Polugayevsky, lev sicilian love by Jose Manuel Vargas

•

e aevsky

Sicilian Love Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament Buenos Aires 1 994

Lev Polugaevsky Jeroen Piket Christophe Gueneau

•

a NEW IN CH� publication

Jan Plooij DagobertKohlmeyer Harold Steiner Joris van Velzen Rosa de las Nievas Nigel Eddis Bas Beekhuizen Drawings:

Rupert van der Linden

Translations from Russian:

Ken Neat

Translations from French: Proof reading:

Glenn Flear Ken Neat Geurt Gijssen

Production:

H.A. Roest

Database Software: Opening Classification:

NiCBASE NiCKEY3.7

Production Software:

NiCPublish

Typeshop Processing: Printing:

lnterchess BV A-D Druk, Zeist

ISBN 90-71689-99-9 ÂŠ INTERCHESS BV 1995 No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the publisher.

printed in the Netherlands

lnterchess BV is the publisher of:

rdc Magazine rdc Yearbook series NiCBASE ElectroNiC Chessbooks lnterchess BV

PO Box 3053 - 1 801 GB Alkmaar, The Netherlands

Preface

Without any doubt chess is one of the most fascinating games. Already at a tender age I came under its spell. I was reasonably successful in youth competitions and still cherish pleasant memories of my participation in theJ uniorWorldChampionship in 1955. O ccupied by professional dutiesI was unable to invest much energy in chess later on. N ow, more than thirty years on, I again have the possibility to dedicate more time to chess. For me the most attractive part of chess is the active middle-game. I prefer sharp positions, in which both players go to the brink of the abyss. Ex actly for that reason Lev Polugaevsky has always been one of my favourite players. A couple of years ago I met Lev in person. I t was he who opened my eyes again for the rich variety of possibilities that chess offers us. Partly through him I learned to enj oy chess even more. I am very grateful to Lev for this and wanted to show my gratitude by offering him something on the occasion of his six tieth birthday that would not only be a treat to the entire chess world, but also to Lev in particular: a chess tournament. It was completely clear to me that it should be a tournament centered around the most beautiful of chess openings, the Sicilian, an opening to whose development Lev has contributed a lot. In B uenos Aires we witnessed a historic tournament, a tournament worthy of my good friend Lev Polugaevsk y. Unfortunately Lev could not participate himself due to illness, but much to my j oy I could see that he intensely followed and enj oyed all the games. I t will be clear that this Sicilian tournament deserves to be recorded in a book . It is eq ually obvious that the history of the Sicilian opening deserves a place in this book, as does an introduction to the person of Lev Polugaevsky. All these ingredients are contained in this document. I am most happy that I nterchess, one of the most prominent institutes in the fi eld of chess reporting is publishing this book. I hope that this book will give you, the reader, a lot of Sicilian pleasure. J.J.

van

Oosterom.

Speech by Lev Polugaevsky during the closing ceremony

D ear M uriel andJ oop! I want to thank you very much on my part and in the name of all the other participants for this wonderful tournament. We will never forget this fantastic event. Your love of chess combines perfectly with the Argentinian chess temperament. M aybe this is why the tournament was such a success. I would lik e to thank all my colleagues for the wonderful games played here that brought all chess lovers so many happy moments. I want to say words of thank s to the organiz ers, both from H olland and Argentina, and to the chief arbiter, who contributed a lot to the tournament. I am very glad that every day we had the opportunity to see living legend M iguel N aj dorf, ever- creative grandmaster B ent Larsen, who gave ex cellent comments on all games, Argentinian grandmasters Panno, Guimard andQuinteros, and many other players. F inally I would lik e to say that maybe it' s a pity that nobody in the tournament took the risk of using the Polugaevsky variation. B ut on the other hand this also means that nobody could destroy the variation. The Polugaevsk y variation is still alive! To its health, my friends.

Contents

My Sicilian Love

Ten memorable Sicilians by Lev Polugaevsky 'I am almost a decathlete of the Sicilian'

An interview with Lev Polugaevsky by Christophe Gueneau A Certain History of the Sicilian Defence

by Christophe Gueneau Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament Buenos Aires 1994

Tournament report by Christophe Gueneau Round 1 Round 2 Round3 Round4 Round5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round9 Round 10 Round 1 1 Roo� 12 Round 13 Round 14

10 1 111 12 1 129 137 145 155 163 173 183 191 1� 207 2 17

Tournament Crosstable

229

Games index

229

Index of variations

230

Association Max Euwe

233

Fundacion Banco Patricios

234

List of illustrations

235

Solution to the chess problem from page 100

236

My Sicilian Love Ten memorable Sicilians

Lev Polugaevsky

Throughout my lengthy career I have tried out numerous opening ideas in a great variety of systems. But it has so happened,

that

have

become

firmly

established as a 'champion' of the Sicilian. It is to the Sicilian Defence that I have devoted the best 'pages' of my life, my 'eternal

love'

for

this

opening

being

determined by its uncompromising nature and the depth of its plans. I give here my ten most memorable 'Sicilians'. The majority of them are being published for the first time with detailed comments, and I hope that readers will enjoy analysing them.

51 47.2 D Yu khtman • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Tbilisi 1 959

In the 1950s the name ofYakov Yukhtman was

1 0...e6 1 1 .tLlc3 i..e7 1 2.d5 White is obliged to simplify the position, other wise after 12... l0b4 or 12..J%.d8 he himself would have to seek a way to equalise.

1 2...edS 1 3. tLldS tLldS 1 4. 'tli'dS

well known among us young players. He un

On 14.i.d5 there would, of course, have fol

doubted!y possessed a natural and rare talent, one

lowed 14 ... 0-0-0.

that particularly manifested itself in sharp posi tions, in which he was very resourceful and strong. But in simple, classical positions his ingenuity markedly waned, and his play was less strong.

1 4.. .'ifd5 1 5.�d5 0-0 1 6..ic6 beG 1 7 .tLld4 i..d7 1 8.£Lf4 White assumes that he needs to occupy the h2-b8 diagonal to prevent the black rook from using the

1 .e4 cs 2.c3

b-file. But in doing so, he loses control over another

Yukhtman had a poor knowledge of chess theory

diagonal, a1-h8, along which the black bishop gains

and he would often endeavour to avoid topical

good prospects. The sound 18.�e3 followed by

variations. But the narrow repertoire that he did

19Jbcl would have ensured him a quiet life.

play, he had studied well.

2 ... tLlf6 3.e5 tLldS 4.d4 cd4 S ..ic4 tLlb6 6 ..ib3 tLlc6 7.tLlf3 dS Understandably, I did not want to tempt fate in the continuation

7 ...dc3

8.tLlc3, and I chose in

stead a reliable course.

8.ed6 After 8.cd4 �f5 or 8.....ig4 Black has no prob lems: all his pieces are ideally placed.

8 ... 'tli'd6 9.0-0 ilfS

1 8....if6 1 9..U.ad1 cS 20.tLlf3 Another inaccuracy. White's queenside is left without any defenders, unexpectedly his a- and b-pawns are left to the mercy of fate, and although he manages to exchange one of them, he is unable completely to rid himself of problems on this part of the board. The advantage of the two bishops is becoming a real factor, and already here the 'alarm' should have sounded for White. I think that the best solution was 20.l0b3 �a4 2U:f.d5, when gradually Black would have had to reconcile himself to an inevitable draw.

1 0.cd4 An inaccuracy, after which the position is equal.

20...i.e6 21 .b3 c4 22.tLld2 cb3 23.ab3

The only way to try for an advantage was by

White is afraid that after 23.l0b3 a5 24.1.1d2 .l::l.fc8

10.l0d4 l0d4 l l .cd4.

Black will tie him to the defence of the a-pawn.

My Sicilian Love

23 .. J:tfc8 24.h3 h6 25.lue4 ii.e7 26Jld3

White was evidently intending to play 26. �d6, but at the last moment he noticed that after 26 ... �d6 27. tDd6l:!.cb8! he would lose a pawn. There is nothing to be done - he has to live with the two enemy bishops. 26 ... l:!.c6 27.l:!.a1 a6 28.g4?

Black has regrouped his forces, and in many cases is preparing 28 . ..l:!.b6, or 28 ...g5 followed by 29 . ..f5 . White loses patience, and commits a serious mistake. 28 ... f5! gf5 �f5 30.l:!.e3

30J:!.e 1 was bad on account of 30... l:1e6 3 1 l:!. . de3 .ib4 32.l:!. le2l:!.ae8 33.tt:Jd6l:!.g6! 30 .. Jle6 31 J:la4 .:us 32...ih2 �dB! 33.tbd2 .tl.g6

Black could of course have played 33 ...J:le3, but he is dissatisfied with such a small gain, and he continues his combined attack. 34.l:!.g3 .l:I.c6 35.tbc4 �d7!

51 7.2 D Nezhmetdinov • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Baku 1 961

Rashid Nezhmetdinov, a representative of Tatar (Russia), was rightly called an attacking genius. When it was a matter of going for the king, he had no equals, and in combinational skirmishes he was totally in his element. The pairings gave him the white pieces against me. In rapid tempo the following initial moves were made: 1 .e4 c5 2.tbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbf6 5.tbc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 bS 8.e5 deS 9.fe5 'f/c7 1 0.ef6 'f/e5 1 1 .tbe4!?

An unusual idea, which belonged to Nezhrnetdi nov himself. He had tested it at a training session for Russian players at Solnechny, near Lenin grad, in a consultation game. The point of it is to retain the dark-squared bishop. 1 1 ... 'f/e4 1 2.tbe2 tbc6 1 3.'f/d2

It was in this position, for which both players had aimed, that the 'mine' was detonated 1 3 ... h6!

The threats rain in on White from all sides. He is unable to parry them all, and he quickly loses. 36. .tl.a1 �h4 37.l:!.d3 �f2 38.<;tg2 .ifS 39 .tl.f3 �e4 40.tbe5 ..if3 41 .tbf3 l:!.c2 42.�d6 .tl.f6 43.�e5 �h4 44.<i.t>h1 llf3 •

White resigned. A subtle game! Black made splendid use of his 'slight' advantage.

Here I should digress for a moment from specific analysis, and recall once again what it was that caused me to search for a new continuation in this particular position. First of all - common sense. However risky The Variation was, I thought, it was just not possible 13

that White should refute it by removing from the centre his excellently-placed knight from d4 to e2, thereby losing time and hindering the develop ment of his own pieces. Of course, surprises, normally unpleasant ones, have frequently awaited Black in The Variation, and will con tinue to do so, but so-called intuition strongly suggested to me that on this occasion White was seeking a refutation of The Variation in a blank space, and that the golden truth lay else where. It was a general understanding of what had long since become familiar problems, which caused me to seek a defence here, rather than by further move-by-move analysis. After all, at this particular moment White himself has withdrawn his actively-placed pieces, and for a certain time the only piece which is still available for sharp attacking possibilities is the bishop at g5 . This means that Black should not bother with prophylaxis such as 1 3 .. J:ta7, as played earlier, but should utilise this favour able opportunity to drive the bishop from its active position. I have to admit that, when I found the move 1 3 ... h6, for a certain time, I was unable, due to excitement, to continue the analysis. It became clear to me that Nezhmetdinov's idea of 1 1 . t2Je4, which appeared so menacing, would be cut off at the root by this modest pawn advance, and that the triumph of The Variation in this line would be complete. During the game I was particularly glad that the innovation was being employed against the actual inventor of this system of attack. 1 4.�e3 �b7 1 5.tbg3

The first fruits of the innovation: at the board White fails to choose the strongest route for his knight. However, 1 5 .lbc3 would have been met by the simple 15 .. .'fih4 and 1 6.. .'*i'f6, while in the event of 15.fg7 �g7 1 6.0-0-0IZ.d8 1 7 .lbc3 Black has both 17 .. ..l':td2, with a reasonable ending, and 1 7...'ifg5. His opening difficulties are behind him. 1 5 ... 'fie5 1 6.fg7 St.g7

Here we can sum up: the strategic plan of The Variation has been implemented one hundred per cent. Black is excellently developed, and the placing of his bishops is particularly good. This allows his position to be considered the more promising. 14

1 7. St.d3 tbb4!

The time lost by White on his knight manoeuvres begins to tell: in evacuating his king, he is forced to part with one of his bishops. 1 8.o-O tbd3 19.'it'd3 l:!.d8 20.'fie2 h5!

Leaving his king in the centre, Black begins an attack. 21 Jlae1 ?

A serious mistake, after which White's position is barely defensible. 2 1 .'it'f2 is correct, although even then 2 l .. .'it'e3 22.'it'e3 i.d4 23. 1i'd4 J:!.d4 gives Black the better chances in the ending. 21 ... h4 22.'fif2 l:!.d7 23.tbe2 h3 24.gh3

On 24.i.d4 Black has the very strong reply 24. .. J:Id4. But now the devastated residence of the white king creates a painful impression. 24.. Jlh3 St.e5

25.tbg3

'fid5

26. St.b6

My Sicilian Love The threat of 27. . J:tg3 forces White to part with the exchange. But his misfortunes do not end there: the second 'storm column' - the f-pawn -is sent forward. 27.I:te5 �e5 28.I:te1 �g5 29.�e3 �g4 30.I:tf1 f5 31 .�f4 I:td1 32.c3 I:th4 33.�c7 f4 34.�f4 �f4

White resigns. After 35. �f4 .l:tfl 36.ttJfl .l:l.f4 he comes out a rook down. The impression made by this game was so great, and the virtues of the move 1 3 ...h6 were so obvious, that the Nezhmetdinov system immedi ately lost its topicality, and subsequently there were essentially no more serious games played on this theme.

51 28.3 D Polugaevsky • Osnos Soviet Championship, A i ma Ala 1 968

I know from my own experience that sometimes one follows all the rules in preparing for a tour nament, but ones's play, as they say, won't 'get going' . Whether it is psychology or something else that is the cause of this, I do not know. But I have seen very many players in this state, and each has tried to escape from it in his own way. It was this that happened to me in the 1 969 USSR Championship at Alma Ata. Game after game I played somehow very leisurely, my thinking was sluggish, and uninteresting even to me myself. The result appeared natural enough: in the first half of the tournament - one draw after another, a fifty per cent score, and a place far away from the leading group. It was absolutely essential to master myself. 'Better to lose than to play such depressing draws,' I decided, and before the next round, the l Oth, in which I was to meet Vyacheslav Osnos, I decided on a course of play that was completely unusual for me. And for this purpose I played l .e4 - a move that I practically never employ. It was obvious that by this the opponent was af forded a mayor trump in the opening stage of the

game, since there was no time to study for White the subtleties of the possible Sicilian, Ruy Lopez, or Pirc Defence. But I did not even set myself such a task. Just the opposite: in order to enliven my play and force my brain to work, I intended to solve all resulting problems at the board. And that is what happened. Osnos employed a system that I had never analysed (after all, I don't play l .e4 !). This could have unsettled me, had I not planned such a situation beforehand. As a result , at the board I managed to find a plan for obtaining an advantage, and, more important, convert it into a win. It is for this reason that I consider this game to be a decisive one. It indeed changed the course of a tournament for me. My play became more lively, and point after point appeared for me in the tournament table. And in the end - a share of first place, a match with Alexander Zaitsev, and the title for USSR Champion. 1 .e4 c5 2.lL'lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lL'ld4 ttJf6 5.lL'lc3 lL'lc6 6.�g5 e6 7.�d2 �e7 8.0-0-0 lL'ld4

This early exchange of knights in the Rauzer Variation enjoys a dubious reputation, and not without reason. Evidently my opponent never theless ventured upon it, because he did not wish after 8 ...0-0 to allow White to play 9.ttJb3, which markedly reduces Black's chances of an attack on the white king. 9.�d4 0-0

1 0.i.c4

The most rapid wins for White have occurred 15

when he has played IO.e5 ! , for example IO...de5 l l . 'il'e5 �d7 1 2.h4! l:.c8 1 3 .Uh3 l:tc5 14. 'iie3 'iic8 1 5.Ug3 ! t;t>h8 (or 1 5 ... l:td8 16.h5 �e8 1 7 ..id3 g6 1 8. ti:Je4 Ud3 1 9. 'iid3 �b5 20.ti:Jf6 �6 2 l . �f6 �d3 22.Ugd3 l:tc2 23. '�bl and in the game Zavernyaev-Kalinin, Soviet Union 1 960, Black resigned) 16. t;t>b l 'iic6 1 7 .h5 l:tg8 1 8 .h6 gh6 1 9. �6 .if6 20.l:tg8 t;t>g8 2l. ti:Je41U5 22.ti:Jf6 l:tf6 23. 'iid 3, and White won quickly (Zhilin-Furman, Soviet Union 1 958). Why then, if I knew these games, did I not play IO.e5? In the first instance because most prob ably Osnos also knew them. What's more, not only knew them, but since the variation was part of his arsenal, he may have had some subtleties prepared. To refute these at the board would probably have required considerable effort, and I was not wanting to force matters. The more so, since after IO... de5 1 1 . 'iie5 .id7 1 2.h4 Uc8 1 3.Uh3 Black has the quiet reply 1 3 . .. 'ifc7. Now after 14. 'iic7 l:tc7 15. ti:Jb5 �b5 1 6. .ib5 l:tfc8 it is not at all easy to utilise the advantage of the two bishops, while 14.'ife3 .ic6 1 5.Ug3 l:.fd8 does not cause Black any particular difficulties.

rists bring in their verdicts (which, incidentally, are not always final) only on the basis of our general experience and practice... 1 2....-tcs

It is clear that 1 2. ..b5 is refuted by 1 3.e5 !, but the move played also deserves censure. The bishop moves away from the defence of e6, which may be attacked by the white f-pawn. Therefore 1 2. . JHd8 1 3.l:thfl Uac8 1 4.f5 'iic5 is more logi cal, although here too White retains a promising position. 1 3J:thf1

White consistently carries through his plan of playing f4-f5, provoking ...e6-e5, and seizing the d5 square. Possibly here too Black should have resorted to the manoeuvre 13 . . .h6 14 ..ih4 'ifh5, but my opponent very quickly made what seemed to be a highly energetic move. 1 3... b5

1 0 .. .'tti' a5 1 1 .f4 �d7

The position after 1 1 ...h6 1 2.�h4 e5 is well known to theory. Black's move in the game was the 'latest word' at that time. Leaving the white bishop at g5, Black parries the possible 1 2.e5 de5 1 3 .fe5 by 1 3 ...�c6, when his light-squared bishop occupies an excellent post. 1 2.i.b3!?

This was found at the board. I did not care for either 1 2. t;t>b l .ic6 1 3.Uhfl Uad8 14 ..ib3 h6 15.�h4 'ifh5 !, when the queen becomes an ac tive defender of her king, or 1 2.Uhfl b5 ! 1 3 ..ib3 b4, when Black seizes the initiative. The game Keres-Geller, Curacao Candidates 1 962, went 1 2.Uhel l:tfd8 13. �b3, and instead of the erro neous 1 3 ... b5?! as played, Black, by the same manoeuvre 1 3 . ..h6 ! 1 4. �4 'ifh5 !, could have obtained a perfectly satisfactory game. Later, theory pronounced the strongest in this position to be 1 2.e5 de5 13.fe5 �c6 14..id2! ti:Jd7 15. tt:Jd5 'iid8 1 6.ti:Je7 'iie7 1 7J:thel l:tfc8 18. 'iif4, as occurred in the games Tseshkovsky-Korensky, Soviet Union 1 973, and Karpov-Ungureanu at the 1 972 Olympiad in Skopje. But after all, theo16

I sensed that it was on the solution to this particu lar problem that if not everything, then a great deal, depended. I thought for almost an hour, and found a refutation . . . 1 4.-tfG! ..tf6

No better is 14 ... gf6 1 5.f5 ! b4 16. t2Je2, when Black cannot maintain his pawn at e6. 1 5.'iid6 �c3

If Black had attempted to repair the basic defect of his position, and had defended his light-squared bishop by 15 ... l:tac8, then White had prepared 16.e5! .!';lfd8 17. 'iic 5!, andif 17 ....ig2, then 18. 'iig l !

My Sicilian Love

il l 1 9.ef6, which concludes the game instantly. If 1 5 ... �b6 16.f5, and now after 1 6. . .J:Hd8 the queen retreats to g3, while on 1 6.....ic3 the piece sacrifice 1 7.fe6 ! is decisive, e.g. 1 7 .... .if6 1 8 .et7 c;t.>h8 1 9JH6! .l:.ad8 20. �d8, winning. It was on these and numerous other similar variation that I spent an hour in thought on my 14th move.

On 2 l ....l:.f8 White can play 22.a3, or 22 ..ie6 fe6 23.g3; 22.c3 ..ie5 23Jlt7, winning quickly. 22.a3 .rl.f8

1 6.'ifc6 llac8 1 7.'it'd7

23 ..ie6!

1 7... .rl.fd8?

This move has to be condemned. As is .soon apparent, this rook should have stayed where it was to defend t7. The lesser evil was 1 7 ....1:.cd8 1 8 . �b7 ! , with advantage to White after 1 8 . . Jlb8 1 9. �e7, or 18 .....id2 1 9.�b l i.f4 20..1:.d8 �d8 (or 20. .Jld8 2l .g3 �c7 22. �b5 .ie5, and White is a pawn up) 21 . �b5. And although White should probably be able gradually to realise his advantage, Osnos should have reconciled him self to this continuation. But he failed to foresee that which occurred in the game ... 1 8.'it'e7 �d2 1 9.'itb1 ..if4 20.l:ld8 .rl.d8

There is little pleasure in playing on a pawn down after 20 ...'it'd8 2 l . �a7, since 2 l . ... ih2 fails due to the weakness of t7. 21 .e5!

It was this move that escaped Black's attention. The immediate 21 .g3 is parried by 2l ... �c7, but now his forces are disunited, and he loses due to the weakness of t7 and the back rank. 21 ... 'it'd2

Also possible was the more spectacular 23.g3 .ig5 (mate follows after 23 ... .ie5 24.l:l.t7 l:l.t7 25. �e8) 24. �e6! fe6 25 ..ie6 .l:.t7 26..1:.t7 �d8 (if 26... �el 27.�a2 �e5, then 28 ..1:.f6 !) 27 . .1:.d7 �f8 28.l:l.d8 ..id8. But firstly, I did not want to play an ending (even though it was won) with opposite-colour bishops, and secondly, I am not an advocate of brilliance for brilliance's sake, if there exists a more rational possibility. 23 ... g5 24.g3 fe6

White also has a pretty win after 24 ... �e2 25 ..l:.f4 gf4 26.'ii'g5 'it>h8 27. �h6 ! l:l.g8 (if27. .. �g8, then 28 ..if5) 28. �f6 l:l.g7 29. �±7. when Black can not halt the advance of the e-pawn, e.g. 29 ... �d l 30.�a2 �d7 (or 30... �d4 3 1 ..ib3 !) 3 l .e6 �d5 32.b3 �d6 33.e7 !, and wins. 25.'it'e6 �g7 26.gf4 'ifg2

Black merely prolongs the resistance by 26 ... .l:.f4 27JH4 �f4 28. �d7 'it>g6 29. �b5 'ii'h2 30. �c6 'it>h5 3 l . �e4. 27.l:ld1 gf4 28.'it'd7 .l:l.f7

Nothing is changed by 28 ... 'it>g8 29.e6 �g6 30.e7 l:l.e8 3 1 . �e8 �e8 32 . .1:.d8 'it>t7 33 . .1:.e8 'it>e8 34.r&t>cl, when White has a won pawn ending. 29.e6

Black resigned. 17

51 23. 1 D Beliavsky • Po lugaevsky Soviet Championship, Moscow 1973

Alexander Beliavsky is perhaps one of the most 'obstinate' players in the world. This trait of his character is especially clearly apparent in the opening. Beliavsky has always attached enor mous importance to the initial stage of the game, and this has often caused difficulties for his op ponents. Understandably, the Sicilian Defence has been the topic of sharp disputes between us in various tournaments.

1 .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.a4 e6 7.�e2 t2Jc6 8.�e3 �e7 9.0-0 �d7 A little bit of cunning - the idea is to carry out the typical knight-exchanging operation before castling.

1 O.t2Jb3 tLlaS 1 1 .f4 An unfortunate idea. White hopes to gain posses sion of the c-file, but something else is much more important: he presents Black with a pawn

1 8.'ifd2 i.b4 1 9.�d4 t2Je4 20.'ife3 Ilfe8 21 .lbe4 White is unable to endure the opposition of queen and rook, and is forced to make this exchange, after which Black gains a powerful outpost in the centre. Although the black pawn is blockaded, the white queen, tied to it, becomes its 'prisoner'.

21 ... de4 22.�g4 J:tcd8 This reply is very unpleasant for White: on the planned 23...ib6 comes the deadly 23 .....id2!! 24.'iff2 e3.

23.�h1 J:tdS!

majority in the centre, and for the white rooks

Once again Black rises to the occasion: against

there is no real scope on the c-file. Therefore

24.�b6

ll.tt:Ja5 'ifa5 12.1\Vd2 was more in the spirit of

24.....id2! 25.1\Vgl

the position.

Now White should have displayed prudence and

1 1 ... tLlb3 1 2.cb3 �c6 1 3.'i!Wc2 Another inaccuracy: it is totally unclear whether White will need this move in the future. The natural l3...if3 would have maintained the posi tional balance.

1 3 .. Jlc8 1 4.�f3 'ifaS! Emphasising the lack of mobility of White's pawn structure, and ensuring favourable condi tions for a break in the centre.

1 5..:tfd1 o-o 1 6.'iff2 d5 1 7.ed5 edS! At first sight it appears that Black has given himself an isolated pawn in the centre, and that White will establish control over d4. But in fact

had

planned

the

same

stroke

'ifb4.

gone onto the defensive with 24...ie2. But he continues playing 'actively', and this finally ruins his position.

24.f5? ..icS 25. ..ic5 �cs 26.'i!Vc5 .l:tcS The exchange of queens has not eased the situ ation for White, since his pawn structure still contains irreparable weaknesses.

27.Ilac1 l:tc1 28.l:tc1 l::l.e S! Putting the final touch to Black's overall strategy. It only remains for him to bring up his king.

29.�g1 �f8 30.�f2 e3 31 .�g3 �e7 32Jle1 �f6 33.�f4 hS!

such a pawn, which attacks the very important e4

The concluding stroke. The white bishop has to

square, requires constant surveillance by White.

reconcile itself to the pitiful role of an 'observer',

My Sicilian Love

since 34.�d1 �g2 35.I:te3 I:tf5 leads to loss of material.

34.�h3 l:te4 35.cJilf3 l:tb4

And White resigned, to save himself further tor ment.

In this apparently risky line, to which theory has given the name of the 'Polugaevsky Variation', how many times has Black succeeded in finding additional resources. Opening guides, including the fundamental Encyclopaedia of Chess Open ings, give only two lines here: A) 1 3 ... i.. b4 1 4 .i..e 2 I:tb8 15.t2Je4 0-0 1 6.t2Jf6! t2Jf6 17 .i..f6 i..b7 18. 'it'h3 ! with a winning attack for White (Kelecevic-Bucan, Portoroz Yugoslav Championship 197 1 ). B) 1 3...i..c5 14.i..e2 'it'c7 1 5.t2Je4 0-0 (15...'f/e5 is bad because of 16.I:thfl with the threat of 17 .i..f4) 16.'it'g3 �h8 17 .�f4 and White has an obvious advantage (Tomson-Kovacevic, Soviet Union versus Yugoslavia 1961). In GrandmasterAchievement (Cadogan, 1994) I show that 13 .. .i..b7 14.i..e2 again gives White the advan tage. The idea ofBlack's move in the present game is that in some cases he has counterplay with ...g5. I hit upon this idea a long time ago, but the subtleties and certain details were only polished up before the tournament and ... during my night-time prepara tions for this game with my trainer Oleg Averkin. 1 4.�h4 �b7 1 5.�e2 'f/c7 1 6.l:the1

51 7.5 D Gruenfeld

• Polugaevsky lnterzonol Tou rnament, Riga 1 9 79

1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5 deS 9.fe5 'f/c7 1 0.'fie2 lLlfd7 1 1 .0-0-0 t2Jc6 1 2.tLlc6 'fic6 1 3.'fid3 h6!

White indirectly defends his e-pawn. The alter native was to try an immediate attack on f7 by 16.I:thfl or 1 6.i.h5. 1 6 t2Jc5 .••

1 6 ... t2Je5 is bad: 1 7 .'it'g3 g5 1 8.i..b5 ab5 1 9.t2Jb5 followed by capturing on e5. 1 7.'f/h3

1 7... b4!?

Perhaps it would have been more prudent to choose the less risky 1 7 .. Jlc8, but I felt an incli nation to go in for complications. Especially since at the board I had found a totally unex pected move, which would set White incredibly difficult problems. No, of course, my opponent's position cannot be considered bad or even infe rior: after all, White has not done anything ' un lawful' . It was simply that the resulting situation gave great scope to fantasy, demanded deep, exact and lengthy calculation, and I was hoping for success. 1 8.lt.Jb5!

White accepts the challenge, which, moreover, he is unable to decline. After 1 8.ttJbl the initia tive is with Black, while the ' attacking' 1 8.ttJa4 simply loses to 1 8 ... ttJa4 1 9.1i'e6 fe6 20..ih5 '*i'fl 2l ..if7 Wf7 22.l::td7 Wg6 23.l::tb7 i.c5, when for the piece White has no compensation. But now it appears that things are bad for Black, and that he must reconcile himself to an obvi ously inferior position after 1 8 ...1i'a5 19.ttJd6 £i.d6 20.ed6, since 1 8 ... ab5 19.�b5 �c6 20.'it'f3 ! leads to mate after 20 ...£i.b5 2 l .'it'a8, or 20. ..J:!.c8 2l .�c6 'it'c6 22.'it'c6 l::tc6 23J:ld8 mate. But after checking the variations once again, Black never theless followed the second 'ruinous' path. 1 8 ... ab5! lt.Jb3 ! !

1 9.�b5

i.c6

This loses and .. .leaves behind the scenes a mass of interesting variations, which I had been con sidering for roughly an hour. It stands to reason that neither 2l .'it'b3? i.b5, nor 2 l .cb3 .ib5 is playable. Therefore, by the method of elimina tion, White was bound to choose 2 l .ab3 ! , when my calculation continued 2L.l::tal 22.Wd2 'ir'd7 23.'lt>e3 ! (not 23.We2 i.b5) 23 ....ic5 24.'lt>f4 g5 25. Wg3 ! l:tdl! (if 25 . .. gh4? then 26. Wh3 ! tl.dl 27.i.c6 ! l::te l 28 .i.d7, and White has the advan tage wherever the king moves: 28 ... Wd7 29.'it'b7 and 30.'it'b8, or 28...We7 29.'it'f6, or 28 ... Wf8 29.'it'f6 J:!.h7 30.�e6), and since after 26.l::tdl? ! gh4 27.Wh3 i.f3 28.l::td7 i.e2! 29.J:!.b7 �b5 30.l::tb8 We7 3 1 .l::th8 i.d4 things are bad for White, he has to choose between capturing on c6 with queen or bishop:

20.'it'f3

This fine intermediate move into a triple attack was planned by Black when he made his 1 7th move. lt came as a complete surprise to Gri.infeld, who, in spite of prolonged thought, promptly committed the decisive mistake. 20

21 .wb1 ?

A) 26.'it'c6 l::td3 ! 27.cd3 gh4 28 .'lt>h4 'it'c6 29..ic6 We7 and White is two pawns up, but his pawn formation is irreparably spoiled, and the opposite-coloured bishops guarantee Black a draw. B) 26 . .ic6 J:[el 27.�d7 'lt>f8 (with the threat of28 ...l::te3) 28.'it'f6 l::te3 29.Wg4 (29.'lt>f2? loses to 29. ..l::te5 30.Wg3 l::te3 3l .Wf2 J:!.e4 32.'lt>g3 i.d6 33 .'lt>h3 l:th4 mate) 29 .. J:te4 30.Wh3 l::th4 3 1 . Wg3 l::lh7, and both players must be satisfied with a draw. It is dangerous for White to con tinue, e.g. 32.i.e6, in view of 32 .. JH4 33.'it'd8 Wg7 34.i.g4 (the only way of parrying simulta neously the two threats 34 . ..fe6 and 34 ...i.f2 35.Wh3 l::th4 mate) 34 ...l::th 8 ! 35 .'it'd7 (or to square d5, d3, d2, dl , c7, a5) 35 ...�f2 36.Wh3 h5, and Black wins. For Black in turn, after

My Sicilian Love

32.1i'd8 �g7 33.'ti'f6 �g8 34.'iWd8 the attempt by 34 ... �8 to avoid perpetual check is risky. Thus the complications provoked by Black, with 'correct play', could have led only to a draw. But what a mockery was made of this term many years ago by Mikhail Chigorin ! The resulting position was full oflife - and for this reason alone it had every right to exist. I need hardly remind the reader how difficult it was at the board to calculate all these - and many other - variations, and correctly weigh up the chances of the two sides. 21 ... tt::la5

Now Black keeps his extra piece, although the battle is not yet over. 22J1d4!

The best chance, threatening both .l:!.c4, and the doubling of rooks on the d-file. 22 ... .l:!.c8! 23.1:i.ed1 ! gS!

Both sides are accurate in exploiting their chances, simply Black has more of them. . . 24.i.c6

After 24. .l:!.d7 'iWd7 25 . .l:!.d7 Black wins both by 25 . .�d7 26.'iWf7 i.e7 27.fi.c6 t2Jc6, with the threats of 28 ... gh4 and 28 ... .l:!.f8, and by 25 ... .if3 26. .l:!.c7 i.c6 27 ..l:!.c8 �d7 28 ..l:!.a8 i.b5 .

trap in Black's time trouble. If now 29. . .t2Ja3 30.�b2 t2Jc2 (30 ... 'iWc2 3 l .�a3), then 3 1 .llc4. However, it is unlikely that White could have kept his e-pawn. A

29 ... tt::le5 30.'i¥e2 'i¥c3 31 .1:i.e4 tt::lc6

In time trouble I overlooked the elegant 3 1 .. JUd8 ! , which after 32 . .l:i.d8 .l:i.d8 33 . .l:i.e5 .l:i.d2 34 . .l:i.c5 ! 'iWd4 ! wins immediately by the threat of 35 ... J::i.d l and if 35.c3 'i!fgl . 32.1:i.d3 'iYaS 33.1:i.h3 tLlb4 34.c4 J::[fdB 35.a4

Forced, in view of the threat of 35 ....l:!.dl . 35... 'it'fS 36.1:i.f3 'i¥g6 37.�b2 'ifg7 38.�b1 l:i.c6?!

With his flag about to fall, Black carries out inexactly a correct plan. Immediately decisive was 38 ... .l:i.c7 and 39 ... llcd7, when the rooks invade. 39.c5!

Now d6 is inaccessible to the rook, and the knight is attacked... 39... ti:ld5 40Jlc4 tt::lf4 41.'i¥b2 l:i.d1

24 ... 'iYc6 25.'i¥d3 �e7 26.�e1 0-0 27 .�b4 �b4 28.1:i.b4 tt::lc4

4 L 'i!i'b2 42. �b2 t2Jd3 and 43. .. t2Je5 would have won easily, but I was vexed, and wanted without fail to conclude the game with an attack on the king. 42.�a2 'iYfB 43.1:i.fc3 'iYdB 44.1:i.c2 tt:ld3 45.'i¥c3 'iYdS 46.�a3 tt::leS

The black pieces have achieved maximum activ ity, and there is no longer any defence against the numerous threats. 47.1:i.b4 l:i.d3 48.1:i.b8 �g7 49.'i¥b4 l:i.d1 50.�a2 1:i.a6!

Threatening 5 l ... .l:!.d4 and 52 .. J:tda4. 51 .1:i.b6

Here we can stock, and it is depressing for White. In the rniddlegame his passed pawns will not go far. 29.b3

5 1 .c6, opening the way for the white queen to f8, would not have achieved anything, since the black king would have hidden from the checks at h5 or h4, while White's would have remained undefended. The game could have been pro longed slightly by 5 l .a5, but even then Black wins by 5L.t2Jc6 52.'ti'c3 e5 53 . .l:!.b5 t2Jd4 54 ..l:i.b6 l:tb6 55.cb6 t2Jc2. 21

White did not need to be in a hurry to occupy this square, but could have intensified the pressure with 1 7 .l::.afl, retaining all the advantages of his position. 1 7 ... ..id5 1 8.ed5 tLld7

51 ..J1d4! 52.'t\t'd4 'tlt'd4 53.l::.a6 'tlt'd3

White resigned.

51 24. 8 D Morovic • Polugaevsky Luzern Olympiad 1 982

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 tbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 e6 5.tbc3 a6 6 ...ie2 d6 7.0-0 tbf6 8...ie3 .i.e7 9.f4 0-0 1 0.a4 l::.e8 1 1 .�h1 't\t'c7 1 2..i.d3

When this game was played, this move was new to me. At the board I played routinely and ended up in an inferior position. Later the correct 'prescription' was found for Black: 1 2. .. ..id7 1Hi'f3 tLlb4 ! and 14 .....ic6! 1 2... t2Jd4 1 3...id4 eS 1 4...ie3 ..ig4!

The only move to avoid ending up in a critical situation. Black deprives White of the d l -h5 diagonal, along which disaster could have struck: 14 . . .ef4? 15J:I.f4! ..ie6 1 6.tLld5 ..id5 1 7.ed5 g6 1 8 .'tlt'f3 tLld7 19.i.d4 f6 20.l::.h4! 1 5.'tlt'd2

This eases Black's problems. 1 5.'it'e l ! ef4 16.i..f4 i..e6 1 7 .e5 would have caused him the greatest difficulty. 1 5... ef4 1 6.l::.f4 ..ie6 1 7.tbd5

Now the worst for Black is over - the availabil ity of the e-file and the e5 square assure him of counterplay. 1 9...id4 tbe5

Avoiding the trap 19 . .. i.g5? 20JH7! i.d2 2 1 .l::.g7. 20JU5? !

B y continuing to play actively, White loses time and helps Black to coordinate his pieces. The correct 20JU2 would have maintained the bal ance. 20 ... g6 21 . ld.f2 .i.fB 22. ld.af1 23. ..ie2 ..ig7

Black's pieces are harmoniously placed, and he is ready to double rooks on the e-file. White should have curbed his ambitions and played 24.h3, but he is thinking only about attack, and his recklessness rebounds in sorry fashion. 24.g4?! tbg4 25..ig4 ..id4 26.'t\t'd4 l:Z.e4!

An unpleasant pill for White to swallow ! His position is wrecked, and all he can hope for are tactical chances. 27.'tlt'f6 l::.g4

Black does not risk the alternative 27 .. JU8

My Sicilian Love

28.1i'g5 .l:tg4 29.'it'g4 fg4 30..l:tf8 r:bg7, although White can hardly hope to save the game in view of the powerful phalanx of black pawns. 28.h3 l:r.a4

Black has precisely worked out this and the following events. The subsequent play is unusu al ly absorbing.

35..l::!.d6 �e7 36 ..t:l.e6

Alas, the trap has already shut: 36.l:Ib6 J:f.b5 37 . .l:lb5 ab5 38.b3 �d6 39.c4 g5! 40.r:bg2 h5 4l.�f3 �e5 42.�e3 b4! ! and then the decisive 43 ... b5 ! An unusually pretty finish ! 36 �d7 37.l:r.e5 �d6 38.l:r.e6 �d5 39 .l:te7 b5! .••

•

29 .:tf5 l:r.e4! •

The secret of Black's plan lies in this subtle move. Otherwise after 29 ... .l:te8 30.J:f.g5 .l:tae4 3 1 .J:f.fg l the outcome would have been unclear.

Leaving White no hopes of saving the game. What tells is the decisive superiority of the black king over its opposite number. 40.l:th7 �c4 41 .l:th6 �b3 42.l:tg6 �b2 43.l:r.a6 l:r.c3! •

30....f7

On 30. .l:f.g5 B lack had prepared 30 .. J1e3 ! , when the sacrifice on g6 does not work. As a result he succeeds in bringing his forces together. White pins his hopes on the rook ending, which appears to promise him good drawing chances ...

The final finesse: the white king is cut off along the third rank. After 44.�g2 b4 45.h4 b3 46.h5 r:bcl 47.h6 b2 48.h7 b 1 'it' 49 .h8'i¥ 'it'c2 it is all over, and so White resigned, without waiting for this finish.

30 'iff7 31 .Uf7 l:r.c8! 32.c3 •..

•

Otherwise after 32 ..l:tb7 l:l.c2 the black rooks are much more 'terrible' than the white duo. 32

..•

l:r.e1 33.l:r.e1 �f7 34.l:r.e6

Both sides happily went in for this position. But the following strong manoeuvre by Black dem onstrates that his calculations have been far sighted and accurate. 34 .l::!.c5! ! •..

51 20.1 0 O S ax • Polugaevsky Honinge 1 989

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ti:ld4 l2Jf6 5.tt:lc3 e6 6.g4 tt:lc6 7.g5 ti:ld7 8..ie3 .ie7 9.h4 0-0 1 0.'ifh5!?

Only now i s the full depth of Black's plan re vealed: he achieves the exchange of his weak d-pawn and penetrates decisively into the enemy rear. 23

In the Keres Attack the storm begins from the very first moves. Here White has other ways of preparing queenside castling - 10.'it'd2 or 10.'it'e2. The moveplayed is the most aggressive. White's entire appearance declares: I am playing only for mate! But the queen move also has a significant drawback: it blocks the path of the h-pawn. The Hungarian grandmaster, however, is pinning his hopes on his f-pawn. 1 0..J:J.e8

A familiar motif. Before setting his sights on the queenside, Black takes prophylactic measures in anticipation of the coming storm. And yet the rook manoeuvre should have been put off until later, and 10 ... a6 1 1 .0-0-0 ltld4 12.i..d4 b5 in tending 1 3 ...b4, should have been played first. 1 1 .0-0-o a6 1 2.f4 tt:Jd4 1 3.�d4 bS 1 4.f5 �f8!

ing 19 ... ed5, he securely defends the b6 square, and he is ready to use the transit square b5 for his rook, where with gain of tempo, by attacking the queen, it will come into play in the quickest way. 1 9..l:!.hf1

White throws down the gauntlet, hoping to in vade on the f-file, but Black accepts the chal lenge, having accurately worked out the concrete complications. However, retreating the knight was unpromising for White: 19.ltle3 e5, or 19.ltlf4 e5 ! 20.ltle6 ltlf6! 21 .ltld8 ltlh5 22.lt:lc6 i..h 3, winning a piece. 1 9 ed5 20.'it'd5 ..t>h8 21 J:J.f7! ..•

The tempting 21 .'it'h5 would have been refuted by 21 ...ltlf6! ! (the only move; not 2 1 . ..ltle5 in view of 22..l:!.f8 ! .l:lf8 23.i.e5). In the event of 22. .l:lf6 gf6 Black continues 23 ...i.g7, firmly 'ce menting' his position.

The only move. Black reinforces his e6 pawn and his kingside. 14 ...b4? would have been wrong on account of 1 5.fe6 fe6 16.i..c 4! bc3 1 7.i..e6 ..t>h8 1 8 .i.g7! ..t>g7 19.'it'h6 \t>h8 20.g6 with decisive threats. 1 5.�h3 b4

Now the white bishop can no longer go to c4. 1 6.fe6 fe6 1 7.g6?

This direct play does not succeed, since Black's kingside is securely defended, and he acquires the additional square f6. The strongest move was the unhurried 17.ltle2!, aiming for f4, when White would have retained active possibilities. But Sax can be excused, since the continuation chosen looks very threatening: 1 7 ... h6 1 8.tt:Jd5!?

White's pieces are indeed menacingly placed, and it only remains for him to add 19J:I.hfl. But Black's reply came as a complete surprise to the Hungarian grandmaster. After the game he ad mitted that he had totally overlooked my modest rejoinder. 1 8... .l:!.b8!

Cool prophylaxis at such a critical moment! At one stroke Black solves three problems: he moves his rook to a safe place, thereby threaten24

21 ... lLle5!

Again Black finds the only move, but a sufficient one; such is the strict logic of chess ! In this very sharp struggle Black has nowhere disturbed the sensible course of events. White was very much hoping for 21 ....l:lb5?, which would have been met by the stunning 22. .l:lg7 ! ! i..g7 (or 22 ... .l:ld5 23 ..l:lh7 ..t>g8 24.J:Ih8 mate) 23 .�g7 \t>g7 24.'it'f7 \t>h8 25 .'ifh7 mate! 22.�e5 :es 23.'Wes ..ih3 24.'Wd5 'WeB!

Again Black is equal to the occasion. Exploiting the fact that f1 is covered by his bishop, he succeeds in blocking the a2-g8 diagonal.

My Sicilian Love

46 .l:tb7 l:l.a6! 47..l:!.f7 l:l.a3 48.Wc4 Wg6 49.ti.f8 l:l.g3!

25 .l:!.d2 'ife6

•

Only not 25 ...�e6? 26JU8.

The final finesse, before advancing his pawns.

26 ..l:!.df2 'ii'd5 27.ed5 Wg8

At last Black can stop to draw breath. He has the advantage, with two bishops for rook and pawn, but is still faced with considerable technical dif ficulties. 28.l:ta7 �g4

50..l:!.f2 .l:!.g4 51 .Wd3

After 5 1 .l:l2f6 gf6 52. .l:!.g8 <;f;>f5 53 . .l:!.g4 Wg4 54.<;l;>d4<;f;>f5 ! 55.<;!;>d5 h5 the pawn ending is won for Black. 51 h5 52.We2 h4 53.Wf3 wgs 54 .l:!.g2 .l:!.g2 55.Wg2 Wg4! .••

Intending to follow up with 29 ...�h5. White should have immediately taken the pawn by 29 .l:la6. His next move is a poor one, which makes things significantly easier for Black. 29.Wd2? �h5 30 .l::i.g2 .l::i.b5 31 .l:!.a6 .l:!.d5 32. We3 .l:!.e5 33. Wd4 .l:!.f5 34..l:!.b6 •

•

34.a4 would have offered more chances. 34... d5 35Jlb8 .l:!.f6 36.a4 ba3 37.ba3 �g6 38.a4 .l:!.a6?!

The only time in the game that Black should be criticized; he allows White to gain counter chances. The simple 38 ...�t7! 39.a5 J:!.f4 40. <;l;>c3 l:!.a4 4 1 ..l:!.b5 d4 would have concluded the struggle.

•

White is in zugzwang: on 56 . .l:!.f7 Black has the decisive 56. . .<;f;>f5 !, while 56.Wh2 loses to 56 ... �e5 57.<;!;>g2 g5. The remainder is clear. 56. .l:!.e8 g5 57.l:t.g8 h3 58.Wg1 Wf5 59J:tf8 g4 60.Wf2 Wg5 61 . .l:!.g8 Wf4 62 ..l:!.f8 g3 63.Wg1 Wg5 64 .l:!.e8 Wg4 65J:tg8 �g5 •

White resigns. Many researchers immediately began analyzing the position after Black's 16th move, the most active being Sax himself. He suggested an inno vation of fearful strength: 1 7.li:Jd5 ! ! (inciden tally, this move has already been tried in practice)

39.a5 �f7 40..l:!.b5 �e7 41 .l:te2 �h4 42.Wc5 �f6 43.l:tb8 Wh7 44.Wb5 .l:!.a7 45.a6 d4!

Black again begins playing accurately. He gets rid of White's annoying passed pawn, and takes play across to the other wing, where he has an obvious advantage.

Indeed, after 17 ... ed5? 1 8.g6! or 1 7 ... g6 1 8 .'iff3 ! ed5 19.e5! de5 (19 ...�b7 20.e6 tt:le5 21 .�e5 de5 22:iff7 <;!;>h8 23.'ifb7 d4 24.'ife4) 20.'ifd5 Wh8 2l..�e3 ! Black stands badly, while 17 ... .l:!.b8 is met by another strong blow: 1 8 .tt:lc7 ! g6 19.tt:Je6 ! . I t seemed that the fate of Black's experiment was sealed, and yet I would ask for just a little delay in drawing conclusions. 25

In the variation 1 7 ...g6 1 8."it'f3 ed5 1 9.e5 Black has another possibility, which may save him: 19 ...ttJc5 ! . Now on 20."ifd5 there follows 20...i.e6 2 l .i.e6 ttJe6 22.ed6 "ifd6, while by 20..ic8 �c8 2 l ."ifd5 ttJe6 White also does not achieve anything. 20Jihfl seems to be tbe most dangerous, but after 20...de5 2 l ."ift7 (2 1 ..ic5 i .c5 2U:td5 "ife7 23 .�c5 i.h3) 2l ...'lt>h8 22. .ie5 .!:r.e5 23. "iff8 "iff8 24JU8 rJ;;g7 25 . .!:r.c8 (25 . .!:r.dfl ? �el !) 25 .. Jk8 26.i.c8 h6 ! the ending does not cause Black any anxiety. So let us wait for new analyses ! One surprise after another! I, of course, was considering 1 2 ..ie3 .id7 1 3 ."ifd2 "ifc7 1 4.a5. However, White's move looks quite menacing and worthy of serious consideration. I can assume that it was prepared beforehand at home. Bravo, Gata! 1 2 tt::ld7 •..

51 1 9.3 D Kamsky • Polugaevsky Reggio Emilia 1 99 1

I find it difficult to explain why the Gata + papa family 'council' decided against me in particular to go in for the Sicilian Defence. Up till then Kamsky's repertoire had mainly featured the 'cautious' l .d4, and the decision of young Gata to begin a 'reckless' life was a welcome one. In the opening a slight surprise awaited me: 1 .e41 cS 2.tt::lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 a6 6.g3

Of course! Not the Polugaevsky Variation! How ever, sharp set-ups in the Sicilian Defence are inevitable, if both players want this. 6 e6 7.�g2 il..e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.a4 t2Jc6 1 O.t2Jb3

All the same the knight will have to retreat, so it is best to do this immediately. 1 3.il.. d2 W/c7 1 4.'1th1

Many players like this prophylactic move in the Sicilian Defence. But would not 14.f4 have been better? After all, 14 ..."ifb6 was hardly possible, on account of 1 5 .'lt>h l "ifb2 1 6.a5. 1 4 l:tb8 ••.

The slight loss of time by White suggested to me the idea of rejecting 14 ...b6 in favour of the more aggressive plan with ...b7-b5. Black does not fear 1 5.a5, in view of 1 5 ... ttJe5 (15 ... b5 1 6.ab6 ttJb6 is also good) 1 6.b3 ttJc6. 1 5.f4 bS 1 6.ab5 abS 1 7.g5 l:te81

This typical set-up, J:te8 + .if8, is essential in the event of a pawn offensive by White on the king side.

•..

To be honest, I expected the variation with 1 0..ie3. 10

•.•

tt::la5

The natural reaction - so as not to allow the cramping 1 1 a5. 1 1 .tt::la5 'it'a5 1 2.g41?

1 8.tt::le2 i.b7 1 9.tt::lg3 ..tf8 20.-tas W/c8 21 .il..c3

The obvious move is not always the correct one. The bishop at c3 appears to stand well, but it will constantly be threatened by ...b5-b4. Only the blockading 2 l .i.b4 ttJc5 22."ifd2 or even the immediate 22.f5 was correct. 21 ...tt::lc5 22.il..d4

My Sicilian Love

Now on 22.f5 White would have had to reckon with 22 ...l2J a4 23 ...id4 e5, but 22.�b4 was still the correct reaction. 22...e5 23.1i.e3?!

This places White's position on the verge of disaster. The only way to hold on was by 23.i.c5 1fc5 24.f5, when Black would probably have continued 24 .. J:ta8, with a slight advantage. 23...ef4 24JU4

Otherwise the e-pawn would have been lost, and with it the solidity of the white king's defences. 24.. .l::t e5!

Not allowing White a moment's respite. Now he loses after 35.l:!.f2 h4, or 35.J:lffl i.h3, while if 35.J::!.a6 Black had planned 35 ...i.f4 ! 36J:te6 fe6 37.'irf3 J::Lc l 38.'it>f2 �h2, when there is no de fence against the numerous threats. White de cides to return the exchange, but he remains two pawns down with a broken position. 35.'iff3 ..ie4 36.'ifg4 ..if4 37.'iff4 h6 38.gh6 'i!Vg6 39.'ifg3 'ifh6 40. .te3 �f6 41 . 'iff2 �f2

The simplest. Here White could have resigned with an easy conscience, but he prolonged his pointless resistance for nearly another 40 moves !

A 'painful ' manoeuvre for White - he cannot play either 25.l:U5 l2Je4, or 25 .h4 l2Je4 26.tl:Je4 i.e4 27.J::!.e4 J::!.e4 28.i.e4 'irh3. He should have chosen the lesser of two evils: 25 .J::!.h4 'ire6 26.'tWh5 'ir g6!, although Black remains with a clear advantage. After the move played, events take on a forcing aspect. 25Jlg4 'ii'e6 26.1i.d4 l2Je4! 27.l2Je4 J::!.e4 28.i.e4 ..ie4 29.'�g1 1i.c2

All this was accurately calculated by Black. He has consolidated his grip on the central squares, and his two rampant bishops are ready literally to tear White's position apart. 30.'iff3 d5 31 .llh4 ..ie4 32.'i!Vg4 �f5 33.'i!Vg2 J::l.c8

42.1i.f2 J:tc2 43.b4 J:tb2 44. .l:!.a8 <itJh7 45..tc5 J::l. g2 46.Wf1 ti.h2 47.J::I. b8 1i.d3 48.Wg1 l:te2 49.l:tb6 .tc4 50..1:ld6 f6 51 .J::I.d7 l:te4 52.Wf2 .l:Ie8 53.1i.d4 Wg6 54.Wg3 l:te4 55.1i.c5 f5 56.1i.f8 l:tg4 57.Wf3 Wh7 58.1i.c5 <itJh6 59.1i.f8 d4 60.1i.c5 d3 61 ..te3 Wh7 62.1i.d2 wga 63.1i.c3 Wf8 64. Wf2 g5 65.1i.f6 wea 66. .1:ld6 Wf7 67.1i.c3 f4 68.l:td8 l:th4 69J:td6 .l:lh2 70.Wf3 l:tc2 71 .1i.e1 lle2 72.1i.c3 J::l.e6 73.l:td8 we7 74.lld4 .tf.d6 75.lle4 Wd7 76.l:te5 d2 77...id2 l:td2 78.l:tg5 l:td4

White resigned. At last!

Decisively seizing the c-file; 34. .. J::!.c 2 is threat ened, and so White hastens to bring his rook back. 34.J::I.f4 �d6!

the useless move 16 g5. Thus one gains the impres sion that White has won an important tempo, but in fact this proves to be a false conclusion.

51 2 1 .2 0 Polgar, Judit • Polugaevsky

1 5...i.g7 1 6.h6

7th Match Game, Arubo 1 991

My match with the 14-year-old Judit Polgar caused a sensation at the time. The amazing talent of this remarkable girl astounded even the greatest sceptics, who did not believe that Judit could fight on equal terms with men of 'high calibre' . The Hungarian star required only three more years to become one of the strongest (male!) grandmasters in the world, but then, in 1 99 1 , it was difficult to believe in a miracle. But when I lost the first game of the match, to my horror I realised that 'jokes' would have to be put aside and that I would really have to 'roll up my sleeves' . The girl possessed a fantastic positional sense, especially in combinational situations, and I could expect to be crushed - the retribu tion for not taking things too seriously - if I did not 'come to my senses' in time. In sharp situations Judit was unusually danger ous, and I urgently had to think up ways of limiting her tactical 'madness' . 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:ld4 lt:lf6 5.lt:lc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.i.d3 b5 8. 'iff3 i.b7 9.g4

This position occurred three times in our match, and in the end the argument concluded success fully for Black, although he had to be accurate in the implementation of his plans. 9 ... lt:lfd7! 1 O.i.e3 lt:lc5 lt:lbd7 1 2.h4

1 1 .0-0-0

In the fifth game of the match the two sides followed the main line (with a transposition of moves): 1 2.g5 b4 13.tt:lce2 "ffc7 14.'it>b 1 g6! 1 5 .h4 i.g7 1 6.h5, but the cool 16 .. J:tg8 ! enabled Black to keep his bishop on the important al-h8 diagonal, whereas on the h-file there was nothing for the white rook to do. Therefore White tries something different. 1 2... b4 1 3.lt:lce2 Vl!ic7 1 4.'it>b1 g6 1 5.h5

Now after 15 ....:i.g8 White has no need at all to make 28

The simplifying 1 6.hg6 hg6 1 7 ..l::.h 8 i.h8 1 8 . .l::.h 1 0-0-0 i s not dangerous for Black, but this is what White should have played. 1 6 ... i.f6 1 7.g5 i.e7 1 8.lt:lg3 0-0!

White has carried out the whole operation with gain of tempi, but has overlooked that she has blocked her own line of attack. As a result Black's hands are freed, and he can calmly begin an attack on the queenside, since now his king will be completely safe on the kingside, under the cover of the white pawns. 1 9.l:.he1 ?!

Unsettled by the unexpected turn of events, White does not act in the best way. The only correct continuation was 19 ..l::.h fl. 1 9...a5 20.i.b5

20."f/g4 would have been answered by 20 ...lt:ld3 2 1 .cd3 tt:lc5 and then 22....ia6, with an over whelming position. Therefore White tries to re tain the light-square bishop. 20.. J:tac8 21 .l:t.c1

Again not the best move. The queen should have been moved out of the line of the black bishop by 21."ffg4, and if 2l ...d5 22.e5. Of course, Black could have simply played 21 ...a4, building up his initiative. 21 ...d5! 22.ed5

My Sicilian Love

After 22.e5 tt:Jb6 23 .b3 tt:Je4 24. tt:Je4 de4 and then 25 ... tbd5 White's position is unenviable. 22... �d5 23.'ifg4?

White's last chance was to keep her pieces as close to one another as possible, and therefore only 23. 'ti'e2 offered some hopes. But now things become very difficult for her.

33.lbc2 .l::!.c 2 34.�d4

Or 34.l:.bl .ta3 ! 35 .ba3 .:!.a2. 34...�a3 35..I:I.b1 'ii' b3

23 ... .l::!.fd8 24.�e2 lbb6 25.c4

In desperation, Judit tries at any price to compli cate matters; of course she could not be satisfied with 25.�f3 tt:Jc4. 25 ... bc3 26J:tc3

No better was 26.tt:Jb5 'ti'b7 27 .tt:Jc3 tt:Jba4, when White is unable to protect b2. 26... 'ti'b7!

White resigned.

51 2 1 .3 D A nand • Polugaevsky France 1 993

27..l::!.c2

Or 27 ..:!.ec l tt:Jba4 28 ..:!.3c2 tt:J e4 29.b3, and now the simplest is 29 ... .:!.c2 30. .:!.c2 tt:J g3 3 l . 'ifg3 �e4, putting the finishing touch. 27 ... lbe4! 28 ..l::!.c8 .l::!.c8 29.lbe4

Or 29..U.c l tbc3! 30.l:Z.c3 l:Z.c3 3l .bc3 lbc4 32.tt:Jb3 lbe3, and with an easy conscience White can resign. 29 ... �e4 30.<t>a1 lbd5 31 .�f2

Equally hopeless is 3 l .�d2 tt:Jb4 32.a3 'ifd5 ! 33.ab4 ab4. 31 ... lbb4 32.a3 lbc2

Also good was 32...'ifd5 ! 33.ab4 ab4 34.b3 'ifa5 35:;.t;b2 'ifa3 mate.

When preparing for this game with one of the most brilliant talents in the world, Viswanathan Anand, I was largely expecting to encounter one of the topical variations of the Scheveningen. But some thing slightly unexpected awaited me. Anand de cided to sutprise me with an unusual move order and, to be honest, I was not psychologically prepared for this. I was obliged to take a decision at the board 1 .e4 c5 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbf6 5.lbc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.'f!Vf3 'ti'b6

It is for this reason that the entire variation with the early development of White's queen rarely occurs. He either has to retreat his knight with 8.lLJb3, or... 8.a3! ?

I n this way White succeeds for a short time in keeping his knight in the centre, although it involves a loss of time. 29

a .. .lbc6 9.tt:Jc6

9. lt:ib3 would have been totally illogical. 9 ... bc6

In accordance with the laws of strategy, this appears quite natural, but in the given instance 9 . . .'it'c6! ? 10.�d3 b5 1 1 .0-0 �b7 (D. Gurevich Xu Jun, Biel 1 993) seems a more appropriate reply, since then Black succeeds in completing his development.

14 . . .<.t>b8, and had prepared 15 . .l:the 1 ! d5 1 6.ed5 ed5 17.lt:id5 ! lt:id5 1 8 . .l:te5, with catastrophic con sequences for Black. 1 5.e5

White hurries to make this break in the centre, since Black was ready to play ...d6-d5, for exam ple in the event of 1 5 .f5. With the rooks in opposition on the d-file, the fact that Black's rook is defended by his king is a decisive factor. 1 5 tt:Jd7! •••

1 0.b3

This subtle bishop fianchetto constitutes the main point of White's opening. Of course, it is dangerous to 'joke' with his dark-square bishop, and so at the board I had to accurately weigh up the future consequences. 1 o...�b7 1 1 .�b2 cs

The alternative 1 l . ..d5 and 12 ...�e7 seemed too slow, and I preferred a more critical continuation. 1 2.0-0-0 0-0-0!

Had Black stopped half-way, after 12...i.e7 13.�c4 and then 14 .l:tge1 he might have 'missed the boat' . 1 3.i.c4 'it'c6! 1 4. 'it'h3

White does everything possible to hinder the advance of Black's central pawn phalanx, but in this he is unsuccessful. During the game I was more afraid of 14.f5. 1 4.. .'�C7!

Securing the defence of d6. In view of 16 ...d5 White cannot play 1 6 f5, and he himself is obliged to clarify the situation. 1 6.ed6 �d6 1 7.f5

White was very much relying on this move, assuming that he would gain control of the light squares, but he failed to take account of the activity and coordination of the black pieces. 1 7 ... tt:Jb6! 1 8.fe6 �f4!

With this series of best moves Black saves the situation, whereas after 1 8 ...lt:ic4 19.lt:i d5 ! he would have faced very unpleasant threats. 1 9.<;£;>b1 tt:Jc4

Now after 20.bc4 'it'e6 passions would have died down, and Black could have counted on a favour able outcome. Not wishing to agree to such a turn of events, the Indian grandmaster finds a brilliant way of thoroughly confusing matters. He sacri fices a piece, and to evaluate the consequences of this operation was practically impossible. 20.'it'f5!!?

I think that this 'modest' move was underesti mated by my opponent. He was counting only on 30

My Sicilian Love 20 ... tt:Jd2 21 .�a2 i..h 6!

Attack and defence are worthy of each other. In amazing fashion Black's pieces manage to main tain their coordination. But, despite Black's ma terial advantage, White's passed pawn is enor mously strong, and it was not at all easy to evaluate the subsequent events. 22. 'iff7 �b8 23.Uhe1 ?!

White calmly brings up his reserves, reckoning that both now, and later, the move e6-e7 will not run away. But this evaluation was incorrect. Only by 23.e7 .l:!.he8 24. .l:!.hel could he have main tained the tension in the position.

I discovered 28.a4 li'd7 29.lt:J c5 and decided against checking all the variations any further. What a pity! After 27. lt:Je4 li'b5 ! 28.a4 Black has the fantastic 28 ....l:!.e7 ! ! 29.ab5 (29.li'e7 li'b3) 29 ... .l:!.f7 30.lt:Jd2 ab5 ! , when it is unlikely that White can successfully unravel his pinned pieces. 27.tt:Ja4

White exploits the weakness of the dark squares, and the fact that the opponent's bishop is a long way from the main events. On 27. ..li'c2 he has the adequate reply 28 ..l:!.cl . 27... tt:Je4 28.i.e5 �aa 29.l:l.d4!

23...c4! 24.Ue2?!

And this is a serious error. White allows the opening up of his position, clearly underestimat ing the coordination of the assembled black pieces. Correct was 24.b4 and then 25 e7, or even the immediate 24.e7. 24...cb3 25.cb3 Uhe8 26.e7

Too late. Black now has the possibility of com pletely uniting his attacking forces. 26 .. J:rc8?!

Why not 26 ... .l:!.d3 ! ! ? Of course, I saw this obvious move, but at the last moment I rejected it. After 26... .l:!.d3 I quickly worked out a favourable variation: 27 .lLlbl li'b5 ! 28.a4 (28.lt:Jd2 ii.d5) 28 ...li'd7 29.lt:Jd2 �d5 !, but then when considering the alternative, 27. lt:Je4 ! li'b5

An excellent manoeuvre. White's actions are most praiseworthy, and it is very difficult to keep track of his rooks along the fourth rank. On 29 ... lt:Jg5 Anand had prepared the venomous 30.li'f2!, when it is impossible to control the actions of the white pieces. In this sharp situation Black keeps his cool, and finds the only defence, by eliminating the chief enemy - the knight at a4. 29 ... tt:Jc3! 30.tt:Jc3 "it'c3 31 .Ud8 'ti'c6 32.Uc8 'ti'c8 33 ..ig7

White realises that it is time for him to think about 'material', otherwise it may be too late to gain compensation in return. 33.....ig7 34.'ti'g7 i..d 5!

analysis diagram

'Reminding' White about the threatened attack on his king; in many cases he has to reckon with the sacrifice 35 .....ixb3+ 36 �xb3 li'b7+, or sim ply 25 ...li'b7. 31

35.'it'h7

White eliminates a dangerous pawn, which in the future could have proved very important. He is not afraid of 35 ...�b3 36. \it>b3 'it'b7 37.\it>c2 ! l:tc8 38.�d l 'it'b3 39.J:!c2 'it'b l 40.�d2. 35 ... 'it'c3 36.'ifb1 .l:rb8 37Jlb2 as

38.. .'ti'c6 39.c;t>a1

White steps out of the diagonal pin and at the same time sets a trap: on 39 ... 'it'c5 he had pre pared the unexpected 40.b4 ! ab4 4 1 . 'it'a4. 39....t:!.e8 40 . .t:!.c2! 'it'd6!

Brilliant play by both sides: on 40 ...'it'b5 White was intending 41 .J:!d2 ! i.b3 42.J:!d8 �b7 43. 'it'f3 ! But now two white pawns are simulta neously attacked. 41 .J:!d2 �a3 42 . .t:!.a2 'ii¥c5 43.'ifd2

The forced events have led to a drawn position. Now the simplest was 43 ...J:!e7 44.l:ta5 'it'aS (or 44. .. J:!a7) 45.'it'a5 J:!a7, but the game continu ation also quickly leads to a draw. 43... c;t>b7 44.J:!a5 �c6 46.g3 .l:l.e7

38.'it'd1 !

Gaining an important tempo by the attack on the bishop. If 38 ...i.f7 White can calmly play 39.a4, since he has 40.'it'f3 in reserve.

�g1

45.�b2

Here the players concluded peace negotiations, in view of 47.'it'b4 lit>c8 48. 'it'e7 'it'd4 49.�a3 'it'al 50. \it>b4 'it'd4. A fantastic battle! It is rare that one manages to play such an interesting game, and I think that both players can be proud of it.

7 am

almost a decathlete of the Sicilian '

An Interview with Lev Polugaevsky

Christophe Gueneau Speak to us a little about your childhood. I was born on the 20th of November 1934 in Mogilev, a middle-sized town in Belarus. I am the youngest in a family of four children. I had two brothers and a sister. My father was a craftsman who manufactured wooden dolls, my mother a librarian. When I think about it, the fact that I am still alive is a small miracle. Often, as a joke, I sometimes say that I was born against nature as my mother was far from enthusiastic about hav ing another child. Before my birth she often carried heavy objects almost to demonstrate to my father what she thought about her pregnancy ! In 1 941, the German troops attacked the USSR and Belarus was invaded. Mogilev fell prey to some violent bombardments. This led to the women and children being evacuated. Due to one of my uncles, who worked in an armaments factory, I was able to catch the last train leaving for Kuybishev. This large city situated on the banks of the Volga served as a convenient retreat for the civilian population and as a military base. Again I was very lucky as during thejourney the train was bombed by the German air force; of the fifteen or so wagons that comprised the train many were completely destroyed, the last two where I was travelling with one of my brothers were left unscathed. It was in Kuybishev that I passed the rest of my

childhood and continued my studies. It was equally there that I learned to play chess. Indeed, tell us how you came to know chess. I must have been about ten years old, and it was in the "Pioneer Palace" in Kuybishev. There it was possible to participate in many different activities. When I went the first time I didn't know what to choose, as at school I was inter ested in many subjects: mathematics and geog raphy for example. Nevertheless, I had to make a decision, so I said to myself "O.K. then, I'll open the door on the left and take a look!". You can imagine what particular activity was going on in that room. Did your parents encourage you to play chess ? Apart from me, no one in the family was inter ested in chess. My father had never played but soon began to read chess columns in the press. He always supported me because, early on, he understood that I had talent for the game. With hindsight, I ask myself how he could have under stood this as he didn't play himself, but it was so: he closely followed my results and progress throughout various competitions. When I started to win tournaments, people in Kuybishev started talking about me and that made him very proud. 33

mathematics never declined and I stayed with it. When it was time to enter univer sity, my choice was simple because if one loves maths there are only two possibili ties: either one goes in the direction of the mathematics faculty and studies only that subject, or one enters an engineering col lege where mathe matics is also taught at an advanced level. It's true to say that my choice was dic tated to a great extent by one particular fac tor. At that time, the engineering profes sion was considered a prestigious career, and in Kuybishev, the engineering college had an excellent reputation. It was there that I enrolled. The process of selec tion was very tough but the courses were of a remarkable qual ity. The lecturers gave us an excellent foundation in differ ent types of engineer Lev Polugaevsky during Hoogovens 1 9 79, a tournament he won ing, but equally so in other disciplines. But in tris eyes the most important was that I There was only one area which was deficient: continued my studies. foreign languages. Fortunately, things have changed, but at that time the study of foreign languages It was him who pushed you to become an engi was not taken so seriously. There were of course neer? some language schools in the country but they Yes, without any doubt, but I was totally in were few and far between. agreement with him. I was attracted to mathe matics at a very young age. I believe that I had When was it that you started to study chess the right character and a real aptitude for this seriously and who were your different trainers ? subject. Throughout my education my interest in In 1 948 I played a tournament in the Pioneer 34

Interview

Palace and it was there that Alexey Ivashin no ticed me. I was a first category player and he was only a candidate master but he had great experi ence as he had played many tournaments, not only in Russia but all over the USSR. At that time he was the Kuybishev champion and I remember that all the members of his family played chess, his brother but also his sister and mother! His house was almost a club and served as a meet ing-place for the city's players and others who were passing through. Ivashin was the first to give me any real lessons, not on a regular basis, only when he had time. Due to him I too became a candidate master at the age of 1 5 . Then it was Kulikov's turn, another candidate master, who was city champion before Ivashin. After him came the International master Lev Aronin, of whom I have the fondest memories and most owe for my success. Aronin was a truly strong player who had participated in the Soviet championship several times, and even finished equal second on one occasion. His main regret was never to have achieved the grandmaster title. This fact he sup ported badly, sometimes saying "Lev, if I don't merit the title, who else does, then?". He lived in Moscow, but he visited Kuybishev from time to time to see his brother, and it was then that I had the chance to work with him. Our collaboration lasted nearly ten years during the 1 950's. Then he left me to become Boris Spassky's trainer. From 1 950 to 1 953, as well as the sessions with Aronin, I participated in the group courses of Rashid Nezhmetdinov who was training the Rus sian junior team. He was someone very likeable but rather strange. I remember that no one had ever seen him eat( !); one really didn't know how he managed to nourish himself. All day he drank very strong tea that he had spent hours himself preparing. Rashid had his own philosophy about chess. For him the result wasn't of any impor tance, and the only worthwhile thing to him was the way that one had played. He loved the "beau tiful game" and was a master of sacrifices. He was a fantastic player, a particularly formidable opponent in complex positions and it wasn't by accident that he achieved some brilliant victories against Tal. His lessons were orientated towards tactics. He was very friendly, but unfortunately had poor health and he died whilst still fairly young.

Following that, when I came to Moscow I didn't have a trainer until the early seventies. It's then that I met someone who was equally to have a strong influence: Isaak Boleslavsky. Just as Aronin, he had had a brilliant career but his had been held back during the Petrosian era. It was well known that the two didn't get on. With him I began to realize that I could become one of the best play ers in the world. Was it then that you decided to become a profes sional player? Yes, in 1 973, but much later than most people think. During the 50's and 60's I had pursued two activities: my studies and then work as an engi neer and chess competitions. I must admit that being an engineer is an enthralling profession and I gave it much of my time. Looking back, I don't regret anything but not having given one hundred per cent of my time to chess, during that period, must have certainly slowed my progress. When one is young one learns better and above all quickly. However I must confess that even so I had the benefit of a favourable working arrange ment. When I was to play a tournament I needed to have two or three weeks in order to prepare and in such cases I obtained permission for time off from my director. On my return I plunged back totally into my role as an engineer. Frankly, these two careers weren't always simple to pur sue and I know of only two people in the USSR who were in this situation: Botvinnik and I. Nevertheless, putting things into perspective, there were many less tournaments then and I played rarely more than two or three a year, although they tended to be longer than those of today. So during twenty years I thus split my time, but progressively my passion took over from my profession. I had obtained excellent results in chess and it was beginning to become clear to me that it was time to make a choice. In 1 973, qualification for the Candidates' , follow ing my second place in the Petropolis Interzonal, was the decisive moment. It was then that I officially became a professional chess player. He was never your trainer but one feels that Botvinnik is someone who influenced you greatly. This is what you seem to express in your last book Grandmaster Achievement. 35

Yes, it's true. I've always had a strong admiration for Mikhail Botvinnik. He's someone who has meant a great deal to me, as he has given me much in both the chess and the human domains. We have become rather close as we have three points in common: we were of course highly ranked chess players and lived in Moscow (I moved there in 1 962); but what really brought us together was that we were both engineers, he in electricity, myself in thermodynamics. From the age of 1 5- 1 6 years old Botvinnik be came my idol. I liked his style of play and I believe that in a certain manner it has much influenced mine. In Grandmaster Achievement I recount faithfully my state of mind from that period: "Since my youth, Mikhail Botvinnik has been my idol and practically the first game that I studied seriously was his brilliant victory over Lilienthal from the 1 944 USSR championship. I was so delighted by that game that, for the first time in my life, instead of going to school I went to the park, and there on the bench I played through the game for perhaps the seventieth time on my chess board. From that time on I lived under the influence of Botvinnik's style. I had a book of his selected games that I kept under my pillow and I have always followed his advice, even after also becoming a grandmaster...". I met Botvinnik for the first time in Moscow in 1950 at the Russian championships that took place in Saratov. I didn't speak to him but in his chess column in the magazine 'Ogonyok' he published my best game with his comments. A decade or so later, when I came to live in Moscow we got to know each other. He was very attentive of both my chess and engineering careers, he gave me much sound advice, and due to him, I met many important people. One day he intro duced me to Dmitri Gemerin. One time he was the energy minister but, having had some prob lems with Khrushchev, became director of the Energy Institute in Moscow. It was there that I worked. Gemerin loved chess and never missed a chance to go and encourage his friend Botvin nik, our mutual friend. I always maintained a good relationship with Gemerin and it was due to him that I was able to sometimes have time off to go and play in tournaments. I owe Botvinnik my 'career' as an author, be cause let's not forget that it was him, on that 36

famous 1 7th of December 1969 in Belgrade, who pushed me into writing my first chess book by asking: ''Are you at present writing a chess book?". I replied in the negative and then he 'assassi nated' me with the remark: "Why don't you accept that you are lazy? You should be ashamed of yourself. It is the responsibility of all grand masters to write books". Do you remember your first USSR champion ship ? Yes, it was in 1 956 in Leningrad and I shared fifth place with 10.51 1 7. I remember that I was par ticular!y proud of having participated because at that time I still lived in Kuybishev, a very modest city in chess terms. It was the first time that a player from the city had succeeded in qualifying for the final of the USSR championships. My participation was a great surprise, not only for me but for my family and the chess world. In that period there were far fewer players than now and the elite were concentrated in the larger cities such as Moscow and Leningrad. In my personal case, the fact that I was so distanced from the 'chess capitals' manifested itself in a lack of informa tion. I didn't have many books at my disposition, and above all I didn't have access to many pub lished games, not only those from the USSR but also from elsewhere. Therefore, from the quality point of view, I couldn't compete equally with the nation's most prestigious players and perhaps didn't gain the full benefit of the experience. For all that, the championship was not all negative for me. True, I didn't have as much information on my opponents as I would have liked, but from their point of view they didn't have much on me. In a sense, I was a new member of a family and it probably took them some time to adapt. There was, without doubt, the benefit of surprise that worked in my favour, and don't forget that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain! I gained in confidence as the competition progressed. Do you like studies and problems ? All through my career I have been close to those for whom the creation or solution of problems is almost a profession. I must say that I have enor mous respect for them, even if in my heart I've always thought that composition is a totally dif ferent world from competition with a clock.

Interview

Frankly, problems have never really been a passion for me, without doubt because of their irrational nature; on the other hand studies are rather differ ent. When I was young, above all when I had free time, it has been known for me to immerse my self for hours into a collection of studies. After wards, I even composed some, but never wanted to show them to others. The spectacular nature of the solutions enthused me, but the most im portant feature was to find a solution to a set problem; in fact I believe this to be part of my nature: finding solutions to any particular prob lem that interests me, in chess of course, but also in other domains such as politics, economics and so on. When one chats with you there is one subject that comes up often and seems close to your heart: computers. Yes it's true that it's a subject that often occupies my thoughts, not only at a personal level but equally because it concerns the future of chess in general. Before explaining my point of view I would first like to say that I'm not at all against computers, on the contrary, because they are a godsend for humanity. Let's not forget that I am trained in engineering and therefore can hardly be opposed to scientific progress. Computers allow one to do an enormous number of things and, in particular, for everyone to have access to knowledge. My principle preoccupation, in chess terms and the rest, is to know how to integrate this new phe nomenon. How are we going to live with com puters and how are we going to manage their use? What are our objectives and how are we going to achieve them? From a chess angle, the replies to these questions have become of vital concern, as after only a few years, computers have taken on an important role, too important in my opinion. I think that the players but also organizers and different types of managers have yet to get to grips with the ques tion. Here and there, everybody knows that com puters have allowed the enlargement of the field of knowledge, notably in respect of games and opening databases, but practically nobody has sufficiently thought out the consequences for the game of chess. At the end of the 1 970's I myself suggested a round-table, a sort of think-tank, in

order to study what we should do and not do concerning computers. Basically I think that no clear reply has been worked out and I have the feeling that no one wants to really reflect on it. I think that there are different perverse effects linked to the use of the computer but in the main this depends on the operator. The main problem for the player to watch out for, and no doubt the worst, is a progressive decline in his under standing of the game. Chess is above all based on personal research and reflection, which neces sitates certain 'mental gymnastics' . Chess end lessly poses new problems and we must face up to them to find the appropriate solutions. The danger is to confine this responsibility uniquely to computers. You have a problem, you then turn on the computer, go to sleep, and on waking next morning the answer is before you. Of course, that rather over-simplifies matters but in reality it sometimes happens that way. If we repeat many times this process there are several consequences: the player becomes passive and his mind loses certain powers; in tournament play, facing new problems he would have less chance of finding the adequate solution, and in a general sense, the quality of his game will decline. Another danger: excessive confidence in the qualities of a com puter. When you need to calculate horribly com plicated multiplications, you are sure that the computer will obtain the right number because it's the only possible solution, but in chess it is not always the case and it happens that several moves are worthwhile. In some cases computers even commit errors of calculation. It is therefore appropriate to stay objective and be very critical towards its proposed solutions; in essence to use efficiently and intelligently the computer's re sources. All these shortcomings can fade the style of a player, at whatever standard, from a simple amateur to a GM. These days, we can discern perfectly the players whose style has been influenced by computer science, those who have the 'ChessBase' culture. Frankly, I am far off believing that these young grandmasters have a better understanding of the game than those of 1 964 for example; I even feel that the opposite is the case and we are indeed witnessing a regres sive phenomenon. To clarify what I have just expounded, it is sufficient to look at the results of certain veterans like Smyslov, Portisch, 37

In characteristic pose behind the board. Am sterdam 1 984

Kortchnoi or even Bronstein. Evidently, they aren't as strong as before, due to their age, but it doesn't stop them embarrassing the new generation on occa sions. Bronstein takes a certain pleasure in beat ing those programs which he is playing! It would be really interesting to bring together several representatives of each generation and confront them with some totally new problems. In the past we were more used to thinking by ourselves and it was precisely that what made us strong. In the field of openings, the influence of comput ers is more and more important. Without having arrived at the point of saturation, we have cer tainly come to a point of over-information and I'm convinced that it is to the detriment of crea tivity. In Buenos Aires I clearly observed what happened in several games. After several moves some positions were already virtually lost. The computer had had its effect. One of the players had simply deeper knowledge than the other and 38

that's what enabled him to win. The intrinsic strength of the winner had nothing to do with the result. Is there an answer to all this? Perhaps. In his time Capablanca proposed to include a new piece. Why not? But I think that Fischer's idea was more practical. Change the starting line-up, which would erase opening preparation and breathe new life into the game. This would be a good way to ge1 around the perverse effects of the computer. Another phenomenon that should be taken intc consideration is the association between man anc machine during tournaments. The fundamental question is whether it is better to lose alone or tc win with the help of a computer? A purely ethica question but a relevant one in terms of correspon· dence chess and adjourned games. Public opin· ion was tuned in to this issue when the famom 16th game from the 1 99 1 world championshii match Kasparov-Karpov was adjourned in Lyon

Interview

As a result of this particular case, many organizers have reacted well in doing away with adjourn ments altogether. This constitutes the only effec tive method of proceeding but unfortunately, it isn't entirely satisfactory, as from an educational point of view, I am strongly convinced that ad journed games enable players to enhance their powers of analysis and therefore to progress. The last point upon which I would like to draw attention is the participation of chess programs in certain competitions. Not long ago, in the London PCA-Intel Grand Prix, the Chess Genius program beat Kasparov. The media had a field day. This highly symbolic victory well illustrates the progress made these last few years by com puters but this raises some questions: Can we say that it is a great victory for the game and above all for the positive image of chess in the media? Do you believe that a father having seen these images would want his son to join a chess club? Do you think that a potential sponsor would be interested in financing world championship matches when he retains the image of the world champion beaten by a program, that one can find in the shops for less than 200 dollars? In conclusion, I would like to say that the appearance of computers raises many questions and that the answers are far from simple, but that I believe that it is in the power of each of us to face up to the problem and think seriously because no one knows what will be the case in ten or twenty year� time. If we don't pay attention now it may be too late. One has the feeling that there is almost a love affair between you and the Sicilian. When didyou decide to regularly play this defence ? In fact I didn't immediately play the Sicilian. Like many beginners and young players I started out with the Spanish game. After that I played the French. How did I come to adopt the Sicilian? At what precise moment? I don't remember exactly, but I believe that it is because, at that time, some of my friends were playing it. I started with the Dragon variation. My results weren't bad but at the end of the 1940's White had discovered a number of different strategies that were rather tiresome for Black. I liked the Sicilian but I had a rather amateurish approach. It was at the beginning of the 1950's that the 'thunderbolt struck' , when I metLev Aronin who

was to be my trainer for the next ten years. He was then one of the best players in the country and had participated in several USSR champion ships. He was only thirty years old at the time when we met but he was already very experi enced. He was an excellent trainer who was a specialist in the Sicilian, notably the Najdorf. We spent much time studying together and quite naturally I started to copy him. He exercised an enormous influence on me and after our collabo ration on the Sicilian I started to obtain good results. Afterwards I never looked to study another open ing and I have remained faithful all my life. Is there anything in particular that you remem berfrom your work together? I remember that at the time of our collaboration the fashionable move against the Najdorf was 6.�e2, against which Black almost always re plied 6 ...e6, transposing to a Scheveningen set up. But Aronin had his own ideas and for him the best move was 6 ...e5( !). I admit that at first I was not convinced, but Aronin gradually persuaded me that the mQve is actually quite logical. Talking about 6... e5, one could get the impres sion that after your match with Karpov in 1974 you stopped playing the move. Yes it's true, but Karpov was not the only one responsible. If one looks closely, I believe that I obtained good positions and that in no way was the move 6 ...e5 refuted, or unplayable, as a result of the match. I think that 6...e5 is a sound move and has many advantages. After the match with Karpov I continued to play the move for a while but I gradually switched to 6. ..e6, mainly to avoid my opponent's preparation but also as I had some new ideas and perhaps a desire to have other sensations. In playing 6 ...e6 my intention was not to transpose into the Scheveningen, which im plies an early development of the knight to c6. Conversely, I preferred to defer the development of the queen's knight aiming rather to play the advance ... b7-b5 quickly. Only when White plays the move a2-a4 should one bring the knight to c6. Therefore I played the preliminary moves . . .�e7 and ...'f/fc7 and then from time to time developed the knight to d7. When Kasparov started to play this type of set-up I had already prepared the ground! 39

opinion, this is not the case in the Sicilian, as between the Paulsen, the Scheveningen, the Najdorf and even the Dragon there is much in common. The next point is that it is an opening that suits my playing style as there is little room for compromise; but I want to add that at the same time it allows the possibility of the manoeuvring type of game, so one can use the opening to suit one's taste: mainly tactical or mainly posi tional . During my career I have resorted to almost all types of Sicilian, I am almost a 'decath lete' of the Sicilian !

New York 1 9 89

Why do you like the Sicilian so much ? Firstly because it is such a rich opening and far from being played out. I have always been a creative player and it has been through this open ing that I could best express myself. What I have to say will certainly shock players of the French defence but I find that the positions resulting from l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttJd2 to be too rigid, there is much less room for investigation; now if instead of 3 .ttJd2 White plays 3 .ttJc3 then it's a totally different game. The lack of a link between the different variations is an aspect that I dislike in certain openings such as the French defence. In my 40

Don 't you have thefeeling that you are taking all sorts of risks in only playing the Sicilian. Firstly because it's such a sharp opening and secondly because your opponents can prepare much more easily? I don't look at things from that angle. I have been playing the Sicilian for about forty years and I don' t see where is the risk. I have an absolute confidence in it and I think that I am in the position to confirm that, de spite lacking it's perfect mas tery, I have a good understanding of the defence. There is a complicity, a type of con nivance between us. In a way, I'd like to say that the Great Lady, that is the Sicilian, has opened to me the door to her secrets ! Further you know that I believe that all Sicilian players must recognize that the openil)g is complex and there is effec tively some danger, but this danger also threatens White. Most of the time I play aggressive sys tems with Black but on the few occasions that I have played l .e4 and that I have met the Sicilian I have applied the same strategy. In summarizing my advice is the following "dear opponent, I am ready to go to the edge of the precipice, but you will come with me".

lnteNiew

Once, you stated that you are ready to only play l.e4 if your opponent will always reply with l . .. c5. I have spent so many years studying the Sicilian with Black that inevitably I have a certain expe rience for the white side. Throughout the whole of my career I must have played twenty times or so against the Sicilian and my results are excellent, in that I have something like 80%. I have played this way against Kotov, Geller, Boleslavsky. . . And what happens when you are faced with the Najdoif? I don't ask myself too many questions. In general I play 6 ...ic4. Does that mean that it is the best move against the Najdoif? Perhaps ! You know that there is no really 'best' move. All depends on individual styles. Karpov is just as dangerous with 6.�e2 as Fischer is with 6. �c4. In spite of everything, have you never wanted to change opening after a string of defeats ? I have often been asked this question and quite frankly the reply is 'no'. I have sometimes changed variations switching from the Najdorf to the Scheveningen or to the Paulsen; at times I have even temporarily given up the Polugaevsky variation, but at no time since I included the Sicilian in my repertoire have I wanted to stop playing it. How can you explain such faith? Simply by the fact that the Sicilian is my open ing. It corresponds to my idea of chess and therefore to my style. I really have the impression that I was born for the Sicilian. I have spent so much time studying it and have won so many victories with it that I have not experienced the need to resort to another defence. Take my match against Mecking. My intuition told me that he was very well prepared to meet my favourite variations and that he had prepared some nasty surprises. I therefore decided to take the risk of playing a line that I had never played, but had much studied: l .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 a6 5.�d3 �c5. My plan worked admirably, much better than I could have hoped. You know that I am rather cunning ! I look at

things from my opponent's point of view and I try to guess what he will play against me, in order to better anticipate events. I don't like being in the position of the fish being baited by the fisherman. Without playing on words, it seems that at that particular game Fischer was your superior; bearing in mind the only game that you have played together at the Palma de Mallorca Inter zonal. Yes exactly. I believe that Fischer always had an innate sense of danger and an extraordinary abil ity to anticipate matters. He was able to some times surprise his opponents using techniques that we can call 'psychological' . It's true that in Palma de Mallorca the day that I arrived in the tournament hall and I realized that he had played l .c4, I couldn't believe my eyes; I even thought for a minute that I had the wrong table! I well remember that I was somewhat shaken and it took me a few minutes to settle down. Despite everything, what a nice surprise for me, and a magnificent present on Fischer's part, that by refusing to play his favourite move l .e4 he im plied that I was a useful Sicilian player and that I could have caused him some problems with that opening. One can therefore interpret his gesture as a mark of respect towards me. You have broached the subject of psychology. Have you too resorted to such techniques ? In chess, psychology is an extremely important factor. All through my life I have used it. Look, just taking into consideration the Sicilian I have used a number of schemes and move orders to counteract my opponent's preparation. I have a good recollection of my last meeting with Kasparov in the 1992 Paris Immopar trophy. By playing l .d4, Garry was certainly expecting to meet my favourite Queen's Indian defence, but that day I had prepared a small surprise in playing the Bogo-Indian. It was clear that he didn't ex pect it. That gave me a 'psychological edge' even if later I lost the game. Fair enough, but we can consider all that to be 'legal psychology '. I wanted to speak mainly of things, tricks, to upset one 's opponent which are sometimes at the limit of correctness, of which Fischer made his speciality. 41

As it concerns me, during a game I have never indulged in anything that could disturb my oppo nent and have never abused the rules. Very early on, I set myself a rule to be honest with myself and my opponent. As for Bobby Fischer I am still convinced that he never did anything illegal and that he never aimed to wittingly harm any of his opponents. He some times arrived late for the game but that was more to do with his own anxiety than a real desire to destabilize. I only played him once, but we ana lyzed together on a number of occasions and I can state that he was a player who was extremely honest with himself.

Some World Champions have deep within them selves a sort of 'destructive energy ' which en ables them to beat their opponents. In your case, you seem to be an extremely kind person, inca pable of any kind of maliciousness. Is this the reason why you have never been a serious can didate for the world championship title ? Yes it's true that in comparison to some other players I don't have a 'killer instinct' , that could have helped me to turn important matches and perhaps even for me to rise to the highest level. Without doubt I don't have the character of a champion. I don't have the belligerence of Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer but when we take a close look, Euwe, Smyslov and Petrosian didn't have this 'destructive energy' either. Many peo ple think that I am too meek but this doesn't mean that I am a lamb. In my games, I often have an aggressive style that disturbs my opponent from developing his normal game, he cannot do all that he wants to do to me. You know that, to achieve the level that I have during the past thirty years, all the same, one must have a certain character and I wouldn't have got here ifl was that tender! Those who have played against me know this well. Those who know me away from the chess board know that I can be intransigent, notably if I sense an injustice. In this case the person who is facing me has every chance of losing as I am uncompromising ! Tell me about the tournament in Buenos Aires. Oh, it's magnificent ! This tournament will stay one of the highlights of my life, an unforgettable memory and all my life I will be grateful to Joop 42

(van Oosterom). Imagine, a tournament organized solely in my honour, with the best players in the world and with the opening that I have always adored. What more can one ask? No living player has ever received such a gift from the gods, and sometimes whilst I was in Argentina I asked myself if I was dreaming with my eyes open. But I cannot hide the fact that in another sense Buenos Aires will remain my worst memory because in a way I was absent. It was the tourna ment of my life, it was made for me, tailored to fit, but I couldn't play. What misery ! I don't have strong enough words to express my suffering.

How did things progress in the beginning, when your own participation was not in doubt? I was to be the main actor in the Buenos Aires tournament and in this respect I was one of the first to be informed about how things were devel oping. When I had the confirmation that the tournament would go ahead I was happy like never before. I immediately understood that it was the tournament of my life, a unique oppor tunity not to miss. At the beginning of summer, 1 993, I set about preparing as if I was going to fight for the world championship. I had brought together all my Informants, all the necessary books and documents and got down to work. Nearly every day I spent several hours preparing for the tournament, summarizing the state ofplay in each variation, but above all I was searching for some good novelties. I knew very well that I would be facing the world's elite and I was far from starting out as favourite, but I felt that my profound knowledge of the Sicilian would en able me to cause a surprise and go and play the spoilsport ! With Black I was confident enough. Nothing too bad could happen to me. It was mainly playing with White that preoccupied me. For quite a while I hadn't been playing l . e4 and in a way I had to start again from scratch. Over time I became used to the idea, especially as I didn't have to face the Spanish or French; after all, hadn't I said that one day I would be ready to play l .e4, all the time, if my opponent would play the Sicilian? All that went well, but almost imperceptibly I felt a certain nervousness rising in me. I started to become more and more aware of the importance

Interview

of the tournament and what it represented to me. I especially didn't want to miss out on the great occasion and I wanted to be good enough.

Were you satisfied with the performance of the players in the tournament? It's a question which I find difficult to answer objectively. In this tournament, as things turned out, I had the role of a privileged observer and the fact that I have played the Sicilian for forty years means that I was able to pass a more critical eye than others who were present. Truthfully, I believe that I was rather frustrated by various things. I would have liked to see more commit ment from certain players, more fighting spirit, essentially that they would have taken more risks. The fact that nobody played my variation naturally saddened me, but I had anticipated it, firstly because it requires two (White must play 6.�g5) but also because Ljubojevic was the only one who had previously played it.

Some extracts from an interview which was made in 1992 that are still topical

Why did you choose to come and live in France ? I had several options, I could have gone to Israel, to the United States or to the Netherlands, but for various reasons France was the best choice. As you well know, I worked during 1 990 with the young GM Joel Lautier in his preparation for the zonal tournament in Lyon and then the Manila Interzonal. I thus created a bond between this country and myself. I equally chose France for practical reasons: my only daughter worked in Paris and my wife had for many years been a French teacher in Moscow. I was therefore surrounded by people who spoke the language fluently and for me this was a big advantage. I don't regret the decision because I am enjoying myself here. From the chess point of view it is a very interesting country with good prospects. In a way, it's a return to grass roots as we mustn't forget that France was the cradle of Philidor, La Bourdonnais, Saint-Amant and Deschapelles before being the adopted land of world champions Alekhine and Spassky.

What advice would you give to a young player who would like to become a professional? First of all, he must love chess and always play with pleasure. It must never be a burden. If he aspires only for medals without passion for the game, he will never succeed. I also think that a golden rule for success is to be strictly objective: one must have a good sense of self-criticism. I often hear young players saying: "I played really well, I had a fantastic game, I was the best player" but at the same time they don't realize that they have made many errors, some times even blunders. He who recognizes his mis takes and who judges them clearly and objec tively will go far. When we lose our sense of criticism we go backwards. This advice is appli cable in all walks of life at whatever age. How do you regard the present situation in the world of chess ? It is difficult to give an adequate answer to this question. From one aspect, there are more and more tournaments in the world and that is a fine thing. The average level of players has increased and tournaments are attractive despite present economic difficulties. In a sense this shows that chess is popular but we must keep our feet on the ground: chess will never generate the media in terest offootball or tennis. If Kasparov or Karpov think for forty minutes on a move, I can under stand why certain people fall asleep during a transmission( !), and this explains why television has never completely invested in the game. There is also a negative side to this proliferation: the vast number of strong tournaments provokes banality in the media. The infatuation of the ordinary public diminishes and there is less pas sion. In days gone by, we remember tournaments such as New York 1 924 or Botvinnik's victory in Nottingham 1936. Take for example the Candi dates' tournament in Zurich 1953, people still remember it today ! Actually there are too many tournaments and they follow on too soon after one another. Even chess magazines can no longer keep up ... Further, one notices that these tournaments con s.ist of practically the same players. The situation has evolved these last few years, with the arrival of new talent, but the transition is rather slow. Let's not forget that we have also lost some 43

With M iguel N ajdorf. Buenos Aires 1 994

tournaments; I am thinking particularly of the World Cup circuit organized by the GMA. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all against the GMA and its leaders. On the contrary, because I think that the idea is excellent, but I am against the false hopes generated and then left unfulfilled by abandoning the project en route. I sincerely hope that the idea will be reborn. One must equally think of those players who, from the start, were not qualified and who were prepared to battle in order to acquire selection. They were more than disappointed and I understand them.

Everywhere, people speak highly of your diploÂ matic talents but you don 't seem to be a member of any party nor to be anybody 's man. I am above all fascinated by chess and in this sense I like the battle of ideas and the clash of characters, but only in the context of the chess board. We chess players have the same worries, the same preoccupations, why should we be forÂ ever quarreling? This doesn't mean that I am passive and that I 44

don't have any principles. I always have my own opinions and convictions and I react accordingly. I don't like to change my mind with each shift in the wind's direction. When I believe that someÂ thing is good for me and for others I hold onto and stay with it.

You, who have contested a match with Judit Polgar, what is your opinion on women 's chess in general and Judit in particular? I have completely changed my opinion when it comes to women. Before, I didn't take them seriously but now I have understood my mistake. In my opinion women have made more progress then men. Compared to before, they now have better understanding, more complete knowledge and are better adapted to competition. Men have only progressed in terms of opening theory. These days women play like men, they are truly GM's. The big problem for men is that they can't prepare psychologically and find it difficult to admit that their feminine opponent is a real GM. Now women have an aim, a model . They are not

Interview

afraid of losing to men, but the opposite is not true. Coming to Judit, she is not a good example. She is extraordinary; at her age she does some incredible things. She has a strong character hav ing the advantage of not being nervous. Both in a sporting sense and a psychological one she has what it takes to become a great champion. When I played against her and lost the first game I understood that I absolutely had to change my approach. I therefore decided to prepare very seriously indeed. I didn't want to be the first ex-Candidate to lose a match against a woman. In the end I won the match but it was not at all easy.

You seem attentive to what is happening in the world of chess and you have your own opinion on the world championship cycle and on Elo ratings. Some years ago when I was a member of the FIDE commission I worked out a plan to reform the world championship cycle. This took much time and energy. For example, I re-read every thing concerning the history of chess. When I presented my report, nobody in FIDE was ready to take it seriously. I therefore ex plained my idea to each member of the commis sion individually. It was then decided to adopt the plan. I was very happy and proud. The moment had come to speak about it to my fellow GM's but then FIDE dropped the plan adopting instead Schultz's project. My idea fell through... I there fore decided to withdraw from the qualification stages of the world championship. I was disap pointed that my colleagues didn't support me enough, they were too passive, when I needed them. Fundamentally, I do not think that it is a good idea that qualification for the candidates should be uniquely from Swiss tournaments. It is some times impossible for top GM's to play under such conditions. lt is a lottery. One plays a tournament with a vast number of very strong players and then only ten are taken! That won't do. My project associated tournament and match play. It allows the top players a better opportunity to prove themselves and yet everyone has his chance. First of all it is necessary to organize a tourna ment with 1 00 players (the 64 highest ranked

players calculated by taking the average Elo rat ings over the last three years and 36 players qualifying from the zonals). From the tourna ment the first 36 (and not only 10!) go on to the next stage of knock-out matches. To the eighteen winners a further six players are added (the six finalists from the previous cycle, who qualify by right to this stage. Only on the first occasion will one take the previous quarter-finalists) leaving 24 players. At this stage of the cycle, all of the qualifiers compete in three tournaments, GMA style, which would allow us to obtain an overall ranking. The winner would be the world cham pion. From a general point of view, I am not in favour of the idea that a world championship cycle should serve only to find the challenger and champion. I think that it should allow us to establish a hierarchy as in other disciplines. Let's not forget that chess is an individual sport. We should be in a position to say who is the No.3, the No.7, the No.22 as the Elo is not enough. We should follow the example set by tennis. Concerning Elo ratings my opinion is clear: it's a total disaster. I can take many examples to demonstrate that the Elo does not reflect the true value of a player. Today it can happen that a player gains 230 points in six months. How is it possible? There again one must proceed as in tennis, recalculat ing Elo's after each tournament as is the case of the USSR with Edward Doubov. One must find conscientious people to do a good job. If FIDE doesn't change in this sense, chess-life will be corrupted in a few years. Then there are the organizers who 'forget' , on purpose or otherwise, to send in various results. I know what I'm talking about because I was on the Russian commission. I have the names of organizers, as well as those of players, who are involved. I believe that in order to avoid gallop ing inflation one must establish a separate rank ing for opens, this would be fairer.

What do you think of active chess ? This type of the game has made enormous pro gress. I think it has now become an acceptable way of attracting the media to our game. It's an excellent spectacle. But there is a negative side and I criticize certain people for the way that they 45

use it. 'Active' chess should remain a show, a spectacle, it shouldn't become concurrent with 'normal' chess of the '40-in-2' type. Why establish an official ranking at this time limit? If we follow this logic we should introduce titles, norms etc. When speed prevails over reÂ flection we can no longer distinguish between IM's and GM's. What can we say about games where the flag falls when one has a queen or a rook more? Do you want such games to count for an active Elo rating? One should be serious, active chess should be as the Holiday on Ice shows are for ice-skating: an excellent spectacle for the public. All the same, these professionals have not ended their amateur career to receive marks from a jury! Take another example with music. People readily distinguish

between Tchaikovsky and pop music. Classical music is an art and it takes thousands of hours to master a sonata. Giving too much importance to active chess represents a danger for chess and is a poor educational tool for the young; one will be tempted to suggest easy solutions with instant rewards. In this case why should one spend many hours studying a precise variation of the King's Indian? Better to work on one's reflexes and to play speculative gambits. I often hear the following remark "if a player has a good understanding of the game, he should be as strong in normal chess as he is at 30-minute chess". I don't agree with this opinion as there are some players who only have a superficial vision, they see quickly but only in a limited sense; on the contrary, there are those who see deeply, but for that they need time.

Lev Abramovitch Polugaevsky - most important results Born the 20.1 1 .1 934 in Mogilev (Belarus) GM since 1 962 T EAM COMPETITIONS FOR USSR Team World Championship

1 985 Luzern

1 st

Olympiads

1 966 1 968 1 970 1 978 1 980 1 982 1 984

Havana Lugano Siegen Buenos-Aires Valetta Luzern Thessaloniki

1 st 1 st 1 st 2nd 1 st 1 st 1 st

European Team Championships

1 961 1 970 1 977 1 980 1 989

Oberhausen Kapfenberg Moscow Skara Haifa

1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st

lnteNiew

World University Team Championships

1 956 Uppsala 1 957 Reykjavik

1 st 1 st

Match: USSR v Rest of the World

1 970 Belgrade 1 984 London

4th board 3rd board

INDIVIDUAL COMPETITIONS USSR Championships

1 961 1 965 1 967 1 968 1 969 1 973 1 974 1 976 1 977 1 978 1 983

Baku Moscow Kharkov Alma Ata Moscow Moscow Leningrad Moscow Leningrad Tbilisi Moscow

2nd 2nd 1 st equal 1 st 1 st equal 2nd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal 3rd equal

Tournaments

1 959 1 962 1 962 1 963 1 963 1 964 1 965 1 966 1 966 1 966 1 967 1 968 1 969 1 971 1 971 1 972 1 972 1 973 1 974 1 974 1 975 1 975 1 975 1 976 1 976

Marianske Lazne Mar del Plata Havana Bad Liebenstein Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Sarajevo Budapest Beverwijk Le Havre Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Moscow Skopje BOsum Mar del Plata Skopje Amsterdam Kislovodsk Tallinn Solingen Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Budapest Mantilla Manila Vinkovci Sochi (Chigorin memorial)

1 st 1 st 2nd equal 1 st equal 1 st 1 st equal 1 st equal 1 st 2nd equal 2nd 1 st equal 3rd 2nd 1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 2nd 1 st equal 1 st 1 st equal 1 st equal 2nd equal 3rd equal 1 st equal 47

1 978 1 979 1 981 1 982 1 982 1 982 1 986 1 987 1 987 1 988 1 988 1 989 1 990 1 991 1 991 1 991 1 992 1 992

Lone Pine Wijk aan Zee Sochi (Chigorin memorial) Mar del Plata Bugojno Manila Biel Sarajevo Termas de Rio Hondo Haninge Akureyri Biel Reykjavik open Reggio Emilia Aruba (match vs J.Polgar) Logrono (match Espagne v CIS) Reggio Emilia (category XVIII) Aruba (match veterans vs women)

2nd 1 st 2nd 3rd equal 2nd equal 1 st equal 1 st 2nd equal 3rd equal 1 st 2nd 2nd 1 st equal 2nd 5-3 2nd equal 5th equal 1 st

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP CYCLE Interzonal Tournaments

1 973 1 976 1 979 1 982 1 985

Petropolis Manila Riga Toluca Biel

2nd equal 2nd equal 2nd 4th equal 7th

Candidates

1 974 1 977 1 977 1 980 1 980

Moscow Luzern Evian Alma Ata Buenos Aires

1 /4-final: loss vs 1 /4-final: victory vs 1 /2-final: loss vs 1 /4-final: victory vs 1 /2-final: loss vs

Karpov Mecking Kortchnoi Tal Kortchnoi

2.5-5.5 6.5-5.5 4.5-8.5 5.5-2.5 6.5-7.5

Certain History of the Sicilian Defence

Christophe Gueneau The Sicilian defence has had a special reputation throughout the long history of chess. It is prob ably the defence that has been most analysed, studied and commentated upon. There has al ways been a certain fascination with it, from the top echelon as well as those of a more modest ability, and today at all levels, it remains the most widely used opening of all. How to explain such popularity which has rarely waned throughout the centuries? Fashions in chess openings change, a phenomenon of all human activity, but the Sicilian has never really been outmoded for long. Without doubt, the Sicilian represents the most mortal ofstruggles between two players, two human intellects, seeking to 'finish off' their opponent. It is well recognized that the Sicilian is one of the most 'violent' of systems. 'Vim vi repellere licet' goes the old dictum which can be loosely translated as 'violence repels violence' . The player who ven tures this defence must be conscious that he will be walking on the edge ofa precipice before accept ing the risk. One slip and the consequences can be fatal ! He should be aware that no imprecision will be permitted, each move must be chosen with great care and attention and the Sicilian player must have nerves of steel. It is true that his opponent, who has opened with l .e4 a move full of candour, must possess the same qualities and suffer the same constraints. This may explain why a sig-

nificant proportion of Sicilians go the full term, until defeat of one of the players is assured, and draws are less frequent than in all other openings. Naturally each innovation for the attack or defence provokes research for the appropriate rejoinder. It sometimes takes years, or even decades, to discover the refutation of a new vari ation. Certain have never been really refuted, as in the case of the Polugaevsky variation, for example. This has sometimes even led to the Sicilian being considered too dangerous and con sequently avoided at the top level. It's the development of the perpetual fight between sword and shield that is summarized in A Certain History of the Sicilian Defence which is neither exhaustive nor chronologically strict. The priority has been to follow logically the evolution of the philosophy of each variation, with particular refer ence to those players who have earned their place in the history of this opening. There is a certain bias towards the currently most popular lines: the Najdorf of course, but also the Scheveningen and the Lasker-Pelikan-Sveshnikov. First of all, why is ' l. e4 c5 ' called the Sicilian defence and where and when did it appear for the first time? Such questions rarely have surefrre answers. In essence, chess historians are divided and none have irrefutable proof of their theories. What is certain is that Spain reigned supreme in chess until the end of the sixteenth century where49

upon Italy became pre-eminent. Match victories in 1574 and 1 575 by Leonardo di Bona da Cutri (1527- 1 588) and Paolo Boi ( 1 528- 1 598) against the champion of the period, the Spanish priest Ruy Lopez de Segura (about 1530-1 580) marked the end of the Spanish hegemony. Italy became the chess 'superpower' and was to remain so for three centuries, coinciding with its cultural domination linked with the Renaissance. Many strong Italian players came from Sicily such as del Biscari, di Siculiana, Clariano Rosso, Salvatore Albino, and Girolamo Cascio; but the biggest and most charismatic was Paolo Boi (known as 'the Syracusan' as he came from the Sicilian capital). One can imagine that the name 'Sicilian' came from hereabouts. It seems that the ftrst player to have studied the continuation l .e4 c5 was Guilio Cesare Polerio ( 1 548- 1 61 2). In his works that appeared in 1 590 one ftnds some analyses of the opening but no mention of the ' Sicilian defence' . In 1 604, another illustrative figure, the 'king of the attack' , Alessandro Salvio ( 1 570- 1640) in his book Trattato dell'inventione e arte liberale del gioco di scacchi consecrated some analysis to 1 .e4 c5 2.�c4 tt:lc6 3.c3 e6 4.tt:lf3 dS

6 f5 7.�d3 'ir'e7 8..ie4 fe4 9.'ir'e4 .••

Eight years later, the talented Giochino Greco (1600- 1 634) put his brick in the wall in covering 1 .e4 c5 in The booke of the ordinary games of cheste published in London 1623. An anecdotal title, it brought to attention a game played in Naples in 1623 between an amateur and Aurelio Severino (1 580- 1 656). David Levy and Kevin O'Connell in their incomplete masterpiece Ox ford encyclopaedia of chess games, volume 1 1485-1866 present the following game but un fortunately don't state their source, casting doubt on its historical value; 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lc3 eS 3.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 4.tt:ld5 d6 5.c3 fS 6.ef5 �fS 7.�b5 'iid 7 8.d4 cd4 9.cd4 0-0-0

Here one should place the king on b8 and the rook on e8, as was the custom of the era. 1 O.deS tt:leS 1 1 ..id7 tt:lf3 1 2. <Jif1 .id3 1 3.'ir'd3 l:!.e1 X

Towards 1617, another great player of the epoch, Don Pietro Carrera ( 1573-1647) in his work Il Gioco degli Scacchi claimed that l .e4 c5 was favourable for White, but the least we can say is that this was based on some eccentric analysis( !); 1 .e4 cs 2.c3 es 3.tt:lf3 d6 4.d4 tt:lf6 S.deS tt:le4 6. 'iVdS

Naturally 6.�a4 wins immediately. 50

History

Despite the work done, here and there, the Sicil ian remained a minor opening with limited atten tion. In this period the fashion was more than ever for 1 .e4 e5 followed by the legendary King's gambit (2.f4). One has to wait until the eight eenth century for the Sicilian to regain popular ity, notably due to the publications of Comte Carlo Francesco Cozio ( 1 7 1 5-1 780) and the Frenchman Fran�ois-Andre Danican Philidor (1 726- 1 795). In his book Il giuoco degli scacchi published in 1740 (some sources suggest 1766) Cozio played the role of a barrister for the Sicilian defence improving on Salvio's analyses. He concluded that Black had the advantage after 1 .e4 c5 2.�c4 ttJc6 3.lt:Jf3 e6 4.d3 d5 5.ed5 ed5 6.�b5 't!Va5 7.ttJc3 d4 8.ttJe5 dc3 9.�c6 beG 1 O.ttJc6 cb2 1 1 .lLJa5 ba1 'tlV

the strength of an opponent." Here is an edited and modernized version of some of his analyses; 1 .e4 c5 2.f4 ttJc6 3.lLJf3

If you haven't brought out your knight then Black would force you to play a gambit by play ing 3 ...e5, as the capture is impossible because ofthe queen check. In this case Black should win if he follows up with correct play. 3...e6 4.c3

You could have pushed your queen's pawn two squares (4.d4) in order to exchange the c-pawn but that would not be much use as, after 5.dc5 �c5, the black bishop becomes powerful and irritating for your pieces, particularly as you cannot oppose it with your queen's bishop. 5... d5 5.e5 f5

Black should have advanced the queen's pawn one square 5 ...d4 and after 6.cd4 you recapture with the pawn to stop correct piece development, just as White does on the kingside. 6.d4 lLJh6

It would have been bad for Black to play 6 ... cd4 as this frees the c3-square to be again accessible for the White knight. Similarly it would be now wrong for White to capture on c5 as this would allow the black king's bishop to be very active. 7.i.e3 'ti'b6 8.'ti'd2

He examined some other variations and they too led to a good game for Black. One thing is clear; Cozio's work sparked interest in the Sicilian but it was mainly Philidor who was to give the open ing a respectable reputation. In a later edition of his master book L' analyze des echecs published in 1 777 (the first edition dates from 1749) the Frenchman has a good word for the Sicilian considering that it enables Black to equalize without it being, nevertheless, as strong as l ...e5 in reply to 1 .e4. He wrote that "This method of playing against the first move is purely defensive and in this case shouldn't be adopted if looking for an advantage. But, if one can start with equal ity (that is, without loss of material - Ch. Gueneau) it is a good method of measuring up

Attacking a queenside pawn in order to force you to play it, but it is best to avoid 8.b3 as after 8 ... a5 Black has good queenside attacking chances. 8... ttJf7

If Black had played 8 ... lt:Jg4 you wouldn't have allowed the exchange of the bishop; you would have retreated your bishop and then later forced back the knight. 9.dc5

Since you cannot move your knight to a3 as you may then obtain doubled pawns or lose your queen, you must exchange dark-squared bishops. 9 ...�c5 1 O.�cS 't!VcS 1 1 .lLJa3

A way of being able to cooperate with the king's knight for the control of the d4-square. In general 51

it is essential to preserve good communication between the knights as it is advisable to post them on squares where they cannot be chased away either by pawns or pieces. 1 1 ... g5

To break-up the centre in the case of 12.fg5. 1 2.g3 hS 1 3.h4 gf4 1 4.gf4 l:lg8 1 5.ttJg5 ttJh6 1 6.tLlc2 ttJg4 1 7.tLld4 ®e7 1 8.�e2 �d7 1 9.0-0 l:tac8 20.l:lac1

The game is balanced although one could say that the white pawn, anchored in the opposing camp, may offer a slight advantage to White. Towards the end of the eighteenth century it was England that was largely responsible for recog nition of the Sicilian. London progressively be came the world capital of chess and many clubs were formed. The first was the 'Salopian Coffee House' in 1 770 whereas four years later it was the turn of 'Parsloe' s Subscription Room' to open its doors. It rapidly became an important centre and the best British players were often to be found there. Philidor, as guest of honour, was a regular and there he was to play several Sicilians against his regular partners, Doctor Bawdier and the Reverend George Atwood (1746- 1 807). The latter, who was a good player, is remembered for having been he who recorded Philidor's games. For this reason the chess world is indebted to him. The following game, played in a blind simulta neous display in 1 783, reflects rather well Phili dor's talent, who, for the firsttime adopts a king's fianchetto in the Sicilian, and a modern-looking set-up well ahead of its time. 52

51 48.8 0 Bowdler

• Philidor London 1 783

1 .e4 cS 2.�c4 e6 3.'ife2 ttJc6 4.c3 a6 5.a4 b6 6.f4 d6 7.ttJf3 ttJge7 8.�a2 g6 9.d3 ..tg7 1 O.�e3 dS 1 1 .tLlbd2 o-o 1 2.0-0 fS 1 3.e5 h6 1 4.d4 c4 1 5.b4 bS 1 6 ..tb1 �d7 1 7...tc2 'fl/c7 1 8.h3 ®h7 1 9.®h2 tLla7 20.g4 ba4 21 .�a4 tt:lbS 22...tb5 ..tbS 23.l:tg1 l::t g8 24.l:tg3 aS 25.ba5 l::taS 26.l::t gg1 l::tga8 27.l::ta5 'fl/aS 28.l::tc 1 'fl/a3 •

At this stage of the game Black had an excellent position, but unfortunately several inaccuracies permit Bawdier to obtain a share of the point. 29.ttJf1 'ii' b3 30.'it'd1 l:ta2 31 ..id2 'iVd1 32.l::td 1 �a4 33Jlb1 .ib3 34.�g3 tt:lc6 35.ttJe3 ..tf8 36..ic1 .ia3 37.h4 .ic1 38.l::tc 1 ttJe7 39.h5 .!le2 40.l::te1 l:te1 41.ttJe1 fg4 42.®g4 ttJfS 43.ttJf5 gfS 44.�g3 �d1 45.ttJf3 �f3 46.®f3 ®g7 47.®e3 �f7 48.®d2 �e7 49. ..t>c2 ®d7 50.�b2 ..t>c6 51 .�a3 ®b6

Draw. Played one year before his death, the next game was also from a blind simultaneous against three opponents amongst whom was his friend At wood. Philidor was then 68 years old.

History

51 49.3 D Atwo o d • Philidor London 1 794

1 .e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 4.c3 d5 5.e5 f5 6.d4 tLlh6 7.a3 tLlf7 8.�e3 'irb6 9.'i:Ve2 i.d7 1 0.'i:Vf2 c4

ofDamiano, Ruy-Lopez and Salvia on the game of chess baptized the continuation 1 .e4 c5 'The Sicilian Defence' referring to an old Italian manuscript in which figures the expression 'il giocho siciliano' . Sarratt even brought to light four games from the manuscript. They are not dated but they seem most likely to have been played in the seventeenth century and certain analyses are attributed to Greco. Here is the first: 1 .e4 c5 2.f4 t2Jc6 3.t2Jf3 d6 4.i.c4 t2Jh6 5.0-0 �g4 6.c3 e6 7.h3 �f3 a.'irf3 'i:Vd7 9.d3 o-o-o 1 0.f5 tZJes 1 1 .'it'e2 t2Jc4 1 2.i.h6 t2Ja5 1 3.b4 t2Jc6 1 4.i.d2 ef5 1 5.ef5 f6 1 6.b5 tbe7 1 7.'i:Ve6 'i:Ve6 1 8.fe6 t2Jg6 1 9.d4 d5 20.i.e3 c4 21 .i.c1 l:l.e8 22.l:l.e1 i.d6 23.a4 t2Jf8 24.t2Jd2 tbe6 25.t2Jf3 g5 26.t2Jh2 h5 27.a5 l:l.hg8 28.a6 b6 29.tLlf1 f5 30.t2Je3 Ci:Jc7 31 JU1 f4 32.tLld1 tLle6 33.11a2 g4 34.t2Jf2 f3 35.hg4 hg4 36.t2Jh1

And Black is winning. 1 1 .�c4 dc4 1 2.d5 'i:Vc7 1 3.dc6 i.c6 1 4..b7 i.f3 1 5.gf3 g5 1 6.�e3 gf4 1 7.�f4 t2Je5 1 8.�e5 'it'e5 1 9.'it'e2 'ife2 20.�e2 h5 21.liJd2 l:tc8 22.l:thg1 �f7 23.l:l.g2 �e7 24.l:l.ag1 i.f6 25.tLlf1 e5 26.t2Je3 �e6 27.l:l.d1 l:l.hg8 28.l:l.g8 l:l.g8 29.tLlc4 l:l.g2 30.�d3 l:l.h2 31 .l:l.d2 l:l.h3 32.�e2 b5 33.t2Je3 l:l.h2 34.�e1 l:l.d2 35.�d2 �g5 36.�2 �e3 37.�e3 h4 38.� e4 39.�g2 e3 40.�h3 e2

White resigned. Two hundred years later this game can make one smile as none of the Sicilian themes so dear to Polugaevsky are apparent, as he describes in his book The Sicilian Labyrinth; but the first step had been made towards a new defensive system. The history of the Sicilian was moving on and pro gress was to be spectacular. After Philidor's death in 1795 the Sicilian kept its reputation but the passion gradually waned. The year 1 8 1 3 was an important date for the history of the Sicilian. The English master Jacob Henry Sarratt (1 772- 1 8 19) in his book The works

Yet again, unfortunately, one can only deplore the absence of information on the old manuscript (by whom, where and when was it written?). The period from 1750 to 1850 can be considered as the 'golden century' for France. The 'four mus keteers' : Philidor (1726-1795), Deschapelles ( 1 780- 1 847), Saint-Amant ( 1 800- 1 872) and Louis Charles de La Bourdonnais ( 1 795- 1 840) dominated their epoch. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the 'Cafe de la Regence' be came an important and influential club as Paris took over from London. Progressively, the two capitals became such rivals that the organization of a match between the 'champions ' of England and France was inevitable: La Bourdonnais and Alexander McDonnell (1798- 1 835). The clash took place in 1834 at London's 'West minster chess club' . In fact the duel consisted of six matches totaling 85 games from June to Oc tober. For the first time in an important match, the Sicilian had its hour of glory in that the defence was used twenty times. La Bourdonnais had the black pieces 40 times (one mustn't forget that colours were decided by lot before each individual encounter). McDonnell invariably 53

opened l .e4 and La Bourdonnais used the Sicil ian half of the time with reasonable success obtaining 1 1 .5 out of 20 (i.e. 57.5%). The nine first Sicilians tested the line 1 .e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 4.c3 d5 5.e5 f6. The French player soon took the initiative in all these games inflict ing some severe defeats on his opponent. Typical was the following game;

Later in the match McDonnell, who was trailing significantly, modified his play switching to l.e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 followed by 3.d4 and 4.t2:ld4 on four occa sions. Today this is considered as the 'open Sicilian' . Then the theoretical duel revolved around the line 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 eS S.tt:Jc6 bc6

51 49.3 0 McDonnell • De la Bourdonnais 1 6th match game, London 1 834

1 .e4 cS 2.f4 e6 3.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 4.c3 dS S.es f6

Philidor recommended 5 ...d4 in this position. 6.tt:Ja3 tt:Jh6 7.tt:Jc2 'ii'b6 8.d4 �d7 9.tt:Je3 cd4 1 O.cd4 �b4 1 1 .'it>f2 o-o 1 2.'it>g3 feS 1 3.feS .:tac8 1 4.h4

In the 57th game 6.�c4 tLlf6 7.�g5 �c5 was played (drawn after 56 moves). McDonnell de viated in the 61st encounter with 7.'ii'e2 which led to an early draw after 7 ...�e7 8.tt:Jc3 0-0 9.�g5 tt:Je4 1 0.�e7 tt:Jc3 1 1 'i!fe5 J:!.e8 1 2.0-0 'i!fe7 1 3 .'i!fc3 d5 14.i.d3 'i!fd6. The 62nd was certainly not the best game of the match but it was certainly the most spectacular. The final position has been published around the world many times.

51 32 . 1 0 0 McDonnell 1 4... .:tf3 1 S.gf3 tt:Jd4 1 6.�d3 .:tf8 1 7.f4 �CS 1 8. .:tf1 �bS 1 9.i.bS 'it'bS 20.'it>h3 tt:Je2 21 .tt:Jg2 tt:JfS 22.'it>h2 tt:Jeg3 23.l1f3 tt:Je4 24.'ii'f1 'it'e8 2S.b4 i.d4 26.l1b1 'it'hS 27J:tbb3 l:tc8 28.�e3 l:tc2 29.'it>g1 tt:Je3 30JUe3 tt:Jd2 31 . 'ii'd3 .:tc1 32.'it>h2 tt:Jf1 33.'it>h3 tt:Je3 34.tt:Je3 'it'f3 3S.'it>h2 J:[h1 0-1

• De la Bourdonnais 62nd match game, London 1 834

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 es s.tt:Jc6 bc6 6.i.c4 tt:Jf6 7.i.gS �e7 8.'it'e2 dS 9.�f6 �f6 1 o.�b3 o-o 1 1 .0-0 as 1 2.edS cdS 1 3.l1d1 d4 1 4.c4 'ii'b6 1 S..tc2 .tb7 1 6.tt:Jd2 l1ae8 1 7. tt:Je4 .td8

History

1 8.cS 'ifc6 1 9.f3 �e7 20.l:tac1 fS 21 .'ifc4 'ithB 22...ta4 'ifh6 23..-teB fe4 24.c6 ef3 2SJ1c2 'ife3 26.'ith1 �c8 27.�d7 f2 28.l::tf1 d3 29.l:tc3 ..td7 30.cd7 e4 31 .'tWcB .idB 32.'ifc4 'ife1 33J:tc1 d2 34.'ifcS l:tgB 3S.l:td1 e3 36.'ifc3 'it'd1 37.l::td 1 e2

White resigned. A fitting conclusion to our coverage of the match concerns the 58th game (again McDonnell had White) which opened as follows; 1 .e4 cS 2.lt::Jf3 lt::Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt::Jd 4 lt::J d4 S.'ifd4 e6 6..ic4 lt::Je7 7.lt::Jc3 lt::Jc6

c6 was adopted more than a century later by the Russian GM Mark Taimanov in an analogous position. Two years later, in 1 836, La Bourdonnais was again in the forefront of events, this time as editor-in-chief of the world's first chess maga zine: Le Palamede. There was considerable media coverage of the McDonnell - La Bourdonnais match and interest in the Sicilian certainly developed as a result. After the death of the Frenchman in 1 840, three chess legends were responsible for defending the Sicilian: the Russian (originally from Finland) Karl Jaenisch (1 813-1872), the Englishman Howard Staunton (18 10-1 874) and the German Adolf Anderssen (1 8 1 8- 1 879). In 1 843, in his book published in St.Petersburg Analyse nou velle des ouvertures du jeu d'echecs Jaenisch took a strong position in stating that 1 ...c5 was the best possible reply to 1 .e4. To justify his position he gave a number of detailed analyses, the sum total of which can be considered as the first book consecrated to the Sicilian. Here are some of his remarks: 1 .e4 cS 2.lt::Jf3

Previously we thought that this was the best move but now we prefer 2.d4. If you play 2.f4 or 2.c3 Black replies with 2 ...e6 and transposes to a position already studied and judged disadvanta geous for you. 2.c4 leaves the d-pawn backward. Black has the better game after 2..ic4 e6 3 .l2Jc3 Cf:J e7 4. 'ii'e2 Cf:Jbc6. After 2.d4 cd4 (if 2 ... e6 3.d5 with the better game; if 2 ...d5 3.dc5 de4 4.'ifd8 with the better game) 3.l2Jf3 (3.'ifd4 Cf:Jc6 4. 'ifd1 Cf:Jf6 5 Cf:Jc3 e6 6 ..ig5 .ie7 and White cannot prevent . . .d7-d5) 3...d5 4.ed5 'ifd5 5.Cf:Jc3 'ifd8 the game is balanced. 2 ... lt::Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt::Jd 4 es s.lt::Jf3

The capture on c6 is bad; 5.Cf:Jc6 bc6 6.�c4 Ci:Jf6 7 .Cf:Jc3 �b4 8 ..id2 �c3 9 ..ic3 Cf:Je4 with the better game (10. �e5 'ifa5). s 8.'ifd1 �CS 9.0-0 0-0

Black lost in 2 1 moves after making several serious mistakes but it is interesting to note that the manoeuvre 4 ...l2J d4 followed by ...l2J g8-e7-

.•.

lt::Jts s.�d3 �cs 1.0-o o-o

The game is equal. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Jaenisch, in his analysis of the move 2.d4, cultivated the concept of the Matulovic-Morra-Srnith gambit (a 55

pawn sacrifice still reasonably popular nowadays). In fact it was another player the Frenchman of Polish origin, Lionel Kieseritzky ( 1 806-1 853) who was the first to implement the gambit.

51 32.8 O szen • Anderssen London 1 85 1

51 32. 1 0 K ie s eritsky • Vitzhum

1 .e4 c S 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 e6 S.t2Jb5 d6 6.i.f4 eS 7.i.e3 a6 8.t2J5c3 J..e6 9.t2Jd5 J..dS 1 0.�d5 t2Jf6 1 1 .�b3 dS 1 2.�b7 t2Jb4 1 3.t2Ja3 t2Je4 1 4.c3 l:tb8 1 5.�a7 d4

Paris 1 84 6

1 .e4 cS 2.l2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.J..c 4 e6 5.0-0 .tcs 6.c3

1 6.J..c 4 t2Jd6 1 7.cb4 t2Jc4 1 8.t2Jc4 de3 1 9.0-0 e2 20.l:tfe1 �b4 21 ..l:te2 f6 22.�g7 l:tf8 23.'it'h7 'it'dS 24.'it'h5 �d8 25.l:tc2 'it>e7 26.t2Je3 �e4 27. .l:tc7 �e6 28.l:tc4 �b7 29.l:td1 fS 30.g4 f4 31 .t2Jd5 6 dc3 7.t2Jc3 a6 8Jle1 bS 9.J..b3 t2Jf6 1 o.es t2Jg4 1 1 .t2Je4 J..b4 1 2.t2Jfg5 t2Jce5 1 3.h3 t2Jf6 1 4. �d4 J..e 1 1 5.t2Jd6 'it>f8 1 6.�e5 �c7 1 7.t2Jgf7 J..b4 1 8.�h6 .id6 1 9.�f6 'it>e8 20. �g7 .l:tf8 21 .t2Jg5 �cS 22.t2Je4 �es 23. .l:te1 ..itb7 24.J..e6 de6 25.�b7 l:tb8 26.t2Jd6 �d6 27.l:te6 �e6 28.�b8 'it>d7 29.�f8 .•.

Black resigned. In 1 847, Staunton, in his masterful book The chess player's handbook improved on Jaenisch's analyses. In 1 85 1 he earned another place in the history books as organizer of the first interna tional tournament. 56

Black resigned. As in the above encounter, the Sicilian had several setbacks during the tournament, and as such, the fashion was to swing back to l e5 . Sicilian sup porters were no doubt bitterly disappointed by the absence of Jaenisch, who was invited, but arrived too late to participate. Staunton, who was pre viously an ardent supporter of the Sicilian, never again had the same confidence in the opening for the rest of his career. In his book published in London in 1 878, Chess Openings, the English master Henry Bird ( 1 830-1908), one of the participants of the 1 8 5 1 tournament, summarized well the situation in writing "For many years, the Sicilian used to be ...

History

considered perfectly playable until the memora ble 1 85 1 gathering." However, the poor perform ance of the opening during the tournament led its soundness to be brought into question and the opening was discredited for six or seven years. The appearance of the American genius Paul Morphy ( 1 837-1 884) on the international chess scene didn't help matters ! His career was short but intense, but was sufficient to put the Sicilian under a cloud. For instance, his victory over Louis Paulsen ( 1 833- 1 891), a fer vent supporter of l .. .c5, provoked astonishment as he exploited the d6-square with such ease. The following game was from their match in the final of the first American Chess Congress.

51 4 1 . 1 D Morphy • Paulsen New York 1 85 7

1 .e4 cS 2.d4 cd4 3.tbf3 e6 4.tbd4 �CS S.tbb3 In the seventh game Black lost in 26 moves after 5.�e3 �b6 6 lLlc3 �b2 7.tt:Jdb5 ..ie3 8 .J:!.b 1 �b1 9.lLlb1 i.f4 10.g3 a6 1 l .gf4 ab5 1 2.lLlc3 tt:Je7 1 3.lLlb5 0-0 14.lLld6 lLlbc6 1 5J:lg1 J:!.a2 16 f5 f6 17.�c4 J:!.a4 1 8.f4 b6 19.fe6 de6 20.tt:Jc8 tt:Jc8 2Lie6 cJo>h8 22.�c8 l:.c8 23.�d7 tt:Je7 24.�e7 .l:!.a1 25.cJo>f2 J:!.c2 26 �e3 1-0. The fifth game went as follows 5.�e3 �6 6.lLlb5 tt:Jf6 7.�5 �c5 8.tt:Jd6 �7 9.lLlc8 .I:Ic8 10.�d3 tt:Jc6 1 1 .0-0 h5 1 2.lLld2 h4 1 3 .h3 g5 14.a3 J:!.g8 1 5 .b4 �d6 16.tt:Jc4 �c7 1 7.f3 tt:Je5 1 8.tt:Je5 'ii'e5 19.�d2 .I:Ig7 20.l:!.ad1 l:.d8 21 .'ii'f2 b6 22.f4 gf4 23.�f4 �g5 24 .I:If2 �f4 25 .l:If4 tl.dg8 26.J:!.d2 J:!.h8 27.e5 tt:Jd5 28.J:!.d4 f6 29.ef6 lLlf6 30J:!.c4 cJo>d8 3 1 .a4 tt:Jd5 32.�e4 tt:Jc7 33 .i.f3 d5 34J:!.c6 l:!.d7 35.�g4 l:.h6 36.I:!.e2 cJo>e7 37.�h2 cJo>f7 38 .g3 hg3 39.�g3 .l:te7 40.h4 tt:Je8 4 l .h5 lLlf6 42.J:!.ce6 J:!.e6 43.�e6 �g7 (43 ... cJo>f8 would lead to an easy draw) 44.�g4 lLlh5 45 . ..ih5 J:!.h5 46.J:!.e7 �f6 47 ..1:Ia7 �e5 48.J:!.a6 J:!.g5 49.cJo>f3 .l:tf5 50.�e2 b5 5 l .ab5 l:!.f4 52.c3 d4 53.c4 J:!.h4 54.c5 and White won on the 64th move.

s.. �b6 s.ttJc3 tbe7 7.�t4 o-o a.�dG fS 9.eS a6 1 O.�e2 tbbc6 1 1 .0-0 J:!.f7 1 2.Wh1 f4 1 3.tbe4 ttJfS 1 4.�hS g6 1S.�g4 tbg7 16.'iVf3 h5 1 7.�h3 'fi'h4 1 8.tbf6 Wh8 1 9.'ii'e4 'figS 20.g3 f3 21 .tbd2 �d8 22.tbf3 'ii'h6 23J:lg1 �f6 24.ef6 tt:Je8 2S.�f4 tbtG .

26.�c6 �f4 27.�c8 J:!.c8 28.gf4 J:l.c2 29.J:!.ac1 J:!.f2 30.J:I.c8 tbg8 31 .ttJeS J:!.g7 32.tbg6 ..t>h7 33.tbf8 Wh6 34.tbd7 J:l.d7 3S.J:I.cg8 J:!.f4 36.�e6 J:l.e7 1 -0 Soon, players of the black pieces came to under stand the necessity of playing the move ... a6 to avoid the intrusion of the white knight on b5 . Thus was the natural development of the system that is known as the modern Paulsen: 1 .e4 c5 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 a6

This system was seen in the Morphy-Anderssen 57

match which took place in Paris in 1 858. The German master, who had a high opinion of the Sicilian, decided to play his favourite opening with White (therefore with an extra tempo) by opening l .a3. He obtained 1 ,5 out of three (+ 1 1 - 1 ) and set serious problems for Morphy. The following game was the most significant even though it led to a win for the American. =

EO 1 0.6

D A nderssen • Morphy 6th match game, Paris 1 858

1 .a3 e5 2.c4 tt:lf6 3.tt:lc3 d5 4.cd5 tt:ld5 5.e3 .ie6 6.lLlf3 .id6 7..ie2 0-0 8.d4 tt:lc3 9.bc3 e4 1 O.tt:ld2 f5 1 1 .f4 g5 In the eighth game Morphy preferred 1 1 ... 'fih4 12.g3

'fih3 1 3 .�fl ifh6 14.c4 c6 1 5 .c5 �c7 16.�c4 tt:ld7 17.0-0 b5 1 8 .cb6 ab6 19.'fib3 1Ue8 20.�b2 b5 21 .�e6 ife6 22.ifc2 (drawn in 5 1 moves). 1 2..itc4 ..ic4 1 3.tt:lc4 gf4 1 4.ef4 �ea 1 5.o-o 'i1i'c6 1 6.'i1i'b3 'i1!Vd5 1 7J:tb1 b6 1 8.�a2 c6 1 9.�e2 tt:ld7 20.tt:le3 �e6 21 .c4 tt:lf6 22J:tb3 <J;;f7 23..ib2 .!:tac8 24.<Ji;h1 .I:r.g8 25.d5 cd5 26.cd5 �d7 27.tt:lc4 <J;;e7 28 ..if6

As correctly pointed out by Zukertort and Lange, ·White could win by playing 28J:th3 l:rg7 (28 ... 'iVb5 58

29.�f6 <;f;lf6 30.iff2 ifc4 3 1 .ifh4 �fl 32.'fih7 etc.) 29.l:rh6 l:rfl (29 ... 1:rf8 30.lt:Je5 followed by 3 l .lt:Jc6+-) 30.lt:Je5 �e5 3 1 .fe5 lt:Jd5 (the only move: 3 1 .. .lt:Jg4 32.'fig4 fg4 33.1:rf7 <;f;>fl 34 e6; 3 1 . ..lt:Jg8 32.l:rd6 'fib7 33 .ifh5 h6 34.e6 �d6 35.ef7 lt:Je7 36.ifh6) 32.e6 ifc6 33.ifh5 .I:Lff8 34 .I:Lh7 �d8 35.e7 lt:Je7 36.l:rdl lt:Jd5 37.1:rd5. 28...<Ji;f6 29.'i1i'b2 <Ji;f7 30.l:lh3 J::rg7 31 .'i1!Vd4 <Ji;g8 32.J::rh6 .ifS 33.d6 l:lf7 34.J::r h3 �a4 35.J::rc 1 J::rc5 36.J::rg3 �g7 37.h3 <Ji;h8 38J:tg7 38.�d2 was much better: A) 38 .. .'�e8 39.lt:Je5 �e5 (39 ... 1:re5 40.1:rg7 <;f;>g7 41 .fe5 f4 42.ifd4 ife6 43.ife4+-) 40.1:1c5 bc5 41 .fe5 �e5 42.�g5 l:rf8 43.d7 �d4 44 'fie7. B) 38 .. J:tc4 39.1:1c4 ifc4 40.d7 C) 38 ...h6 39.lt:Je5 �e5 40.fe5 f44 l .e6 l:rf642.d7 D) 38 . . .e3 39.1:re3 l:rc4 40.J::rc4 'fic4 41 .d7 'f!Yfl 42.<;f;>h2 iff4 43.g3. 38..Jlg7 39.llc3 e3 40.l:le3?? 40.'fif6 or 40.'fie3 would have allowed White to maintain equality. 40... 1:rc4 41 .'i:Vf6? J::rc 1 42.<Ji;h2 �f4 White resigned. Inspired partly by l .a3, another continuation would later make its appearance: 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 a6

The principal idea is to stop the White knight coming to b5, but one understands better the subtlety of the move after the continuation 3 .d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 lt:Jf6 5 .lt:Jc3 e5.

History

Later, Taimanov would examine the possibility of 3 .d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 e5 giving Black the option of developing his king's knight to e7 or f6. At the beginning of the twentieth century the move 2 ... a6 caught the attention of certain play ers in the Hypermodern school, the main adher ent being Savielly Tartakower (1 887- 1956). At the end of the 1 850's another weapon was added to the Sicilian armoury. Later it was to have a brilliant future and is now known as 'Lasker-Pelikan-Sveshnikov' but in the original game below the experiment was not successful:

51 36.3 D Sellman • Bird London 1 883

1 .e4 cs 2.lL'lc3 lL'lc6 3.ltJf3 e6 4.d4 cd4 S.ltJd4 ltJf6 6.ltJdbS d6 7.�f4 eS a.�gS

51 35.2 D Hannah • Lowe London 1 857

1 .e4 cS 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 3.d4 cd4 4.ltJd4 ltJf6 S.ltJc3 eS

Bird had the opinion that 8 .�g3 intending f2-f4 was a better continuation. 8...a6 9.ltJa3 �e6 1 O.tt:ldS �dS 1 1 .�f6 'it'aS 1 2.c3 �e4 1 3.ltJc4 Wic7 1 4.�h4 dS 1 S .f3 dc4 1 6.fe4 �e7 1 7.�f2 lLld8 1 8.'ifdS lieS 1 9.�e2 ltJe6 20.g3 0-0 21 .'ii'd 1 I:lfd8 22.'ti'c2 �gs 23.l:tb1 'it'c6 24.I:ld1 I:ld1 2S.�d1 I:ld8 26.0-0 l:!.d2 27.'it'b1 ltJcS 28.�cs WicS 29.�h1 'ti'e3 30. .tf3 g6 31 .Wic1 'ti'b6 32.�g2 f6 33.'ife1 'ti'b2 34Jlg1 'ifc3 3S. 'ifb1 'ifb2 36. 'iff1 Wid4 37.'ti'f3 Wif2 38.'it'g4 �f7 39.'ifh3 �g7 40.I:lf1 'ti'g2 41 .'ti'g2 I:lg2 42.�g2 c3 43.I:lf2 j_d2 0- 1

6.ltJdbS a6 In this game Black omitted the natural move 6...d6. 7.ltJd6 �d6 8.'ifd6 h6 9.�e3 'il/e7 1 o.�cs bS 1 1 .lL'ldS lL'ldS 1 2.edS 'it'd6 1 3.�d6 lL'ld4 1 4.0-0-0 And White had a clear advantage. 28 years later, in a tournament in London 1 883, Bird took up and improved Lowe's idea.

In 19 10, the World Champion Emanuel Lasker ( 1 868- 194 1 ) placed this variation in the forefront of the international scene by adopting it in the ninth game of his world championship match against Schlechter. The stakes were high because at that moment the ten-game-match was led 4.53 .5 by his opponent.

51 35. 1 0 Schlechter

• Lasker, Emanuel 9th match game, Vienna/Berlin 1 9 1 0

1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 lbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbt6 S.lbc3 es 6.lbb3

29.'il'c7 l:!.c7 30JU3 a6 31 .�f2 lbc6 32.lbe6 l:l.e7 33.l:le3 �b8 34.lbd4 l:!.f7 3S.l:!.f3 l:!.c7 36.lbe6 l:!.e7 37.l:!.e3 �ea 38.�e2 lbdB 39.lbd4 l:lf7 40.l:!.f3 �d7 41 .l:!.d3 �e7 42.l:!.e3 �d6 43.l:l.d3 lbe6 44.lbf3 �CS 4S.g3 lbc7 46 lbd2 �c6 47.lbf3 �bS 48.l:ld4 �cS 49.lbd2 lbbS SO.t2Jb3 �b6 S1 .l:!.d3 l:!.c7 S2.�d2 l:l.c4 S3.l:!.d7 l:!.g4 S4.c4 �c6 SS.l:td3 t2Jd6 S6.t2Jd4 �c7 56 ... �b6! would have quickly ended White's hopes of resisting.

After the game Schlechter criticized this move suggesting instead 6.tLldb5 d6 7.a4. 6 ... �b4 7.�d3 dS B.edS lbdS 9.�d2 lbc3 1 O.bc3 ..id6 1 1 .'il'hS "f/c7 1 2.0-0 �e6 1 3.-igS h6 1 4.f4 ef4 1 S.l:!.ae1 �d7 1 6.�fS S7.t2Je6 �c6 S8.t2Jd8 �c7 S9.t2Je6 �d7 60.t2Jg7 �e7 61 .tZ'lhS l:tc4 62.l:!.e3 �f7 63.l:tf3 �g6 64.l:tf6 �hS 6S.l:!.d6 Draw.

1 6 ... l:laf8 1 7.�f4 �f4 1 8.lbcS �ea 1 9...ie6 fe6 20.lbe6 ..ih2 21 .'il'h2 l:!.f1 22.l:l.f1 "f/d7 23.lbcS fie7 24.'il'h3 �bB 2S.lbe6 �aB 26.lbd4 'il' c 7 27.fifS l:!.c8 28.'il'cS lbb8

Despite some successes there was only a modest show of interest in the Lasker variation at the highest level. One had to wait until the 1950's to see a major resurgence due to the work of Argen tine and Russian players (two nations who have produced many famous Sicilian players). lt was firstly the turn of Jorge Pelikan ( 1 906-1985), a player of Czech origin who emigrated to Argen tina after the Buenos Aires Olympiad of 1939. His work revolved around the line 1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 lbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.t2Jc3 eS 6.tZ'ldbS d6 7.-igS a6 8.�f6 gf6 9.t2Ja3 dS

History

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 5.tt:Jc3 eS 6.tt:ldb5 d6 7.�g5 a6 8.tt:Ja3 bS

Amongst the first victims can be found Hector Rossetto ( 1922- ), one of the top Argentinian players of the period.

Their work took them to study in particular the variation

51 36. 1 D Ross etto • Pelikan Mar d e l Plato 1 956

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.tt:Jc3 eS 6.tt:Jdb5 d6 7.�g5 a6 8.�f6 gf6 9.tt:Ja3 dS 1 O.tt:JdS Without doubt the best move. If White is not careful he can be rapidly punished, as in the game Drozdov-Usakovsky, Moscow 1972: 10.ed5 �a3 1 l .ba3 'iVa5 1 2.'iVd2 lLld4 13.�d3 �3 14.�e4 f5 15 .gh3 fe4 1 6.'it>fl f5 17.l:i.b 1 0-0-0 1 8.l:i.g1 l:i.hg8 19.l:i.g2 'iYc5 20."ife3 f4 2 1 .lt:le4 fe3 22.ltJc5 e2 23.'it>g1 lLlf3 24.�h1 J:!.g2 25.�g2 e1 'iV 0-1

9.�f6 gf6 1 O.lt:JdS fS Amongst the group of students, two players stood out, Gennadi Tlllloshchenko and especially Evgeny Sveshnikov ( 1950- ). Due to them the variation was rejuvenated and has stayed popular, indeed it figures in the repertoire of several of the world's leading players, as for example Vladimir Kramnik, Alexey Shirov and more recently Joel Lautier. Actually the last word consists of delay ing the development of the king's knight to remain flexible: 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 4.lt:Jd4 eS S.lt:JbS d6

cd4

1 0 .ta3 1 1 .ba3 .l:l.g8 1 2.'iYd2 �e6 1 3.g3 fS 1 4.�g2 fe4 1 5.�e4 lt:Jd4 1 6.tt:Je3 fS 17 ..tb7 .l:l.b8 1 8.c3 .l:l.b7 1 9.cd4 f4 20.0-0 fe3 21 .fe3 'tWdS 22.l:!.ac1 ed4 23.ed4 l:i.g4 24.'tWh6 l:i.bg7 •••

And Black had a strong attack that gave him victory on the 36th move. Some years later, in the middle of the 1960's, a group of young masters living in Cheliabinsk in Russia started their research on the continuation

During the 'Torneo Mundial Polugaevsky' in 61

Buenos Aires this new line that has been called the Kalashnikov (after the famous Russian automat ic gun because of its ferocity) was seen on s�veral occasions, particularly in the games of Shirov.

•

Now it is time to return to the nineteenth century. In the 1 860's, the Sicilian attracted new practitioners and entered a rich phase notable for wide spread research and creativity. This engendered the appearance of new variations, notably at the London 1 862 tournament. Here is a selection of the most interesting encounters from a theoreti cal point of view.

6.�d3 tbc6 7.tbc6 dc6 8.0-0 �c3 9.bc3 'ii'aS 1 0.c4 h6 1 1 .f4 eS 1 2.feS 'ii'eS 1 3...tf4 'ifd4 1 4.�h1 �e6 1 S.'i!fe2 tbg4 1 6.h3 tbeS 17 ..l:l.ab1 b6 1 8.�e3 'ifd7 1 9.cS bS 20Jlfd1 lLld3 21 . .I:td3 'ii'c8 22.'ii'h S �f8 23..l:l.bd1 �g8 24.l::ld 8 'ii'd 8 2SJ:td8 l:ld8 26.c3 ..ta2 27.�d4 �h7 28.'i!ffS g6 29.'i!ff2 �e6 30.�h8 .:th8 31 .'ii'f4 .:rea 32.�g1 aS 33.�f2 a4 34.'ii'c 1 l:td8 3S.�e3 �b3 36.h4 hS 37.�f4 l:td1 38.'ii'b2 .I:td3 39.�es �g7 40.'i!fc1 Draw.

51 4 1 . 1 D Steinitz • owen

The English player Thomas Bames ( 1 825-1874) introduced into practice the Accelerated Dragon variation (a line that is still in the news and was in fact played on several occasions in Buenos Aires).

London 1 862

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbf6 S.tbc3 ..tb4

51 50. 1 2 D Blackburne • Barnes London 1 862

1 .e4 cs 2.d4 cd4 3.tbf3 g6 4.tbd4 �g7

A relatively aggressive move, but one that has dropped out of fashion as 6.e5 is considered to be too strong. Here is just one example: Pyhala Seppanen, Helsinki 1 992; 6.e5 lLld5 7:ifg4 0-0 8.�d2 lLlc3 9.bc3 .ia5 10.�d3 lLlc6 l l .lLlc6 bc6 12:ii'e4 g6 1 3 .h4 f5 14.'i!Yf4 .l:l.f7 1 5 .g4 fg4 16.'i!Yg4 'i!Yb6 1 7.h5 'i!Yf2 1 8 .'itJdl 'i!Yf3 19.'i!Yf3 .l:f3 20.hg6 hg6 21 .'itJe2 .l:f5 22.�f5 ef5 23 ..1:agl <J;;;f7 24.J::t h7 'itJe6 25 ..1:g6 We5 26..l:l.e7 1-0 62

S.b3 tt:Jc6 6.�b2 'ii'b6 7.c3 tbf6 a...td3 dS 9.tbd2 tbd4 1 O.cd4 de4

History

1 1.lt:Je4 lt:JdS 1 2.o-o 0-0 1 3.�c4 .ie6 1 4.lt:JcS J:!.ad8 1 S.J:!.e1 lt:Jf4 1 6.�e6 lt:Je6 1 7.lt:Je6 fe6 1 8.'ife2 .id4 1 9.�d4 J:!.d4 20.'ife6 'ife6 21 .J:I.e6 J:!.d2 22 . .l:!.f1 J:!.a2 23.l:te7 bS 24.J:I.e3 as 2S.f3 J:tc8 26.f4 b4 27.fS J:!.cc2 28.J:I.g3 rt;g7 29.fg6 hg6 30.h4 J:!.cS 31 .J:I.d3 r$;h6 32.J:!.f6 J:!.c3 33.J:tff3 .l:iac2 34.r$;f1 r$;hS 3S.J:!.dS r$;h4 36.J:!.d4 r$;hS 37.l:ldS r$;h6 38.l:lc3 l:lc3 39.l:la5 l:lb3 40..l:!.b5 gS 41 .g4 J:tf3 42.r$;g2 J:tf4 43.r$;g3 l:lc4 44Jlb6 r$;g7 45.l:lb5 rt;f6 46Jlb6 rt;e5 47Jlb5 rt;d4 48.l:lg5 b3 49Jlb5 r$;c3 SO.r$;h4 b2 S1 . .l:l.b2 r$;b2 S2.r$;hS r$;c3 S3.gS r$;d4

And Black won after a few more moves. Later on in the same tournament, Louis Paulsen took up the same idea against Steinitz to earn, he too, a fine victory.

�hS 37.lt:JgS .l:!.c7 3a.rt;e1 nta 39..l:!.h2 aS 40.b5 'it'h6 41 .�c1 'it'f6 42.lt:Jh3 .l:!.fcB 43.lt:Jf4 �ea 44.�b2 ti:Jd6 4S. .l:!.hg2 'iWfS 46.'iWe3 'ifb1 47.�c1 lt:JfS 48.'it'd2 l:i.c3 49..l:!.g7 CfJg7 SOJlg7 <;tJg7 S1 .CfJe6 rt;ga

White resigned. In 1 864 another very interesting continuation made its appearance: the Four Knights variation.

51 34.2 D Neumann • Zukertort 1 s i match game, Breslau 1 864

1 .e4 cs 2.CfJf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.CiJd4 CfJf6 S.CfJc3 CfJc6

51 43. 1 D Steinitz • Paulsen London 1 862

1 .e4 cS 2.lt:Jf3 g6 3.lt:Jc3 �g7 4.�c4 lt:Jf6 S.es lt:Jg8 6.0-0 lt:Jc6 7.'ii'e 2 lt:Jh6 8.lt:Je4 0-0

Capturing on e5 is equivalent to suicide; 8 ... tt:Je5 9.tt:Je5 �e5 10.d4 ! or 8 ... i.e5? 9.d4 i.g7 I O.�h6 �h6 l l. lt:Jd6 <;tJf8 12.lLlf7+-. 9.lt:JcS dS 1 0.�bS 'il'b6 1 1 .lt:Ja4 'i!VaS 1 2.d4 tt:JfS 1 3.c3 �d7 1 4.�c6 �c6 1 S.lt:JcS �bS 1 6.ti:Jd3 'ifa6 1 7Jld1 e6 1 a.g4 lt:Je7 1 9.gS lt:JfS 20.'ifc2 .l:.aca 21 .a4 �ea 22.b3 �d7 23.�a3 llfda 24.h4 'ifc6 2S.�b2 'i\fb6 26.tt:Jcs �ea 27.\tlg2 'ifc7 28.b4 'i!Ve7 29.hS ghS 30.J::.h 1 h4 31 .'ii'd2 h6 32Jlag1 hgS 33.r$;f1 b6 34.lt:Jd3 f6 3S.ef6 'ii'f6 36.lt:JdeS

6.�e3 dS 7.edS edS 8.�e2 �d6 9.0-0 0-0 1 o.�gs �e6 1 1 Jle1 rt;ha 1 2.CfJe6 fe6 1 3.�g4 tt:Jg4 1 4.'it'g4

After 14.�d8 �h2 1 5.<;tJhl tt:Jf2 1 6.<;tJh2 tt:Jdl Black has a clear advantage. 1 4... 'ifb6 1 SJ:rt1 .l:.aea 1 6Jlae1 tt:JeS 1 7.'ifh3 l::tf S 1 a.�h4 .l:!.efa 1 9.ti:Jd1 CfJc4 20. 'i!Vd3 �CS 21 .�g3 CfJb2 22.CfJb2 'ifb2 23.Ue6 'iVa2 24Jle2 'il'c4 2S.'it'c4 dc4 26.h3 bS

27.�h2 �d4 28.f3 h6 29.�d6 %:!.8f7 30.%ld1 %:!.d5 31 .�g3 %:!.fd7 32.%le6 aS 33..:J.a6 b4 34..:1.c6 c3 35. .:1.c8 �h7 36.%la8 b3

White resigned. On the sixth move, White has naturally other stronger moves at his disposition, as for example 6.4:Jc6 bc6 7.e5 tt:Jd5 8.4:Je4, which is nowadays a fashionable continuation. Another manoeuvre, known since 1 85 1 and the game Szen-An derssen, is 6.4:Jdb5. From the end of the 1860's until the end of the century the theoretical debate revolved around the variation 6 ...�b4 7.4:Jd6 (modern theory recommends 7.a3 !) 7. .. �e7

strated that 8.t2Jc8 is insufficient for White; 8 .. J:I.c8 9.�d2 �c3 10 ...ic3 tt:Je4 1 l .�g7 �a5 12.c3 .l::!.hg8 1 3 ...ih6 tt:Jc3 14.bc3 �c3 1 5 .id2 �e5 16.�e3 (draw in 43 moves) and Black had a good position. B...es

Equally interesting is 8 ...�a5. 9.ttJts �ta 1 o.�d2

After 10.�g5 the most appropriate reply is 10. ..d5 ! ; 1 l ..if6 �f6 12.�d5 �f5 1 3.ef5 .l:td8 14.�c4 J:!.d4 1 5 �b5 �e7 16.a3 a6 1 7.�e2 .ic3 1 8.bc3 �c5 19.�e3 J:!.e4 20.�e4 �c3 and Black is better (Forbes-Grunberg, London 1987). 1 0 ...d6

Again it is possible to play 10 ... d5 with a good game, White is however better after 10 ... �c3? 1 l ...ic3 tt:Je4 12.�g4(!). 1 Vt:Jg3 �e6 1 2.�d3 h5 1 3.0-0 tbg4 1 4.h3 'it'h4 1 5.hg4 hg4 1 6.%le1 ttJd4

And Black has a winning position.

This variation gained in popularity due to the work of Louis Paulsen and various Germans, but was first studied in detail by a group of players from Chicago which explains why the line was baptized American or Chicago variation.

51 34.4 D Zukertort • Schalopp Berlin 1 88 1

1 .e4 c 5 2.ttJf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.ttJd4 tbf6 5.t2Jc3 t2Jc6 6.ttJdb5 �b4 7.ttJd6 �e7! 8.�f4

The game Mason-Mieses, Paris 1900, demon64

The end of the nineteenth century was marked by a loss of prestige for the Sicilian. In the second edition of his book, published in 1 891 Theory of the Chess Openings George Gossip ( 1 841- 1907) aptly summarized the state of the Sicilian at that time "The Sicilian knew its greatest success dur ing the London 185 1 tournament but fell into disgrace in 1 855 and 1856. It was rehabilitated by Anderssen in 1 861 but again discredited by the German school in 1 865. To the frustration of such authorities as Jaenisch, Bilguer and Staun ton, who considered it the best reply to l.e4, we think that it is somewhat inferior to 1 .. .e5 or even l ... e6. The great majority of contemporary ex perts consider it weak and therefore the Sicilian has become unpopular... . The 1 870's was tragic for the Sicilian as its two main adherents died, firstly Staunton, on 22 June 1 874 in London, and then Anderssen on 1 3 March 1 879 in Breslau, his home town. These losses almost dealt a knock-out blow to the Sicil ian because it took a long time to find such important figures to carry the Sicilian's standard. It is true to say that, except strong masters such "

History

as Bird, Paulsen and even Chigorin, who was starting to take his first steps onto the scene, few players risked to play l .e4 c5 . To better understand the decline of the Sicilian one must equally take into account the phenome non of fashion which also exists in other disci plines. It is often the case, even today, that others follow ideas and variations of the great champi ons, particularly if they are the World Champion. In 1 886, for the first time, chess acclaimed a world champion in the person of Wilhelm Ste initz (1 836- 1 900), due to his victory in a match against Zukertort (+10=5-5). Before losing his crown in 1 894 to Emanuel Lasker he won (from 1862 to 1 894) 24 consecutive matches ! Steinitz, throughout his life, had a certain dislike of the Sicilian. He never ceased to write that he pre ferred 1 . ..e5 and the majority of players followed his example. It is interesting to note that, nearly a century later, the inverse phenomenon was realized with Fischer and Kasparov, two charis matic champions. Another important factor in the decline of the Sicilian at the end of the last century was the increase in strength of various 'anti-Sicilian' sys tems. To better understand this effect, we should return to the years 1 860-1 870, a splendid period for the Sicilian. Then, Black victories were so frequent that it became vital to find appropriate antidotes for White. Research diversified in sev eral directions, even examining alternatives as early as the second move, as in the following game:

51 48. 1 D Bird • MacKenzie London 1 883

1 .e4 c5 2.b4

The famous wing gambit, a museum piece in that its existence dates back to the seventeenth cen tury.

The following game is attributed to Greco; 2 ...cb4 3 .d4 e6 4.a3 ba3 5 .c4 �b4 6 ..id2 .id2 7.�d2 d5 8.e5 dc4 9 ..ic4 tt::lc6 10.tt::le2 tt::l ge7 1 1 .J::ra3 0-0 1 2.0-0 tt::lf5 1 3.�d3 a6 14.f4 b5 15 ..ib3 a5 16.g4 tt::lh6 17.h3 a4 1 8 .�c2 b4 19.f5 ef5 20.g5 b3 2 1 .�d1 �a5 22.�f4 �b5 23.J::rg3 .id? 24.gh6 g6 25 �g5 f6 26.ef6 J::rf7 27.tt::lf4 tLld4 28 .tt::lg6 tt::le6 29.tt::le7 �h8 30.�g7 tt::lg7 3 1 .fg7 rig? 32.hg7 mate. After that, without any obvious reason (fashion?) the gambit disappeared completely from prac tice. Tartakower, then Keres, again brought the idea to light between the wars, by occasionally employing the move. Chess has here a common tendency with other artistic disciplines, to search, in a period of crisis or saturation, for new ways by looking to the past. In chess, one of the best modern examples is the reintroduction of the Scotch game by Kasparov in a recent World Championship match against Karpov 2...cb4 3.d4 e6 4..id3 tt:lc6 5.tt:le2 dS 6.e5 g6 7.a3 ..id7 8.0-0 tt:lh6 9.�d2 tt:lfS 1 O...ifS gfS 1 1 .ab4 ..ib4 1 2.c3 �f8 1 3.tt:lg3 �g7 1 4.tt:la3 a6 1 5.'ifh5 0-0 1 6.'ifh3 f6 1 7.tt:lh5 .l::!.f7 1 8.f4 tt:le7 1 9.tt:lc2 �bS 20..l:i.f3

An error according to Bird, who claims that it would have been better to stop the bishop coming to e2 by playing 20.ef6 .if6 2 l .J::rfe1 , followed by putting the e6-pawn under siege. Afterwards Bird committed several other imprecisions and the game was drawn on the sixtieth move. At the same tournament, in the game Winawer Chigorin, an idea was employed that was rare at 65

the time, to play the move �b5 aiming to hinder the thematic freeing move ...d7-d5 .

51 3 1 .4 O Winawer • Chigorin London 1 883

1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 tbc6 3.�bS e6 4..ic6 beG S.0-0 tbe7 6.d3 tbg6 7.'ti'e2 .ie7 8.tbe1 0-0 9.f4 fS 1 O.c4

�c6 1 1 Jld1 eS 1 2.'ifd3 'ifd7 1 3.b4 b6 1 4.a4 :tea 1 S.aS bS 1 6.a6 g6 1 7..if1 tbf6 1 8.f3 0-0 1 9...ie3 �b8 20.:t.as dS 21 .tbdS ttJdS 22.edS .ib4 23.�a2 ..ia8 24.:lb2 .id6 2S.�bS �bS 26.'ti'bS 'ti'fS 27.'fi'e2 e4 28.fe4 'ti'e4 29..ia7 'fi'a4 30...if2 :tea 31 .'ifbS 'fi'c2 32Jle1 .ifS 33.a7 'fWfS 34. .ig2 �c2 3S.:lf1 ..th7 36.'fWb8 .icS 37.'fi'f4 'ti'd7 38..icS :lg2 39...tg2 "it'dS 40.'ii'f3 'fi'd2 41 . ..tg1 ..if3 42.:lf3

Black resigned.

51 48.4 0 Steinitz

• Anderssen 6th match game, London 1 866

White has the better position but it was Black who won the game on the 44th move. Another idea that was popular in that period was the fianchetto ofWhite's king's bishop. The con cept has been known since 1 862 and was popu larized by Paulsen and then by Steinitz.

51 44.2 0 Paulsen

• Anderssen 4th match game, London 1 862

1 .e4 cs 2.tbc3 e6 3.g3 d6 4.�g2 ..id7 S.tbge2 tbc6 6.0-0 �e7 7.d4 cd4 8.tbd4 tbd4 9.'fi'd4 hS 1 0.h3

1 .e4 cS 2.g3 tbc6 3..ig2 eS 4.tbe2 tbf6 S.tbbc3 d6 6.0-0 ..ie7 7.f4 hS 8.h3 �d7 9.tbdS 'ir'c8 1 O.tbf6 .ifS 1 1 .fS tbe7 1 2.c4 'ifd8 1 3.tbc3 .ic6 1 4.d3 'fWd7 1 S .a3 as 1 6.b3 bS 1 7..ie3 b4 1 8.ab4 cb4 1 9.tba4 .ia4 20.�a4 tbc6 21 . 'ifd2 .id8 22.d4 �b6 23.dS 'ti'a7 24..ib6 'ii'b6 2S . ..th1 tbd8 26. 'fWgS ..tf8 27.f6 g6 28.h4 tbb7 29..ih3 :ld8 30.:la2 ..tea 31 .:ld1 �aB 32.'fWd2 tbcs 33."it'e3 ..td8 34.�e6 'fWb7 3S...tg1 a4 36.ba4 b3 37.:laa1 b2 38.:lab1 �a4 39. .ih3 ..tc7 40..if1 l:lha8 41 J:td2 :lb4 42 . ..th2 :la1 43.:ldd1 l:tb3 44.'ir'h6 :lb1 4S.:lb1 'il'b4 46.'iff8 'ir'd2 47.�g2 'ii'd3 48.'ti'f7 tbd7 49.cS 'fig3 SO...tg1 l:lc3 S1 .cd6 ..tb6 S2.l:Ib2 ..tcs S3.l:lb1 l:Ic2 S4.�bS ..tc4

White resigned. Following that, the king's bishop fianchetto kept its appeal, but in a slightly different form and close

History

to what we call today the 'Closed Sicilian'. As shown in certain analyses of the Frenchman Jules Arnous de Riviere ( 1 830- 1905): 1 .e4 c5 2.tbc3 e6 3.g3 tLlc6

Here we can see the perverse influence of Steinitz's recommendations. Nowadays, practi cally all theoreticians recommend 3 . . . d5, but at that time, to play willingly with an isolated pawn (after 4.ed5 ed5 5 .d4) was considered an anath ema and was therefore strongly discouraged. 4.�g2 tLlf6 5.d3 �e7 6.f4 0-0 7.tLlh3 d5 8 tbf2

And White is better. At the dawn of the twentieth century a new generation of players entered onto the interna tional scene. Some like Lasker, Marshall, Tartak ower or even Nimzowitsch employed the Sicil ian. Due to them new ideas evolved, often in violent contradiction to Steinitz's rigid concepts. This allowed the Sicilian to cross over into a new stage of development. Like wine, chess has its vintage years and as for the Sicilian 1 905 was an exceptional harvest. A great wine; sparkling and fruity ! As we will see, some players no longer hesitated to push ... d7-d5 relatively early, provoking complex and lively situations well in the spirit of the period. The American player Frank Marshall (1 877- 1 944) was one of the first to put into practice this new concept. Here he adopts an interesting pawn sacrifice that even today one calls the 'Marshall Gambit' .

51 4 1 . 1 0 O janowsky • Marshall

A year earlier, in a tournament in Cambridge Springs, Marshal! had already used this move against Emanuel Lasker and was able to draw the game. 4.ed5 ed5 5.d4 t2Jc6 6.dc5 tLlf6 7.�e3 �e7 8.�b5 0-0 9.0-0 �g4 1 O.�c6 beG 1 1 .�d4 t2Je4 1 2.tLla4 tt:lg5 1 3.�e3 �f3 1 4.gf3 d4 1 5.�g5 �g5 1 6.f4 �f4 1 7.'i\i'g4 'it'f6 1 8J:tfe1 .l:l.ae8 1 9.'it'g2 l:te6 20.l:tad1 l::tfe8 21 ..1:1.e6 l::te6 22.<otf1 'it'e5 23.'it'f3 .l:l.f6 24.c;i.>g2 �h2 25.'it'h3 h6 26.c3 'it'e2 27.l::tf1 �e5 28.c;i.>g1 d3 29.f4 d2 30.'ii'c 8 c;i.>h7

White resigned. At Ostend 1905, the Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch ( 1 862-1934) known for his expertise in playing with an isolated pawn, applied an idea analo gous to one that is known from the French defence. In any case, the demonstration was convincing. ,

51 4 1 . 1 0 Maroczy

• Tarrasch Ostend 1 905

8th match game, Paris 1 906

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 e6 3.tbc3 d5

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.ed5 ed5 5.�b5 t2Jc6 6.0-0 tLlf6 7J:te1

�e7 a.dcS 0-0 9.�e3 �g4 1 0.c3 tt::Je4 1 1 .�c6 beG 1 2.b4 �f6 1 3.�d4 :tea 1 4.a4 �d4 1 S.cd4 �f3 1 6.gf3 'ti'gS 1 7.<t>h1 tt::lf6 1 aJ:!.e3 .tl.e3 1 9.fe3 'ti'e3 20 ..t:la3 'ti'f4 2 1 . 'ti'd2 'ii'fS 22.l:!.b3 llea 23.<t>g2 l:!.e6 24.tt::la3 tt::l hS 2S.lle3 tlg6 26.<t>f2 h6 27.l:!.eS �h3 2a.<t>e3 tt::Jf6 29.'ti'e2 llg2

White resigned. The result of this game suggests that the variation chosen by Black is excellent, but it is true to say that all is not so simple; White can of course play much better and put into question the soundness of Black's idea. At that time, theory on how to play against the isolated pawn was still in an early stage. Tarrasch who had tried the Sicilian on several occasions concluded: " ...by consequence the Si cilian is an excellent weapon for a strong player ready to take risks to beat a weaker player. Nev ertheless, when met by correct play from White, Black must succumb". It is interesting to compare his conclusions with those of Philidor approximately two centuries earlier. The first moves of the following game are very modem and perfectly illustrate the beaten track.

51 40.6 D Leonhardt • Schlechter Ostend 1 905

1 .e4 cS 2.tt::lc3 e6 3.tt::lf3 a6 4.d4 cd4 S.tt::l d4 'ii'c 7 6.�e2 tt::lf6 7.0-0 tt::J c6 a.�e3 bS 9.�f3 tt::Jes 1 0.'ti'e2 it.e7 1 1 . .I:!.fd1 �b7 1 2.a3 .tr.ca

1 3.it.f4 d6 1 4.�eS deS 1 S.tt::l b3 0-0 1 6. .tl.d3 �c6 1 7.l:tad1 �ea 1 a.'ti'e3 as 1 9J:!.3d2 b4 20.ab4 �b4 21 . .tl.d3 a4 22.tt::lc1 a3 23.tt::l1 a2 it.cS 24.'itc1 ab2 2S. 'it'b2 �d4 26. 'ifc1 �c6 27.'ifd2 'it'a7 2a.tt::Jb4 'iYcS 29.tt:lc6 �c6 30.tt::Je2 'ti'c2

Draw. Some years later, the 'Hypermodem school' made its influence felt on the Sicilian. Its cher ished principals such as the domination of the centre rather than its occupation and the provo cation of the enemy centre in order to undermine it were applied. Aaron Nimzowitsch when faced with l .e4 replied as often with l ...e6 or I . ..tt:lc6 but didn't balk at employing the Sicilian on oc casions, not without adding his personal touch.

51 43.6 D Spielmann • Nimzowitsch San Sebastian 1 9 1 1

1 .e4 cs 2.tt::lf3 tt::Jf6

The 'Nimzowitsch variation' . In our time it is employed less often, but despite sometimes be ing harshly judged, no clear refutation has yet

History

been found. It constitutes an interesting alterna tive, particularly as a surprise weapon. 3.lt:Jc3

A rather conservative continuation. A more ac tive possibility is 3 .e5 lt:ld5 4.lLlc3 e6 (White has a good game after 4. .. lt:lc3 5.dc3 lt:lc6 6 ..if4 e6 7.'i!Vd2 'i!Vc7 8.0-0-0 h6 9.h4) 5.lt:ld5 ed5 6.d4 lt:lc6 7 .deS .ic5 8. 'ifd5 'i!Vb6 9 ..ic4.

51 23.6 0 Maroczy • Euwe Scheveningen 1 923

1 .e4 cS 2.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 lt:Jf6 5.lt:Jc3 d6 6.i.e2 e6

3 ... d5 4.ed5 lt:JdS 5.�c4

The game Thomas-Sapira, Antwerp 1 932 ended brutally after 5 ..ib5 ! ? .id7 6.lLle5 lLlc3 7.'ti'f3 f6 8.'i!Vh5 g6 9.lLlg6 Wf7 1 0.lLle5 1 -0 s ... e6 6.0-0 �e7 7.d4 tt::lc3 8.bc3 0-0 9.lt:Je5 Wic7 1 0.i.d3 lt:Jc6 1 1 .�f4 �d6 1 2J1e1 cd4 1 3.cd4 lt:Jb4 1 4.�g3 lt:Jd3 1 5.'i!Vd3 b6 1 6.c4 �a6 1 7J:J.ac1 l:!.acB 1 8.Wfb3 f6 1 9.'i!Va4 feS 20.de5 �a3 21 .'i!Va3 �c4 22..t:f.e4 Wfd7 23.h3 .idS 24..t:f.e2 W/b7 25.f4 Wif7 26. .t:f.ec2 .l:tc2 27J:i.c2 'it'g6 28.Wic3 .ia2 29..ih4 .idS 30.i.e7 .l:teB 31 .i.d6 Wie4 32.Wic7 h6 33..l:tf2 'ife1 34. .l:tf1 'i!Ve3 35J:i.f2 aS 36.i.e7 Wie1 37.l:tf1 'ife3 38.l:tf2 �hB 39.i.d8 'i!Ve1 40..l:tf1 'ife3 41 .l:tf2 Wie1 42.l:lf1 Wig3 43..t:f.f2 l:tfB 44.W/b6 .l:tf4 45.i.e7 a4 46.�f1 'ifg2

White resigned.

7.0-0 i.e7 8.�h1 0-0 9.f4 'it'c7 1 0.lt:Jb3 a6 1 1 .a4 b6 1 2.�f3 �b7 13.Si.e3 lt:Jb4 1 4.Wie2 dS 1 5.e5 lt:Je4 1 6.i.e4 de4 1 7.Wif2 b5 1 8.ab5 abS 1 9.lt:Jd4 i.c6 20.Wig3 .l:ta1 21 .l:ta1 l:tb8 22.f5 efS 23.lt:Jf5 �f8 24.�f4 .t:f.a8 25J1c1 g6 26.e6 Wib7 27.e7 .ig7 28.lt:Jg7 �g7 29.'it'h4 f6 30. 'it'h6 �g8 31 .�d6

White resigned. The period between the wars would be marked by the appearance of another system that would know an astonishing destiny. It is based on a new principle: the restrained centre. It certainly found its best justification with the Sicilian defence, an excellent counter-attacking opening. Black seems to want to erect an impenetrable barrier and say to White: 'come on then ! ' . I n this manner the Scheveningen was born, named after the seaside resort near the Hague in the Nether lands, where the famous 1923 tournament took place. The following game has more historic than strategic value. Max Euwe who nevertheless won the tournament wasn't in his best form that day.

Despite the mediocre performance of Black in this game, the Scheveningen variation would find new advocates and progressively become the favourite weapon of a number of Sicilian players. Amongst these 'clients' one should cite the names of several World Champions: Ca pablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov ! The Cuban was one of the first world class play ers to have confidence in the line.

51 22.5 0 Bohatirchuk • Capablanca Moscow 1 925

ttJf6 S.t2Jc3 e6 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 'ifc7 8.a4 t2Jc6 9.r.t>h1 i.e7 1 0.f4 0-0 1 1 .t2Jb3 b6 1 2.ii.f3 �b7 1 3."Vllid2 l:tab8 1 4.g4 dS

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.t2Jc3 d6 6.�e2 e6 7.0-0 �e7 8.�e3 0-0 9.f4 �d7 1 0.t2Jb3 a6 1 1 .a4 tZJaS 1 2.'ii'e1 t2Jb3 1 3.cb3 ii.c6 1 4.�f3 "Vllic7 1 S.l:f.c1 .t:rac8 1 6."Vllig3 fliaS 1 7.l:f.fd1 dS

As in the Capablanca game above, this vigorous central counter-punch illustrates perfectly the re sources and latent possibilities of the break-out from the restrained centre.

1 8.edS �dS 1 9.�dS edS 20.�d4 �CS 21 .flif2 t2Jg4 22."VJ/id2 l:f.fe8 23.�h1 'it'b4 24.t2JdS "VJ/id4 2S.t2Je7 �f8 26."Vllid4 �d4 27.t2Jc8 ttJf2 28.�g1 t2Jd1 0-1 In the hands of Tigran Petrosian, who was known for having a marked preference for 'calm' posi tions, the Scheveningen could become a formi dable 'killing machine' .

51 23.6 0 B hend

• Petrosian, Tigran Zurich 1 96 1

1 .e4 c S 2.t2Jf3 d 6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4

1 S.edS ttJb4 1 6.de6 �f3 1 7JU3 'tWb7 1 8.r.t>g2 t2Jg4 1 9.'ii'e2 fS 20.t2Jd1 l:f.f6 21 .c3 l:tg6 22.cb4 tZJeS 23.r.t>f2 �h4 24..l:.g3 t2Jg4 2S.r.t>g1 ..tg3 26.hg3 'ti'dS 27.l:f.a3 l:f.h6 28.ttJf2 t2Jf2 White resigned. Following on, the best ambassador of the Scheveningen variation is without doubt Garry Kasparov who has employed it for certain impor tant games, as for example against Karpov in the final of the world championship. Garry Kasparov, the 'spiritual son' of Fischer, has doubtlessly inherited from the American a formidable energy and almost perfect expertise that makes him almost invincible when playing the Sicilian. Due to him the defence has achieved a new degree of understanding, but also of popu larity amongst the amateurs of the whole world. It would be possible to show tens, even hundreds of games illustrating the genius of Kasparov in this opening but there is one that stands above the others. The following game is not only excep tional in its own right, but was decisive in decid ing the fate of the 1985 world title. Shortly later,

History

Karpov resumed perfectly this situation: "This game is probably one of the most complex and intense in all the history of chess. It is hardly surprising that Kasparov has consecrated tens of pages of analysis to it. Many analyses have been published but an exhaustive one is practically impossible".

51 24.8 D Kar p ov

It is praised for both its solidity and at the same time its flexibility, but even so, many players have been discouraged from playing the Scheveningen variation due to the strength of the Panov-Keres attack. Appearing in the 1940's, it became a strong weapon for attacking players, but its 'charm' also attracted those better known for their preference for positional play. As such Karpov has often resorted to this move when victory is imperative. The following game that he considers one of the most interesting of his ca reer, added much to the popularity of the Keres attack.

• Kasparov 24th match game, Moscow 1 985

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�e2 e6 7.0-0 �e7 8.f4 0-0 9.�h1 'W/c7 1 0.a4 tLlc6 1 1 .�e3 �ea 1 2.il.f3 �b8 1 3.'ftd2 �d7 1 4.tLlb3 b6 1 5.g4 �ea 1 6.g5 tLld7 1 7.'fif2 �f8 1 8.�g2 �b7 1 9.l:Z.ad1 g6 20.�c1 .l:lbc8 21 . .1:ld3 tLlb4 22.l:!h3 �g7

51 20.1 D Kar pov • Dorfman Soviet Championship, Moscow 1 976

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 t2Jf6 5.tLlc3 e6 6.g4

23.�e3 .l:i.e7 24.�g1 .l:i.ce8 25..l:td1 f5 26.gf6 tLlf6 27..l:!.g3 �f7 28.�b6 'iWb8 29.�e3 tLlh5 30.l:!g4 tLlf6 31 . .l:I.h4 g5 32.fg5 lt:\g4 33.'iWd2 lt:\e3 34.'iVe3 lt:\c2 35.'Wib6 �as 36.l:!d6 .l:I.b7 37.'fta6 l:!b3 38..l:I.e6 .l:I.b2 39. 'W/c4 �h8 40.e5 Wia7 41 .�h1 �g2 42.�g2 tLld4 White resigned.

This move is considered so strong by certain players of the Scheveningen that they have aban doned the line altogether. Others, more faithful, have tried to work out a solution and in the last few years, due to a subtle move order, have found a way to avoid it by deferring the development of the king's knight; l.e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jc6 5.t2Jc3 d6 71

3S."fih7 'iff3 36.'ifha 'it>e7 37.'ifh4 'it>ea 3a.'ifc4 'ti'b7 39.b3 l:te6 40J:tg1 l::teS 41 .l::t ga 'it>e7 42.'ifh4 'it>d7 43.'iff6 l:[e7 44.'iffS 'it>d6 45.'ifaS .I:[eS 46.'flda 'it>e6 47.'it>b2 f6 4a.l:[ta 'ifg7 49.'ifca 'it>dS SO.'ifc4

Black resigned.

It happens sometimes that White stubbornly in sists on playing the same 6.g4 as was the case in the 1 4th matchgame Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow 1985; 6.g4 h6 7.h4 a6 8.�g2 �e7 9.�e3 t2Jd4 10 ...Wd4 e5 1 1 . ..Wd1 �e6 12.t2Jd5 J:tc8 1 3 .c3 tLlf6 14.t2Je7 ..We7 and after a complicated fight the game ended in a draw. This, alternative move-order, isn't to the taste of everyone, as in this case Black has to be prepared to meet 5.t2Jb5. 6 ... ..ie7 7.gS li.Jfd7 a.h4 li.Jc6 9.�e3 a6 1 0. ..We2 ..Wc7 1 1 .o-o-o b5 1 2.li.Jc6 'flc6 1 3.�d4 b4 1 4.li.JdS

1 4 ... edS 1 S.�g7 l:!.ga 1 6.edS "f/c7 1 7.�f6 li.Jes 1 a.�es deS 1 9.f4 �fS 20.�h3 �h3 21 .l:!.h3 .:rea 22.feS 'ifc4 23.J:tdd3 'iff4 24.'it>b1 l:!.c4 2S.d6 l:Z.e4 26.l:!.he3 l:!.e3 27 .l:!.e3 'flh4 2a."f/t3 'figS 29.l:!.e1 "f/g2 30."f/fS l:Z.g6 31 . .1:!.f1 'ifdS 32.de7 'it>e7 33."f/f4 as 34."f/h4 �ea •

At the end of the 1 930's the centre of gravity in the chess world moved progressively towards the Soviet Union. There was born the 'Scientific school' headed by Mikhail Botvinnik ( 191 1-1995). Russian masters, without doubt in fluenced by Jaenisch's publications, were espe cially attracted to the Sicilian defence. A group of young talented players adopted it and injected their own ideas. One of the best representatives of this school was certainly lsaac Boleslavsky (1919-1977). During all his career he remained faithful to the Sicilian and in his latter years he trained numerous players who were to become top grand masters. His name is associated with a system that is still in current use. 1 .e4 cS 2.li.Jf3 li.Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.li.Jd4 li.Jf6 s.lt.Jc3 d6 6.�e2 es

At the time, this move left many confused as the Scheveningen was very popular and it was typical to choose the 'less compromising' 6 ... e6. What ever, the strategic basis for the Boleslavsky system rests on two principles expressed by Tarrasch: 'a weakness is only one if it can be attacked' (here the d6-pawn) and 'the weakness of a square can be compensated by active-piece play' . A typical example:

History

51 2 5. 3.4 D Stoltz • Boles lavsky Groningen 1 94 6

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.t2Jc3 d6 6.�e2 eS 7.t2Jf3 h6 8.�c4 The game Levenfish-Boleslavsky, Kuybishev 1943 continued 8.0-0 Yt..e 7 9.Yt..e3 0-0 1 0.'iYd2 i.e6 1 l .Uad1 l:i.e8 1 2.h3 l:i.c8.

51 2 5.4 D Taimanov • Bole slavsky Soviet Championship, Moscow 1 949

1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tt:Jf6 S.t2Jc3 d6 6 ...ie2 es 7.t2Jb3 ..ie7 a.�gs o-o 9.i.f6 i.t6 1 0.0-o i.e6 1 1 . t2Jd5 ..igS 1 2.'ifd3 ttJe7

8.....ie7 9Ji'e2 0-0 1 0.h3 �e6 1 1 .0-0 .l:1c8 1 2. ..ib3 t2Ja5 1 3.l:i.d1 W/c7 1 4.g4 t2Jb3 1 5.ab3 a6 1 6.'it>h1 bS 1 7.b4 W/c4 1 8.'ii'c4 l:i.c4 1 9. .1:1e1 �ea 20.g5 hgS 21 ..-igS ..ib7 22.'it>h2 .l:1b4 23.b3 l:Z.c8 24.l:le3 l:ld4 25.J::Z.g1 'it>f8 26...if6 .if& 27.J::Z.g4 b4 28.t2Ja4

The game was drawn in 3 1 moves. With the diagram position, one can clearly see the similar ity between this system and the Lasker-Pelikan Sveshnikov. With the passage of time, the Boleslavsky system, due to brilliant games from its originator, achieved its just recognition and found numerous follower. Amongst these the most renowned were Tigran Petrosian and Efim Geller. The following game earned the beauty prize at the Interzonal tournament

28 l:lc2 29.t2Jd4 ed4 30.l:le1 J:l.f2 31 . .1:1g2 l:Z.f3 32.J:I.c2 d3 33..1:1c7 ..ies 34.'it>g1 d2 35. .1:1d1 �d4 36.c;t;>h2 l:l.f2 37.'it>g3 .ie4 38.l:l.c4 l:l.f3 39.'it>h2 i.es 40.'it>g1 dS 41 .l:l.c8 'it>e7 42.l:l.d2 �f4 43.l:l.b2 i.e3 44.'it>h2 r:l.f1 45.'it>g3 .l:tg1 46.'it>h2 r:l.g6 .•.

51 2 5.4 D Pilnik • Geller Gi:iteborg lnterzonal 1 955

White resigned. One of the motivations behind 6 ... e5 is to restrain the push f2-f4.

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 d6 6.i.e2 eS 7.t2Jb3 i.e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.i.e3 i.e6

1 o.�f3 as 1 1.l2:ldS �dS 1 2.edS ltJbB 1 3.c4 tt:Ja6 1 4. ..id2 b6 1 S.�c3 tL:lcS 1 6.tt:JcS bcS 1 7.'ii'e1 tt:Jd7 1 8. ..id1 a4 1 9...ic2 fS 20. .l:l.d1 g6 21 .'ii'e2 .ifS 22.f3 e4 23...if6 'ii'f6 24.fe4

51 40.2 D Lutikov • Taimanov Soviet Championship, Moscow 1 9 69

1 .e4 cs 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 e6 s.tt:Jc3 Viic7 6.�e3 aS 7...id3 bS 8.tt:Jc6 Viic6 9 ...id4 �b7 1 0.'ii'e2 tt:Je7 1 1 .f4 b4 1 2.tt:Jb1 tt:Jg6 1 3.Viif2 �d6

24...f4 2S..l:l.f2 tt:Jes 26. .l:l.df1 'ti'h4 27.�d1 .l:l.f7 28.'ii'c2 gS 29.'ii'c3 I:taf8 30.h3 hS 31 .�e2 g4 32Jlf4 .l:l.f4 33.l:Z.f4 .t!.f4 34.g3 tt:Jf3 3S.r.ftf2 'ii' h3 36.gf4 g3 37.r.ftf3 g2 38.r.ftf2 'ii' h2 0- 1 The Soviet school worked equally on other ideas such as the Taimanov variation, which is pro duced after the sequence:

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jc6

The following game is truly a work of art:

1 4.�e3 0-0 1 S.t2Jd2 .l:l.ac8 1 6.h4 'ii'c7 1 7.eS ..icS 1 8.hS �e3 1 9.Viie3 t2Je7 20.tt:Jc4 tt:JfS 21 .'ii'd2 ..idS 22.t2Je3 t2Je3 23.'ii'e3 'ii'cS 24.'ii'g3 h6 2S . .t!.h4 Viig 1 26.r.ftd2 'ti'd4 27.fS

27 .. J:!.c2 28.r.ftc2 b3 29.r.ftd1 'ii'g1 30.'ii'e1 'ii'g2 31 .'ii'f1 ..if3 32.r.fte1

History

'ii' b2 33.ttb1 'iWeS 34.<Jtf2 ba2 35 ..l::f.e1 'iWf6 36.<oitg3 �g2 37.'iWg1 ef5 38.'it'd4 'it'gS 39.<oith2 �e4 40. .l::f.he4 fe4 41 .'iWe4 'iWhS White resigned. After the end of the Second World War the Sicil ian defence became extremely popular at all lev els. It has become a regular in different interna tional tournaments and even in World Champi onship matches. In the last few years, due to powerful computers, numerous statistics have been published. It transpires that the Sicilian defence surpasses, by a long way, the popularity of all other defences. It has been estimated that in international tournament practice approxi mately a third of the games start with 1 .e4 c5. How does one explain such infatuation? In order to reply it is best to ask the adopted father of the Sicilian, Miguel Najdorf ( 1910- ). Here is a sig nificant extract from his book Understanding the

Najdorf variation: " ... After l .e4 c5 the intentions are obvious and it is at once apparent that a fierce clash is initiated between two attacks : White's is on the kingside with a rapid pawn advance and Black's is on the queen's wing, where he exploits the open c-file which provides him with an initiative in that sector. Obviously the winner is the one who gets it first, but this is speaking generally since praxis has shown that traversing either path comprises enormous risks and exacts from each player the utmost precision. A fact to be borne in mind is that the Sicilian very rarely allows an alternative choice of moves. I began to play the Sicilian in the years 1937-38, since it suited my temperament and my status as a player always looking for a fight. It was then that I put into practice the move 5 . .. a6 which had been previously played by Opocensky and other masters. The frequency with which I employed it was the reason for its subsequently becoming wide-spread under my name. At that time, the Richter attack and the same Scheveningen that we have nowadays were in fashion. And these variations obtained very good results. By observing an infinity of games I no ticed that White could attack naturally enough

either on the king's wing with a pawn advance, or on the queen's side through lLlb5 and sub sequent sacrifices. 'This cannot be! ' I said to myself. 'He cannot have everything' . Praxis itself led me to verify the virtues and drawbacks of 5 . . .a6, followed by ... e5, which did indeed check the enemy pawn advance but left the backward pawn on d6 weak. I reasoned it out that with Black one could not aspire to anything else and this was a minor evil compensated for by the activity of the pieces, rather like negotiat ing a bargain: conceding something to gain something. The successes which I obtained at Mar del Plata, against the Spanish Rico in the Argentina-Spain radio match and in other tournaments, gave me much encouragement. As chance would have it, in one of my matches with Reshevsky I had to fight against my own ideas and won, but not through the opening. Naturally, the appearance of this variation and its initial run of success were not overlooked by researchers into the openings, and thus there arose attempts at refuting it. But despite being submitted to the microscope of the 'laboratory' it continued to keep its secrets. I never imagined however that it would cause so much printing ink to flow in magazines and books. In 1955 the Argentine players suffered a rude shock in their match against the Soviet players at the Goteborg Interzonal and I realized that the defence would have to be more deeply worked out in order to avoid such dangerous paths. Re cently, in the last few years, there has occurred something I had foreseen: a refutation through positional play. Smyslov previously and now Karpov have evolved this interesting idea to an nul the imaginative flight of the variation. With it they take advantage of the control of the d5 square or the weakness on Black's d6 to disrupt the queen side, that is to say, precisely the zone of combat which, for years, was Black's domain in the Sicilian ... "

This very interesting introduction serves as a plan in our historical visit of the Najdorf vari ation. In master practice the Najdorf variation appeared for the first time in a tournament in Budapest 1926 in the game Yates-Tartakower. A little later 75

the Peruvian player Esteban Canal employed it in his turn against Efim Bogoljubow, at that time one of the very best players in the world. As one can see, the game rapidly took an unusual course, and had little relationship with the classical pat terns of the Najdorf. A curiosity that is still however worth a look.

1 2.I:rel 0-0 13.tLlb3 tt:Je5 14.flie2 tt:Jc4 and B lack had a small edge, going on to win in 64 moves.

6...i..g4 Normally Black prefers 6 ...e5 or 6. ..e6 but the move 6 ... ..ig4 is perfectly playable.

7.f3 �d7 8.tt::ld5 tt::ld5 9.ed5 'iWaS 1 0.b4 'ti'd5 1 1 .�b2 f6

51 1 4. 1 D Bogoljubow • Canal Karlsbad 1 929

1 .e4 c5 2.tt::lf3 d6 3.tt::lc3 tt::lf6 4.d4 cd4 5.tt::ld4 a6

Evidently, unless one has seen the first moves of the game it is hard to imagine that the diagram position could be a Sicilian in general and a Najdorf in particular, but after all, Rome wasn't built in a day !

6.g3 At this stage no less than seven alternatives have been the object of profound analyses: 6.h3, 6.i.c4, 6. .ie3, 6.a4, 6.f4, 6.i.g5 and 6.i.e2. The text move, at first sight, may seem timid but is just as dangerous as some of the others. Today it still has its supporters, notably amongst 'ex Yugoslavs' , and is sometimes called the Zagreb variation. One year later, during the 'Tournament of Na tions' (the forerunner of the Olympiad) which took place in Hamburg, the game Desler-Van den Bosch took another course: 6. .ie2 b5 7.a3 ii.b7 8 . ..if3 tLlbd7 9.0-0 e6 1 0.g3 i.e7 l l ...ig2 flic7 76

1 2...id3 tt::lc6 1 3.c4 'iWf7 1 4.o-O tt::ld4 1 5.�d4 e5 1 6.�b6 j_e7 1 7.'ti'e2 j_d8 1 8 ..if2 j_e6 1 9.f4 0-0 20.f5 �d7 21 .a4 �h8 22.b5 ab5 23.ab5 I:ra1 24..f:.a1 d5 25.cd5 'iWd5 26..ie4 'iWb5 27.'t!Vb5 �b5 28.�c5 lle8 29.�b7 .ie7 30.�e3 g5 31 .j_d5 .f:.d8 32.�e6 .id7 33.�b6 l:lb8 34.�d7 .f:.b6 35..l::i.a2 g4 36.�g2 j_cs 37.�e6 e4 38. .l::i.a8 �g7 39.l:lg8 �h6 40. .l::i.g4 .l:tb2 41 .�h3 e3 42.j_c4 .f:.f2 43. .l::i.f4 !6-!6 Quite a strange game ! In the 1930's the Czech master Karel Opocensky ( 1 892-1975) took up the flame with success, which certainly attracted attention to the line; but it was after the Second World War that the con tinuation l .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tLlf6 5 .l2Jc3 a6 reached its true consecration world wide due to the efforts of Miguel Najdorf.

History

51 24. 1 D Luckis • Naj dorf Mar del Plato 1 94 7

1 .e4 c 5 2.lLlf3 d 6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 a6 6..ie2

51 1 0.3 D R ico Gonzalez • Naj dorf Spain -Argentina (Radio-Telegraph Match) 1 949

1 .e4 c5 2.ttJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lt:Jf6 5.ttJc3 a6 6.i..e2 e5

Here two schools ofthought meet head-on: the first, under the influence of the Scheveningen, prefer the more restrained text move, which is, without doubt, more flexible and less compromising. The second, influenced by the Soviet school and Boleslavsky's work don't hesitate to push their e-pawn two squares giving the game a real 'Najdorf' character.

6 ...e6 7.0-0 fl/c7 8.f4 ttJc6 9.�h1 i..e7 1 O.ttJb3 Najdorf (as Black) faced GM Pilnik in the same tournament and following 10.i.e3 i.d7 1 l .i.f3 l:Ic8 1 2.lLlb3 b5 1 3 a3 0-0 14.�d2 the game was drawn after 43 moves.

1 0 ... b5 1 1 .i..f3 i..b7 1 2.i..e3 0-0 1 3.fl/e1 ttJd7 1 4.�d1 lLlb6 1 5.lLle2 ttJc4 1 6.i..c 1 e5 1 Vt:Jc3 ef4 1 8.lLld5 fl/d8 1 9.i..f4 .igS 20.'ii'c3 i..f4 21 .lLlf4 'ti'gS 22.ttJd5 lLl6e5 23J'Ue1 l:l.ac8 24.lLld4 l::l.fe8 25.b3 lLlb6 26.fl/a5 ttJdS 27.ed5 g6 28.fl/b6 fl/e7 29.lLlc6 fl/d7 30.ttJe5 deS 31 .'ti'f6 �c2 32.l::l.e5 l::l.e5 33.'ti'eS l:l.c8 34.d6

34...i..f3 35.gf3 l:l.c2 36. 'ti'e7 'ti'h3 0-1 37.'ti'e8 �g7 38.fl/e5 f6

7.ttJb3 i..e6 8.0-0 lLlbd7 9.f4 'fic7 1 0.f5 i..c4 1 1 .i..d3 b5 1 2.i..e3 i..e7 13.'ti'e2 l:tc8 14.�ac1 o-o 15.lLld2 d5

1 6.i..c4 dc4 1 7.a3 b4 1 8.ab4 ..ib4 1 9.g4 i..c3 20.bc3 flieS 21 .'ti'g2 ttJcS 22 ..-icS 'ti'cS 23.�h1 l:tfd8 24.'ti'e2 h6 25.l:f.a1 fl/d6 26.I:tfd1 'ti'c6 27.�g2 l::l.d6 28.h3 l::lcd8 29.�f3 'fid7 30.�e3 ttJe8 31 .l::l.a5 CiJc7 32J'l.e5 CiJbS 33.l:l.d5 l::ld5 34.ed5 ttJc3 35.fl/f3 CiJd1 0-1

With the passage of time, White has tried different manoeuvres to test the black defence to the limit. One of them consists of launching a wave of pawns on the queenside.

32.'ii'as g6 33.h3 'f/b1 34.<i;h2 �fS 3S.'f/c3 'f/e4 36.�f3 'fid4 37.'ti'd4 ed4 38.g4 �ea 39.cS as 40.c6 c;f;fS Black resigned.

51 1 1 . 1 0 0 Geller

Another significant example played by Karpov twenty years later. The method was the same, as was the result.

• Fischer Curacao Candidates 1 962

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 S.tt:lc3 a6 6.�e2 eS Throughout his career Fischer remained faithful to this move.

7.tt:lb3 �e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.�e3 'f/c7 1 0.a4 �e6 1 1 .aS tt:lbd7 1 2.tt:ldS tt:ldS 1 3.edS White now has a queenside pawn maj ority and he doesn't waste time in activating them. Black never has a chance to create any threats on the kingside.

1 3 ... �fS 1 4.c4 �g6 1 SJ:tc1 tt:lcS 1 6.tt:lcS deS

1 7.b4 .t:!.ac8 1 8.'ti'b3 .id6 1 9.l::!.fd1 'ti'e7 20.bcS �cs 21 .�cs l::!.cS 22.l::!.a 1 l::!. d8 23.l::!.a4 �fS 24. .l:.b4 �c8 2S.l::!. b6 l:td6 26.'ti'b4 'f/c7 27. .t:!.d6 'ii'd6 28.l:tb1 'ti'c7 29.'ii'a4 �d7 30.'fia3 nas 31 .nb7 'ii'b7

51 1 1 . 1 1 0 Karpov

• Por tisch London 1 982

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 S.tt:lc3 a6 6.�e2 es 7.tt:lb3 �e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.�e3 �e6 1 0.'ti'd2 tt:lbd7 1 1 .a4 l::!.c8 1 2.a5 'f/c7 1 3J:tfc1 'ti'c6 1 4.�f3 �c4 1 S J:ta4 I:.fd8 16.:tb4 'f/c7 1 7.tt:ldS tt:ldS 1 8.edS fS 19.�e2 �b3 20.l::!.b3 f4 21 ...tb6 tt:lb6 22.l:tb6 �gS 23.�g4 l:[bS 24. .t:!.e1 'f/cs 2S.l:te4 .t:!.f8 26.b4 'f/c7 27.c4

27 ... <i;h8 28.cS deS 29.d6 'ti'd8 30.bcS f3 31 .'fidS fg2 32.l:l.eS 'iff6 33.l:tfS 'ti'a1 34.<i;g2 �f6 3S.d7 'ti'aS 36J:tb7 l::!. b7 37.'f/b7 'it'd8 38.c6 aS 39.c7 'f/d7 40. .l:tf4 1 -0

History

Throughout the 1950's the Najdorf variation maintained its reputation and started to become a real thorn in White's side. Under this impetus Eastern-block players (mainly Soviets) worked out new ' anti-Najdorf' weapons. Some had purely positional connotations, others consider ably more aggressive, as for example 6 ...1rl.g5 It is true to say that, this line that is sometimes called the 'Yugoslav attack' had its roots in the middle-thirties. Here are some examples illus trating the genesis of this new system:

51 9.4 D Konst antinopolsky • Akshanov Soviet Union 1 934

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 S.tt:Jc3 e6 6.�gS a6 7.'iff3 �e7 8.0-0-0 "fkc7 9."fig3 tt:Jbd7 1 0.f4 bS

51 6.1 D Steiner • Naj dorf Warsaw 1 937

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 s.tt:Jc3 e6 6.�gS a6 7.f4 tt:Jbd7 8.�c4 bS 9.i.b3 tt:Jcs 1 o.es deS 1 1 .feS "fkc7 1 2."fie2 tt:Jfd7 1 3.tLldS "fib7 1 4.0-0-0 h6 1 S.�h4 edS 1 6.e6 tt:Jb6 1 7.ef7 'iitf7 1 8.l:lhf1 'iitg8 1 9."fke8 �fS 20."fieS �g6 21 .tt:Je6 tt:Je6 22."fie6 'iith 7 23.�f2 tt:Jc4 24.h4 .t:l.e8 2S.'ifh3 "fkc8 26.g4 tt:Jas 27.hS �e4 28.c3 tt:Jb3 29.ab3 �e7 30.�e3 l:lhf8 31 ."fkg3 b4 32.�d2 bc3 33.bc3 �a3 White resigned. Curiously, the continuation 6 .ig5 and 7.f4 used by Steiner fell into disuse. Until 1953 the line 6 . .ig5, followed by 7."iVf3 and then castling long, was very popular amongst players and theoreticians who analysed the line exhaustively. However, in that year a new 'bomb exploded' in the game Nezhmetdinov - Sherbakov, played in the Soviet team championship. In that game White brought to light Steiner's variation but with an even more aggressive intent. .

1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 S.tt:Jc3 a6 6.�gS e6 7.f4

1 1 .�bS abS 1 2.l:the1 b4 1 3.tt:JcbS "fibS 1 4.eS deS 1 S.feS l:la2 1 6.'iitb 1 l:laS 1 7.ef6 "fkg3 1 8.fg7 l:lg8 1 9.hg3 l:lbS 20.�e7 l:lb6 21 .�h4 tlg7 22.tt:JfS l:lg4 23.tt:Jd6 .t:l.d6 24J:td6 �b7 2S. .t:l.ed1 �dS 26.b3 .t:l.e4 27.tl1 dS edS 28.l:ldS f6 29.l:lhS 'iitf7 30.l:lh7 And White won in 5 1 moves.

Progressively Nezhmetdinov's move supplanted 7 ."iVf3 and its adoption, by Keres, in the 1954 79

Amsterdam Olympiad did much for its reputa tion. The shock having passed, Najdorf players throughout the world went to work seeking an effective antidote. It is from this period that the first experiences with 7 . . .�e7 date, as well as those of the 'Poisoned Pawn variation' 7 . . . 'irb6, which was Sherbakov's choice in the stem game against Nezhmetdinov; a little later came the Polugaevsky variation 7 ... b5. In 1 955 the Interzonal tournament was disputed in the Swedish city of Goteborg, an excellent opportunity to test the state of play in various lines of the Sicilian, most notably the Najdorf. lt must be said that the presence of many strong Soviet and Argentine players, who were un doubtedly the most eminent authorities in this variation, would inevitably lead to some fierce encounters. In fact, despite the rigorous Scandi navian climate, the spirits during the tournament were warmed by the spectacle of some bloody struggles. 'Don Miguel' himself was not spared. The least that can be said is that he was probably not partying every night!

51 5 .2 D Rabar

• Najdorf Goteborg lnterzonal 1 9 55

Keres and Stahlberg were not meeting for the first time, as they had played a match in 193 8 ! (+2=4-2). I n the following game the Soviet Es tonian doubtlessly regretted bitterly that he didn't repeat the above game, by playing 10.tt:Jb3, as he permits his Swedish opponent to produce a magnificent performance in front of his own public.

51 5.2 D Keres • Stahlberg Goteborg lnterzonal 1 955

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.tt:Jc3 a6 6.�gS e6 7.f4 'ii'c7 8.'fif3 t2Jc6 9.0-0-0 �d7 1 O .ith4 �e7 1 1 .g4 t2Jd4 1 2. .1Id4 �c6 1 3.�g2 l:!.c8 1 4.l:!.hd1 0-0 1 S.gS t2Jd7 1 6.l:!.4d2 lLJcS 1 7.'ii'e3 bS 1 8.t2Je2 'fib7 1 9.t2Jg3 g6 20.l:te1 .1Ife8 21 .tLlh1 dS 22.t2Jf2 hS •

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 S.t2Jc3 a6 6 ..itgS e6 7.f4 'fic7 8.'fif3 t2Jc6 9.0-0-0 .itd7 1 0.t2Jb3 �e7 1 1 ..ilh4 0-0 1 2.g4 .U.fc8 1 3.�g3 bS 1 4.eS t2Je8 1 S.'fie2 b4 1 6.ed6 .§l.d6 1 7.t2Je4 �f4 1 8.r;;tJb1 .itg3 1 9.hg3 tLJeS 20.'fih2

See following diagram 20 ... h6 21 .gS �c6 22..itd3 t2Jd3 23.cd3 .§l.e4 24.de4 'flieS 2S.gh6 'fie4 26.r;;tJa 1 l:!.c2 27.'fihS tt:Jf6 28.h7 'it'h7 29. 'it'as 'ii'e4 30.l:lh4 'it'b7 31 ..1Id8 t2Je8 32.'it'hS Black resigned. 80

See diagram following page 23.edS edS 24.'fid4 t2Je6 2S.l:te6 fe6 26.tt:Jd3 .itd6 27.l:!.e2 'it'g7 28.t2Jes �d7 29..§l.f2 �es 30..1IeS l:l.c4 31 .'fid2 'ii'fB 32.�e3 .!:teeS 33.�e4 de4 34.'it'd7 l:!.c2 3S.r;;tJb1 'it'f7 36.'it'e6 'it'e6 37..1Ie6 l:!.e2 38.llg6 r;;tJf7 39..1If6 r;;tJe7 40.a4 l:te3 41 .fS 0- 1

History

1 1 .tLle6

position after 22 . h5 ..

The fourteenth round gave rise to a unique event in chess history that one has the custom to call the 'triptych' . The luck of the pairings gave that day the chance to see a match USSR-Argentina. Geller, Keres and Spassky (all with White) were to face respectively Panno, Najdorf and Pilnik. The night before the round, the Argentinian contingent, under the leadership of Najdorf, decided to examine in detail a pawn sacrifice elaborated by Pilnik (9... g5) that came to be called the Goteborg variation:

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 �e7 8.'ii"f3 h6 9.�h4 g5 1 0.fg5 tLlfd7

This sacrifice had of course been taken into con sideration by the Argentinian delegation. Sure of himself, the Argentine captain Julio Bolbochan, reassured his players before the round saying "Let's go, play the variation, I assure you that the sacrifice on e6 doesn't work". The first player to make the move was Geller. At that moment Spassky and Keres were still thinking (they had the possibility of watching the other game via the large demonstration board) whilst the bubbling Najdorf was talking in an animated fashion about the turn of events with his colleague Pilnik. He then launched a 'psychological attack' by exclaiming to Geller 'your position is lost; we have already analysed all this ' . The problem was that there was an enormous hole in the Argentine analysis which led to a real 'chess-Waterloo' :

51 9.2 D Geller • Panno Goteborg lnterzonal 1 955

The idea of the gambit is purely strategic. Black desires to exchange the f4 pawn in such a way as to permanently obtain control of the e5-square for a knight. An idea that is certainly attractive, but terribly dangerous because the delay in de velopment exposes Black to a promising piece sacrifice for White:

1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tt:lf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 �e7 8.'ii"f3 h6 9.�h4 g5 1 0.fg5 tLlfd7 1 1 .tLle6 fe6 1 2. 'ii"h5 Wf8 1 3.�b5 A magnificent move that pursues two objectives: 81

stopping Black executing the manoeuvre ... tt:Jb8c6-e5 and liberating the fl -square for the rook.

1 3 tt:Je5 1 4.i.g3 �g5 1 5.0-0 we7 1 6.i.e5 'ti'b6 1 7.Wh1 deS 1 8.'ti'f7 Wd6 1 9. .l:l.ad1 'ti'd4 20..l:l.d4 ed4 21 .e5 wc5 22.'ti'c7 tt:Jc6 23.i.c6 1-0

The day after this particularly painful day for the South Americans, an Argentinian paper was headed the 'Argentine tragedy' . Despite this depressing experience the GOteborg variation and its ambitious idea would not be totally abandoned. Some English masters con ducted a detailed analysis and came to the conclu sion that it was possible to find a defence. Never theless, despite this work many GMs remained skeptical. In these conditions there was astonishment when Fischer used this variation in a game of the upmost importance for him. Played in the last round of the 1958 Interzonal, the American, in order to qualify, had to make at least a draw!

.••

51 9.2 D Gligoric

• Fischer

Portoroz lnterzonol 1 958

D Keres

• Najdorf Goteborg lnterzonal 1 9 55

1 3 ... Wg7 1 4.0-0 tt:Je5 1 5.i.g3 tt:Jg6 1 6.gh6 l::!.h6 1 7.I:tf7 wf7 1 8.'Wh6 ab5 1 9J:U1 \t>e8 20. 'iig6 Wd7 21 .l:tf7 tt:Jc6 22.tt:Jd5 l:ta2 23.h4 'ii h8 24.lt::Je7 tt:Je7 25.'ti'g5 1-0

D Spassky • Pilnik Goteborg lnterzonal 1 9 55

23.h3 'ii h 8 24.tt:Je7 tt:Je7 25. 'Wg5 .l:!.a1 26.Wh2 'ifd8 27.'it'b5 r:JiJc7 28.'ti'c5 Wb8 29.i.d6 was 30.i.e7 .l:!.a5 31 . 'ti'b4 1 -0

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.tt:Jc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 �e7 8.'iff3 h6 9.�h4 g5 1 0.fg5 tt:Jfd7 1 1 .tt:Je6 fe6 1 2. 'ti'h5 Wf8 1 3.�b5 J:lh7 This game and later analysis, prove that this is the best defence at Black's disposal.

1 4.'ifg6 .l:!.f7 1 5.'ifh6 r:Ji;g8 1 6.'ti'g6 J:!.g7 1 7.'We6 Wh8

History

1 8.�d7 tt:Jd7 1 9.0-0-0 tt:Je5 20.'ii'd5 �g4 21 .�df1 �g5 22.�g5 'ii'g5 23 . ..to>b1 'ii'e7 24.'ii'd2 �e6 25.g3 �dB 26..!::tf4 'ii' g5 27.'ii'f2 \t>g8 28 .!::td 1 l::tf7 29.b3 'ii'e7 30.'ii'd4 �-� tt:Jg6 31 .l::tf7 'ii'f7 32. 'ii'e3

tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 'ii'b6 8. 'ii'd2 'ii'b2

•

For many people, the name Fischer is unques tionably linked with the Najdorf variation. If certain players recognize that they started chess after the Fischer-Spassky match in 1 972, which received tremendous media coverage, how many of them have included the Najdorf in their reper toire, only because it was Fischer's favourite variation? Without doubt a great number. Throughout his career the Najdorf variation was his precious ally and accompanied him on all his campaigns for the world title. Their complicity was total and the synergy produced allowed Fischer to beat his rivals and attain the summit. To parody Bogoljubov one could say that 'Fischer won with Black because he played the Sicilian and he won with White because he was Fischer! ' . Fischer never flinched from taking risks when playing with the Black pieces. The best example is his adoption of the Poisoned Pawn variation. Due to him, this variation that was considered dubious by certain GMs and crazy by Bent Larsen, became respectable and attracted the attention of the top echelon. It is certainly not an accident that the two succeeding world champions Kasparov and even Karpov(!) have resorted to it from time to time. Fisc her sometimes obtained extremely tricky po sitions but his defensive talent (and perhaps his aura) made the difference. The following game represents a perfect illustration:

51 8 . 1 4 D B ilek • Fischer Stockholm lnterzonal 1 962

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4

9.l::tb1 'ii'a3 1 0.e5 de5 1 1 .fe5 tt:lfd7 1 2.�c4 �e7 1 3.�e6 0-0 1 4.0-0 �g5 1 5.'ii'g5 h6

A critical moment is reached. White, due to a lead in development and the concentration of pieces around the black king, has certainly the better position. By continuing 1 6.�h5 ! he would have posed enormous problems for Black.

1 6.'ii'h4 'ii'c3 1 7..!::tf7 l::tf7 1 8.'ii'd 8 t2Jf8 1 9.�f7 ..to>f7 20.l::t.f1 ..to>g6 21 J:!.f8 �d7 22.tt:lf3 'ii'e3 23...to>h1 'ii'c 1 24.tt:lg1 'ii'c2 25.l:!.g8 'ii'f2 26. .r!.f8 'ii'a2 27J:tf3 ..to>h7 At this point White lost on time. The moment has now come to see (or to see again) the famous seventh game from the 83

Reykjavik match, where the Poisoned Pawn made its debut in a World Championship final.

51 8.4 D Spassky • Fischer

sesses an 'internal reservoir of energy' that makes it a viable defence, endowed with multiple defensive resources that generate good counterplay. At the end of the 1950's, Lev Polugaevsky elabo rated his own method. Considered as even riskier than the Poisoned Pawn( !) few top players dared to employ it, but its author with the power of abnegation, managed to show that the move 7 b5 was well-founded. ...

7th match game, Reykjavik 1 9 72

1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tLld4 lt:Jf6 5.lt:Jc3 a6 6...ig5 e6 7.f4 'ti'b6 8.'ifd2 'ti'b2 9.lt:Jb3 'ifa3 1 0..id3 ..te7 1 1 .0-0 h6 1 2...ih4

51 7. 1 D Nikitin • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Tbilisi 1 9 59

1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 b5

1 2 lt:Je4 1 3.lt:Je4 it.h4 1 4.f5 ef5 1 5.�b5 ab5 1 6.lt:Jd6 �f8 1 7.tt:lc8 lt:Jc6 1 8.lt:Jd6 .t:ld8 1 9.lt:Jb5 'ti'e7 20.'iff4 g6 21 .a4 �g5 22.'ti'c4 .ie3 23.�h1 f4 24.g3 g5 25..t:lae1 'it'b4 26.'it'b4 lt:lb4 27.l::J.e2 rJilg7 28.lt:Ja5 b6 29.lt:Jc4 lt:Jd5 30.lt:Jcd6 �c5 31 .lt:Jb7 .t:lc8 32.c4 lt:Je3 33..t:lf3 t2Jc4 34.gf4 g4 35..t:ld3 h5 36.h3 tt:Jas 37.t2J7d6 �d6 38.t2Jd6 .t:lc1 39.�g2 t2Jc4 40.t2Je8 �g6 41 .h4 f6 42.l::te6 l::!.c2 43.�g1 '1t>f5 44.t2Jg7 �f4 45 ..t:ld4 '1t>g3 46.t2Jf5 '1t>f3 47.l::tee4 .t:lc1 48.�h2 l::tc2 49.�g1 Y2-Y2 •••

These two games clearly demonstrate that even faced with the sharpest variations, the Sicilian pos84

Nowadays, this is without any doubt one of the most complex opening positions there is.

8.'ti'f3 i.b7 9.a3 t2Jbd7 1 0.f5 e5 1 1 .t2Jb3 ii.e7 1 2.0-0-0 l::tc 8 1 3.i.d3 0-0 1 4.�f6 t2Jf6 1 5.t2Jd5 .idS 1 6.ed5 Wic7 1 7.'1t>b1 .l:Ue8 1 8.t2Jd2 'ti'b7 1 9.t2Je4 b4 20.a4 b3 21 .c3 'ti'd7 22.t2Jf6 ii.f6 23.'it'e4 .t!.c5 24.'ti'b4 Wia7 25.Wie4 .l:i.a5 26.'iVb4 'it'c7 27.W/b3 .!lb8 28.'ti'c4 'ifb7 29.'it'b4 'ti'b4 30.cb4 l::t b4 31 ..ic2 0- 1 e4 32. �c1 .l:i.cS

History

At the beginning of the 1960's this system became the target of attack for certain players who thought that they had found a refutation. Research diver sified in different directions. Nezhmetdinov thought that he had found the solution but col lided head-on into a severe 'counter-refutation' .

The zenith of this variation came about during a Candidates match between Polugaevsky and Tal:

51 7.2 D Tal • Polugaevsky 51 7.2 D N ezhmetdinov • Polugaevsky Soviet Championship, Baku 1 96 1

2nd match game, Alma Ala 1 980

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tbt6 S.t2Jc3 a6 6.i.gS e6 7.f4 bS 8.es deS 9.feS 'fic7 1 0...tbS

1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tbf6 S.t2Jc3 a6 6..igS e6 7.f4 b5 8.es deS 9.feS 'flc7 1 0.ef6 'f/eS 1 1 .ttJe4

Nezhmetdinov's move.

1 1 ... 'f/e4 1 2.tbe2 White has problems after 1 2.�e2 'fig2 1 3.�f3 'figS 14.�a8 'fih4.

1 2 ... t2Jc6 1 3.'f/d2 h6 1 4.�e3 �b7 1 S.t2Jg3 'ifeS 1 6.fg7 �g7 1 7.�d3 t2Jb4 1 8.0-0 t2Jd3 1 9.'fld3 �d8 20. 'fle2 hS 21 J:tae1 h4 22. 'f/f2 l:!.d7 23.t2Je2 h3 24.gh3 l:!.h3 2S.t2Jg3 'fidS 26..ib6 ..tes 27.l:!.es 'ifeS 28J:te1 'figS 29.i.e3 'fig4 30.l:!.f1 fS 31 .�f4 l:!.d1 32.c3 .I:'Z.h4 33 ...tc7 f4 34.'it'f4 'it'f4 White resigned.

1 0...abS 1 1 .ef6 'fieS 1 2.'fle2 'figS 1 3.ttJdbS l:!.aS 1 4.fg7 �g7 1 S.t2Je4 'fieS 1 6.t2Jbd6 rJiJe7 1 7.0-0 fS 1 8.l:!.ad1 �dS 1 9.'fic4 l:td1 20.l:!.d1 fe4 21.t2Jc8 rrti;f7 22.t2Jd6 rJiJg6 23.t2Je4 t2Ja6 24.tbf2 ttJcS 2S.b4 tba4 26.t2Jg4 'fits 27.t2Je3 t2Jb2 28.'fih4 't!WeS 29.'fig4 rJiJh6 30.�e1 �f6 31 .bS l:tf8 32.b6 �gS 33.'fig3 'f/g3 34.hg3 And Black won in seventy moves. In Buenos Aires none of the participants played the Polugaevsky variation. One can without doubt regret it but as its creator remarked "that signifies that no one has refuted it !". In the con clusion of the first chapter of his last book Grandmaster Achievement, Polugaevsky appeared rather optimistic about its future: "Will it have a 85

long life? Will its health be robust enough to resist strong assaults in the future? Will its 'fans ' have enough optimism and courage to defend it? For the moment, after thirty-five proud years looking forward, its head held high along the road of chess, its life, already rich in adventure, continues! ".

As far as the Sicilian goes, the adventure has certainly continued throughout more than three centuries and one can say with certainty that it has some fine days ahead of it. This noble lady which is the Sicilian has not finished to surprise us !

Bibliography

Hooper & Whyld

The Oxford companion to chess Oxford university press 1984

Lutes

Sicilian defence - O 'Kelly variation Chess enterprises 1993

Kovacs

Sicilian Poisoned pawn variation Pergarnon press 1986

New in Chess

Rene Olthof's criticism on Daniel King's book

Winning with the Najdorf 1 993/5 Polugaevsky

Les secrets d'un grand maltre Armand Colin 1994

Polugaevsky

Grandmaster achievement Cadogan chess 1994

Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament Buenos Aires 1 994 participants

Viswanathan Anand Vasily lvanch u k Gata Kamsky Anatoly Karpov Lj ubomir Lj ubojevic J u dith Polgar Valery Salov Alexey S h i rov

tou rnament report by Christophe Guâ&#x201A;Źmeau analyses by Jeroen Piket and the participants

Organizing Committee

chairman J.J. van O osterom, Association M ax E uwe vice chairman D r. A. Spolski, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios M. B ilik, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios P. Cordia, Cordia Consultancy I nternational BV G. Gij ssen, arbiter M. H ermes, Association M ax E uwe Contributors of the Organizing Committee

Grandmaster O.Panno, chief press center E. van der Schilden, Tasc BV C. Gueneau H. de J ong E. J unor, Association M ax E uwe A.M. M onti, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios G. Schraier, F undaci6 n B anco Patricios E. Tolsma, Association M ax E uwe Appeals Committee and Committee for the special prizes

J.J. van O osterom, chairman Grandmaster L. Polugaevsk y Grandmaster M . N aj dorf Grandmaster J. Pik et Commentators during the rounds

Grandmaster B . Larsen Int. M aster A. Sorin l nt. M aster H. Spangenberg I nt. M aster P. Z am ick i Obliged opening moves:

l . e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 t2J c6 3. d4 cd4 4.t2J d4 l . e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4.t2J d4 l . e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4.t2J d4 Time limit:

40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour, fi nally 1 hour per play er for the remaining moves, without adj ournments.

"When one loves one doesn't count the cost". The Dutch patron and President of the Max Euwe association, Joop van Oosterom, had certainly this expression in mind when he decided to offer to his great friend Lev Polugaevsky, on his sixti eth birthday, a sumptuous chess tournament on the theme of the Sicilian defence, the favourite opening of 'Polu' . It was decided that the tour nament should be a double-round affair with eight of the world's top players. The financial questions having been solved, there remained formalities : two just choosing the venue and selecting the players. When he was asked where he would like his diamond jubilee to be organized, the Russian GM replied almost without hesitation: Buenos Aires, Argentina. His reply may have seemed a surprise because the Argentine capital is as sociated with a tragic epi sode from the history of Soviet chess where 'Polu' was one of the main ac tors. In 1978, for the one and only time of its exist ence, the USSR failed to win the Olympiad. That year it could do no better than to finish second be hind the astonishing Hun garian team; however, 'Polu' could hardly be criticized scoring a mere eight out of eleven ! Two years later the same city saw his defeat in the semi-final of the world championship against the 'dissident' Viktor Kortch noi; the match that no So viet citizen had the right to lose and which essentially ended his hopes in the .._ _..__ quest for the supreme title. In fact, it is well known _

that we have a selective memory and the better moments gradually erase the painful ones. Giving the reasons for his choice, Polugaevsky explained "From the numerous journeys that I have made in this country I remember each moment. I won Mar del Plata twice, in 1962 and 1 97 1 , and they still remain happy memories for me. In Argentina, people live well and the people are marvellous; on top of that they really love chess. I'll never forget for example, when the police had to make

].J.

van Oosterom

a path for me through the masses in front of the San Martin theatre after I had just won a game in my match against Kortchnoi. People were grab bing hold in order to congratulate me, it was fantastic". His wife Irene added "After Lev was eliminated, I saw people who were in tears. I've never seen that in other countries". Personally I had never been to Argentina and no doubt like many people, I thought that Russia (let's say the USSR) was the only real home of chess. After three weeks spent in Buenos Aires I revised my judgement and would like to mention here some significant happenings. Almost every where in restaurants, the boss and staffrecognized the players and asked for their autographs; at the end of the meal it was typical that the house offered us a digestif; be it a bottle of wine or champagne. In the street, people became aware of Lev, they respectfully acknowledged him or even ap plauded shouting "Poluga, Poluga". Finally, for those who still remain unconvinced of the love that the Portinos (the inhabitants of Buenos Ai res) have for our game, it is sufficient to remem ber the rich chess history of the city: with Mos cow ( 1 956 and 1 994) and Thessaloniki (1 984 and 1988), it's the only city that has organized two Olympiads, firstly that of 1939 (then called the 'Tournament of Nations') when Germany won ahead of Poland and Estonia, then 1 978, with the surprise victory of Hungary ahead of the USSR and United States. Then one must of course add the two Candidates semi-finals with the matches Fischer - Petrosian (1971) and Kortchnoi Polugaevsky ( 1 980). Finally, and indeed mainly, the world championship final between Alekhine and Capablanca in 1927. The letter written by Alekhine, the 2nd of September 1 926, to the president of the Argentino club, who organized the encounter is also revealing: "... I add that I encountered an exceptional atmosphere, favour able from all points of view to the development of chess activity, and that it is with the greatest of satisfaction that I look forward to the prospect of taking part in a match for the world champi onship title under its auspices, in the case that Senor Capablanca accepts my challenge ... One could add to this already impressive list, other manifestations, that in their time, attracted attention such as the series of exhibition games between Najdorf and Reshevsky in 1 952, the ".

famous Argentina - USSR match that took place in 1 954 in the Cervantes theatre, or the tourna ments of: 1 93 1 , 1 946, 1 960, 1 964 and 1 970. Then one must not forget the various tourna ments organized in Najdorf's honour with the support of the great local newspaper, Clarin. Concerning the choice of participants, the prob lem became complicated because of the interven tion of some spectacular changes. Firstly ac cepted, Garry Kasparov's participation was later cancelled. To justify his decision, the PCA World Champion pointed out the length of the tourna ment and his full diary in order to excuse himself. To compensate for his absence, 'Polu' played with the idea, for a few days, of calling Bobby Fischer, but the project was quickly abandoned as unrealistic. A shame because the 'man from Reykjavik' , as well as a specialist 1 .e4 player and undeniable expert on the Sicilian, would have brought much to the tournament. His presence would equally have led to the first meeting be tween Karpov and Fischer! At the beginning of Spring in 1 994 it became clear that following his operation, 'Polu' would not be fit enough to take part, and with much emotion, he indicated to the organizers that he had to step down. The tournament was already at an advanced stage of preparation and there was no question of delaying, or cancelling, the tour nament. 'Polu' himself simplified things greatly by suggesting a replacement in the person of Valery Salov. Created in honour of the late World Champion, the Max Euwe Association is still very young as it was only created on the 4th of January 1 99 1 � in Monaco. Nevertheless, its proud record is already impressive. Each event caused a great stir throughout the world, due both to their original ity and the quality of the organization. Recently it has diversified its interests, as in honour of the second daughter of Joop van Oosterom, Crystal Kelly, a billiards tournament was created ! Until then, the Max Euwe Association had al ways organized and run its own events, but in Buenos Aires, more than 15,000 Kilometres from it's base, the need to involve some foreign partners was evident; not only to balance the budget (which was phenomenal) but also to en sure the logistics.

In order to draw their lots, the players were required to dance with a tango dancer. Gata Kamsky was one of the many that enthusiastically submitted to this ceremony.

One of the most prestigious was without doubt the Banco Patricios, one of the most prosperous banks in Argentina who, by the expedient of its foundation, never relaxed its efforts in working to give great impact and sparkle to the tournament. It is fitting therefore to thank Doctor Alberto Spolski, the president of the foundation, and also the architect Mariano Billic, the foundation's director, along with the members of his team. The success of this novel collaboration was partly due to the mammoth task performed by 'logistics organizer' Pieter Cordia. He spent, in effect, more than a year on this ambitious project and as things worked out, became a regular trav eller between Amsterdam and Buenos Aires. Un doubtedly for him, a method of mixing theory and practice as he used to work for a travel agency ! It is really a shame that there is no award

for the 'world champion organizer' , as for cer tain, Pieter Cordia would be a serious candidate. From my point of view everything was magnifi cently orchestrated and one had the feeling that he had truly calculated everything. It was diffi cult to find fault in his organization. Perhaps the only reproach that could be made was that the hotel swimming pool was closed, but can we really hold him responsible? From a media point of view the tournament knew a great success, notably because of the excellent work undertaken by the press officer, Ana Maria Monti . Not without a certain pride, GM Miguel Quinteros pointed out to me: "Here everyday there are newspaper articles, almost fifty journal ists have been accredited, the radio has news flashes and even the television is talking about it. It's even better than Linares!". 91

It is certainly difficult to fault him, as even the Argentinian state itself gave its support in declar ing that the Polugaevsky diamond jubilee was of national interest! Incredible. To my knowledge that has never been previously known in any other country.

The tournament, baptized 'Torneo Mundial de Ajedrez Lev Polugaevsky' took place at the head quarters of the Banco Patricios Fundaci6n. Situ ated at 3 1 2 Callao avenue, it is really near to the city centre and to the famous 9th of July avenue, considered as the largest in the world. Normally geared towards art, music or the theatre, the foundation opened wide its doors to chess as no less than four floors were devoted entirely to the tournament! On the ground floor, a room gave directly onto the street allowing spectators (but also casual passers-by) to follow the games on four giant electronic screens. This represented a big first in Argentina and I still remember the flabbergasted expressions on the faces of certain aficionados the first day of transmission. Comfortably seated, the spectators (sometimes noisily in this country) could at their leisure discuss the games and par take of one of the delicious pastries in the cafe teria. I have the names of certain players' wives who gained several kilos in this gastronomic paradise whilst their husbands lost a few from the nervous tension. At the back of the room, near the lifts, was the bookshop, which inevitably had a good number of specialized books in stock. On the first floor, a large area with a hundred or so chairs served as a commentary room. Hugo Spangenberg (Argentinian champion in 1994), Pablo Zarnicki and Ariel Sorin were regular com mentators. It is interesting to note that all three were picked for the Argentine team that partici pated in the Moscow Olympiad,. Zarnicki per forming in brilliant fashion to obtain the gold medal for the fourth board. It is appropriate here to acclaim their remarkable performance, each with their own style. However, he who merits the most praise was undoubtedly GM Bent Larsen, who now lives in Buenos Aires. A true enter tainer, he normally started his commentary around four o'clock in the afternoon, without doubt after a regenerative siesta, and after his three IM colleagues had 'warmed up' the audi92

ence. His analysis, interspersed with tremendous anecdotes, often very educational, were a real treat and it wasn't at all rare to hear a thunderous applause at the end of some spectacular vari ation. In Argentina one loves a good game and one lets it be known! The spectacle of the Dane's analysis alone, was worth the five Pesos ($5) entry fee. On the second floor was the press room, also equipped with electronic screens but with the added benefit of a television showing the faces of the players. There in charge was local celebrity GM Oscar Panno. Throughout the tournament, I had the distinguished honour and luck to work with him in editing the bulletin. Never tired, always in a good humour, Oscar inspires respect and everyone in Argentina seems to adore him. From the first day, I gave him the nickname 'the octopus' because it amused me to see him to bustle about in all directions and accomplish all sorts of tasks at the same time. I sometimes had the feeling that he had even fifteen arms. He would simultaneously prepare the bulletin, an swer the telephone, tap away at his computer, greet his friends who would never miss a chance to come and see him, anticipate the continuation in the games; finally, and certainly not the easi est, put up with me all afternoon. At first, I was rather surprised to see him with so much energy, but a little later I learned his secret: four sessions of tennis a day! In this domain too he had some good habits; Judit Polgar and I learned to our cost. It was equally on the second floor that the V.I.P lounge could be found, where the players came to analyse their game, replied to journalists ques tions and sometimes posed for the television. On the third floor was the actual playing hall which could seat a total of 250 spectators. What gave the Polugaevsky tournament its charm was above all the unique rule: all players must respect the imposed opening moves: 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 (or 2... e6, or 2. . .d6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:Jxd4. Despite its originality this type of tour nament was far from being a novelty as at the beginning of the century in Vienna, the cele brated King's gambit was thus honoured. Nearer to our time, in Utrecht in the middle-eighties, a tournament took place where positions noted for their complexity were selected and 'imposed' .

Several top-flight grandmasters took part such as Ttmman and Miles. The Sicilian already had its place with the two following positions:

No.1 Najdorf - Poisoned Pawn

portunity to meet with some local, and even world-wide, celebrities. lt was true to say that all the creme of the profession and all the stars of chess-life in Buenos Aires passed before my eyes. One of the most diligent was of course Miguel Najdorf, nicknamed affectionately by his friends El viejo or Migue lito. At 84 years old, this living legend showed yet again that the years have not taken their toll on him and that his understanding of the game remains intact. Al ways alert, he still drives himself in his Renault R21 without glasses, (as he likes to tell everyone) trying no doubt to imitate another Argentinian idol: Juan-Manuel Fangio. There was also Fran sisco Benko, talented composer and keeper of one of the biggest collections of problems and studies in the world with about 30,000 works ! At the beginning of the tournament he attracted attention by exhibiting one of his problems that he considered the most accomplished. He was always proud to announce beforehand that it had kept Mikhail Tal occupied for several hours.

No. 2 Dragon - Main Line Of course, the Utrecht tournament was not in any way comparable to that of Buenos Aires which, with an average Elo rating of 2694, reached category XVIII. The games were played at the rate of 40 moves in two hours, then 20 moves in an hour, followed by one hour per player K.O., implying that no adjournments were possible. As for Elo rating, at the request of several players it was decided that the tournament would not be counted. A debatable decision as it could have, perhaps, added further spice to an already attrac tive competition. At the stroke of five o' clock in the afternoon (the games started at 2.30 p.m.) the building was generally jam-packed and the press room had an incredible atmosphere. This was for me an op-

British Chess Magazine 1 950 Mate in three moves Solution: l.lllc4 ( l .lllb7? 'i!Yg3 2.f8'i!Y 'i!Yg8 and the b3 pawn is protected) l. 'i!Yg3 2.f8'i!Y 'i!Yg8 3.'it;lb3 mate. Another notable visitor, Samuel Schweber, a very experienced player having taken part in six Olympiads. With his cigar glued to his lips, he blitzed away a good deal of his time and on this occasion everybody noticed that he hadn't lost any of his ability. Carlos Guimard, came along a few times to the press-room and during the tournament he cele.•

>rated, with great ceremony, his 8 1 th birthday to he 'Bolsa de Commercio' . Finally there was luan Sebastain Morgado, second in the world :orrespondence championship 1 978-1 984 and >wner of a famous chess bookshop. Resembling he old British Chess Magazine bookshop (with mt the sea salt!), it contained a few treasures and me of the most regular customers during the oumament was without any doubt, Geurt Gijs :en. A collector in spirit, the Dutchman took tome to the Netherlands a veritable library of :hess books ! \.s opposed to the closing ceremonies, always ather formal affairs, the opening functions or �anized by the Max Euwe Association are always plendid. Each time two factors predominate: the •riginality and quality of the spectacle, based ,!ways around the theme of the host's national lance. In Buenos Aires, this was of course the mgo, almost a religion in this country of more han 30 million inhabitants . :'he show started with some folk music, accom-

panied by a piano and an accordion; then fol !owed an exhibition of the tango with four cou pies. Next was to be the drawing of lots whicl would allow the calculation of the pairings. Th1 principle was as follows: each player had t< choose a dancer (of the opposite sex) then durin1 several minutes to dance a few steps of the tango at the end, as if to thank the partner, the dance would reveal the number previously hidden i1 the dancer's clothes. This provoked some sauCJ comments from the ineffable Ljubojevic. At thi1 game, Anatoly Karpov showed that he was m stranger to the dance. The next morning, th! Argentinian press did not miss the opportunity tc publish Judit Polgar, smiling radiantly, in th! arms of her partner. For her, who openly admittec her nerves on the prospect of performing thh task, the few steps seemed to last for ever... After a light cocktail, the players and organizen made their way to the bus that was to take us tc the Sheraton hotel, where we were all staying There, in one of the most sumptuous restauran�

Anatoly Karpov surrounded by tango dancers. Mrs. Polugaevsky is an interested spectator.

in the city, we dined in the company of the tournament officials. Having arrived somewhat in advance, I met the main arbiter, Geurt Gijssen, who was already occupied with the petits fours. To engage him in conversation I asked him how he was and if the tournament was going to run smoothly. He replied positively, making it be known that it couldn't be otherwise, especially when it came to tournaments organized by the Max Euwe Association! I continued by telling him about my recent visit to the Lloyds Bank open in London where apart from playing, I had witnessed some surprising events. I asked him how he would have acted if faced with the rather amusing incident that occurred in the ninth round. That day two strong English IM's, Gary Lane and Christopher Ward were paired together. At that stage, they both had five and a half points out of eight, the players still having realistic hopes of obtaining a qualification place for the PCA Grand Prix tournament (it required victories in both last games). The two players knew each other well and were indeed good friends, but that day they the two rivals launched into an unrelent ing battle. The tension was extreme as time drifted away, then in serious zeitnot, the two players blitzed out their remaining moves in order to attain the time control. A reconstruction was then required to see if they had indeed made the necessary 40 moves. The tension fell, Lane and Ward took their place to finish their critical game. Again they settled down to concentrate and after Black's 44th move the position was as follows:

Lane was thinking about his next move when

suddenly the Estonian GM Lembit Oll passed behind Lane, reached over his shoulder picked up the queen and placed it on e4 ! ! Completely dumbfounded, the two players explained that rather than analyzing they were in fact still play ing. Shocked by his mistake Oll blushed and immediately ran out of the playing hall. Coming back to their senses, the two Englishmen could not restrain themselves from bursting out laughing. Other players naturally (who had not seen the incident) asked them to be quiet, where upon Lane and Ward explained what had hap pened which led equally naturally to general uproar! The story doesn't end there; everyone then set tled back down to their games and Lane, after some thought, played the move suggested by Oll: 45.�g4-e4( !). Phlegmatically, Chris Ward wryly smiled to his opponent and coined the phrase: "The move recommended by the grandmaster!". Later, Lane won the game and Ward sportingly accepted his defeat. Lane and 011 then had the same number of points. It is well known that in England pair ings can be very flexible and some proposed slightly facetiously to the tournament director, the legendary Stewart Reuben, that it would be appropriate to pair the two players together. For tunately, this wasn't the case. Lane and 011 (zero eleven, as he is sometimes called) both lost against Yermolinsky and Norwood respectively. All the same, this tragi-comic incident raises the question: What would have happened if Ward had complained to the tournament arbiter? I posed this question to Gijssen. He explained that, unfortunately, there was nothing one could do (you cannot make the players replay the game) and that it was best to pray that this type of incident didn't happen too often. I followed up explaining that on several occasions during the same tournament the fire alarm sounded and on each occasion we were restricted from leaving the playing hall! Jokingly, I suggested that there was a case here for a new Informator symbol ! All the invitees had now arrived and as I was preparing to relate some amusing incidents that had occurred in France, he had to leave. His parting remark (I must admit that I can't remem ber it word for word), on raising his shoulders, was "Oh you French, you always have the best 95

incidents. Fires ! And why not an earthquake whilst we are here!". He probably didn't appreciate the truth of his words because apart from an earthquake we had to face every other imaginable upheaval. During the first round for example there was a demon stration in the street outside. The games had to be stopped for a few minutes. Then during the thirteenth (!) round a fire started. All the games had finished except the one between Ljubojevic and S alov. The tension was at its height as the Yugoslav took to heart the task of taking revenge for his sixth round defeat in their first meeting. The game had already been going for five hours when one of the lights in the playing hall over heated. The fire was quickly put out with fire extinguishers but the smoke that remained made the air unbreathable. Thus it became necessary to quickly evacuate the room. At that moment there was total confusion. Whilst 'Ljubo' was lament ing his thoughts: "Does that mean that I am not going to be able to continue the game under normal conditions?", Gijssen was actively work ing out the possibility of switching rooms. Calmly but energetically he immediately took the only reasonable decision: to finish the game in one of the small rooms next to the press office on the second floor. For the comfort of the play ers, the game was continued behind closed doors. Therefore the completion of the game was watched by only three pairs of eyes, finally 'Ljubo' won, opening up the tournament because Salov was only leading his closest challenger, Anand, by half a point. Next day it was a power cut that caused the problems, but fortunately this only lasted for five minutes. At the start of the last round the suspense reached fever pitch, as it was impossible to know with certainty who would finish first and take home the winner's purse of 35,000 dollars. Salov had almost outrageously dominated the tournament, but after his penultimate round loss, one could speculate that his morale would have taken a battering. 'Vishy ' , on the contrary, seemed very confident having shot up from the depths to be in a position to challenge the Russian. Further as the two were to meet in the last round the game promised to be exciting. One would have supposed that the spectators 96

would only have been following this particular game; the encounter between the leaders. How ever another duel immediately caught the atten tion, almost relegating the crucial game to sec ond fiddle: Kamsky - Ljubojevic. What was so interesting about that particular game? Simply the opening. As was his habit, 'Ljubo' chose the Najdorf variation and after a few quickly-played moves the following position appeared on the electronic screens:

'Ljubo' sank into deep thought and everyone held their breath. Was the Polugaevsky variation about to finally make an entrance? I remember that at that moment I found myself in the playing hall next to Lev. My eyes switched between the screen and his face, looking for the slightest reaction on his part; but there he remained, stand ing next to his wife Irene, expressionless and silent. What must he have been thinking, he who has given so many years to the move 7 ...b5, a move that until then had been conspicuously ignored by all of the participants, of 'his' tourna ment? Almost imperceptibly I felt that he was communicating telepathically with 'Ljubo' in saying to him: "Go on, play 7 ... b5, do it for me!". But 'Ljubo' thought on. What must he too have been thinking? Then after several minutes, that seemed an eternity for Lev, he picked up his queen and placed it on b6. Lev lowered his head. He was sad, slowly he left the playing hall, his dream was over. On my side, I couldn't help thinking about the sixth round. That day there, Miguel Najdorf, came with us to a tango show and then we were invited to his favourite restaurant. Naturally, there was his wife Rita, Lev, Irene, my wife Katia

The tournament room was situ ated in the impos ing building of the Banco Patricios.

and also Ljubojevic, who was demoralized after his defeat by Salov. During the meal the conversa tion concentrated on the Polugaevsky Variation. Miguel and Lev lamented together about the fact that it had yet to be played in the tournament. I added that it required collaboration in that White had first to play 6.�g5. It was at that moment that Ljubojevic intervened by declaring confidently : "In my case, if someone plays 6.�g5 against me, I will reply with the Polugaevsky variation". To come back to the game between Anand and Salov, the suspense didn't last for long, as the Indian, seeing that he couldn't play to win with out taking considerable risks, offered a draw that was of course accepted. Salov's victory was cer tainly a surprise to many people but equally so for himself. He summarized well the situation in his speech at the closing ceremony: "When the tournament was being organized. I soon under stood that it wasn't for me; I don't like big cities, nor big hotels such as the Sheraton, I was only the reserve and I don't even play l .e4 with White...". What the Russian (who lives in a small town near Madrid) forgot to add was that it was straight from his victory in the marathon Tilburg

tournament that he came here. He arrived tired out and it didn't help having influenza during the first few rounds. Many reasons to render his victory even more heroic. Reading the cross ta ble, one sees that he only won by the narrowest of margins, but in fact his domination was almost total . He took the lead in the third round and kept it until the end. He gradually increased the lead until at one mo ment he was even two points ahead. His opening choices, based on positional considerations im posed on the middle game. As he expressed later, his main problem was to avoid theoretical dis cussions in some sharp variations where he had no experience. This is why he frequently adopted a king's fianchetto with White and the Paulsen with Black. His two victories over Karpov cer tainly opened up the road to success, but they didn't change his behaviour in any way. I remem ber the evening after the first of these victories that we dined together and at no time did he show any external signs ofjoy. Discreet and respectful of his opponent, he savoured his win internally, but without doubt intensely. When certain jour nalists asked him if he felt that he was capable of 97

Lev Polugaevsky m ade the first move at Judit Polgar's board, u nder the watchful eye of chief arbiter G eurt G ijssen.

winning the world championship his reply was neat and clear: "Of course, before this tournaÂ ment, I had only beaten Karpov once, in RotterÂ dam 1 989 in the GMA world cup. These victories here don't increase my potential to be a future world champion, as Karpov was not favoured by the fact that he hasn't played either the Sicilian, nor l .e4 with White, for a long time. It's a totally different story when one has to face his Queen's Indian. Naturally, these two games will give me confidence and comfort but one shouldn't jump to hasty conclusions". Finally, he dedicated this tournament victory to his wife Tania, adding that she was far more precious than any 'second' could be! Anand was as usual rapid, efficient, spectacular but also opportunistic. He took his time to score his points, as after five rounds he only had 50%. His second place was fully merited but it should be mentioned that he lived up to his nickname of 'Lucky Luke' as lady luck certainly offered him her favours, notably in his two games against 98

Ljubojevic. The second half saw him advance strongly with 4.5/7. Admirably, he never gave up hope of catching Salov, leading to the passionate finale. lvanchuk, on his first visit to South America, seemed out of touch and his major problem was his use of time. At the press conference, which took place on the evening of our arrival, a few days before the tournament he was still at the hotel dreaming in the arms of Morpheus (or was it Morphy?). When it was time to take the bus to the tournament hall he was generally last to turn up, which irritated Judit. Further, he lost to Salov on time in the eighth round, admittedly in a probably losing position. This didn't prevent him from winning three magnificent games, notably those against Anand (winner of the prize for the best attack) and Shirov (winner of the beauty prize) . Another satisfaction for 'Chukky' was that some days after his arrival on Argentine soil, he created his first crosswords puzzle. Judit Polgar was far from the best prepared in

theoretical terms, but with a little more realism she could have challenged the leaders. She suf fered from over-optimism (or a lack of objectiv ity), as in certain positions her desire to win at all costs led to her taking too many risks and hence exposing herself to strong counters. Gata Kamsky swung between the best and the worst. His best quality, tenacity, was this time lacking due to a certain weariness, resulting from his father's austere regime: bed at 22.30, up at 06.30! The mediocre performance of the FIDE world champion, Anatoly Karpov, could also be ex plained by fatigue accumulated over the preced ing months, but also by the fact that the thematic tournament didn't really suit him (he generally plays 1 .d4 and against 1 .e4 his usual replies are l . . .e5 or l . ..c6). On his arrival in Argentina he played a match of four quickplay games against Hugo Spangenberg (+3 - 1). Instead of resting he then flew the next day to the town of San Nicolas to play another exhibition match of two games against GM Daniel Campora (+1 = 1 ) . In the first half of the Buenos Aires tournament he managed 417, but the return games took their toll (2.517 with five draws and two losses) on his stamina. Against Anand in the twelfth round he was pun ished for his poor opening preparation, as the Indian GM later pointed out, the FIDE world champion's position was compromised as early as the twelfth move: Anand - Karpov (round 1 2) l .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jc6 5 .tt:Jc3 'fic7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tLlf6 8.�e3 �b4 9.tLla4 d5?! 10.tt:Jc6 bc6 1 l .ed5 tt:Jd5 1 2.�d4 Alexey Shirov, despite his Latvian passport, was considered to be "the local hero"; since his mar riage to a young Argentinian, he shares his life between Buenos Aires and Riga. The best one can say is that he was not playing under ideal conditions as the imminent birth of his first child probably affected his concentration. As well as that, one should add bad luck and a theoretical preparation that was poorly rewarded. With White he set about aggressively pushing his g pawn at an early stage. His intention was to force the game down original tactical paths. Apart from one beautiful victory in the ninth round against Anand his strategy generally failed; worse, it gave the possibility to two of his oppo nents to distinguish themselves and obtain a re-

ward! Firstly, Judit, who obtained the prize for the best theoretical novelty after the sequence: l .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 e6 3 .d4 cd4 4.tLld4 tt:Jc6 5 .tt:Jc3 d6 6.g4 a6 7.�e3 tt:Jge7 8.tLlb3 b5 9.f4 �b7 1 0.'fif3 g5 !N. This move made Alexey jump out of his chair (an aesthetic move as it constitutes a sym metric blow). It was later Ivanchuk, who in the last round, obtained the Clarin cup for the beauty prize. Here again it was Black who broke new ground, but this time much more classically, as it is based on the principal: attack on the wing, counter in the centre. Shirov - lvanchuk (round 14). l .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5 .tt:Jc3 a6 6.�e3 e6 7.�e2 'fic7 8.g4 d5 !N 9.ed5 �b4 1 0.de6 �c3 l l .bc3 'fic3 12.r.tO'fl and Black won in 33 moves. Because of his legendary volubility and perfect mastery of the Spanish language, "Ljubo" very quickly had the Argentinian journalists and pub lic in his pocket. This often gave the impression that he was playing "at home". Downhearted after his unjust first round loss against Anand, he seemed almost to have adopted the principle of "all or nothing", an approach that sometimes turned against him but had the merit ofprovoking some spectacular games. This combativity was much appreciated by the organizers who re warded him with a prize for his "fighting spirit". A late series of three consecutive victories against Polgar, Shirov and Salov failed to lift him from last place but was a proud reaction against misfortune! Looking back, Polugaevsky, not fully recovered from his operation, was very disappointed in not being able to participate in this made-to-measure tournament. Commenting on the fact that his variation was never used he declared: "Sure, my variation was not played here but that means that no one could refute it!". When asked the reason for his devotion to the Sicilian, his face lights up and he becomes animated: "Very rapidly I under stood that the Sicilian suited my temperament and style. I have never felt the urge to change the opening; in fact I think that I was born for the Sicilian". As for the genesis of the variation that bears his name, his explanation sums up his philosophy: "With Black I am ready to take risks, to go to the edge of the precipice, but White must accompany me!". 99

is perhaps this lack of risk-taking, noticeable in some games from the tournament, that may have diminished the pleasure.

Before we sink into an analysis of the games, I invite you, dear readers, to take a break by solvÂ ing this magnificent problem, which was espeÂ cially created for the tournament by the Dutch GM Comelis Goldschmeding. Good luck! (for the solution, see page 236).

Mate in two moves.

1 00

Round 1 Lju bojevi c

- Anand

lvanch u k

- Salov

Karpov

- Kamsky

Polgar

- Shi rov

An and Polgar lvanchuk Kamsky Karpov Salov Ljubojevic Shirov

0- 1 lfz - lfz 1/z - 1/z 1 -0

1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0

9 ...tt:Ja5 would have been the logical continuation

51 26. 1 D Ljubojevic • Anand

of the course chosen. 1 0. 'iif3 ti:ld4

Notes by]eroen Piket The first round is always very important for the participants, as they find out whether they are in the right shape at the required moment. Some solve this problem by settling for a quick draw and playing themselves into the tournament by not losing. In this Sicilian tournament it soon became clear that nobody wanted or was able to go for a solid draw, but whether they were al ready in their best shape you, the readers, may decide for yourselves. 1 .e4 c5 2.ti:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ti:ld4 ti:lf6 5.tt:lc3 tt:lc6 6.�c4

The Fischer-Sozin Attack is usually preferred by Ljubojevic to the Rauzer Variation (6. .ig5). 6 ...e6 7.�e3 a6 8.�b3 'iic 7?!

An inaccuracy, as Black can do without this move. 8 ... �e7, to continue the development, or 8 ...�d7 to expand on the queenside with 9 .. b5, are the recommendations by the latest theoretical articles.

White gained a devastating attack in Istratescu Nevednichy, Bucharest 1994, after 1 0. ..tt:Ja5 l l .g4! h6 1 2.0-0-0 b5 1 3 .g5 tLlb3 1 4.ab3 hg5 15.hg5 t2Jd7 1 6.g6! 1 1 .�d4 b5 1 2.a3 0-0 1 3.o-o

Anand admitted during the post-mortem that he had feared 1 3.0-0-0, but according to Ljubo his treatment of the position was best. 1 3...�b7 1 4.:ae1 J:.ac8?!

Black should hurry with his counterplay because White is ready to fulfil his wishes on the kingside. Correct was 14 .. .'ti'd7 followed by 1 5 ... a5. 1 5.'iig3 <;t>hS

Anand really started a trend with this defensive move, as it was frequently seen later in the tour nament. 1 6.<;t>h1 'ifc6?

9.f4 �e7

Again 16 .. .'il'd7 was better, as the bishop on e7 needed protection. 1 7J:tf3

1 01

Somewhat primitive, but simply reinforcing his position.

1 7...a5 1 8.'ifg51

20...h6?1 Vishy clearly dislikes the precarious situation he has got into, and he gives his opponent a decisive opportunity. Black's task after 20 . . .'ifd7 2 l . tLlf2 (2l .J::f.d3 ! ? was suggested by Polugaevsky) was also unenviable.

21 . .l:f.h3 ďż˝h7 Everybody agreed this was the only move, as 2 l . ..e5 22.fe5 tLle4 23.J:lh6 'it>g8 24.'ifg4 ! would not have helped a lot.

22.lLlf2 The knight is heading for g4.

22.. J:lg8 23.tbg4 lLlg4 24.'ife7 A surpnsmg move which required a large amount of calculation.

1 8 ... b4 1 9.ab4 ab4 20.tLld1 1 The direct attempt to go for the kill by 20.. J:tg3 J::f.g8 2 l .e5 tLle4! would have rebounded ridiculously.

1 02

This was wrongly criticized, as it is not only sufficient to maintain a winning advantage, but also stronger than the modest 24.'ifg4 'ifd7 25. 'ifh5 or 25 .f5, when Black can still stubborn!y defend.

24...e5 25.fe5

Round 1

25.�g5 (25.�h4 f5 ! was what Anand was hop ing for) 25 . . . �d7 26.f5 ed4 27.�g4 was not bad either.

25 ... de5 26.�g1 tt:lf6 27.'tlfe5? The first mistake due to severe time shortage. From this point the standard of the game rapidly decreases. 27.�f7 tt:le4 (27 .. .l:Igf8 28 .i.g6 is lights out! ) 28 .�g8 l:i.g8 (28 . .. �g8 29.l:i.f3 ! ) 29.J:.e2 (29.l:i.f3 tt:lg5 30.l:i.f2 tt:lh3 and tt:lf4 ; 30.J:lg3) 2 9. . .�a6 30.J:lee3 would have given a nice material advantage.

27 ... tt:le4 28.'1Wf5 'lt>h8?

the most incredible blunders time after time. 30 ... tt:lc3 ! ! would have been a terrible shock for Ljubojevic.

31 .'tlfgS?? The game is taking a dramatic course, as every move completely turns the tables. 3 l .i.d5 ! l:i.d5 32.'ifd5 would have given another winner.

31 ... l:i.d4! Finally an excellent move and Anand seems to have recovered from his black-out.

32.cd4 tt:lb3 33.d5 l:.e8?

Anandcomplicates rnatters notforobjectivereasons, but purely because of the problems Ljubo has with the clock. 28 . .. 'fi'g6! 29.�f7 �f7 30.i.f7 J:lgf8 3 l .�b3 tt:lf2 32.i.f2 l:i.f2 33.l:i.g3 l:i.e8 would have been enough to escape with a draw.

29.�d4! Threatening 30J:re4 �e4 3 l .l:i.h6.

29...J:lcd8 The other rook to d8 would also lose after 30.�g7 'lt>g7 3 l .'iff7 'lt>h8 32 ..ie6!

Giving Ljubo a last opportunity to end the game with the proper result. 33 . .. 'if a6! would have left White empty-handed.

34.l:.e8? 34.'ifd8 ! was a brilliant save, as after 34 . . .l:.d8 35 .dc6 i.c6 36.J:I.b3 l:td2 37.l:i.gl l:i.d4 the game would have ended in a draw.

34... 'tlfe8 35.'tlfe3 'fi'a8! 36.l:l.h6 gh6 37.'fi'h6 'lt>g8 38.'tlfg5 'lt>f8 39. 'fi'h6 'lt>e8 30.c3??

And a very, very bad but exciting game ended when a disillusioned Ljubojevic resigned.

Allowing a petite combinaison which could have been prevented by the intermediate 30.i.a4 ! 'ifd6 and only then 3 l .c3. Anand was ready to meet 30.l:i.e4 with 30... l:i.d4 !

30... tt:ld2?? The players were definitely not mentally ready for such a time scramble, as they manage to make 1 03

51 29.2 0 Ivanchuk

• Salov

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.lLlf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 t2Jf6 5.tbc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'ifd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 During the last few years this particular line of the Rauzer variation has enjoyed a huge revival and is one of the most frequently used Sicilian variations in general tournament practice. Many theoretically important games were played in this tournament too.

9.�e3 Vasily Ivanchuk has always been an adherent of this move, but this is really a matter of taste, as 9.�f4 is equally often seen.

9 ...�e7 1 0.f3 lLld4 According to Dolmatov in the Encyclopedia, IO . . .d5 gives Black an equal game. Interestingly Salov tried this two weeks earlier against the same opponent in the Interpolis tournament semi-final in the second rapid game, but he faced great difficulties after 1 1 .ed5 ttJd5 1 2.ltJd5 'it'd5 1 3 .ltJc6 'it'c6 14.�d3 'it'a4 1 5 .'it>b1 0-0 16.l:f.he1 l:f.d8 1 7.'it'f2 �d7 1 8.�b6 J:tdc8 19.l:f.e4 'it'c6 20.l:f.c4!

1 1 .'ifd4!

above-mentioned semi-final in Tilburg 1994 he chose 1 1 .�d4.

1 1 ...e5 After 1 l ...b5 Salov probably feared the central advance 12.e5 ( 1 2.'iti'b 1 �b7 1 3.h4 d5 14.ed5 ttJd5 1 5.ttJd5 'it'd5 16.c4 bc4 1 7.�4 'it'd4 1 8.�d4 0-0 Gipslis-Lerner, Yurmala 1983, is boring and completly equal) although after 1 2. .. de5 1 3 'it'e5 'it'a5 14.'it>b1 �b7 1 5.i.d3 0-0 1 6.'it'g3 'it>h8 1 7.'it'h3 b4 18.ltJe2 'it'h5 Black had no problems in Campora-Rodriguez, Amsterdam 1 987.

1 2.'ifd2 �e6 1 3.g4?! Typical kingside expansion, but I think there are better alternatives: 1 3.h4 ! ? 'it'aS 14.'it>b1 l:f.c8 1 5 .a3 ltJd7 1 6.g3 J:.c6 1 7.f4 i.g4 1 8 .�e2 �e2 19.'it'e2 ttJf6 20.ltJd5 'it'a4 21 .�c l ! was pleasant for White in Gufeld Vilela, Dortmund 1983, while 1 3.ltJd5 ! ? �d5? ! ( 1 3 . . .ttJd5 14.ed5 �f5 1 5.g4 is only slightly bet ter, according to Timman) 14.ed5 ltJd7 1 5.g3 ! gave Karpov a serious advantage against Tim man in Linares 1983.

1 3...'ifa5 1 4.'ii'f2 14.a3 b5 1 5.h4 b4 1 6.ttJd5 �d5 1 7.ed5 l:f.b8 1 8.'it>bl �d8 was very complicated in Shirov Lutz, Munich 1993.

14 ...t2Jd7 1 5.'itb1 llc8 With the hope of taking on c3.

1 6.tbd5 �gS! An excellent manoeuvre and the main reason why I was attracted by 13.h4 instead of the game move 1 3.g4.

1 7.h4 �e3 1 8."i:Ve3 'ifcS! Gaining an important tempo, as 1 9.'it'c5 can be answered satisfactorily with 19 ... ttJc5 .

1 9.'it'd2 �dS 20.ed5 llc7! Preparation for an original new way to castle queenside. After 20... ttJb6 21 .l:f.h2 (2l .c3) 2 1 . ..ltJc4 22.�c4 'i!Vc4 23Jie2 White would be better due to his space advantage. A very subtle nuance and a little psychological teasing by the grandmaster from Lvov, as in the 1 04

21 .llh2! �d8!

Round 1

A very difficult position to assess, and in the pressroom the two legends Najdorf and Polugaevsky did not agree with the other's judge ment

ble, but not 33.b5? ttJd2 and 34. . . 4Jc4) and the two connected pawns plus bishop should be stronger.

32.f4

22.a4! Both players were consuming a large amount of time but this has resulted in a high level middle game.

22 ... �c8 23.a5 �b8 24.c4 llhc8 25.b4?!

32 ... lt:Jf6? Who would not play this in severe time trouble, as attack is the best form of defence. 32. . .f6?, to play for 33 ... g5, loses to 33.h5 fS 34.g5 !

33.g5 lt:Jh5 34.gh6 gh6 35.f5 lt:Jf6 A little bit too energetic but 'Chukky' was pressed by the clock. 25.g5! was the right way to start some action, as the threat of 26.b4 only becomes stronger.

25 .. .'ii'd 4! 26.llc1 Not 26.li'd4 ed4 27.f4 (27Jid4 ttJeS) 27 .. J:tc4!? (27 .. J:te8) 28.�c4 l'k4 and Black has more than sufficient compensation for the material deficit.

26... b5? This must be based on a miscalculation as it leads by force to an inferior ending. The exchange sacrifice 26. .. llc4 27.�c4 .l::tc4 28.'ii!Yd4 (28Jk4 'ii!Yc4 followed by 29 ... 4Jf6) 28 . . .lld4 was neces sary and seems to give enough counterplay to maintain the balance.

27.'ti'd4 ed4 28.llhc2 bc4 28 . . .4Je5 29.cb5 would certainly not improve Salov's chances of survival.

29.llc4 .l:tc4 30..1:tc4 l:tc4 31 .�c4 �a7 3 1 .. .4Je5 32.�a6 ttJf3 33.r;tJc2! ? (33.h5 is possi-

35 ...f6 36.r;tJc2 ttJf4 (36 ... 4Jg7 37.�d3 would be a bit more stubborn, but would lead to a similar inferior position as in the game) 37.'it>d2! ttJg2 (37 ... r;tJb7 38.'it>el ttJg2 39.'it>f2 tt:lh4 40 . .id3 !) 38 ..id3 ! and 38 ... tt:lh4 simply fails to 39.�e4.

36. �c2 lt:Jd7 Again Black could opt for 37 . .. tt:le8 and 38 .. .f6 but objectively this is also insufficient to save the draw. After capturing the d4 pawn White moves his king to g4 after which the knight has to remain at g7. Then the bishop is transferred to the a4-e8 diagonal and after... r;tJb8 there follows �d7, and the white king moves back to the queenside where the break with bS will be deci sive.

37.�d3 lt:JeS 38.�d4 f6 39.�e2 <Ji>b7 40.�c3 �a7 41 .b5?? For no reason Ivanchuk is suddenly in a hurry to finish the game. The slow 41. 'it>b3-a4 and only then bS would have been the right way to break Black's resistance, as Valery will be put in Zugzwang after ... tt:ld7 (before White plays bS) with �5. 1 05

41 ...ab5 42.�b4 �a6! 43..tb5 �b7

tt:Jf3 50...ie2 tt:Jd4 51 ..id3 tt:Jf3 52 . .te4 tt:Jd4 53.�c4 tt:Je2 54..tf3 tt:Jg3 55 ..ig4 tt:Je4 56.�b5 And because of 56. .. lbc3 Ivanchuk refrained from further winning attempts.

51 28.3 D Karpov • Kamsky Notes by]eroen Piket 44.h5? Nobody understood why Ivanchuk closed the kingside, as it was just an extra option to enter Black's fortress. However, it is difficult to see how to continue and to make use of the extra pawn. Honestly speaking, after quite a bit of intensive analysis I was no longer able to find a win for White as the following notes show: A) 44.�e2 lbd7 45.�b5 lbc5 46.�h5 lba6! 47.�f7 lbc7 (47. .. lbc5) 48.�c4 r.ti>a6 49.�b4 r.ti>b7 50.�e6 lba6 5 l .�c4 (5 1 .r.ti>a4 lbc7! (5 l ...lbc5? 52.�b5 lba6 53 ..tc8) and there is no penetration possible) 5 l ...lbc7 and White has to stop his efforts. B) 44.�a4 ! ? lbf3 ! 45.�d3 lbe5 46. .tc2 (46. .te2 lbd7 see A; 46.�b5 lbd3 47.a6 �a7 48.r.ti>c6 r.ti>a6 49.�d6 r.ti>b6 ! 50.�e7 �c5 5 1 .r.ti>f6 (5 1 .d6 lbe5 ! ) 5 l . . .�d5 52.c:tJg7 h5 is just a draw) 46 . . . lbd7 47.�b5 lbc5 48.�a4 lba6 49.r.ti>c4 lbc7 50.�c6 r.ti>a6 5 l .�b4 �a7 and again Black es capes. C) And finally 44 ..te8 should be met by 44 . . .lbf3 ! and 45.�d7 lbe5 leads nowhere.

44... tt:Jf3 45.�e2 tt:Jd4! Of course not 45 ... lbe5 46.�b5 and the game is over.

46..td3 �c7! An endgame expert like Salov is not going to spoil the draw any more.

47.�c3 lbf3 48.�f1 tt:Je5 49.�b4

1 06

Although in this field of eight excellent world class grandmasters all games are bound to be interesting, I guess we can honestly say that before the start of the first round this encounter was considered the highlight, as everybody was anxious to see what Karpov would do against one of the most successful players of 1 994.

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.tt:Jc3 tt:Jc6 Even though his choice is limited to the Sicilian Defence, Kamsky manages to come up with a variation he has never used before.

6...ig5 Karpov has always been a big fan of the white side of the Rauzer Variation.

6 ... e6 7.'ir'd2 ..ie7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4 tt:Jd4 One of the oldest theoretical lines of the Rauzer, recently very fashionable thanks to the efforts of the new generation of players like Kramnik and Anand. Kasparov in his early years preferred 9 ... h6 10.�h4 e5 1 l .lbf5 �f5 1 2.ef5 ef4 1 3 .r.ti>b1 d5, which he even used in his first World Cham pionship Match against Karpov, Moscow 1 984/85 .

1 0.�d4 'ir'a5 1 1 ...ic4 In the PCA-Qualifier, Groningen 1993, Kamsky tried the original 1 1 .�b5 against Kramnik.

1 1 .....id7 1 2.e5 de5 1 3:tlie5!?

Round 1

Unusual and therefore appreciated by the Fide champion. In the thirteenth round Ivanchuk tested Kamsky in the main line 1 3 .fe5 i.c6 14.i.d2 tt:ld7 1 5 .tt:ld5 'ir"d8 1 6.tt:le7 'ir"e7.

1 3 ... 'ilt'b6! In the well-known game Suetin-Glek, Moscow 1 983, Black opted for the alternative 1 3 ... 'it"b4. After 14J�d4! 'ir"b6 15.l::.hd1 l::. ad8 1 6.f5 i.c8 all authors agree that the position is balanced. This assessment is probably based on the result of that game, as it seems to me - and apparently also to Karpov - that White has some pressure. 14 ... �c5 is not an improvement, as according to my analysis 1 5 .a3 ! i.d4 1 6.'ir"d4 'ir"e7 ( 1 6 . . .'ir"b6 �f6) 17.tt:le4! gives White winning compensation for the exchange, but later I found another convincing refutation of the bishop move in my database: 1 5 . .l:.hd1 �d4 1 6. .l:!.d4 l:r.fd8 1 7.�f6 gf6 1 8.'ir"f6 'ir"b6 19.f5 �6 20..l:!.g4 �f8 2l .b3 and Black resigned, Ziatdinov-Ragozin, Antwerp Open 1994.

1 4.'ii'e2! .!:!.adS Losing a pawn and therefore criticized in the press room, but Gata had assessed the arising position very well. The obvious 14 ... �c6 did not appeal to him because after 1 5.f5 'ir"c5 ( 1 5 ... 1!fa5 ! ? is a better idea proposed by Sosonko) 1 6.i.f6 i.f6 1 7.fe6 fe6 1 8.tt:le4 ! he runs into trouble.

1 5.lt:Je4!

1 5... lt:Jd5! A pawn sacrifice to gain a lot of activity. 15 . . .i.c6 1 07

1 6.ltJf6 �f6 1 7.�f6 gf6 1 8 .�d3 ! and 15 ... 1i'c7 16 . .l:.hfl would not have solved the problems.

1 6.�d5 �g5 1 7.lt:Jg5 ed5 1 8. .l:.d5 �g4! The only justification for the material invest ment.

1 9. 'ii'e4 g6 20. .l::l.d 8 .l::l. dB 21 . 'ii'c4 Also after 2 1 .1i'e7 .l:.d7 22.1i'e8 �g7 the knight on g5 should be described as powerless instead of powerful.

21 ... 1i'f6 Defending f7 and meanwhile threatening 22... .l:.d4.

22.g3 'ii'e7! Occupying both open files leaving and White with no option but to repeat moves.

23.'ife4 'it'd7 24.'ifd3 'ife7 24 . . .'ii'd3 25 .cd3 .l:f.d3 would be equal, but the text forces the draw.

25.'ife4 'ifd7 26.'ifd3 'ife7 And the players complimented each other on their faultless play.

7.lt:J1 c3 For 7 .�d3 see Anand-Shirov in the next round.

7...a6 8.lt:Ja3 h6!? An expert's move as at first sight it is not so easy to understand what the big difference is with 8 ... �e6 9.�e2 or 9.ltJc2. 9 ...�g5, exchanging the dark-squared bishop, is one of the most important ideas in this line. But if we have a closer look we can conclude that after this exchange Black has not yet solved all his opening problems, as becomes clear from the following examples: A) 8 . . .�e6 9.�e2 �g5 IO.ii.g5 'ii'g5 1 1 .0-0 J:Id8 1 2.ltJd5 ltJf6 13.ltJc7 �f8 (13 ... �d7 !? Sveshnikov) 14.1i'd3 Anand-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1989. B) 8 ... �e6 9.ltJc2 �g5 1 0.�e2 �c l l l .'ii'c l ( l l ..l:f.c l ltJf6 12.0-0 0-0 1 3 .1i'd2 'ii'b 8 14.'ire3 'ii'a7 1 5.1i'a7 ltJa7 16.f3 Dolmatov-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 992) l l ...'ii'b6 1 2.0-0 ltJf6 1 3 . .l:f.dl 0-0 1 4.b3 .l:f.fd8 1 5 .J:Id2 Dolmatov-Van derWiel, Ma nila olympiad 1992.

9.lt:Jc2 �e6 1 o.�e2 �g5 1 1 .0-0 tt:Jge7!

51 32.9 D Polgar • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket Shirov had already been beaten twice by Polgar and of course he was out for revenge.

1 .e4 cs 2.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 es 5.lt:Jb5 d6 6.c4 �e7 This uncommon version of the Sveshnikov Vari ation was popularized in the late eighties when Sveshnikov, Van der Wiel and later even Short started to investigate this line of the Sicilian Defence with at first excellent results. It was in those years that Johnny Van der Wiel came up with a fantastic name for it, referring to an old and famous Russian military weapon called the 1 08

Kalashnikov. Since then this name has been ac cepted but the theoretical value of this line has decreased. As with the weapon, the variation should not be used for more than a few years. Shirov, together with Salov, is one of the few elite grandmasters who is willing to lay his fate in the hands of this positionally unsound opening.

The Latvian grandmaster rightly prefers this square for the knight over the standard f6, as then 7 ...h6 would be just a loss of time, as play would transpose to positions comparable to the above examples.

1 2.b3 Forcing the opponent to make up his mind as 1 3.�a3 is threatened. In Geller-Lputian, Mos cow 1987, White had the better chances after 1 2.'ird3 ! ? ltJg6 1 3 .g3 �c l 14.J:Iac l 'ii'g5 15.ttJd5 �d5 1 6.cd5 ltJf4 1 7.1i'e3 !

1 2...�c1 1 3 . .l::l.c 1 0-0 1 4.'ifd2 'ifd7 A very modest approach. 14 ... ltJg6! was more in the line of expectation, with a complicated strug gle ahead.

Round 1

1 5.l2Jd5 .t:lad8 1 6.b4!

21 ...i.f5 was required as the white bishop is very powerful, being an important piece for both de fence and attack.

22.ttJce3 �d5? Positional capitulation! 22 ...'ilff7 would have maintained the tension, although there is no doubt that Black is worse.

23.�d5 c;i;>h8 Sticking to the wrong plan.

24.�e4! Now the bishop is the strongest piece on the board. Judith, relieved by the - for Alexey - unnatu rally passive treatment, does not hesitate and springs into action.

1 6... l2Jg6 Shirov's play seems rather lacking in confidence as he changes his strategy. 16 .. .f5 would have been more consistent.

1 7.a4 ttJce7 1 8.a5 Polgar has established a lasting plus on the queenside.

1 8 ...f5 1 8 . . .jldS 19.cd5 tl:Jf4, accepting slightly worse prospects, was suggested by Polgar after the game, but Ljubojevic thought that 19.ed5 was definitely the way to recapture, with a very com fortable position.

24... ttJe6 25. 'ilfdS l2Jd4 25 . . . tl:Jf4 26.'ifdl ! followed by f3 and l:tf2.

26. .l:!.ce1 .l:i.f7 27.f4! ef4 28.'i\fd4 fe3 29..l:!.f7 29.'ilfe3 J:te8! could be annoying.

29 .'iff7 30..l:!.e3 l:tf8 31 ..l:!.e1 'ilff4?! ..

Playing for the trick 32.g3 tl:Jf3 . 3 1 ...tl:Jf5 32.'iff2! would also lead to a hopeless ending.

32.'ii'e3 'iff6 32 ... 'iff7 33.�d5 ! makes it impossible to defend the b7 pawn as Black has to reckon with the invasion 34.'ii'e 7.

33.jLb7 'ii'b2 34.b5!

1 9.ef5 tZ:lfS 19 . . .�d5 ! ? 20.fg6 (20.cd5 tl:Jf4) 20 ...jle4, fight ing for equality, was an option.

20.�f3 Polgar refrained from 20.�d3 because of 20 . . .�5 2 l . .�f5 J:tfS 22.'ilfd5 ..tth 8 and Black is okay.

20... l2Jfh4?! A semi-active move as the knight has no future any more.

21 .�e4 tZ:lf4

Material is not important as long as White creates a passed pawn.

1 09

34 ... ab5 35.cb5 'ii'b5 36.a6 d5 37.l:[c1 ! 'ifa4 With the idea of 38.a7 'ii'a 2!

38. 'ifcS! Ild8 39.a7 tt:lg2

110

A last desperate attempt to confuse Polgar.

40.a8'tW Ila8 41 .ďż˝a8 And because 41 . . .'ii'g4 fails to 42.'ii'c 8 Shirov resigned.

Round 2 An and

- Shi rov

1/2 - 1fz

Kamsky

- Polgar

0- 1

Salov

- Karpov

1 -0

Lj u bojevi c

- lvanchuk

1 -0

51 32.9 D A nand • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket Although in a double round event like this the players have an equal number of games with White and Black, Shirov was in the unfortunate situation of starting the tournament with two Blacks.

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 eS 5.tt:Jb5 d6 Shirov stubbornly sticks to the same defence he lost with the day before.

6.c4 �e7 7.�d3 Anand has his own rather unusual treatment of this system. Everybody else plays 7 .tt:l 1c3

Polgar An and Salov Lj ubojevic lvanch u k Kamsky Karpov Shirov

2 1 .5 1 .5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Until now most adherents of this line have gone in for the odd-looking 1 0. .. �g4 to provoke 1 l .f3, in order to continue 1 l ...�e6, 1 2 ... tt:lh5 and .ig5 . In the game Nijboer-Schmittdiel, Leeuwarden 1 993, White simply played 1 1 .£i.e2 and after the retreat 1 1. .. j(e6 secured an enduring plus with 1 2.£i.e3 Ik8 1 3 .'i!i'd2 'i!i'a5 1 4J:!.fd 1 l:!.fd8 1 5.f3 l:!.d7 16.tt:ld5 ! Anand considers 10 .. .�e6 with the idea of 1 1 . ..lLld7 and tt:lc5 as Black's best option.

1 1 .b3! Securing the pawn chain and at the same time making it possible to avoid the exchange of the dark-squared bishop.

1 1 ... �g5 1 2.�b2 Keeping an eye on the only weakness in his position, the d4 square.

1 2 �e6 1 3.tt:Jc2 l:!.c8 1 4.'it>h1 ! .•.

••.

tt:Jf6

The most common response, but in Ye-Salov, Tilburg 1994, Valery preferred 7 . .. a6 8.ttJ5c3 �g5 to exchange the dark-squared bishops im mediately, and after 9.tt:la3 .ic1 1 0.l:!.c1 lLlf6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.lLlc2 £i.e6 1 3.'i!i'd2 'i!i'b6 he easily managed to maintain the balance.

8.0-0 0-0 9.tt:J1c3 a6 1 0.tt:Ja3 tt:Je8

Clearly the Indian grandmaster has read the books of the world's best trainer Mark Dvoret sky, as this is a beautiful example of prophylaxis ! The general idea is to play g3 and f4 after which the king is well placed in the corner.

1 4 tt:Je7? .••

Too passive. Alexey should have given his oppo nent the same treatment with the useful 14 ... g6. 111

1 5.'i!fe2 Now after Shirov's concession, development can be completed.

1 5 ... g6 1 6.l:l.ad1 CiJg7 1 7.CiJe3 White's advantage is evident as 18.�bl and �a3 will increase the pressure on the weaknesses.

1 7 .. .'ifb6! Panic reactions like 1 7 .. .f5 1 8 .ef5 gf5 19.�bll would only make things worse.

1 8.l:l.fe1 CiJc6! Sometimes admitting mistakes is better than try ing to hide them, but I guess this also applies in normal life!

1 9.�b1 ! 19.lucd5 ifc5 20. .ibl would give Black a chance to improve on the game with 20 ...f5 !?.

21 ...f5! Ofcourse Shirov profits from this inaccuracy and becomes active right away.

22.'ifg3?! Anand does not want to change his mind and executes his plan, but 22.ef5 deserved more at tention as after 22 ... lt:Jf5 23.lLlf5 �f5 24.'ifg3 �h6 25.�f5 :tf5 26.f3 White would preserve his positional advantage, and even after Black's most precise defence 22 . . .�e3 23.'ife3 'ife3 24.lt:Je3 lt:Jf5 I prefer the white position.

22 ... �e3! 23.fe3 l:l.f7! Doubling on the f-file with a strong initiative. One could discuss whether 23 ... :td7 (with the same idea) was more exact.

24.ef5

1 9... l:l.cd8 19 .. .lud4?! 20.'ifd3 was no use as the unpleasant 21 .lt:Ja4 ! is hard to meet.

20.CiJcd5 'ifcS 21 .'iff3?

24...�f5! 24... lt:Jf5? 25 .�f5 �f5 26.e4 �e6 27.�c l ! was what Anand was hoping for.

25.�f5 lLJf5 26.'ifg5 l:tdf8 27.h3! Vishy chooses the wrong way to drive the bishop away from g5. Much better was 2 l .g3 ! with the idea 22.f4 as mentioned above. Both 2 l ...�e3 22.lLJf6 �h8 23.'ife3 and 2 1 ...f5 22.ef5 gf5 24.f4 ! would give White an overwhelming posi tion. The last desperate attempt by the Latvian grandmaster - during the post mortem 2 l . . .f5 22.ef5 �e3 was severely punished by 23.fe6 :tf2 24.'ife3 'ife3 25.:te3 l:tb2 26.e7 ! 112

The right moment to make this useful move, so that there will never be mate on the back rank.

27...b5 To strike against the base of the pawn structure.

28.e4 CiJfd4 29.cb5 ab5 30...tc1 ! There was no longer any future on the a l -h8 diagonal, but now the bishop is very much alive again as it is aiming for h6.

Round 2

30 ... 'f/a7 More direct was 30...'Wi'c2 as then 3 1 .�4 could be answered with 3 l ...'Wi'f2! The players therefore analyzed 3 1 .'Wi'g4 after which Black has many possibilities viz. 3 l .. .lLle7, 3 l ...h5 ! ?, 3 l ...'Wi'a2 and 3 1 . . .J::!.f2.

31 .'f/h4 3 1 .'Wi'g4 ! ? was interesting, because penetration via the light-squared diagonal is more likely and 3 1 .. .�g7 fails to 32.'Wi'h4!

31 ... tt:Jc21 32.Ug1 Otherwise the invasion on f1 would be decisive.

38.�e3 l:t8f7 39.'ii'c8 l:t1 f2?? A terrible blunder in time trouble. 39 ... lLldc2! would have continued the attack with the minor pieces.

40.�f2 l:tf2 41 .'it'd7? Surprised by the voluntary exchange sac by his opponent, Vishy overlooks a simple win with 4l .'Wi'c7! �h6 42.lLle3 ld.e2 43.lLlg4 �g5 44.'Wi'c l !

41 ...�h61 Now it is an open fight again.

42.lt:Je3 l:te2 43.lt:Jg4 �g5

32..:ti'f21 33.'f/g4 The ending would be in Black's favour as the white pawns are easy targets.

33 ... �g7

44.�g1 1

34.l:i.gf1 ? 1 Vishwanathan made this very risky move as a result of an erroneous assessment of the arising position. 34.'Wi'e6 is ineffective after 34 .. .'ifc5, but 34.a4!, as proposed by Shirov, was a very good move to divert attention from the kingside. Still, the bat tle would be as sharp as in the game after 34 ...ba4 35.ba4 lLl6d4 (35 ...h6!?) 36..tld2 h5 !

34 ... 'ti'f1 35.l:i.f1 l:tf1 36.�h2 tb6d4 37.�g5 lt:Je1 The white king is in much more danger than its opposite number.

A fine defence. The fact that material is not very important in these positions is illustrated by the variation 44.'Wi'd6 lLldf3 ! 45.�hl �f4 ! ! (45 .. .J:lg2 46.'Wi'f6 �h5 47.'Wi'f3 ! with a drawish knight ending) 46.gf3 (46.'Wi'f6 �g3 47.lLle5 J::!.f2! ) 46. ..lLlf3 47.'it'd3 J::!.a2 48.'Wi'fl �g3 ! fol lowed by 49 ...h5, when White is hopelessly lost. However, he could also have saved his skin by 44.'Wi'h7 ! J::!.g2 45.�hl �f4 ! 46.'Wi'f7! (46.'Wi'g6 lLldf3 and 46.lLle5 de5 47.'Wi'h4 �f3 48.'Wi'el lLle2! 49.'ifdl b4! 50.'Wi'd3 �f4 are insufficient defenses) 46... �g3 47.'Wi'g6 �h4 ! 48.'Wi'h6 �g3 49.'ti'g6.

44...<t>f4 45.'ii'd6 l::tg2 46.�f1 lt:Jdf3 47.lt:Je5 l:i.g1 48.<t>f2 l:tg2 Draw. This was perhaps the most complicated game of the tournament! Comments are based on the notes of Anand. 113

51 36.5 D Kamsky • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket Not only the clash between the two youngsters of the tournament but also a fight (despite their good relationship) between the genders, as Gata is supported by his father and Judith by her mother.

1 .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.ttJd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 ttJc6 6.ttJdb5 Kamsky decides to transpose to the Sveshnikov Variation as most people do, because the alterna tive 6.ttJc6 bc6 7 .e5 ttJd5 8.ttJe4 leads to very complicated and - more importantly - very irregular positions which contain a lot of risk for both sides.

6 d6 .•.

6. . .�b4 7.a3 .ic3 8.ttJc3 d5 9.ed5 ed5 has quite a reasonable reputation nowadays and White

114

players should certainly take this line into ac count.

7.�f4 es 8.�g5 a6 9.ttJa3 �e6 Judith opts for the Bird!Larsen Variation and avoids the main line for an obvious reason, as Kasparov has recently started showing the way for White.

1 O.ttJc4 ttc8 1 1 ..if6 The most fashionable treatment.

1 1 .. .'iVf6 Rather unusual as l l . ..gf6 i s typical of the Svesh nikov.

1 2.ttJb6 All standard according to theory, but many famous grandmasters in the press room were wondering what was wrong with the greedy 12.ttJd6. Sveshnikov himself gives 12 . . . �d6 1 3.'*¥d6 .l:f.d8 ! 14.�c5 ttJd4 1 5.�d3 �g5 ! 1 6.\t>fl J:!.c8 ! with sufficient compensation, and who am I to disagree?

1 2...J:!.b8 1 3.ttJcd5

Round 2

1 3 ... 'ifg6? ! Again Polgar goes for the most dubious choice, clearly having made up her mind to surprise her opponent. 1 3 ... 'ii'd8 14.c3 �e7 (14... g6? 1 5.'ik'a4! and the threat 1 6.�a6 is impossible to parry) 1 5 ..ic4 0-0 16.0-0 �g5 1 7 .a4 as in Karpov Nunn, London 1 982, is known to be slightly better for White.

1 4.'ifd3 Defending the e4 pawn and at the same time making it possible to castle queenside.

1 4... ..ie7 1 5.g3?! 1 5.lt:Jc7 �d8 1 6.lt:Jcd5 f5 1 7.0-0-0 is an old rec ommendation by Karpov, but apparently both Kamsky and Polgar believe that Black is doing fine.

1 5 ... 0-0 1 6...ig2 ..id8 1 7.0-0 17.c3 f5 1 8 .ef5 �f5 19.'ii'c4 �h8 leaves White with a very weak point at d3 .

1 7...�h8?! Too slow and a very unfortunate move. Much more to the point were both 1 7 ... �b6 1 8 .ltJb6 l:!.bd8 followed by lt:Je7 and the immediate 17 ... lt:Je7 with an approximately equal position in either case.

1 8.t2Jc4! t2Je7 18 .. .f5 1 9.t2Jd6 f4 20.lt:Jf5 ! does not yield enough counterplay and 1 8 ... lt:Jd4 1 9.lt:Jde3 ! (19.lt:Jce3 'ik'h5 20.'ii'd 1 'ii'd 1 2 l .�ad1 �d5 22.ed5 g6=) 19 . . .�c7 20.c3 forces the knight to retreat.

1 9.'il'a3!

Highlighting the weaknesses in Black's strategy.

1 9... ..id5 20.ed5 ..ic7 20 ... lt:Jc8 fails to the obvious 2 1 .ltJe5, but 20. . .b5 was playable, as after 2 l .it'd6 (21.ltJd6 b4 22.'i'a6 �b6) 21 ...'i'd6 22.lt:Jd6 .tlb6 23.lt:Je4 lt:Jd5 24.�fd1 t2Jf6 the White advantage is mini mal.

21 .�ad1 ? This mistake is hard to explain, as all of Gata's previous moves were based on the idea of mak ing 2 1 .t2Je5! possible, and now he suddenly hesi tates. Judith intended to reply 2 1 . . .de5 22.'i'e7 �d6 and after both 24. 'i'h4 and 24. 'i'd7 to begin some action with 24 ... f5.

21 ... t2Jg8! Suddenly Black is ready to start a very strong initiative on the kingside.

22.t2Ja5? Affected by his previous mistake he produces another serious error after which his situation becomes very critical.

22 ... f5 23.c4 f4 24.c5 f3! White is far too slow to compensate for this terrifying attack.

25 ...ih1 Sad but true, as after 25.�h3 'i'h5 26.�e6 ..ia5 27.it'a5 .l:!.be8! 28.�h1 (28.h4 J:!.f4 ! ?) 28 . . . l:!.f6 29.cd6? l:!.ee6 30.de6 it'h3 3 l .�g 1 'i'h2 32.Wh2 l:th6 White gets mated.

25... ..ia5 26.'i!Va5 e4!

115

Burying the bishop. 27.l:l.fe1

Kamsky's only chance is to sac the exchange on e4 so that the f3 pawn might become vulnerable. 27.c6 lLJf6 followed by lLJh5 and lLlf4 would be complete torture. 27 tt:Jf6 28.cd6 't\Vg4 29J:td4 •••

The only way to prevent 29 . ..'i!Vh3 and 30. .. lLlg4. 29 l:l.be8 30. 'i!Vb4 'ifh3! •.•

Sharply calculated! 31 .l:l.de4 tt:Je4 32J:te4 'fitS!

Stressing that mate is the goal of the game. 33 .::1.e8 I:te8 34.h4 I:te2! 35.d7 •

There was nothing to be done against the inva sion on b1 and f2 as 35 .'i!fc5 I:te1 36.'1t>h2 I:th1 37.'it>h 1 'i!fh3 would also mean the end. 35 'ii'b1 36.'it>h2 .::l.f2 37.'it>h3 •..

51 40.6 D Salov • Karpov Notes by]eroen Piket Before the tournament there was a lot of specu lation about which variation Karpov would use as his main defence, as in the last two decades he has limited himself to the Petroff Defence, the Ruy Lopez and of course for several years the Caro-Kann. 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jc6 5.tt:Jc3 't\Vc7 6 ..ie2 tt:Jf6 7.it.e3 a6

Karpov has opted for a Taimanov-Paulsen hy brid, one he knew very well as he played it in his youth. 8.0-0 it.b4 9.tt:Ja4!

Thanks to this move the whole system came under a cloud, but the FIDE Champion obviously thinks it is still playable. 9 �e7!? .••

Karpov and many others used to play 9 ...0-0, but that runs into difficulties after 10.f4 ! , as I re cently witnessed during the Moscow Olympiad 1994 in the game Ye-Timrnan. 1 0.tt:Jc6

10.lLJb6 ! ? I:tb8 1 1 .lLJc8 I:tc8 1 2.lLlc6 'i!fc6 13 .e5 lLld5 14 ..id2 'f!/c7 1 5 .c4 was a once in a lifetime try by the Swiss player Franzoni against Pia Cramling. 1 o ... bc6 1 1 .tt:Jb6 37 h5! ! •••

The beautiful point of the combination started at move thirty. 38.'iff8

38 .d8'i!f 'it>h7 also loses despite the extra queen. 38 'it>h7 .••

And desperately searching for something that is not there, Kamsky overstepped the time limit. The comments on this game are based on the notes of Polgar. 116

1 1 . .ib6 is an alternative which appeals very much to me, as I am not convinced that Black has enough compensation after 1 l ...'i!Vb8 12.�d4 lLJe4 1 3 ..if3 lLJgS 14.lLlb6 0-0 1 5 .lLla8 lLJf3 16.'f!/f3 'ita8, Geller-Andersson, Linares 1983. 1 1 .. J:i.b8 1 2.tt:Jc8 't\Vc8 1 3.e5

13.�d4 dS 14.ed5 cdS 1 5.c4 ! ? is a completely independent variation which has to be tested in practice. 1 3 tt:Jd5 1 4.�c1 •••

Round 2

The almost forgotten 14.�d4!? c5 15.c4 cd4 16.cd5 �c5 17.�f3 �g5 1 8 .�d3 J:.b2 19J:tfb1 �c2 20.�c2 J:.c2 2 l .l:tb8 �d8 22.J:.a8 a5 23.d6 as in Mecking-Portisch, Sousse 1967, is ready for improvements. 1 4... �c5 1 5.�d3

In the sixth round Shirov tested Karpov with 1 5.c4. My suggestion is 1 5.a3 a5 1 6.�3 ! ? and I prefer White. 1 5 ... 0-0

Beliavsky-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1 984, saw 1 5 . . .�c7 1 6.�e4 aS 17.c4 Ci:Je7 1 8.�h1 0-0 1 9.i.d3 Ci:Jg6 20.f4 d6 with chances for both sides. 1 6.'ii'g3

16.b3 �c7 1 7.�b2 a5 1 8.a4 f6 19.ef6 Ci:Jf6 20.�f3 J:.f7 2 l .l:tae1 with a very unclear posi tion was seen in Hiibner-Andersson, Tilburg 1987.

1 8...a4! 1 9.�h6

19.a3 ab3 20.cb3 came into consideration . as it creates a passed pawn. 1 9... �f8 20.h4

20.J:.d4 is harmless because of 20 ... J:.b4 ! 20...'ii'c7 21 .�g5

Admitting that the attack does amount to much. 21 ... ab3 22.ab3 J:l.a8 23.c4 tt:lb4 24.'ii'c3 c5

After some regrouping of the pieces the position is balanced. 25 ..tf3 l:ta1 26.l:ta1 d6

26 ... d5 would have demanded a more critical reply by White. 27.�f4 J:l.d8 28.h5 h6 29.l:td1 ?!

29.ed6 would have taken all tension out of the game. 29... de5?!

In time pressure Karpov does not want to take a risk but 29 ... d5 ! was a good move, as after both 30.cd5 ed5 3 1 .g3 �d7 and 30.g3 d4 3 l .�d2 J:.b8 ! the black position is preferable. 30..I:i.d8 'ii'd B 31 .�e5 �d7 32.g3 tt:ld3 33..tc6! �dB!

It is typical of the fighting spirit of the players that neither offered a draw. 34.'ii'd2 .te7 35..tc3 .tg5 36.�d1 tt:lc1 ! 37.'ii'c2 1 6... J:I.e8!

A very subtle refinement over the previously played 16 ...Ci:Je7 and 1 6 ... �h8. It is evident that Karpov feels very much at ease in these kinds of positions. 1 7.l:td1 aS 1 8.b3?!

Lanka recommends 1 8.�d3 and the advance of the h-pawn as a better plan, and I am attracted by the little move 18 .a3 to be followed by 19.b3 so that B lack cannot exchange his weak a-pawn. Note that 1 8 . . .a4 would be answered by 19.�6 �f8 20.J:.d4 !

37 .�d8 �d8 would lose material because of the knight's many threats. 37...'ti'd3 38.'ti'd3 tt:ld3 39.�f1 tt:lc1

39 ... �f6 or 39 ...�f8 were the expected moves, drawing without any problem. 40.�a4 �f6??

The notorious mistake on move 40. 40... �f8 would still have kept everything under control. 41 . .tf6 gf6 42.b4!!

117

60...\iidG 61 .\iie4 \iic7 62.g4

Black resigns. A fortunate but very important victory by Salov.

51 1 9.6 D Lj uboj evic • Ivanchuk Notes by Ljubomir Ljubojevic Missed by Karpov when he offered the exchange of dark-squared bishops. Suddenly he is completely lost. 42...\iifS

42 ...cb4 43.c5 b3 44.c6 (44.�b3?? lLlb3 45.c6 lLld2 46.'itie2 lLlc4 47.c7 lLld6) and the white pawn is unstoppable. 43.b5!

Now the knight is locked in the cage and Karpov has to stand by and watch how his opponent will finish the job. 43 ... \iie7 44.�c2 fS 45.\iie1

45.f3 followed by 46.'itif2 and 47.'itie3 was also winning. 45 ... lba2 46.\iid2 lbb4 47.�b1 \iid6 48.\iie2 \tieS 49.\iie3 \iff6

It is an unfair fight as Black will always get into Zugzwang. 50.\iff4 \iie7 51 .\iieS f6 52.\iif4

Now he has provoked the final weakness and is ready to win by sacrificing the bishop for too many pawns. 52 \iff7 53.b6 lbc6 54.b7 \iie7 55.�f5! \iid6 •••

After 55 . . .ef5 56.Wf5 Wf7 57.f4 lLlb8 58.g4 lLlc6 59.g5 fg5 60.fg5 hg5 6l .'itig5 'itig7 62.<iit f5 <iith6 63.We4 lLlb8 64.Wd5 White wins very comfortably. 56.�e4 lbb8 57.�g6 \iic7 58.�f7 \iid6 59.i.e8 \iie7 60.�b5

Again the knight is completely dominated and Karpov could have spared himself the rest. 118

After losing to Anand in the first round the night seemed endless to me, as I was trying to achieve peace of mind after an absurd and unjustified defeat. Over and over the moves and respective positions kept recurring in my mind, and I won dered how I could have missed so many simple wins. The only way to get a decent sleep, I thought, was to exhaust myself emotionally. I knew that tomorrow's game was now more im portant, but as the tournament had just started, I was still 'fresh' with energy and there was no way I could close my eyes until I had taken breakfast at 7 a.m.! My worries were how to play Ivanchuk, my opponent of today, after so miserable a night and a rest of no more than 4 hours. He is one of the world's best players, at least I consider him so. Well prepared, always with new and fresh ideas. As I had drawn number one in the tournament, I was playing White for the second time and my thoughts were directed toward not taking any risk, in order not to lower my morale by a possi ble second defeat, which would make me lose my self confidence. Maybe you have heard the rule: make a draw after a loss ; at this moment it seemed more than acceptable to me. I couldn't guess the line my opponent would play, but my decision was made. On the sixth move I would opt for 6.g3, no matter which line B lack chose! Let's see what eventually happened ... 1 .e4 cs 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbf6 S.lbc3 a6 6.g3

The invitation to the Najdorf, one of the sharpest lines, was tempting me for a while. However, I was afraid to get into positions where you must

Round 2

exactly calculate straight variations without mis takes and my intuition also did not suggest such adventures. I remembered some games playing Black against 6.g3; White was always very solid and if Black is too ambitious he can be severely punished. After some minutes of visible surprise Vasily made a series of moves very quickly, as he knows how to set up his pieces. 6 ... lLJc6 7.�g2 �d7 8.0-0 e6 9.a4 �e7 1 0.h3

10.li:Jde2 followed by l l .h3, 12.g4, 1 3.li:Jg3 is a well known plan for White. My move gave Black the opportunity for 1 0 ... li:Jd4 l l .'ird4 0-0 1 2.eS deS 1 3 ."ifeS "il'c8 with good play. 1 0...0-0 1 1 .lLJb3

White's strategy is to exchange as few pieces as possible in order to keep more space and hamper Black's piece mobility in the reduced area. Ivanchuk's next move is natural, as c6 is a good square for his bishop after exchanging knights. White's other possibility was l l .li:Jde2 with more complicated play, which is precisely what I was not seeking. 1 1 ... tLJa5 1 2. lLJa5 'f/c7 1 4.a5

'iVas

1 3.i.d2

With one piece less the position is simpler and White does not have much choice about where to put his pieces. lt is logical to block the mobility of Black's b-pawn and increase control over the b6 square, which might be one of the motives for White to play on. 1 4...�c6 1 5 ..l:l.e1

This is unnecessary. 1 S ..ie3 was more natural. I was preventing the immediate 1S ...li:Jd7 by 16.li:JdS, but my opponent is well aquainted with these positions. 1 5... .l:l.ae8

A good move, but only if connected with a pos sible break-out by fS, which in my opinion un necessarily weakens the a2-g8 diagonal. I think 1 S ....l:l.fe8 is more natural. After the text move Black should have gone for more complications, in accordance with this last move, but... 1 6...ie3 lLJd7 1 7. ..id4 �f6

I was happy with this decision of my opponent. The d6 pawn will be a possible target for me. I had expected, and considered the more interest ing 17 .. .fS 1 8.efS .ig2 19.'1t>g2 'flc6 20.'iff3 eS 21 .li:JdS .id8 22 ..ic3 e4 23 .'ifg4 and White is okay. Or 20...'iff3 21 .�f3 .!IfS 22.<t>g2 .id8 23.li:Je4 with more or less equal chances. 1 8.�f6 lLJf6 1 9.'f/d4 .l:l.e7 20.'il'b4

The a5 pawn must be protected. If Black can free his position with d6-d5, without making an iso lated pawn, his position would present abso lutely no problems. Only if the pressure along the d-file becomes realistic might Black have some problems in freeing himself. But I must say that I didn't see how I could prevent dS by getting some concessions from my opponent. 20... l:ld7 21 .l:lad1 l:Ifd8

To prepare dS and always recapture with a piece is the right decision. With many pieces on the board, the isolated pawn could be unpleasant. 22 . .l:l.d4 h6

Perhaps it is possible to lose some time and delay dS. I saw that 22...dS 23.eS lLle4 24.li:Je4 de4 2S . .!Id7 .!Id7 26 ..ie4 .ie4 27 ..!Ie4 'flc2 or 27.'ife4 'ifa5 would lead to a dead drawn posi tion. I had in mind also 24.li:Jdl ?! with the idea 2S.g4, 26.f3, but GM Jeroen Piket pointed out after the game that 24 .. .f6 2S .ef6 gf6! would give Black chances of taking the initiative. White cannot tolerate Black's knight on e4 for long. 23.l:Ied1 d5 24.ed5 lLJd5 25.lLJd5 �d5 26.c4!

If 26 ..idS lidS 27 .lidS lidS 28 ..!Id5 edS, White 119

is only symbolically better. I am sure that the move I played created more problems for Black than it would seem, and Ivanchuk realised this after some thought. He probably regretted that he had not played 22 ... d5 . 2 6...�g2 27.l:td7 l:td7 28.l:td7 'ifd7 29.�g2 'ifc6 30.�g1

35.'iYa6 'iYg5 (if 35 . . .'iYb4?! 36.'iYd3 'it>g8 37.a6 with some chances) 36.'it>fl 'iYcl 37.'it>e2 'iYc2 38.'it>e3 'iYc l 39.'it>d4 'iYb2 40.'it>c5 'i!Yf2 4 l .'it>c6 'i!Yf3 42.'it>c7 'i!Yf7 43. 'it>b8 'iYf8 44. 'it>a7 'iYb4 45.'iYd3 'it>h8 46.a6 e5 47.'iYd8 'it>h7 48.'iYb6 'iYe7 49.'it>b8 'iYe8 50.'it>c7 'iYe7 5 l .'it>c6 'i!Yf6 etc. with a draw. In view of this line White should reject 34.gf4 and instead try 34.b5 fg3 35.b6 gf2 36.'it>f2, hoping to get his king to a7 to promote his b-pawn, which would be the only chance of playing for a win. 32.b4 g5?

32. ..'it>h7 33.b5 f4 34.gf4 'iYbl 35.'it>h2 'iYe4 was still an excellent practical chance to save the game. The text move is the decisive mistake. 33.b5 f4 34.gf4 gf4 35.ba6 ba6 36.'ti'a6 f3 37.'ifc8 �f7 38.'ifc7 �f6 39.�h2

30...f5?!

By force we have entered a queen endgame where White keeps a slight edge due to his queenside pawn majority. Black's last move is probably his first mistake in the game. Piket was right when he showed that 30 ...e5 ! 3 1 . 'iYb6 'iYc4 32.'iYb7 e4 33.b4 e3 34.fe3 'iYc l 35.'it>f2 'iYc2 is a draw. White can still oblige Black play pre cisely by 33.'iYb6 'iYd3 34.b4 'iYdl 35 .'it>g2 'i!Yf3 36.'it>h2 'iYe2 37.b5 e3 ! (not 37 ... ab5 because 38.a6 wins) 38 .'iYe3 'iYb5 with a draw. It is nice to see that chess is a very precise game, even when it doesn't look too complicated. All of Black's moves up to this point were quite logical. Only his last move brings him into danger and a slightly worse queen endgame proves enough to lose the game. 31 .'ifb6 'ife4

31 .. .'iYb6? 32.ab6 'it>f7 33.c5 'it>e7 34.c6 was impossible for Black, but another possibility was 3 1 .. .'iYc4 32.'iYb7 'it>h7 33.b4 f4 34.gf4 'i!Yf4

1 20

Black resigned here but some people were asking why. After 39 ...e5 40.'iYd6 'it>g7 4 l .'ife7 �g6 42.'iYe6 'it>h7 43.'iYf7 'it>h8 44.a6 'iYe2 45.�g3 etc., or 40 ...'it>f5 4 l .'i!Yh6 'iYc4 42.'iYh5 'it>f6 43. 'iff3 White remains two pawns up. I was lucky to win, after playing without much ambi tion, but with the help of my opponent. It has happened many times to me, as well as to my opponents, that modesty has brought many more points than one would expect!

Round 3 lvanchuk

- Anand

1 -0

Karpov

- Lju bojevic

1 -0

Polgar

- Salov

0- 1

Shi rov

- Kamsky

Salov Polgar An and lvanchu k Karpov Kamsky Ljubojevic Shirov

1/2 - 1/2

51 33.7 D Ivanchuk • Anand Notes by Vasiry Ivanchuk 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4

During the course of 1994 I twice had to play matches with Anand in quickplay events. The first occasion was in the semi-fmal of the Moscow stage of the Grand Prix, where I lost �-1 �. the outcome of the match being largely decided by the first game, which I lost as White in the Maroczy Variation. On the second occasion we met in the final of the London stage of the Grand Prix, and I managed to win that match with a score of 2�-2� (with the score standing at 2-2, I chose 5 minutes and the black pieces against my opponent's 6 minutes and the white pieces, and secured a draw.) It should be mentioned that in both of my white games from the London match I did not allow my opponent to play the Accelerated Dragon, by choosing 3 .ig_b5. To employ this same weapon in Buenos Aires was not possible (the tournament was a thematic one, and the moves 3 .d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 were obligatory). And then, literally the day before our game, Anand said to me: 'Vasily, it is to your advantage that with White on the 3rd move it is only permitted to play d2-d4', and he

2.5 2.0 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

reminded me of my game with Timman, which I lost as Black in the last round of the 1994 Am sterdam tournament, and as a result of which I had failed to share first place with Kasparov. I would remind you that this ill-starred game be gan 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 d6 3.ig_b5 ig_d7 4.'it'e2 etc. And then, after thinking a little, Anand continued: 'On the other hand, you can't now play 3 ..ib5 against me.' And he made a significant gesture with his index finger. On the basis of these words and gestures by Anand, I realised that, although my opponent employs various lines of the Sicilian Defence, I should first and foremost expect the Accelerated Dragon, and before the game I pre pared exclusively for this variation. 3 ... cd4 4.lt:Jd4 g6 5.c4

Avoiding the Maroczy Variation by 5.lt:Jc3 .ig7 6.�e3 lLlf6 7.i.c4 has, in my opinion, one sig nificant drawback. By continuing 7 ...0-0 8 .�b3 d6 9 .f3 ig_d7 Black transposes into the normal Dragon, at the same time avoiding 9.0-0-0, which is unpleasant for him in the alternative move order l .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 lLlf6 5.lt:Jc3 g6 6.i.e3 i.g7 7.f3 0-0 8.'it'd2 lt:Jc6. 5 lt:Jf6 6.lt:Jc3 d6 7.�e2 lt:Jd4 8.'it'd4 �g7 9.�e3 0-0 1 0.'it'd2 �e6 1 1 .0-0 'it'a5 1 2. .l:[ab1 ! ? .••

This new plan, which I prepared beforehand, con121

sists in placing one rook at b 1, and the other at cl, by which White seriously hinders the oppo nent's counterplay on the queenside with ...b7-b5. 1 2 .. Jlfc8 1 3.b3 lLld7

13 ...b5 looked tempting, but after 14.b4! 'fic7 15.e5 ! ( 1 5 .tt:Jb5? is weaker on account of 1 5 ...'fib7) 15 . . .de5 1 6.tt:Jb5 'fib7 1 7.c5 ( 1 7.ti.fcl is also possible, and if 17 ...a6 1 8.tba3) White's position is slightly better, in my opinion. If instead 1 3 ...a6, then White plays 14JHc l , and in the variation 14...b5 1 5 .b4 ! 'fid8 16.cb5 ab5 17.�b5 Black has insufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, since on 17 ....l:!.a3 White simply plays 1 8 .�fl , not fearing 1 8 ....l:!.cc3 19 J:tc3 tt:Je4 20Jla3 tt:Jd2 2l...i d2±. Instead of 14 ...b5, seri ous consideration should be given to 14 ... J:!.ab8. 1 4.ti.fc1 'it'd8?!

With this move Anand as though admits that on this occasion the theoretical duel has ended in my favour. 14 . .. a6 looks more logical, and if 1 5.f4 ti.ab8, but not 15 ... b5? 16.b4! 1 5.tLld5 tt:Jcs 1 6.�f3! 1 22

White has advantageously managed without f2f3, a move which invariably seems essential in this variation. 1 6...a5 1 7.h4!

The attack on the kingside begins. Now in the event of 1 7 ... h5 White could have continued either 18.�g5 �d5 19.ed5 �f6 20. .l:!.el , or im mediately 1 8.J:!.e l . 1 7...�d5 1 8.ed5 'ii'd7 1 9.'it'e2

Round 3

After the immediate 19.h5 B lack could have activated his queen by 19 .. .'irf5 . With the move in the game White prevents this possibility. 1 9..J:te8

19 ...h5 suggests itself; I was intending to play 20.g4 hg4 2 l..�g4 f5 22.�h3! (22.i.f3 is weaker on account of 22 ... �f6 23.Wg2 c;¥;>g7 ! , intending 24 .. ..1�h8) 22. ..�f6 (otherwise 23.h5) 23.h5 g5 24.f3 ! (of course, not 24.'it'c2 g4 25 .�g4 fg4 26.'ifg6 Wh8 ! 27.'irh6, which leads only to per petual check) 24 ... c;t>h8 (24... c;¥;>f7?! 25.'ifc2! g4 26.fg4 �g8 27.l:lfl ! fg4 28.�g2±) 25.wh l ! �g8 26.�gl with a strong position. Now 26...J:lg7 is prettily refuted by 27.J:lg2! (27.'ifc2?! g4 28.fg4 fg4 29.h6 J:lgg8 !) 27 ... J:lh7 (27 ...J:lag8 28.�bgl ±) 28 .i.g5 J:lh5

24.g5 looked tempting, in order to activate the light-square bishop, but after 24 ...'iff5 25 .�g4 "ire5 I did not see how White could exploit the rather awkward position of the black queen (26.f4 'ife4 27.i.f3 'iff5). 24... tt:ld7!?

In anticipation of White's attack on the h-file, Black brings his knight closer to the kingside and prepares ... a5-a4, beforehand moving his knight away from the tempo-gaining b3-b4. 25.hg6 hg6 26..l:l.h4 a4

26 . ..tt:Je5 was premature on account of 27.�e4, intending 28 f4. 27.�bh1 !?

Of course, I could have kept a positional advan tage by 27.b4 lbe5 28.g5, but, having already played 24.J::rh 1 , I was aiming for an attack on the h-file. 27 ... ab3 28.ab3 .l::la 1 ? !

It is quite possible that this seemingly natural move is in fact the decisive mistake, since in many variations the unfortunate position of the black rook at al affords White additional tactical possibilities. In my opinion, Black should have preferred 28 ... b5, and if 29.cb5 'ifc3 . 29 .J:lh2 ! ! Wg7 (29 ...�g5 loses to 30.�f5 ! 'iff5 3 1 .l:rh5 Wg7 32.J:lgl +-, or 30 ... 'ife8 3 l .f4 ! +-) 30.�f6 ef6 (30... Wf6 3 Ulgl J:lah8 32.'ifg2 c;t>f7 33 .'ifg6 c;t>f8 34.J::r g5+-) 3 1 .l:lgl wf7 32.�g4 ! ! �h2 33 .'ifh2 fg4 34.'ifh5 We7 35.J::rg4 with a decisive attack. 20.h5 'iff5 21 Jld1 �e5?!

Here Black should probably have played 2l . . .gh5 ! ? 22.�h5 lbe4 23.'ifd3! 'ifh5 24.'fVe4 �e5 (or 24. ..f5 25.'ife6 'iff7), somewhat simply ing the position. 22.g4! 'fic8

Forced, since after 22 .. .'it'f6? 23.g5 ! the black queen is driven back to h8 (23 ...'iff5?? 24.�g4 'ife4 25.f3, winning the queen). 23. wg2 �g7 24. .tr.h1

29. .!:1.1 h3!

Of course. Now it is doubtful whether White's attack can be parried. 29 ... 'fia8 30J:Z.h7! �a2?!

On 30 ...�e5 White would have replied 3 1 .�f4!, and if 3 l ...�f4 32.�h8 Wg7 33 .J:Bh7 wf6 34.'il'e4 �g5 35.l:!.f7 (35.J::re8 'ife8 36.'ifd4 lLle5 37.'it'al+- is also sufficient) 35 . .. c;t>f7 36.l:rh7 c;¥;>f8 37.'ii'g6 wins for White, but perhaps by playing 3 l .. .jl,g7 (instead of 3 l ...�f4) Black could still have somehow held on. 31 ..tr.g7 wg7 32.�d4 ts

32 ... lbe5 33.�e5 deS 34.'it'e5 f6 35 .'ifh2 is win ning for White, as well as 32 ...lLlf6 33.'it'a2 J:la2 34.g5. 33.'fie3 tt:'lf8 34..ie4! wf7

1 23

A very cautious move but not a bad one. ECO gives 1 2 ...bS 1 3 .a3 b4 as the main continuation. 1 3...if3 l::tac8 1 4Jiad1 b5 1 5.a3 lLld4?!

Helping Karpov to stay in control. As Black's future play is on the queenside, 1 S ...tt:Ja5 ! was much more logical, with the idea of keeping the tension in the center after 16.eS with 16 ...tLle8. 1 6...id4 j.,c6 1 7.l::td 3?!

34 .. Jid1 3S.it'h6 �fl 36 ..ig6 t2Jg6 37.it'h7+-. 35 ..l:th8!

The threat of 36.it'h6 cannot be parried, there fore B lack resigned.

51 22.5 D Kar p ov

• Ljubojevic Notes by]eroen Piket One can never tell what would have happened if Polugaevsky had been able to participate in his own tournament, but it is a fact that this struggle between Karpov and Ljubojevic would not have been between the two veterans of the event. 1 .e4 c5 2.l2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 l2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 a6

Ljubojevic is a born Najdorf player and who knows, when somebody will challenge him with 6. .igS, we might get to see the Polugaevsky Variation. 6 ..ie2 e6 7.0-0 j.,e7 8.f4 �c7 9.�h1 0-0 1 0. 'ii'e1 tt:Jc6 1 1 .j.,e3 j.,d7 1 2.'ii'g3

Via the Najdorf we have entered the main line of the Scheveningen (A seasidP: resort in the Neth erlands for those who did not know) Variation. 1 2...�h8!?

1 24

The immediate 17.eS deS 18 .feS tLld7 19.tt:Je4 .ie4 20. .ie4 enables White to get the pair of bishops but these can easily be neutralized with 20...tt:JcS (20 ...fS ! ?) 21 ..if3 fS. During the post mortem Karpov found the very strong 17 .l::tde1 ! as the advance e4-eS gains greatly in strength. Black's main problem is that 17 ...l::tg8 (or 17 ... it'b7 1 8.b4 l::tg8) has the drawback of leav ing the f7 pawn unprotected, which becomes unpleasant after 18.eS! 17 ...a5 is not advisable as it forces the opponent to start the excellent ma noeuvre 1 8.tLld1 ! ( 1 8.eS deS 19.feS tLld7 20.lLJe4 .ie4 21 ..ie4 ttJcS! is okay for Black). The best answer to 1 7.Ude1 might be 17 . .. it'd7. 1 7...'ifb7

There is nothing wrong with this move, but others might prefer 1 7 ... aS so that the queenside does not get fixed. A matter of taste! 1 8.b4! l::tg8 1 9.e5

To delay this action with 19.l::te l or 19.l::te3 was preferable. 19 ... l2Je4! 20.tt:Je4 .ie4 21 .c3

Round 3

•••

�f3?

A ridiculous mistake, according to Ljubo, which indeed spoils the game. The mutual analyses did not agree about the position after the more or less forced 2 l ...f6 ! 22.ed6 (22.ef6? gf6 23. 'ii'h3 (23. 'ifh4 e5) 23 . . .i.f3 24.J:ldf3 e5 25 .fe5 deS 26.�c5 (26.�e5 fe5 27.J:lf7 J:lg7 28.J:lg7 <Jiig7 29.'it'g4 c;t>h8 30.J:lf7 J:lg8 ! and g2 needs protection) 26. ..i.c5 27.bc5 J:lc5 28.J:lf6 J:lc3 ! and Black has fully utilized the open g- file) 22...i.d6 23.'ii'h4 (23.i.e4 'ife4 24.J:le3 'it'f5 ! (24 ... 'ifd5 25.'it'g4!) 25 .'it'f3 J:lfe8 did not worry Ljubo one bit) 23 ...i.f3 24.J:ldf3 (24.J:lff3 ! ?) 24. . .e5 where Kar pov has to demonstrate whether he can achieve anything or should restrain himself to just mak ing a draw, as his queenside pawns can become targets. His best try would be 25 .fe5 ! (25 .f5 with the cheap trick 26.'ifh7 would yield nothing but trouble after 25 . .. g5 !) 25 . ..fe5 (25 ....ie5 26.J:lh3 ! is unpleasant) 26 ..ie3 (26.'ii'h7 is safest leading to perpetual check) 26 ... J:lc4 ! (26 ...J:lc3 27 .J:lh3 h6 28.i.h6 is clearly too dangerous) 27.'it'h5 'it'e4 ! with a very unbalanced position.

29 ... .t:ld4 30.cd4 'ifd4 31 .l:tgf3

Threatening to profit from the vulnerable back rank. 31 .. .'iVd6 32.l:tf7 .1i.e3 33.'iff3 .id4 34. .t:lf8

In exchange for activating his bishop Black had to allow this penetration and Karpov shows fault less technique. 34....1i.f6 35. .t:lg8 <Jiig8 36 .t:ld1 'ir'b6 37.'i!Va8 <Jiif7 38 .t:ld7 Wg6 •

•

22.I:!.df3 'ife4

To his great disappointment Ljubo now saw that the planned 22 .. .f6 fails to the very beautiful 23.'it'g6! ! and from now on he finds himself fighting a lost cause. 23.I:!.e3 'ifdS 24.'it'h3!

38 ...i.e7 39.'ii'a7 was also hopeless. 39.'ife4 Wh6 40. .t:ld3 'iff2 41 Jlh3 <JiigS 42 .C.g3 Wh6 43.l:lh3 <JiigS 44.I:!.f3 'i!Vd2 45.h4 <Jiih6 46.'i\Ye6 •

And Ljubojevic terminated his resistance.

With this move Karpov prevents Ljubojevic from playing f7-f6 and at the same time prepares a decisive breakthrough. 24... I:!.c4

The Yugoslav grandmaster is willing to give up the exchange for the tremendous bishop. 25.f5 .1i.g5 26.J:!.g3!

Not 26.J:leel f6 27.ed6 ef5 and Black is back in the game.

51 20.6 D Polgar • Salov Notes by Valery Salov

26 ... .1i.h6 27.fe6 fe6 28.ed6 'ifd6 29.'ifh5!

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.tt:Jc3 d6 6.g4 h6 7.g5 hg5 8..1i.g5 tt:Jcs 9 .1i.g2 .1i.d7 1 o.tt:Jb3!?

Completely dominating the position, and Ljubo is obliged to give up material to avoid getting mated.

White is planning to develop her queen on e2 where it will support the h-pawn in the future; however now Black need not waste time on the

•

1 25

manoeuvre 'ifd8-b6, as the knight d4 has left the centre voluntarily.

Black's inaccuracy on the 22nd move the chances are about equal.

1 0...a6 1 1 .'ife2 'f/ic7 1 2.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 3.h4 Wb8 1 4.h5 i..e7 1 5.f4 ttJg8!

24 ...fe5 25.ttJe5 ttJeS 26.fe5 ttJc6 27.�f3?

This method of neutralizing White's activity on the kingside was introduced by Ulf Andersson, one of the greatest masters of positional play. If 15 ...tt::lh7 1 6.�e7 tt::l e7 1 7.e5;!;.

Leading to grave problems for White; curiously Judit didn't even consider the best defence, 27.l':rc6! (the only move) 27 ...bc6 28.�f3 l':rh5 29.�h5 l':rh5 30.l':rfl l':rf5 3 1 .l':rf5 ef5=.

1 6.ttJd4 �f6! ?

And this seems to be something new; normally the manoeuvre tt::lf6-g8 is connected with the idea of �g5 and f6. After 16 ... tt::ld4! ? 17J:rd4 �g5 18 .fg5 tt:Je7 19.h6 gh6 20.gh6 tt:Jc6 2 l .l':rd3 tt:Je5 22.l':rg3 White has the initiative. 1 7.ttJf3 ttJge7 1 8.�f6 gf6 1 9.'it'd2

27...ttJe5 28.�e2 l:[g8 29.b4 �d7 30.ttJc3 .l:lg2 31 .l:[6d4 fS 32.Wb2 l:[h7 33.Wb3 l:[g3 34.Wb2 l:[g2 35.Wb3 .l:lh2 36.a4 l:[g7!

Now the second black rook enters the game and the pressure becomes unbearable. White is forced to give up some material. 37.b5 abS 38.ttJb5

38.ab5 l':rg3 39.b6 ..t>b6 40.l':rd7 tt::ld7 41 ..l:l.d7 .!:!.e2-+. 38...�b5 39.�b5 .l:l.hS 40. .t:rd6

40.l':rel tt::lf3 41.l':rc4 Wd6 42.l':rdl 'it>e5-+. 40....l:l.h1 41 J:t1 d2 l:rh2 42..t12d4 .l:l.h4 43..l:l.d2

Allows an elegant combination. Better is 43.l':rd l .

1 9... .!:ih6! !

Th e most difficult move of the game; now after 20.tt::ld4 tt::ld4 2 l .Wfd4 the f6 pawn is protected and Black is able to activate his bishop by 2 1 .. .�c6, obtaining excellent counterplay. Not 19 ...�c8? 20.tt::ld 4±. 20.'iVd6

White is more or less forced to accept the pawn sacrifice. 20... 'iVd6 21 . .l:l.d6 �c7 22.e5 .l:l.dh8

22 . . . l':rg8 !=F. 23. .l:l.hd1 �ea 24.ttJe4!

Judit is trying her best to maintain the initiative. White's extra pawn is of no importance; after 1 26

43... l:re4! 44.c4

44.l':re6 tt::lf3 ! 45 .l:!.e4 tt::ld2-+ eliminating both the white rooks. 44.a5 l':rg3 (44 ... l':rg2 45J:tg2 Wd6 46J:rg7 tt:Jc6-+) 45.c3 l':ree3 46.l::re6 .tk3 47. ..t>a2 l':ra3 48.'it>b l l':rgb3 49 . .l:l.b2 l::rb2 50.wb2 .!:!.a5 5 l .J:!.e5 �b6-+.

Round 3

44 .. J:tg2 45J:tg2

After 45.l:!.d1 b6 Black is also winning. 45 ... �d6 46.l:!.g7 b6

46 ...l:!.e3 47.'i£i'b4 b6 also wins. 47.�b4 ti:Jd3 48.'i£i'c3 tt:Jcs

White is mated after 49.�b4 :!.e3.

1 2.h4

51 28.3 D Shirov • Kamsky Notes byjeroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.ti:Jc3 tt:Jc6 6.i.g5 e6 7.'ifd2 �e7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4 ti:Jd4 1 0.'ifd4 'ifas

Obviously Kamsky prepared this line very thor oughly for this tournament, as it is the second time in a row that he defends with the Rauzer Variation. There might be a very good reason behind him getting to know all the details of this particular line, as his future opponent in the PCA matches will be Anand, who is also a big fan of this system. 1 1 .Wb1

Before this Shirov had created his own pet line with 1 l .�c4 �d7 12.l:!.d3 ! ?, which he had al ready played several times against Vladimir Kramnik. As both Alexey and Gata are very good in calculating complicated variations, a clash with this line would have been highly appreci ated, but Shirov decides to test Kamsky's knowl edge. 1 1 ... h6

Regarded as best, though the alternative 1 1 ... l:!.d8 is perfectly playable. 1 1 ...�d7 is not possible after White's previous king move because of 1 2.e5 !

1 2.�h4 e5 ! 13 .fe5 deS is definitely not a problem for Black, but the odd-looking 1 2.�f6 ! ?, as played by the late former World champion Mik hail Tal, is worth investigation, as after 1 2 ...i.f6 1 3.'ifd2 �c3 14. 'ifc3 'ifc3 1 5.bc3 :!.d8 16.e5 b6! (16 ...d5 1 7.c4 �d7 1 8 .cd5 ed5 19.l:!.d4! with a clear advantage, Liublinsky-Lyskov, Soviet Un ion 1949) 17.ed6�b7 1 8.l:!.g1 l:!.ac8 the endgame is very complex. 1 2 ...e5

It hardly needs to be said that accepting the piece sac with 12 ... hg5 is very dangerous due to 1 3 .hg5 tt::l g4 14.�e2 e5 1 5 .tt::ld5 ! 'i¥d8 1 6.'i¥g1 ! , Be liavsky-Tseshkovsky, Soviet Union 198 1 . Tai manov's 12 ...l:!.d8 leads to a position very diffi cult to assess after 1 3 .g4 e5 14.'i¥g1 ef4 15 .�f6 �f6 16.lLld5 �e5 17.g5 h5 1 8 .g6. 1 3.'ifd3 ef4! 1 4.�f4 �e6 1 5.tt:Jd5

1 5.�e2 l:!.ac8 1 6.lLld5 would give a similar type of position. 1 5 ... ti:Jd5 1 6.ed5 i.g4 1 7.i.e2 i.e2

17 ...�f6 would be too optimistic as Black faces a bleak future after 1 8.�d6 (18.�g4 'i!Vb4) 1 8 ...J:f.fd8 ( 1 8 ...'ik'b6 19.�a3 !) 19.�g4 l:!.d6 20.c3 ! 1 8. 'ife2 l;Ue8

Again 1 8 ...�f6 19.�d6 l:!.fd8 20.�e7 �e7 2 l .�e7 .l:ld5 22.�b7 simply leaves White a pawn up. 1 9Ji'g4

Shirov told me after the game that he believed 1 27

19.'iff3 was stronger, as now some weaknesses around his king can be provoked. 1 9... 'ifa4! 20.b3 'ii'b4 21 .'ii'g3 h5!

would have justified Kamsky's earlier decision to continue the battle. 29..tl.fe1 ! �g4?! 30.'ii'g4 31 ..td4! a6 32.�c2 g6 33.b4

hg4

33. <;tJd3 was predicted in the press room. 33 . ...ig7 can then be met by 34Jie8 �e8 35.�d2 and the majority on the queenside will become important. 33 ... �g7 34.�g7 �g7 35.a4

Alexey concentrates only on his plan, as prophy laxis like 35.g3 is not very useful because it loses too much time. 35... g3!

Active defence is always best in a rook ending. 2 1 .. Jbc8 ! ? was an interesting suggestion by Na jdorf to sacrifice the h6 pawn for active counter play after 22 . .ih6 .if6, but 22.�he l ! with com plete centralization is a much stronger plan.

36.�b3 f5 37. .tl.e6!

22.c4

As the Latvian grandmaster has already used up a lot of time, he is ready to go for a repetition of moves. 22... b5

To break up the opponent's pawn chain. 23..td2 �cs 24..tc3 .tta 25.�d4 �a3 26.�b2 �a6?!

Everybody (including Shirov) expected Gata to stick to the repetition of moves, which was also objectively best, but when one is a great fighter one has to take some risks once in a while. 27.cb5 �b5 28J:thf1

Anticipating Black's next move. 28 ... �e2?

I do not feel very enthusiastic about this move, as the ending seems to favour White. Instead I would propose 28 ... J::!.e2 ! (29."fif3 'ife8) which

1 28

A bold pawn race is not in White's favour. 37... .tl.e6 38.de6 �f6 39. .l:.d6 �e7 40. .tl.d3

Not getting overexcited by the material advan tage, as 40Jk6 f4 can be risky. 40 ... f4 41 .l:lf3 l::tf8 42.b5 ab5 43.ab5 �e6 44.�c4 l::tc8 45.�d4 tJtfS 46.b6 tJtg4 47.b7 .tl.b8 48.�e4

48Jib3 was no better due to 48 . .. f3 ! The balance remains undisturbed. Draw.

Round 4 An and

- Kamsky

1f2 - 1/2

Salov

- Shi rov

1J2 - 1f2

Lju bojevi c

- Polgar

1f2 - 1f2

lvanchuk

- Karpov

0- 1

51 1 7. 1 D A nand • Kamsky Notes byjeroen Piket Due to their past and future matches, this was definitely one of the two most difficult games in the tournament for both players. 1 .e4 c5 2.ltJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ltJd4 ltJf6 5.ltJc3 g6

Salov Karpov Polgar Anand lvanch u k Kamsky Lju bojevic Shirov

3.0 2.5 2.5 2 .0 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5

The most logical reply, as 9 . . .tt:Je4 1 0.lt:Jc6 lt:Jc3 1 1 .lLld8 lLle2 12.lLlt7 ! d5 13.�d5 e6 14.�c4 lt:Jd4 1 5.0-0-0 is clearly not to be recommended. 9 ...lt:Jd7 ! ? is an alternative which has not yet been tested in practice. 1 0.�d3 e5

Consistent and best, as 1 0... lt:Jc6 1 1 .0-0-0 lt:Jd4 1 2.�d4 �e6 1 3.�c4! was better for White in the above-mentioned Keres game. 1 Vub3

Remarkably enough the Dragon is regaining some of its popularity. The new generation like Tiviakov, Topalov and Kamsky frequently uses this opening to play for a win with Black. 6.�e3 �g7 7.f3 o-o 8.�c4 ltJc6 9.'1i'e2!?!

This move in itself is very interesting but gener ally speaking not better than 9.'ti'd2. The excla mation mark is just for using this surprise weapon at the right moment, as Kamsky was clearly surprised by this queen move. As far as I was able to find out, the move was first played by Keres against Lombardy, Wijk aan Zee 1969, a time when neither Anand nor Kamsky were yet on this earth! 9 ltJa5 .••

1 1 ...d5?

Giving the opponent a big positional plus with out a struggle. 1 1 ....ie6 12.0-0 J:lc8 is generally 1 29

accepted as theory and now in Tal-Gufeld, Sukhumi 1972, there followed 1 3 JUd1 tt:'lc4 14.�c4 �c4 15.iff2 b6 1 6. .1:!.d2 ii'c7 17 ..1:!.ad1 tt:'le8 ! and B lack took control. Allowing the knight to c4 seems like a concession and appar ently Frolov agrees with me, as in his game against Alterman, Soviet Union 1990, he contin ued 1 3 .tt:'la5 ifa5 14.tt:'lb5 (14.a3 ! ? can also be useful) 14 ...d5 1 5.tt:'la7 J:kd8 1 6.tt:'lb5 .l:!.d7 17.ii'e1 ii'a8 when he was simply a pawn up. 1 2.ed5 li:ld5 1 3.tt:ld5 'f!Vd5 1 4.0-0? !

Not a bad move as it does not really spoil the advantage, but 14 ..ie4 ii'd8 1 5 .0-0 ttJc6 16JUd1 was much better for White in Hellers-Emst, Malmo 1987.

Increasing the pressure. 1 9.. Jiac8 20Jlad1 l::tfd8 21 .'f!Va4?

Nobody -probably including 'Vishy' - under stood the purpose of this move. Why didn't he just play the obvious and strong 2 l .a4 ! Now Kamsky easily gets back into the game. 21 ... .U.d2 22 . .U.d2 �f6!

The start of a very strong reorganization, exactly what his position was asking for. 23.�d5 �g7 24.'i!Ve4 .U.c7 25 ..U.e2

Here Anand realized what he had done and con tended himself with a repetition of moves. 25 li:ld8 26Jld2 tt:lc6 27Jle2 li:ld8 28.l::t d2 tt:lc6 ••.

14 ... tt:lc6 1 5.l::tfd1 'fi'e6 1 6.c3 b6

Already predicted by father Kamsky who made some amazingly good suggestions during this tournament. 1 7..U.d2

I am sure that Anand was happy with his position, but he was definitely not as enthusiastic as many people in the press room, who not without reason preferred to weaken Gata's queenside instantly by 1 7.a4 ! , when 17 ... ii'b3 fails to 1 8..ic4 .ia6 19 ..ia6. 1 7 ... 'f!Ve7

Another defensive move where 1 7 ... .l:!.d8 was expected, though this would also not solve every thing. 1 8.�e4 �b7 1 9.'ii'b5!

Drawn. Because of the earlier part of the game, Kamsky was happy to make a draw, but afterwards the players agreed that Black no longer has anything to fear, and he could even have continued the battle with 28. .. h5.

51 1 9.5 D Salov • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 4.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 d6

3.d4

cd4

After two unsuccessful tries with the Pelikan Variation, Shirov returns to his regular repertoire and opts for the Rauzer. 6.g3

Something like this was to be expected from a player with little experience in the Sicilian as White. Still it is a pity, as the results in the first rounds showed that Salov has nothing to fear in the main lines. 6 ...e6

In the second half of the tournament Ivanchuk 1 30

Round 4

and Anand preferred to transpose to the Dragon with 6...g6. 7.�g2 �d7 8.0-0 �e7 9.tt::Jce2

Salov is trying to switch to an English opening (Hedgehog), where he has much more experi ence than Shirov. 9 ... 0-0 1 O.c4 .l:[c8

10. . .a6 1 l .lt:Jc3 ( 1 l .b3 lt:Jd4 1 2.lt:Jd4 .l:tb8 1 3.�b2 b5 is no problem either) 1 l . ..i¥a5 12.lt:Jc6 �c6 13.i¥e1 i¥h5 14.h4 lt:Jd7 1 5.b3 �f6 was equal in Ivkov-Bronstein, Belgrade 1964 1 1 .b3 d5! ?

A very understandable and direct attempt to test White's set-up, but it contains a certain risk. There was little reason for this pawn sacrifice, as after 1 1 .. .a6 1 2.�b2 both 1 2 ...b5 1 3 .cb5 lt:Jd4 14.lt:Jd4 ab5 15 .i¥d2 i¥b6 1 6. .1:1.ac1 l:l.fd8, Gli goric-Boleslavsky, Zurich 1953, and 1 2 ... i¥a5 13.a3 l:l.fd8 14.l:l.e1 b5, Gobet-Admjan, Biel 1983, enable Black to solve all his opening problems. 1 2.cd5 ed5

A) 14.lt:Jd4?! �g4 ! 15.t3 .th5 (15 ...lt:Jd5 16.fg4 lt:Jc3 17. i¥d3 �c5 (17 ... i¥d4 immediately is also insufficient) 1 8.�e3 �d4 19.�d4 i¥d4 20.i¥d4 lt:Je2 2l .�h1 lt:Jd4 22.�b7 and Black remains a pawn down) 16.lt:Jf5 �5 17.�e3 (17.'it>h1 tt:Jd5 18.�b2 �g6!) 17 ...�e3 (17... tt:Jd5) 1 8.lt:Je3 i¥b6 19.i¥d2 lt:Jd5 20.i¥d5 i¥e3 21 .�h1 �g6 22.i¥b7 .l:tc2! with excellent compensation for the pawn. B) 14.i¥d4 ! �b5 (14 ...lt:Jg4 is simply met by 1 5.�b2! �f6 1 6.i¥d2) 1 5 .i¥d2! ( 15 J:te 1 �c5 16.i¥d2 i¥b6 17.lt:Jc3 �f2 1 8 .i¥f2 i¥f2 1 9.'it>f2 .l:l.c3 and thanks to the awkward position of the white king Black has enough counterplay before the pair of bishops can become strong) 1 5 ... tt:Jd5 1 6.�d5 �f6 17.l:l.b 1 �e2 1 8.�t7 l:l.f7 19.i¥e2 and it is very doubtful whether Black can save his skin. Maybe 14 ...�b5 should be replaced by 14 ... �c5 to maintain the pressure after 1 5 .i¥d3 with 1 5 ... 1Ie8 or 15 ...i¥b6. 1 3 ... bc6

Of course not 1 3 ... �c6, as after 14.e5 lt:Je4 1 5.lt:Jd4 ! the isolated pawn is a big disadvantage. 1 4.ed5 cd5 1 5.lLld4 tt::Je4! 1 6.�b2 �f6

Because of the great activity of his pieces, Shi rov's chances are a little better. 1 7.'it'd3

Salov sticks to defending, while other players might have chosen the more active 1 7. i¥h5 ! 1 7... 'ffa5 1 8.I:tfd1 l:l.fe8 1 9.�f1

Salov tries to exchange queens, as then he might find the right moment to attack the 'isolani' . 1 9... h5!

1 3.tt::Jc 6?

Salov is trying to avoid complications but now he gives Black a very comfortable game. He had to force Shirov to show the compensation after 13.ed5 as this is not an easy job. 1 3 ... lt:Jb4 is not the right idea in this position as 14.d6 and 14.lt:Jf4 are very strong replies. Instead, 13 ... lt:Jd4 was definitely the move both players had in mind. White can recapture either with the knight or the queen:

As all his pieces are very well placed, it is time to start pushing the pawns. 19 ... lt:Jc3 would have been a waste of time because of 20.l:l.dcl . 20.'ffa6 'it'c7! 21 .'ili'd3

A sad necessity, as Salov was rightly afraid of 21 ..1:1.acl �d4 ! ! 22. .1:1.c7 (22.�d4 i¥c1 23.l:l.c1 l:l.cl 24.'it>g2 lUgS !) 22...�f2 23.'it>g2 .t!.c7 24.�d3 �b6, when Black has a tremendous initiative. 21 ... h4 22..l:[ac1 'ili'b6 23. .Uc8 .ttc 8 24.�a1

1 31

A typical time trouble move, but it is hard to find a useful move for White as he is completely tied down.

24 .. :ti'a5 25.'i!t'a6 'i!t'c5 26.'i!t'd3 aS 27.f3

40.tt:Jc3 d4 41 .tt:Jb5 �e3 42.'it>f3 .:l.f5 43.cJte4 Ug5 44..t:l.b3

44.tbd6 was another try, but after result would have been the same.

44 ... �f6

the

44...�f2!

Not the greedy 44 . . J:tg3? because of 45.tbd4! 45.a5 d3! 46.Wd3 .:l.g3 47.Wc4 .:l.b3 48.'it>b3 cJtf6 49.'it>c4 wes

Draw.

51 20.1 D Lj uboj evic An ugly move, but Salov realizes that he cannot wait any longer as Black keeps improving his forces on both sides of the board. 27...tbc3?

What a shame to trade so many pieces after White has made such a concession and weakened his kingside. The Argentine audience got very ex cited about the piece sacrifice 27. .. hg3, but 28.fe4 gh2 29.'it>h l ! de4 30.'it'e3 ! could also be very dangerous for Black. 27. .. tbg5 would have made S alov's task very difficult indeed. 28.�c3 'i!t'c3 29.'it'c3 .:l.c3 30.'it>f2 a4 31 .ba4 �a4 32. .t:l.d2 �e7?

32 ...'it>f8 ! would have kept a slight edge, but now the tables are turned. 33.�b5!

Completely overlooked by Shirov, as he frankly admitted afterwards. 33...-ibS 34.tt:Jb5 .:l.c4 35.f4 hg3 36.hg3 g5! 37.fg5 llc5!

With his last two moves Alexey has reduced the material to a minimum, so he is no longer in danger of losing. 38.a4 ..ig5 39..:1.d3 'it>g7

39 ...�f6 to keep the knight out was even more precise. 1 32

• Polgar

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cs 2.tt:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.tt:Jc3 d6

In the first round against Kamsky, Polgar pre ferred 6...tbc6. 6.g4

Ljubojevic always accepts the challenge to play the Keres Attack. 6 ... e5!?

Though this system is rather dubious, I still like the choice, as from now on the pressure is on her opponent, who has to find a route leading to an advantage, while Judith knows all the risky lines by heart. 7.�b5

Generally seen as the way to refute this system, but in the old days 7. tbf5 was considered of much better for White. In the correspondence game Neielov-Romanov, 1966 White indeed got the better of it after 7 ...h5 8.g5 tbe4 9.tbg7 i.g7 10.tbe4 d5 l l .tbg3 h4 tbh5 l:th7 1 3 .tbg7 l:tg7 14.'it'h5 ! l l ...h4? is probably the cause of Black's troubles as after l l . ..tbc6 1 2.tbh5 l:th5 1 3.'it'h5 tbd4 or 13 ...�f5 it is very unclear to me who is better and why.

Round 4

7 �d7 1 0.�g5 .•.

8.�d7

'it'd7 9.ltJf5

10.f3 is good for White according to Gipslis, which he proves with 1 o...hg4 l l .fg4 g6 12.ltJe3 lLlc6 13.'it'f3 �g7 14.lLlcd5 lLld5 15.lLld5 lLld4 16.'it'g2, but more recent games in the late eighties show a very tough fight for the initiative if Black opts for Suba's move l l ....l:r.h3 ! After 12.'ife2! both 12 ... l:lc3 and 1 2 ... 'it'c6 have been played, but the latest word in this line has not yet been spoken. 10

..•

liJh7!

1 5.0-D-0

In the post-mortem Judith proudly showed part of her preparation: 15.h4 f5 1 6.h5 gh5 1 7.ll:Je3 f4 18.lLled5 and Black indeed seems alright. 1 5 0-0-0 •..

1 5 ...<;i;>d7 1 6.f4 f5 17.ef5 gf5 18.lLle3 is clearly not advisable, but 1 5 .. .f5 1 6.ef5 gf5 17.lLle3 f4 1 8.lLled5 <;i;>fl is playable. 1 6.h4 f5 1 7.tt:lh6 �h6!

Polgar takes this opportunity to develop her pieces immediately, as with active play she will nullify the dangerous dark squared bishop. 1 8.�h6 fe4 1 9..1:r.hg1 !

19.lLle4 d5 20.lLlc3 d4 21 .lLle4 would allow the unexpected 21 ...lLlf6! and Black is doing fine. 1 9... l:Z.hg8!

Murey 's discovery and a great improvement over Keres' note 10 ... lLlg4 l l .h3 ! 1 1 .�d2 hg4 1 2.'ifg4

12.lLld5 lLlc6 ( 1 2. . .g6 1 3.lLle3 f5 14.h3 ! Ljubo jevic) 1 3.c3 needs some research before a proper judgement can be given. 1 2 ... g6 1 3.ltJe3 'ifg4!

Much better than 13 ...�6 14.0-0-0 lLlc6, as in the stem game Christiansen-Murey the American grandmaster should have exchanged queens himself, as the queenless middlegame would have given him excellent chances, e.g. 1 5.'it'd7 <;i;>d7 1 6.lLlc4 �d2 1 7. .1:r.d2 lLld4 1 8.f4 l:!.c8 19.lLle5 ! deS 20.fe5. 1 4.liJg4 liJc6

In Emst-Nowak, Poznan 1987, Black easily held his own after 14 ...f5 1 5 .lLle3 f4 16.lLled5 lLla6 17.0-0-0 <;i;>fl, but this was possibly due to im precise play by White, as forcing the knight to a6 looks like quite a victory to me.

19 ... lLld4 was suggested afterwards but the more or less forced 20.l:!.g6 lLlf8 21 .l:!.f6 lLld7 (2 l ... lLlh7 22.l:!.fl !) 22.l:ld6 lLlf5 23.�g5 lLld6 24.�d8 �d8 25.l:!.d6 J::th4 26.J::tg6 ! would only give White certain chances, as 26. ..l:!.f4 is not possible be cause of 27 .J::tg 8. 20.liJe4 liJd4 21 .�b1

Avoiding nasty checks. 21 ... d5!

After 21 ...lLlf5 22.�c l ! it would not be easy to equalize. 22.liJc3 liJf3

1 33

Here Judith could also have gained a draw by 22 ...tbf5 23.�c1 d4 24.tbe4 tbh4 25.J:I.h1 g5, as in order to regain his pawn, Ljubo would be obliged to take on g5 sooner or later, which would result in a tedious rook ending. 23.J:I.h1 tbf6 24.�g5 tbgS 2S.hg5 d4!

This was Judith's point, as it leaves Ljubojevic no other options than a totally level ending. 26.gf6 dc3 27.bc3

And a very correct game got its deserved result. Draw.

51 22.5 D Ivanchuk • Kar p ov Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 tbc6 S.t2Jc3 'f!ic7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 t2Jf6 8.�h1 �e7 9.f4 d6 1 0...te3 0-0

I think the reason why the Scheveningen Vari ation is so frequently seen becomes clear if one studies the move orders and realizes that out of most Sicilian move orders both players can opt for this interesting line.

17.J:I.d4 tbd4 is also not so clear) 17.tbb3 ..Wa7 1 8.�e3 ..Wb8 and White can take on f6 but the resulting ending is unclear. 1 4...t2Jb4

14. ..b5? 15.e5 would be a terrible blow for Black. 1 S.t2Je1

Everybody expected Ivanchuk to be in an aggres sive mood and thought he had spent his rest day analyzing the consequences of 1 5 .e5 ! ?. This was obviously not the case as after a long think 'Chukky' retreated his knight. After some analy sis I think 1 5 .e5 ! ? was worth a try, as both 15 ... tbh5 16...Wh3 ( 16.'f!it2! ?) 1 6... tbc2 1 7 ..tc 1 and 1 5 ...tbfd5 1 6.tbd5 ( 16.i.d4 ! ?) 1 6... tbd5 1 7. .id4 ! f6 1 8.�d3 ! tbb4 ( 1 8 ...de5 19 ...Wh3 !) 19.ef6 �f6 20.�f6 gf6 2 l ..ih7 ! �h7 22.f5 ! are very promising for White. The best answer was 1 5 ...de5 16.fe5 tbd5, as intended by Karpov, but even than I like White's prospects after 17.tbd5 tbd5 1 8.�g5 f6 (maybe 18 ... �b5 but one has to reckon with 19.c4 ! ?) 19.c4 fg5 20.cd5 ed5 2l .tbg5. 1 S...bS 1 6.a3 t2Jc6 1 7.eS ! ?

After 1 7.tbf3 b4 1 8 .ab4 tbb4 Blackhas no reason to complain. 1 7 deS 1 8.feS 'flieS 1 9.�f4 'flieS 20.�e3 'flieS .•.

1 1 .'f!ie1 �d7 1 2.'f!ig3 �h8

Apparently Karpov was impressed with Ljubo jevic's treatment of this position against the FIDE champion himself in the previous round, as he decides to copy the Yugoslav grandmaster's play. 1 3.J:I.ad1 J:l.ac8 1 4.t2Jf3

Ivanchuk deviates where 14.i.f3 would be fol lowing the footsteps of his opponent. A remark able suggestion is made by Kasparov in the En cyclopedia where he gives 14.e5 as much better for White, but of course without any further explanation. To me it is not so evident what happens after 14 ... de5 1 5.fe5 ..We5 (15 ...tbe5 16 ...if4 i.d6 1 7.tbb3 !) 1 6. .if4 'flieS (16 ... 'f!id4 1 34

21 .J:I.f6? !

So Vasily was in a fighting mood after all, as this was definitely a decision of the heart. Besides repeating moves, 2 l .'tli'e5 tbe5 22.i.d4, as pro-

Round 4

posed by Najdorf, came into consideration. After the only defence 22 ... �d6 White has several options but none is really good: A) 23 .�e5? ! �e5 24.l:!.f6 gf6 25.l:!.d7 i.c3 26.bc3 l:!.c3 and Black has an even better version than in the game. B) 23 .l:!.f6 (Ivanchuk) 23 ... gf6 24.l2Je4 �b8 ! 25.�e5 (25.l2Jf6 jlc6) 25 ...�e5 26.l:!.d7 �b2 27.l2Jd6 .!Ic3 ! ! 28.r;f;>gl (28.l2Jf7 .!If7 and .!Ie3 ; 28.�h5 ! ? is a reasonable alternative) 28 ... J:ta3 29 .l2Jf7 l:!.f7 30.J:tf7 .!Ial 3 l ...ti>f2 jld4 also re bounds on White. C) 23.l2Jf3 ! ? (Karpov) 23 . ..l2Jf3 24.�f3 l2Jd5 ! and again Black has no serious problems.

35....§Lf4

21 ...'1Wg3 22.hg3 .)1Lf6 23..lld7 ..t>g8!

Probably best, as it enables him to exchange one rook, so he can play for a win without any risk. Nevertheless it was not easy to withstand the temptation of 23 ... jlc3 24.bc3 l2Je5 25.J:ta7 l:!.c3 26.�d4 l:!.a3 (26 ... l2Jc6 27.J:If7! J:lf7 28.�c3) 27 .�e5 l:l.e3 28.jld6 J:ld8, but after either 29.�d3 .lle l 30.r;t;>h2 or 29.l2Jf3 l:!.e2 30.l2Je5 Karpov could be on the wrong side of the board. 24.tt:Jd1 .llfd8 25. .lld8 l:[d8 26.tt:Jf3 hS

26 . . .l2Jd4 ! ?, exchanging more pieces, was in my opinion an excellent try to increase the advan tage. 27. ..t>g1 tt:Je7 28 ..)1Ld3 tt:JdS?

Not typical of Karpov, as normally he puts his pieces on the best squares. 28 ... l2Jf5 was much better, as after for example 29.jlf4 g6 30.r;t;>f2 ..ti>g7 the black pawns advance much faster than in the game.

36.tt:Je3?

After the correct 36.l2Jf2 Black has to be satisfied with a draw and has to force it with 36 ....)iLc 1 37.l2Jd3 �b2 38.l2Jb2 Ua8 or 36. ..jld6 followed by Ua8 and jla3, as otherwise he can get into trouble as 36 .....ti>f8 37.l2Jd3 �d6 38.a4! shows. 36...g5 37.tt:Jd2?

In time trouble Ivanchuk loses his head. 37.g3 would still have kept him in reach of splitting the point. 37 ...f5 38.a4 ..ti>f7 39.tt:Jdc4

As a pawn race is in progress, 39.b4 ! ? would have been a better attempt. 39 ... Ub8! 40.tt:Jc2 g4 41 .tt:Jd4 h4 42.tt:Jc6 Ua8 43.�b5 h3

29..)1Ld2 .)1Le7 30...ti>f2 �cs 31 ..t>e2 .§Ld6 32.c4?! •

In the post-mortem both players agreed that 32.�el ! was preferable, after which Karpov has to maintain the balance. 32 ... bc4 33.i.c4 i.g3 34.�a6 tt:Jf4

Of course it is nice to exchange White's dark squared bishop but, 34 ...jlf4 ! would have been quite venomous.

35 .r;f;>fl g5 was out of the question.

Now it becomes clear that Karpov's pawns are 1 35

much further advanced and this decides the game. 44.gh3 gh3 45.tb6e5 'lttf6

45 ... ..te5 first was also sufficient but in such positions it is important to stick to one plan. 46.ttJd7 'ltte7 47.ttJdb6 48.�c6 h2 49.a5

1 36

.l::J.h8

49. ..thl

:tg8 would not help either.

49... �b8 50.a6 'lttd 8

Karpov decides to stop White's only trump first, and then to proceed with his own pawns. 51 .�h1 .l::J.g8 52.ttJe5 'lttc 7

And lvanchuk stopped this tremendous battle with a very sad feeling.

Round 5 Karpov

- Anand

1f2 - 1fz

Polgar

- lvanchuk

1f2 - 1f2

Shi rov

- Lju bojevic

lfz - lfz

Kamsky

- Salov

1f2 _ 1f2

Salov Karpov Polgar An and lvanchuk Kamsky Lju bojevic Shirov

3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

�d7 13.�g5 �c6 14.�f3 Karpov-Bukic, Bugoj no 1978.

51 1 1 . 1 0 D Karpov • Anand

9 ..�e6 1 0.f4 .

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.tt::lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::l d4 tt::lf6 5.tt::l c3 a6

A safe choice against Karpov as he will not try to refute the Najdorf by the sharpest theoretical lines. 6. .ile2

10.�f6 was more in the line of expectation but the Encyclopedia gives 10 . . .�f6 1 1 ."ikd3 lbc6 1 2.lt:Jd5 �g5 13..U.fd1 .U.c8 14.c3 lt:Je7 ! as equal izing for Black. 1 0 ef4 1 1 .�f4 tt::lc6 1 2.'oth1 d5 .••

1 2... .U.c8 is also perfectly playable but Anand's move is more direct. 1 3.e5 tt::le41

The FIDE Champion's favourite move, as he definitely does not mind transposing to the Scheveningen Variation. After two decades of experience he is a great expert with both colours in that particular part of the Sicilian. 6 ... e5 7.tt::lb3 j_e7 8.0-0 0-0 9 ..tg5 •

9.f4 is generally accepted as the main line, but the alternatives 9 ...ie3 and 9.a4 are also fre quently seen. Just to show how difficult it was for Anand to prepare for his opponent, I will give two examples of Karpov's games: A) 9.�e3 fic7 10.a4 b6 1 l .fid2 .tle8 1 2.� ..ie6 1 3.lt:Jc l ! lt:Jc6 14.lt:Jd5 �d5 1 5.ed5 lba5 16.b3 Karpov-Georgadze, Soviet Union 1983. B) 9.a4 lt:Jc6 10.<it>h1 ..ie6 1 l .f4 lt:Jb4 12.f5

1 3 ... lt:Jd7 14.lt:Jd5 lbde5 1 5 .c4 �g5 1 6.lt:Jc5 gave Byrne a slight edge against Browne in the 1980 United States Championship. 1 4.j_d31 ? f5

As 14 ...lbc3 1 5.bc3 with active play does not really come into consideration, Vishy had little choice. 1 5.ef6 ..tf6 1 6.tt::le4 de4 1 7.�e4

In the game Tseshkovsky-Tukmakov, Soviet Un ion 198 1 , White did not achieve anything with the spectacular 17.tt::lc5 because of 17 ... ed3 1 8 .lt:Je6 dc2 19.fic2 lLJd4 20.lt:Jd4 fid4. 1 7... i.c4?

1 37

21.:t1 i..b2 2S.tt::lb7 w9a

A difficult decision, as also 28 . ..Wg7 had its pros and cons. 29.c4 i..d4

A serious mistake, as from now on Anatoly dic tates the game! Exchanging queens first was necessary and good, as 1 7...'it'dl 1 8 ..l:tadl �c4! 19 ..l:tfel ..ib2 20...id6 .l:tt7 proved to be drawish in the post-mortem. 1 8.�d6! i..f1 1 9.'ifd5!

A tremendous intermediate move, keeping Black under great pressure. 19.i.f8 ..ig2 20.i.g2 'iff8 2l .'it'd7 'ifc8 22.l:l.dl would have been slightly unpleasant for the Indian grandmaster, but de fendable. 1 9...wh8

19 ... .l:tf7 20..l:tfl would have given White more than sufficient compensation for the exchange, as shown by 20...Ci:Je7 (20... 'ife8 ! ? 2 l .Ci:Jc5 or 2 l ..l:te l ) 2 l .'it'e6 'ifc8 22 ...ih7.

29. ....ig7 was passive but would have given the rook complete freedom, as f8 would be pro tected, preventing the decisive manoeuvre .l:tfl f8-c8. 30.wg3?

Vishy was rightly worried about 30.c5 !, as the tactics work for White after 30 . .. .l:te2 3 1 . Wf3 .l:tb2 32.�e4 ! l:l.b7 33.'it>d5. So Anand's best defence would have been 30. . .�g7. 30 �g7 31 ..l:tb1 .••

20.'ifh5

Forcing matters. One has to admite Karpov, who has calculated the past and future complications faultlessly.

Now Karpov refrained from 3 l .c5, as after 3 l . .Jle2 32 ..l:tf2 l:l.f2 ! 33.�f2 'it>t7 34.'it>f3 �e6 35. �e4 he realised that, despite being a pawn up, victory would be out of the question.

20 ... g6 21 .�g6 �g2 22.wg2 'it'd7 23.tt::lc 5!

31 ... lle3 32.Wf2 �d4 33.Wf1 .l:tf3 34.we2 l:r.c3!

This move was seen by Karpov in advance but missed by Anand. Luckily for Black he can es cape to an ending only a pawn down.

Anand defends like a tiger, and thanks to this and his opponent's time trouble he escapes with just a few scratches from this fight.

..•

'ifg7 24.�f8 'ifg6

24 .. J:I.f8 25.Ci:Je6 demands resignation on the spot. 25. 'ifg6 hg6 26.i..d6 .l:te8!

26... .l:td8 27.Ci:Je4 ! i.b2 28 ..l:tb l ..ie5 29 ...ie5 Ci:Je5 30 ..l:tb7 remains very problematic for Black. 1 38

35.c5 �e3 36.Wf1 tt::ld4 37.l:r.b2 gS

37...�t7 moving the king into play was even more logical. 38.Wg2 wf7 39.�g3

39...ie5 �e6 40.i.d4 ..id4 would also not have worried Black.

Round S

Polgar already knew before the start of the tour nament that she could expect this line and she opts for the Maroczy bind, where she could also have gone for S .tt:lc3, as she did a few rounds later against Kamsky.

39... tt:Je6

s ... tt:Jf6

s ....ig7 6 ..ie3 ttlf6 7.ttlc3 tt:lg4 8 .'ii'g4 ttld4 9.'ii'd l tt:le6 was popular ten years ago thanks to the efforts of Bent Larsen. 9 ... eS ! ? is an even older variation practised by Botvinnik, which gave me the courage to play it in my match against Polugaevsky, Aruba 1 994. 6.tt:Jc3 d6 7.�e2 tt:Jd4 8.'ii'd 4 �g7 9.�g5

In the third round, against Anand, Ivanchuk as White preferred the alternative 9 ...ie3.

40.tt:Jd6

40 ...ie5 ! ? was an interesting last attempt, as 40. . .tt:lf4 4 1 .�f3 i.d4 42.�e4 .ieS 43.�e5 ttld3 44 . ..t>d4 works out fine, but 40 .. J:tc l ! would have been the right answer. 40... �g6 41 J:tb6 �c5 42.l:la6 ..id6 43J�td6 �f6 44.a4 l:la3 45..l:l.a6 �fS 46.a5 tt:Jf4 47.�f2

The rook ending is obviously a dead draw. 47...We4 48.We1 .l:l.a2 49.Wd1 We3

And peace was signed.

9 ...0-o 1 0.'it'd2

10.'ii'e3 ! ? might be White's best option. 1 o ... �e6 1 1 .0-0 as 1 2.�d3?!

Making Vasily 's next move even more attractive. 1 2J:tac l is normally played. 1 2 ... tt:Jd7! 1 3.tt:Jd5 �dS

I always learned that exchanging pieces in these positions benefits Black. I guess Ivanchuk had the same teacher. 1 4.ed5 .ifS

And here Ivanchuk made it verbally clear that he was ready to split the point and enjoy an extra rest day.

51 33.7 D Polgar • Ivanchuk

1 5.�e3?! Judith shows her fighting spirit but cannot justify

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:Jf3 4.tt:Jd4 g6

tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4

Many chess players do not have the Sicilian in their repertoire because they consider it too sharp. The system Ivanchuk opts for is quite an exception, as it is based on profound positional ideas. 5.c4

her refusal chess-wise. l S J:tfel was thought to be more useful but has the drawback of allowing l S ... eS ! 1 5 ...if6 ttlf6 16J:tfel was of course to Polgar's liking but 1 5 ... ef6! followed by 1 6...f5 and 1 7. . .'ii'f6 is pleasant for Black. There remains the option 1 5 .h4!? which would at least go well together with refusing the draw. 1 5 ... tt:Jc5 1 6. .ie2?!

Losing a lot of time as the bishop later returns. The immediate 16J:tabl was better. 1 39

1 6 85! 1 7.l:[ab1 '1Vb6 1 8.l:[fc1 '1Vb4! •••

51 33.2 0 Shirov • Ljubojevic Notes byjeroen Piket

Very well played by the Ukrainian grandmaster. 1 9.'1Vd1 l:[a6

Original, but 19 ....l:!.fc8 was more to the point. 20.i..d 3!

Here people were beginning to worry about Ju dith's position, as it seemed as though she had lost the thread of the position, but with her last move she admits her earlier mistakes and is ready to play 21 .a3. 20

•••

t2Jd3

A pity, but 20...a4 21 ..id2 ti'b6 22 ..ie3 ! leaves Black with nothing better than to repeat move with 22...ti'b4, as 22....ib2 is not possible due to 23.a3! 2 1 . 'fVd3 a4 22.b3 ab3 23.l:[b3 '�VaS 24.l:tb7 'fVa2 25.g3

Now there is very little going on and soon both players stop avoiding the inevitable. 25 l:[c8 26.<J;>g2 h5 27.h4 l:ta3 28.'1Vc2 'fVc2 29.l:tc2 Ud3

Before, during and after a thematic tournament one finds out whether or not the rules set for this special event were working okay, or what adjust ment would have to be made for the next similar event. Apart from the fact that, in my opinion, against the Najdorf 6 ..ic4 or 6 ..ig5 should have been obligatory, there was another remarkable point, as Karnsky and Ljubojevic found out at the press conference at the start of the tournament. Both players have 2 ... g6 in their repertoire, usu ally transposing to an Accelerated Dragon, but this move was not allowed, whereas all other versions of the Dragon were. 1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 g6?!

This particular line can be considered the 'Black Sheep' of the Dragon Variation, as it is not very often used in practice due to its rightly inferior reputation. 6.t2Jc6 dc6

Most Black players prefer recapturing with the b-pawn, but Ljubojevic is notorious for doing the opposite of what people in general do. 6 ... bc6 7.e5 l2Jg8 (7 . . .l2Jd5? 8 .l2Jd5 cd5 9.ti'd5 .l:!.b8 10.e6! is a famous example of how one should not play, Grabek-Seifert, Harrachov 1966) 8.�c4 �g7 9.�f4! (9.ti'f3 f5 was played with reasonable success by Sosonko and Alburt in the late eighties) 9 ...ti'a5 10.0-0, giving a pawn for a strong initiative, as in Timman-Kortchnoi, Brussels 199 1 , is also problematic for Black.

•••

Threatening 30 ... .l:!.d5. 30.l:tc1 <J;>f8 31 .th6! <J;>g8! •

3 l ...<it>e8 was asking for trouble, as after 32 ..l:!.e1 .l:!.c4 33 ..ig5 White has a strong initiative. 32 ..te3

Draw.

1 40

7.'1Vd8 <J;>d8 8 .tc4 •

Another possibility is 8 .�f4 l2Jd7 9.0-0-0 i.g7 I O.i.c4 e5 I I .i.e3 ri;;e7 12.f3, Vaisman-Spulber, Bucharest 1980. 8 •.•<J;>e8 9.e5!

Clearly the best approach. Shirov does not give Ljubojevic time to breathe. 9.a4 e5 10.f4 .ie6 ! 1 1 .�e6 fe6 12 . .l:!.fl i.h6! was no problem for Botvinnik in his 1958 match against Smyslov.

Round S

9 ... ttJd7

ECO only gives 9 ... tLlg4, which runs into prob lems after 10.f4 h5 1 l..�d2 h4 1 2.tLle4 .if'S 13 .tLlg5 e6 14.h3 tLlh6 1 5.0-0-0 .ic5 16.J:lhfl !, Kapengut-Shabanov, Vilnius 1977.

So Ljubo has done his best to cut off the white king and to get as active as possible, but still his problems are not solved. 23...wf7 24.g4

1 0.e6!

Securing an enduring plus thanks to the better pawn structure. 1 O.f4 b5 is not necessarily bad for Black. 1 0 fe6 1 1 .�e6 �g7 1 2.�e3!

More or less forcing Black to give up a pawn, but allowing his opponent to exchange one rook and gain some activity. Therefore I would suggest 24.g3 followed by little moves like 25.a3 and 26.<;t>a2, slowly but surely making Ljubo's de fensive task unbearable.

.•.

Preventing 1 2 ... tLlc5 and keeping an eye on the a7 pawn. 1 2... b6

12 . . .tLlb6 1 3 ..ic8 J:tc8 14.0-0-0 �c3 1 5 .bc3 .t!.f8 was another way of trying to fight back, though White is indisputably better. 1 3.0-0-0 �c3!

Black's only way to free himself is to exchange some pieces to relieve the pressure. 1 4.bc3 ttJcS 1 5.�c8 .l:lc8 1 6. ..ic5 bc5 1 7.l:l.he1

17 .h4 .t!.f8 1 8 .f3 J:tf5 is nothing special, but 17.f4 to gain space on the kingside was interesting. 1 7... l:lf8 1 8.f3 l:lf4

Ljubojevic stated afterwards that he should have exchanged one rook with 1 8 ...J:td8, but 19.J:td8 <;t>d8 20.J:le4! is also very unpleasant. 1 9Jle5 l:l.a4 20. .l:lde1 l:l.c7 21 .<;t>b2 l:l.b7 22.wa1 l:l.c4 23.l:l1e3

24... l:lf4! 25.l:lc5 l:lf6 26.l:l.ce5

26.J:Ic4, to have both J:tb4 and J:td4 at his dis posal, would be met by 26 ...g5 ! , and again Black will escape. 26 ... l:!.d6 27.l:!.d3 l:!.e6! 28..:te6 we6 29.f4 hS!

The less material on the board, the better the chances of drawing. 30.h3 hg4 31 .hg4 l:l.b8 32.c4 l:l.b4 33.l:l.d4 l:l.b8

Ljubojevic realizes very well that he cannot lose as long as Shirov cannot improve the position of his king. 34.l:!.e4 wd6 35.c5 Wd7 36Jla4 aS!

This pawn can be given up, as long as Black gets the kingside pawns in return. 37.l:l.a5 l:tb4 38.l:l.a7 WeB 39.f5 l:tg4 40.fg6 l:l.g6

White is left with a and c pawns which are quite powerless. 1 41

41 .�b2 .:gs 42.c4 .:cs 43.�c3 �dS 44.a4 .:es 45.�d4 l:l.h5 46.a5 �cS 47.a6 l:ra5 4S.c5 �bS 49..t[b7 �cs 50.l:re7 .:as 51 .�e5 l:ra1 52.�d6 .l:h1

18 ...tt:\g6 is not a good idea in view of 19."�e2 intending �c2 and 'ii'h 5, when Black's king is in danger. 1 9JU1 ? !

And Shirov stopped his efforts. Draw.

51 40.6 D Kamsky • Salov Notes by Gata Kamsky 1 .e4 c5 2.lbf3 lbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 e6 5.lbc3 "flc7 6.j_e2 lbf6 7.0-0 a6 s ..te3 ..tb4 9.lba4 ..te7!? 1 0.c4 0-0?!

Better is 10 ... tbe4, the move played by Karpov against me later in the tournament. 1 1 .lbc3 b6

1 1 ...d6 has been played a few times and after 12.:c 1 tt:\e5 is Todorovic-Ninov, 1992 (0- 1 ); 12 ...�d7 Wolff-Gobet, 1993 (1-0). 1 2.lbc6 dc6 1 3.f4 c5

Black has a slightly inferior but very solid posi tion, since there are no weaknesses. 1 4.e5 .:dS 1 5.'ifc2

15.�d3 was interesting, with the idea of devel oping the queen on the kingside, since the plan with a2-a4-a5 never takes place in the game. 15

.•.

lbd7 1 6.�d3 lbfS 1 7.l:rf3!

is necessary to provoke Black into playing g7-g6, in order to have the knight on e4 threaten ing to come to either f6 or d6 with maximum effect.

1 7... ..tb7 1 S . .I:h3 g6

1 42

White i s dreaming of f4-f5, but at this moment 19.a4 was interesting, forestalling B lack's future counterplay on the queenside and creating the positional threat of a4-a5. 1 9 l:rd7 ••.

Black has no particular plan, so he is trying to make useful moves ; the 19 .. .f6 break is to White's advantage, because the e6-pawn be comes exposed and the f6-g7-g5 complex of squares would also be weak. 20...te4 .:adS 21 ..tb7 22.lbe4 "flc6 23..tf2

'it'b7

With the idea of 'ii'e2 and �h4, trying to exploit the terrible knight at f8. Frankly, Black's defensive resources should be adequate to defend this posi tion. 23... �g7 24."fle2?!

A waste of time; White's optimal position would be with the bishop on c3, since only then can he launch a direct attack with g4 and f5. However this position is not easy to obtain; perhaps 24.b3 preparing �f2-e1-c3 was better. 24...b5!? 25.b3 bc4 26.bc4 l:l.b7 27J:tb3

It is not clear whether 24 ... b5 has helped White or Black. During the game I felt that Black would be okay if all rooks were to be exchanged.

Round S

27.. J:tdb8 28J:tfb1 ttJd7

Probably forced, since against passive play White should win without any problems, for example 40 ... tLld7 4 l .f5 ! ef5 42.tLld6 J:tb8 43.'it'g5 with the lethal threat of 44.tLlf5, winning instantly. 41 .'it'b3?

As pointed out in the bulletin, 41 .'it'c5! would have won almost by force: 4 l ...'it'c5 42.tLlc5 J:tc3 43 .l:lc8 with multiple threats such as tLle4-g5 or tLle4-d6 and J:tc7 winnning a pawn, for example 43 ... a5 44.tt:Je4 lle3 45.tt:Jd6 g5 46J:J.c7 gf4 47.J:tf7 �g8 48.c5 l:le5 49.c6 l:!.c5 50.c7 with the idea of lle7 and c8'it', winning. 41 ...'it'e4 42.'it'g3 aS?

29.�e1 !

After this move White's advantage becomes more threatening, since Black cannot play f6. 29... l:!.b3 30.ab3 h5 31 .'it'e3 �g8 32J:J.d1 lLlf8 33.�a5 tbd7 34J:J.d3 ttJf8 35.h3 �g7

At this moment we were short of time and I was unable to find a plan. It seems to me that the direct 35.g4 with the idea of g5 and tLlf6 is very unpleasant for Black. 36.ttJf6 tbh7 37.ttJe4 ttJf8 38.�h2 llb7

Threatening l:ld7, exchanging the rooks.

A mistake. It is not easy for White to claim an advantage after 42. ..'it'c4. 43.'it'h4 tbh7

Necessary, because 43 ...'it'c4 loses to 44.'it'f6 'itg8 45.I:k8 followed by 46.J:tc7, winning. 44.'it'f2 a4

44 ... g5 immediately was also interesting. 45J:J.c8 'it'c4

A sad necessity, as Black probably realised, that 45 ... a3 loses beautifully to 46.l:lc5 'it'a8 47.J:tc7 a2 48.'it'a7 ! ! al'it' 49.J:tf7, mating. Now Black will be lost if White manages to hem in the h7 knight with h3-h4. 46J:J.c5 'it'e4

39.�d8 �dB 40J:J.d8

40.. .l::J.b3

47J:J.a5?

The decisive mistake. 47.h4 should win without 1 43

difficulty, since 47 ... g5 is bad: 48.fg5 lLlf8 49.l:lc7 'it'e5 50.'it'g3. 47...g5! 48.fg5 h4! 49.'it'f3

49 .g3 is better. 49... 'it'd4 50.'i!t'g4 'it'g4 tt:lg5 52.J:I.a4 tt:lh7 53.�h3

75.�e8 �g8 76.l:l.e1 �g8 78.l:l.f2 tt:le5 80.l:l.h4 �96 81 .J:I.e4 �g5 83.l:l.e3 tt:lf4 85.�f7 e5 86.l:tg8

51 .hg4

Going into this endgame I thought it was winning for me. However, Black now manages to erect a blockade. It was necessary to play 53.l:la8, preventing 53 ...lLlf8 due to 54.l:lf8, and the pawn, endgame is won. However 52 ... lLlg5 still draws . 53 ... tt:lf8 54.J:I.e4 tt:lg6

The rest does not require any commentary. 55.g5 �g8 56.�g4 �h7 57.�f3 �g7 58.�e3 �f8 59.�d4 �e7 60.'1t>c5 �d7 61 .�b6 �e7 62.�c6 �f8 63.�d6 �g7 64.J:I.e2 �f8 65J:tf2 �g8 66.J:I.f6 �g7 67.J:I.f1 �f8 68.l:tf2 �98 69J:ta2 �g7 70.I:la4 �fa 71 .J:I.e4 �ea 72.�c6 �e7 73.�c7 �f8 74.�d7 �g7

1 44

86... tt:lg2 87.J:I.g2 e4

Draw.

�g7 n.J:I.e2 79.J:I.f4 �g7 tt:ld3 82.�e7 84J:tg3 �f5

Round 6 Polgar

- Anand

0- 1

Shi rov

- Karpov

1/2 - 1/2

Kamsky

- lvanchuk

1/2 - 1/2

Salov

- Ljubojevic

Salov An and Karpov Polgar lvanchuk Kamsky Shirov Lju bojevic

1 -0

51 1 2.5 D Polgar • A nand

4.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0

8.a4

Notes byjeroen Piket

One would expect this move as a preparation for 9.�c4 (8.�c4 bS 9. ..id5 J:tb8 ! Andersson) but Polgar plays this system the fashionable way. 8 .....ie7 9 .id3 0-0 1 0.0-0 lbcS .

1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbf6 S.lbc3 a6 6.f4

Polgar's favourite answer to the Najdorf, the opening system the grandmaster from Madras specially prepared for this tournament. Some how I have the feeling that the razor sharp posi tions arising after 6.�c4 or 6.�g5 would suit our female star much better.

Black can do this without protecting the pawn on eS, as there will always be a nasty check on d4 if White decides to be greedy. 1 1 .Wh1 ef4 1 2..tf4 .tg4 1 3.'ife1

6 ...e5

Of course B lack can play different moves and transpose to other lines, but this is a man's move and therefore belongs to the Najdorf Variation. 7.lbf3

7.ttJf5 and 7.ttJb3 are less to the point and thus less frequently seen. 7 ... lbbd7

Formerly it was held that Black should prevent the active development of White's bishop at c4 and so 7 ...f!ic7 was almost universal. Nowadays everybody sticks to the text move.

In the database of the press room there were no games with this move, but in the post-mortem the players were mumbling about an idea of the American player Sherzer. The former trainer of 1 45

the Polgars, Hazai, like many others preferred the theoretical 1 3 ...d2. 1 3 l:l.c8 1 4.ttJd4 .••

14 ..ic4 was obviously not advisable because of 14.. .l2:Jce4 but 14...g3 i.h5 15 ..ie3 (15.lL'ld4 seems worth investigation) 1 5....ig6 as in Sherzer-Wolff, New York 1994, looks a logical continuation. 1 4 'it'b6! 1 5 .ie2!? ••.

•

Objectively this move deserves to be marked as dubious, but as it demands very precise defence from Black we can regard it as an interesting attempt to confuse the opponent. Anand expected 15.a5 and after 1 5 . .. lL'ld3 ( 1 5 .....b2 16. ..td2!) 16.ab6 lL'le1 17.l:l.ae1 l:lc4 he judged the position to be more or less balanced. 1 5 �e2 1 6...e2 .l::J.fe8! •••

One would expect 1 6 .....b2 to lead to the game after 1 7 .lL'lf5 .l:lfe8, but both players were in trigued by the intermediate move 17 ...td2!

1 9.. .'ti'f6!

The black lady is needed to resist the attack. The impulsive 19 ...lL'le4 would have met its Waterloo after the pretty 20..ie5 ! ..e5 21 .lL'lh6. 20.ed5 �f8! 21.ttJh6?!

At first sight a very exciting position, but if one looks a little bit deeper (and that is something Vishy certainly did!) one sees that Judith's attack this time does not come to much. 21 .l:!.ab1 ! ? was her best chance to fight for survival. 21 �h8 22.�e3 �g8 24. 'ti'h3 .••

'ti'g6

23.lL'lf7

It is understandable that Polgar wants to keep the queens on, but a nice try to escape was 24 ...g6 hg6 25 . .ic5 (25.l::l.a3) 25 ....l:lc5 26 ..l:la3 .l:ld5 (26... .l:lc2? 27. .l:lh3 J:If2 28J:th8 'i.t>f7 29.l::l.f2) 27.g4 .l:le6? (27 ...fie7 ! and White has to face the facts) 28 . .l:lh3 .l:lf6 29.lL'lh6! 24 ttJe4! •.•

1 7.ttJf5 'ii b2

Now both players can pmctise their tactical abili ties, so let the show begin ! 1 8.tLld5 ttJdS 1 9.'iig4!

A beautiful move, but it was necessary to come up with something extraordinary, as 19.ed5 ..tf6 20 ... g4 (20 ...f3 ..c2) 20 ...lL'le4 ! 2 l .lLlh6 (2l ..l:lab1 and 21 ..l:lac1 both fail to 21 .. .lL'lf2!) 21 .. .<it>f8 22..l:lae l ? lL'lf2 23.'i.t>g1 ..b6! ! (Not 23 ...lL'lg4?? as Black then gets mated by 24 ..id6 l:i.e7 25 ..ie7 ..te7 26.J:!.f7 'i.t>e8 27 ..l:lfe7 'it>f8 28.lLlf7!) would leave White helpless. 1 46

Suddenly Black has the initiative besides being a pawn up, and that is sufficient for Anand to finish the game convincingly. 25 ..l:U3 h5! !

With the strong and hard to parry threat of 26. . . 'it>h7 and 27 . . . �g4. 26 .l:taf1 •

The despemte 26.g4 (hoping for 26 .. .'iVg4? 27.lL'lh6 gh6 28.J:Ig1) would simply beansweredby 26...lL'lf6! 26...'il'g4 27.�d4

Round 6

Some players would throw in the towel but Judith postpones this for a while. 27... 'ii'h3 28.l:l.h3

Also 28.gh3 tt:Jd2 29.tt:Jh6 rJih7 would not have helped. 28 .. J:I.c7!

Winning the exchange and the game. 29..l:thf3 ti:Jd2 30.ti:Jg5 tLlf3 31 .gf3 .l::!.c 2 32.tLle6 .l::!.ec8 33.�e3 .l::!.e2 34.�f4 .l::!.a2 35..l:tg1 .l::!.a4 36..i.h6 �h8 37.tbg7 �h7

White resigned. The analysis of this game is based on notes by Anand.

Kamsky played twice in this tournament. The first time was in the fifth round against Salov, but apparently this did not impress the Latvian grandmaster enough to try it himself against Karpov, but afterwards he realized he should have trusted Gata's choice. 1 O ... bc6 1 Vbb6 l:tb8 1 2.tLlc8 'ii'c 8 1 3.e5 ti:JdS 1 4.�c1 �cS

So far nothing new on the horizon as the game Salov-Karpov from the second round is being copied, but now Shirov opts for the move recom mended by the Encyclopedia, where Valery Sa lov went for 1 5 .'it'd3. 1 5.c4 tbe7 1 6.b3 'ii'c7 1 7.�b2 0-0

17 ... d6 to open up the position is obviously too early, as it only benefits White: 18 .ed6 ( 1 8 .�h5 ! ? deS 19 . .1:tel �d4 20.�d4 ed4 2 l .'it'd4;;!; 011Abramovic, Tallinn 1983) 18 ...i.d6 19.'it'd4 ! tbf5 20.'it'e4 and White was clearly better in Matulovic-Portisch, Sousse 1967. 17 ...a5 ! ? has not yet been tested in practice. 1 8.�h1 .l:lfd8!

51 40.6 D Shirov • Karpov Notes byjeroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbc6 5.tbc3 'ii'c7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tbf6 8.�e3 �b4 9.tba4

Both players are confident in their own prepara tion and are ready to face each other fully armed.

An improvement over 18 ...tt:Jg6 which was put into practice by two experts in this variation: 19.�d3 ! ( 1 9.f4 .l:tfd8 20.'ifc2 d6 !6-!6 Hellers Ribli, Tilburg 1993) 19 ....1:tbd8? ! 20.'it'h5 d6 2 l .ed6 �d6 22. .l:tad l c5 23.g3 .l:tfe8 24.f4 and White is to be preferred, Bouaziz-Andersson, Szirak 1987. 1 9. 'it'c2

19.�d3 d6 20.'it'e2 looks more active to me. 1 9...a5!

9 ... �e7

Towards the end of the tournament in the 12th round Karpov experimented with 9 ...d5 , but he chose the wrong opponent, as the Indian grand master Viswanathan Anand easily won that game. 1 0.tLlc6

In an excellent article about this event in the German magazine Schach Shirov and his second Lanka consider 10.c4! to be White's best, as 1 47

Black makes a useful move, as White was ready to answer 19 ...d6 with 20.ed6 �d6 21 .l:radl . 20.l:tad1 a4

As long as the centre is closed the two white bishops will not be all that useful. Meanwhile Karpov weakens his opponent's queenside. 21 .l:td3

It is always hard to take seriously but 21 .ba4 might have been considered, as after 2 l . ..�a7 22.J:rd3 White can start an initiative on the king side while the a4 pawn can always be protected by .idl . Shirov feared 21 ...d6 but after 22.ed6 .id6 23.c5 (I do not mind 23 ...�2 or 23 ...-icS) I believe White is better.

26....if8!

With the idea of fixing the queenside by c6-c5. 27.�c3 c5 28Jlf3 t2Je7 29.'ife5 'ifc8

Too passive and missing a small chance to get a slightly favourable position by 29 ... �a7. 30.J:rd3 tt::Jc6 31 . 'ife3!

Overprotecting b3 and keeping an eye on the cS pawn, so Black is not able to manoeuvre his bishop via e7 to f6.

21 ...ab3 22.ab3 t2Jg6 23.f4

..•

'ifa6

Shirov gives 3 1 ...�e7 32 ..if3 li:JaS 33 ..ie5 as unclear but 33.f5 ! would not appeal to most Black players. 32..if3 t2Jd4!? 23... d6!

Preventing White from starting an attack and trying to exchange the rook on d3, so that he can put pressure on the b3 pawn. Karpov at his best! 24.ed6 �d6

24 ....id6 25.g3 �f8 would allow White to keep his rook on the board with 26.�df3 ! 25.g3

I believe it would have been better to simplify by 25.f5, with an approximately equal position. 25 ..Jld3 26. �d3

26 ..id3 was more precise to threaten the advance f4-f5. Protecting the b3 pawn is never a problem, as White has �c3 and .ic2 at his disposal. 1 48

With time trouble imminent Karpov decides to content himself with a draw. 33. .id4 cd4 34.'ifd4 g6! 35.�g2 'ifa2 36.l:!.d2 'ifaS

Winning the pawn back with 36 ...�b3 was also possible, but White does get a strong trump on c6 after 37.c5 J:rb4 38."�f2 J:rc4 39.c6. 37..lld3

And both players were satisfied to split the point. Perhaps this was not the most exciting game, but it definitely was a very correct one.

Round 6

where Black was successful is Oll-Topalov, Moscow Olympiad 1994: 14 ...hg4 1 5.f4 tt:lc4 16.'ti'e2 'ti'c8 1 7.f5 tt:lb2! 18.�f6 tt:ld1 19.'ti'g4 ef6 20.J:!.g1 J:!.c4 21 .tt:ld1 d5-+ .

51 1 8. 1 4 D Kamsky • Ivanchuk Notes by]eroen Piket A few days after this game I met Vasily Ivanchuk at breakfast and after a while our conversation went into the direction of his game against Gata Kamsky. 'Chukky' immediately gave me his ex planation for playing the Dragon: 'When I was young (probably very young, as he is only 25 years old) I used to play the Dragon and I won my first five games with it, so I considered it a good opening and kept on playing it. Then sud denly I lost three games in a row and I stopped playing it until recently. When I remember the positive sides of this opening and the early vic tories as in Novgorod 1994 before my game against Short, I go for it! ' It is unnecessary to mention that Vasily again had these same dreams about the most romantic Sicilian on the morning of the sixth round. 1 .e4 c5 2.tbf3 4.t2Jd4 g6 5.t2Jc3

t2Jc6

3.d4

cd4

A wise choice, as Ivanchuk had already experi enced the Maroczy bind with White and Black in this tournament. 5 ... i.g7 6.�e3 t2Jf6 7.�c4 0-0

For 7 .. :ifa5 see Polgar-Kamsky round 9.

1 4... t2Jeg4! ?

Actually a very unusual move as most Black players prefer 14 ...tt:lc4, a variation I could write another book about. 1 5.l:the1

Centralization is always good. 1 5 ... 'tWa5

The only move! 1 5 . . .b5 16.e5 a5 17.e6! a4 18.ef7 r;i;>h8 20.�e6 gave White a decisive advantage in Gazik-Ferreira, Groningen 1979/80. 1 6.f5

More direct than, and an improvement over 1 6.r;i;>b 1 , as Kamsky played against Basin in Minsk 1988, when he was barely a teenager. Oll-Shabalov, Tbilisi 1989 ended in a quick draw after 16.tt:lf3 �c6 17.tt:ld5 'ti'd2 1 8.J:!.d2 J:!.e8 19.c3 b5. 16 gf5! 1 7.t2Jf5 �f5 1 8.ef5 l:l.e8 1 9.tbd5 .•.

Defending the f5 pawn and - in my opinion securing a slightly better ending. 1 9.. .'iYd2 20J:td2 'Ot>f8!

8.i.b3 d6

Black ignores the side lines (8 . ..a5; 8 ... 'ii'c7) and challenges his opponent in the main line of the Dragon. 9.f3 �d7 1 0.'ifd2 l:l.c8 1 1 .0-0-0 t2Je5 1 2.h4 h5

Constantly fashionable and probably the best option. I was taught the Dragon Variation by the expert Genna Sosonko who always preferred the alternative 12 . . . tt:lc4, and so I played this move against Kasparov in Tilburg 1989. 1 3.�g5 l:l.c5 1 4.f4

Quite a good move but the second hand choice. Clearly more knowledge is demanded for the uncompromising move 14.g4. A recent example

21 .a4!

The immediate 21 .c3 would have given B lack time to advance on the queenside with 2 l ...b5 ! 1 49

21 ... b6

Always useful, as after an exchange of knights on d5 the b-pawn is no longer hanging. 22.'itb1

A little too cautions. There was nothing wrong with the obvious and strong 2 l .c3, as piece sacrifices on c3 do not seem to work. 21 ... lbd5 23..l::l. d5 .ifS 24..l::l.c 5?!

31 ... e6!

Ivanchuk does not miss his chance. Kamsky probably only reckoned with the immediate 31 ...ll:Jd3 which would have been parried by 32.�e3. 32.fe6 fe6 33.l:te5!?

Gata is trying to rectify his earlier mistakes and starts to defend his precarious position with great skill. 33.�e6 �g5 34.hg5 tLld3! would have run into unsolvable problems.

Too eager. Again 24.c3 (I like the manoeuvre �b3-dl very much) was advisable and though Ivanchuk does not have many worries he would face a long afternoon. 24 ... bc5 25.c3 l:l.b8!

33....i.e5?

Quite a difference, as Black has improved his pawn structure and does have certain unpleasant threats thanks to the b-file. 26.'itc2 'itg7 27..id5 lbe5

Otherwise 28.i.f3 would follow. 28.l:te4 as

Stopping the push b2-b4 or not? 29.b4

Panic or just over-optimistic? 29.i.d2 or 29.�f4 would have maintained equality. 29 cb4 30.cb4 ab4 31 .'itb3 ..•

Gata's idea is to make the b-pawn harmless by blockading it with his king, and then his own passed pawn becomes powerful. 1 50

Logical, but throwing away the win. 33 ... de5 ! , following the rule of exchanging as many pieces as possible when one has a material advantage, leaves White praying for a miracle both after 34.� i.d8 ! (even more precise than 34 ... i.g5) 35.�d8 l:Z.d8 36.a5 l:Z.dl 37.a6 J::Z.a l 38.�b7 (38.�d3 l:ta3 and e4) 38 ...e4 and after 34.�e6 �g5 35.hg5 e4. 34..i.e6 �c3?!

As I am not sure whether this position can be won, I do not criticize this move too much, but 34...�d4 and 35 ... .ic5 could be better. 35..id5 .l::l.e8 36 ..ib7

36.a5 would be too hasty, as 36. . .J::Z.e5 37. '>t>c4 b3 puts the lights out for White. 36....l::l.e1

36. .. l:te5 37.�d8 l:te3 38.i.g5 1:1.el would lead to the same position as in the game. 37.a5 l:ta1

37...l:Z.bl 38.'>t>c4 J::Z.a l 39.�8 ! (39.a6 d5 ! 40.r,t>b3

Round 6

J:!.a3 4 l .'tt>c2 d4 is too much to handle) 39. ..�el 40.a6 d5 41 . 'it>d5 b3 42..ib6! also secures a draw. 38.a6 d5 39.i.e71

Perhaps it was this move that Ivanchuk underes timated.

50 ... J:!.a4 51 .Wf2 wgs 52.wg1 l:tb4 53.i.e2 l:th4 54.g3 lla4 55.wf2 lla2 56. c;i;>f3 llb2

Draw.

39... J:!.b1

39 .. J:ta3 40.\t>c2 d4 4l .'it>d3 ! and 42..ic5 is White's next. 40.Wa4 b3

40. . .d4 4 l .'it>b5 .!:tal 42.\t>c4 and Black cannot improve his position.

51 3.7 0 Salov • Ljuboj evic Notes by]eroen Piket

41 .i.a31

Not 4l .a7? b2 42.a8..- (42.� 'it>h7 43.a8..- l:tal 44...ia3 b l .., is no improvement) 42...J:!.a1 43.�a3 J:!.a3 ! 44.\t>a3 b l .., and White gets mated. 41 ... b2 42.Wb3

42.a7? loses for the same reason as on the pre vious move.

42 ... i.f6 43.a7 J:!.a1 44.i.b2 l:ta7 45.i.d5 l:ta61

45 .....ib2 46.'it>b2 J:!.a4 47.g3! 'it>h6 (47... l:tg4 48...if3 J:!.g3 49..ih5 is a theoretical draw) 48 ...if3 and Black cannot avoid his last pawn being exchanged. 46.i.f6 l:tf6 47.i.f3 Wh6 48.wc3 l:tf4 49.Wd3 l:th4 50.we3

White has lost his h4 pawn, but in return his king is back just in time to achieve a well-known blockade. The final position can be found in the endgame books.

After having visited rounds 1 to 5 from the beginning to the end I decided before the start of the sixth round to do some useful analytical work in my room, as enough material had been pro vided by the players in this first part of the tournament. I was actually joking to my wife that of course now, when I would not be present, something hilarious might happen which I then would not witness. And indeed it did. Valery Salov played against his former fellow Linares citizen 4 ...-d4 instead of the obligatory 4.ti:ld4. Ljubo protested and Arbiter Geurt Gijssen ex plained to Valery that it was in the rules of this tournament that 4.ti:ld4 should be played. The players continued their game and Salov over whelmed his opponent with an unusual line and scored an easy victory. After the game the players started a by now notorious argument, but as I was in Buenos Aires to analyse the games and not to report on events before and after the games, being just a chess grandmaster and not a chess journalist, I will concentrate on the game! 1 .e4 cs 2.tt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 tt:Jf6 5.f31

An exclamation mark for the effect this old and almost forgotten move had on the outcome of this game. s ...es

As it soon becomes clear that Ljubo does not really know or remember the theory, 5 ... e6 or 5 ...g6 might have been a better practical decision, to transpose to other Sicilian lines. 1 51

1 52

Round 6

6.�b5 �d7

In New in Chess Salov makes a very apt remark about his opponent's choice of this less precise move: 'Interestingly, he may have played this in analogy with his game against Judith Polgar (Black), in round 4' . 6 ... t2Jbd7 7.t2Jf5 d5 8.ed5 a6 (8 . . . 'i:Ya5 9.t2Jc3 �b4 10.�d2 0-0 was an attempt to solve Black's problems by Ljubo jevic and Najdorf, but later the Yugoslav grand master himself found the refutation, namely 10.t2Jg7 <;t>f8 1 I .t2Jf5 ! , as the bishop on b5 cannot be taken because of 12.�h6 and the black king has no good squares to go to) is supposed to be Black's best answer, and wher ever the bishop goes Black will have good counterplay for the pawn. 7.il..d7 'it'd7?

But this is really a terrible move. 7 ... t2Jbd7 8.t2Jf5 d5 9.ed5 'i:Ya5 10.t2Jc3 t2Jb6 1 1 .'i:Ye2 0-0-0 12.0-0 t2Jbd5 1 3 .t2Jd5 �d5 would give a very compli cated fight, according to Suetin. 8.tt:Jf5 dS 9.il..g5!

To keep on digging in ancient history: 10 . . . gf6 1 l .'i:Yd7 t2Jd7 12.fe4 �c8 13 .t2Jc3 �b4 14.0-0-0 �c3 1 5.t2Jd6 rtJe7 16.t2Jc8 l:.c8 17.bc3 �c3 with some - but insufficient - compensation for the exchange, Keres-Biumenoff, Tallinn 1938. I have to say that I - and probably many others - would opt for this kind of possibility to try and save my skin, as what happens in the game is quite hopeless. 1 1 .<;t>d1 gf6 1 2.fe4 tt:Jc6 13.c3! l:lg8

Ljubojevic told me a few days afterwards that Black's only chance to try to survive was 1 3 ... �d8 14.t2Jd2 h5 followed by t2Je7 and l:.g8. In Zhuravlev-Agrest, Podolsk 1990, 13 ... 0-0-0 14.t2Jd2 t2Je7 15 .t2Je7? �e7 16.rtJe2 �g8 17.g3 h5 ! was okay for Black, but 1 5 .rtJc2, similar to the game, was of course the correct way to play. 1 4.g3 l:ld8

Only here does the game deviate from earlier examples. 14 . . . �g4 15 .t2Jd2 �d8 16.rtJe2 t2Je7 17.t2Je3 �d2 1 8.rtJd2 �e4 19 .'1t>d3 �a4 20.b4 ! with a decisive advantage was seen in a 'classic' encounter of Alekhine versus Rellstab, Salzburg 1943. 1 5.t2Jd2 tt:Je7 1 6.<;t>c2

White certainly does not mind the exchange of knights, as the e4 square then becomes available with a technically easily won ending. 16 ... <;t>d7 1 7.l:lad1 ! <;t>cG

17 ...rtJe6 fails to 18.t2Jb3 �d1 19.t2Jc5 mate ! 1 8.tt:Jf3 l:ld1

Because ofthis very strong move Black is in deep trouble, as was already proved half a century ago. 9... de4

A matter of taste. Other players might prefer to be worse but keep the queens on the board with 9 ... d4 1 0.�f6 gf6 1 l .c3 t2Jc6 1 2.'i:Ya4 a6 1 3.0-0 �c5 14.b4 b5 1 5.'i:Yb3 �a7 1 6.c4 ! as happened in Koch-Meyer, correspondence game 1949 ! 1 o.�fG 'it'd1

1 53

1 9.lbe7

The last important move as 19J�:d l l2Jf5 20.ef5 �h6 ! would have spoiled everything. From now on it is a piece of cake for White especially if one is an endgame expert. 1 9 ... �e7 20J:td1 .l:ldB 21 ..l:ld8 �dB 22.lbh4 �e7 23.lbf5 �fa 24.b4

The plan is simply to create a passed pawn which will do the job. 24 ... 'it;ld7 25.'it;lb3 'it;lc6 26.'it;lc4 a6 27.a4 b6 28.g4 bS 29.'it;lb3 'it;ld7 30.lbe3

30.ab5 ab5 3 l .c4 would have given Valery a passed b-pawn but he prefers to improve on this. 30...�h6 31 .lbd5 �gS 32.c4 'it;lc6 33.lbc3 bc4 34.'it;lc4

The rest speaks for itself! 34...�h4 35.lbd5 �gS 36.h3

Zugzwang! 36 ... �h4 37.lbe7 'it;ld7 38.lbf5 �e1 39.b5 abS 40.'it;lb5 �d2 41.'it;lb6 �e1 42.a5 �f2 43.'it;lb7 'it;le6 44.'it;lc6

Black resigned.

Round 7 A nand

- Salov

Ljubojevic

- Kamsky

lvanchuk

- Shi rov

1f2 - 1h

Karpov

- Polgar

1f2 - 1f2

1f2 - 1f2 0- 1

51 39. 1 2 D A nand • Salov

5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3 .0 2 .0

6.i..g2 de4!

Notes by]eroen Piket The last round of the first cycle could not have had a better pairing than this game between the leader of the tournament and the runner-up. Un fortunately Anand was starting to develop a cold as it was only spring in Buenos Aires, and his state of mind was clearly affected. 1 .e4 cS 2.t2Jf3 4.t2Jd4 e6

Salov An and Karpov Kamsky Polgar lvanchuk Shirov Lju bojevic

tt:Jc6

3.d4

cd4

This was the line the Indian grandmaster ex pected from his opponent and several hours be fore the game he had come up with an idea which might surprise Salov.

Valery made this decision after a half an hour's thought and rightly opted for this ending, as White is not able to profit from Black's weak ened pawn structure. 7.t2Jc6 't\Vd1 i.b7 1 0.b3

8.'�d1

beG 9.i..e4

White obviously likes to trade the dark squared bishops as it increases the vulnerability of Black's queenside. 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 .'it>e2 i..e7!

To meet 12.�a3 with �f6. 1 2.i..b2 i..f6

S.g3

Not entirely new but seldom played, as 5 .tt:lc3 and 5.lLJb5 are generally preferred. s... ds!

In the game Makarichev-Popov, Soviet Union 1980, Black answered calmly with 5 . ..lLJf6 but after 6.�g2 d6 7.0-0 �d7 8.c4 a6 9.lLJc3 .C!.c8 10.lLJc6! .C!.c6 l l .�e2 �e7 12.l:.dl the white set-up was a success. 1 55

What is going on? I was just explaining where White is aiming for and at first sight it seems that Black is giving him a helping hand. But if we look more closely we can understand Salov's intention, as after 1 3 .�f6 tDf6 14.�g2 c5 Black is fully developed and has nothing to fear.

1 3.tt:lc3 cS Of course Black takes this opportunity to free himself while White's pieces are not very well organized.

White switches plans, since playing for f4 is dangerous one tempo behind. He is pursing strategical goals, preparing the bishop exchange on h6, or developing with .l:rfd I and �e3 with the idea of tbd5 and c4.

1 1 ... a6 1 2..l:!.fd1 bS 1 3."ii'f4 tt:Jes Black continues his plan of advancing the queenside pawns, gaining space as well as threatening to harass the knight with b5-b4. His position is preferable.

1 4.tt:ld4 �c4 1 5.a3 �e2 1 6.tt:lde2

1 4.�b7 \t?b7 1 5.tt:la4 ..ib2 1 6.tt:lb2 tt:le7 1 7.tt:ld3 The obvious 17.tDc4 is not very impressive either, as after 17 ... tDd5 ! ( 1 7 . .. tDc6 1 8 .c3 .l:.d5 19.tDe3 l:rd7 20 .l:.hdl is not very special but does give White the benefit of the doubt) 1 8.tDe5 tDc3 1 9.\t?e3 .l:.d5 ! I prefer Black.

1 7 \t?bG 1 8.tt:le5 •.•

And at this moment Anand quickly offered a draw, as he suddenly realized that 18 ... .l:.d5 ! is perfectly playable for Black, since 19.tDf7 l:!.f8 20.c4 .l:rf5 is not very pleasant. So White has to continue 1 9 .f4 after which 1 9 . . .f6 is possible and he has nothing to hope for. A very pleasant way for Salov to enter the rest day.

51 1 5. 1 1 D Ljubojevic • Kamsky Notes by Gata Kamsky 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 g6 5.tt:lc3 ..ig7 6.tt:lb3 tt:Jf6 7.�e2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9...ig5 The game has finally transposed into the Classi cal Dragon, Karpov's Variation.

9 ... �e6 1 O.l:.b1 A very strange move, even a novelty. The normal move is I O.�h1, preparing f4.

1 0 .l:!.c8 1 1 J!lfd2 •••

1 56

1 6 ..Jlc4?! A stupendous move. I thought that I would be able to exert some pressure on the e4-pawn by �a8, with the idea of doubling rooks on the c-file and playing for b5-b4. It was better to play 1 6... .l:re8 immediately with the idea of �d7-b7.

1 7.tt:lg3 The knight stands well here and is ready for the manoeuvre tbg3-fl-e3-d5. White's position is almost equal.

1 7.. Jle8 1 8.h3 "ii' bB?! Black is trying to transpose into the plan men tioned above. However 18 ...tDed7, preventing 1 9.�f6, was better.

1 9.�f6 �f6 20.tt:ld5 �g7 21 .c3 aS 22 .l:!.d2 .l:!.cS •

Finally admitting that the rook doesn't belong on c4, I was trying to play b4.

23..l:!.bd1 tDc4

Round 7

There was a possibility of setting a trap with 23 .....Wd8, intending e6 and g5, but it was easily refuted by tt:Jfl , thus helping White. 24 .l:i.e2 tt:lb6 25.tt:lf1 tt:ld7 •

Growing short of time, Black didn't want to play 25 ... tt:Jd5 26.ed5 ..Wb7 27.tt::le3 b4 28.ab4 ab4 29.c4 when White stands better. 26.tt:ld2 'tWa7 27.tt:lf3 h6

Black is trying to improve his position and only then to play e6 and tt:Je5. 28.'tWe3 'tWb8 29.'ifd2 tt:lb61

Now White is unable to support the knight on d5 with the other knight, so Black's chances of playing b4 have drastically improved.

With time trouble over, Black was able to assess the position as very favorable due to his superior bishop and more compact pawn structure. There fore it is logical to transpose into the endgame, where White is doomed to passive defense. 42. .l:i.b1 .l:i.dc8 43.tt:lb4 hS

With the idea of creating extra weaknesses on the dark squares, or of continuing with h5-h4, allow ing a later f5 . 44.h4 .1:1c3 45.l:ta2 ..td4

Another possibility was the immediate 45 .. .f5 right away, 46.ef5 gf5 with the potential threat of d5-d4-d3 and e6-e5-e4. 46.'iitf1 l:ta8

46 .. J�8c4 would have allowed White some coun terplay after 47.a4 i.c5 48.tt::la6.

30. 'ifd3 tt:lc4 31 .tt:ld4 e6

47.tt:lc2 ..tcs 48.'iite2 .1:1c4 49.f3 'iitg 7?! 50 .1:1b3? •

The decisive mistake. White would have kept his chances alive after 50. .U.b7, preventing the threat of f7-f5 for some time. Even so B lack should win with accurate play. 50 f5 51 .tt:le3 .l:i.ca4 52.ef5 gfS 53.g3 'i¥i>f6 54.f4 �a3 ..•

The simplest. 55.tt::Jd 1 �cs 56 . .1:1a4 .1:1a4 57.tt:lc3 l:ta1 58.'iitd3?1 l:tf1 1

Finally ! 32.tt:le3 .l:i.d8 33.tt:lb3?! 34.'ifb1 'tWb6 35.'ifd3 tt:leS

.l:i.cc8

It was also possible to improve the position even further by playing 35 ... h5 with the idea of 36 ... �h6, cramping White's pieces. 36.'ifb1 ? !

More resistance was offered by 36 ...Wd2. 36 ... b4 37.cb4 ab4 38.tt:ld4

38 .a4 is impossible, because 38 ... ..Wa6 wins a pawn. 38 ... tt:lc4 39.tt:lc4 .l:i.c4 40.tt:lc2 ba3 41 .ba3 'tWb1

Forcing the rook exchange, after which a pawn endgame arises on the board since the bishop dominates the knight. 1 57

59.tt::le2 l:f3 60.�c2 l:b3 61 .�b3 �f2 62.�c4 �e7 63.�b5 �d7 64.�b4 �c6 65.�c4 dS

White resigned since both 66/it.;•b4 .iel 67.'it>b3 c;t>c5 and 66.c;t>d3 <;t>c5 67.<;t>c3 d4 68.c;t>d3 rot>d5 lead to Zugzwang.

1 0.f4 �d7 1 1 .�e21? bS 1 2..if3 l:b81?

Probably a new move. Dvoiris-Yermolinsky, Simferopol 1988, saw 12 ...1:c8 and after 13.ttJb3 Black failed to equalise. 1 3.tt::lc6!?

Of course, 1 3 .g4 tt::Ja5 ! is in Black's favour. 1 3 .ic6 1 4..id41 eSI •••

51 29.3 D Ivanchuk • Shirov Notes by Alexey Shirov 1 .e4 cs 2.tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'ti'd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.�e3 'ti'c7

More common here are 9....ie7 and 9....id7, but I think that the text move hasn't said its last word yet.

1 58

Round l

It wasn't exactly my idea to play the structure arising after 14 ... b4 1 5 ...if6 gf6 16.lLle2 h5i. 1 5 ...ie3

In the post-mortem lvanchuk suggested 15 .'ifel ! ? (with the idea of 15 ...ed4 1 6.e5 with an attack), but after 1 5 .. Jk8 ! Black is more than okay. 15 ...if2! ? would have been interesting. 1 5.....ie7

15 ...b4? ! was too early in view of 16.ttJd5 ..id5 17.ed5 e4 18 ...ie2 b3 19.ab3 l:tb3 20.'iti'bl l:tb8 21 .�a6±. 1 6.'itb1

16.g4 can now be met by 16 ... b4 1 7.lLld5 �d5 18 .ed5 b3 ! 19.ab3 ef4! 20 ...if4 l:tb3 with counterplay. I was a little bit afraid of 16.lLld5 �d5 17.ed5, but in fact Black may choose here between lvanchuk's suggestion 17 ...ef4 1 8 . .if4 0-0 19 . .C.hel .C.fe8 intending 20 ...�f8. or 17 ...lLld7 !? 18 ...ig4 lLlb6 19.�b6 .C.b6, in both cases with approximate equality. 1 6 0-0 1 7 .:!.he1 t2Jd7 •..

•

lvanchuk was slightly scared of 17 . .. b4!? 18 .lLld5 �d5 19.ed5 lLld7 with the idea of 20...ef4 21 ..if4 lLlb6 with an attack. In my opin ion, after 20.'ifd3 ! intending 20. . . l:tb5 2l..�g4 the position is rather unclear. 1 8.t2Je2

1 8 .ttJd5 .id5 19 .'ifd5 would lead to equality after 19 ...ef4 20 ..if4 lLlb6 2 l .'ifd4 ttJc4 ! 22.e5! deS 23.�e5 ttJe5 24.'ife5 'ife5 25 .l:te5 �f6. Interest ing was 1 8.f5 ! ? l:tfc8 19.l:te2 lLlb6 20.�b6 l:tb6oo. 1 8... t2Jb6 �h4!?

1 9.�b6

l:!.b6

20.t2Jg3

Trying to simplify matters in the approaching time-pressure. More complicated would be 20 .. J1d8 2 l .lLlf5 �f6 22.g3 (22.lLld6?? �b7-+) 22. . .b4 with un clear play. 21 .l:!.f1 �g3 22.hg3 i..b7

The position is equal. 23.'Wa5

Here lvanchuk offered a draw and I accepted, as I was not sure whether I could fight for an edge; for example 23 ... .C.c8 24 ..C.f2 'ifc5 25.l:tfd2 with the idea of 26.a3 followed by 27.'ifb4 is unclear.

51 20.2 D Karp ov • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket These players have met in several tournaments and Karpov has always opened with his queen's pawn to test Judith's King's Indian Defence. Only this year in Linares Anatoly preferred the king's pawn, to meet Polgar's Sicilian with the fashionable 2.c3, which indeed turned out to be a great success. This time he is forced to play one of the main lines. 1 .e4 cs 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 ttJf6 S.tt::lc3 e6 6.g4

Karpov shows his ambitions of today and goes for the Keres Attack, an opening he frequently used in the seventies and early eighties when his current opponent was still wearing diapers. 6 ...a6

Not the most common answer. 6 . . . ttJc6 and 6 . . .h6 (as in Polgar-Salov, 3rd round) are more often seen in practice. 7.g5 ttJfd7 8...ig2 g6?!

1 59

17.�e3 b4 18 .ab4 lLlb4 with active play was also satisfactory for Black. 1 6... b4

An over the board inspiration. Funnily enough the main continuation in the Encyclopedia (8 ... lLlc6 9.h4 �e7 10.a4 h6 1 l .gh6 g6 !) is based on a game Karpov-Hartmann, Hannover 1983, with the surprising result of 0- 1 . 9.h4

As later in the game White had some problems in putting his pieces on the right squares, Karpov proposed 9.�e3 as an alternative. 9 ... lt:Jc6 1 0.h5?!

This gives White control of the h-file, but again simple developing moves like 10.�e3 followed by 1 1 .1t'e2 and castling queenside were safe and sound. 1 o ... .:tga 1 1 .hg6 hgG 1 2.t4

It was too late for 12.�e3 as after 12. .. lLlde5 13.b3 ( 1 3.'ii'e2 is not possible because of 13 ...lLld4 14.�d4 'it'g5) 13. ..lLld4 14.'fi'd4 fi.g7 Black has nothing to complain of. 1 2 ... �b6 1 3.lt:Jb3

The FIDE world champion was not very enthu siastic about the further prospects of the knight in this game, and therefore 1 3.lLlf3 was a better try, to play for f4-f5-f6, paralysing the black kingside. 1 3 .. .'ii'c7 1 4.'iff3

14.�e3 b5 1 5.'it'd2 ( 1 5 .'it'e2 b4) 15 ... lLlb6 16.0-0-0 lLlc4 17 .'it'f2 �b7 1 8 .'tt>b l would also have given a hard struggle. 1 4 b5 1 5.e5 d5 1 6...ie3 •..

16.a3 would not change much as 16 . . . �b7 1 60

1 7.lt:Je2?

After a long think Karpov did not dare to con tinue with the intended sacrifice 17 .lLld5, be cause after 17 ... ed5 1 8.'fi'd5 fi.b7 (18 . . .lLldb8 19.lLlc5 !) 19.e6 fe6 20.'it'e6 lLle7 2l .�b7 'it'b7 22.0-0-0 'it'c6 23.lLld4 the queens get exchanged, and although White might have enough compen sation to ensure half a point it does not look very tempting. There remains the last alternative 17.lLla4 which was White's best attempt, though Polgar proved in the post-mortem that after 17. . .lLla5 18.lLld4 lLlc4 19.�f2 lLlc5 20.lLlc5 fi.c5 2l .b3 lLla3 22J:tc1 (22.0-0 ! ?) 22 ...lLlb5 ! Black is fine or even better than that. 1 7...lt:Jb6! 1 8.fi.f2

Interesting was 1 8.lLld2 aS (18 ... �b7 19.b3 ! and White will occupy the beautiful d4 square as the push d5-d4 is premature) 19. 'it'f2 lLla4 20.b3 lLlc3 with an unclear position. 1 8 ... a5 1 9.lt:Jbd4 �a6 20.lLlc6 fi.e2 ! 21 .'ife2 �c6 22J:th3!

Victor Kortchnoi once told me that Karpov is very good in positions were he can put his rooks on the 3rd and 4th rank. Here it is the only way to avoid becoming much worse. 22.....tc5 23.b3 'tt>e7 24.l:.c1 Uh8 25.Ud3 Uac8 26.fi.g3 i..d4?

Playing for tactics while it is completely unnec-

Round ?

essary. 26 .....igl ! looks like a good move to me to dominate the game and there can be no doubt about the fact that Black is beautiful. 27.�f1 �b2 28.l::tc d1

The c2 pawn is untouchable so Karpov improves his position. 28 ... tt:Jd7 29.�f2 'i!VbS 30.l:lb1 �c3 31 .l:i.f3 'ifc6 32.l::th3 l::t h3 33.�h3 a4 34.�g4 a3

In order to avoid severe time trouble both players have limited themselves to logical and solid moves. However, I don 't like Polgar's last move and I suggest 34 ... l:i.h8! as a better attempt. 35J:td1 �b2 36.�e1 ! 'ifcS 37. 'ifa6

Despite his time pressure or maybe thanks to it Karpov has clearly improved his position and is not worse any more.

sight does not seem to work as it allows the tactic 4l .l:i.d5, but after 4 1 . . .<'1:lc5 ! ! 42Jk5 �c5 it is White who is in danger of losing several pawns and thus the game. 40.�f3

40.c4 would be a little too smart as 40 ... bc3 41 .l:td4 �b5 ! White has burned his own fingers. 40 ... 'ifc2 41 .�d4 �d4 42.l::td4 'ifc1 ! 43.�e2 'ifc2 44.�f1 'ifc1 45.�e2 'ifc2 46.l:.d2

The only way to keep the game going. 46 ... 'ifc7 47.'i!Va5 'i!Vb8

Judith has her own ideas of solving the problems and saving the draw. Other players might have opted for 47 ... l:i.b7. 48.l::td4 l::tb5 49.'i!Va6 tt:Je5!

37... l::tc6 38.'ifa4 l::t b6 39.�f2

This was the point of the young girl's previous play and indeed it works. 39... d4?!

In the press room everybody condemned this move as it makes the two white bishops very much alive. With Ivanchuk and Anand I was discussing the consequences of the exchange sacrifice 39 .. .'�fc6! 40 ...ib6 �b6, which at first

50.fe5 'ifeS 51 .�d3 'iffS 52.�e2

Karpov realizes very well that he should not push his luck and a fascinating battle ends peacefully. 52 ... 'ife5 53.�d3 'iffS

Draw.

1 61

Round B An and

- Ljubojevic

Salov

- lvanch u k

Kamsky

- Karpov

1 -0 1f2 - 1/2

Shi rov

- Polgar

0- 1

Salov An and Karpov Polgar Kamsky lvanchuk Shirov Ljubojevic

1 -0

51 1 9. 1 D A nand • Ljuboj evic Notes by]eroen Piket

6.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.0 3 .0 2 .0

t2Jb3 19.cb3 t2Jd7 20.'it>b1 was clearly better for White in De la Villa Garcia-Novikov, Pamplona 1990. According to Hiibner 13 ...hg5 should be replaced by 1 3 ...b4 or 1 3. .. t2Jfd7. 1 2.l2Jce2 d5 1 3.�h3

The players have had a rest day so they have recharged their batteries for the second cycle of this tournament. In general many players want to forget their bad results and in this event it is easy to do so, as today one can make a clean start. 1 .e4 cS 2.l2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 l2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 a6 6.�e3

This treatment against the Najdorf has become popular due to the hard work and good results of British players like Chandler, Nunn and Short. I guess this explains the unofficial name English Attack. Anand has become an adherent of this line since he studied it very thoroughly with his second Patrick Wolff. 6 ...e6 7.f3 bS 8.g4 h6 9.'QlVd2 lLlbd7 1 0.0-0-0 �b7 1 1 .h4

This was to be expected, rather than the alterna tive 1 1 .�d3. 1 1 ... b4

1 I .. .t2Je5 1 2.�e2 �a5 1 3 .g5 hg5 14.hg5 .a.h 1 15 . .a.h 1 t2Jfd7 1 6.a3 0-0-0 17.f4 t2Jc5 1 8 .t2Jb3

Again the most consistent move. The Spanish players Romero and Magem Badals are respon sible for this razor-sharp continuation. 1 3.ed5 and 13 .t2Jg3 are known side-lines but 1 3. t2Jf4! ? still needs to be tested in practice. 1 3 ... de4

The first time I became familiar with the compli cations of this variation was during the 1990 Olympiad in Novi Sad, where my team-mate 1 63

Brenninkrneijer was taken by surprise in his game against Magem Badals and lost after 1 3 . . .'iWa5 14.';tb l g6 1 5 .g5 ttJh5 16.f4 0-0-0 17.f5 gf5 18.ef5 e5 19.ttJe6! fe6 20.fe6 'it>b8 2l .ed7 d4 22.ttJd4 ed4 23.'ti'd4. I vaguely remember the Dutch team analyzing the move 14 . . .g5 ! ? 1 4.g5 hgS!

Ljubo needs to open the h-file for his idea. 1 5.hg5 ef3 1 6.lLlf4 lLle4 1 7.'it'e1

Of course, White would like to take on h3 with his rook, but Anand did not see what to do after 18 ...e5, and indeed 19.�h8 ed4 (19...ef4 20."ifb4 fe3 2 l .ttJf5 'ti'g5 22.�f8 'it>f8 23.'ti'a4 ttJd7 is not bad either) or 19.ttJf5 ef4 (19...'ti'g5 20Jlh5) 20.�h8 'ti'g5 does not seem to give White anything. Ljubo jevic was intending, incidentally, to play 18 ...tUg5 19.�h8 'ti'e7! followed by castling queenside. 1 8...e5! 1 9.lLlb3

A sad necessity as 19.ttJf3 'ti'a5 20.\t>bl tUc3 ! wins on the spot. 1 9... a5!

Black's attack plays itself. 20.lLld2

White's pieces have been completely pushed back, whereas Black's control all the key squares. 20 'it'c7 21 ..ib6 ..•

2 l .ttJe4 �e4 22.�h2 �c8 is also not very hopeful and after 21 .ttJf3 b3 22.ab3 a4 White will cer tainly get mated. So far this is all known and it makes you wonder what Nimzowitsch would think about it. 17 . . .tUgS was Black's first try but this has a clear drawback; 1 8 .tt:Jde6 ! as happened in Romero Thkmakov, Wijk aan Zee 1991 . A very important game was Anand-Beliavsky, Groningen PCA qualifier 1993, where the Black player followed the latest analysis of Kasparov, but even this did not save him in the most spectacular game of 1993: 1 7 . . .f2 1 8.�f2 'ti'g5 19.�e3 'ti'h4 20.ttJde6! 'ti'el ! 21 .lUg7 ! 'it>d8 (2 l ...�g7 is sup posed to be better but apparently Anand did not mind repeating this) 22J:thel �h3 23.tt:'lh3 �g7 24.ttJg5 ! 'it>e8? 25.ttJf7 ! and White won. The grandmaster from Madras admitted that it was only the fine memories of this game that per suaded him to play this line again.

21 ... lLlb6 22.lLle4 l:lc8 23.l:lh2 'it'c6 24.t2Jg3 'ti'e6 25.\tb1 lLlc4 26.tt:Jf2

White is completely outplayed and of course Vishy realized he needed a miracle to escape from this mess. 26...lLlb2!?

1 7... �h3!

A very good idea but not such a surprising one, since in Groningen Ljubojevic had already sug gested this move. Somehow it did not get pub lished and Anand simply forgot it. 1 8.lLlh3

1 64

This was an unpleasant surprise for Anand, as he had only seen that 26. .. tUa3 27.ba3 �c2 28.�d8 ! 'it>d8 29.'ti'dl did not work for Black.

Round B

27. .l:rc1 ?

Equivalent to resigning, which is what most players would do if they did not dare to take the knight. Anand took Ljubojevic at his word and so did most people, but let's see what could have happened if White had accepted the challenge with 27.'it;>b2. 27. . J:lc2 28.'it>c2 'ii'a2 29.'it>cl (29.'it>d3 'ii'b3 30.'it;>d2 'ifc3 checkmate) 29 ... 'ifal 30.'it>c2 b3 ! 3 I .'it;>b3 (3 I .'it;>d3 'ii'd4 is mate) is forced and now Black has a choice:

winning possibility: 28 ... lLlc3 29.lLlc3 J:ic3 followed by 30...e4 or 30. . . J:ia3. 29.Wa1

29 ... i.e4 30.lLle4 l:ie4 was threatened. 29 .'ifg4 30.Vi'f1 ! tt::l b6 31 .tt::ld2 •.

A) 3 l . . . a4 is what Lj ubojevic intended and what Anand feared, as during the game it smelled like mate to both players. Indeed 32.'it;>c4 'ifa2 33.'it>b5 'ife6 ! ! 34J:ld8 (the only way to parry 34 . . . 'ifa6 or 34 . . .'ifc6 mate and 34.'it;>a4 'ii'c4 35 .'it;>a5 i.b4 36.'ii'b4 'ifa6 is also the end) 34 . . . 'it>d8 35.'ii' a5 'it>e8 36.'ii'b6 'ii'd5 37 .'it;>a4 'ifc4 38.'it>a5 i.b4 39.'ii'b4 'ifa6 leads to a beautiful mate, but White can escape with 32.'it;>c2 'ifa2 33 .'it;>d3 'ii'd5 34.'it>c2 'ii'b3 35.'it>d2 i.b4 36.'it>c l and now 36 ... i.el is im possible as then B lack in turn gets mated: 37 .l:.h8 'it;>e7 38 .lLlf5 'it;>e6 39.lLlg7 'it>e7 40Jie8. So Black must be satisfied with perpetual check. B) 3 l ...i.d5 ! 32 . .l:rd5 'ifel 33.lLlfe4 ! (defi nitely the most stubborn) 33 ...'ii'b l 34.'it;>c4! (34.J:ib2 a4 33 .'it;>c3 'ifcl 34.l:.c2 'ifa3 ! (even better than 34. . .i.b4) 35 .'it>d2 i.b4 36.'it>dl 'ii'b3 ! ! 37.J:ie5 'it>d8 and the a-pawn decides White's fate) 34 . . . 'ii'b4 35.'it;>d3 'ifb3 36.lLlc3 f6 and Black maintains a big advantage. 27 .. .tt::Ja4 28.lLlfe4 .l:rc4

I will restrict myself and give only one other

•..

.l:rc5??

It was time to finish the game with 3 1 .. .'ii'g3 32.lLlc4 'ifh2 33 .lLlb6 'ife2 ! 34.'ifh3 'ii'd2 35.'it>b l 'ii'd4 as Granda Zuniga explained to everybody in the press room. 32. Vi'f2 tt::Jc4?

Overlooking White's next move. 32 ...'ii'd4 was still sufficient to win. 33.l:.h8! .l:rc8

33 .. Jic7 was more to the point, but in time trouble Ljubo is losing the thread of the game. 34.l:.e1 tt::Jd2?

Black completely collapses and now the tables are turned. However, both 34... lLld6 35 .J:ie5 'it>d7 36.'it;>b l ! and 34 ... f6 35.gf6 gf6 36.lLlh5 l:.c6 (36 ...'ii'g6 37.lLlc4 J:ic4 38.'ii'b 6!) 37.J:igl 'ii'd4 38.'ii'd4 ed4 39.lLlc4 .l:rc4 40.l:.g8 would also have given White the better prospects. 35 . .l:re5 'it;>d7 36. Vi'd2 wc7

36 ...i.d6 37 ..l:rc8 i.c8 38.lLlf5 'ii'g l 39.'it;>b2 'ii'b6 40.l:i.e7 would not have solved the problem either. 37 .l:rf8! •

1 65

6 ...g6

The Lvov grandmaster transpose into the Dragon. 6...e5 or 6 ...�g4 would have given an entirely different kind of game. 7.l2Jde2

As swapping the knights on d4 is known to be a relief for Black, White avoids this possibility. 7...�d7

Vishy does not miss the opportunity to annihilate his opponent. 37 ... l:r.f8 38.l:r.e7 wc6 39.l2Je4

And nobody, least of all the players, could be lieve what had happened. So instead of winning 2-0, Ljubojevic lost his mini-match against Anand by the same score.

In my opinion another developing plan, with .a.b8 and a6 after castling, equalizes more easily. 8.�g2 �g7 9.h3

The routine 9.0-0 would have allowed Black to carry out his idea of exchanging the light squared bishop with 9 ... ii'c8 and 10 ...�h3 . 9...'ii'c8

Black's first achievement is preventing White from castling. 1 0.b3?

10.�e3 is more natural and the results are clearly in White's favour: 10 . ..0-0 1 1 Jk1 b5 1 2.b3 l:r.b8 13.ii'd2 a5 14.t2Jd5 t2Jd5 1 5.ed5 t2Jb4 ( 1 5 ... t2Jd8?! 16.i.h6 f6 17.i.g7 IJ;;g7 1 8 .c4 b4 19.h4 gave White the better chances in Zhuravliov-Lanka, Germany Bundesliga 1994) 16.c3 t2Ja6 17.h4 h5 1 8.0-0 t2Jc5 19 .t2Jd4 and White obtained a lasting edge in Abramovic-Petursson, New York 1986.

51 1 5.3 D Salov • Ivanchuk

1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .�b2 a5!

Notes byjeroen Piket Valery Salov's main goal in the second cycle of this tournament is consolidating his one point lead, while Ivanchuk will desperately try reach to the upper half of the tournament table as soon as possible. 1 .e4 c5 2.l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3.d4 4.l2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 d6 6.g3

cd4

Salov seems to have prepared all kinds of side lines and he uses them successfully. lvanchuk is recognized as one of the best theoreticians in the world and therefore during this event he had to face several g3 systems. 1 66

The start of an original strategic plan. 1 2.a3

12.t2Jd5 t2Jd5 13 .i.g7 fails tactically to 1 3 ... t2Je3 ! 1 2... J::i.a6 1 3.l:r.b1 l2Ja7 1 4.l2Jf4 l:r.e8

Sooner or later the e7 pawn needs protection. 1 5.l2Jcd5

White has to play for simplification, because 15.0-0 is not advisable due to 15 ... e5, when he loses material. 15 ...l2Jd5 1 6.l2Jd5 �b2 1 7.l:r.b2 a4!?

Round B

1 9.tt:Jb6 �c7

19 ...1id8 might be the most precise, but because of time shortage lvanchuk seems happy to repeat moves. 20.tt:Jd5 �ea 21 .�d2

To me it is unclear why Salov decided to refrain from repeating moves with 21 .lLib6, as White is certainly not better. 21

•..

tt:Je5 22 .t:lb4 �a4! 23.0-0 .

23 .lLib6 1ic2 24.lLia4 lLid3 and 25 ... lLib4 is good for Black. What could be more natural than breaking up the opponent's pawn structure? Nevertheless 17 ... b5 followed by �c6 and �e6 was worth considera tion, as the white rook on b2 remains completely misplaced and passive. 1 8.ba4!

Of course Salov takes this opportunity to activate his rook. 18

••.

tt:Jc6

The knight is heading for c4.

23 �c6 24. .t:la1 tt:Jd7 .••

Severe time trouble does not improve the standard of the game. 24 ... 1id8 ! with the follow-up 1ia5 and �d5 would have guaranteed lvanchuk a bright future. 25.a4 �dB 26. 'ifh6 e6?!

Unnecessarily weakening his position. Again 26 .. .'ii'a5 was to be preferred. 27.tt:Je3 �f6 28.l::. d 1

1 67

than the more usual 10.ttJc6. Kamsky already knew this from his own experience, as the Span ish grandmaster Illescas easily held his own with Black after the knight exchange in Madrid 1994. The text move had already been played in 1977 by Larsen against Karpov. It's a small world ! 1 0... tt:le4

Karpov accepts the challenge. 10 ...0-0?! gave White fine prospects in Kamsky-Salov in the 5th round. 1 1 .c5! 28 ... g5??

But this is clear panic. 28 ... .1:!.a4? fails to 29. e5 ! and 30.�c6, but 28 ...�a4 should be enough to keep the position more or less balanced. 29.'i!ff6 tt:Jf6 30.�d6 �ea8

30 ....l:!.c8 3 1 .e5 is similar to the game, but 30 ...ttJd7 was the most stubborn attempt to fight back. 31 .e5! .tg2 32.�a6 �a6 33:•tg2 tt:ld7 34.tt:lc4 �c6 35.f4 gf4 36.gf4 tt:JcS 37.tt:ld6

And in this lost position, while playing 37 .. .f5, Ivanchuk overstepped the limit. 38 ..1:!.c4 would have left Black without an answer.

51 40.6

1 1 ...tt:lf6

D Kamsky • Karpov Notes byjeroen Piket An interesting battle between two of the greatest fighters the chess world knows at this moment. Both players are determined to catch up with the leader of the pack! 1 .e4 cs V2:Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lc6 5.tt:lc3 'JI//c7 6 ..te2 a6 7.0-0 tt:Jf6 a..te3 .tb4 9.tt:la4 .te7 1 0.c4!

This is clearly a better attempt at posing Black some problems in this Taimanov-Paulsen system 1 68

A new move and a good one. 1 I .ttJc6 bc6 12.�d4 ttJf6 1 3 .ttJb6 .l:!.b8 14.c5 d6 15 .cd6 �d6 16.ttJc4 �h2 17 .'it;>h1 c5 18 .�c5 �c5 19.�c5 with an unclear position was played in De la Riva-lllescas, Lleida 199 1 . 1 1 .�f3 with the idea of c5 and .l:!.c 1 is similar to Gata's plan and was played by Gutero against Sion, Sevilla 1989.

Aiming for the d5 square as 1 1 ...ttJc5 is not an option due to 12.ttJc6 �c6 13.ttJc5 �c5 14 . .1:!.c1 d6 15.b4. 1 2...tf3 0-0 1 3.�c1

Of course it is a matter of taste, but I imagine that most players would prefer to be on the white side. For the moment the players have the same goal, which is making useful moves to improve the coordination of the pieces. 1 3... 1d.b8

Making the jump to b6 less annoying. 1 4.g3

Round B

A multi-functional move, as it gives the bishop on f3 a lasting future on the h 1 -a8 diagonal, while the other bishop might one day threaten to go to f4. 1 4... g6

With his pawn majority in the centre it is to be expected that Black will be advancing both his d- and e-pawn, and then it will be useful to cover the f5 square. 1 5.tt:lb6 l:rd8 1 6.'ifa4

rial one, e.g. 23.'ifc2 (23.b4 'ifh3 24.tt'le5 �e6 or 23.l:.c2 l:.dl ) 23 ... �e8. 22 ...l:!.e6

22 ... 'ifh3 is best answered by 23.'ifh4. 23.:tfd1 'ife8 24.�e7 'ife7 25.tt:lc6 'ti'e8 26.'ifa6 �g7

After this forced sequence of moves (26. .. �c8? 27.tt'le7) we can conclude that Kamsky has done a good job as he is now a pawn up.

Increasing the pressure against c6 so it will not be easy for the opponent to free himself. 1 6 ...e5

Karpov is running out of space, so he decides to return the pawn for some activity. 1 7.tt:lb3 d5 1 8.cd6 l:ld6 1 9.tt:la5 �d7?!

19 ...e4 was sharper and probably more to the point as after 20 . .ig2 (20 ..ie4 tt'le4 21 .tt'lc6 �c6 22.'ife4 .ifS is no problem for Black) 20 ... .if5 21 .tt'lac4 l:.d3 22 ..if4 'it'd8 23 ..ib8 'ii'b8 24.tt'le3 (24J:tfdl ! ?) 24... 'ife5 25.tt'lbc4 'ife6 Black has good compensation for the exchange. 20.tt:ld7 'ti'd7 21 .�c6!?

21 .tt'lc6 bc6 22.�c6 'ife6 23.b3 looks more ob vious but 23 . ..h5 ! gave Karpov enough counter play in the post-mortem. 21 ... bc6 22.�c5!

27.tt:lb8?

But this allows Black too much active play. 27.b4! was much more resolute and after 27 ... l:lc8 (27 ... l:lb4 28.'ifa3 ! followed by 29 . .i:.d8) 28.b5 l:la8 29.'ifb6 e4 30.'ife3 ! (30.'ifd4 e3 3l .fe3 l:la2) Karpov would have had a lot more problems. 27 ... .l:.a6 28.tt:la6 'ifb2 30.a4 'ifa3

'it'b5

29.tt:lc5

Prevending 31 .�a 1 as in this endgame too the rook behind the pawn would be very powerful. 31 ..l:.c2

Missing the last opportunity to keep the initiative. 3 l .�c4 ! (3 l .tt'ld3 e4 32.l:la1 'ii'b3 33.tt'lf4 e3 ! 34.f3 e2 35.�e1 'iff3) 3l ...h5 32.h4 (32.h3? h4) 32 .. .tt:Jg4 (32 ...'ifa2 33.�dc1 tt'ld5 34.tt'le4 tt'lb6 35.l:lc7 !) 32.tt'le4! was still promising for White. 31 ... h5!

Karpov understands very well that now is the time to attack. 22.tt'lc6 .if8 and I do not see any way for White to convert his positional advantage into a mate-

32..l:.e1

1 69

Not an easy decision in mutual time trouble. 32.h4 e4 33J:te1 �b4 34 ..l:i.ee2 e3 ! 35 .fe3 l2Jd5 ! typifies the strength of Black's queen and knight. 32.'it>g2 �b4 33 .f3 e4 34.fe4 l2Je4 would have led to the same result as in the game.

•..

h4 33.'0t>g2 h3! 34.'0t>h3 �f3

Creating some serious threats against the white king.

35 .::Z.e5! •

51 39.4 D Shirov • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket This game was awarded the price for the best novelty of the tournament. Thejury consisting of correspondence grandmaster J.J. van Oosterom, grandmaster L. Polugaevsky, grandmaster M. Najdorf and yours truly were unanimous, as the idea was very original, specially prepared by Polgar for her game against Shirov, and an im provement over Kasparov's play.

1 .e4 cS 2.l2Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 l2Jc6 5.l2Jc3 d6 Again Judith plays a different move order, mak ing it difficult for future opponents to prepare against her.

6.g4! ?

The right choice. As White may be forced to give up material, it is sensible to be materialistic.

.•.

l2Jh5!

This is sufficient for a draw. 35 ... �d1 would have been an interesting but risky winning at tempt, as the following line shows: 36J1ce2 �fl 37.�h4 �g2 38.h3 (38.f4 �f3 is certainly not an improvement) 38 ... �f3 ! 39 . .1:12e3 (39.a5 'it>h6 40.a6 l2Jh7 ! 4 l .J:12e3 f5 ! ! and White gets mated) 39 . . .�f2 40.l2Jd3 !

36J:te4 36J1h5 �h5 37.�g2 �d1 38 . .l:i.c3 �d5 39.'it>fl �d1 would have drawn immediately.

36 ... g5 37J:td2 l2Jf4 38 ..l:i.f4 gf4 39.l2Jd3 �hS 40.�g2 f3 41 .�g1 �dS! •

By pinning the knight and rook Black prevents White from improving his position.

42.'0t>f1 'ti'd4 43.'0t>e1 �a1 44J1d1 �c3 45 .I:.d2 •

Draw. A very important game for theory. 1 70

A Keres Attack with Black's knight still on g8. Over the past two years this line has gained some popularity, and Shirov is partly responsible for that.

6 .•• a6 7.�e3 l2Jge7 8.tt:lb3 8.�e2 l2Jd4 9 . .id4 l2Jc6 I O ..ie3 .ie7 1 1 .0-0-0 b5 1 2.f4 �a5 1 3 .�f2 .l:lb8 14.'it>b1 0-0 1 5 .g5 �d7 1 6.h4 .l:lfc8 17.h5 lLlb4 18 ..id2 �b6 and White had to admit he had not achieved anything in Luther-Vogt, Altensteig 1992.

8 b5 9.f4 ..•

9.�e2 l2Ja5 ! 10.0-0-0 l2Jc4 1 l .f4 �c7 definitely gave Black no problems in Shirov-Salov, Linares 1993.

9 ..Q..b7 1 0. �f3 •.•

After this game the White players might start investigating IO.�d2.

1 0... g5! A very well known pawn push in the Sicilian but normally supported by a pawn on h6. Kasparov played 1 0 . . . l2Ja5 in this position but got into trouble after 1 1 .0-0-0 tLlb3 1 2.ab3 ld.c8 13 .h4 l2Jc6 14.g5 �a5 1 5.'it>b1 l2Jb4 1 6.i.d4 d5 1 7 .f5 ! in Shirov-Kasparov, Novgorod 1 994.

Round B

But let's see what induced Black to give away a pawn.

for Black to find counterplay on the kingside. 13. ..tal5 14.i.d2 .t:.c8 15.lLled4 or 13 ... lLlc4 14.i.d4 e5 15 .lLlg3 ! would have led to an inferior game. 1 4.gh5?

1 1 .fg5

1 1 .0-0-0, maintaining a clear lead in develop ment, was worth considering, but 1 l ...gf4 12.lbc5 (1 2.i.f4 lbg6 13.lt:\c5 'iVf6!) 12 ... lbe5 ! ( 1 2...�c8 13 .�f4 lbg6 14.e5 ! and Black has no grounds for optimism) 1 3.'iVf4 bc6 is okay for Black. 1 1 . ..tbe5 1 2.'iVg2

1 2.'iVe2 takes away the square for the knight, so after 12 ... b4 13. lba4 i.c6 ! (13 ... i.e4? 14.�b6) 14.lbb6 i.e4 Black regains the pawn. 1 2... b4 1 3.tLle2

13.lt:\a4 lbd5 ! 14.i.d2 .l:lc8 was not very tempting for White. 1 3 ... h5! !

This decision is more than the White position can handle and is based on an oversight. Dur ing the post-mortem the players spent a long time searching for the truth and this was the result: 14.gh6, the other way of capturing the pawn, is not so testing for B lack, as 14 . . .�h6 ( 1 4 . . . lLld5 1 5.ed5 i.d5 1 6.'iVg3 i.h1 1 7.g5 is hard to assess) 1 5 .i.h6 l:.h6 1 6.0-0-0 ( 1 6.h4? lLlg6 1 7.h5 lLlh4) 16 ... lLl7g6 gives excellent compensation for the small sacrifice: 17.'>t>b 1 tt:lc4 18.lLlg3 lLle3 19.'iVd2 lt:\d1 20.'iVh6 'iVf6 or 1 7.lbg3 'iVb6 ! Shirov finally suggested 14.0-0-0 ! as 14 ... lbg4 1 5.i.d4 e5 16.h3 is good for White. Shirov's intention was to continue after 14 ...hg4 with 15.lbf4 i.g7 ( 1 5 ...lbf5 is clearly not good: 1 6.ef5 ! �g2 17.�g2 ef5 1 8 .i.a8 'iVa8 19.tal5 'iVc8 20.lbf6 We7 21 ..1:lhe1 .l:lh2 22.�c5 !) 16.lbd4 'iVa5, with a sharp and unclear battle that awaits future tests. 1 4... tLlf5! 1 5 ..if2?

Although after 15 .ef5 i.g2 16.�g2 .l:lh5 Black is to be preferred, it was still White's best chance. 1 5 ... 'iVg5! 1 6.tLla5

Alexey sticks to his intended refutation. 16.'iVg5 lbf3 16.'0t>d1 lbg5 was not much of an option. 1 6 ... tLle3!

The point o f Polgar's lOth move and quite an amazing one, as it looked virtually impossible

This is the move he overlooked and it must have 1 71

come as a cold shower. 17.'irVg5 ttJf3 checkmates and 17 ..ie3 'i!Ve3 is not very rosy either. 1 7.'iYg3 'i!Vg3 1 8.ttJg3 t2Jc2 1 9.'it>d1 t2Ja1 20.tLlb7 b3

Black is a clear exchange up and White has nothing to show for it. 21 .ab3

2l .a3 �h6 followed by 22 .. .rtJe7 and 23 ....l::.ac8 would also not have saved the game.

21 ... t2Jb3 22.'it>c2 t2Jc5 23.t2Jc5 deS 24.�e1 tLlf3 25.�c3 t2Jd4 26.'it>d3 �d6 27.�g2

27.b4 rtJe7 28.bc5 .Q.c5 29 ..Q.d4 .l::.hd8 followed by ...e5 was another way to finish the game. 27....ie5 28.'it>c4 'it>e7 29J�a1 t2Jc6

And Shirov surrendered. The analyis is based on the notes by Polgar.

Round 9 Shi rov

- Anand

1 -0

Polgar

- Kamsky

1 -0

Karpov

- Salov

0- 1

lvanch u k

- Lju bojevic

1 -0

51 23.5 D Shirov • A nand

Salov Polgar A n and Karpov lvanchu k Kamsky Shirov Lju bojevic

7.0 5.5 5 .0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0

1 0... l:f.e8!

Notes byjeroen Piket Before this moment the games between the Lat vian and Indian grandmasters had always ended peacefully, which does not imply that the players had not tried to beat each other. 1 .e4 cS 2.lLJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:Jd4 lLJfG 5.lLJc3 a6 6.�e3

In my opinion Shirov was the best prepared for this event and during the tournament he also worked very hard with his second and friend Lanka. The only disadvantage of their prepara tion was that Alexey ended up playing a lot of Lanka's systems, which made himratherpredictable. 6 ...e6 7.�e2

Normally one would expect Shirov to play a sharp system like the English Attack, but the day before Anand had been taught how to play the black side of this system in his game against Ljubojevic. 7...�e7 8.f4 'f/c7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.g4

Lanka's favourite continuation. l O.'f/el oc curred many times in this tournament.

White was very successful in Short-Ljubojevic, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990, after 10 ... tt:Jc6 l l .g5 tt:Jd7 12.f5 tt:Jd4? (12 .. .ti:Jde5 1 3.f6 �d8 is criti cal, according to the books) 13 .�d4 .i:ie8 14.fe6 fe6 1 5.�h5 .i:if8 16 ..i:if8 �f8 17 . .i:ifl . The centre break 10 ...d5 l l .ed5 tt:Jd5 1 2.ttJd5 edS 13 .�f3 .i:id8 14.�d2 does not equalize either. I O ... b5 is also quite risky for Black as White just pushes his pawns; l l .g5 ttJfd7 12.f5 tt:Je5 1 3 .f6 Prand stetter-Adorjan, Prague zonal 1985. 1 1 .g5 lLJfd7 1 2.�h5

Forcing weaknesses in the black defences. 1 2.f5 tt:Je5 1 3 .�el ttJbc6 14.�g3 b5 15 .f6 also looks 1 73

worthy of consideration, as the attack seems hard to parry. According to Shirov and Lanka, 12.h4 or the immediate 1 2..ig4 is better.

A novelty and an improvement over 20. "iff4, Pavlovic-Tringov, Podgorica 1992.

1 2 ... g6 1 3.�g4 �f8 1 4.f5

Burning all his boats. In Polgar-Polugaevsky, Aruba 199 1 , young Judith was wise enough to play more solidly, viz. 14.a4 lt:Jc6 1 5."i!lfe2 lt:Jd4 16 ..id4 b6 17."iff2 .ib7 1 8 J:tae1 .l::.e7 19.h4. 1 4... tt:Je5 1 5.fe6 fe6 1 6 . .l::.f6

The idea behind White's previous primitive play. The rook is a useful help for mating the black king and White has no hesitation about sacrific ing the exchange on f6. 16

•.•

tt:Jg4 1 7.'ili'g4 20...�g7

1 7. ..tbc6?

Anand was clearly in unknown territory and un fortunately for him he was not very impressed by his opponent's play. Otherwise he would have thought for a while and come up with the excel lent 17 . . . lt:Jd7 ! !, as 18Jie6 fails to 1 8 ... lt:Je5. This move had already been played by Andras Ador jan, an expert on black openings, in his game versus Women's Champion Xie, Budapest 1992. That game continued 18J.Iafl lt:JeS (this is ex actly what Anand had in mind) 19."ifh3 il.g7 20.lt:Je6 "i!lfd7 21 .lt:Jd5 l:te6 22."ife6 "i!lfe6 23 J.Ie6 .ie6 24.lt:Jc7 lt:Jc4! 25.il.f4 iJ...h3 26.lt:Ja8 .id4 27.l:tf2 lt:lb2 and Black won. Interesting is 19.l:tf8 l:[f8 20. .l::.f8 'it>f8 21 ."i!lfe6! "i!lfe7 22."i!lfb3 ! ? (22."i!lfe7 'it>e7 23.lt:Jd5 'it>d8). 1 8.tt:Jc6 bc6 1 9.e5! d5 20J:taf1 !

1 74

20. .. c5? 21 ."i!lff3 il.g7 22.lt:Jd5 edS 23 ."i!lfd5 'it>h8 24. .l::. t7 "i!lfb8 25Jig7 demonstrates how danger ous Black's situation is. During the post-mortem Anand was of the opinion that 20 ... "i!lfe5 was more stubborn, but White is doing fine after 2 l ."i!lff3 .ig7 22 . .l::.g 6! "i!lfc7 (22... hg6 23."iff7 �h7 24.l:tf3: 22 ... "iff5 23Jlg7 �g7 24."i!lfg3 "i!lfg6 25."i!lfe5 �g8 26.il.d4+-) 23 ..l::.f6! ilf6 24.gf6 "i!lft7 25.iJ...h6 followed by 26.�h l . Also 2 l .iJ...d4 "i!lfc7 (2 1 .. ."i!lfd6 22."i!lff3 !) 22. .l::. t7 eS (22 . . ."iff7 23.J::!.f7 'it>f7 24."iff4 �g8 25."iff6 eS 26.iJ...e5 l:teS 27."i!lfe5 with the threat of 28.lt:Jd5 seems to stress the drawbacks of Black's posi tion) 23."i!lff3 ! leads to an advantage; 23 ..."i!lfd6 can be met by 24.il.e5 ! . 21 .�c5! 'ife5

2 1 . ..ilf6 22.gf6 "i!lft7 23."i!lfg5 followed by lt:Jd 1f2-g4 is not a serious option. 22.1:117 l:lb8!

Generally expected and the toughest defence. 22... a5 loses to 23.lt:Je2 "i!lfe4 24."ifh3 ! , as 25J:tg7 follows and mate cannot be prevented. 23.'iff3 'ifg5

23 ...iJ... b7 24.h4 il.a8 25.lt:Je2 "i!lfe4 26."i!lfe4 de4 27.b4 would lead to a very unpleasant ending. 24.'it>h1 'ifd8?

After playing several only moves Anand col lapses. 24. ..iJ... b7 would have kept him alive,

though White is preferable after both 25.�d6 c5 26.�b8 1:tb8 27.lLla4 and 25.lLle2!? 25.1:tg7!

And Anand ceased the uneven fight. The analysis is based on notes by Shirov and Lanka.

Obviously ! 25 ... �g7 26.'iff7 �hB 27.�d6!

51 33.3 D Polgar • Kamsky Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cs 2.t2Jf3 4.t2Jd4 g6

The decisive blow ! 27...e5

Anand obviously saw what would happen after 27 ... 'ifd6 but for the audience it was less easy: 28.'ife8 <tJg7 29JH7 <tJh6 30.'ifh8 e5 3 1 .h4 Wh5 32.'ifh7 <tJg4 33. 'ifh6 �f5 34.<tJg2! 'ifd8 35.lLld1 ! � 36.'1t'g1 �f5 (36...'ifh4 37.lLlf2 '1t'g3 38.'ife3) 37.lLlf2 Wf3 38 .'ifg6 and the game is over. 28.�b8 �fS 29.�c7 'ife7 30.'ife7 l:te7 31 .�d8 l:te6 32.l:te1

With the threat of 33.l:te5. 32...<tJg8 33.�c7 d4

If 33 ... e4 the pawns would also be blockaded and White's victory is just a matter of time. 34.t2Je4 cS 35.�g2

35 .�e5 ! was the simplest. 35 ... c4 36.�f3 l:le7 37.�d6 1:te6 38.�c7

Again 38.i.e5 could have been considered. 38 ... h6 39.c3 gS 40.t2Jg3 e4 41 .�g2 dc3 42.bc3 �g6 43J:td1 1:te7 44J:td6 �f7 45.�d8 .:tea 46.�b6 e3 47.1:td7

t2Jc6

3.d4

cd4

The Accelerated Dragon has gainend some popular ity lately, and not without reason, as it is a very solid Sicilian variation where Black is certainly not with out chances. The Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen, who lives in Buenos Aires, has always been the principal advocate of this line at the highest level. 5.t2Jc3

After a not very satisfying experience with the Maroczy (6.c4) against lvanchuk in the fifth round, Judith switches to the move which suits her style best. s ... �g7 6.�e3 t2Jf6 7.�c4 'if as

Best by test. 7 ...lLla5 8.�f7 Wf7 9.e5 lLlg8 10.lLle6! is a famous refutation similar to the classic Fischer-Reshevsky, USA (eh) 1958/59. 8.0-0 0-0

ECO gives a complicated line after 8 ... lLlg4, starting with 9.lLlb3 'fi'h5 10.�f4 �e5, but 9.'ii'g4 lLld4 10.'ifh4 ! is a simple route to a plus. 9.�b3

9.lLlb3 'fi'c7 10.f4 d6 1 l .i.e2 transposes to one of the classical main lines. 9 ... d6 1 O.h3 �d7

For players who like to leave the well-trodden paths, I can suggest they study 10... lLlh5 ! ? 1 1 .f4 'ifhS

Gata seems to prefer this move over the alterna tive 1 1 . . Jiac8, which occurred recently in the 6th 1 75

match game Kamsky-Anand, Sanghi Nagar 1994. 1 2.tLlf3

12.'i!Vd3 b5 1 3 . .l:!.ae1 a5 14.a3 b4 15/ijc6 �c6 16.ab4 ab4 1 7.l2Jd5 l2Jd5 1 8.ed5 �d7 gave Black an edge in the 2nd match game Short-Kamsky, Linares 1994, as 19 .�d4 is not possible due to 19 ....ib5 . 12

•.•

b5 1 3.a3 as 1 4.'iVd3 a4

14 ... b4 15.ab4 ab4 16 ..l:!.a8 l:.a8 17.l2Jd5 and White keeps the initiative. 1 5.�d5

15 ..ia2 b4 ! 1 5 ... tLld5

Tempting but the cause of Black's problems . 15 ... e6! ( 1 5 . . . �ab8 looks playable) 16 ..ic6 .ic6 17.l2Jd4 �b7 and the b5 pawn cannot be taken advantageously despite the fact it is attacked three times . 1 7.�d4 is still slightly better for White.

1 8....U.fe8

18 . .. l2Jc4 19 . .U.e7 lLlb2 20.�g7 ! 'i!Vg7 2l .'i!Vd4 is quite hopeless for Black. 1 9.tLlb5 l:f.acB?

19 . . .�b5 20.'i!Vb5 'f!Vf4 2l .'i!Vd3 ! would give White an irresistible attack, but 19 . . ..l:!.ab8 ! was the only chance as driving the knight away was a priority. 20.lLlc7 .l:!.ec8 2 1 .'i!Vc3 ! (21 .lLla6? .ib5) leaves White with an undisputed advantage. 20.b3!

Simple and devastatingly strong. 20 �f5 •••

Kamsky had used up most of his time here as the knight on aS has no future whatsoever. He decided to play for some tricks which obvi ously do not work. 20. . . ab3 2 l .cb3 �f5 22.'i!Ve3 would also not have changed the out come of the game. 21 .'ti'd2 l:f.c2 22.'iVa5 �h3 23.l:f.f2!

1 6.ed5 tLla5 1 7.�d4!

1 7... 'iVh6

Rather passive, but 17 ... 'i!Vf5 18.'i!Ve2 �d4 19.lLld4 'f!Vf6 20 . .l:!.ad 1 followed by 21 .l2Je4 is not very attractive either. Perhaps 17. . .�f5 1 8.'i!Ve3 l2Jc4 19.'i!Vt2 lLlb2 20.g4 .ig4 was the best practical chance as Black gains a lot of pawns for the bishop. 1 8.l:f.ae1

For the moment White does not bother about the b5 pawn and just concentrates on the kingside. 1 76

Exchanging the strongest black piece on the board and ensuring victory. 23...ab3

From this point on Black's play begins to dete riorate due to extreme time shortage. In time trouble one always has the excuse of having too little time to resign. 24.�g7 �g7 25.l:f.c2 bc2 26.'iVc3 �gB 27.gh3 'ti'f4 28.�f2 'iVa4 29.tLlbd4

Round 9

But now Karnsky no longer has any reason to continue. 29... l:la8 30.l:le7 'it'aS 31 .'it'aS l:laS 32.tt::lc2 .tt dS 33.a4 :Z.aS 34..tte4 fS 35.l:lb4 'itg7 36.tt::lcd4 'itf6 37.tt::l b3 l:la7 38.a5 gS

14.b4 �b6 1 5 .ed5 �d5 16.�c4 0-0 17.�e5 �c7 1 8 .�d5 ed5 19 ...ic7 "ifc7 20.tt:Jd5 tt:Jd5 2 1 .l:td5 a5 ! is not to everybody's taste. 1 4... l:lc8!

And here Black's flag finally dropped. One can only imagine how much this defeat must have hurt Karnsky, the way he kept postponing the inevitable. Judith deserves all credit for an other 2-0 victory.

51 29. 1 1 D Karpov • Salov Notes by]eroen Piket Not only does Karpov want to get even after his unfortunate loss in the first cycle, but also he needs to win if he seriously wants to compete for first place. 1 .e4 cS 2.tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 d6 6.�g5 e6

Salov used to be a big adherent of 6 ... �d7, but lately he has gone for the most fashionable line and not without success. 7.'ti'd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.�f4 �d7 1 0.tt::lc6 j_c6 1 1 .f3

Later in the tournament Karpov tried 1 I ."ife1 against Shirov, but the text is regarded as the most ambitious. 1 1 ... d5 1 2.'ife1 �b4 1 3.a3 �as

This move was originally supposed to be dubious because of 14.ed5 tt:Jd5 15 .b4, until in a corre spondence game Zagorovsky-Rokhlin, 1967, Black came up with the excellent discovery 15 . . .tt:Jf4 ! 1 6.l:ld8 �d8 with more than enough compensation. 1 4.�d2

Theory develops amazingly rapidly in this spe cific line as every tournament supplies new ma terial. The text move is the latest recommenda tion, but there is nothing wrong with 14 ..."ife7. 1 5. 'it'g3

1 5 .e5 ti:Jd7 1 6."ifg3 g6 1 7 ...id3 tt:lc5 1 8.'it>b1 b5 19.tt:le2 �d2 20J1d2a5 21 ."iff2 ..Q.d7 22."ifd4 b4! and Black started a decisive attack in Unzicker Shirov, Bundesliga 1994. 1 5... d4

15 ... ..Q.c7 16.e5 tt:ld7 1 7.f4 0-0 18 ...Q.d3 tt:lc5 19 ...ie3 tt:ld3 20.tld3 f6 2 Uie1 and a draw was agreed in Adarns-Shirov, Munich 1993. 1 6.�e3?!

Only a month earlier in Tilburg White scored a crushing victory with 16.tt:le2 ..Q.a4 17 ...Q.c3 "ifb6 1 8 .tld4 ..Q.c3 19.bc3 ..Q.b5 20."ifg7 'it>e7 21 .tt:lf4 in Svidler-Greenfeld. The key question is whether Black's play can be improved. 17 ... "ifb6? looks suspect to me; instead I suggest 17 .....Q.c3 1 8 .tt:lc3 ..Q.c2 ! 19.�c2 "ifb6 20."iff2 (20."ifg7 'it>e7) 20 ... e5 and the white king cannot escape. 1 6... .ic7!

A really annoying move; what to do with the queen? 1 7.f4

1 77

17.'ii'g7 obviously fails to 17 .. J�h7, as the lady is trapped. 17.e5 lLlh5 1 8 .'ii'g4 seems fine but 18 ...�e5 19.'ii'h5 'ii'f6 ! is simply better for Black. I expected Karpov to avoid real problems by 1 7 ..l:!.d4 �g3 1 8 ..l:!.d8 .l:!.d8 19.hg3 with an approximately balanced endgame. 1 7... tt:Jh5 1 8.'fig4 'ii'f6 1 9..l:!.d4?

I consider this a big mistake as White ends up in a worse ending. 19.e5 ! 'ii'g6 ( 1 9. .. 'ii'f5 20.'ii'f5 ef5 2 1 . l:ld4 �b6 22.lLle2! is quite comfortable for White) 20.'ii'g6 fg6 21 .l:.d4 �b6 22 . .I:.d3 �e3 23 . .l:!.e3 lLlf4 24. .l:!.gl and although Black has a very slight edge White should be able to draw the game easily. 1 9 ... �f4 20.�f4 'ii'f4 21 .'ii'f4 tt:Jf4 22.g3 tt:Jg6 23.'0td2 tt:Je5

I was always taught that if Black has an untouch able knight on e5 he is better. 24.�e2 'Ote7 25.'0te3 g5!

Using the kingside majority is the right way to squeeze the opponent.

28 ... .l:!.g3 29.'0tf4 .l:!.g1 ?

A difficult choice for Valery, but finally he chooses the wrong option. Much better was 29....l:!.g5 30.f.tg5 hg5 3 l .�g5 (3 l .�e5 f6 mate) 3 1 .. .lLlg6 32.�g4 l:.h4 33.'it>g3 f5 ! which would create a lot of threats. Now Karpov can show his great defending skills. 30.tt:Jd5!

30. .l:!.e5 and 30.c;t>e5 both fail to 30 ... f6 followed by 3 1 . . .e5. 30...�d5 31 .ed5 tt:Jg6 32.'0te3 l:lg3 33.'0tf2 l:.g5

In time pressure it is a very wise decision to exchange pieces. 33 ... e5 34J�b4 is unclear. 34.l:lb4 b5 35.a4 .I:.c8 36.ab5 ab5 37.de6

37.c3 should also be sufficient to draw the game. 37 ... .l:!.h5 38.�h5 l:lc2 39.'0te3 I:.c5 40.i.e2 l:le5

26.h4?

Not a good decision. It is clear that allowing h5-h4 would also run into trouble, but now White is opening the gate ! 26 .. J:lcg8!

41 .'0tf2?

After defending superbly Karpov seems to have spent all his energy for the day, as from now on he plays as poorly as we have rarely seen from him. 41 ..l:!.e4 ! was the obvious way to save the game. All the black pieces are ideally placed. 27.hg5 l:.g5 28 . .l:!.h5

Bravely deciding to sacrifice the g3 pawn for some counterplay. 1 78

41 ...fe6 42.�b5?

Again White should try to swap rooks, so 42.l:f.b5 was to be preferred. 42 ... '0tf6 43.�d3 h5 44.l:le4?!

Round 9

44.�g6 would give a rook ending very tough to defend and 44 ..!:1b5 tt:Jf4 45.�fl tt:Jd5 typifies White's problems. 44 . .!:1b8 was best in my view. 44.. J:!.c5 45.<itte3

45.b4 .!:1c3 46 . .!:1e3 h4 (46 ... tt:Jf4 47.�e4; 46 ...tt:Je5 47.�e2) is also unattractive. 45 ... .!:1g5 46.<ittf2 .!:1f5 47.<itte3 l:l.g5 48.<ittf2 l:l.f5 49.<itte3 tbe7!

51 40.2 D Ivanchuk • Ljubojevic Notes by Vasiry /vanchuk 1 .e4 c5 2.ttJf3 tbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 e6 5.ttJc3 Wic7 6.i.e3 a6 7..td3

This variation has occurred several times in my games, the most memorable being my win over Judith Polgar in the Monte-Carlo Blind tourna ment in 1993. 7... tbf6

In recent times Black has very frequently re jected this natural developing move in favour of the immediate 7 ... b5 . 8.0-0 tbd4

Well played, as the knight will ensure the ad vance of the pawns. 50. .!:1h4 l:l.e5 51 .<ittf2 �d5 52.i.c4 �f5 53.<ittg1 �g5 54.<ittf2 �f5 55.<ittg1 tbg6 56.�e4 tbf4

With strong manoeuvring Black has greatly im proved his position and I assess the game as winning for Black. 57.b4 �g5 58.<ittf1 e5 59..ta6

59.b5 h4 60.b6 h3 is not an equal race. 59.. J:tg3 60.�c4 l:l.b3 61 .b5

The b-pawn and the bishop have lost all their strength and Salov continues with excellent tech nique. 61 ... h4 62.�c6 <ittg5 63.b6 .l::!. b1 64.<ittf2 h3 65.<ittg3 �g1 66.<itt h2 .!:1g2 67.<itth 1 ttJh5

A very impressive result by Valery, as beating Karpov 2-0 is not exactly commonplace.

The afore-mentioned Ivanchuk-Polgar game went 8 ... �d6 9.tt:Jc6 dc6 (9 ... bc6 10.f4 e5 oc curred in the game Kasparov-Portisch, Debrecen 1992) 1 O.f4 e5 1 1 .f5 b5 1 2.a4 l:l.b8 ( 1 2. . . �b7? is bad in view of 13 .ab5 ab5 14 . .!:1a8 �aS 1 5.�b5 ! cb5 16.tt:Jb5 'it'c6 17.'it'd6 ! 'it'b5 18.�c5+-), and here, instead of 1 3 .Wh 1 0-0 14 . .!:1f3 as played, 13.'it'e2 was stronger, in order to launch an attack with g2-g4 after kingside castling by Black. 9.i.d4 .tcs 1 o.�cs

By exchanging the dark-squared bishops, White can of course hope for only a minimal advantage, but that day I had no desire at all to go in for the sharp continuation IO.�f6 gf6 l l .'it'g4. 1 0 .. .'ii'c5 1 1 .<itth 1

Against Ljubojevic (Linares 1 99 1 ) , Anand played l l .lt:Ja4 'it'c7 1 2.c4, but was unable to gain an advantage. Remembering this, I de cided to try a different plan of attacking on the kingside . 1 1 ... b5 1 2.Wid2

In view of White's previous move, it looks more logical to play 1 2.f4 b4 13.tt:Ja4 (1 3.tLlb 1 followed by playing the knight to d2 is also possible) 13 ... 'it'c6 14.c3, and now 14 . . . tt:Je4 is 1 79

risky in view of 1 5 . .te4 ! 'ii'e4 1 6.lLJb6 .U.b8 17 .'ii'd6 'ii'b 7?! ( 1 7 .. J:tb6 18.'ii'b6 .tb7 is better, although even then White has the advantage) 1 8 .ll:Jc4 !, and White's initiative is extremely dan gerous. Instead of 14 ...ll:Je4 Black can try 14 ... �b7, in the hope of achieving a good game after 15 .cb4 ll:Je4 16 ..te4 (if 16. .U.f3?! 'ii'd 6!) 16...'ii'e4 17.'ii'd2 �c6 ! 18 ..ti.ae1 ( 1 8 .ll:Jc5 'ii'd5 !) 1 8 ... 'ii'g6 19.ll:Jb6 (19.f5? 'it'h6!) 19 . . J:tb8 20.ll:Jc4 0-0 2I .ll:Je5 'ii'f5=. But instead of 15 cb4, stronger is 15J:te l ! d5 ( 1 5 ... bc3 1 6 ..U.c 1 ) 16.cb4 de4 1 7 ..ti.c1 'ii'd5 (or 17 ...'ii'd6 1 8 . .tb5 ! rtJe7 19.'ii'd6 rtJd6 20.ll:Jc5 !±) 18 .i.c4 'ii'd 1 19 . .ti.ed 1 , and the resulting ending favours White. Taking account of these variations, Black should play 1 2 ... .ib7 (instead of 1 2 ... b4), since 1 3 .e5? ! b4 ! 14.ef6 ( 1 4.ll:Ja4 'ii'c6 1 5 .'ii'f3 ll:Jd5 16.b3 ll:Je3 !+) 14 . . . bc3 gives him a good game. The move in the game prevents Black from playing 1 2 . . . b4 1 3.ll:Ja4 'ii'c6 in view of 14.'ii'b 4. 1 2...�b7 1 3J:tae1 'ifd4?!

I prefer 13 ...0-0, and if 14.e5 ll:Jg4 1 5.f4, then 15 ...f5 ! , when in my opinion Black's chances are not worse. And ifWhite plays 14.f4, then 14 ...e5 ! is possible, with a perfectly satisfactory game ( 1 5.fe5 ll:Jg4). 1 4.f3!

Simple and strong. Now in a number of vari ations the unfortunate position of the black queen at d4 may tell. For example: 14 .. J:!.c8 1 5 .'ii'g5 0-0 1 6.e5 h6? 17.'ii'd 2+-. However, 1 80

instead of 1 6 ... h6 Black can play 16 . . . ll:Je8, re taining fair chances of a successful defence. Stronger for White is 15 .e5 ! ll:Jd5 ( 1 5 . . . b4 16. 'ifg5 !) 16. 'ifg5 ! , when his attack is extremely dangerous. Therefore my opponent decided to take control of g5. 1 4...h6 1 5.e5

The alternative was 1 5.ll:Jd1 .l:[c8 16.c3 'tWb6;!;; . 1 5 ... ttJd5 1 6.ttJd5

In the variation 16 ..1:[e4 'ii'c5 17.ll:Jd5 i.d5 18 ..1:[g4 g6 19 .c3 White stands slightly better, but 17 . .. 'ifd5 ! is more accurate. 1 6... i.d5 �e4?!

1 7.c3

'it'c5

1 8.�e4

18 ...�c6 was more cautious, aiming for the ex change of light-squared bishops in more favour able circumstances. 1 9.l:le4 l:la7 20.l:lfe1 �e7?!

20. .. .1:[c7 Iooks more accurate, and only if21 . .1:[d4 rtJe7. 21 .l:.g4 l:lg8 22. 'it'f4 'it'c7?!

22. .. .l:[c7 was better, not fearing the variation 23 . .U.g7 llg7 24.'ii'f6 rtJe8! 25.'ii'g7 'ii'f2 with strong counterplay. White does better to play 23 'ii'g3 ! , retaining the advantage. 23.l:ld1 ?!

As my opponent indicated after the game, by 23 .'ii'b4 We8 24.a4 .l:[b7 25.a5 ! (this was the move that I overlooked during the game) I could have achieved a totally winning position.

Round 9

23 ... l:tb7 24.h3 aS 25.a3 .l:!.b6?!

Black's best chance was 25 . . .b4, but even then after 26.cb4 ! ab4 27.a4, or 26 ... .1:!.b5 27.ba5± it is difficult for him to hold the position. 26.'it'g3 'itfS 27J�gd4 .U.b7 28.f4 g5 29..1:!.f1 .l:!.g6 30.'it'd3

White avoids the trap. The plausible 30.f5 would have been answered by 30 ....1:!.f6 ! ! 30 ... 'it'c6 31 .f5 ef5 32..1:!.f5 .l:!.e6 33.1:td6 'it'c4 34.'it'd1 'ite8?

In severe time trouble Ljubojevic makes a mis take that leads to his immediate defeat. 34. .. �g7 was a tougher defence, although even then after 35 . .1:!.d4 �c6 36.h4 White must win. 35.'it'f3 .l:l.d6 36.ed6 .l:!.b8

37.l:!.g5! !

A simple, but spectacular finish. 37... hg5 38.'it'f6

Black resigned.

Round 1 0 A nand

- lvanchuk

1fz

Lju bojevic

- Karpov

lf2 - lf2

Salov

- Polgar

1/2

Kamsky

- Shi rov

lf2 1fz

0- 1

51 40.7 D A nand • Ivanchuk Notes byjeroen Piket These two boys have now known each other for about ten years and despite their rivalry they have a very good relationship. Still their games are very important as they very much respect each other. In a training match a couple of years ago Anand was the stronger over eight games, but in this mini-match the Ukrainian grandmaster is leading.

Salov Polgar An and Karpov Shirov lvanchuk Kamsky Lju bojevic

7.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 2.5

Yugoslavia (eh) 1978) 9 ... bc6 10.f4 d5 (10 ...�c3 1 l .bc3 tLle4 1 2.�a3 is certainly worth a pawn. 10 ... 0-0 was suggested by Larsen in the mid-sev enties but I forgot to ask him whether he still believes this is a sound option) 1 1 .e5 tLld7 12.tLla4 tLlb6 1 3 .c4 �e7 14.�e3 tLla4 1 5 ."ii'a4 �d7, Marjanovic-Zafirovski, Yugoslavia 1983. 9.W/d4 �cS 1 0.Wid3 bS

1 .e4 cs 2.t2Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jc6 S.t2Jc3 Wic7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 t2Jf6 8.'it;h1

This is a pleasant deviation from 8.�e3 which has enjoyed great popularity during this tourna ment. The text move was and still is considered an equally good treatment against this Paulsen Taimanov system. 8... t2Jd4

A typical capture in this line, but 8 . . .�b4 seems to guarantee a double-edged game as the sources show: 9.tLlc6 (9.�g5 �c3 10.�f6 gf6 l l .bc3 tLle7 1 2."ii'd2 d5 1 3 ."ii'h6 de4 14."ii'f6 tLlg6 1 5.f3 e5 16.tLlf5 �f5 17.Wif5 e3 Ivanovic-Kurajica,

For a while 10 ... h5 was more fashionable, but actually this is not so impressive if White contin ues with his own plan: 1 1 .f4 tLlg4 12.e5 followed by �f3 and tLle4. 1 1 .f4 �b7 1 2.�f3 hS 13.eS t2Jg4 1 4.�b7

1 83

This was also played in Nunn-Zichichi in Reg gio-Emilia, and although Nunn is a great opening expert he did not achieve any advantage either. 14.a4! b4 15.tt:le4 �e7 1 6.�d2 is the only correct way to make use of the space advantage. 1 4 .. .'ti'b7 1 5.tt:Je4 �e7

after 25...tt:Je4 26.�e7 l:!.d3 27.'ilVd3 both 27...tt:Jc3 and 27 ... f5 !? 28.�h4 l:!.c8 leave Black with no problems. 25 ...'it'f3 26. .!::!.f3 .!::!.d6 27.�c5

And the players agreed a draw.

15 .. .'ti'c6 16.�d2 tt:lh6 16.l':.ad1 tt:lf5 17.a3 h4 18 J:H3 �e7 occurred in Crepan-Rajkovic, Bled 1989. 1 6.h3?!

An enormous waste of time as this only helps Black to improve the prospects of his knight. 16.�d2 is a fairly routine developing move. 1 6... tt:Jh6 1 7.�e3 tt:Jf5 1 8.�f2

Anand is not necessarily worried about having his bishop exchanged for the knight but 1 8 . . .'�'e4 needed to be prevented. 1 8 ... h4 1 9.c3 0-0 20.J:I.ad1 .t:.fcB 21 . 'iff3 .!::!.at �

In order not to be di�tu··':'ed by tt:lf6; moreover the rook is useful on the b-file anyway in case Ivanchuk wants to piay for a5 and b4. 22.b3 J:l.dB

22 . . a5 was also equal according to the players, but it is understandable that Ivanchuk takes this opportunity to play d7-d6. .

23 . .!::!.d3 d6 24.ed6 lt:Jd6

51 23.1 0 D Lj uboj evic • Karpov Notes by]eroen Piket For Ljubojevic it was time to stop the rot, as four losses in a row is more than enough. There is not even an expression for this sequence; players tend to call two defeats in a row 'castling' (0-0) and three defeats without interruption 'castling long'. Karpov, on the other hand, wanted to forget about his loss in the previous round as soon as possible, and of course he would not mind prolonging Ljubo's suffering. 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 tt:Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 e6 5.tt:Jc3 a6 6 ...ie2 d6 7.0-0 tt:Jf6 B...ie3 ..ie7 9.f4 0-0 1 0.'We1 tt:ld4

In the third round these same players, with re versed colours, also tested the Scheveningen Variation and with 1 O ... 'ilVc7 they would have had an exact copy. Karpov deviates, as White won that game. 1 1 ...id4 bS 1 2.a3

Since its appearance in high level chess this opening has been the subject of a heavy theoreti cal debate, as indicated by the large number of chapters in the books. Magerramov gives 12.�f3 b4 13. tt:la4 l:!.b8 14.e5 de5 15 .�e5 l:!.b5 ! as satis factory for Black due to the flexibility of its pieces. 1 2J�d1 is considered as the main line in the Encyclopedia. 1 3.....ib7 1 3.'it'g3 25.lt:Jd6

25 .�h4 would not have been a good tactic, as 1 84

13.�d3, to deploy the bishop on the d3-h7 diago nal, is a less fashionable approach.

Round 1 0

1 85

22.lLle2 e5 23.J:!.c3 is very imaginative, but 23 .....Wb7 would be quite a damper.

1 3.....tc6

22 deS 23...tes 'ir'b6 24 ...te2 ..•

Hopefully not too confusing but worth knowing is the game Karpov-Andersson, Tilburg 1977, where Black opted for 13 ... .l:l.c8, but after 14.�hl g6 1 5.i.d3 lLlh5 16 ...We3 ..Wd7 17.�e2 lLlf4 18 ...Wf4 e5 19 . ..Wg3 ed4 20.i..g4 he never man aged to equalize completely. 1 4. .1:1.ad1

Ljubo wants his rook on the d-file, whereas many other players have preferred 14.i..d3 and 15Jbe l . 1 4... ..Wc7 1 S ..if3 �h8 1 7..l:l.d3

frad8

1 6.<�h1

Allowing Black some freedom on the queenside. More to the point seems 1 5 .b4, maintaining an initiative. 1 7 ... aS! 1 8.b4 ab4 1 9.ab4

A big difference, as now the b4 pawn is weak. 1 9... ..Wb7 20.fre3

With the idea of transferring the knight via dl to f2 in order to support a future attack. 20....t:l.g8

This move is a very important part of Black's strategy with �h8. 2 1 . 'ir'h3

As there are no longer any threats on the g-file, the queen moves, as the h7 pawn might be vul nerable. 21 ... 'ir'c7 22.eS

1 86

24....ib4

24. .. l:td2 was regarded as better in the press room, but after 25 . .l:l.g3 ! l:l.e2 (25 . . ..1:k8 26.i.d3 l:l.d3 27.cd3 and 28.lLle4 makes the black ex change sacrifice very speculative) 26.lLle2 lLle4 27J�e3 White can look to the future with confi dence. 2S..id3 .l:!.d3

25 ...�c3 26.�c3 (26.i.f6? fails to the crushing 26. ..i..g 2! 27.�g2 gf6 28 .�f2 f5) 26 ...J:!.d3 27.cd3 lLld5 28 ...Wh7 'it>h7 29.J:!.h3 leads to per petual check. 26.frd3

26.cd3 i..c3 transposes to the previous note. 26.....te7

So who is better and why? 27.tZ:le2! .ie4

Due to mutual time shortage Karpov did not want to take any risk. 27 ...b4 28.lLld4 i..d5 29.lLlf3 lLle4 would have led to an unclear but roughly equal game. 28. .l:!.d2 ..tfS 29.'ir'f3 .ig4 30.'ir'd3 .ifS 31 .'ir'f3 .ig4 32.'ir'd3 .ifS

Draw.

Round 1 0

51 42. 5 D Salov • Polgar

1 3:ti'e2 jLd7 1 4.tt:lf3

Notes by]eroen Piket Perhaps Polgar and S alov thought nothing of it, but everyone else was surprised and at the same time enthusiastic about their play and results in the tournament so far. Everybody sensed that today the tournament could be de cided, but that, on the other hand, we might be in for some exciting thriller, or for option three: the two tournament leaders might re spect each other too much to dare take the necessary risks. Let's see . . .

14.lbc4 is pointless because of 14 ...d5 . 14.<it>h1 was not a bad waiting move, as after 14 ...'i!/e7 1 5 .�b6 could be annoying. 14 ...'ife7 1 5.'it'f2 es 1 6.�c2 ef4

As in many Sicilian lines the d6 pawn is no weaker than its white colleague on e4. 1 7..i.f4 tt:Je5 1 8.llad1 b5?!

Rather careless, as it allows 19.'i!/a7. 1 8 ... lbf3 and ..ie5 or 18 . ...ic6 are the alternatives.

1 .e4 c5 2.tt:lf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 a6

For this important game Judith relies on the system she has practised most frequently during the last few years. 5.�d3 g6 6.jLe3

The most consistent way for White is 6.f4 �g7 7.lbf3. 7...�g7 7.0-0 9.tt:lc6 tt:lc6

tt:le7

8.f4

tt:lbc6

In Holland we do not consider ourselves very nationalistic, but let's change that! 9 ...bc6, as the first ful l-time professional in the Netherlands, Johannes Donner, played in Amsterdam 1961 against Van den Berg, was certainly worth con sideration. 1 0.c3

Of course Salov is happy to play this sort of positional chess against Polgar. 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .tt:ld2 d6

The immediate 1 1 . ..b5 1 2.lbf3 d6 1 3.f5 (other wise Black simply develops with �b7 and 'i!/c7) 13 . . .lbe5 ( 1 3 ...d5 also looks playable) 14.lbe5 ..ie5 1 5.'i!/f3 would have given a sharper fight. 1 2.a4

Now White stops his opponent's queenside play.

1 9.tt:le5?!

Returning the favour. So what about the move 19.'i!/a7 which Judith feared so much after she played her last move. 19 ... J:I.bd8 20.lbe5 �e5 2 l .�e5 'i!/e5 22.'i!/a6 ba4 23.'i!/d6 just loses a pawn, but 19 ... llfd8 seems best as there is no pressure against the f7 pawn and the rook on the b-file is perfectly placed. 20.lDe5 i.e5 21 .i.e5 'i!le5 22. ..ib3 .ie6 or 22.lld5 'i!/e8 does not give Black any worries. 20.�e5 ..ie5 2 l . ab5 J:l.b5 (2l ...ab5 22 ...ib3 is dangerous) 22.lbe5 J:l.e5 (on 22...'i!/e5 23.'i!/c7 ! gains material) and Black es capes, as 23.'i!/a6 is not possible in view of 23 ... .ib5 . 1 9.....ie5 20.�e5 'it'es 21 .lld5

And as the game is totally balanced, the two players ceased their efforts. Draw.

1 2... llb8

To make sure that lbc4 can be answered by b5. 1 87

51 29.3 D Kamsky • Shirov Notes by Alextry Shirov

1 5.e5 b4 1 6.ed6!

Now 1 6.tt:Je4 tt:Je4 1 7.�e4 ttJc4 intending 18 ...de5 is playable for Black. The text poses him more problems. 1 6 ... �d6

1 .e4 cS 2.tbf3 tbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbf6 s.tbc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'tlfd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9 ...te3 'tlfc7 1 0.f4 ..td7 1 1 ..id3!? b5 1 2.�b1

This plan is favoured by GM Vitaly Tseshkovsky. In round 1 2, against Shirov, Ljubo played 1 2.h3 which is also interesting. 1 2 ... .l::J.b 8!?

1 6... bc3? 1 7.dc7 J:!.b2 1 8.'ifo>al ttJd5 is too opti mistic in view of 19.�cl �a3 20.ltJb3 ! +- , while 16. . .�c3 17.de7 o r 1 6. . .�d6 1 7. tt:Je4 �d5 1 8.ltJf6 �f6 19.tt:Jb3 also offers White better prospects. 1 7.tbe4

1 7.tt:Jce2 ! ? with the idea 17 ...ttJd5 18 .ltJb3 also deserved attention. 1 7...tbe4 1 8...ie4 tbe3 20. 'tlfe3

tbc4

1 9.�e2

Despite having the disadvantage of knight and bishop versus two bishops White is slightly better. 20...0-0 21 .g4

On 2 1..�d3 ! ? I intended replying 2 l . ..J:!.ce8 ! ? with the idea of 22.'t!We4 f5 followed by 2 3... e5. 21 ...�c5 22.g5! hgS

22. . .h5 23.g6! is too dangerous. A novelty. The idea of 'Tsesh' was to answer 12 ... ttJa5 with 1 3 .e5 ! The game Tseshkovsky Nevednichy, Cetinje 1993, continued 1 3 ...de5 14.fe5 �e5 1 5 .tt:Jf5 ! ef5 1 6.J:!.hel �e6 17.�b6 �b8 18.�a5 �e7 19.ltJe2 0-0 20.ltJd4 tt:Je4 2l .�e4 fe4 and here by playing 22.ttJe6 ! fe6 23 .J:!.e4 White could have gained a definite advantage. 1 3. .l::J.hf1 !? .ie7

Again 13 . . .tt:Ja5 was not good because of 14.e5 b4 1 5 .ltJe4 ! ltJe4 1 6.�e4 tt:Jc4 17.�e2;:!; with the idea 17 ...de5 1 8.fe5 ttJe3 19.�e3 �e5? 20.J:!.f7! and wins. 1 4.h3 ttJaS

The position after 14 ...ttJd4 15 .�d4 b4 16.t2'le2 e5 17 .�e3;:!; doesn't look very attractive for Black.

1 88

23.fg5 .l::J.bd8

23 . . .e5 didn't work due to 24.'t!Wg3 ! �d4 25 ..l:!.d4 with an attack. 24.�f3!

The strongest. 24.'t!We2 g6! was unclear and 24.�d3 �c6! 25.tt:Je6 jLe3 26.ltJc7 jLg2 would yield Black good compensation for the pawn. 24...�d4!

Probably the only way. 24...g6 25.�f6 ! is extremely precarious, and variations such as 24 .. .f5 25.g6! or 24...�e5 25.tt:Jc6! �c6 26.J:!.d8 jLe4 27.�f7 would simply lose. 25..l::J.d4 f5!

Again the best defence. 25 ... �b5 loses immedi ately to 26.�h5 g6 27.�g6 fg6 28.'t!Wg6 �g7 29.'t!We6+-.

Round 10

29.'iff2 'ifb6 30..l:!.d8 'i!Yd8 31.b3 'ifd1 32.�b2 'ifd6 33.'i!Ye3

33.�b l = was simpler. 33...'ii!Ve5 34.�b1 �f7!? 35.'i!ff2? !

Starting to go astray. 35.h4 was still completely equal. 35 ... �e7 36.'ifa7 �d7 37.'i!Ye3?! gS! 38.'i!Yf3 aS 39. 'ifg2 �bS 40.'ti!Vf3 'i!Yf4 41 .'ii!Vg2

I would pr�fer 4 1 . 'ifhS=F. 26.gf6?

Now White is not better any more. Correct was 26.i.d3 ! and Black can choose between 26...i.c6 27 .'ife3 ! (27. 'i!Yh5 nd4 28 .g6 l:!.t7! 29 ..tlg 1 'ife5 ! 30.gt7 �f8 3 1 .i.e2 ne4 unclear) 27. . .J::td4 28.'i!Yd4 a5 29.�c4 �d7 with a slightly inferior position, or 26 ... �b5 27 . .t1b4 (27J:I.d8 .t1d8 28.�b5 ab5 unclear) 27 ...'i!Ye7 28.l:!.b3 �d3 29 . .t1d3 'i!Yg5 when I would again prefer to be on White's side. 26 ... .l:!.f6 27.'i!Yd1

A forced draw could have occourred after 27.�h7! ?

41 ... 'ii'f1 ?!

During the game I was very happy to exchange queens, but in fact the bishop ending is drawish. 41 ...'it>f6 42.i.f3 'iWe3=F was more persistent. 42.�b2 'ii'g 2?! 43.�g2 �d6 44.a3

More solid was 44.c3 �c5 45.a3=; 44 ...�e5 45.a4! ba3 46.�a3 'it>f4 47.c4 i.d7 48.c5 ! prom ises White excellent counterplay, for example 48 ... e5 49.c6 .ic8 50.'it>a4. 44...�e5 45.ab4 ab4 46.c4

Now 46.c3 is dangerous due to 46 ... �f4 ! 46... �a6 47.�c2 �d4 48.�d2 eS 49...if3 �ea so.�g4 J.b7 51 .J.d7 J.e4 52.�g4 �g6 53...ie2 e4 54...ig4 e3

27 ...�h8! (but not 27 ... �h7?? 28.'i!Yf6! ! gf6 29.l:!.g l+-, isn't it beautiful?) 28 ..ig6 ! ? .t:l.f3 29.l:If3 �c8 30.l:!.h4 'it>g8 3 l ..ih7 �h8 with a perpetual. 27.. JU1 28.'i!Yf1 �bS

The worst is over for Black.

The fatal error. 55.'it>dl was still a draw since

1 89

Black cannot improve his position, for example 55 ....ie4 56 ..id7 �e5 57 ..ig4 �f4 58 ..id7. 55 .....tc21 56 ...td1 �c31 58.�e2

.ie4 57...tg4

58 ..idl .ig2 59.�e2 �d4 is hopeless. 58...�b3 59.�e3 .ig21

The simplest. 60.�e6

60.�d4 �a3 6 1 .�e5 b3 62.�f6 b2 63 ..if5 .ih3 loses as well. 60...�c3 61 .�f2

If 61 .c5 then 61 . ...ic6! puts White in zugzwang,

1 90

for example 62 ..ig4 b3 63 ..if5 b2 64 ..ibl �d7 65.i.e4 .ih3 66.c6 .ic8 67 .c7 g4 68.�g6 �b3 ! 69. .ibl (69 ..if7 �c2-+) 69... �c4 70.�d2 �c5 7 L �.g6 (7l .�c3 g3) 7 l ...�c6 72.�c2 �c7 73.�b2 g3 74 ..ie4 .ib7-+. 61 ...Sg_c6

The game is over. The rest needs no comment. 62.c5 �d4 63.�g3 �CS 64.�g4 .tds 6S...tts b3 66.�gs �d4 67.h4 Sg_e4 68...ie6 b2 69..ia2 �c3 70.�f4 .ih7 71 .h5 �b4 72.h6 �a3

White resigned.

Round 1 1 1/z - 11z

Kamsky

- Anand

Shi rov

- Salov

1/z

Polgar

- Ljubojevic

Karpov

- lvanch u k

0- 1 1/z - 1J2

1J2

51 22.8 0 Kamsky • Anand

Salov An and Polgar Karpov Shirov lvanchu k Kamsky Ljubojevic

8.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.5 3.5

- Black's a-pawn was on a6 instead of a7 preferred the jump to e4.

Notes by ]eroen Piket Both players are clearly influenced by their recent successes in the PCA matches. Not only can they not hide the fact that despite their very convincing wins they have spent a lot of energy, but also the lives of both Anand and Kamsky are not made any easier by the expectations of the public as well as of their opponents. As they have already met in the FIDE cycle earlier this year and they will meet each other again next year, it is obvious that these two Sicilian games were very important from a psychological point of view. 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 e6 6.�e2 �e7 7.0-0 0-0 8.f4 tt:lc6 9.�e3

More precise is 9.'1t>h 1 , for then the push e6-e5 is not yet possible for Black, as after 10.ltJb3 ef4 1 1 .�f4 White has gained a very important tempo. The usual reply to 9.'1t>h1 is 9. ..h6. 9 ...e5 1 O.tt:lb3 ef4 1 1 .�f4 �e6 1 2.'1t>h1 dS 1 3.e5 tt:ld7

In the fifth round, against Karpov, the grandmas ter from Madras, in an almost identical position

In the fifth round, against Karpov, the grandmas ter from Madras, in an almost identical position - Black's a-pawn was on a6 instead of a7 preferred the jump to e4. 1 4.tt:ld5 tt:ldeS 1 5.c4

This has been the main line since several Russian GMs tried it against Kasparov. After 1 5 .ltJe1 'flie7 16.'ir"e1 ( 16.c3 nfe8 17.�b5 ¥2-¥2 , Nunn Andersson, Johannesburg 1 9 8 1 , was not a great contribution to the theory of this line) both 1 6 .. J1ad8 and 16 ...nfe8 equalize. 1 5 ...�g5 1 6.�g3

1 91

16.'ii'c 1 i.f4 17.tt:Jf4 is not dangerous for Black at all: 17 ...�g4 1 8.i.g4 tt:Jg4 19.'ii'e 1 .l::le8 20.'ii'g3 tt:Jf6 was enough to maintain the balance in Tal-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1982, and 1 7...'ii'e7 1 8 .'ii'c 3 .l::lad8 19.J:I.ae1 'it>h8 20.a3 f6 gave Black the initiative in Kuzrnin-Kasparov, Soviet Cham pionship, Frunze 198 1 . 1 6...�h4

51 20.5 D Shirov • Salov Notes by Valery Salov 1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ttJd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 e6 6.g4 h6 7.h4

Very aggressive. In 1992, Moscow Rapid, Al exey tried the more restrained 7 .h3 against me. 7 ... �e7 8.�e3 ttJc6 9.�b5

Nowadays quite a fashionable idea in the Sicilian. 9 ...�d7 1 0.'ti'e2 h5 1 1 .gh5

l l .gS tt:Jg4 with counterplay. 11

•••

ttJh5 1 2.0-0-0 'ti'c7

After 12 ...a6? 1 3 ..ic6 bc6 14.e5 ! dS 15.tt:Jb3 White has a clear advantage. 1 3.�g5

16 ...b5 ! ? looks interesting, but in Unzicker Razuvaev, Moscow 1982, the players were peacefully minded and agreed to a draw after 17.cb5 i.dS 1 8.bc6 i.c6 19.�f3 i.f3 20.'ii'f3 'ii'f6.

This move is excellent from the positional point of view; however, it has a tactical refutation: 1 3 ... ttJd4! 1 4.l:l.d4

1 7.�f4 ..tg5 1 8...tg3

Gata obeys the old Russian rule that after succes sive losses one has to draw the next game no matter what, just to stop the losing sequence. The game Kindermann-S . Polgar, Aruba 1992, which saw 1 8 .tt:Jc5 �f4 19.tt:Je6 (19 ..l::lf4 b6 20.tt:Je4 bS! Geller-Kasparov, Moscow 198 1 , is even favour able for Black) 19 . . .fe6 20.tt:Jf4 'ii'h4 2l .g3 f/fe7 with chances for both sides, still seems to be the yardstick for this specific variation. 1 8 .....th4 1 9.�f4

Draw.

14 ...ttJg3! 1 5.fg3 ..t9s 1 6.\t>b1 ..tts 1 7.l:l.c4 �b5 1 8.l:l.c7

1 8.tt:Jb5 'ii'b 6! 19 ..l::lf l �b2 (19 ...i.e5 ! ?) 20.tt:Jc7 'it>e7 2l .tt:Ja8 .l::la8 22.c3 �c3 23.\t>c2 f!ib2 24.'it>d3 'ii'e2 25:.t>e2 �aS 26.J:I.b l J:l.b8+. 1 8...�e2 1 9.ttJe2 l:l.b8 20.c3 �d8!

20. . .�e5 2l .J:I.fl with counterplay. 1 92

Round 1 1

defence against the advance of the black pawns in the centre.

21.l::lc 4 �b6!

The endgame is very unpleasant for White. His rook on c4 is cut off from the main forces and his pawn structure is far from ideal.

33. .l:l.b4!

At last White is able to free his rook. 33...�cs 34..l:l.bS b6 3S.aS!

22.'>t>c2 '>t>e7 23.g4 .l:l.h7?!

A rather abstract move; instead 23 ..J�h6 or 23 . . .e5 deserved serious attention.

35 .gf6 gf6 36.tLld4 ed4 37.cd4 .ta3 38.l:l.b3 l:l.hg8 ! 3S ... baS 36J:tas .l:f.a8?

24.tLld4!

I must admit that I completely overlooked this obvious reply. Evidently, maintaining concentra tion cost me considerable effort at this stage of the tournament.

36 ... l:l.b2 ! 37.gf6 gf6 38.h5 ! l:l.g2!+ might still cause serious problems for White. 37. .l:l.bS .l:l.hb8 38 ..l:f.hb1 .l:f.bS 39.l:[bS fS 40.efS '>t>fS 4Vt:ld4!

24... .l:l.h6!

Forcing White to weaken his pawn chain. 2S.gS

The only move, as 25.tLlf3 is answered by 25 .. J�f6-+ . 2S ... .l:l.hS 26.tLlf3 f6 27.a4! 28 . .l:l.h3?

eS!

Now it is White's turn to go astray. The text move will cost him two tempi; 28.b4! was correct. 28... '>t>e6 29.b4 aS ! 30.baS �as 31 ..l:l.h1 l:[hh8! 32.'>t>d3

This tactical resource saves the game. 41 ... ed4

4 l ...'i.ti'g6 42.tt:Je6 .tf2 43.l:l.d5 .tg3 44.'>t>e4=; 4 l ...'i.ti'g4 42.tLle6 'i.ti'f3 43.tLlc5 deS 44.11c5 e4 45 .'i.ti'c2 e3 46 ..l:l.f5 'i.ti'e2 47 .l:[f7 with counterplay. 42.cd4 .l:l.a3 43.'>t>e2 ..l:l.c3 44.dcS .l:l.cS 4S..l:l.b7 g6 46JU7 '>t>g4 47..l:l.f6

Draw.

32...�b6?

The natural 32 ....1:!.hc8 ! would have sufficed to win the game: 33.tLld2 (33 . .l:!.c8 l:l.c8 34.c4 f5 ! -+; 33.gf6 l:.c4 34.'>t>c4 l:.c8 35 .'i.ti'b5 J:!.c5 mate) 33 ...d5 ! 34.ed5 '>t>d5 and White has no 1 93

51 40.2 D Polgar • Ljubojevic Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cs 2.lbf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.lbd4 lbc6 5.lbc3 W/c7 6.�e3 a6 7..itd3 lbf6 8.0-0 b5 9.W/e2

9.tt:lc6 'i!Vc6 10.a3 .tb7 1 l .'i!Ve2 .te7 (or 1 l ...'i!Vc7 12.f4 d6 1 3..id4 .te7 14.e5 Johansson-Kuijpers, Halle 1967) 12.f4 �e7 1 3 .e5 tt:ld5 1 4. tt:ld5 'i!Vd5 15 . .1:tad1 'i!Vc6 16.b4 Scholl-Janosevic, Amster dam 1970 are ancient references by modem standards. 9...�b7 1 0.a3 .ite7

In Kristinsson-Tal, Reykjavik 1964, the magi cian from Riga- as he did on so many occasions - sacrificed his queen: 10 . ..tt:le5 1 l .h3 .l:lc8 12.f4 tt:lc4 13.tt:ldb5 ! ab5 14.tt:lb5 'i!Vc6 1 5 .tt:Ja7 tt:Je3 1 6.tt:lc6 .tc5 1 7.�h2 tt:lf1 1 8.J:lfl .ic6. 1 1 .f4 d6 1 2.lbf3

With this and the next move Polgar gives a new turn to developments. 1 2.tt:lc6 is considered the normal continuation. 1 2...0-0 1 3 .l::tae1 b4! •

Of course Ljubojevic puts his opponent's new approach to the test by this push of the b-pawn. 1 4.lbd1 ?

A remarkable choice. Polgar's move is ambitious but involves a certain risk, as her queenside struc1 94

Round 1 1

ture remains shattered from now on. Ljubo thought that 14.ab4 should have been preferred. 14.t2Ja4 ba3 1 5 .ba3 d5 ! looks suspect for White. 1 4... ba3 1 S.ba3 eS!

Much more to the point than 15 . ..d5 1 6.e5 t2Je4 17.ttJf2 as 1 7 ... t2Ja5 1 8.ttJd2 and 1 7 ... t2Jc3 18 ."ird2 are not very impressive. 1 6.lLlf2

16.fe5 deS 17.ttJc3 is best answered by 17 ... ttJd4, as 17 ... �a3 1 8.tt:ld5 leads to unnecessary com plications. 1 6.<;;t>h l d5 ! ? 1 7.ed5 e4 1 8.dc6 ed3 19.cd3 "irc6 deserved attention as the knight on f2 does not have such a great future anyway.

completely against his nature. Karpov's sugges tion of 22 .. Jbd8 ! was not considered by either player, but would have yielded a big advantage. 23.i.dS l:ta7 24.a4 'ifc3 2S.lZ:le3

Suddenly all White's pieces have found good squares and the game is roughly equal. 2S ... l:tc7 26.Wh1 as 27.i.b3 i.e6 28.lZ:ldS i..dS 29.i..dS

29.ed5? �d6 30.g4 e4 ! and the opposite-col oured bishops do not guarantee a draw. 29... 'ifc2 30. 'ifhS?

1 6...ef4 1 7.i.f4 lZ:leS!

Standard but powerful. 1 8.lZ:leS deS 1 9.i.gS?

Generally condemned, even by the White player herself. After the tournament Judith looked back and blamed the loss of this game and the first one against Anand on an off-day. However alterna tives to 19.�g5 are hard to find as the white position is clearly inferior. 1 9... h6

19 ...�c8 ! ? was also possible. 20.�f6 �f6 21 .lLlg4 il..e7

The more active 2 l ...�g5 should not have been rejected. 22.i.c4 .tea?

Illogical and badly misjudged. 30."irc2 �c2 3 l .�cl �c5 32J:rcs ..ic5 33.�cl or 3 1 ...�c l 32Jkl followed by 33.�c7 would easily have drawn the game. 30 ... il..gS 31 .l:tf3 WhB! !

This move took up most of Black's remaining time, but it was worth it. 32.l:tef1 ?!

32.�t7 was necessary (32J:rf7 .l:[f7 33.�t7 "iVf2) but then 32..."ire4 ! 33 . .l:[efl .!:!.c l is clearly better for Black. 32... 'i¥e2!

The position is very tricky, for example 33."iVg4 fails to 33 ...f5 ! 33.h4 il..f4

By now Judith really regretted not swapping queens.

Ljubojevic plays far too passively, which goes 1 95

---

34. 'it'g4 llc2 35.h5 l:.d2 36.l:i.f4

51 1 4.2

There was no other way to prevent 36... l:!.dl .

D Karpov • Ivanchuk

36...ef4 37.'it'e2 .I:.e2 3 8..I:.f4 f6 39.llf3 .I:.c8 40.%lb3 .I:!.a2!

For a change the last move before the time con trol is a winner. 41 . .I:.b7 lla4 42.l:i.a7 l:.d8 43..if7 l:i.e4

If you have a material advantage, exchanging pieces is generally a good idea. 44.lla5 lle7 45..tg6 �g8 46.�h2 �f8 47.�g3 l:i.c7 48 .ib1 l:i.d4 49.l:i.a8 �e7 SO.l:i.g8 llc3 51 .�f2 l:i.d2 •

White resigned.

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 cS 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l2Jd4 lbt6 5.l2Jc3 a6 6.g3

Chess certainly is a psychological game, as Kar pov shows with his choice of the g3 system. He normally always plays 6.i.e2, but because Ivanchuk lost against this g3 line to Ljubojevic in the second round, he is testing whether 'Chukky' has done his homework. After the tour nament I read in New in Chess that Salov, the only participant who thoroughly studied the g3 systems and frequently used them, was of the opinion that against the Najdorf g3 was not worth playing. , s...es

In the aforementioned game Ivanchuk went for 6...e6.

1 96

Round 1 1

7.tt:lde2 �e7

The move prefered by the living legend Bobby Fischer, and more accurate than 7 ... i.e6 or 7 . ..tt:lbd7. 8.�g2 tt:lbd7 9.a4

i.e4 16.i.e4 fe4 17.tt:lc3 with good compensa tion for the pawn. The critical move was 14 ....l:l.c8 as 1 5.tt:lc3 'ifc4! causes some inconvenience for White. 1 6.0-0-0 l2Jc5 17.i.c5 .l:!.c5 1 8.�b1 h4! looks suspect and 16.f3 'it'b4 .l:!.a3 is complicated with chances for both sides. 1 5.0-0 tt:lf6 1 6.tt:lc3 �c6 1 7.l:r.fd1

White does not achieve anything with 17.i.g5 tt:lh7 ! 18 ..ie7 'i:Ve7 19JUd1 .l:!.fd8 20.'ife3 'it'c7. 17 ... b5 1 8.ab5 ab5 1 9.b4! 'Wib7! 20.'Wid3

On 20.i.g5?! Karpov was afraid of 20... J:!.a1 2 l ..l:!.al tt:le4 ! 20 .. J:i.fc8 21 ..tg5 'fibS! 22.l:r.a8

22.i.f6 i.f6 23 .�f3 'ifd4 ! is more than okay for Black. 22 ... l:r.a8 23. �f3 l:l.a3!

An interesting idea is 9.h3 allowing 9 ... b5, but White also has his trumps after 10.g4 b4 l l .tt:la4 i.b7 1 2.l2Jg3 i.c6 1 3 .c4 g6 14.a3 a5 1 5.i.e3 h5 16.g5 l2Jh7 17.h4 tt:lf8 1 8.i.h3 l2Je6. 9 ... b6 1 O.h3 h5!

For a little over a decade this is known to be the only way to counter White's plan of g3-g4 and l2Jg3. 1 1 .i.e3

1 1 .0-0 i.b7 1 2.l2Jd5 l2Jd5 1 3.ed5 .l::i.c8 14.i.e3 was seen in one of the stem games Kudrin-Lein, USA (eh) 198 1 . l l .tt:ld5 ! tt:ld5 12.'it'd5 J:!.b8 1 3.i.e3 was Karpov's post-mortem suggestion, after which Black has some problems, as after both l 3 ... i.b7 14.'i:Vd3 and 1 3 ... tt:lf6 14.'it'd3 b5 15 ab5 ab5 1 6.0-0 0-0 17 . .l::i.fd1 White seems to obtain a plus. 1 1 ... 'Wic7 1 2.tt:ld5

12.0-0 i.b7 1 3.l2Jcl 0-0 14.l2Jd3 �c4 ! is quite comfortable for Black. 1 2 ... tt:ld5 1 3.'Wid5 �b7 1 4.'f/id2 0-0

lvanchuk manages to temper his aggression. The most ambitious move is 14 .. .f5 after which 1 5.f3 is possible but not forced. If he is so inclined, White can ignore everything and continue 15.0-0

The only move not to lose material, but a strong one. 24..if6

After the game the FIDE Champion showed his opponent why he did not play the standard 24 . .l:!.d3: 24... tt:le4! ! 25.i.e7 tt:lc3 26.'ifc6 (26.'it'f5 would lead to perpetual check) 26 ... .l:!.al 27.'it>h2 'iff2 28.'it'c8 'it>h7 29.h4 tt:le2 ! and White gets mated as 30 ... J:!.h1 cannot be prevented. 24... �f6 25 . .l::i.d3

Not 25.h4? because of 25 ... .ie4 25... h4 26 . .l:!.d6 �e7! 27.l:r.d3 i.b4

1 97

27 ...hg3 28.'ii'g3 would only benefit White. 28.gh4 �e7

28... 'ii'a5 29.ttJdl .l:!.d3 30.'ii'd3 �c5 was also sufficient to secure the draw. 29.h5 b4 30.tt:ld5 �dS 31 .ed5 'f!Vh6 32.�f1 'ifc1 33. 'ifd1 'ii'd 1 34J:td1 �d6

Without the queens all the tension has disap peared. 35.�d3 e4 36...ie4 l::rh3 37.l::ra 1 �f8 38.J:I.a8 �e7 39.l:lh8 g6

Draw. The analysis of this game is based on notes of Karpov.

1 98

Round 12 Lju bojevic

- Shi rov

An and

- Karpov

1 -0

lvanch u k

- Polgar

Salov

- Kamsky

1/2 - 1/2 1/z - 1/2

1 -0

51 29.3 D Ljubojevic • Shirov

1 2... ltJa5 1 3.c;.t>b1 'it'c4 1 5.'i\fd3 :tea

Notes by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 1 .e4 c5 2.ltJf3 ltJc6 4.ltJd4 ltJf6 5.ltJc3 d6

Salov An and Polgar lvanchu k Karpov Shirov Kamsky Lju bojevic

3.d4

cd4

My opponent's choice of opening for today was quite predictable but that didn't stop me worry ing. Shirov is an excellent "connoisseur" of Si cilian positions with either colour. The Richter Rauzer Variation in particular is part of his broad opening repertoire. My thoughts also went in the direction of the Sozin, but the choice taken in this game was made intuitively, without any particu lar reason. Sometimes we get a sudden feeling about the kind of positions we should like to play today...

ltJc4

8.5 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.5

1 4...ic4

Black is trying to maintain occupation of the c4 square with a piece, not with a pawn. 1 5 ...'it'd3 16.cd3 clearly yields domination ofthe centre to White and the potential use of the c-file is also in his favour. 1 6.a3 .ie7 1 7.g4

6 ...ig5 e6 7.'i\fd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9 ..ie3 W/c7 1 O.f4 ..id7 1 1 ..id3 b5 1 2.h3

Up to this moment the game has taken the same course as Kamsky-Shirov, round 10, where White played 12.'it>b l . I have also had some experience playing this position against Short some years ago, and I was convinced that White has a slight positional edge.

1 7... b4

If 17 ...0-0 1 8.e5 deS 19.fe5 lLld5 20.'it'c4 J::!.c4 21 .lLld5 ed5 22.lLlf5 �f5 23.gf5 is slightly better for White. In this line the move 17 .g4 is justified, not - at least not at the moment - in order to 1 99

play gS, but in keeping control over the important eS square. 1 8.�c4

Forced. If l 8 .ab4 1li'b4 19.eS J:!.c3 20.1li'c3 1li'c3 2 l .bc3 deS 22.feS ltJdS 23 .�d2 0-0 Black has good positional compensation for the sacrificed exchange. 1 8 ... J:!.c4 1 9.ab4 J:!.b4 20.J:!.d3

After about a quarter of an hour's thought this move was 'cooked' in my not very fortunate head. Later I regretted not playing 20.eS ! deS 2 l .feS lt:Jh7 22.lt:Jb3 �c6 23.J:lh2 with still a slight edge, because the cS square will be occu pied in time without having to give up a pawn, as in the game. My fear that Black would get com fortable play after retreating his knight to prepare castling, was justified. Shirov thought for a long time and he understood the position ... 20... lLJh7!

that means losing the b2 pawn; Shirov's knight is still far away. 24... .tc6

During the game I thought that Black should have played 24 ...�e8 2S.�d4 lt:Jf8 26.lt:Je4 or 2S.�7 J:[c8 26.�d4 with more or less equal chances. It is risky to play 2S .�cS? ! �cS 26.ltJcS J:[b2 27.'it>cl or 2S ... J:[b3 26.�e7 J:[b2 27.'it>c l J:!.2b7 28.�a3 J:[c8 29 .J:[d8 J:[bb8 when White has difficulties. 25.�c5 J:!.b3

Probably better would have been 2S ...�cS 26.ltJcS J:[b2 27.'it>cl lt:JgS 28.lt:Jb3 J:l2b3 29.cb3 J:[b3 with good compensation or 28.lt:Ja6 J:[8b6 29.ltJcS with equality. 26..te7 J:!.b2 27.'it>c1 J:!.2b7

Perhaps 27 ... lt:JgS 28.�d6 J:[8b7 29.�a3 J:[2b6 30.�cS J:[b2 3 I .J:[e3 would have given more interesting play for both sides with some pres sure for White, but still with a pawn less! 28.J:!.d8 �e8

This was the reason I considered 24 ... �e8: to avoid J:[d8 with check! 29.�a3

I must give an exclamation mark to this wise decision. 20 ...0-0 2 l .eS was unpleasant for Black. 21 .J:!.hd1 0-0 22.e5 deS

22 .. JHb8 23 .ed6 J:!.b2 24.'lt>cl �d6 2S.ltJdbS �bS 26.J:!.d6 �e8 27 .�a7 wins for White. 23.fe5

23.lt:Jf3 �bS 24.ltJbS ef4 ! is better for Black. 23 .. JUb8 24.lLJb3

Another difficult decision. If he isn't to end up worse, it is vital for White to get to cS, even if 200

29...lbg5?

This is the first serious mistake in the game, leading to the loss of the piece on e8 . During the game I thought that after 29 ...tt:Jf8 30.J:!. ld4 (or 30JHd3) 30 ...f6 3 l .ef6 gf6 32.lt:Je4 White would have strong pressure, but after quiet analysis in

Round 12

my hotel room I found 32 ... \t>g7 ! after which Black should be able to hold the game, for exam ple 33 .�f8 'it>f8 34.li:Jf6 I:td8 35J:td8 '>t>e7 saving the rook endgame or 33.li:Jf6 'it>f6 34J:tf4 (34JH3) 34. .. 'it>g6! 35J�.b8 J:!.b8 36.J:!.f8 'it>g7, which looks okay, or 33.J:!.b8 J:!.b8 34.J:!.c4 �b5 35 .l:i.c7 'it>g6 36.lt:Jd6, trying to fish in very tur bulent waters. 30.J:!.1 d7!

It often happens that a game is decided by one bad move and a good reply. Shirov should have forestalled this possibility. His bishop on e8 is helpless. 30 ... J:!.d7 31 . .rl.b8 tt:Jh3 32.J:!.e8 'it>h7 33.�d6 4Jf2 34.4Ja4 .rl.b7 35.4Jc5 .rl.bS 36.4Jd7 'it>g6 37.c4

With some very accurate moves White succeeds in advancing his passed c-pawn, bringing more material gains. I thought the game was over, but some technical problems arise- not without my help ! 37 ... .rl.b3 38.'it>c2 .rl.f3 39.c5 tt:Jg4 40.c6 tt:Je3 41 . 'it>d2 tt:JdS 42.4Jb6

This move is characteristic of my tournament attitude. When matters are very simple I always succeed in making them more complicated! 42.c7 ! lt:Jc7 43 .�c7 would have led to an easier win because two minor pieces are stronger than a rook ! 42... 4Jb6 43.c7 l:!.f2 44.'it>e1 .:tc2 45. .rl.b8 tlJdS 46.c8'if .l:[c8 47.J:!.c8 tt:Je3 48. .rl.a8 hS 49.J:!.a6 tt:Jg4 50.J:!.a3 'it>fS 51 ..:tf3 'it>g6

I realized that Black was hoping for a kind of fortress set-up where he waits for my plan ... But after five hours of play it was not easy to find a clear win. I felt that the position had to be won, but how ! Slowly but surely the idea of zugzwang came into being. The pawn structure on the king side has to be broken up to gain more space for White's bishop and rook. 52.'it>e2 tt:Jh2 53. .l:f.f4 tt:Jg4 54.'it>d3 tt:Jh6 55J:tf1 'it>gS 56.�e7 'it>g6 57.'it>e4 tt:Jg4 58.'it>f4 tt:Jh2 59..:te1 tt:Jg4 60..l:[e2 tlJhG 61 .�d8 tt:Jg4 62.�g5 'it>h7 63.'it>e4 'it>g6 64.�f4 'it>h7 6S. .l:[g2 'it>g6 66. .l:[g1 'it>h7 67.'it>f3 'it>g6 68.J:!.h1 f6 69.ef6 gf6 70.'it>g3 eS 71 . .§i.d2 fS 72.'it>f3 f4 73.b5 'it>gS 74.�d8 'it>g6 75.l:Ih3 lt:Jh6 76.'it>e4 tt:Jf7 77.�e7 tt:JgS 78.�g5 'it>gS 79. .l:[h1

White had finally won, but what hard work it was to realize the win after reaching a winning posi tion as early as move 30! I was happy, but I thought how easy it is to lose and how hard to win in a tournament where the stars were not on my side.

51 40.6 D Anand • Karpov Notes by]eroen Piket Ever since their match in Brussels 199 1 it has been clear that for Karpov, Anand is not an easy opponent to handle. Actually the Indian grand master seems to understand the FIDE Champion and his play much better than most players of his generation. 1 .e4 cS 2.4Jf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.4Jd4 tt:Jc6 5.4Jc3 'ifc7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tt:lf6 8.�e3 �b4 9.tt:la4

Nothing new so far. It was to be expected that Karpov would repeat this variation with which he is still undefeated. 201

9 ... d5

Apparently 9...�7 10.c4 is unpleasant for Black, as was shown in Kamsky-Salov in the fifth round and Kamsky-Karpov in the eighth round. Be sides the text move there were other options to deviate. ECO considers 9 .Jije7, 9 ...�d6 and 9. . . 0-0 as the main alternatives. At the beginning of this decade the Polgar sisters popularized 9 ...bS which shows some similarity to the text move. After 10.tt:Jc6 dc6 1 l .i.cS ba4 12.�b4 cS 13.i.c3 tt:Je4 14.�g7 �g8 the position is cer tainly not unfavourable for Black, but French GM Olivier Renet refuted this whole idea against his compatriot Lautier with 1 3 .i.a3 ! 1 0.tt.Jc6

10.tt:Jb6 shows a lot of courage but too little respect for Black's set-up, as 10 ...ifb6 1 1 .tt:Je6 d4 12.tt:Jg7 rJi;e7 13 .i.gS �g8 14.i.f6 rJi;f6 1S.tt:JhS rJi;e7 in Klovan-Shmit, Soviet Union 1970, gave Black a winning advantage. According to Taimanov 10.c3 is White's best, because 10... �d6 is an swered by 1 1 .tt:Jb6. 1t does indeed seem that now 1 1 . . . ifb6 1 2. tt:Je6 is good for White, as the reply 12...d4 has lost a lot of its strength. It would have been interesting to find out what Karpov had in mind against Taimanov's recommendation.

1 2.�d4 c5?!

12. ..eS 1 3.c3 i.d6 14.�cS gives White a small but lasting edge. 1 3.c3

Not 13.a3 cd4 14.ab4 0-0 and Black has solved his problems. 1 3 ... cd4 1 4.cb4 eS

Karpov spent an incredible amount of time here, despite the fact that this seems to be the only way to defend his d-pawn. 1 5.�13 �e6 1 6.tt.Jc5 'it'd6

The outcome of the battle will now depend on whether Black's centre pawns are vulnerable or strong. The immediate 16 ...0-0 was safer, as 17. tt:Je6 fe6 18.�1 �b8 19.a3 a5 shows. However, White shouldpreferthe more accurate 17.J:[e 1 ! as 17 ...ifd6 1 8.ife2 f6 19.tt:Je6 ife6 20.ifc4 �ad8 21 .ifd4 ed4 22.�e6 tt:Jb4 23.a3 tbd3 24.b4 is better for him. 1 7..I:.e1 l:lb8

17 ...0-0 1 8.ife2 leads to the previous note.

1 0 ... bc6 1 1 .ed5 tLldS? !

I still wonder what's wrong with 1 1 . ..cdS. Per haps 1 2 .tt:Jb6 �b8 1 3.tt:Jc8 ifc8 14.c4, but Black should be ready to play this sort of position. 12.c3 �d6 1 3 .tt:Jb6 �b8 14.tt:Jc8 ifc8 1S.ifa4 looks like the refutation, but after 1 S ...rJ;;e 7! 16.i.a6 ifc7 the question 'who is better and why?' comes to mind.

1 8.�d5! 'fidS

1 8 . ..i.d5 is answered by 19.ifd4. 1 9.tt.Ja6?

19.ifhS ! was simple and strong. 1 9 ... l:lc8 20.'fia4 rJ;;e7

20...i.d7 was necessary. Then after 2 1 . ifaS if aS 22.baS f6 23.f4 0-0 24.feS feS 2S.�eS �c2 Black 202

Round 12

would have had chances of survival. Keeping the king in the center is virtually suicidal. 21 .b5 trc4 22.'ii'a5 J::ta8

In the post-mortem the players thought that 22 ...<;f;>f6 was a more stubborn defence (23.tbb4 'i!fa8 !) but after 23.b3 .U.c3 24 . .l:i.ad1 the outcome of the game would not have been different. 23. 'ii'b6 trd8 24.b3 J::tcc8 25.lbb4 'ii'd6 26.lbc6 <;f;>fS 27.l:te5

Now Black's position collapses completely and his only excuse for playing on is his own time trouble. 27 d3 28.l:td1 J::ta8 30.tre2 l:tdb8 31 .l:ted2 .•.

29.h3

Anand had also seen the win 3 l ..l:i.e6 'i!fe6 (3 l ...fe6 32.lLlb8 !) 32.ttJb8 'iife 1 33.<;1;>h2 'ili'd1 34.'i!fd8 mate. 31 ... J::t b6

Of course, 3 1 . . .'i!fd2 would be answered by 32.'i!fb8. 32.l:td6 g5 33.l:td8 l:td8 34.trd8 �g7 35.l:tb8

gen Variation. A more direct equalizing attempt is 6 ...e5 to answer 7.tbb3 with 7 . ..�e6 8 ..ie3 d5 ! 7.�e3 e6 8J!fd2 W/c7 9.0-0-0 �e7 1 0.g4 b5

10 ... tbe5 is premature, as 1 l .g5 ttJfd7 1 2.f4 ltJc4 1 3.�c4 'i!fc4 14.f5 ttJeS 1 5 .f6 gf6 1 6.ef6 �f6 1 7 ..l:i.hfl i.e7 1 8.�g5 is excellent for White; in Ristoja-Nei, Helsinki 1989, 18 ...'i!t'b4 quickly led to disaster: 19.'i!ff4 �g5 20.'i!fg5 tbc4 2 l .tbb3 'iifb6 22 ..:ld4 'i!fc7 23 .'iiff6 .&:!.f8 24 . .t:!.fdl b5 25 .e5 d5 26..l:i.d5 1 -0. 1 1 .lLlc6

White can also increase his space advantage right away by 1 l .g5 ltJd7 1 2.h4 �b7 13.h5 tbce5 14.f4 tbc4 15.�c4 'i!fc4, which is slightly better for him, according to Robert Hiibner. 1 1 ... W/c6 1 2.h4 .ib7 1 3.�b1 lLld7

Remarkable! White delays playing g4-g5, and Black decides not to wait for it any more and to improve the prospects of the knight. Polgar thought that 13 ...0-0-0 was worth investigating. 1 4.lLle2 lLle5 1 5.lLld4 'ii'c7 1 6.h5

Black resigned.

51 25.9 D Ivanchuk • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 l2Jc6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lLlf6 5.lbc3 d6 6.f3

An unusual choice by the grandmaster from Lvov, but one definitely not without venom. I have noticed a tendency for I vanchuk to leave the well-trodden theoretical paths when facing Ju dith Polgar. 6 ...a6

Polgar opts for a transposition to the Schevenin-

1 6... .!::!.d8

Now 16 ...0-0-0 is asking for trouble, as the piece sacrifice 17.�b5 ab5 1 8.ttJb5 'i!fd7 19.'iifc3 tbc6 20.�b6 looks promising. The tempting break in the centre, 16 ...d5, was not advisable, as 1 7.ed5 i.d5 1 8 .i.f4 ! �d6 19.lLlf5 l cannot be ignored. This leaves us with the natural 16 ....l:i.c8 and the battle can begin, for example; 17.'iifh2 ttJf3 1 8 .ttJf3 .ie4 19.tbe1 �hl 20.'ilfhl . 203

1 7..iif4 l:r.c8?

Just wasting a tempo, quite a risky business in the Sicilian. 1 8.l:r.h2 tbc4?!

18 ...0-0 1 9 .g5 tt:Jc4 was dangerous but playable. 1 9..ic4 bc4 20.'ifc3!

Very strong! 20.tt:le2 was pointless, as after 20 . . . 0-0 the pawn on d6 cannot be taken because of back-rank problems; 21..�.d6 �d6 22."ifd6 l:!.fd8 ! 20 ... l:r.g8?

What an ugly move ! But it was hard to find anything better. 20 ... i.f6 2 l .l:!.hd2 �d4 22.l:!.d4 e5 23J:td6 ef4 24."ifg7 ! (24.l:!.d7 should also suffice) does not pose White any problems. How ever, 2 1 . . .i.d4 is not forced. After 2 1 .. .0-0 22.�g3 there is no doubt who is better, but the game is not yet over. 21 ..iig3 g6 22.tbe2?!

Not bad, but 22.hg6 hg6 23 .l::t h7 gives White a decisive attack. 22... 'ifc5

Polgar had to close the position with 22 ... e5 or 22 ...g5, but both moves would have their draw backs.

23. "il'd2??

We all know how it feels when the clock is ticking and you do not want to spoil your advan tage, so you look for a second best move which 204

often turns out to be a grave error. Here this is the case. 23.hg6 hg6 24 . .1:1.h8! was still undefendable for Black as after 24 . .l:!.h8 25."ifh8 <;t>d7 26."ifg7 'tWe3 (26 ...1:!.£8 27.i.d6 !) 27."iYf7 "iYe2 28.l:!.d6! mate follows. Or 24 .. .c.ti>d7 25.l:!.h7 and it would only be a matter of time before Black would collapse. .

23 ... l:!.d8 24.�f2 'ifes 25 ..ig3 'ifcs 26.hg6 hg6 27.�f2 �es 28 ..iig3 'ifcs 29.�f2 �es 30.l:r.dh1

Just as he did against Karpov in the fourth round, Ivanchuk irresponsibly decides to avoid repeat ing moves with less time on the clock than his opponent. Of course, the organizers and the audi ence love this kind of mentality. 30...d5!

Black is simply better, as the absence of White's light-squared bishop makes itself felt. 31 J�·as "il'd6 32.'ifa4

Here Vasily realized his mistakes and offered a draw, but now Judith was merciless. 32....iic6 �d7

33.�a6

de4

34..iig3

Black avoids 34 ..."ifc5 35.i.f2. 35J:th8 <;t>ts 36.'ifc4 ef3 37.tbc1 f2

Tempting, especially in time trouble, but 37 ... J:!.h8 38.J:!.h8 r3;g7 39.l:!.d8 �d8 would have given Polgar a more or less winning endgame. 38."il'f4

Threatening a nasty check on h6.

Round 12

38 ... �d2 39.�12 �h1 40.l:Xh1 �f2 41 .�f2 l:Xd2

Unnecessarily active. 4 1 ...'it>g7 would have given Black every opportunity to try to bring the ending to a favourable conclusion.

51 24.3 D Salov • Kamsky Notes by]eroen Piket

After this inaccuracy Ivanchuk became a little more optimistic about surviving this miserable endgame. 42. . .e5 needed some calculation but 43.l:t.e1 e4 44.l:t.e4 .l:.d1 45.ttJc1 �g5 46.�e3 f5 ! was enough for the win.

In their first encounter in Buenos Aires Karnsky clearly had the upper hand, but Salov escaped with a defence that endgame lovers will enjoy. Now in the second game of their mini-match S alov will try to put his opponent under pressure, as this is the last time they meet before they play the FIDE semi-final.

43.a4 �e4 44.a5 �g4 45.tt::le5 l:ta4 46.l:th7 .Ug7 47Jlh8 l:tg8 48.l:th7

1 .e4 c5 2.tt::lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld 4 tt:Jf6 5.tt::lc3 a6 6.�e2

42.ti:Jd3 l:Xe2

Salov wisely refrains from the sharpest continu ation 6.�g5, as Kamsky has very often played this himself. 6... e6 7.0-0 �e7 8.f4 Wlc7 9.'iii'h 1 0-0 1 O .i.f3 tt:Jc6 1 1 .�e3 �d7 •

1 1 ...tLld4 1 2.'Wid4 e5 1 3.'ifd2 b5 is more aggres sive. 14.a3 i.b7 1 5J:tad1 J:!.fe8 1 6.'iff2 did not bring White anything in Kuzrnin-Novikov, Len ingrad (eh) 1990, but 14.a4 ! ? �d7 1 5 . .t:!.fc 1 b4 1 6.ttJd5 led to an interesting fight between Vasi ukov and Stohl, Stary Smokovec 1988. 1 2.a4 48... l:tg7

Due to tiredness Judith had completely missed 46.l:t.h7, and she therefore decided that it would be unwise to continue the battle. Objectively speaking Black is still on top, as 48 ... 'it>e8 49 . .1:.f7 g5 ! (found by Karpov; 49 ... l:t.e4 50.�g3 �d6 5 1.l'�b7 �e5 52.i.e5 l:t.e5 53.a6 .l:.a5 54.a7 is a draw) 50.b3 .t:!.e4 and the race was always de cided in Black's favour during the post-mortem. However, a draw is the correct result. Both play ers made too many mistakes to deserve more. 49.l:th8

Draw.

In a game Zakharov-Kortchnoi, back in the sixties, White played the immediate 1 2.'ife1 and after 1 2 ... .t:!.fd8 1 3.'iff2 I:!.b8 14 ..t:!.ad1 �e8 15.g4 ttJd4 16.�d4 b5 17.g5 ttJd7 1 8.a3 he had the better game. 1 2... l:tab8

This move was generally condemned. Everyone preferred the knight exchange 12 ... ttJd4 1 3 .'ifd4 and then 1 3 ... e5. The game Hracek-Stohl, War saw 1990, continued 14.'ifd2 b5 1 5. ab5 ab5 1 6.fe5 deS 1 7.ttJd5 ttJd5 1 8.'Wid5 with equality. 1 7 .�g5 might be an improvement. Every day Polugaevsky and Najdorf were analyzing to gether and it was very interesting to watch them suggesting all sorts of possibilities. Polu's move here was 12 ...ttJa5, as he did not see a future for the rook on b8. I guess this knight jump should be answered with 1 3.�g l . 1 3.'Wie1 tt::l d4 1 4.�d4 e5 1 5.fe5

205

Probably 99% of White players would have played the same move as Valery, but perhaps it was more to the point to maintain the tension with 1 5.i.e3 ! ?. 1 5 de5 1 6.'it'g3 Sii.d6 1 7.i.e3 Sii.e6 1 8.Sii.g5 •..

White has to build up some initiative against the black king, as he is in trouble on the other side due to 1 2.a4 and the bad bishop on f3 . White's main goal is to keep Black busy to prevent him from undertaking something. 1 8.i.e2 was a rea sonable alternative, to open the f-file and at the same time support the queenside.

Both 27...tt:le4 and 27...'i¥e4 28.tt:lel.

are

bad because of

28.'0t>h2

A useful move, especially in time trouble, as J:[fl will not be check any more. 28 h6 29.�h4 'it'e4 30.Sii.g3 'it'c2 31 ...te5 ••.

1 8 i.e7 1 9.i.h6 •••

This is not a loss of time. It was useful to force the bishop to e7, since this might be handy if the knight reaches the d5 square. 19

•..

tt:Je8 20.Sii.g4 �d8

If 20 ... 'it'c8 2 1 . tt:ld5 ! 21 .�e6 fe6 22.l:lf8 i.f8 23.�g5 .l:rd7 24.'it'g4 'it'c4 25.h3 tt:Jd6

Suddenly changing the game from difficult strategical chess to very complicated tricky chess. 25 .. J:!.f7 was a very logical alternative after which Black would be doing fine.

•••

'it'f5

3 1 ...'i¥e4 would be bad, as 32.J:[e l is possible and the pin would work like a boomerang. Neither does 3 l . ..J:[f2 work out very well. Admittedly it looks good after 32.'i¥h6? 'it>g8, since both 33 . .-e6 and 33 ..-gS fail to 33 ...tt:lf7. However, the problem after 3 1 .. . .t:!.f2 is the sober 32.tt:le3 ! 32.tt:Jf4

The only move! The greedy 32.'ifh6 'it>g8 33 . .-f4 would lose because of 33 ...tt:lc4 ! 34.1Vc4 .-es 35.'it>hl i.d6. 32 'it'e6 33.tt:Je6 tt:Jc4 34.tt:Jf8 tt:Je5 35..l:re1 ! tt:Jf3 36.gf3 .l:rf8 •••

From here on the players only continued to show their fighting spirit and because neither wanted to offer the draw. 37.'0t>g3 .l:rf6 38.b4 .l:rb6 39 .l:re4 'Ot>h7 40.h4 'Ot>g6 41 .'0t>g4 .l:rd6 42.a5 'Ot>f6 43J:tf4 'Ot>e7 44J:tc4 'Ot>f6 45J:I.f4 'Ot>e7 46. .l:re4 'Ot>f6 •

26.tt:Jd5!

Salov immediately grabs his chance to bring another piece near to the enemy king. 26 J:tf7 27.'it'e6 'Ot>h8 ••

206

Draw. Thank God for move repetitions !

Round 13 An and

- Polgar

1 -0

Karpov

- Shi rov

lfz - lfz

lvanch u k

- Kamsky

1f2 - 1f2

Lju bojev i c

- Salov

Salov An and Polgar lvanchuk Karpov Shirov Kamsky Lju bojevic

51 1 2.3 D A nand • Polgar Notes by]eroen Piket The battle for second place! 1 .e4 c5 2.ttJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ltJd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 a6 6.f4

The best combative measure is to fight the enemy with his own weapons. 6... ttJbd7

8.5 8.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5

1S ...ih6 b4= Timoschenko-Rusakov, Soviet Union 1976, and 13 ...eS 14 . .-id2 (14.feS deS 1S.�h6 lt:JhS ! 16...ig7 �g7 17.lt:JgS tt:Jdf6 18.J:!.f3 h6 led to the sad retreat 19.lt:Jh3 in Kuporosov-Zakharevich, Soviet Union 1986) 14 ... tt:JcS 1SJ:I.ae1 l:l.ae8 1 6.feS deS 17.lt:JgS tt:Jcd7 Ljubojevic-Miles, Skara 1980, were very promising for B lack. 1 4.f5

In the 198S Soviet Championship Balashov gained the better position against Psakhis with 14.�e3 l:l.ae8 1S.J:!.ae1 tt:JcS 16.fS lt:Jd3 17.cd3 tt:Jd7 1 8.�6 but 1 S...lt:JcS should be replaced by 1S ...lt:JhS. 1 4... l:.ae8 1 5.�g5?1

6. ..eS see Polgar-Anand, sixth round. 7.ttJf3 Wic7 8.a4

8 ...id3 is more precise because 8 ... bS 9.0-0 b4 10.lt:Je2 ..ib7 1 l .tt:Jg3 e6 1 2."ii'e2 was good for White in Ciocaltea-Ribli, Baile Herculane 1982, while after 8 ... g6 postponing the move a2-a4 turns out useful. a . 9s 9 ..id3 ..ig7 1 1 .Wh1 b6 1 2.Wie1 ..

1 o.o-o

o-o

Clearly White's prospects are on the kingside. 1 2 .ib7 1 3.Wih4 e6 .••

There is nothing wrong with this move, but the results of the alternatives 1 3 ...tt:JcS 14.fS bS

A very risky decision. In the Spanish city 207

208

Round 13

Oviedo, against his countryman King, Mickey Adams played 1 5 ..ih6, which was also ex pected/feared by Judith Polgar. 15

•••

'ifc5

Not without reason Judith thinks that her play should be concentrated on the queenside and she now threatens 1 6 ... 'ifb4 or 1 6...b5. However, with his next move Vishy makes these options less attractive. Miguel Najdorf justly wondered why Polgar rejected the immediate 1 5 ...gf5; after 16.ef5 e5 the queen is much better placed on c7 to support the advance of the d-pawn. 1 6.l:tab1 1

Both players were spending a lot of time and were obviously unaware that only Anand's last move was new in practice. In Bangiev-Rash kovsky, Soviet Union 1975, White continued 16J:!.ad1 ? ! 'it'b4 17 ..id2 'it'b2 1 8.e5 i.f3 19J:[ae1 ltJe5 20.l:l.fb 1 'it'a1 21 .l:l.a1 .ib7 and despite the capture of the queen White is lost.

lt:le5 23.i.f6 ltJf3 24...ig7 �g7 25.f6 and mate follows. 22.l:t3e2?

A decision based on the tournament standing. 22 ..1:[1e2 looks like trouble for Black; I cannot find a plan. 22 ... 'it'c8 23.l:te3 'it'aS

23 ...'it'c6 would have been very strong psycho logically, as at this point Anand was not so sure how to assess the position and he might have contented himself with a repetition of moves. 24.l:t1 e2 �c6 25.h31?

The game is reaching its climax. 25 'it'b7 26.tt:lh2 d5 27.tt:lg4 tt:lg4 28.hg4 f61 ..•

1 6 ... gf5 1 7.ef5 e5 1 8..l:.be1 �h8

18 . . .d5 is impossible due to 19.lt:le5. 1 9..l:.e21

All forced, as h7 was becoming very vulnerable. 29.l:th3

29.'it'h7 <Ji>h7 30.l:l.h3 i.h6 does not work. The king escapes. 29

The Indian grandmaster understands very well that if he fixes the black center pawns he will be better. 1 9... 'it'c7 20J:Ue1 J:tg8 21 .l:te31

A very nice manoeuvre. White has many more useful moves than his female opponent. 21 ... 'ifc6

To push d6-d5 is still no good because of 22.l:l.e5

..•

tt:lf8 30...tf6 e4

The point of sacrificing the f-pawn. The seventh rank is very well defended and it is time to collect some material. 31 ...tg7 'it'g7??

The pressure ofboth the clock and the knowledge that she is facing her bete noire (Judith's score against Viswanathan can be counted on one ... finger! ! !) is getting too much. A more or less even battle would have continued after 3 1 . . Jig7 32.g5 209

(Anand) 32...ed3 33.l:te8 ..ie8 34.l:td3. In my opin ion 32 ..a.be3 followed by sacrificing on e4 was also not bad, as White gets three pawns for the piece. 32.�a6 d4

Karpov's loss against Salov in this line stimu lated him even more. 9.�f4

Apparently Karpov has no faith in the 9.�e3 treatment. 9 �d7 1 0.tt::lc6 .i.c6 1 1 .'ife1 .•.

Deviating from Karpov-Salov from the 9th round, where the fashionable 1 l .f3 was played. 1 1 ...�e7

IfBlack fears 12.e5 he has the alternative 1 1...'iVa5. 1 2.e5 tt::lh5 1 3.�e3 'ilc7 1 4..i.e2 g6 1 5.�h5 gh5 1 6..i.f4

33.�c4!

33 .i.b5 was not bad either but Anand's move wins on the spot. 33 ... dc3 34.f6 'ifg6 36.fe8'il �ea 37.l:lc3

35.f7

l:lg7

As the Frank Sinatra song goes: 'And now the end is near'. 37... i.a4 38.�d5 �d7 'ifd6 40.l:1d3 'ilf4 41 .l:.f2

39 .i.e4 •

Black resigned. Quite a bloody game for two vegetarians.

51 29. 1 0 0 Kar p ov • Shirov Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt::ld4 tt::lf6 5.tt::lc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.'ild2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6

This was to be expected. Alexey is a great expert in this opening, as he had already proved in several games in this tournament, and of course 21 0

At first glance the proceedings may seem very strange, but actually both sides are just being consistent. White has mutilated B lack's pawn structure for which he has given up the pair of bishops. In Makarichev-Szabo, Amsterdam 1976, peace was signed after 1 6.ed6 �d6 17 .f3 0-0-0 1 8.'ii'f2 �f4 19.g3. 1 6...0-0-0 1 7.f3

Again 1 7 .ed6 does not bring White much. In fact Black was much better in Matulovic-Ivanovic, Stip 1979, which saw 17 .....id6 18...id6 J:!.d6 19.f3 l:tg8 20.l:1d2 'iVd8 21 .l:1d6 'ii'd6 22."�f2 'ii'f4 23. �b 1 h4. 1 7...�g5

A novelty. The Encyclopedia only gives 17 ... mtg8, as occurred in Chandler-Ivanovic, Plovdiv 1983, where 1 8.ed6 �d6 19.l:td6 J:!.d6 20.g3 ! f6 (20 .....if3?! 21 .l:1fl) 2 l . ..id6 'iVd6 followed. The Encyclopedia considers this position to be equal,

Round 13

but who would want to play the black side here, especially against Karpov? 1 a ..tgs hgs 1 9.'it'g3

19.'ii'd2 would be careless, as 19 ...de5 20.'ii'g5 J:.hg8 2l .l:.d8 'ii'd8 hands the initiative to Black. 1 9... deS

19 ... d5? 20/L:le2 and 19 . .. h4?! 20.'ii'g5 .U.dg8 21 .'ii'f6 deS 22J�d2 are not advisable. 20J:ld8 'ii'd 8 21 .'it'eS l:l.g8

Ready to exchange queens with 22 ... 'ii'c7. 22.tt:Je4

The knight is certainly not stronger than the bishop, so it is better to trade them. 22 ... �e4 23.'ii'e4 'ii'd6

23 . . .'ii'a5 ! ? Karpov. 24.g3 l:ld8 2S.'it'e3 'ii'd S

confuse B lack. 30.h3 ! ? should be answered by 30 ... '0t>d6 3 l .'Ot>d2 'Ot>e5 32.c3 b5 33.a3 aS . 30 �d6 31 .c4 �cs 32.�c3 g4! ..•

32 ... a5? would not be so clever, in view of 33.h3! followed by 34.a3. 33.f4

33.b4 <bd6 34.f4 e5 (34 .. .f6 35.<bd4 'Ot>c6 35 .a4 b6=) 35.fe5 'Ot>e5 36.<bd3 b6! was still balanced, as the players concluded after the game. 33...aS 34.a3 f6 3S.b4 ab4 36.ab4 �d6 37.�d3 'Ot>c6 38.�d4 �b6

Karpov was correct in pointing out that 38 ...b6 was a dead draw. 39.bS �as 40.<.t>cs es 41 .feS feS 42.�dS �b4

42 ...'0t>b6 43.<be5 'Ot>c5 was also sufficient to share the point.

I am not sure that this move is so useful. 25 .. .f6 and 26... e5 to play with the majority looks more logical. 26.b3 'ifd4!

26 ...g4 27 ..U.fl would only help White. 27.'ifd4 l::t d4 28.l:ld1 lld1 29.�d1 �d7

The easiest way to draw was 29 ...g4 30.'0t>e2 'Ot>d7 3 l .'Ot>e3 eS 32.f4 'Ot>e6.

43.b6 e4 44.'0t>e4

With 44.c5?! 'Ot>b5 45.'0t>d6 e3 46.c6 'Ot>b6 47.c7 e2 White would only burn his own fingers. 44...�c4 45.�fS 'Ot>b6 47.'0t>hS �aS!

�CS

46.�gS

The only square for the king but both competitors knew exactly what they were doing. 48.�g4 bS 30.�d2

Despite the limited material, matters are not yet all that simple and White has some chances to

Drawn, as 49.h4 (49.'0t>f3?? b4 50.<be2 'Ot>a4-+) 49 ... b4 50.h5 b3 5 l .h6 b2 52.h7 b l 'if 53.h8'if 'ife4! 54.'0t>g5 'ife3 leads to perpetual check. The analysis is based on notes by Shirov. 21 1

51 2 8.3 0 Ivanchuk

• Kamsky

Notes by]eroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.t2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2Jd4 t2Jf6 5.t2Jc3 t2Jc6 6 ..tg5 e6 7.'it'd2 .te7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4 t2Jd4 1 0.'it'd4 'ifaS

The Richter-Rauzer really is a hard nut to crack. This system is even more solid than the one with a6 and h6, and you cannot but wonder why White players do not more frequently choose the Sozin/Velirnirovic attack. But maybe 'Chukky' has something in mind. 1 1 ..tc4

1 l .Wb1 was already tried by Shirov. 1 1 ....td7 1 2.e5 de5 1 3.fe5

In the first round - which seems ages ago, but I guess time flies when you're having fun - Kar pov surprisingly recaptured with his queen, but Gata did not suffer much.

212

1 3....tc6 14 ..id2 t2Jd7 1 5.t2Jd5 'ifd8 1 6.lUe7 'ife7 1 7.J:I.he1 l:lfd8

Nowadays everybody takes this move for granted, but there was a time that 1 7 .. J:tfc8 or 17. ..'ifc5 was generally accepted as best. The text move was introduced by Genna Sosonko and has been the main continuation ever since. 1 8..tf1

1 8 .'ifg4 tt:lf8 19.�d3 J:!.d3 20.cd3 'ifd7 2 l .�b 1 'ifd3 22.�a1 h5 ! was a big success for Black in 011-Hodgson, Groningen PCA-qualifier 1993. 1 8...t2Jf8 1 9.'ife3

Most games continue with 19.'ifg4, but with the queen in the centre Ivanchuk can play on both sides of the board. 1 9...'ifh4!

Taking advantage of the white queen's absence from the fourth rank. 19 ... tt:lg6 20.g3 followed by 2 l .h4 would be the ideal realization of White's plan.

Round 13

In the press room we had expected 24.g3 and 25.h4. 24...'iVd8 2S..:ed1

25 .i.d3 ! to prevent 25 .. .f6 was not bad as 25 ...�g2 26.Ilg1 �c6 27.h4 is a worthwhile pawn sacrifice. 25 ... 16 26.ef6 'ti'f6

Though Black has clearly made some consider able concessions, he has counterplay against the clumsy bishop on fl . 27J:t4d2! l:tf7 28...ig3 h6 29..:1.e1 ? 20.h3 .:d7?

I think that 20. .. l2Jg6, as Salov played against Ehlvest in Linares 199 1 , was more useful since Black should exchange the rook if the bishop moves from d2. 21 .c4 a6

The pawn on a7 is always vulnerable.

Though his opponent has problems with the clock, is it Vasily who makes the error. 29 ...id3 would have maintained the advantage. 29 ... tbh4 30.�e5

30.i.h4 'ifh4 is pointless because 3 1 .'ife6 fails to 3 1 . ..l:r.e8. 30... 'ti'g5!

22.�b4! l:tc8?!

Allowing the bishop to d6. Probably Kamsky did not want to play 22 ... b5 because after 23.g4 this would just have weakened his queenside, but this may still have been the lesser evil. 22... .1:r.d1, 23.l:r.d1 with the threat of .l:r.d4 with complete domination, was also not very attractive. 23.�d6 tbg6

A very good defence! 31 .'�'g5 hgS 32...id6

There is no other way to stop 32....1:r.cf8. 32... tbf5 33...ib4 tbe3!

Forcing opposite-coloured bishops and thereby solving all remaining problems. Tactics like 23...�g2 (24.i.g2 'ifc4 25.�b1 'ifc2) do not work because of 24.J:!.d4 !

34. .:1.e3 .l:tf1 35.�c2 ..idS 36.b3

Draw.

24.l:td4?!

21 3

51 32.9 D Ljuboj evic • Salov

1 0...tbf6

10 . ..�g5 can be met by 1 1 ..ia3.

Notes by]eroen Piket Ljubojevic has played himself back into the tourna ment with two successive wins, and of course he wants to take revenge for his defeat in the first half of the tournament. Salov on the other hand would secure first place by remaining undefeated. 1 .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 4.tbd4 e5

tbc6

3.d4 cd4

Of late the 'Kalashnikov' Variation has not been seen very often at high level tournament practice. The results are very poor for Black, and Alexey Shirov too was unable to improve the statistics in his first two games in Buenos Aires. 5.tbb5 d6 6.c4 �e7 7.tb1c3

7 . .i.d3 occurred in Anand-Shirov in the second round. 7 ... a6 8.tba3 �e6

In the first round, against the Hungarian participant, Shirov played 8 ...h6 in order to exchange the dark squared bishops, but he never managed to equalize. 9.tbc2 J:lc8 1 0.b3

1 1 .�d3

The other bishop move 1 l ..ie2 allows 1 1 . ..0-0 12.0-0 b5 1 3.cb5 ab5 14. .if3 tt:Jb4 1 5.tt:Jb4 .l:.c3 16.�d2 .l:.c8 with equality, as in Timman-Short, Belgrade 1989. 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.�b2

White has to play precisely, for example 1 2.0-0 would allow Black to free himself with 12 ...b5 13.cb5 tt:Ja7. 1 2...tbd7

In Ivanchuk-Bonsch, Novi Sad (ol) 1990, Black manoeuvred his other knight to g6 ( 1 2 ... .!:!.e8 1 3.0-0 .if8 14.'ti'd2 tt:Je7 1 5 . .!:!.e1 tt:Jg6) but could not compensate for his weakness on the d-file. 1 3.0-0 tbc5 1 4...ie2 <;;tJhS

14...f5 15.ef5 .i.f5 1 6.tt:Je3 gives White a favour able structure. 1 5.b4 tbd7 1 6.tbd5 �g5 1 7.a3!

Ljubo also thought for a long while about the somewhat artificial 1 7.�a3. I believe the game continuation is much stronger as it exposes Black's problem: a plan for the future. 1 7 .a4 was bad because of 17 ...aS. 1 7...tbe7 1 8.tbce3 lLlb6 1 9.'iYb3 aS

Understandably, Salov is tired of waiting pas sively, nevertheless he should have adjusted to the situation and played the prophylactic 19 . ...id7, intending to take on d5 .

I like this set-up for White. In Linares 1993 Ljubo tried 10.�d2 against Ivanchuk, but after 10 ....ig5 he decided to exchange the bishop after all. In Frolov-Tiviakov, Soviet Union 1990, in teresting complications arose after 10.tt:Jd5 �g5 1 1 .tLlce3 tt:Jge7 1 2.�d3 0-0 1 3.0-0 tt:Jd4. 214

Round 13

20.ba5!

A very confident decision where most players would have increased the pressure by 20J:!.fdl. 20...tt:Jd7 2Vbe7 �e7 23.tbd5 .ildS

tbc5

22.'i¥b4

pieces on the right squares, and of course Salov can only wait for Ljubojevic to break his blockade. This makes it harder to understand his next move which, allows instant penetra tion. But it is not the first time that a chess player makes a wrong decision around the no torious move 40 !

23 ...tt:Je4 24.tt:Je7 f!ie7 25 ..ile5 is one of the tac tical justifications for White's appetite on move twenty. 24.cd5 tra8 25..ic3

40... b6?

25 ...'i!fc7

This move was severely criticized in the Argen tine newspapers and 25 . .. f!ib8 was suggested as a bigimprovement. I guess Salov feared 26J:tacl (26 ..l:.fcl J:lc8 followed by 27 ... �d8), as 26 ...�d8 is not possible on account of 27.�e5 .ila5 28 .f!ic5, and after 26 .. Jk8 White starts a decisive attack on the kingside with 27 .f4, as all the black pieces are absent.

Ljubo stated that if Black had stayed put with 40 ... f!ic7, he would sooner or later have de stroyed the fortress after 4 l .f!ib4. Although it takes quite some manoeuvering, it seems that by playing �h2 and putting the bishop on the h3-c8 diagonal the pressure already increases. Then, depending on Black's waiting moves, White will open the position with f2-f4 or give back the exchange on c5, after which the e5 and b7 pawns will be targets . 41 .trb6!

Forced and winning.

26.trfc1 .ilgS 27.trc2 tba6 28.'i¥b1 .llfc8 29.traa2!

41 ... .tb6 42.'i¥b6 tbe4 43.a6 tra7 44..ib5 tbc5 45.�c6 tra6

Not a very difficult move but a very strong one.

It is tough for Salov that suddenly his tournament victory is not one hundred per cent sure, but as 46.�b7 cannot be prevented one would expect a player of his calibre to resign. On the other hand you do not win tournaments by resigning.

29 ... tbc5 30. .ib4 lla5

Otherwise the black position would simply col lapse. 31 ..ila5 'ti'as 32.trc4 g6 33.g3 ..t>g7 34 ..t>g2 .ilf6 35.a4 l:la8 36. .l:lb4 'i¥c7 37. .l:lb5 .id8 38.a5 'i¥e7 39.h4 h5 40.l:l.a3 •

In mutual time trouble the players have put their

46J:ta6 tba6 47.'ifa6 't!Vf6 48.'i¥a3 'it'd8 49.f!ic3 ..t>g8 50.f!ib2 't!Ve7 51 .'i¥b6 ..t>g7 52 ..ib5

Perhaps 52.flib8, to play for 53 .f!ie8, �d7 and �e6, was a quicker way to decide the game. 21 5

52... <J.?g8 53.<J.?g1 <J.?g7 54.�f1 <J.?g8 55.�g2 <J.?g7 56.<J.?h2 <J.?g8 57.'iie3 'ifc7 58.�f3 'iic4 59.<J.?g2 'ii b4 60.'iie4 'ifc3 61 .g4 hg4 62.'ifg4 <J.?f8 63.h5 gh5 64.'ifh5 'iid 2 65.'iih8 <J.?e7 66.'ifh4 <J.?e8 67.'iif6 'iib4 68.<J.?g3 'ifa3 69.<J.?g4 'ifc1 70.<J.?g3 'ifa3 71 .<J.?g2 'ifc5 72.'ifh8 <J.?e7 73.'iih 4 <J.?e8 74.'iie4

The right square. Now White can start winning the last black pawns without being bothered by checks. 74...'ifc1 75.i..h5 'ifgS 76.'iig4 'iff6

77.'iie6

Black resigned.

216

Round 1 4 Salov

- Anand

1/2

Salov An and lvanch u k Polgar Kamsky Karpov Shirov Lju bojevic

Kamsky

- Ljubojevic

1 -0

Shi rov

- lvanchu k

0- 1

Pol gar

- Karpov

1/2 - 1/2

51 1 5.2 D Salov • Anand Notes byjeroen Piket This game was sure to be more interesting than the first encounter between the same players - an 1 8-move draw - as first place was at stake. It is funny that in this situation, where a draw benefits the White player, he is forced to play the Sicilian.

9.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.5

One might think that after this unusual opening the players would be on unexplored territory, but one would be mistaken. 1 1 ...a6 1 2.l:l.ad1 b5 1 3.f4 'i/c7 14.ltJb3 b4 1 5 .ltJd5 ltJd5 16.ed5 lt:\a5 1 7.i.d4 lt:lb3 1 8.cb3 i.d4 19.'i/d4 was seen in Chistiakov-Tal, Riga 1954. 1 2.i.d4

1 .e4 c5 2.lf.Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lf.Jd4 lf.Jf6 5.lf.Jc3 lf.Jc6 6.g3

After his success with this move against lvanchuk in the eighth round, Salov does not mind giving it another try. As Salov explained after the tournament, he hadn't had very much time for preparation. He entered the tournament as Polugaevsky's sub stitute and he had a busy calendar. If you look at his score in this tournament with these f3 and g3 systems, you cannot imagine what his score would have been if he had had time to prepare the main lines.

1 2 J:tc4! 1 3.'it'd3 .•

6 ... g6 7.i.g2 i.d7 8.h3 i..g7 9.i..e3

The retreat 9 .lt:\de2 occurred in the above men tioned game. 9 0-0 1 0.'it'd2 l:l.c8 1 1 .0-0 lt.Jd4 •..

Perhaps 13 .e5 to simplify the game was better. 1 3... 'it'c8

Well played. After 1 3 ....ie6 14.lt:\e2! followed by b3 and c4 White has a pleasant position. 217

21 8

Round 14

1 4...if6?!

The exclamation mark is only appended, because White's decision is good and confident in view of the final result of the game. The question mark is given because White is already worse after fourteen moves. 1 4 �f6 1 5.lt:Jd5 l:i.c2 1 6.lt:Jf6 ef6 ..•

51 8.2 D Kamsky • Ljuboj evic Notes byjeroen Piket 1 .e4 c5 2.lt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lt:Jd4 lt:Jf6 5.lt:Jc3 a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4

I witnessed this move when I was sitting in the playing hall together with Polugaevsky, and we looked at each other, with the same thought: Is Ljubo - after three wins in a row - in the mood for the Polugaevsky Variation? (7 ... b5). 7 ... l'Vb6

We cannot and do not blame the Yugoslav grand master for being loyal to his Najdorf, but I think that in general the players of this tournament missed a big opportunity to prove that they are more than great chess players, and that they could have added a little more to Polu 's favourite Sicilian chess theory. 1 7.l'Vd6 ..ie6

Salov rightly feared 1 7. .. tlc6 ! , as 1 8 .'ii'd4 �3 19.�h3 'ii'h3 20."�i'a7 l:te8 or 19.'ii'a7 .ig2 20. 'it>g2 l:te8 would have given him a long and tough afternoon. 1 8Ji'd4 'it>g7

The more direct 1 8 . .. ld.d8 19.'ii'f6 l:Idd2 forces White to sac a pawn with 20Jbd1 l:tb2 2 l .l:td2 l:!.d2 22.a4 �h3 23.�h3 'tth3, according to both players in the post-mortem, but 2l .h4! looks a safer way to reach a draw. 1 9.e5 f5 20.l'!fa7 l:ib2 21 .l:i.ab1 l:i.a2 22.l'Vb7 'tlib7 23.i.b7

Vishy has done what he could, but his advantage only pleases the eye and nothing more. 23 ... f4 24.<;ii g2 fg3

Draw. And Anand was the first to congratulate the tournament winner.

8.lt:Jb3

Side-stepping the poisoned pawn variation in the most fashionable way. In the PCA championship Short had the guts to challenge Kasparov in the main line with 8.'ii'd2 'i¥b2 9.llJb3 'ii'a3 10 ..if6 gf6 1 l ..ie2 llJc6 12.0-0 �d7 1 3. 'it>h1 h5 14.llJd l !? 8... ttJbd7

The alternative is 8 ...h6 followed by check on e3 . 9Ji'f3 "f/c7 1 0.0-0-0 b5 1 1 .i.d3 �b7 1 2.a3

For sentimental readers I give the continuation of the game Saren-Liang, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978: 12.l:the1 �e7 1 3.'i¥g3 b4 14.llJb1 h6 1 5 .�f6 �f6 and Black was doing fine. 1 2 ... i.e7 1 3.l:i.he1

The question in this line is whether Black has lost a tempo with 'ii'b6 and 'ii'c7, or that it was very useful to chase the white knight to b3. 1 3... h6

Better than the alternatives 1 3 ... 0-0-0 and 13. .. l:tc8. 1 4. 'ii'h 3?!

21 9

Although this is a characteristic move in this line, 14.�h4 g5 1 5.�g3 ! ? with double-edged play was to be preferred; 15.fg5 o:'be5 1 6.'ife2 o:'bfg4 17.h3 hg5 1 8.�f6 o:'bf6 was okay for Black in Bogda-Murey, Malta Olympiad 1980. 1 4 l:tc8 •••

23.. J:tc3 22.'ii'c3 �d5 23..ih5 l:tf8 24.�f3 'ifc7 25.'ifb4

Gata is fighting as best he can, but 25. . JUS ! would have left him helpless. 25...g5? 26. 'ifd6!

In a correspondence game Ivanez Rico-Popescu, Copa Latina 199 1 , Black opted for 14 ...0-0-0 and after 1 5.�4 g5 16.�g3 l:tdg8! he was also on top. 1 5.l2Jd4?

Kamsky is not happy with his position and he starts looking for complications.

Suddenly White is back in the game in the sense that he has realistic chances of escaping with a draw. 26.�d5 tbd5 27.l:td5 ed5 28.e6 does not work because of the intermediate 28 ... l:tf2 ! 26 J:tf3! 27.gf3 'ifd6 28.ed6 l2Jf5 29.�d3! .•

15 ...'ti'b6 1 6.l2Je6 fe6 1 7.e5 deS 1 8.�g6 �d8

The critical position. White has to prove he has sufficient compensation for the invested material. 1 9.fe5

White's best chance according to Ljubo, but then again he was not at all impressed by the threats against his king. I partly agree with him as 19.J:[e5 is not so good because of 19 ... J:[c3 20.bc3 �d5, but 19 .f5 l:tc3 20.bc3 would also have given Black some practical difficulties of how to con tinue. 20 ... -idS 21 .�f6 gf6 22.fe6 �e6 23 ...if5 is not so clear. However, 20...�c7 and 20 ... hg5 seem to justify Ljubo's point of view. 1 9... l2Jd5 20..ie7 l2Je7 21 ..if7

2l .l:td6 l:tc6 22.'ife6 (22 ...ie4 l:td6 23.ed6 o:'bf5 24.�b7 'ifb7 25 .l:te6 .U.f8 leads nowhere) 22 .. J:td6 23.ed6 o:'bg6 24.'ifg6 'ifd4! and Black is simply a piece up. 220

29..1:1.d5 ed5 30J:[e6 a5 ! followed by �c8 to b6 is not advisable for White. 29...a5?!

In time trouble Ljubojevic picks the wrong plan. My suggestion is 29 ...tt:Jh4, to play against the vulnerable white pawns, while transferring the knight to f4 might also be an attractive option. 29. . .o:'bd6 is too greedy. White escapes with half a point after 30.J:[e6 as well as first 30.l:td5 and only then 3 1 .J:!.e6. 30.b3 a4?

Giving the white king free entrance and spoiling his advantage completely. Best was 30 ... o:'bf6 ! to make space for his king to move forwards. In the post-mortem Kamsky found a very good defence in 3 1 .�b2 �d7 32.a4 ! , as he is able to survive after both 32 ...ba4 33.c4 and 32...b4 33.c3 . 31 .�b2 lbb6 32.�c3 �d7 33.�b4 ..tc6?

Round 14

Completely losing the right track. It is hard to explain what happened to Ljubo; he probably does not understand himself. 33 ...t2Jd6 would maintain approximate equality. 34. �cS lt:\dS

At the 1993 World Team Championship in Luzern i played 6 ...e5 7.t2Jb3 i.e6 8 .f4 ef4 9 .i.f4 t2Jc6 against Shirov, but on this occasion I de cided to employ a different variation. 7.�e2 'fl/c7 8.g4 dS!?

When preparing for the present game, I remem bered that somewhere (possibly in one of the issues of the Chess Informant) I had seen the following recommendation: 8 ...d5 !? 9.ed5 i.b4 10.de6 i.c3 l l .bc3 'iWc3 1 2.r.t>fl fe6oo. The re sulting position interested me, and I began ana lysing it, hoping that my analysis would prove better than that of my opponent. In view of the fact that in recent times Shirov has almost regu larly played the variation with 6.i.e3, 7 .i.e2 and 8.g4, I felt sure that the above recommendation would also be known to him. 9.ed5 �b4 1 0.de6 �c3 1 1 .bc3 'ir'c3 1 2.�f1 fe6 35.l::!.e6!

This really hurts ! 35 ... ab3 36.cb3 �e6?

36...tt:lf4 37.J:Iee3 t2Jd3 38J�d3 h5 (38 . . .t2Jh4 39.l::!.e 3 i.f3 40 ..l:l.e7 �d8 41 Jlh7) was the only thing left for Black. 37.�c6

Now the pawn is unstoppable and the conclusion speaks for itself. 37... tt:lf4 38 . .l:l.d2 tt:lg6 39.d7 tt:leS 40.�c7 tt:ld7 41 . .1:1d7 �es 42.a4 ba4 43.ba4

Black resigned.

51 23. 1 D Shirov • Ivanchuk Notes by Vasiry Ivanchuk 1 .e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 S.tt:lc3 a6 6.�e3 e6

1 3.tt:lb3?!

This is a poor move, and after Shirov made it I realised that 8 ...d5 had come as a surprise to him, and that he had not analysed it at home. I think that in this position White should play 1 3.r.t>g2 0-0 (if 13 ...t2Jd5 14.'iWd3) 14.'iWd3 (14.i.f3 is also quite possible; now after 14 ...t2Jd5 1 5 .i.d5 ed5 1 6.h3 or 16Jlel White stands slightly better, while if 14 ...e5 he should not play 1 5 .t2Jb3 'iWc7 ! , but 1 5.t2Jf5 i.f5 1 6.gf5oo) 14...'iWd3?! ( 1 4...'iWc7, avoiding the exchange of queens, leads to more complicated play; in this case White does best to play 1 5 .i.f3) 1 5.cd3 e5 1 6.tLlf5 t2Jg4 ( 1 6. ..t2Jc6 17 ..l:l.ab l ) 1 7. t2Je7 r.t>f7 (17 ...r.t>h8 is risky on ac221

count of 1 8.�c5) 1 8 .lLld5 ! ( 1 8 .�c5 is unpromis ing for White in view of 1 8 ...�e6 ! followed by 19 . . .lLJd7, while after 18.lLJc8 !? lLJe3 19.fe3 l:c8 20. .:!.hb l !? b5 2L�.f3 .:!.a7 22.a4 or 20.�f3 the game should probably end in a draw), and White has a strong initiative, since if 1 8 ...lLJc6 he plays 19 ..ic5 l:d8 20.lLJb6, while after 1 8 ...lLJe3 19.fe3 lLJc6 he has the very strong 20. .:!.hfl <;t>g8 2 l ..:!.f8 <;t>f8 22 ..:!.fl <;t>g8 23.d4! I should also mention that the pattern of the position arising after 1 2...fe6 very much resem bles certain positions that arise in one of the variations of the Nimzo-Indian Defence(!), namely l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3 .lLlc3 .ib4 4.f3 d5 5 .a3 �c3 6.bc3 c5 7.cd5 lLJd5 8.dc5 f5. 1 3... li.Jd5 1 4.'ifd4?!

14 ..ic5 looks more critical, preventing Black's kingside castling and at the same time preserving the dark-square bishop from exchange, but even in this case after 14 ... b6 1 5.�a3 .ib7 Black's position is preferable, in my opinion, since if necessary he can castle long. With the move in the game White is agreeing to play the slightly inferior ending that could arise after 14 ...ttJe3 1 5.'ife3 'ife3 16.fe3, but with this aim it was better to play 14.'it'd2 or 14.ti'd3, after which it would not have been so advantageous, as it was in the game, for Black to avoid the exchange of queens.

1 6...li.Je5?!

Of course, it was very tempting to simultaneously attack both white bishops, but there were also some interesting alternatives: 1 6 ...lLJf6 1 7.ti'g2 0-0, or 16...lLJe3 17.ti'e3 0-0 18.ti'e4 g6, intending 19....:!.f4. 1 7..itc5!

Now kingside castling has become impossible. 1 7....itd7

Realising that 17 ... lLJf6 1 8.ti'f4 was unpromising for me, I decided to prepare queenside castling. 1 8..U.e1 li.Jd3 1 9.cd3 li.Jf4

Alas, for the moment castling is not good in view of 20. .:!.c l . 20.li.Jd4!

20.ti'd4? .ib5 2 l ..id6 ti'c6! would have fa voured Black. 20 ... 'ifc5 21 .'iff4 .l:tfB

1 4... 'ifc7!

Taking account of the poor position of the white queen ( 1 5 . .. lLJc6, with gain of tempo, is threat ened), I decided to avoid the exchange of queens. 1 5 ..itd3 li.Jc6 1 6.'ife4 22.'ife4?

While Shirov was considering his 22nd move, the lights in the playing hall went out and play had to be adjourned. This incident must evidently have disturbed my opponent psychologically, since otherwise it is hard to explain why he should reject 22.lLJe6 .ie6 23.J:te6 <;t>d7 24.'ife3 ti'e3 (or 24 ... l::.ac8 !? 25.ti'c5 .:!.c5 26..:!.e2=) 25 ..:!.e3 l::.ac8 26.l:e2, which would have led to a drawn ending (26... .:!.f4 27.h3 .:!.c l 28.<;t>g2 .:!.hl 29.<;t>hl .:!.f3 etc.), and instead prefer to continue the struggle in an obviously inferior position. 222

Round 14

23..C.e2

22 ... 0-0-0 'ii'c 7!?

'OtbB

24..C.g1

24 ... 'ifd6 was also strong, and if 25.J:lb2 b5 ! with the threat of 26... J:lf4. 25.tbe6

25.'ife5 is also bad in view of 25 ...'ife5 26.J:le5 �c8 27.CiJ.e6 J:lfe8 28.lLid8 J:le5+. 25 ...�e6 «taB!

26.'ii'e6

'ii'h 2

27.'ii'e3

Simple and strong. The outcome of the game is decided in view of the insecure position of the white king. It should also be mentioned that at this point Shirov was in time trouble. 28. .C.g3?!

Slightly more tenacious was 28.I:t.g2 'ifhl 29.J:lgl 'ifh4+. 28... .C.c8 29..C.g2

29. J:lh3? J:lc 1-+. 29... 'ii'h 1 30J:tg1 'ii'h 4 31 .C.g2? •

31 ... .C.f3! 32.'ii'd2

32.'iff3 'ifhl -+. 32...'ii'h 1 33.l1g1 'ii'h3

White resigned.

� 223

(to meet 1 5 ... b4? with 1 6..if6 �f6 17.tbd5) 1 5...0-0 16.�g3.

51 2 9.3 D Polgar • Karpov Notes byjeroen Piket This game was important for third place in the tournament, which, remarkably enough, could be reached with a 50% score. 1 .e4 c5 2.l2Jf3 l2Jc6 4.l2Jd4 l2Jf6 5.l2Jc3 d6

3.d4

cd4

For this must-win situation Karpov chooses the Richter-Rauzer, definitely the most successful Sicilian Defence in this tournament. 6 ....tg5 e6 7.'i!fd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9 ....te3

As White the FIDE Champion twice opted for 9. ..if4 (against Salov and Shirov) but made only one draw out of these two games. 9 ......td 7 1 0.f4 b5 1 1 .�d3 �e7

l l . ..�c7 would lead to Kamsky-Shirov, round ten. 1 2.'it>b1

12.h3 is more modest. 1 2... l2Jd4

Karpov reacts immediately. 1 2...�c7 1 3 .h3 tbd4 14.i.d4 i.c6 15.�e3 b4 16.tbe2 e5 is given as satisfactory for Black by Polugaevsky in his 1983 book on the Sicilian. 1 3.i.d4 i.c6 1 4.l:!.he1

In Hassenruck-Pytel, Dortmund 1976, White did not waste any time, and play continued 14.g4 b4 15.g5 hg5 16.fg5 lLJd7 1 7.lLJe2 .ig5 1 8 .�b4 with an unclear position. 1 4... :lc8

An interesting new try, but the use of the rook on the c-file is not yet clear. 14 ...0-0 1 5.e5 deS 16.fe5 tLJd5 17.tbe4 lbb4? 1 8 .lLJf6 ! was good for White in Timman-Gheorghiu, Amsterdam 1975, but 14 ...b4 is supposed to be an improvement. 1 5.g4?!

15 .a3 to stop the annoying b5-b4 looks more obvious. Another way to continue is 1 5.�e3 ! ? 224

1 5...b4 1 6....tf6 ...tf6 1 7.l2Jd5 �h4!

Gaining an important tempo, and also slowing down White's intended attack. 1 8..l:f.e2

18.i.a6, to give up the exchange, was not as bad as it looks, as White gets some pawn(s) in return. 18...a5 1 9.'i!fe3! 0-0

19 ... l:lb8 to prevent the knight jump, runs into trouble after 20.�h3! 20.l2Jb6 J:tb8 21 .l2Jc4 �b5!

The knight on c4 puts pressure on the weak d6 pawn, so Black decides to try and get rid of it. 22.J:tg2 .l:lc8 23.l2Jd2

23.tbb6 l:tc5 24.i.b5 �b6 25.i.a4 .l:!.d5 shows the hidden danger for White. 23 ... �d3 24.'fi'd3 ...te7

25.g5 was becoming a threat. 25.h4

This is tempting, but in my opinion 25.lLJf3 with the same idea -to push g4-g5 - was to be preferred, as it does not allow d6-d5. Other possibilities analysed during the post-mortem were the sharp 25.g5 ! ? hg5 26.h4 !? (26.J:tdg1 d5 27.e5 .ic5 and 26.lLJf3 l:.c5 27.l:!.dg 1 a4 28.h4 b3 ! ? are too slow for White) and the quiet 25.tbc4 �c7 26.b3 a4. 25...d5

Round 14

Karpov avoided 25 ...'f!ic7 26.g5 h5 27.g6 f6 28.'f!if3 'f!ic2 29.<it>al 'f!if5 30.l::tg5 for obvious reasons. 26.e5 a4 27.g5

It looks as though Polgar's attack is much faster than her opponent's, but the black king can be defended very well and Black's counteractions should cer tainly not be underestimated. 27 .h5 would have been a more positional approach which might have been less demanding for White. 27 ... h5 28.g6 'flieS!

Clearly Black is ready to play an ending. 32.gf7?

Making life much easier for Black. 32.'f!ic6 J::tc6 33.lld7 l:l.d8 34.l:l.gd2 maintains the initiative to compensate for the miserable pawn structure. 32... .l:!.f7 33.'ti'c6 .l:!.c6 34.b3?!

Karpov expected the better 34.l2Jd4, and after 34 ... l::tc7 both 35 .l2Jb� and 35 .l2Je6 give a roughly equal game. 34... ab3

Of course not 34 ... a3, since Judith would then have obtained an edge with the temporary pawn sacrifice 35 .c4! bc3 36.cit>c2. 35.ab3 f4 36J:td4?

In the time scramble Polgar commits a huge inaccuracy. More to the point seems 36J:td7 or 37.cit>b2. 36 ..l:lc3 37.lld3 •.

A sad necessity. 37 J:lf8! 38. .Ugd2 �f7 .••

The coordination between the black pieces is perfect and White is left with weak pawns. 29.ttJf3

29J:tdgl is answered by 29 .....ic5.

After the game Karpov stated that 38 ... J:Ifc8 would have been more accurate, and indeed White is then in trouble. 39.llc3 bc3 40. .Ud3 <it>e6

29... .l:!.c4

Very precise. Judith clearly had some poisoned arrows on her bow when she went for these complications; 29 .. .fg6 30.l2Jd4! or 30J:tg6 l::tf4 3 1 .l::te6 'f!if7 fol lowed by 32.l::te7 and 33.l2Jg5 are proof enough. 30.f5

There is no way back. 30...ef5 31 .'ti'd5

The consequences of 3 l .l2Jd4 were impossible to assess, the idea being to continue after 31 .. .fg6 with 32.l2Je6 (32.l::tdg l i.c5 33.l::tg6 l::td4 34.l::tg7 <it>h8 35.'ii'a6 l::td l !) and only then worry about material. 31 ... 'tWc6

Completing the plan he started on move 38 to give up a pawn for a very powerful king. 40 .. J:tc8 was already too late because of 41 .l:l.d4. 41 .J:lc3 <it>fS 42.�c1 �g4

225

If B lack cuts off the king with 42... l:l.d8, White survives with 43.l:l.d3 (43Jk7 �a3 44.�b l g6) 43 ...�e4 44.tt:ld2 �e5 45.l:l.d8 �d8 46.Wdl �f5 47.tt:lf3 �g4 48.�e2. 43. ..td1

Even during the game one can learn from one's opponent, as Judith shows by also activating her king. 43.....ilb4!

Curbing one's greed is always difficult: 43 . ..�h4 44.�e2 �e7 (44 ... �d8 45J:!.c8) 45.l:l.c7! l:l.e8 46.b4 g5 47.b5 �g3 48.b6 g4 49.tt:ld2! (49.b7 gf3 50.�fl J::td 8: 49.tt:ld4 �g2) 49 ... �g2 50.tt:le4 ! and the pawn race goes on. 44.l:l.d3 l:l.c8 45.e6

On 45.c4 Black plays his rook to the a-file. 45 ... l::!.e8 46.l2Je5 ..th4

226

47.l:l.d4

47.l:l.d7 ! J::te6 48.tt:ld3 was objectively the best defence. 47.....ilc3?

Spoiling everything ! 47 ... l:l.e6 is tricky but win ning as the following lines show: 48JU4 (48.tt:ld3 �d6) 48 ...�g5 49.l:l.e4 (49.tt:ld3 l:l.el ! 50.tt:lel �f4 5 l .�e2 (5 1 .tt:ld3 �f3-+) 5 1 .. .�g3 52.tt:ld3 �c3-+) 49 ... �f5 50.I:tb4 I:te5 5 l .I:th4 �g5 52.I:thl h4 53.�d2 �h5 54.c4 g5 55.b4 g4 56.b5 g3 57.b6 g2 58.I:tgl h3 59.b7 I:te8 60.c5 h2. 48.l:f4 ..tgS 49.l2Jd3

Securing the draw and the tie for third place. 49 J::te6 50.l:l.c4 ..ileS 51 .J::tc5 c;tf6 52.l2Je5 l:e5 53.l:l.e5 •..

Draw. The analysis of this game is based on Karpov's notes.

Tournament Crosstable .::L ::J ..r::::. u c "' �

> 0 rti VI

"' c

Salov

An and

lvanchuk

Polgar

..... "'

00 0 a.. 1

2 IJ)

> 0 a. .....

> 0 ..r::::. VI

E "' �

�

u ·;:;: (]) '6' ..0 ::J :.::r

.!::::

8\6

6\6

Kamsky

Shirov

Lju bojevic

Index to games

> 0 "'@ VI

"'0

c "' c <(

Salov

2 IJ)

�

E "' �

> 0 .:.c VI

u ·;:;: (]) '6' ..0 ::J :.::r

1 87

1 16

205

1 30

151

207

201

1 29

Ill

1 63

1 34

212

158

1 79

1 75

108

194

210

1 24

.::L ::J ..r::::. u c "' �

;a 00 0 a..

1 66

An and

lvanchuk

104

Polgar

125

145

Karpov

177

137

196

142

191

149

1 14

> 0 a. .....

.....

219

Shirov

192

1 73

221

1 70

147

Lju bojevic

214

101

1 18

1 32

1 84

156

Numbers refer to pages. Rows represent White players, columns represent Black players. For example Polgar-Salov can be found on page 1 25, while Salov-Polgar starts on page 1 87.

229

Index of variations

key

moves

name

SI Sl 1 Sl 2 Sl 3 Sl 4 Sl 5 Sl 6 Sl 7 Sl 8 Sl 9 Sl 1 0 Sl 1 1 Sl 1 2

1 .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 d6 [3.�b5; 3.d4 lLlf6] 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.'ird4 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lLld4 lLlf6 [5.lLlc3 e5] 5 ... a6 6.�g5 5 ... a6 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 'ire? 6 ... e6 7.f4 lLlbd7 6 ...e6 7.f4 b5 6 ...e6 7.f4 'irb6 6 ...e6 7.f4 �e7 5 ...a6 6.�e2 5 ... a6 6 ..te2 e5 7.lLlb3 .te7 5 ... a6 6.f4

Sicilian

1 51 Najdorf Najdorf Najdorf Pol ugaevsky Poisoned Pawn Main Line Geller Geller Najdorf

Sl 1 3 5 ... a6 6.�c4 SI 1 4 5. . .a6 [6.g3; 6.a4; 6.�e3; 6.h3] Sl 1 5 5 ... g6

Fischer Najdorf Dragon

Sl Sl Sl Sl

Dragon Dragon Dragon Scheveningen

16 17 18 19

5 ... g6 6.�e3 [6 ...�g7] 7.f3 7.f3 lLlc6 8.'ird2 0-0 9.�c4 5 ...e6

Sl 20 5 ...e6 6.g4

Keres

Sl 21 5 ...e6 6.f4 Sl 22 5 ...e6 6.�e2 [6 ... lLlc6]

Scheveningen Scheveningen

Sl 23 5 ...e6 6.�e2 a6

Scheveningen

Sl 24 7.0-0 'ire? 8.f4 lLlc6 Sl 25 5 ...lLlc6

Scheveningen Sozin

230

page

219

1 37 1 45 207 1 96 1 56 1 66 217 1 29 1 49 118 1 30 1 63 1 25 1 32 1 59 1 92 1 24 1 34 1 91 1 73 1 84 221 205 203

81 26 5 ... ltlc6 6 ..tc4 e6 81 27 5 ... ltlc6 6 . .tg5 81 28 6 ...e6 7.'it'd2 .te7 8.0-0-0 0-0

Velimirovic Richter-Rauzer Richter-Rauzer

S I 2 9 6. . .e 6 7.'it'd2 a6 8.0-0-0

Richter-Rauzer

81 30 6 ...e6 7.'it'd2 a6 8.0-0-0 .td7 81 31 2.ltlf3 ltlc6 3 ..tb5 81 32 2.ltlf3 ltlc6 [3.d4 cd4 4.ltld4 e5]

Richter-Rauzer Rossolimo De la Bourdonnais

81 33 4 ... g6

Accelerated Dragon

81 34 81 35 81 36 81 37 81 38 81 39

4 ... ltlf6 5.ltlc3 [5 ... e6] 4 ...ltlf6 5.ltlc3 e5 6.ltldb5 d6 7 ..tg5 a6 8.ltla3 b5 9 . .tf6 [9 ... gf6 1 O.ltld5] 4 ...e6

Four Knights Lasker Pelikan/Bird 8veshnikov 8veshnikov Taimanov

81 40 4 ...e6 5.ltlc3 'it'c7

Taimanov

81 41 81 42 81 43 81 44 81 45 81 46 81 47 81 48 81 49 81 50

Paulsen Paulsen Nimzowitsch Closed Closed Alapin Alapin

2.ltlf3 e6 2.ltlf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.ltld4 a6 5 . .td3 2.ltlf3 [2 ... a6; 2 ... ltlf6] 2.ltlc3; 2.d3 2.ltlc3 ltlc6 3.g3 g6 4 ..tg2 .tg7 5.d3 d6 2.c3 2.c3 ltlf6 3.e5 ltld5 [4.d4 cd4] 2.b4; 2.b3; 2.ltle2; 2.ďż˝c4 2.f4 2.d4

1 01 1 06 1 27 212 1 04 1 58 1 77 1 88 1 99 21 0 224

1 08 111 21 4 1 21 1 39 1 40 1 75

1 14

1 55 1 70 1 16 1 42 1 47 1 68 1 79 1 83 1 94 201 1 87

Grand Prix Morra Gambit 231

Association M ax Euwe

T he association w as created on J anuary 4 th, 199 1 in M onaco. I t w as named aft er the D utch World Champion of Chess and former FIDE President, Professor D r. M ax E uw e. T he members of th e boardare: M r. J .M. Rapaire, President, M rs. M.V. van O osterom, T reasurer andM rs. E. B aas, General Secretary. It also employ sM r. M.L.H.J. H ermes, General M anager andM r. E. Tolsma, F inancial M anager. T he association is interested in chess and billia rds, and its obj ective is to promote these sports in general and to organise tournaments and matches. For this, th e association organises, together w ith the F ederation M onegasq ue des E checs, many international events in the Principality of M onaco and other countries. T he follow ing tournaments w ere organised: 1991 Aruba:

M atches J. Polgar - Polugaevsky and S. Polgar - Sosonk o.

1992 M onaco: Aruba: Aruba:

M elody Amber Tournament. T raining Tournament. Tumba Chess Tournament.

1993 M onaco:

F inal Candidates M atch for Women' s World Championship betw een Z. Polgar andI oseliani. Women' s Z onal Tournament ( in cooperation w ith I nterpolis). SecondAmber Tournament. M atch Kortchnoi - Pik et. Waltz er Chess Tournament. Women' s World Championship M atch X ie - I oseliani. M ini O ly mpiad. F inal E uropean Club Cup.

D elden (NED): M onaco: N ij megen (NED) Vienna: M onaco: M onaco: H ilversum (NED) 1994 Aruba: M onaco: M onaco: M onaco: M onaco: Tilburg (NED): B uenos Aires:

M atch Piket - Polugaevsk y. T hirdAmber Chess Tournament. Cry stal Kelly three Cushion B illiardTournament. M atch Piket - Lj uboj evic. Palladienne Chess Tournament. Women' s Candidates Chess Tournament ( in cooperation w ith I nterpolis). Lev Polugaevsk y Tournament ( in cooperation w ith F undaci6 n B anco Patricios).

233

Fundaci6n B anco Patricios

T he F oundati on B anco Patri ci os i s a pri vate, non profi t- maki ng organiz ati on dediÂ cated to the producti on and di ssemi nati on of soci al, cultural, sci entifi c and arti sti c acti vi ti es. The F oundati on i s i nvolved i n the creati on of a soci al, poli ti cal and cultural proj ect for the organiz ati on of Argenti ne soci ety. The B anco Patri ci os i n sponsori ng the acti vi ti es of the Foundati on fulfi ls i ts ethi cal and poli ti cal ob li gati ons to the communi ty deri vi ng from princi ples of soli dari ty, mutual assi stance and democracy i n i nsti tuti onal admi ni strati on. The specifi c ai ms of the Foundati on B anco Patri ci os are as follows: To sti mulate the sy stemati c development of research, analy si s and refl ecti on on prob lems relevant to the life of the nati on, with a vi ew to carryi ng out acti viti es req ui red to i mprove the q uali ty of life of the populati on. To contrib ute, b oth i nsi de the Foundati on and outsi de, to the creati on of adeq uate and responsible mechani sms for the di ssemi nati on and transmi ssi on of a k nowledge of the soci o- economi c reali ty of the country. To promote th e access of a wi de range of soci ety to arti sti c and cultural events.

Dr. Alberta Spolski

Presi dent F undaci6 n B anco Patri ci os

234

List of illustrations

page

Cover 11 34 38 40 44 89 91 94 97 98 102 107 1 14 122 152 158 167 185 194 196 208 2 12 2 18 223

subject

artist/source

Pol ugaevsky Pol ugaevsk y Pol ugaevsky Pol ugaevsk y Pol ugaevsky Pol ugaevsk y-N aj dorf Van O osterom K amsk y K arpov B an co Patricios Pol ugaevsky An an d K arpov Pol gar I van chuk Lj uboj evic Shirov Sal ov K arpov Lj uboj evic Piket Pol gar K amsk y Sal ov Pol ugaevsky

Van der Lin den Van der Lin den N iC Archives N iC Archives E ddis Stein er Stein er Kohl mey er Kohl mey er Kohl mey er Kohl mey er Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van Velz en Van der Lin den Van der Lin den Van Velz en Van der Lin den Van der Lin den D e l as N ieves Van der Lin den B eek huiz en Van der Lin den

235

Solution to the chess problem from page 1 00

l.tt:Jd4 (..6. 2.tt:J c6) l.. .lt:J d4 2.'if d4 l ... tt:J e5 2.lt:Jf5 l.. .W d7 2.tt:J de6 l.. .W e5 2.tt:J df3

Mate in two moves

236