ANATOLY

THE
I
_,__ CLOSED
OPENINGS ..
IN
,-------l.- ACTION
FOR CHESS ... READ BATS FORD FOR CHESS ... READ BATS FORD

The Queen'<; Gamb t c:�nd theEngl.sh Opening for'll a ma.or part o every strong
player's repertoire. In thts third book of hi., +our-vol 1mP o:.Prie�, former Wor cl
Champion Anatoly Karpov exam nes developrnmts n 1� heory of these
openings, as well as in the Reti and Catdlan Openings d ...Jri lg the last few yews
Each variation is llustrated by one or more complete Grandmaster games,
analysed in dPpth, c,o that you can see how the tdeas from the opentng arE'
real zed in the midd'egame and the endgame

This is an excellent book tor plaver<; who want to mprove thetr under•;tanding
of the openings, as well as being a highly entertaini'lg survey of some ot the
be'it game'> played in recent top-dass L hess

Anatoly Karpov was World Champion from 197S to 1985, during whtch time he
dominated the chess world bee om ng the most �uccessful tournament player
in htstory. Hts eptc battles with Gary Kasparov for the title have shown that he is
still at the peak of his power<;

Other popular title' from Bat,tord

The Open Game in Action Symmetrical English: 1 ... c5
t\ndtol'; I arpov lohn Wat�or'

The Semi-Open Game in Action Think like a Grandmaster

Anatolv KdrJXlv Alexc1nder Kotov

The Semi-Closed Openings in Action My System

\natoly Karpov Aro� Nimzowitsc to

Batsford Chess Openings 2

For further detdils of these dnd othn
Ga'"V 1-..a�parov and Ravmol"'d Keene
Batsford chess books, pip,' P write to:
Queen's Gambit: Orthodox Defence B . T. Batsford Ltd
Lev Polugayevsky 4 Fitzhardinge Street
London W1H OAH
Queen's Gambit Accepted
Eduard Cufeld

The Slav for the Tournament Player

Glt>nn F ear
ISBN 0-7134-6169-1

IIIII II
9 780713 461695
The Closed Openings in Action
 The Closed
Openings in Action

ANATOLY KARPOV

Translated by Ian White

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 989
© Anatoly Karpov 1 989

ISBN 0 7 1 34 6 1 69 I

A CIP 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 the prior
permission of the publisher

Typeset by
Latimer Trend & Company Ltd , Plymouth
and printed in Great Britain by
Dotesios Printers Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W I H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R. D. Keene GM, OBE
Technical Editor: Ian Kingston
Contents

Introduction to the four-volume series vii

Introduction to the third volume xi

1 The Queen's Gambit Declined 1

2 The Queen's Gambit Accepted 64
3 The Slav Defence 69
4 The English Opening 85
5 The Catalan Opening 1 16
6 Reti's Opening 1 23
Index of complete games 1 27
Index of openings 1 29
Introduction to the four volume
sertes
.

This publication consists of four volumes: 'The Open Game in Action',

'The Semi-Open Game in Action', 'The Closed Openings in Action'
and 'The Semi-Closed Openings in Action.'
What sort of books are they? It is difficult to define them exactly.
Three aspects come to mind instantly.
I . These books contain games from the past few years, especially the
period between 1 984 and 1 988, which have been the most interesting
and valuable for opening theory. The games included are mainly by
well known grandmasters, including the most important games
between Kasparov and myself in our four world championship
matches. Also included are games that developed further innovative
and original opening ideas, first used in these matches.
So, first of all, these books are a selection of grandmaster games from
the past few years with interesting opening ideas.
2. As we have already noticed these games are chosen according to
the openings. But it is not only a matter of choice but of the form of
presentation. Each of the main games concentrates on one particular
opening, and within the notes to each game there are many references
and even other complete games. So some of the main games look like
an opening note and some even like a whole article. The notes to the
main games often refer to earlier or later games, so the information on
the opening idea can be presented in the context of its development,
how it was perfected and refined. While commenting on the main
games I am often "distracted" by my recollections of the examples of
other grandmasters or of my own examples. I hope that these "lyrical
deviations" will not confuse the reader.
Thus, secondly, the books are a selection of opening discussions that
are devoted to the most c ritical openings, variations and plans played
by grandmasters during the past few years.
3. The book includes many games played by the author. This is not
surprising, as in less than ten years I have played six world champion­
ship matches-two with Korchnoi and four with Kasparov. As is well
known, in any duel for the crown, the best developments of opening
theory are used, and new ideas are born that attract huge attention and
become very popular. As I have already mentioned, these books
contain the most valuable theoretical games from my encounters with
Kasparov. Apart from these, I have included games played by me
inbetween these world championship matches, none of which have
been previously published with my notes in English.
viii Introduction to the four-volume series

Therefore, the third aim of these books is to be an addition to the

selections of the games of the twelfth world champion during the years
1984-- 8 8.
Thus, the main idea of this series is to cover the modern state of
opening theory, the most popular variations which occurred in the
tournaments and matches of the mid- 1 980s using grandmaster games
of recent years. Having become acquainted with the games in any one
of the four volumes you will have sufficient knowledge of the most
critical openings, variations and innovations which have attracted the
close attention of theoreticians and players. You will be able to follow
the development of the opening ideas and additionally their realisation
at the highest grandmaster level. In this sense these four volumes are a
true reflection of their titles. By going through the games you will
acquire a lot of useful information on the openings in action and learn
the latest developments. /U the same time it is difficult to guarantee that
you will be able to overpower any grandmaster in the chosen opening!
Nobody has managed to write this sort of universal book and I doubt
that it is possible at all. Playing successfully in the opening depends not
only on the information you possess about the opening, or how many
variations you remember, but more on your ability to find new opening
ideas and exploit them over the board. You also need a mastery of
playing the middlegame and the endgame.
Although the attention in these books is concentrated on the opening
stage of the game all the main games are given from the beginning to
the end. I think that going through the whole game is very beneficial
because it allows the reader to trace the connection between the
different stages of the game. The opening reference books consist of
thousands and thousands of variations which usually come suddenly to
an end in the most interesting place. I recall how sometimes I look
through a game and it breaks off with an assessment of "unclear play",
and regret that it is not possible to see how it ended. In this series this
sort of disappointment is not going to befall the reader.
There is another consideration. Imagine that when the game is
interrupted like this we are told that White has the better chances. But
the question of the exploitation of this advantage is left open. At the
same time, studying the connections between the middlegame and
endgame is most important for an improving chess player. That is why
the idea of this series seems good to me. On the one hand, the reader
can enhance or broaden his opening repertoire and on the other hand
the actual reading will not be a boring memorisation of a countless
number of variations. The value of studying chess as a preparation for
tournaments will increase considerably if you do not limit yourself by
just getting acquainted with an opening but if you also analyse the
 Introduction to the four-volume series ix

grandmaster games to the end. The use of a small opening advantage,

the art of transition from an opening to a middlegame, the technique of
defending a difficult position-all these methods of play have great
importance and much attention is devoted to them in these games. In
the end I took into consideration that the actual acquaintance with
exciting grandmaster games brings pleasure in itself!
The apparent difference between this series and specialised opening
books is, firstly, that I have covered only fashionable openings and,
secondly that even from them, I have picked out the most popular
variations and systems. And this is understandable, because modem
opening theory is so fully developed that detailed analysis of some
individual variations would take as much space as any one of the four
books. At the same time the games that I have annotated, as was
mentioned before, were chosen with the aim of embracing the majority
of the fashionable variations including many from the world cham­
pionship matches.
I want to say some words about the structure of the four volume
series. As is well known, chess openings are normally divided into three
groups-open, semi-open and closed. This classification was formed as
far back as the end of the last century and the beginning of this one.
There was a time when I e4 was almost obligatory. If Black replied I . . .
eS it was called an open game, if I . . e6 then semi-open, and all the rest
.

(there were not many) were called closed. The situation has changed
substantially in recent years and the popularity of closed openings has
been continually growing. The number of games played with closed
openings these days is probably higher than the number played with
open openings and semi-open openings together. Thus it is possible to
assume that there is a need to split closed openings into two classes­
closed and semi-closed. Consequently, closed opening become the
symmetrical systems- I d4 d5 and I c4 c5, and semi-closed openings
become the asymmetrical systems- ! d4 (I c4) <2)f6. Although this
classification hasn't been settled yet I believe that it will be official quite
soon. Anyway, this classification is used for the four volume series.
Here are the statistics of the openings of the first three matches
between Kasparov and myself.

open games- 1 2 games

semi-open games- 1 4 games
closed openings-52 games
semi-closed openings-40 games
'

( 1 20 games in all from the four matches). As you see, closed openings
(mostly the Queen's Gambit) are played more frequently even in the
x Introduction to the four-volume series

new classification and, using the old classification, their predominance

would be overwhelming.
I want to say a few words about my opening repertoire. It consists of
the main open games (the Spanish, the Russian, the Italian), semi-open
(the Sicilian, the French, the Caro-Kann, the Pirc), closed (the Queen's
Gambit, the Slav, the English), semi-closed (the Nimzoindian and the
Queen's Indian). Among the popular openings, only the King's Indian
quite seldom occurs in my games. I don't play it as Black and nobody
plays it against me when I am White. All the other modem openings, as
you see, are included in my repertoire and most of them I play as White
and as Black. Therefore I am compelled to become an expert in opening
theory. I hope that after all this is said the reader will not be surprised
by the fact that there are so many games played by the author included
in these books. It is understandable that when talking about the
modern state of an opening it is always convenient to take your own
game as a basis. But I want to point out that in the notes to my games it
is possible that I refer to no less valuable games and in this case they are
thoroughly discussed in the text of the main game.
Each book of the four volume series consists of about 30 main games
and the notes cover about another 1 50 games. Thus in the whole series
about 700 games are considered, most of them from the 1 984-88
period.
Almost all grandmaster games and games from the world champion­
ship matches were annotated in dozens of publications and so in my
notes I have tried to put different sources together. This series is not
scientific but written in a light style with some lyrical reminiscences.
Therefore, to sum up, that is why I decided not to name the authors of
all the suggested variation, especially as quite often the same moves
were suggested by different commentators.
In conclusion I would like to say that I haven't previously tried to
write this kind of literary work which is based on the modern state of
opening theory and practice. In the four volume series the period 1984-
1988 is covered, including my four matches against Kasparov. If the
reader finds my books interesting and useful, then I will probably, write
another series, on "The Openings in Action" on the material from the
next "cycle", say 1988-1 990.
A. Karpov
Introduction to the third volume

As is already stated in the introduction to the series, the openings that

are regarded in the old tradition as closed (i.e. all those beginning with
I d4), we split into two groups by analogy with the open and semi-open
games: closed and semi-closed. In the first group are included the
symmetrical I d4 d5 and I c4 c5; in the second the asymmetrical
openings: I d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 or 2 . . . g6 etc.
In this book we concentrate on the closed openings, the most
important of these being the Queen's Gambit, the English Opening, the
Reti and Opening and the Catalan.
Of course the variations beginning with I c4 c5 do not represent all of
the English Opening; there are also the asymmetrical lines, the most
popular of which is I c4 e5. This part of the English Opening is dealt
with in the fourth book. In all, the English Opening is presented seven
times in this book, including the most common variations-the double
fianchetto and Sicilian-type systems-as well as some others.
The central feature of the book is that more than half of the main
games ( 1 7) are accounted for by the Queen's Gambit. It was the most
popular opening in my contests with Kasparov. It has also been
popular in other matches for the chess Crown: remember that in the 34
games of the historical match between Capablanca and Alekhine, the
Queen's Gambit occurred 32 times.
After Black attempts to drive away the hostile bishop on g5 with the
move . . . h6 (the Tartakower/MakogonovjBondarevsky System) there
are two possibilities-to capture on f6 immediately or to retreat to h4.
Both continuations were repeatedly met in my matches with Kasparov
and are looked at in detail in this book. Apart from this, games are
included which employ the Tarrasch Defence (also the improved
Tarrasch Defence), the Queen's Gambit Accepted and others.
Related to the Queen's Gambit is the Slav Defence. Two games are
devoted to the sharp Botvinnik System and two to the main variation.
One Catalan Opening is looked at in depth and also one Reti.
It must be said that, in contrast to the first two books, the third
contains a considerably higher proportion of the author's games-20
out of 30. I hope this doesn't cause too much distress to the reader! This
is explained by the fact that the basic closed openings-the Queen's
Gambit and the English Opening-went through a thorough examina­
tion in my matches with Kasparov. Practically every variation of these
openings was played. Sometimes the opening discussion covers all four
matches. In these contests many important innovations were used,
xii Introduction to the third volume

testing the theoretical progress of recent years, and our chosen schemes
were subsequently developed (sometimes extremely wildly) in Grand­
master practice. This process of evolution in chess theory is reflected in
the pages of this book.
1 The Queen' s Gambit Declined

Karpov-Kasparov after 9 . . . -.as 1 0 cd ed 1 1 0-0-0

Game 27, World .te6 1 2 �xdS x es 1 3 .bl ! won
Championship 1 convincingly. Now he is playing a
Moscow 1984 position as though playing
against himself.
This is undoubtedly the most 9 de!?
interesting and profound game of 10 .t xe4 -..s
our first contest. It is even pos­ 1 1 0-0 .t xe3
sible that this is one of the best In the event of 1 1 . . . -.xeS 1 2
works created by me on the chess �e4 *e7 1 3 � xf6 + -.xf6 1 4
board. Jl fd 1 White has appreciable pres-
1 �fJ d5 sure.
2 d4 �f6 12 -.xcJ -.xe3
3 e4 e6 13 be �d7
4 �c3 .te7 14 c6 be
5 .t g5 h6 15 K ab1 �b6
6 .t xf6 .txf6 16 .te2 c5(1)
7 e3 0-0
8 * c2 c5
In the second match, the strong
defensive move 8 . . . -E.)a6 was
played here. This variation is dis­
cussed later. The point is that this
is possible because of 8 -.c2, so
later 8 ,l e i was played, which
was met in our matches and also
in many other tournaments.
9 de
In matches between Kasparov 17 .lfcl!
and myself, we often adopt each The first in a series of subtle
other's opening schemes. So, for moves. 1 7 a fd 1 was suggested,
example, this position occurred in but this can only lead to subse­
a game between Kasparov and quent exchanges on the d-file. On
Timman, which took place a few c l the rook performs a prophylac­
months earlier (USSR v Rest of tic function (it defends the c­
the World, London 1984). On pawn), leaving d 1 free for the bis­
that occasion, the Baku Grand­ hop. The situation only becomes
master had the white pieces, and clear after another six moves, and
2 The Queen's Gambit Declined

I confess that I felt, rather than 19 . . . K ac8 20 �t a5 X c7 2 1 c4

saw, how the pieces would be _ta8.
placed. 20 .liaS!
17 j_b7 21 e4
After the game this move was 22 .:2lel!
unanimously criticised by the Paradoxically, before going
commentators. As a matter of over to the attack, the White
fact, 1 7 . . . j_ d7 with control of pieces retreat.
b5 is safer, for example: 1 8 tlrfl 22 X b4
(another possibility is connected 23 .1d1 (2)
with the transfer of the bishop to
a6 and the knight to e5). 1 8 . . . 2
� fd8 19 .!il b3! l;l ac8 20 X a3 x c7 B
2 1 c4 .1a4 22 g b l .1e8 23 J� a5
and White has only a minimal
advantage (Novikov-Sturua,
Lvov 1 985). But as can be seen in
the game, White's advantage was
initially hardly noticeable.
Equally, looking at this almost
symmetrical position, it is difficult
to see immediately why the bishop If the immediate 23 �d3, then
stands better on d7 than b7. 23 . . . X a4 and the pawn is saved.
18 *" .idS Now the knight's e l-d3xc5 can­
At the cost of a tempo, 1 8 . . . not be prevented. Perhaps only
.1c6 would have prevented K b5, now does White's plan become
but after 19 .:2le5 j_a4 20 .,tb5 fully clear.
.1xb5 2 1 K xb5 �fc8 22 �d3 23 X b7
.:2lc4 23 .:21 b2 Black has not solved 24 f3 X d8
his problems. Also unpleasant for 2S .£)d3 gS
Black is 20 .,ta6 X fd8 2 1 *e2 26 j_bJ
with the threat of 22 �d3. The final preparation. After the
19 K bS hasty 26 �xc5 .:2lxc5 27 K xc5
The White rook is heading for K b2 28 g c6 K dd2 White's gains
its ideal post on a5. The a-pawn is slip away.
invulnerable due to the reply 20 26
c4, trapping the bishop: the rook 27 � xeS €!xeS
on cl is already having an 28 l;lxeS
influence on the course of events. White's prospects, after pain­
19 �d7 staking work, are much better.
This eventually loses the pawn. The preparatory battle has been
More stubborn would have been won: a pawn is a pawn.
 The Queen's Gambit Declined 3

l8 .ld6 proved that the position was ex­

l8 'llr e2 'llr e7 tremely sharp, and Black could
30 X d1 l, xd1 gain counterplay. And to find a
31 * xd1 'i1rd6 way to a clear-cut victory, my
32 J;a5 f'5 trainers and I had to solve a few
33 'llr e2 b5 endgame studies. In no way could
Kasparov is trying with all his the victory be won solely by refer­
might to create counterplay. The ring to a string of monographs on
last move has weakened his g­ endgame theory.
pawn and I immediately take ad­ 41 b3
vantage of this. The passive plan-41
34 e4! fe X h7-is doomed to failure. In
35 fe J.. xe4 this event I would immediately fix
36 X xg5 J.f'5 the h-pawn at h4, after which
37 *e3 Black has nothing left. On 4 1 . . .
Black's h-pawn provides White e4 then 42 j_d 1 X f7 43 *d4 JU'2
with a definite object of attack 44 c5 + *d7 45 J.. b3 J;d2 + 46
and it warrants the fixing of this \ll c311!d3 + 47 * b2 e3 48 .,ta4 +
point with the move 37 h4. Inter­ wins.
national Master N. Popov 42 g3
demonstrated the variation: 37 . . . Black had counted on the cap­
K f7 38 'ilre3 J.. g4 39 c5 + *c6 40 ture of the pawn-42 gh. Then 42
.ta4 + 'llrc7 4 1 j_e8 A h7 42 J.g6 . . . K h7! significantly widens the
X h6 43 .,te4 with a simple win. scope of the Black rook.
37 b4 42 K e8
38 *d4 e5 + Preparing the transfer of the
39 'llrc3 J.. b 1 rook to the second rank via the f­
40 a3 J!e7 file. The immediate 42 . g f7 is
. .

41 K g4(3) impossible due to 43 c5 + .

White's last move was sealed.
In the process of home analysis it
43 � g7! X fll
44 X xa7 X fl
45 *b4 J�xb2
White wins nicely in the event
of 45 . . . X b2, the main varia­
tions being: 46 c5 + *c6 47 *c4
Jlc2 48 K a6 + *c7 (48 . . . * b7
49 X b6 + *c7 50 *c3) 49 .t xc2
� xc2 + 50 *d5 X xh2 5 1 .l;la7 +
* b8 (51 . . . *c8 52 M. h7 K h 1 53
*d6 h2 54 K h8 + * b7 55 c6 +
*b6 56 c7) 52 K h7 �h i 53 *e4!
h2 54 *f3 e4 + (54 . . . K a l 55
4 The Queen's Gambit Declined

K xh2 K xa3 + 56 *g4 l, c3 57 nat method of play in an ending

X e2 l;lxc5 58 * f5 etc.) 55 *g2 with opposite-coloured bishops.
M. c l 56 *xh2 K xc5 57 K e7 K c4 I d4 dS
58 g4 e3 59 *g3 winning. 2 c4 e6
46 cS + flc6 3 �c3 JJ..e7
47 �a4 + *ciS 4 �fJ �f6
48 � d7 + fl e4 S .i.gS h6
There is no salvation in 48 . . . 6 .l xf6 jj_ xf6
fle6 49 c6 li b2 + 50 .l b3 + 7 e3 �
gxb3 + 5 1 *xb3 _ie4 52 K d8 8 -w,-c2
..axc6 53 K h8 .1g2 54 a4 •f5 55 Although this queen move
�h4. brought me victory in the game
49 c6 M,b2 + we have already seen, there was
so fl aS! M. b8 no point in avoiding this popular
If 50 . . . h2, then 5 1 c7, and position. However, Kasparov had
despite the emergence of a queen prepared a novelty. The main
on the board all is lost-52 continuation up until now had
.lc6 + . been 8 . . . c5 9 de, and here either
Sl c7 M.c8 9 . . . -w,-a5 9 . . . de.
52 *b6 fl e3 8 �a6!(4)
SJ .ic6 h2
S4 g4!
Depriving the bishop of the f5
square. Now it is all over.
S4 K h8
SS � dl .la2
S6 � et + *f4
57 � e4 + flgJ
S8 l;l xeS fl xg4
59 �e2
Black resigned.
An interesting manoeuvre
which allows Black to exploit the
Karpov-Kasparov position of White's queen on c2 in
Game 4, World Championship order to simplify: 9 cd �b4 10
2 'iit'b3 � xd5.
Moscow 1985 9 Jtdl
Other possible replies-9 cd, 9
This game, perhaps, is the only -w,-d2 or 9 a3-will transpose.
one of the decisive games in which 9 c5
no significant mistakes occur. I 10 de titaS
succeeded in realizing an intricate II cd � xeS
plan and demonstrated an origi- 12 titd2

After 1 2 d6 �d7 and the subse­
quent . . . Jl ac8, or 1 2 de �xe6,
Black has ample compensation
for the pawn.
12 :ld8
Of course not 1 2 ... ed, in view
of 1 3 � xd5, which is in White's
favour, nor 1 2 . . . �xc3 1 3 'ijxc3
'ij xc3 14 be ed 1 5 K xd5.
13 �·4
The only way to fight for the
initiative. In the event of 1 3 �e2
�xc3 14 'ijxc3 'ijxc3 1 5 be X xd5
it would be time to agree a draw.
13 ed
14 �e2 'ijb6
14 . .. �e6 1 5 �b3 j_xc3 16 be
and White stands better.
IS 0-0 �e4
1 5 ... �e6 doesn't solve all the
problems- 1 6 �f3 d4 1 7 �e4 de
1 8 �xf6 + gf 1 9 "fltxe3.
16 'ijcl �xc3
17 'ij xc3
Black has come out quite
favourably after the opening,
enjuying free piece play. But the
pawn formation is preferable for
White and a peaceful settlement is
far away.
17 J.. e6(5)
5 possible, with the threat of 23 . . .
w "i!\i'xd2!
After 1 7 ... �f5 18 itd2 �e4
The Queen's Gambit Declined 5
in the game Vaganian-Tal (Naest­
ved 1985), played a month later,
the opponents immediately agreed
a draw. However, by continuing
with 1 9 �g4, White could fight for
the initiative.
18 itcl! K ac8
19 itbl
The queen retreats to occupy a
safe square. At the right moment
she will return swiftly to the
centre.
19 11. c7
20 K dl gdc8
After 20 . . . �xd4 2 1 K xd4 all
of Black's pieces would be united
in defence of the d5 pawn. It is
possible for this to end as a draw,
but passive play is not in Kaspar­
ov's nature. It was also difficult to
see that a change in the pawn
structure would result in serious
problems for Black.
21 lE)xe6
On 2 1 K fd I there would follow
21 . . . �xd4 and the further 22
I;�xd4 I;� c2 23 J;� 4d2 �f5.
22 fe
Hardly better is 22 . . . "Wtxe6 23
K fdl .
22 �g4
On 22 gfd l , 22 . . . -.b4 is
and full equality.
Although Black's position now
looks solid, if White's bishop were
to gain control of the light squares
it would be capable of creating
dangerous threats, a typical motif
if positions with opposite-col­
oured bishops. Eventually
White's light-squared strategy will
triumph. As grandmaster (and
6 The Queen's Gambit Declined

pianist!) Mark Taimanov pointed 29 j_ g6 i.d8

out, I played only on the 'white 30 j_ d3 b4
keys' for the following 1 7 moves. 31 "i!i'g4 1ii'e8
22 Jtc4 32 e4!
23 h3 'l!tc6 Stronger than 32 h4 * g8 (32
24 l!td3 . . . h5 33 "tt g3 i_c7 34 ltg6 j_d8
On 24 *g6, Black opposes 35 g3) 33 h5 j_g5.
queens with 24 . . . 'l'!fe8, for the 32 i_g5
time is not yet ripe for an incur­ 33 X c2 X xc2
sion on the light squares. After 33 . . . ltf7 34 K e2 or 33
24 *h8 . . . t�tc6 34 'W!e2 .lc8 35 x xc3 be
25 J�fdl aS 36 ed ed 37 i_c2 White's initiative
26 b3 g cJ does not go away, although Black
27 t�te2 �f8(6) breathes a little easier.
34 j_ xc2 titc6
6 35 *e2 trcS
w 36 xn
Defending against 36 . . . Ji xf2
37 ftxf2 j_e3. With the enemy
queen out of things, clouds are
gathering over the Black king.
36 titc3
37 ed ed
38 j_bl! ltd2
39 'WteS
A minimal advantage would be 39 'Wte6 would be a suitable
preserved by White after 27 . . . alternative, in view of the fact
� c 1 28 l!lxc1 t�txc 1 + 29 *h2 that, sometime or other, a white
t1tc6 30 g3. But it seems that the piece must eventually land on a
Grandmaster from Baku underes­ dark square! There is obviously
timates White's threats. no reason to go pawn hunting-
28 j_h5! 39 l\i'xd2 j_ xd2 40 K d l i.g5 41
Like a billiard ball the bishop J4 xd5 .K d8, and now the op­
bounces off the side of the board posite-colour syndrome work's in
and shows up on another more Black's favour.
dangerous diagonal. 39 • • • K d8
28 b5 Also bad is 39 . . . d4 40 "tt e4
Necessary was 28 . . . i_d8 29 *g8 41 j_d3, but more obstinate
J.. g6 j_c7 30 j_d3 'l'!fd6 3 1 g3 would be 39 . . . J.. f6.
'll!li'e 5 32 'Wtg4 'W!f6, constructing a 40 ;:;rs •1 s
fortress. Black's loss of time ( 7)
allows White to improve his posi­ The game was adjourned here,
tion. and painstaking analysis showed
 The Queen's Gambit Declined 7

that White had considerable at­ would immediately be rescued by

tacking resources. 54 . . . g5!
41 tit e6 + 'll h8 54 . . . 'll e7
On 41 . . . 'll fB there follows 42 The king is driven from his
i.g6 tltf4 43 ,l e i , with the threat sanctuary. The White rook oper­
..-es + . ates along the f-file while also
42 ... g6 'll g8 keeping the option of X e3. Now
43 ..-e6 + 'll h8 after 54 . . . i.f6 55 X e3 g5 56
44 J.f5! ..-cJ 'c'txh6 + the black rook is
45 ..-g6 wg& obstructed, and after 54 . . . X f6
46 J.e6+ 'll h8 55 x e3 g5 (55 . . . .1 xf5 56 ..-hs +
47 J.f5 w1s ftg8 57 X eS + w xe8 58 ..-xg8 +
48 gJ 'll f'B *d7 59 f4) 56 ..-hs + the bishop
49 'll gl 'it;'f6 is interfered with: typical problem
50 ..-h7 ftf7 motifs!
5 1 f4 is threatened, winning a 55 tth8!
piece, but 50 . . . g6 is followed by 55 X e3 + also wins after 55 . . .
5 1 J.xg6 tltg7 52 f4 J.f6 53 K d l . 'lidS 56 t�th8 + *c7 57 ..-cs +
5 1 h4 J.dl * b6 58 ttb8 + 'lieS 59 JileS!
The other bishop retreats are ..-xf5 60 ..-a7 + X b6 61 X b8.
no better: 5 1 . . . i.f6 52 K el ..-gs 55 • . . d4
53 tltg6 tltf7 54 tltg4, or 5 1 . . . On 55 . . . J.e5, the battle is
JJ..e 7 52 K e l threatening 53 J.e6 concluded via 56 J.h3 11 f6 57
or 53 J.g6. X e3! K xf2 + 58 'll g l .
52 K d l J.. cJ 56 tit c8 K f6
53 K dJ K d6(8) 57 ..-o + wea
On 53 . . . t�tg8 54 t�tg6 tltf7, 55 58·
K f4 titb7 +
'c'tb6 is very strong. Events de­ 59 K e4 + 'll f7
velop swiftly now that the White It seems as though Black gets
room has come into play. out of hot water after 59 . . .
54 X f3! X e6-60 _txe6 t�txe4 + , but
A single inaccuracy would be again a problem-like manoeuvre
enough- 54 X e3, and Black provides the solution: 60 trc4!
8 The Queen's Gambit Declined

llxe4 61 �gS + 'll e7 62 �xg7 + a direct influence on the centre, so

and 63 �xb7. White can afford to lose a tempo.
60 i!i' c4 + In the game Nikolic-Georgiev
61 �h7! Balkan Championship 19S5),
62 �e6 White decided to go along with
63 � eS! his rival's intentions and chose 9
Black resigned cd �b4 10 �b3 �xd5. Kaspar­
On 63 . . . II e7 I had preparedov's idea was fully justified: I I
64 i!i' f4 + II f7 65 * bS + , on 63i.c4 �xc3 1 2 be b6 1 3 0-0 J.. b7
. . . �dS, 64 *c5 + J;le7 65 14 ,.1e2 t;d5. The initiative
M f4 + 'lieS 66 *c6 + i!i'd7 67 already lies with Black. 1 5 c4 *'e4
�g6 + , and on 63 . . . *e7, 64 1 6 �el -.f5 1 7 K d l c5 I S d5 (or
�bS + . I S J.. f3 J.. x f3 1 9 � xf3 cd 20 ed
� fdS with advantage to Black) I S
. . . ed 19 cd !;ladS 20 J.. d 3 -.xd5!
21 J.. h 7 + 'll x h7 22 .K xd5 J. xd5
RibU-Belyavsky 23 'i!lfa4. The material balance is
Reggio-Emilia 1986/7 equal, but Black's chances are
noticeably better. Now, as Geor­
1 -E)f3 dS giev pointed out, after 23 . . . c4 24
2 d4 �f6 'i!lfxa7 c3 25 -E)c2 J_c4 26 X c l
3 c4 e6 � d2 White would scarcely hold
4 �c3 J.. e7 his ground. The game continued
s i.gS b6 23 . . . �e6 24 �d3, and Nikolic,
6 ,.1 xf6 �xf6 with great difficulty, held the
7 e3 0-0 draw.
8 itcl � a6 Nevertheless, one method to
This somewhat 'crooked' move cast doubt on the move S . .. �a6
was prepared by Kasparov for was immediately illustrated in two
our second match. Although the games of an international tourna­
game resulted in a victory for me ment in Tiblisi 1 9S5. The discus­
(see the preceding game), Black's sion was about the move 9 ttd2!?
opening plan may be considered Two queen moves in succession is
to be fully satisfactory. But, as possible, again taking into ac­
according to Tarrasch, 'a knight count the knight manoeuvre on
always stands badly on the edge the edge of the board. We now
of the board', a string of attempts follow the game Gurevich-Geor­
was made to throw doubt on the gadze, Tiblisi 1985.
manoeuvre . . . �a6. Maybe it 9 b6
was more successful in the present Better was the choice in the
contest due to this. other game at Tiblisi, Neverov­
9 a3 Rantanen: 9 . . . de 1 0 �xc4 c5 I I
The Black knight does not exert -2)e4 cd 1 2 � xf6 + ttxf6 1 3 ttxd4
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 9

il(fxd4 14 � xd4 �c5, with equal 24 f3 e3

chances. 2S �e4 e2
10 cd eel The decisive mistake. More ob­
l l J.,b5! stinate would have been 25 . . .
White has succeeded in seizing �c4, blocking the path of the
the initiative. bishop on b3.
ll ,ib7 26 "t�rg8 + *e7
12 "t�re2 -2!b8 27 't!rb7 + *f8
13 0-0 a6 28 �xd6 .,lg7
14 .,la4 �c6 If 28 . . . ,ixd4 + 29 II xd4
IS a adl ef(tt) + 30 'lrxfl "t�rf6 3 1 �f5.
Contemplating a knight sally to 29 'Wt'g8 +
e5, for example: 1 5 . . . X e8 1 6 Black resigned
�e5! J.,xe5 1 7 de x xe5 1 8 f4 x es Returning now to the game
1 9 �xd5 with the advantage. Ribli-Belyavsky:
IS bS 9 ... de
16 J.,c2 X eS In the event of 9 . . . c5, White
17 'W'd2 gains the upper hand by continu­
Making a space for the knight. ing 10 cd.
White is operating modestly, but 10 k,xc4 cS
gradually his superiority will l l l, dl
become fully evident. Black's In Ribli's opinion, nothing is
queenside is loose, but all will be gained by 1 1 de � xc5 12 0-0 .,ld7
decided on the kingside. 1 3 b4 ,ixc3 14 "t�rxc3 �a4 1 5 "t�re5
17 �e7 l,c8 1 6 J.,b3 �c3 with equality.
18 � eS �c8 ll cd
19 't!rd3 g6(9) 12 -2J xd4 ,id7
13 ,ia2( 10)

20 �xf7!
21 "t�rxg6 + Threatening 1 5 ,ibl , and on
22 e4 the reply 14 . . . g6 there would
23 .ib3 follow 1 5 � xe6.
/0 The Queen's Gambit Declined

13 . . . f!le7 Black has more pawn islands,

14 h4 i_xd4 as well as a weak pawn on c6.
Unclear would be 1 4 . . . i_xh4 These apparently insignificant
1 5 iite4. features are exploited by White to
15 X xd4 maximum effect.
Now White has a small but 28 *"
lasting superiority. 29 *el
15 .K fd8 30 *dJ
16 ()..() i.c6 31 hg
17 .K fdl K xd4 32 e4
18 K xd4 1,d8 33 ef
19 i_bl g6 34 �el
20 .-dl K xd4 35 �cJ +
21 -.xd4 *c5 36 b4
Black has no way in which to 37 'll d4
bring his knight into the game- The knight manoeuvres unsuc­
2 1 . . .:2)c5 22 b4. On 2 1 . b6, 22
. . . cessfully. On the preceding move
h5, is unpleasant. more stubborn would have been
22 ..-r6 -2!c7 36 . . . �c7, and here Black should
23 fi/fd8 + have played 37 . . . �d7. The rest
Now if 23 b4 the knight jumps is relatively straightforward: all of
out on d5, and if 23 f!lf4 the Black's pawns are weak, and it is
knight reaches b5, with drawing impossible to hang on to them.
chances in both cases. 38 �el .:Bg7
23 . . . �e8 39 'll c4 f4
24 i_e4! 40 .:2)d4 a6
In this way White converts the 41 f3 .:2)e8
game into a won knight ending. 42 �el �f6
24 *d6 43 �cJ g4
25 ttc8 '1118 44 fl d4 gf
26 i_xc6 f!lxc6 45 gf �d7
27 .-xc6 be( 11) 46 �e4 + 'll c7
47 �c5 �f6
48 � xa6 + 'll b6
49 � c5 �d5
50 �a4 + 'll a6
51 �cJ .:B eJ
52 'll e4 � cl
53 .:2)b1
Black resigned.

Karpov-8passky
Lucerne 1985
After the loss of the chess crown I
went immediately to the first
World Team Championship,
where I took up my place at the
head of the Soviet team. Of
course, I was tired after a difficult
match, but even so I decided that
to recover after the unsuccessful
outcome of the match, the best
place of all would be over the
chessboard, in new battles. Of
course, to forget completely about
my battles with Kasparov would
be hindered by the recurrence of
certain positions, such as in this
game.
1 �fJ l2)f6
2 c4 e6
3 �cJ d5
4 d4 .i.e7
5 .,lg5 h6
6 .,lxf6
In the World Championship
matches, this capture alternately
with the retreat of the bishop to
h4.
6 �xf6
7 e3
In the first match I twice played
7 tl'd2. In the 1 9th game the reply
7 . . . �c6 gave the opening ad­
vantage to White; in the 2 1 st,
Black equalized by means of 7 . . .
de.
7 0-0
8 J;l cl c6
9 j_d3 �d7
10 0-0 de
1 1 j_xc4
We also examined this position.
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 1 1
I n the 23rd game of the second
match I, playing Black, played
here I I . . . eS, and Kasparov
employed a novelty- 1 2 h3! The
encounter concluded peacefully,
but in the opening stages Black
was tested by some difficulties.
Kasparov also turned to this out­
side pawn move in the 22nd game
of the third match. A month later
I won a good game with this var­
iation, which immediately follows
this one.
11 b6!?
Spassky plays firstly on the
flank, but all the same, the move­
ment of the b-pawn is not much
better than the e-pawn. Here it is
appropriate to mention the latest
game, Gulko-Shamkovich (New
York 1 987), where the b-pawn
was moved to this square three
moves earlier-8 . . . b6. After 9
j_d3 de White departs from the
standard 10 j_xc4, and duly sacri­
fices a pawn- 10 .,le4!? c6 l l
�d2 j_a6 1 2 jtf3 bS 1 3 a3 ( 1 3
.�Lxc6 �xc6 14 '1\ll( xc6 'il((c8 with a
balanced game) 1 3 . . . �d7 1 4
j_xc6 J;l b8 I S 0-0 .,le7 1 6 J;�fd l
�f6 1 7 a4 ba 1 8 � xa4 K b4 1 9
� b I jtc7. Chances for Black are
no worse.
12 e4! ..lb7
Now 1 2 . . . eS is too late: 1 3 dS
( 1 3 j_ xf7 + '11Px f7!; 1 3 de �xeS 14
�xeS 'i{txd l with equality, or 14
. . . �xeS IS J,.xf7 + '11P x f7 16
'Wt'hS + '11Pe6 with unclear play) 1 3
. . . j_b7 1 4 de seizing the dS
square.
13 e5 j_e7
14 •el b5!?
12 The Queen's Gambit Declined

And in the event of 1 4 . . . X eS 23 �c6 JJ. c7 24 'jtxc5 X ac8 25

1 5 X fd I or 1 5 'Wte4 .1. c7 1 6 � d3 �fd4 ( lt)e7 + \ff f8 !, but not 25 . . .
g6 1 7 'Wte3 White has the better * h8 26 ttd6) 25 . . . ltxa2 26
prospects. However, Spassky later <E}e7 + \ff f8 27 <E}dc6 with a won
came up with the new move 14 . . . position.
� e8, and after 1 5 K fd l b5 1 6 10 'i!fel
�d3 'iir b6 1 7 'i!lte4 <E}f8 1 8 lte3 The most solid. Not so clear are
c5! 19 �xb5 cd 20 'i!ltxd4 l;l ed8 2 1 20 lte3 or 20 'i!fc6 ltxb2 2 1 X xc5
'ijxb6 a b 22 a 3 �xf3 2 3 gf �g5 �xc5 22 'i!fxc5 'i!fxa2 23 lt)c6,
received sufficient compensation though not bad for White is 20
for the pawn (Portisch-Spassky, ttg4 g6 (20 . . . 'i!txb2 2 1 lt)c6!) 2 1
London 1 986). b4 (or 2 1 .l,c2) 2 1 . . . 'i!txb4 22
IS �d3 eS(12) lt)f5 'i!txg4 23 <E}xh6 + \ff g7 24
A clever attempt to create com­ <E}xg4.
plications in the centre. 10 . . • aS
ll X e4 a4!
Impeding the opening up of the
queenside.
ll X fcl
Preferable would be the imme-
diate 22 b3.
ll X fd8
13 hJ .IdS
24 X tel �f8
lS X 2c3 K b8
26 b4 ab
17 ab <E}d7
28 <E}c6 JJ.a8
16 <E}xbS ed 19 b4 x at +
17 �e4 30 \ffhl 'i!ta6
On 1 7 <E} bxd4 follows the tem­ 31 .�tel
porary piece sacrifice 1 7 . . . �xe5! On 3 1 <E} fd4, there follows 3 1
1 8 ttxe5 ( 1 8 �xe5 'i!fxd4 19 J;�c7 . . . �xe5 3 2 b 5 i!t b6 3 3 lt)xe5
ttd5) 1 8 . . . �xf3 19 gf �f6, X xe5, while sharp play would
regaining the knight with a superb arise from 3 1 tte3 lQ b6 32 .1 g4
game. The d-pawn will be cap­ h5 (32 . . . \ff h8 33 i!tf4!) 33 X h4
tured a little later. g6 34 i!tg5.
17 �xe4 31
18 ttxe4 'i!fb6 31 X e4 'jtxel
19 <E}bxd4 �cS 33 x exel X ddt
Regaining the pawn does not 34 x al <E}dS
succeed- 1 9 . . . ttxb2 20 X c7 3S x xal x xal
�c5 21 -wre3 X fe8 22 X xe7 Jl.xe7 36 X bl .l.a4
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 13

37 b5 �cS 59 h4 *e8
The b-pawn would like to push 60 � a7 *f8
forward, but is safely blockaded. 60 . . . � b l 61 .E)g5 J� gl + (6 1
Therefore the White knight will . . . .U.el 62 � f3) 62 *h2 llfl 63
come to assist. �h3 '2)f6 64 *g2 lidl 65 � f4
38 g3 g5 � d4 66 g aS + *e7 67 '2)g6 +
39 .g2 *g7 'ltf7 68 �e5 + *g7 69 � a7 +
40 �d2 �b6 doesn't ease the situation.
41 � c2 g al 61 f3
By continuing 41 . . . .E)b4, More accurate than 6 1 h5 e5 62
Black could cause serious prob­ .1 a5 '2)f6 63 II xe5 '2)xe4.
lems, for example: 42 g c4 � a2 61 eS
43 -21 xb4 � xd2 44 � c2 � d l ! 45 There are no prospects in either
� b2 ,!d4 46 � b3 � d2 47 .E)d3 6 1 . . . � b l 62 .E)g5 or 61 . . . *g8
,&b6 48 *fl h5 49 *el i, a5. 62 'l.ig4 .!;1 b l 63 *g5.
42 .E)c4 �cS 62 � aS .U.g6 +
43 .E)d6 �b6 63 *h2 '2)(4
44 � b2 i,cS 64 K xe5 l.g2 +
45 -21 d8 i. d4 65 *ht x g7
46 � c2 i,xe5 66 J� fS +
47 -2:)8xt7 i, xd6 66 �d6 would bring immediate
48 -E)xd6 � bl victory.
49 � c8 h5 66 . . . K f7
SO �e8 *f6 67 K xf7 + tlfxf7
51 ),ih8 h4 Thus White has two extra
52 � h6 + ! pawns (f- and h-pawns) but now
Finally White achieves a tang­ it's not a rook ending, but a
ible superiority in the endgame Knight ending.
although it is still 40 moves to the 68 tlfh2 *g6
finish-almost a full game in 69 *g3 �d5
itself. 70 .E)d6 �e3
52 f1Je7 71 *f4 �g2 +
53 -2Je4 hg 72 tlfg4 �e3 +
S4 \tixg3 � xb5 73 *f4 -2lg2 +
55 � h7 + *f8 74 *g3 -2!e3
56 -2J xg5 *g8 75 -2le4!
57 �d7 � b6 Planning the decisive transfer
S8 -2Je4! of the knight: -E)e4--c5--d3-f4-g2.
It makes no sense whatever to 75 �dS
go into a rook ending with f- and 76 .E)c5 *fS
h-pawns-58 -2lxe6 � xe6 59 77 .E)dJ '2)(6
� xd5 may not be winning. 78 -2lf4 *e5
S8 . . . 'ltf8 79 �g2!
14 The Queen's Gambit Declined

One could already bring down

the curtain.
79 .f5
80 .:2\e3 + .g6
81 f4 .:21e4 +
82 .f3 �f6
83 f5 + .,115
84 �g2 �d7
85 . g3 fJb6
86 �e3! .115
87 e g4 .:2\0 found convincing paths to equa­
88 �f6 + * b6 lity. There are several examples.
89 * g4 .:21 d3 1 2 .:2\e4 ed 1 3 � xf6 + .:2\xf6 1 4
90 �g8 + �xd4 (or 1 4 'l!txd4 'l!txd4 I S
Black resigned .:2\xd4 K e8 1 6 K fd l �d7 1 7 *fl
*f8 1 8 a3 X eS 1 9 �e2 aS 20 �D
X dS with equality; Andersson­
Karpov-Belyavsky Spassky, Niksic 1 983) 14 . . . 'l!te7
European Club Championships I S itb3 �g4 (also good is I S . . .
Final cS 1 6 �e2 b6) 1 6 n cS 1 7 �e2
Moscow, 1986 i_d7 1 8 a4 '*i'e8 19 K a l �;J.b8 20
e4 bS 21 ab .ixbS 22 x xa7 j_ xc4
In this game I appropriated an 23 -.xc4 K xb2, and White
idea of Kasparov's, which he had achieves nothing (Vaganian-Iva­
used against me. For Belyavsky, nov, Sochi, 1 980).
of course, this was not entirely 12 �b3 ed 1 3 ed x es (as the
unexpected. Nevertheless . . . bishop has retreated to b3 volun­
I d4 d5 tarily, there is no point in wasting
2 c4 e6 time on 14 . . . .:21b6, and a better
3 .:2\cJ �f6 square for the knight is f8, where
4 �g5 �e7 it will help in defence) 14 -.d2
5 �f3 b6 �f8! IS dS! �fS 16 'l!ltf4 �g6 1 7
6 � xf6 �xf6 de be 1 8 Ji fd I with equality (Por­
7 e3 0-0 tisch-Spassky, Bugojno 1986). In
8 K cl c6 the event of 1 4 h3 14 . . . �f8! is
9 �d3 de also good, preparing I S . . . j_e6.
10 � xc4 �d7 In the game Ribli-Karpov (Lon­
I I 0-0 e5( 13) don 1 984) there followed I S dS
At grandmaster level, this posi­ J.. d7 16 g e l x xe l + 1 7 -.xe l cd
tion has been encountered dozens 1 8 � d l j_xc3 19 ilrrxc3 �e6 20
of times in recent years. Usually j_xdS M,c8 2 1 iirb3, and a draw
White continues 1 2 .i. b3 or 1 2 followed.
�e4, and i n either case Black has Before we return to the main

game I wiU point out that in the
1 2th game of the third match,
instead of I I . . . e5, I used a
novelty- It . . . c5. As Kasparov
confessed in his book, he had also
prepared this move for Black, but
I got it in first. However, the ad­
vance of this pawn does not of
itself solve all the problems. After
1 2 'Wte2 a6 1 3 .K fd l cd 1 4 � xd4
"fle7 1 5 �e4 �e5 White chose 1 6
�f3 J,.bS 1 7 'Wr'd2, creating signi­
ficant pressure. Nevertheless, it
turned out well for me, and the
game quickly concluded in a
draw. Immediately after the
match Kasparov chose another
route: 1 6 'Wr'h5! K dS 1 7 �fl � bS
I S 'Wfa5 b6 1 9 'Wfc3 � b7 20 �c6
.t_xc6 2 1 'Wfxc6, also achieving a
protracted initiative (Kasparov­
H. Olafsson, Dubai 1 9S6).
12 hJ!
A modest, yet venomous move.
Kasparov used this for the first
time in the 23rd game of the
second contest. The point of the
move is that the light-squared bis­
hop remains at home, and on 1 2
0 0x es the possibility o f 1 3 'Wr'b3
0
remains. In addition, the square
g4 is controlled and after the
opening of the centre it will res­
trict the bishop on cS. So Black
finds himself in a peculiar type of
zugzwang.
12 eel
13 eel �b6
This manoeuvre almost auto­
matically follows in practice, but
there are other well-known tries.
In the lOth game of match 3, I
chose 1 3 . . . c5, and after 1 4 J.. b3
The Queen's Gambit Declined 15
cd 1 5 �d5 b6 ( 1 5 . . . d3 16 'Wfxd3
�xb2 1 7 .K c7! with a dangerous
attack for the pawn) 1 6 � xd4
�xd4 1 7 'Wfxd4 �c5 I S j_c4. In
the end tpe matter is settled pea­
ceably, though Black's position is
not so good.
Also encountered is 1 3 . . .I eS,
.
but it's undesirable for Black to
allow the move 1 4 'Wr'b3: 1 4 . . .
K e7 1 5 X fel �f8 ( 1 5 . . . � b6 1 6
K xe7 'Wfxe7 1 7 K e l 'Wr'fB I S
� xf7 + 'Wf xf7 1 9 K eS + winning)
1 6 �e4!? �xd4 1 7 ,l cd l X d7 I S
X xd4 l;lxd4 1 9 J.. x f7 + * hS 20
�xd4 .-xd4 2 1 �g3 b5 22 x es
�b7 23 K e7 with a large plus.
14 j_ bJ j.f5( 14)
In the above-mentioned 23rd
game of the second match with
Kasparov I continued 1 4 . . . X eS,
bringing the bishop out on the
next move: 1 5 1. e I J.. f5, and after
1 6 a xeS + 'WfxeS 1 7 'Wr'd2 'Wr'd7 I S
Jte l K dS 1 9 'Wr'f4 �d5 20 � xd5
cd 21 �e5 � xe5 22 a xe5 j_e6 23
.-e3 White had an obvious ad­
vantage. Instead of 22 X xe5 also
possible is 22 ..-xe5 �e6 23
.K e3 - the queen and rook change
places. After 23 . . . * f8 24 K c3
16 The Queen's Gambit Declined
� cS 25 � xeS 'i/txcS 26 *h2
Black has no counterplay (Tai­
Grigorian, Erevan 19S6).
In the game Speelmart-Benko
(Rotterdam 1988) Black declined
the bishop move to f5, and on the
1 5th move exchanged rooks: 15
� xel + 16 'i/txel J..d7. But after
17 )'!lte4! White seized the initia­
tive. Subsequently the game was
brought to a conclusion with
great zest: 17 'tl/(e7 18 'iitf4
. . •
� e8 19 .!!lei J.e6 20 j_ xe6 fe 21
*g4 �d5 22 � xd5 cd 23 gJ 'f/iff7
24 h4 J.d8 25 h5! � f8 26 *g2
.M e8 27 .Mel J.b6. A doubtful
manoeuvre- Black, in vain, with­
draws his bishop from the h4--dS
diagonal. 28 a4 � e7 29 �h4 'lllt' f6
(15) .
15
w maintains a positional plus.
30 l!l13! Black resigned. On 30
. . . 'fli(xd4 or 30 . . . "iii'g5 follows
3 1 �g6 ,lieS 32 'lllt' xe6 + ! � xe6 33
xf8 + *h7 34 xhS mate.
Here we must look at one more
game: Gavrikov-Belyavsky
(Minsk, 19S3), which went 19 . . .
j_g6 (instead of 1 9 . . . �d5) 20
'fli(g3 J.h5 2 1 �e4 J.xd4 22 �xd4
'l\ijxd4 23 'Wrh4 j_g6 24 K d l
'fli(xd l + 2 5 J.xdl K xd l + 26
*h2 � d5 27 'l!ltf4 J.xe4 2S -... xe4
-Eld7 29 'lltr eS + �f8 30 -... bs
� b5. It's interesting to note that a
similar endgame with queen ver­
sus rook and minor piece,
although more intricate, appeared
in the main game with Belyavsky,
although with a more favourable
result for White.
In the encounter Ribli-Short
(Dortmund 1 9S6), Black unexpec­
tedly played a different bishop
move: 14 . . . j_g5!? This was fol­
lowed by 1 5 Kc2 (unclear is 1 5
�xg5 'f/ifxg5 1 6 f4 '!lll' g6 1 7 -... n
JLf5) 1 5 . . . J.f5 1 6 � e2 J. f4 1 7
� fel �d7 I S d 5 �c5 19 J.c2
J. xc2 20 � xc2 II eS 21 � xeS +
'ii xe8 22 b4 �a6 23 a3 K dS 24
'f/ifd4 J.bS 25 Jte2 iitd7 26 de!
'l'li'xd4 27 exd4 ,Mxd4 2S � e8 +
*h7 29 KxbS be 30 l;l c8. White
15 � el a5
After 1 5 . . . � e8 1 6 II xeS +
'ii xeS 1 7 iitd2 we enter variations
already looked at. The bishop
move 15 . . . j_g5!? in this position
was again implemented by Short.
In Kasparov-Short (Brussels
1986), White replied with the ori­
ginal 16 K al, although the
straightforward 1 6 IE)xg5 '/!l!j'xg5
1 7 g e3 � ae8 1 8 'llt f3 gives rea­
sonable chances. The game con­
tinued: 16 . . . �d7 17 d5! g c8 (a
better chance for equality is given
by 1 7 . . . -E)c5) 18 �d4 J.g6 19
�e6! fe 20 de *h7 21 'l!ltxd7! "iii' b6
22 e7! II fe8 23 'lltrg4 "iii'c5 24 �e4
'Wtxe7 25 J.c2! Now the bishop on
g6 is in a sorry state, as it is
simultaneously pinned on both

the diagonal and the file. This
game of Kasparov serves as a fine
lesson in the technical realization
of an advantage, and it will pay to
follow it to the end: IS J! f8 26
• • •
g3! *d8 27 X ad I '\!if' aS 28 h4 �e7
29 �c3! i.,xc2 30 x xe7 � g8 31
X dd7 i.fS 32 il xg7 + 'i1rh8 33
\'!if'd4 Black resigned.
Before we go any further, it
seems appropriate to see two
more of Belyavsky's games from
the USSR Championship (Kiev
1986), in which the move 1 5 . . .
'l!fd7 was encountered and only
after 1 6 '\!if'd2 was 16 . . . aS
played, provoking 1 7 a3 a4 1 8
i,a2. In the game Lputyan­
Belyavsky, where, incidentally,
the move 14 . . . i. f5 was used for
the first time, there followed 1 8
. . . ,ladS 1 9 "l'!ff4 i_d3 20 �e5
'(11fxd4 21 �xd3 'i!itxd3 22 � cd l
itg6 2 3 X xdS i, xdS 24 \'ifbS �c2
25 i;�e2 'i!\t'cl + 26 *h2 -E:ld7 27
'i!lf'd6!, and Black could not hold
his ground.
In his game with Rashkovsky,
he chose the more accurate 1 8 . . .
i;i:feS 1 9 'i!lf'f4 i,e6! 20 j_ xe6
� xe6 21 x xe6 'i!iJ'xe6 22 ._c7
i!i'b3 with rough equality. How­
ever, I noticed that instead of 1 6
i!i'd2 White could steer the game
into a favourable ending: 16 �e5
j_xe5 17 de *xd l 1 8 x cxd l
� fdS 19 f4 h5 20 �e4 x xd l 21
i,xd I �xe4 22 .ill xe4 h4 23 X d4.
16 a3 .. d7
In the 22nd game of the third
match I replied 16 . . . xeS. and
after 17 i;lxe8 + 'i!\t'xe8 18 i11i'd2
used a new idea - 18 �d7.
• • .
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 1 7
However, after 1 9 'i!tf4 i.,g6 20 h4
'i!iJ'd8 21 �a4 I ran into difficul­
ties. This game, particularly the
final part, is worth the diversion
to show it in its entirety.
Kasparov-Karpov, m(22) 1986:
21 . . . hS 22 X el bS 23 <2!c3 '\!if'b8
24 'i!te3 b4 25 �e4 ba 26 � xf6 +
�xf6 27 ba �ciS 28 i.,xdS cd 29
�eS 'i!td8 30 't!tf3 X a6 31 X cl
*h7. Here it was necessary for me
to capture the pawn (3 1 . . .
't!fxh4), and after 32 *xdS *h7
33 �f3 't!fg4 the game would very
soon end in a draw. The attempt
to play more safely allows White
to gain a positional advantage.
32 '.t.'h3 � b6 33 xes 't!td6 34
'l\li'g3 a4 35 � a8 *e6 36 X xa4
'Wt' f5 37!4a7 K bl + 38 * h2 get
39 K b7 !4c2 40 f3 X d2 (16) .
Here the game was adjourned,
and all the Grandmasters, includ­
ing those of the very highest qua­
lity, reported in their newspapers
that a drawn result was most
probable. So it seemed to them.
Alas, it was more like a case of
mass hypnosis. If only Kasparov's
sealed move had been to defend
the pawn-41 X b4 (41 �c6 'W'f6
18 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
is not dangerous), then after 4 1
. . . f6 White would be forced to
exchange knight for bishop, and
he would have to exchange
queens, reaching a rook ending
with obvious drawing tendencies.
However, having thought for 1 7
minutes over his sealed move,
Kasparov found a 'study' win. Of
course, one couldn't call this luck
in the literal sense, but if the dia­
gram position had occurred a
move earlier, before the final time
control, he certainly would not
have been able to find this possi­
bility in the actual game.
41 �d7!! It turns out that he
can return the pawn-in exchange
for a mating attack. 41 • . • g xd4.
There is no escape either, by a
timely withdrawal of the king
from the threatened check: 41 . . .
• h6 42 �f8 f6 (42 . . . J.. h 7 43
_g xn! 'lllt x f7 44 'lllt g5 mate) 43
�xg6 'i!)txg6 44 $'f4 + , picking up
the rook. The capture 42 . . .
� xd4 will lead to the same situa­
tion as in the game, though Black
has no other useful moves replies
to the threats of, say, _g b7--e7--e5,
� b7--d7 d5 or _g b8 and �xg6. 42
�f8+ \\lh6. On 42 . . . * g8 there
follows 43 X b8 with a decisive
leap of the knight. Now, at the
first glance, the Black king is
safely sheltered on the edge of the
board, the White Knight being
out of it. But White has a fine
method of stealing up to the
enemy King. 43 X b4! A quiet but
necessary move, on which the
whole White combination hangs.
After the exchange of rooks the
c l -h6 diagonal is opened, and the
Black king will be trapped in a
mating net-any pin-prick on this
diagonal would be a mortal
wound.
43• • •.iil c4. The exchange of
rooks is forced, one way or
another: 43 . . . X xb4 44 ab d4 45
b5 d3 46 b5 d2 47 b7 d l (trt) 48
b8($') $'d2 (defending the mate
on f4) 49 � xg6 trtxg6 (49 . . . fg 50
$'h8 mate) 50 trth8 + trth7 5 1
'llt gxg7 mate! Avoiding the
exchange doesn't succeed either:
43 . . . K d3 44 a4 l;l e3 (44 . . . d4
45 l!l b5) 45 II b8 "«6'e5 (45 . . .
J.. h 7 46 il!fg5 + 'itxg5 47 hg +
*xg5 48 �xh7 + loses a piece) 46
iltxe5 K xe5 47 �d7 and after the
retreat of the rook there follows
48 II h8 + J.. h 7 49 �f8 winning
the bishop.
44 g xc4 de 45 "Wt"d6! White
accurately solves this geometrical
problem by penetrating the c l-h6
diagonal: the queen seizes the op­
timum line. 45 . . . c3 46 "Wt"d4!
Black resigned. To the threat
'i!)te3 + the sole defence is 46 . . .
J.. h 7, on which, White simply
takes the c3 pawn.
A beautiful finish! This game
proved to be decisive in the return
match-Kasparov went ahead
and maintained his one point lead
until the end of the contest.
Returning to the opening stages
of this game with Kasparov, it is
apparent that here one must make
the deduction that it follows to
place not the knight but the queen
on d7: 18 . . . iitd7 19 l!l el a4 20
J.. a2 � d8 2 1 '!Wt'f4 (2 1 '1Wt'e3! merits

attention) 2 1 . . . i_g6 22 �e5
.,ixe5 23 '(ltxe5 J.. c2 24 f!!le7 i. b3
25 J.. xb3 ab 26 'lllt b4 with ap­
proximately equal chances (Epis­
hin-Pigusov, Sebastopol 1 986).
A significant innovation was
demonstrated in the game Gore­
rich-Van der Sterren (Baku 1986):
19 . . . � e8! 20 � xeS + f!!l xe8 21
trf4 J.. e6!, and Black easily equa­
lized. After 22 J.. xe6 "ltxe6 23
"ltb8 + "Wtc8 24 f!/a7 �c4 25 b3
� xa3 26 "Wt xa5 J.. e7 27 t�te5 -.dB
28 "Wtf5 i_b4 29 �e4 <E:l b5 30 � e5
'illt'd5 31 "Wtc8 + *b7 32 tit f5 +
*g8 33 "Wtc8 + *h7 the players
agreed a draw.
The first 22 moves of this game
were repeated in the game Tim­
man-Yusupov (Linares 1988). The
more precise 23 'Wtc7 didn't
change the evaluation of the posi­
tion: 23 . • •�c4 24 -wtb8+ (24
iirxb7 J.. xd4! 25 't!i'b8 + *h7 26
�d4 illf e l + 27 *h2 'i!ltxf2 and a
subsequent . . . �e3 with a draw)
24 • • • * h7 25 'i!ltxb7 J.. xd4 26
� xd4 '(�tel + 27 *bl ed2 28
i'!t xr7 Draw agreed.
In any case, in all my games
with Kasparov in which the cur­
rent variations were played, I
caused Black definite discomfort.
Thus with White I was prepared
to choose this again readily.
17 �e5 J.. xe5
Now on 1 7 . . . J.. g5, 1 8 'iii' h5 is
unpleasant.
18 � xe5
The exchange of queens, 1 8 de
'llr xd l 1 9 X cxd l , in the game Iva­
nov-Krutov (Minsk 1 986),
allowed Black to equalize: 1 9 . . .
The Queen's Gambit Declined 19
a4 20 J.. a 2 x fd8 21 f4 * f8 22
.f2 J.. c2 23 a c t J.. b3 24 J.. xb3
ab. Possibly stronger is 2 1 K d6,
as played in the game Dokhoian­
Kruppa (Irkutsk 1 986).
18 K fe8
19 -.e2 X ad8
Apparently, Black decided that
he would always have time to
push his flank pawn, whereas it
was now necessary for 1 9 . . . a4,
holding his own.
20 x cel x xe5
21 '(ltxe5 a4( 1 7)
It seems that there's no dif­
ference whatever, and that White
must withdraw his bishop to a2,
as the variation 22 .!Q xa4 �xa4 23
J.. xa4 '(ltxd4 24 1lt'xf5 ii!fxa4 can­
not be right. However, I found an
attractive intermediary rna-
noeuvre.
l2 ab
23
Yet another strong intermedi­
ary move. Before regaining the
piece, the White rook penetrates
to the seventh rank. Now 23 . . .
iit-xd4 loses straight away because
of 24 J;l e8 + ! *h7 25 'tltxf5 + ,
and on 23 . . . "Wfc8 there follows
24 •xb6 with a clear advantage.
20 The Queen's Gambit Declined

23 'I\!J' d6 29 'ti(t c3 l;l d8

Black prefers a position similar 30 !Q f4 Jl d1 +
to that which arose in the above­ 31 'll h2 'E)d2
mentioned game Gavrikov­ After 3 1 . . . � bl 32 a4 -2Jxb2
Belyavsky. But the present situa­ 33 ab the pawn cannot be
tion obviously isn't to his advan­ stopped.
tage. 32 h4
24 � e8 + l;l. xe8 Anticipating the perpetual
25 'I\!J'xd6 �c4 check by the knight.
26 'I\!J'b4 b5 32 �f5
27 d5! cd 33 fJ g5
28 .:2}xd5 � cl 34 hg hg
When playing 27 d5, I noted 35 �e2
that after 29 !Qe7 + (29 'I\!J'xb5 Steering clear of the last trap:
� e l + 30 'll h 2 �d2 with the 35 �h5 �f) + 36 * g l -2Jg3 + .
hope of perpetual check), Black 35 g4
must return the exchange, because 36 'E)g3 �e6
29 . . . fl h8 won't do owing to the 37 f4 -2Jfl +
simple 30 'I\!J'xb5. Therefore, after 38 -2J xfl � xfl
examining the variation, I turned 39 'iii' e5 J.. c4
my attention to the possibility 29 40 *g3 � d1
. . . g xe7! 30 -.xe7 !Qxb2 3 1 41 fS � dS
'iii' e8 + 'll h 7 32 'i!it'xb5 �dl 33 42 .. e4
'iit C4 f5 (18) . Black resigned
There turned out to be rather a
lot of references and ramifications
in the notes to this game. Only a
part of the information on this
fashionable variation is among
the material gathered here. Suffice
it to say that, in order to under­
stand, one must stray, like a
Grandmaster, into such opening
labyrinths in search of new ideas.

In front of us is another study

position. The knight leaps from Karpol'-8hort
the square b2 to d I , and Black is Brussels 1987
saved. So, in the event of 34 a4
�b2 35 'iii' c6 !Q d l the queen must 1 d4 �f6
return to c4; after 36 a5 �e4! and 2 c4 e6
37 . . . b2 Black prevails. An 3 �fJ d5
unusual drawing device! 4 �c3 �e7

5 �g5 h6
6 j_ xf6 j_ xf6
7 e3 � thus: I I . . . c5 1 2 �xf6 + "i!\i'xf6 1 3
8 x e1 a6
In the previous game we dis­
cussed in detail the current status
of the variation 8 . . . c6 9 �d3
,ad7 10 0-0 de 1 1 �xc4 e5. Now
let's look at a game in which a
more modest continuation was
encountered. This move of the a­
pawn was made for the first time
in the game Mikhalehishin-Lpu­
tyan (Lvov 1986). The experiment
seemed to be fully successful: after
9 �d3 de 10 j_ xe4 �d7 1 1 � b5
12 �e2 .tb7 Black had fine play
(better is 1 2 j_ b3 c5 1 3 d5 ed 14
j_ xd5 K a7 15 e4 with equality).
The game did not last long. After
13 �e2 ( 1 3 b4 e5) 13 . . • c5 Black
demonstrated in full measure the
merits of the move 8 . . . a6. This
pawn supports the flank opera­
tion connected with . . . b5, and
the c-pawn can take two steps
forward straight away, without
loss of time. 14 de � xe5 15 �xb5
(giving the initiative to Black; 1 5
K fd l l\fb8 would have main­
tained the balance) 15 . • . ab 16
ili'xe5 K xa2 17 K e2 .1 e4 18 A d2
'iit a8 19 'iii' xb5 lt b8 20 llte4 �d5!
21 lltf4 (2 1 jf'd3 A b3!) 21 . . .
K bxb2 22 A xb2 K xb2 23 �e4?
(Now the bishop finds itself in a
fatal bind. Correct was 23 j_d3).
23 . . . j_e4! 24 li c1 llte6! 25 �e5
.1 xe5 26 ii!t'xe5 l;l b7 27 ii!fe3 K e7
28 g4 A e8 29 h4 j_IJ 30 ». e2 -Wte4
31 ii!t'd4 )!ii' xe2 White resigned.
In the game Speelman-Xu Jun
(Subotica 1987), White, instead of
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 21
I I 0-0, made the more aggressive
move I I �e4. Play continued
0-0 cd (possibly more accurate
was 1 3 . . . b6 14 �a4 -wte7 with
unclear play) 1 4 �xd4 'iii' xd4 1 5
.axd4 �b6 1 6 .1e2 e5! 1 7 �f3
j_e6 1 8 K c7 K ab8. Black has
negotiated the opening stages suc­
cessfully, though the Grandmas­
ter subsequently outplayed his
less experienced opponent.
9 a3
Playing to gain time. While
awaiting the exchange d5xc4,
White, for the time being, keeps
his bishop at home. This idea
(which may also be pursued via
the moves 9 h3 and 9 'iii' d2) has
been little tested in practice. In
some games White immediately
exchanged in the centre: 9 cd ed
10 .1d3 � e8 I I 0-0 c6 1 2 -wtb3
�d7 13 K fe l �b6 14 h3 ( 1 4 e4
.1g4! 1 5 e5 j_e7 1 6 �d2 c5) 1 4 . . .
.1e6 with equality (Georgadze­
Goldin, USSR 1 987). Comment­
ing on the game, Goldin and Kha­
sin suggested 1 3 e4! de 14 � xe4
�ffi 1 5 � fe l �e6 1 6 � xf6 "i!\i'xf6
1 7 ,g e4! with some initiative for
White.
In the game Rajna-Bonsch
(Polanica Zdroj 1 987), instead of
1 2 'iii' b3 there followed 1 2 �a4,
with the further 1 2 . . . �d7 1 3 b4
j_e7 14 'iii' b3 ..Q.d6 1 5 �c5 �f6 16
� fe l 'flte7 17 a3 �e4 1 8 i_xe4 de
19 -E)d2 .1f5 20 �c4 �! adS 2 1 a4
j_g4 22 �d2 iirh4 23 �fl .1c8 24
b5 ( 19) .
It seems as though White has
met with more success on the
22 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
19
B The continuation 10
queenside than Black has on the
kingside, but there follows an
effective and unexpected combi­
nation.
24 . . . i_xh2 + 2S �xh2 J;l dS
26 f4 x hs 21 .:£) fl * h i + 28 fr f2
j_h3! 29 K e2 *xg2 + 3 0 fr e l
*fl + 3 1 frd2 ilt f3 . Black has a
decisive advantage.
9 c6
10 i_d3(20)
In the game Mikhalchishin­
Sobura (Karvina 1987) there fol­
lowed 10 e4 de I I �xe4 cS 1 2
�xeS �c6 1 3 b4 (Sobura ascer­
tained in his analysis that 1 3 � b3
aS!, 1 3 dS ed 14 cd i_ xb2, and 1 3
�e4 i_xd4 are absolutely safe for
Black) 1 3 . . . � xd4 1 4�d3 aS! I S
0-0 ab 1 6 ab II a3, with equal
chances.
10 . . . �d7
b5 I I
. . .
cb cb l l i_ bl .:£)d7 1 3 0-0 trans­
poses to Portisch-Short, below.
Interesting is 13 *c2 g6 14 h4 bS
15 g4! In the game Rasbkovsky­
Barsov (USSR 1987), White's at­
tack swiftly achieved its goal: 15
• . . hg 16 �h2 e5 17 bS ed 18
�xg4 de 19 hg i_g7 20 �h6 +
J. xb6 2 1 gf + x xn 22 *g6 +
fr ftl 23 •xh6 + 'll e7 24 K xcJ
�f6 25 j_g6 K ftl 26 *g7 + frd6
27 ..tn K a7 28 l, xc8 * xc8 29
iitxf6 + frc7 30 K h6 frb8 31
._,d6 + K c7 32 i_ xd5 Black
resigned.
I I 0-0 b5
Also possible is I I . . de 1 2
.
i_ xc4 bS, which was met i n the
game Ftacnik-Georgiev (Varna
1987). 1 3 j_a2 (more accurate was
the retreat of the bishop to e2) 1 3
. . . cS 1 4 -E:)e4 (neither the ad­
vance of the d-pawn, nor the
exchange on cS- 1 4 de � xeS I S
"Wtc2 lltd3!-is dangerous for
Black, who gets a fine game) 14
. . . c4! IS � xf6 + �xf6 1 6 b3 cb
1 7 j_xb3 i_ b7 I S �eS x es (after
1 8 . . . llte7 19 a4 b4 Black is
slightly better) 1 9 �d3 K xc l 20
ttxc l *aS 2 1 f3 K cS 22 *b2,
and a draw soon followed.
12 cd cd
13 .:£)e2
This move may be called a
novelty. In the afore-mentioned
game, Portisch-Short (Brussels
1 986) 1 3 �bl j_b7 14 a4 ba I S
�xa4 x es 1 6 iii'd 3 g6 1 7 b4 J.. c6
I S iitb3 �xa4 19 ii!rxa4 �bS was
seen, with an eventual draw.
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 23

13 �b7 exchanging my light-squared bis­

14 ,ib1 K e8 hop, I could have successfully
15 it dJ used it for an attack: 29 K c l !
More accurate was 1 5 'l'tc2, '1i!r'b8 (29 . . . il;'d7 30 'Wfa7 ,lc6 3 1
ilfxd7 j_ xd7 32 l, d l !) 30
and on 1 5 . . . g6 ( 1 5 . . . �f8 1 6
�e5), then 1 6 'W!c7. .txf7 + !! White is also better after
15 g6 30 ,ixb7 'l)llt x b7 3 1 �d5, but the
16 X fel .l c8bishop sacrifice is more effective.
17 X xc8 "Wr"xc8 30 . . . fr xf7 3 1 'l)llt b3 + frfB. No
18 b4 e5!? better is the alternative flight
Black doesn't wish to defend square: 3 1 . . . frg7 32 �e6 +
frh7 33 � xg5 + hg (33 . . . j_xg5
passively and tries to activate his
bishop. 34 'iii' f7 + frh8 35 X c7) 34 'W!f7 +
19 de � xe5 *h6 35 "t�t f8 + frh7 35 K d l .
20 � xe5 K xe5 32 �e6 + fre7 33 ,M d l J.. c7 34
21 �f4 d4 �xg5 hg 35 "*h3 frf6 36 K d7
The exchange of the central .txe4 37 ..-e3! •b7 38 'W!c3 +
,ie5 39 K xb7 ,ixc3 40 g b6 +
pawn is premature in the extreme.
winning.
More reliable, perhaps, was 2 1 . . .
h5. 29 'i!!t xb7
22 il;'xd4 'tlt'c6 30 �d5 frh7
23 e4 K c5 31 'l)lltd4 'tltc8
24 'tlt'e3! j_ xb4 32 � d1 .. e6
25 6d3 Ji h5 33 � dJ h5
In order to avoid the loss of a 34 K f3 frg8
pawn, Black is forced to place his 35 K dJ
pieces awkwardly. One careless move-35 .l f6
26 ,tal! ,ld8 and Black would prevail: 35 . . .
27 �f4 .K g5 � xd5!
28 A_d5 fl(c8(21) 35 *h7
36 � f3 *g8
37 *" K e5
38 .l e3 'W!d6
39 f4 K e8
40 e5 'W!e6
41 *gl fl( g4
42 .hl J.. b4
43 K f3 K c8??
Short falls into the trap. The
centralized knight provides White
with an obvious superiority, but
29 J.. xb7 now it instantly finishes the
A critical moment. Instead of game.
24 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

44 �e3! 1 984/5: 7 �d2 �c6 8 e3 0-0 9

Black resigned .I. e I a6 10 j_e2 de I I _t xc4 e5 1 2
After 44 . . . 'ilfe6 45 f5 'ilfe7 46 d 5 �a7. I n the game Karpov­
f6 wins a piece. Georgadze (Hanover 1984) the
knight retreated to e7, and after
1 2 . . . �e7 1 3 i)e4 �f5 1 4 ..te2
Timman-Yusupov �d6 1 5 � xf6 + lli' xf6 + 1 6 0-0 e4
Tilburg 1986 1 7 i)d4 .l. e8 1 8 J;t xc7 'ilfg5 1 9
X fcl j_h3 20 j_fl J,g4 2 1 'i1W b4!
The sixth game in this Candi­ White had the advantage.
dates semi-final match proved to 1 3 'i!tc2 i)b5 1 4 i)xb5. Later,
be a turning point. Having pre­ in the game Eingorn-Lputyan
vailed with this brilliant victory, (USSR Championship 1 985),
Yusupov went further ahead, tak­ White played 14 j,xb5 ab 1 5 a3 c5
ing 2! points from the next three 16 �xb5 b6 1 7 e4 _ta6 1 8 a4 'i!!t d 7
games. 19 0-0 j_xb5 20 ab 'ilfxb5 2 1 M, a l ,
I d4 dS with White maintaining a small
2 c4 e6 plus.
3 �c3 �f6 14 . . . ab 1 5 j_b3 e4. In this
4 �13 j_e7 way, Black succeeds in simplify­
5 ..tg5 h6 ing the play. In the event of 1 5 . . .
6 ..txf6 j_xf6(22) j_g4 1 6 <2!d2 g, c8 1 7 'i�td3 ..td7
18 �e4 White is obviously better
(Chernin-Lputyan, USSR Cham­
22 pionship 1 985).
w
16 �d4 j_xd4 1 7 ed c6 1 8 de
'i!txd4 19 0-0 be 20 lli'xc6 ..td7 2 1
'i!td5 'i!txd5 22 _txd5 g a6 23
I!! fd 1 j_ e6 24 a3 j_ xd5 25 II xd5
� b8, and Black succeeded in
holding the rook ending. Karpov­
Kasparov, m(2 1 ) 1984/5: 7 'i�td2
de. A strong move in comparison
with the previous game. Black in­
I shall avail myself of this game, tends to clarify the centre by
in which 7 lli' b3 was played, in means of the traditional . . . c5.
order to reflect on the string of 8 e4 c5 9 d5 ed 10 e5 ,.tg5.
battles with Kasparov, having put Erroneous is 10 . . . d4: 1 1 ef de 1 2
them to the side for a while. In 'iii' e3 + .ft.e6 1 3 fg � g8 14 i!f'xc3,
these games comparatively rare when the situation is quickly sim­
systems of the Queen's Gambit plified.
were used. 1 1 -.xd5 <21c6 1 2 j_xc4 0-0 1 3
Karpov-Kasparov, m( l 9) 0-0 "t�txd5 1 4 .i,xd5 <21 b4! and

Black has solved all his opening
problems.
Karpov-Kasparov, m(6) l98S: 7
e3 0-0 8 'i!!t' d2 de 9 j_ xe4 �d7 10
0-0 cS l l � fdl ed 12 -2:) xd4 -2l b6
1 3 j_e2 �d7 14 J.. fJ � ab8 I S
�e4 il.. xd4 16 �xd4 .ia4 17
i!!i' xd8 � fxd8 18 � xd8 + � xd8
19 -2:)eS � d2. The b7 pawn is
indefensible, and the activity of
his rook is Black's only hope.
20 b3. Seemingly, 20 b4 was
stronger-this tempo could have
proved useful in the ending. 20 . . .
11_e6 21 -2lxb7 ,i xfJ 22 gf -2ld7 23
*g2 gS 24 b4 -2lb6 2S *" �d7
26 *g2 ,ab6 27 * " -2:)d7. Draw
agreed.
Now back to Timman-Yusu­
pov.
7 't!ifb3 e6
Besides this, theory also con­
siders 7 . . . c5 8 de de 9 'iil' xc4 0-0
10 � c l il_d7 I I g3 (worse is I I e3
'i!ife7 1 2 .id3 �c6 1 3 b4 b6 14 b5
il_d5 with advantage to Black;
Malaniuk-Kruppa, USSR 1986)
I I . . . i\ii' a5 1 2 il_g2 .ib5 1 3 'iii b3
j_c6 14 0-0 -2:)a6 with approxi­
mate equality (Lerner-Belyavsky,
USSR Championship 1986).
I digress for a moment, in order
to recall one more game between
myself and Kasparov (Kasparov­
Karpov, m(2) 1986), in which my
rival played (after 7 . . . c6) 8 e3,
and after 8 . . . �d7 9 � dl 0-0 10
j_d3 b6 11 ed ed 12 e4 de 13 Jt.xe4
� b8 14 0-0 there followed the
important rejoinder 14 . . . bS!,
solving all of Black's problems.
After six more moves: 15 � fel
�b6 16 .fl.bl .ib7 17 �e2 g6 18
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 25
d5 ed 19 � xdS .,txdS 20 � xdS
� fd8 a draw was agreed.
Commenting on this game,
Kasparov pointed out that 8 0-0-0
(instead of the quiet 8 e3) was
going a bit far in a World Cham­
pionship match. Although it
wasn't suitable in a match for the
title, it was fully acceptable in a
Candidates match.
8 040!?
As after 8 e4 de 9 �xe4 'ii*' a 5 +
10 'i!l;'c3 'ilf'xc3 + I I be j_e7, the
two bishops compensate Black for
White's spatial advantage. In the
game Dolmatov-Pigusov (Khar­
kov 1985) there came 8 � d I 0-0 9
e4, but here too Black succeeds in
getting a reasonable game-9 . . .
de 10 -2:)xe4 -EJd7 I I _te2 e5 1 2 0-0
ed 1 3 -2:)xd4 .ixd4 1 4 � xd4 'flje7.
Also leading to a level game is 10
. . . ::._e7 1 1 ,.te2 -.. as + 1 2 � d2
�d7 1 3 0-0 e5 (Lerner-Gurevich,
USSR Championship 1 986).
8 de
The logical solution; otherwise
after 9 e4, White would recapture
the pawn on c4 with his bishop,
for example: 8 . . . -2\d7 9 e4 de 10
j_xc4 0-0 I I e5 .ie7 (Ftacnik­
Lechtinsky, Czechoslovakian
Championship 1 986), and here 1 2
j_d3 b 5 ( 1 2 . . . c 5 1 3 d 5 ed 14
*xd5 �b6 15 �e4 g6 1 6 *e3) 13
j_c2 j_b7 14 �e4 and a further
*d3 gives White a strong initia-
tive.
9 *xe4 bS
10 'i!tb3 aS
Black opts for play on the
queenside in answer to White's
central activity.
26 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
I I e4 a4
12 ttc2 ed7
13 cl5 cd
14 eel a3
Too risky. Safer was 14 . . . 0-0
1 5 de fe, only now contemplating
. . . a3. However, after 1 5 tte4
White's chances are obviously
better.
15 de ab +
16 *bl fe
The piece sacrifice is unsound-
1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7 ed tta5 1 8 ttb3!
�b7 19 �d4 b4 20 �cb5.
17 tte4(23)
23
B
1 7 ttg6 + *e7 1 8 �d4 ttb6 1 9
� f5 + ! looks tempting, but after
1 7 . . . *ffl 1 8 �d4 ttb6 1 9 'tl'e4
J,. b7 20 � xe6 + *g8 the Black
king slips merrily away.
17 J,.xc3!
The ending without queens, 1 7
. . . g b8 'Ctxe6 + tte7 19 ftxe7 +
*xe7 20 �d5 + , doesn't appeal
to Yusupov, and he prefers to
sacrifice material.
18 .-xa8 0-0
Castling could still have been
delayed a little: 1 8 . . . 'fl(c7 1 9
J,.xb5 0-0 20 'i!lt'c6 ilkxc6 2 1 J,.xc6
�c5, with counterplay. Black
chooses a sharper continuation.
19 ttc6 b4
On 1 9 . . . ttf6 there follows 20
J,.xb5, when things look bad for
Black.
20 J,.c4
International Master Dvor­
etsky, Yusupov's trainer, com­
menting on the game, supposed
that 20 'tl'xe6 + *h8 21 J,.b5 �c5
(21 . . . ttf6 22 'tl'xf6 �xf6 23
-E:I h4) 22 � xd8 K xd8 23 'tl'g6
J,.e6 (24) was in Black's favour,
threatening 24 . . . K aS or 24 . . .
�g8.
24
w
However, we should probably
not believe this evaluation! The
current position occurred again a
few months later in the game
Thipsay-Barua (Dacca 1986), and
here there followed 24 .:El g5!?
Let's see how the game ran its
course: 24 • . . hg 25 h4 K a8 (bad
is 25 . . . g4 because of 26 'Cth5 +
and 27 'tl'xc5) 26 hg + *g8 27
J,.a4. This move is more or less
forced, leading to a peaceful con­
clusion: 27 • . . �xa2 + 28 * xa2
)! xa4 + 29 *bl K at + 30 *c2
.l!l xhl 31 'tl'e8 + *h7 32 g6 +
* h6 33 tth8 + tlf xg6 34 ti"xhl
�e4 35 g4 �dl 36 \'!lrh5 + fg(6 37
.-rs + *e7 38 -.c5 + * " 39
 The Queen 's Gambit Dec/in.-d 27

'iiJ' fS + '1Je7 40 'itc5 + '1Jr7 Draw 2 1 . . . "WteS 22 K xe6 "Wth5 23 g4

agreed . ilt h3 24 a g I .!2) bS! 25 .1. eS! � x.c6
Thipsay, analysing the game, 26 K xf8 + and 27 K g3, but 22
revealed that significantly K hd I deprives Black of any illu­
stronger was 27 '1Jc2 X dS (27 . . . sions: 22 . . . '!1'g6 + 23 i.d3
�xa2 2S �h7 + and 2S i!i'fS + , "Wfxg2 24 �h4! \'tXC6 25 �g6 +
27 . . . i_ f7 2S �fS) 2S .i.d3! and * gS 26 K xc6 with the threats 27
in view of the threat 29 X hS + �xf8 and 27 K xeS K xeS 2S
White wins. Thipsay also indi­ �e7 + .
cated that, in the diagram posi­ 21 "i!li' c7!
tion, also strong for White was 24 22 �h4 �eS!
'!1'h5 �e4 (24 . . . i_gS or 24 . . . On 22 . . . � f6, 23 €Jg6 + 'IJgS
�dS-25 <2!g5, 24 . . . �i dS 25 24 i.xe6 + is winning.
'!1'eS + '1Jh7 26 .i.a4!, 24 . . . 23 i.d3 �xd3
�xa2 + 25 '1Jxa2 X aS + 26 * b l Now the role of the light­
b3 2 7 "WteS + ) 25 _tc6! <2!f6 26 squared bishop on cS increases
'jjt c 5! X cS 27 <2!h4! j_d7 2S dramatically.
-21 g6 + * h7 29 <21 f8 + . (This 24 � g6 +
game could have been included in Perhaps it would be better to
the book as one of the main ones, play 24 � xd3 immediately.
and it was left in the shade purely 24 * K8
on sporting considerations. Yusu­ 25 i;� xd3
pov's victory in this game, and It's possible that Timman had
thereupon the match, sent him counted on 25 �xf8 <21xf2, but at
into the Candidates final. the last moment noticed the reta­
20 '1Jh8! liatory response 25 . . . �cS! 26
A wonderful idea! the point is "i!li'f3 i_b7! and 27 . . . i_e4 + . 25
that in the event of 2 1 .i.xe6 "Wtf6 ttxd3 was necessary, forcing 25
22 i.xd7, the spectacular 22 . . . . . . X eS. Now White is on a slip­
'ii;' fS + !! decides. pery slope.
21 'ite4 25 X xfl
Allowing Black to mount a 26 l! f3 .M xf3
dangerous counter-attack. Evi­ 27 gf 1ii' d6!
dently, had he played 21 X d6!, 28 il!i'c2 e5!
the Dutch Grandmaster could yet Clearing the way for his bishop.
have justified his opening On 29 I;� d l , 29 . . . tlJ'xd l + ! 30
strategy. 22 .1. hd I is threatened, l!lt'xd l jt fS + decides.
and on the queen's retreat Makar­ 29 �h4 �e6
ichev gives such variations as: 2 1 30 K d1 �d4
. . . "Wte7 2 2 � xe6 -.Bf6 2 3 '!lll' xcS! Nothing is gained by 30
or 21 . . . i* f6 22 � xd7 i.xd7 23 Ji_xa2 + 3 1 *xa2 iita6 + 32
'iiti' xd7 X dS 24 'iiJ' xe6, controlling *b3!, and there is no mate.
the squares g6 and fS. Sharper is 31 'lit'a4 iJ�td8
28 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

32 'ltc6 �d5 it always poses the same question:

33 J:�, xd4 ed to exchange on f6 (Petrosian's
34 'ii' b5 *'aS! Variation) or to retreat, even if
35 *xb2 'il(( xa2 + only temporarily, to h4. Unless
36 *cl i/!J'al + I've made a mistake in my calcu­
37 *d2 'Wt'c3 + lations, this dilemma of the white
38 *dl �b3 + bishop occurred 24 times (an
White resigned entire World Championship
match!). In other variations of the
Queen's Gambit such a problem
Karpov-Kasparov doesn't arise: the bishop usually
Game 19, World settles on f4 and play assumes
Championship 4 quite a different character. Of the
Seville 1987 24 games mentioned, White
slightly more often chose ,lg5-
A few positions, which I will h4.
deal with below, appeared time 7 b6
and again in my matches with 8 ,ie2 ,lb7
Kasparov-in three out of four 9 � xf6
played! The Tartakower-Mako­ Now, when Black has clarified
gonov-Bondarevsky (TMB) Var­ the development of his bishop on
iation, is highly popular in c8 by occupying the slightly pas­
modem theory and practice; in sive square b7, White, quite ap­
any event, both contestants in the propriately, carries out exchang­
battle for the crown used it as ing operations in the centre.
White and as Black. The present Another plan, also popular in our
game allows us to gather together matches, is connected with the
all the relevant material accumu­ waiting manoeuvre 9 x c l (which
lated in these matches. Eight can also be played at move 8).
times we returned to this TMB 9 ,l xf6
Variation, and strange as it may 10 cd ed(25)
seem, in spite of the stormy chain
of events each and every time
these games ended in a draw.
I �f3 d5
2 d4 <2!f6
3 c4 e6
4 <2!c3 �e7
5 �g5 0-0
6 e3 h6
7 �h4
When the h-pawn attacks the
bishop (usually on the fifth move), Black is now prepared to carry

out a convenient . . . cS, and there­
fore White must either obstruct
this immediately by means of I I
b4, or after I I 0-0 �d7. In the
present game, the latest to date in
my theoretical dispute with Kas­
parov, I castled short. However,
in our first encounter, as far back
as the 1 984 match, Kasparov con­
tinued I I b4. Let's see this game,
and also the relevant parts of the
games played between the first
and eighth.
Kasparov-Karpov, m(l2) 1984/
5:
1 1 b4 c5
To avoid creating a vulnerable
centre, Black could have played
I I . . . c6. However, this seems
slightly passive: 1 2 0-0 aS 1 3 a3
'11i' d6 14 iirb3 ab 1 5 ab �d7 with a
small, yet solid advantage to
White (Estavez-Karpov, Len­
ingrad 1 973).
12 be be
13 Iii b1 _te6
14 0-0 �d7
15 ..tb5 'fje7
16 iitd2 l;l fd8
17 l;l fcl l;l ab8
18 _txe6 l!l xb1
19 �xb1 'ir xe6
20 de .E) xeS
21 'll!t e2
Draw agreed
This game was played at a diffi­
cult time for Kasparov: three
games earlier I had gained my
fourth win out of the necessary six
(and, of course, no-one could
have predicted, that in almost 40
subsequent games I would be able
to gain the upper hand only once).
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 29
In this critical situation Kasparov
set his problems aside to proceed
with extreme caution, risking
nothing with White, or Black. I
also adopted such a strategy,
although, as it subsequently
turned out, in vain. In any event,
these quick truces are accounted
for purely by match considera­
tions, and the chess resources in
the diagram position, as we can
now be sure, are far from being
exhausted.
Kasparov-Karpov, m(38) 1984/
5: The first fifteen moves coincide
with the previous game, and were
subsequently followed by 16 'f!e2.
Towards the finish of the match,
Kasparov played by far the most
energetically, and for once this
forced me into playing a string of
accurate moves, in order to main­
tain the balance.
16 Iii fd8
1 6 . . . cd 1 7 �xdS.
17 g fcl g abS
18 a4 •d6
1 8 . . . c4? 19 i_xc6 '$xc6 20
� bS.
19 de � xeS
1 9 . . . 'irxcS 20 '$'d2.
20 _txe6 'il{(xe6
21 � bS j_ e7(26)
26
w
30 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

22 'i!*' f5 *"e8 30 g3 �cS

The variation 22 . . . a6 23 31 *g2 g6
*xf7 + ! 'll x f7 24 �e5 + 'll e8 25 32 -2.)0 l. d6
� xc6 ab 26 ab didn't appeal to 33 � cd4 �e6
me. Also not good for Black are 34 X b8 + *g7
22 . . . \We6 23 \Wxe6 fe 24 �fd4 or 35 �b3 l. d7
22 . . . 'tfd7 23 \Wxd7 1. xd7 24 36 l. b5 i.cJ
�e5. 37 -2)d �gS
23 �e5 � b7 37 . . . d4? 38 -2)e2.
24 �d4 � c7 38 �e2 � e4
25 �b5 l;l b7 39 K b3
Draw agreed We hadn't abandoned the op­
Karpov-Kasparov, m(39) 1984/ tion of a draw, yet here Black
5: In this game I employed a could have had definite problems
strategy often used by both of us after 39 g4 (or on the next two
in our confrontations: I adopted moves).
one of my opponent's opening 39 i! c7
weapons. As the preceding game 40 g b5 K d7
shows, White can lay siege to the 41 -E}f4 �f6
d5 pawn with absolutely no risk On the text move, Black ob­
attached, so I decided to reverse structs the moves g3-g4-g5,
colours. The current game repeats which would increase the pressure
the previous 2 1 moves (with a on the d-pawn intolerably. Now
little transposition) right up to the the draw is inevitable.
diagram position. A unique event 42 h3 h5
in the history of the fight for the 43 g bJ �e4
World Championship! 44 x aJ *gs
22 -2) xa7 45 x a4 -E}f6
Forcing Black to exchange 46 g4 hg
down to an ending. 47 hg � xg4
22 'l'!l;a6 48 �e2 d4
The accurate response. Bad is Draw agreed
the immediate 22 . . . 'i!l!r'xa4 23 Kasparov-Karpov, m(40) 1984/
�xa4 �xa4 24 �c6 � xb l 25 5. The well-known system in the
.axe7 + *f8 26 -2!g6 + ! fg 27 following game had already been
� xbl . employed by Kasparov as White.
23 -2lb5 11 b4 cS
24 ili'xa4 � xa4 12 be be
25 �fd4 K d7 13 � bl 'i!!t a5?!
26 �c6 � b6 (27)
27 �bd4 i.f6 An experiment which didn't
28 J( xb6 �xb6 turn out too well for me. In all the
29 x b1 -2l a4 remaining games of our match, on
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 31

1 988, after my contests with Kas­

parov.
Seirawan-Karpov (Brussels
1988). From the position of the
last diagram, the American
Grandmaster played 14 0-0, and
here is how the game continued:
14 cd
15 <2) xd4 -2\c6
16 �db5 -2\e7
the appearance of the rook on b I 17 'Wr'a4 *xa4
Black automatically replied 1 3 . . . 18 �xa4 ..ac6
,ac6. 19 <21c5 JUc8
14 'Wr'dl cd 20 � ret .A. xb5
15 � xd4 j_ xd4 21 j_ xb5 �i c7
16 ed j_c6 22 �d7 i.c3
17 �b5 'Wr'd8 23 K b3 i.a5
There would be few prospects 24 K xc7 j_ xc7
in the endgame resulting after the 25 g3 g c8
exchange of queens. 26 J.a6 K a8
18 0-0 a6 27 g b7 J_d6
Correct was 1 8 . . . �d7 19 28 i.b5 a5
� fc l j_xb5 20 �;t xb5 �f6. 29 ..aa4 g6
19 -2\aJ l, e8 30 ..ab3 *g7
20 -21 c2 K xe2? 31 a4 i,b4
And now more accurate would 32 �e5 K c8
be 20 . . . <2)d7: 2 1 -2\ b4 'Wr'a5 22 33 � b5 x ct +
.1. b2 ..a bs 23 i,xb5 "Wfxb5, and 34 *g2 j_c3
Black would be safe. 35 .!;l. b7 j_b4
21 "Wfxe2 j_b5 36 K b5 i.c3
22 X xb5 ab 37 K b7 J.b4
23 "Wfxb5 38 X b5 il.,c3
24 <2)e3 Draw agreed
25 'Wr'b7 In this game Black was always
Black doesn't have sufficient being tested for certain difficul­
compensation for the pawn, and it ties, so therefore in the following
was only with great difficulty that game on move 2 1 I came up with
I was able to save the ending. a significant improvement.
It must be said, that in general, Timman-Karpov (Amsterdam
the move 1 3 . . . 'l\ll( a 5 is not so 1988). 21 . . . d4! (instead of 21 . . .
bad, and Black's troubles are not � c7). This allows White to dis­
directly connected with it. I rupt his opponent's kingside.
turned to this queen move twice in However the doubled pawns are
32 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

not important-the game is the next match came my turn to

forced into a draw. use the variation as White. New
22 �d7 de to our encounters was the 1 6th
23 -21 xf6 + gf move, 1 6 'i!i;'d3 (28) (instead of 1 6
24 fe � ab8 'i!i;'d2 or 1 6 'i!i;'c2).
2S �a4 'll g7
26 j� xb8 � xcl +
28
27 *fl 'JJ, e7 B
Draw agreed
So far, we have covered only
half the ground in our discussion
of the TMB variation. We will
look at four more games.
Kasparov-Karpov, m(42) 1984/
S. After the previous drawn
games, it was thought that Kas­
parov would gladly enter into a
repetition of that opening varia­ 16 J;� fd8
tion. Now already after I I b4 c5 17 lHd1
1 2 be be 1 3 � bl I returned to 1 3 Only this move can be de­
. . . �c6 and after 1 4 0-0 �d7 1 5 scribed as a novelty. In the game
j_ b5 'Wtc7 1 6 'i!l{c2 played the Didishko-VIadimirov (Moscow
new-in comparison with games 1983) after 1 7 'i!l;' f5 cd 1 8 ed g6 19
38 and 39-move 1 6 . . . � fc8. 'i!i;'h3 j_xb5 20 -E}xb5 'i!l;' f4 Black
White and Black have various had a good game.
ways of arranging their rooks on 17 J;� ab8
their respective first ranks. It 18 _ixe6 *-txe6
seems that this is of no special 19 � xb8 � xb8
importance, and so it turned out. 20 de _t xcJ
On this occasion, peace was 21 'i/li'Xe3 '!\�;'xeS
rapidly declared. 22 "if(xeS .a xeS
17 � fcl _ixbS 23 h3 -E:l e4
18 ..a xbS 'i!i;'c6 After 23 . . . J;� d8 24 ..ad4 Black
19 de .axeS is doomed to passive defence. He
20 '!lii' fS 'i!i;'e6 must play energetically in order to
21 ..afd4 'CifxfS have a chance in the endgame.
22 ..a xrs -E}e6 24 J;� xdS � b1 +
23 � xe8 + g xe8 24 *h2 ..axfl
24 ..a xa7 K e2 26 .�;i d8 + *h7
2s ..abs � xa2 27 � d7 aS
26 h3 � aS 28 .!;i xf7 .l;l b2
Draw agreed 29 a4 �d1
Karpov-Kasparov m(8) 198S. In 30 � e7 .l;l b4
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 33

31 �d4 � xe3 35 e4 g5!

32 �c6 K c4 36 *fJ g4 +
33 II xe3 X xc6 37 *e3 X a1
34 K e5 K c3 38 *f4 Jtfl
35 X xa5 39 *g5 a xfl
A rook ending with an extra 40 * xh5 �t el
pawn-the most I could extract Draw agreed
from the position. Black defended Finally our discussion is
accurately, and ten moves later we brought to its end, and we can
agreed a draw. now return to our text game, the
Kasparov-Karpov, m(18) 1987. latest in the series of battles with
In the return match we didn't use Kasparov. So, let's return to dia­
this variation, but then in Seville gram 25.
it was encountered twice in a row. 11 0-0 �d7
Now it is Kasparov's tum to play In the much earlier game Kar­
White. From the last diagram pov-Spassky (Leningrad 1 974)
position I had again prepared a Black played I I . . . *d6 and after
move, a different square for the f­ 1 2 K c l a6 1 3 a3 �d7 1 4 b4 b5 1 5
rook. � e l had a position with no pro­
16 K fc8 spects. Hence the preparation for
17 K fcl ,�l abS . . . c5-a most judicious decision.
18 h3 g6 12 b4 c5
19 ,lxc6 X xb1 13 be be
20 l!txb1 l!txc6 Many probably thought that
21 de 11txc5 there would now follow 1 4 It b l
22 �e2 l!tf8 j_c6 1 5 i,b5, when an extremely
23 h4 sharp position arises. But . . .
This brings immediate equality. 14 l!tb3!(29)
After 23 �f4 White would have
maintained a certain amount of
29
pressure. B
23 �e5!
24 �xe5 ,l xe5
25 K d1 -.cs
26 h5 '1\l!i'cl!
27 i!1txc2 ,ll xcl
28 K xd5 K xe2
29 K xe5 K xa2
30 hg fg
31 X e7 a5 Surprisingly, this active riposte
32 K a7 a4 hadn't been tested in practice un­
33 g3 h5 til now. It presents Black with
34 *g2 a3 serious problems.
34 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
14 • . • cd
IS �xd4 .,l xd4
On the suggestion of some com­
mentators, 1 5 . . . <21c5, 1 6, iii' b4!
is very strong. 1 6 . . . 'Wfe7 ( 1 6 . . .
A c8 1 7 .,lg4) 1 7 �;t abl leads to
unpleasant pressure for White. In
the event of 1 6 . . . iii' b6 White can
choose between the exchange of
queens, creating at least one pawn
weakness in the enemy camp, and
the subtle 1 7 tt"a3, preparing 1 8
K ab l .
16 ed �b6
17 a4 X b8
18 aS <21e4
By sacrificing a pawn, Black
activates his bishop. The retreat
1 8 . . . �aS is not in his nature.
19 .,lxe4 de
20 -.xe4 ttd6(30)
White has an extra pawn and
his forces are actively placed, but
after 20 . . . 'IV6"f6 Black gains suffi­
cient counter-chances. After, say,
2 1 it fc I Black has the choice
between 2 1 . . . K fc8, 21 . . . 1. fd8
and 21 . . . .,la6. Now White
swaps off queens, securing the ad­
vantage.
21 iit cS!
21 K fcl only leads to equality
(impossible is 21 1. fd I ? K fc8 22
*d3 *c6, and on 2 1 a6 there
follows 2 1 . . . .,lxg2! 22 *xg2
-.trg6 + 23 <lr h l K fc8).
21 .-xeS
22 de K bc8
23 a6
Nothing is gained by 23 �a4
kC6 24 K fcl l. fd8.
23 .,la8
24 �bS
24 I. a5 is passive. By exchang­
ing my crippled c5 pawn for the
more valuable one on a7, I obtain
a dangerous passed pawn. But
Black, making the most of the
unfortunate posting of the knight
at a7, finds a means of getting into
a rook ending with good drawing
chances.
24 K xcS
2S '2) xa7 _l e4!
Black finds a strong reply. In
the event of 25 . . . .,lxg2 26 * xg2
K a8 27 K fbl K xa7 28 K b7 K a8
29 a7 �;t cc8 30 �;t ab 1 K f8 3 1 K c7
White gets a decisive initiative.
Also bad is 25 . . . .1. b8 26 K fc I !
� xc l 2 7 K xc l K b6 2 8 �;t a l .
26 f3 K a8
27 fe � xa7
28 K a4 K c6
29 K fal
The a-pawn is safely block­
aded, so White is hoping to sacri­
fice it at the appropriate moment,
while transferring his rook to the
kingside. Before this, some object
of attack must be created.
Although this plan of mine is fully
realized, Black's defensive re­
sources seem sufficient for a draw.
29 • • • *18
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 35

30 .fl 'll e7 62 * xf4 'll e7

31 *e3 'll e6 Draw agreed
32 li aS K d6 On 63 'll f5 there follows 63 . . .

33 K la2 J;t c6 •n. and on 63 e�3 . . . *e6!

34 h4 K d6
35 . f4 K b6
36 X 2a3 X c6 Karpov-Kasparov
37 X e5 + .f6 Game 3 1 , World
38 JU5 + .e6 Championship 1
39 K a5 Il b6 Moscow 1984
40 X e5 + *f6
Here the game was adjourned. Since after the 27th game of the
The position is drawn, and Kas­ first match the score stood at 5-0
parov avoids all the traps. in my favour, each of the follow­
41 ,l eaS *e6 ing games could, obviously, have
42 �t al K c6 concluded the contest. Alas, the
43 x es + *f6 sixth victory was not to be, as the
44 X f5 + *e6 president of FIDE, Florencio
45 �t e5 + *f6 Campomanes intervened with the
46 x ea5 .e6 match score standing at 5-3. No,
47 K la2 K b6 these aren't the best memories of
48 g4 f6 my life, but there's nowhere to
Dangerous for Black is 48 . . . hide from them!
*f6 49 h5 K c6 50 K f5 + *e6 5 1 I came closest of all to the tar­
K e5 + *f6 5 2 K e8 K c4? (correct get in two games: the 3 1 st and
is 52 . . . g5) 53 g5 + ! hg 54*g4 g6 4 1 st. In the second of these games
55 h6, and White gains the upper (covered in The Open Game in
hand. Action) I, generally speaking, was
49 hS practically within a move of win­
50 K b2 K cxa6 ning, when at the last moment,
51 K b6 + M. xb6 fate deserted me. In the 3 1 st . . . ,
52 K xa7 K bl well, let's look at it.
53 K xg7 K fl + I -E:Jf3 dS
54 *e3 K el + 2 d4 �f6
55 .f3 xn + 3 c4 e6
56 .e2 X f4 4 �cJ �e7
57 *e3 'll e5! 5 .rl gS h6
Black's defence rests on this 6 �h4
study-like idea. We have already seen quite a
58 ». e7 + .d6 few games, including those from
59 K h7 •es my matches with Kasparov, in
60 g e7 + 'll d6 which the bishop, in this position,
61 K e6 + 'll xe6 immediately takes the knight on
36 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

f6. But still it more often retreats 18 J.dJ �a7

to h4. In the previous game the 19 J.bl J..c6
state of theory was elucidated in Better than 1 9 . . . J. b5 20 'lte4
detail in the variation with the g6 21 l. fe l .
'hanging' Black ce��;tre: 6 . . . 0-0 7 20 <2!gS h6
e3 b6 8 J.e2 J. b7 9 J.xf6 J.xf6 1 0 21 <2!e4 �bS
cd ed I I b4 c 5 1 2 be be etc. Now 22 ». e4 ..txe4
we will see another variation that 22 . . . J.d5? 23 � f6 + loses.
can occur after the retreat of the 23 J.. xe4 K ac8
bishop to h4. 24 x xc8 a xeS
Kasparov and I played the 2S l. cl a xel +
Queen's Gambit more than thirty 26 'ltxcl 'ltd7
times. Almost all of these 27 g3 b6
encounters are thematically 28 'llr g2 'itd8
assessed in this volume. But, it 29 h4 aS
seems that one of the games from 30 ba ba
the Seville match has been left 31 'liteS �d4
hanging in the air. I shall there­ 32 hS f5!
fore include it here, for complete­ 33 J.. b7
ness' sake. A few people suggested that if
Kasparov-Karpov, m(20) 1987. White had captured the pawn he
Although my opponent was in a would have maintained a signifi­
peaceful frame of mind, he was cant advantage. I cannot agree
always capable of a concerted ef­ with this-after 33 ef gf I would
fort. So, I would have to work to have sufficient counter-chances.
attain the Championship. 33 *"
I e4 e6 34 'llr h2 'itb8
2 <2Jc3 d5 35 'ltt xd4 'ltt xb7
3 d4 J.e7 36 g4 'ltt fJ
4 -El f3 <21 f6 37 'ltt d7 + 'llr f8
S 'lte2 0-0 Draw agreed
6 J.gS cS And now from the fourth
7 de de match we switch again to the very
8 e4 'i!\taS first.
9 eS �d5 6 0-0
10 J.xe4 <2Jxe3 7 e3
I I 0-0! 'i!\txeS In Karpov-Kasparov m(23)
12 ti'Xe3 <2Je6 1984/S. I played 7 .X cl straight
13 j_ xe7 "W!xe7 away and after 7 . • • de 8 e3 (8 e4
14 a3 J.d7 <2Jc6! 9 e5 �d5 1 0 J. xe7 <2Jcxe7
IS 11i act � fd8 I I J.. c4 <2Jxc3 1 2 be h6, with a fine
16 b4 a6 game for Black; Tukmakov­
17 iite3 J.e8 Belyavsky, Til burg 1 984) 8 . . . cS

the game was equal and con­
cluded in a 'Grandmaster draw': 9
.i_xe4 ed 10 <E:) xd4 _id7 1 1 0-0
�c6 12 �b3 K e8 13 _tel �ciS!
14 .i_ xe7 �exe7 IS �xdS � xdS
16 ,l. xe8 11txc8 17 l!td4 11tb8 18
.i_f3 �f6 19 �cS .i_bS 20 .l dl b6
21 �e4 <E:) xe4 22 .i_ xe4 I;� c8
Draw agreed.
7 • • • b6
8 K cl
Besides 8 .l, c l or 8 �e2 (these
moves can be made in any order),
8 lit b3 or � d3 are also often met.
Here is a game which illustrates
the first of these moves. In it,
Black equalizes most efficiently.
Barlov-Yusupov (Dubai 1986):
8 l!tb3 .i_b7 9 .i_xf6 .i_xf6 lO cd
ed I I X dl c6 1 2 .i_e2 �t e8 1 3 0-0
<dd7 14 �d3 (a novelty) 14 . . .
<df8 1 5 l!tc2 J;� c8 1 6 b4 c5 1 7 be
be 1 8 de X xeS 1 9 iitb3 'i!!i' b6 with
approximate equality.
The bishop move to d3 is illus­
trated in one of my own games:
Belyavsky-Karpov (Tilburg
1986): 8 �d3 .i_b7 9 0-0 eS (not
bad either is 9 . . . <d bd7 lO x c t
c5) 1 0 de (yet another novelty.
Usual is l O 'i!li'e2) 10 • • • de (better
is l O . . . be) 1 1 .i_xe4 't{ltxdl 12
K fxdl � xeS 13 <E:)eS! White
gains the advantage, but I suc­
ceeded in defending. 13 . . . K e8
(ofcourse not 1 3 . . . �c6 14 _ixf6
gf 1 5 �d7) 14 .i_e2 (nothing is
gained by 14 �b5 g5 1 5 J.. g3
�e4) 14 • . .J.. e7 ( 1 4 . . . <dc6 1 5
_lxf6 gf 1 6 �xt7 'll xf7 1 7
X d7 + , and 14 . . . <da6 1 5 _ixf6
gf 1 6 K d7 fe 1 7 � xb7 -E)b4 1 8
i,h5 both lose) IS �e4 �c6 16
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 37
_lxf6 (I feared 16 � b5 more) 16
. • • gf 17 J.. fJ �aS! 18 J.. xb7 ( 1 8
�xa5 _lxf3 1 9 gf ba) 1 8 . . . <d xb7
19 X d7 _lb4! 20 X xb7 (also lead­
ing to a draw must be 20 � xb6 ab
2 1 Ji xb7 J.. xc3 22 be K xc3 23
.K xb6 K xa2) 20 . . K xe4 21 X dl
.
A,xe3 22 be K xe3 23 g3 X a3
Draw agreed.
8 ... ..tb7
9 li.. e2 -E)bd7
In the 34th game, in which I
played Black, there followed 9 . . •
de 10 i,xe4 �bd7 1 1 0-0 a6 12 a4
eS 13 l!te2 ed. This is more pre­
cise, than the 3rd game of the
Merano match against Korchnoi
in 1 98 1 , where I played 1 3 . . .
� e4, and after 1 4 <d xe4 .i. xe4 1 5
,tg3 White maintained a certain
amount of pressure.
The game finished: 14 ed �hS!
IS i,xe7 'l!ltxe7 16 dS �f4 17 l!te3
.. (6 18 <de4 iltf5 19 �g3 "Wtf6 20
�e4 "Wtf5 Draw agreed.
In the game Ftacnik-Belyavsky
(Wijk aan Zee 1985), the moves I I
. . . a6 1 2 a4 were omitted and
after 1 3 ed <E:)h5 14 i,g3 �df6 1 5
.K fd l _ld6 1 6 <deS X eS a posi­
tion arose with approximately
equal chances.
An attempt to improve White's
game by way of 13 �xd4 was
undertaken in the game Vaga­
oian-Belyavsky (MontpeHer
1985), but a peaceful result
quickly ensued: 13 a6 14 K fdl
• . .
•e8 15 a4 �e5 16 _lg3 �fe4 17
<dxe4 �xe4 18 i,e5 .i_f6 19 _le7
•a4 20 f3 i,xd4 21 ed �f6 22
,lxb6 ..idS 23 i,cS .I fb8 24 _ld3
aS 25 iltfl Draw agreed.
38 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
This discussion was continued
in Kasparov-Karpov, m(36)
1984/S, where I played I I . . . cS
immediately, and Kasparov then
exchanged pawns in the centre: 1 2
de -2J xcS 1 3 ..-e2 a6 1 4 K fd l tte8
I S �eS. In the first game of the
Baguio match, Korchnoi played
I S a3 and the move I S . . . <afe4!
brought immediate equality.
But this latest move of Kas­
parov yielded nothing: 1 S . . . bS!
16 .£JxbS. A speculative continua­
tion, but after 1 6 i.d3 exd3
Black has a fine game. 16 . . . ab?
A serious mistake, since after 1 7
.i_xbS .i_a6 1 8 x xcS .i_xcS 1 9
.txa6! ..-a4 20 _i xf6 gf 2 1 i.bS
White has a big plus; I managed
to get a draw after a hard struggle.
Meanwhile the intermediate 1 6
. . . i11i" b8! liquidates all of the
danger for Black. In the variation
1 7 i.g3 ab 1 8 ec6 .i_xc6 1 9
.1xb8 be 20 i.d6 i_xd6 2 1 K xd6
i.dS there is more than enough
compensation for the queen, as
also in the variation 1 8 eg6 ( 1 8
exn )'ife8!) 1 8 . . . fg 1 9 .txb8 be
20 ,.tg3 K xa2 2 1 -Mtxc4 K xb2.
10 ed
After 10 0-0 we arrive at a posi­
tion from the game Karpov-Kas­
parov, m(17) 1984/5. By means of
10 • . . e5 Black succeeds here in
bringing about many simplifica­
tions: 1 1 i.g3 a6 12 ed e xd5 13
e xd5 .t xd5 14 de exeS 15 b4
.£)e4 16 _te7 "i/;e8 17 a3 a5 18
i.d3 ab 19 ab ,.t xb4 lO .txe4
_txe4 21 i*d4 .t xfJ ll ..- xb4
i.el Draw agreed.
10 ed
1 1 0-0 e5
12 tta4
In the game Karpov-Kasparov,
m(l5) 1984/5, I played 12 de be 13
X el!, which is considerably
stronger in comparison with the
first game of the Merano match,
where Korchnoi, as White, played
1 3 -.. c2, and after 1 3 . . . x es 14
K fd l )'ifb6 IS *bl (better is I S
* b3) 1 S . K fd8 Black obtained
• •
fully equal play. Let's see how the
game continued from this critical
position: 1 6 X c2 ilt'e6 1 7 i.g3
ehS! 1 8 X cd2 e xg3 1 9 hg e f6
20 ..-c2 g6 2 1 t;'a4 a6 22 i.d3
*g7 23 J.. b l ttb6 24 a3? d4!!,
and Black launched a decisive
counter-attack.
So, returning to game 2S
against Kasparov: 13 . . X e8 14
.
K dl *b6 15 -.b3 (31) .
31
B
White accepts doubled pawns,
while creating pressure on his
opponent's centre. However, Kas­
parov succeeds in getting out of
this ticklish situation unscathed:
15 . . . x fd8 16 x fd1 ltxb3 17 ab
-E)b6 18 e es *f8 19 h3 a6 l0 i.f3
j_a8 21 <ag4 .EJg8! draw agreed.
The balance is maintained by
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 39

both 22 J.. xe7 + � xe7, and 22 advantage (Chekhov-Benin, Poz­

J.. g3 c4 23 �xd5 � xd5 24 J.. xd5 nan 1 986).
J.. x d5 25 K xd5 cb. 17 �el! d4
12 a6 In view of the threat 1 8 J.. f3 ,
After 1 2 . . . �e4 1 3 J.. e7 'ft'xe7 Black was compelled to push his
14 J.. a6 White's superiority is d-pawn, which eventually falls.
minimal. 18 ed cd
13 de 19 �a4 K c8
14 K fdl 20 K xe8 a xeS
IS l\i'b3(32) 21 J.. e4 iU'8
22 "iit'd3!(33)
32
B

After the exchange of queens,

l 5 . . . "Wtxb3 1 6 ab, a position is
reached similar to that in the pre­
vious diagram. I think that this
endgame is more favourable for
White. Here is one example.
Eingorn-Dorfman (Tashkent
1984): 16 . . . K fd8 1 7 � e l �b6
1 8 J.. f3 K d7 (White is also better
after 1 8 . . . K ac8 1 9 �d3 J.. a 8 20
.!il, a l d4 2 1 _ixa8 K xa8 22 ed cd
23 <2)e2) 19 �d3 g5 20 J.. g3 X c8
21 �e5 K dd8 22 �c4! White has
a strong initiative, and soon pre­
vails.
So, from the diagram position
Black prefers to retreat his queen.
IS 'fi!Ja7
16 J.. g3 K ad8
After 1 6 . . . K ac8 1 7 <2)e5
K fd8 1 8 J.. f3 c4 1 9 'itc2 ��.
White has a small but definite
Stronger than the suggestion 22
�d3, on which Geller provides
the following variation: 22 . . .
<2)e4 23 �e5 � xeS 24 J.. xe5 J.. f6
25 .A_xf6 � xf6 26 � b6 J.. c6 with
unclear play.
22 J.. e6
22 . . . �c5 is inappropriate: 23
'l'!ltxd4 X d8 24 -.xd8 + J.. xd8 25
X xd8 + *h7 26 J.. b8 "fr'a8 27
�b6.
23 J.. bJ �e4
In the event of 23 . . . J.. xa4 24
J.. xa4 <2)c5 25 ilfxd4 .1 d8 26 "l'tc4
Black doesn't have much compen­
sation for the pawn.
24 -.xd4 ilt b7
25 i.dS!
Not only does White win a
pawn, but he also brings about
important simplifications.
40 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

l5 �df6 The position was sharp, besides

26 J,xc6 -. xc6 which I was in time-trouble; so I
27 b3 K e8(34) therefore took the draw offered by
my adversary.

Karpov-Kasparov
Game 9, World Championship
1
Moscow 1984

Kasparov successfully em­

ployed the Tarrasch Defence in
his Candidates matches. How­
ever, in our first contest I found
A critical moment. By continu­ the key to Black's position.
ing now with 28 *c4!, White Nevertheless, despite achieving an
would win the game very quickly, opening advantage in the current
and conclude the match with a game, I didn't follow it up in the
score of 6--0. But that is water most energetic fashion, and the
under the bridge! chances were almost equal. But
l8 *dJ h5 because of this, I succeeded in
29 -.c4 realizing a rare conception in the
It seems as though the loss of endgame.
tempo is immaterial, but this is 1 d4 d5
not the case. With the appearance 2 c4 e6
of the pawn on h5, Black is able to 3 �f3 c5
create an outpost for his knight, 4 cd ed
and this proves significant. 5 g3 �f6
29 *b7 6 J.g2 J.. e7
30 �f3 l. c8 7 0-0 0-0
3 1 *el �g4! 8 �cJ �c6
32 �e5 � xg3 9 J.. g5 cd
If it wasn't for the advance of 10 � xd4 b6
the h-pawn, White would now 1 1 j_ eJ l. e8
have a won position by means of ll "i(ltb3(35)
33 iltxg4. Kasparov's opponents in the
33 hg i�tb5! Candidates matches, Belyavsky,
34 �c4 Korchnoi and Smyslov, played
After 34 -wr-xb5 ab 35 �xg4 hg various moves here- 1 2 \t(a4, 1 2
36 .:£) b6 g c2 Black seizes the .-c2 and 1 2 a3-but didn't
initiative. achieve any great successes. I de­
34 J.. f6 cided in favour of a relatively rare
35 �ab6 X e8 continuation, which I had pre-

35
B he converted it into a win.
pared especially for the match. An
interesting idea was used by an ex­
World Champion following 1 2 a3:
12 a3 J.,e6 13 tiP h l !? "*d7 1 4
-2Jxe6 fe 1 5 f4! with a dangerous
tmttattve (Smyslov-Kasparov,
m(2) 1984). However, in the 8th
game of that same match Kas­
parov played the more precise 1 3
. . . J.,g4! 14 f3 J.,h5 1 5 j_ g l and
only now 1 5 . . . 'Wt'd7, and after 1 6
'Wf'a4 J.,c5 1 7 ». ad l J,b6 1 8 l. fe l
J.g6 Black has solved his opening
problems.
In any case, the three given 1 2th
moves for White are almost never
seen at the highest level nowa­
days. However, besides 1 2 iib3
the move 12 K c l is often put to
use. The following example is of
interest.
Ribli-Barle (Yugoslavia 1 985):
1 2 K c l J.,ffi 13 -2Jxc6 be 14 �a4
'ita5 1 5 X xc6! (instead of the
former 1 5 b3-not fearing the
complications) 1 5 . . . J,d7 1 6
.,id2 J.b4 ( 1 6 . . . 'ti(( b5 1 7 l. xf6!
gf 1 8 �c3 'Wt'xb2 1 9 �xd5 x ac8
20 J.c3 etc.; Strauss-King, Brigh­
ton 1 984) 1 7 x es 'Wf'xa4 1 8 'itxa4
,lxa4 19 J.,xb4 I. xe2 20 b3 J,d7
21 X a l X eS 22 & xeS + I, xeS 23
.tfl X b2 24 j_a3 X d2 25 j_c5.
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 41
White's advantage is obvious, and
Another innovation was used
in the game Dorfman-Rantanen
(Helsinki 1 986): 1 4 J.d4 (instead
of 14 �a4) 1 4 . . . J.g4 1 5 'fta4
J.d7 16 J.,xf6 'Wf'xf6 1 7 -2Jxd5! ( 1 7
J, xd5 was played till now) 1 7 . . .
cd 1 8 'Wt'xd7 X adS 1 9 'Wt'xb7 Jl xe2
20 J,xd5, and White soon won.
12 -2i aS
13 'Wt'cl J.g4
14 �fS
This move was first played by
Grandmaster Portisch. The
immediate despatch of the knight
is better than after the preliminary
14 h3 .th5 1 5 X ad l X eS 1 6 g4
J.,g6 1 7 � f5, which was pre­
viously recommended by the
opening manuals.
14 l. c8
The Tarrasch Defence was
played by us twice, in this game
and also in the seventh. It was in
that game that Kasparov chose
X c8 for the first time, which may
be described as an innovation. In
the game Portisch-Chandler
(Amsterdam 1 984) after 1 4 . . .
j_b4 1 5 J.d4! J, xc3 ( 1 5 . . . �c6
1 6 j_xf6 11txf6 1 7 �e3 with ad­
vantage, or 1 5 . . . I. c8 1 6 -2Je3
j_e6 1 7 'Wt'a4 J.,xc3 1 8 J.xc3 �c6
19 », fd l ! 'ite7 20 X d2 d4 2 1
J. xd4 -2Jxd4 2 2 K xd4 with
obvious advantage to White; Par­
tisch-Wilder, New York 1984) 1 6
J. xc3 a xe2 1 7 -.!td3 l;l e8 1 8 �e3
J,e6 19 'Wt'b5 b6 20 X ad l White
obtained compensation for the
pawn, but sufficient only for equa­
lity.
42 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
More accurate, seemingly, was
1 7 'ii' d I , which was seen in the
game Lukacs-Barle (Maribor
19S5). Instead of the correct 1 7
. . . -E)c6, with a complicated
struggle, Black erred with the
immediate 1 7 . . . <2Jc4? There fol­
lowed I S -2}xh6 + ! gh 1 9 f3 K e6
( 1 9 . . . d4 20 'Wf'xd4 loses im­
mediately) 20 fg with the initiative
for White.
Instead of 1 6 ll.. xc3, deserving
of attention is 1 6 be. In the game
Tseitlin-Malevsky (USSR 1 9S4),
after 1 6 . . . � xe2 ( 1 6 . . . j_ xe2 1 7
� fe l A.g4 I S � xeS + �xeS 19
.i_xd5) 1 7 iiot'd3 �c4 (better is 17
. . . � eS) I S -2}e3 � d2 I S 'ii!;' b l
.ie2 20 � fe l -2}xe3 2 1 j_xe3 J.. d3
22 jixb7, in spite of the exchanges
White retains the advantage.
15 il.d4!
A strong move. In the seventh
game I exchanged on e7- 1 5
�xe7 + � xe7 1 6 .!!l ad ! 'ii' eS, and
Black soon equalized. The reason
for Black's defeat was due not to
the opening strategy but to the
inaccuracies brought about by
time trouble. Let's see the rest of
the game.
Karpov-Kasparov, m(7) 1984/
5): 17 h3 J.. h5 18 J.. xdS J.. g6 19
"l!ltd � xd5 20 If. xd5 -2}c4 21 J.. d4
g ec7 22 b3 (scarcely better
chances are retained by White in
the event of 22 'Wrf4) 22 . . • �b6
23 X e5 'l*d7 24 ije3 f6 (worse is
24 . . . 'ii!;' x h3 25 j_xb6 ab 26 <2Jd5
with the threat of �e7 + ) 25 %i c5
� xeS 26 _t xc5 'llt xh3 27 X d1 b5
(the simplest way to equalize is 27
. . . il.. f7 2S il_d6 ·M- e6) 28 g d4
�d7 29 J.. d6 J.. f7 30 �ciS J.. xdS
31 .11: xdS a6 32 J.. f4 �f8 33 trd3
'ii!;' g4 34 fJ trg6 35 *fl I. c2? (the
preliminary exchange of queens
would lead to a draw) 36 "l!lte3!
K c8 37 tre7 b5?? (loses im­
mediately; 37 . . . "l!ltf7 is a possible
defence) 38 K d8 �t xd8 39 trxd8
�f7 40 J.. d6 g5 41 "l!lta8 'll g7 42
tf'xa6 Black resigned.
15 J.. c5
16 J.xc5 Ail xc5
17 �e3!
Compensation for an isolated
pawn usually lies in active piece
play. But in the current situation
the Black pieces are, in the main,
functioning passively. As a result,
the opening duel ends in White's
favour.
17 j_e6
The fork 1 7 . . . d4 is not dan­
gerous because of 1 8 g ad I .
18 K ad1 i/rc8
1 9 �exd5! <E:lxd5 20 e4 was
threatened here.
19 tf'a4
19 'lif b I X d8 20 Ail d3 deserves
attention, though 20 . . . d4 is im­
possible due to 2 1 � fd I -E)c6 22
J.. xc6.
19 Ji d8
20 X d3 a6
21 lt fd1 (J6J
On 2 1 "«!!' d l Black would have
to play 2 1 . . . '8'c6, since 21 . . .
�c4 22 �exd5 �xd5 23 � xd5
,Axd5 24 j_xd5 �xb2 25 J. xf7 +
*xf7 26 K xdS �xd l 27 � xeS
�xeS 28 K xd l leads to a rook
ending with an extra pawn for
White.
The white rooks and knights
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 43

25 �c7
26 *xc7 II dxc7
The exchange of queens is pos­
sible due to the fact that the d5
pawn is invulnerable: 27 �xd5
-dxd5 28 .i_xd5 .i_xd5 29 ll xd5
� xd5 30 Iii xd5 K c2 3 1 X d8 +
*h7 32 X d7 & xb2 33 & xf7
& xe2 with every sign of a draw.
27 h3 h5
28 a3 g6
are placed rather unusually-a 29 e3 *K1
capital 'T'. These pieces coordi­ 30 * h2 � c4
nate in targetting the most vulner­ 31 .i_fJ b5
able part of Black's defences. De­ 32 *Kl X 7c5
spite this, the d-pawn withstands 33 K xc4 � xc4
the onslaught. 34 K d4 tll f8
21 � c4 35 ,le2 K xd4
22 <2) xc4 36 eel *e7
Now 22 <E�exd5 <2) xd5 23 � xd5 Insufficiently energetic play by
�xd5 24 �xd5 is not so danger­ White allows his opponent to sta­
ous: 24 . . . _g dxd5 25 � xd5 bilize the situation. Now good
� xd5 26 K xd5 �b6 27 *d4 chances of equality would have
-dxd5 28 • xd5 *cl + 29 *g2 been given by 36 . . . -de4 37 �a2
\'ii' xb2 with a level queen end­ -2:ld6 38 �b4 a5 39 �c6 �e4.
game. 37 -2:1 al .i. c8
22 & xc4 38 <E! b4 *d6
23 *a5 39 fJ �g8
Perhaps the natural move 23 40 h4 �h6
illf' b3 is stronger. After 23 . . . d4 41 •n �rs
the subtle 24 *b6! (but not 24 42 � c2
\'ii' xb7 J,.xb7 25 j_ xb7 X b8 26 The game was adjourned here,
j_xa6 de 27 .i_xc4 c2 28 K d8 + with Black sealing 42 . . . f6. After
-de8!) wins a pawn: 24 . . . �d7 25 42 . . . �g7 43 g4 f6 44 .i_d3 g5 45
� xd4! Generally, great care is .i_g6! hg 46 h5 White has a dan­
demanded from Black in order gerous passed h-pawn, though
not to lose his isolani. maybe safer is 42 . . . .i_d7.
23 � c5 42 f6
24 'itb6 � d7 43 .i_ d3 g5
25 � d4 44 A xf5 .l. xrs
The prophylactic measures 25 45 <E�e3 A bl
h3 or 25 e3 would cause plenty of 46 b4 gh(37)
trouble for Black. The presence of Black's bad
44 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

48 * xgJ *e6
49 �f4 + *f5
SO -2J xh5 *e6
51 �f4 + *d6
52 fl g4 _tel
53 *h5 J.. d l
54 *g6 *e7
After 54 . . . J.xf3 55 *xf6
Black will lose his d5 pawn in the
end.
55 .a xd5 + *e6
bishop (pawns on a6, b5 and d5 56 -2Jc7 + *d7
being placed on the same col­ Now, and on the previous
oured squares as the bishop) guar­ move, more stubborn would be
antees White a solid advantage. . . . *d6. Generally speaking, I
But is this a decisive factor? After think that thorough analysis of
46 . . . J.g6 the defence would not the final part of this game has an
be breached so easily. The pawn important place in endgame
exchange (if only!) would simplify theory.
the task of achieving a draw. If 57 � xa6 J. xfJ
White recaptures, the break g3-g4 58 * xf6 *d6
becomes impossible, and to pen­ 59 *f5 *d5
etrate the enemy camp, the critical 60 . ,4 J.hl
point is f4, which neither the king 61 *eJ *c4
'
nor the knight can get past. How­ 62 � c5 J.c6
ever, White finds the correct path On 62 . . . j_g2 63 �d3 *b3 64
by way of a study-like manoeuvre. -2Jf4 j_b7 65 \ll d3 *xa3 66 *c3
47 -2Jgl!! and 67 d5 decides.
It is psychologically impossible 63 �dJ J.gl
to foresee such a move. In home 64 -2J e5 + *cJ
analysis, for example, after the 65 �g6 \II C4
exchange on h4, generally the 66 -2Je7 J.. b7
White pawn remains on the There is no salvation either in
board, while the g-pawns are 66 . . . * b3 67 d5 •xa3 68 d6
removed straight away. This un­ J.. h 3 69 �d5. The very last possi­
expected knight manoeuvre is bility of holding out any further
connected with a pawn sacrifice. lies in 66 . . . J.. h l 67 �c8 *d5.
But the material balance is soon 67 �f5 J.gl
re-established, after which both 68 -2Jd6 + *bJ
White pieces are able to invade 69 <2:1 xb5 *•4
behind enemy lines. 70 �d6
47 hg + Black resigned

Dzhandzhava-Lputyan
Lvov 1987
I d4 dS
2 c4 e6
3 -2)13 cS
4 cd ed
s g3 �c6
6 A_g2 -E)f6
7 0-0 �e7
8 .acJ 0-0
9 � gS
Black's next move was . . . c4,
which was also played by Kas­
parov against Larsen (Brussels
1987), although after 9 �e3. It
stands to go into more detail after
this move: the fact is, that it was
Kasparov's first use of the Tar­
rasch Defence since its failure in
the seventh and ninth games of
our first match. Possibly, the
Grandmaster from Baku would
also have played 9 . . . c4 after 9
.,tg5, but Larsen deviated from
the more principled bishop ma­
noeuvre. In an international tour­
nament in Niksic ( 1983) Larsen
played 9 b3 against Kasparov, but
he didn't achieve any opening ad­
vantage. The move 9 �e3 isn't
dangerous for Black either. Thus:
9 �e3 c4. Possible also is 9 . . .
-2)g4 10 �f4 �e6 1 1 de �xc5.
Here White has a wide choice of
replies, for example: 12 .aa4, 1 2
K c l , 1 2 � e l , 1 2 e3, 1 2 -2)g5, 1 2
-w-c2, but, similarly, Black, i n each
case, finds the means of holding
the balance.
1 0 -2}e5 h6. A comparatively
new move. The traditional 10 . . .
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 45
�e6 I I -2} xc4 de 1 2 d5 -2} xd5 1 3
<2!xd5 gives White the initiative.
I I "i!ita4. In the game Timosh­
chenko-Kasparov (USSR Cham­
pionship 1 983) there followed I I
b3 cb 1 2 -E) xc6 be 1 3 ab a5 1 4 �cl
�b4 15 -E)a4 K e8 1 6 �d2 �a6
1 7 K e l �f8 1 8 "i!iftc2 .ae4 19 .ac3
-E)d2, and Black seized the initia­
tive.
I I . . . a6. Accentuating the
pointlessness of the queen thrust.
1 2 � xc6 be 1 3 b3 ( 1 3 "i!iftxc6
�d7 14 "i!itb7 .11 b8 1 5 "i!itxa6 K a8
leads to a draw by repetition of
moves) 1 3 . A b8 1 4 be.
. .
Speculative, though interesting,
is 14 "i!iftxc6!? 1. b6 1 5 "i!ifta8, and it
is not apparent how to get at the
queen, while the d5 pawn is in
need of defence. The game would
quickly conclude by repeating
moves.
14 . . . X b4 1 5 "i!�rd l . Here 1 5
"i!lrxc6 loses the queen to 1 5 . . .
�b7!
15 . . . K xc4 16 � a4 �f5 1 7
.a b2 A c3. I n view of his oppo­
nent's indecisive play, Kasparov
has succeeded in taking the initia­
tive, and ultimately prevailed.
9 c4
The usual move 9 . . . cd was
looked at above. If Black decides
to push his c-pawn, there is no
point in delaying it until the fol­
lowing move, although 9 . . . �e6
10 K c l c4 is also played.
10 <21eS i.e6
I I .axc6
Nowadays, the immediate
knight exchange is considered to
46 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
be the stronger continuation, rep­
lacing the moves 1 1 f4, 1 1 itd2,
1 1 e3 and I I �xc4.
11
1 2 b3
13 � &4(38)
38
B 13
The move 1 3 itc2 is given a lot
of attention in theoretical mono­
graphs, but it is not feared by
Black in view of 1 3 . . . g fd8 1 4
� fd l .!;i ac8 1 5 be de 1 6 �e4 'fltf5
1 7 .txf6 (after 1 7 �xf6 + gf 1 8
'WtxfS .txfS 1 9 .tf4 .t b4 the ad­
vantage is handed over to Black)
1 7 . . . gf 1 8 'Wtb2 'll g7 1 9 �c3
with an equal game (but not 1 9
K ac l cS, with Black again seizing
the initiative; Titov-Ziatdinov,
USSR 1985).
In the game Huzman-Legky
(Tashkent 1987) White, instead of
14 K fd l , played 1 4 e3. There sub­
sequently followed 1 4 . . . g ac8
1 5 be de 1 6 €1e4 c5 1 7 de h6 1 8
.txf6 gf 1 9 g fd l fS 20 -2Jd6
.txd6 21 cd c3 22 J;� d3 .-a3, and
Black again succeeded in gaining
equality.
Apart from 1 3 . . . X fd8 Black
has the possibility 1 3 . . . .tb4 14
.td2 cS (more accurate than 1 4
. . . cb 1 5 a b tt b6 1 6 e 3 .txc3 1 7
.txc3 K fc8 1 8 K a4 with better
chances for White; Dorfman­
Lputyan, CSKA vs. Trud 1 986)
1 5 a3 cb 1 6 'Wtb2 .txc3 17 .txc3
�a4 18 de g fc8 19 .td4 �d7
with complicated play (Bareev­
Lputyan, Karkov, 1 985).
g fd8
14 e3
14 'Wt'c2 K ac8 1 5 .txf6 .txf6 1 6
-2Jc5 .i_d4 offers few prospects for
White (Portisch-Spassky, Geneva
1977).
14 • .. cS
More active than 14 . . . .1. ac8
1 5 .txf6 gf 1 6 be de 1 7 'Wfc2 with
the better game for White (Yusu­
pov-Lputyan, USSR Champion­
ship 1 979).
15 � xeS
A different order of moves is
also possible: 1 5 .txf6 gf 1 6 de
.:txcS 1 7 � xeS ( 1 7 'Wth5 � ac8 1 8
Jl fd l c3 1 9 l,l ac l ..1 b4 20 K d4
with minimal advantage to White;
Bagirov-Lputyan, USSR Cham­
pionship 1 980) 1 7 . . . 'WfxcS etc.
1 5 de K ac8 16 'Wfc2 .txc5 1 7
-2lxc5 'Wfxc5 1 8 .txf6 gf 1 9 K fd l
d4! doesn't succeed for White
either, with Black having the
better prospects (Stean-Marjano­
vic, Vzec 1978).
15
16 de
17 .txf6
The idea of the following queen
sacrifice was first put into practice
in the game Yusupov-Marjanovic
(Sarajevo 1 984): 1 7 be de 1 8 J,.xa8
J;l xd l 19 X fxd l -2ld7 20 .tf4 g5
21 J,.d6 'Wff5 22 ll d4 -2Je5 23
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 47

�xeS ttxeS with unclear play. king or a-pawn: 20 . . . '1Jg7 21

Before putting this tactic into X acl tta3 (2 1 . . . �g4 22 K d2)
operation, White is better advised 22 K c2 c3 23 X del aS (23 . . .
to exchange on f6. �xa2? 24 K a l ) 24 e4 with win­
17 gf ning chances for White; 20 . . . aS
18 be de 2 1 K ac l a4 22 i_O a3 23 �e2
19 � xa8 Jl xd1 ttb4 24 �xc4 _txc4 2S X d4 titb2
lO Jl fxd1 (39) 26 X dxc4 ttxa2 27 & a4!, and
Black is faced with a difficult de­
39
fensive task.
B 21 �e4
2 1 X del isn't good enough: 2 1
. . . c2 2 2 �e4 _tfS 2 3 i_xfS (23
.1. xc2? ..-es) 23 . . . ttxfS 24 a4
tltd3 and the rook cannot move to
a2 because of the check on d l . A
drawn position.
21 cl
ll K d8 + '1J g7
In principle, the two rooks are 23 M el � b3
stronger than the queen, but the White captures the c-pawn, but
presence of a bishop on either side his pieces are somewhat uncoordi­
assists the defender. The diagram nated.
position occurred for the first time l4 .t. xcl
a few months earlier in the game 24 J! xc2 loses because of the
Chemin-Marjanovic (Subotica double attack 24 . . . tt b4!
1987). l4 't!\i'c6
Black played the lame 20 . . . 25 e4 'i!tc3
tta3, when 2 1 x ac l ! (a drawn l6 M dJ 'i!\tbl
endgame is reached after 2 1 �dS 27 M ddl ttxal
j_xdS 22 K xdS c3 23 X d8 + '1Jg7 l8 �dJ .t.g4
24 X eS ttb2 2S X fl c2 26 a4 aS) 28 . . . 'i!tb3 29 K a l aS leads to
21 . . . hS 22 h4 tltxa2 (on 22 . . . aS unclear play.
there follows 23 K c2 and a subse­ 19 Ji el lil'dl
quent �n�e2) 23 i.. d S _txdS 24 30 .t. a6 �fJ
:g xdS aS 2S X cS led to a won 31 K al t�td4
ending for White. 31 �n � xe4
lO c3! 33 � gl j_f5
A novelty (it's not clear exactly Black would have little chance
where-in the opening or the end­ of survival were he to exchange
game!?), which allows Black to bishops on g2, but 33 . . . fS war­
mair,tain the equilibrium. Weaker rants consideration.
are waiting moves by either the 34 � aJ i.. c8
48 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

35 A! c l iitd7 63 l!l. c7 +
36 � a5 f(¥ e7 Draw agreed
37 � a4 l{Wd7
38 � aJ f;lt e7
39 � cal a6
40 .i.fl .i_b7 Yusupov-Ribli
41 .ig2 .ic8 Montpellier 1985
42 JL fl A b7 I d4 �f6
43 .1xa6 A c6 2 c4 e6
44 ;;;. eJ l{Wa7! 3 �fJ d5
White has successfully dealt 4 �cJ c5
with his opponent's threats on the 5 cd � xd5
h l -aS diagonal, and now he 6 e4 �xcJ
would like to exchange bishops! 7 be de
But, due to the active black 8 cd �c6
queen, he does not succeed in this. This leads to a no Jess interest­
45 g cJ 'i4td4 ing game than after the once
46 � acl .idS popular continuation 8 J. b4 +
. • .

47 JLe2 iitd2 9 .id2 J.xd2 + 1 0 "Wtxd2 0-0 11

48 J. fl f5 J.c4 and only now 11 . . . �c6. I
49 j_g2 .ibJ will reflect on just one classic ex­
50 J4. c5 f4 ample-the 5th game of the
51 gf World Championship match
In the opinions of Dzhandz­ Spassky-Petrosian (Moscow
hava and Georgadze, in their 1969): 12 0-0 b6 13 1!1. ad I J.b7 14
comments on the game, slight �t fel � c8 15 d5 ed 16 JL.xd5 �a5
chances of success would be 17 "iV{f4 -.c7 18 "Wtf5 _1 xd5 19 ed,
retained by 5 1 _i f3 fg 52 hg, pre­ and the d-pawn quickly decides
venting the splintering of Whites' the result of the game: 19 . . . 'ti!&'c2
pawns. 20 'lf(f4 "Wtxa2 21 d6 1!1. cd8 22 d7
51 'i!i(( xf4 "il!f'c4 23 "Wtf5 b6 24 g el jj-a6 25
52 � lcJ ir d4 K c7 b5 26 �d4 i4tb6 27 K c8 �b7
53 g gJ + *f8 28 �c6 �d6 29 � xd8! � xf5 30
54 g c8 + *e7 �c6. Black resigned.
55 � c7 + *f8 9 J.c4 b5
56 g c8 + *e7 Of late this intermediate pawn
57 J.fJ .ic4 advance has been regarded as a
58 hJ 'i!l'fal + stronger continuation than the
59 .h2 'i!!r r' d4 immediate check -9 . . . .1 b4 + . I
60 *gl 'tllr a l + recall a game I played less recently
61 *h2 ii\'d4 against Grigorian (Moscow
62 J.g2 h5 1 973), in which, after 1 0 _id2

1lt'a5 1 1 d5 ..txd2 + 1 2 <2! xd2 !Ji:je7
13 0-0 ed 14 ed 0-0 1 5 l. e 1 I
achieved a small edge. Stronger is
12 1ltxd2 ftxd2 + 1 3 tlf xd2 <2!a5
14 .,td3 tlfe7 1 5 ,l ac 1 ..td7 1 6
�e5, and White has an obvious
advantage in the endgame (Tal­
Tseshkovsky, USSR Champion­
ship 1 976).
10 .tel
Nothing is gained by the retreat
of the bishop to b3 or e2, here is
yet one more example taken from
a battle for the World Title: 1 0
..td3 ..t b4 + 1 1 ..td2 _txd2 + 1 2
'l'!ltxd2 a6 1 3 a4 0-0 with balanced
play (Spassky-Fischer, m(9)
1 972).
10 ..tb4+
II ..tdl 'tlll a5 (40)
12 dS
An interesting encounter Por­
tisch-Pinter (Vengria 1984), noted
by Chess Informant as the best in
the first half of 1 984. In it White
himself exchanged the bishop on
b4, and here is how the game
developed: 12 ..txb4 'Wt'xb4 + 13
'ii!f' dl ..tb7 14 a3 ..- xdl + IS tlf xdl
a6 16 a4 b4 17 aS. This seems to be
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 49
justified strategically, preventing
. . . !Ji:ja5 and fixing of the queen's
flank; however, Black has at his
disposal a tactical weapon: 17 • • .
X d8 18 *e3 f5 19 ef ef 10 ..tc4
'll e7 21 dS (41 ) .
Both kings remain i n the centre,
and they decide the outcome of
the struggle. Now after 2 1 . . .
-21 b8 22 tll d4! it appears as
though White has it won. How­
ever: 1 1 tll f6!, and the great
. . •
danger to White's king becomes
apparent. 22 de X he8 + 13 tll f4
X e4 + 24 tlfg3 ..tc8 lS K acl
l. g4 + 26 tll b3 f4 17 !Ji:jeS. In­
stead, White should return the
piece-27 ..txa6!, and the matter
is concluded by perpetual check-
27 . . . K g3 + (28 . . . ..tf5 28
K c5!, 27 . . . ..te6 28 I. he l l) 28
tll h4 K g4 + etc.
17. . •tll gS!! A brilliant thema­
tic invasion of the king, which
began on move 21 . After 27 . . .
t1Jxe5 28 X he I + *f6 29 _te6!
the advantage would be with
White 28 <2! f7 + tll bS! 19 .tel
K d3 + ! A problem-like move:
almost all of Black's pieces are
50 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

hanging, but the white king 18 �d6

cannot escape from the mating 19 titd4
net. 19 -E)d4 ..ld7 20 �c6 t1tf6 is
30 g3 (30 _lf3 II xf3 + 3 1 gf not so effective.
M. g3 mate) 30 f3! 31 X c5 + .
• . • 19 • • • 'i!J'b6
After 3 1 ..l xf3 .Ill xf3 32 * g2 20 titf4!
.Ill xf7 Black is left with an extra The queen occupies the square
minor piece. 31 .Ill g5 + 32 from which it can best control the
• • .

g4 + .,l xg4 + 33 *g3 fe + White entire centre. If 20 M. c6 "i/fxd4 2 1

resigned. � xd4 X d8.
An interesting novelty (from 20 A d7
diagram 40) was used by Geller ll �d4 J. fe8
against Mikhalchishin (USSR 2l �c6 �c4
Championship 1 985): 1 2 a4! ba. 23 K fel
Mikhalchishin decided against 1 2 Now White's evident superi­
. . . .,lxd2 + 1 3 'i!J'xd2 'i!J'xd2 + 1 4 ority crystallizes, and it is quickly
*xd2 ba 1 5 K xa4 _ld7 1 6 X ha l put to good effect.
0-0 1 7 d5 ed 1 8 ed .!;l. fd8!? 1 9 de 13 �b2
.,lxc6 + 20 *c3 .t.xa4 2 1 x xa4 24 .ie4 �c4
with winning chances for White. lS h3 h6
After 1 3 K xa4 .,lxd2 + 1 4 � xd2 26 .id3 �bl
'i!J'd8 1 5 d5 .;ae7 16 .t b5 + ! A d7 Winning the pawn doesn't
1 7 .txd7 + -.xd7 18 �c4! White work: 26 . . . .txc6 27 de X xe I +
had an obvious advantage. 28 K xe l "\itxc6 29 .,le4 ilf'e8 30
12 ed ..lh7 + .
13 ed -E)e7 17 .ibl .,txc6
14 0-0 .t xd2 Although it's impossible to en­
15 �xdl 0-0 dure the knight, the exchange of it
16 -Elb3 -.d8 does not ease the situation.
17 Af3 l8 de X xel +
After 17 .i xb5 the game Geor­ 29 X xel *xc6
giev-Ribli (Sarajevo 1985) was 30 Ae4 "jl{(c3
quickly concluded: 17 A b7 18
. • • In the event of 30 . . . i�J'c4, 3 1
.;ac5 i!J'b6! 19 � xb7 *xb5 lO 'iit'r' d2 decides .
� bl -.tr'xd5 ll � el 'l!lt'xdl ll 31 g el �dJ
K bxdl �c6 13 X d7 -E)b8! 24 Hoping for 32 X xc3 �xf4 33
X de7 .;ac6 Draw agreed. x n -.E:�e2 + 34 • n x e s 35 J;l e3
17 -E) f5 -.E:�d4 36 .th7 + •rs. and Black is
18 g el left with a healthy extra pawn.
A new move. A perfectly However, White's effective riposte
balanced position is reached after decides the issue.
1 8 '8lr'd3 -E)d6 19 -E)d4 (Toth­ 31 •xf7 + !
Pinter, Rim 1 984). Black resigned.
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 51

He is left not only without

42
pawns, but without pieces either. B

Belyavsky-Karpov
Moscow 1986
l e4 c6
2 c4 ciS
3 ed cd
4 cd .'2)f6
S .'2)c3 � xdS
6 .'2)f3 �c6 It is curious that this position of
7 d4 e6 the Queen's Gambit -an impro­
8 �d3 vement of the Tarrasch Defence­
Commenting on the first game arises after various openings: the
of the Candidates Super Final Caro-Kann, about which we
with Sokolov in the preceding already know, the English Open­
volume of this series, I pointed ing ( l c4 c5 2 � f3 � f6 3 �c3 e6 4
out that such a move order in the e3 d5 5 cd <2)xd5 6 d4 cd 7 ed �e7
Caro-Kann Defence transposes 8 �d3 �c6 9 0-0 0-0), and the
to a Queen's Gambit. The game Sicilian Defence ( I e4 c5 2 c3 d5
with Sokolov was included in The ed ttxd5 4 d4 e6 5 <2) f3 � f6 6
Semi-Open Game in A ction as I .id3 cd 7 cd �c6 8 ec3 itt d 8 9
did not wish to diverge from the 0-0 �e7 1 0 M e l 0-0).
other odd-numbered games of the 10 �f6
final, in which the Caro-Kann At least 6 (!) continuations are
was encountered. Sokolov encountered from this classic iso­
exchanged his light-squared bis­ lated d-pawn position: 10 . . .
hop on c4, but in practice it more �cb4, 1 0 . . . �f6, 1 0 . . . <2)xc3,
often occupies the square d3. The 10 . . . ttd6, 10 . . . _1d7 and 10 . . .
move �c4 was discussed in the X e8. The most usual continua­
notes to my game with Sokolov, tions of recent years are . . . �f6
where I also promised to dwell on and . . . �f6. Here is one of the
the variation with _id3 at greater latest examples, illustrating the
length in this volume. And first of these two moves.
although, as I made clear while Belyavsky-Portiscb (Reggio Emi­
examining my opponents' recent lia 1986/7): 10 . • . �f6 1 1 �e4
games, this variation is rarely ttd6 (the move I I . . . �ce7 was
encountered nowadays, the pro­ tested in the World Champion­
mise must be kept. ship match Spassky-Petrosian,
8 �e7 Moscow 1 966; that also applies to
9 0-0 0-0 the continuations I I . . . .'2)de7, I I
10 J� e1 (42) . . . .'2)xc3 and I I . . . h6, though
52 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

practice shows them to be clearly finding serious counterplay: 1 2 . . .

in White's favour) 12 �b5 (seem­ � a6! 1 3 b4 �t c8 1 4 bS �aS I S
ingly, a new move-played pre­ 'i!i'd3 .1b7 1 6 .1gS. Chances are
viously were 1 2 �d3, 1 2 k_gS or roughly equal in this complicated
1 2 k_c2) 12 \Wb8 13 g3 �d7 14
• • • position.
�cJ �ce7 15 �xd5 � xd5 16 12 • . . �b7
�xd5 ed with excellent chances of 13 .1c2 K c8
equality. However, White made a Another alternative is 1 3
few mistakes and unexpectedly � e8 14 *d3 g6 l S g ad l with a
lost quickly: 17 k_g5 k_ xg5 18 further I S . . . -2)dS or I S . . II\ c8,
.

� xg5 �d8 19 �fJ �b6 20 �dl though Black has the worse
1. fe8 21 �e5 k.h3 22 K e3? f6 23 chances.
K b3 �a6! 24 �dJ g5! 25 fJ It e7 14 i�i- dJ g6
26 -2)tl .M el! 27 �b4 K c8! White 15 g ad1 �d5
resigned. 16 §t.h6 x e8 (43)
1 1 a3 b6
11 a6 is interesting here.
. . •

White failed to gain the advantage

in the following two games.
Sokolov-savon (Moscow 1987):
12 �e3 b5 13 �e4 � a5 14 �c5
�c4 15 � xc4 be 16 �cl �d5 17
�dl j_ b7 18 �xb7 �xb7 19
�xc4 K fc8 20 �el �d5 21 �e5
a5 Draw agreed.
Cramling-Hort (London 1 982):
12 �c2 bS 13 i�i-d3 g6 14 b4 K a7
l S .1h6 J� e8 1 6 .M ad I l. d7 1 7 h3 17 .1a4
.1b7 1 8 'l'!lf'e3 'l'!lf'a8 19 .1b3 -2)d8 Also possible is 1 7 h4, on which
20 �eS K d6 21 f3 .idS 22 J.c2 1 7 . . . .1xh4 loses because of 1 8
'Wfa7 23 �e4 j_xe4 24 fe �c6 .axdS. After 1 7 . . . �xc3 ( 1 7 . . .
with equal play. a6 1 8 hS �xc3 1 9 hg hg 20 be
One can't ignore the fact that .1xa3 21 �gS!) 1 8 be .1f6 White
White could have played more has slightly the better chances,
accurately at some point in these although Black can grab a risky
games, but in any case, the move pawn by 1 8 . . . .1xa3.
I I . a6 merits consideration.
. . 17 . . . a6
12 .il.gS 18 -2) xd5 '1Wxd5
The most thematic and popular After 1 8 . . . ed White's position
continuation, which is held to be is preferable.
strongest at the present time. The 19 'i!ii' e3 .1f6
immediate 1 2 .1c2 was previously 20 .1b3 '1Wd7
played, but Black succeeded in Only now does Black finally
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 53

play his new move. Up until now, .l, c l + 33 'lf h2 ..-xd4 34 g3 *d l

the game is a repetition of the one 3S ..-xd I II xd 1 is drawn.
played in Leningrad, as far back Although the black knight attacks
as 1 97 1 , between Smyslov and me, behind enemy lines, it is still
where after 20 . . . l!'f hS 2 1 dS! necessary to calculate accurately .
.ads 22 d6 x es 23 d7 M. e7 24 32 'tt b2 'lrb6!
\'llr f4 J.. g7 2S l!'tb8 White had In the event of 32 . . . 'lfg8 33
achieved a winning position. :l e8 + flg7 34 .aes K c2 3S l!'tb4
21 d5 Black is at risk of losing.
Nothing is gained by White 33 .ae5 K c2
after 2 1 �eS .axeS 22 de l!'fc6 23 34 l!'tb8 'lfg7
f3 J.. e7 24 'lf h l J;� ed8. 35 b5 .ars
21 ed 36 Ji e1 gb
22 l!'fxb6 K xe1 + Simplest, although 36 . . . l!'fd4
23 K xel J.. xb2 37 K fl gh is also safe for Black.
24 J.. xd5 J.. g7 37 .ao l!'t c5
25 J.. xg7 'lfxg7 38 *e5 + l!'txe5
Many exchanges clear the 39 K xe5 X. cl +
board, but Belyavsky retains his 40 fl b2 'lff6
initiative. Some precision is still 41 .K b5 x a1
demanded of Black. 42 K b6 + 'lfg7
26 h4 Draw agreed
White should keep the bishop:
26 J.. a2 �d8 27 l!'tb2 + f6 28
l!'fb3 J.. x f3 29 l!'fxf3-the bishop Karpov-Kasparov
is stronger than the knight. Game 22, World
26 l!'fxd5! Championship 2
Black returns the pawn, but his Moscow 1985
pieces are no longer tied down.
After 26 . . . .ads 27 J.. xb7 l!'txb7 The majority of Queen's Gam­
28 "Wtd4 + the black king would bits in my matches with Kasparov
be in some danger. ran along classical lines, with the
27 l!'fxb7 X b8 bishop occupying its rightful
28 ..-xa6 :l b3 place on gS. But in other games, it
Threatening 29 . . . '*cS with was possible to diversify, the bis­
the attack on the a3 pawn while hop appearing also on f4. As
taking the seventh rank. usual, we alternated colours, and
29 ..-a4 K c3 each won one game with White­
30 K e3 K c4 these are also included in the main
White's chances would increase text. In all there were seven games
in a knight ending. with the move J.. f4: we discuss the
31 '*b3 €}d4! three games of the second match
The rook ending after 32 €}xd4 in these notes, and subsequently
54 The Queen 's Gambit Declined
we reflect on two games from the
return match and two from the
Seville contest. The division, of
course, is somewhat arbitrary, in
as far as the ideas and variations
are closely associated. In order to
understand the facts in the
Exchange Variation of the
Queen's Gambit, it seems that
both games on this theme should
be subjected to close scrutiny.
Let's go, at last, to the action,
where we employed the exchange
variation for the third time in
succession. White's initiative
flowed in the preceding. two
games, but both ended in draws.
Now I succeeded in gaining the
victory that narrowed the gap in
the score to the minimum. In con­
clusion, in the 24th game (in­
cluded in the second volume), I
had chances to prevail and retain
the Crown, as you will remember,
but fortune shone more brightly
on my opponent.
l d4 d5
2 c4 e6
3 �c3 �e7
4 cd ed
5 � f4 �f6
In the preceding game, in which
Kasparov played White, after S
. . . c6 6 e3 � fS 7 g4 � e6 8 h4
-2}d7 9 hS I employed a novelty-
9 . . . -2} h6!? The point is that in
the event of the standard 9 . . .
i!i'b6 10 .il bl �gf6 I I f3 0-0 1 2
il.d3 cS 1 3 �ge2 Black's pro­
spects are modest. This is shown,
particularly, in two Geller games,
where he unsuccessfully
attempted to defend Black's posi-
tion against Knaak (Moscow
1 982) and Belyavsky (Moscow
1 983).
Thus, in game 21 of the second
match there followed 9 . . . �h6
with a subsequent 10 �e2 � b6 I I
:�;t ac t �d6. More consistent is 1 1
. . . -2}c4, since now after 1 2 �h3
�xf4 13 �xf4 �d7 14 K g l gS I S
hg hg 1 6 'll d2 'f!le7 1 7 b3! the
knight on b6 was out of the game.
With a certain amount of diffi­
culty I succeeded in holding the
draw. Evidently, a novelty was
successfully employed by
Belyavsky in a game against Flear
(Szirak 1 987). He departed from
the move 8 . . . �d7, and played,
according to the well-known prin­
ciple, to exert an influence on the
centre: 8 . . . cS! 9 de �xeS 10
� ge2 �e7 1 1 �d4 � bc6 12
�xe6 fe 13 �g2 0-0 1 4 0-0 � g6.
A double-edged position resulted,
from which Belyavsky was able to
outplay his opponent.
6 e3
In the game 20 I prevented the
bishop from moving to fS by 6
'f!lc2, but the loss of time allowed
Black to solve his opening prob­
lems: 6 . . . 0-0 7 e3 cS! 8 de �xeS
9 �f3 -2}c6 10 �e2 d4! 1 1 ed
�xd4 1 2 � xd4 .-xd4 1 3 �g3
�e6 14 0-0 �;l acS I S �f3 b6 1 6
X fe l .-b4 1 7 �eS �d4 1 8 a3
)'l(( cS 19 �xd4 'iit' xd4 20 X ad l
'W(cS 2 1 �a4 aS 22 'W(d4 �xd4 23
.1;1 xd4. There is a microscopic ad­
vantage for White, on account of
his better pawn structure in re­
lation to the presence of light­
squared bishops. For fully 60

moves I endeavoured to convert
this into something tangible, but
Kasparov in the end found an
answer to all the threats. Of
course, this had little relevance to
the opening stages.
6 . . . 0-0
In the game 1 2 from Seville­
given later-I played the imme­
diate 6 . . . �f5.
7 �13 �f5
8 h3
Preparing g4, the standard ma­
noeuvre in this system. The
unpretentious move of the flank
pawn has not been adopted, until
now, with this move order. The
thrust 8 'i!t b3 is harmless because
of 8 . . . �c6 and the speculative 9
•xb7-is met by 9 . . . �b4. Not
dangerous either for Black are
the continuations 8 �d3 and 8
�e2.
8 c6
8 . . . c5 doesn't succeed here: 9
de j_ xeS I 0 � d3 and Black has
an isolated d-pawn, without suffi­
cient counterplay in return.
9 g4 J.g6
A different path is 9 . . . �e6,
with the continuation I 0 .t d3 c5
I I * fl �c6 1 2 *g2 J;t c8 with a
transposition of moves leading to
the sharp position from the 1 3th
game of my Merano match with
Korchnoi. 9 . . . j_e4 is weak, in
view of 10 g5 <2Jh5 I I J.xb8
l( xb8 1 2 <2Jxe4 de 1 3 �d2.
10 <2Je5 <2Jfd7
After I 0 . . . <21 bd7 I I h4 Black
would be rather constrained.
I I <21 xg6 fg
On the stereotyped I I . . . hg
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 55
Black would be deprived of
obvious counterplay.
12 J. gl
By such means I prevented the
annoying . . . c5. Many commen­
tators recommended 1 2 �d3
here. After 12 . . . �g5 ( 1 2 . . .
�h4? 1 3 X fl g5 14 J.h2 'i!te7 1 5
*e2 there is a clear advantage to
White, though possible is 1 2 . . .
<2Jb6 1 3 "i/te2 c5) 1 3 �xg5
(unclear also is 1 3 �g3 �h4 1 4
j_xh4 'i!txh4) 1 3 . . . 'ilfxg5 1 4 h4
'l!l!ff6 1 5 'l!i{(e2 with only a slight
plus for White.
12
13 0-0
Insufficient for equality are 1 3
. . . <2J a6 1 4 i!(( b 3! and 1 3 . . . g5 14
J.g3 .td6 1 5 .txd6 'i!txd6 1 4 a4!
14 <2Je2
I can agree with Kasparov, who
pointed out that 14 'i!td3 or 14
'l!l!fg3 with a subsequent e4 would
hold more prospects for White.
14 g5
15 �gJ �d6
16 iirdJ
Another plan would involve the
transfer of the knight to d3.
16 <2Ja6
17 bJ "f!te7
18 J_xd6
A sharp struggle would follow
after the immediate 1 8 f4: 1 8 . . .
K ae8 ( 1 8 . . . gf 1 9 �xf4) 1 9 fg
.txg3 20 � xg3 'ii\t' xg5 2 1 e4.
18 'l!i{(xd6
19 f4
The advance of this kingside
pawn provides White with some
initiative.
19 gf
56 The Queen's Gambit Declined

20 ef K ae8
21 f5
Maybe, 2 1 A f3 <E)d7 22 g5
would be more accurate, with a
further h4 and <E)g3.
21 � c7
22 K f2 <E:Jd7
23 g5
It does without saying that the
black knight cannot be allowed
on f6.
23 fll e7 32 de
24 h4 fll e3 33 A e3 <E) xd4
Kasparov's counter-measures Now 33 . . . �d6 is too passive.
in the centre give him a comfor­ White has the simple plan 'II h3-
table game, thought the tension is g4, h4-h5 and II f4.
not eased. 34 'll hJ!
25 K dl <E:JbS In Kasparov's opinion, White
26 fll xe3 K xe3 has good winning chances after 34
27 'll h2! �b6 f6! gf 35 gf, with the f-pawn pro­
28 <E)g3 <E:Jc8 viding the pre-requisite for a mat­
29 �n K e7 ing attack: 36 . . .1 e6 36 X xe4 c5
.

More solid would be 29 37 X ef4! But before going ahead

K c3, leaving the rook in an active
position.
30 jl dJ �cd6
31 �g3
I intended here to transfer my
king to g4 and to kick the knight
away with a4, maintaining a cer­
tain pressure. Evidently, it would
also follow for Black to move his
king closer to the centre - 3 1 . . .
* g8 or again to activate his
rook - 3 1 . . . K e l . Instead of this,
Kasparov, in severe time trouble,
made a serious mistake.
31 �e4?(44)
32 _txe4!
A stronger threat than 32 �xe4
de 33 K e3 �d6 (worse is 33 . . .
.axd4 34 � xe4 11 xe4 35 _txe4)
34 .,th3 K ef7.
with a definite operation, I de­
cided to activate my king.
34 K e5
On 34 . . . h5 I intended 35 f6 gf
36 gf K e6 37 K xe4 & xe4 38
�xe4 with the threat <E)g5.
35 'll g4 h5 + ?
Kasparov gives an impetuous
check in time-trouble, which turns
out to be a decisive mistake.
Necessary was 35 . . . * g8 or 35
. . . K fe8 with a stubborn defence.
36 'll xh5
Black is possibly counting on
36 'lrf4 x exf5 + ! 37 �xf5 <2Jxf5
with a probable draw (38 *xe4 is
impossible- 38 �d6 + 39
'lieS K xf2).
36 �xf5
37 K xf5 K fxf5
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 57

38 -21 xf5 X xf5 exchange of moves takes place:

39 K xe4 *h7 Kasparov adopting 5 . . . c6, and I
There is no salvation in 39 . . . (in the eighth game) 5 . . . <21f6. I
II f7 40 *g6 *g8 4 1 K e8 + l. f8 returned to this move once more
42 l, e7. in the Seville match.
40 l, e7 b5 6 *c2 g6
In the event of 40 . . I. b5, the
. 7 e3 i.f5
goal is achieved after 41 a4 X xb3 8 .d2
42 g6 + . Due to . . . g6 the black bishop
41 X xa7 b4 can go to f5, though the g6 pawn
42 *&4 does nothing to improve the posi-
The last move was sealed. Ele­ tion.
mentary analysis showed that the 8 �d7
rook ending was easily won for 9 f3 �b6
White: the advance of the h-pawn 10 e4 i.e6
decides. Therefore Black resigned 1 1 e5 h5
without further play. Kasparov proposed that I I . . .
f5 I 2 �h3 h6 might be better, but
all the same, after I 2 ef the posi­
Kasparov-Karpov tion is evaluated as won for
Game 8, World Championship White.
3 12 i.d3 *d7
London 1986 13 b3 i.h4 +
14 g3 J.e7
1 d4 d5 15 * fl i.f5
2 c4 e6 16 j_ fl *f8
3 �cJ J.e7 17 *g2 a5
4 cd ed 18 aJ -tt d8
5 i.f4 19 .!2)h3 J. xh3 +
In the London half of the re­ 20 *xh3 *&7
turn match the seventh and eighth 21 *&2 <2!d7
games were highly significant. I 22 i. d3 -21 f8
gained a big advantage in the first 23 J. e3 <2!e6
of these, which literally grew 24 �e2 <2!h6(45)
before my eyes. Here is how it The manoeuvring battle has
developed (we examine the text produced practically a won posi­
game further below). tion for White. After 25 K hfl the
Karpov-Kasparov, m(7) 1986 advance of the f-pawn completely
5 c6 wrecks Black's defences. Alas! I
As usual, our games have meta­ somewhat impulsively moved the
morphosed. In the preceding pawn on the opposite ftank-25
match I played as Black 5 . . . c6, b4? Possibly White didn't lose his
and Kasparov 5 . . . <21 f6. Now an advantage with this move, though
58 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

again to adopt the variation with

Black, the point being that in
Seville, instead of castling
kingside, I here played the bishop
to f5. After 6• • .R.f5 7 <21ge2 0-0
White made the new, but not dan­
gerous, move 8 J� cl (an equal
game also results from 8 <21g3
J.e6 9 R.d3 c5!). Here is the rest
of that game, which almost con­
the situation on the board intensi­ curs with the end of the opening.
fied, and after some bloodshed the Kasparov-Karpov, m(ll) 1987:
players parted peaceably. In such 8 c6
a way, you could almost say, that 9 �g3 J.e6
victory slipped through my 10 i.d3 X eS
fingers. Such a result evidently 1 1 l!tb3 "Wr"b6
unsettled me, and in the eighth 12 "Wr"cl �bd7
game I could in no way concen­ 13 0-0 g6
trate. After Kasparov's original 14 h3 J.f8
22nd move the game assumed an 15 �gel K ac8
unusual character. I saw that I 16 "Wr"dl �h5
could achieve equality, but, by 17 J.hl �g7
trying to sieze the initiative, I fell 18 g4 "Wr"d8
into severe time-trouble. As a re­ 19 f3 �b6
sult, I made one mistake after 20 b3 j_a3
another, and into the bargain, 21 J� cl
already in a hopeless position, I Draw agreed
exceeded the time limit. The open­ I think that Black's chances
ing, from my opponent's view­ were preferable in the final posi­
point, possibly wasn't the most tion, but in view of a shortage of
interesting, but it contains a few time I accepted the proposal of a
problematic situations, and there­ draw.
fore despite the sad result I de­ The move J.f4 was encoun­
cided to include it in the text. tered once more in Seville (true,
5 <21f6 without the exchange in the
6 e3 0-0 centre) but again there was no
Up until now, as you will have tense struggle. After some accur­
noticed, the 22nd game of the ate play I soon achieved equality.
previous match is being repeated. Kasparov-Karpov, m(22) 1987:
I then played as White and 1 c4 e6
although I scored a victory in the 2 <21c3 d5
opening, I didn't achieve the 3 d4 J.. e7
actual win. This time I decided 4 �f3 �f6
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 59

5 �f4 0-0 Kasparov finds an interesting

6 eJ c5 method of developing an initia­
7 de � xeS tive. After 1 5 �g5 �xe4, as he
8 .l cl �c6 himself noted, Black is in no
9 cd ed danger: 1 6 'i!txe4 g6 1 7 �xe7
10 �e2 d4! K feS l S b4 ( l S 'i!th4 K xe7 1 9 ed
1 1 ed � xd4 'i!tb4 20 J,.e4 x aeS) 1 S . . . 'i!tc7 1 9
12 � xd4 'it'Xd4 b 5 a xe7 20 i!th4 de 2 1 be e 2 etc.
13 i!txd4 � xd4 15 de
14 �b5 �b6 16 fe
15 0-0 �e6 Maybe more solid now is 1 6 . . .

16 a3 ,l fd8 11 adS, but I decided that if I had

17 �d6 .l d7 to suffer, it would be for a pawn .
18 �b5 .l e7 16 'i!txa2
19 K fel 17 �f5 'i!te6
Draw agreed 18 J,.b6 �e8
Who would have thought that, 19 'i!th5 g6
ahead of us, in the 23rd and 24th 20 i!tg4 �e5
games, the rarity of a stormy 21 'i!tgJ �f6( 46)
finale awaited?
7 �dJ
46
In the game 22 of the second w
match I continued 7 � f3, and the
bishop went to f5. Now Kasparov
prefers this manoeuvre, but here
Black finds the means to pressur­
ize the centre.
7 e5
8 �fJ �c6
9 0-0 �g4!
A new move, which allows
equality to be achieved without So, as a result of the sharp
any special problems. opening skirmish a position has
10 de �xe5 arisen in which White can gain
1 1 hJ �xfJ material. However, after 22 J,.xf8
12 i!txf3 d4 * xf8 23 �d4 'i!tb6 Black has in
13 �e4 return for his pawn a fine central
Taking the pawn is dangerous: outpost for his knight. Therefore
after 1 3 ed � xd4 14 'i!txb7 �e6! Kasparov chose a different and, it
White loses one of his bishops. must be said, quite unexpected
13 �e7 route.
14 K ad1 'i!ta5! 2l � b5!?
15 �gJ! This bishop manoeuvre created
60 The Queen 's Gambit Declined

a strong impression among the 'ijc5 or 27 �d4 1ltxb2 28 II dxf6

commentators, and many asso­ X xf6 29 K xf6 � e8 30 �e6 �g4!
ciated it with the outcome of the 27 � f6 X. d2
game. Actually, White's move is The second successive inaccur­
quite bold and original, but, ob­ acy. By continuing 27 . . . 1ltxb2
jectively speaking, it is weaker with a further 28 . . . g d7 or 28
than 22 jtxf8 and it would sooner . . . K deS, Black defends the im­
deserve a '?', than a '!'. portant points f7 and e5. Also
22 -E) g7 solid would be 27 . . . * h8 28
23 J, xg7 <2Jd4 1ltc5 29 <21e6 fe 30 ,M xf8 +
After 23 �d4 1ltb6 24 X xf6 g xf8 3 1 � xf8 + trxf8 32
1lt xf6 25 g fl -E) h5 26 .M xf6 � xg3 'ijxe5 + with a level queen end-
27 Jtf4 �h5 28 J.xe5 �xf6 29 ing.
J. xf6 .M ac8 Black has everything 28 *g5 tr xb2
under control. The third and decisive mistake
23 in time-trouble. After 1 8 . . . flh8
24 .M d6 29 'l!lt'h6 (29 �d6 � f3 + !) 29 . . .
lS o21 xg7 X g8 30 SQe7 trxb2 3 1 trg5 K g7!
26 -2!f5 the game would surely result in a
Here I mused for a long time, draw. Kasparov suggested the
feeling that I could seize the initia­ effective rejoinder 32 K e6!, but all
tive. However, due to this highly the same, Black has the convinc­
uneconomical use of my time, I ing continuations: 32 . . . �d7 33
fell into deep time trouble, which <2Jxg6 + fg 34 X eS + K g8 35
turned the current in favour of my J;l xg8 + flxg8 36 'Wr'd8 + flg7 37
opponent. Meanwhile, Black now 'Wt'e7 + flh6 38 trh4 + flg7, or
has at his disposal two fully viable 32 . . . <2Jc6 33 � xc6 be 34 K xc6
continuations: f5 35 e4 with equality.
(a) 26 . . . Ji ae8 27 *g5 (after 29 flhl flh8
27 .M f6 *d7 threatening 28 . . . An opinion has been expressed
1:1 e6 with exchanges, and White that here, by continuing 29 . . .
cannot strengthen his attack) 27 .M d7, Black would still maintain
. . . f6! 28 .M xf6 l:l xf6 29 �h6 + the equilibrium. But White's at­
(29 1ltxf6 gf 30 X xf5 1ltb6 3 1 tack is now irresistible: 30 � h6 +
K g5 + �g6) 29 . . . flg7 30 'll g7 3 1 K 6f4! f6 3 2 K xf6 K xf6
'Wt'xf6 + (30 K xf6 �f3 + !) 30 . . . (32 . . . <2J f7 33 trf4! trb3 34 flh2
flxh6 3 1 li f4 <E)f3 + ! with a a5 35 e4 trc4 36 <E)g4) 33 'Wfxf6 +
drawn endgame- 32 gf 'i!lfg5 + or flxh6 34 trf4 + ! g5 (34 . . . flg7
32 Iii xf3 'i!lfe5; 35 -.rs mate, 34 . . . *h5 35 g4 +
(b) 26 . . . f6! Perhaps even flh4 36 g g l !) 35 '111t f6 + flh5 36
stronger than the rook move. g4 + *h4 37 K g l ! h5 38 gh K g7
Black is completely safe, for ex­ 39 h6! (39 "Wtxg7? •xh3, and
ample: 27 <E)e7 + flg7 28 �d5 Black is winning) 39 . . . X g6 40

h7 .l. xf6 4 1 h8( K ) + .l. h6 42
X xh6 mate. As you see, the varia­
tions are quite problem-like.
30 �d4! X xd4
31 ilfxe5 K dl( 47)
47
w Karpov-Miles
Here my flag fell, and the game
was over. But disregarding this,
the final position represents a
study with the task: White to play
and win. Let's look at the solu­
tion.
32 "*!Je7 II dd8 33 X xf7 K xf7
34 .U. xf7 (34 "*!Jxd8 + *g7) 34 . . .
*g8. Now nothing is given by 35
X xh7 because of 35 . . 1. f8! 36
. roughly equal.
.K h6 "*!tg7 37 "*!te6 + "*!Jf7 38
K xg6 + *h7 39 X h6 + *g7 40
"*!Jd6 K d8! with a drawn end­
game. White's problem is how to
push the pawn to e5, while cover­
ing the diagonal a l -h8.
35 e4 (another problem-like
variation also works: 35 *h2! g5
36 e4 g4 37 e5 g3 + 38 *xg3
"*!Jb3 + 39 K f3 "*!td5 40 *h2! etc.)
35 . . . "*!tel + 36 *h2 "*!th6 37 e5
X f8 38 e6 g5 (otherwise 39 "*!Jf6
and 40 e7) 39 K xf8 + (after 39
t;'d7 g4! 40 e7 g3 + 4 1 *xg3
f!i'g6 + White would have to try
for peaceful negotiations) 39 . . .
The Queen 's Gambit Declined 61
f!i'xf8 40 f!i'xg5 + *h8 (40 . . .
"*!tg7 41 ti'd8 + "*!lf8 42 e7) 4 1 e7
"*!Je8 42 h4! h5 43 g4! hg 44 h5
*h7 45 ffg6 + , with White win­
ning.
Bugojno 1986
1 �tJ d5
2 d4 � c6
3 c4 .,lg4
The old-fashioned Chigorin
Defence, rarely met in practice.
Black plays energetically in the
centre, but at the cost of serious
concessions: White gets the classi­
cal advantage of the two bishops,
and also, as a rule, dominates the
centre.
4 cd .,lxtJ
5 gf
One may avoid doubled pawns
with 5 de, but after 5 . . . _txc6 6
�c3 e6 7 e4 ..l b4 the chances are
5
6 e3
Another principled alternative
is 6 . . . e5. In this event Black
parts also with his second bishop:
7 �c3 J.. b4 8 J.. d2 _txc3 (8 . . .
ffd7 9 d5 �ce7 1 0 e4 with the
further ti' b3 giving a clear advan­
tage) 9 be ti'd6 (the old-fashioned
continuation 9 . . . ed 1 0 cd �ge7
promises no special counterplay
either) 10 II b l ( 1 0 "*!Jb3 is also
satisfactory for White) 10 . . . b6
( I 0 . . . 0-0-0 is dangerous, though
it would be possible to 'crudely'
defend the pawn with his rook) I I
62 The Queen's Gambit Declined

f4 ef 1 2 e4 12Jge7 1 3 l!t'f3. All of previously been offered White.

this was seen in the I I th game of However, it turns out that this
the Candidates Final between position had been encountered in
Kasparov and Smyslov, (Vilnius the game Gligoric-Shamkovich
1 984). After 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 �xf4 (Yugoslavia 1 979), in which 10
l!t'a3 I S �e2 fS 1 6 0-0 Black, *e2 12Jf6 I I �g2 12Je7 12 �d2
instead of the correct 1 6 . . . �g6, �fS led to equality.
with complicated play, made a 10 �dl �f6
gross error- 1 6 . . . fe? Three 1 1 �b5 !Q e7
moves later 1 7 t'fxe4 t'fxc3 1 8 12 *e2 �f5
,ie3 t'fa3 1 9 �d3 White had a 13 K acl �e7
decisive attack (although he 14 �d3 *b8
wasn't able to convert it to a win). 15 K hg1 g6
7 -2\c3 1th5 I 5 . . . .I g8 deserves attention,
Equality is not achieved by in order to prepare immediately
either 7 . . . 1td7, or 7 . . . �b4 for . . . h6 and . . . gS.
which is met more often in prac- 16 � a4! h6
tice. 17 lQc5 K hg8
8 f4 18 .a b3! g5
White has a wide choice-S 19 fg hg
�g2, 8 J.,e2 or 8 �bS. However, 20 h3 .ee8
I decided that White has suffi­ Leading to a difficult position
ciently unpleasant pressure with­ for Black. It would follow to send
out queens. the fS knight to d6. Another path
8 'ijxd1 + would be to redeploy the rooks:
It would be dangerous to re­ one on g7 and the other on h8.
treat the queen: 8 . . . t'fh4 9 �g2 21 �e4!
-2\ge7 10 12Je4. The position is fully clarified:
9 *xd1 �(48) the two White bishops have
acquired dangerous activity.
21 '-E)ed6
22 j_g2 �f6
23 .ecS *c8
Insufficient would be 23 . . . c6
24 �c3, with the subsequent ad­
vance of the a- and b-pawns.
24 �a5 b6
On 24 . . . eS 25 .axb7 is deci-
sive.
25 .e a6! J;t d7
26 �b4
During the game I thought that Seemingly stronger would be 26
the exchange of queens hadn't �c6 ba 27 j_xd7 + *xd7 28
 The Queen 's Gambit Declined 63

:!;l xc7 + *e8 29 X xa7 *f8 30 The rook must leave the a-file.
I;l a8 + *g7 3 1 l, xg8 + . Both 34 X xb2 �d4 + 35 *d3
26 . . . e5 �xc6 36 A_xd6 X d7!, and 34
27 �c6 1I! e7 �xd6 �d4 + ! 35 *d3 <E\xc2 are
No better is 27 . . . � dd8 28 bad.
j_a8 K d7 29 d5, preparing X c2 34 :.t exe3 + !
and X gc l . Although Black has won a
28 de pawn, his position is still fraught
28 �e4 X d7 (bad is 28 with danger. Now he has the
<E\xe4 29 .1xe7 �xe7 30 X xc7 + ) chance to carry out a series of
29 ,1c6 I;l e7 leads to a repetition simplifying exchanges.
of moves, but 28 d5 e4 29 X c2 35 fe :.t h2 +
�e5 30 K gc l K g7 3 1 .1a8 f6 32 36 *d3 A xel
a4 is interesting. 37 * xcl � xe3 +
28 ,1xe5 38 * xb2 �xdl +
29 J;t cl f6 39 •ct
30 a4 .ii, h8 Inaccurate. The simple 39 *c2
31 aS �e3 + 40 *d3 leads to a draw.
It would be better to operate 39 �fl
with all of White's resources: 3 1 40 *d2 �g4
X h I X eh7, and only now 3 2 a5. Now Black lets slip the chance
31 .i. xh3 to fight for the initiative in this
32 ab ab unusual ending-40 . . . �c4 + .
33 K a1 (49) 41 A_ xd6! cd
42 � b4 f5
43 �d5 *d8
44 �b5 <21e5
45 *e3 �g6
46 *d4
Black has four pawns for the
piece, but this small material ad­
vantage is not realized due to his
king being out of play.
46 <21f4
I sacrificed a pawn with the 47 �xf4 gf
intention of declaring mate on the 48 �d3 *e7
enemy king: the threat is 34 <E�c5! 49 �xf5 *f6
and 35 K a8 mate. However, 50 fpe4 fpg5
Black finds a saving tactical re- 51 .,ld7! d5 +
source. Draw agreed
33 j_ xb2! After 52 * f3 all of Black's
34 g dt pawns will perish.
2 The Queen' s Gambit Accepted
Karpov-Speelman
Brussels 1988
1 d4 d5
2 c4 de
3 e4
The classical continuation is 3
�f3. 4 e3 and 5 _txc4, im­
mediately regaining the pawn.
However, I wished to play in pure
gambit style here, in full accord­
ance with the name of the open­
ing! Here is another popular
method of sacrificing the pawn for
initiative: 3 �f3 �f6 4 �c3 a6 5
e4 b5 6 e5 �d5 7 a4.
3 €)f6
The old-fashioned continuation
3 . e5 was encountered in the
. •
game La Bourdonnais-McDon­
nell (London, 1 834), where play
went 4 d5 f5 5 <2)c3 �f6 6 .,lxc4
..tc5 7 �f3 j/(e7 with equality. 4
-2)f3 ed 5 _txc4 ..t b4 + 6 �bd2
�c6 7 0-0 is played nowadays.
The d4 pawn is quickly recovered,
and White's chances are prefer­
able. Nevertheless, White can also
count on a serious initiative with­
out the pawn. Let's look at some
recent examples.
BOnscb-Chekhov (Halle 19S7):
7 11tf6 S e5 (instead of 8 <21 b3
• • .
.,lg4 9 '2:1 bxd4 etc.) S . . . -.g6 9
.ah4 ttg4 10 €)df3 .i.e6 1 1 h3
tte4 12 .i_dJ i!tdS 13 '2:1g5 i!txe5.
This position was first seen in the
game Timman-Tal (match 1985).
After 13 . • . ..te7 14 .,le4 11td7 15
-2)xe6 i!txe6 16 j_xc6 + be 17
11i'xd4 White has a big plus, which
he quickly converted to a win: 17
• • . � us 1S i!ta4 J.. c5 19 .-c2
� d5 20 b4 ..td4 21 '2:1f5 ..txe5 22
� e1 *f8 23 .,lb2 *xf5 24 ttxf5
.ih2 + 25 fl xh2 .!;l xf5 26 .M ad1
� d5 27 � xd5 cd 28 � c1 Black
resigned.
Chekhov employed a novelty
( 1 3 . . . ttxe5) that doesn't solve
the opening problem: 14 �bfJ
*d5 15 ..te4 *d7 16 .,lxc6 be 17
-2)xe6 fe 1S -2)xd4 0-0-0 19 -.a4!
-.xd4 20 i_e3 -.xb2 21 K ab1
i!)'a3 22 -.xc6 €)e7 23 *xe6 +
.M d7 24 K b3 i!)'xa2 25 *e4 c5 26
K xb4 cb 27 -.as + flc7 28
K c1 + fl d6 29 i!te4! �d5 30
J.. f4 + Black resigned.
4 e5 �d5
5 .A xc4 <21 b6
6 .i.d3
In an earlier round I tested 6
i!rd3 in a game with Timman.
Despite the success, it was not
clear to me whether the opening
was responsible for the outcome
of the game, and I therefore chose
a different retreat of the bishop.
Nevertheless, this game deserves
attention .
Karpov-Timman (Brussels
1988):
6 '2:1c6
 The Queen 's Gambit Accepted 65

7 €)el 10 �cJ 0-0-0

A fine game was obtained by 1 1 a4 a6
Black in Belyavsky-Jakovic 1l aS €)d5
(Sochi 1 986): 7 j_e3 � b4 8 .t.e4 13 i.IJ �db4
c6 9 �c3 J.. e6 10 €)ge2 €)4d5 1 1 The attempt to complete de­
0-0 ( 1 1 *d3 *d7 1 2 0-0 g6 1 3 a3 velopment by 1 3 . . . e6? would
f5 14 J.. f3 .t.g7 with equality; conclude lamentably: 14 �xd5 ed
Timman-Spraggett, Wijk-aan­ 1 5 .t.g4.
Zee 1 985) 1 1 . . . *d7 1 2 �g3 f5! 14 e6!
(instead of the previously encoun­ By such means Black's kingside
tered 1 2 . . . g6) 1 3 ef ef. development is impeded and the
7 J.. g4 game is plunged into interesting
8 J.. e3 complications.
The theoretical continuation is 14
8 f3 J.. e6 9 €) bc3. The most recent 15 d5
example on this theme is the game 16 0-0
Gulko--Chandler (Amsterdam Both sides have formulated
1 987): 9 . . . *d7 10 €)e4 ..id5 I I their plans, and a lot is promised
€)c5 *c8 1 2 a3 e6 1 3 *c2 i, xc5 after having castled on opposite
14 *xc5 *d7 1 5 0-0 ( 1 5 b4 a6 1 6 sides.
J.. g5 €)c4! 1 7 b 5 a b 1 8 *xb5 16• • • e6(50)
�6xe5!, and Black seized the
IDJtlative; Razuvayev-Jakovic,
Sochi 1986) 1 5 . . . a6 1 6 *c3 f5 1 7
ef ( l 7 b4 €)e7!) 1 7 . . . gf 1 8 J.. f4 0-
0 1 9 b4 €)a4 20 *d2, and here
instead of 20 . . . * h8 2 1 b5 ab 22
i, xb5 with better chances for
White, it was necessary for Black
to secure the queenside: 20 . . . b5!,
after which lies a complicated bat­
tle.
It seems to me that on 8 f3 the
bishop has a more sensible ma­ 17 de!
noeuvre: 8 . . . i.h5 and 9 . . . J.. g6 The queen sacrifice sharply
(9 � f4 is not possible due to 9 . . . changes the situation on the
'tllt xd4 10 €)xh5 ttxe5 + ) with a board. The black king is subjected
pleasant game for Black. The to uncommon pressure by the
position is reminiscent of the hostile pawn, which is close to its
Four Pawns Variation of Alek­ cherished promotion.
hine's Defence. 17
8 .t.xel 18 cb +
9 .t. xel ttd7 19 K fxd1
66 The Queen 's Gambit Accepted

The fatal inaccuracy. Black miniature) 8 . . . *xn 9 �gS +

should retain the bishops, for ex­ ffe8 10 '1111t xg4 ii'xd4, where
ample: 19 . . . j_d6 20 g3 "Wrf6 with White doesn't find it easy to
mutual chances. Now Black prac­ demonstrate any positional
tically forfeits any counterplay. superiority. Here is how the game
20 J.xc5 '1111t xc5 Seirawan-Speelman (Candidates
21 � d7 f5 match, St. John 1988) developed:
22 K ad1 �c6 I I -.e2 ( I I 'i!fxd4 �xd4 I 2 �a3
23 �·4 'i/fb5 e6 I 3 j_e3 i. b4 + I 4 *fl i_e7
24 K cl! \\ltxa4 wth equality; Ftacnik-Spraggett,
25 J;� xc6 ii'xa5 Wijk-aan-Zee, 198S) I I . . . 'ilf xeS
26 K xe6 fl a7 I 2 J.. e3 �ds 1 3 � f3 *fs 14 o-o
27 g3 g5 l;l d8 I S �c3 e6 1 6 .K fe l j_e7 I 7
28 � xh7! K b8 j_d2. The discussion began i n this
28 . . . l;l xh7 29 K e8. fashionable variation with the
29 h3 g4 game Yusupov-Portisch (Tunis
30 hg fg 1 98S), where White played 1 7
31 j_g2 "tl6'a1 + �bS, and after 1 7 . . . �xe3 I 8 fe
32 *h2 'Wt'xb2 Portisch was able to obtain good
33 K hh6 'i/fa2 play by means of 1 8 . . . j_d6!
34 K ef6 c5 Seirawan-Speelman continued:
35 K f4 'i/fdl 1 7 . . . � xc3 1 8 be. A new conti­
36 J.. fl l;l xb7 nuation, which does not justify
37 J;� xa6 + itself in this game. After 1 8 j_ xc3
The black king is transformed *n 19 -.c4 J.. f6 20 K e3 White
into a wanderer, devoid of refuge. has a more active position
37 *b8 (Aiburt-Gulko, Bath I 986).
38 JUS + *c7 Black made a mistake here: 20 . . .
39 j_g2 'i/fd7 j_xc3 (20 . . . K he8 was neces­
40 K h8 c4 sary), and after 2 1 � gS + (but
41 j_e4 not 2 I K xe6? �aS!) 2 1 . . . *g6
Black resigned •. (21 . . . 'i/fxgS 22 -.xe6 + *� 23
There is no defence to K h8-h7. be with a strong attack) 22 -.xc3
Let's return to the game Kar- M h� 28 M f3 *dS 24 X g3 his
pov-Speelman. position had become critical.
6 � c6 I 8 . . . .l. d6! 19 .l, ab l b6 20
7 .te3 .1. bS 'i/fd3. By returning the
On 7 .:E)f3 the English Grand­ pawn, Black gets a better ending.
master often chooses 7 . . . j_g4, Speelman already led the match
not being embarrassed by the var­ by two points, and this draw
iation 8 .txn + (8 �gS J.. xd l 9 would fully consolidate his posi­
.txn + *d7 10 j_e6 + provides tion of strength.
the opportunity to create a drawn 7 j_f5
 The Queen 's Gambit Accepted 67

8 �e:Z ,ag3 is less convincing: 12 . . .

Unclear play would result from .txbl !? 1 3 l;l axb l trr d7) 1 2 . . . a6
8 e6 .txe6 9 .txe6 fe 10 �f3. 1 3 �g3 (on 1 3 K ad 1 comes the
8 e6 quite appropriate 1 3 . . . b5, and
9 0-0(51) Black is fine) 1 3 . . . .td3 1 4 K fe 1
White has the advantage.
l l .tel .tg6
51
B ll �bcJ �ac4
13 "�tel .te7
14 .t xg6 hg
Clearly unsuitable would be 14
. . . fg-White can play 15 b3 and
after 1 5 . . . �xe3 1 6 fe undoub­
tedly holds the advantage.
15 �e4 K h4
The best solution, as in the
event of either 1 5 . . . <E:J xe3 1 6 fe
9 0-0 1 7 J;l f3 or 1 5 . . 0-0 1 6 .tg5!
.

The diagram position was first White has the better chances.
encountered in the game I. Soko­ 16 �:ZgJ 1ltd5
lov-Campos Moreno (Seville 17 "�tel 0-0-0
1987). The move 9 . • • �b4 led to Logical play-all of Black's
a quick defeat (though of course preceding game has been directed
not by itself): 10 �bcJ c6 l l �f4 towards the concealment of his
hS ll hJ h4 13 ttfJ ttd7 14 I. fdl king in this sector of the battle­
�6d5 (better is 1 4 . . . �4d5) 15 field. 1 7 . . . f5? doesn't hold - 1 8
aJ �c:Z 16 l, acl � xcJ 17 be ef gf 1 9 �c3, and White looks
� xeJ 18 fe .t xaJ 19 I. at! .te7 boldly to the future.
:ZO e4 .th7 ll ttg4 .txe4 ll �xe6 18 .tg5 .t xg5
.td5 :ZJ .txd5 cd l4 tt xg7 Black 19 � xg5 K d7
resigned. :zo <E:JfJ K f4
tO .ta4 + ! ll K adl g5
This new continuation sets ll iit cl
Black certain problems. In the Now threatening b2-b3, with
event of 10 �g3 �xb3 I I 1ltxb3 the expulsion of the active black
.tg6 1 2 �c3 .te7 1 3 f4 c6 14 f5 ef knight. Not waiting for this,
1 5 �xf5 0-0 1 6 I. f3 gives White Speelman puts into operation his
the initiative, though it would main threat which has been in the
possibly be better for Black to air for some moves.
exchange bishops by 1 1 . . . .txb l . ll A xf3
tO c6 ll gf i!t xf3
If 10 . . . �xa4 1 1 1ltxa4 + <E)c6 l4 A fel
( 1 1 . . . c6? 1 2 .td2!) 1 2 �bc3 ( 1 2 In the event of the careless 24
68 The Queen 's Gambit A ccepted

b3 there follows 24 . . . �d5! 25 be 31 h3

�f4, and Black is winning. 32 *h2
24 g4 33 *g2
Now 24 . . . �d5 doesn't 34 J Ud3 a6
work-25 1txc4 �f4 26 1tfl g4 35 K g4 IUS
27 X e3! �h3 + 28 1txh3 36 h4 K bS
1txd I + 29 1tfl with a won posi­ 37 K b3 �dS
tion for White. 38 K fJ!
25 K e4 �xb2 The struggle is practically
26 K d2 �2a4 over- Black doesn't have the re­
27 t�tc2 1ta3 sources to defend all of his weak-
28 K xg4 g6 nesses.
29 �e4 *b8 38 K b4
30 K g3 1te7 39 �gS � e7
The position is now clarified. 40 a3 K b2
White retains a material and 41 1txa4
positional superiority, which must Black resigned
now be converted.
3 The Slav Defence

Polugayevsky-Hiibner time, and seeing as it's not too

Tilburg 1985 long, I will show it to its conclu-
sion.
In the main system of the Slav 9 �h4 i.,g4
Defence, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 -2) f3 10 f3 j_b5
�f6 4 �c3 de, after S a4 (deter­ 1 1 g4 j_ g6
ring the move . . . bS, a standard 12 -E:l xg6 hg
idea in this opening) Black has, 13 tt b3 tt e7
along with the rare options S • . • 14 g5 -E:l d5
aS, S . . . g6, S . . . �bd7, S . . . 15 e4 -E:lb6
�dS, S . . e6 and S . . . cS, two
• 16 � ·2 �aS
basic continuations-S . . . �fS It was subsequently established
(and subsequently 6 e3 e6 7 �xc4 that 1 6 . . . �cS! gives an equal
�b4 8 0-0-the Dutch varia­ game.
tion-or 6 �eS) and S . . . �g4 6 17 �e2 e5
-deS JLhS, the Steiner Variation. 18 'W;cl �6d7
The second riposte is met, per­ 19 de 'lt;xe5
haps, rather less often. 20 *bl .w; e8
Incidentally, the move 5 . • . 21 � c4 -E:lb6
.ifS was recently chosen against 22 j_ d3 .a a6
me by Hubner. In the Dutch var­ 23 � xa6 ba
iation-6 e3 e6 7 �xc4 �b4 8 0-0 24 � dl c5
-E�bd7 9 �e2 �g6 10 e4 �xc3 I I 25 j_e3 � ac8
be -E�xe4 1 2 �a3 '*c7 1 3 � fc l 0- 26 �c3 oE)c4
0-0 14 aS l!t he8 -I played the new 27 j_cl � b8
move I S "�ta2 (instead of I S A decisive mistake. After 27 . . .
�h4): I S . . . �d6 1 6 � e l �xc4 �xc3 Black has a worse, but ten­
1 7 'l!lfxc4 eS 1 8 de oE) xeS 19 oE)xeS able endgame; perhaps Portisch
� xeS 20 g xeS \'!ltxeS 21 a6, and was afraid of the interpolation 28
for the pawn White had a danger­ � dS, but Black has the reply 28
ous initiative. Hubner, with diffi­ . . . 'jtxdS! 29 ed X e l + 30 * g2
culty, succeeded in defending, the .l xb2 3 1 ii(( xc4 j_ xa I .
game concluding in a draw. 28 -E:l d5 -E� xb2
I will now look back on an 29 ..tf4 'lt;e6
older game, Karpov-Portisch 30 � fbi 'i/li'h3
(Portoroz 1975), where my oppo­ 31 j_ xb8 ,g xb8
nent, after 6 e3 e6 7 j_ xc4 .ib4 8 32 g xb2
0-0, played 8 0-0. The game
• . . Black resigned
attracted wide interest at that Before placing the bishop on
70 The Slav Defence

g4, a few more words about the put to one side. Nevertheless, one
Czech Variation with the move 6 of the games involving the
�e5. One of the biggest sensa­ Exchange system, which I
tions of the 53rd USSR Cham­ observed at first hand, created a
pionships ( 1 986) occurred in the strong impression on me: Seir­
game Belyavsky-Bareev. The first awan-Belyavsky (Brussels 1986).
1 2 moves were theory: 6 . . . e6 7 f3 I d4 ciS
j_b4 8 � xc4 0-0 9 J.. g5 h6 10 2 c4 c6
J... h4 c5 I I de *xd l + 1 2 K xd l 3 �cJ �f6
J... c2 1 3 .M e l , and here there fol­ 4 cd cd
lowed 1 3 . . . J.. xa4! an idea of 5 J.. f4 �c6
Grandmaster Jaan Ehlvest. This 6 eJ J.. f5
move was harshly condemned in 7 �f3 e6
opening manuals, but theory soon 8 J.. b5 �d7
approved of the idea, 14 J... xf6 gf 9 0-0 J.. e7
IS X a l J.. b3 16 � b6 �c6 1 7 10 J... xc6 be
�xa8 II xa8. Here the older I I K cl K. c8
monographs also remark that 1 2 � a4(52)
Black has no compensation for
his material deficit. However,
after 1 8 e3 J... xc5 19 * f2 f5 20 g3? 52
B
J;l d8 2 1 J.. e2 K d2 22 f4 � b4 23
*f3 �d5 Bareev achieved the ad­
vantage.
A few months earlier Black had
defended better in the original
game Bareev-Ehlvest (Tallin
1985): 20 �a4 J... b4 2 1 J.. b5 X d8
22 J.. xc6 lt d2 + 23 * g3 be. Here
too Black had a fine game: there­
fore Bareev reversed colours in 12 g5
the USSR Championships. 13 J.. gJ h5
The present game reflects the 14 hJ g4
situation arising from one of the 15 hg hg
variations of the main system. 16 �e5 �xeS
The next game examines the 17 J... xe5 f6
opening structure of the Meran 18 J... gJ *"
System. Two more games follow, 19 K el K h5
in which the most fascinating var­ 20 *dl J... e4
iation in chess theory is played­ 21 *" J... f3!
the Botvinnik System. The Czech White resigned
and Exchange systems, the Slav A few rounds later in the same
Gambit and other variations are tournament (the first of the World
 The Slav Defence 71

Cup) Andersson chose the 7 f3

Exchange System against Occasionally White plays 7 h3
Belyavsky. Although he demon­ or takes the pawn immediately-7
strated that White isn't obliged to �xc4. There is also a serious
win in 20 moves in this 'dull' alternative to the move f3 in the
variation, he didn't extract any­ advance of the neighbouring
thing from the opening either. pawn, 7 g3, influencing the centre
8 -Be5 -B xe5 in a different way. After 7 . . . e6 8
9 .,l xe5 �d7 .,lg2 .,l b4 9 -2Jxc4 �dS 10 .,ld2
10 .,ld3 .,lxd3 -2J b6 I I �xb6 "ff xb6 12 .,le3 "f(aS
I I "ff xd3 �xe5 or I I "ff d 3 .,lg6 1 2 e4 cS 1 3 0-0
12 de .,le7 �c6 we have a tense struggle with
13 "ff b5 + "ff d7 roughly equal chances.
14 l. cl .l c8 7 ... �fd7
1 5 "ff xd7 + *xd7 This continuation, introduced
16 *e2 K c4 to practice by David Bronstein, is
Black had better chances in the now acknowledged as the most
endgame. As can be seen, the promising.
extra tempo in this symmetrical 8 �xc4 e5(54)
opening structure isn't always
made full use of.
We now go back to the main
text game:
I d4 d5
2 �fJ �f6
3 c4 de
4 �c3 c6
5 a4 .,lg4
Not surprisingly, this move or­
der (via the Queen's Gambit Ac­
cepted) gives the same position as
the game Polygayevsky-Hiibner. The essence of Black's concep­
6 �e5 .,lh5(53) tion. By sacrificing a pawn, he
endeavours to seize the initiative.
53 9 �e4
w
The best continuation: White
exploits the weakness of the point
d6. Acceptance of the sacrifice
scarcely deserves consideration,
for example: 9 -B xe5 (9 de??
..-h4 + and 10 . . . -.xc4) 9 . . •

-E) xe5 10 de �d7 I I f4 .,lb4 (not

bad either is 1 1 . . . .,lc5) 12 "tltcl
72 The Slav Defence
f1Je7 13 e4 g5! 14 _tel gf. This
position arose in the famous game
Timman-Petrosian (Las Palmas
1 982). After l S .,lxhS f1Jh4 + 1 6
'f1J f2 fiJxhS 1 7 .,lxf4 �xeS 1 8
'f1Jd4 i,xc3 + 1 9 'flixc3 White, in
Petrosian's opinion, retains a
small advantage. The move
played now, 1 5 e6, lost quickly: 15
. . . 'f1Jh4+ 16 *" .,lxel + 17
'flixel fe 18 fiJfl f1Je7 19 e5 exeS
20 ..txf4 K f8 ll K d1 i,c5 White
resigned.
9 ... i. b4 +
Very risky i s 9 . . . �b6 1 0
�xe5 f6 1 1 �d3 11txd4 1 2 a S with
a difficult position for Black: 1 2
. . . �dS 1 3 g4! i.f7 14 e3 � xe3
l S t�t"e2! eds 1 6 ed6 + *d7 1 7
� fS winning.
10 i.dl "Wte7(55)
The intermediate 10 . . . f1Jh4 +
1 1 g3 "Wte7 is to White's advan­
tage. An older recommendation
by Boleslavsky, 10 . . . i_xd2 + 1 1
"Wtxd2 0-0 1 2 de bS, was not justi­
fied in the game Lputyan-Pigott
(Geneva 1986): 1 3 ab cb 14 'itdS
�c6 l S "*'xc6 be 16 I;� d l "WtaS +
1 7 ec3 .'E:l b6 1 8 fiJbS 11t'xbS 19
�xbS �a4 20 e4 �xb2 2 1 li bl
�d3 + 22 i,xd3 cd 23 h4 with
advantage to White.
1 1 i,xb4
Another path consists of 1 1 de
0-0 1 2 �g3 K d8 1 3 f4 ( 1 3 �d6
� a6 14 � xhS exeS; 13 'ltb3
i, xd2 + 14 �xd2 exeS l S e4
�gS 1 6 'itc3 <d bd7 and Black has
fine play) 1 3 . . . .,lg6 with a com­
plicated struggle. And here is a
more recent illustration of the
move l 2 ,ii c l : 1 2 . . . bS 1 3 .,lxb4
�xb4 + 14 1!td2 1!txa4 l S ecd6
i.g6 1 6 ec3 f1Jb4 1 7 f4 �a6 with
some Black initiative (Knaak­
Marszalek, Berlin 1 987). After 1 8
e4 edcS 1 9 K d l (better is f4-fS,
on this or the preceding move) 19
. . . .,lhS 20 .,le2 e b3 2 1 1!te3
j_xe2 22 "Wtxe2 11tcS 23 f1Jf2
"Wtxf2 + 24 *xf2 eacS Black has
a large plus.
11 f1Jxb4 +
12 "Wtdl "Wtxdl +
13 * xdl ed
14 �ed6 + *e7
Worse would be 14 . . . *d8 l S
�xb7 + *c7 1 6 i) baS.
15 e rs +
Now after l S exb7 -E:\ a6 the
outcome is not quite so clear: 1 6
�caS �b4 1 7 K c l � b6 1 8 �cS
f6 19 .'E:ld3 �xd3 20 ed .,le8 with
equality (Bareev-Dimitrov,
Gausdal 1 986); or 1 6 e3 �deS 1 7
� xeS exeS 1 8 -E:\aS de + 1 9
'ilrxe3 1, he8 20 ..lc4 K ad8 with
approximate equality (Adorjan­
Flear, Szirak 1 986).
15 . . . *f6
Only this move is a novelty.
However, there is also the retreat
1 S . . . *d8, encountered earlier,
 The Slav Defence 73

which is safe for Black seeing that oldest and most popular varia­
the hostile knight is kept away tions of the Slav Defence, was
from b7. employed in this game. Perhaps
16 <E) xd4 the most noteworthy moment is
The opening stages can be con­ Kasparov's 1 5th move, which is
sidered complete, with White distinguished not so much by its
holding an insignificant advan­ strength as its paradoxicality. The
tage. present game, as usual, enables us
16 <2)c5 to examine the modem state of
17 •c3 M. d8 the system in question.
18 e4 1;1 xd4 I d4 �f6
19 •xd4 �b3 + 2 c4 e6
20 .c3 � xal 3 <E)f3 d5
21 �e2 � d7 4 � c3 c6
22 l, xal � c5 5 e3 � bd7
23 e5 + 6 �d3
Polugayevsky recommends 23 In the game Karpov-Kasparov,
g4 �g6 24 h4 h6 25 b4 �e6 26 m(33) 1984/5, I diverged from the
�aS, maintaining the advantage. Meran System, playing 6 llir'cl.
Now we have full equality. After 6 . . . �d6 7 e4 Black, in-
23 *e7 stead of 7 . . . de 8 �xe4 � xe4 9
24 g4 �g6 "i!li'xe4 leading to a tense struggle
25 f4 �e4! with some Black initiative, played
26 b4 �e6 the new 7 • . . e5! The execution of
21 �;�n mass exchanges concluded in a
On 27 fS good is 27 . . . � f4! speedy truce: 8 cd cd 9 ed ed 10
27 c5! � xd4 0-0 II �e2 �b6 12 0-0
28 �d6 �xd5 13 �xd5 <E)xd5 14 M. dl
Nothing is gained by 28 fS cb + Yll e7 15 � f3 � e8! 16 g3 �h3 17
29 •xb4 <2)d4. �d2 �e5 18 �xd5 �xd4 19 �c3
28 cb + JLxc3 20 jl!( xc3 Draw agreed.
29 •xb4 �d5 6 de
30 f5 <2)d8! 7 iLxc4 b5
But not 30 . . . �d4 3 1 *cS! 8 �d3
�xe2 32 •xdS <E)c3 + 33 *d4 The most principled continua­
�xa4 34 M. c l . tion; 8 � b3 and 8 � e2 are
31 �b5 encountered more rarely. I used
Draw agreed the second of these moves against
Kasparov in the game Karpov­
Miles-Kasparov Kasparov, m(29) 1984/5. My
m (6) , Baste /986 opponent chose the Slav Defence
for the first time in the match and
The Meran System, one of the I decided to adopt a peaceful
74 The Slav Defence
plan. After 8 �e2 i_b7 9 a3 Kas­
parov again came up with an in­
novation-9 . • . b4! Four moves
later: 10 �a4 ba I I ba i_e7 12 0-0
0-0 13 i. b2 c5 we agreed a draw.
8 a6
In the current situation 8 . . . b4
is not so strong. The White a­
pawn has yet to advance, and
weaknesses are generated in the
Black camp. In its time, besides 8
. . . a6, 8 . . . �b7 was also played,
but this move is rarely seen these
days.
9 e4 c5(56)
The most popular choice, with
which is associated the main var­
iation of the Meran System. In the
event of9 . . . b4 10 €)a4 or 9 �b7
I 0 e5 Black often runs into serious
problems.
10 eS
The classical continuation.
However, 1 0 d5 is also interesting,
a suggestion, it seems, by the Eng­
lish player Reynoldson. Now 10
. . . ed I I e5, I 0 . . . €) b6 I I de or
10 . . . e5 lead to a worse game for
Black. A very sharp continuation
is 1 0 . . . c4. I remember my game
with Tal (Bugojno 1 980), where
after 1 0 . . . c4 I I de cd (an inter­
esting suggestion by Kondratyev
is the pawn sacrifice I I . . . �c5!?
1 2 ef+ fpxf7) 1 2 ed + t;-xd7 I
castled short, and it became evi­
dent that the novelty was a suc­
cess (the moves 1 3 €)e5, 1 3 e5 and
1 3 �g5 lead to approximately
equal play). The game continued
thus: 1 3 0-0 i_ b7 1 4 J�. fe l J.. b4
(equality is not achieved by 14 . . .
1. d8 1 5 J.. g 5; risky also is 14 . . .
0-0-0 1 5 J.. f4, though better is 1 4
. . . i_e7) 1 5 �e5 t;-e6 ( 1 5 . . . t;'e7
16 � xd3 J.. xc3 1 7 be 0-0-0 18 f3
with obvious advantage to White)
1 6 � xd3 J,.xc3 1 7 � f4! t;'d7 1 8
be � xe4 1 9 t;-xd7 + 'll xd7 20
j_a3. Here, by continuing 20 . . .
K ae8, Black retains a solid posi­
tion, but Tal played 20 . . . g he8
and after 2 1 Jl ed I + fpc7 22 f3
€)f6 23 J.. d6 + ! fr b6 24 c4 his
king was caught in a mating net in
quick time.
10 cd
You can find the move I 0 . . .
�g4 in the archives of long ago.
I I €)xbS €)g4
The captures I I . . . ab and I I
. . . -EJ xe5 have been closely exa­
mined in theory. Play, as a rule,
results in a win for White.
12 t;'a4
In the fourth game of this same
match (Miles-Kasparov, m(4)
1986), Miles steered clear of a
sharp game and played 12
-E)bxd4, the matter swiftly con­
cluding peacefully: 12 . . . i_ b4 +
1 3 j_d2 � xd2 + 1 4 -.xd2 i_b7 1S
l:! dl ( 1 5 �e2 -EJdxe5 16 h3
-EJxf3 + 17 A.xf3 �xf3 18 �xf3

..-xd2 + 19 *xd2 �f6 with a
roughly equal ending; Seirawan­
Chemin, Montpellier 1 98S) IS . . .
0-0 16 0-0 �gxeS 17 .tel ,._b6 18
b3 � xf3 + 19 ..l xf3 �f6 lO
.,lxb7 'i!txb7 ll �cl aS ll �e3
K tb8 13 ..-bl fkc7 Draw agreed.
Before the sixth game the score
stood at 4!-t in Kasparov's
favour, so the English Grandmas­
ter plays more actively, attempt­
ing to win at least one game.
ll �gxeS
More interesting than 1 2
..l b7, 1 2 . . . K bS, 1 2 . . . ..-b6 or
1 2 . . . �cS - none of these conti­
nuations has been popular in the
last decade.
13 � xeS �xeS
14 . �d6 +
1 4 �c7 + *e7 I S iitb4 + *f6
1 6 �eS + -. xeS 1 7 'i!txd4 is
recommended in some theoretical
manuals, though the endgame
after I S . . . -.d6 1 6 11txd6 +
*xd6 1 7 �xaS �xd3 + I S *e2
�cS 19 o2) b6 .t,b7 is safe for
Black. Correct, however, is I S
�xaS. Kasparov evaluates the
position as unclear after I S . . .
�xd3 + . Possibly he is keeping
yet another novelty up his sleeve,
but at the present time Black does
not succeed in obtaining equality.
Recent theoretical publications
give the variation: 1 6 *e2 o2)eS 1 7
.- b4 + *f6 ( 1 7 . . . •es 1 9 ..-b6)
I S ..-d2 *e7 with sharp play. But
here Christiansen displays a slight
change in the plan of operations:
19 ..-gs + f6 20 ..-xeS! fe 2 1
,.tgS + and 22 _txd8, after which
the white knight escapes to free-
The Slav Defence 75
dom. White's chances, having
extra material, are greater. But
let's see what happened in the
game after the check from the
Knight d6.
14 *e7
IS � xeS + (57)
57
B
IS .f6!
An effective J;llOVe, which we
have already discussed above. In­
stead of taking the knight (which,
moreover was declaring check!),
Black coolly moves his king for­
ward. All the same, it is better to
execute a capture on c8. In the
event of I S . . . ..-xeS 1 6 fkxd4
White's advantage is evident
(Karasev-Orlov, Leningrad,
1 969), but I S . . . ll xeS, as was
shown in the game Ftacnik­
Nogueiras (Szirak 1 9S6), is not so
clear. 1 6 .t.xa6 K aS 1 7 iitbS
*dS! (A novelty. In the event of
1 7 . . . f6 1 8 0-0 K bS there follows
the riposte 1 9 ..-xeS!, with which
we are acquainted: 1 9 . . . fe 20
,.tgS + with advantage to White;
Spassky-Novotelnov, Leningrad,
196 1 ) I S ..-xdS ed 1 9 .t,bS *f6 20
*e2 ,.td6 with a quick draw.
True, in the game Speelman-Ribli
(Subotica 1 987) White played the
76 The Slav Defence

slightly different 20 0-0. After 20 25 K e1 'i/li'Xh4

. . . �b4 2 1 �f4 1, hc8 22 a4 �c4 26 'i/li'C2 �b4
23 1. ad 1 Black blundered: 23 . . . 27 ». xeS .1xd2
� xb2? 24 K xd4 �c3 25 Ji xd5 28 gJ 'i/li'd4
and quickly lost. Meanwhile, as 29 .l e4 'i/li'dS
for 23 . . . g5! 24 �c1 �c5 25 b3 White resigned
�d6 26 �d3 K ab8 the position,
in Ribli's opinion, is totally
unclear. Kasparov-8myslov
16 .1e4? Game 5, Candidates Final
White is in a turmoil. Of course, Vilnius 1984
it was necessary to play 16 .1xa6
�d3 + 1 7 *fl ! and Black would Botvinnik's System, a popular­
still face a difficult struggle for ized variety of the Slav Defence,
equality. and one of the sharpest and most
16 .Ixc8 fascinating variations in opening
17 h4 theory. Using examples from two
1 7 0-0 is more reliable. sharp battles, which include refer­
17 h6 ences to other games, we will illus­
18 0-0 trate the modern treatment of this
But now is not the appropriate system.
time to castle. Kasparov points 1 d4 dS
out that after 1 8 �f4!? he would 2 -21 f3 -2l f6
have retained only a minimal ad­ 3 c4 c6
vantage. But isn't White winning 4 �cJ e6
by way of 1 8 �g5!? It's possible 5 �gS de
that Miles, by playing 1 6 �e4, 6 e4 bS
was counting on 18 . . . hg 19 hg + 7 eS h6
*xg5 20 K xh8 �b4 + 2 1 iitxb4 8 .1 h4 gS
*xh8 22 'fll' xd4 -.:; h i + 23 \lre2 9 � xgS hg
"t��r xa l 24 '/!llf xe5 + f5 25 ilt'xg7 + 10 i_xgS
*f4 26 �d3, but on a more An amusing metamorphosis.
detailed examination of the posi­ Thirty years ago, while playing
tion discovered the retort 20 . . . the inventor of the system in a
f5! World Championship match,
18 .i c4 Smyslov defended this position as
19 'i/li'd1 d3! White. But in the current contest
Moving in for the kill. he has prepared a little surprise,
20 K e1 K xcl! playing the other colour.
21 .!;l xcl d2 10 ..1e7!?
22 g n 'iit"d4! The next game is devoted to the
23 x cl 'ilt"xe4 classical continuation 10
24 I� xd2 .tcS -2lbd7.

1 1 ef ..t xf6
12 ..t xf6
In the game Vyzhmanavin­
lvanchuk (Irkutsk 1 986) the
novelty 1 2 Ae3!? after 1 2 . . . Ab7
1 3 �e4 �a6! 1 4 �xf6 + t�txf6 1 5
titd2 0-0-0! 1 6 Ag5 t�tf5 1 7 ..txd8
X xd8 1 8 t�tc3 c5 19 de �xc5 led
to a dangerous situation for
White. Significantly stronger is 1 3
a4! The game Nogueiras-Rogers
(Dubai 1986) continued thus: 1 3
. . . b4 1 4 �e4 c5 1 5 � xc5 Ad5 1 6
X c l K g8 1 7 ..txc4 X xg2 1 8 t�th5
..txc4 19 X xc4 t�td5 20 t�txd5 ed
2 1 K c2 �c6 22 �a6 *d7 23
K c5, and White held a decisive
advantage.
12 ll!fxf6
13 g3
1 3 ..te2 and 1 3 a4 have also
been encountered in practice in
recent years, while awaiting prac­
tical examination is 1 3 t�td2!?, a
recommendation by Kasparov.
13 �a6!
This idea of Smyslov sets a new
trend in the variation with I 0 . . .
..te7. It is stated in theoretical
manuals that 1 3 . . . .,tb7 14 .,tg2
a6 1 5 0-0 and 1 6 a4 leads to an
advantage for White. But the
knight does not stand so badly on
the edge of the board: at the right
moment it can spring to b4, and
moreover the d-file is not
obstructed.
14 ..tg2 .tb7(58)
15 �e4
The continuation 15 �xb5 was
met in the game Uhlmann--Gaug­
litz, Dresden 1 985). Further play
went 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 (possible is 1 5
The Slav Defence 77
58
w
. . . cb!? 16 .,t xb7 �b4 1 7 0-0 K d8
with complications, but bad is 1 7
.txa8? because of 1 7 . . . �d3 +
1 8 *d2 t�txf2 + 19 t�te2 -.xd4 20
* d l *e7 with a decisive attack
for Black) 1 6 �a3 ( 1 6 �xa7 +
* b8 1 7 �xc6 + _txc6 1 8 _txc6
�b4! 19 J_e4 X xd4 20 'i!tt e2
l;l xe4! 21 t�txe4 �d3 + loses) 1 6
. . . X xd4 1 7 i!te2 �b4 1 8 0-0
j_a6 19 il!t'f3 'i!ltxf3 20 ..txf3 K d2
2 1 � fc l �d3 22 X c2 x xc2 23
�xc2 �xb2 with a good position
for Black.
15 a4 is a more principled conti­
nuation. In the game Polu­
gayevsky-Fiear (London 1986)
there followed 15 . . . 0-0-0 16 ab
cb ( 1 6 . . . X xd4 is premature- 1 7
t�ta4 'i!lte5 + 1 8 ., n , and Black
incurs a loss of material. Also
possible is the queen sacrifice 1 7
ba!? K xd l + 1 8 �xd l _ta8 1 9 0-0
with the idea � d l-e3xc4) 17
.txb7 + * xb7 18 �xb5 (59) ( 1 8
X a5?! is bad because o f 1 8 . . .
�c7 19 �xb5 * b6!! 20 *a4
K h5).
18. . . i!lf5 19 'i!lta4 i!te4 + 20
*d2 1\i'C6 21 b3! .. b6?
Better is 2 1 . . . c3 + 22 exc3
 78 The Slav Defence
;1i'b6 23 ;1i'b5 K xd4 + 24 'll e3
AI b4 + 25 'i!it'xb6 + ab 26 g a3
�c5 27 h4! X xb3 28 X xb3 � xb3
29 -E)e4, although White also has
the advantage here.
22 be x xd4 + 23 *e2 g e4 +
24 * fJ f5 25 K hb1 K f4 + 26 gf
;li'c6 + 27 tll e2 'i!it'e4 + 28 *dl!
� d8 + 29 �d6 + fl c7 30 'l!\i'a5 +
* xd6 31 'i!it'xd8 + Black resigned.
Far stronger for Black, from
diagram 59, is 18 . . •e5! On this
theme, the game Ehlvest-lvan­
chuk (Minsk 1986) deserves atten­
tion.
19 d5 ( 1 9 'I!\J'a4 ed 20 'l!\i'xc4 'l!lJ'f3
2 1 J:l g I K xh2! 22 tl'e2 lltc6 with
winning chances for Black) 19 . . •
�b4 20 K xa7 + .
20 0-0? is impossible in view of
20 • • . "i!f"h6 21 h4 'C'i' xh4!, and
White resigned; Eingorn-Ivanovic
(Bor 1986); scarcely good either is
20 i!�i"d2-20 . . . �d3 + 2 1 'll fl a6
22 "i!ll' e3 ab 23 i�S'a7 + *c8 24 K a6
'!liri'xf2 + 25 il'fxf2 � xf2 26 *xf2
*b7 27 g f6 I:� h7 with advantage
to Black; but better would be 20
'i!it'e2 K xd5 21 �c3 <2)d3 + 22
*fl � d4 23 *g2 'i!it'c6 24 f3 (24
illt f3 ?? <2)f4 + 25 gf X g8 + ) 24 . . .
.ii hd8 with a complicated strug­
gle.
20 *b6! 21 'il!i'a4 �dJ + 22
• . •
*d2 "ftxfl + 23 'll cJ .-xb2 + 24
'i1P xc4 K c8 + 25 'll xdJ (25 K c7?
loses because of 25 . . . K xc7 + 26
�xc7 .-d4 + 27 'II b3 �c5 + ) 25
. . e4 + ! 26 'll e3 x c3 + !! 27
.
� xc3 'ltfxcJ + 28 * xe4 (28 tll e2
would be bad in view of 28 . . .
'i!it'f3 + 29 tll d2 e3 + 30 tll d 3 e2 +
3 1 tll d2 e l = (-.) + !! 32 tll xel
·
il!fxh I + winning). 28 . • •f5 + 29
*f4 (White avoids the trap 29
'll xf5? llt f3 + 30 *e5 K h5 + 3 1
*d4 K xd5 + 3 2 'll c4 '¥ri'd3 + 33
*b4 � d4 mate), 29 . • .'tl((d2 +
Draw agreed. There is a perpetual
check.
15 .
. • •
16 0-0
17 a4
Kasparov recommended 1 7 . . .
f5 1 8 <2!d2 b4 etc. However, in the
game Ruban-Ivanov (Baku 1 985)
after 1 7 . . . f5 18 �c3! b4 (better
is 1 8 . . . * b8) 19 <2)e2 c5 20 'I!\J'c2
i,xg2 2 1 *xg2 't'llf' b7 + 22 f3 �c7
23 'i!it'xc4 �d5 24 'i!it'xc5 + '1P b8 25
'il'gl White obtained a decisive
advantage.
18 .-d2 b4
This move leads to an un­
pleasant position for Black. But
before we bring this game to its
conclusion let's reflect on another
game, in which Smyslov's idea-
1 3 . . . <2) a6-was successfully put
into practice.
Gavrikov-Kupreichik (Riga
1985): 1 8 . . . -21 b4! Black is not
deterred from sacrificing a pawn
in the struggle for the initiative
 The Slav Defence 79

and even goes for the exchange of l8 'liW fJ + "Wtb7

queens. 1 9 V¥�f4 + V)lfc7 20 29 "iiJ' xb7 + 'llr xb7
V)lfxc7 + 'llr xd7 2 1 <E:�gS X hf8 22 30 �xeS + <E:�xc5
ab cb 23 l!l xa7 <E:�c6! Having 31 Jt xe5 d3
marched from b8-a6-b4-c6, the 32 K dl K e2
knight is prepared to leave the 33 K b5 +- * a6
board. But White in return gives 34 M xb4 dl
up the pride of his position-the 35 *" M de6
light-squared bishop so that 36 *gl K d6
Black has made an unquestion­ Draw agreed.
able achievement. 24 _txc6 * xc6
2S <E:� f3 'llr b6 26 K fa l eS! The
unexpected sacrifice of yet
another pawn enables Kupreichik
to activate his rook (26 . . . _txf3
is impossible in view of the Ermolinsky-lvancbuk
unusual mate 27 X l a6). Despite Pinsk 1986
the resulting exchanges White's
position is full of holes, and he is As a 'generator of innovations'
soon forced to resign. in the Botvinnik System, in recent
The check on f4 is a feeble times, stands one of our youngest
reaction in reply to 1 8 . . . � b4. 1 9 Grandmasters, Vasily Ivanchuk.
V)lfc3 <E:�d3 20 b 3 merits considera­ In the notes to the previous game
tion, though even stronger is 20 there was included the interesting
.11 fd I !, which was used in the encounter Elhvest-Ivanchuk .
game Paunovic-Flear (Geneva Here is one more fascinating ex­
1 986). ample, which takes us through the
19 K acl e5 basic variation of the system in
20 K xe4 f5 question.
21 �g5 c5 I d4 d5
22 _txb7 'l!ltxb7 2 �fJ .ar6
23 V)lfe3 ed 3 e4 e6
l4 V¥1 e5 + 4 -E)c3 e6
l5 �e6 5 _tg5 de
2S V¥�xfS would secure the ad­ 6 e4 b5
vantage. After the text move the 7 e5 h6
pinning of the knight by 2S . . . 8 .i.h4 g5
K deS is not possible due to 26 9 �xg5
g xeS! However Smyslov finds the Less examined, although also
saving manoeuvre. met in practice, are the continua­
25 tith7! tions 9 ef gh 1 0 �eS and 9 -E)xgS
26 h4 K he8 .ads. We won't dwell on these
27 "Wte2 g d6! here.
80 The Slav Defence
9 hg
10 �xg5 � bd7
1 1 ef
So, before us is the basic posi­
tion of the Botvinnik System.
11 j_b7
I I . . �xf6 is bad because of
. 1981), after 14 j_xh6 A xh6 15
1 2 a4! In the game Yusupov­
Kuijf (Amsterdam 1 982) there
came I I . . . j_ h6, and after 1 2
�xh6 � xh6 1 3 g 3 J.,b7 14 j_g2
Yt!fc7 IS 'l\it'd2 ,g xf6 16 a4 0-0-0 1 7
0-0 �cS 1 8 ab! � b3 19 itt' e2
-2Jxd4 20 itt' xc4 White obtained
the advantage.
The continuation I I . . . 'i/IJ'·as 1 2
g3 b4 1 3 .:Qe4 �a6 was dealt a
powerful blow in the game Kas­
parov-Miles (Basle 1986): 14 '*'f3
0-0-0 IS b3 cb 16 k_xa6 + Ytifxa6
1 7 'ii!i' xb3 'i!¥t'b5 1 8 � c l ! (a novelty;
1 8 0-0-0?! was previously encoun­
tered) 1 8 . . . �b6 19 �e3 aS?!
There followed 20 )!l';c2, and in the
resulting sharp struggle White
gained a victory. Kasparov
suggests that even stronger is 20
-2:lgS! a4 21 'l¥fc2 � d7 22 *'xc6 +
'ii!i' xc6 23 � xc6 + ff b7 24 � c l
with obvious advantage to White.
12 g3 cS
13 d5(60)
13 Ytit b6
1 3 . . b4 loses due to 1 4 j_ xc4
.
be I S de. The evaluation of the
position arising after 13 j_ h6
• • •
is yet unclear. In the original
game Bagirov-Yusupov (Moscow
.i,g2 b4 1 6 -2}a4 �xf6 17 � xeS
i,xd5 18 0-0 .i, xg2 19 'll xgl .l c8
20 'i!i'a4 + 'll fB 2 1 A ad1 'W' b6 22
� d7 + decided not to continue
the opening discourse and agreed
a draw. In Bagirov's opinion,
White could obtain the better
ending: 22 . . . � xd7 23 X xd7!
'i!i'c6 + (23 . . . aS 24 X xf7!) 24
'i!i'xc6 a xc6 2S K xa7 c3 26 J� b7.
After the sensational game
Polugayevsky-Torre (Moscow
198 1 ) the rational move 13 . • .
�b6 disappeared for a long time:
14 de! *xd l + 1 5 J;t xd l j_xhl 1 6
e7 a6 1 7 h4! j_h6 1 8 f4! However,
its reputation was recently re­
established: 14 j_ xh1 1S e7 ( I S
. . •
Yt!fxd8 + J;l xd8 1 6 e7 K d7 1 7
ef('i!i') + *xf8 1 8 �xbS J;t xh2 is
in Black's favour) and here in the
game Bareev-Lukacs (Vrnjacka
Banja 1987) Black, instead of the
exchange on d I , unexpectedly
played 15 . • •'W'd7! Let's see how
this game turned out. 1 6 fJ (in this
position the exchange of queens
would now lead to an equal game:
16 'i!lf'xd7 + �xd7 1 7 -2}xbS .fJ_xe7
1 8 fe f6 19 �c7 + 'll xe7 20 �xa8
fg 21 �c7 �eS 22 h3 �f3) 1 6 • . •
� xe7!? Even better, in the opi­
nion of Lukacs, is 1 6 . . 1;1 xh2 1 7
.
'i!i'xd7 + �xd7 1 8 �e4 ( 1 8 �xbS
�xf6! 19 1Lxf6 j_xe7 20 �c7 +
*d7, or 1 8 �dS .!!t c8 19 ef(i!it) +

-Bxf8 20 .,&.e2 �e6) 1 8 . . . .,&.xe7
1 9 fe f6! 20 �xf6 + � xf6 2 1 j_xf6
_a n with advantage to Black.
17 fe f6 18 J.xf6 X xbl l9 �e4
(and here Lukacs recommends 1 9
\'i!i'xd7 + � xd7 20 j_h4 with level
chances). 19 . • • �d5 20 a4?
(Better is 20 J.eS '1Jxe7 2 1 J.. d6 +
'1Je6, and now 22 a4! 1txd6 23
� xd6 '1J xd6 with a complicated
fight. The impetuous advance of
the flank pawn gives Black the
initiative ).
20 "ite6!
21 .ih4 �xe7
22 j_e2 � d8
23 "itcl � dJ!
24 ..-g5 .fJ_xfJ!
25 j_xfJ � xfJ
26 "ithS + � f7
27 "ith8 + li f8
28 1th5 + "Wtg6
29 1te5 � xh4!
White resigned.
It seems as though we have
exhausted all the possibilities of
Black's 1 3th move, but yet
another was devised fairly
recently. In the game Vladimirov­
Dzhandzhava (Pavlodar 1 987)
Black employed the novelty 1 3 . . .
�xf6! Let's see what happened
subsequently.
1 4 J.. g2 (in the event of 14 de
J.. e7! 1 5 ef + '1Jxf7 Black has the
advantage; 14 �xbS or 14 "iJii' fJ
would stand examination) 14 . . .
j_e7 1 5 0-0 <2}xd5 1 6 j_xe7 '1Jxe7
1 7 �xbS "W;"b6! 1 8 � a3 c3 1 9
�c4.
In the opinions of Dzhandz­
hava and Boguchev (to whom
belongs the idea 1 3 . . . �xf6),
The Slav Defence 81
here 1 9 be �xc3 leads to full
equality. The following dozen
moves are associated with a string
of inaccuracies (that's not all that
surprising in this sharp position),
which are indicated in the annota­
tions of these two masters.
1 9 . . . 'f!lc7 20 "ij"c l (20 b3 is
unclear) 20 . . X ag8 (threatening
.
2 1 . . . �f4!) 2 1 f4 cb?! (21 . . .
Iii h7 leading to a better game for
Black) 22 "ij"xb2 j_a8 23 � ac l ?
(and here White misses the oppor­
tunity to obtain the advantage-
23 "ij"e5!) 23 . . . .!;� hS! 24 � f2!
g fS! 25 �es f6 26 .ad3 c4 27
'f!ld4 � b6 28 ..txa8 x xa8 29 "ite4
"i!rd6 30 � b2 "11!1' d 5 3 1 \'il'(e3 'l)!(c5
32 ttc3? White makes the decisive
mistake; it was necessary to swap
queens. 32 . . . Jil dS! 33 �c2 fS 34
illf" c3 � d4!, and Black won.
Time to return to the main
game, Ermolinsky-Ivanchuk.
14 j_ gl 0-0-0
15 0-0 b4
16 l;l bl
A patent of Uhlmann, but
before we analyse it, let's dwell on
the order of moves 1 6 �a4 ttbS
17 a3 � b8, highly popular up
until recent times.
In this position 1 8 ab cb was
previously the automatic choice,
with sharp play. But here, in an
exhibition game, Gordes-Kas­
parov (Dortmund 1 986), White
unexpectedly came up with the
new continuation 1 8 "iifi' g4!?, and
after 1 8 . . . j_xdS 1 9 j_xdS K xdS
20 ab cb 21 j_e3 �c6 22 K fcl
.aes (the moves 22 . . . c3, 22 . . .
*b7 and 22 . . . �aS may be
82 The Slav Defence

described as 'dug up from the K d5 24 x ac l 'itxa4? 25 x xc6 +

archives') 23 i!!t e4 1!ll'c6 24 *g2 *d7 26 g c7 + *d6 27 'itf4 + e5
J,.d6 25 .1xa7 *b7 26 �b6 J;� c5 28 't!;'xb4 + !, but possible is 24 . . .
27 jt'xc6 + I;� xc6 28 f4 c3! 29 be *b7 25 Jl xc6 "tt xc6 26 :t xc6
-E)d3 30 � d l <2! b2 3 1 � db l �d3 *xc6) 24 K ac l 't!;'xa4 25 K xc6
32 -E)a4 e5 33 fe J,.xe5 a compli­ ..1d6 26 II b6 X d5 27 X b7 +
cated position arises where the *d8 28 K xf7 K d l + 29 K xd l
participant in the exhibition suc­ "tt xd l + 30 *g2 'itd5 3 1 'tlfxd5 ed
cessfully pulls off a win over the 32 K xa7. Yusupov plays a
World Champion. stronger move.
One must add that after 1 8 ab 23 *b8
cb . the move 19 'i!\i'g4 was first 24 K xc6 .K xg3 +
encountered in the game Dvoirys­ 25 fg "«fxc6
Sveshnikov (Sochi 1 983). The re­ 26 ». dl i,h6
ply 1 9 . . g xd5 was unsuccessful:
. 27 �cS ••8
after 20 J� fc l ! c3 21 be K xg5 22 28 't!;'e4 'tlfxe4
cb + *d8 23 t�td4 + K d5 24 29 �xe4 a5
'i!\i'xa7 �c6 25 ii';' b6 + leads to a 30 K a t
big advantage for White. 30 * f2 K c8 3 1 Jl a l K c2 + 32
The interesting move 1 9 . . . * f3 K xb2 (32 . . . X xh2 33
J,.xd5 was used in the game YIDII­ K xa5 + *b7 34 *f2 winning) 33
pov-Tukmakov (Leningrad 1987). K xa5 + * b8 34 �d6, warrants
Let's take a look at how it subse­ consideration, though the reply 30
quently turned out. 20 K fcl �c6 . . . ll b8!? would stand examina­
21 J,.xdS g xdS 22 K xc4 (22 tion.
1!ll' xc4? loses to 22 . . . l: d l + !; 30 ..le3 + 31 *g2 l. h5 32
. . .

Hasanov-011, Minsk 1986) 22 g4 li dS 33 b3 *b7 34 h4 *b6 35

• • .

M xg5 23 lltd4! (61) .M el ..1f4 (35 . . . K d3 36 �d6

J.f4 37 � xf7 K xb3 38 ,X xe6 +
*c7 39 Jl e7 + * b6 40 �g5 is
61
B bad). 36 *13 J.. e5 37 g5 a4 38 ba
b3 39 g6? Missing the win. Correct
is 39 K b I b2 (39 . . . K d3 + 40
*e2 K h3 41 �d2) 40 h5! or the
immediate 39 h5! 39 fg 40 .1. bl
. . •

b2 41 rT Draw agreed.
Seemingly, the move 'itg4 on
the 1 8th or 19th move would have
created awkward problems for
Black. Let's again return to the
On 23 X xc6 + there follows 23 game Ermolinsky-Ivanchuk.
. . . * b7! Sharp play arises after 16 • . . l�J'a6
23 "tt e4 *d7 (bad would be 23 . . . In answer to 1 6 . . . J,.h6 Uhl-

mann suggests 1 7 -.c I .txgS 1 8
-.xgS li dg8 19 -.e3 �xf6 20
�a4 f!lc7 2 1 de .txg2 23 *xg2
with advantage to White.
1 7 de .t xg2
18 e7(62)
62
B Black obtained the advantage
This position had already ari­
sen twice before in Ennolinsky's
games at Kaliningrad 1 986. Both
times his opponent continued 1 8
. . . .ta8. I n the game Enno­
linsky-Shabalov there followed
19 ed(*) + ( 1 9 �dS? is bad
because of 19 . . . f!lb7 20 ef("*')
� hxf8 21 Ji:je7 + *c7 22 .tf4 +
.£)eS! 23 .txeS + * b6 with a win
for Black) 1 9 . . . *xd8 20 �e2
*c8! 21 tlifc2 f!le6 22 .:£�f4 *g4 23
i!t fel .th6! 24 .txh6 '¥ff3 2S *fl
-eli' h l + 26 *e2 tlit f3 + . Black's
counterplay is sufficient for the
draw.
In the game Ennolinsky-Mak­
arov, White improved his game
by the means of 22 f3 (instead of
22 .af4), and the further 22 . . .
..ld6 23 I!�. bd I .tc6! 24 .:£�f4!
)!ilfe3 + 2S tlitf2 tlifxf2 + 26 II xf2
iLeS 27 .£)dS (27 *g2! J.. d4 28
);I( e2 aS 29 h4 deserves attention)
27 . . . .td4? (necessary is 27 . . .
The Slav Defence 83
J.. x dS! 28 � xdS ..td4 with equa­
lity). Now White can obtain the
advantage by continuing 28 X xd4
cd 29 Ji:jxb4 ..tb7 30 .tf4.
18 . . . .t xn
This move was condemned
after the game Uhlmann-Alexan­
dria (Halle 1 98 1 ). Although in it
after 19 *xfl be 20 litdS! J,. xe7
2 1 fe c2, it was subsequently
established that White had a
strong riposte, by way of the
immediate 1 9 tlitdS, which is also
tested in the current game.
19 'I!WdS .th6!
Sharply intensifying the battle.
Insufficient would be 19 . . . ..td3
20 ..tf4! 'ii!t b6 (quite bad is 20 . . .
J.. xe7? 2 1 tt aS + Ji:j b8 22
\1'xb8 + *d7 23 ttc7 + *e6 24
'*eS + ) 2 1 .:£� a4 f!lbS 22 ed(tt) +
*xd8 23 ». e l or 1 9 . . . .txe7 20
fe .td3 2 1 �e4 ..txbl 22 �d6 +
*c7 23 ed(f!l) + l, xd8 24 �xf7
� e8 2S ..tf4 + * b6 26 ttd6 +
*aS 27 ttxd7, and White has a
big advantage.
20 ed(tt)+
Worse would be 20 .txh6 .td3
21 �e4 (2 1 .tf4? ttb7!) 21 . . .
.txe4 22 ed(tt) + *xd8 23 '!1'xe4
� xh6 or 20 Ji:je4? .txgS 2 1
ed(tt) + K xd8 2 2 .:£� xgS .i.d3. In
either case Black has the advan­
tage.
20 . . . fl xd8!
He must take with the king, as
after 20 . . . Ji hd8 21 .txh6 ..td3
22 Ji:je4 .txb l 23 �d6 + ffic7 24
�xf7 \\if'C8 2S ijd6 + *b7 26
€Jxd8 + ijxd8 27 f7 White pre­
vails.
84 The Slav Defence

21 �e4 27 1i;xg5 iiteS!

Again the accurate move. After 28 "Wrd2
2 1 J,xh6 J.. d 3, 2 1 *xfl be 22 be After the exchange of queens
*c7! or 2 1 K xfl be 22 � d 1 "Wta4! the black knight obtains great
Black has an advantage. mobility. Therefore White is in no
21 .1b3! hurry to oblige.
And now Black plays accur­ 28 c3
ately. 2 1 . . . ,id3 22 �xc5 'i16'c8 29 be be
23 �xd3 cd 24 � cl "i!i;'b8 25 "f(xf7 J0 \ll!i' C2 1{;fS
'{tl'd6 26 V¥te7 + etc. wouldn't be Nevertheless Black provokes
good enough. the exchange of queens, and the
22 �xeS position acquires the contours of
22 ,ixh6 leads to a draw: 22 . . . a draw.
� xh6 23 .axc5 "Wtxf6 24 '!ll!f' a 8 + 31 "WrxfS ef
*c7 25 'if;'b7 + *d8 26 "f(a8 + 32 x ct �xf6
22 j_e6 33 g xc3 *e7
Black is playing with great flair. 34 a4 K a8
22 . . . "f(c8 is worse-23 �xd7 35 K aJ K a5
V¥txd7 24 1i;a8 + . 36 *g2 f4
23 -2! xe6 fe 37 h4 *e6
24 "f(a8 + 38 *fJ *rs
Nothing is gained by 24 f7 + 39 � at <2)g4
•c7! 25 'iirt' d4 e5. Draw agreed
24 iikc8 Neither side has any basis on
25 Y/ixa7 �xgS which to fight for a win.
26 Y/ia5 + 'fi(c7
 4 The English Opening
Kasparov-Karpov
Game 2,
World Championship 4
Seville /987
I confess that Kasparov's han­
dling of the English Opening,
which at first glance isn't quite in
keeping with his active creative
manner, was unexpected by my
seconds and myself. More amaz­
ing is that the surprise in this
game, which was sprung by me,
caused Kasparov to ponder over
his tenth move for almost an hour
and a halt1 Interestingly, the
novelty which had such an effect
on my opponent was prepared all
of six years ago, for my match
against Korchnoi in Merano. But
instead of 7 -E)g5 Korchnoi then
preferred 7 �el , and it remained
unused. Kasparov, I must con­
fess, responded to the innovation
in the best way, but his excessive
use of time finally told. In a sharp
contest I succeeded in achieving
the result.
l c4 � f6
2 �c3 e5
3 -E)f3 �c6
4 g3 �b4
5 �gl 0-0
6 0-0 e4
7 -E)g5 �xc3
8 be K e8
9 f3 e3!?(63)
It was this move, proposed by
Igor Zaitzev, my current second,
that plunged my opponent into
deep meditation. Hitherto Black
automatically took on f3. I myself
also played thus in my following
Black game.
In principle, the idea of the
manoeuvre . . . e4--e3 -to disturb
the harmonious development of
White's pieces-is not original.
However, in the present position,
as I was convinced, the pawn sac­
rifice had not been encountered. It
was to my astonishment there­
fore, when, in a recent copy of the
magazine Shakmaty v USSR, I
discovered the following game,
which was played almost ten years
ago in an international correspon­
dence tournament. Interestingly,
the player of the Black pieces is a
first category chessplayer . . .
Berndt (GDR}-Zaetz (USSR).
After 9 . . .e3! White, from dia­
gram 63, took the pawn, 10 de,
and thereupon launched a desper-
86 The English Opening
ate attack that quickly fizzled out:
10 . . . b6 I I f4 �b7 12 �ciS K e7
13 e4 b6 14 � xf7 11. xf7 15
�xf7 + *xf7 16 e5 �e8 17
'ii!i' dS + *fB 18 J.a3 + d6 19
� ad I -2}a5 20 'tlf'dJ �a6 21
'tlf'f5 + • as 22 ed �xc4 23 'tlf'fB +
* xfB White resigned.
In the fourth game I decided to
present yet another surprise,
refraining from the sharp 9 . . .
e3!? Instead, I played 9 ef 10
. • •
�xf3 iiJ'e7. Theory recommends
lO . . . d5 with good counterplay
for Black. During the preparation
for the match we were convinced
that the situation was not so clear,
for example: I I cd ilf'xd5 1 2 -2!d4
'tlf'h5 1 3 .axc6 be 14 e3 'tlf'g4 1 5
ilf'a4. But the queen move is
hardly a success. In such a way,
we were highly dubious about my
chosen plan. Having obtained a
significant opening superiority,
Kasparov confidently realized it.
Let's bring the game to its conclu­
sion.
II e3 �e5. A new move ( I I . . .
d6 was previously played), which,
as becomes clear, does nothing to
improve Black's game.
12 �d4! �dJ
13 "¥te2 �xcl
14 J� axcl d6
15 K f4 c6
16 K cfl *e5
17 -.dJ!
An original tour of White's queen
(e2--d�4), highlighting the merit
of White's position. 17 j_d7 18
. . •
�f5 � xf5 19 K xf5 'tlf'e6 20 'tlf'd4
X e7 21 ith4 �d7 22 �h3 �fB 23
X 513 tte5 24 d4 'iit e4 25 ttxe4
K xe4 26 l;l xf7 K xe3 27 dS l, ae8
28 K xb7 cd 29 cd M. 3e7 30 K fbi
b5. More tenacious would be 30
. . . * f7, moving the king closer to
the centre.
31 a4 g5 32 �f5 *g7 33 a5 * f6
34 �dJ l;l xb7 35 l;l xb7 l;l e3 36
J.,b5 l;l xc3 37 K xa7 � g6 38 l!l d7
-2!e5 39 J;� xd6 + *f5 40 a6 g aJ
41 Jrl d8 Black resigned.
10 dJ!
The correct reply: the loss of
time is of no consequence. How­
ever, accurate play is also
demanded from Black in the event
of the acceptance of the pawn
sacrifice. l 0 de b6 ( l 0 . . . d6 is also
possible, but worse is 10 . . . h6 I I
-2!h3 d5 1 2 -2!f4! de 1 3 e4) I I e4 h6
(more accurate than the imme­
diate I I . j_a6 1 2 f4 h6 1 3 -2!xf7
. .
\ll xf7 1 4 e5 -2}g8? 1 5 J.,d5 + *ffi
16 J.. a3 + .age7 17 'iit d 3 d6 1 8
*h7! winning, after 14 . . . j_xc4
1 5 ef the advantage is again on the
side of White) 1 2 �h3 j_a6.
Black can be happy with the out­
come of the opening, taking into
account that the c4 pawn is
doomed.
10 . . . dS
The natural move, otherwise
the e3 pawn will be quickly swal­
lowed.
I I l!rb3!
A subtle move, which allows
White to retain the opening initia­
tive. After I I cd -2!xd5 there are
two possible continuations:
1 2 �e4 f5 1 3 c4 fe (sufficient for
equality is 1 3 . . . �de7 or 1 3 . . .
-E)f6 14 �c3 �d4) 14 cd ef 1 5
� xf3 �d4 1 6 � xe3 �g4 1 7 �e4

'l'!ll' f6 1 8 J.. b 2 'tl!tb6! 1 9 .txd4
'fljxd4 20 'tl!tcl j_xe2 2 1 flg2
j_xd3 with a winning position for
Black;
1 2 'tl!tb3 �aS ( 1 2 . . . 'fljxgS
leads to a sharp game 1 3 f4 �xf4
14 X xf4) 1 3 'tl!ta3 'fljxgS 1 4 'fljxaS
'tl!teS ( 1 4 . . . b6 I S f4) I S d4 ( I S f4?
� xf4 1 6 'fljxeS � xe2 + 1 7 fl h l
X xeS 1 8 J.. b2 X bS) I S . . . 'tl!td6.
The game is probably equal: 1 6
.1_a3 '*c6 1 7 f4 ..-xc3 1 8 ..-a4
� f6.
11 �aS
12 i!ta3 c6
13 cd cd
14 f4 �c6
15 K b1 ..-e7
I S . . . J.. g4 is possible, for ex­
ample: 1 6 K xb7 J,.xe2 1 7 �xn
..-as! 1 8 t1td6 J.. xfl 1 9 �h6 +
flh8 20 � n + with perpetual
check, or 1 6 }l e i h6 ( 1 6 . . . *d7
1 7 h3) 17 �f3 ..-d7 1 8 d4, and
after the emergence of the knight
on eS White stands better.
16 J.. bl j_g4
17 e4(64)
64
B vails. However, 20 . . . 'tl!td8! is
Letting the initiative slip. Of
course, it is a great temptation to
harass Black's king, but as a result
he obtains good counterchances.
The English Opening 87
Not dangerous either is 17 �f3
i�J'd7 1 8 J.. a l K e7!? (worse would
be 1 8 . . . .1.h3 19 J.. x h3 *xh3 20
K xb7 �g4 2 1 'fljcS! or 1 8 . . . b6
1 9 K fc l K ad8 20 c4 d4 2 1 cS!) 1 9
K fc l J.. h 3, and Black has suffi­
cient counterplay. However, after
the quiet continuation 1 7 X fe 1
White maintains the better
chances.
17 de
18 �xf6 gf
19 �e4 flg7
Interesting also is 1 9 . . . K xe4!?
20 .txe4 fS! (worse is 20 . . . j_ xe2
2 1 J;� fe l ) 2 1 J.. f3 �d4 (21 . . .
J,.xf3? 22 X xf3 �d4 23 X xe3
�c2 24 'tl!te7) 22 de J.. x f3 23 ef e2
24 X fe l 'tl!t xc4.
20 de
Yet another inaccuracy, and
the advantage swings completely
over to Black. Complications
abound after 20 � xf6!? flxf6 2 1
.1. b S X adS 2 2 ..-c3 + fle7 23
..-xc4. The majority of commen­
tators examined the most natural
move 20 lltc3. In this case, after
20 . . . 'i/ie7 2 1 K xb7! lltxb7 22
�xf6 flf8 23 � xg4! White pre­
correct: 21 de 'i/id4 (2 1 . . . �d4 22
'i/ixe3!) 22 X xb7 K xe4 23 'fljxd4
K xd4 24 J,.xc6, and chances are
approximately equal.
Another dangerous manoeuvre
comes in the form of 20 �d6, and
careful play is demanded from
Black: 20 . . . X e6 2 1 � xc4 K d8
22 fS K ee8 23 K b2 �d4 24 K xb7
�xe2 + 2S ., h l �xg3 + ! 26 flg l
(26 hg? loses immediately 26 . . .
'fljxg3) 26 . . . �e2 + (unsuitable
88 The English Opening

is 26 . . . 'i{fxb7 27 j_xb7 -2\xfl 28 Here again there are many

*xfl j_xf5 29 �d6, or 26 . . . paths leading to the goal: 22 . . .
�xfl 27 K xc7 e2 28 'i{fxa7 e l ('i!f) o.E'lc2 23 '{lt'c3 � xe3 24 '{!ljxf6 + (24
29 K xf7 + *h6 30 K xf6 + ! *g5 -2\xf6 *g6) 24 . . . *ffi 25 'i!lth6 +
31 'i{fg7 + 'ilrf4 32 'iit h6 mate) 27 *e7 26 'i!ltf6 + 'ilrd7, and the king
* h I -21 g3 + with perpetual makes good his escape.
check. However, in the last varia­ 23 *hi -2\fS!
tion, Black could speculate with 24 I;t dJ .t xe2
27 . . . 'i!l;'c8!? 28 �d6 K xd6 29 25 K xd8 I. xd8
'i!l;'xd6 .txf5, with sufficient com­ 26 K el K e8
pensation for the material. The game is decided: Black has
20 · K ad8 prepared the following mating
More solid than 20 . . . .txe2 2 1 combination:
-2)xf6! 27 '{!ljaS b5
21 K b3 28 -2) d2 'i!ltdJ
Apparently the decisive mis­ 29 -2) b3 .tf3
take. After 21 �c3 -2)d4 22 -2)d5 30 .t xf3 ll xf3 +
there would yet remain a stub­ 31 *gl ,l xel +
born fight, its direction depending 32 ll xel �e3
on the choice of queen move: White resigned
'i!l;'d6 or 'iili' xc4: When the writing of this book
22 . . . '!Wd6 (proposing a transi­ was almost finished, an important
tion into the endgame) 23 .-xd6 game was played in the 55th
(23 c5 'i{fe6 24 -2)c7 -2) xe2 + 25 USSR Championship which has a
* h i '{ltf5 26 -2)xe8 g xe8 27 K b3 direct bearing on the fourth game
-2)d4 28 � xe3 -2)c2 winning for of the Seville match. Here it is.
Black; not much better either is 27
K xb7-27 . . . '!Wh5) 23 . . . �Ji xd6
24 K xb7 .txe2 25 K e l j_xc4 26 Kasparov-lvancbuk
-E�xe3 � de6 27 i:� b4 �e2 + 28 Moscow 1988
flf2 .td3 29 -2)d5 -2)xf4 30 -2)xf4
� xe l 3 1 -E�xd3 � 8e2 + 32 *f3 I c4 -2)f6
� e3 + 33 *f2 g l e2 + 34 *fl 2 �c3 e5
� xg2 35 * xg2 i4 xd3 36 .1;1 a4, 3 �f3 -2)c6
and ultimately the chances are 4 g3 .tb4
balanced; 5 .tg2 0-0
22 . . . '!lil'(xc4 (in such a way 6 0-0 e4
Black maintains more tension on 7 -2)g5 j_xc3
the board) 23 -2)xe3 'iiii' xe2 24 8 be � e8
�xg4 (24 g be l 'iit d2) 24 9 f3 ef
'l!ltxg4. 10 �xf3 d5
21 -2)d4! So Ivanchuk ventures to play
22 � xe3 'llt xc4 according to theory, and Kas-
 The English Opening 89

parov reveals his secret weapon, 22 � xel J.. d7

developed especially for the battle 23 � e7 �c6
of Seville. 24 f6
I I d4! Black resigned
Instead of the pawn exchange
White simply gives up his c4
pawn. Kasparov-Karpov
II Game 16,
1 2 �gS was threatened. World Championship 4
12 -.c2 de Seville 1987
It seems surprising, but this is
the decisive mistake. Correct is 1 2 Two thirds of the way through
. . . i,fS with a stubborn defence, the match the score compelled me
for example: 1 3 -E)h4 i,g6 1 4 to play actively with the Black
�xg6 hg I S ll b l �aS. pieces also. This time we had cor­
13 Ii bl! rectly predicted the English Open­
A very subtle move (13 �eS ing, which promises Black reason­
leads only to equality). A signifi­ able prospects. A sharp struggle
cant superiority in the centre and ensued, which was also to capti­
the advantage of the two bishops vate Kasparov. For one moment
makes any opening of the position he played too recklessly, and I
favourable to White, but there is succeeded in gaining the initiative.
no hurry. I c4 e5
13 f5 2 �c3 �f6
14 g4! Twice in the Seville match I
Effectively breaking the block­ chose the system whch develops
ade of the light squares. the knight on e7. On neither occa­
14 �e7 sion did the opening turn out to
14 . . . fg is no better- I S �eS! be any better. I will draw for you
�xeS 16 i.xe4 �g6 17 �xg6 hg a complete picture of both these
18 'i!i'xg6. The bishop on cl in­ encounters.
tends to join the issue with deci­ Kasparov-Karpov, m(6) 1987:
sive force, but, unexpectedly, the I c4 e5
rook on b l also presents a danger, 2 -E)c3 -E)c6
threatening � b l -bS-hS and 3 g3 g6
-.xh7 mate. 4 A g2 d6
15 gf � d6 5 .�;i. bl A f5
16 �g5 ii(( xe2 Wiser would be the immediate
17 i,d5 + *h8 s . . . j;_g7.
18 -.xe2 .�;i. xe2 6 d3
19 i.f4 .£)d8 7 b4
20 �xd6 cd 8 b5
21 i!;l bel � xel 9 .£Jd5!
90 The English Opening

A successful innovation. Up This time I used my opponent's

until now, 9 e3, 9 �f3 and 9 e4 system, which revolves around the
�g4 10 f3 ,1e6 have been met, pawn structure c5/d6je5, but Kas­
with a complicated struggle in parov skilfully exploits the weak­
each case. ness of the light squares in the
9 c6 resulting configuration.
10 be be 4 �g2 SQc6
1 1 �c3! 5 a3 g6
The knight retreats, but it has 6 b4 J.. g7
achieved its aim in creating a 7 K b1 �ge7
weakness on the queenside. 8 e3 0-0
11 SQe7 9 dJ K b8
lZ �a3 0-0 10 SQge2 �e6
13 SQfJ h6 1 1 b5 SQ aS
14 0-0 J.. e6 lZ �d2 b6
15 'ilta4 f5 13 0-0 �b7
16 SQd2 14 e4 flb8
Leading to a quick simplifica­ The position looks almost per­
tion. 1 6 a b3 is stronger, im­ fectly balanced. However the
mediately doubling rooks. knight on b7 doesn't participate
16 �t7 in the game, and this circum­
17 �i b3 JUb8 stance turns out to be highly signi­
18 Ill fbi Ill xb3 ficant. The last move represents a
19 K xb3 ». c8 loss of tempo; correct would be 14
20 "tlta6 �d8 . . . h6 with a subsequent, 15 . . .
21 �b4 K b8 fs.
22 SQa4 flf7 15 \'!ltd fS
23 �c3 K xb3 16 �g5 'i'J'e8
24 ab 'f1Jc7 17 �xe7 'il(( xe7
25 e3 �c8 18 ef � xfS
26 *aS ttxaS Maybe 1 8 . . . gf is somewhat
27 �xaS SQe6 better, although White also has a
28 �b4 positional advantage in this in-
Draw agreed stance.
19 .adS
20 -.d2
Kasparov-Karpov Black should transfer the
Game 8, World Championship knight to the other flank: 20 . . .
4 -E)d8 2 1 a4 �f7 22 aS �h6 trying
Seville 1987 for . . . €) f7-g5-h3.
1 c4 e5 21 SQec3 g be8
2 -E)c3 d6 22 SQe4 �b7
3 g3 c5 23 a4 �aS
 The English Opening 91

24 b4 �b7 Karpov-Zsu. Polgar

25 *h2 K b8 Bilbao 1987
26 l;l al �aS
27 g aJ X t7 I c4 e5
28 tt cJ X d8 2 �cJ �c6
29 � ·2 �h6 J gJ g6
30 �g5 K fl8 4 � g2 �g7
Jl K e2 � g7 5 eJ d6
32 ttcl J!lde8 6 ll bl �ge7
JJ �eJ �h6 7 b4 a6
34 �d5 � g7 8 dJ �e6
35 ttd1 h6 9 �d5 0-0
36 �e4 'itt'd8 10 �e2 ttd7
37 II a2 �c8 1 1 �ecJ �d8
38 �cJ h5 12 a4 <£\c8
39 �e4 K e6 13 �e4
40 <£\cd5 �h6 The white knights are splen-
41 <£\g 2 *K7 didly placed.
42 f4 ef 13 f6
The text move turns out to be 14 0-0 c6
unsuccessful. After 42 . . . i_b7 or 15 �del <£\t7
42 . . . g 6e8 Black's position is 16 ttcl f5
still tenable. 17 <£\ d2 g5
43 <£\gxf4 K e5 18 aS b5
44 � xg6! K xfl 19 (4! (65)
45 ttxn K xe4
46 de * xg6
47 l!l fl ite8
48 e5! de
49 K f6 + *g7
50 K d6!
Black resigned.
It must be said that I am not
averse to White's plan of advanc-
ing the queenside pawns in the
English Opening, having gained
many victories through it. I will This counter blow immediately
make use of this opportunity to explains the point of the preced-
provide two of my own games, ing play.
played comparatively recently. 19 �e7
20 � ·4 .1. ae8
21 <£\b6 ttc7
22 €)b3 �g6
92 The English Opening

23 *dl g4 15 'l!lfcl � xc3

24 d4 ef 16 �xc3 X fd8
25 ef d5 The immediate 16 . . . �h3 is
26 cd � xd5 not possible due to the loss of the
27 ,£, xd5 cd c7 pawn. After 1 7 ,lxh3 ttxh3 1 8
28 ,£, c5 ttc6 ,£,d5 'iiit' d7 1 9 �xc7 x ac8 20 b6
29 .lbl h4 and the knight a5 is badly placed .
30 ttb3 K el Therefore Black retains control of
31 ,t xd5 tt d6 the point d5.
32 � fel K xbl 17 .!l dl ,tg4
33 K xbl � xd4 + 18 K dl ,th3
34 *" � xbl 19 ,thl! it ab8
35 X e6 'l!lfc7 On 19 . . . c6 there would follow
36 .K xg6 + * h7 20 b6, and . . . b6 would no longer
37 K b6 ,t g7 be possible: the rook on aS comes
38 .K xb7 ttd6 under attack. So Ljubojevic de-
39 �e6 .!l c8 vises a multi-staged plan to liber-
40 K xf7 *h8 ate his knight on a5.
41 .l xf5 20 � dS c6
Black resigned Leading to the forced loss of a
pawn. 20 . . . ,te6 would be quite
weak due to 21 �a3 with the
Karpov-Ljubojevic threat of 22 ee7 + . But it would
Bugojno 1986 be better to choose 20 . . . ,te6, so
as to answer 2 1 e b4 with 2 1 . . .
I c4 e5 'l!lfxb5 22 �c6 be! 23 ll xb5 cb
2 � c3 ,£,c6 with counterplay; on 2 1 � xc7
3 g3 g6 Black can play 2 1 . . . .l b3 22
4 �gl �g7 ttc3 b6 (with the threat 23 . . .
5 � bl � f6 .!l c8) 23 �a6 .!l bc8 24 ,tc6!
6 e3 0-0 ,td5! 25 ,t xd7 X xc3 with reason-
7 �gel d6 able compensation for the pawn.
8 b4 ,te6 21 �b6 tt c7
9 b5 � aS 22 �·4 b6
In the event of 9 . . . �e7, pos- 23 be ,!l dc8(66)
sible would be 10 .lxb7 X b8 I I 24 \1iltdl! � xc6
,tg2 .lxc4 1 2 d3 �e6 1 3 'l'!li'a4, 25 K cl!
with a queenside initiative. Significantly stronger than the
10 d3 a6 immediate 25 ll db2, on which it's
I I a4 ab true that 25 . . . b5 26 Jl xb5 .a xb5
12 ab d5 27 X xb5 �d4 doesn't hold due to
13 cd �xd5 28 ,!l c5, but there are still many
14 0-0 'l!lfd7 active Black pieces on the board.
 The English Opening 93

10 de
White employs an important
novelty. However, I was not
caught unawares. Up until now 10
c5, 1 0 �xc6 and 10 'ijc2 have
been encountered here.
10 � xe4
1 1 'ij cl d5!(67)

The text move forces the exchange

of the opponent's light-squared
bishop for the knight.
25 .1d7
26 � cb2 b5
27 �c5 'ijd6
28 �xd7 'ijxd7
29 I. xb5 � xb5
30 .i;� xb5
White has a winning position. This move was suggested by
However, the conversion of this one of my seconds, I nternational
advantage demands cool and Master Podgayets, during the
patience. I don't intend to tor­ preparation for this game. Black
ment the reader with the conclud­ obtains excellent counterplay and
ing part of the game, which goes not by chance did Kasparov pon­
on for another 56 moves. der over his reply for almost 40
Now, finally, it's time to go minutes. Clearly, he has to ana­
over to the main game-one of lyse the most diverse paths, and
the most interesting in the Seville one must say that there are many
match. spectacular continuations pos­
3 �f3 �c6 sible. During analysis we took
4 g3 j_b4 into particular account the dan­
5 .1 g2 0-0 gerous aspect of the move 1 2
6 0-0 g e8 �b5, i n that after the subsequent
In the 2nd and 4th games, the 1 2 . . . .1f5! 1 3 cd �xg3 14 e4
debate, as you remember, � xfl 1 5 ef ( 1 5 de .1 xe4 16 .1 xe4
revolved around the continuation 'l\l!r'h4) 1 5 . . . � e l 1 6 j_xfl 'ijxd5
6 . . . e4 7 �g5 j_xc3 8 be � e8 9 17 � xc7 'iit c4, Black would pre­
f3. vail.
7 d3 j_xc3 12 cd l!t' xd5
8 be e4 13 e3
9 �d4 h6 On 1 3 � d l then 1 3 . . . J.. f5! is
94 The English Opening

handy- 1 4 � xf5 *xf5 with the The threat 24 . . . c5 is danger­

threats 1 5 . . . .-xf2 + and 1 5 . . . ous (for example on 24 K e l ), but
�xg3. After 1 4 f3 � f2! 1 5 e4 after 24 �e4 a dynamic balance is
�xd1 1 6 ed J;� e 1 + 1 7 �fl �h3! achieved: 24 . . . c5 25 �f5 ttd7
White is in trouble. 26 �xc5 <21d2 27 �e7 + *h8 28
13 . . . � aS!? �d5 <21xfl (28 . . . iltb5! is also
Another possibility derives interesting) 29 � xf7 *d3 30
from 1 3 . . . � xd4!? 14 cd c6 1 5 ilfxd3 J;� xd3 3 1 �g6 + with per­
�b2 �f5 1 6 f3?! � xg3 1 7 e4 petual check. 24 1. e 1 leads to an
�xe4 1 8 fe �xe4. unclear game 24 . . . c5 25 � f3
14 f3 �xf3 (25 . . . �f5 26 "«tel b6 27
IS e4 �h4) 26 �xf3 g d2 27 "«te4
16 �e3 K xa2 28 f5 "«tc6 29 "«tg4.
17 �fl 24 • • • c5
18 J:� adl Better than 24 . . . � xe5 25 3 c5
Perhaps the rook would be 26 hg cd 27 "«te4 with a dangerous
better placed on e I ; 1 8 f4 also attack for White.
deserves attention. 2S "«te4 cd
18 �d7 26 tt xg4 � xeS
19 f4 J;� ad8 Shortage of time hindered me
20 eS �g4 in finding the most straightfor­
21 �f5 ward route, which would consist
A somewhat reckless move. of 26 . . . de! 27 e6 (27 �d4
Has White calculated on 2 1 . . . �xe5!) 27 . . . �e5 with a further
�xf5 22 .-xf5 �d2 23 g fe I c5 24 . . . f6. 26 . . . �e3!? is also inter-
tlt"c2!? esting, 27 �xe3 de 28 e6 (or 28
21 tlt"e6! ilrt'e4 "«tc5 29 K e l �c4) 28 . . . f6
22 K xd8 K xd8 29 "«tf3 "«txc3 with a double­
23 �d4 ttc8!(68) edged position.
The most exact retreat: after 23 27 tte2
. . . tte8 White has the better Favourable chances are
chances. retained by Black also in the event
24 f5?! of 27 tte4 �ec4 28 �xd4 �d2 29
ttg4 Jt xd4 30 cd � xfl 3 1 �xfl
68
w
<21c6.
27 �ec6
28 cd �xd4
29 � xd4
White's attack comes to
nothing, but maybe he would
stand more chance of maintaining
the equilibrium after the transfer
of the queen to e4 or g4.
 The English Opening 95

29 � xd4 Karpov-Kasparov
30 f6 tte6(69) Game 13, World
Championship 1
Moscow 1984/5

I �f3 �f6
2 c4 b6
3 g3 c5
4 �g2 �b7
5 � g6
This variation of the English
Opening is named the Double
Fianchetto. White usually de­
velops actively in the centre by
31 ttb2 way of d2-d4 thus taking the
Apparently the decisive mis­ initiative. However, it is not quite
take. The immediate exchange of so simple to breach the enemy
queens was necessary: 3 1 ttxe6 stronghold. Another possible set­
after 3 1 "Wtf2 'Wfxf6 32 "Wtxf6 gf up for Black would be the 'hedge­
White would already be beyond hog' formation by the means of
help: 33 ,l xf6 g d l + 34 �fl . . . e6 and . . . �e7.
�c4!) 3 1 . . . fe 32 �h3 .1 d6, and 6 �cJ
the endgame may yet be held. In the previous odd-numbered
31 "Wt e3 + game of the match (game I I ) I
32 \lrhl b6 played 6 b3, and it turned out like
33 fg �c4 a quadruple fianchetto! Symmetry
34 "Wtcl * xg7 is retained on the board for quite
35 �d5 �d6 a long time: 6 . . . �g7 7 �b2 0-0
36 ttb2 tte5 8 e3 e6 9 d4 "Wte7 10 �c3 �a6 I I
37 �b3 a5 tte2 d5 1 2 .l fd l .l fd8 (70) .
38 tt tl f5
39 ttb2 b5 70
40 a3 *g6 w
41 'Wt tl
The game was adjourned here,
but Kasparov resigned without
further play: there is no satisfac­
tory defence to 41 . . . X d3 or 41
. . . a4.

After 1 3 x acl de 14 be .l acS

I S �b5 �e4 1 6 a3�b8 1 7 de be
96 The English Opening
1 8 �e5 -2! e8 19 �xg7 *xg7 20
-2!e5 �xg2 21 fixg2 White
obtained a minimal advantage,
though Kasparov defended suc­
cessfully.
6 � g7
7 d4 cd
8 -2!xd4
The variations associated with
the Queen recapturing will be exa­
mined in the notes to the next
game.
8 � xgl
9 *xgl 0-0
10 e4 "Wtc1(71)
An important position, well­
known to theory. One of the grea­
test experts on it is the Hungarian
Grandmaster Andras Adorjan, an
analyst of whom I availed myself
for the current narrative.
From the diagram position, 1 1
-2!d5 gives nothing- 1 1 . . . -2!xd5
12 cd "Wte5 13 -2!f3 'iit xe4 14 g e l
l!li"f5 1 5 X xe7 -2! a6, and White
has a weak pawn on d5. There are
also few prospects after I I k_e3
"Wtxc4 ll K cl -2!c6 13 -2!cb5
"Wtxal 14 .i;l al *c4 15 K cl \'!�tal
16 x at \'!ltxbl 17 K bl '/!\'fal 18
x al 'iii' bl 19 K bl \'!�tal lO K al
'l\li'c4 ll � cl 'i!!i' al ll g a l 'l!ltc4
Draw agreed (Ftacnik-Adorjan,
Gjovik 1983). Instead of repeating
moves, Black, in Adorjan's opi­
nion, obtains a winning position
by way of 1 2 . . . "Wta6!: 1 3 e5
'l!lr"b7 + 14 l!li"f3 'if(xf3 + 1 5 *xf3
-2!e8 1 6 -2!d5 e6, and there is no
compensation whatever for the
pawn; 1 3 �cb5 \!ii' b7 14 !Jijc7
-2!xe4 15 'iit f3 ( 1 5 !Jijxa8 �d2 + )
1 5 . . . fl. xd4 1 6 fl. xd4 -21 c6 etc.
The c4 pawn can be defended
by the queen from d3 or e2. Hor­
vath-Bronstein (Ribitza 1979)
went 1 1 'i!ii' d 3 -2!a6 1 2 �c2 K ac8
1 3 -2!e3 -2!c5 14 11tc2 e6 1 5 f3 a6
1 6 k_d2 d6 1 7 x ad l -2!cd7 1 8 a4
-2!e5 with excellent play for Black.
Hansen-Adorjan (Copenhagen
1983) shows the alternative: 1 1
"1\llf e2 -2!c6 1 2 -2!c2 a6 1 3 � d l (on
1 3 .,tg5 not bad is 1 3 . . . )l;"b7 or
1 3 . . . e6) 1 3 . . . e6 14 b3 -.¥!f b7 1 5
j_b2 g fd8 1 6 f3 d6 1 7 -2!e3 !Jije5
18 X d2 g5!? Usually with this
pawn structure, Black prepares to
break on the queenside with . . .
b5 or in the centre by . . . d5, but it
appears that danger may also
come from counterplay on the
kingside. 19 � ad l h5 20 �c2.
Sharp play arises after 20 x xd6
� xd6 21 g xd6 g4 22 fg !Jijxe4 23
� xe4 i/t xe4 + 24 * f2 hg 25 lit d4
"1\llf h 7 26 X xg4 f5! Now it is Black
that seizes the initiative.
20 . . . g4 2 1 !Jijel b5 22 f4 -2!g6
23 cb ab 24 b4 x dc8 25 *gl
II xc3 (one may limit oneself to
the quiet 25 . . . x c4 26 � d4
1!1 ac8 27 K 1 d3 -21 e8 winning a
pawn) 26 _txc3 -2!xe4 27 j_xg7

'lll xg7 28 K xd6 � xd6 29 ll xd6
"Wta7 + , and Black soon won.
And finally White has yet one
more choice, perhaps the sharpest
of them all.
11 b3 .axe4
Black's only option, otherwise
he could easily suffocate.
12 -E:� xe4
On 1 2 -E:�dS dangerous for
Black would be 1 2 . . . t�tcS 1 3
J,e3, 1 2 . . . t�teS 1 3 i, b2 .ac6 14
f4!, and 1 2 . . . "Wtb1 13 �xe7 +
'lll h 8 14 .ads .ac3 I S t�tf3! How­
ever, after the modest 1 2 . . . "Wtd8!
1 3 x el e6 14 .i!l, xe4 ed ! S ed .aa6
Black has good chances.
12 lit eS
13 'l'j'fJ � xd4(72)
14 J.. aJ
In Black's favour is 14 J.. e3
"Wte5 1 S K ad 1 (15 c5 .ac6 16 cb ab
17 a4 'tl!r'e6 18 .1. ab1 .ae5 19 "Wte2
h6 20 o x reS 21 'i!itd2 g5 22 .an
'tl!r'c6 23 .ae4 g4, and White
resigned; Kapelen-Adorjan, Vrsac
1983) l S . . . 'fkc7 1 6 J.. f4 *c6!
(Kharitonov-Adorjan, Jurmala
1983).
Seven games later, in game 20,
Kasparov played 14 K bl here
The English Opening 97
(we, as usual, had changed col­
ours) with the threat of trapping
the queen by J.. c 1 -b2. The game
occurred in our peaceful period,
and therefore only a move later-
14 . . . *e5 15 i,f4-there fol­
lowed the agreement of a draw.
However, after continuing 1 S . . .
\'!li'e6 Black would actually obtain
chances to seize the initiative. 1 6
.af6 + ( 1 6 .ac3 -E:�c6 1 7 .ads
.ad4!; 17 � be 1 \'!li'fS 18 �dS gS!)
16 . . . J,xf6 17 'l\l(( xa8 �c6 1 8
\\it b7. This position appears to
have arisen first of all in the game
Shabalov-Kengis (Riga 1 983). Its
evaluation depends on the pro­
spects of the counter-blow 1 8 . . .
gS! ( 73) .
73
w
The diagram position has been
thoroughly examined by Adorjan
and Veiga. They are convinced
that, despite White's extra
material, he is exposed to some
danger. Let's look at the basic
variation: 19 _e. e3 � b8 20 'l'j'a6
'lllf' e4 + 21 'lll g l .aes 22 t�txa7
� as 23 'Wr'xb6 .a n + 24 'lll h l
� xa2! winning; 1 9 J.. c7 hS! 20
� bd 1 (20 � be 1 is no better
either) 20 . . . h4 2 1 h3 g4 22 hg
98 The English Opening

tte4 + 23 f3 tte2 + 24 *h3 hg 25 18 �xd7

*xg3 *g7 26 �t h l (74) . 19 ttxd7 ( 75)

75
B

It seems as though the attack 19 . . . 'itxal!

has been repelled, but after 26 . . . 1 9 . . . K fb8 maybe a slightly
.ih4 + ! the game is decided (27 more aesthetic way of retaining
•xh4 ttxf3; 27 K xh4 ttxd l ). the material, but after 20 a4 'ijeS
14 �c6 21 .1 e I Black finds himself in a
15 X ad1 llte5 ticklish situation.
16 K xd7 "«t a5 20 ..t xf8 K xf8
More accurate than 16 21 K e1
K ad8 17 K fd1 K xd7 18 K xd7 By this method (or by way of2 1
X d8 19 �d6 (19 �g5 J.. f6 20 1td3) White forces a draw.
lltxc6 K xd7 21 'ijxd7 j_xg5 22 21 'ijxb3
'itd5 1txd5 23 cd Draw agreed; 22 �d6 'itcJ
Keen�Adorjan, Plovdiv 1983) 1 9 23 K e7 lltf6
. . . 1te6 20 .K xd8 � xd8 2 1 'ija8 24 �e4 1td4
with some White advantage. 25 'ijxd4 j_xd4
17 ,ixe7 26 K d7 j_g7
In the event of 1 7 b4 �xb4 1 8 27 K xa7 h6
J! xe7 �c2 the Black knight lands 28 K b7 J.. d4
happily on d4. 29 .K d7 j_g7
17 �e5 30 h4 f5
18 ttd1 31 �dl X f6
In the stem game, Loginov­ 32 K c7 K e6
Ivanov (Borzhomi 1 984), after 1 8 33 � fJ j_f6
.i dS �xf3 19 ,K xaS K fe8 White Draw agreed.
declined 20 K a6 � xh2 2 1 •xh2 In my first contest with Kas­
K xe7 22 �d6 K d8 23 �bS parov the English Opening was
K dd7 with an imminent draw, met five times. We have already
and played the losing move 20 seen three drawn games. Let's
•xf3? (20 . . . ba 2 1 ..tgS fS etc). look at yet two more quick draws,
 The English Opening 99

so that all of the five will be found 1 984). Now Black sacrifices a
in one place. In these the same pawn, completely simplifying the
variation was played. position. 15 J.. xcS .M d8 16 JUdi
J.. e6 17 b3 K xd1 + 18 K xd1 Ji d8
19 X xd8 + fjxd8 20 j_ xa7 fja8!
Kasparov-Karpov 21 j_xc6 be 22 *bl h5 23 fja5 f6
Game 24, World Draw agreed.
Championship 1 12 J.. e3 fjc7
Moscow 1984/5 13 .@:) d4 X d8
14 fja4 J.. d7
1 �0 �f6 15 � xc6 _t xc6
2 c4 cS 16 J.. xc6 be
3 .@:)c3 �c6 17 c4
4 d4 cd Draw agreed.
5 .@:) xd4 e6 On the last move White could
6 g3 fjb6 have played the more accurate 1 7
7 �b3(76) g b l , maintaining a certain pres­
sure on the queenside. But Kas­
parov (the same as me) was taken
76 by the drawing bug at this stage of
B the match.
So, can it be true that Black can
obtain equality so easily in the
opening? How to improve White's
position in diagram 76? After four
years it came to me.

7 d5 Karpov-Korchnoi
A counter-blow which enabled Brussels 1988
me to solve all of my opening
problems in two games of the 9 �xd5
match. Instead of9 J.. g2, as was played
8 cd �xd5 in the two games above.
9 j_g2 �xc3 9 ed
10 be J.. e7 10 j_g2
11 � � Now White has a definite object
In game 26 I played the per­ of attack-the isolated d-pawn.
haps more precise 1 1 • . • e5 12 Korchnoi defended stubbornly
j_e3 fljc7 13 �cS � 14 fja4 for a long time, but finally
j_xcS. 1 4 . . . K d8 is bad due to 1 5 couldn't sustain the effort, over­
�a6! (Psakhis-Cramling, Scotland looking a trap and dropping his
100 The English Opening

central pawn. Let's look at the 39 *f3 *e6

rest of the game without notes. 40 *e4 *d6 +
10 �e6 41 *d4 *d7
1 1 o-o : us 42 g4 K e8
12 �g5 f6 43 e4 b6
13 �dl �e7 44 J� d5 + *e7
14 �c3 o-o 45 e5 g f8
IS -E)d4 -E\ xd4 46 g d6 b5
16 "llt xd4 �c5 47 Ill xa6 fe +
17 "lltd2 "lltd6 48 •xe5 l;l xfl
18 b4 �b6 49 g a7 + *f8
19 �d4 �rs 50 h5 g f3
20 I!� act �e4 51 *d4 g f4 +
21 �h3 g fe8 52 *c5 M; xg4
22 � fdl g e7 53 * xb5 M; g5 +
23 *f8 54 *c6 � xh5
24 K c7 55 b5 l;l h6 +
lS � xc7 )'l(( xc7 56 *c7 K h3
26 I;� d2 I;� d6 57 b6 *e7
27 �g2 g e6 S8 b7 � c3 +
28 e3 *e7 59 *b6 .!!i b3 +
29 h4 a6 60 *c6
30 �xb6 "ll!!i" Xb6 Black resigned.
31 K dl �c7
32 "lltd4 i!tc4
33 "llt a7 "lltc7 Korchnoi-8eirawan
34 I;� d4 •mrnJ Zagreb 1987

1 -E:Jf3 -2}f6
2 c4 b6
3 g3 �b7
4 �g2 c5
5 o-o g6
While examining the English
Opening, I decided to limit myself
to two games of the Double Fian­
chetto variation, which were
influenced by my confrontations
with Kasparov. The formation
35 g xd5! iL xg2 termed the Hedgehog often oc­
36 *xgl i4tc6 curs in practice. One of the typical
37 �c5 'lllt xcS positions arises, for example, after
38 1;1 xc5 K e7 the move order: 5 . . .e6 6 f)c3

JL.e7 7 d4 cd 8 )111( xd4 d6 9 Ji dl a6
10 b3 -2lbd7 I I e4 ( 78) .
78
B sary, maintaining a solid defence.
I I . . . )111( b8 is most popular
here (or I I . . . i/lt'c7) 1 2 JL.a3 �c5
13 e5 de 14 i/lt'xe5 with sharp play.
In the game Karpov-Ribli (Dubai
1986) Black employed the novelty
II . • • *c8. The present example
is again limited to illustrating the
Hedgehog set-up (e6 . . . and . . .
i_e7). However, I remember the
game not so much for the opening
stages, but for the elegant finale.
12 JL.b2
By refraining from the prepara­
tion of the thematic e4-e5, I suc­
ceeded by simple means in obtain­
ing a tangible spatial advantage.
The point is that the idea 1 2 JL.a3
-2lc5 13 e5 is not very effective
now: 1 3 . . . de 1 4 � xeS ..;.xg2 1 5
'111 xg2 )111( b7 + leading to equality,
and 14 i/lt'xe5 simply loses to 1 4
. . . -2lcd7!, the idea behind the
manoeuvre I I . . . 'l)ll'( c 8.
12 . . . 0-0 13 �d2! i/lt'c7 14
� acl � ac8 IS h3 A:� fe8 16 a3
'i/lf'b8 17 b4 � ed8 18 'llllf' e3 _ta8 19
..-e2 -2le8 20 �n J.. b7 21 •h2
�ef6 22 -dd2 .aeR 23 � el JL.a8
24 �b3 j_gS 2S � c2 � c7 26 f4
kf6 27 � eel � deS 28 �dl j_b7
The English Opening 101
29 'tl!t'd3 JL. xb2 30 -2lxb2 'l)ll'( a8 31
�dl aS. Black loses ground in the
complicated manoeuvring strug­
gle. � d8 and � cc8 were neces­
Nothing can be done, and this is a
feature of the Hedgehog: if Black
doesn't succeed in carrying out
the counter-blows . . . b6-b5 or
. . . d6-d5, he must wait patiently
for events to take their course.
32 �d4! � d8 33 �bS � cc8 34
.2ldc3 *b8 35 � dl �df6 36
� cd2 h6 37 *e2 J.a8 38 fpgl
(stronger is 38 ba ba 39 � b2 with
the annoying threat �xd6) 38 . • .
kc6 39 fph2 e5 40 fS ••8 41 g4.
Taking on d6 gives Black counter­
chances. 41 • . .-.b8 42 h4 t'r'b7 43
J.. f3 t'r'e7 44 fpg3 ab 45 ab dS!?
The last chance, otherwise Black
is suffocated after g5. 46 cd JL.xb5
47 �xbS *xb4 ( 79) . The decisive
mistake; perhaps 47 . . . �d6
would be the only way to resist
further.
48 g5 hg. Black carelessly opens
the h-file (it would follow to re­
treat the knight immediately to
h7) on which unfortunate (for
him) events unfold. 49 hg �h7 SO
d6! Ji c5 51 K b2! It seems that
102 The English Opening

also possible is the immediate 5 1 J.. x al 1 3 J.. e3 �g7 1 4 <2\fg5 0-0

*'h2 11 xb5 52 *'xh7 + *xh7 53 (80) .
X h2 + *g8 54 K d h l with
unstoppable mate. However, in
this case, a brilliant refutation is
found-54 . . . *'el + !! 55 .I xel
<21 xd6 and Black succeeds in wrig­
gling away, while at the same time
obtaining winning chances. With
the intermediate rook move the
queen is driven away from the a5-
e I diagonal, which makes the
combination possible.
51 . . . *'c4 52 *'bl! X xb5 53 1 5 <2\xh7! *xh7 1 6 �g5 +
•xb7 + !! * xb7 54 X bl + •as *g8 1 7 tth4 x es 1 8 J.. h 3 (threa­
55 K dbl f6 56 Jl b8 + Black tening 1 9 *'h7 + * f8 20 �e6 +
resigned. After 56 . . . * f7 57 g6 fe 2 1 .txe6 with mate) 1 8 . . . *f8
the king is captured by the white 19 <2\e6 + * g8. Avoiding mate at
pawns. Amusingly, in the present the cost of the queen ( 19 . . . fe 20
situation, Black's queen is safest J,.xe6 �e5 2 1 i!th7 � f7 22 J,.d4!)
of all! 20 �xd8, and Black soon
6 d4 cd resigned.
7 *'xd4 Although the idea of placing
The preceding game was the b8 knight on d7 is as old as the
devoted to the knight capture on hills, the move 8 . . . d6 (81 ) , in
d4. the present situation was first used
7 � g7 in the game Chernin-Horvath
8 �c3 d6 (Copenhagen 1986).
Black prepares to develop his
knight on d7-the most appropri­
81
ate place for it. Let's examine one w
effective game in which the knight
occupies the more usual c6
square.
Ribli-Kouatly (Lucerne 1 985):
8 . . . <21c6 9 *'f4 X c8. In the later
game Speelman-Greenfeld (Beer­
Sheva 1 987) Black wasn't afraid
to castle: 9 . . . 0-0 10 i!t h4 X c8 I I
.th6 <2\ b8! 1 2 b3 d6 1 3 X ad l There subsequently followed 9
X c5 and obtained an acceptable . K d l <2\ bd7 1 0 ilth4 K c8 1 1 � e l
position. .txg2 1 2 � xg2 a6 1 3 �e3 X c5 1 4
10 X d l d6 1 1 b3 <2\e4 1 2 <2\xe4! <2\cd5 b 5 1 5 cb a b 1 6 a4 b a 1 7

�xf6 + J_xf6 1 8 \1!txa4 0-0 1 9 b4!
�b6 20 \1!ta6 x es 2 1 x as J.. g7
22 .ta3 X eS 23 't1!tbS e6 24 M a6
K b8 2S \1!tc6 dS 26 bS �aS 27
J.. d 6!, and White won.
It was soon established that 1 2
. . . l;lc S i s stronger, preparing
'iit a 8, I;� hS and .aes with initia­
tive. Such an idea was imple­
mented perfectly by Kasparov in
the 23rd game of the return
match, which is discussed below.
In the text game (and also in a
few others) Korchnoi played the
new move 9 .te3. Perhaps this is
the freshest idea to date: the game
Korchnoi-Seirawan was pub­
lished in the Chess Informant vol.
44. It also explains the fact that I
included Korchnoi's game in the
basic material of the book in ord­
er to illustrate the Double Fian­
chetto (with the queen taking on
d4). Of course, it goes without
saying, that game 23 of the return
match is also of interest.
Karpov-Kasparov m(23) 1986: 9
� d1 . In the game Marin-Gure­
vich (Balaton 1987) White played
the immediate 9 b3 and after 9 . . .
� bd7 10 J.. b2 0-0 came the hasty
knight thrust: I I �dS l;l c8 1 2
� ac l bS!, and Black was already
better.
9
• • . �bd7 10 b3. In the game
Cherni1�-Eingorn (Sochi 1986)
the unpretentious 10 X b1 K c8 1 1
b3 0-0 1 2 -.h4 .l, cS 1 3 J.. bl was
played, and the players agreed the
draw. After the game Chernin­
Horvath we indicated how Black
could obtain a good game in the
event of I 0 'Wt h4. Besides I 0 . . .
The English Opening 103
.i!l c8, I 0 . . . h6 would be good
also-he has not yet castled, and
this move successfully counters
the queen's attack on h4.
10
. . • K c8. In the event of 10
. . . 0-0, now I I "@\'(h4 is good with
a subsequent .th6.
11 J.. bl 0-0 12 1i{e3. And here
1 2 �dS would be rash- 1 2 . . .
J.. xdS 1 3 cd X c2 with advantage
to Black.
12
• • • K e8. In a later game,
Plaskett-Adorjan (Hastings 1 986/
7), the immediate 1 2 . . . a6 was
met. After 1 3 �d4 .txg2 14
'lrxg2 K e8 I S �t ac t X eS 1 6 h3
\1!tc8 1 7 i,a3 ( 17 a4 is better) 1 7
. . . g c7 (a sharp variation arises
after 1 7 . . . X hS 1 8 g4 i,h6) 1 8
�dS 't1!tb7 1 9 't1!t f3 � xdS 20 \1!txdS
Black played 20 . . . X ec8, and
following the exchange of queens
(2 1 *xb7 l;l xb7) a quick draw
was agreed. However, by continu­
ing 20 . . . 'i!\Yc8!, Black would
obtain somewhat better chances.
13 K acl . 1 3 K d3 leads to
unclear play: 1 3 . . . a6 1 4 X ad I
�cs 1 S K d4.
13
• • • a6. The exchanges 1 3 . . .
�e4 14 lt c2 �xc3 I S .txc3
i,xc3 1 6 X xc3 are rather in
White's favour.
14 J.. a1. This rare move allows
Black to solve instantly all of his
opening problems. Nothing is
given by 14 �eS?! j_xg2 I S �xd7
�g4! 16 ttxb6 'tltxd7 17 'lrxg2
l;l c6 1 8 ili' b4 l;l cS 1 9 X dS e6 20
X xeS de 21 \1!txcS iitd2. However,
a recommendation by Igor Zait­
zev deserves attention: 14 K c2,
followed by -.e3-c l -a l , main-
104 The English Opening
taining a certain pressure on the
Black position.
14 l. c5! (82)
82
w g fd I 'i!lja8. Black again uses an
Making way for the queen on
aS and simultaneously preparing
. . . bS. 15 a4 l!ta8 16 .aet 1. f5 17
�xb7 l!txb7 18 f3 h5 19 .ag2
»; c5. 1 9 . . . dS 20 cd axdS 2 1
.axdS K xdS 2 2 .It xdS l!txdS 23
�xg7 *xg7 24 K c7 would not be
sufficient. Now a drawn result is
inevitable.
20 �b2 K cc8 21 �a3 l£)c5 22
K b1 �e6 23 l!td3 �c7 24 �f4
b5! 25 cb ab 26 � xb5 � xb5 27
l!txb5 l!t28 ab K b8 29 J.. b2 K b7.
Precision to the last. On 29 . . .
K xbS 30 �xf6 J.. x f6 3 1 -2JdS
X fb8 32 � xf6 + ef 33 X xd6
X xb3 34 X xb3 l, xb3 3S »; xf6
White has the more favourable
endgame.
30 b6 X fb8 31 b4 -2!d7 32 �xg7
Draw agreed.
Time to return to the move 9
J.. e3 in Korchnoi's game.
9 �e3 -2!bd7
10 K acl 0-0
1 1 iitd2
Korchnoi employed the move 9
i_e3 for the first time in his game
with Gurevich (Jerusalem 1 986).
On the reply 9 . . . -21 bd7 he played
the immediate 1 0 *d2. There
subsesquently followed 1 0 . . .
� c8 I I b3 a6 1 2 K ac l 0-0 1 3
j_h6 g cS 1 4 �xg7 *xg7 I S
idea of Kasparov's. 16 \'!lte3 -2\eS
1 7 -21 a4 -21 xf1 + 1 8 ef. By this
means White takes the initiative;
1 8 j_ xf1 li eS 1 9 J_xb7 l!txb7
leads to equality.
1 8 . . . lit eS 1 9 .axb6 »; xe3 20
-E:)xa8 � e2 21 � b6 Ii xa2 22 b4
g b2 (22 . . . g b8 23 cS de 24 be
J.. c6 is more solid) 23 lit b I g xb I
24 g xbl g b8 2S ill a l . White
maintains a small advantage, but
after a sharp skirmish it all ends in
peace.
The position after 1 2 moves of
this game occurred again in the
game Korchnoi-Eingorn (Zagreb
1 987). The move order was 1 0
'i!ljd2 0-0 I I K ac l g cS 1 2 b 3 a6,
and here Korchnoi played
another bishop move: 1 3 J,.h3!
The exchange on f1 would hardly
be good: the f-pawn moves to fS;
the knight on d7- Biack's main
hope-is pinned, so the rook steps
aside. 1 3 . . . K b8 14 �d4 �e4 I S
-E:)xe4 j_xe4 1 6 K fd l . White has
the greater chances. Let's look at
a few more moves: 1 6 . . . J,.a8 1 7
-dc2 bS 1 8 .a b4 be 1 9 Ii xc4 J� c8.
Black sacrifices a pawn with the
hope of taking the initiative. 20
-dxa6 Ii xc4 2 1 be 'i!ljc8 22 j_xd7
�xd7 23 �b4 iita4 24 -2JdS iitxc4
2S -dxe7 + *h8 26 -2JdS j_ xdS 27
'i!l'ixdS •xe2 28 a4. Although
material equality is re-established,
White has an obvious positional
 The English Opening 105

superiority, which he converted It now becomes clear that 2 1 . . .

into the win. o.ElxcS is not possible due to 22
The plan used by Eingorn was 'i!!i' xd6 �e4 23 � c7, and Black's
to Seirawan's liking, and he tried queen is trapped.
to improve Black's play by mov­ 21 �e5
ing the knight to e4 straight away. 22 cd �c4
What does this achieve? 23 � xc4! be
ll -E�e4!? 24 d7 � fd8
Keeping the move . . . a6 for No better is 24 . . . X bdS 25
later. ,1d4 f1Jc7 26 J.,xe6 fe 27 � xg6 +
12 -2) xe4 j_xe4 \figS 2S �xf8. However, correct,
13 � fd1 'Wfc7 as Korchnoi calculates, is 24 . . .
14 �h3 g 8b8 'i!!i' xb2 25 dS(fll ) � bxdS 26 fll xdS
15 �d4 j_a8 fll xe2 27 f1Jd2 "Wtxd2 2S J;t xd2
Now 1 5 . . . a6 is worth con­ � eS 29 � d7 ,1 f6. The knight
sideration, restricting the mobility finally perishes, and after 30 -E:�cS!
of the white knight. � xeS 31 � xf7 the game very
16 -2)b5 'i/(( b7 soon ends in a draw.
17 fJ 25 J.. d4 'i/(( b4
Black's battery along the long 26 'i!if'g5 \ili'b5 (83)
diagonal presents no danger.
17 a6
83
18 o.Elc3 b5 w
Here it would follow to prefer
I S . . . � fdS, fortifying his weak
points.
19 -dd5 e6
In the event of 1 9 . . . � e8 10 cb
the white rook invades via c7.
After 1 9 . . . be ( 1 9 . . . �eS 20 b3
be 2 1 be with advantage) White,
according to Korchnoi, obtains
better chances in the following 27 -E:�xg6 + fg
manner: 20 �xe7 + * hS 2 1 �dS On 27 . . . hg, 2S iit' h6 + mates.
'WfxdS 22 'll!f' x dS j_xdS 23 � xdS 28 j_xg7 + * xg7
j_ xb2 24 x xc4 �b6 25 �xb6 29 flse7 + *h6
lit xb6 26 .1 aS. 30 � d4 "Wtb6?
20 �e7 + *h8 Only now does Black make a
The knight infiltrates the enemy decisive mistake. He has an extra
camp, from where there is no re­ rook and it would follow to give
turn. However, it is destined for a up some material: 30 . . . J.. x f3 3 1
sacrificial purpose. ef iit'b6 32 'i!\th4 + fll g7 33 * h l
21 c5! h S 34 iit'e7 + fll h6 35 g4, and in
106 The English Opening

Korchnoi's opinion, White has with the white pieces it was neces­
only a minimal advantage. Now sary to apply all of my resources
Black is forced to give up his in order to gain a victory. I suc­
queen. ceeded in achieving this aim
31 e3 lit xd4 although only after a multitude of
This time 3 1 . . . �xf3 doesn't adventures. The contest turned
save him; 32 g h4 + J.h5 33 out to be one of the most tense
J.i xh5 + etc. and fascinating and crowned a
32 ed J.xf3 spectacular final effort.
33 J.xe6 c3 I c4 c5
34 be Jl fB 2 �f3 �f6
3S _tb3 J.bS 3 �c3 d5
36 h4 �f3 Kasparov refrained from play­
37 g4 aS ing a 'pure' English Opening and
38 *b2 �a8 turned the game into a type of
39 J.dl J.f3 Griinfeld Defence. However, such
40 gS + * b5 a move order introduces a new
41 ft g3 structure into our encounters.
Black resigned. 4 cd �xd5
And, to conclude, yet another S d4 �xc3
short example: Georgiev-Cebalo 6 be g6
(San Bernadino 1987). 9 �e3 7 e3 .,tg7
-E)bd7 10 � act � c8 II b3 0-0 12 8 J.d3 0-0
)J'rd2 � e8 ( 12 . . . a6 leads to a 9 0-0 'ftll c7
position reminiscent of the above 10 ». bl b6
game Korchnoi-Eingorn) 13 J.h3 A new move. 10 . . . K d8 and
a6 14 � fdl � b8 IS �d4 �e4 (a 10 . . . �d7 have been met up till
well-known idea) 16 eJxe4 J.xe4 now.
17 �c2 ( 1 7 f3 is more precise) 17 I I "Wtel J;� d8
. . . �bl l8 ». bl J.g7 19 f3 _txc2! 12 _te4 _t a6!
20 'l)ltxc2 'W!c7 21 J;� bcl J;� ed8 22 12 �c6 is insufficient for
'l)ltbl �cS. Chances are balanced. equality- 1 3 d5 f5 14 de fe 1 5
23 b4 �d7 24 ftb3 e6 2S a3 a5 26 "Wtc4 + , or 1 2 . . . _tb7 1 3 _txb7
�g2 ab 27 ab �eS 28 J.d4 ». dc8 i!fxb7 14 de _txc3 1 5 e4.
29 �xeS Draw agreed. 13 c4 eJc6
14 d5 f5
IS _td3 eS
Karpov-Kasparov 16 e4 -E)d4
Game 23, World 17 �xd4 cd
Championship 4 After lively play the pawn
Seville 1987 chains in the centre are fixed,
though some preference is given
In my last game of the match to White's position.
 The English Opening 107

18 .,tg5 JU8 36 K el th6

19 X fcl .1. ac8 37 .,td2 1. 17
20 .,td2 X f7 38 •d3 M ef8
21 a4 fe 39 h3 K fl
2 1 . . . f4 is more solid. 40 .I al lltf6
22 lltxe4 X cf8 The game was adjourned here,
23 f3 _tc8 and I didn't seal the best conti­
24 a5 nuation, moving the rook from e l
I had calculated that the queen­ to g l . A move later i t will transfer
side initiative was sufficiently to b I , and in view of this the rook
strong and decided to force the could have occupied b l im­
play. The break 24 d6 deserves mediately, without the loss of two
examination, forcing Black to tempi: 41 X eb l ! However, White
give up material: 24 . . . llfxd6 (24 has a clear advantage neverthe­
. . . lltd7 25 a5) 25 .1 b4. less.
24 .ifS 41 K gl h5!
25 llte2 K e8 The correct idea. The appear­
26 ..te4 .1 1'8 ance of a pawn on h4 would
27 llt d3 .1 c5 create threats against White's
28 Jl al lltd7 kingside and at the same time
29 K e l f!tc8 divert his attention from the
30 'll h l K c7 queenside. Significantly weaker
31 Ji abl '1Jg7 would be 41 . . . K b8 42 li aS!
32 K eel ,1xe4 K b2 43 i,cl .,t b6 (43 . . . -.b6 44
33 fe K f7 J£ xc5 llfxc5 45 i,xb2 K xb2 46
34 lltg3 ba "Wtg3!) 44 _txb2 _txa5 45 _ta3
35 .,t xa5 (84) X d2 46 "Wtb3 d3 47 j, c l !, or 4 1
. . . g 5 42 _t e l K b2 43 .,tg3 h 5 44
M gfl .
42 �!l aS
43 K bl
44 K a6
45 K c6
46 K gl
47 K e6
48 _tel
This move is justified by the
wish to maintain the tension on
After the exchange of pawns the board and also to gain time.
White's advantage grows, on ac­ 48 jl xe5 .,td6 (48 . . . K fl 49
count of his connected passed c­ .l;l e6) 49 K h5 + ! (49 K e6? X 7f3!
and d-pawns. 50 gf X h2 mate) 49 . . . gh 50 e5 +
35 .k f4 *g8 5 1 ed llfxd6 52 'iir xd4 merits
/08 The English Opening

consideration, though after 52 . . . J.. xb4 J� xg l + 52 *xgl "Wtxb4;

*f6 Black would most likely 5 1 *e2 .txd2 52 't1'xd2 X xgl +
obtain a draw. 53 *xgl K fl + 54 *h2 *a3 55
48 xn K c7 + *g8 56 *g5 *g3 + 57
49 _1d2 i.c5 't1'xg3 hg + 58 *xg3 d3, and
On repetition of the position by Black is on top) 5 1 . . . .tel ! with
49 . . . K f2 the afore-mentioned an initiative for Black. However,
variation involving the capture on precise in this case would be the
e5 would be possible. strong move 5 1 K a6!, maintain­
50 K c6 (85) ing pressure on the opponent's
A drawn result here is most position.
probable, but I was not yet ready 51 gf .!;l xf3
to enter into peaceful negotia­ It seems as though now Black is
tions, just simply checking on my launching into a decisive opera­
opponents intentions. Now Kas­ tion, but . . .
parov fails to endure the tension 52 .M c7 + *h8
of the struggle and embarks on an 53 J.. h6!
erroneous combination. The counter-combination is
based on the theme of deflection
and overloading. The situation on
the board now becomes fully
apparent.
53 K xd3
54 .txt'S K xh3 +
55 *g2 K g3 +
56 *h2 .!;l xgl
57 J.. xc5 d3
Black resigned.
After 58 .te3 White gives up
50 K 7f3?? his bishop for a pawn, and the
Many commentators suggested passed c- and d-pawns are
50 . . . a5 here, giving the flashy unstoppable.
variation: 5 1 & a6? K 7f3 52 gf
l;l xf3 53 't1'c2 K xh3 + 54 *g2
K g3 + 55 *h2 d3, with Black Karpov-Kasparov
winning. However, after the cor­ Brussels 1987
rect 5 1 J.. xa5 K 7f3 52 gf K xf3 53
K c7 + ! *h8 54 K c8! K xd3 55 This game happened to be a
K xf8 + J.. xf8 56 * h2 an ending centenary-my t OOth meeting
is reached in which Black scarcely with Kasparov: three came before
has a defence. the start of the battle for the
The move 50 . . .1 b4 was also Crown, 96 in the three matches
.

recommended and on 5 1 J.. g5 (5 1 (the fourth contest was yet to


come) and this game, No. 100. As
in the majority of our games, this
centenary match turned into a
highly intensive struggle. I
obtained an advantage in the
opening and thereupon had defi­
nite chances of increasing it. Kas­
parov was able to wriggle out and
he himself was the holder of the
initiative in the endgame, which
he let slip. Everything finally con­
cluding peacefully. The game pro­
voked interesting discourse in the
pages of the magazine 64- Chess
Review.
1 d4 -2!f6
2 c4 g6
3 g3 c5
After 3 . . . c6 4 i) f3 d5 a varia­
tion of the Griinfeld defence
arises which was encountered in
our third match (before the text
game) and twice in the fourth
(after this game). However, for
this once, there is no opening de­
bate: Kasparov delays the move
. . . d5, and guides the game into
an English Opening.
4 �f3 cd
5 i) xd4 "ijc7!?
After only five moves, thanks to
this novelty, a non-standard posi­
tion has arisen; in any case, it is
not a theoretical one. The imme­
diate . . . d5 was previously
encountered, which doesn't give
equality.
6 b3 j_ g7
7 j_g2 d5
Black's counterplay is based on
this move. Timid continuations
promise little for Black, for ex­
ample 7 . . . a6 8 0-0 0-0 9 �b2 d6
The English Opening 109
I 0 .:'21c3. In the event of 7 . . .
"ija5 + the exchanges 8 "t�td2!
'11!f xd2 + 9 j_xd2 -2!e4 (9 . . . -2!c6
10 j_c3) 10 Axe4 j_xd4 I I i)c3
are obviously in White's favour.
8 cd
By means of some simple
moves I succeed in casting doubt
on Black's opening scheme. But
here, the manoeuvre 8 -21 bS holds
no danger for him: 8 . . . ii(( a5 + 9
�d2 '11!ti' d8 10 il.. f4 0-0 I I �c7
�h5.
8 i)xd5
The check on aS now would
bring about an unfavourable end­
ing: 8 . . . 'jj a5 + 9 '@;'d2 '@;'xd2 +
1 0 j_xd2 i)xd5 I I j_xd5 il.. xd4
1 2 j_c3 j_ xc3 1 3 -2)xc3.
9 0-0 "iii' d7
Clever, although it appears a
somewhat artificial way of
defending the knight. In the event
of 9 . 0-0 or 9 . . . e6 10 j_a3 is
. .
very strong.
10 j_b2 0-0
1 1 "iii' c l (86)
Nikitin gives the following var­
iations: I I iitd2 g d8 1 2 :!� d l
'jj e8 ( 1 2 . . . � b6 1 3 a4! -2lc6 1 4
i)xc6 'jj xd2 1 5 -2!xd2!) 1 3 .'2) a3
i) b6 14 'jj c2 or I I -2)d2 -21 f4 ( I I
1 10 The English Opening
. . . b5 1 2 e4 �b4 1 3 e5!) 1 2 gf
�xd4 1 3 �xd4 ttxd4 1 4 e3 with
a clear advantage to White. In
fact the desire to move the queen
away from the danger file allows
Black to consolidate his position.
11 lild8
There was heated debate over
the move 1 1 . . . �f4!? In the event
of 1 2 ttxf4 Kasparov gives 1 2 . . .
e5 1 3 tth4 ed 14 X d l �c6 1 5 e3
ttg4! 1 6 ttxg4 �xg4 1 7 f3 �f5 1 8
ed X adS with excellent play for
Black. Seemingly, the other cap­
ture on f4 would be stronger for
White: 1 2 gf .txd4 1 3 �xd4
ttxd4 14 �c3 �c6 1 5 A d 1 (pos­
sibly stronger would be 1 5 �d5!
e6 16 K d l ttg7 1 7 �e3 �d4 1 8
ttd2 g d8 1 9 * h i ) 1 5 . . . ttc5 1 5
X d5 ttb6 1 7 K b5 tta6 1 8 tte3
�e6 19 a4 K ad8 and now 20
�d5, 20 �d5 or �e4 with advan­
tage to White.
12 l. dl �c6
Nikitin firstly recommended 1 2
. . . tte8 1 3 �c3 ( 1 3 �a3 �a6!)
1 3 . . . �xc3 14 �xc3 �c6 1 5
tte3 �d7 1 6 �b5 ( 1 6 x ac l ! is
better) 16 . . . �xc3 1 7 ttxc3
A ac8 with full equality. However,
he subsequently discovered the
variation 1 3 �b5! �xb2 14 ttxb2
ttxb5 1 5 �c3 tte8 16 �xd5 �a6
1 7 tre5! �e6 1 8 �c7 with clear
advantage to White.
13 �xc6
It is insufficient to follow a
purely technical path in the cur­
rent situation and therefore it
would follow to choose the sharp
1 3 � b5! As Nikitin has written,
Kasparov was counting on unra-
veiling his position with the help
of the tactic 1 3 . . . � f4 1 4 .X xd7
� xe2 + 1 5 *fl �xc l 16 X xd8 +
�xd8 1 7 �xg7 •xg7 1 8 � l c3
�d3. However he hadn't noticed
that after 1 9 .1 d 1 .t f5 20 g4!
�b2! 2 1 K d2 �d3 + 22 * e l a6
23 �a3 K c8 24 X xb2 K xc3 25
*d2 he is losing.
A method was suggested after
the game by Jan Timman in which
Black could hold his position - 1 3
. . . �xb2 1 4 ttxb2 ttf5! 1 5 � lc3
( 1 5 e4 ttf6 16 e5 �xe5 1 7 �c3
�e6 with equality) �xc3 16 ttxc3
ttxb5 17 �xc6! X xd l + 1 8 K xd l
'i/ltb6! 19 �d7 ttd8 20 ttd4 ttc7
21 .txc8 x xc8 22 ttxa7 ttc2.
In any case, after the exchange
on c6 White lets slip his lion's
share of the advantage.
13 ttxc6
14 ttxc6
White isn't able to utilize the
weakness of the c6 pawn, and
therefore it would be better to
carry on with the development of
a piece- 1 4 �c3, in the ending-
14 . . . .txc3 1 5 '(ltxc3 ttxc3 1 6
,.ixc3 _te6 1 7 �el White retains
a slight advantage.
14 be
15 .txg7 * xg7(87)
16 K cl
Dreev and Ehevich advise 1 6
�c3! �g4 1 7 �xd5 cd 1 8 K xd5
K xd5 19 .txd5 X d8 20 �c4 K d2
21 f3 .te6, and not here 22 ,.ixe6
fe with equality, as given by Niki­
tin, but 22 .ta6! (22 .i b5 X d5! 23
.;ld3 K a5 and .txb3) 22 . . . K d5
23 b4! with winning chances.
However, Kasparov provides a
 The English Opening 1 1 1

32 .lb5!
White returns the pawn while
activating his rook.
32 X xb3
33 K c4 + *d5
34 X c7 a xhJ
35 X a7 .d4
36 w dl K h2
37 f3 h5
38 a xa5 hg
variation that is safe for Black: 1 6 39 fg A g2
. . . J.. a6! 1 7 �xd5 cd 1 8 K xd5 40 .tc6 l. xg4
&� xd5 19 J,.xd5 .M c8 20 *fl e5 2 1 41 K b5 *c4
* e l f5 2 2 e 3 e4! In any event 1 6 42 K b7(88)
-2:lc3 i s more accurate, i n as far as
Black now seizes the initiative. 88
16 .lg4 B
17 * " a5!
18 h3
It would be dangerous to take
the c6 pawn: 1 8 x xc6 �b4 1 9
K c l X ac8 20 �c3 K d2.
18 J.. e6
19 �cJ � xcJ
20 K xc3 K dl
21 K xc6 I. adS A critical pos1t1on. After the
The rook penetrates to the transfer of the rook to g I the
seventh rank, and now despite his game will quickly conclude in a
extra pawn White must look for draw. Kasparov, having analysed
equality. The opening and even this position deeply, establishes
the middlegame are over, so I will that 42 . . . *c5 43 J.. e8 X b4 or
omit a detailed discussion of the 42 . . . f6 give Black chances for
remaining part of the game. victory. Of course, these conti­
22 K eel K b2 nuations are stronger than the
23 K cbl X ddl move in the game, but I think
24 .K xb2 1;l xb2 that, all the same, they would not
25 *el J.. f5 have influenced the result.
26 *d1 g5 42 A gl
27 J.. d5 fpf6 43 .le8! l, al
28 .lc4 e6 44 .t xf7 J.. xf7
29 g4 .lg6 45 Jl xf7 X xa4
30 a4 *e5 46 K g7 x a5
31 K cl *d4 47 e3! l, a2 +
112 The English Opening

48 f;el eS tinued for all of ten moves: 16 . . •

49 .1. xgS e4 bS 17 cb 'lili'b6 18 de de 19 ba K d8

so ll g8 .d3 20 fS! II xa6 21 �c4 eS 22 J.. gS
51 Ii b8 M el + .i f8 23 J.. e7 X e8 24 f6 itxbl 25
52 *" � cl x el liJ'b6 26 liJ'cl *h8 27 ith6
53 .el Black resigned. On 27 . . . .1. g8
Drawn. there follows the standard combi­
nation: J;l e4, 'i!ltxh7 + and .l. h4
mate.
Karpov-Timman 10 itb3 0-0
Brussels 1986 1 1 A h3 j_xf3
12 illt xf3 fS
1 -Bf3 -Bf6 13 e4 f4
2 c4 b6 1 3 . . . it f6 is more solid, main­
3 g3 cS taining the tension in the centre.
4 JL_gl _ab7 14 itdl d6
s 0-0 g6 IS _adl aS
6 d4 �g7 On 1 5 . . . �d7 I had prepared
7 .f) c3 .f) e4 1 6 *a4 � f6 1 7 f3, and it's not
A rare move; the exchange on obvious how Black could develop
d4 is discussed above in detail. any activity on the kingside.
8 <2) xe4 j_ xe4 16 * a4 j_h6
9 dS e5(89) 17 K acl
Possibly more accurate would
be 1 7 l!i: ad l *g7 1 8 j_ e l with the
transfer of the rook: .1. d l -d3-b3.
17 . . . J.. gS
The threat 1 8 . . . fg 1 9 j_ xg5
gh + is easily parried.
18 K cl * h8
19 a3
The immediate 19 J.. e l deserves
attention.
19 x a7
A new move. In the game 20 j_el ite8
Korchnoi-Panno (Lucerne 1985) 20 . . . X af7 doesn't ease the
after the natural 9 . 0-0 and the
. . situation: 2 1 J.. e6 .l. f6 22 K c3.
subsequent 10 J.. h3 .i_xf3 1 1 ef e6 21 itxe8
12 .!i el! (instead of the formerly Although the victory is still far
tested 1 2 K b l ) 12 . . . .,1d4 13 away, White's advantage in the
j_h6 i;i e8 14 'i!li"a4 a6 IS f4 x a7 endgame is unquestionable: the
16 .!;i adl Black had no counter­ advantage of the bishop pair is
play whatever. The game con- bound to tell eventually.
 The English Opening 113

21 l, xe8 White finally prepares for the

22 J.d2 �·6 advance of his b-pawn.
23 l. bl l. fll 41 J.gS
24 & cJ tll g7 42 .ic3(91)
25 J.g4 l. af7
26 X b3 l. b8
27 .idl bS
28 h4 J. b6
29 g4 bg
30 J.xg4 tll f6
31 *" K fb7
32 tll e l (90)

The march of the knight's pawn

is prepared, although strangely it
is not moved before the end of the
game (which continues for
another 60 moves!). Having
thought a little, I decided after all
to refrain from the further simpli­
fications: 42 b4 ab 43 ab x as (43
. .f3 + 44 tll d 3 .,txd2 45 tll xd2
.

The king must make his way K a8 46 K xa8 �xa8 47 b5! etc.)
carefully: on 32 tll e2 the bishop is 44 K xa8 �xa8 45 be f3 + (both
prevented from retreating to e2, 45 . . be 46 J.xa5, and 45 . . . de
.

when possible is 32 . . . a4 33 X h3 46 d6 are losing) 46 *d3 .lxd2 42

b5! 34 cb X xb5 35 .,tc3 c4 and tll xd2 be on which it would not be
�c5 with counterplay for Black. possible to win the ending.
32 J.fll 42 tll e7
33 X bJ X b7 43 .ifS J.f6
34 *e2 J.e7 44 K dl X a8
35 bS gh 45 'iff dJ K h8
36 a xbS 1. xbS 46 .l e i K a8
37 J. xbS .l g8 47 i.d2 K h8
38 J.fJ 48 K cl l!l a8
Not bad either is 38 K a l ! with 49 K c3 K h8
a subsequent b2-b4. SO K b3 �a8
38 K h8 Sl *e2 J.gS
39 .,tg4 �c7 52 .iel i!l. hl
40 .i d7 ., f7 53 .i c8! .i b4
41 K al S4 .id2 K h2
114 The English Opening

55 J.. e1 72 X f7 X g7
56 J.. b7 73 .K f3 X g3
57 ..ic6 74 X f5 .K gS
58 ..id2 75 .K f8 K g8
58 .1 xb6? would be a mis­ 76 X f7 X g7
take-58 . . . n + 59 *d2 J.. g5 + 77 K xg7
60 * d l J.. e 3! Black, by displaying persist­
58 X h2 ence, achieves his aim. Now the
59 J.. e l material balance is sharply
Now is the time for the pawn changed, and the battle flares up
capture, which would lead to a with renewed vigour.
simple win: 59 K xb6 � xf2 + 60 77 fl ( * )
*d3 x n + 61 *c2 x h3 62 78 x xc7 tl'xc4?
J.. x a5 n 63 X b7! f2 64 X xc7, and Regrettably for Black, he fails
it is all over. The desire to win to deploy his new queen correctly.
with everything in hand cost me After 78 . . . 'i!te2 + he would
another 45 moves! obtain drawing chances, for ex­
59 K h1 ample: 79 * b3 a4 + 80 J.. xa4 (if
60 J.. a4 *c8 80 *xa4, then not 80 . . . 'i!txc4 + ?
61 J.. c3 l;l h2 8 1 b4 ..-xc3? 82 b5 + *b6 83
62 K xb6 i;l. xfl + II b7 mate, but 80 . . . 'i!tc2 + 8 1
63 *d3 X f3 + b3 1\txc3) 80 . . . tl'd l + 8 1 •a2
64 *c2 K g3! ..-xa4 82 1. c6 + *b7 82 b3 1\ta8
65 X xd6 f3 with counterplay; 79 * b 1 ._ n +
The f-pawn, Black's only hope, (79 . . . 1\j'xe4 + 80 * a 1 ) 80 *a2
will soon become a queen. How­ tl'xc4 + 8 1 •a1 tl'fl + with a
ever, his blockade is destroyed, draw.
and this, perhaps, is more import­ 79 a4!
ant. The Black king is in a net, so
66 l. h6 fl the number of pawns on the
67 l. h8 + .b7 board is of no consequence.
68 ..ic6 + ••6 79 1\j'xe4 +
69 JU'8 X g8! 80 *b3 J.. e l
Putting up stubborn resistance. 81 d6!
In the event of 69 . . . X g I 70 White reminds his opponent
J.. xe5 fl ('i!t) 7 1 ll xfl X xfl 72 that he too has a passed pawn.
J.. xc7 the win is quite simple. 81 iir h4
Now, as the problemists say, 82 ..ibS + *b6
Black begins a perpetual attack 83 K c6 + *b7
on the White rook, and succeeds 84 d7 J.. xc3
in diverting it from the f-file. 85 be c4 +
70 X f3 K g3 86 x xc4 t�te1 (92)
71 JUS Ji gS Threatening perpetual check on
 The English Opening 1 15

99 *c5 -«re3 +
92
w 100 'll c6 -«rxc3 +
101 'll b6 'ite3 +
102 • •6 -«re6 +
103 �d6 +
The White king isn't only
escaping from the pursing queen,
but is also playing an active part
in the netting of the enemy mon­
arch.
103
the squares a I and b I . If the rook 104 J!ld8 +
moves, for example, to c8, the Forcing matters with 1 04
white king would have no way of X b7 + 'liaS 105 �c6 could cause
escape. It seems that Black has all of White's painstaking work to
achieved his goal, but all is de­ be for naught: 105 . . . i!tc8! with
cided quite unusually, as in a the idea of stalemate. Neverthe­
study. less, the win is achieved here also:
87 d8( -E:\) + !! 106 �e4 -«rc6 + 107 K b6 -«rxe4
The following is forced. 108 X b8 + !, or 106 . . . -«rc4 +
87 ••, 107 ». b5 + -«rxe4 108 X b8 + !
88 K c7 + 'll b8 104 '1Jc7
89 K d7 tit bl + 105 X c8 +
90 'll c4 tlt fi + Black resigned.
91 .ciS tlt f3 + A rare duration for a game­
92 'll d6 iitf8 + more than 1 00 moves. More sur­
93 'll e6 tlt h6 + prising is the fact that this was
94 '1J xe5 tlte3 + exceeded in the very same tourna­
95 '1Jd6 tlt f4 + ment: the game Romanishin­
96 'lieS iit e3 + Torre continued in all for almost
97 '1Jc4 '1Jc8 1 2 hours and concluded in a draw
98 � t7 -«re4+ after 1 2 1 moves.
5 The Catalan Opening
Bareev-Lalic
Sochi 1987
Judging by the recent World
Championship matches, the Cata­
lan Opening is none too popular
at present: two quick draws in the
first match, and one in the return
match. Nevertheless, Catalan
theory has made significant ad­
vances in recent years, and some
important aspects of its modern
application will be reflected in the
given notes.
1 d4 i)f6
2 c4 e6
3 �0 d5
4 g3 de
5 J,gl J,e7
6 0-0 0-0
The capture on c4 is Black's
usual reaction. His opponent
must spend time in recouping the
pawn, while Black makes use of
this by conveniently developing
his pieces. The attempt to main­
tain the tension in the centre by
foregoing the exchange on c4
more often than not leads to big­
ger problems. Here is a recent
example from one of my own
games.
Karpov-Sokolov (Brussels
1 988): I c4 i)f6 2 i)c3 e6 3 i) f3
d 5 4 d4 J,e7 5 g3 0-0 6 J,g2 � bd7
7 ._d3 c5 8 cd �xd5 9 0-0 � b4 10
*bl �f6 I I de �xeS 1 2 �g5
<E)bd5 1 3 � xd5 ed 14 •c2 �b6
1 5 K ad l h6 1 6 �f4 K e8 1 7 �e5
J,g4 1 8 J,d4 l. c8 19 '11' d 3 J,xf3
20 J,xf3 J, xd4 2 1 -.. xd4. White
has a classical advantage based on
his opponent's isolated d-pawn.
7 '11' cl
The crooked move 7 �a3 has
many adherents, after which
White doesn't attempt to recoup
the pawn: 7 . . . J, xa3 8 ba (93).
Black has a choice between 8
. . . J,d7, 8 . . . �c6 and 8 . . . b5.
(a) 8 . . . J,d7 9 �e5 J, c6 10
�xc6 i)xc6 1 1 J,b2 �d5 1 2 l,cl
(on 1 2 X b 1 possible are 1 2 . . . b5,
12 . . . �b6 and even 1 2 . . . f5) 1 2
. . . �b6 1 3 e3. Sharper is 1 3 e4
�e7 14 'l'tc2 '11' d 7 1 5 J, a 1 X ad8?
( 1 5 . . . f5 is better) 1 6 'jjc 3 f6 1 7
X cd 1 brought White a small ad­
vantage in the game Illescas­
Kosashvi1i (Ho1on 1 987).
1 3 . . . '11' d6 14 '11' c2. This looks
more logical than 1 4 'jj g4 f6 1 5
I;� c2 �a4! 1 6 -.. h s f5 1 7 -.. n
�e7! 1 8 -.. e2 b5! 19 �xa8 K xa8,
and Black has the makings of an
excellent game (Romanishin­
Razuvayev, USSR Championship
1983).

14 . . . JJ� ab8 1 5 K fd l !!i:Je7 1 6
K b l f5 1 7 J.. c3 K fl 1 8 J.. b4 'i!!t' d 7
19 J.. fl !!i:Jed5 20 J.. c5 K a8 21
K dc l �f6 22 a4! Black's fortifi­
cations on the queenside crumble
away (Donchenko-Gavrilov,
Moscow 1987).
(b) 8 . . . !!i:Jc6 9 ,i b2 !!i:Jd5. A
novelty. After 9 . . . K b8 10 'i!!f' c2
b5 I I g ad I White has a strong
initiative for the sacrificed pawn
(Glek-Klovans, Tashkent 1 987).
10 ltc2 � b6 I I K ad l J.. d7 1 2
e4 l!Qe7 1 3 g d2 f6 14 K e l -wte8.
Of course, the two bishops and
the mighty pawn centre give
White a highly attractive position,
though he is also obliged to find
here someone who is willing to
play as Black. There is, after all, a
stubborn blockade and an extra
pawn. 1 5 €)h4 �g6! 16 lfi:Jxg6
-.xg6 1 7 f4 with mutual chances
(Krasenkov-Nikolenko, Moscow
1 987).
(c) 8 . . . b5 9 a4! a6 10 J.. a3
K e8 I I !!i:Je5 !!i:Jd5 1 2 e4 !!i:Jf6. In
the game Kuzmin-Anand
(Frunze 1 987) White played here
the quite interesting: 1 3 lfi:Jxfl!?
•xf7 14 e5 !!i:Jd5 1 5 'fth5 + *g8
16 j_e4 g6 1 7 J.. xg6 K e7 1 8 j_xe7
ltxe7 1 9 J.. e4 �c6 20 f4 ltfl, and
here the unfortunate exchange of
queens gave the initiative to
Black. However, after the correct
2 1 j_xh7 + *g7 22 -wth4 *'te7 23
i!th3 White retains the advantage.
I don't think that the thrust 7
!!i:Je5 is dangerous for Black. In a
recent game Gelfand-Huzman
(Norilsk 1 987) after 7 . . . !!i:Jc6!? 8
j_xc6 be 9 !!i:Jxc6 'l!l!re8 I 0 !!i:Jxe7 +
The Catalan Opening 1 1 7
-.xe7 I I -.a4 c 5 ( I I . . . e 5 1 2 de
'l!l!rxe5 1 3 -wtxc4 J.. e6 1 4 'l!l!rd3
� ad8 1 5 'l!l!re3 'l!l!rh5 1 6 f3 .!He8 1 7
"iil't g5 il!i'h3 1 8 '*'c5! with clear ad­
vantage to White; Gelfand­
Timoshchenko, Sverdlovsk 1987)
1 2 'litrxc4 cd 1 3 "if(xd4 e5 14 '*'h4
� b8 1 5 b3 K d8 16 .1g5 K d4 1 7
.1xf6 'litrxf6 1 8 'litrxf6 gf 1 9 � e l
White obtained the advantage.
However, Grandmaster Kholmov
suggests that after 1 7 . . . gf 1 8
*h6 g b6 1 9 !!i:Jc3 f5 the position
is not so clear.
7 a6
8 -wtxc4
Black's counterplay consists of
the standard . . . b5, so therefore
White sometimes plays 8 a4
before recapturing the pawn. This
move was encountered in Kas­
parov-Karpov, m(22) 1984/5. It
doesn't go on for very long. 8 • • .
J.. d7 9 -wt xc4 J.. c6 10 J.. g5 aS 1 1
� c3 !!i:J a6 1 2 K acl -wtd6 13 �e5
J.. xg2 14 • xgl c6 ( 1 4 . . . i�tb4 is
worthy of consideration) 15 J.. xf6
gf 16 �13 K fd8 17 K fd1 (here
after 1 7 e4 iii' b4 1 8 'lllt e2 White
maintains the initiative, but of
course this game occurred in our
peaceful period) 17 . . . 'iiit b4 18
-wta2 A d7 19 e3 K ad8 20 A c2
Draw agreed.
In the deciding eighth game of
the Candidates match Korchnoi­
Hjartarsson (St John 1988) White
played 10 J.. f4 (instead of 10
.1g5). Subsequently Korchnoi
manoeuvred unsuccessfully and
after 10 . . . a5 I I !!i:Jc3 �a6 1 2
.M ae l !!i:J b4 1 3 e4 !!i:Jd7 14 K a l
j_d6 1 5 .,le3 !!i:Jc2 1 6 J.. g5 ti:J b6
1 18 The Catalan Opening
1 7 l!ll' d3 �b4 1 8 ..-e2 'illt e8 1 9 b3
f5 20 J:� ac l h6 21 J.. e3 *h5
White's position began to crum­
ble.
Instead of 8 . . . J.. d 7, 8
• • • �c6
doesn't look bad. Here is what
developed in the game Dlugy­
Speelman (London 1986): 9 l!ll' xc4
'tllr d5 10 "ii!t dJ Iii dB 1 1 �cJ 'l\li'h5 12
'1\l(( c4 J.. d7 (an innovation; 12 . . .
-2)d5 was played previously) 13
J.. g5 J.. e8 14 eJ 1:1 ac8 15 J.. xf6
J.. xf6 16 �e4 J.. e7 17 J:� fcl a5 18
hJ b6 19 -2!c5 _t xc5 20 'l\li'xc5
� xc5 21 K xc5 b6 22 K c4 �b4 23
bJ *f8 24 1:1 acl -2Ja2 25 1:1 1c2
Draw agreed.
In addition, 8 a4 is sometimes
replaced by another unusual
move, 8 � bd2. Now possible is
8 . . . b5 9 -2!g5 with a further 9 . . .
c6 or 9 . . . .1 a7, and, as practice
shows, Black's position is reason­
ably sound.
8 b5
9 'tl!tc2 J.b7
10 J,d2(94)
94
B
This move was also played in
my first Catalan with Kasparov
(Kasparov-Karpov, m(8) 1 984/
5). In the return match my oppo­
nent continued 10 J.. g5 (the move
10 �f4 is perhaps less dangerous
for Black). Before we look at the
text of this short game I will men­
tion an important psychological
mistake, which I made before its
start. The fact is that the game
was played at the culminating mo­
ment of the match: having just
scored three wins in succession, I
had succeeded in levelling the
score, Kasparov was certainly in a
state of shock and it would follow
for me to endeavour, to press for­
ward and continue the winning
sequence. Instead of this I did
quite the opposite and took a
time-out, with the break allowing
my antagonist to compose himself
and to prepare his forces for the
impending finish.
Kasparov-Karpov, m(20) 1986:
10 J.. g5 �bd7. This move isn't
bad when fighting for a draw, but
it can be counted as a marked
psychological error. It would pos­
sibly be better to choose the
sharper 10 . . . �c6. 1 1 J.. xf6.
Deflecting one of the pieces from
the control of c5, at the same time
impeding the thematic advance
. . . c5. On I I -21 bd2 Kasparov
recommends I I . c5 1 2 J.. xf6 gf,
. .
not being afraid of the loosening:
1 3 �e5 fe 14 J.. xb7 .1 b8 1 5 J.. e4
f5 1 6 J.. g2 cd. But in the game
Rogers--Geller (Vrsac 1987) Black
obtained good play, avoiding
doubled pawns: I I . . . .1 c8 1 2
J.. xf6 �xf6 1 3 �b3 c5! 14 de a5!
(stronger than 14 . . . J.. d 5, which
leads to the text game) 1 5 .1 fd I
'lftc7 1 6 l!ll' d 3 (Geller recommends
1 6 c6 J.. xc6 1 7 o2lfd4 j_ xg2 1 8
'fltxc7 K xc7 1 9 •xg2 a4 20 .a b5

K c2 2 1 � 3d4 X xb2 22 X db l
with equality) 1 6 . . . a4 1 7 �bd4
�xc5, and Black gains the initia­
tive. 11 . . . � xf6 ll �bell X c8 13
�b3. In this position 13 . . . �e4
is frequently encountered. I also
played it in a game with Anders­
son (Moscow 19S I ): 14 ttc3 �d5
15 ttc l c5 16 �xc5 ttb6 17 ttd2
�xc5 IS de K xc5 19 K fc l K fcS
with a quick draw. In the game
Larsen-Tal, Danier 1 9S5, White
was able to improve: 1 5 ttd2 c5
16 �xc5 �xc5 1 7 de X xc5 I S
x ac l K xc l 1 9 x xc l �f6 20
ttxdS K xdS 2 1 o2le5 �xg2 22
•xg2 with better prospects for
White. Therefore an improvement
for Black must be found. 13 . . .
c5! It turns out that this thematic
advance can be carried out at
once. 14 de �d5 1 5 X fd l �xb3
16 ttxb3 ttc7 1 7 a4 ttxc5 I S ab
ab 19 �d4 b4 20 e3 X fdS 2 1 X d2
ttb6 Draw agreed.
It must be pointed out that the
more energetic continuation 1 5
�e I (instead of 1 5 JHd I ) was
demonstrated by White in the
game Kuzman-Timoshchenko-
1 5 . . . �xb3 1 6 ttxb3 �xc5 1 7
�d3 *b6 I S a4 �d6 19 ab ab 20
*a2 1, bS 2 1 X fc l K fcS 22 l, xcS
Jl xcS 23 ..-a6 ..-xa6 24 x xa6,
with a significant advantage for
White.
10 �e4
He would stand to gain if he
could conveniently drive the
queen away. 10 . . . f)c6 would
hardly be a success, for example:
I I e3 �b4 1 2 �xb4 �xb4 1 3 a3
( 1 3 l2! bd2 c5) 1 3 . . . �d6 14
The Catalan Opening 119
�bd2 ..-e7 1 5 e4 e5 1 6 �h4 g6 1 7
f4 with a dangerous initiative for
White.
1 1 ... cl �b7
A somewhat unexpected re­
treat. I initially used it against
Kasparov in our very first Cata­
lan. This manoeuvre is fully ac­
ceptable from a theoretical stand­
point. Black is prepared to repeat
moves, seeing as White must
prove his superiority. But on the
other hand, if Black wishes to try
for more and doesn't want a quick
draw, then it would follow to con­
tinue with I I . . . K a7 or I I . . .
�bd7.
The move I I . . . K a7!? was
first used in practice by my trainer
Igor Zaitzev: 1 2 .�i d l �bd7 1 3
�a5 -.as 14 �c3 � b7 1 5 a4 ( 1 5
�xc7 li eS and 1 6 . . . b4) 1 5 . . .
b4 16 o2l a2 c5 1 7 b3 ( 1 7 de � xc5
I S �xb4 �b3 19 -.e3 �xal 20
�xe7 �d5!) 1 7 . . . x es ( 1 7 . . .
�d5 is also good) I S -. b2 cd 19
ttxd4 Jl c2! 20 '*i'd3 �e4 2 1 �d4
X xa2 22 �xe4 � xe4 23 X xa2
�e5 24 *e3 �g4 with advantage
to Black (Azmaiparashvili-Zait­
zev, Moscow 19S6).
And here are a few examples in
which the knight move is played.
Alburt-Morovic (New York
1987): 1 1 . . . �bel7 12 �aS Jl c8
1 3 a4. Quite harmless for Black
would be 13 �bell �a8 14 II e1
'tl!'t'e8 1S b4 o2le4 16 o2lxe4 �xe4 17
'Wt'f4 f5 18 J;i. acl �d6 19 -E)eS
�xgl 10 * xgl o2lf6 11 '*i'f3 -2ldS
11 a3 Draw agreed (Polu­
gayevsky-Geller, Moscow 1 9S5).
13 . . . ba (seemingly more ac-
120 The Catalan Opening
curate than 1 3 . . . b4 or l 3 . . .
�d6, as played earlier) 14 .:Elc3
�aS IS � xa4 �e8 16 b4 .:El b6 1 7
.:E)cS �bS 1 8 X e l .:Elc4 1 9 e4
�xeS, and chances are even.
Suba-Morovic (Dubai 1 986).
1 3 .:E�bd2 �aS 14 ii d l �e8 (in
Suba's opinion, 14 . . . �d6 is
better, I S b4 �e7 1 6 �b2 eS 1 7 e3
with unclear play) I S b4 �d6 1 6
�c2 eS 1 7 �xeS �xg2 1 8 *xg2
( 1 8 .:E�xd7? �xd7 19 \tl xg2 � xe2)
1 8 . . . <21xeS 19 de �xeS with a
complicated struggle.
12 �f4
In the stem game Kasparov­
Karpov m(8) 1984/5 White moved
his bishop to a different square-
12 � e3 -and after 12 . . •�d5 13
.:Elc3 � bd7 14 X fd1 Jl c8 15
� xd5 � xd5 16 �el c6 17 .:E)d3
�b6 18 'Wtc3 b4 19 'Wtd2 a5 20
X del a draw was agreed.
The game Suba-Morovic (Tunis
1985) is interesting, where White
played the new move 12 Il d1 .
After 12 . . • � c8 1 3 �a5 c5 1 4 de
'1llt xc5 15 �bd2 .:Elbd7 16 �b3
'ftxd 17 li axd X fc8 18 �c7
�dS 19 .:Elfd4 �xg2 20 *xg2
�dS. From this apparently equal
position there followed 2 1 e4!
�xc7 (2 1 . . . X xc7 22 ed x xc l
23 � xc 1 ed 24 g c7) 2 2 .:Elc6 �gS
23 f4 � b8 24 fg �xc6 2S li xc6,
and White obtained a big advan­
tage.
Black's 1 8th move is inaccur­
ate. 18 . *tll is preferable, as
. .
was played in the game Chemht­
Gurevich (Vilnius 1985). After 19
�eS �xg2 20 � xd7 + � xd7 21
• xg2 (2 1 l;l xd7 �dS!) 21 . . .
tlie8 22 -E) a5 <21 c5 25 � d6 � xd6
26 j, xd6 �a4! 27 .K xc8 + x xc8
28 b3 �c3 29 *f3 .:Elxa2 30 X xa6
g c3 + 31 *g2 Draw agreed.
Instead of 1 3 . . . cS, 1 3 . . . -2:)c6
could be tried, but 1 3 . . . �d6! is
possibly even stronger. This
novelty was used in the game
Pigusov-Aseev (Sebastopol
1 986). After 14 �bd2 �c6 1 S
�b3 -E)xaS 1 6 �xaS �dS 1 7 �c6
aS 1 8 �feS ». a6 19 �xdS ed 20
-wtc2 �h3 21 i�r b3 (2 1 ii, ac l ?
loses, 2 1 . . . li xc6 22 .-xc6 �xeS
23 de <2!g4) 21 . . . a4 22 .-n �e4
there arises a sharp position in
which Black's chances are no
worse.
The move 1 2 �f4-White is
prepared to part with this bis­
hop-was first used in the game
Vaganian-Andersson (Leningrad
1 987), which subsequently went
1 2 . . . �dS 1 3 <2!c3 �xf4 14 �xf4
cS I S de �xeS 1 6 .K fd l �b6 1 7
<2!eS X a7 1 8 x ac l �xg2 1 9
*xg2 �d6 20 e3 (20 .:Ele4? �c7!).
Here in the event of 20 . . . J.. c7 2 1
�e4 fS 2 2 �d4 �xd4 2 3 ed X d8
24 �e2 �xeS 2S de X xd l 26
.K xd l White, in Vaganian's opi­
nion, maintains only a minimal
advantage. Andersson now re­
plied 20 . . . h6? (20 . . . f6 2 1 .:Elc4!)
and 21 .:Ele4 �c7 22 <21cS �d6 23
'iii' d4 led to a big advantage for his
opponent. 23 . . . �xeS 24 tl'xeS
X eS 2S X d6 'fllt c7 26 .:E�b3'tltb7 +
27 *gl x es 28 '*'d4 .K xc l + 29
-2:)xc l <2:ld7 30 <2!d3 'tlfc7 3 1 h4 aS
32 a3 X b7 33 X a6, and White
won.
Seeing as the result was only
 The Catalan Opening 121

achieved on account of Black's

95
inaccurate 20th move, Vaganian w
proposed for White the stronger
continuation 1 8 J.. x b7! This was
tested in the game Polugayevsky­
Andersson (Heninge 1988), which
continued thus: 1 8 . . . X xb7 19
�e4 ..te7 20 K ac l f6 2 1 �d3
�d7 22 "Wt' O *h8 23 b4 K c7 24
,!! xc7 "Wtxc7 2S K c l -wtb8 26
�ecS �xeS 27 be! White has a 16 J.. eS -wtb6
dangerous passed pawn, with 17 -wtf4 �e4(96)
good winning chances; although
he subsequently played inaccura­
tely and the game concluded in a
draw.
In the game Kaidanov-Rosen­
talis (Lvov 1987) Black played the
different 14 . . . �d7 (instead of 1 4
. . . cS), but h e wasn't able to
equalize: l S K fd l J.. d6 16 -wte3
-wte7 17 �e4 J.. d S 18 x ac l �b6
19 b3 aS 20 -wtd3 b4 2 1 �egS fS 22
e4 fe 23 �xe4 x ad8 24 K e l . By transferring the queen to an
Black's position is extremely un­ active position, Black obtains fine
pleasant. chances. Now White must take
After so many diversions, we care that his position doesn't
will conclude, finally, the discus­ deteriorate, as 1 8 -2\e 1 loses to 1 8
sion of the initial game. The fact is . . . J.. xeS 19 de fS.
that in it Black (despite in a sense, 18 ..t xd6 cd
the omission of recent examples!) 19 �el �ef6
succeeds in showing that his posi­ 19 fS may be a way of
tion is fully viable. A novelty was striving for the initiative.
used even earlier: instead of 1 2 . . . 20 e4 eS
�dS there followed . . . 21 -wte3 J.. b7
12 J.. d6!(95) The exchange on b3 would be
As the knight on f6 controls the the simplest way of all to achieve
centre, there is no point in losing a equality.
tempo in order to exchange it for 22 Jl d3 x ac8
the bishop on f4. It would follow to put this rook
13 -E)bd2 �bd7 on the edge of the board, in order
14 �b3 J.. dS to support the advance of the a­
15 lid1 "Wtb8! pawn. Correct is 22 . . . X fc8 23
122 The Catalan Opening

d5 a5. Now White succeeds in After 3 1 . . . �c5 32 .l e i , with

capitalizing on his opponent's a subsequent �d3, Black would
weakened queenside and creates be in a bind. His counterplay on
decisive pressure. the kingside comes to nothing:
23 d5 �c5 Black will lose his a6 pawn and
24 �xc5 ff xc5 with it the game. This is why his
25 fJ K c7 rook would have been useful on
25 . . . a5 is more solid. a8.
26 ii&'xc5 K xc5 32 ef .M xf5
27 K b3 ..lc8 33 � xa6 .t xa6
28 �dJ X c4 34 x xa6 a xo
29 .ifl! �d7 35 .txb5 �f6
30 �b4 �;i c7 36 X c6 K b7
31 K a3 f5 (97) 37 a4 .K b3
38 K xd6 X xb2
39 J;l e6 e4
40 a n X c7
41 .M c6 X b7
Black resigned.
6 Reti' s Opening

Kasparov-Karpov 10 �e2
Game 24, World 10 cd, 10 'lite2 and 10 'fll c2 are
Championship 4 also encountered here. The knight
Seville 1987 move is good only in that it tem­
porarily prevents simplifications.
Before the concluding game of 10 a.5
the contest in Seville, Kasparov 1 1 d3 i,f6
turned out to be in almost the 12 11rc2 i,xb2
same situation as I was before the 13 'itxb2 �d6
23rd. Just one win would be 14 cd A xd5
enough for him, and he was able 15 d4 c5
to achieve it. It must be acknow­ 16 � Hd 1 g c8
ledged that, as regards creative 17 �f4 J.. xf3
considerations, these two contests 18 i,xf3 11r e7
are not comparable. In the 24th, 19 1l acl K fd8
to my mind, both played rather 20 de -2Jxc5
weakly, although of course the 21 b4 ab
quality was determined by the 22 llt xb4 j!(a7
match situation. We had no speci­ 23 a3 �f5
fic ideas, mistakes were made, and It would be easier to level the
finally time-trouble was my undo­ position after 23 . . . �e8.
ing-after the tense play of the 24 K b1 .l;l xd1 +
23rd game I could in no way 25 K xd1 'fltc7
concentrate. In spite of the unfor­ 26 -dd3 h6
tunate collection of circumstances By advancing the neighbouring
in this game, if I had made the g-pawn one square, Black would
correct 33rd move I may yet have be able to construct a more solid
regained the chess Crown. But, defence.
alas, fortune was yet again to 27 � cl �e7
smile on my opponent. The immediate 27 . . . �d6
1 c4 e6 would be more precise. The
2 <E)f3 �f6 knight will occupy this square
3 g3 dS with the loss of two tempi.
4 b3 J.. e7 28 lltb5 -2!f5
5 J.. g2 0-0 29 a4 �d6
6 0-0 b6 30 11rbl 'f!ta7 (98)
7 J.. b2 J.. b7 And now more solid is 30 . . .
8 e3 �bd7 'i!td8.
9 �c3 �e4 31 �e5 �xa4?
124 Reti's Opening
A typical slip in time trouble, it
would be better to return the
knight to fS. A sharp game arises
after capturing on a4 with the
queen. Grandmaster Makarichev
contends that in this event Black
obtains a fully satisfactory game
(of course, with time available!).
Here are the main variations pro­
vided by him.
3 1 . . . i*'xa4 32 i*'xb6 \V;a3 33
I;� d l �ce4! Weaker is 33 . . .
�de4 34 �hS! g6 3S �xg6 fg 36
K d8 + 'll g7 37 I;� xc8 iit a l + 38
'll g2 '/!;xeS 39 i*'c7 + \V;xc7 40
I;� xc7 + *f6 41 f3 -2J a6 42 K h7
and 43 � xh6 with winning
chances for White.
34 j_xe4. In response to 34
-2:}xf7, Black can defend with 34
. . . ..-a2! 3S .l. fl K c l ! 36 �xe4
(36 t1tb8 + 'll x f7! 37 �xe4
K xfl + 38 'll xfl 'l!t'a6 + ! and 39
�xe4; 37 �hS + g6 38 x xcl
-.xf2 + 39 'll h l gh 40 I;� c7 +
'll g6 41 t�tg8 + 'll fS 42 'l!t'h7 +
'lieS! or 42 l;l cS + eS!) 36 . . .
I;� xfl + 37 'll xfl �xe4 38 i*'b8 +
(38 -2:}xh6 + ?-38 . . . 'll h 7! 39
�g4 �d2 + !! 40 'll g2 i*'c4! 41
'll h3? ';l;'fl + 42 'll h4 <21f3 + 43
*hS g6 mate!) 38 . . . 'll h 7! 39
*h8 + 'll g6 40 <21eS + *fs 41
�g4 (41 g4 + *xeS 42 *xg7 +
'll d6! 48 i*'d4 + *dS) 4 1 . . .
�gS! (but not 41 . . . 'll!lt a l 42 'll g 2
'll xg4 43 llth7!). Black can be
quite pleased with his position.
34 . . . �xe4 3S i*'b7 �d6 36
K xd6 .M e l + 37 *g2 *xd6 38
i*'Xf7 + *h7 39 *g6 + *g8 40
�f7 'll!ltc7 4 1 �xh6 + * ffi 42
�g4 -.n! and 43 . . . -.fs. The
most likely result in this position
is a draw.
The deciding game of a World
Championship match always at­
tracts great attention. And, of
course, it's not out of the question
that in the future there will
emerge new analyses that will de­
fine the current variations more
precisely.
32 � xc8 + �xc8
33 -.d1?(99)
99
8
After the game it became
apparent that White would have
achieved more by continuing now
with 33 �hS or 33 -.bs, but this
provocative queen manoeuvre is
quite lame. By replying 33 . . .
�cS! from the diagram position, I
would have eliminated all
 Reti's Opening 125

dangers, while remaining a pawn tance, although, objectively

up: 34 il!fd8 + *h7 35 'i!l!fxc8 speaking, White must prevail. I
tf' a l + and 36 . . . "l'!ltxe5. True, then chose the first variation, and
Kasparov gives a variation which my opponent efficiently realized
shows that in this case the game his advantage.
would have to end peacefully: 35 42 *gl g6
flg2! f6! 36 €)c6 "l'!ltd7 37 "l'!ltxd7 43 'Wta5 "l'!ltg7
-?�xd7 38 -EJd8 �c5 39 -EJxe6 44 "l'!ltc5 'Wff7
-EJxe6 40 �g4 etc. 45 b4 h5
If I had even a minute at my 46 "l'!ltc6 'Wfe7
disposal, I would have undoub­ 47 �d3 'Wff7
tedly found the move . . . -?�c5. 48 'Wtd6 .g7
This fatal omission had a vital 49 e4 .g8
influence on the development of 50 ..tc4 *g7
chess history . . .. 51 'Wte5 + *g8
33 -EJe7? Here, perhaps, lies the answer,
34 *b' that in this match, and in the final
35 -EJg6 contest particularly, the analysis
36 'Wte7 of adjourned positions by our
37 'i!{(( xa4 'Wtxf7 team was patently weak. Why did
38 �e4 *g8 I opt for the pawn configuration
39 'Wtb5 -2!fB g6, h5? The fact is, the exchange
40 "lllt xb6 'Wtf6 of queens with this pawn structure
41 "l'!lt b5 'Wfe7( 100) (for example: 5 1 . . . "l'!ltf6 52
'Wfxf6 + *xf6 and . . . e5) we
adjudged to be safe for Black.
/()()
w However, during play, I disco­
vered that it was impossible to
save the ending: 53 f4 e5 54 * f3
€)d7 5 5 *e3 €)c5 5 6 ..td5, and
the White king sets out for the
queenside. In such a way, by plac­
ing my g- and h-pawns on light
squares, I had already resigned
myself to the unfortunate out­
The game was adjourned in this come of the game.
difficult (for Black) situation. The 52 'Wfd6 *g7
kingside pawns must advance, so 53 _tb5 .g8
we examined the two possible 54 ..tc6 'Wta7
configurations: on the light 55 'Wfb4 'i!l!f C7
squares (g6, h5) and on the dark 56 'Wtb7 'Wtd8
squares (h6, g5). The second of 57 e5 'Wta5
these may provide more resis- 58 ..te8 *c5
126 Reti's Opening

59 'ltf7 + �xg6 68 1txg6 'ltb7 + 69 *h2

60 �·4 'ijg2 + ! But White plays 67 f3,
61 *bl and only then captures the g­
61 �bJ pawn: 67 . . . 'itd2 + 68 *h3 'itb4
63 �d l 69 �xg6 � xg6 70 'ijxg6 'ijxh4 +
64 * gl 7 1 *g2! That is why White's 64th
Black is in zugzwang, and the move stands as the last of our
calculations for stalemate don't fourth contest.
work out: 64 . . . 'ltb4 65 �f3 Black resigned. The sc;ore was
'ltc5 66 �e4 'ltb4 67 �xg6? levelled. The match was over.
Index of Complete Games

Page numbers in italics refer to complete games quoted in the notes to the main
games.

Alburt-Morovic 1 19 Karpov-Short 20
Karpov-Timman 64, 1 1 2
Bagirov-Yusupov 80 Kasparov-Ivanchuk 88
Bareev-Lalic 1 1 6 Kasparov-Karpov /7, 25, 29, 30,
Bareev-Lukacs 80 32, 33, 36, 57, 58, 85, 86, 89, 90,
Belyavsky-Karpov 37, 5 1 99, 99, 1 1 7, 1 18, 120, 1 23
Belyavsky-Portisch 51 Kasparov-Short /6
Bemdt-Zaetz 85 Kasparov-Smyslov 76
Bonsch-Chekhov 64 Keene-Adorjan 98
Korchnoi-Panno 1 12
Chemin-Eingom 103 Korchnoi-Seirawan 1 00
Chernin-Gurevich 120
Mikhalchishin-Lputyan 2 I
Dlugy-Speelman 118 Miles-Kasparov 73, 74
Dzhandzhava-Lputyan 45
Polugayevsky-Fiear 77
Ehlvest-Ivanchuk 78 Polugayevsky-Hiibner 69
Eingom-lvanovich 78 Portisch-Pinter 49
Ermolinsky-Ivanchuk 79
Rashkovsky-Barsov 22
Ftacnik-Adorjan 96 Ribli-Belyavsky 8

Georgiev-Cebalo /06 Seirawan-Belyavsky 70

Georgiev-Ribli 50 Seirawan-Karpov 31
Gurevich-Georgadze 8 Sokolov-Campos M oreno 67
Gurevich-van der Sterren /9 Soko1ov-Savon 52
Spassky-Petrosian 48
Kapelen-Adorjan 97 Speelman-Benko /6
Karpov-Belyavsky 1 4 Suba-Morovic 120
Karpov-Kasparov I , 4, 25, 28, 30,
32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 53, 57, Thipsay-Barua 26
73, 95, 103, 1 06, 1 08 Timman-Karpov 3 I
Karpov-Korchnoi 99 Timman-Petrosian 72
Karpov-Ljubojevic 92 Timman-Tal 64
Karpov-Miles 61 Timman-Yusupov 19, 24
Karpov-Zsu. Polgar 9 1
Karpov-Portisch 6 9 Vaganian-Belyavsky 37
Karpov-Ribli 101
Karpov-Spassky I I Yusupov-Ribli 48
Karpov-Speelman 64 Yusupov-Tukmakov 82
Index of Openings

As this book is not a study of the whole of any particular opening, only the
major variations dealt with are listed in this index. Transpositions and other
variations are dealt with in the text, and the reader is recommended to study all
of the games in each section, rather than considering each game in isolation.

Queen 's Gambit Declined

I d4 d5 2 c4
(a) 2 . . . e6 3 €)c3
(a l ) 3 . . . €) f6 I
(a2) 3 . . . c5 4 cd
(a2 1 ) 4 . . . ed 40
(a22) 4 . . . exd5 48
(a3) 3 . . . j_e7 54
(b) 2 . . . €)c6 61

Queen 's Gambit Accepted

I d4 d5 2 c4 de 3 e4 €) f6 4 e5 €)d5 5 j_ xc4 eb6
(a) 6 j_d3 64
(b) 6 .. d3 64

Slav Defence
I d4 d5 2 c4 c6
(a) 3 ec3 e f6 4 cd cd 70
(b) 3 e n €l f6 4 €lc3
(b l ) 4 . . . de 69
(b2) 4 . . . e6 73

English Opening
l c4
(a) I . . . e5 2 ec3
(a l ) 2 . . . e f6 3 €) n ec6 4 g3 j_ b4 . 85
(a2) 2 . . . €)c6 3 g3
(a2 1 ) 3 . . . g6 4 j_ g2 d6 89, 9 1
(a22) 3 . . . c 5 90, 95.
(b) I . . . c5 2 en €) f6
(b l ) 3 g3 b6 4 j_g2 j_b7 5 0-0 g6 100, 1 1 2
(b2) 3 ec3
(b2 1 ) 3 . . . <E)c6 4 d4 cd 99
(b22) 3 . . . d5 1 06
I d4 -2l f6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 c5 4 e n cd 5 -2lxd4 fltc7 1 09

Catalan
I d4 e f6 2 c4 e6 3 e n d5 4 g3 de 1 16

Reti
I c4 e6 2 e n -2l f6 3 g3 d5 4 b3 �e7 123