Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ideas in this
ISBN 0713479868
Abbreviations
ch Championship
ct Candidates tournament
izt Interzonal tournament
zt Zonal tournament
01 Olympiad
corr Correspondence game
Preface
The Accelerated Dragon had lived a life of semi-obscurity for many years,
when Bent Larsen revitalised the black side of the Maroczy Bind with his
impressive perfonnances against Karpov and Short in the 1987 SWIFf
tournament in Brussels. For a while this boosted the popularity of the en-
tire system before new ways were found for White, and slowly the system
faded away once again.
But in recent years, continued use by players such as Tiviakov, Anand,
Altennan, Petursson, Andersson and Larsen has once again brought atten-
tion to Black's chances.
In this book we have tried to cover every variation thoroughly with
plenty of examples, new ideas and explanations to give you, the reader, a
close feel for the typical plans, tactics and strategies in each line. In some
chapters we have particularly emphasised the explanation of typical ideas
and plans, as these should help you if you meet an unfamiliar move or
move order and guide you to a safe position.
The history of the Accelerated Dragon is long - you will find examples
hy Lasker dating back to the last century - but nowadays the theory is de-
veloping so fast that it can be difficult to keep track of the newest moves in
each line. However, we still feel that this book should be a helpful com-
panion for several years to come and will hopefully bring you many points
whether you play the white or black side.
Although both of us have a deep attachment to the black side of this
system, we have tried to be as objective as possible. Sometimes it may still
shine through that we prefer Black, but this probably comes from having a
solid belief in Black's chances. However, this should not keep White play-
ers from trying out our suggestions and recommendations.
Several people have helped us throughout this project. Allan Holst, Ja-
cob Aagaard, Ove Ekebjerg, Stephanie Alexander, Bent Hansen and Uffe
V. Nielsen all deserve to be thanked for their contribution; without them
this project would have taken even longer to finish. Last, but not least, we
would like to thank our publishers, Batsford, for their patience and belief
in the book.
This book is the first either of us have written. It has been a lot of hard
work, involving countless hours at the chessboard and on the computer.
6 Preface
We hope that you, the reader, will find our work useful whether you are
interested in only one chapter or decide to work your way through the
whole book. Should you have any questions, new ideas or criticisms,
please address these to Batsford Chess, so that they can be forwarded to us.
Good luck!
The starting position for the Sicil- The three mainstream options are:
ian Accelerated Dragon occurs a) The 7... ttJg4 system (Chapter
after 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 I), entered via the move-order
4 ttJxd4 g6 5 ... i.g7 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ttJg4.
b) The Classical Maroczy,
5... i.g7 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3, which
is given extensive coverage in
Chapters 3-5.
c) The Gurgenidze Variation
5... ttJf6 6 ttJc3 d6 followed by
...ttJxd4, analysed in Chapter 8.
In addition, two slightly more
offbeat configurations for Black are
the double fianchetto system
(Chapter 2) and the lines with an
early ... ttJh6 (Chapter 6). Mean-
while, White's attempts to avoid
the bulk of Maroczy theory by an
For years, White's most feared early ttJb3 or ttJc2 are covered in
weapon was the Maroczy Bind, Chapter 7.
initiated by 5 c4, and many people Chapters 9-13 give full coverage
seemed to believe this set-up was of the lines where White plays 5
just 'good for. White'. As already ttJc3, avoiding the Maroczy. These
highlighted in the Preface, how- variations have an affinity with the
ever, Black has many resources at Dragon Sicilian, with the key dif-
his disposal nowadays, and can ference that Black has delayed
look forward to a dynamic yet solid moving his d-pawn, so can often
position. Nevertheless, the Ma- play ...d7-d5 in one go.
roczy is still White's most popular Early deviations by Black such
choice, and is covered in the first as the Semi-Accelerated Dragon
eight chapters of the book. and the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
Black can choose a range of set- are covered in Chapters 13 and 14,
lipS against the Maroczy, each of while Chapter 15 is a guide to the
which has its own unique flavour. transpositions from queen's pawn
8 Introduction
Chapter Guide
9...eS
10 lLlbS! 0-0 11 'iVd2
11...1Wh4 - Game 1
11.....e7 - Game 2
10.i.d3 0-011 0-0 d6
12 'ii'd2 - Game 3
12a4 -Game4
9...lLle6 10 l:c1
10...'ii'85 11 .i.e2 b6
12 "d5 - Game 5
12 'ii'd2 - Game 6
12 0-0 .i.b7 13 fJ gS
14 a3 - Game 7
14 lIf2 - Game 8
ll.i.d3 b6
120-0 - Game 9
12 "d2 - Game 10
1O... b6 -Game 11
1O... d6 -Game 12
10 'ii'd2 -Game 13
due to Black's pressure against the the queens on and obtains a fantas-
e4-pawn from a knight on cS tic attack after 21 cxdS .i.d7 fol-
and/or a bishop bearing down on lowed by ...:'cS.
the long light-squared diagonal. Instead of 16 ~, 16 ~d3 was
played in Brunner-Ekstrom, Swit-
zerland 1990. After 16....:xc4
White found 17 ~e3!? which wins
an exchange, but after 17.....cS+
18 ~d2 ~xg7 19 .i.xc4 dxc4 Black
had more than sufficient compen-
sation. The white king cannot es-
cape and Black won in 28 moves.
b) 11 .i.e2 seems to be sufficient
to gain a slight pull, as for example
in Ivanchuk-Korchnoi, Monaco
(rapid) 1994: l1...lDxbS 12 cxbS
d6 13 0-0 .i.e6 14 "a4 "d7 IS
:lfdl :tfc8 16 :d2. It is not a lot
10 lL\bS! for White, but the d6-pawn is weak
The most ambitious attempt to and Ivanchuk managed to win this
refute the 9 ... eS line. Larsen once particular game. 14... 'tWh4 instead
claimed that the only reason why of 14.....d7 is possibly an im-
10 .i.d3 is played so frequently is provement, since then ... d6-dS is a
that White players are afraid of the threat and if IS g3 "e7, and Black
complications after 10 lL\bS!, but is then ready to play 16 ... fS with ,
only because they are complicated, counterplay.
not for any intrinsic reason. With Instead of 11...lL\xbS, 11...'ii'h4?!
10 .i.d3 (Games 3 and 4) White seems logical, but this is exactly
goes for a small but safe advantage, what White is hoping for. In
whereas if he dares enter the com- Gaprindashvili-Servaty, Dortmund
plications of 10 lL\bS! he should be 1974, play continued 12 lL\xd4
rewarded with a clear edge. exd4 13 .i.xd4 "xe4 14 .i.xg7
10 0-0 "xg2? IS "d4! "xhl 16 ~d2
11 "d2! "xa117 "f6! 1-0. 14.....xg2? was
Two other moves have often clearly bad, but 14 ... ~xg7 IS 0-0 is
been seen here: also depressing.
a) The greedy 11 lL\xd4? is re- To summarise, 11 .i.e2 is solid
futed tactically by l1...exd4 12 and contains a nice little trap, but it
.i.xd4 "as+ 13 ~e2 l:te8 14 f3 dS should not bother Black too much.
IS .i.xg7 l:txe4+ 16 ~f2 (16 fxe4 11 "h4
.i.g4+) 16 .. :ii'cS+ 17 ~g3 "e3! 11..."e7 is seen in the next
(threatening ...l:tg4+) 18 h3 "f4+! game. Kuzmin has suggested
19 ~ ~xg7 20 "cl, and here for
some reason Aizenhstadt-Aronin,
USSR 1961, was agreed drawn, but
.i.xd4 'tWh4 14 "e3 .i.h6 IS
':e8 16 .i.d3 fS wins for Black)
"f3
ll...d6 12 .i.d3 (12 lL\xd4 exd4 13
after 12 tLlxd4 exd4 13 ~xd4 'iWh4 fantastic 13 ... ~h3! which guaran-
White simply plays 14 0-0-0 1i'xe4 tees a draw. After 14 ~xd4 (140-0
15 ~xg5 ri;xg7 16 f3 with a safe ~xg2) 14... exd4 15 gxh3 a6 16
extra pawn. tLla3, Espig played 16 ... :feS+
12 ~d3 against Luther, German Bundesliga
Vaganian must have feared an 1994/95, and won a spectacular
improvement in the main line, game: 17 ~dl ~h6 IS f4?! ~xf4
since he chose to diverge here with 19 .g2 ':e3 20 ~c2 ~d6 21
12 tLld6 against Espig, German tLlbl?! ':ae8 22 tiJd2 ':xd3 23
Bundesliga 1990/91. After ~xd3 :e3+ 24 ri;c2 d3 25 ~b3
12 ....e7 13 tLlxcs AfxcS 14 ~d3 ':e2 26 .f3 ':xd2 27 l:thfl f5 28
a5?! 15 0-0 'iWb4 it seems as if 1i'e3 b5 29 ':ac1 :e2 30 1i'xd3
Black will reach an equal ending, .e7 31 :f3 bxc4+ 32 .xc4'iWb7+
but after the surprising yet instruc- 33 "'a4 ':e4 0-1. However, it is
tive 16 1i'c3! Black had to go back better to play 18 .c2, when we do
to d6, since an exchange of queens not see a convincing continuation
would have simply dropped the b7- of the attack. Neishtadt recom-
pawn. Still, White did not have a mends 18 ...:e5 'with compensa-
lot here, although he later managed tion', but White can defend with 19
to play f2-f4 under favourable cir- f4!, as after 19 ....xf4 20 .g2 fol-
cumstances and went on to win. lowed by ~c2 or 19 ... :e3 20 .d2
Instead of 14... a5?!, we recommend followed by ~c2, we have not
14...tLle6 with the idea of ... ~f6-g5 found anything for Black, although
to play for the dark squares, when intuitively you feel that there must
Black is doing fine. be something. Also if 21 tLlbl?! is
12 d5 replaced by 21 :ad 1, it is difficult
to believe that Black has sufficient
compensation.
So perhaps Black should go for
the forced draw given by Bole-
slavsky: 16 ... ~h6 17 .c2 :ae8+
18 ~dl! (18 ~e2 d3! 19 1i'xd3
l1e3 followed by ...l:tfe8 wins for
Black) 18 ....xh3 19 ~e2! (19 l:tfl
:e5 20 f4 :e3 and 19 ~e4 1i'h5 20
f3 f5 both win for Black) 19.. J:txe2
(else 1M3 will follow) 20 .xe2 d3
21 .e4 f5 22 .e6+:f7 and White
has to settle for the perpetual.
It is worse to play 13 tLlxd4 dxe4
Black has to rely on tactics, oth- and Black is already better, or 13
erwise he will just be positionally ~g5 1i'g4 again with fine prospects
worse. for Black.
13 cxd5! 13 tLlxb5
The only try for an advantage. In Here 13 ... ~h3 unfortunately
reply to 13 exd5, Black has the loses to 14 ~xd4, so Black has to
Maroczy Bind: 7.Ji)g4 System 15
12 a4!?
16 .tb1 bS
17 cxbS axbS
18 I:t1c3
Realising that the pawn cannot
be taken (18 'Wxd6?? I:t1d4! 19 Played with the idea of seizing
'ii'xd8 I:t1xe2+ wins a piece), White more space with a4-aS and prepar-
tries to re-route the knight to d5 ing 13 lObS, when White can take
instead. However, 18 ~hl, making back on b5 with the a-pawn.
the threat on d6 real, seems like a 12 .te6
better idea. We believe that 12 ...a5!? is the
18 liaS right answer, and if 13 lObS .td7!
19 I:t1dS b4 14 I:t1xd4 (14 I:t1xd6 .txa4)
20 .tgS f6 14 ... exd4 15 .td2 1Wb6 16 b3 .tc6
21 .te3 fS followed by doubling rooks on the
22 exfS gxfS e-file, when Black is fine. White
23 l:t1e7+?? can do little, since he needs to keep
An incredible blunder, losing a the e4-pawn protected and must
piece. With 23 f3 or f4, White watch out for the f5-break. Instead,
would still have been okay. 12 ... a6 was played in Herbert-
23 I:t1xe7 Sermek, Cannes 1995, but after 13
24 lixd6 ~t7! as .te6 14 1:t1d5 ':c8 15 1Ob6 White
Defending both e7 and e6 and was much better.
thereby winning easily. 13 I:t1bS a6
25 .tgS I:t1g6 26 g4 e4 27 h4 .teS 14 I:t1xd4 exd4
28 lid2 h6 29 gxfS .txfS 30 hS 15 .td2 l:%c8
hxgS 31 hxg6+ ~xg6 0-1 16 b3 f5
Maroczy Bind: 7... ti:Jg4 System 21
GameS
Ribli-Rogers
Since Black cannot use the c-file Germany 1995
for anything constructive, and his
d-pawn is blockaded, White stands (1 ti:Jf3 eS 2 e4 ti:Je6 3 d4 cxd4 4
better. All endgames will be a win ti:Jxd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 ~e3 ti:Jf6 7
for White, since the d4-pawn will ti:Jc3 ti:Jg4 8 "xg4 ti'lxd4 9 "dl)
become very fragile when the king
comes to d3. 9 ti'le6
23 "fS!? (see/ollowing diagram)
24 :te4 A safe alternative to 9... e5.
It is too dangerous to immedi- 10 :tct
ately enter the endgame with 24 10 "d2 is the subject of Game
'ii'xf5 gxf5 25 :tel:xel 26 .i.xcl 13, while Vaganian tried 10 i.e2?!
because of 26 ... d3. against Frias in St John 1988 and
24 :tfS obtained excellent compensation
22 Maroczy Bind: 7...tiJg4 System
himself with ... b7-b5 and ... l:lcS. 14 allows Black to execute his usual
'ii'b5+ .i.d7 15 "xb7 l:tcS is also dark-squared strategy with a fairly
fine for Black, as ... lLlc5 will come even game and should be preferred
next, threatening both to take the to 12 .....xd5 which gives a some-
e4-pawn and to play lLlb3. Finally, what inferior endgame.
14 h4!? is possible, when Black 13 exd5 ~d4
may try 14 ... lLlc5 15 h5 .i.e6 16 13 ...~c5 was played in Dur-
'iWd4 :tgS with counterplay. It is Plachetka, Austria 1991. Now after
clear that White has some compen- 14 f3 a5 15 d6 White was clearly
sation in the form of the pair of better, since Black now had to play
bishops and play on the dark 15 ... e6 to keep a reasonable pawn
squares. Still, by leaving the queen structure, and then 16 b3!, which
on a2 and developing quickly, threatens 17 ~b5, would have been
Black seems to be doing fine. tough to meet.
11 b6 14 .i.e4
_!~~s.. 14 .i.xd4? .i.xd4 15 ~b5 .i.xb2
Now White forces his opponent 16 lLlc7+ ~dS 17 l:c2 l:bS leads
to enter an endgame, since he is nowhere for White.
hitting the rook on as. 12
seen in the next game and 120-0 in
"d2 is 14
15 c,i>d2?!
.i.b7
Game 6
Karpoy-Larsen
Brussels 1987
11 .i.e2 b6
12 0-0 .i.b7
13 f3 g5
20 'it'd3 tDf4
Now 20 ... .i.a4 would be point-
less after 21 .l:1d2.
21 tDxf4?!
Short should have admitted that
he had nothing and settled for a
draw with 21 'iVd2 tDe6 22 'ii'd3.
21 ... gxf4 22 .i.d4 'it'xd4 23 .i.xd4
.i.xd4+ 24 '::'xd4 .l:h5
14 a3 White is still about equal, but his
This was Short's idea. By threat- next move is over-ambitious.
ening 15 tDb5 followed by .i.d2 he 25 c5? dxc5 26 bxc5 b5 27 e5 h3!
forces Larsen to put his queen on The usual undermining move.
e5. Then Short can continue with 28 '::'el hxg2 29 .i.xgl :'c8 30
1Ii'd2, b2-b4, tDd5 etc., without ex- '::'xf4 .i.d5 31 e6 f6 32 h4.l:1xc5
changing queens. In a later en- Larsen had again managed to
counter between the same two achieve an edge against a world-
players, Short switched to 14 .l:1f2!? class player. This time he won in
(see the next game). 74 moves. Later the same year
14 'it'e5 Short had his chance for revenge as
IS 'it'd2 h5 White against Larsen in Hastings.
16 '::'fdl d6 This time Short came up with
17 b4 h4 something more venomous.
18 tDd5 'iti>f8
19 .i.n .i.c6 Game 8
Here both players had probably Short-Larsen
achieved what they wanted. But Hastings 1987188
now Short realised that things were
not as rosy as he had expected. (I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Maroczy Bind: 7... ltJg4 System 27
Game 11
B.Lalic-Conquest
Hastings 1995196
14 b3 d6 10 b6
15 f3 h5?!
This gives White the chance to
play 16 h4!, when 16 ... g4 17 f4
looks good for White. Leko feared
16... gxh4, but after 17 ltxh4 all that
Black has is a weak h-pawn.
Probably I should have preferred
lS ... 'i'eS or IS ....i.eS.
16 It)d5?!
Leko goes for an endgame,
where White traditionally has good
chances. Here, however, Black can
easily generate counterplay because
of his dark-squared control. In gen-
eral, it is not the endgame that one 11 1M2
should fear when playing Black in The game'" - Chandler-Larsen,
the 9 ... lt)e6 variation. Hastings 1987/88, was played in a
16 'iixd2+ later round of the same tournament
17 cJi>xd2 h4 in which Short introduced his 14
18 g3 hxg3 Af2!? (see Game 8). Since Larsen
19 hxg3 citd7 got a bad position in that game, he
Simply connecting the rooks and switched to the more conservative
preparing to swap them on the h- 1O...b6 against Chandler, and after
file. 11 .i.d3 It)cs 12 .i.bl d6 13 b4
20 .i.d3 ttJd4 21 f4 gxf4 22 gxf4 It)d7 14 .i.d4 .i.xd4 IS 'iIIxd4 0-0
ttJf3+ 23 cJi>e2 It)d4+ 24 ~d2 1/7.- 112 160-0.i.a6 17 It)dS Ac8 18 l:tfdl
24 'iPf2 would have failed to .i.b7 19 h3 lte8 20 'i'b2 .i.c6 a
32 Maroczy Bind: 7...ti:Jg4 System
0-1, since ... .i.e5 cannot be pre- since this is not legal White gets
vented), and after 16... %:.a3 17 0.d5, the c-file with a winning initiative.
Velimirovic improved upon Por-
tisch-Pfleger, Manila 1974, (where
Black lost after 17 ... 'i&>h8?!), with
17 ... l:te8 and had a fine position
after 18 .l:tfdl 0.f8! 19 h3 0.d7,
since the-active rook on a3 is an-
noying for White. Instead, 18 .i.b6
was tried in the 1985 correspon-
dence game Rosanen-Rau, but after
18 ......a8 19 f4 .l:ta2 20 .l:tc2 .l:txc2
21 "'xc2 .i.xd5 22 exd5 0.d4 Black
had absolutely no problems. It is
worth noting that here the opening
of the a-file was a big plus for
Black. Normally it is White who IS....:tbS 19 .l:tc7 fS 20 f3 .i.f6 21
tries to open it by playing b2-b3, :'fel a6 22 l:td7
a2-a3 and b2-b4, but here we saw Black's fortress looks impregna-
just how much counterplay this can ble, but the young Kasparov man-
allow. ages to organise a breakthrough.
13 0-0 .i.b7 22 ...<ittf7 23 :'cc7 .i.cS 24 :'dS
14 0.dS 0.c7 .i.b7 25 :'xbS ':xbS 26 .i.a7 ':as
Larsen tried 14 ......d7 against 27 .i.e3 .i.cS 2S g4 fxg4 29 fxg4
Adorjan, Hastings 1986/87, but 'liteS 30 gS .i.eS 31 ~g2 .i.d7 32
faced a difficult position after 15 .i.b6 .i.g7 33 h4 .i.eS 34 ~f3 .i.cs
.i.g4 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 .i.h3 0.c7 35 <itte3 .i.d7 36 hS .i.gl 37 .i.d4
18 0.xc7 "'xc7 19 c5! .i.gl+ 3S <ittd3 .i.xd4 39 <ittxd4
IS "a4!? <ittdS 40 ':el
In Cu. Hansen-Larsen, Esbjerg It seems as if Black has escaped
1988, White played 15 .i.g5 and somehow, but White just breaks
stood better after 15 ... f6 16 .i.e3 through on the kingside.
<itth8 17 "iib3 "'d7 18 .l:tfdl, al- 40...eS+ 41 dxe6 .i.xe6 42 hxg6
though this clash between the two hxg643 ':c6! <itte7
great Danes ended in a draw. 43 .. .'~d7 44 :'xa6! l:txa6 45
15 bS? .i.xb5+ .l:tc6 46 a6 ~c7 47 a7 wins
Not a good decision. 15 ... e6 was easily.
more solid, when Black should be 44 ':c7+ <itteS 45 a3 ':bS 46 ':c6
okay. b4 47 ':b6! ':xb6 4S axb6 .i.cS 49
16 "as! axb4 <ittd7 SO .i.g4+ <ittdS 51 .i.xcS
17 cxdS 1-0
IS bxaS Despite White's strategic suc-
Suddenly Black has a cheerless cess in this game, the line with
ending with no counterplay. He 10... d6 is a solid alternative to
would be fine if he could play ... a7- 10......a5. In particular, Velimi-
a6 and ... .l:tfc8 in one move, but rovic's plan with 12 ... a5!? deserves
Maroczy Bind: 7... tLlg4 System 35
Chapter Guide
10 lLlxc6!? -Game 14
10f3
1O... e6?! - Game 15
1O...:c8 -Game 16
1O... lLlh5!? - Game 17
Game 14 8 R.e2
Schlosser-Pigusov This quiet development of the
Sochi1989 bishop is the logical way for White
to continue. However, a couple of
(1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 other approaches have also been
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 R.g7 6 R.e3 lLlf6 7 tried, with the following practical
lLlc3) results:
38 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
~d4 .ilh6! 17 ~c4 ttJe3 IS ~xe3 will have to give up that concept
~xe3+ 19 ~hl 'ii'h4 20 g4 ~f4 21 altogether. After 11...dS the line
'ii'e2 a6 22 ttJc7 :ladS 23 :adl continues with 12 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 13
~xd6 and Black's strong bishops cxd5 exd5 14 e5 ttJd7 15 f4, when
gave Black much the better chances Black's attempts so far have been
in Kamyshov-Simagin, Moscow in vain:
1947. a) 15 .. .f5? 16 .i.b5! ~b7 17 e6
b) 11 lDxc6!? ~xc6 12 'ii'b3! lDc5 18 f5 a6 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20
(White obtained an advantage after ~d7 "a5 21 ikd3 d4 22ttJa4 :ad8
12 :c1 'ii'e7 13 'ii'b3 :acS 14 :fdl 23 'ii'c4 ~hS and Black resigned,
~aS 15 "a3!? "xa3 16 bxa3 ~c6 Chiburdanidze-Pinal, Havana 19S5.
17 c5 bxc5 18 ~xc5 .!:tfd8 19 ~xa7 b) 15 ... g5?! 16 ttJxdS ttJxe5 17
:fdS 20 ~c5 :dcS 21 ~e7 in Vi- :adl gxf4 18 ~xf4 ttJg6 19 ~c4
tolins-Bielczyk, Riga 1981) 12...dS? 'ii'h4 20 ~b3 ~xd5 21 ~xd5 :acS
(possible is 12 ...:c8!? 13 :adl ikc7 22 ~d6 :fd8 23 ~g3 Wke7 24
14 ttJb5 ~xb5 15 ti'xb5 :fd8 16 ~xf7+ <;Ph8 25 ~d6 and Black was
:d2? dS with an edge for Black, being crushed, Panchenko-Teil-
Mokry-Kristensen, Belgrade 1985) man, USSR 19S5.
13 :adl "e7 14 e5 ttJd7 15 cxdS c) 15 ... ttJc5 (Black's best chance
exd5 16 f4 ttJf6 17 ~d4 with a but he is nowhere near equality) 16
clearly better game for White, IlIes- :adl! (White also has 16 llfdl!?
cas-Bellon, Linares 1991. and 16 ~xc5) 16... f6 17 ttJxd5
c) 11 .!:tc l!? ttJxd4 12 ~xd4 fxe5 18 ~c4 <oPh8 19 fxe5 :xfl +
~h6 13 .!:tc2 ttJeS 14 .!:tel d6 15 20 lhfl 'ii'h4 21 :f4 'ii'h5 22 ttJe7
~f1 lDc7 16 ~xe3 ii.xe3 17 :xe3 ~b7 23 b4 ttJe4 24 'ii'd7 :b8 25
"g5 18 .!:td3 with a slight advan- ttJcS! ':xc8 26 'ii'xb7 l:d8 27 'ii'xe4
tage for White, Polugayevsky- ~xe5 28 ~e2 1-0 was the encoun-
Bellon, Logrono 1991. ter Kuporosov-Malisauskas, USSR
1985.
12 :fe1 :fdS
13 ~n ttJxd4
14 ~xd4 ttJeS
15 ~xg7
A better way for White to con-
tinue was shown in the subsequent
game Panno-Bellon, Buenos Aires
1994: 15 ~f2ll)c7 16 :adl d6 17
a4 ~e6 IS :al :ab8 19 a5!? bxa5
20 l:xa5 a6 21 :eal :b3! 22 :la2
:dbS 23 ttJdl ~e5, when White
was slightly better.
15 ... <oPxg7 16 <oPhl d6 17 :ac1
11 'ii'e7!? ttJc71S 'ii'e3 e5
The old main line is 11...dS, but Black wants to play ... ttJe6-d4.
Black has been under a lot of fire in 19 ttJd5 ttJxdS 20 cxd5 :dcS 21
this variation and it seems that he ~b5 :c5 22 ~a4 112-112
46 Maroczy Bind: Double Fianchetto System
Game 17
Saltaev-Pigusov
Katerini 1993
Chapter Guide
9 ...lLlxd4 10 J..xd4
10... J..e6 - Game 18
10... J..d7 - Game 19
9...:e8
10 a3 - Game 20
10 1t'd2 - Game 21
9 ... J..d7
10 f3 - Game 22
lOf4 - Game 23
10 lLlb3 - Game 24
10 lLlc2
1O.. .'ifa5?! - Game 25
10...a6!?
11 'il'd2 - Game 26
11 f3 - Game 27
lOl:tbl - Game 28
10l:tc1 - Chapter 4/5
10'il'd2 - Chapter 4/5
Whilst other systems have had their depends on the particular set-up
ups and downs over the years, the chosen by White.
Classical system has remained Like most other systems in the
quite popular. Black first strives to Maroczy, Black gets quite a solid
exchange a set of knights and the position, but here Black also has
dark-squared bishops on d4; then chances to play for a win, which
the plan is to transfer the f6-knight probably explains why the system
to c5, put the light-squared bishop has remained a popular choice. It
on c6, play ... a7-a5 and the rest has been a favourite of Larsen's for
Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 55
several years, while Anand and and ...Wa5 is not very logical here,
Petursson are also happy to take the since White can take back on d4
black side. This chapter deals with with the bishop. Compared to the
early deviations from the main lines where White has to capture
lines with 9... .i.d7 10 .d2 or 10 with the queen on d4, losing time
:tcl, which are dealt with in the since the queen cannot stay in the
following two chapters. line of the bishop on g7 forever, he
However, Black must be careful now has the chance to grab more
with his move order, as we will see. space, which should give him an
edge.
Game 18
A.Sokolov-Nemet
Bem 1992
8 d6
The immediate 8... a5 has been
tried on a few occasions. The most
direct attempt at refutation was 9
0-0 a4 10 c5!?, as played in Nunn-
Haik, Paris 1983, when, after
10... d5 11 cxd6 .xd6 12 lLldb5 10 .i.xd4 .i.e6
'ifb4 13 a3 Wa5 14 f4 e5 15 fxe5 11 f4!?
tLlxe5 16 :txf6 .i.xf6 17 tLld5 The most direct approach, but
.i.d8?, White won in great style. It White has other good moves, too.
was much better to play 17 ...!ta6, ~m:~ov ~layed the prophylactic
when it is not clear whether White 11 hl!?l against Gheorghiu in
can break through. If White plays a osc0W1967 and was successful
move other than 10 c5!?, then after 11....a5 12 .d3 :tfc8 13 b3
Black will play ....a5, defending a6 14 f4 b5?! 15 cxb5 axb5 16
the a4-pawn, and then simply de- tLlxb5, since Black does not have
velop nonnally. An interesting way enough compensation for the pawn.
to prevent this is 9 f3!?, defending With 11 ~h 1!? White avoids the
the e4-pawn and planning to meet plan with ....c8 and ....i.g4 since
9 ... a4? with 10 tLlxa4. The standard he is not yet committed to f2-f4
answer to f3, 9 ...1i'b6, can be met and can simply reply f2-f3. Gheor-
by 10 tLlcb5, as Black cannot kick ghiu's play was in fact quite logi-
the knight with ... a7-a6! Black will cal, trying to punish the 'slow' 11
probably have to play 9 ... d6 trans- 'it>hl!?, but as it turned out to be
posing to Andersson-Larsen in the insufficient, it seems that 11 ~hl!?
notes to Game 30. is an excellent move, forcing Black
9 0-0 lLlxd4 to show his cards.
The plan with ... tLlxd4, ... J..e6 11 .d2 is also possible, but after
56 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
winning chances.
28 .."e7 29 iLf3 as 30 ~e4 axb4
31 axb4 iLc6 32 "d6! "xd6 33
lLlxd6 e4 34 iLe2 lLld7??
Losing a piece, but Black was
probably lost anyway. The white
king will attack via f2-e3-d4.
35 b5 iLxb5 36 iLxb5 ~xc5 37
1j;f21j;f'6 38 <It>e3 ~e6 39 ~xe4 1-0
It seems to us that if Black wants
to play for ... iLe6, .....a5 and
.J:tc8, he should rather prefer the
line 1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 ~xd4 g6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 ~c3 d6 7
Now Black has the chance to iLe2 ~xd4, since here White has
enter an endgame, but in return too many promising ways of
White gets rid of his weak e-pawn. countering it.
Black, on the other hand, is still left
with a big problem: how to control Game 19
the white queenside majority. Lautier-Koch
18 :'xd4 Lyon zt 1990
18 .. .f5 is positionally well justi-
fied: Black will swap twice on d4 (1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
and put the knight on d6. But after lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 iLg7 6 iLe3 ~f6 7
19 iLxg7 ~xg7 20 "W'xa7 ~xe6 21 ~c3 0-0 8 iLe2 d6 9 0-0)
"W'e3 ~g7 22 ~d5 White keeps the
advantage. 9 ~xd4
19 :'xd4 iLxd4 The idea of this move order is to
20 exf7+ :'xf7 avoid the systems with 10 ~c2 or
21 'iVxd4 :'xn+ 10 lLlb3, hoping simply to trans-
22 iLxfl ~f6 pose to the main lines.
Black hopes to become active 10 iLxd4 iLd7
after 23 'iVxa7 "W'e5 followed by
... ~g4, but White is not so easily
distracted.
23 c5!
Simple and effective. The c4-
square is freed, and the pawns can
start rolling.
23•••e5 24 "c4+ Ij;g7 25 b4 iLe8
26 a3 a6 27 iLe2 "d8 28 "d3!
Black needs his queen to create
counterplay. Without the queens
White will simply advance his
pawns, which in combination with
a centralised king, gives excellent
58 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
Game 20
This move would have been Short·Larsen
pointless on move 11, Black would Naestved 1985
simply reply 1l...i.e6 and start
attacking the c4-pawn. However, (1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
now that the bishop is on c6, this tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tLlf6 7
idea is not possible anymore. tLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0)
Therefore, White seizes space on
the queenside. 9 :'e8!?
13 "ii'b8 An idea that Larsen said he
14 b5 axb5 thought of over the board. The idea
CLassicaL Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations 59
is, that while .. .l::te8 will always since his pieces exert strong pres-
come in handy, White will now sure on White's weaknesses. White
have to show his intentions first, has no choice but to playas in the
and Black can then react accord- game.
ingly.
16 ttJd5 ttJxd5
10 a3?! 17 exd5
Short decides to make a semi- Playing for symmetry and a
waiting move as well, but in the draw with 17 cxd5 will just give
game the pawn structure with a2-a3 Black control of the c-file after
and b2-b4 just seems to be weak. 17 ... ~d7. The bishop on h6 con-
He should probably have gone for trols cl.
one of the options mentioned in the 17 ~d7
next game. 18 ':'c3 e6
10 ~d7 19 dxe6 ':'xe6
11 f3 a6 Black is very active, but White is
12 b4 hardly lost yet. 20 f4 seems like a
This is very weakening, but good idea, preparing ~f3 as well as
having played a2-a3, White can closing the cl-h6 diagonal. Instead,
hardly do without it, e.g. 12 l:tc1 Short tries to liquidate to a draw,
nc8 13 'ii'd2 ttJa5! wins for Black but is hit by some powerful tactics.
since ... e7 -e5 follows. 20 c5? ~a4! 21 "xa4 dxc5! 22
12 ':'c8 bxc5 l:he2 23 "c4??
13 ':'c1 ttJxd4 (seejoLLowing diagram)
14 ~xd4 ~h6! Dropping a piece, but the posi-
(seejolLowing diagram) tion was tragic anyway.
A common theme in the 9 ... ne8 23 ... b5! 0-1
system. With the rook on e8, f2-f4
can always be answered with ... e7- Since Black seldom wins such
e5, after which Black will pick up tactical miniatures in the Maroczy,
the e4-pawn. this game attracted a great deal of
15 ':'c2 ~e6 attention, and 9 ... ne8 became quite
Black is already much better fashionable for a while.
60 CLassicaL Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations
fine. If White avoids this ending Strong play! Black cannot ex-
and goes for 14 ~e3 instead, sim- change queens due to the attack on
ply 14... exf4 IS ~xf4 ~e6 is okay a7 as well as the threat of lDd4,
for Black, since his bishops are winning the exchange.
strong. Finally, 12 f3 was played in 19.....b6+ 20 'iPhl ~f7 21 eS!
Magem Badals-P.H.Nielsen, Mos- dxeS 22 dxe5 l:te6
cow 01 1994, when after 12 ... ~d7 22 ... fxe6 23 1I'c3 was awful as
13 b3 "as 14 ~h1 l:tac8 IS :adl well, so Black hopes to get some
a6 16 :fe 1 lDxd4 the game was play along the e-file.
agreed drawn. 23 exf6+ exf6 24 lbd6!
12 ~d7 Stopping Black's dreams of ac-
13 l:tadl l:tc8 tivity in their tracks. 24 ...:l8e7 2S
14 lDxc6!? lDc8 is embarrassing, but now it is
This forces Black to take with clear that the difference between
the rook, since 14... ~xc6 IS i..xa7! the knight on d6 and bishop on f7
is bad for Black. 14 b3 would meet will decide the game.
with 14...a6 followed by ...b7-bS, 24...:lf8 25 b4 "c7 26 c5 b6 27
which should equalise. 'W(2 bxc5 28 bxc5 :lb8?
14 l:txc6 The fmal mistake, but Black 'was
15 b3 "as lost anyway.
16 ~d4 ~e6? 29l:tae1 'We7 30 'Wg3
This turns out badly. Better 30 lbfS+ wins as well.
would have been 16...~xd4 17 30...l:txe1 31 :lxell-0
"xd4 a6, going for ...b7-bS again. Black's disaster in this game
17 ~xg7 ~xg7 cannot be blamed on 9 ...:le8,
18 f4! f6? which does seems to be playable.
The standard way of parrying
the white kingside attack. Now 19 Game 22
fS ~f7 keeps things under control. Annakov-P.H.Nielsen
Unfortunately, Black had missed Buenos Aires 1992
some other tactics.
19 lDbS! (1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lbxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 lbf6 7
lDc3 0-0 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0)
9 ~d7
The immediate 9... aS has also
been tried here, but Andersson
showed the right antidote against
Larsen in Linares 1983. After 10
f3! lDd7 11 lbdbS lDc5 12 11'd2 a4
13 :lfd1 "a5 14 :lacl i.e6 15
lDd5 "xd2 16 :lxd2 Black has
very few active options. Still, the
black position is very solid, and
with careful play such as 16...l:tfd8
Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations 63
tLlc3 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7) nearly always a good idea, unless
White has prepared some quick
10 f4!? action on the queenside, such as
b2-b4, which is clearly not the case
here.
14 .d2
A useful move which includes a
small trap: 14...•a5 15 tLld5 is
embarrassing.
14 liJd7
Black is running out of useful
waiting moves, so he sticks to the
standard plan.
IS .txg7 'i&?xg7
16 l:dl f6!
main games, but with two real ex- denly become a reality.
perts on the Maroczy playing each 12 f3 ':'c8
other, we hope you will forgive this 13 ':'ac1 'ir'a5!
exception. Now this is an excellent square
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 for the queen. White will not get in
lLlxd4 J..g7 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 d6 7 both f3-f4 and b2-b4, since Black
J..e2 0-0 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 J..e3 J..d7 10 will attack the c4-pawn in the
lLlc2) meantime.
14 ':'fdl lLle5
10 a6!? 15 lLlaJ
15 b3 bS! was not an option for
White.
15 h5!?
Again typical Larsen, who be-
lieves that this is nearly always
useful. It gives the black king some
air and controls the g4-square,
while under favourable circum-
stances the h-pawn might march on
and create weaknesses in the white
camp. Other players have claimed
that, at best, ... h7-h5 is just mean-
ingless, losing a tempo and creating
a potential weakness! In general,
Black claims that with 10 lLlc2, we agree with Larsen, and indeed
White has weakened his control of here, since both sides are manoeu-
bS. Now White will constantly vring, Black can afford the luxury
have to worry about the ... b7-bS of a tempo. However, it is impor-
break. It is not an immediate threat, tant to stress that ... h7-hS is not
but since White has no immediate essential for Black in the Maroczy,
plan either, Black has enough time but only useful if Black's forces are
to prepare it. already well placed.
11 'ir'd2 16 ~n
11 f3 is the subject of the next A clear indication that White is
game. experiencing difficulties in finding
11 l:te8!? a useful plan.
Anyone else would have played 16 J..a4!?
11 ... l:tc8, preparing an attack on the (see following diagram)
c4-pawn. However, Larsen claims Again a surprising decision.
that the rook will be useful on e8. It Black offers his opponent the
defends e7 and if, at some point, a bishop pair, since this would mean
white knight is exchanged on d5, an exchange of the well-placed
and White recaptures with a pawn, knight on c3, leaving White with
Black has the ... e7-e6 break, open- only the ugly knight on a3.
ing the e-file. As we saw in Game 17 l:r.el J..c6
20, this long-term plan can sud- 18 lLld5
70 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and Early Deviations
Game 27
Short-Petursson
Tilburg 1992
11 f3 :cS
11...lZ'le5 was tried in Petrosian-
Rytov, Tallinn 1979. After 12 b3
:'c8 13 a4 "a5 14 "el i.c6 15
l:tdllZ'led7 16 'ifilhl "c7 17lZ'ld4 b6
18 i.d3! lZ'lc5 19 i.c2 i.b7 20 'iVh4
Petrosian had the queenside under
control, and later broke through on
the kingside.
12 a4
Like .Petrosian, Short wants to
keep the queenside under control, 15 b4
but here the knight is still on c6, Not very frightening. Black is
from where it controls some dark well placed to meet this direct at-
squares. Petursson is able to make tempt, but Short was probably al-
excellent use of that in the game. ready happy with simplifications
The less committal 12 lZ'la3 was and a draw.
tried in Tempone-Spangenberg, 15 axb4
Trewel 1995: 12 ... lZ'le5 (possible 16 lZ'lcxb4 lZ'laS
now, since with the knight on a3, 17 i.d4 i.xd4+
White cannot get the pawn to a4 18 "xd4 lZ'lc6
easily) 13 'ii'd2 i.c6 14 :ac1 l:te8 19 'ii'e3 :as
"c7 18 "f2
15 b4 b6 16 llfdl lZ'led7 17 i.f1
'ii'b8 led to a typical
hedgehog structure, with reason-
20
21
22
lZ'ld3
:xb7
'ii'd2
:xa4
:&3
i.xdS
able chances for Black. 23 cxdS lZ'ld4
12 i.e6 24 :tbl 1/'1._ 1/Z
13 lZ'ldS lZ'ld7 Simple play by Black, but still
14 :bl as enough to make a comfortable
For some reason, Petursson draw against a world championship
chose to vary from the game finalist. 10 lZ'lc2 is certainly a rea-
P.Cramling-Petursson, Reykjavik sonable weapon for White if he
72 Classical Maroczy: Introduction and EarLy Deviations
Chapter Guide
"1'3 "e3
which wins immediately. Lauterberg 1991, Black played in
27.....b6 28 eS liJrs 29 even more solid fashion: 12 ...a5 13
Since White cannot play 30 :Iael a4 14 liJd5 liJd7 15 .i.xg7
"xb7?? liJg3 and l:th8 mate, Lar- Q;xg7 16 l:te3 liJc5 17 .i.dl e5, and
sen forces the exchange of queens, again Black was fine. This indi-
after which only Black can be bet- cates that if Black exercises some
ter. Indeed, Larsen managed to get care, 12 .i.f3 is harmless.
a close to winning position, but The standard 12 f3 is seen in
then it was his turn to blunder. The Games 32-49.
game ended in a draw after 63 12 as
moves. 13 l:tfet liJd7
A interesting alternative is
Game 31 13 .. Jle8, as in Mortensen-Larsen,
Beliavsky-Hjartarson Aalborg 1989, played shortly after
Reykjavik 1989 our main game. The idea is that
White cannot naturally continue his
(1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 plan as long as the dark-squared
liJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7 bishops are still on the board. There
liJc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10 followed 14 l:tadl a4, after which
"d2) White got tired of waiting and
80 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops
19 'ii'b4 12 as
10 'ii'd4 a4 In this position, 12...tLld7 has
21 b3 ~g8?! also been played, since 13 b4 is
This is dubious, Black should harmless. Mter 13 ... ~xd4+ 14
have gone in for 2l...axb3 22 lIxb3 'ii'xd4 'ii'b6 IS 'ii'xb6 tLlxb6 16 eS
'i'cS 23 'ii'xcs dxc5 24 l:txb7 ':xa2 does not work, as the rook is not
25 :el ..ti>f8 26 lIc7 :as, when it is yet on cl and 16 ]:tfcl ':fc8 is just
difficult to see how White can equal, Vaganian-Mariotti, Lenin-
make progress. grad 1977.
21 ':bl ttJd7 23 a3! 'ii'xa3? Adorjan-Velimirovic, Budapest
Another mistake, but the posi- 1973, continued instead 13 ~xg7
tion was already bad, since ~xg7 14 f4 (perhaps White should
23 ... 'ifcS 24 'iWh4 axb3 2S lIbxb3 try 14 ~hl which would transpose
ttJeS 26 lIh3 hS 27 lIbg3 is very to the main game if Black answers
dangerous for Black. 14... aS) 'ii'b6+ IS \lIhl 'ii'cS?! 16
24 b4 'ii'a1 25 'ii'dl a3 26 ':c3 1-0 ttJdS ~xdS 17 b4 'ii'b6 18 cxdS as
The queen will have to leave the 19 :abl ~g8 20 bxaS, when Black
board. An impressive performance could have played the drawing
by Beliavsky, but as we saw on 20...'ifxaS 21 'i'xaS ':xaS 22 :Xb7
moves 13, IS and 16, Black has ':xa2. Anyway, safer was IS ... ttJf6,
other options. hitting the e4-pawn, as given by
Silman and Donaldson, and if 16
Game 32 ~f3, then 16 ... 'ii'cS targeting the
Salov-Velimirovic c4-pawn. We believe this is fine for
Szirak izt 1987 Black, since White has to waste
time protecting his pawns. An ex-
(1 e4 c5 1 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ample is 17 b3 eS!? 18 fS'ii'd4 19
tLlxd4 g6 5 c4 ~g7 6 ~e3 tLlf6 7 'ii'c2 gS!? with a goos! game for
tLlc3 0-0 8 ~e1 d6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 Black.
'ii'd1 ttJxd411 ~xd4 ~c6) If the lines after 12 ... aS do not
suit you, this may be the way to
12 f3 play. Here White's attack is not
nearly as dangerous as it may be-
come after 12 ... aS.
13 ~hl
Sensible, and clearly the best
way to keep the tension, waiting for
Black to play ... tLld7. 13 f4 eS! is
embarrassing, and other moves
hardly help the white attack. 13
':acl is seen in Game 38 and 13 b3
in Games 39-49.
13 ttJd7
This is what everybody plays,
but as it is not clear what White
will do next, it is quite tempting for
82 Classical Maroczy: White Exchanges the Dark-Squared Bishops
Chapter Guide
Here we examine in detail the lines can be adopted after either of the
where White avoids the trade of 10 ncl or 10 'ji'd2 move orders.
dark-squared bishops, a plan which White keeps as many pieces on the
Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 87
Game 35
Ernst-Larsen
Sweden zt 1992
31....d4? Game 36
What a pity! Larsen was close to Serper-J.Sorensen
creating a classic, but here he slips Tunja 1989
up. 31...fxe4 was decisive, e.g. 32
.f2 1i'd6 33 ltxc6 .xdl! Now (1 e4 c5 2 liJrJ liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
White manages to escape. liJxd4 g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7
32 :xc6 bxc6 liJc3 0-0 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.d7 10
331x
If 32 ...1i'xdl then
perpetual. at.J '9f fila -
g6+ is a :tel liJxd4 11 .i.xd4 .i.c6 12 rJ as
13 b3 liJd7 14 .i.e3liJcS)
33 exf5 gxf5 34 .i.e2
Now things are under control 15 .d2 .b6
Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 91
But since queen and knight work aiming for similar attacking possi-
better together than queen and bilities to Game 34, but he plays
bishop, in fact Black has the ad- ... £7-f5 immediately, hoping that he
vantage. He can also attack on the can regroup later. It is thought of as
dark squares. a difficult line for Black, as while
33......g7 34 h4 "'b2 35 "'dl he regroups, White will be able to
"'xa336f4? . attack his weaknesses. But since
White should have tried 36 no-one has actually proved this in
'ii'xd6, although 36... 'ii'c1 + 37 'ii'dl practice yet, it is difficult to explain
'ii'e3+ is clearly better for Black. why 15 ...f5!? is not more popular.
36•••lLle6! 37 'ii'xh5+ ~g7 38 'ii'dl 16 exfS gxfS!
'ii'c5+ 39 ~ lLlxf4 40 'ii'f3 'ii'e5 A natural recapture - the g-file is
41 g3 lLle6 42 i.dl lLld4 43 'ii'd3 potentially more dangerous than
lLlf5 44 'Wtfl 'ii'c5 0-1 the f-file.
A pawn down with a bad posi- 17 lLldS
tion, White threw in the towel. 17 f4 prevents Black from
Again White never accomplished pushing his own pawn to f4, but
b3-b4, since Black kept him busy then the c6-bishop, combined with
with small positional threats. play on the g-file, would give
Black attacking chances. After 17
Game 37 ltfdl, not 17...:£7?? 18 i.xc5 1-0
Vaganian-Yudasin (Lerner-Urban, Berlin 1991), but
USSR 1988 17 ... b6 with similar play to the
main game.
(1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 17 :f7
lLlxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 lLlf6 7 18 :fdl b6
lLlc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0 i.d7 10 Since the queen is not heading
:el lLlxd4 11 i.xd4 i.c6 12 f3 as for b6, and Black has already
13 b3lLld7 14 i.e3lLlc5 IS 'ii'd2) committed himself by playing ... f7-
f5, it is sensible to fortify the strong
IS f5!? knight. This move also opens up a
different path for the other rook to
the kingside.
19 i.gS :a7
Both defending the e7-pawn and
preparing for a quick transfer to the
kingside, which Black hopes will
be the main battleground.
20 i.h4?!
Yudasin was more afraid of 20
'ii'e3!?, and rightly so. He was in-
tending 20...:b7, covering the b6-
pawn, and after 21 f4 h6 22 i.h4
i.f8 23 i.h5 :g7 he considers the
position to be unclear, since Black
An interesting idea. Black is plans 24 ...•a8 and then 25 ...e5.
94 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
22 l:.e8 c;t>e3
23
The structure is very similar to
the previous game, but here White
is ready to meet Black's counter-
play, since he is several tempi up.
23 'ike7
24 h4!
16
This move is often criticised, but
it is not so bad. At first sight, it 24 'iVb4?!
seems as if Black is trying to pre- This seems too ambitious. Black
vent a2-a3 and b3-b4, but in fact creates a long-term weakness, but it
the opposite is true. As we will see is unlikely ever to tum into any-
in the game, White has to play 'ifc 1 thing concrete. The prophylactic
and a2-a3 to shift the annoying 24 ....ie8 seems to us to be a better
queen, after which she happily re- move. Black intends to play
turns to b6, hoping to prove that 25 ...tiJb6 next, hitting the c4-pawn
White's a2-a3 has been played too and leaving the a-file open. This
quickly. For 16.. JUc8 see Games typical way of exploiting the open
41-44. a-file secures plenty of counterplay.
17 ':c2 ':fc8 Such positions are normally given
18 -.c1 -.b6 as slightly better for White, due to
19 a3 -.d8 his space advantage, but practical
20 -.d2 play has not supported this.
As we now see, Black has not 25 g3 -'e7
lost a tempo, but has in fact forced 26 tiJd4 .ie8
White to go for an immediate a2- 27 ':bc1 tiJb6?
a3. 20 'ifd2 was not absolutely nec- Now Anand is going for the
essary, but the queen is not very standard plan, but there is a tactical
well placed on c 1. flaw. Gelfand recommends instead
20 e6 27 ...'l1c7 28 tiJb3 lhc8 29 c5!,
An active choice. Black is plan- when White is somewhat better,
ning to put the bishop on e5 to although it is not that scary.
protect the weakened d6-pawn. 28 tiJxe6 -.xe6 29 .ixb6 ':a3?
Although this is a common idea, it Gelfand gives 29 ... d5 as a big
is usually played without moving improvement, hoping for compen-
the king's rook to c8. sation after 30 .in dxe4 31 fxe4
100 Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops
.b6
13 b3 lL'ld7 14 ~e3 lL'lc5 15 :tab 1
~n ~e5)
16 '::'fc1 '::'fc8 17 ::'c2 .d8 18
21 exd5
21 cxd5? a4! 22 b4 lLlb3 gives
Black everything he could dream
of.
19 a3!? 21 .g7
This idea of putting the queen
behind the bishop on the long di-
agonal is a typical way of obtaining
counterplay. Black might already
be threatening 22 ... a4 23 b4 ~b3
with counterplay.
22 b4 axb4
23 axb4 lL'la4!
Going for the dark squares at
any cost.
24 ::'b3
25 '::'a3
White was threatening to double
rooks on the a-file, but now this is
It is interesting to note that 19 met with 26 ... 'ii'e8, when a later
lL'ldl!? neither attracts Khalifman ... b6-b5 gives Black counterplay.
nor scares Hracek. The only possi- 26 ~d4
ble reason for this must be that White tries to fight back on the
20 ...h5, as mentioned in the previ- dark squares, hoping that after the
ous game, is evaluated as okay for exchange of dark-squared bishops,
Black by both players. If this is not Black's ... b7-b5 sacrifice will not
the case, then 18 ... ~e5 is indeed be so effective, since he cannot use
dubious.
19
19 ... ~e8 was
.f8
played in
the c3-square. The risk, of course,
is that he might end up with a terri-
ble bishop versus knight endgame.
Wojtkiewicz-Bischoff, Altensteig 26 ~xd4+
1995, but it seems dubious, since it 27 .xd4 .g7!
is difficult to see what Black can do White's threats along the a-file
next if White keeps on manoeu- were getting serious, but after the
vring - the bishop blocks Black's queens disappear, Black is saved
traditional plans. In the game, how- by tactical means.
ever, it was fully justified, since 28 .xg7+
after 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 lLla4 22 If the queen had gone anywhere
lLle2 lLlb6 White agreed to a draw, else, Black would have had coun-
admitting that he had expanded too terplay with 28 ...b5.
quickly. 28 ...c;itxg7 29 '::'cal b5!
20 lL'ld5 This is the trick that saves Black.
20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 ~a4 22 If White accepts the sacrifice with
Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange of Dark-Squared Bishops 103
not easy for White to make prog- 17 :fd l!? seems more direct to
ress, as Black is ready to exploit the us, as the threat to the d6-pawn
open a-file which would arise if forces 17... i.xb5 18 cxbS, which
White should go for a2-a3 and b3- generally favours White. Actually,
b4. Serper indicates that 20 g3!? this was what I had intended in the
followed by 21 i.g2 and then 22 f4 previous game, but I was surprised
is the right way to expand. This by 17 ... 'ii'h4, which is impossible
does indeed look like the way to here. Black was maybe intending
play, but Black's position still 18 .....f6, planning 19... gS, with
looks solid enough. IS .....c7!? is good control of the dark squares on
seen in the next game and the kingside, but then 19 i.e3! is
IS ..."'6!? in Game 49. strong, as now 19... 'ii'h4 20 g3
16 lLlbS! iLxg3 21 hxg3 'ii'xg3+ 22 'iitfl
This looks like the right antidote seems to win for White. Maybe
to Black's plans, as the d6-pawn Black could try 18 ... gS, but 19 iLe3
will come under immediate pres- h6 20 h4! looks very good for
sure. Less successful was 16 lUdl White.
iLeS 17 iLfl? (17 lLlbS!) 17.....f6 17 'ii'f6
18 l:[bcl gS! 19 lLle2 g4 20 'ii'e3 18 :bdl iLf4
gxf3 21 gxf3 'ii'g6+ 22 iLg3 fS, 19 'ii'c2 :fd8
when Black had an attacking posi- 20 g3 iLh6
tion in Ikonikkov-P.H.Nielsen, 21 lLlbS!?
Cheliabinsk 1991, the game ending This leads to the structure dis-
in a perpetual after 23 f4 lLlxe4 24 cussed earlier. Hellers indicates 21
fxeS dxeS 2S iLg2 f4 26 iLxf4 exf4 lLlxc6 i.xc6 22 f4 eS 23 fS as
27 lLlxf4 ':xf4 28 "xf4 l:tf8 29 somewhat better for White, but this
'ii'h4:£2 30 l:[d8 ~f7 31 :d7+! does not seem all that clear to us, as
1/2- 112. In this game Black had the suddenly Black's pieces are excel-
only chances, and White just man- lently placed, and he has the plan
aged to hold the balance. of preparing ...as-a4.
21 iLxbS
22 cxbS
16 iLeS
17 lLld4
Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops III
White must now take care to classic b3-b4 break, but as we now
avoid 17 a3? a4! 18 b4 tLlb3, win- know, this is absolutely no guar-
ning an exchange. antee of success. Black's pieces are
17 ':'c2 active, and he has reasonable con-
The same tournament featured trol of the dark squares. A clear
the game Renet-Spangenberg, in indication of White's difficulties is
which White tried another way of the fact that Leko now heads for a
re aring a2-a3 and b3-b4. After repetition, as he sees no way of
17 i.dl 'ii'd8 18 a3 b6 19 b4 axb4 making progress.
20· axb4 tLld7 21 .i.b3 the bishop 23 i.h6 i.g7 24 ..t.e3 i.f6 25 i.h6
was well posted on b3, where it i.g7 26 i.e3 i.f6 27 i.h6 'ifd8!?
protects c4 and eyes fl. Although Black bravely decides to play
Black has a solid position, he went on.
down surprisingly quickly after 28 i.e3 ct>h7 29 i.n 'ifh8
21...'ii'f8 22 .i.e3 i.f6 23 i.h6 'ii'd8 Now Black has excellent control
24 tLldl b5? 25 cxb5 'ii'b6+ 26 tLlf2 of the dark squares, and White has
i.xb5 27 i.e3 'ii'a6 28 tLlg4 i.g7 to keep his knight on the clumsy
29 tLlh6+ i.xh6 30 i.xh6 tLle5 31 dl-square, or else Black's knight
'ifd4 txcl+ 32 ':'xcl 'ii'a3 33 'ii'c3 will invade on c3.
i.d7 34 f4! 1-0. However 24 ... b5? 30 ~hl l::tc7 31 l::tbc1 i.d7 32 l::t&2
was very bad and 24 ... l::ta3 should i.e6 33 l::tac2 l::tac8 34 ..t.e2 i.d7
be okay. 35 i.n 'ife8 36 ~gl i.g7 37 i.e2
17 'ifd8 b5!?
18 a3 'iff8 Again Black chooses to keep the
19 ..t.e3 game alive instead of settling for a
Preventing 19 ... ..t.h6. draw.
19 h5!? 38 cxb5 l::txcl 39 ':xc2 ':xcl 40
20 b4 axb4 'ifxc2 .txb5 41 ~tl e6
21 axb4 tLla4 Although the position is cer-
22 itldl i.f6 tainly drawn, Black keeps pressing
his slight initiative by making pawn
breaks in an attempt to unbalance
the position.
42 Wd2 .txe2 43 'ifxe2 d5 44 exd5
exd545 Wd3 d4!? 46 ..t.xd4 'ifd8
47~e3Wg5+?
Better was 47 ... 'ife7+!, getting
the pawn back with a draw.
48 "'e2 Wxg2+ 49 itltl itlb2 50
'ifc3??
After 49 'ife3! White would
nearly be winning, as Black is close
to losing his lmight, e.g. 49 ... itlc4
SO 'ifc3. Now, however, Black is
A typical Maroczy position. rewarded for his willingness to take
White has managed to get in the chances.
Classical Maroczy: White Avoids the Exchange ofDark-Squared Bishops 113
~'.1(r.,! wi~" p s!cudc_.. ,~ fC,Hlor~
Chapter Guide
6 ... d6 - Game 50
6 ... ~h6 - Game 51
Game 50
Geller-Larsen
Monte Carlo 1967
Game 51
Wojtkiewicz-Hoffman
Valencia 1990
Black enjoys a slight edge. He
has more central pawns and a cen- (lliJf3 g6 2 d4 .i.g7 3 c4 c5 4 e4
tralised king, and can later play cxd4 5 liJxd4 liJc6 6 .i.e3 tt)h6!?)
...a5-a4. This may not be enough to
win the game, but it is quite un- 7 liJc3
pleasant for White. This gives Black an extra option.
22 f3 .i.e6 7 .i.e2 is more exact, as then Black
23 :d2 a5 is more or less forced to play
118 Maroczy Bind: Systems with an Early ... tiJh6
Chapter Guide
6llJb3 - Game 52
6 llJc2 d6 7 i..e2 llJf6 8 llJc3 0-0 9 0-0
9 ...a6 - Game 53
9...llJd7
10 i..d2llJcs 11 b4llJe6
12 <itthl - Game 54
12:bl as
13 a3 - Game 55
13 b5 - Game 56
1Of3 -Game 57
is to force Black to play the weak- ltJf6 9 f3 ~e6 10 ~e3 0-0 11 ~e2
ening ... d7-d6. Here this is not the ltJd7 with equality. A good plan for
case, and 6 ltJbS just looks like it Black would be ... b7-b6 followed
loses time. On the other hand by ... ltJcS, which will force the
White is still very solid, so it leads retreat ltJc3, since capturing on c5
to a fairly level game. After gives Black control over the d4-
6 ... ltJf6, 7 ltJlc3 is probably the square. Note that Short did not play
best, e.g. 7... d6 8 ~e2 0-0 9 ~e3 7... ~xc3+. Normally it is good to
a6 10 ltJd4, when White has to play double the pawns when the knight
the main line a tempo down! Of is on c2, since it is then possible to
course it is possible to play along play .....as and apply pressure on
standard patterns, but Simagin the weak c-pawns immediately.
played more creatively with However, with the knight on b3
1O...ltJxd4 11 ~xd4 bS!? (sacrific- this is not possible, and the capture
ing a pawn) 12 cxbS axbS 13 ~xbS is therefore less attractive .
.i.b7 14 0-0 (clever play by Bron-
stein; he returns the pawn, hoping
that his two queenside pawns will
counter the black centre) 14 ... eS
15 ~e3 ltJxe4 16 ltJxe4 .i.xe4 17
a4, when the wild game Bronstein-
Simagin, Moscow 19S1, later end-
ed in a draw. Instead of 11. ..bS!?,
11. .. ~e6 is a safer way to exploit
the extra tempo. Then 120-0 ltJxd4
13 ~xd4 ':'c8 was played in Lu-
tikov-Roizman, USSR 1964, when
13...Wa5, with the standard idea of
using the f-rook on the c-file, side-
stepping any ltJd5 tricks, gives b) In Schmid-Larsen, Havana
Black a good position. 1967, White avoided this possibil-
In a later game Bronstein tried 7 ity with 7 ~e2 and Larsen re-
ltJSc3, but after 7... 0-0 8 ~e2 b6!? sponded with one of his typical
(it was of course possible to de- flank pawn moves: 7 ...aS!?, and
velop normally with 8...d6, but after 8 a4 ltJf6 9 ltJc3 0-0 10 ~e3
Black plays more creatively) 9 ltJd7 11 Wd2? (better is 11 0-0;
.i.g5 ~b7 10 0-0 lIc8 11 ltJd2 Schmid probably feared 11...~xc3,
ltJd4, Black had placed his pieces but after the inclusion of a2-a4 and
harmoniously, Bronstein-Rantanen, ... a7-aS this is less attractive for
Tallinn 1979. Black, since White has targets on
6 ltJf6 the b-file) Larsen now won a pawn
(see following diagram) with 11...b6 12 ltJd4 ~b7 13 ~dl
6 ...d6 often transposes, but does ltJc5 14 ltJxc6 ~xc6 15 ~c2 'i'd7
sometimes have independent value: 16 O-O? 'ife6 17 ltJd5 ltJxe4 18
a) Ljubojevic-Short, London 'ifd3 ltJc5 19 ~xc5 bxc5 20 lhel
1980, continued 7 ltJc3 as 8 ltJa4 ~eS! 21 f4 ~xd5 22 cxdS ~d4+
122 Maroczy Bind: 6 &jjb3 and 6 tbc2
Game 55
lIIescas-Ljubojevic
Linares 1993
12 l:lb1
plan with ... e7-e6, which we see in .i.e2 0.f6 8 0.c3 0-0 9 0-0 0.d7!?
the main game, would also have 10 ~d2 ttJe5 11 b4 0.e6 12 :Lbl
been strong here. Khasin should as)
have played ... e7-e6 on move 17 or
18 with good prospects. 13 b5!? 0.ed4
17 'it'd 14 b6!?
Now Ljubojevic played the key:
17 e6!
.d
ful co-ordination.
18 ~h6 ~xh6 19 .xh6 .f6 20
~a4!
.g7 21 :Ldl :Lfe8 22 ~n
Game 56
Saloy-Adams
Dos Hermanas 1993
Adams regards this as slightly
(1 e4 e5 2 tbfJ tbe6 3 d4 exd4 4 better for White, but since he wins
0.xd4 g6 5 e4 ~g7 6 tbc2 d6 7 this game in an instructive manner
Maroczy Bind: 6 {jjb3 and 6 {jjc2 129
and only gives alternatives with It may look like White is very
White gaining equality, it is diffi- active, but the opposite is in fact
cult to place too much faith in this. the case. All Black's pieces are
Black has counterplay against the placed on good squares, and the a3-
b6-pawn and his only concern is to pawn is strong.
keep the knight on c5 defended 30 .txd6 :xd6 31 :xd6 'it'xd6 32
after a white i.e3, since the rook :xe5 'it'xb6 33 :b5 'it'e6
cannot go to c8. Black followed up with ...':'c8
19 h5! with the better position and won in
This strong move forces White 67 moves. As we have seen, Black
to decide where to put his bishop. has just as good chances to win as
If he plays it to h3, Black plays his opponent in this line, so 11 b4!?
2o ... lh6, threatening 21.. ..tf6! (not does not look like anything to be
2l...l:[xb6?? 22 .txe7!) which is a afraid of.
typical idea. If White takes on f6,
Black gets the e-file and the usual GameS7
knight vs. light-squared bishop Portisch-Tukmakov
advantage, and also stops all White Madrid 1973
plans involving an e4-e5-break.
20 .te2 :e8 (1 e4 e5 2 1tJf3 ltJe6 3 d4 exd4 4
21 .te3 a4 ltJxd4 g6 5 e4 .tg7 6 ltJe2 d6 7
Not really a pawn sacrifice, .tel 1tJf6 8 ltJe3 0-0 9 0-0 ltJd7!?
since 22 .txc5 :xc5 23 "xa4 10.i.d21tJeS)
"a8! wins back the pawn with
advantage. 11 f3
22 :b4 a3 23 nibl 'it'd7 24 .tb5
'it'd8 25 .te2 'it'd7
Now Salov should have settled
on a draw by repetition. In the
game, he was slowly outplayed.
26 :c4?! e6! 27 :dl exd5 28
nxd5 'it'e6 29 .tf4 :e6
11 as
We wonder why nobody has
ever tried 1l...'it'b6!? Although this
looks like a patzer's move, it is not
so easy to refute:
a) After 12 ~hl 'it'xb2 13 :bl
.i.xc3 14 J:xb2 .txb2 Black has
130 Maroczy Bind: 6 0.b3 and 6 ttJc2
rook, knight and pawn for the a) 14 :acl was played in Sanz-
queen. His position is solid, and he Zsu.Polgar, Leon 1989, when
has a strong knight on c5. Only Black reacted with the ultra-solid
Black can be better. 14 ... ~d7 IS ~hl ':fd8 16 :fdl
b) More critical is Ii 0.dS, but .i.e8 17 0.a3 \t1h8. Although
12 .. .'ihb2 13 :bl 'ii'xa2 14 0.cb4 Black's last few moves look quite
0.xb4 15 0.xe7+ ~h8 16 ~xb4 suspicious, she won in 70 moves.
~e6 is better for Black. We have Probably Black should prefer either
not been able to find a decent way 14...fS or 14... b6 followed by
to meet 11...'ilfb6, which could ... ~b7, ...:fd8 etc., with a balanced
mean that 11 f3 is actually a mis- position.
take! b) 14 :abl fS IS exf5 ~xf5 16
Instead 1l...~xc3 was played by lIbel ~xc2 17 :xc2 0.b4 18 :tccl
Spiridonov against Fillip in Sochi a3 19 bxa3 ~xc3 20 :xc3 0.xa2
1973. The idea is that after 12 21 lIc2 'ii'xd2 22 :'xd2 0.c3 23
~xc3 0.a4, White cannot preserve ~xc5 dxc5 24 :al :fc8 25 :c2
the dark-squared bishop without 0.xe2+ 26 lIxe2 ~f7 112-112 Stohl-
losing a pawn. However, in the Malisauskas, Manila 011992.
game White used his space advan-
tage with 13 'ii'd2 a5 14 ~hl ~e6
15 f4 f6 16 :adl ~g7 17 0.e3
0.xc3 18 'ii'xc3 'ilfb6 19 :tf3 0.b4
20 a3 0.a6 21 f5 ~f7 22 fxg6
~xg6 23 0.f5 ~xf5 24 exf5 0.b8
25 lIh3 ~h8 26 l:xh7 ~xh7 27
'ii'h3 1-0. Of course, it is possible
to improve on Black's play, but
1l ... ~xc3 looks dubious.
12 ~hl
Once Black has played ... a7-a5
in this line, White need not fear
... ~xc3 anymore, since Black no
longer controls b5 and b6, and the 12 fS
black queen cannot go to a5. The A more passive, but solid way of
more active 12 ~e3!? is therefore meeting 12 'ifthl was tried in Con-
quite logical. For example, 12 ...a4 quest-Petursson, Palma de Mallorca
(everybody plays this, but other 1989: 12 ... b6 13 :el l:a7 14 b3
moves are also possible and in par- ':d7 15 'ii'el e6 16 :dl ~b7 and
ticular the Petursson approach, Black had no problems, since he
12 ... b6 13 'ii'd2 :a7 followed by will soon be ready for the ... d6-dS
...:d7, ...e7-e6, ... ~b7 etc., looks break.-
good; Petursson has played the 13 exfS ~xfS
Maroczy for many years, so one 14 0.e3
should pay extra attention to his 14 ~e3!? is an interesting alter-
ideas. He knows what he is doing!) native, e.g. 14... 0.b4 15 0.d4 or
13 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 and now: 14...~xc2 15 'ii'xc2 0.d4 16 'ii'd2
Maroczy Bind: 6llJb3 and 6lLlc2 131
Chapter Guide
6 ...ttJxd4?! - Game 58
6 ...d6
7 0 ttJxd4 8 'iVxd4 ~g7 9 ~e3 0-0 10 'iVdl ~e6 11 l:[c1 'iVaS 12
tl'ld5 'iVxa2! 13 ttJxe7+ ~h8
14 ~d4 :feS - Game 59
14 ~e2 ttJgS! 15 ttJxg8 - Game 60
7 ~e2 tl'lxd4 8 'iVxd4 ~g7
90-00-0
10'iVd3
1O... lbd7 11 ~g5 tl'le5 12 We3 ~d7 - Game 61
1O...~e6 11 ~d2 - Game 62
10'iVe3
1O...~d7 11 ~d2 - Game 63
1O... ~e6 11 :b 1 - Game 64
9 ~e3 0-0 10 'iVd2 ~e6
11 0-0 'iVaS
12 :abl!?- Game 65
12 :acl - Game 66
11 f3 - Game 67
9~g5
9... h6?! - Game 68
9...0-0
10 'iVe3 ~e6 11 :cl 1i'b6! 12 b3 - Game 69
10'iVd2
10... a6 11 f3 - Game 70
10...~e6
11 0-0 - Game 71
11 %leI - Game 72
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 133
Over the past few years the Gur- 10 1M2 transposes to the next
genidze line has developed from game) 9... 0-0 10 ~e2 .i.e6 11 ~d2
viable sideline to become the most ttJd7 12 0-0 'iib6 13 'iWxb6 ttJxb6
frequently played variation in the 14 b3 a5 with equality, Klavin-
entire Accelerated Dragon. In par- Bannik, USSR 1963.
ticular, the games of Tiviakov, c) 8 c5 ~g7 (less advisable is
Antunes, Petursson and a group of 8... dxc5?! 9 'iWxc5 [Silman and
Cuban players such as Andres have Donaldson give 9 'iWxd8+ 'iti>xd8 10
done much to popularise it. ~f4 .i.e6 11 0-0-0+ 'iti>e8 12 ~e3
Black's main idea is to get in the c4 13 nd4 ttJg4 14 ~xc4 ttJxe3 as
freeing ... b7-b5, but depending on equal, but 12 ttJb5 seems to win for
the particular set-up chosen by his White] 9 ... .i.g7 10 ~e2 0-0 11 ~f4
opponent, Black has a variety of with a small advantage for White
different plans to choose from, and according to Levy) 9 ~b5+ ~d7
these are explained in the illustra- 10 cxd6 0-0 11 0-0.txb5 12 ttJxb5
tive games. a6 13 dxe7 'iWxe7 14 ttJc3 lIfe8 15
lIel lIad8, as in Ciocaltea-Parma,
Game 58 Athens 1968, and now 16 -.c4
Polugayevsky-Jansa gives equal chances.
Sochi 1974
6 ttJxd4?!
This is an inaccurate move or-
der, as it allows White some extra
options. Most importantly, White
does not need to decide immedi-
ately whether he wants to play .i.e2
or f2-f3; here he can wait and place
the light-squared bishop on the
ideal square d3.
7 -.xd4 d6 8 ~g7
8 ~gS! 9 0-0
This is the only way to take ad- There is no real point in holding
vantage of Black's move order. back on castling, as Black will have
Other moves have been tried, but to do it later anyway. However,
none of them have secured White other moves have been tried:
an advantage: 9 ... .i.e6 10 :tcl nc8 11 b3 'iWa5 12
a) 8 b3 ~g7 9 .i.b2 0-0 10 .i.e2 f3 (12 .i.d3?! allows 12 ...h6 13
"it'a5 11 0-0 .li.e6 12 l:tac1 nfc8 13 ~e3 ttJg4 14 .i.f4 g5 15 ~g3 ttJe5
"it'd3 a6 14 ~al nab8 with equal with equality according to Bagirov)
chances, Korchnoi-Benko, Buenos 12 ... h6 13 ~e3 0-0 14 ~d3 (14
Aires 1960. ~xh6? .ixh6 15 'iWxh6 b5! is ex-
b) 8 f3 .i.g7 9 'iWf2 (9 .i.e3 0-0 cellent for Black) 14 ... 'iti>h7 15 0-0
134 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
...b7-b5 has also been tried, but so but here too Black does not have
far this has proved a little too pas- much to worry about: 12 ... ':fc8 13
sive to provide equal chances: 11 iLd3 a6 14 ~a4 (the less accurate
ltc1 Wa5 12 iLe2 ltfc8 13 0-0 a6 14 ~e2 was tried in lPolgar-
14 b3 iLc6 (worse is 14... b5?! 15 Antunes, Yerevan 01 1996, which
c5! :c6 16 cxd6 exd6 17 ':c2 %:tac8 continued 14... Wxd2+ 15 ~xd2
18 ~d5 with a clear advantage for ~d7 16 ~f4 ~c5 17 iLe2 a5 18
White, Polugayevsky-Bednarski, ~d5?! [18 h4 is equal] 18 ...iLxd5
Siegen 01 1970) 15 iLd4 ~d7 16 19 cxd5, reaching the position that
iLxg7 c;i;1xg7 17 ~hl ~g8 18 f4 b5 White was probably hoping for, but
19 'ifb2 bxc4 20 iLxc4 with a small she was in for a big surprise:
advantage for White, Suetin- 19 ... a4! 20 b4? [better is 20 iLc4,
Forintos, Budapest 1970. but White hadn't seen Black's next
An untried idea is l1...a5, in- move]
tending 12 iLe2 iLc6 13 0-0 ~d7
14 b3 ~c5 transposing to a Classi-
cal Maroczy with White already
committed to %:tc1, which is not
considered dangerous for Black.
11 ltel waS
In Donaldson-Perelstein, Ber-
muda 1997, Black was apparently
unfamiliar with 7 f3 and chose
l1...a6?! here: 12 b3 Wa5 13 ~d5
(now ...Wxa2 is no longer possible,
and Black will just end up in an
inferior endgame) 13 ...Wxd2+ 14 20...~b3+!! [all of a sudden
~xd2 iLxd5 15 cxd5 :'fc8 16 ltxc8 Black is much better, the passed a-
:'xc8 17 g3! with a clear advantage pawn will cost White a rook, leav-
for White. ing Black an exchange up] 21 axb3
:'xcl 22 :xc1 a3 23 iLb5 a2 24
'itd3 a1'if 25 Axa1 ltxa1)
14... 'ii'xd2+ 15 cotxd2 llXl7 (this
position is almost identical to the
main line with 7 iLe2 and 9 iLe3,
except that the bishop is on d3 in-
stead of e2; however, the position
is still equal - see Game 67 for a
comparison) 16 f4 f5 17 :the1 'itfS
18 exf5 and Black has no prob-
lems: 18 ... iLxf5 19 iLe2 h5 20 iLf3
:'c7 21 ~b6 (or 21 ~c3 e6 112-112
Polugayevsky-Timman, Hilversum
1973) 21...~xb6 22 iLxb6 :d7 23
12 ~dS iLd5 :e8 24 :e6 iLf6 25 :ce1 a5!
A popular alternative i~~ b}, 26 a4 :a8 27 lt6e2 iLg4 28 :e4
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 137
23 b4? 7 llJxd4
Equal was 23 f4 'ilff6 24 bxa4. 8 Wxd4 i..g7
Now the black passed a-pawn will 9 0-0
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 141
l:tb2 'ifxc4 19 1:tdl 1:tac8 with un- White does not fancy allowing
clear play, but Black is at least .. ,'iib6, so he tries to prevent this
equal, so White should perhaps while simultaneously keeping his
deviate as early as move 14) attack going.
16 ... 'ife4 17 'iff2 'ifc2 18 ~f3 18 ~f6!
'ifxf2+ 19 l:ixf2 i..f5 20 1:tdl dxe5 19 ~g4
21 fxe5 1:tac8 22 i..d5, and here 19 i..xf6? exf6 is of course out
Black should have played either of the question, as it leaves White
22 ... b6 23 g4 lLle6 24 gxf5 lLlxg5 with a bad bishop versus a strong
or 22 ... lLle4 23 i..xe4 i..xe4, in both knight.
cases with an endgame advantage 19 lLlcS
for Black. 20 'ifh4 'ifb6!
A very brave decision. The black
queen leaves the defence of the
king in order to create some long-
tenn counterplay. However, it was
difficult to suggest anything else
for Black, e.g. 20 ... lLle4 21 libel
lLld2 (2l...lLlxg5 22 fxg5 i..g7 23
lIxf7! 'i!i>xf7 24 i..e6 ~8 25 'ii'h7
wins for White) 22 :f2 lLlc4 23
lIf3 followed by l:ih3 with a strong
attack for White - analysis by
Franzen.
21 fS lLle4
22 i..xf6 lLlxf6
13 lLldS In this situation it would be
A worthless alternative is 13 mistaken to take back with the e-
i..h6?!, when after 13 ... i..xh6 14 pawn: 22 ... exf6? 23 fxg6 hxg6 24
'ihh6 i..c6 15 i..f3 'iib6 16 'ifd2 i..e6! fxe6 25 'ife4 with a clear
'iib4 17 'ife2 e5 White's opening edge for White according to Fran-
play had been a failure, Pupo- zen.
R.Hernandez, Havana 1992. 23 fxg6 hxg6
13 l:r.e8 24 i..e6! ~g7!
14 l:abl as The bishop cannot be touched:
15 ~hl i..c6 24 ... fxe6? 25 'ifh6 cj;f7 26 'ii'h7+
The black set-up is very similar ~f8 27 dxe6 with mate to follow.
to the Classical Maroczy variation, 25 i..xf7! l:r.h8
but White's position is unlike any 26 'ife1 l:r.xh2+!
he can achieve in the line men- The only move. The bishop was
tioned above. Black therefore has still not to be touched: 26 ... ~xf7
to exercise extreme caution in order 27 'ife6+ ~e8 28 l:xf6.
to stay in the game. 27 <it>xh2
16 f4 i..xdS 28 ~g3
17 exdS ~ 29 l:r.dl!
18 Vi'h3!? \, The only way for White to play
. fl" \ "
144 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
10 .e3
This move looks quite modest,
played, it does have some logic to
it. Black wants to transpose into a
Classical Maroczy, in which the
but do not let your eyes deceive White set-up is somewhat unusual.
you, it is in fact very ambitious. Black's results in this line have
With the queen on e3 and the been anything but encouraging to
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 149
date, but this is mainly due to poor edge for White) 13 b3 (13 .i.e 1!? is
follow-up play. White has tried: still worth consideration, e.g.
13...a4 14 f4 .i.d7 15 e5) 13 ....i.d7
14 ~d5 e6 15 ~3 .i.c6 16 .i.el
.e7 17 f3 nfeS (17 ...nfdS is quite
possibly stronger, leaving the other
rook on the a-file, which will be of
use when White eventually breaks
with b3-b4) IS .i.d3 b6 19 .i.c2
.i.e5 20 .i.g3 nadS 21 a3 .i.xg3 22
hxg3 .c7 23 b4 ~d7 24 .d4 with
an edge for White, Gelfand-
Pigusov, Sverdlovsk 19S7.
b) 11 <it>hl (this is probably
~ 11 b3 ~c5 (l1...fib6 can be White's best; he would like to start
answered with 12 lLld5, when some kingside action, but does not
12 ...•xe3 13 ~xe7+ <it>hS 14 want the queens to be exchanged)
.i.xe3 .i.xal 15 nxal neS 16 l1...lLlc5 12 f4 .ltxc3?! (a dubious
.i.d4+ f6 17 ~xcS naxcs IS .ltg4 idea - White wants to attack and
nc7 19 .i.xd7 nxd7 20 .ltxf6+ Black gets rid of his dark-squared
<it>gS 21 f3 is better for White, but bishop; the white attack comes to a
in Benko-Panno, Palma de Mal- halt, but the weaknesses in the
lorca 1971, Black played more pas- black position remains, so it was
sively: 12 ...•dS 13 nbl ~c5 14 better to play 12 ....ltd7) 13 bxc3 f5
.i.b2 e5 15 f4 .i.h6 16 .ltxe5 dxe5 14 exf5 .ltxf5 15 .lta3 ncs 16 .ltf3
17 .xc5 exf4 IS nbdl and White .d7 17 nadl b6 IS l:.fel lUeS 19
was clearly better) 12 .ltb2 a5 13 h3 .a4 20 .ltxc5 bxc5 21 g4 .ltd7
nadl and here 13 ... .ltd7, intending 22 f5 with a strong initiative for
... .ltc6~ould be the obvious way White, Smyslov-Furman, USSR
to continue. Nonetheless, two other 1967.
(quite poor) moves have been 11.ltd2
played: 13 ... f5? (nearly always a The normal rook moves to bl
bad idea) 14 exf5 .ltxf5 15.ltf3 and dl have also been tried:
ncs 16 nfel with a much better a) II ndl with a further diver-
game for White, Uhlmann- gence:
Matulovic, Skopje 1966, and al) l1...a6 12 c5 .c7
13 ...b6? 14 f4 .ltb7 15 e5 fibs 16 (Boleslavsky gives 12 ...•a5 13
exd6 exd6 17 .ltf3 neS IS.d2 cxd6 exd6 14.ltd2 .ltc6 with equal
.i.xf3 19 nxf3 fib7 20 f5! and chances) 13 cxd6 exd6 14 .g3
once again White was clearly better nfeS with chances for both sides -
in Tatai-Cosulich, Bari 1972. Salov.
b) 11 .ltd2 lLlc5 12 nadl a5 a2) 11.....a5 12 .ltd2 nfcS 13
(Geller-Ostojic, Belgrade 1969, lLlb5 ilb6 14 "xb6 axb6 15 ~c3
saw 12 ....ltd7 13 .ltel!? b6 14 f4 .i.e6 16 b3 b5! 17 e5 lLld7 IS
~a4 15 b3 lLlxc3 16 .ltxc3 .i.xc3 lLlxb5lLlxe5 19.1tc3 .ltg4 20 .ltxg4
17 .xc3 .c7 IS .g3 with a small lLlxg4 21 .ltxg7 <it>xg7 22 a4 ~f6
.-eY6!A ":Pier ~~.. A"J:/ -/'1. It( ~ 1.!f.51 see-41I S s-l{D<A.~
150 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
1/2- 1/2 Smyslov-Browne, Amster- b2) ll...aS!? (we feel that this is
dam 1971. Black's best shot, though tests are
a3) 11..."'6 12 .xb6 axb6 13 needed before a clear evaluation
.te3.tc6 14 f3 tDd7 15 l:tdcl tDc5 can be given) 12 a4?! (this is
16 '!:'c2 '!:'fcS 17 tDd5 .txdS IS clearly not the critical test of
cxd5 :a3!? 19 .tf2 :caS 20 .tc4 Black's idea; interesting is 12 l:r.dl
b5! 21 l:r.ac1 l:r.3a4 22 .txb5, Illes- .tc6!?, e.g. 13 eS tDd7! 14 exd6
cas-Leko, Leon 1993, and now exd6 IS 'iWg3 [IS l:r.xd6 gives Black
Black could have maintained too much play for the pawn:
equality with 22 .. .lIb4! 23 .tc4 b5 lS ... l:teS 161M2 'iWe7 17 .tf!
24 .tb3 tDxb3. tDcS] IS ... ~cS! 16 'iWxd6 'iWxd6 17
b) 11 l:r.b1!1 and now: l:Ixd6 .txc3 IS bxc3 tDe4 19 .l:td3
b 1) 11..."'6 was the preferred l:IfdS with equal chances) 16....tc6
treatment by Black until quite re- 13 f3 ~d7 14 b3 ~c5 IS .ta3?!
cently, but Stohl's handling of the 'iib6 with a good game for Black,
game below has cast some clouds as in Martinez-Bar, Baile Hercu-
over Black's prospects; we there- laine 1994.
fore suggest that you take a look
under 'b2', which seems fine for
Black. White has:
bll) Smyslov-Gligoric, Moscow
1971, saw 12 .g3 l:fcS 13 .te3
"'4 14 :fcl .te6 15 1Wh4! (15 b3
.xc3! 16 1::txc3 tDxe4 is excellent
for Black) 15 ...a6 15 a3 .a5 16 b4
'iWdS 17 b4 'iWdS IS c5 dxc5 19
bxc5 .a5! with equal chances.
b12) The actual move order in
Stohl-Leko was 12 b3 .tc6 13
11M3, but this allows 12 ... 'i'xe3 13
.txe3 .tc6 14 tDd5 .txd5 15 exd5
tDe4 16 :bcl tDc3 17 l:r.c2 tDxe2+ 11 a6
IS l:xe2 .tf6 with equality ac- Several other moves have been
cO~dinto Stohl. tried here:
13 121M3! .tc6 13 b3 :fcS a) White had an edge after
14 . e3 'iWdS (14 ..."'4 15 i.d2! 1l...'ifb6 in Keres-Lengyel, Tallinn
"'6 16 'it>hl, intending f2-f4, is 1975: 12 l:tabl 'iWxe3 13 .i.xe3
also good for White) 15 f3 a6, l:tfcS 14 l:tfc1 a6?! (the wrong plan;
Stohl-Leko, Bmo 1993, and here better was the normal 14....tc6 IS
White should have continued 16 a4 f3 tDd7, although White is still
a5 17 tDdS with a small but clear slightly better) 15 f3 i.e6 16 b3
advantage. Instead he chose 16 <;io>f8 17 a4 a5 IS tDd5.
:fcl?! :abS! 17 .ta7 :as IS .te3 b) Once again, Black can con-
:abS 19 a4 a5 20 tDd5 tDd7 21 sider ll...a5!?, when after 12 .l:tfdl
.tg5 .txdS 22 exd5 .tf6 23 i.e3 .tc6, Barcza-Damjanovic, Vrsac
tDc5 with chances for both sides. 1967, continued 13 tDdS tDd7 14
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 151
e5
'ii'b8 with an edge for Black; White 22 h5 e4!
will lose both b-pawns. Black must stay active. The rest
Another possibility is 12 ....i.c6, of the game went as follows:
which was tried out in Salov- 23 ':bl .c7 24 hxg6 hxg6 25 b4
Dzindzichashvili, New York 1996. On 25 iLxa5 Ivkov gives fol-
After 13 b4 b6 14 l:labl tbd6 15 lowing line: 25 ...•xa5 26 b4 .a6
h4!? b5 16 a3 bxc4 17 .i.xc4 tbe5 27 bxc5 .xc4.
18 .i.b3 .i.b7, White should have 25...axb4 26 .i.xb4 tba6 27 iLa3
continued with 19 h5 with a small .c4 28 "b3 "xb3 29 ':xb3 ':c8
152 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
instead 22 ttJdS, after which Black 1997) IS ... dxeS 16 ttJxbS 'ii'b7 17
equalised with 22 ... i.xdS 23 exdS :fcl :td8 18 lIel ttJg4 19 i.cS e4
dxcS 24 bxcS 'iWxdS 2S :tdl 'it'eS 20 i.xg4 i.xg4 21 ttJc3 i.fS 22
26 :d 1 ':xcS! and much later (on ttJdS :d7 23 i.e3 with advantage
move 108!) went on to win the to White, Ivanchuk-Kovacevic,
game. Belgrade 1997.
12 ':fc8 b) 13 ... ttJg4 14 JQd5l? (Ivan-
On 12 ... ttJg4, Ivanchuk gives the chuk's 14 i.d4 i.xd4 15 "'xd4 did
following analysis: 13 ttJdS (13 not give White anything in the
i.d4 i.xd4 14 'iWxd4 "'eS IS "'xeS game Korneev-Tiviakov, Linares
ttJxeS with equality or 13 b4 i.xc3! 1998: 15 ... lIcs 16 "'d3 ttJf6 17
14 "'xc3 "'e5 IS "'xeS tZ.'lxeS with ~hl i.d7 18 f4 a5 19 a4?! [19 i.f3
an unclear position) 13 ......xd2 14 or 19 ':bel were better] 19 ... i.c6
i.xd2 i.xdS IS cxdS ttJf6 16 f3 20 ttJdS :te8 21 ':bdl :ad8 with
:fc8 17 :fc 1 with a slight advan- approximately level chances)
tage for White. 14......xd2 15 i.xd2 ';;'fS 16 i.gS!
13 b3 (16 i.xg4 i.xg4 17 i.gS f6 is
13 b4 looks quite logical, but equal) 16...ttJf6! (16 .. .f6?! is too
Black gets a good game after passive: 17 i.d2 ttJeS 18 f4 ttJc6 19
13 ......d8 14 cS as IS a3 axb4 16 f5 i.f7 20 g4 ttJeS 21 ':bcl i.xdS
axb4 :a3 17 ttJbS :a2 18 "'d3 dS!, 22 exdS ~f7 23 i.e3 b6 24 h4, and
as in Hanel-Stefansson, Vienna White holds the advantage due to
1991. his space advantage and bishop
pair, Gelfand-Andersson, Polanica
Zdroj 1997) 17 ttJxf6 i.xf6 18
i.xf6 exf6 19 ':bdl ~e7 20 f4 ':c5
21 ':d4 a5 22 :tfdl :a6 with a
drawn endgame, Tischbierek-Van
der Weide, Berlin 1997.
c) 13... a6 (this is probably
Black's best choice, as White has
yet to show a clear path to an ad-
vantage) 14 ':fcl and here we have
another divergence:
el) 14... bS?! IS b4! "'d8 16
cxb5 axb5 17 i.xb5 with a clear
plus for White - Ivanchuk.
13 tZ.'ld7 c2) 14...'ii'b4 IS a3!? (the natural
Several other moves have also IS f3 is good for Black: 15 ... bS! 16
been tried in this position: cxbS axb5 17 a4 ':xc3! 18 ':xc3
a) 13 ...bS? 14 b4 "'c7 IS eS! (1S ttJdS 19 ':d3 ttJc3 20 ':cl ttJxe2+
ttJxb5?! 'ii'b7 is slightly better for 21 "'xe2 bxa4 22 bxa4 i.c4 23
Black, but 15 c5 a6 16 :tfel dxc5 "'d2 "'xa4 24 "'dl i.b2 2S "'xa4
17 i.xc5 tZ.'ld7 18 tZ.'ld5 i.xdS 19 ltxa4 26 ':bl i.xd3 27 :xb2 with
exd5 tZ.'lxc5 20 bxc5 favours White, a extra pawn for Black in the end-
Arsovic-Kovacevic, Yugoslavia ing, Lopez-Nanu, Szeged 1998)
158 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
':xf6 (if White moves the c3-rook, d6 exd6 22 'ii'xd6. Black is badly
Black will exchange the queens and co-ordinated and he has difficulties
have a slightly better endgame; defending himself against the threat
with 20 ':xf6 White aims for an 23 "xg6, e.g. 22 ...':c6 23 .ixf7+.
attack, but Black's defensive re- IS .if3 dxe5
sources are perfectly adequate) 19 e5 lDd7!
20 ... exf6 21 .if3 .ic6 22 .id4 In the stem game of this line,
.ixf3 23 "'f4 'ii'g5 24 'ii'xf3 l:le8 Parma tried 19... lDg4?, but after 20
and although Black has a small .ixa8 .ixe5 21 .id5 lDxe3 22
advantage, the game soon ended in
a draw in Spassky-Panno, Palma de
.ixe6 ':d8 23 "'£2 lDf5 24 'ii'e2
.id4+ 25 lithl he was lost. The
Mallorca 1969. game was soon over: 25 .. .fxe6 26
"'xe6+ ~g7 27 lDe4 'ii'c7 28 lDg5
':f8 29 "'xf5 1-0 Tal-Panna, Bled
1961.
20 .ixaS :'xaS
21 'ii'e2 e4
Black already has a pawn for the
exchange, and the white e-pawn
does not have a very promising
future. Therefore White has only
one thing left to do if he does not
want to die slowly: attack!
22 bxc4 .ixe4
23 'ii'f3 ':f8
24 lDdS .ixd5
17 .ie6! 25 'ii'xd5 lDxe5
In Vitolins-Telman, Kiev 1967, 26 .ie5 :'dS
Black soon got into trouble after To be considered was 26... 'ii'c7,
17 ... dxc5? 18 e5 lDg4 19 .if3 but it seems as if both parties were
lDxe3 20 'ii'xe3 l:a7 21 lDd5 .ie6 happy with the draw that is coming
22 :'xc5 :d8? (22 ...:'xc5 23 "xc5 up after the text move. The game
':d7 24 lDxe7+ ~h8 25 lDc6 'ii'd2, concluded:
although White is still better) 23 27 "'7 'ii'xal 2S .ixe7 :'eS 29
l:lc6 :ad7 24 :'xe6! fxe6 25 .ig4! ':eS ':xeS 30 'ii'xeS+ ~h7 31 'ii'h3
with a murderous attack. ~gS 32 'ii'eS+ ~h7 lIz-liz
ECO's suggestion of 17... h4!?
was tried out in Miiki-Frois, Thes- Game 67
saloniki 01 1984: 18lDd5 lDxd5 19 Short-Korchnoi
exd5 dxc5 20 .ic4 :'f8 21 a4 'ii'b6 Lucerne 1997
22 "£2 :'ac8 23 d6! e6 24 :'cdl
'ii'c6 25 1fh4 f5 26 :'f3 and White (1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 1Dc6 3 d4 exd4 4
had the clearly better chances. lDxd4 g6 5 e4 lDf6 6 lDe3 d6 7
Donaldson suggests 20....ie8 as an .ie2 lDxd4 S 'ii'xd4 .ig7 9 .ie3
improvement, but we believe that 0-0 10 'ii'd2 .ie6)
White has all the chances after 21
162 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
with a won endgame for White, .i.d7 160-0 "c7 17 ':c2 ':fd8 18
Alburt-Llvanov, Chicago 1989. ':fcl e5!? 19 tiJb3 J.e6 20 ':c3!
10· .i.e3 0-0 tiJd7 21 tiJal! f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23
11 -.d2 'iith7 tiJc2 in Seirawan-Llvanov, USA ch
An idea deserving of attention is 1992.
1l.....a5!? 12 0-0 .i.e6!? planning 12 J.e6
to answer 13 i.xh6 J.xh6 14 "xh6 12 ... J..d7 is too passive here: 13
with 14... ~. In its only outing, ':fdl J..c6 14 f3 (or 14 "c2 "a5
White did not achieve much: 15 15 i.d4 with a slight plus, Garcia
':ad1?! "xb2 16 ':d3 tiJxe4 17 Martinez-Pinal, Cienfuegos 1983)
':bl "c2 18 ':el 'iVb2 with equal- 14.....a5 15 ':ael l:.fc8 16 a3 a6 17
ity, Honfi-Makropoulos, Athens .i.f1 "d8 18 b4 'ji'b8 19 a4 a5 20
1976. Silman and Donaldson claim b5 J.d7 21 tiJd5 with the better
that White is clearly better after 15 chances for White, Griinberg-
tiJd5!? J.xd.'; 16 exd5 "xb2 17 Dumitrache, Romania 1992.
%:tael!, intending f2-f4-f5. How-
ever, we do not agree with this
judgement. In many endgames
Black will be better due to the su-
periority of his knight over White's
bishop, and if White insists on an
attack with f2-f4, he will weaken
his kingside dramatically. A possi-
ble line is 17 ... ':ae8 (or
17 ... ':fe8!?) 18 f4 (18 J.dl b5!)
18 ... tiJe4, threatening .....d4+ and
... ~8. With best play from both
sides, the position is probably
roughly equal. Instead of 15 tiJd5,
White could try 15 ':ab 1, but the 13 :ac1
chances are about equal after This is not White's best move
15 ... J.xc4 16 J.xc4 lIbc4 17 "e3. here. Other possibilities are:
The correct way for White to a) 13 f3 "a5 14 l:.ael a6 15 b3
take advantage of Black's weak h6- ':fc8 16 a4 tiJd7 17 ':c2 (White
pawn is initially to ignore it, until does not achieve anything after 17
White has secured his own posi- tiJd5 "xd2 18 .i.xd2 .i.b2 19 ':ce1
tion, as then Black will have to tiJc5 20 J.e3 .i.xd5 21 exd5 b6 22
waste a tempo protecting the h6- J.dl i.c3 23 ':e2 ':c7 with equal-
pawn. Seen in the light of this rec- ity, Karasev-Tal, USSR ch 1971)
ommendation, moves such as 13 17 ... tiJc5 18 ':bl ~! 19 tiJd5
':ab!, 13 ':ac1 and 13 ':fc 1 would "xd2 20 l:bd2 J.xd5 21 ':xd5 a5
all be good choices. 22 J.dl ':c6 23 J.c2 e6 24 ':ddl
12 0-0 tiJa6! 25 e5 d5 with equality, as in
White also achieved a slightly the game Uhlmann-Andersson,
better position with 12 f3 J.e6 13 Hastings 1971/72.
':c1 ':c8 14 tiJb5!? a6 15 tiJd4 b) 13 .i.d4 ':c8 (an interesting
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 169
1t'd2, it certainly gives White more cxb5 axb5 14 a3! "'8? IS .i.xb5,
options, as after 10 'ii'e3 .i.e6 11 when he was just a pawn up. Ama-
0-0 'ii'b6 White can choose 12 son suggested 14.. JlaS!? as an im-
'ii'd2, when after 12 ... 'ii'a5 we are provement, but Petursson himself
back in the 10 'ii'd2 lines. showed the right way for Black the
10 .i.e6 following year against the same
1O... 'ii'a5 is also possible, but player: 1l...'ii'b6! 121M2 (or 12
after 11 0-0 .i.e6, we will transpose b3!?) 12 ...'ii'b4!? (12 ...'ii'aS is also
into the note to Black's 11th move. playable, but the text is more inter-
Three rarely played alternatives esting) 13 f3 and now:
are: a) Petursson gives 13 ... .i.xc4!?
a) 10...a6 11 0-0 .i.d7 12 Afd1 14 a3 'iib3 IS .i.xc4 'ii'xc4 16 ttJdS
l:tc8 13 h3 Ae8 14 ]:tacl with a 'iib3 17 ttJxe7+ ~h8 as unclear.
slight plus for White, Murey- Gallagher disagrees and gives 18
Gelfer, Tel Aviv 1980. 0-0 'ii'b6+ 19 Af2 Afe8 20 ..txf6
b) 1O... 'ii'b6 (in this form ... 'ii'b6 .i.xf6 21 ttJdS 'ii'd4 22 ':c7 with a
is slightly unusual, but in the game clear advantage for White, but we
Black soon manages to equalise) 11 think that after 18 ...Afe8 Black
'ii'xb6 axb6 12 ~d2 .i.e6 13 a4 should have nothing to complain
Afc8 14 b3 :a5 15 .i.xf6 (15 .i.e3 about. In fact, how does White
lLld7 is excellent for Black) continue? 19 'ii'xd6? :ad8 20 'ii'cS
15 ... exf6!? (15 ... .i.xf6 was good (20 'ii'c7 Ad7) 20 ...ttJxe4, 19 l:tc7
enough for equality, but the text 'ii'b6+ and 19 ttJdS ttJxd5 20 'ii'xdS
move is an interesting attempt to 'ii'xdS 21 exdS .i.xb2 22 ':c7 .i.d4+
create some action) 16 .i.d3 f5 17 23 c,t.>hl ~g8 24 ':xb7 :ab8 are all
Aad1 .i.xc3+ 18 ~xc3 fxe4 19 good for Black, but White can keep
.i.xe4 Ih_Ih Arencibia-Antunes, level chances with 19 .i.xf6! .i.xf6
Cuba 1991, but here 19 ...d5 is quite 21 ttJdS 'ii'xb2 22 'ii'f4! .i.eS! 23
interesting. White's only move is 'ii'xfl Af8.
20 b4!, when 20 ... ':xa4 21 .i.xd5 b) 13 ... ':fc8 14 b3 a6 IS ttJa4
and 20.. Jlxc4+ 21 ~b3 ':a8 22 'ii'xd2+ 16 ~xd2 ttJd7 17 h4 (or 17
.i.xdS are both about equal, but g4 f6 18 .i.e3 fS - transposing to
instead of 21...lIa8, Black can try the note after Black's 16th move in
2l...dxe4!? 22 bxa5 bxa5 with very Game 67) 17 .. .f6 18 .i.e3 fS and we
good chances. have transposed to the note to
c) 1O... .i.d7 11 0-0.i.c6 12 Afd1 White's 16th move in Game 67.
lLld7 13 ..th6 'ii'b6 14 'ii'xb6 lLlxb6 11 '6'b6!
IS .i.xg7 ~xg7 16 Aacl as 17 f3 An interesting option is l1...'ii'aS
':fc8 18 ~ lLld7 19 ~e3 lLlc5 20 12 .:tac1 l:tfc8 13 b3 a6 and now:
Ac2 lLla4 and White was just a tiny a) 14 a4 'ii'b4 IS ..tdl 'ii'cS!
bit better, Penrose-Damjanovic, (lS ... Aab8 16 'ii'el gave White a
Palma de Mallorca 1969. slight edge in Kavalek-Visier, Lan-
11 0-0 zarote 1973) 16 'ii'xcs Axc5 17
In Amason-Petursson, Reykja- .i.e3 l:tcc8 18 .i.f3 Aab8 19 as ttJd7
vik 1989, White was successful 20 ttJa4 ttJcS IIl_lh Kavalek-
with 11 lIcl a6!? 12 0-0 b5!? 13 Browne, Las Palmas 1974.
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 171
lLlxe4 17 i.xe7 :xc 1 18 ':xc 1 i.d4 and now Black has tried a variety
19 ~fl ':xa2 20 i.f3 lLld2+ 21 of things:
~el, Winslow-Gross, New York bl) 14 ... i.d7 IS :fdl i.c6 16 f3
1994, and now Black should have as (the black set-up, which is
continued with 21...lLlxf3+ 22 gxf3 similar to the Classical Maroczy, is
i.e5 with a much better position. too passive without the queens on
the board; Black is left with virtu-
ally no counterplay and Karpov, of
course, is certainly not the right
man to play against in such a posi-
tion) 17 nbc1 lLld7 18 g3 ~f8 19
h4 h5 20 ~f2 i.e5 21 i.fl e6 22
:d2 lLlcs 23 i.g2 q;e7 24 lLle2 b6
2S :cdl l:td8 26 i.g5+ i.f6 27
i.xf6+ ~xf6 28 e5+ with a clear
advantage for White, Karpov-
Petursson, Reggio Emilia 1990.
b2) 14...a6!? 15 lLla4 :ab8!
a3) 15 cxb5!? l:bc3 16 ':xc3 (Black had his share of problems
lLlxe4 17 ':e3 lLlxg5 18 h4 i.d4! 19 after ls ... lLld7 in Christiansen-
':d3 i.c5 20 hxg5 ':xa2 21 i.f3 b6 Dzindzichashvili, USA ch 1991: 16
with good compensation for the f4! f5 17 exfS i.xf5 18 nbc 1 ':ab8
exchange according to Alzugaray 19 lLlc3 ~f8 20 g4 with a clear
and Herrera. edge for White) 16 lLlb6 ':c7 17
a4) 15 i.f3 bxc4 16 e5 lLld7 17 i.f3 lLld7 18 a4 (Silman and Don-
i.xb7 lLlxe5 18 i.xa8 %ba8 19 aldson mention 18 lLld5 i.xdS 19
i.xe7 cxb3 (or 19... lLld3 20 bxc4 cxd5 lLleS with good chances for
i.xc4 21 i.xd6 lLlxc1 22 :xc 1 Black, e.g. 20 i.e2 nc2 or 20 nbcl
with equal chances) 20 axb3 lLld3 ':bc8 21 :Xc7 l:txc7 22 ':c 1
21 ':cdl lLlb2 22 ':c1 lLld3 23 ':xc1+ 23 i.xc1 lLlxf3+) i.c3 19
lIcdl lLlb2 1/2- 1/2 Herrera-Andres, ':fdl lLlxb6 and a draw was agreed
Havana 1990. in A.lvanov-Petursson, New York
b) 12 llabl (Karpov's move, 1991.
which used to give Black quite a b3) 14.. .'itIf8!? 15 f3?! (15
few headaches, though now he i.d2!?) Is ...lLlg4 16 fxg4 i.xc3 17
seems to be doing fine) 12 .....xe3 lIbcl i.b2 18 :c2 i.a3 19 g5 b5
13 i.xe3 l:tfc8 (less to the point is with a big advantage for Black,
13 ... a6?!, as after 14 b3 ':ac8 15 Rodin-Pigusov, Podolsk 1992.
:bc1 :fc8 16 ':fd1 lLld7 17 lLldS b4) 14...lLlg4!? 15 i.xg4 (the
lLlc5 18 f3 f5 19 exf5 gxf5 20 i.fl only move seen in practice, but
..tff8 22 g3 White had a small ad- instead IS i.d2 is possibly strong-
vantage, Gavrikov-Andersson, Biel er: 15 ... i.xc3 16 i.xc3 b5 17 f4!
1993; Karpov mentions 13 ... lLlg4 [Christiansen] with a powerful ini-
and gives 14...i.d2 ':fc8 15 b3 tiative for White, e.g. 17 ...bxc4 18
i.xc3 16 i.xc3 bS 17 f3 with a fS gxfS 19 exfS cxb3 20 fxe6 :xc3
slight advantage for White) 14 b3 21 exf7+ ~f8 22 i.xg4 bxa2 23
Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation 173
Game 70
Mokry-Kallai
Tmava 1985
~d5, but after 14 ... ~xd5 15 exd5 proven even more harmless:
i.d7 we do not feel that Black is a) 20 i.d2 :a8 21 'iPf2 ~d7 22
worse; for comparison see the :el ~c5 23 i.e3 i.a4 24 i.xc5
A.lvanov-Pigusov game above. dxc5 25 :xc5 i.xb5 26 l::.xb5
14 axb5 i.d4+, and a draw was agreed,
15 ~xb5 Kuzmin-Zachev, Moscow 1988.
This leads to massive exchanges, b) 20 ~ i.a4 21 ':bl h6?!
but it is probably the only way to (correct was 2l...i.xb5! 22 lhb5
play for the advantage. In Szekely- lha3 23 :b8+ i.f8 24 i.h6 ~d7
Tangbom, Budapest 1992, 15 0-0 25 ':d8 and now 25 .. ,llb3? loses to
b4 16 ~b5 'Wa5 17 i.e3 ~d7 18 26 i.a6! intending 27 i.c8, but
~d4 ~c5 19 ':fdl ':fd8 20 i.f4 25 ...:a2! transposes to the main
i.d7 21 i.c4 ~e6 was equal. But game) 22 i.d2 ':a8 23 lbc7! ':a7
why not did Black not play 21...e5 24 lba6! with a small edge for
here? Unless White does something White, as in Tukmakov-Vaganian,
drastic, he will end up a piece USSR 1984.
down, but what can he do? 22 a3 is
met by 22 ...'Wb6! 23 axb4 ~e6, so
it seems as if White has to go in for
22 i.g5, when Black is much better
after 22 ... exd4 23 i.xd8 l:txd8.
15 ':xcl+
16 'Wxcl 'Wa5+
17 'Wd2 :a8!
18 a3
This position is almost identical
to that which arose in the note to
White's 11th move in Game 65, the
only difference being that here the
white bishop is on g5, but in some
examples, such as our main line, 20 i.a4
transpositions may occur, so one 21 ':bl i.xb5
must keep an eye out for these. 22 ':xb5 ':xa3
Possibly better than 18 a3 is 18 The game finished:
~c3!?, as in Frolov-Tangbom, 23 ':b8+ i.f8 24 i.h6 lbd7 25
Budapest 1992, which went 18 ... h6 ':d8 l::.al+ 26 'iPfl':82 27 g4 f6??
19 i.e3 ~g4 20 i.d4 i.xd4 21 28 'iPe3?? ':c2 29 i.d3 111.- 111.
'Wxd4 ':c8 22 <li>d2, and now in- Why all the question marks?
stead of 22 ... ':xc3? Black should Well, instead of 28 ~e3??, White
have tried 22 .. :i'g5+! - see Game could have won on the spot with
65 for analysis. 1M Strauss' discovery 28 e5!!
18 i.xb3 (28 ... dxe5 29 i.e3!, 28 .. .fxe5 29 g5
19 'WxaS ':xa5 or 28 ... g5 29 e6). Hence Black's
(see following diagram) 27th move was a blunder; correct
20 0-0 was 27 ... g5!, intending ...f7-f6 and
The best. Other moves have ...'iPf7, when Black can defend.
178 Maroczy Bind: Gurgenidze Variation
St Petersburg 1993
10 ~e6
Chapter Guide
6 tDb3 - Game 73
6 i..e3 tDf6 7 i..e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5! 9 exd5
9 ... tDb4!? - Game 74
9... tDxd5 - Game 75
In this chapter we shall deal with Black the option of 6... i..xc3+,
the classical lines in which White White may try 5 tDb3 if he wants to
neither plays 5 c4, entering the enter the Karpov variation of the
Maroczy Bind, nor plays i..c4 (see Classical Dragon (1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6
Chapters 10 and 11). White hopes 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 g6 6
that by developing his light- i..e2 i..g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tDb3 tDc6 9
squared bishop to e2, he will be i..g5). However, Black can keep
able to transpose to a regular Clas- the game within the Accelerated
sical Dragon (nonnally reached via Dragon by postponing moving the
the move order 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 d6 3 d-pawn: 5... i..g7 6 i..e2 tDf6 7 tDc3
d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 g6 6 0-0 8 0-0 as 9 a4 tDb4 10 i..g5 h6
i..e2). However, White's modest (l0... d6 would transpose into the
set-up often allows Black to play Karpov variation, but on occasion
...d7-d5 in one go, with a good Black has tried the immediate
game to follow. 1O...d5: 11 exd5 tDfxd5 12 tDxd5
tDxd5 13 i..f3 tDf6 14 :el 'fIc7 15
Game 73 1i'e2 ':e8 16 1i'b5 ~ 17 c3 with
Zapata-Garcia Martinez some initiative for White, Ku-
Sagua /a Grande 1984 preichik-Pohl, Schwabisch Gmiind
1995) 11 i..h4 g5 12 i..g3 d5 13
(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 exd5 (13 e5 only helps Black:
tDxd4 g6) 13 ... tDe4 14 tDxe4 dxe4 15 tDc5
i..f5 with excellent chances) and
5 tDc3 now:
Since 5 tDc3 i..g7 6 tDb3 allows a) Black adopted an interesting
188 Classical with i.e2
liJxc2, when Black was doing very liJxd5 10 liJxc6 bxc6 11 ~d4
well. ~xd4 12 'ii'xd4 'iVa5 13 'iVa4 'ii'b6
13 'ii'hS 14 liJdl ~f5 15 c3 e5 16 ~a6
14 h3 ~c8 .l:ad8 17 0-0 liJf4 with a plus for
15 c4 liJe8 Black, Saltaev-Serper, Tashkent
16 ~b2 f6 1987.
17 ~e4 eS b) 7 liJb3 a5 (7 ... 0-0 is likely to
18 'ii'e3 liJd6?! transpose into Game 75) 8 ~b5 0-0
Zapata suggests instead 9 0-0 a4 10 liJxa4 liJxe4 11 liJb6
18 ... liJc7, intending 19 ~xc6?! :b8 12 c3 f5 13 f4 e6 14 a4 d5 15
bxc6 20 'ii'xa7 liJe6. a5 g5 16 ~xc6 bxc6 17 fxg5 e5
19 ~dS+ ~h8 20 f4 with compensation for the pawn,
Now Black's position is under- Sisov-Kotkov, USSR 1954.
going demolition. c) 7 f4 0-0 (7 ...d6 transposes to
20 ...liJb4 21 fxeS liJxdS 22 cxd5 the Classical Dragon after 8 ~e2) 8
liJc4 23 exf6! liJxb2 24 'ii'd4 'ii'xdS e5 liJe8 9 'iVf3 d6! 10 liJxc6 bxc6
25 'ii'xb2 'ii'd7 26 ':adl ':xdl 27 11 'ii'xc6 ~d7 and Black has ex-
':xdl ~g8 28 ':d6 d6 29 'ii'd4 cellent compensation for the sacri-
~e6 30 liJdl ~xa2 31 c4 1-0 ficed pawn.
d) 7 f3 0-0 8 ~c4 'ii'b6 trans-
Game 74 poses into lines which can be found
Radulov-Deze under 7 ~c4 0-0 8 f3 'ii'b6 - see
Vrsac 1971 Game 87.
7 0-0
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 It is premature to play ... d7-d5
liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 ~g7) before castling. The game Filip-
owicz-Borkowski, Poland 1976,
6 ~e3 liJf6 showed why: 7... d5? 8 ~b5! ~d7 9
exd5 liJb4 10 ~c4 ':c8 11 ~b3
'ii'a5 12 'iVd2 ':xc3 13 bxc3 liJbxd5
14 ~xd5 liJxd5 15 c4 and Black
had insufficient compensation for
the exchange.
8 0-0
For 8 f4 and 8 liJb3, see the
notes to the next game. The other
moves at White's disposal should
not bother Black too much:
a) 8 h4? d5 9 liJxc6 (White
should try to limit Black's advan-
tage by 9 exd5 liJxd5 10 liJxd5
'iVxd5 11 ~f3 'ii'a5+ 12 c3 ':d8 or
7 ~e2 12 ... liJxd4) 9...bxc6 10 exd5 liJxd5
The alternatives mostly trans- 11 liJxd5 cxd5 12 c3 e5 with an
pose into other lines: excellent position for Black,
a) 7 h3?! 0-0 8 'ii'd2 d5 9 exd5 Lepeshkhin-Zaitsev, USSR 1958.
192 Classical with i.e2
l%c1
ltJc6
i.fS
that is not the subject of this book,
we shall to bypass that particular
possibility:
21 l%dl ltJd7 a1) After the 'mad' approach
22 i.e3 e4?! S... e5!?, Grosar-Zsu.Polgar, Por-
Black is too optimistic and initi- toroz 1991, saw the following con-
ates a mistaken plan. The text just tinuation 9 ltJdb5 exf4 10 i.xf4
weakens the e-pawn and makes the ltJe8 11 0-0 ltJe5 12 ltJd5 a6 13
Classical with .i.e2 195
13 ~f3 repeats the position. 22 'iWhs ~d5. with a clear plus, Do-
b2) 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 c3 eS 14 brito-Vilela, AIcobendas 1994) 17
ltJb3 .i.fS IS 'iWcl l::tfd8 16 ltJcs e4 'iWe4 ~b7 18 'iWg4 h5 19ltJbS .c6
17 ~dl ~dS with equality, Shaba- 20 'iWgS f6 and Black was winning,
nov-Cherniak, Moscow 1994. Muller-Donaldson, Vancouver
b3) 12 ltJxc6 bxc6 13 c3 (or 13 1980.
'iWd3 .i.e6 14 'iWxc4 ~xc4 IS l::tfdl b2) 13 ltJb3 'iWc7 14 c3 ~a6
.i.xb2 16 &b 1 .i.f6 17 ~xc6 .i.xa2 (l4 ... aS!? IS ltJcs a4 16 ltJxa4
18 ~xa8 .i.xbl 19 ~e4 1/2_ 1/2 Dely- ~d8, intending ... ~e6 or ... .i.fS -
Aronin, Moscow 1962) 13 ... ~e6 Donaldson) IS ~el ~ad8 16 'iWg4
(also of interest is 13 ... ~b8, e.g. 14 ~dS 17 'iWa4 ~bS 18 "'xa7 "'xa7
b3 'iWxc3 IS ~xa7 ~b7 16 ~cl 19 ~xa7 eS 20 l::tedl ~a8 with
'it'aS 17 ~e3 'iWxa2 18 .i.xc6 ~b8 strong compensation for the pawn,
19 ~dS ~a6 20 ~xc4 .i.xc4 21 Casey -Donaldson, Seattle 1979.
bxc4 ~fd8, Tverskaya-Kondou, 12 bxc6
Moscow 1994, or 14 .i.e2 "e6 IS 13 'iVc1
'iWc2 as 16 b3 "fS 17 .i.d3 'iWhs 18 Probably White's best chance .
.i.e2 'iWh4 19 ~acl ~d8 20 ~c4 The alternatives are:
.i.fS with some initiative for Black a) Exchanging the queens with
in both cases) 14 ~el (14 'iWc2 as 13 'iWd2? does not ease White's
IS ~e2 .i.fS 16 ~xc4 .i.xc2 17 task: 13 ......xd2 14 .i.xd2 ~b8 IS
~acl ~fS is equal, Thomsen- .i.c3 .i.xc3 16 bxc3 cS 17 l::tfel
Weemaes, Novi Sad 01 1990) ~e6 18 c4 l::tfd8 19 .::i.eS ~b2 20
14 ... ~fd8 IS 'iie2 'iWxe2 16 ~xe2 ~c 1 ~c8 21 a3 ~f8 with a slight
.i.d5 17 ~cl as with equality, plus for Black, Nalic-Ca.Hansen,
Short-Christiansen, Monaco (rapid) Orlando 1997.
1993. b) Accepting the pawn sacrifice
12 ltJxc6 with 13 ~xc6? gives Black tre-
A reasonable alternative is 12 mendous compensation. After
c3!? ltJxd4 13 .i.xd4 ~d8 14 'iWe2 13 ... ~b8 Black has a clear edge
~xd4 IS cxd4 e6 16 ~fd 1 'iib6 17 following:
dS with equality according to Don- bl) 14 "'dS "'c7 IS ~a4 ~xb2
aldson, whereas others are not to be 16 'iWxcs 'iib7 17 .i.b3 .i.fS 18
recommended: ~adl ~c8 19 'iWxa7 'iixa7 20 ~xa7
a) 12 ltJb3 'iic7 13 c3 .i.fS 14 ~xc2 21 g4?! ':c3 22 ~xc2 ~bxc2
'it'e2 .::i.ad8 IS ~fdl ltJeS 16 ltJd4 23 ~xc2 ~xc2, as played in
~d7 17 ~f4ltJxf3+ 18 'iWxf3 eS 19 Basanta-Donaldson, Bellingham
~g3 'iWc4 with a clear edge for 1987.
Black, Roll-Donaldson, Philadel- b2) 14 ~f4 ~a6 IS ':el .i.xb2
phia 1983. 16 ~xe7 ~fd8 17 'iibl ~f6 18 ~c7
b) 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 and now ei- 'iWc3, as in Sherzer-Donaldson,
ther: New York 1985.
bl) 13ltJxc6? 'iic7 14ltJd4 ~a6 b3) 14 b4 .::i.xb4! IS .i.d2 ~xal
IS ~el ~ad8 16 'iWg4 ~c8 (or 16 .xal 'iWcs 17 ~xb4 .xb4 -
16... eS 17 'iWg3 'iWc8 18ltJf3 e4 19 analysis by Donaldson.
ltJgS 'it'xc2 20 'iWh4 h6 21 ltJh3 gS c) Finally, 13 c3 was played in
Classical with .li.e2 199
Chapter Guide
9 J.b3 d6
10 f3 - Game 76
10 h3 J.d7
11 l:.e1
11...l:.acS - Game 77
ll ... l:.feS - Game 78
11 f4
1l....l:acS 12"'f3 - Game 79
12 lCif3 - Game 80
1l...~5 - Game 81
11 ...~xd4 12 J.xd4 J.c6
13 lCid5 - Game 82
13 "'d3 - Game 83
9~b3"'c7
10 J.g5 - Game 84
10 f4 d6 11 J.e2
11.. .a5 - Game 85
ll...b6!? - Game 86
The lines covered in this chapter b) 0-0 and ~b3 forcing Black
are more positionally orientated backwards and into the Classical
than those to be found in the next Dragon, when Black has committed
chapter (7 ... 0-0 S J.b3 a5 and himself to the odd looking ......c7.
S... d6). White has a choice of two In both lines, Black has to be
main ways of countering Black's very careful not to end up in a pas-
7......a5. Either: sive and joyless position with no
a) 0-0 and J.b3, intending ~d5 counterplay, but with best play his
to put a central clamp on Black's chances are no worse than his op-
position, or pOI1ent's.
Main Lines with 7..tc4 Wa5 201
For 9 ttJb3, please see Games a3) 9 ... ttJxdS! 10 exd5 and now
S4-S6. The alternatives in this po- play can continue:
sition are:
a) The positional 9 ttJdS. If
Black captures the white knight on
dS, White will take back with the e-
pawn and start playing against the
backward black e-pawn. Black
must usually strive to avoid such
positions unless he can immedi-
ately create counterplay elsewhere.
Black has a choice:
al) 9 ... ttJxe4!?1O lbxc6 (10 .f3
ttJd2!) 1O ... dxc6 11 ttJxe7+ ~hS 12
ttJxcS (12 oltd4 .dS! is equal) a31) 1O... lbe5 11 oltb3 (Levy
12 ... l:r.axcS 13 c3 l:tcdS (here gives 11 olte2!? Wxd5 12 ttJf5 .e6
T.Georgadze gives 13 ... fS as un- 13 lbxg7 with compensation for the
clear, but in an open position like pawn, but Black should be better)
this White's bishops should guar- ll...d6 12 h3 (12 c4 ttJg4 13 oltd2
antee him some advantage) 14 'ifc2 'ifc5 14 oltc3 ttJe5 IS .:tel ttJxc4 16
ttJf6 (14 ... ttJd6 IS oltb3 ttJfS 16 oltxc4 'ifxc4 17 ttJe6?! [17 ttJc6!?J
oltf4 olteS 17 .e4 is clearly better 17 ... oltxe6 IS oltxg7 .xdS 19 oltxfS
for White according to Adorjan) IS 'ifxdl 20 l:r.fxdl ~xfS 21 .:tc7 l::tbS!
l:r.fel .c7?! (Adorjan suggests and Black had somewhat better
IS ... ttJg4!? 16 oltf4 .cS, when chances in the game Patterson-
White is slightly better) 16 h3 b6 G.Taylor, Canadian open 1990)
17 l:r.adl ~gS IS a4, Adorjan- 12 ....a6! 13 oltg5 lteS 14 ltel
Visier, Lanzarote 1975. oltd7 15 c3 lhcS 161t'cl2 oltf6! 17
a2) Black has also tried 9 ....dS, olth6 (17 oltxf6 exf6 IS 'ii'h6 lbc4 is
but without success: 10 ttJxf6+ fine for Black) 17 ... b5 IS lte4 'ifb7
oltxf6 11 f4 (also good for White is with equal chances, Browne-
11 c3 .c7 12 We2 d6 13 f4 oltd7 Silman, Sunnyvale 1974.
14 l:r.ae1 l:r.acS IS oltd3 .as 16 a32) Probably better is
ttJxc6 ~xc6 17 fS, Kinzel-Hort, 10... ttJxd4 11 oltxd4 e5 12 dxe6 (12
Krems 1967) 1l...d6 12 eS! oltg7 oltc3 'ifc7 13 oltb3, intending f2-f4,
(or 12 ... dxeS 13 ttJxc6 .xd1 14 is roughly equal) 12 ... dxe6 13
l:r.axdl bxc6 IS fxeS oltxeS 16 olth6
il..g7 17 il..xf7+! ..t>hS IS il..xg7+ l:tdS 15
~xg7 19 il..b3 oltfS 20 l:tde1 -
.f3
oltxg7 ~xg7 14 Wd4+ (14 .:tel
'ifc7 16 oltb3 oltd7 17
h4 is clearly better for White ac-
analysis by Adorjan) 13 e6 fS 14 cording to Adorjan, though Silman
oltdS ttJb4 IS oltb3 as 16 c3 ttJc6 17 and Donaldson suggest 15 ....c5!
ttJbS (intending ttJxd6) 17 ... a4 IS 16 oltb3 a5! 17 a4 l::ta6 followed by
oltc4 ~hS 19 .f3 :bS 20 .f2 b6 18 ... l:tad6, and 14.. :i'cS!? IS 'ifd3
21 oltdS with a sad position for b6 16 'ifc3+ 'ito>gS 17 :e5 'ifc6 in
Black, J.Rodriguez-Kagan, Skopje both cases with fine play for Black)
011972. 14 ... e5 15 .e3 (Gufeld gives 15
204 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as
J..c4"as
ltIxd4 g6 5 ltIc3 J..g7 6 J..e3 ltIf6 7
8 0-0 0-0 9 J..b3 d6)
:g8 18. J..xf7 "f8! - Silman and
Donaldson) 14 ttJc3 fxe4 IS ltIxe4
d5 16 lladl fS 17 ltIgS h6 18 c4!?
10 h3 with a mess, but White later won in
(see following diagram) Griinfeld-Kagan, Tel Aviv 1986.
10 J..d7 b) 1O.•. ltIxd4?! 11 J..xd4 J..e6
Black almost always answers (Parma-Pirc, Beverwijk 1963, con-
with this natural move, connecting tinued instead l1...bS 12 J..xf6
the rooks and supporting a later J..xf6 13 ltId5 J..xb2 14 ltIxe7+
... b7-bS. Other moves fail to im- rl;g7 IS :bl "c3 16 "xd6 and
press: White had the best of it) 12 f4 (this
208 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 "as
may not be the most accurate; with a clear edge for White, Sydor-
Gufeld gives 12 :e1!, intending Filipowicz, Poland 1969.
liJdS, and 12 .i.xe6 fxe6 13 eS!, 11 :el
when in both cases White stands
better) 12 ...:fcS (12 ...:acS 13
"d3 liJd7 14 .i.xg7 ~xg7 15
"d4+ ~gS 16 fS .i.xb3 17 axb3
'it'b6 IS "xb6 axb6 19 :a7 is
slightly better for White, Gauil-
anes-D.Rodriguez, Havana 1990,
or 12 ... a6 13 "f3 1WhS? [13 ... liJd7
was necessary] 14 "£2
:ael .i.c4 16 eS dxeS 17 :xeS+,
:acS IS
rj;xg7 16 c3 'it'c5+ with a fair game and Black went on to win in Chek-
for Black, Schoeneberg-Baumbach, hover-Kan, Leningrad 1936; cor-
East Germany 1966. rect was 13 c!l)xe4 "e5 14 Wd3
b) ll...e5?! 12 ~xc6 ~xc6 13 ~b4 15 "d2 "xe4 16 ':ael, when
f5! l:.ad8 (things are already a little Black is much worse) 13 "el i.c6
difficult for Black but in Short- 14 ~xc6 bxc6 15 g4 1rb4 16 a3
Wagman, Lugano 1986, Black now "'7 17 'ii'h4 d5 with chances for
made things much worse: both sides, Damjanovic-Baumbach,
13 ... i.xe4? 14 ~xe4 ~xe4 15 fxg6 Bad Liebenstein 1963.
hxg6 16 l:txf7! ':xf7 17 i.xf7+
rj;xf7 18 'it'f3+ and the game was
soon over) 14 fxg6!? hxg6 15 i.g5
14 "f2
d2) 12 Wf3lLlxd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6
~d7! (of course not
14 ... ~xe4?? 15 c!l)xe4 i.xe4 16
~xe4 16 ~xe4 i.xe4 17 i.xd8 i.xg7 Q;xg7 17 Wd4+) 15 i.xg7
"xd8 and White has the better (15 i.xa7? only leads to trouble:
chances. 15 ... b6 16 i.d5 i.xc3! 17 i.xc6
c) 1l...':fc8?! Usually Black has i.b4! winning a piece) 15 ... ~xg7
to be very careful when he moves 16 "d4 ~f6 with equal chances.
his rook away from fS, as White d3) 12 "d3 (in the game Short-
may take advantage of the lack of Korchnoi, Garmisch-Partenkirchen
protection of the f7-pawn. 12 a3?! 1994, Black now chose to trans-
(12 ~f3! clearly favours White) pose to Game 83 with 12 ...i.xd4
12 ... ~xd4 13 i.xd4 i.c6 141M3 13 i.xd4 i.c6) 12 ... ~b4! (not
~d7 15 i.xg7 <J;;xg7 16 rj;h2 Wc5 12 ...:fe8? 13 ~f3 "c7 14 g4 ~a5
17 :ael b5 lh-lh Ciric-D.Byme, 15 f5 i.c6 16 fxg6 hxg6 17
Vrsac 1969. i.xf7+! rj;xf7 18 e5 with a strong
d) 1l...:ad8?! attack in Neikirch-Baumbach, East
Germany 1967; a nice demonstra-
tion of why the rook should stay on
fS) 13 "e2 (13 "d2 ~a6 followed
by ... ~c5 is fine for Black) 13... e5
14 ~f3 ~h5 and Black can be sat-
isfied with the position.
d4) 12 ~f3! (Romanovsky's
1937 recommendation is still con-
sidered strongest) 12... b5 (12 ...'ii'h5
was tried out in Krogh-Ca.Hansen,
Denmark 1995, but Black came up
short after 13 'iVd2 b5 14 a3 a5 15
Kan's move from 1936; the idea Wd3 b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 "e2 i.c6
is to prevent e4-e5, but it is very 18 e5! dxe5 19 l:.xa5) 13 a3 a6 14
passive and with correct play White WeI Wc7 15 'ii'h4 'iVb8 16 g4 a5 17
obtains a clear advantage: f5 gxf5 18 exf5 a4 19 i.a2 b4,
dl) 12 f5 ~e5 (in the stem game Kurajica-Hiibner, Barcelona 1965,
Black incorrectly sacrificed a piece and now instead of 20 ~d5 b3,
with 12 ... ~xe4?, but was rewarded better was 20 axb4 ~xb4 21 g5
when White answered 13 ~d5?, with a very strong attack.
Main Lines with 7 ~c4 'ii'a5 215
slightly better game for Black, played 26 ... ~d4 27 "e3 ~xb3 28
Tsarenkov-Kapengut, USSR 1968. "xe7 tLlc5 29 ~f5 gxfS 30 "f6+
b) 14 tLlde2 b4 IS tLlg3 'ii'h4 16 with a draw) 21 .i.f4 (better is 21
tLldS (16 tLlce2 tLlaS 17 tLld4 tLlhS .i.d2, although Black is better after
18 tLlge2 "xf2+ 19 ':xf2 eS also 21...gxf5 22 tLlxfS "xf2+ 23 ':xf2
favours Black, Sprenger-Scholz, .i.xfS) 2l...gxfS 22 .i.xeS+ ~xeS
corr 1972) 16... tLlxdS 17 exdS tLlaS 23 ':d4 "f6 24 ':dS (or 24 ~xf5
18 ':abl .i.bS 19 ':fdl tLlc4 20 .i.xf5 2S "xf5 ~f3+) 24 ... ':g8 25
.i.xa7 tLlxb2 with an excellent po- ':xaS ..g5 26 ~e2 .i.c6 27 ~f4
sition for Black, Ciocaltea-Panno, tLlf3+ 28 ~hl "xf4 29 gxf3 :g3
Lugano 011968. 30 .i.dS l:Ixh3 0-1 Popovych-
c) 14 a3 as (14 ... tLla5!? may be Sherwin, USA 1968.
better) 15 ':adl (or 15 tLlde2 a4 16 16 as
tLlg3 'ii'h4 17 .i.a2 b4 with an ini- 17 c4 "b4
tiative for Black, Tseshkovsky- 18 .i.d2! "b7
Kapengut, Odessa 1968) 15 ...b4 16 Bad is 18 ....i.d4? 19 "xd4
tLldS tLlxe4 17 ..e 1 bxa3 18 tLlxc6 ~xd4 20 .i.xb4 ~xb3 21 .i.xd6
.i.xc6 19 tLlxe7+ ~h8 20 tLlxc8! exd6 22 axb3.
(20 tLlxc6 ':xc6 21 .i.dS ':xc2 22 20 .i.c3 ~b4 20 .i.xg7 ~xg7 21
.i.xe4 ':e2 is favourable for Black, "d4+ f6 22 cS dS!
Hulak-Romanishin, USSR 1969) This practically forces a drawn
20 ... ':xc8 21 bxa3 .i.c3 22 .i.d4+ endgame, whereas 22 ... .i.c6? loses
.i.xd4 23 ':xd4 "c5 24 "e3 tLlg3 to 23 cxd6 .i.xe4 24 ':fel.
2S ':fdl tLlf5 26 "f2 tLlxd4 27 23 ~xdS ~xdS 24 "XdSJi'xdS
"xd4+ ~g8 with a likely draw - 24 ....i.c6? 25 "e6 he4 26 ':d7
Balashov. wins for White.
14 tLlxe4 2S ':xdS .i.c6 26 ':d4 eS! 27 fxeS
IS ~xe4 "xbS fxeS 28 ':xf8 112_112
16 ':adl!
White's best choice, planning Game 80
c4-cS. The other move tried here, Klundt-Kapengut
16 tLlg3, is considered bad: Ybbs 1968
16... aS!? (or 16... ~h8!? when 17 fS
loses a pawn: 17....i.xf5 18 ~xf5 (1 e4 cS 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
"xfS 19 "xf5 gxf5 20 ':xfS e6) 17 ~xd4 g6 S ~c3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 ~f6 7
a4 "'4 18 fS 'ith8 (l8 ... ~4 is a .i.c4 "as 8 0-0 0-0 9 .i.b3 d6 10
suggestion of Silman and Donald- h3 .i.d7 11 f4 ':ac8?!)
son; one line goes 19 fxg6 hxg6 20
.i.xf7+ ~h7, when White has a 12 ~f3!
number of threats to meet) 19 :adl (see/ollowing diagram)
'ii'h4 20 ':d3 .i.eS! (20 ... ':b8 led to 12 ~S
level chances in R.Byme-Stein, The alternatives suit White fine:
Sarajevo 1967: 21 "el .i.xfS 22 a) 12 ...bS? (taking away the
':xf4 "xf4!? 23 .i.xf4 .i.xd3 24 central control provided by the
"d2 .i.a6 25 .i.h6 .i.xh6 26 "xh6, queen on as) 13 e5! ~e8 14 ~g5
when Black should now have e6 IS ~ce4 dS 16 .i.cS, Matulovic-
218 Main Lines with 7 i1.c4 "a5
24 "fl
fxg5 22 fxg5 l:txc2 23 l:txf8+ ~xf8
+ ri;e7 25 "'d3+ ':c6 26
lLlxd6 and White wins) 19 lLlxd5
exd5 20 :xd5, but his position was 21 .i.xf4?
unenviable. Boleslavsky's recommendation
16 .i.a2 b4 of 21 l:txf6! is much stronger, e.g.
17 lLldS bxa3 21...fxe3 22 "xe3 (22 bxa3 "c5
220 Main Lines with 7 iLc4 'ilaS
logical: it is not yet clear where the d3) 13 tLlcxb5 tLlb4 14 "c4 as
queen's rook is best placed, while IS tLlc3 transposes to 13 tLldxbS
the queen has to move to h5 any- above.
way to start action with the queen- d4) 13 a4 b4 14 tLldS tLlxdS IS
side pawns. j.xd5 :ac8 16 tLlxc8 (or 16 tLlb5
12 tLlf3! as! 17 j.xc6 ':xc6 18 tLla7 :c7 19
Again this knight move is best. j.b6 :b7 20 .a6 :fb8 with very
The alternatives enable Black to good play for Black - T.Georgad-
generate sufficient counterplay: ze) 16... j.xc6 17 j.xa7 j.xb2 and
a) 12 "xh5 (after this move Black was better in Grabczewski-
Black has already equalised) T.Georgadze, Lublin 1974.
12 ... tLlxh5 13 :adl :ac8 14 'lPh2 dS) 13 :ae1 a5 14 a3 b4 15
b6 15 g3 tLla5 16 tLlde2 j.c6, when axb4 axb4 16 tLlxc6 (16 tLldS tLlxdS
Black is already a little better 17 exdS tLlxd4 18 j.xd4 j.b5! -
thanks to White's loose pawn see note to White's 19th move)
structure, Peterson-Troyke, Ger- 16 ... j.xc6 17 tLldS tLlxdS 18 exdS
many 1991. j.d7! (the game Tseshkovsky-Kap-
b) 12 "d2 b5 13 a3 tLla5 14.i2 engut, Lvov 1973, went 18... j.a4!?
tLlxb3 15 cxb3 a5 16 b4 ax~ 19 j.xa4 :xa4 20 fS 'iVh4 21 j.f2
axb4 :ac8 with a clear edge for "f6 22 fxg6 bxg6 23 'iVb3 :aa8 24
Black, Mnatsakanian-Romanishin, .xb4, and now 24 ...:fb8 was bet-
Yerevan 1976. ter for Black, but according to
c) 12 :e1 :fe8 13 j.f2 tLlxd4 14 Ubilava can White improve with 19
j.xd4 j.c6 IS tLldS j.xdS 16 exd5 j.c4 j.xb2 20 j.d2 with compen-
.xd1 17 :adl a6 18 c3 .!LId7 with sation) 19 j.f2 (best is 19 j.d4
equal chances, as in Donchev- j.b5! 20 .xbS! j.xd4+ 21 'lPhl
Martinovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1984. 'iVh4 or 20 j.c4 j.xc4 21 "xc4
d) 12 .d3 (White's main alter- :fc8 22 .xb4 :ab8 23 .a4
native to 12 tLlf3) 12 ... bS! and now: j.xd4+ 24 "xd4 :xc2, when
Black is somewhat better in both
cases - Ubilava) 19...:fe8 20 :bl
"fS! 21 .d2 j.a4 with a clear
edge for Black, Short-Kamsky,
Linares 1994.
d6) 13 a3!? (the best way to
counter ... b7-bS, taking away the
b4-square from Black's knight)
13 ... b4 (also interesting is 13 ... a6
14 tLlf3 :ac8 15 :ad1 tLlaS 16 e5
dxeS 17 fxeS J..f5 18 .d4 tLld7
with a complete mess, De Firmian-
d1) 13 .xb5?? .!LIxd4 14 .xhS J. Whitehead, San Francisco 1977,
tLlxhS and wins. e.g. 19 g4 .xh3 20 gxfS tLlxeS) 14
d2) 13 tLldxbS .!LIb4 14 .c4 as .!LIxc6!? (also possible is 14 axb4
IS .!LId4 :ac8 16 .e2 .xe2 17 tLlxb4 IS .d2 as with equal
tLldxe2 a4! and Black is better. chances) 14... bxc3 IS tLlxe7+ 'lPh8
222 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 .a5
Game 82
Skovgaard-Svensson
CO" 1984
l:xd4 :ae8 21 fS) 20 ~xh3 1i'hS+ 16 exdS .tb5 17 :f3 :tac8 with
with a draw by perpetual check, equal chances.
e.g. in Ostojic-Kaplan, Hastings c3) 14 lLlxf6+? exf6 15 fS ~e4
1968. 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 ~xf6 "'cS 18
lfilhl d5 19 'tWg4 'ilfd6 and Black
again has a slight pull, Kiirker-
Yudovic, corr 1966-67.
c4) 14 .txf6?! exf6 (14 .....cS+
15 c;i1h2 ~xdS [Kapengut suggests
15 ... ~xf6 16 lLlc7 ~xe4, when
Black has sufficient compensation
for the exchange] 16 ~xg7 ~xb3
17 ~c3 ~c4 18 :f3 and White's
chances are slightly better due to
the weak dark squares on Black's
kingside) 15 f5 (interesting is 15
"d3!?, intending 15...fS?! 16 exf5
~xb2 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 lLlf6+ ~xf6
13 :tae8! 19 11bg6+ ~g7 20 "xf7+ c;i1h7 21
Three other moves have also ~ith a decisive attack, yet with
been tried: 15 ... ~b5!? 16 c4 .tc6 Black has a
a) 13 ... ~xdS?! is too passive: 14 solid position) 15 ...:txe4 16 fxg6
exdS lLld7 IS ~xg7 ~xg7 16 (16 ~h1 :tae8 17 'tWd3 gS 18 :tadl
"d4+ ~g8 17 ]he 1 :ae8 (or 'tWc5 19 c;i1h2 .tb5 slightly favours
17 ...:fe8 18 :e3 "cS 19"d2 with Black, Nonnenmacher-Hecht, Ger-
a slight plus for White, Smit- man Bundesliga 1987/88) 16...hxg6
Razvalayev, USSR 1967) 18 'itlh2, 17 lLlxf6+ ~xf6 18 :txf6 'tWc5+ 19
Vasiukov-Ciocaltea, Bucharest 'iti>hl d5 20 'tWf3 'tWe7 with equality,
1967, and now Black should have as in the game Hector-Donaldson,
continued with 18 ......cS 19 "'d3 Malmo 1985/86.
bS with a slightly inferior position. cS) 14 :tel!? l:ac8 IS c3
b) Levy mentions 13... lLlxdS 14 .txd5?! (now Black ends up in a
exdS ~d7 IS :tel:tfe8 16 'itlh2 terribly passive position; better was
~xd4 17 "'xd4 'tWcS 18 'tWd2 bS 19 Is ... lLlxdS 16 exdS ~xd4+ 17
c3 with a slight plus for White, but 'tWxd4 ~d7) 16 exdS lLld7 17 ~f2!
Black has no prospects of counter- b5 18 a3lLlb6 19 :te4 ~ 20 "'e2,
play. and Black was not enjoying himself
c) Also inaccurate is 13 ... :tfe8, in Minic-Bellon, Kapfenberg 1970.
as Black takes away some of the c6) 14 'tWd3 :ac8 (or 14... lLlxdS
protection from the f7-pawn. White 15 exdS ~b5 16 c4 ~xd4 17 'tWxd4
has tried numerous moves here: .td7 18 ~h2 'tWcS with equal
cl) 14 c4?! ~xdS 15 exd5 lLld7 chances) 15 'ithl lLlxdS 16 exdS
16 'iti>hl ~xd4 17 'ilfxd4 'ilfc5 and 'tWxd4 17 'tWxd4 ~d7 18 :tf3 'tWcS
Black's knight is stronger than 19 'tWd2 a5 20 c3 'tWbs 21 :tel a4
White's bishop. 22 ~dl e6! is equal, Smit-Murey,
c2) 14 ~c3 'tWc5 15 'iti>h2 lLlxdS USSR 1967.
226 Main Lines with 7 1l..c4 'WaS
c7) The best move is 14 fS!, ex- 16 c4 i..d7 17 i..xg7 ~xg7 18 ~hl
ploiting the fact that Black's previ- 'it'cS 112-112 Klovan-T.Georgadze,
ous move took away the protection Tbilisi 1973.
of the f7-pawn. Play usually con- b) 14 .txf6 'it'cS+ IS ~hl exf6
tinues with 14 ... i..xdS (14 ... lLixe4? (or IS ... .txf6 and now both 16 c3
loses quickly to IS fxg6 hxg6 16 J..g7 followed by ... e7-e6 and 16
lhf7!; of interest is 14... lLixdS, lLixf6+ exf6 17 .JtdS i..xdS 18 exdS
though after IS i..xg7 ~xg7 16 l:te8 are good for Black) 16 fS
exdS i..d7 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 'it'd4+, l:txe4 17 fxg6 hxg6 18 lLixf6+
Black's open kingside will soon J..xf6 19 .!:txf6 'it'gS with equal
give him a headache) IS exdS lLid7 chances, Acosta-L.Garcia, Bogota
(keeping some defenders on the 1980.
board with IS ... bS seems a lot c) 14 lLixf6+? exf6 IS fS is bad
safer, but Black's lack of counter- because of IS ... i..xe4 16 fxg6 hxg6
play does not promise him a bright 17 J..xf6 'it'cS+ 18 ~h 1 i..xf6 19
future) 16 ~hl! (both 16 c3 i..xd4 l:txf6 J..xg2+!
17 'it'xd4 'it'cs and 17 cxd4lLif6 18 d) 14 'it'd3 lLixdS IS exdS i..bS
'it'f3 'it'd2 19 'it'f2 lLie4 20 'it'xd2 (since White loses material after 16
lLixd2 21 l:tf2 lLixb3 22 axb3 l:tec8, J..c4? .txc4 17 'it'xc4 l:tc8, he is
Browne-Bellon, Malaga 1970, are forced to block off the b3-bishop;
comfortable for Black) 16 ... .Jtxd4 Black can then easily break with
17 'it'xd4 'it'cs (l7 ... lLieS is met by ... e7-e6) 16 c4 i..xd4+ 17 'it'xd4
18 f6 and 17 ... f6 by 18 h4, intend- i..d7 18 l:tael (18 ~h2 'it'cS 19
ing g4-gS) 18 'it'f4lLif6 19 l:tael as 'it'd2 e6 is equal, as in the game
20 c4, with a powerful attacking Van Riemsdijk-Naumann, Wechem
position for White, as in the game 1997) 18 ... 'it'cS 19 'it'xcs dxcS 20
Kelecevic-Rajkovic, Yugoslavian l:te3 e6 21 l:tfe 1 exdS 22 cxdS
ch 1968. l:txe3 23 l:txe3 l:te8 24 l:txe8+
i..xe8 2S d6 ~f8 112_112 Haupold-
Anschutz, corr 1976.
14 'Wxel
15 l:taxel lLid7
After Is ... lLixdS White got some
advantage with 16 i..xg7 rj;xg7 17
exdS i..d7 18 ':f3 in Ivanovic-
Davies, Vrsac 1989, but Black
should try 16 ... lLie3!?, e.g. 17 i..xf8
lLixfl 18 i..xe7 ':xe7 19 rj;xfl
lhe4 20 ':xe4 i..xe4 21 rj;f2 ~f8
22 c3 f6 23 g3 gS, when Black held
the draw, F.Olafsson-Pedersen,
Athens 1969.
14 "'el 16 i..xg7 7;xg7
White has also tried to seek an 17 l:te3 tLlc5
advantage with: 18 l:tdl lLixb3
a) 14 'it'f3 lLixdS IS exdS .JtbS
Main Lines with 7 i.c4 'ii'a5 227
'ii'xe4 1i'xd6 with some compensa- 1i'd4+ ~g8 [l7 ... e5 18 1i'e3 ttlxb3
tion for the pawn due to White's 19 axb3 exf4 20 'i'xf4 'i'e5 21
weak kingside. Perhaps White 1i'xe5 dxe5 22 %ldl 1h- 1h Morgado-
should try 15 %lxf4. Fedorov, corr 1970] 18 iLc4 liJd7
14 %lad 1 19 e5 'ifb6 20 'ii'xb6 liJxb6 21 iLd3
The main line. The alternatives dxe5 22 Axe5 e6 is equal, Mata-
are not difficult for Black to meet novic-Cruz, Buenos Aires 1961)
either: 16... liJf6 17 f5 Wb6 18 'ii'xb6 axb6
a) 14 f5?! liJd7 15 iLxg7 (or 15 19 g4 g5 with a slight edge for
liJd5 ~xd5 16 ~xg7 'i;xg7 17 White, Short-Korchnoi, Garmisch-
iLxd5 liJf6 18 %lf2 1i'c5 19 c3 e6! Partenkirchen 1994.
20 b4 'ifb6 21 iLb3 d5 22 exd5 e) 14 ttld5 e5!? (clearly the most
liJxd5 23 iLxd5 lhd5 24 f6+ ~g8 interesting move, although
25 'ii'f4 :f5 with a clear edge for 14...liJxd5 15 exd5 iLxd4+ 16
Black, Janosevic-Funnan, Harra- 1i'xd4 iLd7 17 %lae1 %lfe8 18 'it>hl
chov 1966) 15 ... 'Iii'xg7 16 1i'd4+ Wc5 19 'i'd2 a5 gives equal
'ii'e5 17 %lad 1?! (White should have chances, Klovan-Kapengut, USSR
tried 17 'ii'xa7, but after 17... liJc5 1965, and 14...%lfe8!? can be given
18 %lael e6! Black has strong com- a try) 15 liJxf6+ iLxf6 16 iLc3
pensation in return for the pawn) 'i'c5+ 17 ~hl iLg7 (17 ...iLb5!? 18
17 ...1i'xd4+ 18 %lxd4 liJf6 with a 'ii'f3 iLxfl 19 %lxfl is not clear, as
slight pull for Black, Ekblom-Pytel, Black has difficulties releasing
corr 1992. himself from the pressure White is
b) 14 ~hl e5 15 iLgl d5! 16 exerting on the light squares) 18 f5
fxe5 dxe4 17 'ii'e3 1i'xe5 with a iLh6!? (both 18 ...d5 and 18 ...iLb5
slight edge for Black, Ostojic- are worth considering) 19 fxg6?!
Forintos, Belgrade 1967. (according to Ivkov, White should
c) 14 We3 liJd7 (14...b6? is too try 19 iLd2!? while alternatively,
passive: 15 f5! liJd7 16 iLd5! iLxd4 White could go for 19 %ladl or 19
17 Wxd4 liJe5 18 b4 1i'a6 19 a4 Aae1) 19 ...hxg6 20 'i'g3 ~g7, and
'ifb7 20 b5 iLxd5 21 liJxd5 f6 22 now 21 Aad1 is best, Yilmaz-
a5, as in Klovsky-Averbakh, USSR Ivkov, Praia de Rocha 1978.
1966) 15 iLxg7 ~xg7 16 'lii'h2 Wc5
17 'ii'd3 b5 18 a4 (18 liJd5 is equal)
18 ...b4 19 liJbl e5 20 f5 liJf6 21
liJd2 d5! with a slight edge for
Black, Matanovic-Bilek, Havana 01
1966.
d) 14 %lael liJd7 (l4 ... e5 15 iLe3
exf4! 16 iLxf4 d5 17 e5 liJe4 with
equal chances) 15 iLxg7 ~xg7 16
'ii'd4+ (also good is 16 ttld5 iLxd5
17 exd5 %lfe8 18 %le3 with a slight
advantage, Juarez-Bellon, Siegen 01
1970, whereas 16 'it>hl does not
lead to any advantage: 16...liJc5 17
Main Lines with 7.ic4"a5 229
14 tDd7 :f7
a) 22 'ii'f2 f6 23 h4 24 ~gl
Best. Other moves leave White :dfS! with a slight edge for Black,
with the upper hand: Jansa-Furman, Harrachov 1966.
a) 14...e6?! IS fS gxfS 16 exfS b) 22 :h4 ~gS! 23 1Wh6 1/2- 1/2,
eS 17 .ie3 dS IS .igS e4, Bauer- Ciric-Gheorghiu, Beverwijk 1965.
Adrian, French ch 1996, 19 'ifg3 18 ~xb3
with strong threats. 19 axb3 dxeS
b) 14 ... eS?! IS .ie3 exf4 16
l:lxf4 with a plus for White (16
20 "f2 fS!
Inferior is 20... Axdl 21 "f6+
i..xf4 tDhS - see 13 ...eS!?). ~gS 22 Axdl with a slight plus for
c) 14... bS (Short-Hellers, Wijk White.
aan Zee 19S6) IS tDdS with a slight 21 b4!
plus for White. White wants to remove Black's
15 .ixg7 ~xg7 qu~en from its protection of the
16 ~hl ---tOOk on dS. The immediate 21
16 fS tDe5 17 "e3 "cS and 16 J:txdS?!, however, is good for
"e3 "cS are both equal, and 16 Black: 2l.....xdS 22 "xa7 fxe4 23
tDdS is best met by 16... e6 l:xfS 1IxfS 24 "e3 (24 tDdl? only
(16 ....ixdS 17 exdS tDf6 IS l:ldel makes things worse: 24 ...e3 2S
:d7 19 :e3, Tiviakov-Gogoladze, tDxe3 "f2! wins for Black) "f4 2S
Riga 19S7, is the standard good tDdl 11f1+ 26 "gl "e2 27 tDe3
position for White) 17 ..d4+ eS! hS! with a clear advantage for
IS fxeS dxe5 19 "d3 tDcs 20 "e3 Black.
tDxb3 21 "xb3 "cS+ is equal, 21 "xb4
Matanovic-Tal, Palma de Mallorca 22 :xd8 :xd8
1966. Best is 16 "d4+ ~gS 17 23 exfS gS!
~h2 1Ics IS "d2 bS (IS ...tDf6 has
been suggested, e.g. 19 tDdS tDxe4
20 tDxe7+ ~g7 21 "e2 fS) 19
tDdS .ixdS 20 exdS tDf6 21 fS with
a clear plus for White, Yilmaz-
Tangbom, Budapest 1992.
16 tDcS
Inaccurate is 16 .....cS?! 17 tDdS
.ixdS (17 ... e6!? may be better,
even when met by IS c4!?) IS exdS
bS 19 l:lfel l:lfeS 20 a4 a6 21 axbS
axbS 22 l:lal with a clear edge for
White, Maki-Karkanaque, Malta
1990.
17 "d4+ eS A wonderful idea and a big im-
18 fxeS provement over 23 .....f4? 24 "ell
Black easily obtains a comfort- with a clear plus for White,
able position after IS "e3 tDxb3 Shagalovich-Baumbach, Byelorus-
19 axb3 exf4 20 l:lxf4 1IeS! 21 sia-East Germany 1968.
l:dfl a6 and now: 24 f6+ ~
230 Main Lines with 7 il..c4 'ika5
12 "e2?!
Better was 12 ~e2 d6 13 a5
~d7 (13 ... ~e6!?) 14 'itd2 b5 15
axb6 'itxb6 16 e5 dxe5 17 ~xf6
.t.xf6 18 'itxd7 ttJxc2 19 .l:tacl
'itxb3 20 ~dl .l:tad8 21 ~xc2
'itxb2 with a slight advantage for
White, Tate-A.Horvath, Budapest
1997. In our main game White is 10 d6
on a downward slope and it is soon 11 ~e2
232 Main Lines with 7 Ji..c4 .as
21 tlJxd6 tlJxe2
22 tlJxe5 tlJxe3
23 'ili'xe3 bxe5
24 .te2?!
24 b3! 'ii'a7 2S .te2! would have
been even stronger. In the game
White's idea is the same, but Black
gets the white a-pawn for nothing.
24 ....txa4 25 b3 .te8 26 .te4 a4
27 ~d5! :xd6!?
27 ...:b8 2S tlJxeS 'ii'xeS 29
bxa4 is clearly better for White.
28 .txa8 :d4 29 fxg6 hxg6 30
bxa4 .txa4 31 :al 'ii'f8?
Better was 31...~c6 32 ~xc6 12 g4!?
'ii'xc6, when Black can play on. The sharpest, but not necessarily
32~dS! the strongest. Safer alternatives are:
Now Black's poor piece co- a) 121M2 .tb7 13 tlJd5!? (13
ordination becomes evident. :adl tlJaS 14 tLlxaS bxaS IS .tf3
32•••.th6 33 :xd4 ~xe3 34 :dxa4 transposes to note 'b9' below)
'ii'h6 35 :0 .tf4 36 g3 'ii'h3 37 13 ...tlJxdS 14 exdS tLla5 15 tlJxaS
:aal .txg3 38 :a8+ 1-0 bxaS 16 c4 and now 16...e6! would
have been best, e.g. 17 :ac 1 l%feS
Game 86 with sufficient counterplay. Instead
Zagarovsky-Baumbach the game Litvinov-Roizman, Minsk
COff1986 1973, continued with 16... .tcS?! 17
:abl a4 IS .td3 l%bS and now
(1 e4 c5 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 with 19 "Wc2 .td7 20 fS White
tLlxd4 g6 5 tLlc3 .tg7 6 .te3 tLlf6 7 could have obtained the better
.te4 'ii'aS 8 0-0 0-0 9 tLlb3 "We7 10 chances.
f4 d611 ~e2) b) 12 ~f3 .tb7 and now:
bl) 13 :fl?! tlJaS! 14 tLlxaS
11 b6!? bxaS IS .td4 tLld7 16 tlJdS .txdS
Black's best move. The idea be- 17 exdS .txd4 18 "Wxd4 "WcS 19
hind it is to put pressure on White's :dl :abS 20 c3 l:b7 21 ~1 l%abS
e4-pawn and maintain control of with a clear advantage for Black,
the important dS-square if White Hammie-Silman, USA 1975.
plays g2-g4-gS to force the knight b2) 13 tLlbS?! 'ii'cS 14 c4 tlJb4
away from f6. IS tLld2 tLld7 16 a3 (16 :bl a6 17
Black often follows up with tLlc3 .txc3 IS bxc3 tlJd3 19 "We2
...tlJa5, when if White exchanges on tLl3cS is equal, Klovan-Litvinov,
as Black, in return for the doubled Oaugavpils 1979) 16... tLlc6 17 :bl
pawns, gets strong play on the semi- a6 IS tLlc3 tLld4 and Black is
open b- and c- files; while if White clearly better, Mukhin-Baumbach,
does not exchange the knight, it will Primorsko 1973.
continue its journey to c4. b3) 13 .tfl :feS (13 ...tLlaS! is
236 Main Lines with 7 ~c4Wa5
Chapter Guide
7 i.c4 0-0
8 f3 -Game 87
8i.b3
8... a5
9 a4 - Game 88
9 f3 d5
10 exd5l'Llb4 1ll'Llde2 a4 12l'Llxa4l'Llfd5
13 i.f2?! - Game 89
13 i.d2?! - Game 90
10 i.xd5 l'Llxd5
11 l'Llxd5 - Game 91 .
11 exd5l'Llb412l'Llde2 \
12...i.f5 13 lid b5
14 a3 - Game 92
140-0 - Game 93
12... e6 - Game 94
8...d6 9 f3 i.d7
10 h4 - Game 95
10 "d2 - Game 96
This is one of the sharpest systems critical 9 O-O-O!? in the main line
in the entire Accelerated Dragon. Dragon, because White has already
White uses the same set-up as played i.c4. However, not many
against the standard Dragon varia- Accelerated Dragon players are
tion, hoping to reach that opening quite so happy to enter the long
by a transposition. Some died-in- theoretical lines of the Dragon,
the-wool Dragon players, such as since these differ so much in
Tiviakov, gladly transpose, since 'flavour' from their favourite sys-
with this move order they avoid the tem. Because of this, a number of
240 Main Lines with 7 JLc4 0-0
.f2
10 liJcbS "'4 11 'W'e2 'ii'aS 12
nfdl d6 13 i.d7 14 i.fl
liJxd4 IS lLlxd4 l:tfc8 16 c4 with a
a) 11 i.xd4.xd4 (ll...liJxd4 12
liJdS 'iJ'aS+ 13 c3 liJc6 followed by
...d7-d6, ... i.e6 etc. is not bad ei-
normal Maroczy position, but the ther) 12 "xd4 liJxd4 13 liJdS liJc6
'slight' difference that White has was good for Black in Sakharov-
no b-pawn! Stein, Kiev 1964. However, not
b) Equally depressing is 9 "d2? many players would voluntarily
liJxe4!, since 10 lLlxc6 liJxd2 11 defend #Ie position after 14 i.a4
liJxe7+ 'it.?h8 12 i.xb6 liJxc4 is just ~g7 16 0-0-0 l:tb8 16 h3 bS 17
about winning for Black. Nilsson- i.b3 d6; White's structure is 100%
Geller, Varna 1962, saw instead 10 awful.
fxe4 i.xd4 11 i.xd4 'ili'xd4 12 b) The alternative 11 liJdS has
'ii'xd4lLlxd4 13 0-0-0 lLlc6 14liJdS given White some success in prac-
Wg7 IS i.bS nd8, when Black was tice after 11....aS+ 12 i.d2 .cS
winning. 13 c3. For example, the game
Houser-Svarcova, Prague 1989,
makes a strong impression:
13 ... i.g7 14 i.e3 "as IS 0-0 d6 16
'ii'e!!, when White used his weak-
ened structure constructively to
attack along the f-file and after
16... i.e6 17 'iJ'h4 i.xdS 18 i.xdS
'iJ'c7 19 l:tf3 e6 20 l:th3, he had a
winning attack. But simple, and
good, seems 12 ....d8 13 c3 i.g7
followed by ... d7-d6, ... liJeS etc.
when Black will benefit from his
superior structure.
9 ... liJg4 seems like a safe way of
242 Main Lines with 7 Ji..c4 0-0
since the c2-pawn is easy to attack. transpose to the main line Dragon,
24 .i.g3 "'b6 25 b4 "'c6 26 a4 l:c8 which is outside the scope of this
27 as 'iVb5 28 l:bl "'c4 29 l:b2 book. However, the Danish corre-
"'c3 30 'iVbl l:e8 31 tLle4! spondence player Ove Ekebjerg has
Avoiding 31 tLld3? .i.xd3 32 popularised an idea which takes
cxd3.i.cl! advantage of the fact that White,
31....i.xe4 32 fxe4 :'xe4 33 l:b3 compared to the main line Dragon,
'iVc434 b5 .i.f4 35 a6 bxa6 36 b6 has already put his bishop on b3.
'iVe6 37 b7 .i.b8 38 'iVai l:e2 39 9 13 .i.d7
'iVd4 "'c6 40 "'d8+ <3;g7 41 "'d4+ 10 h4!?
~g8 42 .i.f2 'iVc7 43 g3 l:tc2 44 Although we consider this to be
'iVf6 l:td2 45 "'13 "'c2 46 .i.gl l:tdl more accurate than the common 10
47 h4 "'c1 48 'iVe3 "'c6 49 ~h2
'iVc2+ 50 <3;hl "'c6, Ill_Ill
'iVd2 (see the next game), for some
reason, 10 h4!? is played only
So far, 12 ... e6!? have been doing rarely. To us it seems a good idea
very well in practice, and White to start the attack immediately.
has no easy way of achieving an 10 liJxd4
edge. He may get a slight positional This may be too dangerous, but
plus, but Black, armed with the at the time I had not realised just
bishop pair, always has some how strong White's attack is. Un-
counter-chances. fortunately, no-one has tried 10
h4!? against Ekebjerg, but he
Game 95 claims that 1O...h5!? is fine for
Lanka-P.H.Nielsen Black. This need practical testing,
Moscow 01 1994 and is critical for the entire varia-
tion.
(1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 11 .i.xd4 b5!?
tLlxd4 g6 5 liJc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 liJf6 7 This is Black's idea in this line .
.i.c4 0-0 8 .i.b3) Since White's bishop is already on
b3, it is easier for Black to become
8 d6!? active on the queenside.
12 h5! e6
Limiting the activity of the
bishop on b3, as well as preventing
a white liJd5, exchanging Black's
important defender on f6. Over the
board I considered the more direct
12 ... a5!? too. In Vescovi-Afek,
Groningen 1994, White did not
fmd a way through Black's de-
fences. The game continued 13
hxg6 hxg6 14 tLld5liJxd5 15 .i.xdS
l:lc8 16 .i.xg7 ri;xg7 17 'iVd4+ f6
18 c3 "'c7 19 .i.b3 'iVc5 with
equality. 16 'iVd2!? looks danger-
This move is generally used to ous, but after 1~."e~!, 17 .i.xg7
I, .'
.' { ; 'j
.
~
:; /1;
•• ,
Main Lines with 7.i.c4 0-0 259
It may seem like Black has lost White already has played the move
his co-ordination, but everything is .i.b3.
okay; the activity of the black
queen secures plenty of counter-
play.
1.7 1M3 Whl + 1.8 <t>e1. e4 1.9 fxe4
.i.b5 30 .i.a4 Wg2+ 31 ~e1 Whl+
31. <t>d1. Wg1.+ 33 ~e1 .i.c3+!
A nice trick, opening up the b-
file, and ensuring that Black gets to
the white king first.
34 bxc3 .i.xa4 35 Wdl??
After 35 We2 'ii'h 1+ White has
serious problems, but now he loses
on the spot.
3S....i.xc2 0-1
12 ... e6 has an unbeaten record, 11 .i.xd4 b5!
but it seems to us that it is just a Speeding up Black's counterplay
matter of time before White stops on the queenside.
misplaying his rather dangerous 12 h4!?
attack. However, 10... h5 and This seems to be White's best.
12 ...a5 seem interesting and de- 12 a4?! is played just as often, but
serve testing. it tends to steer the game towards a
draw after 12 ..,b4 13 lLldS lLlxdS
Game 96 14 exd5 .i.xd4 15 1i'xd4 as, as
Topalov-Tiviakov proven by Ekebjerg in a number of
Wijk aan Zee 1996 correspondence games. White has
absolutely nothing, e.g. 16 h4 e5 17
(1 e4 cS 1. lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 dxe6 .i.xe6 18 .i.xe6 fxe6 19 0-0-0
lLlxd4 g6 5 lLlc3 .i.g7 6 .i.e3 lLlf6 7 dS 20 :del lIa6 21 lIe5 lIc6 22
.i.c4 0-0 8 .i.b3 d6 9 f3 .i.d7) ~bl 1i'b6 Mallae-Ekebjerg, corr
1977. Even less problematic is 16
10 Wd2 0-0 1i'c7! 17 lIfel lIfe8 18 ~hl
White's traditional continuation. (18 :e2 1i'a7 is drawn as well)
He prepares 11 0-0-0 followed by 18.,.e5! 19 dxe6 J.xe6 20 J.xe6
12 h4, with the standard attack. 10 lIxe6 21 lIxe6 fxe6 with a drawn
We2!? is also possible, preventing ending.
Black's immediate ...b7-b5. How- 14 .i.xdS?! is even worse, and
ever, the queen is not very well led to an advantage for Black in the
placed on e2, and Black should game Smith-Ekebjerg, corr 1972:
play 10... lLla5 when he has good 14.,.J.xd4 15 1i'xd4 Ilc8 15 .ib3
chances. Wa5 16 lIdl .i.e6! 17 lin .i.xb3 18
10 lLlxd4!? cxb3 Ilc2 and Black went on to
lO.,J%c8 is a normal Dragon and win. 12 a4?! is certainly nothing
is outside the scope of this book. for Black to worry about, unless he
The text move exploits the fact that has to win at all costs.
Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0 261
12 as
12 ... e6 in the style of the previ-
ous game may be possible, and
seems to be a viable way of getting
off the beaten track.
13 a4!
The sharper 13 hS?! backfires,
e.g. 13 ... eS! 14 ~e3 a4 IS ~dS b4
16 4Je2 4JxdS 17 'W'xdS ~e6 18
'W'd2 dS!, Tolnai-Leko, Hungary
1992, where Black was much better
after 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 .Jlcs l:I.t7 21
.i.xb4 l:td7 22 exdS l:txdS 23 'iVe3
.i.fS. Leko gives 19 .Jlcs dxe4! 20
.i.xfB 'W'xfB 21 fxe4 1i'cs as ~ritical, 15 .i.b6!
but it looks as if White is itLgreat This strong new move seems to
difficulties. pose Black big problems. The older
14 hxg6!? is given as unclear moves are:
after 14... exd4 IS ~xt7+ <it>h8 16 a) IS ~c3, putting pressure on
1i'xd4 h6 17 1i'd2 4Jg8 18 1i'xd6 the as-pawn, has proven ineffective
.Jle8 19 'W'xd8 l:txd8 20 ~xe8 b4! after the reply IS ... .i.e6. Both 16
by Stoica and Nisipeanu, but only 0-0-0 ~xb3 17 cxb3 'ii'b8 18 'W'c2
Black can win this position. There- dS 19 exdS ':d8 20 d6 ':xd6 21
fore 13 hS?! must be considered ':xd6 'W'xd6 22 ':dl 'W'e6, when
harmless. Black was better in Lepsenyi-
13 bxa4 Ekebjerg, corr 1980, and 16 ~xe6
A positional concession, but a fxe6 17 0-0-0 dS 18 ~xe4 tLlxe4,
necessary one, since 13 ... b4? 14 again with a good position for
4JdS 4JxdS IS ~xdS ~xd4 16 Black, Omelschenko-Ekebjerg,
1i'xd4l:tc8 17 hS! is just bad. Black corr 1977, are fine for Black.
hopes that the weakened squares on b) Not a whole lot better is IS
the queenside are not too impor- ~e3, when Black is doing fme
tant, since White's h2-h4 indicates again: IS ....Jle6 16 4Jb6?! (16
that he will castle queenside. How- 0-0-0 ~xb3 17 cxb3 ':b8 is okay
ever, White, in turn, can try to ex- for Black, but probably White's
ploit these concessions in a posi- best) 16...':b8 17 4JdS .JlxdS 18
tional manner, hoping that h2-h4 exdS e4 19 ~d4 :e8 20 ~dl :b4
will not prove to be a serious 21 ~a4 exf3 22 ~xe8 tLle4 and
weakness later. White was blown off the board in
14 4Jxa4 e5 Stern-Ekebjerg, corr 1972. Unfor-
This is necessary, as 14... .Jle6 IS tunately these old lines seem aca-
tLlb6 l:tb8 16 tLldS ~xdS 17 exdS demic in the light of IS .Jlb6!
AbS 18 ':a4 'W'c7 19 hS ':a8 20 15 1Wb8
hxg6 hxg6 21 g4 was good for 16 ~e3! .Jle6
White in Hort-Forintos, Athens 17 :aJ!
1969. These three strong positional
262 Main Lines with 7 ~c4 0-0
Chapter Guide
5 tL\xc6?! - Game 97
S tL\c3 i.g7 6 i.e3 tL\f6 7 tL\xc6 bxc6 S eS
S•••tL\gS
9f4
9 ... f6 - Game 98
9 ... tL\h6 - Game 99
9 i.d4 - Game 100
8...tL\dS 9 tL\xdS cxdS 10 "xdS :b8
11 i.c4 - Game 101
11 i.xa7 - Game 102
Em. Lasker, Hastings 1895. bl) 7 ... e5? (with the white
bishop on c4, this is way too weak-
ening) 8 1Iid3 ~e7 9 ~c3 J.b7 10
f4! d5 (or 10...exf4 11 J.xf4 d5 12
exdS cxd5 13 J.b3 'liaS 14 0-0
0-0-0 15 lLle4! lLlfS 16 lLlxf6 and
wins, Dolginin-Antoshin, USSR
1970) II exd5 cxdS 12 J.b5+ rJ';i7
13 fxeS fxeS 140-0+ <jJg7 15 J.g5
'ii'b6+ 16 <jJhl e4 17 'ilg3 'ile6 18
:f6 and it was soon all over, Bue-
nos-Perez, Cienfuegos 1980.
b2) 7...~6 8 'ii'd3 lLlh6 9 0-0
J.g7 10 ~c3 ~g4 with equality,
Bandal-Schulman, Lugano 011968.
6 -.d4 b3) 7... i.g7 8 0-0 (or 8 lLlc3
The logical follow-up to White's lLlh6 9 0-0 transposing) 8... lLlh6 9
previous move, but White has also ~c3 'ii'b6 (or 9 ... ~f7 10 J.e3 0-0
tried a number of other moves: 11 'ild2 e6 12 ltfdl 'ii'aS 13 ltabl
a) 6 J.e2 J.g7 7 0-0 ~6 8 ~a3 :c8 14 b4 'ii'c7 IS J.f4 ~eS 16
~f6 with a slight plus for Black, J.b3 J.f8 17 bS ltb8 18 a4 J.e7 19
Denker-Stoltz, Groningen 1946. J.g3 ~g7 20 f4 and White was
b) 6 J.d3 J.g7 7 ()",O ~f6 8 c4 having a ball in Lasker-Bird, New-
0-0 9 ~c3 d5 10 h3 ltb8 with equal castle 1892) 10 'ilxb6 (10 'ii'd3? is
chances, H.Steiner-Stoltz, Gronin- met by 1O...~g4! and 10 'lid 1? by
gen 1946. 1O ... J.a6) 10 ... axb6 11 J.e3 J.a6
c) 6 J.c4 J.g7 7 0-0 e6!? (Black 12 J.e2 fS 13 ltfel J.xe2 slightly
is playing for ...d7-d5 in one go, favours Black, Pilnik-Barcza,
but 7 ...d6 8 ~c3 ~f6 is also fine) 8 Stockholm izt 1952.
~c3 ~e7 9 ltel 'ilc7 10 J.g5 d6 b4) 7... ~6 8 0-0 ~f7 9 J.xf7+
11 'ii'f3 0-0 is equal, Outerelo- ~xf7 10 e5 ~6 11 'ilc4+ dS 12
Frois, Cordoba 1991. exd6 J.e6 13 'ii'c3 exd6 with a
d) 6 J.e3 J.g7 (6 ... ~f6!) 7 J.d4 slight plus for Black, Kapu-Barcza,
~f6 8 e5 ~d5 9 c4 ~f4 followed Hungarian ch 1951.
by ...~e6 with a good game for bS) 7 ...e6 8 0-0 ~h6 9 lLlc3 ~f7
Black. 10 J.e3 J.g7 11 :adl 0-0 12 'ii'd2
6 lLlf6 f5 13 exfS gxfS also slightly fa-
Also quite common is 6.. .f6, vours Black, Schlechter-Lasker,
which White has met with follow- Hastings 1895.
ing moves: b6) 7 ... J.a6!? (untried, but de-
a) 7 h4 ~h6 8 h5 J.a6 9 J.xa6 serving a test) 8 ~c3 (8 J.b3 does
'ii'a5+ 10 ~c3 'ii'xa6 with a slight not make any sense as White can
plus for Black. no longer castle kingside; nor does
b) 7 J.c4 is the most common 8 ..i.xa6 'ii'a5+ 9 ~c3 'ii'xa6 make a
choice, when Black has several good impression) 8...J.xc4 9 'ii'xc4
good answers: e6 and Black follows up with
Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6 265
...liJe7, ... i.g7, ... 0-0 and ... d7-dS. a) 7... lLlg8 (the fact that Black is
c) 7 c4! (best; it is advisable to still okay after this move shows
restrict Black's options in the cen- that White's entire opening idea is
tre) 7...eS!? (instead Poljak- a waste of time) 8 i.c4 (or 8 e6
Simagin, USSR 19S0, saw 7 ...lLlh6 lLlf6 9 exti+ ~xf'7 10 lLlc3, F1uder-
8 i.e2 i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 cS fS 11 Gawlikowski, Poland 19S3, and
eS [Korchnoi suggests 11 "a4] now 1O... dS! with a good game for
11...lLlti 12 i.c4 'fIc7 13 i.xti+ Black) 8... i.g7 9 0-0 f6 10 exf6 (10
l:lxti 14 l:lel i.a6 IS lLlc3 l:lb8 16 i.xg8 llxg8 11 11h4 fxe5 12 1Ixh7
J:bl d6!? 17 cxd6 exd6 18 exd6 ri;;f'7 13 i.h6 e6 14 i.xg7 l:lxg7 15
"a5 19 1i'h4 i.xc3 20 bxc3 ':'xbl 1i'h6 1If6 16 "e3 "f4 with a slight
21 J:e8+ with a perpetual) 8 'fId3 advantage for Black, Akopian-Fai-
i.e6 9 lLlc3 lLlh6 10 i.e2 lLlti 11 bisovich, Kharkov 1971) 1O... lLlxf6
i.e3 WaS 12 0-0 i.b4 (12 ... i.e7 is 11 i.b3 dS 12 i.f4 (Korchnoi's
also interesting, although after 13 recommendation 12 c4 is best met
f4 exf4 14 i.xf4 d6 Black will have by 12...0-0 13 cxdS exdS 14 lLlc3
to face h2-h4-hS) 13 :fcl d6, i.e6 with excellent play for Black)
Naselli-Pelikan, played at Buenos 12 ...0-0 13 i.eS e6 14 lLlc3 cS IS
Aires 19S8, and now instead of the 1IxcSlLld7 16 1Ic6 i.xeS 1711xa8
passive 14 i.f3?!, White should i.xc3 18 bxc3 1Ic7 19 i.xdS exdS
have opted for the more aggressive 20 "xdS+ with equal chances.
14 a3, e.g. 14... i.xc3 IS b4 Wd8 b) 7 ...lLlhS and now a further
16 'fIxc3 dS 17 i.cs with an un- branch:
clear posItIon or 14 lLldl bl) 8 lLlc3 (untried are 8 i.c4
(threatening a2-a3 followed by b2- lLlg7 9 0-0 and 8 g4 lLlg7 9 i.c4 a5
b4) 14...dS IS a3 i.e7 16 exdS and 8 e6 i.g7 9 exf'7+ ~xf'7, but in
cxd5 17 b4 'ili'd8 18 b5, when
White holds the better chances.
7 e5
8...'iib6 9 "e4
all cases Black is doing fine)
fS 10 "c4 i.g7 11
f4 dS 12 'iib3 llb8 13 i.e2 0-0 14
1Ixb6 axb6 IS g3 J:.d8 16 i.f3 i.f8
17 b4 e6 18 a3 i.a6 19 i.d2 lLlg7
20 qm lLle8 21 l:lhb 1 lLlc7 with
equal chances, Beliavsky-Karlsson,
Lucerne 01 1982.
b2) 8 i.e2 lLlg7 9 lLlc3
(Leonhardt-Reti, Berlin 1920, saw
9 0-0 tLle6 10 'iih4 i.g7 11 f4
1i'b6+ 12 <;Ph 1 tLld4 13 i.d3 i.a6
with an edge for Black, but
Korchnoi mentions 9 tLld2!? tLle6
10 1i'h4! as unclear) 9 ...tLle6 10
'fIe3 i.g7 11 f4 0-0 followed by
...d7-d6 was better for Black in
7 lLld5 Adams-Bisguier, USA ch 19S4.
This seems best, but Black does 8 e6
not have any problems after: White attempts to disrupt his op-
266 Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6
allowing Black's knight into g4) c3) 9.. .'~e8 when White should
12 ... ttJg4 13 i..xg4 hxg4 14 i..d4 keep the black knight away from
i..xd4+ IS .l:Ixd4 fS 16 .l:Iel Wf7 17 g4:
exfS gxfS with equality, Lukic-Puc, c31) 10 eS? ttJg4 11 ttJbS i..xe5
Yugoslavian ch 19S8. 12 i.d4 cxbS 13 iLxbS+ Wf8 14
b) 9 i..c4 We8 10 f3 (better is 10 i.xeS ttJxeS and White is already
h3 to take control over eS with f2- lost, Olifer-Bannik, Ukrainian ch
f4, but Black can try 10... ttJd7 11 1960.
i..b3 i..xc3+ when White may find c32) 10 i..d4 i..g4?! (10 ... i..e6!)
it difficult to make use of his two 11 f3 i..e6 12 g4 l:I.g8 13 i..e2
bishops) 1O ... ttJd7 11 a4 ttJeS 12 i.h6+ 14 Wbl i.f4 15 a4 ttJd7 16
i..b3 i..e6!? 13 i..xe6 fxe6 140-0-0 ttJa2?! f6 17 ttJc1 ttJeS 18 ttJd3
ttJc4 IS i..d4 eS 16 i..f2 i..h6+ 17 ttJxd3 19 iLxd3 ~f7 is equal, Ha-
rJ;bl when Black's doubled e-pawn mann-Rendboe, Lyngby 1989.
gives White an insignificant edge, c33) 10 f3 when Black usually
Khasin-Shatskes, Moscow 1961. answers 10...i.e6 after which
c) 9 0-0-0+ and: White has tried the following op-
tions:
c331) 11 ~bl ttJd7 12 ttJa4 iLeS
13 ttJcS ttJxcS 14 i..xcS hS IS i..e2
f6 16 h4 <i;f7 17 g4 iLf4 is equal,
Mardle-Fazekas, British ch 19S9.
c332) 11 a3 ttJd7 12 ttJdS l:I.c8
13 ttJf4 i..h6 14 i.d2 ttJf8 15 ttJxe6
i.xd2+ 16 ltxd2 ttJxe6 17 i..c4
ltd8 18 i.xe6 fxe6 with equality,
Shianovsky-Gufeld, Ukrainian ch
1960.
c333) 11 ttJe2!? i.c4?! (this
cl) 9 ... i..d7? 10 i..e2 eS 11 i..gS gives a passive position; better is
iLc7 12 f4! iLe6 13 fS! gxfS 14 11...hS answering 12 ttJd4 with
exfS iLd7 IS g4 is very unpleasant 12 ... i..d7, intending ... i..h6, ... 0-0-0
for Black. or ... e7-e5) 12 b3 i.a6 13 c3 b6 14
c2) 9 ... ttJd7!? was tried out in g3 ttJd7 IS i..h3 e6 16 .l:Id2 We7 17
Granda Zuniga-Pinal, Havana .l:Ihdl l:thd8 18 i..gS+ f6 19 ttJd4!
1985: 10 i..c4 f6 11 f4 i.c7 12 .l:Id2 ttJeS 20 iLf4 iLb7 21 Wc2 with a
eS 13 g3 ttJb6 14 i..b3 i..h3 IS clear edge for White, Varavin-
ttJdl :ad8 16 ttJf2 .l:Ixd2 17 iLxd2 Arzhenkov, Kstovo 1994.
i..c8 18 .l:Ifl ttJd7 19 ttJd3 exf4 20 c34) 10 h3! i..e6 11 f4 hS 12 g3
i..xf4+ Wb6 21 i..e3+ Wc7 22 ttJf4 with a slight plus for White, Rakic-
ttJeS 23 i..e6 lte8 112-112. However, Nedeljkovic, Belgrade 19S9.
White can improve with 11 i..e6 The recapture on c6 with the d-
~c7 12 i..f4+ ttJeS 13 i..b3, in- pawn is a very passive option after
tending 14 i..g3 and f2-f4, or which all Black can hope for is a
11...~e8 12 f4 b6 13 a4 in both draw. If Black is uncomfortable
cases with an edge for White. with the complications that arise
Lines in which White Captures with ltlxc6 269
after the pawn sacrifice 7 ... bxc6 8 b) 9... fS (this move leads to a
eS tDdS (Games 101-102), he very rigid structure where White
should opt for 8 ... tDg8, which will should be somewhat better) 10 ~c4
be examined in this and the next e6 11 "fIe2 tDh6?! (the knight looks
two games. silly out here; 12 ... tDe7 was to be
8 eS lLlg8 preferred) 12 0-0-0 'iWc7 1/2- 1/2
Black retreats his knight and ac- Kr.Georgiev-Ninov, Bulgaria 1988,
cepts the loss of time. Although but White is clearly better in the
Black looks terribly undeveloped, final position.
he is not in bad shape, as first c) 9 ... hS!?, intending ...tDh6-fS,
White has to protect his forward e- is untried, but definitely worth a
pawn, which will allow Black to set shot.
up his counterplay. 10 ~d4
9 f4 In this position White has tried
9 ~d4 is seen in Game 100. numerous other moves as well:
9 f6 a) 10 .ltd3? (a sharp but unsound
gambit) 10... fxeS 11 fS dS! 12 fxg6
tDf6 13 gxh7 e4 and Black is much
better, Sapunov-Milev, Bulgaria
19S9.
b) 10 fS?! 'ii'aS! (also good for
Black is 1O .. .fxeS 11 fxg6 dS 12
gxh7 tDf6) 11 exf6 tDxf6 12 fxg6
'iWeS (in Vileseco-O. Martinez,
Colon 1993, everything was a mess
after 12 ... tDdS 13 ~d4 eS 14 'iWe2
lPd8 IS ~e3 l:b8 16 ~d2 tDf6) 13
'iWd4 tDg4 14 'iWxeS ~xeS IS ~gl
hxg6 16 ~d3 ~ 17 0-0-0 ~g7
with a strong centre and clear ad-
For the more solid alternative vantage for Black in Zaharov-
9 ...tDh6, see the next game. Antoshin, USSR 1964.
Three other possibilities deserve c) 10 e6? and now:
attention: c1) 1O... dxe6? 11 'iWf3 'iWc7 12
a) 9 ...dS 10 exd6 (on 101M2 ~bS! (much stronger than 12 tDbS
Strauss gives 1O...hS!? 11 0-0-0 'iWb7 13 lLJd4 tDh6 14 'iWxc6+ rM7
tDh6, intending ...tDfS and ... 0-0, IS 0-0-0, Chernikov-Sosonko,
which should be alright for Black) Leningrad 1965, and now IS ...lLJfS!
1O... exd6 11 ~c4 (11 .ltd4 lLlf6 12 would have left White with only a
1M2 0-0 13 0-0-0 ~e6 14 h3 'ii'aS small advantage) 12 ... ~d7 13 0-0-0
IS a3 l:ab8 16 lLJe4 'ii'xd2 17 ':c8 14 ~c4 tDh6 IS l:hel lLJf7 16
lLlxd2 is equal, Delanoy-Hayoun, .ltcS .lth6 17 l:xd7!, Kurkin-Estrin,
Torey 1991) 11...tDf6 12 0-0 0-0 USSR 1962.
13 'iWd2 dS 14 :tadl "fIc7 with c2) 10... tDh6? 11 exd7+ 'iWxd7
equality, Kupka-Stefanov, Lenin- 12 'iWxd7+ ~xd7 13 .ltc4 ~c7 14
grad 1960. 0-0 tDfS IS ~cS tDd6 16 l:fel with
270 Lines in which White Captures with tOxc6
20 l:td2
Black is also fine after 20 l:te1
i..f3 21 l:tgl c5. a) 10 liJe4 0-0 11 'ii'd2 d6 with
20 ...i..f3 21 i..g2 i..xg2 22 l:xg2 equal chances.
e6 23 "a3?! b) 10 'ii'f3?! 0-0 11 i..c4 (or 11
Now Black gets the upper hand. i..d3 f6 [11.. .d6 transposes to note
Best was 23 l:te1 c5 24 i..e5 'iifb6 'd' below] 12 exf6 i..xf6 13 0-0 d5
25 :ge2 l:tac8 with about equal 14 i..c5 'tWa5 with a slight edge for
chances. Black, Witt-Malich, Havana 01
23 ... l:ac8 24 :tel 1966) 1l...d5! 12 exd6 exd6 13
24 'iha7? 'ii'xa7 25 i..xa5 c5 is 'ii'xc6?! (White takes a little more
good for Black according to Serper. time than he actually has, but he
24 ...c5 25 i..e5 "b6 26 :tge2 liJc6 was already in trouble; Black
27liJbl! Ill-Ill threatens ... d6-d5-d4) 13 ... i..d7 14
Serper gives the following lines: 'ii'f3 l:tc8 15 i..d3 i..g4 16 'ii'd5
27 ... 'iifb5!? 28 liJd2 l:ta6 29 'iifb3 :e8 17 ~d2 :xe3! 18 ~xe3 'iifb6+
'tWxb3 30 liJxb3 with the idea of 19 ~d2 'ii'xb2 and Black soon won,
30.. Jha2 31 ~bl or 27 ... :d8 Fichtl-Gereben, Warsaw 1956.
threatening ... d5-d4 and ... c5-c4. c) 10 i..e2?! 0-0 11 0-0 liJf5 (or
11...f6 12 exf6 i..xf6 13 g4 d5 14
Game 99 i..c5 'ii'a5 15 b4 'ii'd8 16 g5 i..xc3
Faulks-Donaldson 17 gxh6 i..xal when White does
Bermuda 1995 not have enough for the exchange)
12 i..f2 h5 13 liJe4 d6 14 exd6
(1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 exd6 15 c3 l:te8 16 i..d3 d5 17liJg3
liJxd4 g6 5 liJc3 i..g7 6 i..e3 liJf6 7 liJe3 18 i..xe3 ':'xe3 19 f5 'iifb6 20
liJxc6 bxc6 8 e5 liJg8 9 f4) -.t;>hl i..a6 21 i..xa6 'ii'xa6 22 f6
i..f8 23 liJxh5 'ii'e2 with an initia-
9 liJh6!? tive for Black, Rakic-Damjanovic,
(see following diagram) Portoroz 1961.
10 "d2 d) 10 i..d3 d6 11 'ii'f3 0-0 12 0-0
Black does not have much to (12 h3 dxe5 13 fxe5 liJf5 14 .tf4
Lines in which White Captures with liJxc6 275
.as IS 0-0 'ifb6+ 16 'itlhl tLld4 17 .i.xd4 cxd4 17 .xd4 .a5 18 J:thel
tLlf2 tLle6 18 .xb6 axb6 is clearly i..a6, threatening ... .:lb4 followed
better for Black, Faulks-Shadade, by ... l:.fb8 with a strong attack,
Bennuda 1995) 12 .. dxeS (l2 ...•c7 Diickstein-Waller, Austria 1969.
is also good) 13 .xc6 tLlg4 14
.i.cs i..d7 15 .a6 exf4 16 tLld5
'ifb8 17 h3 .eS 18 tLlxe7+ ~h8 19
b4 tLle3 with a very unpleasant
position for White, Rohde-Tarjan,
Lone Pine 1975.
e) 10 .i.c4 0-0 11 .d2 (11 0-0
d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 i..d4 tLlfS [also
good is 13. .. .i.xd4+ 14 .xd4 'ifb6
IS .xb6 axb6 16 i..d3 i..fS 17
.:lfdl dS when Black is comfort-
able, Smirin-Davies, Gausdal 1990]
14 .i.xg7 <:Ji;xg7 IS .d3 'ifb6+ 16
<:Ji;hl dS! with a small edge for
Black, as in Pilszyk-Brinck- 11 d6
Claussen, Marianske Lazne 1962) Recently this has been the most
l1...d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 0-0-0 i..g4 popular of Black's options. How-
14 tLle2 tLlfS IS .i.f2 .:lb8 16 i..b3 ever, 11....aS!? is possibly
a5 17 c3 a4 18 .i.c2 .as with a stronger: 12 .i.c4 (now Black gets
strong attack for Black, Rubezov- the better of it; critical is 12 h3 tLlfS
Sokolsky, corr 1961. 13 i..f2 d6 14 g4 dxeS IS gxfS
10 0-0 .i.xfS when Black has two pawns
Levy suggests 1O ... tLlfS 11 .i.f2 and attacking prospects for the
hS, intending to meet 12 h3 with piece; it is hard to say whether this
12 ... h4 and if necessary give up the is really enough) 12 ... l:.b8 13 h4
h-pawn to slow down White's (13 1i'd4?! d6 14 .xa7 1i'xa7 IS
kingside attack. .i.xa7 na8 16 .i.d4 tLlfS 17 .:lhel
11 0-0-0 .i.h6! 18 g3 tLlxd4 19 lhd4 dxeS
White has from time to time 20 l:tde4 exf4 21 gxf4 eS! is very
prepared g2-g4 with 11 h3 at this good for Black, Akaba-Boop, USA
point. However, Black has no 1991) 13 ... d6 14 h5 tLlf5 15 hxg6
problems against this slow ap- hxg6 16 g4 tLlxe3 17 .xe3 .i.xg4
proach. After 11 ... d6! (Boleslav- 18 J:tdg 1 .i.fS is very good for
sky-Gurgenidze, Riga 19S8, saw Black, Ravinsky-Zilberstein, Len-
l1...f6 12 .i.c4+ tLlf7 13 i..xf7+ ingrad 1963.
<:Ji;xf7!? 14 0-0-0 ~g8 IS exf61hf6 Other moves have proven less
16 i..d4 .:ld6 17 .e3 .:le6 18 .f3 successful: ll...f6? 12 .i.c4+ <:Ji;h8
i..xd4 19 .:lxd4 'ifb6 20 ne4 .:lxe4 13 h4 fxe5 14 h4 exf4 15 .i.xf4 g5
21 .xe4 .:lb8 22 .xe7 .xb2+ 23 16 .i.xg5 tLlg4 17 • e2 lLle5 18 h6
<:Ji;d2 'ifb4 with approximately .i.f6 19 .i.xf6+ exf6 20 nd6 with a
equal chances) 12 0-0-0 lLlf5 13 killing attack, Shianovsky-Funnan,
.i.f2 cS 14 g4lLld4 15 .i.g2 .:lb8 16 USSR 1960, or ll...dS 12 h4 .as
276 Lines in which White Captures with llJxc6
1968, went 16 ... d5 17 h4? ttJe4 18 lOe4 'i'd5 14 lOxf6+ exf6 15 ~e3
~g2 'iWxf4+ 19 ct>b 1 ttJxc3+ 20 'i'e6 16 l::tdl l::tfd8 17 b3 1i'e5 18 f3
"xc3 llfc8, but White can do 1i'e7 19 ~d3 ~h6 20 ~ ~xe3+
much better: 17 "e5! "c5 18 :g3 21 'i'xe3 "a3 with an initiative for
IUc8 19 J..g2 with a slight edge) 17 Black, Barcza-G.Horvath, Zalaka-
fld2 llab8 18 llg3 a5 19 fle3 dS 20 ros 1994) 1l...~xf7 12 f4!? (12
f5, Diickstein-Stein, Sarajevo 1967. ~c4+ is good for Black: 12 ... d5 13
10 ~c4 ~b3 lle8 14 ~e5 lLlg4 15 ~xg7
Two other moves have been rltxg7 161i'd2 e5 170-0-0 1i'c5 18
tried at this point: f3 lLlf6 llhel ~d7 with a clear
a) 10 f4 llb8! 11 e6? (best is 11 edge for Black, Cherkasov-Pek-
"d2 llxb2 12 ttJe4 with some acki, Czestochowa 1992) 12 ...d5
compensation for the pawn) (12 ...l::tb8 13 ~c4+ dS 14 ~b3
11...ttJf6 12 exf7+ ~xf7 13 ~c4+ l::tb4? [14 ... ~f5!?] 15 a3 l::txd4 16
dS 14 ~b3 l::td8 15 J..e5 ttJg4 16 1i'xd4lLlg4 17 1i'd2 e5 18 h3 ~h6
~xg7 ct>xg7 17 1i'd4+ e5! 18 fxe5 19 g4 l::te8 20 0-0-0 and White was
c5 19 "a4 "c7 20 0-0-0 d4 with a much better, Ulibin-Knezevic, Pula
clear edge for Black, Kovacs- 1990) 13 1i'd2 c5 14 ~e5 l::td8 15
A.Zaitsev, Debrecen 1970. ~e2 d4 16 lLle41i'xd2+ 17 lLlxd2
b) 10 e6!? lLldS (17 ... ~b7!?) 18 lLlc4 ~e6 19
~f3 l::tac8 and White has a small
advantage, Ulibin-M.Garcia, Santa
Clara 1991.
10 ~xe5
11 0-0 lLlf6!
12 ... .ltb7 13 'iibS! ~xg2 14,it'xb8 Black was much better) IS f4 (15
it'xb8 IS ~xbS ~xhl 16 ~c7 ~c6 i.gS? is met by IS ... i..f8 and 15
17 f4 gS IS b4 and White had a .ibS is equal after IS ... ~xeS 16
beautiful set of queenside pawns in l:tfdl ~c6, Smit-Gipslis, Amster-
Handoko-Bellon, Indonesia 19S2. dam 1976) IS ... a5! 16 'W'bs i..xg2
b) On occasion Black has also 17 ~xg2 'ii'xc4 IS it'xc4 l:txc4,
tried 11..:iWc7, but without much Skuja-Gipslis, Riga 19S9, and here
success: 12 f4 0-0 13 it'cs 'iib7 14 19 l:tf3 is best met by 19 ... d6!
b3 d6 IS it'xa7 it'c6 (or IS ... dxeS (Donaldson), intending to meet 20
16 it'xb7 ~xb7 17 l:tgl exf4 18 exd6 with 20 ... ~d7 with pressure
~xf4 l:tbdS 19 l:txdS l:txd8 20 ~e3 on White's queenside.
~e4 21 a4 ~c3 22 ~e2, when b) More aggressive is 13 0-0-0,
Black has insufficient compensa- but after 13 ... l:tcS 14 'W'b4 ~xg2
tion for the pawn, Zadrima- (after 14 ... 'ii'c7? IS i..gS! .if8 16
Anceschi, F0rli 1991) 16 it'xbS 'ifd2 ~xg2 17 l:thel ~f3 IS i..b5
~fS 17 it'xfS+ ~xfS 18 i..d3 it'c3 White is better, as in the game Mu-
19 ~bl ~g4 20 ~d2 'ii'd4 21 ratov-Veresov, Novgorod 1991) 15
l:tdel and White was much better, l:thg 1 .if3 16 .ig5 f6 17 .ixe6!
Colon-Camera, Mar del Plata 1962. (17 exf6 .ixf6 gives Black nothing
c) 1l...~b7! 12 'ii'd4 (in Radu- to worry about) 17 ... i..xd 1 18 l:txd 1
lov-Forintos, Hungary 1969, after l:tc7, Donaldson gives 19 'iff4 l:tfS
12 'ii'd2? ~xeS 13 ~d4 i..xd4 14 and 19 ~h4 gS 20 'iWe4 'iWe7 when
it'xd4 0-0 IS 'ii'xd7 'ii'aS 16 ~c4 Black should be fine. We think 19
i..xg2 and Black is already much exf6 i..xf6 20 i..f4! is better, al-
better) 12 ... 0-0 13 f4 (13 'ii'xd7 though Black can defend after
'ii'aS! gives Black too much for the 20 ... ~gS! 21 ~bl! ~xf4 22 'ii'xf4
pawn) 13 ... d6 14 ~c4 'ikc7 IS ~b3 IUS 23 'ifeS!? l:tf6! 24 i..xd7+ ~fS
dxeS 16 fxeS ~xg2 17 l:thgl l:tbdS with a roughly equal position.
IS 'ii'xa7 'ii'xeS 19 ~d4 'ii'f4+ 20
~e3 'ii'eS 21 ~d4 and drawn by
repetition, Stein-Nei, USSR 1960.
11 0-0
Black can also hold his own af-
ter the less popular, but still play-
able ll...e6!? 12 'ii'cs ~b7 and
now:
a) 13 a-a?! leaves Black without
much to worry about: 13 .. J:tcS 14
'W'b4 'ii'c7 (bad is 14... ~xeS? due to
IS ~xe6! dxe6 16 'ii'xb7 0-0 17 c3
with a clear edge for White -
analysis by Wedberg; in Diickstein-
Karlsson, Lucerne 1979, White 12 0-0-0
played IS l:tadl?, but then after White has a number of alterna-
IS ... i..xh2+ 16 ~xh2 'ii'h4+ 17 tives, several of which are quite
~gl 'ii'e4! IS f3 'ii'xe3 19 l:tf2 'W'b6 interesting:
Lines in which White Captures with lDxc6 281
15 0-0
White has two important alter-
natives:
a) 15 .i.b5!? and now:
al) Black can try 15 ...:Ic2 with
two possible responses:
Lines in which White Captures with ttJ.xc6 285
l:tha8 22 'litfl l:txd6 with a likely .if8 2S 'lite3 .ics 26 .ixcs l:txcS
draw) 19 ... 'litd7 20 as l:tha8?! 27 l:td8+ 'litg7 28 l:tbl l:txeS+ 29
(20 .. J:k8 was better, but after 21 'litd4 l:te2 30 'litcs l:tc2+ 31 'litbS
l:tfdl l:tc4 22 .ie3 dS 23 l:tdbl .if8 l:txg2 32 ~c6 l:txb6+ 33 l:txb6
24 l:tb7+ l:tc7 2S l:txc7+ 'litxc7 26 l:txh2 and later a draw.
.ib6 followed by l:tc 1 White has a 18 ~xn
clear edge according to Klompus) 19 ~xn dxc6
21 .ib6 dxeS?! (2l....:tc8!?) 22 20 ~c3 :d3
l:tac1 'lite8 23 l:tfdl l:txaS 24 .ixaS Note how well Black is using his
l:txaS 2S l:tc8 'lite7 26 l:tc7+ and rook to avoid White sending his a-
White was on the road to victory in pawn off to the queening square.
Klompus-Rettenbacher, corr 1983. 21:c1 l:td5 22:e1
22 f4 gS is equal.
22 ...:c5 23 l:te3 ::'c4 24 ~b2 h5
25 ~e1 ~h1-26 ~dl g5 27 f3 :a4
28a3
This is as far as it gets!
28...c5
16 ~b5 ~a6!
In Sakharov-Veresov, USSR
1960, White got a clear edge after
16 ....:tc2?! 17 'i*'e4 'i*'c7 18 a4 ~b7
19 'i*'e3 l:tc8 20 .:tfdl.
17 'iixd8 J:bd8
18 ~xc6 29 ~c2 c4 30 ~c3 ~g6 31 :e4
White can also consider 18 a4, ~f5 32 ~d4 g4 33 ~e3 ~h6+ 34
when Rajna-Marosi, Budapest ~f2 ~f4 35 g3 ~d2 36 :d4 ~h6
1982, went as follows: 18 ... .ixbS 37 fxg4+ hxg4 38 ~e2 ~g5 39
19 axbS l:tc4 20 l:tadl l:tb8 21 b6 ~f2 ~h6 Ill_Ill
d6 22 f4 dxeS 23 fxeS l:tb7 24 'litf2 Neither side can make progress.
13 Semi-Accelerated Dragon
Chapter Guide
7 e5 ttJg8 8 ~c4
8 ......a5?! - Game 103
8... .i.g7 - Game 104
position for Black, e.g. Il..J:tb6 12 itJe4 with a clear edge for White in
.1t.b51he6+ 13 'iVxe6 'iVa5+ 14 c3 Geller-Stein, USSR ch 1966/67.
'iVxb5 15 'ii'e2 and White was win- b) 8... f5!? (Black is way behind
ning, Mikenas-Uogele, Lithuanian in development and yet he keeps
ch 1965. playing pawns moves!) 9 .tf4 e6
However, an interesting alterna- 10 'iVd2 :b8 11 .1t.b3 (White could
tive is 7...~h5!?, e.g. 8 .1t.c4 (or 8 consider both 11 0-0 and 11 0-0-0
.1t.e2 'iVa5 9 f4 with a good game at this point) 1l...:b4!? 12 0-0
for White, whereas 9 .1t.xh5 gxh5 'iVc7 13 lIfel :xf4! 14 'iVxf4 (it is
10 'iVxh5 .1t.g7 11 f4 0-0 12 0-0 f6 quite amazing that Black is still in
13 ~e4 d5! is playable for Black - the game: he is an exchange down,
Silman and Donaldson) 8...d5! 9 and has only developed his queen)
exd6 'iVxd6 10 'iVf3 (or 10 0-0) 14...itJh6 15 :adl (jjf7 16 'iVe3
1O....t..e6 11 .1t.b5 .!:[c8 12 .1t.a6 l:1d8 .1t.g7 17 f4 g5 18 fxg5 .1t.xe5 19
13 0-0 'iVc7, when Black is only 'ili'h3, when White is better, but
slightly worse, Petrushin-Vizek, with his pawn majority in the cen-
Czechoslovakia 1985. tre and the bishop pair, Black has
8 .1t.c4 some counterplay, and actually
went on to draw the game in
Popovic-Velimirovic, Banja Vru-
cica 1991.
9 .1t.f4
White has two other strong pos-
sibilities:
a) 9 'iVe2!? .1t.g7 10 f4 itJh6 11
.1t.d2 0-0 120-0-0 'iVc7 13 g4 d5 14
exd6 exd6 15 f5 gxf5 16 gxf5
.1t.xf5 17 J:hgl .1t.g6 18 h4 with a
dangerous attack for White, Shi-
anovsky-Sherbak, USSR 1960.
~ 9 P-O! .1t.g7 (even worse is
9 .. ~xe5? 10 :el and now for ex-
8 'iVaS?! ample 1O...'iVb8 11 'iVd4 f6 12 itJe4
This move is highly dubious; .1t.g7 13 .1t.f4 'iVb6 14itJd6+ ~ 15
better is 8... .1t.g7, which can be 'iVd3 .1t.b7 16 .1t.xg8 :xg8 17 'iVc4
found in the next main game. Black and it was all over, 1-0 Tiviakov-
has two further alternatives: Mugerman, Pinsk 1989) 10 Wf3!
a) 8... d5?! (Black cannot break e6 11 ~e4 .1t.xe5 12 .1t.f4 Wc7 13
in the centre when he is this far .t..xe5 'ii'xe5 14 :fel d5 15 :adl
behind in development) 9 exd6 with a strong attack for White,
'iVxd6 (9 ...exd6? is even worse: 10 Barvik-Terentiev, USSR 1961.
'iVf3 d5 11 tLlxd5! cxd5 12 .1t.xd5 9 .1t.g7
'ii'e7+ 13 .1t.e3 :b8 14 0-0 .1t.g7 15 10 Wf3!
.1t.f4, John-Janowski, Mannheim In Timman-Korchnoi, Brussels
1914) 10 0-0 'iVxdl 11 :xdl .1t.h6 1991, White was successful with 10
12 .1t.xh6 tLlxh6 13 lId2 ~f5 14 0-0 .1t.xe5 11 .1t.xe5 'iVxe5 12 :el
290 Semi-Accelerated Dragon
Game 104
De Firmian-5osonko
Wijk aan Zee 1986
stronger than 11 0-0-0, but so far it never allow Black to sacrifice the
has not been played very often) exchange on f4 as the eS-pawn will
ll...lLlh6 (also possible is 11...lLle7 become too weak, and Black will
which may transpose to Andersson- then gain excellent chances due to
Bilek above) 12 :adl 'ikc7 13 l:tfel his pawn majority in the centre and
liJf7 14 "g3 (or 14 'ilfe3 :bS IS b3 the pair of bishops; in this case 16
h6 16 i.g3 'ilfaS 17 lLla4 i.fS 18 b3, despite being weakening,
'ilfd3 i.e7 19 i.f4 'ifc7, Zivic- would have been better) 16 ...:xf4!
Dezelin, Slokobanja 1989, when 17 'ikxf4 liJxeS IS 'ikg3 (Black
White was somewhat more active) threatened 18 ...lLld3+) 18 ...fxg4 19
14 ... 0-0 (Shamkovich gives 14 ... gS hS gxhS 20 :hl "as 21 1Ii'h4liJf3
as unclear, but one has the feeling with a clear advantage for Black,
that White should be better, al- Gaber-Dezelin, Pula 1990.
though it is pretty difficult to b) 12 l:del!? (this move looks
prove, e.g. IS i.xgS i.xeS 16 f4 slightly strange, but it is actually
:g8! or 16 'ilfh4 :g8!; this is defi- quite logical; White wants to break
nitely better than the game, where with the h-pawn, so why not keep
Black ends up bound hand and the rook on hI and use the other
foot) IS h4 ~hS 16 lLla4 as?! 17 rook to protect the e-pawn, as
b3 :e8 IS 'ilfe3 h6 19 g4! :g8 20 nothing will be happening on the d-
..tg3 ..tfS 21 'ilfb6! with total con- file for some time?) 12 ... liJh6
trol, Short-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee (12 ...liJe7!?) 13 h4 liJf7 14 'ikg3!
19S6. l1b8?! (it is quite possible that
c) 11 h4 'ilfc7 (this may already 14 .. J:tg8, intending ... ..tfS or
be wrong; perhaps 11...liJh6 was ... i.h8 followed by a ... h7-h6, ... g6-
once again the right move) 12 'ikg3 gS plan is better) IS h5! gS 16
':b8 13 hS gS 14 h6! (the only way i.xgS liJxgS 17 h6! ..tf6 18 f4!
to maintain the pressure) 14... i.xh6 :b4 19 b3 :g8 20 exf6 liJf7 21
IS ':'xh6 lLlxh6 16 'ilfxgS liJf7 17 'ife3 with a much better position
'ikg3 llb4 18 b3 'ikaS 190-0-0 and for White, since Black has real
White develops a strong initiative, problems with his co-ordination,
Kislov-Groh, Budejovice 1992. Kiesekamp-Bogdan, Szeged 1995.
11 'ike7 c) 12 'ifg3liJe7? (12 ...liJh6!?) 13
12 h4 h4 h6 14 l:[d6 0-0 IS hS gS 16
Once again we have some alter- i.xgS! hxgS 17 h6 and White was
natives for White: winning in Mortishov-Shamkovich,
a) 12 %lhel lLlh6 (in Dam- USSR 19S1.
janovic-Gazik, Stary Smokovec d) 12 'ilfe3 :b8 13 i.b3 (Kuijf-
19S8, Black ended up in a very sad Sosonko, Hilversum 19S7, saw 13
position after 12 ....:b8 13 a3 [pre- :hel 'ilfb6 14 lLla4 'ikxe3+ 15
venting Black's .. ..:~b4xf4 ideas] i.xe3 ..txeS 16 i.xa7 ..tf4+ 17
13 ... liJe7 14 h4 liJdS IS hS liJxf4 ~bl :as IS i.d4 :xa4 19 b3
16 'ifxf4 'ikaS 17 ':e3 with a much l:txc4 20 bxc4 e5 21 :xe5+ ~
better position for White) 13 h4 112_112) 13 ... l:lb4 14 g3 liJe7
lLlf7 14 'ike3 llbS IS g4 ':b4 16 (interesting is Shamkovich's sug-
i.b3? (if possible, White should gestion 14... gS!? 15 i.xgS 'ifxeS
Semi-Accelerated Dragon 293
20 g3 24 'ii'c5?
Another convincing example: 20 White could have limited his
~e2 ~d7 21 f4 ~f6 22 h5 l:.b8 23 opponent's advantage here with 24
hxg6 hxg6 24 ~d4 1i'd6 25 1i'e3 c5 ~a4 ~e4 25 ~c5 f4 26 gxf4 gxf4
26 ~xe6 c4! 27 ~d4 cxb3 28 cxb3 27 1i'xe4 dxe4 28 ~xd7 e3! 29
'itb6 29 1i'd3 a5 30 l:e3 ~d6 31 g4 ~xf8 1i'e5 30 c3 ct>xfS 31 fxe3 f3
~e4 32 ~c2 l:.d8 33 g5 ~b5 0-1 with a clear advantage for Black -
was Ravinsky-Shamkovich, Vilnius Sosonko. The rest of the game is a
1953. desperate attempt by White to cre-
20 i..d7 ate some counterplay, which does
21 h5 g5! not succeed at all:
22 l:e2 i..f6 24..:iVb8 25 g4 ~b7 26 'ii'e3 f4 27
23 'ii'e3 ~d6 'ii'd2 ~c5 28 ~a2 'ii'b6 29 'ii'e1
':'b8 30 ~a4 ~xa4 31 ':'xe6 'ii'd8!
32 ':'xc6 i..xc6 33 'ii'e6+ ~g7 34
'ii'xc6 ~b6 35 h6+ <iPxh6 36 c3
<iPg7 37 f3 ':'c8 38 'ii'b5 'ii'e7 39
i..c2 'ii'c5 0-1
Black never let go of his grip.
An excellent performance by Sos-
onko, but before one gets too en-
thusiastic about this game, one
needs to look at White's 13th move
alternatives, which are quite trou-
blesome for Black.
14 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
Chapter Guide
1 e4 cS 2 lLlO g6
3 d4 cxd4 4 'iVxd4lLlf6
5 .i.b5 - Game 105
5 e5 - Game 106
5 lLlc3 - Game 107
3 c3 .i.g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4 dS 6 eS lLlc6
7 i.b5 - Game 108
7 h3 - Game 109
tLld5! which has led to some quick played 6.....dS, but after 7 i.c4!
disasters for Black. Nunn seems to followed byeS Black was in big
support the view that 5 c3 "xc5 6 trouble. Still, Legahn tried to im-
.i.e3 'ilc7 7 i.d4!? is White's most prove on this disaster with 6...lLlc6
promising line. Although 7...e5?! against Fette. However, after 7
looks logical, White is much better 'ilxa5lLlxa5 8lLlc3 a6 9 eSlLlg4 10
after 8 .i.e3 tLlf6 9 tLla3!, e.g. lLld5 ~d8 11 h3 lLlh6 12 .i.e3 he
9 ... 0-0 10 tLlb5 "c6 11 tLlxeS found himself on the wrong side of
.xe4 12 liJxf7! .:txf7 13 tLld6 .c6 a miniature.
14 .i.c4 .i.f8 15 .i.xf7+ fj;g7 16 S e5 is the subject of the next
tLlxc8 winning for White, as the game and 5 lLlc3 of Game 107.
knight escapes via a7, Lesiege- 5 lLlc6
Strenzwilk, New York 1992. Best Nowadays nearly the only move
is probably 7... tLlf6 8 e5 tLlg4 9 e6 played, although we do not find the
f6, which looks quite playable. consequences of S... a6 to be clear
4 'ilxd4!? at all. After 6 eS axbS 7 exf6 e6
As mentioned in the introduction (7 ...lLlc6 has been played, but after
to this chapter, 4 tLlxd4 just trans- S 'ild5 Black has to play the awk-
poses to a nonnal Accelerated ward' s...lLlb4 9 'ilb3 e6, after
Dragon. which 10 lLlc3 looks preferable for
4 lLlf6 White) 8 lLlc3 (best; S 0-0 lLlc6 9
5 .i.bS 'ii'h4 .:ta4! is fme for Black)
S... lLlc6 9 'ii"h4 Black never got
developed in Riihrig-Stertenbrink,
German Bundesliga 1983/84, after
9...b4?! 10 lLlb5 .:ta5 11 c4! bxc3
12 a4 cxb2 13 .i.xb2 .i.b4 + 14
~e2. Instead of 9 ... b4?!, we find
9 ....:taS more logical. Now ... bS-b4
followed by ....:th5 cannot be pre-
vented, since 10 a4 bxa4 is okay
for Black. Maybe White should try
10 .i.h6 .i.xh6 11 'ilxh6 "xf6 12
lLle4 'ilxb2 13 0-0, which is very
unclear.
In summary, after 5 ... a6, Black
Bronstein's ingenious idea from is well behind in development. But
his game against Zhidkov in 1972. with the pair of bishops, the rook
Black played the weak S...•a5+, coming into play via a5 and the f6-
but after 6 "c3 he realised that pawn being weak, inexact play by
6 ...'ilxc3 7 tLlxc3 with the threat of White could easily give Black the
e5 followed by lLld5 can only be better game. So, if you find the
parried with 7 ... a6, and then S e5 endgame after S...lLlc6 too difficult
axb5 9 exf6 with lLld5 or lLlxbS to win, 5 ...a6 is a risky, but not bad
next is almost winning for White. winning attempt.
Zhidkov swallowed his pride and 6 .i.xc6 dxc6
298 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
tDxe4 32 cxb6 axb6 33 tDa4 bS 34 but perhaps 7 ... tDc7 8 tDc3 .i.g7 is
tDc3.i.gS a more solid option and now:
Another strategic triumph for a) In Lutikov-Osnos, Kiev 1964,
Larsen, but he later allowed his Black was blown apart after 9 .i.f4
opponent to escape with a draw. It tDe6?! 10 .i.g3 b6 11 h4 h5 12.i.c4
seems to us that the endgame aris- i.b7 13 .i.d5 -.c8 140-0-0 tDa5 15
ing after 5 ~b5 offers as many tDg5 .i.h6 16 f4 .i.xg5 17 fxg5
chances to Black as it does for rt:Jc7 18 .i.xti+ 'itxf7 19 e6+ tDxe6
White. 20 l%hfl with total destruction. Im-
pressive play by White, but Black
Game 106 could have done better by not giv-
Rozentalis-Tregubov ing up control of d5 and playing
Sf Petersburg 1996 9... b6 instead of 9 ... tDe6?! Silman
and Donaldson suggest that 10 .i.c4
(1 e4 cS 2 tDf3 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .i.b7 11 'ife2 tDa5 12 .i.d3 tDe6 13
'it'xd4 tDf6) i.g3 tDc5 140-00-015 %ladl Wc8
is equal. This is probably right, but
S eS!? 10 .i.c4 seems unnecessary, Black
gains a lot of time chasing the
bishop. 10 0-0-0 or even stronger
10 h4! seem to be the real tests of
7 ... tDc7. It looks as if White has
good attacking chances, but since
Black has no obvious weaknesses,
with careful play he should have a
fully playable position.
b) The correct answer to 9 .i.c4
was shown as long ago as Tren-
chard-Blackbume, in 1898! There
followed 9 ... b5!
•
304 Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
position. Even without g2-g4, ex- Risky, but 10 ... ~xf3 11 lDxf3 is
changing on e3 followed by ... f7- just better for White, who has the
f6! is strong, nonnally leading to bishop pair and better co-ordination
equality. of his pieces.
7 ~bS!? 11 exf6 ~xf6
White hopes to exploit the c5- Nonnally Black takes back with
square, which will be weak after the pawn, but since she has not
.ixc6. He also removes pressure castled yet, White has a check on
from the d4-pawn by pinning the the e-file.
knight. 7 h3 is the subject of the 12 lDb3 lDf7
next game. 13 lDcs lDd6
7 ~g4 14 ~xc6 ~xc6
15 lDeS 'ii'c8
It is obvious that Black's open-
ing strategy has been a complete
failure. Somehow the Hungarian
manages to hang on and defend.
16 .:tel lDe4!?
Not nice, but a good practical
decision, reducing material.
17 lDxc6 'ii'xc6
18 lDxe4 dxe4
19 'ii'g4 ~xd4
20 .:txe4 ~f6
21 ~h6 ~f7
play useful moves such as . JiJc7, ... .i.xf3 followed by ... tDc6-d4, he
... l:.b8, ... a7-a6, ... ~d7 etc. This is just better. 1O ... ~g4!? has not
strategy is more difficult for White been played much, but it seems like
to playas he does not have access the best choice to us.
to the c4-square, which is quite b) 9 tDd2 tDa6 10 dxe6 is also
essential for White's play in the possible, since the knight on a6
Benoni. Therefore White has ex- now takes a long time to get to d4.
perimented with 9 dxe6 or 10 dxe6, The white knight, however, also
hoping to prove that the d6-pawn is looks oddly placed on d2. After
a weakness, though so far he has 1O ... ~xe6 11 tDb3 ""6 12 ~f4
not been particularly successful. l:.ad8 13 1rcl tDb4 14 l:.dl a6
a) After 9 dxe6 ~xe6 10 ~f4, Black was fine in Lukacs-
Black has some interesting options: Damljanovic, Lucerne 1988. 9 h3!?
exd5 10 exd5 was successful for
White in Speelman-Larsen, Hast-
ings 1990, after 1O...""6?! 11 .i.d3
tDa6 12 a3 ~d7 13 l:.bl tDh5 14
~d2 when White slowly managed
to expand (1-0, 36). However, fine
for Black is 1O... tDe4! 11 tDxe4
lhe4 12 ~d3 ::te8 13 ~g5 ""6!?
14 l:.bl tDd7 followed by ... tDe5
with equal, but dull play. 13 l:.el
tDd7 14 .i.g5 f6!? 15 ~d2 l:.xel+
16 1rxel tDe5 17 tDxe5 112-112 was
1O... tDc6 is often played, but is Volke-P.H.Nielsen, Austria 1997,
not our recommendation. Better is another good example of the ease
10...""6!?, which led to a win for of Black's position in this line.
Black in Beliavsky-De Firmian, Again White normally goes for
Reggio Emilia 1989, when Black the Maroczy with 7 0-0, as this is
was better after 11 ~xd6 l:.d8 12 thought to be good for White.
e5 tDe8 13 tDa4 1rc6 14 b4 cxb4 However, many 1 d4 players have
15 c5 1rc8 16 tDd4 tDxd6 17 tDxe6 never or rarely faced Maroczy po-
fxe6 18 dxe6 ~xal, as White did sitions before, and in our experi-
not have enough compensation. ence they often do very badly in
Simplest, however, is Loeffler's them, since they are more a matter
excellent discovery namely of understanding and experience
1O... ~g4! when Black is fine after than just knowing some theory. But
11 h3? tDxe4! 12 tDxe4 l:txe4 13 it should be noted that the King's
~g5 1re8 14 ~d3 ~xf3 15 1rxf3 Indian move order is just a way to
l:.e5 16 1rxb7 tDc6 with a huge avoid some critical lines, and not a
edge, Prymula-Loeffler, Hradec complete repertoire against 1 d4.
Kralove 1988. The point is that 12
hxg4 ~xc3! leaves Black with an Benoni and Benko Gambit
extra pawn. Therefore 11 h3? is The move order
bad, but if Black gets to play 1 d4 tDf6 2 c4 cS 3 tDf3!?
Guide to Transpositions 315
890
plete c3 Sicilian
'--.- ·- ~--"'~--~~------~·n~r~.'landler
Angus Dunnington A modern guide to the most popular way
The first practical club-player's guide to to avoid the main lines of the Sicilian.
the subtle Catalan. 0713478284
071348021 1
I I~
London SW6 SBY
Batsford Chess Online: http://WWW.batsford.com
11111111
9 7 9867 >