7. RESULTATS: L’EXPERIENCIA ESCOLAR DELS JOVES ADOLESCENTS MARROQUINS A
7.1. El context de l’escolarització
Metz 2000
1 e4 c5 2 l"Of3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l"Oxd4 a6 5 l"Oc3 �c7 6 �e2 b5
I will just mention that Black can also play more conservatively with 6 ... lt:\f6 7 0-0 and now:
a) 6 ... .ib4 8 1i'd3 lt:\c6 9 �h 1 ! transposes to a well known line of the Sicilian Tai-manov.
b) 7 ... .ic5!?, playing as in Games 51 -54, keeps a Kan flavour. 8 .ie3 is met by 8 ... d6
5 l"O c3 �c 7 while 8 lt:\b3 is met by 8 ... .ie7, followed by the usual Kan development.
7 0-0
An alternative for White is 7 f4 .ib 7 8 .if3 lt:\c6 and now:
a) 9 lt:\xc6 .ixc6 10 0-0 (10 .ie3 .ie7 is equal - Eingorn) 10 0-0 .ic5+ 1 1 �hl b4 12 lt:\e2 ltJf6 1 3 lt:\g3 h5! and Black has a dangerous counter-attack on the kingside, Aagaard-Mortensen, Copenhagen 1 997.
b) 9 i.e3 l:tc8 10 lt:\b3 lt:\a5! 1 1 lt:\xa5 'iixa5 12 1i'd3 ltJf6 13 0-0 b4 14 lt:\dt 'iic7 15 �cl 'iic4! with equality, Hort-Eingorn, Dortmund 1988.
7 .. . �b7
8 1:1e 1
Preparing to liberate White's pieces with the e4-e5 advance. The alternative is 8 .if3 lt:\c6 and now:
a) 9 �el .id6! 10 g3 lt:\xd4 1 1 'iixd4 .ie5 1 2 1i'd3 lt:\e7 and Black has equalised, Panchenko-Miles, Las Palmas 1978.
b) 9 lt:\xc6 dxc6 with a further split:
bl) The pawn sacrifice 10 e5?! was intro
duced by a very young Garry Kasparov against Lev Polugaevsky back in 1 978. Kas
parov won a great game but time has found the antidote to this idea: 1 0 ... 1i'xe5 1 1 �e 1 1i'd6! 12 .igS 1i'xdl 13 �axdl .ie7 1 4 .ixe 7 �xe 7 1 5 lt:\e4 lt:\f6 16 lt:\cS �ab8 17
�e3 lt:\d5 1 8 �a3 .ic8 19 lt:\xa6 �aS 20 ltJcS lha3 21 bxa3 f5 with a clear black advantage, Arzumanian-Moroz, Marganets
Sicilian Kan 1999.
b2) 10 a4 tt::lf6 1 1 l:te 1 eS gives a rather dull equality, G.Garcia-Zapata, Yopal 1 997.
8 . . . lLlc6 9 lLlxc6
Or 9 i.fl!? and now:
a) 9 ... b4?! 10 ltJdS! �dB (10 ... exdS 1 1 tt::lxc6! dxe4 1 2 .l:he4+ tt::le7 1 3 .lhe7+!
i.xe7 14 tt::lxe7 �eS 1 S �g4! [Oil] leaves Black in trouble) 1 1 i.f4 l:tcB (or 1 1 ...eS 12 tt::lxc6 dxc6 1 3 i.xeS cxdS 1 4 exdS) 12 tt::lxc6 l:txc6 1 3 �d2 tt::lf6 14 l:tad 1 i.cS 1 S tt::lxb4 l:tcB 1 6 i.gS and White was clearly better in 011-Movsesian, Polanica Zdroj 1996.
b) 9 ... tt::lf6! 10 tt::lxc6 �xc6 1 1 eS b4 12 tt::le2 tt::ldS 1 3 a3 �b6 14 axb4 i.xb4 1 S c3 i.cS 16 tt::ld4 0-0 was equal in Sareen
Vyzmanavin, Calcutta 1 992.
9 . . . dxc6
10 e5!
This is the point behind B .l:.et . White gains space on the kingside and gives him
self the opportunity to use the e4-square.
Now B ... �xeS?! 9 ..txbS is favourable for White as Black is left with split pawns on the queenside.
1 0 . . J1d8
The main alternative for Black here is 10 ... tt::\e7 1 1 i.d3 and now:
a) 1 t ...l:tdB 12 i.gS (12 �e2?! cS 13 i.gS h6 1 4 �hS l:td4 was nice for Black in Dirni
trov-Vyzmanavin, Elenite 1 993) 1 2 ... h6 1 3
�hS l:td7 14 a4 b 4 1 S tt::le4 and I prefer
White, Kamsky-Lutz, Dortmund 1993.
b) 1 1 ...0-0-0 (this is risky but maybe okay) 12 a4 cS 1 3 axbS c4 14 bxa6 i.c6!
with massive complications in Marciano
Korneev, Ubeda 1996.
1 1 i.d3 c5
12 'i'h5
White must move the queen to avoid bishop-winning ... cS-c4. 12 �e2?! tt::le7 transposes to Dirnitrov-Vyzmanavin above, but 12 �g4!? is an enticing alternative:
a) 12 ... tt::\e7 13 i.gS l:td4 14 �g3 tt::lc6 (or 14 ... c4 1 S i.xe7 cxd3 1 6 i.xf8 'iti>xf8 17 cxd3 �dB 1 B l:ted1 fS 19 exf6 gxf6 20 tt::le2 l:td6 21 �h4 .l:.gB 22 tt::lg3 and Black doesn't have enough play for the pawn, Nataf
Zapata, Havana 2002) 1 S a4 b4 1 6 tt::le4 c4 17 i.ft tt::lxeS 1B tt::lf6+ gxf6 1 9 ..txf6 l:tg4 20 �xeS �xeS 21 l:txeS and Black has more weaknesses in this endgame, A.Kovacevic-Pavlovic, Herceg Novi 2001.
b) 1 2 ... l:td4 1 3 i.e4!? i.xe4! (13...�xeS??
loses to 14 i.f4 �f6 1 S i.gS, while 13. .. b4?
1 4 �£3! ..txe4 1 S tt::lxe4 �xeS 16 c3! l:tdS 17 tt::lf6+! 1-0 was the finish to the game Bezgodov-Pugachov, Petropavlovsk 1999) 14 l:txe4 (14 tt::lxe4!? �xeS 1 S c3 l:tdS 16 i.f4 gives White some play for the pawn) 1 4 ... �xeS! 1 S i.e3! l:txe4 16 �xe4 �xe4 17 tt::lxe4 tt::lf6 1B tt::\xcS i.xcS 19 i.xcS (Bez
godov) when White has probably got a minute endgame advantage.
1 2 . . . g6!?
This relatively new move may well be
After this move White gets into a tangle.
I prefer the more direct t 6 lZJe4 and now:
a) 16 ... c4 17 lLlg5! h6 18 lLlxe6! fxe6 19 'ii'xe6+ 11f7 20 .i.xg6 lLlxg6 21 i.xd8 lZJf8 22 .i.xc7 lLlxe6 23 .i.d6 is difficult to assess but I think I prefer White's rook and pawns to the two minor pieces.
b) Eliminating the knight is the best solu
tion: 1 6 ... �xe4! 17 .i.xe4 l:.d4 and I think this position is level.
1 6 .. J:td4! 1 7 f4 li:Jf5 1 8 ..txf5 exf5 Now White will have problems along the long h l -aB diagonal. His next move only
Simply winning a pawn. White's position falls apart.
strained fianchetto with 6 ... b6!? and if White adopts the same strategy as against 6 ... b5, then certainly Black is better off, for exam
ple 7 .i.g2 .i.b 7 8 0-0 d6 9 l::te 1 lZJd7 10 and with the black b-pawn safe on b6 rather than b4, this position is genuinely unclear, although I still believe most players would prefer to play White (compare with the note to Black's 1 5th move).
7 ..tg2 ..tb7 8 0-0 d6
After this move I suspect that Black is really struggling to find a playable line, so it's here that alternatives should be consid
ered: and Black will lose both his a-pawns, Vogt
Gerusel, Leipzig 1975.
b) 8 ... b4!? and now:
bl) 9 lLla4 lLlf6 10 l:.et d6 1 1 ..td2 lLlc6 12 c3 bxc3 1 3 ..txc3 was just a little better
Sicilian Kan
for White, Joppen-Eising, Bad Pyrmont 1961. Black is lost and he still has that extra piece!
c) 8 ... tt::lf6 9 :et b4 10 tt::ld5!? (10 tt::la4 transposes to note 'b 1 ') 1 O ... exd5 1 1 exd5+
Wd8 (t t ...i.e7 loses to 12 l:txe7+! Wxe7 1 3 d6+) 12 ..ig5 'ii'b6! 13 tt::lf5!? h6 and again White has masses of compensation but nothing deadly, Kallai-Bako, Hungary 1980.
It's obvious, though, that it takes a very brave player to take this on with the black pieces.
d) One final idea for Black is 8 ... i.c5, in
tending 9 tt::lb3 i.e7. Instead I prefer 9 i.e3 tt::le7 10 a4!, intending to answer 10 ... b4?
with 1 1 tt::ldb5! axb5 12 tt::lxb5 'ii'c6 13 i.xc5 'ii'xc5 14 tt::ld6+ and White wins.
9 .l:!.e 1
9 . . . lt:lf6
Black has rwo main alternatives, but nothing that promises a comfortable game:
a) 9 ... i.e7 and now: queenside pawns give him the advantage.
a22) 1 O ... h5? 1 1 'ii'xg 7! (but not Yakovich's 1 1 tt::lxe6? as Black has the un
likely 'desperado' resource 1 1 ...'ii'xc3!) t t ...i.f6 12 tt::lxe6! 'ii'e7 13 i.g5!! and White i.xg5 17 'ii'xg5 and White's strong c6-pawn guarantees an advantage, Yakovich-Roeder, Cappelle Ia Grande 1995.
a232) 12 ... f6!? 13 i.e3! (13 i.d2 'ii'c4!) 1 3. .. g5 14 'ii'h3 (14 tt::lxe6 is again met by the hard-to-see 1 4 ... 'ii'xc3!) 14 ... g4 1 5 'ii'h4 'ii'd7 1 6 h3 b4 1 7 tt::lce2 f5 1 8 i.g5 and Black's position is on the verge of collapse.
b) 9 ... tt::ld7 and now: 10 ... tt::le5!?. It all looks incredibly risky, but I can't find a devastating response. better in Kupreichik-A.Petrosian, Lvov 1988.
Plenry of different variations but the out
come always seems to be the same. Black either gets hit by some tt::ld5 tactic or ends up worse in a positional way.
1 0 .i.g5
10 a4! is probably even stronger as it cuts down Black's options: 10 ... b4 1 1 tt::ld5 exd5
12 exdS+ 'ito>d8 1 3 i.gS and now:
a) 1 3 ... liJbd7 transposes to the text.
b) 1 3 ... i.c8 14 i.xf6+ gxf6 1 5 'ii'hS .l:ta7 16 .l:te4 i.g7 17 .l:tae1 'ii'cS 18 'ii'e2 i.d7 19 liJb3 'ii'b6 20 aS 'ii'bS 21 'ii'e3 .l:tc7 22 'ii'f4 .l:te8 23 'ii'xd6 l:he4 24 nxe4 'ito>c8 25 i.ft and White won, Quinones-Higashishiba, Siegen 1970.
c) 13 ... 'ii'c4 14 c3! (opening yet another front) 14 ... b3 (falla-Votava, Lazne Boh
danec 1999) and now 1 5 'ii'hS! is crushing:
1 5 ... 'ii'c7 16 'ii'h4 liJbd7 17 ltJc6+ 'ito>c8 1 8 i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 9 i.h3+ and White wins.
1 0 .. . liJbd7
Or 10 ... i.e7 1 1 i.xf6! gxf6 (1 1 ...i.xf6 12 ltJdxbS!) 12 'ii'hS and now 12 ... 'ii'c5 is an
swered by 1 3 ltJxe6!.
1 1 a4 b4
1 1 ...bxa4 12 liJdS! reaches very similar variations.
1 2 liJdS! exd5 1 3 exd5 +
1 3 .. .'li'd8
More resilient is 13 ... ltJeS! 14 f4 and now:
a) 1 4 ... ltJxd5? 1 5 liJfS! 'it'cS+ 1 6 'ito>h1 f6 17 fxeS fxgS 18 exd6+ �d7 19 liJd4! 'iixd6 20 .l:te6 'ii'cS 21 .l:teS! (21 liJb3 also wins) 21 ...liJe3 22 l:!.xe3 i.xg2+ 23 'ito>xg2 'ii'dS+
24 liJf3! 'iixd1 25 :xd1 + �c7 26 ltJxg5 and White has a winning endgame, Shabalov
Benjamin, Las Vegas 1993.
b) 14 ... liJfd7! (Benjamin) limits the dam
age to just a clear plus for White!
1 4 liJc6 + ..txc6 1 5 dxc6 liJb6?
5 liJ c 3 �c 7 This loses easily. Black's last chance was 1 5 ... ltJcS although after 16 i.xf6+ gxf6 17 'ii'd4 i.e7 18 'iixb4 .l:te8 19 'ii'd4 ltJe6 20 'ii'e4 aS 21 c3 .l:tb8 22 b4 (R.Byrne, Mednis) White's queenside pawns should eventually be decisive.
1 6 �d4 ..te7 1 7 l::!.xe7 ! <t;xe7 1 8 aS liJcB 1 9 l::!.e1 + <t;ts
20 �xf6! h6 2 1 �dB + �xd8 22 ..txdB f5 23 ..td5 h5 24 c7 l::!.a7 25 �e6 .:taB 26 ..txf5 <j;f7 27 ..te6 + <t;g6 28 �d5 l::!.a7 29 l::!.e4 h4 30 g4
30 .l:tg4+ �f5 31 .l:tgS mate is quicker!
30 . . . h3 31 l::!.e6 + <t;h7 32 �e4 + g6 33 l::!.xg6 l:!.fB 34 �f6 l:!.xf6 35 l::!.xf6 + <t;gS 36 ..tdS + <t;g7 37 l:tf7 + <t;g6 38 f4 b3 39 cxb3 'it>h6 40 <j;f2 1 -0