Cuestionario de competencias generales

5 0-0 �d6

1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ttJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6

Despite the fact that the 5 ... ..td6 has been popular with many of the lead­

ing English players {such as Hebden, Flear and Wells) for over a decade, it has yet to capture the interest of the world's elite. This is somewhat sur­

prising since, as we shall see, it leads to dynamic positions which offer quite good counter-chances for Black. Fur­

thermore, unlike the S .. .f6 and 5 ... i..g4 variations, there is no easy way for White to head for an endgame with an early exchange of queens.

The main line of the 5 ... i..d6 varia­

tion arises after the sequence 6 d4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 f6, when White has a wide choice of plans:

a) The direct 8 eS and 8 :e 1 li:Je7 (Games 38 and 39) attempting to ex­

ploit White's slight lead in develop­

ment do not seem particularly effec­

tive - often White just finds that he has opened lines up for the black bishops.

b) White can also play to develop

his queen's bishop on b2 or a3 either with the immediate 8 b3 (Game 40) or 8 �bd2 i.e6 and then 9 b3 {Game 41).

However, as we shall see, Black should be able to equalise without too much difficulty against such slow play.

c) Simple development with 8 i..e3

�e7 9 �bd2 i.e6 {Game 42). White has been scoring good results with this lately, particularly with 10 'fic3!?, in­

tending �d4.

d) The sharp and little explored 8 c4 (Game 43).

First let us see what can befall White if he plays in routine fashion.

Game 37

Carlier-Hebden

London open 1988

1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6 6 d4 exd4

Of course 6 .. .f6? would be a bad mistake: 7 dxeS fxeS? 8 �xeS i.xeS 9 'ii'hS+ and White wins a pawn.

7 ltJxd4?!

This natural-looking move is far less

effective than 7 'iixd4, as it allows Black easy development.

Compared to the position after 5 .. .f6 6 d4 exd4 7 tbxd4 �d6?!, Black has not wasted time on the weakening .. .f7-f6.

7 . . . ti:Je7

The English Grandmaster Glenn Flear has experimented with the caveman-like 7 ... 'ifh4!?, threatening mate on h2. After 8 tbf3 (8 f4 lbe7 9 tbc3 0-0 10 �e3 l:.e8 was also fine for Black in Basas-Flear, Castellar open 1995) 8 ... 'iih5 9 'iid4 (9 lbbd2 i.e6 10 'ife2?? �xh2+ 0-1 was the abrupt con­

clusion of Pineau-Lane, Avoine open 1993) 9 ... tbe7 10 e5 tbf5 1 1 'ifc3 �e7 12 lbbd2 �e6 Black had a fine game in Badii-Flear, French Team Champion­

ship 1993.

8 i.e3

8 tbc3 0-0 9 l:.e1 at least prevents Black from breaking out immediately with 9 .. .f5 due to 10 e5, but after 9 ... tbg6 10 i.e3 tbe5 Black still has a promlSlng game.

8 . . . 0-0 9 ti:Jd2

White lost even more quickly after 9 tbc3 f5! 10 exf5 tbxf5 11 tbxf5 i.xf5 12 lbe2 'iff6 13 �d4 'iVg6 14 c3 l:.ad8!

5 0-0 i.d6

{threatening ... c6-c5) 15 'ifb3+? (White had to play either the ugly 15 b4 or 15 f4 to stay on the board) 15 ... i.e6 16 c4 'iih5 0-1 in Gauche-V an Riemsdijk, Florianopolis 1989.

9 . . . f5!

Opening up the position for the two bishops.

1 0 exf5 ti:Jxf5 1 1 ti:Jxf5 i.xf5 1 2 'it'e2 b5!

Of course the immediate 12 ... 'ifh4 would have been met by 13 'i'i'c4+ and an exchange of queens.

1 3 ti:Jb3 'it'h4 14 g3 'ii'h3 1 5 ti:Jd4 ltae8

All of Black's pieces are now lined up against the white king. It is not surprising that he is soon able to weave a mating net.

1 6 :te1 i.g4 1 7 'ii'f1 'it'h5 1 8 'it'd3 c5 1 9 ti:Je2 i.f3 20 ti:Jf4 i.xf4 21 i.xf4 :xe 1 + 22 :xe 1 :xt4 0-1

Game 38

Ungure-Lane

Cappelle la Grande open 1995

1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 i.d6 6 d4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 f6 8 e5 fxe5 9 ti:Jxe5

83

9 . . . tt:lf6

A speciality of the English IM Gary Lane. Both 9 ... 'iff6 10 tt:Jd2 lt:Je7 11 tt:Jdf3 h6 12 b3 with equal chances in Matanovic-Gligoric, Yugoslav Cham­

pionship 1975, and 9 ... lt:Je7 10 .i.g5 .i.e6 1 1 lt:Jc3 0-0 12 lladl (12 l:Hel transposes to the note to White's 12th move in Game 39) 12 ... tt:Jf5! 13 'ifd2 'ife8 are also fine for Black.

1 0 .:.e1

The immediate 10 .i.g5 seems more precise, but Black is still fine after 10 ... .i.e6 1 1 tt:Jc3 c5, as in Schild-Lane, Cannes open 1995.

10 . . . 0-0 1 1 �g5 'ii'ea! 1 2 ttld2 e5 1 3 'ii'e4+ �e6 1 4 'ii'e2

14 'ifh4 may have been better.

1 4 .. . �f5 1 5 tt:lde4 b5 1 6 tt:la5?

The knight ends up looking rather dim on the rim. However, Black would still have been slightly better after 16 tt:Jxd6 cxd6.

1 6 .. . tt:le4!

see following diagram

Suddenly White's pieces are look­

ing horribly loose.

1 7 tt:lf3 tt:lxg5 1 a tt:lxg5 'ii'g6 1 9 tt:le4 .:.aea 20 f3 �xe4 2 1 fxe4 .:.t4?!

This is sufficient for victory, but it allows White to bail out to an ending a pawn down. It is not clear how White could have defended against 21...c4!, threatening both ... .i.c5+ and ... .i.b4, e.g. 22 tt:Jb7 .i.f4 and now ... 'ifb6+ is very hard to meet .

22 tt:lb7 .:.txe4 23 'ii'd2 h6 24 .:.xe4 'ii'xe4 25 tt:lxd6 exd6 26 l:f1 'ii'e3+

27 'ii'xe3 .:.xe3 2a �f2 .:.e6 29 .:.d 1

�f7

With White's king cut off from the queenside there is no real doubt that Black will win in the end

30 b3 �e7 31 �f3 �d7 32 e4 �e6 33 h4 :as 34 .:.d2 bxe4 35 bxe4 d5 36 exd5+ .:.xd5 37 .:.e2 e4 3a :ea

�b5 39 �e2 h5 40 .:.ga .:.d7 41 :ha

�b4 42 .:.xh5 e3 43 :ha �a3 44 :ea �b2 45 h5 e2 46 .:.b8+ �xa2 4 7 :ea �b 1 4a .:.ba+ �e 1 49 g4 .:.d5 0-1

Game 39

I. Polgar-Perenyi

Budapest 1979

1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:le6 3 �b5 a6 4

�xe6 dxe6 5 0-0 �d6 6 d4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 f6 a .:.e1 tt:le7 9 e5

9 'ii'c4 is only temporarily incon­

It is surprising how often White can come unstuck with seemingly natural moves in this variation. For example, after 1 1 �c3 .i.e6 12 .i.f4?! (12 J.g5 transposes to the next note) Black had the surprise 12 ... lhf4! 13 'ii'xf4 �g6 with a good game in Pinter­

Westerinen, Budapest 1976. The unde­

fended state of White's king is revealed in the variation 1 1 'ii'c4+ �dS 12 �3 'ii'h5 15 .i.f4 left Black's pieces looking very loose in Stean-Planinc, Hastings 1974/75. After 15 ... �6 16 �g6!

'ii'xg6 17 'ii'xg6 hxg6 18 .i.xd6 cxd6 19

5 0-0 i.. d6

l:txe6 d5 20 l:txg6 White had won a pawn.

b) 12 ... l:tf5?! (again this leaves every­

thing rather loose) 13 �f3 l:txg5 (13 .. J:hf3 14 'ii'e4!) 14 .:Xe6, when Black is unable to prevent his oppo­

nent from doubling rooks on the e-file after, for example, 14 .. .lU5 15 'ii'g4 (but not 15 l:te2?? :.x£3 0-1 Matanovic­

Planinc, Yugoslav Championship 1975). .i.h4 'it'd7 with equal chances in Ador­

jan-Rumens, Hastings 1976/77.

c3) 13 :.ad1 'it'h5 14 i.xe7 .i.xe7 15

�d7 i.f6 16 �f6+ :xf6 17 l:e5 'ii'g6 18 :de1 .l:af8 again with roughly equal chances in Borghi-V an Riems­

dijk, Buenos Aires open 1990.

c4) 13 �c4!? �f5 14 'ii'e4 .i.dl 15

Zsu.Polgar, World Junior Champion­

ship 1988. note to White's 11th move.

85

12 ... t'Llf5 13 Wg4 We8!

Although it looks slightly odd to place the queen opposite the white rook on e1, there is no way for White to exploit it. Indeed, it is White who must be careful.

1 4 t'Lldf3?

A horrible oversight. 14 lt:Jdc4 would have retained the balance (14 ... lt:Je3 15 'ife2).

1 4 .. . t'Lle3 1 5 We4

15 'ifa4 b5 does not help as White must stay on the c2-pawn.

1 5 .. . t'Llxg2! 1 6 l:.ed 1

Or 16 �xg2 .i.dS 17 'i'e3 .i.xe5.

1 6 .. . Wh5 1 7 h4 h6 1 8 'i!?xg2 �xe5 1 9 �e3 l:.xf3 20 Wxf3 �g4 2 1 'iie4

�xd1 22 l:.xd 1 Wxd 1 23 Wxe5 Wg4+

0-1

Game 40

Van der Wiei-Pinter

European Cup, Rotterdam 1988

1 e4 e5 2 t'Llf3 t'Llc6 3 �b5 a6 4

�xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 �d6 6 d4 exd4 7 Wxd4 f6 8 b3

The advantage of the immediate 8 b3 compared to 8 tt:Jbd2 .i.e6 (see the next game) is one of flexibility. White

at least hints that he might play 9 .i.a3 to exchange the dark-squared bishops.

Although this is hardly an earth­

shattering threat, Black invariably chooses to prevent .i.a3 with ...

8 ... We7

8 ... lt:Je7 gives White the choice of transposing to the next game with 9 lt:Jbd2 .i.e6 or playing 9 .i.a3 .i.e6 10 .i.xd6 'ifxd6 1 1 'ife3 with chances of a slight plus, as in Maliutin-K.iltti, Ku­

opio open 1992.

If Black is prepared to allow his op­

ponent to exchange bishops then he should prefer 8 ... .i.e6 9 .i.a3 (9 tt:Jbd2 lt:Je7 again transposes to the next game) 9 ... lt:Jh6! 10 .i.xd6 'ifxd6 (10 ... cxd6?! 11 c4 0-0 12 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf7 13 'if e3 l:.e8 14 lt:Jd4 allowed White to establish a bind in Kagan-Zwaig, Hast­

ings 1976/77) 11 'ifxd6 cxd6 12 c4 b5!

with an equal position in Prie-V an Riemsdijk, Guarapuava open 1991.

9 t'Llbd2

9 .i.b2 allows Black to complete his development with 9 ... lt:Jh6 10 lt:Jbd2 0-0 (see Gobet-Hebden below), while after 9 .i.e3 Black has a choice be­

tween the standard 9 ... .i.e6 10 lt:Jbd2 'ii'f7 11 lt:Jc4 .i.xc4 12 bxc4 with equal

chances in Prie-Hebden, Linares Zonal 1995, or the more enterprising 9 ... �d7!? 10 liJbd2 c5 1 1 'ii'c3 �c6 12 :fe1 0-0-0 with a sharp position in which Black's bishops are nicely aligned against the white king in Ryan-Ferguson, Hastings open 1995/96.

9 ^{• . •} li:Jh6

9 ... �e6?! is premature here. After 10 ltJc4 i.c5 1 1 'ii'd3 litd8 (or 11...'ii'f7 12 liJaS) 12 li'e2 'i'f7 13 liJaS �b6?, White could have achieved a winning position in Timman-Piket, Brussels (rapidplay) 1992, by playing 14 ltJxb7 l:.b8 15 'ii'xa6 �c8 16 'ii'xb6!, as pointed out by V.Ivanov in Informator 65. It is much more flexible to develop the knight first. Moreover, the bishop may not want to go to e6 in any case.

1 0 lt:Jc4

10 i.b2 allows Black easy equality after 10 ... 0-0 1 1 .:tael i.e6 12 h3 :aes 13 'ii'd3 i.f4, as in Gobet-Hebden, Biel 1983.

1 0 .. . li:Jf7

In fact Black is not obliged to sur­

render the two bishops here. I prefer 10 ... �c5 1 1 'ifd3 ltJf7, when 12 i.e3 (12 i.b2 0-0 13 :ad1?! [13 h3 seems preferable] 13 ... i.g4 14 ltd2 ltad8 15 ile2 ltJg5 16 lhd8 l:txd8 17 lle1 �xf3

18 gxf3 b5 0-1 was the disastrous con­

clusion of D.Parr-Lane, Paignton open 1993) 12 ... 0-0 13 �xc5 \i'xc5 14 :tfe1

�e6 15 'ii'e3 'ii'xe3 16 ltJxe3 :ads was all fairly innocuous in Lalic-Hebden, Hastings 1996/97.

1 1 li:Jxd6+ cxd6 1 2 �f4 �e6?!

Again this natural move may not be best here. In a later game A.Martin­

Hebden, British Championship 1992,

5 0-0 i..d6

Black's play was improved slightly with 12 ... 0-0 13 l:.fe1 c5!? 14 'ifc3 b5 15 l1ad1 �b7 16 ttJd2 l:.fe8, but White still enjoyed a small advantage after 17 ltJfl! due to the weaknesses on f5 and dS.

13 .. b6!

Taking advantage of the weaknesses in the black queenside.

1 3 .. . o-o 1 4 li:Jd4 �ea

A rather embarrassing retreat.

1 5 l':.fe 1 'Wd8 1 6 'Wxd8 l':.xd8 1 7 l':.ad1 �f8 1 8 a4 �d7

1 9 li:Je2?!

The knight stood very well on d4.

A slow build-up such as 19 a4 and then �g3, f2-f3, .:.d2 and :.ed1 would have been quite unpleasant for Black 87

to meet. It is hard for him to do any­

Here this move serves a very useful purpose in preventing 9 tlJc4 due to l;td8 White is left vulnerable along the d-file. In Martin Gonzales-Hebden, Benidorm open 1983, White opted for the unsightly 11 �h1, but after moves had only served to help his op­

ponent in L.Schneider-W edberg, Swe­

den 1987. Brinck Claussen-Wedberg, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990, Black has equal chances.

The Latvian grandmaster Igor Rausis has enjoyed some success with

(remarkably this position had arisen before, in the game Crouch-Kaiszauri, London 1980, which had continued 19

%:.eel? �a1 20 �e6 l:.e8 21 �d4 :.d7

22 tbf3 lDc2 23 :Xc2 with a winning position for Black; all of which was published in the second edition of

£CO!) 19 ... :Xc7 20 .i.xf8 �xf8 21 �fl lbxa1 22 %ha1 and White won the ending a pawn up in Rausis-Ernst, Gausdal 1989.

b) 11...c5! 12 "ii'a4+ �f8 13 .i.f4

"ii'e8! (this is more precise than 13 ... 1i'f6 14 :ae1 tbe7 15 .i.g3! with an advantage to White in Rausis-C.Flear, Hyeres open 1992) 14 "ii'e4 tbf6 15

"ii'e2 'ifh5 16 :fe1 :es 17 h3 with a very unclear position in Sigurjonsson­

Zwaig, Nice Olympiad 1974.

9 . . . lbe7

9 ... tbh6 10 lDc4 tbf7 1 1 tbxd6+ cxd6 12 :ad1 allowed White the usual slight plus in Arencibia-Gomez, Ter­

rassa open 1996.

1 0 �b2

This is rather slow, but 10 lDc4 .i.b4! is not particularly promising for White either, e.g. 1 1 tbe3 c5 12 "ii'xd8+

:Xd8 13 .i.b2 0-0 with a completely level position in Schussler-Westerinen, Copenhagen 1979.

1 0 .. . 0-0 1 1 l:ad 1 "ii'e8

1 2 e5?!

As usual, it is risky for White to

5 0-0 J.d6

open up the position for the two black bishops. 12 lDc4 was preferable.

1 2 .. . fxe5 1 3 lbxe5 c5 14 "ii'e4 �d5 1 5 "ii'g4 h5!

The queen is given the run-around 1 6 "ii'h3 lbg6 1 7 lbxg6 "ii'xg6 1 8 c4 .tc6

The two bishops are now beauti­

fully lined up against the white king­

side. White now goes astray but even after 19 :fe 1 it is hard to imagine that he will survive in the long run.

1 9 f3? l:ae8 20 lbe4 .txe4 2 1 fxe4 l:xf1+ 22 l:xf1 l:xe4 23 "ii'f3

23 'ifc8+ �h7 24 'ifxb7 :e2 25 i.cl c6! leaves the white king completely without cover.

23 .. .'�h7 24 .tc1 b5 25 cxb5 axb5 26 g3 h4 27 .tg5 c4 28 �g2 c3 29

"ii'd3 h3+ 30 �h 1 l:e5 31 "ii'xg6+

�xg6 32 .tc 1 b4 0-1

Game 42

Rozentalis-Hebden

Hastings 1996/97

This game was a critical last-round encounter. Rozentalis needed to win to catch Hebden and seize a share of first place.

89

1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 3 �b5 a6 4 Hachian-Hebden, Cappelle la Grande open 1996. Perhaps he feared an im­

provement or perhaps he felt that this line was too speculative for such an important game. In any case this idea might still be worth exploring.

9 ti:Jbd2 �e6

1 0 l:.ad 1

10 lt:Jc4? again fails to 10 ... it.xh2+ 1 1 'iti>xh2 'ifxd4 1 2 lt:Jxd4 .i.xc4, so White must decide whether to play one of his rooks to d1 or drop the queen back to c3:

a) 10 l:tfd1 lt:Jg6 (10 ... c5 1 1 'ifc3 b6 12 lt:Jc4 0-0 13 l:td2 gave White un­

pleasant pressure in the centre in the game Brynell-Koskinen, Stockholm open 1996/97, and 10 ... 0-0 1 1 lt:Jc4 identical to the main game except that the white rook is on a1 instead of fl.

This should not really make any dif­

ference to the assessment of the posi­

tion: pretty level.

b) 10 'ifc3!?, with the idea of 1 1 lt:Jd4 has recently become fashionable.

After 10 ... lt:Jg6 11 lt:Jd4 .tf7 12 lt:Jf5 i.f4 left Black a little loosely placed in Renet-Haba, European Team Cham­

pionship, Pula 1997) 13 lt:Jc4 :ad8 14 lt:Jxd6 and here a draw was agreed in the game Sammalvuo-W edberg, Stock­

holm open 1994. Black has a solid enough position after either 14 ... 'ii'xd6 or 14 ... cxd6.

b2) 1 1 lt:Jc4! i.xc4 12 'ifxc4+ 'iti>h8 13 l:.ad1 'ii'e8 14 .i.c5 with a slight plus for White in Rozentalis-Wedberg, New York open 1997. This seems to be White's most accurate way of han­

dling the 8 .i.e3 variation at present.

1 0 .. . ti:Jg6

afraid of according to Donev) 12 ... �g6 13 �b6 'iixd4 14 �xd4 l:.ae8 15 �xe6 lhe6 16 �d7 J:He8 with unclear com­

plications in Prie-Lukacs, Budapest 1993.

1 1 t2Jc4

The white queen was pushed around after 1 1 'iic3 'iie7 12 �d4 i.b4 13 'iid3 J:.d8 14 'iie2 in Markovic­

Gligoric, Yugoslav Championship 1998. Black has no real problems here.

1 1 .. . ..txc4

Black has to concede the bishop pair this time, since unfortunately 11...i.b4 fails to 12 �b6! c5 (or 12 ... cxb4 13 'iixb4) 13 'iixd8+ .l:.xd8 14 :xd8+ 'ittxd8 15 r!d1+ <:J;e7 16 �dS+

i.xdS 17 l:.xdS with a clear edge for White in Pfannkuche-J urasin, German Bundesliga 1983/84.

1 2 'ii'xc4 'ii'e7 1 3 :te1 0-0-0

Although Black has doubled c­

pawns, he has enough counterplay along the d- and e-files to maintain the balance. First he will centralise his pieces with ... .:the8 and ... 'iie6.

1 4 a4

This was the first new move of the game, but it does not really change anything. Black should be fine.

5 0-0 .i.d6

14 .. . :he8 1 5 ..td4 'ii'e6 16 'ii'xe6+

:xe6 1 7 ..tc3 :deS 1 8 .!bd2 t2Jt4 18 ... l'l6e7, reserving the possibility of .. .f7-f5, was also possible. Hebden's plan of advancing the kingside pawns gives White something to bite into.

1 9 �f1 g5 20 f3 .!bg6 2 1 g3 h5 22 .!bc4 ..te5 23 .!bxe5 .!bxe5 24 �f2 g4 25 ..txe5 :xe5 26 :ea b5 27 b3 gxf3?

This move lets the white king into the game. Black should have main­

tained the tension with 27 .. J;[c5 or 27 .. JI8e6 (Wedberg).

28 �xf3 f5? 29 J:de1 :ta 30 �t4!

:xe4+ 31 :xe4 fxe4+ 32 �g5!

After this move White has a won endgame. The white king is just too strong.

32 . . . :ea 33 c4 bxc4 34 bxc4 :e5+

35 �f6 :as 36 J:xe4 :xa4 37 �g6 :as 38 h4 :aa 39 g4 hxg4 40 :xg4 a5 41 h5 a4 42 c5 :a1 43 h6 a3 44 h7 :h 1 45 J:a4 �d7 46 :xa3 :g 1 + 47 �f7 l:f1 + 48 �g7 :g 1 + 49 �h8

�e6 50 :as J:g5 51 J:g8 J:xc5 52

�g7 :h5 53 h8'ii' J:xh8 54 :xh8 c5 55 :h5 c4 56 :cs �d6 57 J:xc4 c5 58 �f6 �d5 59 :c1 c4 60 �f5 �d4 61 �f4 <t>d3 62 �f3 c3 63 J:d1 + 1 -0

9 1

Game 43

This move was not even mentioned in the second edition of ECO but was promoted to a main line for the third edition! It is interesting that Rozentalis chose it here in preference to 8 .te3, which he had used to defeat both Hebden and W edberg in the preceding 12 months (see the previous game).

The immediate threat is c4-c5 and whether Black meets this with 8 ... c5!?

or 8 ... 'ii'e7 White will eventually hope to establish a bind on the queenside with t2Jc3 and b2-b3.

8 . . . c5!?

In ECO 8 ... b6 is dismissed by 9 e5 fxe5 10 t2Jxe5 ttJe7 1 1 .tg5 'and White has a winning position' (Mirkovic­

Lukacs, Belgrade 1984). However, is it really so straightforward after 1 1...0-0 here? For example, 12 t2Jxc6 .txh2+

13 �xh2 tDxc6 14 'ii'xd8 t2Jxd8 15 t2Jc3 .te6 with good equalising chances.

Although 8 .. .'i'e7 seems a more natural alternative to 8 ... c5!?, Black is then deprived of a means of develop­

ing his knight. He must therefore play in sharp fashion with 9 tlJc3 .te6 (9 ... .tc5 10 'i'd3 .te6 1 1 b3 l:.d8 12 'ii'e2 �d7?! [12 ... .tg4 was less provoca­

tive] 13 e5 'iifc8 14 t2Je4 .tg4 15 tDxc5 'ii'xc5 16 .tb2 left Black perilously behind in development in Magem Badals-Lalic, Moscow Olympiad 1994) 10 b3 0-0-0! (deliberately castling into it; after 10 ... .:.d8 11 'i'a7 .tg4, as in Illescas Cordoba-Hebden, Montpellier 1988, White could have considered 12 c5 .txc5 13 'i'xb7 .txf3 14 'i'xc6+) 11

doba-I.Sokolov, Linares 1995, when instead of 12 t2Jc3?! 'i'e8! 13 l:.e1 g5 14 'i'h6 �h8!, when the white queen was embarrassed, !van Sokolov suggests 12 .th6 :v 13 t2Jc3 with an unclear posi­

tion. Personally I still would not choose to place my queen on h4.

9 . . . ttJe7 1 0 ttJc3 0-0 1 1 b3 'it'e8 1 2

�a3

1 2 .. . b6

I prefer the immediate 12 ... 'ii'h5, with the idea of ... .i.g4.

1 3 l:.ad 1 �b7 1 4 l:.fe1 'iih5 1 5 ltJe2 Having centralised his major pieces, Rozentalis sets his sight on the f5-square.

1 5 .. . l:.ae8 1 6 ltJg3 'iig4 1 7 h3 'iie6 1 8 liJh4 ltJc6 1 9 liJhf5 liJd4 20 ltJxd6 cxd6 2 1 'iid2

White has achieved his first objec­

tive of exchanging the bishop on d6.

Now all he has to do is play .i.b2 to remove the pesky knight from d4 and he will be in complete control.

2 1 ^{• . .} b5 22 cxb5 ltJxb5 23 �b2 l:.d8 24 'iia5 l:.d7 25 l:.e3!

5 0-0 i.. d6

The rook is now well placed to swing over to the kingside.

25 ... ltJa7 26 'iie 1 ltJc6 27 �c3 ltJe7 28 ltJh5 'iif7 29 'iie2! :ea 30 'iig4 ltJg6

Black's kingside is now ripe for col­

lapse.

31 �xf6 'iie6

Or 31...gxf6 32 'ii'xd7 'ii'xd7 33 ttJxf6+.

32 'iig5 gxf6 33 ltJxf6+ �g7 34 ltJxd7 'iixd7 35 -.xc5

The black pawns are dropping like flies.

35 . . . l:.e6 36 l:.ed3 'iif7 37 :Xd6 l:.e7 38 'iic3+ �h6 39 ._d2+ �g7 40 l:.d7 ltJe5 41 ._g5+ 1 -0

93

Summary

The 5 ... i.d6 variation deserves to be more popular than it is. Indeed, I would not hesitate to recommend this variation for Black, as it invariably leads to dy­

namic positions in which Black has his share of chances. In the main line after 6 d4 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 f6 White does not seem to have anything after 8 e5, 8 l:.el, 8 b3 or 8 ttlbd2 (see Games 38-41}. It seems that his only chances for an advantage lie in 8 .i.e3 (Game 42} or 8 c4 (Game 43}.

1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .ib5 a6 4 .txc6 dxc6 5 0-0 .id6

6 d4 exd4 7 'Wxd4 (DJ 7 ttlxd4 ^-Game 3 7

7 . . . f6 8 .te3

8 e5 -Game 38

8 :.el -Game 39

8 b3 -Game 40

8 ttlbd2 ^-Game 41

8 c4 (D) -Game 43

8 . . . lL!e7 (DJ - Game 42

7 'Wxd4 8 c4 8 ^{. . .} ttJe 7

In document LIBRO BLANCO (página 195-200)