The Total Marshall

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
9p+n+-sn-+0
9+p+pzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+LzP-+N+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

An exhaustive study of the Marshall

Counter-Gambit in the Ruy Lopez

By Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis

and Martin Bennedik
With contributions from John Elburg, Henk
de Jongh and Boris M. Shkurovich-Khazin.
American Grandmaster Frank James
Marshall, inventor of the Marshall
Attack against the Ruy Lopez (Span-
ish Opening)

Note that this PDF book is designed to print out Contents

on either A4 or US Letter size paper. It is part of an
overall CD product comprising chess databases, 2 About the authors
an HTML web and PDF booklet. The ISBN number 3 About this work & how to use it
below is for the CD product. This book is licensed for 4 Acknowldegments
5 About the Marshall Attack
printing out single copies by purchasers of the CD. It
5 How to use this book
is not for separate sale or distribution. International 6 How to play the Marshall
copyright laws apply. 8 Our recommendations
9 Theoretical Overview
18 Why The Total Marshall?
ISBN 0953853632 19 Evolution of the Marshall Attack
Tim Harding, Janis Vitomskis and Martin 22 Fifty Illustrative games
Bennedik, 2002. All rights reserved 57 Index to annotated games
Chess Mail Ltd., 26 Coolamber Park, Dublin 16,
Ireland.
The Total Marshall 2

About the authors

The Total Marshall is a collaborative effort between
several writers and analysts who have each contributed
something in their areas of expertise. The deviser of the
project and its overall editor is Correspondence Chess
International Master Tim Harding, who is also editor of
Chess Mail. It is published by Chess Mail, the company
owned by Tim Harding, who has been well-known as
a writer and player for 30 years.
Tim has been a CC-IM since 1997 and expects to
receive the Senior International Master title before too
long. For the research on this e-book, he found all his
original card index material from the 1970s and tran-
scribed everything additional to what had appeared
in his earlier books.
His co-authors are CC-Grandmaster Janis Vitomskis
(from Riga in Latvia) and FIDE-rated German amateur
player Martin Bennedik who is a finalist in the IECG
Email World Championship 2000. Martin has contrib- Tim Harding (left) and Janis Vitomskis...
uted numerous games and analyses and has spent a met in Latvia at the ICCF Congress in
lot of time critically checking the surveys written by 1998. Below: Martin Bennedik.
Tim and Janis, from the point of view of an ordinary
reader. As Tim and Janis tend to favour Black in Mar-
shall positions and Martin tends to prefer White, this
has been an important balancing act. 1970s. The Marshall section was edited by ex-world
Janis Vitomskis has been playing the Marshall since champion Mikhail Tal, assisted by GM Lev Gutman
the 1960s in both over-the-board and postal chess. and with contributions from Janis Vitomskis who
He was a finalist in the 15th CC World Championship also helped with the
(began 1996) and earned the CC-GM title with an second edition a few
excellent performance on top board in CC Olympiad years later. A lot of new
XII Final where his team will finish with either silver or ideas for Black were
bronze medals. Janis is Games Editor of the magazine first published in this
Latvian Correspondence Chess and Latvian Gambit. early ECO.
Russian CC-IM Boris Mikhailovich Shkurovich- In 1977, Tim wrote
Khazin was invited to contribute on the Herman Steiner a second edition of his
(9...e4) Variation on which he is a particular expert. book (Spanish/Ruy
Additional contributions and checking in certain areas Lopez: Marshall), this
have been done by two Dutch correspondence players. time in algebraic nota-
John Elburg has in particular contributed the survey on tion and without the
the little-known Simmelink Variation, while Henk de various Spanish side-
Jongh has given us his extremely detailed analyses of lines that had been in
the Pawn Push variations. However, they do not bear the earlier book. Then in
any responsibility for any errors that may be found the late 1980s, GM John
outside their areas. Nunn asked Tim to work
Tim was first invited by FIDE IM Robert G. Wade with him on a new book (The Marshall Attack, Bats-
OBE almost 30 years ago to write a book with him ford, 1989) where John concentrated on the main lines
on the Marshall for the early Batsford openings book resulting from 11...c6 while Tim wrote on the lesser
series. Research for this book (The Marshall Attack by lines and Anti-Marshalls, but obviously with a consid-
Wade & Harding, English descriptive notation, 1974) erable exchange of information elsewhere too.
involved hundreds of hours collecting games and The idea for the collaboration on an electronic book
analyses in Bob Wades extensive library, studying began when Tim and Janis met at the ICCF Congress
books and articles in numerous languages. Numerous in Riga in 1998, after which Janis made several
lines were subjected to new analysis and that book was contributions to Tims magazine. As Janis does not
really the first to study the Marshall in depth. think his English is good enough to include much text
Next up was the first edition of the Encyclopaedia in the surveys he has written, the text passages have
of Chess Openings, published in Belgrade in the mid- been largely written by Tim.
3 The Total Marshall
The Total Marshall is a multi-
format electronic book, dealing
with the Marshall Attack in the
Ruy Lopez (Spanish Opening).
For more details about this famous
counter-gambit, please read the
article About the Marshall Attack.
Unlike other electronic chess
books which present the infor-
mation either in the form of a
ChessBase database only, or else
in proprietary formats that do not
permit incorporation of the material
in a database we have opted for
a multiple format.
Three ways to study
the Marshall
In The Total Marshall, you are
getting:
! A games database (ChessBase/
PGN/Chess Assistant formats).
! An Adobe Acrobat PDF booklet,
which you can print out on your
own computer.
! HTML files containing the intro-
ductory texts and illustrative games;
with these you can play through the
games onscreen even if you dont
have a database program installed
yet. The information in the HTML
files is largely the same as in this
PDF booklet but presented in a
different way.
The advantage of the PDF book
is that it gives you a portable format
but you can also print it out and
bring selected pages or the whole
book with you to a tournament, or
read it in bed or by the fireside.
On the other hand, the HTML
games web enables you to play
through the games onscreen,
rather like a database program
although you cannot save your
own analysis.
The database format is the
most powerful and enables us to
present the most detail, but you
can also get lost among mazes of
sub-variations. When you need to
be re-oriented in general, the PDF
book and the HTML web can help.
When you want specific guidance
about a variation, then the survey
About this work
databases will help you. Also the 50
specially chosen annotated games
(available in all three formats) pro-
vide both an historical view of the
Marshalls deveopment and a lot
of specific information about the
state of theory in most of the main
variations.
Multiple databases
To be more precise, there is not
one games database on The Total
Marshall CD but several. These
are:
a) The C89Notes database has
50 selected annotated games, which
you will also find on the CD in other
formats: as text later in this booklet,
and in HTML/Javascript. You can
play through the games on your
computer using your web browser.
That is the best way to start, espe-
cially if you are not an expert in
the Marshall already, but we also
included these notes as a database
for the benefit of people who prefer
to use their chess database program
rather than a browser.
b) The Surveys database has
37 articles including the overview
survey by Tim Harding and specific
variations surveys by Tim, Janis,
Martin and the other contributors.
These include some text and a lot
of references to games which you
will find in the main database, but
largely consist of deeply-nested
variations intended to represent
the most theoretically-significant
material on each variation together
with suggestions.
Some of these surveys are
extremely detailed and much of
this information is not in the CD in
any other format. Everyone should
look at the main lines and the light
text in the surveys and refer to the
more complex detail as and when
you need it. Some of the analysis
in these surveys is principally for
the more advanced players among
the readers.
c) The complete games database
(AllMarsh) so-called because it
has all the Marshall. This contains
over 7,500 complete Marshall
games and over 100 game frag-
ments, many with light notes and
some with detailed annotations.
The games are provided in a variety
of formats (new and old Chessbase,
PGN and Chess Assistant) but the
CBH version of the database has a
custom openings key which read-
ers can refine further as they wish,
plus ChessBase tactical, strategic
and endgame keys.
However, the quality of the
games in the complete database
varies a lot. It includes games
played by computers, by unknown
players or players whose names
may be incorrect. Many of these
games were played on the Inter-
net at blitz rates etc. Some people
do not like to include such games
in their own databases.
Select database and
tree book
Therefore this has been refined
to give a fourth and a fifth data-
base:
d) Selected database (C89elite)
containing only the games where
the quality of the data is high.
Games with unknown players or
doubtful data, Internet blitz games
(except a few that are really sig-
nificant theoretically) and games
agreed drawn in under 20 moves
have mostly been removed in
order to give a more accurate view
of the Marshall as played in serious
games by strong players. There are
still well over 5000 games in this
database.
e) A tree (opening book)
database (Marshall.ctg) has
been generated from the C89elite
database, for the benefit of
readers who like to work with
tree databases, which show the
structure of the variations and
can yield (sometimes misleading)
statistical information. If you want
to generate your own tree from the
AllMarsh database, you can but we
dont recommend it. ChessBase
trees can also be used as opening
books for chess engines like Fritz.
The Total Marshall 4

Tim Harding is principal author
and editor-in-chief of this work.
He wishes to acknowledge the
excellent work done by his two
co-authors but also several
other people who have made
contributions of various kinds.
Henk de Jongh, without being
asked, volunteered a deep analysis
of the Pawn Push line and ideas in
the Kevitz Variation.
Janko Bohak was the source
for most of our information on the
Slovenian Pawn Push.
Boris Mikhailovich Shkurovich-
Khazin contributed an article about
his experiences with the 9...e4
variation on which he is a particular
expert. His article is not a complete
survey of this double-edged line,
but it gives new insights on how
this variation can be approached.
His article should be studied in
conjunction with the survey on
the variation written by Janis.
John Elburg whose book and
CD reviews you have probably
read on the Chess Mail website
provided the Simmelink Variation
Acknowledgments
survey and many games (some with
notes from his friends) and checked
a lot of the work, making numerous
useful suggestions.
Artis Gaujens provided our email
link to Janis Vitomskis and helped
in various ways. Numerous other
players (including some eminent
grandmasters) also contributed
analysis and games, or responded
to queries about their games.
Hanon W. Russell supplied the
photograph of Frank Marshall.
Alexander Baburin helped
translate a few sentences from Boris
Shkurovich-Khazins article.
Joe at Reprint did the CD face
and cover design. Clarinda Noonan
helped with proof-reading.
Adobe Inc. gave permission to
include their Acrobat Reader and
ChessBase GmbH gave permission
for us to include ChessBase Light
on the CD; the rights to both these
free software products of course
remain with the original publishers,
Adobe and ChessBase.
The Palview team at
www.palamede.com deserve
special thanks for making the latest
version of their PGN-to-HTML free
software available. Though they
did not know it, Palview3 was
released just in time to be used
in the game web on this CD, and
Andrew Templeton (their Canadian
programmer) was especially helpful
in providing assistance here.
He has asked me to stress,
however, that this web is essentially
a free bonus that you are getting
on the CD; we cannot give any
guarantees about it. It may not
work on some early browsers
and it may not work with some
operating systems like Windows
XP which was being developed
at the dame time as Palview3. You
should be lucky; let us know of
any successes or disappointments,
but dont be expecting your money
back if the javascript pages do not
work on your system.
Finally, my wife and daughters
put up with me, especially in
the difficult final stages when
everything becomes subordinated
to getting the CD off to mastering.

Chess Mail magazine

Your best move for news and games about postal and Internet chess.
http://www.chessmail.com
MegaCorr2 CD-ROM

Over 350,000 game CC database plus many extras

64 Great Chess Games (book: summer 2002)

Tim Hardings new book with the very best CC games of all time

Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures (book)

100 exciting and instructive games annotated by Tim Harding

More good things to come from us in future!

5 The Total Marshall

About the Marshall Attack

This famous counter-gambit
variation was first devised and
further developed by American
grandmaster Frank J. Marshall in
the first half of the 20th century, and
it nearly always leads to exciting
play where Black has more winning
chances, and at least as good
drawing chances, as in the quiet
defences to the Lopez.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
9p+n+-sn-+0
9+p+pzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+LzP-+N+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The Marshall arises via 1 e4
e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4
f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3
00 8 c3 d5 (see diagram) and
only positions arising from this
sequence are discussed. (In a few
cases, we cover positions that can
arise via other move orders also.)
Alternative 8 th moves for White
(Anti-Marshalls) are not included
because we believe the Marshall
itself is a self-contained subject
large enough to require thorough
treatment on its own and we did
not want to be distracted by the
non-gambit lines arising from 8
a4, 8 d3, 8 h3 and 8 d4.
In the Marshall, Black offers a
pawn at the 8th move. White has
few chances of an advantage if he
declines this gambit. Black can select
from a wide choice of variations at
moves 9-11, after which White
must reveal his response and the
main line (11...c6) divides into
several possible paths, each one
of which is a major main line in
its own right. Some of these lines
are suitable for all-out attack while
in others Black obtains positional
compensation for his sacrifices.
Consequently the Marshall suits a
wide range of players.
Many Russian and Soviet
grandmasters employed the
Marshall including Spassky and
Geller. Among the grandmasters
who have often played the
Marshall in recent years we can
name the English grandmasters
Michael Adams, Mark Hebden,
John Nunn and Nigel Short, as
well as numerous grandmasters
from other countries e.g. Vasily
Ivanchuk, Gata Kamsky, Jozsef
Pinter, Ivan Sokolov and many
more. The Marshall has long been
popular in correspondence play,
where many important variations
have been discovered, and it also
features a lot in Internet Chess Club
and other Internet games.
For general guidelines on
playing the Marshall especially
if the variation is new to you see
the short article How to play the
Marshall and then study the
illustrative games before proceeding
to look at the detailed surveys and
games in the database.

How to use this book

Everyone will have their own
ideas about how to use this e-
book and it will depend on your
playing strength, whether you
intend to play White or Black (or
both) and how much you know
about the Marshall. However, we
recommend printing out this PDF
e-book so that you have something
to refer to when your computer is
not switched on (you can bring it
to tournaments etc.).
When studying at your compu-
ter, we recommend beginning with
the HTML files that contain much
of the same information as this
e-book but presented in a more
interactive way, which will assist
learning.
If you are a Marshall expert
or aficionado, you will probably
want to dive straight in and see
what you say about your favourite
variations. Even so and espe-
cially if you are a relative novice,
or just an average-to-strong player
for whom the Marshall is new ter-
ritory we recommend that you
start with the PDF book and/or the
HTML files and then decide which
sections of the database you want
to investigate.
Another way to proceed is to take
a player who has been involved
in a lot of Marshall games (e.g.
Adams or Nunn for Black, Anand
for White) and review their games
with the Marshall chronologically
or variation by variation.
Finally, when you need to know
more about a specific variation,
then study the surveys in con-
junction with the AllMarsh, C89Elite
and/or tree databases. Also, of
course, you can add the games
from these files to your own col-
lection of databases, but please do
not distribute them to other people
who have not paid for their copy
of The Total Marshall; doing that
would be a breach of copyright. By
all means, show friends a printout
of the PDF book or some of the
HTML files, and encourage them
to buy their own copy.
If readers like this format, we
shall probably do more like it in
the future, based in part on printed
books that Tim Harding has writ-
ten in the past, but brought up to
date with new games and analysis.
Titles under consideration include
The Total MacCutcheon and The
Total Bishops Opening; sugges-
tions for other titles are welcome.
If you have games to send us that
are not included in this edition, or
have specific analysis or criticisms
to contribute, we shall be glad to
hear from you. Important new ideas
may find their way into a future
printed book.
The Total Marshall
How to Play the Marshall
Some guidelines on
the Marshall Attack
Here are some general points
which Marshall players and their
opponents should take note of.
White is normally a pawn
ahead after move 11 but that does
not mean he automatically wins
endgames. Blacks compensation
sometimes takes the form of an
attack and sometimes is more
positional (an initiative or a bind)
which can persist long into the
game.
In cut-and-thrust middle-game
play, a pawn either way frequently
makes no difference. The better
player will usually see more and
calculate more accurately, leading
to victory whichever colour he
plays.
Black can win when:
a) White falls into an opening
trap (of which there are many)
and does not get out of the book
phase alive.
b) White plays into a bad
variation (and there are many
such variations) resulting in Black
achieving a firm bind, even when
there is no direct forced win.
c) Black is able to generate a
direct kingside attack, concentrating
more local force near the white
while Whites queenside is
underdeveloped or unable to help
the defence.
d) Blacks attack wins material,
which can be converted in an
endgame or second wave of the
attack.
e) White makes a tactical blunder
under pressure or in time trouble;
even in objectively favourable
positions, the defender often goes
wrong and loses.
White can win when:
a) He is able to repulse the
attack and take the initiative with
his pieces on the queenside or in
the centre.
b) Black over-sacrifices and is left
without sufficient compensation.
c) Black chooses a poor line and
doesnt get enough compensation
in the first place.
d) Black gets a piece trapped out
of play (typically a bishop on g4 or
h3 with a blocked pawn at f5).
e) White sacrifices a piece for
several pawns and establishes a
queenside pawn roller.
A draw can result when:
a) Blacks sacrificial attack is
good enough for perpetual check
but not mate.
b) Black regains his pawn and
the position levels out.
c) Black reaches an opposite
coloured bishop ending in which
White has no dangerous passed
pawn.
d) Black gets strong pressure but
White is able to offer the exchange
of queens on pairs of squares (e.g.
f1/h3 and d3/f5), resulting in a
draw by repetition.
e) White gets his queen (usually
via d5) or his rooks into play
(typically via e1-e8 and a1-a7)
just in time to force a perpetual or
repetition when Black is about to
win on the kingside.
f) White loses his queen for rook
and minor piece but establishes a
fortress.
g) A position arises when
neither player can accomplish
anything constructive without too
much risk. (This can happen, for
example, with queens off and a
black on the first rank pinning an
undeveloped white or against
the on a1.)
Typical tactical
themes
There are some typical tactical
themes that occur in a lot of Mar-
shall games. You have to be ready
to apply these and recognise when
they are appropriate. The main
ones are the following.
Attacking Ideas for Black
a) The ...f5-f4 thrust. This usu-
ally occurs after White has been
induced to play g2-g3 and gener-
ally White has to answer ...f7-f5 by
f2-f4 in order to prevent ...f5-f4,
6
although there are exceptions.
b) The ...g7-g5 thrust. This is
typical of the Pawn Push lines and
can occur elsewhere, usually (but
not always) when the f-pawns are
locked as in idea a) just mentioned.
The thrust ...h5 can also occur, but
more rarely.
c) Infiltration down the e-file. In
many variations, Black threatens to
infiltrate the white position down
the e-file, either after a queen
exchange or if the white queen
has gone on an excursion to f3.
Black has two rooks quickly in play
whereas Whites a1-rook is slow to
help in the centre, so an exchange
of rooks on e1 or e8 can lead to
Black controlling the important e-
file. White often must play Be3 to
keep the file blocked.
d) Sacrifices on f4: many situ-
ations arise when Black can play
...d6-f4 (or sometimes ... d5-f4)
even though there is a white pawn
on g3. This can happen whether
or not there is a white pawn on f4.
If the pawn is still on f2, it usually
means a pseudo-sacrifice (gxf4
would open the g-file for a fatal
check by a black queen or rook)
whereas if the white pawn is on
f4, then the motif is often a pin on
the e-file.
e) The rook lift ...e8-e6-g6/h6.
The move ...e6 occurs in a lot of
games but sometimes the idea is
just to double rooks sometimes
pinning a white bishop on e3.
f) Exchange sacrifices on e3 or
e4. These tend to be associated
with the Pawn Push variation but,
except in certain circumstances,
they are usually incorrect.
g) The Minority Attack. This only
occurs in a few cases but can be
effective when Black has restricted
Whites development, has a strong
position and he is looking for a way
to make progress. Generally in the
Marshall, Black has the initiative
on the kingside and e-file while
trying to hold fast on the queenside,
with his three queenside pawns
restraining Whites four. However,
the advance ...b5-b4 can sometimes
7 The Total Marshall
expose weaknesses in the white
queenside. Also the move ...c6-
c5, challenging the white d-pawn,
sometimes has merit.
h) The long white diagonal.
Except in the variation 11...b7,
the diagonal a8-h1 is usually
partially closed, but there are some
cases where Black can make use
of this diagonal to bring pressure
on g2 which is a sensitive square
in Whites castled position. The
diagonal can also be important
in cases where Whites xd5 can
be met by ...xd5 (rare, but bad
news for White if it happens) or by
...xd5 (in the Spassky Variation.
Main Ideas for White
a) The main idea for White to
gain counterplay in most variations
is the advance a2-a4. The dual
purpose is to get the a1-rook
into play and to destabilise the
queenside pawn structure of the
Marshall player. Depending on
circumstances, Black may capture
on a4, play ...b5-b4 to keep the
a-file closed (and try to create a
weakness on c3), or he may allow
White to capture on b5.
b) The exchange on d5. Playing
b3xd5 is a double-edged sword
for White. The knight is often
pinned (if Black has played ...f5)
and does not need to be captured
unless Black expends a tempo
on ... h8. Also the bishop on
b3 is potentially a strong piece.
Nevertheless the resulting black
pawn on d5 can sometimes be a
weakness, forcing Black to gambit
a second pawn.
c) The queen manoeuvre to f1/
g2. When Blacks queen goes to h4,
forcing g2-g3, and then appears
on h3, White has light-square
weaknesses near his king and
usually must challenge the black
queen. So -d3-f1 (sometimes
d1-f1, as in the 13 e2 line)
offers the exchange of queens and
usually drives the black queen
back to h5 (sometimes f5/g4) after
which the white queen can go to g2
(or occasionally f2). However the
queen is not always well placed on
g2, especially if ...h3 is coming
next to attack her. Sometimes the
two queens play hide-and-seek
and a draw by repetition occurs.
d) The thrust c3-c4. This only
occurs in a few variations and is
rarely good because the result is a
weakened white d-pawn and often
a weakened b-pawn also.
e) Whites knight. After winning
the pawn on e5, each player has
only one knight and White has the
problem of how to develop his to
make it of comparable value to its
counterpart, the black (or the
black light-squared in cases
where xd5 has been played).
Sometimes the can effectively
go to a3, but almost always it goes
to d2 and then its future depends
on the specific variation.
Generally speaking, Black must
never, if he has already played ...f5,
allow White to play -f3-e5 and
must be ready to exchange one of
his bishops for the knight in that
case. There are also some cases
where the can be effective on e4.
If Black can keep the confined
to a defensive role on d2 or f1 then
he should be doing well. In lines
where Black opens the g-file or
h-file, White may need his Knight
to protect h2 or to interpose on g3
against a rook check.
Strategic guidelines
on the 17...Re6 line
(By Martin Bennedik)
Black has sacrificed a pawn.
Blacks pieces are actively
developed on the kingside.
The e-file is open and blocked by
Whites dark-squared .
Whites dark-squared is bad. It
can not easily be activated.
The white squares on Whites
kingside are weakened and
occupied by Blacks and .
Whites a1- is not yet in the
game.
Black certainly has compensation
for the pawn.
White will go for a4, intending to
disrupt Blacks queenside pawns
and thereby activating his rook
a1.
Black is going for ...f5, intending
...f4 followed up by play against
the White King.
After Black has played ...f5, Whites
light-squared is actually quite a
strong piece, x-raying the diagonal
up to the Black K on g8. Black often
has to play ...Kh8 (or sometimes
even ...Kf8) to unpin his pieces
before he can continue with his
attack. Therefore White should only
exchange his bishop for knight d5
if this leads to concrete advantage,
or after Black has removed his king
from the diagonal.
White has to react in some way
to ...f5, otherwise he will soon have
problems. There are two ways:
Blocking with f4:
White plays f4 to slow down
Blacks attack. He must however
pay attention, that the square f4 is
under control, or Black will follow
up with a piece sacrifice on f4.
A good example is what
happened in the game
Novopashin-Spassky, Leningrad
1962: 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f4?.
Spassky played 20...xf4! (See the
annotated game).
If a piece sacrifice is not
possible, Black can continue to
open up Whites kingside with ...g5,
sometimes sacrificing a third pawn
with ...f4, after White has captured
with fxg5.
A disadvantage of the f4-block
is, that Whites dark-squared
becomes even worse. Another
drawback of the f4-block is that
Black is now able to exert some
pressure on the e-file with ...fe8
and ...Kh8.
Another reaction to ...f5, which
has been analysed recently is the
counter-attack.
White is continuing to disrupt
Blacks queenside pawns and he
is ready to sacrifice a piece on
f4 himself, this time to eliminate
the dangerous Black f-pawn, not
allowing it to open up his kingside.
Whites counter attack is successful,
if he is able to win enough material
back on the queenside.
Examples for the method of
counter-attack include Quigleys
bust and Ivanchuks game against
Short.
The Total Marshall
Our recommendations
Most readers will probably be
eager to have a quick summary of
our discoveries. Which lines are
viable for Black, which should be
avoided and what is Whites best
approach?
The first and last of those
questions cannot really be
answered completely, as it is
partly a matter of taste which sound
variation you want to play. Even
the unsound lines can be great
fun and profitable in blitz play.
However if we are talking about
important games where the result
matters, then here are our main
recommendations.
1. Black should certainly avoid
9...e4, and play 9...xd5. After 10
xe5 xe5 11 xe5 he should play
either 11...c6 or 11...b7.
2. If White does not want to
accept the Marshall, 9 d4 is the best
choice but he would be better off
not playing 8 c3 in that case.
3. After 11...c6 (which occurs
in a high percentage of Marshall
games), these are the lines which
offer White the main chances of an
advantage:
a) The main line with 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 wins! Theory in some variations
e3 followed by 18 a4, intending
to play Quigleys refutation if Black
replies 18...f5.
b) The line 12 d4 d6 13 e1
h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4. This was
claimed as a refutation of the
Marshall in the early 1970s, but
methods were found against it.
Nevertheless there are still several
unclear lines where play is not easy
for either side. Often Black wins the
exchange and has to defend, which
is rather different from most lines
of the Marshall. However, White is
also running risk in this line.
c) The line 12 d3, also intending
to follow up with e4. There has
been considerable development in
this variation in the past 12 years.
d) The line 12 d4 d6 13
e2 where a lot of the earlier
conclusions are suspect.
4. Black is advised to decide
early in the game (not later than
move 11) whether he is going all
out for a win, wants to keep the
draw in hand or intends to be as
flexible as possible in the hope the
opponent will make the irrevocable
commitments. A consistent mind-
set is important for both players
to guide their decisions at critical
moments in the late opening/ early
middle-game.
If Black really wants to play
for a win, then the Classical Pawn
Push (involving ...ae8 and ...f5)
definitely puts White under early
pressure, but we must warn you
that if White keeps finding the
absolutely best moves, then you
may end up with a lost position.
The same goes for the 9...e4 line,
which wins a lot of games but is
not recommended against masters.
A little-known line suitable for
beating weak opponents is the
Slovenian Pawn Push but White
has one line that must be very
carefully checked (see the end of
the variation survey).
5. Most Marshall games are
decided in the phase between
moves 12 and 25 where one player
may know all the theory and the
other may not: who knows most,
goes even beyond move 30. If you
dont feel happy as Black about
getting into a deep theoretical
debate with your opponent, the
most suitable variations are 11...b7
or 11...c6 followed by 15...e8 (or
15...a7 which often leads to the
same position). These little-known
lines give Black sufficient positional
compensation, dont require deep
theoretical knowledge and can get
White out of the book quickly.
6. For the player with a deep
knowledge of the Marshall, we
recommend that you follow the
main line with 17...e6 when White
allows it and then meet 18 a4 by
Spasskys 18...h5. Fischers phrase
best by test applies here and you
have the comfort of knowing that
you are following in the footsteps
of most of the strongest GMs who
have played the Marshall. The
tendency in the 1990s and early
21st century for White to play lines
8
like 12 d3, 13 e2 or the Kevitz
testifies to the fact that few masters
and grandmasters are confident of
obtaining any advantage against the
Spassky Variation.
7. Against the 12 d3 d6 13
e1 line, which is probably the
most dangerous alternative to the
main line, it seems that 13...f5
is perhaps not good enough,
although we have found some
improvements for Black and
maybe you can develop them.
Also after 13...h4 14 g3 h3 15
e4 the line with ...d7 and ...b7
is looking suspect. However the
line with ...f5-g6 (as in Kilgour-
Vitomskis) is recommendable and
also the supposedly refuted plan
with 15...f6 looks OK for Black
in view of the two improvements
we recommend. (The dramatic
improvement by Vitomskis at move
26 in Whites supposed model game
Anand-Cooper seems to overturn
the assessment of that line).
8. Against the Kevitz line,
Vitomskis has made some new
discoveries for Black and we think
there is nothing to fear here.
9. Possibly the 13 e2 line is
more important as in many cases
Black seems to get just general
Marshall compensation: this is OK
when the second player is stronger
but when White is the stronger
player you would like something
specific to follow. In this case, Tim
Harding has taken a new look at the
game Mithrakanth-Geller.
10. In this Internet era, many
games are appearing in databases
which were played on the Internet
and which sometimes feature
interesting and sharp ideas.
11. Finally, both White and
Black need to remember that there
are numerous sidelines and tricks
that are playable in occasional
games, if not as the mainstay of
your repertoire. Studying these
sidelines (such as the alternatives
at moves 12 and 15) will improve
your feel for the Marshall and
general knowledge of the variation,
which may stand you in good stead
in the future.
9 The Total Marshall
Theoretical Overview of the Marshall
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6
4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1
b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5
This is the start of the Marshall
Attack. All positions considered
in this electronic book can arise
via the sequence, although we
have included some side varia-
tions that normally come about
by different sequences. Those
are highlighted in the respec-
tive surveys.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
9p+n+-sn-+0
9+p+pzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+LzP-+N+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
9 exd5
Other 9th moves for White are
discussed by Tim Harding in the
Marshall Declined survey.
The most important of these
possibilities is 9 d4, after which
we recommend Black to keep
play independent with 9...exd4
10 e5 Ne4.
Books often recommend
9...Nxe4, which is playable as
a transposition to a sideline of
the Open Spanish (C83) but in
this case, we reveal a serious
problem with the line normally
proposed. Following 10 dxe5
Be6 11 Nd4!? Nxe5! 12 f3 Bd6
13 fxe4 Bg4 14 Qd2 Qh4 15 h3
the move 15...c5? was refuted by
16 Rf1!! in a Botvinnik training
game from 1951 which was
only published a couple of
years ago.
9...xd5
9...e4!? (the Herman Steiner
variation) is exciting but unfor-
tunately not quite sound despite
the best efforts of some corre-
spondence players to revive it.
Nevertheless, Black has scored
Note: it is not practical to
some remarkable combina-
tive wins in this variation and
it would hardly be possible for
White to find the right line at
the board without preparation.
In reply, 10 Ng5?! gives Black
good chances so White must
play 10 dxc6 and after 10...exf3
the question is whether 11 d4
(normally recommended) or 11
Qxf3 is the better move.
In the Surveys database, see
the article by CC-IM Boris M.
Shkurovich-Khazin and the full
survey by CC-GM Janis Vitom-
skis. They tend to think 11 Qxf3
is correct.
10 xe5
Other 10th moves for White
are discussed by Tim Hard-
ing in the Move 10 Sidelines
survey. The most important of
these sidelines is 10 a4, which
sometimes transposes to posi-
tions normally classed as C88
(Anti-Marshall). The a-file is
opened after 10...Bb7 11 axb5
axb5 12 Rxa8 Bxa8 and now 13
Nxe5? Nxe5 14 Rxe5 Nf4 has
been a catalogue of disasters
for White, although people keep
falling into this trap. So White
has to decline the gambit pawn
at move 13, with about equal
chances.
10...xe5 11 xe5
This is the main line of the
Marshall today and brings about
a major crossroads.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+p+ntR-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+LzP-+-+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
a) 11...f6 was Frank Mar-
include in text/HTML form
all the major twists and
innovations we discovered
while preparing this work.
This chapter is a summary
and overview of the theory
only. The surveys should
be read, as intended, in the
database format.
shalls original, but unsuccess-
ful, attempt. Despite some lively
play, this move has never been
truly established as a viable
line. Statistics in the database
may show that Black does as
well in practice with this move
as any other, but the theoretical
standing of the move is not so
good. See Tim Hardings survey
The Original Marshall.
b) 11...b7 is a differ-
ent matter. The title of Tim
Hardings survey The solid
11...Bb7 line speaks for itself.
Reinforced by some significant
improvements never before
published, we confidently rec-
ommend this move to Black as
a fairly dynamic alternative to
11...c6.
c) 11...b6!? and 11...f4?!
are dealt with in Tim Hardings
survey Lesser Knight Moves.
Possibly 11...b6 can be played
as an occasional surprise
weapon but 11...f4 unfortu-
nately has a tactical drawback
which can probably not be
repaired.
d) 11...e6!? has been
played in one computer game
which you can find in the
database. The move is essen-
tially defensive but perhaps
not completely ridiculous. The
bishop would become power-
ful if it could get to d5 after an
inadvisable xd5 by White.
The Total Marshall
The move most often played
by Black, because of its reliable
reputation and the example of
numerous grandmasters, is:
11...c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-+-vlpzpp0
9p+p+-+-+0
9+p+ntR-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+LzP-+-+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
12 d4
White has several other
moves, which vary in impor-
tance.
a) 12 d3 d6 13 e1 is
the most important alternative
for White according to current
theory.
Then if 13...f5 (see the Survey
by Tim Harding) Black does not
quite seem able to equalize.
Consequently, he usually plays
13...h4 14 g3 h3 and now
comes 15 e4. (White often
prefers this system because,
by comparison, with the 12 d4
and 15 e4 line, the d-pawn
protects the rook, ruling out
some tactical opportunities for
Black.)
This line is covered by CC-
GM Janis Vitomskis in three
surveys, and he draws attention
to the games Kilgour-Vitomskis
and Granski-Vitomskis (see the
database) in which he chose
different lines for Black. It seems
on present evidence that Black
should either play the 15...f5
plan (followed by g6) or the
15...f6 variation. In the once-
popular defensive scheme
involving 15...d7 and ...b7,
the line seen in Almasi-Tse-
shkovsky and Leko-Slobodjan
looks good for White. Vitom-
skis also comments on the game
Harding-Rybak where Tim tried
10
a new line for White but Black is to play immediately 12 xd5,
which gives up the bishop pair
reached a drawn ending by
to fix the central structure.
careful defence.
Now after 12...cxd5 13 d4
Other 12 th moves are also
(For 13 f3 and other rare
often seen, some of which may
moves, see Tim Hardings
transpose into the 12 d3, 15 e4
line, or back into variations of survey The Exchange at d5.)
the 12 d4 main line at a later 13...d6 the semi-retreat
stage. move 14 e3 is the Kevitz
b) 12 e1 can soon lead to Variation, for which see the
standard positions by a differ- two-part survey by GM Janis
ent move order: 12...d6 13 Vitomskis which is extremely
g3 (13 d3 see 12 d3) 13...d7. detailed even more so than
(See Tims survey for cases the abridged version which
where Black gives the varia- appeared in Chess Mail maga-
tion independent significance zine 5/01 and 6/01. Of course
by playing other moves here.) White can also play 14 e1 h4
15 g3 h3 (see 15 xd5 below)
With 13...d7, the black queen
but the main purpose of the
finds an alternative route to the
Kevitz move is to defend h2 by
h3 square: 14 d4 (14 d3 h3 is
advancing the h-pawn instead
the 12 d3 main line.) 14...h3 is
of the g-pawn.
the 12 d4 main line.
12...d6 13 e1
c) 12 g3 see Tim Hardings
13 e2 (see diagram) is also
survey Various 12th moves
a significant variation.
for White and the annotated
XIIIIIIIIY
game Fischer-Spassky. The
9r+lwq-trk+0
main independent line starts
9+-+-+pzpp0
12...f6!? (12...d6 13 e1 see
9p+pvl-+-+0
12 e1; 12...f6!?) 13 e1.
9+p+n+-+-0
d) 12 f1 is an old move
9-+-zP-+-+0
rarely seen nowadays; this
9+LzP-+-+-0
move has nothing to recom-
9PzP-+RzPPzP0
mend it wrote GM John Nunn
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
in 1989. See Tim Hardings
xiiiiiiiiy
survey Various 12th moves
for White, along with other
An advantage of the move
moves such as 12 f3 and 12
is that White can play f1 in
h3 which are not played by
one go; a disadvantage is that
masters nowadays.
the is exposed to tactics.
e) 12 c2? d6 13 e1 David
This was once thought to be a
Bronstein found some interest-
minor sideline but Whites play
ing possibilities after the routine
has been improved in recent
13...h4, but unfortunately...
years consequently, it has
13...xh2+!! 14 xh2 h4+ 15
been causing some problems
g1 g4 16 f3 xf3! 17 gxf3 (17
for Black, although we believe
xf3 xe1+ 18 f1 ae8 19 d4
he can handle them. See the
g3 20 d2 e3!) 17...g3+
summary of the variation in
18 f1 (18 h1 ae8!) 18...f4
my Overview database survey
19 e2 xf3+ 20 e1 ae8 21
and then go on to the detailed
xe8 g2# So I never tried
review by GM Vitomskis.
that line - GM D.Bronstein,
Black sometimes replies
1946 (MS notes given to Bob
13...c7!? (which threatens
Wade).
14...d6 15 g3 g4) but White
f) The second most important
usually replies 14 d2 (in order
alternative for White after 11...c6
11
to cover f3) 14...f4 (14...d6!?)
15 e3 and there are several
games in the database, without
a clear conclusion. Variations in
the Vitomskis survey show that
the bishop move may not be
quite good enough.
Therefore 13...h4 is
normal but after 14 g3 Black
has to decide where to place
his queen. Both 14...h3 and
14...h5!? have pros and cons;
see the illustrative games and
Vitomskis survey for details.
For a general assessment,
Vitomskis has discussed this line
with World Seniors Champion,
GM Janis Klovans, who plays
this line (after Hellers sugges-
tion) for many years. His opin-
ion (after the Anand-Khalifman
game) is pretty close to that of
Vitomskis: standard Marshall
compensation, play for a pawn.
So these Latvian grandamsters
conclude that maybe 13 e2
is less dangerous for Black as
other lines.
Martin Bennedik however
feels that when you look at
specifics, Black is not equalis-
ing, so it may be time to take
another view of the line and
come up with a whole new plan
for Black. Tim Harding believes
that the plan Black used in
Mithrakanth-Geller definitely
deserves more attention.
Other 13th moves for White
are rarely seen:
a) 13 g5?! c7 14 e1 (14
f4? h6+ Marshall or 14 xd5?!
cxd5 15 xd5 xh2+ 16 h1 14...h3
a7 17 g3 xg3 18 fxg3 xg3
+) 14...xh2+ (Stojadinovic-
Hbner) returns the pawn for
no apparent good reason.
b) 13 h5!? is the kind
of amateur/computer move
more often seen nowadays on
the Internet than in the early
years of the Marshall. Gener-
ally speaking, it is unwise for
the white rook to leave the
e-file unguarded and go on
kingside adventures, because
the threats it can generate are
easily met whereas Black can
combine attacks down the
e-file and threats to trap the
rook itself. There can follow
13...e8 (13...f6 14 h4 e8 as often as in the early days of
is also playable; see Perrenot-
Tinture) 14 g5 c7 (Threat-
ening ...g4!; the immediate
14...g4!? 15 f3 was unclear
in Piqueras-Arellano.) 15 d2
h6 16 xd5 cxd5 17 e3 has no
obvious refutation but with the
bishop pair, solid structure and
active pieces, Black must have
adequate compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
c) 13 g5 has all the disad-
vantages of 13 h5 and none of
the good points; it simply does
not threaten anything. 13...e8
is probably the best answer.
White cannot win a pawn by 14
xd5 cxd5 15 xd5?? because of
15...xh2+.
Now we return to the main
line, namely 13 e1.
13...h4
Other moves such as 13...c7
and 13...f5 can be found in the
database but the direct h4 is
the only move to find favour
with masters. There is a direct
threat to h2 and Whites choice
is limited,
14 g3
Not 14 h3? xh3! 15
gxh3 xh3 16 e5 (16 f4 ae8)
16...xe5 17 dxe5 fe8.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+LzP-+-zPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The Total Marshall
This is the second major
crossroads. White has tried
many moves here, but most of
them are obsolete and only 15
e4 and 15 e3 are really cur-
rent variations.
a) 15 xd5 cxd5 is not seen
the Marshall. If White intends
to follow up with e3 etc. then
he may as well postpone this
exchange until later. For lines
of independent significance,
see the survey The exchange
at d5. Usually 16 e3 (16 f3!?)
16...g4 17 d3 ae8 18 d2
e6 transposes to 18 xd5.
b) 15 f3 g4 16 g2 has
generally been seen as a good
line for Black, but after the
standard refutation 16...h5
17 e3! f3 18 f1 f5 19 d2
f4 White improves by 20 xf4!
xf4 21 xf3 xf3 22 d1
ending with +2 v + and
probably an edge to White.
Consequently, the options
17...ae8!? and 17...fe8 need
to be revaluated. (For this
and other minor options see
Tim Hardings survey Various
Options at Move 15.)
c) 15 e4 is the main alter-
native.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zPR+-+0
9+LzP-+-zPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
See the survey by Janis Vitom-
skis and additional analysis by
Tim Harding. The most promis-
ing line for Black at present may
be 15...g5 (countering the threat
of h4) 16 f3 f5 and now
17 c2 is the older move, and
after 30 years of debate it is still
unclear!
The Total Marshall
Tim Harding tried to make
17...f4!? work, but this is
still considered dubious or
unclear by many people (see
his survey of the variation).
Generally Black avoids this
and plays instead 17...xe4
18 xe4 e6 19 xg5 (19 f5 all these.
gives White a draw at best and
he can easily fall into a losing
trap: see my notes to Pecarevic-
Tuominen.) 19...f5 20 d3 (20
xd5? Topalov-Adams) 20...h6
(20...f4!?) 21 d2! a7 (Nunn,
1989) 22 a3! f4 23 e1 f6!. for the main issues and unan-
The postal game Pyrich-Reis is
puzzling and seems to be the
line requiring deep analysis
here.
Instead of 17 c2, the
exchange 17 xd5 is appar-
ently critical. After 17...cxd5
18 e3 ad8 19 d2 fe8
20 b3 xe3 Black, with pre-
cise play, neutralised Whites
material advantage in Mali-
angkay-Vitomskis. Instead
18...e4 allows Black to gain
the exchange and many theo-
reticians give this line or
(mostly on general assess-
ments). The move may still be
viable but when it was played in
the game Timmerman-Vitom-
skis, 15th CC World Ch Final,
Black got an unwelcome sur-
prise. However, the later game
Timmerman-Tarnowiecki indi-
cates another way for Black to
reach the draw haven.
Now we return to the main
line.
15 e3
This has been clearly estab-
lished as the main line.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+LzP-vL-zPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRN+QtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
15...g4
Black has alternatives here
and, although they are rarely
played, at least two of these
moves are perfectly OK in
my opinion. See the Various
Options at Move 15 survey for
15...e8!? is an eminently
logical continuation, this is the
main other move to demand
serious attention at this point.
15...a7 can transpose to it: see
the notes to Quigley-Harding
swered questions.
16 d3
Not 16 f3?? xg3 17 hxg3?
xg3+ 18 f1 xf3.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+LzPQvL-zPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRN+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
16...ae8!
This is often played automati-
cally but that was not always the
case. Other moves deserve a
look but are probably inferior.
Gellers move 16...xe3?!
had a brief vogue but is no
longer considered correct.
Black does not get enough for
the pawn if White plays accu-
rately and even if he does have
drawing chances, the positions
are unpleasant, e.g. 17 xe3 c5
(17...h8 18 d2 f5 19 f1 is
worse, e.g. Tomsons-Euole) 18
f1 xf1+ (18...h6 or 18...h5
19 d2 ae8 20 d1) 19 xf1
ad8 20 g2! (Poleshchuk-
Rapoports) 20...cxd4 21 cxd4
c7 22 d3 f5 23 d1 fe8
(23...b6 24 d5 fe8 25 c3 b4
26 a4 a7 27 ac1) 24 c3
b4 25 a4 e2?! 26 ac1 and
c4 Nunn, Harding (1989).
16...f5 is an important option,
12
however, leading to the Pawn
Push complex, which we have
subdivided.
If White meets 17 f4 by
17...ae8 see the Classical Pawn
Push below (note to Blacks 17th
move).
Otherwise Black can keep
play independent by 17...g5!?
and now White has little choice
but to play 18 f1. (Others
are blunders e.g. 18 fxg5? f4
19 gxf4 xf4 20 d2 f3 or
18 d2? gxf4 19 xd5+ cxd5
20 gxf4 xf4 analysis by
Janko Bohak).
After 18 f1 h5 19 d2
(19 fxg5 is usually said to be
inferior, but White may be able
to draw.) Black has three pos-
sibilities:
a) 19...h6!? is the little-known
and dangerous Slovenian Pawn
Push; see the survey by Tim
Harding.
b) 19...h8 20 xd5 cxd5
is the main line of the Radical
Pawn Push; see Tim Hardings
survey. Here 21 a4 seems to be
critical, as analysis of 21 fxg5!?
suggests Black can draw. In a
top-level postal game in the 21
a4 line, im got a draw with
Morgado but it looks as if White
should have an improvement.
c) 19...ad8 is an untested
ECO suggestion; see the Radical
Pawn Push survey for details.
Instead of 17...g5 Black occa-
sionally plays 17...h8 which
unpins and virtually forces White
to exchange: 18 xd5 cxd5 19
d2 g5 is the same as the main
line of the Radical Pawn, while
19...ae8 transposes to the main
line of the Classical Pawn Push,
below; not, however, 19...g8?
20 f1 h5 21 a4 Euwe-
Donner, Dutch ch 1950).
17 d2 e6
Black has two major alterna-
tives here.
a) 17...h5!? 18 a4 f5 is
the Adams Variation, which
has gone out of fashion. See the
13
survey by Martin Bennedik. (For
18...e6 see the Spassky Varia-
tion, 18 a4 h5, below.)
b) 17...f5 is the Classical (or
you might say, restrained) Pawn
Push. This is both considered in
the survey by Tim Harding and
the additional contribution by
Henk de Jongh, which readers
can compare for themselves.
There are two main lines, with
transpositional possibilities from
16...f5. The play is exciting with
good winning chances for Black
against inferior defence, but if
White plays very accurately then
Black is struggling to survive.
c) Another legal move is
17...h8 which is designed
to induce xd5 but has no
apparent merit. Either it will
transpose to some normal lines
or just prove a waste of tempo
in the end.
Now we return to the main
line at 17...e6.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+LzPQvL-zPq0
9PzP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
In our Surveys database, the
lines following this position are
considered in a separate survey
entitled Marshall 17...e6 Over-
view. There are also numerous
detailed surveys of the specific
lines.
For alternatives up to this
point, see the survey Marshall
Attack Overview and the spe-
cific variation surveys. In this
position, Whites most critical
move is 18 a4 but he often plays
18 f1 (which can transpose)
and sometimes other moves
are tried.
I will get those out of the
way first.
a) 18 f4?? is a weak computer
move. Black continues 18...f5
and wins a piece on the e-file.
b) 18 c4 f4!. For details see
the survey by Janis Vitomskis.
The main line goes 19 cxd5
h6 20 e4 xh2+ 21 f1 and
now Black has two promising
lines discussed in the survey:
21...f5 and 21... xe3. Instead
if 19 f1 xe3 20 xh3 xh3
21 cxb5 c2 22 xe6 fxe6!
23 gxf4 xa1 24 xa1 xf4
(Feldmus-Vitomskis, corr 1983).
White scored one shock win in
1975 with 19 xf4?! but Black
can refute it by 19...xf4 20 f1
e2+.
c) 18 d1 is tricky but fine
for Black if he knows what to
do. The move was reintroduced
by Ljubojevic in 1988 although
Spassky had met it in one of his
earliest Marshall games more
than 20 years earlier! After
18...xd1! 19 axd1 f5 20 f3!
Black is OK with 20...g6! fol-
lowing Ljubojevic-Nunn.
d) 18 g5!? (with the idea of
exchanging rooks on e6) is not
in the books; it is an Internet
move which has a plus score
in our database because it has
never been played against a
strong master. Vitomskis says
it is good but not a winning
move and Black can equalize
e.g. 18...fe8 (18...h6!?) 19 xe6
xe6 20 e4 f5 21 f3 xg3!
(see Zimmermann-Schwetlick
in the database).
e) 18 xd5 cxd5 gives a
position that can also arise if
the exchange at d5 was made
sooner. (See Tim Hardings
survey.) White has various
plans now, but the only one to
cause Black concern is 19 a4 f5
20 f1 h5 21 axb5!?; this was
dismissed as a draw for many
years until Whites play was
improved in the 1990s. Now it
is the critical line, for example
The Total Marshall
21...f4 is playable (For 21...h3!?
see the illustrative game Hala-
mus-Tsvetkov.) 22 xf4 xf4!
(Not 22...h3? 23 xe6! refut-
ing the old ECO drawing line)
23 xe6 xe6 24 gxf4. See
Kronborg Kristensen-Olano
Aizpurua in the database. This
position definitely needs more
attention; maybe Black can find
something new here? One pos-
sibility is 20...bxa4 as proposed
by John Elburg.
Returning to the last diagram,
if White plays 18 f1 rather
than opening the queenside,
Black is not in a position to
permit the queen exchange but
must play 18...h5.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+-+q0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9PzP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now Black threatens to regain
the tempo by attacking Whites
queen with his . Here 19 a4
will transpose to lines con-
sidered elsewhere under 18
a4; probably best is 19...h3
which is a transposition to the
Spassky Variation, considered
below. However, if he prefers
Black can also play 19...f5 (see
note to Whites 19th below) or
19...bxa4 heading for what we
call the Old Main Line, 20 xa4
f5 21 f4.
There are also some non-
critical independent lines where
White does not play a4. See the
surveys and database. If 19
xd5 cxd5 then once more see
the survey on The Exchange
at d5;
Now we return to considering
Whites most popular variation
The Total Marshall
against the whole Marshall,
which is 18 a4.
This is a logical move, trying
to get the white rook into play
and threatening the security of
Blacks queenside.
Before discussing in detail
the replies which have been
historically the most popular
here, we want to make our
recommendation for Black
absolutely clear.
18...h5! =
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+-+q0
9P+-zP-+l+0
9+LzPQvL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is the Spassky Varia-
tion, which we recommend for
Black. See the three-part survey
by Janis Vitomskis and the illus-
trative games, starting with Tal-
Spassky (1st game). To avoid
confusing matters unduly, we
wont go into much detail here
except to say that we believe the
Spassky line is not only Blacks
soundest continuation, but that
it also offers good dynamic
chances. When White plays for
a win, or does not know the best
lines, this often creates winning
chances for Black too.
Apart from the possibility
already mentioned (19 f1 h3,
which is in Part 1 of the survey)
White normally plays 19 axb5
axb5 and now, since 20 xd5
can be answered by 20...xd5
there are three main possibilities
for White. There was a vogue
for 20 e4 during the 1990s
but Black seems to have found
a reliable drawing line against
this (see Part 1 of the survey).
The move 20 f1, intending
to place the queen on g2, is
not dangerous and Black can
choose between 20... fe8 (see
Olafsson-Harding) or 20...h3
(Herbrechtsmeier-im).
Part 3 of the survey deals
with 20 f1, which is gener-
ally considered the critical line.
Nevertheless, Black once more
has two playable continuations:
the older 20...fe8 (as in our
annotated game Rittner-Sarink)
and 20...f5!? putting the ques-
tion to the white queen at once.
This move, which proved sound
in such games as Karpov-Short
and Ljubojevic-Nikolic, is
essentially a development of
the 1990s.
It is really no mystery why
White has been playing lines
such as 12 d3 in recent years.
At the highest level, he is
getting nowhere against the
Spassky Variation.
Now we shall outline what is
happening with other replies by
Black after 18 a4.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9P+-zP-+l+0
9+LzPQvL-zPq0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
18...f5?
For the purposes of this
survey only, I give this as the
main line here because it has
been played very frequently
and most books give this as the
main line.
However, we think the f-
pawn move has been refuted
in recent years. Many of the old
positions formerly considered
by theoreticians under 18 a4
f5 can be (and in practice often
are) still reached via 18 f1 h5
19 a4 f5.
Apart from 18...h5! and
14
18...f5?, Black has some other
moves.
a) 18...b4!? is the Simmelink
Variation; see the survey by
John Elburg. This line probably
should leave White an edge,
because Blacks 18th essentially
gives White a tempo, but the
move does have one advantage:
older books hardly mention it (if
at all) so many opponents will
have to start thinking for them-
selves immediately. Dutch play-
ers have investigated this vari-
ation in recent email events but
there is still a lot to discover.
b) 18...bxa4!? is still some-
times played but its survival is
on a knife-edge. The critical line
seems to go 19 xa4 (19 xa4
f4) 19...f5 20 f1 (20 f4? xf4!
see the annotated game Novo-
pashin-Spassky) 20...h5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+-+n+p+q0
9R+-zP-+l+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black is steering for the
old main line, which would
arise now if White played 21
f4. However, this is another
position where the 1989 Nunn
book (see page 26) has been
overturned by 21 xa6! This
move, given as losing by Nunn
and most earlier authorities, is
actually playable and may even
be winning for White because
21...f4 22 xf4 h3 is not a
refutation at all: White can sac-
rifice his Queen by 23 xe6.
See the annotated game Ivan-
chuk-Short and the survey by
Martin Bennedik. Ivanchuk did
not follow up correctly but later
games and analysis show Black
could be in trouble here.
There are some other inter-
15
esting possibilities in the last
diagram position. 21 f4 is per-
fectly playable, transposing to
the Old Main Line.21 c4 is prob-
ably not a good way for White
to avoid the Old Main Line. See
Martin Bennediks survey where
he develops John Nunns 1989
opinion that 21...xe3 is prob-
ably a better choice for Black,
giving chances to win.
21 f3!? remains to be refuted
by some keen analyst. Is the
obvious reply 21...h3 actually
the best? In the 1995 ICC com-
puter game Ferret-Crafty, the
play was awful: Whites 22 f2?
should have been answered by
22...f4! but see my notes.
White should have dared to play
22 xa6 with the idea -c4-e3
and its not so clear that Black
is doing well unless a concrete
tactical solution can be found.
Now it is time to look at the
famous position arising after 18
a4 f5.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+p+-0
9P+-zP-+l+0
9+LzPQvL-zPq0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
19 f1?
This move is historically
important but White really
ought to play 19 axb5!. The
strength of this move, which
is not even mentioned in most
books, depends on a subse-
quent piece sacrifice for sev-
eral pawns, which seems to be
correct.
Daniel J. Quigley published
his analysis of this move on
the internet in the newsgroup
rec.games.chess in an arti-
cle called Marshall Gambit:
Busted! in 1998. Quigley stated
in his article that he already had
discovered the move in the late
80s, but could not come to
a definitive conclusion then.
It must however be said that
Quigley was not the only one
to discover this move, and more
important to discover the piece
sacrifice 19...f4 20 xf4. The
whole line had been success-
fully played in correspondence
games by Andreas Uhlig in 1987
and 1995. And probably some
grandmasters like Spassky and
Adams, who never played the
move order with 18...f5, may
have discovered the move
also.
The Quigley idea was publi-
cised in my Chess Mail magazine
and one of my columns in The
Kibitzer series at The Chess Caf
website; gradually it has become
better known and the analysis
has firmed up.
For the details on 19 axb5,
see the Bennedik survey of
the Quigley Bust variation. To
summarise, 19...f4?! is the move
that was supposed to refute 19
axb5; Black does an alterna-
tive in 19...axb5 but it does not
look good. However, after 19
axb5 f4 Quigley found 20 xf4
xf4 21 xe6 xe6 and here are two other possibilities.
Bennedik in his survey shows
two lines giving White good
winning chances: 22 bxa6 is the
clearer line while after 22 bxc6
xd2 23 xd2 f4 24 xe6+ maybe it is just a question of
xe6 the complications should
favour White but the play is
more difficult. Our annotated
game Oliveira-Maffei is quite
instructive.
I am quite often asked why
this line has not appeared in
grandmaster games if it really is
so strong? The answer is two-
fold. In former days, it seems
to be the case that analysts
overlooked the possibility and
anyway Spassky (in particular)
never played 18...f5; many of
the games in the Old Main Line
actually came about via 18 a4
The Total Marshall
bxa4 or via 18 f1. Then in
recent years, grandmasters have
found out about the Quigley
Bust on the grapevine so there
have been no high level takers
for 18...f5 in recent years.
Despite the strength of the
Quigley line, it is still necessary
to examine the old alternative
19 f1, because it leads to posi-
tions that frequently come about
through other move orders.
19...h5
Of course this position can
also arise via 18 f1 h5 19
a4 f5, which is how many of
the games in the line did in fact
develop.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+p+q0
9P+-zP-+l+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
20 f4
White usually wants to stop
Black from playing ...f4 but there
a) 20 axb5!? may cause a few
problems, but (as often happens
in the Marshall when a rare
move wins a game for White)
doing more thorough analysis
than was hitherto thought nec-
essary. In the games that White
won, he only seemed to get a
tiny edge but Black had no clear
draw or equalising line. In view
of the improvement for Black in
the 20 f4 g5 line, possibly White
should play this if he can firm
up some of the variations in my
notes to the games. Obviously
Black wants to play 20...f4 here
but now you need to look at the
unclear game McKenna-Chan-
dler, Mousessian-T.Andresen
and Kamergrauzis-Vitomskis.
The Total Marshall
b) Once more 20 xd5 is
possible. After 20...cxd5 (the
same position as can arise via
17...Re6 18 Bxd5 cxd5 19 a4 f5
20 Qf1 Qh5) 21 f4 bxa4 returns
to the line below, but White can
also play 21 axb5 when Black
(as we show in my Exchange
on d5 survey) has to be careful
to get a draw, as the old theory
is unsound.
20...bxa4
Although this is the time-
honoured move, probably it is
not best and Black should play
20...g5 instead! This line has
been radically improved for
Black. 21 axb5 axb5 22 xd5
(This is the critical line as oth-
erwise the draw soon becomes
self-evident. If 22 fxg5 f4! see
Loginov-Yerofeev) 22...cxd5
(This can arise by transposition
from the Exchange on d5 lines.)
23 g2 fe8 24 xd5 f7 25
a8 g7 26 xe8 xe8= ECO,
following Matsukevich-Staruk.
On the other hand, the 1960s
line 20...fe8? is discredited
because of 21 axb5 xe3 22
xe3 xe3 and now 23 bxc6!+-
as in Gurvich-Grzeskowiak; 23
bxa6? is inferior because of
23...b8 24 a7 xa7 25 xa7
when published grandmaster
theory was overthrown in 1972
by 25...h6!= Suetin-im.
21 xa4
The alternative yet again is 21
xd5 cxd5; this is an impor-
tant position because, even
though it does not represent
best play for either side after 18
f1 or 18 a4, it can also arise
by transposition from the lines
where White makes an earlier
exchange at d5.
However, Black has a clear
draw. Since 22 xa4? e8 is a
well-known trap, White must
play 22 g2 fe8 (22...e4
also comes into consideration;
although it may be less reliable;
see the annotated game Muller-
Racoce) 23 xd5 h8 24 f2
and now 24...xe1+ (Seems
better than 24...e2!? which
may draw, but not so surely.)
25 xe1 xe1+ 26 xe1 e8
27 f2 h6! (27...b8? 28 c4
V.Agzamov-G.Agzamov) 28
xd6 (28 g2 e2 29 c4
xf4 30 gxf4 h3+! mating)
28...e2.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-mk0
9+-+-+-zp-0
9p+-wQ-+-zp0
9+-+-+p+-0
9p+-zP-zPl+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9-zP-sNqvL-zP0
9+-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Here Nunn commented that:
Surprisingly enough, White
cannot avoid a draw despite
his large material advantage.
Indeed White can easily make
a fatal error, as the following
shows:
29 f1 (This led to a draw in
two games from Matsukevichs
1983 100game correspondence
simultaneous in the Marshall,
but he should have lost one of
them!) 29...h3! 30 b8+? (30
e3! d3 31 f8+ h7 32 g2 xf4! (The older 23 xc6 is not
seems to end in a draw by repe-
tition after 32...e4 33 e1 e2
34 g2 etc.) 30...h7 31 e3
d3!+ (Threatens mate start-
ing ...b1+) 32 g2 and now
in Matsukevich-Shevchenko,
Black (and subsequent com-
mentators) missed the win:
32...b1+! 33 e1 a3! very
neatly exploiting a pin on the
b2-pawn. Finally, Black won
a game like this in Ernst-Sam-
malvuo, Osterkars 1995.
Returning to the position after
21 xa4, we are now in what I
call the Old Main Line, which
was really established as such in
the mid-1970s by the first edi-
tion of ECO. Black has tried a
wide variety of moves now.
16
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+-+n+p+q0
9R+-zP-zPl+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This Old Main Line stem
position is like a railway junc-
tion because many routes lead
to it and many departures lead
from it. Black now has the well-
known choice between
A: 21...g5?!
B: 21...h8
C: 21...b8 and
D: 21...fe8.
Black is in trouble in all these
to varying degrees.
A: 21...g5?!
The oldest version of the
OML. It was already consid-
ered refuted by Nunn in 1989
and there is not much more to
say about it.
22 xa6! gxf4 (22...h8? was
refuted in Schuler-Hallier.) 23
to be feared.) 23...xf4 24 xe6!
(24 xc6 e3+ 25 xe3 xe3
26 xd5+ h8 led to a draw in
Tal-Geller, 1975). This is the
problem for Black.
After 24...xd2 25 xd5!
cxd5 26 g2 Nunn, 1989, com-
mented: There are no visible
improvements... so this must
be considered the refutation of
21...g5.
See Hauptmann-Sieberg in
the database. Four subsequent
games in the database con-
firmed this line wins for White.
B: 21...h8!? 22 xd5!
This is logical and seems to be
necessary. After 22 c4 xf4!?
23 xf4 xf4 24 xe6 (24
gxf4? h3) 24...h3+!! leads
17
to incredible complications: this
is an important idea if it works!
See the annotated game Milvy-
das-Muravyev, corr 1994.
22...cxd5 23 xa6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-tr-mk0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9R+-vlr+-+0
9+-+p+p+q0
9-+-zP-zPl+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This critical position can also
arise from the Classical Pawn
Push via 16...Rae8 17 Nd2 f5
18 f4 Kh8 19 Bxd5 cxd5 20 Qf1
Qh5 21 a4 bxa4 22 Rxa4 Re6 23
Rxa6.
Black has tried several moves
here but only one is any good:
23...fe8!.
(Nunn treats this position
as a transposition to the line
21...Rfe8 22 Rxa6 Kh8 23 Bxd5
cxd5. However, we think it
properly belongs here as a criti-
cal line for 21...Kh8 whereas in
that sub-variation Black has the
strong move 22...Rxe3).
Now if White wants to play
for a win, he should probably
opt for 24 b5! which grabs a
second pawn and challenges
Black to find concrete com-
pensation.
He needs an improvement
now. (24 f2 won for White in
Arppi-Lyly, corr 1996, but Black
went wrong on move 27 in that
game.) 24...h6!? 25 f1 f3 26
c1 f8 27 e3 e4 (Unzicker-
Nunn) 28 b3! and Black cannot
equalise.
C: 21...b8!?
This threatens ...xb3 but
the move may waste time
and again Blacks position
becomes uncomfortable. Nev-
ertheless, this line may be just
about playable for Black.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-+k+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+-+n+p+q0
9R+-zP-zPl+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
22 xd5 (If 22 f2!? e2!
but 22 xa6!? may not be as
bad as was thought, although
it allows Black to carry out his
threat.) 22...cxd5 23 xa6! (23
g2 is not dangerous although it
is often played; 23 b3 is at best
a draw for White and maybe
not even that.) 23...e8 (Rec-
ommended by Nunn in 1989
instead of the old line 23...be8
when 24 b5! refutes Blacks
system.) 24 f2! when Black
may be able to hold but this is
not exactly a Marshall players
dream position. Best may be
24...xe1! (24...d7!?) 25 xe1
d7 26 a1 g5 (Ryabikin-
Vitomskis) needs more inves-
tigation.
D: 21...fe8
This is the principal variation
of the Old Main Line now.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+-+n+p+q0
9R+-zP-zPl+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
the idea is ...g4, h7-h5-h4
In some articles on his gambit
website, Dr Thomas Stock calls
this the Sleeping Beauty Vari-
ation (Dornrschenvariante)
but I am not sure why...The
current state of theory appears
to be that it is more playable for
Black than the alternatives, but
in view of the discovery (at the
end of the survey) that White
The Total Marshall
can force a good endgame with
an extra pawn, maybe that is not
the right conclusion to draw.
22 f2!
As pointed out by Nunn in
1989, this is the critical reply.
a) 22 c4? fails to 22...xf4!.
b) 22 xa6 is fine for Black:
22...xe3 23 xe3 xe3 24
xc6 e8 25 xd5+ f8 see
the annotated game Dragunov-
Konstantinopolsky where the
important variations are given.
White can draw by 26 xd6! or
even with the perilous 26 e4?!
if he finds all the right moves
thereafter.
22...g5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+-+n+pzpq0
9R+-zP-zPl+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-wQ-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
From this position two major
variations have developed in
recent years.
23 fxg5!
This is the main line in ECO
but the follow-up they give is
possibly not Whites best plan.
23 xa6 is the alternative, but
it seems OK for Black: 23...gxf4
24 gxf4 h8 25 xd5 (25 xc6
xf4!) 25...cxd5 (This position
has been played a lot in the past
decade, including correspond-
ence and computer games.) 26
f1 and now 26...h3! is strong;
which comes quicker than in
the 26...g8 line, proposed by
Nunn.
The onus is on White to prove
he can draw here. He managed
it in Sanakoev-Buj, 14th CC
World Ch Final 1994-98, but
many other games in our data-
base were won by Black.
23...f4 24 gxf4 h3
The Total Marshall 18

A good line for White...is
hard to find wrote Nunn in
1989. Some tries can be found
in the database. It seems that
Whites position is apparently
better than he thought.
25 c4!!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+-+n+-zPq0
9R+NzP-zP-+0
9+LzP-vL-+l0
9-zP-+-wQ-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This could be a critical
move. White hopes to simplify
to a won endgame, exploiting
the wrecked black queenside.
Therefore Black needs a con-
crete attacking continuation but
despite his apparently promis-
ing build-up it is hard to find
anything. However, this is an
important position if something
can be found then Blacks posi-
tion in the Old Main Line would
be healthy after all.
Other 25th moves for White
are not dangerous. 25 h1?! has
been played in about 40 games
and results are not encouraging
for White. 25 xa6!? seems to be
a drawing line.
25...xf4
This is obvious but doesnt
quite work for Black.
26 e5 xe5 27 dxe5 xe5
28 g3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+p+-+-+0
9+-+ntr-zPq0
9R+-+-+-+0
9+LzP-vL-wQl0
9-zP-+-+-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The crunch. Black is still
a pawn down, his is in an
awkward pin, his is no safer
than Whites and his queenside
pawns are about to drop off.
However, the line so far lacks
any high-level tests.
28...xg5 29 xa6! xg3+
30 hxg3 e6 31 f2 xe1+
32 xe1 c7 33 xe6+
xe6
After a sequence virtually
forced since 25 c4!, Black
has to grovel in an endgame
a pawn down; White won in
Nemec-Talla.
However, even in the Old
Main Line fails for Black, joining
the Quigley bust and Ivanchuk-
Short lines in the recycle bin, it
must be remembered that White
cannot force any of these disad-
vantageous lines on Black.
Black should meet 18 a4 by
18...h5!. With the Spassky
Variation and several of the
other improvements on the
way, there is no need for Black
to end up in such a bad position.
With the theoretical best play,
a draw is still the right result
and Black gets a lot of winning
opportunities.

Why do we call it the Total Marshall?

You have probably seen printed books with
titles including the words Complete or Ulti-
mate or something similar, but by their very
nature a printed book will never be complete or
ultimate.
Almost invariably, the authors will concentrate
on the currently most fashionable variations and
a few of their pet lines. Games and analysis from
a decade or two ago is just ignored or cut drasti-
cally back for reasons of space and cost.
This approach may be all very well for modern
opening variations where almost everything from
the theory of the 1970s or earlier has been super-
seded by new grandmaster games, but readers
often complain that their opponents play lines
which are not in these books. They nd them-
selves going back to older books to nd some-
thing about lines that used to be fashionable or
cutting-edge but are now rejected by openings
book authors.
This is particularly true in a lot of 1 e4 e5
openings, where ideas from former times may
often be usefully resurrected, with a new twist.
Therefore, the total concept is to include all
the old games and analysis that could be
found, in order to provide a complete refer-
ence work for those who like to do their own
research and delve in the back catalogue
where (in the Marshall at any rate) forgotten
strong moves are denitely still lurking.
However, the modern openings book
approach of treating everything in terms of
annotated games does have some merit too
at least didactically. Therefore, we also have
the variation introductions and illustrative
games to serve as your guide to the main
lines and interesting sidelines, after which
you can spend countless hours looking deeper
for yourself among the wealth of information
provided here.
19
Evolution of the Marshall Attack
The Marshall Attack has
undergone several phases of
development in its 80+ years, and
has gone in and out of fashion
several times. Theoreticians
have delved very deeply into
many of the possibilities and yet
this counter-gambit has been
constantly renewed by fresh ideas.
Black has found both new tactical
combinations in critical lines and
new positional plans to guide his
approach to the Marshall. White,
too, has sought different ways to
counter Blacks initiative and yet
there are some leading players
of the Spanish Game (Ruy Lopez)
who have such respect for Blacks
chances after 8 c3 d5 that they
always avoid it: notably Kasparov!
Relatively little is remembered
nowadays about American
grandmaster Frank Marshall (1877-
1944) and his ideas except that
he lost the famous game to Jose
Raoul Capablanca in which he
revealed his secret preparations
(see the first illustrative game
below). Despite this setback,
Marshall continued to believe in
his brainchild and kept refining
his ideas, employing his variation
successfully against amateurs in
several games and later publishing
his new ideas.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
9p+n+-sn-+0
9+p+Pzp-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+LzP-+N+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is the starting position of the
Marshall, following 8...d5 9 exd5.
After White captures the d-pawn,
Black must either recapture with
his kings knight (leaving his e-
pawn to be taken) or advance his
e-pawn, offering a second gambit
(9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5
11 xe5).
In the first phase of the
Marshall Attack (pre-1945) the
principal creative input came
from American players. Marshall
himself introduced the lines 9...e4
(against Frere in 1917), 11...f6
(against Capablanca in 1918), and
11...c6 (against Battell in 1937). He
also tried 11...Bb7 but no games
of his with this move have been
preserved.
The Hungarian-born American
master Herman Steiner developed
the 9...e4 variation, which is named
after him, in the 1930s, although
his best-known games with the
Marshall are actually in the 11...c6
line. For White, Alexander Kevitz
developed the idea, still current
today, of countering against 11...c6
by a minor piece exchange on d5
in order to place the kings rook
on e3.
After World War II, the Marshall
started to appear in international
tournaments and correspondence
play, while many important games
were played in internal USSR
events. During this period, both
the 9...e4 and 11...c6 variations
started to become developed in
considerable detail although the
lines now considered critical were
rarely seen.
However, the theoretical
reputation of the Marshall went into
a decline at the end of this period
as two aggressive lines came to be
virtually solved in Whites favour:
neither Marshalls original 11...f6
nor the ultra-sharp 9...e4 line could
stand the test of time.
Nevertheless, attempts are
sometimes made to improve
Blacks play with 11...f6
while in the latter case, intensive
analysis by correspondence players
(notably A.Ptszch, Radchenko
and B.M. Shkurovich-Khazin)
led to the discovery of many
beautiful variations by which
slight mistakes by White could be
drastically punished; this 9...e4
line is one in which amateur
players can hope to score many
points, especially in Internet and
blitz events. For mission critical
situations, however, the Herman
The Total Marshall
Steiner Variation (9...e4) cannot
be recommended.
Some other ideas that were
tried in the experimental 1950s
and 1960s, involving early rushes
of the g- or h-pawns, or 11th moves
by the knight to f4 or b6, never
looked like becoming major lines
although such novelties may score
the occasional point. However,
the 11...b7 line is soundly
based positionally and has never
been refuted; this remains a good
alternative to the better-known
11...c6 variations.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+LzP-+-zPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Most of the attention by the early
1960s came to focus on the lines
with 11...c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1
h4 14 g3 h3 (see diagram
above), where the principal plans
involved the early ...f5 and ...g5
(pawn push variation) against 15
e3. The more positional line
involving the rook manoeuvre
...ae8-e6 was also sometimes
seen. In many games from this
period, White exchanged bishop
for knight on d5 at move 12 or
15, which nowadays is generally
considered premature unless White
wants to play the Kevitz variation,
in which the white rook retreats to
e3. The Marshall at this time was still
scoring many points for Black, but
mostly at amateur, correspondence
or minor master level.
Spasskys impact
In the years 1963-1965,
everything changed. Spasskys
reinvention of the Marshall as a
drawing weapon for use at the
highest level of grandmaster play,
as well as a good way of beating
lower-rated opponents, stimulated
The Total Marshall
a re-examination of the plans Black
was adopting in the 11...c6 line. He
was not the only player adopting
that sort of approach in the
occasional game (e.g. Bob Wades
draw with Fischer at Havana 1964),
but Spassky made the Marshall the
lynch-pin of his strategy in his 1965
candidates match against ex-world
champion Mikhail Tal.
In that match, Spassky made
three draws with Black from
three outings with the Marshall
and so laid the basis for winning
the match with White. Spassky
had played the Marshall twice
previously so no doubt Tal had
prepared something for it, but the
future world champion unveiled
two prepared improvements on
known theory in this match: both
solid positional moves to which Tal
could find no answer.
In Game 1, Tal met 11...c6 12
d4 d6 by the standard 13 e1
h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4
16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18
a4 (see diagram). This move by
White, opening a second front
on the queenside with a view
to disrupting Blacks attack and
creating a passed pawn, had been
introduced to master play only
in 1963 (except for a couple of
forgotten games played by Dake
in Poland in the late 1930s).
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9P+-zP-+l+0
9+LzPQvL-zPq0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
In Novopashin-Spassky, 31 st
USSR Ch (1963), Spassky had
replied 18...bxa4, which attempts
to buy time to pursue the kingside
attack. Around the same time,
A.M. Konstantinopolsky and some
correspondence players introduced
the aggressive but dubious reply
18...f5, which most theory books
today still consider to be the main
line. No doubt Tal had some ideas
for White in both these lines, but
Spassky played a third move,
18...h5.
Spassky variation has a
somewhat wimpish reputation
which we believe is unjustified.
Superficially, the move gives far
fewer winning chances than the
other moves but actually it makes
it virtually impossible for White to
achieve any significant advantage.
By minimizing concessions on the
queenside, Black actually retains
prospects of keeping control of the
whole board rather than allowing
the game to degenerate to a race
between Black on the kingside and
White on the queenside. Of course
it is fun to attack the kingside but
the sharper lines are more suited to
blitz play or defeating lower-rated
opposition, while the subtler play
after 18...h5 is more suited to
correspondence play and slower-
paced over-the-board contests.
18...h5 is by no means totally d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
drawish. More than three decades 15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17
have passed and there is still no d2 instead of the usual 17...e6
model game for White to follow
and play for a win. Many players
do not know what the most critical
lines against it really are. White
can easily become frustrated and
get into a lost position after a few
moves.
In Game 3, Tal avoided the
Marshall while in Games 5 and 7,
he switched to the Kevitz variation
which he had earlier played against
the Estonian master, Aarne Herm-
lin. Spassky was ready for this too:
after 12 xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6
14 e3 he played 14...h4 15 h3
and now introduced the novelty
15...f4. Both these games were
drawn too.
After Spasskys success with the
Marshall in this match, he played
some more games with it and other
grandmasters, notably Geller but
even Tal himself, were seen on
the black side.
The Marshall really achieved
recognition at this point as an
attacking line suitable for use
anywhere from amateur friendlies
to the highest level of grandmaster
play.
The Marshall then became a
mature opening variation having
several set lines of play where
master games often did not really
20
begin until move 16, 19 or even well
beyond move 20. Nunn, especially,
codified the main lines in great
detail in his 1989 book, which
included a lot of new analysis, and
demonstrated fairly clearly which
lines were considered playable (at
that time) and which were analysed
to death. His book (in which Tim
Harding wrote the chapters on the
lines other than 11...c6, and the
anti-Marshalls) also included a
good deal of original analysis and
correction of mistakes by earlier
theoreticians. It essentially drew a
line under all that had gone before
and for a time there was less
interest in the Marshall main lines
among professional players.
Developments in the 1990s
included the Adams variation which
the young British GM employed
to defeat Ivanchuk at Terrassa
in 1961: after 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
he accidentally introduced a new
plan beginning 17...h5 which
was further refined in later games.
For White, interest started to
concentrate on lines in which White
develops his rook at e4, to reduce
Blacks chances of kingside play.
The line 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6
13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 e4
had had a brief vogue in the early
1970s but never established itself.
Now it has made a come-back
and the analogous line with 12 d3
where the pawn protects the rook
has also become one of the most
important lines in the Marshall.
Other developments since the
1989 book by Nunn and Harding
include revivals of the Kevitz and
the 12 e2 lines, and some new
ideas for White in the 12 d4/ 15 e4
line. Most significant of all, perhaps
(and never before published in a
book) is the refutation of the line
18 a4 f5 which many books still
give as the main line of the whole
Marshall. However, as you will
see when you read the detailed
material on the 18 a4 line, Black
can comfortably side-step these
problems and obtain a good game
with Spasskys 18...h5.
21 The Total Marshall

The Internet era
General chess competitive
conditions have changed a
lot since the era of five hour
master tournament sessions with
adjournment after 40 moves. In
the late 1990s and early years of
the 21st century, the game has been
speeded up. This makes sharp
openings like the Marshall even
more effective than they were
before. Nowadays, games are rarely
adjourned but instead are played to
a finish, often with a fast rate of play
after 40 or 60 moves. A lot of master
chess and high-level amateur chess
is played at rapid rates, often with
blitz play-offs to decide ties, and
most Internet play is blitz.
These conditions favour the
re-emergence of sharp openings
like the Marshall, as somewhat
unsound moves now have a much
greater chance of success when
the opponent has limited time
to calculate. The new conditions
also put an even greater premium
on advance preparation and the
discovery of novelties or forgotten
ideas which can shock the
opponent, gain time on the clock
and provoke mistakes.
In our Marshall database there
are more than a thousand games,
for example, played at the Internet
Chess Club. Many of these were
decided by gross errors, with the
loser (and sometimes the winner
too) making mistakes whose
refutation was discovered and
published long ago. However,
many strong masters practice and
experiment at the ICC and other
chess servers which means that
a proportion of these games test
critical positions at the cutting
edge of Marshall theory. The same
goes for many of the games played
between computer programs in
recent years.
One of the most important
theoretical discoveries in the
Marshall in the past decade was
first published in an Internet
newsgroup (discussion board).
This was American expert Dan
Quigleys important idea on how
to meet 18 a4 f5. See the theoretical
section for details.
Another difference in recent
years is the wide availability of
game databases which until a
few years ago were primarily the
preserve of professional players,
chess writers and the wealthy.
Internet downloads and cheap
CD-Rom products now make
large numbers of games available
to almost everyone. The impact of
this development is particularly
noticeable in correspondence play,
where the contestants have always
been able to consult books and
other printed reference sources but
now can consult databases too.
A word of warning: judging a
move by its statistical performance
in your database is particularly
hazardous in an opening like the
Marshall where one good new
idea may overturn a variation that
has scored heavily for one side in
the past.
Free resources like The Week In
Chess web magazine make it much
easier, quicker and cheaper for the
ordinary player to see new master
trends. A few years ago, it was only
the games of top GMs that traveled
the world quickly. Nowadays, an
important new idea played in an
international open or national
championship can be known to
everyone within 10 days.

Scheduled for the year 2003

The Correspondence Chess Championships of the Soviet Union
Book and CD-ROM by CC-GM Sergey Grodzensky and Tim Harding
A record of the most important national championship series in
the history of correspondence chess. Over half a century, many
grandmasters and great champions participated.

MegaCorr3 CD-ROM

Our goal is to have the most complete history of CC yet presented,

with a database of half a miillion well-edited CC games, by Easter
2003. Help us reach this target by sending in your own collections!

To learn more about our plans in future read Chess Mail magazine
and www.chessmail.com
The Total Marshall
Fifty annotated Marshall games
Game 1
Jose Raoul Capablanca (Cuba)
Frank J. Marshall (USA)
Manhattan Chess Club Ch New
York, 1918
(A synthesis of notes from many
sources)
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 masters believed that the rook
b3 00 8 c3 d5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
9p+n+-sn-+0
9+p+pzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+LzP-+N+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This was the first time that Marshall
unleashed his idea in a master
tournament, after the end of
World War I. He had been saving
it for some years, in the meantime
playing the Petroff Defence.
In Chess Review 3/1943, Marshall
looked back on his experience
with his innovation: I had been
analysing the variation for many
years and came to the conclusion
that the attack must be sound. I am
still of the same opinion. By this I
do not mean that Black necessarily
wins; I merely claim that the attack
gives Black many winning chances
and should be good for at least a
draw. 9 exd5 xd5
Actually, I lost my game against
Capablanca. The first attempt
failed. With admirable courage
and skill, Capa accepted my pawn
sacrifices and defeated the attack,
although playing against a prepared
variation he had never seen before.
However, the result of one game
is not sufficient to judge the true
merits of a new variation and I
used the attack in many subsequent
games, with varying success. In
these games, I continually tried
different moves, seeking the best
combination.
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 f6 particular position other moves
After this game, Marshall recognised
that he had perhaps not chosen the
best variation. Later 11...c6 became
the main line and Marshall also
pioneered the 11...b7 and 9...e4
variations.
12 e1
Capablanca held back the obvious
advance d2-d4, hoping to sidetrack
Marshall from the main lines of his
preparation. Later, however, many
Shamkovich in the 1950s: 16 f1
would be better placed for defence
on e2, protecting f2, in which case
12 d4 would be the right move.
12...d6
The variation usually leads to an
open, attacking game for Black
and that is undoubtedly why I
prefer it to the close, defensive lines
against the Ruy Lopez opening.
Black gives up a pawn to obtain
a strong attack against the white
king. However, this does not state
the whole case in favour of the
variation. It is not just one of those
attacks which White can weather
by good defence and end up a
pawn to the good. There is more
to it than that.
The pawn sacrifice can be justified
on purely positional grounds. In
other words, Whites opening leaves
his queenside underdeveloped
and Black can capitalize on this
lack of development. If White
just tries to block the attack, Black
can continue with comparatively
quiet moves and obtain adequate
positional compensation for the
pawn sacrifice.
13 h3
Imprecise; 13 d4 is more accurate.
13...g4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-zp-+pzpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+n+0
9+LzP-+-+P0
9PzP-zP-zPP+0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This offer is a recurring theme
in the 11...f6 variation, but in this
h1+ 20 e2 reaches the same
might be considered, for example
13...f5!? has been tried.
14 f3
22
The knight cannot be safely
captured:
Indicative of the tactical difficulty
of the variation is that Capablanca
himself published an incorrect
refutation of 14 hxg4 h4 15
f3 viz. 15...h2+? (15...h2+! is
correct, as demonstrated by GM
xg4 17 e4 f4! 18 g3 h2!+)
16 f1 xg4 17 xg4 h1+ 18
e2 ae8+ (Capablanca) 19 e6!!
xe6+ 20 xe6+- E.Palkin, 1954.
14...h4
Now Capablanca transposed to
what later became the main line.
15 d4
15 hxg4? transposes to the previous
variation.
15...xf2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-zp-+pzpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-wq0
9+LzP-+Q+P0
9PzP-+-snP+0
9tRNvL-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This move is the main point of
Blacks build-up but as it seems
to lead to a lost position, attempts
were made to find an alternative.
15...h5 (Shamkovich) is the best try
but does not quite equalise.
16 e2
Capablancas choice, which is good
enough for White. Later analysis
showed that a possibly superior
continuation is 16 d2! as in the
intercity match Rostov v Pensa.
16...g4
16...g4 (once given as an
equalising line by ECO) is crushed
by 17 g3! (found by former US
champion John Grefe).
17 hxg4
17 xf2? g3 18 hxg4 at best draws
for White (18 f1 xe2 19 xe2
ae8+).
17...h2+
17...g3 18 xf2 h2+ 19 f1
position as after Whites 19th move
in the 17...h2+ line.
18 f1 g3
23
Black appears to have created
numerous threats but his attack
has peaked and White simplifies
to a winning position. Whites
well-placed queen and pressure
against f7 enable him to cope with
the dangers.
19 xf2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+-zp-+pzpp0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+Pwq0
9+LzP-+Qvl-0
9PzP-+-tRP+0
9tRNvL-+K+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is the stock position White
should aim for in the Capablanca-
Marshall line. Black has swindling
chances only. 19 e1 might be
better said Capablanca. 19...h6 is
unclear, claimed Golombek, but
20 d2, 20 e3 and 20 d2 are all
promising for White. (19...ae8?? 20
xf7+ Capablanca).
19...h1+ 20 e2 xf2?
20...xc1 makes White work
harder for the win. 21 xg3! (21
xf7+? could even have lost for
White in Yates-OHanlon, played
a few years later.) 21...xb2+ 22
d3! xa1 23 c2 b4 24 g5!+-
Tartakower, proved many years
later in an English postal game
Bird-Beckett.
21 d2!
Black must retreat his and White
gains a decisive tempo. The sequel
proves yet again that Bishop, Knight
and the initiative beat a Rook. Once
Black runs out of momentum, he
must lose. 21...h4 22 h3
ae8+ 23 d3 f1+ 24 c2
f2 25 f3 g1
25...e2 has been refuted in various
ways. A recent Russian book on
Capablanca gives 26 a4! (26 a3
was the line, also attrributed to
Capablanca, given in Golombeks
book: 26...xd2+ 27 xd2 xa1 28
xf2 xb2+ 29 c2 c5 30 d5)
26...e1 27 axb5 e3? 28 c4
(28 xe3! Khalifman, Yudasin)
28...xd2+ 29 xd2 xd2+ 30 b3
axb5? 31 xf7+! Capablanca.
26 d5 c5 27 dxc5 xc5 28 b4
d6
28...e3 29 xe3 xe3 30 d2
xa1 31 xe3.
29 a4! a5 30 axb5 axb4 31 a6
bxc3 32 xc3 b4 33 b6 xc3
34 xc3 h6 35 b7 e3 36
xf7+! 10
And in view of inevitable mate,
Black resigned: 36...xf7 (36...h7
37 f5+ h8 38 xh6#) 37 b8+
h7 38 xh6+ xh6 (38...gxh6 39
xf7#) 39 h8+ g6 40 h5#. An
historic game!
Game 2
J.Battell
Frank Marshall
New York, 1937
Notes by Marshall, Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-+-vlpzpp0
9p+p+-+-+0
9+p+ntR-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+LzP-+-+-0
9PzP-zP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Marshall pioneered this move also,
though he may not have been the
first to play it. In My 50 Years of
Chess Marshall recommended this
move. I have made some changes
in my variation of the Ruy Lopez...
Here our analysis deviates from
previous play. In this position,
11...f6 and 11...b7 have hitherto
been played. We now recommend
the following: 11...c6! 12 d4 d6
13 e1 h4! 14 g3 h3 15 xd5
cxd5...
12 xd5 cxd5 13 f3?!
Naive and plausible. This line is
generally reckoned to be bad for
White. Frank Marshall comfortably
beat this amateur who played this
against him.
13 d4 d6 14 e1 h4 15 g3 h3
16 f3 f5! was the main line of
Marshalls analysis. 17 xd5 White
carries out his threat and takes the
second pawn; other moves are
not reckoned to be dangerous.
17...ae8 18 d2 but now (18
xe8? xe8 19 d2 e4 and A. Dulanto (Peru)
Black should win. was Marshalls
analysis.) 18...e6 (Marshall,
American Chess Review, March
1943) is looking dubious after
19 a3! (Heemsoth, Fernschach
10/1960; for the probably superior
The Total Marshall
18... f4 see Lehikoinen-Sarink,
below.) 19...h5 or good for
White (19...fe8?? 20 xd6!+-;
19...d8!?).
13...d6 14 e2
14 xd5 b7 15 xd6 e7+
threatening mate in one, the
queen and (for good measure) the
also.
14 e1 e8 (14...g5 does not
work here because the c1 is
defended and White can play 15
d4.) 15 xe8+ (White has back rank
problems as usual in the lines with
an early f3.) 15...xe8 16 e3
f5 17 d4 f4 18 xe8+ xe8 19
e3 xe3 20 fxe3 xe3 and Black
regains his pawn with a much
superior endgame.
14...g5 15 h3
White has to prevent...g4.
15...f5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+lwq-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zP-+Q+P0
9PzP-zPRzPP+0
9tRNvL-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
16 e1?
White decides he would like to
play d4 after all, and so he wastes a
tempo. He stands worse anyway.
He might as well have grabbed
the second pawn by 16 xd5
(met by 16...h5 or 16...ad8)
or else played a3 to get some
development.
16...ae8 17 f1?
From bad to worse. White loses the
exchange.
17...e4 18 xe4 xe4 19 a3
e5 20 c2 h2 21 e3
Black can now pick his favourite
way to win.
21...f4 22 b3 xe3 23 fxe3
fe8 24 e2 8e6 25 d3 4e5
26 d2 g5
The rest is silence.
27 e1 f6 28 g3 xg3 01
Game 3
C.H.OD. Alexander (England)
Buenos Aires ol prelim-A bd.1,
1939
Marshall, Alexander, Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
The Total Marshall
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6
This was one of the earliest games
to follow Frank Marshalls final
concept of his gambit.
12 xd5
Dulanto exchanges pieces first but
returns to Marshalls variation after
a slight transposition.
12...cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e1
h4 15 g3 h3 16 f3 f5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+l+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-+QzPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvL-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Over a hundred games in our
database stem from this position.
17 g2
An attempt to improve on
Marshalls line by driving back the
black queen.
Marshalls analysis continued 17
xd5 (as...e4 was threatened)
17...ae8 18 xe8 xe8 19 d2
e4 and Black should win..
17...h5 18 xd5 ad8 19 g2
de8
19...h3 is an alternative: if 20
c6 (20 h1 g4 21 d2 de8
gives Black an enormous attack
- Nunn) 20...e6 21 xe6 fxe6 22
d2 d1+ and...c2.
20 e3 h3?
20...e4 would regain one of the
pawns and keep the initiative.
21 h1 e6
Black had intended 21...f5 and if 22
d2 f4, but now observed that after
22 d5+ h8 23 d2 g6 24 f4 his
attack completely disappears.
22 d2 d5 23 f3? f5 24 f2
g5 25 g2 g4 26 xe8 xe8 27
e1 g6 28 b3 gxf3 29 h3 f4
30 f1 h8 31 e3 xe3+ 32
xe3 f4 33 xd5 fxg3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-tr-mk0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+-+-+q+0
9+p+N+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+PzP-+pzpQ0
9P+-+-+-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
34 c1??
34 f1 gxh2+ 35 xh2 (35 h1
g2+!) 35...d6+ 36 g3 xd5 37
e5+ with a draw.
34...f2+ 35 h1 e4+ 01
Game 4
A.Wolfers
R.E. Armati
Australia corr, 1942
Notes based on those by Purdy.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 g5
Wolfers, though surprised by
Blacks 11th move, sees the danger
his is in, and sees this unorthodox
move as his best chance.
14...e8! 15 d2 h6 16 h5
e4!
To force a weakness in Whites
kingside. The White rook cannot
be trapped.
17 f3 h4! 18 xh4 xh4 19
g3 h5
19...xg3=.
20 e3 h3! 21 d2 e8 22
f2 f5! 23 b3 f4 24 e1 f8
Prevents f1 and so forces a further
weakening.
25 g4 f7
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+qzp-0
9p+-vl-+-zp0
9+p+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-zpP+0
9+QzP-+P+l0
9PzP-sN-vL-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
26 h4
This results in a fatal loss of time.
White has defended well so far,
and could continue with 26 h1
or 26 a4, though Blacks attacking
position still outweighs the pawn
minus.
26...g5 27 f2 h5 28 gxh5 g4!
29 d1 xh5 30 fxg4 xg4
31 c1 g6 32 h1 f3 33 g1
xh2! 34 f1 f4 01
Game 5
Goldberg
Paul Keres
Tallinn, 1944
This little-known Keres game was
played during World War II. It was
possibly an informal game; after
the war, many Soviet players of his
24
generation played the Marshall, but
this experience seems to have put
Paul Keres off the variation.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 xd5
The early exchange on d5 occurred
frequently in the early decades of
the Marshall but in this case it
transposes to normal 15 e3 lines
because White does not try to win
the d5-pawn.
15...cxd5 16 e3 g4 17 d3
f5 18 f4 g5 19 f1
19 fxg5 f4 20 gxf4 xf4 21 d2
xe3+ 22 xe3 f1+ winning
Whites .
19...h5 20 d2 ae8
We now have a line from the
Classical Pawn Push variation,
normally reached nowadays via
15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
f5 18 xd5+ (by no means forced)
19...cxd5 20 f1 h5 21 f4 g5.
21 g2
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+rtrk+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+pzpq0
9-+-zP-zPl+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9PzP-sN-+QzP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
21...e4?!
21...gxf4 transposes to 18 f4 g5
19 f1 h5 20 g2 gxf4. See
Unzicker-Pfleger.
21...h8 is another transposition:
to 18 f4 h8 19 xd5 cd 20 f1
h5 21 g2 g5. But why move
the when White has already
exchanged on d5, so there is no
unpin necessary?
22 fxg5
This is probably stronger than
22 xe4 when Black has tried
recapturing with the f-pawn, an
unclear line.
22...f4?!
22...h8 may be better as this
seems a safer coloured square
for the king. Then 23 a4 is a
transposition to a line which Nunn
said is satisfactory for Black (18 f4
h8 19 xd5 cxd5 20 f1 h5 21
g2 e4 22 a4 g5 23 fxg5).
However, Blacks counterplay can
be seriously damaged by 23 h4
25 The Total Marshall

when: a2. If 22...g6 23 b3 g2 24 d1 so

a) 23...ee8!? 24 f2 f4 (See Lang- 35 e4 f2 36 d5 xb2 37 c4 22...d3 23 xf5 xf5 24 c2 g6
Yegorov in the database.) 25 gxf4! d2 38 e5+ may be best.
with probably insurmountable 38 cxb5 axb5 39 c1 xd5 40 c7+ 23 b3
problems for Black Bennedik. g8 41 xd5+ xd5 42 h4 d4. 23 gxf4 still might be too risky.
b) The obvious 23...f4 fails 24 38...g8 39 b8+ g7 40 e5+ 23...xf4 (23...g6+?! 24 h1
xe4 dxe4 25 xf4 xf4 (25...f3 g8 41 b8+ g7 g2+ 25 xg2 xg2 26 xg2 may
26 h3 xf4 27 gxf4 xf4 28 c8+ A close call for the great Keres. be too high a price to pay for the
g7 29 c7+ f7 30 g3) 26 gxf4 white Queen.) 24 c2 (24 axb5!?)
xf4 27 xe4! f3 28 xf4 xg2 Game 6 24...xc2 25 xf4 g4 (25...g6+!?
29 xg2 and, as Nunn pointed Dr Martin Christoffel (SWZ) might make more sense now the
out, Black has no perpetual check. Herman Steiner (USA) black is making inroads.) 26
This was analysed long before e.g. Hastings 1945-46 g3 g6 27 e4 (27 ac1!?)
the variation given in Granssons Notes by Tim Harding. 27...e6 (27...e2!?) 28 g5 d5
monograph, which probably 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 29 axb5 axb5 30 h4 (30 c4! xc4
stemmed from Unzicker or Soviet a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 31 a3! f6?? 32 xf8+!) 30...f6
sources: 29...e2+ 30 f2 g4+ b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 31 xh5 fxg5 (Arpiainen-Eronen,
31 f1 xh4 32 e1. Herman Steiner declined to play the corr Finland 1986); Black regained
23 xe4 dxe4 variation that is named after him. his piece and eventually the game
23...f3 24 g4. 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 was drawn.
24 gxf4 xf4 25 xf4 xf4 26 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 23...g2?!
g3 15 d3 Black failed to make the most of
26 xe4 f3 27 xf4 xg2 28 xg2 This was one of several sequences his chances in this game, and this
e2+=. tried by White before it was move seems a tactical error which
26...f3 27 e5 established that the only dangerous the Swiss amateur now exploited.
XIIIIIIIIY moves for Black are 15 e3 and 23...g4 (23...g6!? maybe) 24
15 e4. xc6 h3+ 25 h1 xe3! is
9-+-+-+k+0 15...f5 16 f1 h5 17 e3 not completely clear, although a
9+-+-+-+p0 ae8 18 d2 e6 19 a4 possible continuation is (25...e4
9p+-+-+-+0 The normal route to this position probably accomplishes little after
9+p+-wQ-zPq0 would be 15 Be3 Bg4 16 Qd3 Rae8 26 f4!? or 26 d1!? but not 26 xe4??
9-+-zPp+l+0 17 Nd2 Re6 18 Qf1 Qh5 19 a4 (or f3#.) 26 fxe3 bxa4 27 f1 (27
18 a4 Qh5 19 Qf1). This is actually xa4 f2; 27 xa4 c8 28 f1
9+-zP-+r+-0 a critical variation today! f2+ 29 xf2 xf2 30 g2 xe3
9PzP-+-+-zP0 19...h3 20 d1 f5 21 e2 is messy) 27...f2+ 28 g2 h3+
9tR-+-tR-mK-0 XIIIIIIIIY 29 g1 xf1 30 xf1 axb3 31 xf2
xiiiiiiiiy White starts to take control.
9-+-+-trk+0 24 d1!
9+-+-+pzpp0 24 xe6!? could be dangerous as
Nunn (1989) gives this position as
good for White but didnt cite the 9p+pvlr+-+0 White goes on the defensive on
present game which is not well 9+p+n+q+-0 the f-file.
known. White is the exchange 9P+-zP-+-+0 24...h3
ahead but will have to return it; 24...d5 allows the simplification
9+-zP-vL-zPl0 25 xf4 xe1+ 26 xe1 xf4 27
more significant is that he now has 9-zP-sNQzP-zP0
several extra pawns. xd5 xd2 28 xf7+! xf7 29
27...f5 28 xe4 xe4 29 9tR-+LtR-mK-0 xd2 with White two clear pawns
xe4 f7 xiiiiiiiiy ahead.
29...xg5+ 30 h1 f4 31 e6+ 25 xf4 xf4
f8 32 g1+-. 21...f4?! XIIIIIIIIY
30 g2? Piece offers on f4 are very thematic 9-+-+-trk+0
This timid move jeopardises the in the Marshall, but Black must 9+-+-+pzp-0
win. always calculate what happens 9p+p+r+-+0
30 h4 and if 30...h6 31 e1 when they are declined.
hxg5 32 hxg5 xg5+ 33 g2+- 21...f4 (Fine) keeps Whites 9+p+-+-+p0
is recommended in the notes advantage minimal. For a long time 9P+-zP-vl-+0
published in the Latvian magazine this was theory and supposedly 9+LzP-+-zPq0
Sahs. equal but 22 f3 may pose 9-zP-sN-zPlzP0
30...f5 31 h1 f7 32 g1 problems for Black. 9tR-+QtR-mK-0
e7 33 h1 f7 34 g1!? 21...c5 (Vitomskis) seems to be best
Instead of a further repetition. and is analysed by him in part 1 of xiiiiiiiiy
34...g7 his Spassky Variation survey.
34...f2? loses to 35 g6 hxg6 36 22 f3 26 xe6!?
xg6+ xg6 37 xg6+ f7 38 22 gxf4?? walks into forced mate 26 xe6 may be playable but White
xa6 xb2 39 b6 c2 40 xb5 starting 22...g6+. wants to kill the attack rather than
xc3 41 b2 d3 42 a4 xd4 43 22...h5 be greedy.
26...xd2 27 f4!?
The Total Marshall
Good and simple, based on correct
calculation of the subsequent
exchanges, but Black could have
defended better next move. 27 e5
is the computers preference.
27...xf4?
This allows White to carry out his
idea.
27...fxe6 28 xd2 d5 29 xd5
exd5 30 axb5 axb5.
28 e2! f3
28...xg3 fails to 29 xg2.
29 xf3 fxe6 30 e1
Threatening to win the black queen
with a bishop fork.
30...f6 31 xf4 xf4 32
xe6+ xe6 33 xe6 f6 34
xf6 gxf6 35 axb5 axb5
White has a comfortably won
endgame.
36 f2 f7 37 f3 e6 38 e4
f5+ 39 f4 d5 40 xf5 c4
41 g4 hxg4 42 xg4 b3 43 h4
xb2 44 h5 xc3 45 h6 10
Game 7
Abe Yanofsky (CAN)
Edward Lasker (USA)
USA ch Corpus Christi, 1947
Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3
f5
This game shows the Kevitz
Variation can blot out Blacks
counterplay if he chooses an
inferior line.
14...h4 was later recognised to be
stronger. Then if 15 g3 g4 16 f3
Black has 16...xg3.
15 e1 f4 16 f3
16 d2 transposes to the old main
line of the Kevitz, 15 d2 f4 16
e1.
16...g5 17 h1 d7 18 d2
h4 19 f1 f5
19...g5!? has been suggested (by
Gransson?). Maybe 19...ae8.
20 e2 h5 21 e1 f6 22
d2 f8 23 h3 f5 24 h2 h5
25 f2 f7 26 a3 g5 27 ae1
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+l+q+-0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+rzpp0
9-+-zP-zp-+0
9zP-zP-+P+P0
9-zP-vLRwQPsN0
9+-+-tR-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy
White is now clearly better and
starts to break out.
27...f6 28 c4 dxc4 29 b4
e8 30 xe8+ xe8 31 xd6
xd6 32 e5 d5 33 e1
xe5 34 xe5 g6 35 f1 g4
36 hxg4 hxg4 37 fxg4 d7 38
xf4 xg4 39 xg4+ xg4
40 e3+-
White has a sound extra pawn and
the black cannot attack Whites
queenside. Now White will bring
the King into play.
40...e2 41 g1 a5 42 f2 d3
43 e1 f7 44 d2 e4 45 g3
d3 46 b3 e6 47 bxc4 bxc4 48
c3 e2 49 xc4 a4 50 e3
b5 51 b4 e8 52 c5 h5
53 c4 10
Game 8
A.Chomsky
E.L. Abelmann
Shakmaty-222 corr USSR, 1955
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10
xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 f1
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h5 15
d4 h3!
Pachmans recommendation.
16 d3 f5 17 f1 h3 18 L.A. Fink
d1
18 d3 could lead to repetition.
18...f5 19 e2 ae8 20 e3 Heemsoths scrapbooks show this
e6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+p+n+q+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-vL-zPl0
9PzP-+QzP-zP0
9tRN+LtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has gained a tempo over the
15 d3 f5 line.
21 c2 f4 22 xf5 xe2+ 23 analysis.
xe2 xf5 12 e1 d6 13 h3 g4 14 hxg4?
This game illustrates how Black can
often have excellent play even after
the queen exchange in the Marshall,
especially when he has the bishop
pair and control of the e-file.
24 d2 fe8 25 a4 h3 26 a3
f5 27 dd1 f4! 28 d2
Naturally not 28 gxf4 g6+ 29 h1
g2+ and Black wins the exchange
(A.Ptzsch, Fernschach).
28...e2 29 axb5 fxg3 30 hxg3
xg3! 31 bxa6
If 31 fxg3 White gets mated by
26
31...g2+ 32 h1 ee2.
31...xf2 32 a7 h6 33 c4 g2+
34 h1 h2+ 35 g1 g2!
Black naturally has an easy draw
by perpetual check. He prefers to
make a winning attempt, with a
really astounding point.
36 a8 f3 37 xe8+ h7
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+Q+-+0
9+-+-+-zpk0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+NzP-+-+0
9+-zP-+lvl-0
9-zP-vL-+-tr0
9tR-+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has a and extra, but mate
is threatened on h1!
38 g6+!
The only move.
38...xg6 39 e5+ xe5 40
dxe5 h1+ 41 f2 xd1 42
xd1 xd1 43 b4 f5 44 c4
b3 45 c3 g5 46 b5
Game 9
B. Kantorovich
USSR corr, 1955
game was played in a semifinal
of the 4th USSR Correspondence
Championship and that the
original notes by Kantorovich from
Shakhmaty v SSSR 1/1956 were
translated for a German publication
by H.Kretschmar.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10
xe5 xe5 11 xe5 f6
Now and then, there are still people
willing to try the Original Marshall.
White apparently chose not to
follow the example of Capablanca
because he was misled by recent
h4 15 f3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-zp-+pzpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+Pwq0
9+LzP-+Q+-0
9PzP-zP-zPP+0
9tRNvL-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
27
15...h2+!
15...xg4? 16 g3 h5 17 g2
ae8 18 e3! but not 18 f1 f3
19 h2 xh2+ 20 xh2 e5!+ CC Olympiad 4 prelim, corr ICCF,
Gransson.
Not 15...h2+?! 16 f1 xg4? 17
xg4 h1+ 18 e2 ae8+ 19 e6! a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
and White comes out with an extra
piece - Palkin, 1954.
16 f1 xg4 17 e4!
The best defence.
On 17 e4 comes 17...f4! with
material advantage to Black, e.g.
18 g3 h2! 19 e3 (19 xf7+ xf7
20 xf4+ g8) 19...ae8 20 d5
xg3 21 xg3 (Black also wins
after 21 fxg3 h3+ 22 e1 g1+ or
21 xf7+ h8! 22 xe8? h1#)
21...e2+ 22 e1 f3+ mating -
Gransson, probably citing analysis
by Shamkovich or Kantorovich.
And if 17 g3 then 17...h5. Also 17
c6 does not help White: 17...d6
18 g3 xg3 19 fxg3 xg3 20 d5
ad8 21 g2 d6 22 e4 f6+ 23
g1 f3+.
17...h8?
Black misses the correct
continuation, 17...f4! 18 g3 h2!!
with an attack, as Shamkovich,
pointed out after the game was
published.
18 d4 h5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-tr-mk0
9+-zp-+pzpp0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+q0
9-+-zPQ+l+0
9+LzP-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPvl0
9tRNvL-tRK+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
19 d5?
After this further mistake, Black is
probably winning again.
19 d2! f5 20 c6 f4 21 f3
h1+ 22 e2 ae8+ 23 e6! when
Heemsoth wrote in Fernschach that
White has the upper hand but this
assessment may not be accurate, as
23...xg2 is perhaps.
19...f5 20 d3
Also 20 c2 was not better. There
follows 20...f4 21 xa8 g3 a
plan which Black could also have
employed after the text move.
20...f4 21 g3 xc1 22 xc1
ae8 23 g1
23 d2 e4.
23...f4 24 c4 e2 25 a3 f6 26
d2 h6 27 f1 f3 01
The Total Marshall
Game 10 computers. (21...d3?! was given in
S. Sakhalkar (India) Magyar Sakkelet but is incorrect:
Lazslo Barczay (Hungary) 22 f3 e6 23 h1 e2!). In fact
White can improve with 21 f3
1960 (Jonathan Tait); although I think
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 Black still has the preferable game
with 21...h3, it is not much.
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 c2) 20 c6! (not considered in
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 Magyar Sakkelet); White has
xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e1 enough to draw and if Black isnt
h4 15 g3 h3 16 f3? f5 17 careful, he will lose e.g. 20...d7
xd5 ae8! 18 d2 (20...f8? 21 c4!) 21 g2 (21 f3 was
XIIIIIIIIY a CC Yearbook recommendation of
Popescu; see two games Femmel-
9-+-+rtrk+0 v.d.Kooij in our database) 21...h5
9+-+-+pzpp0 22 f3 Harding; see e.g. Lehikoinen-
9p+-vl-+-+0 Sarink. (Not 22 gxf4?? h3).
9+p+Q+l+-0 19...xe1+ 20 xe1 c1!
9-+-zP-+-+0 XIIIIIIIIY
9+-zP-+-zPq0 9-+-+-trk+0
9PzP-vL-zP-zP0 9+-+-+pzpp0
9tRN+-tR-mK-0 9p+-+-+-+0
xiiiiiiiiy 9+p+-+l+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
This move leads to a famous 9+-zP-+-zPq0
brilliancy which, however, does not
9PzP-+-zPQzP0
quite survive modern scrutiny. It is 9tRNvl-vL-mK-0
easy for both players to go wrong
but Black has a strong initiative xiiiiiiiiy
and White will only survive if he
finds the very best moves. 18 e3 Transposing to a won endgame.
is possibly better. 21 xh3
18...f4!? 21 a4 e8 22 d2 bxa4 23 xa4
This is generally reckoned to be xd2 24 xd2 e1+ 25 f1 xg2+
stronger than the line given by 26 xg2 e4+! 27 f3 d3 and Black
Marshall himself in American Chess wins.
Review, March 1943: 18...e6 19 If 21 d2 xg2+ (probably better
xe6 (However, Marshalls own than Granssons line 21...xb2
idea could be in trouble after 19 22 d1 h5 which, however, also
a3 Heemsoth) 19...fxe6 20 favours Black; maybe 22 xh3) 22
g2 h5= and if 21 f3? h3 22 xg2 xb2.
g4 xg4!. 21...xh3 22 d2 xb2 23
19 g2? b1 xc3 24 b3 c8 25 f3
The Hungarian magazine Magyar f5 01
Sakkelet gave the following White resigned. If 26 c1 (26 d1
alternatives: c2 27 c1 b2) 26...xd4+ 27
a) 19 gxf4 xe1+ (19...g4+ is f2 xc1+ 28 xc1 b2.
inferior as on 20 h1 e4 Black
only forces a draw.) 20 xe1 Game 11
g4+ 21 h1 (21 g2 d1! 22 f1 Evgeni Vasiukov
d3) 21...e6 22 e4 d1! with Aleksandr Tolush
the deadly threat ...e8, ...d7. Moscow, 1961
(Goransson gave 22...h5 but this This is one of the most
is incorrect, e.g. 23 f3 d5 24 d3 significant games for the Herman
xf3+ 25 g1 h3 26 f1.) Steiner Variation. Two Russian
b) 19 c6 xe1+ 20 xe1 h5! 21 grandmasters who were noted
f3 g5 22 a3 c1!. tacticians slug it out and White
c) The critical line is 19 xe8! xe8 easily came off best.
and now White has two possibilities 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
explored in subsequent games: a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
c1) 20 g2 h5! 21 gxf4? and b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4 10
now the right move is 21...h3!+ dxc6 exf3 11 d4
found by Tim Harding in 1970s 11 xf3 is possibly even better.
analysis and confirmed by modern 11...fxg2 12 f3
The Total Marshall 28

XIIIIIIIIY 26...fxe4! 27 xd6 d3 28 a6 b5

9r+lwq-trk+0 This position can also arise via 18
a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20 f1 h5
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
21 f4.
9p+P+-sn-+0 21...fe8
9+p+-+-+-0 The pin against the white e1rook
9-+-zP-+-+0 intensifies Blacks pressure. It is
9+LzP-+Q+-0 clear that Black is in danger on
the queenside so he must rapidly
9PzP-+-zPpzP0
create threats against the white
9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 and .
xiiiiiiiiy 22 xa6?!
Original notes to this game
12...e8 appeared in the Central Chess
12...a5!? is the best try: see Bulletin. The line has been much
Melnikov-Lukyachenko. reassessed in recent years.
13 g5 a5 14 a3 g4 15 xg2 This move received an !
f5 16 d2 b4? in contemporary notes by
Weak but White stands better Konstantinopolsky, but GM Nunn
anyway. in his 1989 book wrote On the
17 e5 g6 18 ae1 bxc3 19 basis of the main line, this move
bxc3 a4 20 a2 f8 21 c4 h6 is a mistake, and after it White will
22 h4 be very lucky to draw. He said 22
22 xf6!? gxf6 23 5e3+-. f2 is critical.
22...c2 23 e3 d3 24 f3 22...xe3 23 xe3 xe3 24 Black places his hopes on the
24 g4!+-. xc6 e8! 25 xd5+ f8 26
24...g5 25 g4 d6 26 g3 e4?!
10
This was one of the most influential
XIIIIIIIIY
games that put the Herman Steiner 9-+-+qmk-+0
Variation out of business in master 9+-+-+-zpp0
play. However, it is sometimes 9-+Rvl-+-+0
revived in correspondence games. 9+-+L+p+-0
9-+-zPNzPl+0
Game 12
9+-zP-tr-zP-0
V.N. Dragunov
Aleksandr M. 9-zP-+-+-zP0
Konstantinopolsky 9+-+-+QmK-0
USSR ch06 6364 corr, 1963 xiiiiiiiiy
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 An unexpected answer for
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 Konstaninopolsky and he erred in
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 reply. He noted that 26 b5 or 26
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
a6 would allow the infiltration
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 of the black queen by 26...e1+
e6 18 a4! 27 f1 e3+ and he thought that
18 xd5 cxd5 19 a4 f5 20 f1 26 f2? e1+ 27 f1 e2 and 26 29 b1!!
h5 21 f4 bxa4 22 xa4 fe8 23 xd6 e1 27 e6 xf1+ 28 xf1 V.Dragunov finds the right solution
xa6! xe3 24 xe3 xe3 25 c6 b5 lead to advantage for Black. to his problem. By watching
Sokolsky. However, he was wrong about 26
18...f5 19 f1 h5 20 f4 bxa4 xd6! which is Whites best move,
20...fe8 was considered equal by because after 26...e1 White can
Estrin. play 27 e6! and hold on for a
21 xa4 draw with assorted pieces against
XIIIIIIIIY the queen.
9-+-+-trk+0 26...xe4?
Instead of the text move, wrote
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0 Konstantinopolsky, I had the
choice between 26...e7? and
9+-+n+p+q0 26...fxe4!. If 26...e7? 27 f2!
9R+-zP-zPl+0 d8 with advantage to White. As
9+LzP-vL-zP-0 Dragunov showed me afterwards,
he can then play 28 xg4! e1
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0 (28...fxg4 29 f2!) 29 e5 xf1+
30 xf1.
xiiiiiiiiy
with threats of ...d1 and ...d5,
appears to be the best answer.
However, the way I played in the
game was also tempting.
TH: This line has become
theoretically important again,
with the better move 28 b3!
being found for White (28...b8
29 a1=). Dutch theoretician
A.C. van der Tak then claimed
that Black wins with 28...e3! and
several games have been won by
Black after 29 Rd8? Qxd8 30 Qxd3
e2. Yet even here White can save
himself by 29 xd3 e2 30 e6!
which leads to a draw.
The battle around the passed e-
pawn, with Black trying to land
a deadly queen check on e3, or
elsewhere on the a7-g1 diagonal,
is mirrored in the game but under
inferior circumstances for Black.
27 xe4 fxe4
passed e-pawn. How is it possible
to stop it?
27...xe4 28 xd6 h3 (28...e2
29 c1!) 29 xh3 e3+ 30 f1
c1+ 31 e2 xb2+ 32 d3 b1+
33 c4 White wins, as Dragunov
correctly said.
28 xd6 e3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+qmk-+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9-+-tR-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-zPl+0
9+-zP-zp-zP-0
9-zP-+-+-zP0
9+-+-+QmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
the square e4 he refutes the
combination begun at Blacks 26th
move.
29 a1 e2 30 f2 e4 31 d5? (Better
is 31 d8+ e7 32 a3+ xd8 33
d6+) 31...f3+ 32 g1 e3+ 33
g2 e1+ leads to mate.
29...a8
29...e2 30 f2 a8 31 e3 (31
d5? a7+ and...e3) 31...f3+ 32
d2 f1 33 e1 f3 34 h3! and
the e-pawn is liquidated 34...h5
35 e6.
30 d5
Now the other important entry line
for the black is closed.
30...e2
29
Now threatening...a7+ and...e3
but once more White has the
answer to his opponents plan.
31 g2! e7
31...a7 32 e4!. If 31...e8 then
immediately 32 e6! (not 32 f2
a4 33 e1 a7+ 34 g2 e3 35
e6 xe6 36 dxe6 g6 followed
by...e7 and Black can hold)
32...h5 (32...xe6 33 dxe6 xe6
34 f2) 33 e5 h3+ 34 g1 f3
35 f5+.
Also the manoeuvre 31...a4
threatening...d1 32 b3! a3
(32...e8 33 e6!) accomplishes no
more after 33 e6 c5 34 c4 d4
(34...xe6 35 dxe6 e3 36 f5+!
e7 37 f7+ d6 38 d7+ c5 39
a7+) 35 e4 d1 36 e8+.
32 c6! d7
32...a4 33 xh7! e1+ 34 f1;
32...a5 33 e6+! d7 34 e5.
33 h3+- a5 34 hxg4 xd5+
35 f2 xc6 36 xh7! e6 37
h1+ 10
Konstantinopolosky concluded
that If 37...c7 38 e1. Dragunov
played this game very skilfully,
overcoming dangerous threats and
hidden traps.
Game 13
A. Novopashin
Boris Spassky
USSR ch-31 Leningrad, 1963
Notes by Martin Bennedik.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17
d2 e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4
f5 20 f4?
20 f1 is the main line, please see
the surveys.
20...xf4!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+p+r+-+0
9+-+n+p+-0
9R+-zP-vll+0
9+LzPQvL-zPq0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This position is best analysed with
your favourite chess engine, which
of course wasnt available in 1963.
21 f2? xe1+ 22 xe1 e8
01
The Total Marshall
Novopashin apparently was so h4 15 g3 h3 16 e3 g4 17
shocked by the Bishop sacrifice, d3 f5 18 f4 ae8 19 d2 g5 20
that he lost without putting up a f1 h5 21 g2 gxf4!?
fight. For 21...e4 22 fxg5! h8 (Euwe)
Instead, returning to the diagram, 23 h4! (Unzicker) see Lang-
what else could he do? Yegorov in the database. That line
Not 21 f1? f3 22 d2 xg3 23 is not so easy for Black.
xg3 f4+. 22 xd5+!
However, accepting the sacrifice The suggestion 22 xf4 xf4 23
gives at least some chances for a gxf4 h8 24 h1 (in the Latvian
draw. For example, 21 gxf4 g6 notes to Goldberg-Keres) is
22 xd5+ and now: probably fine for Black after
a) 22...h8. (This move is usually 24...e4.
recommended, but as I and Fritz 22...g7
think White can defend better here, 22...h8 23 xd6 fxe3 24 xe3!.
I am recommending a simpler line.) 23 xf4
23 h1 (23 f2 cxd5 24 g1 (24 23 gxf4? f6!.
h1 e8+) 24...xh2+ 25 e1 23...xf4 24 gxf4
h4+ 26 f1 e8+) 23...h6 XIIIIIIIIY
24 e2 cxd5 (This position is 9-+-+rtr-+0
actually not so clear.) 25 g2 (25 9+-+-+-mkp0
f2 e8 26 xa6 xa6 27 xa6
xe3) 25...g6 e.g. 26 g1? 9p+-+-+-+0
xg2+ 27 xg2 e2+ + was 9+p+Q+p+q0
given in The Marshall Attack by 9-+-zP-zPl+0
Nunn and Harding, but White can 9+-zP-+-+-0
defend better, e.g. with 26 f2. (For 9PzP-sN-+-zP0
more details of my analysis, see the
annotations in the database.) 9tR-+-tR-mK-0
b) 22...cxd5 leads by force to a xiiiiiiiiy
position which I think provides very
good chances for Black, although it Chess Mail Back
is not immediately over.
For example, 23 xa6 e2+ Year sets
24 xg6 xd3 25 g3 h6
(25...h5) 26 f3 (26 a1 b6 is We have a limited number
awkward.) 26...a8 27 e5 e4. of back issue sets of Chess
I think Black has some chances to Mail magazine for sale. Y
crack Whites fortress-like setup. In
this position, your favourite engine ou can order by post or fax
will be a bit useless, so I am just or at www.chessmail.com/
giving a sample line here. 28 c1 backnumber_form.html.
a1 29 d7 a6 30 e5 (Okay, this
was useless, but what should White Prices including basic post-
do?) 30...b1 31 f2 a1 32 gg1 age are as follows:
xb2+ 33 xb2 xb2+ 34 e2
xc3 35 d1 h6 36 dd2 g5 2001 (8 issues) 36 Euros,
White can also reverse the order 2000 (8 issues) 36 Euros,
and play 21 xd5 cxd5 22 gxf4
(22 xa6? xg3 23 hxg3 xg3+ 1999 (11 issues) 42 Euros,
24 f1 f4+ or 22 f1? f3 23 1998 (11 issues) 45 Euros,
d2 xg3 24 xg3 f4+) but then 1997 (11 issues) 50 Euros,
22...g6 gives the same position as 1996-7 (as 1997 with the
recommended above. 8/96 issue also: very few of
these left!) 70 Euros.
Game 14
Wolfgang Unzicker For airmail, add 15%
Helmut Pfleger (Europe) or 25% (rest of the
West Germany ch-match (2), world).
1963
Notes by Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 Single back issues (when
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 available) cost 5 Euros each
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 including surface mail post-
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 age.
xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e1
The Total Marshall
24...e2?!
After this, Blacks attack soon runs
out of steam.
Instead, 24...h8! is correct; see
Bravo-Jaime, below.
25 g2+
25 f1 xf1 (25...f3 26 g3
g4 27 d7+!) 26 xe8 g4+ 27
xf1 xf4+ 28 g1 xe8 29 f1
Gransson; 25 h1 also seems
good for White.
25...h8 26 f2 g6+ 27
h1
27 g3?? h6 28 h1 g8 29
f2 c6+.
27...c6+
Better is 27...e6.
28 g2 e6 29 f1 c4 30 g3
d3 31 d2 c6+ 32 g1 f3
33 f2 g4 34 e5 h5 35 h3!
g6
35...xh3 36 h2 xh2+ 37 xh2
h4 38 h1 and f2+-.
36 h2 h4 37 f1 h6 38 d2
xe5 39 dxe5 g8 40 g1 10.
Did Black lose on time? He might
have continued for a few more
moves.
Game 15
Herman Pilnik (ARG)
Efim Geller (UKR)
Santiago de Chile, 1965
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17
d2 e6 18 xd5 cxd5 19 f1
h5 20 f4
Pilnik was apparently trying to
unsettle his opponent by minor
transpositions of move order.
However, this move turns out to
be a novelty. It is strange to play
f2-f4 before Black goes ...f7-f5.
20...fe8
20...g5?! was an extremely
dubious suggestion published in
Granssons monograph: 21 fxg5
f5 22 f4 e2 23 f2 (Better is
23 xd6 xf1 24 xe6) 23...xf4
24 xf4 h6+. This is very hard to
believe!
21 f2 f5!?
21...f5!= as in a game Zuidema-
Nei.
22 a4
Gransson asked, Has there ever
been a game in this line where the
move a2-a4 was played so late?
22...g5
This is dubious. 22...bxa4!? was
advisable.
23 fxg5 f4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+-vlr+-+0
9+p+p+-zPq0
9P+-zP-zpl+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-wQ-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
24 xf4?
24 gxf4! is unclear or a bit better
for White after 24...bxa4 (24...h6
(Botterill) but Nunn points out that
25 gxh6 xh6 26 f1 transposes
to Grootjans-de Boer, where White
withstood the attack).
24...e2 25 xe2 xe2 26
xe2
Sacrifices of the white queen for
rook, minor piece and assorted
pawns occur in many variations
of the Marshall. Sometimes they
are good, sometimes not so good
and sometimes they are played in
desperation.
26...xe2 27 xd6 bxa4 28
e1 b5 29 f4 g6 30 c1
b6 31 a1 d7 32 a2
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+-+l+-+p0
9pwq-+-+-+0
9+-+p+-zP-0
9p+-zP-vL-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9RzP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White has too many weaknesses.
32...b5 33 f2 g4 34 c4 dxc4
35 e4 b3 36 c3 c2+ 37
e1 a3 38 xa3 xb2 39 d6
c1+ 40 f2 d2+ 01
Game 16
Bruno Parma (Yugoslavia)
Boris Spassky (USSR)
Vrnjacka Banja, 1965
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4 f5 20
f1 f4?!
After this game, it was realised that
Black should play 20...h5.
21 xh3 xh3 22 xa6!
22 gxf4 g6+ 23 h1 g2+ 24
30
g1 e4+ (or 24...h3+) 25 f1
d3+ Goransson.
22...fxe3 23 xe3
23 fxe3 Plunge-Bohringer.
23...xe3
23...xe3 Szabo-Barczay.
24 fxe3 e7 25 e4!
This move and the continuation
to move 28 was recommended by
Keres and others as an improvement
on Stein-Spassky, Moscow zt 1964,
in which Black easily drew after 25
xc6? g5!.
25...g5 26 exd5 xd2
26...e3+ 27 h1 f2 28 d6+ causes
a back rank disaster - Nunn.
27 dxc6+ h8 28 a1 g6
28...g5 is no better; see Schwartz-
Dahlhaus.
29 d5 e3+ 30 h1 f2 31 c7
Surely White should have been
able to demonstrate a win from
this position? But if so, where did
he go wrong?
31...xb2 32 e1 xd4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-mk0
9+-zP-+-+p0
9-+-+-+p+0
9+-+L+-+-0
9-+-vl-+-+0
9+-zP-+-zPl0
9-tr-+-+-zP0
9+-+-tR-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy
33 cxd4?
33 g4! xg4 34 cxd4 c2 35 e7 as
the white king can escape from the
corner 35...f5 (35...h3 36 g1)
36 b7 d2 37 d5!+- White has the
wrong for the h-pawn so must
retain the d-pawn.
33...c2 34 f3 xc7 35 g1
g7 36 f2 h5 37 e2 c4 38
d2 f6 39 d5 d7 40 b2 f5
41 e2 d4 42 b2 .
Only a draw but a critical game
between two top GMs in the early
theory of the Marshall.
Game 17
Boris Spassky
Efim Geller
2nd match game, Riga 1965
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5
This game is interesting as a clash
between the two greatest Soviet
grandmasters to really know the
Marshall well. Spassky played the
white pieces for once.
9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5 xe5
31 The Total Marshall

11 xe5 c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 28...xd4 29 xg4 g5! Black which were probably extremely

h4 14 g3 h3 15 e3 g4 16 regains all the sacrificed material detailed. (One may speculate that
d3 xe3 and should draw, but White has Tal might have played the line
This variation pioneered by Geller some positional advantage. which later surfaced in Gurvich-
was popular for a while but did not 27...b7 28 e7 xf3 29 xa7 Grzeskowiak.)
stand the test of time. Nevertheless, xg2 30 xg2 b6 31 ee7 xd4 Note that Spassky NEVER played
Whites advantage is not that great 32 f3 g6 33 a8 Bondarevsky. 18...f5? which most theoreticians
if Black plays the most accurate 28 e5 g6 29 d5 b7? subsequently gave as the main
moves. 29...d6 30 e7 b6 31 d4 b7 line in books and articles.
17 xe3 Gransson. 19 axb5 axb5 20 c4 bxc4
White avoids the traps like 17 30 e7! b8 31 7e2 bd8 32 If 20...f5 21 e2 g4 22 cxd5! was
xe3?? ae8 18 xe8 f3+ (19 e5 h5 33 a4 b6 34 axb5 axb5 a queen sacrifice idea analysed by
xf7+ h8) and 17 fxe3? xg3!. 35 d2 d6 36 g5! g7 Pachman: 22...xe2 23 dxe6 fxe6
17...c5 This loses the exchange for the 24 xe6+ h8 25 ac1.
The idea is to create a target on d4 d-pawn and White wins by Instead 22 f1 is possible, when
for Blacks bishop pair to exploit. technique. Shamkovich & Peterson analysed
18 d5 36...d8 fails combinatively to 37 22...h3 23 d1 xf1 (23...f5? 24
18 f1 is now reckoned to be the xd8 fxd8 (37...dxd8 38 c6) e2 f4 25 f3 d3 26 xf5 xf5
critical reply. 38 xf7! xf7 39 e7+. 27 c2!) 24 xh5 xc4 25 xc4
18...ad8 19 d2 37 e7 xd5 38 xd5 xd5 bxc4 26 ac1 b4 27 e2 c3 28
XIIIIIIIIY 39 d7 xd7 40 xd7 d8 41 bxc3 xc3! 29 ec2 d5 30 xc6
e7 d5 42 a1 xe3 31 xe6 fxe6 32 fxe3 d2=.
9-+-tr-trk+0 21 xc4 b4 22 ec1 e2 23
This forces Black to relinquish
9+-+-+pzpp0 his threat against f2 and the rest d1 xh2+
9p+-vl-+-+0 is easy. A slight inaccuracy by Spassky.
9+pzpL+-+-0 42...b8 43 e3 d6 44 e8 Better is 23...xd3= Parma-
9-+-zP-+l+0 b7 45 e4 c6 46 d3 c5 47 Geller.
xc6 xc6 48 g2 b4 49 a7 24 xh2 xd3 25 e5 b5
9+-zPQtR-zPq0 If 25...e4 26 b3 or 25...xe3
f8 50 d7 e7 51 e3 c5
9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 52 e4 a6 53 c4 d6 54 f3 (best?) 26 xd3 xd1 27 xb4
9tR-+-+-mK-0 g7 55 d4 10 xb2 28 xc6 e2 29 c2!
xiiiiiiiiy Pachman.
Game 18 26 b3 d8 27 a7 f6
19...b8 Mikhail Tal XIIIIIIIIY
19...c7!? was later tried. 20 g2 Boris Spassky 9-+-tr-+k+0
h6 equalised in Barczay-Adorjan, 1st match game, Tbilisi 1965 9tR-+-+-zpp0
Budapest 1970. The point of the 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
precise bishop and queen moves a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 9-+p+rzp-+0
is to meet 21 d5? by 21...c4 22 d4? b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 9+l+nsN-+-0
b6. 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 9-vl-zP-+-+0
20 g2 h5 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 9+L+-vL-zP-0
20...h6 is also possible, to go to f6 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 9-zP-+-zP-mK0
or d6 (Tal); this was later tried. e6 18 a4 h5
9+-tR-+-+-0
21 ae1 e6 XIIIIIIIIY xiiiiiiiiy
21...cxd4 22 cxd4 a7 23 b3 e6 9-+-+-trk+0
24 e5! Salo Flohr. 9+-+-+pzpp0
22 b3 f5 23 e4 cxd4 24 cxd4 Here Tal missed his chance to put
c8 25 f3 h6 26 g2 a7 9p+pvlr+-+0 on some pressure.
27 f3 9+p+n+-+q0 28 xc6
XIIIIIIIIY 9P+-zP-+l+0 White could have played instead:
9+LzPQvL-zP-0 a) 28 d7 xd7 29 xd7 d6 30
9-+ltr-trk+0 b6 d8 31 xd5 cxd5 32 c7 f8
9vl-+-+pzpp0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 33 b7 e8 34 a2 f7 35 b4 etc.
9p+-+-+-wq0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 (Sakharov & Peterson), or
9+p+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy b) 28 f7 b8 29 xd5 cxd5 30 f4
9-+-zP-+-+0 be8 31 b7 Simagin.
The debut of this important 28...xc6
9+P+QtRNzP-0 28...xc6 29 a8 cd6 30 cc8
variation. Black does not risk
9P+-+-zPLzP0 a wild attack against his great a5 31 xd8+ xd8 32 f4 d7
9+-+-tR-mK-0 opponent but trusts his positional 33 c7!!.
xiiiiiiiiy compensation for the sacrificed 29 a6 f8 30 axc6 xc6
pawn. Previously Spassky 31 xc6 xe3 32 fxe3 d2=
27...f6? had played 18...bxa4 (against 33 c4
27...g4 was the last chance 28 Novpashin, Stein and Parma) so 33 e6 b8.
e5 (28 e7 c5 29 c7 b6) he thus avoided Tals preparations 33...xe3 34 d5 d2 35 b6
e7 36 e6+ f8 37 g4
The Total Marshall
Game 19
Mikhail Tal
Boris Spassky
5th candidates match game,
Tbilisi 1965
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3
h4 15 h3 f4 16 e5 f6 17
e1
Not 17 xd5? b7 18 g5 fe8+
Pachman.
17 e3 f4 is a repetition.
17...g6 18 f3 f5
18...e6 was played in the 7th
match game, continuing 19 f4
(19 d2 ae8 threat...g4)
19...xf4 20 xf4 xh3 21 g3
xg3 22 fxg3 f5 23 d2 fe8
24 b3 f8 (24...f6 was simpler
25 c5 xe1+ 26 xe1 f7 27
a4 bxa4 28 xa4 Lilienthal) 25 c5
a5 26 xe8+ xe8 27 a4 bxa4 28
xa4 e2 29 b4 (29 b3! was critical)
29...axb4 30 cxb4 b2 31 a8+ e7
32 b8 d2 33 b7+ (33 b5 xd4
34 b6 d6 35 b7 b4 36 c8 d4)
33...d6 34 xf7 g6 35 a7 c6
36 e6 e4 37 xg7 xg2+ 38 f1
b2 39 d8+ b5 40 c7 d2 41
e1 g2 42 f7 xb4 43 g5 d3
44 xh7 c4 45 f6 e2+ 46 d1
e6 47 d7 c3 48 e5 h6 49
xc4 dxc4 50 e2 e6+ 51 f3
d3 52 f4 d6 53 g4 1/21/2.
It is noteworthy that Spassky
drew both games with the Kevitz
Variation in this match, quite
comfortably in fact, despite making
inaccuracies.
19 e3
19 xd5 ae8 20 e3 xe3 21
xe3 xb1.
19...e4 20 g4 h5
20...f6 21 d2 f5 22 g5
Pachman.
21 xg6 xg6 22 d2 f6 23
b3 f5 24 c5
White now has a lasting endgame
advantage for White, which is why
Spassky preferred 18...Be6 the next
time.
24...xc5 25 dxc5 d7 26 ad1
c6 27 h4
A better plan was 27 f3 and
eventually g4.
27...fe8
After the inevitable rook exchanges
on the e-file, the opposite coloured
bishops will guarantee a draw.
28 f3 f7 29 f2 h8 30 d2
ae8 31 de2 e6 32 f4
xe2+ 33 xe2 e8 34 xe8
xe8 35 g4
32
XIIIIIIIIY Black seems to be busted, e.g.
9-+-+l+-+0 23...f7 (23...xf4? 24 xd5!!+-)
24 f2! e.g. Ertl-Erpel.
9+-+-+kzp-0 22 xe3 xe3
9p+-+-zp-+0 XIIIIIIIIY
9+pzPp+-+p0 9-+-+-+k+0
9-+-+-vLPzP0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9+-zP-+P+-0 9p+pvl-+-+0
9PzP-+-mK-+0 9+P+n+p+q0
9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-zPl+0
xiiiiiiiiy 9+LzP-tr-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
35...g6
Not 35...hxg4? 36 fxg4 e6 37 e3 9tR-+-+QmK-0
c6 38 h5! or; 35...g6 36 e3 d7 xiiiiiiiiy
37 d4 c6 38 d6.
36 b4 c6 37 e3 e6 38 d4 23 bxc6!!
f7 39 c7 e7! Nunn: In view of the strength of
Not 39...e6? 40 d8 and White this move, analysis of the unclear
wins e.g. 40...f7 (40...d7 41 23 bxa6 b8 24 a7 xa7 25 xa7
gxh5 gxh5 42 c6 xc6 43 c5 h6! is redundant. This was played
b7 44 b6) 41 g5! fxg5 42 e5 in Suetin-im, 1972, won by Black
gxh4 43 xh4. after White rejected a drawing line.
40 d6+ e6 41 f4 Various games seemed to show
In view of 41...f7 42 h6 e6 43 that the position after the older
g7 f7 44 h8 e6 45 a3 f7 46 25...e8?! 26 a1 e2 27 c4 h8
g5 fxg5 47 e5 gxh4 48 d6 a8! 28 e5 e3 29 f7! was good for
49 c6 g5 50 c7 b7 (variations from White (contra analysis by Henkin,
Shamkovich). Euwe etc.) e.g. Prochazka-Benner
and Rehberg-Gudat.
Game 20 23...e2
A. Gurvich (USSR) GMs Boleslavsky & Suetin had
Felix Grzeskowiak reached this position in analysis,
(W.Germany) but incorrectly considered it
4th European Corr Ch, 1966 favourable to Black.
Many sources wrongly give 24 xd5+ f8
Whites name as Gurevich. The If 24...h8 then 25 h3! wins after:
original source of this game was a) 25...xh3 26 f3! xf1 (26...g6
Fernschach 1970 p.149. 27 xe2 xg3+ 28 h1) 27 xh5
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 xd2 28 xf1 xb2 29 xa6+- g6
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 30 e2 b3 31 a8+ (or 31 c4+-)
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 e.g. 31...g7 32 a7+ f6 33 d7
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 b8 34 c7.
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 b) 25...xd2 26 xa6 e8 (26...e2
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 27 c8+) 27 hxg4 xb2 (27...fxg4
e6 18 f1 h5 19 a4 f5 28 b7) 28 gxf5 h5 29 f6! gxf6 30 c7
The f-pawn advance is playable in xc7 31 xf6+ h7 32 f5+ g7
this position where the f1/h5 33 e4!+- Levy in CHESS 605-6.
move pair has occurred, 25 h3! xh3
19...h3 (Jovcic, Informator 10) 25...xd2 also loses in the end
is an important alternative, with a according to the winners notes in
form of the Spassky Variation. Europe-Echecs; see the database
20 f4 fe8 for details. Also if 25...xf4 26
This move was all the rage in 1963 xf4 xh3 27 d6+ mating; or
but was refuted in the present game. 25...xh3 26 xh3 xh3 27 c4+-
Black has two better possibilities: threats xd6, xa6.
20...bxa4 21 Rxa4 which became 26 f3!
what we call the Old Main Line, or After the exchange of queens,
the very sharp 20...g5!?. Whites pawn armada renders the
21 axb5 xe3 opposite colour bishops only a
21...axb5 22 xd5 cxd5 (Note that minor obstacle to victory.
in the Spassky Variation, where 26...xf1
the move pair f4/...f5 has not been 26...g6 27 xe2 xg3+ 28 h1
played, Black recaptures with the xf4 29 f1! h4 30 h2.
queen and is OK.) 23 xb5 and 27 xh5+- xd2 28 xf1
33
xb2
28...e7 29 xa6 c7 30 a7 d6
31 f3.
29 xa6 g6 30 e2 b8 31 a5!
h5 32 d5 h4 33 d8+ e7 34
d7+ e8 35 gxh4 xf4 36
g7 10
White threatened c7 and if 36...d8
37 xg6.
Game 21
Robert J. Fischer (USA)
Boris Spassky
Santa Monica, 1966
This game appeared in Informator
2, game 282. Although drawn, any
game between these two great
champions is relevant, of course.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10
xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 g3
Fischer rewrites theory. His plan
is to prevent...h4-h3 but it
doesnt really as Black could have
played...d7-h3 instead. Black has
other plans available, e.g. 12...f6
as in Braga-Geller. 12...f6
12...e8!? (Ivkov) but there
have been no takers for this
suggestion.
13 d4 d6
SInce Black intended to play this,
why did he not do it last move?
13...c5!? (Spassky) also has not
been taken up.
14 e1 g4
14...c7 15 g5 d5 16 e3 f5
17 f4 h8= Junge-Brookings,
Teesside 1973.
14...d7 15 g5 Blatny.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-sn-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+LzP-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
15 d3!?
15 f3 also comes into consideration.
Then:
a) 15...h5 16 d2 c5! 17 e4 xe4
18 xe4 c4 19 c2 f5 20 e1 f4 21
g4 xg4! 22 fxg4 f3 threat 23...h4
V.Mikenas. Or White can try 16 e3
when Mikenas suggested 16...d7
rather than 16...e4 17 d2 xd2
18 xd2 f6 19 g2 ae8 20 xe8
xe8 21 f1 c5 22 f2 Vukcevic-
Morozov, corr 1975.
b) 15...f5 16 g5 c5 with
compensation for Black (Ftacnik
and Blatny); 16 e3 was
suggested way back in Informator
2.
c) 15...h3 16 g5 c7 might be
considered (Yudovich-Zapletal, 7th
Corr World Ch 1972).
15...c5! 16 dxc5
Fischer said afterwards that he
missed a chance to establish
some advantage with 16 c2! but
opinions differ about this:
a) 16...c4 17 f1 d7 18 f3 h3 19
f2 Nunn.
b) 16...e8 17 e3 cxd4 18 cxd4
c8 Ftacnik and Blatny.
16...xc5 17 xd8 axd8
18 f4
18 g5 fe8 19 d2 xe1+ 20
xe1 h6 21 xf6 xd2= Nunn.
18...h6 19 a3 g5 20 e3
20 e5 d2 and not 21 xf6?
xf2+ Spassky.
20...xe3 21 xe3 d2= 22
c2
22 c4 b8 (22...e2? 23 e1 e8 24
xe8+ xe8 25 cxb5 axb5 26 b1
xb2 27 c3+-) 23 cxb5 axb5 24
e7 h5 Ftacnik & Blatny.
22...e8 23 xe8+ xe8 24 e3
f3 25 c2 d6 26 b3 f8
26...e4 27 xe4 xe4 28 a4
Ftacnik/Blatny.
27 a4 e4 28 xe4
28 axb5 xf2 29 f5 g4! Spassky.
28...xe4 29 axb5 axb5 30 b4
b2 31 g4 g7 32 f1 f6 33 for games!
a5 b1+ 34 e2 b2+ 35 f1
Game 22
G. Mueller (East Germany)
X. Racoce (Romania)
EU/H/314 corr ICCF, 1972
Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
e6 18 xd5
This exchange is supposed to be
inaccurate but it is not always so
easy to prove that and in practice
White has often captured the
knight.
18...cxd5
This is the central position of the
xd5 lines (other than Kevitz
variation) because it can arise from
White making the central piece
exchange at many junctures from
moves 1218 (or even at move 19
after 18 a4 f5/...bxa4).
The Total Marshall
19 a4
White can also play 19 f1 h5
20 g2 but it is hard to challenge
Black without the a4 advance.
19...f5
This has been the main move in
the past, but since the latest theory
shows that Black barely scrapes a
draw, he should prefer 19...bxa4,
while 19...b4!? (favoured by some
Dutch correspondence players)
also comes into consideration.
20 f1
Forced. 20 f4? fe8 21 axb5 xf4!
22 gxf4 h6 23 f1 f3 24 d2
g6+ 25 g3 xg3+ 26 hxg3 h1+
and White is mated (Nunn).
20...h5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+-vlr+-+0
9+p+p+p+q0
9P+-zP-+l+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
20...bxa4 has hardly ever been
played but is worth attention.
21 f4
Chess Mail is looking
Have you played a publish-
able email, postal or web
server CC game recently?
We are looking for contribu-
tions at any time from read-
ers of all playing strengths,
including text notes and
variations to explain your
thoughts.
We prefer to receive games
in PGN or ChessBase
format, by email or on disk.
We also seek special contri-
butions from readers for our
annual Gambit Issue (fifth
issue each year) which is
always popular. Submissions
for this issue should reach
us by the end of May but
preferably sooner.
Marshall games played over
the board are always wel-
come too!
The Total Marshall
21 axb5 was dismissed as a draw
for many years until Whites play
was improved in the 1990s.
Now it is the critical line: 21...f4
(21...h3!? is interesting but
possibly not good enough) 22
xf4 xf4! (22...h3 was once
supposed to be a drawing line,
but its refuted by 23 xe6! xf1
24 xd6 xb5 25 xf8 xf8 26
c1! Kwolek-Nowicki, corr 1990)
23 xe6 xe6 24 gxf4 and Black
may be OK here, but it needs more
analysis and tests.
21...bxa4
Now we get a variation of the main
line 17 d2 e6 18 f1 h5 19 a4
f5 in which White normally does
not play xd5 as early as this.
22 g2
22 xa4? e8 is a well-known trap
into which White has nevertheless
fallen a few times; Black forks the
a4- and e3- in an unusual
way.
22...e4!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+-+p+p+q0
9p+-zPrzPl+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+QzP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This exchange sacrifice is more
thematic in the Pawn Push lines.
Blacks light-squared bishop
becomes very strong if the offer is
accepted.
22...fe8 23 xd5 h8 is the
main line now, e.g. 24 f2 xe1+
(24...e2!? is unclear) 25 xe1
xe1+ 26 xe1 e8 27 f2 h6 28
xd6 e2 and although Black is
a piece down, his queen is very
powerful.
White cannot avoid a draw and has
even lost sometimes.
23 xa4
23 h4 e8 is an alternative, e.g.
Borell-Grainys in the database.
This possibility has not been
explored much.
23 xe4 fxe4 24 xa4:
a) 24...f3 25 f2 g5 26 xa6 xf4
27 xf4 gxf4 28 ea1 e3 29 e1
e2 30 h6 xh6 31 xe2 f3 01
Knebel-F.Rosselli, corr 1968.
b) 24...f6 25 xa6 f3 26 f2 e8
27 b4 c8 28 a3 h5 29 h4 g6 30
h2 e7 31 g1 h7 32 e1 g4 xc8 31 h1 g8 32 f2 f5 33
34
33 a7 f6 34 f7 c4 35 xf6 g1 xg1+ 34 xg1 g4+ 35 f1
gxf6 36 f1 g7 37 a1 c7 38 d1+ 36 g2 g4+ 37 f1 Jiu
f2 d3 39 e1 xc3 40 d2 b3 Shihan-Levitina,Tbilisi 1982.
41 c1 b1 42 c7+ h6 43 c1 a32) 26...f3 27 xd6 (27 f2 xf4
d1 44 f5+ xc1 01 S.Durnik,S- 28 gxf4 xf4 29 e3 g5+ 30 f1
J.Struhar, Kubin Open 1978. g2+ 31 e1 xf2 32 xf2 f4+
c) 24...g5 25 xa6 (25 fxg5 f3 26 01 H.Jongman-Roloff, corr 1986)
d2 xg3 27 f1 xh2+ 28 xh2 27...xg2 28 xf8 f3 29 d6 h3
g4+ 29 f2 g2+ 10 R.Stroher- 30 f2 xh2+ 01 Bobic-Belis,
E.Poscher, corr 1989) 25...gxf4 corr 1982.
(25...f3 26 f2 xf4 27 a5 f5 b) After 25 xd6 fxe3 26 xe4 fxe4
28 c4 White won in Gosnchior- (This variation was mentioned in
Kling, corr 1987) 26 xd6 fxe3 the earliest analysis of this game
was played in Lang-van der Zwan, by Vasilescu, in the Romanian
corr 1981, transposing to the note magazine Revista de Sah 3/1973.)
to Whites 26th move below. 27 xe3 h3 (27...f5? 28 h4!
23...g5! Romanchuk-Belokopyt, 1978) 28
23...h3?! is inferior e.g. 24 f2 g4 h4 29 xh3 f2+ 30 h1
Kovacevic-Rapoports (or24 a8 31 d8+ xd8 (see analysis
e2 g4 25 f2 Hoyos Millan- diagram)
Hernandez). XIIIIIIIIY
24 xa6 gxf4 9-+-tr-+k+0
XIIIIIIIIY
9+-+-+-+p0
9-+-+-trk+0 9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+p0 9+-+p+-+-0
9R+-vl-+-+0 9-+-zPp+P+0
9+-+p+p+q0 9+-zP-tR-+Q0
9-+-zPrzpl+0 9-zP-+-wq-zP0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0 9+-+-+-+K0
9-zP-sN-+QzP0 xiiiiiiiiy
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy All forced until here.
Experience in our database shows
25 gxf4!? that Black has sufficient play for
Nunn, in our 1989 book, remarked: the two pawns and a draw almost
that this move is optimistically always results.
assessed as clearly better for White Sometimes White loses if he tries
by ECO. I think that in the light of too hard to win:
present day theory, his remark has b1) 32 g3 xb2 33 e1 (
become misleading. Matsukevich-Nasybullin, corr simul
On the other hand, computers think 1983) 33...f8 34 e5 b7.
White is winning now, whereas lots b2) 32 g3 may be good: 32...xb2
of games have shown that a draw is 33 h4 e8 (better 33...b6) 34
really all White can hope for if he g5+ h8 35 xd5 a1+ 36 g2
captures on d6 and/or e4. b2+ 37 h3 and White may
There are two other lines: win.
a) 25 xe4 fxe4 (25...dxe4? 26 xd6 b3) 32 g5 a8 (32...f7!? can be
fxe3 27 xe3 f3 28 g4! fxg4 29 tried if Black really wants to avoid
g3 g5 30 e1+- Matsukevich- the draw; see Krause-T.Mueller.)
Samchuk, corr simul 1983) and 33 e6+ g7 and now White can
now: give perpetual check at once (34
a1) 26 xd6 fxe3 see line b e5+ g6 35 e6+ g7
below. Tarantino-Versili, corr 1989) or
a2) 26 gxf4 h8 27 xd6 g8 28 play 34 f6+ xf6 35 gxf6+ xf6
d8 xd8 29 f2 h3 30 h1 36 g2 (36 e2? g5 Lang-van
g8 31 g1 g2 32 xg2 xg2+ der Zwan) 36...f5 led to a draw
33 xg2 f3+ 34 g1 xe3+ 35 in Alberti-Morjan, corr 1991.
f2 g7 36 f5 f6 37 f1 h3+ 38 25...f6 26 xe4 fxe4 27 f2
e1 d3 39 e2 e3 01 Z.Siklosi- The real question now is: does
Pletsch, St.Ingbert op 1987. Black have enough for a draw or
a3) 26 xf4 and now: not?
a31) 26...xf4 27 gxf4 h8 28 However the sequel shows Black
ea1 g8 29 a8 c8 30 xc8 can win if White loses the plot...
27...g6
35
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9R+-vl-+r+0
9+-+p+-+q0
9-+-zPpzPl+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-zP-+-vLQzP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
28 g3!?
White could, and perhaps should,
have returned the exchange here.
However, computers continue to
prefer White strongly.If 28 xd6!
(Else 28...f3) 28... xd6 and now
29 f5!? comes into consideration.
For if 29 g3 f3 30 f1 g6
31 f2 is not at all clear, Blacks
strong pressure compensating for
the two pawns (Nunn).
Instead 29 h3 xh3 30 xh3 xh3
may be a drawn ending.
28...f3 29 f2 g4!?
Black bravely continues to play
for a win.
29...xf4 regains one pawn but
reduces the pressure: 30 xg6+
xg6 .
Nevertheless White does not have
a clear advantage yet: 31 b3 h5
32 f1 (32 a1 h4) 32...a6+
33 c4 h6 and winning is still
problematic for White.
30 e3
Instead White could have tried
30 f5!? (favoured by computers)
but the endgame after 30... f6
(30...xf5?? 31 xd6) 31 ea1 h5 32
h3 xh3 33 h2 xh2+ 34 xh2
xg3+ 35 xg3 xf5 is not a clear
win for White: 36 b4 e2.
30...h5!
Black wants to exploit the pin on
the g-file rather than regain the
pawn on f4 which is a possible
but by no means certain draw after
30...xf4 31 xg6+ hxg6.
31 xf3
White decides to eliminate the
annoying bishop.
31 f5! looks as if White should
draw at least: 31...f6 32 f1 e7
33 xf6 xf6 and White now has
various possibilities to make Black
struggle for a half point, viz. 34 b4!?,
34 e5 or 34 b3.
Instead 31 f1? does not prevent
31...h4 because after 32 xh4 h3+
33 e1 g2 White loses material:
34 xd6 xf2 35 xf2 g2 gives
Black winning chances.
31...exf3 32 f5
After this White loses by force.
The Total Marshall
32 h1 might seem logical but We saw that 12...e8 failed
White still has problems because in Vasiukov-Tolush. 12...a5 is
of his bad bishop and now Blacks probably Blacks best try. This
rook may be able to use the e-file. idea to revive the Herman Steiner
32...e6 33 g1 h7. Variation was analysed by Tim
32...h4! 33 fxg6 hxg3 34 hxg3 Harding and George Botterill
xg3 back in 1971. Instead of trying to
XIIIIIIIIY play only on the kingside, Black
9-+-+-+k+0 creates complications on a wider
front by threatening to drive back
9+-+-+-+-0
the b3-.
9R+-+-+P+0 13 a3
9+-+p+-+-0 13 g5 g4 (13...a4 14 c2 e6 15
9-+-zP-+q+0 d3) 14 xg2 f5 15 d2 a4 16
9+-zP-+pvl-0 d1 d5 Botterill & Harding.
9-zP-+-wQ-+0 13 a4 bxa4! 14 xa4 is another
possibility, when 14...d6!? comes
9+-+-+-mK-0 into consideration but Blacks best
xiiiiiiiiy may be 14...e8 15 e3 g4 16
xg2 c8! Markidis-Skembris,
35 f1? Greece ch 1998.
This gets mated. White could have 13 xg2 e8 14 g5 (14 f4 a4 15
tried for perpetual check here, c2 e6 16 e5!? Blatny) 14...a4 15
though it fails to correct play. d1 e6 16 d2 b4! 17 a3 bxc3 18
Thus: 35 a8+ g7 36 a7+ but bxc3 d5 Barbulescu-Sofronie,
Black wins with 36...h6! 37 h7+ Romania 1993.
g5 38 f1! (38 c2 f2+! 39 xf2 13...e6! 14 xe6 fxe6 15 xe6
g2+ 40 e3 xc2 41 xf3 xb2) d5 16 e4N
38...f2+ 39 g2 h4+ 40 h2 f4+ After 16 xg2 h4, compared with
41 h1 e4+ 42 h2 (42 g2+? the analogous 13 a4 line, Black
g3! threatening...f1Q+) 42...f3 stands better as his queenside is
43 g2+ g3+ 44 xg3+ xg3+ not ruptured and White does not
45 xg3 f1 and White cannot have such an easy development
achieve a fortress because his King of his a1- and . Then 17 f3
is too far from the pawns. f6 18 e4 xc6 19 d2 e3!
35...f2+?! Lukyanchenko, in Shakmaty
Inefficient. Black could have mated Riga 17/1977.
in four by 35...f4+! 36 h1 h4+ 16...h4 17 f4
etc. 17 f3 g5.
36 g2 h4+ 01. 17...f2+!?
Black mates by 37 h1 f3+ 38 XIIIIIIIIY
h2 g3+ 39 h3 f4+ 40 h4 9r+-wq-trk+0
g3+ 41 h5 g5#.
9+-zp-+-zpp0
Game 23 9-+P+R+-+0
Melnikov 9zpp+n+-+-0
A.Lukyanchenko 9-+-zPQzP-+0
Central Chess Club Corr Ch 9zP-zP-+-+-0
quarter-final, USSR 1975-76
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 9-zP-+-vlpzP0
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 9tRNvL-+-mK-0
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4 10 xiiiiiiiiy
dxc6 exf3 11 d4 fxg2 12 f3
a5!? This sacrifice works because White
XIIIIIIIIY accepts it but it may not be the best
9r+lwq-trk+0 move.
18 xf2?
9+-zp-vlpzpp0
18 xg2 is obviously better and it
9-+P+-sn-+0 is not clear how Black continues,
9zpp+-+-+-0 since 18...h4?? does not work
9-+-zP-+-+0 when it is not check; White would
9+LzP-+Q+-0 simply answer 19 xd5.
18...h4+ 19 g1
9PzP-+-zPpzP0
19 xg2 xf4+ 20 xf4 xf4 21
9tRNvL-tR-mK-0 e8+ xe8 22 xe8+ f8 23 e6+
xiiiiiiiiy h8 24 e2 g5+ 25 h1 c1+ 26
The Total Marshall
g2 h6! Lukyanchenko.
19...xf4 20 xf4 xf4 21
e8+ xe8 22 xe8+ f8 23
e2
23 e6+ h8.
23...f1+ 24 xg2 e1! 25 f3
g5+ 26 g3 d5+ 27 f2
27 h3 f5+; 27 f3 g1+.
27...e4 28 f3 f1+ 01
Game 24
Mikhail Tal
Efim Geller
43rd USSR ch, Yerevan 1975
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 xh2 g5 31 b8+ mates) 29 hxg3
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 37 f2 10. Four subsequent games
e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20 f4
bxa4 21 xa4 g5
The old main line, now more or
less refuted - Nunn, 1989. NB:
We use the term Old Main Line
to describe the whole complex of
variations arising from 21 xa4.
22 xa6 gxf4 23 xf4
Tal found the right move back in
1975 but not the follow-up which
took another decade to emerge.
Part of the reason was no doubt
the eminence of the players in this
game which deterred searches for
improvements?
23 xc6 had been given by Tal in
ECO followed by a flawed variation:
23...fxe3! 24 xd5 exd2 (This was
later shown to be an error; 24...h8
seems satisfactory for Black.) 25
xe6 h8 26 exd6? (26 b3!)
26...d1 Pachman. Geller probably
found some or all of this but Tal got
his improvement in first.
23...xf4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9R+p+r+-+0
9+-+n+p+q0
9-+-zP-vll+0
9+LzP-+-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
64 Great Chess Games
We expect this important
book by Tim Harding to be
out in June 2002.
24 xc6?!
24 xe6! xd2 25 xd5! (25 axc6
f4 Yudovich, INF 20/322; 25 e5!?)
25...cxd5 26 g2 and we agree
with Nunn, 1989, that: There are
no visible improvements... so this
must be considered the refutation
of 21...g5.
Hauptmann-Sieberg, corr 1989,
continued: 26...f4 (26...f3 27
xd2 e4 28 h6 f3 29 g5+
+-; 26...g5 27 xd5+-) 27 xd2
fxg3 (27...xe6 also loses; see
examples in the database.) 28 f6!
e8 (28...xf6 29 xf6 gxh2+ 30
e2 30 h6 e1+ 31 f1 xf1+ 32
xf1 f5+ 33 f4 d3+ 34 g1
xa6 35 xg4+ f7 36 h5+ f8 O.M.Ermakov (March 1967) and
in the database confirmed this line
wins for White.
24...e3+ 25 xe3 xe3 26
xd5+ h8
Threatening ...f4.
27 f4 e1+ 28 f1 h3 29
c4
29 g2 xg2 30 xg2 e2+
(30...fe8 Yudovich) 31 h1
h3 32 f3 xb2 Wade.
29...d1
29...fe8 30 h6 Yudovich.
30 d5!
30 h6 xf1 31 xf1 fe8 32 f6
xf1+ 33 xf1 e1 34 xf5 should
also be a draw - Nunn, 1989.
30 f2 fe8 threat...xf1+
Yudovich.
30...xf1 31 xf1 xd5
. e6+ h7 31 f1 g4+ 32 g3 fxg3
Game 25
F. Riszt B. Kti
Hungary corr 1982-84
This game is often seen with the
names reversed but according
to the eminent Hungarian chess
historian Ivan Bottlk, Riszt was
White and Kti was Black.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 g5 18
f1 h5 19 d2 h8
For an attempt to improve this
attacking line with 19...h6, see
Game 49.
20 xd5 cxd5 21 fxg5
Nunn said in 1989 that if his analysis
of the 28...f2 possibility below
holds up (leading to a draw), then
White should play 21 a4 followed
by either (...bxa4) xa4 or fxg5.
21...f4 22 xf4 xf4 23 gxf4
36
f8 24 e5! xe5 25 dxe5
h6!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-tr-mk0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+-+-zp0
9+p+pzP-zPq0
9-+-+-zPl+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-sN-+-zP0
9tR-+-+QmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The theoretical basis for this
variation was examined in
two articles in Fernschach: by
Raimo Lindroos (Sept 1971).
These articles were employed by
Tim Harding in preparing his 1970s
monographs on the Marshall.
26 e1!
The game shows that this is best.
a) 26 gxh6 g8 27 f2!? xh2+
(Bottlk gives only 27...h3 28
d3 g2+ 29 e3 g4 30 h1
e2+ 31 d4 f5 32 g3 xd2+
33 c5 xh6 34 g1 h7 35 b6!
c8! 36 g6! b7+ 37 c5 a7+=
R. Kas-B.Hund, Buenos Aires
womens olympiad 1978) 28 e3
g3+!+ (not 28...h3 29 f3 g3
30 e2 and White went on to win in
Hansel-Lehmann, corr 1980) 29
f3 (29 d4 f8) 29...f8 Nunn.
b) 26 d3 hxg5 27 xd5 (27 f1
gxf4 28 d4 h3! 29 f3 h4 30
33 xg4 xf1# Wikman-Lindroos,
corr 1969) 27...gxf4 28 d6 g8
29 f6+ g7 30 h4 d1+ 31 h1
g4 32 d8+ g8 33 f6+ h7
34 f7+ g7 0-1 Roselli-Lindroos,
corr 1971.
c) 26 e6 hxg5 27 e7 xf4 28 e1
e2! Ermakov.
d) 26 a4 hxg5 27 axb5 e2 28 f2
xf4 29 e3 xb5 30 e6 d4 the
move given for Black by Nunn
though he just says it is unclear
according to Lindroos (30...g8?
31 e7 d4 32 e6+ f7 33 xa6
xe6 34 xe6 dxc3 35 bxc3 e8
36 e3 Salonen-Lindroos, corr
1971; 30...c6).
d) 26 g2 hxg5 27 f5!? xf5 28
e1= h3 29 xd5 g4+ 30 h1
f2 31 g1 e2 32 d8+ h7 33
e7+ h8= Dr.Fldi.
26...hxg5 27 f5!?
27 e6 xf4 28 g2 xe6! 29 xe6?
d1+ (29...g4? 30 h6+) 30 f1
g4 Bottlk in Fernschach 3/1984
p.69.
37
27...xf5!?
This was an early Harding
suggestion (without analysis). Not
27...h3 28 e2 g4 29 d3 h3
30 f6! Lundblad-Lindroos, corr
1974.
28 d3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-mk0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+p+pzPrzpq0
9-+-+-+l+0
9+-zPQ+-+-0
9PzP-sN-+-zP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is a critical moment as the
d5-pawn is attacked and the
white passed pawn can become
dangerous.
28...h3?!
Black does not find the way to
expand the dynamism in his
position.
Bottlk noted the possibility
28...f2! and in fact this is the
correct continuation. White cannot
play 29 xf2?? xh2+ so there are
two lines to consider:
a) After the reply which he gave, 29
f1, Black can keep the initiative
with 29...xb2 e.g.:
a1) 30 e6 f3 31 d4+ g8 32 d2
h3 33 f2 analysis by Leander.
Nunn, 1989, continued 33...g4+
34 f1 g2+ 35 xg2 xg2+ 36
xg2 xd2+ and 37...f8 when
only Black has winning chances;
a2) 30 d2 h3 31 d4 xd2 32
xd2 g4+ 33 f2 g2+ 34 e3
e4+ drawing by perpetual check
Leander.
a3) 30 xd5 f3 31 d8+ g7!
(not 31...h7 32 d7+ h8 33
d2 g4 34 d8+ h7 35 e3!
Klatt-Leisebein, corr 1986) 32
d7+ f7 33 xf7+ xf7 with a
drawn ending (Nunn).
b) 29 h3 when:
b1) 29...h4 30 f1 f5 31 e3
xf1+ 32 xf1 xh3 33 e6 g4+
is a safe draw (A.Sokolov-Ehlvest,
Rotterdam 1989).
b2) 29...f4!? 30 e6 (30 hxg4?
xg4+ 31 h1 f2+) 30...xh3
threatens 31...g4+ (Nunn).
29 e6
29 xd5? h4 30 e4 f4 Nunn.
29...f4 30 e2! h4!
Alternatives given by Bottlk:
a) 30...g4+ 31 h1 g2+ (31...e8
32 e7 d4 33 f3+- Nunn) 32 xg2!
The Total Marshall
xg2 33 xg2 e8 34 e7+-; of Prisyv (German spelling: Prisyw),
b) 30...g4 31 e3 f5 32 e7 e4 a newspaper for the township and
33 xe4 xe4 (33...dxe4 34 f1) district of Vladimir in Russia. Estrins
34 d4+! xd4 (34...h7 35 xe4) notes appeared in Fernschach 4/
35 e8+ +-. 51983 pp.104-5. The exact date
31 h1 of the match is unknown but this
31 e5+? h7 32 e2 g4+ 33 was probably Estrins last game in
h1 f1+ +. the Marshall.
31...f2 32 e5+ h7 33 e7! 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
d7! a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 e1
d6 13 d4 h4 14 g3 h3 15
9+-+lzP-+k0 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
9p+-+-+-+0 e6 18 a4 h5 19 axb5 axb5
9+p+pwQ-zp-0 20 xd5
9-+-+-+-wq0 After 20 c4 Estrin intended
20...xe3 (for other possibilities
9+-zP-+-+-0 see part 1 of the Spassky Variation
9PzP-sN-tr-zP0 survey by Vitomskis) 21 xe3 e2!
9+-+-tR-+K0 22 c2 h6 23 h4 f4! but this is
xiiiiiiiiy not completely clear.
20...xd5 21 f1?
33...xd2 34 h8+!! (34 e8? g2+ Estrin wrote: The exchange on d5
35 g1 f2#) 34...xh8 35 e8+ and following queen manoeuvre
g7 36 e7+ +-. is not justifiable. Thus White
34 f3!!+- condemns himself to a wearisome
White threatens xg5+ and forces and chanceless defensive strategy.
a favourable liquidation. After the text move, Blacks attack
34...xf3 35 e8 xe8 36 continues unimpeded. Instead,
xe8 White should, instead of dismissing
Material is now level but the his proud Spanish bishop, continue
black king is more exposed and 21 c4! bxc4 22 xc4 and thereby
his pawns are weak. So White is obtain chances of an advantage.
winning. However, several subsequent
36...f6 37 e7+ h6 38 h8+ games have shown that Black has
g6 39 g7+ f5 40 e2! g4 sufficient chances with 22...h5.
40...h6 41 d7+ g6 (41...f4 21...fe8 22 g2 h5
42 xd5) 42 e8+ f5 43 f2+ XIIIIIIIIY
g4 44 e2+ h4 45 g2 f4 46 9-+-+r+k+0
h3+- Bottlk. 9+-+-+pzpp0
41 g8 d6
41...g3 42 xd5+ g4 43 e4+ 9-+pvlr+-+0
f4 44 xf4+ xf4 45 d4+ g5 9+p+-+-+q0
46 xh4+ xh4 47 g2! gxh2 48 9-+-zP-+l+0
xh2+- Bottlk. 9+-zP-vL-zP-0
42 f7+ f6 43 xd5+ g6 44 9-zP-sN-zPQzP0
g8+ f5 45 g7 f4
45...h6 46 d7+ f4 47 f7+ 9tR-+-tR-mK-0
g5 (47...f6 48 xf6+) 48 e5# xiiiiiiiiy
Bottlk.
46 xf6+ xf6 47 f2+ g5 48 23 a6
xf6 xf6 49 g2 f5 50 g3 White has tried many moves here
a5 51 b3 e4 52 xg4 d3 53 but it is doubtful whether any really
c4 bxc4 54 bxc4 xc4 55 h4 a4 can challenge Nunns assessment if
56 h5 a3 57 h6 c3 58 h7 b2 Black replies properly.
59 h8+ xa2 60 c3 b1 61 23 c4 was played in Barcons-
xa3 10 Bigorra Nosas: a bad game where
the notes show Black missed
Game 26 several opportunities to get at
Readers of Prisyv least an equal game, e.g. with
Yakov Borisovich Estrin 23...b4!?.
USSR, corr 1982 23 h1?! f5 24 ec1 f4 25 gxf4
Estrin, the 7 th Correspondence g6 26 xc6 (Mauro-Canovese)
Chess World Champion, played a 26...f8!!+.
two-game match with the readers 23 f3 might need more attention.
The Total Marshall
Black should be OK but as yet
there is no convincing game for
Black to follow: 23...h3 24 f2
f5 (24...g5?! Schlage-Adam) 25 f4
(25 f1 Drygalski-Ziese; 25 d5!?
cxd5 Dauga-Kristoffel) 25...g4
(25...h6 Crafty v Rebel computer
game; 25...g5!? immediately seems
possible too.) 26 a6 Borowiec-
Kremer (26 d5 Lee-Pe Ang; 26
b3!?).
Other moves that have been tried
are 23 b3 f3 (Rheinheimer-
Hoybak) and 23 f1 f5 (Krabbe-
Ziese).
23...f5 24 d5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9R+pvlr+-+0
9+p+P+p+q0
9-+-+-+l+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-zPQzP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The only move, as it frees the
square d4 for the white .
Estrin said that 24 xc6 would
be met by 24...f4 25 gxf4 g6
whereupon the White position
is critical. That may be true but
25...h3 is also promising for
Black.
24 ea1 has also been seen: 24...f4
25 gxf4 h3 26 f3 (26 xc6 g6+
27 h1 f8 28 f3 g4 29 g2
e6) 26...g6+ 27 h1 xf3+ 28
xf3 g2+ 29 g1 xf3+ 30 f1
g2 31 a8 xh2 01 Zang-Kaiser,
corr 1984.
24...h6!
Estrin wrote that Black also finds
the only correct move to give him
possibilities of continuing the
attack: the e3- is pinned and the
threat...f4 is very unpleasant.
24...g6 is suggested by some
computer programs but it does
not even prevent the reply 25 f4
on account of 25...xf4 26 f2.
24...h3 comes into consideration,
however: 25 f3 g4 26 g2
and now 26...h6 with the on
a different square, or 26...h3
repeating moves.
25 f3?!
It is surprising, especially in view of
his previous comment, that Estrin
does not say what he intended
against the superior move 25 f4.
Maybe he was keeping this secret
for a future game that was never
played. At any rate, it is not
hard to see that Black has good
compensation for the pawn but
not easy to see a way to develop
this into a significant advantage. For
analysis of this move, see below,
the game Olafsson v Harding.
25 xc6 is the other possible
improvement, but Black is better
after 25...f4 26 gxf4 g6 27 xd6
xd6 28 f1 f3 29 g3 xd5.
25...h3 26 f2
26 e2 f4 27 e4 fxe3 28 dxc6 f5
is also very bad for White.
26...f4 27 d4 xe1+ 28 xe1
c8
With a double threat to the a6-
and h2-pawn.
29 a8 xh2+ 30 f1 h3+ 31
e2 cxd5
The white pawn is captured at
last.
32 d1 d7 33 g4 b4! 34 a7
34 b3 also lost in the end, in the
game van Willigen-Ziese:
34...e6 35 d2 c6 36 a7 c4
37 xg7+ f8 38 c1 f1+ 39 c2
xf3 40 xh7 e4+ 41 d3 a6
42 xe4 dxe4 43 a7 e7 44 b3
d3+ 45 d2 c4 46 c5 e3+ 47
c2 b3+ 48 xb3 h6 49 xe3
xb3+ 01.
34...b7 35 c4
This loses rapidly, but what can be
recommended instead?
35...dxc4 36 xc4 c5 01
Game 27
Fernando Braga (Argentina) -
Efim Geller
Amsterdam OHRA II 1986
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
g3 f6 13 e1 c5
A different plan from Fischer-
Spassky.
14 d4
14 d3 is best met by 14...b4!.
14...b7N
14...cxd4 15 cxd4 b7 16 c3
xc3 17 bxc3 d7 18 e3 fe8
draw (Matanovic-Geller, Sousse
izt 1967) .
Afterwards it was suggested that
White could have got an edge with
18 b2 instead, so Geller comes
up with a new idea two decades
later. Maybe he had prepared it
years earlier.
15 dxc5
15 a4 doesnt help development so
Nunn thought it would be risky.
15...e8 16 d2 xc3! 17 bxc3
xc3
38
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqr+k+0
9+l+-+pzpp0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+pzP-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+Lvl-+-zP-0
9P+-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-vLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
18 c6!?
18 b1 d7 gives Black more than
enough compensation for the piece
according to Nunn, but this remains
to be proved. 19 xe8+ xe8 20
f1 is critical; see van Asperen-
McCorry in the database; if instead
20 f3 c6 21 e3 xf3 22 xf3
xf3 Nunn.
18 xe8+ xe8 19 b1 d8 20 b2
(20 c2 c6 21 f3 xd2 22 xd2
xf3 23 f4 e8) 20...xb2 21
xb2 c6 22 f3 xc5+ 23 g2
e3 24 c1 c3 25 e1 g5 26 g4
(26 e7? xd2+ 27 xd2 xf3++)
26...f8 idea...a5-a4 or ...b4 and
...c8 (Nunn).
18...xc6 19 xe8+ xe8 20
b1 d8 21 c2
a) 21 b2 a5! 22 c2 e4 23 f3
d4+ 24 g2 a4 25 xc3 xc3 26
c2 (26 c2 b4+) 26...xf3+ 27
xf3 xc2+.
b) 21 h5 g6 22 g5 e1+ 23 f1
e4 24 xd8+ g7 25 f3 xf3
26 e3 h1+ 27 f2 e1#. I am
unsure if these lines originated with
Nunn or Geller himself.
21...xd2
21...e1+? 22 f1 e4 23 g5.
22 xd2 e4 23 xf7+
23 e1 xc2 24 xe8+ xe8 25
xc2 e2+.
23...xf7 24 b3+ d5!
24...e6 25 e1=.
25 b4 e4
Better is 25...xa2 Braga.
26 xe4 xe4 27 b2 d4!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+kzpp0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-trl+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PtR-vL-zP-zP0
9+-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
White suffers from a weak a-pawn
so even with opposite coloured
39
bishops, GM Geller eventually
manages to win against his 2470-
rated opponent. Probably a GM
could have held the position with
White.
28 h3 d5 29 c2 a4 30 c7+
e6 31 g4 xa2 32 e3 b4 33
d4 g5 34 xh7 d2 35 h8
d1+ 36 h2 h1+ 37 g3
g1+ 38 h2 g2+ 39 h1
xg4+ 40 h2 h4 41 xh4
gxh4 42 f4 a5 01
Game 28
Pertti Lehikoinen (Finland) -
Henk Sarink (Netherlands)
Dr J. Bannet Memorial corr, 1986
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 e2+ Nunn.
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 xd5 cxd5 16 f3 f5 17
xd5 ae8 18 d2 f4 19
xe8
For alternatives see Sakhalkar-
Barczay, above, and the notes to
that game.
19...xe8 20 c6 d7
20...f8? has been suggested but it
lost in Lehikoinen-Szewczyk, from
the same event.
21 g2
21 xa6? h5.
After 21 f3 (Popescu) both 21...g5
and 21...h6 were tried without
success in two Femmel-v.dKooij
games.
So I suggest 21...g5!?. White
has to work out how to escape
the bind e.g. 22 g2 (22 a4 bxa4)
22...f5 or 22...e2 may give Black
some advantage but this all needs
more tests.
21...h5 22 f3
Nunn, 1989, wrote: This position is
assessed as clearly better for White
in ECO 2nd edition, but according
to my analysis Black has good
chances.
Actually it seems to be a forced
draw after Whites 23rd.
22...c6!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+l+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+q0
9-+-zP-vl-+0
9+-zP-+PzP-0
9PzP-vL-+QzP0
9tRN+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
23 g4
23 gxf4 e6! (23...xf3 24 g3 e2
25 f5 h6 26 a4 xf5 Popescu, CC
Yearbook 5/362) 24 f2 (24 f5
xf5 doesnt help - Nunn)
24...g6 25 h1 h4+ with a
tremendous attack e.g.:
a) 26 e3 e6+ 27 d3 f2;
b) 26 e2 h3 (or 26...g3!?);
c) 26 f1 g3 Nunn.
If instead 23 xf4 xf3 and Black
wins after 24 f1 (or 24 g4 e1+
25 f2 e2+ 26 xf3 d5+ 27
xe2 xg2+) 24...e2 25 h3 (or
25 h4 g2+ 26 xg2 xg2 27 xg2
e2+ 28 h3 xb2+ Popescu)
25...g2+ 26 xg2 xg2 27 xg2
Finally, if 23 f2 xf3! 24 xf3
xh2+ 25 f1 xd2 Nunn.
23...g5!?
Black tries for a win but this seems
risky. There is an alternative but I
think it only draws against correct
defence.
23...h4 is very bad for White
said Nunn but he didnt say what
to do against 24 f2 when it seems
White can hang on:
a) 24...xh2+ 25 xh2 e1+ 26
xe1 xe1+ 27 g2 e2+ draws
(A.Skuja-M.Svagers, Latvia corr
1998).
b) 24...g5 is also equal: 25 xg5
e1+ 26 g2 xg4+ 27 g3 xf3+
28 f2 e2+ 29 f1 e1+! 30 xe1
(30 f2 e2+ repetition; 30 xe1??
g2#) 30...e4+ 31 f2 (31 f1 is
the same) 31...e2+ 32 g1 d1+
with perpetual check.
24 xf4 xf4 25 d2 h5 26
gxh5 b4! 27 h1
27 cxb4 xd4+ 28 h1 xb2 29
g1 d8 30 e4 xe4! 31 fxe4 d2
32 g3 d4 Popescu.
27...bxc3 28 bxc3 e3 29 g1
f6
Here Popescu blindly suggested
29...xf3, overlooking 30 xg7#.
30 f1 xc3 31 e4 xe4 32
fxe4 xd4 33 h6 g6 34 e5
Maybe 34 g4!?; if 34 h7+ h8
(34...xh7? 35 xf7+).
34...d7
Not 34...xe5? 35 a8+ h7 36
xf7+ xh6 37 f8+ g5 38 d8+
g4 39 d1+ Popescu.
I think 34...c4 followed by ...c1
comes into consideration if Black
wants to try a squeeze in a queen
ending.
35 a8+ c8 36 f3 e6 37
h7+ g7 38 f6+ xf6 39 xf6
e8 40 g2 xe5 41 xf7+
h8 42 f6
The Total Marshall
Game 29
P. Mithrakanth (India) -
Efim Geller
New Delhi, 1987
Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e2
This is an important variation where
Black would dearly love a forcing
attacking continuation but may
have to be satisfied with normal
Marshall positional compensation
as Vitomskis puts it.
13...h4 14 g3 h5
For 14...h3 see Sax-Nunn,
below.
15 d2 h3 16 f3 ae8!?
16...c7 is more usual but maybe
there is a problem with it? Ehlvest-
Geller (see the database) turned out
badly for Black.
17 xe8 xe8 18 e4
This strong is the key to Whites
defence in the variation. Sometimes
it can be exchanged for the on d6
but only when White is ready.
18...g6!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+q+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zPN+-+0
9+LzP-+PzPl0
9PzP-+-+-zP0
9tR-vLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This idea by the great GM Geller,
one of the worlds top players for
decades, has received insufficient
attention. He was nearing the end
of his career here, but he knew the
Marshall very well.
For 18...c7!? 19 d2 see Garcia-
Pinter.
19 xd5
19 xd6 xd6 20 d2 h5 see
Brustman-Kaidanov.
19 a4? has been suggested but it
loses by force to 19...xe4! (19...b4)
20 fxe4 xg3!+ Harding.
The critical move is 19 c2!?
(Nunns improvement for White)
and now:
a) 19...e6 20 a4 (20 xd6
xd6) 20...f5 21 xd6 (21 axb5
fxe4 22 fxe4 axb5 23 exd5 cxd5)
21...xd6 22 axb5 axb5 23 b3
The Total Marshall
e7 (or 23...h8 24 xd5 xd5)
24 d2 Blacks problem is the
on h3 which cannot easily be
moved to a different battle-zone.
b) 19...h6 20 a4;
c) 19...c7 20 a4;
d) 19...f5?! 20 g5 (20 xd6 xd6
would be OK for Black.) 20...h5
21 xh3 xh3 22 f1.
e) 19...h5!N and now Tim Harding
analysis (2002) goes:
e1) 20 g5 f5 21 xf5 xf5 22
e4 c7 23 a4 h4.
e2) 20...h4 21 g4 (21 g5 f5 see
note e1) 21...xg4! 22 fxg4 xe4
and now:
e21) 23 xe4?! xe4 24 axb5 h3 25
f1 xg4+ (25...cxb5!?) 26 h1
e4+ draws at once, but Black can
also try for more if he dares with
26...cxb5!? 27 xa6?? e3.
e22) 23 h3 e1+ (23...bxa4!? is also
possible as an attempt to play for a
win.) 24 xe1 xc2 White is tied
up and probably has to force a draw
by repetition: 25 f2 d1+ 26 f1
c2 27 f2= Harding.
19...cxd5 20 xd6 xd6=
This gave Black reasonable play
for the pawn commented Nunn.
21 f4 e7 22 f2 g5
22...h5!? seems playable:
a) 23 d2!? f5 leads to a draw after
the heavy pieces are exchanged on
e1 24 e1 xe1+ 25 xe1 xe1
26 xe1 b1 Black has nothing to
fear as White cannot manufacture
a passed pawn.
b) 23 a4 h4 24 g4 is unclear; it
depends on whether the h3- is
strong or weak: 24...bxa4! 25 xa4
f6 26 d2 xg4! 27 fxg4 e4 28
f3 g5.
23 d2 h5 24 e1 d7
24...d8!?.
25 g1 f5
The opposite coloured Bishops
mean that a draw is virtually
inevitable.
25...f6!? 26 e1 xe1 (26...c8!?) 27
xe1 e6 is a certain draw if the
queens are exchanged.
26 e1 e4 27 xe4 dxe4 28
d1
28 f4!? Vitomskis.
28...g4 29 xg5 f6 30 f4
xf3 31 b3+ g7 32 e3
h3 33 d5 Notes based on comments by the
Game 30
Christof Herbrechtsmeier
(Germany)
Tnu im (Estonia)
Bertl von Massow Memorial corr,
1988
Comments based on notes by
Herbrechtsmeier.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
e6 18 a4 h5 19 axb5 axb5
20 f1
This game shows that 20 f1 is
better, wrote Herbrechtsmeier.
Blacks method of drawing now
is important for the theory of the
Spassky Variation.
20...h3 21 d1 f5 22 e2
fe8! 23 f1
23 f3? f4!.
23...c5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9-+-vlr+-+0
9+pzpn+q+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-vL-zPl0
9-zP-+QzP-zP0
9tR-+LtRNmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
24 c2
24 dxc5!? xc5 25 f3 xe3 26
xe3 xe3 27 xe3 xe3 28 fxe3
h6 29 a8 xa8 30 xa8+ h7
31 f3 b1 32 g4 g8 and White
cannot exploit the extra pawn.
24...xc3
24...f6 25 h5.
25 bxc3 d5 26 f3 xf1 27
xf1
27 xf1?! xe3 28 xb5 b8!
and White must return the gambit
pawn.
27...xe3 28 e4
28 xe3 xe3 29 xb5 xf3 will
not serve as a winning attempt
for White, but after 28 e4 xe1!
29 xe1 b3 30 xh7+ (30 d3
g6) 30...f8 31 xe8+ xe8 32
e2+ f8 33 c2 the extra P is
meaningless.
Game 31
Gyula Sax (Hungary) -
John Nunn (England)
Brussels, 1988
players and by Hazai.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e2 h4 14 g3 h3
For 14...h5 see Mithrakanth-
Geller, illustrating an unfashionable
40
but promising way for Black to treat
this variation.
15 d2
15 f1 h5 16 f3 f5! 17 f2 g6
18 xd5 cxd5 19 d2 d3 20 e3
f5! 21 f4! e4 22 e1 ae8 23 xe4
fxe4 24 e3 h5.
15...f5! 16 a4!?
Nunn: Saxs important innovation.
Black is not threatening anything,
so White activates the a1 rook while
waiting to see Blacks intention.
16 f1 h5 17 d1 g6 18 g2
ae8! 19 f1 e4! 20 f3 d3 21
xe8 xe8 22 d2 xf1 23 xf1
xg3! 24 hxg3 xg3+ 25 g2
e1+! 26 xe1 xe1+=.
16...ae8?!
a) 16...d3! 17 e1 ae8 18 f3!
xe1+ 19 xe1 h6 (Sax, Hazai;
INF 45/396). After 20 axb5 axb5
21 a7 f6 a curious position
arises in which neither player has
any obviously constructive moves.
Black is tied down to the defence
of f7, while White must cover f1
and prepare to meet...e4 or...g4.
Therefore the position must be
judged as unclear, although if
White can break the deadlock his
extra pawn might be important
Nunn.
b) 16...f4 17 gxf4 ae8 18 e5!
Nunn;
c) 16...b4 17 e4 g4 18 xd6 h5
19 c4 Nunn.
17 xe8!
17 axb5? f4! 18 gxf4 g4+.
17...xe8 18 f1!
18 xd5 cxd5 19 axb5 axb5 20 f1
h6! 21 e3 e4 22 g4 xg4 23
xg4 f5 24 e3 f4.
18...h5
Since g3 is well defended, White
may answer ...e4 or ...g4 by f2-
f3. If 18...b4 19 c4 f6 20 f3.
19 xd5 cxd5 20 axb5 axb5
21 e3
The sequel shows how in practice
the Marshall player may well win
even from a position.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9-+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+l+p0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-sN-zPq0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0
9tR-vLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
21...g6
If 21...h4 22 f1 hxg3 23 xh3
41
gxf2+? 24 g2+- or 21...e4 22
f1 d7 23 f3.
22 f1
Better is 22 xd5 e4 23 e3.
22...d7 23 a5
23 xd5 xg3 24 f6+ gxf6 25
fxg3.
23...b8 24 g2
24 xd5! xg3 25 f6+ gxf6 26
fxg3.
24...b4! 25 d2 bxc3 26 xc3
c7 27 c5
27 a1.
27...e4 28 f3 c2 29 e3
29 a5 xa5 30 xc2.
29...b3 30 d2?
30 a5.
30...b6 31 c1 xd4+
The bishop pair is now very
strong.
32 d3 xb2 33 e1 a2 34
a6 c4! 35 a5 d4 36 c3?
xe3+ 37 xe3 d4 38 e5 d8
39 b2 f6 40 c5 dxe3 01
TH: An interesting practical
Marshall game. Under the stress of
OTB play and the clock, an edge
for White (but with Black having
positional compensation) can turn
into a win for Black.
Game 32
Hieronim Halamus (Poland)
Aleksei A. Tsvetkov (Russia)
EU/M/GT/292 1988-92 corr ICCF,
1988
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20
xd5 cxd5 21 axb5 h3?!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+-vlr+-+0
9+P+p+p+q0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-vL-zPl0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Not played before in master games
and only seen in a few amateur and
computer games since.
21...f4 was the only move cited
in Nunn/Harding. Then comes 22
xf4 when:
a) 22...h3? is suspect since,
instead of 23 d3 giving the same
position as after move 23 in the
present game, White found 23
xe6! which may refute the old
theory: 23...xf1 24 xd6 xb5
25 xf8 xf8 26 c1! g5 27 e3 26...h6!
h5 28 b3 10 D.Kwolek-A.Nowicki,
corr 1990).
b) 22...xf4 appears to draw with
care, although White has an edge.
See Kronborg Kristensen v Olano
Aizpurua.
22 d3
22 e2.
22...f4 23 xf4 f5 24 f3
24 f1.
24...g4
This was thought to be a draw by
repetition. However, White now
played:
25 xe6 xf4
After 25...xf3 26 xd6 White gets
too much for the .
26 d3 xe6 27 gxf4
27 bxa6.
27...f5 28 f3 g4 29 g3
29 g2.
29...axb5 30 f3
Others can be considered too.
30...e6 31 a7 f7 32 g5
h3 33 f5 e8 34 f6 g6 35
g4
35 e7.
35...h6 36 f4 f8 37 f3 a8
38 e7 10.
This is a critical game according to
Martin Bennedik.
Game 33
Lothar Grtig (Germany) -
Libor Danek (Czech Republic)
3rd European Team Corr Ch Final,
1988
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 Not 28...g6? 29 g3. Danek
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 claimed he was now winning by
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 h8
17...g5 18 f1 h5 19 d2 h8 20
xd5 cxd5 transposes.
18 xd5 cxd5 19 d2 g5
19...c7 Aseev-Dvoirys.
20 f1 h5 21 a4 bxa4
21...h6!? Lepeshkin, Danek.
22 xa4?!
22 c4 ab8 23 ab1 h3 24 f2
g4 25 cxd5 gxf4 26 xf4 xf4
27 xf4 xf4 28 gxf4 b4
Short-Ehlvest, Skelleftea World
Cup 1989.
22...ae8! 23 aa1
23 xa6? gxf4 24 xf4 e2;
23 fxg5!? Ulmanis-v.d.Heijden.
23...e6
23...a5 Schlosser-Nunn, Krefeld
1986.
24 fxg5
The Total Marshall
24 f2 was played in Lukac-
Pavlovic and McClelland-Gillam.
24...fe8 25 f2 f4 26 gxf4
26 xf4 e2+.
26...h3!? Liang Jingrong-Blatny,
1990.
27 gxh6?
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+-mk0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-vlr+-zP0
9+-+p+-+q0
9-+-zP-zPl+0
9+-zP-vL-+-0
9-zP-sN-wQ-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
An instructive mistake. White now
has four extra pawns but he has
opened the g-file and Blacks
pieces are extremely active.
27 f1 was tried in Dolmatov-
Vladimirov; 27 c4!? was suggested
by Vladimirov.
27...h3!
Perhaps White expected a rook
to go to the g-file, when he just
replies h1, but now there is a
triple attack on his e3-bishop.
28 f1
White tries to hold the kingside
instead of simplifying to a drawn
endgame by 28 xa6 xe3 29 xe3
xe3 30 xd6 e2 31 g3 xd2 32
xh3 xh3 33 xd5 g2+ 34 h1
xb2 35 g5 c2 36 g1 xc3=
Danek.
28...f3!
force, but this is not the case.
29 xa6?
This is the losing move
29 b4? g6+ 30 g3 xg3+ 31 xg3
g8 32 xg8+ xg8 33 a2 e7+
Danek.
29 g3? xe3! 30 xe3 xe3+
Danek.
29 h7 is better since after 29...xh7
30 xa6 Black cannot finish as in
the game; h6+ will come at an
awkward moment. Black is still
better if he avoids traps but he
may end up with Queen versus
Rook and Bishop in an unwinnable
position.
The best move, however, is 29 d2
which would definitely have saved
White. Black must switch the focus
to the g-file: 29...g8+ 30 g3
eg6 when if 31 xf3 (31 e8?
xe8 32 xf3 eg8) 31...xg3+ 32
xg3 xg3+ 33 hxg3 xg3+ Black
The Total Marshall
has a draw but no more.
29...g8+
29...g6+? 30 g3 xg3+ 31 xg3
g8 32 a8!.
30 g3 xf4! 01
Because of 31 xf3 xg3, 31 xf4
xe1+ or 31 xe6 xg3+.
Game 34
Jason F. McKenna (ENG)
Clifford R. Chandler (ENG)
BPCF Open Final-2 corr, 1989
Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17
d2 e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5
20 axb5!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvlr+-+0
9+P+n+p+q0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Shamkovich & Schiller suggested
this as an alternative to the normal
20 f4. It is not so easy to refute the
idea.
20...f4 21 xf4 xf4
Nunns move. If 21...xf4 22 xe6
xe6 23 bxa6.
22 xe6 xe6 23 e1!?
23 gxf4 axb5 (regaining the pawn
on f4 with good play for the other
pawn - Nunn, 1989) 24 e1!? now
seems the critical line as it was a
bit better for White in Mousessian-
T.Andresen. Black went gradually
downhill and it is hard to pinpoint
anywhere that he missed a clear
draw.
23...h3
Not 23...h6 24 gxf4.
Instead 23...e8!? 24 bxc6 (24
gxf4?? h3) 24...h8! is very
complicated e.g. 25 e4 (25 d1
f7 or 25 gxf4?? xf4 26 e4
h3+ 27 g2 g5+ 28 f1 g1+
29 e2 xf2+) 25...c7 when
Black retains his extra piece but
White has many pawns in return.
It could continue 26 c5 (26 xa6
h3=) 26...g4 27 xd5 xe1+ 28
xe1 h6 and the position remains
very obscure.
24 e4!
42
24 bxc6!? also comes into but maybe White was afraid of the
consideration: 24...h8 25 xd5 continuation 34...g6 35 e4 (saves
(25 e4!?) 25...xd5 26 e4. the and stops...g5+) 35...e2+
24...h8 36 h1 g4 (Threatens mate in
24...xd2 25 bxc6 or 24...axb5 25 one!) 37 g2 f4+ 38 f1 f3 39
gxf4. a4 and White is two pawns up
25 f1 but in a bind.
If 25 d1 h6 but maybe 25 bxc6 34...hxg3 35 hxg3
xc3 26 e7 (not 26 bxc3 xd2). 35 fxg3 doesnt give the the h2
25...e8 26 d3 axb5 27 gxf4 square.
xf4 28 g3 h4!? 35...e2+ 36 h2 h5 37 a8+
XIIIIIIIIY h7 38 g8+ g6 39 a6+ g5
9-+-+r+-mk0 40 f4+ g4 41 e6+ f3
XIIIIIIIIY
9+-+-+-zpp0
9-+p+-+-+0 9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-+-0 9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-zP-sn-wq0 9R+-+L+-+0
9+LzPQ+-sNl0 9+-+-+-+r0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0
9tR-+-+-mK-0 9+-zP-+kzPl0
9-zP-+n+-mK0
xiiiiiiiiy
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This gives Black a dangerous, but
unclear, attack because the white
King is bottled up. In an over- Looks dangerous for the white ,
the-board game, I would not put but his defence comes in time. He
much money on White surviving reaches a Rook ending with two
but correspondence play (even extra pawns but its a dead draw.
in 1989 without todays computer 42 xh3 xg3 43 g6 f1+
aids) it is much easier to calculate 44 g1 xh3 45 xf1 h1+
accurately in depth if you have 46 g1 h2= 47 xg7 xb2
the vision and motivation. Instead This threatens mate, so wins the
28...xd3 would be the safe move f-pawn.
as 29 xh5 g6 30 g3 xb2 should 48 e1 xf4 49 d1 e5 50
draw. d7 h2 . A fascinating
29 f3 h5 30 xc6 e7 31 game with several unclear points.
xb5?!
I think this move indicates that Game 35
either White expected a forced Horst Rittner (Germany)
draw or did not see what was Henk Sarink (Netherlands)
coming? Better 31 c2 (idea Armando Silli Memorial corr, 1990
e4 to force off queens) 31...f8 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
(31...e1+ 32 f1 e7 (32...e2 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
33 e3 or 32...xa1?? 33 xe8#) b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
33 e3) 32 xb5 and Black has 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
nothing clear. d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
31...h4!? e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2
A bold, if risky, winning try. Black e6 18 a4 h5
could have played 31...e1+!= This game is included for the
32 f1 (32 xe1 xe1+ 33 f1 illumination of those readers who
(33 f1 e2+ 34 h1 xf1+ may believe the Spassky Variation
or 34 xe2 xf1#) 32...e2+ 33 gives Black at best a draw.
h1 g3+ 34 g1 (34 hxg3?? 19 axb5 axb5 20 f1 fe8
e4+ and mates; 34 fxg3?? is the 20...f5 is possibly even better.
same) 34...e2+ with a draw by 21 d1 xd1 22 xd1 f5
repetition. 23 d2
32 e5 xe5 33 dxe5 xe5 23 a6 is not any better: 23...h5 24
33...hxg3 34 hxg3. xc6 h4 25 d2 as Black can play
34 c4!? either 25...h3!? (Metz-im) or first
White gets three pawns for a piece exchange rooks on e1, with roughly
but hardly has winning chances. equal chances in either case.
34 a8+ h7 35 c2+ is not 23...xe1 24 xe1
clearly to Whites advantage. White thought that exchanges
Instead 34 c2 threatens mate, would ease his task but Blacks B
43
is active on d6 whereas Whites is
buried on e1.
24...h5 25 h4 c5 26 g2?
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9-+-vl-+-+0
9+pzpn+q+p0
9-+-zP-+-zP0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9-zP-+-zPK+0
9tR-+QvLN+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Sarink said that move was
recommended in Fernschach but
shown to be bad in this game.
26...cxd4 27 xd4
27 cxd4 is also possible but White
was hoping to avoid incurring an
isolated pawn.
27...c5!N
This possibility was created by
Whites 26th.
28 d1
28 xc5? f4+.
28...e5 29 b1
29 f3 is probably a bit better.
29...e6 30 b4 c6 31 g1
b6!?
Black assesses that his position is
good enough to play for a win.
31...xc3 could also be played
to force an early draw: 32 xc3
xf2+ 33 xf2 (33 h2 e2)
33...f6+ 34 g1 b6+ 35 h1
c6+ (Vitomskis).
32 d3 f6 33 h2 e4 34
c1
White tries to create counterplay
based on the c3-c4 advance but
Black is ready:
34...g5 35 c4 gxh4 36 c5!
Opening the g-file by gxh4 is
always favourable for Black.
36...hxg3 37 fxg3 g5
Threatening... h3+ leading to
mate.
38 f1 c7 39 d2 e4 40 d1
f5 41 g2 d4+ 42 h1 f2
43 e1 xg2 44 xd4 xh2+
0-1.
If 45 xh2 f3+. A good win for
the ICCF auditor against the 6th CC
World Champion.
Game 36
D.Kwolek
Wladyslaw Olszewski
34th Polish Corr Ch semifinal, 1990
This is an important game for the
theory of the Restrained Pawn
Push variation.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
The Total Marshall
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 according to Malcolm Pein in Chess
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 Monthly 3/1992 where we first saw
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 this game.
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 31 xf3 h6
15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 Now it is just a technical exercise,
d2 f5 18 f4 g5 19 f1 h5 particularly in CC, commented
20 g2 h8 21 xd5 cxd5 22 Pein.
xd5 d8 23 c6 gxf4 24 xf4 32 e2 f4 33 xe8 xe8 34 f1
xf4 25 gxf4 e2 e3 35 a8+ g7 36 g1+ f7
This position was considered equal 37 g8+ f6 38 d8+ f7 39
and Nunn had played it for Black, d7+ f6 40 d6+ e6 41
achieving two easy draws. d8+ f5 42 d7! h3 43
26 h1 de8 27 g1 f7+ e4 44 xe6+! xe6 45
This is much stronger than 27 g2? e1+ f5 46 xe6 xe6 47
e3! 28 g1 (28 g5 d3 29 xh5 g2 10
xh5 30 f1 g8 31 g3 f3+ 32
g1 d2+ Kwolek) 28...g4 29 Game 37
ae1 fe8 30 xe3 xe3 31 a8+ Viswanathan Anand (India) -
e8 32 c6 e2 33 g2 e1+ 34 John Nunn (England)
g1 e2 draw (Popovic-Nunn, Wijk aan Zee, 1990
Lucerne EU Cht 1989). 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
27...h4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
XIIIIIIIIY b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
9-+-+rtr-mk0 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
xd5 cxd5 13 d4 d6 14 e3
9+-+-+-+p0 h4 15 h3 g5!?
9p+Q+-+-+0 This is a risky line for Black against
9+p+-+p+-0 the Kevitz Variation but at this time
9-+-zP-zP-wq0 Nunn was rated higher than Vishy
9+-zP-+-+-0 and was going for the win. 15...f4
is solid and 15...f5!? is interesting.
9PzP-sNl+-zP0 16 b3
9tR-+-+-tRK0 Here 16 f3 is critical.
xiiiiiiiiy 16...f5!
XIIIIIIIIY
28 g2! 9r+l+-trk+0
28 f3!? is also strong: 28...xf4 29 9+-+-+-+p0
g5 g4 30 f7+ g7 31 af1+-
Kwolek; A.Sokolov. 9p+-vl-+-+0
Old theory follows A.Sokolov- 9+p+p+pzp-0
Nunn, Rotterdam World Cup 1989: 9-+-zP-+-wq0
28 g2 g8 29 c6 gf8 30 g2 9+PzP-tR-+P0
g8 31 c6 draw. 9P+-+-zPP+0
28...xf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
9-+-+rtr-mk0 xiiiiiiiiy
9+-+-+-+p0 17 f3
9p+Q+-+-+0 17 a3 f4 18 e5!? xa3 19 xa3
9+p+-+p+-0 f3 20 g3 xh3 21 xg5+ h8 22
9-+-zP-wq-+0 f1 h6 23 c1 h3 24 f1=.
9+-zP-+-+-0 17...b7 18 e6?
Instead of chasing the active
9PzP-sNl+RzP0 bishop, White should exchange it
9tR-+-+-+K0 by 18 a3! g4 19 e2 f4 20 xd6
xiiiiiiiiy but Black is fine: 20...fxe3 21 xf8
exf2+ 22 xf2 xf2+ 23 xf2
29 e1!! xf8+ 24 g1 gxh3 25 gxh3 c8
Deflecting the queen from f4. Not (= Anand) 26 d2 xh3 Nunn.
29 ag1 h4. 18...ae8! 19 xe8
29...xd2 30 eg1! 19 xd6 e1+ 20 h2 xc1 creates
Threatens 31 g8+ xg8 32 f6+ a pin which it will not be easy to
with the black cut off from the escape.
defence. 19...xe8 20 f1 g4
30...f3 20...f4 21 a3.
If 30...h6 31 g6! e7 32 xe2!+- 21 xf5 gxh3 22 xh3
The Total Marshall 44

22 gxh3? c8 23 xd5+ e6 24 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 White also loses after 28 b7

g2+ h8 25 g5 xg5! 26 xg5
xh3+ 27 g2 xg2+ 28 xg2
e1 29 c4 bxc4 30 bxc4 g7+
Anand.
22...xh3 23 gxh3 c8 24
e3 xh3+ 25 e2 g4+ 26
d3 f5+ 27 e2 g4+ 28 d3
f5+ 29 e2
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+l+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+PzP-vL-+-0
9P+-+KzP-+0
9tRN+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black decides that despite his
one pawn deficit he can play for
a win, since Whites queensside is
undeveloped. Blacks bishops and
rook are tremendous.
29...c8! 30 f3 f7
30...h5? 31 d2 xc3 32 g1+ f7
33 g5 was what Anand was
hoping for.
31 d2 h5 32 c4
White tries to break out but this
leads to Black obtaining a second
passed pawn. I suspect time trouble
was a factor in this game.
32...e8+ 33 f2 d3 34 e3
h4 35 f4 dxc4 36 bxc4 bxc4 37
d2 b8 38 f3 c3 39 e4 b4
40 d1 xe4+ 41 xe4 c2 01
White resigned for if 42 c1 c8 43
h1 e8+ 44 d3 xe3+ 45 xe3
a3+ and in the long run Blacks
a-pawn will decide the game.
Game 38
J. Bravo Castillero
Armando Jaime Chavez
Hans-Werner von Massow
Memorial, Cuba corr 1991-92
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
MegaCorr 2
Our best-selling CC database
and info CD is still available.
Over 350,000 games. Price:
35 Euros plus postage &
packing. Buyers will get a
discount on Mega3 in 2003.
15 e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 g5 d1!! or 28 xd6?? f3+ 29 xf3
18 f1 h5 19 d2 ae8 20 xf3#.
g2 gxf4 21 xd5+ cxd5 22
xd5+ g7
23 xf4 xf4 24 gxf4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+rtr-+0
9+-+-+-mkp0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+p+Q+p+q0
9-+-zP-zPl+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-sN-+-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
24...h8!
This is a critical position for the
whole Pawn Push, which can also
be reached in 26 moves via 18 f4
h8 19 xd5 cxd5 20 f1 h5 21
g2 g5 22 d5 d8 23 c6 gxf4
24 xf4 xf4 25 gxf4 c8 26 d5
ce8!.
Not 24...e2? as in Unzicker-
Pfleger, above.
25 e5
25 e6!? xe6 26 xe6 e8 27 f6+
g8 28 g5+ xg5 29 fxg5 e2 30
d1 f4 31 h4 f3 Fornaris-Jaime
Chavez, corr 1993-95.
25...g8 26 h1?!
This move used to be recommended
on the basis of old Euwe analysis
(cited in Nunn 1989 etc.) but it was
busted by Cuban theoretician Jaime
Chavez in this game.
Instead 26 xe8 (pointed out
by Jaime) 26...xe8 27 d6
(threatening f6+) saves White
because if 27...g8 (NCO) White
has an immediate perpetual check,
while if 27...h4 28 f1 f3 29
g3 h3 (seems to force a draw)
30 f6+ g8 31 g5+ h8! 32
f6+ - Dikmen-Simmelink,
IECG email 1998. Not, however,
29...g8?? 30 e5+ 10 (30...g7 13...c5
31 xg7+ xg7 32 xf5+) Personally, I prefer the move
Gleichmann-Jaime Chavez, ICCF
World Cup corr 1991.
26...d8!
This is Jaimes major improvement
and it wins for Black. Euwes old
line went 26...h3 27 xe8 xe8
(27...g2+ 28 xg2 or 27...xe8 28
f3) 28 e5+ xe5 29 dxe5 g2 30
d1 with advantage to White.
27 c6
The must remain on the diagonal,
but if 27 b7 d7! 28 c6 d6 01
Eubanks-Hurt, corr 1989.
27...d6! 28 g2
28...h3 29 f2 g2+ 30 xg2
xg2 31 xg2 g6+ 32 f1
xh2 01
Game 39
Viswanathan Anand (India) -
Nigel Short (Short)
Amsterdam 1993
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10
xe5 xe5 11 xe5 b7
Another of Marshalls ideas,
Black aims for play on the long
diagonal.
12 d4
12 f3 is the alternative for White,
trying to block the diagonal. An
earlier game between the same
players went 12...d6 13 xd5
(13 xd5 is dangerous only for
White after 13...e8!) 13...c6 14
e2 cxd5 15 d4 c7 16 g3 ae8
17 d2 b4 18 cxb4 c2 19 e3 c8
20 f1 xb4= 21 a3 a5 22 b4 (22
xd5 e1 23 f3 b7!?) 22...b6
23 xe8 xe8 24 e3 e6 25 d1
c8 26 d2 Anand-Short,
Manila olm 1992.
12...f6
12...d7 13 d2 f4 is another
treatment for Black, as in Henao-
Djuric.
13 e1
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9+lzp-+pzpp0
9p+-+-vl-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+LzP-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
13...e8 in this position:
a) 14 a3 b4 15 c4 bxc3 16 a5
and now:
a1) 16...xd4 17 xe8+!N xe8
18 xb7 cxb2 19 xb2 xb2 20
xd5 xa1 21 xa1 b5 22 d1!
e8 23 g3 g6 24 a4 e2 25 b3
and White won in Hansen-Hector,
Malm 1997. However, if White
expects to follow this game, he
will get a real shock.
a2) 16...b8!= The great thing
about this move is that once Black
plays it, the game is a dead draw!
45 The Total Marshall

XIIIIIIIIY
17 xb7 xb7 18 xe8+ xe8 19 White has an extra pawn, but it 9-+-+-tr-mk0
xd5 cxb2 20 b1 b5 was soon is blockaded by a rook that has
drawn in S.L.Jones-Harding, Email a fairly active post. Whites other 9+-+-+-zpp0
olympiad 2000. The two-time US pawns are not so healthy. 9p+p+R+-+0
CC Champion could find nothing 28...f8 29 f2 e7 30 f4 g5 9+-+-+p+q0
against my plan. More active play. 9R+NzP-snl+0
b) 14 xe8+ xe8 15 a4 b4! (The 31 f3 gxf4 32 xf4 e6 33 9+LzP-+-zP-0
key idea) 16 d2 (16 c4 can be e4 h5 34 c2 h4+ 35 d3
met by 16...f4 and if xf4 e4 f5 36 f2 e5 37 c2 d6 38 9-zP-+-+-zP0
threatening mate on g2) 16...f4 17 g2 h3 39 f2 9+-+-+QmK-0
f3 e6 with good compensation for 39 g6+ c5 40 xa6 f4 41 e6 xiiiiiiiiy
Black. fxe3 42 xe3 xh2 is a book
14 dxc5 e8 15 a3 draw. 24 gxf4? h3 25 xe6 g4+ 01
a) 15 xe8+ xe8 16 xd5 xd5 39...e5 40 c5 e6 41 c2 d7 Qaw-Macarena, Internet Chess
17 e3 e4 18 f1 c2 19 c1 42 d4 Club 1997.
g6 20 f1=. White has managed to improve 24...h3+!!N
b) 15 d2 f4 16 f3 xg2! 17 his king position so care is still Nunn only analysed 24...xe6 25
xg2 xe1 18 xe1 d7 19 h3 required. e5!. The arrival of a horse on
xf3+ 20 xf3 xh3+ 21 e2 42...c6 43 e2 the e5 square after...f5 has been
h5+! 22 f1 h1+=. 43 f2 h4+ 44 e5 e4+ 45 xf5 played nearly always spells a
15...c7?! xe3 is similar to the game. terminal prognosis for Black in
Black is now really in trouble. 43...h5 44 c2 h4+ 45 e5 the Marshall. Black has regained
15...d7 is only a little better.. e4+ 46 xf5 xe3 47 g5 his material but suffers from bad
16 xe8+! xe8 17 xd5 d8 e5+ 48 h4 a5 49 h3 d5 pawn structure. 25...f4 (Or 25...e2
18 f4 xf4 . Black need only shuffle his 26 g4 Kristensen-Weissleder) 26
XIIIIIIIIY rook. xe6 xe6 27 xa6 g8 28 xc6!
9-+-tr-+k+0 (Not 28 f3? f5 29 a1 d5
Game 40 because on the other hand, a black
9+l+-+pzpp0 Viktoras Milvydas (Lithuania) supported on d5 usually spells
9p+-+-vl-+0 Sergei K. Muravyev (Ukraine) Curtains for White...) 28...h3 29
9+pzPL+-+-0 5th European Corr Team Ch a5! h6 (29...g4 30 e5) 30
9-+-+-wq-+0 prelims, 1994 f3+- and Blacks attack has run
9sN-zP-+-+-0 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 out of steam Nunn.
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 25 g2 g5! 26 f2! f3+ 27
9PzP-+-zPPzP0 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 f1 f4
9tR-+Q+-mK-0 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 27...xe6!? 28 xa6 f4 29 e1 e8
xiiiiiiiiy d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 30 d2 fxg3 but I am not sure
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 if Black has more than a draw
19 f3? e6 18 a4 f5 19 f1 h5 20 f4 Elburg.
After 19 xb7! xd1+ 20 xd1+- bxa4 21 xa4 h8 22 c4 28 g4
White would have had rook, knight 22 xd5 cxd5 23 xa6 is also 28 e1 but looks as if
and two pawns for queen with critical: Black should have something
good winning chances. Now Black a) After 23...fe8, Nunn treats this somewhere: 28...xe6 (28...fxg3!?
reduced the deficit and managed position as a transposition to the 29 xg3 xe6) 29 xa6 e8 30
to draw. line 21...fe8 22 xa6 h8 23 d2 g5 31 d6 fxg3 32 hxg3 h1
19...xf3 20 xf3 xf3 21 xd5 cxd5 but I think it properly (32...h6) 33 a5 c5 34 dxc5 e2+?
gxf3 b4! 22 c2 bxc3 23 bxc3 belongs here as a critical line for 35 xe2 xe2 36 xe2 (10, 67)
c8 21...h8. The reason is that in the Computer test game Nimzo-Rebel,
Black wants to eliminate the more other line, Black has the strong 1999.
dangerous c5-pawn rather than let move 22...xe3 so there is no 28...h3+ 29 e1 xe6 30 e5
White get his rook behind it. reason for him to move the king. g5 31 xa6!! xg4 32 c4!!
24 b1 h6 25 c4 xc5 26 e3 b) 23...e8 24 f2! (24 f2 b5 25 With an amazing drawing idea.
d4 27 c1 xe3 28 fxe3 a2 fe8 gives Black reasonable White loses after:
XIIIIIIIIY play.) and not now 24...e2? 25 a) 32 xc6?? d3 33 a1 f3+ 34
xd6+- Nunn. xf3 xf3 35 d2 e2+ 36 c1
9-+-+-+k+0 22...xf4!? e1+ 37 c2 f5#.
9+-+-+pzp-0 Ingenious but maybe inadequate, b) 32 xc6?? e4;
9p+-+-+-zp0 this move was analysed by GM John c) 32 xg4?? xg4 33 h3 e8+ 34
9+-tr-+-+-0 Nunn in 1989. The improvement d2 g3 35 xg3 fxg3+.
9-+P+-+-+0 at move 24 seems to mean Black 32...e4
draws and could easily win if White Black can try to win but it may be
9+-+-zPP+-0 goes wrong. 22...xe3 23 xe3 risky. Moves to be considered are
9P+-+-+-zP0 was prior theory. 32...g6 (to stop the perpetual check
9+-tR-+-mK-0 23 xf4 but going into an ending after 33
xiiiiiiiiy 23 gxf4? g6 Nunn. xg4 xg4 34 e2) and 32...f3
23...xf4 24 xe6 33 a7! (but not here 33 d3
The Total Marshall
e6 34 xc6 g2 nor 33 xc6??
e4+ nor 33 xg4 xg4+).
33 f3!! h4+
A.Bandza, in Informator, gave other
variations. If 33...xf3 34 f7+
g8 35 h6+ (35 g5+ or other
discoveries with same result: a
draw.) or if 33...xf3 34 f7+ again
forcing repetition because the black
rook cannot leave the back rank.
34 g3
It will be a repetition by 34...fxg3
35 f7+ g8 36 h6+ because the
threats balance.
Game 41
Viswanathan Anand (India) -
Gata Kamsky (USA)
3rd Candidates match game,
Sanghi Nagar, India 1994
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e3 e8
15...a7!? is a similar approach,
and perhaps a psychologically
more shocking move for White if
he has not met it before. Tim quite
likes this variation for Black against
opponents who may be booked-
up. See our survey on the move 15
alternatives for Black.
16 xd5
If 16 a4? xe3 while 16 f3 will
transpose after 16...a7 (16...g4
was suggested by Geller but is less
reliable.) 17 d2 ae7 18 xd5 (18
f1? f4!) 18...cxd5 to the game.
16...cxd5 17 f3
Nunn said it was important for
White to counter-attack d5. 17
d3?! a7 18 d2 ae7 19 a4 f5
20 f4 g5! (Euwe).
17...a7 18 d2
Not 18 xd5?? b7+.
18 g2? h5 19 d2 ae7 20
a4 b4 21 c4 dxc4 22 xc4 b7
Tseshkovsky-G.Kuzmin, USSR ch
1975.
18...ae7
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+l+r+k+0
9+-+-trpzpp0
9p+-vl-+-+0
9+p+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-vLQzPq0
9PzP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has achieved his planned
46
set-up with the rooks doubled on (Analysis by Cuban players Jaime
the e-file and not obstructing the Chavez & Perez Perez).
bishops. The onus is on White to 25 aa1 e4 26 d2 hxg3 27
find something to do. hxg3 f5
19 a4 White would face a lot of technical
Whites 18th and 19th were a difficulties to win after the double
plan recommended by Nikitin rook exchange if Black did not
in Shakhmatny Bulletin 2/1976 weaken his kingside in this way.
page 37. White tries to transpose Blatny and Ftacnik recommend
to Unzicker-Rossolimo. For 19 27...8e6 f6 with counterplay.
g2? h5 see 18 g2. 28 g2!
19...bxa4 If 28 e3? f4! or 28 h1 xh1+ 29
The critical move. 19...b4 20 c4 xh1 xe1 30 xe1 xe1 31 xe1
dxc4 21 xc4 b7 (21...b8 22 a5 h1.
d2! xe1+ 23 xe1 xe1+ 24 28...h5 29 f3!
xe1 e6 25 e3 Unzicker- 29 xe4? dxe4!? (29...xe4) 30 e3
Rossolimo, Cheltenham 1952) 22 e2 31 d2 f4! 32 gxf4 xf4 33
d5 (Geller) 22...c7 (Castellanos xf4 e3.
Salinas-Lopez Gomez, Cuba corr 29...xe1 30 xe1 xe1 31
1996) 23 ed1! Jaime Chavez & xe1 e8
Perez Perez. Better is 31...f4 but 32 g4 g6 33
20 xa4 h5 e2 (Blatny).
20...h8 21 ea1 Geller-Jansa, 32 d2 a5 33 e3 g6?
Amsterdam 1974. 33...e6 34 h3 g6 Ftacnik.
21 a5 b7 34 f2 a4 35 g2 a3 36 bxa3
21...h4? is not good, as shown in xa3
analysis by Blatny and Ftacnik Black has made progress in
e.g. 22 xd5 hxg3 (22...b7 23 establishing a queenside blockade
f5 xf5 24 xf5 hxg3 25 hxg3 using his bishop pair, but his
xg3 26 fxg3 xe3 27 xe3 xe3 kingside is vulnerable.
28 f2+-) 23 hxg3 b7 24 h5 37 f4
(24 f5 h8!?; 24 h5 d7 25 Planning e5, f4 g8.
g5 f6 26 g6 c6) 24...xg3+ 37...c6 38 e5 f8 39 f4
(24...c8 25 d5) 25 fxg3 xf3 26 g5 40 g2! e6 41 e3 f7 42
xf3 xe3 27 xe3 xe3 28 c2 d7
f2 with a winning endgame for If 42...g6 43 g4!+-.
White. 43 h2
22 aa1 c8!N Blatny suggests 43 b3 c6 44
22...h4 23 h5 c8 24 f3 hxg3 b1 d7 45 b7+-. White is
25 xh3 xh3 26 hxg3 xg3 manoeuvring to win a second
and now 27 fxg3 (Tseshkovsky- pawn after which the end is just a
I.Ivanov, Minsk 1976) and 27 xa6 matter of time.
(Blatny) are both somewhat better 43...g6 44 a2 e6 45 xd5
for White. xd5 46 xd5 c6 47 c4
23 a5! b7 24 f1! e6
After the repetition, White tries a 47...xd5 48 cxd5 is also a lost
new tack. endgame for Black.
XIIIIIIIIY 48 c7+ d7 49 f2 a3 50
9-+-+r+k+0 e2 b2 51 b5 g4 52 fxg4
fxg4 53 d3 a1 54 c2 e4+
9+l+-trpzp-0 55 b3 d3 56 c3
9p+-vl-+-+0 56 a3 e2! when White must
9tR-+p+-+p0 avoid the pin 57 c2? d1.
9-+-zP-+-+0 56...e6 57 d5 f5 58 b4
9+-zP-vLQzPq0 e2 59 c5 d1+ 60 c4 e6
1-0. White is ready to advance his
9-zP-+-zP-zP0 pawns by 61 c6 f3 62 f4+-.
9+-+-tRNmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy Game 42
Vasily Ivanchuk (Ukraine) -
24...h4?! Nigel Short (England)
Tal Memorial, Riga 1995
24...e6!? (Blatny, CBM 42) gives
White a slight edge. Notes by Martin Bennedik
24...f5 is probably best, e.g. 25 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
aa1 f4! 26 d2 f8! 27 xe7 fxg3 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
28 e3! xe7 29 xg3 d7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
47
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17
d2 e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 xa4
f5 20 f1 h5 21 xa6 f4 22
xf4!N
22 xc6? Lilienthal-Hallier; 22
gxf4? g6.
22...h3 23 xe6!
23 xc6 would probably transpose
to the main line after 23...xf1 24
xe6 xf4 25 xf1.
23 xd5? xd5 (Not 23...cxd5
24 xd6) 24 xh3 xe1+ 25
f1 xf4 (Dolmatov) 26 gxf4
(Bennedik).
23...xf1 24 xf1
24 xc6 again should transpose
to the main line after 24...xf4 25
xf1.
24...xf4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9R+p+R+-+0
9+-+n+-+q0
9-+-zP-vl-+0
9+LzP-+-zP-0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0
9+-+-+NmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
25 axc6
25 exc6!? is an interesting, yet
untested alternative:
a) 25...xg3 26 hxg3 (Even after
26 xg3 f3 27 xd5+ xd5 28
e6 f3 29 e2 h5 Fritz stubbornly
defends with 30 h4.) 26...f3 27
xd5+ xd5 28 f4. As long as
no way to undermine Whites
kingside can be demonstrated,
the conclusion must be that this
position is better for White.
b) 25...f3? 26 c5 f5 27 xd5
xd5 28 a5 Ernst.
c) 25...h8 26 xd5 xd5 27 gxf4
f3 28 e6 and now:
c1) 28...h5 29 e3 xf4 (29...g4+
30 g3 xf4 31 g2 h4 32 h3) 30
f3.
c2) 28...g5 29 f5 (29 f6 xf6 30
xf6 gxf4 or 29 e7 gxf4 30 h6
g4+ 31 g3 fxg3) 29...xf5 30
e8+ g7 31 a7+ f6 32 f8+
e6 33 xf5 xf5. I think this
position is Blacks best chance
against 25 exc6. Whites one
rook coordinates far less well
with the knight than Whites two
rooks in the other lines. Also,
Black now can push his h-pawn
and still create counterplay against
Whites king. Still, it would require
practical experience, to see if this
is enough.
25...f3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9-+R+R+-+0
9+-+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-vl-+0
9+LzP-+qzP-0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0
9+-+-+NmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
a) If 25...b8? 26 f4 (clearer than
26 e3 f7 27 f6 xf6 28 xf7+
xf7) 26...h8 27 c5+-.
b) 25...h8? seems to be too slow:
26 xd5 xd5 27 gxf4 f3 28 g3
h5 29 c5 xf4 30 xh5+ g8 31
e2+-;
c) 25...xg3? 26 xg3 f3 27 e2
h8 28 xd5 xd5 29 c5+-.
d) Not 25...b8? 26 b6! or
25...h6?? 26 e5+- (Ernst).
26 xd5
Better is 26 gxf4 xf4 27 e8+ f7
28 xd5+ xd5. (Ernst observed
that in the game Black could have
forced this position with 27...xf4
instead of 27...f3.) 29 cc8
with a critical position of the line
invented by Ivanchuk (see analysis
diagram).
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+R+R+-+0
9+-+-+kzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+q+-+-0
9-+-zP-tr-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0
9+-+-+NmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
In contrast to the game continuation
where Black could have played
28...xf4 (see below), White can
answer 29...f3 with 30 f8+ and
31 xf4, defending against the
threat...xf2. For example:
a) 29...f3 30 f8+ e7 31 xf4 now because of ...xf2+.
xf4 32 e3 g5+ 33 h1 b5
34 c5 xb2 35 g2 White seems
to be better, but the position is still
very complicated.
b) 29...g4+ 30 g3 h5 31 h3 g5
32 f8+ g6 33 c5 b3 34 xg5+
xg5 35 f5+ g6 36 xh5 xb2
37 c5.
c) 29...g6 when there are several
The Total Marshall
very interesting moves:
c1) 30 g3 f3 (30...h5! 31 f8
xf8 32 xf8 b7=) 31 e2 h5 32
ce8 h4 33 8e3 g4 34 g2 Enst
(34 h1 h3!);
c2) 30 e2 Bennedik;
c3) 30 e3 b7 (30...g4+?! 31 g3
h5 32 h3 33 c5) 31 ce8 (31
e6+ f7 32 ce8 xb2 33 8e7+
drawing, not 31...g5? 32 c5+)
31...xb2 32 8e6+ (32 f3!?)
32...f7 33 e7+ g6 34 7e6+
Ernst.
c4) 30 f8 I proposed this move in
my article in Chess Mail 5/1999.
The whole line has never been
tried in practice, however. Now
30...xf8 31 xf8 b5 32 c8
xb2 33 d5 e2 34 e3.
26...xd5 27 gxf4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9-+R+R+-+0
9+-+q+-+-0
9-+-zP-zP-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0
9+-+-+NmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
27...f3
27...xf4 28 e8+ f7 - 26.gxf4.
28 d5
28 g3 is a try to avoid the draw,
but it looks rather risky. Compare
with the note to 25 exc6, e.g.:
28...xf4 (28...xf4 29 e2 Ernst)
29 c8+ f7 30 e2 h5 31 ce8
(31 h4 xh4 32 ce8 f4 33 8e7+
g8 34 7e3 g4 35 h2 h4 36
e4 f3) 31...h4 32 8e7+ g8
33 7e3 g4 34 b4 hxg3 35 hxg3
f3. In this line, Ernst thought 32
8e3 was necessary, but liked the
Black attack after 32...g4 33 f3
g6 ( g3) 34 e8 d3.
28...h5?
Nigel Short did not want to play a
draw but probably overstretched his
position and lost in the end. Better
is 28...xf4!= Fernandez-Harding
ended here with a draw. Indeed
White has to give a perpetual check
29 c4 h4
29...g4+ maybe was a better try.
30 g6 d3 31 gc6
31 cc6? xf4.
31...xd5
31...f3 32 e3!.
32 c8 h3 33 e3 d2 34
f1?
This nearly spoiled the win. 34
The Total Marshall 48

xf8+ xf8 35 f1 (Dolmatov) is which are different from most of the - Timmerman-Tarnowiecki,
correct. 11...c6 Marshall lines. NBC Millennium Email 2000.
34...xb2 15...g5 24 f1 e6 25 e2 d5
34...c1+!? 35 e2 xb2+ would Black prevents Whites h4 idea I got a surprise.
have drawn in view of 36 f3? by direct means, justified by the 26 e3!N
b7+ 37 8c6 f6 38 d5 xc6+ variation 16 xg5? f5 attacking Instead of 26 f1 f4
(Dolmatov). two loose pieces. As this obviously Shamkovich.
35 xf8+ xf8 36 c8+ f7 37 weakens Blacks kingside and does White has a clear plan. Maybe Black
h8 xc3 38 xh3+- not lead to a clear resolution in can play better somewhere, but the
XIIIIIIIIY Blacks favour, other moves are main thing here is that unlike other
9-+-+-+-+0 sometimes tried. However, 15...g5 lines in Marshall, White has the
is probably best. For a less reliable initiative while Black has material,
9+-+-+kzp-0 approach, see Leko-Adams. so it is hard psychologically to
9-+-+-+-+0 16 f3 f5 17 xd5 cxd5 18 adopt to the changed scenario.
9+-+-+-+-0 e3 e4 19 xe4 dxe4 20 f6! 26...ac8 27 f4 xf4+ 28
9-+-+-zP-+0 g4 xf4 b4 29 c1 b8 30 c2
9+-wq-sN-+R0 20...f4!? is an idea that has rarely bxc3 31 bxc3 a5 32 e3 a4 33
been tried: 21 xf4 gxf4 22 xf4 c4+ d6 34 d5 a3 35 c3 h5 36
9-+-+-zP-zP0 f5 23 d2 g7 24 f1 h6 draw d4 b2 37 c5+ e7 38 c4
9+-+-+K+-0 (Stean-Radulovic, Schilde 1970). xf2 39 xa3 xh2 40 c6 c2
xiiiiiiiiy 21 xg5+ 41 a7+ f6 42 c7 c8 43 a6+
If 21 xg5 ae8 threatening ...e6. e7 44 c6 xc4+ 45 xc4
38...d3+ 39 e1 e4 In Timman-Ivanchuk, Linares 1991, d7 46 a4 10
39...g8!? or 39...g6!? was a better a draw soon followed 21 d2!? but
defence. this was a last round game and may Game 44
40 e2 g8 41 f5 f7 42 g3 not prove much. David A. Kilgour (Scotland)
h1 43 h3 e4 44 g4 h1 45 21...xg5 22 xg5 f5 Janis Vitomskis (Latvia)
h4 h2 46 f1 e5+ 47 f3! This endgame was thought fine for CC Olympiad XII Final, board 1,
d5+ 48 e4 d1+ 49 g2 Black until some postal games in 1998-2000
d5 50 g3 c6 the 1980s. It should still be OK for Notes by Vitomskis.
50...g6!? was the last chance. him, with care. 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
51 h3 c2 52 f3 d1 53 g4 23 d2 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
g1 54 e6 d4+ 55 e4 d7 XIIIIIIIIY b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
56 g5+ g8 57 h5 d8 58 9r+-+-trk+0 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
g6 d7 59 h5 b5 60 e4 e1
9+-+-+-+p0 In this case it is immaterial whether
10
If 60...a4 61 d6+-. 9p+-vl-+-+0 White plays 12 d3, or 12 e1 and
9+p+-+pvL-0 13 d3.
Game 43 9-+-zPp+-+0 12...d6 13 d3
Gert Jan Timmerman 9+-zP-+-zP-0 XIIIIIIIIY
(Netherlands) - 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9r+lwq-trk+0
Janis Vitomskis (Latvia) 9+-+-+pzpp0
15th CC World Ch Final, 1996 9tR-+-+-mK-0
Notes by Vitomskis and Harding xiiiiiiiiy 9p+pvl-+-+0
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 9+p+n+-+-0
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 23...f7 9-+-+-+-+0
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 Nunn suggested 23...g7. 9+LzPP+-+-0
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 If 23...ae8 24 a4!. This move was 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 recommended for White by Nunn
15 e4 (1989) on the basis of the postal 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0
XIIIIIIIIY games Trautmann-Nikolic and xiiiiiiiiy
9r+l+-trk+0 van der Weijer-Jackson. However
Black seems to get satisfactory play Black has tried several plans against
9+-+-+pzpp0 with 24...f4! e.g.: this popular system. See the surveys
9p+pvl-+-+0 a) 25 e1 e3 26 fxe3 fxg3 27 hxg3 by Tim Harding and Janis Vitomskis
9+p+n+-+-0 xg3 28 f1 bxa4 29 e4 xf1+ for the detailed analyses.
9-+-zPR+-+0 30 xf1 b8 31 c4 xb2 32 d5 13...h4
9+LzP-+-zPq0 b3 33 d6 xd6 01 M.Jonsson- The old line with 13...f5 is not
R.Berzinsh, Hallsberg junior looking so reliable these days but
9PzP-+-zP-zP0 tournament 1993. maybe it will see a revival.
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 b) 25 axb5 axb5 26 gxf4 xf4 27 13...f5 14 f3 e8 15 xe8+ xe8
xiiiiiiiiy xf4 xf4 28 e1 f7 29 e3 f6 16 d2 e1+ 17 f1 g6 18 xd5
30 f1 f5 31 e2 h5 32 g3 g4 is usually recommended (After 18
This has been a controversial 33 f1 xg3 34 hxg3 a8 35 e3+ g3! may we draw your attention
variation for 20 years. It can lead to g5 36 d2 a2 37 c2 a6 38 to the critical possibility 18...f6!?
positions, difficult for both players, d2 a2 39 c2 a6 40 d2 a2 as played in the game Colucci-
49
Riegsecker. Unfortunately, White
can probably maintain an edge,
because 18...e8 does not look
viable after 19 d1!.) 18...cxd5 19
xd5 but we think Black draws
by 19...d8 20 g5 xa1 21 xd8
xh2+ 22 xh2 xf1 23 a8 h6 24
d4 e2 as White has no dangerous
discovered check.
14 g3 h3 15 e4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-+-+0
9+p+n+-+-0
9-+-+R+-+0
9+LzPP+-zPq0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This is an important position in
recent theory.
White prevents ...g4 and threatens
h4 in some lines to repel the black
Queen.
Compared with the position after
Whites 15th move in Game 43,
the only difference is the position
of the white d-pawn, but this is a
very significant difference. As the
rook is defended by a pawn, Black
cannot play 15...g5 (as he does in
the analogous position with the
white pawn on d4) because White
would simply reply 16 xg5 and
16...f5 is not a fork.
Black has tried a variety of plans,
e.g. 15...d7 with...b7 (or b7
first), 15...d7 (not so good),
15...f6, and the manoeuvre f5-
g6 as in this game, which is a fairly
solid line.
15...f5
For the playable variation with
15...f6 see the computer versus
human game, Hiarcs v Bergmanis,
below.
15...d7 16 d2 b7 has been
played a lot, but 17 e1 c5 18 e4
e7 19 a4 b4 20 g5 is the critical
line, good for White: 20...xg5 21
xg5 bxc3 22 bxc3 and now:
a) 22...h6 23 e4 c6 (It looks
as if Black is getting counterplay
on the long diagonal, but White
can neutralise this with his own
threats.) 24 h5 ad8 25 f5 xc3
26 xc5 xd3 (26...xe4 27 xc6
xc6 28 dxe4 d4 29 e5 b8 30
e3) 27 c4 xc5 28 xc5 d4 34 gxf4 xc7) 32...xf4 33 d8+
29 f1! c6 30 ec1! xa4 31 e6 h7 34 c8 xc8 35 xc8 xf3
fxe6 32 xc6 f6 33 xa6!.
This is an awkward ending for
Black who has the inferior minor
piece. (Almasi-Tseshkovsky,
Niksic 1997).
b) 22...c6 23 f3 ad8 24 d4
(24 e4 also gives chances of
an edge to White; Black has to
defend precisely with no winning
chances.) 24...cxd4 25 cxd4 h6 26
e4 a8 27 ad1 (27 ac1!? is
another possibility offering White
an edge.) 27...b6 28 c5 f6 29
f5 d6 30 e7 d5 31 e5 f6 32
d3 Leko-Slobodjan, Groningen
1997.
16 e1 g6 17 d2 f5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+pvl-+q+0
9+p+n+p+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+LzPP+-zP-0
9PzP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-vLQtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
18 f4
18 c4 is not so dangerous: 18...f4
19 e4 (19 cxd5 fxg3 20 dxc6+
h8 21 fxg3 xg3!) 19...fxg3 20
fxg3 g4 21 c2 bxc4 22 dxc4 (22
xc4!? c7 23 c2 h8 24 xd5
b6+!?) 22...ae8 23 cxd5 f3 24
dxc6+ h8 (see analysis diagram)
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+rtr-mk0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+Pvl-+q+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+N+-+0
9+L+-+lzP-0
9PzPQ+-+-zP0
9tR-vL-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now 25 d5 (if 25 c7 xe4 26
c8 xc8 27 xe4 c5+) f1+- (Am. Rodriguez-Perez, Cuba
25...xg3 26 hxg3 xe4 27 f4
(Andrijevic-Pavlovic, Yugoslavia
1988) 27...xe1+ 28 xe1 xc2
29 xf3 followed by c1 wins
(Nunn).
Let me take the liberty of expressing
a different view: 29...xb2!? 30 c7
h5 31 e2 (31 xh5 d4+ 32 g2
d5+ 33 f3 xa2+ (33...f5 34
d1) 34 e2 f7) 31...c3 32
d2 (32 xh5 c5+ 33 h1 xf4 Game 45
Peter Leko (Hungary) -
Michael Adams (England)
(Vitomskis).
18...xf4 19 f3!? b8 20
The Total Marshall
xd5+
20 f1!?.
20...cxd5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rvll+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+-+-+q+0
9+p+p+p+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zPP+QzP-0
9PzP-sN-+-zP0
9tR-vL-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
21 b3!
Kilgour uses commonly used tactics
against gambits he gives back
the pawn and starts positional
play against Blacks weakness:
his limited space for a pair of
bishops.
21 f1 b7 22 e7 c6 23 e3
(Popovic - Pavlovic, Yugoslavia
1993) 23...f6 24 g5 d6 25 xg6
xg6 (Pavlovic) 26 e2!? f4.
21 xd5+ h8 22 f3 xg3 23
hxg3 xg3+ 24 f1 f4.
21...b7
21...f7 may be inferior: 22 d4
(Tnu im has recently tried the
immediate 22 f4 here.) 22...a7
23 f4 d7 24 e5 b4 25 ae1 (25
xd5 xd5 26 xd5 b5 27 d1
bxc3 28 bxc3 ac8) 25...ae8 26
f1 bxc3 27 bxc3 (Leko-Adams,
Linares 1999).
22 f4
22 e7 a7+ 23 d4 (or 23 e3 d4
24 xb7 dxe3 25 d4 (25 g2 f4
Am. Rodriguez) 25...f4) 23...f7
24 e2 b6 25 f4 ff8;
22 f2.
22...a7+ 23 d4 ae8 24 xe8
24 e5 e7=.
24 f2 e4 25 d2 h6?!
(25...ee8!?) 26 xe4 dxe4 27 h4
g4 28 e2 (28 d6? f4 29 xf8
e3!+ Am.Rodriguez) 28...h3 29
ch 1998).
24...xe8 25 f1 f7!? 26 g2
d7 27 a3 e4 28 d2
28 c1!? e7 29 d3 e2+ 30 f2
xf2+ 31 xf2 (Gipslis).
28...e8 29 d3 f7 30 f3
30 e5 c8=.
30...h5 31 e5 b6 32 f2
Dortmund 1999
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6
The Total Marshall
4 a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1
b5 7 b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5
xd5 10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5
c6 12 d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14
g3 h3 15 e4!? b7?! Adams
tries another approach against the
15 e4 line, following a suggestion
by Korchnoi.
15...g5.
16 h4
The logical follow-up to Whites
previous move, although Nunn did
not mention it in his 1989 book.
16...e6
16...d7? fails to 17 xd5 cxd5 18
h5 h6 19 xh6! gxh6 20 xh6+-
so the queen stays on the 3rd rank
to prevent this.
17 d2 f5!?
Adams attempts to improve upon
17...fe8 18 e4 e7 19 c5 xc5
20 dxc5 Nunn-Hebden, London
1990.
18 h5!
18 c4 bxc4 19 xc4 (Shamkovich)
19...e7! targetting the rook on
h4.
18...h6 19 f3 e7 20 h3 c5!
Leko said Black has counterplay
here, but he did not have a clear
improvement to suggest in the
sequel. 20...ae8 21 f4 22
e1.
21 dxc5!
White prevents...c4 to keep open
the diagonal a2-g8.
21...xc5 22 f4
If Black captures the bishop, the
white on g3 will come to life
again.
22...ae8 23 d1!
23 e1? xe1+! 24 xe1 xe1+
25 g2 h7 26 xd5 xd5+ 27
f3 g1#.
23...e7
23...e2? 24 d2+- but not 24
xh6? xf2+ 25 h1 e2 26 g1
e6!! 27 xg7 xg1+ 28 xg1
f4+ and it is Black who wins.
23...a5? 24 xh6! gxh6 25 xd5
xd5 26 xd5 xd5 27 g6+ and
White wins.
24 g5!
White starts to unravel his pieces
with tactics.
24...d7
24...ef7 25 xh6!! gxh6 26 g5!
d6 (or 26...xf2+ 27 f1! e3+
28 e2) 27 xf7 xf7 28 f3 d7
29 h5+-;
24...ee8 25 xh6!+-.
24...hxg5? 25 h7+ f7 26 xg5+
and wins.
25 e1 b6
If 25...f7!? 26 e5 (26 h4 e8)
26...xh5 27 xh5 e8 28 d2
50
the battle for the focal point e4.)
de7 29 d3 (29 xf5?! g6 30 f6 24 f1 xe4 25 fxe4 xe4 with
xe5 31 xe5 xe5 32 xg6+ f7 level material. After 26 f4 Black
33 xh6 g7) 29...xe1+ 30 xe1 can choose between 26...d3
g6 31 xh6 g7 32 d2 and Black (Svidler-Kamsky, Groningen 1995)
has a two pawn deficit. and 26...xf4 (Roos-Vitomskis,
26 e2 h7 corr 1996).
XIIIIIIIIY 21 d2 fe8 22 d1 xd1
9-+-+-tr-+0 23 exd1 f5 24 g5 e2 25
xf5!?
9+l+r+-zpk0 25 f3? 8e3! Anand-Kamsky,
9pwq-+-+-zp0 Sanghi Nagar; maybe 25 f3.
9+pvln+pvLQ0 25...f6!?
9-+-+-+-+0 25...f8 26 h3 g6 27 g4 ee8
9+LzP-+NzPR0 28 f3 Blatny.
26 f3! xf3 27 xf3 e4
9PzP-+RzP-zP0 Black has a temporary initiative but
9+-+-+-mK-0 it is not enough.
xiiiiiiiiy 28 c1
28 e1 xb2 29 a6 c5 30
26...b4 27 e5 d6 28 e7+-. dxc5 xc5 31 c6 e6 32 d2
27 h4!! a5?! Vitomskis.
27...d6 28 c2+-. 28...xf2 29 g5 e2 30 xe4
28 xh6!! xh6 8xe4 31 a8+ e8
28...gxh6 29 e6!! xf2+ (29...xe6 31...f7? 32 a7.
30 g5+) 30 f1 (30 h1?? xe6 32 xe8+ xe8 33 f2 f7 34
31 g5+ g8 32 xe6 e3++) f3 a8 35 f4
30...e3+ 31 e2 xf3+ 32 xf3+- White exchanges his bad Bishop
(or 32 xf3!?). and reaches a rook ending with a
29 g5! a4 30 e6 10 sound extra pawn.
XIIIIIIIIY
Game 46
9r+-+-+-+0
Nevio Joo (Brazil) -
Antonio Jose Tavares (Brazil) 9+-vl-+kzpp0
12th Latin-American Corr Zonal 9-+p+-+-+0
Final 19992001 9+p+-+-+-0
Notes based on those in Ajedrez 9-+-zP-vL-+0
Postal Americano
9+-zP-+KzP-0
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 9-zP-+-+-zP0
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 9+-+R+-+-0
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4 xiiiiiiiiy
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 35...xf4 36 xf4 a2 37 d2
e6 18 a4 h5 19 axb5 axb5 e6 38 e2+ d6
20 e4 38...d5!?.
XIIIIIIIIY 39 e4 a1 40 b4 c1 41 e3
c2 42 h4 f2 43 h5 h2 44 g4
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0 f2 45 f3 g2 46 f4 d5 47
g5! e6
9-+pvlr+-+0 47...e4? 48 f7! h6+ 49 h4 h2+
9+p+n+-+q0 50 g3 c2 51 xg7+-.
9-+-zPN+l+0 48 e3+ d7 49 e1
49 h3!?.
9+LzPQvL-zP-0
9-zP-+-zP-zP0 49...a2 50 f1! e7 51 f5
a7 52 d5! d6?! 53 dxc6 xc6
9tR-+-tR-mK-0 54 c5+ b6 55 c8! d7 56
xiiiiiiiiy h8 d5+ 57 f4 h6 58 g8
d7 59 f5 10.
This move was popular in the 1990s
as an attempt to refute the Spassky Game 47
Variation. Computer Hiarcs
20...c7?! Olgerts Bergmanis
20...f5 seems to be necessary, Victoria Open, Australia 1999
but also sufficient. The main line Notes by Vitomskis, Latvain
goes 21 d2 xe4! 22 xe4 f6 Correspondence Chess & Latvian
23 f3 g6 (Everything piles on to Gambit magazine
51
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
e1 d6 13 d3 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e4 f6 16 h4 f5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-sn-+0
9+p+-+q+-0
9-+-+-+-tR0
9+LzPP+-zP-0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tRNvLQ+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
17 f4
If 17 d4 g6!? (17...e8!?) with the
idea 18...f5 or 18...g4. Then if 18
c2 f5 (18...g4 19 xg6 xd1
20 d3) 19 xf5 xf5 20 e3
ae8 (20...fe8!? 21 d2 g5 22 g4
d5 23 h3; 20...g5 21 g4 d5
22 h3) 21 d2 d5 22 f1!
(Almasi-Lukacs, Austrian league
1996) 22...g6! 23 h5 (23 g4
e6! f5-f4) 23...xh5 24 xh5
f5= Almasi, Informator 66.
17...g5
17...e7 followed by 18...g6 after
either 18 c2 or 18 d4, also seems
just about viable for Black. See the
Vitomskis survey on the 15...f6
line and our notes to Hulley-
Allenby.
18 xd6 gxh4 19 xf8 xf8
19...hxg3 20 hxg3 xf8 21 d2
xd3 22 f3 ECO.
20 d2
Theory gives 20 e2 b7 21 d2
c5 22 f3 hxg3 23 hxg3 g5 24 f2
d8 25 c2 h5 26 f1 Anand-
Cooper, British Ch, Blackpool
1988; but now comes 26...f4!!
Vitomskis! (See the survey for
details.)
20...g4
20...c5 21 h6+ (21 d4 b7)
21...g8 22 xh4 b7 23 d2;
20...hxg3 21 fxg3 g6 22 a3 f5
23 f1.
21 d4 xh2!
A very bold step, but later the
senior champion of Victoria (born
Riga 1924) overlooks a fine chance
to decide the game in his favour
and loses instead.
Not 21...hxg3 22 fxg3 e6 23
a3.
22 xh2 hxg3+ 23 g1!?
White could have settled for a
draw but maybe the computer was
programmed to avoid that.
23 fxg3 h3+ 24 g1 xg3+ 25
g2 e1+ with perpetual check.
23...gxf2+ 24 xf2 g5+ 25
h1 h6+ 26 g2 h3+?
He should have played 26...a7!
27 d2 (27 d5 e7 28 d6 xd6
29 a3 g6+ and wins) 27...f6 28
f3 e7 29 e4 g4+ and Black
wins.
27 g1 f5
27...a7 28 d2 e7 29 f4+-.
28 d2 e8 29 f1 g4+ 30
g2 xg2+ 31 xg2 10
Game 48
Marcio Barbosa de Oliveira
(Brazil)
Umberto Maffei (Italy)
Coppa Latina Europe-America 4
team tournament, Email 2000
Notes by Martin Bennedik.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7 with most sensible piece moves by
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 ae8 17 d2 to play his pawn to c4. As the game
e6 18 a4 f5? 19 axb5!
For an introduction to this line refer
to the corresponding survey about
Quigleys bust.
19...f4 20 xf4! xf4 21 xe6
xe6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9p+p+l+-+0
9+P+n+-+-0
9-+-zP-vl-+0
9+LzPQ+-zPq0
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0
9tR-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
22 bxa6
For 22 bxc6 refer to the survey.
22...xd2 23 xd2
If 23 a7 then:
a) 23...a8 was considered by
Quigley in his article. He also
showed that it is insufficient: 24
xd2 f7 25 c4 (25 e2 a6
also looks strong) 25...f6 26 a3
with the idea of d1 to defend
against ...g4 and then activate
the Queen.
b) 23...c7 24 xe6+ xe6 25
xd2 a8 and now:
b1) 26 c4!? (an idea of Stefan
Bcker) 26...xc4 27 f4 f7
(27...a6 28 e5 h6 29 e7 b5
30 d5!+- Bcker) 28 d6 f8 29 f4
e8 Bennedik.
b2) 26 f4 c8 27 e4 b5 28 e7
The Total Marshall
f5 29 a6 (Quigley in a follow up
to his article.) 29...xa7 30 xa7
xa7 31 xa7 b1+ (Bcker
gives this as drawish, in personal
correspondence.) 32 g2 e4+
33 f1 b1+ 34 e2 xb2+ 35
f3 xc3+ 36 g2. However,
when I showed this position to
GM Peter Leko, he said that White
still has real winning chances in this
endgame.
Anyway, after some difficulties in
realizing the advantage were found
with 23 a7, attention turned toward
23 xd2.
23...c7
Black probably wants to transpose
to the lines with 23 a7. For other
Black moves, see the supplementary
games in our database.
24 c2!
A very good move by Oliveira. Now
Black, White gains a tempo over the
lines with 23 a7. White will then
have his queen on c2 and be able
shows, this is probably enough to
win the game.
24 xe6+ xe6 25 a7 transposes
to 23 a7.
24...a8
Black could try not to lose a tempo
with 24...h5!?. Then if 25 xe6+
xe6 26 a7 a8 27 c4 d6 28
e4 b4 29 b3 c3 30 a4 xb3
31 xc6 c2. (With the pawn on
h5, this position is much harder to
win for White, most of all because
there is no threat of mate to the
Black king.)
However, White can play another
strong move here: 25 e1! (xe6)
25...xb3 26 xb3+ h8 27 b7
f5 28 f1 c8 29 xc6 xa6 30
xc8 xc8 31 a1.
25 a7 h6 26 xe6+ xe6 27
c4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-+k+0
9zP-sn-+-zpp0
9-+p+q+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-zPQ+-zP-zP0
9tR-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now this pawn is defended by the
c2. I think Black finds the best
defence.
27...d6 28 e4
28 b3 xd4 29 b8+ d8 30
The Total Marshall
xd8+ xd8 31 b4 f7 32 b5
cxb5 33 cxb5 a8 is probably not
enough.
28...b4 29 b3
29 xc6 xb2.
29...c3
29...xb3 30 b1.
30 a4 xb3 31 xc6 c2
Hoping for...f8 to get
counterplay.
32 a1 b2 33 e1 f8
33...xa7 34 e8+ would lead to
a mate.
33...b4!? 34 e2 (34 a1 b2=)
34...xa7 might be tried as there
is no mate after 35 e8+ xe8 36
xe8+ f8. So White can play 35
d5 h6 (Black hopes for ...a1+
followed by ...b1, for if 35...a1+
36 g2 b1 37 e8+) 36 g2 b1
37 e7 a1 38 xc7 f1+ 39 f3
d1+ 40 f4 (40 e4 e2+ 41
f4 xf2+ 42 g4 h5+ draws)
40...d4+ 41 f5 xf2+ 42 f4
c2+ 43 e4 f1+ 44 g4 d1+
45 h4 and White seems to win.
34 f1 a8 35 c5 e2 36 d5
d3 37 d6 e8 38 d5+ xd5
39 cxd5 d8 40 b1 f8 41 b7
h5 42 g2 g6 43 b8 e8 44 h4
d7 45 f3 10
This was a very good game by
White. This line gives White most
excellent winning chances and
the assessment has far-reaching
consequences for the evaluation
of the moves 18 a4 (and 18 f1).
Game 49
Herman-Josef Falke
(Germany) -
Tim Harding (Ireland)
ICCF World Cup 12 preliminaries,
2000. Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12 d4
d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15
e3 g4 16 d3 f5 17 f4 g5 18
f1 h5 19 d2 h6!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+pvl-+-zp0
9+p+n+pzpq0
9-+-zP-zPl+0
9+LzP-vL-zP-0
9PzP-sN-+-zP0
9tR-+-tRQmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
This game was a fascinating
test for the Slovenian Variation,
a little-known line that was
successful until recently. The line
was pioneered several years ago
by masters from Slovenia (a former
Yugoslav republic which is now an
independent state) but did not get
into theory books until now. In
our database you can find several
examples played by Slovenian
players and a few games from the
Internet.
Black would like White to capture
on g5 so that he can get mobile
pawns again; he would also like
White to waste a lot of time with
the queen chasing pawns around
d5/c6/a6. Apart from protecting
f5, the move...h6 also opens up
the square h7 for a rook or the
king. The downside is that it is a
tempo not used for development
or threats.
19...ad8 is recommended in ECO
but has been little tried. 20 f2
(20 fxg5 (Buhnen-Fuegert, corr
1993) needs to be investigated.)
20...h8 21 xd5 cxd5 22 a4 h6 22...ad8 23 c6
23 axb5 axb5 24 b3 c8 25 c4 bxc4
26 bxc4 dxc4 27 d5 c3 28 f1 c2 F.Gostisa, corr 1973, which ended
Safvat-Pomar, Munich 1958.
For the usual 19...ae8 see Bravo
Castillero-Jaime Chavez above.
20 g2
20 xd5+ cxd5 21 g2 h7!
was the move order in Smoljan-
Gostisa. For 20 f2 see my notes
to HenryJaimes-Monster Mash in
the database. These games were
good for Black.
20 a4! is close to being a refutation
of the variation, however, and I
lost in the later game Burmester-
Harding without really finding any
answer to this move. However,
Black later got a draw in Riva-
Bohak, which is the game Black
needs to study first if he wants to
revive this variation. Defending the
honour of the Slovenian Variation,
Bohak found 20...bxa4 21 xa4!
h7 and now the critical line seems
to be 22 xd5 cxd5 23 a5.
20...h7
Gostisas move. In an earlier
correspondence game I played
20...ad8!? because White offered
it as a conditional. After 21 xd5+
cxd5 22 xd5+ (22 a4!?) 22...h7
we reached the same position as in
Falke-Harding (22...h8 also might
be worth examining.).
21 xd5
21 a4!? gxf4!? is untested.
21...cxd5 22 xd5
After 22 f2?! White lost badly in
Ciganovic-Radoicic, corr 1980.
52
Maybe 22 a4 is playable: 22...gxf4
23 xf4 (23 gxf4) 23...xf4 but this
seems good for Black too e.g. 24
xd5 (24 gxf4 g8) 24...ad8.
Probably not good is 22 fxg5,
a move which seems to assist
Black: 22...hxg5 23 xd5 ad8
and now:
a) 24 g2 f4! 25 f2 f3 26 f1
h8! and Black won in Z.Kindjic-
L.Gostisa, corr 1989. Previously,
26...f6 was seen in Lenarcic-
Gradisnic, corr 1975; note the pretty
queen sacrifice to force the draw in
this game.
b) 24 b7+ is more critical:
b1) 24...h8 loses tempo: 25 d5
f7 (25...f7 26 xa6 f4 27 d4+
g8 28 e4) 26 xf7 xf7 27 xg5
and White eventually won in an ICC
game, KillerGrob v. K6-Krafty.
b2) 24...f7! is better: 25 g2 (25
xa6 f4 transposes to Kaniak-
Harding, below.) 25...f4 26 f2
f3 and Black went on to win in
A.Mano-E.Efendiyev, IECG 1999.
23 g2 transposes to N.Smoljan-
23...gxf4 24 xf4 xf4 25 gxf4 g8
26 b7+ h8 27 h1 g7 28 c6
dg8 29 e6 h7 30 ae1 h3! 31
e7 h4! 01.
If instead 23 b7+ f7 24 c6
(24 b6 see 23 Qc6 Rf7 24 Qb6)
24...gxf4 White is in trouble on the
g-file.
23...f7
This is my move. Janko Bohak sent
me a game Alvebring-Efendiyev
which went instead 23...gxf4?! (I
think more subtlety is needed.)
24 xf4! (To open the e-file for
his Rook.) 24...xf4 25 gxf4 (Also
critical is 25 e7+ h8 26 gxf4)
25...f7 (25...g8?? 26 e7+) 26
e3 g8 and Black managed to
draw in Alvebring-Efendiyev but
I was doubtful this line should this
be good enough.
24 fxg5
I analysed also:
a) 24 xa6?! gxf4 25 xf4 (25 gxf4
g7 or 25 f2 fxg3 26 xg3 f4)
25...xf4 26 b3 (26 gxf4 g8)
26...c7 threat...f4.
b) 24 b6 c7 (24...gxf4 25 xd8
fxg3 26 h4) 25 e6 (25 xa6 gxf4
see 24 xa6 line.) 25...gxf4 26
xf4 xf4 27 gxf4 g7 28 f1
f3+! (28...e8 29 xe8 e2+
30 g3 xe8 31 f2 b8 32 xe2)
29 g3 h3.
24...hxg5
Black gets the open h-file which
is one of the main ideas of the
53
Slovenian Variation. This position
can possibly also arise via an earlier
fxg5.
25 f2!N
In an earlier game I had 25 xa6
f4 when White probably has no
defence.
a)26 e4 f3 (26...fxg3 27 xg5+!?)
27 xd6 ()27 c6 g7 28 d5 h3
or 28...fxg3) 29 d4+ g8 30 e2
fxg3) 27...fxg3.
b) 26 f1 fxe3 27 e4 e7 28
xf7+ xf7 29 xb5.
c) 26 f2 fxg3 0-1 Kaniak-Harding,
email 1999. White resigned by
silence but he was lost anyway: 27
xg3 (27 hxg3 xf2+) 27...xg3
28 hxg3 f3! (28...f2 29 e7+
h8=) 29 xf3 xf3+ 30 e6
xg3+ 31 h1 h4+ 32 g1 f2+ Consistent since his cant get
33 h1 h8.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-+0
9+-+-+r+k0
9p+Qvl-+-+0
9+p+-+pzpq0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9PzP-sN-vL-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
For a time I wondered if 25 f2
was the refutation of Blacks attack.
However, I managed to find a way
to keep the initiative and put White
under a lot of pressure.
25...f4
25...f6 was the alternative but
neither move seemed 100%
correct and I thought...f4 set more
traps. A possible continuation is 26
g2 f4 27 e4 (27 gxf4) 27...h6
28 xd6 f3 29 h1 dxd6 with
compensation because of Whites
awful position.
26 e4?!
As I hoped and expected.
26 e5? xe5 27 e4 g7 28 a4
f5 29 axb5 axb5 30 e1 e8.
26 xa6? loses as in Kaniak-
Harding above.
26 f1!? is playable but probably
Black holds the balance? 26...g7
27 e1 (27 d5) 27...h8 (27...f6
28 h1) 28 h4 b8 29 d5 gxh4
30 xh5 xh5=.
26 a4 is probably Whites best
winning try. Does Black enough
play? I am not sure what the best
move is now, e.g. 26...f3 (26...g7!?
may be best; if 26...f6 27 e4+
h8 28 axb5) 27 e3 g7 28 axb5
h8 29 h4 gxh4 30 xd6 hxg3 31
e5+ .
26...e7!
26...f3? 27 xg5+.
27 xa6
27 a4 would be met by kingside
attack.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-+0
9+-+-vlr+k0
9Q+-+-+-+0
9+p+-+-zpq0
9-+-zPNzpl+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-vL-zP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
31...g6
back as his is in the way. Now
Black is three pawns in arrears,
with a big decision to make.
27...h8!
After a lot of analysis. One idea
is...g7 or...g8. Black even wins
in some lines but in the main line
a drawn ending arose.
27...b4!? also comes into
consideration but I rejected
27...f3?! because of 28 e6 h8 29
g4! (or maybe 29 h4) and 27...d7?!
because of 28 b7 f3 29 d2 g4 30
h4 gxh3 31 e5.
28 xb5
The most greedy and most critical
move. Now Black can have a lot
of fun analyzing inferior defences
for White.
28 d5? should lose to 28...h3
(28...f3!?) but 28 d2 is about
equal after 28...h3.
28...f3!
28...g8?! 29 h4!.
29 gxf4
a) 29 h4? g4 30 d3 (30 d5 fxg3
31 xg3 gxh4) 30...g8 31 xg5
(31 d2 fxg3+) 31...xg5 32 g6+
(32 e8+ g7 33 xh8 xh8)
32...f8 33 d6+ g7 and Black
wins.
b) 29 xg5+ xg5 30 gxf4 g4+. him based on advancing the e-
c) 29 e3 g8 (or maybe 29...xe4
but not 29...fxe3? 30 xe3) 30 h4
g4.
d) 29 g4 xg4+ (29...h3 30 f1
xg4+).
29...g4+
White has two pieces to interpose:
one draws, one loses.
30 g3
If 30 g3 gxf4! when:
a) 31 h5+?! xh5 32 xh5 xh5
With queens off; Black has Bishop
plus initiative for 4 queenside
pawns.
The Total Marshall
b) 31 b3 hf8! seems right. Now
if 32 e6 we transpose to the next
line.
c) 31 c4 hf8! 32 e6! (32
d3+ h8) with two possibilities.
32...fxg3 33 xg3 is a messy
position where Black has Bishop
for 5 pawns; in fact 33...g5 34
e3 d5 may be winning for Black
after 35 e5 h6!. Black also can
consider 32...h4 33 e4 g7 34
ae1 f6+.
30...gxf4 31 f2
White finds the critical line.
Not 31 d2? fxg3. If 31 c4 g7
32 f2 g6 33 d3 xd3 34 xd3
fxg3 and, like the game, Black is not
worse although he has no pawns.
The bishops give him chances.
31...fxg3 32 xg4 and 32 d3+
were also examined in detail but
this seemed unreliable.
32 d3 xd3
32...fxg3 is similar.
33 xd3 fxg3 34 hxg3 d6
34...g7 draws at best after 35 e5
h1+ 36 f2 h2+.
35 e5
35 f2 g7 36 f4 d5 37 e3
xf4+ 38 gxf4 e7+ 39 d3 h3+
is slightly better for Black but
probably drawn.
35 f4 was the move I originally
gave most attention to (35...xf4=
as others seemed risky).
35...xe5 36 dxe5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-tr0
9+-+-+r+k0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-zP-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zP-+lzP-0
9PzP-+-+-+0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
I suspect this is a winning try by
pawn. Computers prefer Whites
five pawns to Blacks bishop at
this stage. 36 xe5 was maybe
expected but I think Black has a
safe draw then. 36...g7 (36...g6!?
is more complex) 37 ae1 h1+ 38
f2 b7+ 39 e2 and Black wins
the b-pawn after a check, which
removes most of the danger from
the white pawns.
36...f5!
This is soundest as later his e5-e6
does not attack the Rook. Black
may be able to pick up the e-pawn
The Total Marshall
through threats to his King. Anyway
this seems to ensure a safe draw
and White must be a bit careful
now. Instead 36...g6 gives Black
no winning chances as the white
King breaks out. Then Black will
struggle to stop all Whites pawns,
though it should be possible.
37 g4
If 37 f1 g6! while 37 f2! d1+!
will draw by repetition: 38 g2
f3+ 39 f2 d1+; 37 a4 g6 38
g4 f4 39 f2 d5+ 40 e3 e4+
41 d3 h3+ 42 d2 h2+ 43 d3
h3+=.
37 e6 g6 is complex but probably
better for Black who still has threats
to the white King and should be
able to win at least two of the
pawns soon. 38 f2 (38 e7 h1+
39 f2 d1+ 40 g2 xe1 41 xd1
e2+! 42 h3 f7) 38...d5+ 39
e3 xe6.
37...xg4 38 e3 f3 39
f2
39 f1?? g8+ 40 f2 (40 h2
h5#) 40...g2+.
If 39 xf3 xf3 Black should win,
and 39 e6 g8+ probably is also
good for Black.
39...g4+ 40 g1
White acquiesces in a draw. 40
e1? g6! could turn nasty for
him: 41 g3 h1+ 42 d2 xa1
43 xg4+ f7 when Black wins
another pawn to get 2 Rooks v
Rook + 3 pawns.
40...f3 . Great fun; fantastic
drawn game!
Game 50
Thorhallur B. Olafsson
(Iceland) -
Tim Harding (Ireland)
ICCF Officials 50th JT / IM-A,
Email 2001
Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4
a4 f6 5 00 e7 6 e1 b5 7
b3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5
10 xe5 xe5 11 xe5 c6 12
d4 d6 13 e1 h4 14 g3 h3
15 e3 g4
This was my last Marshall game
before finalising this e-book.
16 d3 ae8 17 d2 e6 18
a4 h5
This move, Spasskys second
thought in the 18 a4 variation, has
the reputation of being solid but
not very macho.
Instead of crude direct threats,
Black will work with subtle touches
to obtain sufficient positional
compensation and draw.
That is the official version but in
practice the truth may be somewhat
different. If White is unwilling to
tread the well-worn path to an
early draw, he must take some
risks and can very soon find himself
turning over his king...
19 axb5
Nunn wrote that there is no reason
for White to delay this capture, but
there is an alternative: 19 f1 h3
See Part 1 of the Vitomskis survey
of the Spassky Variation.
19...axb5 20 f1
This is an important decision point
for Black. There are two distinct
lines.
20...fe8
20...h3 is favoured by Nunn in
our book, and has usually been
preferred but I avoided it because
I thought Black may have a
problem in this line. (Later I found
Herbrechtsmeier-im which gets
around the problem.) The rook
move is probably less clear but
therefore it maybe gives more
winning chances.
21 xd5
21 g2 (Kobe-Roskar) should not
be good. I didnt give much thought
to Whites alternatives in the early
stages, just trusting I could research
and analyse whatever my opponent
came up with, but probably I would
have answered 21...e2!?.
21...xd5 22 g2
This move was scorned by Nunn
(1989) but is often played and is
not easy to refute.
22 h3 f5 23 g2 h5!? 24 xd5
cxd5 25 g2 d3 26 a5 (Better
is 26 b3 Vitomskis) 26...f5 27
f3 e4 28 g1 g6 29 a6 ee6
30 h4 e7! was fine for Black in
Wallwork-C.Chandler, corr 1989.
22 c4 (the only move in ECO) is
not dangerous to Black:. 22...f5
(22...bxc4 is also possible - Nunn)
23 cxb5 b4! 24 c4 and now both a8!.
24...xb5 and 24...xd2= (Nunn)
are fine.
22...h5 23 a6?!
When he played this, I decided
Olafsson must be aiming for the
apparent 24 f4 improvement on
the Readers of Prizyv v Estrin
game. I already began analysing
the various possibilities, especially
the 25...xf4 line. For Whites
alternatives, see the notes to the
Estrin game.
23...f5
This move seems obvious; and
Blacks attack is good enough for
at least a draw. The alternative
23...h3 (see Dahne-Rut) scored
54
0.5/2 in my database, whereas this
move never lost and often won.
24 d5
For alternatives, see the notes to
the Estrin game.
24...h6 25 f4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9+-+-+-zpp0
9R+pvl-+-tr0
9+p+P+p+q0
9-+-+-zPl+0
9+-zP-vL-zP-0
9-zP-sN-+QzP0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Nobody ever played this before,
to my knowledge, nor was the
refutation previously published
anywhere. Indeed, so far as I can
discover, the position was not
discussed. In the famous Readers
of Prizyv v. Estrin game, above,
White played 25 f3 instead. I had to
work out what Estrin intended now
(since he didnt say in his notes).
25...xf4!?
I think this must be what Estrin
wanted to keep secret. If he had
found a clear win, would he have
shown it? Here is a summary of
the possibilities I examined over
several days.
a) 25...g5?! 26 fxg5.
b) 25...h3 could lead to an
immediate repetition, or maybe
not even that?
c) 25...c5!? (idea...xf4) was
interesting, but White has at least
one good reply in 26 a7 (26 aa1;
26 f2?!).
d) 25...cxd5!? is very interesting but
not necessary: 26 xd5+ (26 a8!?)
26...h8 27 h4 (27 f1 f3 28 d2
h3 29 f2 b7) 27...xf4 28
e) 25...c5!? was the obvious
alternative but it is inconclusive:
26 f1 f3 (26...f8 27 d2 c5
repetition) and now:
e1) 27 d2 f8 28 xc6! (28 dxc6!
xc6 29 xc6 xc6 30 d5+
ee6=) 28...xc6 29 dxc6 xc6
30 d1! is about equal.
If instead 30 e2 Black is still a
pawn down but with attacking
chances.
e2) 27 f2 may be slightly better:
27...f8!? (27...xe3 and...xd5
recovers the pawn but not much
more?) 28 dxc6 xc6.
f) Finally, 25...xe3?! does not
work: 26 xe3 c5 27 a8+ f7
55 The Total Marshall

28 ae8 e.g. 28...h3 29 f3 See the notes in the database for draw.
g4 30 f2 (30 g2 repeats) detailed variations. Not 28...g4 29 e6 xe6 30 dxe6
30...cxd5 Black regains his pawn 27...g6 e8 31 d4 xg3+ 32 hxg3 a8
but eventually he must capture on XIIIIIIIIY 33 e2 g4 34 e1 and Black has
e3 for full material equality but a 9-+-+r+k+0 only a draw by repetition: 34...h3
positional minus. 35 e2 g4 etc.
26 gxf4 9+-+-+-zpp0 29 hxg3
a) 26 f2?? not possible here 9R+p+-+r+0 XIIIIIIIIY
because h2 hangs after 26...xe3 9+p+P+p+q0 9-+-+r+k+0
27 xe3 xe3. 9-+-+-zP-+0
b) 26 f1?! concedes a good game 9+-+-+-zpp0
9+-zP-vL-wQl0 9-+R+-+-+0
to Black but is the only other
playable move. 9-zP-sN-+-zP0 9+p+P+p+q0
After 26...f3 27 d2 xe3+ and 9+-+-tR-mK-0 9-+-+-zP-+0
...xd5 is again good for Black. Or xiiiiiiiiy 9+-zP-vL-zPl0
if here 27 f2 xe3 28 xe3 xd5
Black has won a pawn because if 29 28 xc6
9-zP-sN-+-+0
xe8+ xe8 30 xf5 then comes I am not sure if this is the right 9+-+-tR-mK-0
30...f6 with a winning attack for choice here; I kept changing my xiiiiiiiiy
Black. mind about it.
c) 26 xf4? xe1+ 27 f1 (27 f2 28 dxc6 is possibly his best try, to This is a critical position that can
e2+) 27...h3 28 a8+ f7 29 make his pawn as dangerous as arise by force from 25 f4. How
a7+ g6 30 e5 (30 f2? d1) possible? 28...xg3+ might then be well does the queen fight against
30...xe5+. premature? (28...b4!? and 28...h6!? assorted material? Black has some
d) 26 f2?! xe3+ (26...h3) 27 are possible.) 29 hxg3 xe3 chances in the main line but at this
xe3 xe3 28 xe3 might be tried (29...g5!? may be better?) 30 a8+ stage I thought a draw seemed
in a pinch, e.g. 28...e8+!? (One (30 xe3 d1+ 31 f2 xd2+ 32 probable. Several moves were
of several possibilities) 29 f2 (29 e2 d8 33 e5 h5 34 e2 g4+ examined here.
d3 d6) 29...e2+ 30 g1 e3+ 35 e3 d1+) 30...f7 31 xe3 29...f7!
31 f2 xf2+ 32 xf2 xh2+ 33 d1+ 32 f2 xd2+ 33 e2 d5 I decided on this after many days
e3 cxd5 and Black is at least one 34 a7+ f6 (34...g6!? 35 c7 c6) analysis. It seemed to give more
pawn up in an endgame. 35 c7 c6!. winning chances than alternatives
26...h3! Not, however, 35...g2+?! 36 e1 by keeping my Rook and/or
26...g6 seems worthless: 27 xc6 xg3+ 37 d1 d3+ 38 c1 c4 eliminating his advanced pawn
(27 f1) 27...h3 28 xg6 xg2 29 39 d2! and I dont see how Black At first I thought 29...g5 30 e6
xg2 when White has far too much can win. In fact he has to be careful (30 f1?? f3) 30...xe6 (30...d8;
for the Queen. Most of the rest of not to lose. 30...h6) 31 dxe6 e8 looked like
the game revolves around working 28...xg3+ a possible way to make progress,
out when the Queen is better, or The result of the game now albeit dangerous. Eventually I
only drawing, or actually worse. depends on the black queens fight decided it was too risky.
The material count is not the only against Whites rook, minor piece 30 c5
factor; the activity of the other and pawns. This is one of only two reasonable
pieces, the strength of passed This sort of material balance arises moves from him, but maybe the
pawns and possible pawn breaks quite often in the Marshall and is inferior of the two?
all come into the equation. not always good for Black. 30 c4 bxc4 (30...g5!?) 31 c5 g5
27 g3! Here Blacks Bishop is potentially looked bad for White.
This must be best. bad and if it cannot contribute 30 d6!? may be necessary, and
a) 27 e2?? g6+ 28 h1 xe3! to a mate then he would like to I had not yet found a clear win
29 a8+ f7 30 a7+ f6 31 e7 exchange it for the white Knight. at the point when my opponent
(31 xe3 allows forced mate by Blacks chances are improved if played 30 c5 instead. On d6
31...g2+ 32 g1 f3+; or 31 xh5 his rook is not exchanged because the Rook prevents...g6 but on
xe1+ 32 f1 xf1#) 31...xe2 32 then it can be responsible for the other hand it may open other
xe2 xe7 33 xe7 g2+ 34 g1 dealing with Whites passed pawn possibilities
xd5+ and wins. and this leaves the queen free 30...g6!
b) 27 f2!? is the main alternative: to do damage without having to White may be lost now. Instead
27...g6+ 28 h1 g2+ 29 undertake defenisve duties. 30...g5!? 31 f3 gxf4 32 xf4 xe1+
xg2 xg2 30 xg2 g4+! Of course Black wants a kingside 33 xe1 a7 34 d3 a1+ 35 f2
(30...cxd5 allows consolidation pawn breakthrough if possible, f1+ 36 e3 g1+ probably only
by 31 f3) and now 31 f2 (the because as we shall see this draws.
critical reply) 31...h4+ 32 f1 simplifies the win. 31 f2
(32 e2? xe3+ 33 xe3 xe1+ 34 Black must watch for counterplay 31 h2 is perhaps no better. If 31
d3 cxd5+) 32...h3+ (32...g5!? based on Whites passed pawn and f2? xe1+ 32 xe1 e8 33 f2
also comes into consideration.) 33 he must also avoid positions later in (33 f2 g4) 33...e2.
f2 xh2+ 34 f1 with several the game where a rook and pawns 31...g4 32 f3
possible lines for Black here, he might set up a barricade against the If 32 d4?! xe1 33 xe1 e8+ 34
should win. black queen and obtain a positional e5 h5. Now White can pick off
The Total Marshall 56

XIIIIIIIIY 42...h3+ 43 g2+ f8 44 xf4

g7 but the Black will penetrate
the kingside: 35 c8+ f7 36 c7+
e8 37 c8+ d7 38 c7+ d8 39
xg7 (39 f1 h1 40 d6 e4+
mates.) 39...h1+ 40 f2 (40
f1? e4+ 41 f2 e2+ 42 g1
f3) 40...h2+ 41 e3 xg3+ 42
d4 f2+ 43 d3 e2+ 44 c2
e1 45 g8+ e7 46 g7+ e8 47
g8+ f7 48 g7+ f8+.
32...xf3 33 xf3 h5 34 f2
Maybe not best. 34 xb5 is
unplayable because of 34...h4
35 gxh4 (35 g1 xe3+ 36 xe3
e8+ and...xb5) 35...g4+ 36
f2 xh4+ 37 f1 (37 e2 xe3+
38 xe3 xe1+) 37...g3. or if 34
h1 xe3+ 35 xe3 xg3+.
Some other moves might survive
longer, e.g. 34 f2!? or 34 g2 h4
35 f2!? or 34 c6.
34...h4 35 gxh4
If 35 g1 h3 36 d4 (36 h1??
xe3) 36...d6 37 h1? (37 b4
a6) 37...e7.
35...g4 36 d6
Not 36 h1? xe3 37 xe3 g3+
38 e2 (38 d4 xf4+ (38...f2+
39 e5 xc5) 39 d3 e4+ 40 d2
g2+) 38...g2+.
36...xh4+ 37 f1 h1+ 38
f2 h2+ 39 f1
39 f3? is hopeless because 39...g5!
threatens mate in one!.
39...d8
39...h3+ does not give a clear win:
40 f2 d8 41 d5 h2+ 42 f3
xb2 43 d3 c2 44 ed1 d7
45 1d2 and White pieces defend
each other and the strong d-pawn;
there may be a good continuation
here but it is far from clear.
40 d1
9-+-tr-+k+0
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+ptR-+p+-0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9+-zP-vL-+-0
9-zP-+-+-wq0
9+-+R+K+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
If 40 d7 xd7 or 40 xb5 xd6
Black should win I think. Once
the d-pawn goes, Black has less
counterplay to worry about.
40...g5!
This is an important break for Black,
creating a passed pawn in most
lines. It works because if 41 fxg5??
f4!, so I felt that having achieved
...g5 I was probably winning.
40...h1+ will only draw: 41 e2
g2+ 42 e1 f3 43 e5 h1+ 44 conditionals in email chess are, in
e2 g2+ 45 e1. Also 40...xb2 a way, an invitation to prolong a
is risky because of 41 d7.
41 e5?!
Whites will to resist seems to
have weakened over the last few
moves.
41 d7 gxf4 42 g1 is maybe the
trickiest line to refute? Again there
are many detailed variations in the
database and you can try to analyse
it for yourself.
41...gxf4!
This is clearer than giving queen
checks. There is no reason not to
capture.
41...g4? 42 d7=.
42 d2
42 g1 h3+.
42...h1+
xd6 also wins. The fall of this
pawn virtually always means defeat
for White.
43 g1
43 e2? f3+ 44 f2 (44 d3 b1+
(44...xd6+)) 44...g2+ 45 e1
g3+ and Qxe5; 43 f2? fxe3+
(43...h4+).
43...h3+ 44 e1
Again I thought this an inferior
option for White; maybe he wanted
to get the game over.
44 e2 g4+ 45 f1 f3 and; 44
g2+ f8 (threat ...f3) are hopeless
in the long run.
44...h4+ 0-1.
White resigned. As before in
correspondence chess, I have
found opponents are more likely
to resign if you DONT send a
conditional. I needed more time to
work out all the details and anyway
lost game.
The main line would be 45 e2
g4+ 46 f1 46...f3 47 d4
h3+ 48 e1 (48 g1 xd6 or
48 f2 g2+ 49 e1 h1+ 50 f2
xd6 now he cannot play h2)
48...xd6 (or 48...h1+ 49 f2
xd6).
It was very sporting of the vetrean
Icelandic correspondence player
Mr Olafsson to allow the Marshall
Attack when he knew I was writing
a book about it, and to play quickly
so that the game was finished in
good time to be included!
After Whites 23rd move in this line,
Black has nothing to fear. It is only
a question of whether he will win
or draw.

Chess Mail website

The best website for CC since 1997: http://www.chessmail.com
Information about CC events and players

Monthly book and chess software reviews by John Elburg

Games to play though online Links to all the important chess sites

More good things to come from us in future!

57 The Total Marshall

Index of Annotated Games

No. White Black Place Year Marshall Variation
1 Capablanca,J.R. Marshall, F.J. New York 1918 11...Nf6
2 Battell, J. Marshall, F.J. New York 1937 11...c6 12 Bxd5 cd 13 Qf3
3 Dulanto, A. Alexander, C. Buenos Aires 1939 11...c6, 15 Bxd5, 16 Qf3
4 Wolfers, A. Armati, R.E. Australia corr 1942 11...c6, 12 Bxd5, 14 Rg5
5 Goldberg Keres, Paul Tallinn 1944 15 Bxd5 (to Classical Pawn Push)
6 Christoffel, M. Steiner, H. Hastings 1945 15 Qd3 (18 Qf1 Qh5 19 a4 Bh3)
7 Yanofsky, Abe Lasker, Edward USA ch 1947 12 Bxd5 Kevitz Variation
8 Chomsky, A Abelmann, E.L. USSR corr 1955 11...c6 12 Qf1
9 Fink, L.A. Kantorovich, B. USSR corr 1955 11...Nf6
10 Sakhalkar, S. Barczay, L. corr 1960 12 Bxd5, 16 Qf3
11 Vasiukov, E. Tolush, A. Moscow 1961 9...e4 10 dc ef 11 d4
12 Dragunov, V.N. Konstantinopolsky USSR Corr Ch 1963 17...Re6 Old Main Line, 21...Rfe8
13 Novopashin, A. Spassky, B. USSR ch 1963 17...Re6 18 a4 bxa4
14 Unzicker, W. Pfleger, H. Germany 1963 12 Bxd5 (to Classical Pawn Push)
15 Pilnik, H. Geller, E. Santiago 1965 17...Re6 18 Bxd5 cxd5 19 Qf1
16 Parma, B. Spassky, B. Yugoslavia 1965 17...Re6 18 a4 bxa4
17 Spassky, B. Geller, E. Riga m-2 1965 11...c6, 16...Nxe3
18 Tal, M. Spassky, B. Tbilisi, m-1 1965 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.

19 Tal, M. Spassky, B. Tbilisi, m-5 1965 12 Bxd5 Kevitz Variation

20 Gurvich, A. Grzeskowiak, F. EU Corr Ch 1966 17...Re6 18 Qf1 Qh5 19 a4 f5
21 Fischer, R.J. Spassky, B. Santa Monica 1966 11...c6 12 g3
22 Mueller, G Racoce, X. corr 1972 17...Re6 18 Bxd5 cd 19 a4 f5
23 Melnikov Lukyanchenko, A USSR corr 1975 9...e4 10 dc ef 11 d4
24 Tal, M. Geller, E. USSR ch 1975 Old Main Line, 21...g5
25 Riszt, F Kti, B. corr 1982 Pawn Push 17 f4 g5 with ...Kh8
26 Readers of Prizyv Estrin, Ya.B. USSR corr 1982 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.
27 Braga, F. Geller, E Amsterdam 1986 11...c6 12 g3
28 Lehikoinen, F. Sarink, H.B. cor 1986 12 Bxd5, 16 Qf3
29 Mithrakanth, P. Geller, E. New Delhi 1987 11...c6 12 d4 Bd6 13 Re2
30 Herbrechtsmeier im, T corr 1988 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.
31 Sax, G. Nunn, J. Brussels 1988 11...c6 12 d4 Bd6 13 Re2
32 Halamus, H. Tsvetkov, A.A. corr 1988 17...Re6 18 a4 f5 19 Qf1 Qh5
33 Grtig, L. Danek, L. corr 1988 Pawn Push 17...Kh8
34 McKenna, J.F. Chandler, C.R. corr 1989 17...Re6 18 a4 f5 19 Qf1 Qh5 20 ab
35 Rittner, H.R. Sarink, H.B. corr 1990 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.
36 Kwolek. D. Olszewski, W. Poland corr 1990 Classical Pawn Push
37 Anand, V. Nunn, J. Wijk aan Zee 1990 12 Bxd5 Kevitz Variation
38 Bravo, J. Jaime, A. Cuba corr 1991 Classical Pawn Push
39 Anand, V. Short, N. Amsterdam 1993 11...Bb7
40 Milvydas, V. Muravyev, S.K. corr 1994 17...Re6 Old Main Line, 21...Kh8
41 Anand, V. Kamsky, G. Sanghi Nagar 1994 11...c6, 15...Re8
42 Ivanchuk, V. Short, N. Riga 1995 17...Re6 18 a4 bxa4
43 Timmerman, G. Vitomskis, J. World Corr Ch 1996 11...c6 12 d4, 15 Re4
44 Kilgour, D.A. Vitomskis, J. corr 1998 11...c6 12 Re1, 13 d3, 15 Re4
45 Leko, P. Adams, M. Dortmund 1999 11...c6 12 d4, 15 Re4
46 Joo, N. Tavares, A.J. corr 1999 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.
47 Hiarcs Bergmanis, O. Australia 1999 11...c6 12 Re1, 13 d3, 15 Re4
48 Oliveira, M.B.de Maffei, U. email 2000 17...Re6 18 a4 f5? 19 axb5!
49 Falke, H-J. Harding, T. corr 2000 Slovenian Pawn Push, 19...h6!?
50 Olafsson, .B. Harding, T. email 2001 17...Re6 18 a4 Qh5 Spassky Var.
The Total Marshall 58