Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
defence
by Nigel Davies
EVERYMAN CHESS
Everyman Publishers pic www.everyman.uk.com
First published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers pic, formerly Cadogan Books pic,
Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been as
serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission ofthe publisher.
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, G uilford, CT 06437-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Man
sions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H SHD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: dan@everyman.uk.com
website: www .everyman.uk.com
To Louise
Bibliography 4
Introduction 5
Books
Periodicals
Chesspublishing.com
Jnformators 1-79
The Week in Chess 1-355
INTRODUCTION
I
Reykjavik 1972, Game 13. The Soviet Whilst the Alekhine continued to en
World Champion, Boris Spassky, joy its dubious reputation, strong
opened the game with 1 e4. He was Grandmasters such as Larsen,
losing the match by a 7-5 scoreline but Korchnoi, Bagirov, Timman, Jansa and
had won brilliantly against Fischer's Alburt kept winning with it. But how
favourite Sicilian Najdorf in Game 1 1. could they keep winning with this
And the analytical spotlight ofthe entire dodgy defence? And why were they
Soviet chess machine was now focused even playing it in the first place?
on Fischer's favourite openings... Some years later, not much has
What could Fischer do? changed. The Alekhine's reputation is
He totally wrong-footed Spassky by probably even worse, and now it's the
playing l...lbf6, the so-called Alekhine likes of Miles, Morozevich, De Firmian,
Defence. By the 12th move White was Shabalov, Agdestein, Kengis and Ba
already in a critical position and after a burin who are playing this defence and
tremendous struggle Fischer won. winning. Don't they know any better?
The Fischer-Spassky match was the Eventually there came a point at
event that fanned the flames of my in which I realised that the wisdom of the
terest in chess. I was 12 years old and frog pond was at odds with reality. It
wanted to play like Bobby Fischer, but was nothing but talk, which people re
when I asked more experienced players peated without ever looking at the posi
about this funny knight move, they in tions for themselves. When I finally
variably advised me against playing it. started to check things out I discovered
Their wisdom was confirmed when that the Alekhine is a tough, fighting
most of the books seemed to agree. defence which creates unbalanced posi
This Alekhine Defence was a dubious tions from the outset. And if anything
opening against which White could eas its dodgy reputation was actually quite
ily secure a large advantage. helpful; a lot of people were overconfi-
5
A lekhin e 's De fen c e
dent and sloppy when playing against it. taken the position that most Whites
As far as results are concerned, in should probably want to play either the
practice the Alekhine scores just shy of Exchange Variation or 4t:bf3; all the
50% on my database, which is better other variations are covered mainly
than the French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, from Black's point of view.
Scandinavian and l . eS. Only the Sicil
.. If you are using this book to learn the
ian is marginally ahead, but that in Alekhine, here's how I suggest you go
volves being booked up to the gills and about it:
treading the same paths of so many
other players. From a stylistic point of 1) Play through the games very
view the Sicilian is not for everyone; quickly and ignore the notes and sub
play ohen proceeds at an unremittingly variations. This is to give you a basic
fast pace in which Black's king ohen familiarity with the lines and positions.
comes into the firing line. The Alekhine, 2) Play a few quick games with the
on the other hand, tends to take less Alekhine, either against your computer,
forceful paths in which the greatest on the internet or at your local chess
danger for Black is that of falling into a club, making a brief note of any points
passive position. of interest.
Is the Alekhine the opening for you? 3) Look up the lines which occurred
There is certainly scope within this de in these games and find out exactly
fence for many different styles of what you should have done.
player, though it seems to me that the 4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until you get
ideal Alekhine player should have indi a 'feel' for the defence.
viduality, flexibility, good nerves, fight 5) Start playing it in selected serious
ing spirit and tactical ability. In my games, again using the book as a source
opinion this is not a defence for those of reference.
with either a methodical, systematic way
of thinking or those with very conserva Readers who are already playing the
tive tastes. Alekhine should also find something of
In writing this book I have not tried interest. First of all, I made a decision
to produce either a complete or a schol not to hold anything back, so the notes
arly work. The emphasis has been on contain a number of new ideas and
getting someone up and running if they points at which I disagree with other
want to play the Alekhine as either authors. Secondly, I have tried to point
Black or White, and I have therefore out the lines which I believe are the
concentrated on what I regard the most most logical and promising rather than
promising lines for players of either just list all the possible variations and
colour. Accordingly I have devoted rela adorn them with selected soulless sym
tively little space to the traditional 4 bols.
t:Df3 g4 or even Alburt's 4t:bf3 g6,
concentrating instead on the modern Nigel Davies
treatments with 4 ... dxe5. I have also Southport, October 2001
6
I CHAPTER ONE I
Classical with 4 ... lL.g4
7
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
is also useful for White if Black opts for with 12 ...f5 but this has the drawback of
an early ... fi)c6 (as in Game 5); if, after being very passive. A good example of
d4-d5 plus multiple exchanges, White's how to play White was given by Kiril
queen lands on d5, it will gain a tempo Georgiev in his game against Popov
by hitting Black's bishop on h5. from the 1986 Bulgarian Championship:
On the other hand, 6 h3 is definitely 13 h 1 g6 14 b4 lilc6 15 l:tg1 h8 16
not required in the 'main line', in which :.g2 l.tg8 17 a3 i..h4 18 .i.f3 ltl8e7 19
White recaptures on f3 with a pawn. A "it'd2 a6 20 liJe2 llg7 21 ltlct ltlg8 22
comparison of Games 1 and 2 shows liJd3 and White will gradually advance
that h3 is often a useful square for his queenside pawns.
White when he tries to attack Black's 1 3 .i.d3 g6 14 f5!?
king. Blocking it with a pawn reduces If White tries for a slower build-up in
his options. this position, Black can at least bring a
.------. knight to f5 and might one day be able
Gamel to lever open the f-file with ... f7-f6.
Kobalija-Nalbandian Nevertheless, White must be better, one
Geller Memorial, Moscow 1999 example being 14 h 1 fi)e7 15 l:g1
.___________..
h8 16 1i'f3 fi)bc6 17 a3 fi)f5 18 fi)e2
1 e4 IC!f6 2 e5 IC!d5 3 d4 d6 4 IC!f3 b6 19 l:ac1 with an edge for White in
.i.g4 5 .i.e2 e6 6 0-0 .i.e7 7 c41Clb6 Kruszynski-Gruen, Hamburg 1984 .
8 IC!c3 0-0 9 .i.e3 d5?! 10 c5 .ixf3 14... exf5
1 1 gxf3 After 14 ... gxf5 15 'i'h5 White will
As this game was played in the have a very dangerous attack.
'Geller Memorial', it would have been 1 5 'iVf3 c6 16 >h1 >h8?
more fitting to use Geller's own treat In such a critical position Black must
ment with 1 1 i..xf3. For a discussion of play with the utmost accuracy. He
this plan, see the note to White's 12th should probably take the bull by the
move in Game 2. horns and undermine White's e5-pawn
with 16 .. .f6!?, after which Finkel gave
the line 17 e6 .i.g5 18 l:ae1 .:es 19
.i.xf5!? gxf5 20 i..xg5!? fxg5 21 'i'xf5
lif8 22 'il'g4 "it'f6 23 f4 'i'xd4 24 'i'xg5+
Wh8 25 f5 when it's anybody's guess
what's happening.
1 7 J:g1 IC!a6?1
Black seems to be unaware of the
imminent danger to his king. He had to
try 17 .. .f6!?.
18 .i.xf511Cle7
Accepting the sacrifice with 18 ...gxf5
1 1 /ClcS 1 2 f4 .i.h4
. . loses immediately to 19 i..h6 l:g8 20
Black has also closed the position Axg8+ 'i'xg8 21 l:g1 etc.
8
Classical with 4 ... .i.g4
19 .i.c2lllg8 road.
Or 19 .. .f5 20 'iih 3tbg8 21 lLle2tbc7 29 l:lh4+ ! gxh4 30 l'Oe6+ h5 31
22 lLlf4 with a sacrifice on g6 coming .i.d 1 mate ( 1-0)
up. When White plays these gxf3 lines
he often makes use of the h3-square. Game 2
This is one argument in favour of omit Aseev-Bagirov
ting the moves h2-h3 and ... i.h5. Berlin 1990
9
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
70
Classical with 4 . . . .i.g4
reason Black has slightly more justifica Black can get an excellent position with
tion in playing 13 ...i.. h 4 here. It would Volzhin's suggestion of 17, ..l'jj8e7 18
then be pointless for White to play 14 l'jjxe7+ 'ifxe7! 19 .txc6 bxc6 20 11ff3
.id3 g6 15 f5?! exf5 16 11ff3 c6 17 Wh1 'ife6 {21 .txf4? 11ff5 wins a piece).
h8 18 l:tgl l'jje7. Instead White 1 7 ...J.xf4 18lDxf4lD8e7!
should play 15 11fg4 but Black is still And not 18...li)xd4 because of 19
doing okay after 15 .....t>h8 (Agzamov's .txb7 llb8 20 .i.g2! llxb2 21 'l'g4! with
suggestion of 15 ... h5 16 'i'f3 li)e7 a strong attack.
would also leave White regretting the 19 b3 l:tb8 20 J.e4?!
fact that he couldn't put his queen on
h3) 16 b4 /1)c6 17 :abl h5! 18 'iff3
li)8e7 19 b5 lba5 20 <li>h2 b6 (Diesen
Vaganian, Hastings 1974/75) and now
21 f5 missed the mark after 21.. .exf5 22
f4 {jjg8 23 :g1 4 24 e6 h7 25
exf7 l1xf7 etc.
The stodgy 13 .. .f5 would reduce
White's attacking chances but leave
Black without counterplay. A good ex
ample of how to play these positions
with White was given in the Georgiev
Popov note within the previous game. Overestimating his chances. He
14 f5 should play 20 li)e2 11fd7 21 i..g4 'i'dS
22 f4 (and not 22 'ifd2l'jjxe5) 22 .. .:.fd8
23 i..f3 'ird7 24 i.g4 1i'd5 with a draw
by repetition.
20 ...Wxd41
Black is quite right to want to ex
change queens as after 20...lt:lxd4? 21
1Wg4! White obtains a strong attack.
21 'i*xd4 xd4 22 J:.fd1 l:tfd8 23
J:ld3?
23 l'jjd5 was relatively best, though
Black is still better after 23, l'jje2+! 24
.
77
A lekhln e 's Defenc e
27 /0f4 g6!
Intending to bring his king to f6 from
where it puts pressure on the weak e6-
pawn.
28 l:le1 g7 29 .i.xc6
12
Classical with 4 . . . .t.g4
10 exd6 cxd6 1 1 d5 exd5 12 xdS after 10 ... dxe5 he should resist the
l0xd5 13 ...xd5 is not as good for temptation to play 1 1 cS?! (1 1 lbxeS
White as it might have been because he .i.xe2 12 xe2 li)Sd7 with equality is
is not hitting the bishop on hS. This better) 1 1...exd4 12 cxb6 cS 13 llfd1
allows Black to play 13 ....i.f6 (or maybe 1fe8 14 xd4 cxd4 15 .i.xd4 .i.xe2 16
13 ....i.e6). lbxe2 l0c6 with the better game for
Black in Rabiega-Jansa, Austrian Team
Ch. 1995.
c) 10 exd6 cxd6
10 d2
This allows Black to obtain a very
comfortable position. White's more
challenging options are as follows: and now:
a) 10 b3 and now: cl) The standard 1 1 b3 is fine for
at) 10 . ..Ii)8d7 1 1 h3 (11 llct l:tb8 1 2 Black after 1 1...d5 12 cS (or 12 h3 .i.bS
l:te 1 dxeS 13 xeS xeS 14 .i.xg4 13 eS .ixe2 14 1i'xe2 ll)c6 1 5 llfdl
xg4 15 1Wxg4 16 .i.h6 also gave i.f6 with equality as in Anand
White the freer game in Oratovsky Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee {7th match
Zilberman, Israeli Team Ch. 1996) game} 1994) 12 ...l0c8 13 b4 l0c6 14
l l. .. .i.fS 12 exd6 cxd6 13 l:tel !? h6 14 1i'b3 .i.f6 15 l:lfd1 8e7 16 l:ld2 li)fS
i.d3 i.xd3 15 1i'xd3 l:lc8 161:lad11:le8 as in Dolmatov-Morozevich, Moscow
17 .i.f4 and White had a slight space (rapid) 1995.
advantage in Chandler-Hort, Surakarta c2) 1 1 d5!? i.xf3 {1 1...e5 produces a
1982, though it is difficult to achieve position very much akin to Hamdouchi
anything because Black's structure is Baburin, but having the pawn on a6 is
flexible and sound. of doubtful value) 12 ..ixf3 lllxc4 1 3
a2) Alternatively Black can play dxe6 fxe6 14 ..tg4 1id7 15 1i'e2 lbe5 16
10...d5, after which 1 1 c5lb6d7 12 li)d2 ..th3l0bc6 17 f4 lilf7 18 ..tb6 fd8 19
.i.fS 1 3 f4 f6 1 4 li)f3 (14 g4!? is more dS and White had more than enough
aggressive) 14 ... fxe5 15 fxeS li)c6 16 for the pawn in Ulibin-Kengis, Pinsk
.i.d3 b6 gave him equality in Spasov 1986.
Ehlvest, Biel Interzonal 1993. 10 ..i.f5
.
13
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
14
Classical with 4 . . . .t.g4
have some pawn weaknesses here. 13 'ife2 l:.c8 14 b3 fS?! (simply 14. . 0-0.
8 . . cxd6 9 c3 J/.e7
. looks like a possible improvement) 15
In view of the apparent strength of g4!. Bologan introduced 11 g4 in a sub
White's reply, Black might also consider sequent game against Agdestein.
9 .lLlc6!?, after which 10 dS exdS 1 1
.. 1 1 ....i.g6 1 2 h4 h5
cxdS .ixf3 1 2 .ixf3 5 leads t o posi Bologan-Agdestein, Yerevan Olym
tions similar to the next game, Nguyen piad 1996 continued 12 ... h6 13 .id3!
Anh Dung-Anastasian. 'ifc8!? (13 ...i.xd3 14 'ifxd3 'ilc8 15 b3
10 d5! 11'xg4 16 ltg1 hS 17 llxg7 fS is
strongly met by 18 ltlbS! e4 19 1fd4
etc.) 14 i.xg6 fxg6 15 l[)d2 0-0
(15 ...l[)xc4? 16 'ifa4+ wins the knight)
16 b3 lZ.f4 17 gS! and White stood
clearly better because of his mighty grip
on the e4-square.
,5
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
28 ...:cxe4
The only move. Both 28 ... axb6 29
i..xc4 9xc4+ 30 'i'e2 and 28 ... i..xe4 29
i..xc4 1i'xc4+ 30 'i'e2 are hopeless for
Black.
29 xe4 .txe4 30 .txa7 'irf5 31
'ird4! tOes 32 :g3 i.xd5 33 .tg4
'irxg5 34 .tf3 'irxg3!?
Although this is partly as prophylaxis With both sides in time-trouble,
against Black moving his f-pawn, the Black tries his last chance. After
rook may also become an attacking 34 ...1lre5 35 'ifxe5 :XeS 36 i..xd5 1lxd5
piece in some lines. 37 i..xc5 dxc5 38 1lb1 Black's position
1 6 ...bd7 1 7 b4!? e4!? is hopeless.
Both sides play sharply and the game 35 fxg3 .txf3 36 i.xc5
gets thrown out of its 'normal' pattern. 36 lle1 is probably simpler though
The alternative was 17...lDe4. White should be winning in any case.
1S d2 d3+ 1 9 Wt1 lt:lxb4 20 36 ... dxc5 37 'irf4 .i.xh5 3S :e1
dxe4 0-0 21 .td4 :as 22 a3 a6 :xe1 + 39 xe 1 i.g6
23 .i.xh5 :xc4 24 .te2 'ireS!?
Black must act with urgency before
the storm breaks on the kingside. After
24 ...1lc8 25 h5 i..xe4 26ltlxe4lLlac5 27
lLlg3! White's knight will come to f5
with a ferocious attack.
25 h51
Ignoring Black's offer of the ex
change as aher 25 i..xc4 ...xc4+ 26 Wg2
lL!dcS Black obtains some counterplay
25 ....tf5 26 :g3 .i.fS 27 :e3 b6
28 .i.xb6
16
Classical with 4 . . . J..g 4
.ig4 5 ..te2 e6 6 0-0 lLlc6 1 c4 lLlb6 Snatching the h-pawn with 19...i.xh4
8 exd6 cxd6 9 d5 exd5 1 0 cxd5 is obviously quite risky after 20 l:r.h3,
..txf3 1 1 .i.xf3 but it's by no means clear that this
White can also consider 1 1 gxf3!?, af would be bad.
ter which 1 1 ...5?! 12 i.bS+ d7 20 Wg4?!
{12 ...lLlbd7 loses a piece after 13 f4lLlg6
14 fS lLlgeS 15 'ife2 followed by f2-f4)
13 1i'd4 1i'f6 14 l:e1 + i.e7 15 1i'xf6
gxf6 16 3 gave White the better end
game in Vogt-Uddenfeldt, Skopje
Olympiad 1972.
17
A lekhine 's Defen c e
Game 6
Zarnicki-Malbran
Argentine Ch., Buenos Aires 1998
30 -.e5
Unfortunately for White he is forced
to enter what is probably a losing end
game. After 30 'ife3 there is 30 ... 'ifg6!
3 1 g4 ...d6! when Black obtains a win
ning attack.
30 ...-.xe5 31 .i.xe5 ltlf2 32 J:txd5
ltlxd1 33 J:txd1 J:te1 34 J:txe1 J:txe 1 +
35 h2 l0f6 36 .i.e3 b6 37 .i.e6 Salo Flohr's favourite line, which re
lld 1 38 g4 o!Od5 39 .i.e5 f6 40 .i.b8 ceived enthusiastic support in Burgess's
%ld2+ 41 g3 l087 42 .i.b5 J:txb2 books on the Alekhine.
43 .i.e7 6 e4
The simplest approach, which gives
White an edge without getting involved
in murky complications.
White's sharpest line is 6 lLlgS .tfs
(6....txe2 7 1Wxe2 is better forWhite) 7
e6 fxe6 8 g4 (8 J.. hS+ g6 9 g4 has also
been played but it seems fine for Black
after 9 ... J..xc2 10 ...xc2 gxhS l t lLlxe6
11fd7) 8 ..tg6 9 .td3 J..xd3 10 9xd3
..
18
Classical with 4 . . . i.g4
gave White attacking chances in Keres fence of his kingside) 8 1Fxe2 h6 9ltlf3
Bhend, Zurich 1968) 1 1 e6 1i'd7 12 dxe5 10 dxe5 e6 1 1 0-0 ltl8d7 12 i.f4,
'i'e2 f7 13ltlg5+ g8 14 l:lg1ltla6 15 which was rather good for White in
t!t.1c3 lieS, De Firmian-Bw-gess, Gausdal Emst-Urday, Manila Olympiad 1992.
1995, and now White's best is probably 7 ...8d7
16 f4, as De Firmian suggested aher After 7 ... dxe5 8 ltlxe5 White has a
the game. pleasant space advantage and the at
One of the points of Black's system tempt to grab a pawn with 8 ...i.xe2 9
is that the 'natural' 6 0-0 can be met by 'iVxe21ixd4 gave White a strong attack
6... xf3 7 xf3 dxe5 8 dxe5 e6 after 10 ltldf3 1i'c5 11 0-0 f6 12 i.e3
producing a position in which White's 'WaS 13 i.d2 a6 14 b3! fxe5 15ltlxe5
bishops have little scope and the e5- lbsd7 16 11"h5+ g6 17 ltlxg6 ltlf6 1 8
pawn is weak. One example is lvanovic '4ih3 i n Marczell-Krecak, correspon
Kovacevic, Yugoslav Ch., Subotica dence 1986.
1984, which went 9 'ife2 liJd7 10 g3
1Fc7 1 1 l:le1 i.c5 1 2 ltld2 0-0 13 ltlb3
.i.b6 14 c4ltle7 {this is often a key ma
noeuvre for Black; the knight can come
to g6 from where it hits e5) 15 d2 aS
16 i.c3 a4 1 7 ltld2 i.a5!, exchanging
off White's dark-squared bishop, which
is a crucial defender of e5.
6 ...b6
8 exd6
The simple move, aiming for an ex
change variation in which Black's pieces
are rather passively placed- Black is
unable to aim for the traditional coun
terplay against d4 based on ...ltlc6.
Once again White can play the sharp
8 g5 i.f5 (8 ... i.xe2?! allows 9 e6! after
which 9 ... fxe6 10 'Wxe2 is clearly better
7 bd2 for White) with unclear consequences
White has an interesting alternative in after 9 e6 fxe6 10 g4 i.g6 1 1ltlxe6 (this
7 ltlgS!? i.xe2 (7 ... i.f5?! is not as good time 1 1 i.d3 is unavailable) ll ...'WcS
with the moves c2-c4 and ...ltlb6 etc.
thrown in as after 8 e6 fxe6 9 g4 i.g6 The line 8 h3 i.xf3 9 f3 dxe5 10
10 i.d3 i.xd3 1 1 xd3 Black's knight dxeS e6 is better for White than the
cannot come to f6 to help with the de- positions arising from 6 0-0 i.xf3 be-
19
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
cause his knight on f3 lends support to .i.g5! i.xg5 {2l. ...i.xf3? 22 J.xf6 gxf6
the e5-pawn. Even so, rd prefer to 23 gxf3 is even worse) 22 ll:lxg5 1i'e7
avoid them with White because Black's (or 22 ... g6?! 23 J.g8!) 23 h4 etc.
pieces would operate quite nicely on the 19 ...J..xf3 20 Wxf6??
dark squares. This is the point ofWhite's previous
8 ... exd6 9 0-0 J..e 7 1 0 a4!? move, but unfortunately he has missed
An interesting move which aims to something. It wasn't too late to bail out
create weaknesses in Black's queenside with 20 'ffxf3.
and bring the at-rook into play via a3. 20...gxf6 21 :xeS+ g7
Black's reply creates a 'hole' on b4, but Is this what White had missed? Of
his knights are too far away for this to course Black cannot play 21. ..:xe8??
be a problem for White. because of 22 i.h6 mate.
1 0 ... a5 1 1 .J:e1 0-0 1 2 .J:a3 :es 1 3 22.J:8e7 Wc8
.J:e3 Wc7 Black has a queen for a rook and
The game Yudasin-Timoshenko, Po everything seems to be clear, but the
dolsky 1989 went 13 ...lDf8 14 1i'b3! fun is just beginning!
.i.e6 1 5 .i.d3 :bs 16 1i'c2 d5 (maybe 23 J..d 3 'W'g4 24 J..n :9&!? 25 h3
16 ...1i'c7 was better) 1 7 c5 lDbd7 18 'W'h5 26 gxf3 Wxf3?
lDb3, intending 19 .i.d2, with a strong 26 ...h8+ 27 Wh2 1i'g6 forces mate.
initiative. Another possibility is 13...ll:lf6 27 .J:7e4 h8+ 28 .J:g4 .J:[xg4+ 29
but this still looks nice for White after hxg4 Wxg4+ 30 2 Wh4+ 31 g 1
14 1i'c2 .i.h5 1 5 .i.d3 etc. 'W'xd4 32 b3 Wg4+ 33 J..g 2 l0d7 34
14 J..d 3 lOt& 1 5 Wc2 J..h 5 1 6 lCJe4 J..b2 lC!e5 35 :e3 'W'd1 + 36 J..f 1
lC!xe4 1 7 J..xe4 J..f6 1 8 J..xh7+ 8 lCJf3+ 37 Wg2 lCJh4+ 38 Wg 1 Wg7
1 9 Wf5?! 39 .J:[g 3+ Wf8 40 J..xf6 lCJf3+ 41
Wg2lCJe5
20
Classical with 4 . . . g4
21
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
'ifd4! i.xf3 9 'ifxg7 l:tf8 10 gxf3lD8d7 off one of his attacking pieces with 10
1 1 .i.gS i.e7 12 llgl, Vitolins-Bagirov, llJxd7} 9 ...lD8d7 (or 9 ...e6 10 llJc2) 10
J urmala 1985} 8 lDc3 exdS 9 cxdS c6 llJf3 with good play for the pawn.
and now: 6... exd6
6 ... e6. The move with independent sig Without having a light-squared
nificance is 6 ... dxe5 7llJxe5 (Aiekhine bishop on the board, l l . .. dS? is very
played 7 cS e4 8 cxb6 exf3 9 i.xf3 bad for Black because of 12 c5lL!c4 13
i.xf3 10 1i'xf3 in an earlier game against 0-0-0 and the dS-pawn is lost (Wed
Euwe, but in his notes pointed out that berg-Sandstrom, Stockholm 1998).
Black should have answered this with An idea worth considering is
10 ...llJc6) 7 ... i.xe2 8 1i'xe2 1i'xd4 1 1 ...llJa5 12 b3 c6 (maybe even
(Aiekhine-Reshevsky, Kemeri 1937}. 12 ...llJc6!?, arguing that the weakening
Now Alekhine felt that he should have of White's queenside with b2-b3 is an
played 9llJa3! (in the game he played 9 achievement), after which Mortensen
0-0 and aher 9 ...lL!Sd7 had to exchange gives 1 3 i.d3 d5 14 cS llJd7 1 5 tiffS!?
22
Classical with 4 . .. g4
14 a3?!
After this Black can equalise with ac
curate play. Mortensen claimed that he
could have kept a slight edge with 14 20 l:lad8
..
23
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
Summary
Whilst 4 . .i.g4 remains more or less playable, it has come under pressure from so
. .
many different directions that I find it very difficult to recommend. For anyone
playing White I'd suggest adopting either Monensen's 5 c4 or Bologan's 9 dS. If
Black plays the Flohr Variation with 5 c6 then Emsts 6 c4 li)b6 7 gS!? looks
...
very prom1smg.
6 0-G
6 h3 .i.hS 7 c4 b6 8 exd6 cxd6 9 3 .i.e7 10 dS (D) - Game 4
6 ....i.a7
6...6 7 c4 b6 8 exd6 cxd6 9 c:l5 Game 5 -
7 c4 lilb6 8 lilc3
8 h3 .i.hS 9 li)c3 0-0 10 .i.e3 dS 1 1 cS .i.xf3 12 gxf3 c8- Game 2
a . o-o 9 .ia3 d5 (D)
..
9 a6 - GameJ
..
5 .ie2 10 d5 9... d5
24
I CHAPTER TWO I
Classical Kengis System:
4...dxe5 5 ttJxe5 g6
25
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
4...g6 5 .i.c4 c6. Many white players 0-0 and now Psakhis's recommendation
may want to cut down their workload of 10...lLic7 (10 ...lLid7 is also playable)
by playing just one set-up against both 1 1 .i.xe6 lLixe6 12 c3 ds looks fine
of Black's move orders. for Black.
7 0-0 J.g7
Black has also tried 7 ...lLid7 8 ti)f3
lLI7b6 9 i.b3 i.g4 but the knight on b6
is not very well placed. The point is that
Black will usually want to advance his
queenside pawns in this type of posi
tion, to compliment the activity of his
bishop on g7.
8 l:le1 0-0 9 c3
6 ...c6
Black has to be careful to protect the
knight on dS. 6....i.g7?? loses to 7lL\xf7
r.txf7 8 f3+ e6 9 e4+ etc.
Having said that Black does have an
other move in 6 ....i.e6 and aher 7llX3
(given an exclamation mark by most
sources) to play 7 ... c6 (aher 7 ....i.g7?! 8
4 White threatens to put his knight
on g5 and 8 ....i.xe5 9 dxe5llc6 10 b3! 9 ...J.e6
llxe5 1 1 j.b2 f6 12 i.xe5 fxe5 13 lDc5 Black has a major alternative in
wins back the pawn with a huge advan 9...lLid7 aher which Ostojic-Bagirov,
tage). Aher 7 ...c6 White has a choice: Neu lsenburg 1992 continued instruc
a) The immediate 8 lle4 can be an tively with 10 lLI3 (exchanging knights
swered by 8 ...lDc7, when Godena with 10 lbxd7 eases Black's position)
Vaganian, Reggio Emilia 1994/95 went 10 ...lLI7b6 11 i.fl .i.g4 12 lLibd2 e6
9 i.xe6 lL\xe6 10 f3 f6 1 1 Wb3 ds (with the light-square bishop ex
12 xb7 xe4+ 1 3 .ie3 .i.g7 14 1i'xa8 changed, Black puts his pawns on light
fxe5 1 5 1i'xb8+ f7 1 6 'l'b4 'irxg2 17 squares) 1 3 h3 j.xf3 14 ti)xf3 lieS
0-0-0 exd4 1 8 i.d2 1l'd5 19 'irb3 lidS (playing for ...c6-c5) 15 c4li:Je7 16 b3
and Black has good compensation, even lLif5 17 .ie3 and now Black should
in the endgame. probably play 17 ...li:Jxe3 (in the game
26
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4 . . . dx e5 5 tll x e 5 g 6
his 1 7...c5 was met by 1 8 i.g5 i.f6 19 After this Black has to be very care
i.xf6 'iixf6 20 dxc5 l:txc5 21 'iid2 with ful.
an edge for White) 18 fxe3 c5 when 1 6 lbd5?!
..
45 lbe1
Time-trouble? After 45 hxg5 i..xf3
46 'i'xf3 (and not 46 gxf6+? llxf6 47
gxf3 'i'h4+ 48 itg2 llxd6 etc.)
27
A lekhine 's Defen c e
28
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4 . . . dxe5 5 liJ x e 5 g 6
29
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
:.ect with good chances of saving the In the line 52 ...b5 53 :xe4 fxe4+
game. He soon regrets the opportunity 54 e2 Black queens first and delivers
to exchange this knight as it promptly mate with 54 ... b2! 55 a7 b1'il' 56 aS'il'
heads for the e4-square. 'il'cl3+ 57 Wet c3.
26 l0f6! 27 c4 lOe4 28 l:tc2 l:ld3
30
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4 . . . dx e 5 5 IC.xe5 g 6
the game going 1 1 ltlf3 l17b6 12 a4 1i'e2 but then 19....i.xc3! 20 bxc3 (or 20
'irc7 (12 ...i.g4 is possible) 13 i.gS .i.g4 .ixdS xdS 21 l:c4 'irb5 22 bxc3
14 ltlbd2 c5 (one of Black's key levers) ltlxc3 etc.) 20... lL1xc3 21 'ire 1 l:tdl is
1 5 h3 .i.xf3 16 'irxf3 e6 17 c4 (starting a simply terrible.
sequence which wins material but crip 19 e6 20 .i.g5 l:tdc8 21 l:tae1 Wa5
..
31
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
The losing move. White has to play f6 15 .i.d3 e6 with a very solid posi
48 ...xc6 bxc6 49 .tfJ with a draw as tion and chances to get counterplay
the likely outcome. with a later ...c6-c5.
48 .. :ifxd6 49 .l:lxd6 lllh5 50 .l:ld7+ 8 lhdf3 0-0 9 0-0 li:ld7
h6 51 g2
10 l0d3
51 ...f4 52 gxf4 lhxf4+ 53 1 g5 The most difficult move for Black to
54 .l:lxb7 llh8 0-1 meet; White avoids any freeing ex-
After 55 l:b5+ f6 56 llb6+ eS 57 changes and posts the knight on a
llb5+ d6 Black's king escapes the square from which it inhibits ...c6-c5.
checks and 58 llgS is met by 58 ...lth2 After 10 llel xeS 1 1 xeS (1 1 dxeS
59 :g4 l:tf2+ etc. .i.g4 12 h3 i.xf3 13 ...xf3 e6 14 i.b3
,...----. c7 15 1i'e4 llad8 followed by dou-
Game 11 bling rooks on the d-file gave Black a
Nijboer-Vaganian very easy game in Magomedov-Kengis,
Dutch League 2001 Frunze 1989) 1t. ...te6 Black has a very
....______________. comfortable game, for example:
1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 l0f3 a) Adams-Agdestein, Oslo 1994
dxe5 5 l0xe5 g6 6 .i.c4 c6 7 l0d2 continued 12 .tb3 a5 13 c3 c7 14
The knight comes to the support of d3 .tfS 15 i.gS llfe8 16 'Wd2 a4 with
its compatriot on eS. 7 0-0 .tg7 8 d2 Black already starting to take the initia
is less precise as after 8...d7 White tive.
cannot play 9 d3 because his d-pawn b) The bishop is not very well placed
would hang. on b3 so it might be better to play 12
7 . . ..i.g7 .tft 'Wc8 13 .td2 lld8 14 c3 with
Black can also regroup with 7....te6 8 equality, as in Conquest-Maus, Copen
4 c7, before White is ready to hagen 1990.
meet ....i.e6 with gS. Egger-Petrov, c) On the other hand 12 c3 allows
World Junior Ch., Buenos Aires 1992 Black a some tactics with 12 ...i.xe5! 13
continued 9 i.e2 .idS 10 i.d3 i.g7 1 1 dxeS c3! 1 4 ...xd8 l:Uxd8 1 5 i.xe6
0-0 0-0 12 c3 1Lld7 13 f4 i.xe4 14 i.xe4 2+ 16 'it1 xc1 17 i.xf7+ xf7 18
32
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4 . . . dxe5 5 liJ x e 5 g 6
l:laxcl e6 with much the better rook 16 a4 'W"b6 17 ..i.c4 ltae8?! 18 l:e2 'W"d8
endgame. 19 ..i.d2 and now 19 ...e5? 20 ..i.xd5 cxd5
1 0 ...7b6 1 1 .tb3 21 11rxd5 exd4 22 ltxe8 ltxe8 23 cxd4
lLlb6 24 'i'xd8 ltxd8 25 ..i.xaS leh Black
a pawn down.
1 5 .a5 16 a4 l:le8 1 7 l:le1 9b6 1 8
..
.tc4 'flc7
The knight on d3 is making life diffi
cult for Black. If 18 ...c5? there is 19
JlbS, winning a pawn. Black decides to
bail out into an endgame in which the
bishops slightly favour White.
1 9 'ifxc7 xc7 20 .tf4 l:lec8 21
l:lad1 b5! ?
1 1 ....tg4?!
This may not be the best and I tend
to agree with Burgess's sentiment that
Black should probably want to ex
change the d3-knight. For this reason
l l...aS 12 a4 ..i.fS! is probably better,
aher which Arnason-Kengis, Jurmala
1987 continued 13 lte 1 ..i.xd3 14 ..xd3
e6 15 ..i.gS Wc7 (aher eliminating the d3
knight, Black will find it easier to play
...c6-c5) 16 11'e4 lbc8 17 c4 lLld6 18
11'e2 lLlb4 19 lladl llfe8 20 11'd2 lLlfS Despite the dangers posed by the
with excellent counterplay. bishops, Vaganian plays in aggressive
1 2 c3 e6 and double-edged fashion. Obviously
12 . a5 would give rise to similar play
. . there are deep risks associated with this
to the game. kind of play and Vaganian has to walk
1 3 h3 .txf3 1 4 Wlxf3 d7 1 5 Wlg3 the tightrope in the later stages of this
There is a major alternative in 15 game.
lte1, aher which Kolev-Panchenko, 22 .tb3 .tf8 23 lla1 5 24 .tg3
Villalba 1996 continued in somewhat l:ta7 25 lle2 llca8 26 f3 llb7 27
artificial vein: 15 ...a5 (15 ... b5 16 g3 a5 . .i.f2 llc7 28 g3 5b6 29 Wg2 xa4
17 a3 :e8 1 8 h4 hs 19 .tgs i..f6 20 I'm not sure Black should have done
..i.d2 a4 21 ..i.a2 'ile7 was an earlier this as his queenside pawns are now
Panchenko game as Black against split. He probably got tired of waiting;
Kruppa from the 1990 Ukrainian in any case this isn't much for White.
Championship; no doubt he got the 30 .txa4 bxa4 31 l:lxa4 lOb& 32
idea to play ...e6-e5 aher this encounter) lla2 a4 33 f4 .i.d6 34 llc2 llb7 35
33
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
Game 12
Miles-Pons
Andorra 1996
...._
.. _________...... 6 ...g7
1 e4 I.Of6 2 e5 I.Od5 3 d4 d6 4 I.Of3 Once again it's possible to play
dxe5 5 /.Oxe5 g6 6 I.Od2 6...d7, after which 7 lbxd7 'ifxd7!? 8
With a huge slab of irony, Miles f3 .tg7 9 i.e2 1i'd6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1
awarded this move two exclamation lle1 cS 1 2 dxcS xeS 1 3 c4 lbb4 1 4 a3
marks in Informator 67 and splattered c6 15 b4 was a bit better for White in
more exclamation marks over the rest Ricardi-Speelman, FIDE World Ch.,
of the game. Later on he switched sides Las Vegas 1999.
and showed how to equalise with the 7 1.0df3
black pieces. 7 i.c4 0-0 8 M3 c6 9 0-0 dl
Another quiet line is 6 g3 and now: would have transposed into the previ
a) Plaskett-Hillarp Persson, St Helier ous game, Nijboer-Vaganian.
1999 continued 6 ... lbd7!? 7 lbf"3 (1 .tg2 7 ...0-0 8 c4 I.Ob6 9 e2 I.Oad7 1 0
34
Classical K engis S ys tem: 4 . . . dx e 5 5 li:J x e 5 g 6
.i.f4 xe5
When Miles played Black in this posi
tion (K.ofidis-Miles, Agios Nikolaos
1997} he preferred 10 ...c5 and got
slightly the better of it after 1 1 dS liJxeS
12 .i.xe5 .i.xeS 13 ltJxeS 9d6 14 liJf3
e6 etc. The implication is that 6 liJd2
doesn't refute the Kengis Variation after
all.
1 1 xe5 d7 1 2 'it'd2 xe5 1 3
.i.xe5 .i.xe5 14 dxe5 'it'xd2+ 1 5
xd2 .i.e& 1 6 c3
36 b4
Surprisingly the pawn endgame is a
draw. Miles gave the variation 36 b6
d6 37 f3 g5 38 b3 e6 39 xa6 c6 40
a7 'l;c7 41 a6 e4 42 fxe4 e5 43 aS
c8 with no further progress possible.
36 . . .cxb4 37 c5 b3 38 c6+ d6 39
c7 b2 40 cS'it' b1'it'+ 41 a7 'it'b5
42 'it'xa6+ 'it'x86+ 43 xa6 c6 44
f3 g5 45 a7 c7 46 86 c6 47
87 c7 Y.z -Yz
35
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
A tough line for Black to meet. White ter which Grischuk-Baburin, Torshavn
takes the lion's share of the centre and 2000 went 9 ...c5!? {9....i.f5 is also possi
puts the onus on Black to find decent ble but relatively passive) 10 .i.e2 cxd4
counterplay. 1 1 .ixd4 i.h6 12 lta1 6 13 ltJg4 i.xg4
6 ...l0b6 7 l0c3 .ig7 8 .ie3 14 i.xg4 c6 15 .i.c5 lbe5 16 .i.e6+
In the game Gallagher-Kengis, Bern g7 17 lbds lL'Ixds 18 cxds 'ifaS+ 1 9
1992 White varied with 8 1Lf4 0-0 9 b4 'ti'a6 20 'ife2 d3+ 21 cla>f1 xeS 22
1Le2 aS!? 10 h4?! (simply 10 0-0 is bet bxc5 and now 22 ...'ifa5 looks interest
ter), after which 1 0...llk6! left White ing (in the game Baburin was much
struggling for equality. The game con worse after 22 ...111xe2+ 23 cJilxe2 b6 24
tinued 1 1 lt.Jxc6 bxc6 12 .i.e5 i.xe5 1 3 c6 .i.f4 25 d3).
dxe5 i.e6! 14 b3 ...xd1+ 15 l:txd1 a4 9 ... f6
and now, according to Volzhin, 16 0-0
was probably the best chance as after
16 ... axb3 17 axb3 lta3 1 8 l:lb1 .i.xc4 19
i.xc4 lL'Ixc4 20 bxc4 .:xc3 21 l:.fcl!
l:lxc 1 + 22 lbc1 White should be able to
draw.
8 ...0-0
The alternatives are 8 ... c5, 8 ... c6
and 8 ...i.e6, all of which will be looked
at in the next game.
9 .f3
A typical judit Polgar move, intend
ing to castle long. 10 l0d3
Another sharp move is 9 f4, support 10 xg6 doesn't work after 10 ... hxg6
ing the knight on e5: 1 1 c5 lb6d7! 12 i.c4+ ltf7 (and not
a) Gdanski-Tomaszewski, Naleczow 12 ... h7? 13 1i'h3+ followed by mate).
1988 continued 9 ...lL'I6d7 10 'it'f3 c5 1 1 1 0 ...e5!
0-0-0 ...aS 12 ltJxd7 xd7 1 3 .i.f2 ltb8 Quite right. Black has the better de
14 i.e2 and now 14 ... b5!? looks velopment so he opens the game up.
interesting (in the game Black played 1 1 dxe5 fxe5 1 2 ..d1 l0c6 13 l0c5
14...cxd4 1 5 i.xd4 eS 16 fxe5 ltJxe5 but e8
was slightly worse after 17 'ifd5). A slightly odd-looking move, though
b) Another possibility is 9 ... c6, after it turns out to be okay. Black can also
which Pokojowczyk-Tomaszewski, Pol put his knight in the middle with
ish Ch. 1980 continued 10 3 f6 1 1 13 ...d4. In any case he has an excel
ltJg4 i.e6 12 b3 .i.xg4 1 3 1i'xg4 f5 14 lent game.
...g3 e6 1 5 l:d1 ...e7 16 i.e2 ltJ8d7 17 14 lbd5 f7 1 5 l0e4 .if5 1 6 lOgS
0-0 a5 with counterplay on the queen 'ifd7 1 7 l0xb6 'ifxd1 + 1 8 ltxd1
side. axb6 1 9 c5
White's other possibility is 9 :let, af- Opening up the c4-square for the
36
Classical Kengis Sys tem: 4 . . . dx e5 5 t0xe5 g 6
f4 c6 10 1ib3 0-0 1 1 ..te2 8d7 12 0-0 aher which 17 llb2 1la6 18 xeS?! (18
llJf6 13 lladl with the better game for lldl) 18 bxc5 19 lbb7 e6 leaves him
..
37
A lekhin e 's De fen c e
Cutting Black's king off. White's h forget about the Kengis Variation alto
pawn carries the day...just! gether.
43 ...Wd5 44 l:le8 llh2 45 Wg5 'd6 7 c4
46 h6 llg2+ 47 '16 llf2+ 48 'g7 The critical line. If White plays 7 .i.c4
llg2+ 49 Wh8 Wd7 50 llg8 llh2 51 there follows 7...J.g7 {7...c6 8 0-0 ltld7
h7 we& 52 'g7 l:tg2+ 53 Wt8 llf2+ 9 3 .i.g7 10 l:td1 .i.xeS 1 1 .i.xdS
38
Classical Kengis S ys tem: 4 . . . dxe 5 5 (i)xe5 g 6
i.xclS 12 lC!xclS .tg7 w as also very 1 1 . .. c5!? is the other possibility and
comfortable for Black in Sherzer looks massively complicated.
Panchenko, Chicago 1992) 8 li)c3 (8 ().() 9 1ixa8
c6 9 l:te1 lC!d7 10 lbxdl xd7 1 1 c3 White has to take the rook if he
0-0 12 i.g5 l:tfe8 13 h3 lbc7 14 lC!d2 wants anything out the opening. 9
.i.d5 1 5 i.xdS cxclS and Black had an 11fxb4 Wxe5+ 10 .i.e2 lL'Id7 1 1 lbc3
excellent game in Luther-Bagirov, Len .tg7 12 0-0 0-0 13 .i.e3 llab8 gave
ingrad 1989) 8 ... c6, which transposes Black excellent play in Ziska-Flindtholt,
into the 6....te6 note in Mukhametov Festuge 1991.
Bagirov (see Game 8).
7 ltJb4 8 'irxb7
.
This feels right to me; it keeps Black's 14 We1 ltld4 1 5 .i.d3 ltJbc6 16 ltld5
pieces centralised and all his options %1b8?
open. 8 ...lbc2+ 9 dl lDxa1 10 Wxa8 A serious mistake. Black should play
.i.g7 1 1 ..td2 (1 1 ... b7, mentioned by 16 .. ..txcl5 17 cxclS WxciS with excellent
.
39
A lekhin e 's Defen ce
26 f4
Ernst is fighting for his life. 26 g3
lDxg3 is not an improvement.
26 .loxf4 27 c5 We5 28 l:lf3
.
17 'ita&?
White in turn misses his chance. He
can simply play 17 lLlxe7+! lLlxe7 {or
17...'f8 18 lLlxc6) 18 11t'xb8+, winning
on the spot. 28 ... Wxe3
1 7 ... .ih6 1 8 1 .ixe3 19 l:le1 .if5 This certainly ought to be good
20 .ixf5 'itxf5 2 1 lDxe3 enough but 28 ...lDxg2+ butchers White
After 2 1 lbe3 there is a good old on the spot.
fashioned mating combination with 29 :hf1 l:lxg2+ 30 Wh1 l:lg1 +?
2 1...'ifb1+ 22 l:te1 'ifd3+ 23 g1 + A jolly amusing way to draw a win
24 fl (or 24 l::xe2 11'd1+ etc.) ning position. 30 ...11'd2 is decisive.
24. ../t)g3+ 25 g1 11'fl+ 26 .Lf1 lDe2 31 >h2 l:lg2+?
mate. And here 31. ..11'd2+ 32 lUf2 l:tg2+
21 'itd3+ 22 Wg1 l:lxb2 23 h3
. WlnS.
'itd2 24 :n ltle2+ 25 Wh2 'itd&+ 32 Wh1 l:lg1 + 33 >h2 l:lg2+ %-%
40
Classical K eng is System: 4 . . . dx e5 5 lfjxe5 g 6
Summary
The Kengis Variation has become the workhorse of most of the Alekhine profes
sionals. The primitive 6 ..f3 looks very dangerous for White and against 6 .i.c4
Black gets a solid position with fighting chances. My greatest concern is about the 6
c4 lines, but Black can actually sidestep these by adopting a 4 g6 5 .t.c4 c6 move
..
order.
8...c5 - Game 14
6 ...c6 7 0..0
7 tnd2 ..tg7 8 llldf3 ()..() 9 ()..() end? lO lbd3 (D) - Game 1 1
7 . . ..ig7 8 D.e1 0-0 9 J.b3
9 c3 - Game S
9 ... a5
9 ...te6 - Game 9
..
41
I CHAPTER THREE I
Classical with 4 . dxe5 5 ltJxe5:
. .
42
Classical with 4 . . . dx e5 5 l0xe5: 5 . . .li::J d 7 and 5 . . . c6
doubt prompted by the thought that The only move. 7 .. .<g8?? 8 1llxd5+
Larsen must have analysed the sacrifice leads to mate and 7 ...g6 8 'irxdS+ wins a
at home. After the game analysts pored pawn for nothing.
over the sacrifice and Tal was criticised 8 c4
for having avoided what was probably a During the Larsen game, Tal spent
'winning' line. But more than twenty some time analysing 8 g3 but the posi
years later, the English amateur Peter tion is far from clear after 8... b5! and
Sowray started playing 5 ...ltXI7, and now:
suddenly people weren't quite that sure.
a) 9 b3 b4 10 a3 lD7f6 1 1 .ih3+ d6
6 liJxf7l? 12 1i'e5+ c6 13 .ig2 was played in
Tal played 6 .ic4 after which van der Angelov-Orev, correspondence 1961,
Wiel's suggestion of 6...llJxe5 7 dxeS c6 and now Black should have defended
8 'irf3 'irc7 may be Black's best. himself with 13 ...1i'd6!.
Many strong practical players have b) 9 a4 c6! (Greiner-Sowray, corre
decided simply to avoid an exchange of spondence 1988 varied with 9....ib7 10
their knight on eS with 6 lDf3, after i.h3+ d6 1 1 1i'f7 cS 12 llJc3 lDxc3 13
which 6 ... e6 (6 ... c5 7 c4 lD5f6 8 d5 llJe4 1i'e6+ r:llc7 14 .if4+ r:llc8 15 bxc3 gS,
9 .i.d3 llJd6 10 0-0 g6 1 1 l:le1 ..tg7 12 but now 16 dxcS gxf4 17 0-0-0 would
.igS llJf6 13 llJcJ was also nice for have won on the spot; Burgess has sug
White in Pavosovic-Hillarp Persson, gested 9... b4 but this awaits practical
European Team Ch., Batumi 1999) 7 g3 tests) 10 axbS g6 1 1 'ite2+ r:l/f7 12 bxc6
.ie7 (7... b6 8 c4 llJSf6 9 ..tg2 ..tb7 10 lD7b6 1 3 .ig2 was played in Ernst
0-0 lLe7 11 llJc3 0-0 12 J..f4 was also Komarov, Dortmund 1992, and now
slightly better for White in Psakhis 13 ...lLg7! 14 c4 lDb4 15 dS .i.fS 16 .ie4
Komarov, Benasque 1995) 8 .ig2 0-0 9 i.xe4 17 'itxe4 lD4xd5! would have
0-0 cS 10 c4 lb.sf6 1 1 llJc3 cxd4 12 equalised according to Ernst.
llJxd4 gave White had a comfortable One practical drawback of S llJcll is
...
43
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
44
Classical with 4 . dxe 5 5 lll x e5: 5 . . . lll d 7 and 5
. . . . . c6
1 9 ..td3
Rublevsky-Hauchard, Oakham 1992
varied from this with 19 t'lle4+ 'itg7 20
1i'e5+ f7 (and not 20...g8? 21 lilf6+)
21 .td3 (21 dxe7 is answered by
21 ... .tf5 22 .id3 1i'xe7 23 d6+ 'irxd6
24 'irxd6 llad8) 21.. ..ig7 (2 1.. ..tf5 22 1 3 . . .1llb61
g4 .ixe4 23 .i.xe4 e6 24 llel 'ira4+ 25 Counterattack proves to be the best
d3 llhe8 26 h4 0-1 was De Firmian form of defence. The cowering 13 ...b6
Rohde, US Ch. 1989; did Rublevsky is effectively answered by 14 llb1 g5
have an improvement ready?) 22 'iVf4+ (Bagirov pointed out that 14 ...cxb4 15
g8 23 llel 1Wf8 24 'irgS exd6 25 J:r.xb4 'itc5 is answered by 16 llb1!!
'iVd5+ 'iVf7 26 t'llxd6 1Wxd5 27 lle8+ liJxf7 17 liJa4+ 'itd4 18 f3 followed by
.tf8 28 cxdS c4 29 .txc4 b5 30 i.b3 19 lld1 mate) 1S .ig3 .th6 16 bxcS+
g7 3 1 t'llxc8 .ic5 32 l:le7+ 'it>h6 0-1. bxcS 17 llb7! .td7 18 .id3! 'ireS (after
1 9 ... exd6 20 9xd6+ f7 21 l0e4 18...J:r.b8 Wolff demonstrated that
9c6 22 9es :ds 0-1 White can win with 19 llxb8 1Wxb8 20
.----- liJb5+! axbS 21 .i.xe5+ xeS 22 1i'xe7+
Game ll Wd4 23 1We3+ Wc3 24 .i.e2+ b4 25
Mysliwiec-Krzyzanowski 'W'dl+ followed by mate) 19 .i.f5! 'ifxf7
Correspondence 1995 20 li:)e4+ t'llxe4 21 l:bd7 mate.
Keres pointed out that 13 ...cxb4?
1 e4 l0f6 2 eS lOdS 3 d4 d6 4 l0f3 Loses to 14 cS+ 'itxcS 15 t'lla4+ d6 16
dxeS S 4:\xeS lL\d7 6 l0xf7 xf7 7 t'llb2 b5 17 t'lld3 etc.
'irhS+ e6 8 c4 l0Sf6 9 dS+ d6 1 4 0-0-0
45
A lekhin e 's D e fence
46
Classical with 4 . . . dxe5 5 li:Jxe5: 5 . . .ll:J d 7 and 5 . . . c 6
Black has three extra pawns and dxe5 ltld7 10 0-0-0, all of which is very
White's king is still vulnerable. The rest impressive if you play bad moves for
requires little comment. Black!
28 l:tf1 e5 29 l:te1 e7 30 Wxg7 b) Tal-Larsen, Bled (6th matchgame)
lidS 31 e2 Wd5! 32 l:td 1 continued 6...1Wf6 7 1Wg3 h6 8 ltlc3
Black has calculated that 32 'i'xe7 is ltJb4 (here Black should consider
met by 32 ...'ifxg2+ 33 e3 'iih 3+ 34 8 ...i..b4 9 i..d2 ltJd7 which seems to me
f2 'ifxh2+ 35 fl l1g8 36 i.g6 11ff4+ to be quite playable} 9 .ibS+ c6 10 .ia4
37 e2 lbg6 with the win in sight. ltJd7 1 1 0-0 (Tal suggested that 1 1 ltJe4
32 . . ..i.c5 0-1 1if5 12 f3 ltlxe5 1 3 dxe5 .id7 14 a3
...-----. would also be good for White, which
47
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
35 l:.a1 ?
Losing. White had to play 35 tbxdS
Black has a very comfortable posi but after 35 ...cxd5 Black is obviously
tion, which sums things up from a theo better because of the weakness of the
retical point of view. Over the next few backward c3-pawn and Black's kingside
moves Miles aims to free his position pawn majority.
with ...e6-e5, this being one of Black's 35 l:.g6 36 h1
.
two major pawn levers in such struc If White had chosen 36 <iftfl Black
tures {the other is ...c6-c5). would launch a similar attack to the
1 7 .i.c4 'ifc7 18 .i.g5 .i.xg5 1 9 game with 36...l2Jf4 37 llxa4 bxa4 38
i!)exg5 h6 20 tbe4 J:l.ad8 2 1 l:.ad1 ?! 1i'xa4 1lxg2! 39 l2Jxg2 1i'xh3 etc.
After this Black is definitely better. 36 ...tbf4 37 h2
White should probably play 2 1 llJed2, After 37 .z:tgl there follows 37...tbxh3
applying some restraint to Black's im so White no longer has a reasonable
pending ... e6-e5. defence.
21 i!)5b6 22 .i.b3 e5 23 tbg3
..
48
Classical with 4 . . . dx e 5 5 t'iJxe5: 5 . . . li:J d 7 and 5 . . . c 6
c) 6 d3 d7 7 d7 xd7 8 0-0
Game 19 g6 9 lle1 g7 10 c3 0-0 1 1 gS lle8 12
Tiviakov-Van der Werf d2 ti'c8 13 e4 f5 left White with
Dutch Ch., Leeuwarden 2001 nothing special in Macieja-Kuczynski,
Polish Ch., Warsaw 2001.
1 e4 o!bf6 2 e5 o!bd5 3 d4 d6 4 o!bf3 6 ..o!bd7
.
7 lbdf3
Aiming to maintain his knight on eS, 7 d3 would avoid the exchange and
in the hope that this will guarantee a the knight is placed on a square from
slight space advantage. The drawback is which it inhibits either the ... c6-c5 or
that Black gets to exchange a pair of ... e7-e5 pawn levers. On the other hand,
minor pieces which does relieve his po it stops White's bishop coming out to
sition. its most natural posts on either d3 or
Other possibilities are as follows: c4. Black's best is probably 7... g6, after
a) 6 c3 g6 7 g3 g7 8 g2 d7 9 which 8 e2 g7 9 f3 0-0 10 0-0 b6,
xd7 xd7 1 0 d2 0-0 1 1 f3 1i'c8 intending ...c6-c5, looks about equal.
12 0-0 h3 left Black very comfortably 7 ...ltlxe5 8 o!bxe5 g6 9 Wf3 .i.e& 1 0
placed in Shur-Bagirov, Baku 1996. c3 .i.g7 1 1 e2 a5
b) 6 h3 looks innocuous but the idea One of Black's most common plans,
is quite good; when Black challenges the staking out some territory on the
knight on e5 White plans to drop it queenside. In the game Dutreeuw
back and not have to worry about a pin. Loeffle, Tanta City 2001 Black played
Jansa-Burkar, Bonnevoie 1999 contin 1 1...0-0 12 d3 f6 13 'i'g3 c4 with
ued 6 ... d7 7 f3 g6 8 c4 g7 9 0-0 a solid position.
0-0 10 llel e6 (the immediate 10 ... b5 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 o!bd3 a4 14 a3 f5
loses a pawn after 1 1 xd5 cxdS 12 1 5 .l:te1 xd3
3) 1 1 b3 b5 12 g5 eel 13 bd2 Giving up the bishop pair to elimi
b7 14 c4 bxc4 15 xc4 cS 16 l:lct nate the knight that controls the e5 and
and now 16 .. Jlac8 17 dxc5 xeS looks c5 squares. In the following play White
fine for Black. tries to keep Black tied down whilst
49
A lekhin e 's Defen ce
50
Classical with 4 . . . dx e5 5 li::J x e5: 5 . . . li::J d 7 and 5 . . . c6
37 ...f5 38 f7 g3 0-1
Game 21
Degraeve-Miles
Mondariz Zonal 2000
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 f3
dxe5 5 xe5 c6 6 e2 d7
Black does have an alternative here in
6 ...g6, after which 7 c4 lbc7 8 c3 (8
20 J:r.ad 1 ? .ie3 i.g7 9 lbd2? cS! was good for
This looks like a case of desperation. Black in Gi.Garcia-Miles, Matanzas
White should go ahead with 20 ilxc6. 1994) 8...i.g7 9 i.e3 lbd7 10 f4!? 0-0 1 1
Then 20.. .f3 21 i.xf3 lbg4 22 i.xg4? 0-0 tbxe5 1 2 dxe5 (12 fxe5 c5)
hxg4 23 lbb5? ...c5+ 24 h 1 1hh3+ 25 12 ...1i'xd1 13 J:laxd1 f6 was equal in
gxh3 ..i.e4+ is mating, but 22 1i'a6+ clS Dolmatov-Tseshkovsky, Russian Ch.,
23 i.xg4 hxg4 24 J:lad1! is totally un Tomsk 2001 .
clear. 7 f3
20 .....b6+ 21 'ith1 c2 Keeping pieces on the board makes
Winning material. White gives up the sense because White has more space.
queen in the hope that there's some 7 ...g6 8 c4 c7 9 c3 g7 10 0-0
compensation. But it never looks any 0-0 1 1 i.f4
thing like enough. Varying from De Firmian-Miles, Chi
22 J:r.xd2 xa4 23 xa4 as 24 cago 1994, in which Black obtained
c3 J:r.d8 25 l:txd8+ xd8 26 l:r.d 1 good counterplay aher 1 1 J:lel c5 12 d5
b6 27 l:r.d6 xb2 28 J:r.xc6+ d8 b5! 13 cxb5 lbb6, when Black recovers
29 b5 d7 30 xa7 e5 31 the dS-pawn with a good game. Of
l:r.d6+ e7 32 c8+ Wf6 33 xh5 White's other moves, Black would
f3 34 xf3 xf3 35 gxf3 e5 36 probably meet 1 1 .te3 with 1 1 ..e5 and.
51
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
24 c5!
With White threatening to bring his
bishop to c4, the struggle reaches its
A very deep move. Miles envisages climax.
that he must hold on to cS, so he pre 24 .:g7 25 .i.b5 cs
..
pares to bring his bishop to f8. The Black cannot accept the offer of a
immediate 14 ...ltle8 is met by 15 ltle4 piece as after 25 ... .ixe4 26 ltlxe4 fxe4
b6 16 a3, followed by b2-b4. there follows 27 1Wd5+ h8 28 c6 ltlf6
52
Classical with 4 . . . dxe 5 5 li::J x e5: 5 . . JiJ d 7 a n d 5 . . c6
Game 22
W.Watson-Baburin
Kilkenny 1994
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 f3
c6
After a brief detour, we soon return
to the paths of the previous game.
5 .A.e2 dxe5 6 xe5 d7 7 f3 g6
8 0-0 .A.g7 9 c4 c7 1 0 c3 0-0
1 1 .A.t4 c5 1 2 dxc5
Suddenly making it very difficult for
Black to maintain the position of his
knights. He only manages to do so with
some clever tactical play.
1 9 ....ic6! 20 f51?
Every move increases the tension.
After 20 ll)xcS ll)xcS 21 11'xd8 {or 21
WxcS .ixf3} 21...1lfxd8 22 xeS .ixf3
23 xe7 lld7 the game fizzles out into
a draw, whilst after 20 lladl Black de
fends himself with 20...b6.
53
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
20 . . J:le8
Black gets out of the way of the Game 23
threatened 2 1 h6. According to Ba Short-Miles
burin, 20 .. .f6? would have been bad European Ch., Ohrid 2001
because of 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 lLlxc5 lLlxc5
23 1i'xd8! {23 9g4 g7! 24 xeS xf3 1 e4 tL!f6 2 e5 tL!d5 3 d4 d6 4 tL!f3
allows Black to defend) 23 ... 1lfxd8 24 dxe5 5 tL!xe5 c6 6 c4 tL!c7
J.xcS xf3 25 xe7 lld7 26 l:lxf3
In Adams-Burkart, European Club
l:lxe7 27 .llxf6 with a winning endgame. Cup, London 1996, even Michael Ad
But there was another possibility in ams failed to get much against the na
20...1i'b6!?. ive-looking 6...lLlb4. The game went 7
21 .i.h6?! e5 22 fxe6 tL!xe6 23 e3 {7 a3? 9xd4} 7...J.f5 8 lba3 lLld7
9xa7 9h4! 9 lLlxd7 li'xd7 10 J.e2 g6 {10 ...e6 also
Suddenly finding a way to exploit the looks very reasonable) 1 1 dS g7 12
looseness of White's pieces. In time d4 lLlc2 + 13 li)xc2 J.xc2 14 1!6'd2
trouble Watson does not find the best .ixd4 15 1i'xd4 0-0 16 0-0 cxdS 17 cxdS
defence. and now the immediate 17...1i'd6 would
have left things fairly even.
7 tL!c3 lbd7
24 9e3?
24 e3 was mandatory. Now Black
is winning and doesn't give White any 8 tL!xd7
further chances. It's not clear that this is White's best.
24 ... tLI6g5! 25 .i.xg5 tLlxg5 26 9d4 In Apicella-Miles, Linares Zonal 1995,
tL!xf3+ 27 gxf3 9g5+ 28 9g4 White preserved his knight from ex
9e3+ 29 g2 9xc3 change with 8 lLlf3 g6 9 .ie2 J.g7 10
Black re-established material parity 0-0 0-0 1 1 .ie3 a6 {l t...lLlf6 12 h3
but now has an overwhelming posi lLlce8 13 b3 lL!d6 14 .lladl was un
tional advantage. comfortable for Black in Nunn-Ghinda,
30 J:tf2 J:tcd8 31 llc1 9e3 32 J:tcf1 Hamburg 1984 whilst l l...e5 leaves
J:te5 33 h4 h5 34 9g3 J:tf5 35 g1 ? White better after 12 d5 cxdS 13 cxdS
J:txf3 0-1 lLlb6 14 J.cS l:le8 15 d6 lLle6 16 a3.
54
Classical with 4 . . . dx e5 5 l0xe5: 5 . . . l0d 7 and 5 . . . c6
according to N unn) 12 a4 and now this move, but Black reacts with a pow
Black should probably play 12 ..a5 fol
. erful exchange sacrifice. 13 cxbS cxbS
lowed by bringing his c7-knight to b4 14 lDxbS can be met by 14 ... lDd5 (or
via a6. 14 ....tb4+) when White's king would
8 ... .i.xd7 9 .i.e3 .i.f5 have difficulty finding a safe haven
anywhere.
1 3 . .. bxc4 14 .i.xc6+ .i.d7 1 5 1la4
Snatching the material with 15 .txa8
'l'xa8 would have given Black excellent
compensation for the exchange, but
now he is simply better at zero cost.
Had Short missed Black's next move?
1 5 ...:ca! 16 11rxc4 d51 1 7 .i.xd7+
1Wxd7 18 1lrd3 .i.b4 19 .i.d2 0-0 20
0-0 .i.xc3 21 bxc3 1Wa4
In this position Black has more than
enough for his pawn; he can firmly
10 g4?! blockade White's c- and d-pawns on d5
Short loves to throw his pawns for and c4, and in addition White's kingside
wards like this, though very few other has a gaping hole in it.
grandmasters would have played this 22 f4
way. On this occasion Miles makes it
look rather dubious.
1 0 ...-*.cB 1 1 .i.e2 e6 1 2 1fc2 b5!
Well played! With White having cre
ated weaknesses, Miles reasons that this
thematic pawn sacrifice will be stronger
than usual.
1 3 .i.f3
22 ...f5!?
I don't especially like this move
which creates some weaknesses in
Black's own camp. My own preference
would be for 22 ...:c6 intending ...:fc8.
Black has very strong pressure on c3
and a2, and should White try to open
the f-file with f+fS, he would activate
Perhaps Short had been relying on the black rook along the third rank.
55
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
56
Classical with 4 . . . dx e5 5 ltJxe5: 5 . . . CiJ d 7 and 5 . . . c 6
Summary
Inviting a sacrifice on f7 (with S ...lbdl) is cenainly not for those of a nervous dis
position. White gets a very dangerous attack, but then again there is nothing clear.
This makes it into a very interesting weapon for Black, especially against stronger
players.
For anyone playing White against 5. .., I would actually recommend that you
withdraw the knight to f3. There's no point getting embroiled in complications that
your opponent has probably studied. Keep the space and play quickly.
Tony Miles's S...c6 is a very tough and interesting line for Black, which has so far
been linle explored by theory. On the next move Black can challenge White's knight
on eS without fearing a sacrifice on f7. Depending on how White plays it, Black has
the option of a kingside fianchetto.
The lines in this chapter constitute an excellent way for Black to play against the
Classical. For extra variety practical players might want to switch between 4...c6
(Chapter Four) and Miles's 4 ...dxe5 S ltlxeS c6. In these days of huge computer da
tabases it is useful to keep your opponent on his toes.
7 ltlxd7 - Game 20
7...g6 8 0..() ..tg7 9 c4 l'tlc7 10 l0c3 0-0 1 1 .tf4 c5 (D) 1 2 d5
12 dxcS - Game 22
1 2 e5 1 3 .tg5 f6 - Game 21
.
5. . . c6 1 2. . . a6 1 1 . . . c5
57
CIIAPTER FOUR I
Classical Divergences :
4 c6, 4 liJc6 and 4 g6
. . . . . . . . .
58
Classical Divergences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . .li:J c 6 a n d 4 . . . g6
lows that the logical thing for White to been quite good for Black.
do would be to maintain this pawn and Black should also take account of the
it does in fact seem that White is better fact that White can transpose into an
after 5 .i.e2 dxe5 6 dxe5. Exchange Variation with 5 c4 tl.\b6 6
,-------. exd6 cxd6, though in this case his
Game 24 knight is already committed to f3 which
Oral-De Firmian precludes some of the more dangerous
Reykjavik 2000 set-ups.
.___________.. 5 i0b6
..
5 tl.\g5 is not much more than a (White has also tried 12 .i.g5 but the
cheap trap which is well met by 5 ...c6 quiet text move seems to make more
(but not 5... h6 6 tl.\xf7 xf7 7 ..f3+) sense} 12 ... b5 {in order to sidestep any
and now: possible preparation, Vaganian varied
a) 6 c4 tl.\c7 7 ..f3 f6 8 exf6 exf6 9 with 12 ...c5 against Tischbierek in the
'ife3+ .i.e7 10 tl.\f3 0-0 was very com 1994/95 Bundesliga season and
fortable for Black in Ljubojevic-Tal, achieved a satisfactory position after 13
World Cup, Brussels 1988. c4 l'il.e7 14 dxc5 'W'xc5 15 llbl 'Wc7 16
b) 6 f4 .i.g7 7 .i.c4 0-0 8 0-0 tl.\a6 9 b4 li:lbc6 17 ..c2 li:lf5 18 c5 1lfd8 etc.)
.i.b3 tl.\ac7 10 c4 li:lb6 1 1 li:lc3 dxe5 12 13 a4 b4 1 4 c4 bxc3 15 bxc3 11fc7 16
fxe5 was Kosikov-Khmelnitsky, Kiev .i.a3 ltd8 17 c4 li:le7 18 lta2 a5 1 9 ltd2
1989, and now just 12 . .f6! would have
. li:!a6 20 g3 li:lb4 2 1 .i.g2 l:tab8 22 'We2
59
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
'8'e8 1 2 xc7
7 .dxe5!?
..
8 a5
After 8 xeS .ixeS! 9 dxeS 'ifxdl+ 1 2 .".d8!
.
Allowing the following sacrifice, This has been Whites knee-jerk reac
which Alburt has worked hard to show tion, trying to get play before Black
is just about okay for Black. After wins his knight. But it is starting to look
8 ... dS 9 xeS we get a position simi as if White can play less nervously with
lar to the Kengis Variation (4...dxe5 5 14 0-0! tbc6 15 c3 c5 16 b4 and now:
eS g6 6 .ic4) but with White having a) After 16 ...6?! Volzhin gives 17
60
Classical Divergences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . . Q)c6 and 4 . . . g6
21 llad1 l0d6 22 Wb3 .i.xc3 (22 ... Wxa8 16...lLlba6) 17 .i.e3 (Christiansen later
23 lLlb5! .i.xb5 24 1lxd6 exd6 25 1i'xe6+ suggested 17 lLlc3 .i.5 18 lLlb5 i.d3 19
f8 26 xd6+ f7 27 .d5+) 23 .i.c5! lLlxd4 exd4 20 i.4 and claimed an ad
xa8 24 .i.xd6 exd6 25 l:txd6 We8 26 vantage for White) 17...lLlba6 (17...lLlc6
l:lfdl! .i.a4 27 lbe6 .i.xb3 28 l:txe8+ 18 .i.xd4 exd4 19 c2 lLle6 20 a6 'ifd5
f7 29 l:lxh8 .i.xdl 30 llb8 with White 21 lLld2 g7, as in Cooper-G Smith,
having winning chances in the endgame. Walsall 1992, is also interesting) 18 lLlc3
b) 16... dxc3 17 Wxd8+ lLlxd8 and .i.f5! and now:
now Volzhin gives 18 1la3! lLle4 19 lie1 a) The game continued 19 llcl g7!
c2 20 lLld2 lLlxd2 2 1 .i.xd2 .i.f6 22 lLlc7 20 ..ixd4 'i'xd4! 21 b4?! (White should
when Black has insufficient compensa play 2 1 tixd4 exd4 22 lLlb5 after which
tion for the exchange. In Z.Aimasi-de la 22 ... ltxa8 23 lLlxd4 <itr>6 leaves Black
Villa Garcia, Pamplona 1999 White only slightly better) 21...lLld3 22 lLle2
played less well with 18 bxc5?! which 1id7 23 .J:lc3 llxa8 24 g4 lLlb2! 25 'ifcl
gave Black good compensation for the .i.d3 26 'i'xb2 Wxg4+ 27 lLlg3 .i.xf1 28
exchange after 18 ... c2 19 lLlc3 i.xc3 20 xfl lld4 with a winning position.
lla3 (20 llal!?) 20...-i.6 21 lLlc7 lLlc6 b) According to Christiansen, 19
22 lLldS 7 etc. lLlb5! .i.d3 20 .i.xd4 exd4 21 b4 L:f1
1 4 llx:5
.. (21. ..lfub4 22 llct!) 22 bxc5 i.xb5 23
tib3+ g7 24 tixb5 'i'xa8 25 'it'd?+
leads to a draw by perpetual check.
These positions are clearly very com
plicated and the reader would be well
advised to take existing 'theory' with a
pinch of salt.
16 ...e5 1 7 .i.xd4 exd4 18 0-0 ba&
1 5 cxd4
The tempting 15 b4?! doesn't work
after 15 ...lLle4 16 Wb3+ e6 17 cxd4
lLlc6! intending 18 ....i.d7, as pointed out
by Dlugy.
1 5 ....i.xd4 1 6 .i.e3
An attempt to Improve on
61
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
Cutting off the a8 knight's exit White loses a piece aher 34 lth2
squares. But can this knight actually be 11'f4+ 35 g1 lLJxd5 36 ..d7+ ..f7 etc.
captured when White's other pieces
start coming into play? Game 25
1 9 lbd2 e6 20 %le1 f7 21 lbe4 Leko-Timman
d3 22 . b4 lbxe4 23 %lxe4 Wg7 24 Wijk aan Zee 1996
l:la3 d2 25 %le2 l:le8 26 l:lxe8 .i..xe8
27 l:la2 'iba8 28 l:lxd2 1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3
The knight has been lost but White g6 5 c4 lbb6 6 b3 g7 7 We2
has a rook and pawn for the two minor
pieces. Add in the factor that Black's
king is exposed and White's prospects
are slightly preferable.
28 .....c8 29 %ld8 e6 30 h3
Perhaps 30 'ifd4+ was more precise.
Aher 30...g8 3 1 h3 Black can't take
the b4-pawn with 3 1...11t'e1+ 32 h2
lLJxb4 because of 33 'ifc4+ <iPg7 34
l:ld4! lllc6 35 lle4! 'ifxf2 36 ltxe8 etc.
Now Black's queen comes to a key cen
tral square.
30.....e5! 31 %ld5 'ii'c3 32 1ie2 A logical move which avoids the
lbxb4 complications of 7 a4 dxe5 (see Game
24}, whilst aiming to maintain his ad
vantage in space. Alburt has also had a
long-running battle against 7 lLJg5 e6
(7. . dS?! gives Black a cramped position
.
62
Classical Divergences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . . /;jc6 and 4 . . . g6
b) 8 11f3 1i'e7 {8...11d7 is less good alternative approach for White is the
because of 9 lDe4 dxe5 10 dxeS .i.xe5 simple 7 exd6 but then 7...cxd6 8 0-0
1 1 Ci)f6+ i.xf6 12 11xf6 l:tg8 13 .h4 f5 0-0 9 lite 1 liJc6 10 h3 liJaS gets the
14 Cl)cJ, when White has excellent com bishop pair as compensation for Black's
pensation for his pawn; 8...0-0 is also lack of space.
uncomfortable for Black after 9 1i'h3 h6 7 0-0
.
10 Ci)f3 or even 10 lDe4) 9 Ci)e4 dxe5 10 The fact that the moves a2-a4 and
i.g5 'ti'b4+ 1 1 c3 1i'a5 12 liJf6+ {12 a7-a5 have not been played gives
i.f6 i.xf6 13 xf6 0-0 14 1i'xe5 9xe5 Black an additional possibility in 7...lbc6
15 dxe5 .i.d7 gives Black equality in the 8 0-0 dxe5 9 dxeS liJd4 10 lbxd4 9xd4.
endgame according to Alburt) 12 ...Wf8 Black's knight on b6 is better protected,
13 d5 e4 14 1i'g3 Ci)a6! (14... liJ8d7 15 White no longer has support for a piece
Ci)xd7 + Ci)xd7 16 dxe6 5 1 7 e7+ We8 on bS and the queenside is now quite
18 0-0! was very dangerous for Black in habitable for Black's king. Play can con
Short-Alburt, Foxboro { 1st match tinue 1 1 e6 (after 1 1 l:te1 .i.g4 12 9ft I
game} 1985} 15 dxe6 'iff5 (15 ...h6!? 16 think that 12 ... .i.e6 13 .i.xe6 fxe6 looks
e7+ Wxe7 17 Ci)dS+ e8 18 Ci)xc7+ fine for Black because of his active
Ci)xc7 19 11xc7 11xg5 20 11xf7+ d8 pieces) l l....i.xe6 12 .ixe6 fxe6 13
21 9xg7 l:te8 is also very interesting 9xe6 llc4 14 xc4 (14 11h3 0-0 was
and leh Black with compensation for also very comfortable for Black in Vo
the pawn in van der Wiel-Blees, Dutch robiov-Chekhov, Moscow 1999}
Ch., Hilversum 1990} 16 e7+ xe7 14 ...ltlxc4 15 c3 (if both sides had
moved their a-pawns White could de
fend b2 with :ta2 at this point}
15 ...0-0-0 and Black's active pieces fully
compensated for his marginally inferior
pawn structure, Dolmatov-Neckar,
Bern 1994.
8 h3 a5
After White's reply this transposes
back into the 7 a4 line. Black can also
play 8...lbc6, after which 9 0-0 liJaS 10
lbc3 actually transposes into a line of
the Pirc Defence. Kveinys-Speelman,
Moscow Olympiad 1994 continued
17 Ci)d5+ (17 li)g8+ e8 18 li)h6 . 10 ... h6!? l t liJe4 ltlxb3 12 axb3 f6!? 13
i.xh6 19 .txh6 .i.e6 20 0-0 f6 leaves c4 fxe5 14 dxe5 lbd7 with complex play
White with some compensation for his in prospect.
pawn but 1 7 lbh5+? is bad because of 9 a4 c6 10 0-0 dxe5 1 1 dxe5
17 .. .f6 18 lbxg7 WxgS} 17 ...Wf8 18 ltle3 d4 1 2 xd4 "ii'xd4 1 3 J:le1
Wd7 and Black will consolidate with Arriving at a critical position in which
19 .. .f6 according to Nigel Short. An White temporarily has a slight advan-
63
A lekhine 's D efen c e
tage because his pawn on e5 shuts the Black can equalise after 14 c3 with
g7 bishop out of play. Having said that, 14 ...1i'h4 15 lld2 i.c6 16 ll:le4 (or 16
there is nothing terribly wrong with ll:lf3 'i'h5 17 lLld4 'i'xe2 18 l:txe2 i.d5}
Black's position and if he successfully 16 ...i.xe5 17 i.g5 1Wxe4 18 11t'xe4 i.xe4
completes his development he will 19 l:lxe4 lld7 20 l:td1 i.d6 21 i.xe7
probably be about equal. ll:lc5!, as in Stefansson-Egger, Moscow
1 3 ... d7 Olympiad 1994.
13 ...e6 was Timman's first idea and it 14 ...c6
may in fact be playable if Black meets At the time of the game this was a
14 llcl2 with 14....i.d7 intending to new move but it's not at all clear that
transfer the bishop to c6 (in the game anything's wrong with the old line. Af
Short-Timman, Tilburg 1991, Black ter 14...e6 15 i.g5 h6, Chekhov gave 16
played 14...lld5 but after 15 ll:lf3 'i'cS i.e7 (White should play 16 1lad1, after
16 'ife4 'ifb4 17 .t.c4! ll:lb6 18 b3! which 16 exe5 17 Wxe5 i.xe5 1 8
..
ll:lxc4 19 bxc4 l:te8 20 l:td1 found him llxe5 hxgS is just equal} 1 6...l:tfe8 17
self completely tied up, White's pawn llad1 but then, as Burgess pointed out,
weaknesses being insignificant in this 17 ...1i'xe5 just wins a pawn for Black.
position). 1 5 ltlb51
Black would really like to exchange As Leko pointed out in his notes,
the light-squared bishops but 13 ...i.e6 Black can meet 15 e6 with 15 .. .f5 16
14 i.xe6 fxe6 15 lld2, followed by i.g5 Wb4, producing a position in
llf3, will support the key pawn on e5 which both sides have chances.
and leave Black with a miserable game. 1 5 .txb5 16 'lrxb5 c6 1 7 'lre2
..
He can, however, play 13 ... i.f5 14 lld2 ltld5 1 8 c3 'lrb6 1 9 .tc4 1lad8
'i'd7, after which 15 lLlf3 i.e6 16 l:td1
1Wc8 17 1Wb5 i.xb3 18 11fxb3 is only
slightly better for White.
20 .tg5?!
According to Leko this was an error.
He later preferred an initial 20 h4! and
14 3! only after 20...h5 to play 21 i.g5. This
Leko finds the most challenging line, position would be rather unpleasant for
planning to plant the knight on b5. Black.
64
Classical Divergences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . . lDc6 and 4 . . . g6
65
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
66
Classical Divergen c es: 4 . . . c 6, 4 .. .fi)c6 a n d 4 . . g6
than the strength of Black's knight on J.xf4 with a piece and two pawns for
ciS). the rook.
1 8 :Xd5 22 .z:lb1 J.g7?
22 ...J.e5 was more tenacious but
Black is still in serious trouble after 23
l:lcl.
23 tlg3 'ifc3 24 Wxc3 .i.xc3 25
.i.xf8 l:lxfB 26 .z:lxc7 ..tb4 27 .z:lxb7
.z:ld8 28 g3 Wg7 29 .z:lc1 1 -0
Game 27
Wydrowski-Marcinkiewicz
Corrondence 1997
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 f3
1 8 Wc6 1 9 Wd3
. ll:!c6
The only way to maintain control of
the d-file, though this involves the sacri
fice of the e-pawn. Black is okay after
either 19 llbS b6, intending ... 'tie6, or
19 l:ld3 :ads 20 l:lg3 1i'e6.
1 9 e6 20 .z:ld7 .*.xeS 21 .i.h6
..
67
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
7 tbg5
The most direct line but not neces
sarily the best. White has several inter
esting alternatives:
68
Classical Divergen ces: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . .loc6 and 4 . . . g6
1 2 llJxc4! 1
.
ll'lxh7 i.f5 1 1 ll'la3 lbxc4 (11...e6!? 12 Both 14 ll'ld2 and 14 Q)c3 allow
69
A lekhine 's D e fen c e
14....i.f5 but the position isn't clear in after 22 Wb5+ c6! 23 11xb6 ltb4 etc.
either case. White can also prevent this 22 J.g6 23 'it'd5 llXI4+! 24 Wd1
.
with 14 g4!?; all this requires more c& 25 'it'c4 b5! 26 xb5
analysis. Retreating the queen doesn't help.
1 4...J.f5 After 26 111ft there follows 26 ...ll:)xb3
27 We2 ll:)d4+ 28 Wdl lbc2 29 e2
llc4! etc.
26 J.c2+ 27 we1
..
Game 28
E.Reed-G .Danielsson
Buenos Aires Olympiad 1939
1 7 'it'g8
The point is that after 17 ...xf8+ d7
White's queen is trapped.
1 7 l0c2+ 1 8 We2 Wd7 1 9 J.xb6
..
70
Classical Divergences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . Ji)c6 and 4 . . . g6
win the exchange with 8 lllg5 lllf6 9 After this Black's king gets caught in
.txh7 llxh7 10 11fh5+ d7 1 1 tDxh7 the centre. Alekhine pointed out that
71
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
16 ll:ld5 c6
After 16...e6 White wins with 17
llxc7+ 1i'xc7 18 llxe6+ etc. 5 J.c4
1 7 'ii'c21 White can also gain space with 5 c4
but in this position Black's knight can
retreat to an arguably superior square
on c7 from where it may later harass
White's d-pawn with ... lbe6. So 5 ...llk7
and now:
a) White can prevent a pin on his f3
knight with 6 h3 but then Black can
revert to a Keogis Variation type plan
with 6 ...dxe5 7 llxe5 lld7 8 llf3 g6 9
llc3 .ig7 10 i.e2 bS! 1 1 0-0 (1 1 cxbS
llxb5 12 i.xb5 cxb5 13 llxb5 i.a6
would give Black excellent compensa
Threatening 18 i.g6+ followed by tion for his pawn) 1 l ...bxc4 12 .ixc4
mate. 0-0 13 lle1 llb6 14 i.b3 - Ramesh
1 7 /17 1 8 h3 cxd5
. Ibragimov, Sangli 2000.
Or 18 ... i.e6 19 l:txe6! 'i'xe6 20 ..if5 b) 6 llc3 ..ig4 7 exd6 (in the game AI
winning the queen. Sayed-Varga, Budapest 2001 White
72
Classical Divergences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . . li) c 6 and 4 . . . g6
73
A lekhin e 's D e fence
1 3 ...o!Oc7
An interesting alternative is 13 ...c5!?,
undermining White's last remaining
central pawn. Baburin's move is aimed
more at solid defence, though it remains
to be seen how Black will use his extra
pawn.
14 0-0 i.g7 1 5 l:.fe1 0-0 16 i.g3
d7 1 7 l:.ad1 b5 1 8 b3 bxc4 1 9
bxc4 l:.ab8 20 l:.e2 l:.b4 21 Dde1
cs 22 c5 d7 23 lL!g5 lLifd5 24 27 Wt'b7!
lL!xd5 cxd5 And not 27 ll:lxe6? because of
The intermediate 24...Ld4 is bad 27 ... lDxe6 28 llxe6 .ieS winning the
because of 25 1ixd4 .ixd4 26 /1Jxc7 etc. exchange.
74
Classical Diverg ences: 4 . . . c 6, 4 . . .lll c 6 and 4 . . . g6
30 l%xc4
Giving up the queen is cenainly the
best practical chance. After 30 1!rxb5 38 ...:xt2+?
xbS 3 1 ltxc4 dxc4 32 lbc4 d4 the A serious mistake which lets the win
endgame is very bad for White. slip. Black should eliminate public en
30 ...Wxb7 31 l%xc7 Wb2 32 tile& emy number one, the knight on e6.
l:l.f7 33 l:l.c8+ f8 34 l:l. 1 c6 38 ... ltxe6! 39 ltdxe6 f7 wins without
After 34 ltlc7 Black can play 34 ... h6! much trouble.
aher which 35 ltxf7 36 xf8 d4 39 .i.xf2 'ii'xf2+ 40 1 Wf1 + 41
makes the d-pawn difficult to stop. h2 f2+ 42 h1 e1 + 43 *g2
34. . .Wb1 + 35 h2 Wd2+ 44 'i>g3 e3+ 45 *g2 We2+
35 g2? is even worse after 35 ... d4 46 g3 Wd3+ % -%
75
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
Summary
If White wants something against 4 lbc6 he is almost forced to play a critical pawn
..
sacrifice with 5 c4 li)b6 6 e6!?; I don't believe that either 5 J.b5 or 5 J.e2 really of
fer him anything. This certainly makes 4 ...li)c6 an interesting weapon for games in
which Black is prepared to take risks to win, but I strongly suspect that 7 J.d3 is a
strong move that gives White lasting compensation for his pawn.
Personally speaking, I feel that neither 4...c6 nor 4...g6 5 J.c4 li)b6 do enough to
challenge White's centre, and if White maintains the cramping e5-pawn Black finds
himself without a decent plan. The main advantage of 4...g6 might actually be to
transpose into the Kengis variation by meeting 5 .ic4 with 5...c6, and only reach
lines of the Kengis in which White's bishop is on c4 already. With 4...dxe5 S li)xe5
g6 6 c4 looking like a problem for the Kengis Variation, this move order should
certainly be a consideration for Black.
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 tLlf3 g6
4...c6 5 c4 li)b6 6 e6 fxe6 (D)
7 .id3 - Game 28
7 lbgS Game 27
-
4 ...c6 Game 29
-
76
I CHAPTER FIVE I
Exchange Variation
with 5 cxd6 . . .
77
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
round game which I needed to win for on the knight is to continue developing
my first GM norm. Davies-Westerinen, with 7 i.cl3 i.g7 8 ge2, a plan used
Oslo 1987 continued 7... .tg7 8 h5 ltlc6 by the great Bobby Fischer. Black can
9 ltlc3 and now, rather than 9 ... d5, then obtain adequate counterplay with
Black should have played 9 .. 0-0 10
. 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 e5! (9... ltlc6?! 10 d5 lt)e5 1 1
hxg6 fxg6, which I found Westerinen b3 leaves White with an annoying space
analysing with Jansa shortly after the advantage) 10 i.e3 6 (10...5!? 1 1
game. Black's pawn structure isn't great, dxeS dxe5 1 2 c5 l2)6d7 1 3 (3 a6 14 b4
but he is well ahead on development. ltlc6 {Trapl-Hoticka, Ceske Budejovice
6 ...g6 7 h3 1993} is also interesting) 1 1 d5 ltlb4
(1 1...ltle7 12 b3 ltld7 13 ltle4 ltlf5 14
i.g5 (6 15 .td2 was good for White in
Fischer-Berliner, US Ch., New York
1962/63) 12 b3 ltlxd3 13 1i'xd3 lieS!?
{the 'obvious' 13...f5 is well met by 14
f4, shutting Black's light squared bishop
out of the game) 14 llac 1 ltld7 15 b4 a5
16 ltlb5 e4 17 1i'd2 ltle5 and Black had
taken the initiative in Jhunjunwala
Timman, Teeside 1974.
Having lost faith in the h-pawn push
I used against Westerinen, I subse
White wants to develop his knight on quently switched to an advance of my a
f3 without having it pinned by ... i.g4. pawn with 7 a4.
7 ltlf3 .tg7 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 i.g4 10
i.e3 ltlc6 1 1 b3 is known to be fine for
Black after 1 1. .. d5 12 c5 c8, a recent
example being 13 b4 a6 14 llb1 e6 15
a4 ltl8e7 16 b5 axb5 17 axb5 i.xf3
(17...a5 18 i.f4 i.xf3 19 i.xf3 ltlf5
20 ltle2 h5 2 1 h3 lt)h4 22 1i'd.3 lt)c4
also gave Black good counterplay in
Glauser-Varga, Zurich 2001) 18 gxf3?!
{trying to keep control of c4, but the
weakening of the kingside carries more
weight) 18 ... lt)aS 19 i.cl3 ltlc4 20 1i'e2
lt)xe3 21 fxe3 e5 22 dxe5 .txe5 23 lt)d 1 The game that made me lose faith in
lla3 24 llcl d4 25 e4 11fc7 26 llc2 this plan was Davies-Chekhov, Gausdal
i.xh2+ 27 1i'xh2 1i'xh2+ 28 1990, in which I got nothing from the
llxd.3 and Black went on to win in opening after 7...a5 S lt)f3 (the sharp 8
Zufic-Zelcic, Pula 2001. c5!? was successfully neutralised in
Another means of preventing the pin Perovic-Begovac, Yugoslavia 1985:
78
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
8 ... dxc5 9 .i.b5+ tn6d7 10 .i.4 .i.g7 1 1 g5 13 i.e3 d5 14 c5 lL!c4 15 i.xc4 dxc4
lL!d5 e5 12 dxe5 0-0 13 lL!f3 lLlc6 14 16 d5 lL!b4 17 h4 ..td3 18 hxg5 hxg5 19
.i.g5 f6; Burgess has suggested that .i.xgS lL!xdS was good for Black in
White should try to get this line with the Adorjan-Eales, Groningen 1970) 12...e5
moves h2-h4 and ...h7-h5 inserted, but 13 .ie3 e4 14 lL!d2 d5 15 cxd5 lLlxd5 16
Black should probably meet 8 h4 with lL!xdS xdS 17 .ic4 d8 Black had
8 ... .i.g7 9 h5 0-0 10 hxg6 fxg6 with a the better game in Geller-Vaganian,
lead in development that offsets Black's Moscow 1985.
weakened structure) 8 ... .i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 b) 1 1 .igS!? h6 12 i.e3 dS 13 c5 c4
10 .i.e2 lbc6 1 1 d5 (without the moves 14 .tel b6 15 b3
a2-a4 and ...a7-a5 inserted this would be
strongly answered by 1 1 ...lLla5; the
negative side of White's plan is that
Black gets an invulnerable outpost on
c5 for his other knight) 1 1...lLle5 12
lL!xe5 ..txe5 13 0-0 lL!d7 14 lla3 lL!cs
15 .i.d4 .i.xd4 16 xd4 i.d7 17 lL!bs
b6 1 8 :let lle8 19 ..tg4 f5 20 .if3 l:lc8
and a draw was agreed a few moves
later.
7 !i:.g7 8 /t)f3 0-0
.
79
A lekhine 's Defen c e
80
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . c x d6
have a simpler route to equality in 0-0 i.h6 are messy) 19.../.l)cS 20 i.e4
1 1...e5 12 llxe5 .i.xe5 13 .i.e2 .i.e6 b5 21 i.xf8 lbf8 and Black had a
14 b3 d5 15 cxd5 .A.xc3+ 16 llxc3 winning attack in Grzesik-Hanman,
llxd5 17 lld3 llxe3, as in Serper German Bundesliga 1985.
Yermolinsky, Tilburg 1994. 14 a3 e4 1 5 lt\d2
1 2 c5 l0d7 1 3 .i.c4 15 lLld4 gives White nothing after
15 .../.l)xd4 16 i.xd4 i.xd4 17 11xd4
11'xc5 etc.
1 5 lL\de5!?
..
1 3 85
81
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
24 .i.g5
After this White loses a pawn. The
most tenacious line was 24 b4 a5 25
bxa5 l0xe3 26 fxe3 f5 27 l0ed6 l0xc5
28 :fcl with drawing chances.
24. . . f6 25 .i.c1
25 .i.h4 is no better as 25 ... g5 26 The point of the Voronezh set-up
i.g3 f5 27 llJed6 f4 shuts White's and White's mass evacuation of the al
bishop out of the game. h8 diagonal. Usually this advance would
25 f5 26 lbg5 lbxc5 27 b4 lbe4
. be met by 10 ...llJa5, with embarrassing
28 lbe6 l:td7 29 l:d1 a6 30 lbxg7 pressure on the c-pawn. In this position
axb5 31 .i.b2 'iti7 32 g4 fxg4 33 there would no pressure whatsoever,
hxg4 l:ad8 34 J:ld4 'Ddc3 35 J:lxd7 + just a badly placed black knight.
J:lxd7 36 .De1 J:ld 1 37 l:lxd1 lbxd1 10 lbe5
.
82
Exchange Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
d) 1 1...e6 12 f4! liJed7 (12 ....th6 13 White could also consider 1 8 dxe6
1i'd2! liJg4 14 .i.xg4 'i'h4+ 15 1i'f2 .i.xe6 19 l:.ed1 but this might have been
1i'xg4 16 h3 1i'f5 17 g4 1i'd3 18 /iJge2 psychologically difficult to play because
exd5 19 l:ld1 trapped Black's queen in it frees Black's pieces to some extent.
Raecki-Velicka, Apolda 1992) 13 dxe6 18 a6 19 .!Db3
.
83
A lekhin e 's Defence
Game 32
Sofronie-Ziatic
Brasov 1998
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
b6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 c3 g6 7 .te3
31 .i.xg7 Wxg7 32 l:te1 .i.g7 8 :c1 0-0 9 b3 .i.f5
32 1i'h2+!? would force 32 ...h6 {not Black's most popular alternative to
32 ...g8? 33 axb6 lbxb6 34 lbf6+) but 9...e5 is the interesting 9...f5!?, which
then it isn't easy to capitalise on the aims for active counterplay at the cost
position of Black's king. of structural weaknesses. After this
32 ...'ilg5 33 g3?! move we have the following possibili
With the time control approaching, ties to consider:
White starts to lose his way - this weak a) 10 d5 is adequately met by 10 .. .f4
ens f3. Finkel suggested 33 axb6 lbxb6 1 1 d4 e5 12 dxe6 xd4 13 1i'xd4
34 1i'b2+ h6 35 lbxb6 .U.xb6 36 g3! lbc6 14 1td2 .ixe6 15 lbf3 'it'e7 16
when 36 ...llxb4? is met by 37 h4 fol .ie2 d5 17 cxd5 l:lad8 when Black re
lowed by a fork from d2. covered the pawn with an okay position
33 ...bxa5 34 l0xa5 e5! 35 b2!? in Milu-Ignatescu, Romania 1995.
c5 b) 10 lbh3 looks logical but the
knight can become misplaced on h3.
The game Malisauskas-Kupreichik,
played in the Moscow Olympiad 1994
continued 10 ...h6 1 1 f4 e6 12 dS .if7
13 .ie2 lte8 14 Q.O e6 15 dxe6 llxe6 16
.id4 .ixd4+ 17 1txd4 lbc6 18 'iff2
lLld7 19 f3 ltlf6 with a reasonable
position for Black.
c) 10 lLlf3 is probably best met by
Burgess's suggestion of 10...f4 1 1 .id2
e5!? 12 dxeS dxe5 1 3 c5 e4!? 14 lbxe4
lte8 15 cxb6 lbe4+ 16 e3!? 'ifxd1+
36 f4?? 17 d1 .if5 with messy complica
A blunder. White could force a draw tions.
with 36 :XeS! lbxd3 37 lhf5+ lbxb2 38 d) White's most promising reply
.U.xg5 e6 39 lbc7 .ixc4 40 lbxc4 seems to be 10 g3
84
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
85
A lekhin e 's D e fen ce
f3 g4 29 ..tf4 h5 30 a4 ..td4 31 b4
a6 32 fxg4? fxg4 33 g3? h4!
An important new move which
forces White to develop his knight on a
far more passive square than he'd like.
After 12 ...lLlc6 White can play 13 lLlf3.
13 lt:lge2
The point of Black's move order is
that 1 3 lL!f3 can now be answered by
13 ...e4 14 lLld4 lLlxc5.
1 3 ...lt:lc6
Game 33
Rowson-Baburin
Port Erin 1999
1 e4 lt:lf6 2 e5 lt:ld5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 14 a3
lt:lb6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 lt:lc3 g6 7 ..te3 An attempt to exploit the position of
..tg7 8 l:tc1 0-0 9 b3 e5 10 dxe5 Black's queen, which meets with a
dxe5 1 1 c5 strong reply. Another possibility is 14
86
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
14 ... 'ilxa3?? would lose the queen af Volzhin pointed out another possibil
ter lS llal 'il'b4 16 lla4, but now Black ity for Black in 23 ...1i'eS!?, after which
threatens both a3 and cS. 24 'fixeS .txc4+ 2S bxc4 llxeS gives
1 5 lbxd4 exd4 1 6 .i.xd4 J:te8+ Black a winning ending.
24 Wxc4 .!Lle4?
A serious mistake. Volzhin pointed
out that simply 24 ...lte6 is strong,
threatening both ... l;)e4 and ...l;)e8.
25 'tixf7 + h8 26 'tif3 .!Llxd6
26 ...lbd2+ would also lead to a draw
after 27 llxd2 11'xd2 28 11'f6+ g8 29
'l'f7+ h8 30 'l'f6+ g8 etc.
27 cxd6 J:tf8 28 1Ve3 J:tfe8 29 'tif3
1 7 1
The loss of castling rights shows that
things have gone wrong for White,
though Rowson certainly makes a fight
of it. 17 J.e2 would have been worse,
losing a pawn for inadequate compensa
tion after the sequence 17 ...i.xd4 18
xd4 'ilxa3 19 ltdll li'xcS 20 'fixeS
ll:lxcS 2t llJdS lleS! 22 f4 (or 22 b4 J.e6
23 ll:lf6+ g7 24 f4 .:Xe2+ 25 xe2 29 We5?
..
87
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
Black's nerve is going. Allowing Af4 l:tg1 79 l:lf5 llc1 80 l:lh3 llc7
White's rooks to the seventh rank is 81 5 llf7 82 l:le3 :as 83 l:lfe5
certainly a lesser evil than the crippling l:[ff8
of his queenside pawns. After 37...lbc6
38 %ld7 Black defends himself with
38 ... b6 39 llff7 h6 40 l:tg7+ h8 41
%lh7+ g8 42 lldg7+ f8 43 %la7 g8
etc. - the rooks can check but they can't
deliver mate.
38 :as l:lbB 39 b4 :as 40 ltd1 l:lf6
41 l:d7 l:laf8 42 f4 l:l6f7 43 l:ld6
l:lb8 44 l:lxc6 l:lxb4 45 l:lcB+ g7
46 l:lg5+ f6 47 l:lc6+ e7 48
l:le5+ fB 49 l:lc8+ g7 50 Ag5+
51 l:lc6+ e7 52 l:lxa6
84 Wh6?
Missing a win with 84 lle7 llal
(84...llg8 85 f7 l%gf8 86 lte8 g7 87
:Xa8 ll.xa8 88 l:J.e8) 85 l:.e 1 lbe 1 86
l:.xel, followed by lte7 and h6.
84...l:la1 85 l:lh3 l:lg8 86 1le7 l:lg6+
87 h5 l:lg1 88 lle8+ llg8 89
l:lxg8+ xg8 90 l:la3 l:lh1 + 91 Wg4
l:lg1 + 92 4 llf1 + 93 g4 llg1 +
94 f4 l:lf1 + 95 l:[f3 1la1 ?!
Black could already force a draw with
95 ....:.xf3+! 96 q;xf3 f7, followed by
If there were only one pair of rooks ... h7-h6. Next time round he grabs this
on the board then Black should be able opportunity.
to draw. But now his king is a constant 96 l:lb3 llf1 + 97 e5 l:le1 + 98 4
source of worry, which adds considera llf1 + 99 l:lf3 l:lxf3+ 100 wxf3 wn
bly to the burden of defence. 101 Wf4 h6 102 gxh6 %-%
52 ...:Z.b8 53 h3 f8 54 h4 ltg7
55 l:lc5 g8 56 g4 l:lgb7 57 :Z.cc6 Game 34
l:lf7 58 f5 l:ld7 59 l:c3 :Z.db7 60 Honfi-Varga
l:lcc6 l:ld7 61 g5 g7 62 l:c3 Budapest 1995
l:ldb7 63 h5 l:lf7 64 l:lac6 l:la8 65
g5 l:lb8 66 ll3c5 l:[bf8 67 llb6 1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 llld 5 3 c4 ll:lb6 4 d4
:a7 68 f6+ g8 69 Wh6 :a1 70 d6 5 exd6 cxd6 6 l/Jc3 g6 7 .i.e3
:9s+ hB 11 l:lhs :n 12 9s :9s .i.g7 8 l:lc1 0-0 9 b3 e5 10 dxe5
73 :h4 l:.f5 74 :94 :n 75 l:.bb4 dxe5 1 1 'ifxd8 l:txd8 1 2 c5!
lth1 + 76 llh4 :9 1 11 llbg4 :n 78 The critical line. 12 ltlb5 is answered
88
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
1 5 .i.g5!?
14 lba5
.. Certainly a tempting move, but pos
The bishop on c4 is public enemy sibly not the best. Both Emms and
number one. Black has tried a couple of Sanakoev suggest that the quiet 15 .ie2
alternatives but neither bas produced is much more difficult for Black, and it
89
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
1 7 .i.xf871
According to Sanakoev, Black is also
slightly worse after 17 bxc4 e4 18 i.xf8
exf3 19 J.xg7 fxg2 20 llg1 xg7 2 1
16 /i)a4!? {16 cxb6 lbxb6 17 lbb5 l:.xg2, though admittedly he would have
90
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . cxd6
20 ltlg5 ltld3
91
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Summary
The Voronezh is a problem, a big one in fact. Right now I'd only recommend this
line to White, though it is possible that Black may find a major improvement in the
sharp lines arising from 9 .f5 10 g3. He can probably get a solid enough game with
.
9 e6 (or even 9 .td7) but he is unlikely to achieve full equality in these lines.
... ...
The ost natural' move is 9 e5, but defending against the initiative White ob
..
tains is probably a rather thankless task. It could be that someone like Baburin will
eventually show how Black can draw; until that happens I'd preferto recapture with
the e-pawn on move 5.
1 e4 lilt& 2 e5 llld 5 3 d4 d& 4 c4 lllb& 5 exd& cxd& 6 lllc3 g& 7 .1e3 {D)
7 h3 - Game 30
7 .1g7 8 1lc1 0-0 9 b3 e5
..
9 ..tf5 - Game 32
.
92
CHAPTER SIX I
Exchange Variation
with 5 exd6. . .
93
A lekhin e 's D e fence
94
Exchange Varia tion with 5 . . . exd6
the only move for Black as 13 ...i..xf3 is d) The other interesting move for
met by 14 i..xf3 8e7 15 g4 g6 16 ltc1 Black in this position is 14 ... g6.
and 13 ...i..f5 by 14 W"d2 h6 15 llacll White doesn't have much here which
8e7?f 16 g4 .th7 17 h4f ltlg6 18 g5 explains Velicka's attempt to introduce
hxg5 19 hxg5 i..e7 20 g2, with the a finesse based on delayed castling.
simple but highly effective plan of dou 1 1 e6
.
bling on the h-file, Kurajica-Hort, Som And not 1 1. ...i.h5 12 0.0 lte8 1 3
bor 1968) 14 W"d2 1Wd2 d5 1 4 c5 ltlc8 15 l:tad1, transpos
ing into Kurajica-Hort above.
1 2 li.le4!?
12 0-0 d5 13 c5 c8 would transpose
into Mortensen-Kengis above, which
was very reasonable for Black.
1 2 ... d5 1 3 li.lxf6+ xf6 14 c5 lt.lc8
1 5 ..d2 .i.f5
Compared to the positions arising
from 1 1 0-0, White has exchanged his
knight for Black's dark-squared bishop.
Probably this is in White's favour, for
although Black's position has been
and now: slightly freed he will find it difficult to
a) 14... h6 15 .td3 ltl8e7 16 g4 g5 17 put effective pressure against the d4-
e2 .i.g7 1 8 ltlh2, intending f2-f4, gave pawn.
White a strong attack in Armas-Graf, 1 6 b4 a6 1 7 0-0 lOSe7 18 a4 ll:lg6
West Germany 1989. 1 9 b5 axb5 20 axb5 ll:lce7 21 g41?
b) 14. . .b6 15 a4 J.d7 16 ltacl lle8 .i.d7 22 l:ae1
1 7 l:tfel ltl8e7 18 g4 h6 19 b4 g6 20
a3 ltlxd4 2 1 ltlxd4 .txa4 22 b5 put
Black in serious trouble in the game
Brynell-Baburin, Copenhagen 2000.
c) Black is doing okay after the flexi
ble 14 ... ltl8e7. Mortensen-Kengis, Mos
cow Olympiad 1994 continued 15 g4
g6! 16 ltle1 (after 16 b4 it looks quite
interesting to play 16...xb4 17 llab1
ltlbc6 1 8 llxb7 lLla5 19 l:tbb1 c4 20
i..xc4 dxc4 with the idea of ... h7-h5 in
the air) 16 ..i.g7 17 ltlg2 b6 18 cxb6
.
95
A lekhine 's D efen c e
96
Exchange Varia tion with 5 . . . exd6
Preventing 17...ll)c2.
1 7 bxc5 1 8 l0xc5 l0d6 1 9 "ild2 aS
. . Winning a pawn.
28 "ifxb5
After 28 IZ.c3 there is 28 ...11'xd3 29
IZ.xd3 llxe3! 30 llxe3 .i.xd4 etc.
28 l0xb5 29 J.f2
..
97
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
1 1 c5
Deciding to punch, rather than duck.
Alternatively White can try to blockade
10 b3 the queenside with 1 1 a4, when 1 1 ...d5
A logical and possibly superior alter (or 1 1 ...'ifc8 12 i.e2 lllb4 13 h3 dS
native is the move 10 d.S, after which 14 c5 t:Lld7 15 f4 1llf6 which also led
10 ... 1lle5 1 1 e4 .tg4 12 f3 f5 13 'iff4 to complex play in Gadjilu-Miles,
lllg6 14 ...d4 f4 15 .tf2 i.6 16 'ifd2 Linares 1998) 12 c5 IlleS 1 3 lllh 3 (13
i.f5 17 g4 fxg3 18 hxg3 was slightly lllge2 lllb4 14 f4 would transpose)
better for White but agreed drawn in 13 ...ltJb4 14 1llf4 11d7 15 1llxe6 fxe6 16
the game Donev-Zlochevsky, German 1Wh3 i.f6 17 i.b5 c6 18 i.e2 liJe7 19
Bundesliga 1996. g4 eS was good for Black in Mas-Wohl,
After the sharp 10 cS!? Black should Sydney 1999.
probably react with the risky looking 1 1 ...d7 1 2 .tbS?
98
Exchange Variation with 5 . . . exd6
1 5...b5!?
Attempting to decide the game with
an immediate attack. A simpler way to .
play the position was with the continua
tion 15 ...1llxa2+ 16 b2 lilb4, recover
ing the pawn with White's king still vul
nerable.
1 6 cxb6 /t)xa2 + 1 7 'b2 /t)xb6 1 8 31 ltla4
llJxb6 ifxb6 1 9 d51 Wa5 20 dxe6 Or 31 llle2 1Wb4 32 11fxc6 llxf7, once
99
A lekhin e 's D e fence
6 ... J.e7
Black can also try 6 ...lbc6!? in an at
tempt to prevent White from adopting
the d3 plan. The drawback is that the
knight can be driven away immediately, 8 ...J.g4
though the immediate attempt at refuta For the sensible 8 ..0-0 see the next
.
7 00
Ex change Varia tion with 5 . . . exd6
12 ... lt)xd4? loses a piece after 13 g4 lbb6 5 exd6 exd6 6 lL!c3 i.e7 7
.ig6 14 .txg6 etc.) 13 b3 :e8 14 g4 i.d3 0-0 8 lL!ge2 lL!c6
.ig6 15 .ixg6 hxg6 1 6 d5 and White Another possibility for Black is 8 ... c6,
had a nice space advantage in Panov meeting 9 1i'c2 h6 10 0-0 with lO.. .dS
Mikenas, Moscow 1942. 1 1 cS lb6d7, followed by ...b7-b6. It
10 0-0 i.g6 1 1 i.xg6 hxg6 1 2 d5 looks like a solid way to play the posi
l0e5 1 3 b3 .d7?! tion and may not leave Black suffering
Unrealistically hoping for some play from the same lack of space as the lines
on the kingside. 13 ...0-0 was better, in- in which White kicks the knight on c6
tending ...IZ.e8 and ... .tf6. with d4-d5.
9 0-0
101
A lekhin e 's Defence
10...b4
On this occasion Black succeeds in
obtaining the bishop pair as after 1 1
.i.b1 fi)xc4 1 2 a3 he can capture the
bishop on e3. 1 6 ...:ea 1 7 :ae1 d7 18 :e2
10 ... .i.g4 is still possible but led to a i.xg3 1 9 hxg3 a6 20 :te 1 lOIS 21
plus for White after 1 1 h3 .thS 1 2 'ircl2 .td4 ..d7 22 4 i.xe4 23 :xe4
1 02
Exchange Varia tion with 5 . . . exd6
:xe4 24 :xe4 :ea 25 WVe3 :xe4 kept both his space edge and bishop
26 WVxe4 f6 27 2 7 28 g4 h6 versus knight. But it's not enough to
29 e3 WVe7 30 WVxe7+ xe7 WID.
31 e4 a5 32 c5 lbg6 33 cxd6+
xd6 34 .i.f2 lbe7 35 .i.g3+ d7
36 d4 c6 37 dxc6+ xc6 38 .i.e1
b6 39 .i.d2 b5 40 .i.f4 c6 41 a4
lbg6 42 .i.g3 fa 43 e4 e6 44
f5 lbd4+ 45 g6 b3 46 xg7
c5 47 Wxh6 l.tlxa4 48 g6 l.tlc5
49 xf6 a4 50 .i.e 1 lbd3 51 .ic3
b5 52 g5 b4 53 g6 bxc3 54 g7 c2
55 g8WV c1WV 56 WVe8+ wc7 57
WVxa4 WVh6+ 58 5 WVh5+ 59 wt6
% -%
White is still slightly better. having
1 03
A lekhin e 's D efenc e
Summary
Black must know what he's doing in these lines in order to avoid the kind ofthing
that happened in Kurajica-Hon, given in the notes to Game 35. Having said that,
he can obtain excellent counterplay if he plays the position precisely. Yagupov
Balashov is certainly worth studying, as is Mortensen-Kengis, given in the notes to
Game 35. I also l ike Agdestein's flexible ... c7-c6 treatment, also given in the notes
to Game 35.
One of the best ways to play it with White is with .td3 and ltlge2, which cer
tainly calls for accurate play on Black's part if he wants to avoid falling into a pas
sive position. In this case I like Fogarasi's play against Atkinson in the note within
Game 39. Black avoided any fruitless development of his queen's bishop, instead
concentrating on the reorganisation of his kingside.
The Exchange Variation is one of the two lines I'd recommend for White against
the Alekhine, the other being the Classical. Against 5 ...exd6 I suggest the J..d3 and
ge2 set-up.
6 ltl3 J..e7 7 .i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 i.5 9 ltlc3 J..6 10 J..e3 etk6 - Game 36
6 ... .ie7 7 .id3
7 i.e3 0-0 8 f3 i.g4 9 i.e2 etk6 10 b3 i.f6 1 1 h3 - Game 35
7 . . . 0-0
7 llk6 8 ltlge2 J..g4 (D) - Game 38
..
1 04
CHAPTER SEVEN I
Four Pawns Attack :
Main Line
pawns are unable to move back. If the and 9 . . ..ib4 respectively, neither of
.
centre collapses White's entire position which have received much attention but
may implode. both of which look playable.
Black's traditional method of com
bating the Four Pawns Attack is to de Game 40
velop his pieces before attempting to Yudasin-Kengis
undermine White's pawn structure. Minsk 1985
Both sides get the opportunity to de- ._______________.
velop their pieces before commencing 1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
battle which is how people played be lbb6 5 f4 dxe5 6 txe5 c6 7 .te3
fore they broke all the rules! .i.t5 8 c3 e6 9 t3 .i.e7
The critical position comes after This natural developing move is
1 05
A lekhin e 's D e fence
13 ..,3
This is currently White's most popu
lar choice. An alternative method of
The position is in a state of dynamic defending the dS-pawn is with 13 1fb3.
1 06
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main L in e
and now:
707
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
Game 42
Paramonov-Bratchenko
PetroffMemorial, St Petersburg 2000
1 e4 lbt6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
This recommendation of Bernard lbb6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 lbc6 7 i.e3
Caffeny is an important improvement i.f5 8 lllc3 e6 9 lt)f3 i.e7 10 d5
over 18...1fa5 19 lDxg7+ d8 20 :Xd7+ li)b4
1 08
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main L in e
18 .te2
Or 18 d6 .i.d8 19 .i.e2 'ila2 20 .i.d4
.i.e4 21 lift i.xg2 22 llxf8+ xf8 23
.i.d3 .i.h4+ 24 d2 as in Buchnicek
This may be even better than the Krajnak, Stary Smokovec 1996. With
more traditional 1 1 llcl, though Black White having a supponed passed pawn
has some problems there too. Velimi on d6, Black will be struggling to hang
rovic-Marovic, Yugoslavia 1977 contin on in these endgames.
ued l l. .. exd5 (11. .. .i.g4 12 a3 6 13 1 8 ...82 1 9 J:lf1 ?
,j_e2 0-0 14 0-0 .i.cS 15 AxeS lbxc5 16 A serious mistake; for reasons known
b4 lbcd7 17 'ifd4 .i.xf3 18 ,j_xf3 was best to himself, White suddenly pre
also good for White in Vodicka sents his opponent with his own passed
L.Smejkal, Czech Team Ch. 1997/98) b-pawn. White should play 19 d6 J.d8
12 a3 c5 13 axb4 d4 14 Axd4 cxd4 1 5 20 .td4 as in the Buchnicek-Krajnak
lbxd4 1Wb8 16 lbxfS 1Wxe5+ 1 7 .i.e2 game above.
'ifxf5 18 c5 lbd7 19 ltld5 AdS 20 llc3 1 9 ...W'xb2 20 J:lxf8+ xf8 21 d6
0-0 2 1 ltle3 1l'e6 22 Ag4 f5 23 .i.f3 .td8 22 .td4 11a2 23 11a1 b3 24
with strong pressure. 11b2 xb2 25 .t.xb2 .i.e4 26 .tf3?
1 1 ... .t.g6 1 2 a3 c5 1 3 xe6!
The key move. 13 axb4 cxd4 14
11'xd4 i.xb4 1 5 dxe6 11xd4 16 .i.xd4
0-0 17 exf7+ .i.xf7 gave Black the initia
tive in Blazek-Kantorik, Slovakian Ch.
1995.
1 3 fxe6 14 axb4 cxb4 1 5 a4 o-o
..
1 09
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
1 10
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main L in e
10...e7 1 1 0-0-0 f6!? and went on to 1981. Last, but not least, it isn't good to
win against Schenstok in a 1968 game in play 12 0-0-0 because of 12 ...lha5 13
Holland. The game continued 12 exf6 1i'c2 .i.f5 - yet another advantage of
.i.xf6 13 lhe4 0-0 14 e2 1i'e8 15 lbfg5 Black keeping his bishop.
f5 16 g4 xg5 17 lhxg5 g6 18 h4 1 2 1Wd7 13 b4
.
h5 19 gxh5 f5, which looks very dan White tries to profit from the move
gerous for Black but probably isn't that 1 1 a3, but these space gaining opera
easy. tions leave huge gaping spaces behind
b) 10 ...'ifd7 1 1 .i.e2 0-0-0 (the posi the ranks. The game Hiibner-Hort, Biel
tion after the voluntary 1 1.. ..i.xf3 12 1987 went 13 .i.e2 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 f5
gxf3 can also be reached via 10 e2 15 lhg3 i.g6 16 h4? (16 .i.d3 is better)
xf3 1 1 gxf3 'ifd7 12 'ifd2 and seems and now Black uncorked the startling
quite difficult for Black after the further 16 ...lbb4! 17 b3 (17 axb4 'iia4 18 .td3
12 ...0-0-0 1 3 0-0-0 b4 14 a3 e7 15 lbxc4} 17 ...lhc2 18 c5 1fc6! 19 .id3.
lhe4 f6 16 exf6 gxf6 17 :hg1) 12 c5! Here 19 ... lhxa3 20 b2 xd3 21 Wxd3
xf3 (12 ... lhd5 13 lhxd5 'i'xd5 14 b4 i.xc5 would have been the crispest way
a6 15 a4 looks very strong - White can to finish matters according to Hort.
still castle kingside!) 13 cxb6 xg2 14
b5 a6 (14...xht 15 bxa7 will be fol
lowed by promotion) 15 1i'xg2 axb5
(Shabalov-Kengis, Riga 1989} and now
Shabalov gave 16 a4! b4 17 bxc7 'ifxc7
18 lhb5 1i'd7 19 0-0 as being good for
White.
17 1
A lekhin e 's De fenc e
but his king is horribly exposed. An lbb6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 lbc6 7 .ie3
other good line was 25 ...'i'e7 26 "ffc3 .if5 8 lbc3 e6 9 lilf3 'fld7
t'Lla4 27 "ffd4 t'Llc5, with the knight Another way of putting pressure on
threatening to come into the e4-square. d4 which has many similarities to
26 Wc3 h5 9...i.g4.
10 d5
A tricky line in which the complica
tions are still unresolved. What is clear
is that White must have nerves of steel
to play this way as his king may have to
spend some time in the centre.
White's most testing line is 10 i.e2
after which the once traditional
10... 0-0-0 11 0-0 (1 1 "ffd2 t'Llb4)
1 1 ...i.g4 now seems very dangerous for
Black because of 12 c5! (12 t'Llg5!? lDxc4
13 llxf7 'i'e8 14 i.f2 h6 15 i.xg4 hxgS
27 e6 16 llxf8 l:txf8 17 "ffe2 t'Llb6 is uncon
Perhaps 27 d6 would have been bet vincing) 12 ...t'Lld5 13 t'Llxds 'i'xd5 14
ter, but in any case White is in trouble. b4!? (14 t'Llg5 i.xe2 15 'i'xe2 lDxd4 16
27 . . .'fle7 28 h3 J:lhg8 29 hxg4 hxg4 i.xd4 'i'xd4+ 17 h1 'i'd2 18 ..xd2
30 Wd4 f4 31 .id3 Wg5 32 .te4 f3! lhd2 19 llxf7 i.xc5 20 t'Llxe6 i.d4 21
33 c5 lbc8 t'Llxd4 llxd4 led to drawish rook end
Baburin also mentioned the line games in Ligterink-Gipslis, Amsterdam
33 ... g3+ 34 xf3 g2 35 llhg1 llgf8+ 36 1976 and Gipslis-Kengis,Jurmala 1983)
e2 "ffg4+ 37 <it>e3! lDxds+ 38 i.xdS 14 ...'ife4 15 1i'b3 t'Llxd4! 16 t'Llxd4 i.xe2
'i'g3+ 39 e2 llxciS, but bringing the 17 lbxe2!? lld3 18 1i'a4 1i'xe3+ 19 h1
knight round is much simpler. 'ifxe2 20 'i'xa7 ltd2 21 "iVa8+ d7 22
34 J:lh7 g3+ 35 Wxf3 g2 36 J:lg1 'i'xb7
J:tdf8+ 37 We2?
37 llf7! is White last chance.
37 .'flg4+ 38 Wd3 Ilf3+ 39 .ixf3
.
Game 44
Mendes-R.Rodrigues
Figueira Foz Honra 1999
1 12
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main Line
Game 45
10 exd5 1 1 cxd5 b4 1 2 d4
.. Kulaots-Kengis
6xd5 1 3 o!Oxf5?? Riga Zona/ 1995
White should play 13 llJxd5, aher
which 13...lbxd5 14 llJxf5 .i.b4+ 1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
(14... 0-0-0!? 15 ..d3 g6 is also very in b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c6 7 .ie3
teresting, Bullockus-OakJey, correspon .i.f5 8 o!Oc3 e6 9 f3 .i.b4
dence 1984) 15 e2! 0-0-0 16 llJd6+
i..xd6 17 1i'xd5 1i'f5 18 'Wc4 1h- leh
unanswered questions in Tomic-Gipslis,
Dortmund 1978.
1 3 . . . 0-0-0
Theory gives the simple 13 'WxfS 14
.
1 13
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Although this move has a poor repu 10 ...J..e7? I should point out that 1 1 d5
tation, its adoption by an Alekhine spe will be very strong because Black's
cialist such as Kengis should at least knight is unable to come to b4.
earn it a second look. 1 1 bxc3 0-0!?
10 a3?! A very simple and reasonable move,
If White plays the solid 10 J.e2, preparing to play 12 ...lLla5.
Black should try to develop counterplay In the game Faibisovich-Bagirov,
with 10...0-0 (10: .. lLla5!? 1 1 c5 lLld5 12 Baku 1969 the Alekhine maestro gained
J.d2 lLlc6 13 0-0 0-0 14 J.g5 was the advantage after l l ...'fld7 12 .i.e2
played in Rohde-Shamkovich, New lLlaS 13 lLld2 1i'c6 14 J..f3? 1i'a4 15 c5
York 1976) 1 1 0-0 lLla5!? 12 lLld2 (12 c5 'flxdl+ 16 ltxdl lLld5 17 .i.xdS exd5 18
.i.xc3! 13 bxc3 lLlbc4! is an excellent 0-0 .i.g6! 19 llde 1 d7; Black is better
possibility that was not available for due to his superior pawn structure.
Black in the Rohde-Shamkovich game Bagirov later suggested 14 0-0 as an
because White could take the knight improvement and gave the line
and play 1i'a4+) 12 ....i.g6 13 1i'el c5 14 14 ...lLlaxc4 15 lLlxc4 lLlxc4 16 d5 lLlxe3
a3 .i.xc3 15 bxc3 llc8 16 l:.cl 'fle7 and 17 dxc6 lLlxdl 18 cxb7 llb8 19 .i.b5+
the veiled threat against the a3-pawn f8 20 llaxd1 llxb7 21 l:ld8+ rJi;e7 22
gave Black excellent counterplay in .:.xh8 .:.xb5.
Goldenberg-Ghizclavu, Graz 1972.
After 10 llcl the Czech GM Pavel
Blatny suggested the line 10 ...0-0 1 1 a3
..txc3+ 12 llxc3 ...d7 13 .i.e2 llfd8 14
0-0 .i.g4 15 <itht .i.xf3 16 .i.xf3 lLlxd4
17 .i.g5 with an 'unclear' assessment.
1 o ..i.g4!? is also interesting, aiming for
..
1 2 c5 d5 13 i.d2 f61
With White still lagging behind in de
velopment, Black prises the position
open.
1 4 exf6 xf6 1 5 .i.b5 e5 16 .i.xc6
bxc6 1 7 dxe5
After 17 lLlxe5 'irh4+ 18 rJi;e2 (or 18
g3 1i'e4+) 18...llae8! 19 h3 llxe5+ 20
dxeS ...e4+ Black gets a winning attack.
10 ...i.xc3+ 17 ...-.e7 18 ._a4
Before anyone gets the idea to play White should have tried 18 c4!?, but
1 14
Four Pa wns A ttack: Main Lin e
then 1 8...li)f6 19 .ig5 .tg4 1ooks pretty This bishop cuts through White's p<>
good for Black in any case. sition like a knife through butter. Of
18 .. JWxc5 1 9 9d4 'irxd4 20 cxd4 particular importance is the fact that it
.i.d3! controls the b1-square and thus pre
vents White from contesting the b-file.
21 .i.b4 J:r.fb8 22 Wd2 .i.g6 23 J:r.hc1
aS 24 .*.c3 .Ub3 25 a4 c5! 26 l:.a2
26 dxcS loses a piece after 26 ...li)xc3
27 llxc3 l':d8+.
26 c4 27 & 1 IUS 28 f3 f4
..
0-1
The pawn on g2 is falling and with it,
White's position.
1 15
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
Summary
I don't think that it's the right time to start playing the trendy 9 .tg4 unless Black
..
can find a way to generate meaningful counterplay after 10 e2. So unless Black
wants to study the complications arising from 9 . .te7 10 d5 he should take a look
. .
I recommend that full-time Alekhine players use one of the solid lines given in
this chapter together with one ofthe more experimental lines given in Chapter 8. It
is probably advisable to learn the solid line first.
9 'ffd7 - Game 44
..
9 .tb4 - Game 45
...
1 0 d5
10 e2 0.0 1 1 0-0 f6 12 exf6 .txf6 Game 40
-
1 0 exd5
..
10 ...lbb4 Game 42
-
3 .tb4
. . . 3 .'fle7
. . 9
. . . 0-0
1 16
I CHAPTER EIGHT I
Four Pawns Attack :
Divergences
1 17
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
Game 46
Vetemaa-Shabalov
USSR 1986
1 e4 li)f6 2 e5 li)dS 3 d4 d6 4 c4
li)b6 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c5!?
1 18
Four Pawns A ttack: Divergences
Game 47
Grunfeld-Ljubojevic
Riga Interzona/ 1979
10 .i.c5
. . 1 e4 lOt& 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d& 4 c4
Preventing White from castling king lOb& 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c5 7 d5 e& 8
side, and the other flank turns out to be lbc3 exd5 9 cxd5 c4 10 lbt3
pretty dangerous too. White's usual move, which leaves
1 1 lbt3 0-0 1 2 .te2 .tf5! 1 3 .tgS Black the choice about which knight to
Wd7 1 4 "ild2 h& 1 5 .tf4 lOa& 1 6 pm.
0-0-0 llac8 1 7 h3 l0a4! 10 .tg4
The prelude to a really fantastic com Recently Black has been playing
bination. Shabalov must have foreseen 10....i.b4! which leads to an endgame in
his 20th move at this point. which he gets excellent positional com
1 8 lbd4 .txd4 1 9 "ilxd4 l06c5 20 pensation for a pawn: 1 1 .i.xc4 (aher
.txc4 Wb5!! Timman's suggestion of 1 1 .i.gS, Black
seems to survive with 1 1 .. . .i.xc3+ 12
bxc3 xdS 13 xdS xdS 14 0-0-0
e7 15 .i.xe7 e7 16 .i.xc4 .i.g4 17
llhft c6) 1 1...i..xc3+ 12 bxc3 xc4
13 'ira4+ dl 14 'irxc4 b6 15 'irb5+
11fd7 16 'i'xd7+ (after 16 11fe2 'irxdS 17
().() 0-0 18 .i.a3 lieS Black's pieces get
well entrenched on the light squares)
16 i.xd7 17 d6 llc8 18 .i.d2 (18 .i.e3
..
1 19
A lekhin e 's D e fence
120
Four Pawns A t tack: Divergences
greed. 17 ...l:le8 18 .i.f6 ltl8d7 19 ltle4 Tecklenburg 1984) 23 ... ltl8d7 24 'ifh4
l:lxe5 (19 ... ltlxe5? is refuted by the dev- 11'xe5+ 25 1 h5 26 ltlxh5 gxh5 27
astating 20 llxg6+!!) 20 .i.xe5 ltlxe5 21 'iixh5+ g8 28 l:lg2 and White wins
e2 .i.d6 was played in Banaventure (Wiemer).
Renaud, Le Havre 1977, and now 22 21 l08d7! 22 e7 1i'xh2!
..
llacl would leave Black struggling. Black can afford to return some ma
17...ltl8d7 is well met by 18 d6 'i'c6 19 terial as long as he breaks White's at
0-0-0. tack.
18 d6 -.c5! 23 exfB + D.xf8 24 1i'xh2
The only defence. 18 ...11'c8 19 0-Q.O A forlorn hope, but White has noth
.i.c5 20 e6! fxe6 2 1 1i'e5 lieS (or ing better.
21...lbd5 22 d7!!) 22 i.h6 d7 23 ltle4 24.....ixh2 25 lOt&+ Wg7 26 lbxd7
ltlc6 24 ltlf6+ wins for White, as lbxd7 27 ..te7 D.bB!
pointed out by Bronstein.
19 lbe4 d4 20 D.d 1 xb2
28 Wf2
Black's precise 27th move ensured
21 e6?! that 28 .i.a4 is met by 28 ...b5.
In such complex positions it can of 28 .....ie5 29 D.c1 lbc5! 30 D.d1 .if&
ten take years to uncover the right path, 31 ..ixf6+ Wxf6 32 ..tc4 D.dB 33
and it seems that White missed his way g3 a& 34 ..tf1 e5 35 f4+ e&
at this point. 36 ..ic4+ Wf6 37 Wt3 b5 0-1
The correct line is 21 ltlf6+ hS 22
.:td2 1i'a1+ (22.. .'W'b1+ 23 e2 ltl8d7 24 Game 48
1i'h4 h5 25 ltlxh5 was also winning for Volzhinwl.Svechnikov
White in Moura-Rinaldi, correspon USSR 1988
dence 1983, while 22.....cl+ 23 e2
'ifc5 24 fl 1i'c1 + 25 J.d1 also leaves 1 e4 lbf& 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
Black facing deadly threats to his king) lOb& 5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 c5 7 d5 g6!?
23 .i.dH (23 lld1 'iib2 24 l:ld2 repeats An intriguing move which takes aim
the position, while 23 e2 ltlc6 24 1i'h4 at the eSwpawn. As yet it has very little
h5 was unclear in Griinfeld-Wiemer, established theory.
121
A lekhin e 's Defenc e
8 .*.f4
White can also play 8 llk3 .ig7 9
.i.f4 (9 .ie3 0-0 10 .i.xc5 llJ8d7 will
recover the pawn with a good game,
while 9 c!ilf3 is met by 9 ....i.g4).
8 .tg7 9 .!Oc3 0-0 1 0 Wrd2
.
122
Four Pa wns A ttack: Divergen ces
32 ...d2 +
Finally it is dear why White's king
went to b3 on move 25. Had he played
25 b1 he would be getting mated!
33 a4 xh7
Black decides not to push his luck
and accedes to a draw by perpetual
23 ...Wxa2+1 24 xa2 b4+ 25 check. The attempt to play for a win
b3! xd3 26 h51 with 33 ...l:tc4+ 34 b4 tbh5? is met by 35
The only chance. With both players :XhS :.Xg4 36 l:lxh6+ xfS 37 liJxf8
in time trouble it is Black's turn to make xeS 38 lbd7 +I f5 39 l:H6+ e4 40
a mistake. liX5+ e5 41 d7 (Volzhin).
26 gxh5?
.. 34 l:txh6+ g8 35 e7+ g7 36
The right way to play it was with f5+ 98 37 e7+ % -%
26 ...lbxf4! 27 hxg6 fxg6! (and not
27 ...lbxg6? 28 lhh7+! xh7 29 l:th 1+ Game 49
i..h6 30 lbg5+ g7 31 lbf5+ g8 32 Djurhuus-Agdestein
lbxh6+ g7 33 lbf5+ g8 34 l:th7 Norwegian Ch., Asker 2000
lbd2+ 35 b4 l:tc4+ 36 a3 lbb1+ 37
a2 J:.d8 38 llg7+ f8 39 l:txf7+ g8 1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4
40 ltlh6+ h8 41 l:th7 mate). b6 5 f4 .tf5 6 c3 e6 7 f3
27 l:lxh5 xf4 After 7 i..e3 Black can play 7 dxe5
..
After 27... lbxe1 Volzhin gave 28 (7...liJa6?! would leave Black's knight on
lbgS h6 29 d7! lba5+ 30 ct>a2 li)c6 31 a6 badly placed after 8 exd6 cxd6 9
lbxc6 bxc6 32 d8'if! l:txd8 33 li)xf7 + liJf3) 8 fxe5 i..b4!? (8...lllc6 transposes
h7 34 lbxd8 tLid3 35 e6! llxh5 36 into the main lines) 9 liJf3 c5, which is
gxh5 i.. f6 37 i..c7 with a drawish end- known to give Black good counterplay:
1 23
A /ekhine 's Defen c e
1 24
Four Pa wns A ttack: Diverg enc es
1 25
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
to a side note. But neither of the sug 13 lba3 0-0-0 14 xc6 l2Jxc6 1 5 lbc2
gestions offered seem very good; 6 lbf3 .i..fS 16 lbe3 Ad3 17 d2 e4 18 lbc2
can be met by 6... g4 and 6 'it'h5 by ..ixf3 19 gxf3 lbxd4 20 l2Jxd4 Ld4+ 2 1
6... dxe5. Meanwhile, 6 d5?! e6 7 f5 exfS e2 llc4 2 2 e3 ltc2+ 2 3 'iti>d3 llxb2
8 e6 'it'f6 was better for Black in Erma 0-1 .
kov-Keene, correspondence 1971-72. 8 ...llJd5 9 i..c4
If White is in search of a good line The game Blake-Schirmer, corre
against 5 ...g5!?, then maybe he should spondence 1994 continued 9 fxg5 .i.g7
also look at simple development with 6 10 .i..c4 l2Jc6 1 1 lbf3 Wf5 12 ..ie3?
lL!c3. lbxe3 13 xe3 lbxd4 14 lbxd4 Wxg5+
6 . . .1i'xd61 15 ..td3 ..if5+ 16 ci>c3 1!fe3+, when
This was thought to be bad, with no Black recovered the piece with a win
less an authority than Vlastimil Hon ning attack.
recommending White's reply. Black's 9 . . .gxf4 1 0 'iff3
earlier try was 6 ...gxf4 but then 7 dxc7! White could also consider simple de
'ii'xc7 8 lDc3 e5 9 dxe5 lbc6 10 xf4 velopment with 10 lL!f3, after which
j.e6 1 1 lbe4 b4+ 12 'itf2 lbxc4 13 10 ... 1i'f5 could be Black's best.
i.xc4 Axc4 14 lL!f3 was horrible in 10 ...c6 1 1 i..xf4 i..g 7
Tringov-Pianinc, Varna 1970. I suggest 1 1 ... 11t'g6 (!), keeping e7 de
7 c5 'ife&+ fended, the g-file open and preparing
... .i.e6. The position looks very interest
ing and complex.
1 2 llJe2 llJd7 13 llJbc3 llJ7f6 14 h3
1i'd7 15 l:lad1 llJxf4 16 llJxf4 'iff5
16 ...0-0?! 17 l:r.he1 is poor for Black,
so he leaves his king on e8 for the mo
ment in order to defend the e-pawn.
17 g4 1i'g5 18 l:lhg 1 !?
8 2!?
At this point Hon gave 8 ...e2 but
then in Zoels-Schirmer, 1993, Black
generated powerful counterplay with
8...lbd5 9 Wxe6 (delaying the exchange
of queens with 9 fxg5 Ag7 10 lbf3 ltk6
doesn't help White) 9 ...j.xe6 10 fxg5
Ag7 1 1 lbf3 l2Jc6 12 Ab5 lbdb4! (the
key move, avoiding doubled pawns and White can also try to eliminate
opening the d-file against the d4-pawn) Black's dark-square bishop with 18
126
Four Pa wns A t tack: Diverg en c es
lllli5, after which 18...lihh5 19 1i'xf7+ 7 cxd6 exd6 8 exd6 ll:lf6! 9 We2+
d8 20 .xh5 IU8+ 2 1 'it>g2 1i'xh5 22 .i.e6 10 ll:lc3
gxh5 gives White slightly the better of 10 fS? doesn't work because of
the endgame, but 1 8 ...1i'h4+ 19 g2 10...1fa5+.
l:lg8!? is still messy. 10 g6!
127
A lekhine 's Defen c e
this does look rather ugly after 35 b6! 8 ... a5! 9 a4 6 10 l:td1 b4 1 1 f3
J:[b8 36 8 ltld8. dS! 12 cxdS (12 cS?! 4!) 12 ...xd5!
35 l[)xeS bxe5 36 e3 16 37 l:ld5 13 dS .txdS 14 1ic2 .txf3 15 gxf3
a4 38 d3 e6 39 e4 l:lxd7 40 dS 16 .i.ct e6 with a clear advantage
l:lxd7 xd7 41 Wxe5 f5 42 b4 f4 for Black because of his superior pawn
43 xa4 g5 44 *b3 g4 45 e3 h5 structure and grip on dS.
46 d3 h4 47 .2 1 -0 8 lbf3
1 28
Four Pa wns A ttack: Diverg en c es
White has also tried the supposed exd6 exd6, intending 1 1... IZ.e8, whilst 9
'refutation' 8 cS!?, but then 8 ...6d7 is b3 allows 9 ... c5! 10 dxc5 6d7 1 1 cxd6
not at all clear {and not 8...dxc5 9 dxcS exd6 12 1i'xd6 xeS! etc.
1i'xd1 + 10 llxd1 6d7 1 1 dS etc.). 9 ...a5! 10 g5
After the further moves 9 f3 b6! 10 The threat of 10 ... a4 is quite difficult
b4 .i.b7 1 1 i.e2 aS 12 a3 bxcS 13 bxcS to meet; after 10 a4?! 6 Black gets
dxcS 14 dxc5 ltla6, Black had excellent the b4-square as in the Kotek-Sergiev
counterplay in the game Rogers-Loffler, game above.
Wijk aan Zee 1996. 9 h4!? has been sug White's can play 10 4!?, after
gested by Volzhin and would need an which 10 . .d5 1 1 ed2 {1 1 egS?! dxc4
.
9 3
After 9 cl2 dxeS 10 fxeS {10 dxeS 1 1 xe&
may be White's best, but Black has an 1 1 1i'b5?! can be met by 1 1. .. .i.d7 12
easy game after 10 ...6, intending ..b4 6 13 1i'a3 f6!, detonating
...f7-f6) 10 ... c5! 1 1 d5 {or 1 1 dxcS White's centre.
6d7} 1 t ....tfs 12 .tf4 e6! 13 d6 6 1 1 ... axb3 1 2 xd8 l:lxd8 1 3 a3
14 f3 d7, Black won the eS-pawn in c6 14 0-0-0?!
Schmidt Schaeffer-Haakert, Germany After this White gets renewed prob
1988. lems with his c4-pawn. Volzhin rec
Of White's other moves, 9 d5? is ommended an improvement for White
downright bad because of 9....tg4 10 in 14 :c1, his analysis continuing
1 29
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
1 30
Four Pa wns A ttack: Divergences
Summary
The lines in this chapter are still largely uncharted, with only 6 c5 7 d5 e6 being
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 b6 5 f4 dxeS
S ... .tfS - Game 49
5 ... g5 Game 50
-
5 . . . c5 7 d5 13 . . . 0-0
131
CHAPTER NINE I
The Chase Variation
1 32
Th e Chase Varia tion
slightly better for White because of his with 1 1 1i'd2 achieved nothing after
lead in develoJ?ment. The text is Bagi 1 1.....i.e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:lfd1 d6 14 exd6
rov's idea. cxd6 in Kalikova-Hallerova, Czech
Women's Ch., Nymburk 1994.
1 1 ...i.e7 1 2 'i'd3!? 0-0
According to Finkel, the tempting
12. ..o!Da7?! leaves Black with slightly the
worse endgame after 13 .ta4 ..i.xf3 14
gxf3 llJc6 15 ..i.xc6 dxc6 16 "ffe4 "ffdS
17 l:lfdl "ffxe4 1 8 fxe4, his problems
stemming from the fact that he can't
castle without allowing White's rook
into d7.
13 l:lfd1 d5 14 exd6 cxd6
And not 14 ... ..i.xd6?! 1 5 llJg5, which
7 ll:lf3 e6 8 i.e3 b6 9 i.b51? forces a serious weakening of Black's
This is probably the only move to kingside. In the game too, White man
give White solJle pressure. 9 'iVa4?! gave ages to bring some real pressure to bear.
Black the initiative after 9 .....i.xcS 1 0
..i.xcS bxcS 1 1 0-0-0 f6!? 12 ..i.bS o!DxeS
13 l:the 1 0-0 14 o!DxeS fxeS 1 5 .txd7
'iVgS+ in Cappello-Bagirov, Tunis 1979,
while after 9 cxb6 axb6 1 0 a3 fS!? 1 1
exf6 tfxf6 12 gS 1i'f7 13 .td3 .ta6 1 4
c4 .td6 15 1i'c2 1i'h5 Black had a com
pact and well organised position in Fo
garasi-Bagirov, Budapest 1989.
9 ....i.b7 10 cxb6 axb6
1 33
A lekhin e 's D e fenc e
1 34
Th e Chase Varia tion
1 3 J..e2
The impatient 13 g5? is answered
by 13 ...'tlt'a3! 14 e4 .i.b7 15 ll)6+
Once again this is a key move for t:lie7, when Black's threats prove to be
Black. He undermines White's pawn far more serious.
structure and prepares to develop his 1 3 f51
. .
135
A lekhin e 's D e fence
Wisely continuing with his develop problematic winning chances. 34.. 1id8
.
ment. After 15...dxc3 White can play 16 is probably the best, though Black still
llab1, which prevents the development has cause for concern over the position
of the bishop. of his king.
16 cxd4 .i.d5 1 7 J:fd1 l0c6 18 l0e1
J:b8 1 9 J:ab 1
34 l0c3!
quite nice, the position of his king gives c6 38 Wxe2 'ifg4+ 39 l0f3 'ife4+
constant cause for concern. 19 ...llxb 1? 40 Wd2 ds 41 'ifh 1 1ia2+ 42 We3
20 .:Xb1 .i.xa2 would be tantamount to 'ifb3+ 43 We2 Wb2+ 44 Wd3 a4 45
suicide after 21 l:tb7 d8 22 .i.b51 etc. 'ifd1 a3 46 c2 'ilb5+ 47 Wc3 :.as
20 a4 Wd8 21 Wd2 Wa3 22 "irh6 48 11a2 'ifd5 49 'ifb1 + Wc7 50 l0d2
'ife7 23 J:lb5 Wg7 a2 0-1
Finkel suggested 23 ... .i.b3, going af
ter White's a-pawn. Game 55
24 'ifh3 Ci:Je7 25 J:db 1 .i.c6 26 J:xb6 Posch-Baburin
axb6 27 aS l0d5 28 .i.f3 'ifg5 Vienna 1995
And not 28 ... bxa5? because of 29
llb8+ e7 30 1ih4+ 1Wg5 31 'ifxh7+ 1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 Ci:Jd5 3 c4 Ci:Jb6 4 c5
llg7 32 1i'h8 etc. l0d5 5 .i.c4 e6 6 l0c3
29 g3 &3 30 J:la1 Ci:Je4 31 'ifxh7 6 1i'g4 was tried in Radojevic
bxa5 32 J:b 1 Wc8 33 .i.e2 .i.b7 34 Bagirov, Trinec 1973, with Black win
'ifh3? ning quickly after 6 ...b4 7 lba.3 b6 8
A blunder in time-trouble. The cor d4 .i.a6 9 1We4 8c6 10 i.xa6 xa6 1 1
rect move was 34 f3!, after which ...d3? (1 1 cxb6 is good for Black but
34 ...1Wg7?! 35 1Wxg7 l%xg7 36 llb3! (pre not fatal) 1 l ...ab4 12 c4 bxc5 13
venting ...ltk3) 36 ... a4 37 lla3 .i.c6 38 dxcS xeS 0-1.
.i.d1 wins the a-pawn and gives White 6 ...ltlxc3
136
Th e Chase Varia tion
9 g3
9 1i'd2 ltlxe5! 10 .ie2 ltlg6 1 1 J.xc7
a1) 9 a3 .tf8 10 .tg5 (10 bxc3!? - .ixc5 12 .tg3 1ra4 also left White with
Sveshnikov) 10 ... h5 1 1 'irf4 ltld5 12 insufficient compensation in Angelov
.txdS .ie7 13 .ixe7 Wxe7 looks like Suba, Varna 1975.
rather nebulous compensation for the 9 ....e7 10 b4
pawn. After 10 1i'e2 Black obtained the bet
a2) 9 bxc3 9 ....txc3+ 10 ft 'tie7 1 1 ter game with 10...g5! {10...1rxc5 also
l%b1 (1 1 Wxg7 1rf8 1 2 1rf6 l:lg8 also leaves me wondering if White can pos
leaves White struggling) 1 1 ...f5 12 1ih5+ sibly have enough) 1 1 .td2 'tixc5 12
g6 13 1rd1 ltlc6 and White's compensa .txg5 11'xe5 13 11'xe5 liJxeS 14 i.f6
tion was inadequate in Sveshnikov liJxc4 15 .txh8 ltlxb2 in Holzl
Khmelnitsky, Sibenik 1990. Speelman, Hastings 1971/72.
b) 6 ...ltlc6 7 d4 ltlxc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 10 /iJ3 h6 1 1 i.e3 b6 12 cxb6 axb6
cxd6 cxd6 10 exd6 .ixd6 1 1 ltlf3 0.0 12 13 'tie2 .tb7 14 0.0?! (14 0-0-0!?)
0-0 e5 was also fine for Black in Vavra 14 ...g5! was also very promising for
Pacl, Czech Team Ch. 1992. Black in Hegedus-Grunberg, Romanian
7 dxc3 .!Llc6 Ch., Bucharest 1985.
7....txc5 8 1rg4! gives White a dan
gerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
After 7 ...ltlc6 Black can meet 8 ltJf3
with 8 ... .txc5 because 'tig4 has been
ruled out.
8 ..t.f4 .h41?
An interesting idea of Mihai Suba
which comes close to winning a pawn
by force. Can White hang on to it or, if
not, demonstrate sufficient compensa
tion?
137
A/ekhin e 's D e fence
.i.e&
1 2 ..td4!?
An interesting attempt to breathe
new life into White's position. 12 'ifhS
i.g7! 13 i.xgS i.f6 14 i.xf6 Wxf6 15
'ffe2 xc4 16 'ffxc4 bS! 17 Wd4 11'xd4 19 %lg5?
18 cxd4 i.b7 19 f3 aS! gave Black a So far White has played very well, but
huge endgame advantage in Schwarts this is a mistake. He should play 19
Solozhenkin, New York,1994. ll:\f4! We4 20 fl! {threatening 21 f3
1 2 .....tg7 1 3 .i.e2 d6 14 cxd6 cxd6 3 22 i.d3) 20... h6 2 1 f3, aher which
1 5 h4 the forced retreat with 21...'ffh7 leaves
15 f4? is wrong because of 15 ...gxf4 White with definite compensation.
16 gxf4 11'h4+ etc. 1 9 . . .'ife4 20 l:lxg7 l!Jf3+ 21 1
1 5 .....td7 ll:lh2+ 22 e1 ll:lf3+ 23 1 ll:lxd4
16 hxg5! 24 f3
16 f4?! still doesn't work, this time This leaves White two pawns down
because of 16 ... gxf4 1 7 gxf4 i.c6 18 without anythingto show for them. But
lth3 0-0-0 19 Wc2 i.f6 20 fxeS i.xh4+ 24 Wxd4 is hardly attractive as after
1 38
Th e Chase Variation
24...1i'h l+! 25 g1 i.g2+ 26 e1 /1Jxd2 0-0 looks fine for Black) 9 ...lbxa6
'ifxg1 + 27 d2 Wxa1 he loses most of 10 0-0 i.e7 l l ll)c3 /1Jab4 12 a3 0-0 13
his pieces. /1Je4 f5 14 /1Jc3 c6 15 i.d2 /1Ja6 16
24 lllxf3 25 *t'2 llle5 26 .!bt4
. /1Jxd5 exd5 17 'ti'cl l1Jc7; Black's knight
0-0-0 27 b5 .J.e8 28 l:lb1 d5 29 :Z.b4 is coming to the 'dream' e6-square
'Llc4 30 'ira4 Wb8 31 .J.t3 'ire3+ 32 which makes his position super-solid.
g2 1fxc3 33 .!bxe6 l:lc8! 34 .txd5 Neither 8 Wg4 f5 nor 8 c3 /1Jxc3 9
1i'd2+ 0-1 bxc3 d5! 10 .i.d3 i.a6 {Machulsky
r------....., Bagirov, Kirovabad 1973) promise
Game 56 White anything.
Potkin-Neverov 8 ...d6
St Petersburg 2000 Black has also played 8 ...i..a6, after
.______________. which Semeniuk-Mikhalchishin, Cheli-
1 e4 lllt6 2 e5 .!bd5 3 c4 lllb6 4 c5 abinsk 1975 continued 9 i.xd5!? exd5
.!bd5 5 .i.c4 e6 6 d4 b&!? 10 bc3 c6 11 0-0 .i.e? 12 :et (12 f4!?
Another possibility is 6...d6, which f5 13 g4 fxg4 14 llf2, intending g3
actually transposes into a 2 c3 Sicilian and f4-f5, is worth a second look)
after 7 cxd6 cxd6. 12 ...0-0 13 g3 d6 14 f4 f5 with a good
game for Black.
9 0-0 .i.b7 10 1fb3 dxe5 1 1 dxe5
ll:ld7 1 2 1t'g3
Making it difficult for Black to de
velop his kingside. Black tries to solve
the problem by re-routing a knight to f5
although this costs valuable time.
1 2 ll:le7 13 .!bd4 c5 14 1Llxe6!?
. .
7 cxb6
White has also played 7 1Wg4 bxc5 8
i.xd5 exd5 9 i.g5 i.e7 10 .i.xe7 xe7
1 t 1i'xg7 9f8 12 96 (Longschmidt
Zeh, correspondence 1988) and now
Burgess's suggestion of 12 ... l:lg8 looks
very good for Black.
7 ... axb6 8 .!be2
White played 8 /1Jf3 in Machulsky One of those infamous positional
Gurgenidze, USSR 1973, but failed to piece sacrifices. White gets two pawns
obtain any advantage after 8 ... .i.a6! 9 and Black's king is stuck in the centre.
.i.xa6 (9 bd2 .i.b4 10 0-0 i.xd2 1 1 Enough compensation? Who knows?
7 39
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
l:acl ! would continue the attack. l:lt7 32 11e2 ltdta 33 .:n 1Wg5 34
24 b4 g6 25 .tc2 1Wc4 Wh7 35 li:ld4 11g4!
25 d37
. 36 ll:le6??
Perhaps Volzhins suggestion of A blunder in mutual time trouble. M
25 ...i.c8! 26 11fg3 tt:le6 would have been ter the superior 36 tt:\3! llf4 (and not
better, though in this case too Black's 36 ...l%xf3 37 1i'xg4 :x2 because of 38
king is far from safe. llfxf2! hxg4 39 llxcS llxf2 40 .C.c7+
26 bxc5 dxc2 27 1ld7+ g8 28 etc.) 37 1i'e6! .C.8f6 38 11fxg4 hxg4 39
1Wxb7 ltd8 29 ltac1 tt:leS .C.d6 a draw is the most likely out
According to Volzhin, another inter come, Black's pressure against f2 com
esting possibility was 29 tt:ld6!?, after pensating for the pawn.
which 29 ... i.xd6 {29... bxc5 30 'irb3+ 36 ....:Xf21 37 ll:lxf8+ ltxf8+ 38
..th7 31 tt:le4) 30 cxd6 11fxd6 31 llacl :tt2 'irxc4 0-1
1 40
The Chase Varia tion
Summary
The Chase Variation offers Black his fair share of the play in a sharp and uncom
promising struggle. The plan of 5 . . .e6 (aher either 5 t!c3 or 5 c4) followed, if
necessary, by ...b7-b6, is both sound and economical. But there are some specifics
to be learned here too.
Black should probably pay close attention to Sveshnikov-Solozhenkin and
White's alternative of 8 1i'f3. And instead of following the 8 ... d6 of Potkin
Neverov, I suspect that 8 .. ..ta6 is more promising.
6 t!c3 - Game 55
& b& 7 cxb& axb& (D) - Game 56
.
141
CHAPTER TEN I
Other Lines
committed the c-pawn as yet. The notes sure because of the ingenious im
to this game include other unusual 4th provements thought up by the Swedish
move alternatives such as Romanishin's GM Hector, and his victims in this line
4 .i.e2 and 4 .tc4 (as formerly played include Alekhine specialists such as
by Sax). All of these require accurate Kengis.
handling but the current theoretical
verdict is that they are harmless if met Game 57
correctly. Njobvu-Wohl
In Game 58 we see 3 ...li)b6, an un Yerevan Olympiad 1996
usual line that Westerinen has been
playing. Games 59 and 60 illustrate the 1 e4 lllf6 2 e5 llld5 3 d4 d6 4 f4
old Keres speciality of 3 lL!c3, which is One of several interesting fourth
actually quite a reasonable line that re move alternatives. Here's a round-up of
quires accurate handling from Black. some of the other possibilities:
White has a slightly damaged pawn a) 4 .te2
142
O ther Lines
143
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
for Black.
8 .. .1Wa5+ 9 c3 xc3 10 .i.xc6+ Game 58
bxc6 1 1 bxc3? Stefansson-Westerinen
White had to play 1 1 'ifcl2, aher Reykjavik 1997
which 1 1 . ...i.xf3 12 gxf3 1ld5 13 1lxc3
e6 is good for Black but a long way 1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 d4 b6!?
from decisive.
1 1 ...1Wxc3+ 1 2 ..td2 1Wd3
12....i.xf31 was simpler.
1 3 9b3! 9xb3 1 4 axb3
Finally I can say that it's a matter of the unusual d3-square Black could also
technique. consider 5 ...d6.
23 .i.c5 lld5 24 .i.d6 h5 25 llxd5 A further possibility is 5 .tb5!? c6 6
cxd5 26 .i.c5 :ca 27 llc1 a& 28 .td3 d5 (6... g6 is more flexible, main
d3 b5 29 d4 a5 30 llb1 a4 31 taining the option of either ... d6 or ... dS)
llb2 a3 32 llc2 :as 33 llc1 a2 34 7 .tg5!? g6 8 h4 h6 9 .te3 .tg7 10
lla1 J.xc5+ 35 bxc5 lla4+ 0-1 lLla6 1 1 c3 .te6 12 lLlh3, when White
1 44
O th er L ines
1 2 lLlb5?!
Giving Black an important tempo for
development. According to Volzhin,
White should first play 12 0-0, after
which 12 ...llc6 (or 12 ... llxd3 13 cxd3
lLlc6 14 lLlbS) 13 lLlbS :lc8 14 .tf4
leaves Black wondering how to com
plete his kingside development.
1 2 ...l0xd3+ 1 3 cxd3 i.b4+ 14 Wf1
Wt8 1 5 h4!?
White still has some kingside pres
sure, but now his loss of castling rights
gives Black chances. 37 Wb5?!
145
A lekhin e 's Defen c e
'irc7+ 45 g3 l:le2 46 lDc5 'irb& 47 Black has also tried 3 ...e6 4 llJxd5 (af
b3 Wb4! 48 l:la4 'ire1 49 Wg2 'irb1 ter which 4...exd5 5 'iff3 may be
50 l:lb4 l:le1 51 l:le3 l:lg 1 + 52 Wt3 White's best) and even 3 ...lbb6!?. But
'irf5+ 53 We2 'irh5+ 54 l:tf3 l:tc1 55 capturing on c3 has to be the critical
lDd3 l:lc2+ 56 We3 'irg5+ 57 lDf4 line.
4 dxc3
White captures 'away from the cen
tre' in order to obtain free piece play,
but it is not the only move. The game
Yudasin-Ehlvest, Biel Interzonal 1993
was a recent, high-level example of 4
bxc3 which continued 4...c5 5 f4 lbc6 6
d4 (6 llJf3 d5 7 d3 was mentioned by
Y udasin as another possible set-up for
White) 6 ... d5 7 llJf3 .i.g4 8 e2 e6
(8. ..'ifa5?! 9 0-0 'i'xc3 10 d2 'i'a3 1 1
llb1 gives White the initiative for his
57 ...'ire7+ 58 Wd3 'ire4 mate pawn) 9 0-0 e7 10 h3 h5 1 1 llb1;
.....-----.., now Black should probably play
Game 59 1 1. .'ifd7 in order to lend better support
.
146
O th er L in es
13 .i.e3 f7 14 f3 lbc:6, which proved stronger than 8 ..f6) 9 f3, and now
.
747
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
9 .i.g4
148
O th er L in es
Game 61
Petrik-Bogdanovski
European Club Cup Heraklio 1997
9 c3?!
1 e4 f6 2 e5 d5 3 g3!? After such a passive move Black will
149
A lekhin e 's D efen c e
1 50
O ther Lines
151
A lekhin e 's D efenc e
1 52
O th er L ines
4...f6
The other method of disrupting
White's plans is with 4 ...d4 5 c3 and
now:
a) s ...lllc6 (this is regarded as the
critical line) 6 xd4 xd4 7 a4+ c6 8
xd4 9xd4 9 cxd4 g5 10 i.d3!? {10
i.c4 i.e6!? 1 1 d3 bS 12 .i.xbS cxb5 13
This simply threatens to generate an .ixgS .i.d5 14 f3 e6 gave Black very
overwhelming anack with ... b5-b4; annoying play for his pawns in Hector
White, meanwhile, will unfortunately Werner, Andorra 1988 - and both
find it very difficult to generate any se 10 ...e6 and 10 ... bS are good alterna
rious counterplay: tives) left Black with very little for his
b1) After 12 d4 there follows pawn after 10 ...6 (10....i.e6? 1 1 h4
12 ...d4 13 llxd4 (13 cxd4 .i.b4 wins wins a piece) 1 1 2 g6 12 .ie4 ll:Jc7
for Black) 13 ... .i.c5 14 l:td2 b5 with a 13 b3 .ih6 14 h4 in the game Hector-
1 53
A lekhin e 's D e fence
8 ll:lf4
White can also play 8 d4 and after
8 ...c5 (Pedersen-Burgess, Assens 1990)
the move 9 dxcS is critical.
8 ....tf5
An attempt to improve on the 8 ...g6
9 d4 .th6 10 d3 a6 11 .i.e2 c5 12
7 h4! .i.xg4 ofW.Watson-Dunwonh, London
Much stronger than 7 t0g3 e6 8 'fi'g4 1987, which continued 12 ...cxd4 (Dun-
g6 9 h4 t0c6!, which was good for Black worth suggested that 12 ...c4 13 cl
in the encounter Paoli-Alburt, Odessa 1i'b6 might be better, but after 14 .i.xc8
1976. l:lxc8 15 e2 1i'xb2 16 l:lb1 xa2 17
7 . g4
. . llxb7 White looks better) 13 h5 llks 14
In his book The Complete Alekhine .ixc8 1lxc8 15 t0f3 'fi'a5+ (here Dun
Burgess felt that this advance was nec worth suggested 15.....b6 but I doubt it
essary in order to keep the h-file firmly helps aher 16 0-0} 16 f1 lbe4 17 hxg6
closed. hxg6 18 xd4 with White much better
7 ... gxh4 is supposed to be bad for because of Black's vulnerable king.
Black aher 8 f4 g6 9 .:xh4 .i.g7 10 d4
c5 1 1 .i.d3 'ifaS+ 12 f1 cxd4 13 llxh7!
l:lxh7 14 .i.xg6+, the game Vorotnikov
Kengis, Riga 1983 'confirming' this as
sessment after some wild complications:
14 ...d8 15 .ixh7 .ixeS 16 1i'f3 c6
17 xd5 .ie6 18 ..f8+ 4iPd7 19 'ffxa8
'ffb 5+ 20 .i.d3 1i'xb2 21 b6+ 1Vxb6
22 lbf3 .tbs 23 c3 dxc3 24 l:lb1 9xb1+
25 .ixb1 q;c7 and now 26 e1 .id5 27
'itdl! would have won fairly easily ac
cording to Kengis.
1 54
O ther Unes
e6 'W'd6
12 ... .i.xe6 13 c3 ltlc6 14 .i.e2, intend
ing to castle, eliminate the bishop on e6
and recapture the g4-pawn would leave
Black with a poor position without any
redeeming features. Unclerstandably he
tries to confuse the issue but Hector
maintains a vice-like grip.
1 3 lllxf5 'W'xf4 14 llle3 g3
Theres not much choice - 14 ...h5 is 24 l:tag1
answered by 15 c3 lLlc6 16 lLlxd5 'ile4+ End of game. None ofBlacks pieces
17 ltle3 1ixe6 18 d5 etc. can do anything.
1 5 'iff3 'ifxf3 1 6 gxf3 gxf2+ 1 7 24. . ..i.g7 25 J:lxg6 .i.f6 26 l:thh&
xf2 0-0-0 1 8 c3 llla6 1 9 h5! J:lxg6 27 J:lxg6 c5 28 lllg4 .i.h8 29
Sealing in Blacks f8 bishop. f& .i.xf6 30 lllxf6 exf6 31 dxc5 l:te8
1 9 c6?!
. 32 J:lxf6 dB 33 e3 e7 34 l:tf7+
19 ...:g8 was a slightly better try. xe6 35 l:txa7 e5 36 :xa6 J:lb8
20 .i.xa6 bxa6 21 f4! l:tg8 22 f5 g6 37 l:lb6 1 -0
1 55
A lekhin e 's D e fen c e
Summary
One of the main difficulties in dealing with these lines is of a practical nature; they
crop up so rarely that by the time you get to meet them you no longer remember
what to do! I therefore advise occasional revision of anything that has not occurred
in your tournament practice.
Against the 4 f4 of Game 57, I suggest 4 dxe5 5 fxe5 c5. My recommended an
..
tidotes to other lines are contained within the notes to this game. Westerinens
3 ... c!Ob6 might he a useful surprise weapon to have available; it slows the game
down and leads to some quite original play.
Hectors favourite 2 c!Oc3 is not a problem if Black is happy playing a Vienna
Game. The only purely 'Alekhine line I can recommend for Black is Bagirovs
2 . d5 3 e5 c!Oe4 4 l0ce2 d4 5 c3 dxc3, given in the notes to Game 62.
. .
1 e4 .!Of6 2 e5
2 l0c3 dS (D) - Game 62
2 . . .!0d5 3 d4
.
5 ...c!Oc6 Game 60
-
3 g3 - Game 61
3 . d6
..
2 . . . d5 7 liJxe5 3. . . %6
1 56
I INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I
157
A lekhin e 's De fen c e
7 58