to the other side of the
board for a change; 27 'iYf3 is less
convincing after 27 ... lLldS 2S ~c3
lLle6) 27 ...~xal 2S I:txal lLldS
29 lLld7 neS 30 i:IaS, and Black is in
trouble on the Sth rank.
26 VJilfJ ~a7
Just as in the game against Ivanchuk
with the Botvinnik System, Garry's
world-class opponent makes good use
of the file. However, the effect is not
the same. The reply to 26 ...~eS could
1994
be 27 ~al (White has already made
use of the h-file with h2-h4, and it is
now time to do the same on the other
side). By this stage White's advantage
is obvious.
27 ttJd7!?
As Garry pointed out, after 27 .i. b5!
ttJd8 28 ttJd7 ttJe6 29 ttJe7+ Wh8
30 ttJxfS "fixe7 31 ttJxe6 "fixe6
(31...fxe6 32 ~cl again favours
White) 32 .i.c6, White is better.
27.ttJd8?!
Alexei is forced to admit that his
strategy has not worked well. He can't
hold on to the exchange any longer,
but he tries to improve the position of
the poorly placed knight. Black's
situation is tough, but amidst the
brutal threats there is a path of resist-
ance that can be found.
(a) 27 ... ~d8? 28 ttJe7+ Wh8
29 "fixf7 g6 (29 ...~xd3 30 ttJfS wins)
30 ttJf6 .i.g7 31 "'xg6! hxg6
32 ttJxg6 mate.
What an unusual checkmate! It just
shows what can happen when Garry
makes a positional exchange sacrifice.
(b) 27 ...... a3 28 ttJe7+ 'itth8
29 ttJxfS J::[xd3 30 ~xf7 "fib3
31 ttJe6, and this time the mate will be
delivered on g8.
(c) 27 ... ttJc5, and now:
(cl) 28 ttJe7+ Wh8 29 ttJxfS "fixe7
30 bxc5 dxc5 31 ttJxh7 'ittxh7
32 .i.c4, and Black is worse.
(c2) 28 ttJxfS ttJxd3 29 "fif5! g6
30 "fid7 ~xd7 (30 ... ~b8 31 ttJxh7)
31 ttJxd7 and the b-pawn is a danger.
114
(c3) Garry gives 28 bxc5 ~xd7 29
c6 as winning.
(d) Fta~nik mentions 27 ... lIa8!
which is the best option. We all know
the maxim that rooks belong on open
files because they are attacking pieces.
Here, however, the king on g8 is
defended by the rook on the a-file,
albeit not from the furthermost a 1-
square but from a8. White has various
replies:
(dI) 28 ttJ7b6 is recommended by
Kasparov (the point being that
28 ... lIfS 29 .ib5 transposes into the
favourable line in the note to White's
27th move).
However, he doesn't say anything
about the Zwischenzug 28 ...~a3!
which looks as though it can ease
Black's position: 29 l:tdl (29 ttJxa8 is
answered by 29 ...lIxd3!, while after
29 .i.e2 "fixt3 30 .i.xt3 l:taa2 Black
still seems to be in the game)
29 .. .lhdl+ 30 ~xdl ~al, and with
no white rook left, Black's chances
are better than earlier.
(d2) 28 ttJe7+ Wh8 (this time,
White's threat to give mate on g8 can
be parried) 29 'tWxf7 lIxd3 30 ttJfS
'tW a2!. Thanks to the rook on a8, this
swoop prevents the checkmate on the
other side of the board.
(d3) 28 .i.c4 ttJd8 29 ttJ5b6 lIb8!
(or 29 ... lId4 30 .i.d5 lIb8 31 ttJxb8
~xb8 32 ttJc4, and White is better;
while after 29 ... "fic7 30 ttJxa8 ~xc4
31 ttJab6 ~xb4 32 lLld5 ~a5
33 ~g4 he still has annoying com-
 1994

pensation for the pawn) 30 ttJxb8 30~f5!

(forced) 30 ... lilhb6 31 ttJa6 (this
knight has already made II of White's
3 1 moves, and this is its third visit to
the a-file; however, after its last two
forced moves it rather drops out of the
game) 3l...d5! (3l...Md4 32 'i e2)
32 exd5 'id4, and the position is
double-edged.
28 ttJxf8
Thanks to some most imaginative
play, White has reached what is
virtually a winning position. Let's see
how many moves Garry needs to
crystallize the win. Earlier, Garry played a superb pos-
28...<tJxf8 itional exchange sacrifice; now the
At least that knight is not jumping most natural way forward is to play
all over the place any more - unless tactically. The finish will be swift and
Garry later goes for an under- efficient. First White collects the h-
promotion! pawn, although this requires accurate
29 b5~a3 calculation since the queen will after-
Alternatively: wards be isolated. Fortunately for
(a) 29 ...ttJe6 30 b6 ~a3 31 b7, and Garry, Black can do nothing while the
now: queen is on h7. Some advice for club
(aI) 31 ... l::!.b2 32 il.b5!. This attract- players: it is permissible for the queen
ive tactical shot was found by Tamas to remove itself from the centre of
Horvath. On 32 ... ~a7, White wins action, but make sure that it forces the
with 33 'ic3. issue when it does so, and then try to
(a2) All that can be added to return with it as quickly as possible.
Tamas's analysis is: 3l...'ib3 32 J::tbl 30... <tJe8
l::!.b2 33 l::!.xb2 'iVxb2 34 Ji.a6 ttJc5 If 30...ttJe6 31 ~xh7, or 30 .. Jhd3
35 'if5 and wins. 3 1 'iV d7, White invades.
(b) Kasparov gives an exclamation 31 it.c4 l:c2
mark to 29 ... 'iVd4, but at the end of his
analysis Black still loses. How is this?
The reason for the exclamation mark
is that Black is stopping 30 ~f5, so
this move is better than the game
continuation. However, after 30 l::!.dI
(30 il.e2 looks very strong as well:
30 ... ttJe6 31 l:tcl! ttJc5 32 ~f5, and
White wins) Garry's analysis in
Informant shows that with precise
play White can win the ensuing
endgame: 30 .. JhdI+ 31 ~xdl ttJe6
32 b6 tiJc5 33 il.c2 ~xdl+ 34 il.xdl
<tJe8 35 .tg4 llld7 (35 ...<tJd8
36 ttJb4) 36 b7 tiJb8 37 il.e2 Wd8 On 31... 'iV a4, the simplest way is
38 il.b5, and White can invade on the 32 'iVxh7.
kingside. The mov-e the World Champion
115
1994
analysed was 31..:~c5. The continu-
ation 32 'iVxh7 '.itd7 33 ~f5+ '.ite8
34 ~b3 ttb2 35 .Ji.dl shows he was
ready to retreat if appropriate.
32 ~ xh7! l::txc4
As Fta~nik indicates, 32 ...~c5
33 'iVg8+ \t>d7 34 .i.b3 ttb2 35 .Ji.dl
wins for White.
33 ~g8+ 'it>d7 34 It:)b6+ '.ite7
35 It:) xc4 ~ c5
You might think that with the white
queen out of play, Black could cause
problems for the knight which has no
secure base.
36 %:tal!
The queen is still attacking from g8!
The rook will invade from the other
side.
36..~d4
In the event of 36 .. :~xc4 37 I::ta7+
'.ite6 38 'iVxd8, the most practical
method is 38 ~e8+, whereas the
stylish fmish is 38 'iVxd8 'iVc1+
39 '.ith2 ~f4+ (or 39....i.f4+ 40 g3
.Ji.xg3+ 41 \t>g2!, and after this
sidestep White gives checkmate in 3)
40 '.ith3, and now Black will be mated
in 12. He has no sensible check.
37:1a3!
37 .l:Ia8lt:)e6 38 g3 should also win.
37....i.c1 38lt:)e3 1-0
Black resigned. Garry was proud of
this achievement, as he had every
reason to be. And yet he has very little
to say about the opening phase of the
game which was so exciting; this
116
seems like a contradiction.
It is hard to argue with Garry's
assertion that this game, rather than
the one against Yusupov, deserved to
be selected as the best game of the
tournament. He sacrificed the ex-
change for lasting positional compens-
ation and utilized the entire board with
style. On the other hand one must
sympathize with the jury. They may
not have had much time to gain a full
understanding of these remarkably
deep concepts.
Opening preparation served Garry
well in the next round, as he uncorked
another anti-thematic move, putting
his queen on the edge of the board.
This novelty accelerated his develop-
ment. To develop his own position,
Yusupov sacrificed a pawn and saw fit
to move to the edge with his knight -
it never really returned. Garry kept his
pawn advantage by allowing his
pawns to be doubled. He went on to
win convincingly.
In the last round he played the
opening carelessly against Miles, who
refused a draw. Garry had to work
hard in order to share the point.
Kasparov had a good tournament,
winning the event by a 1~-point
margin. He had managed to reduce the
mistakes without losing the great
creativity that showed itself in many
games.
Paris Rapid
Kasparov started the knockout
tournament by beating the speedplay
expert Arbakov with Black. It was a
fight, but he gradually outplayed his
opponent tactically. In thir second
game Garry went for a small
advantage and tried to draw. He won
this game too when his opponent
committed suicide.
In the next round he faced
Hjartarson, who blundered in the first

game. The Icelandic grandmaster
complained that he always played
below par against Kasparov. The
second game too was a horror for
Hjartarson; he resigned on move 23.
Garry played well but didn't come up
with anything spectacular.
In the semi-final, Garry again faced
Kramnik who drew easily with Black.
In the second game Kramnik was
pressing, but Kasparov got away with
a draw. Now let us see the decider!
Game 17
G.Kasparov White
V.Kramnik Black
PCAlIntel rapid, Paris 1994
In a Slav Defence Kramnik has
come close to equalizing. Here he
should just hold the position.
20...'it'b6?
After 20 .. J:te7 - just a waltmg
move - it is hard for White to make
progress and the position is equal.
21 as!
Garry uses his a-pawn with great
versatility. With this advance he wins
a pawn.
21..:~c7
The white pawn can't be taken
(21...i.xa522lllxd5).
22lllxdSltJxdS 23 J.xb4!
You may be thinking that Garry is
becoming careless in a winning pos-
ition and showing no respect for basic
principles. It is only with a material
117
1994
advantage that you are supposed to
exchange pieces. Yet principles some-
times clash. Kasparov knows that
major piece endgames generally offer
better drawing chances than minor
piece endgames. After 23 i.xd5
i.xd2 24 i.xf7+ 'iVxf7 White is
better, but the move played secures a
more comfortable plus.
23ltJxb4 24 'ilxg6
Garry chops off the pawn.
24..ltJdS 2S 'ilf5 g6 26 'it'o 'ild6
27 a6
It's useful to have a pawn close to
its promotion square. Garry went on to
win this position (1-0).
In the final Garry played Predrag
Nikolic, who was probably simply
happy to be there. Garry, naturally,
had come to win first prize. He
sacrificed a pawn and pushed his h-
pawn to h6 in order to open up
Nikolic's king. It was a highly
complicated game; Nikolic's moves
suggest that he tired, and in an
unpleasant position he even blundered
a piece.
With Black, Garry played a Benko
b-pawn sacrifice in the King's Indian.
He exchanged the defending minor
pieces on the kings ide, thus making
the pawns vulnerable. In fact he won
his pawn back. In the ending he
blocked the white a-pawn first with
his rook and then with his king,
freeing the rook to do damage. Maybe
Nikolic was not worse, but he tried
too hard and lost. So Garry won the
last of the 4 tournaments in the Intel
rapid circuit. He shared the overall
first place with Kramnik, who was
named the winner of the series.
European Club Championship
Garry played 3 games in this
contest. Here is the frrst one.
1994
Game 18
Z.Almasi White
G.Kasparov Black
EU-Cup fmal, Lyon 1994
36..i.xa4!!
This is not the only move to win,
but it provides an attractive finish.
Almasi resigned here (0-1). During a
team championship match in Hungary
not long after this game, Zoltan
reflected that he had played very
stupidly against Kasparov. A good
decade later, I asked him again how
he felt about this particular game. He
said Garry had played very strongly,
but when I asked him about his own
play, he had nothing to say. It was
clear to me that he had forgotten what
he said earlier. Whatever the game
meant from the young Hungarian
grandmaster's perspective, Garry had
finished it off in style. The concluding
moves could have been:
37 <0xa4 Ilc/+ 38 \tJb2 I1c2+
39 'ilb1 Wib4!
This leads to a forced mate.
40 Ilxb3
Or else 40 tLJc3 ~a3 41 .i.xd5 :tcl
mate, or 40 :tc3 ~xa4 41 :txc2
bxc2+ 42 'itb2 cl=~ mate.
40... ljfel+!
The most attractive continuation.
41 Wx-c2 rlfcl+ 42 'ild3 Vli'c4 mate
42 ... ~d2 mate is not bad either. In
this competition Garry played for the
Bosna Sarajevo team.
118
In the second round Garry drew an
ending against Lautier, and in the third
he was comprehensively beaten by
Shneider. The Ukrainian played a
positional game and Garry tried to
muddy the waters. However, his
opponent had a very good day and
handled the problems well. He
deserved his victory.
Moscow Olympiad
Garry made a flying start by
winning his first two games - both
were impressive. In a way, they were
similar to each other. Let's see his
first game.
Game 19
G.Kasparov White
Z.Azmaiparashvili Black
Moscow Olympiad 1994
Modern Defence [A41J
1 d4d6
This reply comes as no great
surprise to Garry, as Zurab has been
playing the line all his life. He learned
the opening from Chikovani, who
published many articles in Soviet
chess periodicals. Zurab was one of
Garry's seconds in London during the
Short match. They must at least have
played blitz games with this opening.
Zurab once remarked to me that Garry
is the one player against whom resist-
ance is problematic for him. He fmds
it difficult to forget that he is up
against a genius!
2l'LlfJ
Kasparov-Speelman, Belfort 1988,
went 2 c4 e5 3 tLJf3 e4 4 tLJg5 tLJf6
5 l'Llc3 .i.f5 6 g4 ~xg4 7 .i.g2 .i.e7
8 l'Llgxe4 tLJxe4 9 .i.xe4 c6 10 'iVd3
.i.h5 11 ~h3 .i.g6 12 .i.xg6 fxg6
13 .i.f4 0-0 14 e3 l'Lla6 150-0-0 l'Llc7
16 'itbl a6 17l'Lle4 g5 18 .i.g3 'iVe8
19 \t>al 'iVg6, and the game ended in
a draw.

2...g6
Both Short and Anand have tried
2... i.g4 against Kasparov; they both
eventually came to grief.
3 c4 ..tg7 4 tllc3 e5 5 dxe5!
It's good to play for a win, but
many players lose because they hope
to achieve an easy draw by ex-
changing pieces. This position is not
an automatic draw.
The position after 5 e4 exd4
6 tllxd4 was reached by a different
move-order in Kasparov-Speelman,
Barcelona 1989. There followed:
6... tllc6 7 i.e3 tllge7 8 h4 h6 9 i.e2
f5 10 exf5 tllxf5 II tllxf5 i.xf5
12 'iYd2 'iVd7 13 0-0 0-0-0 14 b4
tllxb4 15 tllb5 tllc2 16 ..to d5
17 i.xd5 tllxal 18 tllxa7+ 'it'b8
19 ~b4 'iVxd5 20 cxd5 tllc2 21 'iVa5
tllxe3 22 fxe3 l:the8 23 tllb5 Itxd5
24 'iVxc7+ ~a8 25 'iYa5+ 1-0. This
ferocious attack was another typical
Kasparov game. However, top players
no longer treat the opening the way
Garry did.
5..dxe5 6 ~xd8+ ~xd8
7..td2!
Hartston's move from 1972, though
he didn't play it in the same spirit as
Garry. The main line is 7 ..tg5+, but it
looks better not to force the pawn to
f6.
7... f6
A game Van Wely-Rogers, Bundes-
liga 2001, went 7.....te6 8 O-O-~ ~c8
119
1994
9 tllg5!? i.xc4 10 e4 ..txfl 11 ~hxfl
tllh6 12 f4 tlld7 l3 f5 tLlf6 14 h3 a5
15 g4 gxf5 16 exf5 ~a6 17 tLlO tLld7
18 f6, and White's inspired opening
play gained him the advantage.
Later in Kurajica-Azmaiparashvili,
Strumica 1995, Zurab improved on
the present game with 7... tLla6. There
followed 8 0-0-0 <;i(e8 9 tllb5 f6 10 g3
(10 h3!?) IO ...tllh6 11 ..tg2 tllfl
12 tllel c6 l3 tllc3 ..tf5 14 tLld3 <JiIe7
15 e4 .l1e6 16 b3 ~hd8 17 i.e3 .l1h6
18 f4 exf4 19 gxf4 tlle5 20 tllf2
..txc4 21 bxc4 tllxc4 22 tllg4 tLlxe3
23 tllxe3 i.xf4 24 ~hel tllb4, and
Azmai went on to win. You can see
how imaginatively he plays; probably
Garry employs him for his creative
ideas. Zurab came to work for
Intchess Asia in Singapore, where I
am also working. He had a few
sessions with the Singapore national
team, and interesting ideas were
simply flowing from him.
80-0-0 <JileS
So this was Zurab's plan. Alternat-
ively:
(a) In Groszpeter - Chilingirova,
Katerini 1994, the continuation was
8... tLld7 9 g4! c6 10 tLle4 ~c7
11 i.b4 i.fB 12 tlld6 a5 13 ..ta3, and
my compatriot obtained an advantage.
(b) 8... i.d7 is the latest approach
for Black. The game P.H.Nielsen-
Rogers, Calvia Olympiad 2004,
continued 9 g4 ~c8 10 J:Igl tlle7
II tlle4 ..te6 12 e3 tlld7 l3 i.c3
tLlc6 14 h4 a5 15 h5 g5, and
the Australian number one player
managed to stabilize his position.
9h3
Grandmaster Ribli recommended
9 tllb5. If then 9... tLla6 10 ..tc3 tlle7
11 e3 tllc6 12 a3, he evaluated the
position as slightly better for White.
9..te6 10 b3 tlla6
IO ...h5!? is Belov's recommend-
ation. In that case, Kasparov would
probably develop with II g3. (Instead,
II J:tgl tlla6 12 g4 hxg4 l3 bxg4
1994
0.e7 looks like a better version of the
game.)
11 g4!
A subtle move that stops f6-5.
However, the key idea is to put the
light-squared bishop on the long
diagonal. The simultaneous gain of
space is an additional plus.
11 .l:td8
Black could try to block the
diagonal at once with 11...0.e7
12 il..g2 0.c6, but White should still
be better.
12 il..g2 0.e7 13 il..e3 0.c8
Against 13 ... 0.c6, it is hard to
choose between the recommendations;
Kasparov mentions 14 a3 !?, while
Ribli's move 14 0.b5!? also looks
strong.
After 13 .. .'>fit7 14 0.b5 0.c6 15 a3,
it's hard for Black to shake off the
pressure.
14 0.b5! l:txd1+
14 ...Wt7!? is Belov's move. The
question is whether White can free his
bishop after taking the a7-pawn. After
15 0,xa7 (15 0.d2!?) 15 ... 0.xa7
16 il..xa7 b6 17 l:txd8 l:txd8 18 l:tdl
l:txd 1+ 19 <>fixd 1 <>fi e7, it isn't easy to
improve White's position.
15l:Ixdl <>fie7?
If 15 ... b6, then 16 0.el!.
In the event of 15 ... c6 16 0.xa7
0.e7, White will free his knight on a7
as Black has no pieces nearby to win
it. Kasparov recommends the plan of
120
17 0.el and 0.el-d3 as better for
White.
160.xe5!
Kasparov gets too many pawns for
the piece, and too much play.
16. c6
After 16 ... fxe5 17 i.xb7 0.b8
18 0,xc7 all Black can do is wait, but
without much hope.
170.xc6+
Kasparov prefers the game con-
tinuation to the equally convincing 17
i.xc6, which leaves White much
better after 17 ... bxc6 18 0,xc6+ <>fit7
19 0.d8+ <>fie7 20 0.xe6 <>fixe6
21 0,xa7 0.xa7 22 i.xa7.
17. bxc618.txc6
The size of White's advantage is
debatable. According to Speelman it is
, according to Garry it is already
decisive. Whatever the evaluation,
Garry collects the point without ever
letting his advantage slip away.
18...l:td8 19 il..b7 l:txd1+ 20 <>fixdl
0.b8 21 il..f4!
Or 21 0,xa7!?
21...a6 22 0.d4 0.d6 23.tO
Black even loses his extra piece.
23il..c8 24 c5 0.b7 25 b4! f5
26 e3 fxg4 27 hxg4 a5 28 il.. xb8
The rest needs no comment. Was
resignation in order?
28...axb4 29 0.c6+ <>fid7 30 il..e5
.tIS 31 0.xb4 0.xc5 32 il..c6+ <>fid8
33 g5 il..e6 34 il..d5 \!;>d7 35 il..c6+
<>fic8 36 .td5 <>fid7 37 f4 i.xd5

38 lllxdS 'itJe6 39 lllC6 hS 40 'itJe2
\tics 41 'itJ(J llld3 42 .tc3 .ta3
43llld7 'itJe6
43 ...lllcl 44 .tb2 .txb2 45 lllc5
was a line demonstrated by Garry.
44 lLJeS lllxeS+ 4S .txeS 'itJf5
46 e4+ We6 47 .td4 ~f7 48 f5 .tel
4984 h4 SO as 1-0
Garry's next opponent was Nigel
Short, and again Kasparov's under-
standing of the opening was decisive.
In the World Championship match
Nigel had suffered against Garry with
1... e5 in response to 1 e4. Then his
French Defence had been taken
apart. Now he decided to adopt
Garry's own weapons, but playing the
Scheveningen he never really got into
the game. Speelman called it an
almost effortless win.
In the fourth round, Garry was
forced to recognize that a new wave of
chessplayers was coming. Anand,
Kramnik and Topalov were no longer
scared of him. They had become
professionals earlier in life than the
stars of the 1980s. By way of
comparison, take a very strong world-
class player of the eighties like
Andersson - in 1982 he agreed a draw
with Garry when he had a virtually
winning position. With White, the
Swedish grandmaster usually aimed to
prevent Garry from undertaking too
much. Ribli was a similar case. Please
don't get me wrong - these players
were very impressive in their time, but
against the top players of the 1980s
Garry clearly possessed superior
ability in calculation. As for the new
generation, they started chess early
and closed this gap. These players
were not looking to stop Garry from
throwing punches - rather they
entered an open fight intending to
throw punches themselves. In the
game in question, Topalov knocked
Garry out in a sharp Sicilian. If one
player is ahead of his time, it is natural
121
1994
that the rest will start to catch up
eventually.
In the next round, Ljubojevic with
White went in for a super-safe c3
Sicilian. The game ended in a draw.
The next opponent was Gelfand,
who, after two losses to Garry in the
.tc4 Najdorf, had learned how to
handle the variation.
In the next round Garry took sweet
revenge on Lautier. You can see the
game in the notes to the opening of
Kasparov-Kramnik, Novgorod 1994.
The final combination is well worth
looking at.
Garry then had White against
Predrag Nikolic. Once again he sacrif-
iced a pawn, but this time Black's
king remained safe; Predrag managed
to swap all the queenside pawns and
draw comfortably.
Against OIl, Kasparov had an
interesting game.
Game 20
L.OII White
G.Kasparov Black
Moscow Olympiad 1994
In a Najdorf with 6 .te2 e5, on has
managed to slow the game down. If he
could safely bring his knight from fl
to the queenside, his opponent would
face a tough defensive task.
2S h3
Alternatively:
(a) 25 1::txa5 l:hc3 26 bxc3 ~xa5
1994
27 lha5 Axa5 28 'tWd3 l:hc3 (or
28 ...Axc3 29 ~xd6 Ad4) 29 ~b5
(after 29 ~xd6 Ii:xc2 30 ~xe5 .rl.cl
31 ~b5 tLlxe4, Black holds) 29 ....rl.c5
30 'iYa6 \t>h7, and again Black should
hold out.
(b) 011 mentions 25 tLld2, which
can be met ,by 25 ... ~b7! (keeping
White pinned to his weaknesses. After
25 ... d5 26 exd5 l::txc3 27 bxc3 e4! the
Estonian grandmaster says the pos-
ition is unclear, but Black has
probably sacrificed too much; 28 ~fl
e3 29 tLlc4) 26 tLlb3 (after 26 'il'e2
Ii:d7 27 tLlc4 d5, Black eases the grip
or may even throw it off completely)
26 ... l:tc4 27 ~d3 Ii:b4. White is tied
up, and the position is balanced.
25J::tc4! 26 Ii:xc4 .rl.xc4 27 ttJd2
.rl.b4 28l:tal..wc6 29 b3 a4
At the cost of a pawn, Kasparov
frees his bishop. According to 011,
29 ...J:td4! was better: 30 .rl.dl (or
30 tLlc4 tLlxe4 31 tLlxe4) 30... a4
31 tLle2! l:tb4, and Black is safe.
30 l:ha4 lha4 31 bxa4 Aa5
32 ttJd5
There is no point in hanging on to
the pawn with 32 tLldbl, because of
32 .. .'Itc5 33 'itlh2 Ab6.
32..:ihc2
If 32 ... tLlxd5, then 33 exd5 ~xc2
34 tLle4!. Oil's analysis stops here,
with no comment other than the
exclamation mark. However, it looks
as though Black can safely take the a-
122
pawn: 34.. .'~xa4 35 f6 (there is no
time for 35 tLlxd6? in view of
35 ... ~b4 36 tLle4 ~el+ 37 \t>h2
A b6 and suddenly the white king is
caught. If instead 35 \t>h2, then
35 .. .'~d4 36 ttJxd6 Ac7 37 ttJe4
~h8 and White drops the d-pawn)
35 ...Ab6 36 ~h2 ilal 37 h4 (37 fxg7
'il'el) 37 .. :~el (37 ... g6 38 h5), and
Black can at least force a draw:
38 'iYg4 'iVgl+ 39 \t>h3 ~h1+
40 \t>g3 ~e1+.
33 tLl xf6+ gxf6 34 ttJ 0
34 d5!
An attractive move to deprive the
knight of the d5 outpost. Hecht
analyses 34 ... ilxa4 35 tLle3 i..b6
36 tLld5 ~al+ (or 36 ... ~d4 37 \t>h2
~g7 38 \t>g3) 37 \t>h2 Agl+ (after
37 .. .'~gl+ 38 Wg3 ..wel+ 39 Wg4
Ad8 40 ~h5 ~d2 41 h4 \t>g7 42 g4,
Black is in trouble) 38 ~g3 ~e1+
39 ~g4 ~g7 40 \t>h5 ~d2 41 h4
with a slight advantage, but our own
evaluation is much more gloomy for
Black.
35 tLle3!
Or 35 exd5 e4, and now:
(a) 36 ~g3+ \t>h7 37 ~f4 (not
37 tLle3?? ~cl+ 38 \t>h2 Ab6 and
Black wins) 37 ...Ac7 38 d6 (38 ~d2
'iVc5) 38 ...Ab8 39 ~d2 'iVbl 40 ~e2
Axd6 41 a5 Ac5 42 a6, and White is
too pinned down to do anything with
the a-pawn.
(b) 36 ~f4 Ac7 37 d6 (after

37 ~d2 ~c5 38 ~dl ~t2 39 lLlh2
h5, Black is very active) 37 ....tb8
38 QJd2 e3! 39 ~xe3 ~cl+ and
Black is doing all right.
35..'tWc1+
According to 011, 35 ...~bl+ is met
by36~dl!.
36 \t;h2 dxe4 37 ~xe4 .tb6
3slLld5.tO 39lLlxf6+ WhS
39 ... WfS 40 'tWb4+ cJJg7 41 lLlh5+
'.ifh7 also draws.
40~aS+
Or 40 h4 'tWgl+ 41 Wh3 ~hl+
42 '.ifg4 ~xh4+ 43 '.iff3 ~xf6
44 '.ifxt2 ~d6. White's king has no
shelter from the checks; Black holds
the position comfortably.
40...Wg7 41 lLlh5+ \t;h7 42 lLlf6+
cJJg7 43lLlh5+ YJ-YJ
Garry's penultimate game started as
a closed Sicilian but transposed into a
g3 Dragon. He obtained a small edge,
but Ivanchuk held firm.
In the last round, Kasparov's
opponent was Yusupov. It must have
been hard for Artur to play for his new
country against his original homeland.
To make things more difficult, he
was facing a pugnacious Garry. In a
complicated King's Indian Garry
outplayed him. Their first game
123
1994
against each other had taken place
roughly two decades earler.
In the Olympiad Garry played
below his level. It is hard to guess
why. Usually there is a FIDE congress
at the Olympiad; quite probably that
diverts his attention when he
represents his country. Garry is a
successful player who is also an
Olympic champion. He doesn't have
the exceptional attitude of Ivanchuk,
who plays for his country every time -
on one occasion I think he even
bought the ticket for the team - but
Garry has played in eight Olympiads
and won eight gold medals. This
represents one of the best individual
records. Smyslov and Petrosian won
nine gold medals each, and Nona
Gaprindashvili won gold a record 12
times.
1994 was a year in which Garry
won three events at regular chess and
took second place in Linares. In rapid
chess he won one tournament out of 4,
and in team events he scored below
his high level. There were some
astonishing games, for example the
contests with Kramnik, Timman and
Shirov. Garry left no doubt as to who
was the best player in 1994.
 1995
Riga
The Tal Memorial tournament in
Riga featured an odd number of
players. At the drawing of lots
Kasparov asked for permission to
have his free day in round one; it
happened to be his 32od birthday.
In round two, grandmaster Timman
gave him a birthday present by losing
in 22 moves without resistance. Inter-
estingly, in his New in Chess article,
Jan gave no explanation of what went
so horribly wrong for him.
In round three, on the Black side of
a Giuoco Piano, Garry drew with
Kramnik in 14 moves; all the pieces
and pawns were still on the board. The
question is whether or not they had
agreed the draw in advance. Probably
not, for if they had, they might have
staged a better show.
In round four, Garry faced Anand
who had qualified to play him in
the PCA World Championship final.
Garry was at his best and produced a
great game.
Game 21
G.Kasparov White
V.Anand Black
Tal Memorial, Riga 1995
Evans Gambit rC5lJ
1 e4 e5 2lllolllc6 3 ~c4
Garry's main weapon is the Ruy
Lopez, but he employed the Scotch
against Karpov very successfully.
There was a period, beginning in
1993, when he seldom used the Ruy
Lopez at all, but relied on the Scotch
and the Giuoco Piano. In the Scotch
he scored a number of well-played
and significant victories. He also won
quite a few games with 3 ii.c4, but
124
then he also lost two - something very
unusual for him.
3 .ii.c5
Against the other main move,
3 ...lllf6, Garry chose either 5 lllg5 or
5 d3.
4 b4!?
A brave decision by Garry. This
gambit was invented by Captain
W.D.Evans long ago in the 19th
century. Remarkably, there is no game
in the database by the inventor
himself. In 2004, incidentally, Nigel
Short also used this opening. He and
Garry played a rapid theme game with
it. They both consider the gambit good
enough to venture once in a while.
Although it should not give an advant-
age, it is sound enough. It remains a
challenging option, and players on the
Black side have to handle positions
they are none too familiar with.
4..~xb4
Stepping back in time, let us adapt
the words of another, much more
famous English gentleman: "To take,
or not to take: that is the question."
From a trainer's perspective, the
recommendation is to take the
sacrifice - it is much more fun.
Against Garry, avoiding the issue with
4 ... ~b6 has worked only marginally

better. Piket played that way against
him in the Euwe Memorial, Amster-
dam 1995; he resigned on move 29,
just four moves later than Anand.
That game went: 5 a4 a5 6 b5 llld4
7 lllxd4 i.xd4 S c3 i.b6 9 d4 exd4
10 0-0 llle7 11 i.g5 h6 12 i.xe7
'Wixe7 13 cxd4 ~d6 14 lllc3 i.xd4
15 llld5 i.xal 16 ~xal 0-0 17 e5
'Wic5 ISl:tcl c6 19 i.a2 ~a3 20 lllb6
d5 21lllxaS WhS 22lllb6 i.e6 23 h3
l:tdS 24 bxc6 bxc6 25 l:tc3 ~b4
26 l:txc6l:tbS 27lllxd5 ~xa4 2Sl:tcl
'fWa3 29 i.c4 1-0.
5 c3 i.e7
This is not a new move; it was
played in Labourdonnais-Boncourt,
Paris IS36. However it was very
rarely played before World War II,
and only really caught on in the
19S0s. Up until this game, it was
considered the safest move; the
alternative is 5...i.a5.
6 d4
Though played less often, the line
with 6 'i.Vb3 has not vanished from
top-level chess either; Morozevich-
Bacrot, Sarajevo 2000, continued
6...lllh6 7 d4 llla5 S ~b5 lllxc4
9 i.xh6 (an old recommendation from
Cafferty's book in the 1970s) 9... llld6
10 'fWxe5 lllxe4 II i.xg7 l:tgS
12 ~xe4l:txg7 13 0-0 with an unclear
position.
6...llla5
Interestingly, this move was tried in
IS62.
7 Jl.e2
The move played by Garry against
Nigel was 7 lllxe5. (Sacrificing on f7
is possible, and so is 7 i.d3, but this is
a more testing continuation.) There
followed: 7...lllxc4 Slllxc4 d5 9 exd5
~xd5 (Zvan-Borisek, Ljubljana 2003,
went 9... lllf6 10 'fWa4+ Wf8 II 0-0
lllxd5 12 l:tel i.e6 13 llle5 h5!?
14lllg6+ fxg6 15 l:txe6 Wf7 16 rLe2
rLe8 17 ~b3 'iVd7 18 c4 i.f6!
19 i.e3 lllxe3 20 fxe3 l:txe3, and
Black went on to win after playing the
125
1995
opening in a very interesting way)
10 llle3 ~d6 (although Black has the
two bishops and no weakness, his task
is not so simple, as White has strong
central pawns and the knight on e3
restricts the freedom of the bishop on
cS. The moves 1O ... ~dS, 1O ... ~a5
and 1O ... ~d7 are also played, though
less frequently than this retreat) 11 0-0
lllf6 12 c4 0-0 13 lllc3 c6 14 l:tbl
I:reS 15 i.b2 ~c7 16 ~fJ i.d7
17 llle2 l:tadS IS lllg3 i.cs 19 d5
cxd5 20 cxd5 ~a5 21 l:tfdl. White's
position is menacing, but although
Nigel later found himself in a worse
rook ending, he still held the draw.
You can see Black's problems in this
line: the strength of White's bishop on
b2, and the passivity of his own on
cS.
7... exd4
The following moves have also
been seen:
(a) 7...d6 S ~a4+ c6 9 dxe5 dxe5
10 lllxe5 lllf6 II 0-0 b5 12 ~c2 0-0
13 a4 Viilc7 14 lllfJ a6 15 i.g5 i.g4
16 lllbd2 lllb7 17 h3 i.h5 IS l:tael
lllc5 occurred in Short - Svidler,
KasparovChess GP (60 minutes)
2000. This was a tournament on
Kasparov's website.
(b) When I worked for the Club
Kasparov website, I reported on the
game Rajlich - Siklosi, Kecskemet
1999, in which 7... d5!? was played. I
will now summarize my article. There
can follow:
(bl) S ~a4+ c6 9 dxe5 b5 (the
database shows that 9... dxe4 occurred
in Falgaer-Palencia, Pan American
championship 1995, i.e. earlier than
the Kecskemet game) 10 'iVd4 i.e6
with equality.
(b2) S exd5 exd4, and now:
(b21) 9 ~xd4 (this can also arise
from the move-order 7... exd4 8 ~xd4
d5 9 exd5) 9 ...lllf6 (after 9 ... c6
10 i.a3 i.xa3 11 lllxa3 lllf6 12 d6,
the d6-pawn looks quite strong:
12 ... 0-0 13 c4) 10 c4 (or 10 ~a4+ c6
1995
11 c4 llle4, with the possible con-
tinuations 12 .i b2 ~ f6 or 12 .i d2
lllxd2 13 tZlbxd2 0-0 14 dxc6 lllxc6
15 0-0 V/ilc7 16 l:tfel .if5 as in
Gunarsson - Sasikiran, Elista 1998)
10 ... llld7 (I recommended this as an
improvement on Winants-Kremer,
Amsterdam 1996, which went 1O... c6
11 tZlc3 0-0 12 0-0 ne8 13 .ib2. It
seems better not to allow White to
dominate the long diagonal) 11 lllc3
(or 11 .ib2 .if6, and now 12 ~e3+
~e7 13 lllc3 ~xe3 14 fxe3 0-0= or
12 ~d2 .ixb2 13 ~xb2 ~f6
14 ~xf6lllxf6 15 0-0 ~g4 16lllbd2
0-0-0=) 11...0-0 (l1...~f6 12 ~e3+
"VIIe7) 12 0-0 .lif6 13 ~d3 tZlc5 (or
13 ... lllb6 14 llld2, when Black can
continue 14....if5 15 ~f3 .lig6 with
counterplay, or 14 ... llla4 15 lllxa4
.lixal 16 .ia3 ~e5 17 .ixfS ~xfS
18 lllf3 ~f6 19 lllc3 .ig4 20 llle4
~e7 21 llld4 .ixe2 22 lllxe2 J::te8
leading to equality) 14 ~c2 g6
15 .lie3 .irs 16 ~d2 b6 17 tZld4
.lid7=.
(b22) Rajlich-Siklosi went 9 ~a4+
c6 10 dxc6lllxc6 11 cxd4lllf6 120-0
0-0 13 tZlc3 .ie6 14 l:tdl llld5
15 tZlxd5 .lixd5 16 l:tbl (if 16 .i.c4?!
~xf3 17 gxf3, then not 17 ....if6 18
.ie3lllxd4? 19 .ixd4 .i.xd4 20 nxd4
winning for White, but 17 ....Ii d6 and
the white king is too lonely) 16... ~d7,
and Black was slightly better.
It seemed to me that Siklosi's
handling of the Evans Gambit was
safe and playable for Black; it is
recommended if you want a line that
doesn't take much memorizing. The
question, I think, is how good my
improvement on Winants-Kremer is.
8 'iVxd4!
Garry simply brings his queen into
the centre with gain of tempo. In his
Informant analysis, 8 ~d4 figures as a
novelty. One thing that is not clear,
however, is whether the symbol was
attached to the move by the players or
the editors.
126
8 cxd4 is a move that was known
and used in Moscow chess in the
1970s and 1980s. It secures the centre,
but the Black position is solid with no
weaknesses, and even the knight on a5
is not dangerously out of play. Black
just has to make sure that he can
castle, and he should be able to
accomplish this without making any
major concessions: 8... lllf6 (8 ... d5
9 W'a4+ lllc6 10 exd5 V/ilxd5 11 lllc3
leaves White with the better develop-
ment; on the other hand after 8... b6
9 lllc3 .ib7 Black has a solid pos-
ition) 9 e5 llld5. Here Black's pos-
ition is to be preferred, as he can
castle and play d7-d6. White can't
prevent him from finishing his
development.
8...lllr6?!
Anand faces a difficult decision. He
chooses to let Kasparov gain an
important tempo. There were various
alternatives:
(a) 8... 'ittfS permits no such tempo
gain and creates no apparent weak-
ness. However, in the long run White
has more space, and, more import-
antly, the misplacement of the enemy
king will give him pleasant play for
the pawn.
(b) After 8... f6 9 0-0, White again
has nothing concrete, but irrespective
of how he develops his pieces he will
open the position, as Black's kings ide
is very passive.

(c) 8... d5!? is seldom played; after
9 exd5 it transposes into the note to
Black's 7th move (variation 'b21 ').
(d) 8... d6!? is an interesting idea.
After 9 VJlJxg7 i.f6 10 ~g3, there can
follow:
(dl) 1O... 'ib'e7 11 0-0, and now:
(dll) In Shirov-Timman, Bie11995,
Black played 11 ...i.d7 in order to
castle long. There followed: 12 ttJd4
0-0-0 13 ttJd2 ttJc6 14 ~e3 h5
15 ttbl ttJh6 16 'ib'd3 b6 17 a4 ~b8
18 a5 ttJxa5 19 VJIJ a6 ~a8 20 e5
~xe5 21 11.0+ d5 22 ttJc4 i.c8
23 'li'xa5 ~xd4 24 ~a2 (Shirov
attended Kasparov's lectures, so I
imagine that attacking along the
rook's file could have been a subject
of one of the sessions) 24 .. .'~'xc3
25 i.e3 i.b7 26 i.xb6 cxb6
27 ttJxb6+ ~b8 28 ttJxd5 1-0. A
storming attack from Alexei.
(dI2) 1l...'ib'xe4 12 tIel \t'f8 looks
a very risky idea, but players of the
White side have yet to demonstrate
how to obtain an advantage.
(d2) 10 ... ttJe7 11 i.g5 ttJg6 12 0-0
i.e6 13 ttJbd2 h6 14 i.xf6 'ib'xf6
15 ttJd4 ttJf4, and Black did well in
Short-Onischuk, Tan Chin Nam Cup
2000.
9 e5 ttJc6
10 'ilh4
There is no point in allowing Black
the extra option of 1O... ttJh5 by
playing 10 ~f4.
127
1995
10 ttJd5 II ~g3 g6
Black can consider 11...0-0, con-
solidating his position at the cost of
the exchange. This also happens in
some Sicilian lines. After 12 i.h6 g6
13 kxf8 i.xf8 14 kc4, Black has
enough compensation.
Alternatively he could simply pro-
tect the g7 -square with three different
pieces. In all cases White obtains a
decent return for his pawn by just
bringing his pieces into the game
naturally.
120-0
Why not 12 h4, playing on the h-file
again? The reason is that the black
king is not there (after 12 ... d6 13 h5
tIg8, Black will castle long). Further-
more, the white king's rook will be
quite well off on d 1.
12...ttJb6
Vishy feels like getting rid of the
unpleasant e5-pawn which is the focal
point of the position. His move
prevents the bishop from reaching c4
in the near future; perhaps he felt that
it might have escaped Kasparov's
attention during home analysis. Vishy
may have been hoping to castle long.
On 12 ... d6 Kasparov recommends
13 J:;Idl, as it looks like the simplest
way to keep up the pressure.
In the event of 12 ... 0-0 13 i.h6
(13 ttdl is a natural move; after
13 ... ttJb6 14 c4 White has sufficient
compensation, though Black may do
better than in the game. In this line 14
i.f4 is also playable) 13 ... tte8 14 c4
ttJb6 15 ttJc3 d6 16 ttadl ttJd7 (or
16...ttJxe5 17 ttJxe5 i.h4 18 ttJxfl
\t'xfl 19 ~f4+ ~f6 20 ~d2, and
White still has enough for the pawn)
17 ttJg5 ttJcxe5 (against 17 ... dxe5
Garry recommends opening the f-file;
after 18 f4 he assesses the position
as favourable to White) 18 f4 ttJc6
19 k 0 i. f8, White still maintains the
pressure with 20 i.d5 tte7 21 ~h4.
13 c4!?
This was not the only possibility.
1995
According to Grandmaster Chandler,
13 .i.h6!? was a better choice; after
13 ... d6 14 if.b5 it isn't easy to throw
off the grip which holds the black king
in the centre.
13... d6
Again Black could have castled; this
would have transposed into the lines
with 12 ...0-0. However, Anand's
defensive plans were based on castling
later, after getting rid of the annoying
e5-pawn. After 13 ... 0-0 14 .i.h6 l:e8
15 llIc3 d6 16 l:adl White obtains
compensation simply by playing
natural moves.
14l:tdlll1d7
Fta~nik and Kasparov both mention
14....i.e6 as benefiting White: 15 c5
1lId5 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 .i.c4 llIcb4 (a
move that defends and attacks at the
same time; it creates uncertainty.
The Slovak grandmaster says that
17 ...dxe5 18 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 19 llIc3 is
clearly better for White. The computer
then suggests 19 .. :~'a5! 20 llIxd5
l:td8 21 llIe3 l:Ixdl+ 22 llIxdl llId4!
23 ~h3! and White retains some
advantage) 18 .i. g5 (after 18 i. a3
llIc2 19 exd6 if.f6 20 llle5 0-0 White
should have good compensation)
18...lllc2 19 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 20 l:xd5
.i.xg5 (or 20 ...lllxal 21 exd6 .i.xg5
22 l:Ie5+ and White is attacking)
21 lllxg5 0-0 22 lllc3 lllxal
23 lllce4. This is very dangerous for
Black.
128
Black could also try blocking the d-
file with 14 ... i.d7, in order to take on
e5 next move:
(a) 15 .i.h6 dxe5 (or 15 ...lllxe5
16 lllxe5 dxe5 17 'tW xe5 f6 18 ~ e3
and White has very good compens-
ation) 16 lllc3 (16 lllxe5 i.d6) 16... f6
17 llle4 (this was played in
Borngasser-Heok, DUsseldorf 1995)
17 ....i.f8!? 18 c5!? .i.xh6 19 cxb6
'Wie7 (19 ... axb6 20 l:xd7 <JJxd7
21 ktdl+ is good for White) 20 bxc7
0-0 21 .i.c4+ <JJh8 (2l...<JJg7
22 ktxd7! ~xd7 23 lllc5 is more
dangerous) 22 ~h4 .i.g7, and Black
can handle the dangerous c-pawn:
23 lllc3 J:Iac8 (23 ....i.e6 24 i.xe6
~xe6 is also possible) 24 l::tab1
(24llld5 'Wie8) 24 ...ktxc7 (perhaps the
simplest solution) 25 llld5 'Wid8
26 lllxc7 'Wixc7 and Black is not
worse.
(b) 15 lllc3! is probably the best
way to keep up the momentum:
15 ... dxe5 16 lllxe5 lllxe5 (not
16....i.d6 17 .i.f4 g5 18 ktxd6 and
White wins; here we see the differ-
ence between this line and 15 .i.h6)
17 ~xe5 0-018 llle4 l:Ie8 19 i.b2 f6
20 ~f4, and White has tremendous
play - almost a winning position - for
the pawn.
15 i.h6!
As Chandler pointed out, 15 il.f4
would let Black off the hook:
15 ... dxe5 16 lllxe5 il.h4! 17 ~e3

tLlcxe5 18 .lixe5 0-0.
15...tLlcxe5
This is the move based on principle.
In the Ruy Lopez, this way of
recapturing on e5 is usual. However,
at this particular moment 15 ... dxe5
might actually be the correct move.
Spending time on this with a computer
program can reveal different ways to
approach the position:
(a) 16 J..g7 trg8 17 J..xe5 tLlcxe5
18 tLlxe5 .lid6, and Black gets away.
(b) 16 tLlc3 .li fS (16 ... f6 17 .lid3
doesn't look good for Black; he is tied
up and there is very little he can do.
White will continue by bringing his
queen's rook into the game) 17 J.. g5
(or 17 J..xfS WxfS 18 l:td2 Wg7
19 l:tadl, and again, in exchange for
the two pawns Black is rather tied up)
and now:
(bl) 17 ....lie7 18 tLld5 (or 18 .lixe7
'Jiiixe7 19 tLld5 ~ d8 20 l:td2 0-0
21 l':tad 1 l:te8 and White has sub-
stantial compensation for the pawns)
18 ....axg5 19 tLlxg5, when Black's
choices are:
(bll) 19...0-020 '$'h4 (even in this
game, where any sacrifice on the h-
file looked unlikely, Garry might still
have undertaken something aggressive
there) 20 ... h5 21 .lixh5!.
(b12) 19 ...h6 20 tLle6, and after
20 ... fxe6 21 ~xg6+ WfS 22 .ah5
Black can't avoid being mated.
(b13) 19... WfS! (Kasparov didn't
mention this possibility of the king
walking to the kingside; it actually
gives Black the best opportunity to
stem the attack) 20 trd2 Wg7
21 l:tadl l:te8 22 f4 f6 23 tLle4. The
position is hard to assess, but Black is
behind in development.
(b2) 17... f6 18 J..e3 .ab4 (18 ....ag7
19 c5 0-0 20 .ac4+ Wh8 21 tLlh4 is
really dangerous) 19 tLld5 .lid6. Who
knows for sure if this position can be
defended?
16 tLlxe5 tLlxe5
Fta~nik shows that 16... dxe5 is not a
129
1995
straightforward option for Black: after
17 Jl.g7 l:!.g8 (or 17 ...J..h4 18 'JiiiD
l:tg8 19 J..xe5, and there is little harm-
ony among the black pieces) 18 .axe5
c6 19 .lid6, the attack is easily worth
the pawn.
17 tLlc3!
Garry keeps up the flow of the
attack, allowing Vishy little time to
get organized. With 17 .lig7?! White
can win the exchange, but if Black
consolidates his position by slowing
down the onslaught, his dark-squared
bishop and the two pawns will give
him reasonable chances. There could
follow: 17 ....if6 18 J..xh8 .axh8
19 tLlc3 b6 (not 19....ae6? 20 c5!.
However, 19 ...tLld7, though an ugly
move, helps Black to dig in: after
20 .ag4 tLlc5 21 .ixc8 ~xc8
22 l:tel+ WfS 23 l':tadl White is
better, yet the game is far from over)
20 f4 tLlc6 21 .liD .lid7. Black still
has a problem bringing his queen's
rook into the game, but it isn't easy
for White to inflict damage.
17... f6
Anand wants to bring his king to the
kingside. It is an understandable wish.
There were various other tries:
(a) 17 ....li fS? fails to open a path for
the king to reach safety: 18 .lixfS
<;i(xfS?? 19 ~xe5.
(b) 17 ....ie6 18 .ig7 (winning the
exchange under more favourable
circumstances than a move earlier)
1995
18 ....i.f6 19 .i.xh8 .i.xh8 20 c5!, and
White creates a weakness on d6.
(c) 17 ...111d7 (although this ugly
frog-like move stops c4-c5, it does not
transform the suituation) 18 llld5 (or
18 llle4 lllf6, and now 19 'lYc3 J:g8
or 19 lllc5 b6 20 .i.f3; Black
has problems with his development)
18 ...111c5 19 ~f3 .i.e6 20 .i.g7 J:g8
(or 20 ....i.xd5 21 .i.xh8 .i.xf3
22 'lYxf3, and despite gaining two
pawns for the exchange, Black is in a
problematic position owing to his lack
of development) 21 ~d4 c6 22 .i.xc5
cxd5 23 .i.xd5 dxc5 24 .i.xe6. Black
is now a mere pawn up, while White's
attack is plain to see.
(d) 17 ... b6 might be playable,
though it is understandable that Anand
didn't choose this move. After
18 ii.g7 (18 f4 llld7) 18 ...ii.f6
19 ~xh8 (19 ii.xfO 'lYxf6 20 llld5
should be good for White) 19 ... ~xh8
20 lDd5 c6 21 llle3 ii.e6, Black's
position is underdeveloped but he
doesn't need much time to catch up.
18 cSlDf7?
Vishy sticks to his plan, but after
this move the White position is too
strong. Two improvements were
suggested:
(a) Fta~nik mentions 18 ...~e6,
when it is possible that all White can
acquire is enough compensation for
his pawns: 19 cxd6 (or 19 f4 lllfl
20 'lYe3 ~c8 21 cxd6111xd6 22 lllb5
'tIfl, and Black is not far away
from neutralizing White's pressure)
19... cxd6 (after 19... ii.xd6 20 llle4
~e7 White can rightly claim to have
play for the pawns, but Black can
endure his opponent's initiative)
20 llld5 ii.f8 21 ii.e3 'tIfl (2l...~g7
22 J:Iac 1 ~c8), and the position may
be balanced. White's pressure is there,
but Black does have two extra pawns.
(b) 18 ... ~d7!? is Blatny's move.
The intention is to develop the bishop
on c6. This is slow, but it does close
the c-file, and the bishop on c6 IS
130
protected. After 19 cxd6 cxd6 20 llld5
ii.c6 White has compensation, but an
attempt at more precise evaluation
runs a high risk of error.
19 cxd6 cxd6
Other captures are no better:
(a) 19...111xh6? (the bishop is taboo)
20 dxc7 and wins.
(b) 19 ...111xd6 20 i.c4, and Black is
too tied up.
(c) 19...ii.xd6 20 i.b5+ i.d7 (if
20 ...c6, then 21 i. f4 is very strong)
21 l:tel+ .i.e5 22 .i.g7 l:tg8
23 i.xd7+ 'tIxd7 24 ~h3+, and
Black's walk in the centre may well
be short and fatal.
20 'i6e3!
Garry keeps Vishy's king in the
centre.
20...lDxh6
You don't normally want to give up
such an energetic knight, which so far
has made 6 of Black's 19 moves.
Almost all Black's development dis-
appears, leaving most of his pieces
unmoved. However, the alternatives
were also unattractive. For instance,
20 ...i.d7 is met by 21 i.g7. After
20 ... Vi'b6 21 i.b5+ i.d7 (2l...Wd8
22 ~e2) 22 l:td4, Black's king is
caught in the centre.
21 ~xh6i.f8
It's hard to believe that such a
position has arisen between the
players who were to contest the World
Championship final later in the same

year. Black has put his bishop back,
and all his pieces are standing on their
original squares. In compensation his
dark-squared bishop is unopposed.
Incidentally Anand scores very well
with the Moscow Variation, in which
he acquires the two bishops in return
for space, but in that line his develop-
ment is certainly better.
2l...J.e6 is obviously bad: 22 ~g7
l:rfS 23 J.b5+ is the killer blow.
2l...Wf7 also fails: 22 J.c4+ J.e6
23 J.xe6+ Wxe6 24 l:tel+ Wf7
25 llld5 J.fS 26 'iYe3 (26 'iYh3 f5
27 ~b3 is also winning) 26 .. :~d7 (or
26 ... Wg7 27 llacl) 27 llac1, and
Black is dead.
22 'ii'e3+
Or 22 J.b5+ Wf7! (not 22 ... J.d7?
23 ~el+ Wf7 24 J.c4+) 23 J.c4+,
and now:
(a) 23 ...J.e6 24 J.xe6+ Wxe6
25 'ii'h3+! (White is aiming to get to
b3) 25 ... f5 (25 ... Wf7 26 llld5)
26 llld5 J.g7 27 :Iac 1 llcs 2S ~b3
and the black king is under a heavy
attack.
(b) 23 ... d5!! is an amazing defens-
ive resource, based on the fact that the
queen on h6 is under attack. After
24 ~h4 (24 ~e3 Wg7 25 J.xd5
~e7) 24 ... Wg7 25 llxd5 VJ!ie7
Black's position looks dreadful, but he
has not yet been dispatched.
22... Wti
After 22 ..'yilie7 (Fta~nik) 23 llle4
131
1995
'iYe5 (23 ... Wf7 24 lllxd6+ Wg7
25 llleS+ Wf7 26 J.c4+ WxeS
27 'iYb3 and Black is defenceless)
24 lllxf6+ Wf7 25 llle4, White
maintains his compensation for the
pawn.
23llld5!
This centralization doesn't look
spectacular, yet it is stronger than
23 J.c4+, bringing the bishop into the
game with tempo. The check would
block the c-file and force the king
onto a safer square. In addition,
23 llld5 conceals White's attacking
intentions.
23 ...J.e6
Alternatively:
(a) 23 ... Wg7 24 l:tacl .i..d7 25 Itc7
and White invades.
(b) 23 ... J.g7 24 J.c4 J.e6, and
now:
(bl) 25 'iYb3 is Fta~nik's move:
25 ... b5 (after 25 ...'iYd7 26 lllf4 J.xc4
27 'iYxc4+, the black king is caught.
On 25 ...11cs 26 lllb6, White wins
material) 26 'iYxb5 llbS 27 ~a6 f5
2slllf4 opens up the black king.
(b2) 25 .i..b3! is a very precise way
to finish. White has time to put the
bishop on a protected square. For
ordinary mortals it is hard to notice
things like this at the height of an
attack. Garry gave this move an
exclamation mark. After 25 ... 11eS, the
fact that the black rook has come into
play is less significant than the
protection afforded to the white
bishop. After the further moves
26 lllf4 d5 27 lllxe6 l:he6 2S llxd5,
Garry concludes that the position is
winning. If then 2S ...11xe3 29 l:txdS+
llxb3 30 llxaS lla3 31 l:tb I, Black
has no hope.
(c) 23 ... J.d7!? Although this looks
desperate, it offers the best chance of
resistance:
(cl) 24 'iYb3 l:tbS 25 lllxf6+ J.e6
26llld5 J.g7 27 Vl'f3+ WgS 2S11ac1
gives White tremendous play, while
Black can do very little that is active.
1995
(c2) 24 ~c4 <:ttg7 25 :!:td4! is a very
energetic way of attacking, de-
monstrated by the winner; it is in his
style. After 25 ...:!:tc8 (or 25 ...b5
26 .i.b3 a5 27 :!:tf4) 26 :!:tf4 :tc5
27 'i\ld4 (or 27 .i.b3) 27 ...~f5 28 :!:tel
h5 29 .i.b3, Black can hardly breathe.
(c3) 24 :!:tacl is the simplest way
to keep up the attack; this was
Kasparov's main line. He evaluates
24 ....i.c6 25 i.c4 as . If then
25 ... ct;g7 26 ltJf4 i.d7 27 .i.e6 .i.c6
28 .i.d5 'i\le7 29 'i\lg3, Black's
position is disintegrating.
24 ltJ f4 'tW e7?
24 ... 'i\ld7 loses to 25 .i.b5!.
24 ....i.d7!? sheds a pawn and leaves
Black in an unpleasant position. There
is some hope, though: after 25 'tWb3+
ct;g7 26 VAVxb7 White is way ahead in
development, but the game would
certainly not have been over all at
once.
25 :!:tel
The tiger from Madras resigned
here (1-0). Indeed he has no way of
continuing the fight for long. White
wins in all the following cases:
(a) 25 ....i.d7 26 .i.c4+; (b) 25 ... d5
26 .i.t3; (c) 25 ...~h6 26 i.c4; (d)
25 ...l:e8 26 ltJxe6; or (e) 25 ...VAVd7
26 ~b5! 'iVxb5 27 ~xe6+ rJJg7
28 ltJd5. Garry doesn't even need his
queen's rook.
This was a very exciting and com-
plicated game. It is hard to pinpoint
132
the last moment when White could
have been restricted to mere compens-
ation for his pawn - the moment after
which Black had no way to save
himself. It seems that annotating this
game caused problems even for the
Champion. He attached '?!' signs
to only two of Anand's twenty-four
moves; according to him, only Black's
8th and 23 rd moves were dubious. A
plausible explanation would be that
the opening was crucial and Garry
was therefore somewhat reluctant to
reveal his thoughts - and yet the
position was so complicated that even
he was not certain. He wrote a few
times in his Predecessors books that
he was unclear about some of the
evaluations. Garry's broader chess
education played a significant role in
this victory; maybe when Anand
started working on the openings he
began with lines from the mid-1980s
and neglected the efforts of the early
masters.
After this ferocious win, Garry
illustrated that he can also play slow
games well. In round five he was
better in the early stage of the
opening, but Yusupov was close to
holding the position. Then in time
trouble a mistake crept in. Garry
exploited his chances and trapped
Artur's queen.
In the next game, Garry faced the
leader Ivanchuk. This time his King's
Indian did not serve him well, and
Ivanchuk obtained a clear edge. How-
ever, after Kasparov managed to reach
an ending a pawn down, the game was
drawn.
Garry's opponent in round seven
was Vaganian, who played for safety
and posed no problems. Garry
typically played a fantastic move -
yet miscalculated something. In time
trouble Vaganian missed setting up a
winning battery, and went on to lose.
In round 8, Ehlvest achieved a quick

draw; Garry extended the offer after
obtaining nothing out of the opening.
In the penultimate round Nigel
Short had another crack at the
Najdorf. In the Poisoned Pawn
variation with 9 ltJb3, Garry deviated
from game four of the match in
London. He achieved a draw in the
complications, but the line he played
has become problematic for Black
ever since. Garry had to give up his
queen in order to set up a fortress. He
discerns fortresses with particular
clarity; remember the first game of the
London match, when despite severe
time-trouble he spotted that Short had
the chance to build one.
In the tenth round he faced Kengis,
who is a respectable grandmaster
though not in the highest class. Let's
see how he tried to withstand Garry's
aggression.
Game 22
G.Kasparov White
E.Kengis Black
Tal Memorial, Riga 1995
Sicilian Defence [B47}
This is an unusual type of game for
Garry, as he seldom competes against
players in the same rating category as
Kengis. When he does, it is normally
in team events. The Latvian grand-
master is nevertheless a strong player,
and quite a resourceful opponent. For
example, it is remarkable how he
wins games with the variation of
Alekhine's Defence that goes 1 e4
ltJf62 e5ltJd5 3 d4 d6 4ltJf3 dxe5.
1 e4 cS
But he doesn't dare try it against
Garry.
2ltJO e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4ltJc6?
Why does this move, which has
been played millions of times, get a
question mark from the annotator? Of
course there is nothing wrong it.
However, according to the database,
Kengis had played this move only
133
1995
once before the present game. The
same thing happens in other kinds of
sport - in tennis, for example, the
underdog is almost compelled to adopt
a strategy that he or she has never
used before. This does have the effect
of surprise, but playing risky shots,
which would not normally be attemp-
ted, usually leads to disaster. When
playing a much stronger opponent, the
best approach is to keep to what you
do best, and hope it will do the trick.
This is especially true of chess, where
there is always the prospect of a draw.
SltJc3 VJiJc7 6.i.e2
This is bit of a surprise from Garry.
Before this game, he usually preferred
the set-up with .i.e3 and .i.d3.
6.a67 0-0 ll)f6 8 'itblll)xd4
Edvins sticks to a Paulsen form-
ation. Garry has such vast experience
of the Scheveningen Variation.
9 VJiJxd4 .i.cSl0 VJiJd3 bS
Edvins makes what looks like a
hacker's move. However, it has been
played a number of times before. The
most popular move in this position,
and maybe also the safest, is the
immediate 10...b5!? Then the main
lines continue with 11 f4 .i.b7 12 .ltf3
h5 (12 ... 0-0 13 e5 ltJe8 14 .i.xb7
VJiJxb7 15 f5) 13 e5 ll)g4 14 .i.xb7
VJiJxb7 I5ltJe4.
n.i.gS!?
Maintaining the flow of his de-
velopment, White is ready to sacrifice
the exchange. After 11 f4 ll)g4 12 e5,
Black would break up the white pawn
chain with 12 ... d6.
11...bS?!
Instead IL..ltJg4 12 f4 f6 (with
12 ...ltJf2+ Black can win the ex-
change, but that is far too risky as he
falls way behind in development.
After 13 l::txf2 .txf2 14 e5, White will
play ll)c3-e4 with a big gain of tempo,
obtaining tremendous compensation)
13 .th4 b5 14 e5 f5 leads to a typical
and complex Paulsen-like position.
12 f4.tb7
1995
According to Sergei Dolmatov, after
12 ... lLlg4 13 e5 .lib7 14 .i.f3 White
has a clear advantage. Sergei and
Garry were juniors at the same time,
and they played each other on quite a
few occasions. As an adult, strangely
enough, Sergei - who was a very
strong player and even became a
World Championship candidate -
never faced Garry over the board.
13 e5!?
This was a novelty.
13 lLld5
Admitting that h7-h5 was futile and
actually a loss of tempo. We can con-
clude that although other players too
try to use the h-fiIe, they cannot match
Garry's skill.
After 13 ...lLlg4 14 il.f3! lLlfl+?
(whereas earlier it was dubious to grab
the exchange, now it is naive and
simp'!Y loses. On the other hand
14 ...Itc8 15 .lixb7 ~xb7 16 lLle4
~d5 is interesting) 15 l:txfl .txfl
16 .lixb7 ~xb7 17 lLle4, White wins.
14lLlxd5
14 lLle4 also looks somewhat better
for White, but with 14...lLlb4! Black
can force a more favourable con-
tinuation than in the actual game:
15 ~f3 (White has to place himself in
a pin, which allows Black counter-
chances) 15.J::tc8 16 .tdl (after
16 c3 lLlc2 17 rLacl lLle3, the knight
gives White problems) 16 ... .i.d5,
and Black improves the placing of
134
his pieces.
14....lixd5 15 84
Garry softens up the black queen-
side pawn structure and gives his
opponent more to worry about. On the
other hand this move does involve a
pawn sacrifice. Remarkably, this pos-
ition has occurred only in the present
game.
If it turns out that Black can hold
the position with precise defence, an
improvement for White might be
15 .tf3!? There could follow:
15 ... .txf3 (or 15 ...il.c4 16 ~d2 :tc8
17 rLfdl b4 18 c3 b3 19 .te2, and as
Dolmatov says, White is much better),
and now:
(a) 16 ~xf3 ~c6 17 i:tadl h4 (after
17 ... ~xf3 18 l:txf3 d5 19 exd6 f6
20 d7+ 'iile7 21 .i.h4, Black has prob-
lems picking up the d7-pawn) 18 h3
'iUxf3 19 l:txf3 d5 20 exd6 f6, and
Black is doing all right.
(b) 16 i:txf3 d5! (after 16 ...:c8 17
a4 ~c6 18 axb5 axb5 19 :dl Black's
pieces are not in harmony) 17 c3.
White is still somewhat better, as
Black's king has problems finding
permanent shelter.
15...~c6 16 .to .txO 17 :txO
bxa4!?
Edvins takes up the challenge and
grabs the pawn. It costs him an
important tempo. With 17 ... b4 he
could keep the position closed, but
this would still require a tempo and
after 18 f5 his king would not be safe.
At this point Black can't try castling
short, as after 17 ... 0-0 18 .lif6! :tfc8
19 l:tg3 il.f8 20 :ctxg7+ il.xg7
21 Vi g3 he gets mated.
18 fSllb8
It is remarkable that while White
attacks, Black feels he has time to go
after a second pawn.
19 Itafl O-O?
This is a horrible mistake, as Black
is stepping straight into a mating
attack. Edvins seems to have been
affected by the aura of the player on

the other side of the board. He wants
to deviate from his normal manner of
play and improve on it. What were the
alternatives?
(a) Some commentators have re-
commended 19.J!i.f8, leaving the king
in the centre, but it doesn't solve
Black's long-term problems, which
are the weakness of the king and the
inactivity of this rook:
(al) 20 .i.cl l:tb4 (or 20 ... d5
21 l:tg3 ~b5 22 "iVdl, and White
takes over) 21 h3 (other possibilities
are 21 fxe6 dxe6 22 ~h7 l!i.g4
23 ~xh5 ~e4 24 .i.f4 l:tg6 25 .i.g3
.i.e3; and 21 ~c3 ~d5 22 lld3 J:tc4
23 ~el) 2l...l:i:e4 22 fxe6 dxe6
23 .i.g5 ~a8 24 ~c3.
(a2) 20 fxe6!, and now:
(a21) 20 ...dxe6 21 l:i:dl ~d5 (or
2l....i.e7 22 .i.xe7 cJ;xe7 23 "iVa3+
cJ;e8 24 :tc3 ~b7 25 :tcd3 and
White has a dominating position, as
Black's king is in trouble) 22 ~e2
and Black's position is awkward.
(a22) 20 ... ~xe6 21 "iVc3 .lib4
22 ~d4l:i:b5 (or 22 .. :iYc6 23 e6 dxe6
24 ~xg7 and Black's king is opened
up) 23 l:tdl "iVc6 24 :tg3 and the
Black position is too loose.
(b) 19...l!i.xb2!? is an extremely
risky option, though Black might
survive. Maybe he found this capture
too hazardous. In rejecting it, maybe
he missed something later in the
game. One thing is certain: he gets
severely punished for his decision.
White could react to the capture of the
b-pawn as follows:
(b 1) 20 fxe6 Vj' xe6 21 l!i.xf7 (or
21 ~c3 :b5, and now 22 l:tf4 0-0 or
22 .i.e3 O-O! and Black is safe)
21..:~xf7 22 l:txf7 cJ;xf7 23 ~xd7+
Wg6 24 h4 a3 25 e6 (after 25 ~d3+
Wf7 26 ~d5+ Wg6 27 ~xc5 a2
28 "'d6+ cJ;h7, White has perpetual
check but no more; similarly after
25 ~e6+ Wh7 26 ~f5+ Wg8 27 e6
a2 he has to be content to repeat
moves) 25 ...l:t f8 (of course not .25 ... a2
135
1995
26 Vid3 mate) 26 e7 .i.xe7 27 Wlxe7
a2 28 ~e4+ IU5 29 ~e6+ 1:f6, and
again the game ends in perpetual
check.
(b2) 20 'iVc3 would be a plausible
intermediate move to consider, before
launching the final attack. After
20 ... l:i:b7 (the only move; 20 ... a3
21 fxe6 wins, while 20 ... l!i.b8 21 fxe6
dxe6 22 l:i:xf7 is very dangerous)
there can follow: 21 fxe6 dxe6
22 l:i:d3 0-0 23 .lif6 1:tb8! (as often
happens in the Scheveningen, Black
gets counterplay against the first rank.
He would lose with 23 ... gxf6 24 1:g3+
'it>h7 25 ~d3+. On the other hand
23 ... ~b5 24 ~d2 l:i:tb8 25 .i.xg7
'it>xg7 26 l:i:g3+ cJ;f8 27 ~h6+ cJ;e7
28 lIxf7+ cJ;xf7 29 l:tg7+ cJ;e8
30 ~xe6+ cJ;d8 leads to a draw)
24 .i.xg7 l!i.bl, and with the exchange
of a pair of rooks, White's attack runs
out of energy.
20.i.C6!
An attractive idea, although there
are simpler options available. After
20 l:i:g3 ~b5 (or 20 ... l!i.fc8 21 .i.f6,
and Black is finished) 21 ~f3, White
attacks the king with overwhelming
force.
20...'iVb5
20 ... gxf6 offers little resistance:
21 ng3+ cJ;h7 (or 2l...'it>h8 22 ~dl)
22 fxe6+ 'it>h8 23 Vj'f5, and mate will
arrive on the h-file.
21 J:Ig3!
1995
We have all learned this combin-
ation from the famous game between
Carlos Torre and Emanuel Lasker,
Moscow 1925. Incidentally, by host-
ing that tournament eighty years ago
the Soviet Union made a significant
contribution to chess culture.
21 ..g6
21...'iVxd3 allows a forced mate by
22 I:txg7+ ~h8 23 l:tg5+ (in the
Torrre-Lasker game the white rook
used the discovered checks to clean up
the seventh rank) 23 ... Wh7 24 l:txh5+
Wg8 25l:th8 mate.
22 'it'dl exfS
Or 22 ... Wh7 23 l:tf4 Wh6 24 l:Ih4
l:tg8 25 fxg6 fxg6 26l:txg6+.
23l:txfSl:tb6 24 ~xhS
Kengis resigned here (1-0). He was
evidently playing below par. Never-
theless it was another attractive attack-
ing game by Kasparov.
In the last round Garry offered an
early draw to Gulko, who had beaten
him three times and was then the only
player to have a plus score against
Kasparov. Garry shared first prize
with Anand, which suggested that
their forthcoming match would be an
exciting one.
Moscow Rapid
Garry's next tournament was within
the former Soviet Union, in Moscow.
He started by playing Epishin, and it
did not prove to be an easy ride.
Game 23
G.Kasparov White
V.Epishin Black
PCA/Intel rapid, Moscow 1995
According to the database this was
the second of the pair of games that
the players contested, and Garry had
won the first one. So he needed a draw
136
to qualify for the quarter-finals. In
round-robin tournaments he always
tries to win with Black, but in
knockout competitions he goes for a
draw when required. Chess is a sport
in which the players' will to win
should be stimulated as much as
possible by the rules and the fonnat of
the tournaments. Probably Fischer and
Kasparov are the champions who tried
the hardest to win, but even Fischer
avoided unnecessary complications
when he gained a three-point lead
over Spassky - in their 1972 match,
seven of the last eight games were
drawn.
30..l:txg6
Epishin avoids the vicious threat. If
30 ... axb4?? then 31 ~xh7+! ~xh7
32 l:th3+ Wg8 33 l:th8+ Wfl 34 l:tfB
mate.
31 ~xg6 il.xd3 32 'it'xg7+
Garry forces a draw with an unusual
queen sacrifice.
32.l:txg7 33 l::txg7+ <lJf8 34l:tg8+
Wf7
Or 34 ... We7 35 l:t Ig7+, and Black
can't escape from the checks:
35 ...<lJd6?? 36l:td8+.
3Sl:tlg7+ ~f6 36l:tg6+ Wf7 YZ-YZ
This is a captivating way to draw,
and it is a pleasing story if Garry was
deliberately playing for a draw in this
way. There is one problem, though:
according to the New in Chess mag-
azine, this game was the first of the

pair, not the second. In the other game
Epishin declined a draw when he had
little time left, then proceeded to over-
step the time limit. The tournament
was played with old-style mechanical
clocks.
Against Speelman in the quarter-
final, Garry was worse with Black but
he survived. With the colours re-
versed, Speelman never came close to
equalizing. He stirred up complic-
ations, but Garry kept the game under
fmn control and went on to win.
In the semi-final Kasparov faced
his World Championship opponent
Anand. In an unorthodox line of the
Sicilian with 4 ~xd4, Vishy's strat-
egy with White was to deprive Garry
of any activity. Garry tried to disturb
the balance nonetheless, but he ended
up losing two pawns and resigned.
With Black, Anand tried an opening
with d7-d6 and g7-g6. Garry had to
agree a draw on move 24.
Amsterdam: Euwe Memorial
There were four players in this
double round-robin. In the first round
Lautier exchanged otT his dark-
squared bishop against the King's
Indian and gained space on the queen-
side. Garry held firm, and after an
interesting sequence of exchanges the
dust settled and the position was a
dead draw.
In round two, Garry again played
the Evans Gambit. Piket declined the
pawn with 4 ... ~b6. Soon another
opportunity to win a pawn arose, and
this time he could not resist. Garry
sacrificed the exchange for faster
development. It is difficult to tell what
Piket missed, as after a further five
natural moves by Kasparov, the Dutch
grandmaster was already lost at move
twenty. This game is another example
of how difficult chess is. Confronted
137
1995
with a new problem, a very strong
player can get blown away in a very
short time.
In round three, Garry faced Topalov
who did very well in the tournament.
Garry played liJb8-c6 against the
English attack, and Veselin wasted
time consolidating his position. Here
is the finish of the game.
Game 24
V.Topalov White
G.Kasparov Black
Euwe Memorial, Amsterdam 1995
17...liJc4
Veselin has played the slow man-
oeuvre l:hl-gl-g3. Now Garry has to
react powerfully to demonstrate its
drawbacks.
18 ~cl?
For good or ill, the pawn should
have been taken - 18 ~xb4 ViIIc7, and
now:
(a) 19 ~el e5 20 ~t2? (after
20 ~c3 ~b6 Black has good play for
the pawn) 20 ... d5 21 liJc3 (21 exd5
loses to 2l...liJa3+ 22 bxa3 ~xc2+
23 'Ot>al ~xa3) 2l...d4 22liJd5 ~xd5
23 exd5 liJxb2 and Black wins.
(b) 19 ~c3 e5 20 J..f2 d5 (20 ... a5
21 J..h3! d5 22 ~xc8 d4 23 liJxd4
exd4 24 J..xd4 1:txc8 25 l:g2 is
unclear, as White has a rook and three
pawns for two pieces) 21 exd5 J.. b4
22 ~xb4 liJa3+ 23 bxa3 ~xc2+
24 'Ot>al ~xdl+ 25 ~bl ~xd5 and
1995
White's king is vulnerable.
18.e5! 19.an as
Kasparov effortlessly builds up his
attack.
20.ag2?
20 .ah3 is better, since at least it
gains a tempo.
20.aa6 21 I1el a4
Black is much faster, as White has
misplaced his pieces on the kingside.
22 .ah3l:ic6 23 'iWdl
This is an ugly move, but what else
can be done? White can only wait and
see how Black will carry out the
attack. Waiting for a mistake from
Garry is not a good policy, especially
when he is in the attacking role.
23d5!
The knockout blow comes from a
thematic advance.
24 exd5
24 'iVxd5 l:d6 wins.
24..I1d6
Suddenly White is caught on the d-
file.
25 f4 l:xd5 26 l:d3
The rook hopes to defend, but it
turns out to be a target. If instead
26 'iVcl, then 26 .. .'!iJd2+ 27 \t>al
tlle4 wins.
26..tlla3+ 27 bxa3 .axd3 28 cxd3
:txd30-1
This game suggests that Topalov is
better as an attacking player than as
a defender. Once Garry seized the
initiative he played very strongly, and
the finish was clinical.
Game four was a cold shower for
Garry. Against Lautier's Paulsen he
sacrificed a piece at an early stage.
This was most probably a result of his
home preparation, and it led to a
complicated position. There are two
other games from 1995 featuring the
same sacrifice, one of them won by
White and the other by Black.
Kasparov surprisingly gave up his
strong knight on d6 for the unde-
veloped bishop on c8. In the complic-
ations he never had any chances, and
went on to lose. In the next game he
bounced back by beating Topalov in
a Dragon. It looked like pre-game
analysis all the way to a 'pawn-up'
ending. Garry steadily converted his
advantage into a win.
The scenario which took place in
the last round was the worst possible
for Garry: he lost to Piket while
Lautier beat Topalov, so the French-
man won the tournament. Piket
improved on one of the Karpov-
Kasparov games in the 'ti'b3 GrUnfeld.
Maybe Kasparov chose an excessively
risky line because he wanted to win,
or maybe there was a hole in his
analysis. Whatever the case, he went
on to lose without much resistance.
Two losses in six games is an un-
characteristic performance for Garry.
His thoughts may well have been on
the fight ahead against Anand, and he
may have been holding back some
openings for that match.
Novgorod
Kasparov started the tournament
with a sweet victory; he beat Gulko
for the very first time, having lost to
him three times already. On this
occasion Kasparov slowly outplayed
his former countryman.
Garry's next opponent was Ivan-
chuk, his rival for first place in the
138

tournament, who played the Caro-
Kann in an unusual fashion and
reached an equal ending. Kasparov
had to settle for a draw.
The next game was a nice victory
over Yusupov, who attempted to stop
Garry from playing in his usual style.
He exchanged queens very early on,
but Garry was not really deterred. He
gained space, and sacrificed a pawn
for positional compensation. At one
point Yusupov missed the best de-
fence; when we join the game, Garry
has already tightened the screw.
Game 25
A.Yusupov White
G.Kasparov Black
Novgorod 1995
33...lLle4+ 34 \tel
34 \tc2 is answered by 34 ... ttaxa3!
(but not 34 ... lLlxa3+? 35 Wcl ~g8
36 l:xa3 l::txa3 37 .Jig3 when White is
still resisting).
34.l:I.g8 35 J..g3 f4!!
This is the only way to keep up the
pressure. It is not only beautiful but
also very effective. After 35 ... l:h8?!
36 \tc2 lLlxa3+ 37 l:xa3 lha3
38 J:txf5+, White has slipped off the
Ilpo~. SimHarly after 35 ... l':tc3+
36 \tdl l:th8 37 J:ta2, White escapes.
36 J:tf5+
Alternatively:
(a) 36 .Jixf4?? J:tc3+! 37 \tdl
(37 \tb 1 J:tgl + 38 Wa2 ttxa3 mate)
139
1995
37 ... J:tgl+ 38 \te2 J:tc2 mate.
(b) 36 exf4 l::tc3+! (not 36... e3
37 \tc2!), and now:
(bl) 37 Wbl 1:h8 38 1:f5+ Wg6
39 l':I.g5+ \tf6 40 tta5 lLlxa5 41 bxa5
ttb8+ 42 Wa2
42 ... l':I.c2 checkmate - a line pointed
out by Kasparov.
(b2) 37 Wdl I:th8 38 1:a2 nhl+
39 We2 J:txg3 40 J:tc2 :tIggI (or
40 ...I:!.b3, and now 41 J:tf5+ \te6 or
41 ttxc4 lIb2+ 42 We3 :tel mate)
41 lhc4 J:tdl 42 f3 I:!.hel+ 43 Wt2
e3+ 44 Wg3 J:tgl+. This win too was
demonstrated by the Champion him-
self.
36...Wg6 37 J:txf4 J:te8!
A neat change of direction! The
move deserves at least one exclam-
ation mark.
38 J:tg4+
Or 38 Wbl lLld2+ 39 Wb2 J:tb3+
40 Wa21:c2 mate.
38...Wh5 39 J::th4+ Wg6
Gaining time when short on the
clock.
40 ttg4+ Wh5 41 J:th4+ Wg5!
42 f4+
42 J:ta2 allows 42 ...lLlxa3+ 43 \tb2
l:Ic2+ 44 ~al lIdl mate. As before,
42 Wb I allows 42 ...ti:Jd2+ 43 Wb2
l':tb3+ 44 ~a2 J:tc2 mate.
42 .'~g6!
Keeping the d3-square protected.
43 f5+ Wg5 0-1
In round four, Garry (Black) and
Topalov repeated their Amsterdam
1995
game until move IS. At this point the
Bulgarian grandmaster improved his
play. Garry had a difficult position,
but thanks to his opponent's mistakes,
he soon took control and won an
exciting battle. In the next game he
faced Vaganian, producing a typically
wonderful Kasparov win. Let us look
at the storm!
Game 26
G.Kasparov White
R.Vaganian Black
Novgorod 1995
Queen's Gambit Declined {D37]
1 d4
Garry has never attempted 1 e4
against Vaganian - a sign of respect
for the Armenian grandmaster's
handling of the French Defence.
1...00 2 e4 dS 3 lllc3 .il..e7 4 lllfJ
lllf6 S .il..f4
This is a bit of surprise. Garry
avoids 4 .il..gS, a move he had used
during the Karpov matches.
s...o-o 6 e3 eS 7 dxeS .il..xeS 8 ~e2
This move is no longer in fashion.
8.. llle6 9 a3 ~aS 100-0-0
A well-established line - but with
the white pawn on a3, Black can
reasonably hope to work up counter-
play.
1O.i.e7
In their previous game (Kasparov-
Vaganian, Debrecen 1992) Rafael
played 1O... llle4. There followed:
11 lllbS a6 12 lllc7 eS 13 ~xdS
(at Linares earlier in the same year,
the game Gelfand - Yusupov went
13 lllxdS lllxt2 14 lllgS .i.fS
IS ~xt2 exf4 16 'tIixf4 llle7
17 lllxe7+ i.xe7 18 ttdS 'tIiel+
19 ttdl 'tIiaS 20 l:dS with a draw by
repetition) 13 ... fS (13 ... 'tIixc7 is better)
14 l:xeS lllxeS IS .il..xeS tta7
16 llldS b6 17 .il..d3 .il..d7 18 b4
'tIixa3+ 19 i.b2 'tIia4 20 bxcS bxcS
21 llleS 'tIixc2+ 22 i.xc2 i.e6
23 lllf4 1-0. A remarkably quick
140
victory against such a good player.
11 h4
This is Kasparov's novelty, and
there is no denying that it is extremely
hard to meet over the board. It is
difficult to judge what this outright
aggression actually offers White,
although in practice it worked well for
a couple of years.
11...dxe4?!
Black helps White to develop his
bishop. Sometimes illogical moves
work well, but that is not the case
here. Possibly Vaganian wanted to
copy the plan he had used against the
standard II g4. However, Kasparov's
last move is not threatening to divert
the knight from f6. Even such a
talented player as the former Armen-
ian number one can be embarrassed
by a new move.
(a) Two rounds after the present
game, 11 ...l:td8 was played in
Kasparov-Ehlvest. After 12 g4 .il..d7 (a
game Najer-Korobov, Istanbul 2003,
went 12 ... eS 13 gS exf4 14 gxf6 i.xf6
IS lllxdS .il..e6 16 lllxf6+ gxf6
17 .il..d3 <Jih8, and although Black
drew quite quickly, the position looks
rather risky for him) 13 Wb I dxc4
14 .il..xc4 l:ac8 IS .gSlllhS 16 .il..d6 g6
17 i.e2 ..txd6 18 Ihd6llle7 19 ~b3
..tc6, Ehlvest succeeded in holding
the position.
(b) l1...a6! is the best reply; as the
result of some subtle points it gives

Black a very comfortable position. He
has no reason to be scared of an
isolated pawn, and may actually
encourage the capture on d5 by
playing b7-b5. In Karolyi-Barlow, E-
mail Olympiad 2000, there followed:
12 t'llg5 l:tdS 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4
t'llxe4! 15 t'llgxe4 (I5 ttxd5 Mxd5
16 ~xe4 ttxg5 17 hxg5 iU5!)
15 ... dxe4 (I5 ....i.fS is interesting too)
16 ttxdS+ t'llxdS! (in the game
Gelfand - Karpov, Hoogovens 1995,
Black took with the queen, but the
capture with the knight is much better;
White is now on the verge of losing
the game) 17 ~ a4! (confronting
Black's innovation was not an easy
task; drawing with the South African
player required a massive effort)
17 ...t'llc6 (or 17... ~xa4!? IS t'llxa4
t'lle6 19 t'llb6 t'llxf4 20 t'llxaS .i.c5,
and Black has excellent compensation
for the exchange) IS ~xa5 t'llxa5
(White can now hold the position by
playing a sequence of precise moves)
19 t'llxe4 .i.e6 20 g3! .i.d5 21 .i.g2
'.fif8 22 J:tgl! t'llb3+ 23 '.fibl J:tdS
24 .i.e3 b5 25 .i.hl a5 26 t'llc3 .i.xhl,
and the draw was agreed. The part
played by the computer cannot be
ignored. In an article I wrote for New
in Chess Yearbook 59, I concluded
that my opponent's subtle play had
cast serious doubt on Garry's
11 h4 novelty.
12 i.xc4 b6
Slow in terms of development, but
very fast in taking the game towards
its conclusion. It is hard to appreciate
just how quickly Black's resignation
will be brought about. At this point
12 ...e5 looks much more natural; it
helps to justify 11 ... dxc4.
13 t'llg5!
White provokes a pawn move 00
the kiogside. It is a clever fmesse, as
Black is already way behind in
development.
13. ..ta6
13 ...h6 looks suspect, though it isn't
141
1995
easy for White to select a 'best
continuation' from several apparently
promising options. After 14 t'llce4 g6,
he can try:
(a) 15 t'llxf6+ .i.xf6 16 t'lle4
(16 t'llxe6 .i.xe6 17 .i.xe6 fxe6
IS ~xg6+ .i.g7 19 .i.xh6 ~c5+
20 Wbl ~f5+ 21 ~xfS .i:xf5)
16 ... .i.g7 17 t'lld6 t'lle5 IS .i.e2 .i.a6,
and Black is still in the game.
(b) 15 t'llf3 '.fig7 16 t'llxf6 .i.xf6
17 ~e4 .i.b7 IS h5! (spotting such
subtle intermediate moves is one of
the reasons why Garry is such a
skilled attacker; after IS l!td7 t'lldS!,
Black holds on) IS .. .'~fS (or IS ... g5
19 ttd7 t'lldS 20 'tW g6+. This is the
point of IS h5) 19 ~xfS gxfS 20 l:td7
ttfcS 21 '.fibl t'lldS 22 t'lle5!? '.fif8
(after 22 ... ttc5 23 t'llxf7 .i.e4+
24 Wa2 t'llxf7 25 il.xe6 White is
clearly better) 23 ttxb7 (stirr~g the
position up. By playing 23 l'i1cl!?
White could keep an edge with a
simple move) 23 ... t'llxb7 24 .i.a6 t'llc5
(24 ... MC7 25 t'llg6+) 25 .i.xcs .i.xe5
26 .i.xe5 ttxcs 27 f3 and White is a
little better.
14 t'llce4!
It is quite logical to exchange pieces
near the black king. On that side of the
board White's domination steadily
grows.
14...g6
14... t'llxe4 15 ~xe4 looks, and is,
bad for Black. However, White still
1995
has to stay alert:
(a) 15 ....i.xg5? 16 hxg5 g6 17 .i.xa6
(or 17 .i.d6 .i.xc4 IS Vj'h4 h5 19 gxh6
'it'h7 20 Vj'f6 and wins) 17 .. :~xa6
IS Vj'xc6 J::tacS 19 .i.c7, and as
Fta~nik points out, White keeps the
extra piece. After 19 ... l::txc7 20 Vj'xc7
l:tcs, he saves his queen with
21l:tdS+.
(b) After 15 ... g6, several comment-
ators went wrong trying to find the
most efficient way to finish the job.
The next three variations are ex-
amples:
(bl) 16 .i.xe6?! fxe6 17 Vj'xe6+
'it'hS IS l:td5 Vj'a4 19 .i.e5+ lllxe5
20 Vj'xe7 (Dolmatov's verdict on this
position is 'with an attack', but on this
occasion Sergei is imprecise - he
doesn't say who has the attack)
20 ... l::tacS+ 21 'it'bl Vj'c2+ 22 '.i7al ??
This looks like a way to avoid the
draw - and indeed it does, but not in
the way White would have liked:
22 ... Vj'c1+!! 23 l:txcl I:Ixc1+
24 'it'a2 .1.c4+ 25 b3 l:txf2+ 26 l::td2
l::txd2 mate. An imaginative player
like Rafael would have found this.
Instead White must play 22 'it'a2!,
allowing 22 ... Vj'c4+ and perpetual
check.
(b2) 16 lllxe6 is a tempting move,
but after 16....i.xc4 (not 16 ...l:tfcS
17 .i.xa6 'iVxa6 Islllc7 ~b7 19 :d7
and wins) 17 ~xc4 (17 lllxfS ~b5
IS llld7 l:tcs allows Black dangerous
play for the exchange) 17 ... fxe6
IS Vj'xe6+ 'it'g7 19 Vj'xc6 l:tacS
142
20 .i.c7 Ilf6! 21 ~c4 .i.d6 22 l:txd6
l::txd6 23 l:tdl l:txdl+ 24 '.i7xdl 'iYf5,
the endgame is roughly equal.
(b3) 16 lllxf7!? (Fta~nik's recom-
mendation), and now:
(b31) 16 ....i.xc4 17 lllh6+ '.i7g7
IS Vj'xc4 :!;IacS (1S ... e5 19 .i.g5)
19 '.i7bl e5 20 -tg5llld4 21 'iVd3 and
White wins.
(b32) 16 .. :~c5 17 llld6 .i.xc4
IS b4! .i.d5+ 19 bxc5 .i.xe4 20 lllxe4
bxc5 and White has the superior
ending, thanks to the knight on e4.
(b33) 16... Ilxf7 17 Vj'xe6 .i.xc4
IS ~xc6 i..b3 (an imaginative con-
tinuation, but after some excitement
White can keep an advantage with
precise defence. If instead IS ....i.xa3
19 ~xc4 .i.e7, White is a healthy
pawn up) 19 Vj'xaS+ (on 19 l::i:d3,
Black comes back with 19.. J:iIff8)
19...l:tfS 20 Vj'c6 .i.xa3 (frightening,
but...) 21 l:td3! .i.c5 (or 2l...i..e7
22 'iVc3 ~al+ 23 'it'd2 ~xhl
24 ~xb3+ and wins) 22 l:txb3 ~al+
23 'it'c2 Vj'xhl 24l:iId3, and White has
the safer king.
(b4) 16 .i.xa6! is the simplest and
most convincing way to turn White's
advantage into a win: 16.. :~xa6
17 h5! (simple in a way, but it was
only the Champion who found the
solution; he concluded his analysis
here with a +- sign. If instead
17 ~xc6? l:tacS 18 .i.c7 l:txc7
19 Vj'xc7 l:tc8, Black is alive)
17 ...l:tacS IS hxg6 hxg6 19 l'lh6!
(simple again, but decisive. If instead
19l1lxe6, then 19 ... f5!. After 19 'it'bl
~b5 20 l:th6 ~f5 21 ~xf5 gxf5
White is better, but Black is not yet
dead), and now 19 ... llld4+ doesn't
prevent White from winning, because
after 20 'it' b I III f5 21 I:t xg6+ fxg6
22 Vj'e6+ the black king is stripped
bare.
lslllxf6+ .i.xf6 16llle4
If 16 i..xa6, White can't follow up
by grabbing the knight: 16.. :tlha6
17 Vj'xc6 l:tac8 IS .i.c7 I:txc7

19 'fixc7 J:tcS, and Black is not worse.
I 6....i.e7
Black's bishop leaves the long
diagonal- there is little alternative:
(a) In Informant Garry analysed
16....i.e5 and proved beautifully how
White obtains an advantage: 17 .i.xa6
~xa6 IS h5! l:1:acS 19 Wb1, and now:
(a1) Garry didn't show what was
wrong with 19... tLla5, but here is the
answer:
20 .i.xe5!! l:hc2 21 tLlf6+ and both
king moves lose:
(all) 2l...WhS 22 hxg6 h5
23 tLlg4+ f6 24 l::td7!! (a very coolly
calculated move) 24 ...l:1:cl+! 25 J:txcl
hxg4 26 l:tcc7, and White wins. (If
he insists on winning on the h-file,
26 g7+ WgS 27 l::thl is also possible.)
(aI2) 2l...Wg7 22 tLlg4+ f6
(22 ... 'litgS 23 tLlh6 mate) 23 l:1:d7+
c;t;>gS (23 ... WhS 24 hxg6) 24 hxg6
l:tcl+ 25 l:txcl hxg6 26 tLlh6+ WhS
27 l:th 1, and mate in 9 moves.
(a2) 19 ... ~b5 20 bxg6 fxg6
21 l:txh7!! cracks open the king's
defence: 2l...tLle7 22 .i.xe5 ~xe5
23 f4 J::txc2 24 fxe5, and according to
Kasparov's analysis White is winning.
(b) 16 ....i.g7 17 .i.xa6 ~xa6
IS ~xc6 e5 (or IS ...:tacS 19 .i.c7
l:txc7 20 'fIxc7 l:tcs 21 l:1:dS+, and
since the bishop has left the b4-dS
diagonal, this rook check wins)
19 tLl f6+!? (it's hard to choose
White's best move; after 19 .i.xe5!?
.i.xe5 20 Wbl he is much better)
19 ....i.xf6 20 'fixf6 exf4 .. Garry
143
1995
suggests that White is better here,
although Black has not been knocked
out:
(bl) 21 h5 fxe3 22 h6 'ficS+!
23 <Jib 1 ~f5+ and White has the
advantage, but it is not yet over.
(b2) 21 ~xf4!? l:1:acS+ 22 <Jib 1
~e2 (22 ... h5 23 g4) 23 h5 with decent
winning chances, though Black is not
going down without a fight.
(b3) 21 exf4!? ~c4+ 22 <Jibl l:taeS
23 h5 l:1:e6 24 ~h4 l:1:e2 25 <Jial.
White is better, but there is still work
to do.
17 i.xa6 ~xa618 <Jibl
IS ~xc6 doesn't work: IS ...l:tfcS
19 .i.c7l::txc7 20 ~xc7 ::rcS.
18..JWb7?!
This is an unfortunate move. Black
had other tries:
(a) Is ... lUcs 19 45 tiJa5 20 ~d3
~xd3+ 21 l::txd3 ~dS 22 l:tc3, and
according to Kasparov's analysis
White is better.
(b) IS ... l:tacS is an improvement;
although Black is on the ropes, there
may be no way for White to force a
clear advantage:
(bl) 19 .i.d6 tLla5.
(b2) 19 ~c3. Dolmatov recom-
mended this natural move. However,
it gives no more than a draw by
repetition after 19...lLla5 20 tLlf6+
WhS 21 ~d4 (or 21 ~e5 tLlc4, and
White can even be in trouble)
2l...tLlc6 22 ~c3 tLla5.
(b3) 19 h5 tLlb4 (after 19... tiJd4
20 ~d3 ~xd3+ 21 llxd3 tLlc6
22 :tcl, White is much better)
20 ~b3 tiJd5. The queen on a6 is
dangerously out of play, but the strong
knight on d5 seems to provide Black
with adequate chances: 21 bxg6
(21 .i.d6 ~b7) 2l...fxg6! (but not
2l...bxg6?? 22 .i.e5 and wins)
22 :txd5 (22 .i.g5 ~b7) 22 ... exd5
23 ~xd5+ l:1:t7 24 l:txh7 (we have
seen so many beautiful and powerful
invasions along the h-file, but this
time Black is not brought down)
1995
24 .. :~fl+! 25 \t>a2 ~c4+ 26 ~xc4
Xhc4 27 l:i:xf7 Wxf7 28 tiJc3, and
Black can hold the endgame.
(b4) 19 i.h6 l:i:fd8 (according to
Kasparov, after 19... tiJe5 20 'iNb3
l:i:fe8 21 i.g5 'iNc4 22 'iNxc4 l:i:xc4
23 f3 White is slightly better) 20 i.g5
(20 h5 tiJe5) 20 ... tiJb4 21 J::txd8+
i.xd8 22 'iNd2 i.xg5 23 hxg5 tiJd5,
and Black did all right in De Boer-
Tondivar, Netherlands 1995/96.
19 h5!
Now Garry can bite into the black
pawn wall; his play on the h-file
comes before Black can take control
of the ()pen files in the centre.
19.Jlac8
On 19 ...e5, White wins by 20 hxg6
hxg6 (or 20 ... fxg6 21 'iNc4+, and
l:i:h 1xh7 next move will destroy
Black's kingside) 21 kld6!! (what a
marvellous way to open up the king!
If 21.. .i.xd6, then 22 Ji.g5 leads to
mate. Another winning method was
21 l:h3 and doubling rooks) 2l...exf4
22 tiJc5 bxc5 (22 ... i.xd6 23 tiJxb7
wins material) 23 Ihg6+ fxg6
24 'iNxg6 mate.
20 hxg6 tiJb4?
This loses to a breathtaking combin-
ation, but at this stage 20 ...hxg6 is also
hopeless: after 21 'iNc3 f6 22 ~b3
tiJd8 23 f3 White has a decisive
positional advantage.
21 gxh7+!! IifJh8
21...1ifJ g7 would lose more quickly:
144
22 i.e5+ f6 (or 22 ... <.t>g6 23 tiJc5+
tiJxc2 24 tiJxb7 and the knight on c2
is trapped) 23 tiJxf6!, and now:
(a) 23 ...klxf6 24 axb4l::txc2, and the
white h-pawn promotes to a queen.
Who could have anticipated this at
move 11, when Garry first moved that
pawn?
(b) The knight can't be captured by
23 ... i.xf6 either: 24 i.xf6+ l::txf6
25 'iNxc8 (25 axb4 would also win.
This way is more complicated but also
more effective) 25 .. :"xc8 26 h8=~+
'iNxh827l::td7+.
(c) 23 ... tiJxc2 24 tiJg8+ (the dis-
covered check is lethal. It is almost
like a knight promotion) 24 ... Wf7
25 h8='iN tiJxa3+ 26 1ifJa2 and Black
is hopelessly lost.
22 i.e5+ f6
23 tiJxf6!
A most beautiful demonstration of
the potential power of the battery.
This pleasing combination relies on
the weakness of Black's back rank.
23. ...txf6
Other moves lose as follows:
(a) 23 ... tiJxc2 24 tiJg8+ i.f6
(24 ... l:i:f6 25 tiJxf6) 25 tiJxf6 'ilg7
stops the discovered check, but it is all
over nonetheless: 26 tiJg4 wins the
queen.
(b) 23 ...l::txf6 24 ~g6 l::tcf8
25 i.xf6+ Ji.xf6 26 ~xf6+.
(c) 23 ... l::txc2 24 tiJe4+ (Kasparov
says this is not the best; his 24 tiJg4+

wins too, but it is somewhat slower)
24 ...:f6 25 liJd6! (simplest) 25 ... ~a8
(25 ... l:cxf2 26 liJt7+) 26 liJt7+ rtJg7
27h8=~+.
24 i.. xf6+ 1-0
On 24 ... I:txf6, Dolmatov discovered
25 ~c3!! ~e4+ 26 rtJal liJc2+
27 'ii7a2 - a splendid conception, but
there was no need to come up with
such a spectacular move. Simply
25 axb4 wins.
Garry used a very dangerous open-
ing novelty. Vaganian's reaction was
not the best. He later committed a
further error in an unattractive pos-
ition. The exploitation was majestic -
Garry again used his h-pawn in grand
style. It was the second time Garry
had played this opening system
against Vaganian. In both games, the
Armenian grandmaster - a world-class
player - failed to make it to the 25 th
move. Astonishing.
After his magical flying start, Garry
slowed down. With Black against
Kramnik, he opened up the position in
the Giuoco Piano. He finished up a
pawn down in an endgame with rooks
and opposite bishops. His opponent
committed some inaccuracies, and so
Garry managed to hold the game.
Ehlvest repeated Vaganian' s open-
ing but handled the ensuing position
differently. He scrambled into an
ending that was difficult, perhaps even
lost, but Kasparov let him escape with
a draw.
In the next game, Short forced a
theoretical draw in the Poisoned Pawn
variation. There was nothing Garry
could do about it.
For the last round, Timman pre-
pared a line in the 'iVc2 Nimzo-Indian
which had occurred in the Kasparov-
Short match. He just managed to
draw.
Garry had a great tournament,
winning by a one-point margin. It
must have boosted his confidence
before the Anand match.
145
1995
New York Rapid
Facing Adams in the first round,
Garry slowly outplayed the English-
man in a Sicilian without d2-d4. Then
with Black, Michael tried the King's
Indian. Garry played a line with g2-
g3, giving his opponent little chance
to disturb the equilibrium. Adams
succumbed without having had any
winning chances.
In round two with White against De
Firmian, Garry obtained the better
ending. Here we see how the game
finished.
Game 27
G.Kasparov White
N. de Firmian Black
PCA/Intel rapid, New York 1995
34 i..xe6!
The pawn structure on the queen-
side and the position as a whole are
reminiscent of the fourth game of the
famous Fischer-Taimanov Candidates
match in 1971. Garry gives up the
bishop pair to go into an endgame
with bishops on the same colour
squares. Why? Usually this type of
endgame is winning unless there are
few pawns left on the board or the
weaker side can set up a fortress.
34..rtJxe6 35 rtJC rtJd6
35 ....tcl, trying to close the
queens ide so that White can't invade
there, might seem a sound idea.
1995

However, after 36 'it'e2 (36 i.e3 coloured bishop endings, Zugzwang

i.xb2 37 c4 f6 38 i.xh6 <:JJf7 39 g5 occurs very often.
also wins) 36 ....i.xb2 37 <:JJd2 il.a3
38 i.e3, Black has no chance to hold
the position.
36 <:JJe2 i.el 37 ~d3!?
Garry takes a practical decision. If
he goes for a pawn ending which
would require very precise calcul-
ation, there would clearly be risks,
especially in a rapid game. He prob-
ably couldn't see all the way to the
conclusion of the bishop ending, but
his experience suggested that a
Zugzwang would occur.
In fact, the king-and-pawn endgame
45...~d6 46 Wb5 ~e7 47 i.g7
would also be winning: 37 il.e3 Axe3
The bishop aims to get to d8,
38 Wxe3 f6 (Black can't block the
winning a pawn.
queens ide with 38 ... c4, as he would
47 ...Wb7 48 i.t'S We7 49 i.e7
like to do; 39 g5! paves the way for
Black can control the d8-square, but
the h-pawn to promote) 39 ~d3 Wd7
he can't move away.
40 <:JJc4 <:JJc6 41 b3 (White can win
49. ~d7 50 i.b4 i.e3
because he has three methods of
losing a tempo; this is one of them)
4l...<:JJd6 42 Wb5 Wc7 43 Wa6
(another method involves sacrificing
the g-pawn, but in this position it
doesn't work: 43 g5 fxg5 44 g4 ~b7,
or 44 <:JJa6 g4, and Black holds on)
43 ... Wc6 (or 43 ... c4 44 bxc4 <:JJc6
45 ~a7, and White wins after either
45 ... ~c5 46 Wb7 <;fJxc4 47 <;fJxb6 or
45 ...<:JJc7 46 c5 bxc5 47 \tta6 ~c6
48 ~xa5) 44 c4 (this is the third way
to drop a tempo) 44 ... Wc7 45 Wa7
~c6 46 ~b8, and White invades.
37...<:JJc6 38 i.el i.g5 39 \tte4 Or 50 ... Wc7 51 i.el (White in-
.i.e3 40 b4 vades from another angle) 5l...i.e3
Garry opens up the position to 52 g5! fxg5 53 g4 i.c5 (on 53 ...i.d4
invade. 54 i.b4, White gets to the h6-pawn
40exb4 41 exb4 axb4 42 i.xb4 and wins) 54 a5 Wb7 55 axb6 (or 55
A cl 43 A 18 i. g5 44 .i. g7 f6 a6+ Wa7 56 Ac3 i.d6 57 i.b2 and
A sad necessity. Black has to put Black is in Zugzwang) 55 ...i.f8
one more pawn on the same colour (55 ...i.xb6 would lose to 56 Ab4.
squares as the opponent's bishop. On Now Black hopes that White can't
44 ... ~d6, White wins very quickly invade. In this type of position, setting
with 45 ~b5 Ae3 46 .i.f6. up a fortress can often save the
45 i.h8! endgame, but in this case it doesn't
A neat demonstration of leading the work) 56 i.c3 Ad6 57 i.b2, and it is
opponent into Zugzwang. In same- Zugzwang again.
146

51 g5!!
A beautiful diversion sacrifice to
block the diagonal of the black bishop.
51...fxg5 52 g4 ~e6 53 ~c6
The simplest move. White can also
win by 53 A f8 '.iff6 54 Axh6 '.iffl
55 '.ifc6 Ad2 56 '.ifd5 .tf4 57 'it'd6,
creating another Zugzwang. However,
winning the b6-pawn decides the
game faster than going after the h6-
pawn.
53....i.d4 54 .i.d6 1-0
In the second game, Nick conducted
a long-term slow campaign against the
Scheveningen; Garry defended com-
fortably.
Kramnik awaited him in the semi-
final. With Black, Garry drew com-
fortably in the Giuoco Piano. In the
second game, he had a massive
advantage but lost his way in the
complications and only drew. The
third was a blitz game in which Garry
had Black and needed to draw. He
played the Petroff and gradually got
into trouble. Krarnnik missed several
wins; he could even have won the
king-and-pawn ending, but he spoilt it
and the draw with Black gave
Kasparov a place in the final against
Ivanchuk.
In a Najdorf with 5 Ae3 e5 6 ltJf3,
Ivanchuk acquired an edge. Garry
slowly improved the placing of his
pieces, and Ivanchuk sacrificed the
exchange. According to Vaisser, a
different continuation would have
given him good chances of resisting.
Ivanchuk then put his knight on an
unprotected square, and Garry took it.
In the second game Ivanchuk was
unable to regain his composure. On
move 13 of a Chigorin Defence he
blundered a pawn to a dual attack.
Garry seized the golden opportunity
and emerged victorious. From the
point of view of quality this was a
disappointment, but Garry probably
didn't mind too much. He was just
147
1995
happy to have had two confidence-
boosting events before the match in
which his title was at stake.
Kasparov-Anand: The PCA
World Championship Final
There were several predictions to
the effect that if Anand could survive
the first 10 games, he would have the
superior chances. However, consider-
ing their personal score, Kasparov's
match experience counted in his
favour. The prize fund was somewhat
reduced, and the match was moved
from Europe to New York. It took
place in the World Trade Center and
was well publicized.
In the very first game Anand played
the 6 Ae2 variation against the
Najdorf. Maybe a sharper line - for
example, Ael-e3, f2-f3 and g3-g4 -
would have suited him better. His
actual choice favoured Garry, who
was obviously well prepared. Anand
did not try to attack the king - he just
played positionally. Kasparov grad-
ually freed his position, equalized and
offered a draw. There was no reason
for Anand to play on.
With White against the Nirnzo-
Indian in the second game, Garry
remained true to the 'i!!Vc2 line. Anand
equalized convincingly; in the ensuing
endgame White had virtually nothing.
They agreed a draw on move 29.
In game three, Anand played 6 Ae2
again. Kasparov committed a serious
inaccuracy and found himself in
big trouble. Anand even had an
outright win, but missed it. Even so,
Kasparov's problems were not com-
pletely over. Anand later had the
chance to sacrifice a pawn to give
himself a strong bishop. It seems the
occasion was too much for him, and
again he missed his chance. After that,
Garry held the position. Had this not
been Anand's first World Champion-
1995
ship match, he might have taken the
lead with this game.
Game four was an interesting one
from the opening point of view. Garry
played an English with 'iVdl-c2, and
Anand sacrificed a pawn to reach a
middlegame with bishops of opposite
colours. He created fluid play, and
Garry offered a draw at move 21.
Anand accepted. For the first time
Kasparov was confronted with a
player who could handle the pressure
of the openings. It showed that times
were changing, and the Indian grand-
master earned due acclaim.
In the fifth game, Garry found a
much better plan than in the opening
of the third. Anand had a chance to
sacrifice a pawn on move 19, but he
didn't take the risk. It was a reason-
able decision, as it looked as if the
position had figured in Garry's
preparations. So the game ended in a
draw. So far the match was a much
tougher contest than the one with
Short, which at the same stage had
been virtually over. The chess itself
was less exciting, though.
In the sixth game Kasparov
switched to 1 e4. He had limited
experience with the Open Ruy Lopez,
which furthermore is an opening
where White is restricted to playing
against Black's positional weaknesses.
He knew that Anand's trainer was
Yusupov. This meant that the Open
Lopez was a likely defence for Anand.
Kasparov must have anticipated
events, so he played the 9 lDbd2
variation involving the piece sacrifice
that Karpov used in his Korchnoi
match. Anand opted for a sideline.
Garry played relatively safely, but
then Anand sacrificed the exchange
and obtained a reasonable position.
When they swapped queens, the
endgame was hard to judge. Kasprov
offered a draw. Anand later said that
neither of them had a clue what was
happening. Anand agreed after 10
148
minutes' thinking time. In the USA
Today newspaper, Kasparov later
claimed he should have played on.
In game seven Anand played more
sharply than in the 5th game. Garry
accepted an isolated pawn in prefer-
ence to defending passively, and in
fact soon sacrificed it. Afterwards he
regained his pawn and offered a draw.
Anand had no reason to refuse.
Game number eight was a short one.
Garry played the Scotch, which had
given Karpov a huge problem. Anand
turned out to be well prepared, and
came up with a stunning novelty very
early on. In one variation g7-g6 is
standard, but Anand pushed the same
pawn a square further. At move 15 he
seemed to be out of his preparation, as
he used 20 minutes to conjure up a
brilliant move that brought his rooks
to the centre files. Kasparov did well
to force a draw on move 22. He was in
an unusual situation - Anand was not
at all troubled by his openings at this
stage of the match.
With game nine, Anand even took
the lead.
Game 28
V.Anand White
G.Kasparov Black
PCA World Championship
(9th game), New York 1995
Sicilian Defence [B85]
1 e4 c5 2 lDc d6 3 d4 cxd4
4lDxd4lDf6 5lDc3 a6
From 1985 on, Garry had played
virtually nothing other than the
Najdorf. In 1995 he started to play
new lines, but in the early part of this
match he stuck to what he knew best.
He needed to know where his oppon-
ent's strengths and relative weakness
lay. With the white pieces Anand has
a heavy plus score in many openings.
In 1991 (as a 2600 player) he had lost
6 games with White. The figures for
the next four years were astounding:

in 1992 he lost one, in 1993 none, in
1994 four and in 1995 again a single
solitary game. The database may have
missed one or two games, but the
basic pattern of excellence is clear.
6i.e2
Anand had recorded some victories
with the 6 i.e3 lines. However, just
like Short, he wanted to surprise
Kasparov early in the match. He had
played 6 i.e2 a few times much
earlier, and prepared it for this match
as a main weapon.
6..e6
Garry plays what he knows best -
the Scheveningen. He also employs
6 ... e5 from time to time, but for this
great occasion he follows the opening
book he wrote with Nikitin in the mid-
1980s.
70-0 i.e7 8 a4
Experience with this Scheveningen
line (where the knight has not been
developed to c6) led players of the
White side to prevent an early b7-b5.
White seems unable to do enough in
the centre to hold back the space-
gaining move.
8..111c6 9 i.e3 0-0 10 f4 VJ/ic7
11 <lJbl :te8
This position must have arisen
many, many times during Garry's
preparation.
121.0
The aim of this move is to deter
Black from developing his bishop on
b7. It also defends the e4-pawn.
Anand bad also tried other moves:
(a) In tbe fIrst game of the match
Vishy played 12 VJ/id2, and there
followed: 12 ... i.d7 13 :tad 1 :tad8
14111b3 1.c8 15 1.f3 b6 16 VJ/it2111d7
17 llld4 1.b7 18 1.h5 ttfS 19 VJ/ig3
lllxd4 20 1.xd4 1.f6 21 1.e2 e5
22 fxe5 1.xe5 23 VJ/it2 lllc5 24 1.f3
ttfe8 25 h3 a5 26ttfel 1.c6 27 b3 h6
YZ-Y2.
(b) As from game three, Anand
switched to 12 i.d3 lllb4 13 a5 1.d7
14111f3, and now:
149
/995
(b 1) The third game continued with
14 ... i..c6. It was close, yet Garry
survived: 15 i..b6 VJ/ic8 16 VJ/iel llld7
17 Jl.d4 lllc5 18 VJ/i g3 f6 19 e5 ttfS
20 i..xc5 dxc5 21 1.c4 i..d5 22 lllxd5
exd5 23 1.b3 c4 24 i..a4 lllc6 25 c3
fxe5 26 lllxe5 lllxe5 27 fxe5 VJ/ie6
~ i..a ttill+ ~ :ill :fS
30 ttxfS+ 1.xfS 31 VJ/if4 g6 32 1.dl
VJ/i f7 33 VJ/i d4 VJ/i fl + 34 VJ/i g 1 VJ/i xg 1+
35 Wxgl Wf7 36 i..g4 b6 YZ-YZ.
(b2) 14 ... ttac8 occurred in games
five and seven:
(b21) 15 VJ/i e2 was the Indian
grandmaster's first reaction. The fifth
game continued: 15 ...i..c6 16 1.b6
~b8 17 llld4 lllxd3 18 cxd3 d5
19 VJ/if3 llld7 20 lllxc6 bxc6
21 llla4 VJ/id6 22 VJ/ie3 VJ/ib4 23 Itfcl
c5 24 VJ/if3 lllf6 25 lllc3 i..d8 26 exd5
exd5 27 lllxd5 lllxd5 YZ-YZ. Black
held the game with relative ease.
(b22) In game seven, White
obtained nothing with 15 Jl.b6 (after-
wards he gave up trying to crack
Kasparov's Scheveningen from this
angle) 15 ...VJ/ib8 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5
lllfd5 18111xd5 exd5 19 :tel h6 20 c3
lllxd3 21 VJ/ixd3 .i.c5 22 VJ/ixd5 .i.e6
23 VJ/id2 1.xb6 24 axb6 ttc6 25 tta4
z:txb6 YZ-YZ.
12i..d7
Garry's original weapon against
White's 12th move was 12 ...ttb8, but
he chose 12 ...i.d7 against Van der
Wiel in 1988. Later, at Linares in
1995
1997, Garry reverted to 12 .. J::tb8
against Anand and went on to win.
The bishop is less well placed on d7
than on b7, but then that was precisely
the point of White's 12 .tn. Black
has a spatial disadvantage in the
Scheveningen, and this makes the
central squares more crowded. The
knight on f6 feels this already, as it
cannot move to d7. If Black concedes
space, why is this opening so popular?
Because it is so hard for White to
prevent Black from steadily gaining
ground later. One way is to take the
fight to Black and try to checkmate
him before he advances too far; this is
not an easy task. As for the second
method - you are going to see it now!
13lZlb3
The idea of 12 ... .td7, as explained
by Kasparov and Nikitin, is lZlc6xd4
and .td7-c6, so White avoids this. He
tries to gain more space with a4-a5.
13...lZla5
13 ... b6 is also possible; in fact it is
the most common move in this pos-
ition.
14lZlxa5 'ilxa5 15 'ifd3
White doesn't want to go after the
king just yet; he is happy with quietly
improving his position. The Dutch
grandmaster Van der Wiel, who
played quite a number of games with
this line, provided the basis of the
analysis used by Anand.
15..J::tad8?!
Maybe this rook should be put on
the c-file, making it harder for White
to play on the queenside. If 15 ....tc6
then 16 b4; while 15 ...~ec8 is very
strongly answered by 16 e5. An earlier
game Anand-Ribli, Wijk aan Zee
1989, had seen 15.J::!ed8 16 l/;\Vd2
(16 b4 l/;\Vc7 17 a5 lldc8 18 .td2 d5)
16....tc6.
16l:trdl!
This is a recommendation of Van
der Wiel, and another sign that Vishy
does not intend to play against the
king. Van der Wiel's first try in this
150
line was 16 ~d2, which he played
against Kasparov at Amsterdam 1988;
the reply was 16 ... J:c8. Later, at
Haninge 1989, he switched to 16 g4
against another great Scheveningen
expert - Polugaevsky.
16...i.c6
On 16 ... e5 17 f5, White gains more
space.
16... l::tffi is the latest idea in this
line; it is interesting, though hard to
understand at first: 17 b4 VjJJc7
18l::tabl l::tc8 19l::tb3 i..e8! (clearing
the d7-square for the knight; now we
see the point of Black's 16 ... l::tffi,
which vacated the e8-square) 20 g4
(20 a5! is more in keeping with the
idea of slowly choking Black) 20 ...d5,
and Black frees his position. This
occurrerd in Kharnzin-Prathamesh,
Asian Under-20 Championship 2003.
Anand's successes, which included
winning the FIDE World Champion-
ship, have had an enormous impact on
the development of chess in India.
17 b4!
Not just a tactical trick but, signif-
icantly, a well-founded positional
plan. White gains space on the queen-
side.
17.'ifc7
Not 17 ... VjJJxb4?? 18 J:abl VjJJa5
19 .i. b6 and White wins.
18 b5!
White can't gain any more queen-
side space with 18 a5, on account of

18 ...dS! 19 e5 (19 ~b6 dxe4)
19 .. .tiJe4 when Black has a free
position (20 ~b6? 'iVxb6).
18....td7
18 ... axb5? would open the file for
the white rook: 19 axb5 ~d7 20 b6!
(or 20 I:ta7, and White is clearly
better) 20 ... ~c8 (White is much better
after 20 .. .'ii'b8 21 l:ta7 .tc6 22 lLlb5)
21 I:ta7 ~c6 22 l:tdal d5 23 e5 lLle4
24 ~d4, and Black's position is
passive.
19l:tabl!
Anand was later surprised to dis-
cover that this move constitutes an
improvement on 19 lLle2 which
occurred in a game Kuijpers-De Boer,
1988. The continuation was 19...l:tc8
20 bxa6 bxa6 21 -..xa6 l:ta8 22 ~d3
i:::txa4 ~-~. We too are surprised that
Anand didn't notice that game while
preparing for the World Champ-
ionship fmal. However, in the early
1990s chess programs and databases
were less well developed than now-
adays. Anyway, Vishy's move is very
strong.
19..axbS
Or 19... I:tc8 20 e5 (White is forcing
matters. He would be somewhat better
after 20 l:b3, trying to keep an edge
just by consolidating the space he has
gained) 20 ... dxe5 21 fxe5 ~xe5 (on
2l...lLld5 22 lLlxd5 exd5 23 'iVxd5
~f5 24 ..wxb7, White's queenside
pawns are decisive) 22 ~d4 "VIIc7
23 ~xf6 (23 b6 "VIIb8 24 ~xf6 .txf6
25 ..wxd7 J:e7) 23 ... ~xf6 24 ..wxd7,
and White will have an extremely
dangerous passed pawn. Black might
be able to handle it and hold out for a
draw, but taking this risk would not
have been a practical decision. If some
little thing goes wrong, Black can
still lose outright. After 24 ... ~xd7
25 l:txd7 l:txc3, there can follow:
26 b6 (or 26 .txb7 axb5 27 a5 l:txc2
28 a6 ):ta2, and White appears to
have difficulty clll"rying out a6-a7)
26 .. .l::txc2 27 .txb7 I:tb8 28 l:tc7 l:ta2
151
1995
29 l:tc8+ i:::txc8 30 ~xc8 ~e5
31 ~xa6 l:txa4 32 b7 ~b8 (White is
one tempo short of forcing a win)
33 ~e2 (after 33 g3 I:txa6 34 l:tcl
<;t>fS 35 l:tc8+ ~e7 36 l:txb8 l:tb6,
Black may even win. In the event of
33 J.fl ~fS 34 l:tcl We7 35 ~c8
l:tal, the counter-attack on the first
rank comes in time) 33 ... WfS 34l:tcl
~e7 35 g3 l:td4, and Black can
defend.
20 lLlxb5!
Or 20 axb5 l:c8, and now:
(a) The direct attempt at exploit-
ation with 21 lLla4 seems premature.
After 2l...'iVxc2 22 lLlb6 (22 ~xc2
1.Ixc2 23 lLlb6 1.Ic7 is similar)
22 ... ~xd3 23 l:txd3 l:tc7 White has
play for the pawn, but Black seems
able to defend: 24 e5 dxe5 25 fxe5
lLld5 26 J.xd5 exd5 27 tllxd5 ~f5!
28 lLlxc7 J.xd3 29 lLlxe8 (29 i:::tdl
l:td8) 29 ...~xbl 30 lLld6 ~xd6
31 exd6 it f5, and Vishy assesses the
endgame as drawn.
(b) 21 l:tb3! i:::ted8 (2l...l:ta8 is met
by 22 e5. If 2l...b6, then 22 lLla4)
22 b6 (22 l:d2 l:a8!) 22 .. .'~b8. White
has a considerable space advantage
and clearly stands better. However,
Black's position is not an easy nut to
crack.
20. ..i.xb5
This was a surprise for Anand, who
expected 20 ... ~a5! (after 20 ... ~b8
21 ~b6 ~xb5 22 l:xb5 i:::td7 23 a5,
1995
Black is very passive). There could
follow:
(a) 21 llJxd6 it.xa4, and now:
(al) 22 e5 it.xd6 23 it.b6 (the
young Anand liked to use the word
fireworks; this is where the pyro-
technics bes..~n) 23 ...it.c7 (23 ... it.e7
24 .i.xa5 .l:I.xd3 25 l:xd3 Axc2
26 exf6 .i.xd3 27 l:dl Ad8 28 Axd8
I:txd8 29 Ae4 wins) 24 Axa5 l:txd3
25 l:txd3 Axc2 26 it.xc7 it.xd3
27 J::tdl (or 27 l:txb7 llJd5 28 g3. If
27 l:tb3, then 27 ...it.c4 28 J::tc3 l:c8)
27 ... llJe4 28 it.b6 i.c2 29 l:td7, and
White still keeps up the pressure, yet
Black has good chances to escape.
(a2) 22 lib6 J::txd6 23 lixaS! (if
23 ~xd6 i.xd6 24 AxaS, then not
24 ... Axc2? which loses to 25 e5, but
24 ....i.xf4 25 l:txb7 .i.xc2 26 l:td8
l:txd8 27 .i.xd8 it.xe4!, or 27 ... llJxe4
28 lic7 g5!; according to Anand,
Black can escape to a tenable end-
game with the exchange down)
23 ... l:txd3 24 cxd3 Axdl, and Anand
says that White has a small advantage.
This was later put into practice in the
game Vratonic-Antic, Ni1l1996. Black
managed to draw after a long struggle.
(b) With 21 c4! White can simply
improve his position, as Black doesn't
have the usual Scheveningen counter-
play: 2l...Axb5 (or 2l...Ac6 22 .i.d2
IjVb6 23 a5 ~t2, and although Black
can save his queen, he must suffer for
a long time: 24 Ael ~c5 25 Ab4
~t2 26 l:td2) 22 l:txb5 (22 axb5
llJd7) 22 .. :iVxa4 23 l:txb7 e5 24 l:ta7
~c6 25 ~bl, and White is better.
21 ~xb5
The Indian grandmaster prefers
21 l:txb5!? to the game continuation.
It strikes at b7 immediately. After
2l...llJd7 (2l...l:tc8 22 ndbl ~xc2
23 ~xc2 l:txc2 24 J::txb7 gives White
excellent winning chances due to the
passed a-pawn supported by the
bishop on f3. He can also think of
doubling rooks on the seventh rank)
22 l:tdbl llJc5 23 Axc5, White can
152
already gain a material advantage:
23 ... dxc5 24 l:txb7 ~a5 25 ~c4, and
White is a safe pawn up.
21...l:ta8 22 c4 e5 23 i.b6!
This fmesse pleased the tiger from
Madras - he called it a fine move, and
he is right. Black can answer 23 fXe5?
dxe5 24 Ab6 with 24 .. :~c6!, though
after 25 ~xc6 bxc6 26 as White is
still somewhat better.
23 ~c8
Now 23 ... ~c6 would run into a sur-
prising pawn thrust:
24 c5!! (this almost wns the game
for White. After 24 ~xc6 bxc6 25 c5!
Anand appends a +- sign, but this is
not fully convincing, as Black can
keep on fighting with 25 ... d5!)
24 ... l:tac8 (or 24 .. :~xb5 25 l:txb5,
and Black is lost after 25 ...dxc5
26 fXe5 or 25 ...:xa4 26 cxd6) 25 a5
(or 25 ~xc6l:txc6 26 .i.a7, and Black
is in big trouble) 25 ...Af8 26 cxd6
i.xd6 27 ~xc6 :xc6 28 fXe5 Axe5
29 Ad8! i.c7 30 e5 and wins.
24 fxe5 dxe5 25 a5 i. 18?
Black finds himself in a tough and
cheerless situation, something that
seldom happens to Garry. The un-
familiar conditions cause him to play
a move that appears thematic: the
bishop on f8 can help Black to defend
the king while preparing to put
pressure on the e4-pawn. In the
present case, however, these ideas
become irrelevant. Instead of moving
his bishop, Black should have
organized play on the queens ide with

25 ... ~e6!, and now:
(a) 26 i.e3 z:ta6 27 'tlVxb7 (27 i.e2
~c8 28 i.d3 ~a8) 27 ... z:txa5 28 c5
Ua3, and Black is still resisting.
(b) After 26 c5 :tec8 27 h3 Black is
passive, but not_yet lost:
(c) 26 h3 :t:l:ec8 (not 26...i.d8?
27 iLxd8 l:exd8 28 :txd8+ l:xd8
29 ~xb7 ~xc4 30 a6 ~a4 31 ~c7
and White wins) 27 c5, and now
27 ... ~c6, when Black is worse but
still alive; or 27 ...:tc6 when White is
pressing, but Black can organize his
defence.
26 h3lWe6 27 J:td5!
27...tLlxd5??
Taking the exchange hastens the
end. Garry may have misjudged some-
thing in the unusual position that
results. Let us look at the alternatives.
(a) 27 ...l:ac8 (adopting wait-and-
see tactics) 28 c5 iLe7 (or 28 ... tLlxd5
29 exd5 ~ g6 30 d6 and Black is in
trouble) 29 :tbdl ~f8 30 l:5d2!
(after 30 :td7 tLlxd7 31 .i.g4 ~ g6
32 .i.f5 ~h5 33 l:xd7 White has
compensation for the exchange, but
Black may be holding the position)
30 ... ~g8 31 ~b4 ~f8 32 .i.e2. After
due preparation White improves the
placing of his bishop, and Black is in
great danger.
(b) Black can also try hacking with
27 ... h5 28 c5 g5!? This is not as
simple for White as it looks. Black
wants to open up the white king and,
153
1995
more importantly, win the e4-pawn:
29 'tlVb3 (after 29 z:tdd I g4 30 .i. e2
tLlxe4 White has a problem) 29 ... g4
(or 29 ... tLlxd5 30 exd5 'tlVg6 31 d6 e4
32 iLe2 and White is better) 30 iLe2
tLlxe4 (30 ... i.g7 31 i.c4 tLlxd5
32 i.xd5 'tlVd7 33 Mfl gives White
excellent play for the exchange)
31 i.c4 'tlVg6 32 tId7 J:te7, and Black
is in the game.
28 exd5
Now White only needs to push his
pawns.
28...'iVg6 29 c5 e4 30 .i.e2 z:te5
Garry is trying to mount an attack,
but on this occasion he is easily
rebuffed. On 30 ...iLe7, White would
continue with 31 d6 i.f6 32 d7
ttf8 33 iLc7! (stopping 33 ...i.e5)
33 ... ~g5 34 J:tdl Ae7 35 i.c4 e3
36 iLd5, and having managed to
redeploy his bishop, he has the ad-
vantage.
31 'iVd7!
White has time to collect the b7-
pawn, after which his own queenside
pawns become irresistible.
31. J:.g5
White wins after 3l...~g3 32 ~xb7
J:tg5 33 l:igl, or 3l...z:te7 32 ~g4
~xg4 33 hxg4 J:.e5 34 d6 g6 35 :tdl.
32 :tgl! e3 33 d6
Or 33 ~xb7 J:.e8 34 d6.
33...l:g3 34 ~xb7
Now White's pawns will glide
forward.
1995
34..'fWe6 35 ~h2!
The simplest and most efficient way
to stifle Black's last chance; in fact it
induced Garry's resignation (1-0).
White has stopped any attempt to
sacrifice on h3.
The game was a very instructive
example of how to treat the Scheven-
ingen in a positional way. It must have
given Anand special delight; he had
played intelligently and deserved the
victory. Garry said he was already
concentrating on the next game, as he
had discovered an idea in the Open
Ruy Lopez.
Kasparov hit back at once in game
ten, which has to be selected for this
book.
Game 29
G.Kasparov White
V.Anand Black
PCA World Championship
(lOth game), New York 1995
Ruy Lopez [C80}
1 e4
Unusually, Garry had gained little
out of the opening from his first four
games with White - a new experience
for him. During the mid-1990s he was
still ahead of the pack in the openings,
but now the new young stars were
starting to catch up. The first 8 games
of the match showed that the gap was
narrowing further, and you might
actually have thought that during this
phase of the match there was no
longer a gap at all.
1...e5
Had Vishy come up with the secret
1... dS at this stage, it might have
altered the complexion ofthe match.
2 ltJo ltJc6 3 ~b5 a6 4 ~a4ltJf6
50-0 ltJxe4
The Open Variation suits Anand's
style and looks like a good idea
against Garry, as he had had limited
experience against it. Yusupov, who is
IS4
a great Open Lopez expert, was one of
Anand's seconds, so it is not sur-
prising that this was one of Anand's
choices. Incidentally, 10 years earlier
it would have been unimaginable for a
Soviet player to help a non-Soviet
player in a World Championship
match. Short had no ex-Soviet second
during their London match. It is a sign
of how the former USSR was trans-
formed. Most of their grandmasters
started to play for western countries.
6 d4 b5 7 ~b3 d5 8 dxe5 ~e6
9ltJbd2!?
After the match, people started to
play this move so often that it became
the main line of the Open Ruy Lopez.
I was present when Anand employed
the Open Variation for the first time,
and being impressed by his win, I
asked him how he had come to work
with this opening. He said had played
through a few games, and liked the
feel of it - it looked so simple. Anand
is a player for whom chess comes
most naturally.
The win in question was Yurtaev-
Anand, Frunze 1987, which con-
tinued: 9 c3 ~e7 10 ltJbd2 ltJcs
11 ~c2 ~g4 12 l:tel 0-0 13 h3 i.hS
14 ltJf1 ~d7 IS ltJg3 i.g6 16 i.e3
l:tad8 17 i.xg6 fxg6 18 i.xcs i.xcs
19 ~d3 ~b6 20 ltJd4 Ude8 21 e6
~d6 22 ltJge2 ltJeS 23 ~g3 cS
24 tbc2 l:txe6 2S l:tadl l:tef6 26 ltJe3
d4 27 f4 ltJc4 28 ltJg4 l:te6 29 b3
ltJa3 30 l:td2 d3 31 Wh2 c4 32 bxc4
bxc4 33 ltJeS gS 34 'iixgS i.t2
3Sl:tb2 i.xel 36 ltJd4lheS 0-1
Garry's other weapon against the
Open Lopez is 9 i.e3. The 20-year-
old Kasparov beat none other than
Yusupov with this line at Minsk
in 1983. The game went: 9... i.e7
10 ltJbd2 0-0 11 c3 i.g4 12 ltJxe4
dxe4 13 'iVdS exf3 14 ~xc6 fxg2
IS ~xg2 ~d7 16 i.h6 gxb6 17 f3 hS
18l:tadl ~fS 19 fxg4 ~xeS 20 l:tdel
~c5+ 21 Whl l:tad8 22 l:tfS ~d6
23 ItdS ~g6 2411xe7l:txdS 2S i.xdS

hxg4 26 ~e4 ~xe4+ 27 Axe4 :tId8
28l:i.xc7 h5 29 .ic2:tId5 30 Ab3 l:f5
31 'itig2 a5 32 :tIxf7 l:i.xf7 33 'itig3 a4
34 i.xf7+ 'itixf7 35 'ith4 ~g6 36 b3
a3 37 c4 bxc4 38 bxc4 ~f5 39 ~xh5
'.tie4 40 'itixg4 ~d4 41 h4 1-0 ..
In Kasparov-Kramnik, Botvinnik
Memorial match, Moscow 2001,
Black answered 9 Ae3 with 9 ...i.c5,
and there followed: 10 ~d3 0-0
II t'Llc3 t'Llb4 12 ~e2 t'Llxc3 13 bxc3
Axe3 14 'iYxe3 lLlc6 15 a4 lLla5
16 axb5 axb5 17 lLld4 ~e8 18 f4 c5
19lLlxe6 Vi-Vi.
9 ...lLle5 10 c3 d4
This is a very ambitious move.
Black exchanges the d-pawn immed-
iately, before White can build up
pressure against the typical Open
Lopez pawn chain.
11lLlg5!?
This remarkable move was intro-
duced by Karpov in his world title
match against Korchnoi in Baguio
1978. Although Tal was in Karpov's
team, it was Igor Zaitsev who was the
originator of this idea.
11. dxe3?
Anand repeats his play from the
sixth game of the match - a great risk
which turns out to be catastrophic. In
the Short match, when Garry was
thwarted by a novelty in the ~ c2
Nimzo-Indian, he didn't return to that
line until he and his team had found a
solution to the problem. If Anand had
155
1995
prepared another way of handling the
lLlbd2 Open Lopez, it would have
been better to use it this time. There
are two main alternatives.
(a) 1l...i.d5 occurred in Svidler-
Anand, Dos Hermanas 1999. (Al-
though Vishy didn't use the Open
Lopez again in the Kasparov match,
he did occasionally play it later on.)
There followed: 12 lLlxf7! ~xf7
13 ~t3+ ~e6 14 ~g4+ ~e7 15 e6
i.xe6 16 :tIel ~d7 17 i.xe6 lLlxe6
18lLlt3l:i.e8 19lLlg5lLlcd8 20 .td2!!
h6 21lLlt3 ~d5 22 l:i.e5 ~d6 23 cxd4
h5 24 'iVe4 ~f7 (24 ... c6 25 d5 cxd5
26 :tIxd5 'iVb6 27 ~ g6 +-) 25 d5
~g8 26 'iVg6! and Black was in
trouble.
(b) In Kasparov-Shirov, Linares
2001, Black took the knight:
11...'iVxg5 12 ~t3 0-0-0 13 .txe6+
fxe6 14 ~xc6 ~xe5 15b4 ~d5
16 ~ xd5 exd5 17 bxc5 dxc3 18 lLl b3
d4 19 i.a3 g6 20 i.b4 i.g7 21 a4
'.tid7 (in this position my former pupil
Gyimesi came up with the remarkable
novelty 2l...d3!!, which diverted
people from 9 t'Llbd2 to 9 .te3. The
game Delchev-Gyimesi, Nova Gorica
2004, continued 22 axb5 d2 23 bxa6
c2 24 i.xd2 i.xal 25 ~xal l:the8
26 a7 ~b7 27 a8=Vj'+ :tIxa8 28 :tIcl
Ih-Vi) 22 axb5 axb5 23 l:i.fdl ~e6
24 l:acl l:the8 25 ~fl ~f5 26 c6 g5
27 i.a5 l:d6 28 .tb4 :tIdd8 29 l:i.d3
g4 30 i.c5 ~e4 31 l::tcdl h5
32 lLlxd4 b4 33 l:te3+ ~d5 34 i.xb4
'.tic4 35 i.xc3 l:i.xe3 36 fxe3 l:i.f8+
37 ~e2 'itxc3 38 lLle6, and Shirov
resigned.
12lLlxe6 fxe613 bxe3 ~d3
Both sides played these moves very
quickly. One attempt at an improve-
ment is 13 ... lLlxe5, but it doesn't look
convincing, e.g. 14 Vj'h5+ lLlf7
15 l:i.el i.e7 16lLlt3 0-0 17 i.c2 g6
18 Axg6 hxg6 19 'iVxg6+ ~h8
20 Ah6 lLlxh6 21 ~xh6+ ~g8
22 ~g6+ Wh8 23 l:te5 1-0 Kulaots-
Pilgaard, Gausdal 2003.
1995
14.ltc2!!
Garry played this move instantly.
This stab, together with White's 19th
move, virtually refutes Anand's vari-
ation. In game six of the match, Garry
had played 14 tLlf3, and Vishy drew
without undue difficulty: 14 ... 0-0-0
15 ~el tLlxb3 16 axb3 'ittb7 17 .lte3
lie7 IS .ltg5 h6 19 lixe7 tLlxe7
20 tLld4:!:'xd4 21 cxd4 ~xb3 22 ~e3
~xe3 23 fxe3 tLld5 24 'ittf2 ~b6
25 'it'e2 a5 26 I:If7 a4 27 ~d2 c5
2S e4 ~-~.
14. ~xc3
Anand spent a mere 4 minutes on
his move. He must have considered it
during his advance preparation and,
anyway, retreating the queen would
result in a very poor position.
15 tLlb3
Kasparov's quick play showed he
was following his home analysis.
15. /l'lxb3
Played after a 45-minute think,
suggesting that Vishy was now in un-
charted waters. You would not norm-
ally choose to exchange a developed
piece when your opponent was ahead
in development.
With 15 ... g6 Black can think
of deliberately closing the h5-eS
diagonal and trying to castle short
quickly. There can follow: 16 Ad2 (or
16 tLlxc5 Axc5 17 Jie4 O-O!! and
suddenly the lead in development
swings to Black! After IS Jixc6 I:IadS
19 ~b3 Axf2+ 20 <Jihl ~hal, Black
wins) 16 ... ~xe5 17 l:el ~f6 IS Ae3
and White has good compensation.
Some players with Black, who did
not find the present game absolutely
convincing, looked to improve on
Anand's play with 15 ... l:dS, and this
became the main alternative. Then
16 Ad2 (after 16 ~h5+ g6 17 .i.xg6+
hxg6 IS ~xhS tLlxb3 19 axb3 ~xal
20 ~xfS+ 'ittxfS 21 .i.h6+ r:JJf7,
Black does all right in the endgame)
16... ~xe5 (Khalifman-Hra~ek, Parnu
1996, went 16 ... l:xd2 17 tLlxd2 tLlxe5
IS tLlb3 tLled7 19 tLld4 .i.d6 20 :tc1
~b2 21 .i.b3 tLlxb3 22 axb3 0-0
23 l:c2 ~a3 24 tLlxe6 ~xb3
25 tLlxfS tLlxfS 26 ~bl) 17 I:Iel (or
17 'iVg4 .i.d6 IS f4 ~f6 19 .i.e3
tLlxb3 20 Jixb3 tLld4, and Black sur-
vives) 17 ... ~d5 IS ~g4 (or IS 'ife2,
and now after IS ... tiJxb3 19 .i.xb3
tLld4 20 ~g~ tLlxb3 21 axb3 l:d6
22 Ab4 l:tc6 23 l:ad1 'tixb3
24 ~h5+ g6 25 ~g5 ~xb4 26 ~dS+
r:JJf7 27 'iYd7+ lie7 2S ~xc6
White is better, although IS ...Ae7!?
19 I:Iadl tLlxb3 20 Axb3 tLld4
21 ~g4 ~f5 22 ~xg7 I:IfS 23 i.e3
c5 24 f3 is less clear) lS ... tiJe5
19 ~h3 gives White excellent com-
pensation for the pawns.
16.ltxb3
The white bishop was occupying
a menacing position on the other
diagonal, and at first glance you might
think that switching diagonals was not
ideal. However, Garry is so good at
changing the direction of an attack.
Black was reasonably developed, but
his knight has been swapped and his
king is still vulnerable.
16.tLld4
Black wants to remove the domin-
ating bishop from b3, but the attempt
is time-consuming.
On 16 .. .'ihal, White softens up the
Black kingside with 17 ~h5+! (in-
stead 17 ~f3 tiJdS IS ~xaS 'tWxe5
19 ~xa6 i.d6 20 f4 'tWc5+ 21 r:JJhl
156

0-0 leaves Black with a nice position),
and now:
(a) 17 ... '.itd7 IS i.xe6+ '.itxe6
19 ~g4+ '.itfl (l9 ... '.itd5 20 ~d7+
i.d6 21 ~fl+ Wxe5 22 ~xg7+
wins the queen along the diagonal)
20 ~f3+ '.ite6 (20 ... '.itgS 21 ~d5
mate) 21 ~xc6+ i.d6 22 exd6 ~e5
23 i.d2 and the black king is caught.
(b) 17... g6 IS "iVf3 ttJdS (or
IS ... 0-0-0 19 ~xc6 ~xe5 20 ~xa6+,
and if 20 ... '.it bS then 21 i. e3 +-, or
if20 ... '.itd7 then 21 .ib2!!, a beautiful
move to divert the queen) 19 I:tdl
(19 ~xaS ~xe5), when Black can try:
(bl) 19 ... l::tbS 20 ~d3! .ie7
(20...i.d6 21 exd6 Wig7 22 .ib2!
wins) 21 ~d7+ '.itfl 22 i.g5 ~xdl+
23 .ixdl I:teS 24 f4, and Black is
completely tied up.
(b2) 19... ~xe5 20 i.f4 ~f6
21 WixaS, and now:
(b21) 2l...i.e7 22 i.xc7 .
(b22) 2l...i.c5 22 nxdS+ We7
(22 ... WixdS 23 ~c6+) 23 Wic6 i.xf2+
24 Wfl (not 24 '.itxf2 ~xf4+ -+)
24 ...l:txdS 25 i.g5 ndl+ (25 .. .'~xg5
26 Wixe6+ '.itf8 27 ~fl mate)
26 i.xdl ~xg5 27 Wixc7+ ~eS
2S '.txf2, and White has excellent
winning chances.
(b23) 21 ...i.d6! 22 i.xd6 cxd6
23 'iVxa6 0-0 24 f3 d5 25 ~xb5 and
White's a-pawn gives some advant-
age, while the bishop is also some-
what better than the knight.
17Wg4 'ihal
On 17 ... ttJxb3, White wins with
IS ~xe6+ i.e7 19 i.g5.
lS.ixe6
Garry played this quickly. He made
no attempt to hide the fact that it was
all prepared.
1SI:!:dS
Nor did it take much time for Vishy
to come up with this move. Perhaps he
quickly understood that other moves
offered no chance ofresistance:
(a) Black can't get rid of the bishop
with IS ...ttJxe6, as 19 ~xe6+ i.e7
157
/995
20 i. g5 wins.
(b) If White's play had not all been
prepared, IS ... ~ c3 might have given
Black some chances: 19 il.d7+ '.itfl
(l9 ... WdS 20 i.g5+ i.e7 21 il.xe7+
'.itxe7 22 ~xg7+ brings down the
whole house) 20 il.e3 il.c5, and now:
(bl) 21 l::tdl gives Black these
choices:
(b II) 2l...l::thdS (bringing the rook
into the game and preparing an avenue
of escape for the king) 22 e6+ ~ gS
23 il.xd4 i.xd4 24 ~xd4 'ti"xd4, and
the ending is safe for Black.
(bI2) 21...ttJe2+ is also playable:
22 '.ith l! ~xe5 (not 22 ... il.xe3
23 il.e6+ \t>eS 24 Wixg7 and Black
gets mated) 23 'ti"f3+ ~g6! (23 ... '.te7
24 i.xc5+ ~xc5 25 ~xe2+ ~fl
26 ~e6+ 'it'f8 27 il.cS) 24 ~g4+
~fl and Black at least has a draw.
(b2) 21 e6+ '.itgS 22 i.xd4! (al-
though it is logical to remove a
defending piece, this is not an easy
move to see and judge in advance)
22 ...il.xd4 23 ~f5 il.f6 24 ~d5, and
Wbite regains the rook with decent
winning chances.
19.th6!!
This is an amazing move. Kasparov
played it instantly. Even if it was
home preparation, it is still impress-
ive. Garry had lost the previous game
mainly because Vishy had played
magnificently, but it is quite conceiv-
able that his mind was already partly
1995
focused on this opening. It may be just
a personal opinion, but possibly this
was one of the most important pieces
of home preparation in chess history,
if not the most important. Its effect on
the match was deadly.
19.. JWc3
No other move comes into consider-
ation. Going to b2 would have only
disadvantages compared with the
game continuation. If 19 ... 'illII xfl +
20 Wxfl gxh6, then 21 I\Wh5+ We7
22 ~f7 mate.
20 .i. xg7 'iI d3
20 ... it.xg7?? 21 ~h5+ and mates.
21 .i.xh8 'ilg6
Black can win the exchange with
2l...tLle2+ 22 Whl tLlg3+, but there
follows 23 hxg3 ~xfl + 24 Wh2l1Vd3
25 it.f5! lIVc4 (25 ... lIVdl 26 f3 +-)
26 f4 'illIIxa2 27 .i.xh7 +-.
22 it. f6 .i. e7 23 .i. xe7 'iI xg4
After 23 ... Wxe7 24 ~h4+ We8
25 it.g4 the black king is desperately
vulnerable.
24 .i. xg4 W xe7
Black has managed to avoid
outright loss in the opening, and his
position has some good points. The
knight on d4 is effectively positioned,
his queenside pawns can become
dangerous and his king is superior to
White's. However, all these factors do
not compensate for the pawn minus.
25l:!cl!
Garry is careful to stop the c-pawn
158
from moving. He played this phase of
the game slowly, to make sure of
collecting the full point. As he said,
"It's been a long time since I went two
weeks without a victory, and I didn't
want to spoil things after my brilliant
novelty."
25... c6 26 f4 a5 27 ~t2!
For a player of Garry's level this
move does not warrant an exclamation
mark, but it is instructive for club
level players, who often forget to
centralize their king in endgames.
27... a4 28 '>t>e3 b4 29 .Jidl!
This stops Black from mobilizing
his king. If instead 29 ~c4, then
29 ... a3!.
29. a3
29 ... b3 wasn't any better. It would
be met by 30 axb3 a3 31 g4.
30g4
It is time to consider the future of
his pawns. Their march will decide the
outcome.
30...~d5 31 ~c4 c5
31 ...tLlf5+ offered no hope after
32 gxf5 ~xdl 33 ~xb4.
32 '>t>e4
The energy of the king pays
dividends.
32...:td8 33 ~xc5 tLle6
After 33 ... b3 34 it.xb3 tLlxb3
35 axb3 tta8 36 ttc7+ ~f8 37 :a.cl
White has too many passed pawns, so
he can afford to have a passive rook
on al for a while. Then 37 ... a2 38 ~al
Wf7 39 b4 wins.
34 ~d5 ~c8 35 f5 ~c4+ 36 '>t>e3
tLlc5 37 g5:tel 38 :!::td6 1-0
The game was mixture of several
interesting elements - faulty home-
work and the unfortunate repetition of
an opening, allowing the opponent's
perfect preparation to be implemented
over the board. The attack was
devastating, and although Anand did
very well to survive the opening,
Kasparov's powerful play left him
with little chance.

Game eleven was even more
shocking for Anand.
Game 30
V.Anand White
G.Kasparov Black
PCA World Championship
(II th game), New York 1995
Sicilian Defence {B78]
1 e4 c5
Anand probably expected another
Najdorf. Life always holds surprises.
2 ll'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll'lxd4 ll'lf6
5ll'lc3 g6!
Garry's first Dragon with Black -
and it turns out to be a very effective
choice. Anand didn't have a bad
record against the Dragon, but its
appearance in this match put him in a
difficult situation. He would rarely
have faced it since becoming a top
player, and had probably not analysed
it since his early days. His confidence
in his own preparation had been
shaken in the previous game, and now
he had to deal with Garry's readiness
for action in another line. This game
illustrates the advantage that a World
Champion gains from not having to
play qualifying matches: the fact that
he can simply wait for a challenger to
emerge allows him to conceal his
prepared weapons. Had Garry played
as many matches as Anand had done
in the lead up to the World Champ-
ionship final, he might have been
forced to utilize this weapon earlier.
On the other hand we should
remember that Karpov too had the
same advantage, and it didn't stop
Kasparov from dethroning him!
6i.e3
After some thought, Vishy chooses
the most testing continuation. Chess is
war, and the more weapons you have,
the better. The move 6 g3!? is not
dangerous, but it might have served
Anand better at this point. An
objectively safe line would have
159
1995
provided him with a secure position
and a relatively quick draw, enabling
him to adjust to the surprise of having
to face the Dragon.
6..i. g7 7 f3 0-0 8 ~ d2 ll'l c6
9i.c4
This move suits Anand's style more
than 9 0-0-0.
9.i.d7 100-0-0 ll'le5 11 i. b3l::tc8
The other main line is II.. .'~. a5 and
l:tf8-c8. The game continuation is
more popular in modem chess.
12 h4 h5
This is the Soltis variation.
13 'It>bl
Diverging from the main line -
which isn't a bad idea against an
opponent who is playing a variation
for the first time. The justification for
this move is that if Black replies ~d8-
a5, White can play ll'lc3-d5 without
worrying about ~ a5xd2 which would
otherwise be check.
13ll'lc4 14 iLxc4l:hc4 15ll'lde2
Supporting the other knight. White
would like to exchange Black's
fianchettoed bishop, but if he does so
at once he allows a typical exchange
sacrifice on c3.
15. b5
Garry could preserve his bishop by
I5 ...l::te8, but that would cost a tempo.
He probably felt time was more
important.
16 i.h6 ~a5!?
This was first played in the game
1995
Suetin-Szabo in the Leningrad tourn-
ament of 1967, marking the annivers-
ary of the 1917 October Revolution.
Incidentally, Garry took part in the
last tournament of this series, and
came second behind Karpov who won
by an imposing margin.
The last time this move was played
was in the present game - it has not
been repeated. The most common
move is 16... b4; then after 17 i.xg7
~xg7 18 CiJd5 CiJxd5 19 exd5 "iVa5
20 b3 J::tc5 21 g4! White gained the
initiative in Wolff - Georgiev, Biel
1993. Wolff was one of Anand's
seconds, and Garry probably re-
membered this during the course of
the game.
17 i.xg7
The above-mentioned pioneer game
Suetin - Szabo went 17 i.g5? b4
18 CiJd5 CiJxd5 19 ~xd5 l':tc5, giving
Black a nice position. After 20 ~ d3
i.e6 21 liJcl "iVa4 22 i.xe7 :!::tfc8
23 l:td2 i.c3 24 i..xd6 i..xa2+
25 CiJxa2 IIa5 26 ~cl ~xa2 27 ~dl
'iVxb2 28 i.f4 i.xd2 29 ~xd2 :ta3,
Suetin resigned. Szabo's play was
truly remarkable - going through this
game gives you the urge to play the
Dragon!
17..<Jixg7 18liJf4
Later in 1999 at Dortmund, the
young German player Zaragatski tried
18 g4 against Kartsev, but in the
present case Anand wanted to handle
the position quietly.
18..J::trc8
18 ... l:hc3 is also probably playable
here. However, as White has slowed
down, Black doesn't need to resort to
such a radical measure. The preferable
recapture would be 19 'iVxc3, allow-
ing a queen exchange.
19liJcd5
Anand swaps queens and bids
farewell to any kingside attack.
Kasparov mentioned after the game
that White must play g2-g4 if wants to
get an advantage. We must never-
160
theless be very careful when listening
to top professionals talking about
openings, as they are unlikely to
divulge any major insights that might
be useful to future opponents.
19.. JWxd2
After making this move Kasparov
offered a draw. Later he suggested
that 19... b4 20 liJxe7 l:txc2 21 "iVxd6
b3 22 axb3 l:txb2+ 23 '.t>xb2 ~c3+
24 Wa2 l':tc5 25 "Ixc5 "iVxc5
26 liJed5 was unclear, although if
anyone has the better game it must be
White.
201hd2
Anand thought for four minutes
before refusing the draw. Obviously
he was not thinking about what to play
next. Up to here, all draw offers in the
match had been accepted.
20..liJxd5 21liJxd5 'itfS
22l:te1
Anand places his rook on a file
already blocked by his own pawn,
which looks a little baffling. He prob-
ably wanted to bring this rook into
play along the third rank.
22 .l:tb8
Garry copies White's idea, but here
it is harder to understand why. Even
an experienced grandmaster like
Benjamin called it mysterious; he
mentioned 22 ...i.e6 instead. Why did
Garry play the rook move, then?
Maybe he just wanted to wait. Maybe
he wanted to control the b6-square in

preparation for gammg space with
a7-a5. Even though Kasparov and his
team prepared the whole opening with
great care, they cannot have had the
same depth of understanding that they
had with the Najdorf. Nevertheless
this is a decent defensive move.
23 b3
Anand does not choose to place his
rook on the third. Instead he creates
space for his king and expels the black
rook from the fourth rank. With
23 tte3, White could have tried to
exert a little pressure from b3 or a3. In
his Iriformant analysis Kasparov con-
tinues with 23 ... a5 (now the rook from
b8 controls the b6-square) 24 J:ta3 a4.
This gives us the solution to the
puzzle regarding Black's 220d move.
23...ttc5 24 t'iJf4 ttbc8
You need to think a while to deduce
the reasons for this last pair of moves.
Maybe Anand wanted to threaten
e4-e5 (exploiting the loose bishop on
d7), and Garry prepared to meet this
by counter-attacking against c2.
25 \tb2
If25 e5, then 25 ...~f5.
25.. a5 26 a3 \t g7?
This is a brave move, as the king is
leavin.s the e7-square unprotected.
27 t'iJd5
Anand could have tried to get rid
of the doubled rooks on the c-file
with 27 l:te3!?, planning t'iJf4-e2 or
t'iJf4-d5 and l:Ie3-c3. This would ease
161
1995
the pressure and give White more
chance of becoming active. After
swapping a pair of rooks, White could
think about b3-b4.
27 ~e6
After 27 ...:!:Ie8 28 b4 axb4 29 axb4
J:tc6 30 J:tal, White will exert
pressure. Black has to wait and see
how White will try to crack the
position.
28 b4?
This is a mistake. It might have had
a lot to do with the fact that Anand
had not fully recovered from the
stunning defeat in the previous game.
Players are no longer entitled to take a
'time-out' after a loss, so the standard
of play can marginally drop. In the
USA people travel a long way to
watch a match, and when they arrive
they don't want to find that there is an
free day. Furthermore such delays
make it difficult to present chess as a
television event. The World Champ-
ionship matches can become more of
a sporting event if there is day-to-day
continuity .
The correct order of moves was
28 t'iJxe7! l':te8 29 t'iJd5 (29 b4 merely
transposes after 29 ... axb4 30 axb4
J:tc4 31 llld5) 29 ...~xd5 30 b4 axb4
31 axb4 ttc4 32 J:txd5, leading to a
critical position:
(a) 32 ... J:tec8 33 c3! (Garry misses
this in his Informant analysis, where
he shows that 33 J:te2 J:txb4+ 34 Wcl
ttc6 35 J:ted2 J:ta6! 36 rJtdl l:Ib1+
37 We2 J:tb2 is equal) 33 ...l:txc3
1995
34 l:e2. White may only be winning
one pawn, but it is sufficient.
(b) 32 ...l:txb4+, and now:
(b 1) 33 '1t c 1 f5!. Black is wise to
exchange as many pawns as he can.
His vulnerable pawns at d6 and b5
will be swapped; after 34 ttxd6 fxe4
he holds the position easily.
(b2) 33 '1tc3!. Quite incredibly,
both Kasparov and Benjamin missed
this surprising triangulation. It is
rather unusual for the king to move up
the board when the opponent's rooks
are close by, but White has enough
material to provide cover: 33 ... ~c4+
34 '1tb3 (in this case, triangulating
does not have the purpose of losing a
tempo) 34 ...l:tec8 35 :te2 l:tc3+
36 '1tb2, and Black must shed a pawn.
In rook endings, especially with all 4
rooks on the board, this doesn't mean
the game is over. After 36 ...l:t3c6 (if
36 ... '1tf6 37 l:hd6+ '1te5 38 l:td5+
~f4 39 l:xb5 '1tg3 40 l:tb7, Black's
king is active but the two-pawn deficit
is quite substantial), let us see what
may happen:
(b21) 37 l:xb5 \tJf6 38 f4 (or
38 lld2 \tJe6, and Black has stabilized
his position. He is still a pawn down,
but White has a hard task to make
progress. It is very difficult to say
whether White can win here) 38 ...11c4
39 l::rb6 We7 40 g3, and I would
estimate White's winning chances as
50-50.
(b22) 37 lled2, and now:
(b221) 37 ...l:tc4 38 l:txb5 (or
38 l::rxd6 l::rb4+ 39 '1tcl l::ra8 40 Wdl)
38 .. J::t8c6 39 :tbd5 l:tb6+ 40 Wcl
l:a4 41 \tJdl. In all lines White has
excellent winning chances, but Black
might get away with a draw as it is not
simple to create a passed pawn.
(b222) 37 ... Wf6, when White can
try:
(b2221) 38 l::rxd6+ l:xd6 39l:txd6+
We5 40 l::rd7 (after 40 l:td5+ Wf4
41 llxb5 '1tg3 4211b7:tfS Black's h-
pawn will give him counter-chances)
162
40 .. .':iJf4 (if 40 ...:f8, then 41 g3
keeps the black king away from the
kings ide pawns and wins) 41 l:xt7+
~g3 42 l:f6 l:tg8 43 f4 \tJxh4
(43 ...'1txg2 44 f5). Black will win the
g2-pawn, and his own passed h-pawn
will be dangerous.
(b2222) 38 J:hb5 (perhaps best)
38 ... <JJe6. We cannot say defmitively
that this was a win for Anand, but it
was certainly a very good chance to
retake the lead. Then the whole match
might have followed a different path.
28 axb4 29 axb4 l:c4
30 ltJb6??
A dreadful blunder which costs
Anand the game. After 30 liJxe7, the
neat intermediate move 30 ... J:t8c7! is
embarrassing for White. Then 31 ltJd5
ii.xd5 32 J:txd5 IIxc2+ 33 Wbl I:txg2
34 l::tcl (34 l:ihb5 l:tc3 would also
give White a hard time) 34 ... l:txcl+
35 ~xcl :12 was assessed by
Kasparov as clearly better for Black,
but it is not completely over.
30 .lhb4+ 31 Wa31hc2!! 0-1
After 32 '1txb4 l:xd2, Black will be
two pawns up. The same is true of
32 I1xc2 I1b3+ 33 \tJa2 l:te3 34 Wb2
l:txe 1. This was a pretty and effective
way of forcing the challenger to
resign. The material advantage and the
disappearance of one pair of rooks
signalled the end of resistance.
Anand evidently caused Garry prob-
lems again by going for a slow offens-

ive in a sharp Sicilian, but when he
was close to reaping the rewards of his
intelligent play, he blundered horribly.
It is sad that this awful oversight
effectively decided the outcome of the
match. Since the first endless Karpov-
Kasparov contest, we all know the
drawback of playing until a pre-
determined number of wins is
achieved, but the kind of match with a
limited number of games has its dis-
advantages too. What happened in the
second half of the Short-Kasparov
match was repeated now: from a
certain point on, one of the players
virtually stopped playing for a win,
which cut the entertainment value of
the play. Clearly players must adopt
the approach which gives them the
best chance of winning the match;
chess is very much a sport. It is a pity
that this was not a great game. Garry
took a considerable amount of risk,
and withstood the enormous pressure
better. In chess, the result counts - and
Kasparov won.
In game twelve, Vishy switched to
the Arkhangelsk Variation in the main
line Ruy Lopez. Garry was well
prepared and obtained a clear edge in
the opening. He then let Anand reach
an endgame, which many comment-
ators suggested he should have
avoided. The endgame was slightly
better for Kasparov when his rook was
allowed to get to the seventh. Anand
looked to be in a tough situation, but
Garry returned the favour of the
previous game by blundering. This
dido't lose outright, as it had done for
Ana.'ld. Garry was able to escape with
a draw instead of having to defend a
very difficult position.
Game thirteen was another nail in
Anand's coffin, but the play was
extremely interesting.
163
1995
Game 31
V.Anand White
G.Kasparov Black
PCA World Championship
(13 th game), New York 1995
Sicilian Defence [BT1]
1 e4?!
Of course I e4 is no weaker than
I d4, but at this stage Anand would
have profited significantly from
having I d4 prepared as an alternative.
Had he played it a couple of times, he
might have forced Kasparov to expend
his energy on that instead of working
on the Dragon. The Indian grand-
master tried his fortunes in both the
PCA and FIDE World Champion-
ships. Perhaps if he had entered only
one of them, it would have made
a difference to his match against
Kasparov. That said, Kasparov in
1995 was the strongest player of all,
so the chances were that things would
go his way in any case.
l...c5 2ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltJxd4
ltJC6 5ltJc3 g6
Thi!; was certainly a surprise. Garry
had already acquired a one-point lead
- which in effect meant a two-point
lead, seeing that in the case of a drawn
match the Champion would retain his
title. Garry has played for a draw on
very few occasions in his career. He
did so when he was 5:0 down against
Karpov; generally though, he plays to
win all his games and he gives his
best. This is an admirable quality.
Even some of the previous World
Champions did not give everything all
the time. Maybe Garry had prepared a
few openings to which he could resort
in order to achieve a draw; however,
for someone who has gone in for risks
all his life, playing safe can be the
riskier option, as he has no experience
of that approach.
6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 ~d2 lLlc6 8 f3 0-0
9 .i.c4 .i.d7 10 b4
This is where Vishy deviates from
1995
the ninth game; he wants to take
advantage of delayed castling. It
shows his respect for Garry's opening
preparation. Though some of Anand's
seconds will certainly have worked
hard on the main lines of the Dragon,
there is some point to his strategy
here: in a sideline, Garry's limited
experience is more likely to tell.
10 h511.i.b3
The early bishop retreat is a feature
of the Accelerated Dragon.
1l ...l:Ic8
1l...ll'lxd4 12 .txd4 b5 could be
played in an attempt to exploit the
voluntary bishop retreat.
12ll'lxc6?!
This is certainly not a common way
of cracking the Yugoslav Dragon.
Anand wants to exchange the bishop
on g7. The knight exchange stops the
standard manoeuvre ll'lc6-e5-c4. On
the other hand, it strengthens Black's
pawn structure in the centre.
12.. bxc6 13 .i.h6 c5
Black must play on the queenside
by putting pressure on the b-file. In
the Dragon, if Black's queens ide play
is thwarted he is usually in trouble. He
is often able to sacrifice the exchange
with .t g7 -hS, but at this particular
moment it doesn't look adequate:
13 ....thS 14 .i.xfB (taking the ex-
change is promising; White can also
carry on the attack with 14 ~g5 Wh7
15 .txfB ~xfB 16 g4) 14 ... <.t>xfB
164
150-0-0. Black's problem is that if he
doesn't move the knight from f6, the
bishop on hS has no scope and in
some lines White will play e4-e5;
while if the knight does move, g2-g4
may follow.
14.i.c4
Anand has to stop c5-c4. He does so
with his bishop. Another possibility is
14 .i. xg7 Wxg7 15 ~ e2, when the
queen helps towards the same end.
The game Madl-Farago, Budapest
19S9, continued with 15 .. :.wc7
(15 .. y.Wb6!?, exerting pressure on b2
as in the current game, looks better;
after 16 0-0-0 nbS 17 e5 dxe5
IS ib'xe5 .tc6 Black is doing all
right) 16 .tc4 nbS 17 0-0-0 l:tb4
IS b3 .i.e6?! (lS ....i.c6 19 llhe1ll'ld7
20 g4 is unclear) 19 .txe6 fxe6 20 a3
l:td4 21 ll'lb5 l:txdl+ 22 l:txdl ~a5
23 e5 and White gained the advantage.
I 4'" b6
When attacking a weakness, the
rook usually leads the way. If the
target is the enemy king, however,
the queen often takes priority - since
a check by this piece has more
likelihood of being called by a
different name. In Tolnai - Watson,
Kecskemet 19S5, the continuation was
14 ...l:tbS 15 0-0-0 l:tb4 16 .i.b3 fIIc7
17 .txg7 Wxg7 IS a3l::td4, and Black
obtained an unclear, playable position
- which is what Dragon players are
looking for.
15 .i.xg7 <lJxg7 16 b3.i.e6
In the Dragon Black is often willing
to accept doubled e-pawns.
17ll'ld5
Or 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 (Black will meet
IS 0-0-0 with lS ...c4) lSll'le2 (if the
knight could reach f4 it would give
Black trouble, but his next move
easily stops it) lS ... e5 (after lS ...d5 19
~g5, the g6-square is weak) and the
position is roughly equal.
17....i.xd518 exd5
White hopes to obtain play against
the e7-pawn. If he successfully com-

bines this with g2-g4, the position will
become unpleasant for Black.
18... e5!
Simple and strong, as it gets rid of
the weakness. It is very likely Anand
analysed this position during his
preparation.
19 dxe6?
Garry criticized this move after
the game. He preferred 19 0-0-0,
assessing it as equal. (This is better
than castling the other side, because
now it is difficult for Black to move
his knight without allowing g2-g4,
endangering his king.)
Anand and his team probably
misjudged something in their home
analysis. Alternatively, Vishy's desire
to win the game could have made him
risk too much.
19..d5!
Kasparov takes control. In the event
of 19 ... fxe6 20 i.d3, White's pawn
structure is slightly better.
20 i.e2 c4!
According to Kasparov this was the
frrst time he had ever prevented
castling on both wings simultaneous-
ly. As a result of this move, castling
short is illegal and castling long would
be tantamount to a blunder. Instead,
20 .. .'~!he6 21 0-0 would give an equal
position (21 0-0-0 would leave
White's king more vulnerable). The
move played is very strong and
brings the challenger down in only
165
1995
five more moves.
21 c3?
This is virtually the losing mistake.
White needs to challenge the queen on
b6. The move he plays prevents a
subsequent ~b6-d4 but leaves the
rook on a 1 undeveloped.
The Champion's recommendation is
21 l::tdl. It is remarkable that in
several Sicilian lines Black plays
~d8-b6 or (in certain variations of the
Rauzer) V/Jie7-a7 or ~a5-c5, so that
the dominant white queen on d4 can
be diverted from its diagonal. This
time it is White who wants to
play Vii d4 so as to divert the black
queen from b6. There could follow:
2l...~xe6 (or 2l...c3 22 ~d4 fxe6
23 f4 ~h6 24 ~xb6 axb6 25 0-0, and
White can probably hold the ending)
22 0-0 l::tfe8 23 l::tfel Viib6+ 24 ~fl
(not 24 ~d4? cxb3 25 cxb3 ~c2 and
Black wins a pawn) 24 ...J::te5 25 ~d4
~xd4 26 llxd4 cxb3 27 cxb3 l:tc2
28 tta4. Even if Black has a slight
advantage, White is much better here
than in the game.
21...l:tce8!!
This is a very stylish attacking
move. Black wants to double on the e-
file, but he moves his better developed
rook. Incidentally, as a teenager Garry
had played a similar subtle rook move
in the 1980 Malta Olympiad.
From the diagram, Kasparov-Natsis
concluded: 18 l::tbc!! e6 19 Ac4 e5
20 i.b3 Ad7 21 l::tc7 as 22 d6 b5
23 f4 exf4+ 24 ~xf4 l::ta6 25 e5 a4
1995
26 .ltd5 a3 27 lIfl l:ta4+ 28 We3
i.e6 29 il.xe6 fxe6 30 l:tffl l:th4
31 :ctg7+ Wh8 32 l:tge7 1-0.
Back to the current game. The more
prosaic approach with 21...'~xe6 was
also better for Black: 22 l:b 1 (Black
has the same answer to 22 0-0 or
22 b4) 22 ... l:tfe8, and White is very
unpleasantly tied up in all variations.
22 bxc4
There is no way out of White's
trouble; other moves do not last much
longer:
(a) 22 exfl l:txfl 23 l:tfl (or
23 Wdl J:He7 24l:tel, and now either
24 ... d4 25 cxd4 tiJd5 and the white
king is defenceless, or 24 ... ~f2 which
also wins) 23 ... l:tfe7 24 I1f2 l:txe2+
25 J:he2 'iVgl mate - as demonstrated
by the winner.
(b) 22 ~d4 'iVxe6 (after 22 ... ~xd4
23 cxd4l:txe6 24 Wf2l:tfe8 25l:thel,
White's position has been relieved)
23 ~d2 d4! (not the only win, but a
nice way to bring the last piece into
the attack) 24 cxd4 (24 bxc4 dxc3
25 ~d3 J:e7 26 Wfl J:b8 27 l:Iel
l:tb2 wins) 24 ... c3 25 'iVdJ tiJd5
White loses at least his bishop.
22...l:he6 23wn
White no longer has any real chance
to bring his king to safety: 23 cxd5
tte5 24 Wfl (24 f4 l:txd5 25 ~c2
l:te8 wins) 24 ... tiJxd5 25 ~d4 ~f6
(Black would need good technique to
win the position after 25 .. JHe8
26 ~xb6 axb6 27 .lta6 tiJxc3 28 Wf2
l:ta5) 26 Wgl lIxe2 27 ~xd5 lld8
28 ~g5 ~xc3 29 Wh2 ~xf3
30 l:thfl ~d5, and Black wins.
23 J:tfe8 24 i.d3
It was too late to bring the rook to
the defence with 24 I:te 1, as the: pos-
ition is too open. Black's pieces would
force a win with 24 ... dxc4 25 g3 l:td6
26 ~cl (or 26 ~g5 tiJd5) 26 ...tiJg4,
catching the white king.
24. dxc4 25 .It xc4
The poor white bishop has moved
no less than six times in the course of
166
this short game!
25...tiJe4! 0-1
Vishy's position is in ruins, so there
was no point in playing on. You get
the impression that on this occasion,
even if there had been a miraculous
way to escape, he would not have
found it. Anand was playing below
par, taking too much of a risk; but
Garry built up and finished the attack
in his usual powerful and subtle way.
One possible conclusion might have
been: 26 fxe4 (or 26 'tlVel l:td6!,
forcing White to take the knight; then
after 27 fxe4 I:tf6+ 28 We2 Ilxe4+ he
loses his queen) 26 ... l:tf6+ 27 WeI
I1xe4+ 28 il.e2 ~f2+ 29 Wdl l:he2,
and White is lost.
Game fourteen was the only real
fighting game to produce a decisive
result. The other four wins were either
one-sided or marred by a horrible
oversight.
Game 32
G.Kasparov White
V.Anand Black
PCA World Championship
(l4 th game), New York 1995
Scandinavian Defence [BOI]
1 e4 d5!?
A big surprise, but a good choice of
opening. Garry's experience with the
Scandinavian (or Centre Counter) is

limited; this important fact explains
the exclamation mark. Naturally he
had prepared for this defence before,
but not to the same extent as the other
openings he was anticipating. What
about the question mark? You might
suppose it was added because of some
doubts about the soundness of the
opening, but such doubts were
immaterial since Anand desperately
needed to win. The question mark is
given for an unusual reason: the
timing of the surprise. Had Vishy
uncorked it after the game he had
won, it would have put Garry in a
more difficult situation.
2 exd5 ~xd5 3lLlc3
Given the state of the match, 3 d4
might have been a less complicated
option. In that line it isn't too easy for
Black to obtain sharp play.
3...~a5
Six years later, in Kasparov-Rogers,
EUR-ASIA rapid 2001, the Australian
grandmaster played 3 .. :~d6 here. He
eventually lost, but in the opening he
played well, achieving equality after
4 d4 lLlf6 5 ~d3 Ag4 6 f3 ~h5
7 lLlge2 a6 S ~f4 ~d7 9 d5 ~g6
10 "iVd2 Axd3 11 ~xd3 g6 12 0-0-0
~g7 13 ~c4 c6 14 d6 0-0 15 Wbl
:re8 16lLlg3 exd6 17 Axd6 ~e6.
4 d4lLlr6
Black can also play c7-c6 and
.tcS-f5 without lLlgS-f6; this stops a
dangerous line with .tcl-d2 and
lLlc3-d5. On the other hand Black is
sometimes confronted with an early
g2-g4 and 12-4.
5 lLl f3 c6 6 lLl e5
It would be interesting to know how
long beforehand this opening had
been prepared. Was Garry readjusting
during the game, because of the
special circumstances? His openings
are not normally prepared for safety.
Up to this point in his career, which
had lasted about 20 years, his intent-
ion had always been to play with great
precision in the attempt to ~e the
167
/995
initiative as early as he could. Apart
from his first Karpov match, this was
only the second time he had tried to
do nothing more than neutralize his
opponent's play. He would be happy
with a draw here.
The commonest move in this
variation is 6 ~c4, while 6 .td2 is
also more popular than the game
continuation.
6...~e6!?
This is the main move. Against
6... ~ fS, Garry could have settled for
7 .td3. Whether Black develops his
bishop to e6 or fS, White can choose
whether or not to simplifY by ex-
changing it off. Avoiding the bishop
exchange means greater complications
- but this is what Anand wants,
because of the need to win.
Two years later, playing the White
side of this opening, Anand answered
6 ....tfS with 7 ~c4. He gave a marv-
ellous performance, which I believe
will appear in all his selected games
anthologies. There followed: 7 ... e6
8 g4 Ag6 9 h4 lLlbd7! 10 lLlxd7
lLlxd7 11 h5 .te4 12 trh3 ~g2 (the
German grandmaster Matthias Wahls,
a Scandinavian specialist, has written
an excellent book on this opening in
which he recommends 12 ...~d5!?
13 ~d3 c5) 13 tre3! lLlb6 14 ~d3!
lLld5 15 f3! Ab4 16 'it't2! .txc3
17 bxc3 'iVxc3 IS trbl ~xd4
19 lhb7 l:tdS
20 h6!! gxh6? 21 ~g6!! lLle7
22 ~xd4 %hd4 23 trd3! l::td8
1995
24 I:txd8+ <J:ixd8 25 Ad3! 1-0,
Anand - Lautier, Switzerland 1997.
From this game we can see what a
special player the Indian grandmaster
really is.
7Ad3
Kasparov picks up the gauntlet. The
state of the match might have en-
couraged him to play the less combat-
ive 7 Ac4 Axc4 (on 7 ...GtJd5, a
testing reply is 8 ~f3; if instead
8 .Jtd2, then 8 ... ~b6) 8 GtJxc4, when
White is risking very little.
7..GtJbd7
Black sometimes postpones this
knight move and develops his bishop
to g7 fIrst.
8f4?!
Supporting the knight on e5, but
Kasparov was not subsequently
impressed by this move. Now the
position suddenly becomes double-
edged.
After 8 ~e2 GtJxe5 9 dxe5 GtJd7
10 f4 GtJc5 11 Ac4 I:td8, Black looks
safe. The exchange 8 lLlxd7 also sets
him few problems: 8 ....Jtxd7 9 0-0
Ag4 (in San Segundo - Ricardi,
Buenos Aires 1995, Black came off
well from 9 ... e6 10 .Jlf4 ~b6 II lLle2
c5) 10 GtJe2 e6 11 c3 Ad6 12 ~c2
"fic7 13 h3 Ah5 14 ::reI Ag6, with
equality.
8 g6 9 0-0
It looks too risky to castle long.
After 9 ~e2 Ag7 10 .Jtd2 ~b6
II 0-0-0 ~xd4 12 Ae3 'iYb4, Black's
position is solid.
9.Ag7 10 <J:ihl
Perhaps this is over-cautious.
Alternatives were:
(a) 10 a3!? 'iYb6 (after 10 ...0-0
11 .lte3, it looks as if White can
maintain the centre and then gain
space with b2-b4) 11 lLlc4 'iYc7
12 'iYe2 is better for White than the
game continuation.
(b) 10 f5 gxf5 II .Jtxf5 GtJxe5
12 Axe6 fxe6 13 dxe5 'iYxe5, and
White has compensation for the pawn;
168
the position is probably balanced.
10..AfS!
Black stops f4-f5.
n.tc4?!
Garry probably didn't fully under-
stand Vishy's designs. After II .txB
gxf5 12 .lte3 it would be harder for
Black to create complications.
The move Kasparov recommends as
an improvement is 11 .lte3. Then
11 ....Jlxd3 12 ~xd3 I:td8 looks better
for White than the game.
11...e6
Black develops in a relaxed way,
correctly judging that White cannot
advantageously target the bishop on
B.
12.te2?!
Garry loses another tempo and
forces Black to develop further. After
12 lLlxd7 Wxd7 13 lLle2 (13 .lte3
GtJg4), White is passive but his
position is solid.
12 hS 13 .lte3?!
Kaminski played 13 .Jlf3 against
Gelashvili in Guarapura 1995; then
came 13 ...I:td8 14 "fie2. Stepping
away from the d-fIle looks more
attractive.
13..I:td8!
This develops the rook, and the pin
on the d-fIle is somewhat uncomfort-
able for White. The rook also defends
the knight at d7, which means Black
may now play lLlf6-d5 at some stage.
14Agl?!

Kasparov wants to evade the knight
attacks, but this is an ugly move and
another backward move with a bishop.
14 .tt2 anticipates ttJf6-d5, but
allows 14 ... ttJg4 15 .lih4 ttJe3
16 ttJc4 ttJxdl 17 ttJxa5 ttJe3
18 .txd8 <;t>xd8 and Black stands
better at the end of the fireworks.
Stepping off the d-file with
14 ~cl!? may be best: 14... ttJg4
(14 ...0-0 can be met by 15 a3; if Black
doesn't undermine the centre, White
gains space on the queenside) 15 .ligl
ttJdxe5 (15 ... c5?? 16 ttJc4!) 16 dxe5,
and now on the immediate 16 ... g5 the
White centre doesn't collapse because
of the neat reply 17 .lid3!.
14...0-0
A nice patient move, continuing to
build up Black's position. When
players badly want to win, they often
forget to prepare adequately.
With 14... ttJd5 Black had a chance
to try something at once: 15 ttJc4
VIiIc7 16 VIiId2 .lih6!? (still trying to
force matters; on 16... h4 17 ttJe3
ttJxe3 18 .lixe3, White seems to keep
his position together), and now:
(a) 17 ttJe3 ttJxf4 (17 ....txf4?
18 ttJexd5 wins) 18 tLlxf5 gxf5
19 .lie3 ttJxe2 20 tLlxe2 (20 ~xe2)
20 ....lixe3 21 ~xe3 ttJf6 and Black's
pawn is probably worth more than
White's compensation.
(h) 17 ttJ xd5 cxd5 and White has
two choices:
(hI) 18 ttJe3 .lixf4 19 ttJxd5 .txd2
20 ttJxc7+ <Jile7 21 c3 a6 (Black tries
to trap the knight) 22 J::tadl .lig5
23 d5 (the rescue comes in time -
after some exciting play, White
does all right) 23 ...ttJf6 (23 ... <;t>d6
24 dxe6+) 24 .lic5+ <;t>d7 25 ttJxa6
bxa6 26 dxe6+ <Jilxe6 27 i.c4+ <;t>e5
28 .lib6!!. This subtle move _gives
White the better chances; if 28 ... l:Ixdl
29 l:.xdl J:.c8, then 30 .td4+ <;t>d6
31.lixf6+.
(h2) 18 ttJe5 ~xc2 (18 ... ttJxe5
19 dxe5 ~xe5?? 20 .td4) 19 ~xc2
169
1995
.lixc2 20 .lib5 and White cannot lose.
15.tf3
On many occasions Kasparov has
made several moves with a single
piece, and the conception has involved
great subtlety. In the present case,
however, these moves give the
impression that he doesn't have a
clear plan. It has a lot to do with his
relative lack of experience with the
Scandinavian. I once introduced a
novelty myself against another incred-
ible player - Tal. The former World
Champion lost his way completely in
the new opening situation. Far from
detracting from the talent of the
Latvian genius, this merely shows that
he too needed time to absorb new
ideas. Chess can create such new
problems that even the greatest talents
need some time to readjust.
White cannot play 15 h3 to go after
the bishop on f5, in view of 15 ... c5
16 g4 hxg4 17 hxg4 cxd4! 18 Jixd4
ttJxe5 19 fxe5 tLlxg4 20 .lixg4 .txe5
and the White position falls apart.
15.ttJd5
Matthias Wahls recommended the
excellent move 15 ... c5!, creating
further problems for White. I agree
with his opinion. There can follow:
(a) 16 i.xb7?!. Now Black gets the
better game with either 16.. :~b6
17 ~t3 cxd4 or 16 ... ttJxe5 17 fxe5
ttJg4 18 h3 cxd4.
(b) 16 ~cl cxd4! 17 .lixd4 ttJxe5
1995
18 Axe5 ~d7 (simple and strong)
19 l::tdl (with 19 h3 White can try to
trap the bishop, but this fails to
19... ~fd8 20 Axf6 Axf621 g4 hxg4
22 hxg4 J:td2 and wins) 19... J:txd1+
20 ~xdl lLlg4 21 Axg4 ~xg4 and
according to the German GM, Black is
better.
(c) 16 'iVe2, and now:
(cl) 16...lLlg4 17 lLlc4 (17 lLlxg4
hxg4 18 Axg4 cxd4 is what Black is
aiming for) 17 ... 'iVc7 18 lLlb5 ~xf4
19 h3 lLlgf6 20 lLlcd6 is unclear.
(c2) 16... cxd4 17 Axd4 ~b4, when
White has:
(c21) 18 ~fdl lLlxe5 (but not
18 ... ~xb2?? At this point a surpris-
ing mistake crept into the World
Champion's Informant analysis; he
missed the intermediate move
19 lLlc4!, giving White a massive
advantage after 19 .. :iVb4 20 ~abl
"ilJe7 21 ~xb7) 19 Axe5 lLlg4 and
Black's position is pleasanter to play.
(c22) 18 l::tadl lLlxe5 19 Axe5
lLlg4 20 Axg7 ~xg7, and Black's
position is preferable.
16lLlxdS
White accompanied this move with
a draw offer. He is already somewhat
worse. Kasparov offered a large
number of draws in the course of the
match, even when he had taken the
lead. Anand cannot have been too
happy about it.
16. exdS
Vishy took this decision after a few
minutes'thought.
17 An
In the last 11 moves Garry has made
7 with his bishops, and the position is
not open. This time he wants to have
18 AM available after 17 ... lLlf6.
17"ilJc7
Bringing the queen back - nothing
spectacular, but strong.
18~cl
Garry seldom gets into such a
passive position. He still attempts to
create threats rather than wait and see
170
what Anand will try.
18. f6 19lLld3
With 19lLlxd7 White could think of
playing passively, trying to hold the
position by exchanging alI the rooks.
19...~fe8
This very natural move might be an
expensive inaccuracy. It allows Garry
time to create some play, though
Black will still have an edge. Know-
ing how the game was to develop, you
might think it would have been more
effective to occupy this file with the
other rook. Over the board, such
things are too hard even for these
players to calculate. After 19... ~de8!?
20 b3 lLl b6 21 c4 WIi f7, White would
not have A f2-M combined with
lLld3-e5 at his disposal.
With 19... lLlb6! the black knight
could start its journey to the key d6-
square without wasting a tempo: 20 b3
lLlc8 (or 20 .. :~f7 21 "ilJd2 lLlc8
22 l::tcel lLld6) 21 c4 Wif7 22 cxd5
(after 22 c5 White's position is
passive again) 22 ...cxd5 23 ~el lLld6,
and Black is somewhat better. More
importantly, White has no time to
create counterplay.
20 b3 lLl b6 21 a4!
Even when the black king is on the
other side of the board, Garry pushes
his rook's pawn. There is nothing
directly wrong with playing 21 c4 at
once, though Black would still have
the edge after 2l...dxc4 22 bxc4 'i f7 .

21. ..lllc8!
Ever since playing 16... exd5, Black
has been eyeing the opportunity to
bring his knight to the hole on e4. He
has waited 5 moves before starting the
manoeuvre.
22 c4 ~f7 23 a5
23 c5 would not only reduce his
own chances,but also Black's. It is a
matter of taste which of these inferior
positions one prefers to defend.
23...1.f8
Kasparov recommended stopping
the pawn with 23 ... a6 24 cxd5 cxd5
25 lllc5 llld6. According to the
Champion this was somewhat better
for Black.
24 cxd5 cxd5 25 i. h4
Garry wants to play too - he is not
satisfied with watching his opponent.
25...lLId6
26a6!
We have already seen Kasparov
carry out some amazing marches with
his flank pawns. Playing this way, he
has very occasionally lost games -
against Karpov, in some GrOnfeld
lines. What is the point of playing this
pawn move on the edge of the board?
Surprisingly, Garry is actually pre-
paring a sacrifice in the centre! This
push either strengthens White's con-
trol over the c5-square or paves the
way for an attack on the a7-pawn.
26... b6
Wahls says it was more natural to
171
1995
take the pawn. As the game goes, a7
becomes a weakness. However, open-
ing the queenside with 26 ... bxa6
means that after 27 lllc5 Black can
no longer concentrate on his own
play (White could also create some
counterplay with 27 ~c6).
27llle5!?
This is not only pretty but also
necessary, as White needs to gain a
tempo on the way to c6. If 27 CiJb4,
then 27 ...i.e4 28 CiJc6 lIc8. In the
opening Garry did not play like the
real Kasparov, but now he manages to
shift into top gear.
27...~e6
Wahls considers the following line:
27 ... fxe5 28 fxe5llle4 29 1.xd8l:txd8
30 g4! (also after 30 ~e2, White's
position offers plenty of resistance
despite the small material deficit)
30 ...hxg4 31 i.xg4 i.xg4 (after
31 ...~h7 32 i.xfS lllg3+ 33 'iitgl
CiJxf5 34 ~ g4 White has only a rook
and pawn for two pieces, but it is very
hard to organize the Black forces in a
menacing way) 32 ~xg4 CiJt2+
33 Ii1xt2 ~xt2 34 ~xg6+ i.g7
35 Ii1c7 ~fl+ 36 ~gl ~xgl+
(Black's best option is to take
perpetual with 36... ~fH) 37 'iitxgl.
Many players would think that White
has good chances of survival here. In
actual fact, Black is in trouble;
Garry's calculation looks perfect:
37 ...1.h6 38 lha7 1.e3+ 39 'iitg2
1.xd4 40 e6 Ii1e8 41 J:b7, and White
has excellent winning chances.
28g4!
Another great move; White is alive
and kicking. It took some time for him
to warm up in this game, but now he
has found the way to ignite the
afterburners. If 28 lllc6 Ii1d7 29 b4,
Black is better after either 29 ...1.e4 or
29 ...llle4 30 b5 1.d6.
28...hxg429lllxg4
Black starts to face some threats.
29...1.g7?
Most players would defend the
1995
pawn in this way, but it turns out to be
a mistake. It may actually be the
losing move, even though it looks so
natural. What were the alternatives?
(a) 29 ... liJe4!? is another tempting
move, but Garry has demonstrated
how to handle it:
(al) 30 l:tc7 looks attractive but is
not really dangerous: 30 ... b5 31 il.xe4
(after 31 l::txa7 ~b6 32 Itb7 ~xa6
33 ~c7 'iHd6 Black has the advantage)
3l...il.xe4+ 32 '.t>gl il.g7 33 1::txg7+
r.tixg7 34 il.xf6+ r.tih7 35 il.xd8
1:txd8 36 liJe5. Black certainly has a
good game; the question is whether or
not he can take over with 36 ... lIc8
(not 36.. .'iha6? 37 f5, and White
invades).
(a2) 30 liJe3! and now:
(a21)30 ...il.h3 31 %:tg1 r.tifl
32 il.h5!! (quite an unusual location
for a bishop on the h-file) 32 ... liJg5!
(not 32 ...gxh5 33 'iHxh5+ r.tie7
34 'iHh7+ and wins. Now White has a
very dangerous attack, but it isn't easy
to fmd a clear way to secure an
advantage) 33 fxg5 (33 liJg2 'iHe4)
33 ... 'ihe3 34lIc7+ lId7 35 il.xg6+!!
r.tixg6 36 gxf6+ r.tih6 37 il.g5+ ~xg5
38 lIxg5 r.tixg5 39 'iHgl+, and Black
is in trouble.
(a22) 30... iLa3! (not an easy move
to find) 31 lIc7 (alternatively 31 l:c2
lIc8 32liJxf5 'iHxf5, and now 33 il.g4
is met by 33 ... liJg3+, while after
33 ~xc8 'iHxc8 Black is in the game)
3l...iLd6 32 :xa7 tZlc3 33 liJxf5
liJxdl 34 tZlh6+ r.tif8 35 f5 gxf5
172
36 lIfl+ ~xfl 37 liJxfl liJe3 and
Black gets away.
(b) 29 ... il.e7!. Kasparov provides
the answer as to how to repel his own
attack. This move blocks the diagonal
of the bishop on h4 and puts White in
a passive, defensive situation:
(b I) 30 l:tc7? il.xg4 31 il.xg4
f5 32 1::txe7 l:txe7 33 il.xe7 'Wixe7
34 il.f3 liJe4. According to Garry
Black has a clear advantage here.
(b2) He considers that 30 liJh6+
r.tig7 31 liJxf5+ liJxf5 32 llel! ~d6
33 il.g3 l:th8 34 r.tigl was the lesser
problem for White.
30 lIc7!
White is improving the placing of
his pieces. It is unpleasant and sad
news for Anand.
30.liJe4
After 30...il.xg4 31 il.xg4 f5, White
has these choices:
(a) 32 iLxd8 fxg4, and now:
(al) Kasparov gives a very nice
reason why 33 %:txg7+? doesn't work:
33 ... r.tixg7 34 il.c7 g3! 35 ~f3! ~h3
36 'iHg2 ~xg2+ 37 '.t>xg2 liJf5
38 lIhl (38 i.e5+ lIxe5) 38 ...lIe2+
39 Wh3 g2 40 l:tgl %:tb2 41 i.b8
l:txb3+ 42 r.tixg2 l:ta3 and Black is
much better.
(a2) 33 il.h4 'WJe4+ 34 r.tigl liJf5
35 i.f2 i.xd4 36 ~c2! i.xf2+
37 ~xf2 tZld4 38 ~g2liJf3+ 39 '.t>hl
~d3 40 lIfcl (not 40 ttd7? %:tc8! -+)
40 ...liJh4 41 'iHxg4 'WJe4+ leads to a

draw, as the World Champion showed
in his remarkable analysis.
(b) Kasparov doesn't mention the
intermediate move 32 l:te 1. There can
follow: 32 .. .tiJe4 33 .Jixd8 l:txd8
(after 33 ... fxg4 34 .Jih4 White is
better; he answers 34 ... g3 with
35 Wg2) 34 .Jif3 ~d6 (34 ... b5
35 ~al ~d6 36 ~xa7 ~xf4
37 .Jixe4 dxe4 38 ~c3, and at the end
of it all, White seems to win:
38 ....Jixd4 39 l:tdl! WfS 40 ~b7 e3
41 ~c5+ ~g8 42 ~c6. White is
evidently fIrst to achieve the knock-
out) 35 ~c2 'iVxf4 36 l:tfl .Jixd4
37 :txa7. This is hard to assess, but
the a-pawn does look frightening.
31llJe3!
This is another very unpleasant
move to face, particularly as there was
less time to calculate its implications.
Wahls mentions 31l:txa7, when the
position would be highly complicated:
3l...b5! 32 ~e2 (32 llJe3 llJc3), and
now:
(a) 32 ...l:tb8 33 :tb7 (after 33 :tgl
~b6 34 :txg7+ Wxg7 35 llJe3 White
has dangerous threats against the king)
33 ...:txb7 34 axb7 .Jixg4 35 .Jixg4
~b6 36 .Jic8 ti:lg3+ 37 .Jixg3 l:txe2
38 fS ~xd4 39 .Jie6+ Wh7 40 fxg6+
Wh6 41 .JifS l:te8. At the end of this
tactical battle, Black holds the
position.
(b) 32 ... ~b6 33 l:tb7 ~xa6
34 ~xb5 ~xb5 (after 34 .. :~e6
35 ~a5 White is a pawn up and
should be better, even though the
complications have not subsided)
35 l:txb5 ti:ld2 36 ti:lxf6+ .Jixf6
37 .Jixf6 ti:lxf3, and White is
struggling.
31....Jih3
Black has to be very careful, as he
can no longer afford inaccuracies.
Garry has demonstrated what would
be wrong with some weaker moves:
(a) 3l...l:td7? 32 l:txd7 ~xd7
33 ll'lxfS gxfS (33 .. :~xf5?? 34 .Jig4
traps the queen) 34 l:tgl and White
173
1995
has a good attack on the kings ide.
(b) 3l...ll'lg3+? 32 .ltxg3! ~xe3
33 :tel ~xf3+ 34 ~xf3 :txel+
35 .Jixel .Jie4 36 ~xe4 dxe4
37 :txa7 wins.
(c) 3l...~d6?!. Kasparov gives this
move an exclamation mark, but it
would not help Black, as we shall see:
(cl) 32 l:txg7+? is pretty, but not
the best: 32 ... Wxg7 33 lLlxf5+ gxfS,
and now:
(cll) On 34 :tgl +, Garry shows
how Black can escape with his king
and why he shouldn't go to the h-fIle:
(clll) 34 ... Wh6? 35 .Jixe4 dxe4
(not 35 ... l:he4? 36 ~f3 ~xf4
37 ~xf4+ :txf4 38 .ltxf6 and wins
one of the rooks - an unusual motif)
36 .Jig5+! fxg5 37l:txg5 'lVg6!. Black
holds on because of the strong e-
pawn, but at move 34 he could have
done better:
(cI12) 34 ... ~fS! 35 .Jixe4 ~xf4!
36 ~h5 "'xe4+ 37 :tg2 :td6, after
which Black marches his king to the
queenside and consolidates his mat-
erial advantage.
(cI2) 34 .Jixe4!
34 ...:th8! (a surprising Zwischen-
zug) 35 l:tgl+ ~fS. Kasparov says the
position is clearly better for Black. In
practice Black might indeed do well,
but the computer fmds its way out of
trouble by bringing about perpetual
check: 36 .JixfS! lhh4 37 ~e2 ~xf4
(or 37...:th8 38 ~g2 ~e7 39 .Jie6
and Black is tied up) 38 :tg8+
(quite attractive; not 38 ~g2 ~g5)
1995
38 ... Wxg8 39 ~e6+.
(c2) After the correct 32 llxa7!
i(c8 (32 ... ~xf4 33 tiJxf5 gxf5
34 'iVel ~d6 35 l:tgl almost wins for
White), the Champion terminates his
analysis, indicating that the position is
unclear. However, 33 ~c2! is a very
powerful move that Karpov or Leko
would fmd - it is a different kind of
chess style that has its own beauty.
If then 33 ...WfS (33 ....ih3 34 ttgl)
34 ~ g2, White has immensely
improved the position of his queen,
and Black is in deep trouble.
32l1g1 g5
On 32... f5? 33 .ih5! the decisive
blow comes from the h-file.
Garry considers 32 ... 'iVd6 33 %:txa7
'iixf4 (after 33 ...l::td7 34 J:hd7 i(xd7
35 .txe4 l1xe4 36 l1xg6 Black might
defend his kin_g! but then the a-pawn
decides) 34 IIxg6 lId7 35 lIxd7
J..xd7 36 tiJg2. He gives some more
moves, and a long variation, the
upshot of which is that the weak king
position and the passed pawn on a6
are too much for Black to handle.
33.tg4?!
Possibly Kasparov has started look-
ing to safety. He makes sure he cannot
lose this game, and confirms that
he will remain World Champion.
Wahls gives 33 fxg5 and adds the
punctuation' !?', but perhaps it should
be '!!' instead, for the move almost
wins the game: 33 ... fxg5 (with 33 ... f5
174
Black avoids a collapse, but he is
simply a pawn down) 34 J:::txa7 tiJc3
(or 34 ... b5 35 ~d3 J:td7 36 J:txd7
'iVxd7 37 .tg3, and again White is a
pawn up) 35 l:txg5 (this is the
'poetic' solution, though the 'prosaic'
35 ~d3 wins as well: 35 ... ~xe3
36 ~xe3 ttxe3 37 .txg5) 35 ... tzlxdl
36 l1gxg7+ WfS 37 J..xd8 tzlxe3
(after 37 ...ttxd8 38 tiJxdl ~el+
39 J::tgl ~h4 40 l:Iag? White is
close to winning) 38 I:taf7+ ~xf7
39 J:hf7+ ~xf7 40 J..h5+ and the a-
pawn is unstoppable.
33 ... .t xg4 34 \tV xg4 'iV xg4
3Sttxg4
Not the best. Garry is so happy to
have survived a dangerous situation
that it has affected his full con-
centration. In a normal tournament he
would have found the coup de grace
suggested by the grandmaster from
Hamburg: 35 tiJxg4! ~h8 (White
wins after either 35.J:lc8 36 Uxa7
%:ta8 37 I:td7 l1xa6 38 tzle3 or
35 .. .'JifS? 36 fxgS fxgS 37 ttfl+ ~g8
38 l1ft7) 36 J.. e 1 (36 tzle3 tzld6
37 fxg5 l1xe3 38 gxf6 J..fS 39 J:txa7
is also very strong) 36... gxf4
37 tiJe5!? (maybe even better than the
move suggested by Wahls) 37 ... fxe5
38 l1gxg7 exd4 39 l:th7+ Wg8
40 Ucg7+ WfS 41 J..b4+ tiJc5
42 ttxa7 and Black is in trouble.
35... tzld6
If35 ... l:tc8, 36 J:ha7 wins.
36.ktn tiJb5 3711b7 tte4 38 f5
38 ~g2! was very promising as it
simply improves the position of the
king: 38 ...ttxf4 39 ttxf4 gxf4 40 tiJf5
J..fS 41 Wt3 l:tc8 42 ttd7 and White
is better.
38...:ctxg4
Kasparov gives the variation
38 .. Jlxd4? 39 ttxd4 tzlxd4 40 llxa7
tiJxb3 41 ttb7 tzlc5 (or 4l...d4 42 a7)
42 J:ihb6 l:ta8 (again, 42 ... d4 43 a7
wins) 43 tzlxd5 tiJxa6 44 Wg2, and
Black is unlikely to draw.
38 .. .l1c8 can be met by 39 tzlxd5

(according to Kasparov this move
deserves a question mark; he probably
missed something later on) 39 .. J:!cl+
(39 ...l:txg4? loses to 40 CiJe7+ 'lJh8
41 CiJxc8) 40 l:tgll:Ic2 41 il.g3 l:txd4
42 CiJc7!, forcing the win of the
a-pawn and finishing_ the g~me:
42 ... CiJxc7 43 Ji.xc7 lJd5 44 l:Ixa7
and White wins.
39 CiJxg4 l:tc8 40 l:td7
40 J:tc2??
This is an awful mistake, which
loses on the spot. Anand was short of
time, but he should not have done this
even so. Time pressure, I believe, was
only one of the factors. Psycho-
logically the situation was too much
for him; maybe he just wanted the
game to finish, and was not inclined to
defend. Interestingly, even the fastest
players slow down as they get older.
40.J:tc3 was necessary, as it attacks
b3 at once. Then the best reeJy is
clearly 41 Ihd5 (41 CiJe3 Itxb3
42 CiJxd5 l:ta3 43 CiJe7+ 'lJh7 44 d5
l:txa6 45 d6l:ta1+ 46 'lJg2 l:Idl is not
convincing) 41.J::txb3 42 J::[d8+ 'lJf7
43 l:Id7+ 'itfS 44 'lJg2!. This is a
move recommended by the Champion,
excellently demonstrating how you
can only win with appropriate assist-
ance from the king:
(a) 44 ...l::tb4 45 h4 gxh4 46 'lJh3!,
and now:
(a1) 46 ...l:tc4 47 'lJxh4 l:tc7
(47 ...CiJc7 48 'lJh5 wins) 48 l:td8+
1995
rJJe7 49 l:tb8!. How useful it was to
push the pawn all the way to a6!
(a2) 46 ... l:tb3+ 47 rJJxh4 l:tf3
48 il.e3 (48 Ji.g3l:txfS 49 il.b8 is also
promising) 48 ... l:txfS
49 tLlh2!! (a most unusual way to
trap a rook; 50 'lJ g4 is the deadly
threat) 49 ... CiJa3 (to save his rook,
Black gives up the a-pawn) 50 l:txa7
l:ta5 51 d5 CiJc4 (5L .. CiJb5 52 :a8+
'lJf7 53 Ji.xb6 +-) 52 il.f4 and wins.
(b) 44 ...l:ta3 45 h4! gxh4 46 il.xh4
l:txa6 leads to the following analysis:
(b 1) 47 Ji. xf6 is the only move
given by Kasparov, but he misses a
study-like defence. After 47 ...Ji.xf6
48 CiJxf6, Black has two choices:
(bll) 48 ...:a4 49 CiJh7+ and now:
(bIll) 49 ... rJJg8 50 f6 l:txd4
51 l:tg7+ 'lJh8 52 CiJfS!!. Checkmate
is now imminent: 52 ...l::td2+ 53 Wfl
l:tdl+ 54 'lJt2 l:td2+ 55 'lJe3, and
Black runs out of checks.
(b1l2) 49 ... We8 50 f6! Wxd7 51 f7
l:ta2+ 52 Wg3 l:ta3+ 53 'lJg4. Here
Kasparov says White wins, but that is
far from the truth:
175
1995
53 .. J::tf3!! - the Champion misses
this great move.
(b12) 48 .. J::ta3 49 tZlh7+ ~e8
50 f6? (White can still press with
50 l:td5, but it is hard to prove that he
can win) 50 ... ~xd7 51 fl i!tf3!! and
Black escapes in the same way.
(b2) 47 tZlxf6 l:ta2+ 48 ~g3 a5 (or
48 ... i..xf6 49 i..xf6 a5 50 i..g7+ ~g8,
and now if 51 f6 then 51...tZlc3; but
51 i..h6 wins) 49 tZlh7+ ~g8 50 f6
~xh7 (50 ... i..f8 loses to 51 tZlxf8
~xf8 52 i..g5) 51 i::txg7+ ~h8
52 i::td7 l:ia3+ 53 ~g4 i::ta4 54 ~f5
i!txd4 55 fl, fmishing the game.
41 i::txd51-0
One possible conclusion is:
41...llJc7 42 l:td8+ <.J;;fl 43 i::td7+
<.J;;f8 44 d5 llJxa6 45 i::txa7 and White
wins.
This was a most exciting and
entertaining game. Anand surprised
Kasparov from the very first move.
Kasparov played weakly in the
opening - maybe because of what was
at stake, and maybe because he was
unfamiliar with that type of position.
Anand took over and obtained the
better game, but he made one in-
accuracy which gave Kasparov time to
create counterplay. Garry seized the
opportunity with some very powerful
moves; he needed all his mighty
playing strength to create his chances.
In the end, some errors crept in -
inaccuracies from Garry, and a huge
mistake from the challenger. This was
a great game, with both players con-
tributing. It ended in a very unfortun-
ate way for Anand, who was always
to have problems playing against
Kasparov after the match was over.
He never won another regular game
against Garry.
Before game fifteen the players had
to wait two hours to start play. Maybe
this contributed to the fact that Anand
went for a safe line against the
Dragon. Maybe he just wanted to
176
make sure he would suffer no more
losses. Kasparov introduced a novelty
which solved all Black's opening
problems. He attached another draw
offer to the new move, and Anand
accepted it.
Rules reflecting the spirit of each
form of sport ought to reduce the
number of these situations. It is not
the players' fault. Maybe this game
was among the reasons for the
absence of a sponsor in 1998 for
the Kasparov-Shirov match. The
Kramnik-Leko match showed once
again that a limited number of games
encourages the leader to kill the play.
I can imagine that Kramnik too may
fail to find an enthusiastic sponsor
when half the games in the defence of
his title were quick draws.
In game sixteen Anand played a
Najdorf and Kasparov gave him a
taste of his own medicine. However,
neither of them really wanted to play,
and they agreed a draw on move
twenty. Anand needed time to collect
himself for a final effort to recover his
fighting spirit.
In the 17th game Anand wanted to
prove that he could put pressure on the
Dragon. It was no doubt very fortun-
ate for the chess world that he pulled
himself together - it was a sign that he
wanted to stay with chess. And that
proved such a good decision that
subsequently he even won the FIDE
World Championship. The Dragon
was a lucky choice in the match for
Kasparov, but this time he failed to
find the right antidote to Anand's
play. As the match was virtually over,
both contestants were performing
below their very high level. First
Anand missed a favourable chance to
play llJd5-b4 on move 28, then Garry
missed an intermediate check. Anand
reached an endgame with an extra
pawn, but didn't choose the best way
to handle it. Garry got away with a
draw and made sure of the title.

The very last game was drawn in 12
moves.
So Kasparov remained World
Champion. He deserved the accolade,
as he had proved to be the better
player at that time. Sadly, the
opportunity for a return match never
arose. Luckily Anand's disappoint-
ment did not erode his desire to play
more chess.
Horgen
Garry had agreed in advance to play
in this tournament near Zurich. Eleven
days after the New York match
finished, he sat down for the first
round. He had had to cross the
Atlantic Ocean and acclimatize him-
self to the time difference.
He started his campaign against
Ehlvest, playing a Benko-like gambit
with b7-b5. The Estonian grandmaster
did not take it, and Garry pushed his
b-pawn forward. They exchanged
queens; Garry pressed, but Jaan held
the draw.
Another Jan followed - namely
Timman, who offered a queen ex-
change in a French with 3 0c3 0f6.
Garry came up with a courageous
novelty, sacrificing a pawn. His
opponent did not take the bait. Soon
afterwards they entered an ending that
looked better for Kasparov, who
quickly gained space on the kings ide.
If Garry's pieces had followed up this
gain, Timman would not have been
able to free his position. As it was, he
did so with a neat move. The game
was eventually drawn.
Garry tried to press with Black
against Gelfand, but Boris gave him
no opportunities to win. Nor was
this the end of the draws. Against
Yusupov's Petroff, Garry acquired
nothing out of the opening; he just
repeated the position and drew in 20
moves.
177
1995
Nigel Short tested his 5 .te3 e5
Najdorf with 6 ltJf3. It looked as
though Black was going to be
squeezed, but Garry managed to cloud
the issue with an imaginative pawn
sacrifice. In the complications this
game too ended in a draw.
After five draws, the sequence
ended with a relatively short game in
which Garry had the white pieces.
You might expect that he would have
won that game, but such was not the
case. In a French sideline - 3 ltJc3
.t b4 4 e5 b6 - he lost to Ivanchuk.
Garry pushed his h-pawn to h5 and
then somehow gave the impression
that he didn't know what to do with
his position. He had switched to 1 e4
at the age of 28, so in certain sidelines
he may not have the same deep feeling
for the positions as he has in the
queen's pawn openings. He suc-
cumbed rather simply when Ivanchuk
created a monster passed pawn.
After this disappointment Garry
faced Lautier. His King's Indian trans-
posed to a Benoni. Garry played on
the queenside and managed to keep
the balance, so he drew once more.
In round 8 he recovered to 50 per
cent by beating Korchnoi.
Game 33
G.Kasparov White
V.Korchnoi Black
Horgen 1995
1995
25.Jixf5!
Korchnoi has played the Semi-Slav
(Moscow Variation) badly and ob-
tained an atrocious position out of the
opening. Garry exacts punishment in
an attractive way.
25.. ~r7
25 ... exfS 26 lIg6+ WfS 27 'iYxh6+
wins.
26 ~xr7+ ~xr7 27 .Jixe6+! 1-0
A cute fmish.
The remaining two games were both
quick draws, the frrst against Kramnik
and the second against Vaganian.
They lasted 29 moves put together.
Garry's energy had been depleted
by the Anand match. Nobody con-
cluded that his chess had started to
deteriorate.
Paris Rapid
Garry started the tournament with a
most unpleasant opponent to have to
face in the frrst round: Alexander
Morozevich. However, he coped with
him in impressive style. In the frrst
game Garry outplayed the young star
in a slow Giuoco Piano. In the second,
Alexander played the King's Gambit
and proceeded to sacrifice a piece. He
never came close to hurting Garry,
who won in 23 moves when the white
king was already faced with mate.
Another excellent rapid player, Kiril
Georgiev, awaited him in the next
round. Playing Black in a .i.e3
Sicilian, Garry took the initiative with
a queen sacrifice for a rook, piece and
two pawns. He beat the Bulgarian
player convincingly. In the second
game, Kiril never had a chance to win
in a main line Slav.
In the semi-final, Anand missed the
frrst round by mistake. Kasparov
offered to play an additional game, but
Anand declined and the second game
started under normal conditions. Let
us look at it!
178
Game 34
V.Anand White
G.Kasparov Black
PCA/Intel rapid, Paris 1995
Sicilian Defence [B65]
1 e4 cS 2 lLlo d6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lLlxd4lLlf6 5 lLlc3lLlc6
Garry played the Black side of the
Rauzer a few times against Karpov
and sometimes developed his knight
to c6 in the Najdorf. Maybe this
move was prepared for the New York
match, and Garry now wants to
discover what Vishy's plan against it
might have been.
6 .Jig5 e6 7 'iVd2 .Jie7 8 0-0-0 0-0
Garry selects a line that doesn't lead
to the typical Rauzer pawn formation,
i.e. pawns on f7, f6, e6 and d6. It is
rather surprising that he has never
adopted that type of pawn chain.
9 f4
In the 37th game of the 1984-S
World Championship match, Karpov
tried 9 lLlb3 (the Podebrad variation),
and Garry quickly obtained a draw:
9 ... a5 10 a4 dS 11 exdS lLlxdS
12 i..xe7 t:iJcxe7 13 lLlbS .i.d7
14 .i.e2 t:iJfS IslLl3d4lLlxd4 ~-~.
9. h610 h4?!
Perhaps from going through Garry's
games, Anand has noticed how
effectively he attacks along the edge
of the board. Professional chess-
players have to absorb a large amount
of information to keep up with
the new ideas that are constantly
emerging. In this case, why not
borrow this method of attacking from
Kasparov himself?
In the 3S th match game of 1984,
Karpov tried the main line move
10 .i.h4 and was unable to give
Kasparov any problems in the open-
ing: 10 ...eS 11 lLlfS .JixfS 12 exfS
exf4 13 ~bl dS 14 i.xf6 i.xf6
IS tZlxdS .i.eS 16 g3 (the main line
continues with 16 .Jic4) 16... fxg3
17 hxg3 lLle7 18 f6 tZlxdS 19 fxg7

ttJc3+! 20 bxc3 ~b6+ 21 'it'cl l:Ifd8
22 .td3 .txg7, and surprisingly they
agreed a draw here although the
position looks troublesome for White.
10...ttJxd4 11 'tWxd4
H ... hxg5!
Garry knows exactly what he is
doing in the opening. This move is
better than the other possibility
1l...~as 12 .tc4!? (12 'itJbl es
13 ~d3) 12 ... es 13 ~d3 exf4
14 .txf4, when White's position is
preferable.
12 hxg5 ttJg4 13 .i.e2
White's attacking chances are ob-
viously based on doubling major
pieces in the h-file. The course of the
game proves that Black has resources.
What are they? In many lines, he can
take on gS with his bishop:
(a) White cannot transfer his queen
to the h-file with 13 ~d3?? because
of 13 ...ttJf2 14 ~f3 ttJxhl IS .i.d3
.i.xgS, when Black is a rook up and
White has hardly any attack for the
material.
(b) A rarely played line is 13 ~gl,
and then:
(bl) On 13 ... eS, White could trans-
pose into the game continuation with
14 .te2, but he also has some more
promising moves: 14 g3 (after 14 ~h3
.i.xgS IS fxgS ~xgS+ 16 'ittbl ttJf6
17 g~ .i.e6, Black is safe) 14 ....te6
IS 1Ih4 ~c8 16 ~hl fS 17 exfS
.txfS 18.tg2 and Black is in trouble.
179
1995
(b2) 13 ... ~b6 14 l::Id4, with these
possibilities:
(b21) 14 ... dS IS il.e2 fS (if
IS ....i.cS?? then 16 .txg4 i.xd4
17 ~h2) 16 .txg4 fxg4 17 g6 wins.
(b22) 14 ... e5 IS ttJdS ~d8 16 :t:td3
exf4 17 :t:tdh3 ttJh6 occurred in
Perunovic-Pavlovic, Ng 1995. White
now overlooked this continuation of
the attack: 18 gxh6! i.xh3 19 hxg7,
with excellent chances.
(b23) 14 ... fS IS .te2 (1S i.c4 g6)
IS ... fxe4 16 g3 .txgS 17 .i..xg4 eS,
and Black finishes his development.
(c) 13 eS dxeS (or 13 ...i.xgS
14 fxgS ~xgS+ IS c;t>bl dxe5
16 ~ d6 and White has play for the
pawns. Maybe the simplest solution
for Black is head for a healthy
endgame with 13 ... ~b6!? 14 exd6
~xd4 IS J::txd4 i.d8 16 d7 i.b6
17 dxc8=~ ~axc8 18 l::Id7 i.e3+
19 'itJbl i.xf4 20 l::Ih4 ttJeS 21l::Ixb7
.txgS 22 l:thS j,f6 23 l:txa7 l:Ifd8,
and this time it is Black has compens-
ation for the pawn minus) 14 ~ e4 fS
IS gxf6 ttJxf6 16 ~xeS ~b6 17 .i.c4
~c6 (alternatives are 17....i.b4 and
17 ... ttJg4 18 ~hS ttJh6) 18 i.b3 and
White has a pawn and some attack
for the piece; Fedorchuk - S.Ivanov,
Russia 2000. White went on to win,
but a single game rarely supplies the
definitive verdict on a particular
variation.
(d) 13 l::Id3!? was only played once,
and deserves some further testing:
(dl) 13 ....txgS 14 fxgS ~xgS+
IS 'it'bl ~cS 16 Udh3, and White's
attack is dangerous.
(d2) 13 .. 'y~b6 14 Udh3 fS (14 ... f6
IS ~dl) IS ~dl ~f2 16 ttJdS 'itJf7
17 ~f3, and Black's pieces cannot
easily come into the game.
(d3) 13 ... f5 14Udh3 (14 exfS 'iVb6)
14 ...~b6 IS ~dl is dangerous for
Black.
(d4) 13 ... eS 14 ~gl (14 Udh3
thh6) 14 ... fS (or 14 ... exf4 IS ~dh3
ttJh6 16 gxh6 i. xh3 17 hxg7 l:Ie8
1995
18 kb5 kf6 19 l::txh3 kxg7
20 kxe8, and White was somewhat
better in Formanek-Toth, Reggio
Emilia 1983) 15 :dh3 (after 15 gxf6
:xf6 16 l'.Idh3 l:lh6 Black has freed
his king and is likely to cope with the
attack) 15 ... ~f7 16 kc4+ ~e8
17 'uh7 and White has fair compens-
ation for the piece.
13e5 14 ~gl exf4 15 kxg4
kxg4!?
This is the safer option. While
15 ... kxg5 is not necessarily bad,
Black certainly needs to be alert, as
White can unleash some lovely
tactical shots. Let us show you two
examples!
(a) 16 ko :e8 17 tZlb5 :e6
18 ~d4 kd7 19 tZlxd6 kc6
20 J::th8+!! ~xh8 21 tZlxf7+ ~h7
22 'iVc5 :g6 23 tZlxd8 ~xd8
24 l:Ixd8 kxd8 25 'iVfS 1-0 Acs-
Wittmann, Budapest 1999.
(b) White can even play 16 kxc8
l'.Ixc8 17 :d3 :e8 (l7 ... kh6 is a
reasonable deviation) 18 ~bl l'.Ic5
19 g3 fxg3 20 :xg3 :e6 21 :h5 k f6
22 tZld5 b6 23 :gh3 g6
24 'iVg5!! 1-0. This occurred in
Dvoirys-Feher, Budapest 1991.
16 ~h2 f5 17 ~h7+
With 17 g6, White could head for
an endgame. Significantly, there is
only one game in the database in
which Black holds the position:
17 ... kh4 18 J::!.d4 fxe4 19 J::!.xe4 .1i.h5
20 ~xh4 ~xh4 21 l::txh4 kxg6
22 :exf4 J::tac8 23 ~d2 :c5
24 :xf8+ ~xf8 25 :h8+ <tif7
26 :b8 b6 27 :b7+ <tif6 28 :xa7
:g5, and Black's piece activity was
enough for a draw in Enders-Varga,
Budapest 1996.
17...<tif718 l'.Ih6?!
Anand demonstrates that he is
trying to win. Was this move still part
of his home preparation? The main
line is 18 exfS, and now:
(a) 18 ... l'.Ig8 is rather a risky way of
avoiding the perpetual:
(al) 19 :d5 O! 20 f6 fxg2 21 :gl
kxf6! and Black repulses the attack.
(a2) 19 f6 i.xf6 20 gxf6 i.xdl
21 l:th6 kh5 22 :xh5 ~b6 23 :g5
~e3+ 24 'it'd} ~gl+ 25 'it'd2 ~e3+
and Black gave perpetual check in
Pulkkinen-Tella, Vantaa 1994.
(a3) 19 tZlb5! 0 (White wins after
either 19 ... i.xdl 20 'ib'g6+ 'it'f8
21 tZld4 or 19...i.xg5 20 :xd6)
20 ~bl!!. This is something that
Kasparov himself is so good at - he
plays a quiet move while attacking.
It is only analysis, but I have no
doubt he would have found it. Now
20 ...kxg5 (20 ... fxg2 would lose to
21 ~g6+ 'it'f8 22 tZld4) 21 l'.Ixd6
fxg2 22 Vj'g6+ 'it'f8 23 :xd8+ l'.Ixd8
24 l::tel i.e3 25 'ib'xg4 wins for
White.
(b) 18 ...kxg5 19 tZle4 (19 ~g6+
'iiig8 20 ~h7+ 'it'f7) 19 ...0+ 20 'it'bl
fxg2 21 l:lh5 i.xdl 22 Vilg6+ 'it'g8
23 Vj'h7+ 'iiif7 24 ~g6+, and White
had to settle for perpetual check in
Lau-Madl, Budapest 1992.
180

18..Jtxg5
Here Kasparov plays circumspectly.
There were other candidate moves to
be considered, but they are more
complicated. For example:
(a) 18 ... <;i;>e8 19 ~xg7 (19 ~hxd6
i.xd6 20 ~g6+ Mt7 21 l:Ixd6 VlJic7
22 l:Ie6+ <;i;>d8 23 tlld5 VlJia5 allows
Black to escape) 19 ... fxe4 (after
19....il.xd 1 20 tlld5 <;i;>d7 21 e5 dxe5
22 ~xe5 l:!.c8 23 ~e6+ '.ite8 24 l:Ih7
l:txc2+ 25 'itixdl l:!.c7 26 VIJi g6+ '.itd7
27 tllxe7 'iYxe7 28 l:txe7+ <;i;>xe7
29 VlJig7+ Black has a difficult end-
game to defend) 20 tlld5 e3
(20 ...i.xdl 21 :!::te6) 21 l:!.dhl '.itd7
22 l:th7 and White has a dangerous
attack.
(b) 18 ...l:Ig8!? looks very risky
indeed, yet it is very hard - perhaps
impossible - to find a continuation
that promises White compensation.
From the diagram, there are various
alternatives:
(hI) 19 l:!.d5 f3 20 l:Ixf5+ .il.xf5
21 ~xf5+ ~e8 is safe for Black.
(b2) 19 tllb5 .il.xdl, and now:
(b21) 20 ~xf5+ ~e8 21 l:te6 g6
22 ~d5 \tif8 23 tllxd6 (23 ~xdl
~b6) 23 ...l::t g7 and Black gets away.
(h22) 20 <;i;>xdl Vi'd7 21 Vi'g6+ (or
21 tll d4 .iI. xg5 22 Vi' g6+ \ti f8 and it is
hard to keep up the attack) 2l...~f8
22 l:th4 (22 tlld4 .il.f6) 22 ....il.xg5
23 ~xg5 ~xb5 24 l:!.xf4 ~c4.
(b23) 20 Vi'g6+ ~f8 21 tlld4 ~c8
22 tlle6+ (if 22 exf5 then gxh6; while
after 22 l::th4 .il.xg5 23 ~xg5 VlJic4
181
1995
24 ~xf4 VlJixd4 25 VlJixf5+ VlJif6
26 VlJig5 <;i;>e7 27 ~xf6 gxf6 28 VlJib5
i.g4 29 ~xb7+ .td7, Black has too
many pieces for the queen) 22 ...VlJixe6
23 VlJixe6. White might have enough
play, but 4 pieces for the queen, even
if temporarily uncoordinated, ought to
be too much. Here 23 ... gxh6 24 gxh6
.te2 25 exf5 Jtg5 26 h7 f3+ 27 <;i;>bl
l:Ih8 28 VlJixd6+ is unclear.
(b3) 19 exf5
From this diagram, Black can try:
(b3l) 19 ....txdl 20 f6 .th5
(20 ... .il.g4 21 VIJi g6+ '.ite6 22 fxe7+
'.itxe7 23 tlld5+ '.itd7 24 VlJixd6+ '.itc8
25 tlle7+ ~xe7 26 ~xe7 gxh6
27 gxb6 wins for White) 21 fxe7
'.itxe7 22 ~e4+ \i7f8 23 ~xf4+ .tt7
24 :!::txd6 ~e7 25 g6, and White has
compensation for the exchange.
(b32) 19 ...'.itf8!!. A subtle defensive
move - suddenly both white rooks are
hanging. It seems that Black has
reasonable winning chances:
(b321) 20 tlld5 Jtxg5.
(b322) 20 tllb5 .txg5 21 liJd4
.txh6 22 tlle6+ \i7e7 23 tllxd8
I:taxd8, and again Black has too many
pieces.
(b323) 20 I:td5 f3 21 f6 (21 l:Ig6 12)
21...fxg2 and the g-pawn is too strong.
(b324) 20 l:Ig6 .txf5 21 ~d5 .txg6
22 ~xg6 ~e8 and Black holds off the
attack.
(b325) 20 ~h4 .txdl 21 f6 .txf6
22 gxf6 (22 ~xf4 .tg4!! - ten years
ago, players might have been apt
to miss computer moves like this -
1995
23 gxf6 gxf6 24 ~h6+ <:J;;fl 25 ttJe4
Wie7 wins) 22 ... gxf6 23 ~h6+
(23 ttJxdl Vliie7) 23 ...'it>fl 24 ttJxdl
l:txg2 25 VliJh5+ 'it>e6 26 l:txf4 tIg5,
and while White has some compens-
ation, the position would not be easy
to play in a rapid game. Objectively
Black should do well.
Now, back to the game.
19 !ihxd6??
It is hard to know what punctuation
to attach to this move. It could be a
single question mark, as the capture is
not a blunder. However, it is still a
losing mistake. With 19 ~ g6+ the
Indian grandmaster could still have
looked for a win, although after
19 ... 'it> g8 it would objectively be best
to force a draw with 20 ~h7+. But
then, a draw would mean elimination
from the contest!
19... f3+!
19.. :~e7 is less practical, though it
is also effective: 20 Wig6+ Wg8
21 li:ld5 (21 :hl l:tf6) 21..:~xe4
22 l:td7 ..ah6 23 li:le7+ 'it>h8 24 l:th I
..ah3!!. What a move! Garry knows
how to defend on the h-file as well as
attack there. After 25 l:txh3 VIii e 1+
26 :tIdl Vliixe7 27 l:tdh 1 l:tfl, Black
wins.
20 'it>bl ~xd6!!
This capture dispels any thoughts
Vishy had of giving checkmate.
21lhd6 fxg2
Suddenly the g2-pawn forces White
182
to forget all about attacking. Now he
can only defend.
22 ~h2..af3
The neat intermediate move
22 .....af4! is likely to win: 23 ttd7+
We8 24 V/iixg2 Wxd7 25 e5 (25 exf5
..axf5) 25 ... l:tad8 26 Ii'xb7+ We6
27 'iVc6+ 'it>xe5 28 "iHc7+ Wf6
29 Vliixf4 l:tfe8 and Black wins,
though he needs to be careful.
23~g3
Or 23 l:td7+ Wg6 24 Ii:d6+ ttf6
25 exf5+ 'it>fl 26ttd7+ Wg8 27 Vliig3
Ii:xf5 and again Black wins.
23 .l:th8?
23 ... l:tad8!! would have led to a
beautiful win; Black should exchange
White's active rook before he starts
hele.~ng the g-pawn to promote. After
241hd8 (24 ~xg5 l:txd6 25 a3 ..ag4
wins) 24 .....axd8 25 li:ld5 l:Ih8 White
is hopelessly lost.
24 ~xg5l:thl+ 25 ttJdl
25. g1=~
The completion of a long journey
from e7 .
261ld7+WfS
After 26 ... Wg8 27 lhg7+ Wh8
28 ~xgl, an aesthetically pleasing
move is 28 ...l:td8!. However it is not
effective, as White holds on with
29 'tlixhl+ ..axhl 30 l'iIgl.
27 ~xf5+ Wg8 28 "'xf3?
The intermediate move 28 Vliifl+
diverts the king and prevents l:ta8-fS.
To win the resulting position would

have required precise play from the
Champion. If he was short of time, it
would have been hard to find the right
method: -
(a) 2S ... 'it'hS?! 29 ~xf3 l:teS (or
29 ... l:tcS 30 b3 'iVfl 31 ~ g3 l:tgl
32 ~h4+ WgS 33 ~h5, and because
Black's king has no safe shelter, he
can't win the position despite being
the exchange up) 30 a3 l:th4 31 'iV f7
(31 Wa2 'iVg6 32 tLlc3 also keeps
White in the game), and White has
annoying play.
(b) 2S .. St>h7 29 ~f5+ ~g6!
(29 ... \t>hS 30 Vi'xf3) 30 ~xf3 ~h5!
31 ~xh5+ (after 31 Vj'd3 J:'tfS, the pin
is lethal) 3l...tl:xh5 32 c4 b6, and
Black has good chances to convert the
extra exchange into a win.
281118
Rooks belong on open files.
29 ~b3+ <;t>h7 0-1
Anand resigned, as he can't release
the pin: 30 liWd3 (30 c3 l:tfl 31 ~cl
~e3+ 32 'it'bl ~xe4+ 33 Wcl Vj'f4+
34 Wbl ~f5+ wins more material)
30... Ilfl 31 Wcl (31 e5+ ~g6 wins)
3l...l:txdl+ 32 ~xdl ~e3+.
This was another great game
between Kasparov and Anand. As it
was in a rapid chess tournament, it
contained more inaccuracies than
would be likely in a normal game.
Nevertheless it was extremely exciting
and instructive. What do we conclude
about White's bishop sacrifice to
acquire the h-file? It looks as if White
has no more than a draw. Years later,
Vishy said his preparation in 1995 had
not been of the same high standard
that he was to achieve afterwards. He
certainly benefited from his many
games with Kasparov in that year.
In Game lOin this book, we saw
how Kasparov beat Anand with an
attack in the h-file when playing the
White side of a Scheveningen. We
have now just seen Anand try to do
something similar with colol!rs re-
IS3
1995
versed - and this time Kasparov was
victorious on the defending side.
Vishy has an excellent sense of
humour, and I am sure he can see the
funny side of this. I remember one
story he told me in 19S7. He found it
very amusing that Tal kept beating a
certain respectable grandmaster in one
particular way. Tal had sacrificed a
pawn in a sharp Sicilian and won
fairly quickly. The loser analysed the
game extensively in Informant. The
next time Tal faced the same player,
he sacrificed another pawn in another
Sicilian and won again. Again his
opponent published a long analysis in
Informant ....
When our own analysis was written
at the end of 2004, Anand had proved
that he was currently the best rapid
player in the world. Incidentally,
although Kramnik was the first to beat
Kasparov in a match, he has yet to
prove that he is the world's number
one. Once Garry was no longer able to
sustain his very special status, it was
Anand who seized the top player's
spot. However, the Indian superstar
has not reached the level of Garry at
his best. He might, but even if he can
achieve that kind of domination he
will almost certainly be unable to
maintain it for as long as Kasparov
did.
In the final of the Paris tournament,
Garry faced Kramnik who had been
his second at the Anand match. In the
first game Kasparov was pressing for
a long time in the endgame. When
Kramnik shook off the pressure,
Kasparov blundered and lost. In the
second encounter Kramnik played a
normal game and actually obtained a
clear edge. Almost anything has a
good and a bad side - Kramnik's play
against Kasparov was fearless, yet he
allowed him to have chances. Garry
capitalized on them in a most creative
manner. Let us see how!
1995
Game 35
V.Kramnik White
G.Kasparov Black
PCAlIntel-GP, Paris 1995
From d6 the rook strikes hard at
White's defences:
35l:dl!!
A remarkable and highly imagin-
ative move. It wins the queen - and
yet it should only lead to a draw, as
White can build a fortress.
35 ... ~xg4 would allow White an
easier draw after 36 ~aI+ (or
36 hxg3 l:dl 37 ~t2 i.c5 38 ~xc5
l:.xe 1+ 39 ~h2, drawing without
difficulty) 36 ...i.g7 37 '+'a8+ ~h7
38 hxg} .i.d4+ 39 r,;t>fl.
36l:txdl
36 ~t2 i.c5! (after 36...l:.xeI+
37 ~xel ~xg4 38 hxg3 i.c5+
39 ~fl, White holds) 37 l:.xdl
i.xt2+ 38 lllxt2 transposes to the
game.
36..tc5+ 37 'iVf2 i.xf2+ 38lllxf2
llle2+ 39 ~hl
This must be a draw, but in a rapid
tournament Black can play on for a
longtime.
39.lllc3
After 39... ~c5 40 lllh3 ~c2
41 l::tfl (41 l:el) 4l...~d3 42 l::tel (or
42 i.O lllg3+ 43 hxg3 ~xfl+
44 ~h2, which recalls the adjourn-
ment of Beliavsky-Dolmatov, Minsk
1979; against excellent play from
Dolmatov, Beliavsky missed the
chance to build fortress similar to this)
42 ... Vi'b3 43 ..to llld4 44 J:tfl ~b5
45 ..tgl, I am almost certain that
White's fortress can't be breached.
40l:.d8+
The alternative 40 i. 0 (in rapid
and blitz games you tend to put
pieces on protected squares) 40 ... ~c5
41 J:tfl is preferable to the move in
the game.
40.....tg7 41 i.o 'ib5 42 l::td3
A safer choice was 42 lllh3
followed by lllh3-gl, when it is hard
to approach the king.
42 .:it'b1+ 43 i.dl 1t'b2 44 'lo>gl
~cl45 h3?!
45 g3! 'ftif7 46 l::txc3 ~xc3
47 ~g2, followed by i.dl-0, should
be an easy draw. Incidentally if there
were no pawns, White could place the
bishop on g2 and the knight on e4 to
set up an impregnable fortress.
45 h5 46 ..t h2
Better 46 g3!.
46. h4
Black has improved his_position.
47 .i.o Wc2 48 l:td7+ ..tIS
49lll1l4 Wcl 50 ttd4lllb5 51 %:td5
51 JJe4 is playable.
51 ..'iU4+ 52 ..thl llld4 53 llle5
~c1+ 54 <lJh2 "'c7!
This creates a threat.
55 l::tc5??
Vladimir misses it. He could have
played 55 <lJgl or 55 i.e4.
55..lllxo+ 56 gxO 'iVb8 57 ..tgl
-.b4?
57 .. :tlVd8! was better: 58 l:b5
'+'dI+ 59 ~t2 ~d2+ 60 ~fl 'tiVh2,
with excellent winning chances.
58llld3??
A losing mistake in time trouble.
With 58 l:.c8+! ..tg7 (58 ... ..te7
59 lllc6+) 59 l:lc7+ <lJf6 60 lllg4+
We6 61 lllt2 "iVf4 62 l:.c3 White can
get organized, so that even if Black
wins the O-pawn it should be a draw.
I once had an endgame like this, but
with no knight on t2 (the king was on
g2 and the rook on g4) - and still
184

managed to draw. It should have been
a loss, however; Black must bring the
queen to e3 and the king to d3, after
which the king's invasion is decisive.
With the knight on t2, the draw should
not be a problem.
58..:ifd4+ 59 ~g2 ~xd3 60 llc8+
wn 61 Wf.Z 'iVd7 62 llc2 "iVxh3
63 ~e3 ~g3 64 llc4 h3 65 :f4+
~xf4+ 0-1
Interestingly, Kramnik seems to
have a problem with endgames where
the pawns are all on the same side.
Against Leko in Budapest, he was
unable to convert a winning position
with the exchange up. In the Brissago
2004 World Championship match,
playing Leko again, he lost a drawn
ending with the exchange down. The
first position was one that I taught
Peter how to win when he was
roughly 11 years old. The second was
almost identical with another one I
had taught Peter. A recent Hungarian
book on Leko contains the assertion
that he has a photographic memory, so
my former pupil may remember
exactly when he learnt these lessons.
Kramnik seems to pay a heavy price
for such mistakes. Surprisingly, he
makes no mention of receiving
assistance from trainers at a similar
age.
Game three was a grey draw. Then
Garry went on to win a complicated
battle in the last game. He thus won
the event as a whole.
European Club Championship
Kasparov played two games in the
EU-Cup at Ljubljana. In the first, he
faced Yudasin. When we join the
game he has already seized the
185
1995
initiative, which is not good news for
Leonid. Let's see the fmish.
Game 36
L.Yudasin White
G.Kasparov Black
EU-Cup Final, Ljubljana 1995
25 h5!
Kasparov earlier provoked g2-g3;
he now threatens to soften up the
king's shelter with his trademark
pawn advance.
26 'tWb3 %:tde5 27 %:tan h4 28 Whl
28 .Jtd4 bxg3 29 bxg3 %:tg5 wins.
28...J:tel 29 as h3!
Kasparov now tightens his grip on
the king! He is not looking for an
endgame, but a quick end to the game.
For Yudasin this is a depressing
position.
30 'tWO J::txn+ 31 lhn ihc2
32 'iVxb7l:te4!
32 ...J:.e2 is answered by 33 .Jtgl.
33 J:tgl
33 .Jtt2 .Jtd4 wins.
33..11e20-1
In his second game in this event,
Garry came close to losing to
Akopian, who found a perpetual check
instead of a winning combination.
 1996
Amsterdam: Euwe Memorial
The first game of the year could not
have started worse from Kasparov's
viewpoint. Topalov did to Garry what
Garry had done to him many times
before. In a sharp position he out-
played him with some very imagin-
ative moves. Garry took the risk of
grabbing a pawn in the 6 .i. c4
Najdorf. A mistake followed, and he
landed in a lost position early on. He
sacrificed a queen for rook, piece and
pawn. Garry fought on, but there was
no miracle. (Later, in his game with
White against Short, Veselin played
the same opening. Nigel improved on
Garry's play, using his own prepar-
ation from the World Championship
match, and won.)
From this point on, Garry played
superbly. In the second round he beat
Piket with Black. Let's take a quick
look at it. The artistic impression will
stay with you for a long time.
Game 37
J. Piket White
G.Kasparov Black
VSB Euwe Memorial,
Amsterdam 1996
17...lLlxhS!!
186
This is a brilliant pawn sacrifice
based on a very deep conception. How
many moves in advance did Kasparov
calculate this coup?
18.i.e7
White is worse if he doesn't take the
pawn, so at least Piket acquires some
material to make up for his passivity.
18...1:fc8 19 1.xd6 lLlb7!
This is a remarkable feature of
Garry's style: after sacrificing mat-
erial he is prepared to retreat a few
steps or even defend his position
before he launches his attack. For
many players, this type of restraint
simply doesn't come to mind.
201.e7 f6
Black is in no hurry; he has ad-
equate positional compensation.
21 lLl d3 <JJ r7
Garry goes after the bishop, which
didn't seem to be in any trouble.
22 1.a3 as!
Garry has captured with his knight
on the kings ide in order to make a
pawn move on the queenside. It is
quite incredible.
23 b4?!
It is easy to criticize, but White has
no attractive option here: 23 b3 b4
24 .i.cl (or 24 .i.b2 .i.b5 25 lLlt2 a4,
and White is struggling with his
queenside) 24 ... a4 25 lLlxb4 (alternat-
ively 25 bxa4 ilxa4 26 <JJel .i.b5
27 lLlb2 J:Ia3, and White is pushed
back; or 25 l:tbl axb3 26 axb3 1.b5
27 lLlxb4 .i.h6+ 28 <JJe 1 .i.xe2
29 .i.xh6 1.xf.3 30 :gl .i.xe4 and
Black takes over) 25 ... axb3 26 .i.b2
lLla5. Of course, a knight goes to the
edge again! This is clearly better for
Black, as Kasparov pointed out in his
own analysis.
23lLld6 24 <JJdl axM
Kasparov asserts that 24 ... lLlc4!?

would also have given him the advant-
age. Objectively, it may be even better
than the game continuation. There
could follow: 25 i.cl axb4 26 tLlxb4
i.f8 27 tLld3 (or 27l:tbll:ta4 28 tLlc6
i.xc6 29 dxc6 i.b4 30 a3 tLlxa3
31 i.xa3 i.xa3 32 l:txb5 ~xc6 and
Black has excellent winning chances,
even though the remaining pawns are
all on one side of the board) 27 ... b4
28 II b 1 l:t cb8 29 tLl b2 b3! and White
is in trouble.
2S i.xb4
2StLlc4
This situation is a test for the
annotator. It takes some time to work
out whether the position is verging on
Zugzwang (amazingly, at move 25
White has no productive move avail-
able) or whether Black is simply cre-
ating a threat.
26'1ttc2
Who would choose to step into a
discovered check like this? Just to
demonstrate that Black actually has a
threat, 26 l:tgl would be met by
26 ...tLle3+ 27 Wd2 i.h6 and Black
sets up a lethal battery.
26 Wei, escaping to the opposite
side, doesn't help: 26 ... tLle3 27 'lttt2
tLlc2 28l:tbl tLlxb4. Since starting its
dance 9 moves ago, the knight has
made six moves and now eliminates
the bishop. After 29 tLlxb4 1. f8,
White is in big trouble.
Garry explains what is wrong with
187
1996
defending the e3-square with 26 i.c5.
The answer is: 26 ...i.h6 27 tLlc3 i.e3
(the pretty diversion 27 ... b4 also does
the trick) 28 i.xe3 tLlxe3+ 29 \td2
tLlc4+ 30 Wei tLlg3 31 l:tg1 tLlxfl
32 l:txfl tLle3 and Black wins mat-
erial.
26...i.f8!
Another change of direction. The
usual principle after sacrificing mat-
erial is not to exchange pieces, yet in
this case Garry exchanges his bishop.
He follows another principle of
removing a defending piece from the
enemy king' s position. An interesting
alternative was 26 ... i.h6.
27 tLlc3?
Too much calculation takes its toll
on Piket, who up to this point has
defended very well. Garry had fun
analysing 27 .1i.c3? tLle3+ 28 \tb3
(28 \tb2 i.a3+ 29 \tb3 b4! 30 i.xb4
i.a4+ 3} \txa3 tLlc4 mate doesn't
look bad) 28 ...b4! 29 i.xb4 i.a4+.
Garry likes to use metaphors from
boxing; here is one that can be
enlisted. He started by softening up
his opponent with a left hook -
tLlf6xh5 - while the knock-out blow is
a right cross. After 30 \tb2 Mc2+
31 Wbl tLlc4, White is hopelessly
lost.
Instead, White could have gained
time with 27 i.xf8! \txf8 28 l':tgl!
(not 28 tLlel b4 29 tLld3 b3+ and
wins). In his Informant analysis Garry
doesn't demonstrate how to utilize this
rook move. The logic is that it stops
tLlh5-g3, and White therefore hopes to
move his knight from e2. Of course
Black has excellent compensation, but
a decisive conclusion is not immedi-
ately apparent:
(a) 28 ...Ma4 29 tLlc3 tLla5 30 \tb2
tLlc4+ 31 \tc2 and White is still alive.
(b) 28 ... \tf7 29 tLlc3 g5 (29 ... l:ta3
30 tLlbl IIa7 31 tLlc3 l:tac7 32 l:tc1)
30 l:tc1l:ta3 31 \tdl, and again Black
is not yet out for the count.
(c) 28 ...g5 29 tLlc3 We7 30 l:tc1
1996
Ita7 (30 .. .'~Je3+ 31 'litb3) 31 'litdl (if
31 tLlb4, Ita3) and Black has long-
lasting compensation for the pawn.
27.Jixb4!
Black could win the exchange by
27 ... tLlg3 28 ~gl tLlxfl 29 Itaxfl
tLle3+, but White could still play on.
Garry wants more than this.
28 tLlxb4
28...:a3!
This wins the game.
29 tLlc6 Ji xc6 30 dxc6 I:txc6
31 tLlxb5 l:Ixf3 32 Jixc4+ l:hc4+
33 'lit d2 'lit g7
33 .. .l::tt2+ was also strong: 34 'lite3
Itcc2 wins.
34 ~hc1 .l:Ixe4 35 l:Ic7+ 'litg8
36 l:Ic8+ 'lith7 37 ~c7+ tLlg7 38 tLld6
Itf2+ 39 'litc3 l'iIee2?
Here Piket lost on time (0-1). At the
end Garry's play too seems to have
been affected by time trouble, as his
last move is actually a mistake - it
lets White back into the game
with 40 tLle8 .l:Ic2+ 41 'litb4 l:hc7
42 tLlxc7, when the a-pawn is a
headache for Black. White has decent
chances to avoid loss.
Instead, 39 ... l:Ie3+! 40 'litb4 .l:Ib2+
41 'lita5 :ti.b8 would have been de-
cisive.
In this game Garry's imaginative
play was exceptional even by his own
standards. Piket was forced to calcul-
ate so much that he was drawn to-
wards overstepping the time limit.
188
Even if some inaccuracies intervened,
the way Garry played was miraculous.
In the next round Kasparov faced
Anand who played the Caro-Kann.
The game followed a conventional
path in the Panov System until Garry
sprung a surprise. Please look at it
yourself and judge how deep the
conception was.
Game 38
G.Kasparov White
V.Anand Black
VSB Euwe Memorial,
Amsterdam 1996
13 Itcl!!
Kasparov called this idea 'absolute
stupidity'. The rook goes to the c-file,
which is blocked by two pawns. Yet
there is a constructive idea behind the
move - it stops b7-b6.
13..l'iIe8
According to Kasparov, after
13 ... b6?! 14 c4 bxc5 (14 ... dxc4
15 Jixc4) 15 dxc5! dxc4 16 Jixc4
.axc5 17 .ab5 'fIe7 18 ~c2 tLld4
19 ~xc5 White is much better.
It is interesting that no one
mentioned the simplifying move
13 ...tLle5!? In the event of 14 i.xd7
(14 a4 tLlg6) 14 ...tLlxf3+ 15 ~xf3
~xd7, Black has relieved his position
by exchanging the bad bishop.
14 Itel Jif6
Or 14 ...b6 15 c4 bxc5 16 cxd5

ttJxd4 17 ttJxd4 cxd4 18 Jic7 and
White is better.
15Itbl
Black has so far refrained from b7-
b6, and Garry adjusts to the situation.
He has already anticipated the pawn
sacrifice which follows. If instead
IS c4 a6 16 .ta4 ttJxd4, Black can
loosen the grip: 17 ttJxd4 Jixa4
18 ~xa4 .txd4 19 cxdS ~xdS is fme
for him.
15.. b6 16 .ta6 .tc8 17 .tb5 .td7
18 .ta6 .tc8 19 .td3!?
This is a stunning pawn sacrifice.
19... bxc5
20 ttJe5!
Kasparov planned it all, yet he was
not certain about the consequences.
He attempted it even though he had
only 2S minutes on the clock.
20....td7
The alternatives were:
(a) 20 ... ttJxeS 21 dxeS i..gS (after
21....te7 22 ~g4 White has decent
attacking chances) 22 .txgS ~xgS
(22 ...hxgS 23 ~hS g6 24 .txg6 gives
White a winning attack) 23 .tbS! J:.d8
24 .tc6 winning the exchange.
(h) 20 ....txeS!. This is Kasparov's
suggestion. After 21 dxeS, Black can
try:
(hI) 21...f6 22 ~hS (22 ~g4
ttJxeS 23 i..xeS fxeS 24 J:.xeS; or
22 exf6 ~xf6 and Black is all right)
22 ... ttJxeS (after 22 ... fxeS 23 .tbS
.td7 24 .txc6 .t.xc6 2S .txeS, the
189
1996
g7 -pawn is weak and White will build
up pressure against it) 23 JixeS fxeS
24 ItxeS ~f8, and it seems to me that
Black holds on with the extra pawn.
(b2) 21...f5 22 ~hS :!:Ie7 23 I:te3
Vj' e8 24 ~h4. Garry evaluates this
position as 'with compensation' for
the pawn.
21 :!:Ib7 Jixe5
After 21...ttJxeS? 22 dxeS Jic6
23 l:i.xf7 'it'xf7 24 exf6 ~xf6
(24 ... gxf6 2S ~hS+ 'it'e7 26 I:txe6+
wins for White) 2S JieS ~gS 26 f4
~h4 (Kasparov points out that after
26 ...~e7 27 ~hS+ 'it'f8 28 ~g6
White has the initiative) 27 Ue3,
White has enduring play for the
exchange.
22 dxe5 It b8
Or 22 ... ttJe7 23 ~hS Jic6 24 Jixh6
Jixb7 2S .txg7 'it'xg7 26 ~h7+ 'it'f8
27 ~h6+ 'it'g8 28 Jih7+ 'it'h8
29 i..g6+ 'it'g8 30 ~h7+ <;t>f8
31 ~xf7 mate. This attractive
variation was discovered by Blatny.
23 ~xb8 ~xb824 ~g4
Garry has played with special imag-
ination and gained adequate com-
pensation for the pawn. He now con-
ducts the game to victory.
24... 'it'f8 25 Ite3 ~d8 26 h4 ~a5
27 J:.g3 <t;e7 28 ~xg7 <JJd8 29 ~xf7
'it'xc3 30 .tb5 ~a5 31 l:tg7 llJ.e7
32 .txd7 <t;xd7 33 ~f6 d4 34 Jixh6
c4 35 .tg5 'it'c5 36l:txe7+ 1-0
In round 4, Short tried his luck in
the i..c4 Najdorf again. Garry was in
big trouble in the opening stage.
However, one mistake from Nigel
allowed a tactical recovery, and Garry
saved the game.
In the next round he faced Seirawan
with White, and again the opening did
not go his way. Garry invited a
double-edged tactical continuation,
and the American grandmaster was
unable to resist; greater caution would
have ensured him a healthy position .
After huge complications, Kasparov
1996
won the game.
In round six his opening play let
him down once again. He was
struggling in the Slimisch against
Timman. It came to the point where
he had to sacrifice a pawn. According
to Knaak, Timman's advantage would
have been substantial if he had not
allowed his opponent to swap queens.
In the endgame Kasparov drew in a
position where he was a pawn down.
Round 7 brought another sweet
victory. This time Kramnik was
Garry's victim. Playing Black in a
complicated Rauzer, Kramnik opened
the position with with d6-dS, but it
turned out to be a premature advance.
Kasparov obtained a big advantage,
and even though there were some
errors, he still won the game.
In round 8 Kasparov drew with the
King's Indian against Lautier's 1 d4.
It is quite usual for wild complications
to erupt in games between these two
opponents. This was a typical ex-
ample. The Frenchman sacrificed a
piece and Garry took it, but soon they
had to repeat moves.
In the last round Garry played
another stunning game; his victim was
Gelfand. It is well worth a look.
Game 39
G.Kasparov White
B.Gelfand Black
VSB Euwe Memorial,
Amsterdam 1996
Sicilian Defence {B92]
1 e4
Garry had conceded only one draw
with White against Boris in their
previous meetings. He usually plays
I e4 against the predictable Gelfand,
who knows and has a good feel for his
opening lines.
1... c5 2ltJO d6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltJxd4
ltJf6 5ltJc3 a6
Boris sticks to what he knows best.
6.te2
190
In their last meeting Gelfand had
managed to draw against the 6 i.c4
variation.
6e5
This was the move the Israeli
grandmaster preferred up until the
present game.
7ltJb3 .ie7 80-00-0
When playing the variation with
Black, Garry has adopted either this
move or 8... i.e6. Here is an example
of the latter: 9 f4 ViJlc7 10 tZ:ldS (in
Oll-Kasparov, Moscow 1994, White
played differently with 10 f5 i.c4
II i.g5 lDbd7 12 a4 0-0 13 ..tJhl
Itfc8 14 as h6 IS .i.xf6 lDxf6
16 i.xc4 'iYxc4 17 'iYf3 - see Game
20 in this book. Garry had to work for
the draw, but obviously he was not
worried about entering the same line
again) 10...J.xdS II exdS lDbd7
12 c4 0-0 13 ~hl lUe8 14 J.e3 exf4
IS .txf4 J.f8 1611cl 'tWb6 17l::tc2 g6
18 J. f3 l:.ac8 19 ltJc1 lDe5 20 b3 h5
21 lDe2 .i..g7 22 h3 lDxf3 23 gxf3
'iVc5 24 ~cl b5 25 ~d2 bxc4
26 bxc4 h4 27 i.g5 lDh5 28 J.xh4
J:Ib8 29 ~gl l:.b2 30 l:.c2 ~xc4
31 llxc4 Itxd2 32 f4 J:txd5 0-1
Anand-Kasparov, Linares 2000.
9..tJhl
Those unfamiliar with this line may
be in some perplexity about this move.
The king is unlikely to be in trouble
on g1. The point of the move is that it
copes well with b7-bS. Garry has

played the White side of this position
4 times, winning two games and
drawing two.
9.tLlc6
Of the several playable moves here,
this one is seen relatively seldom.
Boris has employed it a few times,
though. In choosing it, he may have
wanted to play a move Garry himself
never used. Here are the alternatives:
(a) 9 ... i.e6 is one obvious choice.
(b) 9 ...b5 is also a natural move, but
Black needs to have an answer to
10 a4, undermining the queenside.
Kasparov-Anand, Las Palmas 1996,
continued 1O ... i.b7 II CiJd5 bxa4
12 .l:Ixa4 ..tc6 13 .l:Ia3 CiJxe4 14 CiJa5
tLlf6 15 tLlxc6 tLlxc6 16 ..tc4 tLld4
17 l::th3 g6 18 ~d2 tLlf5 19 tLlxf6+
..txf6 20 i..d5 h5 21 i.xa8. Anand
managed to draw this position with
the exchange down.
(c) The main variation is 9 ... b6,
postponing the b5 push. One year
later, Gelfand opted for this move
against Kasparov in Linares 1997.
There followed: 10 i.g5 i.b7 (against
Sutovsky in Israel in 1999, Gelfand
switched to 1O ... tLlbd7 and went on to
win) 11 ..txf6 ..txf6 12 ..tc4 tLlc6
13 ..td5 l:tc8 14 tLld2 b5. Garry later
obtained an edge and won a pawn, but
Gelfand held the draw.
(d) After 9 ... CiJbd7 10 a4 b6 11 f3
i.b7 12 i.e3 ~c7 13 J:It2 J:Iad8
14 i.fl tLlc5 15 .l:Id2 h6 16 tLlxc5
dxc5 17 i.c4, Garry beat De Firmian
in the New York rapid 1995. We have
already seen the end of that game
(number 27 in this book).
10'4 a5
This aggressive move was a novelty
at the time. When Black plays such
a committal move in the Sicilian, it
is essential for him to convert any
initiative into a tangible gain; other-
wise the weakness of b5 will become
a permanent liability. Karpov won a
few games with this idea in the i. e2
Dragon. Instead 1O ... exf4 would
191
1996
transpose to a main line.
In a later game against Almasi
(Monaco 200 I), Gelfand played
1O ...b5. After 11 i.f3 CiJa5 12 CiJxa5
~xa5 13 fxe5 dxe5 14 i.g5 i.b7
15 i..xf6 i.xf6 16 tLld5 i.g5 17 c3,
the draw was agreed.
11 a4
Garry blocks the further advance of
the black pawn; he doesn't mind the
fact that the knight can settle on
b4. The game Mochalova - Motoc,
Khalkidiki 2003, went 11 i.e3 a4
12 CiJd2. Then 12 ...a3 13 b3 ~a5
seems to stir things up; Black's pos-
ition looks playable.
11...tLlb4 12..tO
Preventing d6-d5. In an earlier
game Cabrilo-Kosic, Yugoslavia 1994
(where the position arose from a
different move-order. in the opening),
White played the alternative 12 i.e3,
and Black obtained a playable position
after 12 ... ~c7 (he can also free
himself with 12 ... d5 13 fxe5 CiJxe4)
13 i.f3 i.e6 14 J:It2 d5 15 exd5 exf4.
12...~b6
This is a very interesting move. One
intention is to stop i.cl-e3, but the
idea of the move is not merely
defensive. White now has to meet
the threat of i.c8-e6 followed by
CiJb4xc2. Black may also play
12 ...i..d7 13 i.e3 i.c6 14 ~e2 V/ilc7.
12 ...i.e6 seems the most natural
move in the position, even though
nobody has tried it before. There
could follow:
(a) 13 g4 exf4 14 i.xf4 tLld7
15 CiJd4 CiJe5 and Black has achieved
a reasonable position in the centre.
(b) 13 i.e3 l:Ie8 (if 13 ... exf4
14 i.xf4 ~b6, then 15 tLld4 and the
knight reaches b5) 14 f5 i.c4 15 l:t2
d5 with a decent position for Black.
(c) A critical position arises after
13 f5 i.c4 14 ..te2 ~c7 (or 14 ...d5
15 CiJxd5 i.xd5 16 exd5 ~xd5 17 c3
CiJc6 18 ~xd5 tLlxd5 19 i.O, and
with his bishop pair White is a little
1996
better) 15 i.xc4 ~xc4 16 i.g5.
13 g4!?
Another typically aggressive move
from Kasparov. He tries to take
advantage of the absence of the black
queen, which is now on b6 and cannot
defend the king. It goes without
saying that even with his subtle
calculating ability and judgement.
Garry is still taking a risk. In the year
of his Anand match he had certainly
worked hard on the i.e2 Najdorf and
the Scheveningen, and yet it is
unlikely that this move was home
preparation.
In reply to 13 J::te 1 Black could
choose between various plans, such
as 13 ...i.e6, or 13 ... exf4 14 i.xf4
ttJd7 15 i.e3 ttJc5 when the position
is unclear. Dokhoian mentioned
13 ... ~t2 to transfer the queen to the
kingside. (This manoeuvre is more
common in the i.c4 lines; a nice
example of how Black can take over
like that is Ljubojevic-Portisch, Wijk
aan Zee 1972.) Then 14 l:e2 'it'h4
would set both playeers a challenging
task; it is hard to judge whether
Black's initiative would be enough.
13exf4
Had Gelfand based his defence on a
different set-up introduced by 13 ...h6,
annotators might well have recom-
mend the game continuation. Perhaps
it is just a matter of taste: 14 B (or
14 g5 hxg5 15 fxg5 ttJh7 16 h4 i.e6
192
and Black is all right) 14...l:d8
15 ~e2 ttJd7 (after 15 ... d5 16 exd5
ttJfxd5 17 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 18 ~xe5 i.f6
19 ~e4 Black doesn't really have full
compensation for the pawn) 16 i.e3
ttJc5 produces an unusual type of
position.
14 ..txf4 ttJd7
In the Sicilian Black can lag behind
in development as long as there is no
immediate exploitation; he can catch
up later on. In the present case,
however, it is risky to move this
knight twice, particularly with
Kasparov on the other side of the
table. A safer move, certainly, is
14...i.e6, as it develops Black's last
minor piece: 15 ttJd5 (after 15 g5
ttJd7 16 ttJd4 ttJe5, Black has
managed to get organized; while after
15 ttJd4 d5 16 e5 ttJd7 17 ttJB i.c5
18 ~d2 J::tfe8 the position is double-
edged) 15 ...ttJfxd5 16 exd5 i.d7, and
Black has a playable position.
15 ttJd4 g6?!
Boris is courting disaster by playing
another slow move. He wants to re-
strain Kasparov's play, but this move
actually accelerates White's initiative.
It was better to develop fluently with
15 ...ttJe5 16 ttJB (16 ttJdb5 i.e6),
and now:
(a) 16 ...i.xB 17 exB (or 17 gxB
i.f6 and Black has a healthy game)
17 ... ttJxf3 18 ~xf3 :tfe8 (18 ... i.f6
19 g5), and it isn't easy for White to
create pressure against the isolated
king: 19 J::tt2 d5 20 l:d1 i.c5, and
Black has a free position.
(b) 16...l:e8, as recommended by
Grandmaster B6nsch, is a decent
option. After 17 i.e3 ~c6 18 i.d4
i.e6 Black is very much in the game.
16 i.h6 J::te8
Kasparov mentions the exchange
sacrifice 16 ... ttJe5 as a possibility:
17 i.xfS (or 17 ttJB .gxB 18 gxB
Wh8 19 J::tgl l:g8 20 IIxg8+ Wxg8
21 ~e2 i.f6 22 J:tgl+ Wh8 23 ~g2
ttJg6, and Black able to hold his

position together) 17 ....i. xf8 IS .i. e2
Jid7 19 llldb5. Black's position is
steady and he controls the darks
squares. However, the extra exchange
should still give White the better
chances.
17lllcs!?
A marvellous move. White is ob-
viously better developed, yet Black is
not that far behind and White only has
a bishop close to the enemy king. Did
Boris overlook this incursion, or did
he simply underestimate it? In either
case this remains a courageous sacrif-
ice for the attack.
17... gxf5
Understandably, Gelfand takes the
piece - if the worst comes to the
worst, he can always return some
material.
17 ... llle5, permitting the exchange
of the bishop on e7, is no longer
comfortable in view of the dark-
square weaknesses around the king:
IS lllxe7+ llxe7 19 .i.g5 lleS
20 Jif6.
With 17 .. ..i.f8!? Black could con-
solidate his position at the cost of a
pawn: after IS .i.xf8 llxf8 19 lllxd6
llle5, White's activity has evaporated.
His king is somewhat exposed, and
the bishop on f3 is passive. Black has
no weakness, his knight on e5 is
strong, and his pieces can easily come
into play. All these factors would
make it fairly difficult for White to
193
1996
convert his extra pawn into a win.
18 gxf5 .i.f6?!
This is the crucial moment, as Black
tries to organize his defence. His
situation is dangerous but by no
means hopeless, since he has pieces
around the king, and the extra piece
can be used as a shield for additional
protection.
(a) With IS ...llle5, Black's defence
is based on giving the piece back
straight away. After 19 llgl+ lllg6
20 llld5 ~c5 (2o ... lllxd5 21 ~xd5)
21 lllxe7+ llxe7 22 c3 lllc6 23 'iVd2
Black avoids a direct loss but is
unable to extinguish White's initiative
- for example, 23 ....i.xf5 (23 ... lllce5
24 ~g5) 24 exf5 ~xf5 25 llafl with
tremendous play for the pawn.
(b) Black's best move is IS ... ~hS!,
when the defence rests on removing
one of White's formidable attacking
pieces. However, after 19 llgl Black
has to be very careful in selecting
which piece he wants to remove:
(b 1) 19 ...11gS? loses to a great
swindle: 20 llxgs+ ~xgS 21 'iVg1+!!
~xg1+ 22 :tIxgl+ ~hS
23 .i.h5!!. It is perfectly possible
that Garry anticipated this most
original way to threaten a back rank
mate. It would take real imagination to
find it in advance when sacrificing the
knight on f5 six moves earlier. The
threat is .i.h5xf7 when White has two
checkmates available. Now Black
pays heavily for neglecting the de-
velopment of his queens ide: 23 ... llle5
1996
24 Ji.g7+ \t>g8 25 .lixe5+ \t>f8
26 Ji. f4 and White invades.
(b2) 19...Ji.f8!. Black should get rid
of the bishop, not the rook. White
must decide whether or not to ex-
change.
(b21) 20 Ji.xf8 :!:txf8 (20.JLJxf8?
21 'iVd2 'iVc5 22 ~h6 wins) 21 ~d2
sets ~p the devastating threat of l:tg 1-
g3, llal-gl and 'iVd2-g2. There are
various defensive tries:
(b211) 21...~c5? (Black wants to
reach f6 with the queen, but this route
takes one move too many) 22 :!:tg3
~e5 23 l:.agl liJc5 (or 23 ... ~f6
24 ~g2) 24 ~h6 and mate in four
moves.
(b212) 21 ... d5 frees the way to f6.
White can try:
(b2121) 22 l:tg3, and now:
(b21211) 22 ... dxe4 23 :ctagl e3
24 ~g2liJf6 25:!:th3:!:tg8
26 l:txh7+!! (a fascinating sacrif-
ice) 26 ... Wxh7 27 I{Wh3+ liJh5
28 ~xh5+ ~h6 29 ~xh6+ Wxh6
30 J:Ixg8liJxc2 31liJb5
31...Ji.xf5!! (a miracle move that
194
saves Black) 32:!:txa8 Ji.e4!!.
(b21212) 22 .. .'iH6! 23 exd5 (or
23 J:Iagl liJe5 24 ~g2 i.d7, and
White's attack runs out of fuel)
23 ... liJe5 24 liJe4 liJxf3! (in the event
of24 ...~h4 25 ~c3 f6 26liJd6 i.d7
27 :!:tagl White still has some pressure
for the piece) 25 llxf3 (or 25 'ib'xb4
axb4 26 liJxf6 liJd4 27 l:td3 liJxf5,
and Black is a piece up) 25 ...'fi'e5
26 :!:tel:!:te8 and Black holds off the
attack. Of course, to reach this stage in
calculation over-the-board would be
difficult in the extreme.
(b2122) 22 e5 liJxe5 (White wins
after either 22 .. .'Jfic7 23 :ael ~d8
24 Ji.xd5 liJxd5 25 liJxd5 lllb6
26 'iVh6 'iVxd5+ 27 J::tg2 'iVxg2+
28 'it'xg2, or 22 ... 'fi'd8 23 'iVh6 l:tg8
24 i.h5!! :cta6 25 f6) 23 'JIiig5 lllg6
24 liJxd5 liJxd5 25 i.xd5 ~xb2
26 :!:taft Ji.d7, and Black survives the
attack.
(b213) 21...~d8!' Black wastes no
time in getting to f6. This move stems
the attack as follows:
(b2131) 22 :!:tg3 ~f6 23 :!:tag 1
(23 e5 liJxe5 24 liJe4 liJxf3!)
23 ... liJe5, and Black probably wins
with the extra piece.
(b2132) 22 liJb5 'JIiif6 23 c3 lllc6
24lllxd6 lllde5 and White runs out of
compensation.
(b22) 20 'JIiid2 gives Black three
plausible choices:
(b221) On 20 ... lllc6? BOnsch gives
21 ~g5 Ji.xh6 22 'JIiixh6 'JIiid4 23 e5!
'JIiixe5 24:!:tael and wins.
(b222) 20 ... d5!? (this defensive ploy
was analysed by Dokhoian) 21 Ji.e3
(for 21 Ji.xf8 llxf8, see variation
'b212'), and now:
(b2221) 2l...i.c5, and White must
decide whether to exchange:
(b22211) 22 .lixc5 'JIiixc5 and again
there are two options:
(b222111) 23 exd5 :!:ta6 (or
23 .. .'Jfie3 24 ~g2 'JIiih6 25 :!:tae1, and
according to Dokhoian White has
compensation) 24 liJe4 'JIiif8 25 c3

ttJe5 26 ..ae2 (up to here, this line
follows B5nsch's analysis) 26 .....axf5
27 ttJg3 ..ad3 28 cxb4 ~d6 and the
position is unclear.
(b222 I 12) 23 f6 ~d6 24 ..ah5 ~d8
25 ~g2 ~f8 26 ~afl ttJe5 27 ~g5
d4 (27 .....ah3 loses to 28 ~xe5 ..axfl
29 lilg7) 28 ~xe5 dxc3 29 ~g7 cxb2
30 Vi'g5 and wins (alternatively
30 .i.g6 - how about that?).
(b22212) 22 'i'g2! 'iVf6 23 e5
ttJxe5 24 .i.xc5 tZlxf3 25 'iVxf3 tZlxc2
26 ttJxd5 'iVe5 27 .i.e7 and White
wins.
(b2222) 21...Vj'f6, and now:
(b2222I ) 22 .i. g5 Vj'd6 23 .i. f4
(23 tZlxd5 ttJxd5) 23 ... ~f6, and
White can force repetition.
(b22222) 22 ~g2 ..ag7 (or
22 ...il.h6 23 .i.xh6 ~xh6 24 tZlb5
dxe4 25 tZld6 ~f8 26 .i.xe4 ~e7, and
the position is hard to assess; Black
may survive) 23 .i.g5 ~a6 24 ..af4
'iY f6, again resulting in repetition.
(b22223) 22 .i.d4 tZle5 23 exd5
(23 ~g2 .i.d6 24 exd5 .i.xf5)
23 .....ah6 24 ttJe4 .i.xd2 25 tZlxf6
ttJxf3 (after 25 ....i.xf5 26 ttJxe8 ~xe8
27 ~g2 ..af4 28 ~fl, the position is
messy) 26 tZlxe8+ tZlxd4 27 tZld6 h5
28 c3 .i.xf5 and Black is safe.
(b223) 20 ... Vi'd8!?
(b2231) 21 ttJ b5 with these possib-
ilities:
(b22311) 2l...~a6 22 tZlc7 (or
22 ttJxd6 ~xd6 23 Vi'xd6 .i.xd6
24 .i.g7+ '.t'g8 25 .i.h6+ leading to a
perpetual) 22 ....i.xh6 23 ~xh6 ~f6
195
1996
24 ~xf6+ tZlxf6 25 ttJxe8 ttJxe8 and
Black is likely to hold, as after
26 ..ah5 tZlf6 27 ii.xfl ttJxc2 his
pieces are well placed.
(b22312) 21....i.xh6 22 ~xh6 ~f6
23 ~xf6+ (according to Kasparov,
after 23 ttJxd6 J:tf8 24 ~xf6+ tZlxf6
25 e5 tZle8 26 .i.e4 White is short of
play for the piece) 23 ...ttJxf6 24 tZlc7
ttJxc2 (the ending after 24 ....i.d7 is
unclear) 25 J::Iacl ttJd4 26 tZlxe8
tZlxe8 27 .i.h5 tZlf6 and Black is
better.
(b2232) 21 J.g5 .i.e7 (21...f6
22 .i.f4 :!::Ie7) 22 il.h6 il.fS (after
22 ....i.f6 23 tZlb5 tZle5 24 ttJxd6
White has compensation) 23 ..ag5
.i.e7, with repetition.
(b2233) 21 ..af4!? (this is the main
move in Kasparov's analysis - not an
easy move to consider) 21...tZlf6
(White wins after either 21... ~ f6
22 l:Ig3 ttJe5 23 J:tagl h6 24 ~g2
Wh7 25 i::th3, or 2l...ii.g7 22 ttJb5
J.xb2 23 tZlxd6 ~e7 24 ~abl)
22 ~g3 d5! 23 ~agl ~a6 (23 ... dxe4
loses to the attractive 24 ..ae5), and
now:
(b223 31) 24 tZl b5 dxe4 25 ..a e5
.i.g7 holds, as Kasparov shows.
(b22332) 24 ~d4 h6 25 l:Ih3 \tJh7
26 Ae2 Vi'b6 (26 ...ttJxe4 27 .i.xa6
.i.xf5 28 .i.xh6 J.xh3 29 .i.xf8 ~f6
30 ~xf6 tZlxf6 31 ..axb4 is unclear
according to Kasparov) 27 ~d2
ttJxe4 28 tZlxe4 Ihe4 29 .i.xa6 .i.xf5
keeps Black in the game.
(b22333) 24 e5 .i.xf5 25 exf6 .i.d6
(on 25 ...ii.c5 26 .i.h6 .i.g6 27 tZlxd5,
White takes over) 26 .i.xd6 ~xd6.
The position is complex with chances
for both sides.
19l:Igl+ \tJh8 20 Yj'd2
Grandmaster Tischbierek mentions
20 e5. It has some merit, as it frees the
e4-square for the knight. However,
Kasparov points out that 20 ... tZlxe5
21 ttJe4 (21 .i.e4 d5) 21..:~d8! (or
2l...d5 22 tZlxf6 ~xf6 23 .1I..g7+
~xg7 24 ~xg7 \tJxg7, and Black gets
1996
too many pieces for the queen)
22 QJxf6 ~xf6 23 ~xd6 ~xd6
24 i.g7+ \t>g8 25 i.xe5+ ~g6 wins
for Black.
20...QJe5
Finally Boris makes this developing
move, which virtually gives back the
piece in order to close the g-file.
20 ... ~d4 loses without real resist-
ance: 21 ~g2 ~e5 22 l:Iadl QJc5
(22 ... QJb6 23 :!::txd6 wins) 23 QJd5,
and Black's position falls apart.
20 ... ~d8 (aiming to meet 21 ~g2
with 2l...:!::tg8) 21 QJb5 would be
typical of Garry. He starts an attack on
one side of the board and is able to
keep an eye on the other side at the
same time, noticing targets there as
well. I can't help thinking of water
polo, when a player swims as fast as
he can but is still able to follow what
is happening on the other side of the
pool. Many players focus solely on
one side of the board, but Garry
concentrates on the whole board even
after a piece sacrifice. There could
follow:
(a) 2l...:!::ta6
22 QJc7!! (switching his attention
back to the g-file. Remarkably, Garry
doesn't even give this one exclam-
ation mark. Instead, 22 QJxd6 :!::txd6
23 ~xd6 i.xb2 24 l::tad1 lets Black
off the hook) 22 ... ~xc7 (22 .. J~c6
23 QJxe8 ~xe8 24 c3 QJa6 25 ~g2
wins on the g-file) 23 ~g2 ~xc2
24 i.g7+ (24 ~g7+ is pretty, but
only secures perpetual check after
196
24 ... i.xg7 25 i.xg7+ \t>g8 26 i.h6+)
24 ... \t>g8 25 I/i'g3 QJe5 26 i.xf6+
QJg6 27 :!::tacl, and where do you
guess the knockout blow will come
from?
(al) The answer is, after 27 ... ~d3
28 fxg6 fxg6 29 l:c7 it comes from
the seventh rank - just incredible!
(a2) 27 ... ~d2 28 fxg6 fxg6 29 'iVh4
also wins for White.
(a3) 27 ... ~xa4 28 ~h4 d5 29 fxg6
leads to mate.
(b) 2l...QJe5 22 QJxd6, and now:
(b 1) 22 ...:!::ta6
23 QJxe8!! (one fantastic shot foll-
ows another) 23 .. :tlVxd2 (23 .. :ixe8
loses to 24 ~g2) 24 QJxf6!! (with one
move White sets up two checkmate
threats) 24 .. J:hf6 (or 24 ... ~xh2+
25 Wxh2 QJxf3+ 26 ~hl l:txf6
27 i.g7+ +-) 25 i.xd2 (25 i.g7+
also wins after 25 ... \t>g8 26 i.xf6+
\t>f8 27 l:Iadl) 25 ... QJxf3 26 i.c3 and
White wins. This remarkable line was
demonstrated by Dokhoian
(b2) 22 ...:!::tg8 23 i.h5! (this is the
most imaginative way to win; another
way is 23 ~f4 Wie7 241hg8+ \t>xg8
25 :!::tgl+ \t>h8 26 'ig3 QJg6 27 fxg6
fxg6 28 e5) 23 ... l:!.xgl+ (23 ... l:ta6?
24 QJxf7+ QJxf7 25 i.xf7 ~xd2
26 :!::txg8 mate) 24 :!::txgl ~e7 (on
24 ...i.d7, Dokhoian gives the pretty
25 Wic3 threatening 26 'ixe5. Then
on 25 .. :t!Ve7 White wins by 26 QJxf7+
QJxf7 27 .i.g7+!) 25 ~g2 QJg6
26 fxg6 fxg6 (26 ... hxg6 27 i.xg6
opens up the king) 27 i.xg6! hxg6 (or

27 .. Jixd6 28 .i. t7) 28 'iYxg6 .i.e6
29 .i. f8! leading to a forced mate
(B{)nsch).
21 ~g2 tLlg6 22 fxg6 fxg6
Nobody, including the World
Champion himself, made any mention
of the natural 22 ... hxg6!? Black's
pieces have deserted his king, but it
isn't easy for White to achieve any-
thing concrete. He can try to invade
on the h-file or play positionally
against the d6-pawn:
(a) 23 h4 (before working on
Kasparov's games, we would never
have thought of this move; White is
trying to open the h-file) 23 ... 'it' h7
(after 23 ....td4 24 h5 .i.xgl 25 ~xgl
White has compensation for the ex-
change) 24 h5, and now:
(al) 24 ... 'it>xh6 25 hxg6 'it'g7
26 .th5! - a surprising move that
wins.
(a2) 24 ... ~g8 25 ~d2 (or 25 .i.f4
g5 26 ~ad I and the position is
double-edged) 25 ...~d4, and in this
unusual position Black appears to
maintain himself.
(b) 23 l:adl ..te6! (not 23 ....i.d4
24 ~g3!, when the white queen gets
to the h4-square: 24 ...tLlxc2 25 ~h4
and wins, or 24 ... 'it'h7 25 'iYh4 i. t2
26 :!::tg3 and Black's king is caught),
and now:
(b I) White still can try to open the
h-file with 24 h4!? .i.d4 25 h5 .i.xgl
26 ~xgl :!::tg8 (or 26 ... ~d8 27 ~g3
l:g8 28 e5 and White's attack is
dangerous) 27 fUh2 g5 28 i.xg5 and
197
1996
again White is attacking.
(b2) 24 QJb5 i.e5 25 ~d2 l:Iad8
26 c3 QJa6 27 i.e3 ~c6 28 QJd4
~xa4 29 l:Ial fUd7 30 lhaS, and
White is a little better.
23l::Igfl!
Dokhoian considers 23 i.h5?!,
giving rise to this analysis:
(a) 23 ... i.d4 24 QJb5 (24 i.xg6
lIg8) 24 ...i.xgl (24 ...i.xb2 allows
invasion after 25 lIafl i.d7 26 kIt7)
25 l::txg1 'iVc6 (25 ... d5 26 'iVf3 l::ta6
27 l::tfl wins), and White has a
dangerous initiative: -
(al) 26 i.g7+ is beautiful, but
not fully effective: 26 ... 'it'g8 (not
26 ... 'it'xg7 27 i.xg6 and wins)
27 i.c3 ~xe4 (after 27 ... d5 28 exd5
tLlxd5 29 i.f3 .i.e6 30 ~dl ~ad8
31 tLld4 ~xa4 32 tLlxe6 tLle3
33 l::txd8 tLlxg2 34 LLlc5 'iVb5
35 lIxe8+ ~xe8 36 'it'xg2 the
position is possibly equal) 28 .i.f3
'iVe7 29 fUd2 'iVe3 30 'iVdl, and
White probably doesn't have enough
for the exchange.
(a2) After 26 .i.f3! White has an
acceptable position. The Champion
says 26 ... ~e5 is clearly better for
Black, but with 27 c3 the computer
program contradicts him: 27 ... QJd3 (or
27 ... QJa6 28 ~g3! and White has a
tremendous attack) 28 ~fl!! tLlc5
29 .i.g2, and Black's development
will never be completed.
(b) 23 .. J:tg8! 24l::i.afl, and now:
(b I) 24 ....i.d4 25 LLlb5 (after
25 i.g5 i.e6 Black should do all
1996
right) 25 ....i.xgl 26 .i.d2 .i.d4 (Black
could try resisting with 26 .. .tiJa2
27 lhgl .i.d7 28 ~g5 lIg7 29 ~f6
.i.c6 30 .i.f3 ~d8) 27 ttJxd4 ~xd4
(27 ... gxh5 28 .i.c3!! ttJa2 29 ttJe6+
mates in 2 more moves) 28 .i.c3. Up
to this point we have referred to
Kasparov's own analysis. Now after
28 ... ~xc3 29 bxc3 gxh5 30 ~f3,
White is better.
(b2) 24 ....i.e5 25 .i.f4 ~c5, and
Black is on the point of finishing his
development.
23..i.g7?!
With the type of pawn structure in
which a white e4-pawn confronts a
black d6-pawn, Black very often
makes an effort to exchange the dark-
squared bishops. So why is this a
mistake now? The reason is that the
d6-pawn, and more importantly the
black king, become exposed.
White would answer 23 ...~d8 with
24 lIadl.
After 23 ....i. e6 24 .i. g4 i. xc3
25 bxc3 i.xg4 26 cxb4 .i.h5 27 b5,
Black has the more vulnerable king.
23 ... i.e5!? leads to these possib-
ilities:
(a) 24 lIadl J..e6 (on 24 ... i.d7,
Dokhoian shows a breathtaking vari-
ation: 25 .i.g~m .i.c6 26 ~f7 .i.xc3
27 .i.f5! J::Ig8 28 bxc3 ttJd3!?
29 ~g5!! ttJt2+ 30 '.i7g2 ttJxe4
31 .i.xe4 .i.xe4+ 32 '.i7g3 and wins)
25 .i.g4 and now:
198
(al) 25 ....i.xg4? 26 ~xg4 tZlxc2
(26 ... lIe7 is met by either 27 lId2 or
27 ~f3 l:tee8 28 ~f7 tZlxc2 29 lIf6,
winning) 27 l:tf7 ~c6 (27 ...l:tad8
28 J::tgl) 28 J:tgl! J!tg8 (28 ...J..xc3?
loses to 29 lIxh7+! ~xh7 30 ~xg6+
'.i7h8 31 .i.g7+) 29 ~h4 i.g7
30 i.xg7+ lIxg7 31 ~f6l:tag8
32 ~xg6!! and White wins.
(a2) 25 ...J..c4! 26 lIf3 ~c6, and if
White is better, his advantage is small.
(b) On 24 i.g4, The Spanish grand-
master Romero demonstrates the
following line: 24 ...J..xg4 25 ~xg4
tZlxc2! and now:
(bl) 26 J!tf7 tZlxal (not 26 .. .'~xb2?
27 J:tgl 'ioYxc3 28 i.d2 and wins)
27 ~d7 ~b3 28 l:hh7+ 'lttg8
29 lIg7+ and White has no more than
perpetual check.
(b2) 26 ttJd5 ~xb2 27 tIabl ~a2
28 ~h4 (28 lIxb7?! is met by
28 ... ttJe3!! - after all, it is a Najdorfl
Then after 29 .1I.g7+ J..xg7, Black is
better) 28 ...ttJb4 (if 28 ...l:tab8 then
29 .i.f4; while 28 ... ~xa4 loses to
29 lIf7) 29 tZlc7 l:Iac8 30 ttJxe8
~xe8 31 l:t bc 1. Romero evaluates this
as ;t.
24 .1I.xg7+ 'lttxg7 2Sl:Iadl
Romero gives 25 J..g4?! ~c6
26 Vj'f3 .1I.xg4 27 iVf6+ as leading to
perpetual check.
According to Dokhoian, 25 ttJb5?!
lets the advantage slip away; after
25 ... i.d7 26 l:tadl J..xb5 27 axb5
iVxb5 the Armenian grandmaster
evaluates the position as unclear.

25.....t.d7
Preventing lllc3-b5.
After 25 ....te6 (25 .. J:Ie5 26 lllb5!)
26 lllb5 J::i.ad8 (Romero mentions
26 .....t.c4. Then 27 lllxd6 is playable,
but 27 ~ 12! is even stronger:
27 ... ~x12 28 J::i.x12 .txb5 29 axb5,
and suddenly the knight is trapped)
27 c3, White has a positional advant-
age.
26 ~g3J::i.e5
This centralizing move secures the
e5-square but weakens the back rank
and the king.
After 26 ... lllxc2 27 J::i.xd6 ..t.c6
28 l:tgl, the rook will demolish the
kingside with a capture on g6.
27..t.g2
White has neatly cleared the f-file
for an invasion. Kasparov mentions
27 .te2 as another means to this
end. Then after 27 .....t.c6 (27 .....t.e6!?
seems more stubborn) 28 J::i.xd6 ~c5
29 J::i.df6, he concludes that Black is in
trouble.
27...lllxc2?
This simply hastens the end. Altern-
atives were:
(a) 27 ... J::i.ae8 28 ~f3 (28 'ih4 is
also strong) 28 ... iYd8 29 'it7+ \i;h8
30 J::i.xd6, and Black is in big trouble.
(b) 27 ... J::i.f8! 28 J::i.xf8 'it'xf8
29 J::i.fl+ \i;g8 (or 29 ... \i;g7 30 ~h4
g5 31 'ih5 ..t.e8 32 'if3 and the
White pieces penetrate) 30 iYh4!
(a subtle attacking move, t<;> stop
1996
the Black queen from helping the
defence) 30 .. JIe8 31 ~f6 'id8
(3l.....t.e6 32 .i.h3 .i.c4 33llld5 wins)
32 ~xd6. White is a pawn up, and in
Kasparov's estimation he is clearly
better. Still, the rook move was
Gelfand's best choice.
2sllld5 ~dS
Or 28 .. :ihb2 29 ~12 (29 J::i.bl
~d4 30 J::i.xb7 wins as well) 29 ... ..t.c6
30 ~f6+ \i;h6 31 l:f4, and Black is
defenceless.
29 "ilf2! lllb4
As Kasparov shows, 29 ...l::rc8
30 lllb6 ..t.g4 31 lllxc8 ..t.xdl
32 lllb6 Ii'Ic5 33 llld5 .i.h5 34 ~t7+
\i;h8 35 llle7 wins.
30 lllb6!
From here on, Black is essentially
lost.
30.....t.g4 31 ~tif: 'it'hS 32 lllxaS
.i.xdl 33 ttxdl "ilxaS 34 ~r6+ <lJgS
35 l:i'Ixd6l:i'Ie8
35 ... lllc6 loses to 36l:txc6.
36 I:Id71-0
Another astonishing game from
Kasparov. It is so full of interesting
tactics and original ideas. Even if
Black was somehow able to fend off
the storm, there was no easy way to
find the narrow path through the forest
of variations.
Kasparov and Topalov shared first
place - a very good result, particularly
for Topalov. In this tournament
Kasparov had serious problems in the
opening, but he managed unleash even
more complications then usual, and
his amazing tactical skill helped him
to get through.
Moscow Kremlin Stars Rapid
Kasparov's first opponent was
Gelfand, whom he eliminated 2:0. He
acquired little from the openings, but
went on to win nevertheless. Going
through the games, you get the
199
1996
impression that they were more like
blitz games.
In the quarter-final Garry knocked
out Dreev. The content of the games
was not very interesting; they were
decided by the time factor. Garry lost
the first, won the second, then won the
blitz game to qualify.
Against Anand in the semi-final, he
secured a good position early on.
Game 40
G.Kasparov White
V.Anand Black
PCAlGP Kremlin Stars rapid,
Moscow 1996
Garry started an attack along the h-
file with ~h4 and tth3 followed by
f4-5. Anand held out only by burying
his bishop on h8. Matters were to
become even worse for the Indian
superstar.
31..JWb7?
Anand wants to improve his light-
squared bishop, which at least has
some hopes, but he attempts this in a
careless way. Even after 31...ttc2
Black is in trouble, but White still has
to break through. The game could also
be prolonged by 3l....)i b7.
32.)id8!!
A lovely move that capitalizes on
the overloaded rook on e8. In rapid
chess, alertness is very important. The
Scheveningen is seldom undermined
in this way.
200
32...ttJe6 33 ttJe7+
Kasparov chooses to win in this
fashion.
33..Jhe7 34 fxe7 'iV d7 35l':th3
Now Black gets checkmated.
1-0
In the second game Anand tried a
new idea in the Sozin Sicilian. Garry
held his position and thus qualified.
In the first two games of the final,
Kramnik played correctly to secure
draws. In the third game (under blitz
conditions), Kasparov avoided a three-
fold repetition, only to blunder a pawn
away and lose.
Kramnik had learned from his
previous experience in a normal game.
In the final blitz game, he clearly
played for a draw - and succeeded.
Dos Hennanas
Kasparov started by playing Kam-
sky, who unwisely entered the anti-
Marshall line that had featured in
the Kasparov-Short match. Kasparov
gained a huge advantage, but whereas
in the Short match everything in this
line had gone his way, this time he
missed a win on the 25 th move. Garry
still had the better game, but Gata held
the position.
In the second round Anand sacrif-
iced a piece in the Perenyi Variation.
After he had missed a promising
move, the game ended in a pretty
perpetual check.
In round three, Garry had White
against Shirov in a complicated Slav.
Alexei was in big trouble as early as
move 13. Very soon Garry was the
exchange up in an ending. He made
no mistake.
In game four Illescas played the
Dutch, and Kasparov avoided the
main line. Years earlier he had
achieved nothing against Malaniuk, an
expert in the Leningrad System, and

had drawn quickly. This time he
played 2 J.g5. Garry obtained a slight
edge, but the Spanish grandmaster
saved the game.
Against Ivanchuk, Kasparov played
the King's Indian. He sacrificed a
pawn in a way that recalled the
fabulous Piket game. According to
Hazai, who is a King's Indian expert,
it would have been hard for Black to
find any compensation if Ivanchuk
had not settled for a draw at move
twenty.
In his sixth game, Garry played
White against Krarnnik. The opening
was a very sharp Meran, in which the
young grandmaster from Tuapse ob-
tained a huge attack. Kasparov cap-
tured a knight, but just after that he
made two mistakes in two moves.
A further exchange sacrifice by his
opponent gave Kasparov an extra
rook, but Kramnik's attack was irres-
istible. This was a masterpiece, but
this time Garry was sitting on the
wrong side of the board.
The next game was against Judit.
Game 41
J.Polgar White
G.Kasparov Black
Dos Hermanas 1996
60 \fJg4?!
Garry played the opening strongly
and gradually outmanoeuvred the
strongest woman player. He missed
201
1996
one win along the way, and Judit
managed to escape to this intriguing
endgame. This move does not lose, so
why the question mark? It shows that
Judit did not grasp the point of this
ending. The secret is that the rook has
to pin the knight, so the defence
should be based on the movement of
the rook rather than the king.
This type of endgame is of personal
interest to me. In 1992, at the time
when sudden-death fmishes were
introduced into the Hungarian Champ-
ionship, I had rook and knight against
rook in my game with B.Balogh. My
opponent gradually allowed his pos-
ition to deteriorate, and when his time
was very short he asked the arbiter
what ruling he would make if he
exceeded the time limit. The answer
was that the game would be judged a
draw. Thereupon Balogh stopped
making moves, and the draw was duly
awarded. Later the arbiter admitted
that letting my opponent know in
advance was a mistake.
One year later, several players were
taking a walk in Oakham. When I told
the story of the Balogh game, Andrew
Martin replied that in an ending with
rook and knight versus rook he would
agree a draw straight away. A few
days later I had an adjourned game
against him. Just a few moves after
resumption, we reached the following
position in which I had to move with
Black:
64 ... a3
1996
My original p_~an was to defend the
pawn with 64 ___ I::tal ?? In order to win
it, White would have to release my
king. Arriving at the tournament hall,
I saw my opponent preparing a coffee
- in readiness for a long session. I
realized I had to watch out! During
the adjournment I had analysed with
Yochanan Afek, a composer of magic-
al endgames, and we both missed how
White could win here. Had Andrew
not prepared the coffee, I would
probably have lost the game. Here is
how the story might have ended:
64.J~.al 65 ltJh6+ 'iith8 66 ltJt7+
'iith7 67 ltJg5+ and wins.
65 Ilxa3 IJj2 66 Ilal
A very clever idea, which put me
under pressure. Now there is only one
move for Black. After this I made all
my moves very slowly and carefully,
because this guy was very tricky!
66... 11141
Not 66 ... I:tf3? 67 ~g6 winning, or
66 ... 'iith7? 67 I:tgl I:tf3 68 llg5 Wh8
69 ~t7 trh3 70 trg8+ ~h7 71 trg4
1:h2 72 1:f4! I:th3 73 ltJe7 'iith8
74ltJg8 and again White wins.
67 Ua8+ rilh7 68 Ua7+ rilg8
6911e7
Now Andrew was running out of
tricks and had to release the pressure.
I felt the draw was in sight (%-%, 99).
But let's return to Garry's game
against Judit! Judit is trying to get her
king to the centre to avoid the edge.
Another_possibility was 60 1:h8 1:g3
61 I:te8 IIg2 62 ~h3ltJf4+ 63 ~h4.
60.. 'iite6 61 lib5 I:tg3+
Garry still fixes her king on the h-
file. His body language had suggested
he was in trouble. Even top players
pay attention to such information.
62 'iith4 I:tgl 63J:ig5:0 64.t!:a5
64 ~g4 was also playable:
64 ... Wf6 (64 ...I:tgl+ 65 'iith4 I:tfl
66 Wg4) 65 I:taS IIf4+ 66 'iith3 with a
theoretical draw (but not 66 ~h5??
ltJg3+ 67 ~h6 I:th4+).
64...Wf6 65 l::ta8 l'lgl 66 l::tf8+
202
We5 67 tre8+ Wf4 68 1:18+ We4
69l::te8+ 'iito 70 Wh5
70 I:ta8 is the most natural move.
70 I:tf8+! draws in spectacular
fashion. With 70 ... ltJf4 Black is tying
White up, but...
71 1:g8!! and it turns out that White
is the one who can can profit from
havi~g no king __ moves. Now after
7l...I::thl+ (7l...11xg8 is stalemate; as
more of the pieces are exchanged in
endgames, the possibilities for stale-
mate and Zugzwang increase. It is
gratifying that a fighter like Garry
would not take the rook but would
play on and try to win) 72 Wg5 I:tgl+
73 Wh4, Black cannot win. Of course
computers contribute to understanding
these kinds of ending.
70...ltJg3+
Garry sets up some obstacles.
71 Wh6
Judit can't really get to the centre,
so she decides not to try. She
is walking through a minefield, and
71 ~h4?? would step on the hidden
device: 7l...ltJf5+ 72 ~h5 (72 ~h3
l!thl mate) 72 ...ltJg7+ wins the rook.
After 71 Wg5 ltJe4+ White could
hold the position with 72 Wh6, but
not with anything else: 72 Wf5??
ltJd6+, or 72 Wh5 ltJf6+, or 72 Wh4
l'lhl mate.
71 ...ltJf5+ 72 Wh7
72 Wh5?? loses to 72 ... ltJg7+ (of
course not 72 ... Wf4 because of
73 tre4+! which leads to stalemate).
72 ...Wf4 73 trb8

Not 73 I!g8?? I!h I+ 74 <Jtg6 0,e7+
winning the rook.
73..I!g7+ 74 ~h8 I!d7
75l:te8
Chess can contain fascinating con-
tradictions. The principle of this type
of ending is to pin the knight, yet in
this case 75 l:H8?? would be a fatal
mistake: 75 ... Wg5 76 I!a8 'oiig6
77 I!g8+ (the best way to resist;
77 I!b8 I!h7+ 78 'OtJg8 0,e7+ 79 \i1fS
I!h8+ wins) 77 ... ~h6 78 I!gl I!d8+
79 I!g81Id3 80 l:tgl I!f3!! (an almost
inconceivable move for a human)
81 I!g4 (81 Wg8 0,e7+; or 81 lig2
0,h4 82 l:tg4 I!fS+ 83 I!g8 0,g6
mate) 81...0,e7 82 I!h4+ and now:
(a) 82 ... ~g5?? 83 l:th6!!. This
fantastic move is the only one to draw:
83 ... 0,g6+ 84 \i1g7 (not 84 \i1h7??
l'.:tf7+ 85 'oiig8 \i1f6 and wins) and
Black holds.
(b) 82 ... <JJg6 83 I!h6+ (neat, but
this time ineffective; if 83 l'.:tg4+, then
83 ... ~f7 84 J:.Ig7+ \i1fS) 83 ... \i1f7
84 I!h7+ 'oiifS 85 I!hl 0,g8! 86 \i1h7
~f7 87 <JJh8 (87 I!h4 l:tg3 wins)
87 ...0,f6 88 l:th6 J::tg3 89 l:tg6 l:th3+
90 I!h6 I!xh6 mate.
White could also draw by 75 I!a8
'OtJg5 76 I!a6 0,d6 (this is probably
what worried Judit) 77 nal <JJf6
78 J:.Ifl + (the pin has to be made from
this side) 78 ... 0,f5 79 'OtJg8.
75. ~g5 76 J:.Ie6
As Bologan explains, if Black
203
1996
manages to place his knight on f6 he
has a winning position.
76...0,d4 77 kte1
White could also play 77 lib6 and
bring~~ the rook to the first rank later:
77 .. JJ.e7 (or 77 ... <Jtf5 78 <Jtg8
0,e6 79 l:tbl <Jtg6 80 liIgl+ 0,g5
81 'OtJ fS=. This is an important pos-
ition; it is essential to know that this is
a draw) 78 <Jtg8 0,e6 79 l:tbl <JJg6
80 I!gl + 0,g5 81 <JtfS! is adequate.
77 .<Jtf6 78 lidl?!
The simplest way is to set up the pin
as soon as possible by 78 I!fl+ 0,f5
(78 ...~e7 79 <Jtg7=) 79 <Jtg8 I!g7+
80 <JtfS (in this case the pin itself
doesn't automatically secure a draw;
White could lose with 80 'oiih8?? 1Ig2
81 'oiih7 ~~g5 82 'oiih8 'oiif7 83 I!hl
I!g2 84 IIh3 I!f2 85 <Jth7 0,e7
86 \i1h6 I!f5 87 <Jth7 0,g8 88 I!hl
lIg5 89 1Ih2 0,f6+ 90 <Jth8 I!g8
mate) 80 ...I!a7 81 'OtJe8 (81 'oiig8 also
draws) and the White king can't be
caught.
78...~d5!
This very fme move forces White to
find the only reply to survive.
79 lial??
But Judit fails in the task.
(a) 79 I!hl?? loses to the amazing
79 ... 0,f3!! (not 79 ... 0,f5 80 I!fl).
Would Garry have found this move?
Perhaps. There could follow: 80 :h6+
(or 80 1:tfl 'OtJg6!. Now we can see the
advantage of 79 ...0,f3 over 79 ...0,f5
1996
- it covers gl) 80 .. .'itJf7 81 l::th7+
<itJg6 (81... <itJfS?? 82 ~a7 would let
White off the hook) 82 J::1g7+ <itJf6
83 x:tg4 (83 :!::Ig8? l::th5 mate)
83 ... ltJg5 84 l::tf4+ <itJg6 85 <itJg8ltJe6
86 ~g4+ <itJf6 (White's king can't
escape from the mating net, because
the knight is superbly placed on e6)
87 <itJh7 ltJg5+ 88 <itJh6 ltJf7+
89 <itJh7 J::th5+ 90 \t>g8l::th8 mate.
(b) 79 :!::I fl +! is the only way to save
the half-point: 79 ... ltJf5 80 ~t2 (the
pin rescues White) 80... l::td4 (or
80 ... \t>g6 81 :!::Ig2+ <itJf7 82 ttt2l::td8+
83 <itJh7 <itJf6, and now White draws
with 84 x:tfl or 84 :!::If4, but not
84 :!:In?? l::rd7+ 85 <itJg8 \t>g6 and
Black wins) 81 <itJg8!!. In order to
hold the position the rook has taken up
more of the burden, but it is unable to
carry it on its own. Now the king
helps to block the f7-square. (White
would lose with 81 :!::I fl ?? <itJ g6
82 ~gl+ <itJf7, or 81 ~h2?? <itJf7
82 l::thl l::tf4 83 l::th7+ <itJfS 84 ~h3
ltJe7 85 <itJh7 <itJf7 86 l::thl ltJg8
87 :!::Ih3 ~g4 88 :!::Ihl ltJf6+ 89 <itJh8
:!::Ig8 mate.)
79...ltJe6!
Garry plays the endgame very
strongly. This is the only move to win.
Tactical players seem to play better in
endings that involve knights. Even
Karpov, who was one of the greatest
endgame players ever, surprisingly
missed wins in knight endings.
204
80l::ta6
The pin comes too late. White's
king doesn't control the g6-square.
80... \t>f7! 81 :a7+ '.t>g6
Garry conducts this part of the
process with computer-like precision.
82 :!::Ia8l::td7
82 ... kId6 leads to a win one move
sooner.
83l::tb8 l:te7 84 '.t>g8l:tc5
Again 84 ... l::tc6 is one move faster,
as it covers the check on the 6th rank:
85 l::te8 1:Id6 86 l:[c8 ltJg5 87 \t>fS
tte6! 88 \t>g8 ltJh7 (Bologan's
explanation is correct) 89 \t>h8 ltJf6
90 lifSl::te7 and wins.
An interesting possibility occurs in
this type of ending. International
Master Nadanian has shown what
could happen with the black rook
already on d6 (see diagram).
Here 1.. .l::te8 2 ltJg5 <itJfS 3 l::td7
wins, as the rook can't move away
from e8 without allowing mate.
85 kIa8l::tb5 86 \t>h8 l:tb7 87 lIe8
ltJe7!?
Not the best, but the most im~gin
ative. A quicker way was 87 ... J:Ib6
88 \t>g8 ltJg5 89 \t>fS tle6! (not
89 ... <itJf6? 90 \t>e8), and Black wins
as in the note to move 84.
88l::tg8+
From a practical point of view
88 kId8!? was better, as Garry would
be forced to find the covering method
on the sixth rank; if 88 ... ltJe6, then
89 kIc8.
88...\t>h6 89 J::1g1

This mistake hastens the end. The
best move is 89 ~f8!, though it isn't
good enough: 89 ...~b6 90 \t>g8 \t>g6
91 ~d8 llle6 92 :!:Ie8 ~a6 93 ~c8
lllg5 (94 \tf8 ~e6!), winning in the
way we have seen before.
89...~b8+ 90 ~g8
90..llle8 0-1
Judit resigns because she is in
Zugzwang. If 91 ~f8, then 9L.\t>g6
(another Zugzwang) 92 ~g8+ \t>f7
wins.
In the penultimate round Kasparov
drew a highly complicated Scheven-
ingen against Topalov. In the last
round he played a risky English line
with Black against Gelfand, and
sacrificed a pawn. According to Boris
there was one point where Garry
could have reached an unclear
position, but the way he played he was
simply a pawn down. Boris committed
some inaccuracies in time trouble, and
Garry missed a beautiful move which
would have secured perpetual check.
Garry was just dead lost when
Gelfand made an atrocious blunder
which threw away the game.
Garry finished the tournament
sharing 3rd-4th places with Anand. For
most players this would have been an
excellent result, but Garry had played
below par, and indeed had needed
some luck to fmish where he did.
205
1996
Geneva Rapid
Kasparov started with a nice win
over Graf. He won the second game as
well.
Game 42
G.Kasparov White
A.Graf Black
PCA-GP Credit Suisse,
Geneva 1996
Torre Attack {A43}
1 d4
In 1996 Garry opened approx-
imately half his games with 1 e4. Was
this proportion the result of a delib-
erate plan, or did he just choose his
opening before each individual game?
l...lll f6 2 III f3
This move suggests how seriously
Garry prepares. He uses 2 lllf3 in
roughly 10 per cent of his games as an
alternative to 2 c4. Quite possibly he
does so to avoid the Benko Gambit
(which in the Soviet Union was called
the Volga Gambit, true to the prefer-
ence for Russian nomenclature). In the
database there are no games in which
Garry faced that opening! His oppon-
ent has played the gambit just twice.
2 c5
Here we go - though the Benoni has
generally become a suspect opening.
3 d5 b5?!
This set-up is particularly risky in
top-flight chess, but then Garry has
some very pleasant memories of
3 ... d6. Kasparov-Beliavsky, 9th match
game, Candidates quarter-final 1983,
continued 4 lllc3 g6 5 e4 il..g7
6 i..b5+ i..d7 7 a4 0-0 8 0-0 tlJa6
9 ~el tlJb4 10 h3 e6 11 i..f4 e5
12 il..g5 il..c8 13 llld2 h6 14 i..h4 g5
15 il..g3 g4 16 hxg4lllxg4 17 f3lllf6
18 il..h4 \t>h8 19 llle2 l:Ig8 20 c3
tlJa6 21 tlJg3, and Garry obtained a
winning positional advantage with
his exemplary play. (It should be
1996
mentioned, though, that Beliavsky
was in a desperate situation where he
needed to win at any cost.)
4 .i.g5 d6
Moves played more frequently are
4 .. :iYb6 and 4... ltJe4. Garry had
already faced the latter in the 3rd game
of his match against Miles (Basel
1986), which went: 4...ltJe4 5 .i.h4
~a5+ (5 ... .i.b7 is in fashion now)
6 ltJbd2 .i.b7 7 a4 i.xd5 8 axb5 ~c7
9 ~a4 ~b7 10 c4 ltJxd2 11 cxd5
ltJxfl 12 ~d3 d6 13 e4 'Dd7
14 ~xfl h6 15 ~e2 g5 16 .i.g3 .i.g7
17 e5 0-0 18 h4 ~xd5 19 hxg51tJxe5
20 .i.xe5 dxe5 21 gxh6 .i.f6 22 ~h5,
and Garry went on to win.
5 .i. xf6 exf6
Black now has doubled pawns, but
in return he has the two bishops. His
problem is how to find play for them.
6e4
Stops 6 ... f5, as the b5-pawn is
hanging.
6. a67 a4!
White obtains the c4-square for his
knight.
7 b48.i.d3
Occupying c4 can wait; at the
moment it's better to prevent f6-f5.
8... g6
After 8... f5 9 exf5 ~f6 10 ltJbd2
.i.xf5 11 .i.xf5 ~xf5 12 1tJc4, White
is clearly better.
9 1tJ bd2 .i. g7
9... ltJd7 (intending 10 as 'De5) has
206
yet to be tried.
100-0
Quite a decent positional alternative
is 10 a5, so as to undermine Black's
queens ide with c2-c3. However, it
gives Black time to free his dark-
squared bishop with 1O ... f5! (as the
position is closed, you might imagine
that a single tempo wouldn't matter
that much - but it does). After 11 exf5
i.xb2, Black is no worse.
White could stop f6-f5 by playing
10 ltJc4.
10...0-0
10... f5 awaits practical tests. After
11 exf5 i.xb2 12 l:tbl (interestingly
12 l::tel+, to stop Black castling, is
weaker, as the rook is not well
placed on this square; after 12 .. .'~fS
13 ~bl Black has 13 ...i.c3 available)
12 ...i.f6 (here 12 ... i.c3 is met by
13 fxg6 bxg6 14 ltJe4 .i.g7 15 ~d2,
and White is better) 13 fxg6 hxg6
14 l:Iel+ 'it>fS 15 ltJe4, White has
some advantage.
Black might also have considered
1O ... ltJd7, postponing castling. In this
closed position his king is in no partic-
ular danger. The impression, though,
is that White still stands better.
llltJc4
On 11 a5, Black has 11 ... f5.
11 ... a5 l2ltJfd2 -..c7
More often than not Black plays
12 ...i.b7, in conjunction with the
f5-break. The critical position of the
variation would seem to arise after
13 ~BltJd7 14 ~g31tJe5 15 l:I ad 1.
13 f41tJd7 14 ~el
Garry heads for the h4-square, with
thoughts of attacking the h7-pawn.
14...i.a6 15 'ilh4 Itfe8 16 f5!
White gains more space, while
Black can make no use of the e5-
square. White could also consider
16 ItB, to transfer the rook to h3 at
once. Then after 16 ... f5 17 exf5 i.b7
18 J::th3 ltJf6 (on 18 ...i.d4+ 19 Whl
'DfS 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 .i.e4, White
consolidates the extra pawn) 19 fxg6

hxg6 20 f5, Black's kingside is vul-
nerable.
16.. J::tad8?!
Black probably wants to defend the
d6-pawn, so as to release the queen
from that task. Yet the queen still
remains tied to the defence of the a-
pawn. Given Black's disadvantage in
space, it might be reasonable to
consider exchanging pieces:
(a) 16... LDe5?! at this point merely
increases the dominance of White's
knight on c4 after 17 LDxe5 dxe5
IS i.xa61ha6 19 LDc4.
(b) 16 ...i.xc4!? 17 i.xc4 (after
17 LDxc4 LDe5 IS gael - or IS LDe3
c4 - IS ... LDxc4 19 i.xc4 :!:re5, Black
has somewhat relieved his position)
17 ...11e7 IS i.b5 LDe5 19 b3, and
White can build up with gal-e1 and
ge1-e3-h3. He still has the advantage,
but Black seems to be better off than
in the g_ame.
17 IIf3 i.c8?
The bishop was not great on a6, but
on cS it does nothing.
18 :taO!?
Garry patiently improves his pos-
ition by bringing his last piece into the
game. Many players would choose
IS gh3 LDfS (lS ...h5 19 :!:rg3 'itJh7
20 fxg6+ fxg6 21 e5 wins) 19 LDb3,
and White can pick up the a-pawn free
of charge. Garry, however, prefers to
increase the pressure against the black
king.
207
1996
18...LDfS 19 LDe3!
Putting all his pieces on their ideal
squares before launching the attack.
19i.d7 20 b3 h5
Graf quite rightly wants to prevent
21 LDg4, which would be the answer
to 20 ... i.cS.
21 LDdc4!
Still taking great care with the
arrangement of his pieces in this
closed position.
21...i.c8 22 g4!
There are no more pieces to im-
prove, so Garry loses no time open-
ing up Grafs king. Your impression
from playing through this game is that
there are no spectacular moves.
Kasparov simply creates an elegant
positional masterpiece.
22..i.h6
22 ...hxg4 would hasten the end, as
the knight comes into the attack:
23 LDxg4 gxf5 24 LDxf6+.
23 gxh5
23 fxg6 fxg6 24 i::xf6 was no fun
for Black either.
23i.xe3+ 24 LDxe3 g5
Graf hopes to consolidate his king-
side at the cost of a pawn.
25 'iNa ~h8 26 LDg4 LDd7 27:!:rg3
Garry often opens up positions with
characteristic speed. In this game he
adjusts his style and improves his
position step by step.
27.l'le7 28 h4
His standard h-pawn push, which
1996
works again here.
28c4
Black hopes to confuse the issue; if
28 ...:tg8, then 29 l2lh6 ~g7 30 hxg5
wins. What if the h4-pawn is taken?
Then the flood gates are opened on the
g-file and the c 1-h6 diagonal, so that
the black king will be mated.
29 bxgS!
Kasparov opens up his opponent's
king. Graf does weJl to avoid im-
mediate loss.
29cxd3 30 gxf6 :txe4 31 'iVd2
As so often, the invasion takes place
on the edge of the board.
31 ..:ics+ 32121a l::te3
Black postpones the inevitable by
giving up a rook.
33 ~xe3 ~xe3 34 :!:Ixe3 dxc2
3S :tcll2lxf6 36l:hc2
The ending is lost for Black.
36.121xdS 37 :!:Io Ab7 38 :!:Id2
l2lc3 39 J:tg3 l::te8 40 <JJb2 dS
41 l::tgS!
Even with limited material on the
board, Garry goes after the black king.
41...ta6 42 b6121e4
White was threatening 43 l::tg7,
44 l2lg4 and 45 l2lf6, with checkmate
to follow.
43121xe4 dxe4 44 b7!
The h-pawn still marches on.
44.. e3
If 44 .. .'~xh7, then 45 Wg3 leads to
mate.
4Sl::tdg2l::te4
Or 45 ... e2 46 l::tg8+ and wins.
46 l::tg8+ Wxh7 47ll2g7+ 'It>h6
48 f61-0
So Garry finally checkmates his
opponent on the h-file. This game is
an example of how well he can handle
closed positions.
I like to ponder what I would do if I
suddenly had a fortune. In literature
and music, we often see one artist
imitating another. The player Kaspar-
ov knows best is Karpov, so I wonder
how well he would perform in a
tournament if he intentionally copied
Karpov's style. If I had the money, I
would not mind paying for the answer.
In actual fact, as Garry gets older, his
incredible tactical vision will lose
some of its effectiveness - so if he
keeps on playing, we might see him
shifting to a Karpov style. It's harder
to imagine Karpov trying to play like
Kasparov, but that too could be a
revelation.
In the first game of his quarter-final
match against Topalov, Garry played
the c3 Sicilian with White. He
acquired nothing from a middlegame
featuring an isolated pawn, and in the
endgame he had to fight for the draw
- which he eventually achieved. His
game with Black was a Najdorf with
6 .te3 l2lg4. Garry reached an ad-
vantageous rook ending with an extra
pawn - albeit a doubled one - and
managed to win.
208

Against Judit, Garry again achieved
nothing with the 2 c3 Sicilian: the
endgame with bishops of opposite
colours was a dead draw, and they
didn't bother to play it out. In their
second game, a sharp Sicilian with
6 f4 e6, both players castled long.
Kasparov obtained the two bishops,
and when Judit exchanged one of
them, an opposite-bishop ending was
reached once again. Garry won some
pawns and went on to clinch victory.
The first game of the final match
between Kasparov and Anand is worth
a closer look.
Game 43
V.Anand White
G.Kasparov Black
PCA-GP Credit Suisse,
Geneva 1996
Sicilian Defence [B90]
1 e4
His match with Kasparov aided
Anand's progress. The most visible
change was that the Indian grand-
master added I d4 to his repertoire -
something he should have done
earlier. In the present game, however,
he keeps to his former preference.
1...c52 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4
liJr6 5 liJc3 a6
Garry sticks to his main weapon
too.
6.te3 liJg4
Garry started to play this in 1996.
His very impressive result with it (+4)
is better than with 6 ... e5, or with 6 ... e6
which has been his most common
reply in this position.
7.tg5
Shirov once played 7 .tc I against
Garry, at Linares 2000. Surprisingly,
that move shows one drawback of the
knight sortie: Black has no better
reply than a retreat with the knight,
otherwise White can play f2-f3 and
g2-g4 transposing to the English
attack. So the question is whether to
209
1996
allow a draw by repetition or to settle
for an alternative set-up. In that game,
after 7... tiJf6, Shirov was the first to
deviate from repetition by playing
8 f3. I wonder what Garry would have
done if Alexei had shown any
intention to draw.
7. h6 8 .th4 g5 9 .tg3 .tg7
Black obtains active play in return
for his weakened kingside pawn
structure. His kings ide is not necess-
arily vulnerable, but castling does be-
come awkward. Fundamentally this
means that Black has to force matters
by playing dynamically. If his init-
iative runs out, it is usually very bad
news for him, as White can slowly
build up pressure against the weak-
nesses.
10.te2
A very natural developing move.
However, it has gradually gone out of
fashion.
10 IIW d2 is also natural,as it
prepares f2-f3 and h2-b4 weakening
the Black kingside. Garry has demon-
strated how to keep up Black's
initiative before White can attack the
weakness: 1O ... lllc6 11 liJb3 lllge5
12 f3 b5 13 .tf2 l:Ib8 14 llld4 .td7
15 .te2 b4 (here Garry improves on
his own game against Anand, Linares
1998) 16 liJdl liJxd4 17 .txd4 d5
and Black took over in Ivanchuk-
Kasparov, Linares 1999.
The latest trend is 10 h3!?, forcing
Black to obstruct the al-h8 diagonal.
It is worth spending a tempo to reduce
the power of the bishop on g7. The
game Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2000,
continued 1O ... llle5 II f3 liJbc6
12 .tf2 .te6 13 1IWd2 lIWa5 14 lllb3
.txb3 15 cxb3 lllb4 16 a3 lllg6
17 l:dl tiJc6 18 tiJd5 ~xd2+
19 tlxd2. White neutralized Black's
piece-play and gained an advantage,
though the game was eventually
drawn. This game demonstrates how
careful Black has to be to keep his
momentum going.
1996
Against Shirov in Sarajevo 2000,
Garry answered 10 h3 with 1O ....~Jf6,
and after 11 ~f3 ~b6 12 0-0-0 ctJc6
13 ctJxc6 ~xc6 14 e5 ~xf3 15 gxf3
dxe5 16 i.xe5 i.d7 17 ctJd5 ctJxd5
18 iixg7 ~h7 19 iie5 f6 20 l::txd5
iic6 21 l::td3 fxe5 22 h4 the game
soon ended in a draw. Between 2000
and his retirement, Garry did not play
the 6 ...ctJg4 line again.
10.. h5
The best move.
n i.xg4
Or 11 h4 gxh4 12 l:hh4 ctJc6
13 ctJb3 i.e6 14 ~d2 ~b6 15 ctJd5
i.xd5 16 exd5 ctJce5 17 c3 ctJg6
(this time Garry's piece-play has the
required effect) 18 l:i.h3 h4 19 .i.xg4
hxg3 20 ~xh8+ i.xh8 21 ~e3 gxt2+
and Garry went on to win this
attractive endgame against Topalov in
Geneva 1996.
n ...i.xg4
Garry later switched to recapturing
with the pawn; the position after
II.. .hxg4 12 0-0 occurred in two
Shirov-Kasparov games in 1999.
The first, at Wijk aan Zee, went
12... e6 13 ~d2 ctJd7 14 i.xd6 ctJe5
15 ctJcb5 axb5 16 ctJxb5 f6, with
complex play; Garry eventually won.
In the second game, at Sarajevo,
Garry was not ready to repeat the
complications. After 12 ... ctJc6 I3 ctJf5
i.xc3 14 bxc3 ~a5 15 ~xg4 f6
16 l::tabl ~xc3 17 l::tfdl ctJe5
18 i.xe5 ~xe5, White managed to
draw in the endgame.
12 f3 i.d7 13 i.f2
White has no pieces threatening the
black king, and can't advance them
into its vicinity in the near future.
Black nonetheless has the long-term
problem of finding a royal shelter.
Another Shirov - Kasparov game
(Linares 1997) went 13 0-0 ctJc6
14 i.t2 e6 15 ctJce2 (15 ctJde2 de-
serves consideration. If Black places
the knight on e5, White can play
i.t2-d4) 15 ... ctJe5 16 b3 (16 c3!?
210
prepares a square for the knight on c2)
16 ... g4 17 f4
17 ...h4!! 18 i.e3 h3 19 g3 ctJc6
20 ~d3 0-0 21 ~adl f5 22 c4 ~a5
23 ctJc3? (according to Kasparov,
23 ~ d2 was the correct move; it leads
to an unclear position) 23 ...l::tae8
24 l::t fe I ? e5, and Garry went on win.
13... ll:lc6 14 ~d2
The game Smirin-Kasparov from
the Yerevan Olympiad 1996 went
14 ll:ld5 %:.b8! 15 0-0 e6 16 ll:lxc6?
bxc6 17 ll:le3 d5 18 l::tbl 0-0 19 c4
d4 20 ctJc2 e5 21 ll:lel? (Kasparov
evaluates the position after 21 g4
as slightly better for Black) 21...f5
22 ll:ld3 g4 23 ll:lc5 gxf3 24 'iVxf3
fxe4 25 'iVxh5 ~e8 26 'iVg5 l::tf5 and
Black won. It is hard to explain why
such a good player as Smirin plays so
poorly against Garry.
14.ll:le5
14 ... ~a5 can also be played; Black
will follow with l::ta8-c8 and i.d7-e6.
150-0?!
One year later, Anand demonstrated
how to play the line with White. Garry
doesn't usually repeat variations - he
avoids the possibility of facing power-
ful preparation. This time he relied too
much on his prepared line, and Anand
made him pay for it: 15 b3 ! e6
16 ctJde2 l::tc8 17 i.d4 b5 18 ll:ldl!
l::tg8 19 ll:le3 a5 20 O-O-O!! (this is the
place to put the king; Anand indicated
that the idea came from Peter Leko.
Suddenly the Black kingside pawns
are doing no damage at all) 20 ... a4

21 ~bl axb3 22 cxb3 ~a8 23 jLc3
~a6 24 ltJc2 ~f8 25 ltJb4 ~a8
26 ltJd4 ~e7 27 l:thel ~c8 28 2l.b2
~b7 29 ltJdc2 f6 30 ltJd4 and White
acquired a very clear advantage with
his superb pl~y; Anand - Kasparov,
Frankfurt rapid 1998. Black never
managed to establish connection
between the two wings. This can be
the problem with 6 ... ltJg4: if Black's
fluent play can be inhibited, he gets
into trouble.
It is worth noting that even top-class
players need several years to master a
variation! They have people who
analyse for them; they follow other
professional players' games; they
have a very special analytical skill and
feeling for the game. And yet a
sophisticated understanding takes
years to acquire. Then someone comes
up with another twist in the line, and a
readjustment has to be made. They say
opening theory is boring! Not at all -
it is very exciting and can even pro-
duce miracles.
15...e6
In the final game of this same
Anand-Kasparov rapid match, Garry
improved on his play with 15 ...g4!
16 f4 ltJc4 17 ~e2 I!c8 18 b3 ltJa3
19 ltJd5 e6 20 ltJb4 ~a5 21 ~el h4
22 i.e3 h3 23 g3 ltJb5 24 &tdl ltJc3
25 ltJd3 Vi' c7 26 J:tc 1 ltJxe4, and
Black's power play with his pieces
secured him a pawn advantage.
16 b3
If Garry had repeated 15 ... e6 in the
final game, maybe Anand was going
to improve with 16 ltJdl !?
16...ltJg6 17l:tadl
An immediate 17 ltJde2 was also
possible.
17.. g418 f4 h419 ltJde2 h3 20 g3
Black must take care to keep the
momentum going, but now Kasparov
abandons the flexibility of his king-
side and closes it. Is this logical? Why
does he do it? There are good reasons:
the h3-pawn creates a immense
211
1996
potential threat against the white king
on gl. Black can be expected to need
many moves to exchange enough
pieces to penetrate to g2. Let us see
how long it actually takes.
20. nc8 21 e5?
Vishy blocks the enemy dark-
squared bishop, yet this is not an
attractive move. Instead, 21 2l.d4
clears the area around the king; one
piece defends the g2-square easily,
and the king might be able to walk
away from the danger zone if necess-
ary. After 2l...2l.xd4+ (or 21...e5
22 fxe5 ltJxe5 23 2l.xe5 i.xe5
24 ltJd5, and Black is not as free to
organize his playas in the actual
game) 22 Vi'xd4, White seems to be
doing well.
2t. . d5!
White is not out of danger, even
though the position is now closed. He
needs to undertake something rather
than wait and see how Black is going
to make progress.
22 ltJd4 0-0 23 ~d3
23.. 5!
This makes the g- and h-pawns
permanently secure. Black can now
concentrate on opening the position on
the queenside.
24 ltJce2
Opening the position by 24 exf6
Vi'xf6 would only help only Black in
his aim of getting closer to the sens-
itive g2-square.
1996
24 nn
We have already seen that Garry is
prepared to improve his position grad-
ually when the closed nature of the
game dictates it. At this point 24 ...b5
also came into consideration.
25 ~cl i.f8!
In a closed position, improve all the
pieces you can!
26 c3lDe7 27 !!fdllDc6 28 c4?!
White hopes to open the position
himself. He feels that this provides
better chances than waiting to see how
Garry can build up pressure on the
queens ide. It is very hard to advise
White to remain passive with 28 a4.
Objectively speaking, however, that is
the better defence.
28..dxc4 29 nxc4
29.. :~e8!
An attractive move, reminiscent
of ~e7-e8 in the game Neikirch-
Botvinnik, Leipzig Olympiad 1960.
Did Botvinnik ever show this game to
Garry? Did he remember it?
212
18 .. :~e8!! 19lDe4 b5 20 l:la5 (this
leaves the back rank vulnerable)
20 ...i. b7 21 LLld6 lDxd6 22 l:lxd6
ttd8 23 ~d2 l:lxd6 24 ~xd6 ~d8
25 ~xe6+ l:ln 26 'iVell:le7 0-1.
30~d2
Anand probably played this because
he didn't want lDc6-b4 to come with
tempo.
30.. b5
With 30 ... lDxd4!? it was possible to
get at the g2-square right away:
31 LLlxd4 (on 31 l:hd4 i. b5, White is
in trouble) 31...b5 32 :tccl lhcl
33 l:lxcl ~a8. Now White has
difficulty preventing the appearance
of both the queen and the bishop on
the long diagonal. For example:
34 i.e3 i.b4 35 'iVf2 l:lfS 36 lDc2
i.e7 37 ~dl Ac8, and there is no fun
in store for White.
31 nccllDb4?!
The knight arrives, but this may not
be the best move; 31 ... l:Ic7! looks
even stronger, as it facilitates the
queen's passage to a8. After 32 i.e3
i.b4! 33 'iYb2 ~a8! 34 lDxc6 lhc6
35 l:lxc6 ~xc6 36 lDd4 ~e4 37 ~f2
i. c8, White may already be lost.
32lDc3
Anand wants to prevent the knight
from settling on d5.
32...nc7!
A subtle move. Just like Botvinnik,
Garry was looking towards the long
diagonal when he played his queen to
e8.
33a3~a8!
This did not happen by chance; it
was all planned and neatly executed.
34 i.e3lDd3
34 ... lDc6 also looks good. The
knight goes back to initiate the
exchanging strategy: 35 b4 lDxd4
36 i.xd4 i.c8.
35nc2 b4
In the event of 35 ...lDc5 36 b4lDa4
(36 ... LLlb7 would leave the knight
awkwardly placed) 37 lllxa4 l:lxc2

38 'iVxc2 bxa4 39 nd3 'iVe4 40 ~c3
'iVd5, White's queen is his only well-
placed piece; the rest are passive.
However, I can imagine that Garry
didn't like this configuration when he
had limited time in a rapid game.
36 tLla2 tLlc5 37 ~e2
After 37 axb4 tLle4 38 ~e2, Vishy
evaluates the position as somewhat
better for White. This does not appear
to be true. The advanced pawn gives
Black the possibility of an amazing
tactical shot.
From the diagram, Black has two
good lines:
(a) 38 ..J::txc2! 39 ~xc2 l::th7!! (the
Indian super-GM probably missed this
fabulous idea) 40 l::l:cl (or 40 .ltf2
tLld2!) 40 ... tLlxg3! 41 hxg3 h2+ and
White must give up his queen.
(b) 38 ... i.b5!! is a more subtle way
to exchange pieces: 39 tLlxb5 axb5,
and now:
(bl) 40 l::l:d3 ttxc2 41 ~xc2 l::l:c7!!
(such a nice shot) 42 ~e2 (42 ~xc7
tLlxg3!) 42 .. .'~c8 and Black invades.
(b2) 40 i.b6 l::l:fd7! 41 Ad4
(41 i.xc7 tLlxg3 wins) 4l...l::txd4!!
(not 4l...l:!:xc2 42 ~xc2). White gets
blown away from a different direction:
42 l::l:xd4 'ijV a7 and Black wins.
(b3) 40 i.d4l:!.xc2 41 ~xc2 l::l:h7!!
is devastating (4l...l::l:c7! 42 ~b2
tLlxg3! 43 hxg3 ~f3 also wins).
37.. bxa3
Garry acquires a dangerous passed
pawn, but more importantly he can
exchange some of White's pieces.
213
1996
This is worthwhile for him, even if he
gives up more pieces than he takes.
38 b4 .lta4! 39 bxc5 .ltxc2
40 tLlxc2 .ltxc5 41 .ltxc5
Or 41 l::l:d2 l::l:fd7! (by exchanging
everything, all roads lead to Rome!)
42 .ltxc5 nxd2 43 ~xd2 ~xc5
44 tLle3 nb5! 45 tLlb4 ~h8!' This, of
course, is a computer move - but it
wins (if instead 45 ... a5, then 46 ~d7).
41 ...l::l:xc5
Suddenly Black has a winning
position.
42 tLlel
Or 42 tLlxa3 l:tfc7 43 ~f2 nd5
44 ~el l:!.cd7, and Black invades with
his rooks as well.
42...:t b5 43 ~ c4
43 tLld3 l:!.d7 wins.
43.. J:tb2 44 ~xe6 ~a7+ 45 ~hl
l:txh2+
45 ... <.t>g7 was simpler, but this is
more attractive.
46 <.t>xh2 ~f2+ 47 <.t>hl ~n+
48 '>ifh2 ~e2+ 49 ~gl ~xdl
White has no perpetual check.
50'>ifn
If 50 ~g6+ ~f8 51 ~h6+ ~e7
52 ~g5+ '>ifd7 53 '>iff}, the most
practical way to win is 53 ... ~d5
54 ~h6 ~e6.
50...~d7 51 ~xa6 b2
Black first moved his h-pawn on
move seven. It took 44 more moves to
arrive at h2.
52 ~g6+ ~g7 53 ~b5 ~b7
1996
54 'ieg6+ ~ g7 55 'it' e8+
At this point Anand lost on time
(0-1). Black would win with 55 .. .'~f8
56 'iVg6+ ~h8.
I dare say these two players pro-
duced a somewhat lower (though still
very high) standard of play under
rapid conditions. All the same, this
was another very educative and enter-
taining game.
In the next game, Garry lost. It
seems he is not used to playing for a
draw. Anand had Black in a King's
Indian - a surprising opening choice
for him - and reached the better
ending. Kasparov played h4-h5, a
move that has created problems for
many of his opponents in the past.
This time it was a bad mistake.
In the next game, Garry worked up
an attack and Vishy decided to
counter it by giving up the exchange.
The closed position made it difficult
to make progress, and so Kasparov
decided to give the exchange back.
After that, however, he was worse -
though Anand could not capitalize on
the advantage.
In the last game of the match, Garry
improved on the frrst, and was
winning. Sadly he fell for a trick, and
even though he resisted, he could not
avoid defeat. Drawing conclusions
from his rapid tournaments in those
years, we may say that he was clearly
a superb player, in fact one of the best
- yet he was not the same dominating
force as in regular games.
Yerevan Olympiad
Kasparov announced he would not
bother about the FIDE presidential
election, and he kept out of any
involvement. This had a positive
effect on his play.
As Garry is half Armenian, he was
treated as a local hero in Yerevan. By
214
the way he is also half Jewish, and it
is interesting that both nations have a
similar very long history and a rich
cultural background. Both have large
numbers of people in the diaspora;
both have had very hard times and
even faced genocide. Similar situ-
ations seem to develop similar attit-
udes.
Kasparov put in a great perform-
ance, but he needed time to warm up.
He joined the action in round 3, and
once again he came to realize that his
openings no longer had the same
cutting edge. Lautier equalized in a
Queen's Indian without having to do
anything special. Black actually stood
somewhat better when they agreed a
draw.
Garry's next game was against
Yusupov, who had learned from his
last defeat and decided to play
actively with White. In a King's Ind-
ian Garry was unable to create any
complications. They repeated moves
in an equal position, and the game
ended as a draw in 31 moves.
In the next game Garry had White
against Akopian, and the Meran Vari-
ation once again gave him a problem.
He obtained no more than perpetual
check after 27 moves. Akopian is a
very strong player, but not an
openings expert at this level.
In the following round, Garry
reminded everyone what a formidable
player he can be in the opening. He
introduced a very important novelty
against a new Rauzer line. (We shall
discuss it later in the context of Game
59, Kasparov - Ivanchuk.) Hra~ek's
reaction was very unfortunate; al-
though the new move was strong, he
could have done better than resigning
a mere 13 moves later.
Kasparov's last drawn game was
against Shirov, who played 3 i..b5+
avoiding the main Sicilian lines. Garry
did not repeat the move that had led to
a loss against Ivanchuk in Linares

1991. The game was a very exciting
one; here is its conclusion.
Game 44
A.Shirov White
G.Kasparov Black
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
2 1...I:the8! 22 lllxd6+! llxd6
2311xe8+ ~xe8 24 Af4! lllxc4!
Shirov did not anticipate this move.
He gives an entertaining variation
beginning with 24 ... ~g6 25 l1el, and
now:
(a) 25 ... fxg5? is refuted by Shirov's
long and beautifully calculated
analysis. 26 Axd6 ~xd6 27 ~f7!
lllb7 28 ~e8+ llld8 29 l1e6! lllf3+
30 ~fl!!. This is a subtle way to
extricate himself from trouble:
30 ...llld2+ 31 'it'el! lllf3+ 32 'it'dl
~xh2 33 l1c6+ \t>b7 34 ~d7+
'it'a6 35 ~c8+ lllb7 (or 35 ... ~a5
36 l1xc5+ bxc5 37 ~xc5+ ~a4
38 'iVb4 mate) 36 Ihb6+! (a most
amazing move) 36 ... 'lt>xb6 (36 ... axb6
37 'iVa8 mate) 37 ~c6+ ~a5 38 ~b5
mate. I wonder whether either of these
'calculating wonders' saw this far
during the game.
(b) 25 ... l1d8! 26 ~xh4 fxg5
27 'iVxg5 ~xg5 28 Axg5 J:Ig8 is
equal.
25 Axd6llld2! 26 J:Idl
Shirov thought Kasparov had
missed something on the way, as
knight checks lead nowhere.
215
1996
26..:ele4!!
After 26 ...llldf3+ 27 \t>fl, Black is
lost. If 26 ... lllhf3+ 27 \t>hl 'fiUe4, then
28 'fiUg2 nullifies the battery.
27Ag3
27 l1xd2? ~bl+ 28 'fiUfl lllf3+
29 \t>f2 'fiUxfl + 30 ~xfl lllxd2+
31 'It>e2llle4 is better for Black.
Shirov now offered a draw. The re-
action, as he tells us in his comment-
ary, was: "But I've got perpetual, can
I think a while?" After five minutes'
thought, however, they shook hands
and the draw was sealed (YZ-YZ). They
had lived up to the expectations of
drama. The game could have con-
tinued as follows:
27. ..iiJhj3+ 28 It'h1 4lJeJ+ 29 It'g1
4lJdj3+ 30 r;tj1 4lJc2
But after White's next precise
move:
31 d6!
- the black king is forced to occupy
the seventh rank. If instead 31 A f4?,
then 3l...'fiUxf4 32 'fiUxc2 lllxh2+
33 ~glll:lxg4.
31 ... lt'd7 32 .itJ4 flxJ4 33 flxc2
4lJxg5+ 34 flj2 flxg435 fle2!
In this position White is by no
means worse. Evidently a game in
which, as Shirov says himself in Fire
on Board, both players had to keep
finding the 'only move'.
Against Topalov, Kasparov began a
winning streak of four games. In a
1996
.lte2 Scheveningen, Topalov's play
was brought to a halt. Garry gradually
took over, and the Bulgarian first-
board player was ground down.
In the next game, against Ivan
Sokolov, Garry demonstrated his
subtle handling of complicated open-
ings.
Game 45
G.Kasparov White
I.Sokolov Black
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4
This was the first time Garry had
played Ivan Sokolov. There are other
Kasparov-Sokolov games, from the
1980s, but at that time he was facing
Andrei Sokolov, not Ivan. Incident-
ally, Andrei had a career that was
unique in the history of chess. He
started like a superstar; he qualified
for the fmal of the World Champ-
ionship Candidates tournament, where
he faced a formidable opponent -
Karpov. Anatoly whitewashed him,
and from then on Andrei's level of
play dropped to that of an ordinary
grandmaster. Andrei moved abroad
and had to adapt to a less stressful
existence. Another top-level player
who had a similar experience was
Tony Miles, who never looked the
same player after a 5Y:z:Y:z defeat at
Garry's hands.
l...e5
Ivan is a very strong grandmaster
with a most entertaining style, al-
though he has not achieved anything
remarkable in the World Champion-
ships. It was similar, for example,
with Andersson and Ljubojevic - they
never made it to the Candidates.
2lLlolLlc63 d4!?
Ivan Sokolov plays several vari-
ations of the main line Ruy Lopez.
The earlier Garry deviates from those
lines, the less chance Ivan has of
216
surpnsmg him. Garry first used the
Scotch against Karpov in 1990, during
their last World Championship match.
He drew his very first game with this
opening, but later it became a success
story - 13 wins, 8 draws and no
losses, against world-class players.
Very impressive.
3 . exd4 4 lLl xd4 lLl (6
Garry himself faced the Scotch only
once. He opted for this more complic-
ated variation. His opponents have
done better with 4 ... i..c5, losing just
two out of seven games.
5 lLlxc6 bxc6 6 e5 ~e7 7 ~e2
lLld5 8 c4 i..a6
Garry has faced 8... lLlb6 five times.
It is probably the weaker continuation,
and he has a perfect score against it.
Of his five opponents, Karpov did best
- he managed to postpone resignation
until move 102, though he was a pawn
down at move 16. I think if that game
had been played in an ordinary tourn-
ament, rather than the World Champ-
ionship final, Kasparov would have
finished him off much faster.
9g3
Garry usually starts by developing
his queen' s bishop on the long
diagonal by 9 b3, the more popular
move. Another very strong Bosnian
grandmaster, Predrag Nikolic, replied
9 ... g5. He did not last too long (see
Game 47).
9... g6 10 b3 i..g7 II i..b2 0-0
12 i..g2
This is an intriguing line. There is
no doubt that Black is better de-
veloped. On the other hand White's
e5-pawn secures him space in the
centre, and if White can catch up in
development and consolidate this
advantage, Black's two wings can be
split and his d- and c-pawns can
become vulnerable. The future of the
bishop on a6 is an interesting quest-
ion. If Black can free it, it becomes a
powerhouse; if not, it is a piece of
dead wood.

12...ttfe8
This is a significant moment. Ivan
must finalize a development plan and
decide how he intends to open the
position in his favour. Bringing the
other rook to the e-file is more
popular: 12 .. J:tae8 13 0-0, and now:
(a) 13 ...ti:Jb6 follows the same plan
as the game continuation, but with this
arrangement of the rooks it is less
effective: 14 :C:el d5 (14 ... f6 deserves
some attention and may be good)
15 ~ c2, and White stands better than
in the game.
(b) 13 ...i.xe5 14 ~xe5 ~xe5
15 i.xe5 :C:xe5 16 cxd5 i.xfI
17 \t>xfI cxd5 18 liJc3 c6 has been
tried quite a few times, with many
decisive games - plenty of wins for
both sides.
130-0 liJb6
With 13 ...ttab8 14 ttel tZlb6, Black
can try to free the bishop by the power
of his pieces alone. A game Messina-
Ginzburg, Verdun 1995, continued
15 'iVc2 ~b4 16 tZld2 tZla4. However,
White is likely to handle this with
17 i.d4 c5 18 i.e3 i.xe5 19 bxa4
i.xal 20 thai, when his minor
pieces will soon take over and domin-
ate.
With 13 ...i.xe5 Black can head for
an ending with rook and pawn against
bishop and knight (similar to variation
'b' in the last note). After 14 'iWxe5
'iWxe5 15 i.xe5 ttxe5 16 cxd5 .i.xfI
17 WxfI cxd5 18 f4 l:te3 19 i.xd5
J::tae8 20 liJd2 White is somewhat
better.
14 ~el d5?
Black plays dynamically in the hope
of breaking White's grip on the centre
and freeing the bishop on a6. It is so
hard in chess to judge the value of a
lead in development - it may be
impossible to stop the opponent from
catching up. In this game, Black was
unable to do anything with his pos-
ition; it seems that his whole set-up is
wrong. In the event of 14 ... f6 15 e6
217
1996
~xe6 16 ~xe6+ ttxe6 17 ttxe6 dxe6
18 i.xc6 ~d8 19liJa3 the ending can
conceivably be held, but it will cert-
ainy be no fun.
15 ~c2!?
Garry chooses to step out of the pin.
He even attached an exclamation mark
to this move. After 15 tZld2 ttad8
16 l:tacl ~e6, White is tied to the de-
fence ofc4.
The accepted move nowadays is
15 'iWd2!?, which comes from Kaspar-
ov's own Informant analysis. It is
based on a potential attack against the
bishop on a6. There can follow:
(a) 15 ... ttad8 16 ~a5 i.xc4 (or
16...i.c8 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 liJd2 i.e;
19l::tacl i.h6 20 i.d4, and White had
a clear plus in Lastin - Shadrina,
Nizhny Novgorod 1998) 17 tZld2 i.d3
18 ttacl, and White was somewhat
better in Zawadzka - Chmielinska,
Laczna 2002.
(b) 15 ....i.xc4 16 bxc4 (after
16 ~c2 i.a6 17 ~xc6 ~e6, Black
will be 'able to play c7-c5 and have a
pleasant game) 16...tZlxc4 17 ~c2
tZlxb2 18 ~xb2 i.xe5 19 tZlc3, and in
this position the three pawns are not
enough for the piece; Schipma-
Kessler, 1997.
15...~c5
The main function of this move is
not to put pressure on c4 but to defend
the c6-pawn. It is already a gloomy
outlook for Black if his queen has to
1996

move just to defend a pawn. chances against the first rank. Now
With 15 ... l:tab8 Black can hang on 20 ~xe5! is the only way to kee.2 the
to the pawn, but White finishes his advantage: 20 ... ~xc2 21 l:txc2 I:txe5
development and gains control of the 22l:txe5 l:td1+
centre: 16 t'Lld2 dxc4 17 f4 ~e6
18 t'Lle4, with advantage.
Black can also defend c6 by
15 .. .llad8 16 t'Lld2 ~b7, pinning his
hopes on the strong d-pawn. Then
after 17 l:tacl d4 18 c5 d3 19 ~c3
t'Lld5 Black might obtain some
counterplay. White can, however,
cause him real trouble with 17 cxd5
cxd5 18 ~acll:tc8 19 .i.h3.
16 t'Lld2 nad8
16 ... dxc4 would be a mistake, as 23 Sl.fl!! As this is the only move,
White has more than one very promis-
the double exclamation mark might be
ing option: 17 t'Lle4! (or 17 b4!? ~b5 questioned. It is there nonetheless,
18 a4 ~xb4 19 .i.xc6 and Black loses because it is very hard to see in
material) 17 ... ~b5 18 t'Llf6+ .i.xf6
advance that this works. After
19 exf6, and Black's king is in a
23 ...Sl.xfl 24 l:tcl White defuses the
vulnerable situation. After the further battery and wins.
moves 19 ... t'Lld5 20 .i.fl l:txel
(a2) 18 t'Lle4 ~b5 (18 ... ~b4
21 l:txe 1 ~b4 22 l:te4, he is in very
19 ~c3 ~b5 20 t'Llf6+ ~xf6 21 exf6
big trouble. cxb3 22 axb3 t'Lld5 23 ~d2 ~c5
As Kasparov has shown, White is
24 Sl.xd5 cxd5 25 Sl.b4 and wins)
also much better after 16...t'Lld7
19 t'Llf6+ Sl.xf6 20 exf6 cxb3
17 t'Llf3 dxc4 18 .i.d4 ~a5 (or
18 ... ~b5 19 e6!) 19 .i.c3 ~c5 20 b4
~b6 21 e6 l:he6 22 l:txe6 fxe6
23 .i.xg7 'iilxg7 24 ~c3+ 'iilg8
25l:tdl t'LlfS 26 t'Lle5.
17 ~acl d4?!
It is easy to criticize this push, as it
leaves the knight on b6 and the bishop
on a6 with very little play. However,
Black is in difficulties anyway:
(a) 17 ... dxc4 might give better
practical chances than the game con-
tinuation. There could follow: 21 ~ d2! !. This is an amazing
(al) 18 bxc4, and now: move. I can't help thinking of adverts
(all) Shipov gives 18 ... l:te6 as that say "buy one, get one free" - here
unclear, but Black still appears to be Garry offers you two beautiful mating
in trouble: 19 t'Lle4! ~a5 (on threats for the price of one! You
19 ... ~xc4 20 t'Llc5, White wins receive a threat to the back rank, with
material) 20 .i.c3 ~a3 21 ~b3 and a g7 -mate thrown in. (White also
Black has a horrible position. has excellent winning chances after
(aI2) 18 ... .i.xe5 19 t'Llb3 looks like 21 axb3 t'Lld5 22 l:txe8+ l:txe8
an outright win, but it isn't that simple 23 ~d2 ~b4 24 fUh6 ~fS 25 ~xfS+
- after 19... ~xc4 Black has counter- 'iilxfS 26 Sl.xd5 cxd5 27 l:txc7.) But
218

there is more still to come: 21...~h5
22 ~xeS+ l::IxeS 23 il.f3! ~h3
24 ..i.g4!' Dear customer, you receive
a diversion sacrifice as well!
(b) 17 ...'fJ.e7 - Kasparov's recom-
mendation - provides the best chance
to stay in the game. However, things
have already gone wrong for Black.
After IS 'fJ.edl 'fJ.deS (or IS ...'fJ.ed7
19 i.h3 J:[e7 20 llle4 and Black is in
serious trouble) 19 cxd5, White is
clearly better.
Islllo d3
Not 18 ...i.xe5? 19 b4! and wins.
If IS ... i.cs, then 19 ~d2! d3
transposes to the game continuation,
but White can also win by 19 i. xd4
J:[xd4 20 b4 ~xc4 21 %Vb2 l::Ie4
22 l:Ixc4 lIxe 1+ 23 lllxe 1 lllxc4
24 ~d4.
19 'ild2
As Garry explains, 19 'iI c3! was
even stronger: 19 ...i.cS 20 lIcdl i.f5
21 h3 h5 22 lllh4 i.cs 23 J:[xd3 and
White is winning.
19...i.cS 20 h3!
This stops 20 .....i.f5, but in addition
White no longer has to worry about
the outside chance that Black will get
play on the first rank.
20... h5
If20 ...i.f5, then 21 g4.
21 J::tcdl
White surrounds the d3-pawn.
Chasing the queen away with 21 b4
was another way to gain an advantage:
219
1996
21...~fS 22 ..i.d4 ..i.h6 23 ..i.e3 ..i.xe3
24 l::Ixe3 il.e6 25 ~e4. Garry's
method is more convincing.
21...i.f5
Or 21...a5 22 i.c3.
22 e6!?
This is a very ingenious, pretty and
surpri8ing move, yet there were other
ways to proceed. After 22 lllh4!?
(22 ..i.c3 ..i.fS also gives White an
advantage) 22 ... i.e6 23 il.c3 ltJcS
24 ~e3, White stands even better than
in the g~e.
22...:&Ixe6
Or 22 ... fxe6 23 i.xg7 'liIxg7
24 llle5, and suddenly the bishop on
f5 is in trouble.
Black should have tried 22 ...i.xb2!,
even if it is anything but attractive:
23 exf7+ 'liIxf7 24 ~xb2, and the
black king is opened up.
23 'fJ.xe6 i.xe6
23 ... fxe6 loses to 24 i.xg7 'liIxg7
25 ~ g5, in view of the dual threat to
capture the rook and win the bishop
by g3-g4.
24 i. xg7 <;to> xg7 25 'iI c3+ <;to> gS
26 J:[xd3
White recovers his pawn. Black is
not material behind, but his doubled
pawns are a disadvantage. However,
his biggest problem is not the c-pawns
but the misplacement of his knight.
26...l::txd3
After 26 .. J::td6 27 llle5 (or 27 ltJd2
i.f5 2S llle4 i.xe4 29 ..i.xe4)
1996
27 .. J:,hd3 28 lllxd3 'iYf5 29 'iYd4,
White is much better.
27 'iYxd3llld7
This saves the c7-pawn and activ-
ates the desperate knight. If 27 ... a5,
then 28 'iYd8+ <j;g7 29 'iYxc7.
28 'iYc3!
Garry's play is safe and, more
importantly, strong; 28 llld4? also
looks like a winning move, but in fact
it lets Black escape:
28 ... xh3!! 29 b4 'iYb6 30 lllxc6
xg2 31 tLJe7+ <j;g7 32 ~xd7 .tf3,
and White can't think of winning with
an airy king position like this.
Note that Black has to choose his
move-order correctly and hold back
his tempo-gaining knight move. On
28 ... tLJe5?, White plays 29 'iYe3! (not
29 'iYe4, which allows 29 ....txh3!!,
the shot that could well be missed.
Then after 30 f4 .txg2 31 ~xe5
~xe5 32 fxe5 e4, Black has decent
drawing chances) 29 ....txh3 (pretty,
but this time it doesn't work. If in-
stead 29 ...d7, White traps the knight
with 30 f4) 30 b4! 'iYd6 31 c5 and
wins.
28. ~f5
Or 28 ...tLJf8 29 tLJe5 d7 30 b4
'iY d6 31 c5, and White wins material.
29llld4 ~e5 30 ~d2 c5 31lllxf5!
'iYxf5 32 tWa5
Finally White acquires a material
plus. In addition his bishop is stronger
than the knight.
32...llle5
32 ... 'iYbl+ 33 <j;h2 ~b2 34 ~xc7
220
wins for White.
33 tWxa7
After 33 ~xc7 llld3 34 f4 (34 f3
lllel) 34 ... ~g7 35 Wie7 (or 35 h4
'iYe6 and Black is very active)
35 ...'iYf6 36 'iYe3 ~d4, Black still has
some chances.
33. h4?
In time trouble Sokolov goes under
without a fight, instead of continuing
33 ... tLJd3 34 f4! (34 'iYa8+ ~g7
35 ~f3 fails to consolidate the pawn,
as 35 ...~xf3 36 ~xf3 lllc 1 wins it
back) 34 ... lllcl (Kasparov explains
what is wrong with 34 ...h4?, namely:
35 ~a8+ ~g7 36 Wie4 Wixe4
37 ~xe4 lllci 38 a4 lllxb3 39 gxh4
f5 40 ~f3llla5 41 ~e2 ~h6 42 ~a.
White wins by transferring the king to
c3 and the bishop to f3, creating
Zugzwang) 35 Wib8+!! (a subtle check
pointed out by the Champion)
35 ... '>itg7 36 Wixc7 llle2+ 37 '>ita
Wic2 38 'iYe5+. White wins the knight,
thanks to the previous check on b8.
Otherwise Black's battery on the
second rank would have been danger-
ous.
34 tWa8+
34 'iYxc7 llld3 35 'iYd8+ ~g7
36 '>ith2 wins as well, but the move
played is simplest - one extra pawn is
enough. It leaves Black with no
chances.
34.. '>itg7 35 %Ve4 %Vf6 36 ~xh4
1-0

Garry virtually refuted Black's
opening. In Slavonic languages sokol
means falcon, but this time Ivan was
never allowed to fly.
Garry's next opponent was Ilya
Smirin of Israel. lIya is a very strong
player, so it is hard to explain why he
lost with White in the 6 i.e3 ll\g4
Najdorf with virtually no resistance.
In the last round Garry faced
Yermolinsky - another former com-
patriot, now representing the USA.
Yermolinsky employed a passive
opening and had to defend constantly.
He successfully protected the weak
c6-pawn which normally results from
a minority attack, but the seventh and
eighth ranks were open to invasion.
Garry's score of 7 points out of 9
earned him the silver medal for the top
board, which is very good for a team
that won the event after leading all the
way. The Sokolov game was a master-
piece and the Topalov game was a
very good win, but in this contest the
wins resulted not from Kasparov's
spectacular play but from the form of
his opposition. Most played below
their best level, and were probably
affected by the fact they were playing
Garry.
Las Palmas
Kasparov started the tournament by
playing Topalov, who had enjoyed a
marvellous year and was really
breaking through. However, this game
suggested that he was still behind
Kasparov in the quality of his end-
game play. In a Queen's Indian, Garry
slowed the game down. They went
into an ending, and Veselin missed
an opportunity to exchange knights
before Garry's king could reach the
centre. Thereafter he had to struggle,
and in the end he lost.
221
1996
In the second round, Ivanchuk tried
the 3 i.. b5+ Sicilian again. Kasparov
replied 3 ... i..d7, in contrast to the
game they had played 5 years earlier.
He did not take any risks. Ivanchuk
too opted for safety first, so the draw
was almost inevitable.
Kramnik surprisingly defended with
the King's Indian. It was a strange
choice, as Kasparov himself had
played the Black side of that opening
so many times before. Nevertheless it
worked, as he was held to a draw in
19 moves.
Next Kasparov faced another super-
talent, Anand. Garry acquired a clear
edge with a subtle pawn sacrifice.
Gaining control over the light squares,
he suddenly changed direction to go
after Vishy's king. Anand gave up
the exchange to dissipate the attack.
Kasparov had a clear edge, and
although he appeared to miss a simple
tactic, he was not punished. After that
mistake he still tried to win, but
Anand held the position.
Kasparov's last opponent in the first
half of the tournament was his long-
standing rival Karpov. In the New
in Chess magazine these players
announced that they would play a
match against each other, but not
under the auspices of FIDE or peA.
This game was no help in raising
money for the match, since Karpov
played determinedly for a draw from
the early stages by exchanging
queens. Despite his passive play,
a winning opportunity somehow
emerged - but sadly for him, he
missed it. Later they entered a pawn
ending, and Karpov made a mistake.
Kasparov returned the favour by
moving his h-pawn one square to h6,
giving up the chance to lose a tempo
with it. Karpov finally reached the
desired draw. My impression is that
after the game Kasparov won at
Linares 1993, Karpov was no longer
concerned to play hard against him.
1996
Garry's second game against Topal-
ov followed a similar pattern, with
queens exchanged and an early end-
ing. This time Veselin was more alert
and drew the game with an unusual
repetition.
Ivanchuk played Alekhine's De-
fence, and Kasparov obtained little.
Vassily was close to reaching a draw,
but one careless move allowed
Kasparov to seize the initiative. When
Ivanchuk overstepped the time limit,
he had a lost position.
Against Kramnik, Kasparovde-
fended a Queen's Gambit Declined
with ttJf6-e4. His opponent kept up
the pressure skilfully, and according
to Dolmatov missed a golden opport-
unity to gain a decisive advantage.
Vladimir allowed Garry to reach a
rook endgame with 3 pawns versus 2,
all on the same side. Kramnik kept on
playing, but made no progress.
Garry's opponent in the penultimate
round was Karpov.
Game 46
G.Kasparov White
A.Karpov Black
Las Palmas 1996
Nimzo-Indian Defence {E32]
1 d4
Garry is barely a dozen games short
of playing White 100 times against his
arch-rival, against whom he usually
varies his approach. He has tried all
four of the main moves available; I e4
occurs approximately 40 per cent of
the time.
1...liJf6
With Garry's predecessor l...d5 is
less popular.
2 c4 e6 3liJc3
In his games with this opponent
Garry often allows the Nimzo-Indian,
although 3 QJf3 is his favourite. He
seldom uses the Catalan.
3 ....t b4 4 'iV c2
222
Garry's three main systems against
the Nimzo-Indian are (a) 4 ttJf3 c5
4 g3, (b) the e3 main lines, and (c) the
variation employed here. He has
scored well with all of them. Never-
theless, this line has given him the
highest percentage of the three.
Significantly, Kasparov never used the
~c2 Nimzo-Indian against Karpov in
a World Championship match. One
reason is that he only started to play
this line at the age of 25 when he was
already Champion.
4.. 0-0
Garry's opponents have done better
with 4 ... d5. In that line he has won 5
games and drawn 9.
5 a3 .txc3+ 6 ~xc3
Garry has had this position 13 times
in his career and has scored an
unbelievable eleven points. Yet the
Nimzo-Indian is considered one of the
safest openings. All Garry's oppon-
ents were of world class. Karpov
achieved a single draw from 3 games.
6 b6 7 j" g5 j" b7
It was from this position that Garry
conceded a single draw with White.
Se3
The game Kasparov - Karpov,
Siemens Giants rapid (4 th round)
1999, went 8 ttJf3 d6 9 ttJd2 ttJbd7
10 f3 d5 11 e3 ~e8 12 cxd5 exd5
13 .Jtb5 c6 14 .Jte2 ~e7 15 b4 h6
16 .Jtxf6 ttJxf6 17 \tt2 ~d6 18 ttJfl
a5 19 liJg3 j"a6, and Black held the
position. Garry has also utilized 8 f3,
scoring 3/3 against World Champion-
ship Candidate grandmasters.
S.d6 9 f3
According to Kramnik this is Bot-
vinnik's idea. However, it is possible
that the earliest game with this
move was played by the ~c2 expert
Forintos, against Filip at Reggio
Emilia 1962.
With 9 ttJe2 ttJbd7 10 ~d3 .Jta6
11 b4 c5 12 b5 Jib7 13 lLlc3 a6 14 f3
h6 15 .Jth4 Wie7 16 j"e2 cxd4
17 ~xd4 e5 18 ~dl g5 19 Jig3,

Garry went on to beat Grischuk in
Greece, 2003.
9.. .tiJbd7
Three years later Karpov inserted an
initial 9 ...h6 in this position. There
followed 10 i.h4 lLlbd7 11 lLlh3 c5
12 i.e2 d5 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 0-0 a5
15 l:tadl ~b6 16 l:Id2 i.c6 17 i.f2
i.a4 IS lLlf4 i.b3 19 cxd5 lLlxd5
20 lLlxd5 exd5 21 i.dl i.c4 22 l::tel
~e6 23 b3 i..a6 24 ~xa5, and Black
never managed to create counterplay
for the pawn; Kasparov - Karpov,
Siemens Giants rapid (lOth round)
1999.
10 lLlh3!?
This position had been known for
nearly 30 years before the Icelandic
grandmaster Petursson introduced
this provocative development of the
knight. Subsequently White very often
takes on c5. The main line is 10 i.d3,
and if 10 ... c5 then IllLle2l:tcS.
10... cS
At this point 10 ... l::tcS!? was an
acceptable alternative, enabling Black
to take back on c5 with the rook:
11 lLlf2 h6 (lL..c5) 12 i.h4 c5
13 lLlg4 d5 14 cxd5 lLlxd5 15 i..xdS
lLlxc3 16 i.xb6 lLlxb6 17 bxc3 cxd4
IS cxd4 :tc2, and Black obtained
compensation for the pawn in Lautier-
Bologan, Poikovsky 2004. (In that
game h7-h6 and i.g5-h4 were in-
serted one move earlier.) Karpov goes
for the more natural set-up.
223
1996
11 dxcS bxcS12 i.e2
White keeps the d-file open for a
rook.
12~b6 130-0 dS 14 :tadl
14 l:tfdl allows the queen's rook to
go to c 1. However, Garry intends to
play against the king, or at least to
have the option of doing so.
14...i.c6
Karpov tried his luck with the same
variation one year later. At this point
he deviated from the present game
with 14 ... a5 15 l:td2 l:tfeS 16 l:tcl
l:tacS 17 i.dl h6 IS i.h4 i.a6
19 i..a4 i..xc4 20 Axf6 ttJxf6
21 AxeS J::!.xeS, and after this very
interesting exchange sacrifice Black
eventually lost; Ljubojevic-Karpov,
Monaco Rapid 1997.
Karpov had also played the White
side of this line against Andersson at
Haninge 1990, where the continuation
was 14...h6 15 i.f4 a5 16 i.g3 i.a6
17 l:tf2 :ta7 IS cxd5 lLlxd5 19 ~cl
Axe2 20 l:txe2 ~b5 21 Itc2 and
Karpov went on to win.
IsliJa h6 16 i.h4 i.a4
Ftafuik recommended 16 ...l:tabS,
to answer 17 l:Id2 with the provoc-
ative thrust I7 ... d4!? (according to
Kramnik, 17 ... a5 is equal) ]S exd4
cxd4 19 'iVc2 a5. Kasparov says this is
slightly better for White, though still
playable for Black.
17l:td2 i.b3
IslLlg4!?
 1996
An original idea - opening the f-
file, White is preparing an attack on
the kingside. After 18 lIcl J:1fc8,
Black is ready for the pressure on the
queenside.
18..ltJxg4
18 ...ltJh7 avoids the opening of the
f-file, but means that the hanging
pawns in the centre will be even more
vulnerable:
(a) 19 cxd5 exd5 20 i..dl i..c4
21 l:1:el ~e6 22 i..g3, with pressure
on Black's hanging pawns.
(b) Another way to play against the
centre pawns is 19 l:c1 f5?! 20 tLle5.
FtaCnik shows that the immediate
rescue operation 20 ... d4? fails against
21 exd4 cxd4 22 l:xd4 ltJxe5 23 c5
~b7 241Ib4 and White wins.
19 fxg4l::tab8
You normally prefer to put a rook
on an open file, and that is what
Karpov does here. In these circum-
stances, however, the rook would be
well positioned on e8 in case White
takes on d5. After 19... l:1:ae8!? 20 g5
(or 20 cxd5 exd5 21 :f5 l:te6 with
counterplay) 20 ... hxg5 21 i..xg5 f6
22 i..h4ltJe5 23 cxd5 exd5, Black has
a healthy position.
20gS
Garry gave an exclamation mark to
20 cxd5! - a testing move. There can
follow: 20 ... exd5 (after 20 ...i..xd5
21 e4 i..c6 22 g5 hxg5 23 i..xg5 :b7
24 l:Ifdl f6 25 i.e3, White is better)
21 l:trs (on 21 i.g3, Kasparov gives
2l...l:1:b7! - then 22 Af3 ~e6, or
22 ttf5 g6 23 J:1f3 ~e6 and Black is
very much in the game) 2l...:be8
(Kasparov states that after 21...:b7
22 i.f3 g6 23 I:Ifxd5 White has
decent compensation for the ex-
ch~ge) 22 i.f3 g6 23 lIfxd5 i.xd5
24 I:txd5 ~e6 25 e4 ltJb6! 26 l:1:d2
~e5 and Black is all r~ght.
20.. hxgS 21 i..xg5l:i:b7!
Such a natural and good move.
It takes some time to appreciate
Karpov's play; though not sparkling,
224
it is very strong.
22 i..e7?
Maybe Garry didn't expect the
black knight to occupy the square
vacated by the rook. Both champions
say that withdrawing at once with
22 i..h4 was better.
22...lIe8 23 ..th4ltJfS!
Again simple and strong, clearing
the seventh rank and fortifying the
kingside. The point behind 22 i.e7 is
explained by Ftatnik: 23 ... a5 24 i.h5!
ltJb8 25 ttdt2, with pressure against
fl. Even Kasparov's mistake is imag-
inative!
24 i.g3l:Id8
24 ... l:d7!? was an interesting alt-
ernative.
2S ..t h4 Ildd7
Or 25 ... d4 26 i.xd8 dxc3 27 i..xb6
cxd2 28 i..xc5 l:1:d7 29 i.dl i.xc4
30 ttt2, and White is better.
26 cxdSl:1:xdS
Dolmatov recommends 26 ... exd5!?,
and now:
(a) 27 l:1:cl 'iWh6 (or 27 ... ltJe6
28 ~e5 ttb8 29 i.g4 l:1:e8) 28 i.t2
ltJe6 and Black has nothing to worry
about.
(b) 27 i.g4 d4 (Karpov gives
27 .. .l::ld6; in reply, Kramnik's move
28 ~e5 would be somewhat unpleas-
ant to meet when short of time)
28 exd4 l:Ixd4 29 nxd4 cxd4 30 ~d3
i..a4 is equal according to Dolmatov.
27 e4

According to Garry, 27 ~f3 i:Ixd2
28 ~xd2 l:td7 gives a good game.
27..l:Ixd2 28 ~xd2 ~a4
It is regrettable that neither Kaspar-
ov nor Kramnik mentioned 28 ... e5!
in their analyses. Ten years earlier,
Karpov would not have taken too long
to fmd moves like this. After 29 ~g3
(or 29 ~12 t"LIe6 30 ~g4 t"LId4
31 ~ g5 ~ d6, and Black is starting to
take over) 29 ... f6 30 ~g4 t"LIe6, White
has no attack at all. This recalls a
comment that Grandmaster Adianto
once made about playing Karpov: by
the time you understand the problem,
it is often too late.
This is only hypothesis, but in the
1980s, when Karpov was still at his
peak, Garry would probably not have
dared to play so riskily - or if he had
done, Karpov might have punished
him for it. In a position like this,
Karpov was incredibly strong - poss-
ibly even stronger than Garry.
29.i.b5!
On 29 l:tbl ~b3!, Black can think
of~b3-c2.
29....i.e8?!
Nobody likes it when Garry is
pestering their king, and Karpov
wants to limit White's play in this
vicinity. Objectively, though, this
move is not the best; nor is
29 ...~xb2? 30 .i.xt7+.
Black's best is 29 ... g6! - a very log-
ical though risky move. The question
225
1996
is whether White gets enough counter-
play around the king in return for the
pawn. His own king can easily suffer
from problems on the back rank:
(a) 30 ~f6 t"LId7 31 ~e7 ~xb2
(3l...e5 32 ~g4) 32 ~f4 (White
doesn't have enough here) 32 ...~d4+
33 \t>hl t"LIe5 34 .i.f6 t"LId3 35 'iVh4
(Black also wins after 35 ~f3 e5)
35 ... ~12!! and wins.
(b) 30 ~h6 t"LIh7, and now:
(bl) 31 e5 ~xb2 32 Jl.xg6
(32 ~f6? t"LIxf6 33 exf6 ~d4+
34 '.i7hl ~xf6 and Black wins)
32 ... fxg6 33 ~xg6+ l:Ig7 34 ~xe6+
<Jth8, and Black is better according
Ftatnik. After 35 ~c8+ J:tg8 36 ~h3
~d4+ 37 '.i7hl J:.g4 White's attack
runs out of steam.
(b2) 31 ~dl ~xb2 (after 3l...~c6
32 l:!.12 ~xe4 33 l:!.d2 White
has compensation) 32 .i.xa4 ~ d4+
33 ~12 ~xa4 34 ~xc5 ~xe4, and
Ftatnik assesses the position as
slightly better for Black. Despite the
extra pawn it would certainly be rather
hard to play for a win, as all Black's
energy might be expended in defend-
ing his weak king position.
(c) 30 .i.g4 'ixb2 31 ~a5 .i.b5 (or
3l...~c6 32 ~xc5 ~xe4 33 i.12, and
White has very good drawing chances
thanks to his control of the dark
squares) 32 ~f6 (32 l:::tel t"LId7)
32...e5 33 l:Idl. It is not easy for
Black to make progress here, but he is
safe.
30.an?
1996
Garry doesn't like this move; his
time shortage contributed to the mis-
take. There are two possible improve-
ments:
(a) 30 kt12 J:id7, with an interesting
change in the direction of the
pressure; the rook is seeking play
against the e4-pawn. Then according
to Garry, 31 v,we3 J:id4 leads to an
unclear position.
(b) 30 J:icl!? is suggested by Garry,
but he analyses it no further. This is
clearly a superior move to the game
continuation, and is worth a closer
look: 30...c4+ (or 30 ...i.c6 31 i.D
tZ:ld7 32 b4 cxb4+ 33 i. 12 and White
has an edge) 31 'iV12! v,wx12+ (or
3l...v,wxb2 32 ~xb2 ~xb2 33 ~xc4
~b1+ 34 'It>12 lib2+ 35 'it'el J:ixg2
36 i.e7, and White can play for a win.
He is also better after 3 l....t b5
32 ~xb6 axb6 33 i.12) 32 Ax12
i:txb2 33 Ad4. Black is somewhat
worse because of White's two bishops
and his own back-rank problem. After
33 ... J:ib5 34 i.e2 ~a5 35 J:ixc4 Ab5
(35 ...J:ixa3 36 ~c8 wins a piece)
36 ktc5 J:ia4 (not 36... a6?? 37 i.xb5
axb5 38 nc8, winning the knight)
37 Axb5 J:ixd4 38 ~c7 a5 39 J:ia7,
Black has to work for the draw.
30 ~b5?
Karpov made this move in time
trouble. When a player gets older,
things are less and less apt to go his
way. This game was complicated, but
there was not so much to calculate and
therefore less need to run short of
time. Karpov was one of the fastest
players when he was young, but
tension affects older players differ-
ently.
30 .. :~xb2 leads to these possib-
ilities:
(a) 31 ~d8 i.b5 32 J:iel (after
32 i.xc5? i.xfl 33 v,wxfB+ 'it'h7, the
mate threat on g2 allows White no
time to take the f7-pawn; as Kntmnik
demonstrates, 34 ~xfl ~cI+ 35 <;t;>12
J:ib2+ 36 'it'g3 v,wg5+ 37 i.g4 ~l,l3+
226
wins for Black) 32.. J::td7, and now:
(al) 33 ~e8
33 ... ~x12+!!. Kramnik misses this
lovely tactical shot in his analysis.
After 34 'It>x12 J:id2+ 35 'It>e3 i:td3+
36 \t>e2 l:b3+ 37 ~xb5 i:txb5, Black
wins.
(a2) 33 ~b8 l::td2 34 Axc5 J:ixg2+
35 \t>hl \t>h7 and wins (36 'iYf4
tZ:lg6).
(b) 31 ~xb2 J:ixb2 32 i.xc5 i:tb5!
33 l:cl (or 33 AxfB <;i;>xfB and Black
has the better endgame) 33 ... tZ:ld7
34 i.d6 ~xh5 35 i:tc8 <;t;>h7! (after
35 ...tZ:lf6 36 e5 White is not worse)
36 ~xe8 tZ:lf6 37 ~e7 tZ:lxe4 38 i.b4
a5 39 i.el, and Black has 2 choices:
(bI) 39 ...tZ:ld6 40 i:ta7 tZ:lc4
41 i:txf7 tZ:lxa3, and now:
(bll) 42 i:te7 i:tc5! (42 ... tZ:lc4
43 i:txe6 a4 44 l::ta6 is assessed by
Garry as equal) 43 J:ixe6 a4 44 :aa6
(after 44 Ab4 J:ic1+ 45 ~12 tZ:lb5
46 1:a6 J:c2+ White's defence is not
easy) 44 ... tZ:lc2 45 Ad2 a3. It is poss-
ible that White can defend, but Black
has practical chances.
(bI2) 42 Ac3! looks safest:
42 ... i:tc5 43 Axg7 Wg6 44 i:te7 and
White can probably hold.
(b2) 39 ... \t>g6! (Garry says that this
and 39 ... tZ:ld6 are of equal value;
however, this move is much more
convincing) 40 i:ta7 l::tb5 41 i:txa5
i:tbl 42 <;t;>fl. Kasparov demonstrates
this narrow escape for White in his
Informant analysis.
31 'it'd8

After the game, Kasparov ment-
ioned 31 ~d6. This would have been
an improvement, since it attacks the
c5-pawn. After 31 ... c4 32 .i.e2 .i.c6
33 b3 White is a little better, while
after 3l...tLld7 32 l'.:tbl he is not
worse.
31 ..~e6 32 ~g3
According to Kasparov, attacking
the c5-pawn with 32 'iVd6!? was still
preferable: 32 ....iLxe4 33 .i.xc5 ttJg6
34 .i.xg6 i-xg6 35 ~d8+.
32.l:td7?
Putting the rook on the open file is
natural, especially when it goes there
with gain of tempo. Garry wrote very
little on the early part of this game
when analysing it for Informant, but
the concluding phase caught his
imagination. At this stage he went into
detail on two of Black's other three
possibilities.
(a) 32 ...i-xe4!? The key pawn can
be captured, for if White wins the
knight, Black can head for a perpetual:
(al) 33 i-c7 f6 34 i-d6 (this inter-
polation makes no significant differ-
ence compared with the immediate
33 i-d6) 34 ... ~xb2 35 Yi'xf8+ ~h7
36 i.f3 ~d4+ 37 '.t>hl i-xf3 38 gxf3
~d3 39 '.t>gl (39 J:i:f2 l:tb2!!) 39 ... c4!
and Black's activity holds the position
(40 i-b4l:tb5).
(a2) 33 i-d6 'tWxb2 34 ~xf8+ ~h7
35 i.f3 ~d4+ 36 'ithl kxf3 37 gxf3
Yi'd3, and now:
227
1996
(a21) 38 ~gl c4 (38 ...~e3+
39 IIf2 l:Ib2 40 .i.g3 l:txf2 41 .i.xf2
Yi'xf3 42 Yi'xc5 gives White winning
chances) 39 ~a8 ~e3+ 40 l::tf2 c3
41 '.t>g2 e5!! (this great move pro-
vides Black with perpetual check)
42 ~xb7 ~_g5+.
(a22) 38 ~f2
38 .. J.Ib2!!. Kramnik showed that
this splendid move forces a draw:
39 ~g2 (not 39 l:Ixb2?? ~fl mate,
or 39 .i.g3?? :Ixf2 40 .i.xf2 'iYfl+
41 .i.gl ~xf3 mate) 39 .. J!txf2+
40 \!7xf2 ~d2+ with perpetual check.
(b) Garry doesn't even mention
32 .. J~Ib6, while Kramnik claims that
it gives Black a slight advantage:
33 Yi'xb6 axb6 (Kramnik's analysis
stops here) 34 e5 (or 34 i-f3 l:td7
35 l:tcl l:td3 36 b4 l:Ixa3 37 bxc5 b5
38 l:.dl and White is in the game)
34... l:td7 35 l::tdl :Ixdl + 36 i-xdl
and White should be able to draw.
(c) 32 ... c4!? is Black's best winning
attempt. It is the first move of a
sequence which is extremely hard to
calculate to the end. The main idea is
that Black wants to eliminate White's
light-squared bishop from the attack.
Kasparov goes into his analysis very
deeply. It reminds me of War and
Peace: they say that Tolstoy wrote
this immense book simply to express
his opinions on certain ideas that
could be dealt with in just a few
pages. Maybe Garry analysed the
whole game just to show us this
variation: 33 .i.d6 (after 33 .i.f3?
1996
~xb2 34 .ii.d6 ~b6+ Black frees
himself from the pin and wins)
33 ... ~xh5 (here 33 ... ~b6+ 34 ~xb6
axb6 35 e5 gives Black no advantage)
34 ~xfS+ (on 34 i.xfS 'ith7, Black is
the one who would start to build up an
attack; in a middlegame with opposite
bishops this is often the decisive
factor) 34 ... 'ith7 35lIf3
35 ... c3!! (this is such a typical
move from Garry; instead, 35 .. J::tb3
36 ~xfl 'iHxfl 37 ~xfl J::txb2
38 J::Ixg7+ 'itxg7 39 i.e5+ 'itg6
40 .ii.xb2 .ii.xe4 41 '>i7f2 must be a
draw) 36 b4 (White can't win the
queen with 36 ~h3?, since after
36 ... ~xh3 37 gxh3 cxb2 Black quick-
ly gets a new queen while White
doesn't get a new rook! In the event of
36 bxc3? :bl+ or 36 Ihc3? 'iHdl+
37 'ita Itxb2+, the black rook joins
in the attack and the game is over)
36... c2 37 .ii.f4 e5 (not 37 ... g5?
38 i.e3! winning) 38 .lie3 (38 'i:c8?
:d7! or 38 ~h3? 'iHxh3 39 gxh3
exf4 40 'iHc5 .ii.xe4 wins for Black)
38 ...i.d7, and now:
(cl) 39 J::txfl ~g4! 40 .ii.cl (after
40 h3 'iHg3 41 .lih6 .ii.xh3 White is
lost) 40 ...i..b5!! 41 ~xb7 (41 :af3
loses to 4l...~d7) 4l...~d1+ 42 '>i7f2
~fl+ and wins.
(c2) 39 'iHc5 'iHh4! (39 ...i.g4
40 lIg3 lId7 41 'iHxc2 :ad1+
42 ~xdl i.xdl 43 ~h3 allows White
to escape) 40 r!f2 i..a4!? 41 ~xe5
Itd7 with fair winning chances.
(c3) 39 ~xfl!? ~xfl 40 lIxfl
228
~g6 41 lia lIc7 42 Acl lic4
43 'itfl i..a4 (after 43 ...Ac6 44 WeI
i..xe4 45 'itd2 lld4+ 46 'iitc3 lldl
47 Wb2 i..d3 48 llfS, Kasparov
thinks White's rook obtains reason-
able counterchances on the queenside)
44 'itel ~d4 45 l':td2 :axe4+ 46 :ae2
:ad4 47 :i:1:d211h4 48 h3 llc4 491Id3.
Kasparov gets this far in his very
impressive analysis. He evaluates the
position as +. This probably means
White has better drawing chances than
Black has winning chances.
33 ~e8!
This move bears the hallmark of the
tactical genius. It is exceptional for
such a move to be found in time
trouble. White is willingly placing his
queen in the line of the rook and
bishop battery - something normally
to be avoided at all costs - because the
queen exerts such strong pressure on
fl that Black is forced to simplify into
an endgame. On the previous move, I
imagine Kasparov knew Karpov well
enough to realize he was likely to play
32... l:.d7.
In a conversation with Laszlo
Hazai, who is a high-class junior
trainer, the disadvantages of Internet
play for juniors were discussed. He
suggested that the pupil doesn't learn
how to confront an opponent face-
to-face or how to behave during the
game. Chess is a fight, and each
player adopts his own style - deciding

how much emotion to show and how
much to hide. There are many import-
ant things a player has to learn to
become a top professional, including
how to avoid being intimidated and
how to acquire self-control.
33...'tixfl+
Black is entering a very difficult
endgame. Pushing the pawn with
33 ... f6? doesn't solve the problem
of the weakness of the t7-quare:
34 .td6!! (a very attractive move)
34 ...l:txd6 35 ..tt7+ 'lith7 36 ~xffl
:d2 37 ~g8+ 'lith6 38 'ifh8+ 'litg5
39~h5 mate.
A different possibility would be
33 ... g6 34 ..td6!! (Kasparov had to see
all these tactical shots in time trouble;
not 34 .txg6?? ~xfl+) 34 ...'ifxfl+
35 'litxfl llxd6 36 ~b8 and wins.
34 'litxn l:tdl+ 35 .txdl .txe8
36..ttl
36.....tb5+?
In time trouble Karpov goes down
without a fight. Exchanging the bish-
ops paves the way for the White king
to invade the queenside. Instead
36... lLld7!? would offer some practical
chances of survival, especially as
Garry did not have much time on his
clock either. In that case he would still
have had to make some crucial de-
cisions, whereas in the game he wins
effortlessly.
Garry once made some extremely
fine judgements in an opposite bishop
229
1996
endgame against Short. On that occas-
ion he was defending and had no
choice. Here he would have had
to exercise such judgement after
37.ta4:
(a) If37 ... a6, White is much better:
(al) 38 'lite2 c4 (or 38 ...'litffl
39 .tb3 ~e7 40 ..tc4 a5 41 ..tb5
'litd6 42 ..tel and White wins a pawn)
39 'litd2 (39 ..tc6) 39 ... lLlf6 (or 39 ... e5
40 ..tc6 lLlf6 41 .tb7 ..tb5 42 'litc3
and wins) 40 Axe8 lLlxe8 41 e5 and
White soon collects the c4-pawn.
(a2) 38 Ac6 lLlf6 39 Axe8 ttJxe8
40 .txc5 ttJfO 41 e5 ttJg4 42 .td6!
ttJxh2+ 43 ~e2 ttJg4 44 b4 and wins.
(b) 37 ... f6 is Ftacnik's move. White
has various tries:
(bl) 38 .txd7 .txd7 39 ..txc5 a6
gives White little if any chance to win.
(b2) 38 e5 fxe5 39 Axd7 Axd7
40 Axc5 a6, and Black can probably
defend.
(b3) 38 ..txc5 ttJxc5 39 ..txe8
ttJxe4 40 ~e2 ttJd6. According to
Ftacnik this is , but the analysis is
not totally convincing. The bishop is
stronger than the knight and the pawns
are widely separated, yet Black has
real drawing chances.
(b4) 38 ..tb5 ~t7 39 ~e2 ~e7
40 ~ d2 (after 40 e5 fxe5 41 g4 White
has the advantage, but it is insuf-
ficient) - and now:
(b4l) 40 .....tg6?! blocks the g7-
pawn. After 41 e5 A e4 (or 4l... fxe5
42 .txd7 'litxd7 43 .txc5 a6 44 Affl
.te4 45 ..txg7 Axg2 46 h4 and White
 1996
probably wins) 42 exf6+ gxf6 43 g3,
White is better.
(b42) 40 ....i.h5 41 Wc3 .i.dl.
White can squeeze the Black position,
but I do not see a direct invasion.
(c) 37 ... Wf8!? This possibility did
not attract any commentator's attent-
ion. Such a move would have put
Kasparov in an unpleasant and unfam-
iliar situation. He would have had to
take a highly critical decision. Against
any opponent he has the advantage of
being the greater player, but when it
comes to endings his superiority evap-
orates against Karpov.
(c1) 38 We2 We7 39 Wd2 Wd6
40 b4 cxb4 41 axb4 a6, and Black has
not been dispatched.
(c2) 38 .i.b5 We7, and now:
(c21) 39 We2 f5 (39 ... 'it'd6 40 b4
cxb4 41 axb4) 40 exf5 exf5 41 b4.
White is better, but the position is
probably not yet won.
(c22) 39 b4 cxb4 40 axb4 tLlb6
41 .i.c5+ Wd8 42 .i.d3. There is no
doubt that White has an advantage and
fair winning prospects, yet Black also
has realistic chances of defending.
(c3) White probably has to go
for the opposite bishop ending with
38 .i.xd7 .i.xd7 39 .i.xc5+ '.tJe8
40 .i.xa7. Despite the two-pawn
advantage this may lead to a draw,
as it is not easy to mobilize the queen-
side pawns: 40 ... e5 (40 ....i.c6 41 e5)
41 We2 .i.c6 42 \tid3 .i.b5+ 43 \tie3
43 ... f6, with an interesting end-
game. White should probably win, as
230
the black king must remain in the area
e6/d6/d7 to defend against .i.f8. It
would certainly have been a hard task
to evaluate this in time trouble - even
for Garry.
37 Ae2 Axe2+ 38 ..txe2 tLld7
39Wd3
Black cannot protect his weak
pawns. The game is over.
39... a6
40 Agl!
The most precise - it makes sure of
the win. Ftatnik mentions that on
40 Wc4 Black can resist for a
while with 40 .. .tiJe5+ (after 40 ...tLlf6
41 .i.xc5 tLlxe4 42 a4, White wins
with the distant passed pawn) 41 '.tJb3
(41 'it'xc5 tLld3+) 41...tLld7, though
White still wins with 42 Wa4. His
bishop is better than the knight in this
endgame, and his king is superior.
40... fS
Or 40 ... tLle5+ 41 'it'c3 tLld7
42 '.tJc4 tLlf6 43 Wxc5 tLlxe4+
44 Wb6 and wins.
41 exfS exfS 42 ~c4 tLle5+
43 Wxc5 tLld3+ 44 Wb6 1-0
Karpov resigned as the advance of
White's a-pawn will be decisive.
Kasparov played very imaginatively,
but then I believe that Karpov's age
also had a bearing on the outcome of
this exciting game.
In the last round, Anand and
Kasparov repeated the first 20 moves

of Garry's game against Topalov from
Yerevan. Garry probably knew about
Dolmatov's improvement from the
same year; in any case he was easily
capable of finding it on his own. He
smelt a rat and deviated. They entered
an endgame; Anand's rooks on the
seventh rank looked threatening, but
Garry brought about perpetual check.
This tournament was the first in
which the world's six highest-rated
players had competed. Kasparov won
by a margin of one point. Karpov
finished in last place without a win,
and had to say goodbye to his position
among the top-flight players. He
had held that position for 25 years -
an outstanding achievement. He and
Garry together were the dominant
players of the last quarter of the 20th
century.
Garry had played solid, strong chess
and was better than the rest. However
it was not a spectacular performance
by his exceptional standards.
1996 is a difficult year to judge.
Garry lost only two regular games in
231
1996
all. After the Euwe Memorial, where
his play was at its most imaginative,
he produced breathtaking games less
frequently. His opening preparation
had much less impact than before.
Garry stated that he had spent two
years checking his repertoire with
computer programs and had found a
great number of mistakes. He was
now on the point of completing this
task. This effort might payoff in the
long run, but in the short term it had
a negative effect, seemingly taking
energy away from the creative side of
his work. He also said that computers
had improved his calculating ability
and widened his vision as he checked
more moves during the games.
Topalov emerged as the first player
who induced Garry to avoid complic-
ations in their individual games.
Earlier Garry had played safely only
in World Championship matches
when the stakes were high. All this
apart, he was still the best player -
even though the gap was gradually
narrowing. He said this about his own
chess at the time - it was not great,
but good enough to be number one.
 1997
Linares
Garry started the year in Linares. He
later referred to it as perhaps his best-
ever tournament. He began with a
very good win over Anand. Vishy
played the ite2 line against the
Scheveningen, Kasparov equalized,
and they appeared to be heading
towards another draw. Then Vishy
committed an error and Garry took the
initiative with subtle play. Eventually
Anand blundered, giving up his key
e4-pawn, and was lost - although
according to Kasparov it was all over
anyway; it did indeed look unpleasant
for White.
In rapid games Anand is well
capable of doing damage to Kasparov.
In regular games the Indian superstar
either tends to lose his way or
Kasparov manages to adjust to him -
perhaps it is a combination of both
factors.
In the next game, Garry slowed
down. Dreev played safely in the
King's Indian Samisch. Garry pushed
his pawn to h3 in an attempt to stir
things up. He then lost the thread and
had to go into an endgame a pawn
down, though his compensation meant
that it was drawish. If he had reached
that position against Kamsky, he
would have had many more moves to
play before they signed the scoresheet,
but Dreev just agreed a draw.
With White against Gelfand, Garry
exerted positional pressure in the it e2
Najdorf. He utilized the d5-square
effectively, but Boris created some
counter-chances by a pawn sacrifice.
Kasparov won a second pawn but had
to settle for an ending with bishops of
opposite colours. Boris held on in
spite of the two-pawn deficit, as Garry
232
had no effective way to penetrate.
In round four Garry had Black
against Piket. Just like the previous
King's Indian between these oppon-
ents (Game 37), this game featured a
fantastic conception involving a pawn
sacrifice. This time the imaginative
concept came from the Dutch grand-
master, who improved on the pawn
sacrifice played by Kozul. Garry was
suffering from a taste of his own
medicine, and it is unlikely he was
happy about being a good teacher. He
conjured up complications and sacrif-
iced a pawn, but Piket exchanged his
key light-squared bishop in the attack.
Garry sacrificed a piece as well, but
didn't have sufficient counterplay. At
this stage it did not look as if it would
be a great tournament for Garry. Sadly
for the Dutch fans, Piket committed a
huge error; Garry needed one nice
move to expose it. Piket got confused
and missed ways to hold the position -
he gave back the extra piece. Then it
was Kasparov's tum to be inaccurate,
missing a win on move 40 with his
flag hanging. The game ended in per-
petual check.
The next game was an attractive
and typical Kasparov performance.
Predrag Nikolic was his victim!
Game 47
G.Kasparov White
P.Nikolic Black
Linares 1997
Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4e5
This move was no real surprise,
even though Predrag normally plays
the French.
2 ttJrJ ttJc6 3 d4
Garry did not want to play the

Zaitsev or another main line of the
Ruy Lopez.
3...exd4 4 tlIxd4 tlIf6
Against the Scotch Nikolic plays
this line exclusively. Providing such
an obvious target is dangerous against
a formidable opening player.
S tlI xc6 bxc6 6 eS 'fII e7 7 'fII e2
tlIdS 8 c4 Aa6 9 b3
This is Garry's main line.
9... gS
This is the novelty Anand intro-
duced against Garry in 1995. Let's see
how Garry copes against the main line
9...g6.
Against Ivanchuk at Amsterdam
1994, he played 10 ka3, and
there followed: 1O... 'ifg5 II g3 tlIc3
12 tlIxc3 kxa3 13 ll:\e4 'ife7
14 tlIf6+ ~f8 15 Ag2 i.b4+ 16 ~fl
:&td8 17 ~b2 i.a3 18 ~c3 Ab4
19 ~b2 i..a3 20 ~c3 YZ-YZ.
After 10 f4 ~b4+ (in Kasparov-
Karpov, Tilburg 1991, Black played
1O... f6. Garry has pleasant memories
of this game. His brilliant preparation
yielded him a winning position with a
piece up: 11 ka3 ~t7 12 'ifd2 ll:\b6
13 c5 i.xfl 14 cxb6 axb6 15 e6!!
dxe6 16 i.xf8 I:rd8 17 ~b2 i.xg2
IS ~xg2 ~xf8 19 ~xc6, and White
went on to win) 11 i.d2 ~b6 12 'ife4
f5 13 ~f3 ~d4 14 ll:\c3 tlIxc3
15 i.xc3 i.b4 16 :&tcl i.xc3+
17 Uxc3 0-0-0 18 c5 i.b7 19 ~e3
~xe3+ 20 :&txe3, White won in
39 moves in Kasparov-Bacrot, Sara-
jev02000.
10g3
The Sth Kasparov-Anand match
game, New York 1995, went 10 Aa3
d6 (1O .. .'~xa3 11 tlIxa3 kb4+
12 ~d2 i.xd2+ 13 ~xd2 is also
possible) II exd6 'fIIxe2+ 12 i.xe2
i.g7! 13 cxd5 i.xe2 14 ~xe2 Axal
15 :&tcl O-O-O! with an eventual draw.
10...kg7 IlAb2 O-O?!
Predrag Nikolic is a very fme
positional player, and even this move
displays his style - it is a positional
233
1997
handling of a tactical variation. When
this game was played, the 9 ... g5 line
was still being pioneered. At this
point 1l...0-0-0!? looks like a more
dynamic approach; Black is ahead in
development, so he can think of play-
ing more assertively. However, as
Garry proved in his game against Ivan
Sokolov, there is no guarantee that
White can be prevented from finishing
his development - which is very
dangerous news for Black, since he
has a disrupted pawn structure and
some badly placed pieces as well. It is
hard to guess which reply Garry
would have chosen: 12 ~e4, or
perhaps 12 tlId2 or 12 Ag2.
12 tlId2
This was a novelty at that time;
12 Ag2 leads to these possibilities:
(a) 12 ... d6? 130-0 favours White:
(al) 13 ... I:rab8 (or 13 ...:&taeS
14 'ifd2) 14 ~d2 .axe5 15 J::tel tlIb6
16 Axe5 dxe5 17 ~a5, and Black
was in a big trouble in Novak-Ascic,
Croatian team championship 1996.
(a2) 13 ... dxe5 14 ~d2 :&tfd8
15 ~a5 i.b7 16 cxd5 and Black has
little for the piece.
(a3) 13 ...Axe5 14 i..xe5 dxe5
15 :&tel f6 16 ~d2 tlIb6 17 i..xc6 and
White has an edge, as Black's minor
pieces are not working properly.
(b) I2 ... Itae8 13 0-0 (13 ~dI tlIb6
is rather unclear, but Black should at
least be all right) 13 ...Axe5 14 ~xe5
~xe5 15 Axe5 :&txe5 16 cxd5 AxfI
17 ~xfl cxd5 and Black has a typical
endgame for this variation.
12. f6
There are three other main options:
(a) 12 ...1He8 13 0-0-0 tlIb6 14 f4,
and White has an attractive position.
(b) l2 ...tlIb4 13 Wdl!? and the
knight on b4 is a problem piece.
(White could also consider sacrificing
the a-pawn with 13 0-0-0. After
13 ... ll:\xa2+ 14 Wbl tlIb4 15 h4 he
has compensation.)
(c) 12 ...d6 13 h4 (after 13 ~e4
1997
Axe5 14 Axe5 f5! 15 ii.xd6 'ixd6
16 ~d4 ~feS+ 17 'it'dl tilf6, Black
is safe) 13 ...l:taeS (White meets
13 ... ~feS in the same way) 14 hxg5
(White could also play for an attack
by 140-0-0; after 14 ...ii.xe5 15 Axe5
dxe5 16 tilbl! tilb6 17 ~h5 he
has a menacing initiative) 14 ... .i.xe5
15 ~xe5 'iVxe5 16 'iVxe5 l:txe5+
17 'it'd 1 and White has a superior
endgame.
13 ~h5!
Despite being underdeveloped,
Garry makes a second move with his
queen and delays castling. This gains
a significant tempo.
13 exf6 Axf6 14 YJlixe7 tilxe7
15 ~xf6 l:1xf6 16 0-0-0 is also
possible; it is a matter of taste on
which diagonal the bishop should be
developed. (Psakhis attaches an 'only
move' mark to 16 Ah3 and says
White is slightly better; then 16 ... d5 is
met by 17 0-0.) After 16... d5
(16 .. J:lxf2 17 tile4) 17 fl, White has
the better chances.
13 tilb4 14 h4!
Garry's signature move! He puts
immense energy into the attack on the
h-file. Incredibly, Black is slightly
better developed and yet it is White
who is attacking. How can this
happen? The bishop on a6 is de-
veloped, but out of play. White could
also try 14 'it'd I?, intending to trap the
knight. It may look as though White
234
obtains the advantage in that line too,
but in his Informant analysis Garry
shows what is wrong: 14 ... fxe5!!
(after 14 ... c5 15 h4 White has play on
the h-fiIe) 15 a3 e4 16 axb4 Axb2
17 l:txa6 l:txf2 IS ~e2 e3 19 l:tfl
~xfl+ 20 tilxfl ~e4! 21 ~xg5+
'1t>hS 22 tilxe3 ~bl+ 23 Wd2 .i.cl+
24 'it'c3 'iVb2+ 25 'it'd3 I:teS, and
Black is on the point of giving mate.
14.. g4?
After this mistake, Black is walking
a tightrope. It may be that he can
somehow survive, but he is close to
being lost. In any case he has a
difficult decision to make:
(a) 14... tilc2+? 15 \tid 1 tilxal
16 hxg5, and again the position is
very dangerous for Black. For ex-
ample, 16... fxe5 (16 ....i.hS 17 gxf6)
17 YJlixh7+ 'it'fl and now:
(al) Psakhis gives IS .i.d3 'it'eS
(1S ... ~xg5 19 :!:Ih5! 'iVg4+ 20 .i.e2
wins) 19 'iVg6+ ~dS (or 19... I:tfl
20 ~ xa 1 and White has a strong
initiative) 20 ~h7 with powerful play.
(a2) IS 'iVh5+! is the best con-
tinuation of the attack: IS ... 'it'gS
19 f4! exf4 (19 ... ~fl 20 f5 wins)
20 ~h7+ Wfl 21 .i.xg7! with a lethal
battery.
(b) Exchanging queens with
14 ... YJlieS!? is quite a logical idea. It
damps the attack down but still fails to
equalize:
(bl) 15 YJlixeS ItaxeS 16 \tidl (after
16 0-0-0 tilxa2+ 17 'it'bl ttJb4
IS tile4 fxe5 19 Itxd7 .i. cS 20 lIxc7

i..fS 21 il.g2 gxh4 22 rixh4 rid8,
Black's piece activity may compens-
ate for his weaknesses) 16....ltb7
17 a3 CZJa6 18 exf6 il.xf6 19 .i.xf6
l:txf6 20 f3 g4!? 21 fxg4 ~t2. White's
pieces are disunited and Black is
likely to have a pleasant game, even if
he doesn't recover his pawn in the
near future.
(b2) 15 bxg5 ~xh5 16 rixh5 fxe5!
(not 16 ... CZJc2+ 17 ~dl CZJxal
18 gxf6 and wins) 17 ~e2!. This is
played not only to avoid the check,
but also if possible to launch an attack
on the h-file, even though the queens
have been swapped: 17...CZJc2 (or
17 ... d5 18 Ah3 IIae8 19 llhl, and
White's attack on the h-file gives him
the initiative) 18 ric 1 CZJd4+ 19 .i. xd4
exd4 20 f4 riae8+ 21 ~t2 l:Ie3
22 ridl, and according to Psakhis
White is slightly better. The bishop on
a6 is still out of play.
15 'ltdl!!
Grandmaster Psakhis suspects that
the Bosnian grandmaster had missed
this sidestep - a great idea by
Kasparov. Garry attaches no mark to
this imaginative handling of the
position, but it deserves to be
acknowledged. What is so good about
the move White rejected on his
previous turn? The answer is that the
black knight is now really in danger,
and remarkably White's king move on
the back rank 'attacks' the king at the
235
1997
other end of the board.
If instead 15 0-0-0 CZJxa2+ 16 ~bl
CZJb4, the knight controls the d3-
square.
15...c5
In the event of 15 ... fxe5 16 a3 i:Ixf2
17 axb4 ~ xb4 18 Sl. e2, White stops
all Black's attacking tries and wins
with the extra piece.
15 ... fS is also unattractive: 16 a3
Sl.xe5 17 axb4, and suddenly the rook
attacks on the other side: 17 ...il.xb2
18 l::txa6 ~xb4 19 .tdJ ~c3 (or
19 ....i.c3 20 .i.xfS l:It7, and now the
rook diverts the queen with 21 l::ta4;
then after 2l...~d6 22 ~xg4+ 'iiJh8
23 l:ta2, this same rook switches to
defence) 20 Ac2l:Iae8, and the Israeli
grandmaster shows more ways to use
the white rook: 21 l:ha7 (instead of
taking the pawn. it may also destroy
the black bishop: after 21 l:!:a2!? J:te6
22 rixb2 ~xb2 23 .i.xfS White is
close to winning) 2l...I:te6 22 'iV g5+
~h8 23 ~f4 ~f6
24 I:ta5, and fmally the rook is
attacking again. Nikolic wanted to
immobilize the rook on the h-file; in
this line he has done so, but the other
white rook has shown remarkable
versatility.
16 a3ltJc6?
16...Sl.b7!? would be an interesting
try:
(a) 17 axb4 leads to nothing more
than perpetual check: 17 ...il.xh 1
18 .i.dJ h6 19 'ifg6 fxe5 20 ~h7+
'iiJt7 21 ~c2 .i.b7 22 ~g6+
1997
(otherwise Black will play ~e7-f6)
22 ... ~g8 23 'tlVh7+.
(b) 17 I:IgllL1c6 18 i.d3, and Black
has two possible defences:
(bl) 18 ... f5 19 iixf5 iixe5 20 Xlel
d6 21 'tlVxg4+ ~h8 22 'iUh5 'iUg7
23 i.xe5 (or 23 ::txe5!? dxe5
24 i.e4 ::tae8 25 lLIf3 and White
has a menacing position) 23 ... lLIxe5
24 Xla2, and according to Kasparov
White is somewhat better.
(b2) 18 ...h6 19 exf6, and now:
(b21) 19.. Jhf6 20 iixf6 (White is
also better after 20 I:Iel 'tlVfl21 'iUxg4
Xlxf2 22 i.g6 'iUrs 23 i.e4)
20 ... 'tlVxf6 21 'tlVd5+ ~h8 22:!:Ia2:!:Irs
23 ~e4. This is no fun for Black.
(b22) 19 ... i.xf6 20 'tlVxg4+ ~h8
21 ::tel 'tlVfl. In this way Black has
managed to hold out against the on-
slaught (it was not easy) and stabilize
the position. White needs good tech-
nique to keep an edge: 22 ~c2 (or
22 i.xf6+ ~xf6 23 Xla2 lLIe5
24 ::txe5 'tlV xe5 25 'tlV xd7 'tlV g7
26 'tWxg7+ rJixg7 27 i.e4, with some
advantage) 22 ... i.xb2 23 ~xb2 'tlVxf2
24 J:Iadl 'tlVf6+ 25 ~a2, and at
the end of his king's remarkable
journey to safety, White's position is
preferable.
17 i.d3!
There is no need to release the
pressure. with 17 exf6?! i.xf6
18 ~xg4+ ~h8, when Black loses a
pawn but not the game. Instead White
236
brings his bishop into the attack.
17...15
If 17 ... i.h8, 18 i.e4! wins.
One other option is 17...h6 18 'tlV fS!
(White going for the kill; with 18 exf6
i.xf6 19 'iUxg4+ VJiJg7 he just wins a
pawn), and now:
(a) 18 ...lLIxe5 19 ~h7+ ~fl
20 i.xe5 fxe5 (20 .. .'~xe5? 21 i.g6+)
21 'tW g6+ <lJ g8 22 'iV xa6 (Black gets
rid of his problem piece, but not under
the conditions he would have liked)
22 ... e4 23 Axe4 .ltxal 24 Axa8
:!:Ixa8 25 'iUxh6 and White breaks
Black's resistance.
s._'if
(b) 18 ... fxe5 19 'iUh7+ <lJfl
20 Ag6+ ~e6.
~
itf$3
_ _ _~~
tf$3--.
.15.
/ ~ f',?if;@!
;o0f~
ifi111l1
n
U
~
m. ~ f!Ai!; ~
. .<iii>. .:
, ~ u iJiIi'i
Here is what Lev Psakhis had to say
about this position: "It is no great
pleasure to have your king on e6 in a
middlegame against Kasparov!" And
Psakhis knows Kasparov well! The
massacre could start with 21 Ae4!
'iUf6 (on 2l...<t>fl, Psakhis gives
22 :!:Iel <lJe8 23 ~g6+ Vllifl24 'tlVxg4
winning) 22 Axc6 dxc6 23 J:iel :!:Iad8
(23 ...<lJfl 24 l::txe5) 24 f4 (psakhis's
move 24 :!:Ixe5+ wins as well. The
commentator can enjoy himself find-
ing different wins. On the other hand
after 24 Axe5 Xlxd2+ 25 <lJxd2
'tlVxf2+, Black is still kicking)
24 ... gxf3 25 i.xe5 Vllixe5 26 Vllixg7
and Black is destroyed.
18 i.xfS Axe5 19 %:tel d6
20 i.e4!?
The knockout punch comes from a
new direction. There is one benefit for

Black - it shortens his suffering. I see
no point trying to be cleverer than
Psakhis, who wrote: "I would not be
very surprised to hear that Kasparov
already had this winning position on is
board during home preparation."
20. ..i.b7
Maybe 20 ... ~g7 would have given
some chances against many players,
but not against Garry: 21 ~xc6! (or
21 i.xe5! liJxe5 22 i.xa8 l::txa8
23 f4!! - White needs this lovely
shot to have a clear-cut advantage -
23 ... gxf3 24 liJxf3 liJxf3 25 ~d5+
and wins) 2l...i.xb2 22 ~a2 ~ab8
23 ~xb2! ~xb2 24 ~d5+! (both
Kasparov and Psakhis demonstrate
this splendid idea) 24 ... <Jih8 25 tte7
~al+ 26 Wc2 (26 ~e2? wouild be a
huge mistake in view of 26 ... ~xf2+
27 <Jixf2 'tWf6+) 26 ... ~a2+ 27 ~c3
~al+ 28 ~d3 and White wins. If
24 i.d5+ had not been inserted,
i.a6xc4+ would work and would even
win for Black.
21 'iixg4+ ~g7
This virtually means resignation,
but White also wins after 2l...~h8
22 i.xc6 ~xc6 23 f4 i.d7 24 'iVe2
'iVg7 25 i.xe5 dxe5 26 'iVxe5.
22 ~ d5+ W h8 23 ~ xeS dxe5
24 'tWxg7+ <Jixg7 25 liJe4 ~ad8
26 liJxc5 i.c8 27 :a2
1-0
Kasparov attacked with brute
power. The game is full of interesting
237
1997
ideas, even though much of it was
home preparation. Even at home, to
analyse like this is not easy; we can
see the hand of a virtuoso at work.
Garry's opponent in the next round
was Topalov. (Against the Bulgarian
grandmaster there was no King's
Indian but a Queen's Gambit De-
clined.) A complicated middlegame
reduced to an ending, and once again
Garry gradually outplayed his oppon-
ent.
Adams tried Alekhine's Defence,
but this time Garry was better pre-
pared than when Ivanchuk played it at
Las Palmas. He had the advantage all
the way, and scored a nice victory.
Garry then suffered a bitter and
painful defeat at the hands of Ivan-
chuk, who up to this point had put up
a very poor showing in the tourn-
ament. Garry took a gamble and
stirred up complications, in contrast to
the game with Topalov where he had
played disciplined chess. In previous
years when facing Ivanchuk with
Black, Garry had tended to settle for a
fairly quick draw. This time he
sacrificed pawns and the grandmaster
from Lvov responded in style, sacrif-
cing a piece in order to castle and use
his passed pawns to destroy Kasparov.
When Garry lost on time, he could as
well have resigned. He comments that
Ivanchuk's level of play is uneven -
Ivanchuk has sometimes played
suicide chess against him. But
Kasparov did not complain - after this
loss he maintained a long unbeaten
run in regular games. In the long term,
class shows; Garry knows this as well.
Nevertheless the loss woke him up,
and he managed a superb finish to the
tournament.
Kasparov slowed down in the
following game, in which he faced the
dangerous tactician Judit Polgar. He
handled Judit's hedgehog positionally
and won a nice game, even though
1997
there was not a single spectacular
move.
In the next game Shirov played the
i.e3 Najdorf, and Garry went in for
the lLlg4 line. Again he pushed his
pawn to h3. As the pieces started
to disappear, the h3-pawn became
stronger and stronger, and exchanging
queens did not save Alexei.
In the last round Garry played a
tremendous game against Kramnik.
They were sharing the lead, and
Vladimir was undefeated. "Is Kramnik
better than Karpov was in Seville?"
asked Garry's mother in a telephone
call before the game. Naturally we
examine it in full.
Game 48
G.Kasparov White
V.Kramnik Black
Linares 1997
Nimzo-Indian Defence [E59J
I d4lLlc6 2 c4 e6
It is a striking feature of Garry's
career that in this basic position he
almost always faces 2 ... e6. In the
preceding 15 years he faced 2 ... g6
only four times. Of course, statistics
can be misleading. Garry has played
White against more King's Indians
and GrOnfelds than that, but most of
them did not start with I d4. On the
other hand statistics still reveal a
fair amount: Kasparov has frequently
played against the Nimzo-Indian,
probably more than any other player.
3lLlc3
3 lLlf3 would allow many extra
options with 3... d5; since the early
1990s Garry has more often invited
the Nimzo-Indian.
3 ..i.b4
Kramnik had never played the
Nirnzo-Indian before. Why does he
choose to play it now? There is an
explanation in the fact that the Caro-
Kann Panov can transpose into the
238
main line Nimzo-Indian. From this
point in his career, this defence
became Kramnik' s weapon against
I d4.
4e3
Avoiding the 4 ~ c2 variation, on
which the two of them had worked
extensively during the Anand match,
when Vladimir was Garry's second.
Garry's previous game with 4 e3 dates
back to 1990. He had almost com-
pletely stopped playing this move
once he started his matches against
Karpov. Significantly, he never once
tested Karpov in this line.
4..0-05 J..d3
When Garry was young he usually
developed the knight to e2.
5... c5
On 5... d5 Garry plays 6 cxd5, not
6 lLlf3; Vladimir chooses a different
line.
6lLlf3 d5 7 0-0 lLlc6
The game Ivanchuk-Kramnik, New
York rapid 1994, had gone 7... cxd4
8 exd4 dxc4 9 J..xc4 a6 10 .Jib3
b5 II d5 J..xc3 12 dxe6. Kramnik
chooses not to play the same line
against Kasparov.
8 a3 i. xc3 9 bxc3 dxc4 10 J.. xc4
~c7
This variation was to become
Kramnik's chief weapon in the main
line Nimzo-Indian. It gives Black very
free piece play, at the cost of the two
bishops.

ll.ia2
Garry goes for one of the main
continuations; only II .id3 is seen
more frequently. He was playing the
opening slowly and with great care.
11.. b6
Vladimir chooses a sideline. When
you play an opening for the first time,
there is a plus and a minus side. It is
more interesting to play, and a fresh
view can bring new ideas; there is also
the surprise effect on the opponent.
On the other hand, you sense the
dangers in the position less acutely.
This move is a little slow. The
principal reply is ll...e5, and the
striking thing is that very few games
in this line end in a draw; 12 h3 e4
13 tiJh2 jU5 14 tiJg4 tiJxg4 15 hxg4
i.g6 16 a4 is certainly a battle.
1211el!?
12 ~ e2 looks like another testing
move. After 12 ... e5 13 d5 e4 14 tiJd2
tiJe5 15 c4 tiJeg4 (l5 ...tiJd3
16 tiJxe4!) 16 f4 exf.3 17 gxf.3 tiJe5
18 \t1hl, White went on to win in
Furman-Kondratiev, Leningrad 1952.
12... eS13 e4 .ig4?!
Kramnik produces an unfortunate
novelty. This game is unlikely to whet
anyone's appetite for repeating it.
Black is not fighting for the d4-square
in the right way.
After 13 ... cxd4!? 14 cxd4 there are
these possibilities:
(a) 14... exd4 and now:
(al) 15 .ig? ~_g4 16 i.xf6 gxf6
17 h3 (or 17 :!:tcl l:tac8 18 Ad5 'ifd6
19 i.xc6 Ihc6 20 J::1:xc6 ~xc6
21 tiJxd4 ~xe4! 22 f.3 ~d5 and
Black survives) 17...Axf.3 18 ~xf.3
~e5 19 J::1:adl J::1:ac8 20 J::1:d3 tiJe7.
The position is complicated, but
should be playable for Black; Knaak-
C.Horvath, Dresden 1988.
(a2) 15 e5 tiJd7 (after 15 ... tiJg4
16 h3 tiJh6 17 .i.xh6 Black is in
trouble) 16 e6 fxe6 17 .i.xe6+ Wh8
18 tiJxd4 tiJxd4 19 ~xd4 tiJc5
20 i.a2, and according to K~parov
239
1997
White is a little better.
(b) Grandmaster Antonio from the
Philippines came up with an inter-
esting strategy here: 14 ....ig4!? 15 d5
tiJd4 16 Ab2 tiJxf.3+ 17 gxf.3 i.h5
18 !::tcl 'iVd6 19 J::1:c6 'iVe7 20 'iVd3
tiJd7 21 Yj'e3 ~h4 22 llc7 h6
23 Wg2 llad8 24 d6 ~f6 25 I:tdl
Wh8 26 J::1:xa7 ~g6+ 27 Whl ~f6
Y2-Y2 Gulko-Antonio, Bled 2002.
14 dxeS!
These players know each other so
well; maybe against another opponent
in other circumstances, Garry would
have chosen the natural 14 dS. Then
the bishop on a2 could remain shut out
for a long time, yet White has the
chance to gain an edge in the closed
position after 14...tiJa5 (l4.J::tad8
15 i.gS ~e7) 15 c4 (or IS h3 i.xf.3
16 ~xf.3 c4).
14.. bxeS
This turns out to be very pa'isive;
Black obtains no counterplay at all.
There are some more active approach-
es which recall Kasparov-Korchnoi,
World Championship Candidates
semi-final (l'1 game), London 1983:
From the diagram, Korchnoi con-
tinued 14 ...0-0! 15 cxb6 axb6 16 0-0
~c7 17 i.bS i.xe5 18 .Jih6 .Jig7
19 iLxg7 'tlxg7 20 ~d4+ Wg8
21 CLlg5 h6 22 tiJe4 .ixe4 23 ~xe4
tiJa6 24 ~e3 ~c5 25 ~xc5 tiJxcs
26 %:tibl l::tfd8 27 %:tb4 %:td6 28 .in
WfS 29 a4 l::ta5 30 g3 We7 31 Wg2
f5 32 .i b5 ~d2 33 lId4 ttxd4
34 cxd4 tiJxa4 35 l::txa4 :txb5
1997
36 na7+ <j;;>d6 37 IIh7 h5 38 l:tg7
l:td5 39 ktxg6 b5 40 'it'f3 b4 41 'it'e3
rEr 42 \t'd2 l:txd4+ 43 \t'c3 b2
44 \t'xb2 ktd2+ 45 'it'c3 ktxt2 46 h4
f4 47 l:tg5 :!:If3+ 48 \t'd4 ~xg3
49 l:':txh5 Ire3 50 lIh6 \t'e7 51 h5 e5+
52 'it'd5 f3 0-1.
In the present game the situation in
the centre is different, but Black could
have sacrificed a pawn on the queen-
side in similar fashion:
(a) 14 ... liJa5 15 't!Hd6! 't!Hxd6
16 cxd6 ~xf3 17 gxf3 Mad8 18 ttdl
liJb7 19 f4 and the complications
favour White.
(b) However, 14.J~.fd8!? is inter-
esting; most commentators overlooked
his possibility. There can follow:
(bl) 15 cxb6?! nxdl (or 15 ... axb6
16 ~e2 l:a4 and Black is quite
active) 16 bxc7 .i.xf3 17 :!:Ixdl Jixdl
18 .i.g5 ~a4 and White doesn't have
enough for the piece.
(b2) 15 ~e2 liJa5!? 16 cxb6 axb6
17 .i.e3 liJb7 (White takes over the
initiative after 17... Itd6 18 ~b5 i.xf3
19 gxf3 :!:Ic6 20 Mabl) 18 'iVb5 liJc5
19 liJd2 i.d7. Black has some com-
pensation and his position is free. This
was perhaps better than the game
continuation.
IS h3 Mad8 16 't!He2 .i.xo
If instead 16....i.h5, White can
borrow a strategy from the Cordel
variation of the Ruy Lopez: 17 .i.g5
(or 17 g4, and if 17 ...liJxg4? 18 hxg4
240
1Lxg4 then 19 <JJg2 l:td6 20 ~e3 and
White wins) 17 ... I:td6 18 g4 i.g6
19 liJd2, and the bishop on g6 is
buried.
17 'iVxo
Kasparov now obtains a clear
advantage - and it is the right type of
advantage to have when the stakes are
so high. In a slow position like
this, tension plays less of a role.
Kasparov's opening play has been
very strong indeed; Kramnik's has
been disappointing.
17...l:Id618 i.g5!?
The Champion considers 18 i.e3!
to be even stronger. After 18 .. :~a5
19 ~ e2! White manages to keep his
bishop in the centre, as 19 ...liJxe4
20 'iVc4 is in his favour.
18... h6 19 i.h4l:Ifd8
If 19.. J!b8, Black takes the b-file
but gives up the d-file after 20 l::tedl.
20 l:tabl!? liJe7!?
The knight didn't achieve much on
c6, so Kramnik gives himself the
option of moving it to either side. If
20 ...l:td3, then 21 l:te3.
21 i.c4
White makes sure l:td6-d3 doesn't
happen.
21 .liJc8
Kramnik aims to block the b-file; he
wants to keep the position as closed as
possible. He cannot consider attacking
the a3-pawn with 2l...~a5?, because
of 22 l:tb7. With 2l...liJg6!? he could
bring the knight to the kingside, but
whatever he does he is worse; after
22 Jig3 White would follow up with
~f3-f5.
22 JLg3liJb6 23 1Lb5?
Kasparov demonstrates that 23 i.e2
was much more effective; we will
shortly see where the difference lies.
After 23.J::1d2 (23.Jle6 24 ~e3)
24 ~f5 liJfd7 25 Itbdl, the Champ-
ion states that White has an edge.
23...1Ie6 24 a4
White decides to chase the knight
from b6. After 24 ~e3 c4, we see

why White's 23 rd move was inferior:
the bishop is no longer covering the
d3-square. If then 25 J:tbd1, Black
plays 25 ...l:Ixdl 26 l:Ixdl ~b7, and
out of the blue he has a threat against
e4. But that is not actually the main
threat; on 27 t3?? a6 White loses his
bishop.
24..c4
Black gets some activity, but Garry
is not too worried about it; it is temp-
orary, and opens the position for
White as well.
With 24 ...a5 Black could maintain
his knight on b6, but the move loosens
the queens ide and gives up the b5-
square; this too was an unattractive
option.
25 iVe2 l:td3 26 a5lZ'lc8?!
Vladimir shows good manners; his
opponent made a mistake, and now he
returns the favour. This move is prob-
ably based on a single miscalculation.
26 ... tZ:lbd7!? keeps Black in the
game. After 27 l:tb4 l:Ixc3, White
needs to defend his a-pawn: -
(a) 28 'iVd2 l:ta3 29 l:txc4 ~xa5,
and Black is home and dry. Once the
a-pawn is removed, the remaining
pawns are on one side of the board
only, so that Black will be immune to
the two bishops.
(b) 28 l:txc4 'iVxa5 and the knight
on d7 is protected, so 29 'iVd2 is
harmless.
(c) 28 Vi' a2! is a subtle move,
241
1997
typical of Garry - but Black is still
able to resist:
(cl) 28.J~.xg3! 29 l:.xc4 ~b7
30 .ltxd7 l:hg2+ 31 Wxg2 ~xd7.
Garry assesses this position as unclear
- there is no argument about that.
(c2) 28 ... ~d6 29 ~xc4 ~a3
30 ~e2 ~xa5 31 l:.d1 ~xd1+ (not
31...~e7? 32 .ltxd7 tLlxd7 33 ~c8+
~h7 34 l:tc7 l:id6 35 ~g4 -
Kasparov analysed this as a win)
32 ~xdl ~xb5 33 ~c7 l:Ieb6! (this
active move is probably adequate to
draw; Kasparov evaluates 33 ...tLlf8?!
34 t3 as , probably meaning that
Black would be unable to defend)
34 ~c2 (or 34 Wh2 l:Ib7! 35 lhb7
l:.xb7 36 ~a4 l:.b6 37 ~xa7 l:ie6; of
course Black is fighting for the draw,
but he achieves it without suffering
too much) 34... l:Ibl+ 35 <.fJh2 l:.fl!
(quite an unusual attacking ploy;
Black may also play 35 ... Wh7
36 l:txa7 l:.b7) 36 l:tb7! (stopping the
black rooks from doubling on the frrst
rank) 36...l:ixb7 37 't!Vc8+ Wh7
38 ~xb7 l:.a1, and I believe Black
draws. Garry had actually reached a
similar position before, with White
against Andersson at Nik~ic 1983:
A draw was agreed here - Garry did
not even try to win it.
(c3) Interestingly, Kasparov doesn't
consider Psakhis's move 28 ...tLlc5!.
After 29 l:.xc4 (or 29 .ltxc4 tLla6!
30 l:ta4 l:ic6 31 .It fl tLlh5 and Black
is very active) 29 .. .lhc4 30 .ltxc4
l:ic6, Black's pieces have so much
1997
activity that White can't consolidate
his position while keeping the a-pawn:
(c31) 31 ~al l'Llcd7 32 AM llc5
33 ~a4 a6, and Black is safe.
(c32) 31 Ab5 l:te6 32 f3 (32 Ac4
llc6) 32...l'Llcxe4 33 Ac4 l'Llxg3
(33 ...J:tc6!, leadiing to repetition of
moves, is simplest) 34 .)txe6 fxe6
35 ~xe6+ 'itif8 36 ~xe5 ~xe5
37 llxe5 l'Lld7 38 lle6! and it is not
easy for Black.
(c33) 31 f3 l'Llcxe4 32 Axe5 ~xe5
33 Axf7+ 'itih7 34 fxe4 J:ta6! 35 J'.:tal
ttJxe4 and White's king is vulnerable.
(c34) Psakhis considered 3] .ki d5.
Then after 31...lla6! (his analysis
continues with 31 ... ttJd3, but this is
better) 32 f3 llxa5 33 .kixe5 llxa2
34 Axc7 :ad2, Black can defend.
27l:Ib4! llxc3
If27 ...l'Lld6, 28 Axc4 wins.
28 J:txc4 J:Ixc4
If28 ...~xa5?!
- White replies 29 ~d2!' Psakhis
thinks it is possible that Vladimir
missed this move in his previous
calculation. This tactic is the reason
why 26 ... ttJc8 was a mistake.
29~xc4 ~b8
Or 29 ... ~xc4 30 .kixc4 l:tc6 31 .kifl
llc5 32 a6, and the a7-pawn is very
weak.
30 ~c5! ttJd6 31 AdJ ttJd7
32~a3
Black's activity has evaporated.
White consolidates his advantage, and
the a7-pawn will soon come under
fIre.
242
32...ttJf8
32 ...l'Llf6 might be a bit better but
would not alter the complexion of the
game.
33 llbl ~c7 34l:tcl "ifd8
35a6!
While examining the various lines,
we lost sight of the fact that Garry was
executing one of his usual manoeuvres
by pushing the flank pawn again. It
gives Black a huge problem.
35...ttJg636 ~c5l:te7 37 O!
With a single pawn move, White
improves the position of both his
bishops at once. A path is opened for
the one on g3, while the one on d3 no
longer has to defend e4. Simple and
strong.
37..ttJe8 38.tn l:Ic7 39 ~e311d7
After 39...l:txcl 40 ~xcl Black
will be unable to hold the a7-pawn.
40 'itih2!?
The stakes are high, so Garry plays
safe.
40...l:te741l:tc6
In Dokhoian's view, 41 llbl! fol-
lowed by llbl-b7 was even stronger.
41...<-t>h7 42 ~cl
All according to the rules: rook in
front of queen on an open fIle.
42...ttJc7 43 ~c3 'iVd7 44 llc5
~d6 45 .tn ttJe6 46 ttd5 'tWb8
47 J:I b5 ~ d6 481:1 b7
Another device made possible by
the rook's pawn.
48...ttJd4 49 ~b4

White instructively improves his
position.
49..~f6
Exchanging queens by 49 ...~xb4
would lose the a7-pawn very quickly:
50 :xb4 :c7 51 :b7, and Black is in
a hopeless position.
50 lIVe5
Continuing to improve his position
step by step.
:e6
SOllJe6 51 j.e3 52 ii.c4 ~e7
53.id5
Now Black will lose material as
well.
53...llJd4 54 l:txa7 l:txa7 55 ~xa7
llJe7
55 ... llJxfJ+ is a desperate attack
that leads nowhere: 56 gxfJ ~xfJ
57 ~xt7 ~e2+ (or 57 ...llJf4 58 ~f5+
Iiith8 59 ~f8+ Iiith7 60 .ig8+ Iiitg6
61 ~f5 mate) 58 j.t2 llJf4 59 ~g8+
Wg6 60 ~e8+ Iiith7 61 .ig8+ Wh8
62 .tt7+ Wh7 63 "tIb'g8 mate.
56.tc4 h5
56 ...llJxfJ+ 57 gxfJ ~xfJ 58 .in
wins easily.
57 ~c51-O
This was a spectacular game! Garry
was able to play so well when it
mattered the most.
Kramnik congratulated Garry on his
tournament victory. It was a great
triumph for Kasparov, for which he
gave a double-edged explanation,
claiming that he had worked the
hardest while his rivals had not
worked hard enough. Remarkably, he
had beaten al\ the players finishing
below him from the second place to
the sixth, but scored only 'plus one'
against the players in the bottom half
of the table.
Kasparov's magic which started
with his round five victory against
Nikolic did not evaporate until round
five in the Novgorod tournament.
From the intervening 11 games (seven
in Linares, four in Novgorod) he
scored 9Y2 points in spite ofthe loss to
243
1997
Ivanchuk. This was probably his best-
ever run, which can very rarely have
been matched in the history of top-
level chess. Linares, in fact, was
clearly a favourite venue for Kaspar-
ov; he was undefeated there during a
sequence of 62 games between 1997
and 2003.
Novgorod
Kasparov was proud of the fact that
he and Kramnik participated here for a
much lower fee than in the west; it is a
pleasant way to show one's patriot-
ism.
Let's start with Garry's first-round
game against Gelfand, which demon-
strates his power to 'mix it' and
remain in control.
Game 49
G.Kasparov White
D.Gelfand Black
Novgorod 1997
Queen's Indian Defence [A25]
1 d4llJf6 2 c4 e63llJO
In the 1990s this move from Garry
came as a surprise.
3... b64g3
Garry had played this once in 1996,
and before that in 1989. He has a nice
plus score with it, but recorded 'minus
one' against Karpov. He did not
employ the line again after 1997.
4.lta6 5 b3 d5
Boris has tried this variation before,
so it came as no surprise to Garry.
Karpov remained true to 5....ib4+.
This was one of the very few lines in
which Karpov, with Black, actually
achieved a plus score against
Kasparov.
6 j.g2 dxc4
This is a very interesting line.
According to the database it was first
played in 1979 and has only been seen
twice since then. It was introduced by
either Zaitsev or Dimitriev. One year
1997
later, even Karpov gave it a try.
71l1eS iLb4+ 8 wn
Even good players can be swindled
when they face a new problem. The
game Petran-Adorjan, Szirak 1985,
went 8 ii.d2 cxb3 9 llIc6?? b2!
10 llIxb4 bxal=~ II iLc3 ~xc3+
12 1lI xc3 c6 0-1.
8....td6
This is the main line.
91l1xc41l1dS
A very complex position has arisen
- something that both players find
challenging. There are unusual elem-
ents here. It is hard to judge what
Black can achieve while White attends
to his king, or what effect the pressure
on the d4-pawn will have if White
plays e2-e4. Another consideration is
that if Black can play f7-f5, it
becomes hard for White to make
progress.
10 e4
Garry plays in a straightforward
manner. After 10 i.f3 f5 II Wg2
i.b7 12 ~d2 llId7 13 llIxd6+ cxd6
14 llIc3 1lI7f6 15 llIxd5 ii.xd5,
Black's control over the White
squares gives him a playable game;
DOttling-Heinrich, Staufer open 1997.
Alternatively 10 llIxd6+ ~xd6!?
(10 ... cxd6 11 ii.f3 liJd7 12 Wg2 fS
13 ~d21l17fO 141l1c3 ii.b7) 11 Wgl
liJc6 12 .tb2 l:td8, and it is clear that
Black can obtain a good position
with fluid piece play. D.Gurevich-
244
Shabalov, Seattle 2003, continued
131l1d2 0-0 I41l1f3liJde7 15 ~el f6
16 h3 eS 17 e3 exd4 18 liJxd4 llIe5
with a splendid game.
Finally, Sturua-Leko, Bled 2002,
went 10 ii.b2 ii.e7 11 CLlbd2 0-0
12 i.f3 llId7 13 Wg2 c5 14 dxc5
llIxc5 with equality.
10 ...1lI e7 11 .i. b2
Garry develops the bishop and
defends the d4-pawn, which was
more vulnerable than it looked. The
game Jasnikowski - Lau, Polanica
Zdroj 1986, went 11 i.f3?! llIbc6
12 Wg2 .txc4 13 bxc4 eS 14 dS llId4
IS i.e3 cS; Black was OK, and
eventually won.
Note that II e5? fails to 11 ....txe5
12 i.xa8 ~xd4 13 ~xd4 i.xd4
14 liJc3 .txc3 15 l:tbl c6, and the
bishop is trapped.
11 .llIbc6121l1bd20-0?!
It is a matter of taste, but I do not
like this natural-looking move. Why?
Black needs to achieve something in
the centre - in fact he wants to
undermine it with piece play. His rook
is not needed for this, and his king is
not in danger. Nevertheless, sooner or
later he still has to castle, and it may
be better to do so at once and then
react according to what White plays.
Here are the alternatives:
(a) 12 ... bS 13 llIxd6+ cxd6 14 d5
llIe5 15 dxe6 fxe6 161l1f3, and White
is better; Stijanovic-Podlesnik, Budva
2003.
(b) The natural question is what
happens if Black exerts more pressure
on the White centre as follows:
12 ... ~d7? 13 Wgl l:td8 (13 ... 0-0-0
14 d5 exd5 15 exd5 1lIb4 16 llIe4)
14 dS! exdS IS exdS 1lIb4 16 i.xg7.
White is better, for even though the
rook on hI is out of play, Black will
soon have a serious problem with his
king.
(c) However, in 12 ... eS!? Black has
a promising way to go into action im-
mediately. On 13 dS, there can follow:

(cl) 13 ... liJa5 14 '\i.t>gl liJxc4
15 liJxc4 i.xc4 16 bxc4 0-0 17 .i.h3
f5 18 'It'g2 ~e8 19 l::i.f1 f4 20 f3 with
excellent light-square domination in
Kasparov- V .Atlas, Cantonville simul-
taneous 1996.
(c2) 13 ... liJd4. In 1998 Garry
played the Black side of this line
against Gelfand's trainer Huzman.
The event was the 'clock simul'
against the Israeli team of four
grandmasters. More will be said later
about Garry's staggering performance
in that event! The game continued:
14liJf3 c5 15 'It'gl .i.xc4 16 bxc4 0-0
17 h4 liJc8 (it is remarkable how
Garry improves the placing of his
pieces) 18 Ah3 l::i.e8 19 'It'g2 Af8
20 l::i.cl?! (according to Garry the
knight on c8 ought to be exchanged
here) 20 ... liJd6 21 l::i.el l::i.b8 22 a4 g6
23 liJxd4 cxd4 24 f4 i..g7 25 fxe5
Axe5 26 Axd4 J:Ib7 (Kasparov
assesses 26 ... "iH6 as better for Black)
27 At2? (here he states that after
27 Axe5 l::i.xe5 28 ~d4 l::i.be7 29 i.e6
tth5 30 e5 fxe6 31 exd6 ~xd6
32 ~e3 White is somewhat better)
27 ... "D.c7 28 ~d3 liJb7 29 ~a3 Ad6
30 ~b2 ttce7, and Garry went on to
win.
13 <JJgl
It looks as if Kasparov wants to
castle artificially.
13. b5
Holding on to the bishop with
13 ... i.b4 is a little slow. However,
White only has a small edge:
(a) 14 liJf3 liJa5 15 liJe3 c6, with
an unusual position.
(b) 14 liJf1 liJa5 (White answers
14 ...b5 with 15 a3, or 14 ...liJg6 with
15 h4!) 15 liJxa5 Axa5 16 d5 c5
17 dxe6 fxe6 18 ~g4 J::tt7 19 e5 l::i.c8.
This is another highly complicated
middlegame.
(c) 14 a3 i.xd2 15 ~xd2 i..xc4
16 bxc4 e5 17 d5 liJa5 18 ~c2, and
White is better because of the two
bishops.
245
1997
14liJxd6!
Garry secures the two bishops and a
space advantage. This was a novelty at
the time. It sets Black more problems
than the alternative 14 liJe3 f5 (or
14 ... e5, and now 15 d5 liJd4 or
15 liJf3 f6 16 d5 liJa5 with good
chances for Black) 15 exf5 exf5 16 a3.
This position should be playable for
Black, although in Burger-Petursson,
Reykjavik 1986, he was soon in
trouble.
14...cxd6
This is a highly unusual middle-
game position. Black is ahead in de-
velopment, and can alter the structure
of the position in the centre. White
needs to pay attention to this, yet he
does have more space.
Black could have considered keep-
ing the centre open with 14 ... Qxd6.
Positionally this should favour White,
as the c5-square is under his control.
There are pitfalls though; given the
awkward placing of the king on gl
and rook on hI, opening the position
is in Black's interest. After 15 e5
(15 Qh5 f5 16 e5 Qd7) 15 ... Qd8!
(l5 ... Qd7 would allow the white
knight to reach c5 with a major gain
of tempo; White could attack with
16 Ne4 Rad8 17 Qg4) 16 Ne4 Bb7,
there can follow:
(a) 17liJc5 l::i.b8 18 ~g4 (or 18 a4
i..a8 and Black is in the game)
18 ...Aa8 (after 18 ...liJa5 19 liJxb7
1997
l,iJxb7 20 l'lc 1 l,iJd5 21 h4 l'lc8 22 h5
h6 23 .ia3 ~e8 24 .ic5 White can
keep the queenside closed and bring
his king's rook into play) 19 d5 tLlxd5
20 tLlxe6 fxe6 21 'ii'xe6+ \tih8
22 'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 23 il.xd5 l'lbd8, and
suddenly Black is very active.
(b) 17 "iY g4 l:Ib8 18 h4, and it is not
easy to choose a plan for organizing
Black's defence:
(bl) 18 ...tLlfS 19 d5 l,iJce7 20 d6
cxd6 21 exd6 and White's pieces are
in a menacing position.
(b2) 18 ... tLl b4 19 l,iJ f6+ <;i;>h8
20 .ixb7 (20 l,iJxh7 may be a pleasant
move to make, but it is not effective:
20 ... \tixh7 21 ..txb7 c6 22 ..ta3 ~a5
23 .txb4 'ii'xb4 24 .txc6 - the same
tactical motif recurs - 24 ... tLlxc6
25 'ii'e4+ '\t>g8 26 'ii'xc6 %Vxd4, and
here Black manages to demonstrate
the drawback of White's undeveloped
king's rook) 20 ... gxf6 21 exf6 l,iJf5
22 .ie4 and Black's king is rat.':ter
open.
(b3) 18 ....ta8 19 h5 h6 20 d5
(20.l'ldl ltJb4 21 .tcl \tih8 is
unclear) 20 ...tLlxd5 21 tLlf6+ \tih8
22 ltJxd5 exd5 23 e6 f6, and I am
tempted to say that the position is
balanced.
(b4) 18 .. .';,i;>h8 19 ltJc5 .ta8 20 h5
l,iJfS with a fighting position.
15 h4
As so often, Garry tries to push his
h-pawn as far as he can, hoping to
create an attack. The position is fairly
closed, and Black can't easily react in
the centre or on the queens ide. Garry
can be satisfied because he has
managed to conjure up complications
which are hard to handle over the
board - even for a very strong grand-
master like Gelfand.
15. ~b6
Black has to take a tough decision,
detennining what type of position will
emerge. He has several plans:
(a) 15 ... fS (trying to fight for the d5-
square) 16 exfSl':':txfS 17 %Ve2 (the e6-
246
point is weakened, however) 17 ...'iVd7
18 .th3 tLlb4 19 a3 ltJbd5 20 !:tel
and White is better.
(b) 15 ...!:tc8 16 h5 (16 a3 ~b6)
16...h6 17 d5 (17 l::th4 ltJb4 18 ltJf1
d5) I7 ... l,iJe5 18 l,iJf1 (or 18 l,iJf3
ltJxf3+ 19 .txf3 e5 20 ~d2) I8 ... b4
19ltJe3.
(c) 15 .. :~d7 16 h5 h6 (16 ... fS
17 h6) 17 d5 exd5 18 exd5 ltJe5
19 l,iJe4, and it is hard for Black to
oppose the dark-squared bishop.
(d) I5 ... d5!? is Dokhoian's recom-
mendation: 16 h5 (or 16 e5 ~b6, and
now 17 l,iJf3 b4 or 17 h5 h6 18 l,iJf3
b4. Nothing is simple here - it ought
be tried in practice) 16 ...h6 17 exd5
(after 17 ~g4 fS 18 exfSltJxfS Black
has a reasonable game) 17 ... ltJxd5
18 ltJe4 b4 with a combative, double-
edged position.
16 h5
After 16 d5, there are these possib-
ilities:
(a) 16... exd5 (there is no point in
giving White the e4-square like this)
17 exd5 ltJe5 18 ltJe4.
(b) 16 ... ltJd4!? is Avrukh's recom-
mendation. Finding the right answer is
not easy:
(bl) 17l,iJf1 e5 18ltJe3 l'lac8, and
the question is whether Black can
obtain something with his active
pieces; ifnot, White's bishop pair may
dominate. The position is probably
balanced.
(b2) 17 tLlc4 ltJe2+ (l7 ... bxc4
18 il,xd4 ~a5) 18 'iVxe2 bxc4

19 I{i'd2 e5. Black will play f7-f5 and
obtain play on the f-file.
(b3) 17 ClJ f3! exchanges the knight
and keeps the position closed:
17 ...ClJxf3+ 18 i.xf3 e5 19 g4 (White
wants to stop the opening of the f-file,
where Black would have some play
after 19 h5 f5) 19 ... l:tac8 (l9.Jilg6
20 i.cl ClJf4 21 i.xf4 exf4 22 ~d2)
20 h5 (keeping the knight out of play;
if 20 i.cl, then 20.J::k3) 20 ... h6
21 <J.;> g2, and Black has little activity
left. White should slowly take over, as
the knight on e7 is passive.
(c) 16...ClJe5 17 ClJfl (17 ClJf3
ClJxf3+ 18 i.xf3 e5) 17 ... b4 18 i.d4
~a5 19 ClJe3 (after 19 h5? exd5
20 exd5 tZJfS, Black's pieces control
very many ~guares), and now:
(cl) 19 ... IJ:ac8 20 h5 h6 transposes
to the game continuation.
(c2) 19... exd5 20 exd5 fS 21 f4 and
Black has two choices:
(c21) 2l...tZJg4 22 tZJc4 (22 tZJxg4
fxg4 23 'iVxg4 tZJf5 gives Black
counterplay) 22 ... i.xc4 23 bxc4 J::tac8
24 'iVb3 l:tfe8 25 h5 h6.
(c22) 2l...tZJd3 22 h5 h6 23 tZJc4
i.xc4 24 bxc4 ClJc5 25 Wh2, and
according to Avrukh White is better.
(c3) Black can try to stir up matters
with a hacking move: 19 ... tZJd3!?
20 i.fl (alternatively 20 tZJc4 i.xc4
21 bxc4 ClJc5, or 20 dxe6 fxe6
21 tZJc4 i.xc4 22 bxc4 ClJc5 - all
lines provide opportunities for both
sides) 20 ...e5 21 i.xd3 exd4 22 tZJc4
i.xc4 23 bxc4.
16... h6?!
It's understandable that Boris
doesn't want to play with a knife at
his throat - he blocks the arrival of the
White pawn at h6. Yet this move costs
a tempo. If White can halt his
opponent's activity, Black will be left
in a very tough position.
Given the unusual position of
White's king and rook, and the fact
that his pieces are a long way from the
black king, Black could go. in for
247
1997
complications with 16... tZJxd4! 17 h6
g6. There could follow:
(a) 18 tZJc4 tZJe2+ (after 18 ...bxc4
19 i.xd4 ViJlc7 20 i.f6 White has
compensation for the pawn) 19 ViJlxe2
bxc4 20 i. f6, and now:
(al) 20 ... cxb3 21 'iVb2 tZJc6 22 i.e7
(22 axb3? e5) 22 ... tZJd4 (after
22 ...ViJld4 23 I{i'xd4 tZJxd4 24 axb3
:afe8 25 i.f6 tZJe2+ 26 'it'h2 White is
much better) 23 i.xf8 l:txf8 24 axb3
e5 25 \17h2 is unclear according to
A vrukh. However, White is risking
very little.
(a2) As the rook on hI is still out
of it, Black can consider creating
counterplay with 20 ...tZJc6 21 'iVd2
(21 bxc4 l:tfc8) 2l...tZJe5 (Kasparov
stops analysing here and considers the
position unclear; some further explor-
ation is required) 22 i.e7 l:tfe8 (or
22 ... Ufc8 23 I{i'xd6 tZJd3 24 ~xb6
axb6 25 bxc4 i.xc4 and Black is
alive) 23 ~xd6 l:txe7 24 ~xe5 f6
25 ~c3 l:tc8 and Black is well
developed.
(b) 18 ClJf3 tZJxf3+ 19 'ifxf3 f6
(after 19... fS 20 exfS tZJxfS 21 'ifc3 e5
22 i.d5+ Wh8 23 i.xa8 :xaS Garry
evaluates the position as unclear, but
A vrukh goes further and shows an
instructive way to gain a small advant-
age: 24 l:tc 1 i. b7 25 l:th3 tZJd4
26 ~ c7 with the better ending. In this
line, 24 g4!? is possible too), and now:
(bl) 20 i..xf6?! tZJc6 (to stop White
from protecting his bishop on f6;
according to A vrukh, 20 ... e5 21 g4
1997
tDc6 22 gS tDd4 is unclear) 21 iLh3
(21 g4? tDeS 22 ~f4 tDxg4)
2l...l::i:ae8 22 .l:tdl tDeS 23 ~f4 b4
and Black takes over.
(b2) 20 J:1dI (White has compens-
ation for the pawn, but he seems to
have nothing more) 20 ... iL b7 (20 ...b4
could be tried; so could 20 ... eS 21 b4
- then White meets 21.. ..i. c8 with
22 ~b3+, but 2l...dS 22 exd5 ~b7 is
probably equal) 21 .i.d4 (21 .i.xf6
tDf5! 22 .i.g5 tDh4) 21...~a6, with
mutual chances.
17 d5 tDe5
After 17... tDd4 18 tDt3! tDxt3+
19 .i.xt3 e5, the fme move 20 g4!
stops Black's play on the f-file.
The continuation could be 20 ...l::tac8
21 iLcl! l'::tc3?! (Black's activity is
temporary, and once he has been
pushed back White's dark-squared
bishop will dominate; on 21...f6
22 ~e3, White has the superior
position) 22 .i.e3 (not 22 .i.d2? l::i:d3)
22 ... l:xe3 23 fxe3 ~xe3+ (the Black
queen on its own can do no damage;
White merely needs to evict it, after
which Black will be left the exchange
down) 24 '.ilg2 l::i:c8 25 l:el ~c3
26l::tc 1, and White wins.
18 tDn b419 .i.d4 ~a5
19....i.e2 loses a pawn for nothing:
20 .i.xb6 .i.xdl 21 l::i:xdi axb6 22 f4
tDg4 23 dxe6 l::i:xa2 24 l::i:xd6.
20 tDe3l::i:ac8
With 20 ... tDd3 it is possible to force
matters quickly:
(a) 21 tDc4 .i.xc4 22 bxc4 tDc5
(after 22 ... ~a3 23 ~b3 exd5 24 cxd5,
White is clearly better) 23 f4 ~c7,
and Black will close the diagonal with
e6-eS. This position is unclear.
(b) 21 a3 bxa3 22 .i.n eS
(22 ...tDc5?? loses to a beautiful di-
version: 23 b4!. This idea will recur in
our note to Black's 21 s1 move)
23 tDc2 exd4 24 J:txa3 (or 24 .i.xd3
.i.xd3 25 ~xd3 f5) 24 ... ~c3 25 b4
~b2 26 Iha6 (again, 26 iLxd3 iLxd3
27 ~xd3 is answered by 27 ... f5)
248
26 ...tDxb4 27 tDxb4 'iexb4 28 J:ta4
'fWb6 29 ~xd4 f5 with approximate
equality.
(c) 21 .i.n e5 (in the event
of 2l...tDc5 22 ~g4! eS 23 .i.xc5
dxc5 24 d6 .ic8 25 dxe7 .ixg4
26 exf8=YM+ l:hf8 27 tDxg4, White
has too many pieces for the queen)
22 .ixd3 exd4 23 tDc2 (after
23 tDc4 'i.Vc5 24 J:tci f5, Black has
created some counterplay) 23 ....ixd3
24 ~xd3 l:ac8 (24 ... f5 25 ~xd4)
25 tDxd4 f5! 26 tDxf5 tDxf5 27 exf5
l:c5 28 g4l:txd5 29 ~c4 Wh7. White
is a pawn up, but it is not easy to
convert it into a win.
21l:th4
Developing the rook in an unortho-
dox yet understandable way. With
21 f4 White could win material: after
either 2l...tDd7 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 .i.h3
or 2l...tDd3 22.in e5 23 .i.xd3 exd4
24 .i.xa6 ~xa6 25 ..wxd4 l:tc3
26 '.ilt2, White is better according to
Kasparov. However, he wants to allow
his opponent no chances at all.
21 l::i:c7
Again Boris rejects 2l...tDd3, yet
this is what he should have played -
even though White can stop the knight
from reaching c5, thanks to a lovely
tactical motif:
(a) 22 .i.n tDcs 23 .i.h3 J:tcd8
24 dxe6 tDxe6 is complicated .
(b) 22 .i.h3! (stopping e6-e5 for the
moment) 22 ... f5! (not 22 ...l:tc7?

23 dxe6 tiJc6 24 iLxg7! ~xg7
25 tiJfS+ and White wins) 23 exfS
(after 23 tiJc4 iLxc4 24 bxc4 tiJc5
25 exf5 tiJxf5 Black is still in the
game) 23 ... tiJxfS 24 tiJxf5 exfS
25 iL fl tiJe5.
(c) 22 a3 !! - a surprise. Having
made a move on one side of the board,
White suddenly switches to the other
side to unleash a hidden tactical shot:
(cl) 22 ...bxa3 23 iLfl e5 (not
23 ...tiJc5 24 b4!! and White wins a
piece; that is the point of 22 a3)
24 iLxd3 exd4 25 .i.xa6 ~xa6
26 tiJc4. White has a huge advantage
thanks to the superiority of his knight.
(c2) 22 ... e5 23 axb4 ~xb4 24 iLxa7
l:c3 25 <t>h2! leaves the bishop hang-
ing on a6. After 25 ....i.b5 26 .i.b6,
White has excellent winning chances.
22'i1d2
The opening has just ended. Garry
has caught up with his development,
and his advantage is now obvious.
His play over the last ten moves has
been immensely strong. At this point
22 iLxe5? dxe5 23 d6 nd7 would not
have been appropriate.
22...l:tc3?
Gelfand sacrifices the exchange, but
his position doesn't improve. Other
tries are as follows:
(a) 22 .. J:Hc8, and now:
(al) 23 a3 (previously disregarded
in Kasparov's analysis) 23 .. :~b5
24 axb4. White is a pawn up, and also
has clearly the better position.
(a2) 23 tiJg4!, and Garry shows that
he can catch Boris's king:
(a2I) 23 ... exd5 24 tiJxh6+ gxh6 (or
24 ... <t>h7 25 tiJg4 dxe4 26 h6 and
wins) 25 ~xh6 iLe2 26 ~xd6 and
Black is taken apart.
(a22) 23 ...l:tc2, when White has two
strong replies:
(a22I) 24 ~f4 (given by Garry in
Informant) 24 ...tiJxg4 25 l:t~g4 e5
26 iLxe5 dxe5 27 ~xe5 g5 281hg5+
hxg5 (28 ... tiJg6 29 lhg6+ fxg6
30 ~e6+ <t>fR 31 bxg6 wins) 29 h6
249
1997
'.t>fR (29 ... f6 30 ~xf6 tiJf5 31 exfS
wins) 30 ~h8+ tiJg8 31 h7, and
presently there will be another case of
the h-pawn promoting!
(a222) Avrukh shows that White
can play an immediate 24 tiJxh6+, and
now:
(a222l) 24 ... gxh6 25 ~xh6 iLe2
26 ~f6!? (or 26 dxe6).
(a2222) 24 ... WfR 25 ~f4 gxh6
26 dxe6 tiJ7c6 27 ~xh6+ We8
(27 ... <t>e7 28 .i.e3) 28 .i.e3 and Black
is blown away.
(a2223) On 24 ... <t>h7, Avrukh gives
25 ~f4 f6 (25 ... f5 26 ~g5) 26 tiJg4!
lha2 27 lha2 'iYxa2 28 tiJxf6+,
tearing up the Black kingside. After
28 ...gxf6 29 'iYxf6 tiJg8 30 ~xe6
Black is hopelessly lost.
(b) Once again 22 ...tiJd3! was best.
This is another move neglected by the
Champion, but compared with the
game continuation it offers better
resistance:
23 tiJc4 (after 23 a3 e5 24 axb4
~xb4 25 ~xb4 tiJxb4 26 iLxe5 dxe5
27 d6 nd7 28 dxe7 lhe7 29 l::tg4
i..c8 30 tiJfS :etc7 31 :etxg7+ Wh8
32 :etg4 :etd8 Black can continue
resisting) 23 ...iLxc4 24 bxc4 tiJe5
(24 ... e5 is met by 25 ~xd3 exd4
26 e5!; while after 24 ... ~a3 25 :etdI
e5 26 ~xd3 ~xd3 27 l::txd3 exd4
28 l::txd4 :etfc8 29 .i.fl a5 30 g4 a4
31 f4, White is much better according
to Avrukh) 25 c5 (after 25 iLxe5 dxe5
26 d6 :etd7 27 :etg4 tiJc8 28 ~xh6 f6
29 ~g6 b3 it isn't easy for White to
1997
keep up the attack) 25 ...ttJc4 26 'iVe2
dxc5 27 i.xg7 'iilxg7 28 ~xc4 and
Black's king is vulnerable.
23 i&. xc3 bxc3 24~ d4 exd5
25exd5~e7
If25 ...~e2 then 26l:tel.
26~dl
Garry carefully approaches the c3-
pawn and scoops it up. The apparent
vulnerability of the d3-square doesn't
prove to be an obstacle.
26l:teS 27 i&.e4! ~b6 2Sl:tf4
To make sure f7-f5 does not occur.
2S..i.b7 29 l:tc1 ~a5 30 %:te2
~hS
Black now has no active moves.
31 i&.g2 i&.a6 32 l:ta4 'iib6
33 ttJe4!
None of the last few moves were
spectacular, yet taken together they
represent a powerful sequence. It was
careful positional play - and at the end
of it, a checkmate emerges.
33...~xe4 34 bxe4 ttJrs
After 34... ttJxc4 35 l:txc3 ttJb2
36 J:txc8+ ttJxc8 37 ~e2 ttJxa4
38 'iie8+ \t>h7 39 $.e4+, White gives
mate in 3.
35 !!xe3 ttJd4??
This is a blunder in a lost position.
36 e5%:txe5
Dokhoian gives 36 ... dxc5 37 %:txd4.
37~xd41-0
The second round saw the only
draw among Garry's epic run of wins.
250
He had Black against Topalov in a
~g5 Najdorf; they agreed the draw in
an endgame with bishops of opposite
colours. In round three, Garry faced
Bareev.
Game 50
G.Kasparov White
E.Bareev Black
Novgorod 1997
White was somewhat worse all
through the game, but managed to
enter a pawnless ending with the
exchange down.
With the addition of one more piece
on each side, many theoretically
drawn positions become harder or
even lost. This is especially true when
rooks are present. The ending with
two rooks and bishop versus two
rooks is difficult. Rook, bishop and
knight should, I believe, win against
rook and an opposite-coloured bishop.
H-pawn and the wrong bishop against
a lone king is of course a draw, but
with a rook on each side it is a win.
In the diagram position, Garry has
been trying to win for 15 moves.
72:te3??
A horrible blunder, when 72 ...~h3
73 J:tb3+ \t>h2 74 l:b7 ttJg3+ 75 'iilf4
ttf8+ 76 ~e5 'iilg2 77 l:tbg7
(77 l::tb2+ :If2 should be defensible
for Black) 77 ...%:tf.3 is a certain draw.
73l:te61-O

Bareev once blundered against
Karpov, thus contributing to the
fonner Champion's great run in
Linares 1994. Now he has helped
Garry too.
In the next round Short tried the
French against Kasparov's 1 e4.
Following a complicated opening,
Kasparov states that both sides com-
mitted errors in an equally complic-
ated middlegame. After Garry's 2Sth
move, his pieces are threatening
Nigel's king.
Game 51
G.Kasparov White
N.Short Black
Novgorod 1997
28 ~c2??
According to Kasparov, 2s ...lIc6 is
adequate; then the position is unclear.
29 tlHh4 f4 30 .i.xf4 llJrs
31 l:'txg6+! 1-0
3l...hxg6 is met by 32 h7+ 'lthS
33 ~f6+ <ot>xh7 34 ~xf7+ <ot>hS
35 ~f6+ (the prosaic 35 '+l:Yxg6 wins
as well; if 35 ... '+l:Ydl + 36 'lth2 l::rgS,
then 37 ~xf5) 35 ... 'lth7 36 llJg5+
'lth6 37 llJe4+ 'lth7 3S ~f7+ 'it'hS
39 llJf6llJg7 40 .t.h6 - this attractive
checkmate completes Kasparov's ana-
lysis.
Round 5 produced the game of the
tournament. Kramnik had been the
251
1997
only player to keep up with Garry's
pace. He introduced a novelty against
the main line King's Indian, won a
pawn, and also controlled the com-
plications. Kasparov voluntarily gave
up his light-squared bishop, which
goes against the fundamental prin-
ciples of the King's Indian. He often
notices subtle factors that pennit such
extraordinary moves, but this time the
surprising move was a mistake and led
to a quick loss. It was Kasparov's last
King's Indian in a regular game. The
line became a headache for all King's
Indian players for three or four years
to come.
After the tournament, Kasparov said
that Kramnik had played badly against
him. Kramnik retorted that even so,
this was good enough to win.
Kasparov bounced back quickly by
beating Gelfand. He introduced a
novelty in the 4 a3 Queen's Indian.
This time he was contributing to the
theory of the Black side of this
opening. In the complications things
went wrong for Boris, as he was
handicapped by an awful bishop.
Garry finished him offwith ease.
Against Topalov, Garry played a
line which according to theory is
tepid. The heat he generated was
enough to win a pawn, but he was
unable to create a passed pawn in a
position with opposite bishops. Topal-
ov held the position even though all
the rooks were still on the board.
In the next round, against Bareev,
Garry replaced the King's Indian with
the Queen's Gambit Accepted. His
opponent exchanged queens early.
Garry probably wanted to avoid a
draw, and somehow ended up in the
worse position. He managed to hold
on for the half point.
Kasparov was very well prepared
for Kramnik's Rauzer. Uncharacter-
istically though, he kept missing
excellent chances to fmish his oppon-
ent off. At one point he was even in
1997
trouble, but the way Kramnik played
left Kasparov with compensation for
a pawn. Garry offered .a draw and
Kramnik accepted.
Before the last round Nigel took a
walk and was bitten by a dog, so he
needed medical treatment. However,
he still fought ferociously in the .ltc4
Najdorf. The tactical fight ended in
perpetual check. Kramnik was squeez-
ing Gelfand, but the Israeli number
one fought hard and drew.
Kasparov won flTSt prize in the
tournament. He had lost his two-game
match with Kramnik, and his perform-
ance in the second cycle was not so
special. The first half of the tourn-
ament, however, had been magic.
Tilburg
In his previous three tournaments
Kasparov's opponents had been virtu-
ally the very best players of the time
(only Kamsky was absent). He had
pleasant memories of Tilburg, since it
was while he was in this Dutch town,
in 1989, that he reached a higher Elo
rating than had been achieved by
Fischer. Admittedly the results are
hard to compare, owing to the
inflation of the Elo. In the 1997
Tilburg tournament Kasparov played
some opponents who were below the
super-class yet still very strong grand-
masters. He started with Holland's
best hope - Van Wely.
Game 52
L van Wely White
G.Kasparov Black
Tilburg 1997
English Opening [A25]
1 c4
Garry faces a new Dutch player for
the flTSt time, and has a good idea that
he will be a regular future opponent.
As it is the first round of the tourn-
252
ament, the new challenge probably
supplies extra stimulation.
1...e5
Kasparov faced 1 c4 roughly 50
times, and answered with no fewer
than six different moves. Of these 50
games, he lost only one. Naturally he
often transposed to a queen's pawn
opening; it is interesting that in half
the games his answer was 1...g6, with
transposition to the King's Indian. He
had a plus score with 5 of the respons-
es, but not with 1...c5
2 tbc3 tbc6 3 e3
With Black against 1 e4, the Dutch
grandmaster mainly plays the Najdorf
and the Scheveningen. Here he de-
cides to try the same with colours re-
versed, something he doesn't do often.
Garry partly falls in with this scheme.
3 ..tbf6 4 a3 g6!
If Black wants to play a reversed
Open Sicilian with d7-d5?!, it is better
to reserve it for a set-up other than the
Paulsen.
5 b4 il..g7 6 il..b2 0-0 7 d3
This is not a mistake, but it reduces
his own options when it comes to
developing his king's bishop. An alt-
ernative is 7 ~c2 i:Ie8 8 tbge2 d5?!
(of course Black can also play other
moves) 9 cxd5 tbxd5 10 tbxd5 'iVxd5
II tbc3 ~e6 (but not 11...tbd4?
120-0-0!).
7...tte8
Black develops his rook while

concealing where he intends to place
his d-pawn. The game Rivas-Anand,
Madrid 1993, went 7...d5 8 cxd5
lLlxd5 9 lLlge2 lLlb6 10 g3? .tf5
II e4 ~g4 12 ~g2 a5 13 f3 axb4
14 txg4 bxc3 15 lLlxc3 ~d7 16 0-0
l:tad8 17 lLld5 lLlxd5 18 exd5 lLle7
19l:tellLlxd5 20 i.xe5lL\c3 0-1. It is
interesting that against world-class
players, average grandmasters some-
times 'go mad' and play horribly.
S'iVc2
In the Sicilian Black usually plays
~d8-c7 to prepare b7-b5. Once that
advance is carried out, the c-file is
better occupied by the rook.
Kasparov gives the variation 8 lL\ f3
d5 9 cxd5 (9 ..te2 d4 10 exd4 lL\xd4
II 0-0 is also uncomfortable for
White) 9 ... lL\xd5 10 lL\xd5 (after
10 l:tc 1 as White has problems on
the queenside; a gain of space not
backed up by sufficient piece-play can
backfire) 1O.. .'iVxd5 II .te2 (11 e4
~d6 12 h3 b5 is also unpleasant for
White, as a7-aS is coming.) 11...a5
12 e4 ~b5 13 d4 'iVb6 14 d5 lL\d4
and Black is taking over.
8 ~b3!? would stop d7-d5 for some
time to come. White should then be
no worse. Clearly it is a matter of
taste.
S...dS!
Garry switches to an Open Sicilian
set-up - which may not look like a
good idea from a psychological point
of view, as this is the opening Van
Wely knows particularly well and it is
what he wanted to play. With an extra
tempo too, White should be comfort-
ably placed.
9 cxdS lL\xdS
Suddenly the Dutch grandmaster
finds himself in a Scheveningen,
which he knows so well - and yet he
is unfamiliar with this position.
Clearly an explanation is necessary. In
the Scheveningen with g2-g3, Black is
hardly ever able to respond with b7-b5
and ~c8-b7. Usually he does so only
253
1997
if White starts with a closed fonnation
and switches to an Open Sicilian later
on.
This demonstrates Garry's tremend-
ous chess wisdom and the acuteness
of his psychological approach to a line
like this. He has a great record against
the Najdorf and Scheveningen sys-
tems when he faces them with White.
He has not lost a single game with
such an opening.
10 lL\xd5?!
This helps the opponent's develop-
ment. In the Scheveningen Black
usually delays taking on d4 until
White has played 'iVdl-d2.
Alternatives were:
(a) 10 lL\f3!? and now:
(al) 10 ...lL\d4 11 exd4 lL\xc3
12 dxe5 ~xe5 13 lL\xe5! (but not
13 ..te2?? lL\xe2, when Black answers
14 ..txe5 or 14 lL\xe5 with 14 ... lL\d4!
winning) 13 ... l:txe5+ 14 'lifd2 lL\e4+
15 'life I (15 'lifc1 'iV g5+ 16 'lifdl l:td5
17 'lifel lL\f6 is equal; Black answers
18 ~c3? with 18 ....tg4!) 15 ...lL\c3+
16 'lifd2. This remarkable perpetual
check was found by the Belgian
grandmaster Winants.
(a2) 10...a5!? 11 bxa5 (II b5? is an
unfortunate move that lands White in
trouble; Winants gives the variation
11...lL\d4! 12 exd4 lL\xc3 13 dxe5
..txe5 14 lL\xe5 l:txe5+ 15 'lifd2
~g5+ 16 'lifxc3 l:tc5+! and Black
wins) 11 .. Jha5! 12 lL\xd5 (12 ..te2
l:tc5) 12 ...~xd5 13 .te2 :c5 14 ~d2
and Black has at least equalized.
(b) 10 .te2 (stopping tactics on the
e-file) 1O... a5 II bxa5 (11 b5 lL\a7
12 l:tbl c6 13 bxc6 lL\xc6 14 lL\f3
gives a playable position) 11 ...l:txaS
12 lL\xd5 (12 lL\f3 l:Ic5 would
be really unpleasant for White)
12 ...l:txd5 13 lL\f3 with equality.
10. :~xd5 lllL\e2
Black answers II lL\f3 with 11 ... a5.
In many Rauzer-type positions
the centralized queen gets diverted;
here II 'iV c4 leads to equality after
1997
1l...~d6 12 J::Ic1 SLe6 13 ~cS.
11 . (5!
Preparing the f7-square as a bolt-
hole for the queen. In the event of
ll...aS 12 ll'lc3 ~d7 13 bS ll'ld4
14 exd4 exd4+ IS ll'le2 ~xbS, Black
has much less compensation for the
piece than in the actual game.
12ll'lc3 ~f7
13ll'la4?
Van Wely loses his sense of danger.
Probably the knowledge that he is
a tempo up makes him complacent.
Trainers know that many players have
a problem with misjudging the differ-
ence between the colours - they play
with too much aggression with White
or too cautiously with Black. Such
players usually do worse with Black
than with White. Chess has a lot to do
with psychology.
13 ..te2 was a much more natural
move, leading to equality. Maybe
Loek wanted to avoid the presence of
a nagging bishop on b3. After 13 ..te2
SLe6 140-0 (14 J::Icl ~b3 IS ~bl is
playable) 14...Ab3 IS ~d2 J:Iad8
16 J::Iac 1, White should cope with this
slightly inferior position, though he
must play carefully.
13...SLe6 14ll'lc5
Van Wely still has a chance to
readjust, but he sticks to his original
intention. Evidently both players had
the same tactical theme in mind ..
After 14 ~d2!? b6 (l4 ...AdS
2S4
IS ll'lc3 SLb3 16 i..e2) IS ..te2 as
16 bS ll'la7 17 ll'lc3, Black has a
pleasant position. White is a little
passive - but he is still in the game.
14...i..d5
Now what White has neglected to
do for many moves can no longer be
done easily.
15 b5
Not IS e4? ll'ld4, or IS ll'lxb7?
ll'ld4 16 exd4 exd4+ 17 ..te2 ..txg2
and White is in considerable trouble.
IS f) is an ugly move with which to
ease the pressure on the kingside.
After IS ... f4 16 bS ll'ld8 17 e4 ..te6
18 ..te2 b6 19 ll'lxe6 ll'lxe6, Black
will settle on the d4-square while
White has a joyless position.
15...ll'ld4!
Very much a standard type of sac-
rifice, and one which both players had
visualized in advance. The retreat
IS ...ll'ld8 would allow White to play
16 e4.
Sacrifices like this can be hard to
judge, yet in the present case Black is
risking virtually nothing. The situation
arose because not only did Van Wely
play very optimistically in the opening
but Kasparov also played very force-
fully in reply.
Garry had played this kind of
sacrifice before - but not on the White
side of an Open Sicilian, where it
typically occurs on dS.
In Ehlvest-Kasparov, Reykjavik
World Cup 1988, the continuation was
16 ... ll'ld4!! 17 exd4 ll'lf4 18 ..if)

l::txd4 19 ~b5 c6 20 ~xc6 bxc6
21 ~xc6 ~d8 22 ttJf3 l!td6 23 ~b5
l::td5 24 'tWb4 e4 25 ~c3 ttJe2+ 0-1.
To play twice in this manner with
Black is highly unusual.
Curiously though, Kasparov did
play White's standard knight sacrifice
on d5 in a different opening - the
English!
This position arose in Kasparov-
Salov, Barcelona World Cup 1989.
There followed: 12 ttJd5!! ~b8
13 l:tdl g6 14 ~_g5 Jt..g1 15 Jt..xf6
ttJxf6 16 ttJxb6 l::td8 11 e5 Jt..xg2
18 exf6 i.xf6 19 ttJxe6 fxe6
20 'tWxe6+ i.e1 21 c5!! Jt..b1 22 :el
fIIc1 23 c6!! Jt..xc6 24 llacl l!td1
25 ttJxd1 ~xd126 ~c4 i.b121 ~c1
llfS 28 ~b8+ ~f7 29l!tc1 1-0.
16 exd4 exd4+ 17 i.. e2
This is simply the only move. Black
wins after either 11 ~ d 1 b6 or
11 ~d2 Jt..h6+.
17.i.. xgl 18 0-0-0
18l!tglloses to 18 ...Jt..f3.
1997
18..Jt..xhlI9l!txhl ~d5! 20 llel
Another 'only move', as White has
to defend the bishop. (If 20 lIgl?,
then 20.J:he2! +-.) Black has two
pawns and a rook for two pieces,
which is enough compensation.
20. J::te5!
Significantly, White's pawns are
separated and his rook is in a pin.
Black could also play 20 ... f4 or
20 ... b6. In the latter case, there could
follow:
(a) 21 ttJa6 ttac8 22 ttJb4 (22 a4
c5) 22 .. .'iHxb5, and White will not last
long.
(b) 21 ttJb3 c6 22 ttJd2 ~xb5
23 ~b3+ ~xb3 24 ttJxb3 c5 and
Black has a winning position.
21 ~b3
21 ttJb3 lle1 22 'iHc5 (22 a4 %:tae8)
22 ... ~xc5+ 23 ttJxc5 l!te5 24 ttJb3
(24 i..xd4 loses to 24 .. .l:he2 25 :axe2
i..xd4) 24 .. J,:Iae8 transposes to the
game.
21 .. ~xb3 22 ttJxb3 l!tae8!
23c;!;>dl
23 ttJxd4?? would throw in the
towel: 23 ...:!:.t5e1 24 ~d2 l!td1, and
White drops a piece.
23...11xb5
White has practically no hope of
saving the game; Black simply has too
many pawns.
24 Jt..f3l:he1+
Kasparov entertained the lriformant
readers with the spectacular move
24 ...l!te4!? However, after 25 l!txe4
fxe4 26 ~xe4 c6 21 ~c2 J:[h5
28 ~dl l!txh2 29 ~el tth5 Black's
advantage is perhaps less significant
than in the game.
2SWxel c6
Of course not 25 .. J::txb3?? in view
of26i.d5+.
26 Jt..dl as!
Kasparov gives back a pawn in
order to keep the initiative - although
26 ...l!td5 should also win without
much trouble after 21 ttJd2 l!te5+
28 Wfl c5.
255
1997
27 .lixd4 a4 28 .lixg7 ~xg7
291L1d2 l:te5+ 30 .lie2 b5
All White's pawns are isolated, so
he has no h~ee.
31 ~dl XId5 32 'ittc2 g5 33 .lif3
l::td6 34 h3 'ittg6
34...c5!? appears to be stronger, as
the knight has to stay on d2; after
35 lLlbl, Black wins easily with
35 ... b4.
35 lLlbl h5 36 1Llc3 g4 37 i.g2
~f6?!
This prolongs the game; 37 ... '>it g5
must be better.
38 hxg4 hxg4 39 d4! '>itg5 40 '>itd3
The Dutch grandmaster improves
his position significantly. Unfortun-
ately it is not enough to draw. If 40 d5
cxd5 41 lLlxb5, Black plays 4l...l::!.h6
and the 12-pawn will fall.
40..tth6 41 ~e2 f4 42 i.e4 tth3
43 ~d2l:th2 44 '>itel
Or 44 i.xc6, and now:
(a) Winants demonstrates an attract-
ive winning line: 44 ... Ih12+ 45 'it'd3
llb2 46 d5 f3 47 d6 12 48 lLle4+
(48 i.g2 'it'f6) 48 ...'ittb4 (not
48 ... 'it'g6? 49 i.e8+) 49 lLlx12 l:tx12
50 d7 l:tts 51 Wc3 (51 '>itd4 b4
52 axb4 g3 53 b5 lId8 54 b6 J::txd7+
wins) 5l...g3 52 '>itb4 ttd8 53 '>itxb5
l:txd7 54 'iilxa4 lId2 55 '>itb5 %:tb2+
and wins. (Actually 55 ... g2 is even
more precise.)
(b) Another method is 44 ... g3
45 'ittd3 g2 46 i.xg2 (46 lLle2 l:th3+
256
47 'itte4l:txa3 48 i.xb5 tta2 491L1xf4
%:tx12 50 lLlxg2 a3 51 i.c4 lIxg2
52 'it'e5 lIe2+ 53 Wd6 ~f6 54 d5 a2
wins) 46 ...l:txg2 47 ~e2 b4 48 axb4
a3 49 b5 l:th2 50 d5 l:th3 51 f3 a2 and
Black wins.
44..g3 45 fxg3 fxg3 46 '>ito
Or 46 i.xc6 %:tc2 47 lLle4+ Wf4
481L1xg3 lIxc6 and again Black wins.
46..l::tf2+ 47 '>itgl b4! 48 axb4 a3
49 d5 Wf4! 50 ..tg6
On 50 dxc6, Black wins with 50 ...a2
51 lLlxa2 Wxe4! 52 lLlc3+ (52 c7
%:tc2) 52 ... ~f3.
After 50 i.g2 l:tc2 51 dxc6 l::txc3
52 i.d5l::tcl+ 53 ~g2 %:tc2+ 54 '>itgl
a2, White gets checkmated.
50 cxd5 511L1xd5+ 'iilg5 0-1
White resigned, as Black will queen
a pawn: 52 i.bll:tb2 531L1c3l:txbl+!
54 lLlxb 1 a2.
Kasparov played the opening very
effectively. Without using all his
resources, he rapidly achieved a
winning position. Maybe he could
have won more quickly, but he never
really let his opponent back into the
game. It was a nice start against an
opponent he would be playing many
more times.
Garry followed this game with
a win against the best-ever female
player, which is also well worth a
look.
Game 53
G.Kasparov White
J.Polgar Black
Tilburg 1997
Nimzo-Indian Defence [E25J
Why did Garry forsake 1 d4 against
the world's strongest female player?
Did he want to avoid the Benko or the
Nimzo-Indian? Did he perhaps want
to use a line without d2-d4 against a
King's Indian set-up?
1 c4 e6 21L1c3
This is an anti-Nimzo move-order

that Garry uses from time to time.
2...d5
Let us see how Garry has dealt with
other moves in this position:
(a) 2...~b4 3 ~b3 a5 4 a3 iLxc3
5 'iVxc3 tZltO 6 d4 and the game trans-
posed to a ~c2 Nimzo: 6 ... 0-0 7 iLg5
d6 8 e3 'Wie7 9 ..id3! e5 10 tZle2 tZlc6
11 t3 h6 12 ~h4 a4 13 0-0 ~d7
1411aell1fe8 15 ~c2 tZla5 16 tZlc3
g5 17 ~g3 QJb3 18 f4 e4 19 iLe2
'tig7 20 fxg5 hxg5 21 l112 l1h8
22 llefl 1-0. Kasparov succeeded
with this demolition, not in a 'simul',
but against the strong grandmaster
Rozentalis in the European Champ-
ionship, Debrecen 1992.
(b) 2 ... QJf6 3 e4 (the Mikenas Vari-
ation) 3...c5 4 e5 QJg8 5 QJt3 QJc6
6 d4 cxd4 7 QJxd4 tZlxe5 8 QJdb5 a6
9 QJd6+ .lixd6 10 ~xd6 f6 11 iLe3
QJe7 12 iLb6 QJf5 13 ~c5 d6
14 ~a5 ~e7 (Kasparov-Beliavsky,
Linares 1991, went 14... ~d7 15 f4
QJc6 16 ~a3 e5 17 iLd3 0-0 18 0-0
exf4 19 lhf4 tZlfe7 20 lIdl tZlg6
21 l:rm QJge5 22 ~e4 ~fl 23 b3
~e6 24 ~xd6, and Garry needed only
10 more moves to collect the full
point) 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 f4 QJc6
17 ~a3 e5 18.g4 tZlfd4 19 QJd5 ~fl
20 f5 g6 21 IIgl gxf5 22 g5 'tih8
23 gxf6 ~e6 24 ~xd6 iLxd5 25 cxd5
~xf6 26 ~xf6+ l:rxf6 27 'tib1, and
White went on to win in Kasparov-
A.Sokolov, Belfort 1988.
(c) However, Kasparov has not won
all his games against the sidelines.
The 4th game of his rapid match
against Kramnik in 2001 went 2 ...b6
3 QJt3 ~b7 4 g3 iLb4 5 iLg2 ~xc3
6 bxc3 QJe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 d6 9 e4
QJd7 10 ne1 e5 11 a4 a5 12 d4 QJg6,
with an eventual draw.
3d4i.b4
Judit uses a rare variation to sur-
prise Kasparov. What was the just-
ification? White can't transpose into a
~c2 Nimzo-Indian, as 4 ~c2 dxc4 is
strong. On the other hand he can go
257
1997
into an e3 line in which Black has
already revealed her pawn formation.
4e3
4 ~a4+ QJc6 5 cxd5 exd5 6 a3
would only provide a small edge.
4. c5 5 a3 ~xc3+ 6 bxc3 tZlffi
There are some players who try to
take advantage of the opening move-
order by developing their knight with
6 ... tZle7!? In fact, when White later
carries out e2-e4, the knight on e7
gives the position a distinctive char-
acter. I would like to know how
Kasparov would have handled that
line.
7 cxd5exd5
7.. :~xd5!? is also possible. The
game Khalifinan-Y.Meister, Aeroflot
open 2004, continued 8 t3 cxd4
9 cxd4 e5 (9 ... tZlc6 looks better) 10 e4
~xd4 11 ~xd4 exd4 12 tZle2 tZlc6
13 ~b2 0-0 14 QJxd4 tZlxd4 15 ~xd4
l::td8 16 i.e3, and the former FIDE
World Champion squeezed a win out
of this ending.
80
It is possible that in choosing this
move, Garry just wanted to play a
lesser-known line. It is worth re-
membering that Judit started to play
the Nimzo-Indian relatively late in her
career, so Garry had reason to believe
that a sideline would work better. Of
course, he may also think this move is
stronger than 8 ~d3. Certainly Bot-
vinnik's famous win over Capablanca,
1997
featuring the brilliant combination
30 .i.a3!!, must have come to mind.
That game continued with 8 .i.d3 0-0,
but Black can find early deviations -
one example being 8.. :~aS 9 .i.d2
ttJe4.
8c4?!
This is a very ambitious move.
Fixing the pawn formation this early
doesn't keep White guessing at all.
Black has other moves to stop .i.fl-
d3, such as S.. :~c7 or S....i.fS.
9 ttJ e2 ttJ c6 10 g4
Recently players of the White side
have increasingly adopted this vari-
ation. If 10 ttJg3, Black has 1O... hS!?
10.. h6?
If our conjecture about Kasparov's
motive was correct, his speculation
turns out to be justified. Judit weakens
her kings ide and makes it easier for
White to attack. Garry will make her
pay. In Korchnoi-O'Kelly, Bucharest
19S4, Black played 1O...ttJaS and
there followed: II ttJg3 (maybe Garry
would have continued 11 Jig2 ttJb3
12 Ita2 ttJxcl 13 ~xc1 0-0 14 ttJg3,
on the lines of the present game)
Il...lDb3 12 Ita2 hS 13 gS CDxcl
14 ~xc1 CiJgS IS h4 ttJe7 16 e4 ~c7
17 '>ltf2 .i.e6 and White was unable to
gain an advantage.
II .i.g2 ttJa5 12 0-0 ttJb3 13 l!a2
0-0
With 13 ....i.d7, Black can toy with
the idea of not castling into the attack:
(a) 14 ~el, and now:
(al) 14... CiJxcl IS ~xcl ~e7
16 ttJ g3 0-0-0 17 e4 ! (after 17 l:te2 hS
18 gS h4 19 gxf6 ~xf6, Black is fine)
17... dxe4 IS fxe4 and whichever way
Black captures, White gets dangerous
play for the pawn: IS ...ttJxg4 eS, or
IS ...i.xg4 19 ~f4.
(a2) 14 ...~e7 IS e4 (on IS ttJg3,
Black has IS ... 0-0-0!?) lS ... dxe4
16 fxe4. Now Black has various ways
to capture a pawn, but White gets
compensation in each case: 16 ... ttJxe4
(16 ...i.xg4 17 eS, or 16... ttJxg4
2SS
17 ttJf4) 17 .i.f4 i.c6 (or 17 ....i.xg4
18 ttJg3 ttJxg3 19 ~xg3) IS ttJg3
ttJxg3 19 i.xg3.
(b) 14 e4 dxe4 IS fxe4 CiJxcl
(1S ... i.xg4 16 i.f4) 16 ~xcl i.xg4
17 ttJg3.
14 ttJg3 .i.d7 15 ~ell:te8
After IS ...ttJxcl Black's position is
still awkward, though at least she gets
rid of the useless knight on b3.
16 e4!
Kasparov occupies the centre; he is
happy to sacrifice a pawn to achieve
his aim.
16...dxe4 17 fxe4 ttJxg4
If 17 ... ttJxcl IS ~xcl ttJxg4 (on
IS ...i.xg4, Kasparov gives 19 Itaf2
l:te7 20 Itxf6 gxf6 21 ~xh6 and
wins) 19 ~f4 :bte7 (or 19.. .'iH6
20 ~xf6 ttJxf6 21 eS, and the b7-
pawn falls) 20 eS, White has tremend-
ous compensation for the pawn.
18.i.f4
Judit is virtually playing a piece
down. The knight on b3 has little
influence for the duration of the game.
18... ~h4 19 h3 CiJf6 20 e5 J:tad8
This loses to a great combination.
After 20 ... i.c6 21 ~d1! ttJdS
(21 ... i.xg2 22 Itxg2 ttJdS 23 ttJf5
wins) 22 CiJf5 ttJxc3 23 ~c2 ttJxd4
24 ttJxh4 ttJxc2 2S l:txc2, Kasparov
evaluates the position as . If then
2S ... CiJdS 26 ttJfS CiJxf4 27 Itxf4
l:txeS, the position is won for White
even though he only has two rook's

pawns: 28 i..xc6 bxc6 29 ng2 \tf8
30 tiJxg7 and wins.
Another alternative is 20 ...i.xh3.
We can only marvel at the way
Kasparov proves in his analysis that
Black is lost: 21 .axh3 ~xh3 22 nh2,
and now:
(a) 22 .. :~e6 23 i.xh6! tiJg4
24 i..xg7!! lZ'lxh2 25 \txh2, and
White wins as follows:
(al) 25 ... ~g4 26 .lif6 \tf8 27 ~f5!
- this lovely move is decisive.
(a2) 25 ...~g6 26 tiJf5 ~h5+
(26 ... ne6 loses to 27 ~h4) 27 \tg2
~e6 28 i.f6 ~g6+ 29 ~g3 and wins.
(a3) 25 .. .';.t>xg7 26 tiJfS+ <;.t>g8
27 ngJ+ '.tif8 28 ~h4 'tWxfS
29 ~h6+ '.tie7 30 ~d6 - Garry
revealed this unusual checkmate in his
analysis.
(b)22 ... ~g4
23 i..xh6!! opens up the king with
dramatic force:
(bl) 23 ...tiJxd4 24 cxd4 ~xd4+
25 .lie3 ~xe5 26 tiJf5 tiJg4 27 nh3
g6 28 i.d4 ~xd4+ 29 tiJxd4 l'hel
30 I:txe I, and White ends up with an
extra rook.
(b2) 23 ... tiJd5 24 .lixg7!! (amaz-
ingly, White demolishes the Black
kingside in two moves) 24 ... '.tixg7
(24 ... ~xg7 loses to 25 <;.t>hl ne6
26 tiJf5) 25 '.tihl '.tif8 (White also
wins after either 25 ...l:th8 26 tiJfS+
Wg6 27 tiJh4+ or 25 ...ng8 26 tiJfS+
Wf8 27 tiJh6) 26 tiJfS tiJf6 27 ~h8+
tiJg8 28 ~t2 and wins.
21"1'2 tiJh5
259
1997
After 21...tiJh7 22 tiJe4 ~xt2+
23 ~axt2, Black is defenceless.
22 i..xh6!
In these types of tactical skirmish,
Judit is often the one seated on the
other side of the board. She can
console herself with the fact that she
succumbs to a great tactical idea.
22 .. J:te7
Or 22 ...i.e6 23 tiJxh5 ~xh5
24 i.e3 i..d5 25 i..xd51Ixd5 26 ~g2
:!:Id7 27 :!:Ian :!:Ie6. If the knight could
get to d5, Black would still have a
decent game; as it is, the position is
very tough. All the same, Judit should
have tried this defence.
23 tiJf5!
This is a very strong characteristic
of Kasparov's style: he can suddenly
switch back to a slower, measured
pace. Maybe Judit failed to see that
the ensuing ending is hopeless for her;
during an attack it is easy to miss such
a transition.
23. ~xf2+ 24 :!:Ifxf2 :!:Ie6 25 .lie3
i.c6 26.lim
This is a sly move.
26.. f6
In response to 26 ... b5, \'/hite hunts
down the knight with 27 i.e2.
27 i.xc4 i.d5 28 i.e2 fxe5
29 .lixh5 exd4 30 i.g5 ~d7 31l:rae2
i.e4 32 tiJxd4 1-0
Judit resigned. This game demon-
strates that Garry plays a variety of
openings extremely well. This time it
1997
is unlikely that he knew the line
extensively. Of course, his magnific-
ent tactical vision played an important
role. He brought down a player who
herself is remarkably good at seeing
tactics.
Round 3 saw an embarrassing win
over Tal Shaked. On move 20 the
latter blundered his queen away in one
move.
In the fourth game Garry was better
against Onischuk, but his opponent
defended stubbornly. Maybe the easy
win from the previous round caused
Garry to relax - he thought he would
win automatically against a lower-
ranked player. In a same-coloured
bishop endgame, Onischuk's pawns
were on the colour of Kasparov's
bishop, and the prospect was gloomy.
However, the large number of pawns
meant that there was no route to
penetrate with the king. Garry opened
a route by sacrificing his bishop, but
the game still ended in a draw.
Garry was only temporarily held up.
In the next round Shirov played the
6 .te3 line of the Najdorf, and Garry
switched to 6 ... eS.
Game S4
A.Shirov White
G.Kasparov Black
Tilburg 1997
Sicilian Defence {B90]
I e4
Prior to this game, Shirov had a
'minus 4' score with the white pieces
against Kasparov. Indeed he had never
once beaten him.
1..cS 2lLlo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4lLlxd4
lLlf6 SlLlc3 a66.i.e3
In games where brave opponents
have attempted to tackle Garry's
Najdorf,this is the move he has faced
most often. It is also the one he plays
himself on the White side of this
opening. Korchnoi predicted that who-
260
ever cracked Garry's Najdorf would
beat him, but the prediction was not
borne out.
6... eS
Garry took up this move quite late -
in fact, nearly 20 years after facing
6 .i.e3 for the fIrSt time. He has a plus
score from his games with it, but it is
notable that many of them ended in a
draw. This tendency evidently has to
do with the types of middlegame that
Garry likes or dislikes. He favours this
variation slightly less than 6 ... e6 or
6 ...lLlg4.
7lLlb3.i.e6 8 f3 .i.e7
This is the only 'regular' game in
which Garry has played this move. He
usually employs it in advanced and
rapid games, preferring 8... lLlbd7 in
regular tournaments; interestingly, he
seldom follows up the latter move
with .i. f8-e7. After 8... lLlbd7, here are
some of his experiences:-
(a) 9 ~d2 bS 10 g4 (Shirov-
Kasparov, Linares 2004, went 10 a4
b4 II lLldS .i.xdS 12 exdS lLlb6
13 .i.xb6 ~xb6 14 as ~b7 IS .i.c4
g~ 16 l:1a4l:1b8 17 'id3 l:1a8 18 ~d2
IIb8 19 lLlcl hS 20 lLld3 .i.h6
21 ~e2 0-0 22 lLlxb4 ~d7 23 lLlc6
l:1xb2 24 0-0 h4 2S .i. b3 h3 - Garry
seems able to push his pawn as far as
the third rank in almost any variation.
After 26 g3 e4, this messy position
eventually led to a draw) IO ...lLlb6
11 gS lLlfd7 12 lLldS l:1c8 13 lLlxb6
lLlxb6 14 ~aS lLlc4 IS .i.xc4 bxc4
16 ~xd8+ Wxd8 17 lLlaS h6 with a
pleasant position for Black, though
White succeeded in holding the draw
in Adams-Kasparov, KasparovChess
GP (60 minutes) 2000.
(b) 9 g4, and now:
(bl) 9 ...bS 10 gS b4 11 lLldS
(Anand-Kasparov Linares 2002, saw
11 lLle2 lLlhS 12 ~d2 as 13 lLlg3
lLlxg3 14 hxg3 a4 IS lLlcI ~aS
16 lLld3 dS 17 exdS ~xdS 18 .i.g2
~bS 19 .i.h3 .i.xh3 20 l:txh3 .i.e7
21 ~h4; this game too ended in a

draw) 11 ... ttJxd5 12 exd5 .i.f5
13 .i.d3 .i.xd3 14 ~xd3 lie7 15 l::tgl
(15 h4 0-0 16 0-0-0 a5 17 ttJd2 a4
18 <;t>bl f5 19 f4 ~c7 20 ttJc4 exf4
21 lid4 ttJc5 22 lixc5 ~xc5
23 l:Ihfl produced another draw,
although Black was in trouble later
on; Leko - Kasparov, Bled 2002)
15 ... 0-0 16 0-0-0 a5 17 ttJd2 f5
18 gxf6 ttJxf6 19 ~bl ttJh5 20 J:t.g4
~d7 21 l:Ic4 ~f5 22 ~xf5 l:!.xf5
23 l:Ic7 .il.f8 24 l:Ib7 ttJf6 25 J:t.b5
ttJe8 26 ~b7 ttJf6 ~-~ Leko-
Kasparov, Linares 1999.
(b2) 9 ... ttJb6 (following the new
trend) 10 g5 ttJh5 11 ~d2 lie7
12 0-0-0 (Leko-Kasparov, Linares
2004, went 12 ~t2 ttJc4 13 lixc4
.i.xc4 14 h4 0-0 15 ttJa4 f5 16 ttJb6
Jixb3 17 axb3 fxe4 18 ttJxa8 ~xa8
19 ~d2 b5 20 fxe4 ttJg3 21 l::tgl
ttJxe4 22 ~d3 d5 23 J:t.xa6 'iYxa6
24 ~xd5+ <;t>h8 25 ~xe4 ~al+
26 We2 ~xb2, and Black survived)
12 ... l::tc8 13 ~bl 0-0 14 l::tgl ~c7
15 ~t2 ttJc4 16 lixc4 ~xc4 17 h4
g6 18 ~d2 ~c7 19 ttJa4 b5 20 ttJb6
J:t.b8 21 ttJd5, with an eventual draw
in Vallejo-Kasparov, Linares 2004.
9 i6d2 ttJbd7 10 g4 h6
An alternative here is 10... 0-0
11 0-0-0 ~c7 12 ~bl J:t.fc8 13 g5
ttJh5 14 Ugl ttJb6 15 i6t2 lid8
16 h4 g6 17 J:t.d2 ~c6 18 f4 exf4
19 lixf4 ttJxf4 20 ~xf4, as in
Topalov - Kasparov, Leon advanced
chess (5 th game) 1998.
11 0-0-0
Perhaps better than 11 h4 b5
12 J:t.gl ttJb6 13 g5 ttJfd7 14 ttJd5
Jixd5 15 exd5 hxg5 16 hxg5 J:t.c8
17 ttJa5 ttJxd5 18 ttJ b7 ttJxe3
19 ttJxd8 ttJxc2+ 20 <;t>dl ttJxal
21 ttJb7 ttJc2 22 g6 ttJd4 23 gxf7+
<;t>xf7 24 lid3 g5, when Garry
obtained a clear edge and converted it
into a win; Kiril Georgiev-Kasparov,
Paris rapid 1995.
l1 ... bS 12 h4
A year later, in Topalov-Kasparov,
261
1997
Leon advanced chess (3rd game) 1998,
White deviated from the present game
with 12 'it'bl. After 12 ...ttJb6 13 ttJa5
~c7 14 Jixb6 ~xb6 15 ttJd5 ttJxd5
(earlier in 1998, at Linares, Topalov
beat Ivanchuk by playing 15 ...lixd5
here) 16 exd5 Ad7 17 h4 b4 18 ttJc6
Jixc6 19 dxc6 ~xc6 20 ~xb4 d5
21 ~b3 J:t.d8 22 c4 0-0 23 J:t.xd5
~xd5 24 cxd5 ~d6, Topalov went on
to win. If we disregard that game
(since that type of chess isn't partic-
ularly serious), then Garry can be
credited with an unbeaten record in
this variation.
12. ttJb613 <J'Jbl
The commonest continuation here is
13 ~ t2, to which the main responses
are 13 ... ttJfd7 and 13 ... J:t.b8.
13... b4
Alternatively:
(a) 13 ... ttJc4?! loses control over d5
after 14 Axc4 bxc4 15 ttJcl J:t.b8
16 g5.
(b) 13 ... ttJfd7 keeps an eye on the
d5-square. A testing response is
14 ttJa5 ~c7 15 ttJd5 Jixd5 16 exd5
J:t.c8 17 f4.
14 Jixb6
We can now see the point behind
13 <J'Jb 1: it avoids the possibility of
b4xc3 in this position.
14.:ihb6 15 ttJdS lixdS
A critical position seems to arise
after 15 ...ttJxd5 16 exd5 Jid7 17 Ad3
(Banas-Fta~nik, Trnava 1980, went
1997
17 nel ~d8 18 ~h2 ~b6 19 iLd3,
and at this point Black surprisingly
castled long. The game was eventually
drawn) 17 ... a5 18 ~e2 a4 19l1ld2 a3
20 lllc4 ~c5.
16 exd5 a5
17~d3
This is Shirov's novelty. White
frees the d2-square for his knight, and
can consider exchanging queens.
Other possibilities are:-
(a) 17 iLe2 a4 18lllcll:tc8 19 ~d3
~c5 20 ~a6 ~xa6 21 iLxa6 lllxd5
22llld3 l::ta5 23 iLb7llle3, Dimitrov-
Howell, Gausdal 1986; this was the
debut of the variation.
(b) 17 iLc4 0-0 18 ~e2 a4 19l1ld2
a3 20 llle4 lllxe4 21 fxe4 axb2 22 g5
l::i:a3 23 gxh6 g6 24 ~b3 'iUa6 25 'iUf3
~a8 26 ~dfl f5 27 ~g3 g5 28 ~d3
~xa2 29 ~xa6 :U2xa6 30 <JJxb2 gxh4
31 l::thgl+ <JJh8, and this exciting
game ended in a draw; Bologan-
Wahls, Bundesliga 1994/95.
(c) 17 ~e2!? keeps the same
options as Shirov's move, and adds
an extra one: 17 ... 0-0 (or 17 ...a4
18 ~b5+ llld7 19 llld2) 18 f4! (if
18 g5 then 18 ... lllh5!, whereas
18 ...llld7 19 f4 a4 20 llld4100ks good
for White) 18 ... exf4 19 g5! (but not
19 ~xe7?? ~fe8 trapping the queen).
170-0!
Kasparov himself gives this move
an exclamation mark. However, rival
players who have had a chance to
262
repeat the vanatlOn seem to prefer
different moves. Amongst the other
options are 17 ...l::tb8, 17... a4 (when
the main line continues with 18 llld2
't!:Vc5) and 17 ... llld7 (with the main
line 18 llld2 0-0). These have all been
tried, without loss of a single game -
though it must be mentioned that
players of the Black side were never
facing Shirov himself. I feel that there
must be more poison in Shirov's idea.
18llld2
After 18 g5?! lllh5 19 gxh6 g6,
White's play on the kingside is halted.
Black would have a free hand to build
up an attack on the other wing.
18...a4 19l1le4
Again Black answers 19 g5 with
19...lllh5 20 gxh6 g6.
After 19 i.h3 ~a6 (a queen
exchange on d3 would stop White's
attack) 20 tLic4 b3! (20 ... l:tfc8 21 g5
~xc4 22 .i.xc8 l::txc8 23 gxf6 .i.xf6
24 l::thel ~c5 gives Black some play
for the exchange; in this line, if
2l...l::txc4 then 22 .ltfl!) 21 g5lllh5,
Black is very active.
19l::tfc8! 20 lllxf6+?
Bringing about a position with
opposite-coloured bishops in the
middlegame. In such a position the
stakes on a single move may be very
high. It also becomes harder to detect
the nuances than in most other
positions. Usually whoever seizes the
initiative will break through.
Kasparov's recommendation here is
20 g5!? It leads to some interesting
play:-
(a) 20 ... b3 21 cxb3 axb3 22 a3 hxg5
23 hxg5 lllxe4 24 ~xe4 i.xg5
25 .ltd3 g6 26 ~g4 ~t2 27 .ltxg6
fxg6 28 ~e6+, and White has
perpetual check.
(b) 20 ... lllxe4 21 ~xe4 b3 22.i.d3
g6 23 cxb3 axb3 24 a3 ~ t2 (or
24 ... h5 25 f4 ~t2 26 fxe5 ~xa3
27 ~e2 ~xe2 28 .ltxe2 :!:ta4 29 .i.b5;
Kasparov gives no evaluation of this
position, but it looks balanced)

25 ~df1 (25 gxh6 llxa3!) 25 ...~d2
26 ~dl ~t2 repeats the position.
(c) 20 ...liJh5 (Kasparov affixes 'I?'
to this move, but stops there) 21 gxh6
(or 21 ~b5 ~c7 22 i.d3 ctJf4)
2l...liJf4 (2l...gxh6 22 liJg5 gives
some attacking chances), 22 ~b5
-eJIc7 23 Ad3 b3, and Black is certain-
ly no worse.
20..i. xf6 21 '(We4
21 g5? e4! would be very typical
of an 'opposite bishop' position:
22 ~xe4 b3 23 cxb3 axb3 24 a4
(Shirov gives 24 a3 Axb2 as a win for
Black.) 24 .. :~t2 25 .!te2 kIe8 wins.
21...'(Wc5?
Uncharacteristically, Garry misses
the chance of a winning attack. The
idea behind his move is to keep an eye
on the rook on c8. Admittedly it
sounds silly to defend a protected rook
which in not under attack, but the
justification is seen if we compare the
line 21 ...\iif8?? when the black king
can't run to safety: 22 g5 hxg5
23 hxg5 Axg5 24 ~h8+ \iie7
25 Uxc8 llxc8 26 ~f5 and the rook is
unprotected, so that the the double
attack proves decisive.
However, in this type of middle-
game it pays to keep striving for
the initiative. In fact, as Kasparov
has shown, Black has enough re-
sources to mount a direct attack with
2l...b3!! 22 cxb3 axb3 23 a3 i.xh4
24 llxh4? ~t2 25 Jt.d3 (25 ll~1 llc2
263
1997
leads to a quick mate) 25 .. .'~'xh4
26 'iYh7+ \iif8 27 Jt.f5 ~d8 28 J:!:cl
J:!:a7 29 ~h8+ \iie7 30 'iYxg7 ~g5
and wins.
22 i.d3 \iif8!
Exceptions constitute the wonder of
chess; within the space of a single
move, the situation changes com-
pletely. This time, the correct
approach is to take care of the black
king, and not to attack with 22 ... a3?
which is unsound - for example,
23 g5! hxg5 24 hxg5 i.xg5 25 l:th8+!
\iixh8 26 ~h7 mate.
23 g5
After 23 J:tdgl, White will have no
time for g4-g5
- because of23 ...a3!! (23 ...i.xh4! is
also good), when Kasparov gives this
fantastic variation: 24 g5 axb2 25 gxf6
(or 25 i.c4 'iYxc4 26 ~xc4 l:txc4
27 gxf6 gxf6 with a won endgame)
25 ... b3 26 fxg7+ We7 27 cxb3 '(Wa3
28 g8liJ+ Wf8, and Black wins.
23... hxg5 24 hxg5 Axg5 25 ~f5
i.h6
The feasible 25 ...i. f6 is met by
26 i.b5!!, which forces Black play
with care - though he emerges safely
in the end. With 26 ... I:Id8 (not
26 .. :~c7 27 i.xa4!, or 26 .. :~xb5??
27 IiIh8+ ~e7 28 IiIxc8), he puts his
rook on a protected square. Then after
the attacking moves 27 Jt.c6 liIa7
28 J:!:h8+ ~e7 29 ~xd8 ~xd8
30 llhl, White is held back by the
vulnerability of his back rank, and can
do little - while with 30... \t>c7 etc.,
1997
Black may gradually take over.
If instead White answers 25 ....ltf6
with 26 ~d7?, there follows 26 ...g6
27 ~h7 .ltg7 28 ~dhl (or 28 .i.xg6
~c7 29 ~f5 a3 30 ~dhl ~xd5 and
Black wins) 28 ... b3 29 l:lh8+ .i.xh8
30 ttxh8+ <Jilg7 31 ~h7+ <Jilxh7
32 ~xt7+ ~h8 33 ~f6+ <'&>g8
34 ~xg6+ <Jilts 35 ~f6+ <Jile8, and
according to Kasparov the black king
marches to safety.
26 !!h4!
The rook has a role to play on the
fourth rank. Instead, 26 ttxh6 leads
nowhere: 26 ... gxh6 27 ~f6 b3
28 ~xh6+ <Jile8 29 ~h8+ <Jild7
30 Af5+ Wc7 and White is lost.
26.. <Jile7!?
Here we have a glimpse of Garry in
defence. Black can draw easily in a
number of different ways; this move is
actually a sign of a tricky winning
attempt. The analysis shows that some
other attempts were more promising,
but they are all very complicated
indeed. It is a little unfortunate that
this position didn't really stimulate
Kasparov's imagination as an annot-
ator; he says little about it in his
published analysis. In the game he
made a practical decision to keep the
draw in hand. He had a big plus score
against Alexei from their previous
encounters, and this situation puts
pressure on the player who has reg-
istered the good results. He fears that
sooner or later he must lose a game.
This was a game that Garry certainly
did not want to lose.
Let us look at the alternatives:
(a) 26 ...g6 27 ~h3 ..tf4 28 .ltxg6
fxg6 291Ih8+ Wg7 30 l!Ih7+ draws.
(b) 26 ...~xd5 27 .i.e2! (27 !!xb4
ttcb8) 27 ... ~a5 (if 27 .. :fiIb7, then
28 .i.c4; the simplest drawing line is
27 ... ~e6 28 ~xe6 fxe6 29 ttxd6)
28 .i.c4 i.:tc7 29 i.:txh6! gxh6 30 ~f6,
and now:
(hI) 30... <Jile8 31 ~xd6 ~c5
32 .i.b5+!! ~xb5 33 ~gl wins.
264
(b2) 30 .. J:hc4 31 'iHxd6+ <Jile8 (or
3l...<Jilg7 32 J::tgl+ etc.) 32 l:tgl f6
33 !!g7 and again White wins.
(b3) 30 .. :~c5 31 ~xh6+ <Jile7
32 ~h4+ <Jild7 33 ~g4+ <Jile7
(33 ...<Jilc6 34 ~e4+) 34 ~h4+ with
perpetual check.
(c) 26 .. J::i:e8 27 I:1:c4 (or 27 J::txh6
gxh6 28 ~f6 ~xd5 29 ~xh6+ <J;;e7
30 ~h4+ f6 and Black is better,
though it's hard to make progress with
his king exposed; in this line 28 ... a3
is met by 29 .i.b5!, and 28 ...l::ta7
by 29 f4) 27 .. .'~a5 (or 27 ... ~xd5
28 .:txb4, and now not 28 .. :~e6
29 ~h7 but 28 ... l::teb8 29 l::txb8+
l:rxb8 30 ~d7 a3 and Black should be
better) 28tthl b3 29 cxb3 axb3 30 a3
<Jile7 and White has some compens-
ation.
(d) 26 .. J::tcb8!. This is Kasparov's
recommendation; after 27 l:I:c4 ~a5
28 .i.e4 (28 ~d7 )!Id8) 28 ...b3
29 cxb3 axb3 30 a3 <Jile7, Black has
chances.
(e) 26 ... l::tc7!. This fine defensive
move was mentioned not by Kasparov
but by Winants. There can follow:
27 l::txh6 (the Belgian grandmaster
doesn't discuss the reply 27 l::tc4,
when after 27 .. :~a5 28 l:thl l:.xc4
29 i.xc4 ~c5 White has very little,
while Black can start his attack. In this
line, if28 l:txc7 'WIxc7 29 i..b5, Black
has 29 ...l:ta5 30 .ltc6 b3, or 29 ... a3!?
30 .ltc6 l::td8! and White's position
may be lost) 27 ... gxh6 28 'WIf6
28 ... l:te8!! (this subtle move puts

the rook on a defended square and in
addition paves the way for the king to
escape with \1tf8-e7-dS-cS. Winants
doesn't analyse this move, but gives
28 ...b3 29 ~xh6+ \1te8 30 ~hS+
\1te7 31 1!i'h4+. If instead 28 .. J!ka7,
then 29 ~xh6+ \1teS 30 ~f6 with
compensation). Now White has a
number of choices:-
(el) 29 r::thl a3 30 ~xh6+ (other-
wise, e.g. after 30 .It f5, Black would
play h6-h5!) 30 ...\1te7 31 ~g5+ f6
32 l:Ih7+ \1tdS 33 'iYxf6+ \1tcS
34 tIxc7+ Wxc7 and Black wins.
(e2) 29 ~xh6+ \1te7 30 ~g5+
(30 ~h4+ f6, or 30 .ltf5 :!'::1:gS) 30... f6
31 ~g7+ 'l!7dS 32 ~xf6+ 'l!7cs
(32 ... J::tce7 33 .ltg6) 33 f4 (33 J.e4
a3) 33 ... exf4 34 ~xf4 leaves Black
with fair winning chances.
(e3) 29 .lif5!? (the bishop seals the
exit), and now:
(e31) 29 ...b3 30 'iYxh6+ \1te7
31 ~g5+ and White has perpetual
check.
(e32) 29 ... h5 30 f4! e4 31 c3 bxc3
(31 ... e3 32 lId4 ~xd4 33 cxd4 e2
34 ~h6+ \1te7 35 ~g5+ is another
perpetual check)
32 l!rd4! ~b5 (not 32 ... c2+?
33 Wcl, and if 33 ... ~b5 then
34 'ti'xd6+ r:J;;g7 35 ~xc7; or if
33 ... Wg8, then 34 ~g5+ \1tf8
35 ~h6+ r:J;;e7 36 r::txe4+ r:J;;dS
37 ~f6+ Mce7 3S r::tc4 ~gl+
39 r:J;;xc2 ~t2+ 40 r:J;;bl and White
wins) 33 ~h6+ \1te7 34 l:Ixe4+ \1tdS
35 ~xd6+ l'ld7 36 l'lxeS+ \1txeS
265
1997
37 iLxd7+ is equal.
(e33) 29 ... a3! 30 f4 e4 31 ~xh6+
\1te7 32 'iYg5+ f6 33 'iYg7+ \1tdS
34 ~xf6+ :!'::1:ce7 35 iLg6 (35 .lixe4)
35 .. J::tgS 36 f5 e3, and Black wins.
27l:tc4
27..JWxc4
Forced, but Black plays it readily as
he is risking hardly anything. We may
presume that the identity of Garry's
opponent came into consideration
here. Would he have headed for this
endgame with 26 ... <J;;e7 ifhe had been
playing Karpov rather than Shirov?
28 iLxc4 lhc4 29 ~d3 :!'::1:ac8
30 lIel ii.f4 3llIe4??
Shirov misjudges the position. He
should have made space for his king
with 31 b3. After 3l...axb3 32 axb3,
interestingly enough, Garry and
Alexei demonstrate different ways of
holding the game. Black's choices are:
(a) 32 ... lhc2 33 ~xc2 l:txc2
34 \1txc2 f5, and now:
(al) 35 r:J;;d3 g5. Alexei stops here,
assessing the position as equal. Garry
says that after 36 1::al, White is
slightly better; he can still try to win,
though Black is very likely to hold
on: 36... r:J;;f6 37 :!'::1:a6 g4 3S fxg4
(3S l:1:xd6+ r:J;;g5 39 fxg4 e4+ wins for
Black) 3S ... e4+ 39 r:J;;d4 e3, and Black
is safe. Alternatively, 37 J:ta4 g4
3S fxg4 fxg4 39 r:J;;e4 (or 39 l'lxb4
r:J;;f5=) 39...g3 (39 ...iid2 40 l'la6)
40 r:J;;f3 .ltd2 41 \1txg3 e4=.
1997
(a2) 35 I:ta1 g5 36 na4 g4 37 fxg4
fxg4 38 'it'd3 'it'f6 39 'it'e4 g3 40 'it'f3
i.d2 41 ~a6 'it'f5 42 ~xd6 e4+
43 'it'g2 'it'e5 44 ~d8 (44 I:td7 iU4)
44 ... il.g5 45 ~b8 (45 ~fS il.e3)
45 ...i.f4 46 I:txb4 'it'xd5, and Black
holds.
(b) 32 ... I:t4c5! 33 l:!:e4 ~b8 34 ~a6
I:tbb5 35 I:tc4 lhc4 36 ~xb5 (in the
event of 36 bxc4 I:tc5 37 ~b7+ 'it'f6,
Black sacrifices the e-pawn and
pushes the g-pawn; Garry evaluates
this position as unclear) 36 .. J:l:d4
37 ~b7+ <oitf6 38 ~b6l:dl+ 39 <oita2
e4 40 fxe4 il.e5 41 ~f2+ 'it'e7
42 ~a7+, and White has to give
perpetual.
31...I:txe432 fxe4
32 ~xe4? is weaker: 32 ... l::1h8
33 ~el (or 33 b3 a3) 33 .. .I:rh2 34 a3
b3 35 cxb3 axb3 36 a4 l:g2 37 ~hl
Mc2, with an easy win.
32.g5!
The g-pawn suddenly becomes a
menace. Possibly Shirov misjudged its
potential; indeed, up until now, pro-
motion would have seemed a distant
prospect. Now the scene starts to
change.
33a3
Winants gives the instructive vari-
ation 33 ~a6 I:th8 34 a3 g4 35 ~b7+
'it'f6 36 ~xb4 g3 37 ~xd6+ 'it'g7,
and the black pawn will queen.
33 . bxa3 34 ..-a6
Or 34 ~xa3 g4 35 ~xa4 g3
266
36 'ia7+ '.tf6 37 'id7 I:th8 38 '.ta2
I:th5 (38 ... g2 wins as well: 39 ~g4
I:th2 40 c4 '\t>e7! 41 c5 i.e3 etc.
However, Garry's method is a safer
way for human players) 39 ~xd6+
c:Jilg7 40 ~c5 g2 41 ~gI I:tg5 and
Black wins.
34.. J~d8 35 ~b6
On 35 bxa3, Winants gives the
winning variation 35 ...g4 36 ~xa4 g3
37 ~a7+ c:Jilf6 38 ~gl I:tg8 39 ~g2
I:th8 40 a4 I:th2 41 ~gl I:te2 42 ~hl
'\t>g5! 43 ~h7 g2.
35..g4 36 c4 g3 37 c5 g2 38 cxd6+
~xd639~c7+
39... '\t> f6!!
It is staggering that White can take
the rook - with check, too - and still
be unable to hold the position. Black
can also win with 39...l:d7, but he
still has to utilize the same amazing
motif: 40 'ii'c5+ (or 40 'ii'b6 i.h2
41 ~c5+ l:d6 42 'ii'c7+ '\t>f6
43 'ii'xd6+ c:Jilg7 and Black wins)
40 ... '\t>e8 41 'ii'c8+ I:td8 42 'ii'c6+
'it'fS 43 ~c5+ ~d6!! and wins.
40~xd6+
Or 40 ~c5 Wg7 41 ~gll1g6.
40...'it'g7 0-1
Black resigned. The final position
must have pleased Garry. As befits a
Kasparov game, this one is very
difficult to evaluate. Garry won with a
beautiful idea, and played some spect-
acular moves. Yet he seems to have
committed some inaccuracies, as he

himself pointed out. His win also
depended on a bad mistake from
Shirov.
In the next round Garry's opponent
was the young Peter Leko. Garry
played the Scotch, and my former
pupil replied with a risky line based
on an idea from Tony Miles. Soon he
committed a huge error and lost a
piece in the opening. He still fought
on, but of course he couId not save the
game.
In round seven Garry faced his
younger countryman Peter Svidler,
who played a sideline against his
Sicilian and virtually gave up trying to
gain an advantage. Garry risked too
much by taking a pawn, and Svidler
created dangerous play. When Garry
gave the pawn back, Svidler remained
with a strong light-squared bishop.
Garry started to play on the h-file, but
it led nowhere; he tried a desperate
attack instead of going under slowly
but surely. The young Russian kept
his nerve and went on to win.
In the next game Kasparov came up
with a great idea again. His games
with Piket almost always seem to be
exciting. It is a pity a match between
them never took place, even though
the outcome would have been predict-
able.
Game 55
G.Kasparov White
J.Piket Black
Tilburg 1997
Queen's Gambit Accepted [D27}
1 d4
This was Kasparov's fourth game
with White against Piket. In the
previous three, Jeroen had faced 1 e4
and invariably lost. In their regular
games to date, Garry's score with
White is 5 out of 5. The frrst time
Piket avoided losing with Black
against Garry was in a one-hour game
267
1997
in which the Internet line failed. Piket
drew the replay.
1...d5
Piket's favourite is the King's
Indian, but he knows how often Garry
has played against it. It is safer not to
test him!
2 c4 dxc4
Jeroen wants to play relatively safe.
He is known for venturing a variety of
lines, some of them sharp. However,
he knows that Garry would be well
prepared against something like the
Botvinnik System. Garry had only
faced the QGA a few times and had
some painful memories of it, dating
from his late teenage years. Both
Petrosian and Gulko beat him with it.
During the latter part of his career, he
started to play it with Black. In regular
games he has a 'plus two' score with
this opening; in rapid chess his record
with it is much more impressive.
3e3
This time Garry chooses a less
aggressive line. He has tried both 3 e4
and 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 a few times.
Jeroen sometimes has dangerous lines
up his sleeve. By going into the main
line with this move, Garry reduces the
chance of being surprised.
3 ...tDC6 4 ~xc4 e6 5 tDo c5 6 0-0
a67 ~b3!?
Garry follows the latest fashion.
The idea is that b7-b5 will not be
played with tempo. According to the
database, Sliwa and Euwe frrst played
this with White at the 1962 Varna
Olympiad. The line remained dormant
for a long time, then in 1993 and 1994
it became popular again.
Garry once employed 7 ~d3,
against Kamsky in the Intel Grand
Prix rapid 1994. After 7...tDc6 8 tDc3
VJlJc7 9 a3 b6 10 dxc5 bxc5 11 tDe4
~e7 12 .i.d2 ~b7 13 ~c3 tDxe4
14 .i.xe4 0-0 15 !:tcl h6 16 'iYa4 f5
17 Abl e5 18 tDh4 Axh4 19 'iYxh4
YJJifl 20 f3, White stood better and
went on to win.
1997
He has also tried 7 e4. The game
Kasparov - Gulko, USSR 19S2, con-
tinued 7 ...b5 S .i.d3 .i.b7 9 .i.g5
cxd4 10 li'lxd4 li'lbd7 11 li'lc3 li'le5
12 li'lcxb5 li'lxd3 13 ~xd3 axb5
14 :fdl i.e7 15 ~xb5+ ~d7
16 ~b3 .i.xe4 17 li'lf5 .i.d5
IS li'lxg7+ WfS 19 ~h3 h5 20 ~g3
~xg7 21 i.xf6+ ~xf6 22 ~d4 i.d6
23 ~c3 Wg6 24 h3 .i.c7 0-1. This is
one of the very few games in which
Kasparov over-sacrificed.
7.. b5
Piket once played White against
7 ...i.e7, and though his opponent
drew, he didn't feel like repeating the
experience with Black. The continu-
ation was S ~ e2 0-0 9 li'lc3 cxd4
10 exd4 b5 II i.g5 i..b7 12 ~adl
li'lbd7 13 d5 exd5 14 li'lxd5 i.xd5
15 i. xd5 li'l xd5 16 J::1: xd5 it. xg5
17 li'lxg5 h6 IS ~fdl bxg5 19 :xd7
~f6, and Black held the ending;
Piket - Salov, Dos Hermanas 1995.
Similar endings are typical of the
QGA.
One of the other main lines is
7 ... cxd4. It avoids White's play
against the b5-point, at the cost of
making :fl-el into a reasonable
continuation (S exd4li'lc6 9 :el).
After 7 ... li'lc6 S ~e2 ~c7 Black
rarely holds back from taking on d4,
as White's play in the c-file is faster-
just as in the 7 a4 variation. There can
follow: 9 li'lc3 .i.d6 10 .i.d2 0-0
26S
11 I1ac I, and White scores well.
8a4 b4
S...bxa4?! 9 .i.xa4+ reveals an
advantage of 7 i.b3 over the 7 i.d3
line. After 9 ... li'lbd7 10 e4! cxd4 11 e5
li'ld5 12 i.c6 :bS 13 i.xd5
exd5 14 li'lxd4 ~b6 15 li'lc3 li'lc5
16 .i.e3 White was clearly better in
Rublevsky-Vaulin, Russia 1992.
S...i. b7 leaves the queenside vul-
nerable, though it is possible that
Black can just about hold on. After
9 axb5 axb5 10 J::1:xaS i..xaS 11 ~e2
c4 (or 1l...b4 12 .i.a4+ li'lbd7 13li'le5
~a5 14 b3 cxd4 15 li'lxd7 li'lxd7
16 ~c4 ~dS. This is not the type of
position you would like to have
against Kasparov - he would doubt-
less enjoy it. After 17 ndl White
went on to win in Yermo linsky-
Quinn, London 1994) 12 i.c2 li'lbd7
13 b3 cxb3 14 .i.xb3 b4 15 lllbd2
.i.e7 16 e4 0-0 17 .i.b2 "iHbS IS :al
i.c6 19 i.c4 neS 20 h3, Black can do
little but wait passively and see how
White chooses to exert pressure on the
centre; Kuzubov-Tarlev, Simferopol
2003.
9li'lbd2
This is the most usual move. White
has at least two other reasonable tries:
(a) 9 e4 cxd4 (9 ....i.b7 10 e5llle4 is
an interesting alternative that requires
testing) 10 e5 li'le4 (or 1O ... lllfd7!?
11 ~xd4 li'lc6 12 ~f4 .i.e7?!
13 ~g3 ~fS 14 li'lbd2 it.b7 15 li'lc4
and White has the advantage as
Black's king is misplaced; Kiriakov-
Nikitin, Tomsk 1995) 11 li'lxd4 i.b7
12 .i.e3 li'ld7 13 li'ld2 li'lxd2
14 ~xd2 ~a5 (l4 ... lllxe5 15 i.g5)
15 f4 lllc5 16 .i.c4 g6 17 f5 gxf5
IS li'lxf5 J::tgS 19 lZlg3, and White's
position looks the more attractive;
Khalifman - Lautier, Tallinn rapid
2002.
(b) 9 a5 .i.b7 10 .i.a4+ li'lbd7 11 e4
~c7 12 i.g5 li'lxe4 13 li'le5 li'lxg5
14 it.xd7+ We7 15 f4 llle4 16 lZld2
li'lxd2 17 ~xd2 :adS IS f5, and White

went on to win this wild game;
Avrukh-Karjakin. Bie12003.
9....tb7
A natura] continuation, yet possibly
not the best. Its function is to stop e3-
e4. Remarkably, such a natural move
as 9 .. .'1Jc6!? has not even been tried.
There is a certain logic in 9 ... Ae7.
Black refrains from Ac8-b7 since e3-
e4 is coming anyway, and his move
will stop the white queen' s bishop
from later coming to g5. A recent
game Bologan-Rublevsky, Poikovsky
2004, demonstrates what might hap-
pen: lO e4 cxd4 II e5 liJfd7 12 liJc4
liJc6 13 liJxd4 liJcxe5 14 i.e3 0-0
15 liJxe5 liJxe5 16 f4 liJg6 17 'iVf3
i.d7 18 I:1:adI ~a5 19 fS exf5
20 liJxfS ~xfS 21 ~xf5 i.xfS
22 I:1:xf5 i.f6 23 .id4, and the game
ended in a draw.
10 e4
Kasparov carries out this advance
anyway. One year earlier, in the 1996
Monaco rapid, Piket had played
lO a5 against Lautier. There followed:
lO ...liJbd7 I I .ia4 .ie7 12 dxc5
.ixc5 13 liJb3 0-0. In this kind of
situation, typical of the Meran and
Queen's Gambit Accepted, it is often
better to give up the bishop in
exchange for free play, rather than
lose tempi trying to preserve it. After
the further moves 14 liJe5 liJxe5
15 liJxc5 filc7 16 liJxb7 'i6xb7
17 ~d4liJg6 18 i.d2l:Iab8 19lUdi
l:Ifd8 20 ~c4 l:Idc8 21 'i6e2 liJe4
22 i.el, a draw was agreed.
10 cxd4
IO ... liJxe4?! is not a real option -
taking the pawn is simply too risky.
After lIliJxe4 i.xe4 I2l:IeI i.d5 (or
I2 ....ifS 13 d5) 13 i.g5 f6 14 dxc5!
i.e7 (14 ....ixb3 15 ~xb3 fxg5
16 "'xe6+ i.e7 17 liJxg5 I:1:fS
18 I:1:adl wins for White) 15 i.f4 <:J;}f7
16 liJd4 i.xb3 17 '{i'xb3 ~d5
18 ~xd5 exd5 19 i.d6 l:e8 20 liJfS,
White has a big advantage.
Instead lO ... i.e7!?, holding off
269
1997
..t c I -g5, deserves consideration.
11 e5liJd5
This move, which does not seem
appropriate, is reminiscent of two
different openings. One is the Sicilian,
where in preference to liJffi-d5 Black
steps back to d7 in order to maintain
pressure against e5. The other is 1 c4
c5 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 e5
5liJb5 d5.
As the game goes, the knight on d5
is strangely passive. It does little to
inhibit White, while blocking Black's
own bishop on b7. White's advantage
on the kings ide can grow to menacing
proportions. Evidently Piket did not
appreciate the drawbacks during his
home preparation; he is made to pay
for playing a rarely used line. Here are
the alternatives:
(a) ll...liJe4 12 liJxe4 ..txe4, and
Black is seriously behind in develop-
ment. After 13 liJxd4 (13 liJg5!?)
13 ... .i.c5 14 i.e3 .i.xd4 15 .i.xd4
liJc6 16 i.c5 ~xdl 17 llaxdl liJa5
18 i.a2 b3 19 .i.bl i.xbl 20 I:1:xbl
0-0-0, White was somewhat better in
Klimov-Vaulin, Yekaterinburg 2002.
(b) ll...liJfd7 goes after the e5-
pawn and at least exerts some press-
ure, though White is comfortable here
as well. After 12 liJc4, Black can try:
(b I) 12 ....te7?! 13 liJxd4 liJc5
14 ~g4 and the queen is menacing
the kingside.
(b2) 12 ... liJc5 13 i.g5 f6 14 exf6
gxf6, and now:
(b21) 15 liJfe5 recalls the famous
Botvinnik-Euwe game from 1948,
where the frrst Soviet World Champ-
ion had a knight in a similar situation
to this one. We can assume that Garry
knew that game. One difference is that
in the present case the white knight
places itself en prise whereas Bot-
vinnik's knight merely declined to
move when attacked. A further differ-
ence is that this time the move brings
White no advantage: 15 ... h5 16 liJg6
(or 16 i.h4 ~d5) 16 ... ~d5 17liJd6+
1997
~xd6 IS liJxhS liJxb3 (lS ... fxg5!?
19 'iVxh5+ Wd7 20 .lic4 liJc6
21 liJf7) 19 ~xh5+ Wd7 20 J.xf6
liJxal 21 'iVf7+ .lie7 22 liJg6 liJc6
23 l:txal e5, and Black wins; Slipak-
Spangenberg, Buenos Aires 1996.
(b22) 15 liJxd4! 'iVd5 16 liJd6+
~xd6 17 ~h5+ Wd7 IS .txf6liJxb3
19 liJxb3 and White had an over-
whelming advantage in Gershon-
Svetushkin, Yerevan 2000.
(b3) 12 ... liJc6 13 i.g5 'iVc7 14 ttcl
i.cs (after 14 ...liJcS IS .ta2 liJe4
16 i.h4 g5 17 i.bl d3 IS i.xd3 :!:tdS
19 i.xg5 liJxg5 20 liJxg5 liJxe5
21 'iVh5 liJg6 22 liJxe6 'iVc6 23 i.e4
Black was comprehensively beaten in
Tregupov-Brynell, Rowy Open 1999).
Now White has two promising moves.
One is IS ttel. The other is ISliJxd4,
as in Topalov-Lautier, Monaco rapid
1997, which continued: IS ... liJdxeS
16liJxe5 ~xe5 17liJt3 'iVd6 IS 'iVc2
i.a7 19 ttfdl ~c7 20 iYe4. The
Bulgarian number one obtained good
compensation and won the game fairly
quickly.
12liJc4liJc6
12 ....te7 would lose control of the
d6-square: 13 i.g5! 0-0 14 liJd6, and
now:
(a) 14...i.c6 15 i.xe7 liJxe7
16liJg5! i.d5 17 'iVd3! liJg6 (17 ... g6
IS 'iVh3 h5 19 i.xd5 exd5) IS i.xd5
exd5 19 f4 liJd7 20 ~h3 h6
21 liJgxf7! and White was rewarded
270
for his instructive opening play with
a winning position in Lalie-Sadler,
England 1995.
(b) 14 ...i.xg5 IS liJxb7 'iVe7
16 liJxgS ~xgS 17 .lixdS exdS
18 ~xd4 liJc6 19 'iVxd5 liJe7
20 ~e4, and Black had nothing for
the pawn in Praszak-Estrada, MK
Cafe Open 1997.
13.i.g5
Dokhoian mentions 13 liJxd4, and it
may be a good alternative. However,
as he is Kasparov's trainer, I doubt
whether Garry would opt for that
continuation if the position were to
recur.
13. ~d7
13 ... f6? would weaken the king too
much: 14 exf6 gxf6 IS t1e 1 fxgS
16 ttxe6+ Wd7 17 ttxc6 .lixc6 (or
17... Wxc6 IS liJxd4+) IS liJce5+
Wc7 19 liJxc6 \t>xc6 20 liJxd4+
\t>b6 21 a5+ and wins (analysis by
Dokhoian).
13 .. :~c7 invites threats on the c-file
- 14 ttcl, and now:
(a) 14 ...h6 15 .lih4 i.c5 16 liJd6+
.t xd6 17 .t xdS .t xeS IS liJ xeS
~xe5 19 i.xc6+ i.xc6 20 ttxc6 'iVe4
21 ~t3, and White is much better.
(b) 14 ... ttcS 15 i:el .lic5 16lLld6+
.txd6 17 i.xd5! and White opens up
the position in his favour.
(c) 14...i.c5 IS lLld6+ i.xd6
16 .i.xd5! i.xe5 (or 16 ... exd5 17 exd6
'iVxd6 18 l:teI+) 17 .txc6+ .txc6
IS :!:tel f6 (or IS ....txt3 19 'iVxt3
.txh2+ 20 \t>hl 'tWbS 21 g3 and wins)
19 lLlxd4 i.xd4 20 :t:txe6+ \t>d7
21 ~ g4 and White wins, as pointed
out by Huzman.
14 kIc1
In Lalie-Mannion, BCF rapid 2003,
White deviated with 14 :!:te 1. Instead
of inserting 14 ...h6 IS i.h4, Black
continued with 14 ... i.c5 (the Scottish
player lives up to his reputation of
defending his pawn - I know him
personally and I hope he doesn't mind
this joke!) ISliJfd2 0-0 16lLle4 i.e7

(here we see the contrast with the
present game; White can't withdraw
his bishop to f4) 17 ~ g4 A xg5
18 liJxg5 ~e7 19 ~adl h6 20 liJe4
'>t>h8 21 I:!.d3 f5, and the game was
eventually drawn.
14... h6?!
The immediate 14 ...~c5, on the
analogy of Lalie-Mannion, is probably
better:
(a) 15 liJfd2 0-0 16 ctJe4 ~e7
17 ~h5 (or 17 Axe7 ~xe7 18 ctJcd6
ctJxe5 19 ctJxb7 ~xb7 20 ~xd4 and
White's compensation is enough for
a draw) 17...i.xg5 18 ~xg5 (or
18 liJxg5 h6 19 ctJe4 ~e7, and Black
is holding on - for example 20 f4
liJe3 21 liJxe3 dxe3 22 ctJd6 liJd4)
18 ... ~e7 19 ~xe7 ctJcxe7 (or
19 ...liJdxe7 20 ctJcd6 ~a7 21 liJc5
.ia8, and it is hard to say whether
White has more than a balanced
position) 20 liJcd6 i.c6, and Black
should be able to defend.
(b) 15 ctJcd2!? was Dokhoian's
suggestion. It is certainly very inter-
esting:
(bl) 15 ...i.e7?! 16 i.xe7 liJcxe7
17 ctJe4 liJe3 18 liJd6+ ~xd6
19 exd6 ctJxdl 20 ~c7! and as
Dokhoian says, White's initiative is
dangerous.
(b2) 15 ....ib6 16 ctJe4 0-0 17 ~d2
liJce7 (Garry's Armenian trainer
analysed 17... ctJa5? 18 .ixd5 ~xd5
19 ctJf6+ gxf6 20 .ixf6 ~e4 21 Il:fel
~g4 22 h3 ~h5 23 g4 ctJb3 24 ~f4
~g6 25 ctJh4 ctJxcl 26 Il:xcl, which
is close to a win for White) 18 as (on
18 liJd6 ctJg6, Black gets his pieces
organized) 18 ....ia7 19 liJc5 .ixc5
20 l::txc5 Itfc8 (or 20 ...h6 21 Axe7
~xe7) and Black defends.
(b3) 15 ... Aa7 16 ctJe4 0-0 17 ~d2
liJce7 18 liJxd4 liJg6 19 liJf3 Il:fc8.
The position is complex with chances
for both sides.
15 i.h4i.c5
Black can't afford to surrender
control of d6 with 15 ...~te7 16 J.xe7
271
1997
'f!lxe7, when White can choose
between:
(a) 17 ctJxd4! ctJf4 (or 17 ... Il:hd8
18 liJxc6+ i.xc6 19 ~c2 and White
is much better) 18 ctJxc6+ ~xc6
(18 ...i.xc6 19 ~g4 ~d5 20 liJd6
~xg2+ 21 'ixg2 J.xg2 22 ~c7+
\&>d8 23 lIfcl wins) 19 ctJe3 ~xcl
20 ~ d6+ and White wins.
(b) 17 liJd6! ctJxe5 18 liJf5+ (in the
event of 18 ctJxb7 liJxf3+ 19 ~xf3
'ixb7 20 i.xd5, Black loses with
20 ... 'ixd5 21 ~c7+ but might sur-
vive after 20 ... exd5 21 :!:t fe 1+ 'f!lf8
22 'if4) 18 ... exf5 19 liJxe5 ~d6
20 :!:tel 'f!lf8 21 ~xd4 and Black is in
big trouble.
16 liJfd2! 0-0
This is more or less forced.
16 ... liJe3?, attempting to utilize the
extra pawn, fails to 17 fxe3 dxe3
18 ctJe4 e2+ 19 liJxc5 exdl=~
20 Il:cxdl (Dokhoian) and Black is
lost.
Ftacnik gives 16 ... liJf4? 17 ctJe4
J.a7 18 ctJcd6+ 'f!lf8 19 liJxb7 ~xb7
20 liJd6 ~d7 21 ~f3 and wins.
17 liJe4.J.e7
On 17 ... J.a7, Winants found the
very impressive sacrifice 18 liJf6+!!
gxf6 19 exf6, and now:
(a) 19...ctJf4 20 ~g4+ ctJg6
21 ~h5 ctJxh4 (2l...'i't'h7 22 i.g5)
22 ~xh4 liJe7 (22 ... 'i't'h7 loses to
23 'ilVe4+ 'i't'h8 24 i.c2) 23 liJe5 and
wins.
1997
(b) 19 ...e5 20 ~f3 (but not
20 ~h5? l"Llf4 21 ~xh6 ~g4, which
wins for Black) 20 ... l"Llf4 (20 ...~c8
21 l"Lld6! l"Llf4 22 ~xc6, or 20 .. .'~h8
21 ~h5 and White wins), when White
has these tries:
(bl) 21 ~g3+ l"Llg6 22 'iYxg6+ fxg6
23 l"Llxe5+ ~f7 24 .ixf7+ I:!.xf7
25 l"Llxc6 and White is better (analysis
by Winants).
(b2) 21l"Lld6?! fiJe7 (Black is living
dangerously after 2l...'>ilh8 22 l"Llxb7
llfc8 23 l"Llc5 Axc5 24 ttxc5)
22 l"Llxb7 l"Lleg6 23 Ag3 ~f5 is less
convincing.
18 i..g3!
This is a great conception. It leaves
Black's camp looking overcrowded.
As the e7-square is occupied, the
knights can't help in the defence of
the king. White soon launches an
attack on the b I-h7 diagonal.
18..'iYd8
18 ... f5 stops the idea of 'iYdl-d3
followed by i..b3-c2 with a mating
threat, but leaves the king's position
too airy: 19 exf6 gxf6 20 l"Llcd6 ~xd6
21 Axd6 I:lf7 22 ~g4+ tIg7
(22 ... '>ilh8 23 ~h3 l"Llce7 24 ~xb4
wins) 23 l"Llxf6+! tears up the Black
kingside. After 23 ...l"Llxf6 24 '!'xe6+
'>ilh8 25 i..xd7, White wins.
19 l"Lled6 l"LlaS
After 19 .. :i:Vb6 20 '!'xd5 exd5
21 l"Llf6+ gxf6 22 l"Llf5 l"Llxe5
23 l"Llxe7+ '>ilg7 24 f4 l"Llg6 25 l"Llf5+,
272
Black is in deep trouble.
20 i..e2
20 l"Llxb7 l"Llxb7 21 ~xd4 is also
playable, but Kasparov scents blood
and is looking for more than just a
slight edge.
20... b3 21 i..bl ~b6 22 ~d3 g6
The only way to close the diagonal.
23l"LleS i..c8
If23 ... l"Llb4, then 24 'iYxd4.
24 h4!
In such a situation you anticipate a
quick Kasparov finish. After 24 'iYxd4
f5 Black would still fail to equalize,
but Kasparov doesn't even want to
give Piket that option.
24...l"Llc6
By attacking the e5-pawn, Black
sets up some counterplay against
the knight on d6. After 24 ...h5
25 'iYxd4 l"Llc6 (or 25 ... f5 26 ~d2
'>ilh7 27 Ilfdl, and Black's position is
about to fall apart) 26 'iYe4, White's
pieces dominate the board.
25 as!
Garry diverts one of the pieces in-
volved in the threat against d6. This
gives him time to finish the attack. On
25 h5? l"Llxe5!, Black gets back into
the game.
2S...~xaS
Or 25 ... l"Llxa5 26 h5 i..xd6 (if
26... l"Llb4, White's simplest reply is
27 ~xd4), and now:
(a) 27 exd6 l"Llb7 28 hxg6 l"Llxc5
(after 28 ... f5 29 l"Llxb3 White will

eventually catch the black king)
29 gxt7+ lht7 30 '&g6+ \!lf8
31 ~xh6+ \!le8 32 .Jig6 and it is all
over for Black.
(b) With 27 hxg6 White can win by
a direct attack: 27 ....Jixc5 (27 ... Jb4
loses to 28 '&e4 i.xc5 29 g7) 28 g7 f5
29 exf6 Jxf6 30 gxf8=~+ i.xf8
31 l:!.c7 and wins.
26 Jxf7
Garry demolishes the kings ide.
26.l:!.xf7 27 'iHxg6+ \!lf8
27 ... l:!.g7 would create more of
an obstacle. There would follow:
28 'iHe8+ .lif8 29 ~xc6 I:tb8, and
now:
(a) 30 Jxb3 ~b4 31 .ta2 d3
32l:Ifdl ~g4 33 ~c4 ~xc4 34l:!.xc4
.lid7 35 l:txd3 Jb4! (after 35 ... i.b5
36 Jd4! Black is in surprisingly big
trouble on e6) 36 l:txb4l':txb4 37 l:td2
and Black can resist.
(b) 30 Je4 .lid7 31 ~c4 l:!.b4
32 ~e2 ..tb5 33 ..td3 .lixd3 34 ~xd3
~b5 35 ~f3 and Black has a weak
kingside.
28 Jxe6+ .lixe6 29 :ctxc6! i.d7
Or 29 ... Jc7 30 ~xh6+ \!le8
(White wins easily after 30 ... J::l:g7
31 l:!.xe6 Jxe6 32 '&xe6) 31 llxc7
(not the only way to win) 3l...'&xc7
32 'iHxe6.
30 'tW xb6+ 1-0
Piket resigned because 30 ... \!le8
(30 ... \tg8 31 l':Ig6+) 31 e6 .lixc6
~2 exf7+ wins.
273
1997
A typically powerful and aggressive
display by Kasparov. In this opening
Black can conceivably achieve a play-
able game, but Garry judged the pos-
ition after 18 .Jig3 very acutely. When
Piket was close to creating counter-
play, Garry produced an effective
riposte and proceeded to demolish
Black's kingside in no time at all.
In the following round, he took far
too big a risk on the Black side of a
Paulsen. His position was thoroughly
bad when Adams missed a good
chance to make it +-, and even at
the end, when threefold repetition
occurred, Kasparov was still a little
worse. After the game he said, "I
played like a 2200 today" - and so he
did.
The next game was crucial for the
result of the tournament. Garry was
half a point ahead of Kramnik, who
surprisingly chose a passive line lead-
ing to a queen exchange on move
twelve. Kramnik managed to defend,
but Garry could have played more
assertively. Maybe his half-point lead
caused him to relax, and he was
hoping deep down that he had enough
in hand for fIrst place. The game
ended in a draw .
In the fInal round, he adopted the
same approach. (Karpov in his best
years did the same too - he just
concentrated on winning the tourn-
aments, and in this he was successful
so many times.) Kasparov had Black
against Lautier. The game was head-
ing towards a draw, but Lautier's draw
offer on move 20 was accompanied by
a losing move. Kasparov accepted the
offer, missing a neat back-rank trick
which would have left him a pawn up
in the endgame. Sometimes it is better
to playas though a draw had no value
- just play to win.
The end of the tournament harked
back to the 1950s - the fIrst three
1997
places were shared by the three
Russian participants.
In 1997 Kasparov had a. great year,
winning two super-tournaments and
sharing first prize in another. He gave
up playing in rapid events, which
meant he could concentrate more on
his regular game. Maybe he was also
engaging less often in chess politics.
Nothing was heard about a Karpov
274
match. They did not even play a
game, even though in 1996 Kasparov
thought Karpov would be the best
challenger. In fact, these two rivals
were to play only two more regular
games up until 2005.
Garry's match with Deep Blue
belongs more to his business activity
than to his chess career. He played a
different kind of chess in that context.
 1998
Linares
Garry started the year - and finished
it! - in Linares. It was a tragic state of
affairs. We had a fantastic number one
player, who excelled even among
World Champions; he played as excit-
ing a brand of chess as anyone; and
yet he managed to play in only one
proper tournament.
His first game was against Peter
Svidler, who had had his best result in
Tilburg. Kasparov had problems in the
ke2 Scheveningen, but as the result
of an oversight Svidler was left with
15 moves to make in only 20 minutes.
Kasparov managed to take control, but
once the time trouble was over he had
to be content with an equal position.
They agreed a draw on move 52.
In round three, after a free day -
only seven players were taking part -
Garry scored his sole win of the
tournament. It is another tremendous
Kasparov game that stays in your
mind for days once you have gone
through it carefully.
Game 56
G.Kasparov White
V.Anand Black
Linares 1998
Caro-Kann Defence [Bl7]
I e4 c6
These two gladiators have played
each other so many times that they
have tried out every angle of attack.
Significantly, Vishy's worst results
with Black against Garry have been in
games with the Caro-Kann. Yet still
he plays it! A certain amount of pride
is at stake - Anand wants to show that
this is another opening he can play.
275
But one other point seems relevant. It
is noticeable that in those openings
which he had already tried in his
matches against Karpov, Garry's play
is even better than normal. Maybe
Anand had not noticed this. As
Kasparov was younger at the time of
the Karpov matches, he had more
energy to work on the openings. The
tense nature of those matches drew the
very best out of him. Also in Soviet
times, it was easier to find trainers and
helpers. Karpov, for example, had a
huge delegation in Merano for his
match with Korchnoi. The story is
different now; the government no
longer helps, and there are no cheap
trainers around.
2 d4 dS 3 tZld2
As a junior player, Garry tended to
play 3 tzlc3. Now older, he goes for
the text move. Is there a logical
explanation for this? The move 3 tzlc3
is somewhat sharper in the case of g7-
g6. Whatever the reason, Garry should
not be worried about entering a sharp
tactical line, as his ability to calculate
is still excellent. The present game
will supply striking proof of this
resilience.
3... dxe4 4 tzlxe4 tzld7
In his youth Garry himself played
4 ... kfS here.
S tzlgS
White voluntarily makes another
move with his knight. According
to chess principles, this somewhat
awkward-looking move ought not to
give an edge, and yet it has become
the main line. Principles in chess can
clash with each other, and there are
always new ideas to be considered and
matters we still cannot explain.
S...tZlgf6
5... ~a5+!? is a novelty evaluated
1998
in an article in the New in Chess
Yearbook. Grandmaster Dizdarevic
gave it a try against Illescas Cordoba
at Plovdiv 2003. There followed:
6 Ad2 ~d5 7 Ad3llJgf6 8llJlf3 h6
9 c4 ~d6 10 llJxfl \!)xfl 11 0-0 g5
12 Ac3 Ag7 13 llJe5+ cbg8 14 I:lel
llJf8 15 ~b3 YlHc7 16 d5 e6 17 dxc6
bxc6 18 Ag6 llJxg6 19 llJxg6 I:lh7
20 I:ladl llJg4, and the Spanish
grandmaster managed to draw.
6 Ad3 e6 7llJlf3 it.d6
With Black in the famous last game
of his match against the computer
Deep Blue, in New York 1997, Garry
played 7... h6, and after 8 llJxe6 ~e7
9 0-0 fxe6 10 ..Itg6+ \!id8 II ..It f4
White won. The match itself seemed
to be more an advertisement than a
chess contest. Playing against a com-
puter produces a different type of
chess from a tournament. The only
real benefit of computer matches is
that more money, albeit unevenly
distributed, is attracted to the game.
Actually these matches divert top
players from playing competitive
chess. This is sad. Maybe it is better to
let one or two computers enter the best
tournaments if the money they bring is
really needed.
8~e2 h6
Naturally not 8.. YJlic7?? which asks
for 9 llJxf7! cbxfl 10 llJg5+ and
White wins.
9 llJe4 llJxe4 10 ~xe4 fJlc7
II fJlg4 I:lg8
Finding a novelty in such standard
positions is not easy. Anand's move
is much less committal than the
known a1tematives. For 11 ... g5, see
the earlier game Kasparov - Kamsky,
Linares 1994 (number 9 in this book).
Against Topalov, three rounds after
the present game, Anand changed
back to 11 ... cbf8, and the continuation
was: 120-0 c5 13 I:lel b6 14 c3 Ab7
15 h4 I:le8 16 h5 AdS 17 Ad2 I:ld8.
In the later stages of that game, which
ended in a draw, Anand made some
276
remarkable king moves.
12llJd2!?
Garry goes into reverse! However,
the move is not a defensive one. He is
improving the position of his knight,
and to achieve this he is ready to
invest two tempi. It is possible that
Garry had analysed 11 ...IIg8 in
advance, but if he had not, finding this
reply shows his immense strength in
the opening.
After 12 Axh6 llJf6 13 fJlg5
(13 ~h4 IIh8) 13 ...i.f8! 14 ~h4
gxh6 15 'iVxf6 I:lxg2, Black is doing
all right. Nor was Garry satisfied with
12 'iVe4llJf6 13 'iVe2 b6, as Black has
no weaknesses. He has to castle long,
and White will be able to attack on the
queenside. But to do so, White him-
self has to castle short, after which
Black can start his own attack on that
wing.
12..llJf6
Interestingly, no one has tried any
other move here. Great players some-
times dictate the development of
theory. Alekhine once wrote that
in the Grunfeld Exchange Variation
(4 cxd5 llJxd5 5 e4 llJxc3 6 bxc3) if
White develops his knight on f3,
Black can equalize easily with c7-c5
and Ac8-g4. Maybe his misjudgement
had something to do with the fact that
players did not play such a dangerous
line for decades. From that time on,
books were written on the basis of

Alekhine's assumption. In actual fact
Garry has scored some nice wins with
that line; a particularly impressive one
was Kasparov-Pribyl, Skara 1980.
In the present case, if Black tries
12 ... eS 13 ltJc4 ltJb6, then after
14 ltJxd6+ ~xd6 IS ~g3 ~xd4
16 c3 ~ g4 17 'i xeS+ White is better
because of the two bishops.
With 12 ... cS!? Black can try to
utilize his slight gain of time resulting
from White's knight manoeuvre. This
idea is worth a second look: 13 ltJc4
(what else?), and now:
(a) 13 ... ltJf6 14 ~h4 cxd4
IS ltJxd6+ (or IS ~xd4 .i.cs 16 ~f4
~xf4 17 .txf4 'i;;e7 and Black is
safe) IS .. :iVxd6 160-0 .td7 17 .txh6
.tc6 18 .tgS (18 .tf4 gS) 18 ... 0-0-0
produces quite an interesting position.
(b) 13 ... cxd4 14 .txh6 (14 ~xd4
.tcS IS ~h4 ltJeS is playable for
Black) 14 ... ltJeS (14 ... eS is also ex-
citing, though hard to evaluate given
the unusual type of position) IS lLlxeS
~aS+ (1S ... .txeS 16 0-0-0 .td7)
16 .td2 ~xeS+. This too looks
playable.
13~f3
Or 13 ~e2 ltJdS!? (on 13 ... b6
14 lLlc4, White acquires the two
bishops with a small edge) 14 ltJe4
.tf4 IS i.xf4ltJxf4 16 ~f3 b6 and if
White is better, his advantage is only
slight.
13...eS
A very ambitious move, freeing the
light-squared bishop at once. As an
alternative, 13 ... b6 14 lLlc4 .i.b7
IS ltJxd6+ 'iVxd6 is a line that should
be put into practice more often. So far
it has only been seen in one game -
Spasov-Meduna, Budapest 2000 -
which continued with 16 .t f4 ~ dS
17 ~xdS ltJxdS 18 .td2 0-0-0
19 .te2ltJf6 20 c3 l:tge8 21 0-0-0 e5,
and Black held the position.
14 dxeS
In the event of 14 ltJc4 exd4
IS ltJxd6+ 'iVxd6 16 0-0 .te6 Black
277
1998
will castle long, and with his extra
pawn he will be no worse.
14....i.xeS ISltJc4
The knight is now superbly placed.
However, as compensation Black has
fluent development. The only question
is whether he can do something with
it.
IS...i.e6
If Black could castle long he would
be OK, but in actual fact he has no
time to achieve that aim. Now after
16 0-0 .i.g4 17 llel+ 'i;;d8 18 ~f4
~xf4 19 .i.xf4 White remains with an
advantage, as the black king is not
safe despite the queen exchange.
16.i.d2!?
Garry treats the opening in the same
way as he did against Kamsky (Game
9). He maintains the flow of his play
by means of a pawn sacrifice. Again
he is taking risks in order to win.
After 16 ltJxeS ~xeS+ 17 ~e2
(or 17 .i. e3 ltJ g4 18 0-0-0 ltJ xe3
and Black has equality) 17 ... 'ihe2+
18 'i;;xe2 0-0-0 1911el11ge8 20 'i;;fl,
White can build up lasting pressure on
the Black position if he is given time.
Can Black do anything with his
minimal lead in development? One
option is 20 ... ltJd7 21 a3 (21 .i.e3
ltJeS 22 .i.e2 ltJc4 equalizes)
2l...ltJcS 22 .i.e2 .i.fS 23 .i.e3 ltJa4,
when Black is pretty active and
certainly no worse.
16... 0-0-0?!
1998
Anand continues to develop his
pieces. However, he could have sus-
pended this plan temporarily in order
to capture the pawn. Perhaps he
recalled how Kamsky was taken apart,
or how he had been unable to resist
Garry's attack in his own Evans
Gambit game. Whatever his reason for
choosing the game continuation, it
does not look like the most combative
option. Black is still able to defend,
but he must work hard and unearth a
sequence of strong moves.
Had Vishy won or drawn the game,
he would have been praised for
his freedom from preconceptions.
In reality, taking the pawn was prefer-
able. In addition to deciding whether
to win material, Black must choose
which bishop he wants to retain.
(a) The first option is l6 ... ~xb2!?
which keeps the light-squared bishop:
(al) 17 ~f4? .ic3+ 18 'litfl VJ!ie7
19 ~d6 (19 li:ld6+ 'litfS) 19... VJ!id7
20 ~dl li:ld5 and Black is doing fine,
as White has no compensation for the
pawn.
(a2) 17li:lxb2 VJ!ie5+, and now:
(a2I) 18 ~e3 VJ!ic3+ 19.i.d2 VJ!ie5+
and Black at least has a draw by
repetition.
(a22) 18 'litfl VJ!ixb2 19 ~dl VJ!ixa2
(19 ...0-0-0!?) 20 ~gl 0-0-0. Black is
not yet home and dry, but two pawns
should be enough.
(a23) After 18 VJ!ie2 i'i'xb2 19 0-0
0-0-0, the position is difficult to assess
but probably balanced. Black has to be
careful with his king, but his active
piece play may force exchanges in the
centre: 20 gtbl (alternatively 20 a4
li:ld5 21 l!Itbl 'iVd4 and Black
controls the centre; or 20 ~ab 1 VJ!i d4
21 .i.e3 VJ!ie5 22 rLb4 li:ld5 23 J:te4
VliJc7 24 .i.d4 .i.f5 and he is safe)
20 ... VJ!id4 21 .i.e3 VliJe5 22 VJ!id2 (in
the event of 22 h3 li:ld5 23 .i.xa7
'ii'xe2 24 .i.xe2 li:lc3, Black has an
easy endgame) 22 ... li:lg4 23 .i.f4 VJ!ic5
24 .i.g3 (24 gb4 li:lxf2) 24 ... li:le5,
278
and Black's position maintains its
equilibrium.
(a24) 18 VJ!ie3! VJ!ixb2 19 0-0 ~a3!?
(or 19... li:ld5, and now 20 ~g3 0-0-0
or 20 ~c5 ~b6 21 'iVa3 'iVc7, when
White has compensation for the pawn)
20 ~d4 (alternatively 20 gtbl 0-0-0,
or 20 ~e5li:lg4 21 ~d4 ~d8 22 ~e4
VJ!id6 and Black is still kicking)
20 ...:td8 (or 20 ...li:ld5, aiming to meet
21 l:.tbl with 21...VJ!ie7 or 21 c4 with
21...0-0-0!) 21'iWh4
2l...'litd7!? (if 2l...li:ld5, then
22 gabl or 22 .i.h7 :th8). Black can
castle artificially, and the position
remains unclear: 22 :t tb 1 (after
22 i.xh6 ~h8 23 'iWd4+ 'litc8 24 i.cl
l!Ixd4 25 i.xa3 Black has a fine
ending) 22 ... 'litc8, and Black is alive.
(b) The second option is to
keep the dark-squared bishop with
16 ... i.xc4!? After 17 i.xc4 i.xb2
there can follow:
(bl) 18 l!tdl 0-0-0 19 0-0 i.e5
20 h3, and White is not without com-
pensation because of the two bishops
and the slight weakness of Black's
king position. However, Black should
not lose.
(b2) If 18 ~e3+, then 18, .. ~e7 is
the simplest way to extinguish
White's initiative (18 ...VJ!ie5 is also
playable; then 19 VJ!ixe5+ i.xe5
20 0-0-0 0-0-0 21 i.xf7 :tgfS
22 i.e6+ 'lite7 23 :thel i.d6 24 h3 is
equal). After 19 VJ!ixe7+ (or 19 :tb I
VJ!ixe3+ 20 fxe3 b5 and Black is
slightly better) 19... 'litxe7 20 Itbl b5

21 :xb2 bxc4 22 J::tb7+ 'Oite6 23 0-0
llld5, the knight on d5 guarantees
Black a pleasant endgame.
(b3) IS :bl, and now:
(b31) IS .. .'tWe5+ 19 'Oitfl (or
19 ~e3 "ti'xe3+ 20 fxe3 b5 and Black
is somewhat better) 19 ...0-0-0 and
White has these choices:
(b311) 20 i.e3 i.d4 (or 20 .. J::i:gfS
21 g3 ~c3 22 i.d3, and with the
black bishop decentralized, White has
full compensation for the pawn)
21 .i.a6 (or 21 J..xf7 J::tgfS 22 iH4
~c5 and Black's pieces are in men-
acing positions) 2l...J::td7 22 ~xc6+
WdS 23 J..xb7 (not 23 .i.xd4? ~xd4
24 J..xb7 l:teS and suddenly White is
lost) 23 ... J..xe3 24 fxe3 ~xe3 and the
black king is the safer.
(b312) 20 J..f4 ~c5 21 J..xf7
(21 ~b3 1:.d4) 2l...~xc2 22 i..e6+
llld7 23 l:tdl l:tgeS (Kasparov stops
after 23.J::i:gfS, saying the position is
-+. However, after 24 ~g4! it seems
that White is not worse: 24 ...~xdl+
25 ~xdl llxf4 looks equal) 24 J::td2
~bl+ 25 :dl ~g6 26 .i.h3 J..e5.
Black soon extricates himself from the
pin, so he is not worse.
(b32) IS ...J..e5 poses the question
of how to continue the attack. The
answer is not easy:
(b321) 19 0-0 0-0-0 (19 ....i.xh2+
20 Whl 0-0-0 is answered by 21 .i.e3
J..e5 22 J..xa7; it is probably better for
Black not to swap the a-pawn for the
h-pawn) 20 .i.e3 WbS 21 J..a6
As in all variations in this line,
279
1998
21...b6 is now extremely hard to
evaluate. My experience from certain
Scandinavian lines and the Scotch
Game (the variation 4...i.c5 5 i.e3
~f6 6 c3 lllge7 7 g3) suggests that
Black is not worse. Of course it is
dangerous to have a position like this
against Garry.
(b322) 19 ~e3?! 0-0-0 20 ~xa7
J::tgeS 21 i.e3 i.d4! (but not
2l...lllg4?? 22 l:txb7!) and Black
takes over.
(b323) 19 h3 0-0-0 20 i..d3, and it
is hard to choose the best continuation
for Black: 20 ... g5, or 20 ... ~d6 21 0-0
~d5, or 20 ...I.tgeS 21 0-0 llle4. All
look reasonable alternatives; Black's
active piece play in the centre makes it
very hard for White to mount an
attack.
(b324) 19 g3 0-0-:-0 20 i.d3 h5!?
21 h4 g6 22 0-0 lllg4 23 1:b3 :d6
and Black's pieces are working well.
17 0-0-0 llld7
The Indian grandmaster follows the
line that he planned earlier. Other
moves were weaker. The position
after 17 ...i.g4 18 i.f5+ i.xf5
19 ~xf5+ llld7 20 .i.e3 favours
White. In the event of 17 ...I.td7
IS lllxe5 ~xe5 19 ~e3 (19 .i.f4
~ as), White gains a tempo and con-
solidates the advantage of the bishop
pair. It is lucky for him that after
19 .. :ihe3 20 i.xe3 the a7-pawn
is hanging - otherwise Black could
1998
exchange one of the bishops by
20 ... lllg4. Playing against these
bishops in the endgame would be
decidedly unpleasant.
18l:thel
This is a natural move, bringing the
last undeveloped piece into the game.
It sets up the threat of ~f3-e3 with a
double attack on e5 and a7. Other
options are as follows:
(a) Black can answer ISlllxe5 with
either IS ... lllxe5 (to capture on d3
next move and deprive White of
his bishop pair) or ls ... 'ihe5, when
19 Jt f4 'iV a5 is equal (but not
19 ... 'iVf6?? 20 'iVxc6+! bxc6 21 .Jta6
mate).
(b) Challenging the queenside with
IS i.a5 b6 19 i.d2 allows Black's
pieces to exert pressure in the centre;
after 19 ...Jtd5 20 'iVg4 \t>b7 he has no
problems.
(c) IS \t>bl is Kasparov's recom-
mendation; he evaluates it as slightly
better for White. There can follow:
IS ... Jtd5 (lS ...Jtf6 19 Jtf4 is danger-
ous. However, if IS ...g5, the reply
19 h4 would not work as well as in the
actual game: after 19 ...Ad5 20 ~e3
\t>bS Black has freed his position)
19 'iVe3, and now:
(cl) 19... \t>bS 20 :hel (or
20 III xe5 III xe5 21 A fI III g4 and
Black remains active) 20 ...Af6 and
Black must still be careful, though the
position should be tenable.
(c2) 19 ...~xg2 20 llhgl i.d5 21 f4
(21 'iVxa7 b5) 21...Jtxc4 22 Jtxc4
lllb6 23 Jtxf7 'iVxf7 24 fXe5 lllc4 is
adequate for Black.
18.. J~ge8?
Anand strengthens e5. This looks so
natural, and yet it is a mistake. He had
various other tries:
(a) IS ... f6? defends e5 but leaves
the other bishop unprotected. After
19 'iVe3 \t>bS 20 f4, White wins.
(b) IS ... \t>bS?? protects a7, but
loses to a simple tactic: 19 lllxe5
lllxe5 20 J::!.xe5! and wins because of
2S0
the threat of21 .ltf4.
(c) lS .. Jj'bS 19 \t>bl .ltc7 20 Ac3,
and Black can't start exchanging
pieces.
(d) lS ... g5 19 "iVe3 .ltxc4 20 .ltxc4
lllb6 21 Ae6+ fXe6 22 ~xe5 and the
ending is better for White.
(e) With lS ....ltf6!? Black intends
llld7-e5 to exchange the powerful
white knight. It looks as if he can just
about hold on:
(el) 19 \t>bl (or 19 'iVe3 \t>bS)
19 ...llle5 20 lllxe5 Axe5 and Black
survives. If 21 .JtfS, then 2l...I:tgeS
comes in time: 22 Ac3 Uxdl+
23 I:txdl .li.xc3 24 .li.xe6+ lixe6
25 ~xc3 lid6 and Black has relieved
the pressure.
(e2) 19 .li.f4, and now:
(e21) 19 ... 'iVxf4+?! is not the best
way to go about simplifying. After
20 %Vxf4 Jtg5 21 ~xg5 hxg5
22 llld6+ \t>c7 Black is only slightly
behind in development, yet he is in
some trouble:
(e211) 23 llle4 g4 24 lllg5 lllc5
(or 24 ... lllf8 and Black can resist)
25 i..g6 (25 i..e2 tIxdl + 26 tIxdl
lihS) 25 ...J:hdl+ 26 \t>xdl ~dS+
27 <;t>cl I:thS and Black holds.
(e212) 23 .li.fS!? i..d5 (or 23 ... i..xfS
24 lllxfS and Black is struggling, for
example: 24 ... I:tdeS 25 l:hes llxeS
26 lllxg7 tte2 27 Ufl lLlf6 2S \t>dl
when White expels the rook and keeps
the extra pawn) 24 lllb5+ '>ilb6
25 lLlc3 g6 26 SiLxd7 I:txd7 27 lie5
and White is pressing.

(e22) 19... i.gS is a better try:
(e221) 20 i.e3 ~geS 21 i..xgS
hxgS 22 jus ttJcS (or 22 ... ttJf8
23 i..xe6+ ttJxe6 and now 24 ~a3 is
met by 24 .. :~f4+, but after 24 ~fS
White is a fraction better) 23 iixe6+
(or 23 ~a3 ~f4+ 24 ttJe3 ~xdl+
2S ~xdl ..IlxfS 26 'iVxcs ..Ild7
and Black can defend) 23 ...~xe6
24 ~xdS+ ~xdS 2S ~xe6 ttJxe6
26 g3 and White still has the better
position, but only slightly.
(e222) 20 i..xgS hxgS 21 h3 (after
21 ~e3 ttJb6 22 ttJxb6+ ~xb6
23 ~xgS ~xt2 24 ~fl ~dS,
Kasparov evaluates the position as
equal) 21..:iH4+ (after 2l...ttJb6
22 ttJxb6+ axb6 23 I:te4 Black's two
pairs of doubled pawns are a liability)
22 ~xf4 gxf4 23 ttJd6+ ~c7 24 i. fS
i.xfS (or 24 ... ttJcS 2S i..xe6 fxe6
26 ttJe4 and White has a small plus)
2S ttJxfS ItdeS 26 a3 (26 ~xeS?!
~xeS 27 ttJxg7 ~gS). White is better,
as the knight on fS is well placed, but
Black's position should be tenable.
19 ~bl!
A good move that cleverly prevents
a number of tactical tricks. The ball is
now in Anand's court, and he does not
find it easy to play constructively.
The double attack 19 ~e3? loses to
19... i.xc4 20 i..xc4 i..xb2+.
19... g5?
It is hard for an active player to do
nothing. At this point Vishy loses
2SI
1998
patience, or perhaps he has missed
Garry's superb reply. More likely he
has underestimated its strength. The
black king would like to escape from
the danger zone, but 19 ... WbS?? loses
to the same tactic that was highlighted
last move: 20 ttJxeSttJxeS 211IxeS!.
If 19 ... ~bS (with the idea of pre-
serving the dark-squared bishop by
i..eS-c7), then 20 i..b4! i..c7 21 i.fS!
and the d6-square becomes a fatal
weakness. Once the light-squared
bishops are exchanged, it is hard for
Black to stop the invasion.
White can answer 19... f6!? with
20 i..b4!? (stopping i..eS-d4 and
ttJd7-eS) 20 ... 'itJbS (20 ... a6 21 h4
WbS 22 hS) 21 h4 i.dS 22 ~g4, with
a slight edge. This would have been
better for Black than the game contin-
uation.
20 h4!
A typically forceful Kasparov move
that exposes weaknesses in Black's
position. It undermines Anand's two
flank pawns.
The alternative 20 itaS was poss-
ible, but after 20 ...b6 21 i.d2 Black
preserves his bishop with 2l...i.. g7 .
After 20 ~e3 i..f4 21 ~xa7 i.xc4,
White has to play 22 I:!xeS to guard
against a back rank mate threat.
Then 22 ... I:!xeS 23 i.aS! b6! (after
23 .....Ilxa2+ 24 Wxa2 ~bS 2S ~xbS+
White is somewhat better) 24 ~aS+
~bS (now the bishop on c4 is de-
fended in an extraordinary way; if
instead 24 ... ttJbS, then 2S i.xc4 wins)
2S ~xc6+ ~c7 26 ~aS+ ttJbS is
unclear.
20...i.f4?
Other possibilities are:
(a) 20 ... i.dS 21 ~e3, and the
double attack wins a pawn. After
2l...'itJbS 22 hxgS hxgS 23 ~xgS
I:!gS 24 ~e3, Black cannot recover it.
(b) 20 ... g4 21 ~e3, and now:
(bl) 2l...~bS 22 ~xh6 i..xc4
23 i.xc4 ~b6 24 i.cl ~xt2 2S ~gS
~gS (2S ... ~xg2 26 l:txeS! wins)
1998
26 ~h5, and Black's kingside has
fallen apart.
(b2) 2l...Axc4 22 .lixc4 liJb6
23 Ad3 h5 24 'iVg5 and Black loses
material, as the reply 24 ...liJa4?
doesn't work: 25 'iVxh5 liJxb2
261:txe5 liJxd3 27 'iVxg4+ and White
wins.
(c) 20 ... gxh4! was Black's only real
chance. The more pawns disappear
from the board, the easier it is for him.
Now White would have difficulty
choosing the best move from various
candidates:
(cl) 21 AaS b6, and now:
(cll) 22 Ab4 Wb8 23 'iVh5 Af4
24 'iVxh4 Ag5 25 'iVhl (Black's
pawns are not great, and if the queen
can rejoin the action, White is better)
25 ... liJf6! (creating sufficient play)
26 ~c3 (or 26 g3liJd5 27 ~d2 ~xd2
28 liJxd2 liJb4) 26 ...Axc4 27 Axc4
liJe4. The queen has yet to return to
the fight.
(cI2) 22 Ad2 .lid5 23 'iVh5 Af6
24 'iVxh6 :!:Ixe I 25 J::txe I ~h8 is
playable for Black.
(c2) 21 'iVe3 'it'b8!. Garry doesn't
indicate how White can keep an edge
against this king move. He could try:
(c21) 22 ~xh6 (22liJxe5 liJxe5, or
22 Ab4 Af4) 22 ...Axc4 23 Axc4
~b6 24 Acl ~xf2 25 'iVh5 f6 and
the bishop on e5 is strong.
(c22) 22 An i..g7 23 ~f4 Axc4
24 A xc4 J:txe 1 25 J:txe i liJ e5 26 A b3
liJg6 and Black holds on.
(c3) 21 .i.xh6!? .i.d5 (after 2l...b5
282
22 liJd2 l:tg8 23 AfS AxfS 24 'iVxfS
lhg2 25 liJe4 Black is in trouble with
the pin) 22 ~h3 .i.f6 23 Acl and
White is a little better.
21 Axf4 gxf4 22 i.f5!
Garry exchanges Black's best-
placed defensive piece in order to
invade.
22..liJf8?
Throwing in the towel, but the
options were few:
(a) 22 ...Axc4 23 J:txe8 lhe8
24 .i.xd7+ wins.
(b) 22 ...AxfS 23 l:txe8 (but not
23 liJd6+?? ~xd6 24 J:txd6 Ihel+
25 J:tdl liJe5, winning for Black)
23 ... l:txe8 24 liJd6+ Wd8 25 liJxfS
and Black's position falls apart.
(c) 22 ...i.d5! 23 l:.xe8 J:txe8
24 ~g4 l:td8 25 b3 'it;b8 26 Axd7
lIxd7 27 liJe5 J:te7 28 tLld3 f3
29 gxf3. Black is clearly worse, but
this was the only way to stay in the
game - as Kasparov pointed out.
23 'it"h5!
Not so much a bull, more like an
elephant in a china shop! The queen
destroys the already devastated king-
side.
23 ...'it;b8 24 .i.xe6 tL\xe6
25a4!
Another powerful pawn thrust. This
one scotches the slightest counter-
chances Black might have had,
although 25 "iYxh6 b5 26 liJd2 J:tg8 is
also better for White.

2S. :~e7 26 -etIeS+ -etIc7 27 -etIhS
-etIe7 28 b3!
White still has to be vigilant:
28 ~xh6? nh8. or 28 l::i.xd8+ l::i.xd8
29 ~xh6? ~b4 and Black wins.
28 Ji'f6 29 tLleS ne7 30 tLlg4
llxd1+
Fta~nik analyses 30 ... ~g6 to a nice
checkmate: 31 ~e5+ nc7 (31 ... '.&'c8?
32 l:xd8+ '.&'xd8 33 ~b8+ 'it'd7
34 tLle5 mate) 32 l:xd8+ tLlxd8
33 tLlf6 '.&'c8 34 ~d6 tLle6
35 ~f8+! tLld8 36 ~xd8+ '.&'xd8
37l:e8 mate.
31 nxdl"'g7
On 3l...~g6. Fta~nik's analysis
goes: 32 ~e5+ '.&'c8 (or 32 ... llc7
33 tLlf6 '.&'c8 34 tLle8 l:d7 35 tLld6+
and wins) 33 tLlf6 VJ!ig7
34 l:d8+!! tLlxd8 (34 ... '.&'xd8
35 ~b8 mate) 35 flixe7 tLle6 36 tLle8
~d4 37 tLld6+ '.&'b8 38 ~xb7 mate.
32D!
Not 32 tLlxh6 - there is no need to
allow the pin 32 ... ~h8.
32.l:te8 33 ~f5!
283
1998
In this position it would be a
mistake to aim for an ending in which
White is only a pawn up. After
33 ~xh6 ~xh6 34 tLlxh6 l::i.h8
35 tLlxfl nXh4, White would still
have to work for the point.
33..'.&'a8
Or 33 ... VJ!ig6 34 ~e5+ '.&'a8 35 h5
~g5 36 ~xg5 bxg5 37 ild7 and
Black is lost. The outcome is the
same after 33 ...h5 34 ~xh5 l:th8
35 ~a5 b6 36 ~el.
34 hSl::[fS
3Snd71-0
A typical Kasparov game in which
he introduced elements of uncertainty
into the position right from the open-
ing. He handled the complications
better than his opponent, and found
one move that was very astute. Finally
he brought Anand down with a string
of very powerful moves. Anand, in-
cidentally, went on to win the tourn-
ament. He said he had played well
throughout the contest except in the
Kasparov game. Of course such a
great player has a bad day whenever
he loses, but Kasparov's superb play
had a lot to do with it. This was the
first year since 1985 in which, overall,
a rival achieved more impressive
results than Garry. That rival was
Anand.
There is something very sad about
this particular game. It was the only
regular tournament game that Garry
1998
won during the whole year. It was
harmful for chess that the best player
could not afford to play more often.
One problem is that top players can
earn more by engaging in other chess
activities. In other sports, if the top
professionals decide to take a lengthy
break, they pay for it with a drop in
their ranking. This does not happen
in chess. The Elo system doesn't
encourage players to play - this is
regrettable and avoidable. Top pro-
fessionals should play in at least one
tournament every three months. Their
very strong tendency to evade the
challenge - something unparalleled in
other sports - contributes to the belief
that there is no proper World Champ-
ionship and that there is chaos at the
top.
In round four Kasparov played the
Grilnfeld with c7-c6 and d7-d5 against
Ivanchuk's set-up with g2-g3. This
time Kasparov didn't react too
violently - he made sure of not losing.
Eventually he took control, and had
the chance to go into an endgame with
an extra pawn - which however would
have played no role, since the pawns
were all on one side. Garry opted for a
same-coloured bishop ending where
he had the better bishop but Ivanchuk
had the better king. It ended in a draw.
In the next round Kasparov faced
Topalov, who defended with the
Najdorf. Garry played the 6 g3 line
and looked well prepared. He prob-
ably took this idea from his clock
simultaneous match against the
Argentine team, where he lost with
Black in 28 moves against Spangen-
berg. Please keep in mind that in
'simuls' Garry's play is at best around
2650 level. I can imagine that that
particular game did not escape the
attention of Topalov and his trainers.
In the event Garry and Veselin
settled for threefold repetition on
move 22. For this Garry was fined
3500 dollars, as the Linares toum-
284
ament director wanted to oppose quick
draws. This had an effect: Kasparov
played a longer game in the next
round - but not much longer, just four
more moves. He was Black in the
Grilnfeld Exchange Variation against
Kramnik, who played the line with
lL\gl-f3 and I:l:al-bl. A sharp position
became simplified. Chess is like that -
sometimes openings lead straight into
endings, and we have to live with it.
Throughout his career Kasparov has
invariably tried very hard with both
White and Black.
But that was not the end of the
'horror'. Garry continued the tourn-
ament with a 22-move draw against
Shirov. In the contest as a whole there
were 18 decisive games, and Shirov
was involved in 8 of them. Alexei
played the new Arkhangelsk variation.
He sacrificed a pawn, and Garry was
unable to obtain any advantage. There
was nothing left to play for when the
draw was agreed.
Garry hoped that the second half of
the tournament would be better. After
the opening of his round 8 game
against Peter Svidler - it was the anti-
Marshall system that had brought
Kasparov many victories - this hope
seemed justified. Gradually, however,
Svidler took over. Kasparov said in an
interview that in this tournament he
seemed invincible. As the games
went, however, it was a close thing.
Objectively he was probably never in
a lost position, but walking into the
centre with his king was dangerous.
Garry held on well nonetheless; when
they concluded peace he was two
pawns down, but the position was an
easy draw.
I asked some of today's very good
players to say whose style most
resembled Garry's. A common resp-
onse was that among his predecessors,
Alekhine was the closest. However,
many believed thet Garry's chess was
so distinctive that there were no valid

comparisons. There was one name
that did crop up - and that was Peter
Svidler. One strong grandmaster also
told me that in terms of powerful
openings, the player closest to Kaspar-
ov was Topalov.
The next game was with Black
against Anand. Once again they
played the Najdorf line with 6 .i.e3
liJg4, and the game was drawn in 24
moves. It seems to me that in the fmal
position White had a small plus and
could have played on for some time.
Anand's personal results against
Garry in regular games since their
1995 match had been disappointing,
and this may have influenced his
slightly early agreement to a draw.
This was the time when Kasparov set
up a new Championship Candidates
tournament, and Anand did not take
up the offer to play a match with
Kramnik for the right to challenge
Kasparov.
In round eleven, Ivanchuk played
the Zaitsev Variation of the closed
Ruy Lopez. It was a dangerous de-
cision, as Kasparov does incredibly
well in those openings which he
played and analysed so often during
his matches with Karpov. Maybe there
were holes in his analysis, which were
excavated by the computer; Garry's
world-class opponents never managed
to unearth anything, which suggests
that there may not have been that
many anyway. Kasparov has an
uncanny feel for these positions.
Against Ivanchuk - according to
Dokhoian's analysis, which hardly
ever contradicts that of his boss -
Garry had an advantage in the end-
game but let his opponent off the
hook. Vassily sailed into a four-rook
ending - a type which tends to be
more drawish than positions with one
pair of rooks only.
As a junior trainer, let me share my
impression of Kasparov's endgames
during this period. I was Peter Leko' s
285
1998
trainer when he was between the ages
of 10 and 14, and I think this
was when his formidable endgame
technique was acquired. At 12 he was
already capable of finding amazing
endgame solutions in competition
with my other pupil Gyimesi. A few
years later, I noticed that some mis-
takes had crept into Leko's endgame
play. Knowing his ability, it made me
wonder why. Then I realized he had
stopped working on them.
If you go through the endgame
encyclopaedia you can find numerous
analyses by Karpov. This suggests
that his exceptional level of endgame
play is not only the result of talent,
will-power and concentration, but
comes from hard work.
Going through Kasparov's games
for this book, one has the feeling he
was neglecting to cultivate this crucial
aspect of the game. As a little boy, he
had contributed to Botvinnik's ana-
lyses. In particular, he worked on
analysing the famous Botvinnik-
Fischer game. Later he was put to the
test by the marvellous endgame
specialist Karpov. He analysed his
adjourned games extensively. The
number of mistakes he appears to
have committed in endgames during
the period covered by this book
(1993-8) suggests he should have
made a more deliberate effort to
polish his skill.
It is hard to criticize a player who
by then was already perhaps the
greatest of all time. However, even
Dokhoian attaches question marks to
Garry's play in the endgame phase.
The weakness in this department is
relative to his skill in other areas of
the game. In 1999 Garry showed an
improvement in his endgame play.
The impression is that he had
neglected his practice for a while, then
probably noticed this omission and
worked to regain his touch.
Let us return to the tournament. It
1998
was becoming a veritable tonnent for
Mr Rentero the director, as Garry
drew in 19 moves against Topalov.
The Bulgarian went in for a sharp line
with i. b5+ against the Griinfeld.
Kasparov introduced a novelty, and
the fight went all the way to a dead
drawn position. Yet these two players
are amongst the sharpest exponents of
the game, and the draws they produce
are of the highest quality.
In the next round Garry faced
Kramnik, the competitor with the
second highest rating. This turned out
to be a long contest. In the 'iV c2
Nirnzo-Indian Kasparov emerged
from the opening with a small edge -
he managed to double the f-pawns in
Vladimir's camp. Apart from that,
Kramnik had no problems; according
to his own account, he had an easier
way to equalize. As the game
developed, an endgame arose with
bishops on the same colour. Kaspar-
ov's king was better centralized, and
Kramnik had a weak pawn on the
colour of Kasparov's bishop. But the
key factor was that Kasparov had no
point of entry, so after a while there
was no reason to keep on playing and
a draw was agreed.
One round to go, and the shortest
draw still to come. In a Sicilian with
6 .i.e3 e6 7 g4, Kasparov introduced a
very important novelty. Shirov had
started the tournament with two losses
and then raised his standing to 'plus
two'. He did not risk chasing Anand,
who was leading, but took the
opportunity to force Kasparov to
resort to perpetual check.
One wonders how Mr Rentero
reacted after Kasparov produced stilI
more short draws. We may presume
he refrained from imposing repeated
financial penalties. It shows Kaspar-
ov's level of influence at that time.
Nobody questioned his number one
status, even after this gr~ gerfonn-
ance when he shared 3 -4 places
286
with Kramnik. His opponents looked
happy to draw with White against
him. Kasparov did not obtain the most
favourable positions. With White he
started with a tremendous win over
Anand, then he acquired nothing out
of the opening against Topalov and
Shirov. In the remaining games he
managed to create some pressure, but
could not convert small advantages
into wins.
Kasparov-Topalov: The Rapid
Match in Sofia
After World War II the Soviet
Union managed to build a cushion of
satellite countries. In the southern
ones, Russians were more 'popular'
than they were among some other
nations. And in Bulgaria they were
really liked. This was because of the
role played by Russia in helping
Bulgaria to gain independence during
the second half of the nineteenth
century. Practising the same religion
and adopting the same alphabet
brought these nations even closer
together. The Bulgarians were hoping
their local hero would do well in this
rapid contest. However, Garry gave
the locals even less to celebrate than
he had given the British during the
Short match.
The contestants played four games.
All four were decisive - and all went
Kasparov's way. The first game was a
Tartakower Defence to the Queen's
Gambit, in which Garry, with Black,
had hanging pawns. Complications
quickly set in. It appears that there
were inaccuracies on both sides, but
Veselin must have made at least one
serious mistake as he lost a piece.
In the second game, Garry played
the 6 i.e3 line against the Najdorf.
This developed into another complic-
ated encounter, albeit a little less wild
than the first. Garry went on to win
this game too.

The third game featured a line
which had already been tested in the
Karpov matches - this is a bad omen
for Kasparov's opponents. It was
another highly tactical game, with
mistakes by both players ....
Game 57
V.Topalov White
G.Kasparov Black
Rapidplay match (25 minutes),
Sofia 1998
Topalov has just played 39 'ife3
(from b3), which is a mistake. The ex-
ploitation is most effective:
39...CLlxd4!
Black can take the d4-pawn all the
same - the rook is immune.
40 CLlr4?
Let's look at the alternatives:
(a) 40 Wg2? (Black was threatening
CLld4-D, followed by opening the long
diagonal with d5-d4; that explains
this move) 40 ... CLlxe2 41 ~xd2 d4+
42 \t>h3 ~f5+ and mate in 2 more
moves.
(b) In their independent analyses,
Kostakiev and Daniel King both
recommended 40 CLlxd4!. Taking the
knight, now or after a rook check, is
the only way to stay in the game:
(hI) 40 .. :it'xd4 41 %:tcl. White now
manages to win the a-pawn and save
himself: 41....lia4 42 l:tc7 ~xe3
43 fxe3 a5 441Ia7.
(b2) 40 .. J:hd4 41 'iVh6 .lie8. 42 h5
287
1998
~fS (or 42 .. J:te4 43 bxg6 'iVxg6
44 ~xg6+ fxg6 45 .Jig2 l:l:d4 46 l::tal
and Black can't hold the extra pawn)
43 bxg6 ~xg6 44 ~xg6+ fxg6
45 %:tb8 \t>f] 46 l:l:b7+ Wf6 47 l'ha7
I:!.d2. Black is somewhat better, but
there is so little material on the board
that the game should end in a draw.
(c) Similarly after 40 l:l:b8+! \t>g7
41 CLlxd4 ~xd4 (or 41...1:txd4
42 ~c3 i.d7 43 :a8 i.h3 44 ~al
and White holds) 42 l:l:c8 'ifxe3
43 fxe3 i.d7 44 l:1:c7 .lifS 45 l:1:xa7,
White can defend.
40..~e5!!
A fme tactical shot, based on the
excellent placing of the knight on d4.
Black's rook is left hanging, and the
queen is centralized on an unprotected
square. It all hinges on a knight fork
on D.
41 'iVa3
After 41 i.g2 the endgame is not
the same as before, as Black is able to
hold on to the a-pawn: 41..:~xe3
42 fxe3 CLlf5 43 l:l:cl .Jib5 44 .lixd5
CLlxe3 and Black wins.
41. . \t>g7?!
Alternatives were as folows:
(a) 41...~e4 42 l:l:b8+ .lie8 (not
42 ... Wh7?? 43 ~fS CLlf3+ 44 '.t>hl!
CLlxh4+ 45 .t.g2 and White even wins)
43 .lig2! ~el+ (or 43 ...~e5 44 l:l:a8
'.t>g7 45 ~e3 tlle2+ 46 tllxe2 l:l:xe2
47 ~xe5+ and White reaches a safe
ending) 44 '.t>h2, and now:
(a1) 44 ... Wg7 45 ~c3 (45 CLld3
~e2 46 CLlf4 also holds) 45 ... l:l:dl
46 ~xel l:l:xel 47 l:l:a8 is another
drawish endgame.
(a2) 44 ... '.t>h7 45 CLld3! 'iVe2
46 ~fS tllf3+ 47 .lixf3 'ilxf3
48 l:l:xe8 l:l:xf2+ 49 CLlxf2 'ifxf2+ with
a perpetual.
(a3) 44 ... CLlc6 45 l::ta8 l::txf2
46 CLlxd5 '.t>g7 47 CLlc7, and again
Black merely has perpetual check with
47 ... l:l:xg2+ (or 47 ... tlle5 48 CLlxe8+
'.t>h7 49 CLlf6+ lhf6 50 'iYfS iLlg4+
51 '.t>h3 CLlf2+).
1998
(a4) 44 ...t!.xt2 45 'iVa4 ttJf3+
46 '.!1h3 ttJgJ+ (46 ... '.!1f8 47 'iVa3+)
47 '.!1h2 ttJf3+ draws.
(b) With 4l...a5!! Black could con-
solidate the a-pawn for the endgame:
42 Ag2 (if White decides to do
nothing with 42 Mcl, Black has an
instructive way to penetrate to the
white king: 42 ... a4 43 t!.b I '.!1g7
44 t!.cl .Jtd7 45 l:tbl .Jtf5 46 l:tcl
- and now 46 ...Ae4, threatening
47 ... ttJf3+ with a battery, or 46 ...Ac2
and White is paralysed) 42 ... a4
43 'iVc5 '.!1g7 44 'iVc3 t!.c2 45 'iVd3
ttJe2+ 46 ttJxe2 t!.xe2 and wins.
Garry seldom misses strong moves
on the edge of the board! He probably
felt he could force a win with his
centralized pieces.
42 J:Icl
After 42 St.g2 ttJe2+ 43 ttJxe2
'iVxe2 44 ~fl! (44 'iVxa7 d4 45 l:tfl
.Jtxg2 46 '.!1xg2 'iVe4+ is a tough
position for White) 44 ....ltb5 45 'iVxa7
d4, White is worse but still has some
drawing chances.
42 .St.b5
42 ... a5 still merited consideration.
43 l:tcS?
Better 43 St.g2 ttJe2+ 44 ttJxe2
~xe2 45 'iVxa7 d4 46 :!::Ifl- compare
the note to White's 42nd move.
43.lteS?
With little time on the clock, Garry
makes sure Veselin doesn't get any
attacking opportunities. However, this
288
move allows White to retract his
error. If Black pins the bishop with
43 ... t!.dl!, White has only a few
checks: 44 ~f8+ (44 :tel ~el wins)
44 ... Wf6 45 ~d8+ Wf5 46 'iVg5+
~e4 47 '@g4 ttJf3+ and White is lost.
44 ~c3??
Another error would be 44 Wixa7?
44 ...iVe3!! (a fabulous way to
exploit the weakness of t2; with
44 .. :~el 45 ttJd3 ~e4 Black could
also win, but but more prosaically)
45 fxe3 (on 45 ttJd3, seemingly de-
fending the t2-pawn, Black doesn't
bother to win the queen with
45 ... ttJf3+ but plays 45 ...~xg3+!
46 ~h I ttJf3) 45 ...ttJf3+ 46 Wh 1
l'lh2 mate.
Kostakiev's recommendation of
44 t!.c I prevents a direct invasion, but
the reply 44 ... a5! (44 ....Jtb5 would
repeat the position) consolidates the a-
pawn: if45 iVxa5?then45 ... iVe3!!.
44...Jtd7?
Garry misses a golden opportunity
to win at once. He forgets about the
tactical motif he has already set up.
After 44 ..J::tc2! 45 t!.xe8 (or 45 'iYxc2
ttJxc2 46 t!.xc2 a5 and White
cannot successfully resist) 45 ...l:hc3
46 J:Ixe5 ttJf3+ 47 '.!1g2 ttJxe5, White
can resign.
45 .l:dSl:Idl??
Instead Black could have played:
(a) 45 ....Jtb5?!, and now:
(al) 46 J::txd5? loses to 46 .. :~el.
If White tries the desperate trick
47 ttJe6+, Black wins with 47 ... Wf6,

but not 47 ... fxe6?? 48 "+lVc7+ when
White has perpetual check.
(a2) 46 .i.xb5? ~el+ 47 cj;>h2
l:!.xt2+ and the white queen is lost.
(a3) 46 .i.g2, and Black has two
tries:
(a31) 46 ...%Vel+ is tempting, but
after 47 cj;>h2 ~xt2 48 ~b4 0e6 (not
48 ....i.c4?? 49 ~f8+ cj;>f6 50 l:!.d6+
cj;>e5 51 ~e7+ and White even wins)
49 0xe6+ fxe6 50 %Ve7+ %Vf7
51 Vi'c5 .i.c4 52l:!.a8, Black's king is
so insecure that he has nothing better
than 52 ... l:!.xg2+ 53 cj;>xg2 'tIU fl + with
a perpetual.
(a32) 46 ... l:!.dl+ 47 cj;>h2 0c6
forces simplification to a winning end-
game with an extra pawn: 48 'tIUc2 (or
48 'tIUxe5+ 0xe5 49 l:txd5 0g4+
50 cj;>h3 0xt2+ and wins) 48 ... 0xd8
49 ~xdl d4 and White is lost.
(a4) 46 ~a3! l:!.dl (46 ....i.e8! can
be played again) 47 ~f8+ cj;>h7
48 ~xf7+ ~g7 49 ~xg7+ cj;>xg7
50 l:Ixd5 0f3+ (or 50 ... l:!.xfl+
51 '.tg2 l:tdl 52 l:!.xd4 - White too
can play such tricks) 51 ~g2 0xh4+
52 cj;>h3 .i.xfl + 53 cj;>xh4 l:txd5
54 0xd5 a5 (54 ... 'it7f7 55 'it7g5)
55 '.tg5 (55 0c3 cj;>f6) 55 ... a4 56 f4
a3 57 0c3 and White can hold the
ending, as Donev pointed out.
(b) 45 ....i.g4! is Black's best option,
as it helps to encircle the white king:
46 Viic5 0f3+ 47 '.thl (or 47 cj;>g2
0xh4+ 48 gxh4 "ixf4 49 'tIUf8+ cj;>f6)
47 ...l:dl 48 Vj'f8+ ~h7 49 Vj'xf7+
"JiIg7 50 'tIUxg7+ 'it7xg7 51 '.itg2
289
1998
5l...0d4!!. Remarkably, even after
the queens have been exchanged,
White can't withstand the assault:
52 f3 (52 l:!.a8 loses a piece to
52 ....i.f3+ 53 cj;>gl 0e2+) 52 ... l:td2+
and wins.
46l:txd7 ~e4!
When playing his previous move
Garry may have overlooked that
46 ... Vj'xf4 doesn't work here because
the knight on d4 is pinned. With little
time to readjust, he still finds the best
practical chance - he sets up a wicked
trick.
47l:lxd5??
Topalov misses the threat; he had 4
moves which would have parried it,
but goes for a fifth alternative.
(a) 47 f3! Vj'bl 48 0e6+ (48 ~g2
also wins) 48 ... cj;>f6 49 0xd4 Mxfl+
50 cj;>g2 IIgl+ 51 '.itt2 'tIUfl+ 52 cj;>e3
and Black runs out of checks.
(b) 47 cj;>h2! is Kostakiev's move.
After 47 .. .l:hfl 48 ~xd4+ 'it'xd4
49 0e6+ White ends up with an extra
piece.
(c) 47 0e2l:!.xfl+ 48 ~xfl 'tIUxe2+
(48 ... 'tIUhl+ 49 0g1 wins) 49 '.itgl
'tIU e5 50 'tIU e3 and it is all over.
(d) 47 0h3 also stops the threat.
47..l:!.xfl+! 0-1
A neat checkmate ends a fascinating
fight. With more time Veselin would
not have missed Black's coup. Both
players were playing below their
regular game level. With limited time
1998
they embroiled the position so much
that they could not control the tactics.
For all that, the game was very tense,
exciting and highly entertaining.
Game four started with a Paulsen.
Veselin had several opportunities to
take Garry's e4-pawn, but never did
so. Maybe even such a tough costumer
as Topalov can be intimidated by hard
luck or affected by playing in front of
his countrymen. He was left with a
positionally difficult game, and Garry
showed him no mercy. It seems rather
unfortunate that whenever Kasparov is
invited to a country to play against the
local hero, he plays so well that
the local supporters are disillusioned.
Now with his retirement we cannot
expect another Short-Kasparov or
Adams-Kasparov match in England.
One month later, Garry and Veselin
played an advance chess match (with
help from the computer) which re-
sulted in a 4:4 draw. No doubt this
raised Topalov's morale; at Linares he
had finished in last place.
Comments about top players' chess-
related activities like blindfold chess,
Janus chess, computer chess or chess
at odds against amateurs are not a
priority in this book. However, their
emergence reveals the sad financial
state of chess. Real tournaments can-
not afford the best stars. The other
versions divert attention from regular
chess, although the good thing is that
they attract money. I have not seen
Sampras playing games other than
tennis. Maybe he did not get publicity.
As a junior trainer, I believe that the
play of the World Under-14 Champ-
ion ought to get more publicity than
the blunder of a top player in blindfold
chess. Sadly, chess society bestows
more tangible rewards on the latter.
Do you, dear reader, know who the
current World Under-14 Champion is?
It is a tremendous achievement even
at that age.
Kasparov gave an exhibition against
290
an Israeli team consisting of four
experienced grandmasters - Alterman,
Huzman, Smirin and Sutovsky - who
had an average Elo of 26025 at the
time. They faced him in two 'clock
simuls'. The result of the first match
was amazing - Kasparov beat them
with a score of 3:1. His remarkable
win over Sutovsky fully deserves its
place here.
Game 58
G.Kasp8rov White
E. Sutovsky Black
Israel v Kasparov Handicap,
Tel-Aviv 1998
Sicilian Defence {B85]
1 e4 cS 2 lDo d6 3 d4 cxd4
4lDxd4lDf6 SlDc3 86
Kasparov remains faithful to the
Najdorf - the defence which is also
Sutovsky's main weapon when he
faces 1 e4.
6.i.e2
Sutovsky treats the game like a
normal contest. He doesn't play in a
way that suggests he is participating in
a'simul'.
6.. e6 7 f4 .i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 84 lDc6
10 -'.e3 V/ilc7 11 ~hl %:te812-'.0
In this variation, it is this move that
Garry had to contend with most of the
time.
12 ...tfS
This reply had been specially

prepared for Sutovsky, who is a very
dangerous and highly imaginative
attacking player. The point of the
bishop retreat is either to gain a tempo
while organizing the defence round
the king, or else to slow White down,
which can be achieved by quickly
carrying out e6-eS. Garry anticipated
that Sutovsky would play against his
king. Later he had another chance to
play the same line, but opted for
12 ....td7 instead. Did he temporarily
overestimate the attack with g2-g4?
More likely he did not want to face a
ferocious attack with less time than in
an ordinary game. The move itself
was introduced by Magerramov in
1979. This novelty may well have
been devised in collaboration with
Garry near the Caspian Sea in Baku.
I3~d2
This is one of the main options.
White simply develops his queen. It is
now less likely that he will go for a
direct kings ide attack. Other possib-
ilities are:
(a) 13 .tt2 ttJxd4?! 14 ~xd4 eS
IS Wd2 exf4 16 .td4 i.e7 17 Vixf4
.te6 18 Vig3 J:ad8 19 .te2 'it>h8
20 i..d3, and White had the better
chances in Kaiumov-Magerramov,
USSR 1979.
(b) 13 g4, and now:
(bl) 13 ... eS (13 ... ttJd7!?) 14 fxeS
(14 ttJxc6 exf4) 14 ... ttJxeS IS gS
ttJfg4 16 ttJdS Wd8 17 i..f4 ttJxf3
18 ~xf3 Wh8 19 as ttJeS, and Black
held this slightly worse position in a
computer-versus-computer game.
(b2) Black can carry out e6-eS with
gain of tempo: 13 ... ttJxd4 14 i..xd4
eS occurred in Grischuk-Khalifman,
Wijk aan Zee 2002. However, after
IS i..gl exf4 16 gS ttJd7 17 ttJdS
Wd8 18 i.g2 J::teS 19 ~d2 lhgS
20 Wxf4 f6 21 na3 ttJeS 22 i.b6
Wd7 23 l:tg3l:tg6 24 J::tc3 White went
on to win.
(c) In a recent grandmaster game
(Wijk aan Zee 2004) White played
291
1998
13 ttJde2, and there followed 13 ... b6
14 ~el i..b7 IS ~t2 tiJd7 16 J::tadl
:ti.ab8 17 tiJg3 g6 18 i..g4. Sadly, in
this exciting position Adams and
Anand agreed a draw.
(d) The knight can go the other way
with 13 tLlb3. Then 13 ...b6 (Grand-
master Sax twice played l3 ... dS. This
is an unusual motif, exploiting the
unprotected bishop on e3. After 14 eS
ttJd7, the position was transformed
into a French type of set-up) 14 eS
(14 as leads to an interesting fight)
14... dxeS IS fxeS tiJd7 16 i..xc6
~xc6 17 ttJd4 ~b7 18 ~hS g6
19 ~h4 ttJxeS 20 tiJe4 i.e7 21 ttJgS
produced a complicated game in
Rajlich-Antal, Budapest 2002.
I3...ttJa5
With this move Garry goes for a
complicated middlegame. Simplific-
ation by l3 ... tiJxd4 could also be
considered. Another move leading to
complex play is 13 ...ttJd7.
I4~f2
On 14 b3, occupation of the c-fiIe
with 14 ... i..d7 IS :ti.fdl J::tac8 looks
best.
I4.. ttJc4 15 i.el
White wants to put his bishop on
b2, for on the long diagonal it would
exert steady pressure.
I5.e5!
Garry frees his position. In the
Scheveningen Black must aim to
challenge his opponent in this way. If
1998
he stays on the sixth rank indefinitely,
he can be pushed off the board.
16 tLlde2 d5!
Freeing the position in this radical
fashion is something that only
happens once in a while. The move is
not Kasparov's invention, unless we
make the unlikely conjecture that he
helped Samarin by telling him about
it. It was frrst played in the game
Bandar-Samarin,OreI1997.
17 fxe5
The d-pawn was poisoned: not
17 exd5? e4, or 17 tLlxd5? tLlxd5
18 exd5 e4 19 .i.h5 g6.
In Timoshenko-Maksimenko, 2002,
17 b3 led to a draw after 17... dxe4
18 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 19 .i.xe4 tLld6
20 .i.d5 "iVxc2 (maybe Garry would
seek complications with 20.JiJf5!?
here) 21 fxe5 IIxe5 22 ~xf7+ Wh8
23 ~h5 iie6.
I 7 tLlxe5
The alternative capture, 17 ...tLlxe4
18 tZ.\xe4 dxe4 19 iixe4 tZ.\xe5
20 tLlc3 iie6, also looks playable.
18 iif4
Or 18 exd5 tLlxf3 (this is something
White usually wants to avoid, as he
needs his light-squared bishop), and
now:
(a) 19 gxf3 .i.h3 20 Itgl (or
20 l:Idl) 20 ....i.c5 21 "iVg3 Yj'xg3
22 ~xg3 ~f5, and White's position is
unattractive despite the extra pawn.
(b) 19 ~xf3 iig4 20 ~g3 (not
20 ~f2 iixe2 21 tLlxe2 ~xc2 and
Black wins) 20 .. :~xg3 (Har Zvi's
suggestion 20 ... IIac8!? is also play-
able) 21 tLlxg3 iib4 22 tZ.\a2 iiel
23 iig5 iixg3 24 iixffi iie2 25 Ittbl
iif2 26 i.g5 lie5 27 i.f4 l:if5
28 tLlc3 i.c4 29 i.g3 ~xg3 30 hxg3
~xd5, and after the lengthy phase
of piece play, an equal ending
was reached in Kuczynski-Ehlvest,
Gawlikowski Memorial 1999.
One other alternative is 18 tLlxd5
tLlxd5 19 exd5 l/jIxc2.
18...dxe4 19 tLlxe4
292
This is a typical i.e2 Scheveningen
position, in which White is better
developed. Can Black catch up? If so,
the White pawns on both wings can be
targeted.
19. tLld5
After 19 .. .'ihc2!?, the situation
is hard to assess. In Yagupov-
Galkin, Tomsk 1999, there followed:
20 tLlxf6+ gxf6 21 i.xe5 (or
21 ~g3+ ~g6 22 i.e4 ~xg3
23 tZ.\xg3 tZ.\g6 24 i.d2 f5 25 i.xf5
iig7, with a likely draw; Zapata-
Bruzon, Capablanca Memorial 2002.
Did Garry want to avoid an endgame
like this one?) 21 ...:txe5 (21 ... fxe5
22 i.h5) 22 :tadl i.e7 23 tLlf4 ~xf2
24 Itxf2 :tb8 25 tLld5 i.d8 26 g3
i.f5 ~-~.
The game Korotylev-Najer, Mos-
cow 2002, went 19...tLlxe4!? 20 i.xe4
~c5 21 i.e3 ~c4 22 i.d4 f5 23 i.d3
tLlxd3 24 cxd3 ~xd3 25 tLlf4 ~b3,
and White managed to draw this
position in which he has limited
compensation for the pawn.
20..tg3?!
It is understandable that Sutovsky
wants to retain his bishop in an open
position, but this retreat is not ideal.
Black's novelty (l6 ... d5) had been
played one year before this game, in
Russia. Sutovsky doesn't need an
interpreter to understand the Russian
language, but he may not have known
about the novelty. It was difficult to

react to it, especially when it was
Kasparov who played it.
White should build on his develop-
ment with 20 ~ g3! rather than
preserve his bishop. After 20 ....i.f5
(20 ...~e7 21 i.gS gives White
dangerous piece play; it remains to be
seen whether this activity can be
neutralized) 21 ttadl (21 lLl2c3!, to
remove the black knight from dS, is
a challenging alternative) 2l....i.xe4
22 .i.xe4 lLlxf4 23 lLlxf4 Black is on
the defending side.
20...JIe7?
This is a mistake. Black defends his
king by keeping his queen close to
the kingside, but there is a hidden
problem as we shall presently see. Did
Garry simply forget his preparation, or
did he lose confidence in it? Had he
misjudged something in his analysis,
in spite of being probably the best
opening player ever? Chess is such a
wonderfully complex game that even
the giants commit errors. Here are two
other possibilities:
(a) Har Zvi recommended grabbing
the pawn with 20 ... ~xc2. This is
dangerous, but after 21 .i. hS Black
seems able to get away with it:
(al) 2l...g6 22 .i.xeS .i.f5 23 lLlf6+
lLlxf6 24 .i.xf6 gxhS 2S %:tacl! ~xe2
26 ~xf5 ~g4 27 ~dS. Black's king
position is disrupted and White is
better.
(a2) 2l....i.g4! is an effective way
of bringing this piece into play. After
22 i.xg4 lLlxg4 23 ~xf7+ 'it'h8,
Black does all right.
(b) With 20 ... ~b6! Black either
exchanges queens or gains an import-
ant tempo. After 21lLld4, with all four
knights placed squarely in the centre,
it is important for him that a white
knight can't reach dS. (Black is also
safe after 21 lLl f6+ ~ xf6 22 i. xdS
~xfl 23 i.xfl i.g4 24 lLlc3 lLlc6.)
The game Stefansson-Ehlvest, Elista
1998, continued 2l...lLlxf3 22 "'xf3
~g6 23 lLlfl lLlb4 24 c3 lLlc6
293
1998
2S l:tadl .i.d7 26lLle2 lLleS 27 "iVxb7
i.xa4 and Black took over.
21l:tadl?
At this point Har Zvi recommended
the excellent 21 lLl2c3!, threatening at
some stage to bring a knight to dS
with tempo. This suggestion high-
lights the drawback of putting the
queen on e7. Black is now unable to
finish his development without losing
material. However, this can only be
established by very precise calcul-
ation:
(a) 2l...lLlxf3 22 lLlxdS (occupying
the strong square) 22 ... ~xe4 23 lLlc7,
and Black comes out the exchange
down after 23 ...i.g4 24 gxf3 "iVc6
2S lLlxa8 l:txa8. The resulting position
is not easy for White to win, but it
should be possible.
(b) 21 ...lLlb4, and now:
(bI) 22 ::tael lLlxf3 23 "iVxf3 i.e6
24 tLid6 lLlxc2 2S l:tcl tLid4 26 ~e3
and again White wins the exchange.
(b2) 22 i.hS .i.g4 23 i.xeS il.xhS
24 i.d6 ~e6 2S i.xf8 l:txf8 26 'iVcs
lLlxc2 27 Vi'xhS. Here too White wins
material.
(b3) 22 ::tadl lLlxf3 23 "iVxf3 i.e6
24 lLld6l:ted8 2S ~e4, and the knight
on d6 is stifling Black.
(c) 2l...lLlxc3 22lLlxc3 (threatening
to jump to d5 with force) 22 ... lLlxf3,
and now White still plays 23 lLld5! - a
delightful intermediate move which
the future European Champion
missed. After 23 .. .'~e2 Black can't
avoid losing the exchange: 24 lLlc7
1998
'$'xt2 25 tixt2 lZ'lxh2 26 lZ'lxe8! lZ'lg4
27lZ'lc7! lZ'lxt2+ (or 27 ...tia7 28 :te2,
which at this very high level is
hopeless for Black) 28 .i.xt2 l:b8
29 .i.a7!. A remarkable way to punish
Black for not moving his queen's
bishop until move 29.
21.lZ'lxf3
Black has time to break up White's
kingside pawn structure.
22 gxfJ
22 ~xf3? would lose material to
22 ....i.g4! (an attractive way to de-
velop) 23 ~xg4 lZ'le3 24 ~f3 (or
24 lZ'lf6+ ~xf6! 25 J:txf6 lZ'lxg4
26 :tf4 l::txe2 27 J:txg4 :txc2 and
White is lost) 24 ... lZ'lxdl 25 lZ'ld6
lZ'lxb2 26 lZ'lc3 ~d7 27 lZ'lxe8 J:txe8
28 J:tbl ~d2!' This is such a typical
Scheveningen move - it seizes the
advantage by exposing the weakness
of White's back rank.
22 lZ'lf6
Not 22 ....i.e6?? 23 .i.d6 'iUd7
24 .i.xf8 Wxf8 25 c4, winning the
knight.
23lZ'l2c3
Not 23 .i.h4?? lZ'lxe4 24 .i.xe7
lZ'lxt2+.
23...lZ'lxe4 24 fxe4?!
Sutovsky faces a dilemma. He is
ahead in development, but the pawn
shield in front of his king is not as
solid as he would wish, and Black's
pieces can take up menacing posit-
ions. White chooses to build on his
294
strength rather than reinforce his
weakness.
24 lZ'lxe4!? keeps the position more
compact. There can follow:
(a) 24 ... 'iVb4 25 ~d4 .i.h3 (or
25 ....i.f5 26 ~ xb4 .li.xb4 27 c3 .li.e7
28 lZ'ld6, when White exchanges
a bishop and holds the position)
26 ~xb4 .i.xb4, and now 27 :tgl
Wf8 28 c3 is adequate for White.
(b) 24 ....li.h3 25 l:fel 'iVb4 26 ~d4
'iYxd4 27 l:xd4 f5 28 lZ'lg5 l:xe 1+
29 .li.xel .li.fl 30 .li.b4, again with a
satisfactory position.
24...li.h3
Maybe White can handle the task of
defending his king, but the bishop on
h3 is a major irritant. White must be
really cautious.
25 l:tfel l:tac8 26 .td6
The alternative is 26 lZ'ld5 ~c5
27 ~xc5 .li.xc5, and it is hard to
assess the power of the knight on d5.
Black is certainly no worse.
26..'iUe6 27 .li.xf'S ttxf'8 28 l:td3
Emil is not satisfied with simply
holding his position against Garry; he
wants attack on the kingside. This
shows the imagination and determin-
ation of a born attacker. He had an
alternative approach in 28 lZ'ld5,
followed by placing all his pieces in
the centre and awaitin.8. events, e.g.:
28 ....li.g4 29 J:td4 (29 I:I:d3 no longer
works well on account of 29 ... J:tc4)
29 ... 'iYe5 30 c3, and in view of his
 1998

strong centralized pieces, White is not
worse.
28... ~h6
Anything but a routine decision;
Garry wants to withdraw the bishop to
e6 rather than head for g6 with
28 ....tg4 29 l:tg3 .th5.
29 tLldS Wh8 30 ttg3
White builds up his attack.
30.....te6 31 ttegl ~h4
Garry is not worried; this is an
extremely calm move.
32~d4
Sutovsky gradually improves the
placing of his pieces.
32... f6
At present it is clearly time to
defend, but gradually Black will
mount a counter-attack.
R~tting his rook en prise!) 35 tLle3!!
IIxe7 36 tLlxf5
36... l:Id7!! (this is no dream. If
instead 36.. :iVxe4+ 37 ~xe4 l:Ixe4
38 llld6, the knight attacks both rooks
and threatens checkmate!) 37 tLlh6!
(what a riposte! The queen is under
attack, yet White doesn't move it.
Instead he places his knight on an
undefended square. On 37 'iWxd7,
Black would draw with 37 .. :~Wxe4+)
37... ttdc7 38 tLlf5 ttd7, and the fairy
tale ends in repetition.
(a2) 34... .tg~! 35 J::txg4 (Black
wins after 35 IIg3 l::txc2 or 35 ~d3
1::txc2 36 ~xc2 .tf3+) 35 .. JlVxg4
36 ~xf6+ (incredibly ingenious, but
White still loses) 36 ... l:Ixf6 (36 ... Wg8
37 tLle3 ~f3+ also wins) 37 l:Ixh7+!!
(mu~h ~do about nothing? Not really,

33c4 for It IS a great joy to witness this

duel) 37 ... Wxh7 38 tLlxf6+ Wg6
Some commentators said Sutovsky
39 lllxg4 l:Ixc2. White has fired off
should have settled for a draw with
33 l:txg7. Maybe this does draw, but some stunning shots in the course of
his dream, but waking up now is a
the task is anything but simple. The
sobering experience - he is lost.
capture would just be the start of some
(b) 34 tLlc3, and now:
breathtaking tactics - for example,
33 ...SU5!? (after 33 ... l:Ixc2 34 l:I7g2
ttxg2 35 ttxg2 both kings are in a
weak position, so there could well be
a perpetual), and now:
(a) 34 l:Ie7, and Black has two
plausible replies:
(at) 34...ttn (for some reason the
Beatles' song The Magical Mystery
Tour comes to mind. Garry's tour
would have started with this move,

295
1998
(hI) 34 .. .lHd8!? is not the best, but
it leads to some more magical tactics:
35 ~b6! (White must attack the rook
on d8 to stop 35 ...l::Ixc3) 35 ... i..g6
(35 ... l:td2 36 l::I7g2, or 35 ...i..xe4+
36 ttJxe4 V&ixe4+ 37 l::I7g2, is
satisfactory for White) 36 ~xb7!
(now things become hair-raising.
After 36 l::I lxg6 hxg6 37 l::Ixg6 l::Id2
38 ~xf6+ ~xf6 39 lhf6 l:txc2,
White is worse) 36.. .'iVh3 (after
36 ... l::Ixc3 37 l::I7xg6 hxg6 38 bxc3
l::Id2 39 ~a8+ 'ifth7 40 ~a7+ White
has perpetual check) 37 ~e7 ~f3+
(37 ...l::If8 38 e5 V&if3+ is still a draw)
38l:tg2
38 ... l:tg8 (of course Black can still
give perpetual with 38 ...V&ifl+. He
also has a chance to blow himself
up with 38 ...l::Id2?? 39 l::Ixh7+!!)
39 l::Ixg8+ l::Ixg8 40 'iftgl ll!Ve3+
41 'iftfl ~cl+ 42 'iftf2 ~xc2+
43 'ifte3! ~xg2 44 ~xf6+. Now the
roles are reversed and White has the
same perpetual.
(b2) 34.Jlxc3! 35 V&ixc3 i..xe4+
36 l::Ilg2 ~f4! (after 36 ... ~h6
37 ~el f5 38 l::I7g3 White defends)
37 h3 l::Id8 38 ~el i..xg2+ (or
38 ... ~e5 39 V&ie2 i..xg2+ 40 l!txg2
V&ixb2 41 ~g4 and White can
possibly draw) 39 l:txg2 ~xa4
40 ~ g3 and White can hold out in
spite of the pawn deficit.
Now back to the actual game. White
has jus~_played 33 c4.
33.. Jlf7
This is a clever move. It prevents
296
various tactics and puts the ball in
Sutovsky's court without revealing
Black's plan. Garry knows when to
punch and when to hold back. He
could have played 33 ...i..f5!? but it
doesn't force anything.: after 34 ttJc3
Jig6 35 Ug4 ~h5 36 l:t Ig3 White's
position is not easy to crack.
34 ttJb6?
An illogical move which decentral-
izes the knight and forces Black to
improve the position of his rook on
c8. When you achieve an advantage
there can also be a downside - here
Sutovsky finds himself under extra
pressure both from himself and from
Kasparov. Perhaps the best plan is
34l::tdl!? which keeps the ball in play
and allows the Israeli grandmaster to
wait and see what tactics will emerge.
After 34 ... l::Ie8 35 l:e3 White has a
solid though somewhat passive posit-
ion. Another possibility is 34 a5.
34...l::Ie835l::Idl?!
With 35 l::I 192 h6 36 ~d3 White
avoids the direct problem by getting
out of the pin.
35... h6!
The product of experience. This
move opens the back rank and
encourages White to do something
that is not easy in this position,
especially for an attacking player like
Sutovsky.
36:te3
Retreating with 36 ttJd5 would lose

a pawn to the double attack 36 ... i.d7.
36...J:tfe7
Intending an unusual double pin.
37 e5
There is a hint of desperation about
this. If37 a5 (or 37 :del), Black wins
with 37 ... .Jlf5! - a remarkable con-
ception, pinning White on both rank
and file. Has Garry ever done this
before?
37...i.g4!
Suddenly White is lost. Five moves
ago Emil had played a nice attacking
move, 32 "'d4, having admittedly
taken some questionable decisions
earlier. Yet now it becomes apparent
that Kasparov has played subtly to
turn defence into attack. White would
also be lost after 37 ... ~xd4 38 J:txd4
i.f.5, but that way he could last a little
longer.
38 J:tg3 f5 39 tLld5
The knight returns too late. After
39l:Ie3 'tit2, White is hopelessly lost.
39.. J:txe5 40 tLlf4
For Emil this is a team event; he
cannot consider resigning.
40..JWf6 41 J:tn
41 ...l::tel!!
Simply beautiful and a pleasure
for the spectators, but Black is
winning anyway. A simple method is
4l...~c6+ 42 Wgl J:te4 43 "'d5 g5,
and it is all over.
42 Wlxf6 .uxn+ 43 Wgl IIxf4
44~c3
297
1998
If 44 ~b6, then 44 ... l:te2+ 45 Wgl
J:txc4 46 J:tc3 J:txa4 47 J:tc1 i.h3
wins.
After 44 ~t7 J:te2+ 45 Wgl l:td4
46 J:t f3 i. xf3, White has no perpetual
check: 47 ~f8+ ~h7 48 ~xf5+ ~g8
49 ~c8+ ~t7 50 ~f.5+ ~e7
51 ~c5+ J:td6 and again Black wins.
44..J:te2+ 45 Wgl J:tfe4
This is not a routine move. Garry
had to see it in advance.
46 h3
Or 46 Wfl .:txh2.
46...l:tel+ 47 Wh2 l:t4e2+ 48 J:tgl
J:te3
A neat conclusion. The rest is
trivial.
49 ~xel1hel 50 hxg4 fxg451 a5
h5 52 Wg3 g5 53l:th2l:te3+ 0-1
Nobody thought that the first day
would be judged as a relative success
for the Israeli team. In fact, a miracle
happened: Kasparov won all 4 games
in the second round two days later. He
had defeated the Israeli team 7: 1 on
aggregate - his best result in this kind
of exhibition. Even Garry's exhibition
games are of a very high quality, rich
in ideas and entertaining.
Frankfurt Rapid
In his first game in this event,
Kasparov had Black against Krarnnik
in a i. f4 GrOnfeld. He opted for an
idea that came from his former second
Adorjan, but something went wrong
and he was left a pawn down.
Kramnik, however, had doubled
pawns. Kasparov could have tried
doing nothing and seeing how his
opponent would make progress in the
little time available; instead he started
an action of his own, and this hastened
his death. In the second game Garry
played Black in a Najdorfwith 6 i.e3
tZlg4. Vishy produced a fantastic idea,
and Garry was soon left with no active
plan at all. His loss was due to
1998
Anand's subtle play.
In the next round Kasparov came up
with a subtle concept himself, and
scored a remarkable. win over
Ivanchuk.
Game 59
G.Kasparov White
V.lvancbuk Black
Frankfurt Giants rapidplay 1998
Sicilian Defence [B66J
1 e4 c5 2 tLlfJ tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4
4 tLlxd4 tLlC6 5 tLlc3 d6 6 ~g5 e6
7 'iVd2 a6 8 0-0-0 il..e7 9 C4 tLlxd4
10~xd4 b5
This line is a relatively recent
theoretical discovery. It became
known from a correspondence game
'Sowbinder-Kantcher, 1989'. Black in
that game was a mysterious player -
no other games by him are available at
all. In my first article on this line for
the New in Chess Yearbook, I quipped
that some players have worked on the
openings for fifty years without ever
establishing a line of their own,
whereas here was a man who had just
played a single game and did establish
one. The New in Chess editor Rene
Olthof somehow discovered that the
mysterious individual was in fact
a Bulgarian correspondence player
named Kanchev.
Incidentally there is no Kasparov
Variation either, although 4 a3 against
the Queen's Indian could be called the
Petrosian-Kasparov line - just like
some others that have double or even
triple names, like the Caro-Kann, the
Richter-Rauzer or the Tartakower-
Makogonov-Bondarevsky .
This Sicilian line started to become
popular when Krarnnik played it a few
times in 1996.
11 ~xf6
Nowadays top players hardly ever
understand variations right from the
moment they appear. So it was with
this line - it would very interesting to
298
know how Garry's preparation de-
veloped. The point is that all three
times he played against it, he captured
on f6. White can also play 11 ~e2
and .i.e2-t3.
11 ...gxC6
The typical Rauzer pawn formation
arises and makes for an exciting
position. To a certain extent the die is
cast. (Kasparov is interested in
history, so he will certainly know who
this phrase comes from and when he
said it.) White can no longer aim for a
slightly better position - he has to start
cracking Black's pawn formation.
Why? Because with his two bishops,
Black may gradually gain the upper
hand. If he has time he will carry out
.i.c8-b7, b5-b4 and d6-d5, and then
White will be worse. In this fascin-
ating line, anyone of Black's pawns is
liable to be pushed.
Teaching a variation like this to
juniors can be fruitful for a while, yet
trainers must make sure that their
pupils move on, or there is a danger
that while they learn specific lines
well, their general understanding is
raised only marginally.
12 e5!?
Garry tries to destroy the enemy
aircraft before they get off the ground.
This move was his novelty at that
time. When he first played it he may
just have wanted to avoid preparation,
but it shows that he believes the line is

fundamentally wrong for Black.
Black is seriously underdeveloped,
and opening the position is hazardous
for him. On the other hand, White too
is taking a considerable risk. If Black
survives the onslaught, the two
bishops will give him a clearly better
endgame. He has one important re-
source: there are several things he can
do with his king in response to
White's plan. He may castle on either
side, or in some cases the king may
simply walk away from the danger.
Originally Garry's move here had
been 12 .i.d3, which brought him a
pleasant victory over Kramnik:
12 .. :~i'c7 13 ~e3 (White wants to
avoid exchanging queens, as the
ending is problematic) 13 ... ~c5
14 ~g3 b4 15 llle2 a5 16 \tbl WfS
17 ~h3 h5 18 J:tcl d5 19 exd5 'iVxd5
205 a4 21 l:ihel l:ib8 22 lllf4 ~d6
23 ~f3, and White went on to win
in Kasparov - Kramnik, Amsterdam
1996. The position was unclear all the
way.
12.d5 13 ~bl!
Kasparov plays a waiting move at
the outset of a ferocious attack. The
king evades any checks, and Black has
to show his hand. This move which
Garry devised while pioneering the
line is probably best and has become
the main continuation.
A game Farakhov - Itkis, Fakel
Jamala 2003, went 13 5 fxe5 (also
after 13 ... 0-0 14 .i.d3 fxe5 15 ~xe5
.i.f6 16 ~g3+ ~h8 17 ~h3 l:i.a7
Black has a nice position with a
remarkable defensive configuration)
14 iVxe5 .i.f6 15 ~g3 (15 ..-el O-O!)
15 ....i.d7 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 .i.e2 ..-b8
18 .i.h5+ \td8!, and Black was
comfortably placed. It is fascinating to
observe how many different ways he
can locate his king effectively.
13....i.b7
Ivanchuk has to reveal something of
his intentions. With this continuation
Black comes closer to castling long;
299
1998
on the other hand the bishop is
withdrawing its support from the
kings ide and e6 in particular. Various
other moves have been tried:
(a) 13 ... fxe5? 14 fxe5 f6 (if 14 ... 5,
then 15 g4 opens up the Black
position) 15 ~g4! l:i.fS 16 exf6 .i.xf6
17 llle4 ~e7 18 'ih5+ and White is
much better.
(b) There was a time when 13 ...l:tg8
was the main line, for example: 14 f5
b4 (after 14 ... fxe5 15 ~xe5 .i.f6
16 ~e3 ~e7 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 .i.e2
l:i.g5 19 l:i.hfl .i. b7 20 llle4, White
went on to win in Korneev-Lopez,
Elgoibar 2000) 15llle2 fxe5 16 ~xe5
.i.f6 17 ~e3 e5 18 lllf4 d4 19 ~el
.i.b7 20 lllh5 .i.h8 21 "'xb4 ~c7
22 .i.d3 l:txg2 23 l:ihgl l'iIxgl
24 l:.:txgl 0-0-0 25 lllg3 and White
won in Van den Doel - Fernando,
Cappelle 2002.
(c) Interestingly, 13 ....i.d7 makes
kingside castling unplayable for
Black, as the rook can no longer
defend along the seventh: 14 f5 fxe5
15 ~xe5 .i.f6 16 ~e3 0-0 (the
recommendation l6 ...... e7!?, in the
New in Chess Yearbook 68 article, is
important for judging the variation. It
may well give Black a satisfactory
position - 17 lIel ~d6 seems
adequate) 17 ~h3 J:tc8 18 .i.d3 file7
19 l::thel J::!.xc3 20 bxc3 e5 21 ~g4+
.i.g7
22 .i.e4!! ~a3 (after 22 ... dxe4
23 f6 .i.xg4 24 fxe7 .i.xdl 25 l:txdl
e3 26 exfS=~+ \txfS 27 ]::tel .i.h6
1998
2S '.i1cl f5 29 '.i1dl, the white rook
will soon be able to invade) 23 l:te3
'.i1hS 24 l:th3 VIIIe7 25 J::txh7+
1-0, Galliamova - Iskusnyh, Novgorod
1999. This splendid attacking game
was played by Vassily's fonner wife.
(d) When Kasparov first introduced
the 12 e5 novelty, his opponent
Hra~ek played l3 ...h4? Twelve
moves later he resigned: 14 lZle2 a5
15 lZlg3 f5 (the Czech grandmaster
seems to have forgotten about de-
velopment on that day) 16 lZlh5 J::tbS
17 g4 fxg4 IS f5 l:tgS 19lZlf6+ .i.xf6
20 exf6 ~d6 21 .i.g2 J::tg5 22 ~xd5!
.i.d7 23 l:thel h6 24 fxe6 fxe6
25 ~a7 1-0. The game is a mixture of
an off-day for a grandmaster and a
brutal attack from a great player;
Kasparov-Hra~ek, Yerevan 1996.
14 f5!
Garry opens up the position before
the enemy king can sail to a safe
haven and Black can take control.
14... fxe5 15 ~xe5 .i.f6 16 ~g3
~e7
Or 16 ...~bS 17 ~h3 (17 ~t3
allows 17 ... 0-0; in the event of
17 '{:Wg4 .i.xc3 IS bxc3, Black has the
better pawn structure but White has
the safer king) 17 ... b4 (17 ... ~d6
IS lZle4) IS lZla4 ~d6 19 fxe6 fxe6
20 ~d3 0-0-0 21 l:the1 l:tdeS 22lZlc5
and White is better.
17 fxe6 fxe6 18 .i. e2
The light-squared bishop aims for
300
g4, to put the e6-pawn under pressure.
Naturally the bishop will first check at
h5 if Black is foolish enough to allow
it.
18...0-0-0
This is a tense situation. If Black
can consolidate his king position, he
may gain the initiative. However, the
e6-pawn is still liable to be attacked.
Here are the alternatives:
(a) lS ... ~f7 19 .i.g4 allows Black
no time to castle long. After 19 ... l:tgS
(or 19... e5 20 ~h3) 20 ~h3, his king
has to stay in the centre and is
therefore an easy target.
(b) lS ... ~g7 19 'WId6! (White is
also better after 19 .i.g4 .i.e5
20 ~h3) 19.. :tWe7 20 .i.h5+ WfS
21 ~f4 and the black king has yet to
find safety.
(c) After the present game the trend
shifted to IS ...h5, stopping the bishop
from getting to g4. Two years later,
other special players were following
that path:
(cl) 19 .i.t3 0-0-020 h4 b4 21lZle2
e5 22lZlci (22 .i.xh5 WbS) 22 ... WbS
23 lZlb3 'iic7 24 .i.xh5 l:txh5 25 'iJg6
J::txh4 26 ~xf6 J:!.f4 27 ~g6 d4
2S J;:th7 .i.e4 29 'WIxe4 J::txe4 30 1':txc7
'.i1xc7 31 lZlc5, and this fascinating
tactic saved the game for the Indian
grandmaster; Anand-Kramnik, Wijk
aan Zee 2000.
(c2) 19 a4! is the testing move.
After 19... d4 (19 ... b4 20 lZle4!)
20 axb5 h4 21 ~g4 dxc3 22 .i.c4
.i.cs (22 ... axb5! is playable) 23 l:thfl
l:tfS 24 l:tfel e5 25 ~g6+ J:!.f7
26 :tfl, White was much better in
Von Bahr-Barkhagen, Sweden 2002.
Now back to the game, after
IS ... O-O-O.
19.i.g4
Of course, applying pressure is
exactly what Garry is going to do. Is
there a way to relieve the pressure on
the weak e-pawn?
19. h5!
This forces the bishop to occupy the

square that the white queen would like
to use to attack e6.
20i.h3
20. h4?
This is a key position for the
variation. Ivanchuk has to be very
careful. One mistake. and he might be
lost - that is a characteristic feature of
the line. Alternatives are as follows:
(a) 20 ... d4 21 l::tdel 'Wic7 22 l:txe6
(or 22 i.xe6+ <t>b8 23 'tWxc7+ Wxc7
24 tlle4 l:thf8 25 i.h3 - Black has
some compensation for the pawn, but
he is nonetheless worse) 22 ...'Wixg3
23 bxg3 dxc3 24 l:txf6+ <t>b8 25 bxc3
occurrred in Nguyen Ly Hong-Gupta,
Khalkidiki 2003. Black may be able to
defend, but the position is no fun to
play.
(b) Black can aim to remove his
king from the critical pin with
20 ...l:thg8!? According to the New in
Chess analysis, this gives him a
playable position. There can follow:
(bl) 21 ~f4, and now:
(bll) 2l...ttgf8 22 l:thel i.xc3
23 ttxe6 l:txf4 24 l:txe7+ Wb8
25 bxc3 l:t12 26 l:th7 i.c8 27 Uxh5
i.xh3 28 gxh3 l:hh2 29 l:th7 and
Black is struggling.
(b12) 2l...i.xc3 22 bxc3 l::td6
23 l:thel l:tg6 24 l:te5 ~f6 25 ~d4,
and White has the better bishop.
(b 13) 2l...l:tg6. In this case the rook
on the g-file is better placed than in
the current game. After 22 tthel i.g7
301
1998
(22 ... i.xc3 23 bxc3 ttd6 is possible
here too) 23 a3 d4 24 tlle2 (24 tlle4
i.h6 25 ~e5 l:d5 26 ~h8+ l:d8
27 ~e5 l::td5 repeats the position)
24 ...i.xg2 (or 24 ...l:f8 25 ~d2 i.xg2
26 l:gl l:12 and the position is
complicated) 25 i.xg2 Mxg2 26 ~e4
~b7, Black holds out.
(b2)21 ~e3 Wb8!, and now:
(b21) If 22 l:he I, Black takes over
with 22 ... e5. Therefore White must
capture the pawn.
(b22) 22 ~xe6 - this way of
capturing sets Black less problems. He
has more than one way to obtain good
play for the pawn minus:
(b221) 22 ... d4 23 l:xd4 (23 tZle2
~xe6 24 i.xe6 l:xg2 is pleasant for
Black because of the weak h2-pawn)
23 ... ~xe6 24 l:xd8+ :xd8 25 i.xe6
l:d2. Black is now two pawns down,
but his active pieces ensure that he is
in no danger of losing.
(b222) 22 ... "ihe6 23 i.xe6 l::tg5!!
(after 23 ... l:xg2 24 i.xd5 i.xd5
25 tZlxd5 i.e5 26 h3 White may have
a small advantage even though the
rook on hI is passive) 24 l:hfl (after
24 i.h3 d4 25 tlle2 i.e5 Black has a
fine, free game) 24 ... i.xc3 25 bxc3
l:hg2, and again Black has no losing
chances.
(b23) 22 i.xe6, and now:
(b231) 22 ...i.xc3? 23 ~f4+ Wlc7
24 ~xc7+ Wxc7 25 i.xg8 and White
wins the exchat:\:ge.
(b232) 22 ...lId6 23 l:thel l:xg2
24 ~h3 i.xc3 (24 ...l:g5 is another
1998
possibility) 25 bxc3 ~ g5 and Black is
all right.
(b233) 22 ...:tg5!!' I think this
beautiful move not only keeps Black
in the game but gives him a good
position: 23 ~f4+ (23 :thel or
23 :i:tdel would be met by 23 ...:i:te5)
23 ...il.e5 24 ~h4 (or 24 VJ/Ifl VJ/Ixfl
25 il.xfl d4 and Black takes over)
24 ...d4 25 lldel (25 :the I dxc3)
25 ... l::!.e8 26 lildl :tg6 (or 26 ... VJ/Ig7
27 il.h3 :tfS and Black has free play
for the .Eawn) 27 ~xe7 :txe7
28 l:Xxe5 IiIgxe6 29 :txe6 :txe6 and
Black is very active.
21 ~f4!
White keeps the black king away
from the b8-square. Again this is not a
spectacular move, yet it is very strong.
21...il.g7
Or 21..J:thfS 22 :the I il.xc3
23 :i:txe6 :txf4 24 llxe7+ cJJb8
25 bxc3, and this time Black doesn't
have enough for the pawn.
22 :thel
Bringing his last piece into play.
22:th623 a3!
This move may have a mundane
appearance, but the whole conception
is very powerful. You need very fme
judgement to realize that Black is
worse here, and White had to see it
well in advance. Kasparov has such a
good understanding of when to defend
or prepare, and when to launch the
attack.
If White plays 23 il. xe6+ at once,
then after 23 ...:txe6 24 ~g4 ~dd6
25 l:txe6 ~xe6 26 VJ/Ixg7 d4 the
knight has no refuge.
23:tg6?
Underestimating White's last move
- it was not only designed to stop b5-
b4. Almost certainly Vassily did not
fully understand Garry's idea in the
opening. Here he could have tried:
(a) 23 ...il.xc3 24 bxc3 :tf6
25 ~xh4, and White is a pawn up.
(b) 23 ... ttd7 24 lile2! (preparing to
bring another piece to bear on e6;
302
24 lld3 is also possible), and Black
has three options:
(bl) 24 ... e5 25 ~d2 '.tJb8 26 il.xd7
VJ/Ixd7. Black has a some play for the
exchange, but White is nonetheless
better.
(b2) 24 .. .'~d6 25 ~g5! VJ/Ie5 (or
25 .. .'~e7 26 'Wixe7 :txe7 27 lilf4
and the pawn will fall) 26 ~xe5
il.xe5 27 lilgl and White wins the
exchange.
(b3) 24 .. .'~fl 25 ~xfl l:hfl
26 tLld4 il.xd4 27lhe6 and wins.
24 il.xOO+!!
Garry is so good at seeing tactical
opportunities in open positions. The
grandmaster from Ukraine is dead by
move twenty-five, and the undertaker
Kasparov will be quick to bury him.
24. Jhe6 25 ~g4 lldd6 26 l:txe6
'ixe6
Or 26 ...1he6 27llel cJJd7 281he6
'ixe6 29 ~xg7+ ~c6 30 ~d4 with a
won position.
27~xg7
Suddenly Black is lost. He is not
only a pawn down, he also has a bad
bishop and isolated pawns to protect.
27... ~f6 28 'iVg4+ '.tJb8 29l:td4!
Keeping the bishop passive.
29..:too 30 ~xh4 "0+ 31 '.tJa2
~xg2 32 llg4 tWo 33 I:tg8+ ~a7
34 ~d4+ l::tb6 35 tLlxd5
There is no point in trying to check-
mate the king when a simple winning
endgame is available.

3S...t xdS+ 36 ~ xdS ~ c4+
37 ~xc4 bxc4 38l:(g7+ '.t>b8 39l:Ih7
1-0
Black resigns, as White has several
winning plans. For example he can
create a passed pawn on the c-file,
advance his h-pawn to h7 and then
push the c-pawn. Note that this plan
would not work with a passed pawn
on the a- or b-file!
This game displayed a combination
of very good home preparation with
great attacking skill. Even if the
preparation doesn't refute the line, it
created enough pressure to bring down
a world-class opponent.
Garry's game with White against
Kramnik was a solid English which
ended in a draw. His game with Black
against Ivanchuk was a ~c2 Nimzo-
Indian. After some complications they
reached an endgame in which Ivan-
chuk had three pawns for a piece. It
looked as if the pawns would cause
damage, but then he lost one of them.
After that, however, Vassily elimin-
ated his opponent's pawns on the
queens ide, and the game was drawn.
In his last game of the round robin,
Kasparov had White against Anand,
who played a Taimanov Sicilian.
Kasparov responded with 5 ttJb5,
leading to a Kalashnikov type of
position. Anand sacrificed a pawn for
active play, and the game was drawn
in 23 moves.
Kramnik made the best score in the
round robin. A play-off for third place
was held between Kasparov and Ivan-
chuk. In this tie-break match Garry
won the first game and drew the
remaining three.
It was a big festival in Frankfurt.
The regular chess event was won by
Timman and Beliavsky. Many top
grandmasters played other types of
chess; Kasparov refused to play m
anything other than the the rapid.
303
1998
Kasparov-Shirov: World
Championship Final
Kasparov had stated earlier that he
was under an obligation to defend his
title regularly. He probably didn't
anticipate that there would be
insufficient sponsorship. Apparently
there was an offer of 1 million US
dollars from America, but this was
rejected by Shirov. The financial
problem is most regrettable. Some-
times there is a sponsor, sometimes
there is not, and when a Candidates
Tournament starts, nobody knows
how much money there will be
altogether. It might be an idea for the
best eight players to agree in advance
how they should share the money. The
Champion is in a difficult situation.
He knows that when a match fails to
take place, it damages chess - but
should he play for free? A doctor
doesn't work for free either, and in
chess the World Championship is the
contest with the big money at stake.
How should the challenger be sel-
ected? Some players play superbly in
tournaments and badly in matches.
Kramnik is an example; until 1998 he
proved to be an exceptional tourn-
ament player, but in matches he was
destroyed by Kamsky and Shirov and
lost to Gelfand. Perhaps the challenger
should be the one who has the best
personal score against the Champion,
but then he may have a less im-
pressive score against the rest. Per-
haps there should be a qualification
tournament, but where would financial
backing be found for it, and who
would guarantee the money for the
final? If the money comes two years
later, the situation of the players can
radically change.
Another question that arises is how
many contestants should be allowed to
participate. It has been proved that
grandmasters at the 2650 level can be
1998
inspired to perform like the very top
players. Peter Svidler shared a fIrst
prize with Kasparov and Kramnik.
Khalifman, Bologan and Kasim-
dzhanov all proved how well they can
perform in tournaments. Should these
strong players get a chance? If they
play, they should take a fair slice of
the cake.
FIDE surprisingly devalues it own
Championship by not giving any
ranking to the winner. In tennis, when
Gaudio wins the Paris open, his
ranking goes from thirty-something to
number fIve or six - whereas winning
the World Championship in chess
does virtually nothing for a player's
ranking. The world's number 5 or 6
player would think twice about not
participating, if number 10 could
overtake him by winning the title. As
it is, top players can ignore the
tournament unless the money is big,
which can't be guaranteed. The Elo
system is unrealistic, as results still
count several years after they have
been achieved. As a consequence of
this chaotic situation, some fantastic
talents hardly improve once they get
to 2700, as they hardly ever meet
better players than themselves. A few
years ago, Grischuk's play was a
revelation, but he has not improved
since. Rublevsky and Sakaev (I
deliberately mention Russian players,
but it also concerns others at that
level) cannot perform at their best, as
they play exhibitions and blindfold
chess amongst themselves.
Missing this match was harmful to
Shirov's chess. He kept up his level
until 2000, but once the Kasparov-
Kramnik match took place he never
looked the same again. I think
Kasparov experiences a conflict of
interest: often what is good for him is
of less benefIt to the chess world as a
whole. Incidentally - the Communist
system was a dictatorship and its
collapse was benefIcial to Russia, yet
304
it was not so good for chess.
The chaos in chess has existed since
1993. Until top players undertake to
play regularly and aim for a better
ranking, the situation will remain the
same. The most efficient societies are
those where there is a gap between
individuals, but one that is not too
pronounced - and what is true of
social relations may well also apply to
sports. Agassi, Michael Jordan and
Federer have to play for the privileges
they receive. In chess, the privileges
currently enjoyed by top players add a
lot to the chaos, and because of the
chaos, chess is losing ground against
other sports. It was very sad for chess
that the Kasparov-Shirov match never
took place.
Kasparov-Timman: The
EuroTel Trophy in Prague
Thirteen years earlier, Kasparov -
the newly crowned World Champion
- and Timman, one of the world's best
grandmasters, had played a match in
Holland. Kasparov won with a score
of 4:2 (or 3:1 in terms of decisive
games). In the year before that - 1984
- they had played four games against
each other in the confrontation
between the Soviet Union and the
Rest of the World. The first three
games were drawn, and Kasparov won
the last one. In addition they played
four times in an Amsterdam tourn-
ament of 1988; again Kasparov won
the duel by 2 Y;z: 1Y;z with one decisive
game. In the 1984 match they played
conservatively; in 1985, they were
almost wild. The 1988 games were
solid again.
This time (1998) they were playing
for 100,000 euros. Timman had
reached the top four in the World
Championship Candidates tournament
in 1992, before losing in the fmal
to Short. Since then, some brilliant

players had appeared on the stage and
overtaken him. Timman was unable to
keep pace with Anand, Ivanchuk,
Kramnik, Kamsky and Shirov, and
the gap between him and Kasparov
widened, but of course he remained
very strong.
As Hans Ree wrote in New in
Chess, Timman prepared very hard for
the EuroTel Trophy match and came
up with some sharp lines. In the first
game, with Black, he played a very
complicated variation of the ~een's
Gambit Accepted. Black's 24 move
receives a question mark from Kaspar-
ov, while Timman asks what else
could have been played. Timman
reached an endgame a pawn up, but
the pawns were all on one side.
Interestingly, when he had the chance
of playing on with rook and knight
against rook, he agreed a draw in-
stead.
In the second game, Kasparov
played the Slav! This is Dokhoian's
opening; Garry probably consulted
him about the variations.
Game 60
J.Timman White
G.Kasparov Black
EuroTel Trophy, Prague 1998
Slav Defence {D 15J
1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6
Interestingly Garry has a high rate
of draws with the Slav.
3 liJo liJf6 4 liJc3 dxc4 S e3
Timman has gained some good
victories against the Slav but nonethe-
less has a minus score against it -
something unusual for a player of
such high calibre. Garry may have
chosen this opening because he was
aware of Timman' s record.
Initially Timman had employed the
main line with S a4, but he was not
particularly successful with it. Later,
in the I 980s, he defeated Portisch with
S liJeS, yet he dropped that move too.
30S
1998
S... b5
Ljubojevic once tried S... Ae6
against Timman but lost quite quickly.
6a4 b4
The position virtually guarantees an
exciting contest. The question is
whether Black can capitalize on his
initiative before White regains the
pawn.
7 liJbl
The present game will not increase
the popularity of this retreat. The other
main line, 7 liJa2, is more popular.
7....i.a6 8 ~c2?
Though this has been employed a
number of times, Garry's powerful
play casts serious doubt on its viab-
ility. It is quite impressive to destroy a
theoretical move so early. Black has
also scored well after 8 Ae2 e6 9 0-0
i.e7 10 lZJbd2 c3.
8... b3 9 ~dl e6 10 Ae2
After 10 liJbd2 ~dS II Ae2 liJbd7
12 0-0 llb8 13 liJbl tDe4 14 tDfd2
lZJdf6 IS lZJc3 tDxc3 16 bxc3 Ae7
White failed to obtain play for the
pawn in Adorjan-Torre, Toluca 1982.
And on 10 tDeS cS, according to the
German grandmaster HUbner, Black
already has an edge thanks to his rapid
development.
10...cS!
Garry wastes no time in under-
mining the centre.
11 0-0 liJc6 12 tDeS .llc8!
Simple and strong - the rook
1998
develops smoothly. Instead 12 ...lllxe5
would only strengthen White's centre.
13llla3?
The Dutch grandmaster wants to
avoid a passive position, but misses
the best way. Black's pieces would
also be working well after 13 i.xc4
i.xc4 14 lllxc4 cxd4 15 ~xb3 i.c5.
On the other hand 13 lllxc4 cxd4
14 llld6+ i.xd6 15 i.xa6 l:tc7
16 ~xb3 0-0, though unattractive for
White, is much better than the game
continuation.
13.cxd4 14lllaxc4
HUbner assesses 14 i.xc4 i.xc4
15lllaxc4 'iVd5 as better for Black.
14. JWd5
14... lllxe5 was also very strong,
since 15 lllxe5 i.xe2 16 ~xe2 l:tc5!
17 f4 d3! 18 'iVxd3 (18 lllxd3 Itc2)
18 ... 'iVxd3 19 tiJxd3 l:td5 leaves
White struggling.
15 i.o
Other tries were:
(a) 15 llld6+ i.xd6 16 i.xa6, when
Black has a choice:
(al) 16...dxe3 17 'iVxd5 (17 i.xc8
ext2+ 18 'it'hl ~xe5) 17 ... ext2+
18 l::txt2 exd5 19 i.xc8 i.xe5
20 i.b7 'it'd7 with advantage.
(a2) 16 ... 'iVxe5 17 f4 ~c5 18 i.xc8
dxe3 19 'it'hl llle4 20 'if.3 lllt2+
21 l:txt2 ext2 22 i. e3 'iV c4 and White
is clearly worse.
(b) 15 lllb6 i.xe2 16 lllxd5 i.xdl
17 lllxf6+ gxf6 18 lllxc6 i.e2
306
19 lle 1 d3 and Black wins, as pointed
out by HUbner.
15llle4
Garry has a strong position despite
having played no spectacular moves.
16lllxc6
The best move available in a poor
position.
16.lhc6!
White is alread.y. lost.
17llld2 f5 18 nel d3
It is highly unusual to find Black
with a passed pawn on d3 so early in
the game.
19lDxb3 e5 20 i.d2l::tb6
Perhaps Jan had already anticipated
the outcome of the game.
21 i.xe4 fxe4 22 lDc1 l:txb2
23 i.c3 d2
The pawn has entered the fray
remarkably early and wreaks remark-
able havoc.
24l:tn i.xn 25 i.xb2
25..i.c4
A prosaic way to win. Garry could
have played to the gallery here
with 25 ... dxcl=~ 26 ~xd5 i.c4+
27 l:txc1 i.xd5. He could even have
under-promoted with 25 ... dxc 1=l::t to
make it even more spectacular.
Timman is an excellent composer, and
perhaps he saw the potential here.
26 lDe2 i.b3 27 lllc3 i.xdl
28lllxd5 i.b3 29lDc3 i.b4
Garry has only needed his queen-
side pieces to destroy such a good

player as Timman. It is astonishing
that up to this point, three of his pieces
have remained unmoved: the king,
king's bishop and king's rook. Juniors
and average players should heed
the warning: "This should not be
attempted at home. Trying to imitate
Kasparov can do you serious harm."
30 liJdl 0-0 0-1
Finally Black has time to castle.
Top-level players rarely get a chance
to play like this. But then, players
seldom reply to a castling move by
resigning!
The third game saw a Nirnzo-Indian
with 4 ~ c2, a line in which both
players are acknowledged experts, so
a good fight was in prospect. However
at move seven the lights went out,
which forced a break in the play; this
may have affected Timman, as on
move 13 he made what was virtually a
losing error. After that, Garry did not
allow him back in the game. Tirnman
had prepared hard for the match and
wanted to do well, but two poor
openings had resulted in two lost
positions before the 15th move. This
inevitably had a demoralizing effect
on his play for the rest of the match.
Kasparov went for safety in the
fourth game. Timman had prepared an
idea, but Kasparov looks invincible in
the lines that were played against
Karpov. The Dutch grandmaster
307
1998
avoided any clear drawing lines, and
later, in a queen and rook ending, he
tried to win by pushing his h-pawn;
but this did not have the same effect
as Kasparov's own pushes with his
rook's pawns often do. Jan claimed
that he could have made Kasparov
work harder for the draw if he had
advanced his passed d-pawn further,
but by that time there was little scope
for dynamic play on the board. Then
Kasparov missed a chance to go into a
rook ending where he would have had
excellent winning chances. This type
of error suggests that since the match
was virtually over, he had to some
extent lost interest and concentration.
After this moment Timman drew
easily.
In game five, Tirnman did what he
has done a few times to both Kasparov
and Karpov - steering the game into
his opponent's familiar territory and
proving that previous victims need not
have lost the way they did. This time
he showed how Panno ought to have
reacted to the novelty Garry intro-
duced when he took on the Argentine
national team. As Dokhoian pointed
out, White could have created more
pressure with the subtle 26 g4 - a
finesse removing a pawn from the
second rank in case the enemy rook
should invade. After Garry missed
this, the Dutch grandmaster drew
comfortably in 29 moves.
In the last round Kasparov played
the Cambridge Springs, and Tirnman
sacrificed a pawn. He probably did not
choose the best continuation, but in
his assesment the position offered
compensation; the queens were ex-
changed, and he obtained a space
advantage and some pressure. How-
ever, it is easier to agree with
Tsetsarsky that if Kasparov had first
gradually improved his pieces and
only then opened the game, he would
have had decent winning chances.
Instead he played a somewhat flashy
1998
early break - a typical, Kasparov-like,
super-dynamic c6-c5. This weakened
his pawns, and he actually lost one.
Timman held the position with
accurate play. Kasparov did not seem
fully focused. Once again the im-
pression was that, deep down, he had
lost interest in the match when he took
a two-point lead.
Ree said that the match was
disappointing. Incidentally, let me
interpret Ree's remark in the context
of national cultures. He was not
expressing animosity towards either
player but merely stating his opinion.
If these players had produced wonder-
ful games - something they are
capable of doing - he would have
been happy to say so. In some other
countries, by contrast, critics tend to
be motivated by personal loyalty or
hostility. This is the case in Hungary,
and it was also my impression when I
308
was in Russia.
Kasparov did not display his usual
magic in this match; he was somewhat
dry, and in the second half he was
lacking in his usual determination.
Timman played two extremely un-
fortunate openings.
In 1998 Garry had not played his
best chess. He produced world-class
results, and some splendid games such
as his wins against Anand and
Ivanchuk. Beating Topalov 4-0 at
rapid chess is impressive, but Kaspar-
ov was below his previous level. If the
world ranking had been based only on
the single year's results, as is the case
in tennis, he would have lost the
number one spot. His title defence
never took place, which is most
regrettable. Nevertheless his genius
came shining through. What he did to
the Israeli national team was nothing
short of a miracle.
 Kasparov's Record:
Statistics 1993-1998
(A) 'Regular' Contests
Overview 9fTournament and
Match Successes
Kasparov twice defended his World
Championship title:
v Short (London 1993) 12V,:7V,
v Anand (New York 1995) 1OV,:7V,
He played one non-title match:
v Timman (Prague 1998) 4:2
Playing on board one for Russia, he
won the Olympic gold medal twice:
Moscow 1994
Yerevan 1996
During this period Kasparov entered
16 individual tournaments and was the
sole winner 8 times:
Linares 1993
Amsterdam 1994
Horgen 1994
Riga 1995
Novgorod 1995
Las Palmas 1996
Linares 1997
Novgorod 1997
He was co-winner 3 times:
Novgorod 1994 (= with Ivanchuk)
Amsterdam 1996 (= with Topalov)
Tilburg 1997 (= with Kramnik
and Svidler)
309
In four cases he achieved a high
placing even though he was not at his
best:
Amsterdam 1995 (2 nd behind Lautier)
Linares 1994 (2nd = with Shirov,
behind Karpov)
Dos Hermanas 1996 (3rd = with Anand)
Linares 1998 (3 rd = with Kramnik)
The only tournament where Kaspar-
ov failed to produce a world-class
performance was Horgen 1995, where
he finished 5th
These are most impressive results,
yet during Kasparov's exceptional
career there have been even more
successful periods.
Statistics of Individual Games
The statistics of a competitive
chessplayer can never paint a perfect
picture. One important reason is that
hardly any games are played under
identical conditions. Sometimes the
situation requires a draw with White -
then a perpetual check is a success.
Furthermore some games are of
greater significance than others. None-
theless, statistics do help. They pro-
vide an impression, indicate certain
trends, and highlight strong points and
weaknesses.
In this book we have not presented
any games from the earlier part of
1993, before the Kasparov-Short
match. However, statistics from those
earlier months are incorporated in the
present section.
Kasparov played 232 regular games
during this six-year period. There
Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998
were 8 more !fames with Black (120)
than with White (112), so his overall
score might have been even better,
albeit marginally.
In total, from the 232 games,
Kasparov collected 155 points - a
668% score. There were 93 wins
(40'1%), 124 draws (53'4%) and only
15 losses (65%). His very low losing
percentage is especially striking since
he chooses to play sharply and accept
huge risks.
He won 58 of his 112 games with
White, i.e. over 51 %. The shortest
win, in 22 moves, was against
Timman in Riga 1995. The longest,
lasting 73 moves, was against Bareev
in Novgorod 1997. Garry won 35
games opening with 1 e4, and the
other 23 with (dosed openings.
Nigel Short is the leader amongst
the victims - he lost 8 games. (But
don't forget that only the best players
get the chance to play Garry and lose
to him so often!) In second place is
Anand with 7 losses. Gelfand and
Timman are third with 4 losses each.
It is worth noting that Kramnik lost 3
times and TOPlllov only once.
Results with White
Garry's losing rate is barely 3%
with White! He lost only 4 games with
the advantage of the ftrst move.
Remarkably, 2 of these were against
Lautier - the only player who has plus
score with Black against Garry during
this period. He lost one each against
Ivanchuk and Kramnik. Three of the
losses came from 1 e4 and one from
1 d4.
Garry drew 50 games. The shortest,
lasting a mere 12 moves, was the last
game of the 1995 Anand match. The
longest draw, lasting 113 moves, was
against Yusupov in Linares 1993.
Garry played the greatest number of
draws - 10 - with Anand, obviously
because of the length of their title
310
match. The other challenger, Short,
comes second on the list with 6 draws.
Ivanchuk and Kramnik drew with
Black 5 times each. Remarkably,
Karpov and Kamsky each drew once.
Garry played only two grandmaster
draws with White.
His overall score with White was
approximately 74%, which is all the
more notable bearing in mind that
only 5 of his opponents were below
2600 when they played him. The
lowest-rated opponent was Leko.
Surprisingly, at one stage Timman
was rated only 2595.
Results with Black
Kasparov's overall score was 72
points out of 120 games, which is
60%. He won 35 of these games, i.e.
29%. His fastest win was against Tal
Shaked at Tilburg 1997, in 20 moves.
The longest victory was in 90 moves
against Judit Polgar at Dos Hermanas
1996. It is interesting that Garry faced
1 e4 exactly 60 times.
With Black Garry played 10
opponents below 2600. The lowest
rated, and the only one below 2500,
was Chabanon (2425). The player
who lost the most games (5) with
White against Garry was Topalov.
Anand and Yusupov lost 3 games
each. Interestingly, Kramnik did not
lose any.
Garry lost 11 games with Black,
which is only 9%. His lowest rated
conqueror was A.Shneider in the 1994
EU-Cup. Ivanchuk, Kramnik and
Topalov each beat him twice with
White. The two challengers for the
World Championship, Short and
Anand, only managed to beat him
once. Topalov recorded the fastest
victory (29 moves) in Moscow 1994.
and the longest as well - 66 moves in
Amsterdam 1996. Of Garry's 11
losses, six were against 1 e4, four
against 1 d4 and one against the
 Kasparov 's Record: Statistics 1993-1998

English. Roughly 62% of his games
with Black ended in a draw. The draw
with Korchnoi at Horgen 1994 was
the shortest, lasting only 13 moves.
Garry took 114 moves to hold Pinter
in the 1993 French team champion-
ship.
It is not easy to evaluate just how
hard-fought these games were, as
opening theory can account for a
major portion of some encounters.
One of the reasons why Garry is such
an attractive player is that he
rarely shows peaceful intentions and
invariably fights very hard - though
naturally, there are times when he
only needs to draw to achieve a
particular result. He was only in-
frequently forced into a drawing line
by his opponent.
Face to Face
Twenty of the very best players of this
period (1993-8) are included in the
table below. Only Ivanchuk, Lautier,
and Svidler have a plus score. This
was Ivanchuk's best period against
Kasparov.

Opponent Games Win Win Draw Draw Loss Loss GK

as as as as as as %
White Black White Black White Black

1-10
Short 31 8 2 6 14 0 1 64'5
Anand 28 7 3 8 9 0 1 661
Kramnik 17 3 0 5 6 1 2 500
Ivanchuk 16 2 0 5 6 1 2 469
Topalov 15 1 5 4 3 0 2 633
Timman 13 4 2 4 3 0 0 73-1
Shirov 11 3 2 1 5 0 0 727
Lautier 10 1 0 2 5 2 0 450
Gelfand 9 4 2 2 1 0 0 833
Yusupov 7 1 3 2 1 0 0 786

Sub-total 157 34 19 39 53 4 8 63-1

1l-20
Bareev 6 3 1 0 2 0 0 833
Piket 5 2 1 0 1 1 0 700
Karpov 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 750
Kamsky ~ 2 0 1 0 0 0 83-3
Ehlvest 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 500
Gulko 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 667
Nikolic 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 833
Svidler 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 333
Vaganian 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 833
Polgar 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1000

Sub-total 35 Il 7 5 10 2 0 72-9

Total 192 45 26 44 63 10 4 648

311
Kasparov's Recprd: Statistics /993-/998
(B) Rapid Play
Statistics for rapid play are harder to
compile. There has only been one
World Championship. Even if any
world ranking exists, it is insignificant
and nobody really cares about it.
There are records of games played in a
Reykjavik TV rapid, but there is no
other information about the compet-
ition. It was impossible to ascertain in
what part of the year it was played, or
the format of the tournament. Was the
money distributed in advance, or did
the players fight for prizes? Despite
such perplexities, rapidplay games are
worth examining for their chess
content. When I worked for Leko
from 1998 to 2000 - he was then
already a top ten player - I noticed
how well he was able to play even
with very restricted thinking time. If
you watch Kasparov analysing for five
minutes, his incredible talent can be
observed. If he puts all his effort into a
25-minute game, the result can be
fantastic. He became very emotional
about winning the Paris rapid in 1994
- it really meant a lot to him. In any
tournament he entered, he tried hard.
I agree with Tkachev that in order to
retain their place in the chess hier-
archy, top players like to play down
the value of rapid chess. (Some of
them, while praising the high value of
'regular' games, occupy themselves
with blindfold chess. However, none
of them have tried their luck playing
blindfold in the New York Open. If
they did, I seriously doubt whether
they would win any prizes.)
Admittedly rapid games represent a
lower level of chess than regular
games, and the quality of play can be
badly affected by the time control. But
then, excessively long regular games
can be affected too. Now that all
games are finished in one session -
there are no adjournments, even in
World Championship final matches -
312
the level of endgame play has dropped
significantly, seeing that there is no
time to analyse and the players are
exhausted. Tired players miss simple
wins; surprisingly, some players are
unable to win an ending with an extra
piece.
The database contains 87 rapid
games involving Kasparov in the
period 1993-8. We are disregarding
games against a computer. No dis-
tinction is drawn between games with
sudden death or tie-breaks. Many of
the games were played in elimination
rounds, so in some cases a draw must
have been one of the players' aims.
There must have been a few more
games that Garry played, but a general
picture of his rapid play can be
formed, and the statistics are inter-
esting to examine.
In 1993 in London, Kasparov
defeated Nigel Short 4:0. This was a
rapid match to replace the unnecessary
fmal games of the World Champion-
ship match.
In 1998 in Sofia, Kasparov defeated
Veselin Topalov 4:0.
Garry was the winner of three
knockout rapid tournaments:
Paris 1994
New York 1995
Paris 1995
He was the losing finalist in three
others:
New York 1994
Moscow 1996
Geneva 1996
To complete the picture, he was a
quarter-fmalist in Moscow 1994 and a
semi-fmalist at the same venue the
following year.
Garry played 43 games with White
during this period. He won 24 of
them, drew 15 and lost 4, for a
percentage score of 73'3%, which is

higher than in regular games. Kramnik
beat him twice with Black, Anand and
Dreev once each.
Garry played 44 games with Black,
winning an astonishing 27 and
drawing only 10, of which 5 were
against Kramnik! Anand beat him
three times, as did Kramnik, while
Adams defeated him once. Garry's
percentage with Black - 739% - is
even higher than with White! In
regular games he scores distinctly
better with the white pieces.
He played the highest number of
games (20) against Kramnik. From
these he scored 9 points - he won 3
games and lost 5. Garry's second most
frequent opponent was Anand, against
whom he scored 7Yz points from
14 games. He had White 7 times,
winning 2 games (one by default) and
losing one. When Anand had White,
they gained 3 victories each, and only
one game ended peacefully.
These two super-grandmasters were
on the same level as Kasparov or a
very similar one, but the rest of his
opponents were way behind - as the
statistics show.
Topalov achieved just one draw out
of 6 games. Adams won a game but
lost four. Of the players who played
Garry 4 times, Ivanchuk did best: he
managed to draw once. Nigel Short
was less successful: he lost all 4
games, while Predrag Nikolic did
neither better nor worse.
Kasparov's chess in rapid events
looks somewhat different from his
313
Kasparov's Record: Statistics 1993-1998
regular games. He is able to produce
great concepts, as the Ivanchuk game
from Frankfurt 1998 demonstrates, but
he does it less often. Maybe he keeps
back some of his novelties for use in
regular contests. He creates baffling
complications less frequently; this is
something that can be brought off
more easily with more time. In a way
he has been unfortunate. There were
fewer rapid tournaments in the
1980s when his period of dominance
commenced. He did not participate in
the 1988 World Championship. The
quicker the game, the better the
younger players adapt; during the
early years of his reign as World
Champion, Kasparov could probably
have demolished the field. By 1994
two players had reached his level,
though the rest were a long way
behind. The demolitions achieved
nowadays by Anand suggest that
although Kasparov is clearly the
superior player in regular games,
Anand is more accomplished in rapid.
Interestingly Garry rarely analyses
rapid games. Of course it is very hard
to judge how seriously he prepares for
rapid events, and how much effect
they have on his work on the open-
ings. He would seem to modifY his
style slightly, but on this point it is
very hard for an outsider to form
an opinion. Whatever approach he
adopts, we can still enjoy his games in
rapid. Garry has exceptional class in
this department too.
 Epilogue
A note of appreciation must go to
the commentators whose investig-
ations have considerably helped us.
Most notable are the masterful
analyses of I\.asparov himself. The
analysis in this book was completed
with the aid of computer chess
programs, with the result that some
errors in earlier annotations were
discovered. TPis doesn't mean that
Garry is anything less than a wizard
at analysing; it merely underlines
how wonderful and complicated chess
can be.
We would like to express our grat-
itude to all the people who knowingly
or unwittingly provided the motiv-
ation for writing this book. We owe
special thanks to Dmitry Oleynikov,
my colleague at Intchess Asia in
Singapore. He provided some factual
information and corrected some
inaccuracies. He also approved the
little things we had to say about
Russian culture. His was an important
contribution, as most of the book was
written in Singapore and not in my
home country Hungary.

Index of Openings
(Only complete games are listed; game numbers in bold
indicate that Kasparov had White)

Caro-Kann Defence 9,56

English Opening 52
Evans Gambit 21
French Defence 12
Modem Defence 19
Nirnzo-Indian Defence 5,46,48,53
Petroff Defence 13
Queen's Gambit Accepted 55
Queen's Gambit Declined 6,8,26
Queen's Indian Defence 49
Ruy Lopez 1,2,4,29
Scandinavian Defence 32
Scotch Game 45,47
Sicilian Defence 3,7,15,16,22,28,30,31,34,39,43,54,58,59
Slav Defence 60
Torre Attack 42

314
 Index of Opponents
(Gqme numbers in bold indicate that Kasparov had White)

Almasi 18
Anand 10,21,28,29,30,31,32,34,38,40,43,56
Azmaiparashvi\i 19
Bareev 50
De Firmian 27
Epishin 23
Gelfand 39,49
Graf 42
Ivanchuk 8,59
Kamsky 9, 14
Karpov 46
Kengis 22
Korchnoi 33
Kramnik 15,17,35,48
Nikolic 47
OIl 20
Piket 37,55
Polgar 41,53
Shirov 16,44,54
Short 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,12,51
Sokolov 45
Sutovsky 58
Timman 11,13,60
Topalov 24,57
Vaganian 26
Van Wely 52
Yudasin 36
Yusupov 25

315