Dependencia De Mano De Obra Migrante Para Tareas Agrícolas

V mjacka Ba'!Ja 1999

1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 S ..tg2 a6 6 0-0 bS 7 ltJeS c6 S ltJxc6

Razuvaev's brilliant idea was 8 b3! cxb3 9 lbxc6 'it'b6 lO lba5 l:ta7 (lO ... bxa2 1 1 'ii'c2 axbl'ili' 1 2 'ili'xc8+ 'iVd8 1 3 'iVxd8+ rt;;xd8 14 .l:!.xb 1 lbd5 1 5 1i.d2 with compensation for the pawn) 1 1 lbxb3, when Razuvaev­ M.Gurevich, Riga 1 985 continued 1 1 ....i.e 7 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i.e3 J::.d7 14 lbld2 'iVd8 1 5 a4! bxa4 1 6 ':xa4 1i.b7 1 7 lba5! .Jl.c6 1 8 lbxc6 lbxc6 19 lbb3 �6 20 l:tal ! �5 21 lIbl with an advantage to White thanks to the bishop pair and the centre. Another possibil­

is l 1 ...lId7 1 2 e4! i.b7 1 3 llel ! i.e7 14 e5 1 5 'ii'g4 rt;;f8 16 .Jl.g5 h5 17 'iWh4 when the plight of Black's king promises White the more pleasant prospects, although this is an improvement for Black on the dubious 1 5 ... g6?!, when Krasenkow-Kohlweyer, Os­ tend 1 990 continued 16 i.h6 lbb4 17 i.xb 7 'iVxb7 1 8 'iVe2 lb8c6 1 9 lbc3 and, once again, Black's poor king was a significant factor.

S . . . if'b6 9 ltJeS

9 lbxb8 lIxb8 lO b3 cxb3 1 1 axb3 .Jl.b7 1 2 i.xb7 �xb7 1 3 i.f4 l:tc8 with equality. 9 . . . ..tb7 1 0 ..txb7

White can also try lO e4?! lbxe4 1 1 "iVh5 lbd6 1 2 d5

g6

(the immediate capture 1 2 ... .Jl.xd5 1 3 .Jl.xd5 exd5 14 lbc3 'iib 7 1 5 lIdl i.e7 1 6 lbxd5 i s nice for White) 1 3 �e2 i.g7 and now 14 i.e3?! was tried in Aseev­ Novikov, Lvov 1984, which went 14 .. .'ikc7

15 ii.f4 0-0 1 6 ttJc3 .l:!.e8 and Black was on top. There is no reason to lose a tempo with the bishop, which brings us to 14 dxe6 O-O! 15 �e3 �c7 16 ii.xb7 'iVxb7 17 �c5 'iVd5 18 �xd6 1Vxd6 19 ttJxf7 'it'e7, when White keeps the extra pawn but the situation re­ mains unclear due to Black's strong bishop. Returning to 1 1 'iib5, we should consider 1 1 ...g6!?, when 12 ttJxg6?!

fxg6

1 3 'ii'e5 J:!.g8 14 .Jixe4 .Jig 7 1 5 1V f4 .tIf8 1 6 't't' g4 .Jixd4 favours Black.

1 0 .. . 'iWxb7 1 1 a4 ttJc6

Also possible is l 1 ...ttJbd7 12 axb5 axb5 13 l:'txa8+ 'ii'xa8 14 ttJc3 b4 1 5 'iVa4 1Vxa4 1 6 ttJxa4 ttJxe5 1 7 dxe5 ttJd7 1 8 .Jif4 �e7 1 9 .tIel , given by Cebalo. White picks up a pawn on the queenside and has excellent winning chances.

1 2 axb5 axb5 1 3 J:ba8 + 'iWxa8 14 ttJc3

1 4 .. . �b7

Another try is 14 ... b4 15 ttJxc6 'tWxc6 1 6 �a4 1Vxa4 1 7 ttJxa4 .Jid6 1 8 .Jie3 <j;e7 19 .l:!.el c3 20 bxc3 b3 21 ttbl .l:!.b8 22 �g5 h6 23 �xf6+ <j;xf6 24 <j;f1 and White is slightly better in the ending. His pawns are on dark squares and thus dominate the bishop, while the far advanced b3-pawn might prove vul­ nerable.

1 5 ttJxc6 �xc6 1 6 e4! b4

Or 1 6 ... ttJxe4 1 7 'it'D f5 1 8 .l:!.dl ! .Jie7 1 9 d 5 exd5 2 0 ttJxd5 and White's activity i s suf­ ficient to keep the fire burning.

1 7 d5 'iWa6

4 . . . dx c 4 5 � g 2 a 6

Also possible is 1 7...�d7 1 8 ttJa4 �e 7 1 9 ttJb6 � 5 20 ttJc8 exd5 21 ii.g5 dxe4 22 �xf6 gxf6 23 ttJd6+ .Jixd6 24 'it'xd6 when, despite being two pawns down, White has compensation due to his opponent's poor co-ordination.

1 8 dxe6 fxe6

1 8 ... bxc3 gives White a strong initiative af­ ter 1 9 e5! c2 20 'it'd4 �xe6 21 exf6 etc. 1 9 e5! ttJd7 20 ttJe4 ttJxe5 21 'iWh 5+ ttJg6?!

Correct is 21 ...ttJf7, when after 22 ttJg5 g6 23 it'D ttJxg5 24 �xg5 �e7 25 �xe7 'i;;xe7 26 1Ve4 White still has compensation due to Black's insecure king.

22 l:te 1 �e7 23 �g5 �a5

23 ... 0-0 does not help Black in view of 24 .Jixe7 ttJxe7 25 ttJg5 h6 26 ttJxe6 .l:!.f7 27 ttJd8 and White wins material.

24 �g4 'iWd5

24 ... iff5? 25 ttJd6+ 24 ... iVb6 25 ii.xe7 <j;xe7 26 ttJc5! wins for White.

25 �xe7 ct;xe7 26 ttJg5 e5 27 h4!

27 . . . h6

No better is 27 ... h5 28 it'f5 .l:!.h6 29 .l:!.al . 28 ttJf3 �e6 29 �e4 l:td8 30 h5 ttJf8 3 1 ttJxe5 l:td5 3 2 'it'h4+ 1 -0

Game 58

Vajnerman-Novikov

Lvov 1984

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5

�g2 a6 6 0-0 b5 7 lLle5 lLld5

8 lLlc3 �b7

Black can also play 8 ... c6 but, after 9 lLlxd5 should avoid 9 ... cxd5 1 0 e4, when disaster can soon strike, e.g. 1O ... i.e7? 1 1 exd5 exd5 1 2 lLlxf7! 'it>xf7 1 3 'iVh5+ g6 14 i.xd5+ etc. Best is 9 ... exd5 10 e4 iLe6 11 a4, when an interesting option is 1 1 ...1:.a7!? 1 2 axb5 cxb5 1 3 exd5 i.xd5 with unclear play. Sosonko-Hiibner, Tilburg 1 979 went l 1 ...b4?! 12 exd5 i.xd5?! 1 3 'iVg4! h5 (or 1 3 ... iLxg2 1 4 l:tel !) 14 iLxd5! cxd5 1 5 'iVrs Ita7 16 l:tel Ite7 17 i.g5 g6 1 8 iLxe7! and White won.

9 lLlxd5

After 9 e4 lLlf6 10 d5 lLlbd7 the sacrifice 1 1 lLlxf7 'it>xf7 12 dxe6+ 'it>xe6 1 3 e5 is not good enough in view of 1 3 ... i.xg2 14 exf6 lLle5 with an advantage to Black. Speelman­ Van Der Sterren, Baku 1 983 continued 1 1 lLlc6 iLxc6 1 2 dxc6 lLle5 1 3 iLf4, when Black could have secured an edge after 1 3 ... lLld3 14 e5 lLld5 according to Speelman.

9 . . . exd5

Not 9 ... iLxd5? 10 e4 i.b7 1 1 �h5!

g6

1 2 lLlxg6! fxg6 1 3 1Ve5 lLld7 1 4 'iVxh8 'ii'e7 1 5 h4! 0-0-0 1 6 iLg5 'iVf7 1 7 d5! 1:.e8 1 8 dxe6 Itxe6 19 Itadl i.c6 20 iLh6 'it'b7 21 Itxd7 and Black resigned in Sosonko-Scheider, Buenos Aires 1 978.

1 0 b3

10 e4 dxe4 1 1 'iVh5 g6 12 lLlxg6 fxg6 1 3 �e5+ 'iVe7 14 'ii'xh8 lLld7 needs investigat-

ing. Beliavsky-Sveshnikov, Frunze 1981 went 1 5 iLh3 lLlf6 1 6 iLg5 'it'f7 1 7 iLxf6 'iVxf6 1 8 �xf6+ 'it>xf6 1 9 a4 W e 7 20 axb5 axb5 21 1:.xa8 i.xa8 with compensation in the form of the active king: 22 1:.al iLc6 23 1:.a6 Wd6. Moiseev-Brilla Banfalvi, Correspondence 1 984 took the following course: 1 5 h4 0-0-0 1 6 iLg5 �f7 1 7 iLh3 (1 7 iLxd8 i.g7 18 'iVxh 7 lLlfS 1 9 'ii'xg 7 'ii'xg 7 20 iLg5 lLlh 7 21 i.e3 g5 is unclear) 17 ... .l:!.e8 18 �f6 'iVd5 19 i.e3 'it'b8 20 'ii'g5 lLlb6 and, in this semi­ closed position, Black had enough for the exchange, the players agreeing a draw after 21 iLg4 'iVg8 22 h5 iLe7 23 'iVh6 iLfS.

Black's approach in H.Olafsson-Van Beek, Antwerp 1 998 is worth repeating: 1 O ... iLe7!? 1 1 exd5 iLxd5 1 2 lLlxf7 iLxf7 13 iLxa8 c6 14 iLf4 iLd5 1 5 nel 0-0 1 6 i.xb8 and White was left to contemplate the fate of his trapped bishop. Chances were even after 1 6 ... i.b4 1 7 'YWg4 iLxel 1 8 .l:!.xel 1:.f7 19 Ite5 'ii'xb8 20 1:.xd5 �xa8 21 Ite5 �d8.

1 0 .. . c3

In the event of 10 .. .f6 1 1 e4! Huzman and Schneider give l 1 ...fxe5 1 2 'i!Vh5+ 'it>d7 13 exd5 'it>c8 14 dxe5 lLld7 1 5 bxc4 bxc4 16 i.e3 lLlb6 1 7 iLxb6 cxb6 1 8 d6 iLxg2 19 \t>xg2 �d7 20 .l::t.fc1 b5 21 a4 with an unclear position. White has good play in return for the material deficit, and Black still needs to complete his kingside development.

Instead of the capture on e5, 1 1 ...g6 leads to the following position:

Gulko-I.Novikov, Volgodonsk 1 983 con­ tinued 12 exd5!! fxe5 13 dxe5 iLg7 14 iLa3!, White sacrificing another pawn to keep Black's king in the centre of the board. After 14 ... c3 1 5 'iVg4 'iVc8 1 6 e6 c5 there followed 17 d6 0-0 1 8 d7 4Jxd7 1 9 exd7 'iVc7 20 i.xb7 'it'xb7 21 'iVe6+ .l:!.f7 22 l':.adl .l:!.d8 23 i.xc5 iLf6 with a slight advantage to White, but even better is 1 7 'iWf4! .l:!.f8 1 8 'iih4 when Black is deprived of the right to castle and White's attack continues.

1 1 e4 dxe4 1 2 'iWh5 g6 1 3 ltJxg6 fxg6 1 4 'iWe5+ flie7 1 5 flixh8 ltJd7 1 6 d5! flig7 !

Black shouldn't give up the c3-pawn. 16 ... 0-0-0?! 17 �xc3 iLg 7 1 8 iLg5! favours White.

1 7 flixg7 Ji..xg7 1 8 Ji..xe4

1 8 l':.e 1 c2 1 9 l':.xe4+ �f7 20 iLg5 iLxa 1 21 l':.e7+ '.tg8 22 l':.xd7 iLf6! 23 iLd2 iLc3 and the strong c-pawn secures Black equal play.

1 8 .. . ltJc5 1 9 �e 1 ? !

19 iLg2 c2 20 iLa3 iLxa 1 21 l':.xa 1 4Jd3 22 i.e4 b4 23 iLxd3 bxa3 24 iLxc2 0-0-0 25 l:td 1 l':.xd5 26 l:txd5 iLxd5 results in a level endgame, while 1 9 f3!? is interesting.

1 9 .. .'.t>f7

20 Ji..g5?!

Again White has a better move at his dis­ posal in 20 iLa3, although 20 ... 4Jxe4 21 .l:!.xe4 i.f6 still leaves Black holding his own thanks to the far advanced c-pawn.

20 . . . h6 21 Ji..f4 ltJxe4 22 �xe4 Ji..xd5 23

4 . . . dx c 4 5 Ji.. g 2 a 6

�ee 1 c5

Black's dangerous queenside pawns tip tlle scales in his favour.

24 Ji..e5 Ji..xe5 25 �xe5 �d8 26 f4 b4! 27 <.t>f2

After 27 l':.d 1 c2 28 l':.c1 Black has 28 ... iLxb3!! (very nice!) 29 axb3 .l:!.d1+ 30 lIel ':xe1+ 31 .l:!.xel c4 and wins.

27 ... c4 28 bxc4 Ji..xc4 29 �b 1 �d2+ 30 <.t>e3

30 �el l':.b2 31 l':.dl iLb5 doesn't help White. 30 . . . �b2 31 �e 1 Ji..xa2 32 <.t>d4 �d2+ 33 <.t>c5 c2! 34 �e7 + <.t>f6 0-1

Game 59

Rogers-Chandler

Wellington 1986

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 Ji..g2 a6 6 0-0 b5 7 ltJe5 ltJd5 8 a4 8 . . . Ji..b7

Another form of support is offered by 8 ... c6. Then White can try 9 axb5 cxb5 10 4Jc3 iLb7 (l 0 ... 4Jxc3?! 11 bxc3 l':.a7 12 iLc6+ and 'W'hite picks up the b5-pawn with a supe­ riour position) 1 1 4Jxd5 exd5 12 e4, when

12 ... dxe4 1 3 'iVh5 'iVf6 14 iLg5 'iVe6 remains complicated. Black fared worse in Heck­ Zude, Hessen 1994, which continued 12 ... iLd6?! 1 3 exd5 0-0 14 i.d2 f6 1 5 4Jc6 �c7 1 6 �f3 'iVf7 17 l':.ae 1 . White's doubled pawns in the centre are vulnerable but this

factor is outweighed by his aggressive stance. The immediate 9 e4 puts the question to Black's knight, e.g. 9 ... ttJb6 10 d5!? 'i*'c7 1 1 Sl..f4, when White is doing well. This brings us to 9 ... ttJf6, with a further branch. Zaichik­ A.Ivanov, Beltsy 1 979 continued 10 d5!? cxd5 1 1 exd5 exd5 12 axb5 Sl..e7 13 ttJc3 Sl..b 7 14 bxa6, when Black could have limited his opponent to a slight edge with 1 4 ... ttJxa6 1 5 ttJxc4 ttJb4 16 lha8 Sl..xa8 1 7 Sl..e3. White delayed d4-d5 for a move in Sosonko­ Bouwrnester, Netherlands 1 973, 1 0 ttJc3 Sl..b7 1 1 d5!? cxd5 12 exd5 exd5 1 3 axb5 axb5 14 l:txa8 Sl..xa8 1 5 ttJxb5 'i*'a5 1 6 ttJd4 Sl..b4 17 Sl..g5 seeing the active blockading strategy providing good play for the pawn. 9 b3 c3

9 ... cxb3 10 axb5 axb5 1 1 l:txa8 Sl..xa8 12 'it'xb3 c6 1 3 ttJc3 has also been tried. After 1 3 ... ttJd7 14 ttJxd5 exd5 1 5 'i*'e3 Sl..e7 1 6 Sl..a3 White's pressure outweighs the pawn deficit, while Romanishin-Marjanovic, Yere­ van 1 989 went 1 3 ... Sl..e7 14 ttJxd5 exd5 1 5 'iVa2! Sl..b7 1 6 'i*'a7 'i*'c7 1 7 Sl..f4 Sl..d6 1 8 :c1 'ii'e7 19 .l:.a1 with a big edge for White in view of Black's problems on the queenside.

Meanwhile, White also has 10 'i*'xb3, when 10 ... c6 transposes to 5 ... b5 6 a4 c6 7 0-0 Sl..b7 8 ttJe5 ttJd5 9 b3 cxb3 10 'it'xb3 a6 (Game 85 in Chapter 8), and 1 0 ... ttJc6 1 1 ttJxc6 Sl..xc6 1 2 e4 ttJb6 1 3 'i*'c3 Sl..b7 14 axb5 axb5 1 5 llxa8 Sl..xa8 1 6 Sl..a3 provides enough for the pawn.

1 0 axb5

10 e4 b4!? is an interesting piece sacrifice, trapping the bl -knight. Oil-Hoelzl, Pula 1 997 continued 1 1 exd5 Sl..xd5 12 'tWh5

g6

1 3 'it'h3 Sl..g 7?! (Sosonko suggests 1 3 ... c6!?) 14 ttJxc3! bxc3 1 5 Sl..a3 .l:ta7 16 l:!.fel l:!.b7 1 7 Sl..xd5 'iVxd5 1 8 'iVh4 c6 19 'i*'f4 Sl..xe5 20 dxe5 c2 21 Sl..d6 c5 22 J:tac1 with the better game for White due to his influence on the dark squares.

1 0 " .axb5 1 1 l:txa8 iLxa8 1 2 e4 b4! ? Lputian gives 1 2 .. . ttJf6 1 3 ttJxc3 b 4 14 ttJb5!? c6 (not 1 4 ... Sl..xe4? 1 5 Sl..xe4 ttJxe4 1 6

'it'f3 ttJf6 1 7 ttJc6 with a clear advantage to White according to E.Vladimirov) 1 5 d5! cxb5 16 dxe6 (E. Vladimirov-Torhallsson, Gausdal 1 991) 1 6 .. .'ii'xdl 1 7 exf7+ We7 18 l:txd1 when White has sacrificed a piece for two pawns but the superior development and Black's poor co-ordination provide adequate compensation.

1 3 exd5 iLxd5 1 4 iLe3

Novikov suggests 14 Sl..xd5 'it'xd5 1 5 'i*'g4 (more active than 1 5 Sl..e3 Sl..d6 1 6 'i*'g4 0-0 1 7 l:!.c1 Sl..xe5 1 8 dxe5 ttJc6!, after which Black seized the initiative in G.Kuzmin­ Novikov, Kharkov 1 985) 1 5 ... ttJc6 1 6 ttJxc6 'iixc6 as unclear. The knight is caught again and Black has strong pawns on b4 and c3, but he also has some development problems. 1 4 .. . iLe7

14 ... Sl..xg2 15 Wxg2 'i*'d5+ 16 Wgl with play along the lines of 14 Sl..xd5.

1 5 iLxd5 'ii'xd5

1 6 'ii'c2

16 'i*' d3 f6 17 ttJc4 0-0 favours Black. White's knight should retreat to d3.

1 6 " .iLf6 1 7 4Jxc3

17 ttJd3 ttJc6 18 ttJf4 'i*' d7! is not to be recommended for White (Rogers believes Black is clearly better). The knight is not better on f4.

1 7 .. . bxc3 1 8 'ii'xc3 iLxe5

Or 1 8 ... c5 19 J:tc1 0-0 20 'iixc5 'iixb3 with equality.

22 ii..c5

White should be careful here. 22 'it'xc7 'it'xb3 23 i.c5 liJd5 24 'it'a7 and, due to his exposed king, White cannot take on £8. Black keeps his knight on the board and White's king is more insecure - Black is better. 22 . . . .l:.eS 23 ii..xe7 .l:!.xe7 24 'ii'c5 'ii'dS 25 .l:!.a 1

Black gets no opportunity to exploit the enemy king position.

25 . . . h5 2S .l:!.aS 'ii'xaS 27 'ii'xe7 'ii'cs 2S 'ii'dS+ 'iith7 29 'ii'd3+ gS 30 h4 % - %

Game 60

Romero-Antunes

Havana 199 1

1 d4 d 5 2 c4 eS 3 4Jf3 4JfS 4 g 3 dxc4 5 ii..g2 as S 0-0 b5 7 4Je5 4Jd5 S a4 ii..b7 9 e4

4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii..g 2 a 6

9 . . . 4JfS

Khalifman-Ruban, USSR 1 985 went 9 ... liJb6? 10 axb5 axb5 1 1 Iha8 i.xa8 1 2 'iVh5 g6 1 3 liJxg6! fxg6 1 4 'it'e5 with a deci­ sive lead for White.

1 0 axb5 axb5 1 1 .l:!.xaS ii..xaS 1 2 4Jc3 cS White is well on top after 12 ... b4 13 'it'a4+ liJbd7 14 liJb5!, e.g. 14 ... i.xe4? 1 5 i.xe4 liJxe4 1 6 liJc6 'it'c8 17 iVa8! etc.

1 3 d5

Also possible is 1 3 i.g5 i.b7. Then a pa­ tient continuation is 14 d5 i.e7 1 5 dxe6 fxe6

16 iVe2 0-0 17 h4 'it'e8 1 8 h5 liJbd7 19 liJxd7 liJxd7 20 i.xe7 'it'xe7 21 e5 liJc5 as in Smejkal-Chandler, Germany 1985, when 22 f4 would have provided compensation for the pawn. More adventurous is 14 liJx£7!? 'it'x£7 15 e5 h6, with a choice for the bishop. The faulty 1 6 i.h4?! was seen in Khalifman­ Novikov, Lvov 1 985, when Black should have continued 1 6 ... g5! 1 7 exf6 'it'xf6 1 8 liJe4 iVg6 19 iVaI liJa6. Later, in Nesis-Block, Correspondence 1 987, White sacrificed a piece for an initiative after 1 6 .ixf6 gxf6 1 7 'iVh5+ 'it'g7 1 8 l:tal , the subsequent 1 8 .. .f5! 19 liJe2 l:tg8 20 liJf4 'it'd7 21 oUa7 'it'h8 22 liJxe6 'it'xe6 23 l:txb7 maintaining the dy­ namic balance.

Black can play the immediate 13 ... i.e7, when after 14 'iVaI i.b7 15 iVa7 'iVc8 Flear gives 1 6 liJf3 h6 1 7 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 8 e5 i.e 7 19 liJd2 0-0 20 liJxb5 cxb5 21 iVxb 7 i.b4! as equal. Stajcic-Hoelzl, Austria 1 997 went 1 6 d 5 0-0 1 7 dxe6 fxe6 1 8 i.h3 liJa6 1 9 i.e3 i.d6 20 liJf3 .l:.e8 21 e5 i.b8 22 'iVd4 liJd7 23 l:1dl liJ£8 with chances for both sides - Black has a pawn, but White is active. 1 3 .. . ii..dS

Another option is 13 ... cxd5 14 exd5 i.xd5 15 liJxd5 exd5 16 liJg4 i.e 7 17 liJxf6+ i.xf6 1 8 l:1e 1+ 'it'£8 1 9 i.xd5 h5 20 'iVf3 g6 21 b3 'it'g7 22 bxc4 bxc4 23 i.xc4 'iVc7 24 i.d5 with the more harmonious force for White in Cvitan-Ekstroem, Dresden 1998. 1 3 ... i.e7 14 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 'iVe2 0-0 1 6 i.h3 'iVc8 17 liJf3 liJa6 18 liJg5 liJc7 19 i.f4 was the course of

Zilberstein-Novikov, Blagoveschensk 1 988, 19 ... h6 20 .1Lxc7 hxg5 21 1l.e5 offering White sufficient play, with Black's damaged pawn structure to aim at.

1 4 ttJg4!?

14 .1Lf4 �c7! 15 �al is unclear, rather than 1 4 ... exd5?! 1 5 exd5 cxd5 1 6 iVaI ! ..txe5 17 .1Lxe5 ttJc6 18 .i.c7! �xc7 19 'it'xa8+ with a big advantage to White in Ulibin-Antunes, Bayamo 199 1 .

1 4 .. . b4

Black can avoid spoiling the queenside pawns and instead play 14 ... ttJxg4 1 5 'it'xg4 iVf6 1 6 dxe6 fxe6 1 7 l:tdl (1 7 .i.h3!? is an interesting option) 1 7 ... 0-0 1 8 .i.e3 with an

unclear position. White has the usual com­ pensation in his more threatening forces. 1 5 ttJxf6 + gxf6

15 ... 'it'xf6 16 dxc6 .i.c7 17 ttJb5 favours White.

1 6 'if'a4

1 6 ttJb 1 cxd5 1 7 exd5 '!ie 7 1 8 dxe6 .1Lxg2 1 9 '!ixg2 fxe6 20 �g4 sees White both win back the pawn and maintain the initiative.

1 6 .. . i.b7?!

Preferable is 1 6 ... bxc3 1 7 �xa8 cxb2 18 .i.xb2 cxd5 1 9 exd5 when White can claim compensation for the pawn. In the game he is just better.

1 7 e5!

1 7 .. . bxc3

Or 17 ... .i.xe5 18 dxc6 0-0 19 cxb 7 bxc3 20 .i.h6 and the bishop pair and passed pawn

on b 7 give White a clear advantage. 1 8 exd6

1 8 dxc6!? looks pronusmg. After 1 8 ... .i.xe5 19 c7+! 'iVd7 20 cxb8'iV+ ..txb8 21 'it'xd7+ '!ixd7 22 .i.xb7 cxb2 23 .i.xb2 1l.e5 24 .i.xe5 fxe5 25 ..ta6 White is close to win­ ning the ending.

1 8 .. . 'iVxd6 1 9 dxe6 fxe6 20 bxc3 <i;f7 21 l:td 1 'fie 7 22 'iVxc4 l:td8 23 l:te 1 !

No exchange of rooks! Black's king is ex­ posed so White makes sure to keep as many pieces as possible on the board.

23 . . . ttJd7 24 i.e3 ttJe5?

The lesser evil here is 24 ... 'it-g7 25 �4 �xb4 26 cxb4 with a problematic ending for Black.

25 'iVh4 <i;g7 26 i.h6 + <i;h8 27 l:txe5 l:td 1 + 28 i.f 1 i.a6

29 l:ta5 i.xf 1 30 l:ta8 + l:td8 31 'iVb4 'iVd7 32 'iVf8 + ! 1 -0

4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.. g 2 a 6

Summary

Let us compare the two S ... a6 main lines after 6 ttJeS and 6 0-0.

If 6 ttJeS practice has demonstrated that after 6 ... cS 7 ttJa3 cxd4 8 ttJaxc4 J:Ia7 White has difficulties achieving an advantage.

The variation with 6 0-0 features more variations and promises much more interesting play. After 6 ... ttJc6 White can choose between 7 e3 and 7 ttJc3 and, in the case of the former, with 7 e3 i.d7 8 'iVe2 bS 9 l:!.d1 , there is no reason to write off the older continuation 9 ... i.d6. Cer­ tainly after 10 e4 the departure 1O ... i.e7?! is simply a loss of time, but the break in the centre with 10 ... eS seems to be reasonable. Meanwhile, after 9 ... i.e7 10 ttJc3 a useful manoeuvre was seen in the game Haba-Gorin, where Black found ... ttJb4-d3, exploiting the weakness of d3.

The position arising after 7 ttJc3 l:tb8 8 e4 i.e7 9 'iVe2 bS 10 J:f.d1 is critical. The impression today is that after 10 ... 0-0 1 1 dS exdS 12 eS a sharp, open struggle occurs where White's chances are preferable. As for Black, he should be looking out for the aforementioned ma­ noeuvre ... ttJb4-d3. After 8 ... bS 9 'iVe2 ttJxd4 White's initiative and Black's material superiority more or less cancel each other out, while 8 ... bS 9 dS ttJb4 1 0 b3!? seems to give White the bet­ ter chances. Black should be cautious, perhaps avoiding this line altogether.

After S ... a6 6 0-0 bS 7 ttJeS ttJdS 8 a4 i.b 7 the challenge with 9 b3 allows Black to try a very interesting piece sacrifice in 9 ... c3!? 1 0 e4 b4 or 10 axbS axbS 1 1 l:txa8 i.xa8 1 2 e4 b4!?, for­ ever leaving the knight entombed on b 1 . Of course White can always return the piece with tiJxc3, but it seems that he can expect little in terms of an advantage.

A kind of tabia occurs after 9 e4 ttJf6 10 axbS axbS 1 1 l:ha8 i.xa8 1 2 ttJc3 c6. Previously 13 i.gS was often played here, but it is not clear whether the bishop belongs here. Perhaps this decision should be delayed. After 13 dS i.d6 14 ttJg4!? White has a strong initiative, and al­ though this is not cut and dried, Black should probably resort to 13 ... i.e7, after which a degree of accuracy is required to hold the balance.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lZlf3 lZlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 i..g2 a6 6 0-0 6 a4: 6 ... cS -Game 46; 6 ... ttJc6 7 0-0 l:tb8 - 6 0-0 6 ttJeS 6 ... i.b4+ -Game 47 6 ... cS

(D)

7 i.e3 -Game 48

7 ttJa3: 7 ... 'ifxd4 -Game 49; 7 ... cxd4 -Game 50

6 . . . lZlc6 6 ... bS 7 ttJeS 7 ... c6 -Game 57 7 ... ttJdS 7 lZlc3 8 ttJc3 -Game 58 8 a4 i.b7 (D) 9 e4 -Game 60

9 b3: 9 ... c3 -Game 59; 9 ... cxb3 10 'iVxb3 c6 -Game 85 (Chapter 8)

7 a4 -Game 5 1

7 e3 i.d7: 8 ttJc3 -Game 52; 8 'iVc2 -Game 53

7 . . ..l:lbS S e4

8 ... i.e 7 -Game 54

CHA PTER SIX

In document MIGRACIÓN MARROQUÍ Y MERCADO DE TRABAJO EN ESPAÑA (página 36-39)