My Most Memorable Games (gnv64) PDF

Gelfand
My Most Memorable Games
Boris Gelfand
Preface by Vladimir Kramnik

and introduction by Dirk Poldauf
2005
EDITION OlMS
m
3
Bibliographic Information published by

Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic

data is available in the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
Copyright 2005 Edition Olms AG

Breitlenstr. 11
CH-8634 Hombrechtikon/Zurich,Switzerland
E-mail: info@edition-olms.com
Internet: www.edition-olms.com
All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not by way of trade
or otherwise,be lent re-sold,hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover
other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition
being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Printed in Germany
Editor and translator: Ken Neat
Photographic Acknowledgement: p. 138, 158,235 Archive Abram Gelfand
Typesetting by Art & Satz
Ulrich Dire D-80331 Munchen
Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, D-49624 Loningen

Cover: Eva Konig, D-22769 Hamburg
ISBN 3-283-00453-5
Contents
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C o n ve n t i o n a l S i g n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P reface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I nt rod u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The m a k i n g of a c l as s i c a l g ra n d m aster
The boy fro m M i n s k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H i s r i se to wo r l d - c l ass stat u s . . . . . . .
S u c c essfu l yea rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
9
10
12
13
M y Favo u r ite Var i a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Game 1: Gelfand-Dorfman 17
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Game 2: Gelfand-Ftacnik 21
Game 7: Gelfand-Shirov 41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Game 3: Gelfand-Ivanchuk 26
Game 6: Gelfand-Leko 38
Game 5: Gelfand-Kamsky 34
.
.
.
.
M y M ost M e m o ra b l e G a m es. . ............................................... 47

Game 10: Gelfand-Lobron 55
Game 8: Loginov-Gelfand 47
Game 9: Lev-Gelfand 50
Game 14: Gheorghiu-Gelfand 70
Game 15: Gelfand-Kasparov 73
Game 20: Damljanovic-Gelfand 98
Game 21: Polugayevsky-Gelfand 101
Game 12: Gelfand-Malisauskas 62
Game 11: Gelfand-Adams 59
Game 16: Gelfand-Chandler 80

Game 19: Short-Gelfand 94
Game 18: Gelfand-Georgiev 86
Game 17: Short-Gelfand 83
Game 22: Gelfand-Yusupov 103
Game 24: Gelfand-Anand 110
Game 30: Gelfand-Kramnik 133
Game 31: Shirov-Gelfand 139
Game 26: Shirov-Gelfand 117
Game 29: Gelfand-Topalov 129
Game 34: Gelfand-Karpov 151
Game 33: Gelfand-Salov 148
Game 32: Gelfand-Piket 145
Game 37: RUblevsky-Gelfand 163
Game 36: Gelfand-Sutovsky 159
Game 35: Gelfand-Korchnoi 154
Game 40: Gelfand-Georgiev 176
Game 39: Gelfand-Lautier 172
Game 38: Gelfand-Markowski 169
Game 43: Gelfand-Piket 192
Game 41: Gelfand-Ye Jiangchuan 180 Game 42: Gelfand-Anand 185

Game 44: Gelfand-Van Wely 195
Game 45: Gelfand-Delchev 197
Game 50: Shabalov-Gelfand 213
Game 51: Gelfand-Grischuk 218
Game 46: Gurevich-Gelfand 200

Game 49: Gelfand-Acs 210
Game 48: Gelfand-Bruzon 208
Game 47: Grischuk-Gelfand 203
Co m b i n at i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
.
E n d i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Appen d i x . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I n d ex of P l ayers . . . .
I n d ex of Gam es . . . .
I n d ex of O p p o n e nts
I n d ex of O p e n i n g s . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...
...
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
252
252
255
260
261
Conventiona l Signs
Symbol Meaning
Sym bol Meaning
ctJ
King
Queen
Rook
Bishop
Knight
Pawn
check
captures
short castling
#
N
0-0-0
checkmate
novelty
long castling
unclear position
Wh ite stands slightly better
Wh ite stands better
White has a decisive advantage
Black resigns
equal position
00
+
=+=
-+
0-1
%-%
com pensation for material

Black stands slightly better
Black stands better
Black has a decisive advantage
Wh ite resigns
draw agreed
!!
interesting move
good move
brill iant move
?!
?
7?
du bious move
bad move
blunder
'If
Wh ite to move
..
Black to move
0-0
00
;j;;
+1-0
=
!?
Prefa ce
reflection of his personality. He is not only and this is accessible only to a few - a highly
u n iversal player, capable of playi ng equally
well in the most varied types of positions.
What i m presses me most is his abil ity to
create games, where all the moves, from the
first to the last, are as though links in a single
log ical chain. Th is inexorable consistency in
the real isation of his strateg ic conceptions
is, in my view, the main trait of Boris Gelfand
the chess player.
In 1 994 Boris Gelfand and I were drawn to

gether in a q uarter-fi nal Candidates match
for the FIDE world championsh ip. That same
year the Professional Chess Association
(PCA) organised a parallel cycle. I (li ke the
majority of players, however) did not see any
reason not to play in both. Boris took the dif
ficu lt decision not to partici pate i n the PCA
world cham pionsh ip, in order to concentrate
on one.
I remem ber very wel l how, i n an article de
voted to the match he had won against me,
he quoted Seneca : 'The one who is every
where is nowhere' . Years later I can confi
dently say that this im portant lesson greatly
hel ped me in my su bseq uent chess career.
I n my view, that exam ple vividly charac
terises the author of this book. Th is is a
friendly and intel ligent person (but at the
same time very fi rm , when it is a matter of
principles) , capable of penetrating deeply
into the essence of any problem and finding
the correct strateg ic solution.
Like all those who devote themselves entirely
to chess, Boris's play is in many respects a
The fact that for fifteen years now he has

been one of the chess el ite is an add itional
ind ication that he is one of the most sign ifi
cant of contem porary players.
As a person who has a high appreciation
of strategy and logic i n chess, I have been
given enormous pleasure by the study of this
book.
I am convi nced that you too will like it.
Vladimir Kramnik
Classical World Chess Champion
Int ro d uct i on
my chess and emotional feelings during the
game.
You have before you my first book. I have

been playing chess now for thirty years, half
of them at the very hig hest level . Therefore I
decided that the time had come to compile
my most memorable games in one book. Out
of the one and a half thousand games that I
have played , I faced the difficult problem of
choosing the most vivid and interesting.
In my comments on the opening stages of

the games, I have normally referred to my
own games. In those cases where I have had
great experience of playing the specific vari
ation , I have g iven n umerous references to
my own games, so that the reader can bet
ter understand the con nection between the
open ing and the m idd legame (in my view,
the most im portant and interesting part of a
chess game).
Since the size of the book is restricted , I had

to excl ude a n u m ber of noteworthy games.
In selecting them , I was gu ided by several
criteria: firstly, I chose those games that left
the deepest trace in my memory. Si nce I
have always ai med (and, I hope, succeeded)
at being a u n iversal player, in this book I
have endeavoured to incl ude games where
success came to me as a resu lt of good
open ing preparation , successful play in the
endgame, a strongly conducted attack or
mastery in defence and counterattack, and
also as a result of tactical resourcefu lness or
deep strategy and subtle manoeuvring.
Creative successes do not always go hand in

hand with com petitive achievements. There
fore in this col lection I have not incl uded
games from some of my best tournaments,
preferring those from tournaments where
com petitively I was less successfu l. The ma
jority of the games presented here were an
notated in their time for publications such as
New in Chess, Chess Informator and others.
Specially for this book I have analysed all the
games and extracts anew.
In addition , I hope that this book will interest

not only those chess enth usiasts who w i ll,
I hope, gain pleasure from playi ng through
the games, but also those who primari ly
want to i m prove. Therefore in those games
where there was especially complicated tac
tical play, apart from verbal comments I have
given a more detai led analysis of the specific
variations. For the analysis of the most com
plex positions I have resorted to the help of
analytical prog rams, wh ich have hel ped me
to correct many evaluations, and sometimes
even to rad ically change them . At the same
time, I have endeavoured not to abuse the
aid of the computer, so as not to overshadow
I should l i ke to express my g ratitude to

my fam i ly, and to all my trainers, sparrin g
partners and friends, w h o have supported
me throug hout my career and continue to
do so. I am especially gratefu l to my main
fan , my father Abram Gelfand , who for many
years has been trying to persuade me to
publish a collection of my best games.
Many colleag ues mai ntain that one of my
strongest professional q ual ities is open ing
preparation . I hope that my opening attempt
as an author will also prove successful .
Boris Gelfand
Rishon-Ie-Zion , Israel
The m aki ng of a
class i ca l g rand m aster
of his pragmatic grandmaster colleagues, for
whom only the fi nal resu lt counts, and who
will not infreq uently content themselves with
playi ng the second -best move in a position
to save time and energy. This energy pro b
lem has beset Gelfand throug hout h is career.
When Gelfand , who d u ring games l i kes to
consume /sostar, his favourite energy dri n k,
a prod uct for which he wou ld be the ideal
promoter, has taken on board sufficient re
serves of energy i n the course of focussed
preparation for a tournament, he is capable
of ach ieving anything. His victories i n two
successive I nterzonal tournaments, a series
of World Championsh ip Cand idate matches,
as well as fi rst prizes in prestigious tour
naments such as M oscow 1 992 , Belgrade
1 995, or Polan ica Zdroj 1 998 and 2000 are
eloquent proof of this. In contrast are a num
ber of fai lures which were primarily brought
about by the fact that, following a previous
hard -fought match , he had not had suffi
cient time to recharge his batteries. 'Should
I perhaps adopt a sim pler approach to the
game ?' was a question he put to himself on
more than one occasion when thi ngs were
going badly.
It is not just because of his com petitive
achievements and resu lts that Gelfand, who
is classed more or less reg ularly among
the world 's top ten players, has, si nce the
n i neties, been regarded as one of the most
impressive figures on the international chess
scene. Popular with his professional col
leagues and having many friends, he is seen
by the wider chess public as a sort of moral
authority. The words of Boris Gelfand carry
weight. A sense of responsi bil ity for the de
velopment of their game has latterly become
a rare commod ity among leading gran d
masters. Gelfand , however, is o n e o f those
I n 1 989 the magazine 64 offered an ori

gi nal prize to the partici pants i n one of the
now legendary USSR Championsh ips: to be
awarded to the player sacrificing the most
material in the tournament. It was the twenty
one -year-old Boris Gelfand from M i nsk who
won this special award and who by his ad
venturous play went on to win the bronze
medal as wel l . Gelfand 's playi ng style con
tin ues to the present day to be characterised
by its d i rect and com bative approach. I n
contrast to those positional players, who
seek to grind down their opponents by long
drawn-out manoeuvri ng, Gelfand 's concept
of chess has always incl uded a particularly
dynam ic approach. H i s dramatic victories
with Wh ite, not just but especially agai nst
the G rO nfeld Defence, are wel l known. But
his precisely judged repertoire with the black
pieces is proof of a basic com bative ap
proach far removed from classical notions
of playing for equal ity. Once an enthusiastic
practitioner of the strateg ical ly risky Ki n g's
Ind ian Defence, over the years Gelfand has
made sign ificant and lasting contri butions to
the open ing theory of the double -edged Naj
dorf Sici l ian , a defence i n which he ran ks
alongside Garry Kasparov as one of the
world 's best exponents. His approach to
playi ng chess has produced a stri ng of har
monious looking games, as the reader of the
cu rrent book will soon discover for h i mself.
On the other hand, his approach to the game
is physically extremely exhausting , and one
which does not always choose the quickest
route to victory. Boris Gelfand is a seeker
after chess truths. H is overriding priority is
to fi nd the best possible move in every pos
ition . Th is means that he freq uently gets into
time -trouble and this has cost h i m many a
won game. Certai nly a lot more than so many
The making of a classical grandmaster
V_S
Q_n_
, n
,_ _w
_'__ __ __
________
The boy from Mi nsk
____
_______
people who do not hesitate to express their

opinions publ icly and to back them up with
sound reasoning. In i nternational special ist
publications are to be found a whole series
of poi nts of view by Gelfand about important
current events. Th us he is one of the most
passionate advocates of the classical game
of chess, whose very existence he sees as
threatened by cu rrent FIDE-led attem pts to
red uce time limits ever further. On these and
other subjects Gelfand does not argue from
reasons of self-i nterest, but rather stays fo
cussed on the bigger pictu re. In this sense
he always was, and sti l l remains, an ideal
ist, who does not regard chess si m ply as a
means to an end , but instead sincerely loves
the royal game for its own sake. And has
done si nce earl iest childhood .
The boy from Minsk

When Boris was four years old his father
Abram bought him his fi rst chess book. Th is
was The ABC of Chess by Averbakh and
Beyl i n , as Gelfand sen ior sti l l remem bers to
this day : 'I decided that we should look at
one diagram a day. In this way we cou ld get
through the whole book in a year. And that is
how it went in itial ly. We studied chess every
day. Throughout the week Boris would wait
im patiently for my return from work so that
we could get on with learn ing. But after a few
months, when we had worked through a third
of the book, Boris preferred to work without
my hel p. I thought he had lost i nterest i n
chess. But soon afterwards I discovered that
he had already struggled through on his own
to the last chapters and was playi ng through
the games of the grandmasters ! '
I t i s almost always parents who sow the idea
i n their children's mind that decides the fu
ture course of their l ife. Abram Gelfand, l i ke
h i s wife Nella, was born before the Second
World War in Belarus. They spent five years
of their childhood fleeing the war in the east
ern part of the USSR, returning later to Minsk.
10
________
__
In their professional lives they both chose

scientific careers and were very successfu l
in this field . It could never have occu rred
to Abram Gelfand, an electro-tech n ical en
gineer, who spent forty years travelling be
tween construction sites in Belarus, Lithua
nia and Russia, that his son would lead a
simi lar, if not more intense, nomadic life as a
chess professional . But for the g ifted Boris
this was al l a long way ahead .
By the age of six he was already bei ng
coached three times a week by Edward
Zel kind . The celebrated trainer must have
immediately recog nised the boy's talent, be
cause normal ly only schoolch ildren could at
tend his trai n i ng sessions, and at that time
Boris was sti ll i n n u rsery schoo l . Zel kind is
very u n l i kely to have reg retted maki ng this
one exception . Th is is borne out by a small
i ncident which Abram recal ls. When Boris
visited Zel kind for the fi rst time, they exam
ined without sight of the board (!), a game
which David Bronstein had played i n 1 963
agai nst a computer. Zel kind asked h i m why
the knight had gone to g4 at move 4. Boris
replied that the kn ight would otherwise have
been captured by the pawn . I n short, says
Boris's father Abram , it was clear that Boris
was not si mply learning the moves by heart,
but that he also u nderstood which moves
had to be played and why.
For five years - from 1 974 to 1 979 Boris
remained u nder the wing of his first trainer.
From h i m the children learned the general
principles of chess and of piece develop
ment. An i mportant part of the coaching fo
cussed on the study of the most diverse
types of combination . The young players
concentrated on the elementary principles of
pawn end ings and rook endings and mas
tered the essential principles of open ing and
endgame theory. The endgame technique of
chess players from the former Soviet U n ion
is legendary. Thus the story that the fam
ous Engl ish g randmaster Anthony M i les, at
a tournament in the Swiss town of Horgen in
-

&
'r\_
_0lIl1
The boy from Mi nsk

;"':"!!!llt
tt)
iI:li!II.dmm;Jlilt.III"._.f2'_.Ii __
".1i!P*
sisted Boris at dozens of tournaments, start

ing from j u n ior championsh i ps right up to
Candidates matches. Boris also considers it
i m portant, that between 1 980-1 983 he was
able to attend the Tigran Petrosian schoo l ,
spending a period o f two weeks there o n
three separate occasions. ' It was something
special , to have direct experience with such
a g reat player. To be able to tal k, analyse,
and play bl itz games. I remember Tigran Pet
rosian saying to me: "Never make a move
without there bei ng an idea beh ind it, even
when playi ng bl itz. Always think!" I think that
this conversation played an im portant role in
establishing my way o f playi ng . '
The development of Boris's chess talent was
also aided by the hold ing of the 47 th USSR
Championsh i p i n his home town of M i nsk
i n 1 979 . Th is must have been a key experi
ence for the boy, who was able for the fi rst
time to meet the stars of Soviet chess i n
t h e flesh . Boris's father accom pan ied h i m
reg ularly t o t h e tournament. H o w could h e
possibly have missed a single round ? After
all, at the tender age of 1 1 , Boris had al
ready achieved his fi rst Candidate M aster
norm . Whi lst Boris devoted his time to a
carefu l study of the games, his father wou ld
usually go for a wal k around the town or
i n a park. One day, outside the M i nsk Ho
tel not far from the tournament hal l , Abram
met a large group of players returning from
that day's rou n d, among them Yefim Geller,
M i khail Tal and Alexander Bel iavsky. It was
high time to pick up Boris! It was, after all,
somewhat late and Boris had to be back i n
school t h e next day. Boris's father h u rried
to the tournament hal l . There was just one
game sti ll i n progress. And there was j ust
one spectator - Boris! His son cou ld not be
persuaded to leave. He insisted on bei ng al
lowed to watch the game to its end . In these
circumstances it was hardly surprising that,
by the end of the tournament, everybody
knew Boris, from the players, the spectators,
and u p to and including the ticket sellers.
1 994 lost a rook end ing against Boris, with

out putting u p any sort of a fight, and that
this was the very rook ending whose prin
ci ples had been taught to h i m by Zel ki nd ,
when Boris was only ni ne, is entirely believ
able. In 1 979 Zelkind emigrated to America.
Boris became a pupil of Tamara Golovey.
She was an outstand ing teacher and a very
strong player, who took part eight times i n
t h e final o f t h e Soviet Women's Champion
ship and won the Championship of Belarus
three ti mes. 'She was l i ke a second mother
to h i m and loved h i m very much. We never
needed to worry about Boris when he went
to tournaments with Tamara Golovey, ' re
flects Boris's father Abram , when looking
back on this time.
I n the years when Boris was taki ng his first
steps on the 64 squares , Al bert Kapengut
was one of the strongest players i n Be
larus. The development of chess in the
country owed m uch to the fact that Isaac
Boleslavsky (1 91 9-1 977) , who i n the early
fifties was one of the highest-ranked players
in the world, had moved to M i nsk.
Albert Kapengut fi rst stud ied with Boleslav
sky as a 14-year-old and in the course of time
he hi mself became a wel l-respected theoret
ician . The Russian G randmaster Yuri Razu
vaev once said half-jokingly, half-seriously,
that Gelfand was the chess g randch ild of
Boleslavsky. Beginning in 1 980, it was great
luck for Boris that he was able to work to
gether with such a strong trainer, theoret
ician and player. Boris was granted access
to Kapeng ut's enormous l i brary. H i s new
trainer was always ready to help the boy;
Boris cou ld ask him any question he wished .
They analysed Boris's games, paying par
ticular attention to the defeats. During the
twelve years they worked together, Boris ac
quired first and foremost the methodology of
studying chess, and he learned how to pro
cess i nformation systematically and invent
new ideas. Albert also accompan ied and as-
11
The then 54-year-old Yefim Geller won the

championshi p , ahead of the n i neteen-year
old Artur Yusupov and the 16-year-old Garry
Kasparov. Boris collected the autographs of
all eighteen partici pants as wel l as that of
the ch ief arbiter Salo Flohr, one of the best
players in the world before the war. Boris's
father recal ls clearly Kapengut's wife Mari
etta Golovey saying to Boris: ' Soon people
will be aski ng you for your own autograph . '
As i t happened , the fi rst g reat successes
came al most im mediately. In 1 983, at the
age of 15, Boris won the Sokolsky Memor
ial , which had been held annually in M i nsk
si nce 1 970, thus repeating the performance
of Garry Kasparov, who five years earl ier had
won this traditional tournament u nder the
sharp eye, it needs hardly be stated , of the
ten -year-old kibitzer Gelfand. He was unde
feated i n the 1 983 tournament and fi nished
ahead of, among others, two grandmasters.
Although Boris achieved the national master
norm with two poi nts to spare, drawn-out
bureaucratic delays meant that he was not
awarded the title until 1 985.
In 1 983, too , Boris took part i n the Cham
pionship of Belarus for the fi rst time. I n
both the su bseq uent Championsh ips of 1984
and 1 985 he won the title! I n 1 985 he be
came USSR under-18 champion (half a point
ahead of Vasily Ivanchu k) and two years later
he won the European J u n ior Championsh ip
(again half a poi nt ahead of Ivanchuk) . In
1 988 he shared victory in the legendary So
viet 'Young M asters Tournament ' . By 1 989 ,
when he took the bronze medal in the USSR
Championsh ip and won gold with the Soviet
team i n the European Team Championsh i p ,
he had achieved international fame.
His rise to world-class status

. . . began in that year, 1 989. At Palma de Mal
lorca Gelfand won the qual ifying tournament
for the G MA World Cup. Th is was a fearful ly
His rise to world-class status
strong Open with more than 150 grandmas

ters. After such a success it came as no
su rprise that he was invited to take part in
the legendary super-tou rnament i n Linares.
There, in February 1 990, on his debut in An
dalucia he met no less a player than Garry
Kasparov in the very first round and held him
to an exciting d raw. Gelfand then won six
of his remai ning ten games and achieved a
brill iant second place in his first Linares, on ly
half a point behind the reigning world cham
pion . Shortly afterwards he shared victory
with Vasi ly Ivanchuk in the Manila I nterzonal
Tournament, and also won the Olym piad with
the USSR team . At his first attem pt to win
the world chess crown he overcame Predrag
N i kolic of Bosnia 4%-3% (on the tie-break)
but then lost 3-5 to the Engl ish player Nigel
Short, who was playi ng the world champion
ship cycle of his life. Short went on to defeat
both Ti mman and Karpov, and , i n 1 993 he
took on Garry Kasparov for the world title.
U ndeterred by this setback, Boris won the
Investbanka Tou rnament i n Belgrade at the
end of 1 991 (ahead of Kamsky and Nunn)
and i n the new year tournament at Reg
gio Emilia he shared second place with
Garry Kasparov beh ind the rising I ndian star
Viswanathan Anand. I m mediately after his
success i n Italy, Boris went on to tie eq ual
fi rst with Valery Salov i n the famous trad i
tional tournament i n Wij k aan Zee. I n 1 992
he scored a g reat victory in the Alekh ine
Memorial Tournament in Moscow, which led
many i n the Russian media to com pare his
play with that of the legendary fourth world
cham pion . Only Anand managed to keep
pace with Gelfan d. But first place went to
the player from Belarus, who beat the I ndian
in their individual game and whose other vic
tims in the eight-strong grandmaster field in
cluded Anatoly Karpov, who could only man
age sixth place. M oscow 1 992 was one of
those tournaments in which the pent-up en
ergy of Gelfand was fu lly unleashed . H is in
exhaustible fig hting spirit is demonstrated
12
not least by the tremendous average game

length of 54 moves.
Such success was more than sufficient proof
that Boris Gelfand, the autograph -collecting
you ngster from M i nsk, had become part of
the i nner circle of the world 's el ite chess
players.
Successful years
In the early nineties Gelfand 's creative part
nership with Alexander H uzman began . They
had already been analysing together si nce
1 990, even though they lived i n d ifferent
parts of the USSR. This was only possible
because they were able to meet u p i n a
sort of training cam p. And when H uzman left
for Israel i n 1 992 thei r creative partnership
continued . They met even more freq uently
after Boris h i mself emigrated to Israel six
years later. Today they train together at least
three days a week. I n times when almost
all the top grand masters change their sec
onds freq uently, the unbroken 14 -year sym
biotic chess relationship between Gelfand
and Huzman is qu ite remarkable. It bore cre
ative fru it not j ust for Boris, but also for
his second . Thus Alexander H uzman has
contin ually pushed his Elo rating beyond
the 2600 barrier and he was the fi rst to
defeat Alexander Khal ifman after the latter
captured the FIDE world title in 1 999. J u st
four years later Gelfand 's faithfu l second de
feated Garry Kasparov, and well known play
ers such as Peter Svid ler, M ichael Adams,
Peter Leko, Valery Salov, and Alexey Dreev
were also among his victims. For Boris the
relationsh ip with his friend , who is by nature
somewhat recl usive, and who accompanies
him to every tournament, freq uently putting
his own ambitions second, has been a great
stroke of luck. I n 1 993 Gelfand managed to
achieve a u n ique double by w i n n i ng the I n
terzonal , run as in 1 990 under Swiss-system
ru les, for a second time. Once again he
Successful years
scored 9/1 3, but this time he won outright. An

outstanding achievement was his fifth victory
in im portant tournaments over Viswanathan
Anand (alongside three d raws and one de
feat). I n the Candidates matches he first de
feated Michael Adams 5-3. I n the spring of
the same year 1 994 he underl i ned his good
form with victory in the tournament in Dos
H ermanas, in southern Spai n , where Ana
toly Karpov, among others , fi nished beh ind
him. Then followed the duel with Vladimir
Kramnik. The Russian , who was then j ust
1 8 -year old , was generally regarded as a fu
ture world cham pion , especially after Kas
parov had descri bed him as a potential suc
cessor. Although Gelfand , at the age of
26, could demonstrate a plus i n experience
and achievements, Kramnik was publ icly re
garded as slightly the favou rite. Or perhaps
Gelfand was bei ng u nderestimated - not for
the first time and not for the last. Could
this be due to the fact that Boris som e
times looks l i ke an absent-m inded profes
sor? Gelfand ulti mately won 4%-3%, thereby
curbing somewhat his good friend Kram
nik's precocious ambitions. I n match prepa
ration and in the aggression essential to a
sporting contest, Kram nik was not yet the
equal of Gelfand. To the question put by the
magazine Schach: 'was he himself surprised
by his match win over Kramnik? ' , Gelfand
replied three years later: ' No, I was better
prepared than Kramnik. I learned practically
all his games by heart. I knew everyt h i ng
about h i m . I knew at what point he would
sacrifice material , and which moves he pre
ferred i n particu lar positions. For two long
months I prepared myself to meet Vlad i m i r
alone. ' Th is i s the hard worker from Belarus,
speaking from the heart.
The man from M i nsk was only two steps
away from conquering the FIDE world chess
throne, which had been vacant since 1 993 ,
when Kasparov parted com pany with the
World Chess Federation . Gelfand 's match
with Anatoly Karpov took place in 1 995 i n
13
Successful years
the Indian town of Sang h i Nagar, where he

had also played his match against Kram nik:
paral lel with this was the other sem i-final
duel, played between Salov and Kamsky.
Gelfand went 2-1 ahead before his oppo
nent, the 1 2 th world champion i n history,
managed to even the scores. I n the end ,
after losing a more or less eq ual bishop
ending in the seventh game, Gelfand cru m
bled and succum bed , far too bad ly, 3-6.
Th is was especially trag ic, because only a
few months earl ier Gelfand had won a tou r
nament i n the French town of Cap d 'Agde,
thereby qualifying for a match agai nst Kar
pov, which he won 4-2 . Did he reveal his
cards there too early, before the more im por
tant match agai nst the same opponent ? In
cidental ly, France is an especial ly successfu l
place for Boris i n rapid -play chess. I n Cap
d 'Agde, where today he is sti l l a favourite
with the public, he won twice - in 1 994 and
2002 , each time defeating Karpov in the fi
nal . The rapid-play tou rnament in Monaco, in
which , with the exception of Kasparov, the
world el ite partici pates reg u larly, ended in
victories for Boris in 2001 and 2002 . I n 2002
he took part in the rapid- play com petition
against Russia, where he had the second
best score for the ' Rest of the world ' , and in
2003 he outclassed Judit Polgar i n a match
by 6-2 .
I n that same year Gelfand achieved further
sign ificant success by winning once again
the Belgrade Investban ka Tournament, com
ing eq ual fi rst with Kram nik ahead of Shirov,
Topalov, Ivanchuk, Timman , Adams, Leko
and Ljubojevic. Belgrade is associated by
Gelfand with particularly pleasant memories.
For years he has worn the colours of the
Serbian capital 's club, Agrouniverzal Zemun.
Several years later, i n Apri l 1 999, as NATO
bom bs fell on Serbia, he poi nted out, in
a courageous col u m n i n the German daily
newspaper Die Welt, the special contri bu
tion which the former Yugoslavia had made
to the development of chess : 'Al l the tou r-
14
naments to which I was invited i n the ter

ritories which then constituted Yugoslavia,
were organised to an extraordinari ly high
level. Every day somewhere between 2 , 000
and 4 , 000 spectators pour i nto the tourna
ment hall of the trad itional Belgrade Invest
ban ka Tournament. These are figures which
other cou ntries hold ing chess tournaments
can only dream about. Television daily de
votes 45 m i n utes o f prime time t o t h e tour
nament ; each of the major daily newspa
pers gives over a whole page to chess. The
games of my world cham pionship Candi
dates match agai nst Predrag N i kolic in 1991
in Sarajevo (today Bosn ia-Herzegovina) were
broadcast live, for the first time i n the h is
tory of chess. The beg i n n i n g of the war in
Yugoslavia caused great anxiety to chess
players throug hout the world, because for us
Bugojno, Niksic, Banja Lu ka, Pula, Belgrade
and others are not just sim ply names on a
map, but rather places in which we had been
and where we had many acq uai ntances and
supporters. '
The year 1 996 also brought two i m po rtant
successes for Gelfand . In Vienna, thanks to
the better tie- break, he won ahead of Kar
pov, whom he defeated i n their ind ividual
game, and Topalov, and left among others
Kram nik, Shirov and Korchnoi i n his wake.
He did the same at Ti lburg to Piket : the de
feated field included , among others, Shirov,
Karpov and Adams.
Gelfand had finally established h i mself
among the world 's top chess players. A flood
of invitations to all the world -class tourna
ments of 1997 was the log ical consequence :
Li nares, Dos Hermanas, N ovgorod , Dort
m u n d , Biel, Polan ica Zdroj , Belgrade, went
the programme up to and including Novem
ber. M id -tournament placings were all he
could manage, not a single tournament vic
tory. ' I sim ply do not have the energy, be
cause I play too much , ' he was forced to
admit. Fatigue led to a loss of technique and
The maki n g of a classical grandmaster

.
many m i ssed chances. Previously he had

turned down invitations in order to focus on
preparation for the world cham pionsh i p Can
didates matches. B ut FIDE had now abol
ished the trad itional cycle of Cand idates
matches in favour of a World Championsh ip
knock-out tournament, which was staged
for the fi rst time in 1 997 in the D utch town
of Groningen. Gelfand sum moned up the
energy to reach the sem i-final of this ex
hausting mammoth tournament. There he
lost a m i n i -match against Anand by %-1 %.
His earl ier outstand ing record of success
against the I n d ian player was reversed and
his third assau lt on the world title was once
again brought to a standstill just a few short
steps from his goal .
The year 1 998 saw changes in Gelfand 's life.
His marriage in Septem ber 1 995 to a Belgian
woman , which had meant spending a great
deal of time in Brussels, came to an end . He
settled permanently i n Israel , i n Rishon - I e
Zion , a town south o f Tel Aviv. H is g lobe
trotting life -style had tem porari ly abated , not
least because his lower Elo rating , after the
setbacks of 1 997 , meant fewer i nvitations
to the big tournaments. B ut he managed
what was a fantastic comeback in Polanica
Zd roj , at the Memorial Tournament for Akiba
Rubinstei n , one of his most revered heroes.
The monograph written by Razuvaev about
the great Polish master was descri bed by
Gelfand , a lover of classical l iterature, as his
favourite chess book. Gelfand 's game with
Alexey Shirov, whom he beat by one point
and forced i nto second place, is one of the
best games ever played on a chess board.
The fol lowing year, a s a sort of trai ning ru n
for the World Championsh i p i n Las Vegas,
Gelfand won a category 14 tournament in
Malmo as well as the super-cham pionsh i p of
Israel . But his l uck ran out at the knock-out
World Championship in the gambler's para
dise of Las Vegas and he lost, at the last
sixteen stage, to the eventual title-holder,
Alexander Khal ifman .
Successful years
.
The m i l len n i u m began with u neven resu lts

at Lvov and Biel, before a tournament vic
tory at Polan ica Zdroj fu lly restored his con
fidence. Once again he fi n ished ahead of
a strong field, which trai led to the fi n ish
ing line behind the second-placed Alexey
Shirov. It was the same Shirov, who elimin
ated Gelfand at the last-sixteen stage of the
knock-out World Cham pionsh i p tournament
in New Del h i . Earl ier Boris had , of course,
managed to get through to the sem i-fi nals of
the inaugural and strong ly-contested FIDE
World C u p , held i n the Chi nese town of
Shenyang . Viswanathan Anand was the op
ponent waiting to do battle with h i m . This
tournament was nonetheless seen as a suc
cess for Gelfand . I n the year 2001 a + 1 re
sult i n the six-player tou rnament at Kaza
khstan 's capital Astana, in addition to quali
fying for the q uarter-fi nals of the knock-out
World Championsh i p i n M oscow, stand on
the cred it side. Here Gelfand lost out to the
R ussian , Peter Svid ler - after a tru ly titan ic
struggle. I n the ensuing tie-break, watched
by more than a hundred spectators inside
the Moscow Krem l i n , determ ined to see the
match out to the end , he saved a rook ver
sus q ueen endgame. Svid ler, faced by an
opponent defending like a computer, felt ab
sol utely crushed , but Boris, due to his own
exhaustion , cou ld not take advantage of the
psycholog ical advantage thus obtai ned and
went out in the bl itz-game phase of their
match. He has always made it clear, that he
is by no means a supporter of this lottery-like
deciding phase, which has been used si nce
the Moscow tournament, especially si nce it
has operated alongside the time reductions
i ntroduced by FIDE. Boris has campaig ned
for the rei ntrod uction of classical time con
trols. More than once he has spoken out in
the press, vigorously and convi ncing ly, for
the withdrawal of the cou ntless FIDE in nov
ations. Although the new system does not
suit his style of play at al l , he has managed
i n fou r appearances in the knock-out World
15
Successful years
Topalov in the second round broke h i s re

solve. I n this game Gelfand , next to Kas
parov the greatest exponent of the Najdorf
in the world, found hi mself playing the Caro
Kann for the first time in his life and he man
aged to convert a su perior position i nto a
loss. This remained for the time being his
last attem pt at the world title, because, as
Gelfand h i mself said, ' U nfortunately, F I DE
organ ised the 2004 world championsh i p i n
Li bya, a country where the authorities stated
that players from Israel wou ld not be ad
m itted . A shamefu l act i n the opinion of
many chess players, spectators and organ
isations !' But further opportun ities will occur
in the future, even if the situation in the chess
world remains u npred ictable.
Championships to always make the last six

teen .
The year 2002 began bri l l iantly with a fabu
lous joint victory with Topalov in the category
18 tournament at Cannes (ahead of, among
others, Bareev, Karpov, Leko , and Moroze
vich). At the Candidates Tournament in Dort
mund that summer, a fatefu l time for classical
chess, Boris was hoping to launch yet an
other bid for the world chess crown, which
his friend Kram nik had held for the previ
ous two years. Boris prepared himself espe
cially precisely. He spent the whole of J u ne
with his faithful second , Alexander H uzman ,
at train i ng sessions i n Russia and Austria.
Gelfand was fleeing the u n bearable heat
visited on Israel at the time and not the
someti mes war-like circumstances in his new
homeland . At the end of M ay i n that year a
bomb had exploded i n Rishon-Ie -Zion , j ust
a kilometre from Boris's house. The bom b
went off at n i n e o'clock i n t h e even i n g , i n
a park just opened b y t h e mayor, a n d des
ignated for the use of chess and draug hts
players, who were therefore present in con
siderable n u m bers. There were two deaths
and many i nj u red . Clearly the series of sui
cide bom bings left no one unaffected and
they were seriously discussed i n the closed
chess circles made up largely of immigrants
from the former Soviet Union.
An i nteri m assessment of Gelfand 's chess

career to date makes an extremely posi
tive impression . The boy from M i nsk has
grown up, within a space of only fifteen
years, to become one of the leading figu res
on the world chess scene and he was the
fifth player to overcome the 2700 Elo bar
rier. Only a handfu l of players can point, i n
t h e period between 1 990 a n d t h e present
time, to a g reater n u m ber of first places i n
i m portant i nternational tournaments. Boris
Gelfand has enriched chess literatu re with
so many marvellous games, that choosing a
selection for this book must have been very
d ifficult for h i m . He has always been, and
remains, a leading exponent and defender
of the classical approach to the game and
as such now finds himself wel l on the way to
becoming a classical player himself.
At the Candidates tournament i n Dortm und

Boris did all he could to secure the best
possible playi ng conditions for h i mself. I n
add ition t o Huzman he recru ited t h e for
mer Soviet national team trai ner Postovsky,
who had emigrated to the USA, to join 'team
Gelfand ' . It is probable that his defeat to
Dirk Poldauf
(translation by Brian Ings)
16
My Fa vourite Va riation
of fashion and I can name j u st my friend
(then also a young and promising player)
Alexander Khal ifman , who kept on believ
ing i n the advantages of this line. You can
see us analysing this variation in the picture
on page 158.
Very often a chess player has an open ing or

a variation in his repertoire, which he enjoys
playi ng most of al l . For me this is the 8 '!;b1
line in the G ru nfeld Defence. My attention
was drawn to it some time i n 1 982 , soon
after it was invented . In 1 982 I played it for
the first time and won against Leonid Basin.
I analysed it a g reat deal i n the sum mer of
1 983. In fact, from the present-day viewpoint
it can hardly be cal led 'analysed ' .
I really enjoyed these positions and the more

time I spent analysing them, the more confi
dence I had that Wh ite's strong centre - his
main trump in this variation - would give him
a favourable position .
I selected all the games played i n this line

(there were only a few at that ti me) and tried
to develop my opinion on them and on the
resulti ng positions. I n 1 983 I played it agai n
and won a game agai nst Boris Itkis, the first
I ever annotated for Chess In forma tor.
My faith i n this variation has not only given

me a lot of pleasure during analysis, but has
also rewarded me with a number of memor
able victories against some of the strongest
players in the world, which I hope you will
enjoy i n this chapter.
Duri ng the next few years 8 '!;b1 went out
* * *
Game 1
B o r i s G e l fa n d - I o s s i f D o r f m a n
M i n s k 1 9 86
GrOnfeld Defence [085J
I consider this game to be one of the most
important i n my chess career. I was al
ready a strong player, I had won the J u nior
Championship of the Soviet Union (ahead of
Ivanchuk, among others) , but I didn't have an
international rating and this was my fi rst in
ternational tournament, with almost no hope
of playing i n any others i n the foreseeable
future. After a shaky start I won five games in
a row and I needed 1 V2 poi nts from my last
two games to make the grandmaster norm . I
had to play Dorfman with Wh ite and 1 M Ste
fan Gross with Black. Some of my friends
advised me to make a draw with the expe
rienced grandmaster and try to win against
the outsider i n the last round. However, the
tem ptation to cross swords with the strong
theoretician , who at that time was one of

Garry Kasparov's seconds, i n the G ru nfeld
variation with 8 '!;b1 , was so strong that I
didn 't even take any prag matic factors i nto
consideration .
1 d4 ti}f6 2 c4 g6 3 ti}c3 dS 4 ti}f3 fig7

5 cxd5 ctlxd5 6 e4 ctlxc3 7 bxc3 c5 8 gb1
0-0 9 fie2 cxd4 10 cxd4 .as+
Th is idea was introduced by Vi ktor Gavri kov
in his game with M i khail G u revich i n Riga
1985 (52n d USSR Cham pionsh ip) and imme
diately it became clear that it had to be taken
seriously. Now I bel ieve that it is the most
chal lenging l i ne. Straig ht after the cham
pionsh ip, G u revich together with Alexander
Chern in gave some lectures to the best So
viet j u n iors (Ivanc h u k, Dreev and Smirin to
name just a few) . And every even ing I had the
honour of joining them in their room to ana
lyse this new variation . We tried hard to fi nd
any advantage in the endgame after 11 d2
17
My Favourite Variation
x d2+ 12 A xd2, but our 10 days of work

didn't produce any specific result (and years
of practice showed that Wh ite cannot hope
for an edge after the q ueen exchange) . On
the last day I suggested that we should ana
lyse the pawn sacrifice, but the training ses
sion was over and we had to do this job
separately. Only i n the early 1 990s did I do
some joint analysis with Alexander Chern i n ,
t o t h e great benefit of both of us.
Both 1 7 d5 A xd5 1 8 gxe7 c6 1 9 A xd5

xd5 20 ge2 CDc6 21 A xf8 gxf8 and
1 7 A x e6 fxe6 1 8 gxe6 d5 1 9 gxe7 CD c6
20 gxg7+ c!lx g7 21 A xf8+ gxf8 22 e3
would have led to an equal position , but you
don't start play on a grand scale in order to
turn into qu iet waters immediately.
17 . . . fxe6 18 g5 h8
1 8 . . . A h6? 1 9 A x e6+ c!l h8 (19 . . . c!lg7 20 d5
CD a6 21 Ac3+ gf6 22 h4) 20 d5 CD a6
(20 . . . Ag7 ?! 21 CDxh7 c!l xh7 22 gb3) 21 Ac3+
Ag7 22 Axg7+ c!l xg7 23 CDx h7 c!l xh7 24 gb3
and wins.
1 8 . . . CD c6 !? seems bad , but some Swed ish
players found beautiful a tactical idea
and rehabil itated the whole lin e: 1 9 CD x e6
(19 A x e6+ c!l h8 20 CD x h7 CD x d4!) 1 9 . . . c!l h8
20 Ac3 Af6 21 h6 (21 g4 gfc8 22 g5 CDxd4
23 CD xd4 gxc4 24 g xf6 exf6 oo) 21 . . . gf7
(21 . . . gg8 22 ge1 ! , 22 . . . gg7 23 g4 ! +- CDa5
24 A d3 c6 25 A a1 gf7 26 g5 Ag7 27 d5
xd5 28 Axg7+ c!l g8 29 Axg6 1-0 Vaisser
Pei n , Budapest 1 989) 22 CDc5 c8 23 Axf7.
11 .td2 .xa2 1 2 0-0 b6 13 .c1 .e6

14 .tc4 .xe4 1 5 Ele1 ! N
A new plan , invented over the board . I knew
the game Toshkov - Kirov, (Al bena 1 985)
15 A xf7+ gxf7 16 xc8+ gf8 17 c4+ e6
18 gb5 c6 1 9 b3 CD a6 20 gc1 d7
21 CDe5 A x e5 22 gxe5 CDc7 23 g3 with
some com pensation for a pawn, but I was
young and ambitious and I went for a more
chal lenging continuation .
15
...
b7
1 5 . . . c6 and 1 5 . . . f5 were the other op

tions.
..
1 6 .tb4
16 A h6 is another possibil ity.
1 6 . . . .te6
8
7
6
5
,...
..
i...o-
,.......0--
)i:&d.I
L...-_______--::.__-I
'if
1 6 . . . Af6 ?! seemed dubious to me and later

practice confirmed this assessment.
17 Elxe6
23 . . . f5 ! N (23 . . . bx c5 24 A xg6 ) 24 c1
(24 A xg6 xg6 25 xg6 h x g6 =+=) 24 . . . bxc5
(24 . . . CD x d4! Ivanov) 25 d xc5 CDd4 26 Ac4
xc5 27 A b4 =+= S. Ivanov- Svensson, (Swe
den 1 999).
19 xe6?
Tem pti n g , but not the best. As I found out
after the game, both 19 gb3 and 19 e3 are
stronger. I will just g ive some l i nes from my
1 986 annotations and some games where
these ideas were put i nto practice.
.
19 gb3 :
A) 1 9 . . . CDd7 ?! :
18
Game 1
Gelfand - Dorfman , Mi nsk 1 986
A1 ) 20 tD x h7 x h7 21 .h3+ (21 A x e6 tDf6

22 .h3+ tD hS 23 b1 A xd4 24 .xhS+
g7 2S .gS .f6 +) 21 . . . g8 22 A xe6+ .f7
23 e4 .e8 ! 24 Axf7+ f8 -+ ;
A2) 20 Axe7
A21 ) 20 . . . .fe8 21 .h3 hS 22 tDf7+ :
A211 ) 22 . . . h7 ?
23 .x hS+ ! gxhS 24 b1 + g8 2S Axe6 tDf8

26 tDgS+ h8 27 h7+ ! tD xh7 28 tDf7+ g8
29 tDeS+ h8 30 tDg6#.
A212) 22 . . . g8 23 tD d6 dS 24 tD xe8 .xe8

2S .e3 .xe4 26 .xe4 ;
A22) 2 0 . . . A xd4 2 1 .h3 tDf6 2 2 A xf8 .xf8
23 tD xe6 ;
A23) 2 0 . . . .fS 2 1 A xe6 .xgS 2 2 A xgS ;1; ;
A3) 20 .h3 hS (20 . . . tDf6 ? 21 b1 tD hS
22 .x hS .f6 23 .x h7+ g8 24 b3 e6
2S 'ff h3 1-0 Vaisser-Andrianov, Naberezhnie
Chelni 1 988) 21 Axe6 .ae8 (21 . . . tDf6 22 'ff b1
'ffe7 23 .e3 f4 24 xg6 +-) 22 b1
tDf6 23 A xe8 !? (23 g4 A h6 !) 23 . . . .xe8
(23 . . . 'ffx e8 24 Axe7) 24 g4 tDxg4 (24 . . . A h6
2S tDf7+ g7 26 tD x h6 x h 6 27 gS+ ! +-)

2S .xhS+ A h6 26 .h4 ! +- ;
8) 1 9 . . . .c8 ! 20 .h3 (20 tDf7+ g8 2 1 tD d6
.xc4 22 x c4 exd6 23 x e6+ f7 -+ ;
20 tD x h7 dS 21 .h3 g8 -+ ; 20 AeS tDd7
21 A x e6 hS 22 b1 tDf8 23 tDf7+ h7
24 .h3 Af6 2S c1 tD x e6 26 h6+ g8
27 'ffx g6+ f8 28 tD h6 Peek-Timmer, Dieren
1 988) 20 . . . .xe4 (20 . . . h6 21 tD xe6 +- ; 20 . . . hS
21 .x hS+ g x hS 22 e2 +-) 21 .x h7+ g8
22 f4 (22 xe4 e6) 22 . . . Af6 23 .h8+
g7 24 .h7+ g8 = (Gelfand/Kapengut)
2S A x e7 .e1 + 26 xe1 A xgS 27 xgS
e4 (27 . . . x h7 28 f6 tD d7 29 f7+ h6
30 h4! +-) 28 .g7+ x g7 29 f6+ g8
30 f8+ h7 31 f7+ h6 32 Af8+ gS
33 h4+ ! x h4 34 h7+ gS 3S Ae7+ f4
36 h4+ 1-0 Touzane- Kouatly, (French
Team Championshi p 1 993) .
1 9 e3 ! :
A) 1 9 . . . tDd7 20 Axe7 tDeS (20 . . . tDf6 21 Axf8
.xf8 22 x e6 ) 21 A xf8 tD x c4 22 A x g7+
x g7 23 x e6 .c8 24 dS (24 h3
h6 2S tDe6+ h7 26 .b3 !? (threatening
27 x h6+ !) 26 . . . hS oo);
8) 1 9 . . . tDe6 20 tD x h7 ! (20 x e6 (th reaten
ing 21 g8+) 20 . . . .f6 2 1 h3 h6 22 A e3
'ffe8 23 Ae6 .xe6 24 tD xe6 tDd8) 20 . . . xh7
(20 . . . tD xd4 2 1 tD g S ! tDfS 22 h3+ tD h6
23 Ae3 .f6 24 tDf7+ h7 2S tD x h6 A x h6
26 Ad2 gS 27 A xgS +-) 21 h3+ A h6
22 Ad2 gS 23 A xgS .f6 24 Ad3+ g7
2S Axf6+ exf6 26 'ffx e6 'ffe8 :
81 ) 27 e4 fS 28 dS oo ;
82) 27 d S ! N tD e7 2 8 e4 f8 29 .e1
e8 (better 29 . . . d8 - Pein) 30 A bS !
d8 31 e6 Ag7 32 Ae4 e8 33 h4 in
tending hS-h6 +- Pei n - M iehaelsen , (Ramat
Hasharon 1 988).
19 d7
19 . . . tD e6 20 Ac3 transposes i nto the
18 . . . tD e6 line (20 tD x g7 tD x b4 21 h6
e4 -+ ; 20 tDxf8 .xf8 21 AdS .f6 !) .
.
20 Axe7?
19
20 xf8 was better, and if 20 . . . xf8 21 'tWe3

Af6 22 dS 00 . Later 20 . . . xf8 ! was tried :
21 'tWe3 c8 22 Ae6 Af6 23 g4 c7
24 gS Ag7 2S A xe7 (2S dS f8 Gonzalez
Perez, Havana 1992) 2S . . . eS 26 dxeS xe7
27 d1 'tW b8 28 d6 and I prefer Wh ite.
20 . . . IUc8
24 d6?
24 AgS was better:
A) 24 . . . xc4 2S xc4 bx c4 26 f6 fS
(26 . . . xd4 27 xd7 xd7 28 Af6+ g8)
27 xd7 (27 g4 !? f3 ! -+) 27 . . . xd7
28 Af6+ g8 29 x c4+ f7 30 c6 f8
31 A h4 + ;
B) 24 . . . xe8 2S xbS e1 + 26 xe1 ,,xe1 +
27 Af1 ''b8 28 ''x b8+ x b8 29 dS ''d1 +.
26 'tWf4 !) 26 h4 with counterplay, but 23 . . .

e6 ! was wi nning.
24 . . .xe7
The game is over. Wh ite should resig n , but
both players were i n time trouble and so he
conti n u ed playi n g. Probably this is not an
excuse, but merely an explanation .
25 xc8
2S f7+ xf7.
21 xg7?
25 . . .x b4 26 Ad5 Hb8 27 h4 .xd4

28 .c6 .c5 29 .xd7 gxc8 30 g3 Hf8
31 Af7 .c3 32 h5 .16 33 h xg6 h xg6
34 Ad5 .xf2+ 35 h1 .f1 + 36 h2
.f2+
During the game I thought that 21 gS eS !

22 dxeS 'tWxe7 23 f7+ 'tWxf7 24 Axf7 xc1 +
2S xc1 AxeS was easily winning for Black,
but now I doubt whether this is so : 26 A e6
as 27 c8+ xc8 28 A xc8 with d rawing
chances.
36 . . . ,,f2+ was mate in 2 .
21 . . . c6?
21 . . . 'tWe4 ! would have won on the spot.
37 h3 .f5+ 38 .xf5 gxf5

White resigns
22 gb4 b5 23 e8?!
After 23 'tWc3 as ! or 23 'tWa1 bxc4 24 dS
'tWxdS 2S e8+ c3 B lack is w i n n i n g , but
23 fS !! was shown by the com puter to
be an excellent defence: 23 . . .'V e4 24 a1
gxfS (24 . . . xc4 2S xc4 bxc4 26 dS+ eS
27 'tWxeS+ xeS 28 Af6+ g8 29 h6+ f8
30 A xeS as 31 g4 a4 32 e3 a3 33 f1 )
2S dS+ 'tWeS (2S . . . g8 26 Aa2 'tWeS 27 'tWf1
with counterplay) 26 'tWxeS+ x eS 27 Af1
g8 28 x bS c1 and Black i s better, but
Wh ite retains cou nter-chances.
I real ly enjoyed havi ng played a fighting

game, fu l l of errors, agai nst such a player
and I didn't regret at all the fact that I missed
the grandmaster norm . I spent the following
month analysing this game alone or together
with my trainer Alburt Kapengut. We p u b
l ished a com plete version o f t h e analysis i n
New in Chess, which was not a practical de
cision , as after this for a lengthy period no
one played the G rO nfeld against me. B ut I
am proud that, in the following 1S years, very
few i m provements were found and a n u m
ber o f games were w o n on t h e basis o f o u r
analysis.
23 . . . e4?!
If 23 . . . bxc4 24 d6 (24 dS 'tWxdS 2S 'tWc3+
eS) 24 . . . cb8 2S xc4 'tWdS (2S . . . 'tW b6
* * *
20
Game 2
ttJ
Gelfand - Ftacnik, Gideon Barcza Memorial Tournament, Debrecen 1989
Game 2
xg7 19 0-0 gf8 20 gxf4 gxf4 21 't'fxf4 't'ff6

22 't'fe4 gb8 23 gf1 't'fd4+ 24 't'fxd4+ cxd4
25 gb1 Ad7 26 Af3 b6 27 c5 gc8 28 c6 Axc6
29gc1 Ad7 30 gxc8 Axc8 31 Ac6 f6 32 d7
A xd7 33 A xd7 e5 34 f2 e4 35 A c6 e5
36 h4 ! (it is i m portant to keep the h - pawn
on the board) 36 . . . h6 37 g3 g5 38 h5 ! f5
39 a4 e5 40 A b7 ! and White converted his
advantage i nto a win (Novi kov -Tu kmakov,
51 s t USSR Championsh ip, Lvov 1 984).
B o r i s G e l fa n d - L u b o m i r Ft a c n i k
G i d e o n B a rcza M e m o r i a l To u r n a m e n t ,
D e b recen 1 9 89
GrOnfeld Defence [085]
I eagerly awaited this duel with a strong the
oretician , who had been playing only the
GrOnfeld throughout his career.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 d5 4 cxd5 xd5
5 e4 xc3 6 bxc3 c5 7 f3 Sig7 8 l:lb1
0-0 9 Sie2 c6
This plan is the main alternative to 9 . . . cxd4
and it was developed mai n ly thanks to the
efforts of Czech and Slovak players. Black's
idea is first to blockade and then attack
White's central pawns.
10 d5 e5
Igor Stohl accepted the challenge and took
the pawn - see below on page 24.
11 xe5 Sixe5 12 .d2
1 3 f4 Sig7 14 c4 e5
Black is playing for a blockade, in the spirit of
this line. 14 . . . e6 15 A b2 is i n Wh ite's favour,
as practice showed i n later years.
1 5 0-0 f5
Trying to provoke a crisis i n the centre. As
later games by Ftac n i k showed , B lack can
get a good position by 15 . . . exf4 16 't'fxf4
't'fe7 1 7 A b2 A d7 1 8 Ad3 A x b2 1 9 gx b2
f6 20 Ac2 gae8 ! (20 . . . e5 21 't'fx e5 fx e5
22 gfb1 ! i ntend ing a4-a5 ; Wh ite needs
both his rooks to break through , while the
black rook has noth ing to do on the f-fi le)
2 1 ge1 't'fe5 22 't'fx e5 gxe5 23 a4 f5 with
equal chances (Sakaev - Ftacnik, Dortmu nd
open 1 992) .
1 6 Sib2
An interesting alternative was 16 d6!?, and if
16 . . . A b7 (16 . . . Ae6 !?) 17 A b2 ! Axe4 18 fxe5
A x b1 (18 . . . ge8 19 Af3 A x b1 20 A x a8 (or
20 gx b1 ) 20 . . . 't'fxa8 21 gx b1 ) 19 gx b1 with
complete domination .
1 6 d6
. . .
a b c d
12 . . . b6
e
8
Lubom ir chooses a line which had not been

explored at the time of the game. I think that
this variation was the first one where opening
theory developed so deeply with concrete
analysis. In 1 984 Igor Novi kov impressed the
chess world with a novelty on the 36 th move :
12 . . . e6 13 f4 Ag7 (the attempt to play subtly
with 13 . . . A h8 14 c4 ge8 15 e5 f6 is refuted
by 16 f5 !! with a strong attack) 14 c4 ge8
15 e5 f6 16 d6 fxe5 17 A b2 exf4 18 A xg7
6
5
4
3
2
-------
21
20 fxe5!
16 . . J::1 e 8 17 d6 ; 16 . . . exf4 17 A xg7 x g7

18 e5 ! .
White has to open up the game if he wants

to fight for something. 20 Ac2 e4 21 g3
g6, or 20 '8f3 e4 21 '8g3 h6 (i ntending
. . . Ad7, . . . '8f8 and . . . h8) is unclear.
17 .c3
Wh ite should not al low simpl ification i n the
centre.
17 . . . lle8
20 . . . Axe5 21 .d2
Black intends . . . '8e7 and . . . exf4. White must

prevent this.
Not 21 c2 ? A x h2+ 22 h1 h6.
21 . . . Axh2+
18 Ad3
21 . . . A x b2 22 '8x b2 would be positional ca

pitulation , in view of the weakness at f5.
The only way to fight for an advantage. After

1 8 '8 be1 fx e4 1 9 Ad1 '8e7 20 '8x e4 exf4
21 '8exf4 xf4 22 x g7+ '8xg7 23 '8xf4
'8f7 Black stands better, while if 1 8 g4, then
18 . . .fxe4 (18 . . . '8e7 19 gxf5 g xf5 20 h1 )
1 9 f5 gxf5 20 g xf5 Axf5 ! .
22 h1 Ae5
22 . . . Ag3 23 A xf5 A xf5 24 '8xf5 24 . . . '8f8
(24 . . . A h4 25 c3 +-) 25 '8g5+ f7 26 Ag7
and Wh ite attacks without even giving up a
pawn.
1 8 . . . lle7?
A serious mistake, but this was hard to
foresee, as now a long , almost forced
line beg i ns, lead i ng to an advantage for
White. Preferable was 18 . . . fxe4 19 Axe4 '8e7
(threaten i ng . . . exf4) 20 f5 gxf5 21 A xf5 e4
and after the exchange of both pairs of bish
ops White can count on only a slight edge.
23 .g5+
Not 23 '8be1 A x b2 24 g5+ ? '8g7 , while
23 Axf5 Axf5 24 '8xf5 Axb2 25 xb2 h6+
is equal .
19 exf5!
1 9 '8 be1 ? would be a mistake: 1 9 . . .fxe4
20 '8xe4 exf4 2 1 '8exf4 xf4 ! with a clear
advantage to Black.
Io--"("---'-=-f'"-:::-"I ,......-.,
19 . . . gxf5
5
4
Or 1 9 . . . e4 20 f6 exd3 21 fxe7 ! and wins.

After 1 9 . . . A xf5 20 A xf5 g xf5 21 fxe5 A xe5
22 h3 the weakness of the f5 pawn de
termi nes the assessment of the position .
23
. . .
g6!
A bri lliant defence ! Other moves lose qu ickly:

23 . . . '8g7 24 A x e5 x e5 25 d8+ f7
26 '8be1 g3 (26 . . . '8g8 27 xg8+) 27 e8+
f6 28 '8e6+ Axe6 29 xe6+ g5 30 '8xf5+
with mate, 23 . . . Ag7 24 '8 be1 , or 23 . . . h8
24 '8 be1 '8g7 (24 . . . Ad7 25 '8xe5 '8xe5
26 '8e1 ) 25 '8xe5 ! or 25 xg7+.
24 .xe7
'--_______""""_----'
"-
if
24 xg6+ h xg6 25 '8fe1 '8h7+.
22
Game 2
ttJ
Gelfand - Ftacnik, Gideon Barcza Memorial Tournament, Debrecen 1 989
A) 30 . . . h6 31 g3+ h7 32 f1 (32 e1 ?
h4+) 32 . . . hS (32 . . . h4+ 33 gh3 g4
34 gff3) 33 xfS ! A xfS 34 A xfS+ h6
3S gg6+ ;
B) 30 . . . hS 31 gg3+ h7 32 gf1 h4 (32 . . . YWd6
33 xfS A xfS 34 A xfS+ h6 3S Ag7#)
33 gg4 Ad7 (33 . . . h6 34 Ac1 + hS 3S gg8 ;
3 3 . . . h6 3 4 A xfS hS 3S g8 d6+
36 h3) 34 xfS A xfS 3S A xfS+ h6
36 Ac1 + hS 37 h3 f6 38 Ag6+ ! xg6
39 gxh4#;
C) 30 . . . Ad7 31 bf1 hS 32 g3+ h7
33 gxfS ! ;
0) 3 0 . . . h4+ 3 1 gh3 f4+ 3 2 gg3+ f7
33 gf1 .
24 . . . h6+ 25 g1 .e3+
Th is is the point. After 2S . . . h2+ 26 f2
YWf4+ 27 e2 Wh ite is winning.
26 h1 .h6+ 27 g1 .e3+
3
2
L..._______
....._----I
..:;....
'lJ
28 11f21
6
Anyway! Even without his queen , Wh ite has a

strong direct attack on the black king, which
lacks proper cover. 28 h1 leads on ly to a
draw.
5
4
3
28 . . . .th2+ 29 xh2 .xe7 30 I1f31

The strongest. Th is rook starts an i mmedi
ate attack by going t o g3, while the other
wi ll join in from f1 . 30 e2 ?! was less good
in view of 30 . . . h4+ (or 30 . . . d6+ 31 g1
Ad7 32 be1 f8) 31 g1 Ad7 32 be1 f8
33 d6 (or 33 e7 f7 34 d6 YWg3) 33 . . . f6 ! '
However, 3 0 bf1 !? was a dangerous alter
native:
A) 30 . . . Ad7 31 f3 ;
B) 30 . . . d6+ 31 g1 h6 32 A xfS A xfS
33 gxfS ;
C) 30 . . . h4+ 3 1 g 1 Ad7 3 2 A xfS A xfS
33 gxfS e8 (33 . . . h6 34 d6) 34 d6 with an
attack.
30 . . .d6+
As the fol lowing variations show, Black
is helpless against the powerful attack of
White's four coordinated pieces :
c d
'lJ
31 11g3+ 1
White need not fear the pin, as calculations
show that he gives mate i n time.
31 . . 32 I1f1 h5
The alternatives were no better:
A) 32 . . . f4 33 Ac1 ;
B) 32 . . . e7 33 e1 + f8 (or 33 . . . d8
34 AeS h6+ 3S g1 f8 36 gg7 Ad7
37 gx h7 Ae8 38 Ac7+ c8 39 Ad6) 34 Ag7+
f7 3S AeS h6+ 36 gh3 d2 (36 . . . g6
37 Ae2) 37 gee3 ;
C) 32 . . . h6+ 33 gh3 g6 34 gff3 followed
by gfg3 ;
0) 32 . . . Ad7 33 A xfS and now :
0 1 ) 33 . . . A xfS 34 xfS+ e7 3S eS+ f7
(3S . . . d7 36 gg7+ c8 37 g1 ) 36 g1 gf8
37 gg7+ xg7 38 ge6+ ;
.
23
02) 33 . . . e7 34 E1e1 + d8 3S AeS 'fi' h6+

36 E1h3 'fi'd2 37 E1x h7 ! 'fi'x e1 38 Af6+ c7
39 E1xd7+ b8 40 E1h7 fol lowed by Af6-h4g3 ;
33 .txf5 h4 34 .tg6+
Not 34 Axc8+ ? e8. Black never gains the
tempo needed to win the rook.
34
3S Af6+ ! d7 (3S . . . 'fi'xf6 36 E1e3+) 36 Ax h4

c7 37 E1f7+ (37 AgS 'fi'xg6 38 Af4+) 37 . . .
b8 (37 . . . Ad7 38 AfS) 38 AgS! followed by
Af4.
35
.lh7+ ! xh7 36 IU7+ h6 37 .tc1 +
Black resigns
g8
Th is victory provided a good boost to my

confidence. I won this tournament and ex
ceeded my final g randmaster norm by one
point.
I am grateful to Lubomir who allowed to me

to demonstrate a beautifu l combination on
the board . After 34 . . . e7 the win is prosaic
***
Black accepts the pawn sacrifice
(cf. note to Black's 1 0 t h move)
a b
8
7
6
5
4
3
Boris Gelfand - Igor Stohl

I nterpol is, Ti lburg 1 992
6
5
4
3
2
{(
17 d6!
The queen enters the attack.
17 . . . b6
Black cannot protect all his pawns, so h e
g ives u p t h e central o n e, hoping t o set u p a
blockade on the dark squares.
Position after 10 dS
18 ed5+ g7 19 exe5+ ef6 20 eh2 h5

21 eg3 c6!?
10 . . . .txc3+ 11 Ad2 .txd2+ 12 exd2 a5

13 h4!
Bringing the knight back i nto the game.
Wh ite needs to start a d i rect attack agai nst

the king .
22 Dd1 !
1 3 . . . Ag4 14 h5 Axf3 1 5 gxf3
22 E1x hS?! allows 22 . . . E1h8, and if 23 eS 'fi'e6

24 f4? E1x hS 2S AxhS 'fi'fS -+ .
It is i m portant to keep the as knight out of

the game ; if 1S A xf3 c4.
22 . . . h6
22 . . . 'fi'c3+ ?! 23 f1 d4 24 E1x hS +-,
or 22 . . . E1ae8 23 E1xhS E1h8 24 d7 ! E1d8
15 . . . e5 16 hxg6 fxg6
(see next diagram)
24
Game 2
tt::J
Gelfand - Ftacnik, Gideon Barcza Memorial Tournament, Debrecen 1 989
83) 24 . . . c2+ 25 d1 d4 26 f4 ! x e2
27 x e2 gae8 (27 . . . xf4 28 ghx h5+ g x h5
29 ge6+ and wins) 28 gd1 with the initiative.
(24 . . . gxh5 25 d x e8 + !) 25 gd6 +- . I nter

esting is 22 . . . d4 23 gx h5 gh8 24 gd5 !
e6 ! with counterplay, but not 24 . . . gh1 +
25 d2 .
23 Dd5
The rook joins the attack, leaving the bishop
to guard the king ; 23 gg1 h4 ! 24 h3 g5 is
unclear.
24 f4!
24 gg1 ?! ge5 ! ; now the fol lowi ng combina
tion does not work, as Black's rook is already
on the e -fi le: 24 gd x h5+ ? g x h5 25 f4 a1 +
26 Ad1 gxe4.
24 . . . "a1 +
24 . . . gxe4 25 gd x h5+ g7 26 gh7+ g8
27 b3+ c4 28 xc4+ ! gxc4 29 Axc4+ gf7
30 gh8+ xh8 31 Axf7+ g7 32 gx h8 xh8
33 A xg6 +- ; 24 . . . g7 !?
8
7
25 Dd1
25 Ad1 ?! gxe4+ 26 f1 g7 ! =t .
4
3
-==,",--I
2
='J=-I
25 . . . "f6
It looks as though Wh ite doesn't have more
than a draw by repetition. However, after re
peating the position twice i n order to gain
time on the clock, he begins a new wave of
the attack.
23 . . . Dae8!?
26 Dd5 "a1 + 27 Dd1 "f6
Black is trying to get to e5 and prevent

f3-f4 at the same time. The alternative
was 23 . . . b4 (or 23 . . . d4 24 g4! f7
25 gd x h5+ gxh5 26 f4 xe2 27 g5+ h7
28 gx h5+) and now:
A) 24 gd x h5+? is sufficient onl y for a
draw after 24 . . . g x h5 25 f4 c2+ (25 . . . a1 +
26 Ad1 gf5 ! = , as 27 exf5 ge8+ is bad
for Wh ite) 26 f1 (after 26 d2 d4+
27 Ad3 (or 27 xc2 xe4+ 28 Ad3 a4+ =)
27 . . . gg8 28 gxh5+ x h5 29 h3+ g6
30 e5+ White wins, but 26 . . . xf4+ !? leaves
Black with a slight advantage) 26 . . . a1 +
27 g2 e1 + 28 gxe1 xe1 = ;
4
3
2
d
1
9
{t
28 f3!!
B) 24 ge5 ! and now:
28 gd5 =.
B 1 ) 24 . . . gae8 25 f4 doesn't solve Black's

problems ;
B2) 24 . . . c6 allows White to carry out hi s
main idea - 25 gex h5+ ! g x h5 26 f4 a1 +
(26 . . . g6 27 gxh5+ xh5 28 Axh5) 27 Ad1
gf5 28 gg1 ! f6 (28 . . . gg8 29 xg8 c3+
30 f1 ) 29 exf5 b4 30 gh1 ;
8
7
6
8
7
6
5
4
3
28 . . . d4
28 . . . xf4? 29 xf4+ gxf4 30 A b5 +- .
29 f5
After protecting the i mportant e4 pawn,
White gets closer to the black king.
29 . . . g511
25
B 1 ) 31 Ac4 ?! fxe4 ! 32 A x e6 x e6 !
(32 . . . xf3+ 3 3 f1 ! x e6 3 4 d8 c4+
35 f2 xa2+ 36 gd2 +-) 33 f4 f3+ = ;
Short of time, my opponent blundered . Other

replies would have obl iged Wh ite to work
hard to gain an advantage. However, from
the practical pOint of view B lack's task is
very difficult, as al l the time he has to make
the only moves and any inaccuracy leads to
disaster:
B2) 3 1 f4 !! (by creating a th reat of mate

in one, Wh ite forces the exchange of
the black knight) 31 . . . x e2 32 x e2
b2+ (32 . . . gxe4+ 33 f2 ! (33 f1 gd4 ! 00)
33 . . . b2+ (33 . . . gd4 34 gxh5+ +- ; 33 . . . g6
34 gd6 ! +-) 34 g1 f6 35 gd6 ge1 +
36 f2 +-) 33 f1 b5+ (33 . . . gg6 34 gxh5+
g7 (34 . . . xh5 35 h3#) 35 gg5) 34 d3 !
xd3+ 35 gxd3 gd8 36 e5 intend ing gdh3;
A) 29 . . . gd8 30 f2 gxd6 (30 . . . xd6 31 f4

i ntending A xh5 +- ; 30 . . . xe2 31 xe2)
31 f4+ h7 32 e5 xe2 33 fxg6+ ! (33 exf6
xf4 34 gxd6 00) 33 . . . xg6 34 xf8 gxd1
(34 . . . g3+ 35 x e2 x e5+ 36 f2 b2+
37 g3 gg6+ 38 h4) 35 gxd1 ;
C) 29 . . . ge5 30 f2 ! x e2 (30 . . . xd6

31 A d3) 31 x e2 xf5 32 d7 f6 33 d8
gxd8 34 gxd8 gg5 35 h3 xd8 36 f4.
B) 2 9 . . . gxf5!? 30 d7 ! (30 f2 g5 ; 30 gxd4

xd4 31 gxh5+ xh 5 32 f4+ =) 30 . . . ge6
(30 . . . ge7 31 f2 g6 32 f4+ +-) and now:
30 .6xh5+ Black resigns
***
Game 3
a b c d
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Va s i l y I va n ch u k
I n terpo l i s To u r n a m e n t , Ti l b u rg 1 9 9 0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Si nce our first game in 1 985 I have played a

good many ti mes with Vasi ly. His extraordi
nary talent and real devotion to chess have
made him one of the best players of modern
ti mes. He has won n u merous g reat tourna
ments and beaten all the best players many
times. He has a plus score against me, but I
am proud that I have managed to beat such
a player many times as wel l .
13 Ag5
6
5
4
3
2
After 1 3 gx b7 A xf3 14 A xf3 A xd4 Black

does not have any problems. The immediate
13 Ae3 was i ntrod uced by Alexander Cher
n in and is the main alternative to 13 Ag5.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 d5 4 cxd5 xd5
5 e4 xc3 6 bxc3 Ag7 7 f3 c5 8 Ilb1
0-0 9 Ae2 cxd4 10 cxd4 "a5+ 11 Ad2
"xa2 12 0-0 Ag4
This idea of the i nventive Mark Tseitl i n , an
expert on the G rOnfel d, q u ickly became the
main response to the pawn sacrifice. Black
beg ins an immediate cou nterattack agai nst
White's centre, without wasting a tem po on
12 . . . b6.
1 3 . . . h6
Th is was played against me for the fi rst
time by Vasi ly i n the 1 990 I nterzonal Tou r
nament i n Manila (p. 36), where, i nciden
tal ly, we shared first place. In the semi
fi nal o f the 1 998 Cap d 'Agde rapid tourna
ment Vasi ly invented a new idea : 1 3 . . . Af6
14 Ae3 (14 Axf6 exf6 15 gx b7 ! ? ; 14 A h6 gd8)
26
Game 3
Gelfand - Ivanchuk, I nterpolis Tournament, Tilburg 1990
14 . . . !Dc6 (14 . . . b6 !?) 1S gx b7 gab8 16 gx b8

gxb8 17 h3 Ad7 (17 . . . Axf3 18 Axf3 t) 18 dS
eS (18 . . . !Db4 19 Af4) 19 Af4 VW b2 (19 . . . Aa4
20 VWe1 VW b2 21 A x eS A x eS 22 VWaS
VWxe2 23 VWxa4 t ) 20 VWc1 ! g b7 (20 . . . !D xf3+
21 Axf3 gc8 22 VWx b2 A x b2 23 g b1 )
21 VWx b2 gx b2 (21 . . . !D xf3+ 22 A xf3 A x b2
23 gb1 gb6 24 Ac7 (24 Ae3 Ad4) 24 . . . g b4
2S eS Ac3 26 gc1 Ad4 =) 22 AxeS (22 xeS
AxeS 23 A x eS gxe2 24 f3 (24 g b1 f6)
24 . . . fS =) 22 . . . gxe2 23 A xf6 exf6 24 ga1 t
(Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Cap d 'Agde 1 998).
14 Ae3
Harm less is 14 A x e7 ge8 1 S g xb7 !Dc6
16 AcS gxe4 17 Ad3 gxd4 18 A xd4 !D xd4
with full com pensation for the exchange,
as shown by Kramnik- Kasparov, (Novgorod
1994) . For 14 A h4, see Gelfand - Sh i rov game 7 on page 41 .
It seems that Wh ite has lost a tem po, but
even after I have played n u m ber of games
I can not say whether . . . h7-h6 is a usefu l
move or not. On the one hand , White can not
use the gS square in his attack. On the other
hand , in some l i nes the h6 pawn is hanging
and the g6 square is weakened .
14 . . . c6 1 5 d5 a5
Protecting the b7 paw n , but now both the
kn ight at as and the q ueen at a2 are out of
play and can become the targets of attack.
1S . . . !DeS was Ivanchu k's choice i n Mani la.
Later Kamsky also played this agai nst me cf. game S on page 34.
16 Ac5 Af6
a b c d
...._
.::...
----I 'if
L..._
..______
17 e5!?
White must fight for the in itiative without pay
ing attention to loss of material . 17 h3 gfc8 !?
1 8 Ae3 A xf3 19 Axf3 is less energetic.
17 . . . Axe5 18 h3
If 18 !DxeS Axe2 19 ga1 Axd1 20 gxa2 !Dc4
21 !D xc4 A b3 .
A few years later Vlad i m i r Kram n i k found
a better way of implementing White's idea
- 1 8 g b4 ! (the wh ite rook comes i nto play
with gain of tempo) 18 . . . Axf3 1 9 Axf3 gae8
20 A e3 (th reatening 21 ga4 and attack
ing the h6 pawn ; if 20 ga4 VW b3 21 gxaS
VWx d1 22 gxd1 b6, regain in g the piece)
20 . . . !Dc4 (20 . . . b6 2 1 A x h6 Ag7 22 A x g7
<i!? xg7 23 VWd4+ and the poor placing of
Black's pieces gives Wh ite more than suffi
cient compensation for the pawn) 2 1 A x h6
!D d6. A bri l l iant idea of Vishy Anand ; Black
is ready to sacrifice the exchange, but he
hopes to achieve a good blockading pos
ition followed by the rapid advance of his a
and b-pawns. Now White has :
A) 22 A xf8 gxf8 23 h4 !? (23 ga4 VW b2
24 gxa7 gc8, and despite bei ng a clear ex
change down , Black's pieces are perfectly
placed , g iving him sufficient counterplay.)
23 . . . gc8 (i ntending . . . gc2) 24 Ae4 (24 hS
gS !) 24 . . . VWaS (24 . . . Ac3 !? 2S ga4 VWd2 is
unclear) 2S ga4 VW bS 26 A b1 t (Kramn i k
Anand, Dos Hermanas 1 996) ;
B) 22 h4 !? N (Wh ite is not i n a h urry to
win the exchange and he tries to open
u p the position of the black king) 22 . . . gc8
(22 . . . Ag7 23 A xg7 <i!? x g7 24 VWd4+ <i!? h7
2S hS with the i n itiative) 23 hS!? (23 A xf8
<i!? xf8 00) 23 . . . VWc2 !? (23 . . . gc4 24 gxc4 VWxc4
2S A xf8 <i!? xf8 26 h xg6 fxg6 27 ge1 ; as the
king is not so well protected now, Wh ite
is better here) 24 h xg6 VWxd1 (24 . . . fxg6
2S Ag4) 2S gxd1 fS (2S . . .fxg6 26 Ag4 gfS
27 A xfS g xfS t ; 2S . . . Ag7 26 g xf7+ gxf7
27 Ae3 t ) 26 A xf8 26 . . . <i!? xf8 27 ga4 bS?!
27
(better is 27 . . . a6 28 g4 gc3 29 c;!? g2 c;!? g7 (0 )

28 gxa7 b4 29 gb1 gb8 (29 . . . b3 loses to
30 g7+ ! Axg7 31 gx b3 , but 29 . . . gc4!? wou ld
have been better) 30 g b3 Ac3 (30 . . . b5
31 g7+ A x g7 32 gx b4) 31 gc7 with good
winning chances (Gelfand - Macieja, M i lan
Vidmar Memorial , Portoroz 2001 ).
21 gxb7 Ad6 22 gxa7 'tWd2 leads to a draw)

20 . . . exd6 21 Ad5 c4 and now :
A) 22 gx b7 ? d xc5 23 'tWf3 d2 (23 . . . 'tWa3)
24 'tWd3 A h2+ ! 25 c;!? h1 (25 c;!? x h2 xf1 +
26 c;!? g1 'tWa1 ! -+) 25 . . . 'tWxd5 26 'tWxd5 xf1
27 'tWd1 and White has to fight for a draw;
B) 22 'fWd3 'fWd2 23 'fWxc4 dxc5 24 gx b7 'fWf4 ;
18 . . . Axf3
C) 22 A b4 !? and despite being three pawns

down , White keeps the i nitiative;
D) 22 'tWg4 d x c5 23 'tWx g6+ (23 A xc4 'tWc2)
23 . . . Ag7 24 gx b7 e5 ! 25 'tWx g7+ c;!? xg7
26 A x a2 with ful l com pensation for the
pawn , but not more.
Black had the interesting possibility 1 8 . . .

gfd8!? 1 9 h xg4 gxd5 20 Ad4 (20 'tWc1 gc8)
20 . . . Axd4 21 xd4 gad8 !? (21 . . . e5 22 'tWc2
'tWx c2 23 xc2 gd2 24 A d1 ) 22 'tWc2
'tWxc2 23 xc2 gd2 24 gfd1 (24 Ad1 c4 (0)
24 . . . c4 ! with ful l com pensation (Strelbi n
Nadan ian , USSR 1 991 ) , but after 22 g b4 !
c6 2 3 ga4 'tW b2 24 'tW b3 'tWx b3 2 5 x b3
White retains winning chances.
20 d6!
White plays to exploit his trum ps - his d
pawn, the bishop pair and the loose position
of Black's queen and kn ight.
19 Axf3
a b c d
20
e
...
19
. . .
c4
Th is leads to a d ifficult end in g. How

ever, Black is also suffering after 20 . . . exd6
2 1 Ad5 c4 (21 . . . 'tWxd5 22 'tWxd5 d x c5
23 'fWxc5 b6 24 'fW b5) 22 gx b7 , or 20 . . . 'fWe6
2 1 d x e7 ! ? {21 d7 ged8 22 'tWa4 Ac7 !
(22 . . . c4 23 Ax b7 gab8 24 Axa7 ) 23 gfd1
A b6 or 23 . . . 'tWe5 !?) 21 . . . gac8 22 Ad5 'tW f6
23 A a3 and the pawn on e7 is extremely
strong.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
. . .
21 d7
21 gc1 'tW f4 22 g3 'tWf6 23 d x e7 00 also de
served serious consideratio n , bu t t h e text
move is stronger.
Bfe8
21
Black faces serious problems. 1 9 . . . Ad67?

20 A xd6 exd6 21 ga1 loses a piece, dubi
ous is 1 9 . . . c4 ?! 20 A xe7 d2 21 'tWe2 !
(21 Axf8 gxf8 22 'tWe2 ge8 23 g3 'tWa5), while
after 1 9 . . . Af6 20 d6 ! e6 (20 . . . exd6? 21 Ad5
c4 22 Ad4 A xd4 23 'tWxd4 gac8 24 'tWe4
c;!? g7 25 gx b7 +-) 21 d7 gfd8 22 Axb7 xb7
23 gx b7 the d7 pawn determ i nes Wh ite's
advantage.
. . .
xcS 22 dxe8. + Bxe8 23 .a4

...
a b c d
8
I-:::-.r-=--"
7
3
2
The strongest was 1 9 . . . gae8 !? 20 d6! (with

out caring about pawns, White plays for the
maximum activity of his pieces ; 20 ge1 c4
28
8
7
6
5
Game 3
Gelfand - Ivanchuk, I nterpolis Tournament, Tilburg 1990
For the moment the material balance is i n

Black's favou r, but he is forced t o concede
two pawns due to awkward placing of his
pieces. Weaker is 23 d7?! f8 ! 24 g b5
"fffc7.
23 . . . c6
Or 23 . . . gc8 24 gb5.
24 1lxb7
Not 24 gfc1 ? ! d4 25 gc4 d7 26 gxc6 ?!
(26 gcb4 =) 26 . . . bxc6 27 Axc6 f5 ! 28 Ae4
"fffc8 when Black has a slight advantage.
27 . . . .td4 28 .d5 .tb6 29 g3 h5 30 c!>g2

c!>g7 31 Ub1 .e2 32 .f3 .e6 33 .c3+
c!>h7 34 lle1 .d5+ 35 .f3 .d7 36 Ild1
.e7 37 Ild3 c!>g7 38 .c6
38 d5 ! was more precise. Here the queen
would not only control the greatest area of
the board , but it would also put pressu re
on f7, thus l i m iting the activity of its black
opponent. And after gf3-f4-e4 the q ueen
exchange would become unavoidable.
38
25 . . . llxc6
In the event of the queen exchange
25 . . . xc6 26 xc6 gxc6 27 gxe7 Ad4
28 gd1 A b6 29 f1 Wh ite would have to
exchange rooks to reach the same ending
as in the game. He cou ld ach i eve this by
transferring his rook from d1 to f3.
26
. . .
xe7 27 .xc6
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
...
8
7
6
5
4
39
. . .
...
8
7
6
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Only a d raw resu lts from 25 gb5 c3 !

26 a6 (26 A xc6 x c6) 26 . . . gc7 27 A x c6
gxc6 28 xa7, as with all the pawns on one
side Wh ite can never win this position .
Less good was 26 gb5?! "fffd4 27 gb8+ g7.
e2 39 Ilf3
a b c d
24 . . . llc8 25 .txc6
26 1lxe7
. . .
4
2
a2?!
Al lowing Wh ite to exchange queens i m me

diately, but also after 39 . . . e7 40 d5 ! g8
41 gf4 g7 42 ge4 f8 43 ge2 !? g8
(43 . . . a3 44 ge8 ; 43 . . . c8 44 ge7) 44 c6
(44 d7) 44 . . . g7 45 ge8 b4 46 d5 he
would have reached the same ending.
40 .c3+ c!>g8 41 .b3 .xb3 42 Uxb3

c!>f8 43 c!>f3 c!>e7 44 Ilb2 c!>e6 45 c!>e4
Wh ite has to advance his king to e5 and
threaten f4-f5, in order to provoke the ad
vance of the a-pawn.
45 . . . c!>d6?! 46 Ild2+ c!>e6 47 c!>f4
I ntending g5 fol lowed by f4-f5 .
47 c!>f6 48 Ilc2 .td4 49 c!>e4 .tb6

50 Ilc6+ c!>e7 51 f4 c!>d7 52 1lf6 c!>e7
53 Ilc6 c!>d7 54 c!>d5
. . .
White's objective is to exchange queens, but

first he has to bri ng his rook into the game.
(see next diagram)
29
a b c d
58 . . . A xg3 59 E!xa7 h4, with a theoretical

draw) 55 . . . h xg4 56 h xg4 ci!;> f8 57 E!c8+ ci!;> g7
58 E!c4 fol lowed by the march of the king to
e8.
8
7
6
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
54
...
55 gc4 a5
55 . . . A b6 56 ci!;> e5 ci!;> e7 was more stu bborn ,
when White has to follow the plan descri bed
in the previous note.
4
2
56 Dc6 AdS 57 Da6 e7 58 e4 Ac7

59 d5 AdS 60 ga7+ 61 DaSAe7
Or 61 . . . ci!;> e7 62 ci!;> c6.
.lc7
If 54 . . . ci!;> e7, then 55 g4 (but not 55 f5 ?!
g xf5 56 ci!;> e5 Af2 ! 57 E!c7+ ci!;> e8 58 ci!;> xf5
(58 ci!;> f4 h4 59 g x h4 A x h4 60 ci!;> xf5 ci!;> f8)
. . .
62 Dxa5 Black resigns

Th is end ing is easily won , and Vasily decided
not to check my techn ique.
***
Game 4
9 . . . 'tWa5 10 0-0 cxd4 11 cxd4 'tWxa2 1 2 Ag5

E!e8 was played in the mid -eighties by Boris
Gulko and it found some followers. At a train
ing session of the 'Spartak' team before the
USSR Cup, in a 15-minute tournament I tried
1 3 A b5 Ad7 14 'tWd3 A x b5 1 5 'tWx b5 , but
after 15 . . . c6 ! 16 d5 e5 17 'tlt'x b7 xf3+
18 gx f3 'tWa3 ! Black had good counterplay
(Gelfand - Semeniuk, I rpen rapid 1 984). Re
cently I had remem bered this game and it
gave an impetus to some thoug hts . . .
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Va s i ly I va n ch u k
Dos H e rm a n as 1 9 96
GrOnfeld Defence [085J
During the 1 990s I took part i n most of the
'super-tournaments' . That year this tourna
ment i n a suburb of the wonderful Spanish
city of Seville assem bled ni ne of the world 's
top ten players. And most of us were in good
shape. I was lead i ng the event after fou r
rounds, but then fi n ished with a - 1 score,
after m issi ng my best possibility i n the last
round of beating Garry Kasparov (the only
top player, whom I had never beaten). I blun
dered an extra piece on the 40 th move in
time -trouble and lost. Anyway, in my opinion
that was the most spectacu lar tournament
of modern times. And in this case it is re
grettable that the tradition of publishing tour
nament books of the most important events
has disappeared .
10 cxd4 t!ra5+ 1 1 Ad2 t!rxa2 1 2 0-0 b6

1 3 Ag5
a b c d
...
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 d4 f6 2 f3 g6 3 c4 Ag7 4 c3 d5
5 cxd5 xd5 6 e4 xc3 7 bxc3 c5 S gb1
0-0 9 Ae2 cxd4
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
30
Game 4
Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Dos Hermanas 1 996
d5 = ; 21 c2 !? would have kept the

tension on the board) 21 . . . tbf6 22 tb xf6+
(22 tbd6 22 . . . tb xd5 23 YWxd5 Ae5) 22 . . . Axf6
23 f3 Ag5 ! .
Th is move looks strange, as it leads to a pos

ition that arises after 9 . . . a5 10 0-0 cxd4
11 cxd4 xa2 12 Ag5, only a tem po down .
However, things are not so simple. 13 c1 is
the main line.
Th is move destroys the coord ination of the

wh ite pieces and a d raw was soon ag reed
(Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Novgorod 1 996) .
13 . . . ge8?!
This move is not in the spirit of the open
ing and it leads to a d ifficult position . A
few months later Vasily tried the most chal
lenging move 13 . . . A b7, where together with
Vladimir Kram n i k I had prepared a new and
interesting idea - 14 gc1 !? However, after a
long think my opponent found the rig ht re
sponse : 14 . . . Axe4 15 Axe7 ge8 16 Ac4 a5
(if 16 . . . YW b2 17 Ad6 00 - with the idea of tbe5
- 1 7 . . . b5 18 A b3)
14 Ab5! Ad7 1 5 "d3

Compared with the game played in my youth
against Semen iuk, the extra tempo plays a
negative role - the c6 square is weak and it
is hard for Black to bring all h i s pieces i nto
play. Moreover, his queen is in danger.
1 5 . . . "a5
Or 1 5 . . . gc8 16 gfc1 .
1 6 Ac4!?
Keeping al l the pieces on the board . 16 Axd7
tb xd7 17 ga1 b4 18 e5 gec8 ! (18 . . . e6
1 9 gfb1 f8 20 b5 ; 18 . . . b5 1 9 gfb1 c4
20 x c4 bxc4 21 g b7 tb b6 22 A xe7 with
the i n itiative) 19 gfb1 c4 20 x c4 gxc4
21 A xe7 a5 00 i ntending 22 . . . gac8 would
have made Black's task easier.
17 Ac5 !? (this is the point of Wh ite's nov

elty; he gives up his bishop to obtain the g5
square from where his knight can join the
attack) 1 7 . . . bxc5 18 tb g5 ge7 !?
Ivanchuk chooses the safest continuation
and soon equalises. After 18 . . . tbc6 19 Axf7+
<i!? h8 20 Axe8 gxe8 21 tb xe4 gxe4 22 gxc5
YW b6 23 c2 Wh ite wins and 18 . . . tb d7
1 9 A xf7+ <i!? h8 20 Axe8 gxe8 21 tb xe4 gxe4
22 dxc5 leaves him with a clear advantage,
wh ile 18 . . . cxd4 19 A xf7+ c;;, h 8 20 tb x e4
wou ld lead to wild com plications.
19 tbxe4 tb d7 (1 9 . . . cxd4 7? 20 Ad5 xd5
21 gc8+ Af8 22 tbf6+ , or 1 9 . . . tb c6 20 Ad5
gc8 21 gxc5 b6 22 tb d6 gcc7 23 A xc6
gxc6 24 tb c8 and wins) 20 d xc5 gd8 ! (an
excel lent defensive move !) 21 Ad5 (21 c6
e5 22 b3 tb xc6 23 A xf7+ gxf7 24 gxc6
1 6 . . . c6
1 6 . . . e6 1 7 A d2 h5 1 8 d5 and all Black's
pieces are misplaced (except the bishop at
g7) .
17 Ad2
Wh ite had q u ite a pleasant choice and I
am not sure if I chose the most accu
rate one. Also tem pting was 1 7 ga1 !? b4
18 Ad2 d6 1 9 e5 c7 20 tb g5 e6, when
21 tb e4 tb e7 is unclear, but after 21 gac1 !?
or 21 gfc1 !? he retains the initiative.
17 gb5 was not so clear: 17 . . . YWa4 (1 7 . . . YWa6
18 Axf7+ c;;, x f7 19 gf5+ Axf5 20 YWxa6 Axe4
21 e2 ) 1 8 A b3 tb b4 1 9 A xf7+ c;;, x f7
20 YWc4+ <i!? f8 (20 . . . e6 21 gx b4 YWc6 22 YWe2
YWd6 23 gbb1 ;t) 21 tbe5 Axe5 22 dxe5 c;;, g7
(22 . . . e6 23 gx b4 c6 24 d3 ) 23 e6 !
(23 gxb4 c6 00) 23 . . . A x e6 24 d4+ c;;, f 7
25 gx b4 (25 A h6 ged8) 25 . . . YWd7 26 YW b2 00 .
1 7 . . . "h5 1 8 gb5 e5 19 g5
31
'"
a b c
20 .txf7+ h8 21 .txe8 .txe8

After 21 . . . gxe8 22 gdS Ac6 23 gxd4 exd4
24 'ffc 4+ White wins.
22 gb2!
This is the right square for the rook, as from
here it protects the bishop, which is i m por
tant, as we wi ll see later. If 22 gdS h6 23 eof3
Ac6.
22 h6
I guess that Black missed my next move, but
h is task was difficult anyway:
A) 22 . . . 'ffg 4 23 h3 'ffd 7 24 ttlf3 ;
B) 22 . . . ttl e2+ 23 h1 ttlf4 24 A xf4 exf4
2S 'ffd S +- ;
C) 2 2 . . . Af6 2 3 ttl e6 ttl x e6 24 'ffd 5 ttl c7
2S 'ffd 6;
D) 22 . . . A h6 23 ttle6 ttl x e6 (23 . . . A xd2
24 xd2 ttl x e6 25 dS ttl c7 26 b7 )
24 d5 (24 A x h6 'ffx h6 25 d5 ttlc7
26 'ff b7 ) 24 . . . ttlc7 2S 'ff b7 ;
E) 22 . . . gd8 23 ttlf3 .
Black did have the i nteresting tactical
chance 22 . . . a6 !? at his d isposal . H owever,
some of these ideas were found by com
puter, and it wou ld have been very hard to
find them over the board :
A) 23 gx b6 A b5 24 b1 h6 25 ttlf7+ h7
26 ge1 'ffg 4 with a strong counterattack ;
B) 2 3 'ffc4 h 6 24 eof7+ (24 eoe6 Af7 2 S eo xg7
'ffx h2+ ! 26 <i!? x h2 A xc4 27 gc1 bS ! and
things are not so clear) 24 . . . A xf7 25 xf7
gf8 26 'ffc4 bS 27 'ffd 3
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
19 . . . xd4!?
After the game I didn't like Black's decision ,
as it leads to a clear advantage for Wh ite,
but now I think that it is the best practical
chance. If 19 . . . ttl d8 20 gd5 Ae6 21 d x e5
and White retains a clear advantage.
After 1 9 . . . gf8 White has two strong options :
A) There is no need for 20 eo xf7 gxf7 21 dxe5
gd8 ! 22 Axf7+ xf7 23 'ffd S+ Ae6 24 'ffx c6
gxd2 ;
B) 20 d xe5 ! ttl xe5 (20 . . . gad8 2 1 f4 )
21 gx eS A xeS 22 f4 Ag7 23 A b4 !
(23 ttl xf7 ! ? ; 23 xd7 gad8 00) and I don 't
see how Black can hold the position ;
C) 20 f4 ! ttl xd4 21 gxe5 ! A xeS 22 fxe5
ttle6 23 ttl xf7 ttlc5 (23 . . . Ac8 24 ttl h6+ g7
2S gxf8 ttlxf8 26 e6) 24 'ffd 6 and wins.
1 9 . . . ge7 is the move I was most concerned
about. However:
A) 20 'ffa3 Af8 21 dS (21 gx b6 axb6 22 'ffx a8
ttl xd4) 21 . . . ttld4 22 gx b6? gee8 23 gd6
A bS ! -+ ;
B) 20 dS ttld 8 ! (20 . . . ttld4 21 d6) 21 gbb1
A h6 (21 . . . h6 !?) 22 'ffg 3 'ffg4 23 'ffx g4 Axg4
24 f4 and Wh ite has sufficient compensation
for the pawn , but not more;
C) 20 dxeS eo xeS 21 gxeS !! AxeS 22 f4 Af6
23 A b4 (23 ttl xf7 Ae6 24 A x e6 gxe6 2S f5
gxfS 26 exf5 ge2 00) 23 . . . gae8 24 ttl xf7 and
Black is defenceless.
and Black can save the game by 27 . . . gf3 !!

28 Ae3 gh3 !! 29 gxh3 eof3+ 30 g2 (30 h1
32
Game 4
Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Dos Hermanas 1 996
'l'xh3) 30 . . . h4+ 31 chg1 f3+ with perpet

ual check;
a b c d
7
6
5
4
3
2
C) 23 ge1 ! . Th is cal m move is best, retain

ing an advantage after 23 . . . A b5 24 a3 gfB
25 e7.
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
a b c d
If
28 gxc7 was a simpler way to win, but I was

concerned about 28 . . . Ac6 and I decided to
eliminate all the tactics :
If
This unexpected tactical blow gives White a

decisive advantage. 23 f3 xf3+ 24 xf3
'l'xf3 25 g xf3 .
. . .
28 11bc2
23 e6!!
23
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
xe6 24 .d5 c7 25 .b7
A) 28 . . . x b2 29 x a8 xd2 30 g3
(30 x e8+ ch h7 31 h3 e1 + 32 ch h2 xf2
33 x e5 +-) 30 . . . ch h7 (30 . . . d 1 + 31 ch g2
a4 32 ge7) 31 b7 +- ;
B) 2 8 . . . Ac6 !? 2 9 xc6 gfB 3 0 h3 ! (this calm
move escaped my attention ; 30 Ae1 x b2
31 xg6 gg8 wou ld allow Black counterplay)
30 . . . gxf2 31 Ac3 +-.
28. . . l1d8 29 .xc7 h7
Black cannot save his knight at c7 .
Or 29 . . . A a4 30 xd8+ xd8 31 gc8 and

wins.
25 . . . e2
30 .tc3
Or 25 . . . g4 26 gc2 .
26 11e1
Wh ite is not going to g ive u p the e4 paw n .
2 6 Etc2 ? gd8 2 7 gxc7 A b5 ; 2 6 xc7 xe4.
30 xa7 gd7 31 a8 Af7 (31 . . . gd8 32 a1 )

is also winning, but see the previous com
ment.
30 . . .d7 31 .te1 g5 32 .xd7 l1xd7

33 l1c7
26 . . .c4 27 I1c1 .d4

(see next diagram)
Black resigns
***
33
My
Favourite Variation
Game 5
1 7 A a3 A xf3 (17 . . . gc8 1 8 a4) 1 8 gx f3 !

d7 (better was 1 8 . . . A h6 1 9 gxb7 ! A xc1
20 xc1 !? ) 19 A x a6 bx a6 20 c7 h3
2 1 ffg3 ! (21 A x e7 gfe8 allows Black coun
terplay) 2 1 . . . ffxg3+ 22 h x g3 +- and the e7
pawn fal ls (Gelfand - Kindermann , Dortmund
1 990) ;
The alternative is 1 3 . . . c6 14 d3 d6
15 A b4 d8:
A) 16 a3 tb c6 17 Ac5
B o r i s G e l fa n d - G at a Ka m s ky
Dos H e r m a n as 1 9 96
Th roug hout his career Gata Kamsky was at
the centre of attention in the chess world,
mainly due to his serious style of play, ex
treme tenacity and fine techniq ue, rather
than his scandalous father. As his career de
veloped , around 1994 his play became more
un iversal. He began playi ng strongly i n dy
namically un balanced positions as wel l . Un
like his father, Gata demonstrated on a num
ber of occasions his acceptance of the rules
of fai r play. Because of the wi l l of his father,
he quit chess at the peak of his career. How
ever, his extremely prag matic style (which
in some ways resembled that of a com
puter) found a n u m ber of fol lowers among
the under-20 generation .
1 7 . . . A xd4 ! (as d4-d5 was an u n pleasant

threat, Black changes the character of the
game by an exchange sacrifice) 18 tb xd4
tb xd4 19 Axe7 tb xe2+ 20 h1 e8 21 Axf8
xf8 22 e3 a5 ! 23 xe2 a4 and the strong
a-pawn gives Black sufficient cou nterplay
(Gelfand - Kamsky, I nterpolis, Ti lburg 1 990) ;
B) Later I i m proved with 1 6 d5 tb a6 1 7 A a3
b6 1 8 e3 tb c5 1 9 gfd1 (1 9 A xc5 bxc5
20 xc5 Ag4 21 gb7 d6!=) 19 . . . Ag4 20 e5
gc8 2 1 h3 A xf3 22 A xf3. I n this position ,
which is typical of the entire system , I prefer
Wh ite, as the extra pawn is not felt at al l ,
whereas Wh ite's domi nation in the centre is
the main factor (Gelfand - Kamsky, I nvest
ban ka, Belgrade 1 991 ).
1 3 Ag5 h6 14 Ae3 c6 1 5 d5
After 1 5 gx b7 gab8 1 6 gx b8 gx b8 1 7 h3
Wh ite regains the paw n , but he can only
count on a symbolic advantage:
1 7 . . . A xf3 1 8 A xf3 gd8 (18 . . . e5 19 d5 tb d4
20 ffa1 ! ; 18 . . . e6 19 e5 !? ;!; Sakaev) 1 9 d5
tb e5 (19 . . . e6 20 c1 !) 20 c1 ! (ai m i n g at
the c7 and c8 squares, rather than attack
ing the h6 pawn) 20 . . . h7 21 ffc7 gd7
22 c8 c4 23 e8 ! (White's idea is to play
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 d5
So, Kamsky chooses the Grunfeld for the
fifth time agai nst me. Our theoretical discus
sion enriched the theory of this open ing.
4 cxd5 xd5 5 e4 xc3 6 bxc3 Ag7

7 f3 c5 8 gb1 0-0 9 Ae2 cxd4 10 cxd4
Oa5+ 1 1 Ad2 Oxa2 12 0-0 Ag4
Before switching to the most testing line,
Kamsky preferred 1 2 .. . 'e6. It is natural that
Black shou ld try to return his queen to safety.
However, it allows Wh ite time to develop his
in itiative with 13 c2 .
N ow 1 3 . . . d6 was Stefan Kinderman n 's
choice:
A) 14 d5 b6 (14 . . . tba6 !?) 15 A b4 d8 16 gfd1
tb a6 1 7 A a3 tb c5 1 8 tb d4 A xd4 1 9 gxd4
d6 20 c3 f4 21 A b5 with advantage to
Wh ite (Gelfand - Ki ndermann, Gideon Barcza
Memorial, Debrecen 1 989) ;
B) 14 A b4 ! d8 1 5 d5 Ag4 1 6 gfc1 (16 Aa3
b6 1 7 gfc1 tb d7 1 8 c7 tb c5 !) 1 6 . . . tb a6 ?
(16 . . . A xf3 1 7 g xf3 !? and Wh ite's position
looks im pressive ; 17 Axf3 tba6 18 Aa3 b6 ;!;)
34
Game 5
Gelfand - Kamsky, Dos Hermanas 1996
his rook to the 8 th rank, fol lowed by mate)

23 . . . ..b7 (23 . . . c7 24 gc1 d8 2S xd8
..xd8 (2S . . . Ctl xf3+ 26 g xf3 ''xd8 27 gc7 e6
28 ..xf7 exdS 29 Ad4 +-) 26 Ae2 ! threaten
ing Axa7, f2-f4 and ..c7) 24 ..c1 , and now:
A) I was more afraid of 24 . . . d3!?
A 1) as 2S ..c8 allows a beautifu l save 2S . . . ..b1 + 26 h2 (26 Ac1 Ctl xf3+ 27 g xf3
..xc1 + ! 28 gxc1 xf3 29 ..c8 hS 00 in
tend ing . . . Ad4) 26 . . . Ctl xf3+ 27 g xf3 AeS+
28 f4 Axf4+ !! 29 A xf4 (29 g2 ? xe4+)
29 . . . ..h1 + ! ! 30 x h1 f1 + with perpetual
check;
A2) White can set a n ice trap with 2S h2 !
..b1 ! (2S . . . Ctl c4 ? 26 xf7 Ctl xe3 27 ..c6 ! !
-threaten i ng 28 xg6+ h8 29 gc8+ 27 . . . f1 + 28 g1 g b8 29 gxg6 d4
30 ..x h6+ !! 'i!? x h6 31 hS# ; 2S . . . bS is sim
ilar to 24 . . . bS) 26 ..x b1 x b1 27 xe7 .
It looks a s though Wh ite is simply a pawn
up, but 27 . . . b8 ! forces a d raw - 28 d6
Af8 29 Axa7 xd6 30 xd6 A xd6 31 g1
eLl xf3+ 32 g xf3 and Wh ite has no winning
chances at al l ;
8) 24 . . . bS, and now :
81 ) it was more challeng ing to keep the
queens on the board by 2S a8 !?, for exam
ple 2S . . . Ctl xf3+ (2S . . . aS 26 Ae2 ! ; 2S . . . gd7
26 Ag4 xg4 27 h xg4 ) 26 g xf3 as 27 ..cS
(27 d8 27 . . . d7) 27 . . . b1 + (27 . . . d7 28
..xaS) 28 g2, and if 28 . . . .. b3 29 xaS
..xe3 30 fxe3 b2+ 31 'i!? f1 b1 + 32 e1 +- ;
82) 2S x bS ..x bS 26 Axa7 (26 ..c7 ? ..b1 +
27 'i!? h2?? xf3+ 28 g xf3 AeS+, or 26 Ae2
.. b4 27 f3 (27 ..c7 ..xe4 28 ..xa7 Af6)

27 . . . gS ! 28 A xa7 (28 ..c7 g6 29 d6 exd6
30 ..xf7 as) 28 . . . g6 00 with fu ll control of the
dark squares) 26 A x a7 fS ! and Wh ite failed
to prove that h i s advantage was sufficient
for a win (Gelfand - Kamsky, Dos Hermanas
1 995).
Later Judit Polgar demonstrated the stronger
plan 17 . . . Ad7 18 dS Ctl eS ! 19 Af4 (after
1 9 Ctl xeS A xeS 20 A x h6 as !? Black has fu l l
com pensation for t h e pawn) 1 9 . . . b2 ! .
Judit finds the best plan - to keep the kn ight
on eS as long as possible. Otherwise Wh ite's
strong centre will tel l . If 1 9 . . . A a4 20 c1
xe2 21 xeS , or 19 . . . xf3+ 20 Axf3 ..b2
21 eS A bS 22 ..e1 ..xf2 23 d6 exd6 24 exd6
Ad7 (24 . . . A c3 2S d7 A xd7 26 xd7 A x e1
27 e8+ h7 28 xe1 .. b2 29 h4 )
2S ..e7 .
20 c1 gS!
The only move. If 20 . . . xf3+ 21 A xf3
..c8 22 x b2 A x b2 23 .. b1 , or 20 . . . .. b4
21 c7 xe2 (21 . . . ..xe4 22 d8+ h7
23 A xeS A xeS 24 Ad3) 22 A xeS (22 Ctl xeS
xe4) 22 . . . A xeS 23 Ctl x eS A bS 24 ..c1
..xe4 (24 . . . d2 2S Ctlf3 +-) 2S d8+ g7
26 ..c8 +- .
21 A xeS (21 Ag3 ..c8 22 x b2 Ctl xf3+
23 A xf3 A x b2 ; 21 xeS A xeS 22 x b2
..x b2 23 A x eS gxe2 24 f3 fS =) 21 . . . A xeS
22 Ctl xeS xeS = (Gelfand - J . Polgar, Nov
gorod 1 996) .
1 5 . . . e5
Ivanchu k played this move against me
(Manila I nterzonal 1 990, p. 36) i n practically
the first game where 12 . . . Ag4 occurred and
he drew easily. Strangely enough , it was
completely forced out for a number of years
by 1 S . . . aS , which was used by Ivanchuk
agai nst me a few months later i n Ti lburg
1 990(p. 26).
16 Iixb7 e6 17 d6 Iifd8 18 Iie1 j,xf3
18 . . . 'a3 19 xeS Axe2 (1 9 . . . ..xd6 20 xg4
''xd1 21 ..xd1 +-) 20 xe2 AxeS 21 f3 .
19 gxf3 "a3
(see next diagram)
35
The only move, as after 22 . . . gd7 23 gb3 the

knight is trapped in the very middle of the
board !
23 e5 d4
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
-------
1 9 . . .'Va 5 !? is an idea of M iguel i l iescas, by

which he tried to repair the entire 1 5 . . . tb e5
line (20 gf1 Af8 21 d7 a2). It was voted
the best novelty of In forma tor No.68 . It is
quite a u n ique case when two novelties i n
a narrow line received such a n award with in
one year! However, later Alexander Khal if
man won an impressive game against Peter
Leko in Linares 2000, so for the moment the
ball is back in Black's court.
-------
24 Ilcc7 !!
This strong intermediate move is the point of
my novelty. 24 exd6? tb xe2+ 25 f1 tb xc1
26 A xc1 Af6, or 24 Af1 gc6 ! 25 gd1 tbf5
26 gdd7 gf8 =.
24 ... xe2+ 25 1 Ildd8 26 Ilxf7 !
20 14!
26 xe2 gdb8 = and Black exchanges one

pair of rooks.
20 d7 e7 21 A b5 h4 ! 22 Af1 (22 . . . e7 =)
%-% (Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Manila I nterzonal
1 990). A few days later I was discussing this
game in a swimming pool with Mikhai l Gure
vich . He told me something l i ke 'You were
on the right track, you just needed a bit more
imag i nation ' . Th is h i nt was enough for me
to find out what he meant. I was waiting all
these years for an opportun ity to demon
strate my improvement.
26 . . . 18
I n 1 990 I considered 26 . . . A h8 27 xe2 a5
28 gh7 gdb8 29 gx b8+ gx b8 30 ge7 ga8
31 gxe6 f7 32 gc6 a4 33 Ad4 to be the
main line: 33 . . . a3 34 f3 a2 35 A a1 , and if
35 . . . ga4? 36 e6+ .
27 xe2 Ildb8
After the dangerous 27 . . . a5 28 gf6 a4 Wh ite
gets there in time: 29 gxg6+ h8 30 gxe6
a3 31 g b1 (31 A a7 !?) 31 . . . a2 32 ga1 gdb8
33 gb6, or 29 gxe6 g5 (29 . . . a3 30 gxg6+
h8 31 gg1 (31 A a7 a2 32 ga6 Bologan)
31 . . . a2 32 ga1 ) 30 fxg5 a3 31 g x h6 a2
32 Ag5 ! (32 gg6+ h8 33 Ag5 a1 34 Af6+
Ag7) 32 . . . a1 33 h7+ h8 34 Af6+ Ag7
35 Axg7+ x h7 36 gh6+ g8 37 gh8#.
20 . . . Ilxd6 21 "Oc1 !! N
This is the key move of Wh ite's plan . This
idea was voted the best open i ng novelty
of In forma tor No.66 ! Black managed to
survive after 21 c2 gc6 22 d2 gd6
23 g b3 x b3 24 xd6 tb c4 25 c6 tb x e3
26 xa8+ h7 = (Solozhen kin - Oan i l i u k,
Russian Championship, Elista 1 995) .
28 Ilxb8 Ilxb8
21 . . . "Oxc1 22 Ilxc1 c6
(see next diagram)
36
Game 5
b c d
Gelfand - Kamsky, Dos Hermanas 1 996
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a
b c d
{r
33
Black has exchanged one pair of rooks, so

Wh ite's only chance is to obtain a passed
pawn on the kingside, which should be more
dangerous than the a-pawn. 29 ,,xa7 does
not promise any winning chances.
29 . . . ge8
After 29 . . . a5 30 ,,xg6+ f7 31 ''f6+ Wh ite
wins.
30 gxg6+ h7 31 gf6 a5 32 f5!?

Fol lowing the idea described in the note to
White's 29 th move. Another good try was
32 f3 a4 33 ''f7+ (33 f5 exf5 34 f4 Ag7)
33 . . . g6 34 ,,a7 a3 35 e4 '' b8 36 ,,a6,
and now the only way to hold the game is
36 . . . i> h5! (36 . . . i> f7 37 f5 ''b4+ 38 f3 exf5
39 ''f6+ e8 40 ''xf8+ xf8 41 Ac5+, or
36 . . . ,,b4+ 37 f3 f5 38 ,,a8 Ae7 39 ,,a7)
37 f5 (37 ,,xe6 37 . . . ''b4+ 38 f3 ,,a4 and
Wh ite has to give up his bishop for the a
pawn.) 37 . . . ''b4+ 38 f3 exf5 39 ,,xa3 ,,e4
and Black should not lose.
32 ''f7+ g6 33 ,,a7 A b4 34 A b6 (34 f3
gc8) 34 . . . ,,b8 35 A xa5 A xa5 36 ,,xa5 f5
leads to an easy draw, as Wh ite cannot make
any progress.
(see next diagram)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
29 1U6!
32. . . exf5 33 f4
b c d
. . .
l1a8?
Fol lowing the standard ru le, which recom

mends placing t h e rook behind a passed
pawn in rook endings. However, here there
are also bishops on the board and this turns
out to be a decisive mistake.
The pawn end ing is lost after 33 . . . Ae7
34 ,,e6 g7 35 Ac5 f7 36 ''xe7+ ,,xe7
37 A xe7 xe7 38 d3 d7 39 c4.
33 . . . a4 34 ''xf5 a3 (for 34 . . . ,,a8 - see the
game) 35 ''f7+ g6 is also insufficient :
A) 36 ,,a7 f5 37 f3 ,,c8 38 Ad2 (38 ,,a6
Ae7) 38 . . . ,,b8 ! (38 . . . Ac5 ? 39 ,,a6 Ae7
40 A b4 +-) ;
B) 36 e6 ! a2 37 f5+ h5 38 Ad4 and Wh ite is
winning, for example 38 . . . g4 39 d3 f4
40 ''xf8 ! ''xf8 41 e7 ''b8 42 f6.
However, Kamsky missed an excel lent op
portunity to beg i n pursuing the opponen
t's rook: 33 . . . g7 ! 34 ''xf5 (as indicated by
Viorel Bologan , after 34 ,,a6 A b4 35 A b6
,,c8 36 A x a5 ,,c2+ 37 d3 ,,a2 38 ,,a7+
g8 39 A b6 ,,xa7 40 A x a7 f7 41 Ae3
i> e6 White has hardly any winning chances)
34 . . . Ae7 ! (th reatening to trap the rook by
. . . g7-g6 ; if 34 . . . a4 35 ''f6 ,,a8 36 Ad4
a3 37 e6) 35 ''h5 (it takes too much time
to bring the rook back i nto play; after 35
e6 Af6 36 ,,xa5 ,,xe6 Black has excellent
chances of saving the game, while if 35 i> f3
a4 36 Ad4 g6 37 g4 ''d8) 35 . . . g6
37
47 f7 ga7+ 48 g8 ga8+ =) 38 . . . a2 39 Aa1

gS 40 h4+ x h4 41 f6 gS 42 e7 A xe7
43 gxe7.
36 gh3 a4 37 f3 g b8 ! 38 e4 (38 g4
gb4) 38 . . . gb4+ 39 dS a3 40 e6 a2 41 fS+
h7 42 gx h6+ g8 43 gg6+ h7 44 f7
(44 gh6+ g8 =)
36 11a7 ! +- 11xa7 37 Axa7 Aa3

Or 37 . . . a3 38 fS a2 39 Ad4 AcS 40 A a1 .
38 Ad4 Ac1 39 f5
a
b c d
8
7
6
5
Analysis diagram after 44 i?f7
34
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
3
2
44 . . . Ag S ! ! , forcing 4S ga6 A xe3 46 gxa2

gb7+ with a draw.
...
11xf5 a4 35 11f7+ c;!?g8?!
The bishop end ing is easily won . How

ever, Black's position is hopeless anyway:
35 . . . g6 36 e6 a3 37 fS+ hS 38 Ad4 !
(38 e7 A x e7 39 gxe7 a2 40 Ad4 a1
41 A xa1 gxa1 42 gg7 ga2+ 43 e3 ga3+
44 e4 ga4+ 4S d5 gaS+ 46 e6 ga6+
39
. . .
00
Or 39 . . . a3 40 d3.
40 c;!?d3 a3 41 c;!?c2 Af4 42 h3 h5 43 c;!?b3

Ac1 44 Ac5 Ab2 45 e6+ ct>f6 46 Axa3
Ae5 Black resigns
***
G am e 6
Peter Leko began partici pating in top events

at a very early age. However, already then he
was wonderfu l ly prepared theoretically and
he possessed an excellent technique, which
he kept on im proving. His knowledge of the
GrOnfeld Defence was already very deep. He
brought back i nto practice the rare variation
1 2 . . . aS, with which he won against Joel Lau
tier i n Ti lburg and against Anatoly Vaisser
in Cap d 'Agde the day before this game. I
decided to take up the challenge.
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Peter Leko
E u ropean C h am p i o n s h i p (rap i d ) ,
Cap d ' Ag d e 1 9 96
Gr{jnfeld Defence [085]
The southern French resort of Cap d 'Agde
has been stag ing top-level rapid chess
events since 1 994. I have played there five
times. Every four years (1 994, 1 998 and 2002)
I faced Anatoly Karpov in the final and i n
1 994 and 2002 I managed t o w i n the event.
It was extremely pleasant to play in such
a friendly atmosphere, when hundreds of
spectators-come to support their heroes. Al
though someti mes they behaved more l i ke
soccer fans than chess fans.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 d5 4 cxd5 xd5
5 e4 xc3 6 bxc3 Ag7 7 f3 c5 8 Hb1
0-0 9 Ae2 cxd4 10 cxd4 'Oa5+ 1 1 Ad2
'Oxa2 1 2 0-0 a5 1 3 Ag5 a4
38
Game 6
Gelfand - Leko, European Championship (rapid), Cap d 'Agde 1996
b5 (24 . . . a3 25 Axa3 ; 24 . . . A b5 25 f!d1 f!ae8

26 h4 ) 25 f7+ f!xf7 26 't!Vxf7 tDf3+ 27 gxf3
A x b2 28 't!V b7 ! f!e8 (28 . . . f!g8 29 f!x a4)
29 f!e1 a3 30 't!Vf7 f!a8 31 f!xe2 a2 32 f!e7
a1 't!V + 33 g2 +- ;
8
7
6
5
6
5
4
3
2
--------
tt:J
B) 18 . . . 't!Vf4
This pawn advance is a popular plan i n the

8 ..b1 variation . The idea beh ind it is that
this pawn is qu ite dangerous and White has
to assign some of his pieces to combat
it. The drawback is that it takes time and
gives Wh ite some valuable temp i . A simi lar
plan was tried in Gelfand -Shirov (game 7 on
page 41 ).
1 9 Ac4 !! (the point of White's idea - his

queen is u ntouchable ; 1 9 A xg4 f!xe1 +
20 't!Vxe1 c6 ! is fi ne for Black). Now Black
has :
14 1le1 !
I fou nd this idea with Alexander Cherni n i n
his house i n Budapest during one cold win
ter even ing i n December 1 992 . Actual ly, I
wanted to use the prepared novelty agai nst
Peter in Vienna a few months earl ier, but just
before the game I realised that it req u i red
some polish i n g , and so I played something
else. I n the meantime I spent some hours
on this position together with my friend Yuri
Shulman and I was ready to play it in Tilburg ,
but there, u nfortunately, I had t h e black
pieces against Peter.
B 1 ) 1 9 . . . Ae5 !? (this move came to m y mind

just hours before the game i n Vienna; how
ever, it doesn 't solve Black's problems)
20 A xf7+ (20 f3 c6 + ; 20 't!Vxg4!? 't!Vxg4
2 1 A xf7+ g7 22 A x e8 't!Vxg5 (22 . . . Af6 !?)
23 f!xe5) 20 . . . g7 (20 . . . h8 21 dxe5 Axd1
22 e6 ! 't!Vf6 23 f!axd1 +-)
14 . . . "e6?!
We considered 14 . . . Ag4 to be the main line
and a few years later Shulman was able to
use the fruits of our analysis. I find it q u ite
impressive, so I will include it here. 15 Axe7
..e8 16 f!a1 't!Ve6 1 7 A a3 't!Vxe4 1 8 g5 and
now :
A) 18 . . . 't!Vx e2 1 9 f!xe2 A x e2 20 't!Vc2 ! c6
(20 . . . h6 21 xf7 xf7 22 f!e1 ) 21 't!Va2
tD xd4 22 't!Vxf7+ h8 23 A b2 f!f8 24 't!Va2 !?
Analysis diagram after 20 . . . 'i!lg7
2 1 d xe5 !! A x d1 (21 . . . 't!Vxg5 22 't!Vd5)

22 f!axd1 (22 A x e8 A b3 23 e4 c6
24 Axc6 bxc6 25 e6 Axe6 26 A b2+ g8 oo)
(see next analysis diagram)
39
1 5 d5
15 tWc2 tWc6 16 tWa2 , a typical idea in the
8 gb1 variation , was also very tempting.
1 5 . . .d6
15 . . . xe4?! 16 A b5 f5 17 Axe7 a3 18 Axf8
Axf8 1 9 Ac4 f6 20 d6 .
b
7
6
5
Analysis diagram after 21 dxe5!! fi.xd1 22 lfa xd1
White has on ly two pieces for the queen , but

as analysis shows, Black is helpless :
B11 ) 22 . . . c6 23 gd7 xg5 24 Axe8+ - see
22 . . . xg5 ;
3
2
B 1 2) 22 . . . gxe5 23 e6+ (23 A b2 tWxg5

24 gxe5 tWxe5 25 A x e5+ xf7 26 gd8 a3
27 gxb8 gx b8 28 Axb8 e6 29 f4 b5 30 f2
b4 31 e3) 23 . . . gxe6 24 Axe6 c7 25 A b2+
h6 26 gd3 ga5 27 g4 gc5 28 Ad4 tWa5
29 gh3+ gh5 30 ge5 ;
1 6 e5!?
This type of pawn sacrifice also often occurs
i n this l i ne.
B 1 3) 22 . . . tWxg5 23 A x e8 c6 24 gd7+
(24 Axc6 bxc6 25 gd7+ g8 26 e6) 24 . . . h8
25 Af7 +- ;
16 . . . .txe5 17 xe5 .xe5 18 .d2

a
B2) 1 9 . . . c6 2 0 xf7 ! +-
8
7
6
5
3
2
20 . . . gxe1 + (if 20 . . . A xd1 21 d8+ ge6

22 gxe6 h8 23 ge8+ Af8 24 f7+ g7
25 A xf8+ f6 26 ge6+ f5 27 A h6 tWxd4
28 d6+ g4 29 ge4+ +-) 21 tWxe1 A xd4
22 Ac1 ! tWf6 (22 . . . A xf2+ 23 tWxf2 tWx c4
24 h6+ g7 25 A b2+ xh6 26 h4+ A h5
27 tWxc4 +-) 23 h6+ h8 24 xg4 Axf2+
25 xf2 xa1 26 b2+ 1-0 (Shulman -Oral ,
Ostrava Cup 1 998).
6
5
4
3
2
For the two sacrificed pawns White has the

two bishops (whereas Black lacks his im
portant dark-sq uare one) and a big lead i n
development. Also, the e7 pawn i s weak and
it is difficult to protect it.
18 . . .d6 19 .tc4 De8 20 .114 .d8

21 .c3 d7 22 .1b5 e5 23 d x e6 Dxe6
24 Ac4 .16 25 .d2
40
Game 7
Gelfand - Shirov, Akiba Rubinstei n Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1998
ttJ
36 YWc4 would have maintained White's ad

vantage.
White keeps on playing for an attack. If

25 YWxf6 gxe1 + 26 gxe1 tD xf6.
25 . . . f8
36 . . . c5 37 g4?! .td7 38 .d5
25 . . . gxe1 + 26 gxe1 tD f8 27 ge8 (27 Ae5

YW h4) 27 . . . b5 28 Ae5 YWx e5 29 gxe5 b xc4
30 ge8 A b7 31 gxa8 A xa8 .
26 .txe6 xe6 2 7 .te5

a
...
8
7
6
5
6
5
4
3
2
3
2
38 . . b6?
.
Black misses his chance: 38 . . . gc6 ! with

counterplay (39 gxc5 ? Ae6) .
Black has two pawns for the exchange, but

his king is weak.
39 !lxc5 bxc5 40 .xd7 Be6 41 .xa4

h7 42 .d7 !le7 43 .d2 .c8 44 .f4
.e6 45 .tc3 .xe1 + 46 .txe1 !lxe1 +
47 g2 !le7 48 .d6 Be6 49 .xc5 g8
50 f4 g7 51 3 g8 52 .c8+ g7
53 .c3+ g8 54 f5 g xf5 55 g xf5 !lb6
56 g4 Bd6 57 h5 h7 58 .c7 B16
59 .e5 !lc6 60 16 Bc4 61 .e3 Black
resigns
27 d8 28 .c3
28 YWe3 !?
. . .
28 . . . h6 29 Bbd1 .f8 30 .td6 .g7

31 .te5 .f8 32 .f3
32 gd6 !?
32 . . . !la6 33 !lc1 g5 34 .f4 .tf5 35 h4

e6 36 .f3
***
Game 7
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Al exey S h i roy
Aki b a R u b i n ste i n M e m o r i a l To u rn a m e n t ,
P o l a n i c a Zd roj 1 9 98
Griinfeld Defence [085J
I am proud that this won the prize for the
best game i n Informator Volume 73 , where
seven out of the nine judges gave it maxi
mum pOints.
So, I had a chance to try the 8 gb1 variation

again . Actually, before the game I had some
doubts about whether I should go in for it,
as it was obvious to me that Alexey would
have analysed this variation i n depth be
fore his match with Vladimir Kramnik, which
he had won a few months earlier. (However,
Vladimir tried some different set-ups in their
encounter).
8 . . . 0-0 9 .te2 cxd4 10 cxd4 .a5+

11 .td2 .xa2 1 2 0-0 .tg4 1 3 .tg5 h6
1 d4 16 2 f3 g6 3 c4 .tg7 4 c3 d5
5 cxd5 xd5 6 e4 xc3 7 bxc3 c5 8 !lb1
(see next diagram)
41
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
-------
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
--------
14 Ah4
For some reason , this idea of Alexander
Chernin had never been popular. It was only
when , a few months before this game, Vishy
Anand joined the '8 b1 Club' , that this move
received a new boost. The idea is to keep
an eye on the e7 square, and if Black drives
away the bishop by . . . g6-g5, his kingside is
seriously weakened .
14 . . . a5
The alternatives are:
A) 14 . . . d8 1 5 d5 g5 1 6 Ag3 b6 ?! 1 7 e1
Axf3 18 A xf3 d7 19 e5 (Anand - I l lescas,
Madrid Magistral 1 998) ;
B) 14 . . . g5 ! 15 Ag3 c6 1 6 d5 ad8 17 x b7
f5 ! (17 . . . e6 1 8 Ac7 Chern i n -J . Horvath ,
H u ngarian Championshi p 1 992) 1 8 e1
(18 Ac7 fxe4 !) 18 . . . A xf3 1 9 A xf3 d4
20 exf5 xf3+ 21 gxf3 xd5 22 xa7 xf5 =
(analysis by Chernin).
1 5 llxb7 g5 1 6 Ag3 a4 17 h4 a3
A few months later Black managed to revive
this line, than ks to the efforts of Ivan Sokolov
- 1 7 . . . c6 ! N (learn ing a lesson from the
Gelfand - S h i rov game, Black immediately
bri ngs his knight i nto play) 18 h x g 5 h xg5
1 9 d5 A xf3 20 A xf3 d4 21 d6 e5 22 d7
e6 23 Ag4 c6 24 b1 xe4 25 e1 d5
26 Af5 ! ad8 (Shi pov - I . Sokolov, Hastings
1 998) .
Both the players defi n itely knew they were

following the Lautier- Sokolov game (see be
low) which had taken place a few months
earl ier, but they had different opinions about
it. I believed that it was extremely dangerous
for Black to rely only on his a-pawn , whereas
Alexey thought that this was a strong trump
and it wou ld hel p Black to hold the position .
19 gc7 ! N
No, this was not an elaborate home prepa
ration, as many people suggested later, but
an over-the-board decision . This is a m u lti
purpose move: Wh ite wants to win a pawn
by c2 and xg5 or place his bishop on the
i m portant c4 square. I spent more than an
hour tryi ng to make this idea work. 19 b5
also looked very tempting, but Black man
aged to survive : 19 . . . c6 20 xg5 A xf3
21 g xf3 b2 22 A c4 fd8 23 f4 xd4
24 A xf7+ c;;, x f7 25 h5+ c;;, g 8 26 e5 b3
27 g6 f7 28 x c6 ad8 29 a6 d3
30 f5 f3 31 a1 xf5 32 xf5 xf5 33 xa3
e6 34 e7 f8 35 d6 g6 36 d1 f5
37 b8+ c;;, h7 38 d4 xe5 39 h4+ h5
40 xh5+ %-% (Lautier- I . Sokolov, Sige
man & Co. , Malmo 1 998) .
19 a6
Black goes for the most forcing l i ne,
which , however, doesn 't solve his problems.
19 . . . Axf3 20 A xf3 doesn 't give him any ad
d itional opportun ities, but I was more con
cerned about two other options :
A) 1 9 . . . d7, with several possibilities :
.
18 hxg5 hxg5
42
Game
Gelfand - Shirov, Aki ba Rubi nstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj

i
A 1 ) 20 Ac4 'f b2 2 1 !!xd7 Axd7 22 ttl xg5 is

too aggressive - 22 . . . 'f b6 ! 23 e5 (23 'f h5
h6 24 Axf7+ h8) 23 . . . 'fg6;
A2) 20 !!e1 'f b2 2 1 !!c2 'f b6;

A3) 20 !!c2 ?! is too straightforward 2 0 . . . 'f b3 2 1 ttl xg5 A xe2 (21 . . . a2 !?) , and
now :
A31 ) 22 'fxe2 ? ! a2 (22 . . . A xd4 23 e5 'fxg3
24 'fh5 'fd3 25 !!d2 'fg6 ) 23 !! b2 'fa3
24 !!a1 A xd4 25 !! b x a2 'f xg3 26 !!xa8
xg5 -+;
B22) 20 . . . 'f b3 2 1 xg5 a2 22 !!xa2 'fx d1

23 !!xd1 !!xa2 2 4 A x g4 th reatening e6.
During the game I thought that this position
was critical , and I sti ll bel ieve it! A simi lar
position could also occu r i n the 19 . . . d7
line. Wh ite is defi n itely better. He has two
plans : to create a passed d - pawn or try to
harass the black ki ng. I n my opi nion, Black
should try to exchange rooks , which would
minimise Wh ite's advantage.
A4) 20 e5 ! (sh utting both the Ag7 and ttl d7

out of the game with ju st one move) , and
now :
A42) 2 0 . . . 'f b2 2 1 !!c2 'f b3 (21 . . . 'f b6

22 ttlxg5 Af5 23 !!a2 ) 22 xg5 a2
(22 . . . Axe2 23 'fx e2 a2 24 !!a1 'f b1 +
25 !!c1 , and if 25 . . . !!fb8 26 e6 'fxc1 +
27 !!xc1 !!b1 28 exf7+ f8 29 e6+ xf7
30 ttJg5+ +-) 23 !!xa2 (23 !!c1 'fxd1 24 Axd1
Axd1 (24 . . . a1 'f 25 !!xa1 !!xa1 26 A xg4
!!xf1 + 27 xf1 b6 ) 25 !!cxd1 (25 !!fxd1
A h6 26 Af4 !!a4 27 Ae3 !!fa8 28 !!a1
ttJ b6 (0) 25 . . . b6 (0) 23 . . . 'fxd1 24 !!xd1
gxa2 25 Axg4 b6 ;
B) 19 . . . 'fb2 , with two possi bilities :
B 1 ) 20 Ac4 (th i s deserves consideration ,
but I prefer 20 !!c2) 20 . . . a2 (20 . . . e6 21 Ad6
gd8 !? (21 . . . a2 22 'fa1 'f b6 23 A xf8 'fxc7
24 A xg7 'fxc4 25 e5) 22 e5 d7) 2 1 'fa1
xa1 22 !!xa1 Axf3 23 gxf3 ttJa6 (23 . . . Axd4
24 gxa2 gxa2 25 Axa2 e5 26 Ac4 ) 24 !!xe7
tb b4 25 !!d7 ;
20 gxe7
20 A xa6?! is pointless : 20 . . . !!xa6 (20 . . .
Axf3) 2 1 'fd3 A xf3.
20 A c4 'f b2 2 1 !!xe7 wou ld have forced
matters, but in any case I don't see how
Black cou ld avoid this position.
20
. . .
b2
20 . . . Af6 2 1 !!b7.
21 J.c4 .b4
Black fol lows the main line, as otherwise
he gets mated after 21 . . . Af6 22 !!xf7 !!xf7
23 e5 ! (23 A xf7+ xf7 24 xg5+ A xg5
25 'fxg4 +-) 23 . . . Ae7 (23 . . . 'f b7 24 exf6
A xf3 25 'fd2 Ae4 26 !!e1 ) 24 A xf7+ xf7
25 ttJ xg5+, or 21 . . . a2 22 !!xf7 !!xf7 23 Axf7+
h8 (23 . . . xf7 24 xg5+ +-) 24 'fa1 or
24 Ad5.
22 J.xf7+
After 22 !!xf7 ?! 'fx c4 23 !!xg7+ x g7
24 'fd2 A xf3 25 'fxg5+ h7 26 gx f3 'f f7
Wh ite could hardly hope even for a draw.
22
B2) 20 !!c2 , and now :

B21 ) 20 . . . 'f b6 21 xg5 'fxd4 (21 . . . A xe2
22 'fxe2 d7 23 e5 !!a4 24 e6 ; 21 . . . a2
tt)
!It!} fti'J!"'_'S"'
22 !!xa2 !!xa2 23 A xg4 A xd4 (23 . . . 'fxd4

- cf. 2 1 . . . 'fxd4) 24 Ae6 ! fxe6 25 'f h5
!!fxf2 26 'fg6+) 2 1 . . . 'fxd4 22 'fxd4 A xd4
23 A xg4 a2 24 !!xa2 !!xa2 25 e6 c6
26 ttJ xfB xfB . Perhaps this was one of the
best options, as it is very difficult for Wh ite to
win this ending (although Black cou ld suffer
for about 1 00 moves !) ;
A32) 22 !!xe2 'fxd1 23 !!xd1 !!a4 (23 . . . a2

24 !!a1 Axd4 (24 . . . !!a5 25 e5 !!fa8 26 !!b2 )
25 !!axa2) 24 ttlf3 ttl b6 with fu l l compensa
tion ;
A41 ) 20 . . . !!fc8 2 1 Ac4 'fxc4 (2 1 . . . 'f b2

22 Axf7+ h8 23 !!xc8+ !!xc8 24 'fd3 )
22 !!xc4 !!xc4 23 'f b3 !!aa4 24 ttl xg5 ;
1 998
>l'_.
. . .
h8
N ot 22 . . . !!xf7 23 !!xf7 A xd4 24 Ae5 A x e5

25 'fd5 +- . Now it looks as though White's
43
rook is trapped and that his attack was in

correct, but I had prepared a surprise for my
opponent.
A21 ) 28 gxg5+ h7 29 gxd1 a2 30 h2

(30 gd3 a1 r!i + 31 h2 r!ix e5+ 32 d x e5
xe5+) 30 . . . e4 31 g3 b1 32 gh5+ g8
33 gdh1 f7 00 ;
A22) 2 8 gd7+ r!ix e5 2 9 d x e5 . I was really
amazed when my opponent showed me this
line in the post-mortem . During the game
Alexey was not sure about Black's chances
here, but, as analysis shows, a d raw is the
most likely result. 29 . . . Ac2 (29 . . . Ag4 30 gd4
A xf5 31 ga4 /f;) c7 32 gxa8+ /f;) x a8 33 ga1
/f;) c7 34 gxa3 /f;) e6 t) 30 g4 /f;) c5 31 gc7 a2
32 g2 a1 r!i 33 gxa1 gxa1 34 gxc5 Ae4+
35 f3 ga2+ 36 g1 A xf3 ;
8
\---1---'
6
5
4
3
2
c
A1 ) 27 gb7+ gxe5 28 gx b5 Ae2 (28 . . . gxd5

29 gxd5 00) 29 dxe5 Ax b5 = ;
A2) 27 exf5 r!ixd5, and now :
23 Eld7!!
This is the main move of the game, and I am
proud to have foreseen it qu ite a long way in
advance. For his part, Shirov cal led 23 gd7
a 'p rosaic' move (I have to agree with h i m !)
and he was afraid of an even more i mag i
native idea : 23 Ae6 ! A xf3 (after 23 . . . r!ix e7
24 A xg4 the a-pawn sti l l has a long way to
go and White already has a material advan
tage) 24 gxg7 Axd1 25 Ae5 !!
B) 26 d 5 ! (I believe t h i s is stronger than

26 A d5) 26 . . . r!i b2 ! (fi nally reaching the
bishop) 27 gg8+ h7 28 A x b2 gxg8
(28 . . . axb2 29 gxf8 b1 (29 . . . gxf8 30 gxd1 )
30 gxa8) 29 Axa3 ! Ac2 30 Af5+ (no, we are
not going to exchange our nice bishop for a
passive rook!) 30 . . . h6 31 gc1 A a4 32 e5
and Wh ite is better, but it is hard to claim
anything more, seei ng as he is a rook down !
23
. . .
Axd7
After fol lowing the difficult route a1 -b1 -b7c7-e7-d7, the rook has nowhere to go, but
24 Ad6 is threatened , and so Black has no
choice but to take it.
If 23 . . . Af6 24 Ad5 (24 Ad6 r!i b5 ; 24 Ae6 !)
24 . . . A xd7 25 /f;) xg5, 23 . . . r!i b5 24 gd5,
or 23 . . . a2 24 A x a2 (24 Ad6) 24 . . . gxf3
(24 . . . Axd7 25 /f;)xg5) 25 gxf3 Axd7 26 g2
Axd4 27 gh1 + g7 28 Ae5+.
The point of Alexey's idea. Now mate in two

is threatened , and 25 . . . r!i b5 is the only de
fence :
24 xg5 .b6 25 Ae6!

This is the point. Black has to g ive u p h i s
qu een , t o prevent a decisive check on the
h -fi le.
A) 26 Ad5 (the bishop tries to protect its

more i m portant col league) 26 . . . gf5 ! ! (26 . . .
r!ixd5 27 exd5 A a4 (27 . . . A e2 28 ga1 +-)
28 ga1 gf5 29 gxg5+ gxe5 30 d x e5) . N ow
Wh ite has several possibilities, but it would
appear that he does not have any advantage:
25 xe6
25 . . . Ae8 26 r!ig4 A xd4 (26 . . . gf6 27 Ae5 ,
and if 27 . . . gxe6 28 /f;)f7+) 27 r!i h4+ g7
28 r!i h7+ f6 29 e5+ xg5 (29 . . . A x e5
. . .
44
Game 7
30 'fff 5+ e7 31 'ffx e5 +-) 30 'ffg7+ Ag6

31 A h4+ f4 32 'ffx g6 +-.
26 xe6 Axe6
a
ttJ
Gelfand - Shirov, Akiba Rubinstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1998
28 0h5+
28 d5 A d7 29 'ffd 4 Ifi1c7 30 ga1 Ifi1 b5
31 A x g7+ gxg7 32 'ffe 3 was worth considering.
28. . . cc!1g8 29 Og6 Ad7
Bad is 29 . . . Ac4 30 'ffc 6, or 29 . . . A b3
30 A xg7 gxg7 31 'ff b 6.
30 Axg7
5
4
3
2
L...-_______...._
.:::...
----I
'lJ
The hard -to-find move 30 'ffg 3, suggested

by the computer, was more practical (but
perhaps not stronger) . Very often you see
the opposite picture - the computer's sug
gestion is stronger, but m uch less practical .
30 . . . a2 31 ga1 , or 30 . . . lfi1 b4 31 A x g7 gxg7
32 'ff b 3+ h8 33 'ffx b4 A h3 34 ga1 .
27 Ae5!?
30 . . . gxg7 31 0d6
27 Ad6 was equally strong, but I instinctively

wanted to deprive the a3 pawn of its poten
tially main supporter. After 27 Ad6 Black has
two options :
8 .1.
7
A) 27 . . J fd8 28 Ae5 Ac4 (28 . . . ga7 29 'ffh 5+

g8 30 ga1 a2 31 d 5 ; 28 . . . gd7 29 'ff h 5+
g8 30 'ffg 6 A b3 31 A xg7 gxg7 32 'ff b6 +-)
29 h5+ g8 30 'ffg 6 ga7 31 ga1 a2 32 'ffc6
Af7 33 Axg7 xg7 34 d5 Ifi1c7 ;
5
4
2
B) 27 . . . a2 2 8 A xf8 gxf8 (28 . . . A xf8 2 9 d5

Ag7 30 'ff h 5+ g8 31 d x e6 +-) 29 'ff h 5+
g8 30 'ffa 5 Ac4 31 'ffa4 gc8 32 gc1 and
wins.
27 . . . gf7
27 . . . Ac4 was the alternative :
A) 28 'ff h 5+ g8 29 'ffg 6 ga7 30 ga1 a2

31 'ffc6 Af7 32 A x g7 xg7 33 d5 Ifi1 c7
34 gxa2 gxa2 35 'ff x c7 . I bel ieve that this
type of position , which can arise from a num
ber of lines, is won for White in the long run ;
B) 28 'ffc 1 A x e5 2 9 'ffx c4 Ag7 3 0 ga1
{3D gc1 a2 31 ga1 gfc8 32 'ffd 3 Ifi1 b4 !
(32 . . . tD c5 33 'ff h 3+ g8 34 gxa2 A xd4
35 e5 !) 33 'ff h 3+ g8 34 'ff b 3+ h7
35 'ffx b4 gcb8) 30 ga1 gfc8 31 'ffd 3 Ifi1 c5
(31 . . . Af8 32 e5) 32 'ff h 3+ g8 33 e5 and
Black is helpless.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
31 . . . cc!1h7
Alexey misses an excellent practical chance,
which is strange, as he is, in my opinion , per
haps the best defender in the chess world.
31 . . . gf8 abandons the a3 pawn too cheaply,
as we already know that it is more dangerous
than any piece : 32 'ffx a3 (32 'ffx a6 A h3) .
31 . . . lfi1 c7 !! was the best try, when after
32 'ffx c7 A b5 33 'ffc 5 A xf1 34 'ffd 5+ h7
35 'ff x a8 A xg2 36 'ff x a3 A xe4+ 37 f1
Wh ite looks to be winning, as Black's pieces
are very poorly coordi nated , but 32 . . . A h3
would have set me a tough choice, taking
into account the fact that I had less than 10
minutes left on my clock:
45
A) 33 c4+ h7 34 d5 ga6 ;
Sergey Rublevsky joked that it is unusual to

see a position , where the n u m ber of wh ite
pawns equals the n u m ber of black pieces,
and Black has no pawns at al l !
B) 33 xg7+ xg7 34 gxh3 looks to be eas

ily winning, but then 34 . . . ga4 ! ! (an excellent
move ; after 34 . . . a2 35 ga1 ga4 36 f3 the
three extra pawns should be enough) 35 ga1
gxd4 36 gxa3 gxe4. Theory considers such
a position to be drawish , but as far I know,
many strong grandmasters question this as
sessment. I n Monaco 2001 this endgame
occurred in my blindfold game with Alexey. I
managed to lose it with the stronger side(!),
by forgetting the position and blundering my
rook;
33
. .
lile6 34 d5 lilg5 35 f4 lilh3+
35 . . . eDf7 36 f5 .
36 h1 fta2
36 . . . gag8 37 g x h3 gg3 38 gf3 .
8 1.---.,7
6
5
4
3
C) 33 c6 ga5 34 gc1 ! . The most precise

solution, but I have to ad m it that I am not
sure I would have found it, bei ng very short
of time. As the following lines show, Wh ite is
winning :
C 1 ) 34 . . . A xg2 35 c8+ h7 36 gc7 gag5
37 gxg7+ gxg7 (37 . . . x g7 38 c7+ +-)
38 h2 ;
8
6
5
4
3
2
1-.-_______---=-__-'
{f
37 f5!
C2) 34 . . . a2 35 h2 A xg2 (35 . . . Ad7

36 c4+ h 8 37 c3 gag5 38 g3 gh5+
39 g2 ggh7 40 d5+ g8 41 f3) 36 d 5 !
h7 37 f6 ga8 3 8 d6!? +- ;
Avoiding the last trap : 37 gx h 3? ggg2 ! = .
37 . . . lilg5 38 f6 ftg6 39 17
40 f8eD is threatened, and so Black resigns.
I was very happy to play this game i n a me
morial tournament to one of my favou rite
players , Akiba Rubinstei n . I don 't think that
it was played i n h i s style, but I bel ieve it is
worthy of his memory!
C3) 3 4 . . . gxg2+ 3 5 h1 a2 3 6 e8+ h7

37 e7+ h6 38 gc6+ (38 h4+ gh5
39 f6+ gg6) 38 . . . gg6 39 f8+ g5
40 d8+ f4 41 xa5 gxc6 42 xa2 .
32 Oxa3 lilc7 33 Oe3
***
46
My M o st Me m o ra b l e G a m e s
I present here a further 44 of my most memorable games, arranged i n chronological order.
In each case I have tried to set the scene, by saying a few words about either my opponent,
or the event in which the game was played .
Game 8
Va l e r y L o g i n ov - B o r i s G e l fa n d
U S S R C h a m p i o n s h i p F i rst Leag u e ,
Sverd l ovsk 1 9 87
Queen 's Pa wn Opening [A4 1]
The USSR Championsh ip Fi rst Leagues were
extremely toug h grandmaster events, from
which only a few winners q ual ified for the
finals. These 17 -round events lasted about
a month and thus req u i red good physical
and psychological preparation by the partici
pants.
a5 1 7 a3 ! ) 1 6 f4 c7 1 7 gdd1 a5 1 8 Af3
ttl c5 1 9 c2 g b6 20 gb1 1/2-1/2 (Gelfand
Ivanchuk, I nvestbanka, Belgrade 1 997) .
3 . . . .th5
3 . . . A xf3 !? was tem pti n g , but even after
Wh ite had wasted a tem po on 3 h3, I was
reluctant to give up my bishop.
4 e4 thf6 5 the3 e6 6 d5 e5
6 . . . exd5 7 exd5 would give Wh ite a risk-free
edge due to his space advantage.
7 .te3 .te7 B .te2
1 thf3 d6 2 d4 .tg4
Th is system was completely u nexplored
when this game was played . I had already
successfu l ly used it a few rou nds before
against H uzman , and now i n the last round
I chose it agai n , as only victory wou ld give
me some chances of qual ifying for the 1 988
USSR super-championsh ip.
6
5
4
3
3 h3
Ten years later I gained an advantage with
the wh ite side after 3 c4 A xf3 4 exf3 c6
5 ttJ c3 ttJ d7 6 Ae2 g6 7 0-0 Ag7 8 Ae3
ttJgf6 9 d5 0-0 10 b3 b8 1 1 gfd1 gc8
12 E!ac1 a6 13 gd2 cxd5 (13 . . . ttJ c5 14 d1
c x d5 15 ttJ xd5 ttJ xd5 1 6 cxd5 ; 1 3 . . . b 5
14 d xc6 bxc4 1 5 x b8 ttJ x b8 1 6 ttJ a4 gxc6
1 7 Axc4 f8 (17 . . . d5 1 8 ttJ b6 E!x b6 1 9 Axd5
tD xd5 20 gc8+ Af8 21 gxd5 gc6 22 ge8 +-)
1 8 ttJ b6 ga7 1 9 ttJ d5 g b7 20 gdc2 ttJ bd7
2 1 b4 ttJ e5 22 Af1 ) 14 ttJ xd5 ttJ xd5 15 gxd5
gc6?! (15 . . . b5 16 cxb5 gxc1 + 17 A xc1 ttJ c5
( 1 7 . . . e6 1 8 gd1 ttJ c5 1 9 b4 ax b5 20 a3 )
18 gxc5 ! ? dxc5 19 bxa6 ; 15 . . . ttJ c5 1 6 't'# b4
B . . . .tg6
8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 ttJ e8 ! ? 10 ttJ d2 Axe2 1 1 't'#xe2
Ag5 1 2 ttl c4 ttl d7 leads to an eq ual pos
ition (12 . . . a5 merely weakens the queenside
- 13 a3 ! ) , as after 13 ttl a5 A x e3 1 4 x e3
Black is not forced to weaken his pawn
structure : 1 4 . . . gb8, and if 15 xa7 ga8
16 ttJ x b7 't'#c8.
9 thd2 e6
A more classical approach wou ld be 9 . . . 0-0
10 0-0 ttJ e8 11 ttJ c4 Ag5 (11 . . . a5 12 a3 Ag5
with cou nterplay) 1 2 A xg5 xg5, and if
47
15 gb3 d7 (15 . . .f4? 16 A b6), and if 16 gxb7

f4.
13 tLla5 f5 ! (but not 13 . . . tLlf6 14 Ad3 tLl bd7

15 c1 ;1;; ) .
1 5 . . . d7 1 6 Db3 ef6
10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a4 a5
I preferred to weaken the b5 square (after the
u navoidable pawn exchange on d5), rather
than give up some space : 11 . . . cxd5 12 exd5
tLl bd7 13 a5 a6 ; t
12 Af3
1 2 tLlc4 is premature : 1 2 . . . tLl xe4 1 3 tLl xe4
A x e4 14 tLl b6 ga7 1 5 tLlc8 (15 f3 c5)
15 . . . xc8 ! ? (15 . . . ga8 16 tLl b6 =) 16 A x a7
Axd5 oo .
1 7 g 3 1Jc8 18 Ae2
a
1 3 exd5 e8
c
6
5
4
2
7
6
5
7
6
5
1 2 . . . tLl bd7 13 tLlc4 cxd5 14 exd5 ;1;; .
1 2 . . . cxd5
1 6 . . . f4 ? ! is weak positionally and does not

achieve its aim tactical ly: 1 7 A b6 c8
18 e2 ! (18 Ae2 ? f3 ! 19 gxf3 x b6 20 xb6
x h 3 -+ ; 1 8 Ag4!? xc4 1 9 A xd7 f3 with
counterplay) 18 . . . A x c2 (18 . . . tLlef6 19 gb5)
1 9 gb5 ! .
6
5
4
9 h
The bishop is moved away from the defence

of its king, so it is time for Black to press
forward . 18 e2 f4 ! (18 . . . e4 19 Ag2 A h5
20 f3 (0 ) 19 gxf4 Axc2 20 xc2 (20 ga3 e4 ! +)
20 . . . xc4 + .
f-.J....,p.-'LJ
.,.
k=
-------
18 . . . f4! 1 9 g xf4 exf4 2 0 Axf4 c5

21 Da3 1Jxh3
I have managed to obtain a pawn structure

that is very famil iar to me from the Najdorf
Variation , the only difference being that here
all four minor pieces are still on the board (in
contrast to the Najdorf Variation , where one
is exchanged on d5).
f
8
7
6
5
14 Da3?!
Th is careless move hands Black the i n itia
tive. Prophylaxis was cal led for: 14 Ae2 ! Ag5
(14 . . . f5 15 f4 !) 15 tLlc4 Axe3 16 fxe3 ;1;; .
14 f5
. .
14 . . . Ag5 1 5 g b3 A x e3 1 6 fxe3 is s i m i lar to

the previous note.
22 xd6?!
15 c4
White is playing with fire.
48
6
5
4
Game 8
22 e4 ?! is also not good : 22 . . . h4

23 xc5 xf4 24 e6 h4 25 xf8 (25 gg3
A e4 26 Af3 h5 -+) 25 . . . Ae4 26 f4 (26 Af3
g4 ! -+) 26 . . . gxf8 ;
8
7
6
5
22 b5 ! was the strongest move, with an

unclear game after both 22 . . . h4 23 Ag3
't\V h6 (23 . . . g5 24 d2) 24 d2 xd2
25 xd2 A xc2 26 ge3 gf7 27 gc1 , and
22 . . . d7 23 A h2 ! (23 tD b6 f5 24 A xd6
Axd6 25 xd6 f4) .
3
2
--=--
22 . . . h5 23 cb5
L..._
.._
_
_
_
_
_
Or 23 ce4 h4 (23 . . . tD xf4 !? 00 is possi

ble, but there is absol utely no need for any
sacrifices) 24 Ag3 tD xg3 25 fxg3 h6 -+.
a
tD
Loginov - Gelfand, USSR Championship First League, Sverdlovsk 1987
f
8
7
6
5
----' 'lf
I real ly enjoyed making this move ! The two

kn ights are hanging over the position of
the wh ite king, and Wh ite has no defence.
25 . . . tD e5 26 Ae6+ <!> h8 27 A d4 was u n
clear.
26 .te6+
2
a
26 fxg3 xg3+ (26 . . . gxf1 + 27 xf1 xg4 !?)

27 <!> h1 gxf1 + 28 xf1 xg4 29 gxd3
(29 cxd3 h4+ 30 <!> g2 gf8 -+) 29 . . . gf8
30 g2 h4+ 31 h2 e1 + 32 Ag1 A xd3
33 cxd3 gf6 -+.
26 . . . cc!.?h8 27 fxg3 exg3+ 28 cc!.?h1

.th5! -+
23 . . . d3?!
Being short of time, I was tempted by
a beautifu l , but not the strongest option .
The simple 23 . . . h4 24 Ag3 (24 A h2 tDf4
25 Ag4 ? Axc2 ! -+) 24 . . . xg3 25 fxg3 g5
would have given Black a strong attack.
24 g4?
Wh ite returns the favou r. He could have
beaten off the attack by 24 A h2 ! tD hf4
(24 . . . gxf2 25 gxf2 A h4 26 gg2 +-) 25 A xf4
gxf4 26 gxd3 d7 (26 . . . A xd3 27 xd3 +-)
27 gg 3 (27 gd4 A xd6 28 Ag4 Af5 29 gxf4
Axf4 with counterplay) 27 . . . Axd6 28 Ag4 .
The point of the combination .
29 ftxd3
29 xd3 gxf1 + 30 xf1 Af3+ 31 xf3
xf3+ 32 <!> h2 wou ld have posed more
problems, but Black is still winning : 32 . . . gf8
33 gc3 ! (33 f7+ gxf7 34 A xf7 A x a3,
33 A h3 Af6, or 33 gd3 e2+ 34 <!> h1 f1 +
35 <!> h2 Af6) 33 . . . h6 34 Ag1 f4+ (34 . . . f1
35 gg3 gf4) 35 <!>g2 gf6 (35 . . . Axd6 36 xd6
xd6 37 Ac5) 36 gg3 (36 f7+ gxf7 37 Axf7
xf7 38 gd3 g6+) 36 . . . f1 + 37 <!> h1
(37 <!> h2 gf4) 37 . . . gf4 with a decisive at
tack.
24 . . . eh4 25 .te3 g3!!
29 . . . .txd1 30 g1
49

...
7
6
5
6
5
4
3
2
3
2
8 1____7
6
5
3
2
3
2
-------
30 Af4 was also hopeless:

A) 30 . . . ' h4+ 31 gh3 gxf4 ? 32 gxf4 ! xf4
33 f7+ xf7 (33 . . . g8? 34 e5+ f8
35 g6+ !) 34 A xf7 with counterplay;
B) 30 .. J:txf4 ! 31 gxg3 gxf1 + 32 h2 (32 gg1
gxg1+ 33 xg1 A xd6 34 xd6 A xc2)
32 . . . gaf8.
30 h4+ 31 gh3 gxf1 32 Dxh4 Axh4
33 f7+ g8 34 e5+ h8 35 f7+
gxf7 36 Axf7 Axc2 37 Ae6 gd8 38 Ab6
Ae4+
Black gets rid of Wh ite's only tru m p - h i s
passed d-pawn .
39 h2 gxd5 40 Axd5 Axd5 41 Axa5
Ac6 42 c3 Ae1 43 Ac7 g5 44 Ae5+
g8 45 b4
45
. . .
Black's position is easily won , so there

is no need even to consider 45 . . . A xc3.
The opposite -colour bishop ending after
46 A x c3 A x a4 47 Af6 h6 48 g3 f7
49 Ad8 g6 50 f3 Ac6+ 51 e3 f5
52 Ae7 g4 53 Af8 h5 54 Ae7 h4 55 f2
h5 56 e3 100ks drawish .
. . .
46 b5 Af3 47 a5 e6 48 Ad4 h5 49 a6
bxa6 50 bxa6 h4 51 g1 g4 52 a7
Or 52 b5 g3 53 Ae3 Ae4.
52 . . . Axc3 53 Axc3 g3 White resigns
***
Game 9
had to win a qual ifying tournament. I played

five times in such tournaments, without once
managing to win. Th is was not surprising , as
my opponents i ncluded Bareev, Khalifman ,
011, Ivanchuk, Dreev, Shabalov and Serper,
among others.
R o n e n Lev - B o r i s G e l fa n d
E u ro pean J u n i o r C h a m p i o n s h i p ,
Arn h e m 1 9 87
King 's Indian Defence [E84]
Th is was my first tournament i n a Western
country (actual ly, even in Eastern Europe I
had played only once, a few months before).
Because of the I ron Curtain it was impossible
to travel freely to tournaments, so the only
chance was to qual ify for the World Under1 6 or Under-20 Champions h i ps or the Eu
ropean Under-20 Championsh i p . However,
it was an extremely h ard task, as you fi rst
Final ly, in 1 987 I finished second beh ind Ser

per (but ahead of Dreev, Shirov, Khenkin ,
Smiri n , Alterman etc.), which gave me the
opportun ity to play in the European J u n ior
Championship. But when I arrived in Arnhem
I was surprised to fi nd that the best players
from other countries had ignored this tour
nament. It meant that the fight for first place
50
Game 9
Lev - Gelfand, European Junior Championship, Arnhem 1987
was going to be between myself and the cur

rent cham pion Vasi ly Ivanchuk. After I lost
to the U krai n ian in the 5 t h rou n d , I real ised
that I would probably have to win all my re
maining games(!) , as a result of 1 1 out of 1 3
was unlikely t o b e sufficient t o w i n t h e tou r
nament. (And the d ifference between win
ning this tou rnament and finishing second
was huge - besides the title itself, it also
meant direct q ual ification to the World J u
nior Cham pionsh ip . It also brought me in
vitations to Oakham and the O HRA tourna
ment in Amsterdam.) I remem bered the ad
vice of my friend Alexander Khal ifman , who
had won such an event i n 1 985. He recom
mended looking for a tough fight i n each
and every game, as opponents who had not
gone through the tough and someti mes even
cruel qual ification system inside the Soviet
Union would be unlikely to be able to match
such an attitude. As a resu lt, I managed to
win eight games in row (and eleven in the
tournament) and to win the title.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 f3
0-0 6 Ae3 c6
I used to play both 6 . . . c5 and 6 . . . c6. I be
lieve that both are good antidotes against
the Samisch Variation .
7 fld2 a6 8 ge2 Hb8

a
8
6
5
4
3
2
-------
9 h4 and the classical 9 c1 are more ambi

tious.
Ad7 10 b4 b5 11 c5
Theory recom mends 1 1 c x b5 a x b5 1 2 d5

e5 13 d4, going after the b5 pawn .
11
e6
1 1 . . . dx c5 1 2 bxc5 e6 1 3 e5 ! .
1 2 cxd6?!
Wh ite prematurely releases the tension in the
centre. Better was 12 c1 h5!? (1 2 . . . dxc5
13 bxc5 h5 !? ; 1 2 . . . e5 13 d5 d4 14 c6 Ac8
15 Ad3 (15 3e2 !? ge8 !) and due to the poor
placing of the A c8 and g b8 Wh ite stands
better) 1 3 b3 (13 g4 d x c5 14 bxc5 e5 ! ;
1 3 cxd6? cxd6 14 g4 e5 ! 1 5 dxe5 (15 g x h5?
exd4) 1 5 . . . xe5) 1 3 . . . f5 ! ? , when White has
not yet developed his kingside and the pawn
structure in the centre is not determ i ned , so
therefore Black has counterplay.
1 2 . . . cxd6 1 3 c1
13 g3 e7 14 c1 c8 15 b3 b6 would
lead to an eq ual game.
13 . . . e5
Here too 1 3 . . . h 5 ! ? came into considera
tion .
14 b3
White underestimates the dynam ic re
sources. Safer was 14 d5 d4 1 5 Ad3
(15 A xd4? exd4 1 6 t'fxd4 x e4 ; 1 5 3e2 ?
ge8 !) 1 5 . . . h5, but as Black has the c -fi le,
this changes the assessment of the position
in his favour.
...
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
9 a3
This rare plan is not without venom . Wh ite
gains space on the q ueenside. The s harp
51
9 h
14 . . . d5!
8
7
Black beg ins fighting for the initiative, paying

secondary consideration to material. He has
to develop it quickly, before Wh ite can man
age to castle. Less energetic was 14 . . . exd4
15 tD xd4 tD h5 (15 . . . d5! ?) with chances for
both sides.
5
4
3
2
15 exd5
Dangerous was 15 dxe5 tD xe5, and now :
A) 1 6 tD xd5 tD xd5 1 7 exd5 (1 7 xd5 h4+
18 Af2 f4) 17 . . . ge8 (the X-ray on the e
file i s very unpleasant for the wh ite monarch)
18 f2 (18 d4 xf3+ 19 gxf3 h4+ 20 d1
gxe3 ! 21 xe3 A xd4) 18 . . . tD g4+ 19 fxg4
Axa1 20 xa1 f6+ 21 g1 gxe3 22 xe3
ge8 ! 23 f2 xa1 =+= ;
B) 1 6 exd5 ge8 1 7 0-0-0 ( 1 7 Ae2 tD c4
18 Axc4 A h6 +) 17 . . . gc8 18 c5 as and the
weakness of the wh ite king is the main factor
determ ining the position .
Or 15 xd5?! xd5 16 exd5 xd4 17 xd4
exd4, and if 18 Axd4 h4+ 19 Af2 e7+ .
1 5 . . . xd5!
Another surprise for my opponent ! However,
a strong alternative was 1 5 . . . exd4 1 6 tD xd4
e7 ! (in the event of 16 . . . xd5 17 xd5 ge8
1 8 0-0-0 gc8 1 9 tD xc6 gxc6+ 20 Ac5 the
compensation for the piece is clearly insuffi
cient), for exam ple 17 Ae2 tD exd5 18 xd5
xd5 1 9 Af2 f6 20 0-0 f4 and Black has
the i n itiative.
1 6 xd5 Ae6
Black regains the piece than ks to the pin.
17 dxe5 Axd5
1 7 . . . xd5 1 8 xd5 A xd5 1 9 tD c5 tD xe5
20 0-0-0 leads only to equal ity.
18 Ag5
Wh ite also tries to fight for the i nitiative. It is
he who has to play carefu lly to equalise after
1 8 tD c5 tD xe5 1 9 0-0-0 Ac4.
...
8
6
5
4
3
2
18 . . . Axb3!!
Played in good style ! I felt that, despite being
h i m a qu een down , Black's threats should
not be underestimated . However, as is usual
in such instances, the defending side should
try to bai l out by giving back some material
(the exchange in our case) and bring his king
to safety.
Weaker was 1 8 . . . d7 1 9 tD c5 (1 9 gd1 f5
20 xd5 xg5 2 1 x c6 e3+ 22 Ae2
x b3 23 e4 =) 1 9 . . . f5 20 f4 ! A x eS
21 Ad3 xg5 22 fxg5 Axa1 23 0-0 .
Writing i n Shakhmaty v SSSR, Ratmir Khol
mov was sceptical about 18 . . . f6 19 exf6
A xf6 20 A xf6 gxf6 21 tD c5 gd6 (21 . . . e7+
22 Ae2 gd8 23 0-0, and if 23 . . . A xf3 ?
2 4 b2) 22 O-O-O ! ? , b u t after 22 . . . f6 !
Black has excel lent com pensation for the
pawn.
19 Axd8 ftbxd8 20 ee3
The attem pt to cling on to the material by
20 c1 !? was worth serious consideration .
The cruel computer refutes 20 . . . gfe8 ? :
A 1 ) 2 1 f4 tD x e5 2 2 fxe5 and White has to
fight for a draw :
A11 ) 22 . . . A x e5 23 A x b5 ! ax b5 (23 . . . Ag3+
24 f1 ) 24 0-0 Ad4+ (24 . . . A x a1 25 x a1
ge2 26 c3 gdd2 27 c8+ =) 25 h1 Axa1
26 xa1 ge2 =+= ;
A1 2) 2 2 . . . gxe5+ 2 3 Ae2 Ac4 24 0-0 gxe2 ,
and now :
A1 21 ) 2 5 ge1 ? Ad4+ 2 6 h1 gxe1 + 2 7 xe1
A xa1 28 xa1 A b3 ;
52
Game 9
Lev - Gelfand , European Junior Championship, Arnhem 1987
A1 22) dubious is 25 g5?! Ad4+ 26 <!> h1 f6

27 g4 A xa1 28 gxa1 gdd2 29 c8+ <!> g7
30 c7+ Af7 31 gg1 (31 b7 ? 31 . . . gxg2
32 xg2 Ad5) 31 . . . g5 =t , threaten ing . . . <!> g6
and . . . Ad5 ;
A1 23) 25 gd1 ! A d4+ (25 . . . gxd1 + 26 xd1
Axa1 27 x a1 Ad5 28 f6 ! =) 26 <!> h1
Ad5 27 g5!? (27 gxd4 A x g2+ 28 <!> g1
gxd4 29 c8+ <!> g7 30 c3 ged2 31 ga2
31 . . . g2d3) 27 . . . f6 28 g4 ge4 29 g3 Axa1
30 gxa1 ge2 31 gg1 + ;
A2) 2 1 xc6 ! A xe5 2 2 A x b5 ! ge6 2 3 0-0

Ad4+ (23 . . . a x b5 24 x b5) 24 <!> h1 gxc6
25 A xc6 Axa1 26 gxa1 .
Better is 20 . . . A x e5 21 g b1 tb d4 22 f4
(22 A d3 tb xf3+ 23 g xf3 gxd3) 22 . . . Ag7
23 A d3 tbf3+ 24 g xf3 gxd3 25 0-0 and , as
White has completed his development, he is
no longer in danger of losing (nor is Black, of
course).
20 . . . Axe5 21 .xb3
Bad is 21 x c6 A x a1 22 x a6 (22 Ae2
gfe8 ! ; 22 c1 Ad4) 22 . . . gfe8+ 23 <!>f2 gd2+ !
(23 . . . Ad4+ 24 <!> g3 gd5 25 A x b5 gg5+
26 h4 gh5+ 27 <!> g3 =) 24 <!>g3 ge1 25 <!> h3
(25 h4 A e5+) 25 . . . Ae6+ 26 g4 h5 when there
is nothing protecting the ki ng.
23 <!> g3 tb d4! 24 b1 A b2 , but 22 Ad3

gfe8+ 23 A e4 Ad4 transposes i nto the
game.
22 Ad3
The bishop joins the defence. The alterna
tives were weaker: 22 gc1 Ag3#, 22 Ax b5?
A x a1 + 23 <!> f2 Ad4+, or 22 <!> f2 ?! gd2+
23 <!> e3 Ac3+ 24 <!> f4 A x a1 25 <!> g3
(25 A x b5 a x b5 26 gxa1 gxg2 27 c3 g5+
28 <!> f5 ge6) 25 . . . A b2 ! .
22 . . . Axa1 +
When I had already completed these an
notations, I sudden ly realised that Black
had another way of continuing the attack :
22 . . . Ac3+ !? 23 <!> f1 (23 <!> f2 g x d 3 2 4 b1
gd2+ 25 <!> g3 gee2 26 <!> h3 A xa1 27 xa1
gxg2 -+) 23 . . . A x a1 24 Ae4 gd2 ! ? , invad
ing the second rank, even at the cost
of another piece. After 25 A x c6 (25 g4
A d4) 25 . . . gee2 26 Ad5 Ad4 27 A xf7+ <!> f8
Wh ite can save h i s skin only with com
puter assistance : 28 d5 !? (28 Ag8 ge7
29 Ae6 gc7 30 <!>e1 gcc2) 28 . . . Af2 (28 . . . ge5
29 d8+ <!> xf7 30 c7+ <!> f8 31 d6+
<!> g7 32 d7+ <!> h6 33 h3+ = , and if
33 . . . gh5 34 g4) 29 d8+ ! <!>xf7 (29 . . . gxd8
30 <!> x e2) 30 c7+ <!> f6 31 c6+ = , and if
31 . . . ge6 32 c3+ .
23 Ae4
21 ... IUe8!?
a
8
7
Thanks to the pin on the f7 pawn, Wh ite has

managed to beat off the first wave of the
attack (23 <!> d2 ge2+).
f
8
23 . . . Ad4!
6
5
4
3
2
L...-_______-=--_----'
But the second wave is coming ! Black pre

vents Wh ite from castling and underl ines the
weakness of his ki ng.
24 1
'0'
A nice finesse. It is pleasant to threaten mate

in one move ! - 22 . . . Ag3. After 21 . . . A x a1
dubious is 22 <!> f2 gd2+ (22 . . . gfe8 23 <!> g3)
Wh ite tries to take his king to safety in the

vicin ity of h3. The alternatives were dubious:
A) 24 <!> d2 tb e5 25 <!> c1 tb c4 26 gd1 Ae3+
(26 . . . A b2+ 27 <!> c2) 27 <!> c2 (27 <!> b1 gd2)
27 . . . gc8 28 <!> b1 tbd2+ 29 gxd2 Axd2 =t ;
B) 24 <!> e2 A b6 2 5 a2 tbd4+ 26 <!> f2 tbf5+
27 <!> e2 tbe3 28 g3 tbc4 =t ;
53
C) 24 g4 e5 25 g5!? gc8 26 f1 ged8

27 g2 gc3 + .
30 fxe4 gf6, with the idea of 31 gc1 Ae5+

32 h3 gf3#) 29 . . . gh6+ 30 g3 Ae5+
31 f2 c4 with a continuing attack.
24 . . . e5 25 g3
28 g4 h5!
After 25 g4 xg4 26 fxg4 gxe4 according

to Kholmov 'Wh ite simpl ifies the position,
but Black restores material eq ual ity with an
unceasing attack'.
Th is was my idea. Black further exposes the

opponent's king .
29 Axg6
25 ... c4 26 g2 e3+ 27 h3
There were two alternatives :

A) 29 g x h5 gxh5+ 30 g3 gg5+ 31 h4
(31 h3 g7 ; 31 f4 gg2 32 Ac6 c4)
31 . . . gg2 32 f4 gb2 -+ (Kholmov) ;
B) 29 g5 gxg5, and now :
5
4
3
2
B 1 ) 30 gc1 g2 31 gc7 f4+ (the Sim ple

31 . . . gf8 is also good enough) 32 h4
..
After the game I wrongly assu med that

Wh ite could have offered more resistance
by 27 f2 ?! gc8 28 h4 (28 e2 gc3 29 a2
(29 xc3 A x c3 30 x e3 f5 31 d3 fxe4+
32 x c3 exf3) 29 . . . c4) 28 . . . gc3 29 b1 ,
but the sim ple 29 . . .f5 puts an end to the
story. 27 . . . A b6! ? is also sufficient : 28 e2
(28 gc1 gd2+ 29 e1 ged8) 28 . . . c4
29 gd1 f5 30 gxd8 Axd8 +.
32 . . . gdd5 !! 33 A xd5 (33 xd5 xd5

34 gc8+ g7 35 xg5 Af6#) 33 . . . Af6
34 A xf7+ h8 35 gc8+ h7 followed by
. . . gg4# ;
27 . . . ge5
Again I was tempted by a threat of mate
in one. Unfortunately, I didn't even consider
the natural alternative (or fortunately from the
practical point of view, as I didn't waste pre
cious time choosing between two approxi
mately eq ual options) 27 . . . g5!? 28 g4, and
now:
A) 28 . . . ge6 29 g3 Ae5+ 30 f2 gd2+
(30 . . . c4 31 gd1 gxd1 32 xd1 gd6
33 e1 gd2+ 34 g1 ) 31 e1 (31 x e3 ?
Af4#) 3 1 . . . c4 32 xc4 bxc4 33 xd2 = ;
B) 2 8 . . . gd6 ! 29 ge1 (29 g3 and you need
to be made from silicon to notice 29 . . . gxe4!!
B2) according to the computer Wh ite can

defend by 30 f4 ! gg4 31 ge1 gxf4 (31 . . . c4
32 f3 ge8 33 ge2 +) 32 gxe3 ge8 ! 33 gf3
gexe4 34 gxf4 gxf4 35 d5 + .
29 . . . hxg4+ 30 g3
30 fxg4 d 5 ! 31 Ad3 f4+ 32 g3 xd3
(Kholmov) .
After the computer suggestion 30 h4 c4
31 f4 ge3 32 b1 gd6 Black maintai ns his
attack.
3O . . . c4
54
Gelfand - Lobron, OHRA Open Tournament, Amsterdam 1 988
Game 10
33 A x b3 g xf3 34 xf3 A b2 35 e2 A x a3
36 a1 + the draw is with in reach) 31 . . . g xf3
32 A x c4 bxc4 33 x c4 f2 and n ow the
computer's suggestion 34 d1 ! (Khol mov
gives only 34 U1 Etd6, and rightly notes that
White wou ld be forced to give up his rook for
the f2 pawn) saves the game after 34 . . . Ete1
35 xd4 Etxd4 36 c8+ g7 37 xf2 = .
8
7
6
5
8
7
3
2
31 ... gxf3 32 Oxf3
L--_a______e__..;;9__
---'
Or 32 A xf3 32 . . . Ete3 33 c2 d2 34 'tWxd2

A e5+ 35 f2 Etxf3+ , as indicated by Khol
mov.
11
32 f5 33 Oh5?
31 Ae4
I n his annotations Ratmir Kholmov foun d a

fine way to save the game. Even though he
did not work everything out to the end , the
brill iant defender's i ntu ition did not betray
h i m : 31 Ad3 ! (after 31 . . . e3 32 A xc4 x b3
A blunder in time trouble, but in any case

Wh ite was lost. 33 f4 Ae3 34 'tW h4 Etd4
35 'tW f6 d6 -+ , or 33 d1 xe4 34 'tWxf5
e7 -+.
33 . . . f4+ White resigns
***
Game 1 0
B o r i s G e l fa n d - E r i c L o b ro n
O H RA Open Tournament, Amsterdam 1 988
Benoni Defence [A43]
This was my first ad ult tournament i n the
West. It was held i n the Krasnopolsky Ho
tel , i n the very centre of Amsterdam. I fel l in
love with this city. I was ai m i ng to win the
grandmaster group, i n order to q ual ify for
the mai n tournament and have a chance of
testing myself against the best western play
ers. I managed to tie for 1 sL 3 rd places with
my opponent and Boris Gulko, who won the
event due to the superior tie-break.
I like this game because of its rich tac
tical content. Black violated the basic
strateg ic rules and neglected his devel
opment, in order to com p l icate matters
from the very fi rst move. Wh ite had a
big choice on every move and had to
play energetically i n order to keep the ini
tiative. I was su rprised to see annota
tions to this game in Informator and New
in Chess magazine, clai ming that White's at

tack was not totally sound and that on move
22 Black could have turned the tables. How
ever, my assessment of the position was
correct - the complications were in Wh ite's
favour.
1 d4 e6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 cxd5 d6
5 e4 g6 6 c3 Ag7 7 f3 a6
7 . . . f6 would transpose into normal Modern
Benon i lines, but Eric Lobron is always look
ing for u ntried options. He also wanted to
avoid 8 h3 0-0 9 Ad3, which was becoming
popular (and is still popular today).
8 Af4!?
8 a4 Ag4 9 Ae2 f6 (9 . . . d7 !?) would get
back to the Modern Benon i , but where Black
would have avoided the variation with h3 and
Ad3. 8 h3!? b5 9 Af4 was also possible.
8 . Ag4
. .
8 . . . f6 9 'tWa4+ !? Ad7 1 0 b3 wou ld lead

to yet another line of the Benon i . The most
55
1 2 . . . A x e5 1 3 A x e5 x e5 14 e2 and
Wh ite has a clear lead in development, or
12 . . . xb2 13 gc1 xe5 (13 . . . Axe5 14 Axe5
xe5 15 0-0 ) 14 0-0 and the black king is
in danger of being mated .
logical (seeing as Black has already played

. . . a7-a6) was 8 . . . b5 9 h3 f6 10 Ad3 0-0
11 0-0 ge8 1 2 ge1 ga7 13 a3 gae7 14 d2
b6 1 5 b4 bd7 16 gac1 A b7 with an
unclear position (Gelfand -Topalov, M elody
Am ber, Monaco blind 2001 ).
1 3 1!!ra4+
13 A x e5 A x e5 14 0-0 f8 (14 . . . x b2 ?
1 5 ge1 +-) 1 5 gc1 ;t; seemed too prosaic to
me, even though it was good enough for an
advantage.
13 . . . d7
9 Ae2
9 a4+ d7 !? 1 0 Axd6 (10 d2 b5 1 1 c2
e5 1 2 h3 Ad7 13 A h2 g5 !?) 10 . . . b6
11 b5 gc8 12 e5 with a messy game.
a b c d
5
4
3
a b c d
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
a b c d
h
--------
9 . . . Axf3?!
14 e4
Again the most am bitious move ! Wh ite is
tread ing a narrow pat h , where one m i stake
can lead to a loss. Other continuations would
allow Black a chance to complete his devel
opment, with only slightly the worse game.
However, as the reader will understand , this
becomes clear only after prolonged home
analysis, and an over-the-board player nor
mally takes h i s decisions on the basis of
intuition . The alternatives were :
A) 14 Ag3, and now :
A1 ) 14 . . . x b2 is bad in view of 1 5 0-0
xc3 (15 . . . Axc3 16 gab1 d2 17 gx b7 gf6
1 8 gd1 h6 1 9 A d6) 1 6 gae1 + ! (preventing
Black from castli ng) 16 . . . d8 17 gb1 ! ga7
1 8 gb3 (18 gfc1 b5) 1 8 . . . b5 1 9 gx b5 ;
A2) 14 . . . gf6 1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6 c2 ;t; ;
B) 14 Af4 !? b4 (14 . . . x b2 1 5 0-0 x c3
1 6 gae1 + d8 1 7 gb1 1 7 . . . ga7 1 8 gfc1 f6
1 9 A b8 x b8 20 a5+) 1 5 x b4 cxb4 ;t; .
The most ambitious course. Black eliminates

the e4-e5 breakthroug h , but he fal l s be
hind i n development. The alternatives were
9 . . . f6 !? 1 0 a4+ ! ? , 9 . . . b5 1 0 0-0 and if
10 . . . f6 1 1 e5 , or 9 . . . d7 10 d2 !?
10 Axf3 d7?!
Black provokes compl ications, but it is hard
to count on success with the g8 and gh8
on their i n itial squares and h i s king stuck
in the centre. 1 0 . . . f6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 e5
d x e5 1 3 A x e5 would have left Wh ite with a
slight edge. If 1 0 . . . e7 , then the i ntermed i
ate check 11 a4+, also typical of this open
ing, is very unpleasant.
1 1 Axd6!?
11 0-0 e7 (11 . . . e5 12 a4 or 12 Ae2 e7 ;t;)
leads to a typical Benoni-type position, but I
was ai ming for more.
1 1 . . . 1!!r b6 1 2 e5 xe5
56
Game 10
14 . . . f5 1 5 .txe5
After 1 5 0-0 fxe4 1 6 x e4+ c;!? d8 1 7 gfe1
xd6 18 e8+ c;!?c7 19 xa8 /!i)e7 the queen
is trapped .
15
. . .
xb2
a
ttJ
Gelfand - Lobron, OHRA Open Tournament, Amsterdam 1 988
25 A xd7 Ad4 and Black has good d raw

ing chances) 19 . . . gc8 (1 9 . . . xd5 20 gxe4+
/!i) x e4 21 A x e4 d2 22 g3 and despite
h i s extra rook, Black cann ot defend his
king) 20 A a3 gc7 2 1 A x e4 c;!? d8 (21 . . . gx b7
22 A x g6+) 22 a5 /!i) x e4 23 A b2 d6
24 A xg7.
18 .xe4+ .e5 19 .b41
8 .i.
7
'''-_
-_
_
_
_
_
_
--=--_---'
6
5
4
3
2
If
16 0-0!
Bringing the rook i nto the game. 16 /!i) d6+
was i ncorrect, as after 16 . . . c;!? f8 17 xd7
(17 /!i)c4+ /!i) x c5 -+) Black can choose be
tween forcing a d raw (17 . . . c3+) and play
ing an unclear position - 17 . . . xa1 + 18 Ad1
(18 e2 b2+ 19 c;!? f1 b1 + 20 c;!? e2
t'fc2+ -+) 18 . . . e5+ (18 . . . /!i) e7 1 9 0-0)
19 f1 /!i)e7 00 .
16 . . . fxe4
After 16 . . . b5 1 7 /!i)d6+ c;!? f8 1 8 a5 /!i) x c5
19 t'fc7 /!i) e7 20 xc5 Wh ite maintains his
attack for free.
19 . . . He81?
An excellent resource. Black gives u p his
queen , but tries to block the c - and e -files.
The alternative was 19 . . . c3 (1 9 . . . c;!? f7
20 gfe1 c3 transposes) 20 gfe1 + c;!? f7
(20 . . . c;!? d8 21 Ae7+ c8 22 gbc1 +-) 21 f4+
f6 (other moves also do not hel p : 21 . . . Af6
22 gbc1 , or 21 . . . /!i) gf6 22 ge7+ c;!? g8 23 gc1
d3 24 A e4 e2 25 Af5) 22 c7 d8
(22 . . . gd8 23 d6 +-)
17 1lab1 1
17 t'fxe4+ d8 =t .
17 . . . b5
During the game both of us thought that this
was forced , and Eric even attached an 'only
move' sym bol to it i n his comments i n In
formator. But when annotating the game for
this book, I noticed that B lack had the al
ternative defence 17 . . . e5 1 8 g xb7 /!i)gf6,
when Wh ite has to play precisely : 1 9 ge1 !
(19 Ad4 d6 20 A xf6 A xf6 2 1 Ag4 gd8
22 ge1 0-0 23 gxd7 gxd7 24 xd7 xd7
23 d6! x c7 (23 . . . gc8 24 A d5+ - forcing

the king u nder the X-ray of the bishop at
c5 - 24 . . . c;!? f8 25 A b7 !! +- /!i) xc5 26 A x c8
57
'flIxc7 27 dxc7 file7 28 A h3) 24 Ad5+ ! (an im

portant intermediate move ; 24 d xc7 ? fil xc5
25 Axa8 fileT t) 24 . . . f6 (24 . . . f8 25 dxc7+
fil x c5 26 A xa8 fil e7 27 f!bd1 +-) 25 Ad4+
f5 (25 . . . g5 26 dxc7 Axd4 27 Axa8 filgf6
28 A b7) 26 dxc7 (26 Axg7 'flIxd6 (26 . . . 'flId8
27 h4, threatening Ae6+) 27 Axa8 is also in
White's favour, but there is no need to com
plicate matters) 26 . . . Axd4 27 A xa8 +-.
20 Iife1
20 A a7 ?! was too su perficial : 20 . . . f!c4
21 'flIa3 f!a4 22 'flIc1 'flIc3 23 f!e1 + d8, but
also strong was the simple suggestion of my
silicon assistant - 20 Ad6 'flId4 21 f!fe1 + f7
22 Ag4 'flIx b4 23 Ae6+ e8 24 A x b4 f!d8
25 Axg8+ fil e5 26 Ae6.
20 . . . Iixe5 21 Iixe5+ Axe5 22 Iie1
(23 . . . f!c4 24 Ae6+ g7 25 'flIa3) 24 'flIe4 !!

(piece activity first and foremost ! - 24 'flIf4+
ttlgf6 wou ld slow down the attack and al
low Black to complete his development), and
now :
A1 ) 24 . . . fil e5, and the poor coord ination
of Black's pieces prevents h i m from keep
ing all the material - 25 Ae6+ (25 'flIe3
fil xg4 26 'flIxc5 Axe1 -+) 25 . . . e7 (25 . . . g7
26 'flIe3 ) 26 'flIe3 d6 (26 . . . f!c4 27 f!d1 )
27 f4 ;
A2) 24 . . . A x e1 25 A xd7 (25 'flIe6+ is also

strong, as after 25 . . . g7 26 'flIxd7+ h6
27 'flIe8 f!c4 28 'flIf8+ g5 29 Ae2 Black
is defenceless, despite his h uge material
advantage, e. g . 29 . . . f!c1 30 h4+ x h4
31 'flIf4#) 25 . . . Ac3 26 g4 ! (26 'flIe3 f!c4 27 d6
Ad4 +). As Black's knight and rook are un
able to come into play, I don't see how he
can save the game, e. g . 26 . . . g5 (26 . . . g7
27 g5) 27 Ae6+ (27 h4) 27 . . . g7 28 'flIe3 .
B) 23 'flIa3 is also good - 23 . . . Ac3 24 'flIxa6
(24 f!e2 ttl gf6 25 'flIx a6 f!e8 + ; 24 f!e6 !?)
24 . . . Axe1 25 'flIe6+ f8 26 'flIxd7 f!c1 27 g4 !
and despite his big material advantage, I be
l ieve that Black cannot save the game, as
his pieces, including the king , are too poorly
placed .
23 'tJd6!
That's it. Black loses material .
22 . . . Iie4?
23 . . . e7
Losing on the spot. I considered 22 . . . f7 !

to be best, but, being short of time, Eric was
unable to find this defence :
A) 23 Ag4!? (23 f!xe5 f!c4 -+) 23 . . . Ac3
The knight comes i nto play too late. If

23 . . . ttlgf6 24 f!xe5+ fil x e5 25 'f!Ix e5+ f7
26 'flIe6+ g7 27 'flIe7+ h6 28 h4 +-.
24 'tJxa6 +Or 24 'flIe6 d8 25 'flIxa6.

24 . . . Iif8 25 d6 e8
25 . . . filf5 26 Ac6 +-.
26 Ae6 d8 27 Axd7 Ae3

27 . . . xd7 28 'flIx b5+ f!c6 29 'flIxe5 +-.
28 lie1 Ad4 29 lixe4 Axf2+ Black re
signs
58
Game 11
Gelfand -Adams, Hakoah Open Tournament, Sydney 1 988
Game 1 1
14 ghe1 0-0-0 15 Aa6 is an alternative plan ,

but I wanted to play my knight to e5 , where
it puts pressu re on Black's position .
B o r i s G e l fa n d - M i ch a e l Ad a m s
Hakoah Open To u rn a m e n t , Syd ney 1 9 88
Caro - Kann Defence [B 1 7J
14 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 Ilhe1 c!>b8

Wh ite also had to pay attention to 1 5 . . . c5
16 d xc5 A x e5 (16 . . . A x c5 is safe, with a
typical position, slightly better for White)
1 7 x e5 x e5 1 8 gxe5 ttlg4 (18 . . . ttl d7
19 ge3 tD xc5 20 Af1 ;t) 19 ge2 Axg2 20 cxb6
axb6 21 gg1 Af3 22 gee1 with advantage.
This was my first ever game with M ichael

Adams, to be followed by many more, in
cluding a Candidates Match. But the unique
position at the end of the game was the rea
son I decided to include it in this book.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 d2 dxe4 4 xe4 d7
This variation has been very popular si nce
the late -1 980s, mainly thanks to its main ad
vocate, Anatoly Karpov. M ickey Adams has
also employed it for many years. In the 21 s t
century, thanks to the efforts of Bareev and
Dreev, 4 . . . Af5 has also been revived at high
level .
5 g5 gf6 6 Ad3 e6 7 1 f3 Ad6

The poi nt of Wh ite's idea is 7 . . . h6 8 ttl x e6
'ffJe7 9 0-0 fxe6 1 0 Ag6+ with an attack, as
in the famous game Deep Blue- Kasparov,
New York 1 997 .
16 c!>b1 Hhe8 17 f3
It would have been a mistake to play 17 c4 c5
18 Ac3 cxd4 19 Axd4 A b4, but serious con
sideration should have been given to 17 tDc4
Af8 (1 7 . . . Af4 1 8 Axf4 xf4 1 9 e5+) 1 8 g3
tD d5 1 9 tD e5 , simi lar to the game.
17 . . . d5?!
M issing White's 1 9 th move. It was correct
first to take the king i nto safety by 1 7 . . . a8
18 a3 ;t , but not immediately 17 . . . c5 18 dxc5
A xc5 1 9 Af4 Ad6 20 A b5.
18 a3 f6
a
8 1!re2 h6 9 e4 xe4 10 1!rxe4 f6
11 1!re2 b6 12 Ad2 Ab7 1 3 0-0-0 1!rc7

b
19 c4!
5
4
3
2
14 e5
3
1""'""""'-"'2
6 L-.J=::.I
5
4
3
8
7
6
5
4
Nowadays 10 . . . c7 1 1 g4 f8 1 2 0-0 c5 is
the main line. Despite the fact that the black
king is stuck in the centre, so far Wh ite has
failed to show a convi ncing way to gain an
advantage.
With this strong i ntermed iate move Wh ite

gains the in itiative.
19 . . . fxe5 20 dxe5 Af8 21 cxd5 exd5
\r
Clearly the best practical decision , giving

B lack cou nter-chances on the q ueenside.
He would have been condemned to passive
defence after other repl ies : 21 . . . gxd5 , or
21 . . . cxd5 22 Ag6 ge7 23 gc1 Ac6 .
59
22 14 cS 23 Ag6!
31 AhS
There is noth ing for the bishop to do at g6,
so it returns to the defence. If 31 e2 c3 !?
31 . . . c3 32 A13 gbS 33 ge2
White has a winning position , but to fin ish
the game he sti l l has to repel Black's attack
on the b -file.
33 . . . a6 34 Axb7+ l:lxb7 3S .dS .eS
36 .c4 a7 37 a2
Wh ite increases the pressure.
23 . . . ge6?
Better was 23 . . . ge7 24 e6 d4 with a defend
able position.
24 1S gc6 2S e6
Black faces serious problems i n trying to
stop the wh ite pawns.
2S
. . .
e7
25 . . . Ae7 26 g3 a8 27 Af4 'ffc8 28 Ae5 +-.
8
7
6
5
4
3
26 .eS+ aS
7
t=
6
5
4
5
4
3
8
7
-=-,I
6
5
4
=I
a b c
37 . . . gb4!
Black was pinning all his hopes on this trick.
38 .d3
Th is does not yet throw away the wi n , but
also strong was 38 d5 ! (not 38 a x b4?
a4+) 38 . . . gb7, an d now :
A) 39 gde1 b5 (39 . . . Ae7 40 c4, and as
the rook has moved from d1 , 40 . . . g b4 no
longer works) 40 b x c3 Ae7 !! with counter
chances (but not 40 . . . d x c3 41 e7 A x e7
42 xb7+ ! xb7 43 gb1 , or 40 . . . a4 41 gb1
(41 e7 A x e7 42 g b1 ) 41 . . . gx b1 42 d7+
xd7 43 exd7 +-) ;
B) 39 b x c3 a4 40 e7 ! x d1 (40 . . . c4
41 xb7+ (or 41 xd4+) 41 . . . xb7 42 gb1+,
or 40 . . . A x e7 41 g b1 , and if 41 . . . gx b1
42 gxe7+, as indicated by Adams) 41 x b7+
(41 xc5+ g b6 42 g b2) 41 . . . x b7 42 g b2+
c7 43 exf8 .
38 . . . ga4!
Focusing on a new target - the a3 pawn.
After 38 . . . a4 39 e7 b3+ 40 a1 ! (40 b1
xa3) 40 . . . cx b2+ 41 b1 White wins.
2
--------
27 Axh6! +Th is l ittle tactical shot increases Wh ite's ad

vantage.
27 . . . c4
Black's only chance is a counterattack
(27 . . . g x h6 28 f6 +-) .
2s Ad2
If 28 h4, then 28 . . . c3 ! . I was not satisfied
with 28 f6 g x f6 29 A xf8 'ff x f8 ! (29 . . . gxf8
30 'ffx d5 +-) 30 'fff5 'ffe7 (or 30 . . . gc7 31 gf1
'ffd 6 32 'ffx f6 d4 with counterplay) 31 gxd5
gcd6 ;t , when White faces techn ical difficul
ties.
2S . . . d4 29 Ab4 gcS! 30 Axcs bxcS

At the cost of the exchange Black has
avoided immediate disaster. Now he is pin
ning his hopes on the b -fi le.
60
Game 11
Gelfand - Adams, Hakoah Open Tournament, Sydney 1988
39 .e4
But not 39 b xc3 ?? gxa3+ ! (40 c!> x a3 c4+) ,
while if 39 f6 g xf6 40 h7+ A e7 41 f7
d8. But simple and strong was 39 e7 ! f7+
(39 . . . Axe7 40 e4 f7+ 41 e6) 40 ge6
Axe7 41 c2 gaS 42 b3 gb5 43 gxa6+ ,
winning.
39 . . . Ad6 40 e7
It was time to complete the queen 's tour
d5-c4-d3-e4-d5 with 40 d5 b5 41 gf2
cxb2, and now:
A) not so clear is 42 xd6 b1 + 43 gx b1

xa3+ 44 c!> x a3 a5+ 45 c!> b3 b4+
(45 . . .' ffc3+ 46 c!> a4 c4+ 47 c!> a3 c3+
48 gb3 a1 + 49 ga2 c1 + 50 c!> a4 c4+
51 c!> a5) 46 c!> c2 c3+ 47 c!> d1 d3+
48 e1 e4+ ! (48 . . . x b1 + 49 c!> d2 b2+
50 d3 +-) 49 c!> f1 x b1 + 50 c!> e2 e4+
51 d1 d3+ and I don 't see a win ;
(41 . . . b5 42 gx b2 gxa3+ 43 c!> b1 ) 42 gde1

b1 + 43 gxb1 .
41
. . .
b5!
An unexpected resource! And I failed to see

the point of it.
42 eS.??
It was time to agree to a draw with 42 gx b2
gxa3+ 43 c!> x a3 (43 c!> b1 a4 -+) 43 . . . c4+
44 c!> a2 a4+ 45 c!> b1 x d 1 + 46 c!> a2 = ,
or t h e com puter-style line 4 2 ge3 !? d x e3
43 xe3 b1 + 44 gx b1 c4+ 45 gb3 c2+
46 g b2 ge4 47 e8 gxe8 48 x e8 c4+
49 c!> b1 d3+ = .
42 . . . gxa3+ ! 43 xa3
If 43 c!> b1 ga1 + 44 c!> c2 b1 + (d iagram) with
mate.
B) 42 gx b2 ! (42 b3 !? i s also possible)

42 . . . gxa3+ 43 c!> b1 ga1 + 44 c!> xa1 a4+
45 'ffa2 (that's why the queen h as to be on
d5 !) 45 . . . xd1+ 46 gb1 +-.
40 . . . cxb2
a
8
7
h
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
5
3
2
a
43
. . .
c4+
One of the most amazing positions I have

ever had ! Despite being a queen , rook and
the exchange up, Wh ite's position is hope
less and he gets mated in 22 moves, accord
ing to the com puter.
a
41 .e6?
5
4
3
2
Being short of time, I lost the thread of

the game. Wh ite could sti ll have won by
41 gxb2 gxa3+ 42 c!> x a3 (42 c!> b1 x e7 )
42 . . . c4+ 43 g b4 A x b4+ 44 c!> b2 ! Ac3+
(44 . . . b5 45 gxd4 A xe7+ 46 c!> c2) 45 c!> c1
a4 46 gxd4 +-, or again 41 d 5 ! A x e7
61
h
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
{r
{r

44
a2 b1 0+ ! 45 Ilxb1 Oa5+ 46 Oa4

The only attempt to delay mate (46 b2
46 . . . c3+ 47 a2 a3#).
46 . . . 0xa4+ 47 b2
a
..
8
7
now my opponent had to seal a move. I

wanted to resign without resuming, but a
friend of mine convinced me to go and check
the sealed move, and he was right.
47 . . . a3+11
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
M ickey failed to notice the winning 47 . . . c3+

48 c1 Af4+ .
48 a1
Now Wh ite can hold the position .
48 . . . b4+ 49 b2 a3+
49 . . . a3+ 50 c2 d3+ (50 . . . d3+ 51 d1
a4+ 52 c1 A a3+ 53 gbb2 A x b2+
54 xb2 b3+ 55 c1 ) 51 c1 , or 49 . . . c3+
50 c1 A a3+ 51 geb2 with a d raw in every
case.
The tournament was played with the strange

time control of 46 moves in two hours, so
50 a1 b4+ Draw agreed
***
Game 1 2
we were youngsters and were both trying

(successfu lly) to qualify for the fi rst time for
the Cand idates M atches : 5 . . . Ag7 6 Ae3
f6 7 c3 0-0 8 Ae2 d6 9 0-0 Ad7
10 d2 (the alternatives here are 10 c2 and
10 b3 , avoiding exchanges wh ile maintain
ing the space advantage; however, I didn 't
like moving my knight to an awkward square)
10 . . . xd4 1 1 Axd4 Ac6 1 2 f3 a5 13 b3 d7
Boris Gelfand - Vidmantas Malisauskas

G MA O p e n To u r n a m e n t , M oscow 1 9 89
Sicilian Defence [836]
1 f3 c5 2 c4 g6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 c6
5 e4
Normal ly this position arises by another
move order: 1 e4 c5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 xd4 g6 5 . c4 . The M ar6czy Bind is con
sidered to be a passive, but very solid set
up for Black. In contrast to the Hedgehog
System , he doesn 't have a potential weak
nesses on b6, but on the other hand he
has l ittle prospect of making the . . . d6-d5
break. I have always liked and I sti l l like play
ing Wh ite's side i n this system , as I believe
he enjoys a space advantage without much
counterplay for his opponent.
5 . . . f6
14 A e3 (I d i d n 't see the need to exchange

bishops, as it would g ive more scope
to Black's q ueen) 14 . . . c5 15 gab1 b6
Against Vishy Anand I faced another vari

ation in our first Interzonal Tournament, when
62
Game 1 2
Gelfand - Malisauskas, G MA Open Tournament, Moscow 1989
16 gfc1 b4 (as Black has no active play at

all, he tries to provoke some weaknesses i n
White's position) 1 7 gc2 gfc8 1 8 c1 b6
19 a3 d8 20 d2 e6 21 Af1 Ae5 22 b4
(22 e2 !?) 22 . . . a x b4 23 a x b4 a4 24 e2
'l' h4 25 g3 e7 26 d4 A e8 27 g bc1 ;1;; ,
keeping a long -term edge (Gelfand -Anand,
Manila I nterzonal 1 990).
ttlg4 (13 . . . b5?! 14 b4 ! - the point of White's

1 2 th move - 14 . . . c7 1 5 e5 ! d x e5 1 6 x b5
and the b - and c - pawns pose more of a
threat than the doubled e -pawns) 14 ttld5
(I had to choose between the game move
and the alternative 14 Ad4 A xd4 15 xd4
ttlf6 !? ;I;; , but not 1 5 . . . e5 ?! 1 6 x e5 ttl x e5
1 7 f4 ttlc6 1 8 f5 Ad7 1 9 f6 Ivanchu k)
14 . . . xd2 1 5 A xd2
6 c3 d6 7 J.e2 xd4
I showed q u ite a good understanding of
such positions when I was stil l a kid : 7 . . . Ag7
8 Ae3 xd4 9 Axd4 0-0 10 0-0 Ae6 11 gc1
'l'a5 1 2 d5!? Axd5 13 exd5 a6 14 Ac3 c7
15 b4 d7 (15 . . . a5 !?) 16 Axg7 xg7 17 c5 !?
gac8 18 d4+ g8 19 Ag4 d x c5 20 b x c5
f5 21 Ae2 ttl xc5 22 d6 ! ttl e6 (22 . . . xd6
23 Ac4+) 23 A c4 +-, and I won my fi rst
game against one of my contem poraries,
with whom I was to play dozens of games in
the forthcom ing decade, and who was my
team colleague in numerous events, first for
the Belarus team and then for Israel. l Iya be
came a very strong player, who once even
crossed the magic 2700 mark (Gelfand
Smirin, Grodno 1 980).
a 1txd4 iLg7
a
6
5
4
3
L..._
._
_
_
_
_
_
-=--_--I
lf
9 0-0
Here I think that White has a number of de
cent plans, which I have also tried :
9 Ae3 Ae6 10 0-0 0-0 11 d2 a5 1 2 gab1
(a subtle prophylactic move) 12 . . J Uc8 13 b3
ttJ
Analysis diagram after 15 fi.xd2
1 5 . . . f8 (15 . . . A x d5 !? 1 6 exd5 f6 1 7 Ad3

d7 with a position similar to the main game)
1 6 Ag5 f6.
Black delays the decision about what to
do with the knight at d5. I n my opinion, it
was better to do this now, as in any case
he cannot tolerate it for long : 16 . . . A xd5
17 exd5 ;1;; , or 16 . . . f6 17 xf6 Axf6 18 Axf6
exf6 19 gbd1 e7 when only Wh ite has any
winning chances. H owever, Black has only
one weakness on d6, which can easily be
protected .
1 7 Ad2 ttl e5 (17 . . . ttl h6!? i ntending . . . f6f5) 18 f4 c6 (18 . . . ttl d7 !?) 19 f5 ! (giving u p
t h e e 5 square, b u t shutting t h e Ag7 o u t of
the game) 19 . . . Af7 (1 9 . . . gxf5 20 exf5 Axd5
21 cxd5 ttld4 22 Ad3 gc5 23 Ae3 gxd5
24 Ae4 ge5 25 Ax b7 ) 20 g4 e5 21 gbc1
(21 h4 b5 !?, and if 22 cxb5 gc2 with counter
play) 21 . . . Axd5?! (Black feels exceptionally
squeezed , as his pieces are slowly bei ng
suffocated) 22 exd5 f7 23 Ae3.
Black's problem is that he is u nable to ex
change his bishop : 22 . . . ttlf7 23 h4 ! A h6
(23 . . . g5 24 h5 ttle5 25 Ae3) 24 g5 Ag7
25 Ag4 (25 fxg6 25 . . . h xg6 26 h5 g x h5
63
27 A xh5 ttl e5 28 g6) 25 . . . ttl e5 26 A h3 or

26 fxg6 !? ttl xg4 27 g x h7.
23 . . . b6 24 h4 and the famous tech nique
of the Swed ish player (whose games had
a really big i nfluence on me when I was
a teenager) d i d n 't help h i m in the game
Gelfand- Andersson, (Akiba Rubinstein M e
morial , Polanica Zd roj 1 997).
Or 9 Ag5 0-0 1 0 d2 Ae6 1 1 gc1 a5
12 f3 gfc8 13 b3 a6 14 ttla4 xd2+ 15 xd2
ttl d7 16 h4 gc6 17 h5 Af6 18 Ae3 g5 19 g3
gd8 20 ttl c3 (20 h6!?) 20 . . . A xc3+ 21 gxc3
f6 (21 . . . h6 !) 22 h6! (an instructive moment :
Wh ite fixes the weakness on h7 , which will
always restrict Black) 22 . . . ttl c5 23 A xc5
gxc5 24 f4 h8 25 b4 gc7 26 f5 Af7
27 ghc1 with a serious endgame advantage
(Gelfand - Dautov, Klai peda 1 985).
. .
0-0 10 1Je3
My trainer for many years, Al bert Kapengut,

recommended this system to me. He played
the Mar6czy Bind with Black for many years
and he was very fami liar with its weak points.
ttl xd6 20 ttl a4 t ) 1 9 exd6 ttl xd6 20 gfd1

(20 ttld5 was better) 20 . . . a6 (20 . . . A xc3!?
was probably the lesser evil) 21 ttl d5 and
the strong knight and the potential advance
of the queenside pawns make Black's task a
difficult one (Gelfand -Topalov, Melody Am
ber, Monaco blind 2002) .
12 Elac1 1Jb6
In cram ped positions it is recom mended to
exchange pieces.
1 3 b3 1Jxe3 14 .txe3 c5
14 . . . gfc8 was worth consideri n g, i ntend ing
to meet 15 ttld5 with 15 . . . f8 .
1 5 d5! N
15 f3 was also possi ble, but I jumped at the
chance to force an exchange which I hoped
wou ld be favourable for me.
15 . . . .txd5
Or 15 . . . ttl xe4 16 ttl xe7+ h8 17 Af3.
1 6 exd5 a5
a
8
7
6
5
4
3
10 . . . .te6
An expert on this system chose agai nst me
a plan that keeps the queens on the board :
10 . . . ttld7 11 Ad2 a5 1 2 gad1 ttlc5 13 b3 Ad7
14 ttl d5!? e6 15 ttl c3 (a target on d6 has
been created) 15 . . . Ac6 16 A e1 'f!ie7 17 f3
gfe8 1 8 Ad3 (Black's problem , as usual i n
this variation , is that h e doesn 't have any ac
tive counterplay) 18 . . . b6 19 Ac2 Ae5 20 Ag3
gad8 21 a3 A xg3 22 h xg3 'f!ic7 23 b4 ttl d7
24 'f!id4 axb4 25 axb4 ttlf8 26 f4 (Gelfand
Pigusov, Sverdlovsk 1 987) .
6
5
4
17 Elc2! ;t
A strong prophylactic move. Black was
threaten ing to play his bishop to a3 via b2 ,
followed by . . . a5-a4 , either i m mediately or
after . . . ttl c5-a6 and . . . A a3-c5. Now Wh ite
can combine ideas of a breakthrough on the
queenside after gb1 , a2-a3, b3-b4 and c4c5 etc. with play on the kingside. As he has
more space, he is able to transfer his pieces
from one flank to another more easily than
his opponent.
17 f5
1 1 .td2 d7
11 . . . 'f!i b6 12 b3 'f!ixe3 13 Axe3 gfc8 14 gac1
f8 15 f4 ! (Black has delayed playing his
knight to c5 and I decided to place my
pieces more actively) 1 5 . . . Ad7 (15 . . . ttl g4
16 A xg4 A xg4 17 f5 and the bishop is in
danger) 16 Af3 A c6 17 e5 ttl e8 (17 . . . A xf3 ?
1 8 exf6) 1 8 A xc6 gxc6 ( 1 8 . . . b x c6 1 9 exd6
. .
64
Game 1 2
Black apparently does not sense the danger

of his position. He should have looked for
counterplay on the queenside by 1 7 . . . ..fc8
18 ..b1 (or 1 8 ..fc1 ; after 18 g4 a6, threat
ening . . . b7-bS-b4 or . . . as-a4 , Black gains
good play) 18 . . . a6 19 a3 bS 20 b4 a x b4
21 axb4 c7 22 ..d1 ;t ; or taken prophylac
tic measures on the kingside - 1 7 . . . hS!?, and
if 18 f4 fS.
The alternative was 24 Ad3!? cS 2S Af1 .
24 . . . Ag7 25 Ilf1 I1f8 26 Ag4 'i!1h8
8
7
6
5
4
3
18 g3 Ae5?!
Intending . . . fS-f4 and thus provoking f2-f4 .
However, Wh ite has no reason to avoid it.
18 . . . hS was better.
Too subtle. The im mediate 20 g4 ! was better.
27 f5?!
20 . . . Ilfe8?
27 Ae6 and only then f4-fS was better.
27 . . . gxf5?
8
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
19 f4 Af6 20 Ilb1 ?!
a b c d
ttJ
Gelfand - Malisauskas, G MA Open Tournament, Moscow 1 989
6
5
4
-------
20 . . . hS ! was much stronger, as Black would

get the h-file if White were to play h2-h3 and
93-g4 (21 h3 f7 intending . . . ''h8).
21 g4! fxg4?!
Black was afraid of being left with a weak
f5 pawn, but in any case this was his best
chance : 21 . . . f7 22 gxfS gxfS 23 Af1 .
22 Axg4 Ileb8
Threatening . . . b7-bS .
Both players missed the tactical trick

27 . . . gS ! 28 Af3 (after 28 ..g2 h6 Wh ite retains
a definite plus) 28 . . . ..xfS ! 29 Axe4 ..eS =, re
gain ing the piece.
28 Axf5 e5 29 Ilef2
The first half of the plan has been com pleted :
White has opened lines on the kingside. Now
he will combine an attack on the h7 pawn
with threats of a pawn advance on the oppo
site wing. Th is is the pri nciple of two weak
nesses - as N imzowitsch taught us !
29 . . . Ilf7 30 Ae2
Rook exchanges favour Wh ite, as then his
king is able to come into play.
30 . . . Ilxf2 31 Ilxf2 Af6 32 1 !

32 ..g2 ..f8 would al low the king to be to cut
off, si nce if 33 A h6?? Ad4+.
32 . . . Ilg8 33 Ilg2 Ilxg2
23 Ae2!
White is carefu l to prevent Black's counter
play.
33 . . . ..f8 34 e2 and in any case Black can

not make use of the f-file.
34
23 . . . e4 24 Ilbe1
65
'i!1xg2 'i!1g7 35 3 Ae5 36 h3
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
Wh ite's extra pawn, his king is too active.

The threat of transposi ng i nto a won pawn
ending should prove decisive.
40 .lc8
6
5
4
Avoiding the last trap 40 d5?? f6 41 Ax h7

ti)c3#.
40 . . . c3+ 41 d3
.......-/-,
a b c d
41 f5 !? ti) xa2 42 Ax b7 +-.
41 . . . xa2 42 .lxb7
a b c d
36 . . . e6
Black gets rid of his e7 pawn, but this al
lows the white king i nto his position . The
fol lowing line shows Wh ite's plan : 36 . . . Af6
37 Ad2 b6 38 g4 g8 39 h5. First of
all he has brought his king i nto play, and
now he begins an advance on the other side:
39 . . . g7 40 A h6+ g8 41 A c1 g7 42 a3
Ac3 43 Ag5 Af6 44 A h6+ g8 45 Ad2
ti) a6 46 b4 axb4 (46 . . . A b2 47 bxa5 bxa5
48 A xa5 A xa3 49 Ad8 +-) 47 axb4, i ntend
ing 48 Ad3 ti) c7 49 A e3 and Black cannot
protect both his b6 and e7 pawns.
The most tenacious defence was 36 . . . h5
37 Ad2 b6 38 a3 (th reaten i ng b3-b4)
38 . . . ti) d7 (if 38 . . . A b2 39 g3 A xa3
40 h4).
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
6
5
4
2
a b c d
The bishop pair together with his active king

guarantee White a win.
42 . . . b4+
Losing i mmediately. Black could have pro
longed the resistance by 42 . . . A b2 (or
42 . . . A c3) 43 Ad2 (43 A b6 Ac3 44 c2)
43 . . . ti) b4+ 44 e4 f6 45 h4.
37 dxe6 xe6 38 .lfS d4+

38 . . . f6 !? is no more than a trap : 39 Ag4 !
(39 Axh7? ti)g5+ 40 Axg5+ xg5 and White
cannot win such a position).
43 e4
Threatening A b6.
39 e4 e2
39 . . . ti)xf5 40 xf5 f7 41 Ad2 a4 42 bxa4 is
unlikely to save the game, si nce, apart from
43 . . . .lc3 44 .lf4 .leS 45 .lxeS+ dxe5

46 cS Black resigns
***
66
Game 13
Game 1 3
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Va s i ly I va n ch u k
U S S R J u n i o r Tea m C h a m p i o n s h i p ,
Kram ato rsk 1 9 89
This was my farewell game i n j u n ior chess,
and it became a very memorable one. It was
played in the USSR Junior Team Cham pion
ship, in which I was playi ng for Belorussia.
We had a very strong team (myself, Smiri n ,
Atlas, Sagalch ik a n d Aleksandrov) . Four of
these five players are now g randmasters,
with an average rating approaching 2650 !
We had played with more or less the same
team for several years, but had never man
aged to finish among the medals. Now it was
our last chance and we had to score at least
3112-1 % against the strong U krai n ian team ,
led by Vasily Ivanch uk. Vasi ly had to leave
for a tournament in Biel, (which he won), so
our game took place on the rest day, one
day before.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 g7 4 e4 d6
5 Ae2 0-0 6 f3 bd7 7 0-0 e5 8 e3
c6 9 d5 c5 10 e1 e8
a
8
7
6
5
4
tt:J
Gelfand - Ivanchuk, USSR Junior Team Championship, Kramatorsk 1 989
6
5
4
3
2
I...-_______...._
.;;....
----I
round of the USSR Under- 1 8 Championship,

Yurmala 1 985 (p. 68). White's idea is to fight
against . . .f7-f5 , as I demonstrated in my
game against Romero Hol mes. 11 d3 had
been played in nearly all the previous games.
11
. . .
h4?
Vasi ly is following my game w ith Savchen ko

(he was an eye -witness to it) , but I had made
a deep analysis of this game (as was the
case with most of my games) with my trainer
Al bert Kapengut and we had prepared an
i m portant improvement. In fact, my work
with this wonderful trai ner consisted mainly
in goi ng through the most complicated of my
games, especially those where I experienced
difficu lties.
11 . . . f5 (11 . . . h 8 !? ;t ) 1 2 gxf5 g xf5 13 exf5
b6 14 h1 A xf5 1 5 E!g1 (Wh ite has cov
ered his king and i ntends to use the open
g -fi le to his advantage) 15 . . . f6 (15 . . . e4
16 d2 f6 17 E!g3 bd7 18 g2 ;t , intend
ing E!g1 and f4) 16 f3 ! (threatening 17 h4
or 1 7 g5) 1 6 . . . g4 ?! (16 . . . e4 1 7 x e4
Axe4 1 8 E!g4 ! Af5 1 9 E!g3 Ae4 20 g1 in
tending g5, or 16 . . . h8 17 E!g3 ;t ) 17 g5
x e3 (17 . . . xg5 18 E!xg4 e7 19 E!g3 )
18 fxe3 e4 ?! (18 . . . h8 19 Ad3 ! e4 20 cxe4
Axb2 21 E!b1 ) 19 e6 ! Axe6 20 dxe6 e7
21 xe4 xe6 22 Ad3 ! h8 23 E!g3 ! +- and
Wh ite has a mating attack (Gelfand - Romero
Holmes, Hoogovens, Wij k aan Zee 1 992) .
c
8
7
6
5
4
3
lf
I had played a n u m ber of games with this

system for Black (for a certain time it was
my main weapon) and I was famil iar with this
position.
11 94!?
6
5
I...-....--..:.
.::....
---.
...
_
.:..
___...._
.::...
----'
This strong plan was introduced by Stanislav

Savchen ko against me i n the pen ultimate
1 2 h1 !
67
lf
Wh ite carries out the same idea as in the

game against Romero, whereas Black has
wasted time on his queen sortie. 12 g5
b6 1 3 g2 h3 14 d2 Ag4!? 1 5 f3 A h5
16 b4 led to unclear play in the Savchenko
Gelfand game. Even though Wh ite is prob
ably better here, Black always has counter
play associated with . . . f7-f6, as White has
already pushed his pawn to g5. I managed to
win this game, which brought me first place
in the afore -mentioned Under-18 Champion
ship.
12 . . . h8
12 . . . A h6? 13 g5 Ag7 14 g2 and the queen
is trapped .
13 Ilg1
Threatening to cut off the queen by g4-g5 .
1 3 e7 14 a3
14 d3 !? was also possible, trying to save a
tem po.
14 . . . dI6
If 14 . . . f5, then 15 g5 ! (15 gxf5 gxf5 16 exf5
e4 ;t ). Th is is a typical idea - the g5 pawn
excludes both knights and the g7 bishop
from the game. And si nce Black has al
ready played . . . f7-f5 , there is not the . . . f7-f6
breakthrough.
15 b4 b6 1 6 d3 g8 17 a4 15
1 7 . . . a5 1 8 bxc5 bxc5 1 9 gb1 and Wh ite
penetrates on the b-file. With 17 . . . A h6 Black
could provoke g4-g5, but two tempi are too
high a price : 1 8 g5 Ag7 1 9 a5 gb8 20 ax b6
axb6 21 b5 .
. . .
18 g5?!
An inaccuracy, which allows Black a chance
to gain counterplay. With 1 8 a5 !? gb8
1 9 ax b6 axb6 20 f3 White would have re
tained all his advantage.
18
. . .
17?
Black misses his chance : 1 8 . . . h6! (18 . . . f4

1 9 Ad2 h6 20 g x h6 x h6 21 gxg6 ) 1 9 a5
g b8 20 a x b6 a x b6 21 g x h6 (21 h4?! is not
so good because of 21 . . . f4 22 Ad2 h xg5
23 h xg5 Af6 ! 24 Ag4 Axg5 and Wh ite can
not win material : 25 A x c8 gxc8 26 g4?
h7+ ! 27 g2 f3+ -+) 21 . . . A x h6 22 A xh6
x h6 23 f3 !? with only a slight advantage,
as Black has managed to exchange his bad
g7 bishop and bring his g8 knight into play
(if 23 gxg6 h7 with counterplay) .
19 a5 llb8 20 13
a
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
...
8
6
5
4
3
2
The position is strateg ically won , as the d5

and g5 pawns shut all Black's pieces out
of the game and Wh ite is going to break
through on the queenside.
20 . . . h6 21 a x b6 a x b6 22 h4 14 23 12
hxg5 24 hxg5 16 25 Ilg2!
6
5
4
3
2
Wh ite is not going to blu nder into a mate:

25 g xf6?? h7+.
25 . . . d8
All Black's pieces, apart from his queen , are
on the back rank, which says a lot.
--------
68
Game 13
26 b5 +- e7 27 flh2+
27 bxcS bxcS 28 xd6! xd6 29 xeS g7
30 AxcS ! would have won more quickly, but
when you have a strateg ically won position
you are not so keen to find a tactical solution .
g8 28 f1
28 bxcS bxcS 29 xd6!? +-.
27
28
32 xc5 c8
32 . . . Ac8 33 xc8 gxc8 34 e6 f7 3S cS.
33
xd7 .xd7 34 h3 flc7 35 e6+

g7
3S . . . gf7 36 xc8 gxc8 37 f1 followed by
h3.
. . .
. . .
g7 29 a7
36 xc8 flxc8 37 .g1 ! Black resigns
29 ga7 !?
29
. .
. d7
30 bxc5 bxc5
..
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
..;;;;;;n_-.
5
""""'"..
"-J""'''' --I
4
3
-------
31 xc5!?
A typical sacrifice. Black can do nothing
against the c- and d-pawns, especially as he
is unable to avoid the exchange of his key
light-square bishop.
31 dxc5
31 . . . c8 32 Af2 A xgS 33 cS and Wh ite is
winning with material equal .
. . .
ttJ
Gelfand - Ivanchuk, USSR Junior Team Championship, Kramatorsk 1 989
9 h
After 37 . . J 3f7 (or 37 . . . b6 38 gh7+ ! x h7

39 h2+) 38 g4 d6 39 Axc8 xc8 40 cS
White wins.
I am happy that this victory inspired my
team-mates to win our match 4-1 and we
thus finished among the medals. This game
also brought me the best score on top board,
ahead of Shirov, Bologan , Dreev, Ivanchuk,
Akopian etc.
***
69
Game 1 4
F l o r i n G h e o rg h i u - B o r i s G e l fa n d
G M A O p e n To u rn a m e n t ,
P a l m a de M a l l o rca 1 9 89
King 's In dian Defence [E8 1]
The G MA Open Tournament in Palma de Mal

lorca was very memorable for me, as it was
my fi rst big i nternational success (I won it
ahead of more than 1 50 grandmasters) and
it enabled me to receive invitations to such
big tournaments as Li nares and Ti lburg .
1 d 4 f6 2 e4 g 6 3 e3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 f3
0-0 6 Ae3 e5!?
I began employing this idea of Igor Glek i n
1986 and I liked i t immed iately. I have used it
many times with g reat success, and I am
surprised that it has never become really
pop u lar. For exam ple, Garry Kasparov did
not u se it at all against Anatoly Karpov in
thei r 1 990 World Championsh i p M atch, but
instead tried nearly all the other variations
against the Samisch .
7 dxe5
White often transposes into a Benoni by 7 d5
or 7 tLlge2 tLlc6 8 d5 tLle5 .
7 . . . dxe5 S "xdS
The attem pt to avoid the exchange of
q ueens did not succeed after 8 A x c5 tLl c6
9 Ae3 tLld7 ! 10 !!c1 a5 11 tLlh3 !!d8 ! 12 tLlf2
tLl c5 1 3 Ad2 A xc3 14 b x c3 Ae6 1 5 c2
tLl e5 16 Af4 tLl xc4 and Black is winning
(Dlugy - Gelfand , G MA Open , Palma de Mal
lorca 1 989) .
8 e5 tLlfd7 9 f4 f6 1 0 exf6 exf6 1 1 Ae2 ,
an idea of Portisch , was popular for some
time, u ntil the following game: 1 1 . . . e8 ! N
12 Af2 tLla6 13 tLlf3 tLlb6 14 0-0 A h6 15 c1
tLl a4 = (Beliavsky - Gelfan d, Mephisto, M u
n ich 1 991 ).
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
--------
One may wonder why Black has given up

a pawn , in addition exchanging the queens.
H owever, he has strong cou nterplay on the
dark sq uares and Wh ite has problems in de
veloping his kingside pieces.
10 d5
I have also faced other continuations, for
example:
A) 1 0 A a3 b6 1 1 tLl ge2 e6 12 !!d1 tLl d7
1 3 b3 (13 tLlf4 A x c3+ 14 b x c3 A a6 1 5 c5 =)
1 3 . . . A b7 14 g3 tLl de5 1 5 Ag2 tLld3+ 1 6 f1
a6 !? 1 7 f4 b5 18 Ac1 b x c4 1 9 b x c4 f6 !?
(1 9 . . . tLl a5 20 e5 A x g2+ 2 1 xg2 tLl xc4
22 tLl e4 =) 20 A e3 ? (20 f5 ! e5 2 1 tLl d5 oo)
20 . . . tLl a5 ! =+= (Bren n i n kmeijer - Gelfan d , Eu
ropean U nder-20 Championsh ip, Arnhem
1 987) ;
B) 10 tLlge2 tLld7 1 1 Ae3 tLlde5 1 2 tLlf4 tLl b4
1 3 f2 A e6 ! 14 tLl cd5 A xd5 1 5 tLl xd5 tLl c2
1 6 !!c1 tLl x e3 1 7 x e3 e6 1 8 tLl c3 A h6+
19 f4 g5 ! 20 g3 tLlg6 0-1 (Gunawan -Gelfand,
M i nsk 1 986).
10 . . . d7
Obviously it was not Black's i ntention to
regain the pawn immediately : 10 . . . tLl xd5
1 1 cxd5 A x b2 12 !! b1 A c3+ 1 3 f2 and
Wh ite stands better.
1 1 Axe7
Th is was a novelty at the time, but later
this line became popular, occurring in some
games of Anatoly Karpov. Neither 11 tLl xe7+
S . . . IlxdS 9 Axe5 e6
70
Game 14
fi1 xe7 1 2 Axe7 A x b2 nor 1 1 Aa3 e6 1 2 fiJ c7

..b8 poses any particular danger for Black.
13 fi1 xc8 ?! Axb2 14 Etb1 Ac3+ 15 <i!? f2 Ad4+ !

16 @ e1 Etaxc8 + .
13 . . . Axb2 14 gb1 Ag7

White has an extra pawn and a strong kn ight
on d5, but I believe that the complete control
of the dark-square bishop and the potential
weakness of the a2 and c4 pawns give Black
full compensation .
b
f
8
6
5
4
3
2
'If
Al l the pieces have reached thei r best

squares. It was too early for 1 7 . . . fiJ a4
18 Etxb7 Etab8 19 Etb3 ! .
18 Ae2?!
6
5
4
3
2
'---_______...._
.;;;...
----'
8
7
6
5
4
3
11 . . . xe7 12 xe7+ <m'8 13 d5
ttJ
Gheorghiu - Gelfand, G MA Open Tournament, Palma de Maliorca 1989
Safer was 1 8 fiJ xc5 gxc5 1 9 gb3 ! (19 gxb7

ga5) 1 9 . . . b5 (1 9 . . . Eta5 20 a3) 20 Etx b5 Etx b5
21 cxb5 Axd5 22 exd5 Etxd5 with a probabl e
draw.
18 . . . a4!
'If
The c3 square is critical for Black's counter

play.
19 3f4!
15 e2!?
Almost ten years later this position again oc
curred in one of my games : 1 5 h4 fiJ b6 !? N
16 h5 Ae6 (16 . . . Ad7!?) 1 7 fiJ h3 Etac8
(17 . . . A xh3!? 18 Etxh3 Etac8 19 f4 (1 9 fiJ xb6?!
ax b6 20 Etx b6 A c3+ !? is i n Black's favou r)
19 . . . fiJxc4 20 h6 00) 1 8 fiJ g5 A xd5 1 9 cxd5
..c2 with counterplay (Eh lvest - Gelfand , Ak
iba Rubinstei n M emorial , Polanica Zdroj
1997). 15 fiJ h3 was Karpov's choice.
15 . . . c5
Black doesn 't want to attack the c4 pawn,
but rather the a2 pawn by . . . Etd6-a6 after he
has developed his pieces. 15 . . . fiJ b6 16 fiJef4
Ad7 17 Ae2 gac8 1 8 o-o ;t .
G h eorg h i u rightly avoids 1 9 Etx b7 gxc4

20 Etxa7 Axd5 21 exd5 tDc3 with advantage
to Black.
19
g5!
Keeping up the pressure. If 19 . . . fiJ c3 ?!

20 fiJ xe6+ fxe6 21 fiJ xc3 Axc3+ 22 <i!? f2 Etd2
23 Ethd1 ! = .
20 h5 Ac3+! 21 <m'1 ?
Wh ite is playi ng with fire. H e should have
risen to the occasion and exchanged
the u ltra-powerful bishop : 2 1 fiJ x c3 fiJ xc3
22 gx b7 fiJ x e2 (22 . . . A x c4 23 A x c4 gxc4
24 0-0 Eta4 =) 23 <i!? x e2 A xc4+ with a prob
able draw.
16 c1
16 tDef4 Ad7 17 Ae2 Etac8 50 ; 16 fiJec3 !?
. .
21 . . . Ad4
The best square for the bishop.
16 . . . Ae6 17 d3 gac8!
22 h4
71

r----:---:----__;:____, ..
2S . . . xa2
The a-pawn decides the fate of the game.
26 fld3
6
5
The only move. If 26 gxb8 gxb8 27 g4 c3

intending . . . as-a4 -+.
26 . . . Db1 + 27 Ad1
3
2
Or 27 gd1 gdb8 ! .
a
The only chance for counterplay. 22 gx b7

gb8 would play into Black's hands.
22 . . . AxdS!?
Securing the i m portant c3 sq uare for
the knight. 22 . . . c3 ?! 23 x c3 A xc3
24 hxgS oo , or 22 . . . h6 23 h xgS hxgS 24 hf6
with counterplay.
..
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
23 exdS?
27 . . . Ab6 ! - +
Probably the decisive mistake. 23 cxdS

wou ld open the c -fi le for Black's rook, but
would at least maintai n White's strong pawn
centre : 23 . . . c3 (23 . . . gc2 24 h xgS gdc8
2S gd1 ) 24 g b4 (the only move ; if 24 gx b7
xe4 ! +) 24 . . . AeS (24 . . . A b6 2S gx b6 ! axb6
26 f2 00) 2S hxgS and I don 't see a substan
tial advantage in any of the following lines :
The final touch ! Wh ite could have com

plicated matters after 27 . . . c3 ?! 28 gxd4
x d1 29 e2 ! (or 29 tD g3 !?) 29 . . . c3+
30 d3 gxh1 31 xc3 with counterplay.
28 f6 b4 29 e2
More stubborn was 29 gd2 Ae3 30 e2
Axd2 31 xd2 as ! (31 . . . g x h4 32 gx h4 e7
33 tDe4) 32 hxgS a4 33 gxh7 a3 34 g6 fxg6
3S ga7 gd6 36 Ac2 gg1 , winning a piece for
the a-pawn .
A) 2S . . . xe2 ? 26 xe2 gc2+ 27 e3 ;

B) 2S . . . xe4 26 g3 ! ;
C) 2 S . . . xdS 2 6 exdS gc1 + 2 7 f2 gxh1
28 f4 00 ;
2 9 . . . xd3 3 0 xd3 a s 3 1 h x gS a4
32 e4
D) 2 S . . . x a2 2 6 gb1 c3 27 ge1 x e2
28 gxe2 gc1 + 29 ge1 gdc8 30 f2 (30 gh4
as 31 f4 gxe1 + 32 x e1 Ac3+ 33 d1
a4) 30 . . . g8c2+ 31 e3 gc3+ 32 f2 gxe1
(32 . . . g3c2+ 33 e3 =) 33 gxe1 as 34 gd1 ! 00.
The last chance was 32 c2 ga1 (32 . . . gb3

33 gx h7) 33 gxh7 a3 , when Black must win
anyway.
32 . . . a3 33 c3 Da1
23 . . . c3 24 flxb7 flb8!
33 . . . A aS ! 34 tD b1 a2 was more aesthetic.
Inaccurate is 24 . . . ge8 ?! 2S g3 =.
34 c2 Ad4 35 bS a2 36 b3 Da8
White resigns
2S flb3
***
2S gx b8 2S . . . gxb8 26 Ad3 gb2 -+ .
72
Game 1 5
Gelfand - Kasparov, Linares 1 990
Game 1 5
B o r i s G e lfa n d - G a r r y Ka s p a rov
L i n ares 1 9 9 0
Linares was my first big tournament (or
super-tournament as they are now called)
and I was i nvited as a last-m i n ute substi
tute. I guess that Luis Rentero (the tourna
ment director and for many years the main
force beh ind the Linares tou rnament) d e
cided to give a young player h i s chance after
my win in the G MA Open i n Palma de Mal
lorca. The d rawing of lots gave me some
tough opponents in the first few rounds (Kas
parov, Salov, Beliavsky etc). And in the fi rst
round I had to face Garry Kasparov hi mself.
An encounter with a world champion is al
ways a memorable event for a young chess
player, especially the first time. And I ap
proached it with full responsibil ity, intending
to give of my best and to play an interesting
game.
1 d4 ctsf6 2 e4 g6 3 ctse3 Ag7 4 e4 d6

5 Ae2 0-0 6 ctsf3 e5 7 0-0 ctse6 8 d5
f1le7
In the early 1 990s the King's I ndian Defence
became very popular, than ks to the efforts
of both players. And I enjoyed playing it with
either colour.
12 . . . h8
The entire plan with . . . <!> h8, refrain i ng from
an immediate . . . f5-f4 and vacating the
g8 square, became extremely fash ionable
after the game Karpov- Kasparov, G M A,
Skelleftea 1 989 (although that was i n the
9 tDd2 variation). In our next game, played
on New Year's Eve 1 992 , Garry chose the
more 'ancient' way of playing : 1 2 . . . f4 13 g4!?
(13 c5 is the more classical approach, but
here too I tried to stop Black's play more
radical ly) 1 3 . . . g5 14 b4 h5 1 5 h3 <!> f7 (Black
has to occu py the h -fi le and then th reaten
to sacrifice in the vicinity of f3 or g4) 16 Ae1
gh8 17 <!> g2 tDg6 (17 . . . gh6 !?) 18 c5 (safer
was 18 Af2 h xg4 1 9 h xg4 tD h4+ 20 A x h4
gxh4 21 gh1 h8 (0) 18 . . . h xg4 1 9 h xg4
9 f1le1 ctsd7 10 ctsd3 f5 1 1 Ad2 ctsf6

I already had some experience of this line
with the black pieces : 1 1 . . . <!> h8 12 b4 tDf6
13 f3 eg8 14 c5 Ah6 15 Ek1 Axd2 16 xd2
f4 17 tDf2 g5?! (better is 17 . . . h5 00 , prevent
ing g2-g4) 18 g4! h5 19 h3 gf7 20 gc2 gh7
21 a4 hxg4 (21 . . . f8 !?) 22 hxg4 f8 23 <!>g2
lfiJ.e7 24 gh1 and Wh ite has advanced quite
far on the queenside, whereas as yet Black
has fai led to create any real threats agai nst
the opponent's king (Malaniuk- Gelfand, 56 th
USSR
Championsh ip, Odessa 1 989) .
12 f3
19 . . . tDh5! (an incred ible tactical resource ! - if

1 9 . . . tD h4+ 20 Ax h4 gxh4 21 gh1 t) 20 gh1 .
I didn't dare to accept the piece sacrifice
with 20 gxh5:
A) 20 . . . A h3+ !? is interesting :
73
A1 } 21 c;!? x h3 loses to 21 . . . gxh5+ 22 c;!? g2

h8 23 A h4 tD x h4+ 24 c;!? f2
I n my game with Christopher Lutz (M u n ich

1 992) I rei ntroduced at high level the move
13 . . . c6, maintaining the tension in the centre
and i ntending . . . b7-b5 . Probably because
of the successfu l outcome of that game for
Black, I had to face it with Wh ite (success
fully as wel l !) the very next day! In forthcom
ing years I had to uphold my faith in Wh ite's
position i n games with Topalov (VSB, Ams
terdam 1 996) and N ij boer (Hoogovens, Wij k
aan Zee 1 998).
14 94
24 . . . tD g2 !! (keeping the king encaged)
25 a4 (25 gh1 gh2) 25 . . . gh2 26 d7+ c;!?f8 ;
A2} 2 1 c;!? g1 ! gxh5 22 gf2 h8 23 Af1 Ad7
with an attack;
B} 20 . . . gxh5 and now:
B 1 } 2 1 tD f2 tD h4+ ! 22 c;!? g1 h8 23 A c4
(23 tDg4 tDf5 !) 23 . . . tDg2 !! (we are already fa
miliar with this typical combination) 24 c;!? xg2
gh2+ 25 c;!? g1 h4 26 tD g4 gh1 + 27 c;!? g2
h3+ 28 c;!? f2 gh2+ 29 tD x h2 x h2#;
B2} 21 gh1 gxh1 22 c;!? x h1 h8+ 23 c;!? g2
h5 00 with a strong attack.
20 . . . tDg3 21 Axg3 fxg3 (21 . . . gxh1 22 x h1
fxg3 23 h3 (23 c;!? xg3 tD f4 00) 23 . . . f6 ! ?,
i ntending . . . Ad7 an d . . . g h 8 ; i f 23 . . . tD f4+ ?!
24 tD xf4 exf4 25 e5 !? with counterplay}
22 d2 gh4 23 c;!? xg3 Ad7 24 gxh4 g x h4+
25 c;!? h2 and Black has full compensation for
the pawn, but not more (Gelfand - Kasparov,
Reggio Emilia 1 991 /1 992) .
1 3 Hc1 c5
a
On the basis of the games Ftacnik- Geller,

(Sochi 1 977) and Ftacnik- N u n n (Vienna
1986, see below), this position was assessed
as favourable for White. He is trying to keep
the black pieces and pawns as far away as
possible from his monarch. As the fi rst world
champion Wilhelm Stein itz wrote : ' If the nec
essary precautionary measures are taken,
the king can defend itself' .
1 4 . . . a6
Intend ing . . . b7-b5 . Kasparov's concrete play
enables Black to avoid a bind on the kingside
and breathes new life i nto the development
of this variation .
If 14 . . . h6 1 5 h4 fxg4 1 6 fxg4 tD eg8 (16 . . . g5
17 h 5 !) 1 7 c;!? g2 tD h7 1 8 gh1 Af6 1 9 Ae1 and
Wh ite succeeds i n halting the opponent's
kingside attack.
White's strategic ideas are well illustrated by
the following game: 14 . . . tDeg8 15 c;!?g2 ! tDe8
(15 . . . f4 1 6 h4 tD xg4!? 1 7 fxg4 xh4 1 8 Ae1
g5 1 9 tD f2 h5 (19 . . . tD h6 20 tD h3 f6 ?
2 1 g 5 ! A x h3+ 22 c;!? x h 3 xg5 23 A h4 +-)
20 tD h3 f6 2 1 g x h 5 g5 22 tD f2 +-} 1 6 g5
f4 17 h4 gf7 18 gh1 Af8 19 g1 (the pawns
on d5 and g5 take too m uch space from
the black pieces ; the reader has already
seen this in Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Game 1 3 ,
p . 67) 1 9 . . . tD g7 20 A d1 ! tD h5 2 1 tD e2 h6?!
(21 . . . Ag7 22 A a4 tD e7 23 b4 b6 ;t Nunn)
22 c;!? f1 Ae7 23 A a4 h xg5?! 24 h x g 5 A xg5
25 Ae8 !! with advantage (Ftacn i k - N un n ,
Vienna 1 986) .
_
_
_
_
_
_
...._
.;;...
----'
L..._
.-
lf
74
Game 15
Gelfand - Kasparov, Linares 1990
15 f2
20 . . . hxg5 21 h5 tlfe8
How else can the e4 pawn be protected ?

15 a4 a5 = offers no chances, while after
15 a3 b5 !? 16 g5 ttJ h5 17 cxb5 axb5 18 ttJ xb5
A a6 Wh ite has made a big concession (he
has released the tension in the centre pre
maturely b y g4-g5) , and s o Black has fu ll
com pensation for the pawn.
8
7
6
5
4
4
3
15 . . . h6!?
15 . . . d7 16 a3 ttJ eg8 17 b4 ;t .
L 2
16 h4
16 b4 ? cxb4 17 ttJ a4 b5 and if 18 cxb5 ax b5
19 xb5 a5 -+ . 1 6 g b1 fxg4 1 7 fxg4 g5
18 b4 b6 1 9 bxc5 bxc5 would al low Black to
carry out the manoeuvre . . . ttJ e7-g6 -f4.
16 . . . fxg4 17 fxg4 eg8 18 g2

White has to protect his h4 pawn .
18 . . . h7 19 llh1 f6
From the fifteenth move onwards everything
has been forced . Now the result of the inclu
sion of 14 . . . a6 15 ttJf2 is evident : the pawn
cannot be protected by d2-e1 .
--------
21 . . . tD e7 is also possible, when Wh ite has

a choice between 22 g4 with play on the
light sq uares, followed by e2 and the dou
bling of rooks on the h-file, and 22 e3 !? (or
22 gb1 !?), consolidating the position and
intending the standard King's In dian plan
of gb1 , b2-b4 etc. In the post-mortem the
world champion suggested an original possi
bil ity of cou nterplay: 22 . . . ttJf5 !? 23 exf5 gxf5
with chances for both sides.
20 g5!
22 b4!?
20 h5?! h4 + . It is interesting that both dur

ing the game, and in later annotations (Kas
parov in Chess Informator and myself in New
in Chess magazine) 20 g3 was condemned
because of 20 . . . xh4+ 21 gxh4 gxf2 :
A) 22 x h6? ttJ x h 6 (22 . . . g 5? 23 gh5)
23 gx h6 f8 24 d2 A xg4 25 gch1 A h5
and Black wins;
8) possible is 22 h1 f8 ! (22 . . . gf7 23 xh6
xh6 24 gxh6 and if 24 . . . g5 25 gf1 ) 23 g5
(23 e3 gf4 ! 24 A xf4 exf4+ 25 f2 g5
26 gh3 tD hf6 27 gg1 ttJ d7 =+= and Black has
more than sufficient compensation , accord
ing to Kasparov) 23 . . . h5 24 g1 gf7 and the
extremely poor placing of Black's knights
make the chances unclear;
B) 22 . . . ttJ e7 23 x e8 gxe8 24 tD a4 and

the queen exchange favours White, as now
Black has no counterplay;
C) 22 f3 !? This move, winning the ex

change, was overlooked . However, Black
can gain good com pensation by 22 . . . g7
23 gh1 gxd2 ! 24 xd2 ttJ g5.
C) the natural 22 . . . Ad7? loses to 23 h x g 6 !

ttJ h6!? (23 . . . xa4 24 gx h7#) 24 gxh6 xa4
25 g4 !! - the simplest, after which Black is
helpless against gx h7+ and e6+ ;
This move indicates my desire to play very

concretely and energetically. I now th ink that
positional play was more to the point.
Kasparov's recommendation 22 hxg6 xg6
23 h5 g7 24 g4 gives Wh ite good play
on the light sq uares, which compensates
well for the missi ng pawn.
22 a4 is tem pting :
A) hard ly sufficient is 22 . . . b5 23 c x b5 Ad7
24 d1 !? a x b5 25 A x b5 , as 25 . . . A x b5
26 ttJ x b5 x b5 27 h xg6 ga7 28 h5 is bad
for Black;
75
0) 22 . . . f7 23 gcf1 (23 b4 !?), bringing the

rook into the game.
24 . . . Ad7
24 . . . b5 25 Axd6!? gxf2+ (25 . . . gf6 26 hxg6)
26 xf2 bxa4 27 h xg6 xg6 28 A x e5+
Af6 29 d4 looks to be in Wh ite's favou r.
24 . . . gxf2+ !? 25 xf2 gf6 is interesting
here as wel l .
22 Ag4 Axg4 23 xg4 h6 24 e2 is simi

lar to 22 h xg6.
22 . . . cxb4
Obviously, Garry also fights for the in itiative.
22 . . . b6 23 gb1 is a concession .
23 a4
Now 23 a4 ?! fails to achieve its goal :
23 . . . bxc3 24 x e8 gxe8 25 h xg6 e7 !
26 gx h7+ g8 27 gxc3 xg6 =t .
5 r--__
4
3
23 . . . Ad8!
From here the bishop not only takes con
trol of the b6 sq uare (from where it can also
come into play later), but it also clears the f
fi le for the rook and the f6 square for a knight.
Bad was 23 . . . b5 24 b6 gb8 25 xc8 gxc8
26 Ag4 gc7 27 hxg6 xg6 28 Af5 , or 23 . . . a5
24 b6 gb8 25 xc8 gxc8 26 Ag4.
L...-_______----=-__.....
{r
25 hxg6?!
In this extremely com plicated position both
players prefer not to take half measures,
but crucial decisions. However, from g6 the
q ueen takes a d i rect part in the attack (the
e4 pawn is weak!).
24 Axb4
One of the favou rite questions I hear from
chess amateurs is: ' How many moves ahead
can you calculate ? ' I try to explain that
sometimes you can not foresee more than
2-3 moves, as both you and your opponent
have too wide a choice of possibil ities. In this
case it is far more important to see as many
of the avai lable options as possible and to
trust your intuition . This is one such position
and even after a lengthy home analysis it is
impossible to make a correct j udgement.
25 A xd6?! leaves Wh ite a piece down

after 25 . . . Axa4 26 hxg6 't'#xg6 (26 . . . gxf2+ !?
27 xf2 gf6 28 't'#d3 't'#xg6 29 Axe5 g8)
27 Axe5+ Af6 =t .
25 c3 seemed rather passive t o m e :
25 . . . Ae7 (25 . . . A b6 2 6 d3) 2 6 d3 g4!?
25 b2 , with the idea of playing the knight to
d3, seems obvious, but 25 . . . gxf2+ 26 xf2
gf6 00 allows Black to take the in itiative, due
to the weakness of the e4 pawn : 27 d3
A b6+ ! (it is i m portant to bring the bishop
into play) 28 e1 g x h5 29 A xd6 Ad4 with
counterplay.
An alternative was the 24 c5 breakthroug h ,

when i t i s hard to say what is the best reply:
A) 24 . . . gf6 25 A x b4 (25 c6 !? ; 25 cxd6
g4!?) 25 . . . a5 26 A a3 b5 27 cxb6 Ad7;
B) 24 . . . Ad7 25 b6 A xb6 26 cxb6 00 ;
C) 24 . . . dxc5 25 xc5 ;
25
0) 24 . . . f7 !? ;
E) 24 . . . gxf2+ !? 25 xf2 gf6 26 cxd6
(26 gc4 d x c5 27 xc5 b6 28 d3 b5 with
counterplay) 26 . . . xe4+ 27 g2 Ad7 with a
crazy situation .
4
3
2
. . .
xg6 26 c5
Intending c5-c6. Now Black has no less than

five (!) tempting ways to develop his attack.
26 . . . g4?!
The alternatives were :
76
Game 1 5
A) 26 . . . gxf2+ 27 xf2 x e4 28 gc4 f5+

29 g2 gf6 30 c3 and Wh ite consoli
dates;
8) 26 . . . gc8 !? 27 Ag4 (27 b6 Axb6 28 cxb6
g4 ! with the initiative) 27 . . . Axg4 (27 . . . gc7 !?)
28 Wfxg4 gc7 29 cxd6 gcf7 , and if 30 d3 ?
(30 Ac5 gf4 31 e2 gf6 with an attack)
30 . . . gf4 ;
27 g3
27 . . . Ag5 28 gc3 .
28 d3 bxc6
The computer refutes 28 . . . gc8 - 29 ac5 !
d xc5 30 cxd7 gc7 31 Ac3. Dubious is
28 . . . b5 ?! 29 cxd7 b x a4 30 gc8, while
28 . . . Ag5 29 gc3 is unclear.
29 dxc6
. . .
C) 26 . . . Axa4!? 27 xa4 g4 and now :
8 .1.
7
C1 ) less concrete is 28 Ac3 dxc5 (28 . . . b5 !? ;

28 . . . Ag5!? ; 28 . . . gf6 !? 29 cxd6 A b6)
29 A xe5+ (29 Wfd7 h6 (29 . . . gxf2+ 30 xf2
'i' xe4 31 x g4) 30 A x e5+ Af6) 29 . . . Af6
30 Ag3 Ad4 and it is m uch easier to play
this position from Black's side ;
C2) 28 Wfd7 !? gxf2+ !? (28 . . . gf6 29 'tWxd6 ;
28 . . . g3 29 x h7+ x h7 30 gx h7+ x h7
31 d3 with sufficient compensation for the
exchange) 29 xf2 gf6 30 Wfxb7 (30 gx h7+
tb xh7 31 xg4 (31 x b7 xe4) 31 . . . h6)
30 . . . Wfxe4 ! 31 xa8 (31 Ad2 g3+ 32 xg3
'i'xe2) 31 . . . g3+ 32 xg3 Wfe3+ with perpet
ual check;
0) 26 . . . gf6 ! (analysed by Kasparov i n In
formator) 27 c6 (27 c3 g4 28 c6 g3 29 d3
tbg4!) 27 . . . xe4, and now:
0 1 ) White loses after 28 cxd7 (or 28 x e4
'i'xe4+ 29 Af3 x b4 30 cxd7 g4 -+)
28 . . . gxf2+ (28 . . . xf2 ? 29 c2 x c2
30 gxc2 xh1 31 A xd6 oo) 29 g1 f5
30 Ae1 (30 gc3 gg2+ 31 xg2 f2+
32 c;!? h3 g4+ 33 xg4 ef6+ 34 h3 g5#)
30 . . . Wff4 ! 31 d3 (31 gh3 g4 -+) 31 . . . xc1
32 gx h7+ g8 -+ (Kasparov) ;
02) 28 d3 ! (suggested by the com puter,

this is the only move that al lows Wh ite to
continue the fig ht) 28 . . . bxc6 29 d x c6 f5
30 Ae1 (30 cxd7 f2) 30 . . . Ae6 31 c7 A e7
32 b6 and I wou ldn't even dare to try and
assess this position .
27 c6
Only forward ! 27 c3 gf6 transposes into
the 26 . . . gf6 variation .
...
f
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
At this moment I estimated my chances very

high ly, thinking that Black's play had come
to a dead end , whereas Wh ite had broken
through on the queenside. The world cham
pion 's reply came like a cold shower to me.
29 gc8!
29 . . . Ag5 also came into consideration . Here
I realised that I had to fight for a draw, but
although I thought for a long time, I cou ld
not find the right sol ution.
. . .
30 Af3
Not 30 cxd7? gxc1 31 x c1 gf2+ 32 g1
x e4 -+ , or 30 x e5 gf2+ 31 g1 x e4
32 Af3 e3 -+ , but as Kasparov showed
after the game, 30 Axd6! was stronger:
A) 30 . . . x e4+ 31 Af3 gxf3 32 xf3 A xc6
33 A x e5+ (33 x e5 ? e2+ -+ ; 33 gxc6
xc6 34 x e5 xf3+ 35 xf3 Af6 =)
33 . . . Af6 34 A xf6+ g xf6 35 gxc6 gxc6
36 ac5 with a draw ;
B) Black can avoid the draw by 30 . . . xd6
31 cxd7 gxc1 32 xc1 ! (I didn't see this
move ; 32 Wfxc1 ?! Wfd4!) 32 . . . Wfg6 (32 . . . Wfc6
33 Af3 oo ; 32 . . . gf2+ 33 xg3 Wff6 34 Af3 +-)
77
33 Af3 tLl h6 with an unclear game, but his

chances are not better here.
30 . . J lxf3!?
The post-mortem analysis showed that
30 . . . A xc6?! 31 tLl xe5 ! (31 l'!xc6 l'!xc6
32 tLl xe5 d x e5 33 A xf8 tWf7 ! +) 31 . . . d x e5
32 A xf8 A xa4 33 tWd6 (33 tWxa4 ? l'!xc1
34 l'!xc1 tLl xf8) 33 . . . tWxd6 34 A xd6 l'!xc1
35 A xe5+ Af6 36 A xf6+ tLl g xf6 37 l'!xc1
leads to a draw.
B3) 34 . . . A xc1 35 A x e5+ tLl gf6 36 tLl xc1

tWxc6 37 tLl c3 l'!g8 38 l'!h6 Af5 39 A xf6+
tWxf6 40 tWxg8+ xg8 41 l'!xf6 tLl xf6 with a
total elimi nation of the fighting material .
33 . . . Af3 !? was one of the most dangerous
attem pts :
A) 34 l'!h3 tWxd3 35 tWxf3 tWd4+ 36 g2
tWx b4 (36 . . . l'!c7 ? 37 a3 ! a5 38 l'!d1 or
37 . . . l'!g7+ 38 h1 ) 37 l'!x h7+ x h7 38 tWf7+
h8 39 l'!h1 + A h4 40 tW h5+ g7 41 l'!x h4
tWd2+ and White is not guaranteed a draw ;
B) 34 A xd6 (here this 'standard ' move is
not sufficient) 34 . . . tWe3+ 35 h2 tWxd3
36 A xe5+ Af6 ;
C) 34 tLlf2 !? tWf5 35 Axd6 (after 35 l'!h3 gxc6
36 ge1 Ad5 I prefer Black) 35 . . . Ac7 ! (intend
ing to bring the rook across along the 7 th
ran k ; now Wh ite has to look for an escape)
36 gx h7+ !? (36 gh3 ? A xd6 37 tWxf3 tWg5+
-+ ; 36 A xc7 gxc7) 36 . . . x h7 37 gc3 and
this looks good enough for Wh ite to draw.
31 Oxf3 g4 32 Oxg3
32 tWe3 ? Ag5 -+.
32 . . . 0xe4+ 33 ct>g1
In Chess Informator my opponent suggested
that 33 h2 was stronger, but it loses to
33 . . . Af3 ! (33 . . . tLl gf6 34 A xd6 tWxa4 35 c7)
34 tLlf2 (34 l'!hf1 tLl g5) 34 . . . tWx b4 35 tWxf3
tWxa4 36 g2 l'!c7 when Wh ite has no coun
terplay for his material deficit.
a
8
7
5
3
..
to Wh ite's poorly placed pieces) 36 . . . tWd2

37 l'!xg4 oo ;
B) 34 Axd6. As i n most li nes, it is advisable
to take on d6; furthermore, here Black can
not win material :
B 1 ) 34 . . . tWx a4 and now the strongest is
the com puter suggestion 35 A x e5+ tLl gf6
36 tLlf2 ! A xc1 37 tWd3 ! (37 A xf6+ g8
38 tLl xg4 also wins easily) ;
B2) 34 . . . tWd4+ 35 tLlf2 ;
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Wh ite also has to be precise after 33 . . . gc7 !?

34 A xd6 (there is no other reasonable way
of cou nteri ng . . . gc7-g7), and now:
A) 34 . . . gg7 35 A xe5 Af6 (35 . . . tLlgf6 proves
u nsuccessfu l after 36 c7 A x c7 37 gxc7
Ad7 38 tWxg7+ ! x g7 39 gxd7+) 36 tLl ac5
(or 36 l'!h4 !? A x h4 37 tWx h4 ) 36 . . . tWxc6
37 f2 and Wh ite parries the i m mediate
threats, remai ning the exchange u p;
B) 34 . . . tWd4+ ! 35 h2 (35 g2 !? tWd5+
36 g1 tWxd6 37 tWx e5+) 35 . . . tWxd6
36 tWx e5+ tWx e5+ 37 tLl x e5 and the d raw
is with in reach.
33 . . . gf6!?
Pointless was 33 . . . Ae7 ? 34 tLlf2 tWx b4
35 tWxg4 or 33 . . . Ac7 ? 34 l'!h4 tLlgf6 35 l'!f1 ,
but Black had several other promising con
tin uations at his disposal .
With 33 . . . Ag5 Black can hard ly pose any
serious problems:
A) 34 l'!e1 tWd4+ 35 tLlf2 tWx b4 (35 . . . tLl gf6
36 tWc3) 36 l'!e4 (36 tWxg4 tWxg4+ (36 . . .
tWx e1 + 37 g2 tWa5 38 tWxc8 tWxa4 39 c7)
37 tLlxg4 l'!xc6 and Black is clearly better due
78
Game 1 5
a b c d
8
7
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
and now 38 . . . xc6 ? is a mistake due to

39 x h7+ x h7 40 h2+ tbh5 41 x h5+,
when if 41 . . . g7 ?! 42 tbf5+ +-.
37 . . . xa4 38 .xeS
8
7
5
4
3
A
__________________ u
34
..
a b
.txd6!
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
At this moment I felt that 34 . . . Ac7 and

35 . . E!.g8 had to be prevented at any price.
.
34 . . .d4+
After 34 . . . xc6 ? ! 35 xc6 xc6 36 Axe5 !

(36 E!.x h7+ x h7 37 h4+ Ah5 38 Axe5 =)
36 . . . xa4 37 tbf2 g8 38 h4 it is Black
who has to make a d raw from the 'weaker
side' : 38 . . . xa2 39 tbxg4 Ab6+.
After 34 . . . xa4 35 Axe5 Ab6+ 36 tbf2 E!.xc6
(36 . . . g8 37 h6 ! xc6 (Black is in trou
ble after 37 . . . f7 38 h4 !) 38 xc6 xc6
39 E!.xf6 tbxf6 40 Axf6 xf6 41 xg4+ =)
37 E!.xc6 xc6 38 Axf6+ xf6 39 b8+ g7
40 'tWb7+ f8 41 b8+ Wh ite gives perpetual
check.
35 f2 .xd6 36 xg4
It would appear that 36 x h7+ tbx h7
(36 . . . x h7 37 tbxg4 d4+ 38 tbf2 , and
if 38 . . . xa4 ? (38 . . . tbe4 39 :tlh3+ g6
40 e6+ =) 39 h3+) 37 xg4 xc6
(37 . . . E!.c7 38 d1 ) 38 xc6 xc6 39 e4 ! +
was sufficient for a d raw. Perhaps this was
a more practical way of playi ng, as we will
see.
36 . . .d4+ 37 f2
It is so natural to place the pieces as safely
as possible, but the sil icon monster sug
gests 37 tbe3 xa4 (better is the concrete
37 . . . Ab6 ! 38 tbx b6 g8 39 xg8+ xg8
40 tbbc4 c5, el i m i nating the c6 pawn
and thus any winning attem pts) 38 xe5,
38 . . J c7?!
After this series of forced moves I ex
pected 38 . . . xc6, when I didn't see a d raw
after 39 d1 ? Ab6 ! . Here is a possible
l i ne : 40 b8+ g7 41 g3+ f7 42 d7+
(42 x h7+ tbx h7 43 d7+ e8) 42 . . . e8
43 h x h7 (43 d x h7 Axf2+ 44 xf2 g4+
45 h2 tbx h7) 43 . . . tbxh7 44 x h7 Axf2+ !
45 xf2 d1 + ! (45 . . . c1 + 46 h2 c2
47 h8+ and the king cannot escape from
the checks) 46 g2 c2 -+ 47 h8+ d7
48 h7+ c6 49 h6+ b5 50 h5+ b4
51 h4+ a3.
But Garry saw more : 39 xh7+ ! xh7
40 h2+ tbh5 ! (even after the rook blun
der 40 . . . g7 ? 41 g2+ f7 42 xc6 xa2
it is u n l i kely that White would achieve more
than an ending with E!.+tb v. A+tb) 41 x h5+
g7 with a draw. But in any case the game
continuation doesn 't pose any problems for
Wh ite, so I am surprised that the world
cham pion didn't try such an excellent prac
tical chance.
39 J::l h 2
I decided to secure the position of my king.
After 39 d1 !? g7+ 40 f1 c4+! 41 e2
g8 oo it is Black who is more l i kely to de
velop an attack.
79
42 .c8+
39 . . . 11g7+ 40 11g2
Forcing a draw.
Hardly anyone would venture 40 h1 on

the last move before the time control , but
apparently this does not lose : 40 . . . Ac?
(40 . . . ffxa2 !?) 41 ffxf6 Ax h2 42 ffd8+ !'!g8
43 c? Axc? 44 ffxc?
42 g8 43 .xg8+ xg8 44 Ilxg7+

xg7 45 d3 Draw agreed
. . .
Th is fascinating game gave us a good boost,

as we both won our next four games ! I can
not remember a simi lar occurrence in a tour
nament of such cali bre! It was also awarded
a prize for the best game of the tournament an extremely heavy statue. We had to toss a
coin to decide who would take it. And it was
a rare case when I was happy to lose, as I
had no idea how I would be able to transport
it back home!
40 . . . .tc7 41 .f5
41 ffe6? fff4 -+.
41
. . .
xa2
a b c
8
l---r-__7
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
--------
Only in the last m i n utes of the tournament

did Kasparov manage to overtake me, but it
was still a great success for me. My score of
+4 in Linares (I won six games) lifted me from
a promising j u nior to one of the strongest
players i n the worl d . I n the next rating list
I was eq ual 3 rd , behind only Kasparov and
Karpov.
***
Game 1 6
9 . . . g5 !? 10 Ag3 eDh5 was the most natural

plan.
B o r i s G e l fa n d - M u r ra y C h a n d l e r
G MA Qualifying Tournament, Moscow 1 990
Queen 's Indian De fence [E 1 2]
10 d5
a b c
1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 b6 4 a3 .tb7
5 c3 g6
7
6
5
4
3
2
The double fianchetto against the Petrosian

Variation was often employed by players
from M i nsk, so I was fami liar with the ideas
and I twice played it with Black agai nst
Jeroen Pi ket in 1 988. It is a kind of hy
brid of the King's Ind ian and Queen 's Ind ian
defences. Black concedes the centre, but
keeps pressing on it.
6 .tg5
...
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10 . . .e7
More in the spirit of the position was 10 . . . g5
11 Ag3 eDh5, transposing i nto one of my
6 d5 and 6 ffc2 are other common plans.
6 . . . .tg7 7 .c2 h6 8 .th4 d6 9 11d1 0-0
80
Game 16
games with Piket : 1 2 d4 (1 2 e3 !?) 12 . . . VWe7

1 3 e3 xg3 14 h xg3 cS ! with counterplay
(Piket- Gelfand, OHRA, Amsterdam 1 988).
11 e3 c6?
This is a mistake, breaking up Black's pawn
structure. If Chandler didn't like the plan with
. . . g6-gS and . . . hS, he should have played
11 . . . cS !? 1 2 h 3 ! ? (1 2 Ae2 exdS 13 cxdS gS
14 Ag3 hS ; 12 d xe6 VWxe6 1 3 bS ttle8
14 Ag3 dS!? with an unclear game) 12 . . . exdS
13 cxdS with a kind of Modern Benoni .
1 2 dxe6 exe6 1 3 Ae2 bd7

After 13 . . . dS 14 ttld4 !? (14 cxdS ttlxdS
15 xdS cxdS 1 6 ttld4 e4 =) 14 . . . c8
15 cxdS xdS 16 xdS cxdS Black's coun
terplay doesn 't compensate ful ly for his iso
lated pawn, but I think this was a better so
lution .
14 0-0 e5
a b c d
ttJ
Gelfand - Chandler, GMA Qualifying Tournament, Moscow 1 990
16 d5?!
This allows the penetration of White's knight
to d6. Better was 1 6 . . . gfd8 1 7 a4 gxd1
(17 . . . gS 1 8 gxd8+ gxd8 1 9 xa7 !? or
1 9 Ag3 ;!;) 18 gxd1 gS 1 9 Ag3 ;!; .
17 e4
Not 1 7 Ac4 ? xe3 (17 . . . VWg4 1 8 e4) .
1 7 e4 ttlxc3 1 8 VWxc3 gS 1 9 gd6 ;!; was also
strong , but I decided to keep the knights on
the board , since White's is heading for d6,
whereas Black's on dS is vulnerable to attack
(by a possible e3-e4) .
.
17
g5 18 Ag3 gab8
18 . . .fS 1 9 d6.
19 d6 bxe5
1 9 . . .fS 20 e4 ! .
20 f5
20 VWxcS Af6 (20 . . . Aa8 21 e4 ) would allow
Black some counterplay.
20
. . .
Ae8
a b c d
8
L...-_______---=-__.....
'If
15 xe5!
I think that (together with the next move) this
is a strong strategic decision . 1 S ttld4 VWe8
16 e4 was more natural , but after 1 6 . . . a6 ;!;
Black has counterplay associated with . . . c 6 c5 and . . . b6-bS.
15 . . . dxe5 16 c5!
This is an instructive case of transforming an
advantage. Black has got rid of his weak d6
pawn, but both of h i s bishops are shut out
of the game.
L..-_______...._
.:::....
----J
'lf
21 xg7 !
A concrete decision. Not so clear was 21 e4
f4 22 Ac4 (22 gd6 VWb3 !) 22 . . . VWe8 ;!; .
2 1 . . . xg7 2 2 exe5
22 Ac4!? .
2 2 . . . gxb2 23 Ae4
23 Ag4 !? was suggested by Chandler after
the game. I missed this possi b ility, as I saw
that the text move was strong enough . How
ever 23 Ag4 is not as decisive as it seems:
23 . . .fS (23 . . . VWf6 24 Axc8 gbS 2S gxdS
81
.!3.xc5 26 .!3.xc5 +-; 23 . . . xg4 24 Axe5+)

24 e4 ! fxg4 25 exd5 cxd5 26 .!3.xd5 .!3.e2 and
Wh ite still has to work hard to win the game.
White had a wide choice of options : 30 .!3.b1 !?

or 30 Ad6.
30
23 . . . Dc2
Aa6 31 Aa4
31 xc6 ?? .!3.c8.
23 . . . .!3. b7 24 e4 e7 25 xe7 (25 Axe5+

xe5 26 exd5 cxd5 27 .!3.fe1 f4 ;;\;)
25 . . . xe7 26 Axe5+ .
31 . . . Ab7 32 h3! 016
24 Dc1 !
E lim i nating all counterplay. 24 e4 ? Aa6
(24 . . . f4 25 xf8+) 25 exd5 cxd5 26 .!3.fe1
.!3.xc4 27 Axe5+ f6 28 xa7+ .!3.f7 leads to a
draw.
8
7
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
24 . . . Dxc1 25 Dxc1 e4
Or 25 . . .f5 26 e4 fxe4 27 xa7+ .!3.f7 ?
28 b8.
26 0xa7
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
..
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
33 h2!
Avoiding the last trap : 33 .!3.b1 c3 34 .!3.x b7?
e2+ 35 h2 a1 -+.
33 . . . h5
33 . . . d8 34 d4 +-.
34
Db1 h4
34 . . . c3 35 .!3.x b7 xa4 36 b4.
35 Dxb7 hxg3+ 36 fxg3 Of2 37 Db3
As Wh ite has the advantage of the two bish

ops and a passed a-pawn, the rest is just a
matter of technique.
37 Axc6 ? xe3 38 xg5+ h8 39 h5+

g8 40 xf7+ 'tWxf7 41 .!3.xf7 .!3.xa5 and White
has still to demonstrate some techn ique.
26 . . . g8 27 Oc5 .td7 28 a4 Da8 29 a5

Ac8 30 Ab3
37 . . . De8 38 Axc6 Black resigns
* * *
82
Game 1 7
Short - Gelfand, I nterpolis Tournament, Tilburg 1 990
Game 1 7
N i g e l S h o r t - B o r i s G e l fa n d
I nterpo l i s To u r n a m e n t , Ti l b u rg 1 9 9 0
Sicilian Defence [892J
The Interpolis tournaments were held i n the
south of The Netherlands for 15 years. They
were some of the best tournaments of their
time, not only as regards the strength of
the players, but also the level of organisa
tion . The players had noth ing to worry about,
apart from the quality of their games. In this,
my first Ti lburg event, I had lost my first two
games, and I was hoping to get back i nto
the tournament.
N igel Short has been one of the most awk
ward opponents for me throughout my ca
reer. The Engl ishman is especially strong
with the wh ite pieces. I n our games N igel has
tried almost all the possible moves against
the Najdorf Variation . In the first two games I
managed to w in, but later on he gained re
venge many times. Th is was our first game.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 xd4 f6
5 .tie3 a6 6 f4 bd7 7 e2 e5
a b c d
(Kasparov - Gelfand , Cred it Suisse Masters,

Horgen 1 994) .
..
e5 9 g3 1tb6
Black tries to prevent Wh ite from castling

and to gain some tempi for the development
of his pieces.
1 0 Db1 .ld7 1 1 fxe5 dxe5 1 2 .le3 1tc6

1 3 0-0
a b c d
6
5
4
5
4
3
d
L...-_a _b c _
_
__
e__....:
9_
:::
h_...J
_
11
N igel leaves a pawn en prise. This was also

the main l i ne in open ing books at that time,
but i n 1 990 I was not yet collecting chess
books, so I had no idea about this. 13 Af3
was safer.
1 3 . . . exe4 N
1 3 . . . 0-0-0 14 b4 tbcx e4 1 5 tbcxe4 tbxe4
1 6 tbxe4 xe4 1 7 Ab6 ge8 1 8 Af3 'tlfg6
1 9 Ax b7+ b8 20 Ae3 +- (F. Olafsson
Sax, Novi Sad 1 976) was the main reference
game.
6
5
4
3
2
L...-_______....::..-.
...;
_
.
---I
14 exe4 xe4 15 xe4
11
8 f5
8 fxe5 later became fash ionable and was
played against me three times. The most crit
ical game for opening theory was the latest
one: 8 . . . d xe5 ! 9 tbf5 'tlfb6 10 tbd5 ?! tbxd5
11 xd5 c5 ! N 12 b3 tbf6 13 Ac4 b4+
14 x b4 Ax b4+ 15 c3 Af8 ! 16 Ad3 Ae6 =
1 5 Af3 is the most chal lenging, but as the

fol lowing game shows, Black has noth ing
to fear: 1 5 . . . Ac5 1 6 tbxe4 Axe3+ 1 7 h1
0-0 1 8 tbc3 e6 19 tbd5 e4 20 Ah5 Ab5
21 tbxe3 Axf1 22 xf1 h6 23 e2 f5 +
(Mack- Howell, London 1 991 ) .
15 . . . 1txe4 1 6 1td2 .le6 17 Ah5

Wh ite has to act very energetical ly if he
wants to demonstrate that he has compen
sation for the pawn .
17 . . . g6
83
a b c d
Th is allows the exchange of queens. Bet

ter was 24 d3 ! f7 (24 . . . b4 2S Ag7 gg8
26 Axf6) 2S x bS b6 26 a3 (26 a4 gaS) with
a balanced position.
24 . . . nc8
5
4
3
24 . . . f7 ? 2S gxf6+ ! .
25 .xb7 .c6 + 26 .xc6+ nxc6
a b c d
a b c d
8
-I'-7
6
5
4
3
A
________________ v
18 A13
I th i n k that 1 8 g be1 !? was stronger, but it is
sufficient only for a draw: 18 . . . Ag7 (danger
ous is 1 8 . . . g x hS?! 1 9 Ad4 xg2+ 20 xg2
Axg2 21 gxeS+, or 18 . . . b4 19 f2 with
an attack; 18 . . . gd8 1 9 f2 xg2+ 20 xg2
Axg2 21 xg2 g x hS 22 AgS with sufficient
compensation) 19 Ad4 dS (19 . . . xg2+
20 xg2 Axg2 21 xg2 g x hS 22 AxeS =)
20 Af3 (20 AxeS xd2 21 Axg7+ d7
22 gd1 xd1 23 gxd 1 + c7 24 AeS+ =)
20 . . . d7 21 AxeS xd2 22 Axg7+ d7
23 gd1 xd1 24 gxd 1+ c7 =.
18
. . .
L...-______________---=-____.....
Normally one extra pawn in the centre is

sufficient - I won a n ice game against l Iya
Smirin in Riga 1 987 (see on the facing page).
c4
27 h4
19 nbd1 Ae7 20 Ae2!?
27 c3 gS 28 h4 gg8 and the bishop is

trapped .
20 Axc6+ xc6 21 Ah6 gd8 =t .

. . .
1i
Black's advantage is obvious, as he has two

extra pawns i n the centre and his b -pawn
stops all three pawns on the queenside.
Protecting the f7 pawn. If 1 8 . . . b4 1 9 f2

with an attack.
20
e6 2 1 .c3 Ab5
27
I decided to get rid of the im portant bishop,

even though I had a pleasant choice :
21 . . . 0-0 !? 22 Ac4 g4 23 AdS ! (23 gd2
gad8 24 gdf2 Ah4 (24 . . . e4 2S Ah6 AcS
26 Axf7+ gxf7 27 xcS ) 2S ge2 AdS =t)
23 . . . gad8 24 h3 with some com pensation
for the pawn.
. . .
tM1
27 . . . gg8!? =t .
28 nd5 Ac5+ 29 ct>h2 ct>e6 30 nd3 15

30 . . . Ae7 -+.
31 nb3 nb6 32 nd1 lia8!

The rook is aim i n g for its best post on c4.
32 . . . b4 was also winning.
22 Axb5+ axb5 23 Ah6

Wh ite's only hope is to keep the black king
in the centre.
33
a3 lia4 34 g3 lic4 35 lid2 lid6

36 c3 nxd2+ 37 Axd2 ne4 38 Ag5 ne2+
39 ct>h1 Af2 40 ct>g2 nc2
23 16 24 .c7?
. . .
84
Game 1 7
Short - Gelfand, I nterpolis Tournament, Tilburg 1 990
41 gxb5
a b c
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
'-'
41 f1 d6 42 gxb5 Axg3 -+ was equally

hopeless.
6
5
4
41 . . . h6 42 Axh6 Ae3+ 43 @f1 Axh6

44 h5 Ae3 45 h xg6 Hf2+ 46 e1 Hg2
47 g7 Hxg3 48 e2 f4 49 g b8 Hxg7
50 d3 Hf7 51 e4 f3 52 xe3 f2
53 gb6+ d5 White resigns
L...-_______--=--_----I
'lf
I was very pleased when Yuri Razuvaev, the

author of one of my favou rite books Ak
iba Rubinstein , told me that this end ing re
minded him of the games of the great Akiba.
* * *
A Similar Ending
(cf. note to Black's 26t h move)
lIya Smirin - Boris Gelfand
World Junior Qualifying Tournament, Riga
1 987
a b c d
Position after 20 I1fd1
20 . . . gad8 21 b3 f7 22 tDa5 tDxe3 23 fxe3

Ac5 24 f2 gxd1 25 gxd1 e6 26 tDc4 f5
27 e2 e4 28 ga1 gc8 29 gd1 g5 30 gh1
Ae7 31 g3 h5 32 f2 gd8 33 e2 gh8
34 f2 a5 35 gd1 a4 36 g2 axb3 37 cxb3
Ac5 38 ge1 gd8 39 ge2 gd3 40 ge1 gc3
41 ge2 f6 42 f1 e6 43 ge1 h4 44 g x h4
g x h4 45 h3 f4 46 exf4 f5 47 gd1 xf4
48 gd5 Ae3 49 gd7 g3 50 ge7 Af4 51 gxe4
gf3+ 52 e2 gf2+ 53 d3 x h3 54 ge7
gxa2 55 gb7 g4 56 tDe3+ f3 57 tDd5
gd2+ 58 c4 Ag5 59 gg7 gg2 60 tDx b4 h3
61 tDd3 h2 White resigns
* * *
85

G am e 1 8
B o r i s G e lfa n d - K i r i l G e o r g i e v
O l y m p i ad , N ov i S a d 1 9 90
Queen 's Gambit [03 7J
Chess Olympiads have always held some
magic for me, as wel l as for the majority of
players. It is a unique com bination of a high
level event for professionals and a reunion for
amateur players. I n N ovi Sad I was a mem
ber of the winning team . I n fact, at that time
it was m uch more d ifficult to qual ify for the
Soviet team than to win the Olympiad with
it. I remember how i n 1 988 Vasi ly Ivanchuk
was selected for the first time t o play for the
Soviet team . During the long fl ight back from
the World Junior Championsh ip in Australia,
I said I had dreamed that one day we would
play together in this team . Vasi ly instantly
replied : 'Sure, on the first two boards ! ' I took
this as a joke, but just two years later Vasi ly's
words came true. And as we had same rating
(we were shari ng 3r d_4t h places in the world
list) the team captain had to toss a coin to
establish the board order.
White tries to combine castling with the de

velopment of h is rook. I became very in
terested in this sharp l i ne, stud ied it q uite
deeply and played n u m ber of entertaining
games with it. Mai n ly because of this, the
team decided to g ive Ivanch uk a rest and
allow me to play this variation on board one.
10 gd1 was the main line before q ueenside
castling came i nto use. At the beg i n n ing of
the 2 1 s t century 1 0 d2 Ab4 1 1 cxd5 has
become popular.
10 gd8
Not the most chal leng ing move. Black puts
his own queen i n trouble. More often I had
to face other moves.
I. 10 A.d7
1 1 g4 (one of the main ideas beh ind
1 0 0-0-0 ; 1 1 cxd5 exd5 1 2 xd 5 ? xd5
1 3 gxd5 Axe3+ +) 1 1 . . . gfc8 12 'i!?b1 (12 g5
h5 1 3 cxd5 xf4 14 exf4 Axa3 ! ? , and if
15 bxa3 d4 16 xd4 gxc3).
. . .
1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 d5 4 c3 Ae7
The Queen 's Gambit was the main choice of
the Bulgarian grandmaster for many years.
5 Af4 0-0 6 e3 c5
6 . . . bd7 is a passive but solid alternative.
7 d x c5 Axc5 8 "c2 c6 9 a3 "a5

10 0-0-0
a b c d
Th is position was the subject of a theoretical

d iscussion between myself and Alexander
Bel iavsky .
12 A.fB 1 3 g5 (13 d2 e7 !?) 1 3 . . . h5
14 Ag3 (14 cxd5 xf4 15 exf4 exd5 16 gxd5
VJ!Jc7 g ives Black ful l com pensation for the
pawn) 14 . . . e7 (Black has managed to hold
the d5 sq uare, but his pieces are awkward ly
placed ; 14 . . . b5 1 5 c x b5 e7 1 6 VJ!Ja4 )
15 e5 Ae8 1 6 Ae2 f6 (du b ious is 16 . . . g6
1 7 g4 (17 Ax h 5 !? g x h5 1 8 VJ!Jd2) 1 7 . . . Ag7
18 Ae5, underlining the weakness of the dark
squares) 17 gxf6 gxf6 (17 . . . xf6 would leave
all the strong pOints i n Wh ite's hands after
...
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
. .
6
5
4
3
2
86
Game 1 8
Gelfand - Georgiev, Olympiad , Novi Sad 1 990
18 b3 ) 18 f3 (18 ghg1 ? fxe5 1 9 Axe5+

tilg7).
18 . . . Ag6.
Insufficient was 1 8 . . . b5 19 c x b5 xg3
(19 . . . a6 20 Ad6 ! ) 20 h xg3 Ag6 21 Ad3
a6 22 d4 .
The most chal lenging was 18 . . . dxc4 1 9 Ad6
19 . . . Ag6 20 ghg1 with a messy position
(20 e4 ? d5 ! =t).
19 e4 dxe4.
Black does not choose the strongest contin
uation :
A) 1 9 . . . b5 20 h4 xg3 21 h xg3 d x c4
22 tilxg6 xg6 23 gh5 155 ;
B) 1 9 . . . xg3 20 h xg3 d xc4 21 h4 Af7
(21 . . . b5 22 xg6 hxg6 23 gd6 !?) 22 f4, and
if 22 . . . b5 23 e5 fxe5 (23 . . . f5 24 g4) 24 e4
with an attack, when in each case Wh ite has
full compensation .
20 h4 xg3 (20 . . . f5 21 xg6 h x g 6
2 2 Ax h5 g x h5 23 g h g 1 with an attack)
21 hxg3 f5 22 g4 ! and Wh ite's chances
are better on account of the weakened pos
ition of the black king (Gelfand - 8eliavsky,
Linares 1 990) .
8) 1 3 x b5 a6 and now :
8 1 ) 14 Ac7 gxc7 1 5 xc7 xc7 1 6 cxd5
b6 !? 17 dxc6 Axc6 with an attack ;
82) 1 4 bd4 xd4 1 5 xd4 (15 exd4 Axa3
16 bxa3 xa3) 15 . . . Aa4 1 6 d2 b6 17 gc1
e4 =t ;
83) 1 4 g 5 e4 ;
84) 14 c3 Axa3 ! 1 5 b x a3 xa3 1 6 b2
gab8 17 Ax b8 gx b8 18 b5 a5 with the
initiative ;
C) 13 g5 h5 14 cxb5 (14 cxd5 xf4 15 exf4
b4 !) 14 . . . xf4 15 exf4 (15 bxc6 Axc6 16 exf4
d4 17 e4 Axa3) 1 5 . . . e7 16 e5 Ae8 =t .
13 . . . e7 14 d2 !? (as the main action i s go
ing to take place on the q ueenside, Wh ite
moves his knights there; 14 gc1 !?) 14 . . . d8 !
( 1 4 . . . Axa3 ?! is interesting, b u t hard ly suf
ficient.) 1 5 b3 (15 Ad3 d4 !) 1 5 . . . e4 !
(15 . . . Ab6 1 6 Ad3) 1 6 xc5 (16 xe4 Axe3
17 x c8 gxc8 18 Axe3 d x e4 =t) 16 . . . gxc5
17 Ae5 xc3+ 18 Ax c3 Ax b5 19 Ax b5
(1 9 b4 Aa4 !) 19 . . . gx b5 with approximately
equal chances (Gelfand - 8el iavsky, Linares
1 991 ).
II. 10 dxc4
My fi rst experience with the 1 0 0-0-0
variation was also entertain i ng : 10 . . . d x c4
1 1 Axc4 Ae7 1 2 g4 a6 ( 1 2 . . . e5 transposes
into 10 . . . Ae7) 13 g5 h5 14 Ad6 Axd6
1 5 gxd6 e5 1 6 Ae2 xf3 1 7 Axf3 x g5
(Gelfand - 8eliavsky, 56t h USSR Champion
ship, Odessa 1 989) and now 1 8 ghd1 ! was
tem pting, as 18 . . . e5 (18 . . . f6 1 9 gd8 a5
20 d3 c7 21 d6 xd6 22 g1 xd6 )
loses to 1 9 h4 ! (open ing the h -fi le with gain
of tempo) 1 9 . . . x h4 20 gh1 e7 .

A year later the Lvov grandmaster chose

12 b5!!. This move was awarded the prize
for the best novelty in Informator Volume 51 .
Black does not waste time but beg ins his
play against the wh ite king.
. . .
13 cxb5.
Other options are too dangerous:
A) 13 cxd5 b4 ! ;
87
21 dd1 !! (I was real ly amazed when I found

this combination in home analysis; 21 xh5
g6 22 ttle4 f5 ! or 22 . . . Ae6 23 xe6 x e6
is far from clear) 21 . . . g6 (21 . . . ttlf6 22 ttld5)
22 Ax h5 g x h5 (22 . . . Af5 23 e4) 23 dg 1 +
<!l h 8 and now 24 x h7+ ! ! <!lxh7 2 5 xh5#.
III.
The main l i ne 10 .l.e7 1 1 g4 (I have also

tried 11 h4 !? and 11 <!lb1 ) 11 . . . dxc4 1 2 Axc4
e5 has now been very deeply analysed , and
practice indicates that Black is holding his
own .
. . .
IV.
For 10 e4, see the game Gelfand

Yusupov analysed below (p. 92).
. .
1 1 d2!?
11 b5 !? deserved serious consideration , as
later games have shown.
2) In such endgames it is favourable to have

the king on the q ueenside, as it is closer to
the action and it controls at least one file
against the potential penetration of the op
ponent's rook.
White does not fall for the trap 15 a4 ?! Ae7
1 6 ttlab6?? a x b6 1 7 ttlxb6 a5 -+ 1 8 ttlxc8
c5+.
15 . . . Ad7 1 6 gd1 Ac6
Black has developed his bishop, but now his
d8 knight is shut out of play. 16 . . . c8 !? was
better, as in any case the rook belongs on
this fi le, and if 17 ttld6 Axd6 18 Axd6 d5.
17 f3
I nten d i ng to gain control of the d5 square
by e3-e4. 17 g4 !? also came into considera
tion , or 17 b4 Ae7 18 f3 d5 1 9 xd5 exd5
20 ttld6.
17 . . . d5 1S xd5 exd5
a b c d
1 1 . . . dxc4
Forced , in view of the threat of b3.
7
6
5
4
3
2
12 xc4
1 2 Axc4 !? Ae7 was also tempting, but I de
cided to steer towards a better end ing.
12 . . . gxd1+ 1 3 .xd1 'OdS 14 .xdS+ xdS

15 Ae2 ;t
a b c d
...
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
--------
6
5
4
3
2
1 8 . . . Axd5 1 9 e4 Axc4 20 Axc4 ;t would

leave Wh ite with the advantage of the two
bishops.
19 Ad6!
The only way to fight for the in itiative ! Less
good was 1 9 ttle5 ttle6 = , or 1 9 b4 Ax b4 !
20 ax b4 d x c4 21 Axc4 Aa4 ! 22 d6 c8
23 b2 ttle6 24 Axe6 (24 xe6 xc4)
24 . . .fxe6 =.
19 . . . b5?!
Kiri l counterattacks as wel l . Black would
have been condemned to passive defence
after 1 9 . . . Axd6 20 ttlxd6 f8 21 b4 a6
22 ttlf5 ;t .
Two factors determ ine White's advantage:

1 ) Black needs time to bring his d8 knight
and c8 bishop into play. Moreover, they have
only the c6 square, so one of these pieces
will stil l be m isplaced .
88
Game 18
20 .txe5 bxe4
a b c d
24 . . . Aa4 (24 . . . gxa7 25 gd8+) 25 gd5 tDb3+

26 b1 g6 27 Ae3 gc8 28 f5 ! would not have
solved Black's problems.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
25 .te3 gxf4 26 .txf4
a b c d
6
5
4
3
2
1...-_______---=-__.....
..
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
{f
6
5
4
3
2
21 e4!
21 Ad4 tDe6 = .
21 . . . dxe4
21 . . . tDb7 22 Ae3 d x e4 (22 . . J::! e 8 23 Axa7)
23 f4 would have transposed .
White's advantage is clear, but Black's next

move is simply a blunder.
26 . . . f5? 27 Ild6 .ta4 28 Ild5 +- b3+

29 ct>b1 ge8 30 Ilxf5 d4 31 Ilg5+ rm-r
32 .th5+ ct>f6 33 gd5 b3 34 .tg4
22 f4!!
34 g4!?
A subtle positional decision. White fixes his

strategic trumps (advantage of the two bish
ops, open d -file) and as in any case he w i l l
regai n his paw n , he will have a pawn ma
jority on the q ueenside, whereas Black's
passed pawn on e4 1acks any chance of be
com ing active. As our team captain Sergey
Makarychev said to me after the game, at
first he thought I had blundered and it took
him some time to realise what was going on.
34 . . . lle5 35 Ild6+ ct>t7 36 .te3 lle5

37 ga6
Also sim ple and strong was 37 Ae2 Ab5

38 c2 , bringing the king into the game, as
indicated by Artur Yusupov.
37 . . . .tb5 38 lla7+ ct>g6
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
22 Axa7 tDe6 (22 . . . exf3 23 Axf3 Axf3

24 gxf3 tDe6 25 gd7 f8 26 gb7 with the ini
tiative) 23 gd6 !? exf3 24 gxf3 Axf3 25 Axf3
Etxa7 26 gc6 00 was far less convincing.
I ,"-,
22 . . . b7
22 . . . tDe6 23 Ae3 Ab5 24 f5 and Wh ite dom
inates the board .
{f
23 .te3 a5 24 .txa7
White has restored material equ i l i bri u m ,
while keeping h i s positional trumps.
6
5
4
3
2
I...-________________
39 gb7?
A mistake in time trouble. 39 a4 was winning.
39 . . . e3!
24 . . . g5
89
An excel lent resource ! Black gives up an

other pawn, but starts an unpleasant coun
terattack against the white king .
40 Db6+ 00 41 bxc3
41 c2 !? would have made things easier for
White. Here one extra pawn is enough for
a win, and the king would have got out of
difficulties.
41 . . . .td3+ 42 a2 a5 43 .tf4 Ac4+
43 . . . .!:k 5 44 Ae6+ +-.
44 a1 Dc5 45 .te3 De5 46 Dh6 Db5
Black does not pay any attention to one
more pawn, but pins his hopes on a coun
terattack. 46 . . . g8 !? .
47 Dxh7+ g8 48 Dh5 b3+ 49 b2
Db7
49 . . . c5+ 50 c2 Ad3+ 51 d2 g b2+
52 e1 +-.
50 c2 a1 + 51 c1 .td3
51 . . . Aa2 52 Af4.
52 .te6+ g7
Black's pieces have achieved maximum ac
tivity and so White has to be very accurate.
53 .ta2
Also possible was this long , but quite forced
line: 53 Ad4+ g6 54 g4 g b1 + 55 d2
g b2+ 56 e3 c2+ 57 f4 xd4 58 cxd4
gf2+ 59 g3 gf3+ 60 h4 e3 61 gg5+ h7
(61 . . . f6 62 ge5 e2 63 g5+ g7 64 Ag4)
62 ge5 e2 63 Af5+ Axf5 64 g xf5 gxf5
65 gxe2 gf4+ 66 g5 gxd4 67 ga2 with
an easily won rook end ing.
53 c2 54 .tf4
54
. .
xa3?
Black cou ld have kept defending by 54 . . . e3

55 ge5 e2 56 gxe2 (56 Ag3 !?) 56 . . . Axe2
57 xc2 , when Wh ite sti l l has to demon
strate some technique.
55 Dg5+ 6 56 h4?
I relaxed too early and the fight started again.
56 gc5 would have deprived my opponent
of any counterplay.
56
.tc4! 57 .txc4 Db1 +
I completely missed this intermed iate check.

58
d2 xc4+ 59 e2 Db2+ 60 e1
Db1 +
Or 6 0 . . . e3 6 1 gc5 g b1 + 6 2 e2 g b2+
63 d3 ! (63 f3 ? 63 . . . gf2+ 64 g3 gxf4!
65 xf4 e2) 63 . . . e2 64 Ag3 and Wh ite
should win.
61 2
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
..
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
..
a b c d
..
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
H ere the game was adjourned . I was sure

that the position was won , but White has to
overcome some technical obstacles. A l ittle
later my team-mate Artur Yusupov returned
from the birthday party of our m utual friend
Lev Psakhis in order to help me. I was really
amazed to see with what accuracy and seriousness Artu r analysed this simple -looking
position. It was a great lesson for me!
4
3
2
a b c d
61 . . . Db2+ 62 g3
90
Game 18
Gelfand - Georgiev, Olympiad , Novi Sad 1990
Wh ite's task is to win the e - pawn and not

give up more than one pawn i n the mean
time.
62 . . . e3
We also analysed in detaiI 62 . . . c2 63 h5 :
A) 63 . . . e3 64 h6 c1 (64 . . . e2 65 f2 tbb2
66 gd5 +-) 65 h7 (or 65 Axe3 tbxe3 66 h5
f5+ 67 g4 tbe7 68 h7 tbg6 69 h6)
65 . . . gh1 66 f3 xh7 67 c5 ;
8) 63 . . . gxc3+ 64 g4 c2 (64 . . . e3 65 h6 e2
66 h7 +-) 65 h6 xg2+ 66 Ag3 tbe3+ 67 h3
gg1 68 h7 h1 + 69 Ah2 +-.
63 He5 .tid2 64 ne5 ne2
A precise win was also found after 64 . . . tbc4
65 ge4 etJd2 66 e8 f7 67 ge5 tbc4 68 gc5
tLld2 69 h3 tbe4 70 c7+ +-.
Or 64 . . . tbf1 + 65 h3 and now :
A) 6 5 . . . f2 6 6 e4 ! (66 Axe3 e2 ; 6 6 g 3
e2) 66 . . . e2 (66 . . . f5 67 Axe3 +-; 6 6 . . . tbd2
67 Ag5+ +-; 66 . . . c2 67 Axe3 xc3
68 gf4+ +-) 67 Ag5+ ! (67 Ag3 ? tbd2 with
counterplay) 67 . . . f5 68 e8 followed by
c4-c5 +-;
8) 65 . . . c2 66 e8 xc3 (66 . . . f7 67 e4
gxc3 (67 . . . e2 68 g4 ; 67 . . . g6 68 g4 xc3
69 h5+ followed by h4) 68 g3, threatening
g2) 67 Ae5+ f7 68 Axc3 xe8 69 g4
f7 70 f3 g6 71 g4 tbh2+ 72 f4 e2
73 h5+ h6 74 g3 tbf1 + 75 h4 +-.
65 h3 .tie4 66 ne4 e2 67 g4 e1 n
67 . . . etJb2 68 Ag5+ g6 69 e7 .
68 nxe1 Ilxg2+ 69 Ag3 lle2 70 nf1 +
g7 71 Hf3
a b c d
...
Here we term inated our analysis. White has

fu lfi l led his objective - the dangerous e
pawn has been eliminated .
71 . . . ne2 72 Af4 ne8

72 . . . tbe5+?! 73 Axe5+ xe5 74 c4 +- didn't
promise any chances of survival .
73 Ild3 6 74 nd4 lle8 75 lle4 7

76 h5 .tib6 77 Ae5 .tid5 78 nd4
wasn 't too concerned about g iving u p
my c - pawn - th e strong placing o f Wh ite's
pieces should enable his h-pawn to promote.
78 . . .tixe3
.
78 . . . e6 79 Ag7 !? +-.
79 5 ne6 80 nd7+ e8
80 . . . g8 81 g7+ f8 82 g6 xg6
(82 . . . tbd5 83 xc6 tbe7+ 84 g5 tbxc6
85 Af6 g8 86 g6) 83 xg6 tbd5 84 Ad6+.
81 nd3
Here the game was again adjourned . Black's
only chance is to g ive u p his knight for
the h - pawn to reach a theoretically d rawn
endgame.
81 . . . .tib5
81 . . . tba4 82 h3 +-.
82 nh3
82 Af6 ?! tbd6+ 83 g6 tbf7 (83 . . . f8 !?)
84 g7 e6 and if 85 h6? e1 =; 82 Af4
c5+ 83 g4 f7 84 h6 +-.
82 . . . Hh6
82 . . . f7 83 h6. Strangely enough, for a long
time I couldn't find a clear win and I went to
sleep. Then around 4.00 a.m. I woke up with
a clear win in my head !
83 g5
83 Ag7 tbd6+ ! = ; 83 Af4 h8 84 h6 tbd4+ !?
83 . . . ne6
91
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
4
2
-------
86 1ld3!
84 f4!!
The point. I was reluctant to remove my
bishop from the long diagonal . However, it is
much more important to prevent the knight
from coming back into play via d6 to f7.
84 . ctm
84 . . . ttld6 8S Axd6 gxd6 86 h6.
85 h6 c!>g8
U nfortunately, Black didn't al low the n ice
finish 8S . . . ttld4 86 h7 gg6+ 87 hS ttlfS
88 h8ttl+ ! +- (d iagram).
The fi nal finesse. Again , the kn ight should

not be allowed to join the fight.
86 . . . 11e7 87 c!>g6 lle6+ 88 em5 lle7

89 g5 Black resigns
..
And Black resigned , as he cannot prevent

the h - pawn from q ueeni n g. Rather a long
game; however, earl ier that year Kiril and I
played a game which lasted even longer 91 moves !
***
10
A quick but exciting draw
e4 11 b5!?
11 ttlxe4 d x e4 12 ttld2 hard ly promises

much .
Boris Gelfand - Artur Yusupov

Linares 1 992
11
..
. .
a6 12 c7 e5!?
Black was relying on this counterattack
8
--=--,
1 3 xd5
Other ideas are:
6
5
A} 13 AxeS ?! ttlxeS 14 ttlxa8 ttlg4 + ;

B} 1 3 ttlxa8 exf4 1 4 cxdS (14 gxdS ttlf6)
14 . . . ttlxf2 ! ;
C} 1 3 ttlxeS ! ? ;
O} 1 3 gxdS ! fS ( 1 3 . . . xc7 14 xe4 exf4
1 S gxcS fxe3 5O) 14 gxeS ttlxeS 1 S AxeS
led to a quick win for Wh ite i n Kasparov
Vaganian , (European Team Championship,
Oebrecen 1 992). After this game the entire
Position after 10 0-0-0
92
Game 1 8
1 5 . . . exf4 16 .xf4 tile7 !
10 . . Je4 line disappeared from tournament

practice.
Forcing a draw; 1 6 . . . Ag6 17 h 4 e7 00 .
13 . . . tilxf2!
1 7 tilxe7+
The best move ! - 13 . . . exf4 14 xe4 .
1 4 tilg5
14 xf2 exf4 15 xf4 ge8 00).
Now I expected 14 . . . f5 15 xf2 exf4 16 xf4
h6 (16 . . . b5 !?) when both 1 7 h4!? b5 and
17 f3 Ae6 00 are difficult to evaluate.
a b c d
Or 1 7 Ad3 xd5 1 8 xf5 (18 cxd5 Axa3 !

1 9 xf5 c3+ 20 Ac2 g6 21 d3 x b2+
22 <i!?d2 Ab4+ 23 <i!?e2 gac8 24 gc1 gc3
with a strong attack) 18 . . . g6 19 xd5 Axe3+
20 <i!?b1 xd5 21 cxd5 Axg5 = .
1 7 . . . Axe7 18 l1d5!
a b c d
8 ..
7
.l
6 .l
5
4
3
2
8
7
5
4
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
14 . . . Af5!!
But this move came l i ke a bolt from the
blue! - Black develops his bishop on the
right diagonal .
15 .xf2
15 xf5 g6 1 6 f6+ (16 f6 exf4 1 7 xf4
etJxd1 1 8 f6+ <i!?g7 -+) 1 6 . . . <i!?h8 1 7 d7
Axa3 ! 18 gd2 (18 bxa3 gad8 19 xd8 gxd8)
18 . . . Ae7 is bad for Wh ite, while if 1 5 f6+
h8 (15 . . . g xf6? 1 6 xf5 fxg5 17 xg5+
h8 18 f6+ <i!?g8 1 9 Ah6) 1 6 xf5 g6.
8
6
5
4
3
2
Both sides have to repeat moves ; 1 8 Ad3 ?

Axa3 1 9 xf5 c3+ 2 0 Ac2 g 6 2 1 e4
Ax b2+ 22 b1 a3 .
18 e1 + 1 9 l1d1 .a5 20 l1d5 1re1 +

21 l1d1 Draw agreed
. . .
After this game both players received a letter

from the tournament d i rector Lu is Rentero
with a warn ing that we would be financially
penalised for making a quick d raw. I sti l l
don't know i f t h i s was a publicity stu nt o r
i f he simply wrote i t before looking at the
game.
***
93

Game 1 9
N i g e l S h o r t - B o r i s G e l fa n d
Ca n d i d ates Q u arter- F i n a l M at ch (7) ,
B ru s s e l s 1 9 91
Pe tro ff Defence [C42]
Th is q uarter-fi nal candidates match of the
last unified world championship cycle, where
my opponent was N igel Short, was one
of the most memorable events i n my ca
reer. It was excel lently organ ised by Bessel
Kok in the Rad isson SAS hotel in Brussels.
N igel and I were young and ambitious stars
then , and both of us were especially strong
with the white pieces. After winning the
6t h game and celebrating M i khail Botvin
n i k's 80t h birthday on 18t h August, I had
the fol lowing day to prepare some su rprise
for N igel. I was one point down with two
games to go. The m i l itary coup in M oscow
that morn ing strongly affected the working
mood of my seconds, but my good friend
Eduardas Rozentalis, who came for a few
days to watch the match, generously shared
with me his ideas on the Petroff Defence, i n
which he is a great special ist.
After 45 minutes' thought N igel introduces a

strong novelty. The game Dvoi rys - Rozenta
lis (Lvov Zonal 1 990) went 1 5 lixd5!? xd5
16 h xg4 00 c6 (the only move) 17 g5 h6
18 e4 (threatening both 19 f3 and 19 g5)
1 8 . . . liad8 ! 1 9 g5 (1 9 f3 ? e5) 1 9 . . . life8
20 lie1 xd4 ! 21 cxd4 xd4 22 c2 !
(22 f6+? g xf6 23 lixe8+ lixe8 24 Ah7+
<i!?x h7 25 xd4 lie1 #) 22 . . . xd3 23 xc7
lic8 (23 . . . h xg5 24 Axg5 f6 ? 25 Axf6!)
24 b7 lixc1 (24 . . . h x g 5 ? ! 25 Axg5 f5 ?
26 Af6 ! +-) 25 lixc1 xe4 26 x b6 =.
1 5 . . . axb5 16 1tc2 g6
16 . . . h6?! 17 g5 would merely give White an
extra target to attack.
17 .th6
Later theory developed in the d i rection of
17 Ax b5 !? d7 (17 . . .'c8 ; 17 . . . d6 has also
been tried) 1 8 Ah6 !? (18 b3 f6 1 9 Ah6
xg4 ! 20 Axf8 <i!?xf8 =) 18 . . . lie8 with the as
sessment that White is better.
17 . . J e8 18 .txb5 ge4
18 . . . lie6?! 1 9 c4 ; 18 . . . d7 would transpose
into the above -mentioned line.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 xe5 d6 4 f3
xe4 5 d4 d5 6 .td3 .td6
Ten years later I returned to this variation.
7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 c3

xc3 11 bxc3 .tg4 12 Db1 b6 13 Db5
.tc7 14 h3 a6
a b c d
5
4
3
5
4
3
6
5
4
L..._
.._
_
_
_
_
_
_----I
Wh ite has a pawn for the exchange, while

Black's king is in danger, his d5 pawn is weak
and h is knight on b8 is out of play. So, I be
lieve that generally speaking Wh ite has to be
better here, but this is far from easy to prove
in practice.
2
-------
3
2
1 5 hxg4!
19 95
94
Game 1 9
A very dari ng move. White boxes i n the op

ponent's king , but on the other hand he shuts
his bishop out of the game. I was more wor
ried about 1 9 c4 !? (if 1 9 gS?! d6) , which
was later tried twice against Rozentalis:
1 9 . . . gxg4 20 cxdS Af4 21 eS gh4 22 Axf4
gxf4 23 c4 (23 d2 gf6 24 g4 gd6
25 f4 ga7 26 ge1 ge7 27 geS d7 28 gxe7
Wixe7 29 Axd7 xd7 30 f6+ gxf6 31 xf6
WixdS = V2-V2 Kotronias - Rozentalis, Euro
pean Team Championsh ip, Debrecen 1 992)
23 . . . g7 24 gc1 ga3 2S gc2 ge4 26 b4
gaS 27 a4 a6 28 b1 xdS 29 Ac6
Wixd4 30 f3 d3 31 b2+ h6 32 c1 +
g7 33 b2+ h6 34 c1 + g7 3S b2+
h6 36 c1+ V2-V2 (Wahls- Rozentalis, Bun
desliga 1 991 /92).
19
. . .
tt:J
Short - Gelfand, Candidates Quarter-Final Match (7), Brussels 1991
d6
After the game I thought that Black could

have gai ned an edge by 19 . . . ga3 !? , pre
venting c3-c4 . But Wh ite can cool ly re
ply 20 gd1 ! (20 c4 ? gxf3 21 g xf3 d6 -+ ;
20 d2 d6 21 g3 ge7 =+= followed by . . . c6 ;
20 g3 c8 ! =+=) 20 . . . e7 (20 . . . d6 21 eS
c6 (21 . . . gxeS 22 d x eS xeS 23 g3 gxc3
24 d2 ) 22 Axc6 gxeS 23 d xeS xc6
24 c4 +-) 21 Ad3 ge6 22 c4 with an unclear
game. Sti l l , this was the strongest continua
tion.
A) 21 f3?! gxeS 22 Axc6 ge7 ! -+ ;

B) 2 1 Axc6 gxeS 22 f4 (22 Ax a8 ? ge2 ! -+ ;
22 d xeS xc6 23 f4 ga3 ! =+=) 22 . . . ge2
23 xe2 xc6 with counterplay;
C) 21 f4 ! xeS (21 . . . e6 transposes i nto the
game) 22 fxeS gxeS 23 d xeS xeS 24 g4 !
and Black does not have sufficient compen
sation for the piece, as he can never ex
change queens because of the poor position
of his kin g , for example: 24 . . . Ad6 2S gf3
e1 + 26 Af1 AcS+ 27 h1 ge8 28 a4.
21 f4!
21 f3 was the alternative :
A) 2 1 . . . ge3 ? ! 22 f4 !? (22 f2 ?! AxeS
23 xe3 Ag3+ 24 d2 c6) 22 . . . ga3
23 Ad3 c6 24 c1 ;
B) 21 . . . gxeS ! 22 dxeS xeS 23 f4 . Th is pos
ition was analysed after 20 . . . geS . It doesn 't
g ive White such an advantage as in the
game, but leads to a much sim pler position .
Now it looks as though White is dominating
the centre and there is no defence against
22 Ad3, but. . .
a b c
7
6
5
4
3
20 . . . gxeS 21 d x eS xeS fai ls to solve all

Black's problems:
B) 22 g3 ! Ad6 (22 . . . a6? ! 2 3 Axa6 gxa6

24 Wid2 +-) 23 d2 AcS 24 g2 .
I fou nd the right idea o n e move later, but
after the best reply by Wh ite it would have
led to the same position anyway. 20 . . . c6 !?
and now:
..
20 e5 .e6
A) 22 f4 e3+ 23 f2 (23 h1 a6 00 )
23 . . . Wixf2+ ! (23 . . . Axf4 ?? 24 ge1 ! +-) 24 gxf2
a6 2S Ac6 (2S Axa6 gxa6 26 g3 (26 ge2
gaB 27 g3 bS) 26 . . . bS =) 2S . . . gd8 26 g3 cS
27 ge2 ;!; ;
21
. . .
6
5
4
3
2
c6!!
An excel lent chance, clearly the best (if

21 . . . AxeS 22 fxeS c6 23 f2 , threat
ening Ad3 ). Now Wh ite has to play ex
tremely precisely to keep an advantage.
When I was a j u n ior I remember bei ng
i m pressed by a game Averbakh - Spassky,
(23 r d USSR Championsh ip play-off, 1 9S6) ,
where Spassky played . . . b8-c6 with a
95
wh ite pawn on d5, just to change the charac

ter of the game i n an u nfavourable position .
He s ucceeded and even gained the better
position. During the game I didn't remember
it, but probably my subconscious helped me
here!
22 xc6
22
23
26
25
32 e4 (32 h3 32 . . . .E!f2 33 h1 (33 e4 cf. 32 e4) 33 . . . e2 34 g4 e3+ 35 h4

.E!e2 36 Axf7+ ! =) 32 . . . .E!f2+ 33 h3 f1 +
34 h4 .E!h2+ 35 g4 h3+ 36 f3 (36 f4
.E!f2+ -+) and now Black should be satisfied
with a d raw by 36 . . . f1 +, as 36 . . . h5+?
37 f4 .E!f2+ 38 e5 .E!e2
f5 leads nowhere : 22 . . . d6 ! (22 . . . g xf5

Axc6 Axe5 24 Axa8 Af4 25 .E!xf4 .E!xf4
d2 +-) 23 Axc6 .E!xe5 24 d xe5 xc6
e6 fxe6 26 fxg6 c5+ 27 h1 d6.
After 22 Ad3 xe5 23 fxe5 .E!xe5 24 d xe5

xe5 25 .E!f3 h2+ 26 f2 .E!e8 (26 . . . h4+
27 g3 h2+ 28 e1 ) 27 a4 b5 28 d4 Ae5
Black has sufficient counterplay, as Wh ite
hasn 't solved the problem of his king.
I now believe that 22 Axc6 ! was best and
probably the only way to win. However,
after analysing the game for hours i n 1 991 ,
I thought that it led only to a d raw after
22 . . . Axe5 23 Axa8.
39 f6!! leads to a beautifu l mate : 39 . . . .E!f2+

(39 . . . .E!xe4 40 Axf7+ h8 41 Ag7#) 40 e7
(40 f4) 40 . . . .E!e2 41 Axf7+ h8 42 xe2 !
xe2+ 43 f8 +-.
26 c4 ! (White needs to bri ng his bishop into
play at any cost ; if 26 f2 e4) 26 . . . d x c4
27 g 3 ! and Black has no defence : 27 . . . .E!h3
(or 27 . . . g4 28 e1 xd4+ 29 g2 b2+
30 f1 .E!xh6 31 g x h6 f8 32 Ad5 b5
33 f2 +-) 28 g2 c3 29 c2 (29 xc3
.E!xh6 30 gxh6 xa2+ 31 g1 xa8 32 d5 )
29 . . . .E!x h6 30 g x h6 e3 31 Ad5 xd4
32 Ab3.
23 fxe5 is sufficient only for a draw after

23 . . . xc6 24 f2 e6 25 f6 xf6 26 .E!xf6
.E!e2 (26 . . . .E!e3 27 .E!c6) 27 .E!x b6 .E!ex a2
28 .E!d6 .E!c2 29 .E!xd5 .E!xc3 30 .E!d7 .E!c2 31 d5
.E!e8.
23 . . . Axf4 24 .E!xf4 .E!xf4 25 d2 .E!h4.
The most stu b born defence. I thought that
25 . . . f5 saved the game, but 26 Axd5
(26 e1 ! +- refutes Black's idea.) 26 . . . .E!f1 +
27 h2
However, it is possible to find all these l i nes

only after prolonged home analysis, making
use of analysing mod ules and so on. And it is
extremely u n l i kely that they could be fou nd
over the board , when there is a choice of
other tempting possibilities.
22
. . .
lixf4!
It is more i mportant to keep the bishop on

the board , rather than the rook : 22 . . . Axf4?
23 .E!xf4 .E!xf4 24 e5 .E!e4 25 a4 .E!e1 +
26 f2 .E!xe5 27 d xe5 xe5 28 d2 and
White has won several tempi compared with
the game.
27 . . . g4 !! (27 . . . xd5 28 e2 +-) 28 e3

h4+ 29 h3 f4+ 30 g3 f2+ 31 g2 e1
23 lixf4
96
Game 19
Short - Gelfand, Candidates Quarter-Final Match (7), Brussels 1 991
23 'tWd2 gxf1 + (23 . . . gh4 is also sufficient,

transposing into 23 'tWe2) 24 xf1 Ag3 2S a4
fS+ (2S . . . 'tWe4 26 Ad3 'tWh4 27 'tWe3 ! )
26 g1 'tWb1 + 27 Af1 , and now:
A) 27 . . . ge8 28 tileS AxeS 29 d x eS gxeS

(29 . . . 'tWe4 30 'tWd4 'tWxeS 31 'tWx b6 'tWxc3
32 'tWf6 +-) 30 'tWd4 'tWe4 31 'tWx b6 'tWe3+
32 xe3 gxe3 33 as gxc3 34 f2 +-;
26 a4
26 'tWd2 ga3 ! 27 Ac4 gxc3 28 Axd5 gc2 = ;
2 6 'tWf2 'tWxc3 2 7 'tWx b6 'tWa1 + ! 2 8 Af1 'tWxa2
29 'tWf6 'tWa1 = .
26 . . . e1 +
26 . . . gc8 ? 27 f2 gxc3 (27 . . . gcS 28 'tWf6 +-)
28 'tWx b6 +-.
27 h2 licS
8) 27 . . . 'tWe4 28 AbS 'tWb1 + (28 . . . Af4 29 'tWe2

Ae3+ 30 f1 'tWb1 + 31 'tWe1 'tWfS+ 32 e2 )
29 Af1 =.
27 . . . 'tWh4+ =.
2S .d3 .eS+
23 e2 ge4 24 'tWd2 gh4 2S ge1 (2S gf6 'tWe4

26 Ad3 gxa2 27 Axe4 gxd2 -+) 2S . . . Ah2+
26 f1 'tWfS+ 27 'tWf2 'tWxf2+ 28 xf2 gxa2+
29 ge2 gf4+ =.
28 . . . gxc3 29 'tWd4 'tWg3+ 30 g1 'tWe3+ =.
29 .g3 .xc3 30 .14

30 'tWxc3 gxc3 31 g1 ge3 ! =.
23 ... Ax14 24 eS
24 e2 ? gxa2 ! =+= 2S 'tWxe6 fxe6 26 tDd8 Ag3
27 tDxe6 ga1 + 28 Af1 gc1 .
24 . . . AxeS 2S dxeS .xeS =
30 . . .c7 31 g3 .c3+ !
31 . . . 'tWxf4+ 32 xf4 . Black must not allow
the king to cross the e -fi le.
32 h2
32 g4 'tWc2 ! =.
8
7
6
I-
5
4
3
tt:J
32 . . . c7 33 g3 .c3+ Draw agreed
...... _- 1
5
4
3
2
L...-_______----"-__....
{f
Neither side has grounds for playing for a

win, because of the poor position of both
kings. However, the match situation forced
us to go on.
So, the resu lt of the match was decided in

the last game, where an extraord inary de
fence by Nigel enabled him to turn th e tables
and 'snatch victory' in this really fascinating
match , where only two of the eight games
ended in a d raw (this was one of them) . I
should add that Short followed up with vic
tories over Karpov and Timman to become
the chal lenger for the world cham pionsh ip
title. After reaching h is peak, N igel lost some
of his motivation . However, he quite often re
minds the chess world what a strong player
he is.
***
97

Game 2 0
9 a3 h6
B ra n ko D a m lj a n ov i c - B o r i s G e lfa n d
I n vest ban ka To u r n a m e n t , Be l g rade 1 9 91
English Opening [A D 7]
The immediate 9 . . . a5 !? was also not bad .
10 .c2 as 1 1 e3!?
I real ly enjoyed playing i n the I nvestban ka

tournaments in Belgrade. Not only because
the organisers provided excel lent playing
conditions, but mostly because the people
in Belgrade really love chess. Every round
was watched by thousands of spectators
(someti mes as many as 4000 !) , who had a
good understanding of what was happening
on the boards. I n add ition , every round was
covered by a special 45-minute TV program
at prime time. I think it was this atmosphere
that gave me the necessary i nspiration to
win this tournament in 1 991 (alone) and i n
1 995 (jointly with Vladimir Kramni k). A n d i n
1 995 I managed to beat Ivanch uk, Adams,
Shirov, Leko and Lautier in one tournament !
A useful move, consideri ng that 11 . . . d4

could be part of Black's plan .
11
12 . . . gd8 13 d2 fS 1 4 cS
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0-0 6 bd2 c6 7 c4
c d
N ow a Dragon Variation with reversed

colours is reached , in which White has put
his knight on d2, where it is less wel l placed
than on c3 . 7 e4 e5 wou ld have led to a Pirc
Defence.
14
f7 !
1 S gab1
8
6
5
4
3
The e7 square is vacated for the knight,

where it is ideally placed . Moreover, on f7
the queen is correctly positioned on the a2g8 diagonal .
7 . . . eS 8 cxdS xdS
a b c d
. . .
...
7
6
5
4
3
2
Branko Damljanovic played most of his

white games in this tournament as if he were
Black, al beit with an extra tempo.
. . .
e7 12 e4?!
The in itial cause of Wh ite's problems.

12 b3 ! was much more solid, retaining the
possibil ity of both c5 and e3-e4 fol lowed
by d3-d4 : 1 2 . . . gd8 (1 2 . . . a4 1 3 c5 b6
14 gb1 followed by b2-b4) 13 e4 b6 14 Ae3
a4 15 c5 oo .
1 f3 dS 2 93 96 3 92 97 4 0-0 f6
S d3
. . .
White could have exchanged a pai r of

knights and gai ned some manoeuvring
space by 15 gac1 b6 (but 15 . . . de7 is similar
to the game, and if 16 b4 axb4 17 ax b4 ga2)
1 6 e6 Axe6 1 7 xc6 gac8 1 8 e4 (18 b4
axb4 1 9 axb4 e7 +) 18 . . . fxe4 1 9 dxe4 e7
20 b5.
6
5
4
1 S . . . b6 1 6 a4 de7 ! 17 e1
2
L...-_______----"-__--'
{f
Other contin uations also do not completely

solve Wh ite's problems:
98
Game 20
ttJ
Damljanovic - Gelfand, Investbanka Tournament, Belgrade 1991
B) 17 h4?! A a6 ! 1 8 A x c6 A xd3 1 9 VWc1

gab8 !! 20 Ag2 A x b1 ;
8
7
7
6
5
C) 17 .l':'!fd1 Ae6 1 8 b3 (18 b4 a x b4 1 9 a x b4

e4 ! 20 d x e4 fxe4 21 e1 .l':'!f8 !? 22 f4 exf3
23 xf3 A a2 +) 1 8 . . . .l':'!d7 1 9 c3 .l':'!ad8
20 Ac1 g5.
'-:"::':'=-I""=-r-===;+-=
17 . . . .tb7 18 c3
a b c d
..
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
..
A) 17 b4? axb4 1 8 axb4 e4 ! -+ ;
c d
3
2
22 . . . f1b8!
Analogous to one of the Spassky - Geller
games in their 1 968 matc h . Wh ite cannot
make use of the a-fi le.
23 fd1
23 b5 would allow Black the choice of either
acting as in the game, or exploiting some
tactical possibilities :
A) 23 . . . g4 24 e1 Axg2 25 xg2 e6 ;
B) 23 . . . e6 24 .l':'!a7 c5 (24 . . . Axf3 25 A xf3
.l':'! bd8 26 A c1 .l':'!xd3 27 A e2 e4 00 ) 25 a4
e4 + .
18 . . . d7!
Vacating the d8 square for the kn ight, so
that after the exchange of the light-square
bishops it can take part in the attack via the
weakened light squares. Black cou ld have
won the exchange, but spoi led his position ,
by 18 . . . e4 19 dxe4 Aa6 20 exf5 VWxf5 21 Ae4
'tlVd7 22 f3 .
2 3 . . . g 4 2 4 e1 .txg2 2 5 xg2 e6 +
26 g1 ?!
Losing a tem po, but there is nothing useful
that Wh ite can do.
26 . . . g5 27 "a2 f3+ 28 g2
28 xf3 g xf3.
28 . . . e4
19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 d8! 21 f3?!
a b c d
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
t----=_
4
4
3
3
""""
"
""' ':;;:';-I
2
2
Dam ljanovic had only ten minutes left on his

clock and he wastes some temp i . I should
add that it was time troubles that only j ust
prevented h i m from q ual ifying for the can
didate matches a year earl ier i n the Manila
Interzonal . 21 A x b7 x b7 + was stronger,
luring the knight away from kingside.
..
21 . . . g5 22 f1a1
-------
(see next diagram)
99
The triumph of Black's strategy. He has fu l

fi lled all his dreams, without allowing White
any counter-chances.
29 Oxf7+
If Wh ite delays the exchange of q ueens by
29 d4 c5 ! 30 et)c2 , Black can chose between
30 . . . c4 !? (threatening . . . h5) and 30 . . . cxd4
31 et) xd4 et) xd4 32 exd4 gxd4 33 Af4 gbd8.
29
. .
xf7 30 d4 c5! 31 xf3
This is tantamount to capitulation , but

other moves also do not hel p : 31 ttl b5
et) xd2 32 gxd2 cxb4 ! , intending . . . et) d5 and
. . . Af8 -+, or 31 ttlc2 cxd4 32 ttl xd4 A xd4 !
(32 . . . et) xd4 33 exd4 gxd4 34 Af4 =F) 3 3 exd4
gc8 ! .
41
42 .te3 d5 43 c8 xe3+
43 . . . b5 44 ttla7 ttl c3 45 Ad2 A d4 46 et) c6
d5 was an alternative.
44 fxe3 Af8 45 xb6 .txb4 46 2 d6!

Avoiding the trap 46 . . . Ac5 ? 47 ttlc4 d5
48 ttl d2 A b6 49 ttl xf3 g xf3 50 xf3 e5
51 h3, and after g3-g4 Black wou ld be left
with an h -pawn and the wrong bishop.
47 c4+ d5 48 b6+ e4 49 a4
..
8
7
6
38 c7 Dd7
38 . . . gd1 39 ttl b5 A e5 40 g b7 h5 41 gx b6
et) d5.
39 . . . gd1 !.
40 xa7 e6 41 Ad2
f
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
a b c d
..
4
3
2
3
2
39 b5 Uxa7
h5?!
41 . . . et) d 5 ! -+ was simpler, not allowing the

attack on the b - pawn . B ut I made a m is
take, which unfortunately is a common one I didn't make a pause to calm down after the
time control.
31 . . . exf3+ 32 1 cxd4 33 exd4 Uxd4-+

34 .te1 Ubd8 35 Uxd4 Uxd4 36 Ua7 Ud3
37 b5 Ud5
37 . . . A e5 ! , and if 38 g b7 gd1 39 gxb6 et) d5
40 gxh6 et) x b4 -+.
a b c d
49 . . . h4!?
Or 49 . . . Ae7 50 ttlc3+ d3 51 ttl d5 Ag5
52 h4 A h 6! 53 ttlf4+ A xf4 54 exf4 d2
55 f1 , and now 55 . . . e3 56 e1 f2+
57 f1 d3 ! (57 . . . f3 ?? leads to stalemate)
or 55 . . . f2 ! -+.
50 g x h4 Ae7 51 h5 Ah4+ 52 1 Ag5

53 c5+ xe3 54 e6 Ah6 55 d8 f4
56 f7 g3 57 h x g3 fxg3 58 xh6 g2+
59 g1 12+ White resigns
h
***
100
Game 21
Polugayevsky - Gelfand , Reggio Emilia 1 991 /1992
Game 21
8 . . . g4!?
Lev Po l u g ayevs ky - B o r i s G e l fa n d
Regg i o E m i l i a 1 9 91 / 1 9 92
GrOn feld Defence [002]
I considered Wh ite's last move to be inaccu

rate and I tried to exploit it im mediately.
9 ef3
Lev Polugayevsky was one of the g reatest

players of his very strong generation . H i s
games, his books (especially Grandmaster
Preparation) and his attitude to chess had
a big influence on my chess style. Also i n
t h e Reggio Emilia tournament (the fi rst ever
category 18 tournament !), although by far
the oldest partici pant, Lev showed i m pres
sive play and scored 50 % . This was also a
memorable tou rnament for me, as I was i n
contention for fi rst place until t he last round
and I fin ished equal second with Garry Kas
parov, just half a point beh ind Vishy Anand.
1 d4 f6 2 f3 g6 3 g3 Ag7 4 Ag2 0-0

5 0-0 d5
The most solid reply. Wh ite normally o b
tains slightly t h e more comfortable game,
but Black is OK.
Admitting his inaccuracy. However, there is

l ittle for the knight to do on g4.
9 . . . Af5
I didn't see any reason to return immediately
with 9 . . . f6 !?
10 b3
1 0 ge1 is a pointless move. Black replies
10 . . . f6.
10 . . . f6
Black cou ld also have made use of his
knight on g4 by 1 0 . . . e5 !? 1 1 d x e5 (11 h3
xf2 !? 12 xf2 e4 1 3 e5 c5 oo ; 11 cxd5
e4 !? ; 11 A a3 e4 1 2 A xf8 xf8 oo) 1 1 . . . xe5
1 2 d4 Ag4!? with chances for both sides.
11 Ab2
11 a4 a6 = ; 11 a3 !?
6 bd2
Too passive, but Lev probably didn't want to
complicate the game after 6 c4 d xc4 .
6 . . . a5
Anticipating b2-b3 and preparing . . . a5-a4
7 c4 c6 8 e5
11
. .
a4
Black is fighting for counterplay. After

11 . . . e4 1 2 h4 xd2 13 xd2 Ae6 White
wou ld play e2-e4 in favou rable circum
stances.
1 2 h4
This is not the best time for activity. 8 b3 is

more natural, with equal chances.
After 1 2 bxa4 a5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 e5

bd7 15 xd7 A xd7 16 b3 xa4 17 c5
xd1 18 gfxd1 a draw was agreed in Polu
gayevsky- Kasparov a few rounds later.
12 . . . Ae6
1 2 . . . Ag4?! 13 h3 Ae6 14 f4 with an attack.
1 3 1tc2
Preparing to play e2-e4 and take control
of the centre. If Black should allow this, he
will find himself in difficu lties. The immed iate
1 3 e4 d x e4 14 xe4 x e4 1 5 A xe4 allows
15 . . . c5 ! with counterplay.
101
a b c d
..
a b c d
8
7
6
5
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
9 h
1 3 . . . a3!
13 . . . tWc8 14 bxa4 ! ; 13 . . . tDa6 14 bxa4 ;t .
14 J.e3 e5!
Si nce Black has decided to advance his
pawn a long way (to a3 i n this case), he has
to act energetically to make use of it.
15 Bad1
Black also has a comfortable game after
White's alternatives :
Wh ite wants to make use of the pin on

the d -file, but he misses a nice refuta
tion . Exact play was cal led for: 18 cxd5
A xd5 (18 . . . tDd4 ! ? , and if 19 tWc5 gc8 ;
1 8 . . . tD b4?! 1 9 tWc4 tD xd5 20 tD b1 ) 1 9 A xd5
(1 9 e4 A xe4 20 A xe4 tDd4 21 tWd3 tWb6 =+=)
1 9 . . . tWxd5 20 tDe4 tWe5 (20 . . . tD b4 !?) 21 f3
tW b2 22 tD xf6+ tWxf6 (22 . . . exf6 23 tWx b2
axb2 24 gd2 ! =) 23 gd2 intending tWe4 with
a probable draw.
18 . . . dxe4! 19 Iixd8 Bfxd8 +
A) 15 cxd5 tDxd5 16 Axd5 cxd4 ! (16 . . . tWxd5

17 e4 tW h5 18 d5 A xc3 19 tWx c3 A h3
20 tD g2 ;t ) 1 7 A x e6 (1 7 A x b7 ga7 =+=)
17 . . . dxc3 =+= ;
8
7
6
5
4
B) 1 5 d xc5 d4 1 6 A b4 tDc6 1 7 A x c6 b x c6
18 tDdf3 A h3 1 9 gfd1 tWb8 20 A e1 e5 00 ;
C) 1 5 e3 !? cxd4 (15 . . . tD c6 1 6 d xc5 d4
17 exd4 tD xd4 1 8 tWd3 tD d7 19 tD e4 ;t )
16 exd4 tDc6 17 c5 b6 18 b4 bxc5 1 9 bxc5 00 .
6
5
4
1 5 . . . exd4 1 6 Axd4 e6
Black has completed hi s development and
has a strong a3 pawn (the a2 pawn is a po
tential target) , so it is White who has to play
carefully to keep the balance here.
17 J.xf6
After 1 7 A a1 tWa5 1 8 cxd5 tD xd5 1 9 tD c4
tWc5 =+= it is White who may have problems
due to the weakness of his a2 pawn .
17 . . . Axf6 18 e4?
--------
Despite h is extra q ueen , White is u nable to

defend his a2 pawn and prevent the appear
ance of a new queen .
20 ttxe4
20 A xe4 tDb4 21 tWb1 gd2 22 tWe1 Ac3 + .
102
Game 22
Gelfand - Yusupov, SKA-Mephisto, Munich 1992
20 . . . Ild2
20 . . . tO b4 !? 21 'ffx b7 tO xa2 22 'ff b 6 =t .
21 f4
An attempt to confuse matters, but it is too
slow. If 21 'ff b 1 .E!xe2 !?
21 . . . Ilxa2 22 f5 g xf5 23 xf5 Ila1

23 . . . Axf5 !? 24 'ffx f5 .E!a1 -+.
24 xe7+ xe7 25 Ilxa1 xa1 26 Oxb7

J.d4+ 27 e3 J.xe3+ 2S 1 Ila7 29 ObS+
cS White resigns
h
__....;9
11
::...-_
L...-_a______e
----J
b c d
***
Game 2 2
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Ar t u r Yu s u p o v
S KA- M e p h i st o , M u n i c h 1 9 92
Bogo - Indian Defence lE 1 1]
7
6
You may wonder why this simple game was

included in the book. First of al l , it is a rare
instance for such a great player with a solid
style like Artur Yusupov to find h i mself i n
a lost position after j ust 1 5 m oves. Artur
played three ti mes i n Candidates sem i-fi nal
matches, which says everything . I should like
to add that Artur has an i mpeccable repu
tation among his colleagues for his honesty,
moral principles and friendl iness. Another
reason why the game was included here wil l
be mentioned later.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 Ab4+ 4 bd2 d5
Black is fig hting for the centre. 4 . . . b6 was
played in Gelfand - Korchnoi (Vienna 1 996)
Game 35 on page 1 54.
5 0a4+
An important check. White forces the knight
to c6, thus preventing the attack on the cen
tre by . . . c7-c5. Black wil l be forced to waste
a few tempi to achieve this.
6
5
4
3
2
9
6 . . . e7
Black could also try giving u p his bishop
i n order to establish his knight in the cen
tre : 6 . . . Axd2+ 7 Axd2 tO e4. However, since
he is unable to break up White's centre by
. . . c7-c5 or . . . e6-e5 , I think that this must
favour White, as for example in my first ever
game with Alexey Shirov : 8 .E!d1 0-0 9 e3
tOe7 10 'ffc2 f5 11 Ad3 b6 12 0-0 A b7 13 c5
Ac6 14 tOe5 Ae8 15 Ae1 tOg6 16 tO xg6 hxg6
1 7 f3 tOg5 1 8 Ag3 and Wh ite stands m uch
better (Gelfand - Shirov, USSR Junior Cham
pionship, Oaugavpils 1 986).
7 e3 0-0 S Oc2
Preparing to meet . . . a7-a5 with b2-b3 .
S . . . a5 9 b3 d7 10 b2 IlcS
5 . . . c6 6 a3
103
The 9 th world champion failed to achieve

m uch after 10 . . . tL'l a7 11 Ad3 h6 1 2 0-0
(1 2 eL!eS !?) 12 . . Jk8 13 eL! eS cS 14 dxcS AxcS
1 S tL'l df3 (1S tL'l xd7 !? t ) 1 S . . . d x c4 1 6 b x c4
Ae8 1 7 E!fd1 'f!Jc7 1 8 Ac3 Ae7 1 9 'f!Jd2 A a4
20 E!db1 b6 21 Ad4 AcS %-% (Petrosian
Gipslis, Moscow 1 967) .
1 1 Ad3 a7
Prepari ng . . . c7-cS . However, I feel that this
entire set-u p is rather d u bious and it is no
wonder that after this game the entire vari
ation went out of use i n top-class tourna
ments.
12 e5!?
Black wants to play . . . c7-cS under favoura
ble circumstances.
12
1 3 g4!?
I t h in k that the wh ite pieces are excellently
placed to launch such an attack after Black
has weakened himself with . . . h7-h6. 13 cxd5
exdS 14 tL'l xd7 tL'l xd7 1S 0-0 tL'lf6 is too dull,
wh ile 13 0-0 transposes into the Petrosian
Gipslis game.
13
T he morn ing before the ga me I had some

stomach problems and after play started I
began to feel even worse. So emergency
doctors were summoned and when this pos
ition was on the board they entered the play
ing hal l . Despite feeling u nwel l , I decided to
play in accordance with the demands of the
position .
a b c d
14 . . . a4?
The decisive m i stake. Black does noth
ing to counter the opponent's threats. He
should have exchanged the eS knight in
order to slow down White's attack: 14 . . . eL!c6
(if 14 . . . cxd4 1 S gS d x e3 1 6 fxe3) 1 S g5
(1S tL'l xd7 tL'l xd7 1 6 cxdS exdS 00 ) 1S . . . tL'l xe5
16 d x eS tL'l g4 17 g x h6 ! (it is i m portant to
open the g -fi le; if 1 7 Ae2 hS 18 E!g1 a4 with
counterplay) 1 7 . . . tL'l x h6 1 8 E!g1 , sti l l with an
attack.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
9 h
15 g5! +- axb3 16 "xb3 dxc4 17 Axc4
a b c d
...
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
c5 14 h4
After the doctors had checked me and given

me some med icine, I returned to the board
after around 40 minutes and decided to play
in the most natural way. Also interesting was
14 d xcS A x cS (or 14 . . . tL'l c6 1 S E!g1 ) 1 S gS!
h x g S 16 h4 d x c4 17 b xc4 g4 (17 . . . g x h4?
18 E!x h4) 18 hS with a strong attack.
h6?!
The i mmed iate 1 2 . . . cS !? 13 d x cS d x c4

leaves Black a pawn down :
A) 14 tL'l d x c4 A xcS! (14 . . . E!xcS 1 S Ad4)
1S tL'lxd7 'f!Jxd7 16 Axf6 g xf6 17 Ax h7+ g7
18 Ae4 bS with counterplay;
B) 14 b x c4 ! ? , and if 1 4 . . . A xcS!? 1 S tL'l xd7
'f!Jxd7 1 6 A xf6 g xf6 1 7 Ax h7+ .
11 1
9 h
'if
17 . . . b5
104
Game 23
Gelfand - Shirov, I mmopar Rapid , Paris 1992
A desperate attempt to gain counterplay at

the cost of a piece. 1 7 . . . ttld5 1 8 g x h 6 ! , or
17 . . . ttlh5 18 g6 1 .
8l
7
6
5
4
3
2
-__--
__
_
1 8 gxf6 Axf6 19 xd7 "xd7 20 Ae2 c4

20 . . . cxd4 21 ttle4 Ae5 22 f4.
21 "c2 c3
21 . . . 'fic7 22 Ac3.
22 Axc3 Ae7
8
7
6
3
2
22 . . . 'fic6 23 ttle4.
23 Elg1 "c7 24 e4 f5
_
_
_
_
_
_
----'''--_----'
L..._
.-
(see next diagram)
1J
28 "xc3 Elxc3 29 xb5 xb5 30 Axb5

f4 31 exf4 exf4 32 a4 Dfc8 33 Dg4 f3
34 a5 D3c5 35 El b4 Dd8 36 a6 Dc7
37 Elb3 Black resigns
24 . . . 'fih2 25 d2 (25 gf1 ) 25 . . . f5 26 d5 +-.
25 d5! e5 26 d6 Axd6 27 xd6 "xc3+

27 . . . 'fixd6 28 'fi b3+ h8 29 A b4.
But not 37 a7 7? ge7+ 38 f1 gxa7 1 .

* * *
Game 23
B o r i s G e l fa n d - A l exey S h i rov
I m m o p ar Ra p i d , Paris 1 9 92
Ca talan Opening [E04]
The I m mopar tournaments were the first
high-level rapid chess events. All the best
players took part and the organ isation was
perfect. Play took place on the prestigious
Cham ps- E lysees and was popular among
the Parisian public. It was impossible to ob
tain a seat during the decisive games, and all
this put the players i n a creative mood . The
only drawback was at that time the Fischer
clock (with an i ncrement after every move)
didn't yet exist, and so the quality of play was
general ly lower than after the introduction of
this device (at least in my games). However,
this is a fascinating game anyway. But please
don't judge the players too strictly, as it was
only a rapid game.
transposes into a Catalan-type position . The

drawback is that in this type of position Black
can capture the c4 pawn in more favourable
circu mstances than in the Catalan , as the
knight is already comm itted to c3 .
5 . . . dxc4
After 5 . . . ttl bd7 6 Ag2 d x c4 7 a4 Wh ite has
fu ll com pensation for the pawn, but hardly
more than that.
6 Ag2 b5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 c3 f6 4 f3 e6 5 g3
I used to employ this idea from time to
time. Wh ite avoids a theoretical discussion
in the Botvin n i k or M eran Variations and
_______----,,,--_----,
1J
Black has g rabbed the pawn, so it is a real

gambit now!
105
7 e5
Wh ite gained good com pensation for the
pawn after 7 Ag5 bd7 B e5 xe5 9 Axf6
g xf6 1 0 d x e5 A d7 1 1 exf6 tWxf6 1 2 0-0
.!:!dB 13 a4 (Khal ifman -Sveshni kov, Moscow
1 9B7).
7 . . . d5 8 a4
As Yuri Razuvaev expresses it in such cases,

White's attacking coefficient (the number of
pieces taking part in the attack, against the
n u m ber of pieces defendi ng) is too high.
Black has three log ical defences and it is
amazing that Wh ite has to react differently in
al l three cases !
18 . . . c2
Wh ite provokes a weaken ing of Black's pos

ition .
8 . . . f6
Giving u p the im portant bishop by B . . . A b4
9 Ad2 A xc3 10 bxc3 is not to everyone's
taste.
9 f3 b4 10 e4 e7 11 0-0 0-0 12 1!rc2

a6
1 2 . . . f5 13 c5 (13 ed2 c3) 13 . . . A xc5
14 d x c5 g ives Wh ite fu l l com pensation for
the pawn.
I. 18. . d3
.
(bad is 1 B . . . AcB? 1 9 tWe2 or 1 B . . . d7

19 e6) is the most natural move, but it is
hardly sufficient to save the game.
19 x h7 ! (the point of Wh ite's concept he not only destroys the protection of the
black king, but also secures a post for its
colleag ue on g5 in the immediate vicin ity of
the king ; if 1 9 .!:!e6 AcB) 1 9 . . . x h7 20 g5+
g6 (20 . . . gB 21 tWh5)
13 h3 f5?!
Th is allows Wh ite a d i rect attack. 13 . . . tWcB
is safer.
14 eg5 b3 1 5 1!rd1 Hf6

Not very logical is 15 . . . AcB?! 1 6 e4.
16 e4 b4 17 exf5 exf5 18 He1
a b c d
..
Analysis diagram after 20 LZJg5+ \!;g6
8
7
6
5
3
2
21 .!:!e6 ! ! .
6
5
4
A n incred ible idea! It is i m portant t o d ivert

the rook at f6 from the protection of the f5
pawn. Other tries are unsuccessful :
B 1 ) 21 . . .fxg4 is good enough for a d raw :

22 xg4 a5 (22 . . . xf2 23 h4 gB
24 .!:!xe7 with an attack ; 22 . . . xe1 23 e4+
.!:!f5 24 e6+ h5 25 xf5 A xg5 26 h7+
A h6 27 f5+ =) 23 e6+ (23 f3+ f7
24 .!:!xe7+ x e7 25 x g7+ dB 26 xf6+
cB leaves Black with an extra piece)
23 . . . f7 24 x g7+ eB 25 c7+ xc7
26 Ag5 xe1 27 .!:!xe1 .!:!f7 2B gB+ .!:!fB = ;
A) 2 1 g4?! f4 ;
B) 21 Ag4 - an orig inal , but insufficient idea:
So, White has burned his boats. He has ne

glected the q ueenside and concentrated all
his forces i n the d i rection of the opponent's
king . I thought that White had a strong attack
and deep analysis confirms this assessment.
106
Game 23
Gelfand - Shirov, Immopar Rapid, Paris 1992
B2) 21 . . . tD xc1 ! 22 tDe6 gxe6 23 A xf5+

(23 gxe6+ Af6 24 A h5+ <!> h7 25 Af7 g6)
23 . . . <!> xf5 24 f3+ <!> g6 25 g4+ <!> h7
26 gxe6 tDd7 !? 27 tWe4+ <!> h8 -+ and Black's
material advantage is too great ;
C) 21 tDe6. I n contrast to the game, here this
continuation doesn 't promise success :
C1 ) weak is 21 . . . tW h8 (or 21 . . . gxe6
22 Axf5+ ! <!> xf5 23 tW h5+) 22 A xf5+ ! and
now :
C11 ) 22 . . . <!> f7 23 Axd3 gxe6 24 gxe6 cxd3
25 xb3 and Black cannot hold the position ;
C12) 22 . . . gxf5 23 g4+ Ag5 24 tD xg5
(24 Ax g 5 ? tD xf2) 24 . . . tD xf2 (24 . . . tD x e1
25 tDe4+ <!> f7 26 tWxf5+ <!> g8 27 tD g5)
25 ge6+ gf6 26 gxf6+ g xf6 27 e6 f8
28 <!> xf2 (28 tDf3 Ac8 29 tDe5+ <!> h7 or
29 tD h4+ <!> h7) 28 . . . A c8 29 e4+ Af5
30 tWh4 fxg5 31 xg5+ <!> h7 32 Af4 and
the attack continues ;
C13) 2 2 . . . <!> xf5, and now :
C131 ) 23 tWf3+? <!>g6 24 tWe4+ <!>f7 25 tDg5+
g8 26 tWx e7 h5 (or 26 . . . tD d7) 27 tD e6
gxe6 28 gxe6 tDd7 ! 29 tWxd7 tWd1+ 30 <!>g2
gfB 31 tWxg7+ <!> xg7 32 A h6+ <!> h7 33 gxd1
gxf2+ 34 <!> g1 tD x b2 35 g b1 tD d3 36 gxc6
A b7 37 gc7+ <!>xh6 38 gxb7 b2 and Wh ite is
losing ;
C132) 23 tD xg7+ <!> g6 (23 . . . tWxg7 24 tW h5+)
24 gxe7 (Wh ite is only a piece down , and
since three of the black pieces on the queen
side are out of the game, Black shou ldn't
be able to repel Wh ite's threats) 24 . . . tD xf2
(24 . . . tW h3 25 e2 (25 tWd 2 ? tDf4 ! 26 g xf4
'l'g4+ =) 25 . . . gf7 26 tDe8) 25 tWe1 ! (25 tWd2
h3+ ; 25 e2 c3 -+) 25 . . . Ac8 (25 . . . tD h3+
26 <!> g2 gf2+ 27 <!> h1 gx h2+ 28 <!> x h 2
g5+ 2 9 <!> g2 tWh3+ 3 0 <!> f2 tWh2+ 3 1 <!> e3)
26 h4 +-;
<!> f7 27 tWf5+ Af6 -+) 26 . . . <!> xg5 (26 . . . <!> f7

27 gxe6 <!>xe6 28 tWe4+) 27 gxe6 Af6 28 h4+
<!> h6 29 g4, mating ;
C 1 332) 23 . . . Ad6 24 h 3 ! ! (weaker is 24 g4+
<!> g5 25 h4+ ! xh4 26 tD g2+ Af4 27 tD x h 4
<!> x h4 with a dangerous attack, b u t Black
can resist) 24 . . . tD xe1 25 tWg4+ <!> e4 26 tDg2+
Af4 27 tD xf4 tDf3+ 28 <!> g2 tDe1 + 29 <!> h1 ,
threatening tWe2+ and tDg6+ ;
C 1333) 23 . . . tD x e1 (best) 24 tWx e1 Ad6!
(24 . . . tDd7 25 g4+ <!>g5 26 tWe4) 25 g4+ ! <!> g5
(25 . . . <!> xg4 26 f3+) 26 h4+ and now :
C 1 3331 ) 26 . . . <!> x h 4 ? 27 tDg2+ <!> xg4
28 e4+ <!> h3 (28 . . . <!> h5 29 tW h4+ <!> g6
30 tWx h 8) 29 e3+ <!> g4 30 tWg5+ <!> h3
(30 . . . <!> f3 31 tD e1 + <!> e4 32 f3+ <!> xd4
33 Ae3#) 31 Af4 ! +-;
C 13332) Black should run away with
26 . . . <!> h6 27 g5+ <!> h7 28 gx f6 A xf4
(28 . . . g x f6 29 e4+ <!> g7 30 g6+ <!> f8
31 tD h5 tDd7 (31 . . . <!> e7 32 tD xf6) 32 A h6+
<!> e7 33 ge1 + <!> d8 34 tDg7 00) 29 e4+
<!> g8 30 A xf4 h5 ! (30 . . . x h 4 31 e8+
<!> h7 32 Ag3 ! (32 f7 tD d7 33 tWxa8
tWxf4) 32 . . . tWxf6 33 <!> g2 +-) 31 g2 f7
32 ge1 and after the cool-headed 32 . . . c3 !
(32 . . . tWxf6 33 ge8+ <!> f7 34 Ae5 with an at
tack) 33 ge8+ <!> h7 34 tWg5 c x b2 35 <!> h2
tDd7 (35 . . . b1 tW ? 36 fxg7 x e8 37 g 8 tW + !
tWxg8 3 8 tW h6#) 3 6 gxa8 tD xf6 Black
counter-attacks successful ly;
C2) 2 1 . . . d 5 ! (here Black can play this, as
his knight protects the f4 square) 22 ge5 !?
(the only possibility of continuing the attack).
C133) it is also interesting to try and trap the

king on f5 with 23 tDf4 !? :
C1331 ) bad is 23 . . . tD xf4 24 A xf4 ge6
25 tWb1 + (or 25 d 5 ! ? gxe1 + 26 tWxe1 cxd5
27 tWxe7 +-) 25 . . . <!> f6 26 Ag5+ ! (26 Ae5+
107
...
Analysis diagram after 21
. . .
t!fd5! 22 J"fe5!?
And in this very messy position :

C21 ) 22 . . . 'tWxe6 23 ..xe6 ..xe6 24 A xf5 + !
(24 'tWf3 ..e1 + 25 g2 Ac8) 2 4 . . . xf5
25 'tW h5+ e4 26 Ad2 ! with the i nitiative ;
C22) 22 . . . 'tWxe5 23 dxe5 ..xe6 and now:
A) 19 . . . hxg5 20 Axg5! (20 et) xg5 wou ld al low

20 . . . d7 ! 2 1 A xf5 f8) 20 . . . tDc2 2 1 A xf6
A xf6 22 A xf5 tD x e1 23 ..xe1 and again the
black pieces are unable to protect their ki ng;
B) 1 9 . . . tDc2 , when :
C22 1 ) 24 'tW f3 !? ..xe5 25 Af4 ..d5

26 'tWe2 f7 (26 . . . d7!? 27 'tWxe7 f6
28 Ag2 00 ) 27 'tWh5+ f8 (27 . . . e6 28 'tWe8 00 )
28 'tW h8+ = ;
B1 ) 20 'tWxe7 'tWxe7 21 ..xe7 hxg5 (21 . . . et) xa1

22 tDe6) 22 A xg5 x a1 23 A xf6 g xf6
24 tD h4 ! (threaten ing A xf5 and Ae6) also
looks very dangerous;
B2) 20 Axf5 (the most direct way) 20 . . . et) xe1
(or 20 . . . h x g 5 21 xg5 ..xf5 (21 . . . xe1
22 Ae6+ f8 23 tDh7+ e8 24 tD xf6+ Axf6
25 'tW h5+) 22 'tWe6+ h8 23 'tWxf5 A xg5
24 A xg5 'tWc8 25 'tWg6 tD x e1 26 ..xe1 )
21 Ae6+ h8
C222) Wh ite can also draw t h e game by

24 f4 tDd7 (24 . . . Ac5+ 25 g2 et)f2 26 Axf5+
xf5 27 'tW h5+ e4 28 'tW f3+ =) 25 A xf5+
(25 g4 h7 26 gxf5 ..h6) 25 . . . xf5 26 W# h5+
(26 g4+ g6 27 f5+ h7 28 fxe6 7 x e5
with the i n itiative) 26 . . . e4 27 'tWe2+ d5
28 'tWf3+ c5 29 Ae3+ = ;
C23) 22 . . . 'tW h1 + ! (the best way t o simplify
the game and transpose i nto a favourable
ending ; however it is q u ite hard to spot !)
23 x h1 tDxf2+ 24 g1 tD xd1 25 tDc7 Ad6
26 xa8 c3 27 bxc3 xc3 and Black is in
the driving seat.
After 21 ..e6 !! Black must continue 21 . . .
'tWx d4 (21 . . . Ac8 22 A xf5+ xf5 23 'tW f3+ ;
21 . . . ..xe6 2 2 A xf5+ xf5 2 3 'tWf3+) 2 2 Ae3
(22 A xf5+ xf5 23 'tW f3+ (23 Ae3 !?)
23 . . . g6) and now :
A) 22 . . . 'tWd8 23 Axf5+ ;
B) 22 . . . ..xe6 23 A xf5+ ! (noth ing can d istract Wh ite from his attack ; 23 A xd4 ..e1 +)
23 . . . xf5 24 'tW f3+ 'tW f4 (the only move ; if
24 . . . g6 25 'tW f7+ h6 26 'tWx e6+) 25 g xf4
Axg5 26 fxg5+ g6 27 h4 and Black has no
defence ;
C) 22 . . . 'tWd5 23 ..xe7 x b2 is perhaps the
most stu bborn , but I don 't bel ieve it can
save the game, for exam ple 24 A xf5+ ..xf5
(24 . . . 'tWxf5 25 'tWd4) 25 'tWg4 ..xg5 26 Axg5.
II. 18. . . h6
19 'tWe2 ! (now Axf5 is a real threat ; bad is the

direct 19 et)e6 ?! 'tWd7 20 tDe5 'tWxe6 ! 21 tDg6
..xg6 22 ..xe6 ..xe6 23 A xf5 ..f6 -+) and
now:
22 e5 !! (there are far more wh ite pieces

attacking than black pieces defending,
and this decides the outcome) 22 . . . 'tWxd4
(22 . . . f3+ 23 'tWxf3 and if 23 . . . ..xf3
24 g6#) 23 ef7+ g8 24 x h6+ f8
25 f5 ..xf5 26 A xf5 c3 27 'tW h5 A xg5
28 Axg5 tDd3 29 Ae6.
19 xh7 !
A s also after 1 8 . . . d3, t h i s is t h e o n l y way,
but a strong one, to start a direct assault.
19
. . .
xh7
Or 1 9 . . . ..d6 20 hg5 (th reaten i ng Af4 ;

20 Ag5!? et) xe1 21 'tWxe1 Axg5 22 et) hxg5 00)
20 . . . tD xa1 21 Axf5 ! g6 22 Ae6+, mating.
20 g5+ g6
20 . . . g8 21 'tW h5 ..h6 22 'tW f7+ h8
23 ..xe7 +-.
108
21 e6
Game 23
Gelfand - Shirov, I mmopar Rapid, Paris 1992
Or 21 ge4 fxe4 22 't'fg4 e3 23 e6+ f7 .

Here, in contrast to the 18 . . . d3 l ine, 21 ge6
can be wel l parried by 21 . . . xd4 ! , protecting the f5 pawn (21 . . . 't'fxd4 22 A xf5+ xf5
23 't'f h5) 22 gxe7 't'fx e7 23 't'fxd4 't'fe1 +
24 g2 c3 and it is Black who is going to
give mate.
21
. .
h8
21 . . . gxe6 22 A xf5+ xf5 23 't'f h5+ g5

24 'tWf7+, mating.
8
7
-J
6
whether Black can save any of these pos

itions.
23 .f3+71
Wh ite loses the thread . Obviously, I was
very excited after such a game, and while
wal king the streets of Paris late that night I
found 23 xg7+ ! g6 (23 . . . 'tWxg7 24 'tWh5+)
24 gxe7 with mating threats. I told this to
my opponent the n ext day and after some
thought he proposed 24 . . . 't'f h3 (24 . . . A c8
25 't'fd2 +-) 25 't'fd2 ? (stronger is 25 't'fe2 !
gf7 26 't'fe4+ xg7 27 'tWe5+ ! , mating - Shi
rov) 25 . . . 't'ff1 + ! ! 26 xf1 c3+.
23 f4 xe1 transposes into a position ana
lysed after 18 . . . d3.
23 <!>g6 24 .e4+ <!>t7 25 g5+ <!>g8
26 .xe7 .h5?
.
B lack should have g iven up some of his

extra material and developed his pieces :
26 . . . d7 ! 27 ge6 gxf2 28 h4 gaf8 and
Wh ite's position is hopeless.
3 I'-i..=.
2
L..._
.- ______...._
.;;.... ---l iJ
27 e6 gxe6 28 gxe6 xa1
a b c d
22 Axf5+ ! <!>xf5
8
7
6
5
4
Other replies were more tenacious, but

would sti l l lose agai nst best play by White.
22 . . J xf5 23 't'fg4+ f6 (23 . . . Ag5 24 xg5)
24 Ag5+ gxg5 25 't'fxg5+ f7 26 't'ff5+
Ci!> e8 (26 . . . Af6 27 g5+ f8 28 't'fc5+, or
26 . . . g8 27 g5) 27 't'fe5 ! (this comp uter
suggestion is the clearest way to win, but
the human 27 't'fg6+ d7 28 x g7 x e1
29 gxe1 is also good enough) 27 . . . Af6
(27 . . . xe1 28 gxe1 A b4 29 c5+) 28 'tWc7 ! ,
completing the net around t h e black ki ng.
It wou ld seem that from the analytical point
of view the best defence was 22 . . . f7
23 g5+ e8 , although after 24 gxe7+
(or more sim ply 24 A xc2 b x c2 25 't'fe2
f8 26 h7 't'ff7 27 xf6+ g xf6 (27 . . . 't'fxf6
28 h4) 28 Af4 ) 24 . . . xe7 25 't'fe2+ f8
(or 25 . . . d8 26 't'fe5 d7 27 't'fa5+ b6
28 Axc2 bxc2 29 't'fx a6) 26 't'fe5 xa1
27 h7+ (27 Af4 !?) 27 . . . 'tWx h7 28 Ax h7 d7
29 'tWc7 ge8 30 't'fxd7 c3 31 g2 I doubt
3 r--
2
iJ
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Black is acting very material istically. Sim

pler was 28 . . . d7 29 't'fxd7 gf8 30 A h6
'tWf7 (30 . . . gxh6 31 ge7 (0 ) 31 ge7 (31 'tWxf7+!?
xf7 32 gxc6 x a1 33 Ad2 (0 ) 31 . . . 't'fxf2+
32 h1 'tWf3+ with perpetual check.
29 Ah6!
Wh ite has only a few pieces left and he has
to make maxi m u m use of their activity. He
would have lost after 29 't'fd8+ h7 30 ge8
d7 ! 31 't'fx a8 't'fd 1 + 32 g2 f6 33 gh8+
109
g6, but 29 'Se5 "fif7 30 "fid8+ h7 31 "fih4+

was sufficient for a draw.
29 . . . 17
29 . . . g x h6 30 "fid8+ g7 31 "fif6+ g8
32 'Se7 +-.
30 .g5 h7
a b c d
8
7
6
5
3
2
I overestimated my chances. After 31 'Se7

"fixe7 32 "fixe7 xh6 33 f4 !? (33 "fie3+ leads
to perpetual check) 33 . . . c3 ! , despite having
a h uge material advantage it is Black who
has to play accurately to gain a d raw, for
example 34 f5 Ae2 35 "fi h4+ A h5 36 g4 g6
37 fxg6 c2 (quite an amazing position of the
kn ight on a1 !) 38 "fix h5+ g7 39 "fi h7+ f6
40 "fif7+ g5 and White must force perpet
ual check.
31 . . .xe6 32 J.e5 .g6!
5
4
3
_.....---_-1
2
_--l
L..._
.______--'_---J
31 J.xg7?1
I missed this move. Now the game is over.
33 .d8
33 "fie7+ g8 34 "fid8+ f7 35 "fic7+ e8.
33 . . . d7
34 .xd7+ ct>g8 35 f4 c3 36 f5
cxb2 White resigns
if
***
Game 2 4
8 J.d3 J.b7 9 a3
B o r i s G e l fa n d - V i s wa n at h a n A n a n d
I n terzo n a l To u r n a m e n t , B i e l 1 9 93
Semi-Sla v Defence [04 7]
a b c d
...
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
The Biel I nterzonal was one of the g reat

est achievements of my career. I played a
number of entertaining games and I was for
tunate enough to add this victory to my suc
cess in Manila 1 990, thus winning what were
probably the last two Interzonal Tournaments
in the history of chess.
6
5
4
3
2
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 .tlc3 .tlf6 4 e3 e6 5 .tlf3

.tlbd7 6 J.d3 dxc4 7 J.xc4 b5
Another i nvention of one of my favou rite
players, Akiba Rubinstein, which he fi rst in
troduced in Meran in 1 926, which gave it the
name of the M eran Variation. I enjoy the re
sulting positions and I have played this vari
ation several ti mes with both colours. It was
also one of the main components of Vishy's
repertOire for many years.
I have successful ly employed this harmless

looki ng idea on several occasions.
9 . . . b4 10 .tle4
1 0 a x b4 A x b4 1 1 0-0 is not dangerous, as
was shown by 1 1 . . . c5 1 2 a2 a5 1 3 x b4
a x b4 14 'Sxa8 "fix a8 1 5 Ae2 0-0 1 6 d x c5
xc5 1 7 "fid4 A a6 1 8 A x a6 x a6 1 9 Ad2
110
Game 24
Gelfand -Anand, I nterzonal Tournament, Biel 1993
d8 20 c4 e4 21 A x b4 %-% (Gelfand Shirov, USSR Championsh i p First League,

Klaipeda 1 988) .
After 1 6 . . . xc5? 1 7 A x b7 x b7 1 8 a4+

the king is forced to move and White gains
attacking chances.
10 . . . xe4
17 .a4
10 . . . c5 is too ambitious, as it leads to

too many weaknesses i n the black pos
ition : 11 xf6+ g xf6 1 2 0-0 gg8 ?! 13 e2
b6 14 a x b4 cxd4 15 exd4 c6 16 c;;, h 1
Axb4 1 7 Af4 gg4 1 8 Ag3 gxd4 19 gg1 ?!
e4 ? 20 A x e4 x e4 21 x e4 A x e4
22 ggc1 %-% (Gelfand - Sh i rov, M elody
Amber Monaco rapid 2002) .
1 1 Axe4 .c7
Nowadays 1 1 . . . bxa3 is considered to be the
strongest : 12 0-0 Ae7 13 c2 c7 14 bxa3
c5 15 gb1 Axe4 16 xe4 0-0 1 7 gb7 c8 =
(Gelfand - Bareev, Russia-Rest of the World
rapid, Moscow 2002) .
12 axb4! N
I
failed to achieve anything after 1 2 0-0 bxa3

13 bxa3 Ad6 14 gb1 0-0 15 c2 h6 1 6 Ad2
gab8 17 A b4 c5 18 d x c5 A x e4 19 x e4
CDxc5 20 g4 ttld3 (Gelfand - Bareev, Linares
1993).
Trying to keep the black king in the centre.

H owever, after the s imple 17 xc5 x c5
1 8 A x b7 x b7 1 9 c;;, e2 Black had to suffer
to make a draw in Bareev- Kramnik, (Linares
1 994) .
17 . . . Hb8
The only defence. 1 7 . . . c7 looks tem pti ng,
but then 18 a3 ! (18 0-0 Axe4 19 gac1 b7
2 0 x e4 0-0 2 1 d6 b6 leads to an al
most eq ual position) poses serious pro b
lems : 1 8 . . . f6 1 9 A x b7 x b7 20 c4 ! (20
0-0 e7 =) 20 . . . xg2 21 d6+ and now :
A} 2 1 . . . c;;, f8?? leads t o a smothered mate
after 22 f5+ c;;, g 8 23 e7+ c;;, f8 24 g6+
c;;, g 8 25 f8+ gxf8 26 e7# ;
12 . . . Axb4+ 1 3 Ad2 Axd2+

13 . . . c5 14 A x b4 c x b4 15 gc1 ;t and Wh ite
keeps an advantage.
14 xd2 c5 1 5 .c2! .b6 1 6 dxc5
16 A xb7 x b7 1 7 dxc5 xg2 18 O-O-O !? 00
leads to a sharp game (if 1 8 e4 xe4
19 ttl xe4 f5 with cou nterplay) .
16
. . .
xc5
a b c d
7
6
. B } 2 1 . . . c;;, d 7 2 2 O-O-O ! with a decisive

attack, for example 22 . . . d5 (22 . . . c6+
23 c;;, b 1 d5 24 xf7 +-) 23 e4 ghc8+
24 c;;, b 1 ! (but not 24 x c8 gxc8+ 25 c;;, b 1
x e4+ 00) 24 . . . gc6 25 exd5 g6+ 26 c;;, a 1
gxd6 (26 . . . exd5 27 b7 +-) 27 dxe6+ xe6
28 a4+ c;;, c7 29 gxd6 c;;,x d6 30 b4+ c;;, c7
31 gc1 + c;;, d 8 32 f8+ e8 33 gd1 + c;;, c7
34 d6+ c;;, b7 35 b4+ c;;, c7 36 gc1 + c;;, d 8
37 a5+ and wins.
18 0-0
L...-_______....:_
::...
----I
lf
None of White's other options achieves anything : 18 xa7 Axe4 19 ttlxe4 b4+ 20 ttld2
111
0-0 (and if 21 ffxd7 gfd8), 18 b3 ff b6, or

18 gd1 Axe4 19 xe4 ff b4+ =.
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
...
8
6
5
4
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
c d
'if
20 Axh7+ !
1B . . . 0-O!
Again the best, if not the only reply. The
endgame after 18 . . . A xe4 19 xe4 ff b4
20 ffx b4 gx b4 21 gxa7 is very d ifficult, if
not lost. Now I had a number of alternatives
and I spent q u ite a lot of time calculating
them .
19 1txd7
Wh ite's i n itiative would have evaporated
after 1 9 gac1 ffd6 20 c4 ffe7 = , but
he could also have tried 19 A x h7+ x h7
20 ffxd7 :
A) 20 . . . A xg2 ? 2 1 xg2 g bd8 22 e4 ff f5
23 ffa4 ;
B) 20 . . . gfd8 21 ffxf7 gxd2 22 ga4 +- leads
to the game continuation ;
This is White's last chance. Blac k can hold

the position after either 20 gac1 ff b4 ! (the
only move), and if 21 gc4 ffx c4 22 ffxd8+
gxd8 23 A x h7+ x h7 24 x c4 A a6 25 b3
gb8, or 20 b4 ff b6 (the only move) 2 1 c4
(21 ffe7 gxd2 22 Ax b7 ffx b7 23 gxa7 ffxe7
24 gxe7 g b2 =) 2 1 . . . gxd7 22 x b6 axb6
23 Ax b7 gd x b7 =.
20 . . . xh7?
Vishy took the bishop instantly, thereby
fallin g i nto a trap. The famous speed of
play of the 2000 world champion has turned
against h i m q u ite a few times in his ca
reer. After the simple 20 . . . f8 ! 21 ffa4 gxd2
22 Ae4 (22 gac1 ffd5 ! 23 e4 ffd4) 22 . . . Axe4
23 ffx e4 g6 Wh ite would have only a sym
bolic advantage.
C) 20 . . . ffd5 2 1 ffxd5 A xd5 22 e4 gx b2 !?

23 exd5 gxd2 24 d x e6 fxe6 25 gxa7 gc8 ;!;;
and White is a pawn up, but the most prob
able resu lt is a draw;
D) 20 . . . ffg 5 ! ? 21 ffd3+ ;!;; (21 g3 gfd8
22 ffxf7 ffd5 !), when Black has some com
pensation , but I am not sure if it is enough ;
E) 20 . . . Ad5 ! , and Wh ite cannot achieve more
than a 4 v. 3 ending, which should be a draw.
19 . . . IUdB
112
21 1txf7 Hxd2?
e
8
7
6
5
4
3
'---''-0-.
2
9 h
8
L """",,- , -
==9-___'1
6
5
4
3
2
Game 25
Gelfand - Shirov, Chalkidiki 1993
This move was also played very q u ickly.

21 . . . d 5 ? was hopeless in view of 22 f3
gf8 23 c7 (or 23 x e6 +-) 23 . . J !xf3
24 x b8 gxe3 25 f3 +-, but, as Anand
pointed out to me the next day, 21 . . . A xg2
was the most stu bborn defence : 22 c;!? xg2
(22 gxa7 ?? g5 -+ ; 22 ga4 ? g5 ;t )
22 . . . gxd2 (i nterposing 22 . . . g5+ 23 c;!? h1
gxd2 loses to 24 gg1 d5+ 25 f3 e5
26 gg3 gx h2+ 27 c;!? x h2 x b2+ 28 c;!? h3
'ffx a1 29 c;!? g4 ! +-), and now :
A} 23 ga4 looks l i ke a blunder, but after

23 . gb4 ! (23 . . . c6+ 24 c;!? h3 xa4 25 gg1
and mate is unavoidable) 24 gx b4 x b4
25 xe6 x b2 Wh ite's chances of winning
and Black's of d rawing are approximately
equal ;
. .
B} 23 gxa7 g5+ 24 c;!? h1 d5+ = (25 f3 ?

g5) ;
C} 23 xe6 gbxb2 (23 . . . gb6 24 e4+ gg6+
25 c;!? h1 ; 23 . . . g5+ 24 c;!? h1 ) 24 e4+
(24 ga4 gxf2+) 24 . . . c;!? g8 25 c;!? g1 and the
chances of a win and a draw are again 'fifty
fifty' .
22 Ha4! Og5 23 g3! +This pawn move, defending Wh ite's king and
creating i rresistible threats to its black col
league, was missed by my opponent. How
ever, it was also missed by some of the other
top players , as after the game they told me
they thought I was losing ! Now it is all over.
23 . . . e5 24 Hh4+ Oxh4 25 g x h4 Hd6

26 h5 Ae4 27 Oe7 Hbb6 28 Oxe5 He6
29 Of4 Black resigns
***
Game 2 5
q ueenside. When these notes were written

in 2003 , no one had even come close to re
futing it. On the contrary, it had g rown in
popu larity an d even Garry Kasparov used it
a number of times, once against me.
B o r i s G e l fa n d - A l exey S h i rov
C h a l k i d i k i 1 9 93
Sla v Defence [0 1 5J
Unfortunately, the Chal kid iki tournament has
a very short history, as only two versions of it
took place. But all the players who took part
in them remem ber with pleasure the warm
hospital ity of the organisers of this sea resort
event. Because of the awkward tournament
formula, I had to play fou r games against
Alexey there, and I won two of them in good
style.
a b c d
6
5
4
3
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 c3 f6 4 f3 a6
This variation was invented by the splen
did Moldavian trai ner and theoretician Vya
cheslav Chebanen ko and has become very
pop u lar of late. Despite its strange appear
ance, it has logic beh ind it. Black is prepar
ing . . . b7-b5 and all of Wh ite's repl ies have
their drawbacks : e2-e3 blocks in the bishop,
g5 al lows . . . e4, and a2-a4 weakens the
-------
5 e5
Traditionalists don't recommend movi ng a
piece twice in the open ing, and this move
cannot pose Black any serious problems.
H owever, it has its log ic. If Wh ite should
113
manage to play Af4 and e2-e3 (as in the

game) he can be happy with the outcome of
the open ing. Moreover, it is never pleasant
to be faced with a novelty, as you have to
work out at the board what you r opponent
has analysed at home
5 . . . bd7 6 cxd5!?
After 6 Af4 d xc4 7 xc4 b5 8 e5 A b7
fol lowed by . . . e7-e6 and . . . c6-c5 Alexey
achieved a good position against Korchnoi
(Vienna 1996) and Bel iavsky (Olympiad, Yere
van 1 996).
6 . . . cxd5
Th is standard reply to the novelty leaves
Wh ite with some advantage. I think that
6 . . . xe5 ! ? 7 d x e5 xd5 was better, and
this assessment was confirmed i n a n u m
ber o f games, e. g . 8 e 4 x c3 9 xd8+
c;!? xd8 1 0 b x c3 e6 1 1 a4 c;!? c7 12 h4 Ad7
1 3 a5 h6 14 .E!h3 Ae7 1 5 .E!f3 .E!af8 = (Oiz
dar- Schandorff, Olympiad , Moscow 1 994) .
7 Af4 e6 8 e3 b5 9 Ad3 Ab7 10 0-0 Ae7
a b c d
5
4
3
A} 1 2 e2 !? .E!c8 1 3 a5 0-0 14 c1 xe5

1 5 A x e5 e4 1 6 b3 ;t; (H O bner- Pieper
Emden , Bundesl iga 1 991 ) ;
B} 1 2 b1 N 0-0 1 3 a5 ;t; x e5 ( 1 3 . . . e4 !?
Bel iavsky) 14 A x e5 Ad6 1 5 A xd6 xd6
1 6 d2 e5 1 7 b3 Ac8 1 8 Ae2 .E!e8 1 9 .E!c1
h6 20 dxe5 xe5 21 tLld4 (Bel iavsky- Kallai ,
Hungarian League, Budapest 1 996) .
12 . . . 0-0 1 3 c1 xe5 14 dxe5

A very ambitious move. Wh ite gains the
d4 sq uare for his knight and d reams about
an attack on the kingside. Better was
14 A x e5 ! ? , with a slight advantage, similar
to the H O bner game.
14 . . . d7
14 . . . e4 !? was an alternative, but Alexey
wanted to keep open the possibility of at
tacking the e5 paw n .
1 5 b3 flc8
1 5 . . . c5 ? 1 6 tLl x c5 A x c5 1 7 A x h7+ c;!? x h7
18 'fWc2+ c;!? g8 19 'fWxc5 leaves Wh ite a pawn
up.
16 .e2
After 16 a5 tLlc5 the a5 pawn is a weakness.
1 6 . . . b6
1 6 . . . a5 1 7 d4 tLl c5 1 8 A b5 ;t; and White
maintai ns some pressu re.
6
5
4
3
2
--------
17 a5
17 .E!fc1 !? ;t; was more subtle, as the pawn on
a5 is more of a weakness than an asset.
17 . . .a7 18 flfc1 .a8! =
Both sides have almost completed their

development. Wh ite stands slightly better
than ks to the more active placing of his
pieces.
11 a4 b4 12 a2
The knight is head i ng for b3 , but it can go
there by different routes :
A strong defensive move, prepari ng to ex

change rooks on the c -fi le. 1 8 . . . c5 !?
was also i nteresting, as 1 9 xc5 (1 9 d4)
1 9 . . . .E!xc5 20 .E!xc5 x c5 ! (we both m issed
this possi bil ity; if 20 . . . A x c5 2 1 h5 g6
22 h4 ! intending Ag5 ) 21 A x a6 (21 'fW h5
g6 22 g4 is worth considering) 2 1 . . . A xa6
22 'fWxa6 'fWc2 gives Black sufficient counter
chances.
19 .h5
19 Ag3 .E!xc1 + 20 .E!xc1 .E!c8 =.
114
Game 25
Gelfand - Shirov, Chalkidiki 1 993
23 . . . .tdB
19 . . . g6 20 .g4
Intending h2-h4.
Black begin s a d i rect attack on the white

pawns. He had a wide choice of alternatives :
20. . . Dxc1 + 21 flxc1 DcB
A) 23 . . . cS 24 xcS EtxcS 2S AgS ;t ;
B) 23 . . . Etc4 !? was a tempting exchange sacrifice, as after 24 Axc4 dxc4 2S d4 cS 00

Wh ite's attack is over, h i s pieces are awk
ward ly placed , and Blac k will soon have a
far-advanced passed pawn ; it is better to
stick to the attacking plan 24 h4 d8 2S AgS
"(but not 2S hS gS) ;
5
4
3
2
____
L..._
.._
_
_
_
_
_
.....
_
_
C) d u ring the game I was m ostly worried

about the prophylactic 23 . . . g7 ! 24 h4 h6 oo ,
restricting White's attack ;
lf
22 fla1
Trying to avoid fu rther simplification . The
rook can be useful protecting the back rank
and the as pawn, a nd Black's rook h a s no
points of entry. 22 Etx c8+ x c8 23 h4 hS
24 VWh3 (24 g3 d8 ! 2S AgS AxgS 26 hxgS
c7 +) 24 . . . g7 (24 . . . cS 2S xcS x cS
26 g3, threatening AgS with the i n itiative)
25 g4 h8 26 Ag3 was good enough for
equal ity.
22 bB
22 . . . cS ? 23 xcS EtxcS 24 AgS allows
White control of the dark squares.
D) 2 3 . . . Af8 24 h 4 Ag7 2 S hS is similar to the

next note.
24 d4
A worthy alternative was 24 h4!? Ac7 2S hS
x eS (2S . . . A x eS 26 h xg6 h xg6 27 A xg6
fxg6 28 xg6+ f8 29 x e6 with danger
ous threats) 26 cS xd3 27 xd3 and
Wh ite's control of the dark squares g ives
him fu l l compensation for the pawn.
24 . . . c5
. . .
23 .g3!?
If 23 e2 a8 (i ntend ing . . . cS) 24 g4
b8 = .
a b c d
8
7
5
4
3
2
..
8
6
5
4
3
2
24 . . . EtcS deserved serious attention, as the

tempting 2S xe6 fxe6 26 A xg6 leads only
to a d raw after the cool-headed 26 . . . c7 !
27 A x h7+ (27 Etf1 f8) 27 . . . x h7 28 h3+
g8 29 VWxe6+ h7 30 VW h6+ g8 31 VWe6+.
24 . . . Ac7 is too provocative : 2S x e6 !
fxe6 26 A xg6 f8 (26 . . . A xeS 2 7 Ae8+ +-)
27 A hS+ h8 28 Af7 et:)g6 29 h3 (29 Axg6
Etg8) 29 . . . x eS 30 A x e6, or 26 . . . x eS
27 Ac2+ f7 28 h3, in both cases with
a strong attack for the piece.
25 Ab1
2S Ac2 b3 ! with counterplay.
25 . . . .txa5?
Too g reedy. B lack does not sense the dan
ger:
115
A) 25 . . . et)e4 26 Axe4 dxe4 27 h4 ;
29 hxg6 hxg6 30 Axg6! fxg6 31 flxg6+

hS
B) 2 5 . . . et)a4 2 6 h 4 gc1 + 2 7 h2 et)c5

28 h5 when Wh ite has dangerous threats,
but Black has a fine resource - 28 . . . gx b1 !
(28 . . . et)e4 29 A xe4 gxa1 30 h x g 6 d x e4
31 g xf7+ xf7 32 et)f5 +-) 29 gx b1 et) e4
30 h3 (30 f3 et)d2) 30 . . . et)xf2 31 f3 et)e4
with compensation ;
8
7
5
4
3 r--ioo...-2
C) 25 . . . g7 ! ? , as i n the note to Black's

23r d move, deserves consideration : 26 h4
(26 Ag5 et)d7 +) 26 . . . h6 00 .
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
26 h4!
26 gxa5?? et)e4 27 A xe4 gc1 #.
'--_______----=-__--'
26 . . . AdS 27 h5 flc7
a
8
I- ::::;.Ji"=
""
7
If
32 lic1 !
The key move of Wh ite's attack. The sacri
fice on c5 decides the game in a n u mber of
cases.
..
L--_______----=-__...J
32 . . . Dc7
If
27 . . . et)e4 28 A x e4 d x e4 29 h xg6 h xg6

30 et) xe6 +- destroying the black position .
2S Ah6!
32 . . . et)e4 33 gxc8 A xc8 34 et)c6 +-. Per

haps 32 . . . h7 was more stubborn : 33 e8+
(33 't'f h5 A b6) 33 . . . g8 34 h 5 A b6
(34 . . . h7 35 gxc5 ! gxc5 36 et) x e6 gc1 +
37 h2 (threatening 38 e8+ g8 39 Ag7+)
37 . . . Ac6 38 et)xd8 +-) 35 g3 ! (trying to bring
the rook to the h -fi le) 35 . . . e8 (35 . . . h7
36 g2) 36 't'fg4 't'f f7 (36 . . . gc7 37 gxc5
A x c5 38 et) x e6 ) 37 g2 et)e4 (37 . . . 't'f h7
38 't'f h 5) 38 Ag7+ x g7 39 gh1 + g8
40 xe6+ f8 41 x b6 +-.
33 f4
Creating a mating net around the black king.

28 hxg6 hxg6 29 Axg6 fxg6 30 xg6+ g7
31 e8+ f8 =.
2S . . . fle7?
Pro bably Black missed my 32 n d move, or
else he was d issatisfied with the position
arising after 28 . . . et)e4 29 Axe4 dxe4 30 Ag5
A xg5 31 't'fxg5, and if 31 . . . 't'fd8 32 't'fxd8+
gxd8 33 h6! , when , despite being a pawn
down , White keeps the i n itiative due to
Black's weak king and the numerous weak
nesses in his position.
The black pieces are too pinned to be able

to defend their king.
33 . . . flh7
Or 33 . . . A c8 34 Ag5 't'ff8 35 Af6+ ! A xf6
36 exf6 and now :
A) 36 . . . 't'fg8 3 7 h5+ ! (37 't'fxg8+ xg8
38 et) b3 a5 ! 39 gxc5 gxc5 40 et) x c5 f7 )
37 . . . gh7 (37 . . . h7 38 e5) 38 e5 or 38 f7 ;
B) 36 . . . a5 37 et) b5 gd7 38 't'fc2 't'fxf6
39 xc5 and Black's position is hopeless.
116
34
fleS+ figS
Game 26
a b c d
Shirov - Gelfand , Chalkidi ki 1993

35
Af8! Hf7 36 Oxd8 ctld3 37 Hc7 Hxc7

38 016+ ! Hg7 39 ctlxe6 Black resigns
3
2
L...-_________.....
{f
***
Game 2 6
Al exey S h i rov - B o r i s G e l fa n d
C h a l k i d i k i 1 9 93
Sicilian Defence [890]
1 e4 c5 2 ctlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ctlxd4 ctl16
5 ctlc3 a6 6 Ae3 e5
This line has been played ten times between
Alexey and myself. It is hard ly an overesti
mation to say that a large part of the cur
rent theory of this variation is based on our
games.
7 ctlb3 Ae6 8 f4
8 f3 (or 8 'tWd2 and 9 f3) is stronger and was
tested in seven of our encounters.
8 . . . exf4 9 Axf4 ctlc6
a b c d
5
4
3
2
{f
L...-_________
10 0e2
This idea of the strong Latvian theoret
ician Zigurds Lanka (who has helped Alexey
for many years) looks slightly artificial , but
White is trying to prevent . . . d6-d5, which
is strong after 1 0 'tWd2 d 5 ! 1 1 exd5 et) xd5
12 et) xd5 'tWxd5 1 3 'tWxd5 A xd5 14 0-0-0
0-0-0 15 Ae2 g6 with a very drawish
position (Yudasin - Gelfand , I nterzonal , Siel
1 993) .
N ow 1 0 . . . d5 doesn't work because of
11 exd5 (11 0-0-0 Ag4) 11 . . . et) xd5 12 0-0-0
with an unpleasant pin.
10 . . . Ae7
Th is was the third time that I had this pos
ition with Alexey. In our two previous games
I played 10 . . . a5 11 O-O-O! (Shirov finds a
strong improvement over our game in Paris,
sacrificing the exchange for the in itiative ;
1 1 et) b5 Ae7 1 2 et)3d4 et) xd4 1 3 et) xd4 0-0
14 et) x e6 fxe6 15 0-0-0 'tW b6 d i d n 't bri ng
White any advantage in Shirov- Gelfand, Im
mopar, Paris rapid 1 992) 1 1 . . . Ag4 12 'tW b5
A xd1 (1 2 . . . a4 13 et)d4 A xd1 14 et) xc6 bxc6
1 5 'tWx c6+ et)d7 1 6 et) xd1 ) 1 3 'tWx b7 Ag4 !
(13 . . . 'tWc8 ? 14 'tWx c8+ xc8 1 5 xd1 and
Wh ite has more than sufficient compensa
tion for the exchange, as his bishops are
strong and the a5 pawn is weak) 14 A b5
117
Ad7 15 A xc6 Ik8 ! 16 xa5 A xc6 17 xc6

d7! 18 a5 (White has won a second pawn
for the exchange and it's time to change
the course of events) 1 8 . . . E!.xc3 ! 19 b x c3
x b7 20 x b7 x e4 21 E!.e1 d5 (Black is
only a pawn down, Wh ite's queenside pawns
are weak, the kn ight at e4 is excellently
placed , and this gives Black sufficient com
pensation) 22 d6+ (22 c4 A b4) 22 . . . A xd6
23 Axd6 d7 24 A b4 f5 ! 55 (Shirov-Gelfand,
I nterzonal , BieI 1 993) .
a b c d
8
7
1 1 . . . d7 1 2 0-0-0 ce5!
1 2 . . . de5 is not very log ical, as the c6 kn ight
blocks the line of the rook.
1 3 d5
Antici pating . . . E!.c8 x c3 , a typical positional
threat in the Sicil ian Defence, Wh ite goes
ahead with his plan .
1 3 . . . .txd5 14 Elxd5
14 exd5 0-0 + and I don't see a plan for
White.
14 . . . 0-0 15 h4 Dc8
15 . . . c7 !?
1 6 g4
Wh ite is fig hti n g for the f6 sq uare - it is i m
portant to leave the e7 bishop out of play.
From f6 it could have become an i m portant
part of Black's attack (16 g3 b6 17 E!.d1
Af6 +).
1 6 . . . 't!fc7 17 g5 b6 18 Eld4?
8
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
a b c d
1 1 h3
To make it possible to castle. Despite the
satisfactory resu lt of the open i n g duel, I
was looki ng for something better. And one
even i n g , when I was fal l i n g asleep, an idea
suddenly appeared i n my head . Black should
put his kn ights o n e5 and d7, followed by
. . . E!.c8 w ith the threat of . . . E!.xc3 .
...
9 h
It is u nderstandable that Wh ite should try to

prevent the expansion of Black's knight to
a4, but he obviously missed my reply. 18 E!.d1
a4 ! 19 E!.h3 ! was better.
White prepares 20 d4, as 20 . . . . b6 would
be met by 2 1 E!.b3. If 19 d4 b6, or 19 h5
b5 20 A h3 E!.ce8, while 19 A h3 E!.cd8 20 d4
c4 21 b3 allows the n ice tactical shot
21 . . . d5 ! , and if 22 Axc7 Aa3+ 23 b1 c3+
24 a1 A b2#.
Now Black has the following options :
A) t h e immed iate 1 9 . . . c4 20 x c4 xc4
21 Axc4 E!.xc4 22 d4 gives White an edge,
as Black's pieces are very poorly coordi
nated ;
B) 1 9 . . . b5 seemed tem pting d u ri n g the
game, but after 20 d4 (20 A x e5 d xe5
21 E!.hd3 E!.fd8 =) 20 . . . E!.fe8 (20 . . . c4 21 b3
and I was u nable to fi nd sufficient com pen
sation for the piece) 21 h5 Af8 22 g6 Wh ite
is the first to beg i n an attack ;
C) 1 9 . . . E!.fe8 ! 20 h5 c4 (after the inclusion
of . . . E!.fe8 this is stronger) 21 x c4 xc4
22 A x c4 E!.xc4 23 d4 c5 24 f5 (24 b3
E!.xd4 25 E!.xd4 e6 is w i n n i n g for Black)
24 . . . xe4 w ith an equal position.
18 . . . a5!
Threaten ing . . . a4-a3.
19 Dh3
The pawn can be won only tem porari ly:
19 x a5 E!.a8 20 b5 (20 b3 E!.xa2 and
118
Game 26
Shirov - Gelfand , Chalkidiki 1 993
White is helpless against the threats of

. . . eDa4 and . . . EUa8) 20 . . JUc8 ! 21 c3 gxa5 !
22 f#xa5 eDc6 23 f#c5 dxc5 24 Axc7 gxc7 + .
After 19 A h3 a4 20 eDa1 gce8 2 1 a3 d5 Black
stands better, and 19 b1 a4 20 eDc1 a3 se
riously damages the wh ite ki ng's defences,
but 19 a3 !? a4 20 eD a1 + was worth consid
ering, intending to bring the knight back into
play by c2-c3 and eD c2-b4.
19
. .
a4 20 a1
24 . . . Axh4? wou ld have given Wh ite a strong

attack on the h -fi le: 25 h 5 ! (25 b5 Af2 ! ;
2 5 e5 gxe5 2 6 A x b6 Ag5+ 27 Ae3 gxe3
28 gxe3 f# b6 ; 25 Axb6 f#xb6 26 f#c4+ h8
27 x a4 +) and if 25 . . . Af6 26 A x b6 x b6
27 Ac4+ h8 28 gh1 h6 29 g6 +-.
2S .bSI d7
After 25 . . . A x c3 ? 26 A x b6 Black loses ma
terial .
26 ged3
26 ga3 eDc5 27 A x c5 d x c5 28 gxa4 eD d4 =t
doesn 't solve White's problems.
26 . . . eS 27 gxd6 xe4
27 . . . a3 ? is sim ply a b l u nder because of
28 gxf6 ! .
28 1l6d3
Or 28 gd7 g3 29 g7d3 eD e5 30 ga3 Ae7
31 Ac5 x h4.
a b c d
8
7
6
5
20 gc3 ? a x b3 ! 21 gxc7 b x a2 -+ and d e

spite t h e extra q ueen , nothing can stop the
a2 pawn . N ow the knight at a1 is out of the
game, so Black must act energetically to
achieve something before it gets back.
..
8
6
5
4
3
2
20 . . . f61 21 ge3
I
th ink that Wh ite missed a good practical

chance - 21 g6 ! ? , blocking the f8 rook and
the e7 bishop. After 21 . . . eD xg6 22 A h2 eDe5
23 gc3 he has defi nite com pensation for the
pawn.
21 . . . e6
21 . . . f#d8!?
22 gd1 fxgS 23 .txgS gee8

Another strong possibil ity was 23 . . . Axg5+ !?
24 hxg5 gce8 25 g6!? d 5 ! (25 . . . h6 !?)
26 gx h7+ h8 27 gf3 gxf3 28 f#xf3 d x e4
with a clear advantage.
24 .te3 .tf6
28 eSII +
The key move of the game. After the ex
change of queens Black's great advantage is
indisputable. As Sergey Dolmatov once ex
plained to me, it is usefu l to exchange pieces
when one of your opponent's pieces is out of
play. He com pared it with ice -hockey, where
a 5 against 4 advantage is hard to convert
i nto a goal , with 4 against 3 it is easier, and
with 3 against 2 it is sim ply a piece of cake.
29 1la3
29 x e5 eD xe5 30 ga3 eDg4 + . 29 gd5
g3 30 g5d3 transposes into the line with
28 gd7.
119
. . .
29
. . .
36 .lxe4+
xb5 30 .lxb5
36 Ad7 ga8 37 Ae6+ h8 38 a4 A x h4.
36 . . . g3xe4-+
Wh ite cannot maintain the material balance
and the bishop is a m uch better piece than
the knight.
37 h5 gh4 38 gd5 .le3 39 c!>b1

39 ge7 gh1 + 40 gd1 A b2+.
39 ... gh1 + 40 e1 h6
Making use of the pin on the back rank,
Black switches his bishop to gS.
41 a4 .lf6 42 Ded2 .lg5 43 Dd1
30 . . . e3!
8
7
6
8
7
6
5
31 bxe3
31 !;.xc3 A xc3 32 AcS !;'fS -+ , or 31 Ac4+
h8 32 !;'d3 bS ! -+.
31 . . . gxe3 32 gxa4
32 Axc6 bxc6 33 !;.xa4 !;'h3 +.
4
3
2
3
2
32 . . . gxe3
. 1
32 . . . !;'h3 33 tD b3 !;'xh4 34 !;.xh4 A x h 4

3 S tDcS allows Wh ite counter-chances.
9 h
33 b3
After a long absence the knight is back i n
the game, but Wh ite's weak pawns a nd the
continuing possibility of an attack against his
king leave him with few chances. If 33 !;'d7
!;.cS .
33 . . . e5!
A precise m ove. As often happens, the
knight is excel lently placed i n the centre.
33 . . . !;'h3 allows counterplay by 34 tDcS,
while after 33 . . . !;.c8 34 !;'d3 ! (34 !;.c4 ?
tD b4 ! -+ ; 34 Ad 3!?) Black has only a slight
advantage.
34
..
An im portant nuance.
ge4 gfe8 35 ge2 e4!
43
. . .
gh2?
This over-su btle move could have created a

headache for B lack. The s im ple 43 . . . gxh5
would have ensured an easy win.
44
gb5 gexe2 45 d3 .lf6 46 gf1 ?
46 gh1 ! was an excellent chance. After

46 . . . gcg2 47 gx h2 gxh2 48 as White forces
the exchange of one pair of rooks, captures
the b7 pawn and pushes his a-pawn with
good drawing chances.
46 . . . Da2
Now it is all over.
3S . . . gh3 36 gde1 !? with counterplay, but not

36 gxeS A xeS 37 Ad7 gcc3 -+.
***
120
47 Dxf6 g xf6 48 Dxb7 Dxa4 49 D b8+

c!>f7 50 D b7+ c!>e8 51 Db8+ White re
signs
Game 27
Gelfand - Adams, FIDE Candidates Match (4), Wijk aan Zee 1994
Game 27
B o r i s G e l fa n d - M i c h a e l A d a m s
F I D E C a n d i d ates M at c h (4) ,
Wij k aan Zee 1 9 94
Queen 's Gambit A ccepted [020J
The refined positional style and excellent
calculating abil ity of M ichael Adams made
him an extremely dangerous opponent right
from h is yout h , and h is abi lity to concentrate
and keep cool d u ring a game has become
legendary. I lost to him on the tie -break in
the final of the Ti lburg I nterpolis tournament
in 1992 and a few weeks before our match
he won the P CA Qual ifying Tournament. So,
this was a match between the winners of
the Qualifying (or Interzonal) Tournaments in
both of the world championsh ip cycles.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e3
My opponent's first move was already a sur
prise, as i n those days M ichael normally
played the Ben ko Gambit or the N i mzo
Indian Defence. So, in order to avoid his
preparation I deviated from 3 e4 and 3 ttlf3,
as I normally used to play.
tt:J
The pawn structure has been determ i ned .

Wh ite has an isolated pawn and some space
advantage, but he also has a big tru m p : his
lig ht-sq uare bishop is clearly stronger than
its black cou nterpart. Black will have to play
extremely accurately if he wants to neutralise
Wh ite's initiative.
Robert Hu bner, a great expert in the hand ling

of these positions, preferred 8 . . . tDbd7 9 ttlc3
ttl b6 10 A b3 tDbd5 as the knight looks more
sensible on d5 than on c6.
9 clilc3
Th is is a well- known theoretical position
from . . . the Petroff Defence. It arises via the
fol lowing move order: 1 e4 e5 2 ttlf3 ttlf6
3 ttl xe5 d6 4 ttlf3 ttl xe4 5 d4 d5 6 Ad3 Ae7
7 0-0 ttl c6 8 c4 ttlf6 9 ttl c3 0-0 1 0 h3 d x c4
1 1 A x c4. And , as also as i n the 6 th game
of our match (p. 1 25) , such transpositions
favoured me, as I was more famil iar with the
resulting positions.
9 clila5 1 0 Ad3 Ae6 11 ge1 clilc6 12 a3

Od6
. . .
. . .
e5
Black usually transposes i nto the main line

after 3 . . . ttlf6 4 Axc4 e6, but, lacking experi
ence in this opening, my opponent narrows
down White's choice.
4 Axc4 exd4 5 exd4 clilf6 6 clilf3 Ae7

7 0-0 0-0 8 h3
a b c d
..
h
8
7
6
Preventing the bishop from alighting on f4.

After 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 Ae3 (13 Af4 occurred in
the last, 48 th ga me o f t h e u nfi n ished Kas
parov - Karpov, World Championsh ip Match,
M oscow 1 984/85 - 1 3 . . . d7 14 ttl e5 ttl x e5
1 5 d xe5 ttl d5 1 6 ttl xd5 A xd5 1 7 c2 g6
1 8 gad1 with advantage to Wh ite) 1 3 . . . ttld5
14 c2 h6 1 5 gad1 Ad6 1 6 A c1 ttl ce7
1 7 ttl e4 ttlf4 1 8 Af1 Wh ite stands bet
ter (Ivanchuk- Rokhmanov, World U nder-20
Qual ifying Tournament, Klai peda 1985). Both
of these games orig inated from the Petroff
Defence.
13 Ae3 clild5 14 Oc2 <!>h8
3
2
14 . . . h6 15 gad1 ;!;; followed by Ac1 was simi

lar to the afore -mentioned little-known game
of the young Vasily Ivanchuk.
121
a b c d
C) 1 7 . . . g6 1 8 d 5 ! (18 A x g6? A b3) 1 8 . . . Af5

(18 . . . A xd5 1 9 Etxd5 x h7 20 Ac1 a6
2 1 d2 with a dangerous attack) 1 9 d2
(19 e2 x h7 20 d xc6 a6 21 xa6 bxa6
22 d4 is probably even stronger) 1 9 . . . a5
(or 1 9 . . . x h7 20 d x c6 b x c6 21 d4 with a
clear advantage)
6
5
4
5
4
3
t-=""-"'"-I-"'2
2
9 h
tr
1 5 gad1
The alternative was 15 e4 !? d7 (15 . . . d8
16 g3 ;t ) 16 eg5 (16 g3 f5 with coun
terplay) 1 6 . . . A xg5 (16 . . . f5 1 7 x e6 x e6
18 Ag5 ;t ) 1 7 xg5 h6 1 8 xe6 fxe6 ;t .
1 5 . . . f51
Black has a very cramped position , so it
is understandable that he wants to control
some more squares. But the weakening of
the a2-g8 d iagonal will soon become i m
portant. 15 . . . xc3 1 6 bxc3 xa3 was more
consistent.
Analysis diagram after 19 . . . tZJa5
20 Ac5 !! (vacating the route to h6 for the

queen) 20 . . . xc5 21 h6 +-;
0) 17 . . . A b3 (this is the most com p l icated
possibility) 1 8 f5 g6 (18 . . . A x d1 1 9 h5)
1 9 f4 ! x h7 20 h6+ g8, and now :
0 1 ) 21 g 5 ? does not work: 2 1 . . . A xg5
22 A xg5 d6 23 Ete4 A x d1 24 Eth4 A h5
25 g4 (25 Etxh5 g x h5 26 Af6 xf6 27 xf6
Etfe8) 25 . . . Etae8 ! 26 g x h5 Ete1 + 27 g2
d5+ -+ ;
02) hard ly sufficient is 21 Eta1 d6 22 Af4
f6, or 22 . . . d7 23 e5 e8 ;
03) 21 Ag5 ! Axd1 (21 . . . f6 10ses to 22 xg6+
h8 23 Ete4 ! fxg5 24 xg5 A xg5 25 h5+
g7 26 xg5+ with mate in three moves)
I had intended playing 17 Etb1 d6 (17 . . . d8

18 c4) 18 Etx b7 Etab8 w ith some advantage.
After the game my seconds for this matc h ,
Alexander H uzman a n d Valery Atlas, found
the agg ressive 1 7 A x h7 ! , when the play
becomes forcing and Black has several
choices :
A) 1 7 . . . a2 1 8 xa2 A xa2 1 9 Ae4 ;
B) 1 7 . . . b3 1 8 Et b1 ! x c2 1 9 A x c2 and
White's advantage is obvious ;
122
Analysis diagram after 21 2g51 2xd1
Game 27
tt)
Gelfand -Adams, FIDE Candidates Match (4), Wijk aan Zee 1 994
22 gxe7 ! (I think that this is stronger than

22 A x e7 !? 'ffix e7 23 f1:) g S ! (23 gxe7 A xf3 !
24 gxc7 AdS 00 ) 2 3 . . . 'ffix gS (23 . . . 'ffix e1 + ?
24 h2 +-) 24 'ffix gS Ac2 2S dS ! with the
initiative) 22 gxe7 ! 'ffid 6 (the only move ; if
22 . . . f1:) x e7 23 Af6) 23 gd7 ! (after 23 ge4 ?
Axf3 24 gh4 (24 g xf3 fS ! 2S gh4 f7 -+)
24 . . . A hS 2S gxhS g x hS 26 Af6 'ffix f6
27 'ffix f6 gfe8 Wh ite is fighting for a d raw)
23 gd7 ! 'ffie 6 (again the only move ; if
23 . . . 'ffix d7 24 Af6) 24 dS 'ffifS 2S f1:) h4 !
(Wh ite keeps fighting for the f6 square)
25 . . .' eS (2S . . . ttld4 26 cxd4) 26 dxc6 (White
also has winning chances after 26 f1:) xg6!?
'tWg7 27 ttl xf8 f1:) eS 28 ge7 gxf8 29 'ffix g7+
(29 gxeS f6) 29 . . . xg7 30 gxeS ;t ) 26 . . . Ac2
27 ttlf3 ! 'ffix c3 (27 . . . 'ffig 7 28 'ffi h 4 ! (28 c x b7
gab8 29 'ffix g7+ xg7 30 ttld4 Ae4 31 ttle6+
g8 32 ttl xf8 xf8 ;t ) 28 . . . AfS 29 gd4 ! fol
lowed by Af6, but not 29 Af6 gS or 29 gxc7
bxc6 30 Af6 'ffi h7) 28 'ffi h 4 ! (28 gd4 is
simpler) 28 . . . 'ffi h 8 (forced) 29 'ffix h8+ x h8
30 Af6+ g8 (30 . . . h7 31 ttlgS+ +-) 31 gd4
g5 32 ttlxgS.
17 . . . AfS 18 Dde1 Ae8

18 . . . Ag8? 1 9 f1:) bS +- 'ffid 7 20 AxfS.
1 9 Ae4!
Gaining control of the a2-g8 diagonal . Only
a temporary advantage would have been
achieved by 19 ttlbS ?! 'ffid7 20 ttleS ? (20 Ac4
a6 21 AxdS 'ffix dS 22 ttlxc7 ttl xd4 23 ttl xd4
'ffix d4) 20 . . . AxeS 21 dx eS a6 22 e6 'ffie7 .
1 9 . . . xe3
1 9 . . . f1:) b6 ? 20 f1:) bS 'ffid 7 2 1 Ae6 +-, or
19 . . . ttlf4 20 Axf4 'tWxf4 21 ttldS 'ffid 6 22 ttlxf6
'ffix f6 23 dS and again the wh ite pieces
dominate the board .
20 bxe3 h 6 2 1 a4?!
Played with the idea of 'ffia2 and A a3 in
mind . But the immediate 21 h 4 was stronger,
as it renews the threat of f1:) gS. I n gen
eral Black's pieces are bad ly placed , which
should lead to Wh ite's attack being decisive.
21 . . . b6 22 h4!
Return in g to the right pat h . 22 'ffia2 ?! f1:) aS
23 Aa3 cS does not achieve its goal .
22 . . . a5 23 Aa2 e5
a b c d
4
3
2
A picturesque position . Black has no defence

against gh4. Al l these variations, although
they are not ind isputable, allow us to assess
the position as better for Wh ite.
...;:;....
L...-_______
15 . . . gad 8! ;t was a reasonable alternative,

when Wh ite has some advantage.
16 Ae1 gad8 17 ge2!

The e6 bishop has been deprived of support,
which Wh ite exploits to seize control of the
e-file.
----I 11
24 g5!
Launching an attack on the king. 24 f1:)eS
AxeS 2S dxeS 'tWe7 allows Black to stabilise
the position .
123
24 . . . Aa6?!
Th is loses qu ickly. The alternatives were :

A) 24 . . . cxd4? 25 tilf7+ E!xf7 26 A xf7 d3
27 E!e8+ h7 28 h5! +- and if 28 . . . d x c2
29 Ag6#;
B) 24 . . . hxg5? 25 h xg5 cxd4 26 d3 ! +-;
The point of White's idea. In view of the threat

of 28 A b1 Black is forced to liqu idate into an
absol utely hopeless endgame.
27
. .
f7
27 . . . E!f6 28 E!e8+ E!f8 29 A b1 , or 27 . . . Axh4

28 A b1 A xf2+ 29 h1 .
C) 24 . . . c4 25 tile6 Axe6 26 E!xe6 ;
28 .xf7 Dxf7 29 hxg5 cxd4 30 cxd4
0) 24 . . . c7 ! (the strongest) and now :

01 ) 25 d5 c4 ! 26 til e6 A x e6 27 d x e6 E!d3
28 Ad2 ;t (28 E!e3 A x c3 29 E!1 e2 E!fd8 with
cou nterplay, or 28 A a3 E!e8 29 A b4 til c6
30 Axc4 til x b4 31 cxb4 E!c3) ;
02) 25 d x c5 ! bxc5 26 til e6 A x e6 27 A x e6
A x h 4 (27 . . . f4 28 h5 ) 28 A xf5 til c4 and
White's advantage, although clear, is not de
cisive.
25 De6 .d7
In view of time trouble I chose the safest con

tinuation . Wh ite is two pawns up and now it
is only a matter of time.
Also possible was 30 gxh6!?, or 30 g6 !?, and
if 30 . . . E!ff8 (30 . . . E!f5 31 E!e8+ E!f8 32 E!8e7
til c6 33 A x h 6 til x e7 34 E!xe7 E!g8 35 c xd4)
31 Ax h 6! gxh6 32 E!e7.
30
. .
Ac4 31 De8+
31 A xc4 til xc4 32 g x h6.
a b c
Dxe8 32 Dxe8+ cc!?h7 33 Ab1 + g6

34 g x h6 c6 35 Ae3 De7 36 Dc8 Ad5
37 Ad3 b4 38 Ae2 Ae6 39 Dd8 d5
40 Ag5 Dd7 41 De8 Af7 42 D b8 Ae6
43 .1f3 Df7 44 Dd8 Df5 45 Ad2 f6
46 Da8 g5 47 Dxa7+ cc!?xh6 48 Da6 d7
49 a5 Db5 50 axb6 Black resigns
31
8
7
3
2
L...-_______....:_
:....
..
'lf
26 .xf5!
This simple but elegant tactical blow decides
the outcome of the game.
26 . . . Axg5
Forced : if 26 . . . hxg5 27 h xg5 +-.
27 .g6! +* * *
124
Game 28
ct:J
Gelfand -Adams, FIDE Candidates Match (6), Wijk aan Zee 1994
Game 2 8
B o r i s G e lfa n d - M i ch a e l Ad a m s
F I D E Can d i d ates M at c h (6) ,
Wij k aan Zee 1 9 94
Pirc - Ufim tse v Defence [B0 7J
like this game, because on a n u m ber
of occasions the course cou ld have been
changed by a positional sacrifice of the ex
change or the queen .
1 d4 d6 2 e4 f6 3 f3
Black wants to play a Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence,
but I prefer to go into a King's I nd ian after
3 . . . g6 4 c4.
3 . . . d5!?
Black doesn't m ind losing a tem po, as the
pawn on f3 doesn 't help Wh ite. 3 . . . eS 4 dS
is a different story, and it occurred in another
game between us in the Fontys Tou rnament,
Tilburg 1 996.
4 e5 fd7 5 f4 c5 6 f3 c6
3
2
--------
7 . . . b6 8 ttlc3 e6 would have transposed

into a French Defence, but it has never been
part of Adams's repertoire. In modern chess
it q u ite often happens that the fig ht i n the
open ing is not for an advantage, but for the
obtain in g of a position that is fami l iar to a
player and less fami liar to his opponent.
8 xd4 xd4 9 Axd4 b8!?

The kn ight is head ing for c6, where it will
attack t h e centre.
10 c3 c6
10 . . . e6.
11 Ab5
Trying to gain control of the dark squares. A
sl ight but lasting advantage could have been
ach ieved with the less ambitious 11 Af2 !? e6
1 2 Ad3 ;!;; , which was tried later in the game
Sadler- Hodgson, (Bundesl iga 1 998/99).
1 1 . . . e6
1 1 . . . AfS was i nteresting . However, at some
point the bishop cou ld have come under at
tack by g2-g4.
1 2 a3!?
12 d2 wou ld have led to double -edged
play : 1 2 . . . aS 1 3 a3 Ad7 14 A x c6 bxc6
1 S 0-0 cS 1 6 b4 c7 ! (16 . . . c x b4 1 7 a x b4
xb4 18 E{fb1 +-) 17 bxcS AxcS 18 E{f3 00 . Or
1 2 0-0 Ad7 13 fS h4!? 00 .
12 . . . Ad7
1 2 . . . A e7 13 d2 0-0 14 A xc6 bxc6
1S ttla4 and the bishop at c8 is shut in.
13 Axc6
a b c d
7 Ae3! N
This idea was invented d u ring my prepa
rations for the match together with Evgeny
Agrest, who is now a Swed ish g randmas
ter. Previously the weaker 7 c3 cxd4 8 cxd4
etJ b6 was played , when Black activates his
light-square bishop, which would be more
problematic i n the game. 7 c4 is another
possibil ity.
7 . . . cxd4
125
3
2
1"""--=""'
....,--
3
2
17 . . . hS
1 3 . . . .txc6?
Now Wh ite's positional advantage is un
q uestioned . Strong measures were cal led
for: 13 . . . bxc6 ! 14 a4 (intending cS)
14 . . . aS+ 1S c3 cS 16 xcS AxcS 17 b4
The bishop exchange favou rs Wh ite : 17 . . .

AcS 1 8 .Etc3 Axd4+ 1 9 xd4 .
1 8 a4!
Starting to exert pressure agai nst a new
weakness - the b6 pawn . 18 .Eth3 !?
18 . . . .tcS
18 . . . as 19 f2 or 18 . . . Ae7 19 as !? would not
have solved Black's problems.
1 9 Dc3 .te7
Bad is 1 9 . . . A b4 ? 20 .Etxc6 ! xc6 21 xb4.
20 b4! 1!fb7
20 . . . A x b4 21 .Etxc6 xc6 22 x b4 +-.
1 7 . . . A xd4 ! ! (17 . . . A x b4 1 8 ax b4 is hard ly
sufficient) 18 bxaS Axc3+ 1 9 f2 O-O ! (Black
needs his dark-square bishop to d isturb
the opponent's king ; 19 . . . A xa1 20 xa1 ;
1 9 . . . AxaS !?) 20 .Etc1 AxaS followed by . . . f7f6. Black has just two bishops and a pawn
for the queen , but Wh ite's king is misplaced
and may come under attack.
21 gb3 .td7 22 e3 gc8

22 . . . a6 allows 23 fS ! .
8
7
8
7
6
14 0-0
Threatening f4-fS .
3
2
14 . . . 96 1 S 1!fd2 1!fc7 1 6 D13 b6

a
4
3
2
f
_
.....
'-----------""-
23 as?!
9 h
17 d1 !
White regroups his pieces. The place for his
kn ight is on e3 , while h i s rooks will aim for
the queenside.
White has rearranged his pieces and it is

time to begin a breakthrough . However, con
fronted with a wide range of possibil ities,
I failed to choose the best contin uation. I
was unable to decide on the best move after
23 fS ! AgS (bad is 23 . . . g x fS 24 xfS ! exf5
2S e6 .Etg8 26 exd7+ xd7 27 .Etf1 +-) 24 fxg6
(24 f6 !? deserves attention, as it ham pers
Black even more) 24 . . .fxg6 2S lWd1 f7 ,
although the wh ite position is very menacing.
23 d3!? is also possible, maintaining both
threats, 24 fS and 24 as.
126
Game 28
Gelfand -Adams, FIDE Candidates Match (6), Wijk aan Zee 1994
ttJ
23 . . . .tb5!
23 . . . bS 24 fS ! +-
24 axb6 a6!
8
7
7
6
A} 28 . . . e8 29 g4 ! (29 c4 ? d xc4 30 tLl xc4
A x c4 31 tf xc4 tf x b6 ! =) 29 . . . Ad8 (29 . . . h4
30 fS) 30 g x hS g x h S 31 c!> f2 +- followed by
gg1-g8 ;
4
3
2
---""
L...-_______
--' 'If
_
_
overlooked this reply. At the cost of a pawn ,

Black stabilises the position on the q ueen
side, and if he should manage to win it
back (the pawn on b6 is hard to defend) , his
position will be defensible. After 24 . . . a x b6
25 gba3 White seizes the a-file.
25 flc3 d7?
a b c d
B} 28 . . . gxcS !! (a fine resource) 29 bxcS tfc6

30 c!> h1 (Wh ite is u nsuccessful with 30 b7
c!> c7 ! (30 . . . A xcS ? 31 b8tLl +) , or 30 c4 A xc4
31 b7 c!> c7 32 tf b2 A bS} 30 . . . AxcS 31 tfd2
tfxb6 ;t with chances of defend ing success
fu l ly.
26 flc5!
Having created an outpost on cS, White can
open up the game with help of his c -pawn.
26 . . . flxc5
e
8
7
5
I-::'
4
I--""",-"=-F''''"","",,,,
3
2
After 26 . . . AxcS both 27 bxcS !? and 27 AxcS

are strong .
8
7
6
27 bxc5
27 A x cS ! +- fol lowed by 28 c4 was even
stronger.
4
3
2
L--_______--=-_---I
27 . . . flc8 28 c4 dxc4
28 . . . A xc4 29 tLl x c4 d x c4 30 Af2+ c!> e8
(30 . . . tfdS 31 tfc2 c!> e8 32 tfa4+ +-) 31 tf b4
and White should win easily.
'If
29 flc1 e8 30 xc4 Od5
Too frivolous. Black should have calculated

a l engt hy variation : 2S . . . gxc3 ! 26 tfxc3 c!> d7
(not, of cou rse, 26 . . . 0-0 27 g4 ! with a mat
ing attack) 27 AcS (27 tfd2 gc8 and if 28 c4
dxc4 with counterplay) 27 . . . gc8 (27 . . . g b8
28 d4 Ad8 29 c4 Ac6 30 bS +-) 28 tfd4
and now :
30 . . . gxcS 31 tLl d6+ A xd6 32 A xcS A x cS+

33 gxcS tf x b6 was hardly enough for sur
vival .
31 a5
31 tLl d6+ A xd6 32 exd6 seems obvious,
but the position after 32 . . . Ac6 fol lowed
by . . . a6-aS was not completely clear to me.
127
8 1_"'-'-7
8
7
6
3
2
31 . . . Acs
31 . . . A xc5 32 gxc5 gxc5 33 b7 +-, or
31 . . . gd8 32 b7 Ac6 33 b2 Ax b7 34 x b7
xd4+ 35 xd4 gxd4 36 c6 +-.
From the practical point of view 31 . . . gxc5 !?
was stronger:
A) 32 b7 ? looks to be easily winning. H ow
ever, Black has an incred i ble defensive re
source - 32 . . . gxc1 + 33 xc1 xd4+ 34 c;!? h1
..
36 xg2 gxd1 + 37 Ag1 A xg2+ 38 c;!? xg2

g b1 39 A a7 Ad 8 ! 40 b8 gx b8 41 A xb8
Axa5) 35 . . . xc6 36 gb1 gb8 37 b2 +- fol
lowed by 38 A a7 ;
B2) 32 . . . A a4 !? 33 b7 gb5 34 gc1 A b4
35 b2 !? (probably even stronger than
35 f2 A x a5 36 gc8+ c;!? d7 37 b8 f#
gx b8 38 gx b8 with good winning chances)
35 . . . c;!? d7 (35 . . . A x a5 36 b8 + Ad8 37
2 x b5+ x b5 38 d6 +-) 36 c6 Ad6
(36 . . . x c6 37 gxc6 c;!? x c6 38 a1 c;!? xb7
39 x a4) 37 b8 + ! ? (or 37 a1 ) 37 . . . c;!? e8
(37 . . . gx b8 38 x b8+ A x b8 39 Ae3)
38 exd6! +- gx b2 39 d7+ c;!? f8 40 d8 +
xd8 41 xd8.
32 .te3 Oe4 33 xcS OxcS 34 h3?1

34 e2 fol lowed by f3 was s impler (the
same manoeuvre was also possible a little
later), but, being slightly short of time, I over
looked this possibil ity.
34 . . . 0b5
35 Oc2 OcS 3S h2
36 e2 ! .
3S . . . a5 37 ga1
37 e2 ! .
37 . . . gaS 38 ga4 h4 39 Oa2 Ob5 40 Oc4
OcS 41 Oa2 Ob5
a b c d
8 X
7
34 . . . b6 !! 35 c8+ A d8 36 b8 (36 c6
A xc6 37 b8 x b8 38 x b8 as )
36 . . . xa5 00 with good chances of surviving.
Despite his extra q ueen , White h as no tar
gets to attack. An analogy with the position
exami ned i n the com ment on Black's 1 3 t h
move inevitably comes to mi nd ! ;
8
7
6
5
4
--------
42 cSI
B) 32 gd1 ! i s stronger:
B 1 ) 32 . . . gc8 (passive) 33 b7 gd8 34 c;!? h1
Ac6 (34 . . . A a4 35 A b6 A xd1 (35 . . . xd2
36 gxd2) 36 xd5 exd5 37 Axd8) 35 xc6
(avoiding the trap 35 A b6 ?? xg2+ !
By exchanging one of his passed pawns,

White activates his pieces and this, together
with the b-pawn , decides the outcome of the
game.
128
Game 29
42 xe6 43 Hxa5 Hb8 44 Ha7 .e4

44 . . . Ad8 45 a3 ! , and Wh ite controls the
a3-f8 d iagonal .
a b c d
. . .
45
.b3 8 46 Hd7
46 ... g5 47 Hd4!
Now Black's kingside is weakened as wel l ,
cutting short his resistance.
. . .
9 h
8
7
6
5
4
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Activating the rook and threatening b6-b7.
47
CD
Gelfand - Topalov, Dos Hermanas 1 994
f5
2
a b c d
47 . . . b7 48 .E!c4 g xf4 49 .E!xf4 +-.
'lJ
9 h
48 He4! Hb7
51 Ad4! .e4 52 .f3 Black resigns
48 . . . gxf4 49 A xf4 +-.
49 He8+ g7 50 He7 g xf4

50 . e4 51 .E!x b7 gxf4 52 Af2 (52 .E!xe7 fxe3
is far from clear) 52 . . . x b7 53 f3.
. .
In view of 52 . . . xd4 53 .E!x b7 (53 x b7 ? !

x e5 !) 5 3 . . . Ac5 5 4 g4+ a n d mate, Black
resigned .
***
Game 2 9
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Ve s e l i n To p a l ov
Du tch Defence [A 89]
Although I have a negative score with

Veselin, I have won number of games against
him as wel l , and of these this is the one that
I like most. It enabled me to take the lead in
this prestigious event, which I was able to
maintain right to the end. Vesel i n was already
a dangerous opponent and it was clear that
he was going to keep on improving. And for
already ten years now he has almost per
manently been ranked among the best 5- 1 0
players i n the world. H e never hesitates to
play as riski ly as possible, an this is excel
lently combi ned with a deep understanding
of both dynamic and strateg ic positions.
1 d4 f5 2 g3 f6 3 Ag2 g6 4 e4 Ag7
5 e3 0-0 6 f3 d6 7 0-0 e6 8 d5
a5
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
9 h
'lJ
M y opponent has chosen the sharpest l i n e

i n t h e m a i n system o f t h e Len ingrad Vari
ation . That is Veselin - he always goes for the
sharpest possibilities. Here Black's plans are
similar to the Yugoslav Variation of the King's
I ndian Defence, but the position of the pawn
on f5 (compared to f7) is in White's favour, in
my opin ion , as it seriously weakens Black's
position (the plus, on other han d , is control
of the e4 sq uare) . However, as Tigran Pet
rosian once joked : ' If you r opponent wants
129
to play the Dutch, you should never prevent

it ! ' .
9 .a4 cS 10 dxc6
Th is trail was first blazed in the classic game
Keres - Korchnoi .
10 . . . bxc6
1 0 . . . xc6 1 1 gd1 a5 1 2 c5 Ad7 1 3 f#a3
e8 14 Ag5 Ae6 15 cxd6 xd6 1 6 gxd6
f#xd6 1 7 f#xa5 with a decisive material ad
vantage (Keres - Korchnoi , 20 th USSR Cham
pionsh ip, Moscow 1 952).
1 1 cS!
After 1 2 . . . f#c7 Wh ite has a pleasant choice

between 1 3 Af4 h5 (13 . . . g5 14 A xg5! )
14 xg6 xf4 1 5 xf4 .E!b8 1 6 gab1 , and
13 c4 x c4 (13 . . . b7 14 Af4 (14 f#xc6
f#x c6 1 5 A x c6 ) 14 . . . d6 1 5 xd6 exd6
1 6 f#x c6 f#x c6 1 7 A x c6 g b8 1 8 A xd6 +-)
14 f#xc4+ h8 15 f#xc5 .
1 3 .c2
Threatening 14 a4.
1 3 Ae3 ! also deserved attention, but here
too Black has counterplay:
A) 1 3 . . . g4 14 xg4 fx g4 1 5 e4 leaves
Black with too many weaknesses ;
B) 1 3 . . . A e6 14 gac1 ! (the threat is 1 5 d3
d7 16 b4) 14 . . . f#c7 15 xc6 xc6 16 Axc6
gac8 (16 . . . gab8 1 7 Af4) 1 7 Af3 ;t ;
C) 1 3 . . . gb8! 14 c4 x c4 1 5 f#x c4+ h8
1 6 A x c5 A a6 ! (16 . . . f#a6 1 7 f#x a6 A xa6
1 8 gab1 g b7 1 9 gfd1 ; Black has weak
pawns at a7, c6 and e7) 1 7 A x b6 A xc4
18 A xa7 gxb2 .
13
I think that this is an important novelty, intro

duced over the board . It is thought that the
top grandmasters have everything analysed
at home, but nowadays you cannot man
age to do this even if you use all the search
engi nes. Chess is sti l l an unexplored gam e !
Wh ite i s trying to isolate the kn ight at a5 and
perpetuate Black's pawn weaknesses. After
this game the popu larity of 8 . . . a5 rapidly
waned . Previously the main l ine was 1 1 d4
Ad7 12 xc6 xc6 13 Axc6 Axc6 14 f#xc6
gc8 1 5 f#a4 f#d7 1 6 b3 d5 ! , regaining the
c-pawn .
c7 14 d3
After 14 Af4 g5 15 xc6 g xf4 16 xa5 gb8
Black has got rid of his bad knight and has
good cou nterplay, despite his poor pawn
structure.
. . .
14 . . . c4
14 . . . d7 15 A d2 ! (15 a4 c4 16 dc5
xc5 1 7 x c5 gb8 +) 15 . . . c4 (15 . . . c4 ?
1 6 d5 ! +-) 1 6 f4 f6 1 7 a4 .
1 1 . . . dxcS
After 1 1 . . . d5 1 2 e5 Black cannot mai ntain
the material balance, e. g . 1 2 . . . e4 13 xc6
Ad7 14 xe7+ ! h8 15 c6.
1 2 eS .b6
130
1 S cS
a
,..
8
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
Game 29
Gelfand -Topalov, Dos Hermanas 1 994
17 3a4
15 . . . IlbS?!
Topalov misses a chance to get rid of the
principal weakness i n his position - the
knight at as - by 1 S . . . b7 ! (1S . . . e8 !?
16 Ad2 d6 1 7 gad1 was another pos
sibility; if 1S . . . gd8 16 3a4) and now:
A) 16 x b7 x b7 ! (16 . . . A x b7 ? ! 17 a4 )
17 'tWa4 a6 ! (Black should keep his c4
pawn, as it pins down the b2 pawn and c1
bishop) 18 xa6 (18 A xc6 g b8 ; 18 xc6
b8) 18 . . . Axa6 1 9 Af4 e4 ! 20 Axe4 Axc3 !
(with the opposite -colour bishops, Black
should be able to hold the position , as
White can not take control of the open files ;
if 20 . . . fxe4 21 gac1 ) 21 A xc6 (21 b x c3
fxe4 =) 21 . . . Ax b2 22 !'!ab1 c3 23 AdS+ g7
(23 . . . e6 24 A xa8 !'!xa8) 24 AeS+ (24 A xa8
xa8 2S Ac1 !'! b8 26 A x b2 c x b2 27 !'!fd1
A x e2 28 gd2 ) 24 . . . h6 2S A xa8 !'!xa8
26 !'!x b2 c x b2 27 A x b2 with a draw ;
17 !'!ad1 !?
17 . . . d5 1S Ilad1
It turns out that Black's play has come to a
dead end ; meanwhi le the weaknesses in his
position persist and the knight at as remains
out of action .
1S . . . e5
Creating fresh weaknesses, but what better
course is there? In reply to 18 . . . b4 Wh ite
has the strong move 19 'tWc1 ! and the pawn
is u ntouchable: 19 . . . x a2 ?? 20 A x aS +
xaS 21 xc4+ h8 22 'tWxa2 .
1g e4
1 9 AxaS? 'tWxaS 20 'tWxc4 e4 00 wou ld regain
the pawn but lose Wh ite his advantage.
19 . . . b4
1 9 . . .fxe4 20 Axe4 .
a b c d
B) 16 3a4 d6 (here the knight is m uch

better placed and Wh ite can count on on ly a
smal l edge) 17 Ad2 (17 Af4 ?! does not work
in view of 1 7 . . . dS ! , and if 18 A xd6? exd6
19 'tWxc4 d x cS 20 A xdS+ cxdS 21 xdS+
h8 22 x a8 Ad7 and Black is w i nni ng)
17 . . . dS 18 c3 (18 !'!ac1 !,!b8; 18 e4 is pre
matu re before Black has played . . . e7-eS 18 . . . fxe4 1 9 xe4 AfS 00) 1 8 . . . !'! b8 (18 . . . e6
19 3a4 ; Wh ite doesn 't hesitate to waste
two tempi, as now the e-pawn blocks one of
the bishops - on e6 the Ac8 and on eS the
Ag7) 19 !'!fd1 and I prefer Wh ite.
16 Ad2
White com pletes his development and tar
gets the knight at as.
16 . . . IldS?!
Black persists with his mistaken plan . In reply
to 16 . . . dS Wh ite should mai ntain course
by 17 !'!ad1 and not regain the pawn, as
17 xdS cxdS 18 A xdS+ h8 1 9 a4 !'!d8
gives Black good piece play.
16 . . . e8 !? intending . . . d6 would have
been more tenacious.
8
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d
'i1
20 Axb4!?
Wh ite exchanges his opponent's active
pieces, thus increasing his advantage.
20 c1 is not as strong here as in the
note to Black's 1 8 th move, as Wh ite has al
ready played e2-e4 and weakened the d4
sq uare : 20 . . . !'!d4 ! , and noth ing is achieved
by 21 exfS gx fS 22 A x b4 !'!x b4 23 !'!xd4
exd4 24 'tWe1 !'!b8 2S e8+ Af8 .
20 . . . Ilxb4 21 IlxdS+ .xdS 22 Ild1 .fS

22 . . . 'tWc7 23 A h3 ! fxe4 24 Ae6+ and wins.
131
23 .d2
After the game my opponent suggested

23 exfS !? A xfS 24 d2, but I was reluctant
to activate the black pieces.
23 . . . IlbS 24 "dS .tf6

24 . . . tD b7 2S c7 c3 (2S . . . tD xcS 26 .d8
tD x a4 27 x c8), tryi ng to get counterplay
on the b -file: 26 bxc3 tD x cS 27 .d8 . b1 +
2 8 Af1 A a6 2 9 tD xcS A xf1 3 0 h 4 fxe4
31 h2.
2S "c7 .te7
a b c d
8
6
26 . . . tD b7 27 tDd7 A xd7 28 'xd7.
27 exfS gxfS 2S "xeS+ cc!;Ig6 29 "c71 a6

The knight at cS cannot be touched:
29 . . . A xcS 30 tD x cS .xcS 31 .d6+, or
29 . . . .xcS 30 xcS AxcS 31 xaS (31 'd8).
30 d7
30 Ag2 may have been even better.
30 . . . .txd7 31 "xd7 "f6

31 . . . .eS was more stu bborn , taking control
of the e -file.
32 Ile1 Ilb7
32 . . . .eS 33 .xeS xeS 34 A xfS+.
6
5
33 "cS cc!;Ig7 34 .txfS "d4 3S .tb1
a b c d
8
7
L-_______---=:__....J
9 h
8
6
5
4
11
2S . . . f4 ! ? was a better practical chance,

demanding accurate play on Wh ite's part :
26 g xf4 (26 xa7 Ad8) and now :
A) 26 . . . A h4 27 fS ! g x fS 28 h1 ! tD b7
29 tDxb7 Axb7 (29 . . . 'x b7 30 xc6) 30 exfS
c8 31 d6;
8) 26 . . . exf4 27 eS Ae7 28 tDe4 ! (the key

move!) 28 . . . Ag4 (28 . . . f3 29 tDf6+ h8
30 A xf3 +-) 29 .d2 (29 f3 !? AfS (29 . . . .dS
30 .xdS cxdS 31 tDf6+ A xf6 32 exf6 +-)
30 tDf6+ h8 31 tD c3 . b6 is not so clear)
29 . . . f3 (29 . . . . b7 30 x aS A b4 31 a6 +-)
30 tDf6+ A xf6 31 exf6 .dS 32 .xdS cxdS
33 x aS fxg2 34 xdS+ and Wh ite should
win.
A s impler cou rse was 3S Ac2 ! d2

36 g4+ +-, or 3S Axh7 3S . . . xh7 36 f5+,
but the text move does not spoil anything.
3S . . . .tb4 36 Ilf1 Ilf7 37 "h3 h6 38 "h5

Ilf6 39 c3 .txc3 40 bxc3 "xc3 41 I1d1
In terms of material the two sides are equal,
but White's attack is irresistible.
41 . . . "f3 42 Ild7+ S 43 IldS+ cc!;Ig7

44 Ild7+ S 45 "cS+ cc!;IgS 46 .th7+1
cc!;IhS 47 "a7 IlfS
26 .th31 +E l i m i nating any attem pt at counterplay by

Black. Another possibil ity was 26 tDd7 Axd7
27 'xd7 .b7 28 xeS .
The alternatives 47 . . . tD b7 48 Ae4 ! and

47 . . . cS 48 .d8+ .f8 49 .xf8+ xf8 SO Ae4
requ ire no explanation .
26 . . . cc!;Ig7
4S .tc2 Black resigns
132
Game 30
Gelfand - Kramnik, FIDE Candidates Quarter-Final Match (4), Sanghi Nagar 1994
a b c d
The fi nal position is h igh ly eloquent : the

knight at a5 never did join i n the action . If
48 . . . c3 49 gd8 ! .
ttJ
5
4
3
--------
***
Game 30
7 . . . cxd4 8 exd4 e7
B o r i s G e l fa n d - V l a d i m i r K ra m n i k
FIDE Candidates Quarter-Fi nal Match (4) ,
Sanghi Nagar 1 994
Queen 's Gambit [04 OJ
My match with the future world champion
Vladimir Kramn i k is one of the h i g h l ig hts
of my career. Although only 19 years old,
Vladimir was already rated among the top
five players in the world and it was clear that
further successes were bound to follow. A
friend of mine, M ark Kogan , invited me to
prepare at his hotel in Karelia (in the north of
Russia) at the time of the white nights. There,
together with my seconds Alexander H uz
man and Valery Atlas, I made a deep study
of Vladimir's games. And we discovered that
Vladimir's main weakness at that time was
the defence of unfami l iar and slightly inferior
positions. So we decided to avoid theoret
ical battles in the Slav Defence and to aim
for less well-stud ied positions after 1 c4.
1 c4 c5 2 f3 c6 3 c3 f6 4 e3 e6
5 d4 d5 6 a3 a6 7 b3
Played with the same idea - of avoiding the
oretical d iscussions. 7 d xc5 A x c5 8 b4 is
the main line here, described in the books as
being slightly more promising for White.
5
4
-------
9 c5!?
Th is appeared to be a novelty, but i n my
opinion it is the most chal lenging move, gain
ing space on the queenside. The alternative
was 9 Ae2 .
9 . . . b6
9 . . . 0-0 10 b4.
10 cxb6
U nfortunately, White is not wel l enough de
veloped to maintain the pawn on c5 : 1 0 b4
bxc5 1 1 b x c5 (11 d x c5 e5 12 Cba4 Ag4 00)
11 . . . Cbe4 1 2 Ad2 (1 2 c2 a5 13 Ad2 Cb xd2
14 xd2 0-0 15 Ae2 gd8 16 0-0 e5 =)
1 2 . . . Af6 with counterplay.
133
The struggle now becomes very concrete

if Black should manage to play . . . a6-a5 fol
lowed by . . . A a6 and get rid of his light
square bishop, he will be fi ne, so Wh ite must
do his best to prevent this.
move. Better was 14 . . . f6 (14 . . . Aa6 15 c7)

15 ik1 Ad7 16 e2 gfc8 17 gc2 e4 18 gfc1
Af6 1 9 e3 ;!; .
1 5 c7 llb8
a b c d
10 . . . d7
10 . . . xb6 11 a4 ;!; was more log ical , for the

knight has to return to f6 anyway.
e
8
7
6
1 1 J.d3
11 a4 x b6 1 2 x b6 x b6 13 b4 0-0
14 Ae2 Ad7 1 5 0-0 a7 16 e5 A b5
17 A x b5 x b5 is an instructive l i ne, where
Black is fine.
4
3
2
1 1 . . . a5
L..-_______----"__......
11 . . . 0-0 1 2 0-0 a5 !?
12 b5!
11
16 b4!
The most forcefu l move. There is l ittle Wh ite

can hope for after 1 2 0-0 A a6, or 1 2 a4
x b6 13 c2 (13 A b5 Ad7 14 c5 xd4 !)
1 3 . . . x a4 14 xc6+ Ad7 1 5 c2 gc8
16 d2 c3 with counterplay.
1 2 . . . t!!fx b6 1 3 J.f4 0-0 14 O-O!

As Black is not yet ready to play . . . Aa6, it is
time to castle.
If 14 Ac7 , then 1 4 . . . b7 1 5 e2 f6, and
if 16 e5 x e5 (or 16 . . . a7 ! 17 gc1 x b5
18 Ax b5 A xa3) 1 7 dxe5 e8 .
14 gc1 A a6 ! (14 . . . f6 1 5 Ac7 b7 1 6 e5
xe5 17 Axe5 ;!; ) 15 c7 is weaker because
of 15 . . . Axa3 ! 16 xa8 gxa8, and now:
A) 17 Ax h7+ ? <!>x h7 18 c2+ (18 g5+ <!> g6
19 c2+ <!> f6 20 h7+ <!> e7 21 xc6 A b4+)
1 8 . . . <!> g8 1 9 xc6 A xc1 , and if 20 x a8+
<!> h7 21 Axc1 b5 ;
B) 1 7 g b1 A b4+ 1 8 <!> f1 (18 <!> e2 xd4+
19 xd4 xd4) 1 8 . . . xd4 19 Ae3 A xd3+
20 xd3 b5 and Black stands better.
14 . . . a7?
In this critical position Black makes an un
fortunate attem pt to force matters . It is
probable that Vlad i m i r mi ssed Wh ite's 1 6 th
Wh ite has to play energetically to exploit the

poor coordination of the black pieces and to
avoid his knight at c7 bei ng trapped . 16 c2
x b3 1 7 A x h7+ <!> h8 was unclear.
1 6 . . . J.b7
Several other moves were possible, but they
too would not have solved Black's problems:
A) 16 . . . f6 17 bxa5 xa5 18 xd5 +-;
B) 1 6 . . . g b7 1 7 a8 !? (I enjoy using the corner sq uare ; I also did so in my game against
U l i b i n i n 1 985 - see below p. 1 38) 1 7 . . . d8
18 c2 axb4 (18 . . . f6 1 9 Ac7 e8 20 bxa5
or 20 Axa5 +-) 1 9 ax b4 b5 20 Ax h7+ <!>h8
21 Ad3 ;
C) 1 6 . . . Ad8 1 7 c2 g b7 (1 7 . . . e5 1 8 xd5
d6 19 xe5 xd5 20 xd7 A b7 21 Ax h7+
<!> h8 22 Ae4 +-) 18 gfc1 e5 1 9 a8 +-;
D) 16 . . . axb4 1 7 ax b4 Ax b4 18 a6 ;
E) the most reasonable defence was
1 6 . . . Ad6 1 7 A xd6 xd6 1 8 c2 A b7
(18 . . . h6 1 9 b x a5 A b7 20 b5 ) 1 9 A x h7+
<!> h8 20 Ad3 gfc8 2 1 gfc1 a x b4 (21 . . . Aa8
22 A a6 A b7 23 g5 +-) 22 a x b4 c6
23 b5 x b4 24 gab1 e7 25 d2 .
134
1 7 bxa5!
Game 30
The most natural way to play. By tak

ing the q ueen away from the e6 sq uare,
Wh ite secures an enduring advantage. An
interesting alternative, suggested by Kram
nik, was 17 a4 !? Ac6 18 c2 (18 x a5
xa5 1 9 b x a5 g b3 with fi ne cou nterplay)
1 8 . . . gbc8 ! (18 . . . mc8 1 9 gfc1 ax b4 20 axb4
A b5 21 Ax h7+ h8 22 Ad3 ), and now :
A) 1 9 gfb1 ?! a x b4 (1 9 . . . A b5 20 A x h7+
h8 00) 20 ax b4 A b5 21 Ax h7+ h8 22 gxa7
xa7 23 ttl x b5 gxc2 24 ttl xa7 x h7 ;
8) 1 9 gfc1 ! Ad8 ( 1 9 . . . e 5 20 ttl x e5 gxc7
2 1 b5 ) 20 ttla6 t .
1 7 . . . 0xa5 1 8 Oe2
It is hard to defend agai nst the threat of
etl xe6.
ttl x e5 (22 . . . gf6 23 ttlf7+ gxf7 24 xf7 +-)

23 xe7 ttled7 .
19 Axe5?
I fai led to notice the simple 19 ttl x e5 !
x c7 (1 9 . . . ttlf6 2 0 ttl d7 ttl xd7 2 1 x e7)
20 gac1 +-, as pointed out by Kramnik, and
after the forced 20 . . . d6 21 ttl xd7 xf4
22 x e7 me8 23 b4 Wh ite wins on the
spot. One may wonder about the sou rce of
such mistakes at high level. I have only one
explanation - the very intense nervous pres
sure.
19 . . . xe5 20 Oxe5
Now Wh ite is a pawn u p , but he sti l l has to
convert it into a win.
20 . . . c6 21 Of4 Ilbc8 22 b5 Aa6

23 a4 b4 24 Af5
18 . . . e5?
a b c d
8
Faced with the prospect of mutual time pres

sure, I decided to return the extra pawn i n
order t o gain time t o concentrate m y pieces
for an attack on the black ki ng. The sim
ple 24 d2 was also possible, retaining a
considerable superiority.
--'-
6
5
4
3
2
L..-_______-=-__.....
ttJ
24 . . J cd8 25 Hfe1 ?
Simply a waste of a tempo. By contrast, the
i m m ediate 25 ttle5 would have confronted
Black with insurmountable problems: 25 . . . h6
(25 . . . A x b5 26 a x b5 x b5 27 ga7 ! +- Af6
28 ttld7)
'lf
Simply a blunder. The alternatives were :
A) 18 . . . Ad8 1 9 ttl x e6 ge8 20 A x b8 ttl x b8

(20 . . . gxe6 21 Ae5) 21 b2 +-;
8) 18 . . . Af6 1 9 ttl xe6 gbe8 20 b2 +-;
C) 18 . . . g bd8 1 9 ttl x e6 fxe6 20 x e6+ gf7
(20 . . . h8 21 Ad2) 21 A x h7+ f8 22 ttlg5
Axg5 23 Ad6+ +-;
D) 18 . . . ttl c6 1 9 gfc1 e5 20 ttl x e5 ttld x e5

2 1 Axe5 gbc8 22 ttl b5 ;
Analysis diagram after 25 ttJe5 h6
E) 18 . . . h8 (Black's best chance) 1 9 ttl xe6 !

fxe6 20 A x b8 ttl x b8 21 xe6 ttlac6
(21 . . . Af6 22 h3 g6 23 Axg6 c7 ) 22 ttle5
26 A b1 ! (threaten i ng f5) 26 . . . Ac8 (26 . . .

b6 27 ttld7 ! +- gxd7 28 f5 ; 26 . . . A x b5
27 a x b5 x a1 (27 . . . b6 28 ttld7 gxd7
135
29 f5) 28 f5 or 28 A h7+ +-) 27 ga3 (the

rook joins the attack) 27 . . . Ag5 28 g3 +-.
a b c d
e
8
25 . . . .tf6 26 e5
6
With the same idea of attacking. White could

have transposed i nto a good ending by
26 c7 xc7 27 fiJ xc7.
5
4
26 . . . .txe5
2
26 . . . Ax b5 was the alternative :

A) interposing 27 fiJg4 is not strong , for sev
eral reasons:
A1 ) 27 . . . A xd4 28 xd4 Ad7! (28 . . . Ac6
29 fiJf6+ h8 30 fiJ x h7) 29 A xd7 (29
fiJe3 fiJc6) 29 . . . fiJc2 (29 . . . gxd7 30 fiJf6+ ! +-)
30 fiJf6+ gxf6 31 g4+ h8 32 f5 (32 Af5
fiJ xa1 ) 32 . . . fiJ xe1 33 xf6+ = ;
A2) 2 7 . . . b6 !? 2 8 a x b5 (28 fiJ xf6+ xf6
29 a x b5 fiJ d3 +) 28 . . . xd4 (28 . . . A xd4
29 ga4 g6 30 A b1 (30 gxb4 Ac3) 30 . . . Ac3)
29 fiJ xf6+ xf6 30 Axh7+ xh7 31 ffxb4 d4
with counterplay;
Allowing a decisive piece sacrifice, but

salvation was no longer possi ble: 29 . . . h6
30 gg3 h8 31 gh3 +-, or 29 . . . b6
30 gb3 +-.
30 .txh7+ ! xh7 31 .f5+ g8 32 Hh3

IUe8
The only move : 32 . . . g6 33 f6 +-, or
32 . . . c2 33 h5 +-.
a b c d
B) 27 a x b5 x b5 28 ga3 g6 (28 . . . A xe5 is

careless - 29 A x h7+ x h7 30 gh3+ g8
31 h4 +-) 29 gh3 Ag7 30 h4 h5 (30 . . . h6
31 fiJ xf7 +- gde8 32 fiJ x h6+ Axh6 33 Ae6+)
31 gb1 (31 fiJ xf7 gde8) maintaining the bet
ter chances.
27 . . . .txb5 28 axb5 .xb5 29 Ha3!

The most vigorous move. 29 h4 h 6 ! ;t
(29 . . . g6 30 e6 !) ; 29 gab1 !? d4 (29 . . . gb8 !?
30 gb3) 30 d2 gb8 31 xd4 .
c4
6
-'--
5
4
3
2
27 gxe5 ?! would have forfeited White's su

periority after 27 . . . Ax b5 28 Ax h7+ (28 ga3?
h6 or 28 . . . fiJ d3 29 A xd3 A xd3 30 gxd3
xa4 =) 28 . . . x h7 29 gh5+ g8 30 h4 f6
31 ge1 (31 gh8+ f7 32 h5+ e7) 31 . . . f7
32 gh7 (32 gh6 gg8 ! -+) 32 . . . Ad3 33 g4!!
A x h7 34 e6+ =.
. . .
27 dxe5
29
33 .h7+?
I n extreme time pressure, Wh ite almost
throws away the fru its of his efforts. After
33 h 5 ! f8 (33 . . . f6 34 h7+ f7 35 gg3
e6 36 xg7 d4 37 xf6+ d5 38 ga1 +-)
34 g5 g8 (34 . . . f6 35 gh8+ f7 36 h5+
g6 37 e6+ e7 38 h7+ d6 39 gxe8 gxe8
40 d7+ +-) 35 gg3 ! g6 36 gh3 c6 37 h4!
(37 h6? f6 !!) 37 . . . f8 38 e6 ! (38 x b4+
g7 ) Black would have had no defence
(38 . . . gxe6 39 xd8+).
136
Game 30
33 . . . 8 34 "h8+ e7 35 "xg7 d4?
a b c
37 . . . lld7?
In the time -shortage lottery, Vlad i m i r d rew

the far from best ticket. Nor would his
problems have been solved by 37 . . . ga8 ? !
38 gh6+ c7 3 9 g3+ b7 40 d6 b5
41 gb1 .
8
7
H owever, 37 . . . gc8 ! , as pointed out by my

opponent immediately after the game, would
have led after 38 e5+ to extreme compli
cations:
3
2
The last ten moves before the time control

were made instantly, and it is hardly sur
prising that Kramn i k missed the opportunity
35 . . . f4 !? 36 e6 (36 gf3 ? xf3 37 gxf3 gg8)
36 . . . d6 37 gf3 d2 (37 . . . xf3 38 e5+)
38 e5+ c6 39 gxf7 (39 gc3+ b5
40 gec1 ? (40 gf1 00 is better) is refuted by
40 . . . gc8 ! 41 gxc8 gxc8) 39 . . . gd6 40 a1 !
with a complete mess on the board .
36 e6
36 gh6 d7 37 e6+ c8 38 xf7 was also
possible, but Black is out of danger here.
36 . . . d6 37 e7
A) 38 . . . c6 ? 39 gh6+ b7 40 gd6 ! d3
(40 . . . gc5 !?) 41 a5 (41 gd4 d2 42 e4+
is simpler) 41 . . . c5 42 gd7+ c6 (42 . . . b8
43 x c5 gxc5 44 gd8+ gc8 45 gxe8
gxe8 46 g b1 a7 47 gx b4 d2 48 gb1
gc8 49 gf1 +-) 43 a4+ b6 (43 . . . b5
44 gc1 + +-) 44 a7+ b5 45 b7+
b6 (45 . . . c4 46 gc1 + tb c2 47 e4+ +-)
46 gd5+ tD xd5 47 xd5+ +-;
B) 38 . . . d7 ! 39 f5+ c7 (39 . . . c6
40 gh6+ b7 41 d7+ +-) 40 a5+ d7
(40 . . . b7 41 gh5 +-) 41 gh6 (perhaps White
does best to settle for a d raw by 41 f5+)
41 . . . c5 ! 42 a4+ tbc6 =+= and the attack is
over.
38 Oe5+ c6 39 Ilh6+ b7 40 Oa5! +

Ildxe7
The last critical moment.
a b c
..
9 h
ttJ
There was no escape from mate.
41 1lxe7+
6
5
4
It is never too late to make a mistake:

41 g b6+ ? c8 42 a8+ d7 43 a4+
c8 =.
41 ... llxe7 42 "b6+ Black resigns

2
9 h
Despite the many m utual mistakes, which

can be explai ned (but not excused !) by the
high stakes, this was a fascinating encounter.
***
137
Most Memorable Games
Piece in the Corner

(cf. note to Black's 16 t h move)
Th is was one of the best games of my ch ild

hood . Wh ite wants to play h4-h5, but at the
moment this is not possible.
Boris Gelfand - Mikhail Ulibin

USSR U nder- 1 8 Championsh ip,
Yurmala 1 985
21 0h1 !!
So, despite the fact that everyone tel ls you
pieces should be placed i n the centre, I
found this move and I was very proud of
it! The move is a m u lti-purpose one. White
vacates the f3 square for his knight and in
tends h4-h5-h6 (if immed iately 21 h5 Ag4).
6
5
_.r---;
21 . . . Elh5?!
21 . . . Ag4 22 f3 t .
22 .ig5!
Now the rook is trapped .
'---_a
______
e__....;
9_
;;
_--'
2 2 . . . 0c5 23 c3 e5 24 .ie2 Elxg5

25 h xg5 .id6 26 Elad1 g4 27 .ixg4
.ixg4 28 b3 Oc7 29 Oxd5 Eld8
30 Oxd6 Black resigns
If
* * *
Monaco 200 1 : Boris 's father Abram watches the start of the Gelfand- Kramnik game.
138
Game 31
Shirov - Gelfand , Dos Hermanas 1995
Game 31
a b c d
8 1.
Al exey S h i rov - B o r i s G e l fa n d
7
6
5
This was another classic Sicil ian clash be

tween attack and defence against Alexey
Shirov. M ost of our encounters have been
fascinati ng, as the reader may have noticed .
Both of us have succeeded many times and
Alexey presented a number of our games in
his book. It is clear that Shirov is the succes
sor to the magician from Riga, M i khail Tal ,
and he was strongly influenced by joint anal
yses with this g reat player during the early
stages of his career. Li ke Tal , Shirov aims for
the in itiative at any price with both colours,
and you have to be u p to the mark i n order
to com pete with him.
1 e4 c5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6
5 c3 a6 6 Ag5
Th is came as the fi rst surprise for me. Nor
mally Alexey plays 6 Ae3 . I guess he was in
fluenced by his second for this tournament,
Alexander Shabalov, who is also an ex- Riga
player.
6 . . . e6 7 f4 bd7
Not a very popular variation , but I use it quite
often . 7 . . . b6 is the choice of most players,
includ ing Garry Kasparov.
8 1!!fe2
Played with a concrete idea. 8 f3 is the
main l i ne.
8 . . . 1!!fc7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 g3
10 g4 is more often played .
10 . . . b4
----
5
4
d _e__....:9_
:: h_....J {(
L...-_a__b_c__
1 1 d5
Th is is the point of the 8 e2 plan .
1 1 . . . exd5 1 2 Ag2!? N
A new and origi nal idea. I had previously
faced 12 exd5+ Ae7 1 3 CDf5 (13 CDc6 CD b8
14 Axf6 CD xc6 15 Axg7 gg8 16 dxc6 gxg7 +)
13 . . . CD c5 ! (coveri ng e6 ; if 13 . . . CD b6 14 CDxg7+
d8 15 ge1 with the threat of 16 Axf6 A xf6
1 7 e8+ gxe8 1 8 gxe8+ d7 1 9 A h3#)
14 CD xg7+ d8 1 5 ge1 ? (the wrong move
order; 15 Ag2 gg8 16 gde1 was correct)
1 5 . . . gg8 ? (15 . . . CDfe4 ! 1 6 Ag2 f5 ! 1 7 CD h5
A xg5 1 8 fxg5 b3 ! 1 9 a x b3 CD x b3+ 20 d1
CD d4 ! -+) 1 6 Ag2 CDfe4 1 7 A x e4 (17 A x e7+
x e7 1 8 c4 gxg7 1 9 A x e4 g b8 20 d4
f8 21 f6+ c7 22 ge3 +) 17 . . . gxg7 + and
I agreed a draw in order to g uarantee my
first qual ification to the Candidates matches
(yudasi n - Gelfand, Manila I nterzonal 1 990).
1 2 . . . Ae7 13 f5
1 3 exd5 O-O ! 14 x e7 ge8, trapping the
queen for insufficient com pensation .
Com pared to my game with Yudasin, there

is pawn tension i n the centre and that is
why the knight has to control the d5 square.
1 3 . . . h6!? also deserved serious considera
tion .
14 xg7+
(see next diagram)
139
..
C2) 1 8 gde1 ! Axg5 (18 . . . f6 !? 19 f5 !?) 19 fxg5

'tlVc6 !? (vacating the c7 sq uare for the king ;
after 1 9 . . . c8 20 'tlV f6 b7 2 1 ge7 Ad7
22 'tlVd4 gac8 23 A xd5+ ttl xd5 24 'tlVxd5+
b8 Wh ite has some com pensation for the
kn ight, but I wou ld prefer to play this position
with Black) 20 'tlVf6+ c7 21 ge7+ Ad7 and
White hardly has sufficient compensation.
8
7
6
5
1s Ah6
14
. . .
The attack comes to an end after 15 ttJ h 5

ttl x h 5 1 6 'tlVx h5 A xg5 1 7 fxg5 Ae6 ( 1 7 . . .
dxe4 ? 1 8 'tlV h6+ g8 1 9 gxd6) 1 8 exd5 gc8
1 9 gd2 Af5.
c!>f8
The king goes to the opposite side, com

pared with the Yudasin game. 14 . . . d8!?
was also possible and was probably
stronger. After 1 5 e5 Ag4 Wh ite faces a
choice :
A) 16 exf6? Axe2 17 fxe7+ d7 18 A h3+ (18
gde1 Ad3) 18 . . . c6 1 9 gde1 Af3 -+ ;
B) 1 6 Af3 A xf3 1 7 'tlVxf3 ttl e8 (1 7 . . . gc8 !?
18 'tlVe2 dxe5 19 fxe5 ttJe8 +) 18 ttJf5 (18 exd6
ttl xd6 +) 18 . . . A xg5 19 fxg5 gc8 (19 . . . d xe5
20 gxd5+ c8) 20 gd2 'tlVc4 21 b1 'tlVe4 ;
C) 16 W#f2 !? (clearly strongest) 16 . . . ttJe8 ! (es
tablishing coordination between the black
pieces ; if 16 . . . d x e5 17 fxe5 A xd1 1 8 gxd1
with a dangerous attack, despite being a
rook down , or 1 6 . . . A xd1 ? 1 7 exf6) 1 7 exd6
(17 Axe7+ xe7 + , or 17 ttJ xe8 gxe8 18 Axd5
A xd1 19 gxd1 ( 1 9 exd6 'tlVxd6 20 A x a8
A h5 21 Af3 Axf3 22 W#xf3 c8 +) 1 9 . . . ttJ xd5
20 gxd5 A xg5 21 gxd6+ e7 22 fxg5
f8 -+) 17 . . . ttJ xd6 (or 1 7 . . . 'tlVxd6 1 8 h3
Ad7 ! (the bishop is excel lently placed here ;
18 . . . Axd1 1 9 ttJf5) 1 9 Axe7+ xe7 2 0 ghe1 +
f8 21 ttJ xe8 gxe8 +), and now:
C 1 ) 1 8 A xd5?! is i nsufficient : 1 8 . . . A xd1
1 9 gxd1 ttl xd5 20 g xd5 h6 2 1 A xe7+
(21 gxd6+ 'tlV xd6 22 ttlf5 'tlVd5 23 A x e7+
d7) 21 . . . xe7 22 'tlVe3+ (22 'tlVd4 ghc8 -+)
22 . . . f8 23 'tlVe5 (23 'tlVd4 gg8) 23 . . . gc8
24 ttle6+ fxe6 25 'tlVx h8+ e7 + ;
1S
c!>g8
Now the g8 and gh8 are dubiously placed ,
and this g ives Wh ite a strong attack. But
if 15 . . . 'tlVc4 ? 16 ttl h5+ e8 1 7 'tlVx c4 d xc4
(17 . . . ttl xc4 1 8 ttJ xf6+ A xf6 1 9 e5) 1 8 ttl xf6+
Axf6 19 e5 or 19 gxd6!? with a clear advan
tage.
. . .
1 6 .tlhS
16 e5 was a weaker alternative :
A) 16 . . . d xe5 1 7 fxe5 , when Black has :
A1 ) 1 7 . . . ttlg4 (this is what I i ntended playing d u ring the game) 1 8 Af4 'tlVc4 ! 1 9 'tlVxc4
d xc4, and now :
A 11 ) 20 ttJ h5 ttJf2 21 Axa8 ttJ xd1 (21 . . . ttJ xa8
22 A h 6 ! (sh utting in the king) 22 . . . ttJ xd1
23 gxd1 Ag4 24 ttJf6+ Axf6 25 gd4, winning)
22 gxd1 (22 Af3 ttJf2 23 gf1 ttJ g4 (23 . . . ttJ h3
24 A h6 Ag5+ 25 A xg5 ttl xg5 26 gd1 ! with
cou nterplay) 24 A xg4 A xg4 25 ttJf6+ A xf6
26 exf6 h5 and Black keeps his extra piece)
22 . . . Ag4! (22 . . . ttl x a8 23 A h6 ttJ c7 24 ttJf6+
Axf6 25 exf6 +-) and Black is out of danger;
A1 2) 20 ttl e8 !? ttlf2 (20 . . . ga7 21 ttlf6+ g7
22 h3 ttl xf6 (22 . . . ttJf2 23 Ae3) 23 exf6+
A xf6 24 Ae3 , restori ng the material bal
ance thanks to the pin , or 20 . . . A b7 21 ttJf6+
(21 Ax b7 gxe8 22 Ac6 gc8 23 A b7 gb8 -+)
2 1 . . . A xf6 22 A x b7 ttl x e5 23 gd6 with ad
vantage to Wh ite) 2 1 A x a8 ttl x a8 22 A h6
ttl xd1 23 gxd1 f5 ! 24 exf6 f7 ! and Black
retains winning chances ;
140
Game 31
A2) 17 . . . Ag4! (this is stronger) 18 Af3 k8 !

19 Axg4 ( 1 9 exf6 ? A xf3 20 \Wxf3 \Wx c2#)
19 . . . ttl xg4 20 ttlfS ttl x h 6 21 ttl x h6+ <!> f8
22 <!> b1 ttl c4 and I th i nk that White's attack
will not ach ieve its goal ;
8) 16 . . . tDg4 17 tDe8 !? (17 exd6 \Wxd6 18 tDe8
d8) 17 . . . \Wc6 18 exd6 \Wxe8 (it is important
not to blunder with 18 . . . Axd6??
19 e51?
A fine move, precisely in Shirov's style ! Wh ite
creates n umerous tactical possibilities for
his pieces. If 1 9 exdS ttl ge3 20 gde1 Ag4.
However, he also had avai lable the strange
looking move 19 gde1 ! ttlf2 ( 1 9 . . . ttlce3
20 Af3 d x e4 21 A xe4 dS 22 Af3, or
19 . . . ttl ge3 20 Af3) 20 exdS ttl x h1 21 gxe7
Ag4 22 A x h 8 <!> x h 8 23 ttlf6 ttlf2 with fu l l
compensation for the piece.
19
. .
ge3 20 exd6 xd6
20 . . . Ag4!? was my original intention :
19 \Wxg4+ ! A x g4 20 ttlf6#) 19 AgS AfS

20 dxe7 gc8 and Black wins.
16 . . . g4
Trying to destroy the u n pleasant 'cage'
around the black king. Bad was 16 . . . ttl x e4
17 gxd S ! ttl xdS (17 . . . fS 1 8 gxfS A xfS
19 Axe4 A x e4 20 \Wx e4) 1 8 A x e4 +-, or
16 . . . dxe4 1 7 Axe4 ttl xe4 18 \Wxe4.
17 Ag7 .c4
After the exchange of queens the mating
threats should not be so dangerous.
18 .xc4
18 gd3 \Wx a2 1 9 b3 ttlc4 ! ( 1 9 . . . ttl eS is also
strong) 20 exdS (20 bxc4 dxc4) 20 . . . ttla3 -+.
18 . . . xc4
8
.i.
7
6
5
3
2
if
A) i n the event of 2 1 d x e7 A x h S 22 A x h 8
A x d1 23 Ad4 Black can h o l d b y 23 . . . ge8 !
(23 . . . tD xg2 24 gxd1 ge8 2S AcS ; 23 . . . Ag4
24 ge1 ge8 2S A x e3 +-) 24 gxd1 ttl x d1
2 S AcS (2S <!> xd1 gxeT += ) 2 S . . . tDde3 2 6 A h3
fS 27 b3 ttla3 28 Axe3 gxe7 with an unclear
ending ;
B) but then I found 21 A xdS!
(a rare instance, where nearly all the pieces

of both(!) sides are under attack!) 21 . . . AxhS
(21 . . . A xd1 22 A x a8 A x h S 23 A x h 8 A xd6
24 Ad4 ;t) 22 Ax h8 (22 Axa8 <!> xg7 23 dxe7
A x d1 24 Ac6 Af3 ! 2S A xf3 ge8 -+)
22 . . . tD xdS 23 gxdS Af3 (23 . . . tD xd6 24 gxhS
<!> xh8 2S ge1 ;t) and now :
B 1 ) 2 4 d x e7 A xdS 2S ge1 (2S g d 1 ttle3
26 ge1 <!> x h 8 27 gxe3 ge8 28 geS +)
2S . . . ge8 (2S . . . Ae6 26 gd1 ) 26 Ad4 (26 Af6
tDd6 27 gd1 tDe4) 26 . . . fS 27 AcS with coun
terplay;
141
B2) 24 d3 !? Axd6 (24 . . . Ax h1 25 dxe7 e8

26 Af6) 25 xf3 Ci!? x h 8 and normally in the
endgame rook and two pawns are slightly
better than bishop and knight.
c7) 24 . . . de3 when White has insufficient

compensation for the piece.
23 Axh8
23 xd5 x g7 24 xe7 Ae6 ! (24 . . . Ci!? f8 !)
25 g5 (25 a7 A xd5) 25 . . . Ci!? f8 -+.
23 . . . fe3
8 .1
A serious alternative was 23 . . . de3 24 Af6

(24 d3 Ci!? x h 8 25 g4 Ae6 26 g xf5 xf5)
24 . . . xd1 25 g4 (25 A x e7 x e7 26 xe7
Ci!? f8 27 e5) 25 . . . A b7 26 g xf5 Axf6
27 xf6+ Ci!? g7 28 h5+ Ci!? h6 29 f6 and
everywhere the advantage is on Black's side,
but it is not easy to convert it into a win.
--------
24 f6+
24 Af6 xd1 25 A xe7 Ag4.
24 . . . Axf6 25 Hxd5!
21 Hhe1 !!
The poi nt of Wh ite's play!
Played in fi ne style ! Instead of protecting his

attacked pieces, Alexey attacks the oppo
nent's! Bad is 21 Axh8 Ci!?xh8 22 de1 xg2
23 xe7 Ae6 + , or 21 de1 df5 22 A x h8
xg2 23 xe7 xe7 24 Ae5 c6 + .
25 . . . xh8
25 . . . x d5 ?? would have led to a mate of
rare beauty: 26 e8#.
2 1 . . . df5!?
Black was already short of time (it is easy to
guess that this position was far from easy
to defend) , but this time my i ntuition d i d n 't
betray me. I n the event of 21 . . . Ag4 22 xe3
(22 xd5? xd5 23 A xd5 e8) 22 . . . A xd1
23 Ci!? xd1 (23 xe7 A x h 5 24 A x h8 Ci!? xh 8
25 e5 Ag4 26 xd5 d8 with good winning
chances) 23 . . . f5 24 xe7 xe7 25 Af6
Wh ite has fu ll compensation for the two ex
changes.
22 Axd5
22 A x h8 xg2 23 xe7 x e7 24 Ae5
(24 Af6 Ag4) 24 . . . c6 and the advantage
remains in Black's hands.
22 . . . xd5?!
I didn't notice the simple 22 . . . xd1 23 Axh8
(23 A xa8 xg7 24 x g7 Ci!? x g7 (24 . . . Af6 ?
25 h5 A x b2+ 26 Ci!? b1 !) 25 xe7 d8 +)
23 . . . a7 24 Ae5 (24 xd1 Ci!? x h 8 25 A xf7
26 Hxe3 Ae6 27 Hd6 g7?

With the flag on his clock hang i n g , Black
commits a big inaccuracy, but White fails to
exploit it ! Correct was 27 . . . h5! (28 f5 ? Ag5),
fixi ng the kingside pawns and securing the
important f6 and f5 squares for the bishops.
28 a4?
Stronger was 28 g4 ! h6 29 b3 a5 00 , when
the bishops are restricted .
28 . . . h5
Correcting the mistake.
142
29 a5 Af5 30 c3 bxc3
Game 31
30 . . Jk8 !? was more precise, limiting Wh ite's

possibilities.
h
8
31 bxe3 geS 32 cc!?d2?!

32 b2 !?
32 . . . ge5?!
5
4
Another time trouble m ove. Stronger was

32 . . . g b8 !? 33 gb6 gd8+ 34 c1 (34 e2
Ag4+) 34 . . . Ad3 =+= .
33
r-....--'
-
----'1_
4
3
2
gxa6 gb5 34 gaS?
Why give up a pawn ? 34 h4 ! would have led

to a draw.
34 . . . gb2+
35 cc!?e1 gxh2
'--_______---"-__......
{f
43
ggS+
43 c5 Ad4 44 ge7 A xc5 -+.
43 . . . cc!?xgS 44 geS+ cc!?g7 45 as'O J.g4+
46 cc!?e1 ?
35 . . . gc2 ?! 36 d1 A xc3 37 ge2 .
36 a6 ga2
Black has good winning chances here, as
the wh ite pawns are not th reatening to queen
and are liable to fal l .
37 a7 ga1 +
Gaining time on the clock i n order to reach
the time -control (37 . . . A h3 !? ; 37 . . . h7 !?).
38 cc!?d2 ga2+ 39 cc!?e1 cc!?h7 40 e4

The only chance (40 d1 A h3 =+=).
40 . . . ga1 +
40 . . . Ad4 41 ge7 g7 came into considera
tion :
A) 42 d1 f6 ;
B) it appears that Wh ite can not save the
game by 42 g b8 A x a7 43 gbb7 Ad4
44 gxf7+ g6, and if 45 gxf5 (45 gfe7
gg2) 45 . . . xf5 46 gb5+ e4 47 gxh5 d3
48 gb5 gg2 ;
C) 42 gg8+ xg8 43 ge8+ g7 ;

0) 42 gd8 ! A xa7 43 ge5 with counterplay.
41 cc!?d2 ga2+ 42 cc!?d1 cc!?g7

42 . . . Ad4 !? 43 ge7 g7 44 gg8+ xg8
45 ge8+ g7 46 a8 Ag4+ -+ with an extra
tem po com pared with the game (47 e1 ?
Af2+ 48 f1 A h3+) .
Wh ite clearly gains more d rawing chances

by 46 e1 !? Ac3+ 47 f1 Ae2+ 48 g2
gxa8 49 gxa8 Axc4 =+= when the winning plan
wou ld be to put the bishop on g4, followed
by . . .f7-f5 and the penetration of the king.
46 . . . gxaS 47 gxaS J.d4 4S cc!?d2 J.12!

Cutting off the king from the g3 pawn.
49 ga3 cc!?t6 50 gd3 cc!?e6

50 . . . Ae6 !? followed by . . . f5-g4 was
strong. White's pieces are too poorly coordi
nated to prevent this.
51 cc!?e3 J.e2 52 gdS cc!?e7 53 Iid5 16
54 cc!?d2 J.g4
54 . . . A xc4?! 55 gx h5 A xg3 56 e3 =t .
55 gd3 cc!?e6
Wh ite is in zugzwang .
56 ga3
56 c3 Ae2 -+.
56 . . . cc!?d7
Not so clear is 56 . . . d6 57 ga6+ c5
58 gxf6 xc4 59 gg6 (59 gd6 Axg3 60 e3
h4 61 gg6 h3 62 gxg4 h2 -+) 59 . . . d4 !?
(59 . . . A xg3 60 e3) 60 f5 ! e5 (60 . . . A xf5
61 gf6) 61 ga6 xf5 62 ga3 e4 63 gb3.
57 ga6
57 c5 !? was another chance:
143
A) 57 . . . A xc5 58 ga6 f5 (58 . . . Af2 ? 59 gxf6

A xg3 60 e3 e7 61 ga6 h4 62 ga7+ =)
59 e1 c7 -+ is similar to the note to
White's 46 th move;
B) 57 . . . c6 58 ga6+ (58 gc3 f5 and Wh ite
is in zugzwang : 59 c2 (59 d3 A xg3)
59 . . . Axc5 (59 . . . Ad4 60 gc4 A xc5) 60 d2
d5 -+) 58 . . . xc5 59 gxf6 d4 and this
also should be won , but Black must be care
fu l not to allow the exchange of the rook for
his light-square bishop.
that the position was not as simple as it ap

peared .
62
. .
It took me an hour and a half of home analy

sis to fi nd a precise win. It was easy to fall
into a trap with the naturaI 62 . . . d7? 63 gc1
c6 64 e4 Ae2 (64 . . . Af2 65 gh1 Ag1 66 f5
A h3 67 f3 A xf5 68 g3) 65 e3 A h5.
57 . . . .txg3 58 xf6 e7?!

Simpler was the immediate 58 . . . h4! 59 e3
h3 60 gh6 h2 61 f5 e7 (61 . . . Axf5? 62 f3
Ae5 63 gh4) 62 f6+ f7 63 c5 Ad1 64 c6
A a4.
59 a6 h4
I d i d n 't want to have to demonstrate my
technique after 59 . . . Axf4+ 60 e1 , although
theory says that this position is won .
60 e3 h3 61 c5 h2 62 a1
62 gh6 f7, or 62 ga7+ Ad7.
a
It looks as though Wh ite is i n zugzwang,

but h e is saved by 66 ga1 ! = (66 e4 ? Af2
67 gh1 Ag1 68 f5 Af7 -+) and if 66 . . . xc5
67 ga5+. That is why it is necessary to lure
the pawn to c6 or c7 and block it there.
'"
63 b1
Black is winning after 63 e4 g6 64 c6
h5 65 c7 (65 g b1 h4 66 gh1 h3 67 f5
g2 68 gx h2+ A x h2 69 f6 A e6 70 d4
f3 71 c5 Ac7 72 b5 e4 73 a6 d5
74 b7 d6) 65 . . . h4 66 e3 h3 67 gc1
g2 68 gc2+ f1 -+ .
The main line was 63 c6 e7 64 gc1 d8
65 c7+ c8 66 e4 Ae2 67 e3 A h5 and
now the zugzwang is real : 68 e4 (68 f5
Axc7) 68 . . . Af2 69 gh1 Ag1 70 f5 Ae8 -+.
This was the sealed move in the last ad journed game I ever played . It turned out
***
144
63 . . . 5 64 c6 .txf4+ 65 2 .th3
66 3 .tc7 67 b5+? 68 b1 .te6
69 d1 White resigns
Game 32
Game 32
with the 1 1 d5 line and shared some ideas

with me, and we spent several hours to
gether, analysing this position .
1 1 . . . f6 1 2 bxc4 b4 1 3 .txf6 "xf6
14 "a4+ d7 15 d4 e5 16 b3 rtJe7
B o r i s G e l fa n d - J e r o e n P i ket
M ax E u we M e m o r i a l To u r n a m e n t , VS B
A m sterd a m 1 9 96
Sla v Defence [03 1J
I was a last-m i n ute replacement i n the final

V S B Tournament and I real ly enjoyed playing
in this perfectly organ ised event in one of
my favourite cities. Although I made a poor
result, this game was a kind of consolation.
My opponent, one of my contem poraries,
was (u nfortunately, he quit chess a few years
ago) a player of classical style. However, he
had an extremely broad open ing repertoire.
It therefore made no sense to prepare deeply
for him, as it was hard to guess what open ing
you wou ld have to face.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 c3 e6 4 f3 dxc4
Jeroen chooses a sharp variation that is
named after his com patriot Dan iel Note
boom , a talented player from the early part
of the century, who sad ly d ied very youn g .
Black grabs t h e pawn and tries t o keep it.
5 a4 .tb4 6 e3 b5 7 .td2 a5 8 axb5 .txc3

9 .txc3 cxb5 10 b3 .tb7
a
tt:J
Gelfand - Piket, Max Euwe Memorial Tournament, VSB Amsterdam 1996
e
8
6
5
4
L--_______----:;.__.....
1}
11 d5
Whereas the preced ing moves occurred i n
the overwhel m i ng majority o f games, this
move is a rare choice, compared to 1 1 bxc4
b4 1 2 A b2 ttlf6. But my good friend Yuri
Shulman had played a n u m ber of games
7
6
5
4
6
""'-::-
5
4
L--_______----:;.__.....I
1}
17 .te2
A new trend. I n the 1 980s 1 7 b5 used
to be played , but after 17 . . . A a6 18 x a5
ghb8 1 9 d6+ e8 Black has the advantage.
White's idea is not to force events, but to try
to exploit three long -term factors : his pow
erfu l pawn centre, the position of the black
king in the centre, and the bad bishop on b7 .
N atu rally, B lack too has his tru m ps, i n par
ticular the a5-b4 pawn pai r. Wh ite can only
hope that, as in this game, his opponent will
be short of one tempo . . .
17 . . . Hhc8
Black also has another possible continuation
17 . . . d6, for exam ple: 18 f4 ! ghc8 19 0-0
ttl c5 (1 9 . . . f8 20 ttl x a5 ttl b6 21 ttl x b7 !)
20 ttl x c5 gxc5 2 1 gad1 ! e4 22 a1 f8
23 e5 x e5 (23 . . . e7 24 h5 g8
25 d6 +-) 24 fxe5 and Wh ite's pawns proved
to be the stronger (Shu lman - San Segundo,
Pamplona 1 996) .
18 Hd1
Another, more concrete possibility was cho
sen by White in Shulman -V. Ivanov (Moscow
1995) : 18 Ag4 d6 19 xa5 ! gxa5 20 xa5
ga8 2 1 x a8 A x a8 22 gxa8 g6 with an
unclear game.
18 . . . c5
145
An alternative is 18 . . . d6. Now only a draw

resu lts from 1 9 0-0 (evidently White should
choose 19 f4 !? i n analogy with the Shul
man - San Seg u ndo game, with a position
that is hard to evaluate) 19 . . . ttl b6 20 a1
(20 b5 A a6 21 c5 .;!xc5 22 xc5 A xe2 +)
20 . . . ttl xc4 (20 . . . ttld7!? 2 1 f4 a4 22 ttl d2 00 ;
2 0 . . . .;!xc4 !?) 2 1 A xc4 .;!xc4 2 2 ttl x a5 .;!c3
(or 22 . . . .;!c5 23 ttl x b7 .;!xa1 24 .;!xa1 xd5
25 ttlxc5 xc5 26 ';!fb1 b5 27 ';!b3 d6 =)
23 ttl x b7 .;!xa1 24 ttl xd6 ';!xd1 25 ttlf5+ f6
(25 . . . d7? 26 ';!xd1 b3 27 ttlg3 ! b2 28 ttle2
.;!a3 29 ';!b1 .;!a1 30 c3 .;!a3 31 ';!x b2 .;!xc3
32 f1 ) 26 ';!xd1 xf5 = .
19 xc5
1 9 d6+ f8 20 b5 is not good , if only be
cause of 20 . . . Ac6 21 xc5 Axg2 +.
19 ... l1xc5 20 0-0

8
7
6
6
5
4
The key poi nt of the game. Wh ite is ready

to beg i n an attack (c2 , f2-f4 etc.) and on
Black's next few moves will depend whether
he is able to do anything to counter White's
plan . I now believe that he should be able to
do so.
C) 20 . . . ';!d8 2 1 f4 exf4 22 ';!xf4 e5 , and

if 23 ';!df1 x e3+ 24 h1 f6 25 c2 Axd5
26 x h7 A x g2+ 27 xg2 x e2+ 28 h1
d7 (28 . . . ';!d1 29 .;!e4+) 29 x g7+ c8
when Black is doing fine;
D) 20 . . . .;!e8 2 1 f4 exf4 (21 . . . e4 22 Ag4 f8
23 Ad7 ';!d8 24 A b5 00) 22 ';!xf4 e5 23 gdf1
x e3+ 24 h1 f6 (24 . . . d6 25 .;!xf7)
25 A h 5 ! ? (25 c2 A x d5) 25 . . . ';!d8 26 ';!4f2
with an u nclear game;
E) 20 . . . f8 ! (I think that this is the strongest)
21 f4 (21 c2 g8 22 f4 exf4 23 ';!xf4 'tWe5)
21 . . . ';!d8 (21 . . . e4 22 ';!d4 .;!e8 00) 22 'tWa1 ge8
23 'tWb1 g8 24 Ad3 h6 25 fxe5 'tWxe5 26 gf3
(26 A h7+ h8 (26 . . . f8 27 g6 00) 27 ';!xf7
Aa6 ! 28 ';!df1 .;!cc8 00) 26 . . . Aa6 and I saved
this game only by luck (Gelfand-Vaisser, Eu
ropean Rapid Championsh i p , Cap d 'Agde
1 996).
21 0c2!
Wh ite first i m proves the position of his
queen . If 21 f4 exf4 22 c2 00 (22 ';!xf4 'tWe5
23 ';!df1 ';!f6).
21 . . . a4
B lack does n 't have time to protect his h7
pawn : 2 1 . . . g6 22 f4 Ac8 23 b2 ! exf4
24 d4 xd4 25 exd4 .;!c7 26 c5 , or
21 . . . g6 22 b2 .
22 14
Clearly, Wh ite's first aim is the black king,
and not the h7 pawn . I believe that Wh ite's
attack is decisive.
22 . . . b3
a
8
r-::-
h
8
7
6
20 . . . l1a6?
In my opinion, the rook is not well placed

here. Let us consider Black's other options :
A) 20 . . . d6 21 c2 !? (21 f4 transposes i nto
the Shulman -San Segundo game examined
earl ier; p. 145) ;
B) 20 . . . d6 21 f4 with the i nitiative ;
4
3
2
L...-._______----=-__.....
146
tr
Game 32
ttJ
Gelfand - Piket, Max Euwe Memorial Tournament, VSB Amsterdam 1 996
23 'fJe4!
27 'fJb3!
An important interposition. The black king is

drawn away from the f7 pawn. If 23 x h7
a3 00 , or 23 c3 e4 ! (23 . . . exf4 24 d6+
(24 b4 b6 25 d6+ d8 26 c3 gg5)
24 . . . gxd6 25 b4 gc7 26 gxf4) 24 b4
(24 d6+ gxd6 25 b4 gc7) 24 . . . b6 25 d6+
d8 26 c3 f6 00 .
The best solutio n . After 27 e4 Black would

gain good counterplay:
A) 27 . . . d7 28 e5 b6 29 h1 (29 h3+
c7 30 d6+ b8 31 d7 d8 32 b3 +- is
also strong) 29 . . . a2 30 e6+ e7 31 h7 !
...
23 . . . d6 24 'fJxh7
24 fxe5+ xe5 25 x e5+ x e5 26 gxf7
Ac8 leads nowhere, as the black pawns are
too close to the queening square.
24 . . . e4
Jeroen tries to stem Wh ite's attack at the
cost of another pawn (of what sign ificance
would this be, if another black q ueen were
shortly to appear at a1 I).
The weakness at f7 tel ls in the variations
24 . . . b2 25 fxe5+ x e5 26 gxf7 x e3+
27 h1 +- and 24 . . . exf4 25 gxf4 e5
26 gxf7 xe3+ 27 h1 +-.
24 . . . c7 !?, suggested by Hans B6hm, gives
White a pleasant choice between 25 fxe5
xe5 26 gxf7+ b8 27 d3! gd6 (27 . . . gb6
28 d6 ; 27 . . . b2 28 a3) 28 d2 , and
25 e4 d6 26 fxe5+ x e5 27 d3 f6
28 gf5 e7 29 e4 +-.
31 . . . A xd5 (31 . . . a1 32 xg7 d8 33 d6+ ;

31 . . . b1 32 gx b1 axb1 33 gx b1 ) 32 cxd5
a1 (32 . . . b1 33 gx b1 a x b1 34 gx b1 )
33 xg7 gc1 34 exf7 +-;
B) 27 . . . c7 ! 28 e5 b6 29 d6+ b8
(the king hides in q u ite a safe place ; if
29 . . . d8 30 h1 a2 31 h7 c6 32 h4+
f6 33 h 8+) 30 d4 gc8 (30 . . . a2 31 d7
a1 32 d8 + xd8 33 xd8+ gc8 00 ;
30 . . . Ac8 !?) 31 c5 c6 00 .
27 . . . .tc8
27 . . . c7 28 d6+ gxd6 29 x a3 +-, or
27 . . . a2 28 x b7 a1 29 e4 +- (diagram).
...
25 'fJxe4 a3 26 'fJd3 b2
Or 26 . . . a2 27 x b3 a1 28 gxa1 gxa1
29 xb7.
a
8
7
1-,--::-
e
8
7
5
4
I especially l i ke this position as, despite

Black's extra q ueen , he has no defence
against e4-e5+.
Or 27 . . . e7 28 e4 c7 29 e5.
'"-_______....;:;.-._--1
11
28 'fJb8+ d7 29 .tg4+ d8 30 d6
147
30 . . . a2
..
I n the event of 30 . . . b1 I was planning

31 ..x b1 ..xd6 32 ..bd1 +-, but the brutal
computer suggests 31 d7 ! with mate in 7(!)
after 31 . . . xd1 32 dxc8 + ..xc8 33 ''xd1 +.
31 d7 Black resigns
***
Game 33
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Va l e r y S a l oy
M ad ri d 1 9 96
Queen 's Gambit A ccep ted [028J
1 d4 dS 2 c4 d x c4 3 f3 a6 4 e3 f6
S Axc4 e6 6 Oe2
a
An over-ambitious move. I discovered back

i n 1 988 that this idea is not sound an d I
had to wait eight years for an opportunity
to demonstrate this. 9 . . . b5 is considered
stronger, for example 10 e5 tDd7 (10 . . . bxc4!?
11 exf6 d 3 !) 11 A b3 A b7 12 ..d1 b6
13 c3 e7 (Gelfand - Balashov, Minsk
1 986).
10 eS! d4?!
10 . . . c7 11 Af4 f6 would give Black an extra
pawn, but after 1 2 bd2 g x e5 1 3 tD xe5
fxe5 14 Ag3 it is clear that the pawn is irrel
evant and that Wh ite has the better game.
11 xd4 Oxd4
L...-_______---"'-__-'
As the e5 pawn cannot be defended, it looks

as though Black has seized the i n itiative,
but. . .
(f
I have used a n u m ber of variations against

the Queen 's Gam bit Accepted and here I
preferred the Furman Variation . It makes the
opponent's preparation harder if he h as to
be ready to face different plans. White antic
ipates . . . c7-c5 and removes his queen from
a possible exchange on the d -file. Recently,
thanks to the efforts of Kramn i k and Bareev,
6 0-0 c5 7 dxc5 has become popular, where
Black also has to be careful .
6 . . . c S 7 d x cS Axcs 8 0-0 c6 9 e4
g4?!
148
5
4
3
L...-_______---"'-__-'
{f
Game 33
Gelfand - Salov, Madrid 1996
12 d2!
White sacrifices a pawn , but Black is left ter
ribly behind in development.
1 7 xg7 would allow B lack good counter

play : 1 7 . . . 'ffe 5 (17 . . . Ae5 1 8 h6 ..g8 1 9 f3)
1 8 'ff h 6 ..g8 1 9 ..ad1 Ad7.
17
12 . . . xe5
1 2 . . . b5 1 3 Ad3 x e5 14 Ae4 (14 b3 )
14 . . J b8 15 b3 is simply bad for Black.
13 b3 .xc4 14 .xe5 Af8 15 Ae3

In 1988 I term inated my analysis here, cor
rectly judging that Wh ite h as more than
enough com pensation for the paw n. In the
early n ineties, however, this position oc
curred a few times i n practice, beari ng out
this assessment, and so I gave up hope that
I wou ld be able to profit from my oid analy
sis. Strangely enough, my opponent allowed
me to do so. 1 5 ..d1 !? has also been tried .
15
. . .
d5 N
Black managed to survive after 1 5 . . .f6

1 6 'ff h 5+ g6 1 7 f3 Ae7 1 8 ..ac1 d5
1 9 'ffx d5 exd5 20 ..fe1 Ad8 i n Lerner
Sorokin, (Alekhine Memorial Open , Moscow
1 992) . However, his position was m uch
worse d u ring the course of the game.
15 . . . Ad7 1 6 ..fd1 Ac6 1 7 d4 ! (or 1 7 a5
'i' b5 18 x c6 bxc6 1 9 'ffg 3) si mi larly does
not allow Black to develop his kingside.
e4
1 7 . . . 0-0 was n ot sufficient, because of

1 8 ..fd1 'ffc 6 1 9 ..ac1 'ffd 7 20 c5 e7
(20 . . . Axc5 21 Axc5) 21 e4 A b8 and now :
A) premature is 22 Ac5 A a7 23 A xa7 ..xa7
24 f5 exf5 25 'ff b 8 fxe4 26 ..xc8 'ffc 5+ ! ;
B) 2 2 f2 b 6 (22 . . . ..d8 2 3 ..xd8+ xd8
24 A b6 'ffe 8 25 ..d1 A d7 26 c5 +-,
or 22 . . . 'ff b 4 23 A c5 x e4 24 A xf8
A xf4 (24 . . . 'ffx f4 25 xf4 A xf4 26 ..d8 +-)
25 ..d8 +-) 23 Ax b6 Aa7 24 d6 ;
C) 2 2 <!> h1 ! (the strongest ; Black's pieces are
so awkward ly placed that it is no wonder he
loses material) 22 . . . A a7 23 f5 exf5 24 A h6
g6 25 'ffc3 f6 26 Axf8 <!> xf8 27 xf6 +-.
18 Elad1 Ae7
5
4
16 .g3 Ad6!?
a
. . .
3
d
5
....
..
."""""'...t--....,
_.,....,...."
4
3
2
L...-_______...:_
::...
----I
'\J
19 f5!
5
Played i n the spirit of the position . Wh ite

should keep the black king in the centre and
attack it, rather than restore the material bal
ance. 19 Ad4 'ffg 6 20 'ffx g6 h xg6 21 A x g7
..h5 = would let Black off the hook.
L...-_______----=-__.....I
19 . . . exf5?!
'\J
The right idea. Black is ready to give back his

extra pawn i n order to develop his pieces.
17 f4!
Underestimating White's attack. There would

have been more possibil ities to defend after:
A) 1 9 . . . 'ff h 4? 20 'ffx g7 Af6 21 ..d8+ <!> xd8
2 2 'ffx f7 and wins;
149
B) 1 9 . . . h5?! 20 Ad4 tffg 4 21 tffc7 Ad8

22 tffc3 with a dangerous attack;
C) 19 . . . A h4 20 tff h 3 (20 tffx g7 tffx e3+
21 h1 .!:U8 22 f6 Ad7 00) 20 . . . Ae7 21 Ad4 .
20 Ilfe1 !
Premature is 20 tffx g7 tffx e3+ 2 1 h1 ..f8
22 .!:Ue1 tffb 6.
more qu ickly, but the difference in the plac

ing of Wh ite's pieces and Black's was so
great that I didn't want to force matters.
24 . . . 8?
Losing by force. 24 . . . tfff6 25 A e5 g5
26 h4 .
a
20 . . . "g4
8
7
20 . . . A e6 21 tffx g7 E!f8 was more tena

cious, although Wh ite has a big advantage.
21 "c7 Ae6 22 Ild4

Now Black's position is hopeless, as he can
not castle and he has no defence against
the mating attack. Less good was 22 etlc5 ?!
(22 tffx b7 tffe4) , and now not 22 . . . E!c8
23 etl x e6 E!xc7 24 etl xc7+ f8 25 Ag5
(25 E!d8+ A xd8 26 Ac5+ A e7 27 E!xe7 g6
28 E!e4+ g7 29 A d4+ f6 30 E!xg4 fxg4
31 etl d5 E!f8 32 f2 f7 00 ) 25 . . . f6 26 E!d7,
but 22 . . . E!d8 ! .
22 . . . "g6
3
2
--------
25 Ild7 !
This double exchange sacrifice proves deci
sive.
25 . . . Axd7 26 "xd7 "b6+ 27 ct>h1 Ilea
22 . . .f4 23 tffx b7 E!c8 24 Axf4.
27 . . . d8 28 E!xe7 xd7 29 E!xd7 +-.
23 "xb7 Ilc8
28 Hxe7 ! Hxe7 29 Ad6 "xd6 30 "xd6

h5 31 d4 Ilh6 32 "c5 Ilf6 33 ct>g1
23 . . . E!d8 24 E!xd8+ A xd8 25 Ac5.
24 Af4
Perhaps 24 E!c1 !? E!xc1 + (24 . . . E!d8 25 E!xd8+
A xd8 26 Ac5) 25 A xc1 would have won
Destroying Salov's last hopes : 33 etlxf5 E!xf5,

or 33 etlc6 E!xc6.
***
150
Black resigns
Game 34
Gelfand - Karpov, Vienna 1996
Game 34
B o r i s G e l fa n d - A n a t o l y K a r p o v
V i e n n a 1 9 96
Queen 's Indian Defence lE 1 7]
Unfortunately, top-level tournaments in Aus
tria are extremely rare nowadays. However,
the 1 000 th anniversary of the city was cele
brated with a great chess festival , which con
sisted of a category 18 su per-tou rnament,
an extremely strong grandmaster open , and
eight more tournaments. The games took
place i n Vien na's marvellous Rathaus. I had
to face a legendary opponent, who had been
the best player i n the world for ten years.
Karpov seemed to be in good form - he had
just won his F I DE world championship match
against Gata Kamsky. I am happy that I had
the chance to play dozens of games (as wel l
as many rapid games) against Anatoly in the
1 990s when he was sti l l one of the very best
players in the world.
1 f3 f6 2 c4 b6 3 g3
Wh ite is trying to delay d2-d4 and to avoid
the main lines of the Queen 's Ind ian Defence.
3 . . . .tb7 4 .tg2 e6 5 0-0 .te7 6 c3 0-0

7 11e1 d5 8 cxd5 exd5 9 d4
This position is quite typical . If Wh ite reaches
this position via the Petrosian Variation of the
Queen 's I ndian, he will have a pawn on a3
instead of a rook on e1 . But it is not clear
which of these moves is more usefu l .
9 . . . a6 10 .tf4 c5
a
1 1 dxc5
Other moves are also possible, but I wanted
to define the pawn structure immediately.
1 1 . . . xc5
So, Black decides to play with an iso
lated pawn . I guess that Anatoly d i d n 't l i ke
1 1 . . . b x c5 1 2 ttl e5 (with the idea of e2-e4)
1 2 . . . ttl c7 1 3 ttl c4 ttle6 14 Ae5 and the d5
pawn comes u nder attack.
1 2 11c1 a6
After 1 2 . . . ttlfe4 13 A e5 the bishop goes to
d4 and it is easier to play this position with
Wh ite.
The following year Yan n ick Pelletier achieved
a satisfacto ry position with 1 2 . . . ttl ce4 N
1 3 A e5 Ac5 14 Ad4 "ffJe7 1 5 A h 3 ! gfd8
(15 . . . ttlxc3 16 gxc3 ttle4 (16 . . . A b4 ?! 1 7 ge3
ttle4 1 8 gf1 ) 1 7 gc2 ;t; Pelletier) 1 6 a3 ttl x c3
(16 . . . a5 ? ! 1 7 ttla4 ! Pelletier) 1 7 gxc3 ttl e4
1 8 gc2 a5 1 9 "ffJd 3 ( 1 9 "ffJc 1 !? i nten d
ing "ffJf4 ;t; Pelletier) 1 9 . . . "ffJd 6 20 "ffJe 3 ge8
21 "ffJf4 gad8 !? (21 . . . "ffJx f4 22 gxf4 ;t; Pel letier)
22 "ffJx d6 gxd6 23 e3 ;t; (Gelfand - Pelletier,
Credit Suisse, Biel 1 997) .
1 3 a3
A usefu l move, as in some cases after b2-b4
the b4 pawn needs to be protected .
1 3 . . . 11e8 14 d4 .td6
B lack exchanges bishops in order to gain
some space. If 14 . . . "ffJd 7 15 b4 ttle6 16 A h3,
or 14 . . . ttlfe4 15 b4.
15 .txd6 "xd6 1 6 "d2 Had8 17 11ed1
g6 18 "f4!
a
..
7
6
6
5
-------
151
I took this decision q u ite easily. S u bcon

sciously I felt that this move was strong. Re
cently, browsing through my oid games, I
discovered that a simi lar idea brought me
success agai nst Leonid Basin many years
ago i n the Belorussian Championshi p (see
below, p. 154).
1S
. .
xf4?!
I don 't l i ke this decision, as without the

q ueens Wh ite has more opportun ities for
manoeuvring his pieces. Also, he gains con
trol of the e5 sq uare. It wou ld seem that Ana
toly didn't feel comfortable in this situation ,
as he had won qu ite a number of such pos
itions with the stronger side and normally
it is d ifficult to fight against you r favourite
weapon . 18 . . . fNe7 was better.
24 gdc2 gd8 25 &Dc6 Axc6 26 gxc6, as then

B lack's cou nterplay after 26 . . . d4 27 &D xd4
(27 gx b6 d3 with counterplay) 27 . . . &D xd4
28 ex d4 gxd4 29 gx b6 gxf4 30 gxa6 ge2
31 gf1 is hardly sufficient.
23 . . . dS 24 a5 Ae6
24 . . . b5 Ieaves Black without any counterplay
and with his pieces bad ly placed .
25 e3 AeS 26 Af1 bxa5

26 . . . b5 is s i m i lar to the previous note. If
26 . . . ga7 ? 27 b5 ! .
27 bxa5 Hb7
8
19 gxf4 ;t 'i!?fs 20 e3 Hd6?!

The rook is bad ly placed here. Better was
20 . . . e7 (Black has to bri ng his king to
the centre) 21 b4 &De6 22 &D ce2 gc8, or
20 . . . &Dfe4 !?
21 b4 e6
21 . . . &Dce4 22 &Da4, intending f2-f3 .
L..-_______---"'__--'
22 ee2 He7
a
2S Ha1 !
d
The most difficult move in the game and one

that I am proud of find ing ! Again I fol lowed
one of N i mzowitsch's principles and over
protected the a5 paw n , which is the key to
Wh ite's success. Anatoly spent a lot of time
here, but he failed to fi nd the rig ht defence.
7
6
5
1f
2S . . . De7?!
1f
23 a4!
Wh ite has to create a second weakness (the
a6 pawn), as N imzowitsch wrote in his My
System . H e could also have taken control
of the c -fi le by 23 gd2 , and if 23 . . . &D e8
Blac k does not find the pro per response

to Wh ite's idea. 28 . . . &D e4 is refuted by
29 &D d b5 ! ! +- (H uzman ; if 29 &D de2 g bd7)
29 . . . A x b5 30 &D x e4. Better is 28 . . . e7, or
28 . . . &De6 29 &Dxe6+ (29 gdb1 gx b1 30 gxb1
&D xd4 31 exd4 e7 32 gb6 gx b6 33 axb6
Ac6 34 A x a6 &Dd7 35 b7 &D b8) 29 . . .fxe6
30 gdb1 ;t .
152
29 a2 D b7 30 f3 e6 31 Ddb1 He7
32 b4 e5
Game 34
Gelfand - Karpov, Vienna 1996
Sad ly necessary, as Black loses after

32 . . . xd4 33 exd4 ga7 34 x a6 gaxa6
35 Ax a6 gxa6 36 gb6 gx b6 37 a x b6 Ac6
38 gc1 .
e
8
'"
33 Ilc1 Ilb7 34 Ilab1

a
6
5
--' l}
L...-_______---=-__
49 c2
The simplest decision . N ow Wh ite wins the
rook for the a-pawn.
Black's pieces are extremely passive here

and his time trouble doesn't help.
34
. .
49 . . . Dxe3 50 b2 De2+ 51 b3 Ilxh2

52 a6 Dh1 53 b4 Da1 54 Da5 Db1 +
55 c5 Ilb8 56 a7 Da8 57 c6 h5
58 b7
58 ga6 ! was simpler.
fd7 35 bc6 Ilc7
58 . . . Dxa7+ 59 xa7 d6 60 b6 h4
61 Dc5 h3 62 Dc2 e5 63 Dh2 xf5
64 Dxh3 4 65 c5 f5 66 d4 g4
67 fxg4 fxg4 68 Ilh8 3 69 d3 Black
resigns
35 . . . f6 !?
36 e5 e7 37 Dc3 f6 38 xd7 xd7

39 Ilb8
39 gbc1 e6 40 x e6 gxc3 41 f8+ e7
42 xg6+ h xg6 43 gxc3 d4 allows Black
some counterplay.
39 . . . e6 40 Ilxc7+ xc7 41 2 e7
42 f5 g5 43 e1
The black pieces have no moves and White
is threaten i n g to take his king to c5. There
fore Black decides to force matters.
43
Ab5 44 Axb5 xb5 45 xb5 axb5

46 Ilxb5 Ilc6 47 Ilxd5 Ilc3 48 d2 Ila3
. . .
I especially l i ke this game, because I beat

the g reat Anatoly Karpov i n his own style.
Obviously, he normally used to win i n re
fi ned positional style, rather than lose ! Th is
game remains up till now the o n ly decisive
one after our Cand idates sem i-final match
in 1 995 ! This victory enabled me to win the
tournament on tie -break ahead of Topalov
and Karpov. It is also memorable for the fact
that I managed to beat both of the best play
ers of the mid -seventies to early-eighties,
Karpov and Korchnoi, in one tournament.
* * *
153

A
Similar Idea
(cf. note to White's 18 th move)
Boris Gelfand - Leonid Basin
Belorussian Championshi p 1 985
a
21 . . . Ad6 22 Axd6 "xd6 23 "d2 ge7

24 "f4! "xf4 25 g xf4 e8 26 e3 d6
27 b4 b5 28 a4 a6 29 Ha1 g5 30 axb5
a x b5 31 Hxa8+ Axa8 32 Ha1 Ab7
33 e2 ge8?! 34 fxg5 hxg5 35 c1
Has?! 36 Ha5 c4 37 Hxa8+ Axa8
38 d3 and I managed to win this better
ending.
e
8
7
6
5
4
Position after 2 1 tWc2
***
Game 35
5 a3 Axd2+ 6 "xd2
B o r i s G e l fa n d - V i c t o r Ko rch n o i
V i e n n a 1 9 96
Bogo- Indian Defence [E 1 1]
I don't t h i n k that Victor Korchnoi needs any
further introduction from me. Apart from any
thing else, Dims have recently published his
excel lent books. I would just l i ke to add that
even now, at the age of 73, he remains a
dangerous opponent for everyone and he
has more fighting spi rit than almost anyone
else on the circuit ! I faced him for the first
time in a s i m u ltaneous d isplay in M i nsk i n
1 975, six months before h e defected and his
games became ' half-forbidden ' in the USSR.
White is pinning his hopes on his long -term

trum ps - the pair of bishops , strong centre
etc. Black, on the other hand , has no weak
nesses and he can start an assault on the
kingside by . . . e4, . . .f7-f5 etc. A compli
cated strateg ic battle n ow ensues. 6 Axd2
A b7 7 Ag5 is an alternative way to play.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 Ab4+ 4 bd2
This move is less popular than 4 Ad2. How
ever, I have played it consistently for many
years and generally with good resu lts.
4 . . . b6
G iving up the centre by 4 . . . 0-0 5 a3 Ae7
6 e4 d5 is not to everyone's liking. 4 . . . d5
was played i n Gelfand -Yusupov (Game 22 ,
p. 1 03).
154
6 . . . Ab7 7 e3 0-0 8 Ae2

a
e
8
7
6
8 . . . a5
Game 35
Gelfand - Korchnoi , Vienna 1996
A rare plan , the idea of which becomes clear

on the next move. The majority of my oppo
nents have chosen 8 . . . d6 9 0-0 bd7 10 b4
e4, when Wh ite faces a choice. In fact, he
is sim ply a tempo up, compared with a line
in the N i mzo-I n d ian with 4 c2 (there the
pawn is on b2) , which was popular i n the
early eig hties and is sti l l used from time to
time by Vladimir Kram nik. I therefore believe
that, bei ng a tempo up , White should stand
better, but things are far from clear:
fxe4 26 A a3 (Gelfand - Ionov, USSR Cham

pions h ip First League, Klai peda 1 988) and
White is clearly better.
A2) 1 2 . . . gf6 ! (this d i rect attack is the best
solution) 13 dS
A) 11 d3 is tem pti n g , as from here the

queen is better placed to su pport d4-dS.
After 1 1 . . . fS 1 2 A b2 Black has :
A1 ) 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 d2 gae8 14 f3 (the attack comes to an end , leaving Wh ite with
an enduring advantage) 14 . . . gS (14 . . . xd2
1S tWxd2 ;;!;;) 1S a4 ! (intending to bring the rook
into play on the a-file after a4-aS) 1S . . . g6
16 tWc2 ! (a strong prophylactic move ; if 16 as

eS 1 7 a x b6 (1 7 dS e4 00) 1 7 . . . a x b6 1 8 ga7
e4 with counterplay) 16 . . . cS (16 . . . eS 17 dS)
17 bxcS b x cS 1 8 h1 ! (again prophylaxis
against 1 8 . . . cxd4 19 exd4 h3+ 20 h1
f4) 18 . . . tW h6 1 9 as f6 (19 . . . cxd4 20 exd4
f6 ;;!;; ) 20 d x cS hS 21 g1 d x cS 22 f4 !
(White changes the character of the game,
exchanging Black's good pieces ; if 22 b3
eS 23 xcS h3+ 24 g x h3 xe3+ 2S h1
tWxcs 26 Aa3 tWd4 with defi nite compensa
tion) 22 . . . e4 (22 . . . f7 23 b3 ai m i n g at
the weak cS pawn ; 22 . . . h3+ 23 gxh3 tWg6+
24 f2) 23 Af3 g6 (23 . . . xd2 24 xd2
Axf3 2S g xf3 ) 24 xe4 A xe4 2S A xe4
13 . . . gg6 ! (the rook has taken up its best pos

ition , opposite the wh ite king) 14 d xe6 ? (I
u nderestimated the opponent's attack and
opened the long d iagonal for his bisho p ;
14 e1 !? tW h4 1S f4 00 I liescas ; 14 g3 !? Razu
vaev ; 14 ..ad1 ) 14 . . . f8 1S cS xe6 16 cxd6
cxd6 17 ..ad1 h8 and nearly all Black's
pieces take part i n the attack (Gelfand
I I lescas, Madrid 1 996) ;
B) 1 1 c2 cS (11 . . . fS 1 2 dS and if 1 2 . . . exdS
1 3 d4 00 is another theoretical l ine) , and
now :
B 1 ) 1 2 d2 was tried i n another game
of m i n e : 12 . . . xd2 1 3 xd2 (13 A xd2 !?)
13 . . . gS 14 f3 ..fd8 1S ..d1
1 S . . . d S ! (realising that the bishop pair may

become a dangerous factor, Black starts
concrete counterplay in the centre) 16 b2 !
c x b4 1 7 x b4? ! (as shown by Anand,
White's only chance to fight for an edge was
17 e4 ! tWe7 18 cxdS exdS 19 eS bxa3 20 tW b3
155
f8 21 Axa3 (0) 17 . . . Aa6 18 e4 g6 1 9 a4

Axc4 20 Axc4 dxc4 21 xc4 with an equal
game (Gelfand -Anand, Dortmund 1 996) ;
without wasting a tempo on moving the

bishop twice.
B2) 12 A b2 Ek8 13 gad1 dS ! (13 . . . fS 14 dxcS

b x cS 1 S d2 gS 1 6 f4 l!fg6 1 7 Af3 df6
1 8 A xf6 gxf6 1 9 A xe4 fxe4 20 b3 )
14 d x cS bxcS 1 S Ad3 fS ! (1S . . . l!fe7 1 6 bS
fS (16 . . . h6 17 A xe4 d x e4 18 eS ;I; ) 17 eS
x eS 18 A xeS d6 1 9 f3 ;1; ) 16 bS d6
1 7 eS ;I; and here the advantage of the two
bishops is very relevant (Gelfand - Macieja,
Akiba Rubi nstein M emorial , Polanica Zdroj
1 998) .
1 3 . . . e4 14 l!fe1 x eS 1 S d xeS l!fgS

(1S . . . l!f h4 1 6 gd3) 1 6 Af1 l!f hS (16 . . . l!fg6
1 7 Ad3) 1 7 f3 gS 1 8 l!fg3 (18 h4 xf3+
19 g xf3 dxc4 (0) is in White's favour.
9 b3 d5!? N
A new approach to this position . Black puts
direct pressure on the centre.
13
14 ctlxd7
I decided to exchange a pair of knights.
14 e1 a4 ! (14 . . . cxd4 1S Axd4 ;1; ) gives Black
good counterplay, for exam ple: 1 S xd7
gxd7 16 b4 c x b4 17 l!fx b4 l!fx b4 18 axb4
dxc4 1 9 Axc4 gc7.
14 . . . ctlxd7
14 . . . gxd7 1S l!fe1 ;1; .
15 11ac1
10 0-0 ctlbd7 11 J.b2

1 1 gd1 l!fe7 1 2 a4 cS 1 3 A a3 was an alter
native.
11
..,
c5
a
l1fd8
7
b
4
e
3
2
'if
15
a4
Th is is the accurate move order. Bad is

1S . . . cxd4 16 exd4 a4 17 cS ! and if 17 . . . bxc5
18 dxcS xcS 19 l!fd4.
1 6 bxa4 dxc4
1 2 11fd1
1 2 cxdS A xdS 1 3 b4 e4 14 l!fe1 a x b4
1 S axb4 gxa1 1 6 Axa1 l!fa8 = .
. .
This allows B lack to simpl ify the position.

1S a4 !? gac8 16 gac1 or 16 Aa3 !?
Now B lack's idea becomes clear. Because

of his weakness on b3, Wh ite cannot clear
the centre.
12
e7 1 3 ctle5
Another possibility was 13 a4 gfd8 14 A a3

e4 1S l!f b2 . However, it would have been
more log ical to do this on the 11 t h move,
1 6 . . . gxa4 1 7 cxdS AxdS 1 8 A bS.
17 J.xc4 ctle5 18 J.e2

Definitely not 18 Af1 71 f3+ ! -+, or 18 A bS?
Af3 ! (18 . . . f3+ 1 9 g x f3 A xf3 20 f1 l!fg5
21 l!fc3 g2+ 22 e1 ) 1 9 ge1 l!fgS.
156
18 . . .g5?!
Game 35
Gelfand - Korchnoi, Vienna 1996
This leads to a better end ing for Wh ite. It

appears that Black could have equalised
by 18 . . . cxd4 1 9 A xd4 ( 1 9 exd4 tb g6 00
with the idea of . . . tb h4) 1 9 . . . tb c6 20 b2
tbxd4 21 gxd4 gxd4 22 xd4 (22 exd4
h6 =, but not 22 . . . d6?! 23 gb1 ) 22 . . . xa3,
but after 23 ga1 (23 gd1 Ac6 24 A b5 !?)
23 . . . b3 24 f3 ! (24 Ad1 d5 25 xd5 Axd5
26 ..b1 ..a6 =) his problems are not yet over:
24 . . . c2 (24 . . . Ac6 25 A d1 d5 26 x b6)
25 A d3 c5 (25 . . . c7 26 g b1 ) 26 xc5
bxc5 27 a5 .
1g e4!
a
..
e
8
7
6
5
4
The only move, but a strong one anyway.

Now the game transposes i nto an ending.
19
. . .
xd2 20 Hxd2 .txe4 21 Hcd1
An inaccuracy. The same idea would h ave

been stronger after 21 f3 ! A b7 (21 . . . A c6
22 a5 ! gxa5 23 Ac3 gxa3 24 d xe5 gxd2
25 A xd2 ga2 26 gd1 A a4 27 Ac4 +-)
22 gcd1 (22 a5 b x a5 (22 . . . gxa5 23 A c3)
23 gxc5 tb g6 =) 22 . . . tb c6 23 d x c5 gxd2
24 ..xd2 bxc5 25 ..d7 .
21
. .
c6
21 . . . cxd4 22 A xd4 , or 21 . . . tb g6 22 d x c5
..xd2 23 gxd2 bxc5 24 f3 Ad5 25 A b5 .
22 dxc5 Hxd2
22 . . . b x c5 23 gxd8+ gxd8 24 gxd8+ tb xd8
25 a5 .
23 Ilxd2 bxc5 24 .tb5
e
8
24 . . . a5?
B lack misses a chance to exchange one
of the bishops : 24 . . . tb d4 25 A xd4 c xd4
26 ''xd4 A d5 when he is very close to a
d raw, as his king goes to the centre and
White cannot push h is a-pawn any further.
25 Hd7
This end ing is definitely in Wh ite's favour be
cause of the bishop pair and the passed a
pawns. The fact that they are doubled didn't
bother me too much. And it is always en
joyable playing when your opponent doesn 't
have any counterplay.
25 . . . h5
I think it was more accurate to put the pawn
on h6 and not create any extra weaknesses.
26 h4
26 h3 !?
26 . . . .td5 27 Hc7 c4
27 . . . tb b3 28 f3 ;t and White i m proves his
position by playi ng his king to e3 fol lowed
by g2-g4 etc.
28 .tc1
I decided to avoid going i nto an opposite
colour bishop end ing by exploiting Black's
weakness on the kingside. 28 A x c4 A x c4
29 gxc5 gxa4 (29 . . . Ad5 is the lesser evil ,
with a tenable endgame after 3 0 a5 ;t )
30 gg5 ! g6 31 gc5 f8 32 Af6 e8 33 gc7
e5 (33 . . . A d5 34 ge7+ f8 35 gd7 ga8
36 gd6 A b3) 34 ge7+ f8 35 gd7 ga8
36 Axe5 .
157
28 . . . .tid6?!
Th is came as a surprise to me, as I felt that
the h4 pawn was irrelevant to waste so many
tem pi on winning it. I was more expecting
28 . . . b6 29 xc5 xa4 30 c7 .
29 Hxc5 .tif5 30 .ld2
I ' m not sure if this was the right move, as
Wh ite had other nice options such as 30 Ad3
xh4 31 f3 (31 a5 Axg2) 31 . . . g6 32 a5 A b7
33 xh5 , or 30 Ac4 !?
30 . . . .tixh4 31 a5
a
e
-.r.=-I
31
. .
16?
The decisive mistake. 31 . . . f5 (31 . . . Axg2 ?

32 Ag5 +-; 31 . . . xg2 ? 32 xd5 +-) was
more tenacious :
A) 32 Af1 d6 33 f3 b7 with counterplay;

8) 32 c7 d4;
C) 32 a6 d4 (32 . . . d6 33 Ad3 e4
34 Axe4 Axe4 35 a5 ;1;) 33 Af1 b3 34 c2
xd2 35 xd2 f6 36 c2 a7 ;1; ;
D) 32 Ad3 A b7 (32 . . . d4 33 Ac3) 33 c7
(33 A xf5 exf5 34 xf5 d8 35 A b4 d5 =;
33 Ac3 !?) 33 . . . A a6 34 Ae4 d8 35 A b4 .
32 .lf1 +-
Now nothing can stop the a-pawn.
4
3
32 . . . .tif5 33 a6 Ha7 34 .la5 .tid6 35 .lb6

Has 36 Hc7 Hc8 37 Hxc8+ .tixc8 38 .lc5
00 39 a7 .tie7 40 .le2 Black resigns
Ae2-f3 is unavoidable.
***
Minsk 1986: Boris Gelfand and Alexander Khalifman analyse the 8 l1b 1 variation of the GrOnfeld Defence .
158
Game 36
Gelfand - Sutovsky, Fontys, Tilburg 1 996
Game 36
B o r i s G e l fa n d - E m i l SutoYs ky
F o n tys , Ti l b u rg 1 9 96
King 's Indian Defence [E94J
It was excel lent that, after a one -year break,
the tradition of stag ing famous chess tour
naments i n Tilburg was restored , albeit with
new sponsors. The organ isers were able to
maintain the extremely high standards. How
ever, the new sponsors - a group of universi
ties - preferred to have mainly young players
in their tournament. And again I was i nvited
just a few weeks before the start, to replace
a player who had withdrawn . Th is time I per
formed better i n this role than I had i n Am
sterdam earl ier that year, and I managed to
tie for first place with Jeroen Piket.
My opponent i n the present game was then
the world under-20 champion and this en
sured his invitation to the tournament. Su
tovsky is a player with a sharp attacking style
who has won a n u m ber of beautifu l tactical
games. I have been a victim once and have
witnessed some of the others, as we are
colleagues in the Israeli national team . Dur
ing the last few years Emil has improved his
endgame technique (I hope, u nder my i nflu
ence) and this has enabled him to get very
close to the magic 2700 mark.
The plan with . . . tDa6 against d ifferent vari

ations of the King's Ind ian Defence became
popular in the late 1 980s, than ks to g rand
master Igor Glek. I was one of the players
who tried it regularly, and so I hoped that this
experience would help me when playing with
the opposite colour.
7 0-0 e5 8 e3 c6 9 d5 g4 1 0 g5 16
1 1 h4
11 Ad2 f5 12 tDg5 tDf6 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4 e4
1 5 A e3 c5 did not bri ng me any advantage
in my encounter with Veselin Topalov earl ier
that year in Novgorod (in fact I was happy to
draw).
1 1 . . . c5 12 e1 !? N
1 2 tDd2 is the alternative plan and it is simply
a matter of taste which one is preferred . I n
fact, this i s one of the key qu estions i n the
Ki n g 's I ndian Defence. However after this
game 12 tDe1 became the main move.
a
..
e
8
7
6
3
2
1 d4 16 2 c4 g6 3 c3 g7 4 e4 d6
5 e2 0-0 6 f3 a6
1 2 . . . h6
8
7
6
3
2
if
The following year Topalov played 12 . . . h5 !?N

against me. The bishop at h4 is more vulnerable and the play becomes sharper. 1 3 a3
"ffe7 14 g b1 b6 (14 . . . tD h6!? 15 f3 g5 16 Af2
f5 1 7 b4 b6 with counterplay) 1 5 b4 Ad7
16 tDd3 (both sides have made usefu l moves
on the q ueenside - Black has run out of
them , so he forces matters on the kin g side, b u t t h i s i nvolves a pawn sacrifice ; if
16 h3 tD h6 17 f3 g5 18 Af2 f5 19 exf5 tD xf5
159
with cou nterplay) 1 6 . . . g5 1 7 Ag3 f5 1 8 h3

f6 19 bxc5 xc5 (19 . . . bxc5 wou ld have
left the knight at a6 out of the game 20 A xh5 fxe4 21 e1 ; 1 9 . . . f4 !? 20 c6
Ac8 21 A h2 (21 A x h 5 fxg3 22 fxg3 g4!
23 hxg4 tLl xh5 24 gxf8+ Axf8 25 gxh5 g5)
21 . . . g4 22 h1 A h6 23 a4 and Black's
threats are not so dangerous) 20 xc5
bxc5 21 A xh5 x h 5 (21 . . . g4 22 A h4)
22 xh5 Ae8 23 f3 f4 (23 . . . g4 24 hxg4 f4
25 A h2 Ad7 26 g b7 !) 24 A h2 Af6, and now
25 d3 !? (25 g4?! h7 Gelfand -Topalov,
Dortmund 1997) 25 . . . g7 26 f3 would have
left Black with insufficient compensation for
the pawn .
13 d3 1Je8
1 3 . . . d7 was recommended by Sutovsky,
but I don't like this move as it leaves Black's
pieces very poorly coordinated .
14 f3 f7
Black could have begun with 14 . . . f5 but this
would have given White an additional possi
bility: 15 g4 f7 16 gxf5 (1 6 h1 fxg4 17 fxg4
A h6) 16 . . . g xf5 17 h1 h8 18 b5 !? 00 .
15 Hb1
Th is is qu ite a typical position for the King's
I ndian Defence. White has to break through
on the b -fi le, while B lack h as to prepare a
kingside attack. But as it will take him a con
siderable time, I prefer Wh ite's position here.
Now 15 g4 does not make much sense, be
cause of 1 5 . . . e7 , intending . . . A h6.
1 5 . . . f5 1 6 b4 b6 17 bxc5
17 a4 !? A h6 (threaten ing . . . Ae3) 18 Af2 Ad7
1 9 a5 e7 20 a x b6 a x b6 21 b x c5 b x c5
22 a4 00 was an alternative that I con
sidered , but Black can gain good counter
play by 22 . . . A x a4 23 x a4 fxe4 24 fxe4
g5.
There were two alternatives :

A) 1 7 . . . dxc5 !? and now :
A1 ) 1 8 b5 Ad7 1 9 a4 allows Black to
set u p a blockade with 1 9 . . . A x b5 20 c x b5
c7 2 1 b2 d6 22 c4 d7 23 tLl xd6
xd6, and as Wh ite no longer has his knight,
the q ueen can not be d riven away from the
blockading sq uare d6 and can later be re
placed by the knight ;
A2) 1 8 a4 !? d6 1 9 b5 (normally White
should try to exchange B lack's c8 bishop,
but here it is more im portant to get rid of the
blockad ing kn ight) 1 9 . . . xc4 20 xc5 tLle3
2 1 c1 x c5 (21 . . . xf1 22 d6 loses the
queen) 22 xe3 ;
B) 1 7 . . . xc5 1 8 b5 d7 1 9 x c5 bxc5
20 a4 and the exchange of the bad tLla6
hasn 't solved Black's problems.
18 1Ja4!
This queen exchange elimi nates all counter
play by B lack, after which he will be con
demned to defence.
18 . . . 1Jxa4 19 xa4 Ad7 20 c3 Hfb8

21 b5! ;t
B lack h as no active plan at all after this
m ove. 21 ..b3 ..x b3 22 a x b3 ..b8 23 ga1
..x b3 24 ..xa6 ..xc3 25 ..xa7 Ae8 wou ld
have al lowed an u n necessary simplification
of the position and given Black counterplay.
17 . . . bxc5
21 . . . Ah6 22 Af2
160
Game 36
Gelfand - Sutovsky, Fontys, Ti lburg 1 996
2S ga2 Ac3
The bishop has fulfilled its duties on the h4d8 diagonal , and now it is time to cover
the e3 sq uare. Black equalised after 22 gb3
Ax bS 23 gx bS /!i) c7 24 g b3 gx b3 2S a x b3
Ae3+ 26 Af2 Axf2+ 27 xf2 fxe4 28 fxe4 as
29 ga1 i n the game Kiriakov - Isupov, (Orel
1997).
.1
7
6
5
22 . . . ct>fS
4
3
8
...._
.;;....
---I {f
L..._
._
_
_
_
_
_
29 exf5!
An i m portant decision . White rules out any

possibility of his e4 pawn becom ing a target,
and he begins an attack on the fS pawn and
on the kingside in general .
L..-_______----=-__....J
{f
29 . . . g xf5 30 ct>f1 30 . . . tila6 31 Ad1

tilb4?!
23 gb3?!
23 g b2 ! was another, perhaps more accu
rate possibil ity, but I wanted to provoke the
exchange on bS. After 23 . . . g b7 (23 . . . A x bS
24 cxbS /!i) c7 2S a4) 24 gfb1 e7 ;t; it is hard
to suggest the next usefu l move for Black.
23 . . . Axb5 24 gxb5 tilc7 25 gb3

2 S gaS abandons the b -file and al lows
2S . . . gb7 with the idea of . . . gab8 and . . . Ad2.
2S gbb1 gb6 26 /!i)xcS dxcS 27 AxcS+ e8
leads to an unclear position .
25 . . . Iixb3 26 axb3 a5 27 ga1 Ad2

27 . . .fxe4 28 fxe4 /!i) gS was an alternative,
but it would allow Wh ite to break through
with 29 /!i) xcS !? (29 Af3 /!i) xf3+ 30 g xf3 ;t; )
29 . . . d xcS 30 A xcS+ e8 31 A b6 /!i)a6
32 Ad3 (32 gxaS /!i) xe4 33 Ad3 /!i)d2 34 cS
(34 b4 gb8 3S gxa6 gx b6 36 gx b6 A e3+
37 h1 A x b6 38 cS Ad8 39 d6 d7)
34 . . . Ae3+ 3S h1 /!i) x b3 36 gxa6 gxa6
37 A x a6 /!i) xcS =) 32 . . . /!i) b4 33 A b1 Af8
34 f1 , although this position is far from
clear.
I t h i n k that this exchange is in Wh ite's

favou r. After 31 . . . g7 32 ga4 (the i m m e
diate 3 2 Ac2 is met b y 3 2 . . . e4) and Ac2 h e
has only a sl ight advantage.
32 tilxb4 Axb4 33 Ac2

Forcing a weaken ing of Black's kingside.
33
. .
tilh6
33 . . . e4 34 fxe4 f4 is too elaborate for an

ending : 3S g3 .
34
Ae3 f4
34 . . . g7 3S A x h6+ xh6 36 AxfS leads to
a type of opposite -colour bishop ending that
is extremely d ifficult to defend , as Fischer
and several other players have shown many
ti mes, although it is also very hard to win
after 36 . . . gS ! '
35 Ac1 g7 36 g3
White gains space for his bishops.
36 . . . fxg3
36 . . . gfB 37 gxf4 exf4 38 Ad3 .
161
37 hxg3 gfS 38 g2 tilf5 39 f4! tild4
39 . . . h5 40 fxe5 dxe5 41 Axf5 gxf5 42 Ae3 ,

or 3 9 . . . A e1 !? 40 A xf5 (40 g4 tiLl d4 41 f 5 h5
(41 . . . g b8 ! ?) 42 h3 h x g4+ 43 xg4 tiLl xc2
44 gxc2 g b8) 40 . . . gxf5 41 g4 gf7 42 f5 h5
43 f3 ;t .
56 e1 tiLl e6 (56 . . . e4 57 f1 ) 57 gf5+ e4

58 gf6 tiLld4.
40 fxe5 dxe5
7
6
4
a
56
______...._
L..._
...::...
----l
lf
41 95!
By seizing this i m portant diagonal , Wh ite
makes the d -pawn very powerfu l . Black will
soon be forced to g ive u p the exchange for
it.
41 . . . h6 42 h4 1lf7
42 . . . f7 43 Ad1 .
43 d6 Ild7 44 e7 cm7 45 d1 J:be7
46 Ilf2+?!
A tempti ng check, but it takes away an i m

portant sq uare from t h e k i n g a n d makes
Wh ite's task more d ifficult. 46 d x e7 x e7
47 f2 +- and the king goes to e4.
46 . . . e6 47 dxe7 xe7 48 cm1 e6

49 Hh2
49 g4 e4 50 gh2 e5 51 gx h6 f4 52 gf6+
g5 53 gd6 f4 54 gd5 was also possible.
49 . . . cm5!
The king becomes active and creates a lot of
problems. If 49 . . . e4 50 gx h6+ e5 51 gh5+
f6 52 g4 e3 53 gd5 g6 54 g5 +-.
50 Ilxh6 e4 51 94 d2 52 Hh2 f4
53 Hh3 d2 54 cm2 cm4 55 Ilh5 e3+
56 cm1
c1 ?
Losing control of the g - pawn . 56 . . . tiLle6

was the best chance, tryi ng to block the
pawn . In this case after 57 gf5+ e4 I would
have faced serious technical difficulties :
A) 58 gf6 tiLl d4 59 e1 and there is no win
after:
A1 ) 59 . . . Af4 60 ga6 ! (60 gd6 d3 61 gd5
Ag3+ (61 . . . a4 62 b x a4 xc4 63 gd7 b4
64 g b7+ ) 62 f1 d2 63 g5 x d1 64 g6
e4 65 g7 e3 66 g2 e2 67 gh5 e1 'tW 68 gh1
c2 69 gxe1 Axe1 70 g8 'tW xb3) 60 . . . d3
61 gg6 Ag3+ (61 . . . e4 62 g5 f5 63 ga6
A xg5 64 gxa5 ) 62 f1 d2 63 g2 Af4
64 Af3 tiLl x b3 ;
A2.) o r 5 9 . . . d3 6 0 gg6 e4 (60 . . . Ad2+

61 f1 Af4 62 g5) 61 g5 Ad2+ 62 f1 f5
(62 . . . e3 63 gd6) 63 Ae2+ c2 64 gf6 g3+
65 f2 A xg5;
B) 58 Af3+ ! (it is i m portant to bri ng the
bishop back i nto the game, otherwise it
is d ifficult for the g - pawn to cross the g5
sq uare) 58 . . . d3 (58 . . . d4 59 Ad5 tiLl g5
60 e2 Af4 61 gf8 c3 62 gb8) 59 Ad5 d4
60 gxe5 tiLl x b3 61 g5 a4 62 g6 a3 63 ge7 a2
64 ga7 a1 'tW + 65 gxa1 tiLl xa1 66 g7 +-.
162
57 95 f5?
Game 37
Rublevsky - Gelfand , Akiba Rubinstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1998
57 . . . f5 58 g6+ xg6 59 gxe5 A a3 would

have put up more of a resistance, but would
not have saved the game.
58 g6 e7
58 . . . tD g3+ 59 g2 tD x h5 60 Axh5 +-.
ttJ
59 g7 e4 60 Ilxc5 Ab2 61 !lc7 Black

resigns
Soon after the tournament I was very
pleased to receive a call from Vladimir Kram
n i k, in which he highly praised this game.
***
Game 37
Sergey R u b l ev s k y - B o r i s G e l fa n d
A k i b a R u b i nste i n M e m o r i a l To u r n a m e n t ,
Sergey Rublevsky is relatively l ittle -known to
the chess public outside of Russia, but his
strength is obvious to even the best play
ers in the world . H is rating has hard ly ever
been below 2650 during the last five years. It
is both easy and difficult to prepare against
him. H is open ing repertoire is very narrow,
so normal ly you can easily guess which vari
ations he is going to choose. On the other
hand , he polishes them u ntil they are shin
ing and he knows all their ins and outs. So,
even though I was sure about the position
we were going to reach , he sti l l managed to
come out of the opening with an advantage.
This game was also i m portant for the tour
nament standings. The previous year Sergey
had won this tournament with a bri l l iant 7
out of 9, leaving me in second place a point
behind. Th is year too he was in contention
for the top places until the last round.
have also occu rred in my games, but the

variation chosen here is the most sol id.
4 Axd7+ "xd7 5 c4 c6 6 c3 f6
7 0-0
Wh ite can try to keep his knight on d4 by
the fi nesse 7 d4 c x d4 8 tD xd4 g6 (8 . . . g4
is probably the reason why Wh ite prefers
7 0-0, but even after the exchange of queens
the game is not drawn : 9 xg4 tD xg4
10 tD xc6 bxc6 11 Af4 etc .) 9 f3 Ag7 1 0 Ae3
0-0 1 1 0-0 d8 1 2 tD de2 ( 1 2 d2 is more
log ical , but Black is alright after 1 2 . . . a5)
12 . . . a5 13 !'k1 a6 14 tDf4 (14 a4 transposes
i nto the Kram n i k - Gelfand game, analysed
below, p. 164) 14 . . . tD d7 15 a3 ?!
1 e4 c5 2 f3 d6 3 Ab5+ Ad7
I
analysed this variation i ntensively du ring

my candidates match with Vladimir Kram
nik in 1 994, si nce when it has served me
wel l for many years. This has happened with
me (an d , I wou ld guess, not only with me)
many times - the level of preparation be
fore and during such matches is so intensive
and deep, that you can use such analysis for
many years to come. 3 . . . tD d7 and 3 . . . tD c6
15 . . . e6 !
A deep strategic idea: Black sacrifices the

d6 pawn , but i n return he keeps the wh ite
knight out of the im portant d5 sq uare and
gains some tem pi for cou nterplay. Th is re
m i nds me very m uch of the Ki n g's Indian
Samisch Variation with 6 . . . c5 . Some famil iar
ideas can be seen in the notes to the game
Gheorghiu - Gelfand (No. 14, p. 70) .
163
16 'tWxd6? (accepting the Greek gift; 1 6 d3

was safer and better) 16 . . . de5 17 'tWc5
gfc8 ! 18 ce2 (18 gfd1 'tWxc5 19 A xc5
xc4 +) 1 8 . . . 'tWa4 ! (18 . . . 'tWxc5 19 A xc5
a5 !? +) 19 Af2 ( 1 9 c3 'tW b3) 19 . . . Af8
20 'tWe3 xc4 and Black stood better in Shi
rov- Gelfand , (Akiba Rubi nstein M emorial ,
Polan ica Zdroj 2000).
his q ueen . I n my fi rst game in this line I

failed to play well and was deserved ly pun
ished : 1 2 . . . gfc8 13 b3 'tWd8 14 h1 d7
15 Ag5 'tWa5 16 'tWd2 c5 17 gab1 e6 18 gfd1
(18 'iWxd6? x b3 1 9 g x b3 'tWxg5 20 gx b7
a5) 1 8 . . . gab8 1 9 A h4 ! 'tW b6 (19 . . . AfS
20 f4 ;t ) 20 'tWxd6!?
g6 8 d4 cxd4 9 xd4 Ag7

a
6
5
4
3
20 . . . Ae5 ?
L...-_______---=-__--'
'if
10 de2
I n Tkachiev - Gelfand , (F I DE World Cham
pionsh i p , G ron ingen 1 997) the rare m ove
10 c2 led to a d raw after 10 . . . 0-0 11 'tWe2
a6 1 2 Ad2 gab8 13 gac1 b5 ! 14 c x b5 a xb5
15 d5 (15 xb5 xe4 16 'tWxe4 gxb5 17 b4
ga8) 1 5 . . . e6 1 6 cb4 exd5 1 7 x c6 gb6
1 8 exd5 xd5 1 9 'tWf3 %-% .
10 . . . 0-0
The very concrete 10 . . . 'tWe6 became popular
after the Kasparov -The World game in 1 999.
11 f3 a6 1 2 a4
A Mar6czy-style position has arisen where
Wh ite has some space advantage. How
ever, Black has exchanged his worse piece
in such a structure - his light-square bishop,
so I believe that his position is very secure
here.
12
. . .
d8!?
The m ost precise move. In the fi rst in

stance Black must i m prove the position of
I m m ediately after the game I fou nd the

strong sacrifice 20 . . . gd8 ! (20 . . . xb3?
21 a5) 21 Axd8 (21 'tWg3 !? H ickl) 21 . . . gxdS,
and now :
A) 22 'tWg3 d3 23 gf1 {23 d5 gxd5
(23 . . . f2+ 24 g1 h3+ 25 f1 ) 24 cxd5
f2+ 25 'tWxf2 'iWxf2 26 d x c6 b x c6 27 f4
A h6 =) 23 . . . 'tW b4 24 d1 (24 d5 exd5
25 cxd5 a5 oo ; 24 a2 'iWd2 +) 24 . . . 'tWd2
with counterplay;
B) 22 a5 'iWx a5 23 b4 gxd6 24 bx a5 gxd1 +
25 x d 1 (25 gxd1 x a5 26 gd8+ Af8 +)
25 . . . xa5 with fu ll compensation for the ex
change.
2 1 'iWd2 x b3 22 'tW b2 ! (Vlad i m i r gains
the i n itiative with a beautifu l combina
tion) 22 . . . ca5 23 d5 ! exd5 (23 . . . Axb2 ?
2 4 x b6 gc6 25 d7) 2 4 'iWx e5 xc4
(24 . . . dxe4 25 f4 !? xc4 26 d5 !) 25 'tWxd5
(25 'tW f4 !? oo Kramn i k) 25 . . . 'tWe3 ? {25 . . . e3 !
26 'tWd3 (26 'iWd6 'tWxd6 27 gxd6 c5
28 c3 !? ;t ) 26 . . . x d1 27 'tWxd1 'tWc6 !
28 'tWx b3 'iWc2 29 d4 !? ;t ) 26 ge1 ! (Kram
nik- Gelfand , F I DE Candidates Quarter-Final,
Sang h i Nagar 1 994(3)) .
164
1 3 Ae3 .a5 14 h1
Game 37
Rublevsky - Gelfand , Akiba Rubinstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1998
Black d rew comfortably after 14 gc1 d7

1 5 b3 cS 16 a2 gac8 17 g b1 b5 !?
1 8 c x b5 (18 b4 't'fx a4) 1 8 . . . a x bS 19 ax b5
xb5 20 ac3 't'fd3 ! 21 d5 gb8 ! = (Kram
nik- Gelfand , F I DE Candidates Quarter-Final ,
Sanghi Nagar 1 994(7)) .
14 . . . IUd8?
Faced with a novelty, I i m mediately made
a mistake. The rook on d8 takes away an
important square from the q ueen . 14 . . . d7
15 gb1 has been tested a few times in prac
tice. Wh ite keeps a slight edge, but Black
has a safe position . 14 . . . gac8 was the nor
mal move, as 1 5 d5 d7 1 6 b4 doesn 't
work because of 16 . . . 't'fd8, and the c4 pawn
becomes really weak.
Worthy of serious consideration was a pawn
sacrifice, sim ilar to my game with Shirov :
14 . . . e6 !? 1 5 't'fxd6 gfd8 1 6 't'fa3 (16 't'fc5
d7) 16 . . . gd3 <55 . In fact I found this idea dur
ing an analysis of this game and I was happy
to put it into practice in a simi lar position two
years later.
15 ctld5!
15 b3 b4, or 15 b3 e6 intending . . . d6-d5.
15 . . . ctlxd5
Unfortunately, this is forced , as bad is
15 . . . d7 16 b4 x b4 (the rook has taken
away the d8 square from the queen) 17 Ad2.
16 exd5 ctle5
tt:J
Wh ite has to prevent . . . b7-bS and . . . e7-e6

if he wants to keep an advantage. He needs
to play precisely and energetically to do this.
17 b3?!
With the stronger 17 Ad4! (if 17 't'f b3 d7)
Wh ite could have consolidated his advan
tage after 1 7 . . . 't'fb4 :
A) 18 gc1 and now:
A1 ) 18 . . . A h6 1 9 f4 xc4 20 b3 (or 20 Ac3 !?
c5 21 b4 c8 22 a5 ! (22 d4 f6 23 e4 !?
e5 24 dxe6 d5) 22 . . . gd7 23 d4 f6 24 d3 )
20 . . . b6 (20 . . . aS 21 Ac3 't'f b6 22 't'fd3 !
(th reaten in g b3-b4) 22 . . . gac8 23 't'f h3
with the threat of A x a5) 2 1 Ac3 't'fc5
(21 . . . e4 22 Aa5 xd5 23 g3 ) 22 't'fe1 !
(22 Ag7 Axg7 23 gxc5 dxc5 ; 22 Ad4 b4 =)
22 . . . xd5 23 A aS , and Black hard ly has
sufficient com pensation for the exchange,
as control of the c -fi le is very important ;
A2) 1 8 . . . gac8 1 9 b3 d7 2 0 A x g7 <i!> xg7

21 d4 c5 22 f4 e5 23 d xe6 fxe6 ;J;; ;
A3) 1 8 . . . bS 1 9 Ac3 (1 9 a x bS a x bS 20 Ac3
't'fa4 21 b3 't'fa6 =) 1 9 . . . 't'fx a4 (19 . . . 't'fc5
20 c x b5 , and if 20 . . . a x bS 2 1 A x eS) 20 b3
't'fa3 21 cS ! with the th reat of c5-c6, and
Black's q ueen is in danger - 21 . . . d xc5
22 ga1 ;
A4) B lack has to settle for a slightly worse
position after 18 . . . d7, as he cannot free
hi mself by tactical means;
B) 18 b3, when :
6
5
4
3
2
--------
B 1 ) Black can not free h imself by 1 8 . . . b5

19 f4 g4 (19 . . . d7 20 Axg7 <i!> xg7 21 d4 !)
20 A x g7 <i!> x g7 21 't'fd4+ (21 d4 't'fcS !
(21 . . . e3 22 't'fe1 ) 22 e6+ fxe6 23 't'fxg4
exd5 24 't'fe6 d xc4 25 't'fx e7+ <i!> g8 26 f5
't'feS 27 't'f h4 gf8 00 ) 21 . . . f6 because of
22 g4 ! (22 c x b5 't'fxd4 (22 . . . 't'fx b3 23 b6
't'fxd5 24 a5 (55 ) 23 xd4 xd5 with coun
terplay) 22 . . . <i!> g8 23 g5 d7 24 cxb5 xb3
25 gab1 ;
165
B2) 18 . . . tLl d7 ! 19 A xg7 xg7 20 tLl d4 tLl c5

21 f4 e5 22 d x e6 fxe6 t with a defensi ble
position , although White stands clearly bet
ter.
17 . . . d7 18 Ad4
After 18 b1 b5 19 d4 Axd4 ! 20 Axd4 bxc4
21 bxc4 ac8 the weak a4 and c4 pawns
give Black good cou nterplay i n exchange
for his dark-sq uare bishop. As White cannot
gain an attack here, Black is alright.
18 . . . f6
After 1 8 . . . A xd4 1 9 tLl xd4 Wh ite wou ld
achieve his ideal set-up - he has prevented
both . . . b7-b5 and . . . e7-e6 and he can
choose between increasing the pressure on
the e -fi le and a d i rect attack on the king by
f3-f4-f5 .
19 0d3
Probably slightly better was 1 9 Ac3 'ffIc7
20 a5 e8 (20 . . . e6) 21 A d4 e6 , or 20 'ffId 3
e6 21 d x e6 fxe6 t and although Black has
managed to break the grip by . . . e7-e6, his
pawns are vulnerable, which gives Wh ite the
edge.
B) 20 Ac3 - cf. 1 9 Ac3 ;

C) 20 dx e6 fxe6 and now :
C1 ) 21 'ffIe3 (21 Ac3 !?) 21 . . . e8 22 A b6 (22
fd1 d5) 22 . . . 'ffI h 5 23 ad1 d5 24 tLlf4 '@'h6
25 cxd5 g5 with counterplay;
C2) 2 1 tLlf4 e8 22 fe1 (22 ad1 '@'c7)
22 . . . e5 (22 . . . f7 23 ad1 ) 23 Ac3 '@'c5
24 tLl h3 d5 (24 . . . b5 25 ax b5 a x b5 26 xa8
xa8 27 c x b5 b8 28 'ffIc 4+ tLld5 29 Axe5!
'ffIx c4 30 bxc4 A x e5 31 cxd5 x b5
32 d1 +-; 24 . . . ac8 !?) 25 A x e5 dxc4
26 '@'xc4+ '@'xc4 27 bxc4 tLld7 (27 . . . ac8!?)
28 Axg7 xg7 t .
20 c3?!
Wh ite centralises his pieces. Black has coun
terplay after 20 fe1 (20 Ac3 !? - cf. 19 Ac3)
20 . . . e6 21 d x e6 xe6 (21 . . . fxe6 22 tLlf4 cf. 1 9 . . . e6) 22 Ac3 'ffI b 6 23 tLl d4 xe1 +
24 xe1 d5 25 e7 c8, or 20 ae1 '@' b4
(20 . . . e6 21 dxe6 xe6 22 d1 ), but stronger
was 20 b4 ! 'ffIc7 (20 . . . 'ffIx b4 ? 21 fb1 '@'a5
22 A b6) 2 1 a5 ac8 22 ac1 e6 23 dxe6
fxe6 (23 . . . xe6 24 tLlf4) 24 fd1 e5 25 Ab6
'ffIf7 !? t (25 . . . e4 26 fxe4 tLl xe4 27 tLlf4 i).
19 . . . Iie8
20 . . . e6 21 dxe6 fxe6
e
21 . . . xe6, i ntending to double rooks on the

e -fi le, deserved serious consideration, as
from c3 the wh ite knight cannot attack the
rook at e6 and the d6 pawn cannot be con
sidered weak, as no piece can attack it. After
22 f4 (22 ad1 ae8) 22 . . . 'ffIf5 !? 23 '@'xf5
gxf5 24 ad1 tLlg4 Black has sufficient coun
terplay on the e -file.
8
7
6
5
5
4
22 Iiad1
22 tLle4 tLl xe4 23 fxe4 Ae5 ! = .
22 ... Iiad8 23 Oe3

Black can open the game i mmediately with
19 . . . e6, but this still does not solve his prob
lems completely:
A) 20 b4 'ffIc7 21 a5 exd5 22 A b6 (22 cxd5
e8) 22 . . . 'ffIx c4 23 'ffIx c4 d x c4 24 A xd8
xd8 (55 ;
An alternative was 23 fe1 'f!! b 4 ! (here too

Black must play actively and not be afraid of
losing his queen ; if 23 . . . d5 24 cxd5 tLl xd5
25 A x g7 x g7 26 tLl e4 ) 24 tLla2 (24 Axf6
A xf6 25 tLl e4 Ae7) 24 . . . 'f!!a 3 (24 . . . '@'a5
25 'f!!e3 d7 26 tLl c3 t) 25 'f!!c 2 b5 ! (25 . . . d5
166
Game 37
Rublevsky - Gelfand, Akiba Rubinstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1998
26 b4 ) 26 ax b5 (26 A b2 c5) 26 . . . a x b5
27 cxb5 e5 with counterplay.
23 tDe4 tD x e4 24 A xg7 tD g3+ (24 . . . tD c5
25 Ac3) 25 h xg3 h5+ 26 g1 xg7 leads
to an equal position .
23 . . . b4!
t[)
A 1 ) 26 A b2 xa2 (26 . . . c5 27 xc5 dx c5

28 gxd8 gxd8 29 A x e5 t tD h 5 ! 30 A x g7
tD x g7 31 tD c3 gd3 32 gc1 tDe6 with coun
terplay) 27 ga1 A h6 28 xh6 x b3 ;
A2 ) 2 6 A b6 gd7 2 7 Aa5 c5 2 8 xc5 dxc5

29 gxd7 tD xd7 30 gd1 t ;
B) 25 . . . d5 26 Ac5 , with these possibilities :
B 1 ) 26 . . . d4 27 A xd4 (27 x e6+ gxe6

28 Axa3 t ) ;
B2) 26 . . . A h 6 ! (the key move o f Black's

defence, enabl ing h i m to maintai n eq ual
chances) 27 xh6 (27 d4 xb3 (or 27 . . . e5
28 A x a3 exd4 29 gxd4 d x c4 30 gxc4
tDd5 with cou nterplay) 28 xf6 x c4 !
(28 . . . A xd2 !? 29 A d4 e 5 3 0 A x e5 gxe5
31 xd8+ f7 =) 29 gc1 f4 =t , or 27 f4 tDg4
28 xe6+ gxe6 29 Axa3 tDe3 with counter
play) 27 . . . xc5 = ;
6
5
4
3
--------
It req u i red precise calcu lation and confi

dence to put the queen i n a dangerous
place (d uring a practical game, when you
are pressed for time, you can never be sure
that you have not missed somethi ng) . How
ever, i ntu itively I felt that Black should have
enough resources to save his q ueen , which
i n the meantime wi ll disrupt the coordi nation
of the wh ite pieces.
24 a2
Or 24 gb1 d5.
C) as indicated by the computer i n 2003 ,

Black has the strong reply 25 . . . b5 ! 26 A b2
c5 (or 26 . . . tDd5!?) and he is at least equal .
25 . . .xa2 26 gd2
Not 26 gf2 ? tDe4 27 fxe4 xf2 , or 26 A xf6
A xf6 27 xf6 x b3 28 g b1 (28 c5 d5)
28 . . . xa4 29 gx b7 gd7 =t , but also possible
was 26 ga1 tDd5 ! 27 cxd5 (27 d3 x g2+
28 xg2 tDf4+) 27 . . . A xd4 28 xd4 x b3
29 gab1 xd5 30 xd5 exd5 31 gx b7 with
a probable draw.
26 . . .a3!
24 . . .a3
Around here Sergey spent a lot of time, try
ing to find a way to trap the queen . It cost
him dearly, as he lacked this time later on.
25 .c3
More chal lenging was 25 gd2 , when it wou ld
have been more d ifficult for me to find the
correct way. The l ines given below are obvi
ously the result of home analysis; during the
game both of us merely saw some ideas, but
obviously not all the l ines :
A) 25 . . . e5 , and now :
Diverting the opponent's pieces from the

centre. Now Black has an easy game and
it is Wh ite has to play accurately to make a
d raw. I n fact, this is a very instructive mo
ment - psychologically it is difficult to switch
from having an advantage to playi ng pre
cisely t o make a draw. Rublevsky under
stood this wel l , but he failed to cope with
it, most probably due to lack of time.
Less good was 26 . . . tDd5 27 cxd5 A xd4
28 gxd4 exd5 (28 . . . gc8 29 gc4 t ) 29 gxd5
e2 =, or 26 . . . tDe4 27 fxe4 Axd4 28 gxd4 t .
167
27 11a1 dS
27 . . . e4 28 fxe4 A xd4 29 gxd4 ;t and it is
Wh ite who is pressing.
28 1td3
2 8 cxd5 A xd4 29 gxd4 gc8 ! =+= (a strong
i ntermediate move, turning the tables in
Black's favour), and if 30 xc8 xa1 + .
28 . . . f4 29 11xa3 xd3 30 l1xd3 dS

So, an equal ending has arisen . H owever,
due to the poor position of the rook at a3,
Black is ' more equal ' .
31 Axg7
Also possible was 31 A b6 !? gc8 32 c5 a5
33 ga2 Af8 34 gc2 =.
31 . . . xg7
31 . . . dxc4 32 bxc4 =.
34 gxd8 gxd8 35 b x c4 gc8 36 g b1 gxc4

37 gx b7+ =.
33 ... 34 exdS?
Choosing the wrong moment for this move.
34 f2 d4 35 b4 ! (White was afraid of having
to play the i nferior end ing after 35 ga2 e5
36 ge2 g5 37 ge4 f5 38 h4 h6 =+=) 35 . . . gd7
36 ga1 gc8 37 gc1 axb4 38 gb3 e5 39 gx b4
should be enough for a draw.
34 . .
flxdS 3S l1e3
Now 35 b4 ax b4 36 gxd5 bxa3 37 gd3 ga8

38 gxa3 is bad because of 38 . . . b5 39 a5
e5 40 a6 d4.
35 gxd5 exd5 36 b4 doesn 't solve Wh ite's
problems either after 36 . . . ge2+ ! 37 f1 gb2
38 bxa5 d4 =+= and his pieces are too passive,
so that, despite bei ng a pawn u p , he is in
trouble.
3S . . . l1d2+ 36 h3 11ed8 37 fla1
32 g3
..
32 g1 a5 33 f2 = was better, bringing the

king closer to the centre.
32 . . . aS
a
1-1'---"
e
8
6
5
4
33
Finally the rook comes back i nto play, but

now the king is Black's target.
37 . . . 118dS!
A strong intermediate move, provoking more

weaknesses. If 37 . . . gb2 38 f4 gdd2 39 gh1 .
g2?!
Th is natural move creates problems for

Wh ite. He had to play concretely, but he was
already in time trouble : 33 cxd5 gxd5 34 b4
a x b4 35 gxd5 bx a3 (35 . . . exd5 36 g b3)
36 gd3 a2 37 ga3 ga8 38 gxa2 b5 39 a5 =
and Wh ite succeeds i n exchang ing his a
pawn for the b - pawn , or 33 ga1 d x c4
38 g4 l1b2 39 fle3?
39 gh1 gdd2 40 ge3 g5 leaves Wh ite
completely paralysed . The last chance was
39 g3 gdd2 40 h4 gg2+ (40 . . . e5 41 gg1 )
41 f4 g be2 42 g5+ e7 43 ge3 gxe3
44 x e3 g b2 45 gc1 gx b3+ 46 e4 d6,
or 42 ge3 e5+ 43 e4 gd2 44 gee1 gd4+
168
Game 38
tt:J
Gelfand - Markowski , Akiba Rubinstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1 998
45 e3 h 5 ! with a serious advantage for

Black in both cases. However, White would
retain some drawing chances.
39 . . . Ddd2 40 Dae1
...
40 Eth1 g5 -+.
40 . . . llxh2+ 41 g3 Dbg2+ 42 4 g5+

43 e4 Dd2!
Cutting off the king from the queenside and
starting a new wave of the attack on it.
44 Dd3
47 . . . Dh4+
If 44 f4 Etd5 intending . . . Ethd2 .
44 . . . llxd3 45 xd3 h5! -+

The black rook secures a post on the 4 t h
rank, from where it will attack t he b 3 pawn.
Avoiding the last trap : 47 . . . Eth3 ? 48 b5

Etxf3 49 x a5 Etx b3 ? (49 . . . g4) 50 Etxe6+
f5 51 Ete5+ f4 52 Etf5+ ! g4 53 Etxg5+
xg5 with stalemate.
48 e5 Db4 49 lle3 5 50 d6 4
51 lle3 e5 52 d5 e4 53 fxe4 Dxe4
White resigns
46 gxh5 Dxh5 47 e4
47 Etc1 Eth3 48 e2 Eth4.
* * *
Game 38
B o r i s G e l fa n d - To m a s z M a r kow s k i
Ak i ba R u b i nste i n M e m o r i a l To u rn a m e n t ,
I think that this was one of the best tourna
ments in my career, not only from the com
petitive point of view (I won this strong event,
a point ahead of Alexey Shirov) , but also cre
atively. That is why I am presenting a third
game from this tournament. After the Wij k
aan Zee Corus Tournament in January, I had
a com plete lack of invitations and played
only fou r tournament games before I was
invited to Polanica Zdroj just a few weeks
before the start of the tournament. So, my
motivation was extremely high.
i n 1 998 and 2000. On both occasions it

was n ice to return to form after a series of
mediocre resu lts.
1 d4 d6 2 f3 f6 3 e4 g6 4 e3 J.g7
5 e4 0-0 6 J.e2 a6 7 0-0 e5 8 De1
8 Ae3 is another variation , one which I have
played with both colours.
Over the course of three memorial tourna

ments of my favou rite player Akiba Rubin
stein i n 1 997 , 1 998 and 2000 I d i d n 't lose
a single game and I won this tournament
169
8 . . . e6 9 J.f1 exd4 10 xd4 g4 11 h3

'ftb6 12 hxg4 'ftxd4
a
e
8
3
2
L...-_______----''---_--'
1J
13 .f3
13 g5 tLlc5 14 'tWf3 'tWe5 15 Af4 'tWe7 1 6 gad1
Ae5 1 7 'tWg3 is the regular move order, but I
wanted to limit Black's choice, as other 13 th
moves are possible. However, a few years
later I tried 1 3 . . . f5 ! ? (13 . . . 'xd1 !?) with the
black pieces, but without success : 14 Af4 !
fxe4 15 'tWxd4 Axd4 1 6 gxe4 A xc3 1 7 bxc3
tLl c5 1 8 gd4 tLl e6 1 9 A xd6 tLl xd4 20 A xf8
tLl c2 21 gc1 tLl e3 22 fxe3 xf8 23 e4 !
(Wh ite's pawn structure looks strange and
I thought that Black was fine despite bei ng
a pawn down , but Wh ite can gain pressu re
on the b - and h -fi les and his king q u ickly
reaches the centre after 23 . . . Ae6 24 f2
gd8 25 e,!;> e3 e,!;> e7 26 c5, or 23 . . . Ad7 24 gd1
(24 gb1 !? b6 25 c5) 24 . . . e,!;> e7 25 e,!;> f2) 23 . . . a5
(trying to fix the pawn on a2 and bring the
rook into the game via a5 ; however, this idea
appears to be ineffective) 24 e,!;> f2 a4 25 e,!;> e3
a3 26 g b1 ga5 27 f4 g7 (27 . . . e7
28 Ae2 e,!;> d6 29 gh1 ) 28 Ae2 and Wh ite con
verted his advantage i nto a win (Kramn i k
Gelfand, Melody Amber, Monaco blind 2001 ).
17 . . . f6
1 7 . . . tLl e6 1 8 A x e5 d xe5 1 9 'tWx e5 'tWxg5
20 'tWxg5 tLlxg5 ;t; (Krasenkow - Kaula, Poland
1 991 ).
18 gxf6 Hxf6
1 8 . . . 'tWxf6 1 9 A x e5 d x e5 20 b4 tLl a6 21 a3
tLl c7 22 c5 ;t; (Komarov - Di m itrov, Yugoslav
Team Championsh ip, N i ksic 1 997) .
19 Axe5 .xe5
1 9 . . . d x e5 20 b4 tLl d7 21 c5 g7 22 gd2
gf8 23 ged1 tLlf6 24 gd6 tLl h5 25 'tWe3 e,!;> h8
26 b5 (Shariyazdanov-Alexi kov, Swidnica
Open 1 997) .
20 b4
a
5
4
..
8
7
6
3
2
..
6
5
1-___......
....--,..;:
...
;;;;
:=. ;.,
This position had already been tried in a few

games, where Wh ite was successfu l . My op
ponent goes for the most testing line .
c
1 6 Af4 Ae5 17 Had1
1 3 . . .e5 14 g5 .e7 1 5 .g3 c5

15 . . . A e5 1 6 f4 (16 Af4 f6 !?) 1 6 . . . Ag7 is the
main possibil ity of diverg i n g from the wel l
known path. I am sure i t will b e tested i n the
future.
20 . . . xg3?
Th is is the main moment in the game. What
could be more natural than to exchange
queens and double Wh ite's pawns? How
ever, it leads to a very u npleasant position.
Stronger was 20 . . . tLl d7 ! 2 1 'tWe3 (21 'tWxe5
tLl x e5 22 c5 d x c5 23 b x c5 b5 ; 2 1 c5 'tWxg3
22 fxg3 - see the note to White's 22 n d move)
21 . . . a5 22 b5 (22 a3 g5) 22 . . . tLlc5 with coun
terplay.
21 fxg3 d7
(see next diagram)
170
Game 38
Gelfand - Markowski , Akiba Rubinstein Memorial Tournament, Polanica Zdroj 1998
tt:J
24 . . . g7 25 Ac4 .6e7 26 a4
As none of Black's pieces can move, his only

idea is to play . . . b7-bS or . . . b7-b6, so I de
cided to prevent the fi rst one. 26 !3.d6 bS
(26 . . . as !? 27 bS b6 2B cxb6 ttlx b6 29 Af1 )
27 A b3 A b7 28 !3.ed1 tDf8 29 !3.d8 also looks
fine, as it is hard to imagine how the black
bishop can come back i nto play.
8
7
6
...
e
8
..... 11
L...-_______---"'-__
22 e5!!
Th is is an excellent example demonstrating
that the activity of the pieces is more impor
tant than pawns, even i n a sem i-endgame.
22 cS ?! looks tempting, but after 22 . . . ttl eS !
(22 . . . d x cS 23 eS EUB 24 e6 is virtually win
ning for White) 23 cxd6 Ag4 24 Ae2 A x e2
2S !3.xe2 !3.dB although White is a pawn u p ,
the advantage i s with Black, since h i s knight
at eS controls the entire centre, whereas the
knight at c3 is out of play.
After 22 !3.d2 ttleS 23 !3.ed1 fB 24 !3.xd6
!3.xd6 2S !3.xd6 e7 the assessment is simi
lar to 22 cS .
22 . . . dxe5
24 bS !?
5
4
26 . . . .6e8?
Black gives up the game. M uch more stub
born was 2 6 . . . b 6 2 7 !3.d6 b x cS (27 . . . A b7
2B as) 2B b x cS ttlfB 29 !3.xc6 A b7 30 !3.d6
!3.cB 31 AdS A xdS 32 !3.xdS .
27 .611 .6e7
28 .6d2 b5
After 2B . . . aS 29 !3.df2 White switches to
a mating attack : 29 . . . a x b4 30 !3.f7+ !3.xf7
31 !3.xf7+ h6 (31 . . . hB 32 ttlgS) 32 g4 gS
33 Ad3 !3.xa4 34 ttld6 +-.
Or 23 . . . !3.fB 24 ttld6 ttlf6 2S !3.xeS.
24 c5
Or 27 . . . !3.fB 2B !3.xfB xfB 29 !3.f1 +.
Black takes the paw n , so that at least he

has something for his sufferings. 22 . . . ttl xeS
23 tDe4 !3.f8 24 tD xd6 and Wh ite is much bet
ter after 24 . . . ttlf7 2S ttl xc8 !3.axcB 26 !3.d7.
23 e4 .6f7
29 axb5 cxb5 30 Ad5

Black resigns, as after 30 . . . !3.b8 31 !3.df2 he
simply has no moves.
***
171

Game 39
B o r i s G e l fa n d - J o e l L a u t i e r
S i g e m a n & Co . , M a l m o 1 9 99
Semi-Sla v Defence [04 6]
After winning an extremely strong World Ju
nior Championsh i p (on tie - break ahead of
Ivanchuk, Serper and myself) at the age of
15, Joel Lautier became a real star in France
and was very welcome in a n u m ber of big
events. He is one of the few players who
has a positive score agai nst Garry Kasparov.
According to statistics, he has a disastrous
score agai nst me, but, to tel l the truth, I have
many times had to display m i racles i n de
fence, and when this was not enoug h , l uck
was o n my side. I have won a number of nice
games against the Frenchman , including a
six and a half hour battle in the last round
of the I nvestbanka Tou rnament i n Belgrade
1 995, which enabled me to catch u p with
Vladimir Kram nik and win a beautiful cup on
the tie-break! I also have good memories of
the charm ing city of Malmo and a tourna
ment where all the five games I won were de
cided by mating attacks on the opponent's
king .
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 f3 f6 4 c3 e6 5 e3
bd7 6 .c2 Ad6 7 Ad3 0-0 8 0-0
a
...
h
8
7
6
8 . . . dxc4 9 Axc4 a6 (or 9 . . . b5) against Ana

toly Karpov. 8 . . . e5 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 e4 ! dxe4
(10 . . . exd4 11 etJ xd5 etJ xd5 1 2 exd5) 11 etJ xe4
etJ xe4 1 2 Axe4 gives Wh ite sl ight pressure in
a symmetrical position . 8 . . . e7 ?! would al
low 9 c5 Ac7 10 e4, and if 10 . . . e5 (10 . . . dxe4
1 1 tD x e4 h6 1 2 e1 leaves Black's position
too cram ped) 11 exd5 cxd5 12 Ag5.
9 b3
Pointless now is 9 c5 Ac7 10 e4 on account
of 10 . . . e5 with good counterplay, as Ag5 is
not possible. 9 Ad2 was played in the game
Gurevich - Gelfand (No. 46, p. 200).
9 . . . b6
9 . . . e5 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 tD b5 A b8 1 2 dxe5
tD x e5 1 3 tD x e5 A x e5 14 A b2 ;t leads to a
typical position, where Black is condem ned
to passive defence.
10 Ab2
Or 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 tD b5 Ae7 .
10 . . . Ab7 1 1 llac1
Wh ite is faced with a common decision how best to place his rooks. It was difficult
to foresee how the game would progress Black has a number of plans - so decisions
are normally made (as also in this case) on
the basis of experience and intuition .
A little more than a month later, I faced Joel
in the F I DE World Championsh ip (knock-out)
i n Las Vegas and i n our tense match this
position occurred agai n three times !
11 fd1 e7 1 2 e2 (1 2 c x d 5 cxd5 13 etJ b5
fc8 14 e2 A b8 15 Aa3 d8 16 ac1 xc1
17 xc1 etJe8 18 g3 a6 19 etJ c3 Ad6 20 Axd6
tD x d6 2 1 tDe5 c8 also does not promise
m uch , Topalov - Ivanchuk, M elody Amber,
Monaco rapid 1 997) 1 2 . . . fe8 13 cxd5 exd5
14 A a6 tDf8 15 ac1 tD g6 16 A x b7 xb7
17 c2 e6 18 dc1 and a draw was agreed
as Wh ite has no promising plan (Gelfand
Lautier, 2 n d game).
8 . . . h6!?
A usefu l move. Black avoids reveal ing his
cards. As Black I have several times chosen
On ly i n the tie-break (rapid) after 1 1 ad1 !?

c7 1 2 e4 dxe4 13 etJ xe4 etJ xe4 14 Axe4 did
172
Game 39
Gelfand - Lautier, Sigeman & Co. , Malmo 1 999
I manage to get close to an open ing advan

tage:
A) 14 . . . gad 8 1 S cS ? (premature ; 1 S gfe1 is
better) 1 S . . . Ae7 16 b4 A a6 ! 17 gfe1 ttlf6
18 ttleS ttl x e4 1 9 xe4 gdS + (Gelfand
Lautier, 4 th game) ;
B) 14 . . . Ae7 1 S gfe1 gfe8 1 6 c3 gad8
17 A b1 Af6 18 ttl eS cS 19 c2 ttlf8 20 f4
cxd4 2 1 A xd4 gd6 22 cS b x cS 23 xcS
xcS 24 A x cS gxd1 2S gxd1 a6 26 b4 ;t
(Gelfand - Lautier, S t h game).
1 3 d5!
The most daring move and in my opinion a
strong pawn sacrifice.
1 3 . . . exd5
After 13 . . . eS 14 ttlxeS AxeS 1S e4 White is
clearly better thanks to his strong centre and
the bad A b7.
14 xd5 xd5 1 5 cxd5 Axd5?!
Accepting the challenge. Black could have
tried to defend an i nferior position after
1S . . . e7 16 e4 ttleS ;t .
11 . . . dxc4?!
1 6 1lfd1
Possibly i nspired by the i nert nature of

Wh ite's last move, J oel carelessly opens
up the centre. After 11 . . . cS 12 cxdS ttl xdS
13 xdS AxdS 14 A h7+ h8 1S Ae4 !? Axe4
16 xe4 ;t White has unpleasant pressure. It
is understandable that Lautier should avoid
this position , as he lost a similar position
(after the unavoidable exchange of the d
and c -pawns) t o me i n o u r first game i n the
Manila I nterzonal , 1 990.
Due to the overcrowd ing of Black's pieces

on the d -file, he is forced to exchange his
i mportant bishop, opening the g -file for the
wh ite rooks.
16 . . . Axf3
U n satisfactory was 1 6 . . . ttlf6 1 7 A xf6 (or
17 e4 c4 18 exd5 cxd3 19 xd3 Shipov)
17 . . . xf6 1 8 A h7+ h8 19 gxdS g6 20 gcd1
Ac7 21 gd7 gac8 22 Axg6 xg6 23 c4 .
17 gxf3
11 . . . gc8 was better, and only after 12 e2 12 . . . d xc4 13 bxc4 cS :
...
8
A) 14 dS (here this is not so strong) 14 . . . exdS

15 cxdS xd5 16 xd5 Axd5 17 e4 (17 gfd1
Axf3 1 8 xf3 e7 1 9 fS g6 20 h3 AeS
21 Axg6 fxg6 22 gxd7 f6) 17 . . . A b7 ;
,'""""-='-1
""
7
6
B) 14 gfd1 cxd4 1 S exd4 with chances for

both sides.
12 bxc4 c5
3
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
L...-_______-=--_----'
1I
Now it is clear why Wh ite sacrificed the

pawn : his two bishops are exerting strong
pressure on the black king and they are go
ing to be joi ned by a rook on the g -file.
The pieces on the d -file can easily become
targets for attack and for the moment the
queenside pawn majority is not i m portant,
as all the events wi ll take place on the oppo
site flank.
173
17 . . . "c7?!
B lack is hoping to transfer his bishop onto
the long d iagonal at e5 or f6 (via e7) , but
he probably missed Wh ite's next move.
17 . . . 'e7 was much more stubborn :
A) 1 8 f4 tDf6 1 9 h1 b7+ ;
B) 1 8 h1 al lows 1 8 . . . Ae5 ! 1 9 A h7+ h8
20 gxd7 xd7 21 Axe5 f5 ! 22 gg1 (22 Ag6
d5) 22 . . . x h7 23 gxg7+ xg7 24 A xg7
xg7 and Wh ite has to fight for a draw ;
C) 1 8 Ac4 ! , and now:
C1 ) 18 . . . tDe5 (18 . . . Ae5 ? 19 gxd7), with these
possibilities :
C 1 1 ) 1 9 Ad5 (the most natural , but not the
best) 19 . . . gad8 20 h1 (20 f4 tDg4 21 g6
tDf6 22 g3 (22 g2 b5 23 h1 h 8
24 gg1 gg8 25 h3 A xf4 , or 22 h1 Ae5
23 A xe5 gxd5 24 A xf6 gxd1 + 25 gxd1
xf6) 22 . . . Ac7 with sufficient com pensa
tion , but not more) , when :
C111 ) 20 . . . h8 21 f4 tDg4 22 gg1 f5 23 Af3 !
(23 f3 Ae5 ! 24 A xe5 (24 fxg4 A x b2 , or
24 fxe5 tDxe3) 24 . . . tDxe5) 23 . . . h5 24 h3 h4
25 gg3 followed by 26 g2 and wins;
C 1 1 2) 20 . . . h4! (ai m i n g for cou nterplay)
21 c3 (21 gg1 tDg4 22 gg2 Ae5) 21 . . . h8
(21 . . . b5 22 Aa1 b4 23 b2 h5 24 f4) 22 f4
f6 ! with an unclear game;
C 1 2) 19 Ae2 ! (only this move enables Wh ite
to mai ntai n a dangerous attack ; Black can
not gain a tem po by attacking the bishop,
as he can with it on d5) 19 . . . gfd8 (1 9 . . . c4
20 c3) 20 f4 tDd7 21 h1 tDf6 22 gg1 and
it is hard to withstand the pressure on the
g -fi le;
C2) 1 8 . . . tDf6 1 9 f5 (19 f4 is premature - 1 9 . . . gfd8 20 f5 gab8 21 a4 e4)
1 9 . . . gad8, when :
L-L-..J..:;
;;;
:::.....L.
..I.....J.::::.
.:::
-..I-l
'if
C21 ) 20 h1 (20 f4 e4, or 20 gd3 Ac7)

20 . . . d7 21 xd7 (beautifu l but incorrect
is 2 1 xf6 ? gx f6 22 gg1 + Ag3 ! 23 gxg3+
h7 24 A xf6 gg8) 21 . . . gxd7 22 A xf6 gxf6
23 gd5 gb8 (23 . . . gfd8 24 gcd1 f8 25 A b5
e7 26 A xd7 gxd7 27 e4 c4 28 f4 gd8
29 g2) 24 gcd1 (24 a4 f8 25 gcd1 e7 =)
24 . . . b5 ! 25 Ae2 gb6 26 gxc5 Axc5 27 gxd7
and Wh ite has only a sym bolic advantage;
C22) 20 e4 ! Ac7 (20 . . . gfe8 2 1 A b5) 21 e5
tD h7 22 f4 and Wh ite stands better, as all
Black's pieces are poorly placed and the ex
tra pawn is not felt.
18 .tc4!
Preventing the manoeuvre of the bishop onto
the a1-h8 diagonal (18 f4 Ae7), and thus ob
tain ing a decisive attack.
18 . . . gad8
18 . . . gfd8 19 f4 tDf8 20 f5 ai m i n g at f7 , or
1 8 . . . Ae7 19 gxd7 xd7 20 g6.
19 f4
I hesitated between this and another strong
move : 1 9 f5 !? A e5 (1 9 . . . Ae7 20 gxd7
gxd7 21 g6 gd4 22 Axd4 cxd4 23 Axf7+)
20 gxd7 A x h2+ 21 g2 gxd7 22 g4 ! g5
23 h5 (23 f5 !? gd6 24 gh1 ) 23 . . . h7
24 gh1 or 23 . . . gd6 24 x h2 +-.
19 . . . h8
Avoiding the pin on the a2-g8 diagonal .
20 "f5 f6
Or 20 . . . Ae7 21 Ad3.
21 h1
(see next diagram)
174
Game 39
Gelfand - Lautier, Sigeman & Co. , Malmo 1999
The rook joins the attack. There was no im

med iate win - 21 Ad3 g6 22 xg6 !!g8.
21 ... E:lfe8 22 E:lg1 E:le7 23 E:lg6?!
B) 24 Ad3 c4, when :
--
!!h7 29 f6+ !!g7 30 h4+ (30 !!g1 ?! e7)

30 . . . !!h7 31 f6+ = ;
B 1 ) 25 !!g2 (25 A b1 b7+) is tem pting, but

25 . . . tDf8 (25 . . . cxd3 26 !!xc7 Axc7 27 'tWxd3)
and now :
8
7
B 11 ) 26 Axf6 allows Black to attack too many

pieces simu ltaneously with 26 . . . A a3 ! =+= (but
not 26 . . . gxf6 27 xf6+ !!g7 28 x h6+ g8
29 !!cg1 !!dd7 30 Ae4) ;
6
5
4
3
B 1 2) 26 A b1
Despite a long think, I fai led to fi nd the sim

plest way to win. 23 Ad3 b7+ 24 !!g2
tDf8 25 A xf6 g xf6 (25 . . . !!f7 26 Ae4 d7
27 !!xg7 !!xg7 28 !!g1 ) 26 xf6+ (26 !!cg1
.!'!dd7 27 xf6+ !!g7) 26 . . . !!g7 27 !!cg1 !!dd7
was only good enough for a draw. The best
way to execute Wh ite's idea was 23 !!g2 ! ,
when Black i s helpless : 2 3 . . . b7 (23 . . . c6
24 Ad3 tDf8 25 Axf6 !!f7 26 Ae4, or 23 . . . b5
24 Ad3 tDf8 25 Axf6) 24 Ad5 c8 25 !!cg1 .
23 . . tt)f8?
.
Black fails to seize his chance. Perhaps Joel

decided to make use of a rare opportu
nity to put all(!) his pieces on dark squares,
as in draughts ! If 23 . . . c6+ 24 Ad5 b5
25 Axf6 ! xf6 26 !!x h6+ g x h6 27 xf6+
h7 28 Ae4+ !!xe4 29 !!g1 and White wins.
But after the strongest move 23 . . . b5 ! Wh ite
has to play precisely to demonstrate an ad
vantage :
A) 2 4 Ad5 c 4 (24 . . . !!f8 25 !!cg1 c 4 26 h5,
or 25 . . . d8 26 !!6g2 (threatening A e4)
26 . . . !!ff7 27 A xf7 !!xf7 28 !!d1 ; 24 . . . b6
25 !!x h6+) 25 A xf6 (this only leads to a
draw, but if 25 !!cg1 c3 , while after 25 A e4
Wh ite has to go in for the same position
as after 24 Ad3) 25 . . . xf6 26 !!x h6+ g x h6
27 xf6+ !!g7 (27 . . . h7 28 !!g1 ) 28 x h6+
26 . . . !!dd7 !! (overprotecting the 7 th ran k ; if

26 . . . c5 27 xf6, or 26 . . . b7 27 !!cg1
!!dd7 28 h5) 27 h5 (27 g4 !!f7 28 Ae4
b4 29 Ad5 c3 30 Axf7 !!xf7 =+= , 27 xb5 b7
28 x b7 !!x b7 29 Ad4 e6 with a proba
ble d raw, or 27 A xf6 !!f7) 27 . . . c6 28 Af5
(28 !!cg1 c3) 28 . . . !!c7 (28 . . . b4 29 Axf6 gxf6
30 x h6+ h7 31 A xd7 xd7 32 !!cg1 )
29 A xf6 g xf6 30 x h6+ h7 31 !!cg1 !!g7
32 Axh7 !!x h7 33 xf6+ !!hg7 34 'tWh6+ g8
35 e6+ = ;
B2) 25 Ae4 ! , threatening 26 !!cg1 , followed
by a devastating sacrifice. As the following
lines show, White should wi n :
B21 ) 2 5 . . . !!xe4 2 6 xe4 ;
B22) 25 . . . !!de8 26 !!cg1 (26 !!xh6+ g x h6
27 Axf6+ tD xf6 28 xf6+ !!g7 29 xh6+ !!h7
30 Axh7 xh7 31 xd6 e4+ 32 g1 !!g8+
33 f1 ) 26 . . . c3 27 !!6g2 f8 (27 . . . !!xe4
28 !!xg7)
175
(see next diagram)
825) 2 5 . . . c5 2 6 gxh6+ ! g x h 6 2 7 A xf6+

ttl xf6 28 xf6+ gg7 29 xd8+ and White
remains a pawn up with an attack, but Black
avoids an immed iate loss.
a
7
6
Analysis diagram after 27 f!.6g2 !fJf8
28 xf6 ! ! ttlg6 (28 . . . ttl h7 29 xc3 xc3

30 A x c3) 29 A xc3 ! g xf6 30 A xf6+ (or
30 gxg6 h7 31 Af5 c5 32 Ae5) 30 . . . g8
31 gxg6+ f8 32 Ad5 ge6 33 Ag7+ ;
823) 25 . . . b4 26 gcg1 c3 (26 . . . A xf4
27 gx h6+ g x h6 28 A xf6+) 27 gxg7 gxg7
28 gxg7 xg7 29 g6+ f8 30 x h6+ ;
824) 25 . . . A b4 26 gcg1 (26 gg2 gxe4
27 x e4 ttlc5 2 8 g6 e7 +) 26 . . . c3
27 gxg7 gxg7 28 gxg7 xg7 29 h7+ f8
30 Ad5 ttlc5 31 xc7 gxd5 32 A xc3 A xc3
33 c6 ;
4
3
--------
24 Dxh6+ ! gxh6 25 Axf6+

25 gg1 was equally strong.
25 . . . Dg7 26 Axg7+ "xg7 27 Dg1 Black

resigns
***
Game 40
B o r i s G e l fa n d - K i r i l G e o rg i ev
French Team Championsh ip, Orange 2000
Sla v Defence [0 1 5J
Th is was my first ever game i n the French
League. I managed to outplay an experi
enced opponent without him making an ob
vious mistake.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 c3 f6 4 f3 a6 5 c5
Th is move relieves the pressure in the centre.
Sti l l , I th i n k that Wh ite can count on some
edge here.
. .
Af5
5 . . . ttl bd7 is the main alternative and was

played against me by Sergey Movsesian a
few months later: 6 Af4 ttl h5 (trying to pre
vent Wh ite from keeping his bishop on this
d iagonal ; 6 . . . g6 7 h3 Ag7 8 e3) 7 e3 96
8 Ad3 Ag7 9 0-0 f6 ? (9 . . . 0-0 10 Ag5 ;t )
1 0 h 3 ! (Wh ite is not afraid of the com
pl ications, in view of the fact that all(!)
Black's pieces are poorly placed) 10 . . . tbxf4?!
(10 . . . e5 1 1 A h2 e4 was the most ambi
tious, but Wh ite keeps a strong advantage by
12 g4 ! exd3 13 gxh5 tbf8 14 e4 Axh3 15 ge1
f7 1 6 exd5 cxd5 1 7 b3 d7 1 8 tbxd5
Ae6 19 gxe6 ttl x e6 20 ttlc7 Yermoli nsky
Xu J u n , F I D E World Championsh i p , New
Del h i 2000) 1 1 exf4 e5 (11 . . . c7 1 2 f5 ! tbf8
176
Game 40
ttJ
Gelfand - Georgiev, French Team Championship, Orange 2000
13 ge1 ! g x f5 14 h4 Dreev) 1 2 f5 ! (the c5

and f5 pawns completely restrict the black
pieces ; White gains noth ing after 12 fxe5
fxe5 1 3 x e5 A x e5 14 d x e5 0-0 with
counterplay) 12 . . . e4 ? (playi ng i nto Wh ite's
hands; 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 fxg6 e4 14 g x h7+ x h7
15 A x e4+ d x e4 1 6 x e4 ; 1 2 . . . g5 1 3 ge1
0-0 14 b4 e4 15 Axe4 dxe4 16 b3+ h8
17 tLlxe4) 13 Axe4 d xe4 14 xe4 +-
6
5
4
3
--I
...
11
10 g4!? N
(despite Black's extra piece, his position

is hopeless, as his pieces have hard ly
any moves) 14 . . . 0-0 (14 . . . Af8 1 5 ge1 f7
16 b3+ g7 1 7 d6 A xd6 1 8 cxd6 ge8
19 gxe8 xe8 20 ge1 ) 15 b3+ h8 16 tLld6
A h6 1 7 gfe1 g7 (1 7 . . . b6 1 8 fxg6 h xg6
19 f7 ! +-) 18 ge4 xc5 19 d x c5 g x f5
20 ge8 (20 gd4 VJ!ic7 21 gad1 was simpler)
20 . . . xe8 (20 . . . gxe8 21 f7+ h8 22 tLlxe8
Ae6 23 xe6 xe8 24 xf6+ Ag7 25 xf5)
21 xe8+ gxe8 22 g3 ! and White soon won
(Gelfand - Movsesian , Akiba Rubinstein Me
morial , Polanica Zdroj 2000).
S Af4 bd7 7 e3 eS S d2
This multi-purpose move was introduced by
Kramn i k against Topalov in a bri l l iant game
in Dortmund 1 999 . White prevents the ex
change of knights on e4 and also prepares
for the typical manoeuvre . . . c8 followed by
. . . Ae7-d8-c7. Then he will exchange on c7
and play f2-f4 , preventing . . . e6-e5.
S . . . Ae7 9 Ae2 'ttcS

Allowing White an extra optio n . Normally
Black plays 9 . . . Ag6 or 9 . . . h6.
The most principled decision. Wh ite gains

space and also some temp i , by kicki ng the
knight and the bishop. Also, it looks pro b
able that both sides will proceed with their
kings i n the centre. After 1 0 b4 Ad8 1 1 f3
Ac7 1 2 Axc7 xc7 13 e4 dxe4 14 fxe4 Ag6
15 0-0 0-0 16 e5 tLld5 17 tLlxd5 cxd5 18 b3
b6 19 c3 bxc5 20 bxc5 a draw was agreed
in Sakaev -Georgiev, (yugoslav Team Cham
pionship, Vrnjacka Banja 1 998) .
10
. . .
AgS 1 1 g5 gS
Now we can see the usefu lness of 8 d2 ,

as bad is 1 1 . . . e4 1 2 c x e4 A x e4 (or
12 . . . dx e4 13 c4) 13 xe4 dx e4 14 c2 f5
(14 . . . d8 1 5 xe4 A xg5 1 6 Ag3 ) 1 5 g xf6
xf6 1 6 Ae5 winning the e4 pawn .
12 h4
1 2 e4 h6.
12 . . . hS?!
Black bri ngs his pieces i nto play (rook or
kn ight, depending on White's choice) , but
I thi n k that it was stronger to fol low the
old maxim : respond to a flan k attack with a
counterblow in the centre! - 1 2 . . . e5 ! 13 Axe5
(13 Ag3 exd4 14 exd4 h6!? Pel letier; 13 dxe5
xc5 14 tLl b3 e6) 13 . . . xe5 14 dxe5 V!!Jc7
(14 . . . Axc5 15 h5 Af5 16 e4 with the initiative)
1 5 f4 A xc5 16 h5 Af5 1 7 e4 dxe4 1 8 dx e4
gd8 with counterplay, as indicated by Yan
n ick Pelletier in Die Schachwoche.
177
1 3 gxhS!
White allows the knight back into the game,

but he gains pressure on the g-file in return . If
13 gg1 hxgS 14 hxgS Ad8 1S e4 Ac7 (1S . . . eS
16 dxeS d4 17 tDa4) 16 Ad6!? and Wh ite has
the initiative, but Black can gain counterplay
with 14 . . . eS , as compared with the 1 2 . . . eS
line he has control of the h -fi le.
1 9 eS 'tlx b3 20 a x b3 x eS 21 A xeS as
22 tDa4 :t (22 h6 xh6 23 gxg7 Ac2).
19 xb6 20 Hc1
The rook moves to an open file, prevent
ing . . . c6-cS at the same time: 20 . . . c5
21 dxcS AxcS 22 tD xdS tD xdS 23 gxcS tDxf4
24 exf4 .
. .
13 . . . xh6 14 h5 f5
14 . . . A h7 1S gg1 is merely a transposition of
moves.
20 . . . 0-0
a
15 Hg1 .th7
a
7
c
8
7
7
6
5
3
2
'if
_______...._
..;:;.
_
..... 'if
L...-_______---"'__
1 6 f3!
The knight returns, as it is im portant to take
control of eS.
. . .
6
8
16
.!.
d8
Prepari ng . . . b7-b6. If 1 6 . . . Af6 1 7 e4 d x e4

1 8 x e4 . B lack does not succeed i n ex
changing the bishops with 16 . . . Ad8 17 e4
(17 A d3 Ac7) 17 . . . d xe4 18 x e4 A aS+
19 f1 Ac7 20 d6+ A xd6 21 cxd6 and ,
although all White's pawns are weak, he
stands better due to the big difference i n
the activity of the pieces.
17 .b3!
White exchanges queens, thus ensuring the
safety of his king. If 17 e4 ?! d x e4 18 x e4
tDf6 1 9 tDegS Ag8 ! , protecting the important
f7 pawn and eyeing the weaknesses on d4
and hS. I n the future the bishop would have
a chance to get back i nto the game.
17 . . . b6 18 cxb6 .xb6 19 .xb6
The alternative was 20 . . . f6 2 1 A c7 ! (an

i mportant m ove - Wh ite d rives away the
kn ight from the dS square ; after 21 e4
dxe4 22 xe4 tDdS 23 Ad2 f7 ! (23 . . . c;, d7
24 cS+ A x cS 2S gxcS :t ) 24 gxc6 ghc8
Black gets rid of his weak c -pawn and
gains counterplay on the c -file, or 21 tD b1
d7 22 bd2 as , again with counter
play) 2 1 . . . d7 (21 . . . Ad8 22 A x b6 Axb6
23 tDa4 ) , and now :
A) 22 a4 f7 ! (22 . . . A b4+ 23 d1 , but
not 23 f1 gc8 24 gxc6 e7 2S Ax a6 ga8
26 gxe6 gxa6 -+) 23 gxc6 ghc8 with coun
terplay - if 24 d2 A b4+ ;
B) 22 e4 ! d x e4 23 x e4 f7 (23 . . . A b4+
24 f1 ) 24 gxc6 ghc8, and now :
B 1 ) the tem pting 2S Ac4 f8 leads to big
complications :
B 1 1 ) 26 dS A b4+ 27 e2 e7 ! 28 dx e6+
c;, e8, and if 29 gxa6 gxa6 30 A bS+ (30 Axa6
gxc7 31 A bS+ d8 32 gd1 + c8 33 Aa6+
b8) 30 . . . gc6;
B 1 2) 26 cS A x cS (26 . . . ga7 27 A xe6+
x e6 28 x e6, or 27 xe6 e8 28 gxa6)
178
Game 40
Gelfand - Georgiev, French Team Championship, Orange 2000
27 gxc5 d7 ! 28 gc6 ga7 29 Axe6+ (29 d5

,,cxc7 (29 . . . exd5 30 A xd5+ ; 29 . . . gaxc7
30 d x e6+ e7 31 exd7 gxc6 32 d xc8 'tW
,,xc8 33 Axa6 gc2 34 Ad3 ) 30 dxe6+ e7
31 d4 xd4 32 gxg7+ d8 33 gxc7 gxc7
34 gx h7 gxc4 35 gxd7+ e8 =} 29 A x e6+
e8 30 Axf5 (30 Axd7+ xd7 31 A b6 gxc6
32 A x a7 gc2) 30 . . . A xf5 31 gxg7 (31 h6
g5) 31 . . . gcxc7 (31 . . . gaxc7 32 gg8+ f8
33 gxf6 gf7) 32 gxc7 gxc7 33 h4 A b1
34 h6 gc1 + (34 . . . f8 35 d2) 35 d2
gh1 (35 . . . gc2+ 36 e3 gx b2 37 h7 A x h7
38 gx h7 gxa2 39 f5 t) 36 h7 gxh4 37 gg8+
tDf8 38 h8 'tW gxh8 39 gxh8 Axa2 = ;
ttJ
23 . . . h4 !? deserved attentio n , but Wh ite's

advantage is still i ndisputable.
24 dxe5 gxe5 25 e2
25 A xf5 !? exf5 26 e2 gac8 t and com
pared with the game Black has counterplay
on the c -file.
B2} 2 5 gc4 !? and Black does not have suf

ficient com pensation for the pawn.
21 h6!
Creating a new target at g7 . After 2 1 Ac7
tD d7 22 a4 gfc8 23 b6 gxc7 24 x a8
,,a7 (24 . . . gc8 25 Axa6 gxa8 26 gxc6 A b4+
27 e2 e7 28 gc7 00) 25 gxc6 gxa8 Black
has counterplay.
21 . . . gfe8
After 21 . . . f6 (21 . . . d7 22 Ad3) 22 h xg7
(22 Ac7 d7 23 h x g7 gfc8 24 Af4 c5
(24 . . . b6) 25 e4 !?) 22 . . . gfc8 23 Ad3
(23 d2 c5 with counterplay, but not
23 . . . x g7 ? 24 A h6 Af8 25 Ag4 ) 23 . . . c5
24 e2 c4 (24 . . . cxd4 25 A xf5 A xf5
26 xd4) 25 Ac2 (threatening gg2 and gh1 ,
so Black has to take the g7 pawn, which
in a way is protecting his king) 25 . . . xg7
26 A x h7+ x h7 27 gg2 Wh ite has a strong
attack, for exam ple 27 . . . A b4 28 h2 ! .
22 Ad3!
22 h xg7 c5.
22 . . . g6
There is no other way to protect the paw n ,
but now look at the h7 bishop ! On t he other
hand , Black hopes to surround and win the
h6 pawn, but in real ity he will never be able
to do this.
25 . . . a5?
Black does not sense the danger and he
makes a decisive m istake. After 25 . . . d6
26 A xg6! fxg6 27 xg6 A xg6 28 gxg6+
f8 29 gcg1 Wh ite wins, but 25 . . . h4 wou ld
have forced him to play energetically: 26 e4 !
f6 (26 . . . d4 27 b1 ; 26 . . . dxe4 27 Axe4 gac8
28 A b7) 27 Ae3 ! (a tactical finesse) 27 . . . fxe5
28 Axc5 Axc5 29 xd5 and Black's pieces
are too poorly placed to create counterplay:
A} 29 . . . xd5 30 exd5 Ad4 31 d x e6 gf8
32 e7 gxf2+ 33 d1 f7 34 gc8 or
34 gc7 !? +-;
B} 29 . . . d7 30 b4 Axf2 31 c7 +-.
25 . . . d4 was the most stubborn defence :
26 A xf5 d xc3 27 Ae4 ! (27 A xg6 fxg6
28 xg6 Axg6 29 gxg6+ f7 30 gg7+ f6 00
is far from clear) 27 . . . d5 28 A xd5 gxd5
29 gxc3 Af6 30 ggc1 and the extra pawn
should tel l .
26 Axf5 exf5 2 7 d3 gee8

27 . . . gc4 28 xd5.
28 Ae5! +-
23 e5 e5
179
a
8
...
.1
29 d4 llcbS
Or 29 . . . d7 30 xd5 gxc1 31 gxc1 Axh6
32 gc7 .
30 f4 xh6 31 h5!
31 fx d5 xd5 32 xd5 Ag7 and the
game sti l l goes on .
31 . . . d7 32 xd5 mS 33 hf6 xf6

34 xf6 gS 35 llh1 g5 36 xg8
White regrou ps his pieces. H i s bishop will

dominate on d4, wh i le his knight will go to f6
with damaging effect.
What a poor career for this bishop ! After be

ing developed at f5, it retreated to g6, then
h7 , then g8, and finally it was devoured there!
36 . . . 1ldS 37 f6
Or 37 gh8.
2S . . . fS
37 . . . e7 38 llc7+ e6 39 ftc6+ IId6

40 IIxd6+ xd6 41 f4 Black resigns
28 . . . Ab4 29 f4.
***
nese chess. However in my huge database I
found only a few games where he had faced
one of my favourite variations.
Game 41
B o r i s G e lfa n d - Ye J i a n g c h u a n
Wo r l d C u p , S h enyang 2 0 0 0
King 's In dian Defence [E9 7J
7 0-0 c6 S d5 e7 9 d2
The Chinese men have not yet reached the

pinnacle of the chess world, as their women
have done, but their successes are l i kely to
come. They are traini ng very hard and they
regularly have opportunities to face tough in
ternational opposition in strong tournaments
in their homeland . The World Cup attracted
a very powerful field, but my opponent sti l l
managed to w i n a strong qualification group.
And our quarter-final match was a tough test
for me, which I managed to win only after
the tie-break. Th is game looks dry, but I am
happy that I managed to convert a tiny ad
vantage i nto a wi n , i n a style which resem
bles that o f my favourite player, Akiba Ru
binstein .
I regularly choose other variations against

the King 's Ind ian and I had n 't played 9 ttJd2
for years, but I noticed that my opponent
d i d n 't have much experience with this vari
ation and so I decided to give it a try.
9 . . . a5 10 a3 d7 1 1 ft b1 f5 1 2 b4 h8
13 1fc2 f6
a
7
6
1 d 4 f6 2 c 4 g 6 3 c3 g7 4 e4 d6
5 e2 0-0 6 f3 e5
The King's Ind ian Defence is the main and al
most the only weapon of the Patriarch of Chi-
180
--------
Game 41
Gelfand - Ye J iangchuan , World Cup, Shenyang 2000
14 Ab2
Th is idea was i ntroduced by Lajos Portisch
and I trusted the tastes of the great Hungar
ian player.
14 . . . axb4
In our tie -break game Ye deviated with
14 . . . c6 15 gbd1 fxe4 16 ttld x e4 ttlxe4
1 7 ttlxe4 cxd5 1 8 cxd5 ax b4 1 9 ax b4 Af5
20 Af3 b6 and ach ieved good play.
1 5 axb4 fxe4
After a long think Ye decided to simplify the
game, as his pupil (he has seconded the
women 's world champion i n most, if not all
of the matches that she has played) got into
trouble after 15 . . . c6 16 gbd1 !? cxd5 17 exd5
Ad7 18 ttldb1 ! f4 19 ttla3 Af5 20 b3 g5
21 c5 ttlg6 22 ttlc4 d xc5 23 b x c5 %-%
(Portisc h - Xie J u n , Flamenco, Veterans v.
Lad ies, Marbella 1 999).
dominates the only open fi le? The answer is

that Black's rook is the main com ponent of
his counterplay, and without it he can only
sit and wait. If 21 ga7 Af5 ! 22 Ad3 ge8
23 f3 b8 (23 . . . Ah6 24 gx b7 Ae3+ 25 c!>h1 )
24 a4 gfB intend ing . . . Ah6-e3+ with coun
terplay.
21 . . . ee7 22 Ad3 Af5 23 I:Ixf8+ Axf8

24 g3 Axe4
It would appear that i n any case Black
cannot avoid this exchange, as otherwise
the supremacy of the wh ite knight over
the g7 bishop would be too obvious. But
perhaps he could have carried it out in
more favou rable circumstances : 2 4 . . . Ah 6
25 h 4 Axe4 (25 . . . c!>g8 26 f4 Axe4 27 Axe4)
26 Axe4 Ad2 27 b5 and at least Wh ite is
forced to move his pawn to b5, which re
stricts his possibil ities.
25 Axe4
1 6 cxe4 xe4
16 . . . c6 with counterplay, as proposed by

my second Alexander Huzman in ChessBase
Magazine, is also worthy of consideration .
18 . . . Ad7 19 gxa8 xa8 20 c5 and Black

cannot use the a-fi le.
19 I:Ixa1 d4 20 Axd4 exd4
An im portant moment. Why does White aim

for the exchange of his active rook, which
..
e
8
17 xe4 f5 18 a1 I:Ixa1
21 l:Ia8!
Both sides had aimed for this position , but to

judge by the speed with which my opponent
made his moves, I g uess that he assessed
it too optimistical ly. I thought that White had
serious winning chances, as opposite -colour
bishops normally favour the attacking side
and the black king is much more vul nera
ble. However experience should have taught
me a lesso n . I failed to win an end ing with
the same material (but obviously, a d iffer
ent pawn structure) against Istratescu in the
1 996 Yerevan Olympiad and I was extremely
181
lucky to beat Schebler in the Bundesliga the

same year.
25 . . . b6?!
A careless move, also played instantly. I think
that it was much more accurate to start with
25 . . . g5!?, blocking the wh ite pawns. As we
wi ll see, this was the best defensive concept.
34 . . . g5 !? deserved serious attention , al

though White has available the plan of mov
ing his king to the q ueenside: 35 f1 h5
(35 . . . g7 36 e2) 36 f5 g7 37 e1 .
30 . . . "d7
B) 32 f4 h5;
C) 32 f5 ! g x h4 33 g4 ! (33 h7+ al lows
B lack to exchange some more pawns after
33 . . . f8 34 xc7 (34 x h6+ e7 35 g4
g8 36 h3 Ag5) 34 . . . d8 35 h7 h x g3
36 x h6+ Ag7 37 f4+ f6 38 xg3 Ah6
and the liqu idation is obviously i n Black's
favou r, as now he can safely exchange
queens) 33 g4! f7 34 h7+ f8 35 x h6+
g7 36 xg7+ xg7 37 f4 ! (j ust in time)
37 . . . h6 38 f3 with an easy win.
31 . . . "f7 32 h x g6 h xg6 33 "e4 h6

34 "g4 "e8
1-1<=
35 e5!?
I decided to exploit the opportu n ity of ad
vancing my pawn to c6. It has its advan
tage - very often the d7 square can be used
by the wh ite queen , but also its d isadvan
tage - it will be m uch more d ifficult for the
king to advance to b7 , as it can be met by
checks on the b -and a-fi les.
But after 35 b5 f7 36 f4 e8 (or 36 . . . g7
37 f3 e8 38 e6 f7) 37 e6 White
is one tempo short : 37 . . . xe6 38 d x e6 g5
39 f3 gxf4 40 gxf4 (40 xf4 g7 41 g4 f8
42 g5 Ae7 43 g6 Af6 44 e4 e7 45 d5)
40 . . . g7 41 e4 f8 = .
35 ... bxe5 36 bxe5 g7

36 . . . d xc5 37 f4+ Ag5 38 xc7 .
37 e6 "17 38 1 "e8 39 lLe4
31 h5?!
White is in too much of a hurry. It made more
sense for h i m to i m prove his position first
with 31 e4 e7 32 g4 fol lowed by f2f4 and only then h4-h5, i n order to prevent
Black's strongest defensive plan of . . . g6-g5,
after which he can hold on .
30 . . . h5 is too risky, as after 31 f1 Black

cannot exchange queens, si nce after playi ng
f2-f4 White takes his king to c6, so the queen
is tied to defending the g6 pawn . 30 . . . a4 ?!
is pointless in view of 31 h5.
A) 32 h5 f7 (32 . . . Ad8 33 f5) 33 f5 f8

34 c8+ g7 35 Af5 e7 and I don 't see a
way to improve Wh ite's position ;
1-.1-=
Now Black has to define his pawn structure.
30 . . . h6 is critical , but i nsufficient - 31 g4

(31 h5 g x h5 32 f5 h4 33 h7+ f8 leads
to the same position) 31 . . . g5, and now :
26 h4! ILg7 27 g2 ILf6 28 "d3 "e8

29 "f3 g7 30 ILd3
White is planning e2-d3-c4, but it wi ll still

be d ifficult to make progress afterwards.
H owever, my opponent decided to gain
some scope for his bishop at the cost of
a pawn. Also, after this Black can nearly al
ways exchange queens, as the c7 pawn can
easily be protected by his bishop.
(see next diagram)
182
39 . . . d3 40 ILxd3 lLe3 41 g2 41 . . on
42 lLe4 1Lf6
..
Game 41
Gelfand -Ye J iangchuan , World Cup, Shenyang 2000
42 . . . Ad4 43 f4 Ab6 1eads to the same pos

ition.
43
"ca Ad4 44 f3 Ab6 45 f4 Ad4
45 . . . f6 !?
46
"g4 Af6 47 @f3 Ad4
Black sticks to Capablanca's advice to keep

your pawns on squares of the opposite
colour to that of your own bishop. With
47 . . . g5!? 48 e3 h6 ! 49 d3 gxf4 50 gxf4
(50 xf4+ g7 51 f5 Ae5) 50 . . . h5
Black could also have retained good drawing
chances.
4a c!>e2 Ab6 49 "d7

49 f5 f6.
50 d3 f6.
...
But with 50 . . . f6 ! 51 g4 g8 Black could

have constructed a fortress, as I don't see
any way for White to make progress.
51 g4
51 g4?! Ad4 52 xf7+ xf7 53 g5 Af6+
54 h6 Ag7+ 55 h7 g5 is a draw.
51 . . . g5
A blunder, but after 51 . . . Ad4 (or 51 . . . f8
52 g5 g7 53 h3) 52 g5 Black was lost
anyway :
A) 52 . . . Ab2 53 g4 Ad4 (53 . . . Ac1 54 Axg6
xg6 55 f5+ g7 56 g6) 54 d8 (found by
Sergey Shipov; after 54 f5 g xf5+ 55 Axf5
f8 56 Ae6 xd7 57 cxd7 e7 58 f5 Ae5
White has a pawn less com pared with the
game, so I don't see a win) 54 . . . Ac3 55 f5 !
g xf5+ 56 Axf5 Ae5 57 c8 ! Ah2 (57 . . . Ac3
58 Ae6) 58 d7 f8 (58 . . . Ae5 59 Ae6 !)
59 d8+ e8 60 f6+ f7 61 h8+ ;
49 . . . @fa 50 @f3
d5 63 c7 d7 64 ctJf5) 56 . . . ctJg7 57 d7+

f8 58 c7 c3+ (58 . . . f1 + 59 g3 e1 +
60 h2 f2+ 61 h3) 59 g2 c2+ 60 g3
c3+ 61 h4 h8+ 62 g5 g8+ 63 h6
h8+ 64 h7 f6+ 65 h5 +-.
B) 52 . . . f8 53 c8+ g7 54 h3 g8
55 e2 and Black's pieces are too badly
placed for h i m to have any defensive
chances.
52 Af51 Ad4
Or 52 . . . g xf4 53 Ae6 xd7 54 cxd7 c6
55 d xc6 f6 56 Ab3 e5 57 Ac2.
50 . . . c!>g7?
50 . . . Ad4 would also have lost, although
after 51 g4 Ab2 White would have had to
find the d ifficult win by 52 Axg6! (52 g5
al lows Black back i nto game: 52 . . . Ac1 !
53 g4 Ad2 54 h4 g7 ) 52 . . . xg6
(52 . . . xd5+ 53 g3 Af6 54 g5 Axg5
55 fxg5 e5+ 56 f3) 53 d8+ e8
(53 . . . g7 54 xc7+ h6 55 g5+ h5
56 e7 d3+ 57 e3 xd5+ 58 g3 xc6
59 e2+ g6 60 x b2 +-) 54 xc7 Aa3
55 h7 e1 56 f5+ (or the study- l i ke
56 h6+ e7 57 e6+ xe6 58 dxe6 xe6
59 f5+ ctJe7 60 f6+ e6 61 g5 Ab2 62 g4
183
53 fxg5 @fa
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
....;:;...
L..._
._
_
_
_
_
_
----I 'lJ
54 e4
After I made this move I became very ner
vous, as I noticed an i ncredible resource for
my opponent. But after home analysis I re
alised that it was the easiest way to win,
as the alternative 54 e2 Ab6 (54 . . . 'e7+
55 Ae6) 55 f1 !! (55 g6 f6) 55 . . . Aa5
(55 . . . e7 56 Ae6) 56 d8+ g7 57 f2 ! !
(57 e2 Ab6) 57 . . . Ab6+ 58 e2 (Black is
in zugzwang) 58 . . . Ad4 59 d3 Ab6 60 c4
etc. is too subtle.
54
. .
Ab2
54 . . . Af2 ! was the best chance :

A) 55 d3 xd5+ 56 e2 e5+ 57 xf2
h2+ 58 f3 h1 + and I don't see where
White can hide his king ;
and Black cannot hold the position : 57 . . . Ah4

58 d5 Af6 59 c4 e7 60 b5 d5
61 a6 d4 (61 . . . d6 62 b7 Ae5 63 c8 d4
64 d8 Af6+ 65 e8 d3 66 f7 d2 67 Ac2)
62 b7 d6 63 e7 .
After 54 . . . Ab6 55 Ae6 g6+ 56 f4 Ae3+
57 f3 ! (Wh ite can now avoid taki ng the
black bishop, so there is no stalemate)
57 . . . Axg5 58 c8+ e8 59 xc7 .
55 g6 1Jxd7
55 . . . e7+ does not help after 56 Ae6, for ex
ample: 56 . . . Af6 57 d3 g7 58 c4 xg6
59 b5 g7 (59 . . . d8 60 xd8 Axd8
61 a6, or 59 . . . xd7 60 cxd7 Ad8 61 c6)
60 a6 Ac3 61 g5 +- xg5 62 xg7+ Axg7
63 b7.
56 cxd7 e7 57 g5 Ag7 58 d3 d8
59 c4 e7 60 b5 d8 61 c6
B) 55 Ae6 g6+ 56 f4 (this was my original

thought, but then I realised that Black can
force stalemate ; if 56 f3 d3+ 57 xf2
e3+ =, but White can sti l l retrace his steps
with 56 Af5 f7) 56 . . . Ag3+ !!
C) 5 5 g6 ! (this appears t o b e the only way

to win) 55 . . . e8+ 56 e6 xe6+ 57 d x e6
57 xg3 d3+ 58 h4 h3+ ! ! ' I remem

ber a simi lar idea from my game with Yuri
Balashov in M i nsk 1 986 (see below, p. 1 85) ;
Black resigns, as Wh ite has a q u ite long,

but simple winning plan : 61 . . . Ah8 62 Ac2
Ag7 63 Aa4 Ah8 64 b7 Ag7 65 Ac6
Ah8 66 a6 Ag7 67 b5 Ah8 68 c4
Aa1 69 d3 Ah8 70 e4 Ag7 71 f5 e7
72 d8 + xd8 73 e6.
***
184
Game 42
Gelfand -Anand, World Cup, Shenyang 2000
Stalemate idea
(cf. note to Black's 54t h move)
46 Axe6+ was the most natural move and

should have led to a win, but I was surprised
by a stalemate idea and I deviated from the
right path. 46 . . . ttlxe6 47 'tWxe6+, and now :
Boris Gelfand - Yuri Balashov

M insk 1 986
8
A) 47 . . . h8 (this also does not help) 4 8 Wfxe7

(48 Wff6+ g8 49 Axf4 ttlf5 and it is not easy
to win) 48 . . . Wfg6+ 49 h2 Wfh6+ (49 . . . Wfh5+
50 g2 'tWg4+ 51 f1 'tWh3+ 52 e2 'tWg4+
53 d3 'tWf3+ 54 d4 'tWxf2+ 55 c3 +-)
50 g2 'tWg6+ 51 f3 'tWd3+ 52 g4 'tWxd2
53 'tWf6+ g8 54 e6 ;
1---.1'--'
B) 47 . . . f8 48 Ab4 'tWb1 + (48 . . . 'tWh7

49 Wfxe7+ 'tWxe7 50 g2) 49 h2 Wfh7+
3
2
L...-_______--:::.-_---I
'lf
44 Ad2!
Intend ing Ag5, when the knight at g6 will be
threatened . If 44 'tWg5 h7 ! 45 Ab4 ttlf4 ! !
46 'tWxe7+ h6 =.
44 . . . f4
The only move.
45
Ag4! f8
45 . . . ttlxe5 46 Axe6+ ttlf7 47 Ac3 'tWg6+

48 'tWxg6+ ttlxg6 49 g2 is also hopeless.
46 "xf4?
50 g2 ? (50 'tWh3 ! +- refutes Black's trap)

50 . . . 'tWg6+ !! 51 'tWxg6 f3+ = .
46 ... "b1 + 47 h2 "xb2

And a draw was agreed a few moves later.
***
Game 42
B o r i s G e l fa n d - V i s wa n at h a n A n a n d
Wo r l d C u p , S h enyang 2 0 0 0
Ca talan Opening [E05J
I have played a number of memorable games
with Vishy Anand and this was the second
game of our World Cup semi-fi nal match.
Vishy does not need a ny special i ntroduc
tion as a chess player. I should j ust l i ke to
add that he is an extremely kind, honest and
friendly person . I always enjoy the company
of him and his wife Aruna and we also share

a passion for Japanese food.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 f3 Ae7
5 Ag2 0-0 6 0-0 dxc4
Black chooses the most solid system against
the Catalan .
7 "c2
I have put a lot of effort into reviving the risky
variation 7 ttle5 ttlc6 8 Axc6 bxc6 9 ttlxc6
'tWe8 1 0 ttlxe7+ 'tWxe7 11 'tWa4. White wins a
pawn , but, as he has given up his important
bishop, Black has good compensation :
185
A) 1 1 . . . e5 1 2 d x e5 xe5 1 3 xc4 Ae6

14 d3 ! (the theory books give 14 c2 Af5
15 c4 Ae6 with a draw, but White can keep
on playing) 14 . . J ad8?! (14 . . J 3ab8 !?) 15 e3
h5 1 6 f3 ! gfe8 (16 . . . Ac4 1 7 c3 gfe8
18 g5 ! ) 1 7 g5 h3 (17 . . . Ac4 1 8 x h5
x h5 1 9 c3 Axe2 20 gf2 Aa6 21 Ag5 ! )
1 8 c5 ! (against all the rules, White does
not develop his pieces, but i m proves the
position of the only developed one! - how
ever, he puts an end to Black's counter
play) 1 8 . . . Ad5 (18 . . . Ac8 !? with the idea of
. . . Aa6 - Timoshchenko ; 18 . . . Axa2 1 9 c3)
1 9 e4 ! (19 c3 ? g4).
B) 1 1 . . . c5 , and now :
B 1 ) 1 2 xc4 cxd4 1 3 xd4 e5 14 h4
e6 !? 15 c3 Ab7 (Black has good piece
play and sufficient com pensation for the
pawn) 16 e4 (16 Ag5 d5 !? 00 ; the exchange
of knights is in Black's favour) 1 6 . . . gfc8
(16 . . . e8 (intending . . . f7-f5) 1 7 g4 ! d6
1 8 f3 ; 1 6 . . . d7 !? 1 7 g4 c5 1 8 f3 d3 oo)
1 7 f3 (17 Ae3 ?! g4 i ntending . . . f7-f5 ;
17 Ag5? gxc3 ! 18 bxc3 xe4 with an attack)
1 7 . . . b6+ 1 8 gf2 h6!? 1 9 g2 gd8 20 g4
gd3 21 g5 h xg5 22 Axg5 h7 23 gg1 ge8 !
with an unclear position (Gelfand -Aseev,
USSR Championship First League, Klaipeda
1 988) ;
B2) 1 2 a3 (an almost untried idea, which I
thought would be interesting for rapid chess)
1 2 . . . b7 ! 13 xc5
Analysis diagram after 19 e4 !
White is not afraid of ghosts. Black can sac

rifice a piece i n various ways, but none of
them is sufficient :
A1 ) 1 9 . . . Axe4? 20 fxe4 xe4 21 xc7 +-;
A2) 19 . . . Ab7 20 c3 ! Aa6 21 gf2 ;

A3) 1 9 . . . xe4 2 0 fxe4 Axe4 (20 . . . gxe4
21 f2 +-) 21 f2 Ad3 ! 22 xf7+ h8
23 c3 Axf1 24 xf1 ;
A4) 1 9 . . . gxe4 ? ! 2 0 fxe4 g4 (20 . . . xe4
21 e7 gf8 22 h4 ! g5 ! 23 gf2 ! e6
(23 . . . ge8 24 Ad2 x h4 25 g x h4 h3+
26 f1 Ac4+ 27 g2 xf2 28 xf2)
24 Axg5 e1 + 25 gf1 e2 26 h3 e4
27 d2 +-) 21 gf2 xh2 22 xc7 ! gc8
23 gxh2 (transposing into an easily won end
ing) 23 . . . gxc7 24 gxh3 gxc1 + 25 f2 Axe4
26 g4 g5 27 ge3 Ax b1 28 b4 and White soon
won (Gelfand -Timoshchenko, USSR Cham
pionship First League, Sverd lovsk 1 987) ;
13 . . . e5 ! (a brill iant reply! Black is looking for

an attack and he does not pay any attention
to pawns) 14 gd1 (14 d xe5 Ah3) 14 . . . Ah3
(14 . . . exd4 15 xd4 Ah3 16 f3) 15 d5 (in
my preparations I had pinned my hopes on
this move, which blocks the long diagonal ,
but Black can continue his attack) 15 . . . gac8
1 6 a5 e4 ! 17 f3 gc5 1 8 e1
186
Game 42
18 . . J xd5! (after the normal 18 . . . d6 19 c3

f5 20 Ae3 '8c7 21 '8ab1 Black has some
com pensation for the pawn, but Vishy
chooses the most challeng ing continuation)
19 '8xd5 xd5 20 fxe4 d4+! (an im portant
intermed iate move ! - if 20 . . . xe4 21 f2
'8d8 22 c3) 21 e3 d3 (Black tries to keep
as many Wh ite pieces out of the game as
possible; if 21 . . . xe4 22 e2 followed by
c3) 22 c3 (the only possibil ity to avoid a
draw was 22 d2 ! '8d8 23 a4 c2 24 '8a3
'8d3 25 '8xd3 cxd3 26 b4 xa4 00 ) 22 . . . '8d8
23 g4 (Black was threatening . . . '8d6-f6 f1 , so this move is forced ; 23 e2 xe2
24 xe2 '8d1 + 25 f2 '8f1 #) 23 . . . '8d6
24 e2 '8g6 (now i n the event of 24 . . . xe2
25 xe2 '8d1+ 26 f2 the king can escape to
g3) 25 xd3 cxd3 26 Ad2 (White could keep
his extra piece by 26 f2 ? '8xg4 27 e1 ,
but he would be unable to stop Black's king
side pawns after the simple 27 . . . '8g2 28 '8b1
'8x h2 fol lowed by . . . g7-g5 etc.) 26 . . . '8xg4+
27 h1 with perpetual check (Gelfand
Anand, Melody Amber, Monaco rapid 2001 ).
...
b
8
6
5
4
3
t--"'-"..J-Io-
:r=:!',,",-,
...-
-..,
=.a-
3
2
14 . . . g6 1 5 llac1
This natural move was considered a novelty
here. Another plan was tested in the fol low
ing game: 15 h4 '8c8 16 '8d2 Ag7 17 '8ad1 t
e7 18 g5 h6 19 f3 b6 20 d5 Ad7 21 d4
exd5 22 exd5 Ag4 23 c6 ! xc6 24 xg4
e5 25 e2 (Lputian - J . Polgar, eorus, Wij k
aan Zee 2000).
15 . . . 11e8
Or 1 5 . . . '8c8 1 6 e1 Ag7 1 7 c2 xc2
1 8 '8xc2 e7 19 b3 '8fd8 20 '8cd2 Ae8 t .
7 ... a6 8 a4
16 d5
8 xc4 b5 9 c2 Ab7 10 Ad2 is a serious al

ternative, which I used in a number of games
in 2002-2004.
8 . . . Ad7 9 1txc4 Ac6 10 Ag5 a5

I adopted another plan against Vladimir
Kramnik: 1 0 . . . Ad5 1 1 c2 Ae4 12 d1 c5
13 d xc5 Axc5 14 xd8 '8xd8 1 5 bd2 Ac6
1 6 b3 bd7 1 7 '8fc1 Ab6 1 8 fd2 Axg2
1 9 xg2 '8dc8 with a fairly eq ual position ,
which I later m isplayed (Kramn i k - Gelfan d ,
Astana 2001 ).
After prolonged thought I decided to go for

ward . White could have kept a pleasant edge
by 16 e1 !? t .
1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 exd5 Ad7 1 8 d4 llc8?

This i nnocent looking move is the source of
Black's subsequent troubles. 18 . . . Ae5 ! was
more precise, combining two tasks : protect
ing the c7 pawn and moving the bishop to
a better position Then after 1 9 cb5 '8c8
20 c6
1 1 c3 a6 1 2 Axf6 Axf6 1 3 e4 b4
14 11fd1
(see next diagram)
Th is is the mai n theoretical position of this

line and both side's trumps are clear: Wh ite
has the centre and a space advantage, but
Black has the two bishops and no weak
nesses in his position .
187
...
20 . . . bxc6 ! 21 d x c6 Ae6 !? (21 . . J 3e7 !?)

22 gxd8 gcxd8 23 'tlfe2 Ab3 Black has good
compensation for the queen .
1 8 . . . 'tlfb8 was recommended by Sergey
Shi pov, with the idea of transferri ng the
queen to a7 in the style of Akiba Rubinstein ,
but White can stil l keep a slight edge:
A} 1 9 ttldb5 Ax b5 (1 9 . . . c6 20 d xc6 Axc6
21 ttld6 'f!"e7, or 21 . . . 'f!"e6 22 ttlce4 Axe4
23 ttlxe4 Ax b2 24 'f!"b1 Ag7 25 gd7 with
attacking chances) 20 'tlfxb5 ge7 = ;
29 d7 Axd7 30 gdxd7 and White is winning)

25 Af3 ttla2 (25 . . . c6 26 x b7 ) 26 gxa2
Axa2 27 xa5 a6 (27 . . . Ab3 28 b5)
28 xc7 .
20 c5 b6 2 1 c6!
The fourth knight move i n a row ! 21 ttlde6
e7 22 ttlxd7 xd7 23 Ah3 e7 leads
nowhere.
21 . . . .txc6 22 dxc6
a
7
6
5
4
C} 1 9 ttlb3 Ag5 (19 . . . Axa4 20 ttlxa4 b5

21 'tlfxc7 bxa4 22 ttld4 ) 20 ga1 Af5 21 ttld4
Ag4 22 ttlf3 Axf3 23 Axf3 .
19 e4!
I guess that Vishy underestimated this idea.

1 9 . . . Axa4 was the alternative:
A} 20 ttle6 'tlfe7 (20 . . . fxe6 21 d x e6 'tlfe7
22 gd7 Axd7 23 exd7+ h8 24 ttlxf6 xf6
25 'tlfe2 ! d8 26 b5 c6 27 d xe8'tlf+ xe8
28 xa5 Shi pov) 21 b3 fxe6 (21 . . . Ab2
22 ttlxc7 Axc1 23 d 6 ! Shi pov) 22 ttlxf6+
xf6 23 bxa4 exd5 24 Axd5+ ttlxd5
25 xd5+ h8 26 x b7 'f!"f8 and Black
should be able to hold ;
B} 20 b3, and now :
B1 } 20 . . . Ad7 21 ttle6 (21 ttlc6 bxc6 22 dxc6
Axc6 23 'f!"xd8 Axd8 24 'f!"d1 ) 21 . . . fxe6
(21 . . . 'tlfe7 22 ttlxc7) 22 d xe6 Axe6 23 gxd8
Axd8 24 'tlfd4 and Black has some compen
sation for the queen , but it is not sufficient ;
B2} 20 . . . Axd4 21 'tlfxd4 gxe4 22 Axe4 Ax b3
23 gd2 'tlfd6 24 'tlfa7 ! (this is the move I was
counting on) 24 . . . ge8 (24 . . . c5 25 x b7 ge8
26 'f!"e2 ! f8 27 'tlfa7 ; 24 . . . b6 25 b7 'f!"e8
26 xc7 xc7 27 'f!"xc7 'f!"xe4 28 d6 Ae6
B} 1 9 ttle4 Ag7 !? (1 9 . . . Ae5 20 ttlc5 Ag4

21 ge1 'tlfc8 22 ttlx b7 !) 20 'tlfxc7 (20 ttlc5
Ag4 21 gd2) 20 . . . 'tlfxc7 21 gxc7 Ag4 22 gd2
gad8 and Black obtains quite good compen
sation for the pawn (Shi pov) ;
19 . . . .te5
22 . . . bxc5!
Surprising ly, my opponent sacrificed his
queen instantly, but it is clearly the best prac
tical solution. Actually this is not first time
that Anand has used such a sacrifice, so
perhaps he should apply for copyright!
After 22 . . . e7 23 'f!"d7 f8 24 ttle4 Ax b2
25 gcd1 White has total domi nation. If
22 . . . f6 23 ttld7 (23 ttle4 e6) 23 . . . e6
24 xe6 (or 24 ttlxe5 xe5 25 Ah3 gcd8
26 gd7 ) 24 . . . gxe6 25 Ah3 ! (25 ttlxe5 gxe5
26 gd7 ttla6 (26 . . . f8 27 Ah3) 27 Ad5
ttlc5 28 Axf7+ f8 with counterplay} 25 . . .f5
26 Af1 he has a clear advantage.
23 gxdS gcxdS 24 ge1 !

It is important to exchange one pair of rooks
to limit Black's counterplay: 24 Ah3 ?! Ax b2
25 'f!"b1 gd2 .
24 . . . .td4 25 gxeS+ DxeS 26 1tb5

26 Af3 does not prevent Black's counterplay
after 26 . . . ge1 + (26 . . . ge6 !?) 27 g2 gb1 .
188
26 . . . g7
Game 42
Gelfand -Anand , World Cup, Shenyang 2000
30 b3 c4 31 bxc4 ge1 + 32 xe1 xe1

33 xe1 should be win n i ng) 30 AdS
(30 d2 .E!e1 + 31 xe1 xe1 32 xe1 Ax b2
33 d2 =) 30 . . . ge1 + (30 . . . ge7 !?) 31 xe1
(31 g2 .E!e2+ 32 h3 Ag1 with counterplay)
31 . . . xe1 32 xe1 Ax b2 and it is not clear
whether this endgame is won . It requ i res a
special investigation, but I rather think that it
is a draw.
7
6
5
4
L...-_______----=-__.....
27 . . . 11e2 28 1!!fx c7 llxf2 29 h1

29 h4 is not a good idea: 29 . . . d3 30 d8
.E!d2+ 31 h2 .E!d1 32 AdS .E!d2+ =.
lf
29 . . . d3
Suddenly all three of Black's pieces are ready

for an attack against the white ki ng.
26 . . J e1 + 27 Af1 would not have hel ped :
A) 27 . . J e6 28 x aS eDxc6 29 a8+ g7
30 g2 +-;
B) 27 . . J b1 28 x aS (28 b8+ g7
29 xc7 gx b2) 28 . . . .!x b2 29 xc7 g7
30 AbS .E!xf2 31 h1 dS 32 d8 e3 33 c7
.E!c2 34 h4 eDg4 3S f8 + ! ! xf8 36 c8+
g7 37 xg4 +-.
e
8
27 1!!fx a5
With 27 f1 !? it looks as though Wh ite could
have destroyed the coord i nation of his op
ponent's pieces, but :
A) 27 . . . c4 28 xaS (28 xc4 Ab6 should
also be won in the long run) 28 . . . d3 29 AdS
.E!eS 30 a6 ! (I obviously missed this com
puter style move) 30 . . . .E!xdS 31 xc4 ;
B) 27 . . . c2 28 AdS .E!eS 29 Ac4 ;
C) 27 . . . geS !! An i ncred i ble resource ! Now
White has to chose between :
C1 ) 28 xaS d3 29 Af3 .E!fS ;
C2) 28 Af3 .E!fS 29 g2 c4 30 xc4 Ab6
31 g4 and White will probably be able to
break into the fortress by exposing the black
king with g4-gS and h4-hS after i mproving
the position of his queen , but it is far from
clear;
C3) 28 f4 ge3 29 xaS c2 (29 . . . g b3
30 xc7 .E!x b2 31 Ae4, or 29 . . . eDd3
'--_______-=-_----'
If
30 1!!fd 8?
This move throws away the win . However, at
the board it was almost im possible to find
the road to success .
As shown by Shipov, 30 Ae4 would also
not have won after 30 . . . eS 31 h3 (31 c8
fS or 31 . . . hS 32 c7 eDg4) 31 . . . .E!f1 + 32 h2
.E!f2+ 33 Ag2 .E!x b2 (33 . . . f3+? 34 h1 e1
3S f4 ! .E!xg2 36 f1 +-) 34 g4 d3 3S g3
(3S d6 ? e1 !) 3S . . . .E!b1 36 Ah1 (36 xd3
AeS+ 37 g3 Axg3+ 38 xg3 .E! b8 39 as
39 . . . .E!c8 ! 40 a6 .E!c7) 36 . . . .E!b2+ =.
Correct was 30 AdS ! eDeS (30 . . . e1
31 xf7+ .E!xf7 32 Axf7 AeS 33 as and one
of the pawns will queen) and now :
A) t h e natural 31 a s is not good enough
to win : 31 . . . eDg4 (31 . . . gS !?) 32 xf7+ gxf7
33 Axf7 eDf2+ 34 g2 e4 3S c7 (3S a6 c4
36 Axc4 eDd6) 3S . . . d6 36 a6 c4 37 Ae6
189
f6 38 c8 ttlxc8 39 Axc8 e5, for ex

ample 40 f3 d6 41 f4 c7 42 Ae6 h6
43 Axc4 Ax b2 44 Af7 g5+ 45 g4 b6
46 Ac4 Ad4 47 h5 Ag1 48 h3 Ae3 49 g4
Af2 50 xh6 Ah4 = ;
35 g2 ge2+ 36 f1 , or 34 . . . ttle3 35 g4
gx b2 36 Ae4) 35 g1 ttld3+ 36 xd4+
cxd4 37 c8 ge1 + 38 g2 ge2+ 39 h3 gS
40 Af3 g4+ 41 Axg4 ttlf2+ 42 g2 ttlxg4+
43 f1 and Wh ite retains wi nning chances;
B) 3 1 c8. This was m y original i ntention

when I played 27 a5, but when consid
ering my 30t h move I found that Black has
counter-resources :
C) 31 h4!!
B 1 ) 31 . . . f5 32 g8+ ! (32 c7 gf1 + 33 g2

gf2+ 34 h3 (34 g1 gx b2+ 35 f1 g b1 +
3 6 e2 gb2+) 34 . . . ttlg4, o r 3 2 b7+ h6
33 c7 (33 Ag8 gf1 + 34 g2 gf2+ 35 h3
ttlf3 36 x h7+ g5 37 e7+ with perpet
ual check) 33 . . . gf1 + 34 g2 gg1 + 35 h3
g5 36 Af3 g4+ 37 Axg4 ttld3 ! ! (an extraor
d i nary resource! - 37 . . .fxg4+ 38 h4 or
37 . . . ttlxg4 38 f3 loses instantly) 38 f3
fxg4+ with counterplay) 32 . . . h6 33 f8+
h5 34 e7 +- and the centralised queen is
strong enough to prevent Black from setting
up a mating net ;
B2) 31 . . . h 5 ! 32 h3 ! (another study-l i ke
possibility for White, found by com puter;
if 32 h3 gf1 + 33 h2 gf2+ 34 Ag2 gxb2 ,
3 2 a6 ttlg4 3 3 Ag2 gxb2 34 h 3 g b1 +
3 5 Af1 ttle5 with cou nterplay (36 c7 ? loses
after 36 . . . c4) , or 32 c7 ttlg4 33 xg4 gf1 +
(33 . . . h xg4 34 h4) 34 g2 gf2+ =, as bad is
35 h3? h x g4+ 36 xg4 f5+ 37 h3 g5
38 g4 Ae5 -+) 32 . . . ttlg4 (32 . . . gx b2 33 f1 )
33 c7 ge2 (33 . . . gd2 34 xg4 h xg4 35 h4)
Analysis diagram after 33 c7 l1e2
34 h4 !! (34 c8 ttlf2+ 35 g2 ttld3+ !

with perpetual check) 34 . . . ttlf2+ (34 . . . ge1 +
First White has to force Black's pawn to h5,

after which his kingside pawns will be vul
nerable:
C1 ) 31 . . . ttlg4 32 Ag2 h5
33 f4!! (it is important to stop the counter

attack and now the pawns will decide)
33 . . . gxf4 34 gxf4 ttlf2+ 35 h2 Ae3 36 as !
(36 g3 ttld3 ! 37 f3 Axf4 38 Af1 c4
39 Axd3 cxd3 40 a5 g5 =) 36 . . . Axf4+
37 g1 ttld3 (37 . . . ttlg4 38 a6 c4 39 a7 Ae3+
40 f1 Axa7 41 c7) 38 a6 +-;
C2) 31 . . . h5 32 a5 ttlg4 (32 . . . gx b2 33 a6
g b1 + 34 g2 g b2+ 35 h3, or 32 . . . gf1 +
33 g2 gf2+ 34 h3 ge2 35 e7 +-)
33 xf7+ gxf7 34 Axf7 ttlf2+ 35 g2
(35 h2 ttle4) 35 . . . ttle4 36 c7 ttld6 37 a6 c4
38 Ae6 (38 Axc4 f6 39 f3 e7) 38 . . . f6
39 c8lt ttlxc8 40 Axc8. Now this ending is
190
Game 42
won , as the g6 and h5 pawns are fixed on

light squares and the black king cannot both
protect them and prevent its white opponent
from moving across to support the a-pawn ,
for example 40 . . . e5 41 Ad7 e4 42 Ae8
f5 43 f3 +-.
30 . . . .6c2!
30 . . . '!;x b2 31 c7 is i nsufficient :
A) 31 . . . f2+ 32 g1 g4+ 33 xd4+ cxd4
34 c8 '!;b1 + 35 Af1 e3 36 a6 f8 37 a5
e7 (37 . . . ,!;xf1 + 38 xf1 xf1 39 xf1 )
38 f2 ,!;xf1 + 39 xf1 xf1 40 a6 ;
B) 31 . . . '!; b1 + 32 Af1 ,!;xf1 + 33 g2 ,!;g1 +
34 f3 (34 h3 f2+ 35 h4 ,!;g2 36 xd4+
cxd4 37 c8 h6) 34 . . . e5+ 35 e4 c6
36 a5 ,!;a1 37 d6 .
31 f1
31 Af3 also leads to a d raw : 31 . . . '!;c1 +
32 g2 '!;c2+ 33 h3 f2+ 34 h4 d3 !
(34 . . . Af6+ 35 xf6+ xf6 36 c7 g5+
37 h5) 35 h3 = (35 h3 '!;c4) .
40 a5 h5+ 41 h4 Af6+ 42 xf6+ xf6

43 a6 f3+ 44 h3 g5+ 45 g2 e6 ;
B) 35 f1 '!;f2+ 36 e1 d3+ 37 d1
x b2+ =.
33 . . . e5+
Black could have forced a draw with 33 . . . f5

34 e7+ h6 35 h4+ g7 , but Vishy wants
to play on.
34
ct>e4 xc6 35 flc7 b4
I could hardly bel ieve that White's king on e4

could be in the middle of a mating net !
36 g4?!
31 . . . f2+ 32 ct>g2 g4+

32 . . . d3+ ? 33 h3 f2+ (33 . . . e5 34 c7
f3 35 c8 g1 + 36 h4 ,!;xh2+ 37 Ah3
Af6+ 38 xf6+ xf6 39 h8+) 34 h4 Af6+
35 xf6+ xf6 36 c7 +-.
A careless move; I should have settled for a

draw with 36 b3 '!;f2 37 Ac4 f8 38 d8+
g7 39 e7 h6 =.
36 . . . .6f2 37 b5
Fortunately, there is sti l l a way to save the
game.
33 i!n3
Or 33 Ae2 e5 ! (33 . . . ,!;xe2+ 34 f3 ,!;xh2
35 c7 f6 36 xd4 cxd4 37 c8 ,!;x b2 with
counterplay) 34 c7 ,!;xe2+, and now :
A) 35 h3 (it i s incredible, but after this move
Wh ite cannot even make a draw) 35 . . . f3
36 c8 g1 + 37 h4 ,!;e4+ 38 g4 ,!;xg4+
39 xg4 Ae5 !!
37 . . . g5
Or 37 . . . h6 (threatening . . . f7-f5+) 38 d6
g5 39 g3.
38 a5 Draw agreed
After 38 . . . '!;f4+ 39 xf4 g xf4 40 a6 = White
regains a piece.
* * *
191

G am e 4 3
B o r i s G e l fa n d - J e ro e n P i ket
F I D E Wo r l d C h a m p i o n s h i p ,
N ew De l h i 2 0 0 0
Ragozin Defence [D38J
Th is game was played i n the 2000 F I D E
world knock-out championship i n New Delhi.
Normally I advanced q u ite far i n such tour
naments but failed to prod uce any good
games, as I think the formula is too stressful
to encourage players to be creative.
1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 d5 4 c3 Ab4
The Ragozin Defence is quite a rare guest in
tournament play, but it is a solid set-up.
5 Ag5 h6
S . . .fi:lbd7 leads to another type of pos
ition and is cal led the Westphal ia Defence.
S . . . d xc4 6 e4 transposes i nto the Vienna
Variation .
6 Axf6 'ttxf6 7 e3 0-0
A) 8 . . . d8 9 a3 Axc3+ 1 0 xc3 dxc4

1 1 xc4 c6 1 2 Ad3 ttld7 1 3 0-0 (13 eDeS
ttlxeS 14 d xeS 'ffIe7 , i nten d i ng . . . Ad7-e8)
13 . . J e8 N (13 . . . eS ?? 14 dxeS eDxeS 1S eDxeS
'ffIx eS 1 6 Ah7+) 14 Ab1 eS 1 S d x eS eDxeS
1 6 eDxeS xeS 17 f4 'ffIe7 18 d4 Ae6
and Black almost eq ualised (Gelfand - M ilov,
Cred it Suisse, Biel 1 997) ;
B) 8 . . . eDc6 ?! (I don't l i ke this move as Black
will be u nable to attack the centre by . . . c7cS , but this is a popular plan i n this opening
and it is probably just matter of taste) 9 Ad3
d x c4 1 0 Axc4 eS 1 1 0-0 Axc3 ?! (allow
ing White to strengthen his centre; stronger
is 1 1 . . . exd4 1 2 ttldS 'ffId 6 1 3 ttlxd4 eDxd4
14 ttlx b4 eDfS = or 14 'ffIx d4 AaS with a solid
game) 12 bxc3 Ag4 1 3 h3 Ae6 (13 . . . AhS
14 AdS ! ad8 1S Axc6 bxc6 16 g4 e4 17 tileS
Ag6 1 8 'ffIa4 cS 1 9 'ffIx a7 ) 14 Axe6 fxe6
1S b1 ab8 16 bS exd4 17 cxd4 a6
1 8 cS (Gelfand - G reenfeld , Wydra Me
morial , Haifa rapid 2000).
9 Axc4 c5 10 0-0 cxd4 1 1 exd4
Genna Sosonko, a great expert on this open

ing, once wrote that 7 . . . cS is more in the
spirit of the variation .
..
e
8
"::;;;;:;'-I
_
L--_______---:_
:::
....J
'If
S gc1
Antici pating . . . dxc4, White fights for a tempo
and refrains from developing his bishop.
..
dxc4
I have also had to face other replies :
This type of position with an isolated pawn

often arises from different openings, for ex
ample the Tarrasch Defence, the N imzo
I n d ian Defence etc. I think it is i n White's
favour that he has exchanged his bishop for
the knight at f6, as the knight wil l not be able
to blockade the pawn from dS. Now the main
q uestion is whether Blac k can bring his c8
bishop i nto play.
192
Gelfand - Piket,
Game 43
FIDE
World Championship, New Delhi 2000
11 ttlxd4 is harmless in view of 11 . . . Ad7 !

12 f!Vb3 ttlc6 ! 13 ttlxc6 Axc3 14 f!Vx b7 Axc6
15 f!Vxc6 Ax b2 .
1 1 . . . c6 12 e4 "f4
The alternative was 1 2 . . . f!Ve7 or 1 2 . . . f!Vd8 ,
but Black wants to disturb White's pieces.
13 "e2 gd8 14 g3
Avoiding 14 gfd1 Ae7 15 d 5?? exd5
0-1 (Vandevoort - Sosonko, Brussels Zonal
1993), or 16 Axd5 gxd5 17 gxd5 f!Vxc1 +.
21 Af3 !? oo) 21 . . . f!Vx b2 22 gb1 f!Vc2 23 Ad3

f!Va2 as he cannot trap the queen ;
B} 17 gfd1 f!Vf5 18 c5 (18 a3 e5 !) 18 . . . f!Vf6 !
and now :
B 1 } 1 9 a 3 Axc5 20 d x c5 (harm less i s
20 gxc5 ttle7 followed b y . . . b7-b6) 20 . . .
gxd1+ 21 gxd1 f!Vx b2 and it is not clear
whether White has fu ll com pensation for the
pawn ;
B2} 1 9 e5, and now :
14 . . . ..g4
To be honest, I was surprised by my op
ponent's choice of opening i n such an im
portant game (he had a broad repertoire of
open i ngs and he used almost all of them
against me in our n u merous meetings) . The
entire concept is one that I i nvented over
the board during a game with Joel Benjami n
and si nce then 1 1 ex d 4 has been success
fu lly tried by a number of players. 14 . . . f!Vf5 !?
followed by . . . Aa5-b6 deserved considera
tion. As we will see later, the position of the
queen on g4 gives Wh ite an extra tempo.
a
e
8
3
2
11
1 5 gfd1
The alternative was 1 5 f!Ve3 Aa5 1 6 Ae2
Ab6 :
A} White should avoid the tem pting 1 7 ttle5
f!Vf5 18 ttlxc6 (18 Ag4?? f!Vxe5 !) 18 . . . b x c6
19 c5 f!Vd5 20 gfd1 f!Vxa2 21 Ac4 (better is
B21 } 1 9 . . . ttlxe5 and White has a choice be

tween 20 dxe5 gxd1 + (20 . . . f!Ve7 t Korchnoi)
21 gxd1 (21 Axd1 f!Ve7 22 Af3 gb8) 21 . . . f!Ve7
22 b4 a5 23 a3 axb4 24 axb4 Axc5 ! 25 bxc5
(25 f!Vxc5 25 . . . f!Vxc5 26 bxc5 f8 ! t and
Black has good chances of saving the game
thanks to the l i m ited amount of material
left) 25 . . . Ad7 26 Af3 Ac6 27 Axc6 bxc6
28 gd6 , and 20 f!Vxe5 !? f!Vxe5 21 d x e5
gxd 1 + 22 Axd1 Axc5 23 gxc5 Ad7 24 Af3
gc8 25 ga5 ;
B22} 19 . . . b4 ? 20 a3 (20 Ah5 !? was tempt
ing and equally strong : 20 . . . g6 21 f!Vx h6
f!Vg7 (21 . . . ttlxa2 22 gc4) 22 f!Vxg7+ xg7
23 Af3 ttlxa2 24 ga1 (24 gc4 !?) 24 . . . ttlb4
25 c4 } 20 a3 d5 21 f!Ve4 Ac7 22 Ad3 g6
23 f!Ve2 and Black has failed to develop his
c8 bishop, whereas Wh ite has put his pieces
on their best squares (Gelfand - Benjami n ,
Cred it Suisse, Horgen 1 994).
1 5 . . . Ad7
The plan with 15 . . . Aa5 was used by Ben
jamin.
193
1 6 a3 Ae7 17 "e3
White is playing for a spatial advantage and

trying to make use of the fact that several of
Black's pieces (queen, knight and bishop at
d7) lack good squares.
17 . . . .te8 18 b4 a6
If 1B . . . gacB 1 9 bS aS 20 Ae2 ;t , shutting
the as kn ight out of the game followed by
eS.
19 .te2
1 9 dS exdS 20 AxdS gacB = is not i n spirit
of the position, as Black does not have any
weaknesses.
19
..
22 .td3 .f6 23 .te4!

23 h4 would allow 23 . . . e7 24 eS Aa4
with counterplay.
23 . . . Dxd1+?!
Black fails to find a good defensive plan . Cor
rect was 23 . . . e7 !? 24 h4 gxd1 + 2S gxd1
gdB 26 gb1 ;t .
24 Dxd1 Dc8
24 . . . gdB ! ? 2S g b1 (2S gd6 !?) 2S . . .' tWe7
26 a4.
25 h4 m8
a
h3?!
Wasting a tempo, as in any case the queen

will have to return to fS. 19 . . . fS 20 cS
AxcS 21 dxcS f6 22 Ad3 ;t .
7
6
20 c5
20 c3 fol lowed by d4-dS also came i nto
consideration , but I didn 't want to deviate
from the chosen plan.
20 . . . .txc5
a
Neither would 20 . . . bS 21 Ad3 or 20 . . . gabB

21 Ad3 have solved Black's problems.
21 dxc5
Now White's plan is to play his bishop to e4,
followed by a3-a4 and b4-bS. If 21 gxcS b6
22 gcc1 e7.
21
. . .
f5
Al l Wh ite's pieces are excel lently placed , so

it is time to start an attack!
26 . . .e7
26 . . . gdB !? 27 ge1 .
27 g5 h xg5 28 hxg5 Dd8

a
e
8
7
6
6
5
'lr
26 g4!
21 . . . gxd 1 + 22 gxd1 gdB 23 gxdB xdB

24 eS , or 21 . . . e7 22 eS dS 23 e4.
'lr
'lr
29 De1 ! +-
194
Game 44
Gelfand - Van Wely, European Team Championship, Leon 2001
The attacking side should normally avoid un

necessary exchanges. Black can not make
use of the d -fi le, whereas the rook on e1
exerts pressure on eS. However, 29 gxd8
xd8 30 f4 was also strong.
29
. . .
30 . . . fS 31 AxcS AxcS 32 ttld4 +-.
31 g5 d4
31 . . . Af? 32 AxgS, or 31 . . . e? 32 AxcS
AxcS 33 ttlxe6+.
32 .xd4 Black resigns
c7
In 1 993 I worked for several weeks with the

H ungarian G M Peter Lukacs on positions
with an isolated pawn, after which I won a
n u m ber of games i n this type of position i n
d ifferent open ings.
Or 29 . . . g6 30 f4 g? 31 g2 .
30 g6!
Destroying the king's residence.
30 . . . fxg6
***
Game 44
B . . . e6 9 0-0 fd7 10 f4
B o r i s G e l fa n d - L o e k Va n We l y
European Team Championsh ip, Leon 2001
GrOnfeld Defence [0 79]
1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 g3
Already Wh ite's third move requ i res some
com mentary. This was the last round of the
European Team Championsh ip, which began
at 9 a. m . - too early for chess players ! And
as I had a long game the even ing before, I
decided not to enter i nto a theoretical dis
cussion in the GrOnfeld Defence but to steer
the game in a quieter direction .
4
3
="--'-...1'--1
=",--_1
4
3
2
10 . . . b6?!
3 . . . c6
The most solid reply, but it hard ly su ites
Loek's aggressive style. I had some neg
ative experience from Black's side during my
world championsh i p sem i-fi nal match with
Anatoly Karpov, and so I was fami l iar with a
num ber of finesses in this type of position .
4 Ag2 d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 c3 Ag7 7 f3

0-O B e5
Wh ite occupies the centre with his knight
before castl i n g , i n order to prevent . . . ttlcS.
However, as Ken Neat rightly poi nted out,
8 . . . ttlcS 9 ttlcS bxcS is q u ite possible, as
Wh ite cannot profit much from the weakened
pawn on cS. I n a cou ple of games where
Black had tried this, he satisfactorily solved
his open ing problems.
The fi rst inaccu racy, and a serious one.

1 0 . . . ttlcS (intending . . . ttld xe5) 1 1 Ae3 ttlbS
was better, as now Wh ite's bishop will be
wel l placed on a3.
1 1 b3 f6 12 d3 lif7
1 2 . . . ttlcS 13 e3 ;t .
13 a 4 1 3 . . . c6 14 e3 libB
Van Wely is reluctant to fix the pawn struc
ture by 14 . . . f5 as it wo uld weaken his e5
square. However, in any case he lacks space
and good squares for his pieces.
15 g4
Gaining more space and creating the poten
tial threat of f4-f5.
195
1 5 . . . a5 16 Aa3 AfB
21 . . . a6?!
Too slow. Black should have aimed for a

counterattack by 21 . . . b6 !?
7
6
22 e4 dxe4
Playing into Wh ite's hands 22 . . . b6 was
stubborn .
4
3
more
23 Axe4 Ild7 24 .c3 b6

A sense of danger has never been the main
tru m p of the strongest Dutch player of the
21 st century. H owever his position was al
ready poor:
-------
A) 24 . . . tDd4 25 gce1 ;
17 Ac5
17 Axf8 gxf8 18 gc1 was more natural . How
ever, I wanted to exert more pressure on the
queenside.
17 . . . g7 18 Ilc1
The tempting 18 f5 exf5 1 9 Axb6 x b6
20 tDxd5 d8 21 gxf5 Axf5 22 e4 Ac8 is a
mistake, as White gives up his bishop with
out getting something significant i n return .
B) 24 . . . g8 25 gce1 , and if 25 . . . f5 26 gxf5

g x f5 (26 . . . exf5 27 Axc6 b x c6 28 tDd6)
27 ge2 (27 ge3 !? gg7+ 28 Ag2) 27 . . . gg7+
(27 . . . tDe7 28 gg2+ tDg6 29 tDe5 fxe4
30 tDxg6 h xg6 31 gxg6+ h7 32 gg5 +-)
28 gg2 ;
C) 24 . . . tDcb4 25 tDx b4 axb4 26 e3 +-;
D) 24 . . . tDe7 25 g5 tDd5 26 Axd5 exd5
27 d4 h6 28 c6 bxc6 29 gxc6.
a
18 . . . Axc5
Other moves do not change the character of

the position and leave White with his pos
itional tru m ps : 18 . . . f5, 18 . . . tDd7 19 Axf8+
gxf8, or 18 . . . Ad7.
7
6
5
19 dxc5!?
I decided to open up the position . Black's

pieces are badly placed , so if White is able to
break with a move such as e3-e4, he should
have a strong initiative. 19 tDxc5 ;t .
20 b5 c7 21 .e1
-------
19 . . . a8
19 . . . tDd7 does not look natural , as it would
destroy the coordination of the black pieces.
25 e5!
It is natural that White should have a tactical
win in this position. If 25 g5 tDd4.
25 . . . xe5
Preparing e3-e4. 21 tDd6 gfB 22 f5 exf5

23 g xf5 would have been met by 23 . . . g5.
However, serious consideration should have
been given to 21 g5 ! , weakening the dark
squares sti ll further, and if 21 . . . fxg5 22 fxg5
xg5 23 gxf7+ xf7 24 tDxc7.
25 . . .fxe5 26 Axc6 gd3 27 xe5+ .
26 fxe5 xc5
26 . . . f5 27 c6.
27 exf6+
Or 27 . . . g8 28 gcd1 ! gxd1 29 f7+.
196
Gelfand - Delchev, FIDE World Championship, Moscow 2001
Game 45
30 Ae8+ !!
28 "h3 "g8 29 Ac6 Dd3

Black makes the only moves to avoid losing
instantly, but it allows a beautiful fin ish .
a
e
8
8
7
6
For the next three moves Wh ite decoys the

opponent's pieces and then begins collect
ing the harvest. I n fact, a few days earl ier
Genna Soson ko told me a story of a journal
ist who asked h i m : ' I s it possible in chess
first to g ive up fou r draughtsmen and then
get nine bac k ? ' In a way I managed to do
this!
3O . . . xe8 31 f7+ "xf7 32 d6+ ! Dxd6

33 I1xf7 xf7 34 "xh7+ e8 35 "c7 !
4
3
The final touch.
L...-_______-""__-'
35 . . . l1d4 36 "xb8 d7 37 h3 Black re signs
{f
* * *
Game 45
liquidates i nto a slightly worse end ing with

8 . . . xc3 9 bxc3 xd4 10 'tWxd4 'tWxd4
11 cxd4 Ab4+ 1 2 Ad2 Axd2+ 13 xd2.
B o r i s G e lfa n d - A l e x a n d e r D e l ch e v
FIDE World Championsh ip, Moscow 2001
Queen 's Gambit [04 1J
Th is game was selected for this book for two
reasons: I managed to i ntroduce two strong
novelties in one game and I think it is very
instructive for Catalan-type pOSitions.
1 f3 f6 2 c4 e6 3 c3 d5 4 d4 c5
5 cxd5 xd5 6 g3 c6
6 . . . cxd4 deserves serious attention here, as
after 7 xd5 'tWxd5 8 'tWxd4 c6 9 'tWxd5
exd5 Black is only sym bolically worse.
3
2
{f
7 Ag2
_________
This position has arisen many times from the

Eng l ish Opening, for example in the games
of Vladimir Kramnik.
7 . . . cxd4
7 . . . ttldb4 or 7 . . . b6 is playable. 7 . . . Ae7
would transpose i nto a Tarrasch Defence.
8 xd4 db4?!
(see next diagram)
Th is continuation had been tried only once

before in tournament play. Normally B lack
9 xc6! N
Vishy Anand tried more a com plicated ap
proach, but I l i ke my move. 9 db5 a6
(9 . . . 'tWxd 1 + 10 xd1 a6 11 a3 i nten d
ing b2-b4 ;t) 1 0 'tWxd8+ x d 8 1 1 a3 (the
king is badly placed at d8) 1 1 . . . e5 12 0-0
Ae6 13 Ae3 c7 14 b3 gc8 1 5 gfc1 b8
1 6 c4 d4 ! 17 gab1 ! (th reaten in g xe5)
17 . . . Axc4 (17 . . . f6 18 f1 ) 18 bxc4 gxc4
19 Ad2 ! b5, and now 20 e3 ! xa2 (20 . . . e6
21 Af1 ! i ntend i n g a2-a4 ) 21 xa2 e2+
197
22 f1 xc1 23 xc1 e4 24 e1 wou ld

have g iven White a clear advantage, al
though after 20 f1 ? Ae7 he nevertheless
won (Anand - Krasenkow, Madrid 1 998).
. . .
8
7
xd1 + 10 c!>xd1
1 0 xd1 , as proposed by Anand, is i l log i

cal : 10 . . . !i)xc6 (after 10 . . . !i)c2+ 1 1 d2 !i)xa1
12 !i)eS Wh ite follows up with !i)c3 and !i)d3,
and the knight at a1 will eventually be lost)
11 0-0 Ad7 =.
3
2
-------
10 . . . .t1xc6?!
I wou ld prefer 10 . . . bxc6!? ;!; , securing the dS
square for the kn ight and trying to gain coun
terplay against the white king. But the pawn
on c6 should give Wh ite some advantage.
11 .te3
The most natural move, but it was better to
keep the black king i n the centre : 11 !i)bS !
d8 1 2 Ae3 Ad7 1 3 gc1 . 1 1 Axc6+ b x c6
1 2 c2 eS = was harmless.
11 . . . .td7 12 Hc1 .te7 13 c2 0-0

14 Ilhd1 IltdS 15 c!>b1
This type of position arises q u ite often, so
I would l i ke to explain the ideas beh ind it.
White's bishop is exerting strong pressure on
the opponent's queenside and his rooks con
trol the central fi les. Another i m portant fac
tor is that Wh ite's king is on the queenside,
closer to the potential field of action . But
if B lack should succeed i n exchanging the
lig ht-square bishops, he will reduce White's
advantage to the minimum.
15 . . . .t1a5
I ntend ing to exchange bishops, but now
the poor position of the knight becomes
an i mportant factor. After 1 S . . . gac8 16 !i)bS
a6 17 !i)d6 (17 !i)a7 !i)xa7 18 Axa7 Ac6
19 gxd8+ Axd8 20 Axc6 gxc6 21 gxc6
b x c6 and White's advantage is symbol ic)
1 7 . . . Axd6 18 gxd6 eS 1 9 Ae4 the two bish
ops ensure White an advantage.
1 6 .tt3!!
The most d ifficult move of the game! White
protects his bishop and thus makes its ex
change more d ifficult. 1 6 h4 Ac6 1 7 gxd8+
gx d8 1 8 Axc6 !i)xc6 ;!; would have left him
with merely a sym bol ic advantage. As I
d iscovered afterwards, this position was
reached in a game between two great play
ers (via a different move order) . Wh ite failed
to achieved anything and the game ended
quickly: 16 !i)e4 AbS 17 gxd8+ gxd8 18 Ac5
f8 1 9 Axe7+ xe7 20 gcS a6 21 !i)c3 Ac6
%-% (Keres - Korchnoi, USSR Team Cham
pionsh ip 1 963).
16 . . . .tc6
Blac k insists on carrying out his plan, but
now the knight at as is left out of the game.
However, in any case White wou ld have kept
a slight edge: 1 6 . . . c4 1 7 Af4, 16 . . . f8
1 7 !i)e4, 1 6 . . . Ae8 1 7 gxd8, or 1 6 . . . fS 17 g4!
Ac6 1 8 g xfS Axf3 19 exf3 exfS 20 gxd8+
Axd8 21 !i)bS .
17 IlxdS+ J.xdS
17 . . . gxd8 18 Axa7 Axf3 19 exf3 leaves
Black a pawn down .
1S .t1e4
Now b2-b4 is threatened .
1S . . . .te7
1 8 . . . AdS 1 9 !i)d6 Axf3 20 exf3, and if
20 . . . Ae7 21 !i)x b7 ! !i)x b7 22 gc7 , winning a
pawn .
198
Game 45
Gelfand - Delchev, FIDE World Championship, Moscow 2001
21 d6 Axf3 22 exf3 I1d8
_"--='_---.,.;=-0-1 8
After 22 . . . b6 23 'Sc? 'Sd8 24 c8 White wins

a pawn, but sti l l this was the best chance,
as the rook ending that arises in the game is
completely hopeless.
6
5
23 I1xa5 Hxd6 24 I1xa7 Hd1 + 25 <!>c2

Hf1 26 I1xb7 I1xf2+ 27 <!>d3 I1xh2
Or 2? . . 'Sxf3+ 28 e2 trapping the rook.
28 a4 Hh1
L..-_______....__
.;;:.
--1
{f
8 i--'"
19 Ac5!
The only way to maintain the pressure. If

1 9 c5 Axf3 20 exf3 Axc5 21 '8xc5 c6,
or 19 Ad2 f5 20 c5 Axf3 21 exf3 Axc5
22 'Sxc5 c6 and the knight is not worse
than the bishop.
-"--l
If 1 9 . . . f8 20 b4. I considered the most

stubborn to be 19 . . .f5 20 Axe? fxe4 21 Ag4
Ad5 22 'Sc? c6 23 Ac5 and Wh ite has the
advantage of the two bishops, but at least
the knight is back in the game.
20 . . . b6 21 'Sc3 f5 (21 . . . Ad5 22 d6 Axf3
23 exf3 'Sd8 24 'Sc? f6 25 c8) 22 g5 Axf3
23 xf3 and Black's d ifficulties are far from
over.
--...--,
19 . . . Axc5
20 I1xc5 f5
4
3
2
...:_
:--J {f
L-_______
29 11b3!
Taking the opportun ity to put the rook be
h in d the paw n , as the win would be more
complicated after 29 a5 'Sa1 30 b4 'Sa3+.
***
199
29 . . . 30 a5 l1a1 31 l1a3 I1d1+ 32 cc9c4

Black resigns

Game 46
9 Ad2
M i k h a i l G u revi ch - B o r i s G e lfa n d
Corus To u r n a m e n t , Wij k a a n Zee 2002
Semi-Sla v Defence [D45J
After my victory in 1 992 (together with Valery
Salov) and my candidates match i n 1 994, I
have not played wel l or achieved good re
su lts i n Wij k aan Zee. This is very unfortu
nate, as I really enjoy playing i n one of the
oldest festivals in the chess world (it has al
ready been taki ng place for 66 years !) which
is wel l-organised and has its own un ique at
mosphere. Around a thousand people come
every day from all over the N etherlands, as
wel l as from other countries, to watch the
games. I didn't start wel l i n this tournament
either, so I desperately wanted to win this
game in order to get back on track. But how
to do this with Black against a strong and
solid 2650 player who wants to play for a win
according to his style in a safe mode, without
burning his boats ? I decided to choose the
M eran Variation , which I have played many
times with both colours.
Basically I think it is better to fianchetto the

bishop in this type of position , but in the
Sem i-Slav M i khai l l i kes to place his bishop
on d2, as he has done a few times against
Alexander Morozevich . For 9 b3 see the
game Gelfand - Lautier (No. 39 , p. 1 72).
. .
Ilea
Wh ite was hoping for 9 . . . e5 1 0 cxd5 cxd5

1 1 tDb5 Ab8 12 d xe5 tDxe5 1 3 tDxe5 Axe5
14 Ac3 ;!;; with a smal l but risk-free advan
tage.
10 Ilad1
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 .t1c3 .t1f6 4 e3 e6 5 .t1f3

.t1bd7 6 1!!fc2 Ad6 7 Ad3
The most popular plan since the famous Kar
pov - Kramn i k game i n Vienna 1 996. I had
recently been successful with the Shabalov
Shirov Attack 7 g4, including a win over Joel
Lautier a few rounds earl ier. But this clearly
requires a lot of homework in order to imple
ment it.
. . .
0-0 a 0-0 h6
I had to face th is move four times against

Joel Lautier i n 1 999, and I chose it as it
leads to a complicated game and should n 't
have been wel l known to my opponent, as it
had never occurred in his games with either
colour. 8 . . . e5 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 e4 !? leads to a
sl ight advantage for White where Black can
hope only for a draw. 8 . . . d x c4 9 Axc4 a6 is
a good line, one chosen many times by both
myself and my opponent.
10 . . . dxc4! N
Using a standard idea at the right moment.
11 Axc4 e5 =
Black is threatening . . . e5-e4 , while the
bishop at d2 is misplaced .
1 2 dxe5
Wh ite releases the tension i n the centre.
12 Ad3 ! ? leads to an approximately equal
game.
1 2 . . . .t1xe5 13 .t1xe5 Axe5 14 f4?!

Safer was 14 e2 e4 15 Ac3 with an equal
game.
200
14 . . . Ac7 15 c!>h1
Game 46
Gurevich - Gelfand , Corus Tournament, Wijk aan Zee 2002

...
White's pieces. Safer was 16 . . . Ae6 17 Axe6

.l;xe6 1 8 e4 g4 1 9 Ac1 'f!! h 4 20 g3 'f!! h 3
21 'f!!g 2 'f!! h S 22 .l;d1 with a complicated
game.
8
7
6
17 Ab3 'ttd 7
17 . . . b4 18 e2 (18 a4 as) 18 . . . 'f!!d 6
1 9 g3 ;1;; , or 1 7 . . . as 18 a3.
18 e4 b4?
White is preparing e4-eS . The next few

moves are critical, as Black has to prevent
this advance at any cost.
1 5 . . . Ag4?!
Now the knight has to move to a poor

sq uare, but on the other pawn Black's
pawn chain will lack mobil ity. Stronger was
18 . . . cS !? 19 eS c4 20 Axc4 (20 exf6 AfS
21 'f!!c1 cxb3 22 axb3 b4 oo) 20 . . . AfS 21 'f!!c1
bxc4 22 exf6 with an u nbalanced position ,
where both sides have their trumps.
a
Playing into the Wh ite's hands. There is noth

ing for the bishop to d o on g4. 1 S . . . g4 !
(or 1 S . . . 'f!!e7 , preventing 1 6 e4 i n view of
16 . . . xe4 17 xe4 AfS !?) was stronger:
e
--1
""-=-l
A) 16 'f!!g 6 'f!!e7 (16 . . . 'f!!f6) 17 e4 ? (this loses

quickly, but after 1 7 h3 f6 White cannot
push his pawn to eS , and so Black stands
better)
5
4
8
7
6
1---=_
I-,"",-",
5
4
3
2
--------
19 a4?
Surprisingly, my opponent made this move
instantly. It is probable that he assessed in
correctly the position after the 22n d move.
The knight will remain on a4 until the end of
the game.
17 . . . <!>f8 18 'f!! h7 (18 'f!! h S g6) 18 . . . 'f!! h4 19 h3
'f!!g 3 20 'f!!h 8+ <!>e7 ;
B) 1 6 'f!! b 3 'f!!e7 1 7 h3 b S (17 . . . Ab6 !?)
18 xbS c x bS 19 AdS .l; b8 20 Ab4 'f!!f6
21 hxg4 Axg4 22 .l;c1 with a defensible pos
ition .
16 gde1 b5!?
Black chooses a plan of counterplay on
the q ueenside, gaining tempi by attacking
The correct move for the knight was 19 ttlb1 ! .

Despite its strange appearance, from here
the knight could have hoped to get back
i nto the game via d2 and , what is most
i m portant, all the tactics i nvolvi ng the e4
pawn would be removed . 1 9 . . . aS (1 9 . . . Ab6
20 Ax b4 .l;xe4? 21 .l;xe4 xe4 22 'f!!x e4 .l;e8
23 'f!!g6) 20 Aa4 ! (I didn't see this move dur
ing the game ; 20 Ac1 xe4 2 1 .l;xe4 .l;xe4
22 'f!!x e4 AfS ; 20 a3 !?), and now :
201
A) 20 . . J ;ac8 21 Axc6 (21 e5 Af5 22 xc6

ged 8 ; 21 Ac1 !) 21 . . . Axf4 22 Axd7 gxc2
23 Axe8 Axd2 24 xd2 xe8 25 b3 a4
26 d4 gx b2 27 gb1 ;
of the knight on a4 were stronger factors

than the temporary lack of coordin ation of
the black pieces.
B) 20 . . . ga6 21 Ac1 ! (21 gc1 ? Ae2 22 gfe1

Ad3 23 Axc6 d8 24 c5 Ab6 (24 . . . Ax b1
25 Axe8 xe8 26 gx b1 xd2 +) 25 f5 gf8
26 Ab7 ga7 27 gc8 gx b7 28 gxd8 gxd8)
21 Ac1 ! gd8 (21 . . . xe4 '!? 22 gxe4 gxe4
23 xe4 Af5 24 e2 Ad3 25 gd1 ) 22 d2
and the kn ight comes back i nto play, giving
White a serious advantage.
23 b7 e2 24 gg1
24 . . . f2 + .
19 . . . Hxe4 20 Hxe4?!
23 .g6
(24
gc1
e3)
23 . . . .te2!
The point of Black's concept.
24 .xf7+ h8 25 .f5 .txf1 26 .xc8+

.td8 27 .a8
27 b7 Ab5.
27 . . . .tb5!
White fails to sense the danger and follows

the wrong track. He could have mai ntained
the balance by 20 c5 ! gxe1 21 gxe1 d6
22 b7 ! d4 (22 . . . d7 23 c5 =) 23 Ae3 00
(23 ge7 Axf4 24 g6 Ah5).
20 . . . .tixe4 21 .xe4
21 Ax b4 ge8 =+= was the lesser evil .
2 1 . . .xd2 22 .xc6
22 e7 Ae2 .
22 . . . Hc8 +
a
1f
Now things are clear. Black's queen and two

bishops are attacking the king and White's
position is hopeless.
28 h3
28
30
tal
33
xa7 Ac6 29 g1 Af6 ! (29 . . . xf4

c5 Ab6 31 d3) 30 f1 Ad4 (to
domination !) 31 h3 g5 32 fxg5 Axg2+
xg2 e1 + 34 <!>h2 Ae5+.
28. . .c1 + 29 h2 .xf4+ 30 h1 ?
1f
The critical position of the game. I was told

that the grandmasters in the press room
thought Black was i n danger. However I felt
that the two bishops and the poor position
Losing i mmediately, but 30 g3 d6 31 f3

Ac7 32 f2 Ac6 was also hopeless.
3O . . .c1 + White resigns

Since if 31 <!>h2 c7+ 32 <!>h1 Ac6.
***
202
Game 47
Grischu k - Gelfand , Corus Tournament, Wijk aan Zee 2002

1. 9
Game 47
A l exa n d e r G r i s ch u k - B o r i s G e l fa n d
Co rus To u r n a m e n t , Wij k aan Zee 2002
Pe tro ff Defence [C42]
Despite his youth , my opponent in this game
has already shown hi mself to be one of the
strongest players in modern chess. I l i ke his
natural and energetic style and he is proba
bly the last player whose development has
not been strongly i nfl uenced by com puter
programs.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6
After many years of playing only the Najdorf
Variation agai nst 1 e4, I added the Petroff
Defence to my repertoire. I remember Victor
Korchnoi saying something l i ke ' if a player
wants to develop, he has to include new
open ings i n his repertoire' . The Petroff has
the reputation of being a dull open ing, where
Black is fighting on ly for a draw. However, as
my experience has shown , it can be no less
exciting than the Sicilian.
cxd5
cxd5 1 0 ttlc3 e8 (10 . . . ttlxc3 1 1 bxc3 g4
is the main theoretical line - see Short
Gelfand, Game No. 1 9, p. 94), and now :
A) 1 1 xe4 d x e4 1 2 ttlg5 f5 1 3 f3 (this
straightforward approach doesn 't pose any
big problems; 13 e1 ttlc6 14 d5 ttlb4
15 ttlg xe4 xe4 16 ttlxe4 ttlxd5 17 g5 e7
1 8 tWh5 g6 1 9 xe7 g x h5 20 xd8 axd8
with a sym bolic advantage for White, Fritz
Anand , Frankfurt 2000) 1 3 . . . e3 14 ttlge4
f4 1 5 ttle2 ?! (it was time to settle for a
d raw by 1 5 e1 xe4 (15 . . . ttlc6 1 6 x e3
xe3+ 1 7 xe3 tWx d4 =) 1 6 ttlxe4 x h2+
17 xh2 xe4 18 fxe4 tWh4+ = ; after 1 5 d5
ttld7 1 6 tWe2 tWb6 Black is fine) 1 5 . . . h6
1 6 tWb3 g6 !
r--.I--.--r- --,.-,-..-r------,..,...---.
.t.
3 xe5 d6 4 f3 xe4 5 d4 d5 6 d3
d6
Since the year 2000 I have also tried 6 . . . e7
7 0-0 ttlc6 many times.
7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6
a
e
8
A
________________ v
9 1!rc2
During the next few months after this game I
had to face other continuations :
==L- 'lf
(the refutation of Wh ite's idea! - if 1 6 . . . e6

1 7 tWx b7 d5 18 tWb5 ttlc6 1 9 ttl4c3 ,
o r 1 6 . . . ttlc6 1 7 xe3 e6 1 8 tWc3 xe3+
19 tWxe3 c4 =) 17 tWx b7 ttld7 (the c1 bishop,
the e2 knight and neither of the rooks are
taki ng part in the game, and this is for j ust
for one pawn ; in addition the e3 pawn is ex
tremely dangerous) 18 b3 (18 tWb3 ttlf6 with
the i n itiative) 18 . . . ttlf6 19 ttlxf6+ ? (this ex
change of the only active piece is the deci
sive mistake; if 19 ttlc5 ttld5 =t or 19 . . . tWb6!?,
but better was 19 ttl4c3 =t) 19 . . . tWxf6 20 b2
d3 21 fe1 ac8 ! -+ and I didn 't man
age to spoil this won position (Morozevich
Gelfand, NAO, Cannes 2002) ;
8) more problems can be posed by 1 1 e1
ttlxc3 1 2 xe8+ tWxe8 13 bxc3 g4
(13 . . . ttlc6 allowed Black to equal ise after
14 tWb3 tWd7 15 g3 f8 16 a3 xa3
203
17 xa3 d8 18 ge1 Ae6 19 c1 h6 20 tDh4

k8, Kasparov- Ehlvest, Moscow Grand Prix
rapid 2002) 14 gb1 ! N (this strong novelty
created serious problems for me) 14 . . . e7 ?
(14 . . . d7 1S h3 Axf3 1 6 xf3 ;;1;; ) 1 S h3 AhS
16 gbS d7 (16 . . . Axf3 17 xf3 e1 + 18 Af1
xc1 1 9 xdS +-) 1 7 c4 d xc4 (17 . . . tDc6
18 gxdS Axf3 19 xf3 tDb4 20 gbS tDxd3
21 xd3 ge8 )
other hand, White has already exchanged on

dS, which allows Black to gain counterplay
on the c -fi le.
1 S . . . gc8 (1S . . . AxeS 16 d xeS tDcS 17 tDe2 ;;1;;
leaves White with a smal l , but risk-free ad
vantage), and now :
A) 1 6 f3 'ff h 4 1 7 g3 tDxg3 1 8 h xg3 'ffx g3+
(18 . . . 'ffx d4+ 19 g2 AxeS 20 Ae3 +-)
1 9 f1 00 ;
B) 1 6 Af4
Analysis diagram after 17 c4 dxc4
1 8 Ax h7+ ! x h7 1 9 tDgS+ g6 20 c2+

fS 21 xc4 tDc6 (21 . . . tDa6 22 gdS gfB
23 Af4) 22 g4 tDxd4 (22 . . . Axg4 23 h xg4
tDxd4 24 gdS) 23 g x hS+ (missing a beau
tifu l win by 23 gdS, when Black is helpless
against gd6) 23 . . . xhS 24 gdS (24 xd4?
Ah2+) 24 . . . gc8 (now, fortunately, there is
no longer a win) 2S 'ffx d4 gxc1 + 26 g2
xgS 27 gxd6 'ffe7 28 gd7 'ffe 4+ 29 'ffx e4
fxe4 30 gxg7+ f6 31 gx b7 gc2 32 gxa7
e3 33 ga3 gxf2+ 34 g3 fS 3S gxe3
gxa2 1/2-1/2 (Topalov - Gelfand , Melody Am
ber, Monaco rapid 2002) .
11. 9 [je1
AfS 1 0 'ff b 3 tDa6 1 1 cxdS cxdS 1 2 tDc3

Ae6 13 a3 tDc7 14 'ffc 2 (14 'ffx b7 g b8
1S xa7 ga8 16 b7 is a way to draw) 14 . . . fS
1S tDeS !? N .
After this novelty the position strongly re
sem b les the main l i ne, but with two d iffer
ences. The black bishop is on e6, rather than
c8, and as a conseq uence it prevents the
knight from going to e6, an i m portant ma
noeuvre that I used in the main game. On the
1 6 . . . gS I .
Black has to take action to build u p counter
play. If Wh ite has time to play f2-f3 and expel
the kn ight from e4, he will clearly be better in
view of the weakness of the eS square. Now
White has :
B 1 ) 1 7 Ad2 ?! tDa6 1 8 'ffd 1 (18 tDf3 g4
1 9 tDgS Af7) 1 8 . . . AxeS (18 . . . 'ff b 6 1 9 Axe4
fxe4 20 AxgS 'ffx b2 (20 . . . AxeS 21 d xe5
xf2+ 22 h1 ) 21 tDe2 AxeS 22 dxeS xe5
23 tDd4 ! 55 with excellent counterplay due
to the vulnerable position of the black ki ng)
1 9 d x eS tDacS 20 Ac2 tDxd2 21 'ffx d2 d4
with sl ightly the better game for Black, which
I converted i nto a win (Fressinet - Gelfand,
NAO, Cannes 2002) . Two wins (against Mo
rozevich in the 7t h round and this one in the
last rou nd) in the Petroff brought me victory
i n this strong (category 18) NAO Masters ;
B2) 1 7 Ae3 !? - the critical move, on which
the assessment of the position depends.
9 a6 10 a3 f5
Th is plan was rei ntrod uced i nto top-level
chess by my Dutch friend Jeroen Piket
against M ichael Adams one round earl ier
204
. . .
Game 47
Grischuk- Gelfand , Corus Tournament, Wijk aan Zee 2002
and against Alexander Morozevich the same

day. Black tries to establish his knight on
e4 i n the style of Harry Nelson Pillsbury.
10 . . J e8 11 c3 Ag4 was popular in 2001 ,
but there Black is fighting only for a draw.
1 1 c3 c7 12 1le1
I fail to understand the idea beh ind this
move, as the f2 pawn is weakened and there
is noth ing for the rook to do on the e-file. But
my opponent thought it was a good idea.
Practice has shown that 12 e2 or 12 b4
gives White better chances of gaining an ad
vantage.
1 5 cxd5
White accepts the challenge. Weaker was
15 tf:}e2 tf:}6g5 ! 16 tf:}e5 Axe5 17 dxe5 f4 with
a strong attack, for example 18 d4 (18 f3
xf3+ 1 9 g xf3 g5+ 20 g3 fxg3 21 fxe4
f2) 1 8 . . . f3 1 9 h4 h3+ 20 g x h3 x h4.
15 . . . cxd5 16 xd5 Ilc8

A strong i ntermed iate move. Wh ite has to
decide where to go with his queen .
17 'ftd1
a
..
12 . . . h8
It is useful to remove the king from the a2-g8
diagonal .
13 b4 Ad7 14 Ab2
Here at least the queen won 't be subject to

an attack. If 1 7 b3 6g5 , 1 7 c3 f4, or
17 e2 Ac6.
17 6g5!
Th is strong move came as a su rprise to
my you nger opponent. He was counting on
17 . . . Ac6 18 e3 f4 19 d 5 ! and Wh ite is
better. After the text move all Black's pieces
are taking part in the attack.
.
14 . . . e6!
It was also good enough to follow a game
from the books, but I think that my m ove is
stronger. This novelty secured second place
in the competition for the best novelty of In
formator 83. And, incidentally, the game itself
tied equal 3rd in the competition for the best
game in the same Informator. After 14 . . . Ae8
15 c5 (15 e5 e6) 1 5 . . . Ae7 1 6 e5 Ah4
17 f1 Ag5 18 tf:}e2 Ah5 19 tf:}g3 Ag6 20 fe1
Af4 21 Ac1 Axe5 22 dxe5 h4 23 Ab2 tf:}e6
24 ad1 f4 Black was better i n the game
G ufeld - Kochiev, (U SSR Team Cup, Rostov
1 980).
205
18 e5
a
8
..
e
8
7
6
I thought that White was playi ng with fi re,

but this is probably his best option .
1 8 tLle3 tLlxf3+ (18 . . . Aa4 1 9 e2 tLlc3
20 Axc3 tLlxf3+ 21 xf3 xc3 22 e2 )
19 xf3 was the alternative:
A) 1 9 . . . tLlgS (this is what I had i n m i nd)
20 hS f4 (20 . . . Ae8 21 d1 f4 22 tLlfS Ag6
23 tLlxd6 xd6 24 dS, and if 24 . . . f3 2S h4
fxg2 26 hxgS f4 27 f3 h4 28 Axg6 hxg6
29 AeS) 21 tLlc4 (21 tLlg4 AfS) and it is not
easy to continue the attack;
B) 1 9 . . . h4 ! (this is stronger) 20 g3 h6
(now the queen has joined Black's forces and
he has numerous threats) 21 g2 (otherwise
. . . tLlgS and . . . fS-f4 would fol low; if 21 Axe4
fxe4 22 g2 f3 +) 21 . . . tLlxf2 22 xf2 f4
23 gxf4 xf4 24 g2 cf8 and I don 't see a
defence.
18 . . . h3+ !!
The kn ight is sacrificed not even for a pawn ,
but White's king comes under a strong at
tack. I should poi nt out that this was q u ite
a lengthy journey by the kn ight (b8-a6-c7e6-gS-h3) . After 18 . . . Ac6 1 9 tLlf4 B lack's
play comes to a dead end.
19 gxh3 Og5+ 20 Ci!?f1

20 tLlg4 tLlxf2 ! loses on the spot.
a
7
6
A) 21 e2 AxeS 22 d x eS Ac6 23 Ac4

(23 Axe4 fxe4) 23 . . . x h3+ (the reason why
I rejected 20 . . . h4 was that after 23 . . . tLld2+
24 xd2 xc4+ 2S g1 Ax dS 26 ac1
Wh ite seizes the initiative, but Black can play
more strongly on his 23rd move) 24 g1
tLld2 ! (on ly now !) 2S xd2 g4+ 26 h1
(26 f1 xc4+ 27 e2 AxdS 28 c1 bS
29 xc8 xc8 30 g1 +) 26 . . . xc4 + and
in view of the vulnerabil ity of the wh ite king,
Black's chances must be preferred ;
B) 21 e2 x h3+, and now :
B 1 ) Alexander i ntended to play on a piece
up, but I believe that after 22 e1 Axe5
23 d xeS x h2 24 tLle3 h1 + 2S tLlf1 tLlg5
26 c2 cd 8 ! (26 . . . tLlf3+ 27 e2 xc2+
28 Axc2) Wh ite can not save the game.
Clearly, it is hard to prove this 100% with
variations, but this was my feel ing about
the position both during the game and after
spend ing a n u m ber of hours analysing it
later. If 27 e2 tLlf3+ 28 d1 AbS ;
2 1 dxe5 Ac6!?
3
2
20 . . . h4 was my origi nal intention :
B2) 22 g1 (I think Wh ite has to be satis

fied with a d raw) 22 . . . AxeS 23 d x eS g4+
(23 . . . tLlgS 24 e3) 24 f1 h3+ (24 . . . Aa4
2S xa4 tLlcS 26 bxcS (26 d1 h3+
27 g1 =) 26 . . . xa4 27 e6 with the initiative)
2S g1 = .
...
told that in the press room 20 . . . Aa4 21 xa4

h4 22 e2 was analysed , but I cou ldn't be
lieve that it would work.
20 . . . Axe5
B lack has a wide choice of possibilities
and u nfortunately Wh ite can hold in all the
lines. 20 . . . Ac6 21 tLlxc6 h4 22 e2 x h3+
23 e1 doesn 't look too promisi ng. I was
Black could have won the queen , but this

is what Wh ite was hoping for: 21 . . . tLld2+
22 e2 Ae8 23 tLle3 AhS+ 24 xd2
Axd1 2S axd1 and Black's attack is over,
whereas Wh ite launches a cou nterattack
after 2S . . . fd8 (2S . . . f4 26 tLlc4 f3+ 27 e3
h4 28 e1 xc4 29 Axc4 xc4 30 e6)
26 g1 h6 27 e1 .
21 . . . Ae6 !? was another strong continuation,
which would have g iven Black a powerfu l
attack:
206
Game 47
Grischu k - Gelfand , Corus Tournament, Wijk aan Zee 2002
A) 22 Ac1 ? 'tWh4 23 Axe4 fxe4 24 f4 E!xc1

25 'tWxc1 E!xf4 and wins;
B) 22 E!xe4 fxe4 23 Ax e4 Axh3+ (23 . . .
gcd8 !?) 24 e2 'tWh4 25 f3 Af5 ! (25 . . . Ae6 !?)
26 Axf5 E!xf5 27 E!c1 'tWx h2+ 28 d3 E!cf8
(28 . . . E!d8 29 e4) 29 Ad4 E!xf3+ with an
unbalanced position where I prefer Black;
C) 22 f4 'tWh4 23 Axe4 fxe4 24 g1
E!cd8 (24 . . . Axd5 25 'tWg4 (25 'tWxd5 E!c2)
25 . . . 'tWxg4+ (25 . . . 'tWh6 26 Ad4 E!c6 27 f5
E!xf5 28 'tWxf5 E!g6+ 29 f1 ) 26 h xg4 E!xf4
27 h3 =) 25 Ac1 E!xd5 26 'tWe2 'tWx h3 +
and Black has regained his piece whereas
Wh ite's king is open ;
22 .tc1 !
Probably the only way to save the game.
Worse was 22 f4 'tWh6 23 Axe4 fxe4 24 g1
gcd8 25 'tWg4 E!xd5 26 Ac1 gd3 +, or 22 ttle3
E!cd8 23 'tWc2 E!xd3 24 'tWxd3 'tWf4 25 tDd1
tDd2+ 26 g1 tDf3+ 27 f1 'tWx h2 28 e2
'tWx h3 with an attack,
22
The proposal of my good friend Zohara

Olpi ner 21 . . . E!cd8 can be refuted :
A) 22 E!e3 Ae6 (22 . . . f4 23 E!f3 Aa4
24 'tWe2 +-, or 22 . . . Ac6 23 Axe4 (23 f4 'tWh6)
23 . . . fxe4 24 'tWg4) or 23 tDc3 'tWh4 24 'tWe2
ttlg5 25 f4 'tWxf4+ 26 g1 00 ;
..
c
8
7
6
3
2
24
xh3+
N ot 24 . . . E!cd 8 ? 25 'tWg4 . An i nteresting try

would be 24 . . . E!f3 25 b5 ! Axb5+ 26 g1
gxh3 (26 . . . E!d8 27 e6 E!xh3 28 e7 ge8 29 Af4
E!d3 30 Ag3 'tWg5 31 tDc7) 27 Af4 E!d3
28 Ag3 'tWd8 29 'tWg4 E!xd5 30 E!xe4 with
chances for both sides.
25 g1 .txd5
Black has to force a draw. If 25 . . . E!cd8
26 tDf4 'tWh4 27 tDg2 .
26 .xd5 .g4+
26 . . . E!c6 ? 27 Af4 +- (27 'tWxe4 E!g6+ 28 h1
E!f5 29 Af4 E!xf4 30 E!ad1 ) .
27 1 .h3+
B) 22 f4 'tWh4 ;
C) 22 Ac1 ! 'tWh4 (22 . . . f4 23 'tWf3) 23 'tWf3 Ac6
24 Axe4 fxe4 25 'tWg3 (25 gxe4 ) 25 . . . 'tWxg3
26 hxg3 gxd5 .
01 ) 24 . . . E!fd8?! 25 f1 'tWg1 26 E!c1 ! (26 h4

E!d7) 26 . . . E!xc1 27 Axc1 c3 (27 . . . Ac4
28 E!c2) 28 'tWc2 xe2 29 Axe2 and I prefer
Wh ite here;
03) 24 . . . 'tWh1 + 25 ttlf1 ttlg5 26 E!c2 E!cd8

(26 . . . If)f3+ 27 e2 E!cd8 28 ttld2 +-) 27 f4
ttlf3+ (27 . . . 'tWx h3!? 28 fxg5 E!xd3 29 'tWe2
E!fd8 with ful l compensation for the piece)
28 f2 Ad5 29 g3 ! tDe1 ! 30 'tWxe1 'tWf3+
31 h2 'tWh1 + with perpetual check.
h4 23 .txe4 fxe4 24 .te3
24 E!a2 e3 ! (24 . . . 'tWx h3+ 25 g1 E!cd8

26 E!d2 =) 25 E!xe3 'tWc4+ + , or 24 tDf4 E!xf4
25 Axf4 'tWx h3+ 26 g1 e3 -+.
0) 22 e3 'tWf4 ! (22 . . . 'tWh4 ? 23 E!e2 'tWx h3+

24 g1 g5 25 f4 and wins) 23 E!e2 'tWx h2
24 e1 , and now :
02) 24 . . . E!cd8 25 ttlf1 'tWg1 (25 . . . 'tWh1 26 E!e3)

26 h4 (preventi ng . . . g5) 26 . . . E!d7 (26 . . . g5
27 'tWc2 E!c8 28 'tWb1 g x h4 29 Axe4 fxe4
30 'tWxe4 h3 31 f3 (0) 27 'tWc2 E!fd8 28 E!d1
and it is hard to assess this position ;
. .
27 . . . 'tWf3 28 g1 (28 e6 gc2 29 g1 ).
207
28 g1 .g4+ 29 1 Draw agreed
***

Game 48
White is threatening 9 tDe5.
B o r i s G e l fa n d - L a z a ro B r u z o n
O l y m p i ad , B l ed 2002
Ca talan Opening [E04]
B . . . Ad6
Every player has his own way of establishing

an open ing repertoire and prepari ng for an
event. Some prepare concretely for tourna
ments and l i ke to switch from one variation
to another without paying m uch attention
to subtleties. I, however, bel ieve that you
should study open ings deeply and not be
in a h urry to reap the benefits. As you may
have noticed , on a n u m ber of occasions I
have used novelties that were invented many
years earlier. Th is game broke all the records,
as it contains a novelty that I analysed back
in 1 985 . I had to wait half of my l ife to use it !
My opponent was then four years old and I
doubt whether he yet knew the moves.
Lazaro Bruzon was the world under-20
champion in 2000, and together with Le
n ier Dominguez he is probably the biggest
hope of Cuba since the time of Jose- Rau l
Capablanca.
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 f3 f6 4 g3 d x c4
S Ag2 a6
Black tries to hold on to the pawn.
6 0-0 c6 7 e3 Ad7
After 7 . . J b8 8 tDfd2 8 . . . d7 9 tDxc4 b5
10 tDcd2 White regains the pawn with a sl ight
advantage (Gelfand -V. M i lov, Bie1 2000) .
Thus 8 . . . b5 ? is sim ply a blu nder: 9 ttJe5

ttJxe5 10 dxe5 ttJd5 11 ttJxd5 exd5 1 2 xd5
(Gelfand -Van Wely, Melody Amber, Monaco
rapid 2001 ).
However, interesting is 8 . . . Ab4 9 ttJe5 ttJxe5
10 dxe5 Axc3 11 bxc3 ttJd5 12 Aa3 (12 g4
0-0 13 e4 f5 14 exf6 tDxf6 15 e2 e7 00)
12 . . . g5 (12 . . . Ac6 13 g4) 13 d4!? (White
should keep the i n itiative, not regain mate
rial ; 13 Axd5?! exd5 14 xd5 0-0-0, or 13 f4
g6 00 ) 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 a7 (14 f4 !?) 14 . . . Ac6
15 .!3.fd1 xe5 16 .!3.d4 with full compensation
for the two pawns, but not more (Gelfand
Adams, Engh ien-Ies- Bains 2003).
9 .e2 bS 10 e4 Ae7
Dangerous is 10 . . . e5 11 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 2 ttJxe5
AxeS 1 3 f4 Axc3 (13 . . . Ad4+ 14 Ae3 Ac6
1 5 e5 Axg2 1 6 xg2 ) 14 bxc3 c6 15 f5
and White has a strong i n itiative (Tkachiev
Bel iavsky, Enghien-Ies-Bains 1 999).
1 1 dS b4
In an unpubl ished game from my youth Black
tried 11 . . . exd5 12 e5 ttJe4 13 ttJxd5, but after
1 3 . . . tDc5 14 tDf6+ ! his king got stuck i n the
centre and his .!3.h8 was out of play: 14 . . . f8
1 5 tDxd7+ x d7 1 6 .!3.d1 tDd3 1 7 tDe1 .!3.d8
18 tDxd3 cxd3 1 9 e4 tDd4 20 Ad2 ttJe6
21 .!3.ac1 h5 22 Aa5 (Gelfand - I . Botvinnik,
Belarussian Championsh ip 1 985) .
B c3
a
12 eS exdS
b
...
8
7
.1
e
8
7
6
208
'If
Game 48
Gelfand - Bruzon, Olympiad , Bled 2002
13 a3!? N
8
I found this interesting idea with my coach

Al bert Kapengut immed iately after the game
with l Iya Botvi nnik. A few years ago I tried
this l i ne with Black against Anatoly Karpov
and obtai ned an equal position after the
harmless 13 exd5 0-0 14 a3 d3 15 xd3
Ag4 16 YWe3 cxd3 17 YWxd3 YWd7 (Karpov
Gelfand, Dos Hermanas 1 999) .
7
6
5
4
1 3 . . . d3 14 ttlxd3 cxd3 1 5 trxd3

The point of White's idea is that he wants to
take on d5 with a piece after e4-e5.
15
. .
dxe4
15 . . . c6 1 6 exd5.
1 6 ttlxe4 ttlxe4
16 . . . Ae6 1 7 xf6+ Axf6 1 8 Ac6+ ! f8
19 YWc2 with fine compensation for the pawn .
17 trxe4
17 Axe4 Ah3 1 8 YWf3 Axf1 1 9 Ac6+ f8
20 Axa8 Ac4 and I am u nable to find any
thing concrete here, but it is obvious that
White has fu ll com pensation for the pawn.
19
. .
d6?
Bei ng already short of time (thanks to F I D E

w e were forced t o play with the sense
less new time control), Bruzon panicked .
If 1 9 . . . Af6?! 20 YWc2 , but the cool-headed
19 . . . ge8 ! 20 YWc2 Ad6 21 Axd6 cxd6
22 gxd6 gb6 23 gd4 ;t would have left Wh ite
with only a slight edge. Another sugges
tion of Lukacs and Hazai may also be good :
19 . . . gb6, and if 20 Axc7 YWxc7 21 YWxe7 ge6
22 YWxd7 ? ge1 +.
20 xd6 cxd6 21 gxd6 gb6?

This is simply a blunder (21 . . . YWc8 22 YWf4 i) .
22 gd2
17 . . . lib8
Black could bail out by 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 YWxa8

YWxa8 19 Axa8 gxa8 ;t with good d rawing
chances. White would like to exchange rooks
or bishops, but I don't see how he can do
this. A good idea may be 20 gd1 Ae6 21 Af4
Af6 22 gd2 c5 23 ge1 h5 24 Ae5, as rec
ommended by Lukacs and Hazai i n New in
Chess Yearbook 68.
e
8
7
6
5
18 f4
White is a pawn down , but the pressu re of
his bishops is strong . 18 ge1 g b6 ! 19 Af4
was tempting, but after 1 9 . . . ge6 20 YWb7
0-0 21 Axc7 (21 gxe6 Axe6 22 YWxa6 Ac4)
21 . . . YWc8 Black holds on .
18
. . .
Black cannot avoid loss of material due to

the pin on the d -fi le.
22 . . . ge8
22 . . . YWc8 23 YWd4.
0-0 19 gfd1
23 trd5 ge7 24 Ah3 Black resigns
209

Game 49
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Peter A e s
P o l a n d S u perc u p , 2 0 0 3
Sicilian Defence [86 7]
e
8
7
6
This was the first time I played for the Polo

nia Warsaw club. The event was the Poland
Supercup between the two strongest teams
in the national league. Our opponents repre
sented the city of Grodzisk Mazowiecki , the
birthplace of the legendary M iguel Najdorf, a
person adored by almost all chess players in
the world for his pure love of the game. Obvi
ously I wanted to play my best in this city. My
opponent, the 2001 world j u n ior champion,
is a pupil of the famous Hungarian theoreti
cians Laszlo Hazai and Peter Lu kacs. It is
no wonder, therefore, that he is excellently
prepared in the openings and last year he
scored a number of memorable wins against
some of the world 's best players. I n the first
round of the event he was extremely close
to adding my name to the l ist of players he
had beaten , so I arrived for this game fu l ly
concentrated .
1 e4
Th is move could have been a l ittle surprise
for my opponent, as 1 d4 has been my main
weapon for more than a decade. However, I
had been working hard to widen my reper
toire and to play 1 e4 as wel l .
1 . . . e 5 2 f3 d6 3 d 4 exd4 4 xd4 f6
5 e3 e6 6 Ag5 e6 7 .d2 a6
3
2
-------
1 e4 was my main weapon (about 20 years

ago) that this plan contains more venom than
it appears.
9 . . . Axe6
9 . . . bxc6 is bad due to 1 0 e5 ! d xe5 1 1 Axf6
g xf6 1 2 e4 Ae7 13 h6 f5 14 d6+ Axd6
15 gxd6, when Black is on the verge of los
ing, as his king is stuck in the centre and he
has numerous weaknesses.
10 .e1 .a5
After 1 0 . . . Ae7 1 1 e5 d5 1 2 Axe7 xe7
White has a pleasant choice between 13 e4
d x e5 14 c4 f6 1 5 d6+ f8 1 6 xe5,
and 13 xd5 Axd5 14 c4 gc8 (14 . . . Axc4!?)
15 b1 Axc4 1 6 gc1 d5 1 7 b3 b5 1 8 bxc4
bxc4 1 9 a1 , when the two pawns do
not fully com pensate for the piece (Short
Mednis, Brighton 1 983) .
1 1 f4 Ae7
a
The Richter- Rauzer Variation was extremely

popular in the 1 990s, but now the N aj
dorf and the Sveshnikov are Black's main
weapons in the Sicilian.
--"-1'-"""
S 0-0-0 J.d7
6
5
(see next diagram)
9 xe6
This is a real sidel ine of theory. 9 f3 or 9 f4
is played in nearly all of the top-level games.
However, I remembered from the time when
210
--------
Game 49
Gelfand -Acs, Poland Supercup, 2003
1 2 .th4!?
This idea of Gennady Kuzm in brought a lot
of success to him and his pupil Maya Chi bur
dan idze (then the women 's world champion)
in the early 1 980s. Earl ier that year (2003)
I checked this line again and I d iscovered
that, for no apparent reason , since then no
body had tried it. So, I decided to do so
myself! 1 2 Ad3 h6 13 Ah4 g5 gives Black
good counterplay.
12 . . . Hc8
It was obvious that Peter was not fam i l iar
with White's plan , as he spent a lot of time in
the open ing stage. 12 . . . 'c7 1 3 Ad3 0-0-0
14 .E!f1 .E!d7 15 b1 b8 16 h3 e5 17 Ag3
exf4 18 Axf4 gave White the advantage in
Kuzmin - Liptay, (European Cup 1 983) .
1 2 . . . b5 1 3 e5 d xe5 14 fxe5 and if 14 . . .
coe4 ? 1 5 Axe7 coxc3 1 6 Ad6 ! +-. Bad is
12 . . . coxe4? 13 Axe7 coxc3 14 Axd6 coxa2+
15 b1 't'fxe1 16 .E!xe1 +-, or 12 . . . O-O? 13 e5 .
1 3 .td3
White's idea is that the only natural develop
ment of Black's i n itiative i nvolves . . . b7-b5.
However, with his queen on a5, this is un
favourable on both the 1 2 t h and 13t h moves
due to e4-e5.
13
. . .
14 . . . O-O !? 1 5 .E!f1 b 5 1 6 e 5 d x e5 1 7 fxe5

ttld5 1 8 ttlxd5 Axd5 1 9 Af6 allows White
a strong attack (if 19 . . . Ac4 20 Ax h7+) , but
15 . . . .E!fe8 ! ? , as suggested by Lev Psakh is,
is interesting. Th is move looks i l logical , as
Black moves his rook off the f-fi le, which
is l i kely to become open . H owever, here,
as i n many other l ines of the Sicil ian , this
is the best place for the rook, and now
16 e5 (16 't'fe2 !?) is not so dangerous, in view
of 1 6 . . . d xe5 1 7 fxe5 ttld5 1 8 ttlxd5 Axd5
19 Af6 Ac4 20 Ax h7+? xh7 21 't'fh4+ g8
22 't'fg5 Af8 and White can resig n .
1 5 Hf1 !?
The most am bitious move. 15 Axe7 't'fxe7
1 6 .E!f1 cof6 ;t; would leave the i n itiative with
White, but not more.
15 . . . xf4!
Black is looki ng for cou nter-chances.
16 Hxf4
Harm less is 16 Axe7 ttlxd3 1 7 't'fg3 't'fxe7
1 8 't'fx g7 't'ff8 (18 . . . COx b2 1 9 't'fx h8+ d7
20 .E!xd6+ xd6 21 't'fxc8) 19 't'fxf8+ .E!xf8 =.
1 6 . . . g5
a
c7
Dangerous is 13 . . . b5 14 e5 d x e5 15 fxe5
cod5 16 Axe7 coxc3 17 Ad6.
14 b1
14 .E!f1 !? was perhaps more subtle, when
14 . . . coh5 would have much less point.
14 . . . h5!?
Now 14 . . . b5 is met by 15 Axf6 Axf6

(15 . . . gxf6 leads to a theoretical position that
favou rs White) 1 6 ttld5 Axd5 1 7 exd5 e5
18 g4 with an undisputed advantage for
White. A simi lar idea one move earl ier was
premature, as after 14 Axf6 Axf6 15 ttld5
Axd5 16 exd5 Black can gain strong cou n
terplay by 1 6 . . . 'b6 ! '
11
17 .txg5
It was very tem pting to play flamboyantly and
sacrifice some more material with 17 cod5 !?,
but I was u nable to find anything concrete
after either 17 . . . Axd5 18 exd5 gxf4 19 dxe6
O-O ! 20 't'fe4 f5 21 't'fxf4 d5 00 , or 1 7 . . . exd5
18 exd5 g xf4 19 dxc6 bxc6 20 .E!d2 !? (20 Af5
211
b8 21 c3 0-0 22 Af6 fe8 ! 00 ) 20 . . . f8

21 e2 , although White still has the initiative.
21 . . . d5 22 e2 would leave Black helpless.
22 ttie4 Af4
17 . . . Axg5 18 Ilf3
If B lack were able to transfer his bishop to
e5, he wou l d be out of trouble, but I hoped
that the pressure on the f-file would prevent
him from doing this.
18
. . .
Black could have put up more of a resistance

by 22 . . . g8 23 f6 (23 d6 gc7 24 Ax h7
gg7) 23 . . . Axf6 24 gxf6 g7 , when despite
White's advantage the game stil l goes on.
23 g3 Ah6 24 ttif6
e7?
Too slow. Active play was cal led for:

1 8 . . . a5 ! 1 9 f2 f8 (or i m med iately
19 . . . c5 20 xf7 xf2 21 gxf2 e7 22 gdf1
gcf8 ;t) 20 gf1 c5 ! (weaker is 20 . . . gc7
21 Ac4 (21 a7 b5, or 21 d5 exd5
22 gf5 d2 23 exd5 Ad7) 21 . . . e5 22 Ad5 !
(22 b6 Ad8) a n d Wh ite mai ntains his at
tack) 21 gxf7 xf2 22 g7xf2 ;t gxf2 23 gxf2
e7 . At the cost of a pawn Black has re
pelled the opponent's attack and , thanks to
his bishop pair, he has good chances of sav
ing the game.
24 d6 gc7 .
24 . . . Ilc7
The o n ly defence. If 24 . . . Ac6 25 d7+ +-,
or 24 . . . c5 25 xc5+ gxc5 26 xe8 xe8
27 gxf7 +-.
a
8
7
19 .f2
Threaten ing ge1 followed by d5.
1 9 . . . @f8 20 Ilf1 Ae8
3
2
'if
25 .b6!
6
5
After quite a long think I found a precise way

to win . 25 x h7+ gxh7 26 Ax h7 f5 was not
so clear.
25 . . . tllg7
'It
Black is hoping to bring hi s roo k i nto the

game by . . . gc5-e5, but . . .
21 e5!
A typical Sicil ian idea. White vacates the e4
square for his knight.
21 . . . dxe5
After 25 . . . c5 26 xc5+ xc5 27 xe8

xe8 28 xf7 or 25 . . . c6 26 a5 gc5
27 d7+ ! White wins.
25 . . . Ac6 was more stu b born : 26 3f2 !
(26 d5 ? exd5 27 xf7+ xf7 28 xc7
would allow my opponent to escape after
28 . . . Af4 ! 29 ffb6 f6 30 gxf4 e4 with coun
terplay) 26 . . . e4 (26 . . . Ag7 27 x h7+ gxh7
28 Axh7 f5 29 g4 +-)
212
Game 50
Shabalov - Gelfand , Bermuda, 2004
Black is helpless. Despite the relative mate

rial balance, his pieces are extremely bad ly
placed , his king may come under attack and
his pawns are weak.
29 . . . l1ee7 30 e4 g5 31 h4 11f1 +
and o nly now 27 &DdS exdS 28 gxf7+ 'tlVxf7

29 'tlVxc7 'tlVxf1+ 30 Axf1 +-.
26 ctsxe8+ I1xe8 27 I1xf7+ "xf7 28 I1xf7+
11xf7 29 a4 +a
8
Peter doesn 't want to suffer a slow death

and he loses in a few moves. After 31 . . . Af6
32 as Black can only sit and wait, while White
chooses between advancing his queenside
pawns, or playin g his queen to hS fol l owed
by the advance of his pawn to gS. However,
this wou ld require some precision .
32 a2 16 33 xb7 a5 34 "xa5!
I---
The last finesse.
34 . . . l1xb7
35 "a6
It is impossible to save both rooks.

3
35 . . . l1xb2+ 36 xb2 e4+ 37 c3 11f3

38 "xe6 11xg3 39 "c6 I1g2+ 40 b3
h5 41 a5 I1g1 42 "xe4
Black resigns
***
Game 50
A l e x a n d e r S h a b a l ov - B o r i s G e lfa n d
Berm u d a , 2 0 0 4
For already the 1 2 t h year i n a row the island
of Berm uda hosted a chess festival in Jan
uary. This event is made possible by two
people - the sponsor N ick Faul ks and the
organ iser N igel Freeman . Both of them are
100% devoted to chess, and it is no won
der that everyone who has played i n their
tou rnaments wants to return the next year!
Nick and N igel managed to stage one of the
highest-rated tournaments i n the history of
the Americas ! I really enjoyed playi ng there
and I played a number of entertaining games.
1 e4 c5 2 ctsf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ctsxd4 cts16

5 ctsc3 a6 6 g5
On my first evening in Bermuda I had a d is
cussion over d i nner with N ick Faul ks about
fashion in chess. He asked , among other
things, why everyone is going for the 6 Ae3
line against the Najdorf, whereas 6 AgS has
been as though abandoned for no reason . I
was amazed by his intu ition . The next morn
ing Vladimir Kramn i k played 6 AgS agai nst
Peter Svidler i n Wij k aan Zee and two more
games were played i n the Corus B and C
tournaments. H owever, you cannot accuse
Alex Shabalov of being a copycat player. Th is
line was the main weapon of Latvian players
(led by M i khail Tal and Alvis Vitolins) back i n
213
the 1 970s and I remem ber that Alex played

it against me in a j u n ior tournament in 1 979
and achieved a winning position , but missed
the win.
6 . . . e6 7 f4 bd7
7 . . . b6 is mostly played , which I see too
as being a q uestion of fashion . No one has
come even close to refuting 7 . . . tDbd7 as wel l
as other li nes.
8 .f3 .c7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 Ad3

During the last few years my opponents have
tried to gain an advantage after 10 Ax b5 or
10 e5 .
10 . . . Ab7 1 1 ghe1 .b6

I experienced d ifficu lties after 11 . . . 0-0-0
12 a3 Ae7 13 e2 ! h6 (13 . . . tDc5 14 Ax b5 !?
with the i n itiative) 14 Ah4 c5 1 5 Af2
(15 Ax b5 ? tDfxe4 1 6 tDxe4 Ax h4 -+) 15 . . . d5
(15 . . . b8 !? ;I;; ) 16 e5 tDfe4 ?! 17 Axe4 dxe4 in
the first game of my candidates match with
Michael Adams (Wij k aan Zee 1994) and now
strong was 18 e3 ! f5 (18 . . . a4 1 9 xe4)
19 exf6 g xf6 20 b1 .
a
-......,
,-,,-J-i"'''''---I
6
5
4
12
. . .
xd4
1 2 . . . exd5 is bad because of the intermed i

ate 1 3 tDc6 ! Axc6 14 exd5+ Ae7 1 5 dxc6
c5 1 6 Axf6 g xf6 1 7 Af5 (Chiburdan idze
Dvoirys, USSR Championshi p Sem i-Final,
Tal linn 1 980) .
13 Axf6 gxf6 14 Axb5 .c5

14 . . . 'x d 1 + 1 5 xd1 ax b5 1 6 tDc7+ is also
possible, but I think it is in Wh ite's favour to
eliminate one pair of rooks from the board .
1 5 b4
1 5 xf6+ followed by the capture on d7 is
more chal lenging and I think it is worth test
ing in practice.
15
. . .
xb5 16 c7+ e7
1 6 . . . d8 1 7 x b5 ax b5 1 8 h5, aiming at
the weakness on f7 .
17 xb5 axb5 18 .h5!? N

Alex plays i n ful l accordance with the ideas
of the Riga chess school - activity for the
pieces first and foremost ! He had already
spent most of his allotted time and now it
was my turn to try and d iscover the sub
tleties of this position. Theory considered
it to be i n Black's favour on the basis of
18 d3 ga6 19 x b5 gb6 + (Mnatsakanian
Kr. Georgiev, Yerevan 1 982) .
18 . . . gxa2
3
2
--------
12 d5
After some thought my opponent goes for
ward ! After 1 2 tDxe6? fxe6 1 3 h3 e5 !
14 d5 Axd5 15 exd5 0-0-0 Black won
in the famous game Geller- Polugayevsky,
(Portoroz Interzonal 1 973). 1 2 tDb3 is a sol id
move, which I faced i n a game with Jaan
Ehlvest (Linares 1 991 ).
As soon as I found my 1 9t h move, it be

came clear to me that this was the right
way ! If 18 . . . e5 ?! 19 b1 , while after 18 . . . Ac6
1 9 gd3 !? the initiative passes to Wh ite. I also
rejected 1 8 . . . Ag7 1 9 gxd6 ! xd6 20 xf7,
when than ks to the threat of gd1 + Wh ite re
gains the piece and maintains his attack.
19 .xb5
I saw that 1 9 b1 ga6 20 e5 d5 was harm
less for Black (20 . . . fxe5 21 fxe5 xe5!
22 gxe5 Ag7 is even stronger).
214
Game 50
20 x b7 is less accurate than 20 b1 , as

it g ives Black the add itional interesting op
tion 20 . . . Axf4+ 21 b1 .E!aa8 !? (21 . . . .E!ha8)
22 b5 Ae5 .
20
19 .th6!!
The idea beh ind this move is clear. For the
modest price of just one piece, Black bri ngs
two pieces into the game and begins an at
tack on the wh ite king. It was not so easy
to venture this, as Black will be left with just
two pieces for the queen and nothing can be
proved with concrete variations, but intu ition
told me that Black's com pensation should be
sufficient for at least a draw. I liked much less
the alternative 1 9 . . J a1 + 20 d2 (or 20 b2
.E!xd1 21 .E!xd1 Axe4 22 .E!a1 Ag7 23 .E!a7 f5+
24 b3 .E!d8 (0) 20 . . . .E!xd 1+ 21 xd1 Aa8 00 ,
while i f 1 9 . . . .E!a7 ? 20 .E!xd6 ! xd6 21 .E!d1 +
Ad5 22 exd5 .
20 e5?!
Both sides are obviously paying more at
tention to the initiative than to material fac
tors. White wants to prevent the opponen
t's bishop or knight from reaching the e5
square.
20 g3 allows Black a choice between forcing
a draw by 20 . . . .E!c8 21 x b7 .E!cxc2+, or a
good game after 20 . . . .E!b8!? 21 .E!xd6 .E!xc2+
22 d1 (22 xc2 Axe4+) 22 . . . .E!c7 + .
The most critical line was 20 b1 !? .E! ha8
21 x b7 Axf4 22 c3. Here Black has a num
ber of possibilities. I was i ntending to play
22 . . . Ae5 (22 . . . .E!2a7 23 b5 e5 fol lowed
by perpetual check on the a-file is the com
puter's suggestion ; 22 . . . .E!8a3 !? is i nterest
ing) 23 c6 .E!8a3 24 c4 .E!xg2 25 .E!e2 .E!xc3
with full com pensation for the queen .
. .
fxe5?!
If 20 . . . Axf4+ 21 b1 .E!ha8 22 exd6+ d8

23 x b7 .E!a1 + 24 b2 .E!1 a7 25 xa8+ .E!xa8
26 c4 . But both players missed the strong
20 . . . .E!c8 ! , recom mended by M ikhail Gol
ubev in the daily internet newsletter Chess
Today. After 21 exd6+ (21 .E!xd6 .E!cxc2+
22 d1 .E!c7, or 21 exf6+ xf6 22 .E!e2 Ae4
23 .E!xe4 .E!cxc2+ 24 b1 .E!cb2+ 25 c1
c5) 21 . . . d8 22 d3 (22 x b7 .E!cxc2+
23 b1 .E!cb2+ 24 c1 Axf4+) 22 . . . .E!cxc2+
23 xc2 Axf4+ Black is close to a win.
21 .xb7 .txf4+ 22 cc!?b1 Ilha8 23 93

My opponent accom pan ied this move with
a draw offer. I was expecting 23 .E!xd6 .E!a1 +
24 b2 .E!8a2+ (of course, Black can force a
d raw by perpetual with 24 . . . .E!1 a2+, as bad
is 25 b3 .E!8a3+ 26 c4 .E!xc2+ 27 b5
xd6) 25 b3 xd6 26 .E!xa1 .E!xa1 27 c4
.E!c1 28 g3 00 (28 c5+ ? .E!xc5), but Alexander
thought that Black would give up his bishop
or knight for the pair of passed pawns, after
which Black wou ld have the advantage i n
the end ing.
23
. .
Il2a7
I rejected the draw offer for several reasons.

First of al l , I believed and sti l l bel ieve that
Black has fu ll com pensation . And on top of
that, it would be a pity to abort the game in
such an entertaining position .
24 .c6
After 24 xa7 (24 e4 d5) 24 . . . .E!xa7 25 gxf4
exf4 I have more trust in Black's pawns than
in White's b-pawn .
24
Ila6
Black could also have forced a draw here

by 24 . . . Ad2 25 .E!xd2 .E!a1 + 26 b2 .E!8a2+
27 b3 .E!a3+ 28 b2 = .
215
29 gxh7
29 gg4 Ae3.
29 . . . f6
I didn't want to al low White counterplay after
29 . . . ttlb6 30 gf1 .
30 h4?
e
8
7
6
5
a
8
...
e
8
7
6
--------
25 "c3?!
I was more worried that Wh ite would keep
an eye on the black rooks, thus l i m iting
their activity: 25 b7 !? Ah6 (25 . . . Ag5 26 c3
Af6) 26 c3 Ag7 (26 . . . d5 27 gxd5 exd5
28 gxe5+, or 27 . . . ga1 + 28 b2 g8a2+ =),
and if 27 gxd6!? ga1 + 28 b2 g8a2+
29 b3 xd6 30 gxa1 gxa1 31 c4 + with
a position simi lar to that d iscussed in the
note to White's 23rd move.
25 . . . h6
25 . . . Ag5 !? It was hard to decide which was
the more precise route for the bishop onto
the long diagonal .
26 ge4?
Now the rook becomes stranded in the cor
ner of the board . H owever, it is very hard
to suggest (especial ly i n time trouble) how
White could prevent the simple plan of . . . d6d5, . . . Ag7 and . . . ttld7-b6-c4 etc. (if 26 gd3
d5).
26 . . . d5 27 gh4 d4! 28 "b2

The fianchetto is not the best option for the
most powerful piece.
28 . . . g5
There is no reason to play 28 . . . ttlb6, al
lowing 29 gd xd4 ! exd4 (29 . . . ttla4 30 a3
exd4 31 b5+ gd6 32 gxd4) 30 gxh6, even
though after 30 . . . gd8, as indicated by Gol
u bev, Black is doing fine.
I was concerned about 30 b5 ! , when Black

would have to choose between 30 . . . ga1 +
31 xa1 gxa1 + 32 xa1 ttlxh7 , wh ich
should be good enough to win , and the at
tempt to win by a mating attack : 30 . . . ga4
31 b6 ! ttld5 (31 . . . ttl x h7 32 b7 gb8 33 b5 00 ) ,
and now :
A) 32 b7 ? gb8 33 gd3 e4 34 ga3 (34 gxd4
ttlc3+ 35 xc3 gx b7+) 34 . . . gb4 35 gb3 e3 !
36 gx b4 e2 -+ ;
B) 32 gd3 ! (a strong defence) 32 . . . e4
33 gxd4 ! Af6 (33 . . . ga1 + 34 xa1 gxa1 +
35 xa1 Af6 36 b7 Axd4+ 37 b1 +-)
34 gxa4 (34 b7 !?) 34 . . . gxa4 35 c3 ttlxc3+
36 c2 and it is White who is i n the driving
seat.
30 . . . d5?
I was surprised by the last move and was
somehow fixed with the idea of the knight
going to c3 via d5. 30 . . . ttle4 31 b5 ga4
32 gd3 (32 h xg5 ttlc3+) 32 . . . Ad2 was win
ning on the spot.
31 gd3 d2?!
Again played u n der the i l l usion of a q uick
mate. The win wou ld have been m issed
after 31 . . . e4 32 h x g 5 exd3 33 xd4 ga1 +
216
Game 50
34 b2 gSa2+ 35 b3 = , but the cool

headed 31 . . . Af6 32 b5 (32 gf3 e4) 32 . . . ga4
was the strongest, when White cannot stop
the march of the black pawns : 33 b6 e4
34 b7 gbS 35 gb3 (35 ga3 d3) 35 . . . d3 36 c3
e3.
32 Dxd2 c3+ 33 i&c1

Only here did I discover that I was not mating
my opponent.
40 Dc7+
More practical chances were offered by
40 gde7 , when after 40 . . . d5 (40 . . . Ci!>d6!
41 gd7+ Ci!>e5 is better) 41 gh6! e4
42 ghxe6+ f3 43 gd7 White manages to
prevent the king's advance.
40 . . . d5 41 Dcd7+
41 ghd7+ Ci!>e4 42 gc6 e5 .
33. . . Da1+ 34 Oxa1 Dxa1 + 35 b2 Db1 +

36 a3
8
7
6
The time control was reached and I immedi

ately spotted a beautifu l king manoeuvre.
36 . . . e4!
41 . . . e4!
The right decision ! Black has to use his

last tru m p - the passed e - pawn ! 36 . . . gf1
37 Ci!>b3 00 would have let the king out of the
mating net.
37 Df2
Wh ite's only chance is to try to win the
f7 pawn and coord i nate his rooks. After
37 gxd4 e3 he has to g ive up his rook for
just the e-pawn .
37 . . . e3 38 Dfxf7+ d6 39 Dd7+ i&c6

39 . . . Ci!>e5 was more accurate, but i n time
trouble I avoided taki ng a committing deci
sio n . 40 gh5+ e4 41 gd6 e5 42 ge6 Ci!>f3
would have been simi lar to the game.
The king is aiming for c2 , where it will be an

integral part of the mating construction .
42 Dde7 i&f3 43 Dxe6 e2! 44 Dd7 d2

45 Dxe3
White has to give up his rook to avoid mate.
If 45 gxd4+ Ci!>xc2 followed by . . . gb3#.
45 . . . xe3
After 45 . . . Ci!>xc2 46 gxc3+ White would be

able to com plicate matters.
46
Df7 d5 47 b5
47 h5 Ci!>d2 .
* * *
217
47 . . . d2 White resigns

Game 51
12 . . . Had8
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Al exa n d e r G r i s ch u k
R u s s i a n Leag u e , Dagomys 2004
Tarrasch Defence [D34J
After some setbacks i n recent years, chess
is regaining its place among the most pres
tigious sports in Russia. A n u m ber of high
level events took place i n 2004 , and i n ad
d ition the team championsh i p was trans
formed into a professional league, gaining in
status and strength. This year it was splen
d id ly organ ised i n Dagomys, a suburb of
the Black Sea resort of Soch i . I represented
the Termosteps team from Samara, which is
owned by Igor Burshtein , a big fan of chess
and a close friend of mine. Our team was al
lowed to play in the top league when another
team failed to appear at the open ing cere
mony. As a result, I managed to join the event
o nly in the second round . It took me some
days to warm up, but I was very pleased by
my standard of chess i n the second half of
the event.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 c3 c5
The open ing choice of my opponent came
as something of a surprise to me. The Tar
rasch Defence was at the core of Alexander's
repertoire until 2002 . In the last few years he
has switched to the N i mzo- In d ian and vari
ous forms of the Slav.
4 cxd5 exd5 5 f3 c6 6 g3 f6 7 g2
e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 .lg5 c4
Deviating from 9 . . . cxd4 10 xd4 h6 11 Ae3
ge8 as we played in Biel 2001 .
10 e5 .le6 1 1 b3 "a5 12 "d2!

A strong sem i-novelty (mean ing that it was
never at the centre of theoretical discussions
and only a few games have been played with
it) , that throws the entire line with 9 . . . c4 into
question . Generally speaking, I don 't believe
that it is possible to refute any open i ngs or
variations. However, i n this case it seems
to me that i n all li nes Black is doomed to
passive defence.
7
6
3
2
'If
1 2 . . . Ab4 1 3 Axf6 g xf6 14 xc6 bxc6

15 gfc1 occurred in a couple of games. I
think that Black has no compensation for the
serious weaknesses in the vicinity of his king .
Wh ite is also better after 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 bxc4
dxc4 14 xc6 bxc6 15 c2 ;t . And the other
rook move is also bad , as after 1 2 . . . gfd8
1 3 xc6 bxc6 14 bxc4 d xc4 1 5 Axc6 the
rook on a8 is hanging.
1 3 bxc4! Ab4
The point of Wh ite's idea can be seen
from the followi ng line: 13 . . . xe5 14 xd5 !
xd2 (White is clearly better after 14 . . . gxd5
15 cxd5 xd2 1 6 Axd2 (an amusing case
of two d-pawns attacking two pieces on the
e -fi le) 1 6 . . . c4 17 d xe6 xd2 18 gfd1 )
15 xe7+ h8 16 Axd2 xc4 17 Ab4 gfe8
18 Ax b7 ! (White spoiled his advantage with
18 d5 xd5 1 9 xd5 Axd5 20 gfd1 Ae6
O'Cinneide- Halkias, European Team Cham
pionsh ip, Leon 2001 ) 18 . . . gd7 (or 18 . . . gb8
19 Ac6 gx b4 20 Axe8 xe8 21 gab1 )
1 9 Ac6 gexe7 20 Axe7 gxe7 21 gfc1 and
the rook and two pawns are clearly stronger
than the two kn ights.
However, the line holds ! A few months after
the game was played , the German 1 M Blauert
fou n d a beautifu l combi nation : 13 . . . xd4!!
14 xd4 d x c4 1 5 e3 Ac5 1 6 f4 Ad4
or 1 6 f3 Ad4 , regain in g the piece with
comfort. H is opponent, St. Pedersen , took
the wise decision to make a d raw after
218
Game 51
Gelfand - G rischuk, Russian League, Dagomys 2004
14 ttlxdS 'tWxd2 1 S ttlxe7+ h8 1 6 Axd2

ttlxe2+ 1 7 h1 .E!xd2. It is rather White who
has to equalise here.
14 xc6 bxc6 1 5 l1fc1

Here I spent a lot of time, trying to d is
cover whether Wh ite had anything better
than the game conti nuation, but I wasn 't
i m pressed by 1S .E!ac1 d x c4 16 Axc6 'tWb6
17 dS (17 Axf6 gxf6 18 dS? 'tWxc6) 17 . . . .E!xdS
(17 . . . Axc3 18 'tWxc3 ttlxdS 19 'tWxc4 ttle7)
1 8 AxdS ttlxdS 1 9 ttlxdS Axd2 20 ttlx b6
Axc1 .
1 5 . . . dxc4 1 6 Axf6
16 Axc6 'tWb6 17 dS ttle4 is fine for Black.
1 6 . . . gxf6 17 e3 c5 18 d5
It is i mportant to exchange the light-square
bishops, as the e6 bishop is the key piece
that holds Black's position together.
Alexander rejected 21 . . . .E!fd8, as 22 .E!xc4

'tWd2 23 .E!xcS leaves White with an extra
pawn.
22 11xc4?!
A superficial move that allows Black to ex
change queens. H owever, I was very op
tim istic about the double -rook end i n g . I n
m y first encounter with Anatoly Karpov i n
Linares 1 991 I had a simi lar ending, in which
with Blac k I was defend i ng a better pawn
structure (my pawn was on g6, not on f6) and
where I was confident that we wou ld soon
agree a d raw. But the 1 2t h world champion
taught me a memorable lesson, allowing me
no chances in such a harmless-looking pos
ition . My hope of exchanging my a- and c
pawns for the a-pawn proved t o b e a mere
illusion .
Anatoly Karpov - Boris Gelfand

Linares 1 991
a
18 . . . Axc3 1 9 l1xc3
Obviously, Wh ite is not i n a hurry to ex
change queen s : 19 'tWxc3 'tWxc3 20 .E!xc3
AxdS 21 AxdS .E!xdS 22 .E!xc4 .E! b8 23 .E!c2
.E!b6.
3
2
a
6
5
4
Th is position has been reached almost by

force after Black's 13t h move. Black faces a
difficult defence.
11
29 g4
If 29 .E!cS .E!a6!? intending . . . .E!a4.
29 hxg4 30 hxg4
It was better to gain some activity by giving
u p the c - pawn : 30 . . . cS !? 31 .E!xcS (31 g3
.E!a6 32 a4 f6) 31 . . . .E!xcS 32 .E!xcS .E!a6
33 .E!c2 .E!a4 with good drawing chances.
31 g3 e6 32 a4!
Threatening 33 as.
32 . . . d7
I failed to sense the danger and defended too
passively. 32 . . . d6 33 .E!d4+ e6 34 .E!cS !
. .
21 . . . l1c8
19 . . . Axd5 20 Axd5 l1xd5 21 1Ic2
219
23
gd7 was stronger, and if 35 ge5+, as sug

gested by Karpov, then 35 . . . xe5 36 gxd7
f6 37 gxa7 g b4 fol lowed by the advance
of the c-pawn .
. . .
xe2 24 111 xe2
33 g 5 lla6 34 Ild4+ e8
34 . . . e6 ! ? , and if 35 gc5 gd7 36 a5 gd5 !
(Karpov) .
35 !le5 !lb6 36 em4 !ld7?! 37 !lxd7

xd7 38 e5 e7 39 f4 Ilb4 40 lla5
Ilb7 41 e4
a
...
5
4
White has achieved complete domi nation .
41 . . . !le7
41 . . . gd7 42 gc5 gd6 43 f5 gxf5 44 exf5 f6+
45 gxf6+ gxf6 46 ga5 and wins (Karpov) .
42 lle5 lle8 43 !le3 lle8 44 !le4 !le8

45 Ilb4 lle7 46 a5! d7 47 Ilb3! +- e7
48 a6 d7 49 em6 e8 50 Ilh3 Ild7 51 f5
g xf5 52 exf5 e5 53 lle3 lle7 54 g6 fxg6
55 fxg6 d7 56 g7 lle8 57 Ilg3 1-0
Now let us return to my game with Grischuk,
where it is obvious that if White can keep
the queens on in favourable circumstances,
it should be to his advantage. For this rea
son 22 gc1 ! was stronger, when 22 . . . gd3 ? is
bad because of 23 gxc4 1!fd2 24 gxc5 ! . An
other idea that deserved consideration was
22 gb1 I?
22
. . .
d2 23 lle1
If 23 VWe4, then 23 . . . gcd8, threatening

. . . 1!fe2 and . . . gd1 +.
So, a double-rook end ing has been reached .

For the sake of clarity, let me rem i nd you
that the rook end ing without the queen
side pawns is theoretically drawn , whereas if
White were able to win the c5 and f6 pawns
in return for the a-pawn , he would win in
similar fashion to the game Romanish i n
Polugayevsky from t h e 1 974 USSR Cham
pionship. I also think that exchanging one
pair of rooks wi ll favour Black, as Wh ite has
this option at any point. Moreover, if White
should manage to activate his second rook
(as in the game) , all Black's pawns will be
come targets.
24 . . . !le6
A strong move, preventi ng White from oc
cupying the b -fi le. If 24 . . . g7, then 25 gb2
gc6 26 gb7.
25 g2?
A pOintless move, played automatically. I
think I overestimated the size of White's
edge. 25 g b2 gb6 was harmless, but a
stronger option was 25 ga4 ! gc7 26 g2 f5
27 f3, when White would at least be able to
exchange a pair of rooks on the d - line (e2
followed by gd2 or gc3-d3) i n favou rable
circumstances.
25 . . . lla6!
The rook has reached an active position,
from where it ties down one of its counter
parts to the defence of the a-pawn .
220
Gelfand - Grischuk, Russian League, Dagomys 2004
Game 51
26 a4
After 26 f3 ga3 I don 't see how White can
make any progress.
26 . . . h6
Short of time, my opponent fails to fi nd the
best way to defend . I think that a better
idea was to put the pawn on f5 by 26 . . . g7
27 f3 g6 28 e2 (28 gg4+ gg5) 28 . . .f5 .
Now i t wou ld seem that White has noth ing
better than to exchange a pair of rooks by
29 gd2 gad6 (29 . . . ge5 30 gd8 ; 29 . . . gxd2+
30 xd2) 30 gxd5 gxd5 31 gc2 f6 32 gb2
when he keeps good winning chances.
After the i m med iate 26 . . . f5 ? 27 gxc5 gxc5
28 gxc5 gxa4 29 gxf5 Black loses, for ex
ample: 29 . . . a5 30 f3 ga1 31 h4 a4 32 ga5
a3 33 h5 h6 34 g4 g7 35 e4 ga2 36 e3
ga1 37 ga6 ga2 (37 . . . a2 38 f4) 38 e5 ga1
39 f4 gf1 40 f3 ga1 41 f5 a2 42 f4.
27 3 8 28 e2
a
ga1 34 h4 a5 35 f3 a4 36 ga5 a3 37 g4 !
(37 f4 ? ga2 38 f3 ga1 39 h5 a2 40 g4
h7 41 e4 g7 leads to a draw) 37 . . . gh1
(37 . . . a2 38 h5) 38 h5 ga1 39 ga6, or 31 . . . ga1
32 gxh6 a5 33 h4 a4 34 gh8 a3 35 ga8.
I th i n k that the best defence was 28 . . . gh5,
keeping the king and the other rook i n their
best positions : 29 h4 gd5 30 g2c3 ! (30 gb2
gb6 31 gb5 gxb5 32 a x b5 g7 33 f3
gd6 34 gxc5 g b6 allows Black to liqu idate
into a drawn endi ng) 30 . . . g7 31 gd3 gxd3
32 xd3, although Wh ite retains excellent
winning chances.
29 J:lb2! J:ld6 30 J:lb8+ e7 31 J:lh4

Black is unable to protect all his weaknesses.
If 31 gc8 gda6 32 gc7+ e6.
31 . . . J:lb6
Or 31 . . . gc6 32 ge4+ ge6 33 gb7+ ! d6
(33 . . . f8 34 gh4 gc6 35 gxh6 g7 36 gh4
c4 37 gb4 c3 38 ghc4) 34 gf4 .
...
32 Dc8 d7 33 J:lh8 J:lb4 34 J:l4xh6

...
1...1.-.-'
I...,...../--'
4
3
2
f
28
. .
Da5?
Th is allows the rook at c2 to come i nto the

action . I g uess that Grischuk was afraid of
losi ng the c5 pawn at some stage after e3e4. This is the main problem in such pos
itions - even if it is possible to defend them
d u ri n g home analysis, when you are actu
ally playing it is extremely d ifficult to decide
which threats are real and which are illusory.
34
...
J:lb6
34 . . . gaxa4 35 gxf6 gb2+ 36 f3 gaa2

37 g2 e7 38 gf4 is equally hopeless for
Black.
35
J:l6h7 Dxa4 36 Dxf7+ c6
If 36 . . . e6, then 37 ghf8.
28 . . . e7 loses a pawn after 29 gxc5 gx c5

30 gxc5 gxa4 31 gh5 and White is winning,
for example: 31 . . . f8 32 gxh6 g7 33 gh5
221
37 Dxf6+ b5 38 Dxb6+ a x b6 39 h4
J:la2+ 40 3 c4 41 h5 J:la7 42 J:lcB J:lf7+
43 e2 b4 44 g4 J:lh7 45 14
Black resigns
Com b inations
I include here a number of game extracts, in which there was either some interesting tactical
play, or else a com binational solution proved possible. For train i ng purposes the reader
may wish to study the diagram positions and decide what he would have played , before
checking how the the author continued .
Va l e r y Ya k u b e n y a - B o r i s G e lfa n d
M i n s k 1 9 80
a
..
19 . . . xb2!
I had no problem in finding this combination ,
as I made a simi lar one at the age of 1 2 !
20 .id3
The point of the sacrifice is 20 x b2 Aa3+

21 xa3 c3+ 22 b3 a4 23 Aa7 axb3
24 cxb3 c5 ! 25 Ax b5+ f8 -+. Or 20 Ax b5
gb8 ! 21 x b2 gxb5+ 22 b3 a4.
7
6
5
20 . . . xd3 21 cxd3 f6 22 e4 xd5

Black is simply two pawns up.
23 flhg1 b4 24 fldf1 .ixh4 25 "f3

25 x h4 xe3.
25 . . . xe3 26 "xe3 b3 27 a x b3 flb8

28 d4 0-0 29 g5 hxg5 0-1
1 6 . . . xb2! 17 xb2
17 xd5 Axd5 18 x b2 Ac4.
17 . . . .ixa3+ ! 18 b3
18 xa3 xc3+ 19 a2 x h3 -+ .
18 . . . "a5 19 flb1 c5+ 0-1
B o r i s G e l fa n d - An d rey P a v l ov
B e l o r u s s i a n J u n i o r Team C h a m p i o n s h i p ,
P i n s k 1 9 84
M i c h a e l A d a m s - B o r i s G e l fa n d
E u ropean J u n i o r C h am p i o n s h i p ,
Arn h e m 1 9 8 8
a
8
7
..
3
2
L...-
....::....
_______
_--I
lf
Here I calculated a lengthy combination .
1 5 cxd5 cxd5 1 6 xd5! xf2
222
Combinations
Or 16 . . . gc8 17 c3. Better was 16 . . . xd5

17 xe4, when Black is 'only' a pawn down.
17 Axh7+ cc!1hS 1S IIxe6!

E l i m i nating the central defender of Black's
position.
1S . . . fxe6
43
Uxd7! Oxd7 44 x16 OdS
The point of Wh ite's combination is 44 . . .

ffxd6 45 Wlx h6+ ! g x h6 46 xe8+.
45
Oh5 IIfS 46 e8! ct>gS
46 . . . ffxe8 47 ffx h6+ g8 48 Wlxg7#.
47 0g6 1-0
18 . . . gxe6 1 9 ffxf2 x h7 20 g5+.
47 . . . gf7 48 f6+ f8 (48 . . . gxf6 49 A xf6

Wlxf6 50 ffxf6 g xf6 51 d7) 49 ff h7 gxf6
50 ff h8+.
19 g5 UfS
S e r g ey M ov s e s i a n - B o r i s G e l fa n d
S i g e m a n & C o . , M a l m o 1 9 99
a
20 gS!!
..
The key move of the combination.
20 . . . lIf5 21 f7+ cc!1xgS

21 . . . gxf7 22 ff h7#.
22 xdS IIxdS 23 e3 1116 24 c4 Ilea
25 g5 IIf5 26 Oe2 IIxg5 27 ct>xf2 Axh2
2S Oxe6+ ct>h7 29 Oxd7 1-0
36 . . . lIxd5!
This queen sacrifice leads to a forced mate.
37 11xdS+
B o r i s G e l fa n d - An g u s D u n n i n g t o n
O akh a m 1 9 88
37 gxg6+ h8.
37 . . . lIxdS 38 Oxc4 IIxd1+ 39 ct>h2 f4+

40 g3 hxg3+ 41 ct>g2 IId2+ 0-1
223
Combinations
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Peter Syi d l e r
Koop Tj u c h e m , G ro n i n g e n 1 9 9 6
a
With this typical sacrifice Blac k seizes the

i nitiative.
22 cxb4 xb4 23 "b1 xd3 24 ne2 e4
The strong kn ight at d3 makes White's pos

ition hard to defend .
25 b3 Ad4 26 f1 a6 27 e3 b5
28 a x b5 a x b5 29 cd2 f6 30 "c2 c4
31 bxc4 bxc4 32 b1 nb8 33 c3 nb2
34 "xb2 xb2 35 flxb2 xc3 36 nc2
Ag7 37 d4 nd8 38 ncd2 nxd4 39 nxd4
xd4 40 flxd4 c3 41 fld1 Ab3 42 nc1
c2 43 e3 "c3 44 xc2 Axc2 45 f1
e3 46 h5 "d2 0-1
6
5
--------
23 e6!!
This intermediate move completely destroys
the coordination of Peter's pieces. If 23 Axf7
f5 24 e6 gxc1 25 gxc1 tlVd2 26 g b1 gc8
with counterplay.
Lj u b o m i r Lj u b oj e Y i c - B o r i s G e lfa nd
M e l o d y A m b e r, M o n aco b l i n d 1 9 99
a
...
d
8
23 . . . flb8
24 xf7 1-0
24 . . . f5 25 e6.
23 . . . gce8 24 xe8 gxe8 25 tlVxf7, or

23 . . .fxe6 24 xe6 Ah6 25 xf8 gxf8
26 gc7.
Va l e ry S a l oy - B o r i s G e l fa n d
H oo g o v e n s B l itz, Wij k aan Zee 1 9 9 8
a
...
White has carelessly 'forgotten ' to castle and

Black exploits this.
14 . . . xf2! 1 5 cc!1xf2 g4+ 16 cc!1g1
Or 16 i'e1 xe3 17 tlVb1 Af5.
16 . . . xe3
Black has two pawns for the sacrificed piece

and h is knight at e3 is a 'central stri ker' in
front of goal .
17 "d2
2
21 . . . db4
1 7 tlVb3 tlVb6 1 8 bd4 Ah3 ! .
17 . . . Af4
Black should never regain the exchange on

d1 , unless he has a forced win of material .
224
Combinations
18 d3
18 Ac5 Ag4.
18 . . . g4!
More and more pieces are joining the attack.
Wh ite cannot prevent mate without substan
tial loss of material.
19 bd4
19 !!f1 'tWb6 20 tDfd4 Ah6 21 !!f2 tDd1 22 !!f4
a6 23 tDd6 !!e1 + 24 'tWxe1 Axf4.
19 . . . xf3 20 xf3 "b6 21 as

21 tDd4 tDxd1 22 'tWxf4 !!e4.
21 . . . xd1+ 22 xb6 xd2 0-1
The final touch ! Too many black pieces are

attacked . 23 Axc5 ? c4 24 xd7 xa3
25 x b8 Axc5+ .
23 . . . cxe4 24 fxe4 e8
24 . . . tDxe4 25 xd7.
2S "f3 e7 26 xa8 "xa8 27 cS
White remains the exchange up for no com
pensation . No further commentary is re
quired .
27 . . . "b8 28 as "c7 29 flac1 "d7
30 d3 g7 31 "e3 f7 32 b6 Dxc1
33 Dxc1 "a4 34 cS gS 35 "f2 "d7
36 "c2 h4 37 h3 g6 38 .tb6 h6
39 "c7 "e8 40 cS "f8 41 flf1 1-0
A l exa n d e r M otylev - B o r i s G e l fa n d
R u s s i a v . Rest o f t h e Wo rl d ,
M oscow rap i d 2 002
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Al exey S h i rov
O l y m p i ad , I stan b u l 2 0 0 0
a
a
8
..
h
8
5
4
21 bxd6!
Not only most spectacu lar, but also the most
efficient way to put an end to Black's resis
tance.
21 c3 b5 22 ax b5 Axb5 (22 . . . ax b5
23 'tWxa8 'tWxa8 24 !!xa8 !!xa8 25 b6)
23 tDxb5 'tWx b5 24 !!fe1 .
21 . . . xd6 22 b6!!
22 Axc5 xc4 23 Axc4 b6 (23 . . . Axa4
24 d6+ h7 25 Ae6) 24 Ad6 and Wh ite
is 'only' a pawn up.
22 . . . f8 23 b4
Wh ite thought that he had eliminated Black's

counterplay by playing a2-a4.
1 6 . . . a3+ ! 17 a2
Unpromising is 17 bxa3 'tWxc3 18 Ab2 'tWc7 =t .
1 7 . . . bS!!
The point. Black beg i ns a d i rect assault on
the king.
18 gS
1 8 xb5 'tWxc2 1 9 'tWxc2 xc2 , 1 8 Axb5
tDx b5 1 9 tDxb5 'tWxc2 (1 9 . . . 'tWc4 !?), 18 bxa3
'tWxc3 , or 18 xa3 b4+ 1 9 a2 bxc3.
18 . . . d7
I don't see how White can save the game.
225
Combinations
19 dS
28 e7+
19 Ax b5 x b5 20 x b5 c4 (20 . . . xc2)
21 c3 c5, or 19 x b5 xc2 20 xc2
xc2 21 Ah3 b4+ 22 a3 d5.
19 . . . AxdS 20 nxdS bxa4 21 c!>xa3

21 a1 c4 ! and the knight at a1 is l ittle
help to White, whereas 21 . . . xc2 22 xc2
x c2 23 xc2 !!xc2 24 Ae3 leaves h i m
some hope.
21 . . . axb3 22 c!>xb3 a4+ 23 c!>a2 a3!
28 bxc3 !!xa2 , or 28 xc3 xc3 29 bxc3

!!xa2 .
28 ... c!>h8 29 xe8 nxa2! 30 bxe3

Black draws despite bei ng the exchange
down after 30 !!a7 !!x b2 31 !!d1 d2 32 ..a3
b3+ 33 !!x b3 !!x b3 34 c2 !!a3 35 ..d3
Ab4, or 30 !!hd1 Ax b2+ 31 c2 Af6+
32 b3 !! b2+ 33 a3 !!b8 34 !!c7 Ab2+
35 a4 c3+.
Black has only one goal - the white king !
30 Ila1 + 31 c!>e2 Ilxh1 32 d6! nxh2

33 xe4 fxe4
. .
24 bxa3 b6 2S nbS
25 !!d3 d5!? 26 exd5 a4.
2S . . . a4 26 nb3 dS
The bishop joins the attack
27 exdS e3+ 28 c!>a1 neb8 29 d6 ,txd6

0-1
White is helpless against 30 . . . !!x b3 31 cxb3
Axa3 .
1--"--
Laj o s P o r t i seh - B o r i s G e l fa n d
Li n ares 1 9 9 0
a
......;;....
L..-_______
..
Black sti ll has to play accurately to hold the

draw.
34
----' 'l1
Ild2 nh4! 35 nf2
35 c4 !!xf4 36 c3 (36 c5 e3) 36 . . . !!f5.
35 . . . c!>g7 36 c!>d2
36 c4 g5 ! 37 fxg5 e3 =.
36
.. .
ct>ts 37 c!>e3
37 c4 !?
a
37
It looks like as though White is in the driving

seat, as he is two pawns up and e7+ is
threatened , but . . .
...
c!>fs 38 e4
38 !!a2 ? !!xf4 39 !!f2 g5.
38 Ilg4 39 Ile2 Ilg3+ 40 c!>f2 c!>xf4

41 eS nd3
. .
41 . . . e3+ ? 42 e1 ! .
27 . . . Axe3!!
27 . . . !!xa2 28 b1 ! xc3+ 29 xc3 !!a6
30 !!c1 leaves Wh ite with an extra pawn
and serious winning chances.
226
42 e6 nd8 43 e7 ne8 44 neS h S 45 g3+

c!>g4 46 Ile4 c!>fs 47 c!>e3 c!>g4 48 c!>f2
c!>fs 49 c!>e3 Y2-Y2
Combinations
B o r i s G e lfa n d - G i o r g i G i o rg a dze
U S S R Yo u n g M asters , U z h g o rod 1 9 87
a
M issi ng the spectacu lar fin ish 31 .E!xd4+

cxd4 32 e5+ .E!xe5 33 .E!c6#.
31 . . . e7 32 097+ d6 33 Oh6+ e7
34 gxc5 1-0
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Al exa n d e r S h a b a l ov
U S S R Yo u n g M asters , Vi l n i u s 1 9 88
--1 11
_
:.
L...-_______----:_
If you notice the idea of the combination on

move 23, you shouldn't hesitate to go for it !
h
8
18 xh6+ h7
18 . . . f8 19 g6! and if 19 . . . fxg6 20 tDxg6#.

a
A
L...-________________ v
19 f5
19 h5 gxh6 20 xf7+ g7 and Black hangs
on.
19 . . . g6 20 Oh3+ g8 21 h6+ g7
It may seem that Wh ite's q ueen and his
knight at h6 are awkward ly placed , but . . .
22 f5! xe5 23 xf7 !

Destroying the cover of the opponent's king .
23 . . . xf7 24 Oh7+ g7 25 Oxg6+ e7

The king tries to run away from the dan
ger zone, as otherwise the game will not
last long . 25 . . . f8 26 f6 Ah8 27 .E!f4 ! .E!xe3
28 .E!af1 and , despite his two extra pieces,
Black has no defence agai nst the threat of
VWh7 , or 25 . . . g8 26 f6 .E!e7 27 f7+ f8
28 h7 .E!xf7 29 .E!xf7+ xf7 30 .E!f1 + e7
31 xg7+ d6 32 e4 .
26 Oxg7+ d6 27 dxc5+ bxc5 28 e4!

The attack goes on ! The extra piece is not
felt.
28 . . . Aa6 29 Dfd1 d4 30 Dac1 g b8

31 0h6+
Black has seized the i n itiative, whereas I

have failed to break through on the kingside,
and my opponent's strong bishop, knight at
c4 and a3 pawn dominate on the other side.
Now . . . d7, attacking the kn ight at g6, is
a threat. For this reason Wh ite must com
plicate matters at all costs. Note that, for
the moment, the knight at g6 is cutting off
the rook at h7 and is u ntouchable i n view of
xg6+ and x h7 .
26 xa3!!
At the cost of a piece Wh ite beg ins an attack
on the black ki n g . Th is is the best practical
chance, even though Black should be able
to win with best play.
26 . . . xa3
Or 26 . . . tDxa3 27 .E!1 x b2 xc3 28 .E!b8+ gx b8
29 .E!x b8+ d7 30 tDf8+ c6 (30 . . . e7
31 h3) 31 h3 .E!h8 32 xg7 and Black hardly
has more than perpetual check by 32 . . . c1 +
33 h2 f4+.
227
27 Db8+ gxb8 28 gxb8+ d7 29 Of3
Combinations
Or 29 h4 a4 ! 30 d8+ c6 31 h3 fxg6
32 gc8 a7 33 e8+ b7 34 gxc7+ xc7
35 f7+ b8! (35 . . . b6 36 xe6+ Ad6
37 xd5 00) 36 g8+ b7 37 x h7 (37 f7+
a6 38 xe6+ b6 39 g8 c7) 37 . . . c6
and Black keeps his extra piece.
38 gb1 Ag5.
38 e1 + 39 g2 .e4+ 40 g1 .e1 +
41 g2 .e4+ 42 g1 d4
. . .
42 . . . c4 43 gb1 (43 xc7+ ? Ac5) with nu

merous threats.
43
29 . . . fxg6 30 .f7+ e7
The weakness of Wh ite's back ran k forces

him to waste a tempo.
31 g8 b6 ! , or 31 Ab4 d6 ! '
31 . . . .tixe5 32 dxe5 .xc3 33 .g8
-r
...
31 g3
.xc7
3
2
7
6
5
Regaining one of the pieces. Here the game

was adjourned and I naively expected that,
in view of the vulnerable position of his king,
Black would have to take a draw. But Alexan
der d isplayed his famous fighting spirit and
played on.
33
. . .
43
Th is careless move allows me to achieve

sufficient cou nterplay, despite being two
pieces down . Stronger was 33 . . . c6 34 c8
(34 x h7 Ac5) 34 . . . gh8 ! ! (d iverting the
q ueen from the attack) 35 b7+ (35 x h8
Ac5 36 gb1 Axf2+, or 36 c8 e1 + 37 g2
xf2+ 38 h3 f1 +) 35 . . . d7 36 gx h8 Ac5
37 b1 xe5 + and Black repels the attack,
while keeping a sufficient material advan
tage.
34
c6 35 .b7+ d7 36 .c8+ d6
37 Db6+ c5 38 .b7
. . .
. . .
46 . . . Ac5 47 g b5 ! c1 48 g b4+ d3
49 gb3+.
47 .a7 !
I f Wh ite were t o regain t h e piece with
47 f4+ e4+ 48 xe4+ xe4 49 gx b4+
d4 + he would find h imself in a dubious rook
end ing.
47 . . . e4+ 48 g1 .e1 + 49 g2 .e4+

50 g1 d3 51 .a4 d2
.c8+ !
White doesn 't pay any attention to the rook

on h7 , which is not taki ng part i n the game,
and just concentrates on the opponent's
monarch.
34
e1 + 44 g2 .e4+ 45 g1 .e1 +
46 g2 b4
xe5?
51 . . . Ac3 ? 52 d1 + +-.
52 .b5+ .c4 53 .b1 + .c2 54 .b5+

.c4 55 .b1 + d4
Black is trying to protect his king with his
pieces, but as his rook at h7 is out of play,
his chances are slim.
228
Combinations
8
7
And here Shabalov abandoned all attem pts

to win, since after 69 . . . d6 (69 . . . c6
70 VWe8+ J;d7 71 VWc8+ J;c7 72 VWa6+
d7 73 J;xd5+ +-) 70 J;b6+ c7 71 VWa6
(71 J;e6 !?) it is rather Wh ite who has
chances: 71 . . . J;d7 72 VWb7+ d8 73 VWb8+
c8 74 VWe5 ! Ac3 75 e6.
h
8
r-'r==o
M i kh a i l G u re v i ch - B o r i s G e l fa n d
S KA- M e p h i sto , M u n i c h 1 9 92
8
56 0xg6 0d3
56 . . J h8 57 xg7+ c5 58 c7+.
57 Oxe6 Oe4
Other moves are simi larly u nsuccessfu l :

57 . . . J;h8 5 8 J;b3 Ac3 5 9 b6+, o r 57 . . . h5
58 J;b3.
4
3
2
58
Od7 Oe1 + 59 g2 Oe4+ 60 g1 g5

61 Oa4+ d3 62 Ob5+ Oc4 63 Ob1 +
Oc2 64 Ob5+ e4 65 Oe2+ d4
66 Db4+ c5
8
7
6
67 11b5+
Wh ite could have regai ned the piece by
67 b5+ d6 68 J;d4, but after 68 . . . c5 !
69 xc5+ xc5 70 J;xd2 d4 he is i n trou
ble, despite his extra pawn, as the d - pawn
is extremely strong.
67 . . . d4 68 llb4+ c5 69 llb5+ d4
Y2-Y2
1.
L-
____
__
__
__
__
__
The black queen is trapped and it seems as

though the game is over. But one shou ldn 't
be desperate and should keep on seeking
chances. I know well from my own expe
rience that a huge n u m ber of games have
been saved by stubborn defence.
30 . . . 0h3 31 llh2 Oxh2+ !
This queen sacrifice is Black's best chance.
Bad is 31 . . . VWf5 ? 32 g6+ VWxg6 (32 . . . g8
33 e7+) 33 VWx g6 Af5 34 VWg5 Ax b1
35 x b1 fe4 36 VWe3 .
32 xh2 Af5
The coord ination of the white pieces is very
poor and this gives Black good hopes.
33 Ob3?!
Stronger was 33 VWd1 ! , keeping an eye on
the bishop at e2 . After 33 . . . fe4 ?! 34 Ab2
J;xa3 !? 35 Axa3 c3 (35 . . . Axe5 36 Ab2
c3 37 Axc3 Axc3 38 Ad3) 36 VWe1 Axe5
37 Ad3 ! de4 38 Axe4 xe4 39 Ab2 White
wins. H owever, my opponent was not sure
about 33 . . . Ax b1 34 x b1 fe4 35 d3 Eta2
229
Combinations
with some cou nterplay, accord i ng to Gure

vich's annotations i n Informator.
33 . . . Iiae8!
Pinning the wh ite pieces on the e -fi le. Also
possi ble was the simple 33 . . . Ax b1 34 ttlx b1
(34 x b1 gae8 35 Af4 ttlfe4) 34 . . . gae8
(34 . . . ttlfe4 35 ttlf3 gae8 36 c2) 35 Af4 ttlg8
36 c3 gf5 37 d2 gexe5 38 Axe5 gxe5
with a probable draw.
34 Af4
34 Ad3?! gxe5 35 Af4 ttlg4+ 36 g2 Axd3
37 xd3 gh5 with attacking chances.
34 . d7 ! 35 Ah5
39 . . . e3+
Being short of time, I chose the simplest and
safest optio n . All three resu lts would have
been possible after 39 . . . Ac5 !? (threatening
. . . ttlf2) 40 gb3, and now :
A) 40 . . . g8 41 d2 Ad7 (41 . . . Axa3?!
42 gxa3 ttlxc4 43 c3 xa3 44 xa3)
42 Axd6 ttle3+ 43 gxe3 Axe3 (43 . . . Ah3+
44 f2 Axe3+ 45 xe3 gxe3 46 xe3 cxd6
47 ttlb5 +-) 44 h2 cxd6, and it is sufficient
to exchange the lig ht-sq uare bishop for the
kn ight to secure a draw;
. .
35 Ad3 xe5 36 Axf5 gxf5 and the rook

and knight fully compensate for the missing
queen .
35 . . . xe5 36 Axe8
36 gf1 ttlg4+ 37 Axg4 Axg4 with the initia
tive, or 36 Axe5 gxe5.
36 . . . g4+ 37 g1
Wh ite's last chance to fight for a win was
37 g2 gxe8. Despite Black's big material
deficit, I think that he has sufficient cou nter
chances, as all his pieces are taki ng part i n
the attack.
37 . . . Ad4+ 38 1 Iixe8
Suddenly Wh ite is faced with dangerous
threats against his king ( . . . ttlf2 and . . . Ah3+).
39 1td1
B) 40 . . . ttlf2 !? 41 a1 + g8 42 g4 Ax g4 with
fu ll com pensation .
40 Axe3 Axe3
Threatening . . . Ah3+.
41 g2
41 gb2 ? Ah3+ 42 e1 Ac5+ 43 ge2 Ab4+
44 f2 gf8+ 45 e3 (45 g1 gf1 + 46 xf1
Axf1 ) 45 . . . Ax a3 , and if 46 a1 + g8
47 xa3 ttlxc4+ .
41 . . . Ae4+ 42 h3 f7 !?
Black could also have made a draw 'from
the weaker side' by 42 . . . Ax b1 43 x b1
Ac5 44 b5 xb5 45 x b5 ge7 with a
fortress.
39 gd1 '!? h2+ 40 g2 ge2+ 41 h1

Ae4+ -+.
a
8
...
e
8
7
6
43 Iib3
Forcing Black to give perpetual check. 43 g4
g5+ 44 g3 (44 h4 ttlf3+ 45 g3 gf8)
44 . . . gf8 45 gb3 Af4+ 46 f2 Ae5+ 47 e3
Af3 00 and the white king is vulnerable.
43
. .
g5+ 44 h4
44 h2 ? gfB 45 gxe3 ? gf2+ 46 g1 ttlh3#.
44
. . .
f3+
44 . . . Af3 ? 45 gxe3 +-.
45 h3 g5+ 46 h4 f3+ %-%
230
Combinations
l Iya S m i r i n - B o r i s G e l fa n d
B elo russsian C h a m p i o n s h i p , M i n s k 1 9 84
a
d e
G e n n a d y S a g a l ch i k - B o r i s G e l fa n d
U S S R J u n ior Championsh i p ,
Yu r m a l a 1 9 8 5
d e
3
2
Al l three fi les are open i n front of the white

ki ng. But White is going to cover all his
weaknesses by Aa4-b3, so Black has to
act quickly.
Bad is 32 Axd3 gd7, winning material.
25 ti)xe4 .b4
32 . . . d2!
Rei nstating the threat of . . . Ag5 in view of the

pin on the 4t h ran k.
26 Ilhf1
26 f6 x b2+ 27 d2 xf6 would not en
able White to escape, as there is noth ing to
protect his king.
xb2+
A far-advanced pawn is always a strong

tru m p ! Moreover, Black creates a danger
ous threat, which White fails to notice.
33 .e2?
33 Ae2 is stronger, but after 33 . . . Ae3 the
strong pawn on d2 ensures Black's advan
tage. Now he begins a com bination .
Of course, not 26 . . . xa4 ? 27 f6+.
33 . . . Ilxg4 34
.xg4 Aa6 35 ti)xd2 Ilxd2
36 Ild1
27 d2 Ag5!
Exchanging the wh ite knight, the only re
maining defender.
28 ti)xg5 hxg5 29 .e4 Ilb4 30 .c6

.d4+ 31 e2 .e4+ 32 2 Ilxa4
Black has won a piece and the game is over.
33 Ilxd6 Ile8 34 .xe4 Ilexe4 0-1
29 . . . d4 30 ti)e4 d3 31 cxd3 cxd3

32 Axg4
Removing the knight from the centre, but

creating the deadly threat of . . . Ag5.
. . .
Black's kingside pawns are weak, so it time

to start an attack in the centre.
24 . . . ti)h7 !
26
A last attem pt to resist.
36 . . . Ilxb2+ ! 0-1
Wh ite resigned , antici pating 37 x b2
(37 a1 Ad4) 37 . . . Aa3+ 38 xa3 (38 b1
Ad3+ 39 xd3 c1 #) 38 . . . c3+ 39 a4
b5#.
231
Combinations
J o e l L a u t i e r - B o r i s G e lfa n d
F I D E Wo r l d C h a m p i o n s h i p rap i d ,
G ro n i n g e n 1 9 97
Paul Van der Sterren - Boris Gelfand

S KA , M u n i c h 1 9 94
..
7
6
5
4
3
2
In a typical King 's I n d ian game I went for a

d i rect attack, but failed to g ive mate. White
has all the tru m ps on the q ueenside, and
so Black has to look for a way to save the
game.
I n an i m portant tie-break game from this

world championsh ip knock-out event, I have
managed to seize the initiative. An exchange
sacrifice is the best way to develop it.
18 . . . l1xd2! 19 l1xd2 dxe3 20 fxe3
31 . . . h4!
Too slow is 31 . . . g5 32 b6 Ah3 33 b x c7
xf1 34 c8 Axc8 35 E!.xf1 . Also insuffi
cient is 31 . . . Ah3 32 b6 ! (or 32 xc7 g5
33 E!.c2 xf1 34 chxf1 Axg2+ 35 che2 Axf3+
36 d3) 32 . . . c x b6 33 E!.x b6 xf1 34 xf1
E!.xg2 35 xg2 Axg2+ 36 chxg2 and Wh ite
retains an advantage.
32 .xc7 !
There is no time for 32 b2 E!.g5 , and if
33 E!.xc7 ? (Wh ite can sti l l d raw by 33 E!.c2
h1 + 34 chf2 h4 35 chg1 ) 33 . . . h1 +
34 f2 xf1 35 E!.xc8+ g7 36 e1 e3+
37 chd2 xg2+ 38 chd3 xf3 -+ with a mat
ing attack. Or 32 b6 ? h1 + 33 chf2 xf1 .
32 . . . e2+ ! 33 xe2 l1xg2+ ! 34 xg2

h3+
Black is two rooks dow n, but this does n ot
change the outcome of the game.
20 E!.e2 exf2+ 21 E!.xf2 g4 -+ .
20 . . .e5!
Black wins a second pawn and with it the
game, than ks to the poor placement of
White's pieces, especially his kn ight at a4.
21 .f1
21 E!.e1 Ab4 -+ . No better is 21 E!.ad1 Ag4
22 E!.f1 (22 xa7 Axd1 23 E!.xd1 g4 !)
22 . . . xe3+ 23 E!.ff2 (23 E!.df2 Af5) 23 . . . Ab4
24 E!.d3 c1 + 25 E!.f1 c2 .
21 . . .xe3+ 22 .f2 .a3! 23 .xa7

23 f4 E!.c8.
23 . . . e4 24 xe4
The only defence against . . . Ac5+. After
24 E!.c2 Ac5+ ! the game concl udes with a
smothered mate : 25 E!.xc5 e3+ 26 chh1
f2+ 27 chg1 h3+ 28 chh1 g1 + 29 E!.xg1
f2#.
24 . . . xe4 25 l1e2
35 h1
25 E!.f1 Ac6 -+ .
The only move.
25 . . . l1a8 26 .e3 .xe3+ 27 l1xe3 l1xa4
35 . . . g4+ 36 g2 .g3+ 37 h1 .h3+

Y2-Y2
and White resigned a few moves later (0-1 ).
232
Combinations
B o r i s G e lfa n d - J e r o e n P i ket
M e l o d y Amber, M o n aco b l i n d 1 99 9
a
e
8
6
5
4
3
2
L...-_______--=-__.....
{f
Wh ite concludes the game with a simple but

pleasing com bination .
32 xe6+ ! fxe6 33 llxd7 .xd7 34 f5+

xf5 35 .xd7+ @h6 36 h xg6 h xg6
37 .xe6 @h7 38 Ad3 1-0
31 . . . b8 32 ge8+ Af8 33 f4 (or 33 gc5 gd6 ! ,

but not 3 3 . . . gcxd8? 3 4 Axd8 f7 3 5 gxd5
xe8 36 gf5 !) 33 . . . gd6 ;!;; he could have re
tained chances of a successful defence.
32 11ed1 !
Surprisingly, this rook temporarily leaves the
e -fi le. 32 gcd1 would allow 32 . . . gd5.
32 . . . Ae5
Or 32 . . . gxd1 33 gxd1 , winning a piece.
33 llxd4 Axd4 34 lld1 c5
Black was counting on this tactical shot, but
after
35 bxc5 xc5 36 llxd4 b3 37 lle4!
he had to resign in view of 37 . . . xa5
38 ge8#.
B o r i s G e l fa n d - A l exa n d e r B e l i a v s ky
Reg g i o E m i l i a 1 9 91
a
e
8
B o r i s G e l fa n d - C h r i sto p h e r L u tz
C an d i d ates To u rn a m e n t ,
D o rt m u n d 2 0 0 2
7
6
3
2
6
5
4
_""'---l
3
2
'--_______--=-__.....
{f
31 d8!
Attacking the c6 pawn and cutting the rook
at c8 out of the game.
31 . . . 11xd4?
Black is reluctant to defend passively, but
the heavy concentration of pieces on the d
file leads to immediate loss of material . With
{f
It may seem that Black has gained counter

chances, but Wh ite fi nds a precise way to
fin ish the game.
23 Af7! Axd2
Black also wou ldn 't have been saved
by 23 . . . xf5 24 Axe8 Axd2 25 Ag6 !
(25 Axd2 g3 allows some counter
chances) 25 . . . xg6 26 xg6 hxg6 27 Axd2
with a techn ically won end ing, or 23 . . . gxf7
24 gxd4 (after 24 xf7 gfB 25 xf8+ Axf8
26 Ae3 Ac5 27 gfd1 f3+ 28 g xf3 White
would sti ll req uire some techn ique to win)
24 . . . xd4 25 xf7 gf8 26 Ae3.
233
Combinations
24 Ag6! +The key intermed iate move. 24 Axd2? ge5 !

and bad is 25 Ag6 77 x g6 ! -+ .
24 . . . e2+ 25 h1 h6 26 Axd2
Black cannot prevent Ax h6.
26 . . . Ele7
26 . . . xf2 27 gxf2 Ctlg3+ 28 h2 Ctlxh5
29 Ax h5.
27 Axh6 1-0
I n view of 27 . . . gxh6 28 x h6+ g8 29 Ah7+
gxh7 30 x b6.
8
7
6
,....--""""'-1
Kiri l does not find the correct response and

he allows a mating attack on his exposed
King. The best defence was to give u p
t h e q ueen for three pieces after 1 6 . . . Ctlxf4 !
1 7 Ctlxd8 gxd8 1 8 c2 (18 gxe7 ? gxd1+
1 9 gxd1 f8) 18 . . . Ctlfe6 19 xc4 gd4 ! 00 . It is
hard to assess this position . Black's pieces
are awkward ly placed , but if he can man
age to develop them properly, thei r attacking
potential may tel l .
16 . . . b6 17 Axd5 Ae6 18 h5 m8 19 gxe6 !

xe6 20 ge1 gxf7 21 gxe6 +- was indicated
by Maxim Notkin .
5
"""""'---1
16 . . . xf7?
The computer shows another interesting de

fence : 16 . . . Ctle3 !? 17 xd8 Axd8. However,
Wh ite can keep an edge by 1 8 Ctld6 ! Ac7
1 9 gxe3 ! (19 Ctlxe8 Axf4) 1 9 . . . gxe3 20 fxe3
Ae6 (20 . . . Axd6 21 Ax d6 Ctld3 22 Ad5+)
21 Ctlx b7 Axf4 22 Ctlxc5 Axe3+ 23 h1
Axc5 24 Axa8 , or 18 . . . Ctld3 19 Ad5+ f8
20 gxe3 gxe3 21 Axe3 .
B o r i s G e l fa n d - K i r i l G e o rg i ev
O l y m p i ad , C a l v i a 2004
guess that my opponent had reckoned only

on 1 6 Axd5 Ae6, when Black is doing fi ne.
4
3
1 7 Axd5+
1 5 . . . xd5?
Black played this quite quickly. He definitely
didn't pred ict White's next move. I was wor
ried about 15 . . . Ae6 ! 1 6 Ctlxe7+ gxe7, when
after 1 7 c2 (or 17 x d8+ gxd8 1 8 Ctlxc4
Ctld3 19 ge2 Ctlxf4 20 gxf4 ged7 21 Ctlxa5 b6
22 Ctlc6 gd1 + 23 ge1 gxe1 + 24 gxe1 gd2)
17 . . . gc8 !? (17 . . . Ctld3 18 ged1 Ad5 19 Ctlxd3
Axg2 20 xg2 d5+ 21 f3 cxd3 22 gxd3 =)
1 8 gad1 e8 it is Wh ite who has to prove
that he has equal chances.
16 xf7 !
I had spotted the weakness of Black's f7
sq uare (his rook has moved to e8) , which
allows White to start a dangerous attack. I
During the game I thought that 17 h5+

g8 18 Axd5+ h8 19 Af7 was also strong .
However, Black can hold by 1 9 . . . Ae6 ! (after
1 9 . . . gf8 20 Ag6 h6 21 Ax h6 Ag4 ! 22 Axg7+
xg7 23 xg4 Ag5 24 Ac2 Wh ite would
seem to win) 20 Axe6 (20 gxe6 Ctlxe6
21 Axe6 b6, or 20 Ag6 Ag8) 20 . . . Ctlxe6
21 gxe6 Af6 =.
17 . . . g6
The king is obliged to move out into the open
field. Bad is 1 7 . . . Ctle6 18 h5+ g8 1 9 gxe6
h8 ( 1 9 . . . Axe6 20 Axe6+ h8 21 Af5)
20 gh6 ! g x h6 21 Ae5+ Af6 22 x e8+ !
(22 Axf6+ xf6 23 xe8+) 22 . . . xe8
23 Axf6 with a spectacular mate, or 17 . . . Ae6
1 8 h5+ g8 1 9 gxe6 Ctlxe6 20 Axe6+
h8 21 Af5 h6 22 g6 g8 23 Ae6+ h8
24 Ax h6.
234
18 Ele5!
Combi nations
Th reaten ing mate in one and preventing

. . . Af5 .
1B . . . .tf5
The game can not be saved by 1 8 . . . h6
19 h5+ h7 20 Af7 f!a6 (20 . . . f!f8 21 g6+
h8 22 A xh6 f!xf7 23 xf7 f8 24 A xg7+
xg7 25 f!h5+) 21 Axe8 with a decisive ma
terial advantage.
19 Ilxf5! xf5 20 .h5+

The black king has gone too far from base
and is going to be mated .
20 . . . .tg5 21 .xh7+ 6
Or 2 1 . . . g6 22 h3+ f6 23 A xg5+ xg5
24 h4+ f5 25 f4 with another nice mate.
22 .txg5+ xg5 23 .tf7

I had seen this move from afar and was
q u ite proud of it. However, as the com
puter shows, Wh ite could have g iven mate
in 9 moves : 23 f4+ f6 24 h4+ f5
(24 . . . g6 25 f5+ ! xf5 26 f4+ g6
27 Af7+) 25 h5+ g5 26 h7+ g4 27 h3+
xg3 28 f5 ! This qu iet move creates the
u nstoppable th reat of g4. Nevertheless,
my decision is strong enough.
23
. . .
d6
23 . . . f6 24 g6+ e7 25 f!e1 + d7
2 6 f!xe8, or 23 . . . f!e6 24 h4+ f5 25 f4# .
24 Oxg7+ 5 25 .txeB 1-0

I n view of 25 . . . f!xe8 26 f7+ .
* * *
Monaco 200 1 : Watched by a number of colleagues and journalists, Boris Gelfand analyses his game with
Vishy Anand.
235
Endings
I ncluded here are extracts from games, i n which matters were decided i n the endgame.
Generally speaking, the positions are arranged according to material, from m i nor piece
endings to endings where heavy pieces play the main role. Again , the positions may be used
by the reader for training purposes.
Le o n i d M i l ov - B o r i s G e lfa n d
USSR J u n ior Championsh i p ,
K i rovabad 1 9 84
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Ve se l i n To p a l ov
H oog oven s , Wij k aan Zee 1 9 96
a
8
1_________-
h
8
r-
"""""-1
3
2
r-___-.-==
3
2
2
--------
41 e2
Forced , as Black wins the pawn end ing after
41 <i!>f3 Axc3 42 bxc3 <i!>e5 43 a5 b5 44 axb6
c x b6 45 d6 <i!>xd6 46 <i!>xf4 a5 47 <i!>e3 a4
48 <i!>d3 <i!>e5.
63 . . . xb4!!
The bishop cannot stop both pawns.
64 xe4 92 65 Ah2 c4 66 e3
Or 66 <i!>f3 b4 67 <i!>xg2 <i!>d5 ! (67 . . . b3
68 Ae5).
66 . . . b4 0-1
If Wh ite tries to rearrange his pieces to keep
an eye on both pawns by 67 <i!>f2 (67 <i!>d2
<i!>d4 68 <i!>c2 <i!>e3 69 <i!> b3 <i!>f2) , then
67 . . . g1 +! (67 . . . <i!>d5 68 <i!>e3 b3 69 <i!>d3
b2 70 <i!>c2 <i!>e4 71 <i!>x b2 <i!>d3 72 <i!> b3
<i!>e2 73 <i!>c4 <i!>f2 74 <i!>d4 g1 75 Axg 1 +
<i!>xg1 76 <i!>e4 <i!> g 2 7 7 <i!>f5 =) 6 8 <i!>xg1
(68 Axg1 b3) 68 . . . <i!>d5 and the b - pawn
queens.
41 . . . Axb2 42 xf4 b5 43 d3 Ae5

43 . . . Ad4 was another try: 44 ax b5 a5 (here
too 44 . . . a x b5 45 <i!>f3 does not create any
threats) 45 <i!>f3 a4 46 <i!>e2 a3 47 c1 (pre
mature is 47 b6 ? a2 48 b7 Aa7 -+) 47 . . . Ab2
(47 . . . <i!>c5 48 b3+ <i!>c4 49 xd4 <i!>xd4
50 b6 and the pawns queen simultaneously)
48 b6 c x b6 (48 . . . Axc1 49 b7 a2 50 b8
a1 51 d8+ <i!>c5 52 xc7+ and Wh ite
draws from a position of strength) 49 a2
<i!>c5 50 <i!>d3 b5, and now :
A) Black should win after 5 1 <i!>c2 ? <i!>c4
52 d6 b4 53 d7 (53 c1 Axc1 54 <i!>xc1 <i!>c3
55 <i!> b1 b3 56 d7 a2+ -+) 53 . . . b3+ 54 <i!>b1
Af6 55 e5 Ah4 56 c1 Ad8 57 e2 a2+
58 <i!>b2 Ac7 59 d8 Axe5+ 60 <i!>c1 a1 +;
236
Endings
B) 51 d6 ! (it is time to d ivert the opponent's

king , even at the cost of two passed pawns)
51 . . . b4 (or 51 . . . xd6 52 c2 and after
Wh ite's king reaches b3 he has a fortress)
52 d7 Af6 53 c2 c4 54 c1 and Black
cannot break through .
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Pa b l o S a n Seg u n d o
M a d r i d 1 996
Bad was 43 . . . bxa4? 44 x b2 a3 4 5 c4+.
44 axb5 a5! 45 cc!n3 a4 46 e2

46 g4 may wel l also have been possible,
but I saw a clear d raw after the move i n the
game.
46
a3
. .
a
8
I-..---=-
48. . . l1h5?
Black fal ls i nto the trap and captures the
bishop, but loses the game. I was more
afraid of 48 . . . gh7 ! 49 c6 (49 f7 f8 50 gf6
gg7 , or 49 gxa5 gh5) 49 . . . e5 50 Axf4
(50 gxa5+ e4 with counterplay) 50 . . . xc6
51 g3 ;t and White is only slightly better.
49 f7 ! l1)(g5+ 50 cc!n2
--------
Despite his extra piece, Black cannot pre

vent one of the pawns from queening.
47 b6!
By luring the black pawn onto the b -fi le,
White creates the outl ine of a fortress. After
47 c1 c5 48 d3 x b5 49 a2 c5
Black has excel lent winning chances.
47 . . . cxb6 48 c1 c5 49 d3 Af4
49 . . . b5 50 c2 (50 d6 ! =) 50 . . . c4 51 b1
Af4 52 d6 Axd6 53 a2 was simi lar to the
game.
50 c2 c4 51 b1 b5 52 d6!
By diverting the opponent's king, Wh ite gains
an im portant tempo.
52 . . . Axd6 53 a2 d4 54 b3+
White has achieved his dream and has built
a fortress.
54 )(e4 55 c1 d4 56 b3+ c3
57 c1 b4 58 b3 a4 Y2-Y2
50
. .
f8
50 . . . xc5 51 gxg6.
51 c6
Also good enough was 51 ga8 h7
(51 . . . e6 52 c6 +-) 52 gh8 gg6 53 gxh7
gf6 54 c6 xc6 55 gh6 gxh6 56 f8tlf.
51
. .
f3
51 . . . gh5 52 ga8 gh2+ 53 g1 gc2 54 gxf8

e6 55 gh8 xf7 56 c7 gxc7 57 gh7+ , or
51 . . . d6 52 ga8 h7 (52 . . . g6 53 gg8)
53 gh8.
52 11a8
52 c7 gg2+ 53 xf3 gc2 .
. . .
237
52
. .
g6 53 c7 I1g2+ 54 cc!n1 1-0
Endings
B o r i s G e l fa n d - V i c t o r Ko rch n o i
8
f6 58 Ad8+ e6 59 g8 d7 60 Ag5 e6,

and if 61 h6 tjj x h6+ 62 Ax h6 d5 63 f7
c4 64 e6 b3 65 Ag7 a5 66 d5 a4,
exchanging the last pawn.
5
4
6
5
4
3
a
A
__________________ v
The bishop is stronger than the knight,

White's king is i ncom parably more active,
and the e6 pawn is strong. However, he has
to play precisely to avoid missing the win.
47 h3!
After 47 h4 e7 Wh ite does n ot have any
usefu l move, as 48 Ac5+ e8 49 f6 tjj c7
al lows the knight to 'stick' to the e6 pawn.
47
. .
e7 48 h4
Now it is Black to move and he is forced to

step back.
48 . . . e8 49 c!>f6 d6 50 g6 c4
Black has a lost pawn ending after 50 . . . e7
51 Ac5 ! xe6 52 Axd6 xd6 53 x h5 e7
54 g6 f8 (54 . . . a5 55 g7) 55 f6 a5
56 e5 b5 (56 . . . g7 57 d5 g6 58 c5
h5 59 b5) 57 d5 a4 58 c5 when he is
one tempo too late.
51 . . . b6
51 . . . tjj x b2 52 xh5 was the alternative:
A) 52 . . . b6 53 Ad4 (or the computer's 53 g6
bxc5 54 h 5 ! and the pawn is unstoppable)
53 . . . tjjc 4 54 g6 e7 55 h5 xe6 56 h6
tjjd 6 57 h7 ttlf7 58 Ax b6 ;
B) 52 . . . tjjd 3 53 Ad6 b5 54 g5 (but not
54 g6 ? b4 55 h5 b3 56 h6 b2 57 h7 ttlf4+ !
58 g7 tjj g 6) 54 . . . b4 55 h5 and the pawn
queens with mate.
52 Ad4 e7 53 xh5 xe6 54 g6 d6

55 Axb6
55 h5 tjjf5 56 h 6 ? tjj x h 6 57 xh6 d5
58 Ax b6 c4 was Black's last chance.
55 . . . f5 56 h5 e7+ 57 g7 f5+
58 g6 h4+ 59 g7 f5+ 60 8
Now White only has to win the knight for the
h-pawn , which is quite simple.
51 Ac5!
(see next diagram)
60 . . . 't!n6
A very precise move. White ind uces the

pawn to move to b6, where it will be cap
tured . The straightforward 51 Ad4 e7
52 xh5 xe6 53 g6 tjjd 6 54 h5 tjjf5
wou ld have allowed Black to escape after
55 Ab6 (or 55 h6 tjj x h 6 56 xh6 d5
57 Ac3 c4) 55 . . . ttle7+ 56 g7 ttlf5+ 57 f8
61 Ad8+ e6 62 g8 h6+
63 g7 f7
63 . . . tjjf 5+ 64 g6.
238
64 Ac7 1-0
Endings
B o r i s G e l fa n d - S e r g ey M ov s e s i a n
E u ropean Team C h a m p i o n s h i p ,
Bat u m i 1 9 99
8
90 .td5! g4
90 . . . ttlfS 91 h3.
a
5
4
3
L...-.....;."..
--:.
_
_
_
_
_
_
L...-
--:.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-' 'It
_
_
-' 'It
_
_
91 .tc6!! xh4
78 h4
91 . . . ttlfS 92 Ad7.
I saw that White could hold the d raw

after 78 f3 h4 79 g x h4 g x h4 80 e3
ttldS+ 81 f3 ttlf4 82 Af1 ttle6 83 e3
ttlgS 84 Ag2 . This is a position of m utual
zugzwang . White must not allow the oppo
nent's king to go to f4. Thus if he has to move
he loses after 1 Af1 f4 2 f2 e4 followed by
. . . f4-f3, . . . f4 etc. But he cannot be g iven
the move. However, d u ring the game I had
some doubts about this and I chose a more
risky path.
92 .td7
Again a m utual zugzwang position saves
Wh ite. If it were h i m to move, he wou ld be
in trouble after 1 f3 ttle8 ! , and if 2 Axe8 ?
h3.
92 . . . g5 Y2-Y2
To m a sz M a r kows k i - B o r i s G e l fa n d
A k i b a R u b i n ste i n M e m o r i a l To u rn a m e n t ,
P o l a n i c a Zd roj 2 0 0 0
78. . . g4 79 ct>t2 e4+ 80 g2 d6

81 .td3 d4 82 .tb1 e3 83 .tc2 e4
84 .tb3 f4 85 g xf4 xf4 86 .tc2
Black is trying to win the h4 pawn and White

has to play extremely carefully to draw.
..
86 . . . f6 87 .td3 e8
87 . . . g3 88 Ae2 ttlg4 89 h3 e3 !? 90 Axg4
f2 91 Af3 ! xf3 and White is saved by
stalemate.
88 .tg6 g7 89 .t17 g3
So, Black has found a way to win the h4
pawn . However, the awkward position of the
knight at g7 allowed me to find a study
like draw. If 89 . . . eS 90 g3 fS (90 . . . f6
91 Ax hS) 91 Ab3 f6 92 Ad1 .
51
. .
Dxh5
I was not sure that I wou ld be able to save the

game by preventing the b-pawn from queen
i n g . H owever, this is Black's only chance,
239
Endings
as normally rook and bishop endings with

opposite colour bishops are very hard for
the defend i ng side, as I proved i n the same
tournament against Peter Svidler (see be
low).
52 Dxh5+ xh5 53 c4 g5 54 b4 f5
55 Ad5
The king is run n i ng to b8 to block White's
potential passed pawn.
56 b5
And my opponent trusted that I would find

63 . . . Axa7 64 xa7 g6 65 Af3 (65 b6
h5 66 Af3+ h4 67 xb5 g3) 65 . . . b4
66 b6 (66 Ad1 b3 67 Ax b3 h5 68 Ad1 +
h4) 6 6 . . . b 3 6 7 Ad1 b 2 6 8 Ac2 h5
69 Axf5 h4 70 Ab1 f5 !! 71 Axf5 g3.
Peter Sv i d l e r - B o r i s G e l fa n d
A k i b a R u b i n st e i n M e m o r i a l To u rnament,
P o l a n i c a Zd roj 2 0 0 0
56 b5 Ac3.
56 . . . e7 57 b6
57 c5 d7 58 b6 ax b6+ 59 x b6 (59 axb6
c8) 59 . . . Ac7+ 60 b5 c8 61 a6 b8.
57 . . . axb6 58 a6
58 ax b6 d7.
58
. . .
Ab8 59 c!>b5 Aa7

a
L.....-
_______...._
.::...
----I
68
Df7+ e5 69 Dh7 Da2 70 fth3 c!>e4

71 g1 Ae3+ 72 1 g5 73 Dg3 ftf2+
74 g1 Db2+ 75 1 4 76 Dg2 Db1+
77 c!>e2 ftb2+ 78 1 ftb1 + 79 c!>e2 c!>e4
80 Ag8 ftb2+ 81 1 ftb1+ 82 c!>e2 ftb2+
83 1 Db3 84 c!>e2 fta3 85 Af7
6
5
3
2
L.....-
_______...._
.::...
----I
Better defensive chances were offered by

85 Ae6 Af4 86 f2 gf3+ 87 g1 .
lf
Now Black w ill be forced to g ive u p his

bishop for the a-pawn , but it turns out that
Wh ite cannot keep his last pawn on f3 .
59 . . . d6? 60 x b6 xd5 61 b7 .
60 c!>c6
Or 60 f4 f6 61 c6 b5 62 b7 Ae3 63 Ab3
d6 64 Ac2 e6 65 a7 Axa7 66 xa7 d5
67 Axf5 d4 68 Ab1 f5 ! ! 69 Axf5 e3.
60 . . . b5 61 c!>b7 Ae3 62 f4
62 a7 Axa7 63 xa7 d6 64 Axf7 e5
65 b6 f4 66 Ad5 b4 67 c5 b3.
62
. .
lf
63 a7 Y2-Y2
240
85
. . .
.lf4 86 .le6
a
...
tt:J
Endings
86 . . . Ag3!
Pete r L e ko - B o r i s G e l fa n d
D o rt m u n d 1 99 6
Shutting the rook out of the game.
87 Af7 g4 88 Ah5 De3+ 89 d2 Ae1 +

90 d1 g3 0-1
Black is threatening . . . Af2 , thus winning at
least the d5 pawn (91 ge2 Af2).
B o r i s G e l fa n d - J o e l L a u t i e r
B i e l 2001
8
"if
69 b4?
Th is mistake leads to a very instructive
end ing. After 69 f4 xf4 70 Axf4 xf4
71 xe6 e3 Black wins, but Leko, tired i n
the seventh h o u r o f play after a long d e
fence, does not notice the simple draw after
69 e1 e3 70 Ac1 .
69 . . . e3!
---"'
L...-_______
.....
__
An im portant intermediate move.
"if
70 Ae1
White is a pawn down and his chances i n a

long fight are slim. But he can save the game
by perpetual check.
70 xd5 exd2 71 c3 Ac4 72 c6 f4

73 c5 Aa6 74 d4 f3 (74 . . . f5 ? 75 c7 f3
76 c8 ! Axc8 77 d3 =) 75 c7 f2 76 e4
Ac8 77 d3 e1 -+.
70 . . . xb4 71 Axb4 Ac4
44 Af5! g7
44 . . . g xf5 45 f7+ Ag7 46 xf5+ g8
47 d5+ is similar.
71 . . . Ac8 !?
72 Ac3
Necessary, i n order to prevent 72 . . . e4
fol lowed by the advance of the f-pawn. If
72 e7 g5 73 c6 f5 74 c7 Aa6 75 e6
f4 (75 . . . f4 ?! 76 e5 g4 77 d4) 76 d5
(76 Ac5 e4 77 Axe3 Ac8+) 76 . . . f3
77 e5 Ac8 78 d4 f2 , or 72 c6 e4
73 c7 Aa6.
Axg6!
I nsisting on the capture of the bishop.

45 . . . xg6 46
L..._
.______...._
.::;...
---I
45
"e6+ A16 47 "g8+ Ag7
47 . . . h6 48 f8+ Ag7 49 f4+.
72 . . . g5
48 "e6+ h7 49 "f5+ g8 50 "d5+

8 51 "d8+ 52 "d7+ 1/2-1/2
Also i nteresting was the suggestion of

Roberto Cifuentes : 72 . . . e2 (threatening
241
Endings
73 . . . 't!?e4) 73 't!?e7 (73 c6 't!?e4) 73 . . . 't!?g6

74 't!?d6!? (74 c6 f5 75 c7 Aa6 76 't!?e6 't!?g5
77 't!?e5 't!?g4) , and now 74 . . . 't!?g5 ! (74 . . . Aa6
75 't!?d5 't!?f5 76 c6, or 74 . . . f5 75 't!?e5 't!?g5
76 't!?d4 =) 75 c6 't!?f4.
73 c6
Wh ite has nothing better. H is king is tem
porari ly cut off.
73
83 Ae1 + 't!?g2 84 't!?e4 f3 85 't!?e3 Ab7 86 Ah4

't!?f1 87 c8 Axc8 88 't!?xf3) 82 Ac5+ 't!?d3
(82 . . . 't!?d2 83 't!?xf4) 83 Af2 f3 84 't!?f4 = ;
B) 77 . . . f4 78 't!?e5 Ab5 79 c7 Aa6 80 't!?f5 (or
80 Aa3 Ab7 81 Ab4 e2 82 't!?f5 , simi lar to
the note to Wh ite's 75th move) 80 . . . Ac8+
81 't!?e5 't!?g3 82 't!?e4 Ab7+ 83 't!?f5 't!?f3
84 't!?e5 't!?g4 85 't!?d4 e2 86 Ad2 't!?g3
87 Ae1 + 't!?g2 88 Ah4 't!?f1 89 c8 Axc8
90 't!?e4, drawing.
74
f5?
When I checked my oid commentary I found

out that the end ing was more d ifficult than
I thought i n 1 996. Black could have won by
73 . . . Aa6 74 't!?d5 f5 75 't!?d4 't!?f4 ! 76 Ab4
't!?f3.
75
A) 7 7 . . . e 2 78 Ad2 A h 3 79 c7 f4 80 't!?e5
Ac8 81 Ab4 't!?e3 (81 . . . 't!?g4 82 't!?d4 't!?g3
.ta6 75 .td4
According to analysis by Roberto Cifuentes,

75 't!?d4 't!?f4 76 Ab4 't!?f3 77 c7 e2 (77 . . . f4
78 't!?e5 =, or 77 . . . 't!?e2 78 't!?e5 Ac8 79 't!?f4 =)
78 Ae1 't!?g2 79 't!?e3 't!?f1 80 't!?d2 leads to a
draw. However, as Alexander Rustemov no
ticed in our jOint analysis, Black can reach
this position with Wh ite to move and win this
ending : 80 . . . Ab7 ! ! (80 . . . f4 81 Ah4 leads to
a mutual zugzwang position which will con
tin ually turn up at the end of most of our
l i nes ; 81 . . . Ac8 82 't!?d3 Ab7 83 c8 Axc8
84 't!?e4 =) 81 Ah4 (81 Ag3 f4 82 Ah4 Aa6, or
82 Ae1 f3) 81 . . . Ac8 ! 82 Ag3 f4 83 Ah4 Aa6
(zugzwang) 84 Ae1 (84 c8 Axc8 85 't!?d3
Ab7) 84 . . . f3 .
74 c!>e5?
Return ing the favou r. Stronger was 74 't!?c5 !
(hitting the bishop) 74 . . . Af1 (74 . . . Aa6 al
lows the study-like 75 't!?b6 Ac8 76 't!?c7 Ae6
77 't!?d6 Ac4 78 't!?c5 , return i ng to the same
position) 75 't!?d4 (Wh ite provokes Black's
pawn i nto advancing to f4, where it cann ot
be protected by the bishop, and because of
his poorly placed bishop on f1 , Black can
not prevent this) 75 . . . 't!?f4 (an instructive l i ne
is 75 . . . f4 76 c7 Aa6 77 't!?e4 't!?g4 78 Ab4
Ab7+ 79 't!?d4 't!?h3 80 Ae1 't!?g2 81 't!?d3 't!?f1
82 Ah4 e2 83 c8 ! Axc8 84 't!?e4) 76 Ab2 !!
(76 c7 ? Aa6 77 Ab2 't!?f3 78 't!?e5 Ac8 -+)
76 . . . 't!?f3 77 Ac1 , and now :
. .
e2 76 .tc3 c!>g4 77 .te1
77 c7 Ac8 ! 78 't!?d4 't!?f3 79 Ae1 transposes

i nto the game.
77
. .
.tc8 78 c!>d4 <!>f3 79 c7
After 79 't!?d3 B lack wins i n simi lar fash

ion to the note to Wh ite's 75th move :
79 . . . Aa6+ 80 't!?d2 't!?g2 81 c7 't!?f1 82 Ag3
Ab7 ! (82 . . . f4 ? 83 Ah4) 83 Ah4 (83 Ae1 f4
84 Ah4 Aa6) 83 . . . Ac8 (83 . . . f4 ? 84 't!?d3
e1 85 Axe1 't!?xe1 86 c8 Axc8 87 't!?e4)
84 Ae1 f4 85 Ah4 Aa6.
79
. .
c!>g2 80 c!>e3 <!>f1 81 .th4
81 't!?d2 f4 82 Ah4 Aa6 with zugzwang .
242
81
e1 1t+ 0-1
Endings
B o r i s G e l fa n d - Ko n st a n t i n L e r n e r
U S S R C h a m p i o n s h i p Se m i - F i n al ,
N o r i l s k 1 9 87
Pave l M a r t i n ov - B o r i s G e lfa n d
USSR J u n ior Championsh ip,
Yu r m a l a 1 9 85
1--.....""'-
7
6
5
t-'-=-o
I n this im portant game from the USSR Junior

Championship I had to seal my next move.
47 . . . g5!
It was tem pting to go for the pawn end
ing with an equal n u m ber of pawns, but
after 47 . . J:!a7 ? 48 gxa7 ct1xa7 49 ct1f2 ct1b6
50 ct1f3 ct1c6 51 ct1f4 ct1d6 52 ct1f5 ct1e7 53 ct1g6
ct1f8 54 ct1h7 ! (Wh ite prevents the opponent's
king from hiding i n the corner; after 54 g4
ct1g8 55 h4 ct1h8 56 ct1f7 ct1h7 57 g5 h xg5
58 h xg5 ct1h8 he has nothing better than to
g ive stalemate with 59 g6) 54 . . . ct1f7 55 g4
ct1f6 56 h4 h5 57 g5+ ct1f7 58 ct1h8! Wh ite
wins the g7 pawn and the game.
43 . . . gb7?
Following Tarrasch's advice regarding plac

ing the rook beh ind a passed pawn i n rook
endings, but this position is an instructive
exception . 43 . . . gf6+ ! 44 ct1e5 gf2 45 gxg7
b3 46 g4 b2 47 gb7 ct1c8.
44 gg4!! +Thanks to the strong position of his king and

d6 pawn , Wh ite fi nds a way for his rook to
reach the 8t h ran k. 44 gb3 ct1e8 =.
44 . . e8
.
44 . . . b3 45 ga4 gb8 46 gf4.

45
45 . . . ct1d8 46 gc5 b3 47 ga5 gb8 48 gf5.
48 gf6+ c7 49 gxh6 d7 50 gf6

50 gh5 ga5 51 h4 ga1 + 52 ct1f2 g x h4
53 gxh4 ct1e6 54 gf4 is an easy d raw, ac
cord ing to theory.
46 gc7 b3 47 gxg7 8 48 gf7+ g8

49 d7!
Securing the good position of the king.
49 gf1 ge8+ ! 50 ct1d5 ge2 .
50 . . . ga5 51 2 e7 52 gf3 e6 53 g4
ga2+ 54 g3 ga1 55 h3 gb1 56 ga3
56 gf5 is met by 56 . . . g b3+ 57 ct1g2 g b2+
58 ct1f1 gb3.
56
gc4 gb8
And White's further attempts to win were

pointless (y2-Y2).
243
49 . . . b2 50 gf1 g7
(see next diagram)
Endings
ctJxc1 67 h7 ctJd2 68 ctJg7 and Black has no

defence.
In home analysis I managed to find a pretty

way to save a half point. 61 . . . ctJd4 ? 62 gf2 !
transposes i nto the previous note.
5
4
L...-___________----'
62 Df2
62 g4 gxe2 63 h8ff c2 = and White is unable
to prevent the manoeuvre of the rook to d2
and d1 .
1f
62 . . . ctJb31
51 Db1 1
Avoiding the last trap : 51 ctJe7 ?? b1 ff
52 gxb1 gx b1 53 d8ff ge1 + = .
The right way ! Black h ides his king from the

checks.
51 .. J;;l b6+ 52 ctJe7 gb7 53 ctJea 1-0
63 g4
Black is just in time after 63 ctJg7 c2 64 gxc2
ctJxc2 65 g4 ctJd3 66 g5 ctJe4 67 g6 ctJf5.
M a n u e l R i va s - B o r i s G e lfa n d
Dos H e r m a n as 1 994
63
gxf2 64 haW
a
...
1f
L...-__________________
Here White had to seal his move. Confident

of an easy win , he quickly sealed
61 h7?
thus throwing away the win. He could have
achieved it with the subtle 61 gf2 !! , for ex
ample:
A) 61 . . . ctJe4 62 h7 ctJd3 63 gf3+ ctJd2 64 gh3
gxg2+ (64 . . . gxh3 65 g x h3 c2 66 h8ff c1 ff
67 ffh6+) 65 ctJh5 c2 66 h8ff c1 ff 67 ffh6+ ;
B) 61 . . . ctJc4 62 gf4+ ctJd3 (62 . . . ctJb3 63 g4)
63 g4 c2 64 gf1 ctJd2 65 g5 c1 ff 66 gxc1
64 . . . gb21
With the threat of . . . c3-c2 and . . . gb1 , which
White is unable to prevent.
Black did not want to suffer in the infamous
ending with queen and b-pawn v. queen after
64 . . . c2 65 ffb8+ ctJa2 (65 . . . ctJc4 66 ffc7+
ctJd3 67 ffd6+ ctJe2 68 'fWc5 +-) 66 'fWa7+ ctJb1
67 ffb6+ ctJa1 68 ffxf2 c1 ff . I n a practical
game it is easy to lose such an ending, even
though it is theoretically drawn.
244
Endings
65 "h3
Or 65 b8+ <i!?a2 66 a7+ <i!?b1 67 g1 +
<i!?a2 68 c1 c2 69 g 5 <i!?b3 = .
65 . . . h1 66 ge2 UeS 67 g4 g1
68 m3 ggS!
Cutting off the white king from the h-pawn .
65. . . b4 66 "hS b3 67 "gS+ c2
69 ge1 + h2 70 ge2+ h1 7 1 m4
Paradoxical ly, Black blocks the advance of

his c-pawn, but he has time to regroup.
71 ge1 + gg1 72 gxe3 gg3+ .
71
68 h5
. .
gg3 72 gb2 g1 73 ga2 m1 0-1
68 c4 gb3 69 g5 <i!?b2 = .
68 . . . b1 69 g5 c2 70 "h7 %-%
Boris Gelfand - Adrian Mikhalchishin

O l y m p i ad , I stan b u l 2 0 0 0
a
J o e l L a u t i e r - B o r i s G e l fa n d
Dos H er m a n as 1 9 9 5
8
'-----
5
4
6
5
3
a
2
1f
White is a pawn up, but it is far from clear if

he can win this position .
49 gf4
This ending is of theoretical importance.
63
ge4!
Black would have thrown away the win by

63 . . . <i!?h2 64 gg4 h3 ? (it is not too late to
return to the right path by 64 . . . <i!?h3) 65 gg8
<i!?h1 66 gg3 h2 67 gg8 and the king can
not leave the corner: 67 . . . gf7 68 <i!?xe3 gf1
69 gh8 gf7 70 gg8.
64 m3
Black's task is simple after 64 gg8 gg4
65 ga8 <i!?g2 66 <i!?xe3 h3 67 ga2+ <i!?g3.
64
. . .
An attem pt to cut off the king. 49 <i!?e2 h5

(49 . . . gh3 50 h5+ <i!?g5 51 <i!?d2) 50 g5 <i!?f5
51 gb4 <i!?e5 52 <i!?d2 <i!?d5 53 <i!?c2 <i!?c5
54 gf4 gh3 leads to an easy draw.
49 . . . gh3
Black has to waste a few tempi to create
counterplay. If 49 . . . h5 50 g5 gd3 51 <i!?e2
ga3 52 <i!?d2 gh3 53 <i!?c2 gg3 54 gc4 <i!?f5
55 <i!?b2 +-.
50 a5 ga3
h2!
This forced but strong intermed iate move is

the point of the whole ending.
Bad is 50 . . . gxh4 51 <i!?g2 h5 52 a6 h x g4

53 gf8 ! and the a-pawn is unstoppable.
51 Uf5 h7 52 gb5 ga4
65 gg2+
65 gg8 e2 .
52 . . . g8 !? 53 h5.
245
Endings
53 cc!?t3 g8 54 h5 tMl?
Allowi ng White to i m prove position of his
rook, which turns out to be decisive. Black
should have got rid of his weak g7 pawn by
54 . . . g5 ! , as suggested by M i khalchish i n :
A) 5 5 b8+ f7 5 6 b7+ (56 a8 f6 57 a6
g7) 56 . . . f6 57 b6+ e5 58 a6 a3+
59 e2 f4 60 xh6 xg4 61 d2 h4 = ;
B ) 55 b 6 xa5 5 6 x h 6 f7 5 7 d 6 e7
(57 . . . e5 !?) 58 d4 f6 ;!;; with good drawing
chances.
For a long time I thought that 54 . . . g6?! was
even stronger, but on checking the analysis
for this book I discovered a study-l i ke wi n :
C) 55 b8+ ! (cutting off the king on the 8th

ran k) 55 . . . g7 56 b7+ , and now :
C 1 1 ) 56 . . . g8 57 a7 g x h5 58 g x h5 f8
59 a6 e8, when :
C 1 1 1 ) it is premature to li berate the oppo
nent's king with 60 a8+ ? f7 61 e3
g7 (61 . . . f6 62 g8, or 61 . . . a5 62 d4
xh5 63 a7 a5 64 h8 xa7 65 h7+)
62 d3 a5 63 c4 xh5 64 b8 (64 b4
h1 65 c8 b1 + 66 a5 a1 + 67 b6
b1 + 68 a7 g6) 64 . . . a5 65 b7+ g6
66 b6+ g7 67 b4 a1 68 b5 h5
69 c6 g6 70 b7+ g5 71 a7 xa7+
72 xa7 h4 = ;
C 1 1 2) 6 0 e3 ! and White is winning :
C 1 1 2 1 ) 60 . . . f8 61 d3 e8 62 a8+
(62 c3 !? d8 63 b3 a1 64 c4 c8
65 a8+ c7 66 a7) 62 . . . f7 (62 . . . d7
63 a7 c7 64 h8 xa7 65 h7+ b6
66 xa7 xa7 67 e4 and Black is just too
late to reach f8 with his ki ng) 63 c3 g7
64 b3 a1 65 b4 +-;
A) 5 5 e3 leads only to a draw :

A1 ) 55 . . . xg4? 56 b8+ g7 57 b7+ f6
(57 . . . g8 58 a6 a4 59 a7) 58 b6+ e5
59 xg6 ;
A2) 55 . . . g5 is simi lar to 54 . . . g5;
A3) 55 . . . g x h5 56 g x h5 f7 57 d3 e6
58 c3 (58 b6+ f5) 58 . . . d6 59 b3
a1 60 b4 b1 + 61 c4 c1 + (61 . . . a1 ?
62 b6+ c7 63 b5) 62 d4 a1 63 b6+
c7 64 xh6 xa5 65 h8 b7 66 h6
a6 ! = . An i m portant ru le - Black can save
the game if he manages to attack the pawn
from the side. On the other hand, if the black
rook attacks the pawn from behind, this end
ing is lost;
B) 55 h xg6 g7 56 g3 xg6 57 h4
a1 58 b6+ g7 59 a6 h1 + 60 g3 h5
61 g x h5 x h5;
C 1 1 22) 60 . . . d8 61 a8+ ! (at j ust the right

time; 61 d3 c8 62 c3 a5 63 a8+
c7 64 a7 b7 65 h8 xa7 66 xh6 is
a draw, as we already know) 61 . . . c7 (the
king is too late returning to the kingside after
61 . . . e7 62 a7 f7 63 h8 xa7 64 h7+)
62 f3 ! (improving the position of the king)
62 . . . a5 (62 . . . h4 63 h8 b6 64 x h6+,
or 62 . . . b6 63 h8 xa6 64 a8+ b5
65 xa4 xa4 66 e4) 63 g4 g5+
64 h4 a5 65 a7 b7 66 h8 a4+ 67 g3
xa7 68 xh6 b7 69 g6 +-;
C 1 2) 56 . . . f8 !? (the king hastens to at
tack the opponent's rook) 57 a7 (57 g5?!
g x h5 58 g x h6 g8 59 a7 h4 =) 57 . . . g x h5
58 g x h5 e8 59 a6 d8 60 a8+
c7 61 a7 (61 g3 a5 62 a7 b7
63 h8 xa7 64 xh6 b5 =) 61 . . . b7
62 h8 xa7 63 xh6 b7 64 h7+ !
(a strong i ntermed iate move; Black has
gai ned a tempo com pared with the previ
ous l i ne, and now 64 g6 h4 ! 65 h6 c7
246
Endings
66 g3 gh1 67 f4 d7 = allows him to es

cape, or 64 gh8 gc4 ! and he succeeds i n
ach ieving t h e desired position o f his rook)
64 . . . c6 (64 . . . b8 65 g3 followed by h5h6 and march of the king to g8) 65 h6 (the
king prevents Black from attacking the pawn
from the side) 65 . . . gh4 66 gh8.
55 gb7+
55 g5 h xg5 56 gxg5 f6 57 g b5 g5
(57 . . . e6 58 e3 d6 59 gg5 c6 60 d3
ga1 61 gg6+ ) 58 h6 (58 g b6+ f5 59 a6
g4+) 58 . . . g6 59 g b6+ h7 60 a6 gf4+
61 g3 ga4 62 gd6 gf4 leads on ly to a draw.
55 . . . 6 56 gb6+ e5
56 . . . f7 57 a6 and after gg6 the king is free
to march across to support the a-pawn .
and I was not sure if this ending was won

or drawn. However, there is a study-like win
by 71 d4 ! (71 gh8 c6 72 h6 b7 73 d4
gg6 ! =) 71 . . . a5 72 e4 ! (72 gh8 b6 73 h6
b7 74 gfB gh5 75 gf6 c7 76 e4 d7
77 f4 e7) 72 . . . gb5 73 gh8, and now :
A) 73 . . . a6 74 h6 and Black is u nable
to achieve the desired position : 74 . . . gb4+
(74 . . . gb6 75 h7 gh6 76 ga8+) 75 d5 gb5+
76 c4 gh5 77 d4 ;
B) 73 . . . g b4+ 74 d5 gb5+ 75 c6 g b6+
76 c!lc7 and although Black's rook is cor
rectly placed , his king is not, and he cannot
save this ending.
63 b2 ga5 64 gxg7 gxa6 65 gg6

Winning a second pawn.
65 . . . ga4 66 gxh6 d5 67 gg6 1-0
57 a6 lla3+ 58 e2 d4 59 Ild6+ e4
60 d2 e5 61 gg6 d5 62 c2
a
B o r i s G e l fa n d - V l a d i m i r K ra m n i k
Can d i d ates Q u arter- F i n a l (6) ,
Sang h i N aga r 1 9 94
a
5
4
7
6
5
4
3
2
The king is aiming to break across to the

pawn , but the opponent's pieces try to stop
it.
'---_______...._
.;;....
--I
62 . . . c4
'lJ
61 h3
During the game I was worried about

62 . . . c5 ! 63 b2 ga4 64 b3 ga1 65 gxg7
gxa6 66 gg6 gd6 ! 67 c3 (White cannot win
the pawn ending after 67 gxd6 xd6 68 g5
e6 69 g6 f6) 67 . . . gd4 ! (67 . . . d5 68 g5,
and if 68 . . . h xg5 69 gxd6+ xd6 70 h6)
68 g5 (here too 68 gc6+ xc6 69 xd4
d6 = is insufficient) 68 . . . gd5 69 ga6 b5
70 gxh6 gxg5. I calcu lated the line up to here
Here the game was adjourned and I sealed

this move. During home analysis together
with my seconds Alexander Huzman and
Valery Atlas, our first i m pression was that
Wh ite's position was completely won . But
gradually this was replaced by a more
balanced assessment, according to which
B lack maintains good practical chances of
saving the game by sacrificing his central
247
Endings
pawn and trying to exploit the exposed pos

ition of the wh ite king. The final verdict, that
White is winning, kept eluding me both be
fore and after the resumption.
61 . . .f6!
The only move that preserves Black's
chances of defending successful ly. Other
contin uations lose :
A) 61 . . . h7 62 b6 ! (transposing i nto the
rook end ing is Wh ite's main idea) 62 . . . x b6
(62 . . . g8 63 xd6 gxd6 64 gc7 gf6 65 g4
g6 66 h xg6 fxg6 67 ge6 gdf8 68 gee7 +-)
63 axb6 gb7 64 gc7 gd7 (64 . . . gxc7 65 bxc7
gc8 66 ge7 f6 67 gd7 a5 68 gxd5 gxc7
69 gxa5) 65 gc8 gx b6 66 gee8 g6 67 gh8+
g7 68 gcg8+ f6 69 fxg6 +-;
B) 61 . . . f8 62 c3 f6 (or 62 . . . b8 63 gc6
b1 64 gc8) 63 gc6 gd6 (63 . . . g5 64 f6)
64 c5 g8 65 gxd6 xd6 66 ge8+ h7
67 xd6 gxd6 68 gb8 +-.
62 gcxd5
After the game Kramnik adm itted that in his
opinion 62 f4 !? would have posed Black the
hardest problems, lead ing to a queen end
ing after 62 . . . gd6 63 gc xd5 gxd5 64 gxd5
gxd5 65 xd5 .
During our h o m e analysis w e were i n itially

inclined to go for this option, but I was afraid
that, despite the two extra pawns, there
wou ld be no easy way for White to solve
'the problem of his king ' , which constantly
has the sword of Damocles hoveri ng over
its head due to the existing pawn configu

ratio n . Also, earl ier that year I had fai led to
win superior queen endings against M ichael
Adams and Alexander Bel iavsky, and for
psycholog ical reasons I decided to avoid
the queen end ing now. Later I overcame this
problem after winning a queen ending in a
game with Jul ian Hodgson (see p. 250).
Instead of the text move, 62 gexd5 could
have been tried . After 62 . . . g5 63 g4 Black
has a choice :
A) 63 . . . f4 ? ! 64 gxd7 gxd7 65 gc8+
h7 66 c3 ! (even stronger than 66 gc4,
provoking 66 . . . ge7 (66 . . . gd8 !? ; 66 . . . gxd4
67 gxd4 xd4 68 xf7) 67 d5 d2
68 c2 ! +-) 66 . . . gxd4 (66 . . . xd4 67 xd4
gxd4 68 gc6) 67 c6 and Black can not de
fend against both g6+ ! and a8 ;
B) 63 . . . gxd5 64 gxd5 gxd5 65 xd5 e3
(65 . . . c1 66 a8+ h7 67 e4) 66 a8+
h7 67 e4 f2 68 f6+ , or 64 . . . gf8 ob
tain ing a simi lar position to th e game.
62 . . .c6!
An unpleasant surprise ! In our home analysis
we had paid most attention to the tem pting
62 . . . g5 , after which we came up with a
convi ncing way to convert Wh ite's advan
tag e : 63 gxd7 gxd7 (63 . . . x h5+ ? 64 g2
gxd7 65 g4 g5 66 ge8+ h7 67 b8 g6
68 e5 +-) 64 f6 ! (opening lines for the wh ite
pieces) 64 . . . xf6 (64 . . . c1 65 ge8+ h7
66 d3+ g6 67 h xg6+ fxg6 68 g2 ! g5
69 b3) 65 b8+ h7 (65 . . . gd8 66 ge8+
gxe8 67 xe8+ h7 68 e4+ g8 69 d5
d8 70 e5 xa5 71 e8+ h7 72 xf7
d2 73 e6 d1 74 g4 ! +-) 66 b1 + g6
(a big concession ; now the black king will
be exposed) 67 e4 g7 68 h xg6 xg6
69 gd5 ! gxd5 (69 . . . xe4 70 fxe4 gxd5
71 exd5 and the pawn end ing is hopeless)
70 xd5 d3 71 g4 and Wh ite should be
able to win this queen end ing.
We also thorough ly examined the continu
ation 62 . . . gxd5 63 gxd5 ge8 64 ge5 gd8
248
Endings
which makes real ising the advantage consid

erably more difficult. Here Wh ite can choose
between 65 'tlfe3 'tlfc6 66 'tlfe4 'tlfa4 67 gd5
ge8 68 'tlff4 'tlfd1 69 f6, weakening the oppo
nent's ki ng, and the subtle 65 'tlfa4 !? f8
(65 . . . h7 66 'tlfc4) 66 'tlfc2 ! ? , provoking
66 . . . 'tlfg5 ? 67 f6 ? 'tlfxf6 68 'tlfh7 g5 69 h xg6
and wins.
63 Ilxd7 .xd7 64 .b6! h7 65 g4

An undesirable weakening of the king's pos
itio n , but I cou l d n 't find any other way of
freeing the rook from havi ng to defend the f5
pawn.
65
. . .
f6
65 . . . 'tlfxd4 66 'tlfxd4 gxd4 67 ge7 leads to a

lost rook end ing.
Probably the best practical chance was

the original 67 d5!? By sacrificing a pawn ,
Wh ite takes control o f th e g1 -a7 diagonal
(the queen is going to protect his king) and
launches an attack:
A) 67 . . . gxd5 68 ge7 , when White wins after
68 . . . gxf5 ? 69 g xf5 'tlfxf5+ 70 g3 'tlfg5+
71 f2 'tlfh4+ 72 e2 , 68 . . . 'tlfc1 69 gxg7+
xg7 70 'tlfb7+ f8 71 'tlfxd5 'tlfh1 + 72 g3
'tlfg1 + 73 f4 'tlfc1 + 74 e4 'tlfe1 + 75 d4
'tlfd2+ 76 c5 'tlfxa5+ 77 c6, 68 . . . 'tlfc4
69 'tlfa7 h8 70 g3, or 68 . . . gd3 69 'tlfxf6
gxf3+ 70 h4, and only 68 . . . 'tlff8 ! 69 g b7
gd3 leaves Black with counterplay;
B) 67 . . . 'tlfc3 ! (it is best to avoid the ' G reek
gift') 68 ge3 'tlfc1 69 ge7 'tlff4 = .
66 Ile4 .ca!
67
The best defence, found by Kram nik after a

forty m i n ute think. After 66 . . . 'tlfd5 67 'tlfxa6
ga8 68 'tlfe6 'tlfxa5 69 'tlff7 'tlfa1 (69 . . . 'tlfb5 !?
70 h2 'tlfb2+ 71 g3 'tlfb8+ 72 f4 'tlfb5,
keeping the rooks on, is probably better)
70 'tlfg6+ h8 71 ge8+ Wh ite has every
chance of winning.
67 Ile7
a
..
7
6
5
4
c1 !!
A splend id resource, which enables Kram nik

to save the half point. 67 . . . 'tlfc3 68 g3 gxd4
(68 . . . 'tlfc1 69 d5!) 69 'tlfb7 h8 70 ge8+ h7
71 'tlfb8 +-.
68 d5!
Making it harder for Black to d raw. After
68 'tlfxd8 'tlfh1 + 69 g3 'tlfxf3+ ! 70 h4
'tlfxg4+ the game ends with an elegant stale
mate, w h i l e after 6 8 gxg7+ xg7 6 9 'tlfxd8
'tlfh1 + 70 g3 'tlfg1 + 71 f4 'tlfc1 + 72 e4
'tlfc6+ ! Wh ite is forced to block the exit for
his king with 73 'tlfd5 'tlfc2+ and it all ends in
perpetual check.
68
The natural continuatio n , creating the i l l u

s io n o f an easy win for Wh ite. T h e post
mortem analysis showed that 67 'tlfc5 !?
would not have posed Black many problems
after 67 . . . 'tlfb7 (pin n i ng the rook) 68 'tlfe7
'tlfb3 69 ge3 'tlfd5.
. . .
. . .
14
After 68 . . . gxd5 69 gxg7+ ! (even stronger is

69 'tlfa7 ! 'tlfg5 70 'tlfa8 gd8 71 gxg7+ xg7
72 'tlfxd8, but not 71 'tlfxd8? 'tlfxg4+ 72 fxg4,
again with stalemate) 69 . . . xg7 70 'tlfb7+
h8 71 'tlfxd5 +- the white king avoids the
pursuit.
69 g2
The outcome of the game is not changed
by 69 'tlfb3 gb8 70 'tlfe3 'tlfd6 71 'tlfa7 gg8
72 'tlfb7 'tlff4 73 d6 'tlfxd6 74 ge6 'tlfd1 =.
249
Endings
...
66 . . . lWh3+ (66 . . . h3 67 lWf8+ c;!?h5 68 lWh8+

c;!?g4 69 lWc8+ c;!?xf4 70 lWc7+ leads to per
petual check; if 66 . . . c;!?h5 67 lWd1 + lWg4
68 lWd5+ lWf5 69 lWf3+ c;!?h6 70 c;!?g2) 67 c;!?f2
c;!?h5 68 lWe5+ lWf5 69 lWxf5+ g xf5 70 c;!?f3
and White saves the pawn ending.
66 . . . h3+
It is necessary first to 'unstalemate' the op

ponent's kin g . If 66 . . . c;!?h5 67 lWe5+ c;!?g4
68 lWe6+ c;!?xf4 69 lWe5+ with a draw.
67 g1 h5 68 .d4
69 . . . flc8!
The final blow ! By sacrificing a third pawn,
Kramnik gets his pieces to coord inate won
derfu lly, and despite his material advantage
Wh ite has to be satisfied with a d raw. If
69 . . J b8 70 lWxf6.
70 .xa6 flc3 71 .e2 .c1 72 .f2 .d1

73 fle1 .xd5 74 fla1
74 a6 ,!;.a3 75 a7 lWa5 also leads to a draw.
74 . . . fld3 75 fla2 flxf3 76 .xf3 Y2-2

After 76 . . . lWxa2+ 77 c;!?h3 lWxa5 Black re
gains all his sacrificed material .
J u l i a n H o d g s o n - B o r i s G e l fa n d
Koop Tj u c h e m , G ro n i n g e n 1 9 9 6
...
8
L-
6
5
4
3
A) 70 . . . lWe3+ 71 c;!?f1 (71 c;!?h2 lWg3+

72 c;!?h1 lWh3+ 73 c;!?g1 lWf5 74 c;!?f2 c;!?g4
75 c;!?e3 c;!?g3 -+) 71 . . . h3 (71 . . . lWe4 72 lWd1+
c;!?h6 73 lWg4 =) 72 lWd5+ c;!?h6 (72 . . . c;!?g4
73 lWf5+ !! again with stalemate) 73 lWg5+
c;!?h7 (73 . . . c;!?g7 74 lWh4 lWf3+ 75 c;!?e1 lWh1 +
76 c;!?e2 lWg2+ 77 c;!?e3 c;!?f7 78 lWh7+ with
a d raw) 74 lWg4 ! (not 74 lWh4+ c;!?g7, when
White loses because of zugzwang) and Black
cannot make progress ;
B) 70 . . . lWe2 ! (Black needs to play sub
tly) 71 lWf6 lWe1 + (71 . . . lWg4+ 72 c;!?f2 lWf5
73 lWxf5+ gxf5 74 c;!?f3 is the same draw that
we have already seen) 72 c;!?g2 lWg3+ 73 c;!?f1
lWd3+ 74 c;!?f2 lWd5 + , and I don't see how
White can save the f4 pawn and the game.
After this White loses his last pawn. Even

one tem po down, he should have tried to
activate his king : 68 c;!?f2 ! (68 lWd2 lWf5)
68 . . . lWg3+ 69 c;!?f1 (69 c;!?e2 g5) 69 . . . lWf3+
(it is not yet the time for 69 . . . g5 - 70 lWd1 +)
70 c;!?g1 (70 c;!?e1 lWe4+ 71 c;!?f2 c;!?g4) , and
now :
68 . . .f5 -+
Now there can be no doubt about the out

come of the game.
65
. . .
g3+ 66 h1 ?
The king should try to get out of the corner.

After 66 c;!?f1 ! Black cannot active his king :
250
69 g2 g4 70 .d1 + xf4 71 .d2+

g4 72 .d1 + g5 73 .d8+ h5
74 .h8+ g5 75 .d8+ .16 76 .d2+
Endings
h5 77 Oe2+ h6 78 h3 Of4 79 g2
Og3+ 80 h1 Oh3+ 81 g1 Of5
82 h2 g5 83 Oe8 016 84 Oc8 Of4+
85 h1 h5 86 Oe8+ g4 87 Oe6+ Of5
88 Oc4+ g3 89 Oc7+ Of4 0-1
White would be able to save the game after

55 . . . .l;d1 + 56 c,!>h2 c,!>f2 57 .l;xe3 c,!>xe3 58 a7
.l;d8 59 a8tW .l;xa8 60 eDxa8 f4 61 eDc7 ! = .
56 a7 gd3 57 a80+ g3
a
h
8
P re d r a g N i ko l i c - B o r i s G e lfa n d
C an d i d ates M atc h , S araj evo 1 991
a
5
8
6
5
r-'-=-.
As White has no checks, he has to g ive u p

his q ueen for t h e rook, a n d then t h e knight
ending is lost.
L...-_______-:-._----I
A
L...-_______-:-._----I V
'lt
58
Wh ite's only try is to d ivert the opponent's

rook.
53 gb3 g2+
First i m proving position of the knight
(53 . . . .l;xb3 54 a7) .
Oa1 Ild1 + 59 Oxd1 xd1 60 xe6

g6 61 b4 f4! 62 c5
62 eDd4 eDc3 63 b5 f3 64 f1 eDd5 65 eDc2

g5 -+ , or 62 eDg5 eDc3 63 f1 h6 64 eDf7
(64 eDe6 eDd5 -+) 64 . . . eDd5 65 eDx h6 eDe3+
66 e2 f3+ 67 xe3 f2 -+.
54 1 e3+ 55 g1 gxb3!!
***
251
62 . . . c3 63 d3 g5 64 f2 h5 65 1
h2 0-1
Ap p end ix
I n d ex of P l aye rs
A
Acs, Peter
211 , 213
Adams, M ichael . 1 3, 14, 59, 60, 62 , 98, 1 21 ,
1 25, 204, 248
Agrest, Evgeny
1 25
Akopian , Vladimir
69
Aleksandrov, Alexey
67
Alterman , Boris
50
Anand, Aruna
185
Anand, Viswanathan 1 2 , 13, 15, 27, 42 , 62 ,
101 , 110, 1 1 2 , 113, 155, 185, 187, 188, 1 91 ,
1 97, 1 98
Atlas, Valery
67, 1 22, 133, 247
Averbakh , Yuri
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D
Damljanovic, Branko
98, 99
Dolmatov, Sergey
119
Dominguez, Len ier
208
Dorfman , lossif
17
Dreev, Alexey
13, 1 7, 5 0, 5 9, 69 , 177
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
F
Faulks, N ick
Flohr, Salo
Freeman , N igel
Ftacn ik, Lubomir
213
12
213
21 , 24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G
Gelfand, Abram
Gelfand , Boris
Gelfand , Nella
Geller, Yefim
Georgiev, Kiri l
Glek, Igor
Golovey, Marietta
Golovey, Tamara
Golu bev, M i khail
Grischuk, Alexander
Gross, Stefan
Gulko, Boris
Gurevich , M i khail
8, 10-12
7-16, 19, 75
10
11 , 12
88, 92 , 234
70, 159
12
11
215, 216
206, 21 8-221
17
30, 55
17, 36, 200, 230
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B
Bareev, Evgeny
Beliavsky, Alexander
Benjam in, Joel
Beyl i n , M i khail
Blauert, Jorg
Bohm , Hans
Boleslavsky, Isaac
Bologan , Viorel
Botvinnik, l Iya
Botvinnik, M i khail
Bronstei n , David
Bruzon, Lazaro
Burshtein, Igor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
16, 50, 59, 148

11 , 73 , 86, 248
1 93
10
218
147
11
3 6 , 37, 69
209
94
10
208, 209
218
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hazai , Laszlo
H ickl , Jorg
Hodgson, Jul ian
Hubner, Robert
H uzman , Alexander
152, 181 , 247
209 , 210
164
248
121
13, 16, 47, 1 22, 133,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C
Capablanca, Jose
Chandler, M urray
Chebanenko, Vyacheslav
Chern i n , Alexander
Chiburdan idze, Maya
Cifuentes, Roberto
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 83, 208
81
113
1 7, 18, 26, 39, 42
211
241 , 242
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Iliescas, M iguel
252
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36, 155
Appendix
Index of Players
Ivanchuk, Vasily
1 2 , 14, 1 7, 26, 27, 30, 31 ,
50, 51 , 63, 67, 69 , 86 , 98, 121 , 1 72
. . . .
K
Kamsky, Gata
. . . . 1 2 , 14, 27, 34, 37, 151
Kapengut, Al bert . 11 , 1 2 , 1 9, 20, 64, 67, 209
Karpov, Anatoly . 1 2-14, 16, 38, 59, 70, 71 ,
80, 97, 1 51-153, 1 72, 1 95, 209 , 219, 220
9, 1 2-14, 16, 17, 30, 70,
Kasparov, Garry
73-77, 79 , 80, 101 , 113, 139, 1 72
Khalifman , Alexander . . .
13, 15, 1 7, 50, 51
Khen kin, Igor . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 50
Kholmov, Ratmir . . . . . . . . . .
52 , 54, 55
Kindermann , Stefan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Kogan , Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . .
133
Kok, Bessel . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. 94
Korch noi, Victor . . . . . 14, 153, 154, 1 93, 203
Kram nik, Vladimir
7, 13, 14, 16, 27, 31 , 41 ,
98, 133-135, 137, 148, 155, 1 63, 164, 1 72 ,
187, 1 97, 2 1 3 , 248-250
Kuzm i n , Gennady
. . . . . . . . 211
. . . . . . .
Novikov, Igor . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nu n n , John
. .. ...... .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
011,
. 21
. 1 2 , 74
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
. . .
. . .
Lembit
Olms, Manfred
Olpiner, Zohara
. .............. .
50
.. . ....... ..
154
. . . . . . . . . 207
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Pedersen , Steffen
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Pein , Malcolm . . . . . . .
....... .. .
19
Pelletier, Yannick . . . . . . . . . .
151 , 1 77
Petrosian , Tigran
. . . . . . . 1 1 , 1 29
Piket, Jeroen . 14, 80, 81 , 145, 147, 159, 204
Pillsbury, Harry Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Poldauf, Dirk
.... ........ . .. .. .
16
Polgar, Judit
.. . ... . . ... .
.
14, 35
Polugayevsky, Lev . . . . . . . .
.
101
Portisch , Lajos
. . . . . . . . . . . 70, 181
Postovsky, Boris . . . . . .
. . 16
Psakhis, Lev
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 211
. . . . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. .
. . .
. . . . . . .
M
Makarychev, Sergey
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
M i khalchishi n , Adrian
. . . . . . . . . . . 246
M i les, Anthony
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Morozevich , Alexander . . 16, 200, 204, 205
Movsesian , Sergey
.
. . . . 1 76
. .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
N
Najdorf, Miguel . . . . . . . .
210
Neat, Ken . . . . . . . . . . .
.
1 95
N i kolic, Predrag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 , 14
N imzowitsch, Aaron
. . . . 65, 152
Noteboom , Dan iel . . . . . . . .
.
145
Notki n , Maxim . . . . . .
.
. 234
.
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .
R
Razuvaev, Yuri . . . . . . . . . 11 , 15, 85 , 106, 155
Rentero, Luis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 , 93
Romero Holmes, Alfonso
. . . . . . 68
Rozentalis, Eduardas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 95
Rubi nstein , Akiba . 15, 46, 85 , 110, 1 69, 1 80,
188
Rublevsky, Sergey . . . . . . . . . . 46, 1 63, 167
Rustemov, Alexander
..
. . . 242
.
. . . . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . . .
S
Sagalch ik, Gennady . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Sakaev, Konstantin
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Salov, Valery . . . . . . . . 1 2-14, 73 , 150, 200
Savchen ko, Stan islav
.
. 67
Semen iuk, Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Serper, Grigory
. . . . . . . 50, 1 72
Shabalov, Alexander 50, 139, 213-215, 228,
229
Shi pov, Sergey . . . . . . . . 1 73, 183, 188, 189
ShirY, Alexey
14, 15, 41 , 42 ,
44, 45, 50, 69, 98, 103, 109, 113, 114, 1 1 7,
139, 141 , 142 , 165, 1 69
Short, N igel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 , 83 , 94, 97
.
. .
. . . .
. . .
. .
. .
253
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . .
L
Lanka, Zigurds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
117
Lautier, Joel . . .
9 8 , 1 72 , 1 73, 1 75, 200
Leko, Peter
. 13, 14, 16, 38, 39, 98, 241
Lj ubojevic, Ljubomir . . . . . . . .
14
Lobron, Eric . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 55, 57, 58
Lukacs, Peter . . . . . . . . . . .
1 95, 209, 210
.
. .
. . . . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
Appendix
Shulman, Yuri
Smiri n , l Iya
Sokolov, Ivan
Sosonko, Genna
Spassky, Boris
Stein itz, Wilhelm
Stoh l , Igor
Sutovsky, Emil
Svidler, Peter
Index of Players
39, 145
1 7, 50, 63, 67, 84
42
1 92, 1 97
95
74
21
159, 1 60
13, 15, 213, 224, 240
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Topalov, Vesel i n
Tseitl i n , Mark
. . .
14, 16, 1 29, 131 , 1 53, 159

26
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V
Van Wely, Loek
Vitolins, Alvis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 95
213
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ye J iangchuan
Yudasin, Leonid
Yusupov, Artur
181
139, 140
1 2 , 89, 90, 103
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T
Tal , M i khai l
Tarrasch , Siegbert
Ti mman , Jan
Timoshchenko, Gennady
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 , 139, 213
243
1 2 , 14, 97
186
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zelkind, Edward
254
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10, 11
Appendix
Index of Games
I n d ex of G a m e s
A page number in bold indicates that the first-named player had the black pieces. Underlining indicates a
memorable game. A page number in brackets means a particular game was referred to on that page. A page
number ital icised means a game fragment (a combination or an endgame position).
A
Acs, Peter- Gelfand 21 0

Adams, Michael - Gelfand 59, (1 21 ), 1 21 ,
1 25, 1 25, 208, 214, 222
Alexi kov, Alexander-Shariyazdanov 1 70
Anand, Viswanathan - Fritz 203
- Gelfand 63, 1 1 0, 1 56, 1 85, 1 87
- i l iescas 42
- Kramnik 27
- Krasen kow 1 98
Andersson , U lf- Gelfand 64
Andrianov, N i kolay-Vaisser 1 9
Aseev, Konstantin - Gelfand 1 86
Averbakh , Yuri - Spassky 95
B
Balashov, Yuri - Gelfand 148, (1 84), 1 85
Bareev, Evgeny - Gelfand 1 1 1
- Kramnik 111
Basin, Leonid - Gelfand 1 7, (1 52) , 1 54
Beliavsky, Alexander- Gelfand 70 , 87, 233
- Kallai 114
- Shirov 114
-Tkachiev 208
Benjam i n , Joel - Gelfand 1 93
Blauert, J6rg - Pedersen 21 9
Botvinnik, l Iya- Gelfand 208
Bren ninkmeijer, Joris- Gelfand 70
Bruzon, Lazaro - Gelfand 208
C
Chandler, Murray- Gelfand 80
Chern in, Alexander- Horvath 42
Chiburdanidze, Maya- Dvoirys 214
o
Damljanovic, Bran ko - Gelfand 98

Daniliuk, Sergey- Solozhen kin 36
Dautov, Rustem - Gelfand 64
Deep Blue- Kasparov 59

Delchev, Alexander-Gelfand 1 97
Dim itrov, Vladimir- Komarov 1 70
Dizdar, Goran - Schandorff 114
Dlugy, Maxim - Gelfand 70
Dorfman , lossif- Gelfand 1 7
Dunnington, Angus- Gelfand 223
Dvoirys, Semen - Chiburdan idze 214
- Rozentalis 94
E
Ehlvest, Jaan - Gelfand 71 , 214
- Kasparov 204
F
Fressinet, Laurent - Gelfand 204
Fritz-Anand 203
Ftacnik, Lubom ir-Gelfand 21
- Gel ler 74
- N unn 74
- Sakaev 21
G
Gavri kov, Viktor- Gurevich 1 7
Gelfand, Boris-Acs 210
-Adams 59, (121 ), 121 , 1 25, 1 25, 208,
214, 222
-Anand 63, 110, 156, 185, 187
-Andersson 64
-Aseev 186
- Balashov 148, (1 84) , 185
- Bareev 111
- Basin 1 7, (1 52), 154
- Beliavsky 70, 87, 233
- Benjamin 1 93
- Botvi nnik 208
- Brenninkmeijer 70
- Bruzon 208
- Chandler 80
- Damljanovic 98
-
255
--
--
Appendix
Index of Games
Gelfand, Boris- Dautov 64

- Delchev 1 97
- Dl ugy 70
- Dorfman 1 7
- Dunnington 223
- Ehlvest 71 , 214
- Fressinet 204
- Ftacnik 21
- Georgiev 86, 1 76, 234
- Gheorghiu 70, (1 63)
- G iorgadze 22 7
- G reenfeld 1 92
-Grischuk 203, 218, 218
- Gunawan 70
- G u revich (1 72) , 200, 229
- Hodgson (248) , 250
- I l iescas 155
- Ionov 155
- Istratescu 1 81
- Itkis 1 7
- Ivanchuk (26), 26, 2 7, 3 0 , 31 , (35) , 36,
47, 67 , (74)
- Kamsky 34, 34, 35
- Karpov 1 51 , 209
- Kasparov 73 , 74, 83
- Ki nderman n 34
- Korchnoi 1 54, 238
- Kramn i k 133, (1 63), 1 64, 1 65, 1 70, 1 87,
24 7
- Lautier 1 72, 1 72, 1 73, (20 0) , 232, 24 1 ,
245
- Leko 38, 24 1
- Lerner 243
- Lev 50
- Lj ubojevic 224
- Lobron 55
- Log inov 47
- Lutz 74, 233
- Macieja 28, 156
- Malaniuk 73
- Malisauskas 62
- Markowski 1 69, 239
- Martinov 243
- M ikhalch ish in 245
- M ilov 1 92, 208, 236
- Morozevich 203
-
--
Gelfand, Boris - Motylev 225

- Movsesian 1 77, 223, 239
- N ijboer 74
- N ikolic 251
- Pavlov 222
- Pelletier 151
- Pig usov 64
- Piket 81 , 145, 192, 233
- Polgar 35
- Pol ugayevsky 1 01
- Portisch 226
- Rivas 244
- Romero Hol mes 67
- Rublevsky 1 63
- Sagalch ik 231
- Salov 148, 224
- San Segundo 23 7
- Savchenko (67), 68
- Schebler 1 82
- Semen iuk 30
- Shabalov 21 3, 22 7
-Shirov 41 , 46, 1 03, 1 05, 1 1 1 , 113, 1 1 7,
1 1 7, 1 1 8, 1 39, 1 64 , 225
- Short 83, 94, (203)
- Smirin 63, 85, 231
- Stoh l 24
- Sutovsky 159
- Svidler 224 , 240
-Timoshchen ko 1 86
-Tkachiev 1 64
-Topalov 56, 64, 74 , 1 29, 159, 1 60, 204,
236
- U libin (134), 138
-Vaisser 146
-Van der Sterren 232
-Van Wely 1 95, 208
-Yakubenya 222
-Ye Jiangchuan 180
-Yudasin 1 1 7, 1 39
-Yusu pov (88) , 92 , 1 03, (154)
Geller, Yefim - Ftacnik 74
- Polugayevsky 214
- Spassky 99
Georgiev, Kiri l - Gelfand 86, 1 76, 234
- Sakaev 1 77
Georgiev, Krum - M natsakanian 214
256
--
Appendix
Index
Gheorghiu, Flori n - Gelfand 70, (1 63)

Giorgadze, Giorg i - Gelfand 227
Gipslis, Aivars - Petrosian 1 04
Gonzalez, Juan - Perez 20
Greenfeld , Alon - Gelfand 1 92
Grischuk, Alexander- Gelfand 203 , 218, 21 8
Gufeld , Eduard - Kochiev 205
Gunawan , Ronny - Gelfand 70
Gurevich , M i khai l - Gavri kov 1 7
- Gelfand (172) , 200, 229
H
Hal kias, Stel ios - O'Cinneide 21 8

Hodgson, Julian - Gelfand (248), 250
- Sadler 1 25
Horvath, Jozsef- Chern in 42
Howell, James- Mack 83
H ubner, Robert - Pieper-Emden 114
Iliescas, M iguel -Anand 42

- Gelfand 1 55
lonov, Sergey - Gelfand 1 55
Istratescu , Andrei - Gelfand 1 81
Isu pov, Vladimir- Kiriakov 1 61
Itkis, Boris - Gelfand 1 7
Ivanch uk, Vasily- Gelfand (26) , 26, 27, 30,
31 , (35), 36, 47, 67, (74)
- Rokhmanov 1 21
-Topalov 1 72
Ivanov, Sergey- Svensson 18
Ivanov, Victor- Shulman 1 45
K
Kal lai , Gabor- Beliavsky 1 1 4
Kamsky, Gata- Gelfand 34, 34, 35
Karpov, Anatoly- Gelfand 1 51 , 209
- Kasparov 73 , 1 21
- Kramnik 200
Kasparov, Garry- Deep Blue 59
- Ehlvest 204
- Gelfand 73, 74, 83
- Karpov 73, 1 2 1
- Kramnik 27
- Polugayevsky 1 01
of
Games
Kasparov, Garry-The World 164

-Vaganian 92
Kau la, Roman - Krasenkow 1 70
Keres, Pau l - Korchnoi 130, 1 98
Khal ifman , Alexander- Leko 36
- Sveshn i kov 106
Kindermann , Stefan - Gelfand 34
Kiriakov, Petr- Isupov 161
Kirov, Nino-Tosh kov 1 8
Koch iev, Alexander- Gufeld 205
Komarov, Dimitri - Dim itrov 170
Korchnoi , Victor- Gelfand 1 54, 238
- Keres 1 30, 1 98
- Shirov 114
Kotronias, Vasil ios - Rozentalis 95
Kouatly, Bachar-Touzane 1 9
Kram nik, Vladimir-Anand 27
- Bareev 1 1 1
- Gelfand 1 33, (1 63) , 164, 165, 1 70, 1 87,
247
- Karpov 200
- Kasparov 27
-Topalov 1 77
Krasenkow, M ichal -Anand 1 98
- Kaula 170
Kuzm i n , Gennady - Liptay 211
L
Lautier, Joel - Gelfand 1 72, 1 72, 1 73, (200) ,
232, 24 1 , 245
Lautier, Joel - Leko 38
- Sokolov 42
Leko, Peter- Gelfand 38, 24 1
- Khal ifman 36
- Lautier 38
-Vaisser 38
Lerner, Konstanti n - Gelfand 243
- Sorokin 149
Lev, Ronen - Gelfand 50
Li ptay, Laszlo - Kuzm in 21 1
Ljubojevic, Lj ubomir- Gelfand 224
Lobron, Eric - Gelfand 55
Log inov, Valery- Gelfand 47
Lputian , 5m bat - Polgar 1 87
Lutz, Christopher-Gelfand 74, 233
257
Appendix
M
Macieja, Bartlomiej - Gelfand 28, 1 56
Mack, Andrew- Howel l 83
Malani uk, Vladimir- Gelfand 73
Malisauskas, Vidmantas- Gelfand 62
Markowski , Tomasz - Gelfand 1 69, 239
Martinov, Pavel - Gelfand 243
Mednis, Edmar-Short 21 0
M ichaelsen , Nils- Pein 1 9
M i khalchish i n , Adrian - Gelfand 245
M i lov, Leon id - Gelfand 236
M i lov, Vadi m - Gelfand 1 92, 208
Mnatsakan ian , Eduard - Georgiev 214
Morozevich , Alexander- Gelfand 203
Motylev, Alexander-Gelfand 225
Movsesian , Sergey- Gelfand 1 77, 223, 239
N
Nadanian , Ashot - Strelbin 28
N ij boer, Friso - Gelfand 74
N i kolic, Predrag - Gelfand 25 1
Novi kov, Igor-Tu kmakov 21
N u n n , Joh n - Ftacnik 74
o
O'Cinneide, Mel - Halkias 218

Olafsson , Fridrik- Sax 83
Oral , Tomas - Shu lman 40
p
Pavlov, Andrey - Gelfand 222

Pedersen, Steffen - Blauert 21 9
Peek, Marcel -Timmer 1 9
Pei n , Malcolm - M ichaelsen 1 9
-Vaisser 1 8
Pelletier, Yannick- Gelfand 1 51
Perez, Juan - Gonzalez 20
Petrosian , Tigran - Gipslis 1 04
Pieper-Emden , Carsten H Obner 1 1 4
Pigusov, Evgeny- Gelfand 64
Piket, Jeroen - Gelfand 81 , 1 45, 1 92, 233
Polgar, Judit- Gelfand 35
- Lputian 1 87
Polugayevsky, Lev - Gelfand 1 01
- Geller 214
-
Index of Games
Polugayevsky, Lev - Kasparov 101

- Roman ishi n 220
Portisch , Lajos - Gelfand 226
-Xie Jun 1 81
R
Rivas, Manuel - Gelfand 244
Rokhmanov, Sergey- Ivanchu k 1 21
Romanish i n , Oleg - Polugayevsky 220
Romero Holmes, Alfonso - Gelfand 67
Rozentalis, Eduardas - Ovoirys 94
- Kotronias 95
-Wah ls 95
Rublevsky, Sergey- Gelfand 163
S
Sadler, Matthew- Hodgson 1 25
Sagalchik, Gennady- Gelfand 23 1
Sakaev, Konstantin - Ftacnik 21
- Georgiev 1 77
Salov, Valery - Gelfand 1 48, 224
San Seg undo, Pablo- Gelfand 237
- Shulman 1 45, (1 46)
Savchen ko, Stan islav - Gelfand (67) , 68
Sax, Gyula- Olafsson 83
Schandorff, Lars- Oizdar 1 1 4
Schebler, Gerhard - Gelfand 1 82
Semeniuk, Alexander - Gelfand 30
Shabalov, Alexander- Gelfand 213, 227
Shariyazdanov, Andrey -Alexi kov 1 70
Shi pov, Sergey- Sokolov 42
Shirov, Alexey- Bel iavsky 1 1 4
- Gelfand 41 , 46, 1 03, 1 05, 1 1 1 , 1 1 3, 1 1 7,
1 1 7 , 1 1 8 , 139, 164, 225
- Korchnoi 1 1 4
Short, N igel - Gelfand 83 , 94, (203)
- Mednis 210
Shulman, Yuri - Ivanov 145
- Oral 40
- San Seg undo 145, (146)
Smiri n , l Iya - Gelfand 63, 85, 23 1
Sokolov, Ivan - Lautier 42
- Sh ipov 42
Solozhen ki n , Evgen iy- Oaniliuk 36
Soroki n , Maxim - Lerner 1 49
-
258
Appendix
Sosonko, Genna-Vandevoort 1 93
Spassky, Boris-Averbakh 95
- Geller 99
Stohl, Igor- Gelfand 24
Strelbi n - Nadan ian 28
Sutovsky, Em i l - Gelfand 1 59
Svensson , Bengt- Ivanov 1 8
Sveshni kov, Evgeny- Khal ifman 1 06
Svid ler, Peter- Gelfand 224, 240
T
The World - Kasparov 1 64
Ti mmer, Robert - Peek 1 9
Timoshchen ko, Gennady - Gelfand 1 86
Tkachiev, Vladislav- Beliavsky 208
- Gelfand 164
Topalov, Veselin - Gelfand 56, 64, 74, 1 29,
1 59, 1 60, 204, 236
- Ivanchuk 172
- Kram nik 1 77
Tosh kov, Ti homir- Kirov 1 8
Touzane, Ol ivier- Kouatly 1 9
Tu kmakov, Vladimir- Novi kov 21
U
Ulibin, M i khai l - Gelfand (1 34), 1 38
I ndex of Games
V
Vagan ian , Rafael - Kasparov 92
Vaisser, Anatoly-Andrianov 1 9
- Gelfand 1 46
- Leko 38
- Pein 1 8
Van der Sterren , Pau l - Gelfand 232
Van Wely, Loek-Gelfand 1 95, 208
Vandevoort, Pascal - Soson ko 1 93
W
Wah ls, Matth ias- Rozentalis 95
X
Xie J u n - Portisch 1 81
Xu J u n - Yermolinsky 1 76
y
Yakubenya, Valery- Gelfand 222

Ye Jiangchuan - Gelfand 1 80
Yermolinsky, Alex-Xu Jun 1 76
Yudasin, Leon id - Gelfand 1 1 7, 139
Yusu pov, Artur- Gelfand (88) , 92, 1 03, (1 54)
259
Appendix
Index of Opponents
I n d ex of O p p o n e n ts
A
Acs, Peter 210

Adams, Michael 59, 1 21 , 1 25
Anand, Viswanathan 110, 185
B
Bruzon, Lazaro 208
C
Chandler, M urray 80
L
Lautier, Joel 172
Leko, Peter 38
Lev, Ronen 50
Lobron, Eric 55
Log inov, Valery 47
M
Malisauskas, Vidmantas 62
Markowski, Tomasz 169
p
Damljanovic, Branko 98
Delchev, Alexander 197
Dorfman , lossif 17
F
Ftacnik, Lubom ir 21
Piket, Jeroen 145, 192

Polugayevsky, Lev 101
R
Rublevsky, Sergey 163
G
Georgiev, Kiril 86, 176
Gheorghiu, Florin 70
Grischuk, Alexander 203, 218
Gurevich , M i khail 200
S
Salov, Valery 148
Shabalov, Alexander 213
Shirov, Alexey 41 , 105, 1 1 3, 117, 139
Short, N igel 83, 94
Sutovsky, Emil 1 59
Ivanchuk, Vasily 26, 30, 67
T
Topalov, Vesel i n 1 29
K
Kamsky, Gata 34
Karpov, Anatoly 1 51
Kasparov, Garry 73
Korchnoi, Victor 1 54
Kram nik, Vladimir 133
V
Van Wely, Loek 195
y
Ye Jiangchuan 180
Yusupov, Artur 103
260
Appendix
..
I ndex of Open ings
_..
I n d ex of O p e n i n g s
Benoni Defence
A43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Bogo-Indian Defence
E 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 154
Queen's Gambit
037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 97
Caro-Kann Defence
8 1 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Queen's Gambit Accepted

020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 21
028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Catalan Opening
E04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 208
E05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 85
Queen's Indian Defence

E 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
E 1 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Dutch Defence
A89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 29
English Opening
A07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Grunfeld Defence
002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
079 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 95
085 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 21 , 26, 30, 34, 38, 41
King's Indian Defence
E81
70
E84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
E94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67, 159, 1 69
E97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 80
E99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petroff Defence
C42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 , 203
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence
807 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 25
Queen's Pawn Opening

A41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Ragozin Defence
038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 92
Semi-Slav Defence
045 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
046 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 72
047 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Sicilian Defence
836 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
867 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
892 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
896 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139, 213
Slav Defence
015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 1 76
031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Tarrasch Defence
034 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
261

My Most Memorable Games (gnv64) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

My Most Memorable Games (gnv64) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gelfand

My Most Memorable Games

My Most Memorable Games

Preface by Vladimir Kramnik

Bibliographic Information published by

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the

Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic

Copyright 2005 Edition Olms AG

Typesetting by Art & Satz

Ulrich Dire D-80331 Munchen

Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, D-49624 Loningen

M y Favo u r ite Var i a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M y M ost M e m o ra b l e G a m es. . ............................................... 47

Game 14: Gheorghiu-Gelfand 70

Game 15: Gelfand-Kasparov 73

Game 20: Damljanovic-Gelfand 98

Game 21: Polugayevsky-Gelfand 101

Game 13: Gelfand-Ivanchuk 67

Game 12: Gelfand-Malisauskas 62

Game 11: Gelfand-Adams 59

Game 16: Gelfand-Chandler 80

Game 18: Gelfand-Georgiev 86

Game 17: Short-Gelfand 83

Game 23: Gelfand-Shirov 105

Game 22: Gelfand-Yusupov 103

Game 24: Gelfand-Anand 110

Game 25: Gelfand-Shirov 113

Game 30: Gelfand-Kramnik 133

Game 31: Shirov-Gelfand 139

Game 28: Gelfand-Adams 125

Game 27: Gelfand-Adams 121

Game 26: Shirov-Gelfand 117

Game 29: Gelfand-Topalov 129

Game 34: Gelfand-Karpov 151

Game 33: Gelfand-Salov 148

Game 32: Gelfand-Piket 145

Game 37: RUblevsky-Gelfand 163

Game 36: Gelfand-Sutovsky 159

Game 35: Gelfand-Korchnoi 154

Game 40: Gelfand-Georgiev 176

Game 39: Gelfand-Lautier 172

Game 38: Gelfand-Markowski 169

Game 43: Gelfand-Piket 192

Game 41: Gelfand-Ye Jiangchuan 180 Game 42: Gelfand-Anand 185

Game 45: Gelfand-Delchev 197

Game 50: Shabalov-Gelfand 213

Game 51: Gelfand-Grischuk 218

Game 46: Gurevich-Gelfand 200

Game 48: Gelfand-Bruzon 208

Game 47: Grischuk-Gelfand 203

Sym bol Meaning

com pensation for material

In 1 994 Boris Gelfand and I were drawn to

The fact that for fifteen years now he has

You have before you my first book. I have

In my comments on the opening stages of

Since the size of the book is restricted , I had

Creative successes do not always go hand in

In addition , I hope that this book will interest

I should l i ke to express my g ratitude to

I n 1 989 the magazine 64 offered an ori

The making of a classical grandmaster

The boy from Mi nsk