I OPENINGS I

WINNINC WITH THE PETROFF

ANATOLY KARPOV

Winning With the Petroff

ANATOL Y KARPOV

An Owl Book Henry Holt and Company

New York

Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Publishers since 1866 115 West 18th Street New York, New York 10011

Henry Holt is a registered trademark of Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Copyright 1993 by Anatoly Karpov All rights reserved. First published in the United States in 1993 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Originally published in Great Britain in 1993 by B. T. Batsford Ltd.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-56754

ISBN 0-8050-2 633- 4 (An Owl Book: pbk.)

First American Edition-1993

Printed in the United Kingdom All first editions are printed on acid-free paper.oo

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 !

Adviser: R. D. Keene, GM, OBE Technical Editor: Andrew Kinsman

Contents

Introduction 7

1 Main Line with 6 ... tt:lc6 and 7 ... il..e7 9

2 Main Line with 6 ... tt:lc6 and 7 ... ..tg4 48

3 Main Line with 6 ... il..e7 and 7 .. . 0-0 64

4 Main Line with 6 ... ..td6 68

5 White Fourth Move Alternatives 81

6 3 d4 87

Index of Variations 112

Introduction

The Petroff is defined as early as Black's second move: I e4 e5 2 lilf3 lilf6, and already the opening appears on the board. What distinguishing features does it have? Perhaps only one between two opponents of equal strength Black 'risks' finding himself with the safety of a draw straight away - 3 lilxe5 d6 4 lilf3 lilxe4 5 1!Ve2 1!Ve7 6 d3 and White exchanging queens almost guarantees a half-point. But is this really a deficiency of the Petroff? I recall that in one of the current variations of the Ruy Lopez White can bring the game to an immediate end ( . . . JH8-e8, lilf3-g5, . . . l!e8-f8, lilg5-f 3 etc.) as, in fact, many of my opponents have done when I have had Black. But in practice the player against whom the Petroff is played generally tries to take the initiative. In this case Black can fully expect an enthralling struggle with equal chances. As a result, as statistics show, the

7

number of games won by Black is hardly less than the number of wins for White.

Incidentally, in four of my five matches with Kasparov this comparatively rare opening was encountered, and the seven games played have made an appreciable contribution to its theory. It can be said without exaggeration that throughout its history the Petroff has never been studied with such intensity as after my duels with Kasparov.

Although the reader is possibly familiar with all our games with the Petroff(except the one in New York) from my book The Open Game in Action, I have of course inc! uded them in a special book dedicated to this opening, all the more so because recently many important examples, Improvements to variations, and new ideas have appeared. They are all reflected in this new book.

As in my previous work Beating

8 Introduction

the Griinfeld, I have included in this book 25 contemporary games as a foundation, the majority of which were played in the second half of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s(but the commentaries to them, as before, refer to many valuable examples from the past).

According to the modern standard Informator classification of openiogs, the Petroff is divided into,two sections - C42 and C43. The first of these is characterised by the capture of the pawn - 3 lLlxe5 (and also by various rare continuations), and the secondby refusing this capture with 3 d4. It is worth pointing out that in recent years the C42 system has been considerably more popular, and therefore it is given more attention and space in this book. One might recall that one of the variations beginning with the capture of the e5-pawn (3 lLlxe5 d6 4 lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 lLlc6) was subjected to a thorough examination in my first three matches with Kasparov, and in the fifth match there was an interesting game played with 3 d4.

The main line of the Petroff is divided into four basic variations, each of which is covered by a chapter of this book. Chapter one deals with the system 3 lLlxe5 d6 4 lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 lLlc6

(6 . . . .i.e7) 7 0-0 .i.e7 (7 . . . l0c6) which has proved to be by far the most fashionable choice for Black in recent times. A sharper possibility is discussed in chapter two, in which Black attacks the centre with 7 . . . .i.g4 without spending time developing his king's bishop first. Chapter three deals with the 6 . . . .i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 system which gives Black a solid, if rather uninspiring position, whilst chapter four i concerned with the interesting 6 . . . .i.d6 which has been very fashionable of late. In chapter five we look at White's alternatives on the fourth move, and the final chapter deals with 3 d4, which is also very much in vogue.

Does the title of the book do justice to its contents? Of course, learning off by heart countless variations, which there are in this book, will be of some use. However, I believe that familiarity with the games included in this book and close study of them, will give the reader a contemporary understanding of the opening, and in this sense one can certainly think that the book will develop understanding of how to play, and win with, the Petroff.

Finally I want to thank chess master and writer Evgeny Gik for his help in preparing the manuscript.

1 Main Line with 6 ... CZJc6 and 7 il.e7

Game No. I Karpov-Portisch

Turin 1982

In 1982 I had an original theoretical duel with Lajos Portisch on the theme of the Petroff : Turin, Til burg, Lucerne. Although the difference in points was minimal - 2 :I in my favour, the opening battle, one can say, was won by White with a clean sheet.

The following game opened the discussion and in the notes to it are the two other duels (that is, our opening 'triptych' collected together). Although the variation I played three times with Portisch was not subsequently encountered at the highest level, it should be mentioned that this was largely due to the results achieved in those games. I also think that this theoretical argument with Portisch prepared the ground well for a new

9

debate in the Petroff which unfolded m my battles with Kasparov.

It is now quite clear why I included this game, played comparatively long ago - ten years - in the book. I hope that the reader familiar with it from other publications will not be offended, since this book is devoted to the Petroff.

1 2 3

e4 li:lf3 li:lxeS

eS li:lf6

As we have said already, here the Petroff branches into two main systems - 3 li:lxe5 and 3 d4, and the first (larger) part of the book is devoted to taking the pawn on e5.

3 d6 4 li:lf3

The continuations 41i:lxf7 and 4 li:lc4, to which chapter 5 is devoted, are comparatively rare.

10 Main Line with 6 ... CiJc6 and 7 . . . .1ie7

4 lLl xe4 5 d4

Possibly only Boris Spassky nowadays at the top level uses the old move 5 '*e2. As far back as 1 969 in his match for the chess crown, Tigran Petrosian demonstrated a clear plan of arranging his pieces.

In fact, at the same tournament in Turin in my game with Spassky I succeeded in equalising easily : 5 . . . '*e7 6 d3 lLlf6 7 ..tg5 xe2+ 8 ..txe2 ..te7 9 lLJc3 c6 (I) (This is Petrosian's idea. Black avoids symmetry and the loss of tempo loses significance.)

1 w

10 0-0 lLJa6 I I .!:!: fe I lLlc7 1 2 il..fl lLJe6 1 3 ..te3 0-0 1 4 d4 .!:!: e8 1 5 d5 lLlxd5 1 6 lLlxd5 cd 17 ..tb5 .!:!: d8 18 .!:!: ad l ..tf6 19 c3 lLl c7 20 ..te2 .!:!: e8 2 1 lLld4 ..td 7 22 ..tf3 .txd4 23 ..txd4 ..tc6 24 .te3 !-1.

Several months later against Yusupov (Toluca 1 982) Spassky preferred 1 2 d4 instead of 12 "tfl .

There fol lowed : 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 ..td3 lLJe6 14 ..te3 0-0 1 5 .!:!: ad l ..td6 1 6 lLJe5 lLJe8! 1 7 lLJe2 f6 1 8 lLJf3 lLJ8c7 1 9 b3 ..td7 (more accurate was at once 1 9 . . . b5! 20 c4 be 2 1 be ..ta6) 20 c4 .!:!: fe8 2 1 c 5 ..tf8 22 lLJc3 b5 23 lLJe2 a5 24 a3 g6 25 h3 lLJd8 26 g4 lLlf7 27 >t>g2 lLJe6 28 lLlf4 lLlxf4 29 ..txf4 .!:!: xe I 30 .!:!: xe l a4 31 b4 .!:!: e8 32 .!:!: xe8 ..txe8 33 lLlg I lLJd8 34 lLJe2 g5! 35 ..tb8 .tg6 36 .t xg6 hg 37 '01

Main Line with 6 . . . ltlc6 and 7 . . . .i .e 7 II

2 w

7 0-0 8 .!:tel

e7 f5 (2)

In all six Petroff Defence games of my first three matches with Kasparov, Black's light-squared bishop either came to g4 (considered in the next game) or stayed at home. The debate with Portisch was solely devoted to the deve lopment of the bishop on f5. This move was introduced into practice by Robert H i.ibner in his quarterfinal Candidates match with Andras Adorjan in 1 980. In fact, this move was known to me from my own game with Kasparov -our first meeting, three years before our duels for the crown (Moscow 1 98 1 , 'three generations' team tournament). I had Black and events unfolded in the following way : 9 tt:lbd2 tt:lxd2 1 0 'W'xd2 xd3 I I 'W'xd3 0-0 1 2 c3 ..Wd7 (Hi.ibner continued with 1 2 . . . 'W'd6, and after 1 3 ..Wf5 .!:!ad8 1 4 f4 a draw was agreed) 1 3 f4 a6 14 .!:!e3 .!:!ae8 1 5 .!:!ae l d8

16 h3 .!:! xe3 1 7 .!:! xe3 f6 1 8 .!:! e2 .!:!f7 19 tt:ld2 e7 20 tt:Jfl .. H8 2 1 ..Wf3 .!:! e7 with a minimal advantage to White.

I also encountered 8 . . . f5 in the fourth game of the World Championship match in Merano in 1 98 1 , when after 9 b5 Korchnoi played the important improvement against me 9 . . . .if6 ( In Timman -Portisch, Moscow 1 98 1 , Black chose 9 . . . 0-0 I 0 xc6 be I I lile5 .ih4 1 2 ..te3 ..Wd6? {better was 1 2 . . . .!:!e8 ] 13 ..Wh5 ! and got into a difficult position).

The point of the bishop manoeuvre to f6 is that now White cannot strengthen his knight on e5, as after 10 .xc6+ be I I tt:le5 ..txe5 12 de 0-0 Black can develop freely and White still has to be careful to slow down the movement of the enemy c- and d-pawns. In the Merano game the position was equal after I 0 lZJ bd2 0-0 I I tt:Jfl . It is true that my opponent shortly after made several inaccuracies and in the end even lost; however the opening was not the reason for this. The result clearly had a psychological effect on Korchnoi, and he never returned to the Petroff for the rest of the match. What a pity! The following move had been specially prepared for him.

9 c4! (3) Igor Zaitsev and I had prepared

12 Main Line with 6 . . . Ci'Jc6 and 7 . . . li.e7

3 B

precisely this opening surprise for the match in Merano but it remained unused. So, the novelty was sprung on Portisch . . .

9 tt:lb4 10 .HI

Of course not I 0 cd tt:lxf2! . Because of this strike I began to doubt 9c4, but White i s not obliged to hurriedly clarify matters.

10 0-0 Later, at Tilburg 1 982, Portisch

tried a different continuation I 0 . . . de, but after I I tt:lc3! tt:lf6 1 2 j_xc4 0-0 1 3 a 3 tt:lc6 14 d 5 I succeeded in obtaining a clear advantage. The game continued : 1 4 . . . tt:la5 1 5 j_a2 c5 1 6 j_g5 J:!.e8 1 7 'iWa4 j_d7 1 8 'iWc2 h6 1 9 j_h4 tt:lxd5 20 tt:lxd5 j_xh4 2 1 J:!.xe8+ j_xe8. Here I could have increased my advantage with 22 J:!.e l or 22 J:!.d l , but I thought I saw an effective variation which unfortunately contained a flaw. After Black's precise reply I prob-

ably still had a draw, but I mechanically sacrificed a piece and quickly lost : 22 'iWe4? j_f6 23 j_b 1

Main Line with 6 ... l2Jc6 and 7 . . . 1Le7 13

Although this move brought me a splendid victory in Turin, at the Olympiad in Lucerne I decided not to test my opponent's home preparation and deviated first, hitting d5. Since I promised to bring you the whole 'triptych', I shall digress and tell how our last meeting on this theme turned out. It was also fairly interesting.

Karpov-Portisch, Lucerne ( ol) 1 982 : 12 cd f!ixd5 13 t:Uc3 t:Uxc3 14 he . tg6

Black's pieces are precariously arranged, for example : 14 . . . ri.e8 1 5 t:Ue5 (with the threat of 1 6 .tc4) 1 5 . . . tUxeS 1 6 ri.xe5 f!Jd7 1 7 f!Jf3 with a double attack; 14 . . . .td6? 1 5 c4 f!la5 16 .td2 winning; 14 . . . ri.ad8 15 .tf4 with a clear advantage to White. It is difficult to blame Black for a move which parries immediate although it does not cardinal problems. 15 c4 f!Jd7

threats, solve the

at the edge of the board : 1 8 .td2 b6 19 .txa5 ba 20 t:Ue5 f!ld6 2 1 t:Uc6, o r 1 8 t:Ue5 .txe5 1 9 ri. xe5 b6 20 .tf4 ri. fe8 21 ri. ae2, but the appearance of the bishop on f4 is more energetic. 18 . . . ri.fe8 19 ri.ae2. 1 ri.ec8?

Surrendering the positiOn. Black didn't like 19 . . . ri. xe2 because of 20 f!Jxe2 with the threat of 21 t:Ue5 .txe5 22 ..W xe5, but this wasn't so dangerous for Black. 20 t:Ue5 f!lj5?

Only 20 . . . .txe5 offered any resistance. 21 . td2!

Creating the irresistible threat of g2-g4. If 21 f!ld2 with the same idea, then 21 . . . .t h5 22 f3 g5 23 .tg3 b6 prolongs the struggle . 2 1 . .. t:Uxc4 (5)

After 2 1 . . . b6 22 g4 f!Jc2 23 f!Jxc2 .txc2 24 .txa5 .txe5 25 ri.xc2 Black is a piece down. Now 22 t:Uxc4 f!J xd5 23 .tf4 leads to victory, but even stronger is . . .

After 1 5 . . . f!Jd6 1 6 d5 .tf6 5 comes the tactical blow 1 7 c5! . w 16 d5 . tf6 1 7 ri.a2

The tempting sacrifice of the exchange brings no real advantage : 1 7 .tg5 ..txa I 18 de f!lxd I 1 9 ri. xd 1 .tf6 20 cb ri. a b8, and the b7-pawn cannot be defended. 17 . . . t:Ua5 18 .tj4

It was possible to exploit the unfortunate position of the knight 22 g4! t:Uxe5

14 Main Line with 6 . . . CUc6 and 7 . . . Ji.e7

Neither 22 . . . 'tlfc2 23 'tlfxc2 ..txc2 24 tt:lxc4, nor 22 . . . 'tit' xe5 23 .!:!: xe5 tt:Jxe5 24 g5 is of any help. 23 gf tt:Jf3+ 24 g2 ..th5 25 'tlt'a4 tt:Jh4+ 26 g3 ..txe2 and Black resigned.

Let us finally return to the battle with Portisch in Turin.

1 2 tt:Jxe3 13 be de

It is difficult for Black to manage without this exchange.

6 w

14 ..txe4 ..td6 (6)

A preliminary summary can be made : White has more purposefully arranged his forces and has clear pressure on the centre.

In the game Ehlvest-Khalifman, M insk 1 987, Black played 14 . . . tt:Ja5, but was unable to solve his opening problems. This is what happened : 1 5 ..ta2 c5 16 tt:Je5 ..tf6 17 g4 ..td7 1 8 .. H4 ..txe5 19 .!:!: xe5 cd 20 cd tt:Jc6 21 .!:!:d5 'tlfc8 22 h3 Si.e6 23 .!:!: c5 ..t xa2 24 .!:!: xa2 'tlfd7 25 d5 tt:Je7 26 .!:!: d2. The advantage of the two bishops

has disappeared, but Black can do nothing about the d-pawn .

7 B

15 ..tg5 'tlfd7 16 tt:Jh4! (7)

Moving the knight to the edge of the board allows White to firmly seize the initiative.

16 tt:Ja5 In response to 1 6 . . . ..tg4 there

is a choice between the simple 1 7 f3 ..t h5 1 8 g4 and 1 7 'tlfb l tt:Ja5 1 8 ..td3 followed by the seizure of the f5-sq uare.

17 .. b2 b5 Black's pieces are loosely placed

and Portisch is trying to create footholds for them. White must act energetically.

18 a4 a6 In the event of 1 8 . . . ba I had

a pleasant choice between 1 9 ..td5 .!:!:ae8 20 .!:!: xe8 .!:!: xe8 2 1 tt:Jxf5 'tlfxf5 22 'tlfxa4 .!:!: b8 23 .!:!: e l and 1 9 c4 c5 20 de (or 20 tt:Jxf5 'tlfxf5 2 1 h4 tt:Jb3 22 ..t b l 'tlfd7 23 de tt:l xc5 24 .!:!: a2 with excellent attacking chances) 20 . . . ..txc5 21 .!:!:e5

Main Line with 6 . . . li'lc6 and 7 . . . it. .e7 15

'ilt'xd 1 + 22 l:l:xd 1 _txd 1 24 1:1: xa5.

8 w

1 9 ab 20 lLlxf5 21 ..te7

..tg4 23 l:l:xc5

ab 'ilfxf5 l:l:fb8 (8)

After 2 1 . . . J..xe7 22 1:1: xe7 c6 23 'ilfe2 lLlc4 24 l:l:e 1 'ilfd5 25 l:l:e5 (also strong is 25 ..tb3) 25 . . . l:l:xa2 26 'ilfxa2 lLlxe5 27 'ilfxd5 cd 28 l:l:xe5 l:l:d8 29 l:l:e7 l:l:c8 30 1:1: b7 and White has won a pawn. I f 2 1 . . . l:l:fe8 2 2 ..txd6 cd 23 ..t b 1 'ilt'h5 the weakness o f the back rank is revealed : 24 1:1: xe8 + 1:1: xe8 25 g4 'ilfh3 26 l:l:xa5 'ilfxc3 27 l:l:a2!. Also bad is 2 1 . . . l:l:fc8 - 22 ..t b1 'ilfd7 23 'ilff3 g6 24 J..a2! However, moving the rook to b8 also meets with an unexpected and strong reply.

22 g4!! The ideas behind this extrava

gant move are revealed in the following variations : 22 . . . 'ilff4 23 ..txd6 'ilfxd6 24 'ilff3 'ilt'd7 (24 . . . l:tf8 25 ..txf7+ ! o;t>h8 26 'ilfg3! ) 25 l:l:e2, and it is difficult to defend

against the threat of 26 1:1: ae 1 and 27 l:l:e7, for example : 25 . . . l2Jc6 26l:l:ae 1 l:l:e8 27'ilfxf7+ with mate, or 25 . . . l:l:a6 26 l:l:ae l l:l:f6 27 'ilfg3 with irresistible threats.

22 'ilt'd7 23 ..txf7 +!

The bishop cannot be touched : 23 ". wxf7 24 l:l:xa5! l:l:xa5 25 'iit'b3 + ..t>g6 26 l:l:e6+ with unavoidable mate.

23 wh8 24 ..txd6 'ilfxf7 25 l:l:e7 'ilt'f8 26 ..tc5

White has a material and pos-itional advantage. The outcome is already decided.

26 'ilt'f4 27 'ilfe2 h6 28 l:l:e4 'ilt'f7 29 l:l:e5 lLlc4 30 l:l:xa8 l:l:xa8 31 l:l:f5 'ilfg6 32 'ilfe4 wh7 33 h3 l:l:a1 + 34 wg2 l:l:c l 35 .tb4 l2Jd6 36 ..txd6 cd 37 'iit'd3 d5 38 f3! 1--{)

Game No. 2 Sax-Yusupov

Thessaloniki (of) 1984

I e4 e5 2 lLlf3 l2Jf6

16 Main Line with 6 . . . {jjc6 and 7 . . . .1i..e 7

3 tUxeS d6 4 tt:lf3 tt:lxe4 5 d4 dS 6 .td3 .te7 7 0-0 tt:lc6 8 J:tel .tg4 9 c4 tt:lf6

10 cd .txf3 11 Wxf3 WxdS (9)

9 w

My first World Championship battle with Kasparov lasted a long time, five whole months, and many opening ideas which were encountered were refined during the marathon, particu larly at the Olympiad in Thessaloniki where this game was played. The reader might well remember that this position arose in the 28th game of that match, where after 1 2 Wh3 matters quickly ended peacefully (see the next game). But the queen also has other moves.

12 Wg3 More than once exchanging on

d5 has been played, yet it doesn't promise White much : 1 2 Wxd5

tt:lxd5 1 3 tt:lc3 0-0-0! (if 1 3 . . . tt:ldb4 White manages to get the advantage: 14 .te4 tt:lxd4 1 5 .te3 c5 1 6 .txd4! cd 17 ttJ b5 >tf8 1 8 a3! tt:lc6 1 9 J:t ac I d 3 20 .txd3 .tf6 21 b4 g6 22 .te4, PopovicKuraj ica, Yugoslavia 1 984; or 1 5 . . . J:t d8 1 6 .txd4 J:t xd4 1 7 a3 tt:lc6 1 8 tt:lb5 J:t d2 1 9 tt:lxc7+ >td8 20 ttJ b5, Abramovic-Rukavina, Yugoslavia 1 985) 14 .te4 .tb4 1 5 .td2 tt:lf6 (also sufficient for the draw is 1 5 . . . tt:lxd4 1 6 tt:lxd5 .txd2 17 J:t ad l c6 18 J:t xd2 cd 19 J:t xd4) 1 6 a3 tt:lxe4 1 7 J:t xe4 .txc3 18 be tt:la5 with full equality (Ehlvest-Mikhalchishin, Lvov 1 984). In the game Lobron-Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1 984, White took on c6 (instead of 16 a3), and after 1 6 .txc6 be 1 7 a3 J:t xd4! 1 8 ab J:t xd2 19 J:t xa7 J:t e8! Black even stood better.

Before moving on I should mention that the move 12 Wh3, which Kasparov preferred in game 28, was first seen in the game Velimirovic-Kurajica (Bela Crkva 1 984 ). In that game Black took on d4 with the queen, and 1 2 . . . Wxd4 1 3 tt:lc3 J:t d8 14 .tf5 h5 1 5 g3 >tf8 1 6 .te3 Wb4 1 7 a3 Wa5 led to approximate equality. 1 4 .tb5!? i s worth examining. One way or another I decided to avoid surprises and changed the flow of the game myself by taking on d4 with the knight, which delivered

Main Line with 6 . . . {Jc6 and 7 . . . it. .e7 1 7

Black from any problems.

10 w

1 2 'llt'xd4 13 tt:lc3 0-0 ( 10)

Up until now everything had followed Hiibner-Smyslov (Velden 1 983) - the original source game of the exchange on f3. In that game Black continued 13 . . . .!:t d8 and still had to work hard for the draw. Thanks to castling Black now not only equalises, but even takes the initiative.

14 tt:lb5 'llt'g4 In the game Abramovic-Kura

jica (Yugoslavia 1 984) there followed 1 4 . . . 'llt'b4, and a draw was quickly agreed.

15 'llt'xg4 Hardly good is 1 5 'llt'xc7 Ji.c5!

with a Black attack, but after 1 5 tt:lxc7 .!:t ad8 1 6 Wxg4 tt:lxg4 1 7 il.e2 the game is level.

15 tt:lxg4 16 .H5

And here 1 6 il.e2 is better. but 1 6 tt:lxc7 is dangerous because of 1 6 . . . c5 !

16 tt:lf6 17 tt:lxc7 .!:tad8 18 e3

Not 1 8 tt:lb5 because of 1 8 . . . .!:td5.

18 a6 An accurate move. After 1 8 . . .

.td6 1 9 tt:lb5 xh2+ 20 ..t>xh2 .!:td5 21 tt:l xa7 White is better.

19 .!:t act A mistake, after which Black

gains the upper hand. Correct was 19 .!:t ed ! d6 20 b6 e5 2 1 .!:t xd8 .!:t xd8 22 tt:lxa6, and equality is maintained.

1 9 J&.b4! 20 .!:t ft

If 20 .!:t ed 1 then 20 . . . a5! 20 tt:ld4!

If 20 . . . .ta5 White continues with 21 tt:l xa6 tt:le7 22 c5! tt:lxf5 23 xf8.

21 .!:t c4 22 .!:t xb4 23 .!:tel

tt:lxf5 .!:t d7

23 f4 loses to 23 . . . .!:t c8 24 .!:t xb7 tt:ld5 25 e5 tt:lxc7 26 .!:t e l tt:le8!

23 .!:t c8 24 .!:t bc4 .!:t cd8 25 h3 tt:lxe3 26 fe ..t>f8 27 e4 e7 28 .!:t b4 .!:t d l + 29 .!:t xd t .!:t xdl+ 30 wr2 d6 31 e5 +

In time trouble White makes

18 Main Line with 6 . . . CiJc6 and 7 .. . e7

the decisive mistake. The ending is unpleasant, but after 3 I e2 it was possible to offer stubborn resistance.

31 32 tt:la8 33 a4 34 J::t b3 35 J::t b7 36 f3

0-1

xe5 b5 tt:ld5 ba J::tb1 a3

Game No. 3 Karpov-Kasparov

World Ch (41) Moscow 1984

Kasparov and I have played seven Petroff Defences in our battles for the chess crown, and I think that they have all clearly influenced the development of theory. In six of them - all from the first three matches - 3 tt:lxe5 was played. Three games are included in the main text and three in the notes to them. This opening did not make an appearance in Seville, and in our fifth match the move 3 d4 was tried. That game will be examined in detail later on.

1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lf6 3 tt:lxe5 d6 4 tt:lf3 tt:lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .td3 J..e7

II w

7 0-0 tt:lc6 ( 11)

A key moment. The system of defence with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . J..e7 (or these two moves reversed, as in this game) was worked out by the Russian master Jaenisch back in the last century. More aggressive seems 6 . . . tt:lc6 7 0-0 J..g4 with immediate pressure on the centre. However, this idea is not new either. In his Handbuch of I 922 Carl Schlechter gives the following variation with the moves transposed : 6 . . . J..g4 7 0-0 tt:lc6 8 J::te i f5 9 c4 ! J..d6 IO cd J..xf3 I I "W xf3 tt:lxd4 I2 We3 Wf6 I 3 J..xe4 fe I 4 Wxe4+ >t>f7 I 5 J..g5! 'it' xg5 I6 Wxd4 with advantage to White (Capablanca-Marshall, match I 909). Instead of the unsuccessful move 8 . . . f5 he recommended 8 . . . ..te7! and then 9 J..xe4 de I O J::t xe4 .hf3! I I ..W xf3 tt:lxd4 I 2 Wd3 tt:le6 with an equal game.

Decades have passed and theory has not stood still, but possibly

Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . iLe7 19

only in our time has it become so clear how important every tempo is in this opening system. The two moves by the black bishops - the black-squared one to e7 and the white-squared one to g4, it can be said, define the two separate channels in this branch of the Petroff. We shall look in more detail later at the bishop coming to g4, which was introduced in the last game. I have noticed that in recent years that side by side with Black's plan of action against the enemy centre the symmetrical variation has been widely used, in which the c6-square is not occupied by the knight but by the pawn, with the bishop coming to d6 : 6 . . . .1t.d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6. Black's position is a l ittle passive but solid enough. We shall also look at this system later.

Now that we shall concentrate on my six games with Kasparov, I shall set out the opening of each of them (in brackets are the number of the match and the number of the game).

( 1 , 28) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 ..tg4 8 J:t e 1 .1t.e7 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 cd;

(2, 1 5) and (3, 6) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.g4 8 c4 ti:Jf6;

( 1 , 30) : 6 . . . .1t.e7 7 0-0 ti:Jc6 8 J:t e l .1t.g4 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 ti:Jc3;

( 1 , 4 1 ) : 6 . . . .1t.e7 7 0-0 ti:Jc6 8 c4 ti:Jb4;

( 1 , 48) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.e7

8 c4 ti:Jf6 9 ti:Jc3 0-0. The two games of the first match

(which are referred to a little later), where Kasparov played White probably convinced him that the variation was safe for Black, and the third time he chose to play with the opposite colour. However, I had laid a small surprise in store.

12 B

8 c4 (12)

White quickly attacks the centre. In our previous games with this opening, White had played J:t e l before moving the c-pawn and had achieved nothing. Here are those games.

Kasparov-Karpov (1, 28) : 6 . . . ti:Jc6 7 0-0 .1t.g4 8 J:t e 1 .1t.e7 9 c4 ti:Jf6 1 0 cd .1t.xf3 (this move was introduced by Smyslov in his Candidates match with Hiibner, Velden 1 983 . Earlier 1 0 . . . ti:Jxd5 had been preferred) 1 1 "ilt'xf3 "iit'xd5 (a more detailed commentary on this position can be found in the previous game) 12 "iit'h3 ti:Jxd4 1 3 ti:Jc3 "iit'd7 1 4 "iit'xd7+ 'it>xd7 1 5

20 Main Line with 6 . . . ti'Jc6 and 7 . . . .it..e 7

e3 4Je6 1 6 l:lad 1 ..id6 1 7 ..if5 e7 1 8 4Jb5 l:l,hd8 19 4Jxd6 cd 20 h3 b6 21 g4 h6 22 ..id4 l:lac8 23 ..ic3 g6 24 ..ic3 h5 2 5 f3 t-1.

Kasparov-Karpov ( 1 , 30) : 6 . . . ..ie7 7 0-0 4Jc6 8 l:le l ..ig4 (after 8 . . . i.f5 9 c4 the game follows Karpov-Portisch which was featured earlier) 9 c4 4Jf6 10 4Jc3 (instead of 10 cd - 28th game) 1 0 . . . d e I I xc4 0-0 1 2 e3 xf3 1 3 'ihf3 4Jxd4 14 .. bd4 'ihd4 1 5 1:1 xe7 'ihc4 1 6 'ihb7 c6 1 7 'ilt'b3 'ilt'xb3 1 8 ab l:lab8 1 9 l:la3 l:lfe8 20 l:lxe8 + l:lxe8 1-t.

Much earlier, in game six of the Candidates final with Korchnoi (Moscow 1974) I played the more restrained 9 c3 f5 I 0 'ilt'b3 (13).

13 8

After 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I 4Jbd2 h8 12 h3 h5 13 'ilt'xb7 Black lost quickly, although the opening was not responsible. The position in the diagram is currently often encountered in grandmaster tournaments, and in general the game turns out in White's favour. An

especially amusing incident once happened to the young chess star Vasily Ivanchuk. In the game Ivanchuk-Anand, Reggio Emilia 1 988/9, Black played 10 . . . 'l!t'd6 instead of castling short and events turned out rather unusually: I I 4Jfd2!? -0 1 2 f3 ..ih4 1 3 l:lfl ..ih3 (the continuations 1 3 . . . ..if2+ 14 l:lxf2 4Jxf2 1 5 ..t>xf2 'ilt'xh2 1 6 tt:Jfl and 1 3 . . . ..ih5 14 fe fe 1 5 ..ixe4 de 16 4Jxe4 'ilt'g6 1 7 4Jc5 are joyless for Black) 1 4 'ilt'c2 (if 14 gh 'l!t'g6+ 1 5 h I then 1 5 . . . 4Jf2+ 1 6 l:lxf2 ..ixf2 1 7 'ilt'd I l:lhe8 decides) 14 . . . 'ilt'g6 1 5 4Jb3 J:t hf8 1 6 4Ja3 l:lde8 (14).

14 w

In this unconventional struggle White has outplayed his opponent and could have obtained a decisive advantage here: 1 7 ..if4 ! ..ig5 1 8 ..ixg5 4Jxg5 1 9 g h 4Je6+ 20 h i 4Jf4 2 1 l:lae l . But he unexpectedly moved the king - 1 7 h I ?? 4Jf2 + ! 1 8 l:lxf2 .txg2+, and White resigned (if 19 1:1 xg2 or 1 9 g1 then 1 9 . . . l:le I + follows).

Main Line with 6 ... lbc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7 21

Instead of I 0 . . . 1!fd6 and I 0 . . . 0-0 Black also has the move 10 . . . 'Wd7. However, in the recent game Ehlvest-Yusupov, Rotterdam 1989), White dictated the play: I I tilfd2 0-0-0 1 2 f 3 tilxd2 1 3 tilxd2 i.hS 14 1!fa4 J:!he8 I S tilb3 a6 16 i.d2 i.g6 !7 i.f4 til b8 18 1!fxd7+ tilxd7 19 "'f2 i.f6 20 g3 lH8 21 a4 J:!f7 22 aS h6 23 tileS etc.

Let us at last return to the 41st game.

8 tilb4 (15) In the 48th game, the last of the

first match, Kasparov was apparently ready to use my "prompting" (see the White bishop's next move) - this time Kasparov was playing White. I did not carry out the . . . tilc6-b4 manoeuvre of the 41st game and decided to play the old move with the other knight.

Kasparov-Karpov (I, 48): 8 . . . til/6 9 tilc3 0-0 10 h3

Once and for all stopping counterplay with i.g4. Although the move h3 has fairly lofty principles, one can manage without it, for example KudrinWolff, USA Ch 198S: 10 cd tilxdS I I :tel i.e6 12 a3 i.f6 1 3 i.e4 tilde?? (the wrong knight goes to e 7 - 13 .. . tilce 7! equalises) 14 i.gS! i.xgS IS tilxgS i.fS (and now I S . . . h6 is correct) 1 6 dS i.xe4 17 J:!xe4 tilb8 18 "l!fhS h6 19 llael tilxdS 20 tilxf 7 tilf6 21

tilxh6+ "'h7 22 1!fh3 and Black resigned. 10 ... de

After 10 . . . tilb4 (following 10 . . . i.e6 good is II cS) II i.e2 cS 12 a3 tilc6 1 3 de de 14 i.e3 White has a definite advantage (Velimirovic-Schiissler, Smederevska Palanka 1979). 11 i.xc4 tila5 12 i.d3 i.e6 13 J:!e1 tilc6

Later the interesting try 13 . . . cS!? was discovered. After 14 i.e3 J:!c8 I S 1!fe2 cd 16 tilxd4 i.c4 1 7 J:!adl White i s better, but if 1 4 . . . c4 I S i.c2 tildS Black has equalised (Fedorowicz-Kogan, USA 198S). Possibly 14 i.gS h6 I S i.h4 offers White better chances. Now if I S . . . c4 i.xf6 i.xf6 17 i.e4 White dominates the centre of the board. 14 a3 a6

In the game Lobron- Handoko, Yugoslavia 198S, after 14 . . . J:!e8 I S i.bS 1!fd6 (White is also better after I S . . . a6 16 i.xc6 be 17 tileS) 16 i.gS! J:! ed8 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 18 tile4 White obtained a noticeable advantage and turned it into a Will. 15 i./4 1!f d7

A serious mistake. Correct was I S . . . tildS, for example: 16 i.g3 i.f 6 17 i.c2 tilce7 18 tile4 i.fS 19 tilxf6+ tilxf6 20 i.b3 c6 21 tileS tilfdS 22 1!ff3 i.e6 23 J:!adl tilfS 24 i.xdS t-t Gufeld-

22 Main Line with 6 . . . tuc6 and 7 . . . e7

Schussler, Havana 1 985. 16 lbe5! lbxe5 1 7 de lbd5 18 lbxd5 16 it..xd5 19 'ikc2 g6 B

On 1 9 . .. h6 play might continue 20 l:.ac l c6 2 1 l:.e3 with a strong attack. 20 :adl c6

This leads by force to a diffi-cult position for Black. It was necessary to submit to a worse ending with 20 . . . '*c6 21 xc6 if..xc6 22 if..c4. 21 it..h6 :jd8 22 e6! fe

No better is either 22 . .. if..xe6 23 if..xg6 ! , or 22 ... 'ike8 23 '*c3 f6 24 f4 ! 23 if..xg6 if../8 24 if..x(8 :x(8 25 if..e4 :j 7 26 :e3 :g7 27 :dd3 :j8 28 :g3

Main Line with 6 . . . lLlc6 and 7 . . . 1Le7 23

g4! ,ig6 1 5 tt:le5 followed by f4, 1 7 White is clearly better, but 1 2 . . . w .t>h8 ! deserves attention. In the game Mnatsakanian-Diez, Varna 1 985, after 1 3 tt:le5 f6 14 tt:Jf3 ..ig4 1 5 h3 ..ih5 1 6 ..ie6 ..ixf3 1 7 gf 'llt"e8 1 8 ..if4 f5 1 9 c;t;>h2 'llt"g6 20 ,ib3 ..ig5 Black had a senous initiative on the k ingside.

13 h3 Later, in the game A. Sokolov

Agzamov, 52nd USSR Ch 1 985, White played the even stronger 1 3 tt:Je5! and after 1 3 . . . tt:Jc6 (more accurate was 1 3 . . . c5 1 4 ..if4 c4 1 5 tt:lxc4 tt:lxc4 1 6 ..ixc4 ..ixd4 17 tt:Jb5, but bad is 1 3 . . . tt:Jf5 1 4 tt:Jxf7! xf7 1 5 ..ixf7+ wxf7 1 6 1Wb3+ , o r 1 3 . . . ..ixe5 1 4 de tt:Jf5 1 5 ..ixf7+ ! ) 1 4 ..if4 tt:Jf5 1 5 tt:lxc6 be 1 6 d5 c5 1 7 tt:Ja4 ..ia6 1 8 e l j.e7 (better i s 1 8 . . . c4 1 9 ..ic2 tt:ld6) 1 9 c l ..id6 20 ..ig3 achieved a large advantage.

1 3 ..if5 1 4 ..ie3 15 a3

e8 tt:Jd3 ( 17)

A pseudo-active move. More reliable was 1 5 . . . tt:Jc6.

16 b1 c5 17 de tt:Je4

1 7 . . . tt:Jxb2 1 8 xb2 ..ixc3 doesn't work - 19 cd! ..ixb2 20 j.xf7+! c;t;>xf7 21 W"d5+ with an unstoppable attack.

18 ..ic2! tt:Jxb2 On 1 8 . . . tt:Jg3 strong is 1 9 fg

l::txe3 20 W"d2 ..id4 2 1 tt:Jxd4 W"xd4

22 c;t;>h2 ..ig6 23 tt:ld5! 19 1Wxd8 l:t axd8 20 xb2 ..ixc3 21 l:t xb7 tt:Jxc5 22 ..ixc5 ..ixc2 23 l:t xa7

As a result of the mass exchanges White has won a pawn, but this could have been done better in another way : 23 :te l d l + (23 . . . ..ie4 24 xa7) 24 xd l ..ixdl 25 xa7.

23 ..id1 24 l:te7 xe7 25 ..ixe7 l:t d3 26 tt:lg5 ..ib2 27 ..ib4

The threat was 27 . . . ..ic2, winning the a3-pawn. Now 27 . . . ..ic2 is met by 28 e l !

27 h6 28 tt:le4 f5 29 tt:Jc5 d5 30 e1 f4?

In time trouble Black makes the losing move. 30 . . . c;t;>f7 or 30 . . . ..ic2 was required.

24 Main Line with 6 . . . lt:Jc6 and 7 . . . iie7

31 a4! J:td4 3 1 . . . ..te5 does not help : 3 2 a5 ..td6 33 a6 ..txc5 34 ..txc5 xc5 35 J:te8+ wf7 36 a7.

18 w

32 a5 xb4 (18)

This can be considered an historic position. By moving the apawn one square forward White wins : 33 a6! ..tb3 (33 . . . ..ta4 34 a7 ..tc6 35 J:t e6 ..td5 36 d6; 33 . . . J:t b8 34 l:t xd l ..ta3 35 ttJb7!) 34 ttJxb3 l:ta4 (34 . . . l:t xb3 35 J:t e8 + and 36 a7) 35 ttJc5 l:ta5 36 e4! wf7 37 a4! xa4 38 ttJxa4 ..td4 39 ttJc3 ! and Black loses the bishop.

At this moment I had already secured five victories and winning this game would have secured victory in the match with a score of 6 : I . However, the game concluded in another fashion and chess h istory took a completely different turn.

33 J:txd1? ..td4 34 liJe6 ..ta7 35 nd7

35 ttJxg7 b2 36 ttJf5 ..txf2+ 37 wfl is no better.

35 bl + 36 wh2 ..txf2 37 ttJxf4 l:t a I 38 ttJe6 xa5

Black makes life more complicated for himself. As Josef Dorfman pointed out, an easier path to a draw was 38 . . . g5! 39 g7+ (39 J:td5 .te l ) 39 . . . ..t>h8 40 J:t g6 ..t>h7 41 ttJf8 + ..t>h8 42 a6 (42 J:t xh6+ 'Wt>g7 43 l:t g6+ ..t>xf8 44 f6+ ..t>g7 45 xf2 J:txa5) 42 . . . ..tgl + ! 43 ..t>g3 J:ta3+ 44 "'g4 l:ta4+!

39 40 41

J:t xg7+ J:tf7 wg3

whs ..te3

Here the game was adjourned and in my home analysis I convinced myself that it is impossible to realise the extra pawn. For another thirty moves I tried to do it, but, alas, without success.

41 ..td2 42 d7 ..tc3 43 ..t>f3 ..t>g8 44 ttJf4 f5 45 ..t>e4 f7! 46 J:td8+

There were more chances in the minor-piece ending: 46 xf7 ..t>xf7 4 7 ..t>f5. I n fact my opponent's trainers, Dorfman and Vladimirov, shortly afterwards published some interesting analysis showing Black's best method

Main Line with 6 . . . lllc6 and 7 . . . i.e7 25

of defence in this ending. 46 . . . wh7 47 d3 e7 + 48

wf3 b2 49 l:t b3 c 1 50 tl:ld5 :te5 51 tl:lf6 + wg6 52 tl:le4 l:t f5 + 53

26 Main Line with 6 . . . li:lc6 and 7 . . . it..e 7

In the second game of the Can-didates match Ehlvest-Yusupov, 20 St. John 1988, Black exchanged at w once on c3. After I I . . . 4Jxc3 1 2 be 4Jc6 1 3 cd .Jt xd5 1 4 'ilt'c2 f6 ( 1 4 . . . f5 deserved attention) 15 4Jd2 .rr e8 1 6 .rr ae I e6 1 7 d3 g6 18 f4 Jt .g7 19 4Je4 d5 20 4Jc5 .l:rxe l 2 1 .l:rxe l l:l. b8 White has a clear positional plus, which, according to Ehlvest, could be strengthened by 22 g3 ! , preparing 23 h4!

Let us look at a few more moves of this very sharp game, where Ehlvest preferred 22 'ilt'd2. There followed : 22 . . . t2la5 23 'ilt'e2 .l:r c8 24 Jt .e5 j_xe5 25 de (commenting on the game, Yusupov criticised White's last two moves. More accurate was 24 h3, and now an equal game is preserved by 25 'ilt'xe5. Taking on e5 with the pawn gives Black a good game) 25 . . . 'ilt'e7! 26 'ilt'g4 .!:rd8 (Yusupov remarked that 26 . . . .l:!.f8! 27 'ilt'd4 { 27 4Jd7? Si.e6 28 'ilt'a4 'ilt'xd7 etc. } 27 . . . .rr d8 gives Black the advantage) 27 4Je4 'ilt'xe5 28 'ilt'h4 g5 29 'ilt'h5 4Jc6 (20) (exchanging on e4 was better).

30 f4 ! (a nice try to exploit the slight weakness of the enemy king) 30 . . . 'ilt'g7 (the only move as 30 . . . gf 31 'ilt'xe5 4Jxe5 32 4Jf6+ g7 33 4Jh5+ and 34 .l:rxe5 loses) 3 1 fg Jt .xe4 32 xe4 4Je5 3 3 h4 4Jg6 34 Jt .xg6 hg 35 W f3 'it' f8 36 'ilt'e3

'iit'd6 37 .l:rfl (37 'ilt'e7 equalises) Now after 37 . . . b6 (37 . . . 'ilt'b6 + is also good) Black again obtained the better chances but the game was finally drawn on move 60.

1 I f5 1 2 'iit'b3 (21)

Ivanov played 1 2 a3 against Arkhipov (Moscow 1985) and after 12 . . . 4Jxc3 1 3 be 4Jc2 14 .l:ra2 4Jxa3 ( 1 4 . . . 4Jxe3 1 5 fe with a small advantage to White) 1 5 .l:!.xa3 xa3 1 6 c5 Jt .b2 1 7 'iit' b3 Jt .xc3 1 8 'ilt'xc3 c6 1 9 .l:ra I .!:re8 20 .!:ra3 'ilt'c7 2 1 4Jd2 b5 22 .!:ra6 the game is complicated but in White's favour. However, after 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 'ilt'b3 xc5 1 8 de c6 19 4Jd4 d7 20 Jt .f4 a5 2 1 .Jtd6 .rr e8 Black's game is fine.

From b3 the queen fixes on the centre and on the b7-pawn. Now the variation 12 . . . 4Jxc3 1 3 be 4Jc2 14 .!:rae I 4Jxe3 15 fe is no longer good for Black, for example 15 . . . g5 1 6 4Jxg5 'ilt'xg5 17 .!:rf4 j_e4 1 8 g3. Game 6 is devoted to

Main Line with 6 ... lilc6 and 7 . . . _j_e7 27

21 B

1 2 llc l . 1 2 c6

For 1 2 . . . de see the following game.

13 llac1 1 3 cd cd 1 4 llac l a5 1 5 a 3 li:Jxc3

1 6 n xc3 a4 1 7 'it'd 1 ti:Jc6 leads to equality, but 1 3 c5 ti:Jxc3 14 be l/Jc2 1 5 n ac 1 ti:Jxe3 1 6 fe is possible. The waiting move with the rook gives the initiative to Black.

1 3 de Compared to the immediate 1 2

. . . de this exchange gains in strength as Black has prepared the . . . b7-b5 manoeuvre.

22 w

14 .1i.xc4 b5! (22)

15 .1i.xf7+?! The timid move 1 5 .1i.e2 loses

a pawn : 1 5 . . . .1i.e6 1 6 'it'd ! ti:Jxc3 1 7 llxc3 .1i.xa2 1 8 b3 a5 and a4, or 1 7 be ti:Jxa2 1 8 llc2 b4. But the bishop sacrifice is incorrect.

1 5 llxf7 16 ti:Je5 ti:Jd5

If 1 6 . . . ..We8, there follows 1 7 g4 ! tLJ xc3 1 8 be etc.

17 ti:Jxe4 In the variation 1 7 ti:Jxc6 li:Jexc3 !

18 ti:Jxd8 ti:Je2+ 19 >th l li:Jxc l Black retains a material advantage.

17 .1i.xe4 18 nxc6

Better is 1 8 ti:Jxf7 >t xf7 only then 1 9 nxc6.

1 8 1 9 llccl

..We8!

and

19 nfc l is no good because of 1 9 . . . ti:Jxe3 20 ti:Jxf7 .1i.d5!

1 9 .1i.d6 20 ti:Jxf7 ..Wxf7 21 llc6 lld8

There is formal equality on the board, but the tangle of black pieces holds together well.

22 .1i.g5 ti:Jf4! This forcing move leads by a

series of exchanges to a winning bishop ending.

23 ..Wxf7+ 24 .1i.xd8 25 .1i.g5 26 d5 27 lld1

.txf7 .1i.xc6 ti:Jxg2! .1i.xd5 e6

28 Main Line with 6 . . . lUc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

28 J:!xdS xdS Game No. 5 29 xg2 e4 Timman-Hjartarson

The difference in the activity of Rotterdam 1989 the two kings is too great and this decides matters. 1 e4 eS

30 .i.e3 a6 2 lilf3 lilf6 31 h3 .i.eS 3 lilxeS d6 32 b3 .i.d4 4 lilf3 lilxe4 33 .i.gS d3 5 d4 d5 34 f3 c2 6 .i.d3 lilc6 35 .i.e3 .i.f6 7 0-0 .i.e7 36 e4 b2 8 c4 lilb4 37 d3 xa2 9 .i.e2 0-0 38 c2 aS 10 lilc3 39 .i.b6 a4 The following recent game ts 40 b4 interesting, in which White tried a

40 ba loses at once to 40 . . . b4. new approach, quickly playing 40 a3 a2-a3: Sznapik-Tischbierek, 41 .i.cS hS Warsaw 1 990, went I 0 a3 lilc6 I I 42 .i.f8 g6 cd 1!1'xd5 12 lilc3 lilxc3 1 3 be .i.f5 43 .i.cS gS ( 1 3 . . . lila5 is good) 14 c41!1'e4 15 44 f3 lla2 .i.f6 1 6 lld2 !ladS 17 .i.b2

On 44 .i.d6 there follows the lile7 IS !lei 1!1'f4 19 g3 1!1'd6 20 breakthrough 44 . . . g4! 45 hg h4, .i.fl .i.g4 2 1 h3 .i.xf3 22 1!1'xf3 followed by . . . h4-h3 and . . . .i.e7 c5 23 d5 . i_xb2 24 llxb2 b6 25 with capture of the b-pawn. llbe2 IileS 26 lle5 1!1'd7 27 .i.d3

44 .i.eS lild6 2S 1!1'h5 g6 29 1!1'h4 lldeS 30 45 .i.e7 .i.g3 lle7 1!1'dS 3 1 llxeS llxeS 32 1!1'xdS 46 .i.xgS xb4 llxdS 33 lle7 b5 34 cb c4 35 .i.fl 47 f4 c4 lilxb5 36 a4 lild6? (The game has 48 fS dS! flowed with a slight initiative to 49 .i.d8 .i.d6 White, but now after 36 . . . lila31 50 .i.h4 4 37 lle3 lilc2 3S Jlc3 lild4! 39 51 f6 fS .i.xc4 ll xd5! it must end in a 52 c3 .6 draw. But now Black gets a lost 53 .i.gS b4+ ending.) 37 ll xa7 Jlc8 38 ll a6! c3 54 c4 b3 39 .i.d3 lilc4 40 llc6 llxc6 4 1 de

0-1 lilb6 42 c7 fS 43 a5 IileS 44

Main Line with 6 . . . liJc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7 29

fl ! and Black resigned (44 . . . e7 45 r;t;>e2 'itd7 46 ..ia6 tt:Jd6 47 c8(W')+ etc.).

In the middle of that game the queen went from d5 to d6 in three moves, but . . . W'd5-d6 can be played at once : Hjartarson-Yusupov, Barcelona 1 989, 14 0 0 . W'd6 1 5 d5 tt:Je5 1 6 tt:Jd4 ..id7 1 7 .l:tb 1 b6 1 8 tt:J b5 ..ixb5 1 9 l hb5 1-1.

I O ..te6 The bishop nearly always goes

to f5 in two moves, but in Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Barcelona 1 989, Black played the bishop straight to f5 and demonstrated a clear path to equality : 1 0 0 0 ..if5 11 a3 tt:lxc3 1 2 be tt:Jc6 1 3 l:t e 1 de 1 4 . .bc4 ..id6 1 5 ..ig5 W'd7 1 6 tt:J h4 tt:Ja5 1 7 ..ia2 ..ig4 1 8 W'c2 l:t ae8 1 9 h3 ..ie6 20 c4 ..ie7 2 1 ..ixe7 Wxe7 22 tt:Jf3 1-1.

Several months later the players continued their theoretical discussion. In Ljubojevic-Yusupov, Belgrade 1 989, they repeated moves up to 1 3 l:tel. Then the black player, possibly fearing home preparation, played a different move - instead of exchanging on c4 he played 1 3 . . . ..if6. Again matters quickly ended peacefully : 1 4 ..if4 J:!.c8 1 5 W'a4 a6 1 6 W' b3 tt:Ja5 1 7 W'b4 c5 1 8 de tt:lc6 1 9 W'b3 tt:Ja5 1-1.

I I ..ie3 ..if5 I 2 W'b3 de

1 2 . . . c6 was discussed in the

last game. 1 3 ..txc4 a 5

After 1 3 0 0 ttJ xc3 1 4 be tt:Jc2 1 5 :ad 1 tt:J xe3 1 6 fe White has strong pressure on f7.

23 B

I4 a3 (23)

In the tournament where the move . . . ..ic8-e6 was first fully tested ( Moscow 1 985) Arkhipov used his idea three times. We have already talked about two games, in the third Tseshkovsky played 14 a3 against him and the position in the diagram arose. There followed 14 0 0 . tt:Jxc3 1 5 be a4 1 6 W'b2 tt:Jc2 17 l:t a2 tt:J xe3 1 8 fe ..id6. Now it was correct to play 1 9 tt:Je5! ..ie6 20 ..ixe6 fe with undoubtedly better chances for White. However, after two consecutive inaccurate moves -- 1 9 W' xb7? .l:tb8 20 W'd5? (if 20 W'a6 'W/d7 and Black's position is active enough) 20 0 0 ..id3!, White was losing - 2 1 W'c6 (21 ..id3 ..ixh2+ , 2 1 .!:!. d 1 c6! 22 'WI xc6 .l:tc8) 2 1 0 0 0 ..ixfl 22 'itxfl l:t b 1 + etc.

30 Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . i..e7

In the game we are following Timman played a new move, answering 1 4 . . . tt:Jxc3 by taking the other knight - 1 5 ab. However, before we move on, we should note that a half-move earlier an important novelty for Black had been adopted in the game Efimenko-Vzdvizhkov (correspondence tournament 1 989). In the diagram position followed 14 . . . tt:Jd2!?. After 1 5 ..txd2 ..tc2 1 6 ..txf7 + l:t xf7 1 7 'jj'e6 ..tf5 1 8 'jj'b3 ( 1 8 'jj'e5 .d6) 18 . . . ..tc2 1 9 'jj'e6 the game was agreed drawn -- neither player could avoid repeating moves.

Evaluation of 1 4 . . . tt:ld2 of course, depends on the variation 1 5 tt:Jxd2 ..tc2 1 6 ab ..txb3 1 7 tt:Jxb3 ab 1 8 tt:Jd5. The sides are approximately equal on material, but I would prefer to play with the three minor pieces against the queen. If you don't like the white position, it is clear that 1 2 a3 or 1 2 l:t c 1 should be preferred to placing the queen on b3 (see the next game).

14 tt:Jxe3 15 a b (24) 1 5 b5 1 6 ba!

Not so clear is 1 6 ..txf7+ l:t xf7 1 7 be a4, but the continuation 1 6 be be 1 7 'jj'xc4 ..ie6 1 8 ..-b5 ab 19 l:t xa8 'jj'xa8 20 cb ..td5 is in Black's favour.

24 B

1 6 be 1 7 'jj'xe3 ..td3 18 l:tfe1

Now White has material superiority and in the long term can march the a-pawn. Hjartarson offers desperate resistance.

1 8 l:t b8 19 ..td2 e5 20 de ..tf6

Insufficient is 20 . . . ..t xc5 2 1 'jj'e5 ! l:t b 5 2 2 ..te3 (22 'jj'g3? l:t xb2 23 ..tc3? .xf2+ !) 22 . . . l:t e8 23 'jj'xe8 + ! 'jj'xe8 24 ..txc5 'jj'a8 25 ..id4 with the threat of ..ic3.

2 1 tt:Je5 'jj'd5 22 ..tf4!

Premature is 22 b4? cb 23 'jj'xd3 'jj'xd3 24 tt:Jxd3 ..ixa 1 25 l:t xa 1 l:t bd8, and Black is winning.

22 l:tfe8 (25) Neither 22 . . . l:t b3 23 ..-d2 l:t fb8

24 a6 l:t xb2 25 a7! nor 22 . . . 'jj'xc5 23 tt:Jxd3 work, but more practical chances were retained by 22 . . . g5, creating an opening for the king. In fact, it seems that Black doesn't

Main Line with 6 . . . ttJc6 and 7 . . . iLe 7 3 I

:!5 w

stand so badly now. 23 b4!!

A brilliant reply! Three passed pawns are too much.

23 24 25 26 27

Wxd3 tt:lxd3 J::txal tt:lxb2!

cb Wxd3 ..txal b2

But not 27 n bl n b3 28 tt:lxb2 (28 tt:le5? n a3) 28 . . . n xb2.

27 J::txb2 28 h3 J::tc2 29 a6! g5

29 . . . J::t xc5 doesn't help : 30 a7 J::t a8 (30 ". J::t cc8 31 n bl J::t a8 32 J::t b8 etc.) 31 J::t b l J::t cc8 32 J::t b8 g5 (32 . . . wf8 33 wh2!) 33 ..td6 (it's too early for 33 J::t xc8 + J::t xc8 34 b8 .!:t e l + 35 wh2 .!:t a l ) 33

g7 34 wh2. 30 ..td6 J::ta8 31 a7 f5 32 na6 wf7 33 c6 we6 34 ..tb8 (26) 1 -0

The final position is worth sav-

26 B

ouring. After 34 . . . >td5 35 c7 transferring the white rook to the eighth rank decides, and if 34 . . . h5 there follows 35 c7 + d7 36 J::t g6 c8 37 J::t xg5.

Game No. 6 Hiibner-Tim man

Sarajevo 1990 1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lf6 3 tt:lxe5 d6 4 tt:lf3 tt:lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 ..td3 tt:lc6 7 0-0 ..te7 8 c4 tt:lb4 9 ..te2 0-0

1 0 tt:lc3 ..te6 1 1 ..te3 ..tf5 1 2 .!:tel (27)

The moves 1 2 a3 and 1 2 Wb3 have already been covered. Notice that the Dutch grandmaster willingly chooses the Petroff with either colour. However, if in the previous game he played beauti-

32 Main Line with 6 . . . tuc6 and 7 . . . i..e 7

27 B

fully with White, now matters don't turn out so well with Black - in this encounter Timman struggled to draw.

1 2 de The move 1 2 :t e l was first

played by Short, again against Timman (Hilversum (6) 1 989). In i t the tactical skirmish after 12 . . . tuxc3 1 3 be tuxa2 1 4 l:t c2 xc2 1 5 'W xc2 tuxc3 1 6 'Wxc3 c6 1 7 l:t b l a 5 1 8 l:t xb7 a4 1 9 tue5 d6 20 tuxc6 'W c8 2 1 l:t b6 brought some advantage to White. After inaccuracies on both sides it eventually ended in a draw. In any case, Timman prepares for complications by postponing the exchange on c3 for a few moves.

13 xe4 e6 14 tZ:leS

Nothing is gained from 1 4 'Wb3?! with pressure on f7. Hubner gives the variation 14 . . . b5 1 5 xf7 + ( 1 5 e2 e6 1 6 'W d l tt:Jxc3 1 7 be tt:Jxa2 1 8 l:t c2 b4!) 1 5 . . . l:t xf7 1 6 tt:Je5 tt:Jd5 1 7 tt:Jxe4

xe4 1 8 tt:Jxf7 .txf7 19 l:t xc6 .tg8 with advantage to Black.

14 tt:Jxe3 1 S be tt:JdS 16 'Wf3

White's pieces are more active, but Black is gradually managing to consolidate.

1 6 e6 17 d3

If 1 7 l:t fe l, 1 7 . . . tt:Jxe3 18 l:t xe3 xc4 equalises immediately.

17 d6 Exchanging on e3 is to White's

ad vantage - 1 7 . . . tt:Jxe3 1 8 fe d6 1 9 tt:Jc4 c7 20 e4.

18 d2 'Wh4!? Decisive measures are needed

to reduce White's queenside pressure : 1 8 . . . xe5 1 9 de tt:Je7 20 g5!

19 l:tfe1 tt:Jf6 20 a4 tt:Jg4

With exchanges Black makes things easier for his pieces (20 . . . d5 2 1 'Wg3 'Wxg3 22 hg with better prospects for White).

21 f4 tZ:lxeS 22 xeS dS 23 'WfS xeS

White gets a slightly better ending from 23 . . . l:t ad8 24 l:te3 g6 25 'Wf6 'Wxf6 26 xf6 f4 27 xd8 l:t xd8 28 l:t b l xe3 29 fe b6.

24 l:t xeS g6 The retreat 24 e6 covers

the invasion squares to the eighth

Main Line with 6 . . . ti:Jc6 and 7 . . . 1t..e 7 33

rank, although after 25 'ilt'f3 g6 26 J:tb l nab8 27 J:t a5 a6 28 J:t e5 White has the freer game.

25 'i!t"d7 nabS 26 n b1 n fdS?!

And now 26 .te6 27 'ilt' c7 J:tfc8 28 'ilt'a5 a6 deserves attention, driving the persistent queen away from the black camp.

28 w

27 'ilt'c7 'ilt'g4 28 .tfl 'i!t"d7 29 J:t e7 'ilt'xc7 30 J:t xc7 a5 (28)

An important moment. After the obvious 3 1 n bxb7 J:t xb7 32 J:txb7 c5 33 J:l: b6 (33 J:l: b5 cd 34 cd ..tc6 35 J:l: xa5 J:t xd4) 33 . . . cd 34 cd, there follows 34 . . . ..te4! 35 J:l: b5 J:t xd4 36 J:l: xa5 .,tc6 and with the a-pawn the last chance disappears.

31 J:t b6? A fatal delay, letting go of the

nrebird. Meanwhile, the inclusion of the k ing in the hunt - 3 1 f3! b6 32 wf2 wg7 33 ..td3! h5 34 c4 ..te6 35 e3 J:t e8 36 wd2

J:t bd8 37 w c3 c5 (or 37 . . . .tf5 38 J:l: xc6 J:t e3 39 J:t d l ) 38 d5 .tf5 39 .txf5 gf 40 J:l: xb6 - brings the long-awaited prize (this game took place in the Candidates match, and had Hubner won the scores would have been levelled).

31 J:l: e8 Now if 32 f3 the rook can acti-

vate itself: 32 . . . J:t e 1 33 ..tf2 J:l: c l . 32 c4 .te6 33 J:l: bxb7 J:l: xb7 34 J:t xb7 J:t d8 35 d5

There is no danger for Black in 35 J:l: c7 J:!:xd4 36 J:l: xc6 J:!:d l .

35 cd 36 c5 J:t c8 37 J:!:b5 d4 38 ..td3 . .t5 39 xf5 gf 40 wfl J:t e8 41 c6

The continuation 4 1 J:l: xa5 d3 42 J:t b5 J:t e4 ! 43 a5 d2 44 J:t b l J:l: a4 immediately forces a draw.

41 d3 42 J:t d5 J:l: c8 43 J:!:xd3 J:l: xc6 44 J:t d5 J:t c4! 45 J:l: xa5 wg7 46 J:t a8 J:t b4 47 a5 J:t a4 48 a6

The king's 'dance' in front of his own pawns doesn't promise much : 48 we2 J:l: a2+ 49 wf3 J:t a3+ 50 ..tf4 J:t a2 5 1 g3 J:t a3+ .

34 Main Line with 6 ... Ci"Jc6 and 7 . . . Ji.e7

48 .!:l:a2 49 g3 h6 50 h4

And if 50 g2 .!:l:a3 5 1 h4 h7 the king is unable to escape his incarceration.

50 f4 51 gf .!:l:a4 52 a7 .!:l:a2 53 g2

The king moves out, but the result of the game is already deter-mined.

53 .!:l:a3 54 f3 .!:l:a2+ 55 g3 .!:l:a3 56 f2 .!:l:a2+ 57 e3 .!:l:a4 58 d3 .!:l:a3 + 59 c4 .!:l:a l 60 d4 .!:l:a5 61 c4 1 1 r2

Game No. 7 Karpov-Seirawan

Br ussels 1986

e4 e5 2 li:lf3 li:lf6 3 li:lxe5 d6 4 li:lf3 li:lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 d3 e7 7 0-0 li:lc6 8 c4 li:lb4 9 e2 e6

1 0 li:lc3 0-0 1 1 e3

In the same tournament in Brussels Ljubojevic somewhat crudely played I I cd against Seirawan. After I I . . . li:lxc3 I 2 be 8xd5 13 '1Wc2 ( 1 3 d2 li:lb6 leads to equality) 1 3 . . . c5 14 c4 li:lb4 15 "t\t'e4 'llt'd7 1 6 de? .t5 1 7 '1Wd4 'l!!t'e6 I 8 b2 f6 19 'tWd2 xb2 20 'Wit' xb2 li:lc2 Black had the ad vantage, which he converted into a full point. When the game finished, the opinion was put forward that 16 J.. b2 was a better chance for White.

:!9 w

1 1 f5!? (29)

A curious idea : thanks to the energetic movement of the f-pawn. Black obtains active counterplay on the kingside. Let us remind ourselves that the other main possibilities are - I I . . . };JS (games 4-6), I I . . . f6 (game 9) and I I . . . li:lxc3 (note to game 4). In the game A. Sokolov-Smys)ov. Moscow I 987, yet another continuation was encountered -- II . . . li:lf6, but this knight retreat can

Main Line with 6 . . . CZlc6 and 7 . . . .1u 7 35

hardly be recommended. There followed 1 2 a3 CZlc6 1 3 b3 tt'le4. Exchanging on c3 when the white pawn is on b2 is not favourable for Black as it strengthens the opponent's centre, but now, when the b-pawn has moved one square forward and the be capture is not possible, the black knight returns to e4 to attack c3. However, White takes the knight himself and the loss of two tempi does Black no favours at all : 14 tt'lxe4 de 1 5 d5 ef 1 6 xf3 d7 1 7 de xc6 1 8 .xc6 be 1 9 '!Wf3 '!Wd3 20 ab l '!Wg6 2 1 a4 a5 22 f4 d6 23 i.xd6 "i!Wxd6 24 bd I '!Wb4 25 J:I d7 ab8 2 6 xc7 W'xb3 27 'l!Hxc6. Although Smyslov saved himself in the ending, hardly anyone would want to repeat his opening experiment with Black .

1 2 a3 tt'lxe3 1 3 be tt'le6 14 ..Wa4

We shall look at 14 cd in the next game.

14 f4 15 .d2

It was later established that it is better for the bishop to return home: 1 5 cl ! h8 1 6 b l b8 1 7 e l ! (now 1 7 . . . de 1 8 t>h8 b8 de g4

An important moment. Looking ahead, one should note that after 1 9 . . . kd6 20 h3 h5 the white rook carried out an unusual manoeuvre : 2 1 b5! .lte8 22 '!Wc2 a6 23 f5 ! . There took place an exchange of rooks, the light squares in the enemy camp were noticeably weakened, and in the end I made use of this situation.

Shortly afterwards Seirawan found a way to improve Black's play , and the relevant game is worth giving in full (Rohde-Seirawan, USA Ch 1 986). In the diagrammed position Black replied 19 . . . a6!

Not a complicated move, but now it is clear that the b5-square is not available to the white rook, which is not insignificant.

36 Main Line with 6 . . . tt:Jc6 and 7

20 h3 .fl.h5 21 li:Jg5' Meeting the unexpected, White

becomes lost. After 21 J:! bdl (also interesting is 2 1 li:Jh2) he still has the initiative. 21 . . . .fl.xe21

Significantly stronger than 21 . . . ..bg5 22 . .bh5 f3 23 . .bg5 'l!fxg5 24 .. bf3! J:! xf3 (24 . . . li:Jxd4 25 'l!fxd4 J:! xf3 26 J:!xb7 J:! bf8 27 J:! xc7 J:! xh3 28 'l!fd6 J:!g8 29 'l!fe6 with the terrible threat of 'l!fxg8+) 25 'l!fxc6! and White has a clear advantage. 22 li:Je6 'llld5 23 J:!xe2 f3'

By sacrificing the exchange Black creates dangerous threats. 24 J:!ee1 fg' 25 ii:Jxf8 J:!xf8 26 'llld1 '111/5'

Black already has a won game, but it is interesting to watch the game to the end. 27 wxg2 'lllxf2+ 28 wh1 l:!/3

In order to avoid mate White must give up a piece. 29 J:!e3 J:!xe3 30 .fl.xe3 'lllxe3 31 'lllg4 g61 32 l:!/1

Of no help is 32 'l!fc8+ wg7 33 J:!xb7 .fl.d6 34 J:!xc7+ .fl.xc7 35 'l!fxc7+ li:Je7. 32 . . .

Main Line with 6 . . . ttJc6 and 7 . . . e7 3 7

J4 'l>Wxg6 8e7 White has lost most

of his advantage. 33 lLld8 34 'l\fe4 '1We7 35 lLlg6+ il.xg6 36 'lWxg6 e6

Strategically Black's position is hopeless. However, he has managed to organise stubborn resistance and the game lasted another 40 moves - enough for a whole game!

37 b3 b5 38 .t>fl 'lWf8 39 e2 .t>g8 40 b3+ .t>h8 41 h4 lLlb7 42 e4 'lWg8 (31)

31 w

43 'lWd3 This retreat did not affect the

result, but because of it the whole evening was wasted finishing the game. After 43 c2! with the t : lrcat of ..tc3 d5 and '!Wxh6 mate it Would hav been finished much quicker.

43 'ii'h7

44 .t>e2 g5 45 e5

It would have been better to exchange queens at once.

45 il.e7 46 ab ab 47 h5 .ta5 48 cl

And here 48 'l\fxh7 + was correct with an easily won ending. For victory it was now necessary to create a small study.

48 'l\fe7+ 49 .t>dl

After 49 .t>f3 g4+ ! Black can already count on victory : 50 .t>xg4 'lWg5 + 51 .t>f3 (5 1 .t>h3 'lWxh5 mate) 5 1 0 0 . 'lWxh5 + 52 g4 (52 .t>e4 W'g6+, 52 .t>xf4 'l\fg5 +) 52 0 0 0 'lW h 1 + .

49 50 .t>e2 51 .t>bl 52 53

'ii'xg3 .t>e2

'lWei + 'lWxf2+ 'lWg3 fg

At last the queens are exchanged; Black, it is true, has an extra pawn, but the minorpiece ending holds no prospects for him.

53 54 d5 55 .tb2+ 56 de 57 .ta3+ 58 e6!

g7 lUxeS .t>f8 lLla6 e8

An elegant way of cut ting off the king from the pawn.

38 Main Linc with 6 . . . 'Llc6 and 7 . . . Ju7

58 b4 Of course, not 58 . . . li:lb4+ 59

xb4 xb4 60 c7. 59 b2 f8 60 d7+ wds 61 e5 li:lb4+ 62 wd2 li:ld5 63 e6 li:lc7 64 f7 li:le8 (32)

The last chance rested in 64 . . . li:la6. Now follows the study I promised.

32 w

65 xe8! wxe8 66 f6!

The other white bishop cuts the king off from the pawn. After 66 c7 cS! Black ts still holding on.

66 67 wc3 68 g7 69 wb4 70 wxb5 7 1 wc5 n wd5 73 f8

g4 d6 f4 wd8 wc7 e3+ f4

73 >t;>b6 74 d6 g5 75 xg3 1 -0

Game No. 8 Hiibner-Yusupov Rotterdam 1988

1 e4 e5 2 li:lf3 li:lf6 3 li:lxe5 d6 4 li:lf3 li:lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 d3 li:lc6 7 0-0 e7 8 c4 li:lb4 9 e2 0-0

10 li:lc3 The Petroff is one of grand

master Artur Yusupov's favourite openings, and he achieves good results with it, often with great artistry. Three months later in the World Cup in Rotterdam, Nunn played a new move in this position against Yusupov - I 0 li:le5?! The knight's sudden attack caused Black no harm - 10 . . . cS I I e3 fS 1 2 a3 li:lc6 I 3 li:lxc6 be 14 cd cd 1 5 de xeS 1 6 xeS li:lxcS 1 7 li:ld2 d4. Black's position is already preferable, i t's true, but after ten more moves it all ended peacefully : 1 8 .:t e l J:t c8 1 9 0b3 li:lxb3 20 J:t xc8 'ilt' xc8 21 'iit' xb3 c2 22 tt'f3 ..Wb8 23 b4 J:tc8 24 a6 J:t c3 25 ..W dS J:t xa3 26 e4

Black is in complete zugzwang. g6 27 ..W xd4 ..W b6 1 - 1 .

Main Line with 6 _ _ _ lt:lc6 and 7 . _ _ Ji..e7 39

10 e6 1 1 e3 f5 12 a3

If 12 cd tUxd5 13 tUxe4 fe 14 cud2 cuxe3 1 S fe g5 and Black has everything in order, but White can play the stronger 1 3 tUxd5 xd5 14 Sl.f4 c6 ( 33) , obtaining a minimal positional advantage.

33 w

In fact, in the game DvoirisSorokin, Chelyabinsk 1 990, this advantage was quickly increased : 1 5 1Le5 b6 (here the queen is out of the action; another manoeuvre, d8--e8--g6, deserved attention) 1 6 c2 l:l: ad8 17 b3 a5 1 8 c4 tUd6 19 tUd2 1Llf7 20 .IH4 f6 2 1 l:l: ae1 xd4 22 xf5 c3 23 c2 tUd6 24 .hd6 l:l: xd6 25 tUe4 xe 1 26

40 Main Line with 6 . . . !Uc6 and 7 . . . .i.e7

After 16 .. bd6 'l!l' xd6 17 lild2 White obtained the slightly better ending, finally ending in a draw. It is instructive to see how this happened: 17 . . . l!ae8 1 8 . .H3 b6 19 'l!l' a4 lila5 20 l! fe I .i.c6 21 .i.xc6 'l!l'xc6 22 'l!l'xc6 lilxc6 23 lilc4 g5 24 f3 l!e7 25 q,f2 l!fe8 26 lile3 l! f8 27 h4 gh 28 l! h I f4 29 1ild5 l!d7 30 lilb4 1ile7 3 l l!xh4 c5 32 lilc2 lilg6 33 l! h5 cd 34 cd l!c8 35 l!a2 l!dc7 36 lilb4 a5 37 lild5 l!c2+ 38 l! xc2 l! xc2+ 39

Main Line with 6 . . . lt:\c6 and 7 . . . i.e7 41

t-t After 22 gf d6! White's extra

pawn has no significance.

Game No. 9 Ljubojevic-Karpov

Bugo jno 1986

1 e4 2 tt:Jf3 3 lUxeS 4 tt:Jf3 5 d4

eS tt:Jf6 d6 tt:Jxe4

In Informator 44 in the commentary to one of the games, reference is made to M iles-Christiansen (San Francisco 1 987), which went 5 tt:Jc3 f5 6 tt:Jxe4 xe4 7 d3 i.g6 with a quick draw. The bishop move to f5 is noted as a novelty. As is related in the magazine Chess Life, Miles and Christiansen it seems, had agreed a draw beforehand and therefore it wasn't worth taking their moves seriously. Viswanathan Anand fel l into the 'trap' - several months after Jnformator appeared (at Biel 1988) he tried the 'reliable' move 5 . . . f5 and after Zapata's obvious reply 6 'tlr'e2! he had to resign (6 . We7 7 tt:Jd5!). This is possibly the quickest grandmaster defeat in history! The incident will no doubt be added to the treasure trove of opening curiosities.

5 dS 6 d3 e7

7 0-0 8 c4 9 e2

tt:Jc6 tt:Jb4

After game 4 1 of my match with Kasparov, it seemed that no one would want to play this position as Black in future. But, as you see, theory quickly develops and possible antidotes appear for Black. Eventually, I myself decided to play the variation as Black.

35 w

9 1 0 tt:Jc3 1 1 e3

0-0 e6 f6 (35)

This was first seen in another game by the Yugoslav grandmaster, Ljubojevic-Christiansen (Linares 1 985 ). After 1 2 .!:!: c 1 c5 1 3 a3 cd 1 4 tt:Jxd4 xd4 1 5 xd4 tt:Jxc3 1 6 .!:!: xc3 tt:Jc6 1 7 cd lLl xd4 1 8 de fe (less dangerous is 1 8 . . . tt:Jxe6, when White has only a minimal advantage) 1 9 d3 .!:!: f7 20 Wd2 ..Wf6 2 1 .!:!: fc 1 White obtained a clear advantage.

In the game we are following

42 Main Line with 6 . . . 0.c6 and 7 . . . e7

Ljubojevic decided to take on e4. Other paths are completely safe for Black : 1 2 cd 1Llxc3 1 3 be 1Llxd5 and Black is simply better; 12 a3 lbxc3 1 3 be 1Dc6 14 cd xd5 with an equal game.

12 lt:lxe4 de 13 Del e6 14 b3 e7 IS a3 1Da6 16 lt:le2 l:Hd8

Possibly better is 1 6 . . . "*d7 1 7 .iHd l 1Llc7, preparing . . . b7-b5.

17 l:Hd l J:t ae8 18 a4 eS!

Not allowing 1 9 b4 with queenside pressure.

19 J:t ae l ! After 19 d5 d7 20 "* b 3 "*d6

followed by . . . e5 Black's position would have fully su ited me. Now White, having over-protected the c4-pawn, renews the threat of b4.

19 ed 20 lt:lxd4 ILleS ( 36)

Sacrificing a pawn, I get some play. Irrespective of what happens now, the opening moves have been in White's favour.

21 xa7 lt:ld3 Insufficient is 2 1 . . . xd4 22

n xd4 n xd4 23 xd4 1Lld3 24 .i:t c2 with advantage to White.

22 xd3 After 22 1Llxe6 "* xe6 23 .i:t c2 (23

Sl.xd3 ed 24 \i'xb7 J:t b8 with an equal game) 23 . . . b5! Black has enough counter-chances.

36 w

22 .,ixd4 23 .,ixd4 ed 24 J:t xd3 J:t xe4

Bad is 24 . . . .i:t a8 because of 25 "*b6 J:t a6 26 \i' b3 J:t ad6 27 'i!Vc3.

2S n xe4 .,ixe4 26 J:t e3 d6

Maybe it was worth playing 26 . . . d7 with the idea of 27 h3 f6 28 "*c5 il.e6 followed by . . . J:t e8 and . . . f7.

27 h3 f6 28 eS

Another possibility was 28 -.b6 .dl + 29 .t;h2 \i'd6+ 30 J:t g3 .i:t b8.

28 xeS 28 . . . "* xd4 fails because of 29

J:te8 + .t;f7 30 "*e7+ . 2 9 .-beS bS 30 il.b4

30 b3 il.f7 3 1 a4 .i:t d 1 + 32 .t;h2 ba 3 3 ba J:t a l 34 a3 J:t a2 would lead to a draw.

30 hS 31 J:t e7?

For the whole game White had had pressure on the enemy pos-

Main Line with 6 . . . tUc6 and 7 . . . Ji..e7 43

i t ion a-sd even now could keep the be tter chances : 3 I wh2 l:td7 32 h4 with the threat of '.tg3, f3 and

44 Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . fi.e7

38 w

10 't1Yxd3 't1Yxd5 (38)

This position has been known for at least twenty years, so there is no point in going into very much detail. We, of course, are interested in the most up-to-date material.

1 1 .!:!el .H5 Before reproducing Belyavsky's

move on the board, let us remember that in recent years White has in this position almost exclusively chosen 1 2 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 1 3 't1Yxc3. Here are two important examples of these theme.

(a) H i.ibner-Smyslov, Velden (m) 1 983 : 1 3 . . . e6 (The move 1 3 . . . c6 ( 39) suggests itself, but has long been disproved because of a most effective response.

14 it..h6! ! .!:! g8 { 1 4 . . . gh 1 5 .!:! e5 't1Yd7 1 6 Y ae l e6 1 7 d5 ! cd 1 8 .!:! xe6 fe 1 9 't1Yxh8 + f8 20 't1Yf6 etc.; 1 4 . . . . e4 1 5 xg7 .!:! g8 1 6 .!:! xe4! 't1Yxe4 1 7 .!:! e l 't\Yxe l + 1 8 't\Yxe l .!:! xg7 1 9 't1Ye5 } 1 5 .!:! e5 't1Yd7 1 6 .!:! ae l e6 17 tt:lg5! 0-0-0 1 8 tt:lxf7!, and White won in BrowneBisguier, USA Ch 1 974) 1 4 't\Yxc7

39 w

d6 1 5 "ifc2 0-0 1 6 d2 f5 ! (also good is 1 6 . . . 't1Yh5 17 h3 d5 18 't1Yd3 f6) 17 't1Yb3 't1Yxb3 1 8 ab f6 1 9 c3 wf7. White's extra pawn is not felt, especially as Black has two active bishops. The game ended in a draw.

(b) Van der Wiei-Short, Biel 1 985 : 1 3 . . . e6 14 .!:!e5 (perhaps this is better than taking on c7, but neither is it very dangerous for Black) 14 . . . 't1Yc6 (Black also has a strong position after 14 . . . 't1Yd7 1 5 g5 f6 1 6 .!:! e3 fg 1 7 .!:! ae 1 0-0 1 8 .!:! xe6 f6) 1 5 't\Ye l (if 1 5 't1Y xc6+ be the slight weakness of Black's pawn chain is compensated by the two bishops) 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 il..g5 xg5 1 7 .!:! xg5 d5 1 8 tt:le5 't1Yb6 ( 1 8 . . . 't1Y h6 1 9 .!:!g3 f6 i s also acceptable) 1 9 .!:! xg7 .!:! hg8 20 .!:! g3 't1Yxb2 (was it no better to take the d4 pawn?!) 2 1 .!:!d 1 .!:! xg3 22 hg xa2? (After 22 . . . .!:!e8 Black shouldn't lose. By grabbing the a2-pawn he virtually excludes his bishop from the game, and White's threats rapidly

Main Line with 6 . . . li:Jc6 and 7 . . ft..e 7 45

become extremely dangerous. In principle, we could place a full stop here, but the finish is worth savouring, so it's worth showing it to the end. 23 W"a5 'it> b8 24 tt:ld3 w-b3 25 J:t c 1 b6 26 W"e5 J:t c8 27 tt:lf4 W"b2 28 J:t c6 wb7 29 h2 W"xf2 30 tt:ld3 W"d2 3 1 W"e4 b8 (more stubborn than the immediate 31 . . . J:t d8) 32 tt:le5 J:t d8 33 ttJd7+! 'it>c8 (40) .

40 w

34 J:td6!! . The death blow : 34 . . . J:txd7 35 W"a8 mate; or 34 . . . cd 35 W"c6 mate.

White won this game beautifully, but not, of course, as a result of the opening. Now in our free narrative it's time to return to the main game.

12 tt:le5!? ( 41) The knight thrust has been well

known in theory for a long time, though the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings only gives it a few lines. After 1 2 . . . f6 Paul Keres' recommendation is given - 1 3 W"f3 'with a slightly better position for White' (and in brackets it is stated that if

41 B

1 2 . . . h4? 1 3 g3 tt:lxg3 the move 14 't!ff3 decides the game, Zuidema-Barendregt, Amsterdam 1 966). However, the move 1 2 . . . f6 deserves closer investigation. In fact after 12 . . . f6 13 "1Wf3 Black replies 1 3 . . . g6! and when the knight on e5 retreats he has no particular problems, but in the variation 14 g4 fe 1 5 gf gf things are pretty bad for White ( 1 6 W"xf5 J:t g8+ 1 7 wfl 't!fc4+).

What should one do against 1 2 . . . f6? I n the game MakropoulosToth, Budva 1 9 8 1 , there followed 1 3 tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 14 'it" xf5 tt:lb5 1 5 W" h 5+ g6 1 6 W"h3 fe 1 7 J:t xe5 W" xd4 1 8 't!fe6 't!fd 1 + 19 J:t e 1 W"d7 20 g5 with equal chances.

A novelty was introduced in the game de Firmian- Plaskett, Copenhagen 1 985: 1 5 'it" g4!?. After 1 5 . . . tt:lxd4 1 6 tt:ld3 Black went after the exchange -- 1 6 . . . tt:lc2? - and fell into a mating attack : 1 7 tt:lb4! tt:lxb4 1 8 W" xb4 c5 1 9 't!fg4 wf7 20 h6! gh (20 . . . J:t hg8 2 1 J:t ad 1 gh 22 W"xg8+)

46 Main Line with 6 . . . liJc6 and 7 . . . ..tel

21 l:tadl h5 (21 . . . 1!fc622 l:txe7+! wxe7 23 1!fg7+ we6 24 l:tel + with utter destruction) 22 1!fe2 1!ff5 23 1!fxe7+ wg6 24 J:td7 h4 25 h3 l:t ag8 26 l:te4 wh5 27 1!ff7+ l!g6 28 l:t d5 and Black resigned.

Commenting on the game in Informator, de Firmian suggested 16 . . . wf7 17 l:txe7+ wxe7 18 1!1'xg7 + with an unclear game. But it turned out that this position is extremely clear! A game between the young masters Ulybin and Serper (Sochi 1986) continued only another seven moves: 18 . . . 1!ff7 1 9 1!fg4 l:tad8 20 b3 1!fg6 2 1 1!fxg6 hg 22 -".a3+ wf7 23 lilel l:t h5 24 b2 lile6 25 lilf3 l:t hd5 and White resigned.

So, the sacrifice 17 lhe7 is unsound and, possibly, the whole variation is safe for Black. It could possibly be concluded that in response to 12 lile5 the move 12 . . . f6 is fully sufficient for equality. So what was Belyavsky thinking of when he put his knight on e5, and what did Smyslov fear when he avoided 12 . . . f6!? We shall probably find out in the future.

12 g6 It should be pointed out that

there is not a big choice here. According to Arkhipov, 12 . . . 0-0-0 is insufficient, because of 13 1!ff3 ( 13 lilc3? 1!fxe5) 13 . . . g6 14 g4 -".h4 15 lilc3 (in Black's favour is 15 lild3 lilxf2 16 1!fxd5 lilh3+ 17 wg2 l:txd5 18 gf kxel 19

lilxel l:te8) 15 . . . lilxc3 1 6 be ke6 17 1!fxd5 l:txd5 18 g5 with advantage to White. Also after 12 . . . lild6 13 lilc3! 1!fa5 ( 13 . . . 1!fxe5 14 de kxd3 15 ed cd 16 lild5) 14 1!fe3 (or 14 1!ff3) Black comes under a powerful bind.

Judging by the quick cessation of hostilities in the game, one can conclude that Smyslov's . . . g7-g6 novelty was a success. However. before achieving the draw, Black had to overcome a few hurdles, so moving the neighbouring pawn is nevertheless more reliable.

13 1!ff3 An important moment. 13 g4 is

no good because of 13 . . . lilxf21 But why not 1 3 lilc3? At first sight the inclusion of the moves lJe5 and . . . g6 compared with the games already looked at is in White's favour. Indeed, after 1 3 lilc3 lilxc3 14 1!fxc3 bad is 14 . -".e6 because of 15 .i.h6 0-0-0 16 lilxf7! xf7 17 l:t xe7 with an extra pawn and a better position. 14 . . . c6 loses to 15 lilc4! with the threat of 16 lile3 and 17 d5. However, correct is 14 . . . 0-0-0 with a good game for Black, since 15 lilxg6 is ruled out because of 15 . . . hg 16 l:t xe7 1!fd6! with an attack on both the rook and the h2-pawn.

It appears that after the queen manoeuvre chosen by Belyavsky, White's initiative is very dangerous. But Smyslov calmly takes the

Main Line with 6 . . . li'lc6 and 7 . . . .1t.e7 47

pawn. 1 3 'it'xd4 14 tt:Jc3 'it'xe5

Black continues to pick up anything that comes to hand. The material will soon be won back, but meanwhile the board is being completely cleared.

15 ..tf4 If 1 5 tt:Jxe4 Black manages to

slip away with 1 5 . . . 0-0. 15 'it'a5 16 b4 (42)

After 1 6 tt:Jxe4 there i s again time for 16 . . . 0-0 - 1 7 tt:Jg3 .lte6. Belyavsky had probably calculated the b-pawn thrust when he played 1 3 'llr'f3. If now 16 . . . 'l/ixb4 ( 1 6 . . . 'l/ib6), then 1 7 tt:Jd5! decides. This knight leap also follows the queen's retreat to a6. The variations that arise then are worthy of our attention : 1 6 . . . 1!Va6 1 7 l2:ld5! .ltd8! (there i s n o alternative) 1 8 g4! ( 1 8 .lhe4+ .txe4 1 9 'llr'xe4+ 'l/ie6 20 'llr'd4 0-0 2 1 .lth6 f6 22 ..txf8 ..t>xf8 23 'llr'd2 'it>g7 24 :!:te l 'llr'd7 is in Black's favour). Now Black has three possibilities, but none of them hold good prospects :

(a) 1 8 . . . c6. Closing the queen's route to the e6-square, which White quickly makes use of. 1 9 l:t xe4+ .ltxe4 20 'l/ixe4+ ..t>d7 (20 . . . ..t>f8 2 1 ..th6+ g8 22 'iife8 mate) 21 .l:t d l winning) :

(b) 1 8 . . . .lte6 1 9 'llr'xe4 0-0 20 .ih6 .!:!: e8 (20 . . . .ltxd5 2 1 'l/ixd5 winning the exchange) 2 1 'llr'e5;

(c) 18 . . . 0-0 19 gf gf ( 1 9 tt:Jf6 20 .lth6) 20 ..t> h l with an unstoppable attack.

Nevertheless, Black finds the only, but well-deserved defence.

42 B

1 6 1!Va3! 17 tt:Jd5

Alas, now this move involves exchanging queens, but 17 tt:Jxe4 'l/ixf3 leads to a better ending for Black, as it's hardly worth counting on 1 8 tt:Jf6+ ..t>f8?? 1 9 .th6 mate.

17 18 gf 19 fe

1!Vxf3 ..td8!

It remains for White to be proud that for five moves he carried out an attack a piece down.

1 9 ..te6 20 l2:lxc7+ ..txc7 21 ..txc7 f6 22 a3 .:t:t c8 23 .:t:t acl ..t>f7

1 1 r2 A short skirmish, but you cer-

tainly couldn't call it a grandmaster draw!

2 Main Line with 6 ... 'Llc6 and 7 .. . g4

Game No. I I Kasparov-Karpov

World Championship Match (15) Moscow 1985

I e4 e5 2 li:lf3 li:lf6 3 li:lxe5 d6 4 li:lf3 li:lxe4 5 d4

Sometimes another order of moves is encountered - 5 c4. The main reply was suggested by Makarychev - 5 . . . li:lc6L Now if 6 d4, 6 . . . d5 is good, for example: 7 li:lc3 .il.b4 8 1!fc2 1!fe7 9 .il.e3 .il.g4 10 'l!fcl li:lxc3 I I be .il.a3 12 1!fd2 li:lb4! with a decisive advantage to Black (Kupreichik-Mikhalchishin, Kuibyshev 1986). If 6 li:lc3 Black equalises easily with 6 . . . li:lxc3 7 de .il.f5 8 li:ld4 li:lxd4 9 1!fxd4 1!fe7 + 10 .il.e2 1!fe4 (Chiburdanidze-Agzamov, Frunze 1985). Also after 6 e2 e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 f6! Black's pieces success-

48

fully interact in the centre. Here are two examples from the 1985 international tournament in Frunze:

(a) 9 h3 J:!e8 10 f4 (against 10 li:lc3 Makarychev had prepared 10 . . . li:lxd4! I I li:lxd4 .hd4 12 'i!l'xd4 li:lxc3 13 'lifxc3 J:! xe2) 10 . [5 I I J:! el 'l!l'd7 1 2 li:la3 .il.xh3 13 gh 1!fxh3 14 e3 li:lg3 with an attack for Black (ChiburdanidzeMakarychev);

(b) 9 e3 (9 d5 li:le7 10 d3 .il.f5 I I J:! el li:lc5 and 9 d3 f5 10 J:! el J:!e8 also lead to a good game for Black) 9 . . . J:!e8 10 li:lbd2 [51 I I li:lb3 d5! 12 J:!el de 13 xc4 li:ld6 14 e2 li:lb4 and Black has the advantage (Kupreichik--Makarychev).

5 d5 6 .il.d3 li:lc6 7 0-0 .il.g4 (43)

And so, we move on to look at another contemporary plan in the Petroff, connected with the quick

Main Line with 6 . . . ti'Jc6 and 7 . . . " g4 49

43 w

development of the light-squared bishop on g4 and the blacksquared bishop staying at home for the moment. It would seem that the difference is not great, but nevertheless, at times the game takes on a completely different character. Saving a tempo by omitting . . . J.e7, Black puts serious pressure on the d4-pawn, but at the same time his k ing is stuck in the centre and can be subject to enemy attack. So there are both plusses and minusses for Black in this variation. Curiously, the position in diagram 43 is not even mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings ( 1 98 1 ).

8 c4 tt:lf6 Having retreated the knight to

f6 (and expecting the reply tt:lc3) Black, as we shall see, will exchange on f3 and take the central d4-pawn. But isn't i t possible to take on f3 and then straightaway on d4, that is without retreating the knight beforehand?

The following elegant game shows what can happen.

Psakhis-Martinovsky (Philadelphia 1 989) : 8 . . . Jixf3 9 l'ixf3 tt:lxd4 I 0 "l:\Ye3 tt:lf5 I I "l:\Ye2 tt:ld4 1 2 "!lr'e3 tt:lf5 1 3 h 3 (of course, White is not happy just to repeat moves) 1 3 . . . "!Wd7 14 cd tt:led6 1 5 tt:lc3 0-0-0 1 6 J.f4 tt:le7 1 7 "!Wh5 tt:lg6 1 8 J.g3 wb8 1 9 a4 J.e7 20 a5 J.f6 2 1 tt:la4 ttJ b5 22 l:tfc I "!Wxd5 (44) .

44 w

23 .. bb5! xh5 24 .. bc7+ '01

50 Main Line with 6 . . . tLlc6 and 7 . . . i.g4

K ulomzin, played back in 1 90 1 . White has a definite advantage : 1 2 . . . xc3 1 3 be 0-0 1 4 f4 etc. But 90 years on we play rather differently.

9 cd xd5 1 0 tt:Jc3 tt:Jxc3 I I be 0-0 1 2 J::! e I .. bf3 1 3 ifxf3 if xf3 1 4 gf d6 1 5 il.e3 (45) .

45 B

White has the advantage of the two bishops, which determines the position in his favour. In this game Yusupov continued 1 5 . . . J::! ad8, but several months later against Timman (Belfort 1 988) he played 1 5 . . . tt:Je7. In both games Black got a draw in a long endgame, but not without some difficulty. From then on, when playing the Petroff, Yusupov has no longer chosen this variation.

9 tt:Jc3 Black has created pressure

against the d4-pawn and for the sake of rapid piece development Kasparov decides to give i t up straightaway - an idea which, although not new, is not really

dangerous for Black. See game 1 5 for 9 cd. I t i s clear that after 9 J::! e l + il.e7 we have by transposition Kasparov-Karpov ( I , 28). As you will recall, 10 cd xf3 I I xf3 "Wxd5 1 2 "Wh3 tt:Jxd4 1 3 tt:Jc3 "Wd7 1 4 "Wxd7 + xd7 led to a quick draw. Of course, such an outcome suits Black, and therefore, after 46 minutes thought, Kasparov chose another path, deciding it wasn't worth rushing to give check, better to save i t for the future.

9 xf3 Other continuations can lead to

serious problems : 9 . . . e7 I 0 cd tt:Jxd5 I I e4; 9 . . . tt:Jxd4 1 0 if e 1 + (the check comes i n handy here ! ) 1 0 . . . e7 ( 1 0 . . . tt:Je6 I I tt:Je5) I I tt:Jxd4 de 1 2 tt:Jf5 cd 1 3 tt:Jxg7+ f8 1 4 h6 g8 1 5 f3 with a strong initiative for White.

10 "Wxf3 tt:J xd4 1 1 J::! el +

After this check the game goes off the beaten track, albeit only for one move! The interesting continuations I I e3+ and I I "Wh3 will be looked at later on (games 1 2- 14).

1 1 e7 (46) 1 2 "Wdl!?

In the game Lobron-Karpov, Hannover 1 983, there followed 1 2 "Wg3 de 1 3 xc4 ( 1 3 "Wxg7 loses to 1 3 . . . tt:Jf3+ 14 h i J::! g8 1 5 ifxf6 tt:Jxe l ) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 g5

Main Line with 6 . . . Cilc6 and 7 . . . ..ltg4 51

46 w

d6 ( 1 4 . . . tt:lc2 1 5 .!::txe7!) 1 5 'iit'h4 h6! 1 6 ..ltxf6 'ilt'xf6 1 7 'ilt'xf6 gf 1 8 .!:I e4 c5 1 9 .!:I h4 rbg7 20 tt:le4 ..lte7 2 1 tt:lg3 f5 22 .!:I h3 ..ltd6 23 f4 b5 24 ..ltd3 c4 25 ..ltxf5 .!:Ife8. The pawn is finally surrendered, but Black's positional advantage is vast, and it easily brought victory.

The queen manoeuvre to d 1 unquestionably complicates matters but, as we shall soon see, i t is also not very dangerous for Black.

1 2 tt:le6! In this way Black is able to

simplify the position. If 12 . . . de 1 3 ..ltxc4 0-0 ( 1 3 . . . c5 14 'ilt'a4+) 14 .!:Ixe7 'ilt'xe7 15 'ilfxd4 Black i s on the brink of defeat, and White also has a big advantage after 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 cd, or 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 ..te3 ti:Je6 14 cd tt:lxd5 15 tt:lxd5 'iit'xd5 1 6 'i!t'c2.

13 cd tt:lxd5 14 ..ltb5+ c6 15 tt:lxd5 cb (47)

The position has become clearer. White has a powerful

4 7 w

knight in the centre, Black has an extra, although doubled, pawn. One compensates the other and peace quickly ensues .

16 'iit'b3 1 6 ..ltf4 looks tempting, hinder

ing Black in castling : 1 6 . . . 0-0 ( 1 6 . . . ..ltd6 1 7 ..ltxd6 'iit'xd6 1 8 tt:lf6+

52 Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . .i.g4

ate 1 8 . . . l:Hd8 1 9 ..te3 Wd7 20 Wxd7 l:txd7 2 1 J:t ad l .

19 Wb3 J:t fd8 20 J..e3 ::t ac8

20 . . . b5 leads to equality. 21 J:t ac l h6 22 h3 lLld4

t-t After 23 J..xd4 J:t XC 1 24 J:t XC 1

J:t xd4 the fighting resources of both sides are exhausted.

Game No. 1 2 Kasparov-Karpov

World Championship (6) London 1986

I e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 lLlxe5 d6 4 lLlf3 lLlxe4 5 d4 d5 6 J..d3 lLlc6 7 0-0 J..g4 8 c4 lLlf6 9 lLlc3 ..txf3

1 0 xf3 lLlxd4 1 1 11t'e3 + (48)

Until now we have followed the 1 5th game of our previous match. Now Kasparov brings out a product of home preparation. But the queen check on e3 had been suggested the previous year, so the surprise was for me not completely unexpected.

1 1 1 2 cd

lLle6 lLlxd5

48 B

If 1 2 . . . J..c5 then 1 3 Wf3 lLld4 1 4 J:t e l + f8 1 5 Wf4 lLlxd5 1 6 lLlxd5 Wxd5 1 7 Wxc7 lLle6 1 8 't\l'g3 J:t d8 19 J:t d 1 h5 20 h4 is possible, with advantage to White.

13 lLlxd5 Wxd5 14 J..e4 Wb5 1 5 a4

If 1 5 Wf3? Black replies with 1 5 . . . lLld4.

1 5 Wa6 (49) White has the advantage of the

two bishops and the initiative for his pawn. In order not to lose the b7-pawn, Black has only one move but the black queen finds itself at the edge of the board. In the game Ivanchuk-Serper, Sochi 1 986, which can be considered as the source of Kasparov's idea, Black tried 1 5 . . . Wc5, when 1 6 xb7 J:t b8 1 7 b4 ! Wb6 ( 1 7 . . . Wxe3 1 8 ..tc6+ we7 19 ..txe3) 1 8 "llfxb6 cb led to a worse ending for Black : 1 9 ..tc6+ '1t;d8 20 J:t d l + wc7 2 1 b5 J:td8 22 .:t xd8 lLlxd8 23 ..td5 lLle6 24 J.. xe6 fe 25 J..f4+.

Main Line with 6 . . . c6 and 7 . . . i..g4 53

By all accounts, the novelty in our game can be considered not the check by the white queen on e3. but the retreat of the black queen to a6.

49 w

16 J:tdl The immediate 1 6 b4 does

nothing - 1 6 . . . .. bb4 1 7 J:t b l i.c5 1 8 W'f3 c6 1 9 J:t xb7 0-0. If 1 6 'Wf3 tt::ld4! 17 W'e3 Kasparov advises Black not to take the exchange - 17 . . . tt:Je2 + 1 8 ;t> h I tt:lg3+ 19 hg W' xfl + 20 ..t>h2 with an unclear game, but recommends 1 7 . . . 0-0-0! with an extra pawn and excellent chances.

16 .il..e7 Many theoreticians have stud

ied this game (Dlugy, Makarychev, Nunn, Timman etc.). but I think that exhaustive analysis is Impossible without a computer.

Interesting variations arise after 1 6 . . . .tc5 1 7 W'f3 c6 1 8 J:td7!? 150) .

The rook sacrifice cannot be accepted : 1 8 . . . '01

54 Main Line with 6 . . . tt:lc6 and 7 . . . i..g4

5 1 B

( 1 9 . . . fS 20 ..txfS tUgS 2 1 Wb3+ c;t>h8 22 J:t d7 etc.) 20 J:t d3 ! hS (20 . . . tUgS 2 1 Wh6 f6 22 .idS + c;t>h8 23 WxgS!) 2 1 WxhS! gh 22 J:t g3 + with mate.

Besides the march forward of the b-pawn, 1 7 Wf3 was later adopted - see the next game.

1 7 0-0 1 8 Wh3

If 18 bS Black has the strong intermediate move 1 8 . . . J:tad8! , which seizes the initiative, and which is also the reply to 1 8 Wf3.

1 8 g6 Bad is 1 8 . . . h6 1 9 WfS g6 20

WeS or 20 Wf3 with threats of ..txb7 and ..txh6.

19 i..b2 Other continuations do not

bring success : 1 9 bS J:t ad8! 20 J:t e I (20 ..th6 J:t xd l + 2 1 J:t xd l Wxa4) 20 . . . Wb6; 1 9 Wc3 tUgS! 20 ..txgS (20 ..tb2 ..tf6!) 20 . . . ..txgS 2 1 'lfll xc7 J:t ad8, and White has only a symbolic advantage. The knight manoeuvre to gS in the second

variation is Black's only defence. In the game Aseev-lvanchuk, Irkutsk 1 986, Black tried to play more sharply - 19 Wc3 cS?! , a nd after 20 ..tb2 4Jd4 2 1 ..td3 Wb6 22 aS Wc7 23 be ..txcS 24 j_fJ J:tfd8 2S J:ta4 came under deadly pressure; 2S . . . J:t ac8 26 J:t axd4 etc.

1 9 Wc4! The queen finally breaks free,

and Black's torment comes to an end. There is nothing in 1 9 . . . tt:lf4 20 We3! We2 (20 . . . ..tgS 2 1 '11th ! ) 2 1 Wd4 f6 2 2 ..tf3 ! . A s before the pawn is untouchable: 1 9 . . . ..txb4 20 J:t d3! with the deadly threat of 2 1 Wxh7+ xh7 22 J:t h3+ .

20 J:td7 White could win back the pawn

with 20 ..txb7, but after 20 . . . J:t ad8 he has nothing. Of course, after the queen went to c4 it was necessary to consider 20 .idS, but Black has an important tempo -20 . . . Wc2, securing at least equali ty : 21 ..teS (2 1 J:tab l J:t ad8) 2 1 . . . J:tad8 2 2 J:t ac l (22 J:t d 3 i..g5 23 J:tad l c6 24 Wxe6 J:t xdS ! ; 22 J:tdc l Wd2! 23 ..txe6 fe 24 Wxe6+ J:tf7) 22 . . . Wxc l ! 23 J:t xc l J:t xd5.

20 J:t ae8! Although this is the only move,

it completely cools White's attacking ardour. As before, the b4-pawn is untouchable: 20 . . . Wxb4 20 . . Wxe4 2 1 Wc3 f6 22 J:t xe7 or 2 1 . . . 4Jd4 22 J:te l ! Wf4 23 J:t xd4 -wf6

Main Line with 6 . . . 1Uc6 and 7 . . . 1Lg4 55

24 .:t xe7 'Wxe7 25 .!:t e4! with a winning position) 2 1 xg6 t2lg5 (2 1 . . . fg 22 'W xe6+ .!:1: f7 23 f6! ne8 24 .!:t e l ) 22 xh7+ ti:lxh7 23 a3! Wh4 24 xe7 'Wxh3 25 gh and 26 .!:t a3.

21 d5 Now White needs to play accur

ately. If 2 1 xb7 Wxb4 22 a3 'i'xa4 23 .!:1: xe7 .!:1: xe7 24 Wc3 c5! 25 .t b2 t2ld4 26 .!:1: xa4 t2le2 + 27 wfl ti:lxc3 28 xc3 .!:t xb7 it 's all over for White.

21 'Wxb4 22 c3

If 22 a3, then 22 . . . Wd4, but not 22 e5 as 22 . . . f6! 23 xf6 t2lf4 is good.

52 w

22 t2lf4! (52)

The roles are now reversed in view of the threats of . . . 'W xc3 and . . . t2le2 + . White's attack has peterred out and after many exchanges Black gets the better ending. Even so, a draw is unavoidable.

23 xb4 t2lxh3+

24 gh xb4 25 .!:t xc7 b6

Possibly more accurate was 25 . . . .!:1: e5 and transfer of the rook to f5 and pressure on f2.

26 .!:t xa7 g7 27 .!:td7 .!:t d8

If 27 . . . .!:te5 White defends with 28 .!:t a2! .!:tf5 29 .!:1: b2 c5 30 J:tc2! (with the threat of a4-a5) 30 . . . .!:t c8 3 1 e6!

28 .!:t xd8 29 .!:td1 30 .!:t d3 31 wn 32 g2 33 wn 34 c4 35 .!:t f3 36

56 Main Line with 6 . . . 4Jc6 and 7 . . . g4

8 c4 tt:Jf6 9 tt:Jc3 ..txf3

10 'iixf3 tt:Jxd4 1 1 'iie3+ tt:Je6 1 2 cd tt:Jxd5 1 3 tt:Jxd5 'iixd5 1 4 ..te4 'iib5 1 5 a4 'iia6 1 6 .:t d 1 ..te7 1 7 'iWf3 (53)

The active move 1 7 b4 gave White nothing in game six of the 1 986 World Championship match. As we have seen, I quickly repelled the attack and even took the initiative. Therefore something new had to be tried. 1 7 'iWf3 was first tried in Timman-Yusupov (Hilversum match 1 986). The game lasted only six more moves : 1 7 . . . .l:td8 1 8 ..td3 ( 1 8 .l:t xd8+ tt:Jxd8 1 9 ..tf4 deserved attention) 1 8 . . . 'iia5 (bad for Black is 1 8 . . . tt:Jd4 1 9 'iig4! {more accurate than 19 'iig3 tt:Je2+ 20 ..txe2 'iixe2 2 1 l:t xrl8+ ..txd8 2 2 ..te3 0-0 23 ..td4} 19 . . . 'iWf6 20 i.e3 tt:Je6 2 1 'iie4 ! ; a s is 1 8 . . . 'iib6 1 9 ..te3 'iixb2 20 .l:t ab 1 'iia3 {20 . . . 'iic3 has to be played} 2 1 'ii xb7 0-0 22 'iie4 g6 23 ..txa7) 19 ..td2 (now 19 'iixb7 unexpectedly loses to 1 9 . . . .!:txd3 ! ) 1 9 . . . ..tb4 20 ..te3 0-0 (if 20 . . . c6 White retains the initiative: 21 'iie4 g6 22 ..tc4 .l:txd l + 23 .l:t xd 1 'iWf5 ! 24 'iWxf5 gf 25 ..txa7

Main Line with 6 . . . lUc6 and 7 . . . fi.g4 57

54 w

J;t 1 ) 2 1 .ta3 xe7 22 b5 tt:Jc5 23 .txh7+ (23 .!:! e 1 g6!) 23 . . 0 wxh7 24 't!t'f5 + (24 't!t' h5 + g8 25 xc5 'i'f6!) 24 . . . g6 25 .txc5 'ilfe2!, and Black gains the upper hand. The bishop is also untouchable in other variations : 20 .td3 c6 2 1 'iWh3 g6 2 2 .!:! xe7 c3! 2 3 .!:! xe6 nxd3; 20 b5 'l!t'a5! 2 1 .td2 .tb4 22 .!:! xd8 .!:! xd8 23 e3 c3.

20 c4 21 .!:! xd8

If 21 .!:! xe7 then the effective 2 1 . . . 't!t'd4! o r 2 1 . . . c3! decide.

21 .!:! xd8 22 e3 xb4 23 ..te4

23 1Lxa7 is bad - 23 . . . c5 24 a5 .if6 or 23 .td5 - 23 . . . .tf6 24 .!:i c 1 xa4 25 xe6 fe 26 g3 .1e5 (lvanchuk).

23 c5 24 1Lxc5

More stubborn was 24 .td5 .txe3 25 .txe6 .txf2+ 26 'ilfxf2 fe 27 xa7 c5 28 .!:!fl d4+ 29 h 1 'ilff4 30 'ilfg1 e3+ 3 1 h 1

h6, although Black i s a healthy pawn up.

24 'ilfxc5 25 h4 d4 26 .!:!e1 'tifxa4

lvanchuk carries out the technical stage simply and convincingly.

27 h5 27 .txh7+ doesn't help - 27

. . . xh7 28 'ilfxf7 .!:! d6! 29 'iff5 + g6 30 'i!ff7+ tt:Jg7.

27 28 'ilff5 29 30 3 1 32 33 34

.!:! xe4 wh2 hg 'ilfg5 'ilff6 .!:i h4

0-1

tt:Jg5 tt:Jxe4 't!t' d 1 + g6 hg .!:i d5 'fi'h5+ 'ilfxh4+!

Game No. 14 Kupreichik-Yusupov

USSR Ch (Minsk) 1987

1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jf3 tt:Jf6 3 tt:Jxe5 d6 4 tt:Jf3 tt:Jxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .td3 tt:Jc6 7 0-0 .tg4 8 c4 tt:Jf6 9 tt:Jc3

So, we return again to the sharp and fascinating variation connected with the pawn sacrifice. This game, played in the 54th Soviet

58 Main Line with 6 . . . Ci:Jc6 and 7 . . . it..g4

Championship, remains an important milestone in the development of this variation.

9 ..txf3 10 ..Wxf3 tt:Jxd4

So that the reader doesn't get confused before we show Kupreichik's novelty, let us remind ourselves of the information we have before this game.

After 1 1 .!:!. e 1 + ..te7 1 2 ..W d 1 w e arrive a t Kasparov-Karpov (2, 1 5) - game 1 1 in this book -which ended in a draw; and after 1 2 g3 de 1 3 .bc4 0-0 1 4 .tg5 ..td6, Lobron-Karpov, Hannover 1 983, Black also didn't encounter any difficulties. The immediate 1 1 g3 is hardly successful, as this is met by 1 1 . . . tt:Je6 and Black can win time thanks to the move . . . il.f8- d6.

Kasparov gave me the surprise 1 1 e3+ in our return match (3, 6) -- game 1 2 in this book -but after 1 1 . . . tt:Je6 1 2 cd Ci:Jxd5 1 3 tt:Jxd5 xd5 14 il.e4 'l!Nb5 1 5 a4 a6 1 6 .!:!. d 1 il.e7 1 7 b4 !? 0-0 1 8 h 3 g6 Black fought off the attack and 'demanded' the draw from a position of strength.

An attempt to strengthen the variation for White was made in Timman-Yusupov (Hilversum match 1 986). Instead of the sudden attack with b2-b4, White played 1 7 'lif3, but after 1 7 . . . .!:!. d8 the game also quickly finished drawn.

However, Black was not l imited to this move, and in Howell-Ivan. chuk, Groningen 1 986/87, Black found a way to fight for the initiative by playing 1 7 . . . .!:!. b8. The pawn is defended and White needs to think about how to win back the material. After the 1 8 b4 thrust, Black took the initiative and gained the upper hand.

So, one can conclude that I I e3+ is not dangerous for Black and neither is 1 1 .!:!. e 1 + . A more decisive try to justify the pawn sacrifice was adopted by Kupreichik against one of the leading specialists in the Petroff.

55 B

1 1 h3! (55)

Curiously, this move had been recommended by Igor Zaitsev and myself. Black has saved a tempo on . . . .U8--e7, and White on .!:!.fl -e l + .

1 1 de Hardly good for Black is 1 1 . .

c6 1 2 .!:!. e 1 + ..te7 1 3 ..tg5 CLJe6 1 4 ..txf6 ..txf6 1 5 cd cd 1 6 .tf5,

Main Line with 6 . . tiJc6 and 7 . . . g4 59

or 1 3 . . . de 1 4 xc6 gf 1 5 xc4 with more than enough compensation for the pawn.

After I I . . . e7 1 2 g5