MLO) M Nene UiTsM Orolo (c1ecm NT) (ele aR 6 2g5 The definitive guide to Fischemand Kasparov's fC mab MTT] Ree aay ee [einer ielegThe Complete Najdorf: 6 2g5 John Nunn B. T. Batsford Ltd, LondonFirst published 1996 © John Nunn ISBN 0 7134 7900 0 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Typeset by Petra Nunn and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 SBY A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, Jon Speelman General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE Specialist Adviser: Dr John Nunn Commissioning Editor: Graham BurgessContents Introduction 4 1 Main Line with 10 g4 5 2 Main line: Other 10th Moves 65 3 Poisoned Pawn: 9 Hb1 Wa3 10 &xf6 85 4 Poisoned Pawn: 9 Hb1 Wa3 10 &e2 92 5 Poisoned Pawn: 9 Hb1 Wa3 10 e5 106 6 Poisoned Pawn: 9 Hb1 Wa3 10 £5 Ac6 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 Axc6 bxc6 13 e5 dxeS 122 7 Poisoned Pawn: 9 Hb1 Wa3 10 f5: Other Lines 142 8 Poisoned Pawn: 8 Wd2 Wxb2 9 Ab3 158 9 Poisoned Pawn: Other Lines 175 10 Browne System (...h6 by Black) 196 11 Polugaevsky with 10 We2 223 12 Polugaevsky: Others 244 13 6&g5e67 £4 We7 263 14 6 &g5 e6 7 £4 Dbd7 283 15 6 &g5: Other lines 303 Index of Variations 318Introduction Since publication of The Najdorf for the Tournament Player in 1988, the vol- ume of theory in the Najdorf Sicilian has increased by leaps and bounds. The Najdorf is regularly employed throughout the chess world, from club match to world championship, from rapid chess to correspondence; new lines arise and are overturned at a furious pace. Any hopes of covering the whole Najdorf in one volume were quickly dashed when I assembled the material and ob- served that it included 18,000 games. The book you are holding is, therefore, the first of two Complete Najdorf volumes; this one covers all the lines arising after 6 &g5. These include some of the sharpest lines known to opening the- ory, such as the notorious Poisoned Pawn and Polugaevsky Variations. Unlike many contemporary opening books, you will find very few com- plete games. As soon as the assessment of the position becomes clear, thenI stop the analysis and give the evaluation. Alas, it is all too easy these days to drop complete games into a book — a couple of mouse clicks, and a page is filled. A few carefully selected complete games can be beneficial, but in my view an opening book should be about the opening; including hundreds of ir- relevant complete games only serves to distract from the main point of the book — in any case nobody ever plays them through. Even the flimsy justifica- tion that it is helpful to see typical plans in the resulting middlegame positions doesn’t apply to the 6 £25 Najdorf; the typical plan is to randomly hack to- wards the opposing king. Thave also largely refrained from pointing out analytical errors by others. It is just too easy, with Fritz humming away quietly in the background, to un- cover mistakes made by those without access to such tools. The object of this book is to offer, so far as is reasonably possible, correct analysis, and not to dwell lovingly on other people’s oversights. I would like to thank all those who helped with this book: in no particular order, Maurice Johnson, who helped supply a large number of correspon- dence games; Daniel Olim, for turning over his Najdorf notebook; Graham Burgess, for editing the book and, finally, my wife Petra for typesetting and proof-reading. John Nunn November, 19961 Main Line with 10 g4 Many years ago this was regarded as the fundamental line of the 6 &.g5 Najdorf. Subsequently the Poisoned Pawn and Polugaevsky variations were developed and stole much of the limelight. Moreover 10 £2.43 be- gan to take over from 10 g4 as the most popular 10th move against the main line. 10 g4 went out of fashion and became a backwater of the Naj- dorf. Although the Poisoned Pawn. has lost none of its glamour, 10 £3 has in its turn fallen into disrepute because of difficulties both with 10...h6 and with 10...b5. The result is that 10 g4 is once again a common sight in grandmaster games. A great deal of new material has arisen since publication of The Najdorf for the Tournament Player, so this chapter is greatly expanded. 1 e4 5 2 AF3 d6 3.4 cxdd 4 Dxd4 DEG 5 Bc3 a6 6 LgS e67 £4 Re78 WF3 We7 9 0-0-0 Dbd7 10 g4 (D) 10 ... bs The alternatives are: 1) 10...2b8 (there doesn’t seem to be any real reason why Black should commit himself to this so soon) 11 Rxf6 gxf6 (11...2xf6 12 g5 Re7 13 £5 gives White a head start over line B below) 12 £5 Be5 13 Wh3 hé (it looks too dangerous to castle when White has the extra tempo g4) 14 Wh5 &f8, Borsavolgyi-Mozes, Hun- gary Cht 1991, 15 “ce2, followed by Af4, is +. 2) 10...Ac5 11 e5! is very strong as 11...dxe5 12 fxe5 Wxe5 13 Rf4 traps the queen. 3) 10...0-0 and now: 3a) 11 Rg2 DcS (11..Hbs 12 Rxf6 Rxf6 13 g5 Rxd4 14 Bxd4 eS 15 Hd2 exf4 16 Wxf4 DeS 17 h4 Re6 185 £6 19 g6h6 20 Bh3 Rxh3 21 Exh3 + Hernandez-Nascimento, Gran Canaria 1989) 12 e5 (12 Wg3 d7 13 Rxf6 gxf6? {13...2xf6 0} 14 Hhel Hac8 15 AS! &c6 {or 15...exf5 16 AdS Wd8 17 exf5 He8 18 g5 fxg5 19 Hxe7! +-} 16 @d5 &xd5 17 Dxe7+ Wxe7 18 exd5 + Paglilla-Adla, Argentine Ch 1989) dxeS 13 fxe5 Ad5 14 Bxe7 Axe7 15 Hhel Ag6 16 g5 Hb8 17 Sb + Kaak-Zuk, corr 1994. 3b) 11 Rh4 bd 12 g5 De8 13 AES! (13 Bh3 AcS 14 £5 b4 15 ADce2 &b7 16 Dg3 d5 17 £6 dxe4 F Joseph-De Valliere, corr 1988) exfS 14 @d5 Wa8 15 exf5 Ka? 16 We3 &c5 17 Bel +.6 Main Line with 10 g4 3c) 11 Rxf6 Qxf6 12 5 Rxd4 13 Bxd4 bS 14 222 (14 h4 Rb7 15 Sh3 Dc5 16 a3 Lc 17 h5 a5 18 g6 h6 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 £5! 21 bxc5 dxc5 22 Hdd1 b4 ¥ Nisipeanu-Arde- leanu, Romania Ch 1992; 14 £5 DeS 15 We3 WeS 16 Hd2 b4 17 Adi exf5 18 2g? £4 19 Wxf4 26 F Radecke- Vitolin’, Porz 1992) &b7 15 Bhd1 Dc5 16 a3 Hac8 17 Hid2 (17 Wh3 £5 18 exf5 Exf5 19 Bxd6 Rxg2 20 Wxg2 Bxf4 = Larsen-Andersen, corr 1986) &c6 (17...Bfd8 18 Wd1) 18 Exd6 a5 19 We2 b7 20 H6d4 b4 21 axb4 axb4 22 Hxb4, Shirov- Vitolin’, Riga 1985, and Black doesn’t have enough for the two pawns, although he did win in the end. 4) 10...h6 11 &xf6 (11 &h4 bs (1L...g5 12 €5 dxeS 13 fxg5 hxgs 14 2g3 Bb87! 15 h4 gxh4 16 g5 Dns 17 g6 fxg6 18 Axe6 Wb6? 19 Ads ++ Kutuzovié-Ott, Harkany 1994} 12 &xf6 Axf6 13 g5 Dd7 14 g6 {the adsitional move ...h6 has actually weakened Black’s kingside} Af6 15 gxf7+ Sxf7 16. 2h3 2d7 17 Khgl + Schmidt-Kuntz, corr 1968) with the alternatives: 4a) 11...Axf6 12 g5 hxg5 13 fxg5 Dd7 14 g6 De5 15 gxf7+ Axf7 16 We3 25+ 17 Ybl 2d7 18 Bh3 Eh6 19 Hhfl + Bakker-Do, corr. 4b) 11...gxf6 (Black has spent a tempo on the fairly useless ...h6) 12 £5 (playing as in the usual ...gxf6 line seems best; 12 $h3 bS {12...b6 13 £5 e5 14 Ade2 Rd7 15 Zg3 0-0-0 16 f1 + Piuva-Kaunonen, corr 1988} 13 g5 hxg5 14 Rxe6 fxe6 15 Axe6 Wic6 16 Ad5 Ha7 17 e5 was unclear in Licina-Savié, Pula 1989) De5 13 Wh3 2d7 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 g5 fxg5 16 Dxe6 &xe6 17 Wxe6 Wd7 18 Wb3 + Fairclough-Hon Kah Seng, Thessaloniki OL 1984. 4c) 11...2xf6 (best, as this re- veals the only advantage to not hav- ing played ...b5 — White cannot meet -St.xf6 by 2.xb5) 12 h4 and now: 4cl) 12...b5? 13 &xb5 +—-. 4c2) 12.27 13 g5 (13 Bg? Db 14 g5 &d7 15 g6 0-0 16 gxf7+ Bxf7 17 &h3 We8 18 We3 Dc4 = Cvijic- Palos, Banja Vrucica 1987) Af8 14 gxh6 Bxh6 15 hS Dh7 16 Re2 Ld7 17 Hhgl &f8 with equality, Koppe- Hadenau, corr 1988. 4c3) 12..Hb8 13 g5 (13 DdbS axb5 14 4xb5 is also promising) Re7 14 96 DLl6 15 gxf7+ Sxf7 16 &h3 bS 17 £5 eS 18 Dc6 Wed 19 We3 2xe6 20 Wg6+ 1-0 Karabalis- Ezzidin, Hessenliga 1994. 4c4) 12...g6 13 g5 &g7 14 h5 8 15 gxh6 Rxh6 16 Sb1 2d7 17 £5 gxf5 18 exf5 0-0-0 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 &h3 2g7 21 Ace2 + Pantaleoni- Turci, Reggio Emilia 1988. 4c5) 12... Wb6! 13 Dde2 (13 Ace2 g5!?) DcS (13...g5 14 e5 dxeS 15 fxg5 e4 16 Wxe4 hxg5 17h5 De5 18 4d4 2d7 19 Eh3 0-0-0 © Molvig- Kristensen, Copenhagen 1995) 14 g5 Re7 15 Dd4 Bd7 16 &c4 Wh4 17 Re2 0-0-0 18 &b1 Sb8 19 a3 Wb6 20 We3 Hc8 = Bordos-Szirmai, Zalakaros 1994. We return to the main line after 10...b5 (D): 11 Rxf6 Other moves: 1) 11 £d3 (this position can also arise from chapter 2 after 10 &d3 &2b7 11 g4) &b7 12 Hhel Ac5 (or 12...b4 13 Ace2 Ac5 14 Dg3 0-0 15 We2 Efc8 16 &b1 Axd3 17 Bxd3 aS with equality, Semionova-Pesout,x bebe x w \ N oe Pardubice 1992) 13 &b1 b4 14 &xf6 Rxf6 15 Dce2 h6 16 Ab3 Dad 17 BDed4 0-0 = Kakuk-Kacincova, Bala- tonbereny 1993. 2) 11. &g2 Rb7 12 Hhel (12 We2 b4 13 Dbl Ac5 14 e5 dxeS 15 &xb7 Wxb7 16 Wxe5 Hc8 17 £5, Stan- chev-Liangov, Stara Zagora 1989, 17...Wxhl! —+) b4 (12...0b6 13 Rxf6 Rxf6 14 g5 Re7 15 h4 b4 16 Dce2 g6 17 &b1 d5 18 e5 Dad 19 h5 Wb6 20 Hh1 © Sakharov-Korch- noi, USSR Ch 1960) 13 @d5 exd5S 14 exdS &f8 15 AS He8 + Bern- stein-Fischer, USA Ch (New York) 1957/8. 3) 11 a3 (after this a transposi- tion into lines considered later is likely) and now: 3a) 11...2b7 12h4 (12 Rxf6 and now both 12...gxf6 and 12...Axf6 transpose into later lines) Ac5 13 RXf6 Rxf6 14 g5 Bxd4 15 Exd4 0-0-0 (15...0-0 would be similar to line 3 in the note to Black’s 10th move) 16 &h3 @b8 17 Ehd1 g6 18 We3 &c6 19 REl h6 20 b4 Ab7 21 4d2 hxg5 22 hxg5 + Hendriksen- Eliason, corr 1960. 3b) 11...2b8 12 2h4 (12 &xf6 @®xf6 transposes into the note to White’s 12th; 12...gxf6 transposes Main Line with 10 g4 7 into the analysis of 11...gxf6 below) Dc5 (12..h6 13 Rxf6 Rxf6 14 RXb5 axb5 15 DdxbS W6 16 Bxd6 We5 17 Wd3 © Rizzo-Pavel, corr 1985) and now: 3b1) 13 Rxf6 gxf6 (13...2xf6 14 Sxb5+ SF8 15 2c4 Wh6, Hartston- Portisch, Bath Echt 1973, and now 16 b4! was good for White) 14 £5 b4 15 axb4 Exb4 © Stean-Momeni, Teesside 1973. 3b2) 13 g5 Dfxe4 14 Axes Dxe4 15 Wxe4 Bb7 16 Dxeb fre6 17 Wxe6 2xh1 18 2h3 (18 g6 d5 19 We7+ Gd8 20 Bxd5+ Rxd5 21 Wxd5+ Wd7 22 Bxe7+ Sxe7 23 We5+ Web 24 Wc7+ £6 25 We3+ is also a draw) &£3 19 Hel d5 20 6 Re4 21 Bxed dxe4 22 WE7+ 1h-h Dementiev-Sadov, USSR 1976. 3b3) 13 Bgl b4 14 axb4 Exb4 15 g5 Dfd7 16 Rel Wh6 17 Ad5 exd5 18 &xb4 Wxb4 19 exd5, Semionova- Toseliani, Sochi wom Ct (2) 1983, 19...2a4! 20 Ab3 AdcS 21 £5 Axb2 22 @xb2 Dad+ 23 cl Wa3+ 24 ed2 Wb4+ cither forces a draw or induces the white king to venture to 3. ll .. @xf6 Both the other recaptures are play- able. For a long time theory (and The Najdorf for the Tournament Player!) just gave ‘11....xf6? 12 &xb5’, but this sacrifice does not have the le- thal effect that was once supposed. 11...gxf6 was once adopted by Fischer, who followed it up with the apparently suicidal ...0-0. However, there is no mate and this line, while tisky for Black, has not been defi- nitely refuted. Dealing first with 11...2xf6(D), White may reply:8 Main Line with 10 24 ARAM SE 1) 12 &xb5 and now: la) 12...axb5? (this really is bad for Black) 13 Adxb5 WaS (13...Wc5 14 Dxd6+ SFB 15 e5 Le7 16 Wxa8 1-0 Bikady-Djurié, Huy 1992) 14 Dxd6+ Be7 15 5 MxeS 16 fxe5 &xe5 17 We4 +— Dlauchy-White, Balatonbereny 1994, 1b) 12...0-0 13 &xd7 (13 e5 dxe5 14 @xe6 fxe6 15 Wxa8 axb5 16 Dxb5 Wb6 17 Dd6 exf4 F Gerola- Innorta, corr 1986) &.xd7 14 g5 &e7 15 h4 Hab8 16 £5 Wb7 17 Ab3 Hfc8 18 £6 &£8 19 h5 + Outerelo-Ugalde, Spain Cht 1993. Ic) 12...Rb8! 13 &xd7+ Rxd7 14 Wa3 (14 Db3 0-0 15 g5 Re7 16 h4 Efc8 17 Hh2 a5 18 £5 a4 19 £6 &£8 20 Ad4 a3 F Kalmar-Csuri, corr 1987; 14 Dce2 g6 15 g5 Rg7 16 £5 e517 fxg6 hxg6 18 Bhfl 2b5 19 Hf2 Rxe2 20 Bxe2 We4 21 Ab3 a5 « Noble-Cayford, corr) Bb6 15 g5 Se7 164 0-0 17 £5 Efb8 18 £6 2£8 19 h5 d5 20 exd5 Exb2 © Dutta-Brit- ton, Hastings 1995. 2) 12 DexbS axbS 13 Axbs Ws 14 Dxd6+ S18 @, 3) 12 e5 &b7 13 DdxbS axbS 14 AxbS Wxe2+! 15 Sxc2 Rxf3 16 &c7+ &e7 F Turner-Polnarieva, St Ingbert 1990. 4) 12 gS (the most promising move if White does not want to sacri- fice on b5) &xd4 13 Exd4 267 (13...0-0 transposes to line 3c of the note to Black’s 10th move) 14 &e2 0-0 15 Bhd1 Ab6 (15...Hac8 16 H1d2 Ab6 17 a3 d5 18 exd5 {18 512} Dxd5 19 Dxd5 Rxd5 20 Wh3 £5! 21 We3 Wce5 with an equal posi- tion in Eisen-Cayford, corr 1990) 16 We3 Hac8 17 £5 d5 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 exdS &xd5 20 Hh4 96 21 94 Hes 22 Hxd5 exd5 23 Re6+ Exe6 24 Wrxe6+ + Becerra Rivero-Herrera, Cuban Ch 1991. Now we move on to the two im- portant recaptures: A: 11...gxf6 B: 11...0xf6 A) gxf6 (D) 12 £5 By far the most popular move. White at once blockades the doubled f-pawns and prepares to exert pres- sure on e6. The defect is that Black’s knight is given an excellent square ones. Other moves:1) 12 hd bd (12...b7 13 g5 b4 14 Bce2 Wc5 15 Dg3 d5 16 Dh5S 0-0-0 17 gxf6 dxe4 18 We3 2d6 19 b1 Sb8 20 Rh3 dS F Barthel- Daemering, wom Bundesliga 1993) 13 Ace2 Rb7 14 Dg3 d5 15 Kg2 dxe4 16 Axe4 0-0-0 17 Bhel h5 F Kholmov-Suetin, Moscow Z 1964. 2) 12 &g2 and now: 2a) 12...&b7 13 Ehel (13 a3 Db6 14 £5 e5 15 Db3 Hc8 16 We2 De4 17 DdS Rxd5 18 Hxd5 We 1-2 Kavakul-Asaturoglu, Lucerne OL 1982) 0-0-0! 14 a3 Ab6 15 Bd3 £b8 16 Hed1 d5! 17 exd5 Axd5 18 Dxd5 Rxd5 19 Wl &c5 = Gli- gorié-Fischer, Zurich 1959. 2b) 12...b4 13 Bad (13 DdS exdS 14 exd5 Dc5 15 Bhel S.d7 {15...2f8 16 He3 £5 17 gxf5 Rf6 18 Hdel 2d7 19 De6+ Dxe6 20 dxe6 @ Mandié- Klubis, Novi Sad 1988} 16 He3 dd8 17 Hdel ££8 + Righi-O’Neill, Novi Sad OL 1990) &b7 14 Wb3 Bb8 15 £5 e5 16 De2 WaS 17 Hd5 Rxd5 18 exd5 h5 —+ Babi¢-K.Mowsziszian, Berlin Summer 1994. 3) 12 43 b4 (12...267 13 &b1 Hc8 14 Bhel Wa5 15 Ace2 b4 16 Wh3 h6 17 Dg3 SF8 18 BF] Wb6 19 @ge2 Ac5 = Mazi-Gallob, Finken- stein 1995) 13 Dce2 &b7 14 ¥b1 (14 @g3 0-0-0 15 gb1 eb8 16 We2 BDc5 17 Db3 a7 18 Hhfl Bc8 19 cl Wb6 20 £5 Axb3 21 axb3 Wad Vasiliev-Zhukhovitsky, Smolensk 1991) @c5 15 Hhel (15 £5 d5 16 fxe6 dxe4 17 exf7+ &f8 18 &xe4 Rxe4 19 Wxe4 Dxe4 20 De6+ Sxf7 21 Axc7 Ha7 22 Hd4 Df2 23 Efl Dxg4 24 Dd5 Hd8 = Padevsky- Evans, Havana OL 1966) d5 16 Ag3 0-0-0 17 e5 fxe5 18 fxeS Sh4 19 He2 &xg3 20 Wxg3 Hdg8 21 We Main Line with 10 g4 9 We7 22 &b3 Axb3 23 cxb3 + Papen- brock-Rondio, corr 1990. 4) 12 a3 and now: 4a) 12...Dc5 13 £5 Bb8 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 g5 fxg5 16 b4 94 17 Wxgd Db3+ 18 DAxb3 Wxc3 19 Wh5+ Sd8 20 &h3 Rd7 21 Hd3 We6 22 b1 + Tolush-Aronin, USSR Ch 1957. 4b) 12...Db6 13 h4 2d7 14 g5 0-0-0 15 a4 Axad4 16 Dxad bxad 17 S.xa6+ Pb8 18 Wb5 xb5 19 AxbS Wb7 20 We2 + Paviov-Donner, Halle Z 1963. 4c) 12...5b7 13 £5 (13 h4 Hc8 14 g5 Dc5 15 Rg2 057! 16 fxeS fxe5 17 £5 Hg8 18 WhS + Falkowski-Her- born, corr 1987) e5 14 Dde2 (14 Db3 WcB 15 Kd3 Ac5 16 Sb1 Bd7 {not the sternest test of White’s play} 17h4hS 18 gxh5 28 19 Aci + Rusenescu-Jesso, corr 1967) Ab6 (14...Bc8 15 Dg3 h6 16 h4 Egs 17 Re2 d5 18 exdS Rxa3 19 Ages RB 20 d6 + Litwin-Zienau, corr 1964) 15 d5 (15 Dg3, as in the other ex- amples, looks better) &.xd5 16 exd5 Ec8 17 Dc3 Ac4 18 Kxc4 bxe4 19 &b1 Bb8 20 a2 h5 21 gxh5 £8 © Mednis-Fischer, USA Ch (New York) 1959/60. 4d) 12...2b8 (this position can also arise after 11 a3 Bb8 12 &xf6 gxf6) 13 £5 (13 &g2 0-0 14 Ehgl $h8 15 Wh3 Bes 16 Whs Be7 17 Dd5 exdS 18 AFS DcS 19 Axg7 &xg7 20 g5 fxg5 + Manduch-Deb- nar, Slovakian Cht 1995; 13 h4 b4 14 axb4 Exb4 15 g5 {15 b3 &b7 16 Sc4 WaS 17 g5 Ac5 18 Hhel £5 F Sibarevié-Polajzer, Zurich 1990} Wb6 16 Db3 £5 17 exfS Rb7 18 Wh3 &xhi 19 Wxh1 We3+ 20 bi = Hauswald-Bellas, corr 1986) Ae510° Main Line with 10 g4 14 Wh3 0-0 (the normal position, but with a3 and ...2b8 added; this should favour Black, because now he has the chance to open the queenside with ...b4) 15 Wh6 @h8 16 g5 Bes 17 gxf6?! (not acritical line) Ag4 18 Wh5 2&.xf6FJ.Nielsen-Hugolf, corr 1969. Back to the main line after 12 f5 (D): De5 Or: 1) 12...b4?! 13 fxe6 bxc3 14 exd7+ &xd7 15 e5! and now: la) -15...Wb8 16 Wxc3 fxeS 17 DES Axf5 18 gxf5 R£6 19 We6+ Se7 20 &c4 Kupreichik-Szekely, Lvov 1986. 1b) 15...cxb2+ 16 bl Ba7 17 exf6 £8 18 Bg2 +-. 1c) 15...8b8 16 exf6 28 17 g5! Exb2 18 &h3 Bxa2 19 Ab3 Sas (19...&xh3 20 Wxh3 WeS!? 21 Rdel+ bd8 22 Ke3 Wa3+ 23 dl Hal+ 24 Dxal Wxal+ 25 Ge2 Wxh! 26 Re8+! ++) 20 &xd7 Sxd7 21 Bd3 Had 22 Bxc3 + Estrin-Sergievsky, Minsk 1962. 2) 12...Ac5 13 fxe6 (13 Bg2 b4 14 Dce2 eS 15 Ab3 &Lb7 16 Ag3 a5 17 &b1 a4 @ Morris-Browne, Lone Pine 1979) fxe6 14 b4 (14 a3 0-0 15 2d3 Hb8 164 b4 17 axb4 Exb4 18 We3 Wb6 + Capelan-Donner, Solin- gen 1968) Dad (14...0-0 15 g5? {15 bxc5 dxc5 16 Ab3} fxg5 16 We3 Dad 17 Dxa4 bxad 18 h4, Stein- bruck-Bandt, corr, 18...e5! ¥) 15 Dxa4 bxa4 16 Hd3 0-0 17 Bc3 Who 18 Ac6 Hf7 19 Axe7+ Hxe7 20 Rc4 + Hiibner-Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1979. 3) 12...e5? 13 Ads Wb7 14 De2 We6 15 h4 Rb7 16 g5 Hc8 17 Dec3 We5 18 b4 Wc6 19 2.d3 Abé6 20 g6 Sd8 21 g7 +- Maki-Briffel, Novi Sad OL 1990. 13 Wh3(D) Or 13 Wg3 &d7 (13...0-0 14 &bl Ph8 15 Rd3 Ags 16 h3 d7 17 Dce2 Wc5 18 Wg2 Ac4 = Roeberg- Balzar, GieBen 1992; 13...b4 {there is no reason to force White to play 4c3-e2-£4, since he often adopts this manoeuvre voluntarily} 14 Ace2 Wb7 15 Af4 He8 16 h3 + Veter-Van der Veen, 2nd Bundesliga 1990) 14 Hbl (14 h4 Bg8 15 Lh3 Wes 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 We3 Wc5 18 Wh6 Af7! = Okner-Malishauskas, corr 1992) 0-0-0?! 15 a4! + Roeberg-Chandler, Doernigheim 1994. 13... 0-0 (D)Other moves are inferior: 1) 13...2d7 14 Bg1 0-0-0 (14...b4 15 Dce2 WaS 16 fxe6 Rxe6 17 Dxeb fxe6 18 Wb3 Hd8 19 Dd4 Wo 20 @xe6 1-0 Brustman-Byczynska, Poland Cht 1993) 15 Ace2 @b8 16 4 Zc8 17 Wh3 (17 fxe6! fxe6 18 Whb3 +) Dc6 18 Axc6+ Wxc6 19 Rd3 Rd8 20 fxe6 + 'h-'2 Olthof- Umezinwa, Philadelphia 1990. 2) 13...b4 (a common mistake by Black in this line; White’s knight is heading for f4 in any case, so why spend a tempo pushing it there?) 14 Dce2 exf5 (14...5.7 15 fxe6 Rxe4 16 exf7+ @xf7 17 Rg2 Rxg2 {17...d5 18 Rxe4 dxe4 19 g5 + Neumann- Frank, GieSen 1994} 18 Wxg2 Wed 19 Sb1 Hac8 20 Wh3 Hc5 21 Bhfl favours White, Koglin-Mai, wom Bundesliga 1994) and now White has a pleasant choice: 2a) 15 exf5 &b7 16 Rg2 Rxg2 (16...0-0-0 17 Af4 Bdf8 18 Dds Rxd5 19 Rxd5 Bfgs 20 Wri Ws 21 We2 2£8 22 h3 + Szczepankie- wicz-Chabaj, corr 1992) 17 Wxg2 &c8, Mulling-Herborn, corr 1986, 18 fa +. 2b) 15 Axf5 Rxf5 16 gxf5 (16 exf5 Bc8 17 Ad4 W6 18 Re2d5 19 Wb3 &c5 20 Wad+ Le7 21 Ab3 + Bergdahl-A.Andersson, corr 1967) Bc8 (16...h5 17 Df4 Bc8 18 W3 We6 19 AdS a5 20 a4 Sf8 21 Bgl +— Tortarolo-Girault, Cannes 1990; 16...Dc4 17 Af4 Ab 18 Wb3 a5 19 b5+ Sf8 20 Ehg] WS 21 Weg3 1-0 Dieta-Carvalho, corr 1974) 17 Wb3 (17 @d4 Bc 18 Wh3 Axd4 19 Exd4 +— Riemer-Ceterski, corr 1982) Ded 18 Ad4 Af2 19 Rxa6 Ha8 20 Rb5+ Sf8 21 We3 +- Mokos-Gu- bis, Slovakia Cht 1995. Main Line with 10 24 11 aL %W wi N \ ce 14 Eel There are several other possibili- ties: 1) 14 £43 normally transposes into the note to White’s 15th after 14..@h8 15 Hhgl. 2) 14 Wh5 Gh8 15 h4 Begs 16 25 b4 (16...2d7 17 &b1 Wb7 18 Rg2 Hg7 19 Ehfl Bf8 (Black’s play is too passive} 20 Ace? Hgg8 21 aes Rd8 22 2h3 We8 23 Wh6 Hes? 24 fxe6 fxe6 25 Hxf6 Ag6 26 Hf7 1-0 Pinkas-Jakubiec, Polish Ch 1993) 17 Dee2 fxg5 18 hxgs5 Rxg5+ 19 Sb1 Bg7 20 Dt4 We7 21 Ad3 Bb7 F Turlej-Jedrzejowski, corr 1992. 3) 14 Df3 b4 (14...2d7 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Dxe5 dxe5 17 2d3 #h8 18 Hadfl Hg8 19 Wr3 Hafs 20 h4 Bg7 21 Re2 &c6 F Frysiak-Rosinski, corr 1992) 15 Ab1 &b7 16 Axes dxe5 17 &d3 a5 18 Wh6 exf5 19 gxf5 Bhs 20 Ndgi Kg8 21 g3 a4 22 a3 Wb6 F Trzulja-Nemeth, Stockerau 1993. 4) 14 g5 fxgs (14...b4? 15 gxf6 Rxf6 16 Beit Shs 17 Who We7 18 Ac6!! Axc6 19 eS! Bg5+ 20 Exes £6 21 exd6 led to a brilliant White win in Kholmov-Bronstein, USSR Ch 1964) 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Axe6 Wd7 17 Da5 B3 (17... Wxe6 and 17...2d812 Main Line with 10 g4 are also satisfactory) 18 Wh6 (not 18 ®b6? Exh3 19 Axd7 &xd7 20 Rxh3 24 F) Wxe6 19 Wxe6+ Rxe6 20 Axe7+ Sf7 21 DLS Rxf5 22 exf5 Hd8 with an edge for Black. 5) 14 Deed Ph8 (14...2d7 15 AFA We8 16 Wh6 Shs 17 DhS Bes 18 Axf6 +) 15 Af4 Hg8 and now: 5a) 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Dfxe6 Rxe6 18 Axe6 We8 19 Ad4 Wxg4 (or 19...Axg4 20 Wh4 De3 21 Rh3 We7 22 Hd3 £5 23 W2 + Walther- Pommerening, corr 1975; 19...Exg4 20 AES We7 21 Be2 Hees 22 W3 Bp5 23 h4 Bep8 24 Bhel Bac8 25 Hxg8+ Hxg8 26 We6 +— Oechslein- Fleischmann, corr 1968) 20 Wxg4 @xe4 21 DES, Spassky-Donner, Lei- den 1970, 21...2d8! =. 5b) 16 Hgi transposes into the note to White’s 16th move. Sc) 16 &e2 (this line is one of White’s more promising possibili- ties) S2b7 (16...Wb7 17 Khel Wxe4 18 Ans Wb7 19 Wh4 Begs 20 Wr2 @d7 21 hd Begs 22 Axfo &xf6 23 fxe6 + Nejezchlebova-Kubikova, corr 1991) 17 fxe6 fxe6, Kotkov-Be- linkov, USSR 1971, 18 Afxe6 Wa5 19 @F5 +. 6) 14 Wh6 #h8 and now: 6a) 15 Hd3!? Dxd3+ (15... Dxgd 16 Wh4 48 17 Hh3 Be7 18 Bel exf5 19 exf5 +-; 15...%g8 16 Bh3 Bg7 17 g5 Wa8 18 Bgl We8 t) 16 &xd3 Hg8 (16...b4 17 5! bxc3 18 fxe6 cxb2+ 19 &bl +—; 16...exf5 17 DdS Wd7 18 Dxf6 +—; 16...2b7 17 fxe6 Hg8 18 Ads &xd5 19 exd5 £5 20 h4 +; 16..e5 17 Dd5 Wb7 18 ®xf6 +—; 16...We5!?) 17 Bfl Bxe4 (17...2£8 18 Wh4 We5!?) 18 e5! Wad8 (18...dxe5 19 fxe6 £5! 20 Ads is unclear, but not 20 Hxf5 exd4! —+) 19 Ac6 WES 20 Wh3 exf5 21 Ad5 o Muraveva-Gadzinskaya, corr 1992. 6b) 15 g5 Hg8 (not 15...Wd8? 16 Dc6 Dxc6 17 g6 +— Pjaeren-Gri- gorian, USSR 1974) 16 g6 (16 gxf6 }e4 17 WhS &xf6 F; 16 Hel fxgs 17 fxe6 Hg6 18 WhS &xe6 F Lud- vigsen-Forsberg, corr 1974; 16 &h3 is bad after 16...fxg5 or 16...2£8 17 Wh5 Exg5) fxg6 and now: 6b1) 17 DAxe6 Axc6 18 fxe6 Eac8 19 Wd2 (not 19 Hd2? Was 20 Wh3 (20 Sb1 Bxc3 21 bxc3 Wxe3 ~—+ Romanowski-Jedrzejowski, corr 1984} £5 21 HdS fxe4 22 We3 Hef8 23 Wxed Qg5+ 24 &b1 Bxc3! 25 bxc3 Wxc3 + Kolmann-Jedrzejow- ski, corr 1990) Ac4 20 &xc4 Wxc4 21 Was Bge8 (21...b4 22 Wxed Exc4 23 Ads He8 24 Hhel £d8 25 b3 4) 22 Bad (22 a3 ££8 23 Hdd We7 24 Hfl We7 25 a4 Hc5 F Wal- ther-Albrecht, corr 1988) Wc7 23 Hf Wb6 24 Bd3 Bc5 25 Wadd Was 26 @d5 Hc4 27 We3 + Boll-Pom- mering, corr 1978. 6b2) 17 fxe6 2b7 18 AdS (18 Re2 b4 19 AdS Rxd5 20 exdS Was 21 Sbl Wxd5 22 Bhg1 We4 23 Hg3 © Stypka-Malishauskas, Katowice 1993) &xd5 19 exd5 f5 (activating the dark-squared bishop; 19...We5 20 &g2 a5 21 h4 £5 22 We4 a4 23 bl a3 24 b3 RL6 25 Bh3 @ Aga?! 26 h5 &xd4 27 hxg6 Exg6 28 Exd4 + Fonseca-Tilak, Dubai OL 1986; 19...Bac8 20 Wd2?! £5 21 h4 R622 hS Ac4 23 Axcd Wxed 24 hxg6 Bxg6 25 Wh2 Sc7 F Kelson-Tram- mell, Reno 1994) 20 &g2 (20 Kgl Hac8 21 W4 2f6 22 Sbl Acd 23 We2 We5 24 c3 Wxd5 25 222 Wed 26 Hd3 b4 —+ Halamus-Jedrzejow- ski, corr 1994; 20 Se2 Hac8 21 #b1£6 22 Hd2 Dc4 23 xed Wxe4 24 Ac6 Rxb2 '/2-" Staudler-Hutschen- reiter, corr 1988; 20 Wd2 26 21 Ac Hac8 22 Axe5 Kxe5 23 c3 b4 24 c4 a5 F Ziukin-Nalbandian, Sas yan Gent jr Ech 1992) 26 21 h4 (21 Sb1 Bac8 22 h4? Ac4 23 W4 Axb2 0-1 Fahner-De Vriendt, corr 1986) Bac8 22 Ac6 Axc6 23 dxc6 Was 24 Rd5 eS 25 We3 + Saarman-Sik- kila, corr 1992. 14... 15 Dce2(D) White may adopt various move- orders here, but however White con- tinues, he will often play @ce2 sooner or later. However, there is a clear distinction between lines in which £.d3 precedes @ce2 and those in which ce? is played first, block- ing in the fl-bishop. The main line deals with variations without 2d3. The alternative is 15 &d3 (15 Wh6 Hg8 16 g5 should be answered by 16...fxg5 — see line 6b of the pre- vious note) Hg8 (15...8d7 16 Ace2 Wh6 17 Who Hg8 18 Bg3 Bg7 19 Edgi Hag8 20 Bh3 d5 21 fxe6 fxe6 22 exd5 Dxd3+ 23 Hxd3 exd5 © Wind-Haag, Wiesbaden 1988) 16 Dee2 (16 Bg3 Rd7 17 Df3 b4 18 Axe5 fxe5 19 Be2 b3 20 axb3 a5 21 @d2 a4 22 bxad Hxa4 23 Whs Rg5+ 24 Se1 Re8 with equality, as in the game Zahn-Brustman, Dortmund wom 1989) Wbé6 (16...2d7 17 Bg3 Hac8 18 Df4 d5 19 Dh5 Axd3+ 20 Edxd3 dxe4 ¥ Borbely-Csuri, corr 1991; 16...Wc5 17 bl Bd7 18 c3 b4 19 &c2 a5 20 Hg3 Hab8 21 cxb4 Exb4 = Kotylak-Jedrzejowski, corr 1992; 16...Axd3+?! 17 Bxd3 5 18 Bc3 Wd7 19 Dc6 Rb7 20 Axe7 Wrxe7 21 Dg3 d5 22 exdS Had8 23 hs Main Line with 10 94 13 DhS xd5 24 Wh4 Hes 25 Bh3 + Sawadkuhi-Enders, Hamburg 1993) 17 Hg3 (or 17 Hdfl 2d7 18 Bg3 @®xd3+ 19 Exd3 e5 20 Ab3 b4 21 We2 2b5 22 Hh3 Bad8 23 Hdl &c4 = Mathes-Huchenreiter, corr 1988) Rd7 18 Hdgi Bes 19 bi Bags 20 DE3 Dxf3 21 Bxf3 exfS 22 exfS b4 23 Hffl 2.c6 24 Wg3 d5 @ Korolev- Lipiridi, corr 1991. 15... es The most common possibility, but some other moves have been tried: 1) 15...Wb7 16 Wb3 cd 17 g3 We7 18 AhS Bes 19 We3 5 20 AL3 Rb7 21 Rxc4 Wxc4 22 Wxc4 bxe4 23 Edel c3 24 bxc3 d5 25 “Ad2 dxe4 26 @xe4 Hgd8 = Renteria-Nalban- dian, Matinhos Wch jr 1994. 2) 15...Sd7 16 Af4 Hac8 17 Xg2 Whb7 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Afxe6 Bes 20 d3 Hg6 21 We3, Stripunsky-Nal- bandian, Rostov 1993, 21...8xe6 22 Dxe6 £5! ~. 3) 15..Rb7 16 Rg2 (16 Dts Rxe4 17 fxe6 d5 18 exf7 Bxf7 19 Die6 Wc8 ~; 16 57! fxg5 17 Who Hg8 18 &g2 Hac8 19 fxe6 Bg6 20 Wh3 fxe6 + Dobsa-Mescheder, corr 1992) Be8 17 Bhi (17 RF3 d5 18 exd5 Axf3 19 Axf3 Rxd5 F) Bac814 Main Line with 10 g4 18 &bi (18 Af4 d5 19 exd5 4) d5 19 exd5 (19 fxe6 dxe4 20 exf7 Axf7 ~) exf5 (19...Rxd5 20 fxe6 S&xhi 21 exf7 +) 20 gxf5 +. 16 Eg3 Once again, White’s move-order is fairly flexible. White can also try to play without an immediate Kg3, for example 16 Af4 d5 (Fischer sug- gested 16...Wb7 17 Hel Wb6, but presumably the critical test is 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 Afxe6 Rxe6 19 Dxe6, which appears good for White) 17 fixe6 (17 exd5 exf5 18 222 ~) dxe4 and now: 1) 18 Bg3 &xe6 with a further branch: la) 19 Afxe6 fxe6 20 Axes Wb6 (20...We8 21 g5 +) 21 g5 We2 22 Hd2 Wel+ 23 Hd We (24 He3!2) 14-1 Manik-Debnar, Slovakian Ch 1994, 1b) 19 Wxh7+ @xh7 20 Bh3+ Sg7 21 Afxe6+ fxe6 22 Axe6+ Sf7 23 Axc7 Ba7 24 Bh7+ Bg7 25 Exg7+ Sxg7 26 Add (26 Ac6+ $7 27 Dd4 Dxgd =) Dxgd 27 Rh3 £5! = Dimitrov-Lautier, Adelaide jr Wch 1988. 2) 18 AdS WcS and now: 2a) 19 DFS! Rxe6 (19...Rd8 20 Wh6 Ad3+!7 @; 19... Wixgl 20 Afxe7 Rxe6 {20...Wxg4? 21 Wxg4 Bxe4 22 c7 Hb8 23 Hd8+ dg7 24 Af5+ $g6 25 7 +-} 21 Axg8 Rxg4 22 Wh6 2xd1 23 Agxf6 We6 24 Wxg6 hxg6 25 Sxd1 Hd8 26 Se2 +) 20 Dfxe7 Rxd5 21 Dxg8 Bxg8 22 Hg3 DEP 23 Wh6 Kg6 24 Wed b4, Fio- tito-Van de Plassche, corr 1990, 25 h4! @xh4 (25...2d4 26 c3) 26 Bh3 3 27 Bh5 Dd4 28 Weed +-. 2b) 19 Axe7 Wxe7 20 AfS Wxeé 21 Wh6 2d7! (21...2b7 22 Bd6 Axed 23 Wi4 Wxa2 24 Bxed Walt 25 &d2 Wxb2 26 Bxg8+ Hxg8 27 Ad4 Wb4+ 28 dd1 1-0 Nicholson- Girault, Cannes 1990) 22 Hd6 (22 Sbl Axg4) Dxg4! 23 Bxe4 Wxf5, Gligorié-Fischer, Belgrade Ct 1959, 24 He4 WeS 25 Wxf6+ Wxf6 26 Edxf6 3! 27 Hxf7 Bgl! 28 Bxd7 e2 29 Hdl! exd1W+ 30 dxd1 g7 31 Sel Hfs 32 Bxf8 &xf8 33 Hf2 F. 16... Rd7 The main line, but various other moves are also playable: 1) 16...d5? 17 exd5 exf5 18 gxf5 Exg3 19 hxg3 @d7 20 Df4 +. 2) 16...$b7 (this may be more promising than the main variation; Black is prepared to sacrifice the e6- pawn if necessary) 17 &g2 d5 (or 17...c6 18 Wh6 Axd4 19 Axd4 e5 20 De2 Hac8 21 Hd2 Wd8 22 Ac3 Bc5 23 Ad5? &xd5 24 exd5 Hed 25 Rf3 Bf4 26 Bh3 Hg7 27 Re2 Wo F Maciejewski-Malishauskas, Mied- zybrodzie 1991) 18 Af4 Rac8! (not 18...$.057 19 Wxh7+! 2xh7 20 h3+ Sg7 21 Adxe6+ fxe6 22 Axebt Sf7 23 Hh7+ +— Hamalainen-Gul- lulu, Arnhem jr Ech 1988) 19 Kd2 Rd6 20 fxe6? Ac4 21 ext? Rxf4 22 fxg8W+ 0-1 Gaida-Jedrzejowski, corr 1992. 3) 16..\Wb7 17 D&A (17 &g2 Rd7 18 Df4 Haes 19 Wh4 Wes 20 @DhS Hg5 21 V£3 We4 22 Re2 Wes8 23 Ec3 Wa8 24 Hh3 dg8 25 fxe6 fxe6 26 Axf6+ &xf6 27 Wxh7+ Sf8 28 Efl +- Am.Rodriguez-Martin del Campo, Capablanca mem 1989) Hb8 (17...Wxe4!? may be possible, for example 18 @h5 Wb7 19 &g2 d5 20 Wh4 HpS 21 Al3 Axf3 22 Rxf3 We7 23 Bh3 Sg8 @; 17...2d7 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Adxe6 2 xe6 20 Axe6Bac8 21 Rg? Wd7 22 g5! fxgs 23 WES + Ivanovié-Jacimovié, Yugo- slav Ch 1985) 18 2¢2 &d7 19 Wh4 Wc8 20 2£3 Bgs (20...Bg7!7 21 @hS Bg5 22 Be2 +) 21 Re2 We8 22 Bdgl b4 23 h3 Hg7 24 g5 fxg5 25 @xg5 + Eisen-Domenden, corr 1990. 17 Ata Hac8 17... Wc8 18 Se2 b4 19 Wh6 Hes 20 Hdgl a5 21 DhS5 WE8 22 Wxf8+ S.xf8 23 Axf6 + Van der Tak-Wid- era, corr 1990. 18 fxe6!? Or 18 &b1 (18 DhS b4 19 Wh4 Hg5 20 Re2 Wa8 21 Bl a5 22 Sb1 a4 23 Df4 We8 24 Bfg] Ac4 @ Van der Kleij-Van der Plassche, corr 1987) Wb7 and now: 1) 19 &g2 Wo6!? 20 Wh4 (20 fxe6 fxe6 21 Adxe6 &xe6 22 Axeb W223 Dd4! looks good for White) Bcd 21 Eh3 (21 Ade2!?) Bg7 22 @®de2 (22 c3 b4!) Axg4 23 DhS Bg8 24 2F3? (24 Anes Bg7 25 Dhs =) exf5 25 Hgl (25 Dhf4 Bg7 26 @d5 Wd8 27 3 Bc5 28 Aef4 Des +) We3! -—+ Wolff-de Firmian, New York 1989. 2) 19 &d3!? Dxd3?! (19...d5!7 20 exdS Axd3 21 Hgxd3 e5 22 d6! 2.8 23 Ade6! fxe6 24 Axe6 Rxe6 25 fxe6 Wg7 ~) 20 cxd3 e5 21 AdS Rd8 22 Ac2 b4 23 d4! a5 24 Who We6 25 Hel Hg7 26 Axf6 2xf6 27 Wxf6 + Stripunsky-Istratescu, Bu- charest 1994. 18 ... 19 Wg2!(D) 19 .. The critical moment, since in the main line Black gradually falls into an inferior position. The alterna- tives are: fxe6 Main Line with 10 g4 15 B AS a 1) 19...Wa5? (only puts the queen offside) 20 €b1 d5 21 exdS exd5 22 Dxd5 &xg4 23 DxeT! +-. 2) 19...Bxg4? 20 Rxg4 DAxg4 21 Dixe6 Rxe6 22 Axe6 Web 23 h3 +. 3) 19...204? 20 Adxe6 Rxe6 21 Dxe6 Wad7 22 Af4 Des 23 Ads +— Kotronias-Tzoumbas, Greek Ch 1995. 4) 19...Axg4 20 Afxe6 Rxe6 21 Dxe6 Wd7 22 Ad4 De3 (22...Ae5 23 Wf2, intending 2h3) 23 Wh3! Wxh3 24 &xh3 Bxg3 (24...Axd1? 25 &xc8 Hxg3 26 hxg3 Df2 27 xa6 Dxe4 28 AES +) 25 hxg3 Hes 26 Hgl z. 20 Afxes Rxe6 White has the advantage, for ex- ample 21 Axe6 WE7 (21...2h6+ 22 g5! We7 23 gxh6 Wxeb 24 W2!) 22 @xf8 Hexf8 23 Sb1 Hc6 24 Ad3 We6 25 g5 fxg5 26 Hxg5 and White has a clear extra pawn, Brodsky- Stoica, Romania 1994. B) ll .. 12 25 Here we will analyse an interest- ing side-line, which is based on the idea of preventing ...4\d7 by playing Axf616 Main Line with 10 g4 an early f5 to exert pressure on e6. The immediate 12 f5 is bad because of 12...b4 13 Ace2 (13 fxe6 bxc3 14 exf7+ @xf7 15 Bgl (15 g5 &g4; 15 e5 &b7} de8 16 g5 Wb7 —+ Kover- Pires, corr 1980) e5 14 ®b3 Axed (the simple 14...82b7 15 Ag3 Hc8 16 &d3 d5 also looks good for Black) 15 Wxed &b7 16 Hd5 Bc8 17 Dal Wed 18 Wxc4 Hxc4 19 Sg2 &xd5 20 Rxd5 Hxg4 | Damink-Nivard, corr 1991. It follows that White needs to preface f5 by a3 in order to maintain the knight on c3. The posi- tion White is aiming for arises after 12 a3 Hb8 13 £5, but there is no per- fect move-order to reach this posi- tion. The move-order we give here, with 12 a3, can be met by 12...d7, when White may have nothing better than 13 gS transposing to line B1 be- low. It follows that if White wants to adopt this system, he should try 11 a3 Kb8 12 Rxf6 Axf6 13 £5, al- though this has the (admittedly much smaller) defect that Black can try 12...gxf6!?. In any case, here is the analysis: 12 a3 Eb8 (12...A\d7 13 &g2 {an in- teresting attempt to avoid a transpo- sition; 13 g5 leads to line B1 below, while 13 £5 AeS 14 We3 Hb8 15 g5 b4 16 axb4 Exb4 is obviously fine for Black} 0-0 14 e5 d5 15 @£5 Ab6 16 Dxe7+ Wxe7 17 g5 b4 18 Abi &d7 19 Bd3 bxa3 20 Axa3 £6 21 We3 Hab8 « Hector-Rowson, Co- penhagen 1996) 13 f5 (D) (13 g5 ‘Ad7 is again B1; the idea of playing £5 first is to prevent ...d7 when g5 finally does come) and now: 1) 13...d5 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 exd5 0-0 16 Ac6 Bb6 17 Axe7+ Wxe7 18 We3 Hbs (18...Hd6 19 &h3!) 19 d6 Wo7 (19...Wd7 20 &h3 b4 21 axb4 Eixb4 22 Hhgl +— Pletanek-Pesout, Pardubice 1992) was Szilagyi-Tobor, corr 1984, and now 20 £e2! b4 21 £3 WET 22 axb4 Exb4 23 Bhfl +-. 2) 13...exf5S 14 gxf5 (14 @xf5!) b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16 Db3 &b7 17 Hid4 Bxd4 18 Dxd4 Wb6 19 Ab3 0-0 20 &d3 Bc8 21 Kel Ad7 22 Sb1 &{6 = Van Kempen-Hovingh, corr 1987. 3) 13...b4?! 14 axb4 Exb4 15 g5 0-0 (15...Ad7 16 fxe6 2xg5+ 17 Sb1 Abo 18 Wxt7+ Wxf7 19 exf7+ d7 20 &h3+ Bc7 21 Rxc8B SxcB 22 Deb Rf6 23 AdS! +— Thipsay- Howell, London 1985) 16 gxf6 (16 Bgl !?) 2xf6 17 Db3 V7 18 Bel a5 19 Wg3 Re5 (19...a47 20 Bxd6! axb3 21 e5 +-) 20 Wh4 Wh6! 21 Eg3! a4 22 £6 g6, Psakhis-Cvitan, Hartberg 1991, and now Psakhis gives 23 Hh3 h5 24 &e2! axb3 25 S&xhS Ha8!? 26 2xg6! Hal+ 27 d2 Bxdi+ 28 Axdl Hd4+ 29 de2 Wb5+ 30 de3! +-. 4) 13...0-0 (this looks risky) 14 g5 and now: 4a) 14...d7 15 £6 (15 Wh5 Des 16 Bgl (16 &h3 Wed 17 £6 d8 18 Ehf1 &b6 = Savon-Donner, Wijk aan Zee 1972} He8 17 Hg3 g6 18Wh4 2£8 19 Af3 b4 20 AxeS dxe5S 21 axb4 Exb4 22 Hh3 h6 23 gxh6 Gh7 24 fxg6+ fxg6 25 WE &xh6+ 26 Exh6+ 1-0 Howell-Britton, Oak- ham 1994) and now: 4al) 15....d8 16 Wg3 (16 fxg7!? Sxg7 17 WhS De5 18 Wh6+ Sg8 19 &h3!? b4 looks incredibly dan- gerous, but I cannot see a forced win, for example 20 &f5 Dg6 21 &xg6 fxg6 22 axb4 Hxb4 23 Hhfl We7 or 20 AfS £6! 21 gxf6 Bxf6) b4 17 axb4 Exb4 18 h4 Wb6 19 Ab3 &c7 (19...Be5!7) 20 fxg7 Sxg7 21 WE3 2.7 22 Rh3 Ld8 23 Dds Des 24 Wh5 © Kulling-Freeman, corr 1985. 4a2) 15...gxf6 16 gxf6 Dxf6 (or 16... 2xf6 17 Bg1+ PhS 18 Lh3 b4 19 4d5!? «) 17 e5 dxe5 18 Ac6 Sh8 19 Dxbs Wxb8 20 Vg2 (20 Bgl +) b4 21 axb4 Wxb4 22 Hhel W4+ 23 Wxf4 exf4 24 &£3 = Kava- lek-Donner, Wijk aan Zee 1969. 4b) 14...DeB 15 Bgl (15 £6 gxf6 could transpose to 4a2 above) b4 16 axb4 Exb4 17 Hg3 (17 £6 2d8 18 Hg3 is another idea) We5 (17...26 18 Re2 {18 b3 We5 19 &c4 Dc7 20 £6 dB 21 h4 DbS 22 DcxbS axb5 23 03 Hxc4 24 bxc4 Wa3+ 25 G2 b4 F Pares Vives-Quinteros, Torremoli- nos 1975} Wb6 19 Ab3 a5 20 £6 Rd8 21 Bh3 Rab 22 Rxa6 Wxab 23 DcS We6 24 Ad3 Hd4 25 Bho + Szilagyi-Raymaekers, corr 1980) 18 Db3 We5 19 243 (19 £6 &d8 20 Rd3 gxf6 21 h4 2b7 22 Dd2 £5 F Brustman-Peptan, Timisoara wom Z 1993) a5 20 Ad2 a4 21 £6 (21 Ac4 Exc4 22 &xc4 a3 23 £6 axb2+ 24 Sb1 2d8 25 Hdgl gxf6? {25...2b6 ~} 26 gxf6+ @h8 27 Wed h6 28 Wh3 +— Guizar-Martinovski, corr Main Line with 10 g4 17 1989) $48 22 Ded We5? (22...Bxc4 23 &xc4 a3 ~) 23 €5 g6 24 Des Wa? 25 exd6 &b7 26 We3 +— Shamko- vich-Grigorian, USSR Ch 1971. 5) 13...e5 14 Dde2 (D) (14 Ab3 b4 {14...2b7 15 g5 Dd7 16 h4 &c6 17 &h3 £6 18 Wh5+ Sf8 19 Ads Rxd5 20 Hxd5 Hc8 21 Hd2 + Fichtl- Bénsch, Halle 1974; 14...h6 15 h4 Rb7 16 g5 Dd7 17 Sbl hxgs 18 hxg5 Exh1 19 Wxh1 &xg5 20 &xb5 + Pahtz-Beck, Vienna 1996} 15 axb4 Exb4 16 &d3 &b7 17 g5 Dd7 18 h4 Ac5 19 Axc5 Wxc5 20 £6 gxf6 21 Ehfl ~ Bak-Ferens, corr 1993) and now: ve Sh 29 Sa) 14...Rb7 15 g5 (15 Dg3 a8 16 g5 Dd7 17 £6 gxf6 18 DhS Bes 19 gxf6 £8 20 Rh3 + Botterill- Mecking, Hastings 1971/2) Dxe4 16 xed d5 (after 16...2%c8, then not 17 Wd3? Wxc2+ 18 Wxc2 Exc2+ 19 xc2 Rxe4+ 20 Sb3 Kxh1 -+ but 17c3 £) 17 D4c3 d4 18 Wed Rxg5+ 19 ¥b1 0-0 20 A2g3 Shs 21 h4 %e3 22 £6 g6 23 h5 b4 24 hxg6 fxg6 25 S.c4!! Rf4 26 Bxh7+ Wxh7 27 Bhi 2h6 28 £7 We7 29 Bh2 Rxedt 30 Axed g5 31 Dd6 bo 32 AEs e4 33 Wg3 Wip5 34 Wxe5+ dh7 35 2d3 1-0 Nunn-B.Lalié, Bayswater 1996. 218 Main Line with 10 24 Sb) 14...b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16 g5 (16 Dg3 &b7 17 h4 Ad7 18 4h5 0-0 19 g5 Hc8 20 &d3? Bxb2 21 Rxa6 Exc2+! 22 @xc2 &xe4+ —+ Marko- witsch-Wikander, corr 1979) Axe4 17 Dxe4 Bb7 18 D2c3 (18 A2g3 {in- teresting as it allows White’s queen to operate along the third rank, thereby preventing the various per- petual checks that might arise after .-Hxb2+) 2xg5+ 19 Sb1 &f4 20 S92 2x93 21 Axd6+ Wxd6 22 Wxg3 We7 23 &xb7 Hxb7 24 Wxg7 Hfs 25 We2 £6 26 Wc6+ Sf7 27 Ehgl a5 28 Hd6 1-0 Howell-Mai, Hamburg 1995) &xg5+ 19 &bl (D) and now: 5b1) 19...Wb6 (probably the best move) 20 Wd3 (20 b3 Bxb3+ 21 cxb3 Wxb3+ 22 dal Wa3+ drawing; 20 &bS+ axb5 21 Bhgl? (21 Dxd6o+ Wxd6 22 Wxb7 Bxb2+ 23 &xb2 W4+ 24 a2 Wc4+ is also a draw} d2! 22 Bxg7 2xc3 23 Af6+ Se7 24 Wxc3 &xf6 —+ Hurter-Zschunke, corr 1983) Hxb2+ 21 Gal 0-0! (or 21...Rxe4 22 Dxe4 0-0 23 Wxd6 +) 22 Wxd6 (22 Axgs Hs; 22 Aad W4 23 Axgs Hb8! 24 Axb2 &d5! 25 Wb3 &xb3 26 cxb3 Wxb3 27 Bd2 We3 +) Wxd6 23 Axd6 Exc2 24 Axb7 Exc3 =. 5b2) 19...0-0 20 Bgl! (20 Hd5 Rxd5 21 Hxd5 Hfb8 22 BbS axb5 23 Dxg5 h6 24 Bed d5 —+ Epshtein- Andreeva, USSR 1972) and now Black does not appear to have a fully satisfactory continuation: 5b21) 20...2c8 21 Wd3 Wb6 22 Wxd6 Bxb2+ 23 Bal £e3 24 Bxg7+ 1-0 Pioch-Podzielny, corr 1984. 5b22) 20...16 21 Wd3 2xe4 22 Axed Efb8 23 b3 Bh8 24 Axgs (24 Wxd62? Bxb3+ —+) fxg5 25 Exg5 e4 26 We3 +~ Szilagyi-Guizar, corr 1980. 5b23) 20...Hxb2+ 21 dxb2 &xe4 22 Dxe4 Hb8+ 23 Wh3! Exb3+ 24 cxb3 +-. 5b24) 20...2d8 21 Wg4 26 22 Df6+ +-. 5b25) 20...2b8 21 b3 +. 5b26) 20...Wb6? 21 Exg5! &xe4 22 Axe4 Exb2+ 23 cl cB 24 Ac3 Wh4 25 &c4! Bxc4 26 Hdgl Bxc3 (26...26 27 fxg6 hxg6 28 Bxg6+) 27 Wa8+ 1-0 Szilagyi-Trembacz, corr 1975. 5b27) 20...h6 21 Wd3 (21 b3!?) Wb6 22 Wxd6 Exb2+ 23 Gal Wxd6 24 Hxd6 Hxc2 25 &d3 Hxh2 26 Dxg5 hxgs 27 Hxgs + Debski-Jaku- biec, corr 1988. 12... @d7 (D)In my database, there are exam- ples of no fewer than 11 different moves having been tried at this point. The two main lines are 13 a3 and 13 £5, which we consider under B1 and B2 below. The former has more or less vanished from active tournament play, leaving White’s hopes for an advantage resting al- most solely on 13 £5, We can com- fortably ignore most of the other nine moves, but here is a round-up of the more sensible options: 1) 13 &g2 &b7 14 Hhel 0-0-0 (14...b4 15 @d5 exdS 16 exdS Sf8 17 BFS He8 18 We4 DcS 19 Wad4 Hg8 20 He3 c8 21 &h3 Vxf5 22 RES 26 23 Bed Kd8 F Grdif-Ditt- ler, Wiirzburg 1991) 15 #b1 Ac5 16 WE2 b4 17 Dce2 Kxe4 18 Rxed Dxe4 19 WE3 d5 20 Dg3 Axg3 21 hxg3 g6 + Karim-Saavedra, Novi Sad OL 1990. 2) 13 Wh3 (this move, which in- tends 14 g6, is worth further investi- gation) Ac5 (13...b4 14 Ace2 AcS 15 We3 &b7 16 Rg2 He8 17 Sb! 0-0 18 Ed2 a4 19 Ab3 Abb 20 Aa5 d5 ¥ Rush-Fairclough, Thessaloniki OL 1984) 14 b4 Dad 15 Axad bxa4 16 96 R£6 17 gxf7+ Wxf7 18 eS dxe5 19 fxeS! (19 S.g2 exd4 20 &xa8 0-0 21 Wd3 We7 22 Re4 h6 23 Sbl a5 24 Ehgl axb4 25 Wg3 b3!? 26 cxb3 axb3 27 axb3 d3 28 Hxd3 2a6 29 Hd2 Bb8 = Hort-Gligorié, Wijk aan Zee 1971) &g5+ 20 Sb1 0-021 &c4 Hb8 22 a3 He8 23 Af5 aS 24 Hhgl h6 25 @d6 +— Gobitti-Battaglia, corr 1982. 3) 13 2d3 b4 (13.267 14 Bhgl b4 15 Ace2 0-0-0 16 Sb1 Lb8 17 c3 bxc3 18 Hcl Wb6 19 Exc3 Ac5 20 Begcl Hc8 21 We3 h6 22 h4 hxgs 23 Main Line with 10 g4 19 hxgS = Hajdu-Mihalko, Hungary Cht 1994) 14 @ce2 (14 Ad5 exd5 15 exd5 c5 looks unsound) &b7 15 Wh3 0-0-0 16 Sb1 Sb8 17 We3 Ws 18 h4 Hc8 19 h5 e5 20 fxe5 dxeS 21 We3 Bhd8 22 213 2d6 23 Dd? DeS with an equal position, Antonio- Momeni, Dubai 1992. 4) 13 2h3 b4 (13...2b77 14 Rxe6 fxe6 15 Dxe6 We4 16 Axg7+ Sd8, Suri-Stoecklin, Ticino 1992, 17 AfS +) 14 Ace2 Ac5 (14...Rb7 15 Sb1? {15 2g3 will probably transpose to Slobodjan-Alonso below; 15 2.xe6!? fxe6 16 Axe6 We4 17 Axg7+ £8 18 Bd4! Wxa2 19 Bxb4 Ac5 F} Ac5 16 Ag3 dS! 17 £519 dxed 18 Wed exf5 19 Ddxf5 g6! ¥ Smyslov-Fis- cher, Belgrade Ct 1959) 15 Ag3 (15 DNb3 2.07 16 Axc5 dxc5 17 Hhgl g6 18 We3 c4 19 Wd4 0-0 20 Wd7 Wes 21 £5 Had8 + Schuh-Holler, Wuert 1993) &b7 16 We3 0-0-0 17 Bhf1 Sb8 18 £5 h6 19 £6 gxf6 20 gxf6 £8 21 Wel h5 %- Slobodjan- Alonso, Havana 1994. 5) 13h4 b4 14 ce2 (D) and now: & 5a) 14...c5 15 Dg3 g6 (15...2d7 16 £5 g6 {16..8c8 17 Hh? e5 18 BDb3 a5 19 £6 gxf6 20 gxf6 28 21 DES Deb 22 Sb1 a4 23 cl Bes 2420 Main Line with 10 34 Wd3 was unclear in Dragomirescu- Musat, Romania Cht 1992} 17 f6 &d8 18 hS Hf8 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 Hh7 WaS 21 Ag£S!? Sc7 22 Ag7+ Sd8 23 €5? {23 Sbl o} d5 24 Wh3 &xe5 F Mukhin-Utemov, Moscow Ch 1994) 16 Hh2 (16 &g2 &b7 17 W2 0-0-0 18 Ab3 Axb3+ 19 axb3 Sb8 20 Hd3 h6 21 gxh6 Bxh6 22 De2 HcB 23 c4 bxc3 24 Hxc3 Was + Prié-Sellos, Paris Ch 1988) &b7 17 We3 d5 18 e5 0-0-0 19 hS &b8 20 Sb1 Bc8 21 Bd3 Wh6 22 Age? a5 23 hxg6 hxg6 24 Edh1 Bxh2 25 Exh2 Dxd3 26 Wxd3 a6 with equality in Aldama- Vera, Cuban Ch 1993. 5b) 14...2b7 15 g3 d5 (15...Bc8 16 Bh2 Ac5 17 Rh3 d5 18 e5 Was 19 Bb1 Aad 20 £5 Ac3+!7 21 bxc3 bxc3 22 dal Hc4 23 fxe6 0-0 24 exf7+ @h8 25 Dde2?! Wa3 26 Dxc3 &xc3 -+ Ullrich-Soukup, Prague 1991) 16 e5 &c5 (16...g6 17 &d3 Dc5 18 h5 0-0-0 19 Hh2 Wh6 20 Db3 a5 21 DxcS Kxc5 22 &b1 Lbs 23 hxg6 hxg6 24 Hxh8 Hxh8 25 Hh ¥ Komljenovi¢-Buki¢, Yugoslav Ch 1972) 17 Bh2 Wb6 18 Wd3 a5 19 Ehd2 &a6 20 Wf3 0-0 21 Rxa6 Exa6 22 We2 a4 = Weder-Franke, corr 1987, Now we move on to the two main lines: B1: 13 a3 B2: 13 £5 Bl) 13 a3 All the evidence suggests that this move causes no problems against ac- curate defence. 13... Ebs Aiming for ...b4 is the fastest way to generate counterplay. At one time 13...2b7 (D) (13... cS and 13...b6 can be answered by 14 h4 followed by £5) was quite popular, but accord- ing to current theory it is too slow. White can try: wy V 1) 14h4 d5 15 exdS Ab6 16 £5 @xd5 17 fxe6 0-0-0 18 &g2 Axc3 19 Wxb7+ Wxb7 20 &xb7+ &xb7 21 bxc3 &xa3+ 22 bl fxe6 23 ®xe6 = Sherwin-Fischer, USA Ch (New York) 1959/60. 2) 14 Bgl g6 (14...c5 15 &h3 g6 16 We3 Wb6! 17 £5 e5 18 Ad5 Rxd5 19 exd5 exd4 20 Wxd4 0-0! 21 £6 Hfes is equal) 15 &h3 0-0-0? (15...c5! transposes to the previous bracket) 16 &xe6! fxe6 17 Axe6 Wh6 18 Axd8 Hxd8? (18...Wxd8!? £; 18...Rxd8 19 AxbS axb5 20 Wc3+ Ac5 21 Wxh8 Rxe4 +) 19 Wh3! b4 20 axb4 d5 21 Axd5 Rxd5 22 exd5 +~ Spassky-Eliskases, Mar del Plata 1960. 3) 14 Sbl d5 15 exdS Ado 16 Rg2 Axd5 17 DAxd5 Kxd5 18 Wes Kxg2 19 Hxg2 0-0 20 £5 exf5 "2-12 O’Kelly de Galway-Fischer, Leipzig OL 1960. 4) 14 &h3 and now:4a) 14..Df8 15 £5 e5 (alterna- tively 15... 2xg5+?! 16 Sbl e57 17 BDadxb5 axb5 18 AxbS We6 19 Axd6+ Se7 20 Wh5 1-0 Erbacher-Aaldijk, corr 1977) 16 £6 exd4 17 fxg7 Hes 18 gxf8W+ Gxf8 19 Bxd4 Bxg5+ 20 Sb1 Hg6 21 Bhdl Hf6 22 £5 + Cappello-Grassia, corr 1962. 4b) 14...Wed 15 Khel g6 16 &b1 Db6 17 Wg3 b4 18 fl Wed 19 Db3 Wec7 20 axb4 + Sapunov-Pavlov, Bulgaria 1976. 4c) 14...0-0-0 15 £5 (15 &xe6!? fxe6 16 Axe6 Wh6 [16...We4 17 Ad5 Bxd5 18 exd5 &b7 19 b3 We8 20 Hd3 Ab6 21 Hc3 + Tal-Gligorié, Moscow 1963} 17 AdS Rxd5 18 exd5 g6 19 hel &b7 20 Wc3! + Mu- khin-Petrushin, USSR 1965) &xg5+ 16 Sb1 e5 17 Ddxb5 axb5 18 AxbS WeS 19 Dxd6+ Sb8 20 Axf7 (20 Wb3; 20 b4!7) We7 21 Axh8 Exh8 22 Bhel 2£4 (22...Ac5 +) 23 Wb3 Dc5 24 Wb5 We7 25 b4 Dab 26 Hd7 wins for White, Gligori¢é-Fischer, Bled Ct 1959. 4d) 14...Ac5 15 Bhel (15 We3 26 16 £5 gxf5 17 exf5 0-0-0 18 fxe6 bs 19 Bhgl fxe6 20 Axe6 Axe6 21 2xe6 +— F.Olafsson-Gadia, Mar del Plata 1960; 15 Hhgi?! g6 16 We3 Wh6 ~) g6 16 Wg3 Wh6 17 £5 5 18 dS 2xd5 19 exd5 exd4 20 £6 Ha7 21 b4 Dad 22 Wh4 Dc3 23 Exd4 a5 24 d2 + Perfors-Murray, corr 1967. We return to the main line after 13...2b8 (D): 14 hd Various other moves have been tried: 1) 14 b4 (this move can be played in various situations; it usually slows Black down temporarily, but once Main Line with 10 g4 21 = me WX S g © Aig 2 # 7 @a7e78 Black has regrouped his attack will be even stronger) b6 15 h4 &b7 (15...2a4 16 AdxbS axb5 17 &xb5+ Exb5 18 AxbS Wd7 19 Wd3 2b7 20 @®xd6+ 2xd6 21 Wxd6 Wxd6 22 Exd6 &xe4 23 Hel + Cledon-Jime- nez, corr 1985) 16 f5 e5 17 &xb5+ axb5 18 AdxbS Wce6 19 £6 gxf6 20 Ehfl Hd8 21 Hf2 a6 F Spatz- Riedel, wom Bundesliga 1992. 2) 14 Egil (this move also occurs in many lines; it is a way of support- ing g5 in order to continue £5) b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16 &h3 (16 b3 $.b7 17 &c4, Ma-Hills, corr 1989, 17...2xc4 18 bxc4 0-0 $) Wc5 17 Ace2 Ab6 18 Ab3 Wed 19 Ac3 We7 20 £5 Ac4 21 Bd4 a5 22 £6 gxf6 23 gxf6 2£8 0 Shkurowitsch-Kammel, corr 1988. 3) 14 Wh3 (just as at move 13, this is certainly worth considering) and now: 3a) 14...0-0 15 Bgl AcS (alter- natively 15...Ab6 16 £5 e5 17 Df3 £6 18 243 {18 Bg417} WeS 19 gxf6 2x6 20 Ags h6 21 Ae6 Rxe6 22 fxe6 Wf2 23 Wxh6 Wi4+ 24 Wxf4 exf4 25 Bd5 + Zolnierowicz-Gal- lagher, Baku 1988) 16 Bg4 (crude, but in this game very effective) b4 17 Eh4 h6 18 axb4 Hxb4 19 Af5 exf5 20 AdS Wb7 21 &xa6! (a beautiful22 Main Line with 10 g4 move) @xa6 22 Hxh6 £6 (22...gxh6 23 Df6+ Rxf6 24 gxf6 +-) 23 Bh8+ 1-0 Tomasevi¢-Osterman, corr 1981. 3b) 14...0c5 15 b4 (this is more awkward than normal as 15...0d7 runs into 16 g6) a4 (15...0b7 16 Bel Rd7 17 £5 d5 18 g6 26 19 gxf7+ Sf8 20 fxe6 Wi4+ 21 &bl &xd4 22 e7+ 1-0 Zivkovié-Todoro- vié, corr 1978) 16 Dxa4 bxa4 17 g6 5 (17...fxg6 18 DAxe6 Rxe6 19 Wrxe6 a5 ©) 18 Wxh7!? (wins a pawn but takes the white queen out of play) Hf8 19 De2 a5 20 bs WeS @ Horton-Stewart, corr 1977. 4) 14£5(D) (avery unconvincing move) and now: 4a) 14..2xg5+ 15 &b1 Des 16 WhS with another branch: 4al) 16...Wd8 17 Dxe6 (17 fxe6 0-0 {17...g6 18 exf7+ Sxf7 19 We2 Ef8 0} 18 Rh3 g6 19 We2 b4 20 axb4 Hxb4 21 @d5 Exd4 22 Bxd4 fxe6 23 Dc3 Wb6 24 hdl 2e7 25 ®a4 Wa7 © Van der Wiel-Anders- son, Moscow IZ 1982) &xe6 18 fxe6 0-0 19 Kgl h6 20 &h3 b4 21 axb4 Exb4 22 exf7+ @xf7 23 Reb Wi6 24 &£b3 Eb7 25 Egfl 26 26 Wxh6 &xh6 27 Exf6 £ Kallinger-Peli, corr 1991. 4a2) 16...We7 17 Hgi Rf6 18 fxe6 g6 19 exf7+ Wxf7 20 Wh6 297 21 Wh4 0-0 22 &e2 (22 Ads Bb7 23 Rh3 Rxh3 24 Wxh3 Ac4 25 da2 Rxd4 26 Kxd4 Wf2 —+ Rakitin-Gut- kin, USSR 1971) b4?! 23 axb4 Bxb4 24 Dds Had 25 Befl Wa7 26 De7+ $h8 27 Hxf8+ 1-0 Guerrini-Don- arelli, corr 1984. 4b) 14...De5 15 b4 (15 Wed b4 16 axb4 Exb4 17 g6 £67! {better is 17...fxg6} 18 gxf7+ Wxf7 19 fxe6 Dxe6 20 ALS Re5 21 Axd6+ LKxd6 22 Hxd6 0-0 23 &xa6 Rxa6 24 Wrxe6 +- Rozmbersky-Hitzgerova, Plzen 1995) a4 16 @xad4 bxa4 17 g6 (17 £6!2) hxg6 18 fxe6 0-0 19 exf7+ Exf7 20 We3 £16 21 Hgl a5 22 bS We5 23 Dc6 Bes! F Vasi- ukov-Ulianoy, Sochi 1966. 4c) 14...De5 15 We3 b4 16 axb4 Exb4 17 £h3 (17 fxe6 fxe6 18 Lh3 De4 19 Db3? {19 Rxe6 0} a5 20 hel a4—+ Wiker-Ferens, corr 1989) Wb6 18 fxe6 Exd4 19 exf7+ Dxf7 20 Rxc8 Rxg5+ 21 Sb1 0-022 Reb &f6 23 Hdfi @h8 24 Khgi = Jenkins-McLelland, corr 1982. 5) 14 2h3 Dc5 (14...b4? 15 axb4 Exb4 16 Rxe6! AeS 17 Ads Axf3 18 Axc7+ Sd8 19 Rxc8 Hxd4 20 Dds! Qxgs (20..Exd5 21 Bxd5 Sxc8 22 h4 +—-} 21 Bxd4 Axd4 22 &xa6 +-; 14...0-07 15 26! hxg6 16 @xe6 fxe6 17 Rxe6+ Hf? 18 Ads Wa8 19 Khe] Dfo 20 &xf7+ xi7 21 We3 +-; 14...Wc4?! 15 Db3! &b7 16 Ehgl g6 17 We3 h6?! 18 gxh6 @f6, Sevecek-Gudim, cor 1967, 19 a5 We7 20 Dxb7 Wxb7 21 e5 +) and now: 5a) Not 15 f5 due to 15... R&xg5+ 16 &b1 2f6 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 Ehfl b4 —+ Semer-Portilho, corr 1978 or