Improve your results

ideas in this

eine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen "

The Sicilian Accelerated Dragon

Peter Heine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1998
© Peter Heine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen 1998

ISBN 0713479868

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

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

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior pennission
ofthe publisher.

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton

and printed in Great Britain by
Creative Print & Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
583 Fulham Road,
London SW6 5BY

A BATS FORD CHESS BOOK

General Manager: David Cummings
Advisors: Mark Dvoretsky, Raymond Keene OBE,
Daniel King, Jon Speelman, Chris Ward
Contents

Bibliography and Abbreviations 4

Preface 5
Introduction 7

Part One: Maroczy Bind

(I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 c4)
Maroczy Bind: 7 ...tDg4 System 10
2 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 37
3 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 54
4 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared
Bishops 74
5 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of
Dark-Squared Bishops 86
6 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... tDh6!? 115
7 Maroczy Bind: 6 tDb3 and 6 tDc2 120
H Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 132

Part Two: Classical

(I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 tDc3)
<) Classical with i.e2 187
10 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 "a5 200
II Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 239
12 Lines in which White Captures with tDxc6 263

Part Three: Odds and Ends

13 Semi-Accelerated Dragon 287
14 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 295
15 Guide to Transpositions 309

Index of Complete Games 316

Index of Variations 319
Bibliography

ECO Volume B (2nd and 3rd Editions)

Chess Informant 1-71
NIC Yearbook 1-45
Correspondence Chess Yearbook 1-14
Accelerated Dragons, lDonaldson and J.Silman (Cadogan Chess
1993 and 1998)
Sicilian Accelerated Dragon, D.Levy (Batsford 1975)
Beating The Sicilian 3, lNunn and lGallagher (Batsford 1995)
ICON: Sicilian Accelerated Dragon, J.Donaldson (ICE 1995)
Sizilianische Verteidigung: Drachen-System, E.Gufeld (Rudi
Schmaus 1985)
52 - 54 - STOP - Fernschach, F.Baumbach (Sportverlag 1990)
New In Chess Magazine - 1982 through 1998

Abbreviations

ch Championship
ct Candidates tournament
izt Interzonal tournament
zt Zonal tournament
01 Olympiad
corr Correspondence game
 Preface

The Accelerated Dragon had lived a life of semi-obscurity for many years,
when Bent Larsen revitalised the black side of the Maroczy Bind with his
impressive perfonnances against Karpov and Short in the 1987 SWIFf
tournament in Brussels. For a while this boosted the popularity of the en-
tire system before new ways were found for White, and slowly the system
faded away once again.
But in recent years, continued use by players such as Tiviakov, Anand,
Altennan, Petursson, Andersson and Larsen has once again brought atten-
tion to Black's chances.
In this book we have tried to cover every variation thoroughly with
plenty of examples, new ideas and explanations to give you, the reader, a
close feel for the typical plans, tactics and strategies in each line. In some
chapters we have particularly emphasised the explanation of typical ideas
and plans, as these should help you if you meet an unfamiliar move or
move order and guide you to a safe position.
The history of the Accelerated Dragon is long - you will find examples
hy Lasker dating back to the last century - but nowadays the theory is de-
veloping so fast that it can be difficult to keep track of the newest moves in
each line. However, we still feel that this book should be a helpful com-
panion for several years to come and will hopefully bring you many points
whether you play the white or black side.
Although both of us have a deep attachment to the black side of this
system, we have tried to be as objective as possible. Sometimes it may still
shine through that we prefer Black, but this probably comes from having a
solid belief in Black's chances. However, this should not keep White play-
ers from trying out our suggestions and recommendations.
Several people have helped us throughout this project. Allan Holst, Ja-
cob Aagaard, Ove Ekebjerg, Stephanie Alexander, Bent Hansen and Uffe
V. Nielsen all deserve to be thanked for their contribution; without them
this project would have taken even longer to finish. Last, but not least, we
would like to thank our publishers, Batsford, for their patience and belief
in the book.
This book is the first either of us have written. It has been a lot of hard
work, involving countless hours at the chessboard and on the computer.
6 Preface

We hope that you, the reader, will find our work useful whether you are
interested in only one chapter or decide to work your way through the
whole book. Should you have any questions, new ideas or criticisms,
please address these to Batsford Chess, so that they can be forwarded to us.
Good luck!

Peter Heine Nielsen and Carsten Hansen

May 1998
Introduction
The starting position for the Sicil-
ian Accelerated Dragon occurs
after 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4
4 ttJxd4 g6
For years, White's most feared
weapon was the Maroczy Bind,
initiated by 5 c4, and many people
seemed to believe this set-up was
just 'good for. White'. As already
highlighted in the Preface, how-
ever, Black has many resources at
his disposal nowadays, and can
look forward to a dynamic yet solid
position. Nevertheless, the Ma-
roczy is still White's most popular
choice, and is covered in the first
eight chapters of the book.
Black can choose a range of set-
lipS against the Maroczy, each of
which has its own unique flavour.
The three mainstream options are:
a) The 7... ttJg4 system (Chapter
I), entered via the move-order
5 ... i.g7 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ttJg4.
b) The Classical Maroczy,
5... i.g7 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3, which
is given extensive coverage in
Chapters 3-5.
c) The Gurgenidze Variation
5... ttJf6 6 ttJc3 d6 followed by
...ttJxd4, analysed in Chapter 8.
In addition, two slightly more
offbeat configurations for Black are
the double fianchetto system
(Chapter 2) and the lines with an
early ... ttJh6 (Chapter 6). Mean-
while, White's attempts to avoid
the bulk of Maroczy theory by an
early ttJb3 or ttJc2 are covered in
Chapter 7.
Chapters 9-13 give full coverage
of the lines where White plays 5
ttJc3, avoiding the Maroczy. These
variations have an affinity with the
Dragon Sicilian, with the key dif-
ference that Black has delayed
moving his d-pawn, so can often
play ...d7-d5 in one go.
Early deviations by Black such
as the Semi-Accelerated Dragon
and the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
are covered in Chapters 13 and 14,
while Chapter 15 is a guide to the
transpositions from queen's pawn
8 Introduction

or flank openings. Good Knight vs. Bad Bishop

This is one of Black's strategic
Key Ideas in the Accelerated goals, and occurs when the dark-
Dragon squared bishops are exchanged and
In the Maroczy Bind in particular, Black succeeds in swapping his
there are several common themes, light-squared bishop for one of the
of which players of either side white knights. It happens very fre-
should be aware. By studying these Quently in the Classical Maroczy,
plans and strategies carefully, you the Gurgenidze variation and the
will gain a better understanding of main lines with 7 ..tc4 "as.
the opening, and you will then
know what to strive for and what to
strive to avoid.
If you have never played the
Accelerated Dragon before, or if
you want some help to find which
games are particular useful, here is
a brief summary of the key themes
and the games which best illustrate
them.

Black's Dark-Squared Strategy

This is a common idea throughout
the entire opening complex, but it
is most evident in the Classical
Maroczy and the Gurgenidze
variation. It also frequently occurs
in 7 ... lLlg4 system and in the main
lines with 7 iLc4 WaS.
See Games 22, 36, 38 and 53.
White's Space Advantage
The nightmare scenario for Black is
where he is simply crushed by
White's oncoming pieces and
pawns. This is a potential feature in
many lines of the Maroczy Bind.

Important games for the under-

standing of this theme are Games 6,
7,23 and 43.
 Introduction 9

Games 12, 16, 19,21,25,28 and weaken his queenside, something

77 illustrate how White can best White may be able to exploit.
make use of his space advantage.

Black's Backward e-pawn

With Black eager to reach a mid-
dlegame or endgame with good
knight vs. bad bishop, he often has
to exchange his light-squared
bishop for a white knight on d5.
After White recaptures with e4xd5,
the backward black e-pawn is
slightly vulnerable. On the positive
side, however, this pawn may also
be used to break the center open.

Please study Games 3, 41, 50

and 66 for a deeper understanding
on this common theme.

The ...f7-f5 Break

When Black has chosen a more
modest set-up on the queenside and
therefore does not have the ... b7-b5
break at hand, he can choose to
break with ...f7-f5. Black, however,
must bear in mind that in doing so,
he drastically weakens his kingside
and vital squares in the centre.
Please see Games 39, 77 and 81
for illustrations of this scenario.

The ••• b7-b5 Break

With White controlling more space
in the Maroczy Bind, Black often
has to use this break to open up the
queenside and gain counterplay. In
the Gurgenidze variation, this is
often Black's only way of releasing
himself from White's pressure.
From time to time, Black even sac-
rifices a pawn in the process, hop-
ing to prove sufficient compensa-
tion in the form of open files on the Games 11, 37, 44, 51, 57, 62
queenside. However, when break- show some of the pros and cons of
ing with ...b7-b5, Black can also this break.
1 Maroczy Bind: 7 ...ltJg4 System

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 S c4 ~g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3

lLlg4 8 'iVxg4lLlxd4 9 'iVdl

9...eS
10 lLlbS! 0-0 11 'iVd2
11...1Wh4 - Game 1
11.....e7 - Game 2
10.i.d3 0-011 0-0 d6
12 'ii'd2 - Game 3
12a4 -Game4
9...lLle6 10 l:c1
10...'ii'85 11 .i.e2 b6
12 "d5 - Game 5
12 'ii'd2 - Game 6
12 0-0 .i.b7 13 fJ gS
14 a3 - Game 7
14 lIf2 - Game 8
ll.i.d3 b6
120-0 - Game 9
12 "d2 - Game 10
1O... b6 -Game 11
1O... d6 -Game 12
10 'ii'd2 -Game 13

This system is often known as the pov-Larsen and Short-Larsen from

Exchange variation or the Simagin
variation, after the Soviet OM
Vladimir Simagin who popularised
it in the early fifties. From the mid-
sixties until 1987 the entire system
was regarded with a certain degree
of suspicion, but the games Kar-
the SWIFT tournament in Brussels
1987 (both of which can be found
in this chapter) changed the general
opinion and made the variation
fashionable again.
The system is still often played,
but once again most people tend to

prefer White's chances, although
theoretically Black is certainly
doing fine.
It is almost impossible to gener-
alise about the entire 7 ... lDg4 sys-
tem, as the sub-variations are so
different: some are extremely com-
plicated, while others are based on
sound positional understanding.
We therefore recommend that the
reader study the different games to
get a better understanding of the
specifics of each variation.
We start with a classic encounter
from the early 1970s.
Game 1
Gufeld-Espig
Sukhumi 1972
(1 e4 e5 2 lDo tOe6 3 d4 exd4 4
tOxd4 g6 5 (4)
5 .t.g7
6 .t.e3 tOf6
7 ttJe3 ttJg4!?
For a long time this was consid-
ered dubious, but when Larsen
IIsed it to obtain an advantage
against Karpov in Brussels 1987, it
hecame popular again.
8 'ii'xg4
Maroczy Bind: 7... ttJg4 System 11
Occasionally 8 lDxc6 lDxe3 9
ttJxd8 ttJxdl 10 lDxdl (to avoid
... J..xc3+) 1O... ~xd8 is played, but
with the pair of bishops and no
counterpart to the dark-squared
bishop, Black is much better, as in
for example Villegas-Reti, Buenos
Aires 1924.
8 ttJxd4
8... .t.xd4 has been tried and is in
fact very logical, since it is a very
common theme in the Maroczy
Bind for Black to exchange dark-
squared bishops. The idea is to post
a knight on d4, protected by a pawn
on e5. Normally this gives Black
good play, but here White is ready
for a direct assault, and unless a
major improvement can be found
for Black, then 8... .t.xd4 must be
considered unplayable.
After 9 .t.xd4 lDxd4, 10 O-O-O!
is now possible (if 10 'ii'dl then
10... e5 is fine for Black), since
once the bishop on g7 has gone, the
queenside is a safe haven for the
white king. After 1O... e5, 11 'ii'g3
d6 12 f4 f6 White has tried 13 h4,
but the more convincing 13 f5! was
introduced in the game Mestel-
Karlsson, Las Palmas izt 1982. On
that occasion Black played
13 ...~, but he did not have much
to smile about after 14 lDb5!,
which gets rid of Black's only good
piece. After 14... ttJxb5 15 cxb5
'iVc7+ 16 ~bl J..d7, instead of 17
b3?!, Mestel gives 17 Itcl followed
by .t.c4+ and 'iVd3 as stronger, and
this does indeed look awful for
Black. However, Mestel still won
after the game continuation. In a
subsequent game, Black later tried
13... gxf5 (instead of 13 .. .'~n) and
survived after 14 'iVg7 :rs ISlDd5
Itn 16 'iVg8+ IU8 17 'iVxh7 'iVd7
12 Maroczy Bind: 7...lfJg4 System
(l7 ... ..id7 lost immediately to IS
':xd4! l:n? 19 ti'hS+ :f8 20
ti'h5+ 1-0 in Z.Almasi-Marosi,
Hungary 1992) 18 "g6+ <i1tdS 19
n
'ii'h6 .. 20 ..id3, when White
offered a draw in Samarin-
Lysenko, Briansk 19S4. But IS
'ii'h6!, as given by Silman and
Donaldson, wins after IS .....f7 19
':xd4 exd4 20 ..ie2 'ittdS 21 ..ih5
"gS 22 tLlf6, as neither 22 ... 'ii'hS
23 tLlh7! nor 22 .....xc4+ 23 'it?bl
offers Black any chance of sur-
vival. Black's last hope may be
Mestel's recommendation 13 ... 0-0,
but after 14 fxg6 it is difficult to
believe that Black's attack, in-
volving the moves 14... ..ie6 fol-
lowed by ... ':cS etc., should be as
dangerous as White's attack on the
kingside.
9 "dl
9 0-0-0 has been played on a few
occasions, but it looks very risky.
In Cherepkov-Gufeld, USSR 1961,
Black played 9 ... e5 and stood better
after 10 h4?! d5 11 "g3 dxe4 12
h5 ..if5. Much stronger is 10 "g3,
intending 10... 0-0 11 tLlb5, which
is much better for White.
It is much more logical to play
9 ...lDc6, opening the diagonal for
bishop on g7 and threatening both
...d7-d5 and .....ixc3 followed by
.....a5, ... d7-d6, ... ..ie6 and ...lDe5.
10 lDd5 is the only way to counter
both of these ideas, when after
1O... e6 White can return with 11
lDc3 since after 11.. ...ixc3 12 bxc3
"a5 13 'it?b2 White has ideas like
"f4-f6, and Black does not have
the standard attack with the pawn
already on e6. Therefore Black
should meet 11 lDc3 by 11.....a5
12 ..id2 0-0 13 'ittbl d5 with at-
tacking chances. Note also that 13
ti'h4 can be answered with
13 ...d5!?, as after 14 exd5 exd5
neither 15 tLlxd5 "xa2 nor 15 exd5
~d4 is scary for Black. In sum-
mary, the seemingly aggressive 9
0-0-0 actually offers more attack-
ing chances for Black than White.
After 9 "dl Black has to choose
between positional play with
9 ... tLle6 or 9...lDc6 or the more
tactical positions after 9 ... e5.
9 eS
At one time this move was very
popular, but since the main line
seems to give White a clearly better
game, interest has faded. Now and
then Black comes up with a new
idea, but so far none of these have
stood the test of time.
Apart from the standard 9 ...lDe6
(see Games 5-13) Black has also
tried 9 ...tLlc6 a few times. How-
ever, the knight is misplaced here,
and Black can do little to counter
White's quiet development with
"d2, ':cl, ..ie2, 0-0 and nfdl,
after which White will have strong
pressure. Black is as solid as al-
ways, but compared to the main
system, not only is the knight less
active on c6 than on c5 (after
... lDe6-c5) but it also takes away
the c6-square from the light-
squared bishop. Furthermore, Black
cannot prevent his opponent from
playing b2-b4 with ...a7-a5, since
tLld5 will exploit the weakening of
the b6-square. A good example is
Gavrikov-Pribyl, German Bundes-
..ie6 12 b3 0-0 13 :tcl "a5
liga 1993/94: 10 "d2 d6 11 ..ie2
':fcS 15 :fdl lDe5 16 h3 <i1tf8 17
140-0
f4lDc6 IS ..if3, when White had a
large space advantage and Black no
counterplay. White expanded with
f2-f4, which is normally impossible

due to Black's pressure against the
e4-pawn from a knight on cS
and/or a bishop bearing down on
the long light-squared diagonal.
10 lL\bS!
The most ambitious attempt to
refute the 9 ... eS line. Larsen once
claimed that the only reason why
10 .i.d3 is played so frequently is
that White players are afraid of the
complications after 10 lL\bS!, but
only because they are complicated,
not for any intrinsic reason. With
10 .i.d3 (Games 3 and 4) White
goes for a small but safe advantage,
whereas if he dares enter the com-
plications of 10 lL\bS! he should be
rewarded with a clear edge.
10 0-0
11 "d2!
Two other moves have often
been seen here:
a) The greedy 11 lL\xd4? is re-
futed tactically by l1...exd4 12
.i.xd4 "as+ 13 ~e2 l:te8 14 f3 dS
IS .i.xg7 l:txe4+ 16 ~f2 (16 fxe4
.i.g4+) 16 .. :ii'cS+ 17 ~g3 "e3!
(threatening ...l:tg4+) 18 h3 "f4+!
19 ~ ~xg7 20 "cl, and here for
some reason Aizenhstadt-Aronin,
USSR 1961, was agreed drawn, but
if Black plays 20 ..."f6 he keeps
Maroczy Bind: 7... lL\g4 System 13
the queens on and obtains a fantas-
tic attack after 21 cxdS .i.d7 fol-
lowed by ...:'cS.
Instead of 16 ~, 16 ~d3 was
played in Brunner-Ekstrom, Swit-
zerland 1990. After 16....:xc4
White found 17 ~e3!? which wins
an exchange, but after 17.....cS+
18 ~d2 ~xg7 19 .i.xc4 dxc4 Black
had more than sufficient compen-
sation. The white king cannot es-
cape and Black won in 28 moves.
b) 11 .i.e2 seems to be sufficient
to gain a slight pull, as for example
in Ivanchuk-Korchnoi, Monaco
(rapid) 1994: l1...lDxbS 12 cxbS
d6 13 0-0 .i.e6 14 "a4 "d7 IS
:lfdl :tfc8 16 :d2. It is not a lot
for White, but the d6-pawn is weak
and Ivanchuk managed to win this
particular game. 14... 'tWh4 instead
of 14.....d7 is possibly an im-
provement, since then ... d6-dS is a
threat and if IS g3 "e7, and Black
is then ready to play 16 ... fS with ,
counterplay.
Instead of 11...lL\xbS, 11...'ii'h4?!
seems logical, but this is exactly
what White is hoping for. In
Gaprindashvili-Servaty, Dortmund
1974, play continued 12 lL\xd4
exd4 13 .i.xd4 "xe4 14 .i.xg7
"xg2? IS "d4! "xhl 16 ~d2
"xa117 "f6! 1-0. 14.....xg2? was
clearly bad, but 14 ... ~xg7 IS 0-0 is
also depressing.
To summarise, 11 .i.e2 is solid
and contains a nice little trap, but it
should not bother Black too much.
11 "h4
11..."e7 is seen in the next
game. Kuzmin has suggested
.i.xd4 'tWh4 14 "e3 .i.h6 IS
':e8 16 .i.d3 fS wins for Black)
"f3
ll...d6 12 .i.d3 (12 lL\xd4 exd4 13
12 ....i.e6 with equality. However,
14 Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji::Jg4 System
after 12 tLlxd4 exd4 13 ~xd4 'iWh4
White simply plays 14 0-0-0 1i'xe4
15 ~xg5 ri;xg7 16 f3 with a safe
extra pawn.
12 ~d3
Vaganian must have feared an
improvement in the main line,
since he chose to diverge here with
12 tLld6 against Espig, German
Bundesliga 1990/91. After
12 ....e7 13 tLlxcs AfxcS 14 ~d3
a5?! 15 0-0 'iWb4 it seems as if
Black will reach an equal ending,
but after the surprising yet instruc-
tive 16 1i'c3! Black had to go back
to d6, since an exchange of queens
would have simply dropped the b7-
pawn. Still, White did not have a
lot here, although he later managed
to play f2-f4 under favourable cir-
cumstances and went on to win.
Instead of 14... a5?!, we recommend
14...tLle6 with the idea of ... ~f6-g5
to play for the dark squares, when
Black is doing fine.
12 d5
Black has to rely on tactics, oth-
erwise he will just be positionally
worse.
13 cxd5!
The only try for an advantage. In
reply to 13 exd5, Black has the
fantastic 13 ... ~h3! which guaran-
tees a draw. After 14 ~xd4 (140-0
~xg2) 14... exd4 15 gxh3 a6 16
tLla3, Espig played 16 ... :feS+
against Luther, German Bundesliga
1994/95, and won a spectacular
game: 17 ~dl ~h6 IS f4?! ~xf4
19 .g2 ':e3 20 ~c2 ~d6 21
tLlbl?! ':ae8 22 tiJd2 ':xd3 23
~xd3 :e3+ 24 ri;c2 d3 25 ~b3
':e2 26 .f3 ':xd2 27 l:thfl f5 28
1i'e3 b5 29 ':ac1 :e2 30 1i'xd3
.e7 31 :f3 bxc4+ 32 .xc4'iWb7+
33 "'a4 ':e4 0-1. However, it is
better to play 18 .c2, when we do
not see a convincing continuation
of the attack. Neishtadt recom-
mends 18 ...:e5 'with compensa-
tion', but White can defend with 19
f4!, as after 19 ....xf4 20 .g2 fol-
lowed by ~c2 or 19 ... :e3 20 .d2
followed by ~c2, we have not
found anything for Black, although
intuitively you feel that there must
be something. Also if 21 tLlbl?! is
replaced by 21 :ad 1, it is difficult
to believe that Black has sufficient
compensation.
So perhaps Black should go for
the forced draw given by Bole-
slavsky: 16 ... ~h6 17 .c2 :ae8+
18 ~dl! (18 ~e2 d3! 19 1i'xd3
l1e3 followed by ...l:tfe8 wins for
Black) 18 ....xh3 19 ~e2! (19 l:tfl
:e5 20 f4 :e3 and 19 ~e4 1i'h5 20
f3 f5 both win for Black) 19.. J:txe2
(else 1M3 will follow) 20 .xe2 d3
21 .e4 f5 22 .e6+:f7 and White
has to settle for the perpetual.
It is worse to play 13 tLlxd4 dxe4
and Black is already better, or 13
~g5 1i'g4 again with fine prospects
for Black.
13 tLlxb5
Here 13 ... ~h3 unfortunately
loses to 14 ~xd4, so Black has to

continue as in the game.
14 .i.xbS 'Wxe4
IS 0-0
After 15 f3 'Wh4+ 16 .i.f2 'Wf6
17 0-0 :d8 18 :fdl .i.f5, Black
easily held the draw in Schmidt-
Espig, German Bundesliga 1992/93
IS :d8
16 l:tfdl
Black has got his pawn back and
the d-pawn looks weak, unfortu-
nately he is not able to make use of
it tactically. Instead it turns out that
the d-pawn, in fact, is a strong
passed pawn and White is better.
White has also tried the direct 16
d6 with some success. After
16 ... .i.e6 17 :adl .i.f8 18 f3 'Wh4
19 .i.g5 he won the exchange in
Corral-Jimenez, 1967. Stronger is
16....i.d7 17 f3 'Wf5, when Black
seems to be okay, since the d6-
pawn is solidly blockaded and may
even be a weakness.
16 'WfS
Unfortunately 16 ....i.e6 runs into
17 f3!, since 17 .....xd5? 18 'We2
traps the queen in the middle of the
board. Also 17 ... 'Wh4? 18 .i.g5
'Wh5 19 .i.xd8 :xd8 20 'Wa5 1-0
Joksic-Wemer, Biel 1975, was not
much fun for Black either. Rela-
tively best is 17 ...'Wf5 18 .i.d3,
which 'only' wins an exchange, as
in Penrose-Lees, British ch 1965.
17 :acl .i.d7
18 .i.e2 e4
White's threat was 19 g4, after
which the black queen would be in
trouble. 18 ....i.c6 again runs into 19
.i.d3, when the endgame that arises
after 19 ... e4 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 .i.xe4
:xd2 22 .t.xf5 :xd 1+ 23 :xdl
gxf5 24 b3 is very bad for Black.
19 l:tc7 .i.c6
Necessary, since both 19....i.e6
Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji)g4 System 15
20 .i.c4 and 19 ... b6 20 .i.g5 .i.f621
.i.xf6 'Wxf6 22 d6 are really bad for
Black. The d-pawn is too strong.
20 . dxc6!
Forced, because 20 .i.c4 and 20
d6 are both answered by 20....i.e5
with good play.
20 l:txd2
21 :xd2 bxc6
22 .i.c4
This position has been consid-
ered clearly better for White ever
since this game, but Espig must
believe that it is possible to make a
draw, as he has repeated the line
recently.
22 .teS!
After 22 ...l:tf8 23 :xa7 White
keeps his dark-squared bishop, and
Black is lost.
23 :xt7
In Quist-Espig, Berlin 1993,
White did not believe the endgame
advantage was sufficient to win and
tried 23 :b7 instead, but after
23 ...:f8 24 :xa7 .tf4! 25 l:ta3
.i.xe3 26 :xa3 ~g7 27 :de2 :d8
28 .tb3 :d4 29 .tc2 'i'c5 30
.i.xe4?? (Black would of course
have played ...f7-f5 next, after
which he would be fine) 30... l:tdl+
31 :el 'Wxe3! 32 fxe3 lhel 33
16 Maroczy Bind: 7.. .li:Jg4 System
~ :at 34 a3 c5 35 .i.d5 ':'dl 36
e4 ltd2+ 0-1. It seems that after
24 ... .i.f4! Black has solved most of
his problems, and the game should
be drawn with normal play.
23 "xf7
24 .i.xt7+ <1;xf7
This ending is critical for the as-
sessment of 11..."ikh4. It certainly
looks bad for Black, with so many
weak pawns. But Espig believes
Black is holding on, and so far no-
body has proved him wrong in
practice.
25 ltd7+
After this Black seems to be
holding his own, so perhaps 25
':'c2!? is more critical. Black must
play 25 ...a5 26 b3 a4! (passive de-
fence is very dangerous, since if
White can consolidate then the
black pawns will become easy tar-
gets) 27 lhc6 axb3 28 axb3 :a3
29 b4 .i.c3 30 g4 .i.xb4 31 :c4
.i.e7 32 ':xe4. Black is a pawn
down, but should be able to draw
with careful play. 26 .i.cl!? may be
stronger, since Black will find it
problematic to find targets for his
counterplay and White simply
threatens to centralise with ~fl-e2
etc. Certainly Black is under a lot
of pressure, but whether White's
chances to win are superior to
Black's drawing chances is difficult
to say.
25 'iPe6
26 :'xh7
If 26 ':'xa7 Axa7 27 .i.xa7 .i.xb2
Black's centralised king guarantees
him the draw, e.g. 28 ~fl Iti>d5 29
'iPe2 c5 followed by ... .i.d4.
26 as!
Not 26....i.xb2 27 Axa7.
27 b3 a4 28 bxa4
28 b4 :d8 followed by ... ltdl-al
is too dangerous for White, and
both 28 g4 axb3 29 axb3 ltb8 and
28 :a7 axb3! 29 axb3 l:tb8 are
nothing to worry about for Black.
28...:xa4 29 :a7 ltb4 30 'iPn?
J.Q..iJ...keeps the extra pawn, al-
though Black still might save the
rook ending after 30... .i.d4.
30•••:bl+ 31 'it>e2 .i.c3!
This must be what White missed
when he played 30 'iWl? The threat
is ...Ael mate!
32f3
32 f4 ct>d5 is too risky.
32...ltb2 33 <1;0 exf3 34 gxf3
':'xh2 35 a4':'&2 IJz-IJz
It seems to us that after 11.. .1i'h4
Black has to defend some really
unpleasant endings, and although
he may succeed in making a draw,
it is certainly not much fun for him.
Game 2
Serper-5errnek
Tilburg 1994
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7
lLlc3 lLlg4 8 "xg4 lLlxd4 9 'i'dl eS
10 lLlbS 0-0 II "d2)
II 'i'e7

A move which has enjoyed
something of a renaissance lately.
12 0-0-0
White has two main alternatives:
a) 12 f3 was played in Yemelin-
Silman, Budapest 1994. Black re-
sponded sharply with 12 ...fS, but
after 13 ~d3 d6 14 ~gS ~f6 IS
~xf6 .xf6 16 llJxd4 exd4 17 0-0
all he had to show was weak
pawns. As usual 12 ... llJxbS 13 cxbS
d6 14 ~c4 is positionally suspect
for Black, so maybe 12 ...:ldS!?
should be given a try. The tactical
point is 13 llJxd4 exd4 14 i-xd4
dS! IS ~xg7 dxe4! 16 .c3 exf3+
17 ~f2 WcS+!, when Black gets a
perpetual check. Also 17 .eS
.xeS+ IS ~xeS ]:leS 19 0-0-0
lheS 20 ':dS ~g7 21 exf3 b6 22
f4? :el+ 23 ~d2 l:bl! is fine for
Black. Probably White should go
for 13llJc7, trying to prove that the
rook on dS is misplaced, but since
Black retains the knight on d4 he
has a playable position.
b) 12 ~e2 was played in Tal-
Pahtz, Halle 1974, when Black
reacted badly with 12 ...b6? 13
llJxd4 exd4 14 ~xd4 Wxe4 IS
~xg7 Wxg2? 16 Wd4! Wxhl 17
'iPd2 Wxh2 IS ~xf8 ~xf8 19 iLf3
Maroczy Bind: 7... llJg4 System 17
dS 20 ~xd5 ltbS 21 ':el ~e6 22
l:txe61-0.
12 llJxbS
13 cxbS dS
14 exdS ':d8!
The new move which has revi-
talised the I1...We7 variation.
14 ... ~fS was played in Smyslov-
Jimenez, Havana 1963, but Black
had nothing to show for the pawn
after IS i-d3 ':cS+ 16 ~bl "d7
17 ~xfS "xfS+ IS "d3 e4 19
'it'b3, and White won easily.
IS d6
Forced, as IS ... ~f5 followed by
...':acS was a big threat. The point
behind 14 ... ':dS! is that Smyslov's
plan of defence (~d3) is no longer
possible, since the d-pawn can then
simply be taken.
IS We6
16 'iPbl
Also possible is 16 Wb4, since
16 .. :ifxa2? loses to 17 ~c4 .al+
IS ~c2 ~f5+ 19 ~b3, and if Black
parries White's threat of ~c4 with
16... iLd7, then White will play 17
~b 1, when Black will never get rid
of the d6-pawn. Still, the simple
16... ~f8! 17 ~c4 .f6 gives Black
equality.
16 ~f8
18 Maroczy Bind: 7.JiJg4 System
17 "'e3
The critical test of Black's play.
White returns the pawn and hopes
that his better development will
decide the game.
17 .Jtc5 is less good. After
17 ... b6 18 .Jtb4 .Jtb7 19 h4, as in
B.Lalic-Heim, Slough 1997, Black
played the strong 19 ....Jtxd6! 20
.Jtxd6 l%d7!, when White has no
way of keeping his extra piece. 19
o has also been played, but again
Black has 19 ....Jtxd6 with at least
equality.
17 ':'xd6
Probably taken by surprise,
Sermek tries to defend an inferior
position, instead of playing the
more complex 17 ....Jtxd6. He later
won a nice game with this move
against Dizdarevic: 18 .Jtc4 "f5+
19 .Jtd3 e4 20 g4?! "'xg4 21 "f6
.Jte6 22 .Jtd4 'it>f8 23 .Jtc2 (it looks
like Black is in big trouble, but in
fact everything is under control)
23 .....f5 24 "'g7+ q;e7 25 "xh7
l1ac8 26 'iVh4+ g5 27 "xe4 ':xc2!
28 "'xc2 .Jtxa2+ 29 ..tel .Jtf4+
0-1. Very impressive. Unfortu-
nately, Serper points out the much
stronger 20 .Jtc4, when Black must
settle for a bad ending after
20....Jte6 21 g4!, and now either
21......e5 22 "'xe5 .Jtxe5 23 .Jtxe6
fxe6 or 21......0 22 .Jtxe6 fxe6 23
.Jtg5! The point is that 21.....xg4?
loses immediately to 22 l1xd6
lhd6 23 .Jth6. This is all very con-
vincing and difficult for Black to
improve upon. 19....Jtb4?! is tricky,
but simply 20 .Jtxf5 .Jtxf5+ 21
"'c2! .Jtxc2 22 ..txc2 gives White a
pleasant ending, since his b5-pawn
combined with pressure against b7
guarantees him a huge edge.
Maybe Black's best chance is
18 ......g4!? instead of 18.....f5+,
when Serper regards 19 .Jtd5 .Jtf5+
20 'ital l%ac8 21 "'a5 as clearly
better for White, although the posi-
tion after 21....Jtc2 seems unclear
and playable for Black, since both
22 .Jtxb7 i.xdl 23 .Jtxc8 :xc8 24
"d2 .Jtb4 25 "xdl "xg2 26 .Jtxa7
'iVb7 27 b6 .Jta5 and 22 .JtO "'d7 23
l%d5 b6 24 l:td2 "'e7 25 l%cl .Jtf5
are not better for White. Maybe 19
'iVb3 is better, keeping the pressure
up. If this does not scare you, then
1I......e7 is an interesting way of
fighting for the initiative.
18 .Jte4 ':'xdl+
19 ':'xdl "'g4
20 "b3 .Jtf5+
Sacrificing the f7-pawn, but if
Black had tried to defend it he
would have been left in a very pas-
sive position.
21 'ital ':'e8 22 .Jtxt7+ 'itg7 23 0
"'xgl 24 .Jte6!
With the idea of 24 ....Jtc2? 25
"d5 .Jtxdl 26 "xe5 mate!
24...':'d8 25 ':'xd8 .Jte2 26 i.h6+!
Not 26 l%d7 'ith8 27 "xc2 "xc2
28 .Jtg5 .Jte7!
26...~xh6 27 "'e3+ g5 28
.Jtb4 29 h4 .Jtg6 30 .Jtg4 .Jte7 31
"'d
l%d7 .Jtf6 32 ':'d6 ~g7 33 l%d7
~h6 34 l%d6 ~g7 35 h5
h6 'itt7 37 ':'d7 'it>e8 38 "c2"c2
39 ':'b7 .Jtdl 40 l%a7 e4 41 .Jtd7
36
.Jte2
1-0
Game 3
Polugayevsky-Piket
Aruba match 1994
(1 lLlO e5 2 c4 lLle6 3 d4 exd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 e4 Ji..g7 6 .Jte3 lLlf6 7
lLlc3 lLlg4 8 "'xg4 lLlxd4 9 "'dl
eS)

10 ~d3
10 ~d3 is seen almost as fre-
quently as 10 ~b5, probably be-
cause many White players prefer a
quiet game to entering complica-
tions familiar to their opponents.
White tries for a small positional
edge instead of attempting to refute
Black's set-up outright.
10 0-0
11 0-0 d6
ll...b6 has been played with
some success and is a viable alter-
native to the game move:
a) 12 1i'd2 ~b7 and now:
al) 13 :adl ~e6 14 ~bl i.c6
15 b4 .:tc8 16 a3 :tc7 and Black
has a solid position, Smyslov-
Bagirov, Leningrad 1960.
a2) White tried 13 i.h6 in Brit-
ton-Wells, Oviedo 1993; after
13...d6 14 i.xg7 'iii>xg7 15 f4 exf4
15 l:txf4 ~e6 16 .:tf2 "g5 17 ~c2
"e5 Black had good play on the
dark squares.
b) Another example of this
theme is Bivshev-Simagin, Mos-
cow 1952, which continued with 12
~d5 i.b7 13 f4 exf4 14 i.xf4 d6
15 1M2 ~e6 16 i.h6 i.xh6 17
"xh6 i.xd5! 18 exd5 ~c5 19 :f3
f5 20 :tel "f6 21 :h3 .:tf7, when
Maroczy Bind: 7... ~g4 System 19
Black parried the attack and later
won. His knight is clearly superior
to the white bishop.
12 "d2
12 a4 is seen in the next game,
while 12 :tel was played in
Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow 1956.
After 12 ... i.e6 13 b3 a6 14 i.bl
J:tb8 (l4 ... b5 15 cxb5 ~xb5! 16
:tc6 d5 17 exd5 1/2- 1/2, Gulko-
Seirawan, Key West 1994) 15 <oti>hl
b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 "d3 b4 IS
~d5 i.xd5 19 exd5 "a5 20 "c4
:b5 21 i.d2 J:tfb8 22 "cS+ i.f8
23 "d7 :t5b7 24 "g4 f5 25 'ii'h3
i "xd5 Black was a pawn up, but
only ~aged to draw.
12 i.e6 .
13 :ad1
In an earlier game of
Polugayevsky's, against Bagirov,
Leningrad 1963, 13 :acl was tried,
which looks more logical since the
other rook can then go to dl. Still,
White had to concede an early
draw after 13 ... a6 14 :lfd1 "a5 15
i.fl?! b5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 ~xb5
~xb5 IS "xa5 J:txa5 19 b4 La2
20 i.xb5 llb8 1/2-1f2. Later 15 b3
was suggested as an improvement,
the idea being to answer 15 ... b5
with 16 ~e2. But first of all, White
has not got a whole lot after
16.....xd2 17 lhd2 :tfc8, and if
this does not suit Black, then
15 ...:fcS preparing ... b7-b5 seems
fine too.
13 a6
14 b3
A necessary prophylactic move,
defending a2. If 14 ~e2?! then
14...b5!
14 ':c8
15 ~2 ~c6!?
It is now difficult for White to
find a reasonable plan, since 16 f4
20 Maroczy Bind: 7. .. l:t1g4 System

will ruin his position, as Black gets Game 4

all the dark squares, and an even-
tual b3-b4 will weaken c4 too
much. White instead tries to attack
the weakness on -d6, but it turns out
to be immune.
Smyslov-Fabriano
Rome 1990
(1 1:t1f3 cS 2 c4 I:t1c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
I:t1xd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 .te3 I:t1f6 7
I:t1c3 I:t1g4 8 'Wxg4 I:t1xd4 9 lid1 e5
10 .td3 0-0 11 0-0 d6)

12 a4!?

16 .tb1 bS
17 cxbS axbS
18 I:t1c3
Realising that the pawn cannot
be taken (18 'Wxd6?? I:t1d4! 19 Played with the idea of seizing
'ii'xd8 I:t1xe2+ wins a piece), White more space with a4-aS and prepar-
tries to re-route the knight to d5 ing 13 lObS, when White can take
instead. However, 18 ~hl, making back on b5 with the a-pawn.
the threat on d6 real, seems like a 12 .te6
better idea. We believe that 12 ...a5!? is the
18 liaS right answer, and if 13 lObS .td7!
19 I:t1dS b4 14 I:t1xd4 (14 I:t1xd6 .txa4)
20 .tgS f6 14 ... exd4 15 .td2 1Wb6 16 b3 .tc6
21 .te3 fS followed by doubling rooks on the
22 exfS gxfS e-file, when Black is fine. White
23 l:t1e7+?? can do little, since he needs to keep
An incredible blunder, losing a the e4-pawn protected and must
piece. With 23 f3 or f4, White watch out for the f5-break. Instead,
would still have been okay. 12 ... a6 was played in Herbert-
23 I:t1xe7 Sermek, Cannes 1995, but after 13
24 lixd6 ~t7! as .te6 14 1:t1d5 ':c8 15 1Ob6 White
Defending both e7 and e6 and was much better.
thereby winning easily. 13 I:t1bS a6
25 .tgS I:t1g6 26 g4 e4 27 h4 .teS 14 I:t1xd4 exd4
28 lid2 h6 29 gxfS .txfS 30 hS 15 .td2 l:%c8
hxgS 31 hxg6+ ~xg6 0-1 16 b3 f5
 Maroczy Bind: 7... ti:Jg4 System 21

Necessary at this point. If Black 25 f3 "e5

chooses to play quietly, he will not 26 :tel:te8
manage to attack the e4-pawn in 27 :tct "f5
time, and White will get in f4-f5 28 l:xe8+!?
with an attack. 28 "xf5 :txel+ 29 i.xcl gxf5
17 exf5 ~xf5 30 ~ ~f7 31 ~e2 'it1e6 32 ~d3
18"0 d5 'ili>d5 33 g4 is also much better for
In Spraggett-Garcia, Candas White, but is perhaps defensible for
1992, Black played 18 .....d7, but Black. So Smyslov keeps the
after 19 :tfel :f7 20 i.xf5 lhf5 queens on and centralises his king
211M3 White was positionally instead.
much better and Black's kingside 28••:ii'xe8 29 ~t2 "d7 30 "e4+
attack came to nothing. 'ili>h8 31 ~e2 i.f6?
19 :tct "d7 Now White suddenly gets a
20 exd5 ~xd3 mating attack. But things were not
21 "xd3 "xd5 easy for Black in any case. White
22 :txe8 :txe8 was planning g2-g4 and ~d3 fol-
23 :tel lowed by an attempt to exchange
the queens, since now the black
king will never reach d5.
32 ~h6! g5 33 "e5 d3+ 34 ~dl
Not 34 ~d3?? 'ii'g6+.
34...d3 35 "f8+! "xfS 36 i.xfS
i.e5 37 g3 i.e3 38 i.h6 b5 39
axb5 axb5 40 i.xgS ~g7 41 g4
~t7 42 h4 ~e6 43 h5 ~d5 44
~h6 'ili>e5 45 i.fS+ ~dS 1-0
White will play h5-h6 and .i.g7
and then push the other pawns.

Since Black cannot use the c-file
for anything constructive, and his
d-pawn is blockaded, White stands
better. All endgames will be a win
for White, since the d4-pawn will
become very fragile when the king
comes to d3.
23 "fS!?
24 :te4
It is too dangerous to immedi-
ately enter the endgame with 24
'ii'xf5 gxf5 25 :tel:xel 26 .i.xcl
because of 26 ... d3.
24 :tfS
GameS
Ribli-Rogers
Germany 1995
(1 ti:Jf3 eS 2 e4 ti:Je6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ti:Jxd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ti:Jf6 7
ti:Jc3 ti:Jg4 8 "xg4 ti'lxd4 9 "dl)
9 ti'le6
(see/ollowing diagram)
A safe alternative to 9... e5.
10 :tct
10 "d2 is the subject of Game
13, while Vaganian tried 10 i.e2?!
against Frias in St John 1988 and
obtained excellent compensation
22 Maroczy Bind: 7...tiJg4 System
for the pawn after 1O... .itxc3+ 11
bxc3 "a5 12 0-0 'ii'xc3 13 c5! 'ii'e5
14 'ilfa4! 0-0 15 :ac1 tLlf4 16 .itn
d6 17 :fd 1, although he later lost.
What Vaganian had in mind on the
simple 1O... 'ilfa5 11 0-0 b6 is hard
to say. The logical 12 l:cl just
transposes to the main line, and
although 12 tLldS has been recom-
mended, 12 ....itxb2 is good. It is
very difficult for White to justify
this pawn sacrifice. Finally, 12
'ii'dS is possible, though after
12 ...'ii'xdS 13 cxd5 tLlc5 White
does not have much.
Still, perhaps even stronger, after
10 .ite2?!, is 10....itxc3+ 11 bxc3
'ii'c7 followed by ... b7-b6 and
... .itb7. In Imanaliev-Lanka, Mos-
cow 1979, Black was better after
12 0-0 b6 13 .itd4 f6 14 l:el .itb7
15 .itfl d6 16 'ii'g4 tLlc5 17 l:adl
'ii'd7 18 'ii'h4 'ii'c6 19 f4 0-0, when
White had too many weak pawns
and no real attack. 13 .itd4 looks
wrong and direct action with 13 f4
was probably called for, though
after 13 ... .i.b7 we prefer Black,
although it is a matter of taste.
In brief, 10 .te2?! should not
worry Black at all. The only prob-
lem is how to choose between sev-
eral promising options.
10 'ii'aS
The usual move. 1O...b6 is the
subject of Game 11 while for
1O... d6 see Game 12.
11 .te2
11 .td3 is seen in Games 9 and
10, while the immediate 11 'ii'd5!?
was played in M.M.lvanov-
P.H.Nielsen, Aars 1995. Here
Black should not go for the end-
game, since 11.. ...xd5 12 cxdS
tLld4 does not threaten to take on
e2, and the knight is in danger.
Black instead played the brave
1l....txc3+ 12 l:xc3 "xa2.
The game ended in a draw after
13 .tcl! (necessary, because of 13
"d2 'ii'bl+, when Black picks up
the e4-pawn) 13 .....a4 14 .te2 d6
15 0-0 "c6 16 b4 as 1/2- 1/2. Not
very informative perhaps, but I
remember we concluded in our
post-mortem that Black is okay in
the final position. Later I analysed
the game with Miron Sher and we
decided that 14 h4! would have
given White the better prospects.
Instead of 13 ....a4, 13...d6,
planning a quick ... tLlc5 and ... .te6,
is possible. During the game I was
afraid of 14 :a3?, but 14...'ii'bl 15
~d2 lbc5 16 n .te6 17 .d4 f6 is
a lot better for Black who will free
 Maroczy Bind: 7... lLlg4 System 23

himself with ... b7-b5 and ... l:lcS. 14
'ii'b5+ .i.d7 15 "xb7 l:tcS is also
fine for Black, as ... lLlc5 will come
next, threatening both to take the
e4-pawn and to play lLlb3. Finally,
14 h4!? is possible, when Black
may try 14 ... lLlc5 15 h5 .i.e6 16
'iWd4 :tgS with counterplay. It is
clear that White has some compen-
sation in the form of the pair of
bishops and play on the dark
squares. Still, by leaving the queen
on a2 and developing quickly,
Black seems to be doing fine.
11 b6
_!~~s..
Now White forces his opponent
to enter an endgame, since he is
hitting the rook on as. 12
seen in the next game and 120-0 in
"d2
allows Black to execute his usual
dark-squared strategy with a fairly
even game and should be preferred
to 12 .....xd5 which gives a some-
what inferior endgame.
13 exd5 ~d4
13 ...~c5 was played in Dur-
Plachetka, Austria 1991. Now after
14 f3 a5 15 d6 White was clearly
better, since Black now had to play
15 ... e6 to keep a reasonable pawn
structure, and then 16 b3!, which
threatens 17 ~b5, would have been
tough to meet.
14 .i.e4
14 .i.xd4? .i.xd4 15 ~b5 .i.xb2
16 lLlc7+ ~dS 17 l:c2 l:bS leads
nowhere for White.
is 14
15 c,i>d2?!
.i.b7

Games 7 and S. Here White should play the sim-

12 "xd5 ple 15 0-0 l:c8 16 b3, which is
Since this does not equalise, at- slightly better for White according
tention should be paid to 12 ...:tbS, to Rogers. This is clearly a critical
when: line for Black. If 16... e6, then sim-
a) 13 "xa5 bxa5 is fine for ply 17 dxe6 is good, e.g. 17 ... dxe6
Black. The a-pawn is useful, pre- 18 lIfdl lLlc6 19 ~b5 is almost
venting White from expanding on losing for Black. We have not
the queenside and Black can also found any way of making the black
play along the b-file. After 14 b3 position playable, so we suggest
Black should play 14 ... .i.d4 with a Black tries 12 ... l:I.b8!?
fine position. 15 e6
b) On 13 0-0, 13 ...lLld4?! unfor- 16 l:hdl :te8
tunately does not work. White 17 b3 0-0
plays 14 .i.xd4 "xd5 15 .i.xg7! 18 Wd3 exdS
"g5 16 .i.xhS, when it is more 19 ~xdS ~e6
likely that White will open the po- 20 f4 l:fe8
sition for his pieces, than that Black 21 ..i.d2 ~d4
will consolidate and win the 22 .i.e3
bishop. However, 13 ... g5, threat- (see following diagram)
ening 14... lLlf4, seems to be okay Now instead of going for the
for Black. draw with 22 ... ~c6, Rogers played
c) Finally, if 13 f3 then 13 ... lLld4 22 lLle6
is possible, as 14 .i.xd4 "xd5 15 and won on time on move 40,
.i.xg7?? "g5 wins for Black. after Ribli had misplayed a better
In conclusion, 12 ...:tbS probably position.
24 Maroczy Bind: 7.JDg4 System

his kingside pawns even further to

attack the white king. Normally
Black plays ... g7-g5 before ...h7-
h5, but here White has not yet cas-
tled, and could then have replied 14
h4!?

Game 6
Karpoy-Larsen
Brussels 1987

(1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

llJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 llJf6 7
llJc3 llJg4 8 1ixg4 llJxd4 9 1idl 14 0-0 gS
llJe6 10 l:.c1 'WaS) 15 l:.fdl d6
16 llJd5
11 .i.e2 Karpov goes for a typical end-
In actual fact Karpov played 11 game, which he has won so often,
1id2 b6 12 .i.e2. Perhaps he was but as we shall see, Black is excel-
afraid that (after 11 .i.e2) Larsen lently prepared to counter his op-
might grab the pawn with ponent's plans here. 16 a3, post-
1l....i.xc3+ 12' :'xc3 1i'xa2. Al- poning the endgame for a while,
though Larsen has said that some- was played in Kosten-Cebalo, Paris
day he will take this bait, we be- 1988. However, after 16 .. .'itfS 17
lieve that it is much too dangerous 1i'c21i'e5 18 b4 .i.c6 19l1Jd5 'ifb2,
for Black. Black achieved his beloved ending
11 b6 anyhow and later won.
12 1id2 .i.b7 16
13 f3 h5! 17 l:.xdl
This was the new plan intro- 18 b4
duced by Larsen in this game. By Playing for f3-f4 with g2-g3
playing ...h7-h5 and ... g7-g5, Black would merely weaken the e4-pawn,
prevents his opponent from playing while the opening of the g-file may
f3-f4. The e5-square then becomes bother the white king.
an excellent outpost for the black 18 l:c8
queen; from there it combines with 19 a4 h4
the knight on e6 and bishop on g7 20 .i.n
to control the dark squares. Given A necessary prophylactic move,
the chance, Black will also advance since 20 :a2 .i.d4 21 ~ .i.xd5!

22 exd5 oltxe3+ 23 ~xe3 tDf4
would leave both the g2- and d5-
pawns under attack.
20 f6
21 :a2
The only way to try to break
through the black position, but
since Black ends up with slightly
the better position, White probably
should have declined to play ac-
tively.
21 oltd4
22 ~f2
22 oltxd4 was played in Wolff-
Miles, Philadelphia 1987, when
after 22 ...tDxd4 23 ':'dl tDc6 24 a5
tDe5 25 tDe3 h3!
26 axb6 axb6 27 :a7 oltc6 28 b5
hxg2 29 oltxg2 iLd7 30tDd5 :b8
31 tDxb6 olte6 32 Ild4 :h4 White
was a pawn up, but his position
was a tragedy. All his pieces are
misplaced, doing nothing but de-
fending some weak pawns. The
game concluded 33 tDa8 oltxc4 34
b6 ~f7 35 1la4 oltb5 36 1%a3 oltc6
37 tDc7 Ihb6 38 Ildl :b7 39 tDa6
:f4 40 lld4 .l:la7 0-1. This is a
good example of Black's potential
chances in these endgames. The
idea of advancing the pawn to h3 is
very difficult to prevent, since for
White to play h2-h3 himself would
amount to capitulation on the dark
Maroczy Bind: 7... tDg4 System 25
squares.
22 ~f7
23 as oltxd5
24 exdS oltxe3+
25 ~xe3 tDf4
26 ~d2
White had to watch out for
... tDxd5. The 'active' 26 Ileal
would have been bad after
26 ... tDg6 27 axb6 axb6 28 :a6
tDe5 29 'iti>d4? h3.
26 ...':'c7 27 axb6 axb6 28 ':'a6
':'hc829':'xb6
Again 'active play' with 29 ':'cl
would be punished; this time with
29 ... b5.
29 ...tDxd5 30 ':'b5 tDf4 31 ':'a5
tDg632 c5!
White is worse. His c-pawn is
weak, but Karpov manages to re-
duce the material and make a draw.
32... tDe5 33 :c3 dxc5 34 bxc5
l:Ib8
34... tDd7 does not win a pawn,
since White has 35 olta6 l:IxcS?? 36
oltxc8 :xa5 37 oltxd7.
3S oltb5 :d8+ 36 ~e2 tDc6
Now it is a draw for sure, but
White has had to defend well to
hold everything together.
37 oltxc6 :xc6 38 g3 ':'d4 39 ':'b5
hxg3 40 hxg3 :dS 41 g4 ':'c7 42
~e3 e6 43 ':'c2 r:ile7 44 ':'c3 c:j;f7
45 ':'c2 f5 46 gxf5 exf5 47 r:ilf2
~g7 112-112
Naturally this game attracted a
lot of attention. It is not often that
someone gets a safe ending, with
some chances to play for win, as
Black against Karpov. Later in the
same tournament, Larsen faced
Short as Black. Since Short is not a
player who backs away from a
critical discussion, the line was
duly repeated.
26 Maroczy Bind: 7.JtJg4 System

Game? Larsen intends to play 20 ... .i.a4,

Short-Larsen after which White will have to mis-
Brussels 1987 place his rook.

(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

tDxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 tDf6 7
tDc3 tDg4 8 'it'xg4 tDxd4 9 'it'dl
tDe6 10 :'c1 'it'aS)

11 .i.e2 b6
12 0-0 .i.b7
13 f3 g5

20 'it'd3 tDf4
Now 20 ... .i.a4 would be point-
less after 21 .l:1d2.
21 tDxf4?!
Short should have admitted that
he had nothing and settled for a
draw with 21 'iVd2 tDe6 22 'ii'd3.
21 ... gxf4 22 .i.d4 'it'xd4 23 .i.xd4
.i.xd4+ 24 '::'xd4 .l:h5
14 a3 White is still about equal, but his
This was Short's idea. By threat- next move is over-ambitious.
ening 15 tDb5 followed by .i.d2 he 25 c5? dxc5 26 bxc5 b5 27 e5 h3!
forces Larsen to put his queen on The usual undermining move.
e5. Then Short can continue with 28 '::'el hxg2 29 .i.xgl :'c8 30
1Ii'd2, b2-b4, tDd5 etc., without ex- '::'xf4 .i.d5 31 e6 f6 32 h4.l:1xc5
changing queens. In a later en- Larsen had again managed to
counter between the same two achieve an edge against a world-
players, Short switched to 14 .l:1f2!? class player. This time he won in
(see the next game). 74 moves. Later the same year
14 'it'e5 Short had his chance for revenge as
IS 'it'd2 h5 White against Larsen in Hastings.
16 '::'fdl d6 This time Short came up with
17 b4 h4 something more venomous.
18 tDd5 'iti>f8
19 .i.n .i.c6 Game 8
Here both players had probably Short-Larsen
achieved what they wanted. But Hastings 1987188
now Short realised that things were
not as rosy as he had expected. (I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

ltJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ltJg4 7
ltJc3 ltJg4 8 ~xg4 ltJxd4 9 ~dl
ltJe6 10 :el
~a5 11 ~e2 b6 12
0-0 ~b7 13 f3 gS)
IJ~f . :f2!?}
With the idea of transferring the
rook to d2, where it will be excel-
lently placed. White will then be
able to play a2-a3, b2-b4 and ltJdS
etc., without risking an exchange of
queens.
14 h5
In this game, Larsen plays the
same plan as before, but he ends up
clearly worse. Subsequently, some
other ideas have been devised:
a) 14... ~eS with the idea of ex-
changing bishops with ... ~f4 and
then following up with ... ~e5, is
positionally well justified. Yet in
Ikonnikov-Vokarev, Perm 1993,
White acted quickly: IS g3 hS 16
ltJd5 ~xb2 17 ':bl and since
17... ~g7 18 cS is terrible, Black
had to play 17 .....a3, after which
he never managed to co-ordinate
his pieces: 18 ~f1 ~xd5 19 "xdS
1Dc7 20 11M2 ~c3 21 "d3 ~b4 22
:tb3 ~aS 23 ~h3 0-0-0 24 cS! and
Black was blown apart.
_
b) 14 ... :td8!? is untried and de-
...• _"', "'" ...__ ~V"·_
Maroczy Bind: 7... ltJg4 System 27
serves serious attention. We believe
that the position after IS ~f1 "eS
16 ':d2 'Wb8 17 ltJdS (otherwise
Black will play ... .i.e5-f4, exchange
the bishops and then return to eS
with the queen) 17 ... .teS 18 h3
(necessary, since 18 g3 hS gives
Black too much play) is critical for
the whole assessment of Larsen's
plan. Black has a great deal of
dark-squared control on the king-
side. Still, to make the attack real,
he needs to get in ...gS-g4, which
must be prepared by ... fi-f6, ...<l;fi
and ... h7-hS. White's chances are
on the queenside, where he is in
control, As usual the standard plan
is to play for a4-a5. Another idea is
to open the b-file with first b2-b4
and then c4-cS, to answer ... b6xc5
with b4xcS, but since Black's king
is already on fi, he can simply play
... ~c6, ...~a8 and ...:b8 and play
on the b-file himself. In general, we
believe that Black has enough re-
sources to hold the balance, and
that 14...:d8!? promises an inter-
esting game with difficult strategic
play for both sides.
15 ~n ~eS
In Hastings 1990, Larsen tried
IS ... ~xc3? against Chandler. In his
preparation for the game he must
have missed that after 16 ':xc3 g4,
17 f4! ~xe4 18 fS! is very strong
(if now 18 ... ~xf5 19 ~d4! fol-
lowed by ':a3 wins a piece). Larsen
played 18 ... g3 19 hxg3 ltJcs 20
:a3 'Wb4 21 'it'd4 :g8, but after 22
~d2 his queen was lost and he re-
signed a few moves later.
16 :d2 d6
Another idea is 16... ~c6 17 b4
:d8 18 ltJdS 'ifb8 19 cS bxcS 20
bxcS ~e5 21 h3 :g8?! (more solid
is 21...f6 and ... 'ot>fi) 22 'in>3 g4 23
28 Maroczy Bind: 7.. .t1:Jg4 System
1Ii'xb8 ~xb8 24 hxg4 hxg4 25 f4!
~xd5 26 exd5 oltxf4 27 ~xf4
lLlxf4 28 l:td4 lLlh5 29 l:ta4 lLlf6 30
c6, Stangl-Becker, German Bun-
desliga 1991/92. This approach is
quite similar to 14.. .l:td8 above and
also warrants consideration. As
already mentioned, we do not think
the plan with c4-c5 should be a
problem for Black.
17 tLJd5 ~f8
18 b4
We now see why it is more ef-
fective for White to place the rook
on d2 instead of the queen. First of
all, it is not possible for Black to
exchange queens, while on dl the
queen defends the a4-square, which
means that a2-a4-a5 cannot be
stopped by ... ~c6.
18 ~h6
Larsen tries to exchange the
dark-squared bishops. Although
this is normally a good plan in the
Maroczy, here it is ineffective.
White has too much space and the
standard plan of ... e7-e5 and ... tLJd4
is impossible, because Black is so
poorly co-ordinated.
19 'ii'b3 g4
20 ~xh6+ ':'xh6
21 'ii'e3 'ii'g7
22 f4 h4?
A bad move according to Lar-
sen: It just weakens the g4-square.
However, in the end it is these ad-
vanced flank pawns that save
Black. From a practical point of
view it is understandable that Lar-
sen did not want to defend pas-
sively.
23 ~e2 ':'c8 24 ':'n ~xd5 25
':'xd5 g3 26 h3 b5?!
Again Larsen prefers to go for
active, yet dubious, counterplay,
instead of sitting and waiting. The
neat point is 27 1::txb5?? 'i'd4! and
Black is nearly winning.
27 cxb5 'i'c3 28 'ii'xa7 "xb4 29
b6 lLlc5 30 e5 dxe5 31 ':'xe5 l:te6
32 ':'xe6 fxe6 33 ~hl ':'d8 34 "c7
':'d6 35 'ii'cS+??
Larsen claims that 35 f5 would
have won for White. Now he man-
ages to effect an escape.
35..,<~g7 36 'ii'e8 lLle4 37 'ii'xe7+
~g8 38 'ii'h4 'ii'xb6 39 'ii'g4+ ~f8
40 'ii'g6 'ii'd4 41 f5 tLJf2+ 42 llxf2
'ii'xf2 Ih-Ifl
White has a perpetual.
Ever since this game, 14 l:tf2!?
has always been regarded as the
correct way to meet Larsen's plan
of ... g7-g5 and ... h7-h5. Still, we
suggest that after 14.. .l:td8!? Black
has no more to fear than in any
other line.
Game 9
Ljubojevic-Korchnoi
Tilburg 1987
(1 e4 c5 2 tLJf3 tLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLJf6 7
tLJc3 tLJg4 8 'ii'xg4 tLJxd4 9 "dl
tLJe6 10 ':'c1 'ii'a5)
11 ~d3

Actually Ljubojevic played 11
'it'd2, but we have taken the liberty
of changing the move order in or-
der to cover some of White's addi-
tional opportunities. As it turns out,
the white plan connected with f2-f4
is very strong. Yet the immediate
11 f4 seems too direct. After
11...d6 12 .i.d3 lllc5 White cannot
play 13 .i.bl because of 13 ... .i.e6.
11 b6
There seems nothing wrong with
playing 11...g5 first, preventing
plans based on f2-f4. Eric Prie has
faced this idea twice. First he tried
12 h4 against Berend in Val
Thorens 1989, but achieved noth-
ing after 12 ... h6 13 hxg5 hxg5 14
lhh8 .i.xh8 15 'it'h5 "e5 16 g3 b6
17 'ii'h7 "g7. Later in Moscow 01
1994, he played 12 'ii'h5 against
Vorontsov, when after 12 .....e5 13
g3 b6 14 0-0 .i.b7 15 J:tfdl h6 16
b4 O-O? 17 llld5 White was better
and went on to win. However,
16...0-0 is a mistake, and Black
should be fme after both 16...:c8
and 16 ...1i..c6.
12 0-0
Here White might try 12 f4,
when 12 ... lllc5 is now dangerous
for Black, since after 13 0-0 lllxd3
Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji:Jg4 System 29
14 "xd3 his queen is in trouble. 12
'it'd2 is considered in the next
game.
12 .i.b7
Again we recommend 12 ...g5.
An interesting attempt at a refuta-
tion is 13 lLJd5!?, which was played
in Razuvaev-Ermenkov, Polonica
Zdroj 1972. Ermenkov played
13 ... .i.b7, but after 14 a4! .i.c6 15
b3 h5? 16 .i.d2 "a6 17 .i.xg5
White won easily. The critical con-
tinuation is 13 ....i.xb2, when 14
:tbl .i.g7! 15 .i.xg5 lLJxg5 16
lLJc7+ ~d8 17 lLJxa8 lLJe6 is okay
for Black.
13 "dl
Here White should play 13 f4!,
after which it is difficult to see how
Black can obtain any counterplay.
In Horvath-Conquest, Budapest
1987, Black tried 13 ....i.d4, but
after 14 .i.xd4lLJxd4 15lLJd5 .i.xd5
16 cxd5 b5 17 .i.bl "'6 18 ~hl
Black's knight on d4 only looks
good; in fact it is very difficult to
protect and Black soon lost.
Just as depressing for Black was
Rodriguez-Hernandez, Camaguey
1988, when after 13 ... 0-0 14 .i.bl
d6 15 ltf2 :tac8 16 lLJd5 .i.xd5 17
cxd5 lLJc5 18 a3 lLJa4 19 b4 "a6
20 "'3 b5 21 .i.d3 ~7 22 c5
Black was lost. To make matters
even worse for Black, Tukmakov
played 14 a3 against I.Ivanov, Nur-
emberg 1994, and after 14... .i.d4
15 .i.xd4 lLJxd4 16 lLJb5! lLJxb5 17
cxb5 a6 18 :tc7 Black again found
himself in a lost position. Since this
plan seems very simple and effec-
tive, we recommend that Black
prevents it quickly with ... g7-g5 as
mentioned above.
13 gS
14 :tfdl d6
30 Maroczy Bind: 7.JiJg4 System
15 a3 h5
16 '::'c2
Preparing b2-b4, which here
would been met by 16 ... 'ii'xa3 17
tLld5 'ii'b2, and the queen escapes
via e5 with a pawn in the bag.
16 .i.d4!?
It was of course possible to play
normally with 16 ... 'ii'e5 etc. Gener-
ally, however, Black should ex-
change dark-squared bishops in the
Maroczy, when given the chance.
He must only be careful not to con-
cede too much space.
17 b4 "Wie5
17 ... 'ii'xa3 18 tLldS would leave
the queen in big trouble.
18 tLld5 .i.xe3
It was safer to play 18 ... 'ifilfS, but
probably Korchnoi did not foresee
White's next move.
19 fxe3!?
The 'normal' move was 19
'ii'xe3, but with his excellent dark-
squared control Black would have
been fine. Now White tries to use
the semi-open f-file for an attack.
19... l:tc8 20 l:tn tLlg7!
Covering f5, which means the
queen cannot be forced away from
e5.
21"Wif2 f6
If 21... 0-0, then 22 'ii'g3! would
be annoying.
22"Wie1 0-023 a4 h424 "Wia1!
Realising that the black queen
cannot be removed with violence,
White exchanges it instead and
tries to generate some initiative in
the endgame with a4-a5.
24 ..."Wixa1 25 1:txa1 .i.xd5 26 exd5
f5?!
Here Black should have secured
the draw with 26 ... a5, when 27 lIb2
lIc7 28 bxa5 bxa5 29 lIb5 lIa8 is
fine for Black, since White cannot
break through. Unfortunately it is
not possible to activate the g7-
knight, so Black cannot win either.
27 ':'12 l:tc7 28 as ~h7 29 g4 hxg3
30 hxg3 ~g8 31 ~g2 l:tf6 32 axb6
axb6 33 l:r.a8+ l:tf8 34l:ta6l:tb8 35
b5 ~f7 36 e4 ~f6 37 exf5 ~e5 38
l:ta4 tLle8 39 f6!
If Black had had time for ... tLlf6
he might even have been better.
39...tLlxf6 40 l:tf5+ ~d4 41 c5+
~xd3 42 l:tf3+ ~c2 43 c6
Not 43lIa2+ 'ifilbl 44lIe2lIxc5!
43 ...~b2 44 l:taa3 g4 45 l:r.tb3+
~c2 46l:te3 ~b2 47 l:ad3 <ili'c2 48
l:ta3 112_112
Game 10
Leko-P .H.Nielsen
Copenhagen 1995
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 tLlg4 8 "Wixg4 tLlxd4 9 "Wid1
tLle6 10 l:tc1 "Wia5 ll.i.d3 b6)
12 "Wid2 .i.b7
13 .i.b1 g5
In the past Black has invariably
responded with 13 ... lIc8 14 b3 f5,
which was first seen in Tal-
Rashkovsky, Moscow 1973, where

Black drew the endgame after IS
It)dS'i'xd2+ 16 ~xd2. However, I
saw no reason not to play the usual
dark-squared strategy.
14 b3 d6
15 f3 h5?!
This gives White the chance to
play 16 h4!, when 16 ... g4 17 f4
looks good for White. Leko feared
16... gxh4, but after 17 ltxh4 all that
Black has is a weak h-pawn.
Probably I should have preferred
lS ... 'i'eS or IS ....i.eS.
16 It)d5?!
Leko goes for an endgame,
where White traditionally has good
chances. Here, however, Black can
easily generate counterplay because
of his dark-squared control. In gen-
eral, it is not the endgame that one
should fear when playing Black in
the 9 ... lt)e6 variation.
16 'iixd2+
17 cJi>xd2 h4
18 g3 hxg3
19 hxg3 citd7
Simply connecting the rooks and
preparing to swap them on the h-
file.
20 .i.d3 ttJd4 21 f4 gxf4 22 gxf4
ttJf3+ 23 cJi>e2 It)d4+ 24 ~d2 1/7.- 112
24 'iPf2 would have failed to
Maroczy Bind: 7... lt)g4 System 31
24...:xhl 2S Axhl It)f5, so Leko
had to give me an easy draw. This
game shows how simple Black's
game is, when White goes for the
ending too quickly. Even a top
player such as Leko did not man-
age to put the black position under
any pressure.
Game 11
B.Lalic-Conquest
Hastings 1995196
(1 e4 c5 2 It)f3 It)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
It)xd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 It)f6 7
It)c3 It)g4 8 'i'xg4 It)xd4 9 'i'dl
It)e6 10 ltd)
10 b6
11 1M2
The game'" - Chandler-Larsen,
Hastings 1987/88, was played in a
later round of the same tournament
in which Short introduced his 14
Af2!? (see Game 8). Since Larsen
got a bad position in that game, he
switched to the more conservative
1O...b6 against Chandler, and after
11 .i.d3 It)cs 12 .i.bl d6 13 b4
It)d7 14 .i.d4 .i.xd4 IS 'iIIxd4 0-0
160-0.i.a6 17 It)dS Ac8 18 l:tfdl
.i.b7 19 h3 lte8 20 'i'b2 .i.c6 a
32 Maroczy Bind: 7...ti:Jg4 System

fairly standard position was had all the play.

reached, White being slightly bet- 11 i.b7
ter. Here something very instruc- 12 i.e2 0-0
tive occurred. Instead of slowly 13 f3 f5!?
trying to build on his small advan- Very often the ... f7-fS thrust
tage, Chandler played 21 f4?? to only serves to weaken Black's po-
grab more space. But when Black sition. Here, however, it is the only
answered 21...eS! active plan, aiming for a combined
attack on g2 with the bishop and
rook. Still, White is very solid, and
it is difficult to realise the attack.
14 exf5 gxfS
15 llldS We8
16 0-0 Wf7
17 b4
In order to play 18 f4, since 17
f4 is met by 17 ... lllcS, when the
knight heads for e4.
17 f4
18 i.f2 lllgS?!
Chandler realised that he had ir-
reparably damaged his position.
White cannot prevent eSxf4, when
Black will seize the e5-square for
the knight. Then the c4-pawn is
weak and the bishop on bl simply
misplaced. Since 22 fS would leave
Black with a classic good knight
versus a bad bishop scenario after
22 ... i.xdS 23 cxdS Wg5, Chandler
played the desperate 22 c5!?, but
was soon a pawn down after
22 ...dxc5 23 llle3 We7 24 b5 i.a8
25 lllg5 ~g7, and Black later won.
11 b4!? may be the best answer With the idea of ... e7-eS fol-
to 1O... b6, in order to keep the lowed by ... llle6-d4, which Lalic
knight away from cS and to gain easily prevents. According to Lalic,
space on the queenside. Black will 18 .. .'~h8 was better, in order to
never be able to open the queenside play down the g-file.
with ... a7-aS, since this will leave 19 h4! llle6
the b6-pawn very weak, and he will 20 l:[fe1 <oth8
risk getting a very passive position. 21 i.d3 l:r.ae8
Suba-Taimanov, Bucharest 1979, 22 i.c2 :g8
continued 11...i.b7 12 i.d3 0-0 13 23 ~?
0-0 llld4 14 i.bl lllc6 IS a3 d6 16 Here White could have entered a
Wd3 ':c8 17 f4, after which White won ending with 23 ~ when

Black's only chance would be
23 ... i.b2, since both 23 ... i.h6 24
':xe6 and 23 ... tLlfB 24 "f5! win for
White. After 24 l:[bl "g7 25
'it'xh7+ "xh7 26 i.xh7 ~xh7 27
':xb2 b5 28 ':d2 bxc4 all Black's
pawns are weak and White should
pick some of them up.
23 ••. d6 24 'it'd3 i.e5 25 ':xe5 dxe5
26 :e1 lLld4 27 :xe5 lLlxc2 28
'it'xc2 i.xd5 29 cxd5 ':c8 30 'it'd2
':g7 31 i.d4 ~g8 32 i.b2 'it'g6?
The losing mistake according to
Lalic; Black may have been able to
survive with 32 ...:c4!
33 :e4 :17 34 i.e5 'it'h5 35 i.xf4
'it'xh4 36 ~gl :g7? 37 i.h6 'it'f6
38 i.xg7 ~xg7 39 :e6 'ii'h4 40
'it'e3 ~f7 41 :e41-0
Game 12
Kasparov-Malshikov
USSR 1977
(I e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 lLlf6 7
lLlc3 lLlg4 8 'it'xg4 lLlxd4 9 'it'dl
lLle6 10 :c1)
10 d6
Another playable, yet passive,
alternative to 1O.....a5.
Maroczy Bind: 7... lLlg4 System 33
11 b4!?
11 i.d3 has also been played on
many occasions. After 11 ... 0-0 12
0-0 i.d7 13 i.b 1 (best, since 13
"d2 is met with 13.....a5, as in
Kudrin-Larsen Hastings 1986,
when after 14 b3 ':fc8 IS f4 lLlcs
16 i.bl i.c6 17 fslLld7 Black par-
ried the attack and won due to his
positional trumps) 13 ... a5 both 14
'it'e2 i.c6 15 :fdl b6 16lLld5lLlc5
17 i.g5, as in Beliavsky-
Velimirovic, Reggio Emilia 1986,
and 14 f4 i.c6 15 'it'd2 a4 16 lLld5
lLlc5 17 eS, as in Kosten-Larsen,
Esbjerg 1988, seem to give White a
slightly better game although it
should not bother Black unduly.
Instead of 12 ... i.d7, 12 ...lLlcs
was played in Portisch-Petrosian,
Palma de Mallorca 1974, when
after 13 i.bl a5 14 "d2 i.d7 15
i.d4?! i.xd4 16 "xd4 i.c6 17
'it'd2 f6 18 ':fdl ':f7 19 i.c2 "ikb6
20 J:.bl :d8 21 lLld5 'it'a7 22 b3
Black was ready for the thematic
22 ...e5!, with slightly better pros-
pects, since his knight is on its way
to d4.
11 0-0
12 i.e2 b6
The most common. Although
Velimirovic has had some success
with 12 ...a5, it looks suspect, since
the b6-square is left terribly weak.
Yet, so far no one has managed to
exploit that. After 13 a3 axb4 14
axb4 i.d7 15 0-0 i.c6, White nor-
mally plays 16 'it'd2 (16 lLld5 was
once tried in Kobas-Velimirovic,
Zenica 1987, but Black won tacti-
cally with 16...l:a2 17 :el :e8 18
i.g4 "ikb8 19 b5 i.xd5 20 cxd5
lLlc5 21 i.xc5 dxc5 22 :Xc5 'it'f4
23 i.f3 :d2 24 'it'c1 i.d4 25 :c8
:xc8 26 'it'xc8+ <j;g7 27 ~hl e6
34 Maroczy Bind: 7... 0.g4 System
0-1, since ... .i.e5 cannot be pre-
vented), and after 16... %:.a3 17 0.d5,
Velimirovic improved upon Por-
tisch-Pfleger, Manila 1974, (where
Black lost after 17 ... 'i&>h8?!), with
17 ... l:te8 and had a fine position
after 18 .l:tfdl 0.f8! 19 h3 0.d7,
since the-active rook on a3 is an-
noying for White. Instead, 18 .i.b6
was tried in the 1985 correspon-
dence game Rosanen-Rau, but after
18 ......a8 19 f4 .l:ta2 20 .l:tc2 .l:txc2
21 "'xc2 .i.xd5 22 exd5 0.d4 Black
had absolutely no problems. It is
worth noting that here the opening
of the a-file was a big plus for
Black. Normally it is White who
tries to open it by playing b2-b3,
a2-a3 and b2-b4, but here we saw
just how much counterplay this can
allow.
13 0-0 .i.b7
14 0.dS 0.c7
Larsen tried 14 ......d7 against
Adorjan, Hastings 1986/87, but
faced a difficult position after 15
.i.g4 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 .i.h3 0.c7
18 0.xc7 "'xc7 19 c5!
IS "a4!?
In Cu. Hansen-Larsen, Esbjerg
1988, White played 15 .i.g5 and
stood better after 15 ... f6 16 .i.e3
<itth8 17 "iib3 "'d7 18 .l:tfdl, al-
though this clash between the two
great Danes ended in a draw.
15 bS?
Not a good decision. 15 ... e6 was
more solid, when Black should be
okay.
16 "as!
17 cxdS
IS bxaS
Suddenly Black has a cheerless
ending with no counterplay. He
would be fine if he could play ... a7-
a6 and ... .l:tfc8 in one move, but
since this is not legal White gets
the c-file with a winning initiative.
IS....:tbS 19 .l:tc7 fS 20 f3 .i.f6 21
:'fel a6 22 l:td7
Black's fortress looks impregna-
ble, but the young Kasparov man-
ages to organise a breakthrough.
22 ...<ittf7 23 :'cc7 .i.cS 24 :'dS
.i.b7 25 :'xbS ':xbS 26 .i.a7 ':as
27 .i.e3 .i.cS 2S g4 fxg4 29 fxg4
'liteS 30 gS .i.eS 31 ~g2 .i.d7 32
.i.b6 .i.g7 33 h4 .i.eS 34 ~f3 .i.cs
35 <itte3 .i.d7 36 hS .i.gl 37 .i.d4
.i.gl+ 3S <ittd3 .i.xd4 39 <ittxd4
<ittdS 40 ':el
It seems as if Black has escaped
somehow, but White just breaks
through on the kingside.
40...eS+ 41 dxe6 .i.xe6 42 hxg6
hxg643 ':c6! <itte7
43 .. .'~d7 44 :'xa6! l:txa6 45
.i.xb5+ .l:tc6 46 a6 ~c7 47 a7 wins
easily.
44 ':c7+ <itteS 45 a3 ':bS 46 ':c6
b4 47 ':b6! ':xb6 4S axb6 .i.cS 49
axb4 <ittd7 SO .i.g4+ <ittdS 51 .i.xcS
1-0
Despite White's strategic suc-
cess in this game, the line with
10... d6 is a solid alternative to
10......a5. In particular, Velimi-
rovic's plan with 12 ... a5!? deserves

close study.
Game 13
Larsen-Petrosian
Santa Monica 1966
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J..g7 6 J..e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 lLIg4 8 "xg4 lLIxd4 9 "dl
lLIe6)
10 "d2
As we now know, this is not the
most exact move order, since in the
1O......a5 systems, the queen does
not belong on d2. At the time of the
game, however, this had not been
recognised, and on 1O••• d6 Larsen
considered it more aggressive to
have the rooks on dl and el.
10 d6
11 J..e2 J..d7
12 0-0 0-0
13 :adl!?
13 l:tac1 was played in Keres-
Petrosian, Zagreb ct 1959, when
after 13... J..c6 14 :tfdl tLlc5 15 f3
a5 16 b3 'iWb6 a well-known posi-
tion from the Classical system had
arisen, but a tempo up for White.
Still, since the rooks ate on cl and
dl, instead of bl and cl, one might
Maroczy Bind: 7... tLlg4 System 35
even argue that Black is in fact a
tempo up! Since that structure is
more relevant to the Classical sys-
tem, we shall cover it in the rele-
vant chapter (see Game 34).
13 J..c6
14 tLld5 l:te8?!
Too passive. It was better to play
14 ... tLlc5, which was actually Lar-
sen's own choice in Porath-Larsen,
Amsterdam 1964, when after 15 f3
"d2
as 16 J..d4? J..xd4 17 "xd4 e5! 18
lLIe6 Black had the usual ad-
vantageous structure and later won.
Petrosian feared 15 "c2, yet
15 ... a5! is strong, since 16 J..xc5
dxc5 17 tLlf6+ J..xf6 18 l:txd8
:tfxd8 is okay for Black.
15 f4!?
A logical reaction to the rook
move. Now the f7-square becomes
a target.
15 tLlc7
After the usual 15 ... lLIc5, Petro-
sian feared 16 e5 lLId7 17 tLlb4!
which looks strong. Yet, Larsen
suggests that after 17 .....c7 it is not
clear whether Black is worse than
in the game.
16 f5 lLIa6
Black tries to get the knight to
e5. Although it takes a lot of time
to get there, this is necessary since
the knight is badly needed in the
defence.
17 J..g4?!
Larsen goes for the direct attack,
which is quite logical, since Black
is using a lot of time to manoeuvre
his knight. However, 17 b4! was
simpler, after which Black cannot
regroup, since 17... lLIb8 18 b5!
J..xd5 19 "xd5 hits both f7 and b7.
17 lLIc5
18 fxg6 hxg6
19"1'2 l:tf8
36 Maroczy Bind: 7...tiJg4 System

20 e5! rived at one of the proudest mo-

Very strong, but also absolutely ments in Danish chess history,
necessary. 20 .....4 .i.xdS 21 :xd5 since it is not often that a reigning
e6 or 21 exdS e5 is not better for world champion is defeated like
White. It is striking to see that al- this.
though Black has lost a lot of time 14 -.h6 .i.g7
with his knight, his position is still
very close to being tenable, and
that only active tactical play breaks
through.
20 .i.xeS
21 Wh4 .i.xd5
22 ':xd5 tL'le6?!
The point behind 20 e5! is that
22 ...e6 would be answered with 23
Wxd8 :fxd8 24 ':xe5 dxe5 25
.i.xc5. Still, since Black has rea-
sonable drawing chances in that
case, he should have played it any-
way. Also 22 ... tL'le4 23 .i.f3 tL'lf6 24
:b5 is positionally much better for 25 Wxg6! tL'lf4
White. Nothing works: 25 ... tL'lc7 26
23':0 .i.f6? -'xg7+ mates and 25 .. .fxg6 is very
The decisive mistake. Black similar to the game.
could still have hung on with 26 ':xf4 fxg6
23 ...f5 24 :h3 ~!, after 25 .i.xf5 27 .i.e6+ ':17
gxf5 26 .....5+ ~6 27 g4 tL'lg7! 27 ...~h7 28 ':h4+ .i.h6 29
After 28 .i.g5+ ~e6 29 -'g6+ .i.f6 .i.xh6 ':f5 30 ':xf5 gxf5 31 .i.f7!
30 gxf5 ~d7 31 .i.xf6 ':xf6 32 e5 32 :h3 mates.
-'xg7 -'g8, when Black has real 28 ':xt7 ~h8
drawing chances. It seems incredi- 29 ':g5 b5
ble that White does not have any- 30 ':g3 1-0
thing decisive, but Larsen has not Strong attacking chess, and a
found anything and neither have nice way to round off the 7... tL'lg4
we. Now, however, we have ar- chapter.
2 Maroczy Bind:
Double Fianchetto System

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 R.g7 6 R.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0

8 R.e2 b6 9 0-0 R.b7

10 lLlxc6!? -Game 14
10f3
1O... e6?! - Game 15
1O...:c8 -Game 16
1O... lLlh5!? - Game 17

The double fianchetto system 7 0-0

against the Maroczy Bind does not
have the greatest of reputations, but
nevertheless it is still played with
Black by several grandmasters, e.g.
Bellon, Rogers and Pigusov to
mention but a few.
White must be aware that his
opponent has several tricks up his
sleeve, but if he avoids these, Black
often ends up in an unpleasant,
passive position with few prospects
of being able to obtain active
counterplay.

Game 14 8 R.e2
Schlosser-Pigusov This quiet development of the
Sochi1989 bishop is the logical way for White
to continue. However, a couple of
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 other approaches have also been
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 R.g7 6 R.e3 lLlf6 7 tried, with the following practical
lLlc3) results:
38 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
a) 8 h3 d6 9 ~e2 i..d7 (9 ... ~xd4
10 i.xd4 i.d7 11 0-0 i.c6 12 'ii'd3
a5 13 .l:tadl was slightly better for
White in F.Olafsson-Bouaziz, Nice
01 1974) 10 0-0 a6 11 'ii'd2 b5
(Black has to play actively) 12
cxb5 ~xd4 13 i..xd4 axb5 14 .l:tfdl
(Larsen gives 14 i.xf6 i.xf6 15
~b5 'ii'a5 16 ~c3 .l:tfc8 17 .l:tfcl
i.xc3 18 .l:txc3 .l:txc3 19 'ii'xc3
'ii'xc3 20 bxc3 .l:ta3 21 c4 i.a4 with
a level ending) 14 ... i..c6 15 i.b5
~e4 16 ~xe4 i..xb5 17 i.xg7
cJ;;xg7 with roughly equal chances
in the game Larsen-Kavalek, Sol-
ingen 1970.
b) 8 ~b3 d6 9 f3 i..e6 10 ~d5
(Black does not have any problems
after 10 .l:tcl either: 1O... .l:tc8 11
~d2 a6 12 i.e2?! [12 ~d5]
12 ... ~e5 13 b3 'ii'a5, Murey-Afek,
MontpeIlier 1985) 10... ~d7 11
'it'd2 a5 12 .l:tcl a4 13 ~d4 i..xd5
14 exd5 ~xd4 15 i.xd4 i.xd4 with
equality in Korchnoi-Van der Ster-
ren, Netherlands 1977.
8 b6
This is the double fianchetto
line, which has been laid to rest and
then revived a couple of times. Its
current status depends very much
upon whether or not Black can find
a way to meet 10 ~xc6, which has
been causing problems for the last
couple of years. Aside from 8... b6,
Black has 8 ... d6, which will be
discussed in Chapter 3.
9 0-0
At this point White has tried a
number of other ideas. Some of
these are quite interesting but the
first is completely useless:
a) 9 g4? (Where does White in-
tend to put his king after this
move?) 9 ... i..b7 10 ~xc6 i.xc6 11
tlM3 d6 12 .l:tgl ~d7 13 f3, Lus-
sault-Donaldson, Monaco 1977,
and now 13 ... a6! intending ... b6-b5
would have been best, when Black
would have had clearly the better
chances.
b) 9 'it'c2 .tb7 10 .l:tdl ~xd4 11
i.xd4 d6 12 h4 'it'd7 13 ~d5 .l:tac8
14 .l:th3 .l:tfe8 15 h5 b5 16 hxg6
hxg6 17 b3 bxc4 18 bxc4 i.xd5 19
exd5 e5 20 dxe6 .l:txe6 21 cJ;;fl
112-112 Speelman-Cebalo, Taxco izt
1985.
c) 9 f3 i.b7 10 'it'd2 e6? (this
move is not a good idea after 10
0-0 either - see Game 15; it is bet-
ter to play 1O ... :c8!? or 1O... ~h5!?
with a likely transposition to the
main lines) 11 :dl ~e5 12 ~db5
d5 13 exd5 cxd5 14 ~xd5 ~xd5
15 exd5 a6 16 ~c3 ~c4 17 i.xc4
tlt'h4+ 18 g3 tli'xc4 19 i.d4 with a
clear edge for White in the en-
counter Muco-Rantanen, Lucerne
011982.
~9 ~xc6 dxc6 10 'it'c2 ~g4 11
i.~'it'd4?! (this is a bad idea that
only brings problems; better is
1l...i.e6) 12 i.h4 'ii'c5 13 h3 ~e5
140-0 g5 (this seems to be a rather
odd move, but better moves are
hard to come by; White was threat-
ening 15 ~a4 'ii'd6 16 .l:tadl 'it'c7
17 f4) 15 i..xg5 ~f3 16 i.xf3
'it'xg5 17 'it'cl 'ii'g6 18 It>hl cJ;;h8
19 'it'c3 when Black had some, but
not quite sufficient, compensation
in the game Zso.Polgar-Edelman,
Miinster 1993.
@9 f4!1 and now:
(see following diagram)
el) 9... i.b7 10 i.f3 :c8?! (now
Black ends up in a passive position;
far better is 10... ~xd4 11 i..xd4
.l:tc8, e.g. 12 e5 i.xf3 13 'it'xf3 ~e8
followed by ... d7-d6 or ... f7-f6) 11
e5 ~e8 12 0-0 ~a5 13 i.xb7
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 39
ttJxb7 14 "e2 d6 15 e6 f5 16 b4!
ttJf6 17 ttJd5 ttJg4 IS l:tac 1 ..eS 19
ttJb5 and Black's position was
downright awful in Mortensen-
Kristensen, Denmark 19S3.
e2) 9 ...e5!? lO ttJdb5 exf4 11
i.xf4 ttJeS 12 0-0 i.b7 (this posi-
tion can also arise from 9 0-0 i.b7
10 f4 e5 11 ttJdb5 exf4 12 i.xf4
ttJeS) 13 'ii'd2 a6! 14 ttJd6 ttJxd6 15
i.xd6 :eS 16 c5?! (better seems 16
"f4!?, putting pressure on the f7-
pawn, which Black probably will
have to sacrifice if he wishes to
remain active) 16... i.d4+ 17 ~h 1
bxc5 IS i.c4 lle6 19 i.xe6 dxe6
20 'iff4 f5 and Black's powerful
pair of bishops provided him with
more than enough compensation
for the exchange in Rodin-Kron,
Moscow 1991.
e3) 9 ... lLlxd4 10 i.xd4 i.b7 11
e5 (or 11 0-0 d6 12 'ii'd3 ttJd7 13
i.xg7 'iitxg7 14 :tadl f6 15 i.g4
ttJc5 16 'ifd4 a5 with a passive but
solid position for Black) 11...ttJeS
12 i.f3 i.xf3 13 'ii'xf3 ttJd6 (here
both 13 ... l:tcS and 13 ... d6 were
worth considering; Olafsson's ap-
proach is more direct and frees his
position immediately) 14 exd6
i.xd4 150-0-0 i.xc3 16 'ii'xc3 ':cS
17 ~bl exd6 IS h4 b5 19 ':xd6
l:txc4 20 "it'd3 l:te8 and Black had
solved his opening problems in
Zso.Polgar-F.Olafsson, Vienna
1993.
9 i.b7
10 ttJxc6!?
This"moveha"S gained in popu-
larity in recent years and no won-
der - White's results have been
very impressive. However, as on
move nine, White has tried an
amazing variety of moves. For 10
f3, see the next game, while the
other alternatives are:
a) lO f4!? (this thrust is more
difficult for Black to handle when
played on the previous move, as
Black can now stop e4-e5 with
...d7-d6) lO...d6 (lO ... e5!? 11
ttJdb5 exf4 12 i.xf4 lLleS trans-
poses to Rodin-Kron above, but
lO...l:tcS is too passive: after 11 e5
ttJeS 12 ttJcb5 [for 12 i.f3, see
Mortensen-Kristensen under 9 f4
above) 12 ...ttJxd4 13 i.xd4 :as 14
'it'd3 ttJc7 IS fS ttJxbS 16 cxb5 :c8
17 f6 i.hS IS i.g4 :c7 19 :ael,
White was much better in Murray-
Barbeau, Montreal 19S1) 11 l:tcl
(also interesting is 11 ttJxc6 i.xc6
12 i.f3 IlcS 13 :'cl e6 14 'ii'd3
'ii'e7 15 Ilfdl :fdS 16 lLlbS i.xbS
17 cxbS :XcI IS l:txcl eS 19 :c6
40 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System

d5 with equal chances in Hunt-

Crouch, London 1994) 11. .. ':c8 12
b3ltJd7 13 .ltf3 ltJc5 14 'ii'd2?! (14
ltJde2 with equal chances deserves
preference) 14...ltJxd4 15 .i.xd4
.ltxd4+ 16 'ii'xd4 e5 171M2 exf4
18 :cdl 'ii'g5 and Black was a safe
pawn up in Wallace-Silman, Phoe-
nix 1990.
b) 10 ltJc2 l:tc8 11 f3 ltJe8 12
'ii'd2 (or 12 ltJa3 f5 13 c5 ltJa5 14
exf5 l:txf5 15 .i.d3 l:te5 16 .i.d4
':h5 17 .i.xg7 rJi;xg7 18 b4 ltJc6 The point! (ll...ltJxe4?? loses a
with an initiative for Black in piece after 12 .i.xg7 cj;xg7 13
Scarella-Panno, Argentina 1995) ltJxe4.i.xe4 14 'ii'd4+). White now
12 ... f5! 13 .lth6 .i.xh6 14 'ii'xh6 loses material after either:
ltJe5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 ':fel ':c6 17 el) 12 ':c2 ltJxe4 13 .i.f3 ltJxc3
'ii'e3 :e6 18 ltJd5 f4 19 'ifb3 ':h6 14 ':xc3 .i.xf3 15 'ii'xf3 l:tc8,
20 .ltd3 d6 21 .i.e4, Wegner- Tseshkovsky-Bellon, Las Palmas
Raaste, Berlin 1990, and now 1976.
Black should have proceeded with e2) 12 f4 ltJxe4 13 ltJxe4 .i.xe4
21...e6 22 ltJxf4 l:txf4 23 .i.xb7 14 .i.c3 (or 14 .i.f3 .i.xf3 15 'ii'xf3
'ii'h4 24 h3 'ii'a3 (Wegner). 'ii'c7 16 b3 'ii'c6, as in Yakovich-
c) 10 ltJdb5?! d6 11 f3 ltJd7 12 Antunes, Bayamo 1990) 14... 'ii'c7
'ii'd2ltJc5 13ltJd5 ':b8 14 :adl a6 15 1i'c2 e5 16 ':cdl .i.xf4 17 'ii'xd7
15 ltJa3 e6 16 ltJc3 e5!? 17 ltJd5 'ii'xd7 18 ':xd7 ':fd8 19 ':fdl .i.e3,
ltJd4 18 .ltxd4 exd4 19 ltJc2 .i.xd5 as in Kruszynski-Hernandez, Po-
20 cxd5 d3 21 .i.xd3 .ltxb2 with a lanica Zdroj 1983.
good game for Black in Ragozin- e3) 12 .i.d3 .i.xcl 13 'ii'xcl d6
Mezentsev, Ore11992. 14 f3 ltJd7 15 'ii'h6 f6 16 h4 ltJe5
d) 10 ltJb3?! d6 11 l:tcl (or 11 f4 17 .i.c2 l:tc8 18 .i.xe5 dxe5 and
':c8 12 .i.f3 e5!? 13 ltJb5 exf4 14 White had insufficient compensa-
.ltxf4 ltJe8 15 ltJxd6 ltJxd6 16 tion for the exchange in Lichten-
.ltxd6 .ltxb2 with fine chances for stein-Petursson, Stockholm 1981.
Black in Renet-Rantanen, Palma de e4) 12 .i.f3 .i.xcl 13 'ii'xc1 d6
Mallorca 1989) 1l...l:tc8 12 f3 ltJe5 14 ':dl ltJe8 15 'ii'h6 e6 16 ':d3
13ltJd5 e6 14 ltJxf6+ .i.xf6 15 l:tc2 'ii'e7 17 .i.g4 e5 18 .lte3 ':d8 19
.lta6 16 'ii'c1 d5 17 .i.h6 l:te8 18 f4 ltJd5 .i.xd5 20 cxd5 ltJf6 21 .i.f3
ltJxc4 and Black had the luxury of ltJd7 and once again White did not
an extra pawn in Hertneck-Hickl, have enough for the exchange in
Munich 1988. Tosic-Karlsson, Nis 1981.
e) 10 ':cl? (a well-known mis- e5) 12 e5!? .i.xc1 13 exf6 .i.g5
take that, surprisingly, even strong 14 fxe7 .ltxe7 15 .ltf3 .i.c6 16ltJd5
grandmasters have been guilty of ':c8 17 'ii'd2 .ltxd5 18 .i.xd5 .i.f6
from time to time) 1O...ltJxd4 11 with a clear edge for Black in the
.i.xd4 .i.h6! encounter Hauchard-Bemard, Val
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 41
Thorens 19S5.
t) 10 1i'd2? is the most common
mistake by White in the 9 ...b6 sys-
tem. White does not lose material,
but Black obtains the pair of bish-
ops, and the dark-squared bishop in
particular helps him to secure a
safe edge. Practice has shown that
White does indeed face a difficult
defensive task; the score is heavily
in Black's favour after 1O... ltJxd4
11 ~xd4 eS! (the trick)
12 ~xeS ltJxe4 13 ltJxe4 (13
'ifd4? and 13 'iff4? both lose to
13 ... ~xeS 14 'ifxeS lieS)
13 ... ~xeS and now White has tried:
fl) 14 f4 ~xb2 IS 'ifxb2 .i.xe4
16 ~xf3 ~xf3 17 ':xf3 "ikc7 IS fS
'ii'c5+ 19 <ithl 'ifxc4 20 'ii'd2 f6 21
fxg6 hxg6 22 'ifh6 'ikf7 23 :g3 gS
24 h4 'ifh7 2S hxgS 'ii'xh6+ 26
gxh6+ 'iI;Ih7 27 :g7+ 'ifi1xh6 2S
llxd7 'iI;Ig6 and Black went on to
win the endgame in Parameswaran-
Crouch, Calcutta 1994.
f2) 14 ltJd6 ~c6 IS :adl
(White seems to be able to equalise
with IS f4!?, e.g. IS ...~g7 16
::tadl fS 17 ~f3 'ii'f6 IS b3 :abS
19 ltJbS ~xbS 20 cxbS IUdS
Hakki-Asmat, Novi Sad 01 1990)
IS ... 'ike7 16 ~g4 ~xd6 17 'ikxd6
'ife4 IS ~h3 'ii'xc4 19 b3 'ifc2 20
lld2 'ifc3 21 :d3 'ii'aS 22 a4 :adS
and Black went on to win in
Eriksson-Rogers, Malmo 1993.
f3) 14 ltJg3 ~c6?! (possibly
better is 14 ......f6 15 ':abl ~c6,
IS ...hS!? or IS ...a5!?, intending 16
'ii'xd7 ~c6 17 'ikd2 h5 with a pow-
erful initiative) IS f4 ~g7 1611adl
as 17 ~f3 'ii'f6 IS b3l:lfes 19 ~d5
~h6 20 a4 ':e7 21 "'f2 ~xdS 22
l:lxd5 J:laeS, when despite his weak
b- and d- pawns Black had the bet-
ter chances due to his strong dark-
squared bishop in Robovic-Rogers,
Bie11992.
f4) 14 ltJc3! :eS IS J:lael?!
(best was IS :ac1) IS ...11cS 16
ltJd5 (not 16 f4 ~xc3 17 'ifxc3 bS)
16... ~xdS 17 cxd5 'ikc7 IS .i.a6!
':bS! 19 f4 ~f6 20 a4 "ikcS+ 21
..ti>hl hS 22 ~bS "ikd6 23 lle2 AbcS
24 g3?! (preferable was 24 llfel)
'iI;Ig7 2S l:tfel :xe2 26 ':xe2? :cS
27 lle3 l:txd5 and Black went on to
win in Sion-Zsu.Polgar, Salamanca
19S9.
10 ~xc6
After 1O...bxc6 theory gives
White a preference, but in practice
it has been a slaughter. For exam-
ple, 11 eSltJd7 (ll...ltJeS? is even
worse: 12 f4 'ii'c7 13 cS bS 14 a4
b4 IS ltJe4 as 16 ~c4 ~a6 17
~xa6 llxa6 IS 'ifg4 liaS 19 :adl
:taS 20 'ifd7! and Black was tom
apart in Kaidanov-Kristensen, Has-
tings 1990) 12 f4 (also of interest is
12 e6 fxe6 13 ~g4, when Silman
gives 13...:fS 14 ~xfS exfS with
some compensation, but we prefer
13 ... ltJcS, e.g. 14 ~xcS bxcS IS
~xe6+ ~hS when Black's dark-
squared bishop compensates for the
disrupted pawn structure; based on
the obvious merits of 12 f4, White
should not spend too much time on
12 e6) 12 .....c7 13 'ii'c2 llfeS
42 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
(Black wants to activate his pieces
with ... lDfB, ...:ad8, ... lDe6 and
... c6-cS, but he never gets that far)
14 h4! lDfS IS hS f6? (more sensi-
ble is IS ... :ad8) 16 hxg6 hxg6 17
cS! bS 18 'ifb3+ and White soon
won, Wahls-Pigusov, Bie11989.
11 f3 d6
Black has a few options to
choose from, but this is the most
solid. The alternatives are:
a) l1...e6 12 "'c2 (with 12 "'d2
d5 we would transpose to IOn e6
11 'iWd2 dS 12 lDxc6 .i.xc6 which,
as we shall see in the next game, is
better for White) 12 ......e7 13 :adl
:tac8 14 f4 d6 IS .i.f2 with a small
plus for White, Fedorowicz-
Donaldson, Gausda11979.
b) ll...lDhS 12 "d2 (also possi-
ble is 12 :tel, as in Nunn-Ristoja,
Malta 011980) 12 .. .fS 13 exfS gxfS
14 f4 lDf6 IS .i.d4 l:tc8 16 ..tn e6
17 b3 l:tn 18 l:tadl and White was
very much in control, Smejkal-
Rantanen, Novi Sad 01 1990.
c) 11...'ifb8!? 12 "d2 .J:.e8 13
:act d6 14 ~dS 'iWb7 IS .i.gS
(White forces some structural
weaknesses on his opponent, but
with the limited material left on the
board, he has problems taking ad-
vantage of this; it was therefore
better to play IS b4) IS ...:tad8 16
~xf6+ ..txf6 17 .i.xf6 exf6 18
l:tfdl "'e7 19 ..tfl "eS 20 l:tc3 fS
21 exfS "'xfS 22 :td3 "'cS+ 23
~hl l:te6 24 b4 "eS 2S :d4 cj;g7
26 ~gl hS 27 "f4 l:tc8 28 'iWd2
l:[d8 29 "f4 ':c8 Ill-Ill was the
game Nemec-Znamenacek, Czech-
oslovakia 1992.
12 -.d2 :te8
Although nothing much seems to
be going on, Black has to handle
matters with care. In the game
Chekhov-Martin, Barcelona 1984,
Black ended up in trouble:
12 .....d7?! 13 llfdl llad8 14 a4 e6
IS as 'iWb7 16 axb6 axb6 17 b4
'iWb8 18 .i.d4 dS 19 cxdS exd5 20
eS lDe8 21 "e3 lDc7 22 bS .i.a8 23
.i.xb6 and White was winning.
Also 12 ... lDd7 has been tried,
Isupov-Balogh, Budapest 1994,
saw 13 :tacl as 14 b3 ~cS IS
IUdl :a7 16 .i.gSlDe6 17 ..te3 fS?
(it was much better to repeat the
position with 17 ...~cS, although
White is probably slightly better)
18 exfS gxfS 19 lDd5 ':b7 20 f4
with a clear plus for White.
13 :tfdl :te8
13 .. :ifd7?! would have been met
with 14 a4!, as in Chekhov-Martin
above.
14 :tad "d7
With the rook gone from aI,
White no longer has the option of
a2-a4.
IS i..n "b7
16 .i.gS lDd7
17 ~dS lDeS
18 :td as
19 b3 :cd8
Black has equalised and the
game was agreed drawn after a few
more moves:
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 43
20 -..c1
':'d7 21 ~gS ttJe6 22 ~e3
ttJcS 23 ~gS ttJe6 24 ~e3 ttJcS
l/Z-Ifl
Game 15
Wojtkiewicz-Bellon
Iraklion 1993
(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7
ttJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 b6 9 0-0 ~b7)
10 f3
10 e6?!
Black hopes to get in ... d7-d5,
thereby solving his problems
through multiple exchanges. How-
ever, it is not quite so easy as that.
Black has a number of other op-
tions here on the 10th move, and in
this game we shall take a look at
most of them: 1O... ttJxd4, lO ... ttJeS
and 1O ... d6. The next game will
deal with lO .. .1ks and Game 17
with the two most popular choices
1O... ttJh5!? and lO ...1i'bS!? Al-
though the latter two moves con-
stitute the lines in which Black has
the best chance of equalising, the
others are often played and not
without interest. However, with
correct play White should obtain an
advantage. Here are the lesser lines:
a) 1O... ttJxd4? (very passive) 11
~xd4 d6 12 -..d2 ltJd7 13 ~xg7
~xg7 14 f4 .l:tcS?! (probably better
is 14... a5, although White also has
a clear edge after 15 .l:tac 1 ltJc5 16
'ii'e3 e5 17 1:cdl 'ii'e7 IS f5 f6 19
h4, Boleslavsky-Pirc, Belgrade
1956) 15 .l:tadl ttJf6 16 e5 dxe5 17
fxe5 ltJgS IS 'ii'e3! 'ii'c7 19 e6 fxe6
20 ltJb5! 'ii'c5 21 'ii'xc5 .l:txc5 22
':'xfS 'iii'xfS 23 ':'d7 with a decisive
advantage for White, Cvetkovic-
Cebalo, Yugoslavia 1985.
b) 1O... ltJe8?! (originally this
was devised as an attempt to play
... f7-f5, but this advance just cre-
ates weaknesses; Black players
then came up with an alternate plan
of sending the e8-knight via c7 to
e6, but this idea is very slow and
Black usually ends up in an inferior
position without counterplay) 11
'ii'd2 (11 ':'cl also seems good)
11...ttJc7 (as mentioned above,
11. .. f5?! does more to create weak-
nesses than generate counterplay;
after 12 exf5 gxf5 13 1:adl ':'c8 14
Afel e6 15 ltJb3 1:f7 White was
clearly better in Korelov-Bannik,
USSR 1962) 12 Aadl ltJe6 13 ltJc2
(also interesting is 13 ltJdb5)
44 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
13 ...d6 14 b3 ~h8 15 f4 f5 16 exf5
gxf5 17 J.f3 'ifd7 18 :fel lLlcd8
19 J.d5 and White was very much
in control, Magem Badals-Tatai,
Andorra 1987.
c) 1O... d6?! (this move used to
be the main line, but after the game
Gheorghiu-Bellon, Las Palmas
1976, the entire line was discred-
ited) 11 'ifd2 'ifd7 (the alternatives
are 1l...1L1d7 12 ~hl lLlxd4 13
.ixd4 J.xd4 14 'ifxd4 a5 15 f4
lLlc5 16 'ife3 e6 17 :adl 'ife7 18
J.f3 l:ad8 19 b3 with a small edge
for White, Timoschenko-Apicella,
Bucharest 1993, or 11...1L1xd4 12
J.xd4 lLld7 13 J.xg7 <j;xg7 14 f4
l:c8 15 l:adl lLlf6 16 e5 dxe5 17
fxe5 lLlg8 18 'ife3 with a clearly
better game for White, Cvetkovic-
Cebalo, Yugoslavia 1985) and here
White has tried several different
ideas:
cl) 12 l:fel :fd8 13 J.fl lLle8
14 lLlxc6 J.xc6 15 J.g5 l:ac8 16
l:acl "'7 17 b4 f6 18 J.e31L1f7 19
1i'f2 J.e8 20 l:edl lLla6 21 a3 J.f7
22 lLld5 e6 23 lLlc3 lLlc7 24 l:c2
J.f8 with equal chances, Csom-
Bellon, Indonesia 1982.
c2) 12 lLldb5 lUc8 13 :acl a6
14 tDa3 'ifd8 15 :fdl :ab8 16 f4
J.a8 17 J.f3 'ife8 18 'ife2 .ifS 19
tDd5 lLld7 20 J.f2 e6 21 tDe3 'ife7
is also equal, Portisch-Garcia Gon-
zalez, Lucerne 011982.
c3) 12 :adl :tad8 13 :tfel tDe8
14.ifl 'ifc8 15 lLld5 :td7 161L1xc6
J.xc6 17 J.g5 ~7 18 b4 with a
small edge for White, Tukmakov-
Bellon, Madrid 1973.
c4) 12 :tfdl :tfd8 13 J.fl tDxd4
14 J.xd4 e6 15 a4! (this is a stan-
dard plan in such positions; White
puts pressure on the weak black
queenside and sometimes even
sacrifices the a-pawn to weaken
Black's pawn structure and loosen
his control over the c5-square)
15 .....c7 16 a5 bxa5 17 tDb5 'ife7
18 'ifxa5 l:d7 19 .a3 tDe8 20
J.xg7 ~xg7 21 1i'e3 and Black was
scrambling to defend, Ciocaltea-
Forintos, Titograd 1982.
c5) 12 a4! e6 13 :tfdl :tfd8 14
tDxc6 'i'xc6 (Black would also
have problems after the superior
14... J.xc6) 15 as bxa5 16 tDb5 a6
17 tDxd6 tDe8 18 c5 l:td7 19 "xa5
J.xb2 20 :tabl tDxd6 21 :'xd6
:'xd6 22 exd6 J.f6
23 'ifc7! 1-0 Gheorghiu-Bellon,
Las Palmas 1976.
11 "d2!
This simple move is the best
way for White to play for an ad-
vantage. However, there are some
other moves of interest:
a) 11 tDdb5!? dS (if ll...tDe8?
then 12 "d2 a6 13 tDa3 and Black
has more weaknesses that he can
cope with) 12 cxd5 exd5 13 exdS
tDb4! 14 d6 tDfd5 15 tDxdS (Black
does not have any problems after
15 .if2 either: 15 ...•g5!? 16 tDxdS
tDxd5 17 tDc7 tDe3 18 J.xe3
"xe3+ 19 <ifi>hl :tad8 20 :tel .f4
21 ~3 l:txd6 with a clear edge for
Black, Bramkamp-Znamenacek,
Dortmund 1990) 15 ...tDxdS 16
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 45
~d4 .ilh6! 17 ~c4 ttJe3 IS ~xe3
~xe3+ 19 ~hl 'ii'h4 20 g4 ~f4 21
'ii'e2 a6 22 ttJc7 :ladS 23 :adl
~xd6 and Black's strong bishops
gave Black much the better chances
in Kamyshov-Simagin, Moscow
1947.
b) 11 lDxc6!? ~xc6 12 'ii'b3!
(White obtained an advantage after
12 :c1 'ii'e7 13 'ii'b3 :acS 14 :fdl
~aS 15 "a3!? "xa3 16 bxa3 ~c6
17 c5 bxc5 18 ~xc5 .!:tfd8 19 ~xa7
:fdS 20 ~c5 :dcS 21 ~e7 in Vi-
tolins-Bielczyk, Riga 1981) 12...dS?
(possible is 12 ...:c8!? 13 :adl ikc7
14 ttJb5 ~xb5 15 ti'xb5 :fd8 16
:d2? dS with an edge for Black,
Mokry-Kristensen, Belgrade 1985)
13 :adl "e7 14 e5 ttJd7 15 cxdS
exd5 16 f4 ttJf6 17 ~d4 with a
clearly better game for White, IlIes-
cas-Bellon, Linares 1991.
c) 11 .!:tc l!? ttJxd4 12 ~xd4
~h6 13 .!:tc2 ttJeS 14 .!:tel d6 15
~f1 lDc7 16 ~xe3 ii.xe3 17 :xe3
"g5 18 .!:td3 with a slight advan-
tage for White, Polugayevsky-
Bellon, Logrono 1991.
11 'ii'e7!?
The old main line is 11...dS, but
Black has been under a lot of fire in
this variation and it seems that he
will have to give up that concept
altogether. After 11...dS the line
continues with 12 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 13
cxd5 exd5 14 e5 ttJd7 15 f4, when
Black's attempts so far have been
in vain:
a) 15 .. .f5? 16 .i.b5! ~b7 17 e6
lDc5 18 f5 a6 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20
~d7 "a5 21 ikd3 d4 22ttJa4 :ad8
23 'ii'c4 ~hS and Black resigned,
Chiburdanidze-Pinal, Havana 19S5.
b) 15 ... g5?! 16 ttJxdS ttJxe5 17
:adl gxf4 18 ~xf4 ttJg6 19 ~c4
'ii'h4 20 ~b3 ~xd5 21 ~xd5 :acS
22 ~d6 :fd8 23 ~g3 Wke7 24
~xf7+ <;Ph8 25 ~d6 and Black was
being crushed, Panchenko-Teil-
man, USSR 19S5.
c) 15 ... ttJc5 (Black's best chance
but he is nowhere near equality) 16
:adl! (White also has 16 llfdl!?
and 16 ~xc5) 16... f6 17 ttJxd5
fxe5 18 ~c4 <oPh8 19 fxe5 :xfl +
20 lhfl 'ii'h4 21 :f4 'ii'h5 22 ttJe7
~b7 23 b4 ttJe4 24 'ii'd7 :b8 25
ttJcS! ':xc8 26 'ii'xb7 l:d8 27 'ii'xe4
~xe5 28 ~e2 1-0 was the encoun-
ter Kuporosov-Malisauskas, USSR
1985.
12 :fe1 :fdS
13 ~n ttJxd4
14 ~xd4 ttJeS
15 ~xg7
A better way for White to con-
tinue was shown in the subsequent
game Panno-Bellon, Buenos Aires
1994: 15 ~f2ll)c7 16 :adl d6 17
a4 ~e6 IS :al :ab8 19 a5!? bxa5
20 l:xa5 a6 21 :eal :b3! 22 :la2
:dbS 23 ttJdl ~e5, when White
was slightly better.
15 ... <oPxg7 16 <oPhl d6 17 :ac1
ttJc71S 'ii'e3 e5
Black wants to play ... ttJe6-d4.
19 ttJd5 ttJxdS 20 cxd5 :dcS 21
~b5 :c5 22 ~a4 112-112
46 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
Game 16
Nunn-Karlsson
He/sinki 1981
(1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 S c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 b6 9 0-0 i.b7 10
(3)
10 :c8
This move enjoys a quite large
following, but with best play White
should be able to develop an edge.
White must not underestimate his
opponent's resources, however, as
the black position is both dynamic
and solid. Unfortunately, it is close
to impossible for Black to make
any winning attempts if White does
nothing.
11 1i'd2!
Natural and best. White takes
charge of the cl-h6 diagonal and
thereby stops any tricks involving
...tLlxd4 followed by ... i.h6. The
vast majority of games with
lO ... .:cS feature 11 1t'd2, but White
does have some alternatives:
a) 11 tLlxc6!? i.xc6 12 "'3 e6
13 :adl 1Ic7 is Mokry-Kristensen,
which can be found under 1O...e6
11 tLlxc6 in the notes to Game 15.
b) 11 :.tel ~xd4! (Black takes
control of the cl-h6 diagonal) 12
i.xd4 i.h6! 13 :c2 tLlh5 14 g3
~g7 15 f4 f5 16 :d2 i..c6 17 e5
tLle6 (at fIrst glance White seems
better, but in fact he is struggling to
keep the position under control) IS
i.e3 (1S h4 to avoid ... g6-g5 was
tried in Sznapik-Pytel, Polanica
Zdroj 19S2: IS ...tLlxd4 19 lhd4
i.g7 20 1i'b3 ~hS 21 l:td2 1Ic7 22
:.tdl and now 22 ... d6 23 exd6 exd6
24 :xd6 l:tcdS! 25 ':xdS :xdS 26
:xdS+ 1ixdS 27 1idl 1ie7 is diffi-
cult for White; Black's strong pair
of bishops and the vulnerable white
king give him more than enough
compensation for the pawn)
IS ... g5! 19 i.f3 1ieS 20 i.h5 1IdS
21 i.f3 1IeS 22 i.h5 1IdS (now 23
i.f3 would have been a draw by
repetition, but White tries for more
and gets burned) 23 tLlb5 gxf4 24
gxf4 ~hS 25 :ff2? :gS+ 26 ~1
':g7! 27 tLlxa7 1IgS 2S 'iL>e2 tLlxf4+
29 i.xf4 1ixe4+ 30 l:td3 i.xf4 31
~xe6 1ie4+ 32 ~f1 :legS and
Black was winning, Browne-
Benjamin, Lone Pine 19S0.
11 :e8
Black, and in partiCUlar GM Lars
Karlsson, has done well with this
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 47
move, but it is still questionable
whether it is Black's best. Alterna-
tives are:
a) 1l.....c7 12 :acl "Wb8 13
J:[fdl :fd8 14 ~fl tDxd4 IS .i.xd4
tDe8 16 tDdS ~xd4+ 17 "xd4
~xd5 18 exdS eS 19 dxe6 dxe6 20
'ii'h4 as 21 :d4 :xd4 22 "xd4
"d6 23 "iixd6 tt)xd6 24 b3 'it>f8
112-112 was Pieper Emden-Bischoff,
Gennany 1989.
b) 1l...tt)e8?! (this move should
not be trusted; Black hopes to play
... f7-fS, but this just weakens his
position) 12 :fdl (12 :adl is also
good) 12... tt)d6 13 b3 fS 14 exfS
gxfS IS tDxc6 ~xc6 16 :acl <li>h8
17 tt)dS :g8 18 .i.gS ~xdS 19
"xdS "f8 20 ~f4 "cS 21 "iid2
.i.eS 22 ~xeS+ l:txeS 23 f4 "a8 24
.i.fl !:te6 2S b4 with a clear edge
for White, Liang-Qi, China 1981.
c) 11...tt)hS!? is possibly Black's
best chance. He intends to throw in
... f7-fS at the right moment and
also plans ... tt)hS-f4 to take advan-
tage of the e3-bishop's obligations
to protect the d4-knight. White has
now tried:
cl) In Zso.Polgar-Sosonko,
Aruba 1991, White scored a quick
victory with 12 tt)c2 d6 (Black's
position after 12 ... fS 13 exfS gxfS
14 !:tad 1 tt)f6 IS tt)d5 tt)eS 16
tDxf6+ .i.xf6 17 b3 d6 18 tt)b4
tDf7 19 tDd5 was very unappealing,
Hendriks-Van den Bosch, En-
schede 1995) 13 :abl "d7 14
l:tfdl fS IS exfS gxfS 16 ~h6!
(before playing fJ-f4 to fix the
black pawn structure, White ex-
changes the dark-squared bishops)
16...tDeS 17 b3 f4 18 .i.xg7 ~xg7
19 "d4 'it>g8?? 20 "xeS 1-0.
c2) 12 tt)dbS should be harm-
less, but things got out of control in
the game Ghinda-Pavlov, Predeal
1988: 12 ...tt)eS 13 cS!? a6 14 tt)a7
:xcS IS ~xcS bxcS 16 f4 ~h6 17
~xhS gxhS 18 'ii'f2 tt)g6 19 fS
lLleS 20 f6 exf6 21 "iixcs with un-
clear complications.
c3) 12 :fdl (the most common
choice) and now:
c31) Black successfully took
charge with 12 ...fS in Boesken-
Doncevic, Gennany 1987: 13 exfS
gxfS 14 f4? (this drops a pawn
without compensation; 14 tt)d5, 14
tDc2 or 14 "c2 were worth consid-
ering) 14...tt)xf4 IS .i.fJ tt)g6 16
tDdbS tt)geS 17 .i.d5+ <li>h8 18
~gS "e8 19 tt)xa7 :a8 20 tt)abS
'ii'g6 with an initiative for Black.
c32) 12 ...tt)eS is quite popular,
but against best play Black has big
problems to face: 13 b3 fS 14 exfS
gxfS IS tt)dS! ~xdS 16 cxdS f4 17
~f2 'ii'e8 18 ~d3?! (as Nuon and
Gallagher point out, 18 d6 is better,
e.g. 18 ... exd6 19 tt)bS "g6 20
:acl or 18 ...e6 19 tt)bS "g6 20
:acl in both cases with a clear
edge for White) 18 ... tt)xd3 19
"xd3 "g6 20 "xg6 hxg6 21 :ac1
:xcl 22 :xcl ~xd4! 23 .i.xd4
:fS and White was struggling in
Sherzer-Edelman, New York 1993.
c33) 12 ... tt)f4! (the sane move)
13 .i.fl tt)e6 14 tt)cbS?! (this just
48 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
encourages Black to exchange eve-
rything; 14 ttJc2, preserving some
tension, is probably better)
14... ttJexd4 IS ttJxd4 ttJxd4 16
.i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 17 'ii'xd4 d6 18 eS
dxeS 19 'ii'xeS 'ilc7 20 'ilxc7 l:txc7
21 l:d2 Ji.c8 22 :adl <:J;g7 23 b3
.i.e6 24 ~f2 gS 1/2_ 1/2 Tatai-
Makropoulos, Budva 1981.
d) 11...d6 (this is similar to, but
perhaps somewhat more accurate
than, 10...d6, but Black's winning
prospects are about the same, close
to none!) and now:
dl) 12 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 13 a4 as 14
.i.d3 ttJd7 IS .i.c2 ttJc5 16 .:tad 1
.i.d7 17 .i.h6 .i.xh6 18 'ii'xh6 f6 19
h3 :n 20 b3 'ilfS 21 'ii'h4 fS 22
exfS gxfS 23 ttJdS :b8 24 'ii'g3
112-112 De Firmian-Benjamin, USA
ch 1985.
d2) 12 :fdl ttJd7 13 ttJxc6
.i.xc6 14 :tac1 as IS ttJdS ttJcS 16
l:tbl a4 17 b4 axb3 18 axb3 l:a8 19
.i.f1 ]:le8 20 b4 ttJd7 21 'ilf2 with a
tiny edge for White, Taimanov-
Cebalo, Titograd 1984.
d3) 12 :ac1 ttJd7 (Black equal-
ised smoothly in Sammalvuo-
U.Andersson , Sweden 1994, after
12 ... ttJxd4 13 .i.xd4 ttJd7 14 .i.e3
l:e8 IS l:.fdl 'ii'c7 16 .i.f1 'ib8 17
'ii'f2 .i.e8 18 ttJdS e6 19 ttJc3 a6 20
'ild2 .i.fS, and was even more suc-
cessful with 12 ... l:e8 in Bang-
Callergaard, Copenhagen 1988: 13
ttJb3 ttJe5 14 ttJd5 e6 IS ttJxf6+
.i.xf6 16 :fd 1 .i.a6 17 'ii'b4 dS 18
exdS exdS 19 l:txdS ttJc6 20 .:txd8
ttJxb4 21 :xc8 .i.xc8 22 ~f2
.i.xb2 with a clearly better game
for Black) 13 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 14 l:.fdl
ttJcS IS ttJdS 'ii'd7 (IS ... a5!?) 16 b4
ttJe6 17 f4 fS 18 Ji.f3 cilh8 19 :el
ttJc7 20 exfS .i.xdS 21 cxdS gxf5
with a clear advantage for White,
Am. Rodriguez-Pazos, Moscow 01
1994.
12 :ac1
Another excellent move is 12
:fdl, after Black risks ending up in
a joyless position even if he is care-
ful. His best chance is 12 ...'ilc7 13
:ac 1 'ib8 and here White has tried
the following:
a) 14 ttJdbS 'ilb8 IS .i.f1 a6?!
(lS ... ttJeS 16 ttJdS ttJed7 seems
better) 16 ttJa3 ttJd7 17 'ilf2 ttJb4
18 ttJab 1 .i.a8 19 a3 ttJc6 20 ttJd5
with the better chances for White,
Mulivanela-Taborsky, Prague
1993.
b) 14 b3 ttJh5 15 .i.f1 .i.e5 16 g3
.i.g7 17 .i.g2 ttJf6 18 'ilf2 h5 19
ttJde2 ttJe5 20 h3 d6 21 ttJd4 ttJed7
22 g4 a6 23 gS ttJh7 24 h4 ttJhfS 2S
.i.f1 e6 26 ttJde2 .i.a8 27 .i.d4
.i.xd4 28 :xd4 ttJe5 29 ncdl .:ted8
30 Ji.h3 ttJc6 31 :4d2 bS 32 cxb5
axbS with mutual chances, Borik-
Karlsson, Randers zt 1982.
c) 14 .i.f1 ttJhS IS ttJde2 ttJeS 16
ttJf4 ttJxf4 17 .i.xf4 d6 18 b3 .i.c6
19 ttJdS ncd8 20 .i.g5 f6 21 Ji.e3
e6 22 ttJc3, Sznapik-Ristoja, Hel-
sinki 1981, and now instead of
22 ...fS? 23 'ilc2 fxe4 24 tiJxe4 dS
2S cxdS exdS 26 ttJg5 with a big
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 49

advantage for White, Black should 13 b4!

have remained calm and continued Black has no problems after 13
22 ...:d7 with approximately even lDd5 1i'b8 14 lOb3 d6 15 .:tfdl
chances. lDd7, as in Jansa-Karlsson, Yugo-
d) 14 lDc2 d6 15 lDd4 (although slavia 1981, which finished 16
White was successful with this, it lDd4 e6 17 lOxc6 ~xc6 18 1Ob4
can hardly be called a refutation of i..f8 19lDxc6 ltxc6 20 b3 1/2- 1/2.
Black's play) 15 ...:cd8 16 lDxc6 13 lDh5?!
~xc6 17 b4 lDd7?! (the start of a This is a waste of time and just
series of strange moves; simple and leads to a position where White has
better was 17 ...l::td7, intending ... e7- everything he wants. It was better
e6 and ... l::ted8 to meet a wing at- to follow the standard plan of
tack with a counter-thrust in the 13 ...1i'bs, intending ... d7-d6,
centre) 18 a3 lDf8?! 19 'iVa2 h6?! ... l::tcdS, ...e7-e6 and ... l::td7 with a
20 ~fl lDd7 21 lDb5 l::tc8 22 a4 a6 solid position.
23 lDd4 ~b7 24 lDb3 ~a8 25 a5 14 lOxc6 ~xc6
bxa5 26 'iVxa5 lDe5 27 lDd4 lDc6 :lS lDdS 'iVb8
28 lDxc6 l::txc6 29 b5 axb5 30 cxb5 16 f4 lDf6
l::txcl 31 l::txcl l:tc8 32 'iVa7 with a 17 ~f3 d6
comfortable edge for White, 18 i.d4! bS
A.Martin-Haik, Manchester 1981. 19 eS lDxdS
Finally, White can play 12 20 cxdS ~d7
lDdb5, but after 12 ... a6!? 13 lDa4!? 21 'iVe3
axb5 14 cxb5 d5! unclear compli- White dominates the entire
cations arise. Kudrin-Karlsson, board, and makes no mistake whilst
Hastings 1983/84, continued: 15 taking the last few steps to the full
bxc6 ~xc6 16 lDxb6 ':'b8 17 e5! point:
lDh5 18 'iVd4 f6! 19 'iVc5 i..h6! 20 21 ...a6 22 e6 ~xd4 23 ext7+ ~xt7
i..xh6 'iVxb6 21 'iVxb6 l::txb6 22 24 'iVxd4 ':'xc1 25 ':'xc1 ':'c8 26
l::tfcl ':'xb2 23 Ihc6 l:he2 with a ':'el ':'c4 27 'iVe3 'iVd8 28 a3 ~c8
level game. 29 h3 ~fS 30 g4 ~c8 31 fS gxfS
12 'iVc7 32 'iVh6 ~e8 33 'iVhS+ ~f8 34
'iVxh7~e81-0
After 35 gxf5 followed by f5-f6
it is all over.

Game 17
Saltaev-Pigusov
Katerini 1993

(1 e4 cS 2 lDo ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

lDxd4 g6 S c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ltlf6 7
ltlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 b6 9 0-0 ~b7 10
0)
10 ltlh5!?
50 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
After the relative demise of the
old 1O... e6 and 10... nc8, this has
now become the preferred move.
With the knight out of the way, it is
easier to play ... f7-fS, which stirs
things up a little and avoids the
passive positions that arise after
virtually any other 10th move. We
have already looked at a number of
other ideas for Black here, all of
which have been around for some
time. However, in 1990, Morovic
introduced a new idea in his game
against Kir.Georgiev at the Novi
Sad Olympiad. His new move was
1O... 'iib8,
which does not seem to make
much sense at first glance. The
deeper point is revealed when you
see the next couple of moves,
where Black usually continues with
1l....l:.d8, 12 ... d6, 13. .. .l:.d7,
14 ... 'iffB and lS ... .l:.ad8. Black thus
builds up a fortress which is not
easy to break down, and given the
opportunity he will open up the
position with a timely ... d6-dS.
Let us take a look at the present
status of this line: 11 'ifd2 (11 .l:.c1
allows immediate equality with
1l...o!i)xd4 12 .i.xd4 .i.h6! 13 :'c2
~f4 14 g3 ~xg3+ IS hxg3 'ifxg3+
and 1/2- 1/2 due to the perpetual,
Milu-Moldovan, Bucharest 1994)
11..J:td8 and now:
a) 12 o!i)c2 d6 13 ~h1 .l:.d7 14
.l:1ac1 'iff8 IS b3 .l:.ad8 16 f4 e6 17
fS?! exfS 18 exfS dS! 19 ~gS dxc4
20 'iff4 cxb3 21 axb3 h6 22 .i.xf6
.i.xf6 23 o!i)e4 ~eS 24 'ifg4 'ife7 2S
f6 'iff8 with an extra pawn for
Black, as in the game Timoshenko-
Moldovan, Calimanesti 1992.
b) 12 ~dbS d6 13 .l:.ad1 e6
(13 ... nd7!?) 14 ~h1 o!i)e8
(14 ... .l:.d7) IS f4 o!i)e7 16 .i.f3 a6 17
o!i)a3 .i.c6 18 o!i)c2 with a good
game for White, I.Gurevich-
Rodriguez Andrez, Maringa 1991.
c) 12 %tad1 d6 13 'ife1 .l:.d7 14
'ifh4 "fB IS ~h1 l:.ad8 16 l:.d2
o!i)xd4 17 .i.xd4 o!i)e8 18 .i.xg7
o!i)xg7 19 f4 fS 20 .i.e3 eS 21 .l:.df2
.l:.f7 with roughly equal chances,
was Kramnik-Moldovan, Arnhem
1991.
d) 12 .l:.fd1 (the most common
move) 12 ... d6 and now White has
tried a variety of moves:
d1) 13 o!i)b3!? e6! 14 a4 o!i)aS! IS
o!i)xaS bxaS 16 o!i)bS dS 17 cxdS a6
18 o!i)c3 exdS 19 .i.f4 'ifa7+ 20
.i.e3 'iib8 21 .i.f4 'ifa7+ 22 .i.e3
1/2- 1/2 Moldovan-Milu, Bucharest
1991.
d2) 13 .l:.ac1 J:r.d7 14 o!i)c2 "f8
IS b3 .l:.ad8 16 f4 e6 17 J..f3 "e7
18 'ife1 o!i)e8 with slightly better
chances for White, Tundirar-
Kahyai, Teheran 1991.
d3) 13 o!i)dbS nd7 14 .l:.ac1 'iff8
IS .i.f1 nad8 16 'iff2 e6 17 o!i)d4
o!i)eS 18 h3 'ife7 with equal chances
was Kir.Georgiev-Morovic, Novi
Sad 011990.
d4) 13 'ife1 nd7 and now:
d41) 14 .l:.ab1 'iff8 IS ~h1 .l:.ad8
16 o!i)cbS o!i)xd4 17 o!i)xd4 o!i)hS 18
.i.f1 e6 19 %td2 dS with a promis-
ing game for Black, P.H.Nielsen-
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 51
Moldovan, Mamaia 1991.
d42) 14 1Wh4!? 'ii'fS IS ttJdbS
ttJe8 16 l:ac 1 .tf6 17 .tf2 e6 18 f4
:ad8 19 :d2 ttJc7 20 :cdl lDxbS
21 ttJxbS 'fIe7 22 .tf3 .tg7 with a
passive but solid position for
Black, where White is slightly bet-
ter, Brodsky-Moldovan, Bucharest
1994.
11 ~xc6
This is probably White's best
shot at an advantage; he eliminates
all of Black's tricks involving
... ttJf4, and since ... f7-fS is rarely of
any use, it leaves the black knight
on hS looking quite silly. Apart
from the text move, White has a
number of alternatives, however,
not all of which are to be recom-
mended:
a) 11 f4? (this loses a pawn)
11...lDxf4! 12 ':xf4 (12 .tg4 ttJe6
[12 ... lDxd4 is simpler; now White
goes for an ill-fated attack] 13 ttJfS
gxfS 14 exfS lDcs IS f6 .txf6 16
:f3 lbes 17 :h3 e6 18 .tfS exfS
19 'fibs :e8 20 'ii'xh7+ ~fS 21
.th6+ ~e7 22 'ii'xfS :g8, when it
was soon all over in Kosten-Pytel,
England 1981) 12 ... ttJxd4 13 .txd4
eS 14 1:[f3 exd4 15 lDdS .txdS 16
exdS 'figS 17 :g3 'ii'eS 18 'fId2
:ae8, and Black is on top, Raaste-
Rantanen, Jarvenpaa 1985.
b) 11 ~hl fS 12 exfS gxfS 13 f4
ttJxd4 14 .txd4 ttJf6 IS .tf3 .txf3
16 'ii'xf3 Af7 17 :adl Ac8 18 b3
':c6 19 .teS "'e8 20 ttJbS ttJg4
with roughly equal chances, Ag-
nos-Rogers, London 1991.
c) 11 ttJb3 fS (1l....txc3!?) 12
exfS gxfS 13 cS ':b8 14 'ii'd2 ttJf6
IS ':fdl q;h8 16 q;hl .ta8 17 cxb6
axb6 18 .td3 e6 19 ttJbS dS 20
ttJ3d4 :e8 21 :el "'d7 22 :ac1
:bc8 23 .th6 ttJhS with equal
chances, Rotman-Garrido, Mamaia
1991.
d) 1.1 ttJdbS a6 (or ll...d6 12
'ii'd2 "'d7 13 l:adl Aad8 14.th6
l:ac8 15 .txg7 ttJxg7 16 f4 a6 17
ttJa3 Ab8 18 ttJdS .ta8 19 b4 a5
with good play for Black, Veres-
Certek, Slovakia 1993) 12 ttJa3 eS
(in Timman-Yusupov, Linares
1992, Black ran into trouble after
12 ...:b8 13 f4.txc3 14 bxc3 ttJf6
IS eS ttJe4 16 "'el d6 [better was
16...fS, when White is only slightly
better] 17 .tf3 ttJaS 18 fS! with a
clear edge for White) 13 g3 ttJd4
14 ttJc2lDxe2+? (Silman and Don-
aldson's suggestion of 14......c7
seems to be the correct way to con-
tinue, as IS ttJxd4 exd4 16 .txd4
can be answered with 16.. ~ttJxg3
and IS ~g2 with Is ...lDxc2 16
'fIxc2 fS with unclear play) IS
'ii'xe2 fS 16 .tf2 1igS 17 ~hl b5
18 cxbS ttJf6 19 ttJb4 fxe4 20 fxe4
axb5 21 'ii'xbS Aab8 22 ifd3, when
Black does not have enough for the
sacrificed pawn, Wirthensohn-
Hernandez, Lucerne 01 1982.
e) 11 'ii'd2 ttJf4 (other moves
lead to a comfortable edge for
White: 11...fS 12 exfS gxfS 13
:adl fS 14 .tf2 ttJeS IS :fel 'fIe8
52 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
16 .i.d3 ttJxd3 17 'ii'xd3 'ikf7 18 b3
l:tad8 19 liJdb5, Ilincic-Haik,
Vrnjacka Banja 1986, or l1...ttJxd4
12 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 13 'ii'xd4 ttJf4 14
:fdl d6 15 ~£1 flc7 16 b4 :ac8
17 'ike3 ttJh5 18 a4 ttJf6 19 ttJb5
flb8 20 a5, Panno-Milos, Villa
Gesell 1985) and now White has
tried:
el) 12 ttJxc6 ttJxe2+ 13 ttJxe2
dxc6 14 flc2 flc7 15 .i.f4 e5 16
.i.g5 f6 17 .i.e3 f5 with some ini-
tiative for Black, Larrosa-A.Martin,
Alicante 1991.
e2) 12 .i.xf4 ttJxd4 13 .i.d3 l:tc8
14 .i.e3 d6 15 l:tadl 'ikc7 16 b3
:fd8 17 .i.b 1 liJe6 18 :c1 liJc5 19
~hl, Kudrin-Ramos, Seville 1990,
and now instead of 19... a5?! 20
l:tfdl with a clear advantage for
White, 19 ...l:td7 would have been
the right way to continue.
e3) 12 ':adl ttJe6 (l2 ... ttJxe2+ is
better) 13 ttJc2 d6 14 .i.h6 ':c8 15
.i.xg7 <j;xg7 16 f4 f5 17 exf5 gxf5
18 ~f3 ttJa5 19 b3 with a clear
edge for White, Meyers-Hergott,
Bie11993.
t) II ::tel ttJf4 12 .i.£1 ttJe6 and
now:
£1) 13 ttJce2 ':c8 14 'ikd2 flc7
15 l:tadl (15 b3 is also equal)
15 ... ~e5 16 ttJxc6 dxc6 17 f4 ::tcd8
18 'ikc1 .i.g7 19 ttJc3 ':xdl 20
':xdl l:[d8 21 e5 :xdl+ 22 flxdl
f6 23 exf6 exf6 24 ttJe4 f5 25 'iid6
.i.c8 with equal chances, Uhlmann-
Zsu.Polgar, Aruba 1992.
(2) 13 ttJde2 f5 (also adequate is
13 ... d6 14 'iid2 :e8 15 :abl Ab8
16 :ec1 .i.a8 17 ttJd5 l:tc8 18 b3
ttJc5 19 l:td 1 ttJe6 20:bc 1 :b8 21
flel flc8 with equality, Magyar-
Pigusov, Budapest 1989) 14 exf5
:xf5 (14 ... gxf5 is a viable alterna-
tive) 15 'iid2 ttJe5 16 liJd4 ttJxd4
17 .i.xd4 'iic7 18 ttJd5 .i.xd5 19
cxd5 :afS with excellent chances
for Black, Ekabson-Terentiev,
USSR 1983.
g) 11 :cl ttJf4 12 :f2?!
(alternatively, 12 'ii'd2 ttJxd4?!
[both 12 ... ttJe6 and 12 ... ttJxe2+ are
superior] 13 .i.xd4 .i.xd4+ 14
flxd4 'iic7 15 ~hl e5? 16 'iid2
rJitg7 17 ':fdlllfd8 18 i.£1 ttJe6 19
b4 .i.c6 20 ttJb5 flb8 21 ttJd6 with
a big edge for White, Smirin-
Grechinin, Smolensk 1992, or 12
i.xf4 ttJxd4 13 'ikd2 d6 14 i.h6
i.xh6 15 'ikxh6 e5 16 i.d3 ttJe6 17
.:tfdl a6 18 fle3 i.c6 19 ttJe2 :b8
20 i.bl 'iie7 with equal chances, as
in Schinzel-Pytel, Poland 1980)
12 ... ttJxd4 13 i.xd4 i.h6! 14 l:tc2
ttJe6 15 i.£1 :c8 16 ttJd5 ttJxd4 17
'iixd4 e5?! (l7 ...d6! would have
given Black a slight pull) 18 'iid3
.i.xd5 19 cxd5 'iig5 20 ':fe2 :fd8
21 g3 i.fS 22 i.h3 1/2- 112 Gulko-
Yusupov, Groningen 1994.
11 dxc6
This is the most natural recap-
ture. Black returns the pawns to a
symmetrical configuration. How-
ever, in Khuzman-Hergott, Bie!
1993, Black did not experience
many problems after 11...i.xc6
either: 12 c5 b5 13 g4 ttJf6 14 'iic2
e5 15 a4 a6 16 :fdl 'iie7 17 :d2
 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System 53

l:tfd8 18 l:txd8 lhd8 19 axb5 axb5 Nunn/Gallagher suggests that

20 l:ta7 l:td7 21 b4 ttJe8 22 ~g2 White is better after 15 "c2, but
.i.c8 23l:hd7 112-112. 15 .....a5 is still fully adequate for
Black.
12 lib3?! has also been tried,
but after 12... iLd4! l3 iLxd4
"xd4+ 14 ~hl ttJf4 15 l:tfdl "e5
16 .i.f1 llfd8 17 a4 ttJe6 18 ttJe2
ttJc5 19 "c2 a5, Black was better
in Kuznetsov-Silman, USA 1986.
12 .i.xc3
13 bxc3 ~xdl
14 ':'fxdl
14 ~xdl c5 15 .i.f3 ttJf6 16 e5
.i.xf3 17 gxf3 ttJh5 18 l:td7 llfd8 is
also fine for Black.
14 c5
12 f4 15 e5 llfd8
Possibly better is 12 c5, when in 16 a4 ttJg7
Grunberg-Certek, Bratislava 1992, 16 ... ~f8 is inaccurate. Magem
Black was crushed after 12 ... lib8? Badals-Apicella, Moscow 01 1994,
13 f4 .i.xc3 14 bxc3 ttJf6 15 "c2 saw 17 llxd8+ l:hd8 18 a5 .i.e4 19
b5 16 iLd4 ttJd7 17 f5 ttJe5 18 f6 ~£1 ttJg7 20 g4 f5 21 exf6 gxf6 22
"c7 19 "d2 exf6 20 l:txf6 "e7 21 axb6 axb6 23 lla6 with a small
l:tael l:tae8 22 ~6 iLc8 23 l:t1£4 advantage for White.
g5 24 "xg5+ ttJg6 25 l:th4 iLe6 26 17 as lIxdl+
lhh7 ~xh7 27 'ifh5+ 1-0. In fact 18 ':'xdl ttJe6
12 ...~8? is not necessary; 12... b5 19 ~f2 h5!
is much better, when Silman gives 20 ':'al .i.e4
l3 f4 b4! 14 ttJa4 ttJf6 15 .i.f3 iLa6 21 .i.f3 .i.xt3
16l:t£1 .i.b5 and 15 iLd3 "a5 with 22 'it>xf3 ':'b8
good play for Black in both cases. l/Z-Ifl
3 Classical Maroczy:
Introduction and Early Deviations

Chapter Guide

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J..g7 6 J..e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0

8 J..e2 d6 9 0-0

9 ...lLlxd4 10 J..xd4
10... J..e6 - Game 18
10... J..d7 - Game 19
9...:e8
10 a3 - Game 20
10 1t'd2 - Game 21
9 ... J..d7
10 f3 - Game 22
lOf4 - Game 23
10 lLlb3 - Game 24
10 lLlc2
1O.. .'ifa5?! - Game 25
10...a6!?
11 'il'd2 - Game 26
11 f3 - Game 27
lOl:tbl - Game 28
10l:tc1 - Chapter 4/5
10'il'd2 - Chapter 4/5

Whilst other systems have had their
ups and downs over the years, the
Classical system has remained
quite popular. Black first strives to
exchange a set of knights and the
dark-squared bishops on d4; then
the plan is to transfer the f6-knight
to c5, put the light-squared bishop
on c6, play ... a7-a5 and the rest
depends on the particular set-up
chosen by White.
Like most other systems in the
Maroczy, Black gets quite a solid
position, but here Black also has
chances to play for a win, which
probably explains why the system
has remained a popular choice. It
has been a favourite of Larsen's for
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 55
several years, while Anand and
Petursson are also happy to take the
black side. This chapter deals with
early deviations from the main
lines with 9... .i.d7 10 .d2 or 10
:tcl, which are dealt with in the
following two chapters.
However, Black must be careful
with his move order, as we will see.
Game 18
A.Sokolov-Nemet
Bem 1992
(1 e4 <:5 2 tLlf3 tLl<:6 3 d4 ud4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 <:4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 tLlf6 7
tLld 0-0 8 ~e2)
8 d6
The immediate 8... a5 has been
tried on a few occasions. The most
direct attempt at refutation was 9
0-0 a4 10 c5!?, as played in Nunn-
Haik, Paris 1983, when, after
10... d5 11 cxd6 .xd6 12 lLldb5
'ifb4 13 a3 Wa5 14 f4 e5 15 fxe5
tLlxe5 16 :txf6 .i.xf6 17 tLld5
.i.d8?, White won in great style. It
was much better to play 17 ...!ta6,
when it is not clear whether White
can break through. If White plays a
move other than 10 c5!?, then
Black will play ....a5, defending
the a4-pawn, and then simply de-
velop nonnally. An interesting way
to prevent this is 9 f3!?, defending
the e4-pawn and planning to meet
9 ... a4? with 10 tLlxa4. The standard
answer to f3, 9 ...1i'b6, can be met
by 10 tLlcb5, as Black cannot kick
the knight with ... a7-a6! Black will
probably have to play 9 ... d6 trans-
posing to Andersson-Larsen in the
notes to Game 30.
9 0-0 lLlxd4
The plan with ... tLlxd4, ... J..e6
and ...Wa5 is not very logical here,
since White can take back on d4
with the bishop. Compared to the
lines where White has to capture
with the queen on d4, losing time
since the queen cannot stay in the
line of the bishop on g7 forever, he
now has the chance to grab more
space, which should give him an
edge.
10 .i.xd4 .i.e6
11 f4!?
The most direct approach, but
White has other good moves, too.
~m:~ov ~layed the prophylactic
11 hl!?l against Gheorghiu in
osc0W1967 and was successful
after 11....a5 12 .d3 :tfc8 13 b3
a6 14 f4 b5?! 15 cxb5 axb5 16
tLlxb5, since Black does not have
enough compensation for the pawn.
With 11 ~h 1!? White avoids the
plan with ....c8 and ....i.g4 since
he is not yet committed to f2-f4
and can simply reply f2-f3. Gheor-
ghiu's play was in fact quite logi-
cal, trying to punish the 'slow' 11
'it>hl!?, but as it turned out to be
insufficient, it seems that 11 ~hl!?
is an excellent move, forcing Black
to show his cards.
11 .d2 is also possible, but after
56 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
11...a6 White should not playas in
Larsen-Browne, Siegen 01 1970,
where after 12 ':adl?! b5! 13 cxb5
axb5 14 b4 'iVb8 15 ':fel ':c8
White could not win the b5-pawn
for tactical reasons. Realising that
if he did nothing, Black would put
something on c4 with the much
better position, Larsen tried 16 ~f3
lbd7 17 ~xg7 Q;xg7 18 e5.:ta3 19
exd6 l:axc3 but did not have
enough for the piece, although he
later managed to swindle his way
to a draw. Maybe White should
have played 12 a4 instead, to con-
trol the queenside, and try to ex-
ploit the weakening of the b6-
square. In general, White stands
better in this line since he is well
prepared to meet any action on the
queenside.
11 l:c8
More in the spirit of 10... ~e6 is
11..:ii"a5, but after 12 Q;hl ':ac8
13 b3 l:fe8 14 'it'd3 the logical
question is: What next, Mr Black?
Ornstein's answer against Tuk-
makov in Yerevan 1976 was the
'positionally logical' 14 ...lbd7??,
but unfortunately after 15 f5! lbc5
16 ~xc5! White won a piece, since
16...dxc5 17 fxe6 ~xc3 18 exf7+
picks up a rook. But Black already
has a bad position, e.g. 14...a6 is
simply answered with 15 a4, and
Black has no useful plan.
11....c8, with the idea of ex-
changing bishops with ... ~g4, has
been tried a few times. After 12 b3
l:d8 13 'i'd3 ~g4 14 ~xg4 'i'xg4
15 f5 'i'h4 16 h3 a6 Black was
okay in Panno-Najdorf, Buenos
Aires 1968. 14 ':adl was later sug-
gested as an improvement, keeping
the pressure up and not activating
the black queen. Yet Silman and
Donaldson's 13 h3!?, preventing
the bishop exchange and seriously
questioning the value of ...•c8 and
...:d8, seems even better.
12 b3 ~d7?!
Better is 12 ...•a5, as in
Korchnoi-Granda Zuniga, Buenos
Aires 1993. After 13 f5 (13 ~hl
transposes to Tukmakov-Omstein
above) 13 ... ~d7 14 a3 .d8 15 b4
b6, White has more space but after
16 .d3 ~c6 17 :adl l:c7 18 "'e3
"'a8 Korchnoi could find nothing
better than 19 ~xf6 ~xf6 20 lbdS
~xd5 21 :xdS with an okay posi-
tion for Black. 17 "'e3!? is inter-
esting, with the idea of replying to
17 ... ':c7 with 18 a4, since White
still has his rook on a1. If 17 ...lbd7,
then 18 ~xg7 ~xg7 19 .l:tf3 with
an attack on the kingside.
13 eS!
Black was trying to put his
bishop on c6 with a normal posi-
tion, but White wants more, well
motivated by the fact that Black
has lost too much time.
13 dxeS
14 fxeS!
Now White gets an isolated
pawn, but since it can be used ag-
gressively, this is not a big prob-
lem.
14 lLle8
15 'i'd2 ~c6
16 l:adl 'ii"c7
17 'i'e3
Black is suffering; his pieces are
not co-ordinated, and the knight on
e8 gets in the way.
17 l:d8
Threatening 18 ... ':xd4, when
Black will get the e5-pawn and a
lot of play on the dark squares;
then he might even be better.
18 e6!
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 57
Now Black has the chance to
enter an endgame, but in return
White gets rid of his weak e-pawn.
Black, on the other hand, is still left
with a big problem: how to control
the white queenside majority.
18 :'xd4
18 .. .f5 is positionally well justi-
fied: Black will swap twice on d4
and put the knight on d6. But after
19 iLxg7 ~xg7 20 "W'xa7 ~xe6 21
"W'e3 ~g7 22 ~d5 White keeps the
advantage.
19 :'xd4 iLxd4
20 exf7+ :'xf7
21 'iVxd4 :'xn+
22 iLxfl ~f6
Black hopes to become active
after 23 'iVxa7 "W'e5 followed by
... ~g4, but White is not so easily
distracted.
23 c5!
Simple and effective. The c4-
square is freed, and the pawns can
start rolling.
23•••e5 24 "c4+ Ij;g7 25 b4 iLe8
26 a3 a6 27 iLe2 "d8 28 "d3!
Black needs his queen to create
counterplay. Without the queens
White will simply advance his
pawns, which in combination with
a centralised king, gives excellent
winning chances.
28 .."e7 29 iLf3 as 30 ~e4 axb4
31 axb4 iLc6 32 "d6! "xd6 33
lLlxd6 e4 34 iLe2 lLld7??
Losing a piece, but Black was
probably lost anyway. The white
king will attack via f2-e3-d4.
35 b5 iLxb5 36 iLxb5 ~xc5 37
1j;f21j;f'6 38 <It>e3 ~e6 39 ~xe4 1-0
It seems to us that if Black wants
to play for ... iLe6, .....a5 and
.J:tc8, he should rather prefer the
line 1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 ~c3 d6 7
iLe2 ~xd4, since here White has
too many promising ways of
countering it.
Game 19
Lautier-Koch
Lyon zt 1990
(1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 iLg7 6 iLe3 ~f6 7
~c3 0-0 8 iLe2 d6 9 0-0)
9 ~xd4
The idea of this move order is to
avoid the systems with 10 ~c2 or
10 lLlb3, hoping simply to trans-
pose to the main lines.
10 iLxd4 iLd7
58 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
11 "ii'd3!?
This seems to be the only way to
exploit Black's move order. White
gets the same kind of position as in
Game 28, without having wasted
time on l:tbl.
11 a6?!
Since Black is unlikely to get
... b7-b5 in, this seems rather point-
less. More logical was 11.. .i.c6, as
in Smyslov-Pirc, USSR 1956,
when after 12 llfel tLld7 13 i.xg7
<t;xg7 14 b4! White had a clear
edge. 12 ...a5 would have been bet-
ter, in order to gain space on the
queenside. White probably should
go for 12 b4!? and Black for
11...a5!, when he seems to be okay,
as ... tLld7 will come next with a
normal kind of position.
12 "ii'e3 i.c6
13 b4!
This move would have been
pointless on move 11, Black would
simply reply 1l...i.e6 and start
attacking the c4-pawn. However,
now that the bishop is on c6, this
idea is not possible anymore.
Therefore, White seizes space on
the queenside.
13 "ii'b8
14 b5 axb5
15 cxb5 i.d7
16 a4 i.e6
17 as tLld7
18 i.xg7 ri;xg7
19 b6
White has made considerable
progress on the queenside, and
Black must prevent the white
knight from getting to c7. Although
he can manage that, as is often the
case with passive defence, one can
defend one flank but disaster often
strikes on the other.
19...tLlc5 20 tLlb5 tLla6 21 f4 i.d7
22 tLlc3
Lautier suggests that 22 tLld4!
was even stronger, but the text does
not ruin anything.
22 •••i.c6 23 f5 tLlc5 24 i.c4 "ii'd8
25 e5 tLld7 26 exd6 exd6 27 i.d5
':c8 28 l:tadl i.xd5 29 tLlxd5 ':c5
30 ':f3 l:te8 13 .f4 tLle5 32 ':h3
h5 33 f6 ~h7 34 "ii'gS l:te6 35
l:txh51-0
Again a clean sweep by White.
In the last two games the White
players were clearly more skilled
than their opponents. Still, the
games are important for the under-
standing of typical Maroczy posi-
tions, since one can see how things
can go wrong for Black, if he does
not manage to time his counterplay
correctly.
Game 20
Short·Larsen
Naestved 1985
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0)
9 :'e8!?
An idea that Larsen said he
thought of over the board. The idea
 CLassicaL Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations 59

is, that while .. .l::te8 will always
come in handy, White will now
have to show his intentions first,
and Black can then react accord-
ingly.
since his pieces exert strong pres-
sure on White's weaknesses. White
has no choice but to playas in the
game.

16 ttJd5 ttJxd5
10 a3?! 17 exd5
Short decides to make a semi- Playing for symmetry and a
waiting move as well, but in the draw with 17 cxd5 will just give
game the pawn structure with a2-a3 Black control of the c-file after
and b2-b4 just seems to be weak. 17 ... ~d7. The bishop on h6 con-
He should probably have gone for trols cl.
one of the options mentioned in the 17 ~d7
next game. 18 ':'c3 e6
10 ~d7 19 dxe6 ':'xe6
11 f3 a6 Black is very active, but White is
12 b4 hardly lost yet. 20 f4 seems like a
This is very weakening, but good idea, preparing ~f3 as well as
having played a2-a3, White can closing the cl-h6 diagonal. Instead,
hardly do without it, e.g. 12 l:tc1 Short tries to liquidate to a draw,
nc8 13 'ii'd2 ttJa5! wins for Black but is hit by some powerful tactics.
since ... e7 -e5 follows. 20 c5? ~a4! 21 "xa4 dxc5! 22
12 ':'c8 bxc5 l:he2 23 "c4??
13 ':'c1 ttJxd4 (seejoLLowing diagram)
14 ~xd4 ~h6! Dropping a piece, but the posi-
(seejolLowing diagram) tion was tragic anyway.
A common theme in the 9 ... ne8 23 ... b5! 0-1
system. With the rook on e8, f2-f4
can always be answered with ... e7- Since Black seldom wins such
e5, after which Black will pick up tactical miniatures in the Maroczy,
the e4-pawn. this game attracted a great deal of
15 ':'c2 ~e6 attention, and 9 ... ne8 became quite
Black is already much better fashionable for a while.
60 CLassicaL Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations
Game 21
Cu.Hansen-P.H.Nielsen
Copenhagen 1995
(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lbf6 7
lbc3 0-0 8 ..\te2 d6 9 0-0 :le8)
10 1id2
Numerous other moves have
been tried here:
a) In the tournament in which
the previous game was played, An-
dersson played 10 f3 against Lar-
sen. After 1O...lbd7 11 "d2 lbc5
12 :lfdl Larsen tried the provoca-
tive 12 .....a5 with the idea of 13
lbb3!? .ixc3 14 bxc3 "a3, which
seems very dangerous to us. Of
course, Andersson played his usual
solid chess, trying to squeeze
something out of the endgame with
13 :labl lbxd4 14 ~xd4 J..xd4+
15 .xd4 lbe6 16.f2 .id7 17 f4
.c5. He did not succeed, and in
the end it was Larsen who had
some winning chances, before the
game finally ended peacefully after
55 moves. A simpler approach for
Black would have been l1...lbxd4
12 .ixd4 .ixd4+ 13 "xd4 'ii'b6.
White has nothing after 14 "xb6
lbxb6 15 Afdl J..e6. In Stohl-
Ftacnik, Trencianske Teplice 1985,
11 l:.cl was played instead of 11
"d2, although after l1...lbc5 12
"d2 .a5 13 :fdl J..d7 14 ':bl
lbxd4 15 i.xd4 J..xd4+ 16 .xd4
lbe6 White did not believe in his
position and agreed a draw.
b) Speelman tried 10 ':b 1
against Larsen in Hastings 1988,
but after 1O... J..d7 11 'ifd2 a6 12
l:tfd 1 l:.c8 13 f3 lbxd4 14 ~xd4
~e6 15 lbd5 lbxd5 16 cxd5
~xd4+ 17 .xd4 ~d7 18 ]:thel
"a5 19 a3 J..b5 Black had equal-
ised.
c) 10 :lcl is possible, e.g.
1O...lbxd4 11 ~xd4 and now:
cl) 11...~h6!? and:
cl1) 12 :lc2 e5 (12 ...b6!? is in-
teresting, since White will find it
difficult to co-ordinate his pieces
and the 'misplaced' bishop on h6 is
very disturbing for him; after 13 f3
~b7 14 'ifel lbh5 15 g3 e5 16
J..f2, as in Pyhala-Rantanen, Pori
1986, Black has an excellent posi-
tion with a pleasant choice between
the positional ... llJg7-e6 or the ag-
gressive ...t7-f5) 13 ~e3 ~xe3 14
fxe3 is very good for White, since
Black cannot consolidate. A good
try was 14.. .'.i1g7 15 ':d2 "a5 16
':xd6 .ie6, as in Veingold-Hergott,
Manila 01 1992. After 17 .d2
':ad8 Black was close to getting
some counterplay, but Veingold
responded aggressively, and after
18 b4 'ii'b6 19 ':d5! llJxd5 20
llJxd5 ~xd5 21 exd5 Black could
not stop the pawn-roller.
c12) 12 f4!? e5 13 ~e3 is more
testing, when 13 ... ~e6 seems un-
fortunate, since after 14 .d2 exf4
15 ~xf4 ~xf4 16.:xf4 Black has
problems: llJb5 is a threat as well
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 61
as simply l:tdl when the d6-pawn
will be lost. Black played 16 ...l:tc8?
in Escalente-Williams, Dubai 01
1986, and lost a pawn after 17 e5!
Better is 13 ... i.d7 when 14 Wxd6
i.c6 will regain the pawn.
Here 14 Wd3 was tried in Kolev-
Cid, Tortosa 1992, and after
14... i.g4? IS f5 White was much
better. 14...exf4 IS i.xf4 i.xf4 16
l:txf4 i.c6, however, seems okay
for Black. Although 17 :tcfl looks
strong, after 17 ...llJd7 White cannot
take on f7 because of ... lLle5, 18
.xd6 Wb6+ followed by ...•xb2
also seems fine, while after 18 'ii'h3
lLle5 19 l:th4 i.d7 Black also holds
sufficient resources. 14 "ii'd2 is
another idea, intending 14...exf4 IS
i.xf4 i.xf4? 16 Wxf4 and wins, so
Black should play 15 ... i.g7, since
he now attacks the e4-pawn, and
should therefore be fine.
c2) If this scares you, then fol-
low Wolff-Larsen, London 1989,
when after 11...i.d7 12 Wd2 i.c6
13 f3 as 14 b3 lLld7 IS i.e3 lLlc5
16 l:tfdl 'iib6 it seems like Black
has lost time, since the rook on e8
will have to go to c8, but as we will
see later, the white rooks are better
placed on bland cl, so one might
argue that Black has actually won a
tempo and not the opposite!
d) 10 lLlc2 is logical, since ...ne8
is hardly ever played in the lLlc2
systems. After 1O...llJd7 II Wd2
White has played i.e3 and 1Ii'd2
directly, and not first i.d2 as in the
lLlc2 systems. The game Wolff-
Cebalo, Croatia 1991, continued
11...lLlc5 12 f3 and now Cebalo
played 12 ... b6. However, this looks
too passive, so we recommend
12 ... Wa5, intending to take on c3
and play ...lLla4. 13 b4 does not
work since after the continuation
13 ... lLlxb4 14 lLldS lLlc6 15 'ii'xa5
lLlxa5 White will not win the ex-
change with lLlc7; he has to move
the queen's rook first.
10 lLlg4
Demonstrating another point of
the move 9...:te8; the bishop now
goes straight to g4.
11 i.xg4 i.xg4
12 h3
In the 9... i.d7 system the rook
would have been on f8, when 12
f4! would be strong. However, this
can now be met by 12 ...llJxd4 13
i.xd4 e5! with excellent prospects
for Black, as in Mohring-Topakian,
Eger 1988, when after 14 fxe5
dxe5 15 i.e3 "ii'xd2 16 i.xd2 i.e6
17 lLldS :ac8 18 nacl f5 Black is
62 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations

fine. If White avoids this ending Strong play! Black cannot ex-
and goes for 14 ~e3 instead, sim- change queens due to the attack on
ply 14... exf4 IS ~xf4 ~e6 is okay a7 as well as the threat of lDd4,
for Black, since his bishops are winning the exchange.
strong. Finally, 12 f3 was played in 19.....b6+ 20 'iPhl ~f7 21 eS!
Magem Badals-P.H.Nielsen, Mos- dxeS 22 dxe5 l:te6
cow 01 1994, when after 12 ... ~d7 22 ... fxe6 23 1I'c3 was awful as
13 b3 "as 14 ~h1 l:tac8 IS :adl well, so Black hopes to get some
a6 16 :fe 1 lDxd4 the game was play along the e-file.
agreed drawn. 23 exf6+ exf6 24 lbd6!
12 ~d7 Stopping Black's dreams of ac-
13 l:tadl l:tc8 tivity in their tracks. 24 ...:l8e7 2S
14 lDxc6!? lDc8 is embarrassing, but now it is
This forces Black to take with clear that the difference between
the rook, since 14... ~xc6 IS i..xa7! the knight on d6 and bishop on f7
is bad for Black. 14 b3 would meet will decide the game.
with 14...a6 followed by ...b7-bS, 24...:lf8 25 b4 "c7 26 c5 b6 27
which should equalise. 'W(2 bxc5 28 bxc5 :lb8?
14 l:txc6 The fmal mistake, but Black 'was
15 b3 "as lost anyway.
16 ~d4 ~e6? 29l:tae1 'We7 30 'Wg3
This turns out badly. Better 30 lbfS+ wins as well.
would have been 16...~xd4 17 30...l:txe1 31 :lxell-0
"xd4 a6, going for ...b7-bS again. Black's disaster in this game
17 ~xg7 ~xg7 cannot be blamed on 9 ...:le8,
18 f4! f6? which does seems to be playable.
The standard way of parrying
the white kingside attack. Now 19 Game 22
fS ~f7 keeps things under control. Annakov-P.H.Nielsen
Unfortunately, Black had missed Buenos Aires 1992
some other tactics.
19 lDbS! (1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lbf6 7
lDc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0)

9 ~d7
The immediate 9... aS has also
been tried here, but Andersson
showed the right antidote against
Larsen in Linares 1983. After 10
f3! lDd7 11 lbdbS lDc5 12 11'd2 a4
13 :lfd1 "a5 14 :lacl i.e6 15
lDd5 "xd2 16 :lxd2 Black has
very few active options. Still, the
black position is very solid, and
with careful play such as 16...l:tfd8
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 63
and 17 ...~fS White is only slightly
better. Larsen decided to be active
with 16....i.xd5 17 cxd5 ll'lb4, but
the nonnally very careful Swede
now aggressively gave up the ex-
change with 18 Axc5! and won
after 18 ... dxc5 19 .i.xc5 ll'lxa2 20
.i.xe7 l:.fc8 21 f4 .i.fS 22 d6 ll'lb4
23 .i.h4 :tc1 + 24 <itf2 ll'lc6 25 ll'lc7
a3 26 bxa3 l:.xa3 27 e5 h6 28 .i.f6
.i.g7 29 .i.e7 .i.f8 30 ll'ld5 na8 31
h4 l:.c5?? (White was winning
anyway) 32 ll'lf6+ <itg7 33 .i.xf8+
AxfS 34 ll'ld7 1-0.
10 f3?!
A common mistake, White tries
to be prophylactic and defends the
e4-pawn. Yet Black has a trick!
10 "b6!
The standard move is 1O... ll'lxd4,
transposing to the main lines, but
since White has played inaccu-
rately, why not punish him?
11 ll'la4
Several other moves have also
been tried:
a) Worse is 11 "d2? as played
in Leko-P.H.Nielsen, Kecskemet
1991, when after 11...ll'lxd4! 12
"xd4 "xb2 Black was already
nearly winning, and achieved an
easy victory.
b) For some reason 10 f3?!
seems to be popular among young
prodigies. In Gistrup 1997, the
Russian U-12 champion Vladimir
Belov played 11 ll'lcb5 against
P.H.Nielsen, and was nearly win-
ning after 11...a6 12 ll'lc2 "a5 13
ll'lc3 l:.ac8 14 f4 b5? 15 c5!, al-
though Black later managed to
swindle a draw. !4 ... .i.e6 is much
better, when Black is fine.
c) 11 "d3 was played in Cuij-
pers-Rausis, Nimes 1991, when
after 1l.....xb2 12 Aabl "a3 13
Axb7 ll'le5 14 "d2 Aac8 Black
was better.
d) White's best is 11 ~hl!, as in
the game ·Rychagov-P.H.Nielsen,
Norway 1997. The idea is that after
11.....xb2 12 ll'la4 "a3 13 .i.c!
1Wb4 14 .i.d2 "a3 15 ll'lb5 Black's
queen is trapped. Since 12 .....xa1
13 'ii'xal ll'lxd4 14 .i.xd4 .i.xa4 15
f4 also looks good for White, I
played 12 .....a3 13 .i.cl "xa4 14
"xa4 ll'lxd4 15 'iVdl ll'lxe2? 16
"xe2ll'lxe4, overlooking 17 .i.a3!,
which gave White a winning posi-
tion: he wins the e7-pawn. Still,
this line is playable since Black has
15 ... ll'lxe4!
The point is 16 .i.b2 ll'lxe2 17
.i.xg7 ll'l4g3+ 18 hxg3 ll'lxg3+ 19
~g 1 ~xg7, which is excellent for
Black. 16 fxe4 ll'lxe2 17 .i.g5 ll'lc3
18 'ii'd3 f6! also seems fine for
Black, who has some pawns and
two pieces which in this position is
enough for the queen. White has no
targets, and Black, if given time,
simply attacks c4 and e4 and could
easily be better.
11
12 ll'lc3
"as
This looks clumsy, but the white
position is still very solid.
64 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations

12 ttlxd4 structure as well as getting the b-

13 ~xd4 l:lfc8 file. But as Larsen has once ex-
14 'ii'd2 ~e6 plained, Black gets rid of the
15 b3 bS! weakness on e7 and has the e-file
Now White wins some time, but combined with the break .. .f6-f5.
Black gets the c5-square for his As we will shall see, White's play
knight! on the b-file is an illusion: the
16 b4!? knight on c5 will defend the b7-
16 cxb5 lLlxe4 gives Black a square forever. Much better would
good game, since he gets the c-file. have been 23 ~e3 when White is
16 'ii'xb4 okay.
17 Aabl 'ii'aS 23 ...exf6 24 'ii'd4 'ii'e7 25 l:lb2 'ii'eS
18 l:lxbS 'ii'd8 26 'ii'xeS fxeS 27 ~bS l:lab8 28
19 lLldS lLld7! l:ltbl fS 29 exfS gxfS 30 ~c6
The usual strategy, but here even l:lxb2 31 l:lxb2 ~g7
better than normal, since the knight White might seem to be active,
will become a monster on c5. but neither the bishop nor the rook
20 ~e3 lLlcs can do anything active, since this
21 f.\IS ~xdS will give Black control over the b-
file.
More ambitious was 21...f6 and
then ... f6-f5 later. 32 g3 ~f6 33 ~g2 l:lg8 34 l:lb4 e4
22 cxdS ~f6! 3Sf4
Keeping the black king away
from e5.
3S...hS 36 l:lbl h4 37 ~bS? h3+!
The pawn cannot be taken, since
...l:lb8 wins a piece, as in the game.
38 ~f2? 0-1
This loses a piece. 38 cJtfl was
necessary, but of course Black wins
the ending after 38 ...l:lb8 39 ~d3
.l:txbl. The knight is far superior to
the bishop. After 38 ~f2 Ab8 39
'iti>e3 l:lb7! and ... a7-a6 will pick up
the bishop! It is worth noting that
the knight on c5 never moved. It
A typical trick, Black always never had to, since White could not
wants to exchange bishops, which threaten it in any way. On c5 it
will magnify the imbalance be- simply controlled everything.
tween the knight on c5 and bishop
on e2. The threat is 23 ...~xg5 24 Game 23
'ii'xg5 e5! Kapetanovic-Petursson
23 ~xf6?? New York 1987
A positional blunder but a very
common one. White imagines that (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
he is wrecking Black's pawn lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 65

tLlc3 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7) nearly always a good idea, unless
White has prepared some quick
10 f4!? action on the queenside, such as
b2-b4, which is clearly not the case
here.
14 .d2
A useful move which includes a
small trap: 14...•a5 15 tLld5 is
embarrassing.
14 liJd7
Black is running out of useful
waiting moves, so he sticks to the
standard plan.
IS .txg7 'i&?xg7
16 l:dl f6!

Ambitiously trying to seize

space.
10 tLlxd4
Here 10..."'6 is pointless, as
after 11 tLlc2! .xb2 12 tLla4 White
wins the queen. However, 1O... a6 is
possible, e.g. 11 l:tcl l:tc8 12 "d2
lIe8 13 :fel e5! with a good posi-
tion for Black, as in Antoshin-
Boleslavsky, Moscow 1957. Later
the right plan was found for White:
11 'i&?hl :c8 12 :tcl:e8 13 tLlb3!
tLla5 14 e5! tLlxc4 15 .td4 tLlxb2
16 .d2 dxe5 17 fxe5 tLlc4 18
i.xc4 :xc4 19 exf6 exf6 and
Black's compensation is insuffi-
cient, Grooten-Vladimirov, Graz
1981. This probably means that
10... a6 is too ambitious. If White
avoids exchanges, Black has prob-
lems with the co-ordination of his
pieces.
11 i.xd4 i.e6
12 .to as
13 lin a4!
White's 10 f4 showed that his
intentions are on the kingside, so
Black seizes as much space as pos-
sible on the queenside. This is
This looks like it weakens the
light squares, but as we shall see
Black's counterplay on the dark
squares is more important.
17 i.g4 liJe5
18 .e3 .as
19 l:fd2 .a7!
Forcing an exchange of queens,
which signals an end to White's
dreams of an attack.
20 .to liJe6 21 .xa7 l:xa7 22 g3
:a5 23 tLld5 .txd5 24 l:xd5 l:xdS
25 :xd5 tile5 26 i.dl a3!?
Brave. It would have been safer
to activate the king and rook first.
27 b4 tilxe4 28 :as l:e8 29 i.b3
tLld2 30 l:xa3 tilxb3 31 axb3 b5!?
66 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
32 cxbS rbf7 33 ~f2 :b8 34 l:aS
l:b7 35 rbe3 eS 36 rbdJ rbe6 37
~c4 l:e7 38 <ii?d3 l:b7 39 rbc4
l:c7+ 40 ~d3 rbd7 41 l:a6 hS 42
b6 l:c8 43 fxeS fxeS 44 rbe4 l:c1
45 l:a7+ ~c8 46 <ii?dS l:c2 47 l:g7
l:xh2 48 b7+ ~b8 49 'it>c6 ~a7 SO
~c7 l:c2+ 112_112
Although Black did not win this
game, we once more saw an exam-
ple of his chances, including a con-
sistent dark-squared strategy.
Game 24
Korchnoi-Anand
Wijk aan Zee 1990
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7 6 i..e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 0-0 8 i..e2 d6 9 0-0 i..d7)
10 tLlb3!?
This looks clumsy, but since af-
ter 9 ... i..d7 Black clearly intends to
trade knights and play ... i..c6, there
is some point in preventing this.
10 as!?
Certainly the most direct way of
meeting 10 lLlb3, although other
moves have been tried:
a) 10... lLla5 was a non-starter in
Short-Hamdouchi, Lucerne 1989,
after 11 tLld2 a6 12 :c 1 Black
found nothing better than 12 ...tLlc6
13 a3 e5?! 14 tLlb3, which Short
did not have any problems in con-
verting into a full point.
b) 10 ...b6 has some points, be-
sides preventing the c4-c5 break. In
Polugayevsky-Ljubojevic, Roque-
brune 1992, Black managed to
draw after 11 f3 tLle8 121M2 l:lc8
13 l:acl tLle5 14 tLld5 e6 15 tLlf4
'fIe7 16 :fdl f5 17 exf5 l:xf5 18
tLld4 l:f8, although his position
seemed suspicious. After 11 l:lc 1
Black, obviously inspired by our
main game, managed to get the
usual knight versus bishop middle-
game after l1...a5 12 tLld2 i..c8! 13
tLlb3?! i.b7 14 f3 tLld7 15 tLld4
tLlxd4 16 i..xd4 tLlc5 17 i..xg7
~xg7 18 "'d4+ f6 19 tLld5? e5 20
'fId2 i..xd5 21 cxdS 'fId7 22 b3 b5
and won easily in Vescovi-
P.H.Nielsen, Buenos Aires 1992.
11 tLld2
11 i..c8!?
Very original play by Anand. He
believes that the knight is placed
less well on d2 than on d4 and now
transfers the knight to c5 with com-
fortable play.
12 l:c1
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 67

12 c5!? was tried in Sion-Vilela, pared to the normal ~c2 systems,

Cuba 1991, but this 'unbinds' the an additional plus is that plans with
Maroczy and should not worry ... ~xc3 are dubious for Black,
Black, who equalised with since the knight on c3 will be de-
12 ... dxc5 13 ~xc5 ~e6. fended simply with 11M2, given that
12 ~d7 the bishop is already on e3.
13 ~b3 b6
14 ~d4
Not very impressive, but the
knight was indeed clumsy on d2.
14 ~xd4
15 ~xd4 ~h6!?
16 f4
After 16 l%c2, 16 ... e5!? 17 ~e3
~xe3 will destroy the white pawn
structure.
16...~b717 ~e3 ~c518 b3
18 1i'c2 ~g7 would leave the
e4-pawn weak anyway.
18...~xe4 19 ttJxe4 ~xe4 20 1i'd4
~c621 f5! 10 1i'aS?!
A strong pawn sacrifice which To us this just seems to provoke
Black wisely rejects. 21.. .~xe3+ White to seize more space by hit-
22 1i'xe3 followed by 'iVh6 is really ting the queen. One might argue
dangerous. that White thereby weakens his
21 ...~g7 22 1i'xb6 1i'd7 23 fxg6 position, but here this seems less
hxg6 24 ~g5 a4 25 1i'e3 axb3 26 important than the extra space.
axb3 :82 27 :n 1i'e6 28 ~f3 1O...a6 is seen in Games 26 and 27.
112_112 11 f4!?
10 ~b3 seems to misplace the Ambitious. More usual is the
knight somewhat, so if you want to solid 11 f3, when after 11...:fc8 12
avoid 1O...~xd4, 10 ~c2 is cer- "d2, Lutz-Vokac, Dortmund 1991,
tainly our recommendation. continued 12 ...~e8?! 13 :acl a6
14 Itfdl :ab8 when Lutz simply
Game 25 played 15 ttJd4!?, claiming that the
Short-Andersson two tempi spent by ~d4-c2-d4 had
Wijk aan Zee 1990 been used poorly by Black, since
his queen and the bishop on e8
(1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 seem misplaced. Vokac played
ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 .ie3 ttJf6 7 15 ...~d7 16 ttJb3 1i'd8, and al-
ttJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7) though he lost the game, it seems to
us that by playing ... a7-a5, ... b7-b6
10 ttJc2!? and ... ttJc5 here, Black would have
An interesting and quite logical been fine, since he reaches the
way of side-stepping the main lines normal solid structure.
by not allowing 1O... ttJxd4. Com- Similar to our main game is the
68 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations

encounter Ribli-Qi, Bled 1979, weak d6-pawn, but for example

which might in fact have been the 17 ... dxc5 18 ~xc5 :te8 19 :fdl
game that inspired Short: 11 a3 would mean serious problems for
lUc8 12 f4!? ~e6 13 'iti'hl "d8 14 Black's queen.
l:[bl 1Wd7 15 "d2 b6 16 b3, when 17 dS
White controlled a lot of space, and 18 :fdl :e8
if Black does nothing, he risks be- Played to discourage e4xd5,
ing suffocated. After 16 ...1:f8 17 since now this would give Black
~gl lDe8 18 ~f3 1:c8 19 lDd5 f5 some activity along the e-file.
20 :the 1 White won easily. 19 a4 "e7
11 :ac8 20 bS axbS
12 :bl a6 21 eS lDd7
13 b4!? 22 lDxbS!
Excellent play. After the stan-
dard 22 axb5, the white pawns
might end up as weaknesses, but
now lDd6 is threatened.
22 ...:b8 23 lDd6 :18 24lDd4 f6
The only chance. Black cannot
sit around and watch his queenside
collapse.
25 lDxb7 lDxd4 26 ~xd4 fxeS 27
fxeS :f4 28 c6 :xd4 29 :xd4
lDxeS 30 :db4lDxc6 31 :b6lDd4
32"g4
White has everything under
control. The a-pawn is a winner.
Again very committal. Now the 32...:18 33 as ~eS 34 a6 "f6 35
c4-pawn will be very difficult to :gl
defend if it is attacked, but since Not 35 a7??"fl!
both a5 and e5 are unavailable for 3S... ~c7 36 :bbl "eS 37 "h3
the black knights, White can afford ~b8 38 lDcs "d6 39 :b7 hS 40
to play like this. lDd71-0
13 "d8 This game, along with Ribli-Qi
14 "d3 (see note to White's 11th above),
Even more ambitious would indicates that 1O.....a5?! is rather
have been 14 h3, not allowing dubious. By playing ambitiously,
Black to trade bishops. White can secure a large space ad-
14 ~g4 vantage.
IS ct>hl ~xe2
16 "xe2 e6?! Game 26
Why not 16... lDd7, when Anand-Larsen
Black's position would still be rea- Roquebrune (rapid) 1992
sonably healthy?
17 cS! Normally we would not consider
Short offers to exchange the using a rapid game as one of the
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 69
main games, but with two real ex-
perts on the Maroczy playing each
other, we hope you will forgive this
exception.
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 J..g7 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7
J..e2 0-0 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 J..e3 J..d7 10
lLlc2)
10 a6!?
Black claims that with 10 lLlc2,
White has weakened his control of
bS. Now White will constantly
have to worry about the ... b7-bS
break. It is not an immediate threat,
but since White has no immediate
plan either, Black has enough time
to prepare it.
11 'ir'd2
11 f3 is the subject of the next
game.
11 l:te8!?
Anyone else would have played
11 ... l:tc8, preparing an attack on the
c4-pawn. However, Larsen claims
that the rook will be useful on e8. It
defends e7 and if, at some point, a
white knight is exchanged on d5,
and White recaptures with a pawn,
Black has the ... e7-e6 break, open-
ing the e-file. As we saw in Game
20, this long-term plan can sud-
denly become a reality.
12 f3 ':'c8
13 ':'ac1 'ir'a5!
Now this is an excellent square
for the queen. White will not get in
both f3-f4 and b2-b4, since Black
will attack the c4-pawn in the
meantime.
14 ':'fdl lLle5
15 lLlaJ
15 b3 bS! was not an option for
White.
15 h5!?
Again typical Larsen, who be-
lieves that this is nearly always
useful. It gives the black king some
air and controls the g4-square,
while under favourable circum-
stances the h-pawn might march on
and create weaknesses in the white
camp. Other players have claimed
that, at best, ... h7-h5 is just mean-
ingless, losing a tempo and creating
a potential weakness! In general,
we agree with Larsen, and indeed
here, since both sides are manoeu-
vring, Black can afford the luxury
of a tempo. However, it is impor-
tant to stress that ... h7-hS is not
essential for Black in the Maroczy,
but only useful if Black's forces are
already well placed.
16 ~n
A clear indication that White is
experiencing difficulties in finding
a useful plan.
16 J..a4!?
(see following diagram)
Again a surprising decision.
Black offers his opponent the
bishop pair, since this would mean
an exchange of the well-placed
knight on c3, leaving White with
only the ugly knight on a3.
17 l:r.el J..c6
18 lLld5
70 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
White goes for the classical end-
game edge, but Black is well armed
for immediate counterplay.
18 1ixdl
19 ~xdl lLld7
20 b4?!
Too optimistic. This turns out
just to weaken the white position;
20 b3 was more sensible.
20 e6
21 lLle3 lLl b6
22 h3 ~h6!
Now it is getting unpleasant, as
White's position is becoming rather
loose. Black has no immediate
threat, but given time he will dou-
ble on the c-file and put pressure
onc4.
23 c5 dxc5 24 l:xc5 l:cd8 25 ~c1
lLld3 26 ~xd3 l:xd3 27 lLlec4
lLlxc4 28 lLlxc4 ~f8 29 lLle5 ~xc5
30 lLlxd3 ~f8
White has just about managed to
avoid losing material, but this does
not mean an end to his suffering.
The black pair of bishops will win
a queenside pawn, unless White
plays as in the game, which on the
other hand is also highly unpleas-
ant!
31 a3 ~b5 32 ~e2 l:c8 33 l:dl
Losing material, but 33 'iti'd2
~h6+ is even worse.
33...l:c2+ 34 <l;>e3 l:xgl 35 lLlc5 f6
36lLld7? l:e2+ 37 ~f4 ~xd7 0-1
Winning a piece. 38 l:xd7 is met
by the thematic 38 ... ~h6+.
Game 27
Short-Petursson
Tilburg 1992
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlO lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7
~e2 ~g7 8 ~e3 0-0 9 0-0 ~d7 10
lLl(2)
10 a6!?
Usually 1O.. .l:tc8 just transposes,
but some games have taken an in-
dependent course. For example,
after 11 f3:
a) 11...lLla5!? might be a strong
option, when 12 lLla3 is met by
12 ... ~e6!, as in Holmsgaard-Hoi,
Aalborg 1992. The idea is 13 lLld5
lLlxd5 14 cxd5 ~xb2! Here
Holmsgaard gave up the exchange
with 15 lLlb5, but his position was
bad anyway. 12 b3 seems more
logical, but after 12 ...a6, ... b7-b5 is
a threat and 13 1id2 b5 14 cxb5
'ilc7 15 ~d4 axb5 16 lLlb4 1ib7
seems fine for Black.
b) 11...~e6, as in Miles-Piket,
Groningen 1992, is inferior, when
after 12 1id2 lLld7 13 :acl 1ia5?
(better is 13 ... a5, as in Serper-
Hracek, Jakarta 1994) 14 b4! lLlxb4
15 ~d5 ~xdS 16 exdS lLlxc2!? 17
1ixa5 lLlxe3. Although Piket has
two pieces and a pawn plus a lot of
play on the dark squares, a queen is
a queen, and Miles duly won the
game. In order to avoid the 'Hoi'
plan, 11 1id2 or 11 l:cl first and
then a later f2-f3 should probably
be preferred.
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 71

1984, in which he was successful

with 14... lZ'lc5 15 b3 a5 16 lZ'ld4
i.xd5 17 exd5 lZ'lxd4 18 i.xd4
i.xd4+ 19 "xd4 'ii'b6 20 :fdl
lZ'ld7. Here Black has the classical,
very favourable ending, with a
strong knight versus a bad bishop,
which he converted into a full
point. Short would hardly have
played 16 lZ'ld4, but we cannot see
what else he had in mind.

11 f3 :cS
11...lZ'le5 was tried in Petrosian-
Rytov, Tallinn 1979. After 12 b3
:'c8 13 a4 "a5 14 "el i.c6 15
l:tdllZ'led7 16 'ifilhl "c7 17lZ'ld4 b6
18 i.d3! lZ'lc5 19 i.c2 i.b7 20 'iVh4
Petrosian had the queenside under
control, and later broke through on
the kingside.
12 a4
Like .Petrosian, Short wants to
keep the queenside under control, 15 b4
but here the knight is still on c6, Not very frightening. Black is
from where it controls some dark well placed to meet this direct at-
squares. Petursson is able to make tempt, but Short was probably al-
excellent use of that in the game. ready happy with simplifications
The less committal 12 lZ'la3 was and a draw.
tried in Tempone-Spangenberg, 15 axb4
Trewel 1995: 12 ... lZ'le5 (possible 16 lZ'lcxb4 lZ'laS
now, since with the knight on a3, 17 i.d4 i.xd4+
White cannot get the pawn to a4 18 "xd4 lZ'lc6
easily) 13 'ii'd2 i.c6 14 :ac1 l:te8 19 'ii'e3 :as
"c7 18 "f2
15 b4 b6 16 llfdl lZ'led7 17 i.f1
'ii'b8 led to a typical
hedgehog structure, with reason-
20
21
22
lZ'ld3
:xb7
'ii'd2
:xa4
:&3
i.xdS
able chances for Black. 23 cxdS lZ'ld4
12 i.e6 24 :tbl 1/'1._ 1/Z
13 lZ'ldS lZ'ld7 Simple play by Black, but still
14 :bl as enough to make a comfortable
For some reason, Petursson draw against a world championship
chose to vary from the game finalist. 10 lZ'lc2 is certainly a rea-
P.Cramling-Petursson, Reykjavik sonable weapon for White if he
72 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations

wants to avoid the main lines, but 15 J.xg7 ~xg7

after careful study of the games of 16 l:.d2 b6?!
Larsen and Petursson, players of Too passive. Black tries to play
the black pieces should not be solidly, but this square belongs to
scared. the queen. After 16 ... 'ii'b6 Black
would have had more options than
Game 28 in the game.
Larsen-J.Sorensen 17 "e3 "c7
Aa/borg 1989 18 .l:r.bdl ':'ac8?
A very instructive mistake. The
(1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 knight belongs on c5, and should
~xd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7 6 i..e3 ~f6 7 go there immediately.
~c3 0-0 8 i..e2 d6 9 0-0 i..d7) 19 i..g4!
It is nearly always favourable for
10 l:bl!? White to exchange his light-
squared bishop in the Maroczy. He
already has several pawns on the
light squares.
19 l:tcd8
20 i..xd7 ':'xd7
21 ~d5 i..xd5
22 ':'xd5!

Typical Larsen. Most people

play 10 ':'cl, so of course he has to
play 10 ':'bl. It is hardly better but
it is different!
10 ~xd4
11 i..xd4 i..c6
12 "d3 as
13 b3 ':'e8 It was Mikhail Botvinnik who
14 ':'fdl! first pointed out that with only the
White wants to meet ... ~d7 with heavy pieces left on the board, it is
i..xg7, so it is very important to much easier to break through with
keep pressure on the d6-pawn to e4-e5 after recapturing with the
prevent Black from playing the rook on d5, than to get any advan-
standard plan of putting his pawn tage from the pressure on the e-file
on e5 and then directing the knight after e4xd5. And so it is in this
to d4 via c5-e6. game, where Black is indeed in big
14 trouble. White easily combines
 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 73
threats of a breakthrough, while
Black can only sit and wait.
22...:ed8 23 h4 f6 24 a4 e6 25
:b5 :b8 26 h5 :b7 27 'iVh3 :e7
28 'ii'g3 :d7 29 'ii'g4 :e7 30 :d3
'ii'b8 31 hxg6 hxg6 32 :h5 'ii'g8
33 :g3 rj;f7 34 :h6 rj;e8 35 :xg6
"1'3
'ii'f7 36 c;i;1d7 37 e5 1-0
It is important to note how bad
Black's position was after 19 i.g4!
in order to avoid ending up like
this. White simply won numerous
tempi by attacking the weak spots
in Black's position, and in the end
smashed through efficiently on the
kingside.
(4
, Classical Maroczy:
White Exchanges the
Dark-Squared Bishops

Chapter Guide

I e4 c5 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J.g7 6 J.e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0

8 J.e2 d6 9 0-0 J.d7

10 ncl lLlxd4 11 J.xd4 J..c6 12 1i'd3 - Game 29

101i'd2
1O... a5 - Game 30
10•••lLlxd4 11 J.xd4 J.c6
12 J.d3 - Game 31
12 fJ as 13 'it>hllLld7 14 J.xg7 'it>xg7 IS f4
15 .. .f6 - Game 32
15 ... a4 - Game 33

This chapter and the next feature Game 29

the main lines of the Maroczy
Bind, Classical system. An impor-
tant early decision that White has to
face is whether or not to allow the
exchange of the dark-squared bish-
ops. This choice has a crucial effect
on the future shape of the game.
First of all, in this chapter, we deal
with lines in which White allows
the exchange, while Chapter 5 cov-
ers positions where he avoids the
bishop-trade. If White intends to
playa system with J.xg7, we be-
lieve that 10 1i'd2 is more precise
than 10 llc1, since having ex-
changed dark-squared bishops,
White's only attractive plan is to
attack the weakened dark squares
around Black's king.
P.Cramling-Petursson
Reykjavik 1984
(I e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 J.g7 6 J.e3 lLlf6 7
lLlc3 0-0 8 J.e2 d6 9 0-0 J.d7)
10 llct lLlxd4
11 J.xd4 J.c6
(see following diagram)
12 1i'd3!?
White tries to get the same kind
of position as in Game 19, but here
she has wasted time on 10 llc 1.
However, when Black plays the
9...J..d7 move order, there is noth-
ing that White can do about this.
Black is ready to play ... a7-a5 with
the standard dark-square strategy.
 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 75
Instead, White can also play 12
f3, with the exchange of dark-
squared bishops in mind. Here it is
important for Black to respond with
12 ... a5, since 12 ... li)d7? was se-
verely punished in Razuvaev-
Honfi, Cienfuegos 1976. After the
thematic 13 b4! .i.xd4+ 14 "'xd4
'ii'b6 15 'ii'xb6! li)xb6 16 e5! dxe5
17 b5 .i.e8 18 c5 li)d7 19 li)d5 e6
20 li)e7+ q,g7 21 c6 Black was
unable to stop the c-pawn.
But if Black does play 12 ...a5 it
seems that:tel is not a particularly
useful move. For example, 13 b3
li)d7 14 .i.xg7 q,xg7 15 'ii'd4+
q,g8 16 :tfdl, as in Andersson-
Christiansen, Hastings 1978, and
now Black could have obtained an
equal ending with 16 ... 'ii'b6, but
who wants to play an ending
against Andersson? In Dokhoian-
Glek, Bonn 1994, Black instead
played 15 ...f6!? in order to control
the dark squares. After 16 ]:tfdl
lbc5 17 :tb 1 'ii'b8 18 .i.fl :td8 19
'ii'e3 e5! 20 :td2 li)e6 21 :tbdl b6
22 g3 :a7 23 .i.h3 li)g5 24 .i.g2
tbe6 a draw was agreed. Black has
equalised with the standard dark-
squared strategy.
12 as!
The correct move order.
12 ... li)d7?! was punished by 13
.i.xg7 q,xg7 14 b4! in Smyslov-
Golz, Polonica Zdroj 1968, when
White has achieved a typical ad-
vantage.
13 f4
The logical plan. It is now far
more difficult for White to seize
space on the queenside.
13 a4!?
This is a very interesting idea.
Normally, this move would be met
by b2-b4, ... a4xb3, a2xb3, with an
opening of the queenside favour-
able to White. But here the rook
has left aI, which means that Black
gets counterplay along the a-file.
The 'standard' 13 ... li)d7 is also
playable, which after 14 .i.xg7
q,xg7 leads to structures very
similar to the main lines where
White takes on g7. Normally White
must play his pawn to f4 in two
moves, but here White has played
"'d3, where it is not well placed in
this kind of structure. Timman-
Wedberg, Amsterdam 1984, con-
tinued 15 ~hl f6 16 :tedl "'e8 17
.d4"'f7 with equality.
14 ~hl "'as
Black again delays ... li)d7,
76 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops

keeping White guessing, while with the bishop offside on h3.

making useful moves.
15 "e3
15 ll)d5 might be a better idea,
when Black has a choice of cap-
tures:
a) White was successful in Dol-
matov-Petursson, Reykjavik 1988,
when after 15 ... ll)xd5 16 exd5
iLxd4 Dolmatov played 17 dxc6!?
iLxb2 18 1:c2 ~4 19 cxb7, and
Black blundered with 19 ...1:a511
20 llxb2 'ii'xb2 21 l:tb 1 with a lost
position. It was probably better to
play 18 ...a3, which seems okay for
Black. It is noteworthy that White 20 f5 g5!
did not like the attractive 18 'ii'xd4 Since the knight on f6 is a
iLd7 19 iLd3 followed by f4-f5. mighty defender, Black does not
b) Black had more success with fear the possibility of a white king-
15 ...iLxd5 16 exdS ll)d7 in the side attack.
game Petrakov-Mololkin, Moscow 21 iLg4 h6 22 h4 llh8 23 iLh5 ~f8
1994, when after 17 i..xg7 ~xg7 24 ll)d5 iLxd5 25 cxd5 "as 26
18 l:tfel l:tfe8 19 iLflll)f6 20 'ii'd4 llc4 b5 27 :'c3
b6 21 h3 1i'c5 22 1i'd2 :a7 Black
had a solid position. White now
mistakenly played the 'active' 23
b4 axb3 24 axb3, and Black took
the a-file with 24 ...11ea8 and later
won the game.
15 ll)d7
Now, finally, Black plays the
standard plan.
16 iLxg7 ~xg7
17 iLg4 "c5
Since this kind of ending is at
least equal for Black due to White's
bad bishop, Black wins time by
threatening the exchange of This is a very interesting posi-
queens. tion. Place the white h-pawn on h2
18 "e2 ll)f6 and the bishop on d3, and White
19 iLh3 e5! would be winning. Yet here the
A very strong move which pro- pawn on h4 secures Black counter-
bably gives Black the advantage. play on the kingside, since White
He now threatens ... e5xf4 followed will never be able to close it com-
by ...l:tae8, attacking the e4-pawn, fortably. It is difficult to say who is
which will be difficult to protect better, but Black seems to have
 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 77
more than sufficient counterplay.
27 .• /be728l:tfc1.!:ta7
Black defends c7, but White will
break through eventually. The only
question is: will Black be able to
break through on the kingside?
29 .tf3 .l%d7 30 a3 l:tb8 31 l:te6
'ii'd8 32 'ii'el 'ii'g8
Black's last moves might seems
passive, but now he is ready for
33 ... gxh4 and 34 ... 'ii'g5. White
cannot find a way to meet this.
33 'ii'b4l:tbd8!
Not 33 ... gxh4 34 :txd6!
34 .te2 gxh4 35 l:t6c3 'ii'g5 36
.txb5l:tg8
Finally it is Black who is making
the threats.
37 .tn 'ii'f4 38l:te7 l:tgd8!?
38 ... h3 was winning, but in time-
trouble Black plays it safe. He will
win in the end because his knight is
so much stronger than the white
bishop.
39 'ii'el tbxe4 40 l:t7e4 tbg3+ 41
~gl 'ii'xf5 42 l:txa4 'ii'g5 43 l:te2
f5 44 .tb5 l:tb7 45 .ta6 l:tb3 46
'ii'a5 l:txb2 47 l:te7+ ~f8 48 l:tb4
l:td2 49l:tbl h3 0-1
A hard-fought battle, where
Black defended well. His knight on
f6 kept things under control and
then he went onto the offensive.
White's ideas with 'ii'd3 are not
particularly dangerous, but do lead
to complicated struggles with mu-
tual chances.
Game 30
Timman-Larsen
Las Palmas izt 1982
(1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 d4 exd4 4
tbxd4 g6 5 c4 .tg7 6 .te3 tbf6 7
tbc3 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7)
10 'ii'd2
This is a more aggressive way of
playing the dark-squared bishop
exchange system than 10 :tcl.
10 as
Now White will not be able to
prevent Black from playing ... a5-a4
and ... 'ii'a5, but on the other hand
Black has lost time with 9 ....td7,
since it is not clear whether this is
the right square for the bishop in
this line. With aggressive play
White should be able to profit from
this loss of time. The standard
1O... tbxd4 11 .txd4 .tc6 is consid-
ered in Games 31-49.
11 tbdb5!
Although 11 f3 is more com-
mon, it does not pose Black any
serious problems. After 11...a4 12
.!:tabl 'ii'a5 13 :tfel .l:r.fc8 14 tbdb5
.te6 15 tbd5 'ii'xd2 16 .txd2
tbxd5! 17 cxd5 tbd4 18 .td3 .td7
Black was slightly better in two of
Petursson's games. Not much bet-
ter is 14 .tf! tbxd4 15 .txd4 .te6
16 b3 axb3 17 axb3 'ii'b4 with an
easy game for Black in Smejkal-
Larsen, Helsingor 1982. White did
well in Cvetkovic-Mestel, Belgrade
1982, after 13 .l:r.fdl :fc8 14 tbdb5,
but only because Black got himself
78 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops
into trouble with the passive
14....i.e8?! 15.i.fl lLle5 16 b3 axb3
17 axb3 1i'b4 18 .f2. Probably
better was 14 ... lLle5 15 b3 axb3 16
axb3 .i.xb5!? 17 lLlxb5 .xd2 18
':xd2 lLlc6 followed by ... lLld7 with
a decent ending; Black controls the
a-file, and the bishop on g7 is quite
strong.
11 a4
12 f4 'iVaS
13 c5!
This is the move which has put
the whole line under a dark cloud.
White acts before his opponent can
complete his development.
13 dxc5
14 .i.xc5
The more forcing 14 e5?! was
played in the correspondence game
Strand-Brezau, 1986, but Black
survived the complications after
14 ... lLlg4 15 .i.xc5 ':fd8 16 .i.xg4
.i.xg4 17 'iVe3 ':d7 18 h3 .i.e6 19
.i.b6 1i'b4 20 lLlc7 ':d3! 21 'iVc5
.xb2 22 l%fbl 'iVxc3 23 .xc3
ltxc3 24 lLlxa8 g5 and later went
on to win.
14 .i.g4
This is necessary in order to get
some room to breathe, and
14 ... ':fd8 15 .e3 would just make
things worse.
15 .i.xg4 lLlxg4
16 'iVe2 .i.xc3
On 16... b6 Timman suggests 17
.i.a3 lLld4 18 lLlxd4 .i.xd4+ 19
It>hl .i.xc3 20 bxc3 "xc3 21 .i.xe7
:tfe8 22 .i.h4 as clearly better for
White, but after the obvious
22 ... lLle3 it seems to us that White
is close to losing a pawn. A critical
alternative is 21 .i.b2! "c8 22
':acl with compensation but
probably not more. One strange
line is 22 .....e6 23 f5 "xa2 24 ':c2
lLle3?! 25 "xe3 a3
26 .i.h8!! 'iVxc2 27 'iVh6 ~xh8
28 fxg6 mating. A beautiful varia-
tion, but 24...:ac8 is better since
25 ':xc8 ':xc8 26 'iVxg4 "xb2 27
fxg6 ':f8 28 gxf7+ ~h8 29 .d7
1Wb4*is not clear. If you have. the
nerves for something like this,
maybe you should give 10... a5 a
shot, since most White players will
probably play something safe and
get nothing. And if they should
dare to enter the complications,
hopefully you will be the better
prepared player. .
It is interesting to note that the
Maroczy expert Petursson has
played lO... a5 several times since
the Timman-Larsen game. Natu-
rally he has an improvement ready,
 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 79
but since he has almost now com-
pletely left the chess world in fa-
vour of the world of law, we may
never know what he had in mind.
17 bxc3 liJf6
18 :Sbl l:tfd8
19 ~hl :Sc8
20 .i.a3 liJe8
21 fS
Black's problem is that, after the
bishop on g7 has gone, his king
feels exposed due to White's play
on the dark squares.
21 ...liJc7 22 rxg6 hxg6 23
24 "g3 ~f7 2S'c4liJxbS
"12 f6
This should have lost tactically.
Better would have been 25 ... liJe6,
helping with the defence of the
king. White is still better, but if he
does not break through, Black
holds the positional trumps.
26 cxbS liJd4 27 .i.b4?
Timman must have been suffer-
ing from time pressure, otherwise
he would not have missed 27
.i.xe7! ~xe7 28 "xg6 l:tf8 29 e5
"1'3 "e3
which wins immediately.
27.....b6 28 eS liJrs 29
Since White cannot play 30
"xb7?? liJg3 and l:th8 mate, Lar-
sen forces the exchange of queens,
after which only Black can be bet-
ter. Indeed, Larsen managed to get
a close to winning position, but
then it was his turn to blunder. The
game ended in a draw after 63
moves.
Game 31
Beliavsky-Hjartarson
Reykjavik 1989
(1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7
liJc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10
"d2)
10 liJxd4
11 .i.xd4 .i.c6
12 .i.d3!?
A similar idea is 12 .i.f3!?, also
intending to attack with the rook
along the third rank. Geller-
Abramovic, New York 1989, con-
tinued 12 ... a5 13 l:tfel liJd7 14
.i.xg7 ~xg7 15 l:te3 liJc5 16 l:tael
f6 17 .i.dl e5, when Black slowly
prepared .. .f6-f5 and went on to
win. In Luther-P.H.Nielsen, Bad
Lauterberg 1991, Black played in
even more solid fashion: 12 ...a5 13
:Iael a4 14 liJd5 liJd7 15 .i.xg7
Q;xg7 16 l:te3 liJc5 17 .i.dl e5, and
again Black was fine. This indi-
cates that if Black exercises some
care, 12 .i.f3 is harmless.
The standard 12 f3 is seen in
Games 32-49.
12 as
13 l:tfet liJd7
A interesting alternative is
13 .. Jle8, as in Mortensen-Larsen,
Aalborg 1989, played shortly after
our main game. The idea is that
White cannot naturally continue his
plan as long as the dark-squared
bishops are still on the board. There
followed 14 l:tadl a4, after which
White got tired of waiting and
80 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops
played the positionally undesirable
15 ttJd5 (after the exchange of the
dark-squared bishops Black threat-
ens ... i.xd5 with the usual knight
vs. bishop positions). The game
continued 15 ... ttJd7 16 i.xg7 ~xg7
17 b4 axb3 18 axb3 e5 19 i.c2 (in
order to take back on d5 with the
queen) 19 ... ttJc5 20 b4 ttJe6 21
ttJc3 ttJd4 22 ttJe2?? ttJxc2 23
'ihc2 i.a4 and Black was winning
easily. Instead of 17 b4, 17 l:te3, as
in Sorokin-Nielsen, Cheliabinsk
after 17 ...•a5 18 .cl
1991, is more logical. White won
i.xd5
(l8 ... e5!?) 19 l:th3 ttJf6 20 'Wh6+
~h8 21 exd5 'Wb6 (2l...e5 seems
to solve Black's problems) 22 g4
.d4 23 l:th4 .xb2 24 g5 ttJd7 25
i.xg6! Generally, when White
wants to play i.xg7 followed by a
kingside attack, Black should not
hurry with ... ttJd7, but simply play
useful waiting moves.
14 i.xg7 ~xg7
15 :e3
Interestingly, Beliavsky cntI-
cises this move in In/ormator,
claiming that White should play on
the queenside. We do not believe
this. With the dark-squared bishops
off the board, Black has too much
play on the dark squares, combined
with the idea of manoeuvring the
knight to d4.
15 ttJf6?!
Probably not best. Black has two
other options:
a) Larsen introduced 15 ... h6
against Milos, Mar del Plata 1993.
The idea is to answer .:113 with
... l:th8, and then simply continue
with the standard dark-squared
strategy. After 16 l:tdl 'Wb6 17
ttJd5 i.xd5 18 exd5 l:tfe8 19 l:tdel
'Wb4! 20.e2 a4 (Black makes sure
that he has targets on the queenside
so that White never really threatens
e7) 21 i.bl ttJf6 22 l:tdl l:tac8 23
b3 axb3 24 axb3 b5 25 i.d3 ~k7
26l:tbl bxc4 27 bxc4 .c5 28 'Wb2
l:ta7 Black had much the better
position.
Sorokin-Spangenberg, Argentina
1994, saw 16 b3 instead of 16l:tdl,
but after 16... 'Wb6 17 ttJd5 .d4!?
18 l:td 1 e5 19 ttJc3 ttJf6 Black had
solved his problems.
b) 15 ... f6 was tried in L.Hansen-
V.Nielsen, Vejle 1994, and after 16
l:tdl 1:[f7 17 i.e2 ttJc5 18 h4 .f8
19 h5 <li>h8 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 .l:Ih3+
l:th7 22 l:txh7+ ~xh7 23 f3 'Wh6
Black was fine, although White
later won.
16 :dl 'ir'b6
In the simultaneous game Kas-
parov-Koch, Evry 1989, Black
played 16... a4 and the world cham-
pion achieved nothing after 17
ttJd5 e6 18 ttJb4 .a5 19 i.c2l:tfd8
20 .c3 e5 21 h3 .c5 22 b3 axb3
23 axb3 .l:Ia3 24 .d2 .a4 25
ttJxc6 1/2- 112.
17 ttJd5 i.xd5
18 exd5 :tfe8
19 i.f1
Now the e3-rook might go to b3.
 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 81
19 'ii'b4
10 'ii'd4 a4
21 b3 ~g8?!
This is dubious, Black should
have gone in for 2l...axb3 22 lIxb3
'i'cS 23 'ii'xcs dxc5 24 l:txb7 ':xa2
25 :el ..ti>f8 26 lIc7 :as, when it is
difficult to see how White can
make progress.
21 ':bl ttJd7 23 a3! 'ii'xa3?
Another mistake, but the posi-
tion was already bad, since
23 ... 'ifcS 24 'iWh4 axb3 2S lIbxb3
ttJeS 26 lIh3 hS 27 lIbg3 is very
dangerous for Black.
24 b4 'ii'a1 25 'ii'dl a3 26 ':c3 1-0
The queen will have to leave the
board. An impressive performance
by Beliavsky, but as we saw on
moves 13, IS and 16, Black has
other options.
Game 32
Salov-Velimirovic
Szirak izt 1987
(1 e4 c5 1 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 0-0 8 ~e1 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10
'ii'd1 ttJxd411 ~xd4 ~c6)
12 f3
12 as
In this position, 12...tLld7 has
also been played, since 13 b4 is
harmless. Mter 13 ... ~xd4+ 14
'ii'xd4 'ii'b6 IS 'ii'xb6 tLlxb6 16 eS
does not work, as the rook is not
yet on cl and 16 ]:tfcl ':fc8 is just
equal, Vaganian-Mariotti, Lenin-
grad 1977.
Adorjan-Velimirovic, Budapest
1973, continued instead 13 ~xg7
~xg7 14 f4 (perhaps White should
try 14 ~hl which would transpose
to the main game if Black answers
14... aS) 'ii'b6+ IS \lIhl 'ii'cS?! 16
ttJdS ~xdS 17 b4 'ii'b6 18 cxdS as
19 :abl ~g8 20 bxaS, when Black
could have played the drawing
20...'ifxaS 21 'i'xaS ':xaS 22 :Xb7
':xa2. Anyway, safer was IS ... ttJf6,
hitting the e4-pawn, as given by
Silman and Donaldson, and if 16
~f3, then 16 ... 'ii'cS targeting the
c4-pawn. We believe this is fine for
Black, since White has to waste
time protecting his pawns. An ex-
ample is 17 b3 eS!? 18 fS'ii'd4 19
'ii'c2 gS!? with a goos! game for
Black.
If the lines after 12 ... aS do not
suit you, this may be the way to
play. Here White's attack is not
nearly as dangerous as it may be-
come after 12 ... aS.
13 ~hl
Sensible, and clearly the best
way to keep the tension, waiting for
Black to play ... tLld7. 13 f4 eS! is
embarrassing, and other moves
hardly help the white attack. 13
':acl is seen in Game 38 and 13 b3
in Games 39-49.
13 ttJd7
This is what everybody plays,
but as it is not clear what White
will do next, it is quite tempting for
82 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops
Black to make a useful waiting
move instead. Unfortunately, this is
easier said than done. 13 ...a4?! is
strongly met by 14 b4 axb3 IS
axb3, when White achieves easy
play on the queenside. But
13 ... l:te8!? seems playable, and
may be a way to force White to
think independently, instead of just
following mainstream theory. Al-
though Black has excluded himself
from using the defensive plan with
...f7-fS, it is not easy to say how
White should try to exploit it. 14
:ael will be met by 14... a4! since
the rook has left a1. One might
play 14 b3 tlJd7 IS .te3 claiming
that ~hl is more useful than
...l:te8, but not everybody would
agree. And by playing 13 ~h 1
White was emotionally prepared
for an attack, but would then have
to hold fire.
14 .txg7 ~xg7
15 f4
Other moves have been played
but are clearly unambitious, since
Black achieves good play with the
standard set-up: ...e7-eS and ... tlJcs
etc.
15 f6
Black follows the classical dark-
squared strategy. However, this
may not be best here. Apart from
IS ... a4!? (see the next game), two
other alternatives are worth consid-
ering:
a) IS ... tlJc5 has been tested
twice in high level games. In
Chandler-Petursson, Chicago 1983,
White played 16 .tg4!? and held
the initiative after 16...eS 17 fS f6
18 1i'e2 fle7 19 lIf3 b6 20 :g3
Ah8 21 .thS g5 22 h4 h6 23 l:tdl
l:td8 24 .tg6 1i'b7 2S lte3 ~f8 26
b3 flc7 27 ~h2 ~e7. Here Chan-
dler's assessment of White being
clearly better is a little excessive,
since neither in the game nor in his
analysis in In/ormator does he offer
a plan by which White is able to
break through. It is interesting to
note that the white fS-pawn radi-
cally changes the position. Now
Black cannot manoeuvre his knight
to d4, but has to keep White busy
by exerting pressure on the e4-
pawn, which now requires constant
protection. Clearly, Black has no
active plan, but still has reasonable
chances for a successful defence.
Epishin-Kamsky, Leningrad 1989,
saw the more conventional 16 .tf3
a4 17 :adl 1i'aS 18 1i'e3! 'Wb4 19
eS! .txf3 20 l:txf3 flxc4 21 fS
dxeS 22 l:th3 llad8 23 flxeS+ ~g8
24 tlJdS f6 2S flxe7 l:td7 26 fxg6!
h6 27 l:txh6 'ii'xd5 28 l:th8+! ~xh8
29 g7+ 1-0. Impressive, and a
warning for Black to remember
how important it is to keep his dark
squares under control. Probably
Black should have gone for 16...eS,
although he may then end up in a
somewhat passive, but solid posi-
tion, as in Chandler-Petursson.
b) IS ...'ii'b6 was played in Dol-
matov-Gufeld, USSR 1985, when
 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 83

16 :ael 91>417 Af3 AadS 18.ltfl now 24 g4 is forced, since other-

a4 19l:th3 ttJf6 20 a3 "'cS 21 ltJdS wise Black has 24 ... d5 with the
.ltxdS 22 exdS AfeS 23 Ae3 ttJg4 threat of mate on h2. White might
gave reasonable play for Black, still be better, but the bishop on hS
although he eventually lost. looks quite ridiculous.
16 :'adl ttJcS 22......b7 23 h4!
17 "'d4 Splendid play. Now White really
Actually, White would prefer to does threaten 24 fS. One might call
have his queen on e3, but after 23 h4! weakening, but Black is in
17... 91>6 Black would threaten no position to take advantage of it.
IS ... ttJa4 with simplifications. 23•••.l:dd8 24 ~gl eS 2S f5 "'17 26
17 b6?! ttJdS .ltxdS 27 :'xdS :'d7 28 :'fdl
This was criticised by Salov, :'fd8 29 b3
who believes that Black should Now White is ready for a2-a3,
play more actively with 17...91>6, b2-b4 etc., which will be terrible
hitting the b2-pawn. If 18 b3?, then for Black. So instead he comes up
IS ...a4 with counterplay. In fact, with a «lever pawn sac, hoping that
this seems to give Black a reason- his knight will give him suffiCient
able position, since White cannot compensation.
both defend b2 and stop ... ttJa4. 29•••:'c7!? 30 :'xd6 ':cd7 31 ':6dS
18 .ltD "'b8 :'xdS 32 :'xdS :'xdS 33 cxdS gxfS
19 :'d2 Aa7 34 exfS "'d7 35 .ltxhS "'xfS?
20 .ltg4! A better chance was 3S ......xd5,
hoping for 36 'l'g3+ ~f8 37 'l'g6?
"'d4+ with a perpetual. However,
36 .lte2 secures White excellent
winning chances.
36 'l'g3+ ~h6 37 .ltg4 "'e4 38 d6!
"'d4+ 39 ~h2 ttJe4
39.....xd6 40 .ltfS is mate.
40 "'1'3 ~g7 41 d7 ltJcS 42 "'fS e4
43 hS "'d6 44 'it>hl ~h8 45 h6
"'e7 46 "'dS 1-0
This game shows how important
it is for Black to keep open some
active options, otherwise he runs
the risk of being suffocated.
Black was intending to play
20 ...l:.d7 followed by ... e7-eS, but Game 33
to accomplish this now, he has to A.Sokolov-Haik
weaken the kingside with ...h7-hS. Luceme 1985
20 hS
21 .ltf3 Ad7 (1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
22 "'e3 ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 .ltg7 6 .lte3 ttJf6 7
White could have won a pawn ttJc3 0-0 8 .lte2 d6 9 0-0 .ltd' 10
with 22 f5 gS! 23 .ltxhS :'hS, but "'d2 ttJxd4 11 .i..xd4 .i..c6 12 f3 as
84 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops
13 'iithl tiJd7 14 ~xg7 'iitxg7 15
f4)
15 a4!?
This is more active than 15 .. .f6,
which we looked at in the previous
game. Black wants to put his queen
on a5, when he always has ......e5-
g7 to cover the kingside after a
white f4-f5. Also, White must de-
fend the c3-knight; otherwise Black
plays ... a4-a3 to undermine it.
16 :f3!?
White goes for a direct attack,
which seems to be the only way to
trouble Black, whose only worry is
his somewhat naked king.
16 'it'a5
17 :h3 'it,lg8
18 'it'e1?
A mistake that allows Black to
use a clever defensive idea. 18 ~f3
has been recommended by Hert-
neck, with the idea of meeting
18 ... f5? with 19 e5!, while
18 ......c5 19 e5! is also quite tricky,
since 19 ... dxe5 20 i.xc6 "'xc6 21
fxe5 is critical for Black. It seems
most sensible to switch to the dark-
squared strategy with 18 .. .f6, hop-
ing to prove that the rook on h3 is
offside. Of course, White hopes to
break through on the kingside, but
...:f7 is a useful defensive re-
source. Meanwhile Black will at-
tack on the opposite flank, and the
c4-pawn should keep White busy.
A complicated game thus lies
ahead.
18 f5!
Ambitious and strong. Black
claims that his opponent has been
too direct, and counters efficiently.
19 ~f3 ':'ae8
20 'it'h4 :17
21 exf5
This helps Black to bring his
queen to the main battleground, but
since 21 tiJd5 e6 is nothing, and
21.. .a3 is a huge threat, there was
no real choice.
21 'it'xf5
White must certainly have been
depressed here, seeing his attack
disappear so easily. Now he should
worry about defending the f4-
pawn, which was only possible
with a passive strategy. White may
have thought that he was still bet-
ter, but a nasty surprise awaits.
22 tiJd5?! ~xd5 23 ..txd5 e6 24
':'e3?
24 ..txb7 was better, although
24 .. ..!:lb8 followed by 25 ...:'xb2 is
 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops 85
unpleasant for White. Now he is
just lost.
24 ••• liJe5!
As this piece cannot be captured
due to mate in two, White will lose
material.
25 h3 ii'xf4 26 ii'xf4 l:txf4 27
~xb7 liJxc4 28 l:te2 l:tb8 29 ~a6
liJe5
Black, of course, keeps his two
passed pawns instead of going for
the b2-pawn.
30 l:tc1 h5 31 ::'c7 l:tf7 32 l:tc8+
l:txc8 33 ~xc8 l:tf1 + 34 <it>h2 <it>f7
35 l:te4 l:tc1 36 ~a6 :tel 37 :tb4
a3 38 bxa3 ::'xal 39 a4 d5 40 ~gl
cIS 41 ~n ltJc6 42 :tb7+ ~f6 43
~b5 liJd4 44 g4 hxg4 45 hxg4
liJxb5 46 axb5 ::'b2 47 <it>el ~e5
48 ~dl l:tgl49 l:lb8 l:lxg4 50 ~c2
~d6 51 b6 ~c6 52 b7 l:te4 0-1
Black will exchange the g-pawn
for the b-pawn, leaving him com-
pletely winning. The idea of de-
fending actively with ... f7-f5 is
certainly attractive, but 18 ~f3 is
critical. We think Black should be
okay, but if this kind of position
scares you, we recommend either
13 ... l:te8!?, or 12 ...liJd7!? which
makes ~xg7 less attractive.
Black's counterplay then comes
really quickly. However, this has
had few tests at the very highest
level. To us it seems to be reliable
and offers Black good play, and
hopefully it will be tested in prac-
tice soon.
5 Classical Maroczy:
White Avoids the Exchange
of Dark-Squared Bishops

Chapter Guide

1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7 tLlc3 0-0

8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7

10 .::tel tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 a5 13 b3 tLld7 14 ~e3 tLlc5

15 a3 - Game 35
15 'iVd2
15 .. .'ifb6 - Game 36
15 ... f5 - Game 37
10 'iVd2 tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 a5
13 nacl - Game 38
13 b3 tLld7
14 ~e3 tLlc5 15 Itabl
15 ...'iVb6
16 tLlb5 - Game 39
16 nfel
16... 'iWb4 - Game 40
16... nfc8 17 nc2 'iVd8
18 ~fl ~e5
19 tLldl!? - Game 41
19 a3 - Game 42
18a3
18 ... h5 - Game 43
18 ... iff8 - Game 44
15 ... e6!? - Games 45,46
14 ~f2 tLlc5 15 :tabl
15 ... e6 - Game 47
15 ... ifc7 - Game 48
15 ... 'iWb6 - Game 49

Here we examine in detail the lines can be adopted after either of the
where White avoids the trade of 10 ncl or 10 'ji'd2 move orders.
dark-squared bishops, a plan which White keeps as many pieces on the
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 87
board as possible, since he has
more space in which to manoeuvre.
Compared to the lines with the ex-
change of bishops, Black's king is
relatively safe, but White will use a
different strategy now, intending
slow manoeuvres and an eventual
breakthrough on the queenside.
Game 34
Keres-Petrosian
Zagreb ct 1959
This game is not of current theo-
retical importance, since Black
reaches the main line a tempo
down. However, in this famous
game Black introduced some stra-
tegic ideas which later became
standard, so we feel it is relevant to
include it.
(1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
llJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 llJf6 7
llJc3 llJg4 8 .xg4 llJxd4 9 .dl
llJe6 10 .d2 d6 11 ~e2 ~d7 12
0-0 0-0 13 l:ac1 ~c6 14 l:fdlllJcS
15 f3 a5 16 b3 .b617llJbS)
White is now simply a tempo up
on the next game, as his rook is
already on d 1.
17...:fc8 18 ~n .d8 19.1'2
.e8 20 llJc3 b6 21 :'c2 .18
Hoping to exchange bishops
with 22 ... ~h6.
22 .d2 ~d7 23 tLld5 l:ab8 24
~g5l:e8
It may seem as if Black is play-
ing very passively, but just wait
and see. He is slowly preparing to
expand.
25 l:e1 l:b7 26 .1'2 ~c6 27 .h4
White finds it difficult to form a
plan, and tries to provoke some
weaknesses. Having had no success
so far, he finally tires of waiting
and tries to attack.
27 •••f6!
This looks ugly, but the pawn
will not stop here.
28 ~e3 e6 29 llJc3 l:d7 30 ~d4
fS!
Black is on top now since the
position is opening up, and he is
better prepared for this. In particu-
lar the light-squared bishop on c6 is
well placed for a coming kingside
attack.
31 exfS gxfS 32 l:d2 ~xd4+ 33
l:xd4 l:g7 34 ~hl l:g6 35 l:d2
l:d8!
Not only defending d6, but si-
multaneously heading for the king-
side.
88 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
36 l:edl l:d7 37 "f2 "d8 38 "e3
e5!?
Although this weakens the d5-
square, since Black is threatening
...itle6-d4, White has no time to
exploit this.
39 f4 e4?
Very bad, blocking the bishop
on c6. Much better was the dy-
namic 39 ...1Wh4! which gives an
ideal attacking game, with a huge
edge for Black. Probably time
trouble was a factor here.
40 itle2 l:dg7 41itld4 .i.d7 42 a3
42 itlb5 leads to an edge for
White, as after 42 ... .i.xb5 43 cxb5
White's bishop reaches c4 and the
d6-pawn will also be under fire.
42... "a8 43 ~gl h5 44 l:bl h445
:bb2 :g4 46 :f2 'ii'd8 47 b4 :g3!
Just in time, otherwise Black's
knight had to retreat.
48 hxg3 hxg3 49 :fd2 "h4 50
.i.e2 :h7 51 ~?
But even 51 i.h5! lhh5 52 <Ml
itld3 wins for Black.
51 .....xf4+! 0-1
Not an error-free game, but a
good illustration of how difficult it
is for White to break through with-
out the b3-b4 break, and of Black's
attacking potential when he finally
starts to expand.
Game 35
Ernst-Larsen
Sweden zt 1992
(1 e4 c5 2 itlf3 itlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
itlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 itlf6 7
itlc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10
:el itlxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 f3 as)
13 b3
13 'iVd2 transposes to Game 38,
while at the 1990 Manila Interzonal
Shirov introduced a concept which
had not been seen at the highest
levels. He played 13 c5!?, a move
which at frrst seems very illogical,
since it reduces White's space ad-
vantage. Damljanovic responded
well with 13... e5 14 .i.f2 i.h6! 15
Ilc2 d5 16 .i.h4!? d4 17itlb5 .i.e3+
18 ~h 1 g5 and had a fine attacking
game. Shirov would have done
better to follow the stem game Fili-
penko-Rausis, Albena 1989, in
which White picked up an ex-
change after 14 .i.e3! d5 15 .i.g5
dxe4? 16 "xd8! :fxd8 17 fxe4
l2'lxe4 18 i.xd8, which he easily
converted into a full point. Much
better was of course 15 ...d4, as in
Todorovic-Abramovic, Cetinje
1992, but White was still somewhat
better after 16 l2'lb5 h6 17 .i.h4
'iVd7 18 'ib3. Untried is 13 ... dxc5
14 .i.xc5 itld7 followed by ... a5-a4
and "as. This seems very reason-
able for Black, and it would be
interesting to see it tested in prac-
tice.
13 l2'ld7
At the time when 15 a3!? was
considered critical for Black,
Velimirovic came up with a very
creative idea. Against Nunn in the
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 89
Szirak Interzonal 1987, he intro-
duced 13 ... J..h6!?, when after 14
l:tc2 ~d7 15 <;PhI ~c5 16 ~d5?!
J..g7! Black had absolutely no
problems. Nunn should have pre-
ferred 17J..g 1 but instead he went
for 17 J..xg7?! <;Pxg7 18 1Id2 J..xd5
19 lIxd5 'ii'b6, when Black was
better. It might seem as if
13 ... J..h6!? just loses time, but it
disrupted White's position and
Black then got the typical knight
versus bishop edge. Velimirovic
tried out his idea again the follow-
ing year: 14 l:tbl ~d7 15 a3 ~c5
16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 ~e6 18 J..f2
lla3 with active play in Zelic-
Velimirovic, Belgrade 1988.
13 ... J..b6 is certainly playable, but
since 15 a3!? is not causing Black
problems any more, it has remained
a rarity.
14 J..e3!?
Nowadays, this is generally ac-
cepted as the critical test.
14 ~c5
15 a3!?
A move which, for a while, was
regarded as a clever way to prevent
the rook from transferring to c8. 15
11M2 is covered in Game 36.
15 h5!?
*ltlk~ ttto! moore ~e biSh.op back
(:, ftf Ca.ier
This is certainly the most fun.
White might have thought his op-
ponent had gone nuts! White is
ready to break through on the
queenside, and Black starts making
strange moves on the other flank.
The alternatives are:
a) 15 ...'iWb6?! is met by 16 ~b5,
when 17 b4 is hard to meet.
b) 15 ... b6 is solid but passive.
Van der Wiel-Petursson, Biel 1995
continued 16 "c2?! 'iWb8 17
:cdl?! lIc8 18 tDd5 :a7 19 a4
J..xd5 20 :'xd5 e6 21 l:[d2 e5! and
Black was fine. However, White's
handling of the opening was hardly
impressive.
16 <;PhI ~h7
Now White has no useful wait-
ing moves left, so takes concrete
action. Normally, White would
play 'ii'd2, l:[dl etc. first, but here
this is not possible, since 15 a3!?
bas weakened the b3-square!
17 *
b4?!
lS----aib4-
axb4
1Ia3!
The key move. Since e3 would
be hanging, White cannot move the
knight from c3, but has to admit to
the failure of his opening strategy.
17 b4?! is to blame for White's
troubles, but as this is the logical
follow-up, we have to conclude
that 15 a3 is insufficient for an
opening plus.
19 bxc5 J..xc3
20 cxd6 exd6
20..."xd6 was fully playable,
leaving Black at least equal. But as
always, Larsen is playing the Ma-
roczy to win and prefers a middle-
game to an endgame!
21 J..d2 J..g7
22 J..b4 :82
Black is not losing a pawn be-
cause of 23 J..xd6? lIxe2 24 J..xfS
e~ ft. AIt1~ O( 1.1. ~~1
90 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
1i'xdl!
23 c5
It is always a bad sign when
your best move is to exchange your
opponent's only weakness!
23 ...:a4 24 .el dxc5 25 .i.xc5
:e8 26 .i.c4 f5
Opening lines for the rook on e8
and bishop on c6.
27 .i.f1 :e5 28 .g3 .f6 29 .i.b3
:xc5!
White is uncoordinated and, not
surprisingly, Black can strike with
a combination.
30:xc5 :al
Unbelievably, White must lose
material. If 31 ltcl :xcl 32 ltxc1
~2 wins a piece, while 31 :tel h4
32 1i'f2 .d4! also picks up mate-
rial.
31.i.dl
31....d4?
What a pity! Larsen was close to
creating a classic, but here he slips
up. 31...fxe4 was decisive, e.g. 32
.f2 1i'd6 33 ltxc6 .xdl! Now
White manages to escape.
32 :xc6 bxc6
331x
If 32 ...1i'xdl then
perpetual. at.J '9f fila -
g6+ is a
33 exf5 gxf5 34 .i.e2
Now things are under control
again. Surely, it is a dead draw, but
Larsen gets too ambitious
34...11xO+ 35 .i.xo _~§~ 36 .g5
h4? :'~-.- fOIl i"'F~'·r.Ai.~,.!r:,!
Losing. 36....al seems like it
better chance, hoping that Black's
activity will compensate for the lost
pawn.
37 .xf5+ ~h6 38 .i.d3!
This was probably what Larsen
had missed. Now 38 ....al? 39
.i.bl! is nothing.
38•.••f6 39 .e4 .i.f8 40 f4 .f1 41
g4 fxg3 42 hxg3
Suddenly, White is completely
winning. The rest is simple.
42....i.d6 43 ~g2 ~g7 44 ~rJ
.h5+ 45 ~e3 t;t>f8 46 .i.c4 .dl
47 .f5+ ~e7 48 .f1+ ~d8 49
~e4 .hl+ 50 ~f5 .h3+ 51 g4
.e3 52 ~g5 .i.e7 53 ~g6 .e4+
54 ~h6 .i.d6 55 .g8+ ~c7 56 f5
.f4+ 57 ~h7 .i.e7 58 .f1 ~2+
59 ~g8 .h4 60 .g6 .i.g5 61 .i.e2
c4 62 .17+ ~b8 63 .xc4 .h6 64
.b4+ rJ;c7 65 .c5+ 1-0
A tragic end for Larsen, who
certainly deserved a better fate.
Still, from an opening point of
view, the game is very interesting,
again stressing the fact that White
should not expand too quickly, if
Black is ready with immediate
counterplay.
Game 36
Serper-J.Sorensen
Tunja 1989
(1 e4 c5 2 liJrJ liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7
liJc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10
:tel liJxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 rJ as
13 b3 liJd7 14 .i.e3liJcS)
15 .d2 .b6
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 91
This is the most common plan in
these positions, and it will be cov-
ered in detail. Black tries to restrain
the potential b3-b4 break, and in-
tends to put his king's rook on cS.
In addition, he now threatens
16... a4 to break up White's pawn
structure. 15 ...f5 is discussed in the
next game.
16 ltJb5!?
Now 16... a4? 17 b4 wins a piece,
but of course this is not the only
idea behind 16 ltJb5!? White in-
tends to stifle Black's active ideas
on the queenside, and ... i.xb5 is
hardly ever possible, since this kind
of structure, as we shall see in
Game 47, is quite depressing for
Black. Therefore, Black must start
manoeuvring, so that he will be
able to counter b3-b4, when White
is ready to play it.
16 ~fc8
17 ~fdl "d8
As there is nothing left for the
queen to do on the queenside, it
returns to dS, hoping to re-emerge
later on the a1-hS diagonal.
18 ltJd4
18 i.f1 has been tested twice
against Petursson. First by Sax,
Reykjavik 19S8, when after
18 .....f8 19 ltJc3 b6 20 ltJd5 lhb8
21 lib 1 i.e5 22 i.h6 i.g7 23 i.g5
:'b7 24 .!::tel ltJe6 25 i.e3 ltJc5 26
:cd1 .!::tcbS 27 :c1 e6!? 2S ltJc3
ltd7 29 :ed1 "dS 30 "e1 i.e5 31
ltJe2 i.e5 32 ltJd4 i.aS 33 "f2 a
draw was agreed. White was not
close to breaking through, since
every time he created a threat,
Black could easily meet it. Since
White cannot make progress with
piece play alone, he needs to use
his pawns. De Firmian recognised
this before his game against
Petursson, Reggio Emilia 19S9,
and followed the game above until
Black yaried with 2l...':b7, pre-
paring ... e7-e6 and ....!::td7right
away. Here De Firmian did not like
22 a3 a4! 23 b4 ltJb3 followed by
24... b5, when Black will be very
active, so he played 22 b4 instead,
but after 22 ... axb4 23 .!::txb4 i.xd5!
24 cxd5 :as 25 :'dbl "dS all
Black's pieces were well placed,
although the game ended in a draw.
Again, we see that without an
eventual b3-b4, White has no
chance of breaking through. But we
also saw that it is hard to accom-
plish! In conclusion, 18 i.f1 should
not scare Black.
IS ':c2 was played in Karpov-
Mariotti, Milan 1975. Normally,
Karpov is very effective at using
space advantages, but here he was
less efficient: 18 ... b6 19 i.n "d7
20 ltJc3 ~7 21 "£2 ltJa6! 22
.!::tccl a4 23 ltJd5 i.xd5 24 cxd5
axb3 25 axb3 b5 26 f4 b4 27 .l:tc4
':xc4 28 i.xc4 ltJc7 29 "e2 :a5
30 i.f2 ltJb5 31 ':cl ltJc3 32 "d3
"a8 33 g3 1/2- 1/2. Karpov is usually
a trend-setter but, not surprisingly,
this approach has not found many
followers!
92 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
18 "18
19 :lb1
This is probably White's only
way to make progress, but then of
course the rook should have gone
to bl in the first place, leaving
White with an extra tempo. How-
ever, as we shall see in the notes to
the next game, even this should not
frighten Black.
19 il.d7
The game Nunn-Velimirovic,
Dubai 01 1986 went 19 ...il.f6 20 a3
'ilg7 21 b4 axb4 22 axb4 tLle6 23
tLlxe6 fxe6 24 b5 il.e8 25 f4 il.e8
26 e5! dxe5 27 fxe5 il.xe5 28 c5
with a crushing position. Nunn
recommends instead 18 ... il.d7 19
:b 1 tLle6 20 tLlxe6 il.xe6 21 f4
with some edge for White. But
Sorensen points out that there is no
reason for the knight to leave the
excellent c5-square, unless it is
forced to do so! The big difference
is that in the line given by Nunn,
the queenside remains closed, and
White starts to play in the centre.
Here, however, he would have to
play a2-a3 and b3-b4 first, when
Black will exchange knights with
... tLle6, since the a-file, combined
with the bishop on g7, secures him
sufficient counterplay. Compare
with Jansa-Petursson in the note to
White's 18th move in Game 39.
20 l:dc1 h5!?
An attractive idea. Instead of the
typical ... il.f6 and ...'ilg7, Black
prepares 21...~h7 either to ex-
change bishops with 22 ... il.h6, or
simply to play ... 'ilh8 to play on the
long diagonal.
21 il.d1 ~h7
22 tLle2
On 22 il.c2 with the idea of
22 ... il.h6 23 f4 e5 24 tLlf3,
Sorensen had prepared 22 ... e5!? 23
tLle2 il.c6 followed by 24 ... il.h6
with excellent play for Black.
22 il.h6
23 tLlf4 il.c6
Black is preparing ... e7-e5,
which was not possible immedi-
ately due to 24 tLldS.
24 tLld5
White tries to avoid ... e7-e5, but
it might have been the lesser evil.
24... il.xd5 25 exd5 il.xe3+ 26
"xe3 :le8! 27 il.c2 e6 28 dxe6
:lxe6 29 'ild2 b6 30 :leI :lae8 31
a3 :lxe1+ 32 :lxe1 :lxe1+ 33
"xe1
It may seem that White is on top
due to his better pawn structure.
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 93
But since queen and knight work
better together than queen and
bishop, in fact Black has the ad-
vantage. He can also attack on the
dark squares.
33......g7 34 h4 "'b2 35 "'dl
"'xa336f4? . attack his weaknesses. But since
White should have tried 36
'ii'xd6, although 36... 'ii'c1 + 37 'ii'dl
'ii'e3+ is clearly better for Black.
36•••lLle6! 37 'ii'xh5+ ~g7 38 'ii'dl
'ii'c5+ 39 ~ lLlxf4 40 'ii'f3 'ii'e5
41 g3 lLle6 42 i.dl lLld4 43 'ii'd3
lLlf5 44 'Wtfl 'ii'c5 0-1
A pawn down with a bad posi-
tion, White threw in the towel.
Again White never accomplished
b3-b4, since Black kept him busy
with small positional threats.
Game 37
Vaganian-Yudasin
USSR 1988
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 lLlf6 7
lLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0 i.d7 10
:el lLlxd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 f3 as
13 b3lLld7 14 i.e3lLlc5 IS 'ii'd2)
IS f5!?
An interesting idea. Black is
aiming for similar attacking possi-
bilities to Game 34, but he plays
... £7-f5 immediately, hoping that he
can regroup later. It is thought of as
a difficult line for Black, as while
he regroups, White will be able to
no-one has actually proved this in
practice yet, it is difficult to explain
why 15 ...f5!? is not more popular.
16 exfS gxfS!
A natural recapture - the g-file is
potentially more dangerous than
the f-file.
17 lLldS
17 f4 prevents Black from
pushing his own pawn to f4, but
then the c6-bishop, combined with
play on the g-file, would give
Black attacking chances. After 17
ltfdl, not 17...:£7?? 18 i.xc5 1-0
(Lerner-Urban, Berlin 1991), but
17 ... b6 with similar play to the
main game.
17 :f7
18 :fdl b6
Since the queen is not heading
for b6, and Black has already
committed himself by playing ... f7-
f5, it is sensible to fortify the strong
knight. This move also opens up a
different path for the other rook to
the kingside.
19 i.gS :a7
Both defending the e7-pawn and
preparing for a quick transfer to the
kingside, which Black hopes will
be the main battleground.
20 i.h4?!
Yudasin was more afraid of 20
'ii'e3!?, and rightly so. He was in-
tending 20...:b7, covering the b6-
pawn, and after 21 f4 h6 22 i.h4
i.f8 23 i.h5 :g7 he considers the
position to be unclear, since Black
plans 24 ...•a8 and then 25 ...e5.
94 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
The position is indeed messy, but
one cannot help thinking that
White's centrally placed forces
should offer him the better chances.
20 ~b8!
This looks odd as the queen is
moving away from the kingside,
but Black needs to play ... e7-e6 to
get rid of White's annoying knight.
However, the b-pawn needs pro-
tection and that is why this must be
the right square for the queen. In
any case, the price is just one
tempo, since the queen will later
attack via f8.
21 ~n?!
This was criticised by Yudasin,
who claims that 21 ~g3 would
hold the balance for White, the
trick being 2l...e6? 22 ~xd6, but
of course Black would play
21.. .l:td7 with excellent chances.
21 e6
22 lbc3 l:tad7
Black's position looks a little
loose, but that is of no importance,
as White has no quick way of at-
tacking the weak spots. The only
white plan is a2-a3 and b3-b4, but
by the time White is ready for this,
Black's dynamically placed pieces
will already be tearing his kingside
apart.
23 l:tbl ~e5
Already threatening 24 ... d5.
Should White play 24 f4, Black has
the instructive 24 ... ~xc3! 25 "xc3
l:tg7 followed by doubling rooks on
the g-file with a potentially win-
ning attack.
24 <t>hl "a8
Threatening 25 ... i.xf3.
25 ttJe2 f4!
This prevents 26 ~g3, which
would have eased the pressure a
little.
26 lbgl l:tf5 27 "el l:tg7 28 a3
l:th5 29 ~d3!
Careful defensive play, not al-
lowing 29 b4? lbe4!!, when
Black's last piece enters the attack
with decisive effect.
29 ...<t>f7!?
Black wants to break through
with brute force and prepares some
interesting sacrifices. Simple and
good was 29 ... lbxd3 30 1hd3 "e8,
bringing the queen to the kingside
with decisive effect.
30 ~c2 "g8 31 ..a l:tg3!
'Trapping' the bishop on h4, and
thereby forcing White to accept the
offered material.
32 hxg3 fxg3 33 "e2 l:txh4+ 34
lbh3 "g7 35 b4
Since White cannot stop Black's
attack anyway, he tries to create
counterplay on the queenside. At
least it forces Black to make some
exact moves, as his knight is now
threatened.
35.....f6! 36 l:tn
The only way to stop 36:.J:txh3+
followed by 37 ... ~xf3.
36.....h6!
It was important to lure White's
rook to f1 first, as there it blocks
the king's escape route.
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 95
37 :bdl tLla4??
Poor Yudasin. Having played
such a great game, he messes it up
in time trouble. 37... ~f4! won, as
38 .. .l:lxh3+ 39 gxh3 'i6'xh3+ 40
~g 1 ~e3+ mating cannot be met.
38 ~xa4 ~xa4 39 f4! ~xf4 40
1:txd6 rJ;;e7 41 :'xf4 112- 11l
41..J:txf4 42 l:txe6+ 'i6'xe6 43
tLlxf4 leads to a drawn ending. It is
a pity that Black did not win after
having generated such an attack,
but still this game is a fine illustra-
tion of Black's potential chances, if
he gets the attack rolling.
Game 38
Kristiansen-Larsen
Copenhagen 1985
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7
tLlc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10
iVd2 tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3
as)
13 :'ac1?!
This is inaccurate. White should
either play 13 ~hl, exchanging on
g7 and going for the attack (Games
33-34), or play slow positional
chess with 13 b3 (Games 39-49). If
White insists on not playing b2-b3,
he should not leave the a-file so
that 13 ...a4 can be met by 14 b4!
13 a4!
Now after 14 b4 axb3 15 axb3
tLld7 Black has excellent play due
to his control of the a-file, while
the knight threatens to go to c5.
14 tLld5?!
Perhaps we are too harsh in our
criticism of White's play, but this
was not one of his better days. On
other occasions he has given the
authors a lesson or two. This move
is actually a quite common inaccu-
racy. White might have been hop-
ing for 14... tLlxd5, but Black was
going to play 14 ... tLld7 anyway, so
why force him to do it? Actually,
White's knight does nothing on d5
and should have stayed on c3.
14 tLld7
15 ~e3
15 ~xg7 is a typical, but incor-
rect follow-up. Black recaptures,
and tries to regroup with ... tLlc5,
... e7-e5 and ... tLle6, when White
will have to take his knight to e2 to
keep the black knight away from
the beautiful d4-square.
15 :'e8
Larsen loves this move, and for
once it is immediately useful, re-
leasing the queen from the defence
ofe7.
16 tLlcS
17 iVaS
Since Black has gained some
space on the queenside, he is not
afraid of the endgame. It is difficult
to see what White should play now.
18 ~gS "xd2
19 :'dxd2 ~xdS
20 cxdS ~f6
A typical trick, winning time.
21 ~xf6?
96 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
This is a positional blunder. First
of all, Black gets rid of the weak
e7-pawn, leaving him with an open
e-file and a possible ...f6-f5 break.
Second, the c5-knight cannot be
challenged for a while, which
means that the bishop on e2 is use-
less compared to the black knight.
White should have played 21 ~e3
with a perfectly normal position
and retaining equal chances.
21 exf6
22 l:.d4 l:.e5
23 l:.b4 f5
24 l:.b6
This square was probably what
seduced White. It looks like he is
exerting pressure, but Black can
easily defend the pawn on d6.
24••.:'d8 25 exf5 :'xf5 26 ~c4 :'e5
27~f2:'e7
Black is on the retreat, but his
knight versus bishop advantage is
permanent - no need to hurry.
28 b4 axb3 29 axb3 l:c7!
Stopping White's plans of re-
moving the knight with 29 b4,
which would now lose due to the
pin on the c-file after 29 ... ~d7t.Y£q... lat( Kudrin-Velimirovic
30 l:.a2 ~f8 31 ~e3 ~d7 32l:.b4
l:.e8+ 33cotd4 l:.el 34 l:.a8+ cote7
35 l:.a7 ~c5 36 :'b6 l:.c1 37 l:.a2 (1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
:dl+ 38 rbe3 ~d7 39 l:.b4 l:.c1 40
~f2 h5 41 l:.e2+ ~f8 42 l:.e1 l:.xe1
43 ~xe1 ~e7 44 ~d2 ~d8 45 :a4
lLle5 46 f4?
Of course, White should have
drawn this game, but he has been
under constant pressure due to his
bad bishop. This move only creates
more weaknesses, which means
more problems.
46...~g4 47 h3 ~f6 48 :'a8+ </;e7
49 :a7 h4!
Fixing the targets.
50 ~e3 lLlh5 51 ~f3 f5 52 ~e3
~f7 53 ~f3 ~f6 54 ~e3 ~g7 55
~d3 l:.e7+ 56 rbf3 lLlf6 57 ~c4
~e4 58 ~e3 ~f7 59 ~f3 ~c3
Threatening 6O...~dl!
60 g3 hxg3 61 ~xg3 ~f6 62 ~f3
:h7 63 ~g2 l:.c7 64 ~f3 ~e4 65
~g2 g5!
Finally securing some asymme-
try, which of course is good for the
attacker. .
66 fxg5+ ~xg5 67 ~d3 ~f4 68
:'a4 l:.g7+ 69 ~n ~e3 70 ~xe4
In principle White would love to
exchange his light-squared bishop
for the knight, but here a new mon-
ster appears. However, there was
no choice.
70 ...fxe4 71 h4 l:.h7 72 l:.b4 ~f3
73 ~gl e3 74 ~ b5 75 l:.d4 :'c7
0-1
Not a great game perhaps, but it
does contain some typical mistakes,
as well as an illustration of Black's
potential if he gets the knight ver-
sus bishop ending he so often
dreams of in this line.
Game 39
Thessa/oniki 0/ 1988
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 97
ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tiJf6 7
tiJc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0 i.d7 10
'ii'd2 tiJxd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 f3 as
13 b3 tiJd7 14 i.e3 tiJeS)
15 lIabl!
This certainly seems to be the
right square for the rook, since it
helps to prepare the b3-b4 advance.
15 'ifb6
16 tiJbS
This used to be the main move,
but nowadays 16 lIfc1! is more
common (Games 40-42). With the
text move, White puts an end to
Black's dreams of activity on the
queenside. But apart from that, the
knight is not well placed, and will
often simply retreat, having lost
some tempi.
16 lIfe8
17 lIfdl
Other moves have been tried
here:
a) Adams-Larsen, London 1990,
saw 17 lIfcl 'ii'd8 18 tiJd4 i.d7 19
i.dl?! We8 20 i.e2! (stopping
20...b5) 20... h5 and Black has a
good position. Instead of 18 tiJd4,
18 Ilc2 was tried in Kotronias-
Petursson, Komotini 1993. After
18 ... 'ii'fS 19 i.f1 i.e5 20 tiJc3 b6
21 tiJdS "d8 22 i.g5 l:a7 23 i.h4
l:[b8 24l:[el i.xdS 25 exdS Wd7 26
f4 i.f6! 27 i.xf6 exf6 28 :'c3 lIe8
29 Ilce3 l:r.aa8 a drawish position
had arisen. Again, White got no-
where by just manoeuvring around.
b) The direct 17 a3 was tried in
Cebalo-Petursson, San Bernardino
1989, but after 17 ......d8 18 tiJd4
i.d7 19 Itfdl 'irf8 20 b4 axb4 21
axb4 tiJe6 22 tiJb3 lIa3 23 lIbl
i.a4 24 i.dl :a8 White had to ask
himself whether opening the a-file
was such a great achievement.
17 "'d8
18 tiJc3
18 tiJd4 proved ineffective in
Jansa-Petursson, Naestved 1988.
After 18 ......f8 19 a3 i.d7 20 b4
axb4 21 axb4 tiJe6 22 :al lIxal 23
l:[xa 1 :a8, White had absolutely
nothing, and went on to lose!
18 "'e7?!
Petursson would probably have
gone for 18 ... b6 19 i.g5 l:a7. Also
Sorensen's approach with 18 ......fS
and a later ...h7-h5 is worth a try,
although Black is a tempo down on
the previous game. 18 ... i.e5 was
played in Kudrin-Haik, Marseilles
1987, but after 19 i.f1 e6?! 20
tiJb5 i.xb5 21 cxb5 "fIe7 22 i.g5
'ii'c7 23 'ithl f6 24 i.e3 f5 25 i.c4
"'e7 26 i.xc5 :xc5 27 f4 Black's
position was terrible and he soon
lost. 19 ... e6?! was premature, since
Black was not yet able to defend
the d6-pawn with a rook on d7.
19 i.n b6
20 lbdS "'b7
21 i.gS i.xdS
22 exdS!
The only way to make progress.
22 cxd5 b5 would not get White
anywhere, and capturing with the
queen would ease the pressure.
98 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
22 l:.e8
23
The structure is very similar to
the previous game, but here White
is ready to meet Black's counter-
play, since he is several tempi up.
23 'ike7
24 h4!
This is often a useful move to
break through Black's defences.
The pawn will march on, since
24 ...hS would only weaken the
black position. The difference be-
tween h2-b4 and ...h7-hS is that
here it is White who holds the ini-
tiative!
24 .•.e5 25 dxe6 l:.xe6 26 l:.adl
l:.ae8 27 l:.xe6l:.xe6 28 'ikd5
This time it is White who is ac-
tive. Black can only sit and wait,
defending his weaknesses.
28...'ike8 29 g3 'ike8 30 c;t>f2! .li.e3
31 .li.d2 .li.g7 32 .li.f4 .li.e5 33
.li.xe5 dxe5 34 .li.h3 l:.e7 35 'ikd6
Black has got rid of his main
weakness, the d6-pawn, but as of-
ten happens, some other problems
have been revealed. White is about
to break through via the d-file.
35...l:.b7 36 'ikf6l:.b8 37 ~e3! 'ikfS
38 :d5 'ikh6+ 39 'ikg5 'ikfS 40 'ikf6
'ikh6+ 41 ~e2 e4 42 f4 'i'fS 43
c;t>e3
Complete domination. Black is
hopelessly lost.
43...liJd3 44 'i'd6! 'ikxd6 45 l:.xd6
f5 46 g4! fxg4 47 .li.xg4 liJe5 48 f5
c;t>f7 49 l:.c6 l:.b7 50 h5 g5 51 h6
1-0
The f-pawn will be a winner.
Truly a model game for White, but
Black went astray early in the mid-
dlegame, when correct play would
have offered him reasonable
chances.
Game 40
Gelfand-Anand
Manila izt 1990
(1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
liJxd4 g6 5 e4 .li.g7 6 .li.e3 liJf6 7
liJc3 0-0 8 .li.e2 d6 9 0-0 .li.d7 10
'i'd2 liJxd4 11 .li.xd4 .li.c6 12 f3 a5
13 b3 liJd7 14 .li.e3 liJc5 15 l:.abl
'ikb6)
16 l:.fc1!
Nowadays this is generally ac-
cepted as the right way to place the
rooks against the ...'ikb6 system.
On bland cl they will support a
future b3-b4 break in the best pos-
sible way, while leaving the dl-
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 99
square free for manoeuvring the
knight to the kingside.
16
This move is often criticised, but
it is not so bad. At first sight, it
seems as if Black is trying to pre-
vent a2-a3 and b3-b4, but in fact
the opposite is true. As we will see
in the game, White has to play 'ifc 1
and a2-a3 to shift the annoying
queen, after which she happily re-
turns to b6, hoping to prove that
White's a2-a3 has been played too
quickly. For 16.. JUc8 see Games
41-44.
17 ':c2 ':fc8
18 -.c1 -.b6
19 a3 -.d8
20 -.d2
As we now see, Black has not
lost a tempo, but has in fact forced
White to go for an immediate a2-
a3. 20 'ifd2 was not absolutely nec-
essary, but the queen is not very
well placed on c 1.
20 e6
An active choice. Black is plan-
ning to put the bishop on e5 to
protect the weakened d6-pawn.
Although this is a common idea, it
is usually played without moving
the king's rook to c8.
21 .in .ie5
22 b4 axb4
23 axb4 ttJa4
24 tiJe2
24 'iVb4?!
This seems too ambitious. Black
creates a long-term weakness, but it
is unlikely ever to tum into any-
thing concrete. The prophylactic
24 ....ie8 seems to us to be a better
move. Black intends to play
25 ...tiJb6 next, hitting the c4-pawn
and leaving the a-file open. This
typical way of exploiting the open
a-file secures plenty of counterplay.
Such positions are normally given
as slightly better for White, due to
his space advantage, but practical
play has not supported this.
25 g3 -'e7
26 tiJd4 .ie8
27 ':bc1 tiJb6?
Now Anand is going for the
standard plan, but there is a tactical
flaw. Gelfand recommends instead
27 ...'l1c7 28 tiJb3 lhc8 29 c5!,
when White is somewhat better,
although it is not that scary.
28 tiJxe6 -.xe6 29 .ixb6 ':a3?
Gelfand gives 29 ... d5 as a big
improvement, hoping for compen-
sation after 30 .in dxe4 31 fxe4
100 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
l%dS. It is true that Black is some-
what active, but White will create a
passed pawn on the queenside,
which should bring him the win.
30 f4?!
Gelfand is not one to back off.
Still, a pawn up, the more cautious
30 'iVf2 was wiser, leaving White a
clear pawn up with no immediate
targets.
30••..ig7 31 'iVd5 .ie6 32 'iVxe6
fxe6 33 .igl e5
Now Black is getting some
counterplay together, since White's
pawns are somewhat weak.
34 l%d2 exf4 35 gxf4 .ic3?!
After this move White takes
control again by returning material.
35 ....ih6 or 35 ... :fS was to be rec-
ommended, going for the f-pawn.
Although only White can win,
Black could put up a tough fight
for the half point.
36 l%xd6 .ixb4 37 e5 l%f8 38 e5!
The key move. White is happy
to return the extra pawn in order to
regain the initiative.
38•••.ixgl 39 ~xgl l%xf4 40 e6
White now has a huge passed
pawn, and since the b7-pawn is
weak, the c-pawn could also turn
into something.
4O•••l%e4 41 l%d8 ~g7 42 l%d7 ~h6
Forced. After 42 ...~f6 43
.idS+!, Black could not take on e6
anyway, since 44 l%e7+ picks up a
rook.
43 e7 :e2+ 44 ~f1 Lal 45 .ie7
.ia3 46 :e1 :12+ 47 c;i;Jgl .ixe5
48 ~hl .ixe7 49 :dxe7 :f5 50
.ib6 :f6 51 .ie3 g5 52 l%gl :f5
53 h41-0
Along with the previous game,
this encounter really set the trend.
Nowadays everybody puts their
rooks on bl and cl. Although this
is certainly sensible, Black has
ways to kick back, and his defeat in
this game was due to later mis-
takes, not because of the opening.
Game 41
Vaganian-Ivkov
Moscow 1985
(1 e4 e5 2 ltlfJ ltle6 3 d4 exd4 4
ltlxd4 g6 6 e4 .ig7 7 .ie3 ltlf6 7
ltle3 0-0 8 .ie2 d6 9 0-0 .id7 10
'iVd2ltlxd411.ixd4.ie6 12 fJ as
13 b3 ltld7 14 .ie3 ltle5 15 :abl
'iVb6)
16 :fc1!
16 :fe8
17 :e2
17 a3 does not work yet, as seen
in Maksimenko-Marinkovic, Vrn-
jacka Banja 1991, where Black was
fine in the complications after
17...ltlxb3 18 .ixb6lLlxd2 19 :b2
ltlxc4! 20 .ixc4 .id7! 21 .id5
.ixc3 22 :bb 1 .ie5 23 .ixb 1
l%xcl+ 24 l%xcl :bS 25 :C7 .ie6
26 .ia7 :e8, although White had
enough compensation to draw.
17 'iVd8
Since White is close to the aZ-a3
and b3-b4 push, the queen has no
 Classical Maroc'l:j: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 101
further purpose on the queenside. It
might seem strange to move back
and forth, but in that way the black
rooks can be placed on the a- and
c-files, where they have useful pro-
phylactic purposes, since White's
standard plans will lead to the
opening of one file or the other.
Furthermore, the queen now goes
to fS or even h8, where it has a
useful role.
18 .i.n
The direct 18 a3 is the subject of
Games 43 and 44. Vaganian plays
more slowly, hoping his extra
space will make it easier for him to
manoeuvre.
18 .i.eS
Normally this is a useful move,
simultaneously planning ...'ii'fS-g7
and ... e7-e6 and ...'ii'e7. The prob-
lem is that the bishop is somewhat
unstable on eS. Black would not
mind if it were exchanged with
.i.d4xeS, since after d6xeS he will
get a solid grip on the dark squares.
However, if it is exchanged by the
knight, White keeps his dark-
squared bishop, which is unaccept-
able for Black. This fact is skilfully
exploited by Vaganian.
19 liJdI!?
This weakens the grip on bS, but
by the time Black gets ...b7-bS in,
White's attack is already at full speed.
19 a3 is seen in the next game.
19 'ii'e8
20 liJll bS?!
20 ... hS would be the modem
way of playing, and this would
certainly have provided a much
tougher test. In general, Black
would be happy to push ... b7-bS, as
it loosens White's queenside bind.
Here, however, White shifts his
attention to the kingside.
21 llJg4 .i.g7
22 exbS .i.xbS
23 liJh6+
23...<ito>f8
Black is forced to this unpleasant
square due to the weakness of f7.
24 .i.xbS 'ii'xb5 25 'ii'd5 'ii'e8
Although it is bad, Black had to
try 2S ... .i.xh6, which would have
left him with a small chance of a
successful defence. Now White has
a rarely possible, but in this case
decisive break.
26 eS!
This move undermines the posi-
tion of the strong cS-knight, which
is Black's main defender, while
opening up the black king.
26..J~d8 27 exd6 exd6 28 :eI!
The black queen now has no-
where to hide.
28...:e8 29 :xeS :xeS 30 'ii'xeS!
1-0
An attractive game, and it is no
wonder that many players started
copying Vaganian's approach.
Game 42
Khalifman-Hracek
Pardubice 1994
(1 e4 eS 2 ~f3 liJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
102 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops

lL'lxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lL'lf6 7 ~d5 .i.xd5 23 exd5 'ii'g7 simply

lL'lc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 transposes .
• d2 lL'lxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as 20 ~xd5

.b6
13 b3 lL'ld7 14 ~e3 lL'lc5 15 :tab 1

~n ~e5)
16 '::'fc1 '::'fc8 17 ::'c2 .d8 18
19 a3!?
It is interesting to note that 19
lL'ldl!? neither attracts Khalifman
nor scares Hracek. The only possi-
ble reason for this must be that
20 ...h5, as mentioned in the previ-
ous game, is evaluated as okay for
Black by both players. If this is not
the case, then 18 ... ~e5 is indeed
dubious.
19
19 ... ~e8 was
.f8
played in
Wojtkiewicz-Bischoff, Altensteig
1995, but it seems dubious, since it
is difficult to see what Black can do
next if White keeps on manoeu-
vring - the bishop blocks Black's
traditional plans. In the game, how-
ever, it was fully justified, since
after 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 lLla4 22
lLle2 lLlb6 White agreed to a draw,
admitting that he had expanded too
quickly.
20 lL'ld5
20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 ~a4 22
21 exd5
21 cxd5? a4! 22 b4 lLlb3 gives
Black everything he could dream
of.
21 .g7
This idea of putting the queen
behind the bishop on the long di-
agonal is a typical way of obtaining
counterplay. Black might already
be threatening 22 ... a4 23 b4 ~b3
with counterplay.
22 b4 axb4
23 axb4 lL'la4!
Going for the dark squares at
any cost.
24 ::'b3
25 '::'a3
White was threatening to double
rooks on the a-file, but now this is
met with 26 ... 'ii'e8, when a later
... b6-b5 gives Black counterplay.
26 ~d4
White tries to fight back on the
dark squares, hoping that after the
exchange of dark-squared bishops,
Black's ... b7-b5 sacrifice will not
be so effective, since he cannot use
the c3-square. The risk, of course,
is that he might end up with a terri-
ble bishop versus knight endgame.
26 ~xd4+
27 .xd4 .g7!
White's threats along the a-file
were getting serious, but after the
queens disappear, Black is saved
by tactical means.
28 .xg7+
If the queen had gone anywhere
else, Black would have had coun-
terplay with 28 ...b5.
28 ...c;itxg7 29 '::'cal b5!
This is the trick that saves Black.
If White accepts the sacrifice with
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 103

30 cxb5, then Black responds end White was too ambitious.

30...lLlb6, and White will not find a
way through Black's defences, Game 43
since the knight offers a very ef- Ivanchuk-Larsen
fective blockade. White goes for Roquebrune (rapid) 1992
more, which involves serious risks.
30 c5 ':ab8 This was a rapidplay game, and
31 ~xb5 was the threat, but now it should be regarded as such. But
this would simply lead to a draw, even here, these players come up
which does not satisfy White. with moves that we mere mortals
31 c6 e6 would be proud of producing in
White should now go for the serious chess.
draw with 32 ~xb5, but he contin- (1 e4 c5 2 ilJf3 ilJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ues his ambitious approach. ilJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 ~e3 ilJf6 7
32 ':xa4 bxa4 33 ':xa4 ':c7 tL'lc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10
Black certainly will not allow "d2 lLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as
b4-b5 and :a7. 3S. t~(; ... ~··:.!:CI . 13 l:ablilJd7 [With this particular
34 b5 ~f6 35 ':a6 exd5 36 ~r.z~ dt move order; 13... a4 14 b4 axb3 15
Sadly enough,there is no way axb3 ilJd7 16 i.e3 ilJc5 17 b4 ':a3
for White to make progress, so he seems okay] 14 ~e3 lLlc5 15 b3
has to switch to defensive mode, "b616 ':fc1':fc817':c2 "d8)
hoping to make a draw.
36.. /be5 37 ~e3 d4+ 38 ~d2 ~d5 18 a3
39 ':al ~c5 40 ':c1+ ~b6 The model game for this move
The time control has been made, was Dimitrov-Abramovic, Prilep
and Black has achieved more than 1992, when White managed to ex-
he could have hoped for. Before he pand on the queenside whilst
seemed to have sufficient counter- keeping his opponent's activity to a
play for a draw, but now he only minimum. The game continued
need to solve technical problems to 18 ... b6?! (this often turns out to be
get the full point. a weakness) 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4
41 ~d3 ':a8 42 ~xd4l:a2 43 ':dl lLla4 21 ilJd5 e6 22 lLlf4 "e7 23
':ca7 44 h3 f5 45 ~d5 ':al 46 ~fl :d8 24 ':b3! 'ifb7 25 ':d3
':xal ':xal 47 ~c4 ':dl+ 48 ~e6 'ifb8 26 ilJe2! (preventing ...b6-b5)
~c7 49 f4 ':d4 50 ~d5':b4 51 g4 26 ... ~e8 27 ~g5 ':c8 28 ~e7 d5
':xb5 52 gxf5 gxf5 53 h4 h6 54 29 exd5 exd5 30 :Xd5 b5 31 c5
~f3 ':a5 55 ~d5 ':c5 56 ~f3 ':b5 'ifb7 32 ~g5 ilJb6 33 ':d3 ilJc4 34
57 ~d5 ':a5 58 ~f3 l:a3 59 ~d5 "f4 ~d7 35 lLlg3 ':e8 36 ~f6
':d3 60 ~g2 ':d2 61 ~hl ':h2 62 ~c6 37 ilJh5! 1-0. An impressive
~d5 ':xh4 63 ~xf5 h5 64 ~e4 performance. Black's problem was
':h2 65 ~g5 h4 66 f5 h3 67 f6 .:r.z that he was una~le to use the a-file
68 ~g6 h2 69 f7 .:n 70 ~g7 hI" for anything concrete, did not get
0-1 any play on the a1-h8 diagonal, and
Again, this was absolutely not an had to keep the weak b6-pawn un-
error-free game, but Black kept der control. It was better to play
rmding clever resources, and in the 22 ... ~e5 followed by 23 ......f6.
104 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops

18 h5!? changed, and the b3-knight will

Typical Larsen: pawns on a5 and promise Black good chances along
h5! The idea is, as mentioned be- the c-file.
fore, ... ~h7, and then either ... 'it'h8 20 lLld5!?
or .. :tlff8 and ... i.h6. Furthermore, Clever play. 20 ... a4 21 b4 lLlb3
the h-pawn might be used to create 22 'ii'd3 would leave Black with a
counterplay, as we shall see later in problem on b6.
the game. Again, the standard 20 e6
warning is that ...h7-h5 could be a 21 lLlc3 .e7'
weakness, but not many games 22 i.g5?!
have proven that it is. 18 ... 'ii'f8 is White tries to provoke more
seen in the next game. weaknesses, but Black fmds
enough dynamic play to justify
them. The natural continuation
would have been 22 b4 axb4 23
axb4 lLla4 24 lLle2, hoping to con-
trol Black's active pieces, and then
to cash in due to the space advan-
tage. Still, there is nothing here that
should scare Black - it is just an
ordinary game.
22
23 i.f4 e5!
24 i.e3 a4!
25 b4 lLlb3
26 .dl i.h6
19 i.n
The direct 19 b4 was successful
in Pytel-Sokolowski, ladwisin
1985. After 19 ... axb4 20 axb4lLla4
21 lLld5 e6 22 lLlf4 'ii'e7 23 i.f1
~h7 Black was almost okay but
was then slowly outplayed.
22 ... lLlb6 is a possible improve-
ment, trying to make use of the a-
file.
19 i.d7!?
This seems like a passive and
rather odd move, but in fact it is
very aggressive. Larsen is trying to
show that White's early a2-a3 has Black wants to put his knight on
its downside too. He intends to play d4, even at the cost of some mate-
20 ... a4 21 b4 lLlb3 followed by rial. 26 ... lLld4 27 i.xd4 exd4 28
... e7-e5 and ... i.e6, or the immedi- lLle2 would have justified White's
ate ... i.e6. Should White then put previous moves.
his knight on d5, it will be ex- 27 i.xh6
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 105

Ivanchuk is not afraid to take up 43 :'d4 'ii'e3 44 :'d3 'ii'g5 45 :'d4

the challenge, but 27 .i.f2!? was 'ii'e3 112-1I2
certainly worth considering. Black Black is very active, so White
would have then have problems has to go for the repetition; 45 :'c3
with the d6-pawn, while the white :d8 was too dangerous. A strange
knight is heading for dS. Black's game, showing some active plans
only chance seems to be 27 ... .i.e6!? for Black. Although Black's play
28 lLlxa4 Iba4 29 Axb3 ':ca8 30 was on the edge of the unsound, he
:a2 b5 with compensation, which probably never crossed the line into
should be enough for the draw. *' a bad position.
27•• :it'xh6 28 'ii'xd6 .i.e6 29lLlb5
A tough choice. 29 lLldS .i.xd5 Game 44
30 "xd5 allows .....e3+ and Filippoy·P.H.Nielsen
... l:1d8. My computer claims that Minsk 1996
White is winning here, but surely
not many humans would like to (1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
play this position. White will be lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlr6 7
some pawns up, but, normally, lLlc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10
when Black wins the a3-pawn, his 'ii'd2 lLlxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 fJ a5
own a-pawn will become a mon- 13 b3 lLld7 14 .i.e3 lLlc5 15 Lbl
ster. Ivanchuk tries to keep things 'ii'b616 :'fcl :'fc817 Ad 'ii'd818
under control. - ffih aJ)
29•••lLld4 30 lLlxd4 'ii'e3+ 31 rt>hl
exd4 18 'ii'f8!?
Black is very active and surely
has enough compensation. But by
some clever defensive moves
White escapes.
32 b5 Ad8 33 'ii'b4 d3 34 :'c3 h4!
It was not just for fun that the h-
pawn was advanced...
35:'dl
35 h3 was risky, since after
35 ... l:1ac8 36 ':dl "f2 37 :dxd3
Axd3 38 .i.xd3 1i'el + 39 'ith2 l:[d8
Black has at least a draw, and
maybe more.
35... h3 36 'ii'b2 :'ac8 37 :'cxd3
l:xd3 38 l:xd3 'ii'e1 39 'ii'e2 'ii'c1 19 b4 axb4
40 'it'dl h~?gl+ 41 'itxgl 1i'~5+ ~2 AJ(J~ 20 .. axb4 . lLle6!?
~bl 'itfh7.. '13. ''KJ 4 .,';f(..c 8~ The traditional path IS 20...lLla4,
Since 42 ... .i.xc4 ~ waS ~ but I wanted to use the a-file to
embarrassing, Black gets out of the generate counterplay.
way first, hoping that the white 21 lLld5 l:aJ!
pawns are so weak that they will Winning a tempo, as 22 lLlb6??
fall anyway. l:1xe3 picks up a piece.
~: 34. ~igs ~x63 32.6"g3 i'1:';l'y\d:.',:~ 33-~ Q.-l.J 3"/'[.[ Or ?II At! fJ 1'65,
// de .±
106 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
22 ~f2 :ca8
23 tiJb6 :al!
Again Black defends actively.
The trick is 24 :cc 1 :8a2! White
therefore has to allow his opponent
to swap a pair of rooks, while
leaving Black's other rook actively
placed on the a-file.
14 :dl :xdl+ 25 ~xdl :al 26
~e3 :a3 27 ~f2 fS!
A well-justified move. Black's
position looks passive, as only the
rook is active, but it is like a com-
pressed spring and his pieces will
soon be in command.
28 bS ~e8 29 exfS
This helps Black's queen to be-
come active, but 29 ii'd5 ~f7 30
_xb7 :al would have backfired.
29..:iVxfS 30 tiJdS <li>f8!
A last defensive move. Now
Black is ready for ideas like 31...g5
and 32... ~g6 or 31. ..ttJc5 and
32 ... ~f7.
31:cl'iVeS!
White was planning 32 ~c2,
which is now answered by 32 ... :a2
with a nasty pin.
32:bl
32 f4 'iVb2! would force a fa-
vourable ending for Black, as 33
:c2 .., 1 24 :c1 :d3 is good for
him. White's pawns are weak and
without the queens it will be im-
possible to defend them.
32...:al 33 f4 'iVe4 34 %bal ~xal
35 ~f3?
A mistake under time pressure.
Better was 35 'l'e3, hoping to make
a draw in a worse ending.
3S.....xc4 36 fS gxfS 37 h4
Admitting failure, but after 37
'iWh6+ tiJg7, White has to worry
about a check on the first rank
anyway.
37...~xbS 38 'l'h6+ tiJg7 39 ~g3
~c6 40 t'iJxe7 ~xf3 41 ~xd6 <li>t7!
The key move. Black's attack
now comes in first.
42 gxf3 ~d4+ 43 'itJg2 'l'e2+ 44
~hl 'iVfl+ 45 <li>h2 ~gl+ 0-1
White will soon be mated. It is
difficult to say exactly what went
wrong for White in this game.
However, the knight manoeuvre
clearly missed the target as Black's
rooks managed to become active
anyway. This game illustrates quite
well that opening the a-file is risky
for White, as Black gets plenty of
play there.
In the last few games we have
been focusing on the standard plan
with ... 'ii'b6, trying to slow down
White's queenside actions. How-
ever, more direct plans have also
been tried.
Game 45
Cu.Hansen-J.Sorensen
Denmark (rapid) 1996
(1 e4 cS 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tiJxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tiJf6 7
t'iJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10
'l'd2 t'iJxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as
13 b3 t'iJd7 14 ~e3 tiJcS IS :abl)
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 107
15 e6!?
This is Sorensen's pet line. He
aspires to the attacking chances
associated with ... f7-f5, but pre-
pares it with less committal moves
such as ... e7-e6, .....e7 and ... iLe5
fmt, and only decides whether or
not to go for ... f7-f5, depending on
what White is doing.
16 ~hl
16 J.dl!? has been regarded as
the 'official' refutation of 15 ...e6
since Tringov-Haik, Vrnjacka
Banja 1986, when White was much
better after 16... f5 17 exf5 ':xf5 18
It'le2 b5 19 J.c2 1:.f7 20 Ilfdl :d7
21 cxb5 J.xb5 22 It:ld4. But, of
course, 17... gxf5! is the right move.
Still, there was no reason to rush
...f7-f5, and 16.....e7 looks sensi-
ble, when it is difficult to believe
that 16 J.dl is such a great
achievement.
16 J.eS!
An excellent place for the
bishop. It now defends the weak
d6-pawn as well as having aggres-
sive intentions on the kingside with
17 ...'ifh4!? already in the offing.
17 J.d4
Not very ambitious, but this
seems to be the choice of many
players when faced with ...e7-e6.
Black could now simply have
played 17... J.xd4 18 "xd4 e5! 19
"d2 ttJe6 with no problems at all.
17 1re7
18 :fdl :ad8
19 J.n J.xd4
20 1rxd4 fS!?
Again, 20... e5! is safe and solid
with no risks.
21 exfS gxfS
22 a3 eS!
This concedes White the dS-
square for his knight, but gets d4
for Black's own knight. This is a
good bargain for Black, as with the
light-squared bishops on the board
the dS-knight can be removed,
whereas the one on d4 cannot.
23 "e3 ttJe6 24 axb4 axb4 25
axb4 1rg7 26 bS iLe8 27 1rb6
"d7 28 :al J.hS
As always, it is difficult to
evaluate the position when Black
plays the ... f7-f5 break. The b7-
and d6-pawns are not that easy to
attack, and given a couple of free
moves Black will have a rook on
the g-file with a dangerous attack.
29 :dS1re7 30 :adllt'ld4 31 ttJe2
31 c5! to simplify the position
after 31...dxc5 32 1rxc5! seems
correct, with a probable draw.
31 •••lt'lxfJ! 32 ttJg3
32 gxf3 J.xf3+ 33 ~gl looks
very dangerous for White, but as
we cannot find a clear win, this was
certainly preferable.
32...'ifh4??
The simple 32 ... ttJxh2! 33lt'lxh5
'ifh4! would have won immedi-
ately.
33 gxfJ J.xfJ+ 34 J.g2 J.xdl 35
:xdl f4 36 J.dS+ ~h8 37 ttJe4
1rh3? 38lLlgS 1-0
39 lLlf7+ picks up material. A
lOB Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
tragic end for Black, but the mid-
dlegame was certainly fine for him.
That 15 ...e6 holds direct threats, is
well illustrated with the next game.
Game 46
P.H.Nielsen-Larsen
Danish ch 1997
(1 d4 tlJf6 2 c4 c5 3 tlJf3 cxd4 4
tlJxd4 tlJc6 5 tlJc3 d6 6 e4 g6 7
.i.e2 tlJxd4 8 "'xd4 .i.g7 9 .i.e3
0-0 10 "'d2 .i.d7 11 0-0 as 12 b3
.i.c6 13 f3 tlJd7 14 lhbl tlJc5 15
l:fc1 e6!)
After a strange move order, we
now have the main line with an
extra tempo for White. 15 ...e6! is a
strong idea here, as White's rook
belongs on d I.
16 tlJb5 .i.e5 17 l:dl??
Losing, and a very difficult
mistake to explain. I had actually
discussed this position with
Sorensen, who told me about the
combination that arises in the
game. However, over the board I
confused this line with another line
I had analysed with iof2 and then
tlJb5, which is quite strong (see the
next main game).
17......h4!
Winning immediately. In fact
even 17...tlJxe4 18 fxe4 'W'h4
should win.
18g3
At least White gets an extra
piece. 18 h3 o!iJxe4 19 fxe4 'i'g3
with 20...'W'h2+ and 21...f5 wins.
18•••.i.xg3 19 hxg3 "'xg3+ 20 <;PhI
20 <;WI o!iJxe4 21 fxe4 f5! wins,
as 22 e5 .i.g2+ mates.
20...tlJxe4 21 "'d3
21 ..JWh3+?
21...tlJf6 would have forced im-
mediate resignation, as 22 ... o!iJg4
mating cannot be prevented with-
out dropping too much material. 22
.i.gl o!iJg4 23 'i'xd6 'i'xf3+ 24
.i.xf3 .i.xf3+ would have fmished
the game in a proper way.
22 <;Pgl tlJg3 23 tlJd4?
23 'iii>f2 would have offered
some fighting chances, but this was
really not my day.
23....i.e4!
A nice shot, winning material.
24 fxe4 "'hl+ 25 ~ tlJxe4 26
"'xe4 "'xe4.
Normally, three pieces is enough
for a queen, but here Black has too
many extra pawns, and White will
not be able to counterattack, as
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 109
Black's position holds no weak
spots.
27 ~f3 "h4+ 28 <t>g2 a4 29 b4
:lac:8 30 :lbc:l d5 31 c:xd5 exd5 32
:lc:S "e7 33 ~f2 b6 34 :lb5 :lc:4
35 <t>fl "d6 36 :lxd5 "xb4 37
:ld7 "a3 38 ~d5? "h3+ 0-1
Even without the last blunder,
the game was lost. The Maroczy is
known as a solid opening, but if
White takes it too lightly, Black
can still score dramatic wins.
Game 47
Hellers-Cebalo
Debrecen 1992
(1 e4 c:5 1 ~f3 ~c:6 3 d4 c:xd4 4
~xd4 g6 5 c:4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ~f6 7
~e3 0-0 8 ~el 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10
"dl ~xd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6 12 f3 as
13 b3 ~d7)
14 ~f2!?
14 lOeS
The immediate 14...'I'c7 has also
been tried as well. It was not espe-
cially successful in I. Gurevich-
Palatnik, New York 1992, after 15
:abl :fc8 16 :fcl 'I'd8 17 a3
IOc5 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 lOa4 20
lOe2, Black was outplayed, ai-
though his position was probably
okay. 17...b6 intending 18 b4 axb4
19 axb4 :a3! seems like a reliable
alternative.
In Kengis-P.H.Nielsen, Gistrup
1997, White went for 15 :lac1 in-
stead, but after 15 ...:lfc8 16 :lfe 1
~c5!?, Black switched back to the
standard plan, as White was not
ready to counter it with a2-a3 and
b3-h4. The game continued 17 ~fl
~6 18 ~b5 "d8 and now White
played 19 e5!?, an unusual way of
breaking through Black's fortress,
using the fact that the knight on c5
seems insufficiently defended, and
I have to admit that it was only
through plain luck that I found the
following resource: 19 ...a4!, the
point being that 20 exd6 axb3 21
~xc5 ~xb5 22 cxb5 bxa2 is good
for Black. Kengis went for 20 h4
~e6 21 exd6, when a draw was
agreed. The ending after 2l...~xbS
22 cxbS 'I'xd6 23 "xd6 exd6 is
now okay for Black, as the a4-
pawn, combined with an attack on
a2, secures Black at least equality.
15 :labl
Here we see the point of White's
14 .tf2!?: if Black plays along the
standard lines with IS ...'i'b6 16 a3,
the trick from the 14 .te3 system,
16...lOxb3 does not work now be-
cause of 17 'I'dl, when White sim-
ply wins a piece as the bishop is
now well protected on f2.
15 e6
An aggressive move which
seems slightly dubious. The solid
15 ... b6 was Serper's choice against
Bischoff, Krumbach 1991, when
White was a little better after 16
:lfdl :a7 17 .tfl .te5 18 ~e2
'i'b8 19 IOd4 .td7, but agreed to a
draw after 22 moves. Indeed it is
110 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
not easy for White to make prog-
ress, as Black is ready to exploit the
open a-file which would arise if
White should go for a2-a3 and b3-
b4. Serper indicates that 20 g3!?
followed by 21 i.g2 and then 22 f4
is the right way to expand. This
does indeed look like the way to
play, but Black's position still
looks solid enough. IS .....c7!? is
seen in the next game and
IS ..."'6!? in Game 49.
16 lLlbS!
This looks like the right antidote
to Black's plans, as the d6-pawn
will come under immediate pres-
sure. Less successful was 16 lUdl
iLeS 17 iLfl? (17 lLlbS!) 17.....f6
18 l:[bcl gS! 19 lLle2 g4 20 'ii'e3
gxf3 21 gxf3 'ii'g6+ 22 iLg3 fS,
when Black had an attacking posi-
tion in Ikonikkov-P.H.Nielsen,
Cheliabinsk 1991, the game ending
in a perpetual after 23 f4 lLlxe4 24
fxeS dxeS 2S iLg2 f4 26 iLxf4 exf4
27 lLlxf4 ':xf4 28 "xf4 l:tf8 29
'ii'h4:£2 30 l:[d8 ~f7 31 :d7+!
1/2- 112. In this game Black had the
only chances, and White just man-
aged to hold the balance.
16 iLeS
17 lLld4
17 :fd l!? seems more direct to
us, as the threat to the d6-pawn
forces 17... i.xb5 18 cxbS, which
generally favours White. Actually,
this was what I had intended in the
previous game, but I was surprised
by 17 ... 'ii'h4, which is impossible
here. Black was maybe intending
18 .....f6, planning 19... gS, with
good control of the dark squares on
the kingside, but then 19 i.e3! is
strong, as now 19... 'ii'h4 20 g3
iLxg3 21 hxg3 'ii'xg3+ 22 'iitfl
seems to win for White. Maybe
Black could try 18 ... gS, but 19 iLe3
h6 20 h4! looks very good for
White.
17 'ii'f6
18 :bdl iLf4
19 'ii'c2 :fd8
20 g3 iLh6
21 lLlbS!?
This leads to the structure dis-
cussed earlier. Hellers indicates 21
lLlxc6 i.xc6 22 f4 eS 23 fS as
somewhat better for White, but this
does not seem all that clear to us, as
suddenly Black's pieces are excel-
lently placed, and he has the plan
of preparing ...as-a4.
21 iLxbS
22 cxbS
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops III
Now, however, it seems clear
that White is much better. He has
the simple plan of a2-a3 and b3-b4
which is very difficult to prevent,
as without the bishop on c6, Black
will find it very difficult to under-
take any active play.
22 ...:ae8 23 ~c4!
Making sure that Black will
never be able to push ...d6-dS.
23...~g7 24 :d2 b6 25 "dl "e7
26 "e2 ~e3 27 :e2 "f6?!
An ambitious way of preventing
White's plan of a2-a3 and b3-b4,
but it seems to be insufficient.
Better was 27 ... ~g7 28 f4?! 'irb7!,
as indicated by Hellers, when Black
gets in ...d6-dS with counterplay.
28 :dl ~b4 29 cbg2 "e7 30 ~d4
e5 31 ~b2 tLle6 32 a3 ~e5 33
~xe6!
It may seem illogical to ex-
change the strongly posted bishop,
but Black was ready to occupy d4
with counterplay. Instead Black's
bishop is about to be trapped, and
he will lose a pawn.
33.....xe6?
Better was 33 ... fxe6, when Black
keeps control of d5. Rescuing the
bishop will cost a pawn, but as
White's extra pawn is the doubled
b-pawn, Black retains some draw-
ing chances.
34 :e4 hS 35 :dS h4 36 g4 "f6
37 b4 axb4 38 axb4 ~d4 39
:exd4!?
Probably in time pressure, Hell-
ers misses 39 ~xd4 :xc4 40 'i'xc4
h3+ 41 ~f2 'ii'f4? 42 ~xe5! How-
ever, he does not spoil anything.
39...exd4 40 ~xd4 "f4 41 ~xb6
:e8 42 ~e3 :el 43 ~xf4 :xe2+
44 ~h3 :tl 45 :d3 :b8 46 ~xd6
:xb5 47 ~xh4 :g2 48 'i1>h3 :e2
49 ~g3 :b7 50 ~c5 :b8 51 h4
:a8 52 :d5 :b2 53 h5 ~h7 54
hxg6 ~xg6 5S :d6+ ~h7 S6 gS
:b3 S7 :h6+ 1-0
There is no defence to 58 ~d4.
Although the 15 ... e6 plan is cer-
tainly interesting against 14 ~e3, it
seems less attractive against 14
~f2!?, as Black does not have the
...1fh4 trick as in the previous
game, and therefore has to take on
b5, which hardly ever is good.
Game 48
Leko-Spangenberg
Buenos Aires 1994
(1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLle6 3 d4 exd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7
tLle3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10
"d2 tLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~e6 12 fJ as
13 b3 tLld7 14 ~tl!? tLle5 IS
:abl)
15 "e7!?
Black wants to play along stan-
dard patterns, putting his king's
rook on c8, an4 then bringing the
queen back to d8. However, here
he uses c7 for the queen to side-
step a quick a2-a3 and b3-b4 by
White.
16 :fc1 :fc8
112 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
White must now take care to
avoid 17 a3? a4! 18 b4 tLlb3, win-
ning an exchange.
17 ':'c2
The same tournament featured
the game Renet-Spangenberg, in
which White tried another way of
re aring a2-a3 and b3-b4. After
17 i.dl 'ii'd8 18 a3 b6 19 b4 axb4
20· axb4 tLld7 21 .i.b3 the bishop
was well posted on b3, where it
protects c4 and eyes fl. Although
Black has a solid position, he went
down surprisingly quickly after
21...'ii'f8 22 .i.e3 i.f6 23 i.h6 'ii'd8
24 tLldl b5? 25 cxb5 'ii'b6+ 26 tLlf2
i.xb5 27 i.e3 'ii'a6 28 tLlg4 i.g7
29 tLlh6+ i.xh6 30 i.xh6 tLle5 31
'ifd4 txcl+ 32 ':'xcl 'ii'a3 33 'ii'c3
i.d7 34 f4! 1-0. However 24 ... b5?
was very bad and 24 ... l::ta3 should
be okay.
17 'ifd8
18 a3 'iff8
19 ..t.e3
Preventing 19 ... ..t.h6.
19 h5!?
20 b4 axb4
21 axb4 tLla4
22 itldl i.f6
A typical Maroczy position.
White has managed to get in the
classic b3-b4 break, but as we now
know, this is absolutely no guar-
antee of success. Black's pieces are
active, and he has reasonable con-
trol of the dark squares. A clear
indication of White's difficulties is
the fact that Leko now heads for a
repetition, as he sees no way of
making progress.
23 i.h6 i.g7 24 ..t.e3 i.f6 25 i.h6
i.g7 26 i.e3 i.f6 27 i.h6 'ifd8!?
Black bravely decides to play
on.
28 i.e3 ct>h7 29 i.n 'ifh8
Now Black has excellent control
of the dark squares, and White has
to keep his knight on the clumsy
dl-square, or else Black's knight
will invade on c3.
30 ~hl l::tc7 31 l::tbc1 i.d7 32 l::t&2
i.e6 33 l::tac2 l::tac8 34 ..t.e2 i.d7
35 i.n 'ife8 36 ~gl i.g7 37 i.e2
b5!?
Again Black chooses to keep the
game alive instead of settling for a
draw.
38 cxb5 l::txcl 39 ':xc2 ':xcl 40
'ifxc2 .txb5 41 ~tl e6
Although the position is cer-
tainly drawn, Black keeps pressing
his slight initiative by making pawn
breaks in an attempt to unbalance
the position.
42 Wd2 .txe2 43 'ifxe2 d5 44 exd5
exd545 Wd3 d4!? 46 ..t.xd4 'ifd8
47~e3Wg5+?
Better was 47 ... 'ife7+!, getting
the pawn back with a draw.
48 "'e2 Wxg2+ 49 itltl itlb2 50
'ifc3??
After 49 'ife3! White would
nearly be winning, as Black is close
to losing his lmight, e.g. 49 ... itlc4
SO 'ifc3. Now, however, Black is
rewarded for his willingness to take
chances.
 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 113
50..:ii'xf2+! 51 .i.xf2 .i.xc3 52 b5
.i.e5 53 h3 ~g8 54 b6 ~f8 55 ~e3
~e7 56 ~e4 ~e6 57 b7 ~c4 58
.i.d4 ~d6+ 59 ~d3 ~xb7 0-1
Not an error-free game, but one
that illustrates that b3-b4 is not that
great for White. 14.. :iWc7 and
15 .....c7 both seem reliable ways
to reach standard positions, reach-
ing near equality.
Game 49
Hernandez-Petursson
Linares 1994
(1 e4 c5 1 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
~xd4 g6 5 c4 ~f6 6 ~c3 d6 7
i.e2 i.g7 8 i.e3 0-0 9 0-0 i.d7 10
"d2 ~xd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 fJ a5
13 b3 ~c5 14 i.f2!? ~c5 15
:abI)
15 "b6!?
This was introduced by Larsen
in 1989 against Savon. When we
saw this move for the first time, we
were sure that Larsen had simply
played too quickly and was lucky
to escape. And when we saw him
play 15 ...~6 again three years
later we were rather concerned that
our national hero seemed to be un-
~'.1(r.,! wi~" p s!cudc_.. ,~ fC,Hlor~
able to remember his own mis-
takes. Then, suddenly, Petursson
started copying it, and we began to
understand that they were actually
doing it on purpose!
_~~._.. _~ 'IM8!
Amazing! Two of the biggest
experts on the Maroczy consider
a2-a3 to be a weakness worth giv-
ing up two tempi for! The point is
that it is now very difficult for
White to regroup quietly before
undertaking anything active. The
main problem is that 17 fUcl a4!
IS b4 ~b3 loses an exchange. In
the two Larsen games, White tried
the critical 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4.
Against Savon, Palma de Mallorca
1989, he went for IS .. .l:la3 19 ~b5
.i.xb5 20 bxc5 .i.c6 21 cxd6 exd6
22 :fdl .i.e5 23 c5 .i.a4 24 cxd6
.i.xdl 25 :xdl "f6, which looks
good for Black but ended in a
draw. Against Amason in Oster-
sund 1992, he went for IS ... ~a4
instead, reaching an equal position
after 19 ~xa4 :xa4 20 l:fc 1 "a8
21 l:c2 l:c8. 17 b4 should not scare
Black at all.
17 .i.dI!?
Quite logical, as White wants to
keep b3 well under control, and
then start regrouping. In the game
I.Gurevich-Petursson, St Martin
1993, White tried 17 l:fdl instead,
which resulted in an fairly even
position after 17... l:e8 18 .i.fl i.e5
19 ~e2 ~e6 20 l:bcl ~8, as
Black is now ready for 2l...b5.
White stopped this radically with
21 i.b6, but after 21...~5 22 l:bl
l:a6 23 i.xc5 dxc5 Black's posi-
tion was excellent due to his bishop
pair and control over the dark
squares, although active play by
White later secured him a draw.
114 ClassicaL Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops

17 'ii'b8 Securing e7 for the queen, which

Preparing ... b7-b5 and allowing now seems an ideal square for it.
the king's rook to go to c8. Then the rook will go to f8 in
18 .Ji.e2 lIe8 preparation for a later ... f7-f5
19 a4!? break. Should White go for 22 f5,
An interesting decision. As 19 hoping for an attack, 22 ......e7 fol-
b4 axb4 20 axb4 lIa3 certainly is lowed by 23 ... .Ji.e5 gives sufficient
okay for Black, White decides to counterplay on the dark squares.
stop a possible ... b7-b5 at the cost 22 i.xc5
of closing the queenside. He now Not a very ambitious decision,
has hopes for an attack on the king- but it was not easy to see a con-
side, as with the queenside closed, vincing plan for White. 22 .ith4!?
he can now concentrate all his looks like an idea, preparing 23 f5!,
pieces over there. but 22 ... f5! seems like a convincing
19 lIe7 answer. Now the game enters a
20 libel 'ii'f8! sharp tactical phase which peters
Black, of course, hurries to bring out in a draw.
his major pieces to the kingside 22...dxc5 23 e5 f6 24 'ii'd6 'ii'e7 25
battleground. ~b5 .itxb5 26 'ii'xe7 l:xe7 27 exf6
21 f4 e6! .Ji.xe4 28 fxe7 .Ji.xfl 29 lIxe6 ~t7
30 eS'ii'+ lIxeS 31 lIxe8 ~xeS 32
~xfl liz_liz
15 ... 'ii'b6 does indeed look sus-
picious at first sight, but it has
some deep points, and so far White
has not been able to come up with a
convincing answer. It also has a
psychological plus as White may
believe that his opponent has just
blundered, become over-optimistic,
and overreact when trying to pun-
ish him.
6 Maroczy Bind:
Systems with an Early ...ltJh6!?

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 Jig7 6 Jie3

6 ... d6 - Game 50
6 ... ~h6 - Game 51

In this line Black strives for an Of course, Tarrasch's maxims

early ...f7-f5, attempting to under-
mine the white centre. If Black
manages to time his counterplay
correctly, before his opponent can
establish a strong hold on the cen-
tre, then he may be able to equalise.
However, practice has shown that it
is quite difficult for Black to handle
these positions, and the line has
therefore more or less disappeared
from high level tournaments.
teach that it is bad to place the
knight on the edge of the board, but
here it does have some use. The
only other square for the knight is
f6, where it temporarily hinders
Black by blocking the g7-bishop
and the f-pawn.

Game 50
Geller-Larsen
Monte Carlo 1967

(1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 Jig7 6 Jie3 d6)

The immediate 6 ... lLlh6 has, of

course, also been tried, but gener-
ally it just transposes. A few ex- 8 0-0 0-0
ceptions are mentioned in the next 9 1i'd2
game. At the time of the game, this
7 Jie2 ~h6!? move was considered good for
First recommended by Simagin. White, but now it is not very highly
116 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... 0.h6
regarded. The game transposes to
the Classical system with 9...:e8
without Black having played
....:e8! In that variation Black
plays 9...:'e8, waiting to counter 10
1Ii'd2 with 1O...llJg4 but here Black
gets a better version, since the rook
is not urgently needed on e8 with
this structure. The standard 9 llJc3
is considered (by transposition) in
the next game.
9 llJg4
10 .i.xg4 .i.xg4
11 llJc3 'iWaS
Nowadays this is regarded as the
main line. The alternatives are:
a) 11...%lc8 has been played on
occasion. A horrible example is
Bhend-Keres, Zurich 19S9, when
Black had a terrible position after
12 b3 a6 13 :'acl 'iWaS 14 h3 .i.d7
IS llJxc6 bxc6? 16 cS! .i.e6 17
llJdS!?, although Keres later man-
aged to draw. Better was IS ... .i.xc6
16 llJdS 'iWd8, followed by ... b7-bS
with reasonable play.
b) Langeweg-Velimirovic, Am-
sterdam 1974, saw 11.. ..i.d7 12 f4
:'c8 13 b3 'iWaS 14 :tacl fS IS exfS
gxfS 16 0.de2 .i.e6 17 llJg3 :'fd8
18 :tfdl .i.f7 19 llJbS! 'iWxd2 20
:'xd2 a6 21 llJc3 e6 22 .i.b6 :'d7
23 0.a4 and Black has too many
weaknesses. Normally Black is not
afraid of endgames in the Maroczy,
but if he has played ... f7-fS, they
are in general dangerous for Black.
12 :'ad
Interestingly, Geller has no con-
fidence in 12 f4!?, which had
brought Petrosian a quick victory
against Heinicke 12 years earlier.
In that game Black had played
12 ... llJxd4 13 .i.xd4 eS 14 fxeS
dxeS IS .i.e3 :'ad8 16 'iWf2 fS? 17
.i.cS! :'f7 18 h3 and White picked
up a piece. 12 ....i.d7 followed by
...:c8 seems more logical, after
which Black has reasonable play. A
sign that 12 f4!? cannot be so bad
for Black is the fact that Larsen
was ready for it - and Geller did
not dare play it!
12 :.rc8
13 b3 a6
14 :'cl?!,
Played to prevent ... b7-bS, but
this move misses its objective.
Better is 14 0.xc6!, which was in-
troduced by a young Kasparov
against Ivanov, Daugavpils 1978,
which continued 14 ...:'xc6 IS
.i.h6! (trading Black's best piece,
since IS ....i.h8 16 llJdS 'iWd8 17
'iWgS! is winning) IS ...:'ac8 16
.i.xg7 ~xg7 17 f4 f6 18 ~h1 bS 19
fS g5 with complex play. Kasparov
writes that 17 'iWb2 is preferable,
giving White an edge after 17...f6
18 llJdS, though surely it is not a
lot. This idea was tried out in
Popovic-Abramovic, Novi Sad
1985, and after IS .i.d4 .i.e6 16
.i.xg7 ~xg7 17 'iWb2 f6 18 llJdS
'iWd8 19 a4 lIac8 20 IIcdl IIcS
Black's set-up was solid and he can
try for ...b7-bS.
14 b5!
 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early .. .'l)h6 117

Very strong. After 15 cxb5 24 h4 :b5

Black has the pleasant choice be- 25 J:r.a4 f6
tween 15 ... axb5 16liJdxb5 liJb4 17 Seemingly a very innocent
:b2 .id7 with fine compensation, move, but it contains a little trap
15 ...liJxd4 16 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 17 which Geller walks right into.
'ii'xd4 axb5 and the spectacular 26 'iti>h2? .i.xd5! 27 :xd5 :xd5 28
15 ... .i.xd4!? 16 .i.xd4 axb5, since exd5 tt)b4 29 ::'xa5 :'c2
17 .i.e3 liJb4 is annoying for Now we see the idea behind
White. It may seem odd to give up 25 ...f6. Without it White would
the dark-squared bishop, but White have had a perpetual with :a7+,
must defend his queenside and will but now the king hides on f7.
not get a mating attack. 30aJ
15 liJd5 'ii'xd2 Entering a difficult rook ending,
16 1:r.xd2 .i.xd4 but the alternatives were grim and
17 .i.xd4 :abS! in particular 30 .i.d4 l1xa2 31 1:r.b5?
Black keeps things under con- liJxdS!! 32 l1xd5 ~c6 is beautiful.
trol. If now 18 c5 .i.e6! 19 cxd6 30...:xb2 31 axb4 :xb3 32 :a7+
.i.xd5 20 exd5 tt)xd4 21 :xd4 ~eS 33 :as+ 'iti>f7 34 :bS :d3 35
exd6, he gains a huge advantage :b5 :d4 36 <i&i>g3 g5 37 hxg5 fxg5
due his control of the c-file. 38 ~f2 :d2+ 39 'iPg3 h5 40 <t>h3
IS l:ct ~ :d3 41 ~g3 'iPf6 42 'iPf2 :d2+ 43
19 .i.b2 bxc4 <i&i>g3 :d4 44 ~h3 g4+ 45 fxg4
20 :xc4 ~eS :xg4 46 :b8 :d4 47 :b5 :e4 48
21 :dc2 ~d7 :bS :e5 49 l1b5 e6 50 :bS ':xd5
51 b5 :d4 52 :hS :b4 53 :h6+
<i&i>f7 54 :xh5 ~g6 55 g4 d5 56
:e5 <i&i>f7 57 ~h4 :xb5 58 :el d4
59 :al <i&i>f6 60 :a8 :d5 61 ~g3
d3 62 :al ~eS 63 'iti>f2 ~d4 64
:a7 e5 65 g5 e4 66 :a4+ ~e5 0-1
Nice play by Black, who man-
aged to carry out the Sicilian
dream: proving that 3 d4 leaves
Black a central pawn up!

Game 51
Wojtkiewicz-Hoffman
Valencia 1990
Black enjoys a slight edge. He
has more central pawns and a cen- (lliJf3 g6 2 d4 .i.g7 3 c4 c5 4 e4
tralised king, and can later play cxd4 5 liJxd4 liJc6 6 .i.e3 tt)h6!?)
...a5-a4. This may not be enough to
win the game, but it is quite un- 7 liJc3
pleasant for White. This gives Black an extra option.
22 f3 .i.e6 7 .i.e2 is more exact, as then Black
23 :d2 a5 is more or less forced to play
118 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... tiJh6
7... d6, since the alternatives are
dubious:
a) 7 ... 0-0 8 "d2 tiJxd4 9 .txd4
is very troublesome for Black. The
game Seirawan-Shirazi, Durango
1992, continued 9... f6?! 10 tiJc3 d6
11 0-0 tiJg4 12 tiJd5 .th6 13 f4 e5
14 .txg4! .txg4 15 .te3 .tg7 16
fS! with a huge edge for White.
Better is 9 ... d6, but it is still un-
pleasant for Black, since without
the dark-squared bishops, plans
involving ...f7-fS are less attractive.
b) 7 ... fS? is too direct and can be
refuted by 8 exfS tiJxfS 9 tiJxf5
i.xb2 (9 .....aS+ 10 tiJc3 "xfS 11
c5!) 10 tiJd2 gxf5 11 .th5+ 'iPfS 12
1i'c2! and White was winning in
Unzicker-Filip, Vienna 19S7.
7 d6
An interesting alternative is
7... 0-0 8 .te2 f5!? 9 exfS i.xd4 10
i.xh6! l:txf5 11 0-0 and now
11. ..d6 transposes to the next game,
but Black also has the extra option
of 11...'iVb6!? This was condemned
following Gurshevsky-Veresov,
Moscow 1959, where White won
brilliantly after 12 tiJd5 .txf2+ 13
'Iilhl 1i'd4? 14 .tg4! 1i'xdl IS
l:taxdl l:[f7 16 tiJxe7! tiJxe7 17
.te6!!, winning material. However,
in Marusenko-Turner, London
1994, Black was successful with
12 .....xb2. The game continued 13
l:tbl "a3 14 .tg4 l:[f7 IS tiJc7 l:[b8
16 tiJb5 1i'cs 17 tiJxd4 1i'xd4 18
.te3 "xdl 19 l:[fxdl tiJeS 20 .te2
d6 and now White wrongly took on
a7 and ended up worse after 21
.txa7 :a8 22 .td4 :xa2 23 .tn
tiJd7. Better was 21 cS with suffi-
cient compensation, but not more.
Even 13....txf2+?! is not so easy to
refute, although 14 ~hl 1i'a3 IS
.tn looks dangerous. Still, White
has to act quickly or he will be two
pawns down for nothing. Although
this is all very interesting, it is not
so relevant if White plays 7 .te2.
8 .te2 0-0
9 0-0 fS
10 exfS gdS
This seems to be Black's best
chance, as the alternatives are du-
bious:
a) 1O... tiJxd4 11 .txd4.txd4 12
"xd4 tiJxf5 13 1i'd2 .td7 14 .tf3
.tc6 IS .td5+ ~g7 16 :el eS 17
cS! gave White a huge edge in Tal-
Kupreichik, Sochi 1970, which Tal
easily converted into a win.
b) 1O....txd4 11 .txh6 l:[xfS and
now:
bl) 12 .tn is very good for
White. In Kudrin-l.Ivanov, New
York 1983, Black was outplayed
after 12 ... .tg7 13 .te3 .td7 14 l:[el
b6 15 .te4 l:[f7 16 .tgS .tf6 17
.txf6 l:txf6 18 1i'd2 1i'fS 19 l:[adl
:d8 20 ~d5 l:tf7 21 tiJc7. White
rules on the light squares.
b2) 12 1i'd2 has also scored well
in practice, but in that case
12 ...'l'b6 seems reasonable. Black
was better in Ilivitsky-Keres, Pamu
1955, after the weak 13 .te3?
.txe3 14 fxe3 "as IS l:txf5 .txfS
 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... t'i:Jh6 119
16 "ir'd5+ "ir'xd5 17 tOxd5 ':c8, as
he gets his knight to e5. Surpris-
ingly, 12 ... 'ifb6 has rarely been
seen since, but since 12 .if3 looks
good, so this is not so important.
11 f4
The logical way to prevent ... f5-
f4. 111M2 has also been played,
but without much success. Mot-
wani-l.Ivanov, British ch 1987,
continued 11...t'i:Jf7 12 f4 e5 13
t'i:Jxc6 bxc6 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 "ir'xd8
lbd8 16 :adl .ie6 with an equal
ending.
11 .id7
11...'ii'b6? 12 liJxf5 "ir'xb2 13
t'i:Jxh6+ .ixh6 14 liJd5 .if5 15 .id3
gave White a big plus in Yermolin-
sky-Chepukaitis, Leningrad 1980.
12 <t>hl!?
This may be White's best, since
he can now answer ... t'i:Jg4 with
.ig1. 12 h3 was played in Kavalek-
Larsen, Sousse izt 1967, when wild
complications arose after 12 ... 'ifb6
13 t'i:Jxf5 'iWxb2 14 tOxh6+ .ixh6
15 :'cl .ig7. Later 12 "ir'd2 became
the normal move, when in IlIescas-
Abramovic, Biel 1993, Black was
fine after 12 ... t'i:Jg4 13 .ixg4 fxg4
14 :'adl 'iWe8 15 tOde2 'ii'e8 16 b3
'ii'g6.
12 ~h8
13 :'c1 :'g8
Black plays very directly, but
since there are no real targets, he is
unlikely to succeed.
14 .iO 'ii'e8
15 :'e1 :'c8
16 b3 t'i:Jg4
17 J.gl 'ii'hS
18 t'i:Jxc6 .ixc6
19 lLldS!
As usual, in open poslllons,
central strategy proves superior to
flank action. The black centre is
about to collapse.
19•••e5 20 tOe7 e4
Black continues his hunt for
White's throat, but White easily
rebuffs the attack.
21 .ixg4 fxg4 22 tOxc8 :'xc8 23
.id4 :'g8 24 .ixg7+ :'xg7 25
'ii'xd6 g3 26 h3 e3 27 ~gl e2 28
'ii'e5! 1-0
Black's plan was certainly too op-
timistic, but still this game nicely
illustrates White's chances, in-
cluding positional play in the cen-
tre. Black would perhaps do better
with a more careful approach, but
still it seems that ... f7-f5 simply
weakens his position, rather than
creating dynamic counter-chances.
7 Maroczy Bind:
6 ltJb3 and 6 ltJc2

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7

6llJb3 - Game 52
6 llJc2 d6 7 i..e2 llJf6 8 llJc3 0-0 9 0-0
9 ...a6 - Game 53
9...llJd7
10 i..d2llJcs 11 b4llJe6
12 <itthl - Game 54
12:bl as
13 a3 - Game 55
13 b5 - Game 56
1Of3 -Game 57

The lines discussed in this chapter Game 52

are mainly an attempt by White to
avoid the abundance of theory that
exists in virtually all of the main
lines of the Maroczy Bind. Two
moves are considered:
a) 6 llJb3 has never been very
popular and probably never will be.
Black simply has easy play against
this set-up.
b) However, 6 llJc2 is much
more popular and has been used
from time to time by grandmasters
such as Ivanchuk, Illescas, Salov
and Portisch. Here too Black is
fme, but as in most other lines,
careful play is required so as not to
hand over the initiative to White.
Renet-Rantanen
Palma de Mal/orca 1989
(1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
llJxd4 g6 5 c4 i..g7)
6 llJb3
(see following diagram)
This was played twice by Alek-
hine, but despite his two wins it has
never caught on. The rare alterna-
tive 6 llJb5 was twice played by
Bronstein, but without much suc-
cess. The manoeuvre is well known
from the Paulsen Sicilian (after 1
e4 c5 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
llJxd4 e6 5 llJb5), but there the idea
 Maroczy Bind: 6ltJb3 and 6ltJc2 121
is to force Black to play the weak-
ening ... d7-d6. Here this is not the
case, and 6 ltJbS just looks like it
loses time. On the other hand
White is still very solid, so it leads
to a fairly level game. After
6 ... ltJf6, 7 ltJlc3 is probably the
best, e.g. 7... d6 8 ~e2 0-0 9 ~e3
a6 10 ltJd4, when White has to play
the main line a tempo down! Of
course it is possible to play along
standard patterns, but Simagin
played more creatively with
1O...ltJxd4 11 ~xd4 bS!? (sacrific-
ing a pawn) 12 cxbS axbS 13 ~xbS
.i.b7 14 0-0 (clever play by Bron-
stein; he returns the pawn, hoping
that his two queenside pawns will
counter the black centre) 14 ... eS
15 ~e3 ltJxe4 16 ltJxe4 .i.xe4 17
a4, when the wild game Bronstein-
Simagin, Moscow 19S1, later end-
ed in a draw. Instead of 11. ..bS!?,
11. .. ~e6 is a safer way to exploit
the extra tempo. Then 120-0 ltJxd4
13 ~xd4 ':'c8 was played in Lu-
tikov-Roizman, USSR 1964, when
13...Wa5, with the standard idea of
using the f-rook on the c-file, side-
stepping any ltJd5 tricks, gives
Black a good position.
In a later game Bronstein tried 7
ltJSc3, but after 7... 0-0 8 ~e2 b6!?
(it was of course possible to de-
velop normally with 8...d6, but
Black plays more creatively) 9
.i.g5 ~b7 10 0-0 lIc8 11 ltJd2
ltJd4, Black had placed his pieces
harmoniously, Bronstein-Rantanen,
Tallinn 1979.
6 ltJf6
(see following diagram)
6 ...d6 often transposes, but does
sometimes have independent value:
a) Ljubojevic-Short, London
1980, continued 7 ltJc3 as 8 ltJa4
ltJf6 9 f3 ~e6 10 ~e3 0-0 11 ~e2
ltJd7 with equality. A good plan for
Black would be ... b7-b6 followed
by ... ltJcS, which will force the
retreat ltJc3, since capturing on c5
gives Black control over the d4-
square. Note that Short did not play
7... ~xc3+. Normally it is good to
double the pawns when the knight
is on c2, since it is then possible to
play .....as and apply pressure on
the weak c-pawns immediately.
However, with the knight on b3
this is not possible, and the capture
is therefore less attractive .
b) In Schmid-Larsen, Havana
1967, White avoided this possibil-
ity with 7 ~e2 and Larsen re-
sponded with one of his typical
flank pawn moves: 7 ...aS!?, and
after 8 a4 ltJf6 9 ltJc3 0-0 10 ~e3
ltJd7 11 Wd2? (better is 11 0-0;
Schmid probably feared 11...~xc3,
but after the inclusion of a2-a4 and
... a7-aS this is less attractive for
Black, since White has targets on
the b-file) Larsen now won a pawn
with 11...b6 12 ltJd4 ~b7 13 ~dl
ltJc5 14 ltJxc6 ~xc6 15 ~c2 'i'd7
16 O-O? 'ife6 17 ltJd5 ltJxe4 18
'ifd3 ltJc5 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20 lhel
~eS! 21 f4 ~xd5 22 cxdS ~d4+
122 Maroczy Bind: 6 &jjb3 and 6 tbc2

and won easily. the f3-bishop would be misplaced

6 ...e6 was played in Alekhine- and the c4-pawn weak. Renet now
Gonzalez, Estoril 1940, but this tries to use the obvious weakness
weakens the d6-square, and after 7 of the backward d-pawn to launch a
&jjc3 a6 8 .i.e2 &jjge7 9 0-0 0-0 10 frontal attack, but Black is already
.i.f4 the world champion was able too well developed to have prob-
to take full advantage. lems with such a simple plan.
7 &jjc3 d6
8 .i.e2 0-0
8 ... ~e6 was played in Alekhine-
Samisch, Vienna 1922, when after
90-0 hS?! (bizarre) 10 cS! opened
up the game and Alekhine won
convincingly.
9 .i.e3
9 0-0 transposes after 9 ... b6 10
.i.e3.
9 b6
This is commonly played, but
we think that 9 ... aS!? deserves seri-
ous attention. If 10 a4, Black then
continues with ... b7-b6, ...&jjd7-cS 13
and ... .i.b7, as in Schmid-Larsen 14
above. And if 10 &jja4 then Black already has a good game,
1O... &jjd7 with the plan of ... b7-b6, but now it goes fast downhill for
... &jjcS etc. This seems quite prom- the Frenchman.
ising, and we believe that Black is 15 &jjxd6
at least equal. 16 .i.xd6
10 0-0 .i.b7 17 eS!?
Again 10... aS!? was interesting. 17 l:ab1 .i.d4+ 18 &jjxd4 1i'xd6
11 f4 gives Black a nearly winning posi-
A good move that prevents tion due to White's weak pawns.
...&jjeS. The omission of f2-f4 had 17 1igS
serious consequences in Hertneck- 18 .i.dS .i.xal
Hicld, Munich 1988: 11 ':c1 ':c8 19 1ixal &jjd8
12 f3? (12 f4!) 12 ...&jjeS (hitting 20 .i.xf8?
the c4-pawn) 13 &jjdS e6 14 &jjxf6+ 20 .i.xb7 first was better, but it
.i.xf6 IS ':c2 .i.a6 16 WeI, and is still not very nice.
now after 16 ...dS! Black won a 20
pawn and later the game. 21 cxdS
11 l:c8 22 l:f2
12 .i.f3 eS!? 23 'iltn
The standard ... &jjd7 was safer, 23 Wd4 l:c1+ also loses for
but 12 ...eS!? is an attempt to take White.
over the initiative. Black threatens 23 ~xf8
... eSxf4 followed by ... &jjeS, when 24 e6? l:xal

25 ext7 ':xf2
26 'ifxfl 'ifxb3
0-1
Game 53
Spraggett-Andersson
Nov; Sad 0/1990
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlfJ tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7)
6 tLlc2
This is a lot more common than
tLlb3, but it should not concern
Black too much either. White plays
the black side of a line in the Eng-
lish opening with an extra tempo (1
c4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlf6 3 g3 d5 4 cxd5
tLlxd5 5 ~g2 tLlc7) but it is not
enough to guarantee an edge.
6 d6
As usual 6 ... tLlf6 normally just
transposes after 6 tLlc3 ~g7 7 ~e2,
but Black also has a couple of other
possibilities:
a) 6 ...b6 7 ~e2 ~a6 8 0-0 ':c8
was tried twice at a high level in
the sixties:
al) Tal-Aronin, Yerevan 1962,
continued 9 tLld2 liJf6 10 b3 'ifc7
11 f4 0-0 12 ~b2 b5, when Black
won a complicated game, although
Maroczy Bind: 6 tLlb3 and 6 tLlc2 123
White seems to be fine here to us.
a2) In Nei-Larsen, Bewerwijk
1964, White played the stronger 9
tLlba3, controlling c4 and b5, and
after 9... tLlf6 10 f3 White was
slightly better.
The ... b7-b6, ... ~a6 plan cer-
tainly seems playable, and could be
an interesting way of taking the
game into uncharted territory.
b) 6 ...'ifb6 is another idea to un-
balance the position. After 7 tLlc3
~xc3+ 8 bxc3 "'a5 a position from
the English Opening arises, where
White has in got e2-e4 for free.
Unfortunately, this idea has never
been te~ted in practice. It would be
interesting to see if White has a
convincing answer to Black's sim-
ple plan of ...d7-d6, ... ~e6, ...tLle5
imd ... nc8, trying to grab the c4-
pawn. Maybe White should simply
develop with 9 ~e2 and sacrifice
the c3-pawn, e.g. 9 ...'ifxc3+ 10
~d2 'ife5 11 f3 with good play on
the dark squares. Still, it is not clear
who is better.
7 ~e2
7 tLlc3 allows 7... ~xc3+ 8 bxc3
'ifa5 with a transposition to a posi-
tion from the English Opening with
reversed colours, but with no extra
tempo for White.
7 tLlf6
The aggressive 7...f5 was played
in Alexander-Botvinnik, Amster-
dam 1954, which continued 8 exf5
~xf5 9 0-0 tLlh6 lO tLld2 0-0 11
l[}f3 'ifd7 12 l[}e3 ~h8 13 l[}xf5
l[}xf5 and Black was close to
equality due to his control over the
d4-square. 10 tLlc3 seems more
logical, when lO...O-O 11 ~e3
~xc2! 12 .xc2 l[}f5, as in Ciric-
Hort, Sarajevo 1965, leads to the
same kind of position. Both games
124 Maroczy Bind: 6 t'i:Jb3 and 6 lDc2

were drawn, so, although it is 10 :b8

slightly weakening, 7 ...fS looks like 11 it.d2
a reliable alternative. This is too passive.
8 t'i:Jc3 11 it.d7
Since ... it.xc3 cannot be played 12 Abl t'i:Je8
now, the knight has to be devel- 13 b4 t'i:Jc7
oped. 14 a4?! as!
8 0-0 Fixing the dark squares.
An interesting alternative is the 15 b5 t'i:Jd4
immediate 8 ...t'i:Jd7 with the idea of 16 t'i:Jxd4 it.xd4
exchanging on c3 and then later 17 :b3
playing ...0-0-0. For example:
a) The inexact 9 i..e3?! runs into
9 ... it.xc3+ 10 bxc3 'ii'aS 11 'ii'd2
t'i:JcS 12 f3 f6!?, intending 13 0-0
t'i:Ja4 14 t'i:Jb4 t'i:Jxc3 and 13 t'i:Jb4
t'i:Jb3!
b) However, this idea com-
pletely failed in Stangl-Korchnoi,
Nuremberg (rapid) 1994, when
after 9 0-0 it.xc3 10 bxc3 t'i:Jcs 11
f3 'ii'aS 12 'ii'el it.e6? 13 it.h6 t'i:Je4
14 it.g7 :g8 IS it.d4 0-0-0 16 t'i:Jb4
'iPb8 17 f4 t'i:Jxd4 18 cxd4, it was
obvious that Black's strategy had
proved inadequate. 12 ... t'i:Ja4, de- Now it was of course possible to
signed to provoke 13 it.d2 and then play ... it.g7 followed by ...t'i:Je6-cS
continue with ... it.e6, ...0-0-0 etc., with a nice position, but Black
is more logical. Still, we think that wanted more.
this is a rather risky strategy, and 17•••e5! 18 it.n t'i:Je6 19 t'i:Jd5 t'i:Jcs
White should be better. 20 :g3 it.e6 21 it.e3 it.xdS 22
9 0-0 a6 it.xd4
Not very common, but the If White were to take back on
Swede always has independent dS, Black would exchange the
ideas. For 9...t'i:Jd7 see Games S4- bishops, and his knight on cS
S7. would give him a positionally win-
10 :el ninggame.
10 i..gS is more aggressive and 22••• t'i:Jxe4 23 :a3 exd4 24 'ii'xd4
logical. Gufeld-Tal, Dneprotovsk t'i:Jf6! 25 cxdS t'i:Jd7! 26 :ae3 'ii'f6!
1970, continued 1O... it.d7 11 t'i:Je3 Strong play by Black, keeping a
l:tc8 12 'ii'd2 l:.e8 13 ~hl 'ii'aS 14 big edge.
f4 bS with a complicated game. 27 'ii'a7 t'i:JcS·28 'ii'u5 :a8 29 'ii'c7
9 ...a6 certainly seems to be a good :xa4 30 :0 :f4 31 :xf4 'ii'xf4 32
way to get out of theory and main- :e8
g3 'ii'f6 33 'ii'aS 'ii'd8 34 'ii'c3
tain a solid position with possibili- Black uses the fact that every
ties for outplaying the opponent. exchange will make the difference

between knight on cS and bishop
on fl even bigger.
35 :c1 'fIe7 36 h4 h5 37 J.g2 'fIe2
38 'fIf6 'fIe5 39 'fIf3 rt;g7 40 'fIdl
:as 41 'fIc2 :a3 42 b6 :b3 43
:bl l:txbl 44 'fIxbl 'fId4 45 'fIc2
'fIb4 0-1
White had had enough. The sim-
ple Maroczy Bind strategy of good
knight vs. bad bishop was seen here
in its purest form.
Game 54
Ivanchuk-Andersson
Tilburg 1990
(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tDxd4 g6 5 c4 J.g7 6 tDc2 d6 7
J.e2 tDf6 8 tDc3 0-0 9 0-0)
9 tDd7!?
The main line. Black puts his
knight on cS, where it is often well
placed in the Maroczy.
10 J.d2
The standard move, preventing
... J.xc3. A more testing alternative
is the critical 10 J.e3, since if
Black does not take on c3, White's
pieces will be the more actively
placed:
a) lO ... tDcS 11 tDd4 (11 f3
Maroczy Bind: 6l:iJb3 and 6 tDc2 125
transposes to note 'b' below after
11...J.xc3 12 bxc3) 11...J.d7 12
'ili'd2 ];lc8 13 :adl :e8 14 ~hl
.as IS f3 l:iJe6 16 tDb3 'iWb4 17
.c2 tDa5 18 l:iJxaS .xaS 19 AdS
iLlcS with approximately equal
chances, but perhaps a slight initia-
tive for White, Nimzowitsch-
Capablanca, Carlsbad 1929. How-
ever, Black can consider 12 ... l:iJxd4
13 J.xd4 J.c6 with a Classical Ma-
roczy where White has wasted
some time with tDd4-c2-d4.
b) 10... J.xc3 11 bxc3 tDcs 12 f3
.as 13 'W'd2 l:iJa4 does not win a
pawn, since after 14iLlb4 tDxc3 IS
tDxc6 tDxe2+ White has 16 'iPf2,
which wins a piece because of the
possibility of interposing a check
on e7. But 13 ... l:iJa4 is not Black's
best move. After 13 ... J.e6 14 iLld4
:ad8 IS .:tabl b6 16 J.h6 lUe8 17
.:tbS 'fIa3 18 l:iJxe6 fxe6 19 h4 tDd8
20 hS tDf7 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 J.e3
<3;g7 23 :f2 :h8 24 J.fl eS Black
had excellent chances in Stein-
Kapengut, Leningrad 1971. An-
other idea is 12 ... b6 to develop
normally, keeping the queen at
home to defend the king. If you do
not like these kind of positions for
Black, normal play with l1...aS
followed by ...f7-fS, as played with
the colours reversed in the English
opening, is also possible. Of
course, it is to White's advantage
that his bishop is on e3 instead of
d2, although this is nothing special.
10 tDc5
If the 11 b4 pawn sacrifice
scares you, then 10...aS is playable
with a possible transposition. Some
independent examples are:
a) 11 %lel tDcS 12 b3 iLlb4! with
a clear edge for Black, Nunn-
Petursson, Wijk aan Zee 1990.
126 Maroczy Bind: 6 et.Jb3 and 6lDc2
b) 11 'ifcl!? l:te8 12 .i.h6 .i.h8
13 'iM2 a4 14 et.Ja3, Petursson-
Donaldson, New York 1991. Now
Petursson prefers 14.....a5 15
et.Jab5 et.Jc5 and then ... .i.d7 and
...:tec8 with a good game for
Black.
11 b4!?
White hopes to prove dark-
squared compensation for the pawn
after 11....i.xc3 12 .i.xc3 et.Jxe4 13
~b2 and now:
a) In Milos-Spangenberg, Bue-
nos Aires 1996, White's strategy
worked well: 13 ... e5 14 "el "g5
15 l:tdl .i.e6 16 <it>hl 1i'h4 17 .i.f3
f5 18 b5 et.Jd8 19 g3 "f6 20 et.Je3
et.Jf7 21 .i.g2 :'ac8 22 f3 et.Jc5 23
f4, and the bishop on b2 soon be-
came a monster.
b) However, Black's play can be
improved. We much prefer Ma-
roczy-expert Tiviakov's 13 ... .i.e6.
Black intends quickly to exert pres-
sure on c4 with ... l:tc8, ... et.Je5 etc.
The idea was tried out in Smirin-
Tiviakov, Paris 1995: 14 b5 et.Je5
15 "d4 et.Jf6 16 et.Je3 et.Jed7 17
ltadl a6 18 g4 1i'b6 19 'ii'xb6
et.Jxb6 20 ~xf6 exf6 21 :'xd6 et.Jc8
22 :d2 axb5 23 axb5 112-112. Not
very informative, but Black's posi-
tion proved sufficiently solid. More
testing is 14 a3, as played in Razu-
vaev-P.H.Nielsen, Viking games
1997, when after 14...a5 15 b5 et.Je5
16 et.Je3 f5 17 "d4 et.Jf6 18 c5
White opened the position for his
bishops and should have won, but I
managed to swindle a draw. After-
wards Razuvaev told me you sim-
ply cannot take pawns like this.
Remembering my unpleasant posi-
tion, I have to agree with him.
Black should retreat his knight...
11 ~6
White has won some space, but
in return Black has play on the dark
squares around d4.
12 . ~hl
Since the f2-f4 thrust is difficult
to achieve, this is probably a waste
of time. It is better to play either 12
l:[bl (see Games 55 and 56) or 12
:'cl a5 13 a3 and now:
a) 13...axb4 14 axb4 et.Jed4 15
et.Jxd4 et.Jxd4 16 .i.e3 when in
Geller-Pigusov, Cappelle 1a Grande
1992, Black played the thematic
16... e5!, cementing the knight on
d4. White played 17 et.Jb5, but after
17... et.Jxb5 18 cxb5 .i.e6 19 b6 f5
20 f3 :a3 21 "d2 :a2 22 llc2
:'xc2 23 "xc2 "d7 24 :lcl f425
.i.f2 :'c8 he was slightly worse due
to his doubled pawns.
b) Also possible is 13 ... .i.d7 14
et.Jd5 axb4 15 axb4 et.Jcd4 16 et.Jxd4
et.Jxd4 17 .i.g5 :le8 18 .i.e3 e5 19
.i.g4 .i.e6 20 h3 lla3 with good
play for Black, De la Villa Garcia-
T.Georgadze, Salamanca 1989.
12 et.Jed4
13 et.Jxd4 et.Jxd4
14 .i.d3 as
15 b5 tlJe6
16 lleI et.Jc5
17 .i.bl b6
 Maroczy Bind: 6 ~b3 and 6 ~c2 127

18 .tg5 .tb7 fended and could not therefore

push the f-pawn to f4 etc.

Game 55
lIIescas-Ljubojevic
Linares 1993

(1 e4 e5 2 ~f3 ~e6 3 d4 exd4 4

~xd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 ~e2 d6 7
.te2 ~f6 8 ~e3 0-0 9 0-0 ~d7!?
10 .td2 ~e5 11 b4 ~e6)

12 l:lb1

All of Black's minor pieces are

excellently placed and he can start
preparing breaks with ... f7-fS or
... d6-dS. The game continued:
19 Wd2 lIe8 20 ~d5 f6 21 .te3 e6
22 ~f4 We7 23 f3 lIfe8 24 .c.ed1
lIde8 25 Wf2 .trs 26 lId2
We do not understand this move.
It is obvious that Black is playing
to break with ... d6-dS and this
could have been prevented by the
perfectly natural 26 l:tfel with a
balanced position. Now Black gets 12 as
the edge. 12 ...~cd4 was played in IIles-
26•••d5 27 ~d3 We7 28 exd5 exd5 cas-Hjartarson, Barcelona 1989,
29 ~xe5 .txe5 30 .txe5 Wxe5 31 with a level position after 13 ~xd4
Wxe5 bxe5 32 l:lfd1 ~f7 33 exd5 ~xd4 14 .td3 b6 15 ~e2 ~xe2 16
l:lxd5 34 l:lxd5 .txd5 35 <ii>gl <ii>e6 Wxe2 .te6. 15 ~e2 was not very
36 l:ld2 l:lb8 37 a4 lIz_lIz ambitious, but Black is close to
A strange decision. Black is equal in any case.
better centralised and would have 13 a3
had good winning chances after 13 b5 is seen in the next game.
37 ....tb3, threatening ... as-a4. For 13 axb4
example, 38 .tc2 .txc2 39 l:hc2, 14 axb4 ~ed4
then 39 .. .'.t>d5 followed by ... cS-c4, 15 ~xd4 ~xd4
.. .'.t>c5-b4 etc., which is very diffi- 16 .td3 .td7
cult for White and totally risk-free After 17 lIel lIa3 18 .tfl :e8
for Black. It is notable that in this 19 lIe3 .tc6 20 b5 .td7 21 ~d5
game White did not even come l:a2 22 .tc3 e5 23 ~b4 lIa3?? 24
close to getting active play, since .txd4 White won a piece in Kai-
he had to keep the e-pawn de- danov-Khasin, Belgrade 1988. The
128 Maroczy Bind: 6 0.b3 and 6 tLlc2

plan with ... e7-e6, which we see in .i.e2 0.f6 8 0.c3 0-0 9 0-0 0.d7!?
the main game, would also have 10 ~d2 ttJe5 11 b4 0.e6 12 :Lbl
been strong here. Khasin should as)
have played ... e7-e6 on move 17 or
18 with good prospects. 13 b5!? 0.ed4
17 'it'd 14 b6!?
Now Ljubojevic played the key:
17 e6!

A try for the advantage. If Black

gets in ...b7-b6 and ...~b7 he will
Black wants to follow up with have a very solid position.
....f6 or ....e7 and then double 14 0.xe2
the rooks on the a-file with beauti- 15 .xe2 ~d7

.d
ful co-ordination.
18 ~h6 ~xh6 19 .xh6 .f6 20

~a4!
.g7 21 :Ldl :Lfe8 22 ~n

Forcing a favourable exchange

16
17
18
19
0.d5
~g4
~g5
exd5
~e6
0.e5
~xd5

since 23 l:tel 0.c2, 23 :d2 0.b3 or

23 :d3 ~c2 loses the exchange.
23 0.xa4 :Lxa4 24 .b2 e5
Now Black has a dream Ma-
roczy position. Black was winning,
but in the end Illescas managed to
escape with a draw in 82 moves.
Black's play was very instructive
and nobody plays 13 a3 anymore.

Game 56
Saloy-Adams
Dos Hermanas 1993
Adams regards this as slightly
(1 e4 e5 2 tbfJ tbe6 3 d4 exd4 4 better for White, but since he wins
0.xd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 tbc2 d6 7 this game in an instructive manner
 Maroczy Bind: 6 {jjb3 and 6 {jjc2 129
and only gives alternatives with
White gaining equality, it is diffi-
cult to place too much faith in this.
Black has counterplay against the
b6-pawn and his only concern is to
keep the knight on c5 defended
after a white i.e3, since the rook
cannot go to c8.
19 h5!
This strong move forces White
to decide where to put his bishop.
If he plays it to h3, Black plays
2o ... lh6, threatening 21.. ..tf6! (not
2l...l:[xb6?? 22 .txe7!) which is a
typical idea. If White takes on f6,
Black gets the e-file and the usual
knight vs. light-squared bishop
advantage, and also stops all White
plans involving an e4-e5-break.
20 .te2 :e8
21 .te3 a4
Not really a pawn sacrifice,
since 22 .txc5 :xc5 23 "xa4
"a8! wins back the pawn with
advantage.
22 :b4 a3 23 nibl 'it'd7 24 .tb5
'it'd8 25 .te2 'it'd7
Now Salov should have settled
on a draw by repetition. In the
game, he was slowly outplayed.
26 :c4?! e6! 27 :dl exd5 28
nxd5 'it'e6 29 .tf4 :e6
It may look like White is very
active, but the opposite is in fact
the case. All Black's pieces are
placed on good squares, and the a3-
pawn is strong.
30 .txd6 :xd6 31 :xd6 'it'xd6 32
:xe5 'it'xb6 33 :b5 'it'e6
Black followed up with ...':'c8
with the better position and won in
67 moves. As we have seen, Black
has just as good chances to win as
his opponent in this line, so 11 b4!?
does not look like anything to be
afraid of.
GameS7
Portisch-Tukmakov
Madrid 1973
(1 e4 e5 2 1tJf3 ltJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
ltJxd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 ltJe2 d6 7
.tel 1tJf6 8 ltJe3 0-0 9 0-0 ltJd7!?
10.i.d21tJeS)
11 f3
11 as
We wonder why nobody has
ever tried 1l...'it'b6!? Although this
looks like a patzer's move, it is not
so easy to refute:
a) After 12 ~hl 'it'xb2 13 :bl
.i.xc3 14 J:xb2 .txb2 Black has
130 Maroczy Bind: 6 0.b3 and 6 ttJc2
rook, knight and pawn for the
queen. His position is solid, and he
has a strong knight on c5. Only
Black can be better.
b) More critical is Ii 0.dS, but
12 .. .'ihb2 13 :bl 'ii'xa2 14 0.cb4
0.xb4 15 0.xe7+ ~h8 16 ~xb4
~e6 is better for Black. We have
not been able to find a decent way
to meet 11...'ilfb6, which could
mean that 11 f3 is actually a mis-
take!
Instead 1l...~xc3 was played by
Spiridonov against Fillip in Sochi
1973. The idea is that after 12
~xc3 0.a4, White cannot preserve
the dark-squared bishop without
losing a pawn. However, in the
game White used his space advan-
tage with 13 'ii'd2 a5 14 ~hl ~e6
15 f4 f6 16 :adl ~g7 17 0.e3
0.xc3 18 'ii'xc3 'ilfb6 19 :tf3 0.b4
20 a3 0.a6 21 f5 ~f7 22 fxg6
~xg6 23 0.f5 ~xf5 24 exf5 0.b8
25 lIh3 ~h8 26 l:xh7 ~xh7 27
'ii'h3 1-0. Of course, it is possible
to improve on Black's play, but
1l ... ~xc3 looks dubious.
12 ~hl
Once Black has played ... a7-a5
in this line, White need not fear
... ~xc3 anymore, since Black no
longer controls b5 and b6, and the
black queen cannot go to a5. The
more active 12 ~e3!? is therefore
quite logical. For example, 12 ...a4
(everybody plays this, but other
moves are also possible and in par-
ticular the Petursson approach,
12 ... b6 13 'ii'd2 :a7 followed by
...:d7, ...e7-e6, ... ~b7 etc., looks
good; Petursson has played the
Maroczy for many years, so one
should pay extra attention to his
ideas. He knows what he is doing!)
13 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 and now:
a) 14 :acl was played in Sanz-
Zsu.Polgar, Leon 1989, when
Black reacted with the ultra-solid
14 ... ~d7 IS ~hl ':fd8 16 :fdl
.i.e8 17 0.a3 \t1h8. Although
Black's last few moves look quite
suspicious, she won in 70 moves.
Probably Black should prefer either
14...fS or 14... b6 followed by
... ~b7, ...:fd8 etc., with a balanced
position.
b) 14 :abl fS IS exf5 ~xf5 16
lIbel ~xc2 17 :xc2 0.b4 18 :tccl
a3 19 bxa3 ~xc3 20 :xc3 0.xa2
21 lIc2 'ii'xd2 22 :'xd2 0.c3 23
~xc5 dxc5 24 :al :fc8 25 :c2
0.xe2+ 26 lIxe2 ~f7 112-112 Stohl-
Malisauskas, Manila 011992.
12 fS
A more passive, but solid way of
meeting 12 'ifthl was tried in Con-
quest-Petursson, Palma de Mallorca
1989: 12 ... b6 13 :el l:a7 14 b3
':d7 15 'ii'el e6 16 :dl ~b7 and
Black had no problems, since he
will soon be ready for the ... d6-dS
break.-
13 exfS ~xfS
14 0.e3
14 ~e3!? is an interesting alter-
native, e.g. 14... 0.b4 15 0.d4 or
14...~xc2 15 'ii'xc2 0.d4 16 'ii'd2
 Maroczy Bind: 6llJb3 and 6lLlc2 131

or 14 ... ~h8 15 ll)d4 with a slight 23 .i.xg7 ~xg7

advantage for White in all cases 24 .i.xbS d4
according to Filip, but 14 ... a4!?, as 2S :c4 J:lf4
suggested by David Strauss, seems
to provide Black with adequate
counterplay.

26 a3 'ii'd5 27 b4 axb4 28 axb4

lLle6 29 'ii'e2 d3 30 'ii'b2 ~h6 31
.i.c6 'ii'xe4 32 .i.xa8 d2 33 'ii'bl
14 ll)d4! :d40-1
Black does not care for the A strategic triumph for Tuk-
bishop pair, since the knights are makov. In general the 6 lLlc2 and 6
just as important in the battle for ll)b3 systems do not give Black
the central squares. much to worry about, and he has
15 ll)xf5 ll)xf5 the choice between many interest-
16 J:lbl e6 ing ideas. Of the two, the 6 ll)c2
17 b3 ~h8 system with a quick .i.e3, daring
18 ll)b5 d5 Black to take on c3, seems to be
19 exd5 exd5 White's best: he gets some attack-
20 J:lc1 b6 ing chances in retum for his spoiled
21 g4 lLld6 pawn structure, and a complicated
22 .i.e3 lLlxbS game ensues.
8 Maroczy Bind:
Gurgenidze Variation

Chapter Guide

1 e4 c5 2 ttJo ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl'lxd4 g6 5 c4 tl'lf6 6 tl'lc3

6 ...ttJxd4?! - Game 58
6 ...d6
7 0 ttJxd4 8 'iVxd4 ~g7 9 ~e3 0-0 10 'iVdl ~e6 11 l:[c1 'iVaS 12
tl'ld5 'iVxa2! 13 ttJxe7+ ~h8
14 ~d4 :feS - Game 59
14 ~e2 ttJgS! 15 ttJxg8 - Game 60
7 ~e2 tl'lxd4 8 'iVxd4 ~g7
90-00-0
10'iVd3
1O... lbd7 11 ~g5 tl'le5 12 We3 ~d7 - Game 61
1O...~e6 11 ~d2 - Game 62
10'iVe3
1O...~d7 11 ~d2 - Game 63
1O... ~e6 11 :b 1 - Game 64
9 ~e3 0-0 10 'iVd2 ~e6
11 0-0 'iVaS
12 :abl!?- Game 65
12 :acl - Game 66
11 f3 - Game 67
9~g5
9... h6?! - Game 68
9...0-0
10 'iVe3 ~e6 11 :cl 1i'b6! 12 b3 - Game 69
10'iVd2
10... a6 11 f3 - Game 70
10...~e6
11 0-0 - Game 71
11 %leI - Game 72
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 133
Over the past few years the Gur-
genidze line has developed from
viable sideline to become the most
frequently played variation in the
entire Accelerated Dragon. In par-
ticular, the games of Tiviakov,
Antunes, Petursson and a group of
Cuban players such as Andres have
done much to popularise it.
Black's main idea is to get in the
freeing ... b7-b5, but depending on
the particular set-up chosen by his
opponent, Black has a variety of
different plans to choose from, and
these are explained in the illustra-
tive games.
Game 58
Polugayevsky-Jansa
Sochi 1974
(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ttJf6 6 ttJc3)
6 ttJxd4?!
This is an inaccurate move or-
der, as it allows White some extra
options. Most importantly, White
does not need to decide immedi-
ately whether he wants to play .i.e2
or f2-f3; here he can wait and place
the light-squared bishop on the
ideal square d3.
7 -.xd4 d6
8 ~gS!
This is the only way to take ad-
vantage of Black's move order.
Other moves have been tried, but
none of them have secured White
an advantage:
a) 8 b3 ~g7 9 .i.b2 0-0 10 .i.e2
"it'a5 11 0-0 .li.e6 12 l:tac1 nfc8 13
"it'd3 a6 14 ~al nab8 with equal
chances, Korchnoi-Benko, Buenos
Aires 1960.
b) 8 f3 .i.g7 9 'iWf2 (9 .i.e3 0-0
10 1M2 transposes to the next
game) 9... 0-0 10 ~e2 .i.e6 11 ~d2
ttJd7 12 0-0 'iib6 13 'iWxb6 ttJxb6
14 b3 a5 with equality, Klavin-
Bannik, USSR 1963.
c) 8 c5 ~g7 (less advisable is
8... dxc5?! 9 'iWxc5 [Silman and
Donaldson give 9 'iWxd8+ 'iti>xd8 10
~f4 .i.e6 11 0-0-0+ 'iti>e8 12 ~e3
c4 13 nd4 ttJg4 14 ~xc4 ttJxe3 as
equal, but 12 ttJb5 seems to win for
White] 9 ... .i.g7 10 ~e2 0-0 11 ~f4
with a small advantage for White
according to Levy) 9 ~b5+ ~d7
10 cxd6 0-0 11 0-0.txb5 12 ttJxb5
a6 13 dxe7 'iWxe7 14 ttJc3 lIfe8 15
lIel lIad8, as in Ciocaltea-Parma,
Athens 1968, and now 16 -.c4
gives equal chances.
8 ~g7
9 0-0
There is no real point in holding
back on castling, as Black will have
to do it later anyway. However,
other moves have been tried:
9 ... .i.e6 10 :tcl nc8 11 b3 'iWa5 12
f3 (12 .i.d3?! allows 12 ...h6 13
~e3 ttJg4 14 .i.f4 g5 15 ~g3 ttJe5
with equality according to Bagirov)
12 ... h6 13 ~e3 0-0 14 ~d3 (14
~xh6? .ixh6 15 'iWxh6 b5! is ex-
cellent for Black) 14 ... 'iti>h7 15 0-0
134 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

a6 16 h3 lZ'ld7 17 f4 f5 18 exf5 14 IIfel ~f8!

~xf5 19 ~e2 with a small but clear
advantage for White, Polugayev-
sky-Beliavsky, USSR ch 1975.
10 ~d3!
Here 10 ~e2 transposes to
Games 68-72, whereas 10 f3 is
analysed in the notes to the next
game.
10
Black has not had much luck
with the alternatives either:
a) 10... ~d7 11 0-0 a6 12 :fel
llb8 13 lZ'ld5 lZ'lxd5 14 exd5 f6 15
~f4 and White was on top, Khasin-
Makarov, USSR 1976. Intending ... b7-b5 without al-
b) 1O... a5 11 0-0 a4?! lowing lZ'ld5. White should now
(1l...~e6!?) 12 lIael ~e6 13 "c2 have met this plan with ~
with a slight plus for White, Por- :tab8 (l5 ...1i'b4!?) 16 IIc2~
tisch-Reshevsky, Petropolis izt 17 IIbl 1i'b4 18 "el, intending
1973. .i.d2 with a clear advantage for
11 lid "as
11.. .a6 was tried in Morgado-
White, as in Spraggett-Zuk, Canada
1983.
Baumbach, carr 1984/89, but here IS IIc2 b5
too White obtained an advantage: 16 exbS axb5
12 0-0 l:te8 13 lZ'ld5! ~xd5?! 17 lied b4
(White is only slightly better after 18 lZ'lb5 IIxc2
13 ...lZ'lxd5) 14 cxd5 lZ'ld7 15 b4! 19 IIxc2 ~d7
llc8 16 :xc8 .xc8 17 l:tel 1i'b8 20 lZ'le7!
18 ~e2 with a big plus for White. White is slightly better, but in
It is surprising to see an Acceler- the rest of the game he lets his ad-
ated Dragon specialist like Baum- vantage slip away:
bach end up in such a bad position. 20...lIe8 21 "d "eS! 22 lIe4
12 0-0 22 ~f4!? was interesting.
In Nijboer-Van der Weide, Am- 22 ...lZ'lg4 23 ~f4 "a 1 24 h3
sterdam 1996, White was success- "xd+ 25 IIxdlZ'le5 26 ~a6 IIb8
ful withJ_+'._~ "xd2+ 13 ~xd2 27 ~d2 e6 28 'itm
~xd5 14 cxd5 lUc8 15 f3 ~ 16 Perhaps 28 ~fl!?
~e3 a6 17 b4 e6 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 28... cbe7 29 ~e2 ttJe6 30 ~b5 IIb6
h4 with a clear edge for White. 31 ~e2 ~d4 112_112
Since 12 .....xa2 13 lZ'lxe7+ ~h8 14
0-0 is also quite uncomfortable for ~rI1~,59._
Black, perhaps 12 .....d8 is neces- Panchenko-T.Georgadze
sary. USSR 1975
12 a6
13 b3 IIfe8 (1 e4 e5 2 ttJrJ ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 135
tbxd4 g6 5 c4 tbf6 6 tbc3)
6 d6
7 f3
This move was immensely
popular in the early seventies, but
when it became apparent that
White does not have much to show
after 12 .....xa2, its popUlarity
slowly died out. These days 7 f3 is
rarely seen, and it could therefore
serve as a handy surprise weapon,
though with accurate play by
Black, all White can hope for is
equality. The standard 7 .te2 is
seen in Games 61-72.
7 tbxd4
7... iJ..g7 transposes to the Classi-
cal Maroczy with White already
committed to f2-f3, but White more
or less always plays this move at
some point. Note that 7...'ifb6?
(hoping for either S tbc2 or S tbb3)
is bad because of S .te3! "xb2 9
tba4 "a3 10 .tel 'ifb4+ 11 .td2
"a3 12 tbb5, when the black
queen is trapped.
8 "xd4 .tg7
9 .te3
Another possibility is 9 .tg5, but
when White has already weakened
his dark squares with 7 f3, this
move has less point. Although
White has had some good results
with this approach, Black should be
able to equalise without too much
difficulty: 9 ... 0-0 (just as in the line
with 7 .te2, 9 ...h6 gives White a
small advantage: 10 .te3 0-0 11
"d2 <it>h7 12 :el iJ..e6 13 b3 tbd7
14 iJ..e2, Vaisman-Balogh, Buda-
pest 1975) 10 "d2 .te6 11 :el
(11 iJ..e2 allows 11...:cS 12 tbdS
bS!?, which may transpose to the
note to White's 11th move in Game
70) 11.....aS (here Black can try to
transpose to Game 70 with
11...:cS!? 12 b3 a6, when 13 iJ..e2
bS allows the transposition) 12 b3
:fc8 13 ~dS (13 iJ..e2 a6 trans-
poses to Game 72) 13 .....xd2+ 14
~xd2 tbxdS IS exdS (or IS cxdS
.td7, when 16 iJ..xe7?? loses to
16....th6+, and the pawn-grabbing
16 ':'xc8+ :xc8 17 .txe7 gives
Black a nasty initiative after
17....th6+) IS ....td7 with equality,
as 16 iJ..xe7? .ih6+ 17 ~dl .txcl
18 ~xcl :e8 19 .txd6 :el+ is
good for Black.
The above is very similar to the
lines in Game 72. For a better un-
derstanding of the ideas for both
sides, careful study of those lines is
recommended.
9 OMO
10 "d2 .te6
As in the 7 .te2 lines, Black
must be very careful with the move
order. Here, for example,
1O.....aS? allows White to expand
on the queenside because his rook
is still on al: 11 a3.te6 12 b4 "d8
13 :el :cS 14 tbbS a6 IS tbd4
.td7 16 .te2 "c7 17 0-0 with a
clear advantage for White, Savon-
Tal, Sukhumi 1972.
10....td7, intending ...a7-a6 and
136 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
...b7-b5 has also been tried, but so
far this has proved a little too pas-
sive to provide equal chances: 11
ltc1 Wa5 12 iLe2 ltfc8 13 0-0 a6
14 b3 iLc6 (worse is 14... b5?! 15
c5! :c6 16 cxd6 exd6 17 ':c2 %:tac8
18 ~d5 with a clear advantage for
White, Polugayevsky-Bednarski,
Siegen 01 1970) 15 iLd4 ~d7 16
iLxg7 c;i;1xg7 17 ~hl ~g8 18 f4 b5
19 'ifb2 bxc4 20 iLxc4 with a small
advantage for White, Suetin-
Forintos, Budapest 1970.
An untried idea is l1...a5, in-
tending 12 iLe2 iLc6 13 0-0 ~d7
14 b3 ~c5 transposing to a Classi-
cal Maroczy with White already
committed to %:tc1, which is not
considered dangerous for Black.
11 ltel waS
In Donaldson-Perelstein, Ber-
muda 1997, Black was apparently
unfamiliar with 7 f3 and chose
l1...a6?! here: 12 b3 Wa5 13 ~d5
(now ...Wxa2 is no longer possible,
and Black will just end up in an
inferior endgame) 13 ...Wxd2+ 14
~xd2 iLxd5 15 cxd5 :'fc8 16 ltxc8
:'xc8 17 g3! with a clear advantage
for White.
12 ~dS
A popular alternative i~~ b},
but here too Black does not have
much to worry about: 12 ... ':fc8 13
iLd3 a6 14 ~a4 (the less accurate
14 ~e2 was tried in lPolgar-
Antunes, Yerevan 01 1996, which
continued 14... Wxd2+ 15 ~xd2
~d7 16 ~f4 ~c5 17 iLe2 a5 18
~d5?! [18 h4 is equal] 18 ...iLxd5
19 cxd5, reaching the position that
White was probably hoping for, but
she was in for a big surprise:
19 ... a4! 20 b4? [better is 20 iLc4,
but White hadn't seen Black's next
move]
20...~b3+!! [all of a sudden
Black is much better, the passed a-
pawn will cost White a rook, leav-
ing Black an exchange up] 21 axb3
:'xcl 22 :xc1 a3 23 iLb5 a2 24
'itd3 a1'if 25 Axa1 ltxa1)
14... 'ii'xd2+ 15 cotxd2 llXl7 (this
position is almost identical to the
main line with 7 iLe2 and 9 iLe3,
except that the bishop is on d3 in-
stead of e2; however, the position
is still equal - see Game 67 for a
comparison) 16 f4 f5 17 :the1 'itfS
18 exf5 and Black has no prob-
lems: 18 ... iLxf5 19 iLe2 h5 20 iLf3
:'c7 21 ~b6 (or 21 ~c3 e6 112-112
Polugayevsky-Timman, Hilversum
1973) 21...~xb6 22 iLxb6 :d7 23
iLd5 :e8 24 :e6 iLf6 25 :ce1 a5!
26 a4 :a8 27 lt6e2 iLg4 28 :e4
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 137
1/2- 1/2 Boey-Abramov, corr 1975-
80.
II 'ii'xa2!
This is the move that has made it
possible for Black to continue
playing 7 ...ttJxd4 against 7 f3. Prior
to the discovery of 12 .. :iha2!,
Black had suffered badly in the
ending that arises after 12 .. :ihd2+
13 'it>xd2 .i.xd5 (unlike most cases
when White plays ttJd5, here Black
cannot play 13 ...ttJxd5 14 cxd5
.i.d7, because White then has 15
':'c7) 14 cxd5 l:.fc8 15 ':'xc8
(Kholmov gives 15 .i.e2 e5! 16
dxe6 fxe6 as unclear, but after 16
a4! White has all the chances)
15 ...lIxc8 16 g3, and White is
much better. Two examples are:
16 ... ':'c7 17 J.h3 ttJd7 18 ':'c 1
':'xc 1 19 'ii7xcl ttJc5 20 'it>c2, Kura-
jica-Huguet, Malaga 1970, and
16...b6 17 .i.h3 ':'c7 18 lIcl ttJe8
19 b4 ':'xel 20 <itxc 1 tLld7 21 .ltd7,
Gheorghiu-Szilagyi, Varna 1971.
13 ttJxe7+ ~h8
14 .i.d4
For White's alternative, 14 J.e2,
see the next main game. After 14
.i.d4 Black has to decide which
rook he will place on e8.
14 ':'fe8
14 ... :ae8 is generally consid-
ered to be stronger in this position
because it keeps the t7-square pro-
tected. However, we feel that the
text move is better, as it offers
more possibilities for White to go
wrong, whereas the other rook
move leads to a more or less forced
draw. After 14...%lae8 15 tLld5
J.xd5 (an interesting alternative is
15 ... ttJxd5, although its only outing
turned out in White's favour: 16
cxd5 J.xd5 17 J.b5 J.c6 18 J.c4
"'a4 19 J.xg7+ <t6xg7 20 0-0 a5 21
"'c3+ c,ilg8 22 ':'fdl 'iWb4 23 "'xb4
axb4 24 llxd6 with a clear advan-
tage for White, as in Timman-
Andersson, Helsinki 1972; but
Black can improve with 20... ~b5!,
e.g. 21 b3 "'a6 22 "'d4+ ~g8 23
lIal "'c6 24 ':'xa7 J.xc4 25 bxc4
':'c8 with equality) 16 cxd5 and
now after 16...lIc8 we have an al-
most identical position to that
which arises after 14...lIfe8, the
only difference being that Black
here has his rook on f8 instead of
e8. One example is Gheorghiu-
Hug, Las Palmas 1972: 17 J.e2
':'xel+ 18 "'xcl tLld7 19 J.xg7
Q;xg7 20 "'c3+ 'itg8 21 0-0 tLlb6
112_112.
Instead of 16...lIc8, an attempt
to take advantage of the protection
of the t7-pawn has been suggested
by T.Georgadze, who gives the
following line: 16......xd5 17 ~c4
'iWh5 18 "'c3 "'g5 19 0-0 tLlh5 20
~xg7+ tLlxg7 21 ~d5 "'e7 22 "'c7
ttJe6 23 "'xb7 "'xb7 24 J.xb7 l:b8
25 J.d5 ttJf4 with a slight advan-
tage for Black. Silman and Donald-
son suggest that a draw is probable
after 26 ':'c7 lIxb2 27 lIxa7 lbg2+
28 'it>hl <itg7 29' lId7, but we still
prefer Black after 29 ... g5, intending
138 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

30 llxd6 llb8 31 :gl lbgl+ 32 lIbl lLlcs 23 ~e3, as in Panch-

~xgl lIbl+ 33 ~f2 l:tb2+, when enko-Gufeld, Kishnev 1975, are
Black has the initiative in the end- slightly better for White.
game. But as Larsen would say:
'Long variation, wrong variation!'
White can improve with 18 O-O!,
threatening 19 "c3, as Black no
longer has 19 .....gS due to 20 f4.
The only move is 18 ...lLld7, which
is slightly better for White after 19
~xg7+ ~xg7 20 "xd6 followed
by ~dS.
15 lLldS
In Vaisman-Volchok, corr 1973,
White achieved nothing with IS
"c3 lLlhS 16 ~xg7+ (Andersson
grves the following line: 16 g4
~xg4 17 lLldS ~xf3 18 ~xg7+ 19 ~xg7+ ~xg7
lLlxg7 19 "xf3 "xb2 20 ~dl with 20 "c3+ ~g8
an unclear position) 16... lLlxg7 17 21 ~ lLlb6
b4 as 18 bS a4 19 ~e2 a3 20 'ii?h2 22 "f6 %lc:8
Wb2 21 lLldS ~xdS 22 cxdS fS and 23 h4 %lc2?!
Black even had the better chances. This is not the best, Black has
Timman has suggested 17 b3 as the strong 23 ... lLla4!, when Pavlov-
better, giving 17.....a6 18 lLldS Adorjan, Bath 1973, continued 24
~xdS 19 cxdS Wb6 as unclear, but hS "xb2 2S "xb2 lLlxb2 26 :al
with his control over the dark a6 27 'iii>e3 l:tc2! with a small ad-
squares and better development, we vantage for Black.
believe that Black is better. 24 h5 lLld7
15 ~xd5 25 "d8+ lLlf8
16 cxd5 %lacS 26 hxg6 fxg6
Both 16... lLlxdS? and 27 "xd6?
16.....xdS?! are met by 17 ~c4. This allows Black to draw im-
17 ~e2 %lxcl+ mediately, but even after the
Also possible is 17 ...~g8 180-0 stronger 27 :el! Black has good
"a4 19 ~c3 Wb3 with equality, drawing chances, e.g. 27 .....a6 28
Bednarski-Ree, Skopje 011972. ~fl 1t'b6 29 "xb6 axb6 30 b4 gS
18 "xci lLld7 followed by ...lLlg6.
18 .....aS+ is inaccurate due to 27 :xe2+
19 "c3 "xc3+ 20 bxc3 lLld7 21 28 :xe2 "xb2+
~d2 :c8 (21...~xd4?! 22 cxd4 The rest of the game was just a
lLlb6 23 :al was better for White series of queen checks:
in Donaldson-Silman, Philadelphia 29 'iii>d3 "b3+ 30 ~d4 "b2+ 31
1985) and now both 22 Aal a623 'iPc4 "c2+ 32 ~b4 .-b2+ 33 ~c4
:bl ':c7 24 f4, Polugayevsky- "c:2+ 34 ~b4 ~2+ 35 ~a4
Bednarski, Varna 1972, and 22 "c2+ 1/2-1/2
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 139
Game 60
Andonovski-Baumbach
Corr 1981-84
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7 f3
lLlxd4 8 "xd4 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 10
"d2 i.e6 11 :c1 "a5 12 lLld5
"xa2 13lLlxe7+ ~h8)
14 i.e2
14 lLlg8!
This is the only way for Black to
continue; gaining time by threat-
ening the b2-pawn and forcing
White to decide what to do about
his knight on e7.
The alternatives have proven in-
effective:
a) 14 .. JUe8 IS lLldS i.xdS 16
cxdS with a clear edge for White,
lansa-Gazik, Sarajevo 1972.
b) 14 ... lLld7 IS i.d4 lUe8 160-0
'ii'b3 17 ~dl 'W'a2 18 1Wc3 i.xd4
19 'W'xd4+ f6 20 lLldS with slightly
better chances for White, An-
dersson-Reshevsky, Palma de
Mallorca 1971.
15 lLlxg8
Although IS lLldS!? is probably
a stronger move, the text is just as
popular. After IS tiJdS!? Black has
to play with care to avoid ending
up in a bad position: IS .....xb2!
(for some reason Black often gives
preference to IS ... i.xdS, which
should give White a small advan-
tage with best play: 16 cxdS l:lfc8
17 0-0 as 18 i.d4 "a4 19 i.c3
1Wb3 20 g3 a4 21 i.xg7+ ci;xg7 22
'W'd4+ f6 23 i.dl 1Wbs 24 :xc8
l:txc8 2S 1Wxa4 1Wxa4 26 i.xa4 l:tc7
27 l:tf2 with an advantage for
White, Cornu-Dusart, carr 1988-
90) 16 'W'xb2 i.xb2 17 :bl i.g7
18 lLlc7! l:tac8 19 l:txb7 ':b8! 20
l:txb8 ':xb8 21lLlxe6 fxe6 22 i.xa7
l:lbl+ 23 i.dl lLle7 240-0 lLlc6 2S
i.f2 i.d4 with equal chances,
Schmidt-Andersson, Warsaw 1973.
15 ct>xg8
16 i.xd4 i.xd4
17 "xd4 1Wa5+
18 ct>f2
Also 18 'W'c31WeS 190-0 l:lfc8 is
fine for Black.
18 "e5
Another excellent possibility is
18 ...1Wcs, as in Commons-Browne,
USA 1973, which continued 19
:cdl (Browne gives 19l:lhdl l:lfd8
20 :d2 "xd4+ 21 l:txd4 'ii;>f8, in-
tending ... ct>e7, when Black is fme)
19... :fc8 20 b3?! (20 l:ld2) 20 ... aS!
21 "xcS dxcS 22 :al bS 23 :hbl
a4 24 bxa4 bxa4 2S l:tb7 l:taS with
a small advantage for Black.
19 :cdl :fc8
More passive, yet still adequate
is 19...:fd8 20 l:td2 'W'xd4+ 21
l:txd4 'if.?f8 22 f4 as 23 g4 f6 24 g4,
Ribli-Ghitescu, Kecskemet 1972,
and now 24 ... h6! should provide
Black with equality according to
Florian.
20 b3
Black does not have any prob-
lems after 20 g3, e.g. 20... l:tc6 (or
140 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

20 ... a6 21 f4 "iWcs 22 "xc5 l:txcS cause White a lot of grief.

23 b3 bS with equal chances, Trin- 23 a3
gov-Mista, Varna 1973) 21 f4 24 f4 Wf6
"xd4+ 22 l:txd4 l:tb6 23 g4 f6 24 2S bS :'ee8
b3 l:txb3 25 :xd6 with equality, 26 g3 al
Timman-Ree, Amsterdam 1972. 27 Wc3
20 :'e6 Against 27 :a1 Baumbach gives
Or 20...aS 21 "iWxd6 Wxd6 22 the following variation, 27 ... i..xc4!
:'xd6 a4 23 bxa4 :xa4 24 :'b1 28 e5!? dxe5 29 :'xc4 :'xc4 30
:'a2 2S' 'ifi1e3 i..xc4 26 i..xc4 :'xc4 i..xc4 exf4 31 WeI fxg3+ with a
with level chances, Andersson- strong attack. However, Black also
Hug, Las Palrnas 1973. has a tactical solution against the
21 We3 text move. The game finished:
In Pytel-Bednarski, Lublin 1972, 27 ... dS! 28 exdS i..xdS 29 :'d
White got himself into trouble after Wb6 30 :'al :'a3! 31 e5 Wf6 32
21 :'d2 ltb6! 22 "iWe3?! fS! 23 exfS Wd2 :'xeS 33 Wb4 b6 34 l%ddl
Wxe3+ 24 ~xe3 :'xb3+ 2S ¢>f2 :'b3 35 Wa4 :'b2 36 :'xd5 :'xd5
i..xf5 26 g4?! i..e6 with a clear 37 :'xal :'dxb5 38 :'xb2 :'xb2
advantage for Black. 0-1
21 as!? A powerful game by Baumbach.
Black can also try 2l...%tb6!? 22
:d3 Wc5 23 :a1 a5 with a good Game 61
game for Black according to Franzen-Baumbach
Ghizdavu, whose analysis contin- CO" 1994-96
ues 24 ':a4 ':b4 25 ':xb4 axb4 26
f4 :'a2 27 'ilfxc5 dxc5 28 '.ii>e3 '.ii>g7 (1 e4 eS 2 llJf3 llJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
29 g4 b5 with a clear advantage for llJxd4 g6 5 e4 llJf6 6 llJc3 d6)
Black.
22 :'d4 a4 7 i..e2

23 b4? 7 llJxd4
Equal was 23 f4 'ilff6 24 bxa4. 8 Wxd4 i..g7
Now the black passed a-pawn will 9 0-0
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 141
This move is quite hannless and
should not cause Black too many
problems. Better are 9 i.e3 (see
Games 65-67) and 9 i.g5 (see
Games 68-72). Finally, White can
opt for 9 i.d2 0-0 10 'it'e3, but after
10... i.d7 or 1O... i.e6, he will have
nothing better than a transposition
to the main lines.
9 0-0
Now White invariably chooses
to move his queen out the line of
the bishop on g7. Here and in the
next game we consider 10 'it'd3,
while Games 63 and 64 deal with
10 'ii'e3.
10 'ii'dJ
This line has been a favourite of
Smejkal for many years and of late
also of the young Hungarian Zoltan
Almasi. With the white queen on
d3, it is harder for Black to achieve
... b7-b5, as the queen gives extra
protection to the knight on c3.
White's plans for the future lie on
the kingside. He intends to ex-
change the dark-squared bishops
and then play f2-f4-f5. Black's
counterplay is mainly based on his
attempts to get in the freeing ... b7-
b5 and exert pressure on the c4-
and e4-pawns. Black has a number
of moves to choose from; in this
game we shall take a look at
1O... t[)d7 and 1O... a6, while the
next game will cover 10... i.e6 and
1O....i.d7.
10 ~d7!?
Black targets the queen on d3
and intends to give up his dark-
squared bishop under favourable
circumstances in order to weaken
the white pawn structure. Until
quite recently this idea was consid-
ered dubious, but at present Black
seems to be doing just fine.
Before we continue with the
merits of the text move, let us take
a look at 1O...a6: 11 i.e3 ~g4 (for
the better alternative 11...i.d7!? -
see 1O...i.d7 11 i.e3 a6, which can
be found in the next main game) 12
.i.xg4 .i.xg4 13 i.d4 .i.xd4 14
'ii'xd4 i.e6 (this position can also
arise from a different move order: 9
i.e3 0-0 10 'ii'd2 t[)g4 11 i.xg4
i.xg4 12 0-0 a6 13 i.d4 i.xd4 14
'it'xd4 i.e6) and now:
a) 15 f4 b5! 16 b3 bxc4 17 f5
i.d7 18 bxc4 with an unclear posi-
tion - Silman and Donaldson.
b) 15 ]:lfel ]:lfe8 (both players
prepare for ~d5, but Black could
also consider 15 ...b5!?) 16 b3 'it'a5
17 t[)d5 l:ac8 18 t[)f4 i.xc4?!
(much better was 18 ...'ii'c5, e.g. 19
ltJxe6 fxe6 20 'ii'd3 ]:lf8! followed
by ... b7-b5 with excellent chances
for Black) 19 e5! J..b5 20 ltJd5
J..c6 21 exd6!, as in Keene-
Schmid, Bath 1973. Now, instead
of 21.. ...xd5? 22 'ii'xd5 .i.xd5 23
d7 with a clear edge for White,
Black should have tried 21...:cd8
22 t[)xe7+ ':xe7 23 ':xe7 'ii'g5 24
f3 'it'xe7 25 dxe7 ':xd4 26 ]:leI f5
27 ':'xc6 'it>f7 with a defensible
ending according to Keene.
142 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
c) 15 b3 (best; White secures his
queenside before proceeding on the
other flank) 15 ...'iWa5 16 f4 f6 17
l:tael! :'acS?! (better was 17... 'ii'c5)
IS f5 i.f7 19 lLldS, Smejkal-Jansa,
Amsterdam 1975, and now Smejkal
suggests 19 ...l:tfeS! 20 q.,hl "xa2
21 fxg6 hxg6 22 :'e3 with an un-
clear position. However, it seems to
us that Black has quite a few prob-
lems to solve. Right now his king is
under heavy fire; White threatens
23 lLlxf6+ exf6 24 1Wxf6 followed
by l:.h3 and mate, so Black's only
defence is 22 ... i.xd5 23 "xdS+
q.,g7 and now not 24 :'g3?!, which
is answered with 24 ...l:tc5 25 "xb7
:'e5!, but the simple 24 "xb7
when White has somewhat the
better chances.
11 i.gS!?
This is considered best. The al-
ternatives should not worry Black:
a) 11 i.e3 lLlc5 12 "c2 i.xc3
with a slight plus for Black.
b) 11 "g3 lLJc5 12 1Wh4 i.xc3
13 bxc3 f5 14 i.g5 (14 exf5 i.xf5
15 i.e3!?) 14 ...:f7 with an edge
for Black, Smit-Parma, Yugosla-
via-USSR 1961.
c) 11 i.d2 lLlc5 12 "e3 (Black
is a tempo up on the 10 1We3 line
and is doing fine) 12 ... i.d7
(equally good is 12 ...a5) 13 .tIacl
i.c6 14 f3 a5 15 b3 e6 16 :fdl
"e7 17 i.fl :'fdS IS 'iWf2 b6 19
i.e3 i.e5 20 :'c2 ':acS and Black
had no worries in Andersson-
Tukmakov, Madrid 1973.
11 lLJcS
12 'iWe3 i.d7!?
Two other moves are worth con-
sidering:
a) In Z.Almasi-Spangenberg,
Buenos Aires 1996, Black tried
12 ... lLJe6?! and stood a bit worse
after 13 i.h6 i.xh6 14 "xh6.
Z.Almasi gives 13 i.h4! with a
clear edge for White as stronger,
but Black has a solid position and
can defend himself. A possible line
13 ...:eS 14 :'bl (preparing lLJdS)
14... i.d7 15 lLJd5 i.c6, intending
.....d7 followed by ... i.xd5, ... lLJd4
and ... e7-e6 or ...e7-e5.
b) A very interesting alternative
is 12... i.xc3!?, which was revived
by Black in Mohrlok-Kamenets,
corr 1992-94. After 13 bxc3
Black played the strong
13 ...:'eS!, which is an improve-
ment over the previously tried
moves: 13 ... b6? 14 i.h6 :'eS 15 f4
i.b7 16 f5! e6? 17 fxg6 fxg6 IS
e5! d5 19 ':f4 lLJe4 20 cxd5 exd5
21 ':xe4 dxe4 22 i.c4+ i.d5 23
1Wxe4 i.e6 24 'ii'b7 :e7 25 i.xe6+
and White soon won in Smejkal-
Jansa, Hradec Kralove 1981, or
13 ...f6 14 i.h6 :'f7 15 f4 f5! 16
exf5 i.xf5 17 g4 i.e4 18 f5 ""6
19 fxg6 :'xfl + 20 :'xfl hxg6 21
i.f3 :'c8 22 h4 with an initiative
for White, Vukcevic-Tennant, corr
1989.
After 13 ...:'e8! White continued
with 14 f4 (also possible is 14
:adl) 14.....,,6 15 :'abl 'iWc6 16
e5?! (Mohrlok suggests 16 i.f3!?
and gives 16.....a6 17 e5 i.f5 18
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 143

l:tb2 'ifxc4 19 1:tdl 1:tac8 with un- White does not fancy allowing
clear play, but Black is at least .. ,'iib6, so he tries to prevent this
equal, so White should perhaps while simultaneously keeping his
deviate as early as move 14) attack going.
16 ... 'ife4 17 'iff2 'ifc2 18 ~f3 18 ~f6!
'ifxf2+ 19 l:ixf2 i..f5 20 1:tdl dxe5 19 ~g4
21 fxe5 1:tac8 22 i..d5, and here 19 i..xf6? exf6 is of course out
Black should have played either of the question, as it leaves White
22 ... b6 23 g4 lLle6 24 gxf5 lLlxg5 with a bad bishop versus a strong
or 22 ... lLle4 23 i..xe4 i..xe4, in both knight.
cases with an endgame advantage 19 lLlcS
for Black. 20 'ifh4 'ifb6!
A very brave decision. The black
queen leaves the defence of the
king in order to create some long-
tenn counterplay. However, it was
difficult to suggest anything else
for Black, e.g. 20 ... lLle4 21 libel
lLld2 (2l...lLlxg5 22 fxg5 i..g7 23
lIxf7! 'i!i>xf7 24 i..e6 ~8 25 'ii'h7
wins for White) 22 :f2 lLlc4 23
lIf3 followed by l:ih3 with a strong
attack for White - analysis by
Franzen.
21 fS lLle4
22 i..xf6 lLlxf6
13 lLldS In this situation it would be
A worthless alternative is 13 mistaken to take back with the e-
i..h6?!, when after 13 ... i..xh6 14 pawn: 22 ... exf6? 23 fxg6 hxg6 24
'ihh6 i..c6 15 i..f3 'iib6 16 'ifd2 i..e6! fxe6 25 'ife4 with a clear
'iib4 17 'ife2 e5 White's opening edge for White according to Fran-
play had been a failure, Pupo- zen.
R.Hernandez, Havana 1992. 23 fxg6 hxg6
13 l:r.e8 24 i..e6! ~g7!
14 l:abl as The bishop cannot be touched:
15 ~hl i..c6 24 ... fxe6? 25 'ifh6 cj;f7 26 'ii'h7+
The black set-up is very similar ~f8 27 dxe6 with mate to follow.
to the Classical Maroczy variation, 25 i..xf7! l:r.h8
but White's position is unlike any 26 'ife1 l:r.xh2+!
he can achieve in the line men- The only move. The bishop was
tioned above. Black therefore has still not to be touched: 26 ... ~xf7
to exercise extreme caution in order 27 'ife6+ ~e8 28 l:xf6.
to stay in the game. 27 <it>xh2
16 f4 i..xdS 28 ~g3
17 exdS ~ 29 l:r.dl!
18 Vi'h3!? \, The only way for White to play
. fl" \ "
144 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
for a win. In Informator Franzen
gives the following analysis of the
alternatives:
a) 29 'iWe7?! lDe4+ 30 ~f3 (30
rlt>f4? lDg5!; 30 ct>g4? lDg5! 31 ];[f4
lIh4 32 'iitxh4 1i'xf4+ 33 g4 'iWh2+
34 ~g5 'iWh6 mate) 30...'iWd3 31
~f4 g5 32 ct>fS lDf2 and Black
wins.
b) 29 lIxf6 'iWh4+ 30 ~f3
1i'xf6+ with an initiative for Black.
c) 29 ~e6 lDe4+ 30 Wf3 (30
~4lDg5!; 30 1i'e4 'iWxe4 31 Af7+
~h6 32 .l:thl+ ~g5 33 lIxh8 1i'eS
is better for Black; and 30 ct>g4
lDf2+ 31 'itg3lDe4+ is a perpetual)
30...lDg5+ 31 ~e2 'iWxc4+ 32 'iitf2
'iWf4+ with equal chances.
29...lDh5+ 30 ~f3 'iWf4+ 31 'iite2
lDg3+ 32 ~d3 lDxo 33 'iWxfi
'ilxf7 34 'ilxf7+ c;t>xf7 35 :0+
~e8!
The black king is needed in the
defence of the queenside.
36 ~e3 :h2 37 :0 lIhl 38 ~b3
lIh4! 39 lIe2 b5! 40 a3 bxe4+ 41
lIxe4 lIh5 42 lId4 lieS 43 'iita4
lIe2 44 b3 lIe3 45 lId2 lIe3 46 b4
lb.-Ill
Game 62
Z.Almasi-Tiviakov
Buenos Aires 1996
(1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 lDe6 3 d4 exd4 4
lDxd4 g6 5 c:4 lLlf6 6 lLlc:3 d6 7
~e2 lLlxd4 8 'iWxd4 ~g7 9 0-0 0-0
10'ild3)
10 ~e6
10... ~d7 is a fairly new idea.
Black will either go for a position
very similar to the Classical Ma-
roczy, or attempt to play for ... b7-
b5. In both cases the results have
been quite good for Black, and
both players should take a serious
look at this line. White has tried
three ways to develop his bishop in
reply:
a) 11 1.g5 makes little sense. In
the game Matthias-Ree, Lippstadt
1992, Black had a clear edge after
l1...a6 12 lIfdl ~c6 13 ::tacl b5!
14 b4 bxc4 15 'iWxc4 i.b5! 16
lLlxb5 axb5 17 'iWc2 'iWb6 18 i.e3?!
"'a6 19 f3 ];[fb8 20 ];[d2 'iWa3, but
this was not model play by White.
b) 11 i.d2 a6 12 'iWe3 lIb8 13 b4
b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 f4 i.c6 16 a4
d5! is also excellent for Black, Fe-
dorowicz-Ree, Cannes 1992, con-
tinued 17 exdS lLlxdS 18 lLlxdS
'iWxdS 19 i.f3 Wd6 20 i.c3 ~xc3
21 'iWxc3 i.xf3 22 Wxf3 bxa4 23
lha4 lbb4 24 .l:.xb4 'iWxb4 with a
useless extra pawn for Black.
c) 11 i.e3 and now Black has
tried four different moves:
cl) 11...'iWa5 (this looks strange
in combination with ... ~d7-c6, and
White can only blame himself for
the fact that Black gets a comfort-
able position in this game) 12 i.d4
(or 12 a3 immediately) 12 ... i.c6 13
a3 ];[fc8 14 .l:.fel?! (more logical
seems 14 b4 with a space advan-
tage) 14...'iWg5!? IS g3 lLld7 16
~xg7 ~xg7 17 .l:.adl as 18 'iWd4+
"'f6 19 'iWe3 lLlcS 20 ~g4 l:c7 21
f4 e5 22 b4 axb4 23 axb4 exf4 24
gxf4, Smejkal-Sikora Lerch, Czech
Team ch 1994, and now 24 ...lDa4
was best with unclear complica-
tions.
c2) 11...aS!? (this move makes a
lot of sense, Black would like to
enter the Classical Maroczy posi-
tion after 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4
cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3
lLlf6 7 ltJc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0
i.d7 10 lIc 1 lLlxd4 11 ~xd4 ~c6
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 145
12 .d3 a5) 12 b3 (Donaldson
gives 12 c5 .tc6 13 cxd6 exd6 14
!Iadl lte8 15 f3 d5 as equal)
12 ....i.c6 13 f3 ll'ld7 14 Itac1 ll'lcs
15 .d2 .i.e5 16 !Ifdl b6 17 .tfl
!Ia7?! 18 Itbl l:.d7 19 ll'le2?!
(White should play for b3-b4;
hence 19 a3 is correct) 19 ... e6 20
.tgS .tf6 21 .tf4 .te5 22 .tgS
.tf6 23 .tf4 .te5 and a draw was
agreed 112-1/2 Kudrin-Donaldson,
Reno 1992.
c3) 11....tc6 12 b4! (less accu-
rate is 12 .td4 or 12 f3) 12 ... b6 13
.td4 as 14 a3ll'ld7 IS .txg7 ~xg7
16 .d4+ ~g8 17 :ad1 axb4 18
axb4 Ita3 19 f4 .c7 20 .tg4 ll'lf6
21 .tf3 with a small advantage for
White, Hellers-Petursson, San Ber-
nardino 1990.
c4) 11...a6 12 a4! (other moves
have failed to produce any advan-
tage for White: 12 .td4 .tc6 13 b4
bS 14 cxbS axbS IS f311a3 16.d2
.d7 17 .l::tfdl :fa8 18 :acl 'ii'b7
19 :c2 hS 20 ll'lbl :3a6 21 ll'lc3
Ita3 22 ll'lbl :3a6 23 ll'lc3 112-1/2
T.Tolnai-Leko, Hungarian ch 1993,
or 12 Itfdl .tc6 13 .c2 .as 14
Itacl :fd8 IS 'ii'bl hS!? 16 b4
.eS 17 .td4.g5 18 .tf3 bS with
level chances, Schlosser-Leko,
Bmo 1993) 12 ... aS (12 ...•aS is met
by 13 b4! .xb4 14 as!, when the
queen is in trouble, and 12 ....tc6
13 b4 is uncomfortable for Black)
13 cS! dxcS 14 .i.xcs .tc6 IS .e3!
(Black receives some compensation
for the pawn after IS .xd8 Itfxd8
16 .txe7 :d2) IS ...•d7 16 f3.e6
17 ll'lbS .txbS 18 .txbS ll'ld7 19
.ta3 ll'leS 20 :acl l:[fd8 21 ~hl,
and the pair of bishops secured
White a small but clear advantage
in Z.Almasi-Khalifman, Wijk aan
Zee 1995.
11 .td2
Pointless are 11 ll'ld5 ll'ld7 12
ltbl ll'lcS 13 .c2 fS!? 14 f3 fxe4
exdS .td4+ 18 'iii>hl .f8
IS fxe4 :xfl+ 16 .txfl .txdS 17
.g7 with level chances, Na-
19 .tgS
gashima-Braga, Sao Paulo 1997,
and 11 .tgS ll'ld7 12 .d2 (White
aims for a position he could have
had with an extra tempo by playing
9 .tgS 0-0 10 .d2) 12 ... ll'lcS 13 f3
as 14 c,i>hl :e8 IS :abl 'ii'b6 with
a good game for Black, Strauss-
Donaldson, corr 1981-83.
However, 11 .te3 is quite good,
when Black has the following op-
tions:
a) l1...a6 12 .td4ll'ld7 13 .txg7
~xg7 14 b3 .as IS f4 .cS+ 16
~hl ll'lf6 17 .tf3 :ab8 18 :ael
:fd8 19 a4 with a small but lasting
edge for White in Smejkal-Browne,
Milan 1975.
b) 11...ll'ld7 12 .td4 .txd4 13
.xd4 .as (Donaldson's sugges-
tion of 13 ...'ii'b6!? seems to be
much better, e.g. 14 .d2 :fc8 IS
b3 ll'lcs when Black has no prob-
lems) 14 b3 a6 IS cRhl lhc8 16 f4
f6 17 :f3 ~h8 18 :e3 gS!? 19
ll'ldS gxf4 20 ll'l:Xf4 .tfl 21 ll'ldS
:ce8 22 b4 with a clear edge for
146 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
White, Korneev-Penniakov, Omsk
1996.
. c}:H .....aS 12 ..t.d4 (this used to
be'" considered quite good for
White, but in the light of recent
developments, White should pro-
bably consider 12 :'ac1 instead,
e.g. 12 ...:'fcS l3 b3 ttJd7 14 "d2
ttJcS IS f3 a6 16 ..t.gS :'c7 17l:Udl
with a slight edge for White, Orn-
stein-Popov, Skara 19S0; 12 f4 has
also been tried, when in Padevsky-
Szabo, Kesckemet 1966, Black
quickly had the better position:
12 ... :'fcS l3 b3 ..t.g4 14 l:lac1 bS!
IS ttJdS bxc4 16 ttJxf6+ ..t.xf6 17
:'xc4 :'xc4 IS 'iVxc4 ..t.xe2 19
'iVxe2 :'cS 20 h3 :c3) 12 ...:'fcS 13
b3 a6 14 f4 bS!? 15 cxb5 axbS 16
ttJxbS.
This posItion was considered
clearly better for White on account
of Gipslis-Damjanovic, Tallinn
1969, which continued 16 ... dS? 17
eS ..t.fS IS 'iVe3 ttJg4 19 ..t.xg4
..t.xg4 20 a4 ..t.d7 21 ..t.c3, but
Black can easily improve:
cl) 16...:'abS 17 f5 ..t.d7 IS a4
'iVb4 19 fxg6 hxg6 20 eS ttJh7! 21
'iVe3 dxeS 22 ..t.xeS ..t.xeS 23 'iVxeS
'iVxb3 24 'iVxe7 :'eS 2S 'iVxd7
:'xe2 and White's extra pawn was
of no real significance, Hardicsay-
Altennan, Hartberg 1991.
c2) 16... 'iVb4!? 17 :'fdl :as
(Black threatens IS ... ..t.d7, intend-
ing 19 a4 ..t.xbS 20 axbS lbal 21
:'xal ttJxe4; however, there was no
reason for White to go down as he
did in this game) IS ttJc3? ttJxe4!
19 'iVxe4 :'xc3 20 ..t.c4? dS 21 'iVel
dxc4 22 a3 ..t.xd4+ 23 l:lxd4 'iVxb3
and Black won shortly in Messa-
Antunes, Reggio Emilia 19S6.
11 ttJd7
This is the main line, but Black
has other possibilities as well:
a) l1...a6 12 b3 (or 12 :acl bS!
l3 cxb5 axbS 14 ttJxbS :'xa2 IS
..t.c3 :a4 16 b3 l:ta2 17 ttJd4 ..t.d7
IS ttJc2 'iVbs with equal chances,
Pablo-Rodriguez Talavera, Menor-
ca 1994) 12 ... ..t.d7 (12 ... ttJd7 trans-
poses to the main game and
12 ...'iVb6 to the next line, whereas
12 ...:bS!? is an untried suggestion
of Fedorowicz's) 13 :acl bS 14
'iVe3 e6 15 b4 bxc4 16 ..txc4 ..t.bS
17 ttJxbS axb5, Kestler-Schlick,
Gennany 19S5, and here a draw
was agreed after IS ..t.b3, but IS
..t.xbS seems better, e.g. IS .. .lha2
19 J:.fdl when White's passed
pawn should guarantee him some
advantage.
b) 11...'iVb6!? 12 b3 IUcS
(12 ...a6) 13 :acl a6 14 ~hl
"d8?! (14 ... ttJd7!? is to be consid-
ered) 15 f4 :abS?! (15 ... ttJd7!?) 16
..t.e3 and White is better,
Am.Rodriguez-Hernandez, Holguin
1991.
12 b3 a6
Two other moves have also been
tried: .
a) 12 .. .fS? is bad for obvious
reasons: 13 exfS ttJc5 14 'iVg3
..txfS IS :'adl is clearly better for
White, Savon-Shvedchikov, USSR
1973.
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 147

b) 12 ...t'Lle5?! gave White an 14 t'Llc6

edge in Smyslov-Korchnoi, USSR 15 f4 t'Lld4
ch 1961: 13 'ii'g3 t'Llc6 14 'iti>hl 16 .i.d3 f5t?
t'Lld4 15 .i.d3 :'c8 16 :'adl a6 17 Unfortunately for Black, this is
f4. the only proper way to continue the
c) An interesting new try is game, since for example 16... b5 17
12...t'Llc5!?, when in Leko- f5 is quite uncomfortable. After
Tiviakov, Groningen 1995, Black 16... f5 Black is left with the usual
quickly obtained equal play: 13 structural weaknesses: three pawn
We3.i.d7! 14 ltabl .i.c6 15 f3 a5. islands and weak light squares.
d) Finally, another Tiviakov idea However, his position is quite ac-
is 12 ... a5!? 13 .!:tacl t'Llc5 14 We3 tive, and White has to play accu-
.i.d7!, when Z.Almasi-Tiviakov, rately to maintain his advantage.
Cacak 1996, continued 15 f4?! 17 exf5 .i.xf5
.i.c6 16 .i.f3 e6 17 'itthl We7 18 18 .i.xf5 :'xf5
t'Llb5 1/2- 1/2. Instead of 15 f4?!, 19 Wd3! Wd7
Tiviakov suggests 15 :'fdl, giving 20 lbd5 :af8
following line: 15 ....i.c6 16 f3 21 .i.c3
Wb6!? 17t'Lld5 .i.xd5 18 exd5t'Lld7
19 Wxb6t'Llxb6 with equal chances.
13 :act t'Lle5
Also possible is 13 ... Wb6, al-
though White is somewhat better
after 14 ~hl Wd4 15 Wc2 ltfc8 16
f4, Fedorowicz-Zsu.Polgar, Am-
sterdam 1990, and now best was
16... t'Llf6 17 f5 .i.d7 18 .i.g5 with a
slight pull for White.
Also worth considering is the di-
rect 13 ...b5. In Luther-Brendel,
Groningen 1990, Black equalised
easily after 14 cxb5 axb5 15 b4
.i.c4 16 We3 .i.xe2 17 Wxe2 .i.xc3 White's advantage is evident. If
18 .i.xc3 Wb6 19 Wd2 Wb7 21 Black now continues with
Wd4 f6 22 .!:tc2 lLlc4, but 21...lLle6, he will have problems on
Tiviakov's suggestion 15 :'c2!? the e-file: 22 .i.xg7 ~xg7 23 Wc3+
represents a problem for Black. ~g8 24l:[cel.
14 Wg3 21 lLlc6
This is probably the way to go, 22 .i.xg7 ~g7
as after 14 We3 Black did not have 23 We4 :'5f7?!
all that many problems in the game Black wants to centralise and
Am.Rodriguez-Antunes, Malaga possibly exchange his queen, but it
1991: 14 ... t'Llc6 15 t'LldS t'Lld4 16 was better to play actively with
.i.d3 .i.d7 17 .i.c3 e5 18 f4 .i.c6 19 23 ... e5, giving White less time to
f5 .i.xdS 20 exd5 Wh4! 21 :'cel place his pieces optimally .
.i.h6 22 Wf2 Wxf2+ 23 :'xf2 b5. 24 :'fe1 Wf5
148 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
25 'ii'xf5 l:txf5
26 l:tedl e5
Black must stay active, as
26 .. J~5f7 27 li:Jc7 is rather uncom-
fortable for him. White is of course
still better.
27 li:Je7! ~g8 28 fxe5 dxe5 29
li:Je6 l:t8f7 30 l:td2! l:te7 31 li:Je5
~g7 32 l:td6 l:tf6 33 l:td5 l:tf8 34
h3 l:tee8 35 l:td6 l:te8
This is inaccurate. It was better
to play 35 ... li:Jb4 to keep the white
knight away from d3.
36li:JdJ }:tee8 37 l:te4 l:te6 38 l:td5
l:t6e7 39 c;tJh2 ~f6 40 li:Je5 q;g7 41
l:td6 l:te8 42 li:JdJ l:tee8 43 b4! as
44 b5
Instead 44 a3 axb4 45 axb4
would have kept things a little less
complicated.
44••• li:Jb4 45 li:Jc1 l:tee7 46 1td2
ltee7 47 l%e5+ ~f6 48 l:tee2?!
One careless move and the ad-
vantage is gone. Correct was 48
l:te3! a4 49 a3 lhc4 50 :d6+ q;g5
51 li:Je2, when White is still clearly
better.
48...a4 49 Itd6+ ~g5 50 a3 lte4
51 lte5 ~h6 52 li:Je2 li:Je2 53 li:Jg3
:8<:5! 54 :e7 :e7 55 tLlf5+ ~g5
56 Itxe7 :xe7 57 tLld4 tLlxd4 58
:xd4 :e5 11l_112
_C?am~.::~
IvJ(ov-B"rowne
Wijk aan Zee 1972
(1 e4 e5 2 li:JO tLle6 3 d4 exd4 4
li:Jxd4 g6 5 e4 li:Jf6 6 tLle3 d6 7
i.e2 tLlxd4 8 .xd4 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0)
10 .e3
This move looks quite modest,
but do not let your eyes deceive
you, it is in fact very ambitious.
With the queen on e3 and the
bishop on d2, the c3-knight is thor-
oughly protected, and White will
then be ready to start action on the
queenside without having to deal
with the usual ...b7-b5 tricks. This
way of handling the position was
quite popular in the late sixties and
early seventies. Then it disappeared
for a while, but as the ... tLlxd4 sys-
tem has re-emerged as a serious
weapon for Black, 10 'iVe3 has
once again found a following in
top-level chess.
10 i.d7
We feel that this is probably
Black's safest option. Of Black's
other choices, 10... i.e6 is the most
reliable, which often transposes to
other lines in the ... tLlxd4 system.
We shall take a look at this in the
next game. 10... a6 has been tried,
but always transposes to either
10... i.d7 or 10... i.e6. So let us
take a look a 1O... tLld7.
(see following diagram)
Although this move is rarely
played, it does have some logic to
it. Black wants to transpose into a
Classical Maroczy, in which the
White set-up is somewhat unusual.
Black's results in this line have
been anything but encouraging to
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 149

date, but this is mainly due to poor edge for White) 13 b3 (13 .i.e 1!? is
follow-up play. White has tried: still worth consideration, e.g.
13...a4 14 f4 .i.d7 15 e5) 13 ....i.d7
14 ~d5 e6 15 ~3 .i.c6 16 .i.el
.e7 17 f3 nfeS (17 ...nfdS is quite
possibly stronger, leaving the other
rook on the a-file, which will be of
use when White eventually breaks
with b3-b4) IS .i.d3 b6 19 .i.c2
.i.e5 20 .i.g3 nadS 21 a3 .i.xg3 22
hxg3 .c7 23 b4 ~d7 24 .d4 with
an edge for White, Gelfand-
Pigusov, Sverdlovsk 19S7.
b) 11 <it>hl (this is probably
~ 11 b3 ~c5 (l1...fib6 can be White's best; he would like to start
answered with 12 lLld5, when some kingside action, but does not
12 ...•xe3 13 ~xe7+ <it>hS 14 want the queens to be exchanged)
.i.xe3 .i.xal 15 nxal neS 16 l1...lLlc5 12 f4 .ltxc3?! (a dubious
.i.d4+ f6 17 ~xcS naxcs IS .ltg4 idea - White wants to attack and
nc7 19 .i.xd7 nxd7 20 .ltxf6+ Black gets rid of his dark-squared
<it>gS 21 f3 is better for White, but bishop; the white attack comes to a
in Benko-Panno, Palma de Mal- halt, but the weaknesses in the
lorca 1971, Black played more pas- black position remains, so it was
sively: 12 ...•dS 13 nbl ~c5 14 better to play 12 ....ltd7) 13 bxc3 f5
.i.b2 e5 15 f4 .i.h6 16 .ltxe5 dxe5 14 exf5 .ltxf5 15 .lta3 ncs 16 .ltf3
17 .xc5 exf4 IS nbdl and White .d7 17 nadl b6 IS l:.fel lUeS 19
was clearly better) 12 .ltb2 a5 13 h3 .a4 20 .ltxc5 bxc5 21 g4 .ltd7
nadl and here 13 ... .ltd7, intending 22 f5 with a strong initiative for
... .ltc6~ould be the obvious way White, Smyslov-Furman, USSR
to continue. Nonetheless, two other 1967.
(quite poor) moves have been 11.ltd2
played: 13 ... f5? (nearly always a The normal rook moves to bl
bad idea) 14 exf5 .ltxf5 15.ltf3 and dl have also been tried:
ncs 16 nfel with a much better a) II ndl with a further diver-
game for White, Uhlmann- gence:
Matulovic, Skopje 1966, and al) l1...a6 12 c5 .c7
13 ...b6? 14 f4 .ltb7 15 e5 fibs 16 (Boleslavsky gives 12 ...•a5 13
exd6 exd6 17 .ltf3 neS IS.d2 cxd6 exd6 14.ltd2 .ltc6 with equal
.i.xf3 19 nxf3 fib7 20 f5! and chances) 13 cxd6 exd6 14 .g3
once again White was clearly better nfeS with chances for both sides -
in Tatai-Cosulich, Bari 1972. Salov.
b) 11 .ltd2 lLlc5 12 nadl a5 a2) 11.....a5 12 .ltd2 nfcS 13
(Geller-Ostojic, Belgrade 1969, lLlb5 ilb6 14 "xb6 axb6 15 ~c3
saw 12 ....ltd7 13 .ltel!? b6 14 f4 .i.e6 16 b3 b5! 17 e5 lLld7 IS
~a4 15 b3 lLlxc3 16 .ltxc3 .i.xc3 lLlxb5lLlxe5 19.1tc3 .ltg4 20 .ltxg4
17 .xc3 .c7 IS .g3 with a small lLlxg4 21 .ltxg7 <it>xg7 22 a4 ~f6
.-eY6!A ":Pier ~~.. A"J:/ -/'1. It( ~ 1.!f.51 see-41I S s-l{D<A.~
150 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
1/2- 1/2 Smyslov-Browne, Amster-
dam 1971.
a3) 11..."'6 12 .xb6 axb6 13
.te3.tc6 14 f3 tDd7 15 l:tdcl tDc5
16 '!:'c2 '!:'fcS 17 tDd5 .txdS IS
cxd5 :a3!? 19 .tf2 :caS 20 .tc4
b5! 21 l:r.ac1 l:r.3a4 22 .txb5, Illes-
cas-Leko, Leon 1993, and now
Black could have maintained
equality with 22 .. .lIb4! 23 .tc4 b5
24 .tb3 tDxb3.
b) 11 l:r.b1!1 and now:
b 1) 11..."'6 was the preferred
treatment by Black until quite re-
cently, but Stohl's handling of the
game below has cast some clouds
over Black's prospects; we there-
fore suggest that you take a look
under 'b2', which seems fine for
Black. White has:
bll) Smyslov-Gligoric, Moscow
1971, saw 12 .g3 l:fcS 13 .te3
"'4 14 :fcl .te6 15 1Wh4! (15 b3
.xc3! 16 1::txc3 tDxe4 is excellent
for Black) 15 ...a6 15 a3 .a5 16 b4
'iWdS 17 b4 'iWdS IS c5 dxc5 19
bxc5 .a5! with equal chances.
b12) The actual move order in
Stohl-Leko was 12 b3 .tc6 13
11M3, but this allows 12 ... 'i'xe3 13
.txe3 .tc6 14 tDd5 .txd5 15 exd5
tDe4 16 :bcl tDc3 17 l:r.c2 tDxe2+
IS l:xe2 .tf6 with equality ac-
cO~dinto Stohl.
13 121M3! .tc6 13 b3 :fcS
14 . e3 'iWdS (14 ..."'4 15 i.d2!
"'6 16 'it>hl, intending f2-f4, is
also good for White) 15 f3 a6,
Stohl-Leko, Bmo 1993, and here
White should have continued 16 a4
a5 17 tDdS with a small but clear
advantage. Instead he chose 16
:fcl?! :abS! 17 .ta7 :as IS .te3
:abS 19 a4 a5 20 tDd5 tDd7 21
.tg5 .txdS 22 exd5 .tf6 23 i.e3
tDc5 with chances for both sides.
b2) ll...aS!? (we feel that this is
Black's best shot, though tests are
needed before a clear evaluation
can be given) 12 a4?! (this is
clearly not the critical test of
Black's idea; interesting is 12 l:r.dl
.tc6!?, e.g. 13 eS tDd7! 14 exd6
exd6 IS 'iWg3 [IS l:r.xd6 gives Black
too much play for the pawn:
lS ... l:teS 161M2 'iWe7 17 .tf!
tDcS] IS ... ~cS! 16 'iWxd6 'iWxd6 17
l:Ixd6 .txc3 IS bxc3 tDe4 19 .l:td3
l:IfdS with equal chances) 16....tc6
13 f3 ~d7 14 b3 ~c5 IS .ta3?!
'iib6 with a good game for Black,
as in Martinez-Bar, Baile Hercu-
laine 1994.
11 a6
Several other moves have been
tried here:
a) White had an edge after
1l...'ifb6 in Keres-Lengyel, Tallinn
1975: 12 l:tabl 'iWxe3 13 .i.xe3
l:tfcS 14 l:tfc1 a6?! (the wrong plan;
better was the normal 14....tc6 IS
f3 tDd7, although White is still
slightly better) 15 f3 i.e6 16 b3
<;io>f8 17 a4 a5 IS tDd5.
b) Once again, Black can con-
sider ll...a5!?, when after 12 .l:tfdl
.tc6, Barcza-Damjanovic, Vrsac
1967, continued 13 tDdS tDd7 14
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 151

.i.c3.i.xc3 15 tbxc3 'ifb6 16 'ii'xb6 advantage.

tbxb6 17 b3 ':fc8 with equal 13 a4
chances. If Black achieves ...b7-b5, he
c) 11.. ..i.c6 has also been played equalises easily, e.g. 13 ':acl b5 14
on occasion. Kirov-T.Georgadze, b3 bxc4 15 .i.xc4 tbg4 16 .g3
Polanica Zdroj 1976, saw 12 .l:bcl .i.d4 17 ':f1 "'a7 18 tbe2 .i.e5 19
(better is 12 b4, whereas 12 ':fdl .i.f4 .i.g7 20 h3 tbf6 21 .d3 ~b5,
a5 transposes to the game Barcza- Sakharov-Kapengut, USSR 1967.
Damjanovic above) 12 ... e6 (for 13 as
some reason Georgadze does not 14 :ad
bother to play ... a7-a5, which Other moves do not give Black
would also be quite good in this anything to worry about either:
position) 13 ':fdl .e7 14 b4 b6 15 a) 14 b3 .i.c6 15 .i.el tbd7 16
f3 :ad8 16 .i.fl ':fe8 17 .i.el h6 ':abl tbc5 17 tbdS :e8 18 f3 b6
18 a3 lh_ 1h. with equal chances, Boleslavsky-
12 ':fdl Averbakh, Moscow 1966.
The alternatives are: b) 14 h3 iLe6 15 tbdS ':e8 16
a) 12 tbd5?! tbxd5 13 cxd5 ':c8 iLe3 tbd7 1.7 iLxg7 'itxg7 18 b3 e5
14 'ii'b3?! (14 .i.d3 is equal) is also equal, Uhlmann-Kapengut,
14... b5! with a clear plus for Black, East Germany-RSFSR 1969.
Lombardy-Browne, USA 1972. e) 14 ':a3 iLc6 15 tbd5 ':e8 16
b) 12 b3 b5?! (l2 ....i.c6!?) 13 .i.e3 tbd7 17 .i.xg7 'itxg7 18 .g5
cxb5 axb5 14 a4! bxa4 15 bxa4 h6 19 'it'h4 tbf6 20 :113 tbg8 21
tbg4 16 .g3 tbe5 17 lIfcl .a5 18 ':dd3 .d8! 22 e5?! dxe5 23 tbf6
• g5! With a clear plus for White, exf6 24 l:lxd8 l:lexd8 with a good
II1escas-Alvarez, Oviedo 1991. game for Black, Nicevsky-Kapen-
c) 12 a4 a5! 13 b3 .i.c6 14 :ael gut, Vilnius 1969.
tbd7 15 .i.dl tbc5 16 ~c2 b6 17 f4 14 iLc6
e6 18 tbe2 f5 with equality, Ivkov- 15 b3 tbd7
Adorjan, Amsterdam 1971. 16 tbd5 iLxd5
12 .b8! 17 exd5 tbc5
Most common, and probably 18 ':e1
best, but Black also did fine with Not 18 .xe7? ':e8.
12 ...':b8 in Peshina-Rashkovsky, 18 .c7
Barnaul 1984: 13 a4?! tbg4! 14
.i.xg4.i.xg4 15 l:el .i.e6 16 b3 b5
17 axb5 axb5 18 cxb5 ':b7 19 .d3
19
20
21
h4
iLdl
.i.d
.b6
':ae8!?

e5
'ii'b8 with an edge for Black; White 22 h5 e4!
will lose both b-pawns. Black must stay active. The rest
Another possibility is 12 ....i.c6, of the game went as follows:
which was tried out in Salov- 23 ':bl .c7 24 hxg6 hxg6 25 b4
Dzindzichashvili, New York 1996. On 25 iLxa5 Ivkov gives fol-
After 13 b4 b6 14 l:labl tbd6 15 lowing line: 25 ...•xa5 26 b4 .a6
h4!? b5 16 a3 bxc4 17 .i.xc4 tbe5 27 bxc5 .xc4.
18 .i.b3 .i.b7, White should have 25...axb4 26 .i.xb4 tba6 27 iLa3
continued with 19 h5 with a small .c4 28 "b3 "xb3 29 ':xb3 ':c8
152 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
30 i.e4 tLJcS 31 i.xeS AxeS 32
Axb7 Ac4 33 as Ab4 34 ~e2
Game 64
Sax-Petursson
Va/by 1994
(1 e4 eS 2 ~f3 ~e6 3 d4 exd4 4
~xd4 g6 S c4 ~f6 6 ~e3 d6 7
i.e2 ~xd4 8 'it'xd4 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0
10 'i'e3)
10 i.e6
This is Black's most popular re-
sponse to 10 'i'e3. After 11 ~d2
'i'b6, play usually transposes to
lines which arise after 9 i.g5 0-0
10 'i'e3 i.e6 11 0-0 'iVb6. Under
this main game, we will take a look
at those lines which do not trans-
pose.
11 l:tbl
This is currently White's most
common choice. Other possibilities
are:
a) 11 Adl 'i'c7!? (also possible
is 11...'i'b6 12 'i'xb6 axb6 13 i.e3
:tfc8 14 b3 b5 15 ~xb5 ~xe4 with
equal chances, Panno-Ree, Las
Palmas 1973) 12 ~b5 'iVc6 13
tLJxa7 'iVxe4 14 ~b5 :fc8 15 b3 d5
*-13ot41.
16 tLJd4 i.d7 with equality, Uhl-
mann-Hecht, Raach 1969.
b) 11 i.d2 with a new fork:
bl) l1...tiig4?! 12 'i'g3 tLJe5 13
b3 tLJc6 14 h4 l:tc8 15 f4 tLJd4 16
f5! tLJxe2+ 17 tLJxe2 i.xal 18
lha 1 i.d7 19 h5 'i'b6+ 20 i.e3
'i'a5 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 fxg6 g6 23
c5 with a clear plus for White,
Khenkin-Neverov, Moscow 1989.
Black invested a little too much
time in winning the exchange.
b2) l1...tLJd7 12 b3 (White also
obtained a small edge in Smyslov-
Saii.iwneffi~"· Mar del Plata 1966,
afierT2f4 '1Jb6 13 W'xb6lbxb6 14
6f'Id7T5 Aacl i.c6 16 tLJd5)
12 ... 'i'b6 (12 ... a6 transposes to 'b3'
below) 13 :ac1 i.d4 14 'i'g3 tLJc5
15 'i'h4 i.f6 16 'i'f4 a5 17 tLJd5
i.xd5 18 exd5 i.e5 19 'i'h6 i.f6
20 'i'f4 i.e5 21 i.e3 e6?! 22 dxe6
fxe6 23 g3! with a clear edge for
White, Wojtkiewicz-Gdanski, War-
saw 1993.
b3) l1...a6 12 b3 tLJd7 13 f4
'i'b6 14 'i'xb6 ~xb6 15 Aacl
i.d4+ 16 ~hl i.d7 17 i.f3 i.c6
18 :tcdl ~d7 19 ~el with equal
chances, Uhlmann-Browne, Am-
sterdam 1971.
b4) 11...'i'b6!? 12 'iVxb6 (12 b3
'iVxe3 13 i.xe3 Afc8 is fine for
Black, while the game Baumbach-
Mohring, East Germany 1975, saw
12 Iladl 'i'xb2!? 13 Abl 'iVa3 14
Axb7 l:tfb8 15 J:tfbl Axb7 16
Axb7, and now 16 ... ~d7 was best
with chances for both sides)
12 ...axb6 13 f4*:fc8 14 b3 b5! 15
cxb5 ~xe4!? (possibly better was
15 ...~d7) 16 ~xe4 i.d4+ 17 ~hl
i.xal 18 lhal, as in Matulovic-
Jansa, Vrsac 1979, and here, ac-
cording to Jansa,. Black should
have c~ntinued 18 ...~xb3 19 ~c3
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenitize Variation 153
d5 20 ~f3 ~xa2!?
11 1tb6
This is probably the best, but
other moves are of interest too:
a) ll...a6 12 a4 (12 .i.d2!? bS?
13 cxbS axbS 14 .i.xbS .i.xa2 IS
ttJxa2 %lxa2 16 .i.c4 %la8 17 b4 was
clearly better for White in
Korchnoi-Benko; Curacao ct 1962,
but 12 ...bS? was a mistake, which
should be replaced by 12... ttJd7)
12 ... %lc8 13 b3 ttJd7 14 ttJdS l:te8
IS ttJf4 ttJf8 16 ttJxe6 ttJxe6 17
~g4 %lc6 18 .i.xe6 fxe6 19 'ii'h3
'ii'c8 20 ~e3 eS 21 'ii'xc8 %lexc8
with a drawn ending, Vehi-
Antunes, Platja d'Aro 1994.
b) 11.. ....aS (this looks a little
odd, as White nearly always devel-
ops his bishop to d2, which will
force the black queen to move
somewhere else, but Black equal-
ises easily enough in this game) 12
~d2 %lfc8 13 ttJdS "'d8 14 .i.c3
bS! IS .i.xf6 ~xf6 16 ttJxf6+ exf6
17 cxbS .i.xa2 18 %lbcl 1i'b6 19
'ii'xb6 axb6 20 %lc6 %lab8 21 %lal
~e6 with equality, Pierrot-Sorokin,
Buenos Aires 1994.
c) 11...ttJd7 12 ttJdS (or 12 ~d2
ifb6 13 ttJd5 .i.xd5 14 exdS ~d4
IS .g3 as 16 b3 ttJcS 17 "'g4
~g7 18 <bhl fS 19 "'f3
Wojtkiewicz-Gdanski, Budapest zt
Ih-Ih
1993) 12 ...~xdS 13 exdS as 14 b3
(14 'ii'xb6 ttJxb6 IS .i.e3 is possi-
bly stronger; endings with a weak
pawn on as and the queens ex-
changed usually favour White)
14......c7 IS ~b2 ~f6 16 l:tfel
%lfe8 17 ~fl "'cS 18 'ii'h3 ttJeS 19
a4 hS 20 'ii'g3 ttJd7 21 h3 .i.xb2 22
l:bb2 "'d4 23 %lbe2 "'f6 24 %le3
ttJcS with equality, Komeev-
Sorokin, Russian ch 1996.
12 "d3
After this move Black has to be
careful not to be pushed off the
board. In Eingom-Malisauskas,
Debrecen 1992, White allowed the
queen exchange, and soon after
most of the remaining pieces de-
parted: 12 b3 %lfc8 13 a4 (White
can still transpose back to our main
game with 13 .d3) 13 ...•xe3 14
~xe3 ttJd7 IS ttJd5 .i.xd5 16 cxdS
%lc2 17 .i.bS ttJf6 18 llfcl l:txcl+
19 %lxcl ttJxe4 20 l:tc7 a6 21 l:txe7
axbS 22 %lxe4 bxa4 23 %lxa4 %lxa4
24 bxa4 fS and soon drawn.
12 l:tfc8
13 b3 a6
13 ......d8?! is both unnecessary
and too passive. After 14 ~gS a6
IS a4 ttJd7 16 ttJdS ~xdS 17 exdS
~f6 18 h4 "'f8 19 .e3 as 20 ~g4
White has a clear advantage,
M.Miiller-Herbrechtsmeier, Ger-
man Bundesliga 1993/94.
14 .i.e3 "as
15 ~d2
Or IS ~d4 bS! 16 cxbS axbS 17
.xbS "'xbS 18 ~xbS ttJxe4 19
iLxg7 ttJxc3 20 .i.xc3 l:txc3, when
Black cannot be worse.
15 'ii'b6
Once again ..."d8 is uncalled
for. In Komeev-Antunes, Benasque
154 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

1996, White soon dominated due to passive, joyless position.

his massive space advantage: 9 0-0
IS .....d8 16 a4 ttJd7 17 ttJdS ttJcS 10 'iIId2
18 'iIIe3 as 19 f4 ~d7 20 ~c3 Also posSible is 10 "d3, when
~xc3 21 ttJxc3, when Black is 10... ~e6 11 0-0 transposes to 9 0-0
without counterplay and can only 0-0 10 "d3 ~e6 11 ~e3 (see the
wait miserably for White to finish notes to Game 62).
him off. 10 ~e6
16 ~hl ~d7 This is almost exclusively
17 f4 ~c6 played, but a few other moves have
18 :tbe1 ttJd7 been tried. Most of these merely
19 ~g4 e6 transpose, but 1O...a6!? is interest-
20 ~f3 ing. Of course, with 11 l:lcl or 11
f3 White can aim to transpose into
Game 65 the main lines, but in Yudasin-
Ivan~nuf(:Anand Antunes, Seville 1993, White ex-
Buenos Aires 1994 plored another path: 11 0-0 'iIIaS!?
(ll...iLe6 is the main line) 12 a3!?
(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 (12 ttJdS 'iIIxd2 13 ttJxe7+ ~h8 14
ttJxd4 g6 5 c4 ttJf6 6 ttJc3 d6 7 ~d2 lUxe4 is okay for Black and
~e2 ttJxd4 8 'iIIxd4 ~g7) 12 f3 is another way to transpose to
the main line) 12 ... ~e6 13 b4 'iIId8!
9 ~e3 14 :tabl (on 14 :tac1, Yudasin
gives 14...:tc8 IS cS dxcS 16 'iIIxd8
l:lfxd8 17 bxcS lUg4 18 ~xg4
~xg4 19 ttJdS ~fS with equal
chances) 14 ...bS?! IS cxbS axbS 16
~xbS l:lxa3 17 ~d4 'iIIa8 18 ~d3!
:tc8 19 rUcl with a small but clear
advantage for White. But according
to Yudasin, Black has better. After
14... l:tc8! he gives the following
analysis: IS cS dxcS 16 'iIIxd8
:tfxd8 17 bxcS (17 ~xcS? ttJd7!)
17 ... bS! 18 cxb6!? (18 l:lfc1 or 18
a4 are both equal) 18 ... l:txc3 19 b7
ttJd7 20 ~xa6 :txa3 (20 ... iLeS!) 21
This move used to be considered ~bS lUb8 22 :tfdl l:tfS 23 ~cS
quite harmless, and was (and, by with unclear play.
the way, still is!) a perfect remedy 11 0-0
if White wanted to bore his oppo- For 11 f3, see Game 67. 11 :tel
nent or get a quick draw. But in is also sometimes played, and can
recent years, players like Ivanchuk be quite tricky for Black if he is not
have come up with new ideas for careful. Best is 11. ..a6 and then 12
White, and Black therefore has to f3 (12 0-0 can be found in the next
be alert, so as not to end up in a main game) and now:
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 155
a) This may look like a nonnal
position in the 9 i.e3 system, but if
Black continues with the standard
12 .....aS?!, he soon finds himself
in difficulty after 13 lLldS! Dvoiris-
Tiviakov, Podolsk 1993, continued
13 .....xd2+ (unlike in the 7 f3
system, 13 .....xa2 does not work,
as White has a bishop on e2 and
therefore the pin themes on the e-
file do not exist; Ibragimov-Khasin,
Gorky 19S9, ended quickly after 14
lLlxe7+ ~hS IS 0-0 'iWb3 16 i.dl
"a2 17 i.d4 ':feS IS lLldS i.xdS
19 exdS lLlhS 20 i.xg7+ lLlxg7 21
Wc3 and Black resigned, since his
queen is lost after 22 i.b3) 14
lfrxd2 i.xdS IS cxdS ':fcS 16 b4
(also interesting is 16 g4, when
after 16... e6 17 gS lLlhS!?, White
decided to sacrifice a pawn with 18
dxe6 fxe6 19 f4 i.xb2 20 ':xcS+
lIxcS 21 ':b 1 i.c3+ 22 'iti>d3 bS 23
:tc1 b4 24 fS dS 2S f6, when Black
has plenty of problems, primarily
due to his poor minor pieces and
White's passed pawn on f6, Ad-
ams-Hodgson, Hastings 1991/92)
16 ... lLld7 17 a4 'iti>f8 IS as i.b2 19
l:tc2 l:txc2+ 20 ~xc2 i.f6 21 <l;Ib3
lIcS 22 lIc1 l:bc1 23 i.xc1 i.d4
24 f4 hS 2S h3 ~eS 26 i.d2 <l;Id8
27 <i>c4 i.b2 2S i.e3, and with the
bishop pair and a huge space ad-
vantage, White was much better in
the endgame, which he went on to
win in beautiful style.
b) Instead of 12 .. :ifaS?!, Black
has had some success with 12 .. J:tcS
13 b3 bS!? After 14 cxbS axbS IS
lLlxbS :xc1+ 16 "xcI "as+ 17
Wd2 :a8 an interesting position
has arisen.
b1) 18 "x as does not worry
Black: lS ... ':xaS 19 lLlc3 lLld7 20
lLla4 lLlcs 21 i.d2 :taS! 22 i.d1
lLlxa4 23 bxa4 i.xa2 24 as i.d4 2S
i.e2 lIbS 26 i.d3 :b2 27 :f1 i.b3
1/2- 1/2 Shaked-Burtman, Las Vegas
1993.
b2) Of interest is IS lLlc3, but
after ls ... lLlg4! 19 i.xd4 i.xd4 20
"xd4 ':cS 21 ~d2 (this position is
almost identical to the game
Frolov-Tangbom, which can be
found in the lines with 9 i.gS
[Game 70] the only difference be-
ing the position of the black h-
pawn, which in that game was on
h6) Black now has 21.....gS+! (in
the above-mentioned game Black
played 21...l:txc3? and lost) 22 ~c2
lLle3+ 23 ~b2 "xg2 24 :tel
(otherwise Black will play
24 ... l:txc3 and 2S .....xe2) 24 .....f2
2S "d2 d5 with a good game for
Black.
b3) Somewhat more problematic
156 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
seems IS a3, transposing to Game
70, with the slight difference that
the white bishop is on gS instead of
e3.
12 :labl!?
The alternatives are 12 :'ac 1,
which can be found in the next
main game, and 12 :lfcl and 12 f3,
which we shall cover now:
a) 12 Afc1!? was first tried in
Psakhis-Alterman, Israel 1996.
Now 12 ... :lfcS 13 b3 a6 (13 ...bS!?)
14 a4 is slightly better for White,
and 14 :'ab 1 transposes to this
main game, but Alterman wanted
to play differently: 12 ... ttJxe4!? (an
interesting approach) 13 ttJxe4
"'xd2 14 ttJxd2 i.xb2 IS i.f3.
Here Black went wrong with
IS ... i.xel?, and after 16 :lxcl
:lacS 17 i.xb7 :'c7 IS i.f3 :lbS 19
i.dl! White was clearly better.
Instead of IS ... i.xc 1?, Psakhis
suggests IS ...l:lfbS 16 ttJb3 i.xal
17 ttJxal i.d7 IS cS with chances
for both sides.
b) 12 f3 is possible (this position
usually arises after 11 f3 "as 12
0-0, but it does not make a whole
lot of difference) and here Black
has two options, both of which lead
to equality:
bl) 12 ... a6 13 .:tfdl lUcS 14
ttJdS "'xd2 IS :'xd2 ttJxdS 16 exdS
i.d7 17 a4 e6 IS as exdS 19 cxdS
i.eS 20 f4 i.f6 with equal chances
in the endgame, Blanco-Antunes,
Havana 1994.
b2) 12 ...:lfcS 13 :'fel (or 13 b3
a6 14 :'fcl bS IS cxbS axbS 16
i.d4 b4 17 ttJa4 ttJd7 IS i.xg7
~xg7 112-112 Witke-Detter, Graz
19S7) and now:
b21) 13 ...i.xc4?! 14 ttJdS "'xd2
IS ttJxe7+! ~f8 16 i.xd2 ~xe7 17
i.xc4 ttJd7 IS i.gS+ with an edge
for White in the endgame.
b22) 13... ttJd7 14 l:abl i.xc4 IS
ttJdS "'xd2 16 ttJxe7+ ~f8 17
i.xd2 i.d4+ (with 13 ... ttJd7 and 14
:labl inserted, Black plays more
actively, as the knight is away from
the al-hS diagonal; White achieved
a very small edge in the game
Am.Rodriguez-Minzer, 1997, after
the less accurate 17 .. .'ii;xe7 IS
i.xc4 :'c6 [1S ... i.d4+!] 19 i.b3
:lacS 20 :Xc6 :'xc6 21 :'el :'xel +
22 i.xcl) 18 c;t>hl ~xe7 19 i.xc4
ttJb6 20 i.b3 :lxel+ 21 :'xcl :lc8
22 :lxcS ttJxcS with an equal end-
ing, Aseev-Vokarev, Russian ch
1996.
b23) 13 ...a6 14 :'abl ~S!?
(14 ......d8 transposes to the note
after Black's 13th move in the
main game) IS b4 "'d8 16 cS "'d7
17 cxd6 "'xd6 IS "'xd6 exd6 1/2- 112
Am.Rodriguez-Antunes, Mondariz
1994. This looks quite simple for
Black, but in Kramnik-Anand, Am-
sterdam 1996, Black instead tried
14...l:abS?!, when after IS b4 "'d8
16 cS as! 17 a3 axb4 IS axb4 :as
19 i.f1 hS 20 "'el lLleS 21 ~hl
~ White could have maintained a
slight edge with 22 i.g 1, but chose
 Maroc'q Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 157
instead 22 ttJdS, after which Black
equalised with 22 ... i.xdS 23 exdS
dxcS 24 bxcS 'iWxdS 2S :tdl 'it'eS
26 :d 1 ':xcS! and much later (on
move 108!) went on to win the
game.
12 ':fc8
On 12 ... ttJg4, Ivanchuk gives the
following analysis: 13 ttJdS (13
i.d4 i.xd4 14 'iWxd4 "'eS IS "'xeS
ttJxeS with equality or 13 b4 i.xc3!
14 "'xc3 "'e5 IS "'xeS tZ.'lxeS with
an unclear position) 13 ......xd2 14
i.xd2 i.xdS IS cxdS ttJf6 16 f3
:fc8 17 :fc 1 with a slight advan-
tage for White.
13 b3
13 b4 looks quite logical, but
Black gets a good game after
13 ......d8 14 cS as IS a3 axb4 16
axb4 :a3 17 ttJbS :a2 18 "'d3 dS!,
as in Hanel-Stefansson, Vienna
1991.
13 tZ.'ld7
Several other moves have also
been tried in this position:
a) 13 ...bS? 14 b4 "'c7 IS eS! (1S
ttJxb5?! 'ii'b7 is slightly better for
Black, but 15 c5 a6 16 :tfel dxc5
17 i.xc5 tZ.'ld7 18 tZ.'ld5 i.xdS 19
exd5 tZ.'lxc5 20 bxc5 favours White,
Arsovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslavia
1997) IS ... dxeS 16 ttJxbS 'ii'b7 17
:fcl :td8 18 lIel ttJg4 19 i.cS e4
20 i.xg4 i.xg4 21 ttJc3 i.fS 22
ttJdS :d7 23 i.e3 with advantage
to White, Ivanchuk-Kovacevic,
Belgrade 1997.
b) 13 ... ttJg4 14 JQd5l? (Ivan-
chuk's 14 i.d4 i.xd4 15 "'xd4 did
not give White anything in the
game Korneev-Tiviakov, Linares
1998: 15 ... lIcs 16 "'d3 ttJf6 17
~hl i.d7 18 f4 a5 19 a4?! [19 i.f3
or 19 ':bel were better] 19 ... i.c6
20 ttJdS :te8 21 ':bdl :ad8 with
approximately level chances)
14......xd2 15 i.xd2 ';;'fS 16 i.gS!
(16 i.xg4 i.xg4 17 i.gS f6 is
equal) 16...ttJf6! (16 .. .f6?! is too
passive: 17 i.d2 ttJeS 18 f4 ttJc6 19
f5 i.f7 20 g4 ttJeS 21 ':bcl i.xdS
22 exdS ~f7 23 i.e3 b6 24 h4, and
White holds the advantage due to
his space advantage and bishop
pair, Gelfand-Andersson, Polanica
Zdroj 1997) 17 ttJxf6 i.xf6 18
i.xf6 exf6 19 ':bdl ~e7 20 f4 ':c5
21 ':d4 a5 22 :tfdl :a6 with a
drawn endgame, Tischbierek-Van
der Weide, Berlin 1997.
c) 13... a6 (this is probably
Black's best choice, as White has
yet to show a clear path to an ad-
vantage) 14 ':fcl and here we have
another divergence:
el) 14... bS?! IS b4! "'d8 16
cxb5 axb5 17 i.xb5 with a clear
plus for White - Ivanchuk.
c2) 14...'ii'b4 IS a3!? (the natural
IS f3 is good for Black: 15 ... bS! 16
cxbS axb5 17 a4 ':xc3! 18 ':xc3
ttJdS 19 ':d3 ttJc3 20 ':cl ttJxe2+
21 "'xe2 bxa4 22 bxa4 i.c4 23
"'d2 "'xa4 24 "'dl i.b2 2S "'xa4
ltxa4 26 ':bl i.xd3 27 :xb2 with
a extra pawn for Black in the end-
ing, Lopez-Nanu, Szeged 1998)
158 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

IS ... 'ii'aS (not IS ... 'ii'xa3?? 16 :al 15 ltJd5 ltJc5

'iib4 17 :a4 'ii'xb3 IS .i.dl! and 16 i.f3 as
wins) 16 b4 'ii'xa3? (Black is play- 17 h4!
ing to win, but gets too optimistic With the queenside and the cen-
in the process; correct was tre under control, Ivanchuk feels it
16 ...'ii'dS 17 cS dxcS IS 'ii'xdS+ is time for a kingside attack. If now
:xdS 19 .i.xcs 1:d7 with a slight 17 ...hS, then IS i.gS i.xdS 19
edge for White) 17 :al 'ii'xb4 IS exdS i.f6 20 l::tel with a clear ad-
1:a4 ltJxe4 19 l:f.xb4 ltJxd2 20 vantage for White .
.i.xd2 l:f.c7 21 ltJa4! .i.d4 22 i.f3 17 i.xd5
l:f.bS 23 cS i.xcS 24 dxcS dxcS 2S 18 exd5 'ii'd7
:bbl and White was winning in 19 'ii'e2!? l::te8
Al.David-Antunes, Yerevan 01 Also possible is 19 ... hS, when
1996. Ivanchuk intended to break up the

~h7 17 ltJe2 "f8

c3) 14.....dS IS f3 hS!? 16 i.fl
IS ltJd4 i.d7 19
i.gS l::tcs 20 l::tel as 21 a3 l::tacS 22
b4 axb4 23 axb4 :Sc7 24 f4?! eS!
2S ltJf3 i.c6 with an initiative for
Black, as played in M.Kaminski-
Kveinys, Krynica 1997.
c4) 14...llabS!? IS f3 ~fS 16
i.fl 'ii'b4! (with the bishop now on
fl, it is not quite as easy to take
advantage of this move, e.g. 17
a3?! 'iVxa3 IS :al 1i'b4 19 :a4
'ii'xb3 20 l:f.bl ltJxe4 21 l::txb3
ltJxd2 22 i.xd2 bS 23 l::txa6 bxc4
24 lhbS i.d4+ 2S 'it>h 1 l::txbS and
Black is better - Donaldson) 17
l:tc2 bS! IS a3 'ii'xa3 19ltJxbS axbS
20 :a2 'ii'xa2 21 1i'xa2 bxc4 22
bxc4, as in De Firmian-Donaldson,
Philadelphia 1997, and now
22 ... 1:xbl 23 1i'xbl i.xc4 24 i.xc4
l::txc4 is equal.
14 l::tfc1 'ii'd8?!
Ivanchuk prefers 14...a6 IS f4
llabS for Black, but in 011-
Alterman, .Krynica 1997. Black
tried something else: 14 ...1i'b4 IS
l::tc2 a6 16 :bcl 1:abS 17 f3 1i'aS
IS ltJdS 'ii'xd2 19 i.xd2 'iitf8 20
lldc2 fS 21 exfS i.xfS 22 lld2 with
a comfortable edge for White in the
endgame.
kingside with 20 g4 hxg4 21 i.xg4
fS 22 i.h3! followed by h4-hS.
20 h5 'ii'f5
21 l:[dl i.e5?!
Now Black starts to go wrong,
Correct was 2l...gxhS 22 i.xhS
ltJe4 23 'ii'd3 1i'hs 24 1i'e4 i.eS
with the better chances for White
according to Ivanchuk.
22 g4 'ii'c8
23 'it>g2 i.g7
Now White's attack starts roil-
ing.
24 l:[hlltJd7 25 hxg6 hxg6 26 l:[h4
a4 27 l:[bhl axb3 28 axb3 l:[al?
The last chance was 2S ...bS! 29
cxbS'it'c3.
29 l:[lh3 'ii'a8 30 l:[h7 'ii'al?!
The only way to continue the
game was 30... i.eS 31 i.f4 i.g7!
31 l:[xg7+ ~xg7 32 i.d4+ f6 33
'ii'e3 ltJf8 34 i.e4! ~t7 35 l:[h8!
1-0
Game 66
Shirov-Alterman
Santiago 1990
(1 e4 c5 2 ltJrJ ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 g6 5 c4 ltJf6 6 ltJc3 d6 7
i.e2 ltJxd4 8 'ii'xd4 i.g7 9 i.e3
0-0 10 'ii'd2 i.e6 11 0-0 'ii'aS)
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 159
12 l:.ac1
12 l:.fc8!?
This used to be considered a
mistake, but now it seems that
Black actually is doing okay here,
particularly considering that Anand
used this move to win against Ivan-
chuk. Conventional wisdom was
that Black should not play .. .l:1fc8
while White can still play f2-f4-f5.
For the more cautious player, we
can recommend 12 ... a6!?, which
objectively speaking is probably
best, when White has tried:
a) 13 a3!? l:.fc8?! (this leaves
Black in a passive position, so we
recommend 13 ... ttJd7!, stopping
White's b2-b4 ideas, when with
... l:tfc8 and ... ttJe5 to come, Black
can apply pressure on the white
queenside, which White was kind
enough to weaken with 13 a3) 14
b4 "dS (14 ... 'ifxa3 is a little too
adventurous after 14 :al 'ifxb4 15
l:ta4 'ii'b3 16 i.dl! with a clear
edge for White) 15 c5 dxc5 16
'ifxd8+ ':'xdS 17 i.xc5 c;Pf8 18 f4
ttJd7 19 i.e3 l:tac8 20 e5 i.c4 21
i.xc4 ':'xc4 22 ttJa4 with a clear
advantage for White, Diaz Joaquin-
Andres, Camaguey 1987.
b) 13 f4 b5! 14 cxb5 axb5 15
b4? (this allows Black to get on
top; equal was 15 f5 b4 16 fxe6
bxc3 17 exf7+ c;Ph8 18 'ifxc3 'ifxc3
19 bxc3 ttJxe4 20 i.d4) 15 ... 'ifxb4
16 l:bl 'W'a3 17 l:xb5 l:tfc8 18 i.d4
':'xc3 19 'W'xc3 ttJxe4 20 l:bS+
:'xbS 21 'W'xa3 i.xd4+ 22 ~hl
ttJf2+ 23 l:.xf2 i.xf2 with a clear
advantage for Black, Cardoso-
Adorjan, Lanzarote 1975.
c) 13 f3 l:.fc8 14 ttJd5?! (better
is 14 b3, transposing to a position
considered in note 'b' to White's
14th move in the next game)
14... 'ifxd2 15 i.xd2 ttJxd5 16 cxd5
(16 exd5 .if5 17 b3 i.d4+ IS c;Phl
i.b2 is also comfortable for Black)
16... i.d7 17 b3 i.d4+ 18 ~hl i.b2
(although it does not seem as if
White has done anything drasti-
cally wrong, he is already in deep
trouble) 19 l:c4 i.b5 20 l:txcS+
l:xcS 21 i.xb5 axb5 22 a4 :tc2 23
i.h6 b4 24 i.e3 :te2 25 i.b6 i.c3
26 ~gl :tb2 27 l:.dl f5 and Black
went on to win, Fishbein-Alterman,
Beersheva 1991.
13 b3 a6
14 f4
This used to be considered the
refutation of Black's move order. It
is certainly quite logical to take
160 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
advantage of Black's slow, queen-
side-oriented play. Other moves do
not pose' Black any problems. A
few examples are:
a) 14 a4 tLld7 IS i..d4 i..xd4 16
'ii'xd4 'ifb4 17 l:tbl tLlcs 18 'ife3
'ifb6 19 as 112_112 Vadasz-Leko,
Budapest 1993.
b) 14 i..f3l:tc7 IS tLldS 'ii'xd2 16
i..xd2 i..xdS 17 cxdS l:tac8 18
l:txc7 :xc7 19 l:tcl l:txc1 20..l1i.xc1
tLlcs with a level endgame, as in
the game K.Miiller-Brunner, Alten-
steig 1992.
c) 14 f3 hS transposing to note
'b' to White's 14th move in the
next main game.
14 bS
Reshevsky once tried 14 ... i..g4
against a young Fischer, but White
had the better position after IS
i..d3 i..d7 16 h3 i..c6 17 'ii'f2 tLld7
18 ttJdS i..xdS 19 exdS bS 20 :fe 1
tLlcS 21 i..b 1 bxc4 22 lhc4,
Fischer-Reshevsky, Los Angeles
1961.
15 f5 i..d7
The alternatives are not worth
trying for Black:
a) IS ... b4? 16 fxe6 bxc3 17
exf7+ ~f8 18 'ifc2 'ii'eS 19 i..f3
with a clear plus for White,
Sham kovich-Kagan, Netanya 1975
b) IS ... gxfS? 16 exfS i..d7 17
i..d4 bxc4 18 i..xc4, also with a
clear edge for White, Lengye1-
Matanovic, Budapest 1964.
16 fxg6
The position after Black's ISth
move is a key one in this line.
White has tried a number of things,
but the only move with which he
has managed to obtain an advan-
tage is the text continuation. Before
we continue let us take a look at
some of White's alternatives:
a) 16 i..d4?! tLlxe4 17 'ii'e3
tLlxc3 18 l:txc3 i..xd4 19 'ii'xd4 eS
20 'ii'd2 'i'd8 112-112 Bobotsov-Hort,
Kapfenberg 1970.
b) 16 i..gS?! l:tcS 17 i..e3 l:tc7
18 c5 l:tac8 19 l:tc2 l:txcS! with
better chances for Black, De Fir-
mian-Strauss, Los Angeles 1992.
c) 16 b4?! 'ii'xb4 17 eS dxeS 18
fxg6 i..e6 (White was threatening
19 l:txf6 followed by 'ii'xd7) 19
gxf7+ i..xf7 20 i..h6 i..xh6 21
'ii'xh6 i..xc4 22 'ii'gS+ ~h8 23
l:txf6 l:tg8! and Black was winning,
Ivanchuk-Anand, Moscow 1994.
d) 16 g4!? (an untried, yet inter-
esting suggestion of Shamkovich's)
16 ... b4 (or 16... bxc4 17 gS) 17
tLldS tLlxe4? 18 'i'c2 wins for
White. We believe that the best
way for Black to meet 16 g4 is by
playing 16 ...i..c6!? , maintaining
control over the important dS-
square even when the black knight
is pushed away with g4-gS. Both
sides have chances.
16 hxg6
17 cS!?
This is the only way to play for
an advantage, although 17 eS?! has
been tried quite frequently: 17 ... b4!
18 exf6 bxc3 19 l:txc3 i..xf6 20
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 161

':xf6 (if White moves the c3-rook, d6 exd6 22 'ii'xd6. Black is badly
Black will exchange the queens and co-ordinated and he has difficulties
have a slightly better endgame; defending himself against the threat
with 20 ':xf6 White aims for an 23 "xg6, e.g. 22 ...':c6 23 .ixf7+.
attack, but Black's defensive re- IS .if3 dxe5
sources are perfectly adequate) 19 e5 lDd7!
20 ... exf6 21 .if3 .ic6 22 .id4 In the stem game of this line,
.ixf3 23 "'f4 'ii'g5 24 'ii'xf3 l:le8 Parma tried 19... lDg4?, but after 20
and although Black has a small .ixa8 .ixe5 21 .id5 lDxe3 22
advantage, the game soon ended in
a draw in Spassky-Panno, Palma de
.ixe6 ':d8 23 "'£2 lDf5 24 'ii'e2
.id4+ 25 lithl he was lost. The
Mallorca 1969. game was soon over: 25 .. .fxe6 26
"'xe6+ ~g7 27 lDe4 'ii'c7 28 lDg5
':f8 29 "'xf5 1-0 Tal-Panna, Bled
1961.
20 .ixaS :'xaS
21 'ii'e2 e4
Black already has a pawn for the
exchange, and the white e-pawn
does not have a very promising
future. Therefore White has only
one thing left to do if he does not
want to die slowly: attack!
22 bxc4 .ixe4
23 'ii'f3 ':f8
24 lDdS .ixd5
17 .ie6! 25 'ii'xd5 lDxe5
In Vitolins-Telman, Kiev 1967, 26 .ie5 :'dS
Black soon got into trouble after To be considered was 26... 'ii'c7,
17 ... dxc5? 18 e5 lDg4 19 .if3 but it seems as if both parties were
lDxe3 20 'ii'xe3 l:a7 21 lDd5 .ie6 happy with the draw that is coming
22 :'xc5 :d8? (22 ...:'xc5 23 "xc5 up after the text move. The game
':d7 24 lDxe7+ ~h8 25 lDc6 'ii'd2, concluded:
although White is still better) 23 27 "'7 'ii'xal 2S .ixe7 :'eS 29
l:lc6 :ad7 24 :'xe6! fxe6 25 .ig4! ':eS ':xeS 30 'ii'xeS+ ~h7 31 'ii'h3
with a murderous attack. ~gS 32 'ii'eS+ ~h7 lIz-liz
ECO's suggestion of 17... h4!?
was tried out in Miiki-Frois, Thes- Game 67
saloniki 01 1984: 18lDd5 lDxd5 19 Short-Korchnoi
exd5 dxc5 20 .ic4 :'f8 21 a4 'ii'b6 Lucerne 1997
22 "£2 :'ac8 23 d6! e6 24 :'cdl
'ii'c6 25 1fh4 f5 26 :'f3 and White (1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 1Dc6 3 d4 exd4 4
had the clearly better chances. lDxd4 g6 5 e4 lDf6 6 lDe3 d6 7
Donaldson suggests 20....ie8 as an .ie2 lDxd4 S 'ii'xd4 .ig7 9 .ie3
improvement, but we believe that 0-0 10 'ii'd2 .ie6)
White has all the chances after 21
162 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
11 f3 "'as
A rare alternative is 11...a6!?
After 12 b3 "'a5 we would be back
in the main line, but if White plays
12 lIcl !?, hoping for 12 .....a5 13
tLld5!, Black can give 12 ...b5!? a
try, with two possibilities:
a) The critical test may be 13
cxb5 axb5 14 a3, when Donaldson
now gives 14 ... tbd7 15 tbxb5 tbc5
16 ~xc5 dxc5 with some compen-
sation for the pawn. With two
strong bishops and pressure against
the queenside, Black should be
alright, e.g. 17 'ii'xdS AfxdS IS
tbc7 ~xb2 19 lIc2 :xa3!
b) In Pimenta-Khenkin, Geneva
1994, White played more cau-
tiously: 13 tbd5 bxc4 14 tbxf6+
~xf6 15 ~xc4 lIc8! (Black strives
to create some imbalance; the nor-
mal 15 ... ~xc4?! 16 lIxc4 :c8 led
to an equal endgame in Braga-
Tsuboi, Sao Paulo 1991: 17 lIxc8
'ii'xc8 IS 0-0 'ii'b7 19 b3 :c8 20
:cl Ac6 21 Axc6 'ii'xc6) 16 ~xe6
:xc1+ 17 "xcI fxe6 18 "d2?!
(better was 18 0-0) IS ...d5 19 b3
'ii'd6 20 0-0 d4 21 ~h6 :c8 22
:cI :xcl+ 23 'ii'xcI ~ 24 i.f4
~e5 26 ~xe5 'ii'xe5 27 'ii'c4 'ii'd6
27 ~f2 d3 2S e5 'ii'b6+ 29 'i.tfl
"e3 30 'ii'e4 'ii'cl+ 31 ~f2 d2 0-1.
12 :d
Less challenging are 12 tbd5
"xd2+ 13 cJ;lxd2 tbxd5 14 cxd5
.i.d7 15 :ac 1 :fcS 16 :xcS+ :'xc8
17 :'cl :xcI IS cJ;lxcl a6 1/2- 112
Przewoznik-Malisauskas, Mikola-
jki 1991, and 12 tbb5 'ii'xd2+ 13
~xd2 tLJd7 14 :abl tLJe5 15 :bel
:'fcS 16 b3 tLJc6 17 f4 f5 IS ~f3
fxe4 19 ~xe4 ~f5 with a good
game, Botvinnik-Matulovic, Bel-
grade 1970.
12 :fc8
13 b3
Nor does 13 tbd5 promise any-
thing: 13 .....xd2+ 14 ~xd2 tLJxd5
15 exd5 ~d7 16 f4 a6 17 b4 a5 IS
b5 ~b2 19 :'c2 ~a3 20 ~d3 ~c5
with equal chances, A.Sokolov-
Velimirovic, Bar 1997.
13 a6
This is pretty much the standard
continuation, but other moves are
also sufficient for equality:
a) 13 ... tLld7 14 0-0 a6 15 :fdl
b5 16 tbd5 'ii'xd2 17 :xd2 ~xdS
IS lIxd5 b4 19 g4 tbc5 20 :cdl as
21 ~xc5 1/2- 1/2 Larsen-Panno, Bue-
nos Aires 1991.
b) 13 ...:abS 14 tba4 'ii'xd2+ 15
~xd2 ~d7 16 tbc3 a6 17 a4 b6 18
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 163
g4 i.e8 19 tL\d5 112_112 Kavalek-
Christiansen, Wijk aan Zee 1982.
14 tL\a4!?
This is White's only real try for
an advantage, but with the bishop
on e3, Black does not really have
too much to worry about, as he can
now move his knight to d7 to cover
the b6-square.
Apart from 14 tL\a4, White has
three other moves at his disposal.
None of these are very ambitious
and Black equalises without too
much difficulty against each of
them:
a) 14 tL\dS (this leads to mass
exchanges) 14...'ii'xd2+ 15 'it>xd2
tL\xd5 16 cxdS i.d7 17 ltxc8+
ltxc8 18 ltc 1 ltxc 1 19 <bxel <bfS
20 i.b6 (or 20 'i&i>c2 e6 1/2- 112 Petro-
sian-Fischer, Buenos Aires 1970)
20 ... e6 21 i.d4 'i&i>e7 22 'it>c2 i.e5
23 h3 ~d5 24 i.xd5 i.c6 25 i.xc6
bxc6 ~. 'i&i>g3 i.c3 with a very
drawn ending, Dorfman-Gdanski,
Polanica Zdroj 1993.
b) 14 0-0 (this allows Black to
play ... b7-b5, and is therefore the
only line in which Black can hope
for an advantage!) 14...b5 and now
we have:
b 1) Of course, there is still 15
tL\dS, but with the king away from
the centre, White cannot hope for
any advantage: 15 ... 'ii'xd2 16 i.xd2
tL\xd5 17 cxd5 i.d4+ 18 ~hl i.d7
19 l:lxc8+ ltxc8 20 :tel 1/2- 112
Tsarev-Zhachev, Moscow 1988.
b2) Worse is 15 cxb5?! axb5 16
ltc2? ltxc3 17 1Wxc3 'ii'xc3 18
':xc3 lha2 19 i.xb5 tL\g4 20 fxg4
i.xc3 with a nightmare ending for
White, whose pawns are horribly
weak, Sherzer-Honfi, Hungary
1988.
b3) 15 tL\bl b4! and:
b31) 16 :fd 1 has been tried, but
Black was .slightly better after
16...lhb8 17 h3 tL\d7 18 i.f1 'ii'c7
19 1Wf2 tL\c5 20 tL\d2 a5, Buza-
Marasescu, Romania 1988.
b32) Boleslavsky gives 16 a3
ltab8 17 i.f2 tL\d7 18 'i&i>hl tL\e5 19
i.e 1 tL\c6 with an edge for Black.
b33) 16 ~hl (White has actually
managed to pull off a few wins
with this move, but only after weak
play by Black) 16... ltab8 17 i.d4
tL\d7 18 i.xg7 ~xg7 19 f4 f6 20
'ii'b2 1Wc5 21 l:lcdl ltc7 22 ltd3 a5
and Black had nothing to worry
about, Zelcic-Korholz, Cannes
1993.
c) 14 a4!? (by preventing ...b7-
b5 and gaining some more space on
the queenside, White prepares for
the ending that he eventually will
force by playing tL\d5; however,
the inclusion of a2-a4 does not
change the picture a great deal, the
likely result is still a draw)
14... tL\d7!? 15 tL\dS 'ii'xd2+ (an
interesting option is 15 ...'ii'd8!?,
when Herrera and Alzugaray give
the following line: 16 a5 i.xd5 17
exd5 b6 18 axb6 tL\xb6 19 b4 a5 20
bxa5 tL\d7, intending ...tL\c5 and
...1Wxa5 with a good game for
Black) 16 ~xd2 i.xdS 17 exd5 (in
Vukcevic-Drimer, Leningrad 1960,
164 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
White obtained an advantage after
17 cxd5 ~f8 18 b4 i..b2 19 Ac2
l'hc2+ 20 c,txc2 i..g7 21 ~b3 :'c8
22 l:cl, but we think that Black
can improve on his play by playing
17 ... i..b2 instead of 17 ... ~f8; the
idea is to transfer the bishop to b4
via a3, or possibly to exchange off
the dark-squared bishops, leaving
Black with a good knight versus
bad bishop) 17 ... a5 18 ~c2 :'e8 19
l:hel e6 1/2- 112 Dochev-Delchev,
Sofia 1994.
14
15 ~xd2
16 g4!?
White's most popular and dan-
gerous option. The alternatives
have proven quite easy for Black to
handle:
a) 16 ~c3 ~f6 17 ~d5 ~xd5
18 cxd5 i..d7 19 :txc8+ :'xc8 20
:'el :'xel 21 ~xcl f5 112-112
Spassky-Sosonko, Tilburg 1981.
b) 16 :'c2 Ac6 (also good is
16...f5 17 i..d3 <M7 18 ~b6 ~xb6
19 axb6 112_112 Chessman-Malisaus-
kas, Norilsk 1987) 17 ~c3 a5 18
:'hcl ~c5 1/2- 1/2 Panno-Reshevsky,
Siegen 01 1970.
c) 16 Ahdl f5 (or 16... Acb8 17
c5 dxc5 18 ~xc5 ~xc5 19 :'xc5
:'d8+ 20 ~el :'xdl+ 21 ~xdl
:'c8 with equality, Hort-Vasiukov,
Wijk aan Zee 1973) 17 exf5 gxf5
18 'iti>el Wf7 19 ~c3 i..xc3 20
:'xc3 b5 21 g4 fxg4 22 fxg4 bxc4
23 bxc4 li'le5 24 :'d4 l:.ab8 25 :tb3
:a8 26 :'c3 :lab8 27 :'b3 :a8
1/2_ 1/2 Kir.Georgiev-Tiviakov, Gro-
ningen 1994.
d) 16 h4!? f5 (16 ... llab8!?) 17
exf5 gxf5 18 i..d3 Aab8! 19 ~c3
~c5 20 ~d5?! (20 i..bl!?, keeping
the bishop and maintaining the
pressure on Black's kingside, was a
better idea) 20 ... ~ 21 g4 ~xd3
22 ~xd3 b5 23 ~f4 bxc4+ 24 bxc4
i..d7 with a very comfortable end-
game for Black, Vaisser-Antunes,
Tilburg 1994.
Both players must be aware of
the fact that often the positions
analysed above, in which Black
plays ... f7-f5, also arise from the 9
i..g5 variation: 9 i..g5 0-0 10 11M2
(or 10 "e3 i..e6 11 Acl 1ib6! 12
"d21ib4) 1O ... i..e6 11 Acl "a5.
16 1:[c6
A very popular alternative is
16... f5!? and now:
a) 17 gxf5 is harmless for Black
after 17 ... gxf5 18 Ahgl ~h8 19
~c3 fxe4 20 ~xe4 d5 21 ~g5
i..g8 22 cxd5 i..xd5 23 J:tg3 llxel
24 ~xcl ~f6 with equal chances,
Lau-Zsu.Polgar, New York 1985.
b) But 17 exf5 has caused Black
quite a few problems, although
objectively speaking, Black is do-
ing alright after 17...gxf5 18 h3 and
now:
b 1) After the slightly inaccurate
18 ...:td8 White's advantage is
barely traceable: 19 ~c3 ~f6 20
l:lhdl d5 21 cxd5 ~xd5 22 ~xd5
Ilxd5+ 23 ~el :'xdl+ 24 ~xdl
:'d8+ 25 ~el ~ 26 i..c4 i..e5 27
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 165
f4 .i.d6, W.Schmidt-Khasin, Kosz-
alin 1997, but it seems better to
leave the knight on a4, as after 19
l:thdl!? then:
bll) 19... ~f7 20 ~el fxg4 21
hxg4 h5 22 gxh5 l::th8 23 c5 d5 24
f4 lLlf6 25 c6 bxc6 26 llxc6 White
had the better ending in Skalik-
Gdanski, Polish ch 1994.
b12) If Black instead of 19 ... 'iiff7
tries 19 ... lLlf6, then 20 lLlb6 is quite
uncomfortable, because then after
20 ... d5 White no longer has to
worry about ... d5-d4, forking the
c3-knight and e3-bishop, and can
therefore can play 21 c5, threaten-
ing 22 .i.f4, when after 21..JHS 22
'iifel! fxg4 23 hxg4 l:tbdS 24 c6
White is ~l~arly better. But Black
has a co~ of other interesting
alternatives.
b13) 19 ... d5!? 20 exf5 (20 cxd5
.txd5 21 ~el .i.c6, but not 21
gxf5? lLle5) 20 ... .txf5 21 cxd5lLlf6
and in this position Black has no
problems.
b14) 19... b5!? (with the white
knight left on a4, this looks very
logical) 20 cxb5 axb5 21 lLlc3 b4
22 lLlb5 fxg4 23 hxg4 lLle5 with a
good game for Black, but 22 lLla4
is probably better.
b2) Finally, IS ... l:tfS 19 f4 (less
to the point is 19 l::thfl fxg4 20
fxg4 l:tabS 21 lLlc3lLle5 1/2- 1/2 Liss-
Donaldson, Port Erin 1997)
(see following diagram)
and now:
b21) 19 ... d5 20 cxd5 .i.xd5 21
l:thdl! l:tacS 22 gxf5 b5 23 l:txcS
l:txc8 24 ~el .tc6 25 lLlc5 lLlxc5
26 .txc5 .tf6 27 b4! with a clear
advantage for White in the end-
game, although Black managed to
save the draw in Beliavsky-
Tiviakov, Groningen 1993.
b22) 19 ... lLlf6!? 20 .:thgl lIad8
21 .tb6 lIc8 22 lLlc3, as in Ivan-
chuk-Kir.Georgiev, Belgrade 1997,
and, according to Ivanchuk, Black
could now have chosen between
22 ... d5!? 23 cxd5 lhc3 24 dxe6
lLle4+ 25 'iifdl or 22 ... fxg4 23 hxg4
d5!? 24 f5 (24 cxd5? lIxc3! or 24
g5 lLld7!) 24 ... .tf7 25 lLld5 lLlxd5
26 cxd5 .i.xd5 with chances for
both sides in each case.
b23) 19 .. J~ad8!? and now:
b231) 20 lLlc3 d5!? (Black must
stay active, as after 20 ... lLlf6 21 g5
lLle4+ 22 lLlxe4 fxe4 23 .tb6 l:td7
24 <ote3 White is much better in the
endgame) 21 g5 22 cxd5 lLlf6 23
.tb6 .:td7 24 'iife3 ':c8! 25 .tf3
(with his own king in the centre of
the action and Black's pieces very
active, White has to exercise ex-
treme caution, e.g. 25 .tc4? lId6
26 .td4 b5 27 .te2lhc3!) 25 ... e6!
26 .td4 (if 26 dxe6 then 26 .. .l:te8
27 ~f2 l:txe6 28 .te3 lId3, when
Black's active pieces compensate
for the pawn) 26 ... exd5 27 l:kgl
':e8 28 ~d2 lLle4+ 29 .txe4 dxe4
30 ':xg7+ l:bg7 31 .i.xg7 lIdS+ 32
~e2 'ii>xg7 33 lLldl l:td3 with an
equal endgame, Am.Rodriguez-
Antunes, Matanzas 1994.
b232) 20 .tf3 fxg4 21 hxg4 d5
22 cxd5 lLle5 23 .i.e4 .i.xd5 24
166 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

it.xh7+ <it>f7 25 :'h5 it.xb3+ 26 23 it.xe4 as

<it>e2 it.c4+ 27 <it>el tiJxg4 28 it.b6 24 it.bS it.xdS
:'d5 with equal chances in the end- 2S exdS l:t6e7
game, Riemersma-Van der Weide, 26 it.e6 ~g8!
Enschede 1996. Black has to play very carefully,
b233) 20 :'hdl d5 21 cxd5 ll:\f6 since with a pair of bishops and a
22 tiJb6 tiJxd5 23 tiJxd5 it.xd5 24 weak black pawn on a5, White
<it>e 1 fxg4 25 :'xd5 :'xd5 26 it.c4 does not need a whole lot more to
e6 27 it.xd5 exd5 28 hxg4 it.b2 29 win the game. If Black tries to re-
:'c2 d4 30 it.d2 it.c3 112_112 Lane- lease the tension with 26 ... e6,
Donaldson, Wrexham 1997. White has 27 :'xc5! exd5 28 lhd5
17 h4 ct>f8 :'xc6 and now not 29 l:txa5 :'c2+
In Soffer-I.Almasi, Budapest 30 c;t>dl :'b2 with compensation for
1993, Black mixed his plans: the pawn, but 29 r,ite2 with an ad-
17 ... h6 18 tiJc3 f5? 19 tiJd5 c:ilf7 20 vantage for White: the weak a- and
exf5 gxf5 21 g5 hxg5 22 hxg5 tiJf8 d-pawns should be all White needs
23 f4 c;t>e8 24 it.f3 :'b8 25 tiJb4 to win. Nor does 27 ... dxc5 offer
:'c7 26 it.b6 :'d7 27 :'cel, when Black salvation: 28 it.xc5+ 'iStg8 29
White had a magnificent clamp on it.b6 l:txc6 (not 29 ...:'e7? 30 d6
the entire black position. :'xc6 31 dxe7, when the e-pawn
18 hS l:tae8 decides) 30 dxc6 :'xc6 31 it.xa5
19 hxg6 hxg6 (31 it.e3!?) 3l...':c5 32 it.b6 :'xg5
33 :'h2!, when White's queenside
pawns will prove stronger than
Black's kingside majority.
27 l:te4
27 it.xc5 dxc5 28 :'xc5 e6 is
okay for Black.
27 e6
28 l:thc1 l:td8
29 l:tIe2 exdS
30 it.xdS l:te7
31 it.d4 l:tde8
32 it.xg7 l:te2+
33 ct>e3 l:t8e3+
34 ct>b2 ct>xg7
20 gS 3S l:td4 tiJd3+
White does not want to allow the Ill-Ill
possibility of a freeing ... f7-f5 later After 36 ':xd3 :'xd3 37 ':'xe2
on in the game. :'xd5 the chances are level.
20 tiJeS
21 tiJe3 bS! Game 68
The pawn cannot be taken: 22 Gulko-Petrosian
cxb5 it.xc3+ 23 :'xc3 tiJxe4+ 24 Biel izt 1976
fxe4 :'xc3.
22 tiJdS bxe4 (1 e4 eS 2 tiJf3 tiJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 167
tbxd4 g6 5 c4 tbf6 6 tbc3 d6 7
~e2 tbxd4 8 "'xd4 ~g7)
9 ~g5
This move has more point than 9
iLe3, as often when Black has de-
veloped his queen to a5, White has
the option of 1 ~xf6 ~xf6, 2 tbd5
'ii'xd2, 3 tbxf6+, disrupting the
black pawn structure, although
many of these endgames with an
isolated Black d-pawn are in fact
drawn. The drawback of having the
bishop on g5 is that it is sometimes
slightly vulnerable tactically, pro-
tected only by the queen. White's
chances of an opening advantage
are certainly better after 9 ~g5
than 9 ~e3, but Black should still
be able to keep the balance with
correct play.
9 h6?!
Nowadays this is rarely seen in
top level tournaments, but it is not
really that bad. The main move is
of course 9... 0-0, which will be
covered in Games 69-72, but two
other ideas are sometimes seen:
a) It is not particularly good to
postpone castling: 9 ... ~e6 10 .!:tel
lia5 (10 ... 0-0!) 11 lid2 .!:tcS?!
(11...0-0!) 12 f3! and now the po-
sition is already critical for Black:
al) In the game Geller-Stean,
Teesside 1975, Black suffered a
violent death: 12 ... ~xc4? 13 tbd5!
lixa2 140-0 tbxd5 15 .!:txc4! nxc4
16 "'xd5 lh4 17 ~b5+ 'itfs IS
ncl 1-0.
a2) Best is 12 ... 0-0 13 tbd5!
lixd2+ 14 'it>xd2 tbxd5 15 cxd5
~d7 and now 16 b3 with an edge
for White in the endgame, but not
16 lhcs (16 ~xe7?? ~h6+)
16 .. .lhcs 17 ~xe7?! ~h6+! IS
~el (1S ~d3?? ~b5+ and wins)
18 ... l:tc2 with a good game for
Black.
b) Recently 9..."'a5!? has be-
come quite popular. Usually, it just
transposes to the main lines, but
with 10 ~d2!?, threatening 11
tbd5, White can avoid these trans-
positions. In the only examples
given, Black chose to deal with this
threat immediately, moving his
queen to b6 with 10..."'6. This
bears a resemblance to the line 9
0-0 0-0 10 'ii'e3 ~e6 11 ~d2 "'6,
but White is a tempo up compared
to this line. However, White must
play energetically to retain the ini-
tiative. After 11 lixb6 axb6:
bl) In Kalesis-Leko, Budapest
1993, White played 12 f3?! ~e6 13
~f2 tbd7 14 l:thel f5 15 exf5 gxf5
16 b3 0-0 17 a4 tbc5 IS .!:tabl f4
19 tbd5 ~xd5 20 exd5 ~d4+ and
Black had solved his opening
problems successfully.
b2) A better impression is made
by 12 a4! ~e6 13 0-0 0-0 14 f4!
.!:tfc8 15 b3 b5 16 f5, when, already
in a bad position, Black tried to
create some confusion, but White
kept his cool: 16 ... ~xc4 17 bxc4
b4 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 e5 bxc3 20
exf6 ~xf6 21 lhf6 exf6 22 ~xc3
168 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
with a won endgame for White,
Alburt-Llvanov, Chicago 1989.
10· .i.e3 0-0
11 -.d2 'iith7
An idea deserving of attention is
1l.....a5!? 12 0-0 .i.e6!? planning
to answer 13 i.xh6 J.xh6 14 "xh6
with 14... ~. In its only outing,
White did not achieve much: 15
':ad1?! "xb2 16 ':d3 tiJxe4 17
':bl "c2 18 ':el 'iVb2 with equal-
ity, Honfi-Makropoulos, Athens
1976. Silman and Donaldson claim
that White is clearly better after 15
tiJd5!? J.xd.'; 16 exd5 "xb2 17
%:tael!, intending f2-f4-f5. How-
ever, we do not agree with this
judgement. In many endgames
Black will be better due to the su-
periority of his knight over White's
bishop, and if White insists on an
attack with f2-f4, he will weaken
his kingside dramatically. A possi-
ble line is 17 ... ':ae8
17 ... ':fe8!?) 18 f4 (18 J.dl b5!)
18 ... tiJe4, threatening .....d4+ and
... ~8. With best play from both
sides, the position is probably
roughly equal. Instead of 15 tiJd5,
White could try 15 ':ab 1, but the
chances are about equal after
15 ... J.xc4 16 J.xc4 lIbc4 17 "e3.
The correct way for White to
take advantage of Black's weak h6-
pawn is initially to ignore it, until
White has secured his own posi-
tion, as then Black will have to
waste a tempo protecting the h6-
pawn. Seen in the light of this rec-
ommendation, moves such as 13
':ab!, 13 ':ac1 and 13 ':fc 1 would
all be good choices.
12 0-0
White also achieved a slightly
better position with 12 f3 J.e6 13
':c1 ':c8 14 tiJb5!? a6 15 tiJd4
.i.d7 160-0 "c7 17 ':c2 ':fd8 18
':fcl e5!? 19 tiJb3 J.e6 20 ':c3!
tiJd7 21 tiJal! f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23
tiJc2 in Seirawan-Llvanov, USA ch
1992.
12 J.e6
12 ... J..d7 is too passive here: 13
':fdl J..c6 14 f3 (or 14 "c2 "a5
15 i.d4 with a slight plus, Garcia
Martinez-Pinal, Cienfuegos 1983)
14.....a5 15 ':ael l:.fc8 16 a3 a6 17
.i.f1 "d8 18 b4 'ji'b8 19 a4 a5 20
b5 J.d7 21 tiJd5 with the better
chances for White, Griinberg-
Dumitrache, Romania 1992.
(or
13 :ac1
This is not White's best move
here. Other possibilities are:
a) 13 f3 "a5 14 l:.ael a6 15 b3
':fc8 16 a4 tiJd7 17 ':c2 (White
does not achieve anything after 17
tiJd5 "xd2 18 .i.xd2 .i.b2 19 ':ce1
tiJc5 20 J.e3 .i.xd5 21 exd5 b6 22
J.dl i.c3 23 ':e2 ':c7 with equal-
ity, Karasev-Tal, USSR ch 1971)
17 ... tiJc5 18 ':bl ~! 19 tiJd5
"xd2 20 l:bd2 J.xd5 21 ':xd5 a5
22 J.dl ':c6 23 J.c2 e6 24 ':ddl
tiJa6! 25 e5 d5 with equality, as in
the game Uhlmann-Andersson,
Hastings 1971/72.
b) 13 .i.d4 ':c8 (an interesting
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 169

alternative is 13 .....aS [threatening 17 cS .i.b5 is quite messy, as in

14... lbxe4!] 14 f3 ':fc8 IS b3 bS!? the game Vera-Marasescu, Timi-
IS cxbS lbxe4 16 fxe4 .i.xd4+ 17 soara 1982.
1i'xd4 'ii'xc3 18 'ii'xc3 l:lxc3 with a 18 .i.d3 lbd7
good game for Black, but White is 19 ~d5 "xdl
probably slightly better after 14 20 .i.xdl ':fe8
l:.adl!?) 14 b3 a6 IS 'ii'e3 lbd7 16 Black has equalised, and a draw
.i.xg7 ~xg7 17 f4 'ii'b6 18 'ii'xb6 was soon agreed:
liJxb6 19 fS .i.d7 20 liJdS with a 21 .i.bl .i.d4+ 22 ~hl ~g7 23
small edge for White, Timman- fxg6 fxg6 24 ~f4 .i.f6 25 .i.e3
Ribli, Amsterdam 1973. 1/2_1/2
c) 13 f4! (White's most direc~
and strongest approach) 13 ... :c8\ Game 69
14 b3 'ii'aS IS :adl (in the famous Dolmatov-Tiviakov
game Larsen-Fischer, Denver 1971, Rostov na Donu 1993
White tried IS a3 a6 16 fS .i.d7 17
b4 "eS, and now instead of 18 (I e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
l:tael .i.c6 19 .i.f4 lbxe4 20 liJxe4 lbxd4 g6 5 c4 lbf6 6 lbc3 d6 7
'ii'xe4 21 .i.d3 'ii'd4+ 22 ~hl l:tce8 .i.e2 lbxd4 8 'ii'xd4 .i.g7 9 .i.g5
with equal chances, White should 0-0)
have gone for Rabar's 18 :adl
J..c6 19 .i.d4 lbxe4 20 'ii'e3 liJxc3 10 'ii'e3
21 .i.xeS ~xdl 22 l:lxdl with a
small edge for White, but Black
can consider 18 ...lbxe4 19 lbxe4
'ii'xe4 20 .i.d3 'ii'eS, when White
still has to prove exactly what he
has in return for his pawn) 18...a6
16 .i.d4 .i.d7 (White also gets the
better position after 16... bS 17 fS
J..d7 18 .i.xf6! exf6 19lbdS "xd2
20 l:lxd2, Nunn-Van der Sterren,
Groningen 1974/7S) 17 .i.xf6 exf6
18 lbdS 'ii'cS+ 19 ~hl as 20 fS
with a very comfortable position
for White, Nunn-l.Ivanov, London
1987. This is a fairly new way of
13 "as playing the position. Ideally, White
14 f4 ':ac8 wants to place his rooks on c 1 and
With the weakened structure on d 1 and then push through either c4-
the kingside, Black decides it is cS or e4-e5. However, if White is
best to keep a rook on the kingside not interested in the exchange of
for protection. queens, this is not the right line for
15 b3 a6 him, since Black often plays
16 f5 .i.d7 .. :ili"6. Although 10 We3 is not
17 h3 A:<£ theoretically any better than 10
"
170 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
1t'd2, it certainly gives White more
options, as after 10 'ii'e3 .i.e6 11
0-0 'ii'b6 White can choose 12
'ii'd2, when after 12 ... 'ii'a5 we are
back in the 10 'ii'd2 lines.
10 .i.e6
1O... 'ii'a5 is also possible, but
after 11 0-0 .i.e6, we will transpose
into the note to Black's 11th move.
Three rarely played alternatives
are:
a) 10...a6 11 0-0 .i.d7 12 Afd1
l:tc8 13 h3 Ae8 14 ]:tacl with a
slight plus for White, Murey-
Gelfer, Tel Aviv 1980.
b) 1O... 'ii'b6 (in this form ... 'ii'b6
is slightly unusual, but in the game
Black soon manages to equalise) 11
'ii'xb6 axb6 12 ~d2 .i.e6 13 a4
Afc8 14 b3 :a5 15 .i.xf6 (15 .i.e3
lLld7 is excellent for Black)
15 ... exf6!? (15 ... .i.xf6 was good
enough for equality, but the text
move is an interesting attempt to
create some action) 16 .i.d3 f5 17
Aad1 .i.xc3+ 18 ~xc3 fxe4 19
.i.xe4 Ih_Ih Arencibia-Antunes,
Cuba 1991, but here 19 ...d5 is quite
interesting. White's only move is
20 b4!, when 20 ... ':xa4 21 .i.xd5
and 20.. Jlxc4+ 21 ~b3 ':a8 22
.i.xdS are both about equal, but
instead of 21...lIa8, Black can try
2l...dxe4!? 22 bxa5 bxa5 with very
good chances.
c) 1O... .i.d7 11 0-0.i.c6 12 Afd1
lLld7 13 ..th6 'ii'b6 14 'ii'xb6 lLlxb6
IS .i.xg7 ~xg7 16 Aacl as 17 f3
':fc8 18 ~ lLld7 19 ~e3 lLlc5 20
Ac2 lLla4 and White was just a tiny
bit better, Penrose-Damjanovic,
Palma de Mallorca 1969.
11 0-0
In Amason-Petursson, Reykja-
vik 1989, White was successful
with 11 lIcl a6!? 12 0-0 b5!? 13
cxb5 axb5 14 a3! "'8? IS .i.xb5,
when he was just a pawn up. Ama-
son suggested 14.. JlaS!? as an im-
provement, but Petursson himself
showed the right way for Black the
following year against the same
player: 1l...'ii'b6! 121M2 (or 12
b3!?) 12 ...'ii'b4!? (12 ...'ii'aS is also
playable, but the text is more inter-
esting) 13 f3 and now:
a) Petursson gives 13 ... .i.xc4!?
14 a3 'iib3 IS .i.xc4 'ii'xc4 16 ttJdS
'iib3 17 ttJxe7+ ~h8 as unclear.
Gallagher disagrees and gives 18
0-0 'ii'b6+ 19 Af2 Afe8 20 ..txf6
.i.xf6 21 ttJdS 'ii'd4 22 ':c7 with a
clear advantage for White, but we
think that after 18 ...Afe8 Black
should have nothing to complain
about. In fact, how does White
continue? 19 'ii'xd6? :ad8 20 'ii'cS
(20 'ii'c7 Ad7) 20 ...ttJxe4, 19 l:tc7
'ii'b6+ and 19 ttJdS ttJxd5 20 'ii'xdS
'ii'xdS 21 exdS .i.xb2 22 ':c7 .i.d4+
23 c,t.>hl ~g8 24 ':xb7 :ab8 are all
good for Black, but White can keep
level chances with 19 .i.xf6! .i.xf6
21 ttJdS 'ii'xb2 22 'ii'f4! .i.eS! 23
'ii'xfl Af8.
b) 13 ... ':fc8 14 b3 a6 IS ttJa4
'ii'xd2+ 16 ~xd2 ttJd7 17 h4 (or 17
g4 f6 18 .i.e3 fS - transposing to
the note after Black's 16th move in
Game 67) 17 .. .f6 18 .i.e3 fS and we
have transposed to the note to
White's 16th move in Game 67.
11 '6'b6!
An interesting option is l1...'ii'aS
12 .:tac1 l:tfc8 13 b3 a6 and now:
a) 14 a4 'ii'b4 IS ..tdl 'ii'cS!
(lS ... Aab8 16 'ii'el gave White a
slight edge in Kavalek-Visier, Lan-
zarote 1973) 16 'ii'xcs Axc5 17
.i.e3 l:tcc8 18 .i.f3 Aab8 19 as ttJd7
20 ttJa4 ttJcS IIl_lh Kavalek-
Browne, Las Palmas 1974.
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 171
b) 14 tLla4 l:tab8 15 c5 with a
slight plus for White, Dahlberg-
Donaldson, Lone Pine 1981.
c) 14 'it'hl!? (White would like
to play f2-f4-f5, but wants to keep
the queens on) 14...b5 (14 .....c5!?)
15 f4! bxc4? (now White develops
a strong initiative; better was
15 ... b4, although White is better
after 16 tLld5 i.xdS 17 exd5 "c5
18 "xc5l:txc5 19 f5) 16 f5! cxb3?
17 fxe6 b2 18 exf7+ ~f8 19 l:tc2
:c5 20 i.xf6 exf6 21 "d3 l:tacS
22 "xd6+ q;f7 23 i.g4 :Sc7 24
i.e6+ ~eS 25 :d2 1-0 Agnos-
Rocha, Linares 1995.
d) 14 f4 1Wc5 15 ti'xc5 l:txc5 16
i.f3 and now a further fork:
dl) 16...l:tbS?! 17 e5! dxe5 IS
fxe5 tiJeS 19 i.xe7 l:txe5 20 i.h4
b5 21 cxb5 l:tc5 22 bxa6! and
White was winning in Ciocaltea-
Spiridonov, Timisoara 1982.
d2) 16.. /">f8!? 17 l:tfdl :bS IS
e5?! (this may give White some
initiative on a short-term basis, but
Black will eventually be able to
free himself; better was IS a4)
IS ... dxe5 19 fxe5 tLld7 20 i.dS
i.g4 21 l:td2 tiJxeS 22 i.e3 :c7 23
h3 i.fS 24 g4 i.cs 25 i.b6 l:td7 26
:£2 (the white position looks pretty
impressive, but Black is pretty
solid) 26 ... 'it'gS! 27 :cc2 e6 2S
i.g2 tLld3, when White had some
compensation, but not quite enough
in Pajkovic-Govedarica, Centinje
1991.
d3) 16...:eS!? 17 e5!? dxeS 18
i.xb7 tiJg4!? (an interesting way of
playing; instead of worrying about
his queenside, Black immediately
starts his counterplay) 19 h3 exf4
20 i.xf4 i.d4+ 21 'ii.>hl tiJ£2+ 22
q;h2 tiJd3 23 l:tcdl i.xc3 24 l:txd3
i.e5 25 i.xeS l:txeS 26 l:tfd 1 rt;g7
27 lUd2 a5 with equal chances in
the endgame, Timoshenko-S.Niko-
lic, Chelyabinsk 1990.
12 b3
At this point White has a number
of important alternatives:
a) 12 ti'xb6?! (this is very com-
fortable for Black; White has to
play carefully just to maintain the
balance) 12 ...axb6 13 :acl (the
alternatives are good for Black: 13
b3 tiJd7 14 :fc1 :feS 15 i.d2 tiJc5
16 f3 :ecS 17 'iWl, Christiansen-
Donaldson, Los Angeles 19S9, and
now 17 ... fS would have been better
for Black, or 13 :fcl?! l:tfc8 14 b3
bS! 15 eS tLld7 16 tiJxbS i.xeS 17
i.d2 tiJcs IS i.f3 tiJxb3! 19 axb3
:xa 1 20 :xa 1 i.xc3 21 i.xc3
:xc3 22 :bl b6 with a big advan-
tage for Black, Runic-Nikcevic,
Banja Vrucica 1991) 13 ...:fcS 14
b3 b5!
(see following diagram)
and now:
al) IS tiJxb5 :xa2 16 i.d3 h6
17 i.e3 tiJg4 IS i.d4 tiJeS 19 i.b 1
:a6 20 f4 tiJc6 21 i.xg7 'ii.>xg7 22
:c3 i.d7 23 llg3 tiJb4 with a better
game for Black, Larduet-Diaz,
Holguin 1991.
a2) IS tiJd5 i.xdS 16 cxdS
172 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
lLlxe4 17 i.xe7 :xc 1 18 ':xc 1 i.d4
19 ~fl ':xa2 20 i.f3 lLld2+ 21
~el, Winslow-Gross, New York
1994, and now Black should have
continued with 21...lLlxf3+ 22 gxf3
i.e5 with a much better position.
a3) 15 cxb5!? l:bc3 16 ':xc3
lLlxe4 17 ':e3 lLlxg5 18 h4 i.d4! 19
':d3 i.c5 20 hxg5 ':xa2 21 i.f3 b6
with good compensation for the
exchange according to Alzugaray
and Herrera.
a4) 15 i.f3 bxc4 16 e5 lLld7 17
i.xb7 lLlxe5 18 i.xa8 %ba8 19
i.xe7 cxb3 (or 19... lLld3 20 bxc4
i.xc4 21 i.xd6 lLlxc1 22 :xc 1
with equal chances) 20 axb3 lLld3
21 ':cdl lLlb2 22 ':c1 lLld3 23
lIcdl lLlb2 1/2- 1/2 Herrera-Andres,
Havana 1990.
b) 12 llabl (Karpov's move,
which used to give Black quite a
few headaches, though now he
seems to be doing fine) 12 .....xe3
13 i.xe3 l:tfc8 (less to the point is
13 ... a6?!, as after 14 b3 ':ac8 15
:bc1 :fc8 16 ':fd1 lLld7 17 lLldS
lLlc5 18 f3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 i.fl
..tff8 22 g3 White had a small ad-
vantage, Gavrikov-Andersson, Biel
1993; Karpov mentions 13 ... lLlg4
and gives 14...i.d2 ':fc8 15 b3
i.xc3 16 i.xc3 bS 17 f3 with a
slight advantage for White) 14 b3
and now Black has tried a variety
of things:
bl) 14 ... i.d7 IS :fdl i.c6 16 f3
as (the black set-up, which is
similar to the Classical Maroczy, is
too passive without the queens on
the board; Black is left with virtu-
ally no counterplay and Karpov, of
course, is certainly not the right
man to play against in such a posi-
tion) 17 nbc1 lLld7 18 g3 ~f8 19
h4 h5 20 ~f2 i.e5 21 i.fl e6 22
:d2 lLlcs 23 i.g2 q;e7 24 lLle2 b6
2S :cdl l:td8 26 i.g5+ i.f6 27
i.xf6+ ~xf6 28 e5+ with a clear
advantage for White, Karpov-
Petursson, Reggio Emilia 1990.
b2) 14...a6!? 15 lLla4 :ab8!
(Black had his share of problems
after ls ... lLld7 in Christiansen-
Dzindzichashvili, USA ch 1991: 16
f4! f5 17 exfS i.xf5 18 nbc 1 ':ab8
19 lLlc3 ~f8 20 g4 with a clear
edge for White) 16 lLlb6 ':c7 17
i.f3 lLld7 18 a4 (Silman and Don-
aldson mention 18 lLld5 i.xdS 19
cxd5 lLleS with good chances for
Black, e.g. 20 i.e2 nc2 or 20 nbcl
':bc8 21 :Xc7 l:txc7 22 ':c 1
':xc1+ 23 i.xc1 lLlxf3+) i.c3 19
':fdl lLlxb6 and a draw was agreed
in A.lvanov-Petursson, New York
1991.
b3) 14.. .'itIf8!? 15 f3?! (15
i.d2!?) Is ...lLlg4 16 fxg4 i.xc3 17
lIbcl i.b2 18 :c2 i.a3 19 g5 b5
with a big advantage for Black,
Rodin-Pigusov, Podolsk 1992.
b4) 14...lLlg4!? 15 i.xg4 (the
only move seen in practice, but
instead IS i.d2 is possibly strong-
er: 15 ... i.xc3 16 i.xc3 b5 17 f4!
[Christiansen] with a powerful ini-
tiative for White, e.g. 17 ...bxc4 18
fS gxfS 19 exfS cxb3 20 fxe6 :xc3
21 exf7+ ~f8 22 i.xg4 bxa2 23
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 173
l:tb2 and White wins; but Black can
improve with 15 ....t.eS!? 16 ttJdS
~ 17 h3 ttJf6 with chances for
both sides - analysis by Silman and
Donaldson) IS ....i.xc3! (IS ....i.xg4
16 ttJdS ~ 17 .i.g5 f6 18 ~e3 is
slightly better for White, Stangl-
Schindler, German Bundesliga
1989/90) 16 ~xe6 fxe6 17 f4 a6 18
fS exf5 19 exfS b5 20 ':'bc1 ~f6 21
c5 dxc5 22 lIxc5 ':'xc5 23 ~xc5
with a level endgame, A.lvanov-
Donaldson, Reno 1990.
b5) 14 ... ttJd7!? 15 ttJd5 ~xd5 16
exd5 ttJc5 17 l:tbc1 as 18 ':'c2
ttJa6! 19 a3 b5 20 l:tfcl b4 1/2- 1/2
Anand-Tiviakov, Groningen 1993.
A surprisingly easy draw by Black
against Anand. Since this game was
played, 12 .l:.abl has disappeared
from high level games.
c) 12 1Ii'd2 (if handled correctly
by Black, this is absolutely harm-
less) 12 ...•aS! (slightly inaccurate
is 12 ...':'fc8 13 b3 and now
13 .....a5 14 llacl a6 transposes to
Game 71, but independent play can
arise if Black plays 13 ... a6 14 ':'adl
"c5, when in Kamsky-Andersson,
Reggio Emilia 1991, White did not
manage to get any tangible advan-
tage: IS .t.e3 1Ii'a5 16 f4 bS 17 fS
.t.d7 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 ~d4 ~e6 20
.t.xf6 .t.xf6 21 ttJdS 'ii'xd2 22
ttJxf6+ exf6 23 ':'xd2 bxc4 24 bxc4
.i.xc4 25 ':'xf6 ~e6! 26 l:txd6
':'cl+ 27 l:fl l:xfl+ 28 .i.xfl
.t.xa2 29 ~xa6 with a drawn end-
game) 13 ':'acl with a transposition
to Game 71.
d) Finally, also 12 1i'd3 has been
tried, but in Chandler-Pigusov,
Sochi 1982, Black equalised easily:
12 ... ':'fc8 13 b3 a6 14 ~e3""4 IS
':'acl l:lab8 16 .t.a7 :a8 17 ~d4
bS.
12 1Ii'xe3
12 ...l:lfc8!? is an untried sugges-
tion of Tiviakov's.
13 ~xe3 tLld7
13 ... ttJg4 is quite a popular
move, e.g. 14 ~d2 ~e5 15 ~xg4
(15 h3 ttJf6 is equal) 15 ... ~xc3
(Black also equalised in Kalesis-
Silman, Budapest 1994: 15 ....i.xg4
16 ':'acl ~e6 ~4 lUc8 18 .i.e3
a6 19 a5 ~xc3 20 ~xc3 f6 21 f4
~) 16 ~xc3 • xg4 17 ~d4 ~d7
18 a4 ~c6 19 rUel f6 20 f3 cj;f]
21 ..tf2 hS with equality, Enders-
Kochiev, Balatonbereny 1988. But
White should retain a small edge
after Tiviakov's 15 g3.
14 l:lac1 l:lfc8
In Korneev-Polak, Karvina
1992, Black equalised without too
much trouble with 14...ttJcS: after
IS f3 a5 16 .l:.fdl l:tfc8 17 ttJd5
~xdS 18 l:lxdS b6 19 l:lc2 ~ 20
~fl l:lab8 21 h4 h5 22 g3 lId8 23
~g2 e6 24 .l:.d1 ~e7 2S ~fl l:ld7
the chances were level, but ac-
cording to Tiviakov, White can
play 15 ttJd5! ~xd5 16 exd5 a5 17
l:lc2! and keep a small advantage.
15 tLld5
This is the only to play for an
advantage. In the game Bernard-
174 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

Solozhenkin, Paris 1997, White 20 i.h6+ ebg8

achieved nothing with 15 f4 lDc5 21 h4
16 f5 ..i.d7 (l6 ... ..i.xc3!? Tiviakov) White must start some action on
17 lDd5 'it>f8 18 ..i.g5 ..i.d4+ 19 the kingside, otherwise Black will
'iith 1 f6 20 .l:1cd 1 ..i.e5 21 fxg6 hxg6 take control of the game.
22 ..i.f4 i.xf4 23 .l:1xf4 'iitf7 24 b4 21 lDf6
lDe6 when a level endgame was 22 hS gxhS
reached. 23 l:.c3 ebh8
15 ebf8 24 l:.h3 bS!?
16 f4 as Drastic measures, but 24 ... a4 25
In his notes in Informator ..i.xh5 lDxh5 26 ':xh5 axb3 27
Tiviakov mentions 16 ... i.b2!?, axb3 i.b2 was also fine for Black.
intending 17 .l:1bl ..i.xd5 18 cxd5 25 i.xhS lDxhS
i.a3 19 b4 .l:1c2!?, but in Dolma- 26 l:.xhS bxc4
tov-Alterman, Haifa 1995, White 27 bxc4 i.b2!
improved over this analysis with 17 After 27 ... .l:1xc4 28 f6 exf6 29
.l:1cd l!, when after 17 ... a5 18 l:tf2 .l:1xf6 White would have had com-
i.xd5 19 .l:1xd5! lDf6, he could now pensation for the pawn.
have obtained a clear advantage 28 l:.h4 i.f6
with 20 .l:1b5! lDxe4 21 i.g4 lDxf2 29 l:.e4 l:.ab8
22 ..i.xc8 .l:1xc8 23 'it>xf2 .l:1c7 24 30 g4 :b4
.l:1xa5 - Alterman. 31 gS i.xgS?!
112_112
Here a draw was agreed, but
Black's last move is actually a
small mistake. It was better to play
3l...i.e5 32 f6 exf6 33 gxf6 l:.bxc4
with a small advantage for Black
according to Tiviakov.

Game 70
Mokry-Kallai
Tmava 1985

(1 e4 cS 2 lDO lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

lDxd4 g6 5 c4 lDf6 6 lDc3 d6 7
17 fS i.xdS i.e2 lDxd4 8 "xd4 i.g7 9 i.gS
18 exdS i.b2! 0-0)
Ideally Black would like to swap
the dark-squared bishops, since this 10 "d2
would leave him with the tradi- This position is by far the most
tional good knight versus bad popular in the Gurgenidze varia-
bishop ending, but of course he tion. The safe 10 'ifd2 keeps the
cannot expect White to co-operate queen safely tucked away from
with such a plan. enemy attack, and at the same time
19 ':c2 i.a3 it will counter the black queen if it
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 175
takes up its traditional outpost on
a5. White's plan is to expand on
the queenside with the support of
the rooks, which will usually be put
on cl and dl. In some cases, when
Black plays ... :'fc8 before White
has played f2-f3, White can take
advantage of this by playing for a
kingside attack, but we will come
to this in the next main game.
10 a6!?
This is a fairly new idea. Black
abandons the traditional ... J.e6,
... Wa5, .. JUcS, ... a7-a6 plan and
strives for immediate counterplay
on the queenside, often sacrificing
a pawn with ... b7-b5. So far this
concept has proven quite success-
ful, but more games must be played
before we can establish a clear idea
of the true value of this plan.
11 f3
This is White's most logical re-
sponse, supporting the e4-pawn. If
White does without this move,
Black may be able to take advan-
tage of the overloaded white knight
to get in ... b7-b5:
a) 11 0-0 J.e6 and now:
al) 12 :'acl b5! 13 cxb5 axb5
14 J.xb5 .ltxa2 15 .ltc6 l:ta6 16
ltJxa2 :'xa2 17 :'c2 Wbs with
chances for both sides, Ortega-
Andres, Holguin 19S4.
a2) A better try for advantage is
12 f3 Wa5, and now instead of 13
ltJd5?! Wxd2 14 ltJxe7+ cJi>hS 15
.ltxd2 ':fe8 16 ltJd5 ltJxd5 17 cxd5
.ltxd5 18 .ltc3 112_112 Short-
Andersson, Novi Sad 01 1990,
White should try 13 :fdl!? 1:fcS
14 ltJd5 Wxd2 15 1:txd2 .ltxd5 16
cxd5 'it>f8 with a very small plus
for White. Black can only sit and
wait.
a3) 12 1:adl WaS 13 .ltxf6 (or
13 b3 b5!? 14 cxb5 [14 .ltxf6 .ltxf6
15 ltJd5 Wxd2 16 ltJxf6+ exf6 17
l:td2 112-1/2 Kramnik-Anand, Mos-
cow rapid 1994] 14 ... axb5 15 .ltxf6
.ltxf6 16 ltJxb5 l:tfbS! 17 b4 Wb6
18 a3 .ltd7 19 ltJc3 .lte6 20 ltJbl
1:a7 21 1:c1 Wd4 22 Wxd4 .ltxd4,
when Black's active pieces com-
pensate for his pawn deficit,
Sherzer-Karolyi, Hungary 1993)
13 ....ltxf6 (Nunn and Gallagher
suggest 13 ... exf6!? 14 Wxd6 f5,
when White has some problems
with his queenside) 14 ltJd5 Wxd2
(in Tiviakov-Polak, Oakham 1992,
Black found himself in trouble after
14 ... Wxa2? 15 ltJxf6+ exf6 16
Wc3! Wa4 17 :'xd6 J:acS IS b3
Wa3 19 l:tfd1 with a big advantage
for White) 15 ltJxf6+ exf6 16 ':'xd2
b5! (if it were not for this move,
Black would have been clearly
worse, but now his counterplay
comes just in time) 17 cxb5 axb5
18 a3 ':'fc8 19 f4 f5 20 exf5 gxf5
21 lhd6 b4 22 l:ta1 ':'c8 23 .ltf3
bxa3 24 bxa3 (24 .ltxa8 axb2 25
l:tbl ':'cl+ 26 :'dl 1:xdl+ 27 l:txdl
.lta2 is a draw) 24 ...lta4 25 .ltd1
':'xf4 with a level endgame, Cam-
pora-Morovic, Spain 1994.
b) 11 l:tc1 .lte6 12 b3 and here
176 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
another junction:
bl) 12 ... .!:tc8 13 0-0 b5 14 cxb5
axb5 15 .i.xf6 i.xf6 16 ltJxb5 'ifb6
17 b4!? (Chiburdanidze tried 17
ltJa3!? against Gufeld, at Kuala
Lumpur 1994, which then contin-
ued 17 ... .!:tc5!? 18 .!:txc5 "'xc5 19
ltJc4 ~g5 20 "'c3 f5 21 exf5 ~xf5
22 b4! 'ill'c7 23 'ifb3 ~e6 24 b5 d5
25 ltJe3 "'e5! 26 "'d3 and here
Black could have maintained
equality with 26 ... d4 27 ltJc4 'ifb5
28 'ill'd4 .!:tc8 29 ltJd6 'ill'd7)
17 ... 'ifb7 18 a4 'ill'xe4 19 ltJc7 .!:tb8
20 ltJxe6 fxe6 21 ::'c4 "'d5 22 "'c2
~d4 23 ~f3, Gufeld-Konguvel,
Calcutta 1994, and according to
Gufeld, Black should now have
played 23 ... Axf3!? 24 gxf3 .!:tf8
with unclear play.
b2) 12 ... b5 13 cxb5 axb5 14
~xb5 "'a5 15 i.c6! (prior to this
game theory suggested that Black
was better; 15 ~d3 :tfc8 16 0-0
:txc3 17 :txc3 ltJxe4 18 i.xe4
~xc3 19 "'d3 d5 20 ~f3 .!:ta7 21
~e3 l:!.d7 22 i.b6 'ifb4 23 .!:tdl d4
24 'ill'a6 i.f5 with better chances
for Black, May-Ca.Hansen, corr
1994) 15 ... .!:ta6 16 ltJa4! :tc8 17
"'xa5 :txa5 18 ~d2 :ta6 19 ~b5
l:.xcl+ 20 ~xcl l:.a5 21 i.d3 ltJd7
(Black would like to create some
counterplay with ... ltJc5, but White
continues in accurate fashion) 22
~d2 .!:ta8 23 ~bl! ltJc5 24 ltJb6!
:ta7 25 <it>e2 with a clear edge for
White, Serper-Donaldson, Las Ve-
gas 1997. White's play was very
impressive.
11 ~e6
12 .::lcl .::lc8
Since 12 ...:tc8 leads to a
drawish position, Black might con-
sider 12 ... b5!? if he wants to play
for a win: 13 cxb5 axb5 14 a3
(possibly better is 14 b4!?, when
White developed some initiative in
Hellers-Piket, Thessaloniki 01
1988: 14 ... d5 15 ~xf6 i.xf6 16
exd5 i.xc3 17 :txc3 "'xd5 18
"'xd5 ~xd5 19 a3 Afc8 20 :txc8+
.!:txc8 21 <it>d2 :ta8 22 :tal ~c6
with a slight pull for White)
14 ... ltJd7 15 b4 lha3 16 ltJxb5 :ta2
17 "'e3 h6 18 ~h4 g5 19 ~f2 'ifb8
200-0 .!:tc8 21 h4 ~f6 with excel-
lent play for Black, Topalov-
Antunes, Candas 1992.
13 b3
A.lvanov-Pigusov, Biel 1989,
saw instead 13 1tJd5 b5! 14 0-0
ltJxd5 15 exd5 ~d7 16 b3 :te8 17
i.e3 bxc4 18 ~xc4 i.b5 19 i..xb5
axb5 20 :tc6 .!:ta8 21 .!:tf2 "'a5 22
b4 "'a3 23 ~d4 .i.xd4 24 "'xd4
"'a7 25 "'c3 'ill'a3 Ih-Ih.
13 bS
Also possible is 13 ......a5, lead-
ing to the main line after 10... ~e6
but with the difference that here
Black has played his queen's rook
to c8 instead of the usual king's
rook. This rather limits Black's
options with regard to the freeing
...b7-b5, so White is slightly better.
14 cxbS
Tukmakov has suggested 14
 Maroczy
~d5, but after 14 ... ~xd5 15 exd5
i.d7 we do not feel that Black is
worse; for comparison see the
A.lvanov-Pigusov game above.
14 axb5
15 ~xb5
This leads to massive exchanges,
but it is probably the only way to
play for the advantage. In Szekely-
Tangbom, Budapest 1992, 15 0-0
b4 16 ~b5 'Wa5 17 i.e3 ~d7 18
~d4 ~c5 19 ':fdl ':fd8 20 i.f4
i.d7 21 i.c4 ~e6 was equal. But
why not did Black not play 21...e5
here? Unless White does something
drastic, he will end up a piece
down, but what can he do? 22 a3 is
met by 22 ...'Wb6! 23 axb4 ~e6, so
it seems as if White has to go in for
22 i.g5, when Black is much better
after 22 ... exd4 23 i.xd8 l:txd8.
15 ':xcl+
16 'Wxcl 'Wa5+
17 'Wd2 :a8!
18 a3
This position is almost identical
to that which arose in the note to
White's 11th move in Game 65, the
only difference being that here the
white bishop is on g5, but in some
examples, such as our main line,
transpositions may occur, so one
must keep an eye out for these.
Possibly better than 18 a3 is 18
~c3!?, as in Frolov-Tangbom,
Budapest 1992, which went 18 ... h6
19 i.e3 ~g4 20 i.d4 i.xd4 21
'Wxd4 ':c8 22 <li>d2, and now in-
stead of 22 ... ':xc3? Black should
have tried 22 .. :i'g5+! - see Game
65 for analysis.
18 i.xb3
19 'WxaS ':xa5
(see following diagram)
20 0-0
The best. Other moves have
Bind~6urgenidze Variation 177
proven even more harmless:
a) 20 i.d2 :a8 21 'iPf2 ~d7 22
:el ~c5 23 i.e3 i.a4 24 i.xc5
dxc5 25 :xc5 i.xb5 26 l::.xb5
i.d4+, and a draw was agreed,
Kuzmin-Zachev, Moscow 1988.
b) 20 ~ i.a4 21 ':bl h6?!
(correct was 2l...i.xb5! 22 lhb5
lha3 23 :b8+ i.f8 24 i.h6 ~d7
25 ':d8 and now 25 .. ,llb3? loses to
26 i.a6! intending 27 i.c8, but
25 ...:a2! transposes to the main
game) 22 i.d2 ':a8 23 lbc7! ':a7
24 lba6! with a small edge for
White, as in Tukmakov-Vaganian,
USSR 1984.
20 i.a4
21 ':bl i.xb5
22 ':xb5 ':xa3
The game finished:
23 ':b8+ i.f8 24 i.h6 lbd7 25
':d8 l::.al+ 26 'iPfl':82 27 g4 f6??
28 'iPe3?? ':c2 29 i.d3 111.- 111.
Why all the question marks?
Well, instead of 28 ~e3??, White
could have won on the spot with
1M Strauss' discovery 28 e5!!
(28 ... dxe5 29 i.e3!, 28 .. .fxe5 29 g5
or 28 ... g5 29 e6). Hence Black's
27th move was a blunder; correct
was 27 ... g5!, intending ...f7-f6 and
...'iPf7, when Black can defend.
178 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
Game71
Kruppa-Tiviakov
St Petersburg 1993
(1 e4 cS 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 tLlf6 6 tLlc3 d6 7
~e2 tLlxd4 8 'iixd4 ~g7 9 ~gS
0-010'iid2)
10 ~e6
This natural move is Black's
most popular choice. The main line
(see the next game) is drawish and
quite dull, but the alternatives, as
we shall see in this game, are any-
thing but boring.
11 0-0
The main line is 11 .:tc1 fol-
lowed by 12 f3 (see Game 72) but
White also has:
a) Another attempt to enter the
main line is 11 f3, but Black does
not need to co-operate, since with
11. ..l:c8 he can benefit from the
omission of the move l:c 1. Akes-
son-Wojtkiewicz, Antwerp 1994,
ended in a quick draw after 12 tLld5
tLlxd5 13 cxd5 ~d7 140-0 f5 15 f3
fxe4 16 fxe4 :xfl 17 l:xfl 'iic7
112-112. However, Black has a sharp
alternative to 12 ...tDxd5. In Horak-
Dobrovolsky, Luhacovice 1993,
Black tried 12 ... b5!?, i·~·'
'.
which is not so easy to meet, e.g.
13 cxb5 tLlxd5 14 exd5 ~f5 or 13
.txf6 exf6! 14 cxb5 .i.xdS 15
'ifxd5 'ifb6! in both cases with a
strong initiative for Black. White
has massive problems covering all
the weak squares in his position. In
the game White found the best way
to continue: 13 .:tc1 bxc4 14 l:xc4
.txdS 15 exd5 1Wb6 16 b3 a5 17
':xc8 ':xc8 18 .i.c4 tDd7 19 .te3
'ifb4 20 'ifxb4 axb4 21 0-0 ':a8 22
:£2 .i.c3 with some initiative for
Black in the endgame.
b) Also possible is 11 nd1 a6 12
0-0 'ilc7 (12 ...'ila5 transposes to
the note after White's 11th move in
the previous main game) 13 b3
.:tfc8 (worth considering was also
13 ...':ac8!?) 14 f4 :e8 15 f5 .td7
16 <ifi>hl .i.c6 17 .f4 'ila5 18 ':d3
'ile5 with equality, Renet-Petur-
sson, Reykjavik 1992.
11 "as
This time Black cannot take ad-
vantage of the omission of :tel, as
White has not weakened his position
with 11 f3. Here 11...':c8?! is met
by 12 b3 (or 12 :ad1!? 'ifaS 13 b3
a6 14 OO! 'ilxd2 15 tDxe7+ <ifi>h8
16 .i.xd2 :tce8, as in the game
1.Polgar-Dzindzichashvili, New
York 1992, and now White should
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 179
have continued 17 e5! dxe5 18 .i.b4
with a clear advantage) 12 ... b5?!
(l2 ... a6!?) 13 e5! (not 13 cxb5?!
l:txc3 14 'i'xc3 ttJxe4 15 'i'e3 ttJxg5
16 "xg5 .i.xal 17 lIxal d5 with a
small edge for Black, Brodsky-
Tiviakov, USSR 1991) 13...dxe5
(also bad is 13 ...b4? 14 exf6 bxc3 15
"xc3 exf6 16 .i.e3 f5 17 .i.d4
.i.xd4 18 'i'xd4 with a horrible po-
sition for Black, Uhlmann-Balogh,
Budapest 1989) 14 'i'xd8 ':xd8 15
ttJxb5 a6 16 ttJc3 h6 17 .i.e3 with a
large advantage for White, Bologan-
Michenka, Ostrava 1993.
12 :ad
White also has:
a) 12 l:tfdl, when after 12 ... a6
(12 ... :fc8 13 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 ttJd5
'i'xd2 15 :xd2 .i.xd5 112-112 Uhl-
mann-Vogt, Nordhausen 1986) 13
.i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 ttJd5 'i'xd2+ 15
ttJxf6+ exf6 (15 ... ~g7 16 ttJh5+
gxh5 17 :xd2 :fc8 18 b3 J:tc5 is
possibly stronger than the game
continuation) 16 l:txd2 :fc8 17
l:txd6 .i.xc4 18 .i.f3 <J;g7 19 e5
fxe5 20 b3 .i.b5 21 .i.xb7 :d8 22
:adl :xd6 23 l:txd6 Aa7 24 l:tb6
White had an initiative in the end-
game, De Firmian-Finegold, Key
West 1994.
b) Just as in the 9 .i.e3 line, 12
:abl is interesting. Here it has the
added bonus that White can ex-
change on f6 and then play ttJd5,
which was not possible after 9
.i.e3. In Geller-Zsu.Polgar, Aruba
1992, Black had some problems
after 12 ... ':fc8 (12 .....b4!?) 13 b4
'i'd8 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 15 ttJd5 .i..xdS
16 exd5 a5?! 17 a3 axb4 18 axb4
Wb6 19 :fdl with a small but clear
advantage for White. We think that
Black can improve on the 16th
move with 16...:c7, intending
... h7-hS, ...~ac8 ~nd'di'f8-g7, or
16 .. :ii'd7, mtendmg ... 'l'f5-e5 or
... e7-e6.
c) White can also try 12 Aadl
:fc8 13 b3 a6 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 15
lLId5 'i'xd2 16 lLIxf6+ ~g7 17
ttJh5+ gxhS 18 Axd2 :c5 19 f4 f6
20 :el!? (20 a4 a5 21 :f3 :g8 22
f5 .i.f7 23 :g3+ ~h6 24 :xg8
.i.xg8 25 'ittf2 .i.f7 26 :d3 :e5 27
~e3 .i.c8 28 ~f4 .i.c6 with equal-
ity, Prie-Trauth, Cannes 1992)
20...:a7 (20... h4 seems stronger to
us, when the chances should be
approximately equal) 21 e5 dxe5
22 .i.xh5 b5 23 cxb5 axb5 24 fxeS
Axe5 25 :xe5 fxe5 26 .i.f3 .i.f5 27
<i.'f2 with better chances for White,
Reeh-Vatter, Germany 1994.
d) Finally, 12 i.d3 is also possi-
ble, but it seems that Black has no
problems after 12 ... a6 13 ttJd5?!
(13 0-0 bS 14 cxbS axb5 IS .i.xbS
.i.xa2 is equal) 13 ... 'i'xa2 14 .i.bl
'i'a4! IS ttJb6 'i'c6 16 ttJxa8 ttJxe4
17 .i.xe4 'i'xe4 or 15 ttJxe7+ ~h8
16 0-0 l:tfe8 17 "xd6 :ad8 18
'i'a3 "xa3 19 bxa3 h6 20 .i.xf6
.i.xf6 21 ttJd5 .i.b2 - analysis by
Alterman.
12 a6
13 b3
13 f3 transposes to the next main
game, but White has two other pos-
sibilities:
a) So far Black has not had any
problems against 13 lUdl, after
which most of the pieces seem to
depart the board after 13 ...:fc8 14
.i.xf6 .i.xf6 IS ttJd5 'i'xd2 16
ttJxf6+ ~g7 (less accurate, but
apparently still sufficient, is
16 ... exf6 17 ':xd2 bS 18 :dc2 fS!
19 f3 fxe4 20 fxe4 ~8 21 cxbS
axb5 22 a3 b4! 24 axb4 :a4 25
~f2 l:txb4 26 ~e3 ~e7, and a draw
180 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
was soon agreed, Stangl-Sandor,
German Bundesliga 1993/94) 17
ttJhS+ (in Agnos-Alterman, Kord-
itsa 1996, Black almost developed
an initiative after the more peaceful
17 Itxd2 rj;lxf6 18 f4 as 19 a4 ':cS
20 b3 gS 21 g3 :g8) 17 ... gxhS 18
':d2 h4! 19 :dc2 as! 20 f4 fS 21
.i.f3 Itc7 with a level endgame,
Shmuter-Alterman, Rishon-Ie-Zion
1994.
b) Adams was successful with
13 "e3 against Adrian, French
Team ch 1991: 13 ... l:tfc8 14 b3
bS?! IS cxbS axbS 16 ttJxbS 'ii'xa2
17 t:Dc7 'ii'xb3 18 t:Dxa8 ':xa8 19
'ii'xb3 .i.xb3 20 .i.f3, which was alI
Adams needed to take home the
fuII point. But instead of 14 ...bS?!,
Black should have tried 14 .....cS!?
with equal chances.
13 :fc8
For a long time 13 ... bS was con-
sidered to be quite strong, but now
the tide has turned, and the general
opinion is that White is better:
a) 14 .i.d3 Itfc8 IS b3 bS 16
ttJdS "xd2 17 .i.xd2 t:DxdS 18
cxdS .i.d7 with equality, Amason-
Petursson, Reykjavik 1989, and
Ye-YrjoUi, Novi Sad 011990.
b) 14 b3 bS and now:
bl) 15 cxbS axbS 16 ~xb5 ':fc8
17 a4 (17 e5! ? dxeS is unclear)
17 ....i.xb3 18 "d3 .i.c4 19 .i.xc4
"xgS 20 .i.bS "eS 21 t:DdS t:DxdS
22 exd5 Itc3 1/2- 1/2 Tseshkovsky-
Pigusov, Podolsk 1990.
b2) 15 e5!? dxeS 16 cxb5 axbS
17 .i.xbS h6! 18 .i.e3 ttJg4 19 .i.c4
~xc4 20 bxc4 e4! 21 ttJxe4 "e5
with a good game for Black,
Casabona-Orseth, corr 1988-93.
b3) IS ~f3!? b4 16 ttJa4 ':ab8
17 :fel Itfc8 18 "e3 hS? 19 h4
.i.d7 20 l:txc8+ ':xc8 21 1i'b6 with
a clear advantage for White, Or-
tega-Andres, Camaguey 1988, but
Black can improve: after 18 ....i.d7!
he has no problems.
b4) It is quite possible that IS
t:DdS is stronger: IS .....xd2 16
t:Dxe7+ ~h8 17 .i.xd2 t:Dxe4 18
.i.aS ':ae8 19 t:DdS .i.xd5 20 exdS
ttJc3 21 Itxc3 l:txe2 22 .i.b4 ':d8
23 a3 ':b2 24 ':c6 ':xb3 2S l:[dl
.i.eS 26 g3 ':a8 27 f4 as 28 .i.c5
.i.b2 29 .i.xd6 with a big advantage
for White, WelIs-Karolyi, Oakham
1993.
14 f4
Aside from 14 f4, White has
three alternatives at this point:
a) 14 .i.f3!? :ab8 15 ':fel bS?!
16 ttJdS "xd2 17 .i.xd2 <ili>f8 18
cxbS axbS 19 ttJb4! ttJg4 20 .i.e2
.i.d7 21 h3 ttJe5 22 llxc8+ .i.xc8
23 ':cl with a clear edge for White,
Sigurjonsson-Petursson, Reykjavik
1985, but IS ...<iIi>f8! improves for
Black, leaving the position bal-
anced.
b) 14 ':fel b5?! (just what White
was hoping for; correct was
14 ...<M8, as ttJdS has less point
when the king is on f8 and, with
the white rook on el, he will
achieve nothing by playing f2-f4-
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 181
f5) 15 ttJd5 'it'xd2 16 .lixd2 ttJxd5
17 exd5 ~d7, Dutreeuw-Donald-
son, Liechtenstein 1994, and here
White could have played 18 ~g5,
forcing Black to play 18 ... ~f6 19
.lixf6 exf6 when White is practi-
cally a pawn ahead.
c) A third possibility is 14 a4, an
attempt to clamp Black's queen-
side, but since Black simply plays
14... b5 anyway, it does not make
much sense. The game Gasseholm-
Isajev, corr 1987-92, continued 15
e5 dxe5 16 axb5 axb5 17 .lif3 e4
18 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 19 .lixe4 1i'xd2 20
.lixd2 %:txa2 with a small advantage
for Black.
14 ':'c5
Black must try to stop the white
e- and f-pawns from marching for-
ward. A similar idea is known from
the Yugoslav Attack in the Dragon
variation.
White has a murderously high
percentage score against 14... b5: 15
f5 b4 (even worse is 15 ... .lid7 16
fxg6 hxg6 17 e5 ttJe8 18 ttJd5
"iWxd2 19 ~xd2 %:td8 20 ttJxe7+
'it>h7 21 .lif3 %:ta7 22 .lie3 %:tc7 23
exd6 ttJxd6 24 ~b6 1-0 Van der
Werf-Ree, Holland 1993) 16 fxe6
bxc3 17 ext7+ 'it>f8! (this is the
only way to stir things up;
17... 'it>xt7?! 18 %:txc3 [18 "iWd5+
"iWxd5 19 exd5 is also good for
White, as in Mainka-Dory, Dort-
mund 1987] 18 ... 'Ot>g8 19 ~f3 %:tab8
20 %:td3 "iWxd2 21 %:txd2 with a clear
advantage for White, Uhlmann-
Spiridonov, Decin 1977) 18 "iWf4
"iWxa2 (in Barle-Whitehead, Lone
Pine 1979, Black committed sui-
cide with 18 ...ttJxe4? 19 .lixe7+
'Ot>xe7 20 "iWxe4+ 'it>f8 21 "iWf4 h5 22
~f3 %:ta7 23 "iWg3 with a big ad-
vantage for White, but even
stronger is 20 fS"iW+! and Black is
busted) 19 e5 dxe5 20 "iWxe5 "iWa3
21 ~f3 %:tab8 with a complicated
position, but somewhat better
chances for White in Levy-Silman,
Lone Pine 1975.
15 'iVe3
Other tries are:
a) 15 %:tbl ttJd5 16 exd5 ~xc3
17 "iWe3 .lif5 18 b4 ~xb4 19 ':'xb4
.xb4 20 .xe7 1i'b6 21 .f6
%:tcc8+ 22 'iPhl "iWd8 23 "iWxd8+
%:txd8 24 ~xd8 %:txd8 with equality,
Berthelot-Bernard, French Team ch
1996.
b) 15 a3 (White wants to play
f4-f5, and nothing is going to stop
him from doing so!) 15 ...•xa3 16
~xf6 ~xf6 17 f5 gxf5 18 exf5
':xf5 19 ':xf5 ~xf5 20 ttJd5 ~g6
21 ttJxf6+ exf6 22 b4 ':e8 and
Black was slightly better, Adla-
Palacios, Parana 1993.
c) 15 ~f3 ':ac8 16 "iWf2!? (not
16 "iWe3 b5! 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5
ttJd7 19 ttJd5 ~xd5 20 ~xd5 e6
with a clear plus for Black, Psak-
his-Pigusov, USSR 1979, or 16
%:tcdl b5 17 ttJd5 "iWd8 18 cxb5
.lixd5 19 exd5 axb5 with a slight
edge for Black, as in the game
Kaiszauri-Spiridonov, Skara 1980)
182 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

16 ... :5c7?! (16 ... b5 is met by 17 e4-e5 or f4-f5. However, Tiviakov

f5! gxf5 18 i.e3, but Black has has no intentions of being a sitting
16...':'xg5 17 fxg5 Wxg5 with con- duck, so he pulls out a weapon
trol over the dark squares and ex- which is also quite common in the
cellent compensation for the ex- regular Dragon variation: the posi-
change) 17 f5 gxf5 18 l2Jd5 i.xd5 tional exchange sacrifice.
19 exd5 b5 20 i.e3 ':'b8 21 c5 with
a big advantage to White, Kmic-
Spiridonov, Athens 1981.
d) 15 i.d3 (this is considered
White's best option; White keeps
playing for the f4-f5 advance)
15 ... b5 (this leads to a small ad-
vantage for White, but Black has an
interesting alternative: 15 ...:xg5!
16 fxg5 .!iJg4 with serious compen-
sation on the dark squares) 16 f5
bxc4 17 fxe6 cxd3 18 exf7+ ~xf7
19 i.e3 ':'c6 20 Wxd3 l:.ac8 21
i.d2 Wc5+ 22 ~hl with a slight
edge for White, Orlov-Petrenko, 19 :txgS!
Podolsk 1989. In return for the exchange, Black
IS :ac8 gets excellent control over the dark
16 :bl squares and simultaneously takes
In Korchnoi-Wojtkiewicz, Ant- the dynamism out of the white po-
werp 1994, White insisted on sition. The chances are level.
playing f4-f5. However, after 16 20 fxgS .!iJd7
l2Ja4 :t5c6 17 f5 i.d7 18 ~hl ':'e8 21 l2JdS i.eS
(Black aims for a set-up with 22 i.f4 i.xf4
...:te8, .. J1c8, ... i.c6 and ... .!iJe5 23 :txf4
with absolute control; to avoid this White has exchanged the black
White must play very actively) 19 dark-squared bishop, but Black still
.!iJc3 %lcc8 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 21 .!iJd5 has a strong hold on the central
i.c6 22 b4 'ii'xa2 23 .!iJb6 ':'cd8 24 dark squares.
b5 i.d7 25 i.g4 g5 26 ':'cdl 'ii'b2 23 h6
27 h4 gxh4 28 .!iJxd7 and Black 24 h4 .!iJeS
lost on time! After 28 ... ':'xd7 he 2S :tfn :tcS
would have had a good game. 26 gxh6 ¢>h7
16 'ii'd8 27 hS 'ii'xh6
17 a4 as 28 'ii'xh6+ ¢>xh6
18 ~hl 'W'f8 29 hxg6 ¢>xg6
19 :tbe1 We have now reached an ending,
This is beginning to look un- in which only White can play for
comfortable for Black. His position win, but Black's strong knight will
is solid but quite passive, and if he keep the chances equal. White
waits, White will soon play either plays on for quite some time before
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 183
accepting the draw:
30 l:tf4 tiJe6 31 l:th4 <tig7 32 l:tn
tiJd4 33 iJ..dl <tig7 34 <tih2 f6 35
':'el <tit'S 36 l:te3 <tieS 37 l:th5
l:txh5 3S iJ..xh5+ <tid7 39 ':'d3 tiJc6
40 l:te3 <tie7 41 iJ..eS tiJd4 42 l:tdJ
tiJe2 43 iJ..b5 tiJb4 44 l:tg3 iJ..d7 45
l:tg7 iJ..xb5 46 axb5 <tid7 47 l:tg3
<tie6 4S <tigl <tieS 49 l:tg7 <tie6 50
e5 dxe5 51 e5 <tid7 52 l:tgS tiJdJ
53 e6+ bxe6 54 b6 tiJe5 55 ':'a7
tiJb7 56 l:ta7 <ticS 57 l:taS+ <tid7
5S l:ta7 ':'eS Ib.-Ib.
Game 72
Ernst-Tiviakov
Haninge 1992
(1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
tiJxd4 g6 5 e4 tiJf6 6 tiJe3 d6 7
iJ..e2 tiJxd4 S 'iWxd4 iJ..g7 9 iJ..g5
0-010 'iWd2 iJ..e6)
11 l:tel
12 f3
120-0 transposes to the previous
game.
12 l:tfeS
12 ... a6 13 b3 l:tfcS usually trans-
poses, but Kudrin-Ca.Hansen, Sat-
ellite Beach 1997, saw Black try
13...b5? Unfortunately he was se-
verely punished for weakening his
queenside in such a fashion: 14
ttJd5 'iWxd2+ 15 <il;lxd2 iJ..xdS 16
cxdS (compared to the main line,
White has everything he could ever
dream of: the c-file, the pair of
bishops and a black queenside
weakened by ... b7-b5) 16.. J::tfbS 17
l:tc7 <il;lfS IS l:thel <il;leS 19 g3! tiJd7
20 iJ..fl iJ..d4 2 ~h3 tiJf6 22 iJ..e3!
.ltxe3+ 23 ~e3'<il;ldS 24 <il;ld4 h5
25 a3 b4 26 a4 a5 27 lUc2 1-0.
White will simply march through in
the centre with his pawns, which is
precisely what Black must strive to
avoid in these endings.
13 b3
Harmless is 13 tiJd5 "xd2+
(13 .....dS is also for Black, when
in Tukmakov-Estevez, Leningrad
1973, Black had equalised after 14
tiJxf6+ exf6 15 iJ..e3 f5 16 exf5
.ltxf5 170-0 "e7 IS iJ..f2 J:teS) 14
<il;lxd2 lDxdS 15 exdS (or 15 cxdS
iJ..d7 16 b3 <il;lf8 17 h4 iJ..b2 IS ':'b 1
.i..c3+ 19 <il;le3 iJ..b4 20 .i..d3 f6 21
.i..f4 iJ..a3 22 g4 a6 23 b4 .i..b5 with
a draw coming up, Loeffler-Vaulin,
Koszalin 1997) 15 ...iJ..d7 16 b3 e6
17 dxe6 fxe6 IS iJ..d3 dS 19 cxdS
iJ..xd5 20 ':'xcS+ l:txcS 21 ':'el
':'xel 22 ..txcl with a drawish end-
game, Vaganian-Sandor, German
Bundesliga 1995/96.
13 a6
In Jansa-Szabo, Amsterdam
1975, Black tried 13 ...iJ..d7 14 0-0
a6 15 f4 .i..c6 16 "e3 (16 iJ..d3
intending 16...b5 17 f5 is an inter-
esting alternative) 16... b5 17 e5 b4
IS exf6 exf6 19 lDd5 .i..xdS 20
.i..h4 ':'eS 21 "d2 iJ..e4 22 f5 "c5+
23 ~hl .i..xf5 24 iJ..f2 "c6 with
equality.
14 lDa4
This move is clearly White's
184 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
most ambitious try for an advan-
tage in the main line. Other tries in
this position are:
a) 14 0-0 b5 15 ti)d5 ti)xd2 16
.txd2 reaching a dead level posi-
tion that can be found under 9 ~e3
- note to White's 14th move in
Game 67.
b) 14 ti)d5 "xd2+ 15 'iitxd2
ti)xd5 (15 ... ..txd5?! 16 cxd5 'iitfB
17 .te3 ti)d7 IS b4 a5 19 .tb5 'iiteS
20 bxa5 <todS 21 .txd7 'iitxd7 22
'::'xcS IhcS 23 .tb6 'iitd7 24 l:tbl
with a clear advantage for White,
Herrera-Hergott, Cienfuegos 1996)
16 cxd5 (16 exd5 does not make
much difference: 16 .....td7 17 a4 e6
IS dxe6 ..txe6 19 .te3 d5 20 cxd5
..txd5 with equal chances, Dolma-
tov-Lautier, Clermont Ferrand
19S9) 16 ... .td7 17 h4 (if White
takes the pawn on e7, Black gets
excellent compensation 17 l:txcS+
l:txcS IS .txe7 .th6+ 19 <toel l:tc2
20 .txd6 l:txa2, as in Banas-
Dobrovolsky, Trnava 19S3) 17 ... f6
IS .te3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 g4 fxg4
21 fxg4 .tb2 22 l:txcS+ l:txcs 23
':'g 1 ..tc3+ 24 <tod 1 a5 25 .td3 a4
with equality, Mokry-Zsu.Polgar,
Trencianske Teplice 19S5.
c) 14 a4!? (although it is hardly
ever played, this is possibly
White's best move) 14 ... 'iitf8?!
(best is 14... 'ii'b4, e.g. 15 ti)d5
"xd2+ 16 'iitxd2 ti)xd5 17 exd5
.td7 IS a5 e6 with approximately
equal chances, whereas 14.....d8?!
15 g4 ti)d7 16 h4 ti)c5 17 .tdl "fS
18 h5 h6 19 ..te3 g5 20 a5 is
clearly better for White, Paneque-
Andres, Manzanillo 1989) 15 h4
h5? (15 ... 'ii'b4!?) 16 .tdl .td7 17
g4 b5 IS gxh5 gxh5 19 .th6 with a
strong attack, Kasparov-Merkulov,
Tbilisi 1976.
14 'it'xd2+
This move used to be played ex-
clusively, but 14 .....d8!? became
famous after Krasenkov-Hernan-
dez, Palma de Mallorca 19S9. Al-
though it has only been tried a cou-
ple of times in high level games
since then, we feel that this line
deserves more attention. White has
tried:
a) 15 0-0 ..td7 (15 ... l:tabS?! is
too passive, e.g. 16 c5 l:tc6 17 l:tfdl
ti)eS 18 b4 b5 19 ti)c3 l:tb7 20 ti)d5
'iitfB 21 .th6 .txh6 22 "xh6+ 'iitgS
23 "e3 'ii'bs 24 f4 when White
was clearly better in Frey-Andres,
Camaguey 1987) 16 ti)c3 b5 17
l:tfdl .te8 (17 ... b4? is just plain
bad: IS .txf6 exf6 19 ti)d5 a5 20
"e3 '::'c5 21 l:tc2 .te6 22 l:tcd2
.tfB? 23 "xb4 and White is win-
ning, Marciano-Spiridonov, French
team ch 1996) IS e5 dxe5 19 "xd8
l:txdS 20 l:txd8 l:txdS 21 cxb5 axb5
22 ti)xb5 h6 23 .te3 ti)d5 is un-
clear, Beliavsky-Shabalov, Manila
011992.
b) 15 c5 ti)d7! (the Krasenkov-
Hernandez game mentioned above
took another route: 15 ... l:tc6!? 16
<M2! "f8 17 'ii'b4 ti)d7 IS cxd6,
and now instead of IS ... l:txd6 19
 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 185
"xb7 .i.d4+ 20 .i.e3 l::tbS 21 'fIIc7
with a clear edge for White, Her-
nandez suggests IS ...exd6!? 19
"xb7 iLd4+ 20 'it>g3 ttJf6! 21
iLxf6 l::txcl 22 l::txcl .i.xf6 with an
unclear position) 16 cxd6 :Xcl+
17 "xcI l::tcS! (everywhere else
only 17 ...'flla5+ IS .i.d2 with a
small advantage is given, but this
move is much better) IS 'ifbl
(other queen moves loses at least a
piece after IS ... b5) IS ... b5, and
now in Medda-Conti, corr 19S2,
White lost his head and played 19
dxe???, which loses to 19 .....c7!,
but even after the better move 19
ttJb2 "a5+ (or 19 ....i.c3+ 20 'it>fl
f6 21 dxe7 "xe7 with good com-
pensation for the pawn) 20 iLd2
iLc3 21 'fIIc2 .i.xd2+ 22 "xd2
"xa2 Black has a clear advantage.
15 'it>xd2 ttJd7
The old main line 15 ... ltc6 is
still playable, when White has tried
the following:
a) 16 .i.e3 ttJd7 17 ttJc3 ltacS IS
ttJd5 .i.xd5 19 exd5 iLxc3+ with
equality, Reshevsky-Browne, USA
ch 1974.
b) 16 h4!? 'iii'fB 17 iLe3 ttJh5?
(17 ... ttJd7 is much better, when the
chances are approximately level)
IS ttJb6 ltdS 19 g4 ttJg3 20 :hgl
ttJxe2 21 'iii'xe2 iLb2 22 ltcdl .i.a3
23 f4 with a clearly better game for
White, Pigusov-Makarov, USSR
19S2.
c) 16 ttJc3 ltccS (Karpov-
Kavalek, Nice 01 1974, was better
for White after 16... ltacS 17 ttJd5
'iii'fB IS iLe3 ttJd7 19 h4; 16... l%eS
is suggested by Karpov in his an-
notations to the game, when after
17 ttJd5 ttJd7 White cannot take on
e7 [IS ttJxe7+?! ltxe7 19 iLxe7 f6
20 iLdS b6] but IS g4 iLd4 19 h4
f6 transposes to our main game) 17
h4 'ii;lf8 IS .i.e3 ttJh5 19 g4 ttJg3 20
lthg 1 tiJxe2 21 'it>xe2 b5 22 ttJd5
iLxd5 23 cxd5 iLb2 24 ltxcS+
ltxcs 25 'iii'd3 b4 26 ltbl ltc3+ 27
'it>d2 .i.a3 with an equal endgame,
Morris-S.B.Hansen, Copenhagen
1992.
16 g4
After 16 iLe3, which was tried
out in Kramnik-Ivanchuk, London
1994, White achieved a slightly
better position after 16...lbbS
(16 ...f5!?) 17 ttJc3 ttJe5 (17 ...f5) IS
ttJd5 ttJc6 19 ttJb6 ltdS 20 l1hdl
.i.d4 21 .i.xd4 ttJxd4 22 'iii'e3 ttJxe2
23 'iii'xe2 f5 24 exf5 .i.xf5 25 l:ld4.
16 l:lc6
After 16 g4 (and the same goes
for 16 ltc2, 16 h4 and 16 ttJc3)
Black can transpose to the 9 .i.e3
main line (Game 67) with 16...f6
17 .i.e3 f5. However, 16...'ii;lf8
leads to independent play: 17 h4 (in
Zsu.Polgar-Leko, Budapest 1991,
Black had no problems after 17
.ie3 l:labS [not 17...l:lc6?! IS ttJc3
ttJc5 19 ttJd5 .i.d7 20 h4 h6 21 b4
ttJe6 22 f4 ttJd4 23 f5 ttJxe2 24
'iii'xe2 with a small edge for White,
Dvoiris-Pigusov, Vilnius 19S4] IS
g5 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 b5 21
186 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation

cxb5 axb5 22 tLlc3 tLlc5; but Al-

terman suggests 17 h3!? f6 18 .ie3
f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 with a small
edge for White) 17 .. .f6 (according
to Alterman should Black have
played 17 ... Itc6 18 .ie3 f5 19 exf5
gxf5 20 g5 d5 21 cxdS i..xdS with
equality, but in Averbakh-Popov;
Polanica Zdroj 1976, White
achieved the better chances after 18
Itc2 tLlc5 19 tLlc3 as 20 tLld5 l:e8
21 .ie3) 18 .ie3 fS 19 exf5 gxf5
20 g5 d5 21 cxd5 i..xd5 22 l:hd 1
with a small advantage for White,
Wang Zili-Alterman, Beijing 1995.
17 h4
White still cannot take on e7: 17
i..xe7 f6 18 gS (18 c5 .ih6+) rbf7
19 .ixf6 tLlxf6 20 gxf6 .ih6+.
17 l:e8
18 tLlc3 .id4
Black wants his bishop out in
open air before advancing with
... f7-f6.
19 tLldS f6 20 .if4 .in 21 gS 1/;g7
22 .ie3 i..xe3+ 23 1/;xe3 e6 24
tLlxf6tLlxf6 25 exf6+ 1/;xf6 26
l:hdl1/;e7 27 f4 l:ec8
We have reached an endgame in
which White has a tiny edge, but
the black position is solid, and the
draw is never really in danger.
28 l:d2 bS 29 l:cdl bxc4 30 .ixc4
.ie8 31 l:gl l:b6 32 fS exfS 33
exfS l:cS 34 fxg6 .ixg6 35 l:gS
l:r.xgS 36 hxgS l:c6 37 1/;d4 as 38
l:e2+ 1/;d8 39 l:e6 .in 40 l:r.h6
.ig6 41 .id3 .ixd3 42 1/;xd3 l:cS
43 l:r.xd6+ 1/;c7 44 l:h6 l:xgS 45
l:txh7 1/;b6 46 l:h6+ 1/;cS 47 1/;c3
l:r.g3+ 48 1/;b2 l:tg2+ 49 1/;a3 1/;bS
so l:hS+ 1/;b6 liz-Ill
9 Classical with .ie2

Chapter Guide

1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 g6 5 tDc3 i..g7

6 tDb3 - Game 73
6 i..e3 tDf6 7 i..e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5! 9 exd5
9 ... tDb4!? - Game 74
9... tDxd5 - Game 75

In this chapter we shall deal with
the classical lines in which White
neither plays 5 c4, entering the
Maroczy Bind, nor plays i..c4 (see
Chapters 10 and 11). White hopes
that by developing his light-
squared bishop to e2, he will be
able to transpose to a regular Clas-
sical Dragon (nonnally reached via
the move order 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6 3
d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 g6 6
i..e2). However, White's modest
set-up often allows Black to play
...d7-d5 in one go, with a good
game to follow.
Game 73
Zapata-Garcia Martinez
Sagua /a Grande 1984
(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tDxd4 g6)
5 tDc3
Since 5 tDc3 i..g7 6 tDb3 allows
Black the option of 6... i..xc3+,
White may try 5 tDb3 if he wants to
enter the Karpov variation of the
Classical Dragon (1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6
3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 g6 6
i..e2 i..g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tDb3 tDc6 9
i..g5). However, Black can keep
the game within the Accelerated
Dragon by postponing moving the
d-pawn: 5... i..g7 6 i..e2 tDf6 7 tDc3
0-0 8 0-0 as 9 a4 tDb4 10 i..g5 h6
(l0... d6 would transpose into the
Karpov variation, but on occasion
Black has tried the immediate
1O...d5: 11 exd5 tDfxd5 12 tDxd5
tDxd5 13 i..f3 tDf6 14 :el 'fIc7 15
1i'e2 ':e8 16 1i'b5 ~ 17 c3 with
some initiative for White, Ku-
preichik-Pohl, Schwabisch Gmiind
1995) 11 i..h4 g5 12 i..g3 d5 13
exd5 (13 e5 only helps Black:
13 ... tDe4 14 tDxe4 dxe4 15 tDc5
i..f5 with excellent chances) and
now:
a) Black adopted an interesting
188 Classical with i.e2
approach in Fishbein-Hodgson,
Stavanger 1989: 13 ... i.fS!? 14
tDd4 i.g6 IS i.c4 ':c8 16 i.b3
tDfxdS 17 tDxdS tDxdS 18 lte 1
(Black has taken over the initiative,
but 18 c3 was to be preferred)
18 ... tDb4 19 i.eS tDxc2 20 i.xc2
i.xc2 21 tDxd2 'iWxdl 22 ':axdl
':xc2 and Black won the endgame.
b) 13 ... tDfxdS 14 tDxdS tDxdS
and now:
bl) IS 1Ii'd2 has been tried:
IS ... i-e6?! (Donaldson suggests
IS ... e6! as an improvement, giving
16 c3 'iWb6 17 tDd4 i.d7 18 tDbS
':ad8 with equality) 16 tDcs i.xb2
17 tDxe6 with a slight plus for
White, Meijer-Ozolin, Riga 1986.
b2) IS c3 eS?! (too ambitious: it
would have been better to try the
solid lS ... e6 with about equal
chances or Silman's IS ...tDf4, e.g.
16 i.xf4 gxf4 17 'iWxd8 ltxdS IS
':'fdl i.e6 or 16 i.bS!? 'iWb6 17
i.xf4 gxf4 18 lIfe 1 eS in both
cases with good play for Black) 16
i-f3 tDb6 17 'iWxd8 ':xd8 18 ':fdl
':xdl 19 ':xdl fS 20 l:td8+ rt;f7 21
i-hS+ q;e7 22 l:te8+ q;d6 23 ltg8
and White later won the endgame,
Balashov-Winants, Eupen 1994.
5 i.g7
6 liJb3
6 i.e3 is seen in Games 74 and
7S.
6 i.xc3+
Both theory and practice indicate
that Black's chances are inferior
after the text, but Suba has sug-
gested a couple of ideas which
should prove that Black is okay.
However, Black does not need to
exchange on c3. After 6... tDf6 7
i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 he has a few alter-
natives:
a) S... aS 9 a4 tDb4 and now 10
i.gS will transpose to the lines
given in the note to White's fifth
move above and 10 i.e3 to the 6
i.e3 lines which are to be found
later in the book. However, White
can avoid these transpositions with:
al) 10 f4, when in Unsworth-
Theis, corr 1995, Black equalised
after 1O... 'i'b6+ 11 q;hl dS 12 eS
(12 exdS i.fS) 12 ...tDe4 13 tDxe4
(or 13 tDd4 f6 14 exf6 i.xf6 IS
i-e3 tDxc3 16 bxc3 tDc6, Lengyel-
Silman, Budapest 1994) 13 ... dxe4
14 i.bS i.e6 IS c3 i.xb3 16 'ii'xb3
tDd3.
a2) White can also try 10 ..thl,
but after lO... dS 11 eS tDe4 12 f4 f6
(12 ...'i'b6 is the 10 f4 line) 13 exf6
exf6 14 tDbS fS IS c3 tDc6 16 i.e3
i-e6 17':f3 i.f7 18 'ii'gl gS! Black
held the initiative in Zapata-Laflair,
New York 1993.
b) 8... b6 9 i.gS (9 f4 was suc-
cessful for White in Franzoni-
Nemet, Switzerland 1987: 9...i.b7
10 i.f3 as 11 a4 tDb4 12 i.e3
'iWb8?! 13 eS tDe8 14 tDbS tDc7 IS
i.xb7 'ii'xb7 16 tDxc7 'iWxc7 17 c3
tDa6 IS 'iWdS with an edge for
White; instead of 12 ...'i'b8?! Black
could consider 12 ... dS or 12 ... d6,
but his set-up looks artificial)

9....i.b7 and now:
bl) After 10 ~hl?!, Black
seized the initiative with 1O...lIcS
11 f4 dS 12 exdS ll:)b4 13 .i.f3 .i.aS
14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 IS a3 .i.xc3 16
axb4 .i.xb2 17 lIxa7 'ii'd6, Hebden-
Pavlovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1991.
b2) Nor should Black have any
major problems after 10 'ii'd2 d6?!
(1O...ncS, intending ...ll:)eS is
stronger, when Skembris gives 11
f4 bS!? as unclear) 11 f4 ll:)d7 12
lIael ll:)cs 13 .i.c4! ll:)xb3 14
axb3?! (14 .i.xb3!) 14... a6 IS ll:)dS
bS 16 .i.d3 f6 17 .i.h4 e6 IS ll:)e3
gS 19 .i.g3 gxf4 20 .i.xf4 ll:)e7 21
c3 lXadS 22 ll:)c2 ll:)eS with unclear
play, Thorhallsson-Skembris, Kop-
avogur 1994.
b3) 10 f4 d6 11 .i.f3 ll:)d7 12
:blll:)cS 13ll:)dS (13ll:)xcS?! bxcS
14ll:)dS f6 IS .i.h4 e6 16ll:)e3ll:)d4
is good for Black, Timmerman-Van
den Bosch, Enschede 1993) 13 ... f6
14 .i.h4 e6 IS ll:)c3 gS!? 16 .i.g3
gxf4 17 .i.xf4ll:)eS IS .tg4 'fIe7 19
ll:)d4 ll:)xg4 20 'fIxg4 'ithS and
Black was in command in Kotro-
nias-Skembris, Karditsa 1994.
c) S...e6 9 'ii'd6 (best is 9 .i.e3!,
e.g. 9 ... dS 10 exdS ll:)xdS 11 ll:)xdS
exdS 12 c3 with a lasting edge for
White [Donaldson] while 9 .i.gS h6
10 .i.h4 gS 11 .i.g3 dS 12 exdS
ll:)xdS 13ll:)xdS exdS 14 lIb 1 as IS
a4 .tfS 16 .i.d3 .i.xd3 17 'ii'xd3
ll:)b4 18 'fId2 d4 is okay for Black)
9 ... ll:)e8 10 'fIg3 ll:)b4 11 .i.gS (11
.i.dl!? dS 12 a3 tbc6 13 exdS exdS
14 .i.f3, planning 1:[dl with a small
plus - Velicovic) 11...f6 12 .i.f4
ll:)xc2 13 l:ladl ll:)b4 14 l:lfdl ll:)c6
IS ll:)bS ~h8 16 ll:)d6 eS i 7 .i.e3
ll:)xd6 18 :xd6 'ii'e8 20 .i.c4 b6!,
when White had insufficient com-
pensation for the pawn, Torre-
Classical with .i.e2 189
N.Nikolic, Lugano 19S9.
7 bxc3 ll:)f6
8 .i.d3
The alternatives should not
bother Black too much:
a) S .i.c4?! ll:)eS 9 .i.e2 dS .i.h6
dxe4 11 'iVxdS+ 'iitxd8 12 :dl +
~e8 13 ll:)cs ll:)ed7 14 .i.bS a6 IS
.i.xd7+ ll:)xd7 16 ll:)xe4 f6 17 0-0
~ with a better ending for Black,
Raaste-Wedberg, Helsinki 19S3.
b) S f3!? dS 9 exdS 'iVxdS 10
'ii'xdS ll:)xdS 11 .i.d2 O-O?!
(l1.. ..i.fS!? 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 is a
better try) 12 .i.e2 l:ldS 13 h4 .i.fS
14 0-0-0 ll:)b6 IS ll:)cs ll:)aS 16 g4
.i.e6 17 ll:)xe6 fxe6 IS hS ll:)ac4 19
hxg6 hxg6 20 .i.d3 with a clear
edge for White, Gomez Baillo-
Garbarino, Salta 1987.
c) S c4!? ll:)xe4 9 .i.h6 d6 10
.i.d3 ll:)cS 11 0-0.i.e6 12 'ii'd2 'iVc7
13 ll:)xcs dxcS 14 'fIe3 ll:)b4 IS
.i.g7 ll:)xd3!? 16 .i.xh8 ll:)b4 17
:ladl l%dS IS .i.eS 'ii'c6 19 'ii'h6
.i.xc4 20 'ii'fS+ 'iitxfS 21 l%dS+
'iVeS 22 .i.g7+ 'itxg7 23 l%xeS
.i.xfl 24 ~xfl ~6 with equality,
Imanaliev-Yurtaev, Frunze 19S7.
d) 8 'iVe2 'iVc7 9 f4 d6 and soon
White's pawns will become targets
- Suba.
190 Classical with ~e2
8 d5
9 exd5 'ii'xd5
10 0-0 0-0
Since the main line favours
White, Black has to consider trying
something different here:
a) 1O... .ig4!? 11 "'e1 0-0 112-112,
J .Fernandez-Zsu.Polgar, Pamplona
1991. This is hardly a test of
1O ... ~g4. While 11 f3 .if5 12 c4
"'d7 is okay for Black, as 13 tDc5
fails to 13 ......d4+, the real test is
11 c4!?, but Black should be fine
after 11......d7 12 "'e1 0-0 13 tDc5
"'cS.
b) 10... .if5!? (Suba's recom-
mendation) 11 c4 "'d7 12 tDc5
"'cS (or 12 ......c7 13 ~b2 tDg4!?
14 g3 tDce5? 15 ~xf5 gxf5 16
tDd3 0-0-0 17 "'e2 with a clear
plus for White, Peters-Silman, Los
Angeles 19S2) 13 ~h6 (or 13
~xf5 'it'xd5 14 tDxb7 0-0 with
good play for Black) tDg4 14 ~g7
AgS 15 .ic3 "'c7 16 g3 0-0-0 17
Abl b6 IS tDa6 'ii'b7 19 c5 tDce5,
when Black is clearly better -
Suba.
11 Ael
An important alternative is 11
h3!? In Tolnai-Chernikov, Debre-
cen 19S5, White had a clear edge
after l1...tDe5 12 tDe2 "'xdl 13
Axdl tDe4 14 .ih6 tDxc3 15 .ixfS
tDxdl 16 ~xe7 tDc3 17 .in, but
for example, both 11.. .AdS and
11.. ..if5 seem to provide Black
with good chances of equality.
Another possibility is 11 c4,
when 1l...'ii'h5 12 "'xh5 tDxh5 13
Ael AeS 14 tDc5! f5 (Razuvaev
suggests 14 ... tDg7) 15 ~e2! is bet-
ter for White, as in Vogt-Garcia-
Martinez, Leipzig 19S3, but Black
should instead opt for 1l......d6 12
c5!? (12 ~b2 tDg4 13 g3 tDge5 14
"'e2 tDxd3 15 cxd3 .ih3 16 Afe1
e5 is equal, Bokuchava-Rashkov-
sky, Tbilisi 1972) 12 ......c7 13 h3
a5? (too slow and weakening; bet-
ter was 13 ... J.e6 followed by
... AadS) 14 Ae1 ~e6 15 "'f3
.if4 'it'cs 17 tDd2 AdS IS ~g5
a4 16
tDd4 19 'it'f4 tDh5 20 'ii'h4 tDh5 20
'ii'h4 tDg7 21 tDe4 tDgf5 22 "'f4
with a clear advantage for White,
Kuzmin-Bern, Cappelle la Grande
1994.
11 ~g4
12 'iM2!?
Even better is 12 c4! For exam-
ple, 12 ......d6 13 "'d2 .l:r.adS 14
"'g5 ~cS 15 ~f4 'iVd7 16 h3!
tDh5! 17 tDc5 'iVd4 IS ~c7 AdeS,
Ljubojevic-Kir.Georgiev, Thessa-
loniki 01 19S5, and now Georgiev
gives 19 Aabl b6! 20 tDb3 'it'd7 21
.ih2 followed by c4-c5, when
White's two bishops and space
advantage guarantee him the better
of it.
12 J:r.ad8
Possibly better is 12 ... AfdS!?
13 'iVf4!
Meister-Vokac, Ceske 1994, saw
instead 13 c4 'iVh5 14 "'c3 ~f5 15
.ib2 e5! 16 ~e2 'iVh4 17 g3 'iVh6
IS ~f3 tDd4 19 ~xb7 tDg4 20 h4
 Classical with ~e2 191

liJxc2, when Black was doing very liJxd5 10 liJxc6 bxc6 11 ~d4
well. ~xd4 12 'ii'xd4 'iVa5 13 'iVa4 'ii'b6
13 'ii'hS 14 liJdl ~f5 15 c3 e5 16 ~a6
14 h3 ~c8 .l:ad8 17 0-0 liJf4 with a plus for
15 c4 liJe8 Black, Saltaev-Serper, Tashkent
16 ~b2 f6 1987.
17 ~e4 eS b) 7 liJb3 a5 (7 ... 0-0 is likely to
18 'ii'e3 liJd6?! transpose into Game 75) 8 ~b5 0-0
Zapata suggests instead 9 0-0 a4 10 liJxa4 liJxe4 11 liJb6
18 ... liJc7, intending 19 ~xc6?! :b8 12 c3 f5 13 f4 e6 14 a4 d5 15
bxc6 20 'ii'xa7 liJe6. a5 g5 16 ~xc6 bxc6 17 fxg5 e5
19 ~dS+ ~h8 20 f4 with compensation for the pawn,
Now Black's position is under- Sisov-Kotkov, USSR 1954.
going demolition. c) 7 f4 0-0 (7 ...d6 transposes to
20 ...liJb4 21 fxeS liJxdS 22 cxd5 the Classical Dragon after 8 ~e2) 8
liJc4 23 exf6! liJxb2 24 'ii'd4 'ii'xdS e5 liJe8 9 'iVf3 d6! 10 liJxc6 bxc6
25 'ii'xb2 'ii'd7 26 ':adl ':xdl 27 11 'ii'xc6 ~d7 and Black has ex-
':xdl ~g8 28 ':d6 d6 29 'ii'd4 cellent compensation for the sacri-
~e6 30 liJdl ~xa2 31 c4 1-0 ficed pawn.
d) 7 f3 0-0 8 ~c4 'ii'b6 trans-
Game 74 poses into lines which can be found
Radulov-Deze under 7 ~c4 0-0 8 f3 'ii'b6 - see
Vrsac 1971 Game 87.
7 0-0
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 It is premature to play ... d7-d5
liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 ~g7) before castling. The game Filip-
owicz-Borkowski, Poland 1976,
6 ~e3 liJf6 showed why: 7... d5? 8 ~b5! ~d7 9
exd5 liJb4 10 ~c4 ':c8 11 ~b3
'ii'a5 12 'iVd2 ':xc3 13 bxc3 liJbxd5
14 ~xd5 liJxd5 15 c4 and Black
had insufficient compensation for
the exchange.
8 0-0
For 8 f4 and 8 liJb3, see the
notes to the next game. The other
moves at White's disposal should
not bother Black too much:
a) 8 h4? d5 9 liJxc6 (White
should try to limit Black's advan-
tage by 9 exd5 liJxd5 10 liJxd5
'iVxd5 11 ~f3 'ii'a5+ 12 c3 ':d8 or
7 ~e2 12 ... liJxd4) 9...bxc6 10 exd5 liJxd5
The alternatives mostly trans- 11 liJxd5 cxd5 12 c3 e5 with an
pose into other lines: excellent position for Black,
a) 7 h3?! 0-0 8 'ii'd2 d5 9 exd5 Lepeshkhin-Zaitsev, USSR 1958.
192 Classical with i.e2
b) S 1id2? (a common mistake
in this position) S... d5! and now:
bl) 9 ttJxc6 bxc6 10 e5 (10
0-0-0 i.e6 11 exd5 cxd5 12 i.f3
'fIc7 13 i.d4 lidS is very comfort-
able for Black, Ciuksyte-Stankovic,
Litosmyl 1994) 1O... ttJd7 11 f4 e6
(11...f6? 12 ttJxdS!) and now 12
ttJa4? can be answered with
12 ... ttJxe5 13 fxe5 'ilh4+.
b2) 9 exdS ttJxd5 10 ttJxd5
(damage control with 10 ttJxc6 is
more advisable; Barczay-Adorjan,
Budapest 1975, then continued
with 1O...bxc6 11 :dl i.e6! 12
i.d4 i.xd4 13 'fIxd4 'fIa5! 14 'ii'a4
'iVb6 15 'fIa3 l1fbS! with a slight
plus for Black) 1O...ttJxd4!
(l0....xd5 is not easy for White to
handle either: 11 i.f3 'fIa5! 12
ttJxc6 bxc6 13 i.xc6? [better was
13 0-0] 13 ... i.a6! 14 c3 lIfdS 15
'fIc1 :acS 16 f4 'fIa5 17.c1 llacS
IS f4 .a5 19 i.f3 i.xc3+! 20 bxc3
lIxc3 21 ~f2 :dd3! winning, Ek-
strom-Cvitan, Bern 19S5) 11 i.xd4
(here 11 lLlc3 was to be preferred,
though Black of course retains the
advantage after II...lLlxe2 12 'ii'xe2
i.f5; to be avoided is the greedy 11
lLlxe7+? 'fIxe7 12 i.xd4 i.xd4 13
'fIxd4 l:eS 14 .e3 1i'b4+ 15 .c3
'fIe4 16 .e3 .c6 with a nasty at-
tack) 1l....xd5 12 i.xg7 'ii'xg2!
13 0-0-0 ~xg7 14 'i'e3 'ii'c6 15
i.d3 'fIe6 (or 15 ... i.e6 16 h4 h5 17
:bgl i.g4 with an extra pawn for
Black, Crepeaux-Glatmann, Varna
1972) 16 'fId4+ 'i'f6 17 'ife3 i.e6
with a big advantage for Black,
Ignacio-Donaldson, Anaheim 19S5.
8 dS!
9 exdS
Or 9 lLlxc6 bxc6 and now:
a) 10 i.f3 e6 11 exd5 cxd5 12
lLle2 i.a6 13 lIel lLld7 14 c3 lLle5
with a very good game for Black,
Jensen-Ca.Hansen, corr 1996.
b) 10 exdS cxdS 11 i.d4 e6 12
a4 a5 13 lLlb5 i.a6 14 c3 lLle4! 15
i.e3 ':eS 16 lIfe! 'ii'bs 17 i.d3
lLld6 IS .e2 e5 with clearly better
chances for Black, Pilnik-Petrosian,
Stockholm izt 1952.
c) 10 e5 is the ECO main line,
which continues 1O... lLle4?! 11
lLlxe4 dxe4 12 'fIxdS ':xdS 13
ltfdl i.e6 14 i.d4 lld7 (l4 ...c5!?)
15 a4! with a slight plus for White,
Short-Yrjolii, Manila 01 1992. Bet-
ter is 1O... ttJd7 11 f4 e6 12 lLla4
.e7 (also good is 12 ... f6 13 lLlc5
'i'e7 14 lLlxd7 i.xd7 15 'i'd4 :tl>S
16 b3 a5 17 c4 a4 with a slight plus
for Black, Desch-Donaldson, Port-
land 1979, or 13 exf6 'i'xf6 14 c3
 Classical with -'.e2 193

"e7 with equality, Fechner- Less dynamic is 11.. ...d7 12 c4

Donaldson, Heidelberg 1979) 13 c4 a6 13 "a4 tDc6 14 %ladl l:tbS,
f6 14 exf6 ~xf6 15 "d2 l:td8 16 Bartis-Yudovich, corr 1971, and
l:tfdl ~b7 17 l:tac! d4 with a slight now Korchnoi gives 15 tDc3 tDxd4
edge for Black, Zhukhovitsky- 16 ~xd4 with a slight plus for
A.Zaitsev, USSR 1962. 1O...~e8 White.
also deserves attention: 11 f4 f6 12 12 c4
exf6 exf6 13 ~a4 tDd6 is unclear. 12 "c1 a6 13 tDc3 tDbdS 14
9 ~b4!? tDxdS, Minev-Keres, Munich 01
For 9 ... tDxdS, see the next game.
10 d6!?
1955, and 12 "d2
J.d7 are both equal.
tDc6 13 -'.f3

Clearly best. Other tries are:

a) 10 "d2 tDbxds 11 tDxdS
tDxdS 12 ~h6 ~xh6 13 "xh6
'fIb6 14 tDb3 with equality, Cal-
cado-Martinez, Sao Paulo 1992.
b) 10 ~f3 tDbxdS 11 tDxds
tDxdS 12 -'.g5, Postler-Baumbach,
East Germany 19S3, and now
12 ...tDf6 is equal.
c) 10 tDb3 tDbxdS (alternatively
Black could go for 10... ~f5!? 11
l:tc1 tDbxdS 12 tDxd5 tDxd5 13
~d4 -'.h6, Anceschi-Makropoulos,
Groningen 1972) 11 tDxd5 tDxds
12 -'.d4 es (12 ...tDf6 13 ~f3 "c7 12 86
14 l:tel ~f5 15 c3 l:tac8 16 "e2 Also perfectly playable is
l:tfe8 17 ~e5, Hoen-Soos, Lucerne 12...tDc6 13 tDxc6 (or 13 'fIb3
1979, and 12 ...tDf4 13 ~f3 ~xd4 tDxd4 14 ~xd4 a6 IS tDc3 tDg4
14 "xd4 [Korchnoi] both slightly with a slight plus for Black - An-
favour White) 13 ~c5 l:teS 14 ~bs dres) 13 ...bxc6 14 tDd4 and now
~d7 15 ~xd7 "xd7 16 c4 tDf6 17 Black has:
"xd7 tDxd7 IS ~e3 e4 19 tDd4 a6 a) 14.....xb2? 15 tDxc6 J.e6 16
with equality, Ievtic-Twardon, By- tDxe7+ ~hS 17 -'.d4 'fIb7 IS tDdS!
dgo¢z 1980. tDxds 19 -'.xg7+ ~xg7 20 -'.f3!
10 "xd6 %ladS 21 "d4+ ~gS 22 l:tfdl l:td6
11 tDcbS 23 cxdS %lfdS 24 'iVh4 -'.xdS 25
Inferior is 11 tDdb5?! 'fIb8! 12 -'.xdS %lxdS 26 "xdS+, &tevez-
J.c5 (12 ~f3 tDc6 slightly favours Andres, Cuban ch 19S4/S5.
Black) 12 ... tDc6 13 J.f3 a6 14 b) 14... J.d7 15 J..f3 "c7 16
tDd4? (14 ~xc6 bxc6) 14...tDxd4 ~b3 %lfdS 17 tDcs ~f5?! (better is
15 -'.xd4 l:td8 16 l:tel tDg4! 17 17... J.g4! IS "e2 J..xf3 19 "xf3
tDd5 "xh2+ IS <Ml 'iVh4! and tDd7! with equal chances) IS "e2
Black was winning in E.Bouazis- e5 19 g4! -'.d7 20 %ladl h6 21 b4
Balaskas, Caorle 1975. with a clear plus for White, Yanof-
11 ""'8 sky-Benko, Stockholm izt 1962.
194 Classical with i.e2

c) 14 ...1i'c7!? has been recom- light-squared bishop look foolish.

mended by Andres, who claims It was better to play 22 ...ltJb4 or
equality. 22 ...i.f8.
13 ltJc3 23 liJd2 i.xc3?!
13 1i'b3 leaves Black with the 24 .xc3 .h4
initiative after 13 ...axb5 14 "xb4 25 h3 ltJdeS
bxc4 15 "xc4 e5 16 ltJb3 i.e6 17 26 f4!
"'5 i.d7 18 1i'd3 .i.c6 19 l:Udl Now Black's hopes are crushed.
ltJd5 20 i.c5 :te8, Binder- 26 ...exf3 27 liJxf3 liJxf3+ 28 i.xf3
Felegyhazi, Debrecen 1995. is very uncomfortable and the
13 eS?! game continuation does not present
This thrust is somewhat prema- him with much hope either:
ture. A wiser course is 13 .....c7 14 26•••ltJd3 27 liJxe4 i.xe4 28 i.xd3
"'3 (14 :tel i.d7 is also fine for Ad8 29 ~h2 liJb4 30 i.e2 l%xdl
Black) 14... ltJc6 15 ltJxc6 bxc6 16 31 i.xdl "d8 32 i.e2 ltJc6
"a3 :e8 17 i.c5 :b8 18 i.f3 i.e6 32 ... liJxa2? loses to 33 "e5 fol-
with equality, as in Gounder- lowed by i.d4.
Balaskas, Caorle 1975. Now White 33 "d2 "e7 34 cS hS 35 i.c4 "f6
got greedy with 19 1i'xa6?, but 36 "d7 i.fS 37 "xb7 i.e4 38
found himself losing after "d7 ~g7 39 i.d2 liJd4 40 "d6
19 ...ltJd7! 20 i.a3 ltJe5! 21 i.e4 "xd641 cxd6ltJc6 42 d7 1-0
:ta8 22 ltJb5 1i'd7 23 1i'b6 l:tab8 24
i.xc6:xc6. Game 75
14 ltJf3!? Estevez-Andres
14 ltJc2 also leads to a slight ad- Sagua la Grande 1987
vantage for White after 14...ltJc6
15 ltJd5 i.f5 16 ltJcb4 ltJxb4 17 (1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxb4 l:td8 18 'ii'b3 a5 19 ltJd5, as ltJxd4 g6 5 ltJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 ltJf6 7
in B.Martinez-O.Martinez, Cuban i.e20-0)
ch 1995.
14 i.fS 8 0-0
15 i.cS l:td8 Here we shall take a look at S f4
16 "b3 as and 8 ltJb3. For White's other
16...ltJd3 17 i.e7 :tcS 18 i.xf6 eighth move alternatives, see the
ltJc5 19 i.xg7ltJxb3 20 i.xe5 1i'a7 previous game.
21 axb3 l:tdS 22 ltJd5 is very pleas- a) S f4 and now of course Black
ant for White. can choose to transpose to a Classi-
17 l:tadl i.c2 cal Dragon with S... d6, but since
18
19
20
"a3
l:txd8+ .xd8

l%c1
ltJc6
i.fS
that is not the subject of this book,
we shall to bypass that particular
possibility:
21 l%dl ltJd7 a1) After the 'mad' approach
22 i.e3 e4?! S... e5!?, Grosar-Zsu.Polgar, Por-
Black is too optimistic and initi- toroz 1991, saw the following con-
ates a mistaken plan. The text just tinuation 9 ltJdb5 exf4 10 i.xf4
weakens the e-pawn and makes the ltJe8 11 0-0 ltJe5 12 ltJd5 a6 13

liJbc3 liJc7 14 liJxc7 'ii'xc7 15 liJd5
'ii'd8 16 .i.e3 b5 (Black has equal-
ised) 17 .i.b6 "g5 18 .i.c5 :e8 19
.i.e3 'iM8 20 .i.b6 'ii'g5 21 liJc7?
(White should have settled for the
draw with 21 .i.e3 "d8 22 iLb6,
since after the text Black's well co-
ordinated pieces more than com-
pensate for his small material defi-
cit) 21.. ..i.b7 22 .i.f3 f5 23 liJxe8
.:txe8 24 "C 1 liJxf3+ 25 .:txf3 'ii'f6
26 .i.a5 :xe4 27 ':f2 'ii'h4 28 .i.c3
.i.h6 29 .i.d2 .i.f8 30 .i.e3 .i.d6 31
g3 .i.xg3! 32 ':g2 .i.xh2+ 33 ..t>fl
'ii'h3 34 'ii'd2 ':xe3 0-1.
a2) 8... d5 9 e5 liJe4 (also possi-
ble is 9...ttJe8, intending to break
up the centre with ...t7-f6, e.g. 10
'ii'd2 f6 11 exf6 ttJxf6 12 0-0-0
liJg4 13 .i.xg4 .i.xg4 with equality
in Westermeier-Weidemann, Ger-
man Bundesliga 1981/82) reaching
the following position:
10 liJxe4 dxe4 11 ttJxc6 bxc6 12
"xd8 :xd8 13 .i.c4 :b8 14 b3 g5
and now:
a21) 15 .i.xa7 :xa8 16 .i.e3
gxf4 17 .i.xf4 .i.a6 18 .i.xa6 %ba6
19 ~e2 f6 and Black held on to the
initiative and went on to win in the
ending in Tamowski-Gheorghiu,
Bucharest 1961.
a22) Much more difficult to
meet is the untried 15 g3!, which
Classical with .i.e2 195
allows White to take back on f4
with the g-pawn if Black decides to
exchange. Black is more or less
forced to answer with 15 ...:b7
(15 ...a5 16 a4 leaves the a-pawn
even more exposed) when 16 ~f2!
(16 0-0 gxf4 17 gxf4 .i.g4 is fine
for Black) 16 ... .i.g4 17 .i.e2 .i.xe2
18 ~xe2 gxf4 (or 18 .. .f5 19 exf6
.i.xf6 20 .:tadl and again White is
better) 19 gxf4 f5 (or 19 ... f6 20 e6!
f5 21 :ag 1 with big problems for
Black) 20 :adl :d5 21 c4 ':a5
with an unclear position, but 20
.:tag I! e6 21 :g3 is uncomfortable
for Black. It seems better to play
17....i.e6 instead of exchanging on
e2, but still White holds the better
chances after 18 :hd4 ':dd7
(18 ...:bd7 19 iLxa7) 19 iLd4 gxf4
20 gxf4 or (best) 19 ':xd7! :xd7
20 :dl ':xdl 21 iLxdl with a won
endgame for White, since the black
pawns are hopelessly weak. Black
can improve with 18 ...:c8, but
White is still better.
b) After 8 liJb3 it is also possible
to transpose to the Classical
Dragon with 8...d6, but Black does
best to play for ... d7-d5. However,
8... b6!? 9 f4 iLb7 is interesting. For
example, 10 iLf3 d6 (not 1O... e5?!
11 0-0 "e7 12 g3 :ad8 13 "d2
d5, Milner-Barry-Wade, England
1955, and now 14 liJd5 liJxd5 15
exd5 with a clearly better game for
White, would have been best) 11
0-0 :b8?! (Black could have trans-
posed to the 7 .i.c4 "a5 8 0-00-0
9 liJb3 line with 1l.....c7, where he
does not have much to worry
about) 12 ':f2! a6 13 :d2 with
better chances for White, Rhodin-
Cladouras, German Bundesliga
1988/89. Instead of 8...b6!? Black
should play 8... a5!
196 Classical with ~e2
Now if White allows ... a5-a4,
Black has easy play:
bll) 9 0-0 a4 10 ~d4 d5 11
exd5 ~xd5 12 ~xd5 'ifxd5 13 ~f3
'ifc4 (13 ... 'ifa5!?) 14 c3 ~xd4 15
cxd4 ::'d8 with a clear edge for
Black, Ravinsky-Vasiukov, Mos-
cow 1958.
b12) 9 a3 a4 10 ~cl d6 11 f4
~e6 12 ~f3 ~a5 13 ::'bl tLlc4 14
~d4 'ifa5 15 0-0 :ac8 16 tLlca2
~d7 17 ~hl e5 with a clear plus
for Black, Zhukovitsky-Suetin,
Vilnius 1953.
b13) 9 ~d5 d6 10 ~b6 ::'b8 11
f3 ~e6 12 c4 ~d7! 13 tLla4 ~xc4!
14 ~xc4 b5 15 ~xf7+ ::'xf7 16
~c3 ~de5 and Black is on top,
Schutt-H. Schmid, corr 1976.
b14) 9 a4 ~b4, when Black does
not have to worry after:
b141) 100-0 d5!
b142) 10 f4 d5 11 e5 tLle4 12
~f3 ~f5 13 ~d4 ::'c8 14 tLlcb5 f6
15 c3 fxe5!? (15 ... ~c6 is also fine
for Black) 16 tLlxf5 gxf5 17 cxb4
exf4 18 ~xf4 e5 19 ~cl ~h8 20
'ife2 axb4 and Black had massive
compensation for the sacrificed
material in Galkin-Kochiev, St Pe-
tersburg 1993.
b143) 10 'ifd2!? d5 11 ::'dl ~e6
12 ~c5 tLlxe4 13 ~3xe4 dxe4 14
~xe6 'ifxd2+ 15 ::'xd2 fxe6 16 c3
tLld5 with the upper hand for Black,
G.Garcia-Antunes, Seville 1994.
b144) 10 ~f3 (this stops ... d7-d5
for now, but apart from that the
bishop is not of much use on f3)
1O... d6 11 0-0 ~e6 12 ::'el (or 12
tLld4 ~c4! 13 ::'el 'W'c8 14 tLldb5
::'d8 15 ::'d4 ::'a6 16 b3 e5 17 ~e3
i.e6 18 'W'e2 d5 19 exd5 ~f5! and
White had trouble coping with all
of Black's threats in Lemrye-
Donaldson, Philadelphia 1979)
12 ... .i.xb3 13 cxb3 tLld7 14 ~e2
::'c8 15 ::'cl ~c5 16 ~b5 e6 17
::'e2 'W'e7 18 ::'d2 ::'fd8 19 ~c4 f5
and Black was in command in the
game Bastrikov-Vasiukov, Yerevan
1955.
8 dS
9 exdS tLlxdS
10 tLlxdS
White's attempt to exchange
everything with 10 tLlxc6 bxc6
backfires after 11 ~d4 tLlxc3 12
bxc3 .i.e6 13 .i.xg7 ciJxg7 14
'ifd4+ 'W'xd4 15 cxd4 ::'ab8, when
Black was much better in Stuben-
rauch-Donaldson, USA 1989.
10 'W'xdS!
Black sacrifices a pawn for the
initiative, and in fact White does
best to decline the sacrifice. The

alternative 1O...ttJxd4 leads to bor-
ing equality. White has tried the
following ideas:
a) 11 c4 eS is equal.
b) 11 -*.c4 ttJc6? (correct is 11...
eS 12 c3 -*.e6! with equality) 12
-*.gS -*.e6 13 lIel lIe8 14 c3 h6 IS
-*.h4 gS 16 -*.g3 with a strong ini-
tiative for White, London-T.Taylor.
New York 1985.
c) 11 -*.xd4 (White wants to ex-
change everything down to an
ending in which he has a queenside
majority, which should offer him
the better chances, but practice has
shown that Black does not have
any problems with best play)
11.. ....xdS 12 -*.xg7 "'xdl 13
lIfxdl ~xg7 and now:
cl) 14 c4 -*.e6 IS cS as (or
IS ...lIad8 16 -*.f3 :XdI+ 17 lIxdl
lIc8) 16 -*.f3 lIac8 17 lIacl lIc7 18
lIc3 lIfc8 19 lIdcl lIc~ with
equality, Brooks-Donaldson, Co-
lumbus 1990.
c2) 14 lId2 -*.fS (or 14 ... -*.e6 IS
lIadl lIfc8 16 -*.f3 lIab8 17 c3 bS
18 -*.dS -*.fS with equality, Mills-
I.Ivanov, Chicago 1985) IS lIadl
lIac8 16 c4 -*.e6 17 b3 lIc7 18 f4
as 19 ~ lIa8 with equality,
Zso.Polgar-Moldovan, Bucharest
1989.
c3) 14 -*.f3 -*.fS! (somewhat
more passive, but still good enough
for equality is 14 ... -*.e6 IS b3 lIac8
16 c4 lIac7 17 h3 -*.d7! 18 1Id2
-*.c6 19 -*.xc6 bxc6 20 lIadl hS 21
~fl ~6 with equal chances,
Radulov-Rajkovic, Vrsac 1973) IS
c4 (or IS lId2 lIad8 16 :adl lIxd2
17 lIxd2 eS [17 ...lIc8! 18 c3 l:c7 is
equal] 18 c3 b6 19 lId6 with a
slight plus for White, Shakhov-
Pakhomov, Simferopol 1989)
IS ... lIac8 16 lIacl (or 16 b3 lIc7
Classical with -*.e2 197
17 %ldS .i.e6 18 lId4 lIfc8 19 :adl
a6 20 .i.xdS .i.xdS 21 lIxdS e6 22
lId6 bS with equality, as in Wed-
berg-Donaldson, Athens 1980)
16 ... lIc7 17 cS as 18 a3 a4 19 lId4
lIa8 20 :b4 :a7 21 h3 .i.d7 22
lIcc4 -*.c6 23 .i.xc6 lIxc6 24 f4
~f6 2S ~f2 :as 26 lIxa4 lIxa4 27
lIxa4 lIxcS 28 b4 bS '/2-'/2 Radu-
lov-Forintos, Budapest 1970.
11 .i.f3
Or 11 ttJxc6 "'xc6 12 c3 .i.e6 13
.i.f3 1i'bs (13 ......a6 14 "'c2 :ac8
IS lIfdl lIc7 16 .i.dS -*.fS is equal,
Grano-Wexler, Mar del Plata 1960)
14 "'c2 lIfd8 IS a4 "'c4 16 as
(White should have tried 16 -*.xb7
-*.fS 17 "'c1 llab8 18 -*.f3 as with
some compensation for the pawn)
16... -*.dS 17 -*.xdS lIxdS with a
slight plus for Black, Leonard-
Donaldson, USA 1983.
11 "'as!
The alternatives are:
a) 11..."'d7 led to a White ad-
vantage in Radulov-Fimhaber, Kiel
1978, after 12 lDxc6 bxc6 13 c3
lIb8 14 "'xd7 .i.xd7 IS lIfdl .i.e6
1611d2.
b) Black has also done well with
1l......c4!? and now:
bI) 12 .i.e2 "'dS (12 ...1i'b4!?)
198 Classical with ~e2

13 ~f3 repeats the position. 22 'iWhs ~d5. with a clear plus, Do-
b2) 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 c3 eS 14 brito-Vilela, AIcobendas 1994) 17
ltJb3 .i.fS IS 'iWcl l::tfd8 16 ltJcs e4 'iWe4 ~b7 18 'iWg4 h5 19ltJbS .c6
17 ~dl ~dS with equality, Shaba- 20 'iWgS f6 and Black was winning,
nov-Cherniak, Moscow 1994. Muller-Donaldson, Vancouver
b3) 12 ltJxc6 bxc6 13 c3 (or 13 1980.
'iWd3 .i.e6 14 'iWxc4 ~xc4 IS l::tfdl b2) 13 ltJb3 'iWc7 14 c3 ~a6
.i.xb2 16 &b 1 .i.f6 17 ~xc6 .i.xa2 (l4 ... aS!? IS ltJcs a4 16 ltJxa4
18 ~xa8 .i.xbl 19 ~e4 1/2_ 1/2 Dely- ~d8, intending ... ~e6 or ... .i.fS -
Aronin, Moscow 1962) 13 ... ~e6 Donaldson) IS ~el ~ad8 16 'iWg4
(also of interest is 13 ... ~b8, e.g. 14 ~dS 17 'iWa4 ~bS 18 "'xa7 "'xa7
b3 'iWxc3 IS ~xa7 ~b7 16 ~cl 19 ~xa7 eS 20 l::tedl ~a8 with
'it'aS 17 ~e3 'iWxa2 18 .i.xc6 ~b8 strong compensation for the pawn,
19 ~dS ~a6 20 ~xc4 .i.xc4 21 Casey -Donaldson, Seattle 1979.
bxc4 ~fd8, Tverskaya-Kondou, 12 bxc6
Moscow 1994, or 14 .i.e2 "e6 IS 13 'iVc1
'iWc2 as 16 b3 "fS 17 .i.d3 'iWhs 18 Probably White's best chance .
.i.e2 'iWh4 19 ~acl ~d8 20 ~c4 The alternatives are:
.i.fS with some initiative for Black a) Exchanging the queens with
in both cases) 14 ~el (14 'iWc2 as 13 'iWd2? does not ease White's
IS ~e2 .i.fS 16 ~xc4 .i.xc2 17 task: 13 ......xd2 14 .i.xd2 ~b8 IS
~acl ~fS is equal, Thomsen- .i.c3 .i.xc3 16 bxc3 cS 17 l::tfel
Weemaes, Novi Sad 01 1990) ~e6 18 c4 l::tfd8 19 .::i.eS ~b2 20
14 ... ~fd8 IS 'iie2 'iWxe2 16 ~xe2 ~c 1 ~c8 21 a3 ~f8 with a slight
.i.d5 17 ~cl as with equality, plus for Black, Nalic-Ca.Hansen,
Short-Christiansen, Monaco (rapid) Orlando 1997.
1993. b) Accepting the pawn sacrifice
12 ltJxc6 with 13 ~xc6? gives Black tre-
A reasonable alternative is 12 mendous compensation. After
c3!? ltJxd4 13 .i.xd4 ~d8 14 'iWe2 13 ... ~b8 Black has a clear edge
~xd4 IS cxd4 e6 16 ~fd 1 'iib6 17 following:
dS with equality according to Don- bl) 14 "'dS "'c7 IS ~a4 ~xb2
aldson, whereas others are not to be 16 'iWxcs 'iib7 17 .i.b3 .i.fS 18
recommended: ~adl ~c8 19 'iWxa7 'iixa7 20 ~xa7
a) 12 ltJb3 'iic7 13 c3 .i.fS 14 ~xc2 21 g4?! ':c3 22 ~xc2 ~bxc2
'it'e2 .::i.ad8 IS ~fdl ltJeS 16 ltJd4 23 ~xc2 ~xc2, as played in
~d7 17 ~f4ltJxf3+ 18 'iWxf3 eS 19 Basanta-Donaldson, Bellingham
~g3 'iWc4 with a clear edge for 1987.
Black, Roll-Donaldson, Philadel- b2) 14 ~f4 ~a6 IS ':el .i.xb2
phia 1983. 16 ~xe7 ~fd8 17 'iibl ~f6 18 ~c7
b) 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 and now ei- 'iWc3, as in Sherzer-Donaldson,
ther: New York 1985.
bl) 13ltJxc6? 'iic7 14ltJd4 ~a6 b3) 14 b4 .::i.xb4! IS .i.d2 ~xal
IS ~el ~ad8 16 'iWg4 ~c8 (or 16 .xal 'iWcs 17 ~xb4 .xb4 -
16... eS 17 'iWg3 'iWc8 18ltJf3 e4 19 analysis by Donaldson.
ltJgS 'it'xc2 20 'iWh4 h6 21 ltJh3 gS c) Finally, 13 c3 was played in
 Classical with .li.e2 199

Nelson-Turner, British ch 1994, 15 .li.f5?!

when after 13 ... l:td8 14 'ii'c2 .ltf5 Stronger is 15 ... 1i'b5!, when
15 .lte4 l:tab8 16 .li.xf5 gxf5 18 White has problems protecting his
Irfd1 l:td5 19 l:txd5 cxd5 Black had b2-pawn, e.g. 16 l:tb 1 .li.f5 17 c4
clearly the better chances. 'ii'a5 or 16 b3 'iid3 or 16 .li.b3 c4.
13 J:lb8 16 l:tdl l:tfd8
14 c3 c5 17 .li.f4 l:tbc8
14 ... 'ii'c7 15 .li.c5 l:td8 16 Ire1 is 18 'iie3!
also okay for Black. 18 .li.c4 is strongly met by
18 ... 'ii'a4! 19 i.b3 (19 b3 'iia5!)
19 ... 'ii'c6, intending 20 ... c4 with a
slight plus for Black - Andres.
18 l:td7
Silman and Donaldson mention
18 ... c4 19 .li.b7! Irxd1 20 1hd1
l:td8 21 l:txd8 'iixd8 22 h3 a5 23
'iic5!, when Black's pawns are
weak.
19 .li.c4 l:tcd8
20 l:txd7 l:txd7
21 h3 h5
22 .li.e5 .li.xe5
23 'iixe5 'iib6
15 .li.d5?! 24 b3 'iid6
As Black can improve on his 25 l:tel
next move, White must look here Andres gives the following line
for alternatives: 25 'ii'xd6 exd6! (25 ... ':xd6 26 :tel
a) Inferior is 15 a3?, when after ~f8 27 Ire5 slightly favours White)
15 ... c4! 16 l:tdl .li.e6 17 .li.d4 Irfd8 26 l:td1 .lte6! with equality.
18 .li.xg7 <i;xg7 19 l:txd8 'ii'xd8 20 25 'iid2
.lte4 l:tb6 21 l:tb 1 l:td6 Black was 26 a4
clearly better, Gliissner-Tangborn, 26 l:te2 'iicl + 27 <i;h2 h4 is also
Baden Baden 1987. equal. The game concluded:
b) Interesting is 15 l:te l!?, Bec- 26 ....li.d3! 27 .li.xd3 l:txd3 28 'iixe7
cera-Diaz, Havana 1992, saw 'iixc3 29 l:te4 'iixb3 30 'iixc5
15 ... c4 16 .ltg5 f6 17 .li.h6 .li.xh6 'iibl+ 31 ~h2 l:txh3+! 32 ~xh3
18 'ii'xh6 e5 19 b4 1i'b6 20 .lte4 'iixe4 33 'iixa7 'iif4 34 g3 'iif3 35
.ltf5 21 .ltxf5 gxf5 when Black's ~h2 h4 36 'iib8+ ~h7 37 'iif4
active pieces compensated for the hxg3+ 38 fxg3 'iie2+ 39 ~gl 'iie1
weakened pawn structure. 40 ~g2 'iie2+ 41 ~gl 'iie1+ 42
c) Finally, Andres gives 15 Ird1 ~h2 f5 43 'iic7 ~h6 44 'iic2 f4 45
c4! (again!) 16 l:td5 'ii'a6 17 b4 gxf4 'iih4+ 46 ~gl 'iig4+ 47 ~hl
cxb3 18 axb3'ii'e6 as unclear. 'iif3+ Ih-1f2
10 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 .a5

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 g6 5 ~c3 J.g7 6 J.e3 ~f6 7 J.c4

"'as 8 0-0 0-0

9 J.b3 d6
10 f3 - Game 76
10 h3 J.d7
11 l:.e1
11...l:.acS - Game 77
ll ... l:.feS - Game 78
11 f4
1l....l:acS 12"'f3 - Game 79
12 lCif3 - Game 80
1l...~5 - Game 81
11 ...~xd4 12 J.xd4 J.c6
13 lCid5 - Game 82
13 "'d3 - Game 83
9~b3"'c7
10 J.g5 - Game 84
10 f4 d6 11 J.e2
11.. .a5 - Game 85
ll...b6!? - Game 86

The lines covered in this chapter
are more positionally orientated
than those to be found in the next
chapter (7 ... 0-0 S J.b3 a5 and
S... d6). White has a choice of two
main ways of countering Black's
7......a5. Either:
a) 0-0 and J.b3, intending ~d5
to put a central clamp on Black's
position, or
b) 0-0 and ~b3 forcing Black
backwards and into the Classical
Dragon, when Black has committed
himself to the odd looking ......c7.
In both lines, Black has to be
very careful not to end up in a pas-
sive and joyless position with no
counterplay, but with best play his
chances are no worse than his op-
pOI1ent's.

If as Black you do not like the
somewhat passive positions that
Black often ends up with after
7 .. :"aS, we refer you to the next
chapter, where more complicated
and risky positions occur more
frequently.
Game 76
Sax-Andersson
Szirak 1990
(1 e4 cS 1 .!LlfJ .!Llc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
.!Llxd4 g6 5 .!Llc3 j.,g7 6 ..te3 .!Llf6 7
j.,c4 "a5)
8 0-0
Other moves have proved easy
for Black to meet:
a) 8 "d2? .!Llxe4! 9 .!Llxc6 (after
9 ~xe4 "xd2+ 10 ~xd2 .!Llxd4
Black has an extra pawn) 9 .....xc3!
10 bxc3 .!Llxd2 11 ~xd2 bxc6 with
a winning endgame for Black, as in
D.Hansen-Ca.Hansen, Denmark
1994.
b) 8 f3 wt'b4 9 iLb3? (better is 9
.!Llxc6 bxc6 when Black is at least
equal) 9 ... .!Llxe4 10 fxe4 (even
worse is 10 .!Llxc6 j.,xc3+ 11 bxc3
"xc3+ 12 ~e2 dxc6, Gurgenidze-
A.Geller, USSR 1959, 13 "gl ~f6
14 iLd4 wt'b4 15 "e3 0-0, and now
Ravinsky gives 16 :tadl b6 win-
ning and Silman and Donaldson
give 16 j.,cS WaS 17 j.,xe7 :te8 18
~ WfS!, threatening ... .!Llg4+,
and wins) 1O... j.,xd4 11 j.,xd4
Wxd4 12 "f3 e6! 13 a4 a6 14 h4
hS IS l:dl "eS, when Black was
just a pawn up in Matulovic-Toran,
Palma de Mallorca 1967.
c) 8 .!Llb3?! wt'b4! and now:
cl) 9 ..td3? tL'lxe4 10 iLxe4
..txc3+ 11 bxc3 Wxe4 is plain good
for Black, Ramayrat-Silman, Fish-
Main Lines with 7..tc4 Wa5 201
becks 1992.
c2) Worse is 9 We2? .!Llxe4 10
a3 .!Llxc3 11 ..txf7+ ~ 12 bxc3
Wxc3+ 13 .td2 "eS and Black
was winning in Calvo-Toran,
Palma de Mallorca 1968.
c3) 9 .!Lld2! (best; the following
analysis is by Silman) 9.....xb2 10
~bS! (10 tL'la4 'lieS! [also good is
10...wt'b4 11 c3 WaS, Pilnik-Sil-
man, Lone Pine 1975] 11 f4 WaS,
threatening 12 ...bS, 12... Wxa4 and
12 ... .!Llxe4) 10.. ,li'eS (10...0-0? 11
c3) 11 f4 wt'b8 12 eS .!LlxeS! (Black
also has 12 ... .!Llg8!?, intending
... ~h6, or 12 ....!Llg4!? 13 Wxg4 dS
14 We2 dxc4 IS .!Llxc4 0-0 with
... j.,e6 and ...f7-f6) 13 fxeS WxeS
14 ~ dS IS .te2 a6 16 tL'ld4 Wc7
followed by ...e7-eS and White is in
difficulties.
8 0-0
Black has also tried:
a) 8 ...wt'b4? leads to nothing but
trouble: 9 ..tb3 (or 9 We2!? .!Llg4
10 tL'ldS Wd6 11 Wxg4 ..txd4 12
j.,xd4.!Llxd4 13 l:adl WcS 14 Wh4
f6 15 .!Llxf6+, Grankin-Soslov, Riga
1965) 9 ....!Llxe4? (9 ...0-0 was called
for) 10 tL'lxc6! bxc6 11 a3! tL'lxc3
12 Wf3 and White was winning in
Grabczewski-Filip, Lublin 1967.
202 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ika5
b) 8 ... ~g4?! and now:
b 1) 9 ~xc6 dxc6 lO i.xd4
~xd4 (Black also has lO ... e5 11
~e3 0-0 with satisfactory play,
whereas 11...~xe3 12 fxe3 favours
White since 12 ... 0-0? is met by 13
':'xf7!) 11 'ii'xd4 'ii'e5 12 ii'xe5
~xe5 13 ~b3 gS with equal
chances, Usov-A.Geller, USSR
1962.
b2) 9 ~dS!? ~xe3 (this gives
White a strong initiative, so per-
haps 9 ... d6, but White is still better)
lO fxe3 ~e5 11 ~bS ~c4 12
~bc7+ -.t>f8 13 c3 ':'b8 14 b4 ii'a3
15 ii'g4 f6 16 'ii'gS ~ 17 e5
when White's attack more than
compensated for his material defi-
cit in Litvinov-Litov, corr 1972.
b3) 9 'ii'xg4 ~xd4 10 ~dS!
(Boleslavsky recommends lO
'ii'h4!, e.g. lO ... ~xc2 11 ~d5 with
a nasty attack or lO ... i.f6 11 'ii'h6
~xc2 12 ~d5, and this time, too,
Black is in deep trouble) 10... 'ii'd8
(10 ... ~xc2 11 'ii'gS ii'd8 12 l:tac1
~xe3 13 ~c7+! 'ii'xc7 14 .ixf7+
wins for White) 11 c3 ~c6 12 'ii'h4
with a strong attack in Ciric-
Ilievsky, Yugoslavian ch 1965.
b4) 9 ~b3 'ii'hs (9 ... ~xe3? lO
i.xf7+) lO i.f4 i.eS (lO ... gS!?) 11
~xeS! (this is Boleslavsky's move;
Ivkov-Lehmann, Beverwijk 1965,
continued less convincingly with
11 'ii'f3 gS!? 12 .ig3 ~f6 13 'ii'e3
~g4 14 'ii'f3 tLlf6 15 'ii'd3 a6, when
White's chances are preferable)
ll...tLlcxe5 12 h3 tLlxc4 13 hxg4
'ii'eS 14 f4 ii'd6 15 ~d5 tLlb6 16
'ii'd4 0-0 17 c4 t.UxdS 18 cxd5 b6
19 eS and Black is lost.
c) 8 ... d6 again with another
choice:
cl) After 9 .ib3 Black should
transpose to the main lines with
9 ... 0-0.
c2) In Kapengut-Romanishin,
Gomel 1968, White chose 9 tLlb3,
but after 9 ... 'ii'h5!? (or 9 ... ii'c7) 10
f3 0-0 11 'ii'el .ie6 12 i.e2 dS
Black had equalised.
c3) 9 ~d5!? (attempting to take
advantage of Black's move order)
9... ~xe4?! (9 ... 0-0? lO ~xc6 bxc6
11 ~xe7 loses, and since the text
move is very risky Black should try
9 ... ~eS, though after 10 ~b3
White is better) lO 'ii'f3! .ixd4 11
.ixd4 tLlxd4 12 'ii'xe4 and White's
initiative compensates for the pawn
deficit.
c4) 9 i.b5 .id7 lO tLlb3 'ii'd8
(lO ... 'ii'c7!?) 11 .ie2 0-0 (this is
given as slightly better for White
by ECO, but practice has ITOt veri-
fied this judgement) 12 f4 b5! (or
12 ... a6 13 g4 b5 14 gS ~e8 15
ii'd2 b4 16 ~a4 a5 17 :tadl l:tb8
18 c4 tLleS 19 tLlac5 t.Ug4 and
Black was okay in Suetin-
Lehmann, Berlin 1967) 13 a3 (13
i.xb5 fails to 13 ... tLlg4) 13 ... a5 14
.if3 b4 IS axb4 axb4 (lh_lh Short-
Miles, Dortmund 1986) 16 :txa8
'ii'xa8 17 ~dS ~xd5 18 exd5 tLlaS
19 tLld4 ~c4 20 ~f2 ~xb2 21 'ii'el
i.f6 22 1ii'xb4 l:tb8 lh_lh Carlier-
W.Watson, Wijk aan Zee II 1987.
9 ~b3
 Main Lines with 7 oltc4 Wa5 203

For 9 ttJb3, please see Games a3) 9 ... ttJxdS! 10 exd5 and now
S4-S6. The alternatives in this po- play can continue:
sition are:
a) The positional 9 ttJdS. If
Black captures the white knight on
dS, White will take back with the e-
pawn and start playing against the
backward black e-pawn. Black
must usually strive to avoid such
positions unless he can immedi-
ately create counterplay elsewhere.
Black has a choice:
al) 9 ... ttJxe4!?1O lbxc6 (10 .f3
ttJd2!) 1O ... dxc6 11 ttJxe7+ ~hS 12
ttJxcS (12 oltd4 .dS! is equal) a31) 1O... lbe5 11 oltb3 (Levy
12 ... l:r.axcS 13 c3 l:tcdS (here gives 11 olte2!? Wxd5 12 ttJf5 .e6
T.Georgadze gives 13 ... fS as un- 13 lbxg7 with compensation for the
clear, but in an open position like pawn, but Black should be better)
this White's bishops should guar- ll...d6 12 h3 (12 c4 ttJg4 13 oltd2
antee him some advantage) 14 'ifc2 'ifc5 14 oltc3 ttJe5 IS .:tel ttJxc4 16
ttJf6 (14 ... ttJd6 IS oltb3 ttJfS 16 oltxc4 'ifxc4 17 ttJe6?! [17 ttJc6!?J
oltf4 olteS 17 .e4 is clearly better 17 ... oltxe6 IS oltxg7 .xdS 19 oltxfS
for White according to Adorjan) IS 'ifxdl 20 l:r.fxdl ~xfS 21 .:tc7 l::tbS!
l:r.fel .c7?! (Adorjan suggests and Black had somewhat better
IS ... ttJg4!? 16 oltf4 .cS, when chances in the game Patterson-
White is slightly better) 16 h3 b6 G.Taylor, Canadian open 1990)
17 l:r.adl ~gS IS a4, Adorjan- 12 ....a6! 13 oltg5 lteS 14 ltel
Visier, Lanzarote 1975. oltd7 15 c3 lhcS 161t'cl2 oltf6! 17
a2) Black has also tried 9 ....dS, olth6 (17 oltxf6 exf6 IS 'ii'h6 lbc4 is
but without success: 10 ttJxf6+ fine for Black) 17 ... b5 IS lte4 'ifb7
oltxf6 11 f4 (also good for White is with equal chances, Browne-
11 c3 .c7 12 We2 d6 13 f4 oltd7 Silman, Sunnyvale 1974.
14 l:r.ae1 l:r.acS IS oltd3 .as 16 a32) Probably better is
ttJxc6 ~xc6 17 fS, Kinzel-Hort, 10... ttJxd4 11 oltxd4 e5 12 dxe6 (12
Krems 1967) 1l...d6 12 eS! oltg7 oltc3 'ifc7 13 oltb3, intending f2-f4,
(or 12 ... dxeS 13 ttJxc6 .xd1 14 is roughly equal) 12 ... dxe6 13
l:r.axdl bxc6 IS fxeS oltxeS 16 olth6
il..g7 17 il..xf7+! ..t>hS IS il..xg7+ l:tdS 15
~xg7 19 il..b3 oltfS 20 l:tde1 -
.f3
oltxg7 ~xg7 14 Wd4+ (14 .:tel
'ifc7 16 oltb3 oltd7 17
h4 is clearly better for White ac-
analysis by Adorjan) 13 e6 fS 14 cording to Adorjan, though Silman
oltdS ttJb4 IS oltb3 as 16 c3 ttJc6 17 and Donaldson suggest 15 ....c5!
ttJbS (intending ttJxd6) 17 ... a4 IS 16 oltb3 a5! 17 a4 l::ta6 followed by
oltc4 ~hS 19 .f3 :bS 20 .f2 b6 18 ... l:tad6, and 14.. :i'cS!? IS 'ifd3
21 oltdS with a sad position for b6 16 'ifc3+ 'ito>gS 17 :e5 'ifc6 in
Black, J.Rodriguez-Kagan, Skopje both cases with fine play for Black)
011972. 14 ... e5 15 .e3 (Gufeld gives 15
204 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as
"d6 ~f5 16 b4 with an initiative
for White, but T. Georgadze im-
proves with 15 ...:d8 16 "e7 :d7
17 "e8 'fIe7 18 :adl :e7 19 "d8
~g4 20 'fIxe7 :xc7 21 f3 i.f5
with a clear edge for Black)
IS ...i.fS 16 i.b3 :ae8 17 :adl
i.xc2 18 :d5 "a6 19 "xeS "f6
with equality, as in Beliavsky-
T.Georgadze, USSR 1973.
b) A similar idea is 9 :el fol-
lowed by ~d5, e.g. 9... d6 10 ~d5
and now in Pedzich-Baumbach,
German Bundesliga 1992, Black
kept the balance after 10...:e8 11
c3 i.d7 12 b4 "d8 13 i.gS ~xdS
14 i.xdS ~xd4 15 cxd4 'fIb6 16 eS
e6.
c) 9 h3 mainly leads to transpo-
sitions to the main lines. However,
it acquires independent significance
if Black tries to exploit it with the
dubious 9...'fib4?, when White has
10 i.b3 ~xe4 11 ~dS! "as
(worse is 11.. ...d6 12 ~bS! "eS
13 i.f4 'iWhs 14 "xhS gxhS IS
:e 1) and here White has so far
tried two different paths:
cl) 12 "84 ~f6 (12 ... ~d2!? 13
"gS! ~xb3 14 axb3 "'d8 IS ~xc6
dxe6 16 ~xe7+ ~h8 17 :fdl "c7
18 i.f4 with an edge for White -
ECO) 13 ~xc6 bxc6 (13 ... dxc6!?)
14 ~xe7+ ~h8 15 "'f4 i.a6 16
:fel ~hS 17 'i'd6 favours White
Lepeshkin-Demirkhanian, Yerevan
1964.
c2) 12 ~xc6!? (simpler, but not
as convincing as the above)
12 ... dxc6 13 It:)xe7+ ~h8 14 :el
It:)cs IS "d6 It:)xb3 16 cxb3 "d8
17 "xd8!? :xd8 18 i.b6 :fS 19
~xe8 :fxc8 20 :xa7 :xa7 21
i.xa7, when White is clearly better,
as in the game Hector-Andersson,
Haninge 1990.
9 d6
Black's attempts to deviate here
have not been particularly impres-
sive: 9... lt:)g4?! (9 ... bS? 10 ~dS!
"d8 11 ~xf6+ i.xf6 12 f4 i.b7 13
eS ~xd4 14 i.xd4 i.g7 was Minic-
Porintos, Pula 1971, when White
should have continued with 15 fS!,
intending f5-f6) 10 "'xg4 It:)xd4
and now:
a) White was successful with 11
i.xd4 in I.Zaitsev-Pavlovichev,
Moscow 1965: 1l...i.xd4 12 ~S
~d8? 13 c3 i.g7 14 f4 d6 IS 'iWh4
e6 16 ~e7+ ~h8 17 f5! gS 18
"xgS f6 19 ~g6+ hxg6 20 'iWh4
~g8 21 fxg6 :e8 22 'fIh7+ ~fS 23
:f3 1-0. But much better is 12...e6!
13 c3 i.g7 14 It:)e7+ ~h8 IS :adl
"c7 with equality.
b) ECO suggests 11 "'dl ~c6
with an edge for White.
c) 11 ~dS (aiming for more)
1l...~c6 (ll...e6!? 12 ~e7+ ~h8
13 :fdl It:)c6! 14 ~xc8 :xc8 15
c3 "c7 is better for White) 12 'fIh4
:e8 13 c3 d6 14 i.g5 "'d8 IS f4
i.e6 16 f5 i.xdS 17 i.xd5 It:)eS 18
fxg6 hxg6 19 ~hl :f8 20 :xf7!
It:)xf7 21 :f1 :fS 22 i..xe7 It:)d7 23
i..xfS :xfS 24 :f3 "a4 25 i..b3
'fibs 26 "e7 'fIe2 27 i..xf7+ ~h7
28 l:lh3+ i.h6 29 i.e6 1-0 Hall-
Gordon, Canada 1992.

10 f3
Black was threatening to play
1O... ~g4, so either 10 f3 or 10 h3
(Games 77-S3) is usually played.
When he has already castled king-
side, 10 f3 does not seem to fit as
well into the White set-up as 10 h3
does. On occasion White has also
tried the interesting 10 ~dS! ?,
which is not easy for Black to
meet:
a) 10... ~xe4? 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12
~xe7+ ~hS 13 ~xc6 is bad for
Black.
b) Not too good either is
10.....dS?!, in Suetin-T.Georgadze,
Lublin 1976, Black soon ended up
in a passive position: 11 f3 ~a5 12
"d2 ~xb3 13 axb3 .i.d7 14 c3 a6
15 b4 :eS 16 :fdl ~xdS 17 exdS
:cS IS ~b3 eSt? 19 dxe6 :xe6 20
.i.d4 .i.fS 21 ~f2 and due to
Black's isolated d-pawn, White had
the better prospects.
c) Kapengut's recommendation
is 10...:eS!? and now:
cl) 11 ~d2 "dS 12 ~bS ~xdS?
(playing White's game; better was
12 ...:bS 13 :el a6 14 ~bc3 bS
with counterplay - Baumbach) 13
exd5 ~a5 14 ~c3 .i.d7, and now
in Estrin-Baumbach, corr 1972,
Main Lines with 7 R.c4 "a5 205
White should have continued 15
.i.xg7 ~xg7 16 ~d4 with much
better chances.
c2) 11 ~xf6+ .i.xf6 12 c3 ~eS
13 h3 "a6 is also comfortable for
Black, Kurajica-Bellon, Malaga
1970.
c3) Therefore best is 11 f3 R.d7
12 c3 :acS 13 "d2 ~xd5 (Black
should avoid the endgame and pre-
fer 13 ... ~eS with roughly equal
chances) 14 exd5 ~xd4 15 R.xd4
R.xd4 16 "xd4 "cS 17 :ad1
"xd4+ IS :xd4 with a slight plus
for White in the endgame, Sandor-
Troyke, played in the German
Bundesliga 1994/95.
d) 1O... ~xdS! 11 exdS ~e5
transposes to line 'a31' in the note
to White's ninth move above.
10 R.d7
Less common is 10... ~xd4 11
.i.xd4 .i.e6 (11....i.d7 is too pas-
sive: 12 "e2 R.c6 13 :adl :adS
14 "e3 ~d7 15 ~d5 R.xdS 16
exd5 and White had a typical
structural advantage in Ritzmann-
Flechsig, corr 19S9) and now: --'l
a) 12 "d2 :fcS 13 :fdl ~d1
14 ~xg7 ~xg7 15 "d4+ ~f6 16
h3 "cS with a level endgame,
Damjanovic-Gufeld, Sarajevo
1964.
b) 12 ~dS?! .i.xdS! (less accu-
rate is 12... ~xd5 13 exdS ~xd4+
14 "xd4 R.d7 15 :fel :feS 16
~hl "cS 17 :adl?! "xd4 IS
:xd4 :acS with equality, Wallin-
Wennstrom, corr 1975, but White
can improve with 17 1i'h4 with a
siight plus) 13 exdS ~7 14 R.xg7
~xg7 15 "d4+ f6 16 ~hl1Wb6 17
"e4:n IS f4 ~cS 19 "e3 as and
Black had an edge in Pope-Silman,
San Francisco 1974, but this was
not exactly model play by White.
206 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 'ila5
c) 12 f4!? (this leads to an al-
most identical position to the one
that arises after 10 h3 lbxd4 11
iLxd4 iLe6 12 f4, which is favour-
able for White; the question is
whether Black can take advantage
of White's omission of h2-h3)
12 ...lbd7 (in Mack-McCue, corr
1989, Black tried 12 ...iLg4, when
after 13 'ilel e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 15
iLe3 iLe6 16 'ilh4 White was
clearly better; however, 13 ... lbd7
looks like an improvement) 14
iLxg7 ~xg7 15 iLxe6 fxe6 16 'ii'g4
l:tf6 with roughly equal chances,
but 15 tbd5 is slightly better for
White.
11 'ii'd2
11 "el has been tried on occa-
sion: 11...l:tac8 (11..Jlfc8!?) 12
l:tdl :tfd8 (l2 .....a6, intending
... lbe5-c4, is interesting, while in
the game Domnitz-Reshevsky,
Netanya 1969, Black tried
12 ... l:tfe8 13 "f2 tbe5 14 tbde2 b6
15 :td4 "a6 16 l:tfdl with slightly
better chances for White) 13 ~hl
(13 "f2 does not pose any prob-
lems for Black: 13 ... tbe5 14 l:td2
b5 15 l:tfdl tbc4 16 iLxc4 bxc4 17
tbde2 l:tc7 18 tbf4 iLc6 when
Black was slightly better due to the
open b-file in Scarlett-Gibbs, corr
1968) 13 ... lbe5 (again 13 .....a6,
preventing 14 "e2, is interesting)
14 'ile2 a6 15 f4! iLg4 16 ttJf3
lbxf3 17 gxf3 iLe6 18 f5 i.xb3 19
axb3 ':c6 20 iLd4 :dc8 21 f4 ttJe8
22 b4 "d8 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 f5 ':'c4
25 fxg6 fxg6 26 iLxg7 tbxg7 27
"g4 "e8 28 ':d5 1-0 Spassky-
Gurgenidze, Leningrad 1960.
Untried, but worth a shot is 11
tbdS, when l1...ttJxdS 12 exdS
ttJxd4 13 iLxd4 iLxd4 14 "xd4
"c5 15 Iladl is better for White,
but I1..Jlfe8 should be okay.
Two rare alternatives are:
a) 11 ~hl lUc8 12 ttJdS "d8
(12 ...e6!? 13 lbxf6+ iLxf6 14
ttJxc6 l:txc6) 13 'i'd2 lbe5 14 c3
lbc4 (14 ... b5!?) 15 i.xc4 l'hc4 16
b3 ':'cc8 17 c4 lbxd5, Knoll-
Znamenacek, Oberwart 1991, and
White should now have played 18
exd5 with an edge.
b) 11 lbde2! ? b5 (perhaps
11...:ac8!?, intending ... lbe5-c4)
12 a3 ':'ac8 13 lbf4 ':fe8 14 "e2
lbe5 15 'ii'f2 .ftc7, Nevednichy-
Cabrilo, Novi Sad 1993, and ac-
cording to Nevednichy, White
should now have continued with 16
lbcd5!? lbxd5 17 ttJxd5 :b7 18
iLd4! with a small edge for White.
11 :tfe8
11...':fe8 12 l:tadl ':'ac8 13
lbxc6 iLxc6 14 iLd4 b6 15 :tfel
lbd7 16 iLxg7 ~xg7 17 f4 'i'c5 18
~h 1 lbf6 is level, Mikenas-
Butnoris, USSR 1974.
12 :tadl
12 :tab8
Black has no problems after
12 ... lbe5 13 "e2 a6 14 f4?! iLg4
15lbf3 ttJxf3+ 16 gxf3 iLe6 with a
slight plus for Black in Borge-
Ca. Hansen, Denmark 1995, nor

after 12 .....a6 13 "f2 lLle5 14lLld5
lLlxdS IS exd5 lLlc4 16 J..c 1 :cS
17 c3 llac8 18 lLlc2 b5 19 lLle3
"iWb7 20 f4 fS with equal chances,
Kosenkov-Osnos, Moscow 1964.
13 ..a a6
14 lLlde2 bS
15 lLlf4 "d8
16 lLlcdS lLlxdS
17 lLlxdS J..e6
The safest. 17 ... J..xb2 would
have left Black's kingside very
vulnerable: 18 c3 J..a3 19 f4 with
plenty of compensation for the
pawn. The game continued:
18 f4 J..xd5 19 J..xdS e6
19 ... .i.xb2 20 fS is too dangerous
for Black.
20 J..b3 lLlaS 21 fS ltIxb3 22 cxb3
exfS 23 exfS J..eS 24 J..d4
Interesting is 24 fxg6 hxg6 2S
"f7+ 'it>h8 26 J..d4, but Black can
defend with 26 ... J..xd4 (26 .....e8
27 J..xeS dxeS 28 lld7 is very good
for White) 27 llxd4 "iWb6.
24.....f6 25 fxg6 "xa+ 26 :xa
hxg6 27 J..eS dxeS 28 :e2 :e8 29
:dS e4 30 :d4 fS 31 :d6 ct>t7 32
:xa6 112- 112
Game 77
H.Olafsson-Kagan
Randers zt 1982
(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ltIc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
J..c4"as
ltIxd4 g6 5 ltIc3 J..g7 6 J..e3 ltIf6 7
8 0-0 0-0 9 J..b3 d6)
10 h3
(see following diagram)
10 J..d7
Black almost always answers
with this natural move, connecting
the rooks and supporting a later
... b7-bS. Other moves fail to im-
press:
Main Lines with 7 J..c4 "a5 207
a) 1O•.. ltIhS?! (hoping for 11
"d2? lLlxd4 12 J..xd4 J..xd4 13
"xd4 ttJf4 with equality) Illt1dS!?
(Parma gives 11 f4!? ttJxd4 12
J..xd4 J..xd4 13 "xd4 ttJxf4 14
:xf4 eS IS :xf7! with a clear edge
for White, while in Ciocaltea-Bilek,
Bucharest 1968, White tried 11
ttJde2 J..e6 12 g4?! [12 f4 looks
better] 12 ...ltIf6 13 ttJg3?! [13
ltIf4! was slightly better for White]
13 ... ttJd7 14 J..d2 ttJdeS IS f4 ltIc4
16 J..xc4 "cS 17 ~g2 J..x~4~~d
Black was much better) 1 ~d8
12 ttJfS?! (White cannot resist the
temptation to create complications;
sane and much better was 12 c3 or
12 'iVd2, when Black seems to have
wasted time) 12...gxfS 13 "xhS e6
(l3 ... fxe4!? 14 J..h6 J..xh6 IS
"xh6 J..fS 16 lLlf4 ct>h8 17 lLlhS
:g8 18. J..xf7 "f8! - Silman and
Donaldson) 14 ttJc3 fxe4 IS ltIxe4
d5 16 lladl fS 17 ltIgS h6 18 c4!?
with a mess, but White later won in
Griinfeld-Kagan, Tel Aviv 1986.
b) 1O.•. ltIxd4?! 11 J..xd4 J..e6
(Parma-Pirc, Beverwijk 1963, con-
tinued instead l1...bS 12 J..xf6
J..xf6 13 ltId5 J..xb2 14 ltIxe7+
rl;g7 IS :bl "c3 16 "xd6 and
White had the best of it) 12 f4 (this
208 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as
may not be the most accurate;
Gufeld gives 12 :e1!, intending
liJdS, and 12 .i.xe6 fxe6 13 eS!,
when in both cases White stands
better) 12 ...:fcS (12 ...:acS 13
"d3 liJd7 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 15
"d4+ ~gS 16 fS .i.xb3 17 axb3
'it'b6 IS "xb6 axb6 19 :a7 is
slightly better for White, Gauil-
anes-D.Rodriguez, Havana 1990,
or 12 ... a6 13 "f3 1WhS? [13 ... liJd7
was necessary] 14 "£2
:ael .i.c4 16 eS dxeS 17 :xeS+,
:acS IS
Tal-Stefanov, Kislovodsk 1966,
while 12 ... liJrl7 also gives White an
advantage after 13 .i.xg7 ~xg7 14
liJdS) 13 "d3 "c7 14 liJbS? (14
.i.xe6 fxe6 IS eS is better)
14 .....c6 IS liJxa7 :xa7 16 .i.xa7
b6 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 IS 'it'b3 "xe4 19
.i.xb6 liJxdS 20 :ael "xc2 21
"xc2 :xc2 22 .i.a7 :xb2 23 :xe6
112-1/2 Ciric-Panna, Ljubljana 1960.
c) lO...1WhS?! was used by Kam-
sky against Short in their 1994
PCA Candidates match in Linares.
Short chose to transpose into the
main line, but it would have been
interesting to see what Kamsky had
in mind against 11 "d2! (see line
'c4' below). White has:
cl) 11 f4 .i.d7 (11.....xdl 12
:axdl .i.d7 13 liJf3, intending e4-
eS, is better for White) transposes
into 10 h3 .i.d7 11 f4 1Whs - see
Game SI.
c2) 11 liJdS "xdl 12 :axdl
liJxd4 13 .i.xd4 liJxdS 14 exdS
.i.d7 IS :fel :feS is equal - Ubi-
lava.
c3) 11 "xhS liJxhS 12 :adl
liJxd4 13 .i.xd4 liJf4 14 :fel .i.e6
IS liJdS .i.xdS 16 exdS i.f6 1/2- 1/2
Jonasson-Frey, Reykjavik 1982.
c4) 11 "d2! i.d7 12 ~de2 "as
13 i.h6 :tac8 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 IS f4
with a clear edge for White, Sydor-
Filipowicz, Poland 1969.
11 :el
White's intentions with this
move are strictly positional, plan-
ning to play his c3-knight to dS to
make it more difficult for Black to
create counterplay. If Black cap-
tures the knight, White will often
be clearly better due to his pressure
against Black's backward pawn on
e7 and general space advantage.
The main alternative, 11 f4, is the
subject of Games 79-83.
11 :ac8
11 ... :feS is seen in the next
game. Two rarer alternatives are:
a) 11...:fcS 12 f4! (this is a
strong plan, as Black's rook has left
the f-file) 12 ...1Whs 13 liJf3 :dS?
14 "e2 e6 IS :ad1 i.e8 16 "fl,
intending 17 g4 with a strong at-
tack, Pietzsch-Damjanovic, Sara-
jevo 1966. Kapengut suggests
13 ... bS as an improvement, but
even then White has the better
chances.
b) l1...liJxd4 12 i.xd4 i.c6 (not
12 ... eS 13 i.e3 .i.c6 14 "xd6
liJxe4 IS liJxe4 i.xe4 16 i.d2 "dS
17 "xd8 :fxdS 18 .i.gS, winning
the exchange) 13liJdS and now:

bl) 13 ....i.xdS?! 14 exdS :fe8
15 Wf3 ~d7 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17
:e3 with a strong initiative for
White, Sigurjonsson-Bochosian,
Tbilisi 1974, or 15 c4 a6 16 ':cl
~d7 17 J-xg7 ~xg7 18 ':c3 ':ac8
19 l:lce3 with a clear edge,
T.Tolnai-Oney, Komotini 1992.
b2) Eduard Gufeld recommends
13; .. e5!? but 14 J-c3 Wd8 15 Wd2,
intending ':adl, gave White the
better chances in Todorovic-
Kunovac, Zlatibor 1989.
12 "e21
This is White's only real try for
an advantage. Less convincing are:
a) 12 "d2 l:lfe8 transposing to
the next game.
b) 12 "d3 (this move was intro-
duced by Ljubojevic, but it does
not give Black a hard time)
12 ... ~eS! (White gains the upper
hand after 12 ... ~xd4 13 ..txd4
':fe8?! [13 .....tc6 is not joyful ei-
ther, as after 14 ':adl ~d7 IS
J-xg7 ~xg7 16 ~d5 White has
somewhat the better prospects] 14
f4 ..tc6 15 e5 ~h5 16 "e3 ..th6 17
e6 f5 18 l:lfl ':f8 19 l:ladl with a
clear plus for White in Ligterink-
Kagan, Haifa 01 1976) 13 "e2
(White now threatens f2-f4)
13 ...Wa6! (other tries are worse:
13 ... ':xc3 14 ..td2 or 13 ... b5? 14 a4
b4 15 ~dS ':fe8 16 ~b5 ~c6 17
l:lad1 ~xe4 18 ~xa7! and White
soon won, Ljubojevic-Sosonko,
Wijk aan Zee 1976)
(see following diagram)
13 ...Wa6! is a brilliant idea of
Silman's. Black takes control of the
c4-square, and this suffices to gen-
erate enough counterplay to com-
pensate for his damaged pawn
structure. For example, 14 "xa6
bxa6 15 ':ad1 (15 ~d5?! ~xdS 16
Main Lines with 7..tc4"aS 209
J-xdS ~c4 17 ..txc4 ':xc4 18 c3
:b8 19 l:le2 e5 20 ~f3 ':c7 21
':dl ':f8 22 ':cl J-b5 23 .:d2 ..tc6
24 ':el f5 with a distinct advantage
for Black in Povah-Silman, Eng-
land 1978) 1!L.~c4 16 ..tc1 as 17
~dS?! ~xdS 18 exdS ~b6! and
Black was better in Kramer-
Ca.Hansen, Denmark 1996. White
should have tried 17 a4 to limit
Black's queenside activity.
c) 12 ~d5 Wd8 (after 12 ... ':fe8
13 J-d2 "cS 14 ~f3 ~xdS 15
exdS ~aS 16 ..te3 "c7 17 c3 ~18
J-d4 Black ended up in a dead end
in L. Bronstein-Kagan, Rio de Ja-
neiro 1979; in Pietzsch-Panno,
Lugano 1968, Black tried 1S ...~d4
but after 16 ~xd4 ..txd4 17 ..te3
..txe3 18 ':xe3 b5 19 "d2 ':c7 20
':ae 1 White held the better pros-
pects) 13 ~bS ~xd5 (l3 ... ~xe4?
loses to 14 ~xa7 ~xa7 IS ..tb6
"e8 16 ..txa7; Black has also tried
13 ..."a5, but after 14 a4! ..te6 IS
..tgS J-xdS 16 exdS ~e5 17 ..td2
"a6 18 "e2 ':fe8 19 ..ta3 b6 20
as, he was experiencing great pain
in Vasiukov-Roizman, Moscow
1972) 14 exdS ~aS IS ~d4 bS 16
c3 ':e8 (this may not be necessary;
instead 16... ~c4 is worth consid-
eration, e.g. 17 ..tg5 ':e8 18 "e2
Wb6 or 17 ..txc4 ':xc4 18 ..tgS
210 Main Lines with 7 Jl..c4 'i'a5

l:te8 19 'i'e2 .a8 or 17 ... bxc4!?) Lanka-Veremeichik, Daugavpils

17 'i'd2 (better seems 17 tLlc2 'i'c7 1979.
18 Jl..d4 Jl..h6 with a slight plus. 16 tLld5 i.xd5
Hennings-Kapengut. Lublin 1973) 17 exd5 tLlc5
17 ... tLlc4 18 Jl..xc4 l:txc4 19 tLlc2 IS Jl..xg7 <tPxg7
'ii'a8 (here T.Georgadze has rec- 19 "d4+ ~gS
ommended 19... a5 20 Jl..d4 b4 21 20 l:te2 b5
Jl..xg7 ~xg7 22 cxb4 'i'c7 23 l:te2 21 c3 l:tc7
l:tc8 24 tLla3 l:tcl. but as Silman 22 l:.del tLlxb3
and Donaldson correctly point out. 23 axb3 "b6
Black loses a pawn after 25 l:txci 24 'i'f4 'i'b7
'ii'xcI+ 26 'i'xci l1xcl+ 27 ~h2
axb4 28 tLlc2 Jl..b5 29 l:td2) 20 Jl..g5
Jl..fS 21 l1adl l:tc5 22 Jl..e3 l:tc7 23
Jl..h6 Jl..f5! 24 Jl..xfS (24 tLlb4 a5 25
tLlc6 e5) Jl..xc2 25 'ii'xc2 l:txfS 26
'ii'd2 l:tb8 (intending ....:bb7•
.....fS-g7) 112-112 Vogt-T.Georgad-
ze. Lublin 1974.
12 tLlxd4?!
In Sigurjonsson-L.Garcia, Bo-
gota 1978, Black was tempted by
12 ... tLlxe4? but realised too late
that it was actually the losing
move: 13 tLlxc6 Jl..xc6 14 tLlxe4
Jl..xb2 (14 ... Jl..xe4 15 Jl..d2 is even It seems as if Black has solved
worse) 15 l:tabl Jl..g7 16 Jl..d2 and most of his problems by exchang-
Black was lost. However, worth a ing all the minor pieces, but he is
try is 12 ... 'i'h5!?, when White can- still left with a very passive posi-
not go for the pawn win: 13 'i'xh5 tion, while the backward a7- and
tLlxh5 14 tLlxc6 bxc6 15 Jl..xa7 e7-pawns are permanent weak-
Jl..xc3 16 bxc3 c5 or 13 tLlxc6 bxc6 nesses.
14 Jl..xa7 'i'xe2 15 ':xe2 c5 and 25 l:td2 l:tcS 26 h4 "as 27 "13 hS
White's bishop is lost. Probably 2S b4 l:tc4 29 l:tde2 ~f8 30 g3 as
best is 13 tLlf3, when White IS 31 :al a4 32 b3 :c7 33 bxa4
slightly better. bxa4 34 :da2 "cS 35 :xa4 l:.xc3
13 Jl..xd4 Jl..c6 36 "f4 <tPg7 37 :as l:.cl+ 3S
14 l:tadl l:tfeS l:.xcl "xaS 39 "d4+ f6 40 b5
14 ... b5 is possible, but after 15 White has used his advantage
tLld5 Jl..xd5 16 exd5 White is excellently and created a decisive
clearly better.
IS 'i'e3! tLld7
Worse is 15 ... b6 16 tLld5 tLlxd5
passed pawn.
40.....a3 41 l:tc7
43 ~g2 f544 *h2
"as
"eI 42 b6 ~
45 b7 l:.bS
17 exd5 i.b7 18 c3 ':c7 19 Jl..xg7 46 ~g2 'i'e4+
~xg7 20 l:td4!, and White was This leads to a lost endgame, but
having the time of his life in White was threatening ':c8 with

penetration on the back rank.
47 'ii'xe4 fxe4 48 f3 ~f6 49 fxe4 e6
50 dxe6 ~xe6 51 ~f3 ~f5 52 <lte3
d5 53 exd5+ ~xd5 54 ~f4 ~d6
55 :g71-0
Game 78
Tal-Cu.Hansen
Reykjavik 1986
(1 e4 c5 2 ti)f3 ti)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ti)xd4 g6 5 ti)c3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ti)f6 7
~c4 'ii'a5 8 0-0 0-0 9 ~b3 d6 10
h3 ~d711 :e1)
11 :fe8
This is probably Black's best an-
swer to 11 :el. For a while Black
nullifies White's intention to play
ti)d5.
12 'ii'd2
This is White's most common
try, but not necessarily the best.
Other attempts:
a) 12 f4 (this does not seem
logical in combination with 11
l:el) 12 ... ti)xd4 13 ~xd4 :ad8
(13 ...e5!? is interesting, although
after 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 ~e3 ~e6 16
'ii'f3 a6 17 :fl 'fIc7 18 :£2 b5 19
~g5 ti)h5 20 ti)d5 White held a
strong initiative in Griinfeld-
Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as 211
Nikolic, Belgrade 1989) 14
~c6 15 :adl ti)d7 16 ~xg7 ~xg7
"f3
17 f5 (it seems wrong to leave the
e5-square in Black's hands, but it is
hard to come up with anything
better, e.g. 17 ti)d5 e6 is also okay
:f8
for Black) 17 ... 18 ..g3 "e5 19
1i'h4 ti)f6 20 :d2 e6 21 It)d5!?
l:fe8 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 ti)c7 :e7,
Medina-Bellon, Palma de Mallorca
1971, and here 24 ti)xe6 ltxe6 25
~xe6 g5! 26 'fIf2 'ii'xe6 27 e5 ti)e4
wins for Black.
b) 12 "d3 l:Iac8 (Baumbach
mentions 12 ...:tad8, intending to
meet 13 ti)d5 with ... e7-e6) 13 f4
(more logical is 13 :tadl ti)xd4 14
~xd4 ~c6 15 'fIf3 a6 16 ti)d5 ti)d7
17 ~xg7 ~xg7 18 a3!? e6 19 ti)b4
'fIe5 20 c3 'ii'e5 21 "e3 'fIc5 22 c4
Ill_Ill Bryson-Baumbach, corr
1989) 13 ... a6 (better is 13 ...ti)xd4
14 ~xd4 ti)h5!, as after 15 i,xg7
'iPxg7 16 'fIf3 'ii'c5 17 ~hUc6
Ill-Ill, as in Schoneberg-Baumbach,
Schwerin 1969, Black has suffi-
cient counterplay on the queenside)
14 ti)f3 (14 ltadl b5 15 a3 "c7 16
ti)xc6 ~xc6 17 ~c1 ti)d7 18 ti)d5
~xd5 19 'ii'xd5 "c5 was about
equal in Walther-Nagomi, corr
1986) I4 .....c7 15 ]:tadl ti)a5 16 e5
ti)xb3 17 exf6 ti)c5 18 "d2 exf6
(also to be considered is 18 ... ~xf6
19 ti)d5 ti)e4; there could follow 20
ti)xc7 ti)xd2 21 ti)xe8 ti)xf3+ 22
gxf3 l:Ixe8 with an interesting end-
game) 19 "xd6 ~e6 20 'ii'xc7
Axc7 21 ~d4 Aee8 22 g4 f5 23
gxf5 gxf5 24 Ad2 (White tries to
improve on Sorokin-Baumbach,
corr 1977, which continued 24
~xg7 ~xg7 25 ti)d4 ~6 26 l:e5
Ad8 27 l1tf2 Acd7, when Black had
no problems and in fact later won)
24 ... ~xd4 25 ti)xd4 b5 26 a3 ltd7
212 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 "as
27 l:te5 f6!? 28 l:txc5 (this leads to
a draw, but the tempting alternative
28 :g2+ is no good: 28 .. .'~h8! 29
l:txc5 :xcS 30 lLlxe6 l:tc6 31 :e2
l:tdd6 32 tLlf8 ~g8 33 :e8 ~f7
followed by ... l:tc7-e7-e8 and the
knight will be lost) 28 ... l:txcS 29
lLlxe6 l:txd2 30 lLlxcS 112-112
Kramer-Ca.Hansen, corr 1995.
c) 12 "e2 and now:
cl) Again 12 ... lLlxe4? does not
work, since after 13lLlxc6 -'.xc6 14
lLlxe4 (1-0 Neukirch-Baumbach,
Schwerin 1969) 14... .i.xe4 IS -'.d2
Black loses a piece.
c2) Also bad is 12 ... l:tad8? 13
l:tadllLlxd4 14 -'.xd4 -'.c6 15 "f3!
(Black answers IS lLldS with
IS ... lLld7 followed by ...e7-e6)
15 ... bS 16 lLldS -'.xdS 17 exd5 :c8
18 l:te3 and Black was suffering,
P.Popovic-Renet, Dubai 01 1986.
c3) 12 ... tLlxd4 13 -'.xd4 -'.c6 14
l:tadl :ac8 IS "e3 b6 16 lLldS!
with a nice advantage for White,
Vogt-Roizman, East Germany
1969.
c4) 12 ... 'ii'hS! and now:
c41) 13 lLlf3 lLleS 14 lLlxeS
"xeS (this has been regarded as
equal since Ree-Sosonko, Wijk aan
Zee 1976, but things are not that
easy) 15 "d3 -'.c6 16 -'.d4 "as 17
lLldS lLlxdS? (17 ... lLld7!?) 18 exdS
-'.d7 19 -'.xg7 ~xg7 20 l:te3 with a
clear edge for White, Gonschior-
Lerch, corr 1982.
c42) 13 "xhS has also been
tried, when after 13 ... lLlxhS 14
l:tadl lLlxd4 IS -'.xd4 -'.c6 16 lLld5
-'.xd4 17 l:txd4 l:tac8 18 eS -'.xdS
19 l:txd5 dxeS 20 l:td7 l:tb8 21
:xeS e6 22 l:tbS White was win-
ning, De.Markovic-Jelic, Belgrade
1989. Black could try to improve
with 14 ... lLlf6 or Is ... lLlf4.
12 l:tac8
Black has three other valid alter-
natives:
a) 12 ...:ad8 13 l:tadl a6 14 lLlf3
-'.c8 15 -'.h6 lLle5 16 lLlxeS 17
"e3 -'.xh6 18 "xh6 e6 19 "e3
~g7 20 lLlbl l:td4 21 lLld2 l:ted8
with equality, Koch-Ivkov, Dort-
mund 1989.
b) 12 ... lLlxe4!? 13 lLlxc6 "xc3!
(or 13 ... -'.xc3?! 14 "xc3?! [14
lLlxaS -'.xd2 15 -'.xd2 lLlxd2 16
-'.d5 is better for White] 14 .....xc3
15 lLlxe7+ l:txe7 16 bxc3 lLlxc3 17
-'.d4 :xel lLlbS 19 l:te7 lLlxd4 20
-'.xf7+ ~g7 21 l:txd7 ~f6 22 c4 b5
with a drawish endgame in Anka-
P.Kiss, Dortmund 1988) 14 bxc3
lLlxd2 15 lLlxe7+ l:txe7 16 -'.xd2
l:txel+ 17 :xel-'.c618 :e7 d5 19
l:te3 d5 with equal chances, Kris-
tiansen-Borge, Danish ch 1996.
c) 12 ... lLlxd4 13 -'.xd4 -'.c6,
which stops 14 lLldS and threatens
... lLlxe4.
13 lLlf3
In Delacroix-Jenal, corr 1989,
White gave 13 l:tadl a try, but
Black was untroubled after 13 ... bS
14 a3 lLle5 IS lWe2 lLlc4 16 -'.cl
eS.
13 a6?!

Better was the immediate 13 ... b5
or 13 ...1t1h5 14 :abl ltle5 15 .i.xe5
i.xe5 161t1e2 'ii'xd2 17 .i.xd2 i.b5
18 i.c3 .i.xe2 19 .i.xe5 dxe5 20
'ii'xe2 :ed8 with equal play, Koch-
Tal, Marseilles 1989.
14 :adl b5
15 .i.h6 ltld8
Also possible is 15 ... .i.h8 16
ltlg5 'ii'c5 17 f4 (or 17 'ii'f4 lZ)c4 18
ltld5 .i.c6 19 c3 .i.xd5 20 :xd5
.i.g7 21 'ii'h4 e6 22 .i.xg7 ~xg7 23
:xd6 ltlxd6 24 e5 'ii'd8 25 exf6+
'ii'xf6 26 'ii'xh7+ ~f8 27 'ii'h4 ~g7
28 'ii'h7+ ~ 29'ii'h4 112-112, as in
the game Chandler-W.Watson,
London 1987) 17... 1t1c4 18 e5!?
lZ)h5? (18 ... b4! 19 ltlce4 lZ)xe4 20
:xe4 .i.e6 21 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 22 b3
.i.e6 and White has somewhat bet-
ter chances - Jansa) 19 'ii'f2 ltlg7
20 g4 b4 21 ltld5 ltle6 22 f5! with
a fierce attack, Jansa-W.Watson,
Gausdal 1988.
16 lOd4 :cS
17 a3 .i.xh6
18 'ii'xh6 :hS
19 'ii'f4 .i.e6
20 .i.xe6 .i.xe6
21 g4! :xh3
T.Georgadze gives 21...:c5 22
b4 'ii'xa3 as interesting.
22 f3
According to T. Georgadze,
Black should now have continued
with 22 ... g5 23 'ii'xg5+ ~h8 24
'ii'd2 b4 25 lOd5 .i.xd5 26 axb4
'ii'b6 27 ~g2 :xf3 28 ~xf3 .i.b7
with some compensation for the
exchange. Instead, Black unfortu-
nately chose:
22 ... b4? 23 axb4 'ii'xb4 24 ~g2!
'ii'xb2 2S lOdS! .i.xdS 26 exdS
ltlxdS 27 'iVd2 :h4 28 ~g3 ltlc3
29 :al lOe2 30 ltlxel 'iVf6 31 gS
1-0
Main Lines with 7.i.c4 'ii'aS 213
Game 79
Pletzsch-Kapengut
Byelorussia-East Germany 1968
(1 e4 cS 2 ltlf3 lZ)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lOxd4 g6 S lOc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lOf6 7
.i.c4 'iVaS 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10
h3.i.d7)
11 f4
In contrast to 11 :el,wm! 11 f4
White hopes to get something go-
ing on the kingside. Black has a
number of different moves and
plans at his disposal, most of
which, however, are inadequate for
equality.
11 :ac8?!
Later we will analyse Black's
main alternatives 11...'ii'h5 (Game
81) and 11...1t1xd4 (Games 82 and
83). Other tries are:
a) ll...b5 12 lLld5 (Euwe gives
12 e5! as stronger: 12 ... dxe5 13
ltlxc6 .i.xc6 14 fxe5 ltle8 15 ltldS
.i.xdS 16 .i.xdS :d8 17 'iVf3 .i.xe5
18 .i.xf7 with a clear advantage for
White, but there is no reason for
Black to allow his opponent to take
on f7, so 17... e6 looks like an im-
provement) 12 ...1t1xdS 13 exdS
ltlxd4 14 .i.xd4 'ii'b4 15 .i.xg7
214 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "a5
rj;xg7 16 c3 'it'c5+ with a fair game
for Black, Schoeneberg-Baumbach,
East Germany 1966.
b) ll...e5?! 12 ~xc6 ~xc6 13
f5! l:.ad8 (things are already a little
difficult for Black but in Short-
Wagman, Lugano 1986, Black now
made things much worse:
13 ... i.xe4? 14 ~xe4 ~xe4 15 fxg6
hxg6 16 l:txf7! ':xf7 17 i.xf7+
rj;xf7 18 'it'f3+ and the game was
soon over) 14 fxg6!? hxg6 15 i.g5
~xe4 16 ~xe4 i.xe4 17 i.xd8
"xd8 and White has the better
chances.
c) 1l...':fc8?! Usually Black has
to be very careful when he moves
his rook away from fS, as White
may take advantage of the lack of
protection of the f7-pawn. 12 a3?!
(12 ~f3! clearly favours White)
12 ... ~xd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6 141M3
~d7 15 i.xg7 <J;;xg7 16 rj;h2 Wc5
17 :ael b5 lh-lh Ciric-D.Byme,
Vrsac 1969.
d) 1l...:ad8?!
Kan's move from 1936; the idea
is to prevent e4-e5, but it is very
passive and with correct play White
obtains a clear advantage:
dl) 12 f5 ~e5 (in the stem game
Black incorrectly sacrificed a piece
with 12 ... ~xe4?, but was rewarded
when White answered 13 ~d5?,
and Black went on to win in Chek-
hover-Kan, Leningrad 1936; cor-
rect was 13 c!l)xe4 "e5 14 Wd3
~b4 15 "d2 "xe4 16 ':ael, when
Black is much worse) 13 "el i.c6
14 ~xc6 bxc6 15 g4 1rb4 16 a3
"'7 17 'ii'h4 d5 with chances for
both sides, Damjanovic-Baumbach,
Bad Liebenstein 1963.
14 "f2
d2) 12 Wf3lLlxd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6
~d7! (of course not
14 ... ~xe4?? 15 c!l)xe4 i.xe4 16
i.xg7 Q;xg7 17 Wd4+) 15 i.xg7
(15 i.xa7? only leads to trouble:
15 ... b6 16 i.d5 i.xc3! 17 i.xc6
i.b4! winning a piece) 15 ... ~xg7
16 "d4 ~f6 with equal chances.
d3) 12 "d3 (in the game Short-
Korchnoi, Garmisch-Partenkirchen
1994, Black now chose to trans-
pose to Game 83 with 12 ...i.xd4
13 i.xd4 i.c6) 12 ... ~b4! (not
12 ...:fe8? 13 ~f3 "c7 14 g4 ~a5
15 f5 i.c6 16 fxg6 hxg6 17
i.xf7+! rj;xf7 18 e5 with a strong
attack in Neikirch-Baumbach, East
Germany 1967; a nice demonstra-
tion of why the rook should stay on
fS) 13 "e2 (13 "d2 ~a6 followed
by ... ~c5 is fine for Black) 13... e5
14 ~f3 ~h5 and Black can be sat-
isfied with the position.
d4) 12 ~f3! (Romanovsky's
1937 recommendation is still con-
sidered strongest) 12... b5 (12 ...'ii'h5
was tried out in Krogh-Ca.Hansen,
Denmark 1995, but Black came up
short after 13 'iVd2 b5 14 a3 a5 15
Wd3 b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 "e2 i.c6
18 e5! dxe5 19 l:.xa5) 13 a3 a6 14
WeI Wc7 15 'ii'h4 'iVb8 16 g4 a5 17
f5 gxf5 18 exf5 a4 19 i.a2 b4,
Kurajica-Hiibner, Barcelona 1965,
and now instead of 20 ~d5 b3,
better was 20 axb4 ~xb4 21 g5
with a very strong attack.

12 'ii'0
For 12 lZ)f3! see the next game.
The alternatives are less trouble-
some for Black:
a) 12 f5?! lZ)e5 (as the reader
will know from the line 1l...l:ad8,
12 ... lZ)xe4? does not work for
Black: 13 'ii'xe4 'ii'e5 14 'iVd3 lZ)b4
15 'ii'd2 'ii'xe4 16 fxg6 hxg6 17
J:lael) 13 'iVel lZ)c4 14 ~xc4 ::'xc4
15 lZ)b3 'iVc7 16 ~d4 :txd4 17
lZ)xd4 'iVb6 with compensation for
the exchange, lanosevic-Stein,
Sarajevo 1967.
b) 12 'iVd3 lZ)b4 (12 ... lZ)xd4 13
~xd4 ~c6 transposes to 11...lZ)xd4
- see Game 83) 13 'ii'e2 (13 1Wd2!?
ttJa6 14 ttJf3 ttJc5 15 e5 ttJe8 16
'iith 1 was problematic for Black in
Gaponenko-M.Calzetta, Buenos
Aires 1993; 13 ...~c6 may be an
improvement) 13 ... lZ)a6 14 'ii'f3
lZ)c5 15 1:tadl lZ)xb3 16 lZ)xb3 'iVc7
17 :tf2 b6 with equal chances, as in
the game Panna-Stein, Yugoslavia-
USSR 1965.
12 'ii'hS!
Black threatens to equalise by
exchanging queens and thereby
gains time to start an attack with
his queenside pawns. Other possi-
bilities are:
Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ii'a5 215
a) 12 ...lZ)h5? 13 lZ)de2 lZ)f6 14
g4, Littleton-Yanofsky, Lugano 01
1968.
b) 12 ...a6?! 13 'ii'f2! 'ii'h5 14
lZ)de2 b5 15 a3 'oii>h8 16 l:1adllZ)a5,
Pietzsch-Szabo, Kecskemet 1966,
and now 17 f5! is strong.
c) 12 ... lZ)xd4 13 ~xd4 ~c6 14
l:1adl e6!? (both 14...b5 15 'ii'e3 b4
16 lZ)d5 ~xd5 17 exd5, lanosevic-
Kagan, Netanya 1971, and 16 e5
lZ)e8 17lZ)e4 ~xe4 18 'ii'xe4 e6 19
c3, Hector-Wilder, Cannes 1989
slightly favour White) 15 'ii'£2 b6
16 f5 (White goes for the attack,
but 16 e5 with equality would have
been more advisable) 16 ... gxf5 17
exf5 e5! 18 ~e3 d5 19 'ii'h4 ::'cd8
20 ~g5 ::'d6 21 ~xf6 ~xf6 22
1Wel 112-112 was lanosevic-Schubert,
Dortmund 1987. In the final posi-
tion Black was much better.
13 'ii'f2
This is still regarded-aJthe main
line, but since Black is at least
equal here, White must try some-
thing else at some point, perhaps
even as early as here. So far, White
has also attempted:
a) 13 g4? ~xg4! 14 hxg4 lZ)xg4
15 :tfdl 'ii'h2+ 16 ~1 lZ)xe3+ 17
'ihe3 lZ)xd4 18 ::'xd4 'ii'hl+ and
Black was winning in Mesing-
Karev, Yugoslavia 1966.
b) 13 :tadl lZ)xd4! (13 ... lZ)a5 14
g4?! [14 'ii'f2! slightly favours
White] 14... lZ)xg4 15 hxg4 ~xg4
16 'ii'hl ~xdl 17 :txdl 'ii'xhl+ 18
~xhl ttJxb3 19 axb3 :tfe8 with an
equal endgame in Mnatsakanian-
Stein, Yerevan 1965) 14 'ii'xh5 (14
~xd4 'iVxf3 15 'ii'xf3 ~c6 16 lZ)d5
lZ)xd5 17 exd5 ~d7 18 ::'e3 :tfe8
19 c3 a5 leads to equality, Rubi-
netti-Panno, Buenos Aires 1968)
14... lZ)xh5 15 ~xd4 ~xd4+ 16
216 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as
:xd4 .i.e6 (inaccurate is
16 ... .i.c6?! 17 :d2 filf6 18 eS!
1Cle4 19 IClxe4 .i.xe4 20 exd6 exd6
21 c3 with a slight plus for White,
Teufel-Toran, Bamberg 1968) 17
:f2? ! (17 :d2 was still equal)
17 ...a6 (Silman and Donaldson
give 17...lClxf4 18 :b4 .i.xb3 19
axb3 lCle6 as good for Black) 18
g4? IClxf4 19 :xf4 ~xb3 and Black
was on top in Teufel-Kestler, Bam-
berg 1968.
c) 13 IClxc6!? (White's most re-
cent try, which Kamsky used to
win an important game in his can-
didates match against Anand in
Sanghi Nagar 1994. though with
correct play Black should be okay)
13 ... .i.xc6 14 g4! "as 15 :tadl (15
gS? loses to 15 ...lClxe4 161Clxe4 d5
17 IClg3 d4) 15 ... b5 16 g5 ICld7 17
fS and at this point Anand chose
17 ... .i.xc3?! and got into difficul-
ties. In Informator Ubilava analy-
ses instead 17...gxf5!:
cl) 18 'fibs .i.xc3 19 g6! IClf6!
(19 ...hxg6 20 "xg6+ ~h8 21
'fIb6+ ~g8 22 ~ wins for White)
20 'fIb6 .i.xe4 (also interesting is
20...~xb2, intending .....c3) 21
bxc3 (21 ~ hxg6 22 "xg6+ ~h8
23 'fIb6+ IClh7 24 bxc3 :tg8 25
:gl :xgl 26 :xgl "xc3, intend-
ing .....f6) 21.. ...xc3! (21...:xc3?
22 gxh7+ IClxh7 23 ~f2. intending
:gl and wins) 22 ~f2 (22 gxh7+
filxh7 23 ~ "f6 clearly favours
Black) 22 .. .f4! 23 gxf7+ ~h8 24
"f4 (intending .i.d4) 24 ... :tc4 25
~xc4 "xc4 26 ~d4 :Xii with an
initiative for Black
c2) 18 "f5 e6 19 "f4 with
chances for both sides.
13 bS!
A brilliant idea of Stein's that
takes advantage of the tactically
weak e4-pawn. The alternatives are
too slow to prevent White's king-
side build-up:
a) 13 ... lCla5? (Black intends to
sacrifice the exchange on c3, put-
ting more pressure on the e4-pawn.
but this plan is easy for White to
meet) 14 IClde2! b6 IS f5! (Black's
queen is now caged in, and White
just has to catch it!) 15 ... g5 16 "g3
h6 17 'fIb2! IClc4 18 ~d4lClxb2 19
:tael IClc4 20 ICld5 IClxdS 21 g4
i.xd4+ 22 IClxd4 'fIb4 23 exd5
lCle5 24 :xe5 1-0 Tal-Gazik, Sara-
jevo 1966.
b) 13 ... lClb4?! (the same theme:
Black wants to play ...:xc3) 14
IClde2 as 15 a3 lCla6 16 e5 dxe5 17
IClg3 1fh4 18 fxe5 IClh5 19 IClxh5
"xh520 ~xf7+ ~h8 21 "d2 and
White is on top, Sakharov-Stein,
Tallinn 1965.
14 ICldxbS
The only move if White wants to
battle for the advantage. The alter-
natives have led to disappointing
results for White:
a) 141Clxc6 ~xc6 15 i.d4 b4 16
e5 (16 ICld5 .i.xd5 17 exd5 lCle4 18
"e3.i.xd4 19 "xd4lClg3 loses an
exchange) 16...bxc3 17 exf6 .i.xf6
18 bxc3 .i.xd4 19 cxd4 i.e4 with a
 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 "as 217

slightly better game for Black, played 26 ... ~d4 27 "e3 ~xb3 28
Tsarenkov-Kapengut, USSR 1968. "xe7 tLlc5 29 ~f5 gxfS 30 "f6+
b) 14 tLlde2 b4 IS tLlg3 'ii'h4 16 with a draw) 21 .i.f4 (better is 21
tLldS (16 tLlce2 tLlaS 17 tLld4 tLlhS .i.d2, although Black is better after
18 tLlge2 "xf2+ 19 ':xf2 eS also 21...gxf5 22 tLlxfS "xf2+ 23 ':xf2
favours Black, Sprenger-Scholz, .i.xfS) 2l...gxfS 22 .i.xeS+ ~xeS
corr 1972) 16... tLlxdS 17 exdS tLlaS 23 ':d4 "f6 24 ':dS (or 24 ~xf5
18 ':abl .i.bS 19 ':fdl tLlc4 20 .i.xf5 2S "xf5 ~f3+) 24 ... ':g8 25
.i.xa7 tLlxb2 with an excellent po- ':xaS ..g5 26 ~e2 .i.c6 27 ~f4
sition for Black, Ciocaltea-Panno, tLlf3+ 28 ~hl "xf4 29 gxf3 :g3
Lugano 011968. 30 .i.dS l:Ixh3 0-1 Popovych-
c) 14 a3 as (14 ... tLla5!? may be Sherwin, USA 1968.
better) 15 ':adl (or 15 tLlde2 a4 16 16 as
tLlg3 'ii'h4 17 .i.a2 b4 with an ini- 17 c4 "b4
tiative for Black, Tseshkovsky- 18 .i.d2! "b7
Kapengut, Odessa 1968) 15 ...b4 16 Bad is 18 ....i.d4? 19 "xd4
tLldS tLlxe4 17 ..e 1 bxa3 18 tLlxc6 ~xd4 20 .i.xb4 ~xb3 21 .i.xd6
.i.xc6 19 tLlxe7+ ~h8 20 tLlxc8! exd6 22 axb3.
(20 tLlxc6 ':xc6 21 .i.dS ':xc2 22 20 .i.c3 ~b4 20 .i.xg7 ~xg7 21
.i.xe4 ':e2 is favourable for Black, "d4+ f6 22 cS dS!
Hulak-Romanishin, USSR 1969) This practically forces a drawn
20 ... ':xc8 21 bxa3 .i.c3 22 .i.d4+ endgame, whereas 22 ... .i.c6? loses
.i.xd4 23 ':xd4 "c5 24 "e3 tLlg3 to 23 cxd6 .i.xe4 24 ':fel.
2S ':fdl tLlf5 26 "f2 tLlxd4 27 23 ~xdS ~xdS 24 "XdSJi'xdS
"xd4+ ~g8 with a likely draw - 24 ....i.c6? 25 "e6 he4 26 ':d7
Balashov. wins for White.
14 tLlxe4 2S ':xdS .i.c6 26 ':d4 eS! 27 fxeS
IS ~xe4 "xbS fxeS 28 ':xf8 112_112
16 ':adl!
White's best choice, planning Game 80
c4-cS. The other move tried here, Klundt-Kapengut
16 tLlg3, is considered bad: Ybbs 1968
16... aS!? (or 16... ~h8!? when 17 fS
loses a pawn: 17....i.xf5 18 ~xf5 (1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
"xfS 19 "xf5 gxf5 20 ':xfS e6) 17 ~xd4 g6 S ~c3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 ~f6 7
a4 "'4 18 fS 'ith8 (l8 ... ~4 is a .i.c4 "as 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10
suggestion of Silman and Donald- h3 .i.d7 11 f4 ':ac8?!)
son; one line goes 19 fxg6 hxg6 20
.i.xf7+ ~h7, when White has a 12 ~f3!
number of threats to meet) 19 :adl (see/ollowing diagram)
'ii'h4 20 ':d3 .i.eS! (20 ... ':b8 led to 12 ~S
level chances in R.Byme-Stein, The alternatives suit White fine:
Sarajevo 1967: 21 "el .i.xfS 22 a) 12 ...bS? (taking away the
':xf4 "xf4!? 23 .i.xf4 .i.xd3 24 central control provided by the
"d2 .i.a6 25 .i.h6 .i.xh6 26 "xh6, queen on as) 13 e5! ~e8 14 ~g5
when Black should now have e6 IS ~ce4 dS 16 .i.cS, Matulovic-
218 Main Lines with 7 i1.c4 "a5
F.Petersen, Kapfenberg 1970.
b) 12 .. .l:lcd8?! 13 "el (also ex-
cellent is 13 'ife2 e5 14 fxe5 lbxe5
15 lbxe5 "xe5 16 i1.xa7 i1.c6 17
:'ae 1 lbd7 IS 'ifc4 and White had a
full pawn extra, G.Garcia-limenez,
Havana 1969) 13 ... i1.cS 14 l:tdl
(ECO suggests 14 g4!?) 14 ... e6 15
'jj'b4 lbe8? (necessary was
15 ... 'ifh5 when after 16 g4 'ifxh4
17lbxh4 White has more space) 16
f5! exf5 1711d5 'ikc7 18 J.g5 J.e6
19 exf5 J.xc3 20 fxe6 fxe6 21
bxc3 exd5 22 J.xd5+ <;PhS 23
J.xc6 1-0 Kurajica-Kuijpers, Wijk
aan Zee 1970.
c) 12 ...:'fdS?! 13 "el e6!?
(after 13 ... J.eS, it looked like Black
was hit by a steamroller in
I.Zaitsev-Dietze, Polanica Zdroj
1970: 14 f5! b5 15 fxg6 hxg6 16
'ifh4 lbe5 17 lbg5 lbc4 18 lbd5!
lbxe3 19 lbxe7+ ~8 20 lbxg6+
fxg6 21 l:txf6+, and Black soon
gave up) 14 l:tdl J.e8 15 lbg5 (less
aggressive options are 15 :f2 b5
16 a3 b4 17 axb4 'ifxb4 18 i1.d2
lbd7 19 lba4 'ifb7 20 J.c3 lbb6
with equal chances, Welton-
Donnelly, Warwickshire 1993, and
15 'iff2 d5?! [15 ... b5 should be
okay for Black] 16 exd5 lbxd5 17
lbxd5 exd5 IS c3 with an edge for
White, I.Polgar-Szilagyi, Budapest
1968) 15 ...h6?! (here 15 ... d5 was a
better try, but White should be
better) 16 ~xe6 fxe6 17 J.xe6+
J.f7 18 J.xc8 l:txc8 19 ':xd6 J.c4,
Zuckerman-Toran, Malaga 1968,
and now 20 e5! J.xfl 21 exf6 .i.f8
22 l:td5 would have won for White.
13 "el
The new move 13 "d3 has also
served White quite well: 13 ...b5 14
a3 b4 15 axb4 lbxb4 16 "d2 lbc6
17 i1.c4 lba5 18 J.e2 lbc4 19 J.xc4
l:txc4 20 l:txa7 and Black had lost a
pawn without compensation in
Gild.Garcia-Oblitas, Havana 1992.
An improvement for Black is badly
needed, but not hard to come by:
14...a5 intending ... a5-a4 or ...b5-
b4looks like a clearly better try.
13 b5
14 a3!
Clearly the strongest move,
other tries have not been able to
offer White any tangible advan-
tage:
a) 14 f5?! b4 15 lbe2 lbxe4 16
fxg6 hxg6 17 lbf4 'jj'b7! with a
slight edge for Black in Gliksman-
Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 1973.
b) 14 e5?! dxe5 15 fxe5 lbxe5
16 lbxe5 "xe5 17 J.xa7 "xel 18
l:taxe 1 b4 with a completely level
endgame - Gufeld.
c) 14 ':dl!? b4!? (14 ... a5?! 15
a4 slightly favours White -
Korchnoi) 15 lbd5 "xe4 is given
by Silman and Donaldson who now
continue with 16 f5!? gxf5 17 lbf4
'jj'b6 18 lbe6 'ifg6 19 lbxfS l:txfS
with plenty of compensation for the
exchange. True, but it seems that
White can improve by playing 16
J.xa7!?, when after 16... ~xa7 17
lbxe7+ ~h8 18 lbxc8 Black is ob-

viously lost and 16 ... e6 fails to 17
lLlb6 l:tc7 IS lLlxd7 ':'xa7 (or
Is .. Jbd7 19 "xe4 d5 20 "e3) 19
"'xe4 d5 20 .i.xd5. Best is proba-
bly 16 ... .i.f5 17 g4 .i.xg4 IS 'iVxe4
.i.xh3, which leads to a compli-
cated position where White holds
the better chances.
14 as
15 :dl a4
Bad is 15 ... b4? 16 lLld5 bxa3
(not 16...lLlxe4? 17 lLlb6 :cdS IS
lLlxd7 l:txd5 19 .i.xd5 and wins) 17
lLlxf6 .i.xf6 IS :d5+. In In/orma-
tor Maric gives 15 ... .i.e6 16 .i.xe6
fxe6 17 lLlg5 b4 as unclear, but 18
axb4 axb4 (or Is ... lLlxb4 19 :d2
and Black is in deep trouble) 19
lLle2 lLldS 20 lLlg3 'ii'h6 21 f5 gxf5
22 exf5 lLld5 23 l:txd5! exd5 24
lLle6 wins for White - Gufeld. In
Dueball-Klein, West Gennany
1965, Black tried 17 ... lLldS IS e5
lLld5 (Boleslavsky gives IS ... b4 19
axb4 axb4 20 exf6 exf6 21 lLlde4
24 "fl
fxg5 22 fxg5 l:txc2 23 l:txf8+ ~xf8
+ ri;e7 25 "'d3+ ':c6 26
lLlxd6 and White wins) 19 lLlxd5
exd5 20 :xd5, but his position was
unenviable.
16 .i.a2 b4
17 lLldS bxa3
Main Lines with 7.i.c4"a5 219
As we have seen before,
17... lLlxe4?? loses to IS lLlb6 :c7
19lLlxd7 Axd7 20 i.d5.
18 lLlxf6
18 bxa3 lLlxe4! 19 lLlb6 lLlf6 (or
even 19....:.c7 20 lLlxd7 l:txd7 21
.i.d5lLlc3! 22 .i.xc6 :c7 and Black
wins the piece back - Gufeld) 20
lLlxc8 ':'xcS gives Black some
compensation for the exchange.
18 .i.xf6
19 :dS!
On 19 e5 dxe5 20 :'xd7 exf4 21
.i.xf4 axb2 it seems that Black has
sufficient compensation for the
piece.
19 eS
20 :'xd6
Also possible is 20 bxa3 .i.e6 21
:xd6 exf4 22 .i.xf4 "c5 23 "e3
lLldS, when Black is doing well
according to Levy, but White can
improve with 22 :xe6 fxe6 23
.i.xe6+ q.,hS 24 .i.xcs fxe3 25
.i.d7, when Black was a pawn
down in Ausinsch-Dauga, corr
1974.
20 exf4
21 .i.xf4?
Boleslavsky's recommendation
of 21 l:txf6! is much stronger, e.g.
21...fxe3 22 "xe3 (22 bxa3 "c5
220 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 'ilaS

and Black defends the e3-pawn) 26 bxa3?!

22 ...axb2 23 ft:)g5, when although Here White misses another
Black has an extra pawn, he has to golden opportunity: 26 e5! ttJxe5
prove himself capable of defending (26 ....te7 27 bxa3) 27 J.xe5 .txe5
against White's threats against his 28 ttJxeS ':'e8 29 ':'f7+ ~g8 30
king, Boleslavsky continues: 'ilh4 h5 31 ..-f6 and wins - Maric.
a) 23 ... ttJb4 24 .txf7+ ':'xf7 (or White is still clearly better though.
24 ...~g7 25 ':'d6 [ECO gives 25 26...':'e8 27':'12 .te3 28.td2 .i.b2
'ild4 ~h6 as unclear) 25 ....:.c7 26 29 ttJgS .tf6
':xd7!) 25 ':'xf7 ft:)xc2 26 'ilxf4 29 ...ttJe5 30 J.b4 'ilc6 31 c3
iLb5 27 ttJe6. ttJd3 32 ':'t7+ ~g8 33 'ilfl wins
b) 23 ...ft:)e5 24 'ilf4 ':'ce8 25 for White - Maric.
ttJxf7 ttJxf7 26 ':'xf7. 30':'xf6!
c) 23 ... ttJd8 24 ttJxf7 ttJxf7 25 An excellent move that forces
':'xf7 ':'xf7 26 .txf7+ ~g7 27 the win.
'ild4+! 30...~xf6 31 'ilf1+ ~e7 32 'ilf7+
d) 23 ... .te8 24 'ilf4 ttJd8 25 e5 ~d8 33 ft:)e6+ ':'xe6 34 'ilxe6 ~e7
h6 26 ttJe4! 3S J.f4+ ~b6 36 'ild7 'ilxe2 37
e) 23 ...iLe6 24 ttJxe6 fxe6 25 J.e3+ ~a6 38 'ile8+ 1-0
iLxe6+ ~g7 26 'ilf2 ':'b8 27 iLa2!
':'fc8 28 ':'f7+ ~h6 29 h4! Game 81
This is all very convincing, so it J.Polgar-Kamsky
seems that this entire line is almost Buenos Aires 1994
unplayable for Black, who must
deviate at move 11 or 12, unless he (1 e4 eS 2 ttJf3 ttJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
can come up with a huge improve- ttJxd4 g6 S ttJe3 .tg7 6 .te3 ttJf6 7
ment somewhere. .te4 'ilaS 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10
21 'ileS+ h3 .i.d7 11 f4)
22 ~hl .te6
23 ':'xe6 fxe6 11 'ilhS!?
24 .txe6+? ~g7?
This loses for Black, who should
have tried 24 ... ~h8 when 25 .txc8
.txb2 26 .te3 'ild6 27 e5 'ildS or
25 eS .tg7 26 .txc8 axb2 27 .te3
'ilxc2 would have given him a
clear advantage thanks to his
passed pawns. However, White had
24 bxa3 with a complicated posi-
tion and mutual chances.
2S .txe8 ':'xe8
Here 25 ....txb2 did not work
due to 26 ttJgS! 'ilxg5 (or 26 ...ft:)d8
27 ft:)e6!) 27 .txg5 ':'xfl 28 'ilxfl
a2 29 J.h6+! ~xh6 30 'ilxf8+ .tg7 This move originates from Kap-
31 'ilf4+ and mate to follow. engut. The reasoning behind it is

logical: it is not yet clear where the
queen's rook is best placed, while
the queen has to move to h5 any-
way to start action with the queen-
side pawns.
12 tLlf3!
Again this knight move is best.
The alternatives enable Black to
generate sufficient counterplay:
a) 12 "xh5 (after this move
Black has already equalised)
12 ... tLlxh5 13 :adl :ac8 14 'lPh2
b6 15 g3 tLla5 16 tLlde2 j.c6, when
Black is already a little better
thanks to White's loose pawn
structure, Peterson-Troyke, Ger-
many 1991.
b) 12 "d2 b5 13 a3 tLla5 14.i2
tLlxb3 15 cxb3 a5 16 b4 ax~
axb4 :ac8 with a clear edge for
Black, Mnatsakanian-Romanishin,
Yerevan 1976.
c) 12 :e1 :fe8 13 j.f2 tLlxd4 14
j.xd4 j.c6 IS tLldS j.xdS 16 exd5
.xd1 17 :adl a6 18 c3 .!LId7 with
equal chances, as in Donchev-
Martinovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1984.
d) 12 .d3 (White's main alter-
native to 12 tLlf3) 12 ... bS! and now:
d1) 13 .xb5?? .!LIxd4 14 .xhS
tLlxhS and wins.
d2) 13 tLldxbS .!LIb4 14 .c4 as
IS .!LId4 :ac8 16 .e2 .xe2 17
tLldxe2 a4! and Black is better.
Main Lines with 7 j.c4 "a5 221
d3) 13 tLlcxb5 tLlb4 14 "c4 as
IS tLlc3 transposes to 13 tLldxbS
above.
d4) 13 a4 b4 14 tLldS tLlxdS IS
j.xd5 :ac8 16 tLlxc8 (or 16 tLlb5
as! 17 j.xc6 ':xc6 18 tLla7 :c7 19
j.b6 :b7 20 .a6 :fb8 with very
good play for Black - T.Georgad-
ze) 16... j.xc6 17 j.xa7 j.xb2 and
Black was better in Grabczewski-
T.Georgadze, Lublin 1974.
dS) 13 :ae1 a5 14 a3 b4 15
axb4 axb4 16 tLlxc6 (16 tLldS tLlxdS
17 exdS tLlxd4 18 j.xd4 j.b5! -
see note to White's 19th move)
16 ... j.xc6 17 tLldS tLlxdS 18 exdS
j.d7! (the game Tseshkovsky-Kap-
engut, Lvov 1973, went 18... j.a4!?
19 j.xa4 :xa4 20 fS 'iVh4 21 j.f2
"f6 22 fxg6 bxg6 23 'iVb3 :aa8 24
.xb4, and now 24 ...:fb8 was bet-
ter for Black, but according to
Ubilava can White improve with 19
j.c4 j.xb2 20 j.d2 with compen-
sation) 19 j.f2 (best is 19 j.d4
j.b5! 20 .xbS! j.xd4+ 21 'lPhl
'iVh4 or 20 j.c4 j.xc4 21 "xc4
:fc8 22 .xb4 :ab8 23 .a4
j.xd4+ 24 "xd4 :xc2, when
Black is somewhat better in both
cases - Ubilava) 19...:fe8 20 :bl
"fS! 21 .d2 j.a4 with a clear
edge for Black, Short-Kamsky,
Linares 1994.
d6) 13 a3!? (the best way to
counter ... b7-bS, taking away the
b4-square from Black's knight)
13 ... b4 (also interesting is 13 ... a6
14 tLlf3 :ac8 15 :ad1 tLlaS 16 e5
dxeS 17 fxeS J..f5 18 .d4 tLld7
with a complete mess, De Firmian-
J. Whitehead, San Francisco 1977,
e.g. 19 g4 .xh3 20 gxfS tLlxeS) 14
.!LIxc6!? (also possible is 14 axb4
tLlxb4 IS .d2 as with equal
chances) 14... bxc3 IS tLlxe7+ 'lPh8
222 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 .a5
16 bxc3 l:tae8 17 'iWxd6 ..ixh3 18
~d4 'iWg4 19 l:tf2 l:[d8 20 'iWxf6
l:txd4 21 'iWg5 ~he4 22 ttJd5 h6 23
'iWxg4 ~xg4, and now that the
madness is over, White has an extra
pawn, but the pair of bishops and a
better pawn structure provide Black
with excellent compensation, as
. played in De Firmian-Radke, San
Francisco 1978.
12 bS
13 a3 as
14 'ii'd3!
This has proved quite trouble-
some for Black. White also has:
a) Less threatening is 14 .el a4
15 iLa2 b4 16 axb4 ttJxb4 17 iLbl
_a5 18 g4 .c7 19:f2 'ii'b7 20 g5
and now of course not 20 ... ttJxe4
21 ttJxe4 .xe4 22 c3, but 20 ... ttJh5
when Black was much better in
Tsarenkov-Roizman, Minsk 1973.
b) Another strong move for
White is 14 ttJd5!, e.g. 14... a4
(14 ... ..ie6 leads to a depressing
position for Black: 15 .d3 a4 16
ttJxf6+ iLxf6 17 ~xe6 fxe6 18 c3
}:tab8 19 ~h2 d5 20 e5 iLh8 21 g4
'W'h6 22 itJg5, Vujadinovic-G. To-
dorovic, Kladovo 1992) 15 iLa2
itJxd5 16 exd5 itJa5 17 iLd4
iLxd4+ (too passive is 17 ...'W'h6 18
iLxg7 _xg7 19 c3 llac8 20 'ii'e2
llfe8 21 itJd4, which was not very
enjoyable for Black in Wang-
Levitan, Manila 01 1992) 18 .xd4
.f5 19 g4 .f6 20 l:tadl (20 _xf6
exf6, intending ...itJb7-c5, was nice
for Black in Wiemer-Finkenzeller,
Germany 1990) 20 ...•xd4 21
itJxd4 with a slightly better position
for White.
14 a4
Here 14...b4 has been suggested
as a potential improvement for
Black: 15 itJe2 bxa3 16 itJg3 axb2
17itJxh5 bxal. 18 l:txalitJxh5 19
c3 with unclear play.
IS iLdS!
Clearly White's strongest move.
In Mariasin-Roizman, Minsk 1970,
White went for Black's queen with
15 itJe2?, but Black refuted this
easily: 15 .....ixh3! 16 gxh3 axb3 17
'it>g2 b4 18 f5 gxf5 19 exf5 ttJe5!
and White's position was miser-
able. Nor can White claim any ad-
vantage after 15 iLa2 b4! 16 itJe2
.a5 (16 ... bxa3 17 bxa3 .a5 is
also fine for Black) 17 l:tael :ab8
18 itJed4 itJxd4 19 iLxd4 b3! and
Black was better in Dabetic-
Novoselski, Cetinje 1993.
15 itJxd5
According to T.Georgadze
15 ...:ab8 is met by 16 iLxc6 ~xc6
17 itJd4 l:tfc8 18 f5 with a clear
advantage for White. Piket's sug-
gestion of 15 ... e6!? seems best: 16
iLxc6 iLxc6 17 iLd4 :fd8, when
Black is okay, but in G.Garcia-
Zamura, New York 1994, Black
had his share of problems after 17
itJd4 ~b7 18 f5! gxf5 19 exf5 e5
20 itJdxb5 d5 21 ~c5 l%fc8 22 iLe7
d4 23 iLxf6 iLxf6 24 itJe4 iLh4 25
itJbd6 iLa6 1-0. Black can instead
try 17 ... iLd7, intending 18 itJdxb5
 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 "a5 223

i.xb5 19 tiJxb5 tiJxe4 20 g4 "xh3 downhill quickly.

21 'iWxe4 "g3+ 22 'oii>hl 'iWg3 with 20 b3! i.fS
a draw, but after IS i.t2, intending 20...axb3 21 cxb3 i.f5 22 We3
19 g4, Black faces new problems. is also very good for White.
16 exdS! 21 "d2 ':xc2
An improvement over Gerasi- 22 "xaS i.xh3
mov-T.Georgadze which went 16 23 .:n!
tiJxd5 :tabS 17 c3! i.e6 Now whatever hopes Black may
(17 ....l:tfeS !? is fine for Black) IS have had can be buried. He could
.l:tae 1 i.xd5 19 exd5 tiJa5 20 tiJg5 have resigned here, but he strug-
tiJc4 21 g4! 'W'h6 22 i.cl i.f6 and gled on until he eventually lost on
now White could have settled time:
things with 23 tiJe4! 23 ...axb3 24 i.xg7 ..txg7 2S ':xc2
bxc2 26 "c3+ ~g8 27 gxh3 "xf4
28 ~f2 "a4 29 tiJbd4 :a8 30
':xe7 "as 31 "xaS ':xaS 32 tiJc2
':dS 33 a4 ':as 34 ':e4 fS 3S ':b4
~g7 36 tiJcd4 cltf6 37 tiJb3 :a7 38
as gS1-O

Game 82
Skovgaard-Svensson
CO" 1984

(1 e4 cS 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

tiJxd4 g6 S tiJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tiJf6 7
i.c4 "as 8. 0-0 0-0 9 i.b3 d6 10
16 tiJaS h3 i.d7 11 (4)
17 i.d4! "h6
Piket analyses 17 .....f5 IS "e2 11 tiJxd4!
JLxd4+ 19 tiJxd4 "f6 20 :tad 1,
intending tiJe4, or 17 ...i.f5 IS "e3
tiJc4 19 "t2 tiJxb2 20 g4. But best
seems 17 ... tiJc4!?, e.g. IS i.xg7
<t;xg7 19 ':fel lUeS and Black is
doing fine.
18 :tae1 .l:tfe8
Not IS ...tiJc4? 19 :txe7 tiJxb2
20 JLxg7! 'ilxg7 21 "d4 - Piket.
19 tiJxbS ':ac8?
According to Piket 19 ... ':abS
was the only way to keep White's
advantage within limits: 20 tiJc7
:ecS 21 "c3!, when White is
'only' clearly better. Now on the As we saw in the previous
contrary, Black's position goes games, Black has his share of
224 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 "a5

problems after 11.. .llac8 as well as Ciocaltea-Funnan, Harrachov

11. ..1Wh5. The exchange of knights 1966.
with II...lDxd4 draws some of the b) 13 "e2? 1Wb4! 14 ':'fdl (14
tension from the position, enabling ':'adl? allows 14 ...lDxe4! IS .i.xg7
Black to immediately direct his ~xg7 16 lOxe4 [16 lDd5 fails to
attention towards the weak e4- 16....i.xd5 and 17 ...lDg3 winning
pawn in combination with a timely the exchange, which is why White
... e7-e5. There is also a certain must play the f-rook to dl]
amount of logic behind this, since 16.....xe4 17 "d2 "f5 18 c3 and
in reply to almost any other move, now 18 ...b6 19 .i.d2 "f6 20 fS g5
White moves his knight back to f3 would have left White without
to avoid an exchange. much to hope for, but instead Black
12 .i.xd4 .i.c6 chose a disastrous path: 18 .....cS+
Almost exclusively chosen, but 19 ~h2 f5? 20 ':'fel ':'fe8 21 .i.e6
Black has also had some success .i.e4 22 b4 1Wb6 23 c4 ~f6 24
with 12 ... e5!? 13 .i.e3 (13 fxeS ':'xe4 fxe4 25 fS, and Black was
dxe5 14 .i.e3 .i.c6 15 "f3, intend- soon dead and buried, Holusija-
ing .i.g5, is an interesting possibil- Gazik, Yugoslavia 1967) 14... lDxe4
ity for White) 13 ... exf4 (13 ....i.c6? 15 .i.xg7 .i.xg7 16 lDxd5 "c5?
14 fS transposes to Short-Wagman, (this only leads to a draw; better
see note 'b' to Black's 11th move was 16....i.xd5 17 ':'xdS 1i'b6+ 18
in Game 79) 14 .i.xf4 .i.c6 15 "f3 ~h2 lDf6, and White is just a pawn
llad8 16 :ad 1 (16 lDd5 .i.xd5 17 down) 17 ~h2 lDf6 18 lDc7 .i.xg2
exdS lDd7! is nice for Black) 19 "xe7 .i.xh3 20 ~xh3 1i'hS+ 21
16... ~h8 17 llxd6?! (17 ~hl!? or ~g2 and a draw was agreed in
17 llf2!?, intending llfd2, seems Hort-Funnan, Polanica Zdroj 1967.
better) 17 .....cS+ 18 "f2 "xf2+ c) 13 "'el (this usually leads to a
19 ':'xf2 lDxe4 20 lDxe4 .i.xe4 21 draw) 13 ...1Wb4 14 ':'dl ltlxe4! 15
':'fd2 ':'xd6 22 .i.xd6 ':'d8 23 .i.xf7 .i.xg7 ~xg7 16 lDdS (16 lDxe4
.i.xc2 24 llxc2 .i.d4+ 112-112 "xe4 17 "c3+ [both 17 "d2 and
Janosevic-Wagman, Bratto 1984. 17 "f2 lead to positions which can
This really went very smoothly for be found under 13 "e2] 17 ... ~g8
Black, but only time will tell the 18 ':'f2 e6 19 ':'xd6 llad8 was equal
future of this line. in Jacobsen-Kapengut, Ybbs 1968)
·13 lDdS 16 .....cS+ (16 .....xel 17 ':'fxel
For 13 "d3 see the next game. lDcs 18 lDxe7 ':'fe8 19 lDxc6
The other alternatives do not pres- ':'xel+ 20 llxel bxc6 21 ':'e7
ent Black with any problems: lDxb3 22 axb3 and although a draw
a) 13 "f3? (neither 13 ':'el was agreed here, White was better
:ad8 14 lDdS eS IS .i.c3 "c5+ 16 in the endgame in Kostro-Hort,
~hl .i.xdS nor 13 e5lOe8 14 exd6 Polanica Zdroj 1967) 17 ~h2 lDf6
.i.xd4+ 15 "xd4lDxd6 give White 18 lDc7 .i.xg2! 19 "xe7 .i.xh3!
anything either) 13 ...1i'b4! 14.i.xf6 (certainly not 17 ... e6?, which gave
.i.xf6 IS ':'fel "cS+ 16 ~hl .i.xc3 White a clear edge in Janosevic-
17 "xc3 "xc3 18 bxc3 ':'ac8 with Panna, Yugoslavian ch 1964: 18
a very enjoyable ending for Black, "xe4 exd5 19 "d4+ 'l'xd4 20

l:xd4 :ae8 21 fS) 20 ~xh3 1i'hS+
with a draw by perpetual check,
e.g. in Ostojic-Kaplan, Hastings
1968.
13 :tae8!
Three other moves have also
been tried:
a) 13 ... ~xdS?! is too passive: 14
exdS lLld7 IS ~xg7 ~xg7 16
"d4+ ~g8 17 ]he 1 :ae8 (or
17 ...:fe8 18 :e3 "cS 19"d2 with
a slight plus for White, Smit-
Razvalayev, USSR 1967) 18 'itlh2,
Vasiukov-Ciocaltea, Bucharest
1967, and now Black should have
continued with 18 ......cS 19 "'d3
bS with a slightly inferior position.
b) Levy mentions 13... lLlxdS 14
exdS ~d7 IS :tel:tfe8 16 'itlh2
~xd4 17 "'xd4 'tWcS 18 'tWd2 bS 19
c3 with a slight plus for White, but
Black has no prospects of counter-
play.
c) Also inaccurate is 13 ... :tfe8,
as Black takes away some of the
protection from the f7-pawn. White
has tried numerous moves here:
cl) 14 c4?! ~xdS 15 exd5 lLld7
16 'iti>hl ~xd4 17 'ilfxd4 'ilfc5 and
Black's knight is stronger than
White's bishop.
c2) 14 ~c3 'tWc5 15 'iti>h2 lLlxdS
Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'tWa5 225
16 exdS .tb5 17 :f3 :tac8 with
equal chances.
c3) 14 lLlxf6+? exf6 15 fS ~e4
16 fxg6 hxg6 17 ~xf6 "'cS 18
lfilhl d5 19 'tWg4 'ilfd6 and Black
again has a slight pull, Kiirker-
Yudovic, corr 1966-67.
c4) 14 .txf6?! exf6 (14 .....cS+
15 c;i1h2 ~xdS [Kapengut suggests
15 ... ~xf6 16 lLlc7 ~xe4, when
Black has sufficient compensation
for the exchange] 16 ~xg7 ~xb3
17 ~c3 ~c4 18 :f3 and White's
chances are slightly better due to
the weak dark squares on Black's
kingside) 15 f5 (interesting is 15
"d3!?, intending 15...fS?! 16 exf5
~xb2 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 lLlf6+ ~xf6
19 11bg6+ ~g7 20 "xf7+ c;i1h7 21
~ith a decisive attack, yet with
15 ... ~b5!? 16 c4 .tc6 Black has a
solid position) 15 ...:txe4 16 fxg6
(16 ~h1 :tae8 17 'tWd3 gS 18 :tadl
'tWc5 19 c;i1h2 .tb5 slightly favours
Black, Nonnenmacher-Hecht, Ger-
man Bundesliga 1987/88) 16...hxg6
17 lLlxf6+ ~xf6 18 :txf6 'tWc5+ 19
'iti>hl d5 20 'tWf3 'tWe7 with equality,
as in the game Hector-Donaldson,
Malmo 1985/86.
cS) 14 :tel!? l:ac8 IS c3
.txd5?! (now Black ends up in a
terribly passive position; better was
Is ... lLlxdS 16 exdS ~xd4+ 17
'tWxd4 ~d7) 16 exdS lLld7 17 ~f2!
b5 18 a3lLlb6 19 :te4 ~ 20 "'e2,
and Black was not enjoying himself
in Minic-Bellon, Kapfenberg 1970.
c6) 14 'tWd3 :ac8 (or 14... lLlxdS
15 exdS ~b5 16 c4 ~xd4 17 'tWxd4
.td7 18 ~h2 'tWcS with equal
chances) 15 'ithl lLlxdS 16 exdS
'tWxd4 17 'tWxd4 ~d7 18 :tf3 'tWcS
19 'tWd2 a5 20 c3 'tWbs 21 :tel a4
22 ~dl e6! is equal, Smit-Murey,
USSR 1967.
226 Main Lines with 7 1l..c4 'WaS
c7) The best move is 14 fS!, ex-
ploiting the fact that Black's previ-
ous move took away the protection
of the f7-pawn. Play usually con-
tinues with 14 ... i..xdS (14 ... lLixe4?
loses quickly to IS fxg6 hxg6 16
lhf7!; of interest is 14... lLixdS,
though after IS i..xg7 ~xg7 16
exdS i..d7 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 'it'd4+,
Black's open kingside will soon
give him a headache) IS exdS lLid7
(keeping some defenders on the
board with IS ... bS seems a lot
safer, but Black's lack of counter-
play does not promise him a bright
future) 16 ~hl! (both 16 c3 i..xd4
17 'it'xd4 'it'cs and 17 cxd4lLif6 18
'it'f3 'it'd2 19 'it'f2 lLie4 20 'it'xd2
lLixd2 21 l:tf2 lLixb3 22 axb3 l:tec8,
Browne-Bellon, Malaga 1970, are
comfortable for Black) 16 ... .Jtxd4
17 'it'xd4 'it'cs (l7 ... lLieS is met by
18 f6 and 17 ... f6 by 18 h4, intend-
ing g4-gS) 18 'it'f4lLif6 19 l:tael as
20 c4, with a powerful attacking
position for White, as in the game
Kelecevic-Rajkovic, Yugoslavian
ch 1968.
14 "'el
White has also tried to seek an
advantage with:
a) 14 'it'f3 lLixdS IS exdS .JtbS
16 c4 i..d7 17 i..xg7 ~xg7 18 ~hl
'it'cS 112-112 Klovan-T.Georgadze,
Tbilisi 1973.
b) 14 .txf6 'it'cS+ IS ~hl exf6
(or IS ... .txf6 and now both 16 c3
J..g7 followed by ... e7-e6 and 16
lLixf6+ exf6 17 .JtdS i..xdS 18 exdS
l:te8 are good for Black) 16 fS
l:txe4 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 lLixf6+
J..xf6 19 .!:txf6 'it'gS with equal
chances, Acosta-L.Garcia, Bogota
1980.
c) 14 lLixf6+? exf6 IS fS is bad
because of IS ... i..xe4 16 fxg6 hxg6
17 J..xf6 'it'cS+ 18 ~h 1 i..xf6 19
l:txf6 J..xg2+!
d) 14 'it'd3 lLixdS IS exdS i..bS
(since White loses material after 16
J..c4? .txc4 17 'it'xc4 l:tc8, he is
forced to block off the b3-bishop;
Black can then easily break with
... e7-e6) 16 c4 i..xd4+ 17 'it'xd4
i..d7 18 l:tael (18 ~h2 'it'cS 19
'it'd2 e6 is equal, as in the game
Van Riemsdijk-Naumann, Wechem
1997) 18 ... 'it'cS 19 'it'xcs dxcS 20
l:te3 e6 21 l:tfe 1 exdS 22 cxdS
l:txe3 23 l:txe3 l:te8 24 l:txe8+
i..xe8 2S d6 ~f8 112_112 Haupold-
Anschutz, corr 1976.
14 'Wxel
15 l:taxel lLid7
After Is ... lLixdS White got some
advantage with 16 i..xg7 rj;xg7 17
exdS i..d7 18 ':f3 in Ivanovic-
Davies, Vrsac 1989, but Black
should try 16 ... lLie3!?, e.g. 17 i..xf8
lLixfl 18 i..xe7 ':xe7 19 rj;xfl
lhe4 20 ':xe4 i..xe4 21 rj;f2 ~f8
22 c3 f6 23 g3 gS, when Black held
the draw, F.Olafsson-Pedersen,
Athens 1969.
16 i..xg7 7;xg7
17 l:te3 tLlc5
18 l:tdl lLixb3
 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 'ii'a5 227

Game 83 'ii'g3!?, intending e4-eS) 16... ~g8

A.Martin-Belion 171t1d5 ':fe8 18 ~hl 'ii'c5 19 'ii'd2
Olot 1974
fxe6 23 "f3
as 20 fS i.xd5 21 i.xdS e6 22 fxe6
ltle5 24 i.b3 "c7 2S
(1 e4 cS 2 tLlfJ tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 :lf2 bS with equal chances, Detko-
tLlxd4 g6 5 tLlc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7 Muresan, Bmo 1989.
i.c4 'ii'aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 i.b3 d6 10 b) 15 'itthl tLlc5 (15 ...~5 16
h3 i.d7 11 f4 ltlxd4 12 i.xd4 ':ae 1 f6 17 ltld5 ltlc5 18 ..e3 e5
i.c6) 19 fS :lad8 20 ltlc3 ltlxb3 21 axb3
a6 22 ltdl with a slight plus for
13 'ii'd3 White, Soylu-Hifny, Manila 01
1992; IS ... l:ac8 has also been sug-
gested, but after the text Black is
doing fine) 16 'ii'd4+ f6 and now:
bl) 17 i.d5 (threatening 18 b4)
17... 'ii'b6 18 :labl (Zhidkov-Pav-
lenko, USSR ch 1967) and now
18 ... e6! 19 i.xc6 with 19...bxc6 or
19... 'ii'xc6 20 b4 tLla4.
b2) 17 ltael tLlxb3 18 axb3 'ii'cs
19 "d2 e6 20 ':f3 and now instead
of 20 ... l:tfe8 21 l:td3 with a com-
fortable edge for White, as in the
old game Matanovic-Simagin, Yu-
goslavia-USSR 1963, Black should
By far White's most popular have played 20...:lad8! 21 ltd3 bS!
move and probably also his strong- when the threats are parried.
est. However, it should not worry The direct thrust 13 ... e5 is men-
Black too much. tioned by Gufeld and dismissed
13 :lad8! after 14 i.e3 exf4 15 i.xf4 'as
Theory does not think highly of Black cannot control the eS-square
Black's chances after 13 ... tLld7, but in time'. But things are not that
Black may be doing okay. After 14 simple: 15...%lad8!? 16 i.xd6 (16
i.xg7 ~xg7 White now has two :tad 1 ltlhS is, by transposition,
choices: Ledennan-Kagan, Netanya 1975:
a) IS :lael and now: 17 i.c 1 i.xc3 18 bxc3 'ii'cS+ 19
al) IS ...'ii'cS+ 16 'iith2 bS 17 i.e3 'ii'eS 20 i.h6 tLlg3 21 i.xfS
i.dS %lac8 18 i.xc6 lbc6 19 tLlxbS and now Black should have contin-
"xc2 20 'ii'd4 eS 21 'ii'xa7 with a ued 21...:lxfS 22 :lfel ltlxe4 23
clear plus for White, Matulovic- 'ii'd4 a6 with adequate compensa-
Rajkovic, Vrnjacka Banja. tion for the exchange, instead of
a2) IS ... f6 16 'ii'g3!? ltlcs 17 2l...'ii'cS+? 22 'ii'd4!! ltle2+ 23
~h2 tLlxb3 18 axb3 with a slight ~h2 ltlxd4 24 cxd4 'ii'b6 2S i.e7
advantage for White, Ciric-Parma, and White was winning) 16...'ii'b6+
Yugoslavia 1963. 17 ~hl tLlxe4 18 :lxt7!? lbt7 19
c) IS ...:lac8!? 16 'ii'd4+ (16 i.xt7+ ~h8! 20 tLlxe4 i.xe4 21
228 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ii'aS
'ii'xe4 1i'xd6 with some compensa-
tion for the pawn due to White's
weak kingside. Perhaps White
should try 15 %lxf4.
14 %lad 1
The main line. The alternatives
are not difficult for Black to meet
either:
a) 14 f5?! liJd7 15 iLxg7 (or 15
liJd5 ~xd5 16 ~xg7 'i;xg7 17
iLxd5 liJf6 18 %lf2 1i'c5 19 c3 e6!
20 b4 'ifb6 21 iLb3 d5 22 exd5
liJxd5 23 iLxd5 lhd5 24 f6+ ~g8
25 'ii'f4 :f5 with a clear edge for
Black, Janosevic-Funnan, Harra-
chov 1966) 15 ... 'Iii'xg7 16 1i'd4+
'ii'e5 17 %lad 1?! (White should have
tried 17 'ii'xa7, but after 17... liJc5
18 %lael e6! Black has strong com-
pensation in return for the pawn)
17 ...1i'xd4+ 18 %lxd4 liJf6 with a
slight pull for Black, Ekblom-Pytel,
corr 1992.
b) 14 ~hl e5 15 iLgl d5! 16
fxe5 dxe4 17 'ii'e3 1i'xe5 with a
slight edge for Black, Ostojic-
Forintos, Belgrade 1967.
c) 14 We3 liJd7 (14...b6? is too
passive: 15 f5! liJd7 16 iLd5! iLxd4
17 Wxd4 liJe5 18 b4 1i'a6 19 a4
'ifb7 20 b5 iLxd5 21 liJxd5 f6 22
a5, as in Klovsky-Averbakh, USSR
1966) 15 iLxg7 ~xg7 16 'lii'h2 Wc5
17 'ii'd3 b5 18 a4 (18 liJd5 is equal)
18 ...b4 19 liJbl e5 20 f5 liJf6 21
liJd2 d5! with a slight edge for
Black, Matanovic-Bilek, Havana 01
1966.
d) 14 %lael liJd7 (l4 ... e5 15 iLe3
exf4! 16 iLxf4 d5 17 e5 liJe4 with
equal chances) 15 iLxg7 ~xg7 16
'ii'd4+ (also good is 16 ttld5 iLxd5
17 exd5 %lfe8 18 %le3 with a slight
advantage, Juarez-Bellon, Siegen 01
1970, whereas 16 'it>hl does not
lead to any advantage: 16...liJc5 17
1i'd4+ ~g8 [l7 ... e5 18 1i'e3 ttlxb3
19 axb3 exf4 20 'i'xf4 'i'e5 21
1i'xe5 dxe5 22 %ldl 1h- 1h Morgado-
Fedorov, corr 1970] 18 iLc4 liJd7
19 e5 'ifb6 20 'ii'xb6 liJxb6 21 iLd3
dxe5 22 Axe5 e6 is equal, Mata-
novic-Cruz, Buenos Aires 1961)
16... liJf6 17 f5 Wb6 18 'ii'xb6 axb6
19 g4 g5 with a slight edge for
White, Short-Korchnoi, Garmisch-
Partenkirchen 1994.
e) 14 ttld5 e5!? (clearly the most
interesting move, although
14...liJxd5 15 exd5 iLxd4+ 16
1i'xd4 iLd7 17 %lae1 %lfe8 18 'it>hl
Wc5 19 'i'd2 a5 gives equal
chances, Klovan-Kapengut, USSR
1965, and 14...%lfe8!? can be given
a try) 15 liJxf6+ iLxf6 16 iLc3
'i'c5+ 17 ~hl iLg7 (17 ...iLb5!? 18
'ii'f3 iLxfl 19 %lxfl is not clear, as
Black has difficulties releasing
himself from the pressure White is
exerting on the light squares) 18 f5
iLh6!? (both 18 ...d5 and 18 ...iLb5
are worth considering) 19 fxg6?!
(according to Ivkov, White should
try 19 iLd2!? while alternatively,
White could go for 19 %ladl or 19
Aae1) 19 ...hxg6 20 'i'g3 ~g7, and
now 21 Aad1 is best, Yilmaz-
Ivkov, Praia de Rocha 1978.
 Main Lines with 7.ic4"a5 229

14 tDd7 :f7
a) 22 'ii'f2 f6 23 h4 24 ~gl
Best. Other moves leave White :dfS! with a slight edge for Black,
with the upper hand: Jansa-Furman, Harrachov 1966.
a) 14...e6?! IS fS gxfS 16 exfS b) 22 :h4 ~gS! 23 1Wh6 1/2- 1/2,
eS 17 .ie3 dS IS .igS e4, Bauer- Ciric-Gheorghiu, Beverwijk 1965.
Adrian, French ch 1996, 19 'ifg3 18 ~xb3
with strong threats. 19 axb3 dxeS
b) 14 ... eS?! IS .ie3 exf4 16
l:lxf4 with a plus for White (16
20 "f2 fS!
Inferior is 20... Axdl 21 "f6+
i..xf4 tDhS - see 13 ...eS!?). ~gS 22 Axdl with a slight plus for
c) 14... bS (Short-Hellers, Wijk White.
aan Zee 19S6) IS tDdS with a slight 21 b4!
plus for White. White wants to remove Black's
15 .ixg7 ~xg7 qu~en from its protection of the
16 ~hl ---tOOk on dS. The immediate 21
16 fS tDe5 17 "e3 "cS and 16 J:txdS?!, however, is good for
"e3 "cS are both equal, and 16 Black: 2l.....xdS 22 "xa7 fxe4 23
tDdS is best met by 16... e6 l:xfS 1IxfS 24 "e3 (24 tDdl? only
(16 ....ixdS 17 exdS tDf6 IS l:ldel makes things worse: 24 ...e3 2S
:d7 19 :e3, Tiviakov-Gogoladze, tDxe3 "f2! wins for Black) "f4 2S
Riga 19S7, is the standard good tDdl 11f1+ 26 "gl "e2 27 tDe3
position for White) 17 ..d4+ eS! hS! with a clear advantage for
IS fxeS dxe5 19 "d3 tDcs 20 "e3 Black.
tDxb3 21 "xb3 "cS+ is equal, 21 "xb4
Matanovic-Tal, Palma de Mallorca 22 :xd8 :xd8
1966. Best is 16 "d4+ ~gS 17 23 exfS gS!
~h2 1Ics IS "d2 bS (IS ...tDf6 has
been suggested, e.g. 19 tDdS tDxe4
20 tDxe7+ ~g7 21 "e2 fS) 19
tDdS .ixdS 20 exdS tDf6 21 fS with
a clear plus for White, Yilmaz-
Tangbom, Budapest 1992.
16 tDcS
Inaccurate is 16 .....cS?! 17 tDdS
.ixdS (17 ... e6!? may be better,
even when met by IS c4!?) IS exdS
bS 19 l:lfel l:lfeS 20 a4 a6 21 axbS
axbS 22 l:lal with a clear edge for
White, Maki-Karkanaque, Malta
1990.
17 "d4+ eS A wonderful idea and a big im-
18 fxeS provement over 23 .....f4? 24 "ell
Black easily obtains a comfort- with a clear plus for White,
able position after IS "e3 tDxb3 Shagalovich-Baumbach, Byelorus-
19 axb3 exf4 20 l:lxf4 1IeS! 21 sia-East Germany 1968.
l:dfl a6 and now: 24 f6+ ~
230 Main Lines with 7 il..c4 'ika5
This position is evaluated as un-
clear by many sources, but Black's
strong bishop on c6 gives him the
advantage.
25 'ike3 'ikh4 26 ~h2
26 'ikxeS?? loses to 26 ......xh3+.
26 ... g4 27 'ikxe5 g3+! 28 'ikxg3
Unfortunately for White, if 28
'iitgl then 28 .. :ir'd4+ is very good
for Black.
28 ...'ikxg3 29 ~xg3 ::tg8 30 ~f4
l:xg2 31 ~e5 l:g3
Now the greedy 31...l:hc2?
when 32 J:tg 1 lets White back into
the game.
32 h4 ::te3+ 33 ~f4 l:h3 34 ::tf2
l:xh4 35 ~g5 l:hl 36 tiJe2 h6+ 37
~f5 J:th5 38 ~g4 J:tg5+ 39 ~h4
Ag2 40 '::'xg2 il..xg2 41 tiJf4 il..f3
42 ~g3 il..dl 43 e3 ~xf6 44 tiJd5+
~e5 45 tiJe3 il..h5 46 ~h4 il..e2 47
~g3 ~e4 48 ~f2 il..b5 49 e4 il..d7
50 ~e2 as 51 ~d2 ~d4 52 b3 h5
53 tiJg2 il..f5 54 tiJf4 h4 55 tiJg2 h3
56 tiJe3 ~e4 57 ~e2 ~f4 58 tiJf1
il..e20-1
Game 84
Busquets-Davies
New York 1991
(1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
tiJxd4 g6 5 tiJe3 il..g7 6 il..e3 tiJf6 7
il..e4 'ika5 8 0-0 0-0)
9 tiJb3 'ike7
10 il..g5
This is generally considered
stronger than the main line 10 f4
(Games 8S and 86). White's inten-
tion is to meet ... d7-d6 by an ex-
change on f6 followed by tiJdS and
tiJxf6+, leaving Black's pawn
structure in a shambles. But of
course Black need not play ... d7-d6
right away.
10 a6!
ECO's main line is lO ... aS 11 a3
(also good is 11 a4 tiJb4 12 il..e2
J:td8 [or 12 ... d6 13 tiJd4 il..d7 14
"'d2 Afe8 IS il..h6 with a slight
plus for White] 13 tiJd4 "'eS 14
tiJf3 "'e6 IS eS tiJg4 16 tiJb5!
il..xeS 17 h3 tiJf6 18 ]:tel tiJc6 19
.i.fl when White's better develop-
ment and piece co-ordination gave
him a strong initiative in Kuzmin-
Kapengut, USSR 1972) ll...a4 12
tiJd2 'ikaS 13 tiJdS d6 14 c3 Ae8 IS
tiJxf6+ with a clear edge for White,
Kupreichik-Veremeichik, Minsk
1976. Most sources quote the game
Kupreichik-Privara, Stary Smok-
ovec 1975, which went lO ... b6 11
f4 tiJaS 12 .idS!, when ECO
amongst others claims a decisive
advantage for White, which is only
correct if Black continues as in the
game: 12 ... tiJxb3? 13 axb3 tiJxd5
14 tiJxdS "'cS+ IS 'iithl f6 16 b4!
"'d6 17 eS! "'e6 18 exf6 exf6 19
nel "'f7 20 J:te7 and White soon
won. But as Banas has pointed out,
things are not that clear after the
stronger 12 ... il..a6! His analysis
continues: 13 il..xa8 ..txfl 14 e5
(14 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 IS tiJdS 1ib8)
14 ... J:txa8 IS 'iitxfl "'c4+ 16 'iitgl
 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as 231

ttJxb3 17 axb3 'itc5+ followed by over.

... ttJh5 and ...f7-f6 with an unclear 12 d6
position. 13 as?! ttJg4!
However, the text seems to be Threatening ... d6-d5.
the best move, after which Black 14 f4 b5
yet has to meet any problems. 15 axb6 "xb6+
11 a4 16 <bhl ttJe3
Black is doing fine after 11 17 ~xe7 ~g4
.t.xf6 ~xf6 12 ttJd5 'ite5 13 ttJb6 0-1
.l:tb8 or 11 f4 b5 12 .t.e2 d6 (or
I2 ... b4 13 ttJd5 'ita7+ 14 <t>hl Game 85
ttJxe4 15 ~xe7 ttJxe7 16 ttJxe7+
'it>h8 17 .t.f3 f5 18 ~xe4 fxe4 19
'itd6 a5 20 ttJc5 'iib8 21 ttJxd6
r ~. Fischer-F .Olafsson
Bled 1961

~a6 with a clear edge for Black, (1 e4 e5 2 ttJO ttJe6 3 d4 exd4 4

Gudmundsson-Tangbom, Reykja-
vik 1990) 13 ~f3 (13 ~xf6 ~xf6
14 ttJd5 'ita7+) 13 ... ~e6 14 ttJd5
.t.xd5 15 exd5 ttJa5 16 ttJxa5 (16
ttJd4 ttJc4) 'itxa5 17 .l:tel .l:tfe8 with
roughly equal chances - Silman.
11 ttJb4
ttJxd4 g6 5 ttJe3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7
~e4"aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 ttJb3 "e7)
10 f4
10 ~e2 usually transposes to the
main line after 10...d6 II f4, but on
occasion White has tried 11 "d2
(II f3 a6!?) with good results:
II...ttJe5 (the somewhat provoca-
tive II...ttJg4 seems to be a better
shot at equalising) 12 b6 ttJc4 13
~xc4 'itxc4 14 ~xg7 1ilxg7 15 f4
b6 16 e5! dxe5 17 fxe5 ttJe8 18
.l:tf4 with a dangerous attack,
Lublinsky-Shabanov, USSR 1961.

12 "e2?!
Better was 12 ~e2 d6 13 a5
~d7 (13 ... ~e6!?) 14 'itd2 b5 15
axb6 'itxb6 16 e5 dxe5 17 ~xf6
.t.xf6 18 'itxd7 ttJxc2 19 .l:tacl
'itxb3 20 ~dl .l:tad8 21 ~xc2
'itxb2 with a slight advantage for
White, Tate-A.Horvath, Budapest
1997. In our main game White is 10 d6
on a downward slope and it is soon 11 ~e2
232 Main Lines with 7 Ji..c4 .as
Other possibilities are:
a) 11 ~hl a6 (11...b6!?) 12 a4
lLlaS 13 lLlxaS .xaS 14 'ifd3 Ji..d7
IS fS ':acS 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 Ji..d4
'ii'hs IS h3 ':xc4! 19 Ji..xf6 Ji..xf6
20 'ifxc4 Ji..xh3 21 ~g 1 and White
later won, Belov-Utiatsky, USSR
1960, but Black's chances should
be no worse after 21...Ji..e6 fol-
lowed by ... ~g7 and ...ms.
b) 11 h3 Ji..d7 (11...b6!?) 12 Ji..e2
as 13 a4 lLlb4 14 Ji..f3 Ji..c6 IS ':f2
lLld7 16 lLld4 ':adS 17 :d2 ':feS
IS 'ife2 with a slight advantage for
White, Timoschenko-Andreev, Vo-
ronezh 1973.
The position that has now arisen
could also have been reached from
the Classical Dragon: 1 e4 cS 2
lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 S
lLlc3 g6 6 Ji..e2 Ji..g7 7 Ji..e3 0-0 S
lLlb3 lLlc6 9 0-0 .c7 10 f4. Al-
though ...•c7 seems to do less for
Black than the usual ... Ji..e6, ... lLlaS
or ... a7-aS, White has yet to dem-
onstrate an advantage in the main
lines; Black's position is both solid
and dynamic.
11 as
1l...a6?! is too slow: 12 Ji..f3 bS
13 l:tf2 .tb7 14 lLldS! lLlxdS IS
exdS lLlaS 16 Ji..d4 lLlc4 17 .txg7
with a slight plus for White,
Ghizdavu-Ribli, Bucharest 1971.
However, an interesting alternative
is 1l...':dS!?, preparing ... d6-dS,
e.g. 12 Ji..f3 (possibly stronger is 12
g4, e.g. 12 ... dS 13 eS d4 14 lLlbS
'fIb6 IS Ji..xd4 lLlxd4 16 lLlSxd4
lLldS 17 .d2 and now according to
Boleslavsky can Black should play
17...aS! and after IS a4 gS 19 fxgS
Ji..xeS with an unclear position) and
now:
a) 12 ... eS!? 13 fS (not problem-
atic for Black either is 13 :f2 .te6
14 lLldS .txdS IS exdS exf4 16
Ji..xf4 tl)eS 17 :'cl lLlfd7 IS c4
lLlcS 19 lLlxcs 'ihcs 20 'fIb3
lLlxf3+ 21 'ifxf3 Ji..d4 22 .txe3
.txe3 23 .xf7+ 'ii'hS 24 .f6 112-1/2
Prandstetter-Znamenacek, Prague
1992) 13 ... dS! 14 lLlbS 'fibs 15
exdS (White was successful with
IS fxg6 in Kosenkov-Kubinin, COlT
1977: IS ... dxe4? 16 gxf7 ~hS 17
'ii'cl gxf3 IS Ji..h6 e4 19 'ii'gS and
White was winning, but Black can
improve with IS ...hxg6 16 exdS
.tfS! as in the game Dobrovolsky-
Karlik below) IS ... Ji..xfS (IS ... e4?
loses to 16 dxc6! lhdl 17 c7!) 16
c4 and now according to Langner
Black should continue with
16 ... a6!? 17 lLlc3 bS IS cxbS axbS
19 'ii'e2 (19 .tgS lLld4! slightly
favours Black) 19...lLlb4! with a
clear edge for Black, but instead he
played 16...lLlb4 17 Ji..gS h6 IS
i.xf6 Ji..xf6 19 .tg4 .txg4 20
'ii'xg4 .tg7?? 21 ':xf7! ~h7 22
lLlc7 :fS 23 :'xfS 1-0 Dobrovol-
sky-Karlik, Karvina 19S9.
b) 12...Ji..e6 13 :f2 (less accu-
rate is 13 .d2, when after 13 ... Ji..c4
14 :fel Black could have equal-
ised with 14 ... eS!; instead he chose
14 ... dS?! when White held the ad-
vantage after IS eS lLle4 16 Ji..xe4
dxe4 17 .f2 fS IS exf6 exf6 19
lLld2 lLlb4 20 lLldxe4 fS 21 lLlgS,
Kupreichik-Kotkov, Sukhumi
1973) 13 ... Ji..c4 (Levy claims
equality for Black after 13 ... aS, but
after 14 lLldS Ji..xdS IS exdS lLlb4
16 c3 lLla6 17 a4 White stands bet-
ter) 14lLldS Ji..xdS IS exdS tl)aS 16
.td4 lLleS 17 c3 and White is
slightly better, Ostojic-Musil,
Yugoslavian ch 1965.
c) 12 ... Ji..d7 13 1We2 lLlaS 14
lLlxaS .xaS IS Ji..f2 Ji..c6 16 :abl

1:1ac8 17 b4 1i'c7 18 :b3 b6191:1dl
e6 is equal, ApiceHa-Ivkov, Cannes
open 1989.
12 a4
Aside from this move, White has
tried a few other things:
a) 12 ~d2 (12 ~d5 ~xd5 13
exd5 a4 is equal) 12 ...1:1b8?!
(according to Baumbach 12 ...~b4
would have been a better move, as
13 ~c4 can be answered with
13 ... ltJg4! and 13 a3 with 13 ... ~a6
followed by ... liJc5 with good play)
13 h3 .i.d7 14 a3 liJd8!? 15 liJc4!
..t.c6! 16 ..t.b6 1i'c8 17 ..t.a7 b5 18
..t.xb8 bxc4 19 ..t.a7 liJxe4 20 ..t.d4
e5 21 liJxe4 ..t.xe4 22 fxe5 dxe5 23
..t.c3 1i'c5+ 24 ~h2 liJe6 with
compensation for the exchange,
Khasin-Baumbach, corr 1972.
b) 12 liJb5?! .d7 13 liJd2 ltJg4
14 ..t.xg4 .xg4 IS c3 .xdl 16
l:taxdl ..t.g4 17 :del ..t.d7 18 a4 fS
19 1:1f2 :n 20 exfS ..t.xfS 21 liJc4
:af8 with equal chances, Uitumen-
Baumbach, corr 1970.
c) 12 a3 a4 13 ~d4 liJxd4 (in a
similar position, but with the a-
pawns on a2 and a7 in the Classical
Dragon ...1i'b6 is a good move, but
here it does not deliver: 14 eS!
dxeS IS fxeSliJxeS 16liJfS 1i'e6 17
Main Lines with 7..t.c4 .a5 233
~xg7 ~xg7 18 .d2 ~g8 19 :ael
liJc6 20 ..t.bS with a clear edge for
White) 14 ..t.xd4 eS IS fxeS (IS
..t.e3 exf4 16 ..t.xf4 1i'b6+ 17 ~hl
:e8, when Black should be fine
according to Levy) IS ... dxeS 16
..t.e3 (16 liJbS? .e7 17 ..t.c3 .cS+
18 ~hl liJxe4 is better for Black)
16.....t.e6 17 .elliJd7 18 :dl and
now both 18 .. Jlfd8 and Levy's
18 ... ~b6 gives Black a good game.
12 liJb4
~ :tl!?
This ~ultipurpose move, which
Fischer IDtroduced in this game,
protects the c2-pawn, allows White
to answer ... ..t.c4 with ..t.f3 and
prepares to transfer the rook to d2,
putting an end to Black's hopes of
a ... d6-d5 advance.
However, White's alternatives
are not without importance:
a) 13 ..t.f3 ..t.g4! 14 ..t.xg4?!
.xf3 .c4
(Razuvaev gives 14 :f2 ..t.xf3 IS
as equal) 14... liJxg4 IS
.xg4..t.xc3 16 bxc3liJxc2 17..t.d4
liJxal 18 :xal eS 19 fxeS dxeS 20
.g3, Makarichev-Zlotnik, USSR
1978, and now 20...:fe8 intending
...•c4 would have been better for
Black.
b) 13 :cl ..t.d7 14 ~d4 .c8 IS
1i'el eS! 16liJdbS ..t.xbS 17 ..t.xbS
exf4 18 ..t.xf4 .cS+ 19 ~hl ~hS
20 ..t.e3 and now both 20...•eS and
20 ... ..t.d4 are quite comfortable for
Black.
c) 13 liJd4..t.d7 14 ~dbS ..t.xbS
IS ..t.xbS :fd8 (stronger seems
IS ...liJd7!?) 16 lIf2 d5?! (once
again 16...~d7 is interesting; Bole-
slavsky gives 16...eS 17 :d2 exf4
18 ..t.xf4 liJhS 19 ..t.xd6 :xd6 20
:xd6 liJxc2 21 :cl ~3 with an
edge for Black, but White can im-
prove with 17 fxe5 dxe5 18 .e2,
234 Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 'ii'a5
intending l:r.afl and .i.c4 with pres-
sure on the f-file and the advantage
of the pair of bishops in an open
position) 17 eS lDe4 18 lDxe4 dxe4
19 'ii'e2 e6 20 c3 lDd3 21 :ffl .i.f8
22 .i.d4 with clearly better chances
for White, Dubinin-Rittner, carr
1969.
13 e5
Black has two alternatives, nei-
ther of which have given him much
success:
a) 13 ....i.d7 14 .i.f3 .i.c6 IS
l:td2! (stopping Black's dreams of a
quick ... d6-dS advance; Ermenkov-
Popov, Sofia 1989, saw a different
approach with IS lDdS .i.xdS 16
exdS 'ii'c4 17 l:r.d2 lDe4 18 c3
lDxd2 [better was 18 ... lDa6] 19
lDxd2 'ii'd3 20 .i.f2 lDxdS 21 .i.e4
lDxc3 22 bxc3 'ii'xc3 23 :c1 'ii'f6
24 .i.xb7 with a clear edge for
White) Is ... lDd7 16 lDd4 lDcs 17
lDcbS! 'ifc8 18 c3 lDba6 19 'ifc2
'ife8 20 b3 and White was on top,
Heemsoth-Baumbach, carr 1982.
b) 13 ... .lte6!? 14 lDd4! ~c4 IS
.i.f3 l:r.fd8 16 :d2 'ifc8 17 lDdbS
lDd7 18 .i.g4 (Boleslavsky has rec-
ommended 18 l:r.bl!, intending 19
b3 or 19lDdS) 18 ... fS! (18 ... ~xbS?
19 axbS fS 20 exfS lDf6 21 .i.f3
gxfS 22lDa4! lDe4 23 c3lDxd2 24
'ii'xd2lDa6 2S lDb61ib8 26 'ii'xa8
1-0 Westerinen-Jansson, Finland
1969) 19 exf6 lDxf6 20 .i.b6 (20
.i.f3!?) 20... gxfS 21 .i.xd8 'ii'cS+
22 <ifthl lDxg4 with excellent play
for the exchange, A.Smith-
Petersen, carr 1978.
14 .i.f3 ~d7
15 :112 :fd8
16 ~hl
16 :xd6? is met by 16... lDxc2!
16 ~c:6
17 'ii'gl! lDd7
18 f5
18 b6?!
Here Boleslavsky claims that
Black could have kept the chances
level with 18 ...lDcS 19 lDxc5 dxcS
20 ltxd8+ 'ii'xd8 21 :dl 'ii'e8 22
.i.xcs lDxc2. In Hunoldt-Flechsig,
carr 1989, White was successful
after 19 lDb5 'ife7? 20 lDc5 ~xb5
21 axb5 dxc5 22 ~xc5 'ife8 23
l:r.xd8 :xd8 24 c3 with a clear
edge, but Black can improve with
19 ... .ltxbS! 20 lDxc5 (20 axb5
lDxb3 21 cxb3 lDd7 22 ~b6 .i.h6!
23 :ddl :dc8 with a clear advan-
tage for Black) 20....i.c4! (not
20 ... dxcS? 21 axb3 and Black has
problems with the knight on b4) 21
lDb3 (21 lDd3 .i.xd3!? 22 cxd3
:a6) 21...~xb3!? (21...J:.a6) 22
.i.b6 'ii'c6 23 ~xd8 ~h6!
19 :adl lDc5
Not 19... lDxc2? 20 :xc2 ~xd4
21lDai .i.xc2 22 lDxc2 bS 23 'ii'f2
:dc8 24 lDel b4 25 lDd5 with a
clear plus for White, Vanden
Bosch-Oruon, carr 1975.
20 lDb5! 'ii'e7
Worse is 20 ... ~xb5 21 axb5
(threatening 22 lDxc5 and 23 c3!)
21...lDxb3 22 .i.xb6 and Black
loses material.

21 tlJxd6 tlJxe2
22 tlJxe5 tlJxe3
23 'ili'xe3 bxe5
24 .te2?!
24 b3! 'ii'a7 2S .te2! would have
been even stronger. In the game
White's idea is the same, but Black
gets the white a-pawn for nothing.
24 ....txa4 25 b3 .te8 26 .te4 a4
27 ~d5! :xd6!?
27 ...:b8 2S tlJxeS 'ii'xeS 29
bxa4 is clearly better for White.
28 .txa8 :d4 29 fxg6 hxg6 30
bxa4 .txa4 31 :al 'ii'f8?
Better was 31...~c6 32 ~xc6
'ii'xc6, when Black can play on.
32~dS!
Now Black's poor piece co-
ordination becomes evident.
32•••.th6 33 :xd4 ~xe3 34 :dxa4
'ii'h6 35 :0 .tf4 36 g3 'ii'h3 37
:aal .txg3 38 :a8+ 1-0
Game 86
Zagarovsky-Baumbach
COff1986
(1 e4 c5 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 tLlc3 .tg7 6 .te3 tLlf6 7
.te4 'ii'aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 tLlb3 "We7 10
f4 d611 ~e2)
11 b6!?
Black's best move. The idea be-
hind it is to put pressure on White's
e4-pawn and maintain control of
the important dS-square if White
plays g2-g4-gS to force the knight
away from f6.
Black often follows up with
...tlJa5, when if White exchanges on
as Black, in return for the doubled
pawns, gets strong play on the semi-
open b- and c- files; while if White
does not exchange the knight, it will
continue its journey to c4.
Main Lines with 7.tc4 "Wa5 235
12 g4!?
The sharpest, but not necessarily
the strongest. Safer alternatives are:
a) 121M2 .tb7 13 tlJd5!? (13
:adl tlJaS 14 tLlxaS bxaS IS .tf3
transposes to note 'b9' below)
13 ...tlJxdS 14 exdS tLla5 15 tlJxaS
bxaS 16 c4 and now 16...e6! would
have been best, e.g. 17 :ac 1 l%feS
with sufficient counterplay. Instead
the game Litvinov-Roizman, Minsk
1973, continued with 16... .tcS?! 17
:abl a4 IS .td3 l%bS and now
with 19 "Wc2 .td7 20 fS White
could have obtained the better
chances.
b) 12 ~f3 .tb7 and now:
bl) 13 :fl?! tlJaS! 14 tLlxaS
bxaS IS .td4 tLld7 16 tlJdS .txdS
17 exdS .txd4 18 "Wxd4 "WcS 19
:dl :abS 20 c3 l:b7 21 ~1 l%abS
with a clear advantage for Black,
Hammie-Silman, USA 1975.
b2) 13 tLlbS?! 'ii'cS 14 c4 tlJb4
IS tLld2 tLld7 16 a3 (16 :bl a6 17
tLlc3 .txc3 IS bxc3 tlJd3 19 "We2
tLl3cS is equal, Klovan-Litvinov,
Oaugavpils 1979) 16... tLlc6 17 :bl
a6 IS tLlc3 tLld4 and Black is
clearly better, Mukhin-Baumbach,
Primorsko 1973.
b3) 13 .tfl :feS (13 ...tLlaS! is
236 Main Lines with 7 ~c4Wa5
more active and better) 14 'ifd2
:ad8 IslildS "c8 16 ~h4lilb8 17
c3 lilbd7 IS Iladl e6 19 lilxf6+
~xf6 20 "f2, Dementiev-
Kapengut, USSR 1975, when ECO
prefers White's chances, but Kap-
engut gives 20 ... ~a6 21 l:lfel
~xh4 22 "xh4 lilcs as equal.
b4) 13 g4 lild7 (awfully passive
is 13 ...lhdS?! 14 gS tbe8 IS lildS
Wd7 16 Jt.g4 e6 17 tbd4 lilxd4 18
~xd4 with a slight plus according
to Korchnoi; but once again
13 ...tbaS! seems to be the best way
to challenge White, although the
text is perfectly playable) 14 Wd2
l:lacS IS :adl tbcs 16 Wf2 ~xc3
17 bxc3 lila4, when Black holds
the better prospects, Mysliuvjec-
Piihtz, East Gennany 1977.
bS) 13 tbdS tbxdS 14 exdS lilaS
IS lilxaS bxaS 16 c3 Wc4 with
equal chances.
b6) 13 "ii'e2 tbaS 14 lilxaS bxaS
IS l:ladl ~c6 16 ~d4 lild7 17
~xg7 ~xg7 18 b3 l:lacS 19 Itf2 a4
is equal, Mikhailov-Baumbach,
corr 1977.
b7) 13 WeI :acS (this may
seem a bit repetitive, but 13...tbaS!
is again the way to go) 14 lilbS
1Wb8 IS c3 a6 16 tbSd4, Naschke-
Schulz, corr 1981, and now
16... tbxd4 17 ~xd4 eS or 16... e6
followed by ...tDd7-cS would
equalise.
b8) 13 <li>hl l:lac8 (13 ...lilaS! 14
tbxaS bxaS IS a4 ~c6 16 Wd3
lild7 17 :adl tbb6 18 b3 %lac8 19
lile2 ~b7 20 c4 lild7 with good
play for Black, Britton-Silman,
England 1977) 14 Itf2 l:[fd8 IS
%ld2 1Wbs 16 a4, Wilken-Melzer,
corr 1988, 16... tbaS 17lilxaS bxaS
IS "gl ~c6! with fine play for
Black.
b9) 13 "ii'd2!? (probably White's
best) 13...lilaS! (slower is 13 ... ItacS
14 l:ladl %lfdS IS Wf2 1ibs 16 g4
lild7 17 h4 lilcs IS hS ~a6 19
l:lfel e6 20 <li>g2, Kunzelmann-
Neubert, corr 19S2, 20... lilaS! with
excellent chances for Black) 14
lilxaS bxaS IS :ad1 l:lfdS!
(everything else is good for White:
IS .. J:lfb8 16 1If2 ~c6 17 b3 a4 18
~d4 axb3 19 axb3 l:d8 20 lildS,
Kupreichik-Kapengut, Minsk 1972,
or IS ... ~c6 16 eS! dxeS 17 ~xc6?
[much better is 17 fxeS!, e.g.
17... ~xf3 18 exf6 ~xdl 19 fxg7
lUd8 20 1i'f2 with a big edge for
White - Silman] 17... Wxc6 18 fxeS
lilg4 19 tDds, Lutzkat-Baumbach,
East Gennany 1986, and now
19... l:lae8 with unclear complica-
tions according to Silman.
12 ~b7
12 ... tbe8 looks rather strange,
but seems to work for Black, e.g.
13 "ii'd2 ~b7 14 gS lilaS IS lildS,
Osnos-Sakharov, USSR 1967,
IS ... ~xdS! 16 WxdS (16 exd5
~xb2 is clearly better for Black)
16...Wxc2! with unclear complica-
tions - Korchnoi.
13 g5
Once you say 'A' you must say

•B'. Other moves would not be in
accordance with the previous one,
e.g. 13 11M2 ltla5! 14 ltlxa5 bxa5
15 .ltf3 .i.c6 16 };tabl l:tab8 17 b3
lUc8 with clearly the better chan-
ces for Black, K.Nelson-Silman,
USA 1975.
13 ltld7
14 ltld5
Pointless is 14 1If2?!, when in
the game Tseitlin-T.Georgadze,
Bamaul 1969, Black obtained the
better position after 14... lIfe8 15 h4
ltla5 16ltld4 a6 17 ltld5 'ifc8 18 f5
.i.xd5 19 exd5 ltlc4 20 .i.c 1 bS 21
hS 'ifcs 22 ltlb3 "a7 23 hxg6
fxg6.
14 'IM8
15 1Ib1!?
Korchnoi's recommendation.
Other moves do not worry Black:
a) IS fS .i.xb2 (bad is IS ...lIe8?
16 f6! whereas IS ... ltlce5!? seems
fine for Black: 16 c4?! [better is 16
ltld4 or 16 'ii'ell 16 ... l:te8 17 l:I.el
e6 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 ltlc3 ltlcs with
a clear edge for Black, Kristians-
son-Toran, Lugano 01 1968) 16
l:I.bl .i.eS 17 'ifel e6 18 1Wh4 exd5
19 f6, Tseitlin-T.Georgadze, and
now 19 ...dxe4! 20 .i.g4 ~h8 wins
for Black.
Main Lines with 7.i.c4 'ii'aS 237
b) IS ltld4 e6! 16 ltlc3 ltlxd4 17
.i.xd4 eS 18 .i.e3 exf4 19 .i.xf4
.i.xc3! 20 bxc3 ltlcS 21 'ii'xd6
ltlxe4 22 'ii'xd8 l:I.axd8 23 .i.f3
ltlcs with a clear edge for Black in
the endgame, Savereide-Silman,
USA 1974.
c) IS c4?! ':e8 (1S ....i.xb2 is
perfectly playable and bags a
pa~~ 16 '1M2 e6 17 ltlc3 ltlcs 18
.i.f3 ~7 19 ltlbS ltlxb3 20 axb3
dS with unclear complications,
Maliszewski-Stachorski, corr 1993.
15 ltlcS
Silman's suggestion IS ...e6!? 16
ltlc3 ..txc3 17 bxc3 ltle7! deserves
serious attention, e.g. 18 'ii'xd6
.i.xe4 19 lIadl ltlf5 or 18 .i.d3 d5
or 18 f5 exf5 19 'ifxd6 .i.xe4 20
lIadl ltlcs in all cases with fine
chances for Black - analysis by
Silman.
Black has also done wen with
15 ... l:te8 16 'ii'd2 (16 c4 e6 17 ltlc3
ltlcs 18 .i.f3 'ii'e7 19 a3? .i.xc3 20
bxc3 ltlxb3 21 ':xb3 lIac8 wins for
Black, Sakrin-Bieluczyk, corr
1983) 16... e6 17 ltlc3 ltlcs 18.i.f3
ltle7 19 ltld4 d5 20 eS a6 21 h4
'ifc7 22 "g2ltlc6 with ,bout equal
chances, Orosz-Keleman, corr
1988.
16 .i.f3
Less logical is 16 ltlxcs, giving
Black control over the d4-square:
16... bxcS 17 f5 (17 h4 ltld4 18
.i.d3 e6 19ltlc3 a6 20 ~h2 'ii'c7 21
.i.xd4 cxd4 22 ltle2 .i.g7 23 c3
.i.c6 24 ltlg3 e5 2S ':f2, Weike-
Nagomi, corr 1988, 2S ...f6! with an
initiative for Black) 17 ....i.d4? 18
lIf4 .i.xe3+ 19 ltlxe3 f6? 20 fxg6
hxg6 21 ..tc4+ ~g7 22 ltlfS+! 1-0
Martschei-Schlegner, corr 1988,
but 17...e6! is difficult for White to
handle: 18 ltlc3 .i.d4! 19 .i.xd4
238 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 .as

.xg5+ or 18 f6 exd5 19 fxg7 ':'e8 Here Baumbach gives 22 iLd4 as

20.xd5 l:te7, intending ... ttJe5 or
...ttJd4, or 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 ':'xf8+!
.xf8! 20 ttJc7 iLd4! 21 iLxd4
ttJxd4 22 ttJxa8 .f4! with more
than enough compensation.
best, but after the obvious moves
22 ... iLxd4+ 23 :xd4 e5 24 fxe5
dxe5 25 :xd8 :'xd8, intending
... ttJe6, Black is clearly better.

The rest of the game went as

16 e6 follows:
17 ttJc3 .e7 22 ...iLc6 23 :de1?
18 .d2 :fd8 Now White gets into serious
19 l:bdl trouble. Correct was 23 :fe 1.
19 :bel lhc8 20 h4 ttJa5 21 23....b724 b3 .b625 .tl
ttJxa5 bxa5 22 .g2 iLc6 23 iLxc5 25 'ii>hl loses a pawn to
iLxc3 24 bxc3 dxc5 is equal, 25 ... iLxc3 26 iLxc3 ttJxe4.
Moller-Baumbach, East Germany 25...d5 26 exd5 exd5 27 ttJe2
1986. iLb5! 28 l:tel iLxe2! 29 iLxe2 ttJe4
19 ttJa5! 30 .xb6 axb6 31 iLe3
20 ttJxa5 bxa5 31 iLel iLb2 32 l:tcdl l:xc2 33
21 .gl?! iLd3 :c I! wins for Black.
Too optimistic. Baumbach gives
21 iLd4 iLxd4 22 .xd4 e5 23 .d2
exf4 24 1i'xf4 ttJe6 or 24 ... l:ac8 in
31 ...d4 32 iLtl ttJc3 33 iLg4 :c7
34:a1 ttJd5 35 l:fdl l:txc2! 36 f5
ttJf4 37 ~n gxf5 38 iLxf5 :b2! 39
both cases with equality. l:del d3 40 l:dl iLd4 0-1
21 :ac8 A beautiful performance by
22 iLdl Baumbach.
 11 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0

Chapter Guide

1 e4 c5 2 l'Llf3 l'Llc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'Llxd4 g6 5 l'Llc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 l'Llf6

7 i.c4 0-0
8 f3 -Game 87
8i.b3
8... a5
9 a4 - Game 88
9 f3 d5
10 exd5l'Llb4 1ll'Llde2 a4 12l'Llxa4l'Llfd5
13 i.f2?! - Game 89
13 i.d2?! - Game 90
10 i.xd5 l'Llxd5
11 l'Llxd5 - Game 91 .
11 exd5l'Llb412l'Llde2 \
12...i.f5 13 lid b5
14 a3 - Game 92
140-0 - Game 93
12... e6 - Game 94
8...d6 9 f3 i.d7
10 h4 - Game 95
10 "d2 - Game 96

This is one of the sharpest systems
in the entire Accelerated Dragon.
White uses the same set-up as
against the standard Dragon varia-
tion, hoping to reach that opening
by a transposition. Some died-in-
the-wool Dragon players, such as
Tiviakov, gladly transpose, since
with this move order they avoid the
critical 9 O-O-O!? in the main line
Dragon, because White has already
played i.c4. However, not many
Accelerated Dragon players are
quite so happy to enter the long
theoretical lines of the Dragon,
since these differ so much in
'flavour' from their favourite sys-
tem. Because of this, a number of
240 Main Lines with 7 JLc4 0-0
interesting ideas have been found
to get off the beaten track.
Amongst others, the correspon-
dence players Uogele and Ekebjerg
have devised some dynamic ways
to exploit the fact that the black d-
pawn has yet to be moved.
Game8?
Fischer-Panno
Portoroz 1958
(1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lDxd4 g6 5 lDc3 JLg7 6 JLe3 lDf6 7
JLc40-0)
8 f3?!
It is interesting to see that even a
player of Fischer's class can make
serious inaccuracies in the opening.
Maybe Fischer believed he was
transposing to the main line Dragon
(in which he won many miniatures)
and just played too quickly. How-
ever, White should first play 8 .lib3
and only then f2-f3 (Games 88-96),
when he avoids the following
tricks.
8 Wb6!?
After this move only Black can
be better. Still, it is not clear if it is
Black's best. 8 ... e6!? was intro-
duced in Tolush-Lengyel, Warsaw
1961, when White just managed to
hold the balance after 9 .lib3 d5 10
exd5 liJxd5 11 liJxd5 exdS 12 0-0
1i'b6 13 c3 Ue8 14 .i.f2 liJxd4 15
.I1Lxd4.i.xd4+ 16 .xd4 .xd4+ 17
cxd4 and the ending is drawn. In
the later game Szilagyi-Adorjan,
Hungary 1972, Adorjan was ready
to try 12 .. J:te8 13 .lif2 .g5!? with
an initiative, but did not get the
chance, since Szilagyi went for 10
0-0 lte8 11 liJxc6? bxc6 12 WeI
.I1La6 13 l::tf2 d4 14 l::td2 c5, leaving
Adorjan with a huge plus. 8...e6!?
is certainly not bad, but careful
play by White should keep the bal-
ance.
We used to believe that Black
only had the pleasant choice be-
tween 8... 'iVb6!? and 8... e6!?, but
just before finishing the manuscript
for this book, NIC Yearbook 45
drew our attention to 8... dS!? The
idea is very similar to Uogele's
9... d5 in the notes to Game 89, and
here it seems playable as well. A
nice point is 9 .lixd5 liJxd5 10 exd5
liJb4 11 liJde2 .lif5 12 l:[c1 .a5 13
a3 liJa2!, which really seems fine
for Black. Also in the line 10 liJxd5
f5!, the fact that the pawn is on a7
rather than a5 favours Black as the
b6-square is now well protected. 9
liJxc6 bxc6 10 exd5 cxdS 11 liJxdS
e6! 12 liJc3 liJd5! 13 .lixdS exd5
14 liJxdS is given as the critical
line, but after 14 ... l:te8 15 'iiff2
.i.xb2 16 l:tbl JLg7 Black clearly
has sufficient compensation. How-
ever, 8... d5!? has hardly ever been
seen in practice so a serious test
would be interesting. That it has
not been discovered until now, can
be explained by the fact that Black
has several excellent alternatives
 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 241

and therefore no-one has been 9 liJxe4?!

searching for new ideas.
9 i.b3!
Surely White's best way of lim-
iting the damage. 9 a3!? , as in
Keres-Larsen, Bewerwijk 1964,
also avoids immediate loss of mate-
rial, but leaves Black with a pleas-
ant edge after 9 ... d6 10 liJce2
'iJ'aS+ 11 c3 liJeS 12 i.a2 'ii'a6 13
0-0 i.d7 14 a4 liJc4 15 i.xc4
'ii'xc4, when Black was better due
to his bishop pair.
Other moves are just bad:
a) 9 O-O? 'ili'xb2 just leaves Black
a pawn up, e.g. the game N.P.Niel-
sen-Yakovich, Aalborg 1993, went
This secures an easy draw, but
we feel that Black should go for
more with the ambitious 9...liJg4!?
In Zagorovsky-Simagin, Moscow
19S1, White now tried to avoid
damage to his pawn structure with
10 liJa4?, but was punished after
1O... liJxe3 11 liJxb6 i.xd4! 12 .e2
i.xb6 13 ~d2 liJaS 14 h4 liJxb3+
IS axb3 dS! Black's minor pieces
became too active and White was
blown off the board. So White must
enter 10 fxg4 i.xd4, when he will
suffer for a long time due to the
black knight, which will eventually
fmd a safe haven on eS:

.f2
10 liJcbS "'4 11 'W'e2 'ii'aS 12
nfdl d6 13 i.d7 14 i.fl
liJxd4 IS lLlxd4 l:tfc8 16 c4 with a
a) 11 i.xd4.xd4 (ll...liJxd4 12
liJdS 'iJ'aS+ 13 c3 liJc6 followed by
...d7-d6, ... i.e6 etc. is not bad ei-
normal Maroczy position, but the ther) 12 "xd4 liJxd4 13 liJdS liJc6
'slight' difference that White has was good for Black in Sakharov-
no b-pawn! Stein, Kiev 1964. However, not
b) Equally depressing is 9 "d2? many players would voluntarily
liJxe4!, since 10 lLlxc6 liJxd2 11 defend #Ie position after 14 i.a4
liJxe7+ 'it.?h8 12 i.xb6 liJxc4 is just ~g7 16 0-0-0 l:tb8 16 h3 bS 17
about winning for Black. Nilsson- i.b3 d6; White's structure is 100%
Geller, Varna 1962, saw instead 10 awful.
fxe4 i.xd4 11 i.xd4 'ili'xd4 12 b) The alternative 11 liJdS has
'ii'xd4lLlxd4 13 0-0-0 lLlc6 14liJdS given White some success in prac-
Wg7 IS i.bS nd8, when Black was tice after 11....aS+ 12 i.d2 .cS
winning. 13 c3. For example, the game
Houser-Svarcova, Prague 1989,
makes a strong impression:
13 ... i.g7 14 i.e3 "as IS 0-0 d6 16
'ii'e!!, when White used his weak-
ened structure constructively to
attack along the f-file and after
16... i.e6 17 'iJ'h4 i.xdS 18 i.xdS
'iJ'c7 19 l:tf3 e6 20 l:th3, he had a
winning attack. But simple, and
good, seems 12 ....d8 13 c3 i.g7
followed by ... d7-d6, ... liJeS etc.
when Black will benefit from his
superior structure.
9 ... liJg4 seems like a safe way of
242 Main Lines with 7 Ji..c4 0-0

playing for a win. Yet, he was probably happy to es-

10 lLldS! cape after his opening error. 8 f3?!
Absolutely the only move; eve- should certainly not scare Black,
rything else loses at least a pawn. and although the choice between
10... 'WWaS+ 8...'Wb6!? 8... e6!? and 8...d5!? cer-
11 c3 lLlcs tainly is not easy, it is a nice prob-
Safe and solid. More ambitious lem to have.
is 1l...it.xd4!? 12 it.xd4 lLlc5,
keeping the extra pawn. After 13 Game 88
Ji..c4 lLle6! (not 13 ... d6?? when Sax-Pigusov
Black had problems with his queen Moscow 1990
after 14 b4 'it'a4 15 .lib3 lLlxb3 16
axb3 'il'b5 17 c4, Trassaert- (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Birmingham, Cannes 1990) 14 b4 lLlxd4 g6 S lLlc3 Ji..g7 6 Ji..e3 lLlf6 7
'it'd8 15 it.e3 d6 16 0-0 lLlc7 17 Ji..c40-0)
Ji..h6 lLlxd5 18 it.xd5 l:te8 19 Ji..g5
Ji..e6, Oszvath-Honfi, Budapest 8 Ji..b3!
1963. White has adequate compen-
sation, but no more than that.
Pulido-Spangenberg, Seville 1994,
saw instead 13 O-O?! lLlxb3 14
'ii'xb3 d6 15 Ji..f2 Ji..e6 16 c4 :b8,
where White had very little for the
pawn. In general, 11...Ji..xd4!?
seems fully playable, and if you
like to grab pawns and have the
patience to defend such positions,
this could give you great results.
12 lLlxc6 bxc6
13 lLlxe7+ ..t>h8
14 lLlxc8 l:taxc8
IS 0-0 l:tcd8 The critical test. White· avoids
16 'WWc2 'WWbS ... 'WWb6 tricks and prepares f2-f3,
Equally good is 16 ...:fe8 17 'WWd2, 0-0-0, h2-h4 etc., following
it.f2 lLlxb3 18 axb3 'il'b5 19 l:tfel standard Yugoslav Attack patterns.
::'xel+ 20 :xel Ji..f6 21 b4 b6 22 However, in the normal Dragon
'ii'e2 'it'xe2 112-112 W.Watson- White only plays Ji..b3 after a
Chandler, London 1984. knight coming to e5 or a rook to
17 l:tfdl ..t>g8 the c-file forces him to do so. This
18 l:txd8 l:txd8 slight difference gives Black some
19 l:tdl l:te8 interesting opportunities.
20 Ji..f2 as S as!?
21 Ji..xcS Ib.-Ib. This tricky move has been
It is not often that players popularised by the Lithuanian cor-
achieved such an easy draw with respondence player Uogele. His
the black pieces against Fischer. games, together with those of

Petursson and Pigusov have done
much to bring this variation to the
public eye. Black is waiting for
White to play 9 f3, when he will
start some serious complications. It
is noteworthy that in this game Sax
backs off from a theoretical discus-
sion, when normally he is not one
to shirk a challenge. 8.... d6 is seen
in Games 95 and 96.
9 a4!?
Quite a good move, avoiding the
tricky lines after 9 f3. White claims
8... a5!? to be positionally suspect;
both the b5- and b6-squares look
inviting for his minor pieces. The
sharper 9 f3 d5 is the subject of
Games 89-94.
9 lLlg4!
10 'ibg4
White can force a draw with 10
lLlxc6. Mololkin-Yakovich, Vol-
gograd 1995, saw 1O...lLlxe3 11
lLlxd8 lLlxdl 12 lLld5 (both 12
lLlxf7?l)lLlxc3 and 12 l:txdllLxc3+
are b~er for Black) 12 ...:Xd8 13
':'xdl'. If the a-pawns had not
moved, Black would be better due
to his pair of bishops, but here
White can exchange a bishop by
force: 13 ... ~f8 14 lLlb6 1:.a6 15
lLlxc8 l:lxc8 16 1:.xd7 l:lb6!
(winning back the pawn) 17 ~e2
lLxb2 18 l:[hdl ':'b4 19 l:ld8+ l:lxd8
20 1:.xd8+ ~g7 21 'iti>d3 e6 22 l:ld7
~ 23 f4 ~e8 24 1:.e7 l:ld4 25
~e3 ':'d7 26 l:[xd7 1/2- 112. Boring,
but as in many sharp openings,
White often has some way of bail-
ing out with a draw.
10 lLlxd4
(see following diagram)
11 'iVh4!
Certainly White's most testing
option. 11 'iVdl is also commonly
seen, but if Black plays simple
Main Lines with 7 lLc4 0-0 243
chess with l1...lLlxb3 12 cxb3 d6
followed by 13 ... lLe6 he is fine,
since the b3-pawn is a target.
Black's chances were illustrated
nicely in Gamarro-Petursson, Bue-
nos Aires 01 1978: 13 1It'd2 lLe6 14
lLld5 lLxd5 15 exd5 'iVd7 16 0-0
b5! and Black was clearly better.
He has targets on the b-file, and
White has no counterplay.
Equally hlJ11Illess is 11 lLxd4
lLxd4 12 'iVg3 due to the simple
12 ... d6 13 0-0-0 lLxc3 14 'iVxc3
lLe6 with equality, Ivanovic-
Cebalo, Yugoslavia 1983. Black
has exchanged his dark-squared
bishop, which normally weakens
his king. With counterplay along
the c-file, however, Black can
maintain the balance. Ambitious
attempts to exploit the bishop pair
have so far been unsuccessful. For
example:
a) Kotronias-Bannikas, Greece
1996, saw 12 ... e6 13 l:[dl "'f6 14
0-0 'iVf6 15 l:lfel 'iVe5 16 l:[d2
lLxc3 17 bxc3 'iVxg3 18 hxg3 l:[b8
with an edge for White. Black has
difficulties developing without
losing pawns, although in the game
he 'exchanged' his a- and b-pawns
for White's a4-pawn and set up a
244 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0
fortress, drawing after 71 moves.
b) Muhutdinov-Yakovich, St
Petersburg 1993, saw 12 ...d6 13
0-0-0 .i.g7?! 14 h4! .i.e6 15 ~b5
'iib6 16 f4 ltac8 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 18
'iib3 'W'c5 19 'iWxe6+ <bh8 20 c3
'iWc4 21 'iWxc41:bc4 22 g3 l:txe4 23
<it>d2 and Black was left with posi-
tional problems. White is about to
put his king on d3 and start playing
on the e-file or going for h4-h5.
The game ended rather comically
with 23 .. Jba4 24 l:hel e5 25 <bc2
exf4 26 ~b3, trapping the rook. It
seems strange that Black should not
keep his dark-squared bishop, but
so far practice indicates that the
surprising 13 ....i.xc3 is Black's
best, securing excellent play.
11 ~xb3
This is the point of inserting the
a-pawn moves. Now White will
have to take back with the c-pawn,
leaving the b3-pawn very weak.
12 cxb3
12 l:ta6!?
Seems best. 12 ... J.f6?! looks
strange, but has scored well on its
few outings:
a) White has not proven any ad-
vantage in the endgame arising
from 13 i.g5 i.xg5 14 'ifxg5 d6 15
~d5 (otherwise 15 ... i.e6 is just
fme) 15 ...e6 16 'iWxd8 l:xd8 17
~c7 l:tb8, when White even man-
aged to lose in Borocz-Deak,
Kobanya 1992, after 18 l:tdl?!
i.d7! 19 <be2 :'bc8 20 l:tcl i.c6
21 liJb5 i.xe4 22 l:txc8 Axc8 23
liJxd6 lIc2+ 24 ~e3 i.xg2. Black
is just a pawn up.
b) This leaves White with only
13 'ifg3, but 13 ... d6 14 Abl?! i.e6
15 liJd5 i.xd5 16 exd5 'iWd7 17
"f4 b5 was good for Black in
Reig-Alvarez, Spain 1994. 14
l:tbl?! would never scare anyone.
The critical move is 14 liJd5, as in
Hernandez-Alvarez, Cuba 1995,
when Black lost horribly after
14... i.xb2 15 Abl i.g7 16 i.b6
'ifd7 17 0-0 as he could not de-
velop his pieces. Since we have not
found a way to improve upon this
line, it seems to more or less refute
12 ... i.f6?!
13 0-0 l:te6!?
Nowadays this is standard, but
13 ... d6 was common until Illijin-
Kaidanov, Bled 1989, when after
14 liJd5 Ae8 15 :acl Ac6 16 i.g5
f6 17 i.e3 i.d7 18 l:tfdl l:tf8 19 f3
J.e6 20 "£2 White was ready to
exploit the weakened queenside.
Black tried to mix it, but after
20... f5 21 "d2 fxe4 22 fxe4 l:tti 23
1If1 "c8 24 "xa5 i.xb2 25 :'cdl
J.e5 26 :txti ~xti 27 l:tf1 + ~e8
28 "'5, White was winning.
13 ... i.f6!?, as played in Hon-
Quinn, Hastings 1996, is quite
clever. If 14 .i.g5 i.xg5 15 'ifxg5
d6 16 ~d5 e6 Black keeps things
under control and 16 Afdl i.e6 is
also okay. The game saw 14 "g3
d6 15 f4 i.e6 16 :a3 ~h8 17 f5
gxf5 18 exf5 J.d7 19 'iff4 i.e5 20
'Wh4 i.c6 21 liJe4 f6 with a very

good position for Black. White's
play was unimpressive, but if Black
gets in 15 ... ~e6 he will always be
fine. The point of inserting
13 ... .i.f6 14 'ikg3 is that White does
not have tiJd5, hitting e7, which
won an important tempo in IIlijin-
Kaidanov. This could be the way to
play, and it is our recommendation.
13 ...':'e6!? is designed to take
care of the weak b6-square. Black
is planning to play 14 ... b6 and
15 ....i.b7, when the b6-square will
be safely protected.
14 lIadl
14 life 1 led to a victory for
White in Topalov-Larsen, Mesa
1992, when White had a huge
positional edge after 14...b6 15
.i.h6.i.b7 16 .i.xg7 ~xg7 17 lIe3
f5 18 lIae 1 fxe4 19 tiJxe4 h6 20
tiJd2 ':'xe3 21 'ikd4+ e5 22 'ikxe3
d6 23 tiJc4.
Black should playas in Emms-
Yakovich~ Copenhagen 1993, in
which ~ck was fine after 14...b6
15 .i.h6 .i.b7 (15 ....i.xh6!?) 16
lIadl .i.xh6 17 'ikxh6 'ikc7 18
tiJd5?! .i.xd5 19 exdS ':'xe3 20
1Wxe3 1Wc5!, though White can im-
prove with 18 lld4.
14 b6
Main Lines with 7 .i.c4 0-0 245
W.Watson-Shabalov, Oslo 1991,
saw 14....i.f6 15 1Wg3 .i.xc3!? 16
bxc3 1;lxe4, when White had ex-
cellent compensation due to his
better development, as well as the
presence of the opposite-coloured
bishops, which always help the
attacker.
If this does not suit White, then
15 .i.g5 is safe, transposing to the
main line.
15 lId2 .i.b7?!
Pigusov recommends 15 ....i.f6,
giving 16 .i.g5 .i.xg5 17 'iixg5
.i.b7 as equal. This seems a little
too optimistic, since by continuing
18 lIfdl .i.c6 19 f3 White should
keep some advantage with plans
such as like tiJe2-d4 or lId4 and
b3-b4. Perhaps Black should seek
immediate counterplay with 19.. .f5,
but this is somewhat weakening.
Although this is playable for Black,
we believe that White has a slight
plus in t~e positions. 16 .'ikg3 is
also pOSSible, but Black will grab
the pawn with 16....i.xc3 17 bxc3
':'xe4, with reasonable chances.
16 lIfdl .i.f6
17 1Wg3 .i.e6
Now this is necessary, since the
d-pawn needs protection, and Black
has no time for pawn grabbing.
18 lLIdS .i.eS
19 1Wh4 .i.d6
20 .i.xb6 1Wb8
As always in this line, the b6-
square is Black's problem. With the
pair of bishops there is usually
some compensation, but it is not
always quite enough.
21 .i.d4 f6 22 1Id3 1If7 23 .i.e3
1Wxb3 24 lLIxf6+ exf6 25 lIxd6
llxe4 26 1Wg3 1Wxa4
Now Black is a pawn up, but the
bishop on c3 is a worry for the
246 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0
black king. White has plenty of
play on the dark squares.
27 h3 .b3 28 .d3 l:.e6 29 l:.d4
29 "'xe6 'ii'xe6 30 ~xa5 'ii'e4 31
'ii'xe4 ~xe4 32 ~c3 is given as
slightly better for White, but Black
should draw this.
29 ....bS
Now Black is completely equal
and the game was drawn in 55
moves. Although 9 a4 is solid and
gives White some chances of a
small advantage, Black should not
worry too much. In particular,
13 ... .if6 deserves attention.
Game 89
Shirov-Lautier
Tilburg 1997
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttJxd4 g6 S lLlc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJr6 7
~c4 0-0 8 ~b3 as)
9 f3!?
White's most ambitious try. He
now threatens 10 a4! with a posi-
tional bind since Black no longer
has the ... ttJg4 trick. However, f2-
f3 is slightly weakening, and Black
can strike immediately to create
complications.
9 dS!
The main idea behind Uogele's
S... a5. Black is a little ahead in de-
velopment, and gives up a pawn to
speed up his mobilisation even
further.
10 exdS
This is not considered to be the
critical test at the moment, al-
though as we shall see in our next
main game, even here new ideas
have appeared recently. The main
line, 10 .ixd5, is seen in Games
91-94.
10 ttJb4
11 ttJde2
11 ttJdb5?! is generally consid-
ered harmless, but it is not all that
easy to refute. 11...a4 12 ttJxa4
ttJfxd5 13 ~d2 ~d7 14 ttJbc3
.ixa4 15 ttJxa4 b5 is often given as
the easiest way to equalise, but the
endgame arising after 16 lLlc3
ttJxc3 17 ~xc3 'ii'xdl+ IS ~xdl
.i.xc3 19 bxc3 "'fdS+ 20 ..tel is
slightly better for White; he will
exchange rooks on the d-file and
then use his queenside pawns.
More interesting is 15 .. .lha4!?
16 ~xa4 ~xb2 17 l:tbl ttJc3 IS
.i.xc3 ~xc3+ 19 c:tfl 'ii'a5 20 ~b3
"'dS with plenty of compensation,
after which we feel that Black is
definitely not worse.
11 a4!
Certainly Black's best. Short-
Kotsur, Lucerne 1997, saw instead
ll...e6?! 12 0-0 ttJfxd5 13 ttJxd5
ttJxdS 14 ~xdS exd5 15 .id4 ~h6
with transposltlOn to Hector-
Hernandez (see below), but with
the important difference that White
has not wasted time on a2-a3. This
really should mean that White is
much better, but surprisingly White
was not able to prove it, and the
 Main Lines with 7..tc4 0-0 247

game was soon drawn. c3 wins back the piece.

12 tiJxa4 tiJfxdS 14 0-0
14 a3 tiJxc2+! 15 ..txc2 "a5+
16 b4 tiJxb4 17 axb4 "xb4+ 18
11M2 "xd2+ 19 ~xd2 l:Ud8+ 20
tiJd4 ..txd4 21 ..txd4 .l:hd4+ 22
~c3 .i.xc2 23 ~xd4 ..txa4 is
drawn.
14 bS
15 tiJac3 tiJxc3
16 tiJxc3 "xdl
17 :fxdl ..txc2
18 ..txc2 tiJxc2
19 :ad ..txc3
20 :xc2 ..tf6
112_112
13 ..ttl?! Not a terribly interesting game,
Not a serious try for an opening but one that shows that even at the
advantage. Later Shirov has ad- highest level, 8... a5 can be played
mitted that he had simply mixed up with success.
two different variations! 13 .i.d2 is
seen in the next game, while after Game 90
13 ..td4 Black can choose between: Sanakoev-Ekebjerg
a) ~fe draw with 13 .....txd4 World corr ch 1994
14 'ii'xd4 ..tf5 15 tiJac3 tiJxc2+ 16
.i.xc2 tiJxc3 17 "xd8 :fxd8 18 (1 e4 cS2tiJf3 g6 3 d4 ..tg7 4 tiJc3
.i.xf5 tiJxe2, as in Kostro-Szilagyi, cxd4 5 tiJxd4 tiJc6 6 ..te3 tiJf6 7
Polanica Zdroj 1969, since 15 ..tc4 0-0 8 ..tb3 as 9 f3 dS 10 exdS
'ii'd2?! ..txc2! with the idea of 16 tiJb4 11 tiJde2 a412 tiJxa4 tiJfxdS)
..txc2 ttJe3! is far too dangerous for
White. 13 ..td2!?
b) If a draw does not suit Black, This is the critical choice.
Uogele's 13 ... ..tf5!? might be
worth a shot. Sachs-Uogele, corr
1968, saw 14 tiJac3? ..txc2! 15
..txc2 ..txd4 16 tiJxd4 tiJe3 0-1. As
pointed out by Silman and Donald-
son, the critical test is 14 ..txg7
~xg7 15 ~ e5!?, planning
... :xa4 and ... 'iib6+ with sufficient
compensation, which seems to be a
reasonable evaluation.
13 ..tfS!
13 ...:xa4 14 ..txa4 "a5 15 O-O!
and White is winning, Sax-Haik,
Smederevska 1982. 15 .....xa4 16
248 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0

13 ~fS!? IS i.xc3 i.xc3+

Definitely a logical move. In 16 bxc3!
Rogers-Laird, Brisbane 1994, Necessary, since after 16 tt'lxc3
Black thought it was time for im- 'iWb6, followed by ...ltfd8, Black is
mediate sacrifices and played the fully developed with the white king
spectacular 13 ... .l:txa4 14 ~xa4 stuck in the centre.
"a5, hoping for tactics such as 15 16 'iWxdl+
~b3 ~xb2 16 ltb 1 liJe3! with a 17 'it>xdl Ilfd8+
winning attack. However, Rogers 18 ~cl tt'la6
played 15 a3! 'iWxa4 16 axb4 'iWc6 19 tt'ld4 i.d7
17 0-0 ~xb2 18 .l:ta5 when it was 20 ltel e6
apparent that Black had insufficient White is a pawn up, but has no
compensation. In his notes in In- hope of making progress, since
!ormator, Ian Rogers suggests Black has an excellent blockade on
13 ... i.e6!? a'S Black's most prom- the queenside.
ising continuation, giving 14 liJc5 21 l:.eS l:.dc8 22 ~d2 ttJcS 23 f4
i.xb2 15 l:.bl i.e5 16 tt'lxe6 fxe6 ~g7 24 l:.ael hS 2S g3 l:.c7 26
17 0-0 with some advantage to l:.Se3 i.c6 27 l:.eS ~d7 28 l:.Se3
White. But by simply playing i.c6 29 l:.eS Ill_Ill
14... ~f5!?, we believe that the Again a game with absolutely no
black position is rather promising, problems for Black, who even had
since both 15 a3? ~xb2 and 15 c3 some interesting alternatives.
b6! are good for Black. Therefore
14 liJc5?! is probably wrong, but Game 91
Black seems to be fine anyway, and W.Stern-Ekebjerg
13 ... i.e6!? looks like a reliable World COff ch 1994
alternative to the game move.
14 liJac3 (1 e4 cS 2 tt'lf3 g6 3 d4 i.g7 4 liJc3
This is White's safest option, cxd4 S liJxd4 tt'lc6 6 i.e3 tt'lf6 7
since 14 a3!? has been scoring ~c4 0-0 8 ~b3 as 9 f3 dS)
badly in practice. After 14... b5!? 15
tt'lac3 tt'lxc3 16 tt'lxc3?! tt'lc6 17 10 ~xdS!
tt'lxb5 liJa5 18 ~c3 'iWb8 19 'iWe2
tt'lxb3 20 cxb3 :a6 Black certainly
had an excellent attack, Enoshi-
Greenfeld, Tel Aviv 1988. Better is
16 i.xc3!?, which led to a quick
draw in Lanc-Rantanen, Tbilisi
1987, after 16.....xdl+ 17 ltxdl
tt'lxc2+ 18 ~ i.xc3 19 tt'lxc3
liJxa3 20 tt'ldS. A critical alterna-
tive is 17 'iitxdl!?, when after
17...l:tfd8+ 18 ~cl i.h6+ 19 'iitbl
it is not easy to find sufficient play
for the pawn.
14 tt'lxc3
 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 249

This seems to be White's best was heading for, and indeed it

shot at an advantage. White puts an seems like he has a slight pull, as
end to Black's tricks with ...a5-a4 the black pawns are weak. Fur-
at the cost of the bishop-pair. thermore, White can play on the b-
10 lLlxd5 file. However, practice has shown
11 lLlxd5?! that Black is still okay.
This is rather dull. The critical
11 exd5! is examined in Games 92-
94.
11 f5!?
This rather surprising move tries
to open up the position immedi-
ately. Less good was 11...e6?!
which featured in Berzins-
Malisauskas, Yurmala 1995. Black
had nothing for the pawn after 12
lLlxc6 bxc6 13 lLlb6 l:tbS 14 'ifxdS
l:tfxdS 15 l:tbl! ~a6 16lLla4.
12 lLlxc6
Necessary."p f=3 fxe4 13 fxe4
e6 14 lLlxc6 tIi'IN+! is already em- ~ 19 ~e5
barrassing. 20 f4!?
12 bxc6 The normal move is 20 ':'bl,
13 lLlb6 l:tb8 which gave White the edge in the
14 'jixd8 ':xd8 stem game Kir.Georgiev-Van der
15 l:tdI!? Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 19S9:
This has caused Black some 20... ~xh2?! 21 g3! e5 22 ~f2 f4
problems in the past, although they 23 g4 ~g3 24 ~c5.
now appear to have been solved. Yet, in two games shown Her-
White's idea is to return the pawn, nandez has that 20 ... <it>f7! holds no
and then try to prove that Black's terrors for Black. Estevez went for
pawns are weak in the endgame. 21 l:tb6, Cuba 19S9, but had noth-
Worse is the move 15 c3, when ing after 21...~xh2 22 l:ta6 ~d6 23
after 15 ... l:td3 Black is already l:txa5 'ii;Je6 24 a4 l:tgS! 25 'ii;Jf1
better, since White is struggling to l:tbS! as Black is very active. The
co-ordinate his defence. following year Diaz tried 21 f4!?
15 ':'xdI+ ~d6, which transposes to our main
16 <it>xdi ~xb2 game.
Also not bad is 16... fxe4 17 fxe4 20 ~d6
~xb2 IS 'ii;Je2 ~e5, Ivanchuk- 21 l:tbi ~n
Zsu.Polgar, Monaco (rapid) 1994. 22 l:tb6
This seems simple and solid. 22 a4 was played in Diaz-Her-
17 lLlxc8 l:txc8 nandez, Cuba 1990, when Black
18 exf5 gxf5 played 22 ...l:tgS 23 g3 l:tg6 24 ~d2
19 <it>e2 IDI6, creating counterplay.
This is the ending that White 22 l:.b8!
250 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0

This looks rather dangerous, but 11 ttJb4

it is safe enough. 12 ttJde2
23 g3 l:xb6 12 ttJdbS?! ~d7 13 ttJa3? e6 14
24 ~xb6 a4 d6 ttJdS IS 1It'd3 1i'h4+ 16 g3 1Wb4
25 ~d3 ~g6 17 i.d2 J..xc3 18 i.xc3 ttJxc3 19
26 ~c4 <ii>hS! "'xc3 :fc8 20 "'xb4 axb4 21 ttJbl
Active counterplay secures the 1:hc2 left Black with a winning
draw. Now White has to weaken endgame in Semenov-Uogele, corr
his position in order not to let the 1989. Better is 13 a3 i.xbS 14
black king come in: axb4 i.c4 IS bxaS l:xaS 16 l:txaS
27 h3 eS! 28 fxeS ~xeS 29 J..f2 i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 1i'xaS 18 d6 l:td8
liz-Ill 19 <ii>f2 l:txd6 20 "'al after which
After 29 ... ~d6 White cannot White survived in Westerinen-
break through on the queenside. Hernandez, Alicante 1989.
His bishop will constantly have to 12 ~fS
defend the g3-pawn. 12 ... e6 is seen in Game 94.
11 lDxd5?! seems to be nothing 13 l:c1 bS
to worry about for Black, although Less exact is 13 ... l:tc8?, which
it is rather difficult for him to play was first seen in Griinfeld-
fora win. Karlsson, Randers zt 1982, when
Black had a bad position after 14
Game 92 a3! ttJxc2+ IS l:xc2 ~xc2 16
Hamarat-Ekebjerg 1i'xc2 'ii'xdS 17 ~f2 'iVc4 18 l:dl
World corr ch 1994 bS. Here 19 'ii'd2 is very good, and
Rogers has pointed out that 17 a4!
(1 e4 cS 2 lDf3 g6 3 d4 ~g7 4 ttJc3 is simple and good. Black will not
cxd4 5 ttJxd4 ttJc6 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7 get his usual counterplay, and
~e3 0-0 8 ~b3 as 9 f3 dS 10 White's two minor pieces against
~xdS ttJxd5) rook and pawn should be decisive.
13 ... l:a6?! has been played a lit-
11 exdS! tle, but without much success. The
Certainly the critical choice. idea is the piece sacrifice 14 a3
:r.d6!? IS axb4 axb4. In its first
test, Gallagher-Wolff, London
(L1oyds Bank) 1994, White was a
bit worse after 16 0-0 bxc3 17
ttJxc3 bS! 18 'ii'el :te8 19 ~c5
~xc3 20 1i'xc3 'ii'xd5 21 :tfel 'ii'd7
22 l:e5? lhe5 23 'ii'xe2 i.xc2!
Gallagher, obviously impressed
by Black's approach, decided to
test it himself against Hector in
Geneva 1995. Hector varied with
16 ~d4!?, keeping an extra pawn
after 16...bxc3 17 ttJxc3 i.h6 18
l:a 1 i.e6 19 'ii'e2 i.xd5 20 ttJxd5

l:txd5 21 ~xe7 We8 22 0-0, as
Black had no way of profiting from
the pin on the e-file.
Just to make things worse, White
successfully grabbed the piece in
Olivier-Beck, Geneva 1997, after
16 tDe4!? l:txd5 17 tDd2 .ixb2 IS
l:tbl .i.c3 IS WcI. Black tried
18 ... l:te5!? 19 tDxc3 :'xe3+ 20 tDe2
'fib6 21 tDfl ':e5 22 g4 .ie6 23
tDfg3 .ic4, but did not get suffi-
cient compensation.
Although 13 ... :a6?! has its
charming points, it seems to fail for
several reasons.
14 a3!?
Generally considered as leading
to a drawn ending, but White is
more comfortable. 14 -0-0 is con-
sidered in the next gameV
14 tDxc2+
15 l:txc2 .ixc2
16 "-xc2 b4
17 tDa4
The only sensible move, since
White tries to slow down Black's
initiative by creating threats of his
own. Furthermore, he dreams of
putting his pawn on b3 and then the
knight on c4, when everything will
be under control.
17 ..-xd5
18 tDb6 "-e6
19 'iPfl
The only move seen in practice.
Bagirov gives 19 tDxa8?! Wxe3 20
tDc7 :'cS 21 tDd5 :'xc2 22 tDxe3
':xb2 23 axb4 ':bl+ 24 tDdl a425
0-0 a3 26 liJdc3 ':xb4 27 ':dl h5
2S ':dS+ ~h7 29 ':a8 ':b3 30 l:tcS
l:[b2 31 ':a8 with a draw by repeti-
tion.
This seems correct, but maybe
Black can try for more, since White
is badly co-ordinated. For example,
20 ... .id4!? seems unpleasant for
Main Lines with 7.ic4 0-0 251
White as his king is trapped in the
middle of the board.
19 l:tabS
20 liJf4 ..-32
Compared to the 13 ...l:tcS? line,
Black's counterplay is already well
under way, as he has created targets
on the queenside.
21 axb4 axb4
22 l:tdl!?
The stem game sa~2 liJfd5 b3
23 "e2 l:tb7 24 liJb4 .a5 25 liJc6
"a2 26 l:tdl "xb2 27 'i'xb2 .ixb2
2S ':bl .if6 29 l:txb3 l:tc7 30 liJb4
e6 1/2- 1/2, Klovan-Dorfman, Yere-
van 1975.
The critical move is 22 'fib 1!?,
inviting Black to play the ending.
This is generally dangerous for
Black as long as the b-pawns are on
the board. It is easier for White's
minor pieces to attack Black's
pawn than it is for the rooks to get
active. Therefore it is Black's stra-
tegic goal to exchange the b-pawns,
which will nearly 100% guarantee
him a draw:
a) He cannot play 22 ... 'i'xb2 due
to 23 'i'xb2 .ixb2 24liJd7.
b) Black has played 22 ...'i'xbl
23 ':xb 1 a few times, but with little
success.
252 Main Lines with 7 JLc4 0-0
c) 22 ... b3!?, as seen in Lanka-
Priedniek, USSR 1980, is quite
clever. The idea is 23iUd7?! JLxb2,
which is very dangerous for White.
The game continued 23 "xa2 bxa2
24 l::ta1 JLxb2? 25 l:txa2 .i.c1 26
JLxcl l:txb6 27 ttJd5 l:tb7 28 l::te2
e6 29 ttJf6+ ~g7 30 iUg4 with
some chances to White. However,
Silman and Donaldson have proved
a draw for Black with 24 ... l::tb7 25
lha2 l::tfb8. White's b-pawn is lost
and he won't be able to develop an
initiative as in the game.
22 b3
23 "e2 :b7!
Ekebjerg's improvement on
Milenkovic-Ujhazi, Kladovo 1992,
which came to a beautiful end with
23 .. J:lfd8 24 ttJfd5 e6 25 ttJe7+
<ir>h8 26 ttJd7 :b7 27 ttJe5 :f8 28
ttJxti+! l::txti 29 l::td8+ :f8 30
l::txf8+ .i.xf8 31 .i.d4+ i.g7 32
"e5! 1-0. Black will be mated.
This game was probably the reason
why Hamarat gave 22 l:dl!? a
shot, but against one of the world's
strongest correspondence players,
you should not expect to get your
points that easily.
24 ttJc4 e6
2S i.d4
Around here it looks like White
enjoys some initiative, since he is
better centralised and Black's
queen is rather offside. However,
the b2-pawn needs constant pro-
tection, and Ekebjerg is sure that
Black is okay. This is probably
correct in a correspondence game,
but in an over-the-board game it
may not be so easy.
2S lld8
26 i.xg7 "a7+!
An important check, getting the
queen back into the game.
27 ttJe3
27 ~g3 :xd1 28 i.c3 looks at-
tractive, but 28 ...l:c 1 followed by
29 ...:xc3 leads to the same type of
position as in the game
27...:xdl 28 "xdl ~xg7 29 ttJe2
f6 30 ttJf4 "b6 31 'ii'd3 :a7 32
~e2 eS 33 ttJfdS "b7 34 ttJc3
34 ttJg4?! may look interesting,
but it leads to nowhere after the
cool 34...l:b2 35 "d2 "c8! keep-
ing the balance.
34.....c6 3S "bS "xbS 36 ttJxbS
:a1
This ending appears to be criti-
cal for Black. It seems that sooner
or later the white king will pick up
the b3-pawn. However, with active
play, Black creates potential coun-
terplay on the kingside, so White
has to be careful.
37 ttJc3 fS 38 ttJcdl 'iitf6 39 ~d2
hS 40 h3 ~e6 41 ttJll :gl 42 g4
'iitf6 43 gxfS gxfS 44 h4 1/2_ 1h.
44 .. .l:lg3 45 <ir>e2 llgl 46 ~d2 is
a repetition. Probably this line is
okay for Black, but it is not easy to
play. Over the board it is hard to
evaluate which endings are drawn
and which are not, though objec-
tively speaking, Black is fine.

Game 93
Prandstetter-Dory
Dortmund 1987
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlfJ lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3 i..g7 6 i..e3 lLlf6 7
i..e4 0-0 8 i..b3 as 9 f3 dS 10
i..xdS lLlxdS 11 exdS lLlb4 12
lLlde2 i..fS 13 ':d bS)
14 0-0
The main line. White does not
want an ending with only small
winning chances, so he enters a
fascinating labyrinth of complica-
tions.
14 ':e8
IS lLld4!
The only way since 15 ... lLlxc2
was now a threat due to the pin on
the c-file. Busquets-Donaldson,
New York 1991, saw 15 1Wd2?!
lLlxc2 16 i..f2 lLlb4 17 lLld4 lLlxd5
18 lLlxf5 lLlxc3 19 'iVxd8 lLle2+ 20
~h 1 l:tcxd8 with a slight edge for
Black.
15 i..xd4!?
Uogele's initial idea, winning
material at the risk of his own
king's safety. The alternatives are:
a) 15 ... lLlxd5?? is a blunder,
White picks up a piece with 16
Main Lines with 7 i..c4 0-0 253
lLlxf5 i..xc3 171Wxd5!
b) Silman and Donaldson sug-
gest 15 .....d7?!, but we think that
after 16 g4! i..xc2 17 lLlxc2 i..xc3
18 bxc3 lLlxa2 19 ':'al lLlxc3 20
'iVd2 White's piece is more impor-
tant than Black's pawns. He should
be able to launch an attack on the
black king.
c) More to the point is the ex-
change sacrifice 15 ...':xc3!? 16
bxc3 and now:
cl) Black got a bad position in
Oll-Kochiev, Tallinn 1987, after
16... lLlxa2 17 :al lLlxc3 (Kuprei-
chik-Malisauskas, Miedzybrodzie
1991, saw 17... 'iVxd5 18 lLlxf5
'iVxf5 19 ':'xa2 "e6 20 ':'xa5
'ifxe3+ 21 ~hl Wb6 22 ':a2 i..xc3
23 'iVe2 e6 24 ':'dl b4 25 ':a6 "c7
26 "e4 'iVc5 27 h4 with good
chances of breaking Black's for-
tress) 18 'iVd2 lLla4?! 19 lLlxb5
lLlb6 20 'iVxa5 lLlxd5 21 i..d4 and
White was almost winning. How-
ever, in his notes in Informator 011
indicates that Black could have
achieved a drawn ending with
18 ... i..xd4 19 i..xd4lLlxd5 20 ':xa5
i..xc2! 21 ':xb5 i..d3! 22 lWxd3
lLlf4 23 "e3 lWxd4 24 'iVxd4 lLle2+
25 ~ lLlxd4 which was later
proven in Donchev-Fauland, Graz
1987.
Instead of 20 ltxa5 011 men-
tioned 20 g4!? as a possible im-
provement - and rightly so. It
seems that Black is just an ex-
change down with insufficient
compensation. Black has some
chances of setting up a fortress, but
with the queens still on and pawns
on both wings, we think White is
close to winning.
An attempt to improve is
18 .....c7!?, which was tried in the
254 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0
game Ivanovic-Cebalo, Yugoslav-
ian ch 1989. Although Black man-
aged to draw after 19 d6!? exd6 20
lbxfS gxfS 21 i.h6 f4 22 i.xg7
~xg7 23 .l::tfel dS, we feel this po-
sition is dangerous for Black. His
king is weak and White should be
able to launch an attack. Black's
pawns look impressive. but since
he needs to concentrate on de-
fending his king, they may end up
as weaknesses.
c2) 16 ... lbxdS is playable and
even led to a Black victory in Gon-
zales-Pazos, Camaguey 1986. Still,
we believe that the position that
arises after 17 lbxfS gxfS 18 ~d4
lbxc3 19 ~xc3 "iib6+ 20 ~h 1
~xc3 should only hold chances for
White.
The exchange sacrifice
Is .. ..l:hc3!? is playable, but by
combining an attack on Black's
king with pressure on his queenside
pawns, we feel that White holds
realistic winning chances.
16 'WWxd4 lbxc2
17 :'xc2 i.xc2
17 ... eS? was Uogele's original
idea, but this seems to have been
more or less refuted. Perman-
Uogele, corr 1980, saw 18 'ii'xeS
.l:te8 19 'ii'f4? i.xc2 20 ~d4 gS! 21
"ii'd2 b4! 22 lbe4 i.xe4 23 fxe4
:'xe4 24 i.f6 "iib6+ 2S ~hl 'ii'e3
winning for Black. The later game
De Firmian-Forintos introduced the
far stronger idea 19 'ii'd4! :'c4
(necessary since 19 ... i.xc2 20
~h6! f6 21 d6 is a transposition to
Hector-Pirrot below) 20 'ii'd2 i.xc2
21 lbxbS with an eventual win for
White, although it is not clear if he
is much better. However, this is not
so important, since Mors-Bes, corr
1993, saw 18 dxe6!? i.xc2 19 e7!
'ii'xe7 20 lbdS 'ii'd8 21 lbf6+ rJih8
22 lbd7+ f6 23 lbxfS 'ii'xd4 24
lbxg6+ hxg6 2S i.xd4 with an
extra pawn for White, although
Black still has reasonable chances
to draw. However, we cannot un-
derstand why White did not play 21
~h6!? f6 22 i.xfS, which seems to
be winning. Maybe Black's best is
18 ... 'ii'xd4 19 i.xd4 ~xc2 20 e7
:'fe8 21 lbdS fS 22 lbf6+ ~f7 23
lbxe8 'iitxe8 24 :'e 1, although
White should still be winning.
18 i.h6 eS
19 'WWxeS f6
20 'WWd4!?
20 'ii'e6+?! has not been success-
ful so far, and seems to offer Black
the better chances in the ending
after 20 ... :'f7 21 lbe4 i.xe4 22
fxe4 'ii'd7, since both 23 :'xf6 :'e8
24 'ii'c6 'ii'xc6 2S :'xc6 :'fe7 26
:'cS :'b7 27 i.d2 a4 28 d6 :'xe4 29
:'dS :'d7, as in Smit-Ekebjerg, corr
1991, and 23 'ii'xd7 :'xd7 24 :'xf6
:'e7 25 nf4 :'f7 26 c;ilf2 :'c2+ 27
c;ile3 :'xg2, Gonzalez-Estevez, Ha-
vana 1992, leave Black with ex-
cellent winning chances. The fIrst
game ended in a draw, and Black
won the second. Not surprisingly
20 'ii'e6+?! is not often seen in

practice anymore.
20 'iVe2?! is just as toothless.
After 20 .. JH7 21 'iVxc2 b4, Black
retains the piece on c3, after which
he will start attacking White's
rather weak central pawn.
20 r:.ti!
20 ... Ite8 led to an immediate
disaster in Hector-Pirrot, Metz
1988, when after 21 d6 .i.f5 22
ttJe4! .i.xe4? 23 'iVa7! Black had
lost too much material to avoid
being mated. 22 ... .i.xe4 is of course
bad, but it is probably not possible
to defend Black's position anyhow.
21 ttJxb5 \ /
Other moves have not chal-
lenged Black's idea. Both 21 d6 b4
22 ttJe4 .i.xe4 23 fxe4 l:tc6 24 e5
fxe5 25 'iVd5 'Wb6+ 26 'ith 1 it'f7,
Kontic-Stanojoski, Kladovo 1990,
and 21 l:tf2 l:tc4 22 it'd2 .i.f5 23 g4
..ltd7 24 ttJe4 .i.xg4 25 b3 r:.b4 26
a3 .i.xf3 27 axb4 .i.xe4 28 bxa5
'iVxd5, as in Pantaleoni-laloszy-
inski, corr 1988, led to trouble for
White.
21 r:.b7
22 ltJc3!?
Two games of Hector's indicate
that Black is okay after 22 a4. First
Hector-Petursson, Belfort 1988,
Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 255
continued 22 ... 'ikb6 23 'iVxb6 nxb6
24 .i.e3 nb8 25 .i.f4 Itb6 26 l:tel
.i.f5 27 .i.c7 .l:tb7 28 d6 .i.d7 28
'iti>f2 with some pressure. Hector
was happy to repeat the line, but in
Clennont Ferrand 1989 Dorfman
improved with 25 ... l:ta8! when
Hector settled for repetition with 26
ltJc7 Ab8 27 ltJb5 .l:ta8 28 ltJc7.
Dorfman probably should have
taken the draw now, since after the
ambitious 28 ... :'a7 29 d6 .i.xa4 30
nel g5 31 .i.e3 :'b7 32 ttJd5 :'c2
33 ltJxf6+ c;tf7 34 .i.d4 :'d2 35
.i.e5 Ad2 36 Ael a4 37 .i.c3 Itxd6
38 l:txc2 lbf6 39 .i.xf6 'i!i>xf6 his
reward was an ending a pawn
down, which, however, is easily
drawn due to the active rook.
22 it'b6
23 it'xb6
23 .i.e3?! was tried in Borge-
P.H.Nielsen, Aarhus 1998, but
Black simply played 23 ......xd4 24
.i.xd4 l:txb2 25ltJe4?! lha2!
23 r:.xb6
24 r:.f2!? .i.f5?!
This leads to a difficult ending
for Black. We believe Black has a
rather safe draw with 24 ... l:txb2 25
.i.cl r:.b3! 26 axb3 :'xc3, when it is
almost impossible for White not to
end up in a drawn opposite-
coloured bishop ending, e.g. 27
.i.b2 l:tc8 28 .i.xf6 .i.xb3 29 d6
l:tc 1+ 30 l:[fl :'xfl + 31 'itxfl .i.e6
with a drawn endgame. The only
way to avoid this type of ending is
27 d6 .i.f5 28 .i.d2 :'xb3 29 g4!?
.i.e6 30 .i.xa5 nd3 31 .i.c7 ~,
but this, too, is an easy draw, since
Black is too active.
If this is correct, then Black has
no problems after 15 ... .i.xd4!?
25 .i.e3 l:[b7
26 g4 .i.d7
256 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0
27 ttJe4 ~g7
28 ~d2!
Winning an exchange and the
game, since if the bishop gets to c3,
Black will have to give up an ex-
change anyway.
28 ...:'xb2 29 ~h6+ ~xh6 30
:'xb2 ~a4 31 ttJxf6 ~gS 32 ttJe4+
~f4 33 ~f2 ~c2 34 ttJg3 ~eS 3S
:'b7 gS 36 ttJn a4 37 ttJe3 ~g6 38
:'a7 ~e8 39 :'xh7 :'b8 40 ~g3
~d4 41 ttJfS+ ~xdS 42 :'h8 :a8
43 a3 ~c6 44 :'xa8 ~xa8 4S f4
~c4 46 fxgS ~b3 47 h4 1-0
White's new queen covers the
a I-square just in time.
Game 94
Hector-Hernandez
Thessaloniki 011988
(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttJxd4 g6 S ttJc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 ttJf6 7
~c4 0-0 8 ~b3 as 9 f3 dS 10
~xdS ttJxdS 11 exdS ttJb4 12
ttJde2)
12 e6!?
A safe way of avoiding the com-
plications arising from 12 ... ~fS!?
Generally, this move leads to qui-
eter positions, since White nor-
mally returns the offered pawn, and
then tries to exploit the positional
defects of Black's position.
13 a3!?
This seems to be White's best
attempt for an advantage. Alterna-
tives are:
a) The latest ECO quotes an old
recommendation of Korchnoi's,
claiming that White is better after
13 'ii'd2 exdS 14 ~d4 .i.xd4?! IS
ttJxd4 1i'h4+ 16 Wfl ttJc6 17
ttJdbS. This is probably true, but it
is really completely irrelevant since
Rothaler-Hagberg, corr 1979, saw
the much better 14... ~f5!, refuting
White's plan since after IS :'cl
~xd4 16 ttJxd4 :'eS+ 17 ~?!
'i'b6 the game is already close to
lost for White, who resigned after
IS llhd I? ttJd3+ because 19 cxd3
'ii'xd4+ followed by ...:le3 is terri-
ble. Just as bad is 14 a3 d4! IS
0-0-0 ttJxc2! winning after both 16
"'xc2 ~fS 171i'd2 dxc3 IS ttJxc3
'ikc7, Hennings-Szilagyi, Varna
1970, when Black has an very easy
attack, and 16 ~f2 ttJal! 17 ~bl
ttJb3 IS 'ikc2 dxc3! 19 ltxdS :xdS,
as featured in Sammalvuo-Wed-
berg, Osterkan 1994, where
White's unsafe king again gave
Black a winning attack.
b) The greedy 13 dxe6?! was
tried in Borge-Oblitas, Manila 01
1992. Black had terrific compensa-
tion after 13 ... ~xe6 14 a3 ttJdS 15
~d4 ttJxc3 16 bxc3 l:eS 17 ~
"'c7 IS :bl ~xd4+ 19 cxd4 :cS
and a winning position after 20 c3
~c4 21 ttJg3 ~d5 22:el 'fIe723
'fId2 'fIxa3.
c) 13 ~c5 :leS 14 d6 is usually
given as unclear, but simply
14......g5!, hitting both cS and g2,
is very good for Black.
 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 257

d) This leaves only 13 0-0, when 16 0-0 lb6

13 ... exd5 14 ~d4 J.xd4+ 15liJxd4 This is the usual way of transfer-
'iib6 was okay for Black in Este- ring the rook, but the simple
vez-Hemandez, Holguin 1989. 16...l:te8!? seems better to us. The
Simpler for Black is 13 ...:e8!?, idea is that this rook always be-
when White has nothing better than longs on e8, but the other rook may
14 a3 transposing to 13 a3. sometimes go to c8 instead of a6.
13 liJxdS The only example seen in practice
14 liJxdS exdS is Real-Estevez, corr 1989, when
15 ~d4 ~h6!? Black was much better after 17
The positional continuation. liJg3?! :a6 18 f4 'iWh4 19 :el
15 ... ~xd4!? looks awful, since :ae6 20 :xe6 j,xe6 21 f5 j,xf5
Black risks a white knight ending 22 liJxf5 gxf5 23 ~f2 j,e3! In
up on d4, but surprisingly Black"-/general, we do not think putting the
has been doing fme in practice. The knight on g3 is a good plan. Its
game Griinfeld-Taylor, New York ideal square is c3, where it puts
1985, illustrated Black's plan rather pressure on d5. However, if White
well. After 16 "ii'xd4 :e8 17 <,j;lf2 plays 17liJc3!?, Black has 17...~f5
:a6!? 18 liJc3 :c6 19 :adl ~f5 18:f2 :c8 19 "ii'fl?! :c4! 20 :dl
20 l:td2 :'c4! 21 "xd5 "ifb6+ 22 j,xc2! winning a pawn. White's
'iii'g3 "ii'e3 23 h3, Black had a per- best might be 17 ~f2 followed by
petual with 23 .....f4+. However, liJd4 and c2-c3 etc., hoping to exert
the prophylactic 18 :ael! gives pressure on the d-pawn later.
White an edge. The idea is that Maybe Black should play 17... b6
18 ...:c6 19 c3! l:tc4 20 "ii'd2 fol- 18 liJd4 ~a6 19 :el "ii'd6, when it
lowed by liJd4, as well as 18 ...l:tae6 will not be easy for White to make
19 liJc3!, seems good for White. progress.
Although 15 ... j,xd4!? has been 17 <,j;lhl?!
scoring well for Black, we find it Much better is 17 liJc3!, imme-
difficult to believe that his tempo- diately putting some pressure on
rary initiative counterbalances d5, since 18 j,c5 would already be
White's positional pluses. a threat. 17.. J:le8 seems necessary,
but then 18 "ii'd3, intending
18 ... j,f5 19 "ifb5!, gives White
some advantage. Since it seems that
17 liJc3! gives White a pleasant
position, we recommend 16...:e8!?
as the right move order.
17 :e8
18 ~fl a4
19:e1 lbe6
20 ~c3 :xel+
21 ~xe1 d4
22 ~xa4 ~e3
23 ~cs j,fS
Black has fine compensation,
258 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0
since the c2-pawn is easy to attack.
24 .i.g3 "'b6 25 b4 "'c6 26 a4 l:c8
27 as 'iVb5 28 l:bl "'c4 29 l:b2
"'c3 30 'iVbl l:e8 31 tLle4!
Avoiding 31 tLld3? .i.xd3 32
cxd3.i.cl!
31....i.xe4 32 fxe4 :'xe4 33 l:b3
'iVc434 b5 .i.f4 35 a6 bxa6 36 b6
'iVe6 37 b7 .i.b8 38 'iVai l:e2 39
'iVd4 "'c6 40 "'d8+ <3;g7 41 "'d4+
~g8 42 .i.f2 'iVc7 43 g3 l:tc2 44
'iVf6 l:td2 45 "'13 "'c2 46 .i.gl l:tdl
47 h4 "'c1 48 'iVe3 "'c6 49 ~h2
'iVc2+ 50 <3;hl "'c6, Ill_Ill
So far, 12 ... e6!? have been doing
very well in practice, and White
has no easy way of achieving an
edge. He may get a slight positional
plus, but Black, armed with the
bishop pair, always has some
counter-chances.
Game 95
Lanka-P.H.Nielsen
Moscow 01 1994
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tLlxd4 g6 5 liJc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7
.i.c4 0-0 8 .i.b3)
8 d6!?
This move is generally used to
transpose to the main line Dragon,
which is outside the scope of this
book. However, the Danish corre-
spondence player Ove Ekebjerg has
popularised an idea which takes
advantage of the fact that White,
compared to the main line Dragon,
has already put his bishop on b3.
9 13 .i.d7
10 h4!?
Although we consider this to be
more accurate than the common 10
'iVd2 (see the next game), for some
reason, 10 h4!? is played only
rarely. To us it seems a good idea
to start the attack immediately.
10 liJxd4
This may be too dangerous, but
at the time I had not realised just
how strong White's attack is. Un-
fortunately, no-one has tried 10
h4!? against Ekebjerg, but he
claims that 1O...h5!? is fine for
Black. This need practical testing,
and is critical for the entire varia-
tion.
11 .i.xd4 b5!?
This is Black's idea in this line .
Since White's bishop is already on
b3, it is easier for Black to become
active on the queenside.
12 h5! e6
Limiting the activity of the
bishop on b3, as well as preventing
a white liJd5, exchanging Black's
important defender on f6. Over the
board I considered the more direct
12 ... a5!? too. In Vescovi-Afek,
Groningen 1994, White did not
fmd a way through Black's de-
fences. The game continued 13
hxg6 hxg6 14 tLld5liJxd5 15 .i.xdS
l:lc8 16 .i.xg7 ri;xg7 17 'iVd4+ f6
18 c3 "'c7 19 .i.b3 'iVc5 with
equality. 16 'iVd2!? looks danger-
ous, but after 1~."e~!, 17 .i.xg7
I, .'
.' { ; 'j
.
~
:; /1;
•• ,
 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 259

~xg7 18 'ii'h6+ ~f6, we can only chances.

see a perpetual for White. Perhaps 19 eS
the modest 14 a3!?, as in Dam- 19 'ii'h2 dxe4! 20 .i.h6 .:txb3! 21
janovic-Begovac, Sombor 1974, is cxb3 exf3 22 .i.xg7 f2+! arrives
White's best, when he was clearly just in time.
better after 14 ... eS?! 15 .i.e3 b4 16 19 lDd7
lDd5 lDxd5 17 .i.xdS bxa3 IS 20 f6!
':xa3, although by analogy to our Absolutely the only move, since
main game 14 ... e6!? suggests itself. 20 ... .:eS? loses to 21 'ii'h7+ ~f8 22
13 bxg6 bxg6 .i.h6.
14
15
"«12
a4!?
as 21 lDcS ~t7!!

White delays his attack for a

short while, and makes a positional \
move instead. The direct 15 .i.e3?! \ ____
would backfire after IS ...a4 16
~h6 .i.hS!
15 bxa4!
This weakens the queenside, but
lS ... b4? 16 lDe2 would allow the
white king to live a safe life on the
queenside, and give his subordi-
nates plenty of time to organise a
mating attack on the other flank.
Now, at least, Black has some tar-
gets on the queenside. Actually I am quite proud of this
16 lDxa4 .i.c6 move. It is not often that Black
17 g4!? defends like this in the Dragon.
Motwani-Larsen, London 1989, Now the e-pawn is defended and
saw 17 0-0-0 instead. Black won ...:b8 is a threat.
after 17... ':bS 18 .i.c3 dS 19 eS 22 lDxd7 .i.xd7
lDd7 20 g4? "c7 21 .i.xaS? "a7, 23 "d2!
as his attack strikes first. Instead of Quite a strong move. It is not
20 g4? Larsen gives 20 :b3! with a easy to admit one's attack is a fail-
promising attack for White. ure. On d2 the queen maintains
17 ':b8 some threats.
18 .i.e3? 23 fxeS?!
This gives Black the opportunity Greedy. Better was 23 ...:b8!,
he was hoping for. Instead IS keeping the initiative.
'ii'h2!, threatening .i.xf6, forces 24 l:txaS ':h8
18 ... l:eS, when 19 .i.e3! followed 25 ':xb8 "xh8
by .i.h6 probably gives White a 26 ':a7
winning attack. 26 ':xd5 exd5 27 'i'xd5+ Cite8
18 dS! does not promise White more than
This classical counterstroke in a perpetual.
the centre secures Black excellent 26 ~e8
260 Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0
It may seem like Black has lost
his co-ordination, but everything is
okay; the activity of the black
queen secures plenty of counter-
play.
1.7 1M3 Whl + 1.8 <t>e1. e4 1.9 fxe4
.i.b5 30 .i.a4 Wg2+ 31 ~e1 Whl+
31. <t>d1. Wg1.+ 33 ~e1 .i.c3+!
A nice trick, opening up the b-
file, and ensuring that Black gets to
the white king first.
34 bxc3 .i.xa4 35 Wdl??
After 35 We2 'ii'h 1+ White has
serious problems, but now he loses
on the spot.
3S....i.xc2 0-1
12 ... e6 has an unbeaten record,
but it seems to us that it is just a
matter of time before White stops
misplaying his rather dangerous
attack. However, 10... h5 and
12 ...a5 seem interesting and de-
serve testing.
Game 96
Topalov-Tiviakov
Wijk aan Zee 1996
(1 e4 cS 1. lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7
.i.c4 0-0 8 .i.b3 d6 9 f3 .i.d7)
10 Wd2
White's traditional continuation.
He prepares 11 0-0-0 followed by
12 h4, with the standard attack. 10
We2!? is also possible, preventing
Black's immediate ...b7-b5. How-
ever, the queen is not very well
placed on e2, and Black should
play 10... lLla5 when he has good
chances.
10 lLlxd4!?
lO.,J%c8 is a normal Dragon and
is outside the scope of this book.
The text move exploits the fact that
White already has played the move
.i.b3.
11 .i.xd4 b5!
Speeding up Black's counterplay
on the queenside.
12 h4!?
This seems to be White's best.
12 a4?! is played just as often, but
it tends to steer the game towards a
draw after 12 ..,b4 13 lLldS lLlxdS
14 exd5 .i.xd4 15 1i'xd4 as, as
proven by Ekebjerg in a number of
correspondence games. White has
absolutely nothing, e.g. 16 h4 e5 17
dxe6 .i.xe6 18 .i.xe6 fxe6 19 0-0-0
dS 20 :del lIa6 21 lIe5 lIc6 22
~bl 1i'b6 Mallae-Ekebjerg, corr
1977. Even less problematic is 16
0-0 1i'c7! 17 lIfel lIfe8 18 ~hl
(18 :e2 1i'a7 is drawn as well)
18.,.e5! 19 dxe6 J.xe6 20 J.xe6
lIxe6 21 lIxe6 fxe6 with a drawn
ending.
14 .i.xdS?! is even worse, and
led to an advantage for Black in the
game Smith-Ekebjerg, corr 1972:
14.,.J.xd4 15 1i'xd4 Ilc8 15 .ib3
Wa5 16 lIdl .i.e6! 17 lin .i.xb3 18
cxb3 Ilc2 and Black went on to
win. 12 a4?! is certainly nothing
for Black to worry about, unless he
has to win at all costs.

12 as
12 ... e6 in the style of the previ-
ous game may be possible, and
seems to be a viable way of getting
off the beaten track.
13 a4!
The sharper 13 hS?! backfires,
e.g. 13 ... eS! 14 ~e3 a4 IS ~dS b4
16 4Je2 4JxdS 17 'W'xdS ~e6 18
'W'd2 dS!, Tolnai-Leko, Hungary
1992, where Black was much better
after 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 .Jlcs l:I.t7 21
.i.xb4 l:td7 22 exdS l:txdS 23 'iVe3
.i.fS. Leko gives 19 .Jlcs dxe4! 20
.i.xfB 'W'xfB 21 fxe4 1i'cs as ~ritical,
but it looks as if White is itLgreat
difficulties.
14 hxg6!? is given as unclear
after 14... exd4 IS ~xt7+ <it>h8 16
1i'xd4 h6 17 1i'd2 4Jg8 18 1i'xd6
.Jle8 19 'W'xd8 l:txd8 20 ~xe8 b4!
by Stoica and Nisipeanu, but only
Black can win this position. There-
fore 13 hS?! must be considered
harmless.
13 bxa4
A positional concession, but a
necessary one, since 13 ... b4? 14
4JdS 4JxdS IS ~xdS ~xd4 16
1i'xd4l:tc8 17 hS! is just bad. Black
hopes that the weakened squares on
the queenside are not too impor-
tant, since White's h2-h4 indicates
that he will castle queenside. How-
ever, White, in turn, can try to ex-
ploit these concessions in a posi-
tional manner, hoping that h2-h4
will not prove to be a serious
weakness later.
14 4Jxa4 e5
This is necessary, as 14... .Jle6 IS
tLlb6 l:tb8 16 tLldS ~xdS 17 exdS
AbS 18 ':a4 'W'c7 19 hS ':a8 20
hxg6 hxg6 21 g4 was good for
White in Hort-Forintos, Athens
1969.
Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 261
15 .i.b6!
This strong new move seems to
pose Black big problems. The older
moves are:
a) IS ~c3, putting pressure on
the as-pawn, has proven ineffective
after the reply IS ... .i.e6. Both 16
0-0-0 ~xb3 17 cxb3 'ii'b8 18 'W'c2
dS 19 exdS ':d8 20 d6 ':xd6 21
':xd6 'W'xd6 22 ':dl 'W'e6, when
Black was better in Lepsenyi-
Ekebjerg, corr 1980, and 16 ~xe6
fxe6 17 0-0-0 dS 18 ~xe4 tLlxe4,
again with a good position for
Black, Omelschenko-Ekebjerg,
corr 1977, are fine for Black.
b) Not a whole lot better is IS
~e3, when Black is doing fme
again: IS ....Jle6 16 4Jb6?! (16
0-0-0 ~xb3 17 cxb3 ':b8 is okay
for Black, but probably White's
best) 16...':b8 17 4JdS .JlxdS 18
exdS e4 19 ~d4 :e8 20 ~dl :b4
21 ~a4 exf3 22 ~xe8 tLle4 and
White was blown off the board in
Stern-Ekebjerg, corr 1972. Unfor-
tunately these old lines seem aca-
demic in the light of IS .Jlb6!
15 1Wb8
16 ~e3! .Jle6
17 :aJ!
These three strong positional
262 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0
moves give White much the better
chances. White simply ignores the
fact that he has played h2-h4 and
plays along Classical Sicilian lines,
trying to exploit the hole on dS.
17 "b4?!
This makes things even worse.
The critical test is 17.....c7!? ac-
cording to Topalov, when 18 ~xe6
fxe6 19 ~b6 "c6 20 ~xaS ~h6!
seems fine for Black. However,
White should forget about winning
material and simply play for a bet-
ter structure with 180-0 or 18 tiJc3,
which should leave him better.
18 tiJb6 J:ab8
19 'iVxb4 axb4
20 l:aS!
Again White is not tempted to
win a pawn with a move such as 21
':a4, instead he keeps his positional
bind by constantly controlling dS.
20.....txb3 21 cxb3 ':fd8 22 <;Pe2
tiJhS?!
It would have been more practi-
cal to play 22 ...dS!? with drawing
chances in the ending resulting
from 23 tiJxdS tiJxdS 24 ':xdS
':xdS 25 exdS l:d8 26 ':dl ..tfS.
23 ':c1 fS 24 ':c7 fxe4 2S fxe4
tiJf4+ 26 ~d2 tiJe6 27 ':e7 :e8 28
tiJdS :xe7 29 tiJxe7+ ~ 30 tiJdS
':b7
White has a won position, and
now simply with 31 :a4, winning a
pawn as well as creating two dan-
gerous b-pawns, would have been
best. Topalov's 31 :a6 was not bad
either, but he kept missing wins,
and in the end Tiviakov held the
draw after 71 moves.
At the moment the Ekebjerg
system is in theoretical crisis. Both
10 h4!? and Topalov's 16 ~e3!
seem very promising, so unless
some serious repair work is done,
this line will probably not be seen
much in the future.
 12 Lines in which White
Captures with ltJxc6

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 tL\f3 tL\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tL\xd4 g6

5 tL\xc6?! - Game 97
S tL\c3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tL\f6 7 tL\xc6 bxc6 S eS
S•••tL\gS
9f4
9 ... f6 - Game 98
9 ... tL\h6 - Game 99
9 i.d4 - Game 100
8...tL\dS 9 tL\xdS cxdS 10 "xdS :b8
11 i.c4 - Game 101
11 i.xa7 - Game 102

An early tL\xc6 from White is usu- S tL\xc6?!

ally an attempt to punish an inaccu-
racy on Black's part. However, in
the lines given in this chapter,
White decides to take on c6 with-
out provocation, attempting to take
advantage of Black's modest de-
velopment. However, this is not
particularly easy to do, as Black's
position is solid and White is not
really very far ahead in develop-
ment.
Game 97
Vestol-Botvinnik
Moscow 0/1956
(1 e4 cS 2 tL\f3 tL\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tL\xd4 g6)
This early assault should never
really succeed. Looking at the po-
sition objectively, White is just as
undeveloped as his opponent. But
even such strong players as grand-
master Alexander Beliavsky have
occasionally experimented with
this line.
S bxc6
5... dxc6?! was once played by
the great Emanuel Lasker, but that
was more than a century ago, and
since it only equalises we cannot
recommend it: 6 "f3?! (6 'ii'xdS+
c,t>xdS is equal; 6 i.d3!?) 6...tL\f6 7
h3 i.e6 S tL\c3 i.g7 9 i.d3 tL\d7 10
'ii'g3 'ii'b6 11 i.e2 h5 when Black
was better in the game Albin-
264 Lines in which White Captures with lOxc6
Em. Lasker, Hastings 1895.
6 -.d4
The logical follow-up to White's
previous move, but White has also
tried a number of other moves:
a) 6 J.e2 J.g7 7 0-0 ~6 8 ~a3
~f6 with a slight plus for Black,
Denker-Stoltz, Groningen 1946.
b) 6 J.d3 J.g7 7 ()",O ~f6 8 c4
0-0 9 ~c3 d5 10 h3 ltb8 with equal
chances, H.Steiner-Stoltz, Gronin-
gen 1946.
c) 6 J.c4 J.g7 7 0-0 e6!? (Black
is playing for ...d7-d5 in one go,
but 7 ...d6 8 ~c3 ~f6 is also fine) 8
~c3 ~e7 9 ltel 'ilc7 10 J.g5 d6
11 'ii'f3 0-0 is equal, Outerelo-
Frois, Cordoba 1991.
d) 6 J.e3 J.g7 (6 ... ~f6!) 7 J.d4
~f6 8 e5 ~d5 9 c4 ~f4 followed
by ...~e6 with a good game for
Black.
6 lLlf6
Also quite common is 6.. .f6,
which White has met with follow-
ing moves:
a) 7 h4 ~h6 8 h5 J.a6 9 J.xa6
'ii'a5+ 10 ~c3 'ii'xa6 with a slight
plus for Black.
b) 7 J.c4 is the most common
choice, when Black has several
good answers:
bl) 7 ... e5? (with the white
bishop on c4, this is way too weak-
ening) 8 1Iid3 ~e7 9 ~c3 J.b7 10
f4! d5 (or 10...exf4 11 J.xf4 d5 12
exdS cxd5 13 J.b3 'liaS 14 0-0
0-0-0 15 lLle4! lLlfS 16 lLlxf6 and
wins, Dolginin-Antoshin, USSR
1970) II exd5 cxdS 12 J.b5+ rJ';i7
13 fxeS fxeS 140-0+ <jJg7 15 J.g5
'ii'b6+ 16 <jJhl e4 17 'ilg3 'ile6 18
:f6 and it was soon all over, Bue-
nos-Perez, Cienfuegos 1980.
b2) 7...~6 8 'ii'd3 lLlh6 9 0-0
J.g7 10 ~c3 ~g4 with equality,
Bandal-Schulman, Lugano 011968.
b3) 7... i.g7 8 0-0 (or 8 lLlc3
lLlh6 9 0-0 transposing) 8... lLlh6 9
~c3 'ii'b6 (or 9 ... ~f7 10 J.e3 0-0
11 'ild2 e6 12 ltfdl 'ii'aS 13 ltabl
:c8 14 b4 'ii'c7 IS J.f4 ~eS 16
J.b3 J.f8 17 bS ltb8 18 a4 J.e7 19
J.g3 ~g7 20 f4 and White was
having a ball in Lasker-Bird, New-
castle 1892) 10 'ilxb6 (10 'ii'd3? is
met by 1O...~g4! and 10 'lid 1? by
1O ... J.a6) 10 ... axb6 11 J.e3 J.a6
12 J.e2 fS 13 ltfel J.xe2 slightly
favours Black, Pilnik-Barcza,
Stockholm izt 1952.
b4) 7... ~6 8 0-0 ~f7 9 J.xf7+
~xf7 10 e5 ~6 11 'ilc4+ dS 12
exd6 J.e6 13 'ii'c3 exd6 with a
slight plus for Black, Kapu-Barcza,
Hungarian ch 1951.
bS) 7 ...e6 8 0-0 ~h6 9 lLlc3 ~f7
10 J.e3 J.g7 11 :adl 0-0 12 'ii'd2
f5 13 exfS gxfS also slightly fa-
vours Black, Schlechter-Lasker,
Hastings 1895.
b6) 7 ... J.a6!? (untried, but de-
serving a test) 8 ~c3 (8 J.b3 does
not make any sense as White can
no longer castle kingside; nor does
8 ..i.xa6 'ii'a5+ 9 ~c3 'ii'xa6 make a
good impression) 8...J.xc4 9 'ii'xc4
e6 and Black follows up with
 Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6 265
...liJe7, ... i.g7, ... 0-0 and ... d7-dS.
c) 7 c4! (best; it is advisable to
restrict Black's options in the cen-
tre) 7...eS!? (instead Poljak-
Simagin, USSR 19S0, saw 7 ...lLlh6
8 i.e2 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 cS fS 11
eS [Korchnoi suggests 11 "a4]
11...lLlti 12 i.c4 'fIc7 13 i.xti+
l:lxti 14 l:lel i.a6 IS lLlc3 l:lb8 16
J:bl d6!? 17 cxd6 exd6 18 exd6
"a5 19 1i'h4 i.xc3 20 bxc3 ':'xbl
21 J:e8+ with a perpetual) 8 'fId3
i.e6 9 lLlc3 lLlh6 10 i.e2 lLlti 11
i.e3 WaS 12 0-0 i.b4 (12 ... i.e7 is
also interesting, although after 13
f4 exf4 14 i.xf4 d6 Black will have
to face h2-h4-hS) 13 :fcl d6,
Naselli-Pelikan, played at Buenos
Aires 19S8, and now instead of the
passive 14 i.f3?!, White should
have opted for the more aggressive
14 a3, e.g. 14... i.xc3 IS b4 Wd8
16 'fIxc3 dS 17 i.cs with an un-
clear posItIon or 14 lLldl
(threatening a2-a3 followed by b2-
b4) 14...dS IS a3 i.e7 16 exdS
cxd5 17 b4 'ili'd8 18 b5, when
White holds the better chances.
7 e5
7 lLld5
This seems best, but Black does
not have any problems after:
a) 7... lLlg8 (the fact that Black is
still okay after this move shows
that White's entire opening idea is
a waste of time) 8 i.c4 (or 8 e6
lLlf6 9 exti+ ~xf'7 10 lLlc3, F1uder-
Gawlikowski, Poland 19S3, and
now 1O... dS! with a good game for
Black) 8... i.g7 9 0-0 f6 10 exf6 (10
i.xg8 llxg8 11 11h4 fxe5 12 1Ixh7
ri;;f'7 13 i.h6 e6 14 i.xg7 l:lxg7 15
1i'h6 1If6 16 "e3 "f4 with a slight
advantage for Black, Akopian-Fai-
bisovich, Kharkov 1971) 1O... lLlxf6
11 i.b3 dS 12 i.f4 (Korchnoi's
recommendation 12 c4 is best met
by 12...0-0 13 cxdS exdS 14 lLlc3
i.e6 with excellent play for Black)
12 ...0-0 13 i.eS e6 14 lLlc3 cS IS
1IxcSlLld7 16 1Ic6 i.xeS 1711xa8
i.xc3 18 bxc3 1Ic7 19 i.xdS exdS
20 "xdS+ with equal chances.
b) 7 ...lLlhS and now a further
branch:
bl) 8 lLlc3 (untried are 8 i.c4
lLlg7 9 0-0 and 8 g4 lLlg7 9 i.c4 a5
and 8 e6 i.g7 9 exf'7+ ~xf'7, but in
8...'iib6 9 "e4
all cases Black is doing fine)
fS 10 "c4 i.g7 11
f4 dS 12 'iib3 llb8 13 i.e2 0-0 14
1Ixb6 axb6 IS g3 J:.d8 16 i.f3 i.f8
17 b4 e6 18 a3 i.a6 19 i.d2 lLlg7
20 qm lLle8 21 l:lhb 1 lLlc7 with
equal chances, Beliavsky-Karlsson,
Lucerne 01 1982.
b2) 8 i.e2 lLlg7 9 lLlc3
(Leonhardt-Reti, Berlin 1920, saw
9 0-0 tLle6 10 'iih4 i.g7 11 f4
1i'b6+ 12 <;Ph 1 tLld4 13 i.d3 i.a6
with an edge for Black, but
Korchnoi mentions 9 tLld2!? tLle6
10 1i'h4! as unclear) 9 ...tLle6 10
'fIe3 i.g7 11 f4 0-0 followed by
...d7-d6 was better for Black in
Adams-Bisguier, USA ch 19S4.
8 e6
White attempts to disrupt his op-
266 Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6
ponent's structure, but only helps
Black to gain a significant lead in
development. Other moves are little
better:
a) 8 c4 and now Black can try:
al) 8... lDc7 9 e6 f6 10 exd7+
'ii'xd7 11 i.e3 'ji'xd4 12 i.xd4 eS
13 i.c3 with equality, Bendiktsson-
Petursson, Iceland 1980.
a2) 8...lDb4 9 'ii'c3 cS 10 i.e2
(Donaldson gives 10 i.e3 i.g7 11
i.xcSlDc6 12 f4 d6, which is good
for Black, while 10 e6 is also
hannless after 10... f6 11 a3 lDc6 12
exd7+ 'ji'xd7 13 i.e3lDd4 14lDd2
i.b7 IS lDb3 as Black is clearly
better, as in Vartapetyan-Ovseje-
vich, Nikolaev 1995) 10... .tb7 11
0-0 .tg7 12 i..f4 lDc6 13 lDd2 d6
14 .tf3 0-0 with approximate
equality, Suchorokov-Isupov, Orel
1992.
a3) 8 ... 'ii'b6 9 'ii'e4 lDc7 10 lDc3
.tg7 11 f4 0-0 12 .td2 dS 13 'ii'f3
.tfS with better chances for Black,
Chistiakov-Veresov, USSR 19S3.
b) 8 i.c4 'ii'b6 9 c3 .tg7 10
.txdS cxdS 11 'ji'xb6 axb6 12 f4 gS
13 fxgS i..xeS and with a pawn
majority in the centre and the pair
of bishops, Black clearly holds the
better prospects, Yanofsky-Stoltz,
Groningen 1946.
8 f6
The alternative 8... lDf6 also of-
fers Black quite good chances:
a) 9 exf7+ <3ixf7 10 .te2 .tg7 11
h4 'ii'b6 12 'ii'a4 and now 12 ... eS
gives Black a good game.
b) 9 exd7+ i.xd7 10 .te2 .tg7
11 0-0 0-0 12 lDa3 .tfS! 13 'ji'a4
'ji'c7, Wolff-Serper, Baguio City
1987, and here 14 lDc4! would
have kept the chances level, but
instead White continued 14 .tf3?
and after 14...lDd5 IS :leI :ab8 16
c3 l:[fd8 17 lDc4 lDb6! 18 lDxb6
l:xb6 Black was on top.
9 exd7+
9 c4 may transpose into the 8 c4
line above if Black continues
9 ... tt:lb4 10 'ii'c3 cS, but in Hart-
Silman, USA 1991, Black played
1O... aS and won at great speed: 11
exd7+ .txd7 12 .te3? (best was 12
i.e2 to get the white king away
from the same diagonal as the
queen) 12 ....tfS 13 lDa3 eS 14
Adl? 'ii'b8 IS :d2? tt:lxa2 0-1.
9 .txd7
10 .te2
Probably not the best, so White
should consider trying something
different:
a) Motamedi-Donaldson, Port-
land 1985, saw 10 .tc4 eS 11
'ii'dl?! (Korchnoi suggests the in-
teresting 11 'ii'e4!? intending lDc3)
1l...i..e6 12 "e2 (12 h4 can be met
with 12 .....aS+ 13 .td2 'ii'b6 14
.tb3 as IS c4 lDb4!? 16 .txb4
i.xb4 17 tt:lc3 :d8 with a clear
edge for Black) 12 ... .tcS 13 0-0
0-0 14 lDc3 "e7 (14 ...:f7 IS lDe4
i.e7 16 i.b3 fS 17 tt:lc3 i.f6
slightly favours Black, Abmvanel-
Haik, Royan 1987) IS .th6 l:fd8
16 lDe4 .tb6 and Black was better.
 Lines in which White Captures with lbxc6 267
b) 10 .i.d3 can also be played,
although after 1O ...e5 11 'ii'h4 ~g7
12 0-0 0-0 13 :dl 'fIc7 14 ~c4
~e6 15 tl)c3 :ad8 Black was al-
ready better in Balinas-Donaldson,
Reno 1994. At this point White
blundered with 16 ~h6??, which
Black met with 16 ... g5! 17 'ii'h5
~f7 18 ~xd5 cxd5 19 'fIb3 .ltxh6
20 'fIxh6 d4 21 tl)b5 'fIb6 22 a4
~g6 and while White avoided los-
ing a piece, he could not save his
queenside.
10 e5
11 'fIdl
In J.Cruz Lima-Garcia Martinez,
Cuba 1979, White tried 11 'fIa4
without much success: 11.. ..:b8 12
c3 ~g7 13 0-0 0-0 14 ':dl 'fIc7 15
tlla3 f5 16 tllc4 ~h8 17 1i'c2 ~e6
18 ~hl e4 19 ~d2 ':fe8 20 f3
~g8 21 'fIcl e3 22 ~el g5 23 g3
f4 and White was about to be
crushed.
11 ~g7
12 c3 0-0
13 tlla3 f5!
14 ~c4 ~e6
15 'fIa4 'fIc7
16 ~e3?! ~h8
17 ~c5 ':tb8
The game concluded:
18 'fIc2 'fIaS 19 ~d6 ':d8 20 ~e7
':e8 21 ~h4 f4
In his last six moves White has
moved his bishop five times, fi-
nally putting it on h4 where it does
nothing; of course, Black is already
much better.
22 0-0 ~f5 23 'fIe2 h6 24 t3 e4 25
~xd5 'fIxd5 26 fxe4 ':xe4 27 'fIdl
':b8 28 "cl':e2 29 ~f2 "e4?!
Botvinnik now starts making
things more complicated than they
ought to be. Simple and good was
29 .. J::tbxb2.
30 b3 t3 31 gxt3 "d3?!
Here 31..."xf3 was best.
32 "f4 ':be8 33 ~d4?
This just loses. Better was 33
:adl when although Black is still
better, White is still on the board.
33...~xd4+ 34 "xd4 "xd4+ 35
cxd4 ~h3 36 ':fd ':g2+ 37 ~hl
':ee20-1
Gameg8
Ulibin-Serper
Tbilisi 1989
(1 e4 c5 2 tllt3 tllc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tllxd4 g6)
5 tllc3 ~g7
6 ~e3 tllf6
7 tllxc6
With the black knight on f6, the
exchange on c6 makes more sense.
Black has to play accurately to
avoid falling too far behind in de-
velopment.
7 bxc6
The other possibility is the un-
ambitious 7 ... dxc6. Play usually
continues with 8 "xd8+ ~xd8 and
now:
a) 9 ':dl+ ~e8 10 f4 ~e6 11
~e2 h5 120-0 (better is 12 h3, not
268 Lines in which White Captures with lLlxc6
allowing Black's knight into g4)
12 ... ttJg4 13 i..xg4 hxg4 14 i..d4
i..xd4+ IS .l:Ixd4 fS 16 .l:Iel Wf7 17
exfS gxfS with equality, Lukic-Puc,
Yugoslavian ch 19S8.
b) 9 i..c4 We8 10 f3 (better is 10
h3 to take control over eS with f2-
f4, but Black can try 10... ttJd7 11
i..b3 i..xc3+ when White may find
it difficult to make use of his two
bishops) 1O ... ttJd7 11 a4 ttJeS 12
i..b3 i..e6!? 13 i..xe6 fxe6 140-0-0
ttJc4 IS i..d4 eS 16 i..f2 i..h6+ 17
rJ;bl when Black's doubled e-pawn
gives White an insignificant edge,
Khasin-Shatskes, Moscow 1961.
c) 9 0-0-0+ and:
cl) 9 ... i..d7? 10 i..e2 eS 11 i..gS
iLc7 12 f4! iLe6 13 fS! gxfS 14
exfS iLd7 IS g4 is very unpleasant
for Black.
c2) 9 ... ttJd7!? was tried out in
Granda Zuniga-Pinal, Havana
1985: 10 i..c4 f6 11 f4 i.c7 12 .l:Id2
eS 13 g3 ttJb6 14 i..b3 i..h3 IS
ttJdl :ad8 16 ttJf2 .l:Ixd2 17 iLxd2
i..c8 18 .l:Ifl ttJd7 19 ttJd3 exf4 20
i..xf4+ Wb6 21 i..e3+ Wc7 22 ttJf4
ttJeS 23 i..e6 lte8 112-112. However,
White can improve with 11 i..e6
~c7 12 i..f4+ ttJeS 13 i..b3, in-
tending 14 i..g3 and f2-f4, or
11...~e8 12 f4 b6 13 a4 in both
cases with an edge for White.
c3) 9.. .'~e8 when White should
keep the black knight away from
g4:
c31) 10 eS? ttJg4 11 ttJbS i..xe5
12 i.d4 cxbS 13 iLxbS+ Wf8 14
i.xeS ttJxeS and White is already
lost, Olifer-Bannik, Ukrainian ch
1960.
c32) 10 i..d4 i..g4?! (10 ... i..e6!)
11 f3 i..e6 12 g4 l:I.g8 13 i..e2
i.h6+ 14 Wbl i.f4 15 a4 ttJd7 16
ttJa2?! f6 17 ttJc1 ttJeS 18 ttJd3
ttJxd3 19 iLxd3 ~f7 is equal, Ha-
mann-Rendboe, Lyngby 1989.
c33) 10 f3 when Black usually
answers 10...i.e6 after which
White has tried the following op-
tions:
c331) 11 ~bl ttJd7 12 ttJa4 iLeS
13 ttJcS ttJxcS 14 i..xcS hS IS i..e2
f6 16 h4 <i;f7 17 g4 iLf4 is equal,
Mardle-Fazekas, British ch 19S9.
c332) 11 a3 ttJd7 12 ttJdS l:I.c8
13 ttJf4 i..h6 14 i.d2 ttJf8 15 ttJxe6
i.xd2+ 16 ltxd2 ttJxe6 17 i..c4
ltd8 18 i.xe6 fxe6 with equality,
Shianovsky-Gufeld, Ukrainian ch
1960.
c333) 11 ttJe2!? i.c4?! (this
gives a passive position; better is
11...hS answering 12 ttJd4 with
12 ... i..d7, intending ... i..h6, ... 0-0-0
or ... e7-e5) 12 b3 i.a6 13 c3 b6 14
g3 ttJd7 IS i..h3 e6 16 .l:Id2 We7 17
.l:Ihdl l:thd8 18 i..gS+ f6 19 ttJd4!
ttJeS 20 iLf4 iLb7 21 Wc2 with a
clear edge for White, Varavin-
Arzhenkov, Kstovo 1994.
c34) 10 h3! i..e6 11 f4 hS 12 g3
with a slight plus for White, Rakic-
Nedeljkovic, Belgrade 19S9.
The recapture on c6 with the d-
pawn is a very passive option after
which all Black can hope for is a
draw. If Black is uncomfortable
with the complications that arise
 Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6 269
after the pawn sacrifice 7 ... bxc6 8
eS tDdS (Games 101-102), he
should opt for 8 ... tDg8, which will
be examined in this and the next
two games.
8 eS lLlg8
Black retreats his knight and ac-
cepts the loss of time. Although
Black looks terribly undeveloped,
he is not in bad shape, as first
White has to protect his forward e-
pawn, which will allow Black to set
up his counterplay.
9 f4
9 ~d4 is seen in Game 100.
9 f6
For the more solid alternative
9 ...tDh6, see the next game.
Three other possibilities deserve
attention:
a) 9 ...dS 10 exd6 (on 101M2
Strauss gives 1O...hS!? 11 0-0-0
tDh6, intending ...tDfS and ... 0-0,
which should be alright for Black)
1O... exd6 11 ~c4 (11 .ltd4 lLlf6 12
1M2 0-0 13 0-0-0 ~e6 14 h3 'ii'aS
IS a3 l:ab8 16 lLJe4 'ii'xd2 17
lLlxd2 is equal, Delanoy-Hayoun,
Torey 1991) 11...tDf6 12 0-0 0-0
13 'iWd2 dS 14 :tadl "fIc7 with
equality, Kupka-Stefanov, Lenin-
grad 1960.
b) 9... fS (this move leads to a
very rigid structure where White
should be somewhat better) 10 ~c4
e6 11 "fIe2 tDh6?! (the knight looks
silly out here; 12 ... tDe7 was to be
preferred) 12 0-0-0 'iWc7 1/2- 1/2
Kr.Georgiev-Ninov, Bulgaria 1988,
but White is clearly better in the
final position.
c) 9 ... hS!?, intending ...tDh6-fS,
is untried, but definitely worth a
shot.
10 ~d4
In this position White has tried
numerous other moves as well:
a) 10 .ltd3? (a sharp but unsound
gambit) 10... fxeS 11 fS dS! 12 fxg6
tDf6 13 gxh7 e4 and Black is much
better, Sapunov-Milev, Bulgaria
19S9.
b) 10 fS?! 'ii'aS! (also good for
Black is 1O .. .fxeS 11 fxg6 dS 12
gxh7 tDf6) 11 exf6 tDxf6 12 fxg6
'iWeS (in Vileseco-O. Martinez,
Colon 1993, everything was a mess
after 12 ... tDdS 13 ~d4 eS 14 'iWe2
lPd8 IS ~e3 l:b8 16 ~d2 tDf6) 13
'iWd4 tDg4 14 'iWxeS ~xeS IS ~gl
hxg6 16 ~d3 ~ 17 0-0-0 ~g7
with a strong centre and clear ad-
vantage for Black in Zaharov-
Antoshin, USSR 1964.
c) 10 e6? and now:
c1) 1O... dxe6? 11 'iWf3 'iWc7 12
~bS! (much stronger than 12 tDbS
'iWb7 13 lLJd4 tDh6 14 'iWxc6+ rM7
IS 0-0-0, Chernikov-Sosonko,
Leningrad 1965, and now IS ...lLJfS!
would have left White with only a
small advantage) 12 ... ~d7 13 0-0-0
':c8 14 ~c4 tDh6 IS l:hel lLJf7 16
.ltcS .lth6 17 l:xd7!, Kurkin-Estrin,
USSR 1962.
c2) 10... tDh6? 11 exd7+ 'iWxd7
12 'iWxd7+ ~xd7 13 .ltc4 ~c7 14
0-0 tDfS IS ~cS tDd6 16 l:fel with
270 Lines in which White Captures with tOxc6
a better game for White, Bole-
slavsky-Szilagyi, Debrecen 1961.
c3) 1O...dS! By playing around
the e6-pawn rather than taking it,
Black refutes the pawn sacrifice. 11
fS 1i'd6 12 "f3 (or 12 g4? "eS 13
"f3 transposing to Hennings-
Baumbach below) 12 .....eS 13
lLle2 (also insufficient are: 13 .i..d3
.i..h6 14 ~ .i..xe3+ IS "xe3 gxfS
16 "xeS fxeS 17 .i..xfS lLlh6 18
.i..h3 l:.f8+ 19 ~el lLlfS, Samole-
wicz-Pzorelli, Poland 19S9; 13 g4
hS 14 lLle2 as in the game Hen-
nings-Baumbach, East Germany
1961, and now 14....i..h6! IS .i..d4
hxg4! 16 "xg4 "xfS is clearly
better for Black or 13 0-0-0 "xe3!
14 "xe3 .i..h6 IS "xh6 lLlxh6 16
fxg6 hxg6 with a huge edge for
Black) 13 ... .i..h6 14 .i.f2 gxfS IS
'ii'hS+ ~d8 16 .i..d4 "e4 17 c4
.i..xe6 18 lIdl .i.e3! when Black is
clearly better, Geissert-Baumbach,
East Germany 1961.
d) 10 exf6 (this move does not
challenge Black) 1O... lLlxf6 11 .i..e2
0-0 (l1...l:tb8 12 lIbl "c7 13 0-0
0-0 14 'ithl d6 IS .i..d3 ~h8
slightly favours Black, Knoppert-
Yakovich, Leeuwarden 1994) 12
0-0 dS (or 12 .. :.aS 13 'i'd2 l:tb8
14 l:tabl d6 IS a3 lLlg4 16 .i..d4
.i..xd4+ 17 "xd4 'itb6 18 "xb6
axb6 with equality, Femandes-
Andersson, Novi Sad 01 1990) 13
.i..d4 .i.fS (13 ...l:tb8 14 l:tbl as IS
~hl .i..fS 16 .i..d3 'i'd7 is equal,
Edvardsson-lonasson, Reykjavik
1994) 14 .i..f3 :Cb8 with a slight
initiative for Black, Aronin-Geller,
Moscow 19S1.
e) 10 .i..c4!?
This is White's only good move
aside from 10 .i..d4. It is rarely
played, so it is worth trying as a
surprise weapon:
el) 1O... d5 11 exd6 exd6 11
'i'd2 followed by 0-0-0 is unpleas-
ant for Black.
e2) However, Black might con-
sider 10...lLlh6!?, although it takes
a brave man to face 11 0-0 lLlf7 (an
attempt to get the king in safety) 12
.i..xf7+ ~xf7 13 fS!
e3) 1O... fxeS (so far the only
move tried in practice) and now:
e31) 11 fxeS "as (possible is
ll ....i..xeS, but White has a strong
initiative for the pawn and it will
take time before Black's king is
safe) 12 O-O! "xeS 13 .i..f7+! ~d8
14 "d2 lLlf6 15 :ael 'ii'hS?
(Gheorghiu gives IS .....aS as un-
clear, but White has massive com-
pensation for the sacrificed pawn,
and it is very doubtful that Black
will ever free himself) 16 l:txf6!
exf6 17 lLld5! cxd5 18 "as+ ~e7
19 .i..gS+! 1-0 Krystall-Burstow,
Lone Pine 1976.
e32) Possibly stronger is 11 0-0
exf4 12 .i..xf4 lLlf6 (perhaps
12 ...d5, intending 13 lLlxdS cxdS
14 .i..xdS 'itb6 IS ~hl .i..b7, is
worth a try, but Black's unsafe king
position will provide White with
some compensation for the sacri-
ficed material) 13 .i..d6! .i..a6 (not
13 ...exd6? 14 l:tel+ or 13 ...1i'b6+
 Lines in which White Captures with llJxc6 271
14 ~hl ~d8 as in Krystall-
Batchelder, USA 1974, and now 15
.i.a3! with excellent compensation
for the pawn) 14 .i.xa6 (in the fllSt
edition of their book Silman and
Donaldson mention the line 14l:tel
1i'b6+ 15 'it>hl .i.xc4 16 ':xe7+
<ii?d8 17 1:txg7, but what is wrong
with 14... .i.xc4, when after 15
l:txe7 1i'xe7 16 .i.xe7 ~xe7 fol-
lowed by ... .i.e6, Black is much
better?) 14...1i'b6+ 15 ~hl 'ii'xa6
16 l:lel, Zajic-Adamski, Trebitz
1959, and now 16... 0-0 was best
with a small advantage for White.
10 1i'aS
The alternatives only lead to dis-
comfort for Black:
a) IO... dS? 11 exd6 'ii'xd6 (just
as bad is 11...exd6 12 1i'f3 CiJe7 13.
0-0-00-0 14 .i.c5 d5 15 .i.c4 J:[b8
16 lIhel with clear edge for White,
Krogius-Buslaev, Tbilisi 1956) 12
'ii'f3 1i'e6+ 13 .i.e2 .i.a6 14 0-0
.i.xe2 15 CiJxe2 with a clear ad-
vantage for White, Ivkov-Pirc, Za-
greb 1955.
b) IO.. .fxe5? 11 fxeS e6?! 12
.i.d3 1Wh4+ 13 g3 1i'e7 14 CiJe4
1i'b4+ 15 .i.c3 1i'b6 16 CiJd6+ <ii?e7
17 'ii'f3 CiJh6 18 'ii'f4 ~d8 19 CiJc4
'ii'c5 20 .i.a5+ and White soon won
in Wade-Bilek, Teesside 1972.
Black cannot play like this and
expect to get away with it, no mat-
ter which opening he tries.
c) 10... CiJh6 (this move was once
recommended by Boleslavsky, but
we cannot endorse it; Black is, at
best, clearly worse) and now:
cl) 11 exf6!? (11 CiJe4? fxe5 12
fxe5 CiJf5 13 .i.c3 1i'b6! favours
Black and 11 .i.d3 0-0 12 0-0 d6 is
equal) 11...exf6? (better here is
11.. ..i.xf6 12 .i.xf6 exf6, but after
13 'ii'e2+ q,;f7 14 0-0-0 l:te8 15
1i'f3 White is better) 12 1i'e2+!
'ii'e7 (a little better is 12...~ 13
0-0-0 dS 14 1i'£2 lle8 15 .i.e2 .i.g4
16 .i.xg4 CiJxg4 17 1Wh4 CiJh6 18
g4, but White is still clearly better,
Kaplan-Juhnke, Stockholm 1969)
13 CiJe4 ltd8 14 .i.c5 1i'e6 15 CiJd6
1i'd5 16 1i'c4 1i'xc4 17 .i.xc4 .i.f8
18 0-0-0 and White is winning,
Ostojic-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1969.
c2) 11 .i.c4! CiJf5 12 exf6 .i.xf6
13 .i.xf6 exf6 14 1i'f3! 1i'e7+ 15
~d2 'iM6+ 16 'ii>cl with a clear
edge for White, Diickstein-Jansson,
Lugano 01 1968.
These examples clearly illustrate
how careful Black must be in these
lines, particularly since he is so far
behind in development.
11 1i'e2
This is no better or worse than
other moves. White has also tried:
a) 11 .i.c4?! fxe5 12 fxe5 .i.xe5
13 1i'd3 CiJf6 14 0-0-0 .i.xd4 15
'ii'xd4 dS 161i'e5 (Baumbach analy-
ses 16 llhel O-O! 17 .i.b3 .i.g4 and
17 lhe7 dxc4 18 CiJe4 "f5 19
"xc4+ CiJd5 as good for Black)
16...0-0 17 CiJxdS cxdS 18 l%xdS
1i'b4 19 l%d4+ <l;Ih8 20 h4 l%b8 21
.i.b3 l%b5! and Black was winning,
Masjeev-Baumbach, corr 1972.
272 Lines in which White Captures with fuc6
b) 11 exf6 lDxf6 (a safe alterna-
tive is 11...i.xf6 12 i.xf6 lDxf6,
e.g. 13 "d4 0-0 14 0-0-0 l:tb8 and
Black was doing fine, Ushakov-
Kapengut, Minsk 1969) 12 i.c4 d5
(also possible is 12 ... i.a6!?) 13
i.e2 (in TseitIin-Mikac, Ostrava
1991, White achieved a small ad-
vantage after 13 i.d3 l:lb8 14 "d2
0-0 IS lDe2 'ii'xd2+ 16 ~xd2 lDd7
17 i.xg7 ~xg7 IS lDd4 :f6 19
:ael) 13 ... 0-0 14 0-0 l:lbS IS .l:.bl
i.fS 16 i.f3 11b4 with equality,
Diickstein-Benko, Varna 01 1962.
Black can also try Baumbach's
suggestion 16 ... lDe4!? 17 i.xg7
""xg7 IS "d4 (IS ~xe4 dxe4 19
"d4+? eS!) 18 ...lDf6 with equality.
c) 11 b4!?
(an interesting gambit; White
sacrifices a couple of pawns in re-
turn for a huge lead in develop-
ment) 11.. ...xb4 12 .l:.bl "as 13
i.c4 fxeS? (Black is asking for
trouble; best was 13 ... ~h6, in-
tending 14 exf6?! i.xf6! IS i.xf6
exf6 16 'ii'd4? lDfS! 17 'ii'xf6 11f8
and wins or 14 0-0 ~fS IS exf6
i.xf6 16 i.xf6 "cS+! 17 'ifi>hl exf6
and Black seems to survive) 14
fxeS i.xeS? (better was 14... ~h6)
IS 0-0 lDf6 16 lDbS! i.xd4+ 17
"xd411f8 ISlDd6+ exd6 19 "xd6
"c3 20 .l:tbel+ ~dS 21 "xfS+ and
White was winning here in Diez-
F.Petersen, Kapfenberg 1970.
d) 11 'ii'd2 (the most important
alternative) and now:
dl) Black can try ll...liJh6, al-
though he did not have much luck
in its first outing: 12 exf6 exf6 13
i.c4 (even stronger is 13 0-0-00-0
14 i.c4+ 'ifi>h8 IS i.b3) 13 ... dS 14
0-0-0 i.e6? (Donaldson suggests
that Black can take the bishop on
c4 and survive after 14... dxc4 IS
.l:thel+ ~f7 16 'ii'e2 1i'b4, but after
the simple 17 a3, Black will have a
hard time defending himself, e.g.
17 .. :iid6 IS i.eS 'iie6 19 ~e4 with
a nasty attack, but this is definitely
better than what Black did in the
game) IS .l:.fel ""f7 16 l:lxe6 ""xe6
17 'iie2+ ""d7 IS ~xdS cxdS 19
i.c3 l:tae8 20 i.bS+ 'ifi>d6 21
lhdS+ and Black resigned,
Kovalev-Roizman, Minsk 1981.
d2) ll...fxeS 12 fxeS cS (in
Varavin-Khasin, Elista 1994, Black
was successful with the risky
12 ... i.xe5!?, when after 13 0-0-0
lDf6 14 :tel i.xd4 IS 'iixd4 0-0 16
.l:.xe7 'ii'gS+ 17 'ifi>bl d5 18 i.d3
White appears to hold an advan-
tage, but it proved remarkable little
after 18 ... i.fS 19 i.xfS "xfS 20
llhel 11ae8! and Black has few
problems) 13 i.e3 i.xeS (after
13 ... llbS 14 i.c4 i.a6, Black was
caught in the middle of a stampede:
IS O-O-O!! i.xc4 16 'ii'xd7+ 'iii'f7 17
llhfl + i.xfl 18 11xfl + ~f6 19
exf6 i.xf6 20 11xf6+ 'ifi>xf6 21
lZldS+ ~eS 22 i.f4+ ~e4 23 'iie6+
~d4 24 i.e3+ 1-0, Pavmon-
Roizman, USSR 1982) 14 i.c4
lZlf6 IS 0-0 i.b7 16 ltael (after 16
i.f4 i.d4+ 17 ~hl i.a6 18 i.xa6
"xa6, White did not have enough
compensation in Haag-Hennings,
 Lines in which White Captures with ~c6 273
Zinnowitz 1966) 16...0-0-0! 17
'ii'e2 d5 with a clear plus for Black,
Pieri-P.H.Nielsen, Forli 1992. If
White instead of 17 1fe2 tries 17
~d5 he can in fact save himself:
17 ...Wxd2 IS ~xe7+ rJilc7 19
~xd2 d6! (19 ... i.xb2? 20 c3! is not
what Black has in mind) 20 i.g5
~d4+ 21 ~h 1 ~e4 22 ~d5+
i.xd5 23 i.xdS+ 'Ot>xdS 24 i.xd5
~f2+ 25 lIxf2 i.xf2 with a likely
draw.
11 fxeS
An interesting idea is 11.. .c5! ?
12 exf6? ~xf6 13 i.e5 0-0, Sto-
dola-Chemikov, Pardubice 1994,
when compared to the main line,
Black has achieved ... c6-c5 and
... 0-0 for free and is of course
clearly better. White can do better,
but how much better? 12 i.f2 fxe5
13 fxe5 ~h6, 12 i.e3 ~h6 and 12
'ii'b5? 'ii'xb5 13 ~xb5 cxd4 14
~c7+ <ti>dS 15 ~xa8 i.b7 are all
good for Black.
12 i.xeS
Black stands clearly better after
12 fxe5 11b8 (l2 ... ~h6!?) 13 0-0-0
c5.
12 ~f6!?
Most sources suggest that White
is a little better after 12 ... i.xe5 13
'ii'xe5 "xe5 14 fxe5, but this is not
necessarily true: 14...~h6 (inferior
is 14... d5 15 exd6 exd6 160-0-0 d5
17 i.e2 ~f6 IS ':d4 0-0 19 i.f3
i.f5 20 11e 1, when White had the
better chances in Smrcka-Baum-
bach, corr 1965) 15 0-0-0 O-O!?
(Donaldson gives 15 ... ~g4 16 11el
0-0 17 i.c4+ 1;g7 18 h3 11f4 19 b3
~h6 20 11hfl 11xfl+ 21 :lxfl i.b7
22 lIdl ':dS 23 ~e4 which is un-
pleasant for Black; nor does he
equalise after 15 ...':f8 16 ':e 1 l:.f5
17 i.d3 ':h5 18 i.e4 with a clear
edge for White, Puc-Pirc, Sarajevo
1960) 16 i.c4+ ~g7 17 :hflllxfl
IS lIxfl d5 19 exd6 exd6 20 ':el
~ and Black had no problems in
Delanoy-Van den Bosch, Kecske-
met 1991.
13 1fc4! 1fb6
14 0-0-0 dS
In Ulibin-Maliutin, USSR 1985,
Black got into deep trouble after
14...d6? 15 i.d4 c5? 16 ~d5!, but
everyone seems to have forgotten
about 14...a5!?, which equalised
smoothly for Black in Minic-
Parma, Titograd 1965: 15 ':el i.a6
16 1fd4 1fxd4 17 i.xd4 1;f7 IS
i.xa6 :xa6 19 :le2 :eS 20 :hel
11aaS 21 g3 d6.
15 1fa4 0-0
16 i.d4 1fc7
17 i.eS 1fb6
18 i.d4 1fc7
19 g3
White is not in the mood for a
draw just yet, which would have
been the result after 19 i.e5, but in
this position Black is by no means
worse.
19 i.g4!
Black wants the bishop in front
of the pawns. 19 ... e6? is horrible:
20 i.g2! i.d7 21 1fa3.
274 Lines in which White Captures with tZJxc6
20 l:td2
Black is also fine after 20 l:te1
i..f3 21 l:tgl c5.
20 ...i..f3 21 i..g2 i..xg2 22 l:xg2
e6 23 "a3?!
Now Black gets the upper hand.
Best was 23 l:te1 c5 24 i..e5 'iifb6
25 :ge2 l:tac8 with about equal
chances.
23 ... l:ac8 24 :tel
24 'iha7? 'ii'xa7 25 i..xa5 c5 is
good for Black according to Serper.
24 ...c5 25 i..e5 "b6 26 :tge2 liJc6
27liJbl! Ill-Ill
Serper gives the following lines:
27 ... 'iifb5!? 28 liJd2 l:ta6 29 'iifb3
'tWxb3 30 liJxb3 with the idea of
30.. Jha2 31 ~bl or 27 ... :d8
threatening ... d5-d4 and ... c5-c4.
Game 99
Faulks-Donaldson
Bermuda 1995
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i..g7 6 i..e3 liJf6 7
liJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 liJg8 9 f4)
9 liJh6!?
(see following diagram)
10 "d2
Black does not have much to
fear after 9 ... liJh6!?, but White also
has:
a) 10 liJe4 0-0 11 'ii'd2 d6 with
equal chances.
b) 10 'ii'f3?! 0-0 11 i..c4 (or 11
i..d3 f6 [11.. .d6 transposes to note
'd' below] 12 exf6 i..xf6 13 0-0 d5
14 i..c5 'tWa5 with a slight edge for
Black, Witt-Malich, Havana 01
1966) 1l...d5! 12 exd6 exd6 13
'ii'xc6?! (White takes a little more
time than he actually has, but he
was already in trouble; Black
threatens ... d6-d5-d4) 13 ... i..d7 14
'ii'f3 l:tc8 15 i..d3 i..g4 16 'ii'd5
:e8 17 ~d2 :xe3! 18 ~xe3 'iifb6+
19 ~d2 'ii'xb2 and Black soon won,
Fichtl-Gereben, Warsaw 1956.
c) 10 i..e2?! 0-0 11 0-0 liJf5 (or
11...f6 12 exf6 i..xf6 13 g4 d5 14
i..c5 'ii'a5 15 b4 'ii'd8 16 g5 i..xc3
17 gxh6 i..xal when White does
not have enough for the exchange)
12 i..f2 h5 13 liJe4 d6 14 exd6
exd6 15 c3 l:te8 16 i..d3 d5 17liJg3
liJe3 18 i..xe3 ':'xe3 19 f5 'iifb6 20
-.t;>hl i..a6 21 i..xa6 'ii'xa6 22 f6
i..f8 23 liJxh5 'ii'e2 with an initia-
tive for Black, Rakic-Damjanovic,
Portoroz 1961.
d) 10 i..d3 d6 11 'ii'f3 0-0 12 0-0
(12 h3 dxe5 13 fxe5 liJf5 14 .tf4
 Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6 275
.as IS 0-0 'ifb6+ 16 'itlhl tLld4 17
tLlf2 tLle6 18 .xb6 axb6 is clearly
better for Black, Faulks-Shadade,
Bennuda 1995) 12 .. dxeS (l2 ...•c7
is also good) 13 .xc6 tLlg4 14
.i.cs i..d7 15 .a6 exf4 16 tLld5
'ifb8 17 h3 .eS 18 tLlxe7+ ~h8 19
b4 tLle3 with a very unpleasant
position for White, Rohde-Tarjan,
Lone Pine 1975.
e) 10 .i.c4 0-0 11 .d2 (11 0-0
d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 i..d4 tLlfS [also
good is 13. .. .i.xd4+ 14 .xd4 'ifb6
IS .xb6 axb6 16 i..d3 i..fS 17
.:lfdl dS when Black is comfort-
able, Smirin-Davies, Gausdal 1990]
14 .i.xg7 <:Ji;xg7 IS .d3 'ifb6+ 16
<:Ji;hl dS! with a small edge for
Black, as in Pilszyk-Brinck-
Claussen, Marianske Lazne 1962)
l1...d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 0-0-0 i..g4
14 tLle2 tLlfS IS .i.f2 .:lb8 16 i..b3
a5 17 c3 a4 18 .i.c2 .as with a
strong attack for Black, Rubezov-
Sokolsky, corr 1961.
10 0-0
Levy suggests 1O ... tLlfS 11 .i.f2
hS, intending to meet 12 h3 with
12 ... h4 and if necessary give up the
h-pawn to slow down White's
kingside attack.
11 0-0-0
White has from time to time
prepared g2-g4 with 11 h3 at this
point. However, Black has no
problems against this slow ap-
proach. After 11 ... d6! (Boleslav-
sky-Gurgenidze, Riga 19S8, saw
l1...f6 12 .i.c4+ tLlf7 13 i..xf7+
<:Ji;xf7!? 14 0-0-0 ~g8 IS exf61hf6
16 i..d4 .:ld6 17 .e3 .:le6 18 .f3
i..xd4 19 .:lxd4 'ifb6 20 ne4 .:lxe4
21 .xe4 .:lb8 22 .xe7 .xb2+ 23
<:Ji;d2 'ifb4 with approximately
equal chances) 12 0-0-0 lLlf5 13
.i.f2 cS 14 g4lLld4 15 .i.g2 .:lb8 16
.i.xd4 cxd4 17 .xd4 .a5 18 J:thel
i..a6, threatening ... .:lb4 followed
by ... l:.fb8 with a strong attack,
Diickstein-Waller, Austria 1969.
11 d6
Recently this has been the most
popular of Black's options. How-
ever, 11....aS!? is possibly
stronger: 12 .i.c4 (now Black gets
the better of it; critical is 12 h3 tLlfS
13 i..f2 d6 14 g4 dxeS IS gxfS
.i.xfS when Black has two pawns
and attacking prospects for the
piece; it is hard to say whether this
is really enough) 12 ... l:.b8 13 h4
(13 1i'd4?! d6 14 .xa7 1i'xa7 IS
.i.xa7 na8 16 .i.d4 tLlfS 17 .:lhel
.i.h6! 18 g3 tLlxd4 19 lhd4 dxeS
20 l:tde4 exf4 21 gxf4 eS! is very
good for Black, Akaba-Boop, USA
1991) 13 ... d6 14 h5 tLlf5 15 hxg6
hxg6 16 g4 tLlxe3 17 .xe3 .i.xg4
18 J:tdg 1 .i.fS is very good for
Black, Ravinsky-Zilberstein, Len-
ingrad 1963.
Other moves have proven less
successful: ll...f6? 12 .i.c4+ <:Ji;h8
13 h4 fxe5 14 h4 exf4 15 .i.xf4 g5
16 .i.xg5 tLlg4 17 • e2 lLle5 18 h6
.i.f6 19 .i.xf6+ exf6 20 nd6 with a
killing attack, Shianovsky-Funnan,
USSR 1960, or ll...dS 12 h4 .as
276 Lines in which White Captures with llJxc6

13 hS l:tdS 14 hxg6 fxg6 IS 'ifd4 14 ~e4 ~b7

llJfS 16 'ii'cs 'ii'xcs 17 i(,xcS llJg3 15 ~d5 ~xd5
IS l:lh2 with a small edge for 16 'ii'xd5 l:tb8
White, Estrin-AZaitsev, corr 1964. 17 g4 llJd4
12 h3!? 18 ~xd4 exd4
Boleslavsky's old recommenda- 19 l:txd4 dxe5
tion. Less good is 12 exd6 exd6 20 fxe5 'ii'b6
(inferior is 12 ...llJfS?! 13 Ji.f2! [13 21 llJa4 'ii'e7
d7?! llJxe3 14 dxcS'ii' 'ii'xd2 IS 22 l:tel l:tfe8
~xd2 llJxfl + is just about equal] Black has a pawn less, but the
13 ... exd6 14 g4! which slightly poor co-ordination of the white
favours White) 13 Ji.d4 ~xd4 14 pieces and the weak pawn provide
1i'xd4 llJfS IS 'ii'd2 d5 16 ~d3 (16 more than enough compensation.
g4 is not a worry, as after 16... llJd6 Now Black starts to penetrate the
and eventually ...f7-fS Black has white position.
excellent control over the centre) 23 e3 e6 24 'ii'd6 'ii'aS 25 l:tde4
16...llJd6 17llJa4 'iff6 ISllJcS l:tdS l:tb5 26 'ii'd4 l:td5 27 'ii'e3 l:ted8 28
19 c3 ~fS 20 g3 1:1abS 21 ~xfS 'ii'f4 .l:.d3 29 l:te4 'ii'd5 30 :n
'ii'xfS 22 'ii'd2 'ii'f6 23 'ifd4 'ifxd4 :dl+ 31 ~c2 'ii'd3+ 0-1
24 1:1xd4 with equality, Koch-
Birmingham, Val Thorens 19S5. Game 100
12 llJf5 Tringov-5tein
Boleslavsky analyses 12 ... 'ii'aS Sarajevo 1967
13 exd6 exd6 14 g4 1:1bS IS i(,d4
with a clear advantage for White. (1 e4 e5 2 llJf3 llJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
13 i(,fl llJxd4 g6 5 llJe3 i(,g7 6 ~e3 llJf6 7
Now 13 g4 is met by 13 ... ~b7 llJxe6 bxe6 8 e5 llJg8)
14 1:1g1 llJd4, intending IS ~xd4
cxd4 16 'ii'xd4 'ii'aS, and very soon 9 ~d4
White will feel the presence of the
black bishops.
13 e5

White often plays this move, al-

though Black does not seem to
have any problems equalising.
 Lines in which White Captures with lbxc6 277
9 'ilb6 18 .d6! with a powerful ini-
The main line. Alternatives are:
a) 9...•c7 10 e6 tDf6 11 exfl+
c;t>xfl 12 ~c4+ d5 13 ~b3 e5 14
~c5 .a5 15 ~a3 ~a6 16 .f3
!Ihe8 17 0-0-0 <t>g8 18 tDxd5!?
cxd5 19 !Ixd5 tDxd5 20 ~xd5+
ebh8 21 ~xa8 e4! 22 ~xe4 ~b7!
23 ~xb7 !Iel+ 24 .dl !Ixdl+ 25
lIxdl ~xe5 with about level
chances, E.Kennedy-Biyiasas, USA
1977.
b) 9 ...tDh6 10 e6 and now:
bl) 1O... f6? 11 exd7+ ~xd7
(even worse is 1l....xd7 12 ~c4
tDf5 13 ~c5 tDd6 14 ~b3 ~a6 15
.d4 !Id8 16 0-0-0 <t>f8 17 .a4
.c8 18 tDe4 ~h6+ 19 <t>bl ~b5
20 tDxd6 exd6 21 l:.xd6 1-0
Varavin-Myrvold, Gausdal 1993)
12 ~c4 ~f5 13 .f3 .d6 14 h3
~e6 15 tDb5! 'iIb4+ 16 c3 .xc4
17 tDc7+ <t>d7 18 b3, Diez del Cor-
ral-Velimirovic, The Hague 1966,
and now best is 18 ...•xd4 19 cxd4
<t>xc7 20 !Iel ~d7 21 d5 with an
initiative for White.
b2) Another bad idea is
1O... ~xd4? 11 .xd4 0-0 12 exd7
.xd7 13 .xd7 ~xd7 14 ~c4!
!Iad8 15 0-0-0 tDg4 16 l:.d2 ~c8
17 l:.hdl with a clear edge for
White, Bisguier-Geller, Helsinki 01
1952.
b3) 10... 0-0 11 ~xg7 <t>xg7 12
.d4 f6+ 13 exd7 ~xd7 14 0-0-0
~g4 15 f3 .xd4 16 .l:txd4 ~c8 17
~d3 tDf5 18 ~xf5 gxf5! 19.1:thdl
~e6 20 tDa4 .l:tg8 with an endgame
advantage for Black, Troianescu-
Ghitescu, Romanian ch 1957.
c) 9 ... c5?! 10 ~xc5 (interesting
is the less played alternative 10
~e3!? .c7 11 ~c4 ~b7 12 .d2
.xe5 13 0-0-0 tDf6 14 .l:thel 0-0
15 ~g5 .xh2 16 f3 .c7 17 .l:txe7
tiative for White, Tukmakov-
Weichert, Graz 1972; whereas 10
"f3 .l:tb8 11 ~xc5 .c7 12 .e3
.xe5 favours Black) 10...•c7
(inaccurate is 1O... ~xe5? 11 .d5
~xc3+ 12 bxc3 .a5 13 .xa8
.xc3+ 14 <t>dl .xc5 15 ~a6
.d6+ 16 ~d3 with a clear plus for
White) 11 ~d4 ~xe5 and now
White has tried:
el) 12 ~xe5 .xe5 13 ~e2 ~a6
(13 ... tDf6!?) 14 .d5 .xd5 15
tDxd5 ~xe2 16 <t>xe2 l:.c8 17 tDe3!
e6 18 c4 tDf6 19 .l:thdl <t>e7 20
.l:td3! with a small edge for White
in the endgame, Versinin-Voloshin,
Litosmyl1995.
c2) 12 ~e2 tDf6 (or 12 ... ~b7 13
~xe5 .xe5 14 0-0 tDf6 15 ~f3
~xf3 16 .xf3 0-0 17 .l:tfel .c5 18
.l:tadl .l:tab8 with equality, Brad-
varevic-Pirc, Sombor 1957) 13
~xe5 .xe5 140-0 O-O?! (best was
14... d5! 15 ~b5+ c;t>f8 16 ~c6 .l:tb8
with a good game for Black,
whereas 14... ~b7!? transposes to
Bradvarevic-Pirc above) 15 ~f3
l:.b8 16 ':el .c5? (16 ...•a5!?) 17
tDa4 .a5 18 b3 ':e8 19 c4 with a
clear advantage for White, Ivkov-
Pachman, Buenos Aires 1955.
c3) 12 tDb5 'ilb8 13 f4 ~xd4 14
.xd4 tDf6 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 nel
ne8 17 g4 ~b7 18 ngl ~c6 with
equality, Estrin-Averbakh, Moscow
1968.
c4) 12 f4 (the only way to
maintain the initiative) 12 ... ~xd4
13 .xd4 tDf6 14 g4 (also promis-
ing is 140-0-00-0 15 ~c4 ~b7 16
':d2 d5 17 ~b3 ':fd8 18 .l:thdl nd7
19 g3 with a slight pull, Tringov-
Damjanovic, Ljubljana 1969)
14... ~b7 15 .l:tgl 0-0 160-0-0 !Ifc8
(Cebalo-Ostojic, Yugoslavian ch
278 Lines in which White Captures with fuc6
1968, went 16 ... d5 17 h4? ttJe4 18
~g2 'iWxf4+ 19 ct>b 1 ttJxc3+ 20
"xc3 llfc8, but White can do
much better: 17 "e5! "c5 18 :g3
IUc8 19 J..g2 with a slight edge) 17
fld2 llab8 18 llg3 a5 19 fle3 dS 20
f5, Diickstein-Stein, Sarajevo 1967.
10 ~c4
Two other moves have been
tried at this point:
a) 10 f4 llb8! 11 e6? (best is 11
"d2 llxb2 12 ttJe4 with some
compensation for the pawn)
11...ttJf6 12 exf7+ ~xf7 13 ~c4+
dS 14 ~b3 l::td8 15 J..e5 ttJg4 16
~xg7 ct>xg7 17 1i'd4+ e5! 18 fxe5
c5 19 "a4 "c7 20 0-0-0 d4 with a
clear edge for Black, Kovacs-
A.Zaitsev, Debrecen 1970.
b) 10 e6!?
This move, which was once
thought plain bad, has in recent
years been through a revival, and
although it is not considered good
for White, it is certainly no longer
regarded as bad. Play continues
1O...ttJf6 11 exf7+ (White can also
try 11 exd7+ to split up the black
pawn structure, after 11.. ..ixd7 12
"d2 [also possible are 12 ~d3 0-0
13 0-0 llfd8 14 f3 llab8 15 1i'e2
l::tb4 16 ~c4 ~e6!? 17 ~xe6
l::tbxd4, Nadjar-Tugage, Val Thor-
ens 1989, with equality] 12 ... 0-0 13
lOe4 'i'd5 14 lOxf6+ exf6 15 ~e3
'i'e6 16 l::tdl l::tfd8 17 b3 1i'e5 18 f3
1i'e7 19 ~d3 ~h6 20 ~ ~xe3+
21 'i'xe3 "a3 with an initiative for
Black, Barcza-G.Horvath, Zalaka-
ros 1994) 1l...~xf7 12 f4!? (12
~c4+ is good for Black: 12 ... d5 13
~b3 lle8 14 ~e5 lLlg4 15 ~xg7
rltxg7 161i'd2 e5 170-0-0 1i'c5 18
f3 lLlf6 llhel ~d7 with a clear
edge for Black, Cherkasov-Pek-
acki, Czestochowa 1992) 12 ...d5
(12 ...l::tb8 13 ~c4+ dS 14 ~b3
l::tb4? [14 ... ~f5!?] 15 a3 l::txd4 16
1i'xd4lLlg4 17 1i'd2 e5 18 h3 ~h6
19 g4 l::te8 20 0-0-0 and White was
much better, Ulibin-Knezevic, Pula
1990) 13 1i'd2 c5 14 ~e5 l::td8 15
~e2 d4 16 lLle41i'xd2+ 17 lLlxd2
lLldS (17 ... ~b7!?) 18 lLlc4 ~e6 19
~f3 l::tac8 and White has a small
advantage, Ulibin-M.Garcia, Santa
Clara 1991.
10 ~xe5
11 0-0 lLlf6!
11 ...f6?! does not make much
sense. After 12 :tel ~xd4 (another
weak possibility is 12 ...1Ifb4 13
~xe5 1i'xc4 14 ~d6 ~ 15 ~e4
1i'dS 16"f3 1i'f5 17 ""3+ ~g7 18
~xe7 1i'e6 19 lLlxf6! 1i'xb3 20
ttJe8+ ~f7 21 lLld6+ ct>g7 22 axb3
 Lines in which White Captures with fuc6 279

and White won, Haag-Forintos, Game 101

Hungary 1965) 13 'ii'xd4 d5 14 Frolov-Shabalov
~b3 e6? (l4 ...1ifb6 was a better USSRch 1991
try) 15 liJxd5 cxd5 16 ~xd5 l:.b8
17 ~xe6 ~xe6 18 lbe6 and Black (1 e4 cS 2 tZJt3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
was laid to rest in Khudiakov- liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 liJf6 7
Altennan, Voronezh 1973. liJxc6 bxc6 8 eS)
12 l:el d6!
In Trifunovic-Kort, Noordwijk 8 liJdS!?
1965, Black did not have much
luck with 12 ... ~xd4? After 13
.xd4 0-0 14 l:txe7 liJh5 15 l::tael
d5 16 liJxd5! cxd5 17 ~xd5 i..e6
181Uxe6 it was soon over.
13 ~xeS
13 'ii'e2?? loses on the spot to
13 ... liJg4 14 ~b3 ~xh2 15 'iti>hl
e5, as seen in Mestrovic-Stein, Sar-
ajevo 1967.
13 dxeS
14 'ii'e2 ~fS
15 ~b3 e4
16 'ii'c4 0-0
17 'ii'xc6 l:ad8 An interesting pawn sacrifice,
18 :lad 1 'ii'eS Black is unwilling to take on the
somewhat passive positions that we
have seen in the previous three
games. At the cost of a pawn, he
gets active piece play and a lead in
development.
9 liJxdS cxdS
10 'ii'xdS l:b8
11 ~c4
In this game, we will take a look
at the complications that arise after
the text move and 11 0-0-0; the
next game will deal with 11 ~xa7.
11 0-0-0 is rather hannless:
a) The commonly played
Black has fully equalised and 11...0-0 is not good: 12 ~xa7!
has good centralisation of his (Levy gives the following analysis
pieces. after 12 ~d4: 12 ... d6 13 exd6 ~e6
19 h3 .l:lxdl 20 liJxdl :c8 21 'ii'a6 14 'ii'c6 ~xd4 15 lbd4 exd6 16
l:c7 22 'ii'e2 as 23 liJc3 l:cS 24 'iVxd6 'iVa5 17 'ii'a3 .el+ 18 :dl
'ii'e3 'ii'c7 25 l:dl' <l;g7 26 'ii'd2 'iVxf2 19 'ii'f3 1ifb6 20 b3 a5 and
l:eS 27 tZJdS Ill-Ill White's defence is rather difficult)
280 Lines in which White Captures with ttJxc6
12 ... .ltb7 13 'iibS! ~xg2 14,it'xb8
it'xb8 IS ~xbS ~xhl 16 ~c7 ~c6
17 f4 gS IS b4 and White had a
beautiful set of queenside pawns in
Handoko-Bellon, Indonesia 19S2.
b) On occasion Black has also
tried 11..:iWc7, but without much
success: 12 f4 0-0 13 it'cs 'iib7 14
b3 d6 IS it'xa7 it'c6 (or IS ... dxeS
16 it'xb7 ~xb7 17 l:tgl exf4 18
~xf4 l:tbdS 19 l:txdS l:txd8 20 ~e3
~e4 21 a4 ~c3 22 ~e2, when
Black has insufficient compensa-
tion for the pawn, Zadrima-
Anceschi, F0rli 1991) 16 it'xbS
~fS 17 it'xfS+ ~xfS 18 i..d3 it'c3
19 ~bl ~g4 20 ~d2 'ii'd4 21
l:tdel and White was much better,
Colon-Camera, Mar del Plata 1962.
c) 1l...~b7! 12 'ii'd4 (in Radu-
lov-Forintos, Hungary 1969, after
12 'ii'd2? ~xeS 13 ~d4 i..xd4 14
it'xd4 0-0 IS 'ii'xd7 'ii'aS 16 ~c4
i..xg2 and Black is already much
better) 12 ... 0-0 13 f4 (13 'ii'xd7
'ii'aS! gives Black too much for the
pawn) 13 ... d6 14 ~c4 'ikc7 IS ~b3
dxeS 16 fxeS ~xg2 17 l:thgl l:tbdS
IS 'ii'xa7 'ii'xeS 19 ~d4 'ii'f4+ 20
~e3 'ii'eS 21 ~d4 and drawn by
repetition, Stein-Nei, USSR 1960.
11 0-0
Black can also hold his own af-
ter the less popular, but still play-
able ll...e6!? 12 'ii'cs ~b7 and
now:
a) 13 a-a?! leaves Black without
much to worry about: 13 .. J:tcS 14
'W'b4 'ii'c7 (bad is 14... ~xeS? due to
IS ~xe6! dxe6 16 'ii'xb7 0-0 17 c3
with a clear edge for White -
analysis by Wedberg; in Diickstein-
Karlsson, Lucerne 1979, White
played IS l:tadl?, but then after
IS ... i..xh2+ 16 ~xh2 'ii'h4+ 17
~gl 'ii'e4! IS f3 'ii'xe3 19 l:tf2 'W'b6
Black was much better) IS f4 (15
i.gS? is met by IS ... i..f8 and 15
.ibS is equal after IS ... ~xeS 16
l:tfdl ~c6, Smit-Gipslis, Amster-
dam 1976) IS ... a5! 16 'W'bs i..xg2
17 ~xg2 'ii'xc4 IS it'xc4 l:txc4,
Skuja-Gipslis, Riga 19S9, and here
19 l:tf3 is best met by 19 ... d6!
(Donaldson), intending to meet 20
exd6 with 20 ... ~d7 with pressure
on White's queenside.
b) More aggressive is 13 0-0-0,
but after 13 ... l:tcS 14 'W'b4 ~xg2
(after 14 ... 'ii'c7? IS i..gS! .if8 16
'ifd2 ~xg2 17 l:thel ~f3 IS i..b5
White is better, as in the game Mu-
ratov-Veresov, Novgorod 1991) 15
l:thg 1 .if3 16 .ig5 f6 17 .ixe6!
(17 exf6 .ixf6 gives Black nothing
to worry about) 17 ... i..xd 1 18 l:txd 1
l:tc7, Donaldson gives 19 'iff4 l:tfS
and 19 ~h4 gS 20 'iWe4 'iWe7 when
Black should be fine. We think 19
exf6 i..xf6 20 i..f4! is better, al-
though Black can defend after
20 ... ~gS! 21 ~bl! ~xf4 22 'ii'xf4
IUS 23 'ifeS!? l:tf6! 24 i..xd7+ ~fS
with a roughly equal position.
12 0-0-0
White has a number of alterna-
tives, several of which are quite
interesting:
 Lines in which White Captures with lDxc6 281
a) 12 l:tdl!? (tried once with
success, but improvements for
Black are not that difficult to come
by) 12 ...'ifc7 (l2 ...:'xb2? 13 ~b3
is embarrassing, but 12 ...d6!? is
interesting) 13 ~b3 ~b7? (simple
and good is 13 ... ~xeS) 14 "cS!
'iWxeS IS 'iWxeS ~xeS 16 0-0 ~a6
17 l:tfel ~xb2 IS ~h6!, and Black
was going down in Holuj-
Pogorevici, Bucharest 19S9.
b) 120-0 and now:
bl) 12 ... ~b7 was once thought
to be mistaken, but matters are not
that clear: 13 'iWd3 (best, since
other queen moves give Black an
easy game: 13 "d2? "c7 14 ~b3
~xeS IS f4 ~xb2 16 :tadl d6,
Zvorykic-Volpert, Plovdiv 19S9; or
13 "d4?! d6 14 ~f4 dxeS IS
"xdS %:tfxdS 16 ~e3 as 17 lUdl
e4 IS ~b6 :'dcS, Higitian-
Kadimova, Debrecen 1992, in both
cases with a clear advantage for
Black) 13 ... ~xe5! (13 ... 'iWc7? is a
mistake due to 14 f4 ':fd8 IS .i.b3
l:tbc8 16 "e2 d6 17 fS gxfS 18
l:hfS and White was much better in
Kostro-Kraidman, Budapest 19S9)
14 1Lxa7 :'cS IS .i.d4 .i.xh2+! (a
massive improvement over the old
IS ... ~xd4, when White is clearly
better after 16 "xd4 e5 17 'iWg4 dS
18 iLb3 d4 19 :fel 'iff6 20 %ladl
hS 21 'il'h3 :fdS 22 c3 in
Langeweg-Geller, Beverwijk 1965)
16 'ii'xh2 'iWc7+ 17 'it>gl 'iWxc4 IS
"xc4 ~xc4 19 c3 f6 20 ~e3 :a8
with a good game for Black,
Lhagvasuren-Bhend, Novi Sad 01
1990.
b2) 12 .....c7 and:
b21) 13 1Lf4 .i.b7 14 'iWd4 d6!
IS :fel (or IS exd6 exd6 16 "d3
~xb2 17 :'adl 1LeS IS ~g3 :fcS
19 iLb3 'iWc6 with a slight pull for
Black - Donaldson) IS ...l:tfdS 16
"c3 :'bcS 17 ~b3 "xc3 IS bxc3
dxeS 19 ~xe5 e6 20 ~xg7 ~xg7
21 :'e3 :'c7.
b22) 13 f4 d6 14 exd6 exd6 15
~b3 ~e6 16 "d2 ~xb2 17 :'adl
:'feS IS h3 ~c3 19 "f2 a5 20 ~d4
~xb3 21 cxb3 a4 22 fS J.xd4 23
lhd4 axb3 24 axb3 Axb3 2S fxg6
hxg6 26 :d6 1/2- 112 Evans-Elis-
kases, Buenos Aires 1960. Black
could consider IS ... ~b7!? After 16
"gS?! ~e4 17 c3 as 18 :'£2 a4 19
~d5? h6 Black was winning in the
game AI-Handrani-Antunes, Mos-
cow 01 1994, but 16 'it'd3! ~xb2 17
fS, threatening 18 fxg6 bxg6 20
"xg6+, is very dangerous for
Black indeed.
b23) 13 "cS "xeS 14 "xeS
~xeS IS ~xa7 %laS 16 .i.cs (or 16
~b6 ~a6 17 ~xa6 :xa6 IS ~e2
~xb2 19 :adl d6 20 c4 :'cS 21
Ad2 ~a3 22 :'c2 l:ac6 with a clear
edge for Black, Gdanski-Grigore,
Santiago 1990) 16 ... d6 17 ~a3
~fS IS ~d3 ~xd3 19 cxd3 :'xa3
20 bxa3 ~xal 21 ':xal and 0-1,
Abdulghafour-Gonzalez, Moscow
01 1994. Perhaps a little early to
resign, but Black was better in the
endgame.
c) 12 f4 d6 13 ~b3 (bad is 13
0-0-0 "c7 14 ~b3 dxeS IS fxeS
~fS 16 "cS "xcS 17 ~xcS :'fcS
18 g4 ~xg4 with a clear edge for
Black) and now Black has the fol-
lowing possibilities for his consid-
eration:
cl) 13 .....c7 14 exd6 exd6 IS
0-0-0 and Black does not have
enough for the pawn.
c2) 13 ... dxeS 14 "xdS :'xdS IS
fxeS ~xeS 16 ~c4 ~e6 when
Black is okay - Donaldson.
c3) 13 ... ~b7!? and now:
282 Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6
c31) 14 "d2 dxeS IS 0-0-0 exf4
(also possible is IS .....c7 16 "d7
1i'xd7 17 lIxd7 i.xg2 18 lIg 1
lIb7!) 16 i.xf4 lIa8 17 "a4 'it'b6
18 1i'xb6 axb6 with about level
chances, Hebden-Gerber, London
1987.
c32) Possibly stronger is 14
"c4!?, when White won quickly
after 14 ... i.xg2 IS lIgl i.h3 16
0-0-0 as 17 exd6 exd6 18 ..a6!
"f6 19 c3 lIfc8 20 "xaS i.fS? 21
i.d4 'it'h4 22 "xfS! gxfS 23 i.xg7!
1-0, Muir-Stem, corr 1972. How-
ever, Black has nothing to fear after
lS ... i.f3!, keeping White's king in
the centre, or 16 ... i.e6!?, intending
17 "a6 i.xb3 18 axb3 "c8!, e.g.
19 "xc8 lIfxc8 20 i.xa7 lIxb3 21
i.d4 i.h6 22 lIhfl dxeS 23 i.xeS
lIe3 when White has problems
keeping both his bishop and f-pawn
on the board: 24 i.d4 lIe4, 24
lIdel lIxel 2S lIxe1 f6, 24 lIfel
lIxeS!, 24 'It>b 1 lIe2 or 24 i.c3 eS!
2S i.d2 exf4 26 i.xe3 fxe3.
c4) l3 ... aS 14 0-0 i.b7 IS "c4
lIc8 16 "d3 dxeS (16 .....c7? al-
lows 17 e6 fS, Gheorghiu-Forintos,
Ljubljana 1969, and now Baum-
bach's suggestion of 18 c3 1i'c6 18
"c2 leaves White with an extra
pawn) 17 "xd8 lIfxd8 18 fS e4 19
c3 i.dS 20 i.b6 lId8 21 i.c7 i.xb3
22 i.xb8 i.c4 23 i.c7 i.xfl 24
J:taxfl a4 with equal play, as 2S
l:tf4 can be met with 2S ... l:tc8 26
i.aS gxfS 27 lIxfS a3! - Donald-
son.
12 d6
13 i.xa7 l:tb4
Interesting is l3 ... i.b7!?, e.g. 14
"d3 i.xg2 IS i.xb8 i.xhl 16
l:txhl "xb8 with roughly equal
chances. Best is IS l:.hgl l:tb7 16
l:txg2 lIxa7 17 exd6 'it'b8! 18 i.b3
lId8 19 "d5e6!, when Black will
win backfue d6-pawn but White is
still better.
14 i.b3
Frolov recommends 14 i.cS
i.e6 (14 ... e6 IS "xd6 "xd6 16
i.xd6! l:txc4 17 i.xf8 ~xf8 18
lIhel slightly favours White) IS
"xe6 fxe6 16 i.xe6+ 'It>h8 17
i.xb4 i.xeS 18 f3, when White has
a small advantage. But 14... i.b7!?
is worth considering, e.g. IS
"d4(d3) lIxc4! 16 "xc4 "c7 17
exd6 exd6 18l:txd6 lIc8.
14 1i'c7
15 exd6
The normal IS i.e3 i.xeS leaves
Black with plenty of compensation.
15 1i'xa7
16 d7 l:.xb3
 Lines in which White Captures with fuc6 283

17 dxc8~ White needs the bishop to pro-

White steers towards the draw. If tect the important e5-pawn; fur-
White takes the rook on b3, matters thennore, it may end up in trouble
become uncomfortable for him, if left on a7. Boleslavsky gives the
e.g. 17 cxb3? 'it'xa2 or 17 axb3 following line after 12 ~c4? e6 13
'it'al+ IS 'it>d2 .lth6+ 19 ..ti>e2 .xb2 'it'c5 ~fS 14 "e3 (14 "d4? 'it'a5
and Black has more than enough 15 c3 ':b7 wins) 14 .....a5+ 15 c3
compensation for the exchange. ~a6 16 ~xa6 'it'xa6 with a clear
17 ~xb2+ advantage for Black.
18 ~bl ':b8 12 ':xc2
19 .h3 ~g7+ In an attempt to avoid the
20 ~c1 ~b2+ draw ish main line, Black has re-
21 'it>bl ~g7+ cently tried 12 ... l:[bS!? with good
Ih-lfz results. After 13 ~c4 0-0 14 0-0
.ltb7 (also adequate is 14 ... d6,
Game 102 when Delanoy-Pigusov, Mendrisio
Kupreichik-Petursson 19S9, went 15 ':abl ~e6 16 ':xbS
Reykjavik 1980 'it'xbS 17 'it'b5 'it'xb5 IS ~xb5
dxe5 19 ~e3 i.xa2 20 c4 e4 with
(1 e4 cS 2 lLJf3 lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 slightly better chances for Black;
lLJxd4 g6 S lLJc3 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLJf6 7 his bishop is somewhat offside on
lLJxc6 bxc6 8 eS lLJdS 9 lLJxd5 a2, which gives White some com-
cxdS 10 'ii'xdSl:[b8) pensation for the pawn deficit) 15
'it'c5 d6! (best; though 15 ... ':cS has
11 ~xa7 also done fine for Black after 16
'ii'b4 .c717 ~d3 e61S l:tfbl ~d5
19 'it'b6 ~xe5 20 'it'xc7 ~xc7 with
about level chances, Kleywegt-
Brockmann, Groningen 1994) 16
'it'a3 .cS 17 ~e2 dxe5 IS ~e3
"xc2 19 ':fel "c6 with a clear
advantage for Black, N.Mitkov-
Velimirovic, Kladovo 1991.
An inferior alternative to this is
12 ... ':b4, Rachels gives 13 c3 ':b2
14 c4! e6 (14 ... ~b7 15 'it'c5 d6 16
"a3 wins) 15 "as l:[b7 16 ~e2
with a clear edge for White.
13 ~d3 e6
Once recommended by Euwe, The immediate 13 ...lIc6 is inac-
this move is now regarded as the curate. According to most sources
main line. Play becomes complex, White should be able to get a slight
but more often than not the end edge, although practice has shown
result is a draw. that is not all that easy: 14 0-0 ~a6
11 ':xb2 (14 ... 0-0 did not tum out so well
12 ~d4 for Black in Ulibin-Kozlov, Minsk
284 Lines in which White Captures with lLIxc6
1986: 15 a4 i.b7 16 .i.b5 :Ic7 17
"b3 "a8 18 "g3lUc8 19 a5 .i.a6
20 'ii'd3 and White was clearly in
control; still another attempt is
14.....c7!?, when after 15 .i.b5
:Ic2 16 'ii'b3 0-0 17 .i.d3 :Id2 18
:Ifel 'iib7 19 "c3 .i.h6 20 l:tcbl
~a8 21 .i.f1 ~d5 Black was en-
joying himself in Wolter-Ponater,
Germany 1991) 15 Ji.xa6 :Ixa6 16
a4 (16 'iib5 ':c6 17 a4 slightly fa-
vours White - Rachels) 16 ...0-0 17
lIfdl :a5 18 'ii'b7 (or 18 We4 Was
19 "c2 :Ic8 20 'ii'b3 Wc6 21 'ii'b4
l:tca8 22 Wxe7 "xa4 with equality,
Knoppert-Rubio, as in Velez-
Malaga 1991) 18 ...~a8 19 'ii'b4
.i.xe5 20 Ji.xe5 :Ixe5 21 l:txd7
Ih-1f2 Soltis-Cvitan, Moscow 1989.
14 "a8
Or 14 'ii'bs :Ic6 IS 0-0 i.a6 16
'ii'b3 .i.xd3 17 'ii'xd3 0-0 18 a4
Wa5 19 :Itbl d6 20 Ilb5 ~a6 21
'ii'b3 :Ifc8 with equality, Stein-Nei,
USSR 1960.
14 l:tc6
15 0-0
White has two important alter-
natives:
a) 15 .i.b5!? and now:
al) Black can try 15 ...:Ic2 with
two possible responses:
all) After 16 0-0 0-0 17 "e4
(17 :ael?! "c7 18 Axc2 ~xc2 19
f4 d6 20 Wa7 "e4 21 ~hl .i.b7
favours Black, Ionescu-Teodor-
escu, Bucharest 1994) 17 .. .'ii'c7 18
a4 i.b7 19 We3 l:tc8 20 l:tfdl .i.d5
the position was balanced in
G.Garcia-L.Garcia, Bogota 1980.
a12) With 16 Wa3 White tries to
prevent Black from castling,
though for the moment Black can
do without: 16...Wg5 (in Doghri-
Bojczuk, Moscow 1991, Black
tried 16... 'irh4, when after 17 Wd3
~c7 180-00-0 19 f4 .i.b7 20 .i.b6
.l:1c6!? 21 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 22 a4 f6 23
.i.c5 l:ta8 24 .i.d6 "g4 25 Af2
.l:1xa4 26 Axa4 .i.xa4 his strong
light~~\lared bishop provided
plenty of compensation for the ex-
change) 17 0-0 .i.xe5 18 .i.xe5
~xe5 19 l:tacl Axcl 20 1:xel .i.b7
21 'ii'b4 (White threatens .i.xd7+
and plans to move the a-pawn up
along the a-file; had it not been for
Black's next move, White would
have been winning, but White does
have problems finding another way
to make progress) 21...Wg5 22
.i.xd7+ 'ii.>d8! 23 1i'b6+ ..ti>e7! 24
'ii'b4+ c;Pd8 25 1i'b6+ 112-112, Marin-
Ionescu-Popovici, Bucharest 1994.
a2) Black's best is 15 ...1:a6! 16
.i.xa6 "a5+ and now:
 Lines in which White Captures with ttJ.xc6 285
a21) 17 <ot>e2 0-0 18 ~b7! (18
'ji'e4? ~xa6 19 <ot>f3 f6! gives Black
a winning attack) 18 ... 'ifb5+ 19
<ot>e3 ~xb7 20 :hbl ~h6+ 21 f4
iLxf4+ 22 'iiixf4 'ii'd3 23 'ii'xb7 f6!
24 ndl?? (this loses on the spot; a
draw was around the comer after
24 exf6 'ii'xd4+ 25 'iiig3 'ii'xe3+ 26
'ii'f3 'ii'g5+ 27 'iiih3 'ii'h6+ 28 'iiig3
'ii'g5+ with a perpetual check)
24 ...g5+ 25 'iiig4 h5+! 26 'iiixh5
'ii'h7+ 27 <ot>g4 fxe5 28 g3 "f5+ 29
'iiih5 'ii'h3+ 30 'iiig6 'ii'h7+ 0-1
Barczay-Pokojowczyk. Subotica
1981.
a22) 17 'iiifl! 0-0 and now:
a221) 18 'ii'xc8? nxc8 19 i.xc8
'ifb5+ 20 'iiigi "c4 clearly favours
Black.
a222) 18 'ii'e4 'ii'xa6 (l8 ...i.xa6!?
19 <ot>gl d6! 20 l:tel i.b7 21 'ii'e3
iLh6 22 'ii'c3 'ii'd5 23 f3 nc8 24
'ifb2 nc4 25 iLf2 iLg7 and Black is
somewhat better - analysis by Vol-
chok) 19 'iiig 1 ~b7 20 'ii'e3 'ii'c4!
(insufficient is 20.. Jla8? 21 h4
'ii'c6 22 f3 na4 23 'iiif2 "c2+ 24
'iiig3 with a very good game for
White, Shianovsky-Volchok. USSR
1960) 21 f3? (21 h4 was better in
order to meet 21...'ii'd5 with 22
:h2, but Black has excellent com-
pensation for the exchange; in the
game White went down in flames)
21...~h6! 22 'ii'f2 'ii'd3 23 nell:tc8
24 iLb6 nc2 25 'ii'fl 'ii'c3 26 iLf2
(a nice little assembly of white
pieces in the comer) 26 ...nxa2 27
nb 1 iLe3 0-1 Carstens-Blaess,
German Bundesliga 1986/87.
a223) 18 'ii'a7! iLxa6+ 19 'iiigi
nc8? (Black could have maintained
the balance with 19 ...i.xe5 20 h4
'ii'd5! 21 i.xe5 iLb7! 22 :h2 1he5
23 ndl iLc6 24 'lie3 'lixe3 25 fxe3
na8 26 g3 l:a3 27 nel i.d5 28
nb2 nxa2 29 nxa2 i.xa2 30 e4 e5
31 g4 iLe6 1/2- 1h Wagner-Frendzas,
Chania 1997) 20 h4 h5 21 nh3
iLxe5 22 nf3 ~xd4 23 'lixd4 d5
24 'lif6 'lic7 25 nel 'lid7 26 ne5
ncl+ 27 'iiih2 l:tc7 28 l:tg3 'lie7 29
l:txe6! and White was winning in
Rachels-Petursson, Manila izt
1990.
b) Lastly, White has 15 'lia4, but
he runs right into a hurricane. In
N.Liicke-Sandor, German Bundes-
Iiga 1994/95, White was swept
away after 15 ... 'iih4! (also
15 .....c7 16 0-0 i.xe5 17 iLb5
i.xd4 18 'lixd4 e5 19 l:tfel l:tc5 20
a4 0-0 21 'ifb4 d6 22 a5 i.e6 23 a6
l:tb8 and Black was winning, Loef-
fler-Claverie, Cannes 1996) 16 g3
'lig4 17 f4 'lif3 18 'iiid2 (this
clearly illustrates White's prob-
lems; Black often breaks with ...d7-
d6 in this line, so the d-file is not
exactly where the white king be-
longs) 18 ...0-0 19 :hel 'iih5 20
iLe4 'lixh2+ 21 l:te2 'lixg3 22 i.e3
lla6 23 'ifb3 'iih4 24 .l:thl 'lid8 and
Black soon won.
15 0-0
Here 15 ... iLa6 leads to a better
endgame for White: 16 'lixd8+
'iiixd8 17 i.xa6 l:txa6 18 a4 d6 19
f4! (Boleslavsky gives 19 .l:tfdl
'iiid7 20 exd6 i.xd4+ 21 .l:txd4
286 Lines in which White Captures with tUxc6

l:tha8 22 'litfl l:txd6 with a likely .if8 2S 'lite3 .ics 26 .ixcs l:txcS
draw) 19 ... 'litd7 20 as l:tha8?! 27 l:td8+ 'litg7 28 l:tbl l:txeS+ 29
(20 .. J:k8 was better, but after 21 'litd4 l:te2 30 'litcs l:tc2+ 31 'litbS
l:tfdl l:tc4 22 .ie3 dS 23 l:tdbl .if8 l:txg2 32 ~c6 l:txb6+ 33 l:txb6
24 l:tb7+ l:tc7 2S l:txc7+ 'litxc7 26 l:txh2 and later a draw.
.ib6 followed by l:tc 1 White has a 18 ~xn
clear edge according to Klompus) 19 ~xn dxc6
21 .ib6 dxeS?! (2l....:tc8!?) 22 20 ~c3 :d3
l:tac1 'lite8 23 l:tfdl l:txaS 24 .ixaS Note how well Black is using his
l:txaS 2S l:tc8 'lite7 26 l:tc7+ and rook to avoid White sending his a-
White was on the road to victory in pawn off to the queening square.
Klompus-Rettenbacher, corr 1983. 21:c1 l:td5 22:e1
22 f4 gS is equal.
22 ...:c5 23 l:te3 ::'c4 24 ~b2 h5
25 ~e1 ~h1-26 ~dl g5 27 f3 :a4
28a3
This is as far as it gets!
28...c5

16 ~b5 ~a6!
In Sakharov-Veresov, USSR
1960, White got a clear edge after
16 ....:tc2?! 17 'i*'e4 'i*'c7 18 a4 ~b7
19 'i*'e3 l:tc8 20 .:tfdl.
17 'iixd8 J:bd8
18 ~xc6 29 ~c2 c4 30 ~c3 ~g6 31 :e4
White can also consider 18 a4, ~f5 32 ~d4 g4 33 ~e3 ~h6+ 34
when Rajna-Marosi, Budapest ~f2 ~f4 35 g3 ~d2 36 :d4 ~h6
1982, went as follows: 18 ... .ixbS 37 fxg4+ hxg4 38 ~e2 ~g5 39
19 axbS l:tc4 20 l:tadl l:tb8 21 b6 ~f2 ~h6 Ill_Ill
d6 22 f4 dxeS 23 fxeS l:tb7 24 'litf2 Neither side can make progress.
 13 Semi-Accelerated Dragon
Chapter Guide
1 e4 c5 2ttJf3ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4ttJf6 5ttJc3 g6?! 6ttJxc6 bxc6
7 e5 ttJg8 8 ~c4
8 ......a5?! - Game 103
8... .i.g7 - Game 104
In this line Black plays ... ttJf6 be-
fore developing his dark-squared
bishop. This forces White to put his
knight on c3 and thereby excludes
White from reaching the Maroczy
Bind. However, if it were as easy
as that, everyone would play this
line, but unfortunately White can
play 6 ttJxc6 bxc6 7 e5 with a big
lead in development. If Black plays
well, he will survive the opening
with a passive, yet solid position,
but not many leading players are
happy to settle for this. The excep-
tions are Sosonko who played it
twice at Wijk aan Zee in 1986 (lost
one and won one) and Shamkovich
who used it on occasion, not to
mention Botvinnik, who once
adopted it against Smyslov in their
1958 World Championship match.
It is difficult to pinpoint a clear-cut
way to an advantage for White, but
you always have the feeling that
there must be something good for
him.
Game 103
Varadi-Sabian
Corr1985
(1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ttJxd4)
4 ttJf6
5 ttJc3 g6?!
6 ttJxc6
At this point there are some
other moves which do not trans-
pose into either the standard
Dragon variation or the Acceler-
ated Dragon lines. These are as
follows:
a) 6 f4 'ii'b6 (6 ...d6 is a Leven-
fish Dragon, which is absolutely
harmless for Black, but also, of
course, not the subject matter of
this book) 7 ttJf3 (interesting is the
untried 7 ttJb3 d6 8 ttJd5) 7 ...d6 8
~c4 i.g7 9 "'d3 0-0 10 ~b3 ~g4
11 ~e3 .a5 12 0-0 ~xf3 13 gxf3
'ii'h5? (better is Levy's 13...ttJd7
followed by ttJc5 with a good
288 Semi-Accelerated Dragon
16 "e2ltJh5 17 :gl 'iith8 18
"c8 and now 19 f5! with clearly
"f2
game) 14 'iithl :ad8 15 :adl 'ii'h3
better chances for White, as in the
game Ljubojevic-Bilek, Teesside
1972.
b) 6 ~c4 ~g7 (6 ... d6? is a well-
known mistake which leads to a
clear advantage for White after 7
ltJxc6 bxc6 8 e5!, and 6 .....a5?!
leads to nothing but problems for
Black: 7 0-0 i.g7 [here Black
should go for the lesser evil
7 .....c5 8 ltJxc6 "xc4 9 ltJe5 "c7
10 ltJd3 with an edge for White,
but Black is still in the game] 8
ltJb3 "c7 9 ~g5 0-0 10 f4 b5!? 11
~xf6 bxc4 12 ltJd5 'jj'b8 13 ~xg7
'iitxg7 14ltJd4 e6 15 ltJxc6 dxc6 16
"d4+ f6 17 ltJe3 with a clear edge
for White, Tal-Benko, Portoroz izt
1958) 7 ltJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 ltJg8
transposing to Game 104.
6 bxc6
6 ... dxc6 was once used by 8ot-
vinnik, and more recently by GMs
Ljubojevic and Karlsson, and al-
though none of the above lost with
it, it is not to be recommended.
Black hopes for a drawish end-
game, but he is in fact very lucky if
he gets that. After 7 "xd8+ 'iitxd8
8 .i.c4 (other moves are possible,
but this is clearly the best) 8 ... ~g7
(best; the old main line is 8 ... ~e8,
when 9 e5 [less ~rgetic is 9 a4 e5
10 f4 i.e6! 11 i.xe6 fxe6 12 :fl
.i.h6! 13 f5 ~xcl 14 .::txcl ~e7
with equality, Smyslov-8otvinnik,
World ch match 1958] 9 ... ltJd7 10
f4 [or 10 e6 fxe6 11 ~xe6 i.g7 12
~e3 b6 13 0-0-0 ~xc3 14 bxc3
ltJc5 15 ~xc8 :xc8 16 ~xc5 bxc5
17 :hfl with slightly better
chances for White, Shirov-
Ljubojevic, Buenos Aires 1994]
1O... ltJc5 11 ~e3 ~e6 12 i.xe6
ltJxe6 13 0-0-0 ~g7 14 g3 b6 15
:d3 :d8 16 l:.hdl :'xd3 17 :xd3
with clearly better chances for
White in Hellers-Karlsson, Oster-
sund 1992) 9 f4!? (Karasev has
proved that 9 f3 does not promise
White anything, e.g. 9 ... ~e8 10 a4
a5 11 ~d2 ltJd7 12 0-0-0 e5 13 h4
h5 14 g3 ltJc5 15 'iitbl ~e6, Soloz-
henkin-Karasev, Leningrad 1990,
but 9 a4!?, intending 10 h3 and 11
f4, is quite interesting; Silman and
Donaldson now give 9... ltJg4 10 f4
~xc3+ 11 bxc3 ltJf6, which is fme
for Black, but 10 f4?! should be
replaced by 10 ~d2 with a slight
edge for White) 9 ... b5 10 ~d3 e5
11 0-0 ltJd7 12 f5 f6 13 ~e3 ~f8
14 fxg6 hxg6 15 a4 b4 16 ltJbl,
A.lvanov-Shabanov, USSR 1986,
and now 16 ... ~e7, intending ... ltJc5
and ... ~e6, would have kept
White's advantage to a bare mini-
mum.
7 eS ltJg8
Unlike in the previous chapter,
Black does not have 7 ... ltJd5,
which is easily refuted: 8 ltJxd5
cxd5 9 'ifxdS :'b8 10 e6! f6
(10 .. .fxe6?? allows 11 "e5 forking
both rooks) 11 ~f4 with a horrible

position for Black, e.g. Il..J:tb6 12
.1t.b51he6+ 13 'iVxe6 'iVa5+ 14 c3
'iVxb5 15 'ii'e2 and White was win-
ning, Mikenas-Uogele, Lithuanian
ch 1965.
However, an interesting alterna-
tive is 7...~h5!?, e.g. 8 .1t.c4 (or 8
.1t.e2 'iVa5 9 f4 with a good game
for White, whereas 9 .1t.xh5 gxh5
10 'iVxh5 .1t.g7 11 f4 0-0 12 0-0 f6
13 ~e4 d5! is playable for Black -
Silman and Donaldson) 8...d5! 9
exd6 'iVxd6 10 'iVf3 (or 10 0-0)
1O....t..e6 11 .1t.b5 .!:[c8 12 .1t.a6 l:1d8
13 0-0 'iVc7, when Black is only
slightly worse, Petrushin-Vizek,
Czechoslovakia 1985.
8 .1t.c4
8 'iVaS?!
This move is highly dubious;
better is 8... .1t.g7, which can be
found in the next main game. Black
has two further alternatives:
a) 8... d5?! (Black cannot break
in the centre when he is this far
behind in development) 9 exd6
'iVxd6 (9 ...exd6? is even worse: 10
'iVf3 d5 11 tLlxd5! cxd5 12 .1t.xd5
'ii'e7+ 13 .1t.e3 :b8 14 0-0 .1t.g7 15
.1t.f4, John-Janowski, Mannheim
1914) 10 0-0 'iVxdl 11 :xdl .1t.h6
12 .1t.xh6 tLlxh6 13 lId2 ~f5 14
Semi-Accelerated Dragon 289
itJe4 with a clear edge for White in
Geller-Stein, USSR ch 1966/67.
b) 8... f5!? (Black is way behind
in development and yet he keeps
playing pawns moves!) 9 .tf4 e6
10 'iVd2 :b8 11 .1t.b3 (White could
consider both 11 0-0 and 11 0-0-0
at this point) 1l...:b4!? 12 0-0
'iVc7 13 lIfel :xf4! 14 'iVxf4 (it is
quite amazing that Black is still in
the game: he is an exchange down,
and has only developed his queen)
14...itJh6 15 :adl (jjf7 16 'iVe3
.1t.g7 17 f4 g5 18 fxg5 .1t.xe5 19
'ili'h3, when White is better, but
with his pawn majority in the cen-
tre and the bishop pair, Black has
some counterplay, and actually
went on to draw the game in
Popovic-Velimirovic, Banja Vru-
cica 1991.
9 .1t.f4
White has two other strong pos-
sibilities:
a) 9 'iVe2!? .1t.g7 10 f4 itJh6 11
.1t.d2 0-0 120-0-0 'iVc7 13 g4 d5 14
exd6 exd6 15 f5 gxf5 16 gxf5
.1t.xf5 17 J:hgl .1t.g6 18 h4 with a
dangerous attack for White, Shi-
anovsky-Sherbak, USSR 1960.
~ 9 P-O! .1t.g7 (even worse is
9 .. ~xe5? 10 :el and now for ex-
ample 1O...'iVb8 11 'iVd4 f6 12 itJe4
.1t.g7 13 .1t.f4 'iVb6 14itJd6+ ~ 15
'iVd3 .1t.b7 16 .1t.xg8 :xg8 17 'iVc4
and it was all over, 1-0 Tiviakov-
Mugerman, Pinsk 1989) 10 Wf3!
e6 11 ~e4 .1t.xe5 12 .1t.f4 Wc7 13
.t..xe5 'ii'xe5 14 :fel d5 15 :adl
with a strong attack for White,
Barvik-Terentiev, USSR 1961.
9 .1t.g7
10 Wf3!
In Timman-Korchnoi, Brussels
1991, White was successful with 10
0-0 .1t.xe5 11 .1t.xe5 'iVxe5 12 :el
290 Semi-Accelerated Dragon

.f4 13 l:te4 .f6 14 :te3 dS IS 18 .i.xdS! cxd5

.i.xdS! with a clear advantage. 19 l:lxdS cj;f7
However, 10 "f3 is even better. On 19 ... ltJe7, Bottlik gives: 20
ltJd6+! 'ifr>d7 21 l:td3 ltJdS 22 ltJe4
i.a6 23 l:txdS+ exdS 24ltJc5+.
20 l:ld8! .xbS
21 .c7+ ltJe7
22 l:lxh8 .xb4
23 c3 .h4
24 .d8 e5
25 l:lf8+ ~e6
26 l:le8 1-0

Game 104
De Firmian-5osonko
Wijk aan Zee 1986

10 e6 (1 e4 c5 2 ltJt3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4

Nor does 10... f6 help Black to ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6?! 6 ltJxc6
survive: 11 .i.g3 .i.a6 12 b4 'iib6 bxc6 7 eS ltJg8 8 .i.c4)
13 bS .i.b7 14 O-O! lIcS IS ltJa4
"as 16ltJcS .i.aS 17 'ii'b3ltJh6 IS 8 .i.g7
ltJxd7! cxbS 19 .i.xbS .i.c6 20
ltJxf6+! .i.xf6 21 .i.xc6+ lIxc6 22
exf6 1-0, was the game Unzicker-
Rausis, Daugavpils 1990. White
played very accurately; all of
Black's moves were responses to
white threats.
11 0-0 .i.xe5
12 b4 .c7
12 .....xb4? is answered by 13
.i.xeS f6 14 .i.xe6!
13 ltJb5
14 .i.xe5
IS lIadl
16 lIfel 9 .13
17 .c3! Also possible is 9 'j'e2...ltJh6 10
17 .i.xdS! also wins for White: .i.f4 0-0 11 0-0-0 'iib6 12 h4 ltJfS
17...cxdS IS "xdS ~f8 19 .cS+! 13 g4 ltJd4 14 .e4 ltJe6 IS .i.e3
~g7 (19 ... ltJe7 20 lIdS+ ~g7 21 "c7, as in Tarasevich-Karagoiz,
lIxh8 ~xhS 22 .xe7) 20 lId8 'iib7 USSR 19S9, and now 16 .i.xe6
21 .f8 ~f6 22ltJd6 .e7 23ltJe4+ fxe6 17 f4 is clearly better for
~S 24 .xe7 1-0 Geenen-Miranda, White. Black has real problems on
Novi Sad 01 1990. the kingside; White threatens 18 gS
17 f6 and 19 hS with a nasty attack.

In Baker-Shamkovich, New
York 19S5, White tried 9 0-0, but
then Black got away with
9 ....i.xeS!? (9 ...liJh6!?) 10 ':el
.i.g7 11 .i.f4 dS 12 texdS! cxdS,
and now White should have con-
tinued with 13 WxdS "'xdS 14
.i.xdS gS IS .i.c7 ~d7 16 .i.g3 fS
17 %lad1 f4 IS .i.xaS+ ~c7 with an
unclear position.
9 f5
If Black tries to avoid the main
line with 9...e6, White is much
better after 10 .i.f4 WaS 11 O-O!
.i.xeS? (suicidal, but l1...liJe7 12
liJe4 is also good for White) 12 b4!
"'xc7 13 liJbS and White won,
Pietzsch-Baumbach, East Germany
19S9.
10 .i.f4 e6!
As we should know by now,
10......aS? is a bad idea. Pawn
snatching when you a,re far behind
in development is suicidal: 11 O-O!
.i.xeS 12 b4! Wc7 13 tebS 'iVbs 14
.i.xeS "'xeS IS %lfel 'iVbs 16 "'c3
1-0 Karakas-Polihroniade, Bewer-
wijk 1966.
A better alternative, yet some-
what passive is 1O...:bS!? and
now:
a) In Suetin-Bilek, Kecskemet
1972, Black did not have too much
trouble after 11 .i.b3 Wc7 12 0-0
e6 13 %lfe1 liJe7 14 .i.gS tedS IS
%lad1 0-0 16 liJxdS cxdS 17 "'f4
1:[£7 IS .i.h6 .i.xh6 19 "'xh6, and
now 19 ...:b4 would have given
equal chances.
b) White tried something differ-
ent in Daurelle-Koerholz, Cannes
1994: 11 0-0-0 %lb4 12 .i.xgS?!
%lxgS 13 a3 ':c4 14 liJe2 e6 IS
1Wb3 l:te4 16 :bel .i.a6 (White's
play leaves an artificial impression,
and Black is already taking charge
Semi-Accelerated Dragon 291
of the game) 17 .i.e3 .i.c4 18 'iVb7
%lxeS 19 .i.gS!? :bS! 20 "'xbS
"'xgS+ 21 f4 "'xf4+ 22 liJxf4
.i.xbS and Black has all the chances
to win this endgame.
c) Best is 11 0-0 e6 12 %ladl
Wc7 13 %lfelliJe7 (13 ...liJh6 is also
possible, but 14 "'g3 ten IS h4 is
quite uncomfortable for Black) 14
b3 0-0 IS We3 "'as 16 h4 %1£7 17
a3 and White had the better
chances in Andersson-Bilek, Tees-
side 1972.
11 0-0-0
This is the main line, but other
moves have also been tried:
a) 11 g4 (tried only once, when
White got an excellent position, but
Black need not fear this move)
l1...fxg4?! (l1...liJe7, intending
... 0-0, seems to be better, trying to
catch up on his development) 12
"'xg4 "'as?! (again this is not ad-
visable, better is 12 ... liJe7 or
12 ...liJh6!?, e.g. 13 .i.xh6 .i.xh6 14
liJe4 0-0 IS liJf6+ %lxf6 16 exf6
Wxf6 with good play for Black) 13
0-0-0 .i.xeS 14 .i.xeS "'xeS IS
:bel with more than enough for
the pawn, Suetin-Korchnoi, USSR
19S4.
b) 11 0-0 (this move is possibly
.",..RA' .... ~
292 Semi-Accelerated Dragon
stronger than 11 0-0-0, but so far it
has not been played very often)
ll...lLlh6 (also possible is 11...lLle7
which may transpose to Andersson-
Bilek above) 12 :adl 'ikc7 13 l:tfel
liJf7 14 "g3 (or 14 'ilfe3 :bS IS b3
h6 16 i.g3 'ilfaS 17 lLla4 i.fS 18
'ilfd3 i.e7 19 i.f4 'ifc7, Zivic-
Dezelin, Slokobanja 1989, when
White was somewhat more active)
14 ... 0-0 (Shamkovich gives 14 ... gS
as unclear, but one has the feeling
that White should be better, al-
though it is pretty difficult to
prove, e.g. IS i.xgS i.xeS 16 f4
:g8! or 16 'ilfh4 :g8!; this is defi-
nitely better than the game, where
Black ends up bound hand and
foot) IS h4 ~hS 16 lLla4 as?! 17
b3 :e8 IS 'ilfe3 h6 19 g4! :g8 20
..tg3 ..tfS 21 'ilfb6! with total con-
trol, Short-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee
19S6.
c) 11 h4 'ilfc7 (this may already
be wrong; perhaps 11...liJh6 was
once again the right move) 12 'ikg3
':b8 13 hS gS 14 h6! (the only way
to maintain the pressure) 14... i.xh6
IS ':'xh6 lLlxh6 16 'ilfxgS liJf7 17
'ikg3 llb4 18 b3 'ikaS 190-0-0 and
White develops a strong initiative,
Kislov-Groh, Budejovice 1992.
11 'ike7
12 h4
Once again we have some alter-
natives for White:
a) 12 %lhel lLlh6 (in Dam-
janovic-Gazik, Stary Smokovec
19S8, Black ended up in a very sad
position after 12 ....:b8 13 a3 [pre-
venting Black's .. ..:~b4xf4 ideas]
13 ... liJe7 14 h4 liJdS IS hS liJxf4
16 'ifxf4 'ikaS 17 ':e3 with a much
better position for White) 13 h4
lLlf7 14 'ike3 llbS IS g4 ':b4 16
i.b3? (if possible, White should
never allow Black to sacrifice the
exchange on f4 as the eS-pawn will
become too weak, and Black will
then gain excellent chances due to
his pawn majority in the centre and
the pair of bishops; in this case 16
b3, despite being weakening,
would have been better) 16 ...:xf4!
17 'ikxf4 liJxeS IS 'ikg3 (Black
threatened 18 ...lLld3+) 18 ...fxg4 19
hS gxhS 20 :hl "as 21 1Ii'h4liJf3
with a clear advantage for Black,
Gaber-Dezelin, Pula 1990.
b) 12 l:del!? (this move looks
slightly strange, but it is actually
quite logical; White wants to break
with the h-pawn, so why not keep
the rook on hI and use the other
rook to protect the e-pawn, as
nothing will be happening on the d-
file for some time?) 12 ... liJh6
(12 ...liJe7!?) 13 h4 liJf7 14 'ikg3!
l1b8?! (it is quite possible that
14 .. J:tg8, intending ... ..tfS or
... i.h8 followed by a ... h7-h6, ... g6-
gS plan is better) IS h5! gS 16
i.xgS liJxgS 17 h6! ..tf6 18 f4!
:b4 19 b3 :g8 20 exf6 liJf7 21
'ife3 with a much better position
for White, since Black has real
problems with his co-ordination,
Kiesekamp-Bogdan, Szeged 1995.
c) 12 'ifg3liJe7? (12 ...liJh6!?) 13
h4 h6 14 l:[d6 0-0 IS hS gS 16
i.xgS! hxgS 17 h6 and White was
winning in Mortishov-Shamkovich,
USSR 19S1.
d) 12 'ilfe3 :b8 13 i.b3 (Kuijf-
Sosonko, Hilversum 19S7, saw 13
:hel 'ilfb6 14 lLla4 'ikxe3+ 15
i.xe3 ..txeS 16 i.xa7 ..tf4+ 17
~bl :as IS i.d4 :xa4 19 b3
l:txc4 20 bxc4 e5 21 :xe5+ ~
112_112) 13 ... l:lb4 14 g3 liJe7
(interesting is Shamkovich's sug-
gestion 14... gS!? 15 i.xgS 'ifxeS
 Semi-Accelerated Dragon 293

16 "f3 lLlf6 17 .i.f4 ':'xf4!? with 15 .....xeS, then 16 :lhel "a5 17

an unclear position) IS a3 :lb8 16 i.xe6! decides.
h4 with the better chances for If White does not have any im-
White, Popovic-Shamkovich, New provements on our main game, this
York 1986. is obviously where he should be
12 lLlh6! looking for an alternative; and
12 ...:lb8?! is too slow. Black there are three good possibilities to
needs to finish his development and choose from.
put pressure on the e5-pawn, which 13 lLlrr
is White's only weakness. A few 14 :lhel
examples illustrate the downside to Better was 14 :de 1!?, transpos-
this move: 13 :lhel (13 .i.b3?! is ing to Kiesekamp-Bogdan above.
less to the point due to 13 ...:b4! 14 14 :lb8
'itbl l:xf4 15 "xf4 .i.xe5 16
lLlf6 17 f3 0-0 18 g4 fxg4 19 fxg4
"d2 15 ~bl?!
White cannot play like this, as
lLlxg4 20 l:Ihg 1 lLlf6 with chances the game continuation clearly dem-
for both White and Black, Zontakh- onstrates. A reasonable alternative
Velimirovic, Belgrade 1993) is IS a3 Wb6 16 b3! (Silman and
13 ...l:b4 14 b3! lLlh6 IS a3 l:b8 16 Donaldson's only playable option
.i.xh6! .i.xh6+ 17 ~b2 0-0 18 "d3 for White is 16 .i.b3 cS 17 lLla4
':'e8 19 "d6 when Black is in a "c6 18 c4 0-0 with an unclear po-
bind, Golyan-Mukhin, Alma Ata sition) 16.....a5 17 ~b2 with a
19S8. good game for White.
13 "g3?! 15 :lb4!
Shamkovich's 13 "e2!? lLlf7 14 16 .i.b3 0-0
:ldel followed by :lh3 and :lg3 is 17 a3 :lxf4
worthwhile, as is 13 :Ide!!? trans- 18 "xf4 .i.xe5
posing to the Kiesekamp-Bogdan 19 "dl d5
game, which seems quite attractive.
Silman and Donaldson give 13
hS gS! 14 .i.xgS lLlf7 14 .i.f4 .i.xeS
IS .i.xeS lLlxeS 16 "g3 d5 17
':'he1 f4! without an evaluation,
though the exclamation marks indi-
cate that this should be good for
Black, but we think that 18 lLlxd5!!
should win for White: 18...cxdS
(18 ... exdS 19 "xf4 is obviously
murder) 19 .i.bS+ .i.d7! (the only
move, as everything else loses on
the spot: 19 ... lLld7 20 "g7 ':'f8 21
l:xe6+; 19 ... lLlc6 20 "c3; 19 .. .'it?d8
20 "gS+; 19... 'iWS 20 "xf4+; This is exactly what Black is
19.. .'iPe7 20 "gS+!) 20 "g7 O-O-O! hoping for in this variation. He has
21 .i.a6+ ~b8 22 'ii'xeS. Further- tremendous compensation for the
more, if Black tries to improve with exchange and is much better.
294 Semi-Accelerated Dragon

20 g3 24 'ii'c5?
Another convincing example: 20 White could have limited his
~e2 ~d7 21 f4 ~f6 22 h5 l:.b8 23 opponent's advantage here with 24
hxg6 hxg6 24 ~d4 1i'd6 25 1i'e3 c5 ~a4 ~e4 25 ~c5 f4 26 gxf4 gxf4
26 ~xe6 c4! 27 ~d4 cxb3 28 cxb3 27 1i'xe4 dxe4 28 ~xd7 e3! 29
'itb6 29 1i'd3 a5 30 l:e3 ~d6 31 g4 ~xf8 1i'e5 30 c3 ct>xfS 31 fxe3 f3
~e4 32 ~c2 l:.d8 33 g5 ~b5 0-1 with a clear advantage for Black -
was Ravinsky-Shamkovich, Vilnius Sosonko. The rest of the game is a
1953. desperate attempt by White to cre-
20 i..d7 ate some counterplay, which does
21 h5 g5! not succeed at all:
22 l:e2 i..f6 24..:iVb8 25 g4 ~b7 26 'ii'e3 f4 27
23 'ii'e3 ~d6 'ii'd2 ~c5 28 ~a2 'ii'b6 29 'ii'e1
':'b8 30 ~a4 ~xa4 31 ':'xe6 'ii'd8!
32 ':'xc6 i..xc6 33 'ii'e6+ ~g7 34
'ii'xc6 ~b6 35 h6+ <iPxh6 36 c3
<iPg7 37 f3 ':'c8 38 'ii'b5 'ii'e7 39
i..c2 'ii'c5 0-1
Black never let go of his grip.
An excellent performance by Sos-
onko, but before one gets too en-
thusiastic about this game, one
needs to look at White's 13th move
alternatives, which are quite trou-
blesome for Black.
 14 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon

Chapter Guide

1 e4 cS 2 lLlO g6
3 d4 cxd4 4 'iVxd4lLlf6
5 .i.b5 - Game 105
5 e5 - Game 106
5 lLlc3 - Game 107
3 c3 .i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 dS 6 eS lLlc6
7 i.b5 - Game 108
7 h3 - Game 109

The Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (1 logical too, if you consider the g6-

e4 c5 2 lLlf3 g6) is often employed
by Accelerated Dragon players as a
means of avoiding 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3
lLlc6 3 .i.b5.
Normally White transposes to
the main lines of the Accelerated
Dragon with 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4
tLlc6, but 2 ... g6 gives White some
extra options, which constitute the
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon, and
these are covered in this chapter.
Game 105
Hector-Larsen
London 1991
1 e4 cS
2 tLlO g6!?
3 d4
The main alternative, 3 c3, is the
subject of Games 108 and 109.
3 h4 is interesting, and quite
pawn to be a weakness. It was first
played by future World Champion
Boris Spassky against Leonid Stein
in 1965. Stein did not prevent the
threat of h4-h5, and after 3 ... i.g7 4
h5 tLlc6 5 tLlc3 e6 6 d3 d5 7 i.g5,
White had some initiative, since his
h-pawn was highly annoying for
Black.
Larsen later tried 3... h5 against
Rodriguez in St Martin 1994. This
is what one would expect from
Larsen, who has always enjoyed
pushing his h-pawns. However,
Rodriguez, found the g5-square
very inviting for his knight, and
played a much improved Morra
Gambit: 4 d4 cxd4 5 .i.c4 tLlc6 6 c3
dxc3?! (too brave; more sensible
was 6 ...d3 or 6 ...tLlf6 with some
edge for White) 7 tLlxc3 tLlf6 8 i.f4
d6?? (an incredible move from a
296 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
player of Larsen's class; much
better was 8... .Jtg7, when White
will still have to prove his attacking
skills, but now it is all over) 9 lLlg5
e6 10 lLlb5 (simply winning the d6-
pawn) 1O... a6 11 lLlxd6+ .Jtxd6 12
.i.xd6 ii'a5+ 13 b4 "'d8 14 l:lh3
lLlg4 15 .Jtb3 a5 16 ii'd2 a4 17 .Jtc4
ii'b6 18 l:Idl f6 19 .i.c5 ii'c7 20
lLlxe6 .i.xe6 21 .Jtxe6 l:Id8 22 l:Id3
l:Ixd3 23 "'xd3 lLlge5 24 ii'b5 l:Ih7
25 .Jtd6 ii'g7 26 "'xa4 1-0.
Since this Morra-like gambit
looks like a strong reply to 3... h5,
perhaps Bla("k should try 3... lLlf6,
since 4 e5 lLlg4 5 d4 cxd4 6 "'xd4
h5 7 e6 f6 8 .i.d3 l:Ig8 is not very
clear, while 5 c3 d6 and 5 h5 .i.g7
also look fine for Black. Still, if
White is the creative type, 3 h4 is a
good, provocative idea based on
sound principles.
3 .i.c4 is quieter, but not without
venom. It is very similar to 1 e4 c5
2 lLlf3 d6 3 .i.c4, which Michael
Adams has played a few times.
However, there is a difference. In
that line, after 3 ... lLlf6, White has to
defend with the e-pawn with 4 d3,
but here White has time for the
immediate d2-d4, since Black will
not hit the e4-pawn in time. Bron-
stein-Khasin, Moscow 1961, saw 3
.i.c4 .Jtg7 4 0-0 d6 5 c3 lLlf6 6
"'a4+!? .Jtd7 7 ii'b3 0-0 8 e5 lLlg4
9 e6 with a huge plus for White.
Later the same year, the game Lu-
tikov-Stein showed how Black
should play: 4 ... lLlc6 5 c3 e6! 6 d3
lLlge7 7 a4 0-0 8 lLlbd2 d5 9 .Jta2
b6 and Black already had the better
position. After the immediate 4
c3!?, Bilek has had some success
with 4 ... e6. Against Per Juslin in
Boraas 1986, he was worse after 5
d4 cxd4 6 cxd4 d5 7 .Jtb5+ lLlc6?!
8 e5 .i.d7 9 lLlc3 f6 10 exf6 lLlxf6
11 iLxc6 .i.xc6 12 .Jtf4 0-0 13
iLe5, although he later won the
game. Three years later, against
Chevallier, Val Thorens 1989, he
improved with the correct 7... .Jtd7.
After 8 .i.xd7 "'xd7 9 e5?! lLlc6 10
0-0 f6! 11 exf6 lLlxf6 12 lLlc3 0-0
13 l:IellLlh5, he was already better.
The structure is similar to the
French Defence, but here in a more
active version. In particular the
bishop on g7 looks nice. The game
finished 14 .i.e3 l:Iad8 15 "'e2lLlf4
16 "'d2? lLlxg2! 17 ~xg2 e5 18 h3
l:Ixf3 19 ~xf3 "'xh3+ 20 ~e2
exd4 21 .Jtg5 dxc3 22 bxc3 l:Ie8+
23 .Jte3 d4 0-1.
Not too difficult, but still very
attractive. It seems that playing
... e7-e6 and ... d7-d5 immediately
secures Black excellent chances.
3cxd4
Also possible is 3....Jtg7, in-
tending to use some of the extra
options after 4 c4, which can be
found in the transpositions chapter.
However, White can play 4 d5 with
a Schmid Benoni, or the even more
scary 4 dxc5!?, when Black should
respond 4 ......a5+ 5 lLlc3 lLlf6 6
.i.d3 "xc5, but not 5 ......xc5?! 6

tLld5! which has led to some quick
disasters for Black. Nunn seems to
support the view that 5 c3 "xc5 6
.i.e3 'ilc7 7 i.d4!? is White's most
promising line. Although 7...e5?!
looks logical, White is much better
after 8 .i.e3 tLlf6 9 tLla3!, e.g.
9 ... 0-0 10 tLlb5 "c6 11 tLlxeS
.xe4 12 liJxf7! .:txf7 13 tLld6 .c6
14 .i.c4 .i.f8 15 .i.xf7+ fj;g7 16
tLlxc8 winning for White, as the
knight escapes via a7, Lesiege-
Strenzwilk, New York 1992. Best
is probably 7... tLlf6 8 e5 tLlg4 9 e6
f6, which looks quite playable.
4 'ilxd4!?
As mentioned in the introduction
to this chapter, 4 tLlxd4 just trans-
poses to a nonnal Accelerated
Dragon.
4 lLlf6
5 .i.bS
Bronstein's ingenious idea from
his game against Zhidkov in 1972.
Black played the weak S...•a5+,
but after 6 "c3 he realised that
6 ...'ilxc3 7 tLlxc3 with the threat of
e5 followed by lLld5 can only be
parried with 7 ... a6, and then S e5
axb5 9 exf6 with lLld5 or lLlxbS
next is almost winning for White.
Zhidkov swallowed his pride and
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 297
played 6.....dS, but after 7 i.c4!
followed byeS Black was in big
trouble. Still, Legahn tried to im-
prove on this disaster with 6...lLlc6
against Fette. However, after 7
'ilxa5lLlxa5 8lLlc3 a6 9 eSlLlg4 10
lLld5 ~d8 11 h3 lLlh6 12 .i.e3 he
found himself on the wrong side of
a miniature.
S e5 is the subject of the next
game and 5 lLlc3 of Game 107.
5 lLlc6
Nowadays nearly the only move
played, although we do not find the
consequences of S... a6 to be clear
at all. After 6 eS axbS 7 exf6 e6
(7 ...lLlc6 has been played, but after
S 'ild5 Black has to play the awk-
ward' s...lLlb4 9 'ilb3 e6, after
which 10 lLlc3 looks preferable for
White) 8 lLlc3 (best; S 0-0 lLlc6 9
'ii'h4 .:ta4! is fme for Black)
S... lLlc6 9 'ii"h4 Black never got
developed in Riihrig-Stertenbrink,
German Bundesliga 1983/84, after
9...b4?! 10 lLlb5 .:ta5 11 c4! bxc3
12 a4 cxb2 13 .i.xb2 .i.b4 + 14
~e2. Instead of 9 ... b4?!, we find
9 ....:taS more logical. Now ... bS-b4
followed by ....:th5 cannot be pre-
vented, since 10 a4 bxa4 is okay
for Black. Maybe White should try
10 .i.h6 .i.xh6 11 'ilxh6 "xf6 12
lLle4 'ilxb2 13 0-0, which is very
unclear.
In summary, after 5 ... a6, Black
is well behind in development. But
with the pair of bishops, the rook
coming into play via a5 and the f6-
pawn being weak, inexact play by
White could easily give Black the
better game. So, if you find the
endgame after S...lLlc6 too difficult
to win, 5 ...a6 is a risky, but not bad
winning attempt.
6 .i.xc6 dxc6
298 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
6 ... bxc6 is more ambitious.
Black hopes to prove the advantage
of the bishop pair and the extra
central pawn. The variation is
similar to 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3
i.b5 g6 4 i.xc6 bxc6 5 0-0 i.g7 6
:tel ttJf6 7 e5 ttJd5 8 c4 ttJc7 9 d4
cxd4 10 W'xd4, which has been
considered good for White since
Kasparov-Salov, Dortmund 1992,
when White had easy development
due to his space advantage. After
6 ...bxc6 Black will suffer for the
same reasons: 7 e5 ttJd5 8 0-0
(after 8 e6?! Black gets a huge
centre after either 8.. .f6 and
8...ttJf6!) 8... i.g7 and now:
a) The attempt to transpose to
the above Kasparov game with 9 c4
was less successful in Edelman-
Shabalov, New York 1992. After
9 ... ttJb4 Shabalov took advantage
of the white Queen's early devel-
opment to d4, and won a messy
game after 10 ttJa3 d6 11 c5 ttJd5
12 cxd6 exd6 13 i.g5 dxe5.
b) 9 W'h4 (planning i.h6 to
eliminate the bishop pair) 9 .. .f6
(allowing i.h6; critical was 9 ... h6
to keep the bishop pair, when after
10 c4 ttJb4 11 ttJc3 ttJd3 12 i.d2
ii'c7 13 ttJe4 g5 14 ifg3 ttJxb2 15
l:ael <i>f8 Black survived White's
attack and later won in Kengis-
Levcenkovc, Riga 1984; still, this
looks very dangerous for Black, as
after 9... h6 he will hardly ever be
able to castle, so 10 a3, preparing
c2-c4, or 10 ttJd2 followed by ttJe4
looks like a good idea, but proba-
bly this is the kind of position
Black has to play if he chooses
6 ... bxc6) 10 c4 ttJc7 11 i.h60-0 12
i.xg7 'iti>xg7 13 ttJc3 ttJe6 14 ':adl
fxe5 15 ttJxe5 ':f4 16 ii'g3 ii'c7 17
':fel d6? (losing a pawn, but Black
was much worse anyway) 18 ttJxg6
hxg6 19l1xe6 i.xe6 20 ii'xf4 with
an extra pawn in Sax-Tatai, Rome
1986. After 20 ...:f8 21 ii'd4+ ~g8
22 llel i.f7 23 W'h4 e5? 24 ttJe4
1-0.
It seems to us that unless you
have very strong nerves and are
happy to defend Black's position
after 9 ...h6!?, 6 ... bxc6 will be un-
attractive to you, since otherwise
White just has a simple position
with an edge.
7 W'xdS+ 'iti>xdS
This endgame used to be consid-
ered as slightly better for White.
Yet Larsen does not believe that
the right to castle is more important
than Black's bishop pair. So he
plays very ambitiously, trying to
prove Black to be better.
S ttJc:3
In the rapidplay game J.Polgar-
Larsen, Melody Amber 1992,
White tried 8 e5, but after 8...ttJd5
9 i.d2 i.g7 10 c4 ttJb6 11 b3 i.g4
12 i.c3 i.xf3 13 gxf3 ttJd7 14 f4
ttJc5 15 'iti>e2 'iti>c7 16 ttJd2 ':hd8 17
i.b4 ttJe6 18 i.xe7 ttJxf4+ 17 <ifiJe3
i.xe5! 18 i.xd8+ ':xd8 White
found herself completely out-
played. She realised that the
planned 19 ':adl would allow mate
in three after 19 ... ':d3 20 <li'e4
i.d6! with 21...f5 mate! Instead
White played 19 ttJf3 and won the
endgame a pawn down, but only
because Larsen later blundered a
rook! 8 e5 is too ambitious, since
White is not properly developed.
S i.g7
8... i.g4 is also possible, when
White did not prove anything in
Zarnicki-Larsen, Buenos Aires
1992. The former World Junior
Champion played 9 ttJe5, but only

had equality after 9....i.e6 10 tt'ld3
.i.g7 11 lLlc5 .i.c8 12 .i.f4 b6 13
0-0-0+ ~e8 14 tt'ld3 tbd7 15 l:td2
e5. Although 8... ~g4 is playable, it
seems more flexible to develop
with 8... ~g7 and 9 ... ~e8 first, and
then decide where to put the other
pieces.
9 h3
Preventing ... ~g4, but allowing
Black to play a plan with ... tt'ld7,
... e7-e5 and ... ~e7 etc.
9 ~f4 is more ambitious, since if
Black tries the same plan, he gets
into trouble after 9...tbd7 10 0-0-0
~e8 11 ~c7!, when White threat-
ens to double rooks on the defile,
after which Black can never free
himself. In Arkhipov-P.H.Nielsen,
Gistrup 1994, Black managed to
draw after l1...b6 12 h4 (not 12
:d2 ~h6 or 12 :d3 ~a6)
12 ...~b7 13 h5 tbc5 14 ~e5 f6 15
~d4 tbe6 16 ~e3 :g8 17 tt'lh4
~f7 18 f4, but it was obvious that
White enjoyed some initiative.
Instead 9 ...~e8 (or 9... tbh5) 10
0-0-0 ~h5 is more active, and in
practice White has not been able to
equalise:
a) Schlosser-Lerch, Tmava
1989, saw 11 ~c7 ~g4 12 l:td3
~h6+ 13 ~bl ~f4 14 .i.xf4 ~xf4,
when Black was just slightly better.
b) And Kosten-Birmingham,
Paris 1988: 11 ~e5 f6 12 ~d4
~h6+ 13 ~e3 ~xe3+ 14 fxe3 e5,
when only Black could think of
victory. We have not found a way
to improve on White's play after
1O••. tbh5, and if there are no im-
provements, then the endgame
arising after 5 ~b5 must be consid-
ered harmless for Black.
9 tbd7
10 ~dl
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 299
After the more 'aggressive' 10
~e3, Rausis simply took on c3.
After 1O••• ~xc3+ 11 bxc3 f6 12
0-0-0 ~e8 13 :he 1 e5 14 tbd2
~b6 followed by ... ~e6, Black
was much better, Myrvold-Rausis,
Gausdal 1995.
10 ~e8
11 0-0-0 ~eS
Also possible was the standard
plan with ... e7-e5 and ... <lIe7 etc.
'12 ~d4
White should accept that he has
achieved nothing and simplify with
12 ~xe5 ~xe5 13 ~e2 and 14
~c3.
12...~c4 13 ~gS f6 14 ~h4 eS 15
~O <lIe7 16 :d3 ~e6 17 ~a4 gS
18 ~g3 b6 19 b3 ~d6 20 tbdl hS
Now Larsen has a serious initia-
tive. His pieces co-ordinate very
well, and he is ready to open the
kingside.
21 c4 ~f7 22 :dl g4 23 hxg4
hxg424 f4
Active defence. If White had
played passively, Black had plans
like ... ~h6-f4 and ...tbg5 or
...~h6-g5 and ...f6-f5.
24...gxO 25 tbxO ~h6+ 26 ~c2
:hg8 27 tbh4 :ad8 28 ~el :xd3
29 :xd3 :14 30 tbc3 tbd6 31 cS
300 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
tDxe4 32 cxb6 axb6 33 tDa4 bS 34
tDc3.i.gS
Another strategic triumph for
Larsen, but he later allowed his
opponent to escape with a draw. It
seems to us that the endgame aris-
ing after 5 ~b5 offers as many
chances to Black as it does for
White.
Game 106
Rozentalis-Tregubov
Sf Petersburg 1996
(1 e4 cS 2 tDf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4
'it'xd4 tDf6)
S eS!?
Generally not considered very
strong, but recently Rozentalis has
come up with a new idea, which
seems promising for White.
S tDc6
6 -'a4
White has to watch out for 6
tWh4? tDxe5 and 6 -'e3 tDg4 fol-
lowed by ... tDgxe5. In both cases
Black wins a pawn because of
.. :ifa5+ which wins back the piece.
6 tDd5
7 -.e4 tDdb4
This used to be the main move,
but perhaps 7 ... tDc7 8 tDc3 .i.g7 is
a more solid option and now:
a) In Lutikov-Osnos, Kiev 1964,
Black was blown apart after 9 .i.f4
tDe6?! 10 .i.g3 b6 11 h4 h5 12.i.c4
i.b7 13 .i.d5 -.c8 140-0-0 tDa5 15
tDg5 .i.h6 16 f4 .i.xg5 17 fxg5
rt:Jc7 18 .i.xti+ 'itxf7 19 e6+ tDxe6
20 l%hfl with total destruction. Im-
pressive play by White, but Black
could have done better by not giv-
ing up control of d5 and playing
9... b6 instead of 9 ... tDe6?! Silman
and Donaldson suggest that 10 .i.c4
.i.b7 11 'ife2 tDa5 12 .i.d3 tDe6 13
i.g3 tDc5 140-00-015 %ladl Wc8
is equal. This is probably right, but
10 .i.c4 seems unnecessary, Black
gains a lot of time chasing the
bishop. 10 0-0-0 or even stronger
10 h4! seem to be the real tests of
7 ... tDc7. It looks as if White has
good attacking chances, but since
Black has no obvious weaknesses,
with careful play he should have a
fully playable position.
b) The correct answer to 9 .i.c4
was shown as long ago as Tren-
chard-Blackbume, in 1898! There
followed 9 ... b5!
This gains valuable time to de-
velop, as acceptance of the pawn
sacrifice with 10 bb5 (10
tDxbS?? tDxbS 11 .i.xb5 WaS+) is

bad. After 1O... tl)xb5 11 tl)xb5
'iVa5+ 12 tl)c3 l:b8! (not 12 ...~a6
13 .i.d2, when White might keep
his pawn) Black wins back the
pawn, while keeping all his trumps.
Instead of capturing on b5, White
played 10 ~b3 ~b7 11 'iVe2 ~a6
12 ~d5 0-0 13 ~xc7 'iVxc7 14 ~f4
'iVa5+ 15 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ 16 c,i;Jxd2
d5! and Black had a level ending.
8 ~a3!?
A well-known move in the 'c3
Sicilian'. At one time 8 ~b5 was
more popular, but the game Kmic-
Sax, 1974, drastically changed the
evaluation of the position. After
8...•a5 9 ~c3 d5 10 'iVe2 ~g4 11
0-0 Black has:
a) 11...0-0-0 12 a3 ~xf3 13
.xf3 ~xe5 14 'iVh3 e6 15 axb4
'iVxal 16 ~f4 was winning for
White in Romanishin-Kupreichik,
USSR 1971, and Adorjan-Sax, Bu-
dapest 1973. But still, the move
12 ... ~d4 as recommended by Don-
aldson/Silman is far better. After
the forced 13 ~xd4 ~xe2 14 axb4
'iVxai 15 ..txe2 ~h6! White has to
go for the spectacular 16 ~xh6
'iVxb2 17 ~d2 with some dubious
attacking chances, or the more rea-
sonable 16 ~b3 ~xcl 17 ~xal
~xb2 18 ~a4 ~xe5 19 ~b3, when
White definitely has attacking
prospects to counter Black's centre.
The position should be roughly
equal. But Black is just better af-
ter...
b) 11...d4! 12 lDe4 ~xf3 13
gxf3 d3! 14 ~xd3 lDxd3 15 ..td2
"a6 16 'iVxd3 "xd3 17 cxd3lDxe5
with a far superior ending for
Black, since after 18 ~c3 ~g7 19
f4 lDf3+ 20 ~g2 ~h4 followed by
...lDf5, White is left with a horrible
pawn structure.
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 301
8 d5
8... d6 has also been played. Af-
ter 9 c3 ~f5 10 'iVh4 lDd3+ Black
was better in Schmitzer-Brendel,
German Bundesliga 1994/95. Far
better, however, is 9 ~b5!, when
Black is in trouble.
9 'iVf4 ~g7
9.....tf5 was tried in Vadasz-1.
Polgar, Hungary 1968, when after
10 c3 lDd3+ 11 ~xd3 ~xd3 12
~g5 f6 13 exf6 exf6 14 'iVe3+ 'iVe7
15 ~e6 lDe5 16 ~xfS l:xfS Black
had no problems. 10 ~b5 seems
more testing, but after 10... e6! both
11 ~d4 ~xc2! and 11 ~d2 a6 12
~xb4 axb5 13 ~xfS l:a4 seem fine
for Black. 9... ~f5 is apparently
fine and should be more thoroughly
tested.
10 ~d2 lDa6?!
Rozentalis recommends instead
1O... 'iVb6, which is certainly better.
After 11 c3 lDa6 12 ~b5 0-0 Black
has more chances of counterplay
than in the game. Now White gets a
clear edge and Black has no play.
11 ~xa6 bxa6
12 0-0 0-0
13 ~e3 'iVe7
14 :ad1 e6
15 l:fel ~b7
302 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon

16 'ii'e3 :fd8 6.. .'ti'c7?! is the only way to stop

17 .!LJd4 :ac8 7 e5. Not surprisingly, Black runs
18 .!LJxc6 'ii'xc6 into even bigger problems, since
19 i..d4 both 7 tLld5!? .!LJxd5 8 exd5 tLle5 9
Black's position is a disaster, i.f4 tLlxf3 10 gxf3 and simply 7
and of course the game is soon J.g5 are terrible for Black. The
over. white attack is already rolling.
19•.•i..f8 20 ':d3 as 21 'ii'f4 i..xa3 7 e5!
22 :xa3 'ii'xc2 23 'ii'h6 :d7 24 The logical follow-up.
:h3 f5 25 exf6 ':c4 26 ':he3! 1-0 7 .!LJg4
Black's most active choice, hit-
Game 107 ting the f2-pawn in some lines.
Van dar Wial-Pikat Other moves have not been as ef-
Wijk aan Zee 1995 fective:
a) 7 ... dxe5 8 tLlxe5 'ii'd4 9 tLlxc6
(1 e4 c5 2 .!LJf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'i'xa4 10 tLlxa4 bxc6 was played in
'ii'xd4 .!LJf6) the stem game, which was Bonsch
Osmolovsky-Khasin, Kiev 1957.
5 .!LJc3!? White had a huge edge and later
---- .• -.":;",~..-=-.-:.:.:.~ won due to the c5-square, which is
ideal for a knight. If 8... i..g7, hop-
ing for compensation, it seems as if
9 i..b5 i..d7 (9 ... 0-0 10 tLlxc6 bxc6
11 i..xc6 l:.b8 12 0-0) 10 tLlxc6
bxc6 11 i..xc6 is nowhere near
enough; Black is not that far ahead
in development.
b) 7 ... tLld7 was tried in Walter-
Horstmann, Germany 1990, when
Black had an acceptable position
after 8 exd6 i..g7!? 9 i..e2 .!LJb6 10
'i'h4 'i'xd6 11 0-0 0-0 12 l:.dI
'i'b4. However, far more critical is
Not played very often, but one --2,dxe7 'i'xe7+ 10 i..e3 followed by
of White's best chances to refute Ii Oie2 and 12 0-0 to consolidate.
2 ... g6!? Black is well developed, but the
5 .!LJc6 white position is difficult to attack.
6 'ii'a4 We believe that White has the bet-
At first sight it may look odd to ter chances.
develop the queen this early, but
Black will find it very hard to stop
8
This might be
the e4-e5 thrust. This will be very but Vydeslaver's 8 f4(.· is also
t'i!
exd6
fp White,
annoying, since the queen then interesting. The wbac is that
takes both e4 and g4 away from the the f2-pawn will quite often be
black knight. hanging. Still, White gets a power-
6 d6 ful attack in return: Vydeslaver-

Flash, Beersheva 1993, continued
8 ... .i.g7 9 exd6 'ili'b6 10 0-0-0 tLlxf2
11 l:tel lLlxh 1 12 l:txe7 'lttf8 13
.i.c4 .i.e6 14 .i.xe6 fxe6 IS .i.gS
'ili'b4?! 16 'iixb4 tLlxb4 17 l:txb7
with a winning position for White.
However, IS ...tLlxe7 16 'iid7 h6!
17 dxe7 'i!?g8 is not clear at all. Nor
is 13 tLlgS i.e6 14 l:txe6 fxe6 IS
tLlxe6+ 'i!?g8 16 'iic4 tLleS! 17 'iidS
'iic6 18 'ib3 'ili'b6 easy to refute.
We have not found anything clear
for White, but it still requires a lot
of courage to play like this as
Black. But on the other hand, after
8 .i.f4 there is no way back, since
8 ...dxeS 9 tLlxeS tLlxeS 10 .i.xeS
and 8 ...'ili'b6 9 0-0-0 tLlxf2 10 tLldS
are downright awful for Black.
8 'iVxd6
9 tLlbS!?
The direct 9 .i.f4 eS does not
lead anywhere, so White tries this
interesting knight twist, hoping to
spoil Black's pawn structure.
9 'ii'b8
10 tLlbd4!?
Again 10 .i.f4 is not clear, since
after 1O... e5 11 .i.g3 .i.g7 12 'i'a3
.i.f8! the bishop returns to g7,
when there does not seem to be any
way for White to maintain the pres-
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 303
sure. 10 tLlbd4!? is more subtle. If
Black is be forced to take back on
c6 with the pawn, the c5-square
will be weak. Since 10....i.d7 11
tLlxc6 .i.xc6?? 12 'i'xg4 drops a
piece, Black must enter some risky
complications in order to avoid the
weakening of his pawns.
10 .i.g7
11 .i.bS tLlgeS!?
This move looks risky, but it
seems as if Black can afford it.
11...0-0 12 lLlxc6 bxc6 13 .i.xc6
.i.xb2 14 .i.xb2 'ii'xb2 15 0-0 l:tb8
16 'iixa7 is good for White, since
although he will lose his extra
pawn, the a-pawn is dangerous.
12 . .i.f4 0-0
12 ... lLlxf3+ 13 tLlxf3 e5 14
.i.xc6+ bxc6 IS 'ii'xc6+ .i.d7 16
'iic3 0-0 is fine for Black, but
White has instead 13 gxf3! 'iixf4
14 .i.xc6+ bxc6 IS 'ihc6+ ~f8 16
'iixa8 .i.xd4 17 "xc8+ ~g7 18
'i'g4 "f6 19 0-0 (19 c3 .i.xc3 20
bxc3 'iixc3+ 21 ~e2 'ili'b2+ 22
'i!?e3 'ii'a3+ gives Black a perpetual)
19... .i.xb2, when although Black
has some compensation for the
exchange, White is better. Despite
the weakened kingside and c-pawn,
White has fair winning chances.
13 lLlxc6
Piket was hoping for the tactical
trick 13 .i.xc6lLlxf3+ 14 tLlxf3 e5!,
when all of Black's problems
would disappear.
13 bxc6
14 .i.xc6 'ii'xb2
14...tLlxf3+ 15 .i.xf3 e5 16.i.xa8
exf4 17 .i.f3 .i.xb2 18 l:tdl .i.c3+
19 'i!?f1 .i.e6, with compensation,
has been recommended as an alter-
native. White's co-ordination is
certainly far from desirable, but by
playing h2-h3 and ~gl-h2 this
•
304 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon

problem should be solved, leaving lLlc3!? is the most testing move in

White with the better position. the 4 "xd4 variation, and certainly
15 .i.xeS .i.xeS should be played more often. No
16 0-0 :b8 clear path to equality for Black has
17 ttJxeS "xeS been proved as yet.
18 "xa7 .i.fS
19 a4!? Game 108
White does not try to defend his Smyslov-Zsu.Polgar
small material plus, but starts Vienna 1993
pushing the a-pawn, which will
soon give Black something to (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 g6)
worry about.
19 :be8 3 c3!?
20 .i.f3 :xc2
21 as :fc8
With the cute threat of
22 .....xal! Logically, White now
tries to exchange queens, since
normally an endgame would make
the passed pawn even more valu-
able. However, he misses a clever
defence and should have played the
simple 22 h3 with good winning
chances.
22 "e3? "xe3
23 fxe3 .i.d3
24 :fdl
24ltfbl :2c3 25 :b7 l::tc1+ 26 A logical move. White is head-
:xcl l::txcl+ 27..tf2 :al is drawn. ing for the Alapin variation (2 c3),
24 .i.a6 hoping to prove that g7 -g6 is less
25 :dbl :8c7! effective there.
This is the point. Now 26 l:tb6 3 .i.g7
:a7 is nothing, since White cannot 3 ... d5 may be better, hoping af-
make progress, and Black will ter 4 exd5 'iixdS 5 d4 to transpose
eventually start attacking the a5- to the system 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3
pawn. exdS "xdS 4 d4 g6!?, the popular-
26 :b8 1/2-1/2 ity of which has been increasing in
After 26 ... .i.d3 27 a6 l:cl+ 28 the last few years. Here, however,
:xcl l:xc1+ 28 ~ :al 29 a7 White is already committed to ttJf3
White threatens :d8, picking up and therefore loses some of his
the bishop. However, 29 ....i.f5 sharpest options. According to pre-
solves this problem, leaving White sent theory this should be fine for
with no way to improve his posi- Black. But since this really is a 2 c3
tion. Sicilian position, we will only
Although Black managed a draw cover a few independent variations:
in this game, it seems to us that 5 a) The stem game is Merenyi-

Capablanca, Budapest 1928, in
which Capablanca, won a beautiful
ending. White played 4 .ltbS+?!,
but after 4 ... i..d7 S i..xd7+ 'ii'xd7 6
exd5 'it'xdS 7 d4 cxd4 8 'ii'xd4
'it'xd4 9 lLlxd4 eS 10 lLlb5 ~d7!
Black was doing fme with his cen-
tralised king.
b) Short-Andersson, Tilburg
1990, saw 4 exd5 'i'xd5 5lLla3!? (5
d4 is a 'c3 Sicilian') 5 ....ltg7 6.ltc4
'ii'e4+ 7 .lte2 lLlf6 8 ttJbS ttJa6 9
0-00-0 10 nel d5 with reasonable
chances for Black. Actually, we are
rather sceptical about combining
... g7-g6 with early activity in the
centre, but so far no convincing
plan has been found for White. So
for the time being, 3 ... dS is fully
playable.
4 d4 cxd4
5 cxd4 dS!
Here, however, we find activity
in the centre fully justified, if 6
exd5, Black plays 6 ...ttJf6! Earlier
this was evaluated as being better
for White, but now theory gives
Black the thumbs up: 7 .ltbS+
ttJbd7 8 d6!? (the only critical try,
if Black gets time to castle and to
play ... ttJb6, he will win back the
dS-pawn with good play) 8... exd6!
(this is the move which gives Black
equality; previously, Black went
for either 8... ttJe4 or 8... 0-0, both of
which, however, are insufficient for
equality), now White has to enter
the endgame with 9 'i'e2+ 'it'e7 10
'ili'xe7+ (10 .ltf4 is possible, leading
to quite similar positions after
1O... 'it'xe2+ 11 .ltxe2 ~e7 followed
by ...ttJb6+ and ... J.e6 etc.)
1O... 'i!;1xe7 11 ttJc3 (11 0-0 lbb6 12
lbc3 .lte6 13 lbgS :lac8 14 nel a6
15 .lte2 ~d7 16 lbxe6 fxe6 17
.ltg5 lbfdS was equal in Timman-
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 305
Sax Hilversum 1973) ll...lLlb6 12
0-0 :d8 13 l:tel+ ~ 14 h3 .lte6
ISlbg5.ltc4 16 i..f4 h6 17lLlf3 a6
18 .ltxc4 lLlxc4 19 b3 lLlb6 20
Aacl lbbd5 21 .ltd2 lLlxc3 22
.ltxc3 lbd5 with advantage for
Black, Christiansen-Larsen, Mon-
aco 1992. This line is similar to 1
e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 cxdS cxdS 4 cxd5
lbf6 S .ltb5+ lbbd7 6 lLlc3 g6 7 d4
.ltg7 8 d6 exd6 9 'i'e2+ 'it'e7. But
there White has 10 i.f4! 'i'xe2+ 11
.ltxe2! followed by i.f3! with pres-
sure. This is not possible here, so
Black is doing fine.
6 eS
6 exd5 lbf6 leads to a harmless
position from the Caro-Kann De-
fence.
6 lLlc6
Generally, 6....ltg4 is recom-
mended by theory, but for some
reason, when this line is played at
the top level, Black nearly always
prefers 6...lbc6. We have not been
able to find any logical explanation
for this, since White often answers
6 ... lbc6 with 7 h3!?, as we shall see
in the next game, which is the main
motivation to play 6 ....ltg4!?
White's best may be 7 .ltb5+!?
with a transposition to the game.
Normally, White plays 7 lbc3, but
this is harmless. Black plays
7 ...lbc6 8.lte2 lLlh6! 9 h3 .ltxf3 10
i.xf3 lLlfS 11 .ltxd5 lbfxd4 12 f4
0-0 13 0-0 e6 14 .ltxc6 ttJxc6 15
.lte3 'i'aS with equal play, as in
Ljubojevic-Larsen, Monaco 1992.
Equally harmless was 11 J.e3 e6
12 0-0 0-0 13 g4?! lbxe3 14 fxe3
and now instead of 14....lth6?!, as
in Hacker-Kaposzas, Loosdorf
1993, 14.. .f6! would have left
Black somewhat better, since
White has merely weakened his
306 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon

position. Even without g2-g4, ex- Risky, but 10 ... ~xf3 11 lDxf3 is
changing on e3 followed by ... f7- just better for White, who has the
f6! is strong, nonnally leading to bishop pair and better co-ordination
equality. of his pieces.
7 ~bS!? 11 exf6 ~xf6
White hopes to exploit the c5- Nonnally Black takes back with
square, which will be weak after the pawn, but since she has not
.ixc6. He also removes pressure castled yet, White has a check on
from the d4-pawn by pinning the the e-file.
knight. 7 h3 is the subject of the 12 lDb3 lDf7
next game. 13 lDcs lDd6
7 ~g4 14 ~xc6 ~xc6
15 lDeS 'ii'c8
It is obvious that Black's open-
ing strategy has been a complete
failure. Somehow the Hungarian
manages to hang on and defend.
16 .:tel lDe4!?
Not nice, but a good practical
decision, reducing material.
17 lDxc6 'ii'xc6
18 lDxe4 dxe4
19 'ii'g4 ~xd4
20 .:txe4 ~f6
21 ~h6 ~f7

This has been Black's choice in

all of the games with 7 ~b5!?, but
it seems positionally risky to us.
However, strong alternatives are
difficult to fmd. 7 ... ~d7 is met
with the annoying 8 lDc3, hitting
the d-pawn, when 8 ... e6 weakens
the dark squares on the kingside.
8 0-0 lDh6
8... 'ii'b6!? attacks the centre, as
well as protecting the queenside,
and is an improvement on the
game.
9 lDbd2 f6!? Black's position is far from at-
The usual way of seeking coun- tractive, but at least she is now
terplay in this line. Not 9... 0-0 10 fully developed and only needs to
~xc6 bxc6 11 h3, and if the bishop exchange some pieces on the d-file
retreats, then 12 lDb3 is position- to be okay.
ally much better for White. 22 .:tel 'ii'dS
10 h3 ~d7 23 l:r.cS!? 'ii'xa2

23 ...1fxc5? 24 "'e6+ <iii>e8 25
1fxf6 :g8 26 .i.g5 is tenninal.
24 .:r.aS "xb2!
Removing an important queen-
side pawn. Now Black has good
chances of building a fortress after
sacrificing her queen.
25 "e6+ ~e8 26 :a2
This looks strong, but 26 :d5!
with the idea of 27 :d6 seems. to
win.
26.....c3 27 .i.g7!?
This seems to win too, but Black
has a trick.
27.....c1+! 28 :e1
28 ~h2 "c7+.
28.....xel+! 29 "xe1 .i.xg7 30
"e4 .i.f6 31 "xb7 ~f7 32 :a6 gS
33 g3 :hd8 34 ~g2 ~g7 35 "e4
:f8 36 :as a6 37 h4 h6 38 hS
~h8 39 "g6 .i.g7 40 :xa6 :xa6
41"xa6eS
Although he tried hard, White
never found a way through and had
to be content with a draw after 51
moves. Even though Black man-
aged to save herself in the end, not
many players would like to defend
the black position arising after the
opening. 8.. ;ilb6, with mutual
chances, seems to be critical.
Game 109
Smlrin-Ivanchuk
Paris (rapid) 1994
(1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 g6 3 c3 .i.g7 4 d4
cxd4 5 cxd4 dS 6 eS ~c6)
7 h3!? ~h6
Since 7 h3!? is rather slow,
7 ...f6!?, a favourite of the Hungar-
ian GM Bilek deserves attention:
a) Kern played 8 .i.b5 against
him, Ludwigsburg 1969, but Black
was fme after 8 ....i.d7 9 ~c3 fxe5
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon 307
10 dxe5 e6 11 .i.f4 ~ge7 12 0-0
0-0 13 1fd2 "a5 14 J:[fel 'Wb4! 15
.i.h2 Ihf3! 16 gxf3 ~d4 and soon
won.
b) Much later, in Kecskemet
1992, Fette went for 9 exf6, but
Black played the surprising move
9... ~xf6!?, aiming for quick devel-
opment and not caring much about
weak squares. After 10 0-0 0-0 11
~c3 a6 12 .i.xc6 .i.xc6, they
agreed a draw. Black will play
... ~e4 next, and if 13 ~e5, then
13 ...~d7 equalises.
8 ~c3 0-0
9 .i.e2
9 .i.b5 was played in Andersson-
Dueball, Berlin 1971. Black played
9 ... ~h8?!, but after 10 0-0 f6 11
:el fxe5 12 .i.xc6 exd4 13 .i.xh6!
White had an extra pawn. Better is
the immediate 9 ...f6!?, when after
10 0-0 fxe5 11 dxe5 e6 12 :el
"c7 Black was doing fine in
Schweber-Larsen, Buenos Aires
1991.
In general Black should act
quickly to take advantage of the
fact that he is slightly ahead in de-
velopment after 7 h3.
9 f6
10 exf6 exf6
308 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon

It may look as if Black has move as Black is in no position to

equalised, since he has eliminated exploit it.
White's space advantage. However,
Black's pieces do not co-ordinate
very well, and practice has shown
that White still has an advantage.

IS...tZ:le7 19 'it'd2 'it'dS 20 tLla4

g5?!
Black is trying to win space, but
he also gives White targets for his
11 0-0 tLlf5 attack.
l1...tLlt7?! 12 1i'b3! was good 21 .i.g3 .i.g6?! 22 tLlc:S 'ii'b6 23
for White in Savon-Bachmann, :el 9;;f7 24 'it'e3
Dortmund 1975. Now it is nearly over. White is
12 .i.f4 .i.e6 ready for a quick assault and it is
13 :'el striking to notice how easily White
13 :'c 1 was successful in Ad- manages to develop a huge attack
ams-Larsen, Monaco 1992. Larsen from a seemingly simple and quiet
now misplayed his position with position.
13 ...ltc8 14 tLla4 .i.t7 15 :c3 :e8 24...c;t>gS 25 .i.d6 :eS
16 .i.b5 :e4 17 .i.xc6 l:rxf4? 18 Ivanchuk was probably down to
.i.xb7. Black should of course take his last few minutes, but even more
back on c6, but White is better. time would not have saved him.
13 .i.f7 26 'ii'e6+ .i.f7 27 'it'd7 .i.f8 28
14 .i.b5 :c:S 'it'xb7 'it'aS 29 :e3 'it'xa2 30 tLld7
15 :d a6 .i.g6? 31 tLlxf6+ 1-0
16 .i.n :eS It seems that after 7 h3!? Black
Again, Black seems to be doing should not sit and wait, since
fine, but as we shall see, White's White's pressure is long-lasting.
pieces are more actively placed. Bilek's 7...f6!? with active coun-
17 :xeS+ 'it'xeS terplay seems more promising.
IS g4! However, this is rather academic,
Since White is very active, he since with 6....i.g4! Black avoids 7
can play this seemingly weakening h3!? altogether.
15 Guide to Transpositions

Even if your opponent does not tlJc2 or the more interesting

play 1 e4, there are several ways to 6... 'ifb6 or 6... 'ifaS:
trick him into playing an Acceler-
ated Dragon. This chapter deals
with the most common ways to
enter the Accelerated Dragon with-
out 1 e4 from White. We shall also
look at ways in which White can
avoid Black's transpositional at-
tempts.

English and Reti Opening

The most common transposition is
probably:
A) 1 c4 cS 2 tbf3 g6!?
instead .of the more normal
2...tbf6 or 2 ... tbc6. After 2 ... g6!?
White will either have to play the
unambitious 3 g3 with a Symmetri-
cal English, which definitely
should not scare Black, or go for
the official 'refutation' of 2 ... g6:
3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tbc6
when after S e4 we already have
the standard Maroczy Bind. Of
course, this should not worry the
Accelerated Dragon player, but
Sg3
(see following diagram)
may be more annoying. How-
ever, after 5 ... i..g7 6 tlJc2 Black
can either choose to play 6 ... tlJf6
with a standard line in which White
has committed himself to an early
a) Korchnoi answered Spangen-
berg's 6 ...1Wb6 with 7 tlJd2, but
after 7... tlJf6 8 i..g2 0-0 9 0-0 d6
White's knight on d2 was more
misplaced than Black's queen, so
Black had no problems. Critical is
7 tlJc3, as 7... i..xc3 8 bxc3 tlJeS
will be answered with 9 e4 fol-
lowed by 'ife2, f2-f4 etc.
b) Better looks 6 .....aS+, as 7
tlJc3 now loses several pawns.
b I) Christiansen played 7 tlJd2
against Leko in New York 1994,
when after 7... tlJf6 8 i..g2 0-0 9 0-0
'it'hs 10 e3 "xdl White had almost
nothing, although he later managed
to win.
b2) More ambitious is 7 i..d2,
310 Guide to Transpositions
when in the game Rotstein-
Klimenko, Simferopol 1991, Black
played 7...•c5, but was crushed
after 8 ltJc3 .xc4 9 ltJe3 .c5 10
ltJed5 ~e5 11 f4 ..tb8 12 ncl e6
13 b4 .d6 14ltJe3 a6 15 ltJc4 .c7
16 ~e3 b5 17 ltJb6 na7 18 ltJe4
~b7 19 ..tc5 .d8 20 .d6! Instead
of 7 ...•c5, 7 ... 'itb6 is the real test,
as Black will pick up an important
pawn. It is not easy for White to get
reasonable compensation, and since
8 ltJc3 .xb2 9 nb I?? fails to
9 ...•xc3!, 8 ~c3 may be forced,
but 8... ..txc3 9 ltJxc3 .xb2 looks
healthy for Black.
In summary, unless you are
afraid of the symmetrical English,
both 1 c4 or 1 ltJf3 can be an-
swered with l.. .c5 followed by
2 ... g6 with good chances for an
Accelerated Dragon.
Also interesting is:
B) 1 c4 cS 2 ltJf3 g6 3 d4 ~g7!?
Now White can play 4 d5, which
can lead to a Benko Gambit after
4 ... b5 or a Benoni Defence after
4 ... d6 or 4 ... ltJf6. However, most
players would probably go for
4 e4
trying to get to the Maroczy
Bind, which has a reputation of
being good for White. Now, of
course, it is possible for Black to
go back to the well-trodden paths
with 4... cxd4, but there are some
interesting ways to confuse White:
a) Filipowicz's pet 4 ... ltJa6 is
one of them. Normally his games
transpose into a Benoni after 5 ltJc3
d6 6 ~e2ltJf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 d5. Here
Black has avoided a lot of the criti-
cal lines, but still it is not every-
one's taste to play the Benoni. 8
ne 1 is also possible, when at fIrst
Filipowicz took on d4, leading to a
normal Maroczy with the knight
misplaced on a6. Later he tried
8... ~g4 and 8... b6, trying to pro-
voke White into playing 9 d5
leading to the normal Benoni
structure. Against 8... ~g4 Cvitan
did not co-operate and played 9
i.e3, as after 9... ltJd7 10 nc1 ltJc7
11 dxc5, ll...dxc5? was bad, since
after 12 ltJg5 he realised that
12 ... ~xe2 would allow 13 nxe2,
threatening 14 nd2. Therefore he
had to play 12 ... ~e6, but suffered
after 13 f4. 11...ltJxc5 is better, but
still with a strange Maroczy.
4 ... ltJa6 may be a possibility for
Benoni fans, but we have to admit
that it looks optimistic to put a
knight on the edge of the board this
early.
b) 4 ... d6 was played in the fa-
mous game Smyslov-Botvinnik,
World ch match 1957. After 5 ltJc3
ltJc6 6 ~e3 ~g4 7 dxc5 dxc5 8
.xd8 nxd8 9 ~xc5 ~xc3 10 bxc3
ltJf6, the usually very well prepared
Botvinnik met with the surprising
11 ltJd4 (not 11 ltJd2? ':xd2!),
which allowed Smyslov to keep the
extra pawn after 1l...ltJxe4 12
ltJxc6 bxc6 13 ~xa7, and with his
excellent technique he had no

problems converting this into a full
point. Since nobody has taken this
up since, we have to consider it
unplayable for Black.
Much better is 6 ... 'ifb6,
when Nickoloff-Dzindzichash-
viii, St John 1988, continued 7 ttJa4
"'a5 8 i.d2 "'c7 9 d5 ttJd4 10
ttJxd4 cxd4 with a transposition to
the Modem Defence (1 e4 g6 2 d4
i.g7 3 c4 d6 4 ttJc3 ttJc6 5 d5 ttJd4
6 i.e3 c5 7 ttJge2 'ifb6 8 ttJxd4
cxd4 9 ttJa4 "'a5 10 i.d2 "'c7).
This line is considered okay for
Black, and White has to look for
improvements earlier. 9 dxc5, as
played by Letzelter against Forin-
tos, is not one of them, as Black
was better after 9 ... dxc5 10 i.c3
i.xc3 II ttJxc3 i.g4 12 i.e2 i.xf3,
since his knight gets the d4-square.
7 ttJd5 looks critical, when the only
move is 7......a5, hoping for 8 i.d2
'ifd8 9 i.c3 i.g4 with good play.
More testing is 8 "d2!, when after
8... 'ihd2 9 i.xd2 :b8 10 dxc5
dxc5 II i.f4 e5 12 i.e3 White has
some initiative, but it is playable
for Black. Also possible is 5 ... i.g4,
but after 6 d5 we have a Benoni
with Black committed to ... i.g4.
c) 4 ... 'ii'b6 was played on occa-
sion by Robatsch. His games
probably inspired Yudasin to try it
Guide to Transpositions 311
out against Gulko in Beersheva
1993. After 5 dxc5 "'xc5 6 i.e2
ttJc6 7 0-0 d6 8 a3 i.g4 Black had
a normal position, but 8 a3 looks
strange. Why not 8 ttJc3 instead?
White is better after 8... i.xc3 9
bxc3 ttJf6 10 "'c2, as White will be
able to develop normally with i.e3,
ttJd4 etc. with some advantage. 6
i.d3 was tried twice against Ro-
batsch, but after 6 ... d6 7 0-0 i.g4,
White could not prove an edge.
Cvetkovic tried 8 i.e3 "'c7 9 ttJc3,
but after the brave 9 ... i.xc3 10
bxc3 ttJf6, Robatsch won a compli-
cated game. Less ambitious is
Vukic's 8 h3, when after 8... i.xf3
9 "'xf3 ttJc6 10 ttJa3 ttJe5 II "'e2
ttJxd3 12 "'xd3 ttJf6 13 :bl 0-0 14
i.e3 'ifc6 15 f3 ttJd7 16 :fcl f5 17
'ifd5 ~h8 18 "'xc6 bxc6 19 exf5
gxf5 he received a lesson in the
importance of centre pawns in the
endgame.
Since 5 dxc5 does not give
White much, he maybe has to gam-
bit his b-pawn with 5 d5, but after
5 ... i.xb2 6 i.xb2 "'xb2 7 ttJbd2 it
is difficult to say whether he has
enough for a pawn. Overa1l4 ...'ii'b6
is playable and quite solid.
d) More provocative is 4... ttJc6
and now:
dl) 5 i.e3 is careless; 5 ...'ii'b6 is
312 Guide to Transpositions
an embarrassing reply.
d2) After 5 d5 ltJd4 6 ltJxd4
Black can take back in two ways,
but neither has given him much
success.
If 6 ... cxd4 then 7 ~d3 is the
most common followed by 0-0 and
b2-b4 with play on the queenside. 7
ltJa3!? may be even stronger as 8
ltJb5 is a threat. 7...a6 is answered
by 8 ~d3 and if 8... e5 then 9 c5!,
as played by Akesson against
Negulescu in 1980. The point is
that 9 ... 'ii'a5 10 ~d2 'ii'xc5 11 ':cl
followed by ltJc4 is crushing. Black
played 9 ...~f8, but after 10 b4 b6
11 ltJc4 bxc5 12 bxc5 ~xc5 13
'ii'a4 f6 14 f4 White had a huge
attack and won quickly.
More solid is 6 ... ~xd4, as Black
gets a kind of Benoni, but he will
lose time when his bishop is kicked
home by a later ltJd2-f3. Ljubojevic
tried to keep it on d4 against
Smyslov in Wijk aan Zee 1972: 7
~d3 d6 8 0-0 e5 9 liJd2 liJf6 10
ltJb3 ~g4 11 .el ltJh5 12 liJxd4
cxd4 13 f4 "e7 14 fxe5 fxe5 15
~d2, but it was now obvious that
Black's idea had failed; White is
ready for ~b4, keeping Black's
king in the centre. Ljubo tried
15 ... a5 16 h3 ~d7 17 ~xa5 liJf4,
but these kinds of tricks do not
work against Smyslov, who parried
it easily with 18 ':f3 ':xaS 19
'i'xaS 0-0 20 ~f1 (1-0, 36). 8...e5
was not exactly a good idea; better
was 8... ~g7 followed by ... liJf6,
.. .0-0 etc., though White still has a
small edge.
d3) 5 dxc5 is another possibility
if White insists on getting a Ma-
roczy kind of position.
5 .....aS+ is commonly played
(although 5... liJf6 has also been
tried) when after 6 ~d2 'i'xc5 7
~e2 followed by 0-0, ~e3 and
liJd4 White gets a Maroczy with
Black's queen developed too early.
After 5....a5+ White sometimes
tries 6 ltJc3, hoping for a transposi-
tion to the 4...Wb6 variation. If this
is not Black's taste, then 6...~xc3+
7 bxc3 gives some him interesting
options. Black was successful with
7 ......xc3+ in the game Cvetkovic-
Lupu, 1990, when he won an un-
clear game after 8 ~d2 'ii'a3 9 ~e2
ltJf6 10 0-0 ltJxe4 11 ~e3 0-0.
Probably better is 10 .c2, de-
fending the e4-pawn. Then White
has the standard compensation on
the dark squares, but Black's posi-
tion is solid and the position is
probably about equal. After
7 ... liJf6, the normally very peaceful
Faroe Islands 1M Rodgaard played

8 tLld2 against Gheorghiu at the
Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. Black
accepted the offered pawns with
8...•xc3 9 :bl lbxe4 10 :b3 .d4
11 tLlxe4 .xe4 12 :e3 .d4 13
.i..d3 .xc5 14 0-0 d6, but White
had sufficient compensation after
15 .i..e4 .i..e6 16 .i..d5 0-0 17 Ilxe6
fxe6 18 .i..xe6 <j;g7 19 .i..b2 :f6,
though only enough to draw. 8
.c2 is more ambitious, as it keeps
more pieces on the board. Then
8... tLlxe4 9 .i.e2 tLlxc5 10 0-0 d6 11
lbd4 i.d7 12 i.h6 tLla4 13 i.fJ led
to a quick finish in Cvitan-Delekta,
Katowice 1992: 13 ...lbe5 14 i.xb7
Ilb8 15 l:tabl tLlb6 16 .i.d5 Ilc8 17
.e4 e6 18 'il'f4 exdS 19 'il'f6 1-0.
Perhaps Black should have given
up the exchange with 9 ...•xc3+ 10
'il'xc3 tLlxc3 11 i.b2 tLlxe2 12
i.xh8 lbf4, which seems to offer
him excellent chances.
In general, it seems that Black
has several reliable ways of head-
ing into unknown territory, but
still, just transposing to normal
Maioczy positions is the easiest
solution to Black's opening prob-
lems. Actually, it is our impression
that the Maroczy arises just as often
after 1 tLlfJ or 1 c4 as after 1 e4.
This is probably because the 1 e4
player does not always likes the
rather 'positional' games that arise,
but prefers sharper lines without a
pawn on c4. Another reason why
the Maroczy arises so often via the
English Opening is that the trans-
position is really White's only am-
bitious choice, as he otherwise has
to go for some line in the Symmet-
rical English, which is absolutely
fine for Black.
The conclusion is that the Accel-
erated Dragon player has no prob-
Guide to Transpositions 313
lems with 1 tLlf3 or 1 c4 as he can
happily enter Maroczy positions.
King's Indian Main Line
For the player who likes to play the
Kings Indian with Black, but feels
that the main lines after 1 d4 tLlf6 2
c4 g6 3 tLlc3 i.g7 4 e4 d6 5 tLlfJ
0-0 6 ..te2 e5 7 0-0 tLlc6 8 d5 tLle 7
are too heavy to study, then
1 d4 tLlf6 1 c4 g6 3 tOc3 i.g7 4 e4
d6 5 tLlf3 0-0 6 i.el c5!?
is a way of heading for a Ma-
roczy. If White goes for 7 0-0 cxd4
8 tLlxd4 tLlc6, we have arrived in
one of our main lines. Here, how-
ever, White is not forced into it, as
7 d5!?
leads to a Benoni position after
7•••e6 8 0-0
and now 8 ... exd5 9 cxdS. How-
ever, White has already put his
bishop on eZ, which was popular
some twenty years ago, but nowa-
days is not regarded as particularly
dangerous, and the current view is
that Black has nothing to complain
abol1t. Also interesting is
8...:e8!?
and now 9 tLld2 lba6, not re-
leasing the tension in the centre just
yet. The point is that Black can
314 Guide to Transpositions
play useful moves such as . JiJc7,
... l:.b8, ... a7-a6, ... ~d7 etc. This
strategy is more difficult for White
to playas he does not have access
to the c4-square, which is quite
essential for White's play in the
Benoni. Therefore White has ex-
perimented with 9 dxe6 or 10 dxe6,
hoping to prove that the d6-pawn is
a weakness, though so far he has
not been particularly successful.
a) After 9 dxe6 ~xe6 10 ~f4,
Black has some interesting options:
1O... tDc6 is often played, but is
not our recommendation. Better is
10...""6!?, which led to a win for
Black in Beliavsky-De Firmian,
Reggio Emilia 1989, when Black
was better after 11 ~xd6 l:.d8 12
e5 tDe8 13 tDa4 1rc6 14 b4 cxb4
15 c5 1rc8 16 tDd4 tDxd6 17 tDxe6
fxe6 18 dxe6 ~xal, as White did
not have enough compensation.
Simplest, however, is Loeffler's
excellent discovery namely
1O... ~g4! when Black is fine after
11 h3? tDxe4! 12 tDxe4 l:txe4 13
~g5 1re8 14 ~d3 ~xf3 15 1rxf3
l:.e5 16 1rxb7 tDc6 with a huge
edge, Prymula-Loeffler, Hradec
Kralove 1988. The point is that 12
hxg4 ~xc3! leaves Black with an
extra pawn. Therefore 11 h3? is
bad, but if Black gets to play
... .i.xf3 followed by ... tDc6-d4, he
is just better. 1O ... ~g4!? has not
been played much, but it seems like
the best choice to us.
b) 9 tDd2 tDa6 10 dxe6 is also
possible, since the knight on a6
now takes a long time to get to d4.
The white knight, however, also
looks oddly placed on d2. After
1O ... ~xe6 11 tDb3 ""6 12 ~f4
l:.ad8 13 1rcl tDb4 14 l:.dl a6
Black was fine in Lukacs-
Damljanovic, Lucerne 1988. 9 h3!?
exd5 10 exd5 was successful for
White in Speelman-Larsen, Hast-
ings 1990, after 1O...""6?! 11 .i.d3
tDa6 12 a3 ~d7 13 l:.bl tDh5 14
~d2 when White slowly managed
to expand (1-0, 36). However, fine
for Black is 1O... tDe4! 11 tDxe4
lhe4 12 ~d3 ::te8 13 ~g5 ""6!?
14 l:.bl tDd7 followed by ... tDe5
with equal, but dull play. 13 l:.el
tDd7 14 .i.g5 f6!? 15 ~d2 l:.xel+
16 1rxel tDe5 17 tDxe5 112-112 was
Volke-P.H.Nielsen, Austria 1997,
another good example of the ease
of Black's position in this line.
Again White normally goes for
the Maroczy with 7 0-0, as this is
thought to be good for White.
However, many 1 d4 players have
never or rarely faced Maroczy po-
sitions before, and in our experi-
ence they often do very badly in
them, since they are more a matter
of understanding and experience
than just knowing some theory. But
it should be noted that the King's
Indian move order is just a way to
avoid some critical lines, and not a
complete repertoire against 1 d4.
Benoni and Benko Gambit
The move order
1 d4 tDf6 2 c4 cS 3 tDf3!?

is important if you play the
Benko Gambit or the Benoni De-
fence, or simply if you for some
reason forgot to play 2 ... g6 after 1
c4 c5 2 lLlf3! After
3 •••cxd4 4 lLlxd4
Black can now go for 4 ... g6?!,
which quite often transposes to the
Maroczy after 5 lLlc3 i..g7 6 e4 etc.
Guide to Transpositions 315
However, 6 g3!? is quite annoying,
when White gets a line of the Eng-
lish Opening that is considered
quite pleasant for him. Black's
problem is that his knight already is
on f6 and therefore he does not
control the d4-square as in the pure
Symmetrical English. So, unless
you are willing to play that par-
ticular line, this is not a good way
of reaching the Maroczy. Instead
3... g6 is possible, hoping for a
Benko after 4 d5 b5, but after 4
lLlc3! i..g7 5 d5!, since White has
not yet committed to i..e2 (as in the
King's Indian line above), he can
choose whichever set-up he likes
against the Benoni.
We hope that the above material
gives some ideas of what to do and
what not to do in order to reach an
Accelerated Dragon from other
move orders.
Index of Complete Games

Almasi.Z-Tiviakov, Buenos Aires 1996 ............................................ 144

Anand-Larsen, Roquebrune (rapid) 1992 ......................................... 68
Andonovski-Baumbach, Corr 1981-84 ........................................... 139
Annakov-Nielsen.P.H, Buenos Aires 1992 ........................................ 62
Beliavsky-Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1989............................................... 79
Busquets-Davies, New York 1991 ..................................................... 230
Cramling.P-Petursson, Reykjavik 1984.............................................. 74
De Firmian-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1986 ............................... .......... 290
Dolmatov-Tiviakov, Rostov na Donu 1993 ...................................... 169
Ernst-Larsen, Sweden zt 1992 ............................................................ 88
Ernst-Tiviakov, Haninge 1992 ......................................................... 183
Estevez-Andres, Sagua la Grande 1987 ........................................... 194
Faulks-Donaldson, Bermuda 1995 ................................................... 274
Filippov-Nielsen.P.H, Minsk 1996 .................................................... 105
Fischer-Olafsson.F, Bled 1961 ......................................................... 231
Fischer-Panno, Portoroz 1958 .......................................................... 240
Franzen-Baumbach, Corr 1994-96 .................................................. 140
Frolov-Shabalov, USSR ch 1991 ...................................................... 279
Gelfand-Anand, Manila izt 1990 ........................................................ 98
Geller-Larsen, Monte Carlo 1967..................................................... 115
Gufeld-Espig, Sukhumi 1972............................................................... 11
Gulko-Petrosian, Biel izt 1976.......................................................... 166
Hamarat-Ekebjerg, World corr ch 1994 .......................................... 250
Hansen.Cu.-Nielsen.P.H, Copenhagen 1995...................................... 60
Hansen.Cu-Sorensen.J, Denmark (rapid) 1996 ............................... 106
Hector-Hernandez, Thessaloniki 011988 ......................................... 256
Hector-Larsen, London 1991 ............................................................ 295
Hellers-Cebalo, Debrecen 1992 ........................................................ 109
Hernandez-Petursson, Linares 1994 ................................................ 113
IIIescas-Ljubojevic, Linares 1993 ..................................................... 127
Ivanchuk-Anand, Buenos Aires 1994 ............................................... 154
Ivanchuk-Andersson, Tilburg 1990 ................................................. 125
Ivanchuk-Larsen, Roquebrune (rapid) 1992 .................................... 103
Ivkov-Browne, Wijkaan lee 1972.................................................... 148
 Index o/Complete Games 317

Kapetanovic-Petursson, New York 1987............................................ 64

Karpov-Larsen, Brussels 1987........................................................... 24
Kasparov-Malshikov, USSR 1977...................................................... 33
Keres-Petrosian, Zagreb ct 1959 ........................................................ 87
Khalifman-Hracek, Pardubice 1994 ................................................ 101
Klundt-Kapengut, Ybbs 1968........................................................... 217
Korchnoi-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1990 ................................................. 66
Kristiansen-Larsen, Copenhagen 1985 .............................................. 95
Kruppa-Tiviakov, St Petersburg 1993 ............................................. 178
Kudrin-Velimirovic, Thessaloniki 011988 ......................................... 96
Kupreichik-Petursson, Reykjavik 1980 ............................................ 283
Lalic.B-Conquest, Hastings /995/96 .................................................. 31
Lanka-Nielsen.P.H, Moscow 011994 ............................................... 258
Larsen-J .Sorensen, Aalborg 1989 ...................................................... 72
Larsen-Petrosian, Santa Monica 1966 ............................................... 35
Lautier-Koch, Lyon zt 1990 ................................................................ 57
Leko-Nielsen.P.H, Copenhagen 1995 ................................................. 30
Leko-Spangenberg, Buenos Aires /994 ............................................ 111
Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987 ................................................... 28
Martin.A-BelIon, Olot 1974.............................................................. 227
Mokry-Kallai, Trnava 1985 .............................................................. 174
Nielsen.P.H-Larsen, Danish ch 1997 ............................................... /08
Nunn-Karlsson, Helsinki /981 ............................................................ 46
Olafsson.H-Kagan, Randers zt 1982 ................................................ 207
Panchenko-Georgadze.T, USSR 1975 ............................................. 134
Pietzsch-Kapengut, Byelorussia-East Germany 1968 ...................... 213
Polgar.J-Kamsky, Buenos Aires 1994 .............................................. 220
Polugayevsky-Jansa, Sochi 1974...................................................... 133
Polugayevsky-Piket, Aruba match 1994 ............................................. 18
Portisch-Tukmakov, Madrid 1973 ................................................... 129
Prandstetter-Dory, Dortmund 1987................................................. 253
Radulov-Deze, Vrsac 1971 ................................................................ 191
Renet-Rantanen, Palma de Mallorca 1989 ...................................... 120
Ribli-Rogers, Germany 1995 .............................................................. 21
Rozentalis-Tregubov, St Petersburg 1996........................................ 300
Salov-Adams, Dos Hermanas 1993 .................................................. 128
Salov-Velimirovic, Szirak izt 1987...................................................... 81
Saltaev-Pigusov, Katerini 1993........................................................... 49
Sanakoev-Ekebjerg, World corr ch 1994 ......................................... 247
Sax-Andersson, Szirak 1990 ............................................................. 201
Sax-Petursson, Valby 1994 ............................................................... 152
Sax-Pigusov, Moscow 1990............................................................... 242
Schlosser-Pigusov, Sochi 1989 ........................................................... 37
Serper-Sermek, Tilburg 1994 ............................................................. 16
Serper-Sorensen.J, Tunja 1989 .......................................................... 90
Shirov-Alterman, Santiago 1990...................................................... 158
318 Index of Complete Games

Shirov-Lautier, Tilburg 1997 ........................................................... 246

Short-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1990 ................................................. 67
Short-Korchnoi, Lucerne 1997......................................................... 161
Short-Larsen, Brussels 1987............................................................... 26
Short-Larsen, Hastings 1987/88 ......................................................... 26
Short-Larsen, Naestved 1985.............................................................. 58
Short-Petursson, Tilburg 1992 ........................................................... 70
Skovgaard-Svensson, Corr 1984 ...................................................... 223
Smirin-Ivanchuk, Paris (rapid) 1994 ............................................... 307
Smyslov-Fabriano, Rome 1990........................................................... 20
Smyslov-Polgar.Zsu, Vienna 1993 ................................................... 304
Sokolov.A-Haik, Lucerne 1985........................................................... 83
Sokolov.A-Nemet, Bern 1992 ............................................................. 55
Spraggett-Andersson, Novi Sad 011990 .......................................... 123
Stern.W-Ekebjerg, World corr ch 1994 ........................................... 248
Tal-Hansen.Cu, Reykjavik 1986 ....................................................... 211
Timman-Larsen, Las Palmas izt 1982 ................................................ 77
Topalov-Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 1996.............................................. 260
Tringov-Stein, Sarajevo 1967........................................................... 276
Ulibin-Serper, Tbilisi 1989 ............................................................... 267
Vaganian-Ivkov, Moscow 1985 ........................................................ 100
Vaganian-Yudasin, USSR 1988.......................................................... 93
Van der Wiel-Piket, Wijkaan Zee 1995 ........................................... 302
Varadi-Sabian, Corr 1985 ................................................................ 287
Vestol-Botvinnik, Moscow 011956 ................................................... 263
Wojtkiewicz-Bellon, Iraklion 1993 ..................................................... 43
Wojtkiewicz-Hoffman, Valencia 1990 ............................................. 117
Zagarovsky-Baumbach, Corr 1986 ................................................. 235
Zapata-Garcia Martinez, Sagua La Grande 1984............................ 187
Index of Variations

A detailed summary appears at the start of each chapter.

Part One: Maroczy Bind

(1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4)
Chapter 1 Maroczy Bind: 7...lLlg4 System (pages 10-36)
1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlr6 7 lLlc3
lLlg4 8 -'xg4lLlxd4 9 -.dl
9 ... e5 - Games 1-4; 9 ... lLle6 - Games 5-13

Chapter 2 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System (pages 37-53)

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlr6 7 lLlc3 0-0
8 ~e2 b6 9 0-0 ~b7
10 lLlxc6!? - Game 14; 10 f3 - Games 15-17

Chapter 3 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations

(pages 54-73)
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0
8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0
9 ... lLlxd4 - Games 18-19; 9 ...:e8 - Games 20-21; 9 ... ~d7 - Games 22-28

Chapter 4 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared

Bishops (pages 74-85)
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlf6 7 lLlc3 0-0
8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7
10 l:tc1 - Game 29; 10 1i'd2 - Games 30-33

Chapter 5 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of

Dark-Squared Bishops (pages 86-114)
1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lLlr6 7 lLlc3 0-0
8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ~d7
1O:c1 - Games 35-37; 10 'ifd2 - Games 38-49
320 Index of Variations

Chapter 6 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ...liJh6!? (pages 115-

119)
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3
6 ... d6 - Game 50; 6 ...tDh6 - Game 51

Chapter 7 Maroczy Bind: 6 liJb3 and 6 liJc2 (pages 120-131)

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7
6 liJb3 - Game 52; 6 liJc2 - Games 53-57

Chapter 8 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation (pages 132-186)

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 c4 liJf6 6 liJc3
6 ... liJxd4?! - Game 58; 6 ...d6 7 f3 - Games 59-60; 7 i.e2 - Games 61-72

Part Two: Classical

(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJ(3)
Chapter 9 Classical with i.e2 (pages 187-199)
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i.g7
6liJb3 - Game 73; 6 i.e3 Games 74-75

Chapter 10 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 "as (pages 200-238)

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 liJf6 7 i.c4
"as 8 0-0 0-0
9 i.b3 - Games 76-83; 9 liJb3 - Games 84-86

Chapter 11 Main Lines with 7 i.c4 0-0 (pages 239-262)

1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3 liJf6 7 i.c4
0-0
8 f3 - Game 87; 8 i.b3 a5 - Games 88-94; 8...d6 - Games 95-96

Chapter 12 Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6 (pages 263-286)

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 g6
5liJxc6?! - Game 97; 5liJc3 i.g7 6 i.e3liJf6 7liJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 - Games
98-102

Part Three: Odds and Ends

Chapter 13 Semi-Accelerated Dragon (pages 287-294)
1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 g6?! 6 liJxc6 bxc6 7 e5
liJg8 8 i.c4
8.....a5?! - Game 103; 8... i.g7- Game 104

Chapter 14 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (pages 295-308)

1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 g6
3 d4 cxd4 4 .xd4liJf6 - Games 105-107; 3 c3 i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 d5
6 e5 tDc6 - Games 108-109
 he 'Maroczy Bind' formation once terrified players so much that few
T dared to play the Dragon in its accelerated form. Therefore the
authors have focused their attention on how Black can break the bind
and create counter-attacking possibilities. The general principles involved
deserve careful study and will enhance anyone's understanding of chess.

Peter Heine Nielsen is a well-known grandmaster (Denmark's fourth) who plays

in many tournaments across Europe. He was Danish Champion in 1996 and won an
individual silver medal at the 1994 Moscow Olympiad. Carsten Hansen is a much-
travelled and experienced FIDE master, and is very much an 'ideas man:

I)f Grandmaster Chess

ed new edition of a modern

890

plete c3 Sicilian
'--.- ·- ~--"'~--~~------~·n~r~.'landler
Angus Dunnington A modern guide to the most popular way
The first practical club-player's guide to to avoid the main lines of the Sicilian.
the subtle Catalan. 0713478284
071348021 1

For further information about Batsford

£17.99
chess books, please write to:
Batsford Chess Books.
ISBN 0-7134 -7
583 Fulham Road,

I I~
London SW6 SBY
Batsford Chess Online: http://WWW.batsford.com
11111111
9 7 9867 >