ANÁLISIS DE RESULTADOS

1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ltJcJ i.b4 4 e3 0-0

5 ltJf3 d5 6 i.d3 c5 7 0-0 ltJc6 8 a3

i.xc3 9 bxc3 b6 (D)

This position characterizes the Nim­ zowitsch Variation. The name is again something I have adopted from Oligo­ ric, who acknowledges that the main contributor to this line in its early years really was the Estonian GM Paul Keres. However, since Keres helped develop so many lines, Gligoric thought that it made sense to name it after Nimzowitsch, who first employed this line in a game against Reti in Berlin

1928.

Black's plan is to play ... i.a6 and thus force the exchange of the light­ squared bishops, hoping to make it more difficult for White to play e4. However, White has a fairly clear path to a safe advantage and therefore this method of playing has fallen out of fa­ vour.

10 cxd5!

It has been established that this is the most accurate way for White to continue. Other continuations leave White empty-handed:

a) l O 'i'c2 i.a6 I I cxd5 i.xd3 1 2 'i'xd3 'i'xd5 1 3 c4 ,.d6 ( l 3 ... e4 is also fine, Mufioz-F.Olafsson, Reykja­ vik 1957) 14 lldl llfd8 1 5 i.b2 e5 is equal, Sanchez-Averbakh, Stockholm

IZ 1952.

b) lO a4 i.a6 (this is again the sim­

plest) I I cxd5 i.xd3 1 2 •xd3 exd5 1 3

dxc5 bxc5 14 i.a3 c4 1 5 .. c2 l:.e8 with equality, Vlagsma-Simutowe, Nether­ lands-Yugoslavia 1949.

c) l O ltJe5 (this is similar to the main line, but it gives Black more op­

tions) lO . .. i.b7 I I f4 ltJa5 1 2 cxd5

'ifxd5 (in the main line Black only has ... exd5 available) 1 3 'ife2 cxd4 14 exd4 ltJb3 and Black is OK, Keres­ Averbakh, Zurich Ct 1 953.

10 •.• exd5 ll ltJe5!?

This is White's most popular move. However, two other moves are played with some frequency and score rea­ sonably well for White:

a) I I a4 c4 ( l l ...'ii'c7 transposes to note 'a' to Black's l i th move in Line B of Chapter 5; this is probably Black's best option) 12 i.c2 i.g4 (Bondarev­ sky mentions that 12 ... ltJe4 can be met by 1 3 i.xe4! dxe4 l 4 ltJd2 f5 1 5 i.a3

l:.f6 16 f3 exf3 17 l:.xf3 ±) 1 3 'ili'e l

ltJe4 (this is better than 1 3 ... l:.e8? 14 ltJh4 i.h5 15 f3 i.g6 16 ltJxg6 hxg6 1 7 e4 ± Taimanov-Botvinnik, USSR

N!MZOWITSCH VARIATION 57

Ch playoff (5) (Moscow) 1952 and 13 ... .txf3 1 4 gxf3 'ii'd7 1 5 �g2 lDh5 16 %:.g 1 f5 1 7 �h 1 ;!; Taimanov) and now:

a1) After 14 lDd2? Euwe gave 14 ... lDxd2? 15 i.xd2 f5 1 6 f3 i.h5 1 7

e4 fxe4 1 8 fxe4 %:.xfl + 19 •xn .tg6,

claiming equality, even though 20 exd5 then works well for White. However, this doesn't matter as 14 ... lDxc3! 1 5 f3 lDb4! is very strong.

a2) Therefore White should prefer 14 .txe4 dxe4 1 5 lDd2.

b) With 1 1 i.b2 White intends to open the centre with 12 dxc5 bxc5 1 3 c4, but after 1 l ...c4 White's dark­ squared bishop looks a bit silly on b2.

12 i.c2 and now:

b1) 1 2 ... ltJe7 1 3 ltJd2 %:.e8 1 4 %:.e1 i.f5 1 5 f3 .txc2 1 6 'ii'xc2 ;!; Najdorf­ Reshevsky Buenos Aires ( 10) 1952.

b2) 12 ... .tg4 13 'ii'e1 and then: b2 1 ) 1 3 ... ltJe4 1 4 ltJd2 ltJxd2 (or 14 ... i.f5 1 5 f3 lDxd2 16 ,.xd2 i.xc2 1 7 ,.xc2 followed by e4 with a small plus for White) 1 5 'ii'xd2 i.h5 1 6 f3 i.g6 1 7 e4 'ii'd7 1 8 %:.ae 1 ± is a posi­ tion that was reached twice by Petros­ ian as Black in the 1953 Candidates Tournament in Zurich. In the 2nd round he held Reshevsky to a draw and the same result came about in the 15th round against Smyslov. However, Petrosian needed to use all his phe­ nomenal defensive skills; Black is clearly worse at this point.

b22) 1 3 ... .txf3 14 gxf3 'ii'd7 (the move 14 ... lt:Jh5 was analysed by Bron­ stein, who recommends that White refrain from a quick e4, but rather pre­

pares it with f4, f3, 'ii'f2, %:.ae I , .tc 1 ,

�h 1 and only then e4) 15 �g2 %:.ae8 16 %:.gl lL'lh5 1 7 'ii'fl f5 1 8 �h1 and

now, rather than 1 8 ... f4 19 e4 ± Sverd­ Iovsk-Novosibirsk, cities corr. 1954, Black should play 1 8 ... g6, which lim­ its White to a slight advantage.

ll ... c7

This is Black's most solid option. Black forces White to make a decision regarding his knight on e5 and simul­ taneously tries to control White's up­ coming central advance. Other moves:

a) l l ... lDe7?! intending ... .tf5 ap­ pears logical, but is well met by 12 a4 c4 1 3 i.bl i.f5 14 lDc6! ±.

b) l l ...lDxe5?! 12 dxe5 ltJg4 (or 1 2 ... ltJd7 1 3 f4 c4 1 4 .tc2 ltJc5 1 5 a4 i.b7 16 .ta3 ,.e7 1 7 a5 f6 1 8 'ifbl ! ± Gligoric-Pomar, Beverwijk 1967) 1 3 f4 f5 1 4 h 3 lDh6 1 5 %:.a2 .te6 16 %:.d2 'ii'e 7 1 7 .te2 %:.ad8 1 8 i.f3 'ii'f7 19 c4 ± Van Oosterom-Kramer, corr. 1991-3.

c) l l ...i.b7 !? and now:

c I ) 1 2 i.b2 (intending 1 2 ... %:.e8 1 3

lDxc6 i.xc6 14 c4 !) 1 2 ... c4 1 3 lDxc6

.txc6 14 .tc2 %:.e8 1 5 a4 a5 ( 1 5 ... 'ii'd7 can also be considered) 16 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 17 %:.fe1 g6 1 8 f3 ;!; Yusupov-Lobron, Munich 1 992.

c2) 1 2 lDxc6 .txc6 and then: c2 1 ) 1 3 a4 'ii'd7 1 4 'ii'c2 and now, rather than 1 4 ... lt:Je4 15 f3 lDf6 16 i.f5 ± Najdorf-Siiwa, Leipzig OL 1960, 1 4 ... %:.fe8 is OK for Black according to Yusupov.

c22) Taimanov's 1 3 dxc5 !? bxc5 1 4 'ii'c2 intending c4 is interesting.

c23) 1 3 f3 and here Taimanov gave 1 3 ... %:.e8 1 4 %:.a2 'ii'd7 15 %:.b2 %:.ac8

16 'ii'e 1 !, but Yusupov's suggestion

1 3 ... 'ikd7 !? is quite interesting. Black intends to follow up with ... .:ac8, ... cxd4, ... .tb5, followed by doubling rooks on the c-file. White's best reply seems to be something like 14 %:.a2,

58 THE NIMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3

hoping to enter Taimanov's analysis after l 4 ... l:fe8, but Black can possibly play 14 ... ..ib5 with a decent game.

12 lbxc6

1 2 f4 is met by 1 2 ... lbe7 1 3 f5 ..ib7

1 4 ..id2 lbc8 1 5 ..iel lbd6 = Stahl­

berg-Samisch, Dresden 1 936.

12 • • . 'ii'xc6 13 f3 aS

Other move don't give Black much joy:

a) 1 3 ... lbe8 14 e4 cxd4 15 cxd4 'S'c3 16 l:bl 'ifxd4+ 1 7 �h l and now:

al ) 1 7 ... dxe4? just loses material: 1 8 ..ixe4 'ffxd I 1 9 llxd I llb8 20 ..if4.

a2) 17 ... lbd6 18 exd5 ..if5 19 ..ixf5

lbxf5 20 'ffxd4 lbxd4 2 1 l:dl ± Por­ tisch-Pomar, Palma de Mallorca 1 966. a3) 17 ... ..ib7 can be considered, although White has more than enough compensation for the pawn after 1 8 ..ib2 'ii'c5 1 9 l:c I 'ti'd6 20 exd5 'ii'xd5 21 l:el ; e.g., 2 I ...l:d8 22 'ii'a4.

b) 1 3 ... ..ie6 14 'ffel lDd7 1 5 l:a2 ( 1 5 e4 f5 ! is OK for Black according to Bronstein) 1 5 ... f5 16 h3 c4 1 7 ..ibl b5 18 g4 lbb6 19 l:g2 'fid6 20 'it'h4 with a strong kingside initiative for

White, Taimanov-Bagirov, Tbilisi 1957. c) 13 ... ..ib7 14 a4 'ii'd7 15 'ffel l:fe8 16 'it'h4 ..ic6 1 7 g4 h6 1 8 ..if5 ± Geller-Sliwa, Gothenburg IZ 1 955.

14 'S'e2 (D)

If White allows the exchange of light-squared bishops, then Black has no problems; e.g., 1 4 a4 ..ia6 15 ..ixa6 l:xa6, Lindblom-Persitz, Leipzig OL 1 960.

14 ... ..ib7

Black has to limit White's activity in the centre and attempt to prevent

B

White from playing e3-e4. Two other moves:

a) 1 4 ... c4 1 5 ..ic2 b5 16 'ffe l (al­

though ECO gives this as played in

Rabar-Petrosian, Belgrade 1954, White

actually played the premature 16 e4 in that game and was soon willing to set­ tle for a draw) 1 6 ... l:e8 1 7 'ii'h4 g6 1 8 g4 l:b8 1 9 ..id2 with a better game for White, Simchen-Konig, corr. 1 982.

b) 14 ... l:a7 !? 15 l:bl ( 1 5 e4!? is another idea) 15 ... c4 16 ..ic2 l:e7 1 7 ..id2 b5 and at this point rather than 1 8

l:bel ..ib7 1 9 'it'd l 'iid6 = Vukovic­

Puc, Yugoslav Ch (Ljubljana) 1 960, White should play 1 8 'ii'e 1 , intending 'ii'h4 and g4 with a better game.

15 a4 c4 16 ..ic2 l:fe8 17 'ii'f2 'iVe6

18 1t'h4 g6 19 ..id2

Gligoric-Persitz, Hastings 1 968/9. This position is generally considered slightly better for White. Black is wait­ ing for White to commit himself, but with plans such as a kingside attack with g4, h4 and mobilization of all the forces on the kingside, the central e4 advance, and pressure on the b-pawn, White has all the chances.