Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Tournament Player: The Benoni For The

    Uploaded by

    YANDI ANABEL MIRANDA MENESES
    Black has several options in the Benoni opening including developing pieces to active squares like ...a6, ...b5, ...b6, and ...c4 to control important central squares. White typically aims to push his central pawns forward like e4-e5, while Black wants to advance on the queenside with moves like ...b5. The game will often come down to whether Black can find quick counterplay to restrain White's central pawn advance or will be pushed back by White's control of the center.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tournament Player: The Benoni For The

    Uploaded by

    YANDI ANABEL MIRANDA MENESES
    72 views162 pages
    Black has several options in the Benoni opening including developing pieces to active squares like ...a6, ...b5, ...b6, and ...c4 to control important central squares. White typically aims to push his central pawns forward like e4-e5, while Black wants to advance on the queenside with moves like ...b5. The game will often come down to whether Black can find quick counterplay to restrain White's central pawn advance or will be pushed back by White's control of the center.

    Original Title

    2_5274030822272272177

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Black has several options in the Benoni opening including developing pieces to active squares like ...a6, ...b5, ...b6, and ...c4 to control important central squares. White typically aims to push his central pawns forward like e4-e5, while Black wants to advance on the queenside with moves like ...b5. The game will often come down to whether Black can find quick counterplay to restrain White's central pawn advance or will be pushed back by White's control of the center.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    72 views162 pages

    Tournament Player: The Benoni For The

    Uploaded by

    YANDI ANABEL MIRANDA MENESES
    Black has several options in the Benoni opening including developing pieces to active squares like ...a6, ...b5, ...b6, and ...c4 to control important central squares. White typically aims to push his central pawns forward like e4-e5, while Black wants to advance on the queenside with moves like ...b5. The game will often come down to whether Black can find quick counterplay to restrain White's central pawn advance or will be pushed back by White's control of the center.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 162

    The Benoni for the

    _~ Tournament Player
    John Νυππ

    1
    Ι
    ΤΗΕ TOURNAMENT PLAYER'S REPERTOIRE 0'F OPENINGS
    SERIES EDITED ΒΥ R. G. WADE, Ο.Β.Ε.

    The Benon ί for the


    Tournament Player

    JOHN NUNN

    Β. Τ. BATSFORD Ltd London


    First publίshed 1982
    © J. D. Μ. Νυππ 1982
    ISBN Ο 7134 35283

    Set by Hope Serνices, Abingdon


    Printed ίπ Great Britain by
    Billing & Son Ltd
    Worcester

    for the publishers


    Β. Τ. Batsford Limited
    4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1 Η ΟΑΗ

    Το mymother

    Α BATSFORD CHESS ΒΟΟΚ


    Adviser: R. G. Wade, Ο.Β.Ε.
    Technical Editor: Ρ.Α. Lamford
    Contents

    SymboIs ίν
    Introduction ν

    1 CΙassicaI with 1 Ο ... ~bd7 1


    2 CΙassicaI with 1 Ο ... ~a6 12
    3 CΙassicai with ... .Qg4 21
    4 CΙassicai : other Iines 32
    5 White pIays g3 38
    6 Four Pawns Attack 48
    7 White pIays e4, f4 and .Qb5+ 75
    8 Mikenas Attack 86
    9 White pIays ~f3, e4 and .Qg5 93
    10 White pIays ~B, .Qg5 and e3 104
    11 The System with e4, f3 and .Qg5 109
    12 Early .Qf4 Systems 113
    13 Knight's Tour Variation 121
    14 White plays e4, .Qd3 and ~ge2 129
    15 Odds and Ends 138
    Ι ndex of Variations 143
    IndeΧΌf Complete Games 147
    Symbols

    + Check
    +=
    =+ Slight advantage
    ±+ C1ear advantage
    +-,-+ Winning adνantage
    level position
    00 Unclear position
    Good move
    !! Outstanding
    !? Interesting moνe
    ?! Dubious move
    ? Weak moνe
    ?? Blunder
    corr. Correspondence
    ΟΙ Olympiad
    ΙΖ Interzonal
    Ι League
    Ch Championship
    Y2f Semi-fίnal
    Introduction

    7
    W

    The late C. Η. 0'0. Alexander once wrote that "If God played God ίη
    the Benoni, Ι think that White would win; at lower levels, however, Black
    has exceIIent practical chances." Ι fully agree with this verdict and can
    provide some statistics to support it. Ιη my games with the Modern Benoni
    against non-grandmasters Ι have scored +51, =12, -2 for a total of 87.7%,
    whilstagainst grandmasters the score is +3, =5, -7, a rather meagre 36.7%.
    The scepti'c might well suggest that Ι wouldn't have scored more than
    36.7% ηο matterwhich opening Ι had chosen to play, but this does indicate
    that the Benoni is a much more risky opening at higher leνels. The seven
    losses above were against Petrosian, Timman, Sosonko, Korchnoi, Mίles,
    Stean and Hort, so possibly Ι have Iίttle reason to complain!
    Most players are unlikely to play the Benoni against Korchnoi and are
    more interested ίη how it wiII perform at club leνel and ίη weekend tour-
    naments. Here the prognosis is much better. The Benoni has been described
    as ''one big swindle" and Ι can see a certain justifιcation for this ίη that
    Black relίes fairly heavily οη tactical resources to vindicate his opening
    play. Usually there will come a critical moment wh'en Black wiII have to
    continue tacticaIIy to justify his play, for otherwise his pieces wiII be
    pushed back from their active squares and he will be reduced to permanent
    passivity. Accordingly Black must be continuously οη the lookout for
    tactical ideas to exploit any looseness ίη White's position. White, οη the
    v/ lntroductlon
    other hand, must aim to nullίfy Black's tactical chances, while at the same
    time furthering his own plans.
    Lίke most "hypermodern" openings, which permit the opponent to
    occupy the centre with pawns, Black must do something quickly. The
    Pirc and the King's Indian are similar ίη that the advantage ofoccupying
    the centre with pawns is very real if White is given the time to complete his
    development ίη comfort behind them. If Black does not find counterplay
    quickly he wiII never fιnd it. Many players do badly with the Benoni
    because they sin against a few simple rules for playing the opening. The
    fιrst is to find counterplay quickly and the second is to avoid unnecessary
    moves with the queen. It is often best placed οη d8!
    Looking at diagram 1, what can we deduce about the plans for both
    sides. Speaking very genera/ly, the most obvious feature is that the pawn
    structure has been rendered asymmetrica/ at a very early stage. White has a
    pawn majority ίη the centre and Black has one οη the queenside. White's
    ultimate ambition is to push forward ίη the centre with e4-e5 (possibly
    supported by f4) and to thereby create a passed d-pawn. Thus the square
    e5 assumes a central role ίη the struggle. Ιη genera/ if White controls this
    square he can make the push e5 work, whereas if Black controls it the
    \V.hite centre is restrained. Α similar situation exists οη the queenside.
    Black would Iίke to play b5 bringing his pawns abreast, when the
    eventual creation of a passed pawn οη the queenside would become much
    more likely, while of course White does his best to prevent this move.
    Black wiII develop his bishop οη g7, to put another guard οη e5 and to
    support an eventual queenside pawn push. Apart from this both sides have
    considerable flexibίlity ίη developing their pieces.
    The material ίη this book is d ivided υρ according to the plan of develop-
    ment adopted by White, so Ι have decided to devote the rest of this
    introduction to describing the possibilίties available to Black. If you are
    inexperienced with the Benoni and intend playing ίι with Black the rest of
    this introduction is essential reading, and you are strongly advised to look
    υρ the references to the main body of the book. lη this way you wiII gain
    some idea of which ideas are viable ίη any given situation, and with ex-
    perience this judgement wiII become more accurate.
    We now cQnsider typical Black moves one by one:
    1) ... a6: Α ubiquitous Iίttle move, which occurs ίη 99% of the games
    with the Modern Benoni. The exception is that ίη certain situations Black
    may be able to play b5 without the support of ... a6 for tactical
    reasons. Look at chapter 6, lίηe Β and the analogous 9 Ad3 b5 ίη the same
    chapter. Α rather different idea involving the fork ... *b6+ can be seen ίη
    Inttoduction νll

    diagram 29 (White stops the threat of . b5 by playing .A.e3) and ίη


    chapter 7, line Α, note to White's 12th move. Generally speaking White
    will reply to ... a6 with a4 (to stop ... b5). Here the exception is when
    Black's •• b5 can be answered by a4, forcing either ... b4 ΟΓ ••• ba,
    when c4 becomes avaίlable to White's knight (4)f3-d2-c4). It is often
    very hard to judge whether the long-term chances of establishing a perma-
    nent base at c4 for White's knight are worth the loss of time inyolved ίη
    allowing ... b4, kicking away thec3 knight. Chapter 9, lίne Β1 revolves
    around this point. Other Iines ίη which ... b5 is aIIowed are chapter 9,
    line Β2 and the position of diagram 72.
    2) ... b6: There are basically three possible motivations for playing this
    move:
    Α) Black wants to play ... ~6. This is by far the most common motivation
    and ίπ almost every chapter we consider the plan of ... b6 and ... .A.a6
    for Black. However it must be said that when the idea of this is to eχchange
    bishops οη e2, Black very rarely equalises. The time spent executing the
    manoeuvre is more important than the extra freedom Black obtains.
    Chapter 6, line Ο2, chapter 7, line Β, note to Black's 10th move and
    chapter 14, line Β are eχamples. However there is a second reason to play
    ... .A.a6, and that is to swap off a White knight οπ c4. This is a much better
    proposition for Black since White has expended 3 tempi playing the 4) to
    c4 and this is all wasted when Black simply lops it off. Also •.. .A.xc4 may
    be the οπlΥ decent answer to the pressure generated against d6 by a knight
    οπ c4 and a bishop οπ f4. ExampIes of this are pIentiful, especiaIIy ίπ
    chapters 2 and 13.
    Β) ... a6 and a4 have been played and BIack is frightened of a5 by White,
    crippling the queenside pawns. Thίs is almost never sufficient reason to
    play .. b6. If White pIays a5 and Black plays ... b5, White wίlI exchange
    οπ b6 Ieaving the a6 pawn weak. But this is counterbaIanced <by the
    pressure generated by a BIack' rook οπ the half-open b-fiIe, which can
    attack b2, ΟΓ, after .•. §b4, exert its intluence horizontaIIy against e4. It
    would be nice if Black couId have ... b6 "for free", but it is not worth
    wasting a tempo οπ it for this reason.
    C) . a6 and a4 have been played and BIack wants to play •.. §a7-e7.
    This pIan is rareIy adopted. See chapter 4, note to White's 10th, for the
    reason why.
    3) ... b5: See the comments to .•. a6. If Black can pIay ... b5 without
    suffering some catastrophe, then he shouId alλ10st aIways do so.
    4) ..• c4: This sometimes occurs without the support of ... b5. The idea
    is twofoId; Black wants to clear c5 for his queen's knight and at the same
    viii Introduction
    time cut off the irIfluence of the bishop at e2 to make it easier to play
    b5. Quite often it is played as a pawn sacrifice, for example chapter 6,
    lίηes Ο1 and Ο3, with 11 ... c4. Marginal cases occur ίη the same Ο3, note
    to Black's 11 th, variation 2, and the non-sacrificial situation occurs ίη
    chapter 6, line Α and chapter 3, line D.
    5) f6: This normally οηlΥ occurs as a panic measure to prevent a
    threatened e5 by White, and is almost always a sign that something has
    gone seriously wrong for Black. The οηlΥ time it is justified is when the
    knight οη f6 has moved away and White plays .Qg5 attacking the queen.
    Then Black can play f6 and after the bishop retreats ... f5 activating
    the g7 bishop again.
    6) . f5: It is curious that although the pawn structure would indicate
    that Black should play οη the queenside he can also play οη the kingside
    under certain circumstances. If White has played e4 the move . f5 can
    leaνe White with an isolated d-pawn, whilst if White has not played e4 the
    move f5 can prevent him from doing so. There are two problems with
    f5. The first, which happens especially if Black has exchanged his
    queen's bishop, is that the e6 square is weakened and later οη a bishop ΟΓ
    knight might arrive οη this square. The second is that ... f5 exf5 may
    force Black to recapture with his g-pawn, and often the resulting weak
    pawn οη f5 is more exposed than ·its counterpart at d5. Have a look at
    diagram 9, chapter 5, lίne Β and chapter 13, note to White's 9th move,
    variation 1 b3.
    7) ... g5: This move is a comparatively recent addition to Black's armoury
    ίη the CΙassical variation. The main lίηe of chapter 1 revolves around
    Black's attempts to maintain his knight οη e5 and the move .. g5 is
    essential to prevent f4 by White. Ιι should be added that ... g5 is very
    committal since ίι seriously weakens the sensitive squares f5 and hS, and
    ίη chapter 1 manoeuvres like 4:Jc3-dl-e3, 4:Je2-g3 and 4:Jd2-fi -g3 are
    frequent, aimed at occupying these weak squares. Of course g5 is
    famίliar ίη lίηes where White plays .Qg5 and Black chases the bishop back
    to g3 with ... h6 and ... g5. See chapters 9 and 10.
    8) . 4:Jbd7j4:Ja6: lη a large percentage of games involving the Benoni
    Black is faced with the fundamental decision of where to develop his
    queen's knight. lη almost every chapter there is a divergence according to
    whether Black plays ... 4:Jbd7 ΟΓ ••• 4:Ja6. Two exceptions are afforded by
    chapter 6, where ... 4:Ja6 is not sufficiently centralίsing ίη the ultra-sharp
    liπes, and chapter 7, where ... 4:Jbd7 is physically impossible. The decision
    as to which of these moves to play is as much a matter of personal prefer-
    ence as anything else, but it is a decision with far"reaching consequences
    Introduction ίχ

    for the course of play. After ~a6-c7 81ack has better chances of
    forcing through ... b5, but pressure οη d5 is not so reliable a method of
    preventing e5 by White as the direct guard οη e5 afforded by ~bd7.
    Even if Black fιnally plays b5 the knight οη c7 may prove hard to
    bring back into the game, as ίη the main Iίne of chapter 2. The move
    . ~bd7 gives the knight better future prospects (e5 ΟΓ b6) but it does
    obstruct the development of the bishop οη c8 (unless· Black has been lucky
    enough to play . .slg4 first) and can lead to congestion amongst Black's
    cramped pieces.
    9) . .slg4: Black aims to exchange the piece which is traditionally the
    most diffιcult to develop ίη the Benoni. This forms the basis of various
    Black systems, for example ·chapter 3 and chapter 6, lίne Α. But against
    other systems it makes lίttle sense to play this move, e.g. if White can
    simply reply to . ~g4 with ~d2 (as ίη the Fianchetto system, for ex-
    ample) the bishop move is just a strike into thin air, and a waste of time:
    50 the move ... ~g4 is restricted to those systems when the move actually
    pins the knight against the bishop οη e2 and so forces an exchange. Not
    that it is necessarίly good. Ιη chapter 6 it provides Black's most relίable
    system, but ίη chapter 3 the replies ~f4 and ~g5 give White good chances
    to gai n an advantage.
    10) ... ~d7: Α recent idea is to couple ... ~a6 with ... ~d7. But even ίη
    the few systems where this is possible (White not attacking d6) it hasn't
    worked out well - see chapter 14, lί ne Α. Perhaps the only time ... ~d7
    offers good chances is ίη the situation of chapter 5, note to Black's 9th
    move, variation 2c.
    11) ... E(b8: Α highly thematic Benoni move designed to support ... b5.
    Ιη those lίnes where Black seriously intends playing for . b5 it is an
    indispensable move, and it occurs regularly throughout the book. The
    only other piece of advice Ι can give regarding this move is that if you are
    ever stuck for a move ίη the opening when playing the Benoni, try
    §b8 - it often comes ίη handy later.
    12) §e8: Another typical Benoni move, covering e5 and exerting
    pressure οη the e-pawn. It is a useful move about 80% of the time, so Ι
    wiII content myself with lίstίng the exceptions. Firstly, ίη the position of
    diagram 29, Black should leaνe e8 clear for the knight after White's im-
    minent g4-g5. Ιη some of the lίnes of chapter 9 (Iook at diagram 50) it is
    more important to play οη the queenside than to play ... §e8, which is ίη
    any case ineffective as there is ηο knight οη f6 tσ reinforce the pressure οη
    e4. There is a second, more subtle, reason. Ιη many lίnes (especially
    chapters 7 and 14) with e4 and f4 by White a breakthrough eventually
    χ Introduction
    occurs by means of ,the pawn sacrifice e5 de f5. The resuIting pressure
    down the f-fίle and especially against the knight at f6 wiII often force
    Black tό put the rook back οη f8, thereby Iosing two tempi. It is preciseIy
    ίη chapters 7 and 14 that . !ΞIe8 is a move of questionabIe utilίty. Α
    more detaiIed discussion is given ίη these chapters.
    13) ... it moves: There are οηΙΥ a few Iines ίη which it pays for BIack to
    move his queen at any earIy stage. UsuaIIy it is better to retain the queen
    οπ Φe fIeχibIe square d8, from which her majesty can move td either side
    of the board. Οπ c7 and e7 the queen is exposed to a e5 de d6 break-
    through, while b6 and a5 are generaIIy bad due to ~d2-c4. Here is a Iist of
    eχceptions: Chapter 3, Iίne D, chapter 7, Iίne Α, note to BIack's 9th move,
    chapter 9, Iίne Α, note to White's 12th move, variation 1, chapter 1Ο, main
    Iίne, chapter 12, line Α 1.
    FinaIIy, as Iight reIief, Ι give the most ridicuIous game ever pIayed ίπ the
    Modern Benoni: Gosanov-Lίtvinov, Moscow 1973: 1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3
    d5 e6 4 ~c3 ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 ~g7 8 ~b5+ Φf8 9 ~f3 a6 1Ο
    ~d3 b5 11 ο-ο ~g4 12 h3 h5 13 ite2 ~d7 14 hg hg 15 ~g5 ~d4+ 16
    ~e3 ~e5 17 ~xd4 cd 18 fe itχg5 19 itf2 f5 20 ef5 g3 21 fg+ gf+ 22
    JIχf2+ Φg8 23 !ΞIaf1 ~g4 24 ~e4 ite3 25 ~f6+ Φg7 26 ~χg4 itxd3 27
    JIf7+ Φχg6 28 ed ite4 29 El1f6+ Φh5 30 ~f2 ite1 + 31 Φh2 Φg5+
    32 ~h3+ IΞIχh3+ 33 gh ite5+ 0-1.
    1. Classical with 1Ο .. C2Jbd7

    This is currentIy the most popuIar 2


    line of the Benoni. Both sides
    W
    adopt an uncompromising position
    and the struggIe revoIves around
    the knight which BIack establishes
    οη e5. Ιη order to preserve this
    BIack is wiIIing to make weakening
    moves Iike .. g5, and White tries
    to take advantage of the resuIting
    possibίlities of occupying f5 with a
    knight. PIay often becomes very
    tense and both sides have to make +, Heppner-Lobron, BRD 1978,
    difficutt and far-reaching decisions. 0-1, 47 but 13 Φh1! is much
    As 50 often ίη the Benoni, BIack's better ΟΓ 11 ~e5 12 a4 g5
    practicaI resuIts have been 13 ~c4 ~xc4 14 .Δ.xc4 h6 ;!; as
    rea5OnabIe, but one feeIs that aIthough White wiII have to waste a
    theoreticaIIy White shouId be abIe tempo ιο pIay f4 BIack's ... h6 has
    to obtain the advantage. weakened his kingside) 12 a4 (12
    1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 ~c3 ~c4 ~b6 13 ~e3 ~h5 14 f4 and
    ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 ~B .Δ.g7 8 now 14 ... ~f6 15.Δ.f3 ~b8 16 a4
    .Δ.e2 ο-ο 9 ο-ο ~e8 1Ο ~d2 .Δ.d7 = is Jansson-PoIugayevsky,
    ~bd7 (2) Havana 1966, 0-1,56 whiIe 14 ...
    11 a4 .Δ.xc3 15 bc 4)f6 wins a pawn but ίs
    This ha!ί become accepted ;1S the rather rίsky) and now:
    main line but there are other 1a) 12 .•. 4)e5 13itc2?! (13Φh1
    moves, of which 11 h3 is the most ~b8 14 a5 g5 15 ~c4 4)xc4 16
    promising: .Δ.xc4 ~h5 17 .Δ.d2 .Δ.e5 was about
    1) 11 f3 (harmIess) 11 ... a6 (11 equaI ίη JanoSevίc-Browne, Netanya
    ~b6 12 a4 .Δ.d7 13 a5 ~c8 14 1971, 1-0, 37, as aIso is 13 a5) 13
    ~c4 ~b8 15 .Δ.g5 h6 16 .Δ.h4 b5 ... ~h5 14 f44)g4 15 4)f3 f5 16
    2 CJass/ca/ wlth 1Ο ... !iJbd7
    ef .Qxf5 17 Ad3 .Qxd3 18 itxd3 c4 ab!?) 14 ... a6 15 4)c3 4)fd7 16
    19 *c2 b5 (19 ... *b6+ 20 Φh1 a5 (16 b3 is suggested by Bagirov)
    §e7 21 4)g51? 4)f2+ 0-1, Mc- 16 •.. 4)c8 17 b3 (17 4)c4 perhaps)
    Gregor-Nunn, England 1973) 20 17 ... 4)a7 18 Ab2 4)b5 194)xb5
    g31 b4 21 4)e4 ac8 +, Peev- .Qxb2 20 'ltxb2 ab +, Polugayevsky-
    Μ. Tseitlin, Pamporovo 1971,0-1, Mecking, match 1971, Υι-Υι, 43.
    30. 2c) 11 4)e5 12 b3 (12 a4 is
    1 b) 12 ... itc7 13 4)c4 (13 'ltb3 best, transposing to Α - 12 f4 is
    4)e5 14 a5 ab8 15 4)d1 4)h5 16 dubious as after 12 4)eg4 13
    4)c4 f5 17 efAxf5 ! 18 g4 4)xc4 4)f3 both 13 . . . 4)xe4 14 4)xe4
    19 Axc4 b5 20 ab §xb6i 21 'lta2 Af5 15 Ad3 c4 16 'ltxc4 ac8 17
    Ad4+ 22 Φg2 itg7! 23 4)c3 Ad7 itb4 .Qxe4 18 Axe4 a5 19 'lta4 b5
    24 Ad2 aeb8 25 aab1 4)f6 26 + and 13 ... 4)h5!? 14 h3 4)h6 15
    IiIfel 'ltf7 27 b3 4)xg4 28 fΘe4 4)e5 Φh2 f5! 16 e5 de 17 fe 4)g4+!
    0-1, Tukmakov-Tal, USSR Ch. 18 hg fg 19.Qg5 Axe5+ 20 Φg1
    1969 deserves to be better known) Ad4+ +, Toynt-Shamkovich, USA
    13. . 4)e5 (13 ... ~b6 144)a3 1976, 0-1, 38 are good for Black,
    Ad7 15 'ltb3?! 4)xa4! 16 4)xa4 b5 moreover 13 4)c4 is bad due to 13
    17 4)c3 b4 +, Brinck-CΙaussen­ ... 4)xe4! 14 4)xe4 Ad4+ 15 Φh1
    Pietzsch, Lugano 1968, 0-1, 43) 4)xh2!) with the lίnes:
    also with equalίty. 2c1) 12 ... g5 13 Ab2 g4 14 afe1
    2) 11 'ltc2and now: 4)h5 15 4)d1 4)f4 16 Ab5 af8 17
    2a) 11. . ~h5 12 Axh5 gh 13 4)e3 'ltg5 +, Korchnoi-Mecking,
    4)c4?! (13 a4! is better as the match 1974, 1-0, 42 whiIe 14 a4
    natural 13 ... 4)e5 transposes to a ίη this line transposes to Α, note to
    Iίne ίη Α considered good for White's 13th move, lίne 1.
    White) 13 ... 4)e5 14 4)e3 'lth4 15 2c2) 12 ... a6 13 a4 ~fg4!? 14 h3
    Ad2 4)g4 16 4)xg4 hg 17 Af4 itf6 4)h6 15 f4? 4)eg4! 16 4)f3 'lta5!
    +, .spassky-Fischer, match 1972, 17 Ad2 ~e3 18 Axe3 *xc3 19
    0--1,41. 'ltxc3 Axc3 20 aac1 Ab2 21 ac2
    2b) 11 .. 4)b6 12 Ab5 (12 a4 IiIxe4 22 Axc5 dc 23 axb2 4)f5 +,
    4)fxd5 13 ed Axc3 14 Ab5 Axd2 Lombardy-Velimirovic,Amsterdam
    15 Axe8 .Qxc1 16 Axf7+ Φχf7 1974,0-1,51.
    17 'ltxc1 looks fine for Black but ίη 2c3) 12 ... 4)h5 13 Axh5 gh 14
    Κapu-Bilek, Hungarian Ch. 1964 Ab2 Ad7 15 §ae1 'lth4 16 f4? (16
    White won quickly: 17. 4)xd5 ~c!1 'ltf4! is unclear - if 77 g3??
    18 ae1 Φg7 19 'ltd2 4)f6 20 ae3 itxd2 wins ο piece - but 16 ae3 is
    4)g8 21 aae1 Af5 22 *c3+ Φf8 ;!;) ~g4 17 4)f3 Ad4+ 1.8 Φh 1
    23 h3 h5 24 g4! +-, 1-0,31) 12 oθf2+ 19 axf2 *xf2 20 'ltc1 (20
    ... Ad7 13 a4 Axb5 14 4)xb5 (14 'ltb1 Af5! +) Ah3! 21 ag1 Φf8 22
    CΙoss/co/ wlth 10 • •• ~d7 3

    ~xd4 cd 23 f5 (23.Qa3 ~ec8! -+) ~xd5 is aIso satisfactory for Black)


    dc 24 .xc3 §xe4 25 gh Φe8'! 26 19 itg3 .Qxf5 20.Qxg5 ~g4! 21 hg
    .d3 §e1 27 §xe1 .xe1+ 28 Φg2 itχg5 22 gf itχg3 23 fg .Qxb2 24
    §c8 29 f6 Φd7 30 ,*xh7 .d2+ §ab1 c3 25 §xb2 ~-:~, Bukic-
    31 Φg3.xd5 32 Φh4 §e8 0-1, Wedberg, Bajmok 1980.
    PoIugayevsky-Nunn, Skara 1980. 3c2) 12 ... §b8 13 a5 (13itc2itc7
    3) 11 h3 (Iogically preparing to Ieaves White with nothing better
    answer ... ~e5 by f4) and now: than 14 a5 transposing since
    3a) 11 . g5 12 ~c4 ~xe4 13 14 b3c4! 15 bc b5 16 ab ab 17 §b1
    ~xe4 §xe4 14 ~xd6 (14 ~d3 ~h4 b4 18 ~d1 ~c5 was good for BIack
    15 ~xd6 ~e5 16 ~f5 c4 17 ~c2 ίπ Radoicic-VeIimirovic, Yugo.
    ~xf5 18 ~xf5 §d4 19 .c2 ~d3 slavia 1981) 13 ...•c7 14.c2 b5
    20 ~e3 §xd5 21 ~e4 ~xb2 22 15 ab ~xb6 16 ~b3 (16 ~e1 ~fd7
    .Qxh7+ Φh8 23 ~e4 was good for 17 b3 c4!? 18 bc ~5 19 §b1 ;!;,
    White ίη Donner-Hartoch, Wijk PIachetka-VeIimirovic, Maribor
    aan Zee 1972, 1-0, 29 but there 1980, ~-~, 56) 16 ...•e7 17~a5
    are numerous improvements for ~d7 (17 ... ~a8 18 ~c6 .c7 19
    Black - see line 3c1 below ίη ~g5 h6 20 ~Π4 c4 21 ~g3~d7 22
    which .. a6 and a4 have been §fd1 ±, Ermenkov-Baretic, Νονί
    inserted; ίη Langeweg-Psakhis,Sara· Sad 1976) 18 ~c6! .Qxc6 19 dc
    jevo 1981 White deviated from §ec8 20 §xa6 §xc6 21 ~f4 c4 22
    Donner-Hartoch by 16 ~xc8 but ~f3 §cc8 23 §d1 ~e8 24 ~e3
    resigned after 16 . §d4 17 1Yre2 ~d7 25 ~g4! h5 26 ~d5 .d8 27
    §xd3 18 f4 gf winning a piece) .Qxd7 itχd7 28 §a7 .e6? (28 ...
    14 §d4 15 *c2 ~b6 (15 §b7 29 ~b6) 29 §e7 §xb2 30
    §xd5 16 ~xc8 itχc8 should have 'lta4 1-0, Bukic-Velίmirovic,
    been tried but the position is still Yugoslavia Ch. 1975. Α very
    good for White) 16 ~xc8 §xc8 impressive game by Bukic.
    17 ~e3! §b4 18 ~g4! ±, Podgayets- 3c3) 12 ... *c7 13 .c2 ~b6 (13
    ZheIiandinov, USSR 1977, 1-0,47. ... g5?! 14~c4h6 15f4!~h716
    3b) 11 •.• ~b6 (irrelevant) 12 a4 Φh1 §b8 17 a5 :!:, Hartoch-Minic,
    §b8 13 f4 a6 14~f3~d7 15 §e1 Wijk aan Zee 1971, 1-0,41) 14 a5
    ±, Ρο ρον-Taborov, AIushta 1977. ~bd7 15 b3 b5 16 ab ~xb6 17
    3c) 11 a6 12 a4 with the ~b2 *d8 18 f4 a5 19 ~f3 ±,
    divergence: Gutman-Petkevic, Latvia Ch. 1978,
    3c1) 12 •.. g5 13 ~c4 ~xe4 14 1-0,42.
    ~xe4 §xe4 15 ~d3 (15 ~xd6 as ίπ 3c4) 12 ... h5!?13 ~e1 ~h7 14
    3a is better) 15 ... §h4 16 ~xd6 ~f1 §b8 1"5 a) *e7 16 ~c4 ;!;,
    ~e5 17 ~f5 ~xd3 18 itχd3 c4 (18 Donner-Portisch, PaIma 1971, ~­
    ... ~xf5 19 itχf5 ~d4 20 ~xg5 ~, 19, but nobody has repeated this
    4 Closs/cάΙ w/tIJ10 . •. 4)bd7
    dubious idea. Ι π conclusion Black 3
    has πο visible route to equality
    W
    against 11 h3.
    4) 11 ~e1 wiH transpose to Β after
    11 ... a6 12 a4 ΟΓ to Α after 11 ...
    4)e5 12 a4 (12 4)f1 c4 13 a4 h6
    14 4)e3 *c7 15 *c2 a6 16 a5 Ad7
    is unclear, Kraidman-Povah, Man-
    chester 1979).
    5) 11 f4 has been relegated ιο
    chapter 6, line 03.
    After 11 a4 we have the divergence 1981 was very unpleasant - note
    Α: 11 ... 4)e5 that 17 ... h6 .is ηο improvement
    Β: 11 ... a6 since 18 f4 gf 19 Aχf4 threatens
    LΠ a sense this distinction is rather both 20Aχe5 and 20Axh6) 15 §b1
    artifιcial since even after 11 ... 4)e5 a6 (15 ... b6 16 b4 4)d7 17 Ad2
    Black will usually play ... a6 sooner cb 18 §xb44)e5 is unclear) 16 b4
    ΟΓ later, but ίι is certainly convenient 4)d7 17 4)e2 cb 18 Elxb4 4)c5 19
    for dividing υρ the material. Gen- 4)g3 Ad7 20 Ag4 ;1;, Belyavsky-
    erally speaking Α contains Iines ίη Gavrikov, USSR 1978,1-0,40.
    which ... a6 is delayed for at least 2) 12 §a3 and now:
    a few moves. 11 ... g5 will transpose 2a) 12 ... b6 13 *c2 4)h5 14
    to Α after 12 *c2 and indeed this Aχh5 gh 15 4)d 1 transposes to the
    is the best idea as 12 4)c4 4)xe4 13 note Ιο Black's 12th move.
    4)xe4 Elxe4 14 4)xd6 Eld4 15 *1>3 2b) 12 ... Ad7?! 13 *c2 ac8
    (15 *c2 is lίke 3a ίη the last note (Ljubojevic suggests 13 ... c4!? 14
    but h3 is a more useful move than 4)xc4 4)xc4 15 Aχc4 Elc8 but this
    a4) 4)b6 16 a54)xd5 +, Bonchev- looks far from adequate) 14 f4 4)eg4
    Tseitlin, Pamporovo 1977,0-1,34 154)c4*e716h3b517ab4)h518
    is probably only equal even with 15 Axg4 Aχg4 i 19 *f2iAd7 20 e5 +-,
    *c2. Petrosian-Ljubojevic, MiIan 1975,
    Α 1-0,30.
    11 ... 4)eS (3) 2c) 12 ... g5 13 Ele1 (13 *c2
    12 *c2 transposes Ιο the main line whiIe
    Or 13 4)f3 4)xf3+ 14 Axf3 h6 15 h3
    1) 12 h3 g5 13 4)f3 4)xf3+ 14 *e7 16 4)e2 g4 17 hg 4)xg4 18
    Axf3 h6 (14 ... 4)d7 15 Ag4 4)e5 4)g3 h5! gave Black active pIay ίπ
    16 Axc8 Elxc8 17 *h5 4)d3 18 Rajkovic-KarIsson, Vrnjacka Banja
    Axg5 *d7 19 Ah6 Af6 20 *f3 1981,0-1,36) g4 (13 ... 4)g6!? is
    1-0, Henley~runfeId, Lone Pine possible) ~ 4 4)f1! a6 (14 ... h6!?)
    C/oss/cal wlthl Ο • •• 4:Jbd7 5
    15 .ag5 h6 16.ah4.ad7 174)g3*c8 f4! was +- ίπ Gligoric-Κaνalek,
    18 ιtd2 Φh7 194)d1 ;1;, Browne- Skopje 1972, 1-0, 38 but even 17
    Νυηη, London 1980, ~-~, 42. . .. g3 18 fg! exe4 19 *'.<e4 §xe4
    3) 12 Ι::Ιe1 (this is perhaps the 20 4:lxd6 §e5 21 4:ιχΠ leaνes White
    most logical moment to play §e1, with good winning chances) 15 §a3
    which aIIows 4:lf1 followed by 4:le3 .Q.a6 (15 ... f5 16 ef.Q.a6 17 4:le4!
    ΟΓ 4)g3 probing f5) a6 (12 ... g5 .Q.xf1 18 ΦΧf1 4)Π 19 §g3 Φh8
    may be better) 13 4)f1 (13 h3 g5 was Gligoric - Taimanov, Lenir:1grad
    144:1f1 h6 15 4)g3 §b8 16 §a3 g4 1973 and now Taimanov gives 20
    ~-~, Georgadze-Nunn, Hastings §xg7! Φχg7 21 *c3+ with tOO
    1979/80 - the final position is lίnes 21 .• Φf8 22 .ah6+! 4)xh6
    highly unclear) §b8 14 f44)eg4 15 23 *118+ 4)g8 24 f6 *d7 25 4:lg5
    h3 4:lh6 16 .af3 4)d7 17 g4 and +- and 21 ... Φg8 22 4)f6+ Φf8
    White's threat of g5 gives him the 234)χh7+Φg8 24*g3+IΦχh7 25
    advantage, Alburt-Ree, Lone Pine *86+ Φh8 26 f6 ±) 16 §h3 (16
    1981,1-0,31. 4:le3 .aχf1 17 4:ldxf1 Φh8 18 4:lf5
    4) 12 Φh1 (not a very useful h4 19 .af4 §g8 20 §h3 .af6 21
    move) g5 13 §a3 a6 14 *c2 b6 *e2 was unclear ίπ Plachetka-
    15 f4 gf 16 §xf4 §b8 17 4:ld1 4:lg6 Si kora, Czechoslovakia Ch. 1974,
    18 §f2 *e7 19.af3 b5 20 ab ab 1-0,41) 16 ... .aχf1 174)xf1 b5
    21 b3 .ad7 :ι:, Peshina-Petrosian (17 ... h4!?) 18 4:lde3! ba 194:1f5
    (!), Vilnius 1978,0-1,43. 4:lg6 20 §xh5 .ae5 21 g3 §b8 22
    5) 12 4)db1 (a crazy-Iooking 4:l1e3 a3 23 ba *b6 24 *d2 *b3
    move designed to prevent ... g5 25 4)g4 §b 7 26 Φg2 *c4 27 4:lxe5
    and' thereb,y ensure that the knight *xe4+ (27 ... 4:lxe5 28 itg5+ 4)g6
    οπ e5 is eventuaIIy displaced) 12 ... 29 *f6 +-) 28 f3 *xe5 294)h6+
    a6 (12 ... *e7 may be the best Φf8 30 §xe5 §xe5 31 fJg4 1-0,
    move but a witty player might Petrosian-Rashkovsky, USSR Ch.
    prefer 12 ... 4:led7!?) 13 4:la3 h6? 1976. Α superb game by Petrosian.
    14 f44:1ed7 15 *c2 *e7 16.af3 Black may have improvements ίη
    b5 17 ab ab 18 4)cxb5 ±, Farago- this Iίne but it is clearly rather un·
    Fίlipowicz, Budapest 1976, 1-0, pleasant for the second player who
    35. has to contend with a lasting
    12... g5 initiative for White. FinaIIy 12 ...
    The alternative 12 ... 4)h5 is not so *e7, as so often ίπ the Benoni, is a
    good, e.g. 13 .Q.xh5 gh 144:1d1 b6 weak move an'd iπ Glίgoric­
    (14 ... *114 15 4:le3 4)g4 16 4:lxg4 Grunfeld, Skara 1980 13 b3 g5 14
    hg 17 4:lc4 and now 17 ... *f6? .ab2 g4 15 §ae1 4)h5 16 g3! .ad7
    18 .ad2 *86 19 .ac3 .aχc3 20 bc 17 4)d1 *g5 18 f4 gf 19 4)xf3
    b6 21 §fe1 .aa6 22 4)d2 §e5 23 4:lxf3+ 20.Q.xf3 was ±, 1-0,48.
    6 C/ass/ca/ wIth 1Ο . .. liJbd7

    13 aa3 a6 (15 .. liJe5 16 liJg3 g4 17 Φh 1


    The most popular move, but a a6?! 18..Qe2*h4? 19 aa3 ±, Flear-
    variety of alternatives have been Νυππ, British Ch. 1980, 0-1, 73
    tried: but 17 ... liJxc4 18 *xc4 a6 was
    1) 13 b3 g4 14 ..Qb2 liJh5 15 g3 not so bad for Black) 16 §a3 (16
    (15 liJc4 liJxc4 16 ..Qxc4 liJf4 17 liJg3 ..Qd7! 17 a5 liJe5 18 ..Qe2 liJg6!
    liJd 1 ..Qe5 18 ..Qxe5 §xe5 19 liJe3 19 liJh5 ..Qe5 20 'ltd1 liJf4 21 ..Qg4
    *e7 20 f3 gf 21 §xf3 §xe4 22 ..Qb5 +, Ρ. WeHs-Povah, london
    "fιf2 f5 *--*, Gligoric-Tatai, Venice 1980,0-1,40) 16 ... "fιe7 17§g3
    1971) 15 ... f5? (15 ... §f8 pre- (17 liJg3 ..Qd7 18 ..Qe2 liJe5 19 f4 gf
    paring ... f5 was much better) 16 20 ..Qxf4 liJg6 21 'ltd2?! liJxf4 22
    ef *&5 17 liJce4! "fιxf5 18 f4 gf 19 "fιxf4 ..Qxb2 unclear, Jonsson-B .
    ..Qxf3 *g6 20 ..Qxh5 "fιxh5 21liJxd6 Andersson, corr. 1979, 0-1, 36)
    ±, G. Garcia-Browne, Las Palmas 17 ... h6 18 f4 'ltxe4 19 ..Qd3 'ltb4
    1974,1-0,40. 20 fg hg 21 ..Qxg5 with a dangerous
    2) 13 liJf3 liJxf3+ 14 ..Qxf3 h6? attack, Najdorf~Ree, Wijk aan Zee
    (14 ... liJd7 15 ..Qg4liJe5 16..Qxc8 1971,0-1,45.
    I;txc8 intending ... c4 and ... liJd3 4) 13 liJd1 g4 (13 ... liJg6 14
    is better) 15 ..Qd2 a6 16 ..Qe2 *e7 liJe3a6 15 §e1 g4 16 ab1 *e7 17
    17 l;tae1 'lte5 18 Φh1 'ltd4 19 f3 b4 b6 18 bc bc 19 ..Qb2 h5 is
    liJh5, Glίgoric-Fischer, Palma 1970, unclear, Pelaez-Grinberg, Buenos
    0-1, 35 and now 20 g3! ± is best Aires 1978, 0-1, 34) 14 liJe3 liJh5
    according to Gligoric. 15 g3?! (15 f4 unclear) 15 '" Μ6
    3) 13 liJc4 liJxc4 14 ..Qxc4 liJg4 16 f4 gf 17 liJxf3 ..Qh3 18 §f2
    (14 ... liJh5 15 §a3 ..Qe5 16 liJe2 liJxf3+ 19 ..Qxf3 *&6 20 liJg2 ..Qd4
    *f6 17 Φh 1 is also satisfactory for 21 liJh4 Μ6 22 ..Qxh5 §xe4! 23
    Black, F. Portisch-Danner, Reggio liJg2 §ae8 24 ..Qf4 *f5 25 g4 "fιxf4!
    Emilίa 1979/80, 1-0, 40 although 0-1, Farago-Szilagyi, Hungary Ch.
    ίπ the game 17 ... liJf4?! 18 g3 1974.
    liJxe2 19 ..Qxe2 ..Qd4 20 f4 gf 21 5) 13 ae1 g4 14 liJf1 liJh5 15
    §xf4 *&6 22 §h4 was ;!;) 15 liJe2 liJg3 liJxg3 16 hg h5 17 ..Qf4 liJg6
    (15 aa3 Μ6?! 16 h3 liJe5 17 liJe2! (17 ... a6! is better) 18 ..Qb5 af8
    liJxc4 18 "fιxc4 'ltg6 19 liJg3 h5 20 19 'ltd2 liJxf4 20 gf a6 21 ..Qd3 g3
    'ltc2 §e5 21 f4 ±, Cuartas-Povah, unclear, Friedgood-Povah, london
    London 1979, 1-0, 33 but 15 ... 1979,0-1,46. (4)
    *e7 preventing liJe2 looks better ΟΓ 13 . .. g4
    perhaps 15 liJe5 16 ..Qb5 §f8 Or 13 ... *e7 (13 ... a6 transposes
    17 f4?! gf 18..Qxf4liJg6 19..Qg3 h5 to Ι ine 2 οπ page 1Ο but 13 ... liJfd7
    20 liJe2 h4 and Black is slightly is reasonable, e.g. 14liJd1 liJf8 15 f3
    better"Schmidt-Sax, 1981) 15 ... liJfg6 16 g3 ..Qh3 17 ae1 §c8 with
    CΙosslco! wlth 10 • .• ~bd7 7

    4 3) 14 ~c4 (a critical moνe,


    be«ause if it is possible White can
    Β
    do away with the artificial prepara-
    tory moνe b3) 14 ... ~h5 (14 ...
    ~xc4 15 .Q.xc4 ~d7 is possible but
    then Black is ίη serious danger of
    transposing tO- Flear-Nunn ίη the
    note to White's 13th moνe, lίne 3)
    15 ~e3 (15 ~xe5 .Q.xe5 16 g3
    intending f4 ΟΓ maybe 'itd1 seems
    just an edge for White, Petrosian- good for White while 15 b3 trans-
    Rajkoνic Vrsac 1981, Υ2-Υ2, 47) 14 poses to the main line) 15 ... 'ith4?
    ~d1 (14 lae1 ~fg4 15 ~f1 ~g6 (why not 15 ... ~f4?) 16 g3 ith3
    16 'itd1 ~h6 17 ~g3 a6 18.Q.e3 17 'itd 1 .Q.h6 18 ~g2! (the rest of
    f5 =, Najdorf-Timman, Bugojao the game is a model example· of
    1982,0-1,50) 14 ... h6 15 ~e3 what happens when Black's initiatiνe
    a6 16 f4 gf 17 laxf4 ~g6 18 laf1 coIIapses) 18 ... .Q.g7 19 ~b5 ad8
    .Q.d7 19 ~dc4 laad8 20 ~b6 20 ~f4 ~xf4 21 gf 'ith4 22 ag3 a6
    'itxe4 21 .Q.d3 'itd4 22 .Q.xg6 fg 23 ~c3 ιtιg6 24 .Q.xg4 .Q.xg4 25
    23 'itxg6 ±, Τarjan-Grϋnfeld, axg4 'ite7 26 f5 ~e5 27 ag3 'ith4?
    Buenos Aires 1978, Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 51. 28 .Q.g5 1-0, Szmetan-Armas,
    Black's play was much too passiνe Rumania Ch. 1979.
    ίη this game. 4) 14 ae1 (Iess logical ίη con-
    14 b3 junction with 'itc2 and aa3) ~h5
    If White really has to play this moνe 15 ~f1 *f6 16 ~d1 'itg6 17 .Q.b5
    then laa3 doesn't look νery logical, af8 18 ~de3 a6 +, Zaltsman-:-
    but other moνes haνe not been νery Grunfeld, Lone Pine 1981, ~-~,
    successful: 45.
    1) 14 ~d1 (weak) ~h5 15 ~e3 14.. . ~h5
    ~f4 16.Q.d1 b6 17 ~dc4 ~xc4 18 14 ... ~fd7 15 ~c4 ~xc4 16 bc
    ~xc4 ~g6 19 ~e3 'ite7 20 ~f5 ~e5 17 4:ld 1 ;!;. (5)
    'itxe4! 21 lae3.Q.xf5 22 laxe4.Q.xe4 154.ιc4
    +, Antunac-Grunfeld, New York Black doesn't want to repair White's,
    1981,0-1,36. pawn structure by playing ... ~xc4
    2) 14.Q.b5 laf8 15 ae1 ~h5 16 but the moνe ~b5 will force his
    ~f1 f5 17 ~g3 ~xg3 18 hg 'itf6 hand. The only way to p~eνent this
    19 .Q.e3 'itg6 20 .Q.f4 a6 21 .Q.f1 fe! is by 15 ... a6 when 16 a5 trans-
    22 ~xe4 .Q.f5 23 aae3 b5 +, Dziec- poses to Petrosian-Lukin (see Β),
    iolowski-Holm, Zabrze 1977, 0-1, ίη which the weakness of b6 is
    36. eνident.
    8 C/asska/ wlth 1Ο . .. 43bd7

    Β
    11 a6

    6
    W

    15 *f6
    16 4)b5 4)xc4 (16 ... 4)f3+ 17
    ,Q,xf3? gf 18 4)bxd6 *g6 19 g3
    ,Q,d4! 20 Φh1 ,Q,h3 21 §gl 4)f6 Α more f1exibIe move, reserνing the
    gave BIack a very dangerous attack option of queenside pIay with ...
    ίπ Schneider-SchIemmermeyer, §b8 and *c7 as weII as the
    Bremen 1981,0-1,30 but simpIy standard 4)e5 and g5.
    17 ΦhΤ! Ieaves BIack with πο NevertheIess White shouId gain the
    reasonabIe defence against 18 advantage, at Ieast partiaIIy because
    4)bxd6 and 18 4)c7 for 17 •.. of the weakening of the b6 square.
    4)xh2 18 ΦΧh2 *h4+ 19 Φg1 g3 12 *c2
    20 fg 4)xg3 21 §f4! defends) 17 bc There are many other moves, some
    §e7 18 h3 (18 g3! ;t; is given by of them quite good;
    Povah but White's advantage is 1) 12 §a3 and now:
    certainIy very smaII here) 18 ... a6 1a) 12 §b8 13 a5! (13 *c2
    19 Axg4 (19 hg 4)f4!) 19 ... ab 20 wiII Iead Ιο the main Iίne) 13
    ,Q,xh5 §xa4 21 §xa4 ba 22 -ιtxa4 *~7 (13 ... *e7 14 <i)c4 b5?! 15
    §xe4 23 *a8 (White is a IittIe ab <i)xb6 16 <i)a5 *c7 17 *c2 §a8
    better but BIack can defend) 23 ... 18 h3 4)fd7 19 §d 1 c4 20 ,Q,e3
    *d8 24,Q,g4 §e8 25 ,Q,f4,Q,xg4 26 <i)c5 21 <i)xc4 4)xc4 22 ,Q,xc4 ±,
    -ιtxd8 §xd8 27 hg ,Q,f8 28 §b 1 Bagirov-Jansa, ΤίΙονο Uzice 1978,
    §a8 29 §xb7 §a4 30 §d7 12-12,' 1-0,56) 14 h3 b5?! (14 ... g5) 15
    Tatai-Povah, London 1978. ab ι;!χb6 16 *c2 <i)e5 17 f4 <i)ed7
    AIthough the main line is ΟΠΙΥ a 18 ""h1 Ι;!b4 19 b3! ±, Petrosian-
    IίttIe better for White the reIativeIy Quinteros, Lone Pine 1976, 1-0,
    untested ideas of 12 §e1 and 14 43.
    4)c4 ensure that this Iίne wiII con- 1b) 12 ... b6!? 13 *c2 <i)e5 14
    tinue to cause probIems for BIack b3 (14 <i)c4! Jooks better) 14 ..•
    ίπ the future. §a7 15 <i)c4 ι;!ae7 16 f3 *c7 17
    C/asslca/ wlth 1Ο ••• fjbd7 9

    .Q.d2 4:lh5 is unclear, Koider-Suba, might even have been better for
    Bucharest 1980, 0-1, 28. BIack, whiIe 14 Ο Qfd7 15 ιDb3
    1c) 12 Qe5 13 h3 (13 *c2 *c7 16 Qa5 §b8 17 Φh1 was
    transposes to the main Iίne) 13 ..• cIearIy good for White ίη Meduna-
    g5 14 Qf3 Qxf3+ 15.Q.χf3 h6 16 Vrachek, Prague 1980, 1-0,26 but
    Qe2 .Q.d7 17 Qg3 b5 18 Qh5 Qxh5 14 ... Qh5 15 f4 *h4 16 .Q.xh5 is
    19 .Q.χh5 ~xe4 20 f4 unclear, uncIear) 14 ... c4 15 §e1 *c7 16
    Begovac-Kluger, Sombor 1978, .c2 .Q.d7 17 Qf1 .Q.b5 18 .Q.e3
    1-0,47. ιDfd7 19 §ea 1 ιDc5 20 ιDd2 ~ab8
    2) 12 Φh1 §b8 (12 ... Qe5 13 21 !ΞIc1 §b7 22 g3 *d7 =, Panno-
    *c2 Qh5 14 .Q.χh5 gh 15 Qd1 *h4 Ljubojevic, Sao Paulo 1979, 0-1.,
    16 §a3.Q.g4 17 f3 .Q.d7 18 f4 Qg4 48.
    19 h3 f5!? 20 Qf3 *e7 21 hg hg 5) 12 !ΞIe1 *c7 (12 ... ~b8 13
    22 Qh2 itXe4 unclear is Goodman- .Q.f1 4:le5 14 f4? 4:leg4 15 4:lf3 c4!
    Kraidman, London 1978, 0-1, 37 16 a5 *c7 17 e5, Oonner-VeIim-
    but by analogy with GligoriC"- irovic, Havana 1971, 1-0, 43 and
    Kavalek ίη the note to Black's 12th now 17 de 18 fe .Q.f8! was
    move ίη Α, 16 Qe3 is good for winning for Black according to
    White) and now: VeIimirovic, but of course White's
    2a) 13 ~a3 Qe5 14*c2Qh5 15 pIay was weak) 13 h3 g5? (13 ...
    .Q.χh5 gh 16 Qe2 h4 17 Qf4 b5 18 ~b8) 14 4:lc4 h6 15 f4! 4:lxe4 16
    Qh5 .Q.h8 19 f4 .Q.g4! is uncIear, .Q.d3.Q.d4+ 17 Φh2 .Q.χc3 18 bc
    Browne-Nunn, London 1979, ~­ 4:ldf6 19 fg hg 20 -ιtf3 g4 21 -ιtf4
    ~, 31. 4:lxd5 22 §xe4! +-, Hί.ίbner­
    2b) 13 ο?! Qe5 14 Qc4 Qxc4 Garcia Padron, Las PaImas 1976,
    15 .Q.χc4 Qd7 16 .Q.e3 f5 17 .-d2 1-0,27.
    Qe5 18 .Q.e2 Qn! +, Ν. Benjamin- 6) 12 f3 4:le5 13 4:lc4 Qxc4 14
    Νυηη, EngIand 1979,0-1,36. .Q.χc4 ιDd7 15 a5 Qe5 16.Q.e2 b5. 17
    2c) 13 f4 transposes to chapter 6, ab -ιtχb6 18 f4Qd7 19*c2 ~b8 20
    Iίne 03, note to BIack's IIth move, Φh1 .Q.d4 21 h3 4:lf6 22.Q.f3 .Q.d7
    variations 2a and 2b. 23 g4 +, CueIIar-Gild. Garcia,
    3) 12 h3 transposes to the note Bogota 1979,0-1,44.
    to Iίne 3c οη page 3. 7) 12 f4 see chapter 6, line 03.
    4) 12 a5 (Jets BIack off a bit 12 Qe5
    IίghtIy) 12 ... b5 13 ab Qxb6 14 Again there are other possibilίties:
    ~a3 (14 f4 *c7 15 .Q.f3 §b8 16 1) 12 ... Qh5?! (reaches positions
    Φh1 c4 17 ~a2 Qfd7 18 Qa4.Q.b7 simiIar ΙΟ Α, note to Black's 12tl1
    19 Qxb6 Qxb6 20 Qb1 f5 21 ef gf move, but with Black effectively a
    22 Qc3 =, Lein-Sahovic, Amster- move down due Ιο •.. a6) 13 .A.xh5
    dam 1979, 1-0,57 but 20 ... Qd7 gh 14 Qd1 Qe5 15 Qe3 *h4 16
    1Ο C/iIssical with 1Ο • .• !f)bd7

    ~a3 .Qd7 17 f4 4)g4 18 4)xg4 hg are needed of this idea.


    19 4)c4 'fιe7 201e5! ±, Gligoric-
    Browne, 5an Antonio 1972, 1-0, 7
    37.
    W
    2) 12 'fιe7 (again this move
    Jeads to trouble) 13 §e1 (13 §a3 is
    probablyeven better) 13 ... 4)e5
    14 4)f1 4)h5 15 .Qxh5 gh 16 4)e3
    'lJιh4 17 4)e2 4)g4 18 4)xg4 hg 19
    .Qf4 'lJιf6 20 §ab1 b5 21 .Qd2 ;1;,
    F riedgood-50wray, London 1979,
    1-0,29.
    3) 12 . §b8 13 4)c4 (13 h3
    'fιc7 14 f4? transposes to Purdy- 13 EIa3 'fιe7
    Hartoch variation 2b3 οπ page 68 1)13. 'fιc714b3(14f4!4)eg4
    but 14 a5 transposing to the note 15 4)c4 4)h5 16.Qxg4.Qxg4 17 f5 ±
    to White's 11 th move, Iίne 3c2, is is given by Velimirovic) 14 ... .Qd7
    good for White, while 13 §a3 b6 15 a5 g5 164)c4g4 17 .Qf44)h5 18
    14Φhl4)e5 15b3ι::tf8!? 16.Qb2 .Qxe5 .Qxe5 19 4)xe5 EIxe5 20 'fιd2
    4)h5 17 .Qxh5 gh 18 4)d1 f5 was 'fιd8 =, Bagirov-Szabo, EuropaCup
    unclear ίπ Timman-G. Garcia, Rio 1978 ~-~, 26.
    de Janeiro 1979, ~-~, 67) 4)b6 14 2) 13 ... g5 14 a5 (14 4)c4 4)xc4
    4)a3.Qd7 15 .Qg5? (15 a5 4)c8 16 1 5 .Qxc4 4)g4 16 4)e2 'fιe 7 trans-
    4)c4 with the idea of .Qf4 is at least poses to line 3 οπ page 6) 14 ... g4
    slightly better for White) 15 ... h6 (14 §b8 keeping black-square
    16 .Qf4 4)xa4! 17 .Qxd6 4)xc3 18 control is probably better, for ex-
    bc 4)xe4 19 .Qxb8 4)xc3 20 .Qf3 ample 15 4)f3 4)xf3+ 16.Qxf3 4)g4
    'lJιχb8 +, Reshevsky-Savon, Petrop- 17 .Qxg4 .Qxg4 18 4)a4 'fιxa5 19
    olis 1973, 0-1, 40. This was the .Qxg5 unclear, Vaisman-Velickovic,
    famous game ίπ which Reshevsky Zrenjanin 1980, 0-1, 46 ΟΓ 15 4)c4
    ρυΙ his queen en prise instead of 4)xc4 16 .Qxc4 4)g4 17 4)e2 4)e5
    mating ίη three, being under the 18 b3 g4 19 4)g3 'lJιh4 =, Huss-
    impression that the move he Velickovic, Luxembourg 1981) 15
    actually played was mate ίη one! b3 4)h5 (15 ... 4)fd7, supporting e5
    4) 12 ... b6 13 4)c44)e5 144)xe5 and. b6, followed by . 'lJιf6-g6
    Elxe5 15.Qf4(15f4!?)§e8 16h3 was probably better) 16 4)c4 4)xc4?
    ~a7 17 .Qg5?! h6 18 .Qh4 g5 19 (1 6 ... 'lJιf6) 17 bc .Qe5 18 g3 4)g7
    .Qg3 §ae7 20 .Qf3 4)h7! 21 EIae1 19 4)d 1 f5 20 4)e3 fe 21 4)xg4
    .Qe5 +, 5zymczak-Robatsch, Lublin .Qxg4 22.Qxg4 ±, Petrosian-Lukin,
    1976, 0-1, 30. More practical tests U5SR 1978, 1-0,47.
    C/ass/ca/ wfth 10 . .. iaM7 11

    14 a5 Ac8 18 Φh1 *c7?! (18 ... ~h5!


    14 h3 g5 15 ~f3 g4?! (15 unc/ear) 19 f4! ~ed7 20 e5 (2t>
    ~xf3+ 16 ,Q,xf3 g4 17 hg ~xg4 ~c4 may be better for White) 20
    looks quite reasonable for Black) . de 21 fe "ltxe5 22 ~c4 *d4
    16 hg ,Q,xg4 17 ~h2! Ad7 18 §e1 23 §d6 ~g4 24 ,Q,xg4 "ltxg4 25 *f2
    ~ac8 19 §b3 with a good game f5 26 ,Q,f4 g5! 27 §e6 §xe6 28
    for White, Donner-Velimirovic, ,Q,xb8 ,Q,d4! 29 de? (29 *g3) 29 ...
    Amsterdam 1976. After 14 a5 the Axf2 30 ed ,Q,xd7 31 ~e5 *d4!
    position is unclear, e.g. 14 ... ,Q,d7 32 §d1 *b4 33 ~xd7 ,Q,d4 34,Q,e5
    (14 . §b8 15 ~a4 ,Q,d7 16 f4 "ltxb2 35 ,Q,xd4 cd 36 ~d5 *e2 37
    ,Q,xa4 17 "ltxa4 ~ed7 18 ,Q,f3 c4 §cl Φf7 38 h3 d3 39 §c7 Φe6
    19 *c2! §bc8 20 §a4 ±, Bukic- 40 ~7b6 d2 0-1, Portisch-
    Velimirovic, Yugoslavia Ch. 1981) Velimirovic, Portoroz-Ljubljana
    15 §b3 §ab8 16 §b6 ,Q,g4! 17 f3 1975.
    2. Classical with 1 Ο ... ti)a6

    This variation shows ίπ the clearest 12 ... a6 13 f3 §b8. After 14 a5


    fashion White's plan of restraining Ad7 15 ~4 Ab5 (15 . o€:ιb5
    Black. Black's ... ~a6-c7manoeuvre 16 o€:ιxb5 Axb5is also equal) 16Ag5
    forces through ... a6 and ... b5, Axc4 17 Axc4 h6 18 Ae3 b5
    but so slowly that White can 19 ab §xb6 20 itd7 <Iih7 Black h:ιd
    organise b4 as a reply to . b5, a comfortable position ίη Ree-
    blocking the queenside. The idea Portisch, Amsterdam 1981, YS-YS,
    is that White can then turn his 42. 14 ~c4 looks much more
    attention to the exploitation of his dangerous since 14 b5 aIIows
    central majority.1 π practice this plan the knight 10 reach c6.
    has worked very well and practical 3) 11 lΞIe1 o€:ιc7 12 a4 b6 13 *c2
    results are much ίη White's favour. (13 IΞIb1 IΞIb8 14 b3 a6 15 Ab2 b5
    However if Black plays accurately gives Black the initiative, for ex-
    ίη the critical phase round about ample 16 ab ab 17 Af1 o€:ιg4! 18 o€:ιf3
    move 15, his theoretical chances f5 +,Smyslov-Polugayevsky, USSR
    seem ηο worse than after other 10th 1975,0-1,38) 13 ... IΞIb8 (13 ...
    moves. o€:ιg4 14 h3? o€:ιxf2! 15 <Iixf2 *h4+
    1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 ~c3 ed 16 Φf1 Ad4 17 ~d1 *xh3! 18Af3
    5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 ~f3 Ag7 8 Ae2 *h2 19 o€:ιe3 f5 20 o€:ιdc4 fe 21
    ο-ο 9 ο-ο lΞIe8 1 Ο ~d2 ~a6 Axe4 Aa6 22 Af3 lΞIe5 23 lΞIa3
    11 f3 lΞ!ae8 24 Ad2 ~xd5 25 Axd5+
    Gligoric's move, which has effec- IΞIxd5 26 Φe2 Axe3 27 IΞ!xe3
    tively displaced the alternatives: Axc4+ 0-1, Gurgenidze-Tal, USSR
    1) 11 f4 t.ransposes to chapter 6, Ch. 1957 is one of the classic Tal
    line D5. wins, but 14 Axg4 Axg4 15 o€:ιc4
    2) 11 <Iih1 is likely to transpose is ;1;) 14 o€:ιc4 Aa6 15 Af4 (15
    back 10 the lines considered ίη this IΞ!b1 Axc4 16 Axc4 a6 17 b4 b5
    chapter after 11 ... ~c7 12 a4 b6 18 ab ab 19 Ae2 c4 ·20 Ag5 h6 21
    13 f3, but Black can attempt 10 Ae3 o€:ιd7 22 lΞIed1 Ωa8 23 Ωa1
    exploit White's move-order with *e7 24Af3 *-*. Hort-Ermenkov.
    C/ossico/ with 1ο .. ,~6 13

    SIanchev Bryag 1974 - White Α:


    reached a Iess favourabIe version of 121. . . 4)d7
    positions occurring iater ίπ the Now Α1 : 13 4)c4
    chapter) ~xc4 16 ~xc4 4)h5 17 Α2: 13 'ith1
    ~e3 a6 with just an edge for White, 13 Φh1 seems to be the more
    Reshevsky-Tarjan, USA Ch. 1977, accurate move. There is another
    1-0,35. possibiIity, 13 f4, which is aIso of
    4) 11 ~xa6 is aIways bad ίη the importance as it can arise by
    Benoni since White gives away a transposition from page 82, note
    usefui minor piece and aIIows to BIack 's 12th move. 13 f4 4)f6
    BIack's rook to become very active (13 f5 14 4)c4 ~d4+ 15
    down the b-fίle. Φh 1 "Μ6 16 ef gf 17 §a3 b6 18
    11 4)c7 ~h5 §e7 19 4)e2 ~b7 was uncIear
    11 ... 4)d7 12 Φh1! 4)c7 transposes ίη Mecking-Sumiacher, Mar de!
    to Α2. PIata 1971, Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 31 whi Ie 13 ...
    12 a4 §b8 is reasonabIe but untested) 14
    ~f3 (White is a tempo υρ compared
    with chapter 6, line Ο5, but it is
    8 not so easy to find a good use for
    Β the extra move - maybe 14 'ith1 !?)
    14 b6 15 4)c4 ~a6 16 *d3
    §b8 17 §b1 b5 18 ab 4)xb5 19
    4)xb5 ~xb5 20 ~d2 4)xe4! 21
    ~xe4 ~d4+ 22 'ith 1 ~xc4 +J
    Furman-Tal, USSR Ch. 1959, Υ:ι­
    Υ:ι, 40 but White's pIay was dreadful.
    ΑΙ:
    13 4)c4 4)e5
    Or 13 *e7 14 'ithl f5 15~f4
    Now we have Α: 12 ... 4)d7 4)e5 16 ~xe5 he5 17 4)xe5 *xe5
    Β: 12·... b6 18 f4 *d4 19 e5! (19 ~f3 b6 20
    Α was briefly popular ίη the mid- *c2 *e3 21 *c1 *xc1 22 §axcl
    seventies, but ίη fact it just seems ~6 23 §fe 1 §ad8 ~, Polugay-
    bad. Β is the solid "main line''. evsky-Ljubojevic, Manila 1976,
    Transpositiona! possibiIities abound Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 28, whίle 19 ~b5 {)xb5 20
    ίπ that White can pIay Φh1 at {)xb5 *xd1 21 §axd1 §xe4 22
    aimost any moment and, after ~g5, 4)xd6 §e7 is uncIear according to
    the same appIies to BIack's •.. h6. Minic) 19 ... de 20 d6 {)e6 21 f~
    Α cIear head is essentiai for foIlowing ~d7 22 ~b5 hb5 23 {)xb5 *xe5
    these! 24 §e1 *f6 25 *d5 'ith8 26 d7
    14 C/ass/ca/ with 10 . .. 4)06

    §e7 27 ~c7! §d8 28 §xe6 itxb2 results. This position is ίη fact


    29 §ae1 §exd7 30 §e8+ Φg7 31 relatively favourable for Black since
    itg8+ 1-0, Peev-Spassov, Bulgaria his knight is much more effectively
    Ch.1976. posted οη g6 than οη Π (this ex-
    14 ~θ3 f5 plains why Τ oth wanted to play
    15 ef 15 f4). Nevertheless Ι would assess
    It is important to make this ex- this position as ;1;. 16 . ~f7 is
    change before f4 since 15 f4 ~f7 worse, for example 17 Φh 1 b6 18
    16 ef aIIows 16 . ~h6! 17 fg? .Q.d3 Μ6 (18 ... ~h6 19 ~e2 *h4?
    (17 Φh 1 ~xf5 18 ~xf5 .Q.xf5 = 20 ~g3 §f8 21 *c2 ~g4 22 ~xg4
    was more sensible) 17 ... .Q.d4 18 itxg4 23 §a3 Φh8 24 -Ile2 *h4 25
    gh+ Φh8 19 §f3 ~g4 20 *d3 *h4 ~h5 .Q.d4 26 .Q.e3 ~xd5 27 .Q.xd4+
    21 h3 ~xe3 22 §xe3 itxf4 23~d1 cd 28 *d2 .Q.b7 29.Q.f3 1-0,
    ~xd5 24 §a3 <i)xe3 25 ~xθ3 .Q.f5 Taimanov-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1970)
    26 *b3 -Ilxh7 27 Φh1 .Q.e5 28 Φg1 19 *c2 (19 ~e2-g3 is another
    *h2+ 29 Φf2 .Q.g3+ 30 Φf3 plan) 19 .. ~h6 20 .Q.d2 .Q.d7 21
    Ae4+ 31 Φg4 §g8+ 0-1, Τoth- §f3 §e7 22 §af1 Φh8 23 §g3
    Matulovic, Hungary 1972. (pIanning §g5, which Black prepares
    15. . . gf to meet with ... .Q.f6) 23 .. *f1
    16 f4 ~g6 24 §h3 §f8 25 .Q.e2! ~θ8 26.Q.h5
    *g8 27 ~c4 ~f6 (27 ... §f6 28
    9
    W .Ι8
    . ..
    • •.ι...I
    . . . •".ι
    •,
    ••••
    .~.
    .Q.e1!) 28 ~xd6 ~xd5 29 ~f7+
    ~xf7 30 ~xd5 §e4 31 §g3 ~d8
    32.Q.c3 ~e6 33 ~θ7 ~d4 34 ~xg8

    .
    1-0 Toth-Valenti, ltaly Ch. 1977 .
    • • Ift.t. 17 Φh1
    :-.
    Α!18 '''R
    !IJl υ Iiί~.
    '. ~ Spassky-Quinteros, Buenos Aires
    " "
    ~.i'i ~ ~ 1979 continued 17 .Q.d3 Μ6 18
    *c2 §f8 19 .Q.d2 .Q.d7 20 §ae1
    Β .~.ftR §ae8 21 Φh1 a6 22 a5 ~b5 23
    ~ a*.~~ ~c4 ~d4 24 *d1 Υι-Υι as BIack
    has equalised. The §f3 and §af1
    This type of pawn structure occurs plan looks more dangerous than
    frequently ίη the 12 ... ~d7 line. §ae1 while οηθ may add that after
    Black's f-pawn is weak and his king Black's. . a6 White should aIIow
    is rather exposed while ίη return ... b5 and then play ab ab b3.
    White's d-pawn is a Iίttle shaky. Ι 17 itf6
    believe that White almost always 18 .Q.d3 .Q.d7 19 *c2 §f8 20.Q.d2
    stands better ίη this type of position b6?! (Spassky-Quinteros, above,
    and ίπ practice he has very good indicates that Black need not fear
    C/assica/ with 1ο. . . {)ο6 15

    a5 a5 a reply to ... a6, 50 thi5 ί5 a 14f4 (not so good) Fi:Jf6 15 Af3


    105S of time) 21 Elf3 Elae8 22 J::Iaf1 Aa6 16 !!e1 Ί'te7 (16 ... J::Ib8 =)
    Φh8 (22 ... a6 23 !!h3 b5 24 ab 17 Fi:Jb3 was Belyavs~y-Rogulj,
    ab 25 J::Ih5 is a tempo too slow for USSR 1977, 1-0, 81 and now 17
    Black) 23 Elh3 Fi:Je7 24 g4!? *Γ1 ... J::Iad8 = was better than 17
    25 gf?! (25 !!h5) 25 . Fi:Jexd5? c4? !.
    (25 _... Fi:Jxf5) 26 Fi:Jexd5 Fi:Jxd5 27 14 ... Fi:Je5
    Elxh7+ Φχh7 28 f6+ Φh8 29 fg+ 15 Fi:Je3 Elb8
    Φχg7 30 !!gl + Φh8 31 Fi:Jxd5 15 f5 16 f4 Fi:Jf7 17 ef gf
    *xd5+ 32 !!g2 Af5 33 Ί'tc3+! transposes to Α 1, note to Black's
    §e5 (33 . Ί'td4 34 Axf5) 34 16th move.
    Axf5 J::Ixf5 35 Ί'th3+ J::Ih5 36 16 Ad2 a6
    Ί'tc8+ Φh7 37 Ί'td7+ 1-0, 17 f4
    Zoebisch-Honfi, Vienna Open 17 Elb1 (less logical) 17 ... b5 18
    1976. ab (18 b4 c4 19 ab ab 20 !!a1 f5
    Α2: is unclear) 18 ... Fi:Jxb5! 19Fi:Jxb5
    13 Φhl b6 ab 20 b4 c4 21 Ί'tc1 Ela8 22 Ac3
    Or *,,6 23 Ί'td2 Ela3 +, Bukic-
    1) 13 ... h5 14 f4 Fi:Jf6 15 f5! (15 Adorjan, Vrnjacka Banja 1972,
    h3 b6 16 Ela3 Aa6 17 Axa6 Fi:Jxa6 0-1,42.
    18 Fi:Jf3 Fi:Jb4 =, Najdorf-Garcia, 17 Fi:Jd7
    Buenos Aires 1964) 15 ... gf 16 18 Fi:Jc4 Fi:Jf6 19 Af3 ± h5 20
    Axh5 Ele5 (16 ... fe 17Fi:Jdxe4+-) Fi:Jxd6! Ί'txd6 21 e5 Ί'td8 22 d6
    17 Fi:Jc4 Elxe4 18 Fi:Jxe4 Fi:Jxe4 19 Fi:Je6 23 efAxf6 24 f5 gf 25 Ac6
    Af3 b6 20 Axe4 fe 21 Ί'th5 f6 22 J::If8 26 Elxf5 Fi:Jd4 27 Elxh5 *"d6
    J::Ia3Fi:Je8 23 Elg3 a6 24 Fi:Jxd6! 28 Ad5 Af5 29 Elxf5! Fi:Jxf5 30
    1-0, Glίgoric-Karner, Ljubljana- *&4+ Fi:Jg7 31 Fi:Je4 Ί'td8 32 !!f1
    Portoroz 1975. Ae5 33 Ac3 1-0, Gligoric-Minic,
    2) 13 ... f5 14 ef gf 15 Fi:Jc4 Fi:Je5 Yugoslavia 1972.
    16 Fi:Jxe5! (exchanging a kingside Β:
    defender) 16 ... Axe5 17 f4 Ag7 12... b6
    18 Ah5 Elf8 19!!f3 Fi:Je8 20 Axe8! We have the same divergence as ίη
    *xe8 21 §g3 Ad7 22 Ad2 Elf6 23 Α:
    *"3 Elg6 24 !!e1 Ί'td8 25 Fi:Jb5 Ae8 Β1: 13 Φh1
    26 !!ge3 ΑΠ 27 Ele7 a6 28 Fi:Jc7 Β2: 13 Fi:Jc4
    Elb8 29 Ί'th3 Elg4 30 Ί'td3 Af6 31 The move Φh1 is not strictly neces-
    *xf5 J::Ig6 32 !!d7 1-0, Gligoric- sary ίη this variation and it seems to
    Portisch, Manίla 1974. Αη exceIIent me that ~c4 is more accurate.
    game. However, both Iίnes demand precise
    14 Fi:Jc4 play from Black.
    16 C/Q$Sico! with 10 . .. {)06

    13 a5? b5! 14 {)xb5 {)fxd5 15 ed 10


    (15 {)xc7 {)xc7 η 15 ... .Δ.a6 16 Β
    {)c3 .Δ.χc3 17 .Δ.χa6 .Δ.d 4+ 18 Φh 1
    {)xa6 + is a good trap, Despotovic-
    Janosevic, YugosIavia Ch. 1970,
    0-1,48.
    81:
    13 Φhl §b8
    13 ... *e7 (an irreIevant move) 14
    {)c4 .Δ.a6 1 5 .Δ.g5 .Δ.χc4 16 .Δ.χc4 a6
    17 *d3 *d7 18 §fb 1 h6 19 .Δ.d2
    §eb8 20 Μ1! (preventing ... b5) Elb1 ( 16 *d2 .Δ.χc4 17 .Δ.χc4 a6
    with a very good position for White, 18 .Δ.d3 b5 19 ab ab 20 b4? c4 21
    VoicuIescu-Neamtu, Rumania Ch. .Δ.c2 Ela8 22.Δ.e3? Elxa1 231E1xa1
    1977,1-0,37. {)fxd5 24 ed .Δ.χc3 25 'ltχc3 {)xd5
    13 ... {)d7 transposes to Α2. 26 *d4 {)xe3 27 .Δ.e4 d5 28 *xe3 de
    14 {)c4 0-1, EnkIaar-Szabo, Amsterdam
    14 Elbl (White prepares b4 but 1972 with 20 Ela 7 being equaI - if
    allows BIack too free a hand) 14 ... 16 b3 {)h5 17 Elc1 f6 18 .Δ.e3 f5
    a6 15*c2b5 16abab 17b4cb?! 19 g4 .Δ.χc4 20 bc fg 21 fg {)f6 was
    (17 .. c4 =) 18 §xb4 (the fun baIanced ίπ Portisch-Nunn, London
    begins). 18 ... {)fxd5 19 ed .Δ.χc3 1982, 0-1, 59) 16 . .Δ.χc4
    20 'ltχc3 {)xd5 21 *d4 {)xb4 22 17 .Δ.χc4 a6 18 b4 b5 19 .Δ.d3 (19
    .Δ.b2 §e5 23 'ltχb4 §xe2 24 {)e4 ab ab 20 .Δ.d3 c4 21 .Δ.c2 is good
    §xb2 25 'ltχb2 .Δ.e6 26 §d1 b4 for White, but 19 . {)xb5!
    27 {)f6+ Φf8 28 {)xh7+ Φe7 29 equalizes) 19 ... c4 (19 ... h6 20
    .ι'6+ Φd7 30 Μ4 §b6 31 {)g5 .Δ.h4 cb 21 Elxb4 {)g4 22 *d2 {)e5
    Φc7 32 {)xf7 Μ8? (32 ... *e7 33 23 .Δ.e2 g5 24.Δ.f2 ba 25 {)xa4 was
    {)g5 .Δ.b3 34 Elc1 + Elc6 and BIack good for White ίπ Schmidt-RoguIj,
    shouIdn't Iose} 33 {)g5! *g8 34 Lodz 1980, 1-0, 58 - note 24 ...
    *e3.Δ.d7 35 Elc1+ Φb7 36 *e4+ a5 25 Elxb5!, a typicaI stratagem}
    1-0 (time), Ivanov-Tschargov, 20.Δ.c2 ba! 21 .Δ.χa4 {)b5 22 {)e2
    USSR 1971 - White shouId win ίπ *c7 23 .Δ.χb5 ab 24 {)d4 {)d7 +,
    the fina! position. Kane-EnkIaar, Skopje 1972, 0-1,
    14 .Δ.a6 37.
    15 .Δ.g5 (1 Ο) Α generaI point worth making is
    15 h6 that if it is possibIe BIack shouId
    CommonIy pIayed, but possibIy not exchange his c7 knightfor White's
    best. c3 knight. The piece οπ c7 has very
    1) 15. . *d7 (probabIy best) 16 IittIe future and can come back into
    C/O$S/co/ wltb 10 • •• 4)06 1ί

    pIay only with great dίffίcuΙηι but 17 Aχc4 ",6


    the c3 knight is a useful blockader. 18 *e2 *c8
    This can often be achieved by Or 18 .. b5 19 ab ab 20 ~xb5
    recapturing οη b5 with the knight ~fxd5 21 na7! ~xb5! (21 •
    ίη repIy to ab ΟΓ, as here, by ... ba ne7? 22 .Q.a5 ~b6 23 ~xc7 IZxc7
    foIfowed by ... ~b5. We have seen 24 Ela61 ± ,Ι Bukic-PIaninc, Yugo-
    these ideas ίη Bukic-Adorjan (see sfavia 1970, 1-0, 40) 22 .Q.xb5 IZe7
    Α2) as weII as ίη 1 above. 23 nxe7 ~xe7 24.Q.c3, ;!; according
    2) 15. . Axc4 (a bad idea) 16 to Bukic.
    Aχc4 a6 17 *d3r (17 *e2 trans- 19 Af4 .Q.f8
    poses to the main line after 17 ... and we have the exampIes:
    *c8 18 .Q.f4 .Q.f8 and is Iess accurate) 20 IZab1 ~h5 (20 ... 'ltb7 attacking
    17 ... *c8 18 .Q.f4 .Q.f8 19 Elab 1 the d5 pawn and threatening •.. b5
    ~d7 (19 ... *b7 20 b4 b5 faiIs to seems reasonable for BIack) 21 Ad2
    21 ab ab 22 ~xb5 ~xb5 23 bc) 20 f5 22 g4! with a cIear pIus for
    b4 b5 (desperation) 21 ab cb 22 White, Petrosian-Schmidt, Zurich
    Elxb4 with a pawn more, Browne- 1961, 1-0, 31 aIthough ίη fact
    Torre, Manila 1976, 1-0,41. BIack's h-pawn was οη h7 ίη this
    16.Q.d2 game.
    16 .Q.e3 (16 .Q.h4 is simiIar to 1 20 Elfd1 '8'b7 21 §a3 ~d7 (21 ...
    above after 16 *d7) may be b5 is answered by 22 §b3! b4 23
    sIightIy better, for exampIe 16 ~b 1 rather than 22 ab ab 23 ~xb5
    .Q.xc4 (16 . *d7 is possible after ~xb5 24 ι::Ib3 ~d4 25 nxd4 itxb3
    any bishop move but if Black is 26 Axb3 cd) 22 §b3, Lund-From,
    going to play it he shouId do so at corr. 1976 and now 22 ... g5 (22
    move 15, when White cannot gain ~e5? 23 .Q.xe5 §xe5 24 f4
    a tempo to cover his c3 knight with §ee8 25 e5) 23 Ag3 ~e5 is unclear.
    '8'd2) 17 .Q.xc4 a6 18 '8'd3 (a better 82:
    square than e2, which expIains why 13 ~c4 .Q.a6
    .Q.e3 may be better than Ad2) 18 14 Ag5
    .. '8'c8 19 .Q.f4 Eld8 (19 ... .Q.f8 Most common, but other moves are
    20 nab 1 *b 7 21 b4 b5 again loses possibIe:
    to 22 ab ab 23 ~xb5) 20 nab1 Af8 1) 14 .Q.f4?! ~h5! 15 Ae3 (15
    21 b4 ~d7 22 *d2 Φh7 23 .Q.e2 Aχd6? .Q.xc4 16 .Q.xc7 .Q.xe2 wins)
    ~e8 24 b5 a5 ± and White, having f5 with good pIay for 8Iack,
    bIocked the queenside, was abIe to Kchouk-Forintos, Havana 1966,
    sweep through ίη the centre, 1-0,41.
    PoIugayevsky-Bouaziz, Riga 1979, 2) 14 ~a3? ~fxd5! 15 Aχa6 ~xc3
    1-0,49. 16 *d3 ~xa4 17 .Q.b5 ~xb2 is
    16 ... Aχc4 winning for BIack.
    18 C1assical wlth1 ο ... 4»6

    3) 14 .Q.d2 itd7 15 ~e3 (there are 11


    other moves!) .Q.xe2 16 *xe2 a6
    Β
    17 ~ab1 b5 18 b3 (18 b4? cb 19
    ~xb4 a5 since the exchange sacrifιce
    οπ b5 has πο effect without a
    white-squared bishop) ~h5 19 g3
    f5! +, Danielsen-Filipowicz, Ros-
    kilde 1978,0-1,41.
    4) 14 ~b1 ~b8 (14 ... .Q.xc4 15
    .Q.xc4 ~d7 16 .Q.d2 a6 17 b4 cb 18
    ~xb4 ite7 19 Φh1 ~ec8 20 ite2
    b5! was good for 81ack ίπ Adamski- ~b1 (17 Φh1 ~d7 18 §b1 ~b8
    Matulovic, Lugano 1968, 0-1, 36 19 *e2 *c8 20 b4 b5! 21 ab cb
    but 16 ~b5 looks better) 15 Ag5 22 13:xb4 .Q.xc3 23 .Q.xc3 ab +,
    itd7 (15 ... h6!?) 16 b4.Q.xc4 17 Glίgoric-Matulovic, 8elgrade 1969,
    .Q.xc4 a6 18 b5 h6 19 .Q.h4 ab 20 ~-~, 36) 17 ... *d7 18 b4 b5 19
    ~xb5? (why exchange the bad Ad3 13:ab8 (8lack 's plan of avoiding
    - knight οπ c7? 20 ab must be good ... c4 is worthy of note) 20 a5 ite7
    for White) ~xe4! 21 fe ~xe4 21 f4 cb! 22 13:xb4 ~d7 23 itf3
    +, Gligoric-Szabo, Yugoslavia- 13:bc8 = 24 ~d1?! 13:ed8! (Hort
    Hungary 1962, 0-1, 31. plays imaginatively ίη this game -
    14 ... h6 here he solves the problem of the
    Or 14 ... itd7 (14 ... .Q.xc4 15 knight οη c7) 25 ~b1 ~e8 26 ~f2
    .Q.xc4 a6 16 *d3 pins 81ack down) ~5 27 Ac2 ~f6 28 Ab4 13:e8 29
    15 ~b1 (distinctly more logίcal ~fe1 ~fd7 +, L. Popov-Hort, Wijk
    than 15 *d2 ΟΓ 15 Φh 1, which have aan Zee 1975, 0-1, 50.
    also been played here) .Q.xc4 16 2) 15 .Q.h4 *d7 (15 . Axc4 16
    .Q.xc4 a6 17 b4 b5 (17 ... ~b8 18 Axc4g5?! 17 Af2a6 1813:e1~d7
    b5 transposes to Gligoric-Szabo 19 Af1 ~e5 20 ~e2! ~c4 21 ~g3
    aboνe) 18 ab ab (ίπ distinction to ~xb2 22 *c2 b5 23 ab ab 24 ~xa8
    81, 18 ~xb5 drops a pawn to itxa8 25 ~f5 ±, 8elyavsky-
    19 .Q.xb5 ab 20 bc) 19 Ad3 c4 20 Rogulj, USSR-Yugoslavia 1977,
    Ac2 ~a3 21 ~e2 13:a2 22 Φh1 ~a8 1-0, 59 but 16 ... a6 was better as
    23 .Q.(;1 ~b6 24 ~c3 §a6 25 Ab2 17 *d2? ~xe4 18 ιtιxe4 itxh4 19
    itb7 26 f4 ± and White's plan has ~xd6 *d4+ is good for 81ack while
    succeeded perfectly, Evans-Κane, 17 *d3 g5 followed by ... ~h5 is
    USA Ch. 1973, 1-0,40. unclear) 16 *d2 (16 g4? ~xg4! 17
    15 Ae3 (11) fg Axc3 18 bc 13:xe4 19 h3 Axc4 20
    Others: Aχc4 13:χc4 21 *d2 13:χg4+! was
    1) 15 Ad2 Axc4 16 .Q.xc4 a6 17 winning ίη Farago-Lίm, Kikinda
    C/osslco/ wlth 10 . .• .ω6 19
    1978, 0-1, 31)16. . .Q.xc4 17 21 .Q.e2 (21 .Q.d3? fails to 21
    .Q.xc4 a6 with equality as 18 .Q.xf6 ~fxd5!) 21 ... c4 22 !1a1 (22.Q.d1
    .Q.xf6 19 *xh6 b5 and 18 *d3 ~h5 was played ίη Zoebisch-Waller,
    are fιne for Black . .Q.h4 has the prob- Vienna Ch. 1978 when Black
    lem of allowing ... ~h5-f4 so .Q.e3 should have continued with 22 ...
    has been predominant ίη practice. §e7 23 .Q.c2 *h8! since 24 ~e2?
    15 ... bc4 4:!fxd5! 25 ed ι:!be8 26 .Q.e4 f5 is
    1) 15 . *d7 16 *d2 Φh7 17 +) 22 ... §a8 23.Q.d4 *e7
    ι:!ab 1 .Q.xc4 18 .Q.xc4 a6 transposes (tortuous. 23 ... §e7 and *h8 still
    to the main line. looks reasonable) 24 g3 *f8 (?-
    2) 15 . ι:!b8 (Black can also Matulovic, but he gives ηο
    consider this after other bishop improvement) 25 §xa8 ι:!χa8 26 f4
    moves by White) 16 *d2 (16 Φh1 ~d7 27 .Q.xg7 "ltxg7 28.Q.g4 t,
    transposes to Β1, note to White's Reshevsky-Matulovic, Palma 1970,
    16th move) 16 ... <tih7 17 Jjab1 Υι-Υι,41.
    (17 b3 *e7 18 §ae1 ~d7 19 f4 3) 15 ... ~h5!? 16 *d2 g5 17 g4
    .Q.xc3 !? 20 "ltxc3 ~f6 21.Q.f3 ~f6 18.Q.f2 (18 h4 is more danger-
    ~xe4 22 .Q.xe4 "ltxe4 and now 23 ous) 18 ... .Q.xc4 19 .Q.xc4 ~d7 20
    ~xd6 "ltxd5 24 ~xe8 §xe8 25 §f2 ~d1 *f6! with double-edged play is
    *f5 is roughly e-qual but Niklasson- an interesting but untested line,
    Poulsson, Oslo 1977 concluded 23 Portisch-Raina, Hungary 1980,
    .Q.xc5?! "ltxd5 24 Aa3 .Q.b7 25 *c2 0-1,48 .
    *d4+ 26 Φh1 ~d5 27 §xe8 ι:!χe8 16 .Q.xc4 a6
    28 .Q.b2 ~b4 29 *c1 *d5 30 ι:!gl 17 *d2 Φh7
    ~d3 31 *d2 ~xf4 32 "ltxd5 .Q.xd5 18 ι:!ab1 *d7
    33 ~xd6 §e2 0-1) 17 . .Q.xc4 18 ... ι:!b8 transposes to line 2 ίη
    18 .Q.xc4 a6 19 b4 (19 *d3 allows the note to Black's 15th move.
    19 .. b5!? 20 ab ab 21 ~xb5 19 b4 b5
    4:!xb5 22 .Q.xb5 4:!xd5 when 23 20 .Q.e2
    "ltxd5 §xb5 24"ltxfl d5 and 23 20 ab ab 21 .Q.e2 c4 22 .Q.d4 1Jιe7
    .Q.xe8 4:!xe3 24 ΑΧΠ ~xf1 25 23 .Q.d1 §a3 gave Black counterplay
    ΦΧf1 *f6 are rather unclear -note down the a-fιle ίη Zaltsman-
    that 25 e5 ίη the latter lίne is met Dzhindzhihashvili, Lone Pine 1980,
    by 25 . *g5) 19 ... b5 20 ab Υι-Υι,65.
    (20 .Q.e2 cb?! 21 §xb4 a5 22 20 c4
    §xb5! ~xb5 23 .Q.xb5 §e7 24 20. . cb 21 §xb4 §eb8 22 ab ab
    ~e2 §eb7 25 4:!d4 ±, Botterill- 23 §fb1 §a5 24 .Q.d4 *e7 25 ~xb5
    JanoSevic, Birmingham 1975, 1-0, winning a pawn, Hamann-Fedder,
    39 but 20 . c4 is similar to the Denmark Ch. 1972, 1-0, 52.
    main line of this note) 20 . ab 21 a5 (Τ2)
    20 C/oS$/cal w/th 1Ο ... 4306
    back, Reshevsky-Garcia, Buenos
    12
    Aires 1970, 1-0,57.
    Β
    2) 21 ... ~g8 22 Ad4 Axd4+ 23
    *xd4 f5 24 Ad 1 ~7 25 *d2 fe
    26 ~xe4 rIe5 27 ~c3 ι;[ae8 28
    Ac2 Φh8=, Ree-Evans,Amsterdam
    1971, Υ2-Υ2, 39.
    3) 21 ..• !:le7 22 !:lbe1 (22 Ad1-
    c2 as ίη the other examples is
    possible) .e8 23 Ad4 *h81' 24
    !:ld 1 ~ce8 25 *c2 ~d7 26 Axg7
    ~xg7 27 f4 f5 28 Af3 fe 29 Axe4
    with three examples: *e8 =, Holm-Filίpowicz, Skopje
    1) 21 ... *e7 22 Ad4 *1'8 23 Ad1 1972, 0-1, 41. One gains the
    ~d7 (23 ... *h8!?) 24 Axg7 *xg7 impression that Black is slίghtly
    25 Ac2 ι;[e7 26 Ι;[be1 ~e8 27 f4 worse but that his position should
    and Black was graduaIIy pushed be defensible.
    3. Classical with 1Ο iιg4

    This is an unambitious but solid and play for a central breakthrough


    way for Black to play against the if it is delayed. After 9 ... .Q.g4 we
    CΙassical. Black aims to exchange haνe the Iines:
    the c8 bishop, always a bit of a 1) 10 h3 Jιxf3 11 .Q.xf3 a6 (11 .••
    problem ίη the Benoni, as soon as 4:lbd7 12 .Q.f4 4:le8 13 *d2 a6 14
    possible Ιο giνe himself more room .Q.g5 .Q. f6 15 .Q.xf6 4:lexf6 16 !:tae 1
    Ιο manoeuνre. Ι f the exchange is !ΞIe8 17 Jιd1! b5 18 Jιc2 c4 19
    οη f3 Black ηο longer has to WΟΠΥ f4 ±, Gligoric-Matuloνic, Palma
    about 4:ld2-c4, although ίη the 1967, 1-0, 42) 12 Jιf4 4:le8 (12 ...
    longer term he will haνe to' be !ΞIe8 13 !ΞIe1 4:lfd7 14 a4 is good
    careful οη account of White's two for White) 13 a4 4:ld7 14 .Q.e2 .e7
    bishops. If, οη the other hand, the (14 . .c7 15 !ΞIc1 IΞIb8 16 b3
    knight οη f3 moνes away there will 4:lef6 17 *c2, Negulescu-Nielsen,
    be an exchange οη e2. Although corr. 1978 and Black has simply
    this is White's bad bishop ίι does lost two tempi compared with D
    haνe an important function ίη below, but 0-1, 45) 15 *c2 4:lc7
    holding υρ b5 so it is ηοΙ clear 16 !ΞIfe 1 !ΞIab8 17 Jιf1 !ΞIfe8 (17 •.•
    who benefits from this exchange. b5 18 ab ab 19 !ΞIa7) 18 .d2 .Q.d4
    Perhaps the main criticism which 19 Φh1 Μ8 20 .Q.h6 .Q.g7 21 .Q.xg7
    can be leνelled at the .Q.g4 'l;χg7 22 f4 ±, Polugayeνsky­
    system is that Black does nothing Vilela, Buenos Aires 1978, 1-0,
    to obstruct the actiνe deνelopment 41.
    of White's c1 bishop. 2) 10 Jιf4 !ΞIe8 (1 Ο ••• 4:le8 11 ~d2
    1 d4 4:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 44:1c3 is clearly bad, while 1Ο .•• ~a6 11
    ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 4:lf3 .Q.g7 8 h3 Jιxf3 12 Jιxf3 Φb6 13 !:tc1
    .Q.e2 ο-ο 9 ο-ο !ΞIfe8 14 b3 lΞIad8 lΞIe1 was ;ι; ίη
    9 a6 Bagiroν-Duric, Tallin 1981,
    Ιι is probably slightly more accurate 1-0, 45) 11 h3 (11 4:ld2 .Q.χe2
    to play . a6 before . .Q.g4, 12 'l;χe2 4:lh5 13 Jιe3 4:ld7 14 g4
    since White can sometimes omit a4 4:lf6 15 h3 ~b6, Didishko-
    22 C/assica/ with 1Ο ... ~4

    Kapengut, Minsk 1978, 0-1, 29 10 e5 de 11 ~xe5 4)bd7 (11 ...


    and now 16 a4 attempting to reach 4)xd5? 12 ~xf7 ±) 12 4)xd7 .A.xd7
    Α below was best) 11 ... ~xf3 (11 13 .Qg5 §c8 14 a4 §e8 affords
    4)xe4?, which works with Black easy equalίty, Dorfman-
    a6 and a4 interposed, here fails to Dolmatov, USSR 1981,0-1,30.
    12 hg ~xc3 13 ~b5! ~xb2 14 10 .Qg4
    ~e8 'ltxe8 15 §e1 ~xa1 16 'ltxa1
    f5 17 ~h6 'lte7 18 4)g5 'lte5 19 73
    'ltb1 'ltxd5 20 §xe41-0, Korchnoi
    W
    -Lutikov, Tbilisi 1959) 12 ~xf3
    b5?! (12. a6 13 §e1 isgood for
    White) 134)xb54)xe4 14'lta4~xb2
    154)c7~xa116§xa1~f6174)xa8
    4)bd7 18 'ltxa7 'ltxa8 19 'ltxa8
    §xa8 20 ~xd6 +-, Sapi-Honfi,
    Hungary 1971, 1-0, 32.
    3) 10 Ag5 h6 (10 ... a6 11 4)d2
    ~e2 12 'ltxe2 §e8 13 a4 4)bd7
    leads to Β below) 11 .A.h4 *1>6 12 Now we have: Α:11 .A.f4
    §b1 (with ... a6 and a4 interposed Β:11 .Qg5
    White could simply play 'ltc2 C: 11 ~d2
    followed by a5 as Black would not Ο: 11 h3
    have the reply 4)a6) 12 Ε: 11 a5
    4)bd7 13 4)d2 .A.xe2 14 'ltxe2 Of these, the first two probably
    §ae8 15 Φh1 (15 §fe1 4)h5 16 give White an advantage, but Black
    *f1 4)e5 17 4)c4 'lta6 18 4)xe5 should equalise against the last
    'ltxf1 + 19 §xf1 .Qxe5 :j:, Mochalov three.
    -Kapengut, USSR 1972,0-1,53) Α:
    15 ... 4)xe4 16 4)cxe4 f5 17 ~g3 11 .A.f4
    fe 18 §fe1 e3! +, Peshina- This position has acquired added
    Kapengut, USS R 1977, 0-1, 38. 1Ο importance ίη recent years as it
    .Qg5 seems to be White's least often arises by transposition from
    favourable option after 9 ... .Qg4. systems involving an early .Qf4
    4) 10 4)d2 ~e2 11 'ltxe2 §e8 (11 (chapter 12).
    a6 12 a4 is C below) 12 4)c4 11 ~e8
    (12 f3 4)bd7 =) 12 ... b5 13 ~xb5 Or
    ~xe4 14 'ltc2 a6 15 ~c3 4)xc3 16 1) 11 .. .Qxf3 (there is a school
    bc Μ6 17 .A.d2 ~d7 +, Bagirov- of thought that claims Black should
    Karasev, USSR 1974,0-1,44. play ... .Qxf3 against both .A.f4 and
    10 a4 .Qg5, before White gets a chance to
    aassica/ with 10 . .. ~4 23
    pJay ~d2) 12 .Q.xf3 and now: 16 .Q.e2 and White is better, Bot-
    1a) 12 .• 'i!ιc7 13 'i!ιc2 (13 IΞIc1 teriII-Povah, England 1977 - again
    ~bd7 14 b4 IΞIfe8 15 a5 'i!ιb8 16 the position is lίke D, but with an
    bc ~xc5 17 ~a4 ~xa4 18 'i!ιxa4 ;1;, extra move for White.
    D. Byrne-Reshevsky, New York 2) 11 ... ~h5 12 .Q.g5 'i!ιb6 13 'i!ιd2
    1956, 1-0,40) 13 ~bd7 14 ~d7 14 a5 'i!ιc7 15 h3 .Q.xf3 16
    IΞIae1 (14 b3!?) 14 ... c4 15.Q.e2 .Q.xf3 4)hf6 and Black has just
    IΞIac8 16 .Q.g5 h6 17 .Q.h4 is similar wasted time, Zaid-Kasparov,
    ΙΟ D, except that White has not Moscow 1977 1-0, 88.
    -vasted a move οη h3. Here however, 3) 11 .. 'i!ιe7 12 4)d2 (12 'i!ιc2
    White's set-up is ηοΙ especiaJJy ~bd7 13 IΞIfe 1 c4! 14 IΞIad 1 IΞIac8
    effective so the position is equaJ, 15 h3 .Q.xf3 16.Q.xf3 4)e5 17 .Q.e2
    Agzamov-Psakhis, Baku 1979, 4)fd7 =, Pachman-Kaplan, Puerto
    1-0,41. Rico 1968, Υι-Υι, 43 while 14 .Q.xc4
    1b) 12. . ~e8 13 'i!ιd2 ~d7 14 .Q.xf3 15 gf 4)e5 16 .Q.e2 4)h5 gives
    .Q.g5 .Q.f6 15 h4!? ~c7 16 .Q.e2 ~e8 Black a dangerous attack) 12. .
    17 'ilιf4 'i!ιe 7 18 IΞIfe 1 'i!ιe5 19 'i!ιg4 .Q.xe2 13 'i!ιχe2 4)h5 14 .Q.e3 ~d7
    'i!ιe7 20 'i!ιg3 .Q.xg5 21 hg and White 15 g4 4)hf6 16 f3 4)e8 (16 ... IΞIe8
    is better, Zaid Vladimirov, AJma- may transpose into Korchnoi-
    Ata 1977,0-1,41 - cJearJy 12 ... Τorre, see b οη page 25) 17 Φh 1 ~c 7
    ~e8 involves too great a loss of 18 ~c4 with just an edge for White,
    time. Bukic-Cebalo, Yugoslavia Ch.
    1c) 12 ... 'i!ιe7 13 'i!ιd2 ~bd7 14 1980, 1-0, 36.
    IΞIae1 ~e8 15 .Q.g5 .Q.f6 16 h4 ~c7 12 4)d2
    17 .Q.e2 IΞIab8 18 f4 is similarly Or 12 'i!ιc2 (12 h3? 4)xe4! wins a
    good for White, Rashkovsky- pawn, e.g. 13 4)xe4 IΞIxe4 14 .Q.g5
    Haritonov, Sochi 1979,1-0,31. 'i!ιe8 15 .Q.d3 .Q.xf3 16 'i!ιxf3 IΞIb4
    1d) 12 ... IΞIe8 (the most natural) -+, Uhlmann-Fischer, Palma 1970,
    13 IΞIe1 (13 'i!ιd2 'i!ιc7 14 a5 ~bd7 0-1,34) 12 ... 'lkc7 (12 ••• 'i!ιe7 is
    15 IΞIa4 c4 16 IΞIfa1 ~e5 17.Q.e2 quite logical as the e-pawn is rather
    ~fd7 18 .Q.xe5 ~xe5 19 f4 'i!ιc5+ weak, Donner-Planinc, Amsterdam
    20 Φh 1 .Q.h6 is unclear, Patterson- 1973 continuing 13 IΞIfe1 4)bd7 14
    Povah, England 1977,0-1,34) 13 h3.Q.xf3 15.Q.xf3 c4 16 a5 4)c5;:,
    •.• 'i!ιc7 14 'i!ιc2 (14 e5 is awkward, 0-1, 35 - note 13 h3? 4)xe4!, but
    e.g. 14 ... de 15 d6 'i!ιd7 16 IΞIxe5 12 .. 4)h5 13 .Q.g5 'i!ιc7 14h3
    IΞIxe5 17 .Q.xe5 ~c6 18 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf3 15 .Q.xf3 4)f6 is essentially
    19 ~e4 Μ5 20 ~xf6+ itxf6 21 the same as Β with 11 . . . .Q.xf3,
    .Q.xc6 with the better ending for which is ;1;) 13 IΞIfe1 (13 b3 4)bd7
    White, Gheorghiu-Κaplan, Lugano 14 IΞIfe 1 IΞIab8 15 a5 IΞIbc8 16 .Q.d2
    1968, Υι-Υι, 64) ~bd7 15 a5 IΞIab8 c4!? 17 bc~c5 =, Tukmakov-Tal,
    24 aosslco/ wlth 10 . .. .4g4
    USSR Ch. 1971,0-1,39 ΟΓ 13 a5 4)e5 18 Ag3 ι:lac8 19 a5 c4 20
    4:lbd7 14ι:1a4ι:1ac8?! 15b3c4 16 Aχe5 ~xe5 21 Φh1 h5 22 h3 hg
    ι:lxc4 *χa5 17 Aχd6 IΞ!xc4 18 bc 23 hg .d8 +, Q'Kelly-Miles,
    4:lc5 ;t, Eperjesi-Sapi, Hungary Ch. Malta 1973, 0-1,41 butΊ7 a5! is
    1977,O-l,40)13 ... 4:lbd714a5 much better, transposing ιο
    lIab8 15 4:ld2 (15 h3 Aχf3 16 Gligoric-Miles below whίle 16 .. .
    Aχf3 b5 17 ab IΞ!xb6 18 IΞ!a2 IΞ!eb8 4)b6 answering 17 a5 with 17 .. .
    =, Tal-Stein, USSR 1971, 112-112, 4)fxd5! achieves nothing after 17
    41) 15 ... Aχe2 16 ι:lxe2 4:le5 17 Φh1 ΟΓ 17 .d3 1ΞIc8 18 a5 -
    4:ld1 4)h5 18 Ae3 .e7 (18 ... b5 Kasparov's 16 ... h6 is designed ιο
    19 ab ι:lxb6 looks more natural) 19 play ... 4)e5 which at the moment
    f3 *f6 20 lΞ!a34)f4 21 Axf4 *χf4 is met by 17 g5 4)h5 18 f4 when
    22 IΞ!b3 ;t, Eperjesi-Perenyi, Ηυη­ the 4) οη h5 is ουΙ of play) 17 Φh1
    gary 1980, 1-0, 39. 4)e5 18 IΞIg1 b5!? (a typical Kas-
    12 ... Axe2 parov move Ιο confuse the issue) 19
    13 *χe2 4)h5 g5 (Ι am sure that White is better
    14 Ae3 4)d7 somewhere ίη the complίcations -
    14 ... b6 (14 ... Ad4 seems well perhaps he should take the pawn at
    met by 15 4)c4 when 15 ... Aχc3 once) hg 20 Aχg5 c4 21 ab ab 22
    16 bc IΞ!xe4 17 .d3 !ite8 18 !itab1 ι:lxa8 *χa8 23 4)xb5 .b8 (now the
    gives White very good compensation game is just unclear - Kasparov
    for the pawn) 15 g4 4)f6 16 Af4 himself assesses ίι as ;1;), Portisch-
    ι:la7 17 4)c4 is very uncomfortable Kasparov, Moscow 1981, 112-112, 48.
    for Black, Korchnoi-Minic, Erevan 2) 16 h3 .c7 (16 h5 17 g5
    1971,1-0,39. ~h7 18 f4 Ad4 19 Φh1 Aχe3 20
    *χe3 b6 21 4)c4 was good for
    White, Szabo-Kosanski, Sarajevo
    1972, 1-0,41 while 16 ... b6 17
    f4 h6 18 lΞIae1?! b5! 19 *f3 ι:lb8
    20 ab ab was = ίη Postovsky-
    Pukshanksy, COΓΓ. 1978, 1-0, 46
    but 18 .d3 was;l;) 17 Af44)b6 18
    .d3 4)fd7 19 a5 4)c8 20 4)c4 4)e5
    21 Axe5 Aχe5 22 4)a4 Ad4 =,
    Tukmakov-Semeniuk, USSR 1977,
    112-112,40.
    3) 16 a5 h5! 17 h3 (if 17 g5 4)g4)
    15 a5 hg 18 hg 4)e5 19 f3 ι:lc8 (19 ...
    15 g4 4)hf6 and now: .d7 20 Φg2 lΞ!ab8 21 Af4 4)h7
    1) 16 f3 h6 (16 ... *c7 17 Af4 22 IΞ!h1, Sahovic-Cabrilo, Vrnjacka
    aoss/co/ wlth 10 . . . .Ag4 25
    Banja 1981, 1-0, 40 saved two b) 15 ...•e7 16 gac1?! (not very
    tempi οη Ree's play but was still incisive - Osnos suggest 16 gfe1
    οηlΥ equal for white) 20 na4 'tItd7 and Zaitsev 16 ga3, but ηοΙ 16 g4?
    21 Φg24)h7 22 naa1 f5 :;:, Ree- .Q.χc3 17 bc 4)hf6) 16 .. gf8
    Portisch, Teesside 1972, Υι-Υι, 31. (Zaitsev suggests 16 . '/kf8 Ιο
    After 15 a5 we have the continu· answer 17 g4 with 17 ... f5!? while
    ations: (75) Hartston suggests 16 ... .Q.d4) 17 g4
    4)hf6 18 .Q.g5 b5 19 ab 4)xb6 20
    15 Μ3 h6 21 .Q.h4 'tIte5 unclear,
    Korch'noi-Torre, Leningrad 1913,
    Β
    1-0,43.
    c) lS ... §b8 16 §a4 '/kf6 17 g3
    'tIte7 18 gc1 4)e5?! 19 f44)d7 20
    g4 4)f6, Podgayets-Gofstein, USSR
    1977, 0-1, 35 and now 21 ge1 is
    good for White according Ιο Gufeld.
    d) 1S . 'tIth4 16 4)c4 (16 4)f3
    'tIte7 is fine for Black) 16 ... 4)f4
    17 Μ3?! (17 .Q.xf4! 'tItxf4 18 g3
    a) 15 ... 'tItc7 16 g4 (16 h3 is also Μ6 19 f4 'tIte7 20 §ae1 leaνes
    possible - Donner-O. Rodriguez, Black with very little counterplay)
    CΊenfuegos 1973 continued with 17 . . . 4)e5 18 4)xe5 .Q.χe5 19 g3
    the amazing 16 .. f5 17 ef 4)g3 'tIth5 20 'tItxh5 4)xh5 21 4)a4 =;',
    18 fg nxe3 19 itg4.Q.d4 20 Φh1 Belyavsky-Kasparov, USSR Ch.
    4)e5 21..,4 but White is better 1979,1-0,35.
    and 1-0, 57) 16 .. 4)hf6 17 f3 e) lS ... .Q.d4 16 g4 4)hf6 (this lίηe
    4)e5 (17 b5 18 ab 4)xb6 19 is critical but White seems to be
    Φh 1 'tItb 7 20 na2 4)fd7 21 nfa 1 better with accurate play) 17 f3 b5
    .Q.d4, L. Bronstein-Tringov, Buenos (17 ... h5 18g54)xd5 194)xd5
    Aires 1978, 0-1, 33 and now 'tItxg5+ 20 Φh1 doesn't work) 18
    Neikirch's suggestion 22 4)d1! ab 4)xb6 19 4)d 1 4)bxd5 (it would
    defending b2 and e3 and menacing be nice Ιο preface this by 19 ... h5
    the a-pawn is good for White) 18 20 h3 hg 21 hg when the extra
    Φh1 §ac8 19 §a4 (19 h3 h6 20 f4 exposure of White's king would
    4)ed7 2Τ 'tItg2 §b8 22 .Q.g1 b5 23 render the sacrifice sound, but 19
    ab §xb6 24 §a2 was again good ... h5 is met by 20 Μ2! and owing
    for White ίη Torre-Green, Welling- Ιο the weakness of f7 Black has ηο
    ton 1978) 19 ... h5 20 g5 4)h7 21 reasonable reply) 20 ed 4)xd5 21
    f44)d7 22 e5! de 23 f5 ±,Gligoric 4)c4 f5 22 f4! fg (22 ... §a7 23
    Miles, Hastings 1913/4, 1-0, 46. gf gf 24 Φh1 +-) 23 §a3 4)xe3
    26 Ck1ssifu/ wlth 1Ο . . . .Ag4

    24 otιcxe3 *d7 25 'ltg2 h5 '26 Φh 1 13 otιd2 .Q.e2 14 *xe2 etc., when


    ±, Korchnoi-Nunn, London 1980, the extra move ... h6 has its pros
    1-0,40. and cons. Black cannot easίly play
    LΠ view of these Iίnes it is not at all . Ad4, for example, but ίη
    clear how Black equalίses against 11 Portisch-Kasparov (see note to
    .Q.f4. ;White's 15th ίπ Α) Black played ...
    Β: h6 voluntarily.
    11 .Q.g5 otιbd7 12 otιd2 .Q.xe2
    Once again Black can exchange οπ 13 *xe2 §e8
    f3 at once: 11 ... .Q.xf3 12 .Q.xf3 13 ... *c7 14 f4 §ae8 15 ttf3 h6
    otιbd7 (12 ... h6 13 .Q.f4! is more 16 Ah4 otιh7 17 a5 f5 18 ef §xf5
    ΟΓ less the same as Α, note to Black 's 19 otιde4 otιhf8 20 g4 §f7 21 'ltg2
    11th move whίle 12 . §e8 13 with advantage,Olafsson-Yanofsky,
    *c2 otιbd7 14.Q.e2 tta5 15 b3 §e7 Dallas 1957, 1-0,35.
    16 .Q.d2 §ae8 17 '<th1 *c7, Tim-
    man-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1975, 16
    Υ2-Υ2, 47 gives Whiie a permanent
    plus, but Black's position is fairly
    solid) 13 *d2 (13 a5 §e8 14 §e1
    *c7 15 *c2 c4 16 §a4? b5 17 ab
    otιxb6 was fίne for Black, Hamann-
    500s, Lucerne 1979, 0-1, 40) 13
    ... §e8 (13 ... c4 14.Q.e2I*c7 15
    Φh1 otιc5 16 *e3 §fe8 17 f3 otιb3
    :Ι:, Stahlberg-5passky, G6teborg
    1955, 0-1, 36 but 15 Μ4! is a vast
    improvement, followed by a5 and 14 f4
    §fc1) 14 §ae1 c4 15 M4*e7 16 The transposition 14 §ae1 *c7 15
    ~4 Μ8 17 .Q.d1 h6 18 .Q.d2 f4 is also possible, for example 15
    otιc5 and Black has more ΟΓ less ... b5 (15 ... h6 is answered by 16
    equalised, Glίgoric-Najdorf, Manίla Ah4 rather than 16 .Q.xf6?! .Q.xf6
    1973, Υ2-Υ2, 40. It seems to me that 17 e5 de 18 f5 e4! 19 fg fg 20
    there is more point to the immediate otιdxe4 Φg7 21 '<th1 §e5 =,
    exchange here than ίπ Α since the 5passky-Balashov, Moscow 1971,
    bishop οπ g5 ί5 not 50 well posted Υ2-Υ2, 36 while although 15
    to support a quick e5. Απ interesting §ab8led to a quick win ίη Panczyk-
    idea is 11 .. h6 and if 12 .Q.h4 Pedersen, Groningen 1977/8 after
    .Q.xf3 is much better as Black 16 e5 de 17 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 18 f5 e4
    doesn't get tied υρ by *d2 as ίπ the 19 otιdxe4 .Q.e5? 20 fg hg 21 d6!
    above examples, whίle if 12 .Q.f4 §e8 *c6 22 *c4 §f8 23 otιd5 Φg7 24
    C/ass/αi/ with 1() ... ~ 27
    liJe7 *b6 25 IiJg5 .Ω.f6 26 *&41-0 de 21 f5 *d7 22 fg fg 23*g3 g5
    we can see from Spassky-Balashov 24 *e3 aab8 25 d6 wίΦ strong
    that 19 Φg7 was the correct pressure, Glίgorίc -Hartoch, Amster-
    move, with equality, so ίπ fact after dam 1971, 1-0,47.
    15 aab8 16 'ltf3 may be the 2) 16 aac8 17 aael *b8 (a
    most accurate move, with play rather tortuous way of playing for
    similar to Tίmman-Nunn below) b5, especially as the queen
    16 ab ab 17 *xb5 (17 IiJxb5 *b6 returns ίπ a couple of moves) 18
    ., 8 Φh 1 IiJxd5 19 liJa3 IiJb4 20 .Ω.xf6 (the immediate 18 e5 de 19
    liJac4 *c6 21 1iJf3 d5 =, Gligoric- f5 as ίn Timman-Nunn below
    Ree. Amsterdam 1971, Υ2-Υ2, 27) looks better) IiJxf6 19 e5 de 20 f5
    17 .. aab8 and now 18 *c6! *c7 21 IiJde4liJxe4 22liJxe4 *d7!
    gives White some advantage accor- =, Gligorίc-Pfleger, Hastings 1971/
    ding to Gligoric. Howeνer, 14 f4, 2, Υ2-Υ2, 37.
    avoiding these Iίnes, gίves Black 3) 16 ..• aab8 17 aae1 b5 18 ab
    less choice. ab 19 e5 de 20 f5 (20 .Ω.Χf6 IiJxf6
    14 ... *c7 21 f5 b4 22liJce4liJxd5 23 ac1 gf
    15 Μ3 c4 24 t\'xf5 liJe3 +, Amos-Piasetski,
    16 Φh1 Canada Ch. 1972,0-1,36) 20 .. .
    af8? (it was essential to play 20 .. .
    17 e4 followed by ... liJe5 wίth οπlΥ a
    small plus for White) 21 IiJde4 (the
    8
    rest of the game is a model of how
    White should play such positions)
    21 ... ab6 22 ad1 IiJxe4 23liJxe4
    f6 24 .Ω.e3 aa6 25 *g4 g5 26 h4
    h6 27 hg fg 28 d6 *d8 29 ad5 b4
    30 f6! (another clearance sacrifιce)
    .Ω.xf6 31 ab5 .Ω.g7 32 axf8+ IiJxf8
    33 axb4 aa1+ 34 Φh2 *<15 35
    .Qc5 af1 36 d7 af4 37 *d1 ah4+
    Black was threatening the immedίate 38 Φg3 *d8 39 *d5+ Φh7 40
    ... b5 based οπ the fork ... *b6+. !!:Ib7 IiJg6 41 !!:Ia7 IiJf4 42 *a8
    The position after 16 Φh 1 has itxa8 43 axa8 liJe6 44 ae8
    occurred four times ίπ master play. IiJxc5 45 IiJxc5 .Ω.f6 46 !!:If8 1-0,
    There are many problems unresolved Tίmman-Nunn, London 1975.
    but Ι belίeve that an assessment of C:
    ;!; is fair: 11 IiJd2 .Ω.xe2
    1) 16 .. b6 (feeble) 17 aae1 h6 12 *xe2
    18 .Ω.Χf6 IiJxf6 19 e5 IiJh 7 20 IiJde4 White's plan ίs similar to the last
    28 Oass/ca/ wlth 1(j Ό •• ~4

    two Iίnes but here he is handicapped 14 •.. 'lJιe7


    by having his bishop blocked ίη οη 1)14 ... !ΞIe8 15f3(15a5~bd7
    c1. 16 ~c4 ~e5 17 ~b6 is better for
    12 ... ~bd7 White than the main line since the
    The most logical, preparing to rook must move to the useless
    chalJenge the knight οη c4. square b8 rather than e8) !ΞIb8 16
    13 ~c4 Φh1 ιθh5 17 g4'~f4 18 itc2 1,
    13 a5 (13 f4 !ΞIe8 is similar to Glίgoric-Campos-Lopez, San Απ­
    variation 1 οη page 51) 13 ... 'fιc7 tonio 1972, 1-0, 72.
    (13 ... !ΞIe8 14~c4'fιe7 15!Ξ1e1 2) 14 ... itc7 15 a5 ~bd7 16 ~c4
    ~e5 looks i after 16 ~b6 followed b5 17 ab ~xb6 18 ~a5 (18 ~xd6
    by f4) 14 ~c4 transposes to 14 ... 'lJιxd6 19 e5 itd7 20 efAxf6 21
    .c7 below, but without allowing !ΞIxa6 Axc3 22 bc ~xa6 23 'lJιxa6
    14 . 'fιe7 (which may be best). ~xd5, Heniey-Ree, Lone Pine
    This move-order is an idea of 1978 and 18 Af4 ~xc4 19 'lJιxc4
    Korchnoi. itb6 20 ~a2 !ΞIfe8 21 ~b1 ~g4 22
    13 .•. ~b6 h3 ~e5 23 *f1 c4, Larsen-Nunn,
    14 ~e3 London 1973 are both equal and
    14 ~a3 (14 Ag5, ΟΓ, indeed, any both ended ίη draws) ~fe8 19 'fιc2
    other move allowing the exchange ~fd7 20 Ae3 ~e5 21 Af4 with
    of knights, gives Black πο problems) just an edge for White, Korchnoi-
    14 ... !ΞIe8 (14 ... ~xa4!? 15 4)xa4 van Wijgerden, Dutch Ch. 1977,
    b5 is possible) 15 'fιc2 'lJιe7 (aJso 1-0,41.
    15 ... 4)xa4!?) 16 f3 4)h5? (totaIIy 15 a5 ~bd7
    pointless) 17 g4 ~f6 18 Af4 ~fd7 16 ~c4 ~β5
    19 a5 4)c8 20 4)c4 with a clear plus, 17 ~b6
    Lukov-Velikov, Stara Zagora 1977, Or 17 ~xe5 'lJιxe5 18 f4 (18 Ad2
    1-0,51. !ΞIfe8 19 !ΞIfe1?! ~d7 20 !ΞIa4 ite7
    -, Napolitano-Endzelins, corr.
    1978,0-1,46) 'fιe7 19 Ad2 !ΞIfe8
    18 20 !ΞIae1 ~d7 21 Φh1 b5 22 ab
    4)xb6 23 'fιd3 itb7 =, Nemet-
    8
    Rajkovic, Yugoslavia Ch. 1975,
    1-0,40.
    17 ... !ΞIae8
    18 Ag5 h6
    18 ... 'fιc7 19 f3 h6 20 Ad2 4)ed7
    21 ~c4 ~e5 22 ~e3 ~h5 23 g3
    ~f6 24 Φg2 is slightly better for
    White, Donner-Browne, Amster-
    C/assica! wlth 1Ο . . . .Qg4 29
    dam 1972, Υ2-Υ2, 57. After 18 ... clear) and Black will soon have to
    h6 19 .i1h4 (19 .i1d2 4':Ifd7 20 return to f6 with his knight, wasting
    4':Iba4? f5 21 §a3?! fe 22 4':Ixe4 two tempi.
    4':Ic4! +, lvkov-Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 2) 13 ... *e7 14 §e1 §fe8 (14 •••
    1976, 0-1, 37 with 20 4':Ixd7 = and lΞIac8 15 a5 c4 16 lΞIa4 4':Ie5 17
    21 ef + as improvements) 19 ..Qxe5 'fJιxe5 18 *e2 Υι-Υι, Bukic-
    *c7 20 f44':1ed7 21 4':Ic4, Kovacs- Hulak, YugoslaVIa Ch. 1978 ΟΓ 14
    Nicevski, Decin 1978, 1-0, 62 and . 4':Ie8?! 15 *c2 b6 16 .i1e2 4':Ic7
    now 21. . 4':Ixe4! 22 4':Ixe4 f5 23 17.i1f1 lΞIab8 18 *d2 lΞIfc8 19Φh1
    4':Icxd6 *xd6 24 4':Ixd6 §xe2 with b5 20 ab ab =, O'Kelly-Korchnoi,
    an unclear position was best. Havana 1969, Υ2-Υι, 62 but 15 aS
    Ο: looks better) 15 *c2 c4 16 a5?!
    11 h3 .i1xf3 (16 .i1e2 was essential) 16 ... 4':Ic5
    12 .i1xf3 4':Ibd7 17 lΞIe2 4':Ifd7 18 §a3 4':Ib3 19 'fJιd1
    12 ... §e8 is possible but ... 4':Ibd7 4':Ie5 and Black is better, Donner-
    is the most flexible. Planinc, Amsterdam 1973,0-1,35.
    13 .i1f4 Both 13 *e7 and 13 ... *c7
    Or are 'reliable continuations.
    1) 13 a5 ~e8 14 .i1f4 4':Ie5 gives 14 *c2
    Black an easier time since he doesn't 14 a5 lΞIfe8 15 *d2 §ac8 16 g4
    need to move his queen and can proved too ambitious ίη Vaganian-
    continue with ... §c8, ... c4 and Tal, USSR Ch. 1971 after 16 ••.
    . . . 4':Id3 ΟΓ ••• 4':If6-d7-c5. lΞIe7! 17 lΞIfe1 4':Ie8 18 .i1g2 ~b8
    2) 13 *c2 ~e8 14 ..Qd2?! c4 15 19 ..Qg5 ..Qf6 20 ..Qxf6 4':Iexf6 21 f4
    .i1e3 §c8 16 a5 4':Ic5 with at least c4 22 Φh1 4':Ie8 23 ~a4 b524 ab
    equality for Black, Nikolac- lΞIxb6 25 §ea1 'fJιb8 +, 0-1, 33.
    Rajkovic, YugosJavia 1978, 0-1,46.
    Of course 14 .i1f4 4':Ie5 would be
    simίlar to 1.
    3) 13 .i1g5 *c7 14 *c2 c4 leaνes
    the white bishop less effectively
    placed.
    13 *c7
    Or
    1) 13 ... 4':Ie8 (unnecessarίly passive)
    14 .i1e2 *c7 (14 ... *e7 15 *c2
    b6 16 .i1h2' 4':Ic7 17 f4 ~ae8 18 .i1f3
    b5 19 ab ab 20 §a7 *d8 21 e5 +-,
    Polugayevsky-Tomson, USSR 1962, 14 c4
    1-0, 28) 15 *c2 (15 ~c1 c4 is less The most common lίne is 14 •••
    30 C/assica/ with 1Ο •• ; .Qg4

    ~fe8, although Ι regard the text as '§al ~e5 with active play for Black,
    more accurate. After 14 .. IΞlfe8 Vaisman-Ghizdavu, Rumania 1973,
    we have: 0-1,36.
    1) 15 a5 and now: 3) 15 b3 (a very logical move, but
    1a) 15 . . . c4 16 ~b 1 (if this is weakeni ng the c3 square is of
    really White's best move Black must course rather risky) 15 .. c4 16
    stand well but 16 lΞla4 ~e5 17 Axe5 b4 lΞle7?! (too slow - the right line
    Dxe5 18 ~b 1 lΞlae8 19 ~a3 ~xe4 was 16 ... ~e5 17 Ae2 lΞlac8 18
    20 ~xc4 *e7 was also + ίπ Portisch Ad2 ~d3 19 Axd3 cd 20 'fιxd3
    -Kasparov, Tilburg 1981, Υ2-Υ2, 41) *c4 with good play) 17 IΞlfe1 lΞlae8
    16 ~c5 (16 lΞlac8 is also 18 lΞlab1 h6 19 Ah2 ~e5 20 Ae2
    good) 17 *xc4 ~fxe4 18 lΞla2 f5 ;1;, Dieks-Nunn, Groningen 1974/5,
    19 ~d2 (19 b4 ~e6!) 19 .. ~xd2 1-0,38.
    20 Axd2 lΞlac8 21 lΞle1 +, Υ2-Υ2, 15 Ae2
    Portisch-Timman, Hastings 1969/70. 15 lΞlac1?! ~c5 16 ~e2 b5 17 ab
    1 b) 15 ... lΞle7 16 g4 (ambitious - ab 18 b4 cb 19 'fιxb3 *b6 20 *c2
    16 IΞlfe1 is less committal) 16. .. ~fd7 21 Ae3 b4 22 IΞlb1 b3 23
    h6 17 Ag2 lΞlae8 18 Ag3 ~h7 19 *d1 b2 +, Malich-Nunn, Budapest
    ~b1 (19 f4 c4) 19 ... g5 20~d2 1978,0-1,43.
    ~e5 with a double-edged position, 15 ... IΞlfe8
    Taimanov-Stein, USSR Ch. ·1971, 16 flfe1 (16 f3? b5! 17 Ae3 *b7
    0-1,61. 18 b4 a5! +, ΗΦί-Νυππ, Sweden
    1c) 15 ... ~e5 16 Ae2 ~fd7 17 1971/2, 0-1, 31) 16 ... lΞle7 17
    Ad2 c4 18 .~a4 ~c5 19 ~b6 lΞlad8 lΞlad1 IΞlb8 18 a5 IΞlbe8! 19 IΞld4
    20 Ac3 is equal, Ree-Keene, 'fιxa5 20 Axd6 §xe4! 21 IΞldd1
    Havana 1966, Υ2-Υ2, 37. *b6 22 ~xe4 ~xe4 23 Ag4 ~xa6·
    1d) 15 ... lΞlac8 16 §a4 ~e5 17 24 ,lΞlxe8+ ~xe8 +, Uhlmann-
    Ae2 *e7 18 lΞle1 ~fd7 19 b3 *f6 Portisch, Hastings 1970/1, Υ2-Υ2,
    20 Ad2 and White has an advantage 46.
    since Black's . . c4 has been White's practical results after 11 h3
    prevented, Portisch-Honfi, Hungary are very poor and it is impossible
    Ch. 1971. to recommend this line.
    As we can see from these Iίnes, . .. Ε:
    c4 is the vital move which starts 11 a5 ~bd7
    Black's counterplay so it is most 12 fle Ι lΞle8 13 h 3 Axf3 14 Axf3
    sensible to play it at once, οπ move c4! is similar to 13 a5 ίπ D - Black
    14. has a fully satisfactory game,
    2) 15 g4 h6 16 Ag3 c4 17 Ae2 Sanchez-Hutchings, Haifa 1976,
    §ac8 18 lΞlacl *c5 19 Φg2 b5 20 Υ2-Υ2,30.
    ab ab 21 f3 *b6 22 b4 ~a8 23 lπ summary we may conclude that
    C/ossico/ with 10 . .. ~4 31
    Black should investigate further the with the IOS5 of a tempo Black may
    lίnes with immediate • . • .Q.xf3 stίll be equal' Other Iίnes against
    against .Q.f4 and .Q.g5 (White's only .Q.f4 and .Q.g5 (allowing 41d2) seem
    dangerous moves), 5ίnω D is so to be falling short of equalίty at
    satisfactory for Black that even the moment.
    4. Classical: other lίnes

    Ιη this chapter we examine some is better despite White's extra pawn,


    Iess common Iines ίη which White Donner-Portisch, Lugano 1968,
    adopts the classical e4, 4:)f3, .Q.e2 0-1,37.
    set-up. The reader shouId be careful 3) 10 .Q.f4 g5 11 .Q.e3 4:)g4 (11
    Ιο note the many transportations b5! seems even better than above
    which occur to other chapters. since Black's h-pawn is ποι hanging)
    1 d4 4:)f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 4:)c3 12 .Q.d2 and now both 12 ... f5 13
    ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 4:)f3 .Q.g7 h3 4:)f6 14 ef .Q.xf5 15 .Q.e3 4:)a6
    8 .Q.e2 ο-ο 16 ο-ο 4:)c7 17 a4 'ltd7, Palmason-
    9 ο-ο Matulovic, Havana 1966, 0-1, 45
    Or 9 .Q.g5 (9 .Q.f4 is the note ιο and 12. 4:)d7 13 ο-ο 4:)de5 14
    White's 8th move οη page 113) h6 4:)e 1 f5 15 ef .Q.xf5 16 4:)c2 'ltd7,
    and now: Uhlmann-Gromek, Zinnowitz
    1) 10 .Q.h4 g5 11 .Q.g34:)h5 124:)d2 1966, ~-~, 73 are fine for BIack.
    4:)xg3 13 hg reaching variation 2 οη 9 !Ξ!e8
    page 95. Playing 9 4:)bd7 ΟΓ 9 . 4:)a6
    2) 10 .Q.e3 b5 (1 Ο ... 4:)g4 11 .Q.d2 makes Iess sense as White has the
    f5 12 ef .Q.xf5 is ηοΙ so effective as chance ιο deveIop his c1 bishop
    ίη the next Iίne since BIack wiII activeIy. Α few exampIes:
    have Ιο play . g5 at some ροίηι 1) 9 ... 4:)bd7 10 .Q.g5 h6 11 .Q.h4
    anyway) 11 .Q.xb5 (11 e5 4:)g4 is *e7 (11 ... !Ξ!e8 124:)d2isvariation
    fιne for BIack) 11 4:)xe4 12 1 b οη page 94 1 2 4:)d2 g5 13 .Q.g3
    4:)xe4 *a5+ 13 4:)c3 (13 *d2 *xb5 4:)e5 with three examples:
    14 4:)xd6 *xb2 15!Ξ!' 1 *xd2+ 16 1a) 14 f4 gf 15 .Q.xf44:)g6 16.Q.g3
    4:)xd2 .Q.a6 is good for Black, 4:)d7 17 4:)c4 .Q.d4+ 18 .Q.f2 .Q.xf2+
    Sverdlovsk-Miskolc, corr. 1958/9, 19 !Ξ!χf2 was good for White ίη
    0-1,20) 13 . . .Q.xc3+ 14 bc BotteriII-Century, British Ch. 1977,
    *xb5 15 *b3 .Q.a6 16 *xb5 1-0,48.
    .Q.xb5 17 4:)d2 .Q.d3 18 .Q.xh6 1 b) 14 !Ξ!e 1 a6 15 a4 !Ξ!b8 16 h 3
    !Ξ!e8+ 19 ""d1 4:)d7 and Black !Ξ!d8 1 7 *c2 *e8 18 a5 *e 7
    C/asslca/ : other I/nes 33

    (White's slow §e1 plan οπlΥ looks 14 §el can also be reasonably met
    enough for equality but Black has by 14 b5) 14 4)xe4 15
    wasted so much time that White is 4)xe4 §xe4 16 .ω.xe4 §xe4 17 'ltb3
    better again) 19 4)d1 g4 20 hg (17 4)e3 .ω.d4 18 *f3 *e8 19 §e1
    ~g4 21 4)e3 ±, Ftacni,k-Sikora, .ω.b7 is fιne for Black) 17 ... .ω.g4
    CSSR Ch. 1980, 1-0,29. and Black has sufficient play for his
    1c) 14 *c2 a6 15 a4 4)fd7 16 sacrifice.
    4)d 1 4)g6 17 .ω.g4 .ω.d4 18 4)c4;1;, 1b) 12 f3 (12 *c2 is another poss-
    Polugayevsky-Kapengut, USSR ibilίty) 12 4)bd7 (... §a7-e7
    1975, 1-0,45. is pointless now so Black reverts
    2) 9 ... 4)a6 1Ο .ω.f4 (1 Ο .ω.g5 h6 back to normal ideas having com-
    11 .ω.h4 g5 12 .ω.g3 4)h5 13 4)d2 mitted White to the not especially
    4)xg3 14 hg is also promising since helpful moνe f3) 13 4)c4 4)e5 14
    Black's knight can πο longer 4)e3 §b8 15 f4 (15 §b1 *c7 16
    control e5, but White must be .ω.d2 c4 17 Φh1 b5 18 ab ab 19
    careful, e.g. 14 ... 4)c7 15 g4? b5! b4 .Δ.d7 20 *c2 §a8 with chances
    16 4)xb5 4)xb5 17 .ω.xb5 §b8 18 for both sides, W. Schmidt-
    .ω.d3 §xb2 19 4)c4 §b4 +, Voicu- Karlsson, Helsinki 1981, Υ2-Υ2, 52)
    lescu-Ungureanu, Rumania Ch. 15 .4)ed7 16 *c2 4)f8 (16 ...
    1977,0-1,38 - instead 15 a4 is b5 17 ab ab 18 .Δ.Χb5 4)xe4 19
    correct) 1Ο 4)h5?! 11 .ω.g5 f6 4)xe4 §xb5 20 4)xd6) 17 .Δ.d2
    12 .ω.' 1 .ω.h8 13 4)e 1 4)g7 14 f4 *e7 18 §ae1 ±, de Carbonnel-
    4)c7 15 4)f3 with an excellent Ljungdahl, corr. 1968-71,1-0,52.
    position for White, Karaklaic- 2) 10 ... b6 and now:
    Tatai, Wijk ΏΠ Zee 1967, 1-0,30. 2a) 11 f3 .ω.a6 (11 a6 12 a4
    10 *c2 4)bd7 is 1 b above whi le if 11
    Α fter 1Ο 4)d 2 there are two ιί nes we 4)a6 then 12 4)c4 and 13 .Δ.f4) 12
    have ποι so far considered: .Δ.χa6 4)xa6 13 4)c4 *d7 (13 ...
    1) 10 ... a6 11 a4 b6 (Black plans liJc7 14 .Δ.f4 .Δ.f8 15 a4 4)h5 16
    to play §a7-e7 but if White .Δ.e3 and now both 16 ... §b8 17
    supports e4 with f3 this doesn't get *d2 §b7 18 g4 4)g7 19 .Δ.g5 f6 20
    very far) and now: .Δ.h4 lfJa6 21 f4, Garcia-Szabo, Tel
    1a) 12 f4 (Black gets counterplay Ανίν 1964, 1-0,95 and 16 ... *d7
    after this) 12 ... §a7 13.ω.f3 §ae7 17 g4 4)g7 18 e5 §xe5 19 4)xe5 de
    14 4)c4 (14 h3 b5 15 ab ab 16 20 a5, Flesch-Honfi, Kesckemet
    4)xb5 .ω.a6 17 §xa6 4)xa6 18 e5 de 1970, 1-0, 65 were νery good for
    19 d6 'ltb6 20 de c4+ 21 Φh1 White) 14 a4 4)c7 15 .Δ.f4.Δ.f8 and
    'ltxb5 22 fe 'ltxe5 23 4)xc4 *xe 7 now 16.Δ.g5 4)h5 17 g4 4)g7
    ;1;, Bronstein-Benko, Belgrade 18 e5 ±, R. Byrne-Eνans, USA Ch.
    1965, Υ2-Υ2, 42 while 14 *c2 and 1963/4 ΟΓ 16 g4 §ad8 17 *d2 b5
    34 C/ossico/ :other Iίnes'
    18 ab {)xb5 19 {)xb5 'ltxb5 20 {)d2 {)e5 is simiIar to positions ίπ
    *d3 ±, Donner-Janosevic, Venice chapter 12, e.g. line Α2, note to
    1967, 1-0,46. White's 10th move - White is better.
    2b) 11 a4 (not so accurate, perhaps) 4) 10 a6 11 a4 {)bd7 - the
    11 . .Q.a6 {11 ... {)a6 12 f3 {)b4 same comment applίes to this.
    13 {)c4 a6 14 .Q.f4 .Q.f8 15 g4 h5 11 ι::Ie1
    16 h3 hg 17 hg {)h7 18 ι::If2 ι::Ia7 Nemet, who is the ΟΠΙΥ person
    19 ι::Ih2 with a tremendous position currently playing 10 *c2, always
    for White, Ivkov-Korchnoi, PaIma plays 11 ι::Ie1. The alternatives:
    de MaIIorca 1972, but 0-1, 43) 12 1) 11 a3 and now:
    .Q.b5 and White keeps a slίght 1a) 11 ... {)c7 12 ι::Ie1 {12 .Q.g5 h6
    advantage after 12 ... .Q.xb5 13 ab 13 .Q.f4 b5 and 12 {)d2 a6 13 a4
    or12 ... ι::Ie713ι::Ie1. ι::Ib8 are equal) 12 *e7 (12 ...
    2c) 11 f4 transposes to chapter 6, ι::Ib8 13 .Q.f4 b5 was fιne for Black
    Iίne D2. ίπ Veksler-Shestoperov, USSR
    10 {)a6 1973 but of course White should
    play 13 a4) 13 .Q.g5 h6 14.Q.h4 g5
    20 15 .Q.g3 {)h5 16 aad1 {)xg3 17 hg
    =, Korchnoi-Bilek, Sousse 1967,
    W
    1-0,57.
    1b) 11 .. .Q.g4 12 .Q.f4 c4 {12 ...
    {)h5 13 .Q.g5 f6 14 .Q.d2 f5 15 h3
    fe 16 hg ef 17 .Q.xf3 {)f6 18 g5
    {)d7 19 {)e4 ;1;, Hort-Nicevski,
    Skopje 1968, 1-0, 38) 13 .Q.xc4
    .Q.xf3 14 gf {)h5 15 .Q.g3 .Q.e5 16
    .Q.b5 ι::If8 17 .Q.xa6 ba 18 .Q.xe5 de
    19 {)e2 ι::Ib8 20 ι::Iad1 *g5+ 21
    Or Φh1 ι::Ifc8 22 {)c3 Υι-Υι, Resh-
    1) 10. . a6 11 a4 .Q.g4 wiII trans- evsky-Nieevski, Skopje 1976. The
    pose to other Iines, e.g. 12 .Q.f4 is pawn sacrifice ... c4 occurs several
    chapter 3, Iίne Α, note to White's times ίπ this variation - the
    12th ΟΓ 12 h3 .Q.xf3 13 .Q.xf3 {)bd7 breaking υρ of White's kingside
    reaching page 29, note to White's almost always gives Black enough
    13th, variation 2. play for the pawn.
    2) 10 .Q.g4 11 .Q.f4 is simίlar 2) 11 .Q.f4 {)b4 {11 . {)h5 12
    after 11 ... a6 but not 11 ... .Q.xf3 .Q.g5 f6 13 .Q.e3 f5 14 .Q.g5 {)f6 15
    12 .Q.xf3 a6 when 13 ι::Ife1 prevents .Q.b5 .Q.d7 16 .Q.xd7 'ltxd7 17 ef gf
    13 ... b5 due to 14 e5. 18 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 =, Gliksman-
    3) 10 . {)bd7 11 .Q.f4 *e7 12 Janosevic, Sarajevo 1969, 1-0, 35
    C/ass/ca/ : other I/nes 35

    ΟΓ 11 .. ..Qg4 12 h3 ..Qxf3 13 Eperjesi-Horνath, Hungary Ch.


    ..Qxf3 itb6 14 a3 c4 15 ~a4 .c7 1978 although the position is very
    16 ~c3 *d7! 17 ..Qe2 ~ac8 18 unclear ~ if Black prefers to' avoid
    ~fe1 b5 ==, Donner-Nunn, Anglo· this then 15 *b6 is worth
    Dutch match 1977, 0-1, 31 are investigating) 15 fe (15 ... ,f4
    reasonable alternatives with 12 §e1 16 ..Qd2 ~a6 17 ~e1 g5. was good
    ίπ the latter variation transposing to for Black ίπ Andersen-Pfleger,
    the main line) 12 'ltb1 ~h5 (the Copenhagen 1967 but 16 ..Qxc5!
    sacrifice 12 ... ~xe4 13 ~xe4 ..Qf5 ~xd5 17 ~xd5 dc 18 ~d1 is the
    14 ~fd2 ~xd5, played ίπ famous critical Iίne and looks dangerous for
    game Averbakh-Tal, USSR Ch. Black) 16 ~g5 (16 ab ef 17 ..Qxf3
    1958, 0-1, 35, is now known to be cb 18 ~e4 =) 16 . ~d3 17
    inadequate after 15 ..Qg3! but 12 ... ..Qxh5 (17 ~gxe4 ~xb2) 17 ... gh
    *e7 is possible, when ποΙ 13 ~d2? 18 ~cxe4 (18 ~gxe4 c4 19 itd1
    ~fxd5! 14 ed ..Qf5 15 *d1 ..Qxc3 ..Qf5 20 "Μ3?! *d7 21 ..Qg5,
    16 bc ~xd5 17 ..Qb5 ~xf4 18 Portisch-Adamski, Raach 1969,
    ..Qxe8 ~xe8 19 ~e 1 ~h3+ 20 gh 1-0,30 and now 21 .. ~f8! was
    *g5+ 21 Φh1 ~xe1+ 22 *xe1 + according Ιο Portisch) 18 ... c4
    ..Qxh3 23 *e4 *xd2 -+, Donner- and after 19 *c2 h6 20 *xc4 ~e5
    Robatsch, Wijk aan Zee 1962,0-1, 21 *c2 hg 22 ~xg5 itf6 23 *h7+
    52 ΠΟΓ 13 a3 ~xe4 14 ab ~xc3 15 Φf8 24 *xh5 *g6, Ree-Tringov,
    bc *xe2 16 ~e1 *b5 unclear, but ΤίΙονο Uzice 1966, 0-1, 40 and 19

    simply 13 ~e1 when 13 . ~xe4 *d1 ..Qg4 20 *d2 h6 21 ~e6 ..Qxe6


    14 ..Qb5 ..Qf5 faίls to 15 ..Qxe8 ~xe8 22 de ~xe6 23 ~g3 d5, Tatai-
    16 ~xe4 ..Qxe4 17 ..Qxd6 - this has Bouaziz, Siegen 1970, 0-1, 37
    yet to be tested, however: finally Black had a winning position.
    there is 12 ... ..Qg4 when 13 a3 ~a6 Summing up, Black has more than
    14 ~e1 c4! 15 h3 ..Qxf3 16 ..Qxf3 one satisfactory lίne against 11 ..Qf4.
    ~c5 17 ~e2 ~b3 18 ~a2 ~d4 19 White should try 15 ..Qg5 ΟΓ else he
    ~e3 b5 + was Glίksman-Matulovic, might end υρ worse.
    Sarajevo 1976, 0-1, 37, but White 3) 11 ..Q~5 h6 12 ..Qh4 and now 12
    should take the pawn as ίπ Reshev- ... ..Qg4 is safe.
    sky-Nicevski above although as ίπ 11 ..Qg4
    that game Black has enough for the Or
    pawn) 13 ..Qg5 f6 14 ..Qe3 f5 15 a3 1) 11 . ~b4 12 *b3 (12 *b1
    (15 ..Qb5? fe 16 ..Qxe8 ef + is ..Qg4 13 ..Qf4 c4! is fine for Black)
    unwise but 15 ..Qg5 ..Qf6 16 ..Qxf6 12. . ..Qg4 (ποΙ 12 ... ~xe4? 13
    ~xf6 17 ..Qb5 fe 18 ..Qxe8 ef 19 ..Qb5 ΠΟΓ 12 . b6?! 13 a3 ~a6
    ..Qxg6 hg 20 *xg6+ Φh8 21 ~fe1 14 ..Qb5 ~e7 15 h3 ~e8 16..Qf4
    was agreed drawn at this ροίπΙ ίπ and White stands well, Pachman-
    36 C/assica/ : other Iines

    5005, Tίtovo Uzice 1966, Υι-Υι, ~c5 ί5 fιne for Black and ίπ fact
    47) and now Kozma-Polugayevsky, Polugayevsky-Matulovic, Skopje
    Kislovodsk 1972 continued 13 a3 1968 was agreed drawn here.
    ~xf3 14 gf ~a6 15 ttxb7 ~c7 16 After 12 ~f4 there are various
    *b3 ~h5 + and 0-1, 39 but of moves:
    course White's play was very 1) 12 ~b4 13 "l'tb1 ~h5 14
    weak - 1 3 ~g5, 14 ~xf3 and 16 ~g5 (14~e3 c4!) 14 ... ~f6 15
    ~g5 all qualify as improvements ~e3! (15 ~h6?! c4! 16 a3 ~xf3
    but my impression is that Black's 17 ab ~xe2 18 §xe2 g5! 19 e5
    position is satisfactory. ~e5 20"l'tf5 f6 21 h4 ~f4 22
    2) 11 ~c7 (Black voluntarily §e4 "l'tc8 +, Nemet-Antunac,
    renounces the chance of ~b4) Yugoslavia 1975, while 16 ~xc4
    12 ~f4 (not 12 ~d2? b5! 13 ~xb5 ~xf3 17 gf ~g5 18 ~xg5 "l'txg5+
    ~fxd5 14 ed ~xb5 15 ~f3 ~f5 19 Φh1 "l'th4 is also good for Black)
    16 "l'td1 ~d4 17 ~xd4 ~xd4 18 15 ... c4 16 a3 ~f3 17 ab ~xe2
    ~b5 "l'th4 19 §xe8+ §xe8 20 18 §xe2 (the bishop is much better
    ~xe8 "l'txf2+ 21 Φh1 ~e4 0-1, placed οπ e3) 18 ... a6 19 g4 ~g7
    Dekeyser-Greiner, corr. 1978 but 20 "l'tc2 h5 21 gh ~xh5 22 f4 ~g7
    of course 12 a4 should b"e considered 23 §f1 "l'th4 24 §g2 ~f6 25 e5 de
    with Black replying . ~a6 again) 26 f5 ~g4 27 "l'te4 gf 28 "l'txf5 with
    12 ~h5 13 ~g5 f6 14 ~h4 g5 a decisive attack, Nemet-Doda,
    (14 ~f4 15 ~c4 a6 16 a4 g5 Stip 1978.
    17 ~g3 ~g6 18 a5;1;, Portisch- 2) 12 ... ~h5 13~g5~f6"(13 ...
    Janosevic, Skopje 1968, 1-0, 63) f6 14 ~d2 ~b4 15 "l'tb1 f5 16 h3
    15 ~g3 and, according Ιο Portisch, fe 17 hg ef 18 ~xf3 §xe1+ 19
    White is slίghtly better. -ιtxe1 ~f6 20 g5 ;1;, Filip-Janosevic,
    12 ~f4 Wijk aan Zee 1970, 1-0, 34) 14
    ~e3 (14 ~d2 is not so accurate)
    21 14 ~b4 15 "l'td2 c4 (the con"-
    ditions for the pawn sacrifιce are
    Β
    very unfavourable here) 16 ~xc4
    ~xf3 17 gf ~a6 18 ~e2 ~c5 19
    ~g3 ~g7 20 ~xc5 dc 21 f4 ±,
    Nemet-Rogulj, Yugoslavia Ch.
    1979, 1-0,40.
    3) 12 .. c4! (th!'J best, sacrifιcing
    at once without wasting time by
    ~b4-a6, which only drives
    White's queen to a better position)
    12 a3 c4 13 ~e3 §c8 14 §ad1 13 ~c4 ~xf3 14 gf ~h5 15 ~g3
    C/osslco/ : other I/ries 37

    .Qe5 16 .Qf1? (16 .Qb5 as ίπ Resh- Antunac intending .Qxf3 and


    cvsky-Nicevski - see Iίne 1 b οπ after the recapture with the bishop
    page 34 - holds the balance) 16 to play ... b5. However the move
    Μ6 17 *d2 ~c5 18 §ac1 .Qf4 looks highly artificial and nobody
    19 §e3 and Black is better, Nemet- has been tempted to play it.
    Rogulj, Karlovac 1979,0-1,39. The conclusion is that 10 *c2
    4) 12 *ι>8!?, a suggestion of poses few problems for Black.
    5. White plays g3

    At first sight the development of


    22
    the bishop οπ g2 appears iIIogical
    for holding υρ . b5 and c4
    W
    are important functions best carried
    out with the bishop οπ the f1-a6
    diagonal. But White's knights can
    often carry out these blockading
    duties alone while the bishop οη g2
    ably supports the e5 breakthrough.
    Ιπ this line White, as usual, aims
    fιrstly to restrain Black and only
    later does he play e4, f4 etc. White's alternatives:
    results have not been particularly 1) 9 ..• 'lke7 (it is tempting to avoid
    good with this line, except for moving the rook - see the main
    Sosonko, who always seems to win! line where the rook voIuntariIy
    Nevertheless it remains popular returns to f8 from e8 - but as usuaI
    with many grandmasters. ίπ the Benoni the queen is badIy
    1 d4 {)f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 {)c3 placed οπ e7) and now:
    ed 5 cd d6 6 {)f3 1 a) 10 {)d2 {)bd7 11 {)c4 {11 a4
    White can play 6 g3 first, but the {)h5 12 e4 {)e5 13 'lke2 f5 14 f4
    knight is almost always developed {)g4 15 {)c4, Hort-Nunn, Hastings
    οπ f3 later, since the manoeuvre 1975/6, 1-0, 26 and now 15
    {)d2-c4 is especiaIIy important ίπ Ad4+ 16 Φh 1 {)hf6! was at Ι east
    this line (blocking ... c4). equal for Black; 11 h3 {)h5 12 Φh2
    6 ... g6 f5 13 f4 {)df6 14 {)c4 Ad7 15 a4
    7 g3 ~7 Etab8 = Akopov-Podgayets, USSR
    8 .R.g2 ο-ο 1979, Υ2-Υ2, 43 ΟΓ 11 ... b6 12 a4
    9 ο-ο Ete8 Aa6 13 §e 1 {)e8 14 {)b5 Axb5
    At the present time the most 15 ab {)c7 =, Donner-Petrosian,
    popular move. There are many Goteborg 1955, 0-1, 41; 11Ete1
    Whlte pltJys g3 39
    ~eS. 12 h3 ae8 13 *c2 c4 led Ιο ~c7 16 §xa7 ~xb5 =, Tal~
    the ignominious 14 af1 ίπ Eales- Mnatsakanian, USSR 1959 ar:e fιne
    Pritchett, Groningen 1970, )11-)11, for Black) and now:
    33 but ποι 11 .. ~e8?! 12 e3!? 2a) 10 .. ~c7 11 e4 ~d7 (11 ...
    ~c7 13 a4 ~a6 14 f4 ~b4 15 ~c4 §e8 12 §e1 a6 13 a4 §b8 14..Q.f4
    ~b6 16 ~a3 ±, Korchnoi-Kaplan, ~h5 15 ..Q.g5 f6 16 -'ld2 -'lf8 was
    Hastings 1975/6) 11 ~e5 12 good for White ίπ Csom-Suba,
    ~xe5 'ιtxe5 13 -'lf4 *e7 with an Hastings 1978/9, )11-)11, 74) 12 §e1
    edge for White. Kuzmin-Sjoberg, (12 -'lf4 *e7 13 §e1 f6 14 §b1
    European CΙub Ch. 1980 went οπ ~e5 15 b4 cb 16 §xb4 ~a6 17
    14 *c1 b6 15 -'lg5 ae8 16-'lf3 §b1 ~c5 :1;, Csom-Wedberg, Malta
    intending*f4 (1-0, 33), but 14 ... 1980, 1-0, 55 is also reasonable)
    ab8 may be better. 12 ~e8 13 -'lg5 ..Q.f6 14 ..Q.e3
    1b) 10 -'lf4 ~bd7 11 e4 ~g4 12 §b8 15 a4a6 16-'lf1 *e7 17~d2
    *d2 ~ge5 13 ..Q.h6 ~xf3+ 14 ..Q.xf3 ~c7 18 f4 b5 19 e5! :1;, Korchnoi-
    ~e5 15 -'le2 f5 =, Christiansen- Tal, USSR Ch. 1962 and Korchnoi
    Νυππ, Hastings 1979/80, )11-)11,62. gives 18 ~c4! ~e5 19 ~xe5 ..Q.xe5
    1c) 10 ae1! (White simply crashes 20 f4..Q.g7 21 e5 as being even
    through ίπ the centre by e4 without better.
    bothering to move the knight from 2b) 1Ο ... §e8?! 11 ctId2 ~c7 12
    f3) 10 .. a6 11 a4~bd7 12e4 ctIc4 a6 (12 . b5? 13 ctIxd6!
    §b8 13 -'lf1! §e8 14 h3 ~h5? actually happened ίπ Sosonko-G.
    (makes matters worse, but Black Garcia, Las Palmas 1980) 13 ..Q.f4
    had πο active play) 15 g4 ~hf6 16 -'lf8 14 a4 §b8 15 e4 b5 16 ~a5!
    -'lf4 ±, Sosonko-Nunn, London ±, Sosonko-Ornstein, Haifa 1976,
    1980, 1-0,29. 1-0,30.
    2) 9 ... ~a6 (the problem with this 2c) 10 ... -'ld7 (an interesting idea
    is that Black doesn't cover e5 and which represents Black's best chance
    so White's e4-e5 gains ίπ strength) ίπ the 9 ... ctIa6 line) 11 a4 (11 e4
    10 h3 (10 ~d2 ~c7 11 ~c4 and *c8 12 Φh2 ae8 13 §e1 c4! 14
    now 11 ... b5? loses to 12 ~xd6! e5 de 15 ctIxe5 ..Q.f5 16 ..Q.g5 ~b4
    'ιtxd6 13 -'lf4 and 14 d6 while 11 was quite good for Black ίπ Marovic
    §b8 12 ..Q.f4 ~fe8 13 ~e4 is -Planinc, Amsterdam 1973, 0-1,
    awkward - probably 11 ... ~fe8 28 while 11 ..Q.f4 §e8! 12 ~d2 ..Q.f8
    12 a4 b6 is best when 13 *1>3 -'la6 13 e4 b5 14 §e1, Korchnoi-Honfi,
    14 ~b5 *d7 15 ..Q.f4? ~xb5 16 ab Baden-Baden 1981, 1-0, 26 is unc,
    'ιtxb5 17 'ιtxb5 -'lxb5 18 ~xd6 clear after 14 b4) 11 c4
    ..Q.xe2 +, Youngworth-Shamkovich, 12..Q.f4 (12 -'le3 §e8 13 ~d2 ~h5j
    Lone Pine 1978, 0-1, 30 and 14 ~de4 f5! 15 ~xd6 axe3 16 fe
    13 ..Q.d2 §b8 14 ~b5 ~xb5 15 ab *c7 17 ~do5 'ιtxg3 18 J1f3'jog5
    40 Whlte p/ays g3

    was prom ising for BIack ίη Padevs~i­ 12 Ce1 ~g4 13 .Q.g5 ite8! 14 e5!
    Honfi, Majdanpek 1976, Υ2-Υ2, 42 ~dxe5 i 5 ~xe5 ~xe5 16 f4 ~g4!,
    whiIe 14 g4 ~g3 15 fg gxe3 15 ~xc4 a queen sacrifίce good enough for
    gxg3 17 ~e4 IΞIxg2+ is also a draw, but 0-1,37 -16 ... h6 is
    uncIear - 12 4Μ2 and 12 ~d4 also possibIe) 1Ο ... a6 11 a4 §b8
    remain untested) 12 ..• ge8 (12 (this seems less accurate than 11 ...
    ... itb6! Iooks good) 13 ~d2 4)h5 lΞIe8) 124)c4~e8 13a5(13.A.f4
    14 ~d6 ~h3 15 ~h3 'lbd6 16 ~b6 14 4)a3 .A.d7 15 a5 4)c8 16
    ~de4 ite5 17 f4 itd4+ witn υήcΙear ~c4 .A.b5 17 itb3 itd718 4)a3
    pIay, Karsa-Honfι, Hungary 1977. 4)a7 ;!;, Savon-Kapengut, USSR
    Υ2-Υ2,41. 1969) 13 ... ~e5 (13 ... b5 14 ab
    3) 9 ... .Ωg4 1 Ο 4)d2! itd7 11. !::!e1 ~xb6 15 4)a5 is obviousIy bad) 14
    ΟΓ 11 a4 is ;j; - it is not worth the 4)b6 4)c7 15 h3 and while BIack
    time expended to exchange the g2 may stiII equalίse by 15 ... 4)b5 16
    bishop. .A.d2 lΞIe8 17 lΞIe1 4)d7 ΟΓ 15 .•. f5
    4) 9 .•. b6 10.A.f4 (10 lΞIe1 ge8 one suspects that White's grip οη
    11 .A.f4 a6 seems very illogicaI and the queenside should give him the
    ίη Zaitsev-Rashkovsky, Sochi 1976 advantage and that counterplay for
    White was better after 12 e4 4)g4 BIack couId quickIy dry υρ com-
    13 a4 lΞIa7 14 h3 4)e5 15 .A.xe5 pIetely. There seems to be near
    ~e5 16 4)xe5 de 17 itb3, 1-0, universaI lack of confιdence ίη this
    58) 1 Ο .. ~e8 11 itd2 4)d7 12 line since it has practically dis-
    .A.h6 and White stands well, Pfleger- appeared ίη recent years.
    Lengyel, TeI Ανίν 1964. 6) 9 a6 1Ο a4 4)bd7 (perhaps
    5)9 .•• 4)bd7 (the most likeIy out- BIack's best move-order, since 11
    come of this is a transposition to ~d2 mereIy transposes to the main
    the main line after 10 4)d2 a6 11 line whiIe the .A.f4 system has less
    a4 lΞIe8 but White can try to avoid sting here) 11 .A.f4 *c7 (11 ... ite7
    4)d2) 10 4)d2 (10 .A.f4 ite7 11 12 h3 IΞIb8 13 IΞIb1 §e8 141Ξ1e1
    lΞIe1 a6 12 a4 IΞIb8 13 e4 4)g4 and 4)h5 15 .A.g5 itf8 16 e4 b5 17 ab ab
    now 14 4)d2 4)de5 15 4)f1 4)c4 16 is uncIear, Hausner--CebaIo, Banja
    ite2 b5! 17 ab ab 18 h34)ge5 =, Luka 1981) 12 e4 (12 itd2 lΞIe8
    Smyslov-Portisch, Hungary 1978, 13 IΞIfc1 4)b6 14 b4.A.f5 15 ita2
    0-1,40 and 14.A.f1 4)ge5 154)d2 *d7 16 bc dc 17 ~e5 itd8 18 a5
    §e8 16 .A.e3 f5 17 h3 itf8 18 f4 4)c8 19 ~c4 ~e4 is a mess, Hausner-
    ~π =, Inkiov-Ermenkov, BuIgaria Ρ. Stefanov, Hradec KraIove 1981)
    Ch. 1977, 0-1, 49 are fine for 12 ... lΞIe8 (12 ... 4)g4100ks fine to
    BJack, but 10 e4 is interesting, me) 13 *c2 IΞIb8 14 a5 4)h5 15
    Lίgterink-Nunn, MarbelIa 1982 .A.e3 b5 16 ab 4)xb6 17 h3! and now
    continuing 10 . a6 11 .A.f4 ite7 White isaIittlebetter, PoIugayevsky-
    Whlte p/oys g3 41

    Vaiser,Sochi 1981, 1-0,54. (12 ~a3 Ag4 13 h3.Δ.xf3 14.Δ.xf3


    10 ~d2 ~f6 15 'fiιc2 ;!;, Κaminsky-Korchnoi
    Or USSR Ch. semi-fίnal 1957, 0-1 f
    1) 10 h3 ~e4 (10. . a6 11 a4 41) 12 ... Uxe4 13 ~d2 Ub4 (η
    ~bd7 may very well transpose after ... Uxf4 14 gf .Δ.xb2 doesn't look
    12 ~d2 but White may also try 12 sound) 14 ~e4 (14 b3 .Δ.xa1 15,
    Af4 when 12 ... 'fiιc7 13 'fiιc2 §b8 'fiιxa1 ~xf4 16 gf is unclear but 14
    14 a5 b5 15 ab ~xb6 16 ~d2 ~b4 §a2! is simple and strong, e.g. 14 ...
    17 ~a2 §b8 18 ~c4 ;!; was g5 15 Ae3 f5 16 ~B h6 17 h4
    Kuzmin-Rodriguez, Riga 1979, with a clear plus for White) 14 ...
    1-0, 42 - 14 ... ~h5 looks much h6 (14 . Ah3 is well met by 15
    better; 1Ο ... a6 11 a4 ~e4 is alSό Ag5) 15 Ad2 (15 b3 is rather
    possible) 11 ~xe4 (with ... a6 and dangerous now) 15 .. §xb2 16
    a4 interposed White can try 12 ~a3 'fiιc1 ~xd2 17 'fJιxd2 f5 with double-
    here but 12. . ~d7 13 ~xe4 edged play, Savon-Tal, USSR Cup
    §xe4 14 ω2 §e8 15 ~c4 ~b6 1970, Υ2-Υ2, 31.
    16 ~e3 ~d7 Υ2-Υ2, Hubner-Tal, 2b) 10 ... a6 11 a4.A.g4 12 'fiιd2
    Montreal 1979 was equal) 11 .Δ.χΒ 13 .Δ.xf3 'fiιc7 14 ~fc1 ~bd7
    §xe4 12 Ag5 'fiιc7 (with ... a6 and 15 b4! ~e5 16 Axe5 ~xeS 17 bc
    a4 again, Kuzmin-Sideif-Zaid, 'fJιxc5 18 ~ab 1 ±, Sosonko-
    USSR 1st league 1980 went 13 ... Smejkal, Biel 1976, 1-0, 33.
    'fJιf8 14 ~d2 §b4 15 §a2 ~d7 16 2c) 10 ... a6 11 a4 'fiιe7 12 Ue1
    b3 b5 17 ab §xb5 18 ~c4 ~e5 19 ~bd7 13 h3! 'fJιf8 14 e4 ~h5 15
    ~a5 ;1;; it looks as though Black Ad2 ~eS 16 g4 ;!;, Mijuskovic-
    should omit ... a6 ίη this line) 13 Sibarevic, Yugoslavia 1976, 1-0,
    ~d2 ~e8 14Af4 (14 ~e4 §xe4! 40.
    15 Axe4 Axh3 16.A.g2.Δ.xg2 17 2d) 10 ... ~h5! (the most reliable
    Φχg2 Axb2 was already + ίη move, but 10 ... a6 11 a4 ~h5 is
    Kuzmin-Tal, Riga 1979, ;)-1, 27) not 50 good, for example 11 .A.gS·
    14 ... ~d7 (14 ... b5 15 ~e4 and 'fJιb6 13 'fiιd2 ~d7 14 a5 'fiιc7 15
    now 15 ... §xe4 16 .Δ.xe4Axh3 ~fc1 Ub8 16 b4 ;1;, Hausner-
    17 .A.g2 Axg2 18 Φχg2 .Δ.xb2 19 Damljanovic, Banja Luka 1981, 1-0,
    §b1 picks υρ the b-pawn) 15 ~c4 47) 11 Ag5 'fJιb6 (11 ... 'fiιd7 12
    ~e5 16 ~xe5 .Δ.xe5 17 Axe5 ~xe5 e4b5! 13 ~e 1 b4 14 ~a4 4}a6 15
    18 e4 ;1;, Kuzmin-Bouaziz, Riga h3 Ab7 16 a3 ~f6 17 ~d2! ~xd5!?
    1979, 1-0, 71. This line needs with double~dged play, Sosonko-
    more tests but it certainly doesn't Smyslov, Tilburg 1977, Υ2-Υ2, 41
    look very dangerous for Black. but 12 a4 was more critical, while
    2) 10Af4 and now: 11 'fiιc7 12 e4 h6 13 Ae3 ~d7
    2a) 10 ... a6 .11 a4~e4 12~xe4 14 ~d2 a6 15 f4 was just bad for
    42 Whlte p/aysg3
    BIack ίη OdendahI-BarIe, Lone .Q.b5 16 itb3 .Q.χc4 17 itxc4 b5 18
    Pine 1979, 0-1, 50) 12 itd2 4)a6 ab 4)xb6 19 ith4 4)fd7! is at Ieast
    (12. . 4)d7 Ied to doubIe-edged IeveI for BIack: e.g. 20 itxd8 Ilexd8
    pIay ίη Sosonko-Tίmman, TίIburg 21 ~a2 ~db8 22 ~d1 a5 +, Minev-
    1979 after 13 h3 a6 14 ~ac1 4)e5 HuIak, PuIa 1975, Υ:!-Υ:!, 37 ΟΓ 20
    15 g4 4)f6 16 4)xe5 ~xe5 17 b3 .Q.g5 itb8 21 ~a2 c4 22 .Q.e3 itc7
    .Q.d7 18 Φh1 ~f8! 19 f4 ~ee8 20 23 .Q.d4 .Q.xd4 24 itxd4 4)c5 =,
    e4 Φh8, 0-1,39) 13 h3f6 14.Q.e3 Pyenkov-Psakis, USSR 1971.
    (14 .Q.h6 .Q.xh6 15 .Q.χh6 itxb2 is FinaIIy 14 .Q.d2 ~b8 15 a5 4)c8 16
    uncIear) 14. . f5 15 ~ab1 .Q.d7 4)c4 4)g4 17 *c2 4)e5 18 b3 .Q.b5
    16 .Q.h6 .Q.h8 17 4)g5 (1 7 Φh2 =) was equaI ίη Furman-Kapengut,
    c4 18 e34)c5 19 b3 itb4 20 ~fc1 Moscow 1966) 14 ... itc7 (14 ...
    cb 21 ab a5 22 4)e6 4)xb3 23 *d1 Ilb8 Ieads to the main line with 13
    a4 +, Ι. Ivanov-Kapengut, USSR .. 4)b6) 15 .Q.f4?! (White faIIs into
    1971,0-1,32. the same ... 4)xa4 combination as
    2e) 1ο. . 4)e4 11 4)xe4 ~xe4. 12 above - 15 a5 wouId have been
    4)d2 ~b4 (better as White does not better, aIthough stiII οηΙΥ equaI) 15
    have ga2 now) 13 a3 ~xf4 14 gf ... 4)h5 16 .Q.d2 4)xa4 17 4)xa4 b5
    flxb2 15 Ila2 .Q.g7 16 e4 4)a6 18 g4 4)f6 19 4)c3 b4 20 *c2 ba
    17 ge1 b5 was uncIear ίη AIburt- 21 flxa3 +, Cijanec-Puksanski,
    Peters, USA Ch. 1981, 0-1, 40. USSR 1978,0-1,34.
    10 ... a6 2) 12 aS b5 13 ab 4)xb6 144)b3
    11 a4 4)bd7 4)c4 (better than the oId move 14
    12 h3 *c7 but 14 . .Q.f5!? is an
    Other moves are Iess dangerous interesting idea, Andrianov-
    by far: AzmajparashviIi, USSR 1978 ,οη­
    1) 12 4)c4 4)b6 (12 ... 4)e5 13 4)a3 tinuing 15 4)a5 4)e4! 16 ~a3 *c7
    4)h5 Ieads to the note to BIack's 17 ~e 1 .Q.d4 18 e3 .Q.g7 19 .Q.d2 c4
    12th move after 14 h3 whίle 14 e3?! =, 0-1, 76 - note that 16 4)xe4
    is weII met by 14 ... b5!, according .Q.χe4 17 4)c6 *c7 is not especiaIIy
    to Hubner - one shouId note 12 promising for White as enough
    ... 4)e5 13 4)xe5 Ilxe5 14 e4 Ile8 pieces have been exchanged. for the
    15 h3 ~b8 16 a5 ;1;;, Veresov- knight incursion to be bearabIe,
    Kapengut, USSR 1970, however) whiIe the d5 pawn is becoming
    ·13 4)a3 (13 4)e3 4)g4 is fιne for weak) 15 ~a4 (15 *d3 ~b8! is
    BIack) 13 ... .Q.d7 14 h3 (14 itb3? simiIar) 15 ... 4)b6 16 ~a2 4)c4
    4)xa4! 15 4)xa4 b5 16 4)c3 b4 17 17 *d3 (various games have gone
    4)ab1 bc 18 4)xc3 itc7 +, Asmai~ 17 Ila4 Υ:!-Υ:!) 17 ~b8! 18
    parashvilί-Dvoris, USSR .1978, itxc4 (18 4)a 1 4)e5 19 *d 1 4)h5 is
    0-1, 48 whiIe 14 a5 4)c8 15 4)c4 fιne for BIack, L. Grigorian-
    Whlte ploysg3 43

    Kapengut, USSR 1970, 0-1, 35) 18 Φg1 f5 19 ~d2' 'lte7 +, Bannik-


    18 .. I:lb4 19 'ltd3 I:lxb3 with Sher, USSR 1976,0-1,41.
    equalίty. 4) 13 Φh2 f5 14 f4 (14 e4 ~e5 15
    3) 12 e4 'ltc7 13 "lte2?! (makes ef .Qxf5 16 g4 is οπlΥ for courageous
    matters worse) 13 ~b6! 14 players although 16 ... ~xg4+ 17·
    'ltd3 ~g4 15 h3 ~e5 16 'ltc2 c4 hg ''lth4+ 18 Φg1 .Qxg4 19 ~f3
    with a clear plus for Black, Hort- Μ6 20 l:la3 b5 21 ab ab 22 ~e4;
    Tίmman, Montreal 1979, ~-~, 52. Browne-Zuckerman, Netanya 1971,
    12 I:lb8 1-0, 45 and 16. . ~f4 17 gf
    Or 12 ... ~h5 and now: ~xg2 18 f6!? ~f4 19 ~de4 .Qh6
    1) 13 ~c4 ~e5 14 ~a3 f5 15 Φh2 20 I:lg1 'ltd7 21 I:lg3 b5, Vukic-
    (15 e4 b5!) 15 .. ~f6 (Hartston Marovic, Banja Luka 1974, 1"':'0,
    suggests 15 . . . f4 16 gf 'lth4 17 62 both led to White wins - however
    fe Axe5+ which does indeed look the second of these was not worse
    dangerous, sΌ perhaps White should for Black at move 21 whίle one
    adopt the move-order 15 f4 ~f7 16 must also consider 16 ... bg4 17
    Φh2, when 16 ... ~f6 transposes) hg *114+ 18 Φg1 I:lf8 19 gh ~g4
    16 f4 ~f7 17 ~c4 (17 'ltd3 I:lb8 20 'ltxg4 'ltxg4) 14 ... ~hf6 15 e4
    18 .Qd2 h5! 19 l:lab1 b5! 20 b4 ~xe4 16 ~dxe4 fe 17 ~xe4 ~f6
    c4 was good for Black ίη Ziger- 18 ~g5 h6 19 ~e6 be6 20 de d5
    Despotovic, corr. 1975) 17 ... b6 (20 I:lxe6 21 bb7 l:la7 22
    18 'ltb3 (18 'ltc2 l:la7 19 e3 l:lae7 .Qf3 d5 23 *d3 'lte8 24 b3 gave
    20 .Qd2 h5 21 b4 h4 with com- White the edge ίη Yuferov-
    plications, Shereshevshy-Yuferov, Boleslavsky, USSR 1971, 1-0, 52)
    USSR 1971, 1-0, 69) 18 .. I:lb8 21 l:le1 'ltd6 22 "ltd3 I:lxe6 23
    19 ~a5 'ltc7 20 ~c6 1:la8 21 .Qd2 I:lxe6 'ltxe6 24 'ltxg6 l:le8 25 l:la3
    ~d8 22 ~e5 I:lb8 23 ~c4 com- c4 =, Raksin-Bangiev, tJSSR 1973.
    pleting aπ unusual knight tour! 13 ~c4
    White was slightly better ίπ Lein.- 13 a5 (13 ~de4 ~xe4 14 ~xe4 ~f6
    Vasiukov, USSR Ch. 1969 ~-~, 15 .Qg5 .Q.f5 =, Kuzmin-Grigorian,
    69. USSR 1976) 13 ... b5 14 ab ~xb6
    2) 13 ~de4 ~df6! 14 ~xf6+ ~xf6 15 e4 ~fd7 16 f4 f5 17 l:le1 aπd
    15 .Qf4 I:lb8 16 'ltd3 'lte7 17 e4 now 17 ... .Qd4+ 18 Φh2 ~f6 19
    ~h5 18 .Qd2 'lte5 :t, 05nOS-Tal, ef I:lxe1 20 'ltxe1 gf, Hernandez-
    USSR Ch. 1969,0-1,40. Holm, Siegen 1970, 0-1, 40 and
    3) 13 a5 ~e5 (13 ... b5 14 ab 17. . c4 18 ef gf 19.Qf1 I:lxe1
    ~xb6 15 e4 I:lb8 16 l:le1 'ltc7 was 20 'ltxe1 'ltc7 21 ~f3 ~f6 22 ~g5,
    unclear ίη Peterson-Juferov, USSR Czerniak-Sigurjonsson, Vraca 1975,
    1969, 0-1, 34) 14 Φh2 g5 15 1-0,44 were unclear.
    ~de4 h6 16 e3 g4 17 hg ~xg4+ After 13 ~c4 we have:
    44 Whlte p/ays g3
    Rovinj-Zagreb 1975, 1-0, 51) 16
    a541a8 17 Φh2 f5 18 f4.Q.b5 19
    ~f3 41f6 =, Spassov-Rajkovic,
    Trstenik 1978, 1-0, 43.
    14 .Q.d7
    The interesting 14. . .Q.f5 was
    tried ίη Birnboim-G. Garcia, Malta
    1980, threatening 15 41e4.
    White played 15 g4.Q.d7 16 ~f4
    (this is bad after 14 ~d7
    because of 41h5, here imposs-
    Α:13 ... 41b6 ible - the alternative is 16 a5 41c8
    8: 13 ... 41e5 17 41c4 although with the kingside
    80th moves are playable but readers weakened Black has a ready source
    should be warned that 13 41e5 of counterplay by .. h5)16 ..
    commits 81ack Ιο a highly unclear h5 17 ~xd6 ~xa4 18 41xa4 ttxd6
    piece sacrifice. 19 4),(b6 *xb6 20 41c4 *d8 =,
    Α: 0-1,39.
    131. . . 41b6 15 a5
    14 41a3 15 ~f4?! (15 e4?! 41c8 16 *d3
    Or 14 41e3 (14 41xd6? ttxd6 15 *c7 17 §b1?! c4! 18 *c2 b5 19
    .Q.f4 §e5) 14 ... ~d7 (14 ... 41bd7 ab ab 20 b4 cb 21 *xb3 b4 +.
    may be objectively best, but ίη Ljubojevic-Hulak, Yugoslavia 1981,
    practice this has always been met 0-1, 44) 15 41h5! 16.Q.xd6
    by 15 41c4, offering a draw: 14 ... ~xc3 17 ~xb8.Q.xb2 18g4 (18~a7
    41fd7 15 a5 41a8 16 41c4 41e5 17 ~xa1? 19 ~xb6 ttxb6 20 -ιtxa1
    41xe5 .Q.xe5 18 *d3 b5 19 ab §xe2 was unclear ίη Gheorghiu-
    41xb6 20 f4 c4! 21 -ιtf3.Q.g7 + was Ljubojevic, Manila 1974, 1-0, 44
    Pachman-Mecking, Manila 1976 but 18 . 41xa4! was +) 18 ...
    but 15 ~d2 looks more solid) 15 ttxb8 19 gh 41xa4 20 §a2 41c3 21
    ~d2 (15 a5 41c8 16 41c4 *c7? 17 -ιtb3 41xe2+ 22 Φh1 .Q.g7 with a
    .Q.d2! b5 18 ab 41xb6 19 41a5 .Q.b5 winning position for 8lack, Hort-
    20- b3 ±, Kovacevic-Andersson, Marovic, 8anja Luka 1976.
    Titovo Uzice 1978, 1-0,40 but 16 15 41c8
    .Q.b5 17 *b3 = was better, 16 41c4 .Q.b5
    transposing to the main Iίne) 15 ... 17 -ιtb3 ~xc4
    4)h5 (15 ... §e7 16 *c2 *e8 17 18 ttxc4 41d7 (24)
    §fe1 §d8?! 18 a5 41c8 1941c4 18 ... b5 19 ab 41xb6 20 *d3 c4
    .Q.b5 20 b3 *d7 21 e4 §de8 22 21 *d1 §a8 was also leνel ίπ
    §ad1 ±, Marovic-Ljubojevic, Lapienis-8uslayev, USSR 1961 and
    White p/ays !/3 45

    24 14 -tιa3

    W
    25
    W

    Black won after 22 Ae3 §xe3!? 23


    fe 'fιe7 ίη 43 moves.
    19 §a3 Black plans ... f5. Other, more
    19 Φh2 -tιe5 20 'fιa4 b5 21 ab passive, moves have been tried, but
    §xb6 22 f4 §b4 23 'fιc2 4)c4 +, without success.
    Vuk.ic-Gliksman, Yugoslavia Ch. 15 e4
    1968, 0-1, 32, ΟΓ 19 'fιd3 -tιe5 20 Or
    'fιc2 -tιa 7 21 §d 1 -tιb5 22 -tιxb5 ab 1) 15 f4 (15 e3 and 15 Ad2 are
    23 'fιb3 'fιd7 24 Af1 -tιc4 25 e3 thematicaIIy answered by ... f5)
    §a8! 26 Φg2 §a7 27 Axc4 bc 28 -tιxg3 16 fe Axe5 (16 ... -tιxf1 17
    'fιxc4 §ea8 29 Ad2 b5! 30 'fιc2 b4 'fιxf1 §xe5 18 Af4 was unclear ίη
    +, Lίberzon- Yusupov, Lone Pine Raksin-Zhuravlyev, USSR 1975)
    1981,0-1,47. After 19 §a3 Black 17 -tιc4 Axc3 18 bc b5 19 ab ab
    gained the advantage ίη Kovacevic- 20 -tιe3 -tιxf1 21 -tιχ f1 'fιh4 :+:,
    Ilic, Yugoslavia 1980 by 19 ... -tιe5 Donner-Ree, Amsterdam 1979,
    20 'fιa2 -tιa7 2Η4 -tιd7 22 'fιc4 *c8! 0-1,33.
    23 e4? (23 e3 b5 24 ab §xb6 25 2) 15 g4?! 'fιh4! 16 -tιe4 h6 17 gh
    Ad2 =) 23 ... b5 24 ab §xb6 25 §aS Axh3 18 -tιg3 -tιg4 19 Af4 Ad4!
    -tιbS!, 0-1, 42 and ίη Rubinetti- 20 e3 Axe3! 21 fe Axg2 22 Φχg2
    Gheorghiu, Buenos Aires 1980 by 'fιh2+ 23 Φf3 §xe3+ 24 Axe3
    19 . . . -tιe 7 20 'fιa2 -tιf5! 21 e3 -tιe5+ 25 Φe4 f5+ 26 §xf5 gf+
    -tιe5 22 ad1 *c7 23 §a4 aec8 24 27 ΦΧf5 'fιh3+ Υι-Υι, Kakageldiev-
    ~h2 h5 25 -tιb1?! c4 26 e4 -tιh6 Tsheshkovsky, USSR 1st league
    27 Ae3 h4! +,0-1,64. 1978 although 28 Φe4 §e8! 29
    13 .. -tιb6 seems a very safe *g1 *g4+ 30 Af4 -tιf3+ wins for
    Iίne for Black, although White may Black.
    be able to tempt a draw by 14 -tιe3. 3) 15 Φh2f5 16f4 (16 Ad2 Ad7
    Β: 17 §b1 b5 18 ab ab 19 b4'fιc7 +,
    13 ... -tJe5 Butnorius-Nieevski, Vίlnus 1969,
    46 Whlte p/oys (J3

    0-1, 41) 16 ..• oDn 17 e3 (17 will be endangered) 23 b5 (23


    oDc4 b5 18 ab ab 19 oDa5 *c7 20 ... ~be8? 24 4)cxd6 ι::Ie5 25 ι::Ia3
    oDc6 ~b6 21 .Qf3 b4 f, Yuferov- l!xd5 26 ~g3 *e6 27 4)xb 7 was
    Κapengut, Minsk 1971) .Qd7 18 very good for White ίπ Marovic-
    *d3 .c8 (Kapengut suggests 18 ... Kapengut, Yugoslavia v. USSR
    oDf6 at once) 19 a5 b5 20 ab ~xb6 1971, 1-0,61, while 23 ~f3
    21 §f2 4)f6 with chances for both is well answered by 24 .Qe3! accor-
    sides, Veremichik-Mozalov, USSR ding to Kapengut - however
    1974,0-1,42. Kapengut does recommend 23 ...
    15 ... l!f8 ~f3 against the 23 ~c2 of Minev-
    The latest finesse. The older Iίne Spassov since there is ηο fork by
    15 ... f5 seems good for White, for 4)d2) 24 ab ab 25 ~cxd6 (Hartston
    example 16 ef .Qxf5 17 g4 .Qxg4 points ουΙ that 25 ~e3 is still
    (17 .4)xg4 18 hg 'ikh4 19 gf unclear) ~b6 (25 .Qe5 was
    .Qe5 20 l!e1 *h2+ 21 Φf1 ±, successful ίη Akopov-Grίgorίan,
    Yuferov-Vasiukov, USSR 1968, USSR 1977 which concluded 26
    Υι-Υι, 47) 18 hg 'ikh4 19 gh ~f8 ~a7 *h4 27 ~g7+ 'Iih8! 28 f4
    (Black prepares ... 4)g4 by cutting .Qd4+ 29 ~f2 'f!ιxh6 30 ~π+
    out the reply .Qf4 - the logίc of 15 ~xΠ 31 ~xΠ l!a8 32 Φf1 l!a 1
    ... ι::If8 is that it is better to play this 33 ~c2 *h2 34 ~f2 itg3 35 Φg1
    move before Black goes two pieces .Qxf2+ 36 l!xf2 §xc1+ 37 ~f1
    down!) 20 h6! .Qh8! and now: ~c2 0-1, but 26 .Qe3 *h4 27 f4,
    as given by Gipslis, is ποΙ so clear so
    26 Black might do best Ιο play 26 .Qe3
    W ~b6 transposing to Kivlan-
    PetkevίC) 26 .Qe3 .Qe5 27 ~a7
    ~xd6 28 ~xd6 .Qxd6 29 l!g7+
    'Iih8 30 ~fa1 *h5 31 l!d7.Qh2+
    32 Φf1 itf5 33 ~aa7 'ikb1 + 34
    'Iie2 'f!ιxb2+ 35 Φd1 'ikb1+ 36
    'Iid2 'ikb2+ 37 'Iid1 'ikb1 + 38 ""'d2
    'ikb2+ 39 'Iid1 'ikb3+ 40 Φd2 .Qe5
    41 .Qh3 .Qc3+ 42 Φe2 *c2+ 43
    1) 21 oDe4 ~xg4 22 'f!ιxg4 'f!ιxg4 23 Φf1 0-1, Kίvlan-Petkevίc, USSR
    ~c4 (23 4)c2 ~be8 24 f3 *h4 25 1974.
    .Qg5 *h5 26 f4 *e2 Υι-Υι, Minev- 2) 21 ~c4! (all the above Iίnes are
    Spassov, Albena 1975 - after 27 great fun but Kovacevic's amazirig
    ~f2 ι::Ixe4 28 ~xε2 ~xε2 Black's 21 ~c4 seems to refute Black's
    rooks are active but if the White sacrifices) 21 ... ~g4 (21 ... "6txc4
    bishop can get to e6 Black's king 22 4)e4 is hopeless whίle 21
    Whlte p/ays g3 47

    ~xc4 22 *d3 Ad4 23 'lth3 leaves ~a7 e3?! (20 . ~f3+ 21 Axf3 ef
    White with insufficient compen- 22 ~c6*d7 23 f5!? ismoredanger-
    sation for the piece after 23 ous) 21 *e2 ~xg3 22 Φχg3 g5 23
    Axf2+ 24 Φh 1 οΓ 23 ... ~xf2 24 f5 Axf5 24 *xe3 and Black had ίπ­
    *xh4 ~f4+ 25 *f2) 22 *xg4 sufficient compensation ίπ Alburt-
    'ltχg4 23 ~xd6 (White avoids Η. Olafsson, Reykjavik 1982, 1-0,
    getting his knightsin a tangle ίπ this 32. Further developments may be
    line) 23 ... Ae5 (23 ... b5 24 ab expected.
    ab 25 ~dxb5 followed by ~a4) 24 16 ... *h4!
    ~de4 r:!f3 25 ~g5 ~bf8 26 ~xf3 17 gh Axh3 18 h6 Ah8 19 ~e2
    ~xf3 27 ~e1 ~xf2 28 Φχf2 Ag3+ (19 *e2 f5 20 ~c2 ~be8 is also
    29 Φg1 Axe 1 30 Ae3 'ltg3 31 awkward, for example 21 f3 fe 22
    Axc5 Ad2 32 ~e4 Ae3+ 33 Axe3 ~xe4 Axg2 23 'ltχg2 ~xf3+ 24
    'ltχe3+ 34 ~f2 Φf8 35 d6 Φe8 36 r:!xf3 ~xf3 25 'ltχf3 ~xe4 +) 19
    ~d1 'ltχh6 37 d7+ Φd8 38 Ah3 ... f5 20 ef ~xf5 21 ~g3 ~bf8!
    1-0, Kovaeevic-Nemet, Karlovac 22 ~xf5 r:!xf5 (threat 23 ... ~g5
    1979. 24 Axg5 'ltχg5) 23 *b3 Axg2 (23
    16 g4?! . .. ~f3+! 24 'ltχB ~xf3 25 Axf3
    Or Ae5! 26 ~e1 Ah2+! 27 Φχh2
    1) 16 r:!e1 (White illogically weakens Ag4+ ΟΓ 24 Axf3 Ad4! wins more
    f2) f5 17 efAxf5 18 ~xe5 (18 g4 quickly) 24 Φxg2 *e4+ 25 f3
    Axg4 19 hg *h4 20 ~e4 ~xg4 +) ~xf3 26 'ltχB ~xf3 27 ~xf3
    Axe5 19 g4 b5! 20 ab ab 21 ~e2 *e2+ 28 ~f2 *g4+ 29 Φf1 *d1+
    Axg4 22 hg *h4 23 Ae3 Ah2+ 30 Φg2 Ad4 31 r:!b1 *g4+ 32 Φf1
    24 Φf1 ~xf2+! 25 Axf2 ~f8 26 "ltd1 + 33 Φg2 'ltg4+ 34 Φf1 b5
    *e1 ~g3+ 27 ~xg3 Axg3 -+, 35 ab ab 36 ~a1 Axf2 37 <Iixf2
    Kovaeevic- Τ. Horvath, Virovitica ita4 38 r:!b 1 'lth4+ 39 Φe2 *e4+
    1980, 0-1 , 41. 40 Φd1 "Itf3+ 41 ""'d2 'ltχd5+ 0-1 ι
    2) 16 Φh2 (probably best) 16. . Scheeren-Tίmman, Dutch Ch.
    f5 17 f4 b5 (17 .. ~π? 18 ef 1980.
    wins for White) 18 ab ab 19 ~axb5 Ιπ conclusion 12 ... ~b6 seems
    (19 fe? ~xg3! gave Black a winning more reliable than 12 ... ~e5, but
    position ίη Birnboim-Arnason, Ren- the latter is certainly more enter-
    ders 1982, 0-1,36) 19 fe 20 taining!
    6. FouΓ Pawns Attack

    This is the first ofthe 'pawn storm' 1974, 1-0, 25) 11 ~c4 *d8 12
    systems, ίπ which White pIays a *1'3 (1.2 ~e2 h5 13 ~b5? a6
    quick e4 and f4, hoping ιο break 14 ~bxd6 b5 winning a piece,
    through with e5 before BIack can Saemisch-Euwe, Wiesbaden 1925)
    compIete his deveIopment. PIay with an uncIear position (12
    takes' a tacticaI turn very quickIy f5!?) - however the waste of time
    and White often sacrifices materiaI invoIved ίπ pIaying *b6-d8
    ιο speed υρ his attack. The Four makes one suspicious of the whole
    Pawns Attack can aIso arise from idea.
    the King's Indian via the moves 2) 9 ... b5 aπd now 10 ~xb5 and
    1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 g6 3 ~c3 ~g7 4 e4 10 e5 de 11 fe~g4 (11 ... ~xd5?
    d6 5 f4 ο-ο 6 ~f3 c5 7 d5 e6 8 12 ~e4) 12 ~b5 transpose ιο Β.
    ~e2 ed 9 cd, aIthough here White If White does ποι play one of these
    has the chance ιο pIay 9 ed ΟΓ 9 two Iines he will stand worse.
    e5!? which does ποι exist ίπ the 3) 9 .. c4!? is an interestiπg idea,
    Benoni move-order. with cσmplications after 10 ~xc4
    1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 ~c3 ~xe4 11 ~xe4 E!:e8 12 ~e5!? de
    ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 ~g7 8 ~f3 13 0-0 ΟΓ 10 ~c2 b5 11 ~xb5
    ο-ο ~xe4 12 ~xe4 E!:e8.
    9 ~e2 (27) 4) 9 ... E!:e8 10 ο-ο c4 11 ~b1?!
    9 ~d3 and now: a6 12 a4*b6+ 13Φh1 ~bd7 14
    1) 9 *b6 10 ~d2 (10*b3 *e2 ~c5 15 ~e3 *b4 was doubIe-
    *xb3 11 ab ~a6 12 ο-ο ~c7 = ΟΓ edged ίπ Grave-Kliaviπ, Latvia Ch.
    10 ~c2 c4 11 *e2 E!:e8 12 ~a4 1958,0-1,33.
    ~d7 and BIack is better, Colle- 5) 9 .. ~a6 1Ο ο-ο (1 Ο ~xa6 ba
    Euwe, Antwerp 1926) 1 Ο ~g4 11 ο-ο E!:e8 12 e5 ~d7 13 e6 fe
    (10 . E!:e8 11 ~c4 *d8 12 ο-ο 14 de ~f6 was good for BIack,
    b5 13 ~xb5 ~xe4 14 ~xe4 E!:xe4 Golz-Andersen, Copenhagen 1960)
    15 ~cxd6 E!:d4 16 *1'3 and White is 1Ο ... ~c7 11 a4 E!:e8 (11 ... E!:b8
    winning, Knezevic-Banas, CSSR 12 E!:e1 a6 13 a5 b5 14 ab E!:xb6
    Four Pawns Α ttock 49
    15 .4c4 ι:lb4 16 *d3 ±, Juksti- Ε: Less common 9th moves,9 .. .
    Gaprindashvili, Parnu 1973, Υ2-Υ2, ~a6, 9 ... ~fd7, 9 ... ~bd7, 9 .. .
    42) 12 ι:le1 a6 13 .4d2 (13 h3 ι:lb8 b6.
    14.4d2? b5 15 ab ab 16 b4 cb 17 Α is the method for Black if he
    ~a2 ~6 +,.vigh-Dely, Hungary wishes to avoid the highly tactical
    1973,0-1,29) 13 ... b6 14 ι:lb1 lίnes of Β and C. 9 ... .4&4 leads to
    ι:lb8, Spassky-Aronson, Riga 1957 a typical Benoni position ίη which
    and now 15 b4! is very good for Black has every chance of equality.
    White. Β is very sharp and Black must be
    6) 9 .4g4 (a reliable move prepared to play very accurately to
    analogous to Α below, except that counter White's attacking attempts.
    White wiII recapture οη f3 with the Ιη the critical lίne Β2, however,
    queen and Black's ... c4 wiII gain Black has stiII to fίnd an adequate
    a tempo) 10 0-0 ~bd7 11 h3 defence. C also gives White a very
    .Δ.xf3 12 *xf3 a6 13 a4 ι:lc8 14 dangerous attack even if Black
    <lih 1 c4 15 .4c2 ~c5 16 .4d2 ~fd7 plays accurately and ίη practice
    with at least equality for Black, Black has fared badly enough to
    Platonov-Stoliarov, Ukraine Ch. put one off these lίnes altogether.
    1958, Υ2-Υ2, 33. D is included here because many of
    The moves 9 ... b5, 9 . c4 and the lίnes from other chapters
    9 . .4g4 represent the soundest transpose into it (e.g. f4 by White
    ideas against 9 Ad3 with the last ίη chapters 1 and 2). Black has
    giving safe equality. good chances of equality. The Iines
    ίη Ε cannot be recommended and
    27 ίη every case White should obtain a
    Β clear plus.
    Α:
    9 .Q.g4
    10 ο-ο
    Or
    1) 1Ο e5 .4xf3 (1 Ο de 11 fe
    ~fd7 may also be satisfactory.
    with Liptay-GeIIer, Prague 1966
    continuing 12 e6 fe 13 O-O.4xf3
    After 9 .4e2 we have the fol- 14 .4xf3 ~e5 15 Ae4 ι:lxf1+ 16
    lowing divergence: *xf1 <lih8 +,0-1,31) 11 Axf3 de
    Α: 9 ... Ag4 (after 11 ι:le8 White has the
    Β: 9 ... b5 choice of 12 e6 fe 13 ο-ο <lih8 14
    C: 9 ... ι:le8 10e5 de ~c6 15 f5 gf 16 .4f4 ~d4 +,
    Ο: 9 ... ι:le8 1Ο ~d2 Liptay-Lombardy, Budva 1963,
    50 FdύrPιawnsΑttοck

    Υ2-Υ2, 33 and 12 0-0 de 13 fe for White, Padevski-Gh.itescu,


    I!xe5 14.Δ.f4 §e8 15 'ltb3 'ltb6 16 Balkaniad 1978,0-1,28.
    §fe1 4)bd7 17 d6 when White can 1 b) 12 Φh1 a6 13 .Δ.e3 (ΜίπίC
    hold the balance, Lίptay-Vasiukov, recommends 13 g4 but as we shall
    l3udapest 1965, Υ2-Υ2, 32) 12 fe see later this plan is not very effec-
    4)fd7 13 e6 4)e5 14 ef+ §χπ 15 tive when Black has not played ...
    ο-ο 4)bd7 (this position is assessed §e8 blocking his knight's retreat)
    as = by both Gligoric and Minic) §e8 (13 ... b5 is =) 14 g4 h6 15
    16 .Δ.e3 (16 4)e4 4)xf3+ 17 §xf3 g5? {Ι prefer 15 .Δ.f2 followed by
    §xf3 18 'ltxf3 4)e5 :j:, Knezevic- h4) hg 16 e5 (16 fg 4)h7 and
    Glίgoric, Yugoslavia 1970, 1-0, 4)e5) gf! 17 ef §xe3 18 fg 4)e5 19
    55) 16 . 4)xf3+ 17 I!xf3 I!xf3 .Δ.g2 *&5 20 4)e4 ith4 21 itd2
    18 itxf3 4)e5 and now 19 itd 1 c4 is Φχg7 22 itf2 'ltxf2 23 §xf2 f3 24
    assessed as :j: by Velimirovic aπd + 4)xd6 §d8 25 4)xb 7 fg+ 26 Φχg2
    by Vogt, but 19 ite4 looks better, §xd5 27 b3 4)d3 28 §c2 §e1
    with aπ equal position. 0-1, Doroshkevich-Tal, USSR Ch.
    2) 10 4)d2 .Qχe2 11 'ltxe2 §e8 12 1975.
    ο-ο 4)a6 (12 ... 4)bd7 transposes 1c) 12 §e1 §c8 13 §e2 a6 14ite1
    to the note to White's i 1 th move, (a rather blunt way to prepare e5!)
    variation 1) 13 itf3 (13 itd3? 4)b4 itc7 15 g4 h6 16 h4 4)h7 17 g5
    14 itb 1 4)g4 and now 15 a3 .Δ.d4+ and here White is a Iίttle better,
    16 Φh1 4)xh2 won ίπ Zaric-Ciric, Uhlmann-Ivkov, Sarajevo 1964,
    Yugoslavia Ch. 1968, 0-1, 30 while Υ2-ΥΖ, 31. This example raises
    15 4)f3 is lίttle better after 15 several general points. The moves
    .Δ.d4+ 16 4)xd4 cd 17 4)d1 d30r . a6 and. . §e8 are not very
    even simply 15 ... c4) 13 ... 4)b4 useful for Black and should be
    followed by ... 4)c2-d4 :j:. omitted. Instead Black's counter-
    10 4)bd7 play comes from . . . c4 and .
    Other moves: 4)c5, answering e5 with ... 4)fd7.
    1) 10 ... .Δ.χf3 (there is πο reason Here 12. . c4 would have been
    to exchange since White normally met by e5 and Black 's loss of tempo
    answers ... 4)bd7 with h3, and the by 1Ο . .Δ.χf3 is important since
    eχtra tempo gives White improved the queen's knight is still blocking
    chances) 11 .Δ.χf3 (11 §xf3? was d7. Ι n fact 13 e5 would have been
    played ίπ Niberg-Maksimovic, good for White ίη the game also.
    European Girls Ch. 1980,0-1,38) 1d) 12 a4 a6 13 a5 §c8 14 Φh1
    11 ... 4)bd7 and now: §e8 15 g4 h6 16 h4 and White is
    1a) 12.Δ.e3 §e8 13 .Δ.f2 a6 14 itc2 better, Peev-Pavlov, Afini 1971,
    I!c8 (14 ... b5 15 a4;1;) 15 a4c4 1-0, 38. Α good example of all
    16 Φh1 ita5 17 I!fe1 with an edge the moves Black shouldn't play. 12
    Four Powns Α ttiIck 51

    ... c4 was better. 'lJιa6) 14 ... *,,4 15 <Iih 1 a6 16 a5


    2) 10 .. ~fd7 (passive) 11 ~d2 b5 17 ab ~xb6 18 *d3 *d4 19
    ~e2 12 *xe2 ~a6 13 ~c4 ~b6 *c2 c4 20 Ela3 ~g4 21 ~f3 tιd3
    14 ~e3 *e7 15 .A.d2 Elae8, was fine for Black ίπ Doroshkevich-
    Andersen-Taimanov, Copenhagen Zhukovitsky, USSR 1967,0-1,34.
    1965, 0-1, 40 and now 16 Elae1 1c) 13. Elc8 (13 .. ab 14 a4
    looks promising since 16 ... .A.xc3 Elc8 15 a5 is less accurate, since
    17 ~c3 *xe4 faίls to 18 ~g4!. now 15 c4 may be met by 16
    3) 10 ... Ele8 will generally trans- Ela4) 14 ~c4 (or else ... c4 foIiowed
    pose to lίnes considered later, but by ... b5 ΟΓ ~c5) ~b6 15
    as Ele8 is often not a very ~xd6 (15 ~e3 *e7 wins a pawn
    desirable move it is better while 15 ~xb6 *xb6 followed by
    postponed. *b4 is good for Black) 15 .•.
    *xd6 16 e5 *d7 17 ef ~f6 18
    28 f5 .Q.d4+ 19 <Iih1 ~c3 20 bc
    W ~xd5 and White does not have
    enough for the pawn, Ρ. Wells-
    Νυππ, Borehamwood 1980, 0-1 j
    31.
    11 ~d2 seems totaIIy harmless.
    2) 11 a4 (rather a waste of time
    since Black doesn't intend to play
    ... a6) 11 ... Elc8 (or 11 ... Ele8
    12 h 3 .A.xf3 13 .Q.xf3 c4 14 .A.e3
    11 h3 'lJιa5 and now 15 g4 is dubious οπ
    Again there are alternatives: account of 15 ~c5 16 ~2
    1) 11 ~d2 ~e2 12 *xe2 Ele8 13 Ele7 17 g5 ~fxe4 18 ~xe4 ~χe4
    tιf3 (13 ~c4 ~b6 14 ~xb6 *xb6 19 .A.χe4 Elae8 +, ςο 15 .A.d4 is
    15 e5 de 16 fe ~d7 winning a better when 15 . ~c5?! 16 e5
    pawn, Witkowski-Wirthensohn, ~fd7 17 e6 fe 18 de ~χe6 19
    Poland-Switzerland, 1974, 0-1, ~g7 <Iiχg7 20 <Iih1! was good for
    40) and now: White ίπ Hausner-Vogt, Czechoslo-
    1a) 13 ..• *e7 14 Ele1 b5!? 15 vakia-East Germany 1978, Υ2-Υ2,
    ~xb5 ~b6 16 e5 ~fxd5 17 ~xd6 38 but 15 ... Ele7! 16 <Iih1 a6 17
    *xd6 18 ed Elxe 1+ 19 Φf2 Ele3 g4 Elae8 18 g5 ~xe4 19 ~χe4
    20 *xe3 ~xe3 21 <Iixe3 Eld8 Elxe4 20 .A.xe4 Elxe4 was about
    and Black has a better ending, equal ίπ Peev-Velimirovic, Sofιa
    Bogmolov-Zhelίandinov, USSR 1972, 0-1, 37) 12 h3 (12 ~d2
    1967,0-1,32. leads to an inferior form of 1) .A.xf3
    1b) 13 . 'lJιa5 14 a4 (14 ~c4 13 .A.xf3 c4 14 .A.e3 ~c5 15 e5 de
    52 FourPawnsAtwck
    16 fe 4)fd7 17 e6~e5 and Black is g5 ~fd7 17 *xc4 §fe8 and BIack
    at least equal. regained the pawn with the better
    11 ΑχΒ game, Kaplan-Sigurjonsson,
    12 .Qxf3 c4 Hastings 1975/6, 0-1,40.
    12 . §e8 (not so accurate) 13 14 §ac8
    *c2 (13 Φh1 a6 14 a4 b5! 15 ab with equality. Α slightly less
    ab 16 §xa8 itxa8 17 e5 de 18 fe accurate move is 14 ~e8 (14
    ~xe5 19 .Qg5 ~fd7 20 ~xb5, ~c5 is positively bad after 15
    Peev-Nemet, Mladenovac 1975, e5 de 16 fe ~fd7 17 e6 ~e5 18
    1-0, 27 and now 20. . *b8! was e7 §fe8 19 d6) when Brown-
    very good for Β lack) 13 a6 Νυηπ, London 1980 continued 15
    14 a4 c4 15 .Qe3 §c8 16 §ae1 itc7 Φg2? (15 *c2! ;!;) 15 ~c5 16
    17 Φh 1 *b8 18 a5 with a double- .Qxc5 *xc5 1 7 *e2 ~f6 18 §ac 1 ?!
    edged position, Bagley-Gheorghiu, (18 e5 =) 18 §fe8 19 g5 4)d7
    USA 1980, 0-1, 26. 20 ~a4 *a5 21 *xc4 b5 22 itc7
    *d2+ 23 Φg3 (23 Φh1 *xf4 24
    29 itxd7 . .Qe5 25 §c2 ba +) 23
    Ι

    W ~e5! 24 §cd1 *b4 25 ~c3 §ac8


    26 *xa7 *xb2 27 ~b1 4)xf3 28
    ΦΧf3 §xe4! 29 §f2 *b4 30 Φg3
    .Qd40-1.
    Β:
    9... b5
    10 e5
    Or 10 .Qxb5 ~xe4 11 ~xe4
    tta5+ 12 Φf2 itxb5 13 ~xd6 and
    13 .Qe3 ita5 now:
    Or 13 ... §c8 (13 ... a6 is quite 1) 13 ... itb6 14~c4tta6 (14 ...
    sensible as if 14 a4 then 14 ... §c8 *b4? 15 *b3 .Qb7 16 *xb4 cb
    is good, but there is always the 17 §d1 ~, Α. Zaitsev-Simovich,
    problem that b5 will allow Leningrad 1962, Υι-Υι, 45) 15 ite2
    ~e2-d4-c6) 14 .Qxa7!? (14 .Qd4 ~d7 (15 ... .Qd7 16 .Qe3 .Qb5 17
    ~c5 15 e5 de 16 fe ~fd7 17 e6 §hc1 §e8 Υι-Υι, Α. Zaitsev-
    ~e5 is unclear) 17 . b6 15 ~b5 Bogdanovic, Sochi 1967) 16 §d1
    4)e8(15: .. ~c516e5)16*c2§c5 .Qb 7 17 ~ce5 *xe2+ 18 <&>xe2
    17 a4 with a very complex position ~xe5 19 fe §fd8 and Black regains
    ίη which Ι feel that White is at least his pawn with an equal ending.
    equal. Α. Zaitsev-Savon, USSR Ch. 1962,
    14 g4 Υι-Υι,30.
    14 *e2?! §ac8 15 g4 ~c5 16 2) 13 ......614 ~xc8 §xc8 15
    FourPawnsAttack 53
    -De5 (15 §e1 -Dd7 16 Φg1 §e8 17 14 ... -Dbd7 might have equalised,
    a4 c4 18 a5 -Dc5 is roughly equal, whiie 13 ... .Q.g4 14 .Q.e2 .Q.xf3 15
    Malich-Garces, Tel Ανίν 1964, ~­ gff5 16.Q.e3-Dbd7 17f4-Df7 18
    ~, 35) 15 ... §d8 16 §e1 *d6 (16 .Q.b5 §e8 19.Q. f2 -Dd6 20 .Q.xd 7
    f6 1-7 -Dg4 h5 18 -De3 f5 19 *xd7 21 .Q.xc5 ι;Iab8 gave Biack
    Φg1 -Dd7 failed Ιο equalίse ίη Α. good play for the pawn ίη. Platonov-
    Zaitsev-Kodos, USSR Ch. 1962, Geller, USSR 1958, 0-1, 40,
    1-0, 31) 17 -Dc4 *f6 18 .Q.e3 -Dc6 aithough 15 .Q.xf3 was roughiy
    with chances of equality according level) 14 -Dxe5 .Qxe5 15 .Q.f4 (15
    Ιο Udovcic. .Qxc4 *h4) 15 .•. *b6+ 16 Φh1
    Ι feel that White has chances Ιο .Q.xc3 17 bc *xb5 18 §b1 *a5 19
    maintain a smaII plus with 1Ο .Q.xb5 .Q.xb8 .Qf5 20 §xf5 §axb8 and
    since even if Black regains his pawn Black is at ieast equai.
    he has a broken pawn structure οη 2) 12 -Dxb5 -Dxe5 13 ο-ο -Dbd7
    the queenside, but ίη practice the 14a4 (14.Qf4*b6 15Φh1 a6 16
    result would probably be a draw. -Dc3 *xb2 17 -Da4 ita3 18 ι;Ic1
    10 de was uncJear ίη Nei-Doda, lenin-
    11 fe -Dg4 grad 1960, 1-0, 34 but simply 15
    . .Q.b7 looks equai) 14 ••• a6 15
    30 -Dd6 ι;Ib8 16 -Dxc8 *xc8 17 -Dxe5
    W .Q.xe5 18 *d3 ι;Ib4 19 *xa6 *b8
    20 h3 c4 with sufficient piay for
    the pawn, Uhlmann-Kavaiek, Halle
    1963,0-1,32.
    3) 12 ο-ο -Dxe5 13 .Q.f4 (13 .Q.xb5
    is 1) 13. ~bd7 14 .Q.xb5 *b6
    15 4)xe5 -Dxe5 16 *d2 a6 17 .Q.e2
    ι;Ie8 18 Φh1.Q.f5 is ievel, Padevsky-
    Sakharoν, Odessa 1968,0-1,34.
    Play diverges: Β1:
    Β1: 12.Q.f4 12 .Q.f4 b4
    Β2: 12.Q.g5 12 .. -Dd7 13 e6 fe 14 de
    Less common alternatives: ι;Ixf4 (14 .•• -Db6? 15 *xd8 ι;Ixd8
    1) 12 .Q.xb5 -Dxe5 13 ο-ο c4 16 -Dg5 was winning for White ίη
    (seems best, as 13 ... .Q.b7 14.Q.f4 Knezevic-Seifert, Hungary 1975 -
    -Dxf3+ 15 ι;Ixf3 .Q.d4+ 16 Φh 1 the game finished 16 ... -De5 17
    .Q.xd5 17 -Dxd5 *xd5 18 ita4 a6 ο-ο a6 18 -Df? -Dxf? 19 ef+ Φf8
    19 .Q.c4 *d7 20 ita3 gaνe White a 20.Q.c7 ι;Id2 21 -De4 ι;Ia7 22.Q.xb6
    dangerous initiative ίη Barczay- .Q.d4+ 23 Φh1 §xe2 24 -Dg5 .Q.b7
    Varnusz, Hungary Ch. 1963 although 25 -Dxh7+ Φg7 26 f8=*+ 1-0)
    54 Four Pαwns Α ttack
    15 *d5 'Iih8 16 itxa8 ~b6 17 31
    -ιtxa 7 .Q.xe6 18 0-0 ~e3 with a
    W
    critical position, Keres-Spassky,
    match 1965. This game has been
    much analysed without commen-
    tators coming tό any clear verdict.
    White might try 19 13ad1 ~xd1 20
    13xd1 Ad4+ 21 'Iih1 b4 22 ~b5
    but Black can hold the balance
    with 22 ... Ad5 23 ~bxd4 cd 24
    ~xd4 13xd4 25 13xd4 Axg2+ 26
    Φxg2 -ιtxd4 27 *e7 h5. The game 14 e6
    continued 19 13f2 b4 20 {)b5 14 Ag5 is an interesting alterna-
    §f7 21 ita5 *1>8 + (22 εle1 Ad5 tive with the variations:
    23 Af1 ~xf1 24 εlfxf1 ~c4 25 1) 14 ... *b6 15 ο-ο ~gxe5 16
    i6'a6 εlf6 26 ita4 ~xb2 27 *c2? ~xe5 ~xe5 17 Ae7 ~d7 18 Axf8
    -ιtxb5 28 13e7 ~d3 29 *e2 c4 30 ~xf8 19 -ιtd2 Ab7 20 Ac4 and
    εle8+ 13f8 31 I3xf8+ Axf8 32 ~g5 White is winning, Peev-Antonov,
    Ac5+ 33 'Iih1 *d7 34 *d2 *e7 Primorsko 1974, 1-0,27.
    35 ~B *e3 0-1 - perhaps the 2) 14 ... ita5 15 ο-ο looks worse
    most famous game ever with the 4Ρ than 1 for Black.
    attack) but 20 ~d1! was critical Black should play either 14 ... f6
    when 20 ... ~g4 21 {)g5! (inten- ΟΓ 14 ..tb6 15 0-0 f6 with a
    ding -ιtxg7+) εlxf2 22 ~xf2 *xg5 double-edged position ίπ both cases.
    23 Axg4 ~c8 24 ita4 .Q.xb2 25 14 fe
    .Q.xe6 .Q.xa 1 26 *e8+ 'Iig7 27 15 de
    *1'7+ 1-0 was Bartis-Szmetan, 15 Ad6 ~e3 (Hartston suggests
    Argentina 1970, but Bondarevsky 15 . εle8 16 de ~b6) 16 *1>3
    gives the improvement 20 ... 13Π ~xg2+ 17 Φf2. c4 18 -ιtxc4 4;Jb6
    21 ita5 (21 -ιtxf7.Q.xf7 22 ~xe3 is good for Black according to
    loses the queenside pawns) 21 Petrayev.
    ~g4 which looks about equal. 15 ..• 13xf4
    13 ~e4 16 *d5 'Iih8
    13 ~b5? a6 14 ~d6 ~xe5! 15 17 *xa8
    .Q.xe5 Axe5 16 ~xf7 (16 ~xc8 17 13d1 εlb8 18 ~xc5 13f5 19
    Axb2 is good for Black) 16 *e4 ~gf6 20 *c4 *e7 21 ed ~xd7
    εlxf7 17 ~xe5 *h4+ 18 g3 'Iie4 22 ~d3 *e3 23 *c7 13f8 24 ~f2
    and Black won, Zhukov-Petrayev, Aa6 25 0-0 εlb7 26 *c6 *xe2
    Tomsk 1967. 27 13fe1 itb5 0-1, Michalev-
    13 ... ~d7 Petrayev, USSR 1967 - just
    FourPuwnsAuock 55
    regaining the piece is not enough Meyer, Uppsala-Bremen 1977,
    since Black retains a powerful 1-0, 29. This lίηe looks promising
    initiative. for White since as compared with
    17 .. , ~b6 the analogous position ίη C Black
    18 'ltc6 has to watch out for his b-pawn
    White cannot take οη a7 ίη this while as the rook is not οη e8
    lίηe as his knight is en prise. Black cannot play .. 4)e3 at any
    18 ... ~3 stage.
    19 g3 (19 Φf2 ~d4 +) 19 ... 2) 13 d6 (ultra sharp!) 13 . . . fg
    ~c2+ (19 . §xf3 20 ~xf3 (13 •. ~e6 14 4)xb5!? fg 15 ~c7
    4)c2+ 21 Φf2 Μ8 22 §ad1 ~d4+ 'ltd7 16 ~xa8 4)e3 17 'ltd2 ~xg2+
    23 Φe2 ~6+ 24 Φd2 b3 25 ab 18 Φd 1 g4 19 4)g5 ~fι6 was very
    4)b4 with fierce complications, complicated ίη Cullinane-Botterill,
    Thanhauser-Gerer, corr.1968, 1-0, Charlton 1979, 1-0, 39 but 14 ef
    46 but if Black is happy with a ~xf6 15 ~xf6 'ltxf6 16 'ltd2 and
    draw he can force it by 21 16 ~b5 are Ρόssίble improvements
    ~d4+ 22 Φg2 ~e3+) 20 Φf1 (20 οη this line, while 13 ••. ~b7 14
    Φf2? 'ltd4+ 21 Φg2 'ltxe4 22 'ltxe4 e6 fg 15 e7 is clearly good for
    §xe4 23 ~d3 §xe6 24 §ac1 4)e3+ ·White) 14 'ltd5+ Φh8 15 'ltxa8
    25 Φf2 c4 0-1, Martin-Botterill, 'ltb6 16 'ltd5 (16 ~d5 'lta5+ looks
    Charlton 1978) 20· ... ι:lf5 (20 ... fine for Black) and now Black has
    §xf3+ 21 ~xf3 4)xa 1 22 ~g5 is a choice between 16 .. ~b7 17
    also very complex) with a highly 'ltd2 c4, 16 ... c4 at once and 16
    unclear position. . 4)e3. Assessment of such a
    82: tactical position is impossible.
    12 Ag5 'ltb6 (32) 12 ... 'lta5 is worse than 12 ...
    12 ... f6 is a major alternative, 'ltb6 since Black does not have-
    with the continuations: counterplay along the a7-g1
    1) 13 ef ~xf6 14 'ltd2 (14 ~xf6 diagonal - after 13 ο-ο both 13
    'ltxf6 and now 15 ~xb5 ~d7 16 . . . b4 14 4)e4 h6 15 Ae 7 4)e3 16
    'lta4? 'lte7+ 17 Φd2 'lte3+ 18 Φc2 'ltd2 ~xf1 17 §xf1 Af5 18 ~f6+
    §f4 19 'lta5 ~f5+ 20 Φb3 §b4+ Φh8 19 4)h4, Polikarpov-Zvori-
    21 Φa3 ~d7 was good for Black ίη kina, USSR 1964, 1-0, 25 and 13
    Martinez-Kavalek, Tel Ανίν 1964, 4)xe5 14 ~e7 IiIe8 15 d6,
    0-1, 36 while Βο leslavsky gives 15 Udovcic-Bertok, Bled 1963, give
    'ltd2 b4 16 4)e4 'lte7 17 4)eg5 'lte3 White a very dangerous attack.
    with equality) 14 ... Af5 154)xb5 13 ο-ο ~xe5
    'ltb6 16 d6 ~c6 17 Ac4+ Φh8 18 Alternatives appear ηο better:
    ο-ο ~a5 19 b3 4)xc4 20 bc with a 1) 13 ... ~d7 14e6 (14~e7~e3
    clear plus for White, Karlsson- 15 'ltd2 ~xf1 16 ι:lxf1 c4+ 17
    56 Four Pawns Α ttack

    32 17 -tιxb5 E!b8 (17 Aa6 is


    impossible here) 18 -tιfd4 "itd5 19
    W
    Axg4 "ltxg5 20 Ae6+ Φh8 21 -tιd6
    with a decisive attack, Zaltsman-
    Kalinsky, USSR 1964, 1-0,33.
    3) 13 ... h6 14 Ae7 -tιe3 15 "itd2
    c4 16 ""h 1 E!e8 17 d6 -tιc6 18
    Ah4 -tιxf1 19 E!xf1 (this may be
    compared with 13 c4+ 14
    ""h1 -tιf2+, the main differences
    being that White has gained the
    ""h1 -tιxe5 is good for Black) 14 ... tempi "itd2 and E!f1, and that
    fe 15 de "ltxe6 16 -tιxb5 Aa6 (16 Black's kingside has been weakened
    -tιe3? 17 "itc1! covering c4 by the move .. h6) 19 ... Ae6
    wins while 16. "itc6 17 -tιd6 20 -tιe4 g5 21 Axg5! hg 22 "ltxg5
    E!b8 18 Ac4+ ""h8 19 -tιπ+ "itd8 23 -tιf6+ Φf8 24 -tιh4 -tιxe5
    Ε!χΠ 20 ΑΧΠ E!xb2 21 E!c1 was 25 "ltxe5 Axf6 26 E!xf6 Ag4 27
    ± ίπ Segal-Hug, Sao Paulo 1973, -tιg6+ Φg7 28 -tιe7 1-0, Sakharov-
    0-1, 36) 17 -tιc7! (17 E!e1 Axb5 Tukmakov, Moscow 1963.
    18 Axb5 -tιde5 19 -tιxe5 -tιxe5 20
    E!c1 Μ5 21 Ah4 ""h8 22 Ae2 33
    E!ae8 was leνel ίπ Grigorian- W
    Podgayets, semi-final USSR Ch.
    1971)17. "itxe2(17 .. Axe2
    18 -tιxe6 Axd 1 19 Ε! fxd 1 Ε!Π 20
    -tιd8! won the exchange ίπ Sosonko-
    Hug, Geneva 1977, 1-0, 49) and
    now 18 -tιxa6 Υ:ι-Υ:ι occurred ί π
    Sosonko-Liberzon, Bad Lauterberg
    1977 but Sosonko later gave 18
    "ltxd7 Ad4+ 19 Φh 1 Ε!Π 20 "itc6! 14 Ae7
    ± as the correct method. 14 -tιxe5! Axe5 15 Ae7 c4+ 16
    2) 13 .. _c4+ 14Φh1 will generally ""h1 leaνes Black ίπ considerable
    transpose to the main lίπe (e.g. trouble, e.g. 16 -tιd7 17 d6
    after 14 -tιxe5) but two ίπ­ (Hartston gives 17 Axf8 -tιxf8 18
    dependent lίπes are 14 -tιf2+ d6 "ltxd6 19 "itxd6 Axd6 20 -tιxb5
    15 E!xf2 "itxf2 16 -tιe4 "itb6, ±) 17 ... Ab 7 18 Af3 Axc3 19 bc
    universally given as .good for White -tιe5 20 Axb 7 "itxb 7 and now
    but unclear ίπ my ορίπίοπ, and White can safely take the exchange,
    14 ... -tιd7 15 e6 fe 16 de "ltxe6 Cobo-Perez, Havana 1965 ΟΓ 16
    Four Pawris Attaek 57

    ... Oe8 17 d6 .A.bi (17 ... .A.xc3 Not 1 Ο *c2? <Dxe4 11 4)xe4
    18 bc .A.e6 19 ,Qf3 4)c6 20 .A.f6 .Q.f5 12 .Q.d3 *e7 13 <D3d2 .Q.xe4
    .A.d7 21 .A.d5 ~f8 22 *d2 1-0, 14 .Q.xe4 f5 with a winning position
    Lerner-Lίvshits, USSR 1963 while for Black.
    19 . 4)d7 20 .A.d5! is also un- 10 ... de
    pleasant) 18 <Dd5 *d4 19 *xd4 1Ο. • <Dfd7 11 ed (11 β6 fe
    .A.xd4 20 <Dc7 <Dd7 21 <Dxb5 .Q.b6 12 de 4)b6 is dubious) 11 ... a6 12
    22 .Q.xc4 +-, Mίlistver-Klovsky, a4- 4)f6 13 ο-ο with an edge for
    Tallinn 1964, 1-0,31. White since Black lacks the natural
    14 ..• c4+ . 4)e8xd6 manreuvre, but Black
    14 ... §e8 15 d6 Ae6 16 <Dd5 might consider this if he wants to
    .Q.xd5 17 <Dxe5 (17 *xd5 c4+ 18 avoid the highly theoretical Iίnes
    Φh1 *c6 19 *d2 4)bd7 20 <Dxe5 which follow.
    <Dxe5 21 .A.f3 was also better for 11 fe <Dg4
    White, Mikenas-Shianovsky, USSR
    Ch. 1962, 1-0,53) 17 ... c4+ 18 34
    §f2 *b 7 19 4)χΠ 4)d7 20.A.f3 with W
    a clear plus according to Mikenas.
    15 Φh1 4)bd7
    Black 's defensive chances are
    better here than after 14 <Dxe5
    since he is now ίπ a position to
    recapture οπ e5 with a knight, e.g.
    161d6.Q.b7 17 <Dd5 (17 <Dxe5 <Dxe5
    18 <Dd5 *c6) 17 .A.xd5 18
    *xd5 <Dg4 19 a4 <Df2+ 20 ~xf2 12.Q.g5
    *xf2 21 .Q.xf8 §xf8 +, Nei- There are some other important
    Gufeld, USSR Ch. 1963,0-1,40 lίnes:
    ΟΓ 16 a4 b4 17 a5 *b8 18 <De4 1) 12 ο-ο <Dxe5 13 .Q.f4 <Dbd7 (13
    <Dxf3 19 .Q.xf3.A.a6 and again Black .. *b6 14 Φh1 *xb2 15 <Da4
    stands well, Udovcic-Vasiukov, *b4 16 .Q.d2 *g4 17 4)xe5 *d4
    Yugoslavia-USSR 1963,0-1,42. 18 <Dxn *xa1 19 <Dh6+ Φh8 20
    Ιη view of the strength of 14 *xa1 +-, Toth-Popov, Budapest
    <Dxe5! it seems that Black must 1965, 1-0, 29 whίle 13 ..• 4)xf3+
    investigate 13 .•. c4+ and 14 ... 14 .Q.xf3 c4 15 *d2 .A.f5 16 Oae1
    <Df2+ ΟΓ 9 ., b5 will be relegated §xe1 17 §xe1 <Dd7 18 d6 <Df6 19
    to the scrapheap. Φh1 also put Black under heavy
    C: pressure ίπ Balogh-Baretic, Wijk
    9 §e8 aan Zee 1974, Υ2-Υ2, 87) 14 d6
    10 e5 <Dxf3+ (14 . §b8 15 4)b5 is
    58 Four Pawns Attack
    good for White, but 14 . '1'61>6 presents Black with absolutely ηο
    may just be possible, for example problems.
    15 ~xe5 ~xe5 16 Aχe5 Aχe5 17 3) 12 e6 fe and now:
    d7 Aχd7 18 -ιtχd7 ..Qxc3 19 3a) 13 ο-ο ed (13 ... !3f8 14..Qc4
    ih<f7+ 'Iih8 and it is doubtful if ed 15 4)xd5 'Iih8 16..Qg5 1td7 17
    White can aim for more than a h3 b5 18 hg bc 19 4)e5 *e8 20
    draw) 15 Aχf3 4)e5 (with . . . a6 !3xf8+ -ιtχf8 21 ..Qe71te8 224)f6!
    and a4 interposed, BotteriII- -ιtχe7 23 1td8+ ..Qf8 24 -ιtχc8 Φg7
    Kraidman, London 1979 continued 25 4)e8+ Φg8 26 !3e1 c3 27 bc c4
    15 ... ..Qd4+ 16 'Iih1 4)e5 17..Qd5 28 *xc4+ 1-0, Sakharoν-Nemet,
    ..Qe6 18 Aχe6 !3xe6 19 4)e4 h6 USSR-Yugoslavia 1963 ΟΓ 13 ...
    20 l!c1 b6?! 21 b4 ±, 1-0,31 and e5 14 d6 with advantage for White,
    ίη the current position this would while 13 . ..Qxc3 14 bc ed 15
    be even more doubtful since White ..Qg5 is very risky for Black) 14
    would have the possibilίty of 4)b5) 4)xd5 (14 ..Qg5? 1td6 15 4)xd5
    16~b5 (161td5'1'61>6 17 1:'Iad1 c4+ ..Qd4+) 14 .. ..Qe6 15 ..Qc4?! (15
    18 'Iih 1 -ιtχb2 19 4)a4 '1'61>4 204)c5 4)f4 -ιtχd1 16 !3xd1 ..Qf7 17 4)g5
    c3 is highly unclear, Matzner- 4)e5 and now 18 ..Qe3?! ..Qc4 19
    Curnow, Hastings ιι 1977, 1-0,30 ..Qf1 ..Qxf1 20 !3xf1 4)g4 21 ..Qxc5
    but the c-pawn must give Black 4)a6 was very good for Black ίη
    good counterplay).. 16 ... ..Qf5 (16 Hodos-Portisch, Lίpeck 1968, 0-1,
    ... !3f8 17 4)c7 !3b8 18 !3e1 4)xf3+ 34 so 18 4)xf7 4)xf7 19 ..Qc4 is
    19 -ιtχf3 -ιtf6 20 4)e8 1td4+ 21 better, with play for the pawn
    ..Qe3 -ιtχb2 22 !3ab1 *c3 234)xg7 although 19 ... ..Qd4+ and 20
    was good for White ίη Balogh- 4)c6-e5 is solίd enough) 15
    Riblί, Hungary Ch 1972) 17 4)c7 4)c6 (15 . . • 4)e5 16 ..Qg5!? 4)xf3+
    4)xf3+ (Szabo suggests 17 ... 4)d3 17 -ιtχf3 -ιtχg5 18 !3ae 1 is unclear)
    as better) 18 -ιtχf3 Aχb2 19 4)xe8 16..Qg5 4)f6 (16 ... 1td7 17 h3
    Aχa1 20 4)c7 ..Qd4+ 21 ..Qe3 !3c8 4)d4 18 4)h4 ..Qxd5 19 -ιtχg4 -ιtχg4
    22 Aχd4 cd 23 -ιtf4 ..Qe6 244)xe6 20 ..Qxd5+ *e6 21 Aχe6+ !3xe6
    fe 25 -ιtΠ+ 'Iih8 26 d7 !3a8 27 also turned out weII for Black ίη
    -ιtχe6 Φg7 28 !3f7+ Φh6 29 -ιth3+ Shulte-Tseitlin, USSR 1962, 0-1,
    Φg5 30 g3 h5 31 -ιth4+ 'Iih6 32 26) 17 4)e5 4)xe5 (17. . ..Qxd5?
    -ιtf4+ 1-0, Szabo-Zuckerman, Las 18 ..Qxf6 Aχf6 19 *xd5+ -ιtχd5 20
    Vegas 1973. Aχd5+ Φg7 21 4)xc6 bc 22 ..Qxc6
    2) 12 ..Qf4 4)xe5 13 4)xe5 (13 ο-ο ..Qxb2 23 l!ab1 is good for White,
    transposing to 1 is better) 13 •.. Kotov-BurehaII, Stockholm 1960,
    ..Qxe5 14 ..Qxe5 !3xe5 15 ο-ο 4)d7 1-0, 33) 18 Aχf6 (18 4)xf6+ ..Qxf6
    16 *d2 'ltg5 was tried ίη Witkowski- 19 ..Qxe6+ !3xe6 20 Aχf6 -ιtχd 1)
    Petrusiak, Poland 1964, but this 18 . . . 4)xc4 19 ..Qxd8 !3axd8 20
    F(Jur Pawns AttaCk 59
    ~e7+ Φh8 21 ~χg6+ hg and with Ilaf8 27 Ilxf5 gf 28 ~d7 ae8 29
    three very active pieces for the ~xc5 b6 and Black is slightIy better,
    queen BIack has much the better of Ι. Grigorian-Kuprechik, Semi-final
    it. USSR Ch. 1970, 0-1, 56.
    3b) 13 d6 JιdiJ(13 . .. ~e5 14 ~e4 2) 14 'ltd2 and now:
    ~bd7 15 ο-ο 'l!tb6 16 Φh 1 itc6 2οι) 14 Jιf5 with the further
    17 itc2 and White retains οιπ υπ­ branch:
    pIeasant bind, Udovcic-Langeweg, 2a1) 15 h3 ~e5 (15 ... Jιχg5 16
    Amsterdam 1963) 14 ο-ο Jιc6 15 *'<g5 and now the Iines 16 ... ~e3
    ~g5 ~e5 16 Jιe3 b6 17 ~ge4 17 itxd8 Ilxd8 18 Φf2 and 16 ...
    ~bd7 and Black has compIeted his itxg5 17 ~xg5 ~e3 18 Φf2 leaνe
    deveIopment with a smal1 pIus, the knight very uncomfortably
    Udovcic-Marovi c, Zagreb 1964. pIaced at e3 so ίπ Kakageldiev-
    12 •.. itb6 Koch, USS R 1969 BIack tried 16
    Or 12 ... f6 (12 ... -ιh5 is wOΓse ... ~e5 17 *xd8 ~xf3+ 18 Φf2
    οπ generaI principIes) 13 ef Jιχf6 §xd8 19 Jιxf3 ~d7 20 §he1 Φf8
    and now there are three moves: but BIack was stil1 worse, 1-0, 44)
    16 0-0-0 ~xf3 17 Jιχf6 ~xd2 18
    35 Jιχd8 ~e4 19 ~xe4 Jιxe4 20 Jιh4
    W Jιxg2 21 Ilhe1 Jιχh3 22 d6 ~d7
    23 Jιc4+ Φg7 24 §e7+ §xe7 25
    de a6 26 Jιe1 Φf6 27 §d3! ~b6
    28 §d6+ 'tixe 7 29 axb6 with οιη
    advantage fOΓ White (anaIysis by
    Bloch).
    2οι2) 15 ο-ο (this has been more
    popuIar ίπ practice) 15 . Jιxg5
    16 itxg5 ~d7 (BIack Ioses a tempo
    1) 14 Jιxf6 itxf6 15 0-0 ~e3 16 by pIaying 16 . ~e3 voIuntarίly
    itd2 ~xf1 17 axf1 (White's idea is and ίη Peev-Janosevic, Nis 1972,
    rather specuIative) 17 .. Jιf5 18 17 *h6! fJιe7 18 Jιb5 Jιd7? 19
    Jιc4 ~d7 19 d6+ Φg7 20 ~d5 *xd6 §ae1Jιχb5 20 ~xb5 ~a6 21~g5
    21 *c3+ ~f6 22 g4 Jιxg4 23 ~g5 ~b4 22 §Π won for White, 1-0,
    Jιf5 24 ~xh7 ah8! (24 ... Φχh7? 34 whίle even the improvements 17
    25 ~xf6+ Φh6 26 *c1+ Φg7 27 . ~xf1 18 ~g5 *e7 19 §xf1
    Ilxf5! *d4+? 28 Φh1 ae3 29 ad5 and 18 . ~d7 give White a very
    itf5 30 Ild7+ Φχf6 31 IlΠ+ Φe5 strong attack) 17 h3 ~e3 18 'lth6
    32 axf4 <tixf4 33 itd2 Ilae8 34 ~xf1 19 ~g5 *e7 20 d6 *e3+ (20
    JιΠ 1-0, Vanin-OkIadnikov, USSR *g7 21 Jιc4+ Φh8 22 ~Π+ is
    1969) 25 itxf6+ *'<f6 26 ~hxf6 ΟΠΙΥ a draw according to Szabo) 21
    60 FourPownsAtwck
    ΦΧf1 ~f8 22 Eld1 Ele5? (22 . Peev-Donner, CΊenfuegos 1973,
    Elad8 23 .Qc4+ .Qe6 24 ~d5 *e5 Jι1-Jι1,35 and now according Ιο
    25 Φg1 was better, but White ςιίll Peev White could have played 21
    has good chances) 23 d7 Eld8 24 d7! Ele5 22 .Q.xg4 .Qxe4 23 Elae1!
    .Qc4+ .Qe6 25 ~xe6! Elf5+ 26 *d4 24 Elxe4 Elxe4 25 ~xe4
    ~f4+ Φh8 27 ~d5 *e4 28 .Qe2 *χe4 26 *g5 *d4 27 *e7 winning.
    ~e6 29 .Qf3 *c4+ 30 Φg1 ~xf4 2d) 14 ~e5 15 0-0-0 ~xf3
    31 ~e3 *e6 32 ~xf5 *xf5 33 Ele1 16 .Qxf6 ~xd2 17 .Qxd8 Elxd8 18
    ~e6 34 .Qg4 1-0, Szabo-Timman, Elxd2 and White has a favourable
    Amsterdam 1975. ending.
    2b) 14 ... .Qxg5 15 itχg5 and now: 3) 14 .Qf4 (there ίς only one practi·
    2b1) 15 .. *xg5 16 ~xg5 ~e3 cal example of this) ~e3 15 .Qxe3
    (16 .. .Q.f5 17 h3 ~e5 ;!;) 17 Φf2 Elxe3 16 ο-ο .Qg4 17 d6 ~c6 18
    .Qf5 (17 {)f5 18 {)e6) 18 ~e6! ~d5 Ele6 19 ~xf6+ Elxf6 20
    .Qxe6 19 de Elxe6 20.Qf3 {)c6 21 *b3+ .Qe6 21 *χb 7 Elc8 22
    {)d5 and White wins the exchange. Elad1 *b6 23 *xb6 ab 24 b3 ±,
    2b2) 15 . ~e3 16 *χd8 Elxd8 Padevsky-Spassov, Bulgaria 1969,
    17 Φf2 ~f5 (17 ... {)g4+ 18 Φg3 1-0,55.
    ~e3 may be marginally better since Obviously more tests of 3 are
    after 19 Elae1 ~f5+ 20 Φf2 ~d7 needed but as all the Iίnes of 2 seem
    21 ~e4 White's rook ίς ηοΙ οη the promising for White, ίι ίς impossible
    optimum square d1 - however Ιο recommend 12 ... f6.
    White developed strong pressure 13 ο-ο (36)
    from this position ίη Forintos- 13 ~a4 *b4+ 14 .Q.d2 *e4 15
    Enklaar, Wijk aan Zee 1974, Jι1-Jι1, ~c3 ttf5 16 ο-ο .Qxe5 17 h3 ιi)f6
    61 and Black had Ιο fight Ιο draw) 18 ~g5 .Qd4+ 19 Φh 1 *e5 20.Qf4
    18 Elad 1 (White adopted a very *e7 21 d6 ttf8 22 ~b5 gave White
    ambitious plan ίη Mikenas-Rytov, a strong attack ίη Kabiev-Podolyni,
    USSR 1969 but after 18 Elhe1 ~d7 corr. 1975, 1-0, 34 but after 13
    19 ~e4 b6 20 .Qb5 a6 21 .Q.c6 Ela7 *a5+ 14 .Qd2 *d8 White
    22 Elad1 Φg7 23 a4 ~f6 White's probably has nothing better than
    bishop was not well placed, 0-1, 15 .Q.g5 when Black can repeat (or
    60) 18 ... ~d7 19 ~e4 b6 20 g4 even try 15 ..• f6).
    ~h6 21 g5 ~f5 22 Elhe1 .Q.b7 23 13 ~xe5
    .Q.b5 Φg7 24 d6 and White is a 13 c4+ (13 . h6 is also
    lίttle better, Bloch-Fedorenko, interesting with Kakageldiev-
    Moscow 1975, 1-0, 33. Lerner, Riga 1972 continuing 14
    2c) 14 ... ~d7 15 ο-ο ~de5 16 ~a4 *c7 15 d6 *c6 16 .Qe7 .Qe6
    .Qxf6 *χf6 17 ~g5 *b6 18 ~ge4 17 ~d4 cd 18 .Qxg4 .Qxg4 19
    c4+ 19 Φh1 .Qf5 20 d6 ~d3, *χg4 *d5 20 ~c5!? with great
    FourPawns Attack 61

    36 17 'l'txb2 (17. . 4}f2+? 18


    §xf2 'l'txf2 19 .Q.xf6 ..ιιxf6 20 4)e4
    Β
    +- ΟΓ 17 ... 4)e3 18 .Q.xe3 'ltxe3
    19 "ιιχc4 ±) 18 'ltc1 (18 4)a4?
    4)f2+! 19 §xf2 4)e4 20 §f1 4)g3+
    21 'llg1 'l'txa1 22 'l'txa1 4)xe2+ 23
    Φf2 .Q.xa1 24 Elxa1 .Q.xe6 25 §e1
    Elac8 26 §xe2 c3 27 .Q.e3 .Q.d7 28
    4)c5 Elxe3 0-1, KakageIdiev-Murei,
    corr. 1972) 18 ... 'l'txc1 19 Elaxc1
    complίcations, 0-1, 37 whiIe Hart- with a compIicated position, e.g. 19
    5ton gives 14 ..ιιf4 as good, which ... 4) h5 20 4) e4 .Q.xe6 21 hg .Q.xg4,
    seems correct if one adds that one sampIe line from many. This
    14 g5 15 ..ιιc1! 4)xe5 16 reIativeIy unexpIored line is perhaps
    4)xe5 ..ιιχe5 17 "ιιh5 gives White a BIack's best chance. FinaIIy 13 ••.
    dangerous attack) 14 Φh1 4)d7 (14 ..ιιf5 14 d6 'ltxb2 transposes Ιο 14
    . 4)f2+ 15 §xf2 'l'txf2 16 4)e4 d6 'ltxb2 beIow after 4)d5 4)xe5.
    *b6 17 4)d6 Elf8 18"ιιe7 4)d7 19 14 d6 (37)
    4)xc4 wins) 15 e6 (15 d64)f2+ 16 This is the current preference.
    §xf2 'l'txf2 and now 17 4)d5 can be The oIder Iίne is 14 4)xe5 ..ιιxe5 15
    met by 17 .. 4)xe5, for exampIe "ιιc4 (15 'ltd2 "ιιf5 16 Elae1 4}d7 17
    18 4)c7 "ιιd7, 18 4)f6+ ..ιιxf6 19 'llh1 4)f6 18 .Q.d3 "ιιΧd3 19 'l'txd3
    "ιιΧf6 4)g4 ΟΓ 18 "ιιe3 4)g4! 19 c4 20 Μ3 h6 21 §xe5 §xe5 22
    4)e7+ Φh8 20 4)g5 4)xe3 21 'ltg1 'ltxf6 'ltxf6 23 ..ιιxf6 Ele3 24 d6
    'l'txg1 + 22 'llxg1 .Q.e6 whiIe 17 4)e4 Eld3 25 Eld1 Ele8 26.Q.e7 1-Q,
    *b6 18 4)f6+ 4)xf6 19 ..ιιxf6 .Q.xf6 Christiansen-Biyiasas, US Open
    20 ef ..ιιe6 is aIso good for BIack, so 1977 was a quick win but after 17
    KouatIy-Povah, Ramsgate 1979 .. .Q.g7 foIlowed by ... 4)e5 BIack
    continued 17 ..ιιxc4 4)xe5 18 4)e4 wouId have had an entireIy satisfac-
    *b6 19 4)xe5 §xe5 20 4)f6+ tory position whiIe 15 .Q.b5 .Q.d7 16
    "ιιΧf6 21 .Q.xf6 §f5 22 ..ιιe7 .Q.d7 Μ3 f5 17 "ιιc4 transposes ιο 1
    23 b3 'ltc5 24 a4 a6 25 'lte2 §f2 beIow) and now:
    26 b4 'ltd4 27 'lte1 Elc8 28 §dl 1) 15 ... "ιιf5 and now:
    'ltg4 29 'ltg1? §xc4 0-1) 15 ... fe 1a) 16 "ιιb5 ..ιιd7 (16 ... c4+ 17
    16 de 4)df6 17 h3 (17 4)d4 ..ιιχe6 Φh1 §c8 18 Μ3 f6 19 §ae1 'ltd4
    18 h3 §ad8 ΟΓ 17 e1?! §xe7 18 20 .Q.f4 'l'txf4 21 'l'txf4 .Q.xf4 22
    4)d5 4)xd5 19 'l'txd5+ .Q.e6 20 'lte4 Elxf4 4)a6 23 g4 .Q.d3 24 .Q.xa6 ba
    §c7 21 §ad1 §f8 22 h3 4)f6 23 25 Elxf6 with a winning ending,
    'lth4 .Q.d5 24 .Q.f4 §e7 +, Jones- Mikenas-VIadimirov, semi-fιnal
    Povah, British Ch. 1979, 1-0,41) USSR Ch 1963, 1-0,42) 17 -Μ3 f5
    62 FourPawnsAttack
    at once 21 §f1 then 21 ... -tld7 22
    37
    *χh7 J;te6 seems Ιο be the only
    Β
    defence, precarious though ίι is -
    unfortunately Yudovich doesn't
    mention this move) 21 ... Ag7 22
    mention this move) 21 Ag7
    22 Axg7+! (22 J;tf1 c4+ 23 ""h1
    'ltf2! is a draw) 22 ""xg7 23
    *xe8 c4+ 24 ""h1 *xd6 (24
    'ltf2 25 d7 J;txa2 26 J;te1 ~c6 27
    d8='11' -tlxd8 28 ae7+ Φf6 29 'ltf8+
    (Ι 7 ... f6 was also effective after ""g5 30 *87+ mates) 25 §e1 §a6
    18 a4 Axb5 19 ~xb5 ~d7 20 d6 26 §e7+ Φf6 27 *f8+ ""g5
    *c6 21 Ah6 *χf3 22 J;txf3 J;tad8 28 *88+! *g6 29 J;tg7 wins.
    23 ~c7 Ad4+ 24 ""h1 §e4 +, 1c) 16 d6 *χd6 17 *χd6 Aχd6 18
    Kakageldiev-Zaid, USSR 1973, -tld5 Ae5 19 -tle7+ J;txe7 20.A.χe7
    0-1, 33) 18 Ac4 *χb2 19 d6+ Aχb2 21 §ae1 Ad4+ 22 ""h1 ~c6
    ""h8 20 J;tac1 Ac6 21 *113 ~d7 +, Mikenas-Damjanovic, Sofιa
    22 ~e2 .A.χd6 23 J;tcd1 Ae5 and 1962,0-1,48.
    Black consolidated his extra 2) 15 ... *xb2 16d6Af5(16 ...
    material, Nei-CΊocaltea, Zinnowitz J;tf8 is safer, when 17 -tlb5 *χa 1 18
    1966,0-1,37. 'ltf3 *b2 19 ΑχΠ+ Φg7 20 Ae7
    1b) 16 ~b5 a6 (16 ... J;tf8 17 a4 Af5 21 .A.χf8+ ΦχΠ 22 Ah6~c6
    'lta5 18 Ae7 ~d7 19 ~d6 Axd6 left White with insufficient attack
    20 Axd6 Υι-Υι, Sahovic-Didishko, ίη Gorovaia-Kiatkovskia, USSR
    USSR 1973 but simply 19 Axf8 1970,0-1,30) 17 §xf5 (17 ΑΧΠ+
    must be a Iittle better for White at ΦΧΠ 18 axf5+ is less accurate
    the very least, but 16 . ~d7 is since 18 ... ""g7! 19 d7 ~xd7
    a sensible alternative with Kupka- 20 *χd7+ Φh8 is unclear) 17 ... gf
    Ι. Zaitsev, Moscow-Prague 1968 18 ΑχΠ+ ΦχΠ? (18 Φf8!
    continuing 17 a4 f6 18 Ah6 Ad4+ 19 Axe8 'ltxc3 20 Ae7+ ""xe8
    19 ""h1 a5 20 §xf5 gf 21 Ad3 21 *115+ Φd7 22 *xf5+ is a draw)
    Ae3 +, Υι-Υι, 41 - Κapengut gives 19 -.th5+ Φf8 20 §f1 Ad4+ 21
    18 a5 *d8 19 Ah6 = as an im- Φh1 l!e6 (21 .,. 'ltf2 fails Ιο 22
    provement) 17 d6 ab 18.Α.χΠ+ Ae7+) 22 I!xf5+ Af6 23 Ah6+Φg8
    ΦχΠ (18 ... Φg7 19 Aχe8 Ad4+ 24 *g5+ Φf7 25 J;txf6+ axf6
    20 ""h1 *χd6 21 .A.χb5 ~c6 22 26 .g7+ ""e6 27 *e7+ 1-0,
    .d2 ±, Vasier-Kozlov, USSR 1971, Vladimirov-Doda, Leningrad 1967.
    1-0,32) 19 J;txf5+ gf (19 ... Φg7 3) 15 ... *b4 16 *b3 (16 'ltf3
    20 d7) 20 *115+ Φf8 21 Ah6+ (if Af5 17 g4 and now not 17 . . .
    *xc4? 18 gf f6 19 fg hg 20 Axf6 4:)bd7 17 4:)xa8§xa8 = is given by
    4:)d7 21 Axe5 4:)xe5 22 *f6 b5 Minev while Bloch suggests 16 §c1)
    23 §f4 *d3 24 §af1 *h3 254:)e4 16 ... §xe7 17 de 4:)bc6 18 §c1
    *d7 26 *g5 1-0, Szabo-Pietzsch, (after 18 Φh1 Black should trans-
    Salgotarjan 1967 but 17 ... *xb2! pose by 18 ... §e8 19 §c1 since
    and Black stands very well as 18 18 ... 4:)xf3 19 Axf3 *xa 1 loses to
    4:)e2 Ad4+ is crushing) 16 ... Af5 20 Axc6! threatening 21 *d8+)18
    17 d6 *xb3 18 ab Axd6 (18 . . .. §e8 19 Φh1 (19 §c5? and 19
    Ad4+?! 19 Φh1 Axc3 20 bc Ae6 *d6? are both met by 19 ... 4:)xf3+
    21 §ae1 4:)d7 22 Ab5 a6 23 Axd7 20 Axf3 *d4+) 19 ... h6 (19 ...
    Axd7 24 §e7 was ;!; ίπ Forintos- 4:)xe7 20 4:)xe5 *xe5 21 Ac44:)c6
    Gudmundsson, Reykjavik 1974 but 22 *b3 Ae6 23 Axe6 *xe6 24
    Black played 24 ... §xe7? 25 de' *xb7with an unclear po'sition, Peev-
    +- and 1-0, 41) 19 4:)d5 4:)d7 20 Makropoulos; Bulgaria-Greece 1973
    §xf5 (20 Ab5 §e5 21 §ad1 Ac2 but Black went downhill quickly:
    is also good for Black) 20 ... gf 21 24 ... 4:)b4? 25 §xc5 4:)d3 26 §c2
    Ab5 Ae5! 22 Axd7 §ed8 23 Axd8 Ad4 27 Ah4 Ab6? 28 §e2! 1-0)
    §xd8 244:)e7+ (24 §d1 is met by 20 Ah4.4:)xe7 21 4:)xe5 *xe5 22
    24 . Ad4+ 25 Φf1 Φf8!) 24 ... Ab5 4:)c6 23 §e1, Peev-Sikora,
    Φf8 25 Axf5 Φχe7 26 §xa7 Φf6 Moscow 1977,1-0,37 and now 23
    27 Axh:r b5 with a tiny plus for ... *b8 was unclear.
    Black, Janosevic-Forintos, Vrnjacka 1b) 15 ... 4:)xf3+ 16 Axf3 *xa1
    Banja 1973, Υ2-Υ2, 47. (16 ... *d4+ 17 *xd4 Axd4+ 18
    Thus 14 4:)xe5 has fallen out of Φh 1 Axa 1 19 §xa 1 see below ΟΓ
    favour ίπ view of lίne 3. 16 ... 4:)c6 17 Af6! 4:)d4 18 §b1
    λfter 14 d6 we have the foIiowing *xa2 19 Axg7 Φxg7 20 4:)c7 ±,
    variations: Anetbaiev-Petkevic, USS R 1974,
    1-0, 36) 17 *xa 1 (17 4:)e7 + Φh8
    38 18 *xa1 Axa1 19 Uxa1 4:)d7 20
    Β ae1 also proved effective ίπ Vaiser-
    Grigoriadis, Odessa 1977 after 20
    ... §f8 21 Ah6 §d8 22 Ad2 f6
    23 Ac3 af8 24 4:)d5 ab8 25 Ag4
    b5 26 Axd7 Axd7 27 §e7 1-0
    but it is interesting to note that
    Vaiser did not repeat 17 4:)e7+
    when given the chance to do so)
    17 . Axa1 18 §xa1 (as noted
    1) 14 ... *xb2 15 4:)d5 and now: above Black could alSό have the
    1a) 15 ... Af5 16 4:)e7+ (164:)c7 White king οπ h1 if he wi~hed) 4:)d7
    64 FourPownsAtwck
    19 A-e7 (19 ~c7?! ι:le5 20 A-d8 seems to haνe ηο way out.
    ι:lb8 21 ~d5 Φf8 22 A,c7 §a8 3) 14 otIxf3+ 15 A,xf3 A,d4+
    dissipated White's adνantage ίη (15 . c4+ 16 Φh1 itχb2 is an
    Kouatly-Baart, Groni ngen 19761 interesting idea since after 17 otId5
    7, 1-0, 42) 19 . §b8 20 ~c7 itχa1 18 itχa1 A.xa1 19 §xa1
    §f8 21 §e1 c4 22 A,xf8 ~xf8 23 ~d7 we haνe line 1 b but with
    §e8 c3, Vaiser-Hodos, USSR 1978 Black haνing the extra tempo ...
    and now amongst other Iines 24 c4 - Ι doubt if this should make a
    A-e4 A,f5 25 §xb8 A.χe4 26 ~e6! Iarge difference but it is worth
    fe 27 d7 c2 28 §xf8+ Φg7 29 noting that this happened ίη Mayer-
    §f1 wins (this works eνen if the AnageIdieν~ Moscow 1977 and
    king is οη h1). BIack went οη to win this game)
    The conclusion is that 1 b is 16 Φh1 itχd6 17 A.d5 and now:
    almost +- while 1a may just enable
    Black to hang οη, but ίη practice
    39
    White has scored 100% here too.
    Β
    2) 14 .. ~bd7 15 A,b5 (15 ~d5
    itχb2 16 §b1! ~xf3+ 17 A,xf3
    'ltd4+ 18 Φh1 §b8 19 ~e7+ Φh8
    20 ~xc8 is νery good for White but
    15 itχd6!? 16 ~f6+ 'ltxf6 17
    A-xf6 A,xf6 is perhaps ηοΙ com-
    pIeteIy clear, for exampIe 18 A,b5
    ~xf3+ 19 itχf3 A,d4+ 20 Φh 1
    ~e5) 15 §e6 16,A,e7 ~xf3+
    17 itχf3 A,d4+ 18 Φh1 ~e5 19 3a) 17 ... A.e6 18 A.xb7 ~d7 19
    itf4 A.χc3 20 'lth6! A,d7 (20 A.χa8 §xa8 20 otIb5 'ltb6 21 otIxd4
    ~d7? 21 §xf7! ΦχΠ 22 §f1+ cd 22 b3 A.f5 23 'ltd2?! (23 itf3!
    §f6 23 'ltxh 7 + Φe6 24 A,c4+ Φe5 shouId win) 23 f6?! (23
    25 A.χf6+ Φχd6 26 A.xc3 +-) 21 A.e4! wouId haνe put υρ a real
    A.χd7 ~xd7 22 bc with a νery fight) 24 A.h4 ~e5 25 A,f2 ι:ld8
    strong attack, for exampIe 22 26 A.g1 .Q.e4 27 §ad1 ~d3 28 'lte2
    §xd6? 23 itf4 ΟΓ 22 ... f5? 23 otIc5 29 A.χd4 §c8 30 'ltc4+ Φg7
    §xf5 ΟΓ 22 ., ~e5? 23 §ae1 ~g4 31 itχc5 1 -ο, Knezeνic-TrapI,
    24 itf4 ΟΓ 22 ... 'ltb2 23 itf4 ~e5 Decin 1976.
    24 §ae1 'ltxc3 25 A.f6 ~d3 26 3b) 17 ... A.f5 18 A-xb7 otId7 19
    A.χc3 otIxf4 27 §xf4 §xd6 28 g4 A.χa8 §xa8 20 ~b5 'ltb6 21 ~xd4
    with good winning chances ΟΓ cd and BIack is a tempo υρ over 3a
    finaIIy 22 ... §e5 23 §xf7 ΦΧΠ but eνen so 22 itf3! (preνenting
    24 'ltxh7+ Φe6 25 §d1 and BIack ... A.e4) giνes White a clear plus.
    Four Pawns Α ttock 65
    3c) 17 ... ~e6 18 itf3 f5 (18 ... giνen by Knezeνic but Black's
    'fιc719 ~b5 'fιd7 20 .Qxe6 'fιxe6 position looks eνen worse than
    21 fί1c7 and 18 ... 'fιd7 19 he6 this to me.
    *xe6 20 ~e1 win for White) 19 Ο:
    Elae1 .Qd7 and either 20 ~b5 ΟΓ 9 Ele8
    20 he6+ he6 21 *xb 7 enables 10 fί1d2
    White to win.
    4) 14 ... .Qe6 and now: 40
    4a) 15 .Qb5 is best met by 15 Β
    ~bc6 rather than 15 ... ~bd7 when
    16 .Qxd7 ~xd7 17 ~d5 .Qxd5 (17
    . .Qd4+ 18 ~xd4 .Qxd5 19 ~f5)
    18 *xd5 ΟΓ 16 ... .Qxd7 17 fί1d5
    fί1xf3+ 18 'fιxf3 *xd6 19 Elad1
    giνes White dangerous thfeats.
    4b) 15 fί1d5 .Qxd5 16 *xd5 fί1bd7
    17 Elad1 (17 ~xe5 fί1xe5 18 d7
    ~xd7 19 Elxf7 flops to 19 ... 'fιe6 Now Black has a wide νariety of
    while after other 19th moνes White different Iines:
    remains a pawn down) is a sugges- Ο1: 10 ... c4
    tion of Bloch. Ο2: 10 ... b6
    4c) 15 ~xe5 (the most natural Ο3: 10 ... a6
    moνe, making the exchange before Ο4: 10 ... fί1g4
    Black arranges to recapture with a Ο5: 10 ... fί1a6
    knight) 15 ... .Qxe5 16 ~d5 *xb2 For 1Ο •• ~bd7 11 ο-ο see the
    (16 ... .Qxd5? 17 'fιxd5 .Qd4+ 18 comments at the end of Ο3
    Φh1 Elf8 19 Elxf7 wins for White D1:
    whίle 16 .. .Qd4+ 17 'fιxd4 cd 10 c4
    18 fijxb6 ab 19 .Qb5 ~c6 20 a4 11 a4
    gaνe White a small but enduring 11 .Qf3 (11 .Qxc4 ~xe4 is also
    endgame plus ίη Peeν-Vogt, Varna good for Black) ~bd7 12 ο-ο b5!
    1973, 1-0,41) 17 ~f6+ .Qxf6 18 13 Φh1 a6 14 a4 Elb8 15 ab ab
    .Qχf6 is untested but ίη my νiew was already goodfor Black ίη
    White's black square pressure and Pomar-Fischer, Haνana 1966,0-1,
    passed pawn proνide more than 41.
    enough compensation for the two 11 ... fί1bd7
    pawns. 12 ο-ο ~c5
    5) 14 .. c4+ 15 Φh1 ~d3 16 12 ... a6 transposes to D3 .
    .Qxd3 cd 17 *xd3 .Qe6 18 Elac1 13 .Qf3
    'fιa6 19 *xa6 ba 20 Elfd 1 ;!; is 13 e5 de 14 fijxc4 e4 15.Qe3
    66 Four P((Wns Attock
    4)d3 16 Aχd3 ed 17 itxd3 Af5 18 after 14 . . . •c7 15 e5 de 16 fe
    itd2 1Ic8 19 b3 is an interesting <tIfd7 17 <tIxc4 '<tIxe5 18 d6 .d8
    line since Black has few possible 19 Ae3 <tIxc4 20 Aχc5 Ae5 21
    devIations. Hartston considered ~e1 .Ω.g7 22 ~e7 Af8 23 <tId5
    that Black had good play for the <tIxd6 24 <tIf6+ 1-0 whίle 14 ...
    pawn but despite the opticaIIy Ad7 15 e5 de 16 fe ~xe5 17
    impressive Black position it is hard <tIxc4 is an improved version of Iίne
    to see how his initiative can be put 3 with White's Φh1 more use than
    to any use and ίπ Pomar-Toran, ... a6) 14 ... Ag4! 15 4)χc4 Axf3
    Palma 1966 White won ίπ 40 moves. 16 gf 1Ic8 and ΒΙ ack has reasonable
    After 13 Af3 Black has the chances for the pawn. Ιη Pavlutin-
    foIIowing possibilities: Shivodov, USSR 1967 17 a5 <tIh5
    18 Ad2 Ad4+ 19 Φg2 f5 20 ef
    ιth4 21 fg 1Ie7 22 ~ae1 ~χe1 23
    gh+ Φh8 24 Aχe1 <tIxf4+ 25 Φh1
    .h3 26 ~f2 <tIcd3 27 4)xd6 <tIxf2+
    0-1 was the dramatic fιnish.
    3) 13 Ad7 (relatively best,
    simply developing and preparing
    1Ic8) 14 e5 de 15 fe ~xe5 16
    <tIχc4 ~e8 17 Ag5 (Ι prefer 17 Af4)
    17. h6 18 Ah4 Af5 with a
    double-edged position, Gutman-
    1) 13 •.• Ah6 14 *c2 <tId3 (14 ... Petkevic, USSR 1967, 0-1,41.
    Aχf4 15 <tIxc4 Aχc1 16 1Iaxc1 is 4) 13 . .c7 14 e5 de 15 fe
    good for White as 16 .. ~αι7 is .xe5 16 <tIxc4 .b8 17 Ae3 b6
    met by 17 <tIb5) 15 ~xc4 <tIxc1 16 18 Ad4 Af5 19 d6 is already
    itxc1 Ag4 (16 ... Ad7 17 b3 *c7 winning for White, Padevsky-Peev,
    18 .e3 also failed to give Black Varna 1968, 1-0, 32. Ι find it hard
    enough for the pawn, Padevsky- to recommend Iίnes involving an
    CΊocaltea, Havana 1966, )/;ι-)/;ι, 42) early ... c4 by Black. The need to
    -and now Boleslavsky gives a loπg defend this weak pawn by tactical
    analysis concluding that Black has threats imposes too great a burden
    enough for the pawn, starting with οη Black when his development is
    17 Aχg4 <tIxg4 18 *d1. However not yet complete.
    after 17 .d1 at once Ι cannot see Ο2:
    how Black justifies his play. 10 b6
    2) 13 ... a6 14.c2 (14Φh1100ks 11 ο-ο Aa6
    more effective - ίη Conquest- Another dubious system which
    Povah, England 1980 White won does Iίttle for Black's development.
    Four·Pawns Attack 67

    White can play: ±, Freidstein-Landraf,corr. 1967,


    1) 12 a4 Axe2 13 'ltxe2 a6 (13 ... 1-0, 40) 12 ... 'fth4+ 13 g3 'ltxg4
    ~xe4 14 ~dx-e4 f5 15 *d3 fe 16 14 'ltxg4 Axg4 15 Φf2 (Gligoric's
    ~xe4 threatening ~g5-e6 as well as suggestion 15 h3 is inet by 15 ...
    f5 is good for White) 14 *f3 §a7 Af5!) 15 ... Ad4+ 16 Φg2 ~d7
    15 ~c4 §d7 (15 ... *e7 16 §e1 17 h3 Axc3 18 bc Ae2 19 ~e"
    ~fd7 17 Ad2 f6 18 f5 with an Ad3 20 ~e3 c4 21 Aa3 ~b6,
    immense attack, Malich-Bogdan- Pomar-Szabo, Wijk aan Zee 1967,
    ovic, Sarajevo 1965, 1-0, 39) 16 0-1, 42, and now 22 Axd6 ~xd5
    Ad2 b5 17 ab ab 18 ~xb5 ~xe4 23 §xd3! cd 24 c4 with a black-
    19 Aa5"fιe7 20 f5 ±, Α. Ζaίtseν- square blockade is best, with a
    Zhuravylev, USSR 1965, 1-0, 24. likely draw.
    2) 12 Axa6 ~xa6 13 §e1 *d7 14 2) 11 .. ~bd7 120-0 §b8 (12
    ~f3 §ad8 15 Ad2 ~b4 16 §e2 ... c4 leads to the main line, but Ι
    ~d3 17 ~e1. ~xe1 18 *xe1 b5 regard 12 ... §b8 as more reliable)
    was fine for Black ίη Uhlmann- and now:
    Szabo, Sarajevo 1963, Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 34.
    3) 12 ~e1 Axe2 13 'ltxe2 (13 42
    ~xe2 was also good enough for W
    an edge after 13 a6 14 a4,
    Udovcic-Gligoric, Bled 1963 and
    13 ~a6 14 ~f3 ~c7 15 e5,
    MaIίch-Bogdanovic, DDR 1965,
    Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 46) 13 .. a6 14 a4 §a7
    15 *d3 §ae7 16 ~f3 b5 17 ab ab
    18 *xb5 ~xe4 19 §xe4 §xe4 20
    ~xe4 §xe4 21 Ad2 and White is
    better, Α. Zaitsev-Kondali, USSR- 2a) 13 Φh1 c4?! (imaginative but
    Yugoslavia 1966, 1'-ο, 37. It seems probably not as good objectively as
    that 12 a4 is the most convincing 13 . *c7 when 14 a5 is about
    line for White. equal wh i1e 14 *c2 transposes to 2b)
    D3: 14 e5! (14 Axc4 ~c5 15 *f3
    10 ... a6 Ag4 16"l6g3 b5 17 ab ab 18 Axb5
    11 a4 c4 ~cxe4 19 ~dxe4 ~xe4 20 ~xe4
    Or §xe4 21 *xg4 ~xb5 leads to a
    1) 11 ... ~g4 12 Axg4 (12 ~c4! is drawish position) 14 . de 15
    logical but relatively untested, its ~xc4 b5!? 16 ab ab 17 ~xe5?
    only outing being highly successful: (17 ~d6! wins the exchange for
    12 ... Axc3+ 13 bc §xe4 14 ο-ο inadequate compensation) 17 . . .
    f5 15 a5 ~f6 16 ~b6 §a7 17 Af3 b4 18 ~b5 (18 ~c6 bc 19 ~xd8
    68 FourPawnsAttack
    cb, 20 .Qxb2 IΞixb2 with three Black and 15 .Qxc4 is, of course,
    pieces for the queen is at least similar to 14 Φh1?! immediately
    equal for Black) 18 .. ~xe5 19 above, while the horribie moves 14
    fe IΞixe5 20 .Q.f4 ~xd5 21 .Qc4 g4 and 14 lΞia2 have also been tried,
    .Q.e6 22 .Qxe5 .Q.xe5 =+= 23 *e2 *&5 not surprisingly without success) 14
    24 .Qxd5 .Q.xd5 25 1Ξia5 IΞic8 26 ... b5 15 ab ~xb6 and Black has
    ~a7 *h4! 27 *xe5 *f2! 0-1, a good game, for example 16 ~c4
    Larsen-Ljubojevic, Milan 1975. ~xc4 17 .Q.xc4 IΞib4 18 ~a2 IΞixc4!
    2b) 13 *c2 and now: 19 *xc4 IΞixe4· 20 *c2 .Q.f5 =+=,
    2b1) 13 b5!? 14 ab ab 15 Twine-Nunn, Oxford 1975, 0-1,
    .Q.xb5 (15 ~xb5 ~xd5) 15 ... ~g4 32 ΟΓ 16 .Qf3 c4 17 Φh1, Walden-
    16 ~c4 .Q.d4+ 17 Φh 1 ~xh2 18 Νυππ, Exeter 1979,0-1, 32 when
    .Qe3 ~xf1 19 IΞixf1 .Qxc3 20 bc 17 .. .Qb 7! foIIowed by ... IΞibc8
    IΞixb5 21 ~xd6 1Ξia5 22 ~xe8 defending the queen allows Black
    *xe8 with an extra piece, Schinzel- to continue with the thematic .
    Filipowicz, Poland Ch. 1973, 0-1, ~fd7-c5. Instead Ι played 17 ...
    27. ~fd7? at once and after 18 ~d1!
    2b2) 13 . b6 (ποι 50 good) 14 .Q.b7 19 ~b3! White had activated
    IΞib1?! (14 Φh1 ;1;) c4!? 15 Φh1 his knight οη a5 with a clear plus.
    (the critical lίπe was 15 ~xc4 b5 3) 11 ... b6 12 ο-ο transposes Ιο
    16 ab ab 17 ~xd6 *b6+ 18 Φh1 variation 1a οη page 33.
    *xd6 19 e5 with a double-edged 12 ο-ο ~bd7
    position) 15 .. b5 16 ab ab 17 and now:
    b4 cb 18 IΞixb3 b4 19 ~b5 ~c5
    20 IΞixb4 ~xd5 and Black is better, 43
    ΉerπaπdeΖ-Velimίrονίc, Havana W
    1971,0-1,31.
    2b3) 13 ... 'lιc7 14 a5 (other Iίnes
    are 14 Φh1?! c4! 15 .Qxc4 b5 16
    ab ab 17 .Qd3 b4 18 ~d1 *xc2
    19 .Q.xc2 ~c5 20 ~f2 b3 21 .Qb1
    Aa6 +, Dommes-Osnos, Leningrad
    Ch. 1960,0-1,64, 14 h3?! c4 15
    ~xc4 b5 16 ab ab and now 17 ~e3
    b4 18 ~b5 *xc2 19 ~c2 ~xe4 =+= 1) 13 .Q.xc4 ~c5 ίς entirely satisfac-
    is Purdy-Hartoch, Siegen 1970,0-1, tory for Black. After 14 *f3 he
    32 whίle 17 e5 de 18 de~xe5 19 may play either 14 .... ~g4 ΟΓ 14
    ~xe5 *xe5 20 .Qf4 'lιd4+ = ίς analy- . . . .Qg4 with a good game, whi le
    sis by Maric to which one may add 14 *c2 ~g4 15 ~f3 *b6 16 Φh1
    that 17 .. bc! looks better for .Qxc3 17 bc ~xe4 is very unpleasant
    Four Powns Α ttock 69
    for White. note that attempting" to win the c.
    2) 13 ~xc4 ~xe4' 14 ~xe4 ~xe4 pawn by 14 *e2 rebounds after
    15 .Δ.d3 ~d4 :Ι:, Cvetkovic-Suetin, 14 ~c5 15 *xc4 (15 oΌxc4
    Yugoslavia-USSR, 1969,0-1,41. ~cxe4) 15 .b5!? 16ab (16*e2
    3) 13 e5 de 14 ~xc4 ~b6 (14 ... b4 followed by taking οπ e4) 16
    e4? 15 .Δ.e3 paralyzes Black and *b6 17 Φh1 ab winning
    14 ... ef 15 .Δ.xf4 ~f5 16 a5 was material.
    clearly good for White ίπ Schmidt- 5) 13 Φh1 and now 13 . §b8
    Karlsson, Vrnjacka Banja 1981, but transposes to lίηe 2a οη page
    0-1, 31 after a swindle) 15 fe 65, 13 ... oΌc5 14 e5 (14 .Δ.f3!
    ~g4 (15 ~fxd5 16 ~d6 is is Conquest-Povah again) 14 ...
    dubious, e.g. 16 ~xc3 17 bc de 15 oΌxc4 (for 15 fe, but with·
    Ae6 18 ~xε8 *xe8 19 *d4 ~d7 out ... a6 and a4, see below)
    20.Δ.f4 ι::Ic8, Sahovic-Henley, Lοπε 15 .. ef(15 ... oΌfe4!?) 16.Δ.xf4
    Ρίπε 1978, 1-0, 67 and now 21 4)fe4 17 4)xe4 oΌxe4 18 ι;Ia3
    ~ab1 ~c5 22 a5 ± is correct, ..Q.d7 19..Q.f3 b5, Garcia-Tatai,
    while 16 . ..Q.xe5 is well met by Camaguey 11 1974, 1-0, 37,
    17 ~xΠ ΟΓ 17 ~xd5) 16 ~d6 (16 was = and 13 ... *c7 is untried
    ε6 is untried, but 16 fe 17 but probably best.
    Axg4 ~xc4 looks an adequate The following note is directed
    reply) 16 . ..Q.xe5 17 ~xe8 *h4 at readers who have arrived ίη
    (17 .. .Δ.xh2+? 18 Φh1 *h4 19 this chapter by transposition from
    ..Q.g5! *xg5 20 ..Q.xg4 .Δ.e5 21 *f3 chapter 1 as a result of 6 e4 g6 7
    f5 22 ι::Iae1 ..Q.d4 23 *f4 hg4 24 oΌf3 Ag7 8 Ae2 ο-ο 9 ο-ο §e8
    *xg4 fg 25 oΌf6+ hf6 26 ι::Ixf6 10 ~d2 ~bd7 1.1 f4, which is the
    1-0, Gligoric-Nieevski, Rovinj- same as 1Ο ~bd7 11 ο-ο
    Zagreb 1970) 18 h3 itg3 19 hg4 occurring ίπ the stem position of
    *h2+ 20 Φf2 itg3+ 21 Φg1 *h2+ lίπe D from this chapter. The
    22 Φf2 itg3+ Υ2-Υ2, Ρορον­ difference between this and D3
    Spassov, Bulgaria Ch. 1972, above is the omission of ... a6 and
    Taimanov-Tal, Suhumi 1972 and a4. There are very few examples of
    Magerramov-Chekhov, Daugavpils this ίπ practice but my impression
    1978. The popularity of this quick is that if Black wants to play a
    draw seems to have waned ίπ system based οπ ... c4 this is the
    recent years. Τοο exciting perhaps! best place to try it, for example
    4) 13 .Δ.Β is best met by 13 ... 11 ... c4 12 Φh1 (12.Δ.f3 can now
    *c7, since 13. oΌc5 14 Φh1 be met with 12 ... b5 while
    transposes to Conquest-Povah οπ 12 ..Q.xc4 oΌc5 13 e5 de 14 fe
    page 66. After 13 ... *c7 14 ~xe5 15 4)f3 ι::Ie8 16 Φh1 a6
    Φh1 chances are roughly equal, but 17 a4 4)ce4 was equal ίπ Toth-
    70 Four Pawns Attack
    Velίmirovic, Budva 1981, 0-1, Scheltinga-Spanjaard, Hίlversum
    14) 12 ... ~c5 13 e5 (13 *c2? 1956) 17 . . . Axe4 18 4)c3 (18
    ~fxe4 14 ~cxe4 Af5 15 Af3 ~xd6 Axd5 strands the knight) and
    'fιe 7 16 §e 1 Aχe4 17 Axe4 Black has enough compensation for
    f5 + but 13 ~f3 is still critical - his slίght material deficit. This is
    Black might try 13 ... b5 14 a Iίttle-known but intriguing vari-
    ~xb5 ~fxe4 15 ~xc4 Af5 with ation.
    some play for the pawn) de 14 fe Ο5:
    (14 ~xc4 ~fe4! is recommended 10 ... ~a6
    by Cvetkovic, whίle 14. ~f is 11 O-Q 4)c7
    similar to Garcia-Tatai above) 14 Or 11 ... ab8 and now:
    . . §xe5 15 ~xc4 §f5 16 Af3 1) 12a44)c7 (12 ... ~b4 13Af3
    ~g4! (16 ... b6? 17 ~e3 §e5 18 b6 14 4)c4 A.a6 15 *b3 §b7
    b4 ~ce4 19 4)xe4 4)xe4 20 Ab2 foIiowed by' §be7 gave Black a
    §e8 21 Axg7 Φχg7 22 d6 ±, good position ίη Rubinetti-Garcia,
    Kelecevic-Bistris, Sarajevo 1980, Buenos Aires 1964, 0-1, 23) 13
    1-0, 36) 17 4)e3 ~xe3 18 Axe3 Φh1 a6 (13 ... b6 14Af3 b6 15
    b6 19 *c2 Aa6 20 §fd1 Ae5 21 §f2 4)d7 16 ~f1 Aχf1 17 §xf1 a6
    Ad4 *h4 22 Axe5 §xe5 with a 18 *c2 b5 was also fίne for Black
    double-edged position, Ritov-Tal, ίη Ermenkov-Martinovic, Vrnjacka
    Tallinn 1979,0-1,34. Banja 1-978, 1-0, 34) 14 a5 Ad7
    Ο4: 15 Af3 ~b5 16 e5 de 17 fe §xe5
    10 . . . 4)g4 18 4)c4 af5 19 4)e3af4 20 4)e2
    This is similar to 1Ο ••• a6 11 ah4 21 g3 ae4 22 Aχe4 ~xe4 23
    a4 4)g4 ίη Ο3 but as Black has not ~f4 ~d4 24 Φg2 *e7 25 §e1 h5
    weakened b6 the strong reply 12 26 §a3 §e8 27 ~e2 Ah3+ 28
    4)c4! isnot effective here. Φχh3 ~g5+ 0-1, Ufimtsev-Tal,
    11 Axg4 *h4+ USSR 1967. Another game by the
    12 g3 *xg4 13 *xg4 Aχg4 14 master.
    ~b5 (or else White has nothing) 14 2) 12 §e1 ~c7 13 a4 b6 and now
    ... 4)a6! 15h3(154)xd6~b4 16 14 Af3 transposes to 13 Af3 ί n the
    ~xe8 ~c2+ 17 Φf1 Ah3+ 18 Φe2 main line whίle 14 ab1 a6 15 *c2
    §xe8 19 §b 1 certainly gives Black b5 16 ab ab 17 b4 ~fxd5!? 18
    a strong initiative but whether it is ed Af5 19 4)ce4 4)xd5 20 g4 *h4
    enough to compensate for the 21 Aa3 ~3 22 *d3 *h3 gave Black
    exchange and a pawn ίη an endgame a wίnning attack ίη Α. Zaίtsev­
    is open to doubt) 15 .. axe4+! Vitolίnsh, Lenίngrad 1962, 0-1,
    16 4)xe4;Qf3 17 O-Q (17 ~f2? 32.
    ae8+ 18 Φf1 Ae2+ 19 Φg2 Axb5 3) 12 Af3 ίs innocuous. 12 ... 4)c7
    with advantage for Black, van transposes to the note to Whίte's
    Four Powns Attάck 71
    12th below, while after 12 ... 1) 13 Φh1 §b8 transposes to lίne
    4)b4 White was reduced to 13 .Q.e2 1 οπ page 70.
    ίη Α. Zaitsev-Suetin, USSR Ch. 2) 13 .Q.f3 §b8 14 <Dc4 (14 e5 de
    1962, Υ2-Υ2, 64. Finally 12 ... b5 15 fe <Dfxd5 16 <Dxd5 <Dxd5 17
    13 a4 ba 14 4)c4 is less satisfactory, ~c4 .Q.e6 18 ~d6 .Q.xe5 19 ~xe8
    since White can quickly play e5. .Q.d4+ is an exceIIent exchange
    sacrifίce) 14 .. b5 15 ab ab 16
    44- ~a5 .Q.d7 17 e5 de 18 d6 (18 fe is
    simίlar to the note to White's 12th
    W
    but 18 d6 is possible now as the
    knight οπ a5 is defended) 18 ...
    e4! (18 ... ~a8 19 ~c6 .Q.χc6 20
    .Q.χc6 ~d7 21 4)xb5 ±, Baranov-
    νίlυρ, USSR 1960, Υ2-Υ2, 39) 19
    dc itxc7 20 .Q.e2 c4 and ίπ view
    of White's immobilised knight οπ
    a5 and Black's mobile queenside
    majority he has full value for the
    12 a4 piece. Kolbaek-B. Andersen, Den-
    12 .Q.f3 Elb8 (12 ... b5 flops to mark Ch. 1967 concluded 21 .Q.e3
    13 e5, as does 12 ... b6) 13 4)c4 Ela8 22 b4 cb 23 ~xb5 .Q.xb5 24
    b5 14 4)a$ (14 4)xd6 itxd6 15 e5 .Q.χb5 b2 25 §a3 §ed8 26 ita4
    itb6 16ef.Q.χf6+)14 ... .Q.d7 15 ~g4 27 itχe4 §xa5 28 §xa5
    e5 de (15 ... 4)fxd5? 116 4)xd5 itxa5 29 .Q.d7 ~xe3 30 itxe3 itd5
    4)xd5 17 itxd5 itxa5 18 itxd6 0-1.
    with a plus for White, Polugayevsky- 3) 13 §el §b8 14 a5 .Q.d7 15.Q.f3
    Evans, Havana 1966, Υ2-Υ2, 52) .Q.b5 16 ~f1 .Q.χf1 17 Φχf1 ~d7
    16 fe §xe5 17 .Q.f4 §f5 (17 18 g3 (a waste of tempo since .•.
    §e8? 18 4)c6 is good for White) ith4 wasn't reaIIy a threat, for
    18 .Q.g3 b4 and now 19 4)a4 4)fxd5 example 18 .Q.e3 ith4 19 Φg1 f5
    20 4)xc5 .Q.b5 21 Ele1 .Q.χb2 -+, 20 itd2 ~b5 21 ~xb5 ab 22 ef gf
    Zinser-Evans, Venice 1967, 0-1, 23 .Q.f2 itf6 24 §e6 itf8 25 §ae1
    26 and 19 4)c6 .Q.xc6 20 dc bc 21 ±, Conquest-Kraidman, LIoyds
    itxd8+ §xd8 22 .Q.xc7 §c8 Bank 1981, 1-0, 43 but Black's
    23 .Q.a5 cb 24 §ad1 4)e8 -+, plan of kingside play by ... f5 was
    Soos-Matulovic, Skopje-Ohrid quite wrong, for example 18 ...
    1967, 0-1, 29 had similar con- 4)b5 19 4)xb5 ab 20 itb3 b4
    sequences. 21 a6 b5! was good for Black ίη
    12 ... b6 Kluger-Honfi, Pecs 1976, 0-1,
    12 ... a6 and ηονν: 42) 18 ... b5 19 ab §xb6 20
    72 FourPawnsAt~k

    *<:2 *b8 21 aa2 ~b5 22 ~xb5 e5?! ~fxd5 15 ~xd5 ~xd5 16


    ab 23 ~d2 b4 24 b3 ab7 with ~c4 de 17 *xd5 ~b7 18 *d6
    an edge for Black, Β. Andersen- ~g2+ 19 <lixg2 *b7+ 20 Φg1
    Matulovic, Havana 1966, 0-1, 40. aad8 was highly complex ίπ
    After 12 b6 we have the Inkiov-Ermenkov, Bulgaria 1979,
    foIIowing lίnes: 0-1, 40 but the quiet 14 ~f3 was
    a better test of Black's unnatural
    45 queen move) 14 ae1 (14 ~xa6
    W ~xa6 and now 15 §b1 c4 16~xc4
    ~xe4 17 ~xe41§xe4 18 b3 f5+,
    Qί-Τοπe, China-Phillίpines 1977,
    0-1, 38 ΟΓ, better, 15 *f3 since
    the immediate incursion ... ~b4-
    c2-d4 is ποι very effective here -
    Black should fιrst play 15 . *e7
    tying White Ιο the defence of the
    e-pawn) 14 . ~xe2 15 §xe2
    1} 13 ~f3 §b8 14 ae1 (14 ~c4 ~g4 16 h3 *h4 17 *f1 ~d4 18
    ~a6 15 *b 3 ~xc4 16 ίtxc4 a6 ~f3 (18 *f3 ~f2+ 19 Φh2 f5 is at
    17 *d3 b5 =, Szabo-Saidy, Tel- least equal for Black) 18 ... ~f2+
    Ανίν 1964, 1-0,42) 14 ... ~a6 (14 19 Φh2 ~g4+ with a draw .
    . . . a6 is effectively a loss of a tempo 4) 13 §b1 ~a6 14 ~a6 ~xa6 15
    over 12 a6 and after 15 *f3 (15 §e1 is Qi-Torre above)
    ~c4 b5 16 ab ab 17 ~a5 ΟΓ 15 .. *e7 16 b3 ~b4 17 ~b2
    perhaps even 17 ~xd6 White's ~c2 (17 ... §ad8 is rather pointless
    chances are improved by the extra and White won a famous game ίπ
    tempo ae1) 15 ~db1 (15 ~f1 ~xf1 Spassky-Kavalek, Amsterdam 1973
    is equal whίle 15 ~b3 ~c4 16 ~e3 after 18 h3 ~c2 19 *d3 ~b4 20
    Yι-Y'l, Durao-Adorjan, Sochi 1977 *f3 ~c2 21 §bc1 ~d4 22 *d3
    is evidence for equalίty here also) ~d7 23 §ce1 f5 24 ef! *xe1 25
    15 ~d7 16 ~a3 c4 17 ~cb5 §xe1 §xe1+ 26 Φf2 §h1 27 fg
    ~b5 18 ab c3 19 ab1 cb 20 §f8 28 gh+ Φh8 29 ~e2 ~e5 30
    ~b2 ~xb2 21 axb2 *f6 22 ac2 *e4 §d1 31 ~c3 ~d7 32 ~xM cd
    ~c5 +, Malich-Tringov, Sarajevo 33 *c2 §xd2 34 *xd2 ~c5 35
    1965. Φf3 d3 36 ~c3 a5 37 ~e4 ~xb3
    2) 13 ae1 and now 13 ... ab8 38 *xd3 ~d4+ 39 Φg4 ~f5 40
    tranposes ιο note 1 above after ~g5 1-0) 18 §bc1 ~d4 19 *d3 a6
    14 ~f3 and ιο note 2 οπ page 70 20 §ce1 ~d7 21 h3?! (21 Φh1 =)
    after 14 ab 1. 21 . §ec8! (Black uses his rooks
    3) 13 Φh1 ~a6 (13 *e7?! 14 much more imaginatively than ίπ
    Four Pawns Α ttack 73

    Spassky-Kavalek and here threatens pawn than οη e8 where it is ex-


    ~xb3) 22 e5 (rather a panic posed to ~c7 and ~f6+ forks) 12
    reaction but White could ηο longer ... §e8 13 e6 (13 ο-ο ~xe5 14
    prevent ... b5 ίη any case) 22 ... d6 looks very promising to .me) 13
    de' 23 ~c4 f6 24 fe fe 25 ~e4 §f8 . .. fe 14 d6 Ad7 and now 15 *d2
    and White does not have enough for ~b4 16 ο-ο §f8 17 h3 ~f6 18
    the pawn, Κ. Grigorian-Suetin, Ac4, Cobo-CΊocaltea, Havana 1965,
    USSR 1975,0-1,36. 1-0, 29 and 15 h3 ~f6 15 4)e5
    Το sum υρ this lengthy section, ιDb4 17 ~g5, Knezevic-Ryc,
    Black has more than one satisfactory Kislovodsk 1968 both gave White a
    system against 9 ... §e8 1Ο ~d2. very strong attack, the latter game
    1Ο •.. ~a6 11 ο-ο ~c7 and 1Ο •.• concluding 17 .. . ιDc6?! (17 ... h6
    a6 11 a4 ~bd7 12 ο-ο r:lb8 are is r.ecommended by Estrin based οη
    safe answers, while those with a the lίne 18 Axf6 *xf6 19 ιDxd7
    taste for experimentation might *h4+ with a counterattack, but 18
    prefer 1Ο ••• ~g4 ΟΓ 1Ο .•• ~bd7 ~h4 g5 19 Ag3 ~bd5 20 0-0 still
    11 ο-ο c4. leaνes Black's kingside very perme-
    Ε: able) 18 ιDg4 h6 19 ιDxh6+ hh6
    FinaIIy we consider less common 20 Axh6 ιDd5 21 ο-ο ~d4 22
    9th moves by Black: *d3 ιDf5 23 §xf5! ef 24 ~xd5
    1) 9 ~a6 10 e5 (this is the 'iTih7 25 ~d2 §c8 26 Ac3 §e6
    obvious move but 1Ο ο-ο ~c7 11 27 ~e7 §b8 28 *g3 1-0.
    a4 isn't bad either, when ... r:le8 Some of the positions ίη this
    might well be met by *c2 rather note can also be reached from C if
    than the retrogressive ~d2) 1Ο Black plays ~a6 at some
    de 11 fe ~g4 12 ~f4 (12 ~g5 is moment, although why he should
    best met by 12 f6 rather than want to do this is another matter.
    12 *b6 13 0-0 ~xe5 when 2) 9 ~fd7 (now Black is a
    14 d6 -74 ~e7 ~xf3+ 75 hf3 tempo down over chapter 7,
    *xb2 76 ~e4 §e8 77 d6 Af5 variation Β and so it is not surprising
    wasn't vetγ convincing, Makarov- that he stands badly) 1Ο ο-ο ~a6
    Bo/es/avsky, USSR 7964, 7-ο, 11 'iTih1 §e8 12 ~d2 ~b6 13 a4
    47 - ~xf3+ 15 Axf3 ~d4+ 16 Ad7 14 a5 ~c8 1 5 ~f3 §b8 16
    Φh1 *xd6 17 Ah6 §d8 18 Ad5 ~c4 ~b4 17 e5 Af5 18 Ae4
    ~e6 19 Axb7 §ab8 20 *f3 with ~xe4 19 ~xe4 de 20 d6 §e6 21
    a dangerous attack, Peev-Cobo, fe +-, Peev-Angelov, Bulgaria
    Cίenfuegos 1973, 1-0, 26 although 1974,1-0,38.
    one should remember that the Black 3) 9 ~bd7 10 e5 (10 ο-ο
    rook is sometimes better placed οπ §e8 11 e5!? de 12 fe ~xe5 13
    f8 where it covers the vulnerable Π ~xe5 r:lxe5 14 Af4 §xd5 15
    74 FourP~nsAttock

    ιtιxd5 cDxd5 16 Ac4 Ae6 is about the improvement 13 ... fe! 14


    level, Kudakov- Ι. Zaitsev, USSR Axg4 ed (or 14 ... cDxg4 15 -ιtxg4
    1973, Υι-Υι, 41, while 11 cDd2 ed 16 -ιth4 h6) 15 Axc8 (15 ιtle6
    transposes to D - probably 11 -ιth4+ 16 g3 -ιtf6!) 15 axc8
    itc2 is best, with some advantage 16 itxd5+ (16 cDxd5 c4) 16
    for White) 1Ο .. de 11 fe cDg4 itxd5 17 cDxd4 ace8 with a
    12 e6 cDde5 13 cDg5 c4 14 ο-ο dangerous attack.)
    itb6+ 15 Φh1 cDf2+ 16 axf2 4) 9 . . . b6 10 e5 cDe8 11 0-0
    itxf2 17 cDge4 itb6 18 e 7 ae8 cDa6 12 Ac4 cDac7 13 ae1 ab8 14
    19 d6 itc6 Knezevic-I. Zaitsev, a4 a6 15 cDg5! b5 16 ab ab 17 e6
    Smederevska Palanka 1971, Υι-Υι, with a clear plus for White,
    36 and now 20 Ag5 was ±. Ι. Zaitsev Knezevic-Pithart, Olomouc 1975,
    was wίlling ~o repeat his experiment 1-0,41.
    two lears later, perhaps intending
    7 White plays e4, f4 and i..b5 +

    This variation is characterised by restraint of Black's active pieces.


    the moves 6 e4 g6 7 f4 Ag7 8 Two tips for White ίπ this lίπe:
    Ab5+. Now Black has to play 8 ... 1) Don't rush to play 4)f3-d2-c4,
    4)fd7 since other moves allow 9 e5 as the knight is often just as well
    under highly favourable circum- posted οη f3 as c4. The move ~d2
    stances for White. Then White drops should be delayed until there ίς a
    his bishop back to d3 ΟΓ e2 and ready target (e.g. a Black rook οη
    continues to deνelop by 4)f3, ο-ο, b6) Ιο hit with 4)c4. One might, for
    etc. CΙearly if Black returns with his example, substitute a useful semi-
    knight Ιο f6 he has effectively lost a waiting move Iίke ΦhΙ instead.
    tempo, since Ab5-d3 (or e2) has 2) Α useful idea is that of playing
    cost White one move, while f5 for a kingside attack. This work5
    4)f6-d7-f6 has cost Black two. especiaJly well if the knight οη d7
    Play revolves around the question has gone away, to f6 ΟΓ b6 for
    of whether Black can make use of exampIe, and 50 cannot readily
    his knight οη d7. Although White's occupy e5. After f5 White can
    e5 ίς restrained by this knight Black follow υρ with Ag5 and *el-h4
    ηο longer has the pressure οη e4 with a mechanical but effective
    typical of the Modern Benoni. So attack.
    one basic rule for Black is not to lη my view this iS one ofWhite'5
    play ... lIe8 without good reason. best lίηe5 against the Modern Benoni.
    The exception to this rule is 11 ... White secures good attacking
    lIe8 ίη Α, where Black has the chances at Iίttle risk to himself.
    move. . 4)b4 available to kick 1 d4 4)f6
    away the bishop from d3. With the 2 c4 c5
    knight οη d7, ... lIe8 has πο effect 3 d5 e6
    and amounts to a loss of time. 4 4)c3 ed
    White's plan involves a gradual 5 cd d6
    build-up for e5 behind his large 6 e4 g6
    pawn front, coupled as usual with 7 f4 Ag7
    76 White p/aYH4, (4 and Ab5+

    8 Ab5+ ~fd7 17 e7! (17 !ΞIf1 is better for White,


    Other moves are definitely bad: but this is even stronger) 17
    1) 8 ... Ad7 9 e5 ~h5 (9 ... Axb5 'ltxe7 18 ο-ο (Black is worse off
    1Ο ef wins a piece) 10 ~f3 de (1 Ο both materially and positionally)
    • ! ο-ο 11 Axd7 and now 11 18 . Af5 (18 . ~f6 19 'lth4)
    ~xd7 12 g4 wins a piece whlle 11 19 'ltd5+ Φg7 20 Ag5 ~f6 21
    ... 'ltxd7 12 ο-ο is very unpJeasant Axf6+ Φχf6 22 Elae1 'ltc7 23
    for Black) 11 fe ο-ο (11 ... Axb5 Ad7! !ΞId8 24 'lte6+ Φg7 25 'lte7+
    12 ~xb5 ο-ο 13 ο-ο 'ltd7 14 1-0, Ebzerman-van der Zwan,
    'lte2! ±) 12 ο-ο (12 Axd7 ~xd7 Dutch corr. Ch. 1979.
    13 g4 ~xe5 14 gh ~xf3+ 15 'ltxf3 After 8. . ~fd7 there are three
    should be winning for White, but possible moves:
    involves a small risk) 12 Ag4
    13 Ae2 Axf3 14 Axf3 Axe5 15
    Aχh5 'lth4 16 g3 'ltxh5 17 'ltxh5
    gh 18 Elf5 with the better ending
    for White ίη Yakovlev-Voloshin,
    USSR 1956, although Black has
    drawing chances.
    2) 8 ... ~bd7 9 e5 de (9 ... ~h5
    1Ο e6 'lth4+ 11 g3 ~xg3 12 ~f3
    'lth3 13 Elg1 is winning for White)
    1Ο fe ~h5 (1 Ο .•. 'lte7 11 'lte2) 11
    e6 fe 12 de ο-ο (the only way Ιο Α: 9 Ad3
    make a fιght of it) 13 ~f3! (13 ed Β: 9 Ae2
    Axc3-+: 14 bc 'lth4+ 15 Φd2 Axd7 C: 9 a4
    16 Axd7 !ΞIf2+ 17 ~e2 !ΞId8 18, Other moves allow a6
    Φc2 'lte4+ 19 Φb3 Elxe2 gives Black followed by ... b5 and are therefore
    a dangerous attack while 13 'ltd5 bad. Ιη Α and Β White.immediately
    'lte7! 14 Axd7 Axd7 15 ttχd7 commits his bishop Ιο a particular
    Axc3+ 16 bc tth4+ leads Ιο the win square, while ίη C White reserves
    of White's queen) 13 ... Elxf3 (13 the ορΙίοη of going to e2 ΟΓ d3 (or,
    . . . ~df6 14 'ltxd8 Elxd8 15 e7 Eld6 ίη some cases, c4 and f1 Ι) .
    16 ~g5 Ae6 17 ο-ο is winning for Α:
    White) 14 'ltxf3 (14 gf 'lth4+ and 9 Ad3 0-0
    15. . ~e5 is unclear) 14 • Or
    Axc3+ (14 ... ιOe5 15 'ltd5 'lth4+ 1) 9 ..• a6 10 a4 'ltc7 (this is an
    16 g3 'lte7 17 Ag5 'ltxe6 18 'ltd8+ interesting unexplored path for
    Af8 19 ο-ο ~Π 20 !ΞΙχΠ and 21 Black and may represent Black's
    !ΞIfl wins) 15 bc ~e5 16 'lte4 'ltf6 best chance to equaJise against the
    White p/oys e4, f40nd .ΩbS+ 77

    Ad3 system - the plan is .• c4 ~xc5 25 .Q.c2 and White was much
    and .. ιflc5, which at least takes better, Szabo-Robatsch, Maribor
    advantage of the position of the 19781-0,37.
    knight οη d7) 11 ~f3 (the attempt 2) 9 .. *c7 with ideas similar to
    to cut across Black's plan by 11 the last lίne may also be possible
    *e2 could lead to the fantastic Iίne as 10 ιflb5 "ι'tb6 11 e5 de 12 d6
    11 c4!? 12 .Δ.χc4 ~b6 13 .Q.d3 ο-ο 13 ιflc7 "ι'txd6 14 ~xa8 ~c6 is
    .Δ.xc3+ 14 bc *xc3+ 15 'itf2 probably good for Black.
    *xa1 16 .Q.b2 *a2 17 .Q.xh8 3) 9 ... "ι'th4+ 10 g3 "ι'te7. This
    *xe2+ 18 ~xe2 ~xa4 when White manoeuvre, designed to weaken
    has an immense lead ίη development White's kingside, may be played
    but it isn't clear how he can use it with ΟΓ without the interposition
    and Black is a pawn υρ) 11 ... c4 of ... a6 a4. Ι regard it with
    (it is important to play this before suspicion. Black wastes time and
    White gets around to ~d2, which ends υρ with his queen οη the bad
    explains why Black has to embark square e7 (where it is exposed to an
    οη his plan before castlίng although e5 breakthrough) while the 'weak·
    it must be said that Kapengut ening' of White's kingside is almost
    considers the gambit 9 ... ο-ο 1Ο imperceptible. After 11 ~f3 0-0
    ~f3a6 11a4*c7 12~d2c4!? 13 (the transposition 11 ... ~b6 12
    ιflxc4 ιflc5 playable) 12 .Q.c2 ~c5 0-0 .Q.g4 is also possible) 12 0-0
    13 .Q.e3.Q.g4 14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 .Q.d4 ~b6 (12 ... ~a6 13 §e1 ~c7
    (15 h3?! .Δ.xf3 16 §xf3 ~bd7 17 14 .Q.f1 is also good for White)
    a5 §fe8 18 .Q.d4 b5 19 ab *xb6 13 'itg2 (much played receritly, but
    20 §a2 §ab8 21 'ith2 .Q.xd4 22 Sliva-Gromek, corr. 1960 went 13
    *xd4 ~b3 was slίghtly better for §e 1 .Q.g4 14 .Q.f1 ! ~a6 15 h3 hf3
    Black, Furman-Dorfman, USSR 16 "ι'txf3 ~b4 17 "ι'td1 with a plus
    1st league 1976,0-1,41 while 15 for White, whίle 13 a4 also looks
    *e1 .Δ.xf3 '16 ~xf3 ~bd7 also promising since 13 ... Ag4 14 a5
    seems satisfactory for Black) 15 ... leaνes Black's knights ίη a tangle)
    .Δ.xf3 16 §xf3 .Δ.xd4+ 17 itxd4 13 ... Ag4 (13 ... 4)a6 14 "ι'te2 Ωe8
    *b6?! (17 ... ~bd7 looks lίke the 15 lΞIe 1 ~b4 16 Ab5 Ad7 17 .Q.xd7
    best move, for example 18 *xc4 "ι'txd7 is level, Skembris-Gr(jnfeld,
    *b6 19 *d4 *xb2 20 lΞIa2 *b6 Graz 1981, 0-1, 35) 14 h3 hf3+
    21 e5 §ae8 with complίcations) 18 15 "ι'txf3 ~8d7 (15 ... c4 16.Q.c2
    a5 *xb2 19 lΞIa2 *b4 20 e5 ~a6 17 a3 ~5 18 Ae3 4)bd7
    ~bd7? (20 . b6 was unclear 19 §ad1 =, Lau-Dolmatov, Graz
    according to Szabo) 21 §f1! 1981, Υι-Υι, 23) 16 a4 c4 17.Q.c2
    (Black's queen is trapped) b5 22 ~c5 18 .Q.e3 ~bd7 =, Lυ kacs-
    IΞIb1 ~b3 23 .Δ.xb3 *c5 24 "ι'txc5 Psakh is, Sarajevo 1981, 0-1, 31.
    78 Whlte p/ays e4, '4 and .A.b5+
    4) 9 ... a6 10 a4 ita5 11 .A.d2 21 e6 ~c5 22 f5 +-, Farago-
    itb6 (another artifιcial manoeυvre, Tringov, Vrnjacka Banja 1971,1-0,
    designed to prevent castlίng. Its 31 ΟΓ 15 ... Ue8 16 Uae1 Eιc8 17
    only recommendation is that it was .A.f2 'fιc7 18 Ue2 Ue7 19 Ufe1 ~e8
    once played by Polugayevsky) 12 and White had the initiative ίη
    a5 'fιc7 13 ~f3 ο-ο 14 0-0 c4 Farago-Sapi, Budapest 1976, 0-1,
    15 .A.c2 with a position rather lίke 47. Probably 15. . Uc8 is best
    1 but where Black has lost a lot of when 16 .A.c4 ~b6 17 b3 ~fd7 is
    time with his queen. White is Iike the main line) 15 ... 'fιc7 (15
    better, L_igterink-Payrhuber, Gron- .•. Ue8 16 .A.c4 ~b6 17 b3 ~xc4
    ingen 1969, 1-0,38. 18 bc ~d7 19 Eιae1 'fιa5 20 'fιd3
    10 ~f3 ~a6 'fιc7 as ίη WiIIiams-Mecking, Nice
    Or 10 a6 (10 b6 is 1974, }S-}S, 26 gives White an extra
    strongIy answered by 11 'fιe2, for tempo over the main Iίne of this
    exampIe 11 .. ~f6 12 ο-ο Eιe8 note but White failed to take
    13 e5! ~bd7 14 .A.c4 de 15 fe ~g4 advantage of this by 21 e5!) 16 .A.c4
    16 .A.g5 f6 17 d6+ Φh8 18 e6 (16 Eιae1 is inconsistent and ίη
    was nightmarish ίη Α. Zaitsev- Trefler-Rohde, New York 1975,
    Dzindzihashvili, Leningrad 1972, 16 • c4 17 .A.b1 b5 18 Φh1
    1-0, 28whiIe11 O-O.A.a612.A.xa6 occurred, when 18 ... b4 was fιne
    transposing to Β is also good) 11 for Black, ί nstead of 18 ... IHe8?
    a4 ~f6 12 ο-ο (12 ~d2 allows 12 ίη the game, 1-0,39) 16 ..• ~b6
    .•. Eιe8 13 ο-ο ~g4! whiIe 12 h3 17 b3 ~fd7 18 Uae1 Eιae8 19 'fιd3
    is a reasonabIe alternative, 12 ... 'fιd8 20 e5! (the inconsequential
    Ue8 13 0-0 c4 14 .A.c2 ~bd7 20 Φh1 allowed Black to break out
    15 .A.e3 'fιc7 16 .A.d4 being ίη Farago-Suetin, Dubna 1979
    the critical line) 12 ... .A.g4 13 h3 after 20 ... 'fιh4 21 Ue2 g5! 22
    .A.xf3 14 'fιxf3 ~bd7 (Hartston g3 "lth5 23 Ug2 ~xc4 24 bc f5!
    assesses this position as equal, but 25 g4 fg 26 Uxg4 gf when Black
    Ι cannot agree. Although Black's was sl ightly better, 0-1, 44) 20 ...
    hold οη e5 gives him a fairly solίd de 21 f5 e4 (understandable, since
    position he has ηο constructive otherwise 22 ~e4 would completely
    pJan whίle White can graduaIIy seal ίη Black's position) 22 ~xe4
    improve his position) 15 .A.d2 (White .A.d4+ (22 .. ~e5 23 'fιg3 and
    defends his knight ίη preparation now 23 ... ~bxc4 24 bc ~xc4 25
    for .A.c4 and b3, which cuts out any f6 ~xd2 26 fg ~xe4 27 gf='fι+
    counterplay based οη. c4. 15 ΦΧf8 28 'fιd3 and 23 ... ~xd5 24
    .A.e3 is also possible, for example .A.xd5 'fιxd5 25 f6 .A.h8 26 .A.h6
    15 ... 'fιc7 16 a5 Eιfe8 17 Φh1 c4 ~d3 27 Eιe3 Uxe4 28 .A.xf8both
    18 .A.c2 b5 19 ab ~xb6 20 e5 ~fd7 leaνe Black with inadequate com-
    Whlte ploys e4, (4 and ..QbS+ 19
    pensation for the lost material) 23 exceIIent position for White, Szabo-
    Φh 1 ~e5 24 *c2 ~bxc4, 25 bc f6 Sanz, Costa Brava 1976, 1-0,55;
    26 fg hg 27 Ah6 §f7 28 ~xc5! 12 §e1 with the idea of a quick
    §h7 (28 ... .4xc5 29 §xe5) 29 breakthrough by e5 is recommended
    §xe5 §xh6 30 §xe8+ *xe8 31 by Kapengut, e.g. 12 ... §b8 13
    ~e6 Ae5 32 c5 §h4 33 *b 1 *f7 Φh1 ~7 14 e5!?) 12 ... ιtιf6 (12
    34 *b3 Φh8 35 §d1 *d7 36 d6 ... ~c7 13 ~c4 was good for White
    §e4 37 ~f8 -IJιg7 38 d7 *xf8 39 ίπ Tal-Contedini, Leipzig 1960
    *d5 Ac7 40 *xe4 1-0, Pinter- after 13 ... ~b6?! 14~a5! Ad4+
    Duric, Bajmok 1980. Απ impressive 15 Φh1 *h4 16 Ad2 Ag4 17 *c2,
    game. 1-0, 31 but the amazingly random
    game Kivlans-Kozlov, USSR 1970
    went 13 ... Ad4+!? 14 Φh1 ~f6
    15 e5 ~g4 16 *e1 de 17 d6 ~a6
    18 ~d5 ~b4 19 ~xb4 cb 20 fe b5
    21 *e4 bc 22 .4xc4 *114 23
    .4xfΊ+ Φh8 24 Af4 ~xh2! 25
    Ag5! *xg5 26 *xd4 *xe5 27
    *xe5+ §xe5 28 ΦΧh2 with the
    better ending for White, 1-0, 66
    but who knows what was going οπ
    ίn the middle? Perhaps 12 ... ~c7
    11 ο-ο §b8 13 a4! is best. Finally 12 ... ~b4
    This move encourages White to 13 Ab 1 ~f6 14 a3 ~a6 15 ~c4
    play Φh 1, but as this may be the ~g4 16 *e1 ~c7 was double-edged
    best reply against other moves, it ίπ Shamkovich-Suetin, semi-final
    isn't clear that this is a good idea! USSR Ch. 1956) 13 *f3?! (after
    Alternatives: 13 ~c4 Shamkovich gives 13 ...
    1) 11 . §e8 12 ~d2 (12 Φh1 ~g4! but what is the reply to 14
    isn't so effective here because of 12 ~b5? Ι don't see a mate so 13 ..•
    . . . ~b4 13 Ae2 b6!, for example ~c7 may be the more sensible reply .
    14 a3 ~a6 15 \te1 ~c7 ΟΓ 14 f5 If instead 13 h3 ~c7 and White
    ~e5 15 Ag5 Af6 ΟΓ 14 ~d2 ~f6 cannot play 14 *f3 owing to 14
    15 a3 ~a6 16 Af3 ~c7 17 e5? de ., ~fxd5! winnIng a pawn while
    18 fe ~fxd5 with a good game for 13 ... §b8 is also good) ~g4 14
    Black ίπ Butnorius-Alburt, USSR ~e2 f5 15 h3 ~h6 16 ~g3 ~c7
    1971,0-1,65 - not 13 ... ~f6?, 17 a4 fe 18 .4xe4 a6 19 *d3
    though, due to 14 a3 ~a6 15 e5! b5 with a strong initiative for Black,
    de 16 fe ~g4 17 Ag5 f6 18 ef Wentilbury-Shamkovich,USA 1978
    .4xf6 19 .4xf6 *xf6 20 d6 with an 0-1,48.
    80 White p/ays e4, (4 and .Ab5+
    2) 11. ~b4 12 .Q.e2 (12 .Q.b 1 16 Φh1 as ίπ Portisch-S. Garcia,
    lIb8 13 a3 ~a6 14 a4 ~b4 15 Madrid 1973, 1-0, 55 is clearly
    Φh1 a6 16 a5 b5 17 ab *xb6 18 good for White since he has gained
    .Ae3 lIe8 19 f5 *c7 20 *d2 tempi over C. Fina.lly 12 ... ~f6
    lIb7!? 21 g4 ~e5 22 ~xe5 V2-V2, 13 .Q.c4!?.Ag4 14 h3 Axf3 15
    Spassky-Rashkovsky, Tschigorin *xf3 ~d7, Timman-Masic, Sombor
    Memorial tournament 1973 - Black 1974, 1-0, 40 and now 16 .Q.d2
    is at least equal ίπ the final position) ~b6 17 b3 ± seems the simplest)
    12 ... b6 13 a3 ~a6 14 ~d2? (14 and now:
    Φh1! transposing to Β is much
    better) 14 ... .Q.d4+ 15 Φh1 ~c7 48
    16 a4 ~f6 17 ~b5~xb5 18 ab lIe8 W
    19 ~b3 ~xe4 20 ~xd4 cd 21 lIa4
    *h4 22 Φg1 d3! 23 Axd3 .Q.g4 0-1,
    Farago-Honfι, Hungary Ch. 1973.
    Rather unlucky that 24 *c2 (24
    *e1 *xe1 25 lIxe1 ~c5) 24 .
    ~c5 25 lIa3 ~xd3 and 26 ... .Q.e2
    wins.
    3) 11 ... ~c7 12 a4 (12 Φh1 a6
    13 a4 ~b8 transposes to the main 3a) 13 ~d2 (this move is effective
    lίπe while 12 ~d2 can be answered here because Black has weakened
    by 12 ... ~b8 13 a4 a6 14 ~c4 the b6 square by playing . a6
    tranposing ιο 3a ΟΓ 12 ... ~f6 13 rather than ... §b8) 13 ... §b8
    h3 ~h5!? 14 *f3 b5 15 ~xb5 (13 ... .Q.d4+ 14 Φh 1 ~f6 15 ~c4
    ~xb5 16 .Q.xb5 lIb817 a4 a6 18 ~g4 16 *e1is good for White -
    .Q.c6.Q.d4+ 19 Φh1 "ith4 with an compare this with Shamkovich-
    unclear position, Farago-Filipowicz Suetin given ίη 1, where ~b6 is ποι
    Polanica Zdroj 1974, V2-V2, 34 ΟΓ possible and ... b5! is) 14 ~4 ~f6
    finally by 12 ... ~e8, which trans· (14 ... ~e8 15 *f3 *c7 16 a5 was
    poses to line 1 οπ page 79) 12 also good for White ίη Saidy-Evans,
    a6 (12 ... §b8 13 ~d2 ~f6 uS Ch. 1964) 15 a5 ~b5 16 f5!
    14 ~c4 b6 15 .Q.d2 a6 16 .Q.e1! ~e8 17 ~a4 ~d4 18 ~ab6 ~c7
    with the idea of 16 ... b5 17 19 .Q.f4 with a clear plus for White,
    ab ab 18 ~a5 .Ad7 19 .Q.h4! Farago-Planinc, Polanica Zdroj
    was ;!; ίπ Farago-Honfi, Kecskemet 1979, 1-0,49.
    1979, 1-0, 44 although 13 Φh1 3b) 13 *e1 §b8 14 e5 (14 a5
    transposing ιο the main line may be looks good, for example 14. . b5
    even better, while 12 ... ~a6 13 15 ab §xb6 16 ~d2 ΟΓ 15 ..
    .Q.e3 ~b4 14 .Q.e2 §e8 15 .Q.f2 a6 ~xb6 16 f5) 14 ... ~b6 15 f5!
    White p/oys e4, (4 and Ab5+ 81

    de! 16 fg fg 17 Ag5\'td6 18 * h4 Black.


    ~cxd5? (18 ... ~bxd5! is unclear 12 ~c7
    according to Gulko) 191Ξ!ad1 c4 20 13 a4 a6
    ~xd5cd 21 ~e7+Φh8 22~xe5! 13 .~f6 14*e1! (thisisgood
    Af5 23 !3xf5 Axe5 24 !3xe5 1-0, πονν that h4 is available for the
    Gulko-Savon, Ινον 1978. queen) 14 ... !3e8 (14 ... a6 15
    3c) 13 Φh 1 IΞ!b8 transposes to the a5 and πονν 15 ... b5 16 ab IiIxb6
    main Iίne. 17 ~d2 and 15 . !3e8 16 *h4
    Of these variations 11 ... IΞ!e8 is
    ~b5 17 f5 are very good for White)
    the only one to offer equalίsing 15 *h4 a6 16 f5! (White doesn't
    chances. even have to stop for a5 ηονν) 16 ...
    12 Φh1 b5(16 ... ~d717fgand17 ... hg
    This is better than 12 ~d2 (12 a4 18 ~g5 ΟΓ 17 fg 18 Ag5 Af6
    ~b4 followed by a6 falls ίπ 19 e5! de 20 ~e4 give White a
    with Black's plans and 12 ~b5 *b6 winning attack) Υ2-Υ2, Law-Nunn,
    13 Ac4 ~c7 14 a4 ~xb5 15 ab a6 London 1981 although White is
    16 Ad2 *c7 ίς roughly equal, winning,e.g.17abab 18Ag5b4
    Jimenez-Browne, Winnipeg 1974, 19 e5! when 19 . de 20 ~e4
    Υ2-Υ2, 24) 12 ... b5! 13 a4 (13 ~cxd5 21 fg hg 22 .Qc4 and 19
    ~xb5 c4! and ηονν 14 Axc4 !3xb5 .. bc 20 ef cb 21 !3ab 1 Af8 22
    15 Axb5 *b6+ 16 Φh 1 *xb5 + ΟΓ fg hg 23 Axg6 are equally catas-
    14 ~xc4 !3xb5 15 ~xd6 and ηονν trophic.
    15 ... !3b4 16 a3 !3d4 17 ~b5 After 13 .. a6 there arethree
    !3xe4 18 Axe4 *b6+ 19 Φh1 examples:
    *xb5 +, Thorbergsson-Tringov,
    Reykjavik 1974,0-1,60 ΟΓ 15 ... 49
    !3xd5 16 ~xc8 IiId4 17 .Qe3 ~dc5 W
    18 Axa6 IΞ!xd1 19 IΞ!axd1 *a5
    20 ~e7+ Φh8 21 Ac4 ~xe4 +,
    Horvath-Sikora, Vengria 1979) 13
    •.. ba (13 ... c4 14.Qe2 b4
    15 ~b5 c3 .16 ~c4 ~b6 17 bc
    b4 15 ~b5 c3 16 ~c4 ~b6 17 bc
    ~xc4 18 .Qxc4 ~c5 19 e5 de 20
    cb was good for White ίπ Zelίnski­
    Zhuravlyev, corr. 1974) followed a) 14 a5 b5 15 ab !3xb6 16 ~d2
    either by the safe 14 ... ~b4 ΟΓ ~f6 17 *f3 ~b5 18 ~c4 ~d4
    the risky 14 ... c4!? 15 ~xc4 19 iH2 !3b4 20 h3 ~b3 21 lΞ!a2
    ~dc5 16!3a3 ~xd3 17 *xd3 ~c5, 4)xc1 22 !3xc1 .Qh6 23 g4 with
    with a satisfactory position for some plus for White, Gastonyi~
    82 Wh/te p/ays Μι f4 and Αό5+
    Forintos, Hungary 1965, 1-0, 44. loηg as possible. Postal grandmaster
    b) 14 f5 b5 15 ab 4:lxb5 16 Ag5 Adrian Hollis has adopted 9 Ae2.
    f6 17 Af44:1e5 18 h3 iΞ!Π 19 g4 9 ... 0-0
    Af8 20 iΞ!a2 4:ld4 21 4:lxd4 cd 22 10 4:lf3 4:la6
    ~2 iΞ!b4 23 4:lc1 t\-b6 24 ΙΗ2 a5 Α drastic example of the perils of
    25 ac2 iΞ!c7 26 Ad2 and again .. 4:lf6 is Hollis-Kondali, corr.
    White stands better, Spassky- 1972 which went 10 ... a6?! 11
    Savon, Moscow 1971, 1-0, 36. a4 ae8 12 ο-ο 4:lf6 13 e5 de 14
    c) 14 ite2 JΞle8 15 itf2 b5 16 e5 fe 4:lg4 15 Ag5 f6 16 ef Aχf6 17
    c4 17 Ac2 4:lc5 18 ab 4:lxb5 19 t\-d2 Af5 18 h3! Axg5 19 *xg5
    4:lxb5 axb5 20 4:ld4 JΞlb7 21 4:lc6 4:le3 20 itxd8 JΞlxd8 21 JΞlf2 h5
    *c7 22 4:la5 de 23 d6 itxd6 24 22 4:lh4 af8 23 iΞ!e1 4:lc2 24 iΞ!ef1
    fe t\-d5 25 4:lxb 7 Axb 7 26 aa5 4:le3 25 4:lxg6! 1-0. Ιη HoIIis-
    with a distinct plus for White, Hammar, 'ΟΠ. 1977/8, 10 .•. b6
    Shamkovich-Lein, USSR 1957, was roughly treated: 11 ο-ο Aa6
    1-0,41. 12 Aχa6 4:lχa6 13 f5! (once again
    None of these three examples is this move proves effective) 13 ...
    1000,,{, convincing (e.g. 15 ... ab ίη iΞ!e8 14 Ag5 Af6 15 Axf6 4:lχf6·
    Spassky-Savon) but the unanimous 16 4:lg5 4:lb8 (a strange-looking
    verdict ίη favour of White is move, but 16 . 4:lb4 would just
    ominous. ΜΥ personal preference is have left the knight ineffectively
    for 14 a5, with perhaps 17 4:lc4 posted οη the wrong side of the
    iΞ!b4 18 f5 as an improvement over board) 17 fg hg 18 *f3 4:lbd7 19
    Gastonyi-Forintos. *f4 JΞle5 20 af3 a6 21 JΞlaf1 ite7
    Β: 22 *h4 JΞld8 23 iΞ!h3 4:lh5 24
    9 Ae2 4:ιχΠ 1-0. Exchanging bishops is
    The advantages of this move are evidently too slow.
    that the d-pawn is better defended 11 ο-ο 4:lc7
    when it comes to playing e5 and 12 a4 ab8
    that ... c4 doesn't gain a tempo. 12 ... ae8 is also possible, when
    Thedisadvantage is that the bishop 13 4:ld2 (13 Φh1 4:lf6 is similar)
    is ηοι 50 actively placed οη e2 and, 4:lf6 transposes ιο the note ΙΟ
    ίη particu/ar, doesn't cover the e- White's 13th move οη page 13.
    pawn. Α quick . 4:lf6 by Black 13 Φh1
    wίll transpose to the Four Pawns Or 13 iΞ!e1 (13 Ac4 seems· Ιοο
    Attack, but with Black a tempo ambitious; ίη Hughes-Nunn,
    down. lη 5uch a sharp lίηe this Oxford 1979 White's centre col-
    difference is sufficient to give lapsed after 13 ... a6 14 *d3 4:lf6
    White a near-winning position, so 15 e5 Af5 16*d14:1d7 17 ae1 de
    . 4:lf6 is to be avoided for as 18 d6 4:le6 19 fe Ag4! 20 itd5
    Whlte p/ays e4, f4 and .Δb5+ 83

    .Qxf3 21 gf 4:ld4 22 I!f1 4:lxe5 -+, now 24 Ah6 would have given
    0-1,31) 13 ... a6 14a5 b5 15 ab White good chances.
    I!xb6 (15 ... 4)xb6 16 e5 Ab7 17 16 4:ld2 4:lf6
    4:le4 de 18 4)xc5 Axd5 19 fe l!e8 17 4:lc4 I!b4 18 4)xd6? (18
    20 Af4 was slίghtly better for White 4:la5? !4:lxe4! 1914:1c6 'lt1:14 was also
    ίη Teichmann-Dodgson, corr.1979/ bad, but the critical Ιίηθ is 18 e5 de
    80, 1-0, 37) 16 4:ld2 Ad4+ (16 ... 19 d6 4)e6 20 fe 4:lg4 21 Axg4
    4:lf6 17 4:lc4 I!b4 18 e5 de 19 d6 I!xc4 22 'lte2 with an unclear
    4)e6 20 fe 4)g4 21 Axg4 I!xc4 22 position) 18 ... I:ιd4 19 'lte1 'ltxd6
    Af3 'lth4 23 4:ld5 is good for 20 e5 'ltb6 21 ef 'ltxf6 22 Af3
    White - the function of l!e1 l:ιe8 23 'ltf2 4:lb5 24 4:la4 (24 Ae3
    holding the e5 pawn is important =) 24 ... Af5 25 4)xc5? .d6! 26
    ίπ this line) 17 Φh1 4:lf6 and Back 4)b7 'ltb6 27 4:la5 I!d1! 0-1,
    stands well, for example 18 Af3 Hollίs-Nunn, Oxford 1976.
    (18 4:lc4 I!b4) I!b4 19 4)b3 4:lg4! C:
    20 Axg4 Axg4 21 'ltxg4 I!xb3 and 9 a4
    Black's bishop is the dominant Probably the most accurate
    minor piece. move. White awaits a favourable
    13 '" a6 opportunity to transpose to Iίnes Α
    14 a5 b5 and Β. Black's main problem is
    that 4:lc7 is necessary to dis-
    50 lodge the bishop and this cuts out
    W Iίnes based οπ ... 4)b4. It should be
    noted that although 9 a4 appears to
    allow ... 4:la6-b4, this manoeuvre
    is not very good for Black since the
    knight ends υρ offside and withou.t
    a retreat.
    9... 0-0
    9 ... *h4+ 10 g3 'lte7 has slίghtly
    more point now, but 11 4:lf3!
    15 ab I!xb6 Axc3+ 12 bc 'ltxe4+ 13 Φf2
    15 .. 4:lxb6 16f5!? gf 17 ef ο-ο 14 l!e1 .f5 15 Af1! is still
    Axf5 18 4:le5! (a very imaginative good for White.
    attacking idea) 18 ... de 19 I!xf5 10 4)f3 4)a6
    4:lbxd5 20 4)xd5 'ltxd5 21 'ltf1 10 . a6?! 11 Ae2! 4)f6 (11
    (Black's pieces are surprisingly help- Ele8 12 ο-ο 4:lf6 is Hollίs­
    less to prevent l!a3-g3) 21 ... I!b4 Kondali ίη Β) 12 0-0 'ltc7 (12 ...
    22 l!a3 4)e6 23 I!g3 f6 was Hollίs­ Ag4 13 e5 Axf3 14 Axf3 de lS
    Νυπη, Oxford 1975,0-1, 33 and fe 4:lfd7 16 e6 4:le5 17 Ag4! ±,
    84 White p/ays e4, (4 and .Ab5+

    5emkov-Popov, Bulgaria Ch. 1980/ de "lte7 18 ~f1 ab 19 {)xb5 {)xb5


    1, 1-0, 32) 13 e5 {)e8 14 e6! fe 20 ~b5 Etf6 21 f5?! led to a
    15 ~c4 fιe7 16 de {)c7 17 f5! complex position, 0-1, 32. If 5uch
    with a decisive attack, Kasparov- double-edged play doe5 not appeal,
    Kuijpers, Dortmund 1980, 1-0, the safe 12 ~d3 is enough to put
    28. Black off this line.
    1Ο . Ete8 11 ο-ο will trans- 2) 11 Ete8 12 Ete1 and Black
    pose to this note after 11 . a6?! cannot avoid transposition ιο a bad
    ΟΓ to the main line after 11 ... {)a6. line.
    11 ο-ο {)b4
    Most frequently played, but this 57
    ί5 just one fairly dismal choice W
    amongst many. Others:
    1) 11 {)c7 12 ~c4 (12 ~d3
    tran5poses to lίne 3 οπ page 80
    which was considered better for
    White and is therefore another
    good move) 12 ... a6 (12 ... {)b6
    13 ~d3 ~g4 14 h3 ~xf3 15
    fιxf3 {)a6 16 e5! de 17 f5 {)b4
    18 ~e4 fιh4 was Cooper-500s, 12 Ete1!
    Wales-Germany 1979, Υ2-Υ2, 41 Other moves are not 50 convincing:
    and now 19 Φh2 was very good for 1) 12 ~e3 a6 (12 ... {)f6 helps the
    White) 13 Ete1 (13 fιe1 Etb8 and bi5hop to settle οπ c4 and ίπ 5005-
    now 14 e5 b5 15 e6 Ete8 16 f5 ί5 Povah, Birmingham 1977 13 h3 a6
    unclear, 50 Holzl-Nunn, Baden 14 ~c4 ~xe4?! 15 {)xe4 ~e8 16
    1980 went 14 a5 b5 15, ab {)xb6 ~e5! b6 17 {)g5 de 18 fe gave
    16 ~a2 ~g4! 17 fιg3 ~f3 18 Etxf3 White a clear plus, 1-0,44) 13 ~c4
    {)b5 19 f5 {)d4 20 Etf2 ~f6! with (13 ~e2 ~f6 14 h3 Ete8 is awkward)
    advantage for Black, 0-1, 31) 13 13 ... {)b6 (13 ... Etb8 14 h3 Ete8
    .. ~b8 14 e5 b5 15 ab (15 e6 bc 15 ~f2 b5 16 ab ~b6 17 ~e2 ab
    16 e7 fιe8 17 ef=fι+ fιxf8 is 18 ~h4 ~f6 19 ~f6 fιxf6 20
    rather unclear, but after the ex- ~b5 was good for White ίπ Α.
    change of a-pawns this line would Zaitsev-Gufeld, Debrecen 1970,
    be very good for White with the 1-0, 29) 14 ~e2 ~g4 and White is
    rook οπ a1 coming into action οπ just 5lightly better.
    a7, hence Black avoid5 15 ... ab) 2) 12 Φh1 (not especially helpful
    15 . {)b6 and White must be here) 12 a6 (12 . {)f6 13
    better although ίπ 5ilakov-Kristal, f5!? a6 14 ~c4 {)g4 15 ~g5 ~f6
    Leningrad Ch. 1972 16 e6 fe 17 16 ~xf6 "ltxf6 17 "ltd2 gf 18 Etae1
    White p/ays e4, (4 and ~5+ 85
    f4. 19 e5 was better for Whi~e ίη have certainly been good!
    Butnoris-Bangiev, USSR 1917, Υ1- 12 ... a6
    Υ1, 34, but these moves are far from 13 Af1
    forced!) 13 Ac4 ~b6 14 Ae2 Ag4 13 Ac4 ~b6 14 Ae2 Ag4 15 h3
    15 Ae3 li!e8 16 itb3 li!c8 17 li!ad1 Axf3 16 Axf3 was Ι. Watson-
    a5!? 18 h3 Af5 19 ~d2 Axc3 Νυηη, British Ch. 1980, 0-1,.40
    20 bc ~4xd5 21 Ag1 Ad7 with and now 16 ~c4 was fine for
    complications, Cooper-Nunn, Οχ· Black, with the idea of ... ~a5 and
    ford 1975,0-1,36. . c4 invading οη d3 and b3. 13
    3) 12 Ad2 (White simply develops) ΑΗ, οη the other hand, leaνes
    12 .. a6 (12 ... ~f6 13 itb3 Ag4 Black with ηο way to gain a tempo
    14 Ac4 ~d7 15 h3 Axf3 16 li!xf3 by moving the ~ οη d7 and so'
    a6 17 Φh1 Φh8 18 li!e1 ;1;, Dorosh· White has time for h3, preventing
    kevich-Pfleger, Polanica Zdroj the Iίberating exchange ... Ag4xf3.
    1971,1-076) 13 Ae2 li!e8 14Ae1 13 ... li!e8
    ~f6 (14 ... §b8 15 Φh1 ~f6 16 14 h3 itc7 (14 ... §b8 15 Ae3 b6
    ~d2 b6 17 Ag3 Ab7 18 Af3 b5 16 itd2 Ab7 17 Af2 ite7 18 Ac4
    19 ab ab 20 itb3 ;1;, Doroshkevich- itf8 was unpleasantly passive for
    Anikaiev, USSR 1976, 1-0, 39) 15 Black, Enevoldsen-Filίpowicz,
    ~d2 Ad7 16 Ah4 b5 17 e5 de 18 Siegen 1970, 0-1, 38) 15 itb3 f5
    ~de4 Af5 19 ab .Q.xe4 20 ~xe4 16 Ad2 ~f8 17 e5 with a disgusting
    itb6 21 Axf6 Axf6 22 f5 Ag7 23 position (from Black 's side, anyway),
    ba c4+ 24 Φh 1 li!xa6 25 li!xa6 Nepomishy-Agapov, Leningrad Ch.
    itxa6 26 Axc4! itb6 27 d6 gf 28 1980,1-0,31.
    Axf7+! 1-0 (28 . ΦΧf7 29 Black badly needs a new idea
    ith5+), Doroshkevich-Krementski, against 8 Ab5+ and 9 a4 to keep
    USSR 1975. ΟηlΥ Doroshkevich the Benoni ίη business.
    has' played 12 Ad2, but his results
    8. Mikenas Attack

    This is White's most forthright


    52
    attacking lίne against the Benoni.
    Β
    He plays the thematic e5 break at
    the fίrst possible moment and
    manages to catch Black's king ίη
    the centre as a result. But this does
    involve a pawn sacrifίce and, more-
    over, White is oblίged to launch his
    attack with most of his pieces stίll
    οη their original squares, so if
    something goes wrong the backlash
    is usually disastrous. As with many
    sharp opening Iίnes, theory considers 1) 11 *e7 with a second
    the main variation to be a draw, divergence:
    although ίη this case there are 1a) 12 ~d5 *xe6+ 13 *e2 *xe2+
    offshoots if Black wants to play for 14 .Q.xe2 ο-ο 15 ~c7 ~c6 16
    awin. ~χa8 ~b4 17 ~f3! (holding οη to
    1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 ~c3 the material by 17 Φd1 is dangerous
    ed 5 cd d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 Ag7 8 after 17. ~e5 threatening ...
    e5 §d8+) 17 ... ~c2+ 18 Φd1 ~χa1
    8 ... ~fd7 19 .Q.c4+ Φh8 20 ·§e1 (Black's
    Almost universal as the alternative knight is the more difficult to
    8 . . . de is very risky υροη 9 fe eχtract) 20 ... ~f6 (20 ... a6 21
    ~fd7 1Ο e6 fe (1 Ο ... .Qxc3+ 11 bc .Q.e6 ~5 22 §xe5 .Q.xe5 23
    ....4+ 12 g3 *e4+ 13 *e2 wiII trans- .Q.xc8 was Shereshevsky-Semeniuk,
    pose to 2 below after 13 ... *xe2+ Armed Forces Ch., USSR 1974and
    followed by 14 ... fxe6 since 13 now 23 . §xc8 24 ~xe5 §χa8
    . , . *xh1 14 ed+ ΦΧd7 15.Q.h3+ was at least equal for Black; ίη the
    f5 16 *e6+ Φd8 17 .Q.g5+ is game 23 .•• §d8+ 24 .Q.d2 .Q.xb2
    winning for White) 11 de and now: 25 ~b6 led to 1-0, 37 but 21 ~c7
    Mlkenos Attock 87

    100k5 much more logίcal than 21 etc. is also dreadful) 19 Jlc4 g5 (19
    Jle6 50 Black's best chance is ... <Ilxe7 20 4.3h4 4.3e5 21 Jlxe6
    probably 20 ... ~b6! 21 ~xb6 ab and 22 Jlf4) 20 Jla3 b6 21 §ae1
    with an unclear position) 21 ~c7 ~c7 (21 ... <Ilxe7 22 ~d4) 22 ~e5
    §d8+ 22 Jld2 Jlh6 23 ~e6 Jlxe6 4)xe5 23 Elxe5 Jlg4 24 ΑΠ+ <Ild7
    24 §xe6 ~g4 25 'ltc1 Jlxd2+ 26 25 c4 h5 26 Jlc1 Jle6 27 Eld1 +
    ~xd2 and White was much better <Ilxe7 28 Jlxe6 <Ilf6 (28 ... 4)xe6
    ίη LΡutίaη-Μageπamοv, USSR 29 Elde1 Elh6 30 Jlxg5+) 29 Elde1
    1979,1-0,44. Elhe8 30 Jlxg5+ Φg6 31 h4 1-0,
    1b) 12 Jle2 (Iooks the most con- Partos-Zuodar, Switzerland 1976.
    vincing move) ~b6 (12 ... ~f6 13 3) 11 . 4)f6 (11. ~e5 12
    Jlf4 Jlxe6 14 Jld6 'ltd8 15 'lh4+ *xd8+ <IJxd8 13 Jlg5+ ΟΓ 11 ...
    followed by §d 1 is also good for 4)f8 12 ~b5 'ltxd1+ 13 <Ilxd1
    White) 13 Jlf4 Jlxe6 14 4)f3 Jlc4 4)χθ6 14 Jlc4 ~a6 15 ~f3 followed
    15 ο-ο Jlxe2 16 ~xe2 ο-ο (a by §e1) 12 *xd8+ 'ltxd8 13.Qg5
    natural reaction, but 16 . 4)c6 Jlxe6 140-0-0+ Φθ7 15 Ele1 ΦΠ
    would have offered more survival 16 ~h3 §e8 17 4)f4 (another
    chances) 17 Jld6 'lte3+ 18 <Ilh1 appaIIing position for Black) 17
    §d8 19 ~f4'lte4 (White threatened Jlf5 18 Jlc4+ <Ilf8 19 ΕΙχθ8+
    20 §e1 *f2 21 §e2) 20 4)g5 *c6 ~xe8 20 Elf1 Jlf6 21 Jlxf6 ~xf6
    21 'ltb3+ 1-0, LΡutίan-Μageπa­ 22 ~e6+ 1-0, Kuzmin-Espig,
    mov, USSR Young Masters Ch. Zinnowitz 1971.
    1980 ϊη view of 21 ... c4 22 'lt'h3 9 4.3e4
    followed by *e6+. 9 4.3bS de 1Ο 4.3d6+ transposes
    2) 11 'lth4+ (11. . Jlxc3+ to the main Iίne. 9 ed is quite
    12 bc transposes after 12 ... *h4+ inoffensive, for example 9 ... 0-0
    while 12 .. 'lte7 13 ~f3 'ltxe6+ 10 ~f3 ιQf6 11 Jle2 ~θ8 ΟΓ 11
    14 Jle2 ο-ο 15 ο-ο 4)b6 is very ... a6 12 a4 'ltxd6, but 9 e6 is
    good for White) 12 g3 Jlxc3+ 13 playable. One possible lίne is 9 ...
    bc 'lte4+ 14 'lte2 'ltxe2+ 15 Jlxe2 fe 10 de ~b6 (10 ... ~f6 11 Jlc4
    (15 ~xe2 4)f8 16 Jlg2 is ;,\Iso better is dangerous) 11 4.3e4 (White admits
    for White) 15 ... 4)f8 (15 ... 4.3e5 that he has nothing, but berserk
    16 4.3f3) 16 e7 (16 4)f3 ~xe6 17 attacking moves lίke 11 f5 only
    ο-ο ΟΓ 17 Jlh6 is another lίηe rebound if Black just continues
    reputed to be good for White, developing by 11 ... ο-ο) 11 ...
    although there are few practical ο-ο 12 'ltxd6 'ltxd6 13 4.3xd6
    exampJes to back υρ these assess- Jlxe6 14 4.3xb 7 ~a4 15 ~f3 4.3d7
    ments) 16 . ".. 4)e6 17 4.3f3 4.3c6 18 16 Jlb5 ~xb2 17 Elb1 Elab8 which
    ο-ο h6 (unpleasant, but 18 • is generally assessed as equal
    <Ilxe7 19 Jlh6 followed by §ae1, (MiJeika-Elkon, Riga 1959) but
    88 Mlkenas Attack
    the position is messy enough for 'iftf1 ..Qd4 16 *e1 leads nowhere, so
    any result to be possible! The Black should play 14 ... 4)c6 when
    straightforward 18 ..Qxb2 §xb 7 19 15 4)xe8 il'xe8 16 4)f3- 4)d4 17
    ..Qxg7 'iftxg7 is certainly better for 4)xd4 ..Qxd4 18 ..Qxf4 4)e5 gives
    Black ίπ view of White's weak him a clear plus with the White king
    f-pawn. trapped ίπ the centre, but Ι would
    9 ... de Iίke to see a courageous, or fool-
    10 4)d6+ 'ifte7 hardy, person try 15 4)xa8; of course
    There is πο reason at all why Black has a powerful attack but it is
    Black should block ίπ his own a whole rook and the return of the
    pieces by 1Ο. 'iftf8?, when 11 knight to c7 gains a tempo by hitting
    4)f3! gives White a daηgerous and the other rook) 14 . 'lιtxe8+
    enduring attack. (this seems clearer than Hartston's
    14. . il'h4+ which is good for
    Black after 15 'iftd2 4)xe8 16 il'e1 +
    *xe1+ 17 'iftxe1 ..Qe5, but 15 g3!?
    fg 16 4)f3 g2+ 17 4)xh4 gh=* is
    exceedingly unclear after 18 il'e2,
    and if 18 ... ..Qe5 194).0) 15 ..Qe2
    4)e5 16 ..Qxf4 4)bc6 (Black stands
    very well since White has trouble
    developing his knight while Black
    has central outposts οπ e5 and d4)
    17 4)h3 ..Qxh3 18 gh 4)f3+ 19 'iftf2
    11 4)xc8+ *e4 20 ..Qxf3 *xf4 21 Φg2 4)d4
    Or 11 4)b5 (11 fe 4)xe5 12 22 §c1 4)f5! 0-1, Smirnov-
    4)xc8+ *xc8 13 d6+ Φf8 144)f3 Kapengut, Minsk 1979.
    is well answered by 14 .. 4)bc6) 11 'lιtxc8
    11 .. §e8! (11 ... 'iftf8 124)f3 12 4)f3
    e4 13 4)g5 4)f6 14 d6 h6 15 4)xf7 The alternative is 12 d6+ which
    ΦΧΠ 16 ..Qc4+ 'iftf8 17 4)c7 4)c6 forces Black Ιο block his rook, but
    18 ..Qe3 ..Qd7 19 ..Qxc5 was unclear οπ the other hand allows the devel-
    ίπ Brinck-CΙaussen - Fedder, opment of the knight οπ b8 Ιο c6,
    Denmark Ch. 1972, while 11 ... a6 followed by occupation of the
    12 d6+ 'iftf8 13 4)c7 §a7 144)f3 outpost οπ d4: 12 d6+ 'iftf8 13
    *f6 15 ..Qc4 b5 16 ..Qxf7! is 4)f3 e4 (13 ... 4)c6 ·and now 14
    winning for White according to .Qc4 4)b6 15 .Qb3 e4 16 4)e5 4)xe5
    Kapengut) 12 d6+ 'iftf8 13 4)c7 17 fe c4 18 ..Qc2 *f5 was good for
    ef+ 14 4)xe8? (14 ..Qe2! is the Black ίπ Baumbach-Polugayevsky,
    critical Iίne when 14 ... il'h4+ 15 Bad Lίebenstein 1963, 0-1, 40
    Mlkenas Attack 89

    but 14 .ae2 h6 15 fe ~dxe5 16 12 ge8


    ο-ο ~xf3+ 17 .axf3 .ad4+ 18 If Black wants to win, he might
    'Ilh1 Φg7 19 .ad5 gf8 was unclear very weII try 12 ... e4!?, an ideaof
    ίη Gipslis-Grigorian, USSR Ch. Nigel Povah: 12 .. e4!? 13 ~g5
    semifίnal 1964, ]h-]h, 69, Black (13 d6+ Φf8 transposes to the last
    alternatives being 14 .ae2 ~d4 ΟΓ note) 13 ~b6 (prevents .ac4
    14 .ae2 e4 15 ~g5 h6 16 ~xe4 and *d5) and now:
    .ad4 keeping White's king ίη the 1) 14 d6+ Φf8 15 a4 (15 .ac4
    centre) 14 ~g5 h6 15 ~χΠ (15 ~xc4 16 *d5 ~xd6 17 *xd6+
    ~xe4 *e8! 16 *e2 ~c6 17 Φf2 Φg8 18 ο-ο .ad4+ 19 'Ilh1 *f5-
    .ad4+ 18 Φg3 Φg7 19 ~c3 *f8 thIs move, preventing White ~ f5, IS
    20 h3 a6 21 *f3 *xd6 and Black one of Black ~ main ideas Ιπ Povah ~
    was a pawn υρ with the better Ιine - 20 g4 *d7 21 ~xe4 *c6 22
    position, Partos-Holm, Skopje §e1 Φg7 and Black is winning,
    1972) 15 ... ΦχΠ 16 .ac4+ 'Ilf8 Kerr-Povah, London 1976) 15 ...
    17 f5 (White has a few chances h6 16 a5 hg 17 ab a6 18 *d5 *c6
    but Black should defend) 17 19 .ac4 *xd5 20 .Qχd5 ~d7 21
    g5? (17 ... ~c6! is given by Larsen, .aχb7 ab8 22 .ac6 ~xb6 with an
    while 17 . ~d4 18 fg ~e5 19 unclear position, Kooiman-Povah,
    af1 + Φg7 also looks sound) 18 London 1976.
    *d5 ~e5 19 f6! .Qχf6 20 ο-ο Φg7 2) 14 *b3 (14 ~xe4 ad8 15 d6+
    21 axf6 'Ilxf6 22 .aχg5+ Φg6 23 Φf8 followed by. . .ad4 stops
    *xe5 hg 24 §f1 §f8 25 *xe4+ White castlίng whίle 14 d6+ Φf8
    'Ilh6 26.an §χΠ 27 axf7 *h8 15 ~xe4 *e6 is similar to Partos-
    28 *e6+ 'Ilh5 29 *h3+ Φg6 30 Holm given ίη the last note - finally
    *xh8 ~c6 31 *h7 mate, Maffeo- the quiet 14 .ae2 can also be met
    Pastor, USA 1973. Α nice attacking by 14 ... .ad4) 14 ... *f5 15 d6+
    game, but the overaLI verd ict is that Φf8 16.ac4 (16 g4 *d7) h6 17
    12 dG+ is better for Black. ~χΠ (17 .ae6?! fe 18 ~xe6+ Φg8!
    wins for Black) 17 . . . ~xc4 18
    *xb7 (18 ~xh8 ~xd6) 18 ... *χΠ
    54
    19 *xa8 *e8 20 *xa7 .ad4 and
    Β
    Black has a strong initiative.
    13 fe
    The older Iίnes stiII present a few
    problems, for example 13 .ac4 (13
    .ae2 'Ilf8 14 ο-ο e4 15 ~g5 h6
    16 f5 hg 17 fg and the attack is
    refuted by 17 ... ~e5 rather than
    17 . . . ~f6? as ίη Meinsohn-
    9(J Mlkenos Attock
    Podzielny, Groningen 1974/5,0-1, Aχf6 21 *xd5+ Φg7 22 Ag5!
    40) 13. . Φf8 (13 .•. ~b6 14 ~d7 23 I:Ixf6 ~xf6 24 Axf6+
    d6+ 'itIf8 15 Ab5 ~c6 16 ο-ο Φg8 Φχf6 25 1:If1 + Φg7 26 *f7+ with
    17 fe Axe5 is equal according to a draw is Hardicsay's analysis) 18 ...
    Suetin) 14 ο-ο ~b6 (14 ... e4 '15 c4 19 ~xh7+ Φg8 20 ~xf6+
    ~g5 h6 16 ~xf7 Ad4+ 17 Φh1 Aχf6 21 §xf6 'ltχf6 22 *xd5+
    ΦΧf7 18 f5 ~f6 19 fg+ Φg7 20 *f7 23 *xf7+ ΦχΠ 24 Aχc4+
    I:Ixf6 Axf6 21 *h5 e3 left White Φg7 25 b4 ~c6 26 ,Q,b2+ 'itIh6 27
    with insuffιcient attack ίη Gigerl- Ela3 l:Iad8 28 Af6 §d1+ 29 Φf2
    Grunfeld, Groningen 1974/5,0-1, I:Id2+ 30 Φf1 Υ:!-Υ:! Sobek-
    47 but 16 f5! was a more dangerous Hardicsay, Ostrava 1979. Το my eye
    sacrifιce, with White's bishop being 13 ... ~xe5 looks the safer move.
    much more actively placed than ίη 14 Ab5 ~bd7
    Meinsohn-Podzielny above) 15 Hartston suggests the exchange
    Ab5 §d8 16 fe (16 d6 a6 17 Ae2 offer 14 *g4!? 15 Aχe8 (15
    e4 is good for Black) 16 ... I:Ixd5 ~xe5 *b4+) 15 ... *xg2 161:1f1
    17 *e1 ~c6 18 ,Q,xc6 *xc6 19 Φχe8, but 15 O-O~xf3+ 16*xf3
    ~4 Φg8 20 ~g5 h5 21 ~xf7 Elf8 *xf3 17 §xf3 looks awkward, for
    22 Ah6! Eld4 23 *f2 *e6 24Axg7 example 17 ... ~d7 (17 ... ,Q,d4+
    ι:lxf7 (24 ... Φχg7 25 ~g5! *e7 26 18 Ae3) 18 ,Q,g5+ f6 19 §e1+ Φf7
    *xf8+ wίΓδ) 25 Af6 ~d5 26 *c2 (19 ... Φd6 20,Q,f4+!) 20 §xe8
    Φh7 Υ:!-Υ:! Mikenas-Suetin, USSR Φχe8 21 Aχf6 Aχf6 22 §xf6 and

    Ch. 1962 although White seems to White stίll has an advantage.


    be slίghtly better now. Perhaps the
    risky 17 ... c4!? is possible.
    13 ..• ~xe5
    Απ interesting alternative is 13
    ... Φf8, with the continuation 14
    e6 (14 Ab5 a6 15 Aχd7 ~xd7 16
    e6 fe 17 0-0 Φg8 is good for
    Black) 14 ... fe 15Ae2(15d6Φg8
    16 Ac4 ~6 17 ο-ο ~b6 18,Q,b3
    ~d4 19 ~g5 *c6 20 *g4 ~xb3
    21 ab *xd6 and White had insuf-
    fιcient compensation ίη Vukovic- 15 ο-ο
    Petrosian, Bar 1980, 0-1, 46) 15 15 ~xe5 Φf8 16 ο-ο just
    ed (after 15 ~f6 16 d6 transposes.
    would have more point) 16 ο-ο 15 ... Φf8
    ~f6 17 ~g5 *c6! 18 a4 (18 Ab5!? 15 " a6? 16 ~xe5 Aχe5 17
    itxb5 19 ~xh7+ Φg8 20 ~xf6+ d6+ Φf8 18 *d5 Ad4+ 19 Φh1
    Mlkenos AttfJck 91

    ~f6 20 Ah6+ Φg8 21 §xf6! Axf6 White the edge) 19 Axd7 (19.A.e2
    22 d7 ab 23 dc=* §axc8 24 could well be better) 19 ..• *xd7
    'ltxb7 Axb2 25 §f1 1-0 was J. 20 *b3 (20 *f3 §d8 21 §ad1
    Lίttlewood-Povah, England 1975, intending d6 maintains an edge for
    while 15 ... ~xf3+? 16 *xf3 ~e5 White) 20 ... Φg7 21 §ae1 f6 22
    17 .A.g5+ eof8 18 *f2 is also very Φh1 b5 23 *f3 'ltd6 24 §e2 §d8
    dangerous for Black. 25 §d1 h5 26 §e4 c4 27 *e2 §c8
    16 ~xe5 §xe5 28 h3 §c5 ΥΖ-ΥΖ Shereshevsky-
    16 ... Axe5 17 *f3 f5 18 g4 Savon, USSR 1974.Possibly Black
    proved too dangerous for Black ίπ should be able to draw these
    Rajkovic-Planinc, Majdanpek 1976 exchange down positions, but why
    after 18 ... .A.d4+ (18 ... a6 = was bother when there is something
    given by Rajkovic but 19 Ac4 b5 better?
    20 gf bc 21 fg+ ~f6 22.A.g5 looks
    rather nasty for Black) 19 Φh 1 ~e5 56
    20 *g2 §d8 21 gf Φg7 22 Ag5
    §d6 23 §ae1 §b6 24 .A.f4!, 1-0, W
    36.
    17 Af4 c4!
    When the variation with 13 fe
    appeared round about 1974 White
    suddenlY started scoring weII with
    the Mikenas attack, but Kapengut's
    17 ... c4! has restored the balance.
    Other moves are not convincing: 17 18 *d4
    ... a6 (17 . §e4 18*f3f5 19 Everything else is good for Black,
    §ae1 looks very risky for Black) 18 for example 18 .A.xd7 (18 Axe5
    Axe5 (18 Axd7 transposes while 18 ~xe5 19 Φ h 1 *c5 20 .A.a4 §d8
    Ae2 §e8 19 d6 b5 20 a4 c4 21 gives Black two pawns and a big
    Af3 *c5+ 22 Φh1 §ad8 23 ab ab positional plus for the exchange)
    24 b4! was unclear ίπ Brondum- 18 ... *c5+ 19 Φh1 §xd5 20
    Νυηπ, Ostend 1975, ΥΖ-ΥΖ, 30) 18 *g4 (20 .A.d2 hoping for 20
    ... Axe5 (18 ... ~xe5 19 Ae2 c4 §xd7 21 .A.b4! tlops after 20 .•.
    20 eoh1 *c5 21 *d2 was Sosonko- *d6) 20 ... f5 21 *h3 (21 Ae6 fg
    Jakobsen, Barcelona 1975 and now 22 .A.d6+ Φe8 23 Axc5 §xc5 24
    Hartston suggests 21 *d6 as §ae1 §e5 25 §xe5 Axe5 26 §e1
    better than 21 ... §d8 22 §fd1 b5 §d8 is given by Kapengut, but 26
    23 a4! b4 24 §ac1 as played, when Axb2 seems to offer much
    White won ίη 41 moves, but the better winning chances) 21 ... §xd7
    weakness of the c-pawn must give 22 *xh7 Φf7 23 §ad1 (23 Ah6 is
    92 Mlkenas Attack
    best answered by 23 .. ~g8 24 ~d5 23 ~xd5+ Φχd5 24 ~d1+
    ~ae1 ~e7 25 ~d1 *e5 with a Φc5 rather than 21 Φe6 22
    distinct plus for Black, Sofman- !aae1 + ~e5 when 23 ~xe5+!
    Kapengut, USSR 1976, rather than !axe5 24 *f6+ Φd5 25 ~d1+
    23 *f8?! 24 g4! when Black wins; to this we may add the
    was only slightly better ίη Ν. Iίnes 21 ~ae1+ Φd6 and 20 ~xf5
    Davies-Nunn, London 1976, 0-1, .Qg7! 21 *f4 *c5+ 22 Φh1 gf 23
    37) 23 ... ~ad8 24 ~xd7+ ~xd7 .Qxd7 *xd5 and ίη all cases Black is
    25 h4 *e7 26 .Qg5 *e2 27 ~f3 better) 20 . .Qg7! (now 20 ...
    *e5 28 ~f1 *e2 29 ~f3 ~d 1+ 30 *xd7 21 *h8+ Φe7 22 ~ae1 +
    Φh2 *e5+ 31 .Qf4 *e1 32 Φh3 Φd6 23 *xa8 is unclear) 21 *xg7+
    (Yuferov-Kapengut, USSR 1976, Φχg7 22 .Qxc8 ~xf1 + 23 Φχf1
    Υ2-Υ2, 56) and now 32 ... *e6! is ~xc8 with a winning position for
    good for Black. Black, but Υ2-Υ2, 61.
    18 ~f5 19 *xc4
    19 *xc4 20 .Qxc4
    Legky-Svedchikov, USSR 1978 This ending is unclear after 20 ...
    continued 19 .Qh6? (imaginative, .Qxb2 (20 ... ~e5 is not so good as
    but unsound) 19 .. .Qxh6 20 21 .Qe2 threatens g4)} but Ι would
    .Qxd7 (20 *h8+ Φe7 21 d6+ is expect the correct result to be a
    answered by 21 ... Φχd6! 22 ~d1+ draw.
    9. White plays tL1f3, e4 and Jtg5

    The basic idea of this line is that 6 ... g6


    White aims, by foIIowing υρ with 7 e4
    <tιd2 and Ae2, to obtain a favourabIe Or 7 Ag5 and now:
    version of the CΙassica! system ίπ 1) 7 ... h6 8 Ah4 g5 9 Ag3 <tιh5
    which his bishop is οπ g5 rather and now 1Ο e3 is chapter 1Ο whίle
    than buried οπ c1. If White achieves 1Ο e4 leads ιο Α, note ιο White's
    this ambition then he stands weII, 11 th move after 1 Ο ... <tιxg3 11 hg
    so BIack must try to disrupt White's Ag7.
    pIan. The usuaI method invoIves 2) 7. . Ag7 8 <tιd2 (8 e4 is the
    chasing the bishop with ... h6 and main line) 8 ... h6 (best, as 8 ...
    g5, foIIowed by <tιh5xg3 to ο-ο 9 e41eads to the unsatisfactory
    exchange ίι off. BIack must be position mentioned below) 9 :Ω.h4
    carefu! because this manoeuvre g5 1Ο Ag3 <tιh5 11 *a4+ (11 e4 is
    Ieaves him dangerousIy behind ίπ Α, 11 e3 is Ch. 1 Ο whiIe 11 <tιc4
    deveIopment, so pIay often takes a <tιxg3 12 hg ο-ο is Ιί keIy to Iead to
    tactica! turn at a fairIy earIy stage. one of these two according ιο
    Experience ίπ the critica! line Β is whether White pIays e3 ΟΓ e4) 11
    stiII fairly Iimited, but at the ... Φf8 (not 11 ... Ad7 12 "ll'e4+)
    moment BIack is keeping his head 12 e3 (12 e4 <tιxg3 13 hg a6 14
    above water. Ae2 <tιd7 15 "ll'c2 <tιe5 16 ο-ο h5
    1 d4 <tιf6 17 <tιf3 <tιg6 18 ι::!ad 1 h4 was good
    2 c4 c5 for BIack ίπ Popov-Kluger, Sofιa
    3 d5 e6 1962, Υι-Υι, 49 while 12 "ll'b3 and
    4 <tιc3 ed 12 *c2 can be met by 12 ... <tιxg3
    5 cd d6 13 hg <tιd7 followed by *e7)
    6 <tιf3 12 ... <tιxg3 13 hg <tιd7 14 *c2
    There are many transpositional <tJe5 15 Ae2 a6 16 a4 h5!? (16 ...
    possibilities ίπ this variation. Here *e7 is possibIe, but 16 ... Ad7 17
    White can pIay 6 e4 g6 7 <tιf3 ΟΓ 7 a5 Φg8 18 e4 Ab5 19 <tιd1 .ίιxe2
    Ag5, transposing to the main line. 20 Φχe2 itd7 21 <tιe3 \tb5+ 22
    94 White p/ays {)f3, e4 ond Ag5

    {)dc4 {)xc4 23 {)xc4 Ad4 24 g4 f4 'fιd7 14 Aχf6! Aχf6 15 e5 de


    'Iig7 25 Φf3! gave Wh ite a strong grip 16 {)de4 'fιd8 17 d6 {)e6 18 d7!
    οη the White squares ίπ Uhlmann- Axd7 19 'fιxd7 ef 20 'fιxe8+ 1-0,
    Garcia, Mar del Plata 1966, 1-0, Μ. Tseitlίn-Sher, USSR 1978 ΟΓ
    51 - perhaps best of all is 15 10 .•. b6 11 0-0 Aa6 12 f4Axe2
    'fιe7, without weakening the queen- 13 'fιχe2 a6 14 'fιf3 ιtιbd7 15
    side pawns) 17 a5 g4 18 f4 gf 19 ι:lae1 'fιc7, as ίη Μ. Tseitlin-
    gf h4 20 f4 {)g4 Υ2-Υ2, Uhlmann- Arseniev, USSR 1978, Υ2-Υ2,
    Espig, Raach 1969. Ι suspect that 46 and now 16 Aχf6! Aχf6 17
    Black's position ί!; satisfactory ίη e5 de 18 f5 was good for White) 11
    this Iίne, despite the poor practical ο-ο a6 12 a4 'fιc7 and now 13
    results. Most of the games were 'Iih1 was slightly better for White ίη
    played ίη the 1960's when Black Blocker-Hongyun, Mexico 1980;
    players didn't generally understand 0-1, 41 but 13 f4! was distinctly
    these positions too well. unpleasant for Black.
    7 ... Ag7 1b)9 ... h610Ah4ιtιbd7(10 ...
    8 Ag5 b6 11 Ae2 Aa6 12 ο-ο Aχe2 13
    'fιxe2 a6 14 a4 ι:le8 15 f4 'fιc7 16
    57 ι:lae1 ιtιbd7 17 'Iih1 ιtιh7 18Ag3!
    Β ι:le 7 19 'fιd 3 ιtιhf6 20 e5! ιtιh5 21
    e6 and White won ίη 48 moves,
    Miles-Robatsch, Biel 1977) 11 Ae2
    ι:le8 (11 'fιe7 12 ο-ο trans-
    poses to page 32, note to Black's
    9th move, variation 1) 12 0-0 g5
    13 Ag3 ιtιe5 14 'fιc2 ιtιh 7 15 f4 gf
    16 ι:lxf4 ιtιf8 17 ι:laf1 ιtιfg6 18
    ι:lf5! a6 (18 . Aχf5 19 ef ιtιf8
    Now the way divides: 20 Ab5 ιtιfd7 21 {)de4 gives White
    Α) 8 '" h6 9 Ah4 g5 a 'strong attack) 19 Ah5 ι:lf8 20
    Β) 8 ... h6 9 Ah4 a6 Aχg6 fg 21 ι:lxf8+ Aχf8 22
    Less ί mportant alternatives: Aχe5 de 23 ιtιc4 with a permanent
    1) 8 ... ο-ο (a mistake aIIowing positional plus, Μ. Tseitlin-
    White to reach the type of position Ant<>nov, USSR 1978,1-0,40.
    he is aiming for - Zeuthen reports 2) 8 .. a6 (this is very simίlar to
    that υρ to 1971 White scored +9 Β, into which it can transpose if
    =1 -2 from this position!) 9 {)d2 Black plays ... h6 at some point -
    and now: generally speaking it is better to
    1a) 9 ... ι:le8 10 Ae2 {)bd7 (10 have the bishop οη h4 from Black's
    ... {)a6 11 0-0 {)c7 12 a4 b6 13 point of view) 9 ιtιd2 (9 a4 h6 is 8)
    White ""ays !df3, e4 and .Q.g5 95

    9 b5 10 e5!? (an attempt to 58


    prevent Black from transposing to Β
    Β with ... h6) 1Ο ... de 11 a4 b4
    12 oi)ce4 ο-ο (12 ... h6 13 .Q.e3
    oi)xe4 14 oi)xe4 oi)d7 15 oi)d6+
    Φe7 16 oi)e4 §e8 17 'fιc1 Φf8 18
    Axh6 'fιh4 19 Axg7+ Φχg7 20
    .Q.d3 .Q.b7 21 oi)d6.Q.xd5 22 oi)xe8+
    §xe8 with an unclear position,
    Michalevsky-Lίndicrenko, Minsk
    1980,1-044) 13.Q.c4oi)bd7 140-0
    h6 15 .Q.e3 .Q.b 7 16 oi)xf6+ oi)xf6 17 a6 and a4 have already been
    Axc5 §e8 18 d6 'fιc8 19 Axb4 played) 13 a4 oi)d7 14 .Q.e2 (14
    Axg2! 20 Φχg2 'fιb7+ 21 oi)f3 oi)c4 oi)e5 15 oi)e3 g4 16 .Q.e2 6g5
    'fιxb4 22 d7 oi)xd7 23 .Q.xn+ 17 itc2 b6 18 §c1 ο-ο 19 oi)f5
    ΦΧΠ 24 itxd7+ Φg8 with advan- .Q.xf5 20 ef §fe8 was good for
    tage to Black, Michalevsky-Sarbai, Black ίη Weber-Tan, Skopje 1972)
    Minsk 1980, although the game 14 ... 'fιe7 (14 ... ο-ο transposes
    ended ίη a draw. There seems ηο to 2 after 15 oi)c4 'fιe7 16 ο-ο ΟΓ
    reason why Black should not play 16 itc2, whίle 15 f4 itf6 16 e5
    8 ... h6 ΟΓ 9 ... h6 and avoid such itg6! 17 oi)de4 gf 18 gf f5 19.Q.h5
    troublesome Iίnes. 'fιxg2 20 .Q.f3 'fιxb2 21 ab1 fe!
    Α: 22 ab2 ef 23 itxf3 oi)xe5 24 itg3
    8 ... 'h6 nxf4 was good for Black ίη Dubsa-
    9 .Q.h4 g5 Dekker, ΟΟΓΓ. 1979,0-1,45) 15 a5
    1 Ο .Q.g3 oi)h5 ab8 16itc2-.Δ.d4?! 17.Q.g4Φf8?!
    Originally thought completely 18 oi)e2 .Q.f6 19 .Q.f5 oi)e5 20 f4
    satisfactory for Black, this line is oi)g4 21 .Q.xc8 axc8 22 e5 with
    ηονν under a large cloud. advantage for White, Uhlmann-
    11 .Q.b5+ Keene, Hastings 1966/7, Υ2-Υ2, 33,
    The only dangerous move. Trans- but Black's play was artifιcial.
    position to the King's Indian can 2) 12 •.. 0-0 13 .Q.e2 oi)d7 (13.,.
    occur after 11 oi)d2 (11 .Q.e2 oi)xg3 f5 is also possible, for example 14
    12 hg ο-ο ννίll transpose since oi)c4 'fιe7 15 ef .Q.xf5 16 oi)e3 oi)d7
    White must play oi)d2 sooner ΟΓ 17 g4 .Q.g6 18 .Q.d3 .Q.xd3 19 itxd3
    later) oi)xg3 12 hg and nονν: (58) oi)e5 20 *e2 nf4 21 0-0-0 *f8
    1) 12 ... a6 (Black should probably 22 f3 ne8 23 oi)e4 c4 24 ΦbΙ c3!
    avoid playing this for a few moves, 25 bc b5 26 nhe1 b4 27 c4 oi)xf3
    but transposition into this lίne can 28 gf nexe4 29 fe 'fιf6 30 nd3
    occur from Β ίη which the moves nf2 31 tbf2 -.ta1+ 0-1, F.
    96 Whlte p/ays 4:113, e4 ond ;A.g5

    Portisch-Bίlek, Zalaegerszeg 1969, is very good for White.


    ΟΓ although 16 ο-ο with equality 12 e5!
    was more sensible, ΟΓ 14 ef .Qxf5 15 This is the move which led to
    ο-ο 4:ld7 16 4:lc4 4:le5 17 4:lxe5 .Qxe5 the change of ορίπίοπ mentioned
    18 .Qd3 ~H6 19 *c2 a6 20 a4 c4 earlier. The older move 12 .Qe2 is
    21 .Qxf5 *xf5 with a tiny plus for satisfactory for Black, for example
    Black, Botez-Stein, Tel-Aviv 1964, 12 ... 4:lxg3 13 hg (13 fg 4:ld7 14
    }'1-}'1, 31) 144:1c4 (Whitehasmany ο-ο a6 15 a4 proved good for
    other moves here, but the plan of Black after both 15 .. 'fιe7 16
    ... 'fιe7 and ... 4:le5 is enough to .c2 h5 17 4:ld1 4:le5 18 !ta3 .Qd7
    hold the balance ίπ all cases) 14 ... 19 4:lxeS .Qxe5 20 4:le3 .Qd4 21
    *e7 15 ο-ο (15 *c2 a6 16 a4 Φh1 l:Ie8 22 4:lc4 Φg7 23 l:Iaf3
    4:le5 17 4:le3 .Qd7 18 a5 l:Iae8 19 f6 24 4:le3 'fιxe4, F. Portisch-
    g4 4:lg6 20 g3 .Qxc3 21 bc 'fιxe4 Tίmoshchenko, Vilnus 1969, 0-1,
    22 *xe4 I:Ixe4 23 I:Ixh6 Φg7 24 38 and 15 . b6 16 'fιc2 h5 17
    !th5 Φf6 25 Φd2 was slίghtly 4:ld 1 4:le5 18 l:Ia3 l:Ia 7 19 4:lxe5
    better for White ίπ Najdorf- .Qxe5 20 g4? hg 21 g3 f6 224:1f2
    Uhlmann, Havana 1966, }'1-}'1, 41 .Qd4 23 Φh1 §ah7 24 4:lxg4 'fιe7
    but awaiting events by 17 •.. I:Ib8 25 §e1, Szabo-Perez, Oberhausen
    looks stronger, for if 18 g4 .Qd7! 1961 and now Ι would have mated
    19 a5 b5 20 ab I:Ixb6 is possible ίπ six with 25 ... I:Ixh2+ 264:1xh2
    beca:use White's g-pawn is ίπ­ I:Ixh2+ but it must be admitted
    adequately defended) 15 4:leS that 25 ... I:Ih3 26 eS 'fιxe5 0-1
    16 4:le3 a6 17 a4 .Qd7 18 a5 f5 as ίπ the game was also effective -
    (there is usually some danger the important point to notice here
    involved ίπ exchanging the bishop is the move .. h5 preventing the
    for White's knight οπ e3 as the exchange of white-squared bishops
    bishop οη e2 can occupy e6, but by .Qg4) 13 .•. 4:ld7 14 4:ld2 a6
    here the knight οπ e5 keeps it at 15 a4 and now:
    bay) 19 ef .QxfS 20 4:lxf5 I:IxfS
    21 l:Ia4 l:Iaf8 22 l:Ie4 iM8 23 f4
    59
    gf 24 gf 'fιh4!? 25 fe I:Ixf1+ 26
    Β
    .Qxf1 Μ2+ 27 Φh2 .Qxe5+ 28
    I:Ixe5 'fιh4+ 29 Φg1 Μ2+ 30 Φh2
    'fιh4+ }'1-V2, Ojanen-Fuller, Siegen
    1970.
    11 ••. Φf8
    Forced since 11 . .Qd7 12
    .Qxd7+ 'fιxd7 13 4:le5 'fιe7 14
    'fιxh5 .QxeS 15 .Qxe"S 'fιxe5 16 h4
    Whlte ploys 4:ιf3j e40nd .Q.g5 97
    1) 1S ••. *e7 16g4 (16*c2.Q.d4 Uhlmann-Padevsky, Zagreb 1965,
    17 :f1 Φg7 180-0-0 b5 19 ab 1-0, 40) 18 ab ~xb6 19 ~a2 g4
    was' asking for trouble ίη Mecking- 20 4:ιd1 h5 21 ~e3 ~b4 with some
    Keene, Hastings 1966/7, 1-0, 37 plus for Black, Pietzsch-Capello,
    and now 19 ... ab would have given Havana 1966 but 22 ~dc4 4:ιχc4
    Black a very dangerous attack) 16 23 ~xc4 *e7 24 ~e3 .Qd4?! (why
    ... .Q.d4 17 ο-ο? (Highly unwise. not take the e-pawn?) 25 Axa6
    17 ~c4 b6 18 *d2 ~b8 19 f3 ~e5 .Q.xa6 26 ~xa6 .Q.xe3 27 fe *e5?
    20 ~e3 ~g6 21 g3 *e5 22 ~h3 as (27. . *xe4 is equal) 28 0-0
    ίη Bobotsov-Levy, Praia da Rocha ~xb2 29 *a4 *e7? 30 ~a7 ~b7
    1969, ~-~, 29 also seems some- 31 *a1! 1-0. Very unlucky!
    what better for Black after 22 ... The flexible 15 *e7 looks
    b5! 23 ab ab 24 ~xb5 .Q.xe3 25 preferable to 15 ... ~e5 because it
    *xe3 *xb2, however) 17 ... 4:ιf6 aIIows .. Ad4 ίη many positions,
    18 ~c4 h5 and now Bobotsov- activating the bishop and prep~ring
    Kaplan, Siegen 1970 finished 19 gh ... Φg7.
    g4 20 ~3 4:ιΧh5 21 Axg4 *114
    (threatening 22 ...*111+!) 22 g3
    ~xg3 23 Φg2 ~xf1 24 ΦΧf1 Axc3
    0-1 while Forintos-Minic, Pula
    1971 ended 19 ~b6 hg 20 g3 ~xe4
    21 ~xc8 *e5! 22 Φg2 4:ιχc3 23 bc
    *e4+ 24 f3 ~h2+ 0-1.
    2) lS ... ~e5 16 *c2 (16 ~f1 ~b8
    17 ~e3 h5 18 *c2 g4 19 ~f5
    .Q.xf5 20 ef *g5 21 ~h4 ~e8 22
    Φf1 ~d7 23 Ad3 .Q.xc3 24 bc ~e5
    wasgood forBlack inGolz-Pietzsch, 12 ... ~xg3
    East German Ch. 1967, 0-1, 40 Hartston is surely correct when
    but 16 g4 ~b8 17 g3 is better, for he gives 12 ... a6 as the best move.
    example 17 ... *d7 18 f3 b5 19 The point is that 13 Ad3 is πο good
    ab ab 20 *b3 b4 21 ~d1 Af6 22 οη account of 13 ... de 14 Axe5
    ~e3 *c7 23 Φf2 Φg7 24 f4 with g4 15 .Q.xg7+Φχg7 16~d2 ~e8+
    advantage ιο White, Uhlmann- and Black stands weII (Keene-
    Espig, Berlίn 1968, 1-0, 40) 16 ... Timman, Vlissingen 1975) so the
    ~b8 17 a5 b5 (17 ... .Qf6 18 ~d1 bishop is forced to retire to the less
    b5 19 ab ~xb6 20 ~a2 Φg7 21 active square e2. However a Iίkely
    ~e3 ~e8 22 ο-ο Φg8 23 g4 and outcome of this is transposition to
    Black's slow reorganisation has Stean-Nunn given below, which is
    left White with the better game, stiII very pleasant for White. Djukic-
    98 Whιte plajιst,)f3, e4and Ag5

    Κarlsson,Vrnjacka Banja 1981 went Φe8 21 Ah5+ mates whiJe 18 ...


    13 Ae2 t,)f4 14 .Qxf4 gf 15 ed t,)d7 19 d6 and 18 ... Df7 19 t,)d2
    .Qxc3+ 16 bc *xd6 17 0-0 Dg8 are awful for Black) 19 Ad3 with
    unclear, 0-1, 56 ίs an ίnterestίng the intention of 20 d6+ and 21 g4
    attempt to avoίd this, and is prob- gίve5 White a big advantage. After
    ably Black's best try after 12 e5. 14 Ae2 the continuation 14 ... g4
    Another move is 12 ... g4 but 13 15 4)h4 .Δ.xe5 ίs ηο better sίnce16
    0-0 (13 Ah4! *b6 (140-0 gf 15 ο-ο *g5 (guardίng against 4)g6+
    e6 also gives Whίte an ίmmense and Axg4) 17 Φh1! followed by
    attack) 13 ... de (13 ... gf 14 ttxf3 4)e4 ίs very dangerous for Black.
    itg5 15 Ae2 Ag4! 16 *xg4 *xg4
    17 Axg4 t,)xg3 18 fg Axe5 must be 61
    the best defence, when although Β
    White can wίn a pawn by 19 Ac8 a6
    20 Axb7 Black may well be abJe ιο
    draw) 14 Ah4 Af6 15 Axf6 *xf6
    16 t,)d2 *&6 17 tte2 f6 18 t,)de4
    gave White aπ excellent positίon ίη
    Hartston-Wahlbom, CΙare Benedict
    1977,1-0,29.
    13 fg
    Normally the other recapture is 14 ... de
    better but here the attacking Or 14 ... c4 (14 ... *b6? 15
    chances offered by the open fιJe 4)d2! and now 15 ... *xb2 lose5
    against Black's king outweίgh stra- after 16 ο-ο! .Δ.xe5 17 *h5 f6 18
    tegic considerations. t,)de4 .Δ.xc3 19 t,)xc3 *xc3 20
    13 ... a6 E!ae1 Ad7 21 *g6 50 ίη MiJes-
    13 ... de 14 ο-ο a6 transp05es. Wedberg, Stockholm 1976 Black
    14 Ad3 played 15 .. Aχe5 but 105t after
    14 Ae2 de 15 ο-ο !ila7?! (Black 16 t,)c4 .Δ.xc3+ 17 bc *c7 18 ο-ο
    5houJd have trίed 15 ... f5 with the Φg7 19 *h5 Df8 20 !ilf6! ΦΧf6
    ίdea of e4 foJlowed by 21 *xh6+ Φe7 22 E!e1+ 1-0) 15
    Ad4+ and ... Φg7, gίving υρ the e4 .Δ.xc4 b5 16 Ad3?! (16 Ab3!
    pawn if necessary ιο get the king seems more accurate, when GuJko-
    off the f.fίle; Ι stίJl prefer White Savon, USSR Ch. 1977 wenton 16
    though) 16 a4 b6 17 *b3 f5 wa5 . *b6 17 *e2 de 18 0-0-0
    Steaπ-Nunn, Birmίngham 1976, b4 19 t,)a4 itd6 20 t,)d2 Ad7
    1-0, 33 and now instead of 18 21 t,)c4 Ab5 22 t,)xd6 Axe2 23
    t,)d2?! e4! unclear, 18 E!ad1! Φg8 Dd2 Ab5 24 4)b6 E!a7 25 !ilc2!
    (18 ... e4 19 4)xe4 fe 204)χg5+ with advantage to White, 1-0,41;
    Whlte ploys4jf3, e4andAg5 99
    17 ... g4 18 ~h4 ~e5 has been "ltxg8 ~d7 27 itd5 J:la7 (27 ..•
    gίven as an ίmprovement but 19 IΞ!b8 28 .d6+ Φh 7 29 "l-χd3+
    IiIf1 IΞ!g8 20 .Q.c2 stίll seems very Φh8 3ό liIe1 wίns) 28 *c6+
    promίsίng) 16 ... itb6 17 ite2 de ~f6 29 -ιtχc8 winning, Dorfman-
    18 ~χe5 (18 0-0-0 ίs πο longer Svedchikov, USSR 1978, 1-0, 38;
    convίncίng as the knίght is υπ­ Β
    defended after 18 ... b4 19 ~a4 8 ... h6
    ita5, but the move played involves 9 .Q.h4 a6
    a piece sacrifice) 18 §a7 19 10 ~d2
    0-0-0 lΞ!e7 20 ~g6+ fg 21 §hf1+ 1Ο a4 g5 11 .Q.g3 ~h5 transposes
    .Q.f5 22 itc2 .Q.f6 23 ~f5 gf 24 to lίne 1 οη page 95.
    itχf5 Φg7 25 d6 §f7 26 Φb1 10 b5
    §d8? (after 26 ... IΞ!hf8! ίt ίs hard If Black oιiΊits thίs Whίte can
    to see how Whίte can contίnue) 27 reach the favourable posίtίons given
    ~e4 IΞ!df8 28 ~c5 Φg8 29 ~e6 ίη the analysis of 8 ... ο-ο.
    .Q.g7 30 itg6 itb7 (30 ... ita7 31 Now there ίs a further divergence:
    ~χf8 lΞ!χf8 32 §χf8+ Φχf8 33 d7
    ~χd7 34 itd6+ Φe8 35 ite6+ Φd8 62
    36 itg8+ wins) 31 d7! ~xd7 32
    W
    §χΠ IΞ!xf7 33 *xf7+ 1-0, Η0ί­
    DΆmοre, Rome 1981.
    15 ο-ο b5
    After 15 Φg8 16 ~d2 (not
    16 ~xe5? ~e5 17 *h5 itf8 18
    .Q.g6 f6 19 §ae 1 .Q.d4+ 20 Φh 1
    .Q.d7 and wίns, Matera-Rohde, New
    York 1977, 0-1, 25) followed by
    *h5 is very good for White.
    16 ite2 Β1: 11 a4
    16 ~d2 c4 17 ith5 f6 18.Q.c2 Β2: 11 .Q.e2
    .Q.d7 19 a4! .Q.e8 20 .Q.g6 ~d7 21 Or
    ab ~g6 22 *χg6 ab 23 IiIxa8 1) 11 f3 (a rather passίve move) 11.
    *xa8 24 ~de4 *e8 25 itf5 was ... ~bd7 12 itc2 ο-ο (12 ... §b8
    also winnίng for Whίte, Mίles­ ίs more accurate sίnce then 13 a4
    Hernandez, BieI1977, 1-0,48. can be met by 13 ... c4 and Black
    16 ... c4 avoίds the break-up of his queensίde
    17 ~xe5! -ιtb6+ 18 Φh1 cd 19 pawns) 13 a4 ba 14 .Q.e2 ~b6 15
    *h5 Φg8 20 *xf7+ Φh7 21 d6! ~xa4 g5 16 .Q.f2 ~xa4 17 J:lxa4 g4
    *xd6 22 ~e4 -ιtχe5 23 ~f6+ -ιtχf6 18 fg ~xg4 19 ~g4 ~g4 20 0-0,
    24 §xf6 §g8 25 lΞ!χh6+ Φχh6 26 Kuligowski-Trίngov, Nίs 1979,
    100 Whlte ploys lt!f3, e4 and ~g5. '1:,
    1-0, 36 and now 20 ... f5 is fιne (14 ~e2 is more dangerous, when ~
    for Black. Vaganian-Hort, Niksic 1978 con- "1
    2) 11 *c2 ο-ο 12 a4 b4 13 lt!d1 tinued 14 .. lt!bd7 15 ο-ο 0-0 1
    §e8 14lt!e3 (White seeks to occupy 16 ι::Ie1 o{)e5 17 *c2 o{)fd7 18lt!f1 ~;
    c4 as soon as possible) 14 .. b3 b3! 19 itd1 §b8 20 o{)e3 o{)f6 21 Ι
    (a typical thrust ίη this variation) lt!d2 ι::Ib4 with an unclear position, J

    15 itb1 g5 16 ~g3 o{)h5 17 ~d3 Υ2-Υ2, 41 - note that 14 ... o{)xe4


    o{)f4 18 ο-ο o{)d7 19 o{)f5 o{)e5 20 15 o{)xe4 itxe4 16 ~xd6 ~xb2
    o{)xg7 'itxg7 with an unclear position 17 §a2 ~d4 18 0-0 is far too
    ίπ which Black's powerful knights dangerous for BIack) 14 ... lt!xd5
    balance the weakness of his b-pawn, (14 ... o{)bd7 is aIso reasonable as 15
    Spiridonov-Suba, Bajmok 1980, lt!c4 o{)xe4 16 *e2 lt!xg3 17lt!xd6+
    Υ2-Υ2,28. 'itf8 18 itxe7+ 'itxe7 19o{)xc8+
    White's strategic ambition ίη this §axc8 20 hg c4 is good for Black,
    variation is to play a4, forcing ... while 15 ο-ο o{)e5 16 ~e2 gives
    b4 and then to occupy c4 with a Black an extra tempo over
    knight. He may choose ιο play a4 Vaganian-Hort above) 15 o{)c4o{)f4
    at once (Β1) although then the 16 :axf4 gf 17 o{)b6 ,Q,b7 18o{)xa8
    knight has to retreat to b1, ΟΓ he ~a8 19 ο-ο ~xb2 20 §a2 ~d4
    can prepare a4 by clearing the d1 and Black was slightly better ίη
    square so that after b4, the BotteriII-F edorowicz, Hastings
    manoeuvre lt!d1 ~3--<:4 becomes 1977/8, 1-0, 41 but Black made
    possibIe. Black has to play very the mistake of not playing ... a5 at
    activeIy to prevent White from some ροίηι, which aIIowed White to
    executing his pIan. fix the weakness οπ a6 by playing
    Β1 : a5 himseIf.
    11 a4 b4 13 ~d3 §e8
    12 o{)cb 1 ο-ο
    Or 63
    1) 12 ... *e7 (probabIy inaccurate W
    as the bishop can drop back to f2
    now) 13 f3 g5 14 ~f2 ο-ο 15 ,Q,e2
    ~bd7 16 o{)c4 o{)h5?! (16 ... o{)e5
    and 17 ... lt!fd7 was only slightly
    better for White) 17 o{)bd2 o{)f4 18
    ο-ο f5 19 ~e1 lt!xe2+ 20 §xe2
    f4 21 e5! and White stands very
    well, Schmidt-Kuligowski, Warsaw
    1979,0-1,34. BIack's most 10gicaI pIan is to
    2) 12 ..• g5 13~Hte7 14~d3?! consolίdate the e5 square with •••
    Wh/te p/ays ~f3, e4 and AgS 101

    ge8, ... ~bd7 followed by ... g5 15 ... ~e5


    and ~e5 when the struggle is 16 Af1 g5 17 Ag3 ga7 18 ga2
    on, control of c4 ν. control of e5. gae7 19 b3 ~h5! 20Axe5 (20
    Diesen-Robatsch, Κarlovac 1977 Axa6 Axa6 21 'ltxh5 ~d3 and 22
    went instead 13 ... ga7?! 140-0 ... f5 is terrible for White) 20 ...
    g5 15 Ag3 ιae7 16 a5 ~e8 17 ~c4 §xe5 21 g3 g4 22 Ag2 (22 Ad3 f5
    f5 (Black wιη ηο longer play 23 ~c4 is only a Iittle better for
    ~d7) 18 efAxf5 19 Axf5 §xf5 20 Black) 22 ... f5 23 f4 (now 23 ~4
    'ltd3 §ef7 21 ~bd2 with a distinct g5e7 24 §ae2 is met by 24 .. ,. f4)
    plus for White 1-0, 30. 23 ... §5e 7 24 Φh 1 Ad425 'ltc2
    14 ο-ο ~bd7 ~f6 26 'ltd3 Φg7 27 gc2 ~xd5
    Or with a winning position for Black,
    14 'ltc7 (a slightly unnatural Alburt-Tukmakov,USSR lstleague
    move, designed to prevent ~c4 by 1978,0-1,42.
    attacking the e-pawn) 15 'ltc2?! (15 Β2:
    Axf6 Axf6 16 ~c4 ~d7 17 ~bd2 11 Ae2 0-0
    a5 18 f4 Aa6 was unclear ίη 11 ... ~bd7 12 'ltc2 §b8 is an
    Nemet-Hulak, Karlovac 1979 so idea so that as soon as White clears
    perhaps the best way to support e4 d1 for his knight, Black is ready to
    is 15 §e1) 15 ~bd7 16 ~c4 answer a4 with ... c4.
    b3! (again this move, which has 12 'ltc2 §e8
    particular effect here as White's e- Or 12 ... ~bd7 (there is a lot to
    pawn is dropping off) 17 'ltxb3 be said for this move, which leaνes
    ~xe4 18 Axe4 §xe4 19 Ag3 §b8 open the option of ... gb8 ΟΓ •••
    20 'ltc2 gxc4! 21 'ltxc4 §xb2 22 §e8 but 12 ... 'lte7 looks doubtful;
    §a3 ~b6 23 'lte4 Af5 and βlack is Benjamin-Watson, Lone Pine 1979
    better, Veresov-Suetin, Bielorussian went οη 13 ο-ο §e8 14 gae 1 g5
    Ch. 1961 (!). Tukmakov's move 15 Ag3 ~bd7 16 a4 b4 17 ~d1
    adheres to the 'Benoni rule' that ~e5 18 ~e3 h5 and now 19 f4
    Black should not move his queen must surely be the right move,
    unless it is essential. when White stands well) 13 a4 (13
    15 §e1 ο-ο §b8 14 §ae1 §e8 15 b3? g5
    After 15 f4 'ltc7 (now Black 16 Ag3 ~e5 17 f4 ~g6! 18 fg hg
    has ηο other constructive move) 19 Φh1 g4 20 a4 ~h5 21 Af2
    threatens ... c4 and Κapengut gives Ad7 22 ab ab 23 g3 *g5 with an
    the lίne 16 'ltf3 c4 17 §c1 c3 18 excellent position for Black, Flear-
    bc g5 19 fg ~e5 20 'lte2 ~fg4 as Nunn,Oxford 1979, 0-1, 48, the
    distinctly better for Black. The correct line being 15 f4 c4 with a
    reader is invited to form his own double-edged position) 13 ... ba
    ορίηίοη. (13. . b4 14 ~d1 §e8 15 f3?!
    102 White p/ays li:Jf3, e4 and ~5

    g5 16 .Qf2 li:Je5 17 li:Je3 li:Jg6 18 g3 Langeweg-Keene, Brunnen 1966,


    ~b8 19 ο-ο b3!? 20 li:Jxb3 g4 1-0,32.
    21 li:Jc4 gf 22 Axf3 li:Jg4 23 .Qe1?! 13 ... li:Jbd7
    li:J6e5 24 li:Jba5 *g5 and Black's 13. b4? 14 li:Jd1 g5 15 .Qg3
    initiative is worth more than a li:Jxd5 loses a tempo over, the main
    pawn, Tatai-Hulak, Amsterdam lίne and ίπ Timman-Robatsch,
    1977,0-1,34 but 15 ο-ο is much Holland-Austria 1978, 16 ed I!xe2
    better, transposing to Taimanov- 17 "ltd3 l!e8 18 li:Jc4li:Jd7 19li:Jde3!
    Boleslavsky given below) 14 Ι;:Ιχa4 li:Je5 20 Axe5 Axe5 21 li:Jxe5
    (14 ο-ο allows Black to exchange I!xe5? 22 f4 gf 23 §xf4 gave
    a pair of knights by 14 ... li:Jb6 15 White a decisive attack, 1-0, 33.
    li:Jxa4 li:Jxa4 16 Ι;:Ιχa4 g5 17 .Qg3
    Ι;:Ιe8 with equalίty, R. Rodriguez-
    Tsheshkovsky, Riga 1979,continuing
    18 .Qb5?! ~e7 19 .Qc6 I!b8 20
    "ltd1 li:Jg4 21 li:Jc4 li:Je5 22 li:Jxe5
    Aχe5 23.Qxe5 Ι;:Ιχe5 and Black had
    the better bishop, Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 48) 14 ...
    li:Jb6 15 Ι;:Ιa1 l!e8 16 ο-ο g5 (win-
    ning the d-pawn is very risky but
    otherwise Black lacks a good plan)
    17.Qg3li:Jfxd5 18li:Jxd5?! (why not
    18 ed forcing off the important 14 a4
    bishop οη g7? Then White must be The thematic move. 14 §ae1
    better) 18 ... li:Jxd5 19 ed I!xe2 (14 f4 proved over ambitious ίη
    20 "ltd3 unclear, H0i-Lobron, Spassov-Hulak, Athens 1976 after
    Rome 1981, Υ:ι-Υ:ι, 42. This game 14 ... *c7 15 §ae1li:Jb6! 16Φh1
    looks convincing so Black should .Qd7 17.Qf3 b4 18li:Je2 !!ac8 19
    play either 12 ... l!e8 ΟΓ 12 ... b3 c4! 20 bc li:Jxc4 21 Ι;:Ιc1 .Qb5
    li:Jbd7 13 a4 b4. 22 §fe1 *b6 with an excellent game
    13 0-0 for Black, 0-1, 33) 14 ... c4 15f4
    Or 13 a4 b4 14 li:Jd1 "lte7 (this (again White is playing οπ the wrong
    turns out badly so 14 ... li:Jd7 with part of the bo~d) 15 •.. li:Jc5 16
    IikeIy transpositon to Taimanov- Φh1 .Qd7 17 ~f3 *c7 18 .Qf1
    BoIeslavsky below may be better) !!ac8 19 h3 *b8 and Wh ite has
    15 0-0 g5 16 .Qg3 li:Jxd5 17 ed been reduced to complete passivity,
    .xe2 18 li:Je3 b3 19 .c1 .Qb7 20 Sigurjonsson-Grunfeld, Lone Pine
    l!e1 "ltd3 21 li:Jdc4 .Qf8 22 li:Jb6 1979,0-1,32.
    l!a7 23 h4 gh 24 Aχh4 "ltg6 25 14 ..• b4
    a5 with a cIear plus for White, 15 li:Jd1 g5
    Whlte p/oys 4)(3, e4 ond ;Qg5 100,

    Or 65
    1) lS b3 (once Black has
    committed himself to this move he, Β
    must continue to play actively ΟΓ
    the weak b-pawn will rapidly vanish
    from the board) 16 "ltd3 §b8 17 f4
    §b4 18 .fιc4 "ltc7? (18 ... .fιb6 was
    unclear, e.g. 19 .fιde3 .fιxc4 20
    .fιxc4 a5!? 21 e5.Q.a6 22 §ac1 de
    23 fe ι::Ixe5) 19 Af3 g5 20 fg hg 21
    Axg5 .fιe5 22 .fιxe5 §xe5 23 Af4
    and White won ίn Taimanov-
    BθIeslavsky, USSR Team Ch. 1960. 18 ... gf
    2) lS "lte7 16 .fιe3! .fιf8 17 19 .fιxd6 ι::Ie6
    .fιec4 g5 18 Ag3 .fιxe4 19 .fιxe4 20 .fιf5 (a νeΓγ unclear position as
    "ltxe4 (Timman-Gild. Garcia, both sides have serious sets of
    Buenos Aires οι. 1978, ΥΖ-ΥΖ 65) weaknesses, including buried minor
    and now instead of 20 Ad3?, 20 pieces οη d1 and f8) 20 ... Af8 21
    "ltxe4 §xe4 21 §ae1 would have "ltd2 "ltc7 22 Ac4 §f6 23 Ad5 l:!a7
    regained the pawn with a good 24 a5! .fιb8 25 g4!? I:!g6 26 Φh 1
    position for White. ι::Ixg4 27 f3 §g6 28 .fιf2.A.g7 29
    16 Ag3 .fιxd5 ι::Ig1 Axf5 30 ef §xg1+ 31 I:!xg1
    17 4)c4 (65) Φf8: 32 .fιe4 Ad4 33 itg2! Aχg1
    17 ed ι::Ixe2 18 .fιe3 is also 34 f6 .fιc6 (34 ... "lte5 35 itg7+
    unclear. Φe8 36 'ltg8+ <Iid7 37 *xf7+ Φc8
    17 4)f4 38 "ltxa7 *xd5 39 f7 wins) 35
    18 .A.xf4 'ltg7+ <Iie8 36 Axf7+ Φd7 37
    Not 18 .fιxd6? b3! 19 "ltd2 4)e5 itg4+ 1-0, Shashin-Agapov,
    20 .fιc3 ι::Ia7 21 Aχf4 gf 22 §fd1 Leningrad Ch. 1980.
    Ud7 23 "ltd5 l:!e6 and Black has a Black has yet to demonstrate a
    winning position, Alburt-Gofstein, clear route to equality ίη Β2, but
    USSR 1978 (ΥΖ-ΥΖ, 42 after he has several interesting and
    blunders). untested moves to try.
    10. White plays l2Jf3, iιg5 and e3

    As ίη the last chapter White of independent signifίcance:


    encourages Black to hunt down the 1) 7 ... Ag7 8 e3 0-0 (ηοΙ recom-
    bishop οη g5 with .. h6, ... g5 mended. This move suffers from
    and ... ~h5xg3 but this time White the same defects as 8 . . . ο-ο ίη
    plays e3 ίη an attempt to cover υρ chapter 9) 9 ~d2 ae8 1Ο .Q.e2 a6
    the resulting black square weak- 11 a4 ~bd7 12 ο-ο 'fιc7 (12 ..•
    nesses. The defect is that White's ab8 13 Af4 ~e5 14 a5 ~fd7 15
    central play with e4 and f4 is much .Q.g3 f5 16 e4 ~f6 17 ef .Q.xf5 18
    slower and consequently White is .Q.xe5 de 19 ~c4 was good for
    playing primarίly to restrain Black. White ίη Simagin-Suetin, USSRCh.
    Only later, when Black has Γυη out 1960) 13 'fιc2 ~b6 (13 •.. ab8 14
    of constructive moves, wiII White a5 b5 15 ab axb6 16 ~c4 and 17
    revert to his central action. B1ack's .Q.f4) 14 Af3 (14 e4? ~fxd5!) 14
    main problem is fίnding something .. .Q.f5 (14 ... c4 15 .Q.xf6 Axf6
    constructive to do without incurring 16 a5 ~d7 17 ~ce4 .Q.e5 18 'fιxc4
    further weaknesses. With accurate won a pawn ίη Botvinnik-Tal,
    playby Black there should be πο match, 1960, 1-0,41) 15 e4 Ad7.
    advantage for White ίη this Iίne, but This is Tal's recommendation ίη
    ίι remains one of White's most solίd the book of the match and he
    options against ttie Benoni. assesses Black's position as "fully
    1 d4 ~f6 acceptable". However whίle the
    2 c4 c5 immediate 16 a5 ~c8 17 ~c4 Ab5
    3 d5 e6 may be satisfactory for Black it is
    4 ~c3 ed rather hard to see a constructive
    5 cd d6 plan for him if White just builds υρ
    6 ~f3 g6 slowly (§fe 1, .Q.f4, etc) -so Ι would
    7 .Q.g5 h6 assess this position as good for
    7 . .Q.g7 8 e3 wiII generaIIy White.
    transpose after 8 •.. h6 9 .Q.h4 g5 2) 7 ... Ag7 8 e3 h6 9 Ah4 g5 10
    1Ο .Q.g3 ~h5 but there are two Iίnes .Q.g3 ~hS 11 Ab5+ (as ίη the
    Wh/te p/ays 4)f3, .Qg5 and e3 105

    previous chapter White has this good game is generally given,


    spoiling move, but without the but what about 11 ... *b6? Then
    ρossibility of e5 it loses much of the Iines 12 ite4+ Φd8, 12 e3 a6
    its force) 11 .. Φf8 12 .Qd3 13 4)d2 ~xg314 hg I!b8! when 15
    (12 Ae2 4)xg3 13 hg 4)d7 14 *c2 ~c4 loses to 15 ... ab! and 12 4)d2
    ite7 15 I!b1 4)e5 16 4)xe5 *xe5 a6 seem reasonable for BIack. If
    17 g4 with equality, Spassov-Hort, this is right then 1Ο ~d7 is a
    Slanchev Bryag 1974, 0-1, 72) 12 fully viabIe alternative to 10 ..
    ... 4)xg3 13 hg (13 fg*e7 140-0 Ad7, since 10 .. 4)d7 11 *e4+
    4)d7 15 Af5 4)f6 16 4)d2 a6 17 *e7 12 Axd6 *xe4 13 4)xe4 f5
    *f3 Φg8 18 Axc8 ~xc8 19 I!f2 14 Axf8 fe 15 Axh6 I!xh6 16
    l!e8 was fίne for Black ίη Yusupov- 4)xg5 e3! was good for Black ίη
    Gavrikov, USSR Ch. 1981, ΥΖ-ΥΖ, Shadurski-Suetin, Vladimir 1962)
    46) 13 ... 4)d7 14 *c2 ite7 11 ite4+ *e7 12 Axd6 *xe4 13
    15 Af5 (15 ο-ο h5 16 Af5 ~e5 ~xe4 f5 14 Axb8 I!xb8 15 ~c3
    17 Axc8 I!xc8 18 *f5 4)xf3+ 19 b5 with enough play for the pawn
    gfwas equal ίη Desche-Velimirovic, to hold the baIance, Geller-Suetin,
    Sombor 1972, ΥΖ-ΥΖ, 44, but it Moscow 1960, ΥΖ-ΥΖ, 64.
    wasn't necessary for Black to play 10 ... 4)xg3
    .. ~e5 so quickly) 15 . . . §b8 11 hg Ag7
    16 a4 b6 17 ο-ο a6 18 ~d2 h5
    19 4)c4 g4 20 ~e4 I!h6 and Black 66
    is very slightly better, Yurkov- w
    ΚΟΓοlον, USSR Ch. semi-finaI1973,
    ΥΖ-ΥΖ,35.
    8 Ah4
    After·8 Af4 Black can transpose
    to the main line with 8 ... g5 9
    Ag3 but 8 ... ~h5 may be better
    since if 9 Ag3 BIack is a tempo υρ
    over the main line, whiIe other
    bishop moves are not very inspiring. 12 Ad3
    8 ... g5 Or 12 4)d2 (12 '6a4+ has been
    9 Ag3 ~h5 played twice by Belyavsky, although
    10 e3 it has Iίttle point as Black can just
    10 e4 4)xg3 11 hg Ag7 leads to reply 12 4)d7 - at any rate
    page 95, note to Wh ite's 11 th Belyavsky-Furman, Leningrad Ch.
    move. 10 ita4+ is an independent 1964 went 13 Ad3 a6 14 ~d1 ο-ο
    alternative, but after 10 ... Ad7 15 Ab 1 f5 16 g4 4)b6 17 *c2 4)c4,
    (1 Ο ••• 4)d7 11 4)b5! with a 0-1, 30 and Belyavsky-Suetin,
    106 Whiteploys 4)f3, ~g5 and e3

    USSR 1970 continued 13 *e4+ 67


    *e 7 14 4)d2 4)f6 15 'lta4+ ~d7
    16 ~b5 a6 17 .Qxd7+ 4)xd7 and W
    this time he lost ίη 29 moves)
    and now:
    1) 12 . a6 13 a4 4)d7 14 ~e2
    (14 g4?! 4)e5 15 ~e2 ο-ο 16 ο-ο
    f5 17 gf .Qxf5 18 ιDde4 g4! 19
    ιDg3 h5 20 ιDxf5 !ΞIxf5 was good
    for Black ίπ Grigorian-Κasparov,
    Baku 1980, 0-1, 30) and Black
    eqι.ialίses after 14 ... ιDe5 15 ιDc4 by Tal, which avoids the passiνe rook
    ιDxc4 16 .Qxc4 ~d7 17 *c2 !ΞIb8 οπ d8 at the cost of weakening the
    18 a5 b5, Osmanovic-Portisch, kingside white squares) 15 ο-ο (15
    Sarajevo 1962 ΟΓ 14. . *e7 15 *d 3 ιDd7 16 ~d 1 is too artificial
    ιDc4 ιDe5 16 4)b6 !ΞIb8 17 a5 ο-ο and 16 ... ιrιe5 17 ιDxe5 *xe5 18
    18 ιDca4 ~f5, Cobo-Wade, Tel-Aviv ~c2 f5 19 f4 *e7 20 0-0-0 c4
    1964. was better for Black ίπ Baturinsky-
    2) 12. . 4)d7 (the most relίable Sorokin, corr. 1971, 0-1, 35) 15
    move, aνoiding the weakness οη b6 • • . ιDd7 16 a4 ιDe5 17 ιDxe5 was
    resulting from 12 . a6) 13 ιDc4 Botvinnink-Tal, match 1960, Υ2-Υ2,
    ιDe5 14 ιDxe5 ~xe5 15 *c2 (15 44 and now 17 ... .Qxe5 was equal.
    ~b5+ Φf8 doesn't help White) 15 3b) 14 Ad3 ιDd7 (given that this
    a6 (now that a White knight doesn't lose a pawn it must be best;
    cannot reach b6 this is logical) 16 14 ... f5 15 ο-ο .Qxc3 16 bc b5
    a4 ~7 17 ~d3 .e7 18 a5 ο-ο 17 ιDd2 c4 18 ~c2 ~b7 19 *b.1
    with equalίty, Bagirov-Savon, *d7 20 ιDf3 .Qxd5 21 4)d4 ~e6
    USSR 1973, 0~1, 48. 22 *xb5 a6 23 *b6 a5 24 4)xe6
    3) 12 ... ο-ο 13 ιDc4 *e7 and *xe6 25 !ΞIad1 1-0 was Geller-
    now: (67) Langeweg, Varna 1962, with 25 ...
    3a) 14 ~e2 ι::Id8 (most annotators !ΞIa6 2.6 *b5 followed by !ΞId5
    give 14 ... ιDd7 15 ιDb5, but this fιnishing Black off at the end) 15
    is not the end of the story, e.g. ο-ο (15 ιDb5 ιDe5 16 ιDbxd6 4)xc4
    15. ιDe5 16 4)cxd6 ~d7 17 17 ιDxc8 transposes to 3a, while 16
    ιDe4 4)c4!? ΟΓ 16 ιDbxd6 ιDxc4 17 ιDcxd6 Ad7 17 ~e4 here drops a
    ιDxc8 - 17 4)xc4 b5 gives good p/ay piece after 17 ... ~xd3+; 15 ~c2
    for the pawn - 17 !ΞIaxc8 18 ~e5 16 4)xe5 *xe5 17 *d3 f5 18
    .Qxc4 *e4 with reasonable chances g4 is too crude and 18 ... ~d7 19
    for Black ίπ both cases; one should gfAxf5 20 *d2 ΟΓ 19 ο-ο b5!
    also mention 14 ... f5!?, suggested leaνes Black with the initiative) 15
    Whlte p/oys 1ilf3, _5 ond e3 1Ο7

    · ~e5 16 <Dxe5 *xe5 17 ~e1 Agzamov, Erevan 1982, 1-0, 64)


    Ad7 18 ~b1 g4! was already a bit 14 ... {)e5 15 Af5 Axf5 16 *xf5
    better for Black ίπ Germek-Tal, c4?! (16 ... *d7 17 {)ce4 Φe7! =)
    Bled 1961,31. 17 'tie2! 0-0 18 {)ce4 b5? 19
    Ιπ many of these Iίnes White §xh6! with a decisive attack,
    plays ~d2-c4 only to have the Psakh is-Gavrikov, Erevan 1982,
    knight exchanged off after ... ~e5 .. 1-0,32.
    The point of 12 Ad3 is to leaνe the 14 .. h5 15 Af5 ~e5 16 Axc8
    knight οπ Ο, hoping for ... ~e5, ~xf3+ 17 gf §xc8 18 *f5 ~d8
    when White will have gained two 19 Φg2 *e5 20 *e5+ Axe5 21 f4
    tempi. White's problem is that he gf 22 gf Af6 is about equal,
    runs out of constructive moves Hartston-Sowray, L10yds Bank
    before Black does! 1980 1-0, 67. Notice the simίlarity
    12 ... ~d7 to Desche-Velίmirovic given ίη the
    12 ... 0-0 13 *c2 f5 is a bad note to Black's 7th move. As Ι
    idea since Black wίll now have to commented before, ... ~e5 should
    develop his knight οπ a6 and he be delayed as much as possible 50
    really needs it οπ d7 to prevent the thi5 does play into White'5 hands a
    central breakthrough e4-e5. bit.
    13 *c2 14 a6
    13 ~d2 gives Black an easier
    time here, for example 13 ... ο-ο
    14 ~c4 ~b6 15 ~xb6 *xb6 16 w
    *c2 Ad7 17 §c1 f5 18 g4? (much
    too ambitious) 18 ... fg 19 Ah7+
    Φh8 20 ~e4 *a5+ 21 ~1 *xa2
    22 {)xd6 g3 23 f3 itxd5 24 ~d1
    ite5 25 Ae4 Ae6 26 {)xb7 §ab8
    27 b3? Axb3 0-1 Antoshin-Psakhis,
    USSR 1979. This lίne could also
    arise by transposition from the note
    to White's 12th move, e.g. ίπ line 15 a4 ο-ο
    2 if White plays 13 Ad3?!. Hartston-Nunn, BBC Master Game
    13 *e7 went 15 ... §b8?! 16 §ab1 ο-ο
    14 ο-ο 17 b4 ~e5 18 bc dc 19 {)xe5
    Recently some players have experi- *xe5 20 ~e4 *xd5 21 ~xc5 b5
    mented with a delay ίπ castling, for 22 ab ab 23 §xb5 §xb5 24 Axb5
    example 14 {)d2 (14 Af5 a6 15 a4 Af5 25 Ad3 §c8 and White had an
    {)e5 16 a5 Axf5 17 *xf5 *d7 edge, Υ2-Υ2, 59. At the time Ι didn't
    18 *c2 0-0-0 =, Tukmakov- realise the strength of the §b1+b4
    108 Wh/te pΙαys ~f3, .Ag5 ond e3

    idea. Part of my preparation for the 18 a5 ι:lb8 19 ι:la1 b5 20 ab ι:lxb6


    1981 British championship play-off 21 ι:la4 Ab7 22 e4 ι:lb8 23 ι:lfal
    was the improvement 15 ... ο-ο. (White intends ι:ll a2 attacking the
    16 §ab1 ~e5 a6 pawn, but Black has enough
    This crosses the b4 plan, when counterplay) 23 ... Ub4 24 Il1a2
    ι:lab1 is revealed as a waste of time. 'lte8! 25 Axa6 Axa6 26 ι:lxa6
    Ιη fact the rook goes back to a1 Axc3 27 'ltxc3 (27 bc ι:lb1+ 28
    500n, so that White has lost back Φh2 f5! mates) 27 ... 'ltxe4 28
    the two tempi he gained by missing 'ltf6 'lte1 + (28 ... 'ltxd5 was more
    out ~d2-c4. If White wants an double-edged, but post-mortem
    advantage he must improve at move analysis suggested Black might then
    16, perhaps by 16 a5 (continuing to have an edge) 29 Φh2 'lte5 30
    wait) ΟΓ 16 Af5 - ίη either case 16 'ltxe5 de 31 d6 Φg7 32 Ilc6 })-})
    ... ι:lb8 is the reply. Hartston-Nunn, match 1981.
    17 ~xe5 'l'xe5
    11. The System with e4, f3 and .i..g5

    AIthough this system has been much more diνerse and at the
    empIoyed ίπ a reIatiνeIy smaII moment few haνe been more th",n
    number of games it has shown a touched upon. DeIaying castIing is
    marked increase ίη popuIarity during one idea, whiIe 4)a6-c7 is
    the Iast few years and Ι expect this another. Most games haνe continued
    trend to continue. AIthough resuIts with ... ο-ο and ... 4)bd7, when
    50 far haνe been rather mixed ίι Black can seek counterpIay with
    does represent a noνeI attacking ... \ta5 (οη the queenside) ΟΓ •••
    weapon against the Benoni with a 4)e8 and f5 (οπ the kingside).
    sound positionaI basis. Korchnoi BIack must be carefuI, howeνer,
    has empIoyed ίι seνeraI times (by since pIaying .. 4)e8 ΟΓ •• g5
    transposition from theKing'slndian) before White castIes is an inνitation
    but at the moment its most actiνe for White to change pIans and pIay
    practitioner is the young New for mate with h4.
    Zealand master Murray Chandler. 1 d4 4)f6
    White's positional pIan is to 2 c4 c5
    restrain Black by means of *d2 and 3 d5 e6
    then to deνeIop the king's knight. If 4 4)c3 ed
    BIack has pIayed ... 4)bd7 aIready 5 cd d6
    ίι will normaIIy go to h3, while 6 e4 g6
    otherwise the less satisfactory square 7 f3 .Q.g7
    e2 (which bIocks ίπ the bishop) wiII 8 .Q.g5 0-0
    be employed. From there the Or 8. . h6 9 .Q.e3 a6 1Ο a4
    knight can be redepIoyed to c1 ΟΓ 4)bd7 (if BIack wishes to reach
    g3. White wίll delay castlίng for Georgadze-Psakhis beIow 1Ο
    seνeral moνes and wίlI answer 'fke7 looks a more accurate moνe·
    h6 by .Q.e3 which wiII sooner ΟΓ order since White can .now pIay
    later force Black to lose another 4)h3) 11 4)h3 (11 4)ge2 'lιte7! 12
    tempo with ..• Φh7. 4)c 1 4)e5 13 .Q.e2 g5 14 ο-ο 0-0
    BIack's ideas are potentiaIIy 15 'lιtd2 .Q.d7 16 gιb1?! 43h5 17 g4
    11 Ο The System wlth e4, f3 and ~5

    ~f4! 18 Axf4 gf 19 *xf4 h5! 20 of the white squares gives White a


    ~3 hg 21 f4 ~g6 and Black has clear advantage, Chandler-FuHer,
    the initiative, Georgadze-Psakhis, Manchester 1980, but 0-1, 46 after
    USSR Ch. 1980/1, 0-1, 35 - note a blunder.
    how Black waited for ο-ο before 2) 9 . h6 1Ο Ae3 b6 11 oDge2
    castling himself) 11 ... 'lJιe7 (11 Φh7 12 oDg3 oDbd7 (12 .. Aa6 is
    {)e5 12 ~f2 Ad7 13 Ae2 g5 14 more consistent when 13 Axa6
    *d2 'lJιe7 15 a5 §b8 16 ~a4, ~xa6 14 ο-ο oDc7 15 a4 a6
    Gulko-Kasparov, USSR Ch. 1981, enables Black to force through ...
    1-0, 37 and now 16 ... Ab5 17 b5 50 White should try 13 Ae2
    ο-ο is ;t) 12 ~f2 ~e5 13 Ae2 Axe214 *xe2 a6 15 a4 but even
    g5 14 h4 ~h5 15 hg hg 16 *d2 here 15 ... oDbd7 followed by
    ~f4 17 Ωχh8+ Axh8 18 Axf4 *c7 and ... c4 gives Black counter-
    gf 19 *xf4 ~g6 20 *h2 Ad7 play οη the queenside) 13 Ae2 a6
    21 g3 0-0-0 and Black's com- 14 a4 §b8 15 ο-ο oDe8 16 §ab 1
    pensation for the pawn is not quite oDc7 17 b4 §e8 18 Iifc1 Ab7
    adequate, 1-0, 46 ίη Korchnoi- 19 Af2 h5 20 oDf1 with a long
    Lobron, Bad Kissingen 1981. period of manoeuvring ίη prospect,
    9 *d2 Korchnoi-Podgayets, Riga 1970,
    1-0, 44. White has a theoretical
    69 edge but ίη the game he didn't
    Β make anything of this.
    3) 9 ••• oDbd7 1Ο oDh3 a6 11 oDf2
    (an exceptionally interesting move-
    Korchnoi clearly belίeves that his
    first priority is to exploit Black's
    omission of .. h6 by cutting out
    this move permanently, even if it
    means allowing ... b5) 11 ... §b8
    (Sigurjonsson was afraid of 11 ..•
    9 a6 b5 12 a4 b4 13 oDd1 followed by
    Or oDe3-c4, but 12 ... ba ίη this Iίne
    1) 9 ... ~a6 10 Ad3 ~c7 11 oDge2 was playable) 12 Ae2 b5 13 ο-ο
    h6 (a common trick ίη this Iίne - if §e8 14 §ab1 *a5 (Black is
    12 Axh6 oDxe4 and ... *h4+) 12 strangely helpless since his knights
    Ae3 §b8 13 ο-ο Φh7 (now the are paralyzed against the threat of
    check οη h4 has gone Black must a kingside attack by *f4 and oDg4)
    cover his h-pawn) 14 a4 a6 15 15 a3 c4 16 Φh1 oDc5 17 *f4
    Ωfb 1 b5 16 b4 cb 1 7 Ωχb4 a5 18 oDfd7 18 oDg4 +- h5 19 oDh6+
    ΩΧb5! and the resulting domination Φh7 20 oDxh §f8 21 Ae7 Ab7 22
    Τhe System with e4, f3 and Ag5, 711

    Axd6 Φg8 23 Aχb8 ~χb8 24 *d6 16 Elb3 (16 ed .A.f5 when 17 .d2
    ~bd7 25 ~g5 1-0, Korchnoi- <Dc4 and 17 .d1 *χb2 win for
    Sigurjonsson, Hastings 1975/6. Οη Black) 16 . . . •a5? (16 ... <Dχc3!
    the basis of this, h6 looks a 17 Elχb4 ~χe2 was quite good for
    vital ingredient of Black's position Black since 18 Elb6 ~d4 foIIowed
    when <Dh3-f2 occurs, ΟΓ else <Dg4 by . <Dc4 drops material whίle 18
    is too strong a threat. <Dxe2 cb leaνes Black with approx-
    10 a4 h6 imate material equality and active
    Other moves: pieces) 17 ed c4 18 Ela3 .A.f5 19
    1) 1Ο .•. ~bd7 11 ~h3 (11 ~ge2 .d2 <Dd3+ 20 Φf1 and Black did
    Elb8 12 ~g3"lta5 13 Ae2 b5 14 not have enough for the piece,
    ο-ο *b4 15 ab ab 16 Elfb1 Ele8 Chandler-Barczay, Budapest 198.1.
    17 Ela7 ~e5 18 *c1 c4 19 ~a2 11 .A.e3 <Dbd7
    *c5 20 .A.e3 .A.h6 =, Schmidt- Perhaps not best, since it allows
    Uhlmann, Polanica Zdroj 1981) ~h3. lηstead:
    11. *a5 (11 . Ele8 1 2 .A.e2 1) 11 ... Ele8 12 <Dge2 ~bd7 13
    Elb8 13 ~f2 *c7 14 ο-ο b6 15 <Dc1 ~e5 14 .A.e2 ~h7 15 0-0 g5
    Elac1 c4 16 b4 b5 17 ab ab 18 16 a5 <Df8 17 ~a4 f5 18 efAxf5
    Ela1 ~e5 ;!; Chandler-Hakki, Man- 19 Ela3<Dfg6 with a roughly leνel
    chester 1980, 1-0, 43 and 15 position, Korchnoi-Ciocaltea,
    Elfc1 looks even better) 12 Ela3 Bucurest 1966, 1-0, 48.
    (12 ~f2 allowing ... b5 is possible, 2) 11 ... Φh7 12 ~ge2 ~bd7
    but οηlΥ equal) 12. . c4! 13 ~f2 (12 ... "lta5 13 ~g3 b5 14 .A.e2
    (13 .A.xc4 ~e5 and ... .A.xh3) 13 ... ~bd7 150-0 b4 16 €ld1 De8 17
    *c7 14.A.e2 Elb8 15 a5 b5 16 ab Ela2! .A.b7 18 b3 .d8 19 h3 left
    ~xb6 was fuIIy satisfactory for Black very passively placed ίη
    Black ίη Petursson-Vogt, TaIIinn Rajkovic-Tosic, Yugoslavia 1981,
    1981. 1-0, 57, but 15 ... ba was better)
    2) 1 Ο ••. ~e8 (Black seeks to 13 ~g3 (13 ~c1 ~e5 14 Ae2 ~fd7??
    prevent ~h3) 11 ~ge2"lta5 (11 15 f4 1-0, Despotovic-Barlov,
    ~bd7 12 ~g3"lta5 13 .A.e2 b5 Belgrade Open 1976 yet 14 ...
    14 0-0 ba 15 Elχa4 *b6 16 .A.e3 ~e8 was a reasonable way to pre-
    .A.b7 17 Elfa1 "ltc7 with just an pare .. f5) 13 ... €le5 (13 .. _
    edge for White, Despotovic-Ristic, Db8 14 .A.e2€1e8 15 0-0 4)c7,
    Smederevska Palanka 1981, }-'2-}-'2, Keene-Liu Wenze, China 1981,
    67) 12 Da3 (to stop _.. b5) 12 ... }-'2-}-'2, 33 and now 16 Dab1 was ;!;
    <Dbd7 13 ~c1 ~e5 14 .A.e2 *b4! according to Keene) 14 .A.e2 Ad7
    15 *c2? (15 Elb3 .d4 16 .A.e3 was 15 0-0 Db8?! (Keene recom-
    better when White might 'claim an mends 15 . . . b5 16 ab ab 17
    edge ίη the ending) 15 ... <Dχd5! €lxb5 Axb5 18 .A.xb5 *b6 19.A.e2,
    112 The System wlth e4, f3 and ~5

    assessing this as ;!; - it is true that when Gufeld gives 15 ... {}e7 16
    after 19 ... *b3-White's b-pawn is g4 {}e5 17 Ae2 f5 18 gf gf 19 f4
    coming under heavy pressure) 16 ~d7 unclear, but why not 16 h5,
    h3! b5 17 f4 ~c4 18 Axc4 bc 19 which seems promising for White?)
    e5 {}e8 20 f5 and White is almost 15 ... {}e7 160-0 f5 17 g4?! ~5
    winning already, Dorfman-Keene, 18 ef gf 19 h3 *b4! and Black is
    Manila 1979, Υ2-Υ2, 41 after a better, Gulko-Grigorian, USSR
    swindle. 1976,0-1,35.
    14 Ae2
    70 with the two examples 14 ... *c7
    W 15 g4 (15 ο-ο is better since 15 ...
    c4 is met by 16 §fc1 b5 17 ab ab
    18 b4 and White stands weII) 15 ...
    {}e5 16 h3 b5 17f4(17abab 18
    {}xb5 §xb5) 17 ... {}c4 18 Axc4
    bc +, Marmoud-Nunn, Geneva
    Open 1979, 0-1, 29 and 14 ...
    *e7 15 ο-ο {}e8 (now that h4 is
    impossible) 16 f4 f5 17 ef gf 18
    12 ~h3 Φh7 §fe1 'lJιΠ Υ2-Υ2, Chandler-Nunn,
    13 ~f2 §b8 British Ch. 1980. The final position
    13 ... *<15 (13 ... ~e8 would be is quite satisfactory for Black since
    a nice way to prepare . f5 if his pressure οη d5 with ... {}df6 and
    White continued obligingly with 14 ... {}c7 (which also prepares ... b5)
    Ae2, for example, but 14 h4! seems arrives beforeWhite's counter-attack
    good for White) 14 §a3 {}g8!? 15 οπ f5.
    Ae2?! (15 h4! is the critical move,
    12. EarIy .tf4 Systems

    lπ this chapter we deal with Iίnes


    71
    ίπ which White plays a quick .A.f4,
    Β
    usuaIIy οπ move 7. LΠ part the
    motivation is similar to the .A.g5
    lίnes - White would Iίke to adopt a
    classical set~up but with his black-
    squared bishop actively placed
    instead of οπ c1. However the
    pressure οπ Black's d-pawn leads to
    some unusual features, ίπ particular
    the possibilities of th4+- b3 ΟΓ
    .A.b5 +- e2 since an interposition 8 *a4+
    οπ d7 leaνes the d-pawn hanging. This disruptive check is the point
    1 d4 ~f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 ~c3 of White's plan. The alternative is
    ed 5 cd d6 8 e4 (other moves are quite harm-
    Α: 6 ~f3 g6 7 .A.f4 less) 8 •.. ο-ο 9.A.e2 (9 ~d2 ~h5
    Β: 6 e4 g6 7 .A.f4 1Ο .A.e3 exactly transposes to Α2
    There are many transpositional after 10 .•. a6 11 a4, while 10 •..
    possibilities between these systems ~d7 at once is similar although the
    50 we deal with the main body of availability of .. b6 and ... .A.a6
    material under Α while Β contains does make a difference ίη one
    only those lίnes associated with tactical Iίne - see Α2 for more
    that particular move-order. details, and for 9 .A.d3 see chapter
    Α: 15, lίne Α) and now:
    6 ~f3 g6 1) 9 b5 10 ~d2 (10 .A.xd6
    7 .A.f4 (71) *xd6 11 e5 *b612 ef .A.xf6 13
    Now we have Α 1: 7 ... .A.g7 ο-ο is unclear since although Black
    Α2: 7 ... a6 has the two bishops his queenside
    Α1: pawn structure comes apart after
    7 .Qg7 a4, Lundin-Botvinnik, Stockholm
    114 E<trly M4Systems

    1962, Υ2-Υ2, 40 while 10 4)xb5?! seems to have nothing better than


    4)xe4 11 4)d2 §e8 12 4)c4 Jιa6 13 a4.
    a4 ith4! 14 g3 *h3 15 4)e3 h5!? It should be noted that White can
    16 4)c7 4)c3 17 *c2 §xe3 18 also reach the positions of this
    Jιχe3 *g2 19 Jιχa6 4)xa6 20 4)xa8 note from the CΙassical by playing
    4)b4 21 *b3 *xh1+ 22 Φd2 Jιf4 before castling.
    4)e4+ 23 Φe2 *xa1 0-1, Avram- 8 Jιd7
    Gilden, USA 1969 is an amusing After 8 . . . *d7 9 *xd7+
    miniature) 1Ο ••• a6 (1 Ο ••• b4?! ΦΧd7 1Ο e4 White stands very well
    11 4)b5 Jιa6 12 IΞIb1! lΞIe8 13 owing to the bad position of Black's
    4)xd6 Jιχe2 14 *xe2 4)xd5 15 king, while 8 ... Φf8 9 e44)h5 1Ο
    itc4! and White wins, Vukic- Jιe34)d7?! 11 *c2! a6 12 a4 IΞIb8
    Planinc, Νονί Sad 1978) 11 *c2 13 Jιe2 4)hf6 14 4)d2 ~e8 15 ο-ο
    :le8 12 ο-ο (12 a4 b4 13 4)d1 b3! ±, lvkov-Sahovic, Zemun 1980 is
    = is given by Vukic) 12 ... b4 13 absurd, 1-0, 35.
    4)d1 4)xd5 14 ed §xe2 15 itd3 9 *b3 *c7
    :le8 16 4)e4 Jιe5 17 *g3 4)d7 18 10 e4
    4)xd6 Jιxd6 19 Jιxd6 4)f6 Υ2-Υ2, 1Ο e3 and 1 Ο 4)d2 are met by the
    Valίev-Mordkovich, USSR 1957. equalίsing 1 Ο ... 4)h5 11 Jιg5 h6
    2) 9 .... ae8 1ο 4)d2 4)bd7 11 12 Jιh4 g5 whίle 10 Jιxd6 *xd6
    ο-ο (11 Jιχd6 led to a tactical 11 *xb7 loses to 11 ... 0-0 12
    free-for-aII ίη Shamkovich- *xa8 *b6.
    Ι. Zaitsev, USSR 1973 after 11 10 0-0
    itb6 12 4)c4 ita6 13 e5 b5 14 11 Jιe2
    4)e3 4)xe5 15 Jιχc5 4)c4 16 4)xc4 Or
    bc 17 ο-ο Jιf5 with enough play 1) 11 e5 de (11 ... lΞIe8 12 Jιe2
    for the pawn, Υ2-Υ2, 38 but 12 Jιg3! ~h5 13 Jιe3 de 14 0-0 *b6 15
    itxb2 13 *c1 *b4 14 IΞIb 1 ita5 4)d2 4)f4 with an unclear position,
    15 ab3 was ±) 11 ... 4)e5 12 h3 S. Garcia-Κasparov, Baku 1980,
    a6 13 a4 IΞIb8 14.Ae3 (just what 0-1, 36 - 12 0-0-0 de 13 d6
    White is aiming for ίη this Iίne - was an interesting alternative) 12
    Black has ηο counterplay and is Jιχe5 lΞIe8 (12 ... itc8 13 Jιe2 ~)
    qUΊckly squashed) 14 b6 15 13 Jιe2 and Black must play
    :la3 ae7 16 f4 ±, Szymczak- *c8 ΟΓ _. *b6. lη Kasparov's
    Rigo, Budapest 1978, 1-0, 28. ορίηίοη White has the advantage.
    3). 9 Jιg4 wiII probably trans- 2) 11 ~d2?! 4)h5 12 Jιe3 f5 13ef
    ρose to Α2 (the only difference gf 14 g3 ~a6 15 Jιe2 f4! +,
    is that. a6 and a4 have not Zhukayev-Suetin, USSR 1961,
    occurred), e.g. 1Ο 4)d2 Jιxe2 11 0-1,29.
    "ltxe2 4)h5 12 Jιe3 a6 and White 3) 11 Jιd3 and now:
    EorIy Μ4 Systems 115

    3a) 11 ... b5 12 <Dxb5 ~b5 13 slightly better for White - neither


    *xb5 (13 ~b5 see the note to 17 ... .lΞ!d8 18 .Qf4 ηΟΓ 17 ... .Qe2
    Black 's 11th) 13 . <Dbd7 is a 18 IΞ!de 1 .Qxf3 19 gf offers clear
    pawn sacrifίce designed to regain equality.
    the pawn οη b2, but 14 *c6 looks 1c) 12 <Dd2 and now 12 .•. ae8
    good for White. transposes to the main line, but not
    3b) 11 ... lΞ!e8 12 ο-ο c4! equal- 12 ... !b4?! 13 <Dd1 lΞ!e8 (13 ... a6
    ises. 14 a4 ba 15 *xa3 lΞ!e8 16 <Dc3
    3c) 11 . . . <Da6 12 ο-ο <Dh5 13 lΞ!a7 ;1;, Forintos-Planinc, Wijk Μη
    .Q.e3 lΞ!ab8 is untested but also looks Zee 1974,0-1,29) 14 *c2 (14 f3
    comfortable for Black. allows Black to become active by
    14 . <Dh5 15 .Q.e3 f5) followed
    72 by <De3 with a plus for White.
    Β Kapengut gives 12 ... c4! 13 *b4
    <De8 = which is curious, sinee
    White seems to have ηο answer to
    threat of a5 (14 <Dxb5 *b7
    followed by ... a6 drops a piece),
    but of course 13 <Dxb5! is much
    ι,etter, when it is hard to see how
    Black justifίes his sacrifice.
    2) 11 ..• <Dh512 .Q.e3 and now:
    11 lΞ!e8 2a) 12 ... a6 13 0-0 (13 a4 is also
    Or good) 13 ... b5 14 a4 b4 15 <Db1
    1) 11 ... b5!? and now: .Qg4 16 <Dbd2 <Dd7 17 h3 .Qxf3 18
    1a) 12 <Dxb5 ~b5 13 .Q.xb5 <Dxe4 .Qxf3 <Dhf6 19 a5 ±, Sosonko-
    14 ο-ο a6 (14 <Dd7 15 *c2 Vasyukov, Reykjavik 1980,1-0,31
    <Def6 16 lΞ!ad1 lΞ!ab8 was also =, 2b) 12 . . . .Qg4 13 h3 .Qxf3 14
    Anikayev-Garcia, Moscow 1974) ~f3 <Dd7 15 .Q.xh5 (15 ο-ο <Dhf6
    15 .Q.d3 <Df6 16 <Dd2 <Dh5 17.Q.e3 16 .Qe2 IΞ!fe8 17 *c2 a6 18 a4 was
    <Dd7 =, Evans-Perez, Am§terdam only equal ίη Yurkov-Arseniev,
    1964, Υ2-Υ2, 30. USSR 1971. 1-0,47) 15 ..• gh 16
    1 b) 12 ~b5 <Dxe4 13 <Dxe4 ita5+ 0-0 lΞ!ae8 (Black even got away with
    14 .Q.d2 (14 <Dfd2 .Q.xb5 15 <Dxd6 16 ... f5 17 ef IΞ!xf5 18 *c2 lΞ!af8
    .Q.a6 16 0-0-0 <Dd7 17 <D2c4 *d8 19 lΞ!ad1 <Db6 ίη Vladimirov-
    18 *a3 .Qxc4 19 <Dxc4 *f6 with llivitsky, USSR 1958, Υ2-Υ2, 42) 17
    good attacking chances, Vaganian- *c2a6 18a4*d8 19a5Φh8and
    Korelov, Minsk 1973, 0-1, 46) 14 Black won ίη Tίmman-Ljubojevic,
    *xb5 15 *xb5 .Q.xb5 16 Amsterdam 1972. Judging from
    <Dxd6.Qa6 1'7 0-0-0 may be these two examples Black's active
    176 Ear/y!M4 Systems

    pieces do compensate for the Α2:


    weakened pawns. 7/... a6
    2c) 12 ... -tla6 13 -tld2 f5 14 ef 8 a4
    gf 15 .Q.xh5 f4 16 ο-ο fe 17 fe Can White ignore the threat of
    -tlb4 18 -tlce4 ±, Portisch-Larsen, ... b5? After 8 e4 Black has:
    San ΑηΙοηίο 1972, 1-0, 35. 1) 8 ... b5 and now:
    3) 11 ... .Q.g4 12 -tlb5 ita5+ 13 1a) 9 e5 de 1Ο .Q.xe5 (1 Ο -tlxe5?
    ~d2 c4? (13 ... .Q.χe2 14 'it>xe2 a6 is met by 1 Ο ... .Q.d6! 11 .Q.e2 Ο-{)
    15 -tlxd6 b5 was a better try but and now 12 ο-ο?! b4 13 -tla4 §e8
    stίll looks inadequate) 14 *xc4 is losing for White after 14 -tld3 c4
    §c8 15 *d3 .Q.χe2 16 'ltχe2 -tlxe4 ΟΓ 14 -tlc6 -tlxc6 1 5 .Q.xd6 -tld4 so
    17 0-0 ±, Petrosian-N ievergelt, White must play 12 .Q.g3, but 12 ...
    Munich 1958. b4 is good for Black even so) 1 Ο •••
    4) 11 ... a6 (often played, but ηοΙ .Q.g7 11 g3 ο-{) 12 .Q.g2, Zaichik-
    very good) 12 e5! (12 a41ets Black Lukin, USSR 1980, 0-1, 39 and
    offlightly) 12 ... de (12 .•. ~h5 now 1 ~ ... ~bd7 and 12 ... .Q.b7
    13 ed *c8 14.Q.e3 b5 15 a4 c4 are equal.
    16 ita3 ba 17 ~d2 .Q.b5 18 I:Ic1 ±, 1b) 9 *e2 §a7?! (ηοΙ 9 ... .Q.g7?
    Hybl-Nyman, corr. 1965/8, 1-0, 1Ο .Q.xd6 +- ηΟΓ 9 ... -tlh5?! 1 Ο
    33) 13 .Q.xe5 *c8 14 ο-ο (14 .Q.g5 .Q.e 7 11.Q.h 6 b4 1 2 -tld 1
    *b6? .Q.f5 +, Mititelu-Ivkov, .Q.f8 13 .Q.xf8 'it>xf8 14 -tld2 ±,
    Leipzig 1960, 0-1, 41) 14 ... .Q.g4 McCambridge-Lobron, Dortmund
    15 h3 .Q.xf3 16 .Q.xf3 -tlbd7 17 1982, 1-{), 41, but 9 ... .Q.e7! is
    .Q.d6 with a clear advantage for best when 1Ο .Q.h6 -tlg4 is pointless
    White, Portisch-Fischer, Palma so 1Ο *c2 ο-{) 11 .Q.e2 = represents
    1970, Υ2-Υ2, 29. White's most reasonable plan) 10 e5
    5) 11 ... -tla6 doesn't solve Black's §e7 (1 Ο • de 11 .Q.xe5 §e7 is
    problems - after 12 -tld2 and 13 unclear) 11 .Q.e3 ;1;, Kuuskmaa-
    ο-ο White stands well. Salceanu, corr. 1978, 1-0, 19.
    12 -tld2 b5 1c) 9 .Q.d3.Q.g7 1Ο ο-ο ο-ο 11
    13 .Q.xb5 (13 -tlxb5 .Q.χb5 14 .Q.xb5 h3 was only level, Sosonko-
    ~bd7 gives Black excellent play for Hutchings, Barcelona 1975, 1-{),
    the pawn) 13 ... ~xe4 14 ~xe4 27.
    f5 15 .Q.e'2 fe 16 ~4 .Q.f8 ±, 2) 8 ••• .Q.g7 9 ita4+ (9 a4 trans-
    Uhlmann-Mίlic, Marianske Lazne poses Ιο the main line) 9 ... .Q.d7 1Ο
    1961. Black's pawn structure isbad. *b3 b5!? (Lukin gave only 10 .••
    The lack of a clear route Ιο equality *c7 11 e5 ±) 11 .Q.χd6 b4 12 -tla4
    has ρυΙ most players off 7 ... .Q.g7 -tlxe4 1 3 *e3? (13 .Q.χc5 -tlxc5 14
    ....., perhaps 11 ... ~h5 12 .Q.e3 .Q.g4 -tlxc5 "e7+ 15 *e3 *xe3+ 16.
    represents the best chance. fe .Q.xb2 17 Ud1 = is better) 13 ...
    Ear/y .A.f4Systems 117

    Axa4 14 *xe4 *d7 15 ~e5+ also turned out badly after 15 ...
    'itc8! (Black is winning a piece) 16 b5! 16 ο-ο b4 17 ~d1 ~e8 18
    ~xΠ §e8 17 .Qe5 *e7 18 f4 *xf7 f3 ~b6 19 *d3?! a5 20 ~a2 ~fd7
    19 .Qc4 *f5 20 *xf5+ gf 0-1, +, Vukic-Velimirovic, Yugoslavia
    Lambert-Povah, Birmingham 1977. Ch. 1981,0-1,32) 15 . b5! 16
    3) 8 . .Q.g4 9 Ae2 (9 a4 would ~xd6 *e7 17 g5 ~h5 18 ~f5 gf 19
    transpose to the main line after 9 itxh5 f4! 20 Ad2 Axc3 21 Axc3
    ... .Qg7) 9 ... Axf3 1Ο .Qxf3 ~bd7 *xe4+ 22 'itd2 b4 23 .Qf6 *xd5+
    11 0-'-0 itb8 (to play . .A.g7) 12 0-1, J. Benjamin-Nunn, Oxford
    §b1.Q.g7 13 b4 ± and Black has 1977.
    taken too long over castling, 2) 1 Ο itb3 (too extravagant) 1 Ο •••
    Angantysson-Arnason, Reykjavik .Qxf3 11 *xb7 (11 gf and now
    1980,l-0,50.Blackmightconsider sacrificing may not be good, e.g.
    10 . b5, while 1 Ο ... .Qg7 11 a4 11 . ~h5?! 12 *xb7 ~xf4 13
    would probably transpose to chapter itxa8 *b6 14 Axa6 *xb2 15
    3, note to Black's 11 th move ίη Α. Ab5+ 'ite7 16 *b7+ Φf6 17
    8 ... .A.g7 e5+ ±, but 11 . b6 should be
    9 e4 ο-ο equal) 11 ... ~xe4 12 ~xe4 .A.xe4
    9 ... .A.g4 and now: 13 *xa8 Axb2 (a few months
    before this game 1 published sorrie
    73 analysis suggesting 13 .. *b6 ΟΓ
    W 13 ο-ο here, but Ermenkov's
    move looks even better) 14 §a2
    .A.c3+ 15 .Qd2 Axd2+ 16 §xd2
    ο-ο 17 f3.A.f5 18 itb7 ita5 19
    *b2 ~d7 20 Ae2?! c4 21 tιtd4
    c3 22 §a2 .A.b1 23 §a1 c2+ 24
    'itf2 §b8 25 Φg3 ~c5 26.A.c4
    *b4 27 itf4 *c3 0-1,Schϋssler­
    Ermenkov, Smederevska Palanka
    1)·10 .A.e2 ο-ο 11 ~d2 (11 0-'-0 1979.
    transposes to chapter 3, line Α as 10 ~d2
    indeed does a subsequent ο-ο by 1Ο .A.e2 (1 Ο .A.d3 .A.g4 11 h3
    White) 11 ... Axe2 12 .xe2 ~h5 Axf3 12 *xf3 *c7 foIIowed by
    13 .A.e3 ~d7 14 g4 ~hf6 15 ~c4? ~bd7 is fine for Black) and
    (one Iiberty too many - now was now: (74)
    the time for 15 ο-ο when it would 1) 10. . *c7 (10 ... .Q.g4 trans-
    be υρ to Black to avoid a trans- poses to the previous note) 11 ~d2
    position by .•. ~e8 - perhaps ... ~bd7 12 ο-ο §e8 13 h3 ~e5 (13
    ~e8 foIIowed by .. f5? 15 h3? . .. §b8 14 *c2 h6 15 Ah2 g5
    118 Eor/y ~4 Systems

    ~h7?! 17 ~c4! ±, So5Onko-


    74
    Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1975, 1-0,
    Β
    40.
    3) 10 ... ae8 11 ~d2 wiII transpose
    to one of the above two Iines since
    Black must prepare ... ~bd7.
    10 ... ~h5
    Or 10 . . ~g4 (10 ... *c7, 10
    . *e7 and 1Ο .. ae8 transpose
    to the last note after 11 ~d2) 11
    ..I1e2 (11 ~c4 ..I1d4 12 ..I1g3 "ltf6
    16 f4 gf 17 ~f4 ~e5 18 4)c4 13 *d2 4)e5 = is given by Vukic)
    ~fd7 19 ~e3 with clear advantage 11 ... ~e5 12 ο-ο 4)bd7 1 3 ..I1g3
    to White, Bukic-FiIIipowicz, Budva g5 (the effect of Robatsch's 1Ο ...
    1963,1-0,30) 14*c2h6 15..11g3 ~g4 is to arrive at the normal
    g5 16 f4 gf 17 ~f4 *e7 18 Φh1 formation without wasting time οη
    ~g6 19 ..I1h2 ~, Malich-Browne, . h6 ΟΓ • *e7) 14 f4 gf 15
    Amsterdam 1972, 1-0, 42. ~f4 with equality, Vukic-
    2) 10 . *e7 11 ~d2 (Suetin Robatsch, Borovo 1980, 1-0, 44.
    recommends 11 e5, e.g. 11 ... de 11 ..I1e3 ~d7
    12 ~e5 ~bd7 13 d6 *d8 14..11g3 11 ... ..I1d4 12 ~c4 ~e3 13 ~xe3
    ΟΓ 11 ... ~h5 12 ed *d8 13 ..I1e3 ~d7 14 g3 (14 ..I1e2! ~f4 15 ο-ο
    *xd6 14 ~e4 *e7 15 ~fd2, ~ ίη ~ was better) 14 I1b8 15 a5
    both cases) 11 .. ~bd7 12 ο-ο ~g7 16..11g2 f5 17 ο-ο ~f6 =,
    ~e5 13 h3 h6 (13 .. ~fd7 was Bukic-Velimirovic, Belgrade 1971,
    better, with the idea of playing Υι-Υι,74.
    ... g5 without the preparatory 12 ..I1e2
    h6, 50 that after a subsequent f4 by 12 g4? ..I1d4! 13 gh (13 ~d4 cd
    White and an exchange οη f4 the 14 gh dc 15 bc ~e5 16 "lte2 ..I1g4
    pawn οη h6 would not become 17 *e3 ~h5 18 f4 ~g4 19"1tg3
    weak, e.g. 14 ..I1g3 g5 15 *c2 ~g6 f5 +, LengyeI-Tatai, Madonna di
    16 ..I1g4 ~de5 17 ~c8 l1axc8 18 Campiglio 1973, 1-0, 51) 13
    ~d1 ~f4 19 ~4 ~xc4 20 "ltxc4 ~e3' .14 fe *h4+ 15 Φe2 ~e5
    b5, Kaunas-Mamatov, USSR 1972, and Black has a very strong attack
    0-1, 44 ΟΓ 14 *c2 ae8 15..11g3 g5 for the piece, for example 16 ..I1g2
    16 ~d1 ~f8 17 ~e3 ~fg6 18 ~f5 ..I1g4+ 17 ~f3 "ltxh5 18 *f1 f5
    "ltf6 19 l1ad1 ab8, Zaid-E. 19 h3 fe 20 hg "ltxg4 21 ah3 (21
    VIadimirov, USSR 1974, 0-1, 38 ~xe4 "ltxe4 doesn't help much) 21
    with unclear positions ίη both . . . ef+ 22 ~f3 axf3 23 axf3
    cases) 14..11h2 g5 15 f4 gf 16 ~f4 ι::If8 and Black wins. As mentioned
    Ear/y M4Systems 119

    ίη Α 1, note to White's 8th, it is 13 ... ith4


    possible to arrive at this position 14 f4
    without ... a6 and a4. This favours 14 4.)f3 4.)xf3+ 15 ~xf3 f5 (15
    Black as White doesn't have §a3 ... ~d7 16 .d2 *e7 17 a5 §fe8
    whίle Black has extra attackίng 18 §fe1 *e5 19 ~h5 *xh5 20
    chances based οη ••• b6 ΟΓ ••• b5. ~f4 ~e5 =, Bukic-Ivkov, Yugo-
    12 ... 4.)e5 slavia Ch. 1975, Υι-Υι, 36) 16 g3
    (16ef~xf5 17a5~e5 18g3*b4

    75 19 ~c1 .Q.d7 =, Hort-Grunfeld,


    Biel 1981, 1-0, 46) 16 . *e7
    W
    17 ef .Q.xf5 18 ~2 (18 g4 ith4
    19 gf .Q.e5 20 §e1 §xf5 21 -tιe4
    §af8 with a dangerous attack)
    18 . 4.)f6 19 .d2 §ae8 =,
    Hurme-Dueball, Eckenforde 1974,
    0-1,35.
    14 ... 4.)g4
    15 ~g4 .Q.xg4 16.e1 .e7 (16 ...
    ltxe 1 17 §axe 1 §fe8 18 4.)c4 and
    13 0-0 now 18 ... ~xc3 19 bc §xe4 20
    The alternatives: ~xd6 was very good for White ίη
    1) 13g4?f5! 14ghf4 15.Q.xc5dc Malich-O. Jakobsen, Aarhus 1971,
    16 4.)f3 4.)xf3+ 17 ~xf3 ~d4 18 hg 1-0, 42 but 18 ... §ad8 1 was
    hg 19 h4 *f6 20 <Iie2 ~d7 21 better) 17 *f2 (17 f5?! gf 18 h3
    *&1 §ae8! +, Schussler-Nunn, f4) 17 ... §fe8 18 §ae1 b5 19 ab
    Dortmund 1979, Υι-Υι, 51. ab 20 4.)xb5 §eb8! (20 ... §ab8
    2) 13 f4!? (J suggested this to 21 4.)a3 §xb2 22 ~ac4 followed by
    Sch[jssler after the above game, but e5 is good for White) 21 4.)a3 4.)f6,
    alas he still couIdn't win with this Vukic-IIic, Yugoslavia Ch. 1980,
    variation) 13 ... 4.)g4 (13 ... ~h6 1-0, 55 and now 22 *h4 is best
    14 ο-ο *h4 15 ~h5 ±) 14~xg4 according to IIic, with a double-
    *h4+ 15 g3 *xg4 16 .xg4 ~xg4 edged position.
    17 h3 ~d7 18 g4 ~c3 19 bc 4.)f6 This main line seems to be
    20 <Iif2 b5 21 <Iif3 and White has a satisfactory for Black, so perhaps
    slight edge but Black held the draw White should play 1Ο ~e2 aiming
    without trou~le ίη Schussler- for a transposition to chapter
    Sosonko, Reykjavik 1980, Υι-Υι, 3, a line which has been proving
    48. troublesome for Black.
    3) 13 ~xh5 gh 'is quite good for Β:
    Black. 6 e4 g6
    120 E4r/y Μ4 Systems

    7 ~f4 would be the same as variation 3 οη


    and now: page 23 apart from the moves
    1) 7 ... a6 8 a4 (8 ~f3 is Α2, note . a6 and a4) 12 ... ..Q.xf3 13
    to White's 8th) 8 ... ~g7 9 ~f3 is ..Q.xf3 ~bd7 14 ο-ο a6 15 a4 (we
    the main Iίne of Α2. have almost transposed to variation
    2) 7 ... ~7 8 ~b5+ (8 ita4+ ~d7 2 ίη the note to Black's 13th οη
    9 *b3 *c7 1Ο ~f3 ΟΓ 1Ο ~e2 ο-ο page 29, with which this should
    1 i ~f3 transpose to Α 1, but not be compared - the conclusion
    8 Φe7 9 ~f3 IJe8 10 ~b5 reached there that Black's position
    ~bd7 11 ο-ο with a clear plus for ίς satisfactory ίς not changed) 15
    White, Korchnoi-Ljubojevic, Bath . IJab8 16 a5?! ~e8 17 IJfe1
    1973, 1-0, 59) 8 ... Ad7 9 ~e2 (9 4}c7 18 ~e2 Ad4! 19 ~f1 b5 20
    ..Q.xd6? Axb5 10 ~xb5 *a5+ 11 ab IJxb6 21 ~e3 IJfb8 and Black
    ~c3 ~xe4 wins while 9 ~xd7+ is slίghtly better, Razuvayev-
    *xd7 is equal) and now: Τ shesh kOV5ky, USS R 15t league
    1978,0-1,42.
    76 2b) 9 ... *c7 10 ~f3 ο-ο (10 ...
    Β a6 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 e5 de 13
    4}xe5 *d8 14 Af3 is horrible for
    Black, Geller-Suetin, USSR Ch.
    1960) 11 ο-ο (11 e5 4}h5 12 ed
    *b6 is nothing special for White
    but it ίς clear that White is better ίη
    this position if οηlΥ because the
    artificial 11 *b3 transposes to Α 1,
    which is slightly better for White!
    2a) 9 *e7 10 *c2 (10 *b3 11 a4 and 11 *c2 are simple
    can be met by 10 b5!, for possibilities) 11 .. b5 and now
    example 11 ~xb5 4}xe4 ΟΓ 11 ~xb5 12 e5 ~h5 13 ed *b6 14 Ae3
    ..Q.xb5 12 *xb5+ 4}bd7 whίle followed by a4100ks very promising.
    10 4}f3 ο-ο 11 4}d2 b5 is 3) 7 ~h5 8 Ae3 ~7 9 Ae2
    simίlar, e.g. 12 Axb5 ~h5 ΟΓ 12 4}f6 is a waste of time and 1Ο ~f3
    ~xb5 ~xe4 and now 13 ~c7?! ο-ο 11 ~d2 ~a6 12 ο-ο IJe8 13
    ..Q.xb2 is dangerous for White - 11 ~5 left"Whίte better ίη Forintos-,
    e5 ίη this Iίne is worth a look, Velίmirovic, Vrsac 1973, 71-71,58.
    however, since Black's queen is not So either 7 . a6 ΟΓ 7 ... ~g7
    very weII placed) 1Ο . . . ο-ο 11 foIIowed by 9 ... *e7 gives Black a
    4}f3 ~g4 12 h3 (12 ο-ο ~bd7 satisfactory game.
    13. Knight's Tour Variation

    1 d4 4}f6 very Iimited and it is not clear if


    2 c4 c5 these alternatives are any better
    3 d5 e6 than acquiescing to ... ι:le8.
    4 4}c3 e.d
    5 cd d6 77
    6 4}f3 g6 Β
    7 4}d2
    The basic idea of this lίne is to
    exert pressure against the weak d6
    pawn as quickly as possible by
    playing 4}c4 and .Q.f4, but there are
    some interesting fίnesses of move-
    order. Black may try to upset
    White's plan by playing 7 •.. 4}bd7
    with the idea of answering 4}c4 wίth 7 .Q.g7
    4}b6. Then White has various Or
    options, including transposition to 1) 7 ... 4}bd7 and now:
    chapter 1. However, White some- 1 a) 8 4}c4 4}b6 9 e4 (9 4}e3 .Q.g7
    times plays 7 4}d2 with the intention 10 a4 *e7 11 a54}bd7 12 g3 ο-ο
    of answering . .Q.g7 with 8 e4, 13 .Q.g2 ι:lb8 14 h3 b5 15 ab 4}xb6
    the ϊdea being to transpose to the 16 ο-ο a6 +, Yanakiev-Antonov,
    CΙassical variation without allowing Bulgaria Ch. semi-final 1976, 0-1,
    Black the chance to play the 31) 9 ... 4}xc4 (9 ... .Q.g7?! aIIows
    system with . .Q.g4 (chapter 3). 10 4}e3 transposing to 1b) 10 .Q.xc4
    The key point ίη this reasoning is .Q.g7 11 q-o ο-ο 12.Q.f4 (12 .Q.g5
    the assumption that Black will h6 13 .Q.h4 g5 14 .Q.g3 a6 15 a4
    sooner ΟΓ later have to play ι:le8 16 .Q.d3 c4 17 .Q.c2 ι:lb8 =,
    ι:le8, when transposition to chapter Inkiov-Antonov, Varna 1977, 1-0,
    1 ΟΓ chapter 2 will occur. Black can 34) 12 ... a6 13 a4 4}h5 (13. .
    try to avoid this, but experience is 4}g4 looks a safe equaliser) 14.Q.e3
    122 Knight's Του, Vorlat/on
    ~e8 15itd2§b8 16~feHtd7 17 Karlsson, Erevan 1980, 1-0, 41)
    a5 b5 18 ab ~xb6 =, Gligoric- White is distinctly better.
    Trifunovic, Yugoslavia Ch. 1957. 8 ~c4
    1b) 8 e4 (best) 8 ... A.g7 9 ~c4 After 8 e4 we mention only
    ~b6 1Ο ~e3 ο-ο 11 A.d3 (11 A.e2 lίnes for Black which do not
    tlιe7 12 *c2 A.d7 and now both 13 transpose to chapters 1 and 2 (ί.e.
    a4 §ae8 14 a5 o€)a8 15 A.d3 ~c7 those which avoid ... ae8):
    16 ο-ο ~a6 17 ~c4 ~b4 18 *d1 8 e4 ο-ο 9 A.e2 (for 9 A.d3 see
    ~xd3 19 *xd3 ~g4, Anitshenko- chapter 15, Iίne Α) ~bd7 (9 ...
    Mozhalov, USSR 1974, 0-1, 38 ~a6 10 ο-ο ~c7 11 Φh1 .e7 12
    and 130-0~ae8 14f3~h5 15f4 f3 ~d7 13 a4 f5 14 ef gf 15 f4
    hc3 16 *xc3 *xe4 17 *f6 *d4, ~f6 16 ~c4 ~g4 is at least equal
    Α. Petrosian-Kapengut, Minsk 1973 for Black, Begovac-Commons,
    gave Black a satisfactory position) Sombor 1976, 0-1, 40 - an
    11 ... ~h5 (11 ... A.d7 120-0 a6 interesting idea which saves time
    13 A.d2 §e8 14 a4 *c7 15 *f3 c4 since when Black plays ... f5 ίπ the
    16 A.c2 *c5 was unclear ίπ Osnos- normal classical he usuaIIy has to
    Elvest, TaIIinn 1980, ~-~, 41 but follow υρ with ae8-f8 to
    13 a4 at once is better) 12 ο-ο defend the f-pawn, but 12 a4 ~d7
    A.e5 (12 ... ~f4 13 a4 ~xd3 14 13 f4 saves a move and is more
    *xd3 ae8 15 a5 ~d7 16 f4 A.d4 dangerous) 1Ο ο-ο ~e8 (1 0- .•
    17 OΦh1 ~f6 is better, but stiII good .e7 11 a4 was good for White
    for White) 13 a4 ~f4 14 a5 ~d7 after 11 ... b6 12ae1 ab8 13f4
    15 ~c4 ±, Nimzowitsch-Marshall, a6 14 A.f3 b5 15 ab ab 16 aa5 b4
    New York 1927, 1-0,30. 17 ~a4, Petrosian-Kapengut, Mos·
    2) 7 .. ~a6 8 ~c4 ~c7 9 a4 cow 1972, ~-~, 26 ΟΓ 11
    leaνes Black with problems develop- ~e5 12 l!Ia3 g5 13 l!Ie1 g4 14
    ing his pieces, since ... A.g7 is met ~f1 ~h5 15 ~e3!, Bagirov-
    by A.f4 - ίπ Kosciuk-Meduna, Tίmoshchenko, USSR Ch. 1979,
    Bialystok 1979 White stood well 1-0, 28) 11 f4 (more logical than
    after 9 ... b6 1Ο A.g5 A.e7 11 A.h6 11 ~c4 ~5 12 ~e3 f5 13 f4 ~f7
    o€)g4 12 A.f4 ο-ο 13 h3 ~f6 14 14 ef gf, Vranesic-Reshevsky,
    e4, 1-0,40. Amsterdam 1964, 0-1, 40 and 11
    3) 7 ... a6 8 a4 A.g7 9 ~c4 ο-ο l!Ie1 ~c7 12 a4 ~a6 13 ~c4 ~e5
    1Ο A.f4 ~e8 is like the normal Iίne 14 ~e3 f5 15 f4 ~π 16 ef gf,
    but Black has deprived himself of Yuferov-Rashkovsky, USSR Ch.
    the manoeuvre .. b6 and semi-final 1972, 0-1, 39 when
    A.a6 - after 11 *d2 (instead of 11 Black profits from having left his
    ~e4?! ~d7 12 hd6 ~xd6 13 rook οπ f8, but 11 a4 ~c7 12 Φh1
    ~exd6 ab8 unclear, Α. Petrosian- b6 13 o€)c4 is a good solid line,
    Knίght's TourVor/ot/on 123

    Sakharov-Bangiev, USSR 1972, 78


    1-0,30;fίnaIΙΥΙΙΦhΙf512efgf Β
    13 a4, Petrosian-Martinovic, Ober-
    wart 1981, 1-0, 34, andnow 13 ...
    f4! 14 Ag4 .;)e5 15 .Q.xc8 *xc8
    was =) 11 ~b8 (ίη view of
    the above comments .•. 'f5 seems
    much more logical) 12 a4 a6 13
    .;)c4.;)b6 14.;)e3 f5 (rather late)
    15 a5 .;)a8 16 ef gf 17 .Q.d3 and
    White is better since Black has to
    waste more titne bringing his 15 h4 ~d7 16 e3 .Q.xf1 17 Φχf1
    knight οη a8 back into the game, §e8 is =, Kanko-Nikitin, USSR
    Browne-Kerman, USA 1977, 1-0, 1957, 0-1, 28 while 13 .. *e7
    39. 14 *e4 'ltf6 15 0-0-0.Q.a6 16
    8 ... 0-0' h4 ~g7 17 Ag5 *xf2 is unclear,
    9 .Q.g5 Matsukevich-Suetin, USSR Ch.
    This has superceded 9 .Q.f4 ίη recent semi-final1956, 0-1, 44) 11 ... b5
    years. The idea is to induce 9 12 ~b2 with the continuations:
    h6 when White plays 1 Ο .Q.f4, with 1a1) 12. ..Q.b 7 (probably best)
    a subsequent *c1 gaining a tempo. 13 g3 (13 e4? *e7) ~d7 14 .Q.g2
    There are many Iines which are f5 15 ο-ο c4 (15 . . . ~df6 16
    identical apart from the position of a4 a6 17 ab ab 18 c4 .Q.a6 =,
    Black's h·pawn - we only consider Antoshin-Tal, USSR Ch. 1956) 16
    such Iines individually when this §ae1 ~df6 ~ 17 h4 'ltd7 18 e4?
    difference appears important. After fe 19 .Q.xe4 ~xe4 20 ~xe4 ~f6 21
    9.Q.f4 we have: §e6 ~xd5 22 §xd6 *h3 0-1, van
    1) 9 ••• .;)e8 1Ο *d2 (other Iίnes den Berg-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee
    are fine for Black: 1Ο .;)b5 .Q.d7 11 1971.
    ,;)bxd6 b5 12 .;)xe8 .Q.xe8 13 .;)e5 1a2) 12 •.. f5 13 a4 'lta5 14 e3
    *d6 14 .;)d3 *xd5 +, 1Ο .;)e4 b5 .Q.a6 15 .Q.e2 b4 16 c4 ~d7 17
    11 .;)cxd6 .;)xd6 12 .Q.xd6 ~e8 ο-ο ~ef6 18 f3 *c7 19 h3 .;)h5
    -+,10 e4 f5!, 10e3 g5 11 Ag3 f5 20 .Q.h2 ~ae8 ;\;, Tukmakov-
    12 *d2 .Q.xc3!? 13 bc b5 14.;)b2 Zhidkov, USSR 1972, V2-V2, 31.
    *e7 unclear ΟΓ 12 ... *e7 13 .Q.e2 1a3) 12 ... a5 13 e4 *e7 14 f3
    .;)d7 =) and now: (78) .Q.a6 15 a4 b4 16 .Q.xa6 §xa6 17
    1a) 10 ... .Q.xc3 (played by Tal and ο-ο .;)d7 18 §fe1 ;\;, Koblents-
    Korchnoi, but rather risky) 11 bc Kagan, Tallinn 1956.
    (11 'ltxc3 b5 12 ~d2 b4 13 'ltc2 Ι n my view 11 *xc3 is better than
    and now 13 ... .Q.a6 14 .Q.h6 .;)g7 11 bc since the knight can retreat
    124 Knlght's 'rour Var;ation

    to d2, a far better square than b2. 13th) 13 ... Aχc4 14 Aχc4 a6 15
    1b) 10 ... b6 and now: Ae2 (15 ite2 ~f6 16 ~d3 !la7 17
    1b1) 11 ~b5 Aa6 12 a4 (12 g3 ~g4 18 Φf1 h6 =, Borisenko-
    ~bχd6 ~χd6 13 ~χd6 g5 14Ag3 Boleslavsky, USSR Ch. 1961,0-1,
    f5 -+) 12 ~χb5 13 ab ~d7 60) 15 ~d7 16 e4 fe 17 h5
    (13 f5 14 e3!lf7 15 ~e2 a6 is ~df6 +, Farago-Velimirovic, Am-
    another plan) 14 e3 (14 ~xd6?! sterdam 1976, 0-1, 46 (this was
    ~df6 15 ~χe8 !lχe8 16 !ld1 ~e4 one ofVelίmirovic's famous tactical
    17 itc2 itf6 is very dangerous, wins).
    Goldin-Shaposhnikov, corr. 1962) 1 b4) 11 a4 will transpose after 11
    14 ~e5 15 ~xe5 ~xe5 16 Aa6 12 e3; the deviation
    ~χe5 (16 ~e2 ~g7 17 ο-ο ~c7 11 ~a6 12 e4 ite7 13 Ae2
    18 ~a3 itd7 =, Gligoric-Giustolisi, ~b4 14 0-0 Aa6 15 !lae1 !ld8
    Lublin 1957, Υ2-Υ2, 31) 16 de 16 Φh1 was good for White ίπ
    17 ~e2 ι6d6 18 itc3 !le8 19 !la4 Agzamov-Gavrikov, Erevan 1982,
    itd7 20 itb3 !lac8 21 ο-ο !lc7 1-0,35.
    Υ2-Υ2, Sliwa-Suetin, Poland-Bielo· 1c) 10 ... ~d7 11 ~χd6 4)e5 12
    russia 1958. ~χe8? (12 ~χe5 followed by 13
    1b2) 11 ~e4 ~a6 12 ~cχd6 ~χd6 ~χc8 ΟΓ 13 ~e4 is good for White)
    13 ~χd6 !le8 14 ~χb8 !lχe4 + 12 ... ~c4! 13itd3~χb2 14itc2
    1 b3) 11 e3 (best) ~a6 12 a4 f5 !lχe8 15 itχb2 b5 with a dangerous
    (Black effectively gains a tempo initiative, Yudovich-Kozlov, USSR
    with this move, which waits for 1966,0-1,46.
    White to move the f1 bishop 2) 9 ... ~a6 and now:
    before eχhanging οπ c4 - 12 2a) 10 ~xd6 is dealt with later οπ,_
    ite7 13 ~b5 ~χb5 14 ab ~d7 15 as the position of the h-pawn -is
    h4 ~e5 16 ~χe5 de 17 d6! ±, almost irrelevant ίπ this Iίne.
    Anton-Sorokin, corr. 1978/9,1-0, 2b) 10 e3 (this has been the most
    34, with the misplacement of the popular ίπ practice) 1Ο ... ~e8 11
    queen οπ e7 preventing 15 ... ~e5 Ae2 f5 12 h4 ~ac7 13 a4 b6 14
    due to 16 ~χb6) 13 h4 (13 ~e2 itd2 (14 itb3 !lb8 15 ~b5 ~xb5
    itf6 14 Ag3 ~χc4 15 Aχc4 a6 16 16 ab !lb7 17 !ld1 h6 18 Φf1 itf6
    ο-ο ~d7 17 f4 ~c7 18 ~f2 b5 19 19 Ag3 !ld7 20 f3 itf7 21 ~e1
    ab ~b6 =, Osnos-Forintos, Lenin- ~f6 22 ~a3 ~h5 and Black had the
    grad-Budapest 1962, Υ2-Υ2, 41 ΟΓ initiative ίπ Borisenko-Kapengut,
    13 ~g3?! ite7 14 f4 ~f6 15Ah4 USSR 1979, Υ2-Υ2, 38 ΟΓ 14 Af3
    !le8 +, Burnett-Nunn, Oχford .Δ.a6 15 itb3 ~χc4 16 itχc4 a6
    1972, 0-1, 41 but 13 ~b5 Aχb5 17 !ld1 b5! 18 ...2 ite7 19
    14 ab is playable and perhaps best, Φf1 ~f6 20 Ah6 ~g7 21 g3
    transposing to 1b1, note to Black's !lfb8 with again a plus for Biack,
    Knlght's Τoυr Vor/ot/on 125

    Borisenko-Kapengut, Kiev 1979, 11 .Qxf6 and now 11 ... 'ltxc4 12


    Ύ'2-Ύ'2,
    45) 14 .Qa6 15 ~d 1 .Qχg7 'IJxg7 1 3 e3 'ltb4 14 *d2 ;t
    .Qχc4 1 6 .Qχc4 ~f6 17 .Qe2 a6 18 ΟΓ 11 ... .Qχf6 12 ~xd6 *b4 13
    h5 b5 19 hg hg 20 'ltc2 §b8 21 'ltd2 ± but 10 . ~a6 as ίη the
    b3 and White is a IittIe better, main line with .Qh4 is a reasonabIe
    Didishko-Kapengut, Minsk 1980, move) 11 e3 .Qa6 12 'ltf3 .Qχc4 13
    1-0, 35. .Qχc4 ±, Inkiov-Goormachtigh,
    3) 9 ... b6. Once again we consider Groningen 1973/4, 1-0,46.
    this with the pawn οη h6 ίη the 3) 9 ... 'lte7 10 e3 (10 'ltd2led to
    main Iίne. catastrophe ίη Estrada-Hamann,
    Varna 1962 after 1Ο .• .Qd7? 11
    'ltf4 but 10 ... b6 11 'ltf4 §d8 12
    ~e4 'ltxe4 13 'ltxe4 4)xe4 14
    .Qχd8 b5 is uncIear according to
    Yusupov) 10 b6 (10 ... §d8
    11 .Qe2 ~bd7 12 ο-ο ~e5 13 ~d2
    h6 14 .Qh4 g5 15 .Qg3 ~g6 ;!;,
    Popov-Prodanov, Bulgaria 1974)
    11 a4 (11 .Qe2 .Qa6 12 a4 h6 13
    .Qh4 g5 14 .Qg3 .Qxc4 15 .Qxc4
    ~e4 16 ~xe4 'ltxe4 17 'ltb3,
    9 h6 Yusupov-Christiansen, Mexico
    Of course there are pIenty of 1980, 1-0, 38 and now 17
    other moves: 'lte7 was =) 11 ... .Qa6 12 *c2
    1) 9 • • • ~e8 1Ο e3 (1 Ο 'ltd2 a6 11 ~bd7 13 §d 1 h6 14 .Qh4 .Qχc4
    a4 b6 12 g3 ~a7 13 'ltf4 h6 14 15 .Qχc.4 g5 (15 .. ~e5 16 .Qe2
    .Qχh6 .Qxh6 15 'ltxh6 ~e4 16 a6 17 ο-ο 'ltb7 18 h3 ~fc8 19
    'ltf4 §ae 7 17 e3 ±, MochaIov- f4 is good for White, Averbakh-
    Zarenkov, Minsk 1974, 1-0, 35 Kapengut, Ινον 1973) 16 .Qg3
    whiIe Kapengut suggests 15 ~h5 17 *f5?! (17 ~e4 is fascin-
    §ae7! as better - the immediate 12 ating, e.g. 17 ... ~xg3? 18 ~xg3,
    'ltf4 Iooks good to me) 10 ... a6 17. .Qχb2? 18 .Qxd6, 17 ..
    (1 Ο ••• b6 11 ~b5!.Qa6 12 ~cxd6 ~5 18 .Qe2 ΟΓ 17 f5!? 18
    §e5 13 .Qf4 ~xd5 14 'lt~ +-, ~xd6! and now not 18 ... ~xg3 19
    KozIov-Arseniev, USSR 1979, 1-0, ~xf5 ~xf5 20 d6+ 'ltf7 21 .Qχf7+
    21) 11 'a4 'ltc7 12 .Qf4 .Qf8 13 a5 ;!; but 18 f4 19 ~f5 'ltf6 20
    ~bd7 14 ~a4 ;t, Brinck-Claussen- d6+ Φh8 and now perhaps 21 ~e7)
    PouIsen, Denmark Ch. 1974, 1-0, 17 . ~xg3 18 hg =, Spassov-
    51. Holm, Hamburg 1974, 0-1, 39.
    2) 9 ... 'ltd7 10 a4 b6 (10 ... 'ltg4 4) 9 ... b6 10 a4 .Qa6 11 e3 (11
    126 Kn/ght'sTour Var/at/on
    {)b5 ~b5 12 ab {)bd7 is equaI) *e7 15 e4! and the bishop οη b7 is
    11 .. *e7 12 *c2 transposing to quite useless) 14 ο-ο "ltd7 15 h3
    line 3 above. (15 e4?! §ae8 16 *c2 {)h5! 17 f4
    1Ο .Q.f4 f5 18 b3 .Q.xc3 19 *xc3 {)xd5 +
    L. Ρορον-Νυηη, Birmingham 1974,
    80 0-1, 28) 15 §ae8 16 .Q.g3
    Β ~c4 17 ~c4 ιθe4 with equaIity,
    Law-Nunn, London 1977, J!1-J!1,
    31.
    10 ... b6
    10 ... {)e8 11 *c1 g5 (11
    Φh7 12 {)b5) 12 .Q.d2 followed by
    h4 Iooks very doubtfu! for BIack,
    50 BIack must gambit his d-pawn:
    1) 10 ... {)bd7 11 ~d6 (ΙΙίίίη
    1Ο .Q.h4 Ieads to Iίnes which are gives 11 {)xd6 {)h5 +, but where is
    simiIar _ to those ίη the note to BIack's compensation after 12
    Black 's 9th move: .Q.c1?) 11 ... §e8 12 .Q.g3 ιθe4 13
    1) 10 .. . *d7 11.Q.g3 (11 a4{)a6 ιθχe4 §xe4 14 e3 (14 {)d2 is
    followed by ... {)b4, ... b6, .. possibIe, with uncIear play) 14 ...
    .Q.a6 is reputed to be equal but this {)b6 15 §c1 {)xc4 16 §xc4 axc4
    has never been tested) 11 ... b5 12 17 .Q.xc4 b5 18 .Q.e2 *a5+ 19 *d2
    ιθΧd6 .Q.a6 (Kapengut recommends *xa2 20 ο-ο c4 21 e4 *xb2 22
    12 .. b4) 13 e3 b4 14 ιθa4 .Q.xf1 *e3 .Q.d4 23 *f3 .Q.d7 24 .Q.f4 h5
    15 ΦΧf1 ιθa6 with unclear pIay, ! 25 h3 §e8 26 .Q.c1 "ltc2 0-1,
    Langeweg-van den Berg, Dutch Ch. Foisor-IIijin, Rumania Ch. 1979.
    1963. 2) 10 ... {)a6 and now:
    2) 10 *e7 - simiIar to 9 2a) 11 .Q.xd6 §e8 12.Q.g3 (Melegh-
    *e7 above. egyi recommends 12 e3, but 12 ...
    3) 10 ... b6 - the same comment .Q.f5 looks a good reply, e.g. 13 .Q.e2
    applίes to this. {)e4 14 {)xe4 .Q.xe4. threatening ...
    4)10 ... ιθa6(10 ... a6?! 11a4 b5) 12 ιθb4 13 e3 (13 ιθd6
    g5 12.Q.g3 ιθe8 13 e4 f5 14 ef .Q.f5!?) 13 ... .Q.f5 14 ac1 {)e4!?
    ~f5 15 .Q.e2 b6 16 ο-ο §f7 17 15 ιθΧθ4 ~θ4 16 a3 ιθΧd5 and
    .Q.g4 ±, Donner-Langeweg, Wijk Black has good chances, Petran-
    aan Zee 1963 whiIe 1 Ο . §e8, Barczay, Hungary 1980.
    aIthough avoiding the problems of 2b) 11 *d2 b5 (11 ... g5 is
    9 ... ae8 1ο *d2, is still not very mentioned by Kapengut but after
    inviting) 11 e3 ιθc7 12 a4 b6 13 12 .Q.xd6 White has gained a useful
    .Q.e2 .Q.a6 (13 . .Q.b 7 14 ο-ο tempo οη 2a) 12 {)xb5 {)e4 13
    Knlght's Τour Variation 127

    *c1 (13 *c2 .Δ.f5) 13 ... ~b4 14 b5


    f3 a6 (Kapengut gives 14 ... .Δ.d7!
    since after 15 ~c7 the knight stiII 81
    has a retreat οη a6, while after 15 w
    a4 a6 White is deprived of a sub-
    sequent a3) 15 ~bxd6? (15 ~c7!
    *xc7 16 fe threatening .Δ.χd6 and
    a3 would have been very strong)
    15 ~xd6 16 Axd6 l:le8 17 e4
    l:lxe4+ 18 fe *h4+ 19.Δ.g3 (19
    Φd2 *xe4 20 ~e3 .Δ.d4 21 *e1
    .Δ.f5 +) 19 ... *xe4+ 20 ~e3 .Δ.d4
    21 Af2 .Δ.f5 22 .Δ.e2 .Δ.χe3 23 .Δ.χe3 15 ~d2
    *xg2 24 l:lgl *xh2 25 *c4 l:le8 15 ~d6 l:lb4 and now:
    26 Φd2 .Δ.d3 27 'ltg4 *e5 28.Δ.d4 1) 16 .Δ.χbS? (too greedy) .Δ.f8! 17
    cd 29 l:lae1 *e3+ 0-1, Kaplun- .Δ.c6.Δ.a6 18 .Δ.χa8 (18 *d2 ~xc6
    Kapengut, USS R 1980. 19 dc *b6 is also terrible) §xb2
    2c) 11 e3. This is analogous to lίne 19 *a4 *f6 20 l:lc1 .Δ.χd6 21 f4
    2b οη page 124. Black must now *f5 22 e4 §e2+ 23 Φd 1 *h5
    play 11 ~e8 since ideas lίke 0-1, Donner-Planinc, Wijk aan
    11. b5 12 ~xb5 ~b4 seem Zee 1973.
    inadequate. 2) 16 .Δ.e2 .Δ.χb2 (16 .. l:lxb2 17
    11 .Δ.χd6 ο-ο ~a6 18 .Δ.xb5 ~b4 19 ~xc8
    The advantage(?!) of giving up the l:lxc8 20 d6 a6 21.Δ.c4 §c2
    pawn by 1 Ο ••• b6 is that White is 22 §c1 l:lb2 23 a3 ~a2 24
    almost oblίged Ιο take ίΙ, since .Δ.χa2 §xa2 25 *d5 l:lxa3 26 d7
    otherwise . .Δ.a6 gives Black a 1-0, Α. Petrosian-Stoicescu, USSR
    good game (he saves about 1Υι 1973) 17 0-0 (17 l:lb1 .Δ.c3+ 18
    tempi from missing out .. ~e8). Φf1 l:lxb1 19 *xb1 a6 20 h4 is
    Not 11 ~xd6? ~h5 12 ~xc8 ~xf4 assessed as good fo~ White by
    winning. Uhlmann, which seems right as
    11 '" §e8 Black's kingside is extremely bare)
    12 .Δ.g3 ~e4 and ίπ my view White stands well.
    13 ~xe4 §xe4 15 ... Ub4
    14 e3 b5 16 b3
    Or 14 ... ..Qa6 15 *c2 *xd5 16 16 .Δ.e2 is far less favourable for
    §d1 *e6 17 l:ld8+ Φh7, Yrjola- White than above, since his knight
    Lobron, Groningen 1979/80, 1-0, is not so actively placed.
    42 when 18 ~d2! .Δ.χf1 19. §xf1 16 c4
    was ±. Black aims to free his rook
    Ι28 Knlght's Τour Var/at/on

    before takin'g the exchange. lηstead dous for Black with his army of
    16 ... Axa1 17 *xa1 *xd5 18 passed pawns.
    a3 (preparing this with 18 'ltc3 17 bc
    was stronger) 18 ... ag4? (18 18 Axc4 (18 ~xc4 Axa1 19 *xa1
    axb3 19 ~θ2 ad3! was still ηοΙ *xd5) 18 ... Axal 19 *xa1 and
    clear) 19 ~e2 4)(;6 20 ~f3 *e6 21 now:
    Axg4 *xg4 220-0 with a winning 1) 19 ... ~6 20 Axa6 ~xa6 21
    position for White, Petrosian-Nunn, d6 ~c5 22 ο-ο ~d7 with equal
    Hastings 1977/8, 1-0, 35. chances as White's pawn is fιrmly
    blockaded while Black's rooks are
    82 quite active.
    W 2) 19 axc4 20 ~xc4 *xd5
    (Keene suggests 20 . ~6 but
    then 21 *d4*c8 220-O!'iιtxc4 23
    *xc4 axc4 24 ac1 and now 24
    . ~a6 25 ac7 Ieaves BIack tied
    υρ and after 25 .. g5 26 ~θ5
    followed' by g4 White aIso has an
    attack οη the king, so 24 ... ~xd5
    25 ac8+ <Ith7 is best, when BIack
    17 bc can draw) 21 *d4 ~θ6! with a
    17 a3 axb3! 18 ~e2 (18 ~xb3 IikeIy draw.
    cb 19 ab1 'ita5+ 20 'Ifte2 b2 Summing up, 15 ~d6 Iooks the
    is horrid) and now instead of 18 critica! test of the 1Ο ... b6 pawn
    ab2 19 ο-ο c3 20 ~f3 ~f5 sacrifice, whiIe if BIack does not
    21 ~d4 uncIear, Chandler-Denman, Iike Ιο give υρ a pawn, answering
    Brighton 1979, 1-0, 32 simply 18 9 ~f4 with 9. . ~θ8 and 9 ~g5
    'ita5 19 ο-ο axa3 20 axa3 with 9 ... b6 is a perfectly
    'iιtxa3 21 ~f3 ~d7 lόοks tremen- reasonable aIternative.
    14. White plays e4, ~d3 and ~ge2

    The idea behind White's piece 8 ~ge2 ο-ο


    deployment is to continue with f4 9 ο-ο
    and ~g3 (although this may require Or 9 Ag5 a6 (9 . h6?! 10
    preparatory moves such as h3 ΟΓ Af4 b6 11 *d2 Φh7 12 ~g3
    Φh 1) and then break through by Aa6 13 h4 with a dangerous
    e5 de f5, when all the White pieces attack, Klaman-Blekhtsin, Lenin-
    are well placed to control the grad 1965, 1-0, 38 but 9 .. b6
    blockading square e4. Black's 10 ο-ο transposes to Iίne 3 οη page
    counterplay consists of a rapid 130) 1 Ο a4 ~bd7 transposing to
    queenside pawn push. However, Iίne C, note to White's 11 th move
    recently a new idea has appeared after 11 0-0, whίle 11 *d2 "c7
    for White, devised by ΤοηΥ Miles. shouldn't pose problems for. Black.
    White aims for restraint by playing After 9 0-0 there are three main
    ο-ο, f3, Ae3, a4 and possibly b3 Iίnes:
    ΟΓ a5 as well, when Black fιnds it
    much more diffιcult to develop 83
    active play. It is too soon to assess Β
    the merit of this plan. Although
    this Iίne is not often seen today,
    this is just the result of chess
    fashion and White's chances are just
    as good as ίη some of the popular
    variations.
    1 d4 ~f6
    2 c4 c5
    3 d5 e6 Α: 9 ... ~a6
    4 ~c3 ed Β: 9 ... b6
    5 cd d6 C: 9 ... a6 (followed by ... ~bd7)
    6 e4 g6 Less common alternatives:
    7 Ad3 Ag7 1) 9 ... ~e8 (passive) 1Ο Ae3 (1 Ο
    130 Whlte p/ays e4,~3 and {jge2

    ..Q.f4 a6 11 a4 {Jd7 12 'ltd2 {je5 13 Α:


    ..Q.g5 f6 14 ..Q.h4 ..Q.d7 15 f4 {jxd 3 9 ... ~a6
    16 'ltxd3 b5 17 ab ab 18 f5 ;!;, 10 h3
    Kotov-Ree, Amsterdam 1967,1-0, Or
    47) 1Ο ... {jd7 11 f4 a6 (11 ... f5 1) 10 f3 (the Miles plan) 10 . . .
    12 ef gf 13 ~g3 is unpleasant) 12 ..Q.d7 11 ..Q.g5 §c8 12 ..Q.c4 {Jc7 13
    a4 b6 (12 . {jdf6 13 h3 ;!;) 13 a4 a6 14 a5 ~b5 (14 ... h6 15
    §b 1 followed by 'ltd2 and b4 ;!;, ..Q.e3..Q.b5 16 b3 ~d7 17 'ltd2 Φh7
    Ghitescu-Matulovic, Havana 1966, 18 f4 is also good for White, Rivas-
    !h-!h,44. Suba, Medina del Campo 1980,
    2) 9 .• §e8 (this generally trans- 1-0, 43.) 15 'ltd3 ~d4 16 §fc1 h6
    poses into the following lίnes but 17 ..Q.e3 ~xe2+ 18 'ltxe2 and
    we mention a couple of attempts Black's position is unpleasantly
    by Black to avoid this transposition) passive, Mίles-Vasyukov, Reykjavik
    10 h3 (10 f4?! c4 11 ..Q.c2 b5 12 1980,1--0,50.10 ... {jc7 at once
    a3 'ltb6+ 13 Φh1 ~bd7 was fine looks better as the rook may be
    for Black ίη Tarasevich-Schtyrov, needed οη the b-file, e.g. 11 Φh1
    Moscow 1964, 1--0, 51 but 10~g3 §b8 12 a4 a6 13 §b1 b5 14 b4
    is quite sensible, normally trans- {jd7 15 ab ab 16 ..Q.e3 ..Q.a6?! 17
    posing into the Iίnes below except 'ltd2 {Je5 ;!;, ι. lvanov-Arnason,
    that Black might try 1Ο ... ..Q.d7 - Lone Pine 1981, 1--0, 44, ΟΓ 11
    finally 10 Φh1 is Iίttle tested, but ..Q.g5 a6 12 a4..Q.d7 13 a5 §b8 14
    10 Φh1 c4 11 ..Q.c2 ~a6 12..Q.g5 h6 {ja4 ..Q.xa4 15 §xa4 b5 16 ab
    13 ..Q.e3 ..Q.d7 14 'ltd2 b5 15 a3 ~c5 §xb6 17 b3 'ltb8 with just an edge
    16 f3 h5 17 ~d4 was good for for White, Mίles-Arnason, Man-
    White ίη Ribli-Gheorghiu, Riga chester 1981, 1--0,69.
    1979, 1--0, 44 but Ι suspect the 2) 10 a3 (preparing to play b4, but
    fault Iίes with 12 h6, since the idea is artificial) 1Ο ... ~c7 (1 Ο
    Black could transpose to Spassky- .. §e8 11 h3 c4 12 ..Q.c2 ~c5 13
    Ljubojevic below with ..Q.d7 {jg3 and a3 is not a very useful
    followed by ... 'ltc7) 10 ... ..Q.d7!? adornment to White's position,
    11 ..Q.g5 'ltc7 12 'ltd2 (12 a4 c4 13 Ghitescu-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee,
    ..Q.c2 ~a6 14 ~d4 ~c5 15 ~db5 1967,0-1,41) 11 §b1 b5 12 b4
    'ltb8 16 ..Q.f4 ..Q.f8 doesn 't achieve c4 13 ..Q.c2 ..Q.d7 14 ..Q.f4 ~fe8 15
    very much since .. a6 will drive 'ltd2 a5 =, Ojanen-Westerinen,
    away White's pieces) 12 ... c4 13 Helsinki 1963, Y2-!h, 45 .
    ..Q.c2 b5 14 a3 ~a6 15 ~g3 b4 16 3) 10 ..Q.g5 and now:
    ab ~xb4 17..Q.b 1 §eb8 with a 3a) 10 ... h6 11 ..Q.h4 (11 ..Q.f4 ~7
    double-edged position, Spassky- 12 f3 g5 13 ..Q.e3 b5!? 14 a3 'lte8
    Ljubojevic, Manila 1976, !h-!h, 30. 15 ..Q.f2 a5 with active play, Ρορον-
    White p/ays e4, ~3 ond ~ge2 131

    Fίlipowicz, Banco di Roma 1981, thisline is a good recommendation


    Υ:Ζ-Υ:Ζ, 31, but 12 a4 was better) 11 for 9 ... ~a6:
    ... g5 12 Ag3 ~h5 13 *d2 ~c7 4b) 11 §e8 (the generaI ruIe as
    14 §ae1 (14 a4 a6 15,f4 gf 16 regards. . §e8 ίη the Ad3, ~ge2
    Aχf4 ~xf4 17 ~xf4 =, Heemsoth- system is that it shouId never be
    Rosen, corr. 1970, 1-0, 50) played unIess there is ηο choice,
    14 ... a6 15 a4 liIb8· 16 f4 b5with ί.e. a6, §b8 etc. shouId
    chances for both sides, Johner- come before ... §e8, which shouId
    Bialas, Neuhausen 1961. οηΙΥ be played if White has heId υρ
    3b) 10 ... ~c7 11 f4 h6 12Ah4 BIack's queenside pIay -the point
    §e8 13 a4 a6 14 h3 §b8 15 Ac2 is that e4 is well defended by White
    b5 16 e5 de 17 d6 ~a8 18 ab ab pieces so there is IittIe vaIue ίη
    19 fe ±, lvkov-Jansa, Vrnjacka expending a tempo οη attacking it)
    Banja 1967, 1-0, 35. 12 a4 (12 f4 b5 ΟΓ 12 Af4 a6 13
    3c) 10 ... §e8 11 *d2 (now 11 f4 a4 §b8 14 a:5 b5 15 ab §xb6 16
    fails to 11 . c4 12 Ac2 *b6+ ~a4 liIb7 17 §b1 ~b5, Ivkov-
    and 13 ~g4) 11. . Ad7 12 Najdorf, Havana 1966, 0-1, 35 are
    ~g3 §c8 13 §ae1 (why not 13 fine for Black) 12 ... §b8 (12 ...
    Ac4?) 13 c4 14 Ab1 b5 and b6 shouId be met simpIy by 13 f4
    Black stands well, 50,000 Russian rather than 13 §e1 Aa6 14 ~b5?!
    newspaper readers ν. Spassky,1970; Axb5 15abobd7! 16f4a617ba
    1, 0-1, 43. Which only goes to b5 when BIack is better, Knaak-
    show that although two heads are Pokojowczyk, DDR-PoIand1980,
    better than one, fίfty thousand are 0-1,39) 13f4a6 14a5b515ab
    worse! §xb6 and BIack is effectiveIy a
    4) 10 ~g3 ~c7 11 h3 and now: tempo down over 4a, aIthough his
    4a) 11 ... §b8 12 a4 a6 (12 ... position may still be satίsfactόrΥ.
    b6 is slower and unnecessary since 10 ... Ad7 (84)
    a5 is not really to be feared) 13 f4 10 . ~c7 11 a4 (11 ~g3 is
    (13 a5 b5 14 ab §xb6 15 ~a4 variation 4 ίη the last note) 11 ...
    §b8 16 Ad;2 ~b5 17 Ac4 §e8 18 b6 (11 liIb8 is better) 12 Ag5
    §e1 ~d7 and Black's control of d4 h6 13 Ah4 Aa6 14 f4 Aχd3 15
    gives him a good game, van Seters- *xd3 and White is better, Ivkov-
    Hamann, $pain 1973, 0-1, 44) 13 Toran, PaIma 1966, 1-0,28.
    . b5 14 ab ab 15 *f3 b4 16 11 ~g3
    ~d1 ~b5 17 Aχb5 §xb5 18 ~e3 11 Af4 (a naturaI attempt to
    ~d7 19 ~c4 ~b6 20 ~a5 Ad7 and exploit the weakness of d6 - 11
    Black is better, Garcia-Kavalek, Ag5 §c8 12 f4 §e8 13 f5!? h6
    Bucurest 1966, 0-1, 40. Black's 14 e5! §xe5 15 Aχf6 Axf6 16 fg
    logical and straightforward play ίη fg 17 ~f4 §e3 18 Φh1 Ad4 19
    132 White P/oY~ e4, ΑιΙ3 άnd ~ge2

    84 current popularity, 1σ. . . .Qd7 is


    less reliable than the older 1Ο ..•
    W cDc7.
    Β:
    9 b6
    Black aims to exchange white-
    squarecl bishops but this plan costs
    time and White should gain a slight
    advantage with accurate play.
    10 a4
    This move is Knaak's idea,
    cDce2 *h4 20 cDxct4 cd 21 cDxg6 preparing to answer. ..Q.a() with
    ~-~, Didishko-Kapengut, USSR cDb5. The alert reader will have
    1974 was entertaining but less noticed that this plan failed ίη
    promising for White) 11 cDe8 variation 4b οη page 131 ι but ίη
    12 *d2 §b8 13.Qg5 f6 14 .Qe3 that case the BJack knight was
    cDb4 15 .Qb1 b5 16 f4.Qh6 17 a3 already οη c7 and could attack the
    cDa6 18 .Qd3 *c7 19 §ac1 *b7 b5 pawn, whereas οη b8 the knight
    20 e5! ±, Sakharov-Rashkovsky, is trapped οη a rather ineffective
    Sochi 1976, ~-~, 33. circuit b8-d7~5.
    11 . . . ~e8 Alternatives:
    11 §c8 12.Qc4 cDe8 13 1) 10.Qg5 h6 (Black should force a
    .Qe3 cDec7 (13 cDac7 is better decision quickly as 1Ο ... .Q.a6 11
    according to Kapengut) 14 a4 cDb4 cDg3 *c7 12 .Qχa6 cDxa6 13 *e2
    15 f4 *h4 16 ~f3 f5 17 .Qf2 (17 *b7 14 cDb5! cDe8 15 §fd1 cDac7
    e5!?) 17 .. .Qd4 18 .Qxd4 cd 19 16 a4 was slightly better for White
    cDce2 ;1;, Foigel-Kapengut, Kiev ίη Ghitescu-Hulak, Balkanlad 1977,
    1979,0-1,45. ~-~, 44) 11 .Qh4 (11 .Qf4.Q.a6 and
    12 §e1 12.Qxa6cDxa6 13itd34)c7 14a4
    Not 12 f4 b5! but 12 .Qf4 ;1; is a6 15 cDg3 *d7 16 ~ad1 ~fe8 17
    more natural than this move. h3 b5, Ghitescu-Minic, Rovinj-
    12 ... - *c7? Zagreb 1970, ~-~, 41 ΟΓ 12 a4
    12. cDc7 was better, since §e8 13h3*e7 14cDg3c4 15.Qc2
    now Black is crushed: 13 .Qc4! *b8 cDbd7 16 *d2 'lItf8 17 .Qe3 cDc5,
    14 a4 cDb4 15 f4 a6 16 ~e2 .Q.c8 Beyen-Tal, Skopje 1972, 0-1,36
    17 .Qe3 b6 18 *d2 ~a7 19 §f1 with good play for Black ίη both
    and White is probably winning cases) 11 ... .Qa6 12 f4 *c8 13 h3
    already, Knaak-Doda, Polanica .Q.xd3 14 *xd3 4)bd7 is similar to
    Zdroj 1976, 1-0, 39. 2a below.
    The conclusion is that, despite its 2) 10 h3 (a rather strange move,
    Whlιe p/ays e4, ω3 and ~ge2 133

    since Black's ... ~6 makes it hard 19 e5 de 20 ~ce4 with a dangerous


    for him to put a piece οη g4 any- attack, Haik-Povah, London 1978,
    way, but lots of people seem to 1-0, 31.
    play it) 10 . ~6 11 ~g5 (11 2b) 11 ... 116 12 ~h4 c4 (12 ...
    ~g3 Axd3 12 *xd3 a6 13 a4 Axd3 13*xd3~bd7 14f4a6 15
    ~bd7 14 ~e3 = is innocuous, a4 *c7 16 b3 §fe8 17 *c4 *b7
    Ojanen-Pritchett, Skopje 1972, 18 b4 cb 19 Axf6 Axf6 20 *xb4
    ΥΖ-ΥΖ, 47) and now: §ac8 +, Nicolai-Suetin, Lublin
    1976,0-1,41 - Pytel suggests 16
    85 *c4 but this stίll looks equal to me,
    Β but perhaps 16 Φh1 as ίη Haik-
    Povah above was better) 13 ~c2 b5
    14 a3 *b6 15 Φh1 ,~bd7 16 f4
    ;!; since the bishop οη a6 is doing
    nothing, Haik-Antonov, Stara
    Zagora 1977, 1-0, 37.
    3) 10 f4 ~a6 11 ~g3 (11 Axa6?!
    ~xa6 12 ~g3 c4 13 ~e3 ~c5 is
    fιne for Black, Giterman-Suetin,
    2a) 11 *c8 12 f4 Axd3 13 semi·fιnal USSR Ch. 1961, 0-1,
    *xd3 ~bd7 14 Φh1 (14 *c4 h6 33 - White should always wait for
    15 ~h4 a6 16 a4 §e8 th reatens Black to make the exchange) 11 ...
    ... b5 so ίη Basagic-Minic, Sarajevo ~g4! (one case where h3 would be a
    1972 White played 17 ~g3 but 17 useful move!) 12 *xg4 (12 ha6?
    ... ~h7! threatening .. : g5 forced ~d4+ 13 Φh1 *h4) 12 ... Axd3
    18 ~ge2 - Black decided to play 13 §e1 ~d7 +, Schweber~arcia,
    οη but after 18 ... §b8 19 §a3 Buenos Aires 1964.
    *b7 20 *a2 *c8 21 *c4 *b7 4) 10 ~g3 ~6 11 ~f4 (11 f4 is 3
    ΥΖ-ΥΖ anyway) 14 ... c4?! (Ι belίeve above while 11 ~g5 is not approp-
    this natural move is a mistake and riate when the bishop's retreat has
    Black should play 14 ... a6 - the been cut off by ~g3) 11 . Axd3
    point is that ... c4 by itself achieves 12 *xd3 ~g4 is equal, Szabo-
    nothing since Black cannot play lvkov, Belgrade 1964.
    . . ~c5 ίη view of the impending 10 ... ~a6
    e5, so the move which Black really 10 ... ~a6!? 11 h3 ~b4 12 ~b1
    wants to play is b4 driving §e8 13 ig5 h6 14 ~e3 ~6 is
    away the knight and making e5 roughly level, Knaak-Dolmatov,
    impossible because of the weakening DDR 1981, 1-0,47.
    of the d5 pawn) 15 *f3 *c5 16 11 ~b5 ~bd7
    ~g3 §ae8 17 §ae1 b5 18 a3 a5 11 . ~e8 12 §a3 ~c8 13 h3
    134 White p/ays e4, .Ad3 and FiJge2

    FiJd7 14 f4 a6 15 FiJbc3 !!b8 16 C:


    ..Q.c4FiJc7 17 Elb3b5! 18abab 19 9 ... a6
    FiJχb5 FiJb6 2Ο FiJa3 Ad7 with good 10 a4 FiJbd7
    ΡΙaΥ for the pawn, Knaak-Pinter, 10 ... b6 11 Elb1 (11 FiJg3'C'tc7 12
    Budapest 1971, Υ2-Υ2, 36. Since h3 FiJbd7 13 ..Q.e3 c4 14 ..Q.e2?! Elb8
    White's plan to inhibit b5 15f4Elb7 16..Q.f3FiJc517e5~e8
    didn't work simply 12 f4 looks was unclear ίη Avram-Ginsburg,
    more sensible. USA 1979, 0-1, 30 but after the
    12 FiJec3 standard 14 Ac2 Black just seems
    to be a tempo down οη the main
    Iίne as a result of playing ..• b6
    86
    and then ... b5) 11 ... FiJbd7 12
    Β
    b4?! (12 f3 followed by ..Q.e3, Φh1
    before playing b4 was better but Ι
    doubt that even then White would
    have any advantage) 12 ... cb 13
    !!xb4 FiJc5 14 Ac2 ..Q.d7 15 f3 b5
    16 ab?! \'ta5! 17 Elb1 ab +, Miles-
    Spassky, Buenos Aires 1979, ?'2-Υ2,
    58. The problem with 1Ο •• b6 is
    that if White continues as usual
    Not 12 FiJxd6? Axd3 13 *xd3 Black is a move down. 10 ... 'C'tc7
    FiJe5. After 12 FiJec3 there are the emphatically prevents 11 f4 due Ιο
    two examples 12 ... ..Q.xb5 13 ab 11 .. c4 12 Ac2 FiJg4 but against
    !!e8 14 13 h6? (irrelevant) 15 ..Q.e3 other replies just transposes into
    *c7 16 *d2 Φh7 17 !!a4 ±, the Iίnes below.
    Knaak-Mueller, East German Ch.
    1971,1-0,29 and 12 ... *e7 13 87
    !!e1 FiJe5 14 ..Q.e2 FiJe8 15 f4 FiJd7 W
    16 ..Q.f3 Axb5 17 ab Ad4+18 ..Q.e3
    Axe3+ 19 ~xe3 g5 20 g3 gf 21
    gf *h4 22 Ag4 *e7 23 *c2 FiJg7
    24 Φh1 Φh8 25 e5 Elfd8 26 !!gl
    FiJf8 27 *f2 f5 28 ef *xf6 29
    FiJe4 *Π 30 FiJg5 *xd5+ 31 Af3
    *f5 32 ..Q.e4 *f6 33 Elh3 h5 34
    *f3 d5 35 !!xh5+ 1-0, Knaak-
    Suetin, Sochi 1980. Α good example 11 h3
    ofthe diffίculties created by White's Or
    pressure down the a-file. 1) 11 Ag5 !!b8 (11 ... h6 1·2..Q.h4
    White p/oys e4, .Ad3 and ~ge2 135

    *c7 13 f3, Haik-Hebert, Buenos 16 .Q.e2 ;!;, Μ iles-Kestler, Baden-


    Aires 1978, 0-1, 40 and now Baden 1981, 1-0, 47) 11
    accord ing to Hebert 13 oDe5 *c7 (Ι attempted to avoid this
    followed by . .Q.d7 and ... b5 move ίη Miles-Nunn, British Ch.
    was equal) 12 Φh1 *c7 13 ~c1 1979 but after 11 ... Ub8 12 a5
    oDe5 14 f4 oDxd3 15 *xd3 b5 16 §e8 13 .Q.c2b5 14 ab Uxb6 15 Q
    ab ab 17 b4 cb 18 e5 .Q.f5 19 *d4 Ub4?! 16 b3 a5 17 §a3 White
    de 20 fe oDg4 =+=, Hartston-Nunn, stood well, 1-0, 45 however 12
    match 1981, V2-V2, 22. The move Φh1 is bad due to 12 ... ~e5 13
    .Q.g5 doesn't seem very effective .Q.c2 b5 14 ab ab 15 b4 cb 16 ~a2
    against ... oDbd7, perhaps because b3! 17 .Q.xb3 b4 +, Rivas-Nunn,
    the f6 knight is better supported Marbella 1982, 1-0, 49) 12 b3 §e8
    than when Black's knight is οη a6. 13 f3 Ub8 14 a5 b5 15 ab Uxb6
    2) 11 oDg3 't!ιc7 12 *e2 (12 f4 ί! 16 .Q.d2 ~e5 17.Q.c2 c4 18 .Q.e3 Ob8
    an interesting idea - after 12 ... (18 . Ub4 19 oDa2 Ub8 20 b4
    c4 13 .Q.c2 §b8 14 .Q.e3 oDc5 15 .Q.d7 21 Ad4 oDd3 22 *d2 *d8 23
    h3 b5 16 ab ab we have transposed .Q.c3 oDe5 24 ~ac1 with a slίght, but
    to the note to White's 13th, but enduring, advantage for White,
    avoiding various deviations οη Miles-Grunfeld, Riga 1979, V2-V2,
    the way) 12 ~e8 13 f4 and 42) 19.Q.g1 oDfd7 20 bc ~xc4 21
    now: .Q.d4 oDde5 22 §a2 .Qh6 23.Qa4
    2a) 13 ... c4 14 .Q.xc4 oDc5 15 e5 oDd7 24 ita1 and again White has
    de 16 f5 e4 17 .Q.g5 *e5 18 .Q.f4 an annoying edge, Miles-Quinteros,
    *e7 19 d6 *d8 with initiative to Bled-Portoroz 1979, 0-1, 72. It
    White, Bilek-Stein, Amsterdam seems that unless Black takes some
    1964, V2-V2, 30. 50rt of drastic step (playing for ...
    2b) 13 ... oDxe4 14 oDcxe4 f5 15 f5?) White can keep a small plus
    .Q.c2 .d8 16 §a3 b6 17 .d1 fe with this plan.
    18 f5 oDe5 19 .Q.xe4 Of8 20 .c2 11 ... .c7
    *h4 ;1;, Bilek-Schmidt, Tel-Aviv 12 f4 Ub8
    1964, 1-0, 49. How, then, does It isn 't clear whether ΟΓ not 12
    Black play against Bilek's lίne? ... §e8 is a mistake - after 13 oDg3
    Possibly 13 .. §b8 so that if 14 c4 14.Qc2 we have: (88)
    h3 oDxe4 15 oDcxe4 f5 and Black's 1) 14 ... oDc5 15 -ΙΗ3 and now:
    chances are much improved by 1a) 15 ... .Q.d7 16 Φh1 Φh8 (16
    being able to play a quick ... b5. .. h6 17 a5 b5 18 ab .xb6 19
    3) 11 Φh1 (the Miles plan, which .Q.e3 Uac8 20 ~a4 .Q.xa4 21 .Qxa4
    can also be introduced by 11 f3, Ue7 22 e5 ±, Van Seters-Cobo,
    for example 11 ... ge8 12 a5 ~h5 Skopje 1972, 1-0, 33) 17 .Q.e3 ~g8
    13 g4 ~f6 14 ~g3 h6 15 .Q.f4'~e5 18 Oad1 b5 19 ab ab 20 e5 de 21
    136 White p/oys e4, Ad30nd Ff)ge2
    possibIe - compare this with
    Averkin-Fedorov below) 19
    §b7 20 §a6 'lte7 21 §c6 b3 22
    .Q.b 1 §b4 23 .Q.d4 ~b8 24 e5!
    ~xc6 25 dc de 26 fe ~h5 27
    ~xh5 gh 28 'lte4 f5 29 ef! .Q.xf6
    30 'ltd5+ .Q.e6 31 'ltxh5 §f8 32
    .Q.xf6 §xf6 33 .Q.xh7+ Φh8 34
    .Q.e4+ Φg7 35 ttg5+ ΦΠ 36 'ltg6+
    1-0, Tarasov-Ostrovski, USSR
    1961.
    f5 with a strbng attack, Ojanen- However 12 ... §b8 gives White
    Keres, Helsinki 1960, 1-0, 38. a good chance to go wrong so must
    lb) 15 ~fd7 16.Q.e3 b5 17 ab be considered the better moνe.
    §b8 18*f2ab 1ge5de(19 13 .Q.e3
    b4 20 ~ce4 ~xe4 21 ~xe4 de 22 This finesse of Timman makes it
    f5 ~f8 23 f6 .Q.h8, Gheorghiu- impossible for Black to aνoid
    Quinteros, USA 1980, 1-0,47 and §e8 since Black cannot continue at
    now 24 *h4! is ± according ιο once with 13 . c4 14 .Q.c2 b5
    Gheorghiu) 20 f5 .Q.b7 (20 .. §f8 owing to 15 ab ab 16 §a7 followed
    21 ~ce4 ~xe4 22 ~xe4 .Q.b7 23 by ~d4-c6, ΠΟΓ is 13 c4 14
    f6 .Q.h8 24 'lth4 §fd8 25 ~g5 .Q.c2 ~c5 very pleasant οπ account
    +-, Kozlovskia-Shadura, USSR of 15 e5. The older lίne was 13 4)g3
    Women's Ch. 1962, 1-0, 30) 21 c4 14 .Q.c2 b5 15 ab ab 16 .Q.e3 b4
    §ad1 .Q.a8 22 ~ce4 ~a4 23 .Q.xa4 (16. ~c5 17 e5 ~e8 is more
    ba 24 fg fg 25 'ltf7+ Φh8 26 ~c5 risky) 17 E!a7 'ltd8 18 ~a4 (18
    *a7 27 'ltxd7 'ltxd7 28 ~xd7 ~ce2 §b 7 19 §a 1 'ltc7 20 .Q.d4

    §xb2 29 ~b6 §b3 30 ~xc4 §d8 §e8 21 E!a6 ~b8 22 §a8 ~bd7
    31 d6 §c3 32 §c1 §xc1 33 23 §a6 ~b8 24 §a8 Υι-Υι, Phillips-
    §xc1 .Q.d5 34 ~d6 .Q.b3 35 ~e4 Νυπη, London 1975) 18 §b5
    h6 36 d7 .Q.f8 37 §c8 .Q.e7 38 19 b3 c3 20 ~e2 §a5 21 E!xa5
    .Q.c5 .Q.h4 39 g3 1-0, Penrose- 'ltxa5 with an unclear position,
    Tal, Leipzig ΟΙ 1960. Βcrtοk-Ρόrtίsch, Stockholm 1962.
    2) 14 §b8 15 *f3 b5 16 ab 13 §e8
    ab 17.Q.e3 (if White wants ιο avoid 14 4)g3 c4
    a transposition to the main lίne 15 .Q.c2 ~c5
    the immediate 17 e5 de 18 f5 can 15 ... b5 (dubious) 16 ab ab 17
    be considered) b4 (17 . ~c5 §a7 'ltd8 18 'ltd2 (18 'ltf3 b4
    tra-nsposes Ιο the main line) 18 transposing Ιο Tarasoν-Ostrovski
    §a 7 'ltd8 19 ~ce2 (19 ~a4 is also aboνe is also good) 18 . b4 19
    Whlte p/ays e4, ω3 and ~ge2 137

    ~a4 h5 20 e5 de 21 f5 h4,Averkin- 89
    Fedorov, USSR 1971, 1-0, 38 and W
    now 22 fg! hg 23 gf+ ΦΧf7 24
    <2c5 is very dangerous according ιο
    Ι. Ivanov.
    16 iH3
    16 .Qd4 b5 17 ab ab 18 e5
    de 19 fe §xe5 20 iH3 (20 .Qxe5
    *xe5 21 *f3 b4 gives Black enough
    compensation) 20 §g5 transc
    poses ιο the main line.
    16 b5
    16 4)fd7?! 17 *f2! b5 18 23 .Qe5 *xe5 24 *xf7+ Φh8
    ab ab 19 e5 transposes ιο 1b ίπ the 25 §ae1 §e3 26 *f2 .Qh6 27
    note to Black's 12th move. <2d1 §xe1 28 §xe1 *d6 29 b4
    17 ab ab 4)e6 0-1, Hadzipetrov-Commons,
    18 e5 Sombor 1976.
    Forced ίπ order ιο meet the threat 21 <2ge2! .Qf5 22 *e3.Qh6 23
    of ... b4. ite5 *xe5 24 .Qxe5 §e8 25 .Qxf6
    18 de .Qxc2 26 4)d4b4 27 .Qxg5 .Qxg5
    19 fe 28 <2xc2 bc 29 bc §d8 and White
    19 f5 is bad here due ιο 19 ... e4!. has some winning chances ίπ the
    19 §xe5 ending after 30 §a7. lπ Knaak-
    20 .Qd4 Postler, DDR Ch. 1971 White
    20 .Qf4 4)fd7 21 .Qxe5 4)xe5 is played 30 4)b4?! and even lost after
    fine for Black. a blunder.
    20 §g5!? (89) The highly double·edged position
    White has so far failed ιο score after 21 4)ge2! is at the moment the
    at all from this position: last word ίπ this variation, but Ι
    21 4)ge4? 4)cxe4 22 .Qxe4 suspect that White is better. At,
    <2g4! 23 d6 .Qxd4+ 24 Φh1 *xd6 any rate White obtains interesting
    25 *χΠ+ Φh8 0-1, Timman- attacking chances with this lίπe and
    Ljubojevic, Amsterdam 1975. ίι is surprising that ίι is ποι seen

    21 .Qxf6? §xg3 22 d6 *xd6 more often.


    15. Odds and Ends

    Of these unusual lίnes Α is of exploit this by 9 ita4+ .fJbd7 1 Ο


    some importance as it is frequently ~d2 ο-ο 11 ο-ο .fJe5 12 .1lb1 ίπ
    adopted by White players ignorant Smyslov-Tatai, Las Palmas 1972,
    of opening theory. Although White 1-0, 29 but 12 . .1ld7 13 -(tb3
    developshis pieces to 'natural' b5! now would have been good for
    squares ίι is actually quite harmless. Black.
    Ιπ Β we consider some misguided 9 ο-ο
    rand..om attacking stabs by White. Or
    Although C possibly doesn't belong 1) 9 ~d2 and now:
    ίπ this book at all, we include 1 a) 9 .•• .fJa6 1 Ο .fJc4 (1 Ο ο-ο .fJc7
    Black's efforts to omit d6 for 11 a4 .fJg4 12 .1le2 f5 13 .Q.xg4 fg
    the sake of completeness. 14 4)c4 'i!ιe 7 15 -(td 3 b6 was about
    1 d4 .fJf6 equal ίπ Darga-Gereben, Amster-
    2 c4 c5 dam 1954) 10 .fJc7 11 a4 b6
    3 d5 e6 12 .1lf4 .fJfe8 =, Gerusel-Martius,
    4 .fJc3 ed Munich 1959 but Black can play
    5 cd more vigorously with 1 Ο §b8
    Α: 5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 ~f3 .Q.g7 answering 11 a4 with 11 ~b4
    8 .1ld3 and 11 .1lf4 with 11 b5 (12
    Β: 5 . d6 6 e4 g6 7 .Q.e2 .Q.g7 .fJxd6? .fJh5).
    8 g4 and 6 h4 1 b) 9 . .fJbd 7 10 .fJc4 4)b6 11
    C: 5 ... g6 .fJe3 transposes to lίne 1b οπ page
    Α: 122, which favoured White.
    5 d6 1c) 9 ~g4 10 ο-ο f5 11 ef
    6 e4 g6 ~e5 12 f6 ~xd3 13 fg 'Iιxg7 14
    7 ~f3 .1lg7 ~de4 .fJxc1 15 §xc1 .1lf5 16 b4
    8 .1ld3 ο-ο b6 17 bc dc 18 itd2 with an edge
    Ιπ order to avoid 9 ~d2 it might for White, Keene-Robatsch, Skopje
    be slίghtly more accurate to play 1972, Υι-Υι, 32.
    8 .1lg4 first. White tried to 2) 9 .Q.f4 .Q.g4 10 ο-ο a6 11 a4
    Odds and Ends 139
    4)h5 12 .Q.e3 4)d7 is fine for Black. 90
    3) 9 h3 b5 10 4)xb5 (10 .Q.xb5
    W
    4)xe4 11 4)xe4 *a5+ is more
    than satisfactory for Black) 1Ο
    4)xe4 11 ο-ο (11 .Q.xe4 IΞ!e8
    12 4)d2 a6 13 4)c3 f5 14 ο-ο
    fe 15 4)dxe4 did not give Black
    enough for the pawn in Kuzmin-
    Taimanov, semi-final USSR Ch.
    1969, Υ:1-Υ:1, 41 but 12 .Q.a6
    seems ιο be much better when
    Black either prevents White from Or
    castling after 13 4)c3 f5 ΟΓ regains 1} 13 *d1 IΞ!e8 14 .Q.f4 (14 IΞ!e1
    his pieceunder more favourable *c7 15 .Q.e3 c4 16 .Q.c2 IΞ!ac8 =,
    circumstances after 13 a4 "llιa5 Saidy-Sherwin, New York 1967,
    14 ο-ο .Q.xb5 15 4)b3 *b6 16 ab 0-1, 48 ΟΓ 14 a5 c4! 1 5· .Q.xc4
    ΙΞ! xe4) 11 .Q.a6 (11 a6 1 2 4)xe4 16 4)xe4 IΞ!xe4 17 .Q.d3 IΞ!b4
    4)a3 f5 was also =, Reshevsky- 18 IΞ!a2 4)c5 19 .Q.e3 IΞ!c8 :Ι:,
    Feuerstein. New York 1956, Υ:1-Υ:1, Langeweg-Kavalek, The Hague
    25) 12 .Q.xe4 .Q.xb5 13 IΞ!e 1 1968,0-1,54)14 c4(14
    4)d7 and Black is at least "l!ιc7 15 *d2 4)e5 16 .Q.e2 *a5 17
    equal Veltmander-Yudovich, Riga .Q.g5 *b4 18 IΞ!ae1 4)5d7 19.Q.d3
    1954. b5 20 Φh1 c4 :Ι:, Mititelu-Tal,
    9 .Q.g4 Reykjavik 1957,0-1,48) 15 .Q.c2
    9 a6 10 a4 .Q.g4 is equaIIy 4)c5 16 ΙΞ!ε1 *b6 17 IΞ!b1 IΞ!ac8
    good but other moves do not 18 ~c3 4)fd7 and Black is a t Icast
    exploit the position of the bishop cqual, Osnos-Gu scv, Moscow 1956.
    on d3 and offer Black far fewer 2) 13 itg3 itc7 14 f4 IΞ!fe8 15 IΞ!e1
    equalising chances. c4 16.Q.c2 b5 17 ab ab 18 IΞ!xa8
    10 h3 IΞ!xa8 19 itf2 b4 20 4)b5 *b8 21
    10 .Q.e2 leaνes White a tempo 4)d4 b3 22 4)c6 *b5 23.Q.b 1 IΞ!a 1
    down over chapter 3 and gives Black 24 .Q.d2 ?}c5 25 *e3 ?}a4 + shows
    an easy equality, 10 .Q.f4 a6 11 a4 the traditional Bcnoni ideas of the
    4)h5 12 .Q.e3 4)d7 is =, while after queenside majority and pressure
    10 .Q.g5 4)bd7 White has nothing down the long black diagonal
    better than 11 h3 anyway. particularly clearly, Kotelnikov-
    1Ο .Q.xf3 Polugayevsky, USSR 1959,0-1,43.
    11 *xf3 a6 3) 13 .Q.f4 itc7 14 *e2 (14 IΞ!fe1
    12 a4 4)bd7 (90) IΞ!fe8 15 .Q.c2 ?}h5 16 .Q.e3 itb6 17
    13 *e2 IΞ!eb1 itb4 18 a5 b5 19 ab itxb6
    740 Odds and Ends

    20 .Qa4 *c7 =, Polak-Vasyukov, 25 ~xd6 ~xd6 26 §xa1 §d8


    Moscow Ch. 1957,0-1,37) 14 ... 27 .Qg5 §d7 28 .Qf6 ~e8 29 §a8
    §ac8 15 .Qc4 §fe8 16 *c2 §e7 Φf8 30 .Qc3 f5 Υι-Υι, SmysIov-
    17 .Qh2 §ce8 =, Liptay--Portisch, PoIugayevsky, PetropoIis 1973.
    Hungary Ch. 1963. 3) 14 .Qg5 *c7 (14 §c8 15 f4?!
    13 §e8 c4! 16 .Qxc4 *b6+ 17 'lih2 ~xe4
    Or 13 *c7 14.Qg5 (14 .Qf4 18 ~xe4 f5 19 a5 *d4 20 ~xd6
    is 3 above while 14 f4 §fe8 15 §xe2 21 .Qxe2 §c2 -+, Shasin-
    *f3 c4 16 .Qc2, Pfleger-Filipowicz, Savon, Moscow 1970, 0- 1, 30
    Tel-Aviv οι. 1964, 1-0, 44 can be whiIe even the superior 19 ~xd6
    met by 16 b5 which is 'itxd6! is good for BIack, so 15
    very similar Ιο Kotelίnikov­ §ae 1 = was better) 15 §ae 1 §ac8
    Polugayevsky above) 14 §ac8 16 'itd2 c4 17 .Qc2"lta5 18 .Qe3
    15 §ae1 c4 16 .Qb1 §fe8 17 *d2 ~c5 19 .Qd4 b5 20 ab ab +,
    ~c5 +, Pomar-EIiskases, Spain Sachiev-Krogius, USSR 1958,0-1,
    1961. 44.
    After 13 §e8 aII Iines are Tιie reader wiII have noticed that
    satisfactory for Black: most of the g<ιme references ίη the
    above section are rather oId. The
    reason is that White pIayers are toο
    sensibIe Ιο go ίπ for this line now,
    a verdict which is justified by
    Zeuthen's statistic that uρ Ιο 1975
    White couId οηΙΥ score 3()o~ with
    this system!
    Β:
    There isn't much ιο say about these
    ideas. With the centre half-open and
    the e-fiIe bearing down οη White's
    1) 14 .Qe3 c4 15 .Qc2 §c8 16 f3 king, ίι cannot be justifίed for
    "lta5 17 *f2 4.)c5 +, Hunter- White Ιο lash ουΙ with moνes Iike
    Endzelίns, corr. 1976, 1-0,54. g4 and h4, which depriνe White of a
    2) 14 .Qf4 c4! 15 .Qc2 (15 .Qxc4 safe haνen for his monarch. Black
    ~xe4 16' ~xe4 f5 17 f3 fe 18 fe should ποι panic, but prepare
    *b6+ and *xb2) 15 ~c5 counterplay οπ the queenside and
    16 §fe1 (16 *xc4 §ac8 17 *b4 a5 ίπ the centre. Although White's
    regains the e-pawn) 16 ... §c8 17 attack is often quite impressive
    *d2 b5 18 ab ab 19 ~xb5 ~fxe4 20 opticaIIy ίι is hard for him Ιο break
    .Qχe4 ~xe4 21 *c2 *b6 22 ~a7 down the fianchetto defence around
    itxb2 23itxb2 .Qxb2 24 ~xc8 .Qxa 1 Black's king, while when Black's
    Odds and Ends 141

    counterattack does finally arrive it C:


    is usually irresistible. 5 g6
    1) 6 e4 g6 7 .Q.e2 .Q.g7 8 g4 (8 h4 6 4)f3
    may be met by 8 . h5 ΟΓ 8 Or 6 d6! *b6 (6. . .Q.g7 7 e4
    ο-ο, but ίπ the latter case Black 4)c6 8 f4 followed by e5 with a
    should be prepared to recapture mighty pawn wedge) 7 .Q.g5 (7 .Q.f4
    with the f-pawn after h5 and hg) 8 is also strong since 7 *xb2? 8
    ο-ο 9 h4 lae8 (9 ... 4)bd7 10 .Q.e5 .Q.g7 9 lab1 *a3 10 4)b5 is a
    g5 4)e8 11 h5 f6 12 hg hg is also catastrophe, while otherwise White
    fιne for Black) 10 f3 a6 11 a4 plays *d2 and defends aIIhis pawns)
    4)bd7 12 h5 4)e5 13 4)h3 lab8 14 7 4)h5 (7 . .Q.g7 8 *d2 ±) 8
    4)f2 -b5! (this pawn sacrifιce is 4)f3 f6 (8 ... *xd6? 9 *χd6 .Q.xd6
    justified by the many weakening 1Ο 4)b5 ΟΓ 8 .•. .Q.xd6 9 4)d5 ita5+
    pawn moves White has played) 15 10 .Q.d2 *d8 11 .Q.c3 ΟΓ 8 . . h6 9
    ab ab 16 .Q.xb5 .Q.d7 17 .Q.e2 lab4 .Q.e7 are practically winning for
    and Black has excellent play for White) 9 .Q.e3 .Q.xd6 1Ο 4)d5 *d8
    the pawn since White's king is 11 *b3 with far more than enough
    permanently exposed, Harlamov- for the pawn.
    Kogan, Vilna 1966. 6 .Q.g7
    2) 6 h4 a6 7 a4 g6 8 4)h3 .Q.g7 Ιπ view of the strength of 6 d6!
    9 4)f4 ο-ο (9 ... h5 is also discussion of this position might
    reasonable, especially as White appear redundant, but it can arise
    would here have to move his from the move·order 1 d4 ~f6 2
    f4 knight again to occupy the c4 e6 3 4)f3 c5 4 d5 ed 5 cd ,&6
    weakened g5 square) 1Ο h5 4)bd7 6 4)c3 .Q.g7.
    11 hg hg 12 f3 (12 *d3 4)e5 13
    *g3 lae8 14 *h4 is more natural,
    although White is still a long way
    from having any real threats) 12 . . .
    4)e5 13 Φf2 c4 14 e3 (14 e4?
    w.
    92 . . . . . . . . .

    •••
    t . t . t81 t
    _....
    t •
    _

    *b6+ and 14 .Q.e3? 4)fg4+ 15 fg ~..ft.. .


    4)xg4+ 16 <tif3 4)xe3 17 Φχe3 .....
    *g5 are very good for Black) 14 . . .
    lae8 15 .Q.e2 IΞIb8 16 a5 b5 17 ab
    ~'.. _Jj.'~'_
    .8. υ .8. .8. υ υ
    IΞIxb6 18 *g1 g5 19 ~h5 ~xh5 ~ D'lWm~. ΕΙ
    20 IΞIxh5 .Q.f5 +, Gurgenidze-
    Rashkovsky, USSR 1976, 0-1, 38. 7 d6!?
    Black is well ahead ίπ development 7 e4 d6 transposes to normal
    and White has been unable to muster Iίnes, as will 7 g3 sooner ΟΓ later.
    a single threat against Black's king. The only independent signifιcance
    142 Odds and Ends

    of BIack 's move-order (apart from this wouId win at once) 18 lac2
    the outright refutation attempt 7 *a6 White's position is highIy
    d6) is if White intends to pIay the precarious. However to Γυη the
    Knight's Tour variation, when risks of 7 d6!? for the sake of
    BIack can continue to omit ... d6, preventing one rather uncommon
    for exampIe 7 4)d2 ο-ο 8 4)c4 line by White seems a bad bargain
    b6!? 9 .Q.g5 (9 e3 d6 has tricked to me.
    White out of deveioping his queen's 7 ο-ο
    bishop and after 1Ο .Q.e2 .Q.a6 11 a4 8 e4
    .Q.xc4 12 .Q.xc4 4)bd7 13 ο-ο lae8 8 e3 is more passive and 8 . b6
    BIack stood well, Boiesiavsky-TaI, 9 .Q.c4 .Q.b 7 10 ο-ο 4)c6 11 *d2
    USSR Ch. 1956) 9 ... h6 (Hartston a6 12 lab 1 (12 a4 4)a5 13 .Q.a2 c4
    suggests 9 .Q.a6 at once to =) 12 b5 13 .Q.e2 c4 14 b4 cb
    preserνe the option of 4)e4 15 ab lac8 was equaI ίη KIuger-
    hitting the bishop Iater) 1 Ο .Q.h4 BiIek, Hungary 1979, 0-1,40 .
    .Q.a6 11 e3 (11 *a4? g5 12.Q.g3 b5 8 ... lae8
    13 4)xb5 4)xd5 +, Szίlagyi-HoImov, 9 .Q.c4! b5! (9 .. 4)xe4 10AxfΊ+
    USS R 1963) 11 . b5 12 4)d6 b4 is too dangerous) 1Ο .Q.d5 4)c6 11
    13 .Q.xa6 bc 14.Q.b 7 cb 15 lab 1 ο-ο b4 12 4)b5 .Q.a6 13 4)c7 .Q.xf1

    *b6 16 .Q.xa8 *xd6 with compIi- 14 ΦΧf1 §c8 15 .Q.xc6 dc 16


    cations (Hartston). Indeed after 17 4)xe8 *xe8 17 e5 ;!;, Vaganian-
    laxb2 4)e4 (with the bishop οπ g5 Suba, Kecskemet 1979, V2-V2, 69.
    Index οί Variations

    1 d4 {)f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 {)c3 ed 5 cd
    5 d6
    5 g6 141

    Α) White plays e4 and f4


    6 e4 g6
    7 f4.Q.g7
    8 {)f3
    8 .Q.b5+ {)fd7
    8 {)bd7 76
    8 . .Q.d7 76
    9.Q.d3 76
    9.Q.e2 82
    9 a4 83
    8 e5 86
    8 .. 0-0
    9.Q.e2
    9.Q.d3 48
    9 §e8
    9 .. .Q.g4 49
    9 . {)a6 73
    9 {)fd7 73
    9 {)bd7 73
    9 b6 74
    9 .. b5
    10 e5
    1Ο .Q.xb5 52
    10 ... de
    11 fe {)g4
    12.Q.f4 53
    12.Q.g5 55
    12,Q.xb5 53
    12 {)xb5 53
    12 ο-ο 53
    144 Indtx of Variatioπs
    104)d2
    1Ο e5 de
    11 fe 4)g4
    12Ag5
    120-0 57
    12~f4 58
    12 e6 58
    12 ... f6 59
    12 ... *b6 13 0-0 60
    10 .... a6
    10 ... c4 65
    10 ... b6 66
    10 ... 4)g4 70
    1 ο ... 4)a6 70
    10 ... 4)bd7 69
    11 a44)g4 67
    11 ... 4)bd7 67
    11 ... c4 12 0-0 68

    Β) White plays e4 but not f4


    6e4g6
    74)f3
    7 ~f4 120
    7 f3 Ag7 8 ~g5 109
    7 ~d3Ag7
    8 4)ge2 0-0
    9 0-0 4)e8 129
    9 ... §e8 130
    9 ... 4)3.6 130
    9 ... b6 132
    9 ... a6 1Ο a4 4)bd7 1 34
    7 ... Ag7
    8~e2
    8~5h6
    8 ... 0-0 94
    8 ... a694
    9 ~h4 g5 95
    9 ... a6 99
    8 ~d3 138
    8 ... 0-0
    Index of VorIotIons 145

    90-0
    9.Qg5 32
    9.Qf4 113
    9 ••. Ue8
    9 ... .Ag4 21
    9 ... a6 10 a4.Ag4 22
    9 ... ~bd7 32
    9 ... ~a6 33
    10~d2
    10itc2 33
    10 ... ιDa6
    1Ο .•. a6 11 a4 b6 33
    10 ... b633
    10 ... ~bd7
    11 f3 1
    11 h3 3
    11 itc2 2
    11 Ue1 4
    11 f4 67 and 69
    11 a4 ~e5 4
    11 ... a6 8
    11f3
    11 f4 70
    11 Φh1 12
    11 Ue1 12
    1.1 ... fCκ7
    12 a4~d7 13
    12 ... b615

    C) White delays e4
    6~f3
    6 h4 141
    6 ... g6
    7 g3
    7 .Qf4.Ag7 113
    7 ... a6 116
    7.Ag5 h6
    7 ... .Ag7
    8 ~d2 93
    8 e3 104
    146 Index of Vor/ations

    8Ah4g5
    9 .Q.g3 ~h5
    10 e3 105
    1Ο e4 ~xg3 11 hg ~7 12 ~d2 95
    7 ~d2 .Q.g7
    7 ... ~bd7 121
    7 ... ~6 122
    7 ... a6 122
    8~4
    8 e4 122
    8 ... 0-0
    9.Q.f4 123
    9.Q.g5 125
    7 ... ~7
    8~20-O
    90-O§e8
    9 ... "h7 38
    9 ... ~a6 39
    9 ... ~bd7 40
    9 ... a6 40
    10~d2
    10 h3 40
    10.Q.f4 41
    10 ... a6
    11 a4 ~bd7
    12 h3
    12 ~c4 42
    12 a5 42
    12 ... §b8
    12 ... ~h5 42
    13 ~4~b6 44
    13 ... ~e5 45
    lπdex of Complete Games

    Bold indicates that the first named is White.

    ADORjAN-Durao 72 FOISOR-IIijin 126


    AGAPOV-Shashίn 103 FORINTOS-Minic 97
    AKOPOV-Grigorίan 46 FULLER-Ojanen 96
    ANDERSEN-KoIbaek 71 GELLER-Langeweg 106
    ANTOSHIN-Psakhίs 107 GEORGADZE-Nunn 5
    ARMAS-Szmetan 7 GILDEN-Avram 114
    AVRAM-Gίlden 114 GLIGORIC-Karner 1S, MinIc 15,
    BARLOV-Despotovic 111 Nicevski 69, Portisch 15, Tatai 6
    BARTIS-Szmetan 54 GOSANOV-Litvinov xll •
    BASAGIC-Mίnic 133 GREINER-Dekeyser 36
    ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ, j.-Nunn 117 GRIGORIADIS-Valser 63
    BILEK-F. Portisch 96 GRIGORIAN-Akopov 46
    BIYIASAS-Christiansen 61 GRϋΝFΕΙD-ΗenleΥ 4
    BOBOTSOV -KapIan 97 GULKO-Savon 80
    BOGDANOVIC-Zaίtsev 52 GURGENIDZE-TaI12
    ΒΟΠΕRΙΙΙ-Μartίn 55 HADZIPETROV-Commons 137
    BROWN-Nunn 52 HAMMAR-HoIIis 82
    BUKIC-Hulak 29, VeIimirovic 3, HARDICSAY-Sobek 90
    Wedberg 3 HARTSTON-Nunn 108
    CAPELLO-Pietzsch 97 ΗΕΝΙΕΥ-GrϋnfeΙd 4
    CHANDLER-Nunn 112 ΗΦΙ-DΆmοre 99
    CHRISTIANSEN-Biyiasas 61 HOLLlS-Hammar 82, KondaIi 82,
    COMMONS-Hadzipetrov 137 Νuπη 83
    CONQUEST -Povah 66 HONFI-Farago 80, Zoebisch 15
    DΆΜΟRΕ-Η0ί 99 HORT -Ermenkov 12
    DEKEYSER-Greiner 36 HORVATH-Eperjesi 3S
    DESPOTOVIC-BarIov 111 ΗϋΒΝΕR-ΤaΙ40
    DI DISHKO-Kapengut 132, Sahovic 62 HULAK-Bukic 29
    DODA-VIadimirov 62 ILI)lN-Foisor 126
    DONNER-PIaninc 127 IVANOV-Tschargov 16
    DOROSHKEVICH-Krementski 85, KAKAGELDIEV -Murei 61, Tshesh·
    TaI SO kovsky 4S
    DURAO-Adorjan 72 KAPENGUT -Didishko 132, KapIun 127,
    DURIC-Pinter 78 Smirnov 88
    EBZERMAN-van der Zwan 76 KAPLAN-Bobotsov 97
    ENKLAAR-Szabo 16 ΚΑΡΙ υΝ -Kapengut 127
    EPERjESI-Horvath 35 KARNER-Glίgoric 1S
    ERMENKOV-Hort 12,SchϋssΙer 117 KAVALEK-Spassky 72
    ESPIG-Kuzmin 87, UhImann 94 ΚΕ RES-Spassky 54
    FARAGO-Honfi 80, SziIagyi 6 ΚΙ νΙΑΝ -Petkevic 46
    148 IndeΧόfCοmΡlete Gomes

    ΚΝΑΑ K-Suetin 134 PAVLUTlN-Shivodov 66


    KNE.lEVIC-Ryc 73, Seifert 53, TrapI PEDERSEN-Panc~yk 26
    64 PEEV-MakropouIos 63, Spassov 14
    KOLBAEK-Andersen 71 PENROSE-TaI 136
    KONDALI-HoIIis 82 PEREZ-Szabo 96
    KORCHNOI-Lutikov 22, Sigurjonsson PETKEVIC-Kivlan 46
    11 Ο, van den Berg 123 PETRA YEV-Michalev 54
    κονΑΤL Y-Povah 61 PETROSIAN, A.-Stoicescu 127
    KOVAtEVIt-Nemet 46 PETROSIAN, T.-Rashkovsky 5
    KREMENTSKI-Doroshkevich 85 PHILLIPS-Nunn 136
    KUZMIN-Espig 87 ΡΙ ETZSCH-Capello 97, Szabo 62
    LAMBERT -Povah 116 PINTER-Duric 78
    LANGEWEG-Geller 106, Psakhis 3 PLANINC-Donner 127
    LARSEN-Ljubojevic 67 POLUGA YEVSKY -Matulovic 36,
    LAW-Nunn 81 Νuηη 3,Smyslov 140
    LERN.ER-Lίvshits 57 POPOV-Spassov 69
    LIBERZON-Sosonko 56 PORTISCH, F.-Bilek 96
    LITTLEWOOD, j.-Povah 91 PORTlSCH, L.-Gligoric 15, Tίmman 30,
    LITVINOV-Gosanov χίί Velimirovic 11
    LlVSHITS-Lerner 57 POULSSON-Niklasson 19
    LjUBOjEVIC-Larsen 67, Timman 137 ρον AH-Conquest 66, KouatIy 61,
    LPUTlAN-Magerramov 87 Lambert 116, j. Lίttlewood 91,
    ιυτι κον -Korchnoi 22 Tatai 8
    MAFFEO-Pastor 89 PSA ΚΗ IS-Antoshin 107, Langeweg 3
    MAGERRAMOV-Chekhov 69, Lputian QUI ΝΤΕ ROS-Spassky 14
    87 RASHKOVSKY-T. Petrosian 5, Spassky
    MAKROPOULOS-Peev 63 79
    MARTlN-Botterill 55 REE-Taimanov 14
    MATULOVIC-PoIugayevsky 36, Toth 14 RESHEVS ΚΥ -Nicevski 34
    McGREGOR-Nunn 2 RYC-Knezevic 73
    MICHALEV-Petrayev 54 SAHOVIC-Didishko 62
    MIKENAS-Suetin 90 SAKHAROV-Nemet 58, Tukmakov 56
    MILES-Wedberg 99 SAVON-GuIko 80, Shereshevsky 91
    MINEV-Spassov 45 SHEEREN-Tίmman 47
    MINIC-Basagic 133, Forintos 97, SCΗϋSSLΕR-Εrmeπkοv 117
    Gligoric 15 SEIFERT -Knezevic 53
    MOROKOVICH-VaIiev 114 SHASHIN-Agapov 103
    MUREI-Kakageldiev 61 SHER-Tseitlin 94
    ΝΕΜΕΤ -Kovac~vic 46, Sakharov 58 SHERESHEVSKY-Savon 91
    NItEVSKt-Glίgoric 69, Reshevsky 34 SHIVODOV-PavIutin 66
    NIKLASSON-PouIsson 19 SIGURjONSSON-Korchnoi 110
    Ν υΝΝ-Ι Benjamin 117, Brown 52, SLIWA-Suetin 124
    ChandIer 112, Georgadze 5, Hartston SMIRNOV-Kapengut 88
    108, Hollίs 83, Law 81, McGregor 2, SMYSLOV-Polugayevsky 140
    Phillips 136, Polugayevsky 3, SOBEK-Hardicsay 90
    Tίmman 27 SOSON KO-Lίberzon 56
    OjANEN-Fuller 96 SPASSKY -KavaIek 72, Keres 54,
    OKLADNIKOV-Vanin 59 Quinteros 14, Rashkovsky 79
    OSTROVSKI-Tarasov 136 SPASSOV-Minev 45, Peev 14, Ρορον 69
    PANCZYK-Pedersen 26 STOICESCU-A. Petrosian 127
    PARTOS-Zuodar 87 SUETlN-Knaak 134, Mikenas 90,
    PASTOR-Maffeo 89 Sliwa 124
    Index ofComplete Games 149
    SZABO-EnkIaar 16, Pe.rez 96, Pietzsch TUKMAKOV-Sakharov. 56, TaI 2
    62, Tίmman 60, Zuckerman 58 UFIMTSEV-TaI 70
    SZILAGYI-Farago 6 UHLMANN-Espig 94
    SZMET AN-Armas 7, Bartis 54 V AISER-Grigoriadis 63
    TAIMANOV-Ree 14, TaI69 VALENTI-Toth 14
    TAL-Doroshkevich 50, Gurgenidze 12, VALIEV-Mordkovich 114
    Ηϋbner 40, Penrose 136, Taimanov νΑΝ DΕΝ BERG-Korchnoi 123
    69, Tukmakov 2, Ufimtsev 70 ΥΑΝ DER ZWAN-Ebzerman 76
    TARASOV-Ostrovski 136 VANIN-Okladnikov 59
    TATAI-GIigoric 6, Povah 8 VELIMIROVIC-Bukic 3, Portisch 11
    T1MMAN-Ljubojevic 137, Νυηη 27, νΙΑDIΜI ROV-Ooda 62
    Portisch 30, Scheeren 47, Szabo 60 WEDBERG-Bukic 3, Mίles 99
    TOTH-MatυIovic 14, VaIenti 14 ZAITSEV-Bogdanovic 52
    TRAPL-Knezevic 64 ZOEBISCH-Honfi 15
    TSCHARGOV-Ivanov 16 ZUCKERMAN-Szabo 58
    TSEITLIN-Sher 94 ZUODAR-Partos 87
    TSHESHKOVSKY -KakageIdiev 45
    FOR CHESS ... READ BATSFORD FOR CHESS . .. READ BATSFORD

    The Benoni is Black's most actiνe and substantial general explanation of the
    aggressiνe defence ιο 1 d4, leading ιο strategic aims for both sides.
    imbalanced positions which are
    Dr John Nunnis currently Britain's
    unlikely to yield sterile eqUality.
    highest rated player. He was British
    Alllines after 1 d4 Ν f6 2 c4 c5 are Champion ίn 1980 and a ωember of
    coνered ίn sufficient detail ιο allow the English Olympiad team. This
    the reader ιο play the opening work is written ίn a similar style ιο his
    confidently ίη club ΟΓ tournament successful The Pirc for the Tournalnent
    play. The emphasis is νery ωuch οη Plαyer:
    the currently topicallines, with

    144pages
    92diagrams

    Other opening books for the club αnd The Pirc for the Τοurnaωent Player
    tournαmen t plαyer JDMNunn
    Figurine Α 1gebrαic Notαtion
    Queen's Gambit: Chigοήn Defence
    Benoni J L Watson
    WRHartston
    Sicilian: Keres Attack
    Benko Counter Gambit J Kinlay
    i pNLLeνy Sicilian: Lines with ... e5
    ~ ., Harding & Ρ R Markland

    ian Defence: ΝajdοrfVaήatίοn


    Μ Νυnη & Μ F Stean

    ian2c3
    ~Chandler

    i cOlnplete list of Batsford Chess


    Books please write ιο Β . Τ BatsfDr:d__ _
    RDKeene
    4 Fitzhardinge Street,
    London νν1Η ΟΑΗ.

    ISBN Ο 7134 3528 3

    You might also like