5 0-0 "ifd6
1 e4 e5 2 lZJf3 lZJc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6
During the 1990s this line, which is usually attributed to David Bronstein, has emerged from relative obscurity to become probably the most popular choice among top grandmasters.
World Championship candidates Ni
gel Short, Gata Kamsky and Evgenny Bareev have all integrated it into their repertoires, while it is also significant that leading Exchange Spanish expo
nent J an Timman invariably plays this line when he faces the Exchange varia
tion as Black (although he has had some success on the white side too!).
At first sight it may appear strange to use the queen to defend the e-pawn, but Black's position is very flexible.
He can choose between developing his queen's bishop on e6 or g4 and Black also has the option of quick queenside castling. The e-pawn may still be bol
stered by .. .f7-f6 if necessary. The drawback of 5 ... 'ii'd6 is, of course, the fact that it does absolutely nothing for Black's kingside development. Indeed,
in many variations the queen often has to move again before too long.
White has four main ways to play after 5 .. .'ii'd6:
a) The immediate 6 d4 (Game 44) opening up the centre. Although this plan works very well against 5 .. .f6, here, as we shall see, it is much less effective.
b) 6 c3, to support d2-d4 (Game 45).
c) 6 d3 (Games 46 and 47) planning to develop slowly with 7 �e3 and 8 tbbd2 or 7 lDbd2.
d) The sharp 6 tba3!? (Games 48-51) threatening to shift the queen immedi
ately by 7 tbc4.
Each of these choices leads to the kind of dynamic play which will ap
peal to both White and Black players.
Game 44
Rozentalis-Aimasi
German Bundesliga 1996 1 e4 e5 2 lZJf3 lLlc6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0
The actual move order of this game 95
was 5 lbc3 'ifd6 6 d4 exd4 7 lLlxd4 il.d7 8 il.e3 0-0-0 9 0-0.
5 .. .'ii'd6 6 d4
This simplistic approach has fallen almost completely out of favour in recent years. It does not really ask Black enough questions.
6 . . . exd4 7 tt:Jxd4
7 'iWxd4 'iWxd4 8 lLlxd4 is completely equal, while Black can also try 7 ... il.g4!? 8 'iWe3 (8 lLlbd2 'iixd4 9 lLlxd4 0-0-0 is an even better version of the usual endgame) 8 ... lbe7 9 lLlbd2
cording to Dolmatov, so Black should prefer 8 ... i.d7, when the game Abra
If White intends to play tbc3 in any case, he should probably do so straightaway (for reasons explained in the next note). In the game An
dersson-Smejkal, Kottnauer Memorial 1996, White was successful with 8 lba3 c5 9 tbf5 'iWxd1 10 l:xd1 0-0-0 1 1 tbc4 .l:.e8 12 f3 g6 13 lbfe3 i.g7? 14 lbdS.
However, after 8 ... 0-0-0 9 lbc4 'iff6 White's knights would have created an ugly impression.
8 ... 0-0-0
With this move order Black can also put the white centre under pressure immediately with 8 ... lbf6!? 9 f3 'it'e5, when after 10 lbc3 i.c5 11 lbce2 0-0-0 12 'iWe1 h5 Black had a promising posi
tion in the game Maliutin-Yurtaev, USSR Championship 1991.
9 tt:Jc3
9 lbd2, hoping to play lbc4 at some point, also gives Black the choice be-tween 9 ... 'it'g6 and 9 ... lbh6:
a) 9 ... 'iWg6 10 'i'e2 tbh6 11 f3 f5 12 l'.1ad1 (12 e5 l:e8) 12 ... i.d6 13 il.xh6 'it'xh6 14 e5 l:he8 15 f4 with a very unclear position in Kupreichik
Romanishin, Moscow 1974.
b) 9 ... tbh6 when White can prevent ... lLlg4 in two ways:
b1) 10 h3 'i'g6 11 'it'f3 f5 12 ltad1 {White is awkwardly placed after both 12 .:.fe1 fxe4 13 'i'xe4 lbf5 14 c3 l:e8, as in Zarubin-Polovodin, USSR 1980, and 12 exf5 lbxf5 13 lbxf5 i.xf5 14 c3 i.e7, as in Lindemann-Mainka, Gaus
dal 1991, but 12 e5 was possible, by
analogy to the note to Black's ninth move below) 12 ... fxe4 13 "ilixe4 l'Df5 (it makes more sense to maintain the ten
sion than to play 13 ... "ilixe4 14 l'Dxe4 lbf7 15 .l:fe1, when White had a slight pull in Larsen-Portisch, Rotterdam 1977) 14 l'bc4 and now in Kurtenkov
Sergiev, correspondence 1982, Black sacrificed the exchange with 14 ... l:te8 not sure that this sacrifice was entirely necessary, as 14 ... �d6, intending ... .l:he8, seems perfectly adequate.
b2) 10 f3 f5 11 "ilie2 (1 1 l'Dc4 Wg6 12
jers-Mikhalevski, Dieren open 1997) 12 :fe1 Wg6 13 .i.xh6 "ilixh6 14 e5 c5 15 l'b4b3 g5 with an improved version of note 'a' in Ubilava-Romanishin, reached in Castaneda-Hjartarson, Ca
nadian open 1997. 'i'h5, when S.Szabo-Acs, Hungarian Junior Championship 1994, was soon
However, Black is probably also doing very well after 10 ... l'Df6.
1 1 :te1
Or 11 'i'g3 i..d6 12 'ii'xg6 hxg6 with a slight plus for Black.
1 1 ... ltlf6 1 2 .tf4 .tb4
97
13 e5 productive on the d-file, as there are The white pawn 1s forced to ad- no entry squares.
vance.
1 3 .. . �xc3!?
13 . .. tiJd5 would have allowed White back into the game with 14 ltJxdS!
i..xe1 15 ltJxc7!, but 13 ... i..g4 14 'i'd3 'i'xd3 15 cxd3 would have given Black a small but safe plus (Almasi).
1 4 �xc3 tt:ld5 1 5 �f3 �g4 1 6 �g3 c5 1 7 tt:lb3 b6 1 8 c3 h5 1 9 h4 .:Z.d8 20 f3 �f5 2 1 l:.ad 1 �xg3 22 �xg3 tt:le7!
Although Black has given up the advantage of the two bishops, he re
tains much the better chances in the endgame. His bishop is far superior to its white counterpart and White's po
sition is full of holes.
23 tllc 1 �c2
Black quickly seizes control of the d-file.
24 l:.xd8+ l:.xd8 25 �f2 �f5 26 �f4 lL:ig6 27 �g3 �e6 28 .l:te4 �b7 29
�e1 �c6 30 a3 a5 31 l:.e2 a4 32 l:.d2 :ea!
Black decides that his rook still has an important job to do, forcing White into further weaknesses. The white rook is unable to undertake anything
33 �2 �c4 34 f4 lL:ie 7 35 �g 1 lLif5 36 �f2 f6 37 exf6 gxf6 38 g3 lLih6 39 �g2 lL:ig4 40 �g 1 l:.e6 41 �g2 f5 42 l:.d 1 �d5+ 43 �g 1 �c4 44 �g2 ltd6!
Now the exchange of rooks ends White's resistance.
45 .:Z.xd6+ cxd6 46 �g1 �d5 47 �f3 b5 48 �e3 lLih2+ 0-1
Game 45
Romero Holmes-Bareev
Leon 1995
1 e4 e5 2 lL:if3 lL:ic6 3 �b5 a6 4
�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6 6 c3
In principle this move, intending d2-d4, is very logical, but here Black is able to counterattack quickly against the white centre.
6 ... �g4 7 h3
White might like to do without this move, but unfortunately 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4 0-0-0 9 i..e3 f5! allows Black to generate immediate counterplay. In Jacobs-Karklins, Lone Pine 1974, White's position soon collapsed: 10 e5 'i'g6 11 ltJc3 ltJe7 12 'i'e2 h6 13 ltJa4?
f4 14 �cl lhd4 15 b3 lld3 16 'i.tth1 ttJf5 17 �xf4 .:txf3 0-1.
7 ... .th5
7 ... �xf3 8 'iixf3 0-0-0 is an interest
ing pawn sacrifice. After 9 'ii'xf7 (the counter-sacrifice 9 d4 exd4 10 �f4 'i¥e6 1 1 cxd4 llxd4 12 t2Jc3 ttJf6 13 'iie3 �c5 leads to a very unclear posi
tion) 9 ... ttJf6 10 'ifc4 (10 d4 exd4 11 cxd4 'iixd4 12 ttJc3 i..b4 13 �e3 'ilid7 is also unclear - Gipslis) 10 ... b5! 1 1 'ife2 Black was not afraid to exchange queens with 11. .. 'ifd3 in the game Rogoff-Reshevsky, USA Champion
ship 1974. After 12 lle1 �c5 13 b4
�b6 14 'ifxd3 l:.xd3 15 t2Ja3 l:f8 16 ttJc2 ttJh5 17 ttJe3 ttJf4 18 a4 Wb7 Black had plenty of counterplay for the pawn.
8 d4 f6!
There is no rush to exchange on d4:
8 ... exd4 9 cxd4 0-0-0 allows White to play 10 t2Jc3.
9 .te3
We have now reached a position from the 5 .. .f6 6 d4 i..g4 7 c3 i..d6 8 h3 �h5 9 �e3 variation (Chapter 1, Game 8) with one important differ
ence: the black queen rather than the black bishop stands on d6!
5 0-0 fid6
9 ... 0-0-0 10 lt:lbd2 exd4!
The correct moment for this ex
change.
1 1 cxd4 lt:Jh6 1 2 it'c2
12 i..xh6?! gxh6 opens a line of at
tack for Black down the g-file.
1 2 ... g5
Black plays to exploit the weakness caused by h2-h3. However, White is very well centralised so objectively he should not be worse.
1 3 ltJc4!
A clever regrouping. Both 13 .:tac1 g4 14 hxg4 ttJxg4 15 t2Jc4 'iid7 16 i..f4 l:tg8 and 13 e5 'i¥d5 14 exf6 g4 were dangerous (Bareev).
1 3 .. . it'd7 1 4 lt:Jfd2 f5
Now that the knight is no longer a 99
target on f3, White was ready to meet 14 ... g4 with 15 h4 g3 16 f3, when Black's assault has ground to a halt on the kingside and White can launch his own queenside attack.
1 5 i.xg5
Although it can hardly be a mistake to capture the g-pawn with a gain of tempo, this does open up the g-file for the black rooks. It would have been safer to play 15 f3! fxe4 16 fxe4 g4 17 h4! g3 18 tbe5 'it'e6 19 'it'b3 with a very promising position regardless of whether Black allows an exchange of queens or not (Bareev).
1 5 .. . lle8 1 6 e5 l:g8 1 7 i.f4 0Jf7?
An inaccuracy which could have had dire consequences. 17 ... <it>b8 18 'it'c3 4Jf7 followed by ... 4Jd8 with bal
anced chances was to be preferred.
1 8 0Je3?
White misses the opportunity to strike in the centre with 18 dS! 'it'xdS (not 18 ... cxd5 19 4Jb6+) 19 'it'xf5+
<it>b8 20 tbe3 'it'xd2 21 'it'xh5 with a winning position (Bareev). After the game move Black is able to randomise the position completely.
1 8 .. . 0Jd8! 1 9 ,.xf5 0Je6 20 ..-xh5 0Jxf4
White is temporarily two pawns up, but the active black pieces provide ample compensation, e.g. 21 'it'f3 4Jxh3+ 22 �h1 4Jg5 23 'it'f5 lle6 24 l:.fd1 'it'xd4! with excellent chances for Black. In the game White tries to bail out with an exchange of queens, but his opponent's initiative soon proves too much.
21 'ii'f5 'ii'xf5 22 0Jxf5 l:xg2+ 23
�h 1 l:g5 24 0Jg3 l:g6! 25 0Jf3 0Jxh3
The white king is now denuded of pawn cover and Black has ... c6-c5 in reserve to dismantle the white centre.
26 0Jf5 i.e 7 27 �h2 0Jf4 28 l:g 1 i.d8 29 0J3h4 l:xg1 30 l:xg 1 c5! 31 l:g4 tLld3 32 f4 h5 33 l:g 1 cxd4?
According to Bareev, 33 ... 4Jxf4 34 tbg7 l:tf8 35 4Jhf5 tbe2 36 l:td1 tbxd4 37 tbxd4 cxd4 38 l:txd4 .l:.f2+ would have led to a won position. However, in this variation 36 J:fl! tbxd4 37 tbd6+ cxd6 38 ltxf8 allows White to continue the fight, so I prefer 34 ... l:tg8 3 5 4Jhf5 tbe2 and ... 4Jxd4.
34 0Jg6?!
Here White could have muddied the waters a little with 34 tbg7 l:tg8 35 4Jhf5 tbxf4 36 tbxd4, although after
36 ... ll'ld3 Black should still be wm after 9 ll'lc3 0-0-0 he achieved an equal position. I would have thought that either 9 f4 or 9 ll'ld2 followed by ll'lc4 would have been more of a test of Black's idea.
6 ... ll'le7, intending to defend the e
pawn with ... ll'lg6, is considered in the next main game, while Black's other main move, 6 ... �g4, is likely to trans
pose to the note to Black's seventh move after 7 �e3 f6.
7 �e3
7 ll'lbd2 usually leads to very similar
5 0-0 Wd6
pos1t10ns and may transpose. After 7 ... i..e6 (7 ... i..g4 8 ll'lc4 Wd7 9 �e3 ll'le7 10 h3 i..e6 11 We2 ll'lg6 12 d4 is very similar, although the inclusion of h2-h3 is not always in White's favour) 8 ll'lc4 Wd7 (the pawn structure in the ending that arises after 8 ... i..xc4 9 dxc4 Wxd1 10 lhd1 slightly favours White) 9 i..e3 ll'le7 10 We2 ll'lg6 11 d4! Wf7 12 after 8 ll'lbd2. White can flick in h2-h3 i..e6 at some point, after which the position will be the same as the main game except with the white h-pawn on h3 rather than h2. This should not really make a significant difference in such a quiet position, although it might give Black something to bite on after ... g7-g5 at some point.
8 l2Jbd2 l2Je7
This is the most flexible, although of course Black has a wide choice:
a) 8 ... 'ii'd7?! is too passive. After 9 d4 exd4 10 ll'lxd4 �f7 11 'ii'e2 c5 12 ll'l4b3 b6 13 l:ad1 ll'le7 14 ll'lb1! 'ii'c6 15 ll'lc3 Black's king was stuck in the centre in Adorjan-Timman, Hastings 1973.
c) 8 ... c5 is also rather inflexible.
White has three tempting possibilities:
cl) 9 li:Jc4 'iic6 10 li:Jfxe5!? (a very enterprising alternative to the routine 10 li:Jfd2 li:Je7 11 a4 b6 12 f4 exf4 13 .txf4 li:Jg6 14 .i.g3 .i.d6 15 li:Jxd6+
cxd6 16 li:Jc4 l:td8! with equal chances in Glek-Almasi, Cattolica 1993) 10 ... fxe5 1 1 ltlxe5 'iid6 12 'iih5+ g6 13
tack in Dvoretsky-Romanishin, Vil
nius Zonal 1975) 11 .l:.fd1 'ii'd7! (a clever prophylactic move; after 11...0-0-0?! 12 ltlc4 'iid7 White can achieve the desired 13 d4) 12 ltlb3 .i.xb3 13 axb3 .i.d6 14 d4 cxd4 15 cxd4 exd4 16 ltlxd4 ltlxd4 17 .i.xd4 'i'e6, and although White had finally achieved d3-d4 in Dvoretsky
A.Ivanov, Philadelphia 1991, too many pieces had been exchanged to similar play to Rozentalis-Krasenkov) 11 c3 ltle7 12 b4 cxb4 13 axb4 ltlg6 14 l:.tfb1 0-0 15 ltlb3 and White's grip on
the queenside promised him a slight plus in Rozentalis-Krasenkov, Polish T earn Championship 1996.
9 d4
The flexible 9 'i'e2 is also playable, and if 9 ... c5 (Black can also consider
This was a new idea in this particu
lar position, although Timman had already played in very similar fashion in his game against Adorjan more than 20 years previously! The other move, 9 ... ltlg6?!, allows White a pleasant move, except that Black has played the useful ... li:Je7 instead of ... 'ii'd7. This factor alone is sufficient to grant him
equal chances.
1 3 a4 a5 1 4 ttJc4 'Wc6 1 5 tiJbd2 g6 1 6 .i.f4 .i.g7 1 7 ttJe3?
This simply removes the knight its best square. After 17 e5 0-0 18 .:ae1 Timman assesses the position as equal, but now Black is able to start ganging up on the white e-pawn.
1 7 .. . 0-0-0! 1 8 l:.ad 1 l:.he8 1 9 b3 g5 20 .i.g3 .i.g6 21 f4 gxf4 22 .i.xf4 '.tb7!
There is no need to hurry, as the e
pawn cannot run away. This careful move removes the king from any em
barrassing check on the g4-c8 diagonal.
23 Wf3 l:.d4 24 ttJec4
24 . . . f5
Black is not tempted to snatch the pawn due to the messy 24 ... �xe4 25 ttlxe4 :xe4 26 ttld6+ cxd6 27 l:txd6. In the game Rozentalis timidly gives up the e-pawn, but after 25 exf5 ttlxf5 the two bishops and active black pieces would soon have been overwhelming
m any case.
25 .i.e5 fxe4 26 We2 .i.xe5 27 ttJxe5 'ii'e6 28 tiJdc4 tiJd5 29 l:.de1 e3 30 g3 l:.e4 31 ltJxg6 hxg6 32 'ii'f3 �b8 33 'ii'f7 e2 34 l:.f3 'ii'xf7 35 l:.xf7 tiJb4 36 ttJa3 c4 37 l:.f3 cxb3 38
5 0-0 'ild6
l:.xb3 l:.e3?!
This unnecessarily allows White to prolong the game. Timman points out that after 38 ... ttla6 White could have seriously considered resigning.
39 l:.xe3 l:.xe3 40 ltJc4 l:.c3 41 ttJe5 l:.xc2 42 �f2 b5 43 axb5 a4 44 l:.a1 ltJa2 45 h4 ttJc3 46 tiJd3 l:.d2 47 ttJe 1 l:.d4 48 l:.c 1 ttJe4+ 49 'it?xe2 ttJxg3+ 50 �f3 ltJf5 51 h5 gxh5 52 l:.c5 tiJd6 53 l:.xh5 a3 54 ltJc2 l:.c4 55 l:.h2 l:.c3+ 56 �f4 ttJxb5 57 'it?e4
�b 7 58 ttJe3 c6 0-1
Game 47
Benjamin-Kamsky
USA Championship 1991
1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 ttJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 'ii'd6 6 d3 ltJe7
This is Black's most uncompromis
ing move at this juncture, trying to do without .. .f7-f6.
7 .i.e3
Just as after 6 .. .f6, 7 ttlbd2 is equally playable and may transpose. Here, however, it poses a more direct ques
tion to the black queen after 7 ... ttlg6 (7 ... it.e6 8 ttlg5 ttlg6 9 ttlxe6 'ifxe6 10 ttlc4 .Jtc5 11 �e3 .Jtxe3 12 ttlxe3 gave
103
White a slight but safe edge in V an der Wiel-Barkhagen, London 1993, and Ivanchuk-Short, Amsterdam 1994 [by transposition] 8 ltJc4 'iff6 (8 ... 'ife6 left Black slightly awkwardly placed after 9 ltJe3 i.d6 10 ltJf5 in Glek-Kovalev, German Bundesliga 1993) and now:
a) 9 d4 exd4 10 i.g5!? (White should keep the tension in the position, as 10 'ifxd4 'ifxd4 11 ltJxd4 c5 12 ltJf5 i.e6 13 ltJce3 ltJf4 gave Black easy equality in Filipovic-Mozetic, Yugoslav Cham
pionship 1996) 10 ... 'ife6 1 1 'ifxd4 (11 ltJxd4 'ifxc4 12 ltJb5 f6 13 ltJxc7+ �f7 14 ltJxa8 fxg5 15 ltJb6 looks quite promising for White [Milu], so Black should probably bail out with 12 ... i.d6 13 'ifxd6 'ifxfl + 14 �xfl cxd6 15 ltJc7+ �d7 16 ltJxa8 h6 with a roughly level position) 11...f6 12 i.e3!?
(12 .l:ad1 i.e7 13 i.cl 0-0 was nothing special for White in Williams-Ivkov, Caorle 1972) 12 ... i.e7 13 'ifd3 0-0 14 ltJd4 'iff7 15 f4 l:d8 16 'ife2 c5 17 ltJf3 f5 with chances for both sides in Milu
Notkin, Ciocaltea Memorial 1997.
b) 9 i.g5 'ife6 10 i.d2 i.c5 11 b4 (or 1 1 i.e3 i.e7 12 l:e1 0-0 13 ltJg5 i.xg5 14 i.xg5 f5 with an equal posi
tion in Velikov-Lukacs, European Team Championship, Moscow 1977) 11...i.a7 12 i.e3 0-0 13 'ifd2 'ife7 14
ble, reserving the option of ... ltJc6 in-stead of ... ltJg6. For example, 8 ltJbd2 ltJc6!? (8 ... ltJg6 transposes to the main game) 9 ltJc4 (9 ltJb3 b6 10 c3 i.e7 11
d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 exd4 13 ltJbxd4 ltJxd4 14 i.xd4 merely opened up the posi
tion for the two black bishops in Tunik-Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk 1984) 9 ... 'iff6!? 10 i.g5 'ifg6 with an unclear position in Tatai-Hohler, St Vincent open 1998.
8 l2Jbd2 c5
Of course 8 ... i.e6 allows the irritat
ing 9 ltJg5. However, although the straightforward 8 ... i.e7 is often dis
missed on account of 9 d4 (9 'ife2 c5 is also fine for Black) it is not clear whether White has any improvement over 9 ... exd4 10 ltJxd4 (10 ltJc4 'ife6!?
11 'ifxd4 0-0 12 ltJg5 'ifg4 is unclear) 10 ... ltJe5! 11 h3 c5 12 ltJ4b3 b6 13 f4 ltJc6 14 'ife2 f5! with equal chances in Browne-Portisch, Wijk aan Zee 1975.
9 l2Jc4 'ii'e6
By analogy with 7 ltJbd2 ltJg6 8 ltJc4 'ifg6, Benjamin's suggestion of 9 ... 'iff6!? looks perfectly playable.
Here Black has even ruled out the d3-d4 advance already.
1 0 l2Jg5
1 0 . . . 'ii'f6?!
10 ... 'ii'e7?! would also have been met by 1 1 'ifh5, but Benjamin gives
10 ... 'ifg4! with equality.
1 1 ii'h5 �d6?!
This is a very provocative move. It would have been more prudent to throw in 1 1...h6 12 ltJh3 first.
1 2 f4! exf4
12 ... ltJxf4? 13 .i.xf4 exf4 also runs into 14 e5!
1 3 e5! lt:lxe5!
13 ... .llxe5 14 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 15 .i.xf4 .i.g4 16 'ifh4 would also have given White a very dangerous attacking po
sition.
1 4 �xf4!
An excellent choice. White had other tempting possibilities, but the game move is superior to both 14 ltJxe5 g6! 15 'ifh6 'ifxe5 16 .i.xf4 'ifd4+ 17 'it>h1 .i.xf4 18 .:tae1+ .i.e6 19 ltJxe6 .llxh6 20 ltJxd4+ �d8 21 ltJb3 .:.es with equal chances (Benjamin) and 14 1lxf4 'ifg6 15 'ifxg6 hxg6 16 ltJxe5 .i.xe5 17 .:x£7 ('with a clear ad
vantage to White' according to Kam
sky) 17 ... .:.h5!, threatening ... :Xg5 and ... .i.xh2+.
1 4 .. . lt:lxc4
14 ... .i.g4 fails to 15 'ifh4 ltJxc4 16 'ifxg4 'ifd4+ 17 �h1 ltJe5 18 llae1 0-0, when 19 'ifh5 h6 20 .i.xe5 .llxe5 21 ltJf3, picking up a piece, looks even
5 0-0 ild6
simpler than Benjamin's suggestion of 19 l'he5 .i.xe5 20 'iff5 g6 21 'ifxe5.
1 5 �xd6
Benjamin gives this an exclamation mark, rejecting 15 .:tae1+ on account of 15 ... .i.e7 16 dxc4 .i.f5. However, instead of 16 dxc4, 16 .i.xc7! looks strong. For example, 16 ... 'ifd4+ 17
�h1 g6 18 'ife2 with a powerful attack or 16 ... .i.f5 17 'ifxf7+ 'ifxf7 18 ttJx£7
�xf7 19 l:hf5+ �g6 20 ltd5 .i.f6 21 dxc4 with a plus in the endgame.
Ftacnik indicates that Black can de
fend with 15 ... �d7, but then the sim
ple 16 ttJx£7 is promising, e.g. 16 ... .:.fs (or 16 ... .i.xf4 17 ttJxhs ttJd6 18 'ii'g4+
and 'iixf4) 17 .i.e3! 'ifxb2 18 'ii'g4+
�c6 19 'ife4+ �d7 20 dxc4 with an overwhelming attack.
1 5 .. . ii'd4+ 1 6 �h 1 lt:lxd6
1 7 l:txf7??
This spoils all of White's good work. After 17 1lae1+! (but not 17 ltJxf7? 0-0!!) 17 ... �d8 (or 17 ... 'it>d7 18 ltJf3! 'ifxb2 19 ltJe5+ �d8 20 'ifg5+ f6 21 1lxf6!) 18 ltJxf7+ ltJxf7 19 'ifxf7 'ifd6 20 'ifxg7 lieS 21 .:txe8+ 'it>xe8 22 llf7! White would have had a winning position (Benjamin).
1 7 .. . ii'g4!
105
Turning the tables. After the ex 'i'e2 is very pleasant for White.
7 lt.:Jg5
The more promising 7 'i'e2 is con
sidered in the next game.
7 . . . i.d7!
It seems that Black should not allow an exchange on e6:
a) After 7 ... �e7?! 8 d3 �g6 9 �xe6 'i'xe6 10 �c4 .tc5 1 1 i.e3 i.xe3 12
�xe3 White had a small but comfort
able edge in Ivanchuk-Short, Amster
dam 1994. The same position can also
arise after 6 d3 �e7 7 �bd2 .i.e6 8 slight plus for White in Christiansen
I.Sokolov, Manila Olympiad 1992.
lavera-Pinter, Spanish Team Champi
onship 1993. Gambit style approach is effective here. In any case, after 10 �f3 0-0-0!
11 'i'd3 (not 11 dxe5 .th3 12 �h4 'iixe4) 11...exd4 12 i.f4 c5 13 �fd2 'iig4! Black already stood much better in the encounter Malisauskas-Tisdall,
Manila 0 lympiad 1992.
1 0 .. . exf4
It is very dangerous to accept the piece sacrifice. After 10 ... fxg5 1 1 f5 Wf7 12 tLlxe5 Wf6 13 tLlxd7 �xd7 14 e5 'ii'd8 15 f6! gxf6 16 'ii'g4+ White has a tremendous initiative (Giorgadze).
However, 11. .. Wh6 may be a better try, so perhaps 1 1 tLlxe5 with the op
tion of f4xg5 is more precise.
1 1 tiJf3
11 .i.xf4 fails to 1 1...b5!
1 1 ... 0-0-0
There does not seem to be great deal wrong with 11...Wf7!? 12 b3 (or 12 'ii'e2 g5 13 e5 0-0-0 - Giorgadze}
12 ... g5, when after 13 e5 0-0-0 14 exf6 Wxf6 15 .i.b2 Wf5 16 d5 .i.c5+ 17 r.t>h1 tLlf6 White had less than nothing for the pawn in Magem Badals-Rodriguez V argas, T errassa open 1996. It is worth noting that after this game Magem Badals decided to revert to 7 We2 (see the notes to the next game).
1 2 .d3
12 .i.xf4 Wxe4 13 Wd2 is interest
ing. In Brynell-Barkhagen, Swedish Championship 1991, Black completely missed the point with 13 ... g5? 14 .i.xc7! �xc7 15 WaS+ �c8 16 tLlb6+
5 0-0 fld6
�b8 17 l:.ael Wg4 (or 17 ... Wg6 18 tiJe5 fxe5 19 :xf8} 18 h3 Wh5 19 tiJe5, when White had a very dangerous attack for the piece. Instead of 13 ... g5?, either 13 ... .i.b4 14 c3 i.e7 (K.rnic) or 13 ... .i.e6 14 l:.ae1 Wf5 would have given Black good chances of consoli
dating his extra pawn.
1 2 .. . J:.e8!
After the greedy 12 ... Wh6 13 tLlfd2 g5 White soon managed to crash through on the queenside with 14 tLlaS i.e6 15 tLldb3 .ltb4 16 tLlxc6! bxc6 17 d5 .i.xdS 18 Wxa6+ and won quickly in Rausis-Herbrechtsmeier, Viernheim 1992. The precise text move forces White to move his rook away from the f-file.
1 3 J:.e1 •g4
Now White is struggling to regain his pawn.
1 4 �d2 t2Je7 1 5 �a5
This time White's queenside play can be neutralised with a couple of prec1se moves.
1 5 .. . �b8! 1 6 •b3 tiJcS 1 7 �h 1 .h5!
Vacating a path for the advance of the g-pawn. White is already in very deep water indeed.
107
18 .i.d2 g5 19 e5 g4 20 ltJg1 f3 21 gxf3 .i.e6! 22 'W'd3 gxf3 23 l'lf1 l'lg8 24 lbe3
Or 24 tbxf3 .td5 2S l::tf2 l::tg3 and the black pieces pour in.
24 . . . fxe5 25 dxe5 .i.h6 26 liJxf3 l'lg3! 0-1
Game 49
Timman-Onischuk
Wijk aan Zee open 1995
1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 ltJc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 prospectless position after 8 tbc4 i.xc4 9 'iixc4 cS {to stop d2-d4) 10 tbgS 'i'f6
used on numerous occasions, includ
ing his famous victory over Nigel all for White in Glek-Leko, Copenha
gen 199S) 9 ... cS 10 c3 and now:
a) The Spanish grandmaster Magem Badals has scored two victories on the white side of 10 .. .'iff7?! 1 1 b3, when 11...i.xc4 12 bxc4 i.d6 13 d4 left White with a powerful mass of centre pawns in Magem Badals-Slobodjan, Pamplona 199S.
b) Wedberg suggests that 10 ... 0-0-0 1 1 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 exd4 13 :Xd4 'fibS is 'unclear', but after the simple 14 :xd8+ 'it.?xd8 1S b3, threatening tbd4, White has a huge lead in development.
c) 10 ... i.g4! 11 h3 (Magem Badals had this same position no less than three times in the 1996 Y erevan Olympiad!) 1 1.. . ..ths {11.. . .txf3 12 'i'xf3 tDe7 allows White to expand on the queenside with 13 a3! tbc6 14 b4 bS 1S tDe3 cxb4 16 axb4 .td6 17 d4, as in Shirov-Almasi, German Bundesliga 1996/97, when ECO gives 17 ... exd4 18 cxd4 0-0 as unclear, though I prefer White after 19 tbd5, e.g. 19 .. .'ife6 20 .tf4!? tDxb4 21 tDxc7) 12 d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 exd4 14 g4 .txg4 (14 ... ..tf7?! led
c) 10 ... i.g4! 11 h3 (Magem Badals had this same position no less than three times in the 1996 Y erevan Olympiad!) 1 1.. . ..ths {11.. . .txf3 12 'i'xf3 tDe7 allows White to expand on the queenside with 13 a3! tbc6 14 b4 bS 1S tDe3 cxb4 16 axb4 .td6 17 d4, as in Shirov-Almasi, German Bundesliga 1996/97, when ECO gives 17 ... exd4 18 cxd4 0-0 as unclear, though I prefer White after 19 tbd5, e.g. 19 .. .'ife6 20 .tf4!? tDxb4 21 tDxc7) 12 d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 exd4 14 g4 .txg4 (14 ... ..tf7?! led