• No se han encontrado resultados

1

d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 lbf6

4 .i.g5 .i.e 7 5 liJf3 h6 6 .i.h4 0-0 7

31 e3 b6 8 Ik l .i.b7 9 .i.e2 liJbd7 1 0

W cd ed I I 0-0 c5 (32)

This is the obvious reaction to White's pseudo-offer of a pawn on the second move, once it has been appreciated that Black cannot retain his booty after 2 . .. de. With the sturdy 2 . . . e6 Black maintains a dependable presence in the centre, "the Balkans of the chessboard", as Nimzowitsch des­ cribed this critical area, and resolutely refuses to allow White to play e4. The standard freeing move for Black is ... c5, and in the most solid variation of all, the Tanakower, Black calmly develops his forces, fianchettoes his queen's bishop, and ultimately sets out to equalise with the desired thrust of his c-pawn. Thus from the diagram:

J.? w

This is Hon-Karpov, Amsterdam 1981 and Korchnoi-Karpov, 1 st game World Championship match, Merano 1 98 1 . Although Karpov lost the first of these, Black really has little to fear, as was demon­ strated by the world champion's willingness to rep:.-at against Korchnoi. In fact, Karpov won the later game.

As an historical aside I should point out why 5 ... h6, "putting the question", as the cliche runs, is so necessary as a prelude to ... b6 and

... .ib7. From diagram 3 1 : 4 .ig5 .ie7 5 eJ 0-0 6 �f3 b6 7 .id3 .ib7

Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox 35 8 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 9 cd ed 10 h4 (33)

JJ B

Without the precaution of . . . h6 this bold advance grants White a vehement attack, e.g.

1 0

. • .

g6

I I

h5 lile8 1 2 hg hg 13 -.c2 i,g7 1 4 iLxg6 fg 15 1hg6 ltld7 16 �g5 1Wf6 1 7 �h!H! 1 -0 Marshall-Burn, Paris 1 900; or

10

...

g6

I I h5 c5 1 2 h g hg I J ltle5 ..ixe5 1 4 d e trg5 1 5 1Wf3 1Wxc5 16 �0-0 with excdlent

attacking chances, as in Marsha li­ M.trco, a I so Paris 1 900. A fter

I 0

. ..

cS

White should not sacrifice with

I I ..ixh7+?! l!.>xh7 12 ltlg5+ \t>h6!

but play I I 1Wc2! h6 I 2 0-0-0 ltlc6 13 g4! cd 14 ed 1Wd6 15 \t>b I lbb4

16 1Wd2 ltlxd3 1 7 1Wxd3 " ± "

according to Soviet GM Taimanov, since White threatens g5. This notwithstanding, the Tartakower variation with . . . h6 is a serious to a advantage. Indeed, the Lasker Defence, 4 .ig5 .ie7 :'\ c3 0-0 6 ltlf3 h6 7 .ih4 .!t:le4, is also tough to c1 ack, as is Capablanca's 6 ... �bd7 7 lilcl c6 8 .id3 de 9 .1xc4 ltldS 1 0 .ixe7

Wxe7 1 1 0-0 �xc3 1 2 lilxc3 eS!

I therefore recommend here the with

0-0-0. W hite fixes the

structu re in the middle of the board and releases the Jock on Black's queen's bishop represented

by the pawn on e6. a1m IS

to scenano, either

pawns in the style or

advance m centre e4, t he very is to mentioned, White in theory. may 1s

m

ore t reatment Spielmann, Botvinnik, Hronstein, Kasparov

and Timman.

The QGD Ort hodox as a whole i:. examined in BCD, pages 60-69.

Spielmann-Sir George Thomas

Carlsbad

1 929

d4

d5

2

c4

eb

3 �c3

ltlr6

For 3 . . . .ie7 see the next game, Korchnoi-Karpov.

4

cd

ed

s .tgs

See Diagram 34

Now the main line is 5 . . . �bd7, but Black can also select:

36 Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox

independent significance if Black intends to switch into a Tartakower with .. . h6, ... b6 and ... c5, for which see Kasparov-Belyavsky in Pan V.

b)

S

...

c:S?

6 -'.xf6! gf 7 e3 -'.e6 8 �ge2 l0c6 9 g3 cd 10 ed -'.b4 I I -'.g2 1fb6 1 2 � 0-{)...0 13 l0a4 1ra6 14 a3 -'.d6 1 5 b4, Pillsbury­ Steinitz, Hastings 1 895. Evidently a strategic disaster for Black, whose doubled pawns are miserably weak. White also enjoys the unbelievable luxury of having Black's king as an extra target for his queenside attack.

c)

S

. • .

c6

6 e3 -'.f5 7 'it'D! -'.g6 8

.txf6 'tWxf6 ( 8 ... gf 9 'tWd I ! 'tWb6 1 0 'tWd2 ltJa6 I I ltJf3 0-0-0 1 2 a 3 ltJc7 13 b4 ± Petrosian-Barcza, Buda­ pest 1955, very similar to Pillsbury­ Steinitz) 9 'tWxf6 gf 1 0 \t>d2! l0d7 I I .id3 .td6 12 h4 h5 13 �ge2 V ±. White has neutralised Black's bishop pair with the manoeuvre 'it>d2 and .td3, but the weak doubled pawns remain.

d)

S

...

c6

6 e3 h6 7 .th4 -'.f5. Now White could just play 8 .td3, exchanging bishops, and later playing to occupy f5 with a knight. The fact that Black has played ... h6 makes ... g6 as well somewhat less attractive for him. There is also an ambitious and complicated line available which tries to refute: Black's play, namely: 8 WtJ 'W'b6!? 9 Wxf5 Wxb2 10 Wc8+ 'it>e7 I I li:lxdH ( I I ltJd I

'tth4+

12 \t>e2 g5! is good for Black which shows why 6 ... h6 must be interpolated before Black can meet tff3 with ... Wb6) I I ... cd 1 2 We i 'tWb4+ 1 3 '.&.>c:2 Wb5+?! 1 4 \t>D Wd7 1 5 -'. xl6+ 'Ot.- x l 6 (35), Smyslov­ Pachman, Moscow 01 1 956.

Once White unravels, Hlack's IQP is very weak im.h:ed, Black should have sought further com­ plications with 1 3 ... g5 14 .ig3 ltJc4

1 5 f) tfb5+ 16 \t>e l Wb4+ 17 c;t>d l

ltJcJ+ 1 8 \t>c2. If this is not to your taste, by all means plays 8 i.d3. e)

S

... c0 6 eJ .ie7 7 .td3 -'.g4 8 f3

Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox 37

.i.h5 9 lt:lge2 helps White to mobilise his centre pawns.

5

lt:lbd7

This move sets a jejune trap,

which has, however, claimed a number of unwary VICtims:

6 lt:lxd5?? lt:lxd5! 7 .i.xd8 .i.b4+

and Black wins .l piece.

6

e3

c6

But 6 ... .i.b4 is out of place since White can p rotect h is knight

on c3 with lt:lge2: 7 .i.d3 c5 8 lt:lge2

c4 9 .i.c2 0-0 10 0-0 1t'a5 I I a3

.i.xc3 12 ll:Jxd Jle8 1 3 1t'd2 h(l 14

f3 .ib7 1 5 ll:ac l w i t h e4 to come, Portisch-Tringov, Plovdiv 1983.

7 .id3

.ie7

Uy playing 7 . . . .td6 H lack pays insufficient ath:ntion to the pin on his ki ng's knight, viz 8 ll:Jge2 lt:lf8 9

1t'c2 h6 1 0 .th4 1t'e7 I I a3 .id7

1 2 c4 g5 1 3 .i.g3 de 14 10xe4 ll:Jxe4 1 5 .ixe4 .i. xg3 1 6 hg tl ± Spielmann-Capablanca, Carlsbad

1929.

8 1t'c2

Alekhine-Capablanca, 32nd game

1927 World Championship, Buc::nos Aires, went 8 10ge2 0-0 (on

8

... h6 Alekhine wanted to play 9 .i.f4 rather than .ih4) 9 lt:lg3 lLle8 (9 . . . h6 1 0 h4; 9 ... Jle8 10 ll:Jf5) 1 0 h4 ll:Jdf6 ( after 1 0 . . . f6 White has

I I 1t'h5, one rc::ason for keeping the queen on d I for a move or so)

I I 'W'c2 i.e6 1 2 �.Jf5 .txf5 1 3 .ixf5 10d6 14 .id3 h 6 1 5 .tf4 llc8?

( 1 5 ... lle8 16 04-0 lLJfe4!) 1 6 g4 ±.

This was the game where Alekhine invented the lt:lge2 system and the reader may wish to pursue Alekhine's idea of tllg3 before 11Pc2. There has, however, been no subsequent experience with it.

8

�0

A common manoeuvre to ease Black's position by exchanges is

... tllfH-e6, ... g6, . . . li'Jg7 and then . . . .if5. H ere, White's elastic cc:: ntre easily copes with this: 8 ... 10f8 9 tllge2 lLle6 to .th4 g6 I I 0-0-0 lt:lg7 1 2 f3 lilf5 ( i f 1 2 ... .if5 1 3 c4 ±) 1 3 .tf2 1t'a5 14 ¢'b l .ic6 15 h 3 0-0-0 16 e4 ± Bronstein-Medina, Gi:iteborg 1955. H • . • �)hS 9 .t xe7 1t'xc::7 10 �ge2

g6 I I hJ Ci.Jg7 1 2 lbf4 and g4 t was

Timman-Lobron, Sarajevo 1984. J6

w

9

lt:lge2 lieS

10 0-0-0

The point of White's play, but if you don't relish a sharp battle it is

not too late to castle kingside. White then has t h e choice -of the

minorit y attack ( Jlab I, b4, b5 to

38 Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox central advance with f3, �ae I etc and then e4. Botvinnik-Larsen, cited above, is an example of this, and I could also mention Botvinnik­ Keres, USSR Championship, Mos­ cow 1952: 10 0-0 lt:JfH I I �abl .id6 1 2 'it>h I (to meet 1 2 ... ..ixh2 with 13 ..ixf6! ±t) 12 ... lt:Jg6 1 3 f3 .ie7 14 �be I lt:Jd7 ( 1 4 ... h6 1 5 ..ixh6 gh 1 6 ..ixg6) 15 ..ixe7 �xe7 1 6 lt:Jg3 lt:Jf6 1 7 't!rf2 ..ie6 Ill lt:Jf5 ..ixf5 19 ..txf5 't!tb6 20

e4 ±.

I 0

li:Jc4

10 ... h6 I I h4 'ita5 1 2 �g3 is promising for White. Also 10 .. .' ltJfH I I h3 ( I I f3 h6 1 2 h4 and I I lt:Jf4 a5 1 2 f3 a4 1 3 a3 b5 14 lt:Ja2 1Wb6 1 5 1td2 lt:Je6 1 6 h4 are good alternatives - Hort) I I ... .id7 1 2 g4 �c8 13 <;!.lb l b5 1 4 lt:Jf4 a 5 1 5 .if5 a4 1 6 lt:Jd3 .ixf5 17 gf ltJ8d7 18 llhg l ..tf8 19 llg2 ± - Christiansen-Spassky, Linares 1981. I I ... b5!? 12 lt:Jg3 a5 1 3 lt:Jce2 .id7 14 l0f5 is Hort-lnkiov, Lugano 1984.

I I ..ixe4

de

12 h4!

rs 1 2 ... .ixg5 1 3 hg 1fxg5 14 lt:Jxe4 1tg6 1 5 f3 lt:Jf8 1 6 lt:Jf4 1tf5 17 llh5 1fd7 1 8 d5! See Diagram 37 This is Nimzowitsch-Spielmann, Bad Kissingen 1 928, the game which persuaded Spielmann to try the variation against Thomas and Capablanca. White has clearly used his h-pawn as a decoy to wipe

Jl B

out Black's centre. The conclusion was: I ll ... cd 19 lt:Jxd5 'it'c6 20 1Vxc6 be 2 1 lt:Jdf6+ gf 22 lt:Jxf6+ <;!.lhll 23 lt:Jxe8 .i.g4 24 lt:Jc7 llc8 25 llg5 .i.e6 26 lt:Jxe6 lt:Jxe6 27 �a5 1-0.

An impressively powerful display by Nimzbwitsch.

13

1tb3+

The queen check sets a very beautiful trap. Also worth con­ sidering is 1 3 g4 !?

JH H

1 3

�h8

14 lt:Jf4

(38)

The threat now is 1 5 lt:Jg6+! ! hg 1 6 h5 .ixg5 1 7 hg+ .ih6 1 8 .. 17

'ite7 19 �xh6+ gh 20 g7+ 'it>h7 2 1 g81lr mate. Absolutely the only

Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox 39 defence (which makes Spielmann's

continuation an excellent practical bet) is 14 ... 'i:lf8! 1 5 d5 Wb6 (Tartakower).

14

�r6?

This does not help.

I S hS

�dS

Or 1 5 ... h6 16 Wf7! hg 1 7 h6 :±±. 39 B

1 6 .txe7

li:Jxe7

17 �g6+

�xg6

18

hg

(39) If now 1 8 ... h6 19 Jbh6+ gh 20 Wf7 :±±.

18

.i.e6

19 1Ixh7+

�8

20

dS

cd

21 �xdS

llc8+

22 �bl

WgS

22 ...

�f8

23 llhiH

.t

g8 24 llxg8+ �xg8 25 lt:lf6+ :±±.

23 lldhl

W

x

g

6

24 llh8+

1-0 After 24 ... 'it-17 25 Wxb7+ mates.

[For reasons of strict historical veracity, I should point out the

above game actually commenced 1 d4 e6 2 c4 i()f6 3 �c3 d5 4

.tg5

�bd7 5 e3 c6 6 cd ed etc. I have standardised the move-order for ease of assimilation.]

In the next game we see what can occur if Black, by adopting a cunning move-order, tries to avoid my recommended line against the Orthodox. 40 w

Korchnoi-Karpov

1 3th game, Merano 1981

c4

e6

2 lbc3

dS

3

d4

.i.e7!?

( 40)

This move-order. physically stopping White's intended .i.g5, is intended to outlaw the Exchange Variation with �ge2, as seen in Spielmann-Thomas. White's most usual response is 4 �0. but, as we shall see, it is still possible to employ an aggressive form of the Exchange.

4

cd

eel

40 Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox

6

e3

.tfS!

Otherwise White plants his bishop on d3, seizing control of the b 1-h 7 diagonal and obviously stands well. In Timman-Karpov, Bugojno 1978, White then succeeded in implementing an attack similar in many respects to Spielmann­ Thomas, viz: 6 ... lt:lf6 7 .td3 0-0 8 1fc2 lil:e8 9 l0f3 l0bd7 10 ��0 l0f8 I I h3 .te6 12 'iPbl lil:c8 13 l0g5 b5 ( 13 ... .i.d7! 14 .te5 h6 1 5 l0f3 c 5 i) 14 .i.e5 h6 1 5 lt:lxe6 l0xe6 16 g4 lt:ld7 1 7 h4! ±.

7

g4!

The best way of keeping up the initiative. Exchange of light­ squared 7 .td3 .i.g6 is, of course, m comparison.

7

.te6

Black would like to play 7 ... .tg6, but it fails for tactical reasons: 8 h4! threatening g5 to imprison Black's king's knight, as well as h5, trapping Black's queen's bishop, 8 ... .i.xh4 9 1fb3 b6 10 lil:xh4 1fxh4 I I lt:lxd5!

:i±.

8

h3

(41)

Also interesting is Tony Miles' idea 8 .i.d3, e.g. 8 ... lt:ld7 9 1ff3 h5 10 h3 hg I I hg .bg4 1 2 lil:xhll! or I I . .. lil:xh I 12 1fxh I .txg4 13 1fh8 'iPfll 14 .i.h7 lt:lf6 1 5 �e5 l0xh7 16 'tlhg7+ etc. Miles­ Georgadze, Porz 198 1-2, went instead: 10 ... 'tlt'b6 I I 0-0-0 hg 12 hg lil:xh I 13 'tlhh I g5 14 .i.g3 .i.xg4 1 5 litd2 .i.e6 16 1fh2 0-�0

17 l0b5 cb 18 lil:c2+ with a dangerous attack. 41 H

8

l0f6 Alternatives: a)

8

• • • .td6 9 l0ge2 l0e7 10 'tlt'b3 .i.c8 I I .tg2 l0g6 12 .txd6 1hd6 1 3 h4 l0a6 14 g5 lt:le7, Korchnoi­ Spassky, match (2) 1968. Here Tal suggests 15 0-0-0 lt:lc7 16 e4! with advantage to White.

b)

8

. . .

hS!?

a vigorous attempt to

disrupt White's kingside structure: 9 gh ltJd7 10 lil:h2 lt:ldf6 I I .i.e2, Korchnoi-lvkov, Budva 1967. Black must now reson to I I ... lLlh6 1 2 litg2 tl::lf5 1 3 i.g4 c;Pf8 t o hold his g-pawn.

9 lf:lf3

0-0

The time-consuming 9 ... tl::lbd7 10 �d3 ll::lb6 I I 1fc2 ll::lc4, Botvinnik-Petrosian , match ( I H) 1963, can be parried by 12 .txc4 de 13 e4 or even 1 2 ltJg5 �d7 13 e4!

I 0

.i.d3

cS

1 1 '.t'fl

Queen's Gambit Declined Orthodox 41 than I I 0-0, since White may need

his king's rook on h I for attacking purposes. It also helps to keep the h3 pawn continuously protected.

I I

�c6

1 2 �g2

llc8

Alternatively, 1 2 ... cd 1 3 �xd4 �xd4 14 ed �d7 1 5 •c2 :! Botvinnik-Petrosian, match ( 14), 1963.

13 llcl

Also 1 3 de J.xc5 14 �e2 �e4 1 5 Il c l J.e7 16 �fd4 �xd4 1 7 �xd4 1rb6 18 Wb3 i (Bronstein).

1 3

lle8

A possible improvement is 1 3 ... a6 to prevent �b5.

14 de

I S l()bS

1 6 �rd4!

17 llxc8

18 ed!

J.xcS

J.f'8

�xd�

1hc8

Indeed, 1 8 l0xc.J4 maintains a

piece blockade over Black's JQP, but now White's knight on b5 threatens both to capture on a 7

and to invade on c7.

1 8

.d7

1 9 lUc7

Here I 9 �xa 7 lla8 is pointless.

1 9

llc8

20 li:lxe6

re

Black would prefer to play 20 ... 11t'xe6 but it fails to 2 1 iLf5. The text, however, leaves Black with a

weak pawn at e6 on an open file.

21 llel

a6

22 gS

The quiet 22 1t'e2 is also strong and gives enduring pressure.

22

/()e4

23 .g4

Of course not 23 .i.xe4 de 24 lhe4 •d5, when Black has freed himself at the cost of a mere pawn.

23

.i.b4