Guion 1

t the end of the book it has become an tradition to give examples of play by pupils from the school (their ages are given in brackets). The juniors played and annotated a whole series of interesting games, some of which , with slight correc­ tions in the analysis, will now be offered to the judgement of the readers. The author faced a difficult problem, since nearly every young player has good examples of attack­ ing play. This is not surprising : attack, risk and imagination are naturally associated with youth . However, the games chosen speak for themselves.

Boguslavsky ( 1 4) - Lepin Moscow 1 989 Modern Benoni 1 d4 2 c4 3 t'i)c3 4 d5 5 cxd5 6 e4 7 f4 8 e5 t'i)f6 e6 c5 exd5 d6 g6 .tg7

This is typical of Maxim's style: already in the opening White chooses the sharpest continuation.

8 . . . dxe5 The alternative is the immediate 8 . . . t'i)fd7.

9 fxe5 t'i)fd7 1 0 e6 t'i)f6?

But this is already a serious mistake. According to theory, better is 1 0 .. .fxe6 1 1 dxe6 'ike7 1 2 t'i)d5 'ikxe6+ 1 3 'ili'e2 'it'xe2+ 1 4 .txe2 0-0 1 5 t'i)c7 t'i)c6 1 6 t'i)xa8 t'i)b4 1 7 t'i)f3 t'i)c2+ 1 8 �d 1 t'i)xa 1 1 9 .tc4+ �h8, as in the games Shereshevsky-Semenyuk, Vilnius 1 974, and Lputian-Magerramov, Beltsy 1 979.

11 .tb5+ �f8

1 1 .. . �e 7 is also dangerous in view of 1 2 .tf4 fxe6 1 3 d6+ �f7 1 4 t'i)f3 .

1 2 t'i)f3 fxe6

1 2 .. . a6 looks somewhat more accu rate, although after 1 3 .te2 fxe6 1 4 0-0 exd5 1 5 t'i)g5 �g8 ( 1 5 . . . .tf5?? 1 6 ':xf5 is completely bad ; Black also loses after 1 5 .. . d4 1 6 'iVb3 'ikd7 1 7 .tg4) 1 6 .tc4 b5 1 7 .txd5+ t'i)xd5 1 8 t'i)f7 White has a very promising position .

1 3 0-0 exd5 14 t'i)g5 �g8

1 4 .. . h6 came into consideration, but in this case after 1 5 'ikxd5 'ili'xd5 16 t'i)xd5 hxg5 1 7 .txg5 White regains the piece and retains the initiative in the endgame. Now, however, the king's rook is shut in the corner, and White is able to carry out his attack almost unhindered .

1 5 t'i)xd5

Also not bad was 1 5 .tc4!? b5 1 6 .txd5+ t'i)xd5 1 7 t'i)f7 with the idea of answering 1 7 .. . 'ikd7 with 1 8 t'i)h6+ .txh6 1 9 .txh6, with decisive threats.

1 5 . . . t'i)xd5 Usually when defending the king you should

aim for the exchange of queens. In the given instance this would not have brought any particular relief: 1 5 .. . 'ii'xd5 1 S 'ii'xd5+ lZ'lxd5 1 7 ..tc4 ..td4+ 1 8 'ii?h 1 'ii?g7 1 9 ..txd5 fU8 20 ':xf8 (20 lZ'lf7!? is also not bad ) 20 .. . 'ii?xf8 2 1 lZ'leS+ ..txeS 2 2 ..txb7, winning material.

16 lZ'lf7

1 6 . . . ..td4+? In a difficult position Black goes wrong and is elegantly mated . A subtle queen sacrifice, which Boguslavsky had prepared , remained off-screen . After the best move 1 S .. :ii'e7 1 7 lZ'lhS+ ..txhS Maxim was intending to play 1 8 'ii'xd5+ ..teS ( 1 8 .. . 'ii?g7 1 9 .l:.f7+ 'ili'xf7 20 ..txhS+ and 1 8 .. :ii'eS 1 9 ..txhS are both bad for Black) 1 9 'ii'xeS+! ! 'ii'xeS 20 ..txhS.

A fantastic position , where White has only one piece for the queen, but one of the opponent's rooks is out of play and his king is in a mating net. The following variations are based on Boguslavsky's analysis.

A)

20 .. . 'ii'f7 loses immediately to 21 ..tc4; B) 20 ... lZ'ld7 2 1 :ae1 'ii'd5 (or 2 1 . . . 'ii'xe 1 22 ..tc4+) 22 1:.e7 'ii'd4+ 23 'ii?h 1 lZ'lfS (23 ... lZ'lbS 24 ..te8) 24 ':xfS with unavoidable mate; C) 20 . . . lZ'lcs 2 1 :ae 1

C 1 ) 2 1 . . . 'iVxa2? 22 1:.fS! (not 22 ..txcS? bxcS 23 :e7 'iixb2 24 :ef7 because of 24 .. :iWa 1 ! ) 2 2 .. . 'ii'f7 23 :ef1 lZ'le5 2 4 llxf7 lZ'lxf7 25 ..tc4 and wins;

C2) 21 . . . 'iIi'd5 22 b3 lZ'la5 (if 22 . . . lZ'le5, then 23 l:txe5) 23 ':'e7 'ii'd4+ 24 'ii?h 1 , and Black cannot parry the threat of 25 ..te8;

C3) U nfortunately, Maxim does not consider the best defence: 21 . . . 'iVf7 ! . Here nothing decisive is apparent. For example, 22 :txf7 'ii?xf7 23 ..tc4+ 'ii?fS 24 .l:.f1 + 'ii?e5 25 �g7+ 'ii?dS with equality, or 22 b3 lZ'la5 (but not 22 .. . 'iVxf1 +? 23 ':xf1 lZ'le5 24 1:.e 1 as 25 ..tf1 lZ'lf7 2S ..tc4, and all the black pieces are tied up) 23 ..te2 .:te8.

Objectively, White would have done better to reject playing for brilliancy in favour of 1 8 �xhS! (instead of 1 8 'ii'xd5+?!) 1 8 .. . ..teS 1 9 ..tc4 lZ'lc7 20 'ii'f3 (20 ':f8+ 'it'xf8 2 1 ..txeS+ lZ'lxeS 22 ..txf8 is also possible) 20 .. . lZ'ld7 2 1 ':ae 1 , a n d Black h a s no defence.

17 'ii'xd4! cxd4 1 8 lZ'lh6+ Black resigned. Teplitsky (14) - Parutin Tashkent 1 989 GrOnfeld Defence 1 lZ'lf3 d5 2 c4 3 e3 4 lZ'lc3 5 d4 c6 lZ'lf6 g6 ..tg7

Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School

4:J

1 93

6 �e2 7 0-0

0-0 li:)bd7 A transposition of moves has led to the Schlechter Variation of the Grunfeld De­ fence. Black's last move is considered inaccurate, since now White can exchange on d5, not fearing the development of the black knight at c6 - the optimal square in this variation. I n this way White gained a clear advantage in the game Botvinnik-Blau (Olympiad , Tel Aviv 1 964) after 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 'it'b3 e6 1 0 a4 b6 1 1 .i.d2.

However, White's move in the game is also not bad .

8 b3 e6

I n a game with Boris Kantsler, Van Teplitsky found the antidote to another scheme of development for Black: after 8 . . . b6 there followed 9 a4 a5 1 0 cxd5 li:)xd5 1 1 li:)xd5 cxd5 1 2 �a3 l:le8 1 3 l:[c1 �a6 1 4 �b5! with the better game.

9 'it'e2 1 0 �b2 1 1 l:.ad1 12 �a3! l:te8 as li:)hS

Up to here White has simply deployed his pieces sensibly. But now he reacts to the opponent's plans and takes prophylactic measures against . . . f7-f5, on which there follows 1 3 �d6, controlling the dark squares.

1 2 . . . b6

Black changes plan, but his knight proves badly placed on the edge of the board (remember the famous axiom of Dr. Tar­ rasch !). White obtains good play by simple means: he prepares an offensive in the centre. 1 3 l:tfe1 1 4 e4 1 S 'it'd2 .i.b7 l:te8 dxe4 1 6 eSI

An imaginative decision . Such moves are very easy to overlook. Now the win of a piece by 1 7 g4 is threatened . The 'auto­ matic' 1 6 bxc4 would have left Black more opportunities for counterplay after 1 6 .. . e5 1 7 d5 �f8!? (but not 1 7 .. . li:)c5? 1 8 �xc5 bxc5 1 9 d6 l:tb8 20 li:)a4 with a decisive advantage for White).

1 6 . . . fS

If 1 6 .. . cxb3 there is the unpleasant reply 1 7 li:)e4! ( 1 7 g4 is weaker because of 1 7 .. . c5!

1 8 gxh5 �xf3 1 9 �xf3 cxd4 with fine counterplay, fully compensating for the sacrificed piece). White responds in the same way to 1 6 .. . b5!? ( 1 7 li:)e4! b4 1 8 li:)d6).

17 exf6!?

I nteresting play, although the quiet 17 bxc4 would also have ensured White the better chances.

1 7 . . . 1 8 �xe4

li:)hxf6 This move leads to great complications. White exchanges two bishops for a rook and pawn . The consequences of such an ex­ change are usually difficult to assess cor­ rectly. I n many cases, especially in the middlegame, the two pieces prove stronger, since they can create more threats to the

opponent. In the given position Teplitsky correctly reckoned that the activity of his heavy pieces, after seizing control of the only open file, together with Black's weak­ ened castled position, would prove more significant factors than the potential power of the hitherto dormant black bishops.

1 8 . . . b5 1 9 .i.xe6+ 20 l:txe6 lhe6 b4 21 'ii'e2!? bxa3

If 2 1 . . . bxc3, then 22 l:Ie7 c2 23 l:tc1 with an attack (but not 23 'ii'xc2 .i.f8).

22 11e1 .i.f8

22 .. . ttJf8 23 lIe7 lIc7 was bad in view of 24 'ii'c4+ ..ti>h8 25 'iff7.

23 ttJg5 .i.b4

Black overlooks a spectacular stroke by his opponent. However, 23 .. . lIc7 could also have been answered by 24 lId6 ! ! .i.xd6 (24 . . . 'ifb8 25 'ife6+ ..ti>h8 26 ttJce4 ! ) 25 'ii'e6+ ..ti>g7 26 'ifxd6 ..ti>g8 27 'ife6+ ..ti>g7 28 'iff7+ ..ti>h6 29 ttJe6 'ife8 30 'ilVg7+ with a decisive attack.

24 11d6!!

Vacating the e6-square for the decisive invasion of the white queen.

24 . . . 'iVf8

I n the event of 24 . . . .i.xd6 25 'iVe6+ ..ti>g7 26

'ilVxd6 (but not 26 'ilVf7+? ..ti>h6 27 ttJe6 because of 27 .. . 'ilVg8) Black proves helpless against the united onslaught of the white pieces: there is no satisfactory defence against the threats of 27 ttJe6+ or 27 ':'e7+. If 24 .. . 'ilVc7 White has the decisive 25 'iVe6+ ..ti>h8 26 ttJce4! .i.xe 1 27 ttJxf6. Finally, in the variation 24 .. . .i.xc3 25 'ilVe6+ ..ti>g7 26 'iVf7+ ..ti>h6 27 ':xd7! 'ilVxd7 (27 . . . ttJxd7 28 ttJe6) 28 'ilVxf6 .i.xe 1 29 ttJf7+ 'ilVxf7 30 'ilVxf7 Black has two bishops and a rook for the queen , but one of the bishops is inevitably lost. The attempt by Black to gain counterplay on the e-file proves unsuccessful .

25 'ilVe6+ ..ti>h8 26 ':'xd7

27 ':xh7+

]::te8

This dispels the opponent's last illusions. Now White gains a decisive material advan­ tage, which Teplitsky confidently converts into a win .

[27 'iVxf6+! 'ilVxf6 2 8 l:txe8+ .i.f8 29 ttJxh 7 would have been more quickly decisive - Dvoretsky.] 27 . . . 28 'ilVxe8 29 'ilVxg6 30 :e3 31 'ilVe6 32 :th3+ 33 ttJe4 34 ttJf6+ 35 'ilVe8+ 36 l:.h7+ 37 'ilVxf7+ Black resigned ttJxh7 ttJxg5 ttJf7 'ilVg7 .i.d6 ..ti>g8 'ilVxd4 ..ti>f8 ..ti>g7 ..ti>xf6 Boguslavsky (1 5) - Morozevich Moscow Junior Championship 1 990

King's Indian Defence 1 d4 ttJf6

Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School

ltJ

1 95 3 lLlc3 �g7 4 e4 0-0 S lLlf3 d6 6 �e2 eS 7 0-0 'ife8

A rare continuation , the main virtue of which is that the play now departs from familiar paths.

8 dxeS dxeS

9 �e3

After 9 lLld5 Boguslavsky gives the variation 9 . . . lLla6 1 0 lLlxf6+ �xf6 1 1 �e3 'fie7 1 2 lLld2 lLlc5 1 3 b4 lLle6 1 4 c5 l:td8 1 5 'iVc2 �g5 with an equal game. The latest brainwave in this opening line is 9 b4!?, employed by Ivanchuk against Judit Polar in Novgorod in 1 996. After 9 ... c6 10 b5 'iVe7 1 1 a4 :d8 1 2 �a3 'iVe8 1 3 'fib3 �g4 1 4 a5 a6 1 6 bxa6 lLlxa6 1 6 'ifxb7 White clearly stood better.

9 . . . lLlfd7?! Theory, not without reason , gives prefer­ ence to 9 . . . b6. After 1 0 lLld5 lLla6 White has tried various continuations, but nowhere has he gained an advantage:

1 1 'if c2 lLlg4 1 2 �d2 c6 1 3 lLle3 lLlxe3 1 4 �xe3 lLlb4 with unclear play (Gostisa­ Kupreichik, Belgrade 1 988);

1 1 �g5 lLlxe4!? 12 �e7 c6 1 3 �xf8 'iVxf8 with good compensation for the sacrificed exchange (Vucicevic-Kupreichik, Belgrade 1 988);

1 1 lLld2!? lLld7 12 'ifa4 �b7, and the position is unclear (Dreev-Gelfand, Arnhem 1 989).

Instead of 1 0 lLld5 the restrained 1 0 h3 is more promising .

1 0 'ifd2

The immediate 1 0 b4!? followed by c4-c5 and lLld2-c4 was also not bad .

1 0 . . . c6 1 1 b4 fS?!

Premature activity. It is extremely danger­ ous to open up the game with your development incomplete. 1 2 exfS 1 3 � h6 1 4 'iVxh6 gxfS �xh6 'iVg6 1 4 .. . l:tf6 came into consideration.

1 S 'ife3 as 16 a3 l:te8

17 cS 'iVg7?

And this is already a serious mistake. Black, who is behind in development, makes another move with an already developed piece - of course, this is a impermissible luxury!

I nteresting variations would have arisen after 1 7 .. .f4 . If 1 8 'iVe4, then 1 8 .. . lLlf6 1 9 'iVxg6+ hxg6 20 �c4+ �g7 2 1 lLlg5 �f5 (preparing . . . lLla6) 22 lLlf7 �d3! 23 �xd3 �xf7 with a tenable position. However, as Dvoretsky pointed out, White can play more energetically: 1 8 'iVd2!? e4 1 9 �c4+ �g7 20 lLlxe4 ! , for example: 20 .. . 'iVxe4 21 l:tae 1 'iVg6 22 'iVxf4 lLlf6 23 ':xe8 'ifxe8 24 l:te1 , or 20 . . . l:txe4 2 1 �d3 axb4 22 �xe4 'ifxe4 23 l:tae 1 - in both cases with a powerful attack.

Probably Black should first have weakened the opponent's onslaught by exchanging one pair of rooks: 1 7 .. . axb4!? 1 8 axb4 l:txa 1 .

1 8 �c4+ �h8 1 9 lLlgS l:te7

Now 1 9 .. .f4? is too late in view of 20 lLlf7+. 20 lLle6 'iVf6

I n the event of 20 . . . 'iVf7 Boguslavsky was intending to play 21 lLlc7 'iVxc4 22 lLlxa8 axb4 23 axb4 'fixb4 24 lLlb6 (24 lLla4 is also possible) with the possible continuation 24 .. . lLlxb6 25 cxb6 f4 26 'iVd2 'iVxb6 27 ':a8 l:td7 (27 .. . 'iVc7 28 l:txb8) 28 'iVc2 Wc7 29 l:tc1 b5 (29 .. . lLla6 30 lLlb5 'iVd8 3 1 lLla7 ':c7 32 l:td 1 'iVe8 33 'iVd2 also fails to save

Black) 30 ltJxb5 'ii'b7 31 l:txb8 'ii'xb8 32 'ii'xc6, and Black's position collapses.

21 ltJc7 1:Ia7 22 bS!

Switching to decisive action. 22 . . . a4

23 ltJcdSI?

Of course, White has an undisputed advan­ tage. Very often it is not easy to decide whether the moment for concrete measures has arrived . In the given instance White had a good opportunity to further strengthen his position by 23 1:Iad 1 . However, the ex­ changing combination undertaken by Bo­ guslavsky, which thematically resembles the previous game, is also good : White sharpens the situation at a moment when the opponent's pieces are least well pre­ pared for coordinated action.

23 . . . 24 ltJxdS

cxdS f4

This intermediate move does nothing to change the evaluation of the position : the black pawns in the centre remain under fire by the heavy pieces.

2S 'ii'd2 'ii'gS 26 ltJxe7

27 :fe1

'ii'xe7

Black is unable to d isentangle his clump of pieces on the queenside. His pawn-grab­ bing operation is explained by the well­ known argument: 'if I'm going to suffer, then at least I'll have something to show for it' . By energetic play Boguslavsky quickly con­ cludes the game.

27 . . . 'ifxcs 28 l:1ac1 'ifxa3 If 28 .. . 'ii'f8, then simply 29 �e6 ltJb6 30 �xc8 ltJxc8 31 1:Ixe5 and wins.

29 �e6 'iff8 30 'ifc3

30 l:.xe5 was also possible. 30 . . . b6

30 .. . 'ifc5 would not have saved Black in view of 3 1 'ifa 1 'iifa 32 1:Ixe5.

31 1:IxeS 'iif6 32 ':'gSI

A simple, but attractive stroke. Since the capture of the queen leads immediately to mate, Black can only try to postpone this inevitable finish by a couple of moves.

32 . . . h6 33 :g8+ �h7 34 'ii'd3+ Black resigned. ZViagintsev (1 3) - Nachev Voskresensk 1 990 Slav Defence 1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 ltJc3 dxc4 S a4 �g4

A rather risky variation , which has been upheld in a number of games by Predrag Nikolic. True, to cast doubts on it White has to play very energetically.

6 ltJeS �hS

Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School

ltJ

1 97

The most unpleasant continuation for Black. At a favourable opportunity White wants to occupy the centre with his pawns, and for this he unpins his e-pawn.

7 . . . tDa6

What can happen if Black does not fight for the initiative is illustrated by a game of Vadim Zviagintsev against l Iya Frog (Mos­ cow 1 989), in which after 7 . . . tDbd7 8 g4 �g6 9 tDxc4 e6 1 0 �g2 �b4 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 a5! tDd5 1 3 'it'b3 b5 1 4 axb6 tD7xb6 1 5 e4 tDxc3 1 6 bxc3 �e7 1 7 f4! White success­ fully carried out his plan of seizing the centre. 8 g4 9 �g2 1 0 0-0 �g6 tDb4

If 1 0 e4 there would have followed 1 0 .. :iVxd4. 1 0 . . . �c2!? Weaker is 10 ... tDd7?! 11 tDxc4 with advan­ tage to White (Gelfand-Khuzman , USSR 1 987).

11 'iVd2 �b3 1 2 tDe4!

1 2 'ii'f4!? h6 1 3 �e3 leads to unclear complications (Levitt-Flear, British Champi­ onship 1 989). If 1 2 a5, with the unequivocal idea of advancing the pawn further, modern theory recommends 1 2 .. . e6, not paying any attention to the opponent's threat. After 1 3 a6 'iVc7 1 4 axb7 'iVxb7 (Campos Moreno­ Rogers, Olympiad , Manila 1 992) White still has to demonstrate that he has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn .

1 2 . . . tDc2

1 2 .. . tDxe4? 1 3 'iVxb4 tDd6 is bad in view of the spectacular rejoinder pointed out by Gelfand and Kapengut: 1 4 'iVxb7! ! , and White wins.

13 tDc5

If 1 3 tDxc6, then 1 3 .. . 'iVb6! (Gelfand, Kapengut).

1 3 . . . 'iVxd4

The game Yusupov-Gretarsson , Groningen 1 997, went 1 3 .. . tDd5 14 :b1 e6 1 5 tDxc4! �xc4?! 1 6 'iVxc2 �xc5 1 7 dxc5 �a6 1 8 b4 with advantage to White - however, 1 5 .. . �xc5 1 6 dxc5 0-0 demands further testing.

14 tDxb7 tDd5

Not 1 4 .. . 'iVxd2? because of 1 5 �xc6+! 'it'd7 1 6 tDxd7 tDxd7 1 7 :d 1 f5 1 8 :xd7 tDxa 1 1 9 :d8+ �f7 20 l::txa8 (Khenkin-Sapis, Lenin­ grad 1 989).

1 5 'iVg5!

This home preparation by Zviagintsev sets Black unpleasant problems. 1 5 tDxc6 'iVxd2 1 6 �xd2 is less dangerous in view of 1 6 .. . tDxa 1 1 7 �xd5 e6 (Ftacnik) or 1 6 .. . e6 (Gelfand, Kapengut) with roughly equal play. Now both 1 6 tDxc6 and 1 6 'ii'f5 are threatened .

1 5 . . . e6!?

After the critical 15 .. .f6!? Zviagintsev was intending to continue 1 6 'ii'h5+ g6 1 7 tDxg6 hxg6 1 8 'iVxh8, and if 1 8 .. . g5, then White retains the initiative by playing 1 9 e4! . And in the event of 1 5 ... 'ii'b6, according to his analysis, strong is 16 'iVf5 'iVxb7 1 7 'iVxf7+ �d8 1 8 ':d 1 c3 ( 1 8 .. . tDxa 1 ? 1 9 �xd5 �xd 1 20 �xc6 'iVxc6 2 1 tDxc6+ riitc7 22 �f4+ �xc6 23 'iVe6+ with mate in three moves; 1 8 .. . tD b4 1 9 �f4) 1 9 tDxc6+ 'ii'xc6 20 �xd5 �xd5 21 ':xd5+ �c8 22 :d3!.

1 6 .lte3 ! !

A very unpleasant move for Black. I t transpires that i t is unfavourable to capture the bishop. 1 6 .. . lLldxe3?? loses immedi­ ately to 1 7 .ltxc6+, while after 1 6 .. . lLlcxe3 the f-file is opened and White obtains a very dangerous attack: 1 7 fxe3 f6 1 8 .l:txf6 gxf6 1 9 'iiVh5+ (C. Horvath), or 1 7 .. . 'iVxb2 1 8 l:tab 1 'ilfc3 1 9 l:[xf7, and if 1 9 .. . .ltc2 there follows 20 'iVxg7! .ltxg7 2 1 lLld6+ 'iii>d8 22 lLlxc6 mate.

1 6 . . . 'iiVxb2 1 7 .ltc5!

Wh ite intensifies the pressure. Now 1 7 .. . lLlxa 1 ? loses to 1 8 .ltxd5 cxd5 1 9 lLld6+ . If 1 7 .. . h6!? White had prepared 1 8 'ilff4! ! f6 1 9 'iiVe4 'ii'xe5 2 0 'ii'g6+ 'iii>d7 2 1 'ilff7+ 'iii>c8 22 lLla5 l:[b8 23 .i.xf8 with a very strong attack. However, as Dvoretsky pointed out, instead of 21 . . . 'iii>c8?! Black can play 21 . . . .lte7!, not fearing 22 .ltxe7 lLlxe7 23 l:tad 1 + lLld4. Possibly then White would have had to force a draw by 22 �xd5 exd5 23 !iL.xe7 'iVxe7 24 lLlc5+ 'iii>d6 25 lLlb7+.

17 . . . .ltxc5 1 8 'iVxg7!

This intermediate move, threatening mate, is the point of White's idea .

1 8 . . . lIf8

Comparatively best. The queen sacrifice 1 8 .. . 'ilfxe5 1 9 'ilfxe5 .ltd4 would not have brought any relief, since the threats created by the white queen together with the knight would have been too dangerous. For exam­ ple, after 20 'iVd6 !iL.xa 1 21 'iVxc6+ 'iii>f8 22 lLld6 'iii>g7 23 .ltxd5 exd5 24 lLlf5+ things end in mate.

I nterposing 1 8 .. . .ltxf2+? would merely open an additional line for the attack: 1 9 l:[xf2 'iVxa 1 + 20 .ltf1 ! (weaker is 20 'iii>h2 .l:tf8 2 1 .l:txf7 'iVxe5+) 2 0 .. . .l:tf8 2 1 .l:txf7.

1 9 lLlxc5 0-0-01 I n such a position it is easy to overlook something. Thus in the event of 1 9 .. . lLlxa 1 ?

2 0 lLlxe6! 'iVa3! 2 1 .ltxd5 cxd5 2 2 lLlc7+ 'iii>e7 (or 22 .. . 'iii>d8 23 'iVf6+ 'iii>c8 24 'iVc6) 23 'iVg5+ f6 24 'iVg7+ Black would have lost immediately.

20 l:tab1 ! 'iVd4

20 . . . 'iVa3 was bad in view of 2 1 lLlxb3 cxb3 22 lLlxc6, but 20 .. . 'iVc3!? came into consid­ eration. Zviagintsev was planning to reply 21 lLle4, but then Black is able to simplify the game by 2 1 . . . .l:tg8! 22 'iVxg8 (forced) 22 .. . :xg8 23 lLlxc3 lLlxc3 with an unclear endgame. The prophylactic 21 'iii>h 1 !? is stronger, or the more direct 21 e4!? lLlc7 (after 21 . . . lLlf4 the reply 22 'iVg5! is ex­ tremely unpleasant) 22 lLlcd7! l:[fe8 23 'iVxf7 (pointed out by Dvoretsky).

21 lLlcd7?!

When the opponent is defending tena­ ciously, it can be very difficult to conduct an attack faultlessly. Instead of the move in the game, 21 lLlxb3! cxb3 22 l:txb3 was simpler, when the difference in the placing of the kings should be bound to tell . The operation planned by White allows the opponent unexpected saving chances.

21 . . . lLlc3? Black thinks that he is forced to go in for an exchange of blows. With his king exposed , this leads to a rapid finish. Of course, 21 .. J:bd7? was bad : 22 'iVxf8+ lId8 23

Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School

lD

_{1 99}

'ii'xd8+! �xd8 24 ttJxc6+ �d7 25 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 26 e3. The only possibility of a defence was 2 1 . . J:tfe8! ! 22 e3!? (22 .ltxd5 exd5!) 22 .. . 'ii'c3 (22 .. . ttJcxe3!? 23 fxe3 ttJxe3 24 'ii'xf7 l:1e7! is possibly stronger) 23 ttJc5!? l:te7 ! , and if 24 ttJe4, then 24 .. .f5 1 . True, even in this case White h a s good chances of success. He continues 25 'iifxe7 'ii'xe5 26 'iifc5!? (26 'iifg5 also comes into consideration) 26 .. . fxe4 27 'iifxc6+ ttJc7 28 .ltxe4 with the better game. For example, 28 .. J::td5 29 .ltxd5 'iifxd5 30 'ii'xd5 ttJxd5 31 l:txb3 cxb3 32 lIb1 ttJc3 33 l:txb3 ttJxa4 34 l::tb5. 22 ttJxf81 23 .ltxc6 ttJxb1 'ii'b6 23 .. . 'iiff4? is bad in view of 24 ttJxe6.

24 'iifxfl c3

After the comparatively best 24 .. . ttJd4 there is the adequate reply 25 .ltd7+ �b8 26 l:txb 1 . The move in the game loses even more material.

25 .ltd7+ Black resigned .

Of course, when we talk about an attack, we have a mental picture of brilliant combina­ tions and subtle sacrifices. However, in many cases one can manage without brilliance. Thus in the following game, victory was gained without any outward effects, but by apparently very simple means. But such simplicity is deceptive: very often it can be more difficult to find a quiet move, strengthening the position , than to land a tactical blow.

Nikitin - Makariev (1 5)

CIS Junior Championship, Jurmala 1 992 King's Indian Defence

1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 3 ttJc3 4 e4 g6 .ltg7 d6 5 f3 6 .lte3 7 ttJge2 8 a3 0-0 ttJc6 a6

The main continuation is the natural 8 'iifd2, but the move in the game, preparing play on the queenside, is also not without venom. However, l Iya Makariev is well prepared for such a turn of events and he acts in accordance with the recommendations of theory.

8 . . . .ltd7

9 b4 'iWb8!?

Black unhurriedly prepares . . . b7-b5, since in the given variation it is simpler for White to respond to the opponent's actions than to carry out his own plan. Thus after the immediate 9 . . . b5 there would have followed 1 0 cxb5 axb5 1 1 d5 ttJe5 1 2 ttJd4, while if 9 . . . e5, then 1 0 d5 ttJe7 1 1 g4 ttJe8 1 2 ttJc1 f5 1 3 ttJb3 (Korchnoi-Stein, 3 1 st USSR Cham­ pionship, Leningrad 1 963).

10 'iifd2

If now 1 0 ttJc1 , then 1 0 .. . b5 would be very timely, since in the event of 1 1 cxb5 axb5 the b5-pawn is indirectly defended ( 1 2 i.xb5 ttJxb4). If 1 0 d5 ttJe5 1 1 ttJd4, then 1 1 .. . c6 1 2 dxc6 ( 1 2 f4 ttJg4; 1 2 i.e2 cxd5 1 3 cxd5 nc8) 1 2 .. . bxc6 1 3 i.e2 a5 with counterplay.

1 0 . . . b5

Now in the event of the pawn exchange on b5 Black will be threatening to capture on b4. Also possible was Boleslavsky's recom­ mendation 1 0 .. . :e8!? (this move is useful if White should move his knight from e2, since then . . . e7-e5 gains in strength ) 1 1 g3 b5 1 2 c5 a5 1 3 l:[b1 e6 1 4 �f2 'ii'b7 with equal chances.

11 g4

A bold decision - White mounts an offensive over an excessively wide front. On the other hand , continuations such as 1 1 d5? ttJe5 1 2 cxb5 ttJc4, 1 1 cxb5 axb5 1 2 d 5 ttJxb4 o r 1 1 ttJc1 e5 are not too impressive. A possible

In document LA COMBINACIÓN LÉXICA EN LAS LENGUAS AFINES (página 37-45)