GARRY KASPAROV

GARRY KASPAROV

PART IIh1993-2005

Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com EVERYMAN CHESS

First published in 2014 by Gloucester Publishers Limited, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EClV OAT

Copyright © 2014 Garry Kasparov

English translation © 2014 Ken Neat

The right of Garry Kasparov to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978 1 78194 183 6

Distributed in North America by National Book Network,

15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. Ph: 717.794-3800.

Distributed in Europe by Central Books Ltd.,

99 Wallis Road, London E9 5LN. Ph 44(0)845 458 9911.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess,

Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EClV OAT
email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under
license from Random House Inc.

Everym an C hess S eries

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs
Commissioning editor: John Emms
Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Translation by Ken Neat.

Typesetting and editing by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.
Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

1 MIX
^ Pa p er from
_ responsible sources

% FSC* C013056
Contents

Foreword 5

Short, Anand and Las Palmas 7

Match with Short 7
New Test 31
Am sterdam Quartet 53
Partial Revenge 60
Three Best Games 66
Tal Memorial 83
Great Play 90
Match with Anand 100
Progress Report 117
Difficult Opponent 139
Em erging from a ‘G roggy’ State 145
Supreme Court 157
Second Peak 171
Battle for Prestige 171
Quality Control o f the Champion 193
34-year-old ‘Veteran’ 203
Crisis Point 214
Record W inning Series 222
My Stellar Linares 243
Historic Rating 270
Necessary Demonstration 281
Fatal Choice 291
Double Hat-trick 300
Match with Kram nik 309

Life after Death 331

Farewell to W ijk aan Zee 331
Three-Point Margin 343
Fall of the Berlin Wall 355
Who is the Real King? 372
Last Olym piad Trium ph 392
Borderline Condition 400
Instead of Yalta - to Crete 409
Different Sorts o f Draws 423
Russian ‘Gold’ 433
Finishing Line 441

Experiments 461
Sim uls’ against Professionals 461
Quickly, even more Quickly... 481

Index of Openings 496

Index of Games 498
 Foreword

This concluding volume of my autobiographical trilogy Garry Kasparov on Cany Kasparov

contains one hundred of the most memorable games and endings played during the 12
years after my withdrawal from FIDE (1993-2005), and also a selection of my best games
from simultaneous displays with professionals, as well as from rapid and blitz tournaments.
As regards drama and the intensity of events, this last period of my career was not inferior
to all its preceding stages taken together. Whereas earlier the graph of my tournament
successes, with slight exceptions, invariably proceeded upwards, now it more resembled a
sinusoid. There were various reasons for the slumps in my play, but the chief of these was the
psychological discomfort caused by the almost constant opposition with FIDE.
After winning matches under the aegis of the Professional Chess Association (PCA),
against Short (1993) and Anand (1995), I remained the ‘historic’ champion. But Karpov, after
winning his match against Timman (1993) became the FIDE version of the champion and
then, after defeating Kamsky (1996), he retained his title. The situation at the chess summit
became complicated, and I even had to explain to the public: ‘I am the world champion. Not a
version, but the chess world champion!’
The arguments should finally have been resolved by a unification match, envisaged in a
declaration of cooperation between FIDE and the PCA. The guarantor of a sixth (!) Kasparov-
Karpov match was the new FIDE president Kirsan llyumzhinov, who in August 1996 signed a
preliminary agreement with the contestants. The chess world was on the verge of unifica­
tion. But instead of this, breaking with an historic tradition, llyumzhinov began staging mass
world championships on a knock-out system.
Although at that time I won a number of notable tournaments, including Las Palmas 1996
and Linares 1997, the time had come to again defend my title. After the collapse of the match
with Karpov and the departure from chess of the powerful PCA sponsor - the Intel company
- I was forced myself to find a worthy match opponent. In February 1998 Senor Rentero, the
permanent organiser of the tournaments in Linares, came to the rescue. He suggested hold-

5
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

ing an Anand-Kramnik candidates match in the early summer, a world championship match
in the autumn, and then setting up a full qualifying cycle. Alas, this plan was also wrecked.
First Anand refused to play, and when his replacement Shirov defeated Kramnik, money
could not be found for my match with Shirov...
But the intensive preparations for a world championship match were not wasted and led
to a new upsurge in my play in 1999-2000. This period became the second peak of my career
(the first, I should remind you, was in 1988-1990). I won six super-toumaments in succession
and achieved the unprecedented rating of 2851 - despite rating inflation, this world record
stood for 13 years.
Early in 2000 English organisers suggested holding a world championship match in the
autumn between me and Anand. However, Vishy again declined (it would appear that our
1995 match had traumatised him psychologically), and I chose the most difficult opponent -
Kramnik, who shared victory with me in Linares 2000. Kramnik fully exploited this chance
opportunity: by winning the match he became the 14th world champion.
After this I scored another four tournament victories, twice finishing ahead of Kramnik (I
beat him in Astana 2001), and I established another world record - ten super-tournament
victories in succession. In my view, Kramnik was morally obliged to sign an agreement to a
return match. But apparently back in November 2000 he decided for himself: he would not
play Kasparov again for the world championship!
Particular hopes were raised by a resolution to unite the chess world, signed on 6 May
2002 in Prague by the FIDE president llyumzhinov together with the 13th and 14th champi­
ons. FIDE became the sole legal holder of the title of world champion and the only organisa­
tion that could hold official world championships, and in return it approved a unification
plan, according to which Kramnik would play a match with the winner of a qualifying tour­
nament in Dortmund 2002, the FIDE knock-out world champion Ponomariov would play
Kasparov, the No.l in the rating list, and ‘the winner of these two matches would meet in a
unifying match for the world championship in October-November 2003’.
Alas, these efforts were in vain: first my match with Ponomariov collapsed, and then also
with the next knock-out champion Kasimdzhanov. I was left in a suspended state and I lost
two years of normal life. But llyumzhinov again showed that he keenly perceived the mood of
the chess elite and officials, who did not want to give me a chance to regain the title. After
losing my goal, I began seriously thinking about giving up professional chess. And I decided
on this at the age of 41, after victories in the 2004 Russian Championship Super-Final and
Linares 2005.
Since the times of the GMA I had been dreaming of organising tournament life and the
world championship far more professionally than it is done by FIDE. But my attempts to
unite the leading players failed because their sense of cooperative solidarity always receded
in the face of internal disagreements. As a result, despite enormous efforts, I was not in fact
able to repair the mistake of 1993.

I should like to express my gratitude to my long-standing trainer Alexander Shakarov, and

also to the chess compilers Vladislav Novikov and Yakov Zusmanovich, fo r their help in prepar­
ing the manuscriptfor publication.

6
 Chapter One
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Match with Short
World Championship Match Kasparov -
Short (London, 7 September - 21 October
1993) - 12V2-TA.
On 23 March 1993 an abrupt zigzag in
chess history occurred: the FIDE president
Campomanes, after depriving me and Nigel
Short of the rights of champion and chal­
lenger, announced the urgent staging of a
match ‘for the world championship’ be­
tween the finalist and a semi-finalist of the
previous qualifying cycle - Jan Timman and
Anatoly Karpov.
Of the leading grandmasters, the only one
who openly condemned this unprecedented
decision was Vassily Ivanchuk: on 9 May he
sent a letter to FIDE, in which he emphasised
that he considered it unlawful to stage a
match for the world title between Timman
and Karpov, since in the qualifying cycle they
had both lost their matches to Short, and in
addition the other semi-finalist in the cycle -
Yusupov, who had lost to Timman - had
completely equal rights with Karpov. ‘The
loss of a match to Short should not give the
right to participate in a match for the world
championship or other privileges’, declared
Ivanchuk, who suggested that the cham­
pion’s title should be left vacant and a new
qualifying cycle held. The 12 winners of the
July Interzonal Tournament in Biel should be
joined by Karpov and Yusupov, and the
seven winners of the matches between them
should then by joined by Timman. However,
as the press reported, ‘Ivanchuk's proposal
was rejected by FIDE because it did not want
to lose the money from the organisation of
the Timman-Karpov match’.
Meanwhile it became known that in the
autumn in London, under the aegis of the
PCA and The Times newspaper, a Kasparov-
Short match for the world title would be
held, with a prize fund of 2V2 million dollars.
I began a period of purposeful preparation,
in the course of which I played just four
official games - for Auxerre in the French
Club Championship (+2=2; May 1993).
For me this was a terribly difficult time:
there was the war with FIDE, organizational
7
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
problems with the PCA, the future of which
still looked very obscure, the split with the
Russian Chess Federation, caused by the
political crisis in the country, and serious
family discords (in the end I separated from
my first wife, and she and her parents with
our daughter Polina left for the USA). It was
impossible to invent a greater number of
problems before a match. My nerves were on
edge, and my mental state left much to be
desired, but I believed that I would be able to
beat Short, since the score in our previous
meetings with the ‘classical’ time control
was +10-1=4 in my favour.
The first lengthy training session took
place in the summer on the Croatian coast,
the first time I had been there (and after that
I went there every year, trying to recreate the
atmosphere of the irretrievably lost
Zagulba). Apart from my mother, with me
were my chief trainer Sergey Makarychev,
Alexander Beliavsky, Zurab Azmaiparashvili
and Alexander Shakarov - together with
press attache Vladimir Dvorkovich, it was
they who later comprised my team in Lon­
don, the first two being my official seconds.
We worked quite productively, although the
greater part of what we found in our open­
ing preparations came in useful to me only
after the match.
With White it was planned to alternate l
e4 and l d4. After l e4, of course, we studied
both of Short’s favourite replies - l...e6 2 d4
d5 (with the variation 3 £>c3 -&b4 4 e5 c5 5
a3 .&.XC3+ 6 bxc3 and ^ 4 ) and l...e5 2 £>f3
£>c6, after which both 3 -&b5 and 3 d4 were
prepared. And after l d4 we looked at the
Queen’s Gambit and the Slav Defence, and
less at the Nimzo-lndian, where I had my
own preparations in the set-up with 4 Vic2
(cf. Game No.4).
Fot Black, anticipating l e4 and guided by
the principle Heave well alone’, we analysed
8
only the Najdorf Variation of the Sicilian
Defence - but not those variations which
occurred in the match! Here, unfortunately, I
lacked flexibility, as also later in my 2000
match with Kramnik, whereas in the 1995
match with Anand I had in reserve the
‘Dragon’, which came as an unpleasant
surprise for my opponent (Game No.2l).
At the end of August, now at a training
session in Podolsk on the outskirts of Mos­
cow, I looked a little at the French Defence
with Lputian (cf. Game No.10), at the 7~Wb6
variation in the Najdorf with Magerramov,
and I met with Geller, who gave me a num­
ber of pieces of valuable opening advice - in
particular, how to advantageously avoid the
sharp Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez
which was employed by Short (cf. Game
No.2).
This match was splendidly organised and
was even broadcast on TV. Therefore for the
first time in the history of world champion­
ship matches the contestants played strictly
three times a week, without any time-outs
and with a six-hour time control: two hours
for 40 moves and an hour for the next 20
(followed by an adjournment, but things did
not come to that). Also for the first time,
immediately after a game the players were
obliged to give a short press conference
(although the loser had the right not to take
part). The chief arbiters were Yuri Averbakh
(Russia) and Carlos Falcon (Spain).
We played in the Savoy Theatre, and my
team and I lived ten minutes’ drive from
there - in a house on Chester Terrace, close
to Regent’s Park. The opening ceremony and
the drawing of lots, together with a charity
lunch, took place in the restaurant adjoining
the theatre, Simpson’s-in-the-StTand, where
in 1851 the first international tournament
in the history of chess was played. Within
these walls Morphy, Steinitz, Chigorin,

Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine all per­
formed... It was here that the famous ‘im­
mortal’ Anderssen-Kieseritzky game was
played, and 142 years later it was repro­
duced by grandmasters Keene and Speel-
man, robed in 19th century costumes (the
former was one of the match organisers, and
the latter, along with Kavalek, the chal­
lenger’s official second).
In the first game I drew the white pieces.
The symbolic first move in the match - 1 e4
- was made by Peter Stothard, the editor-in-
chief of The Times. Then he pressed the clock
button with his palm, and the game began.
Short chose l...e5, immediately threatening
the Marshall Attack. After replying as ad­
vised by Geller - 8 a4 (cf. Game No.2, note to
Black’s 8th move), gradually I completely
outplayed my opponent, but in a time
scramble, with more time on my clock, I
missed a win on the 35th and 36th moves.
The position became equal, but Black was a
pawn up, and to be on the safe side I offered
a draw on the 38th move. In the heat of the
moment Short declined - and a move later
he lost on time! This dramatic start greatly
influenced the further course of the match -
it was not without reason that at the end I
was presented with two elegant chairs,
white and black, on the backs of which were
carved the final position from the first game.
In the second game Short played 6 JLgS
against the Najdorf Variation, and to start
with I employed a bit of cunning - I trans­
posed into a comparatively rare variation of
the Rauzer Attack (cf. Game No.l, note to
Black’s 6th move), confidently neutralised
my opponent’s slight initiative and in a
sharp time-trouble battle I gained a draw. I
could have done with more such cunning in
the 2000 match with Kramnik.
The third game was again an ‘anti-
Marshall’, again I managed to outplay my
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
opponent (cf. Game No.2, note to Black's 9th
move), and again I blundered in his time-
trouble - I missed a win on the 27th move,
allowing Black equalizing counterplay, and
Short almost saved himself, but he stumbled
on the 3lst move and after desperate resis­
tance he nevertheless lost.
The score became iVi-Vi in my favour. But
Short, seeing that I was also making mis­
takes, did not become depressed and was
hoping to pull one back in the very next
game.
Gomel
N.Short-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match
4th Game, London 14.09.1993
Sicilian Defence B97
1 e4 C5 2 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £)f6 5
4k3 a6 6 JLgS
After this game Nigel was to switch exclu­
sively to 6 Ji.c4 (Game Nos.3, 5, 79), thereby
killing all my preparations for his usual 6
Ji.e3 or 6 f4 (Short-Kasparov, Belgrade 1989;
Debrecen 1992).
6.. .e6
In the second game I deviated with
6.. .£>c6 7 1 rd2 e6 8 f4 £ d 7 9 0-0-0 h6 10 ,&h4
9
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
g5 l l fxg5 £sg4, etc. But now I chose the
most critical line, which I had studied to­
gether with Magerramov: the so-called
‘Poisoned Pawn Variation’.
7 f4 # b 6 8 #d2 #xb2
9 £sb3
Of course, I had analysed more and was
expecting 9 S b l (Game No.67 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov), whereas
I had never been afraid of 9 ®b3.
9.. .#a3 10 iLxf6 gxf6 l l ±e2 <Sk6
As is well known, if ll...h5 12 0-0 £sc6
(Spassky-Fischer, 11th match game, Reykja­
vik 1972) there is the unpleasant 13 £sbll.
However, I2...£sd7l is quite acceptable: 13
i t i l (after 13 £sbl # 3 4 the black queen
escapes via c6; 13 #d4? b5 - Game No.l8 in
Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov)
13.. .h4 14 h3 (in the event of 14 i g 4 h3l? 15
iLxh3 Sxh3 16 gxh3 b5 Black has excellent
compensation for the exchange) l4-^.e7
with very sharp play (Short-Kasparov, Riga
1995).
12 0-0 ±d7 13 & hl
It is premature to play 13 Jth5?! iLg7 14
Sf3 0-0 (Tal-Platonov, Dubna 1973), or 13
f5?l £se5 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 .&h5+ 4^18! (Tal-
Portisch, Varese; Game No.41 in Part III of My
Great Predecessors).
13.. .h5
10
Although 13...Sc8 is also undeaT, I pre­
ferred to obtain a key position from the
Spassky-Fischer game with which I was very
familiar. But here Short surprised me.
14£sdl
At the centre of attention then was 14
<£sbl (Spassky) or 14 # e3 (Tal), for which I
had prepared. The old idea 14 £sdl is also
logical: after removing his knight from the
vulnerable square c3, White prepares either
the cramping c2-c4, or c2<3 and £se3<4.
14.. .5.8
This natural continuation turned out to
be new, and since then it has become the
main move. 14...#b4 is worse because of 15
c3 or 15 # e3 (Platonov-Bukhover, Kiev 1963).
But 14-..h4l? with the threat of ...h4-h3,
which I wTongly critidsed in Informator,
deserves consideration.
15 £se3 (not 15 c3?l £sa5l or 15 c4 .&e7 16
£ sc3?! £sa5, BTyson-Pigott, Edinburgh 1996)
15.. .#b4 16 c3
An instantaneous reply - the sacrifice of a
second pawn! In Informator I suggested 16
#d3(?), overlooking the unexpected trick
16.. .£se5! 17 fxe5 2c3, when Black regains
the piece with advantage (18 #d2 Sxb3l).
16.. .#xe4!
Played without any particular hesitation,
since I was not attracted by l6...Wb6 17 £ic4

Wc7 18 a4 with a bind and full compensa­
tion for the pawn.
17 l.d3
After the immediate 17 £)c4l? I consid­
ered two possibilities:
1) l7...Wd5 18 Wxd5 exd5 19 £sb6 fib 8
with a roughly equal endgame, or 18 We3l?
£\e7! i a £\b6 (19 Sadi?! £\f5) 19...Wc6 20
£ixc8 Wxc8 with quite good compensation
for the exchange;
2) 17~.£ld8 18 £)d4 (18 £)b6 Wc61, main­
taining the balance) l8...Wg6 (Ftacnik’s
move l8...Sc7 is also suitable, or l8...h4,
Kotronias-Sasikiran, Moscow 2004) 19 ^.d3?!
(19 £sb6 is better) I9...f5 20 Sael, and my
Informator suggestion 20..Jk,e7(?!) runs into
the unexpected 21 £)xd6+! J.xd6 22 £sxf5
Sc6 23 ± e4 i.c7 24 Wd4 Sg8 25 £\e7! Wg7
26 £)xg8 Wxg8 27 i.xc6 JLxc6 28 Sf2, but
20.. .5.5! tips the scales in Black’s favour.
1 7.. .Wa4 18 £sc4 Sc7 19 £sb6 Wa3 20 S ael
20 We3?l is weak in view of 20...£le7! 21
£ sc4 4ld5 22 Wei Wa4 23 £)b2 Wc6, but 20
£)c4 Wa4 21 £sb6 and £)c4 would have
forced a draw (Gulko-Psakhis, Beer Sheva
1993). ‘After thinking for 24 minutes, Short
decided to play on. One can understand him:
after a poor start he desperately needed a
win.’ (Averbakh).
20.. .£se7!
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
A strong reply. If 20...iLe7?, then 21 £)c4
Wa4 22 Se4 <£sb4 23 £)b2! would have been
decisive (but not 23 cxb4? d5), but now Black
saves his queen with the aid of an exchange
sacrifice.
21 £ sc4 (21 f5?l e5) 21...SXC4 22 i.xc4 h4l
Building up the pressure on the kingside.
23i.d3?!
A serious loss of time. Fearing ...£le7-f5,
Short provokes ...f6-f5, but this will merely be
to the advantage of the bishop on g7. 23
i e 2 was correct, and although after 23...h3
24 g3 i.g7 Black has excellent compensation
for the exchange, there would have been
complicated, unclear play in prospect.
23...f5 24 £ e2 i.g7 25 c4 (after 25 i f 3 b5
White would have been left with an ‘eternal’
weakness on c3) 25...h3 26 g3 d5
Aiming to activate the e7-knight as soon
as possible.
27 ^.f3?
‘And this is already a decisive mistake,
based on a miscalculation. After 27 cxd5
<£sxd5 28 iLf3 0-0 the real battle would have
only just begun' (Averbakh). But it would
have developed to Black’s obvious advantage
- he has very strong bishops and the 113-
pawn, creating a mating net: 29 .&xd5 exd5
30 i g l (30 £)d4?! Ilc8 and wins) 30...Sc8 31
f i d He8! and ...Se4, or 29 f i d Jk,c6 30 figl
11
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
£rf6! (preventing g3-g4) 31 -&xc6 bxc6 and
...‘5^e4-
27.. .dxc4 28 Se3
When he sacrificed the c4-pawn, Nigel
was hoping for the flamboyant 28 S d l £id5
29 Axd5 exd5 30 #xd5 (30 Sfel+ £ e6 31
#xd5 0-0 or 30 £ia5 0-0 is bad for White)
30.. .JLc6 31 Sfel+ £>f8?? 32 #xc6! bxc6 33
Sd8 mate, but here he noticed the refuta­
tion - 3 l.# e 7 or 3i..JLe5!, when Black
wins. Although shocked, he nevertheless
tried to complicate matters.
28.. .C3!
28..JLa4(c6) would also have won,
whereas the greedy 28...cxb3? 29 Sxb3
would have sharpened the situation, al­
though even here after 29...#a4 30 Sxb7
£id5! (the Informator suggestion 30..JLc8 is
less clear on account of 31 Sc7l, but not 31
S dl? 0-0!) 31 £xd5 -&c6! 32 S cl £xb7 33
£xb7 0-0 or 29...1rc5!? 30 S cl # d 4 31 Sd3
# 3 4 Black would have retained a consider­
able advantage.
29 Sxc3
Forced: such a ‘thorn’ cannot be tolerated.
But now White is simply two pawns down.
29.. .£xc3 30 #xc3 0-0 31 S g l (31 £xb7
Sb8 32 jLf3 # x a 2 or 31 ^ g l Sc8 32 # f6 Sc2
was also hopeless) 3l...Sc8 32 Wf6 jLc6
(32...#xa2 or 32...‘£>g6! was simpler) 33 Axc6
12
Sxc6 34 g4 £>g6
34.. fxg4l 35 Sxg4+ £ig6 would have won
far more quickly.
35 gxf5 exf5 (35...#d6! would have led to
the goal without any problems) 36 Wxf5
#xa2
Again 36...#d6! was better, with the pos­
sible continuation 37 #xh3 Sc2 38 #f3
Sxa2. At the end of the fourth hour of play I
contrived to greatly complicate my task.
37 #xh3
Also after 37 # d 3 Black would have had
to display inventiveness and accuracy:
37.. # a 4 ! 38 f5 Sd6! 39 £>c5 #c6+ 40 # e 4
Sd5l! 41 £>xb7 (41 fxg6 Sxc5) 4l..# x b 7 42
fxg6 f5 43 #e6+ &g7, and White is lost.
37.. .# c 2! (the only way!) 38 f5 Sc3 39 #g4?
Once again in time-trouble, Short failed to
find the more resilient defence 39 £id4 -
after 39...#e4+ 40 # g 2 #xg2+ 41 <&xg2 £ie5
I would still have had to work hard to con­
vert my extra pawn.
39.. .5 .b 3 40 fxg6 # c 6+ 0-1
The score increased to 3'A-'A, and the
outcome was practically decided. On one
occasion in such a situation Smyslov man­
aged to save a match with Botvinnik (1954),
but now there were different times and
different opponents. Although Short had

accomplished a competitive feat, by defeat­
ing Speelman, Gelfand, Karpov and Timman
in the candidates cycle, in the world cham­
pionship match he encountered a different
level of resistance, became anxious, began
getting into time-trouble and making blun­
ders, as I once did in my first match with
Karpov (1984/ 85).
I remember that, when Patrick Wolff ar­
rived in London after the fourth game, he
said to me: ‘Well, that’s it, the match is over.
Now we will work on finding a more worthy
opponent for you next time.’ He had already
begun helping Vishy Anand, who many
regarded as the favourite in the forthcoming
cycle.
However, Short had not given up hope,
sensing that I was psychologically unpre­
pared for a difficult battle. In the fifth game
for the sake of variety I played 1 d4, but on
encountering a novelty in the Nimzo-lndian
Defence I did not find the strongest con­
tinuation and had to be satisfied with a
quick draw (cf. Came N0.4, note to White's
llth move). Nigel was very satisfied at
having solved all his problems in 11 minutes,
whereas on my 18 moves I spent 1 hour, 29
minutes!
Short also demonstrated the quality of his
opening preparation in the sixth game, in
which he sprung a fresh surprise on me - for
the first time he played 6 i.c4 e6 7 i-b3
against the Najdorf. Before the match we
had not looked at it at all! After some
thought, I replied 7-.£»bd7, achieved a good
game (cf. Game No.3, note to White’s 9th
move), but I went wrong and Black’s position
became dangerous. My opponent attacked
fiercely and gave up a piece, but could only
obtain perpetual check.
The score became In the seventh
game I again varied my opening move - and
with success!
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Game 2
G.Kasparov-N.Short
World Championship Match
7th Game, London 21.09.1993
Ruy Lopez C88
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £>c6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 £>f6 5
0-0 i.e7 6 S e l b5 7 .&b3 0-0 (in the vain
hope of 8 c3 d5) 8 a4
One of two recommendations by Geller. I
tried the other - 8 h3 .&b7 9 d3 d6 10 a3 -
against Kamsky (Dos Hermanas 1996),
Adams (Linares 1999), Kramnik (Linares
2003) , Shirov (Linares 2004), Bacrot (Moscow
2004) , and Topalov (Linares 2005).
8.. .1.b7
A popular reply, although nowadays 8...b4
is deemed best. In the topsy-turvy first game
after 9 d3 d6 10 a5 &e6 11 £ibd2 Sb8 12
JLc4 Wc8 13 £»fi the surest way to maintain
equality was 13...h6 or 13-i.xc4 14 dxc4
£»d8! and ...£»e6. And if 12 £»c4 (Kasparov-
Grischuk, Moscow (rapid) 2002), then
12.. .£»d7 13 iLe3 i-f6 is sound.
9d3 d6
In the third game I gained an advantage
in the variation 9-Se8 10 £»bd2 (10 c3!?)
10 .. .jLf8 11 c3 h6 12 i.a2! d6?! (I2...b4 or
12.. .d5!? is correct) 13 £sh4?! (13 axbs axbs
13
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
1 4 1i rb3 is stronger, Jakovenko-Tomashevsky,
Moscow 2005) 13...^??! (I3...£ie7! would
have equalised) 14 £)g6 ^ e 7 15 ^xf8 &xf8
16 f3! - this move took me 23 minutes and
surprised even my trainers, to say nothing of
my opponent. On this occasion Short de­
cided to follow the most tried and tested
path.
10 £b d 2!?
Earlier 10 £ ic3 was preferred, for example:
I0...£)a5 l l ^.a 2 b4 12 £ie 2 2b8 13 £)g3 c5
14 iLc8 15 ®e3 iLe6 with equality
(Anand-Short, Amsterdam 1992). But Geller
advised me to play my knight to f l and
demonstrated a couple of key variations.
The most surprising thing is that with the
8 a4 plan I scored 3 out of 3 and effectively
won the match, although my entire prepara­
tion was largely based on the directive of the
venerable grandmaster: ‘You should play
£)bd2!’. But it was during the course of the
match that I had to delve into the subtleties
of this set-up. Indeed, from c3 all the same
the knight has to move (after ...bs-b4) to e2
and then to g3, whereas after £)bd2-fl it can
go to both g3 and e3. In addition, on f l the
knight does not hinder White so much as it
does on e2, and there is the useful develop­
ing move ^.d2l. Subsequent practice con­
firmed that Geller was strategically correct.
14
I0...£)d7
A rare move, with the idea of ...£ic5. I was
not concerned by 10...2e8 11 £)fl h6 12 JLd2
iLf8 13 c4l? (Kasparov-Tkachiev, Cannes
(rapid) 2001), and 10...®a5 11 .&a2 c5 12 £)fl
2e8 13 £)e3 h6 14 iLd2 (Kasparov-Leko,
Linares 2001) or 13...g6 14 iLd2 (Kasparov-
Vladimirov, Batumi (rapid) 2001).
11 c3!
Quickly and confidently played: the
bishop must be hidden on c2. The immedi­
ate 11 £)fl does not give anything real on
account of 11...£ic5 12 axb5 axb5 13 2xa8
VHxa8 14 i-d5 ^d8(b4).
11.. .£)c 5 (ll...±f6 12 £>fll, but not 12 ic 2
^ e7 13 d4 c5 with equality, Janosevic-
Bisguier, Birmingham 1975) 12 axb5
12 ± c 2 £)xa4 13 ii.xa4 bxa414 l rxa4 ^ h 8
and ...f7-f5 leads to double-edged play
(Anand-Timman, Amsterdam 1996).
12.. .axb5 (I2...£)xb3? 13 bxc6!) 13 Sxa8
^xa8
I had hardly looked at this capture -
13.. .1. rxa8 14 $Lc2 b4 is better, immediately
developing counterplay on the queenside.
After this I was planning 15 d4 bxc3 16 bxc3
®d7 17 £)fl ^-f6 (if 17...'ira l there is an
interesting pawn sacrifice - 18 £)e3l ®xc3?l
19 £)ds ®a5 20 2e3 with a dangerous
initiative) 18 d5!?, closing the centre with

the hope of creating an attack on the king
(Kasparov-Topalov, Linares 2004; cf. Game
No.95).
14 £.C2
14.~i.f6
After 14~.£se6 15 £>fl £sg5 16 £ e3 White
retains some pressure. The central blow
l4-.d5(!?) was condemned because of 15
exd5 'BfxdS 16 d4* exd4 17 cxd4 £sa6?l 18
£ie4 (Dely-Sax, Budapest 1970) or 17...£>d7?l
18 j*.e4 1 ^ 6 19 VHc2 (Ftacnik), but the clever
tactical trick 17...£xd4! 18 Sxe7 £ce6!, soon
forcing Sxe6, gives Black a rook and a pawn
for two minor pieces and quite good draw­
ing chances.
Here, for the first time in the game, I
thought for a long time, choosing between
two possibilities.
15 b4
Only this is a novelty. If 15 £>fl Short
could have replied 15-d5 16 exd5 WxdS 17
b4 (little is also promised by 17 £se3 W dl 18
£d2 Sd8) 17...£ia4! (but not 17...£>b7? 18
£ig3 Dely-Malich, Budapest 1965) 18 iLd2
Sd8 with an acceptable game.
15...£«6
I5~£>d7 was more passive, although, in
Averbakh’s opinion, Black would have had a
‘typical defensive position and chances of
gradually equalizing’.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
16 £ ifl!
16 jLb3 was inaccurate in view of I6...£se7
17 £ f l d5! 18 <£g3 £ig6 19 £>h5 dxe4
(I9...^.e7l? - Stohl) 20 dxe4 'tfxdl 21 £xf6+
gxf6 22 J.xdl c5 with a roughly equal end­
game.
16.. .1.b7?!
A turning-point. Now I6...£ie7?! was
weaker in view of 17 £>e3 or 17 d4l?. ‘The
bishop is doing nothing on the a8-hl diago­
nal, and Short intends to find a new future
for it’ (Averbakh). But he misses the last
chance for the relieving advance in the
centre - I6...d5l? 17 exd5 WxdS 18 £ie3 ^ 8
19 £g4! (19 £>d2 g6! and ,.JLg7 is equal)
19.. .e4l 20 £sxf6+ 1fxf6 21 dxe4 Vixc3, and
although after 22 2e3 or 22 .&d2 White has
a small advantage, it is difficult for him to
prevent ...c7-c5 and the exchange of the
valuable b4-pawn.
17 £*3 g6 18 i.b 3 i.g 7
Nigel probably did not see any particular
dangers for Black. After all, for the moment
White is manoeuvring only in his half of the
board, in the spirit of the classic Steinitz-
Chigorin game (Game No.25 in Part I of My
Great Predecessors).
19 h4!
Continuing to play ‘a la Steinitz’, although
19 £>c2 £se7 (19-M f 6 20 h4! - Stohl) 20 d4
15
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

also had its points, and if 20...exd4 21 deserved consideration.

£scxd4. 23.. .£sxh5 24 £sf5
‘In the press centre 24 4g2!? g4 25 £sh2
was also analysed, no satisfactory defence
for Black being found’ (Averbakh). 24 i.d5l?
looked no less tempting. But the game
continuation seemed more promising to me:
for the f5-knight the opponent is forced to
give up his important bishop, return the
pawn and go on to the defensive.
24.~i.xf5 25 exf5 Wd7
The alternative was 25~.£sf6 26 i.xg5 h6
27 i.h 4 V/d7, when there is not the reply
£sh4 (cf. the note to Black’s 26th move). In
Informator I gave the continuation 28 d4
19.~i.c8 exd4 29 £sxd4 £sxd4 30 cxd4 with the idea of
White is better after 19...£se7 20 £sg4 ic 8 30.. .11fxf5? 31 i.c2 and wins, but after
(Onischuk-Timman, Groningen 1996) 21 30.. .5e8! White has only a slight advantage.
£sh6+! 4h 8 22 £sg5! £sxg5 23 hxg5, etc. Therefore 28 i.c2l is better, for example:
20 h5 4h8?l 28.. .1fxf5 29 d4 Wg4 30 i.xf6 i.xf6 31 1 ^ 3
An unnecessary move, since the active 1 ^ 6 32 # e2 # g 4 33 4g2 or 28...Se8 29 £sd2
...f7-f5 merely aggravates Black’s problems. d5 30 i.b3, retaining a persistent initiative,
20.. .£se7 (Ftacnik) should have been pre­ although all the play still lies ahead..
ferred.
21 £sd5
In Informator I condemned 21 g3(!?) be­
cause of 21...f5 22 hxg6 f4! ‘with an attack’,
but this is an illusion: after 23 £sds! hxg6 24
4g2 or 23~.£se7 24 £sxe7 Wxey 25 4g2
thanks to the open h-file it is White who is
attacking.
21.. .g5
Black weakens his kingside still further,
but he already had a difficult choice:
21.. .gxh5?! 22 g3! followed by £sh4 or 4g2
and S h i was bad for him, as was 21...£sf4?!
22 £sxf4 exf4 23 i.xf4 i.xc3 24 i.g5! f6 26 i.xg5
(24.~i.f6 25 i.h6) 25 i.d2 with a powerful A natural developing move (in contrast to
attack. 26 £sxg5 £sf6), which also has a tactical
22 £se3l £sf4 23 gB point: 26...1i fxf5? is not possible because of
At the cost of a temporary pawn sacrifice, 27 i.d5l h6 (after 27...1fd7 28 £sh4 £sf6 29
White invades with his knight on f5. How­ i.xf6 i.xf6 30 # f3 or 27...f6 28 i.d2 £se7 29
ever, the cool-headed 23 £sh2l? (Stohl) £sh4 ^ 7 30 i.b3 ^ 8 31 g4 Black loses a

16

piece) 28 Ah4 £>d8 (28..Md7 29 £>h2) 29
Ae7! <SMr6 30 Ae4, winning the exchange
and the game. This apparently distressed
Short...
26.. .H6?
At the most inappropriate moment!
26.. .d5? was also weak in view of 27 4 ^2
with the threat of S hi. The only defence was
26.. .£yf6, to which I would have replied 27
£ih4 or 27 Ac2 with an advantage (but alas,
by no means the sort of advantage I had
been hoping for).
27 £>h4?!
Too slow. After the game I pointed out the
more accurate 27 l4 >g2!? and S h i, for exam­
ple: 27...1rxf5 28 S h i Wg6 29 Ad5 £>b8(d8)
30 £>xe5! or 29...hxg5 30 £>xg5 Ah6 31 #xh5
with a clear advantage.
But a sudden tactical stroke, not men­
tioned by any of the commentators, was even
stronger: 27 Axh6! Axh6 28 £ixe5! dxe5 29
#xh5 Wd6 (29...'&’h7? 30 f6) 30 Axf7 # f6 31
Ads l4 >g7 (3l...£>e7 32 Sxe5!) 32 Axc6 #xc6
33 Sxe5 Sf6 34 Sc5, and Black is lost.
27.. .£>f6 28 Axf6 Axf6 29 Wh5
29-.^h7
If 29...'4>g7 Averbakh gave 30 Se4 Sh8(?)
31 £ig6! and wins, but after 30...d5 31 Sg4+
l4 >h7 32 £>f3 £>e7 33 d4 e4 34 £>e5 # e8 and
...c7-c6 Black holds on. 30 £if3 £ie7 31 g4 is
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
far more unpleasant for him, or else 30 £ig6!
immediately, and then 30...Sg8 31 Ads £id8
32 £>g2 c6 33 Ab3! or 30...Se8 31 Ads £>d8
32 4 ^ 2 c6 33 Ae4! with the threat of S hi.
30 £>g2?
The wrong route! ‘The world champion
also criticised this move, pointing out that
30 £rf3 was better, with a big advantage’
(Averbakh). Thus if 30...£\e7, then 31 g4 4 ^7
32 Se3! We8 33 d4 is good (Stohl). However,
the knight could also have jumped forward -
30 £>g6! Sg8 (30...Se8 31 4 >g2 and S hi) 31
Ads WeS 32 £ih8!, when Black faces virtu­
ally insoluble problems: 32...Axh8 33 Axf7
# f8 34 Axg8+ #xg8 35 S a l Af6 36 Sa6
£>e7 37 Sa7 c6 38 c4, etc.
30.. .£>e7 31 £«3 £>g8
White’s mistake would have been empha­
sised by 3l..A.g5!? - now he misses the
target with both 32 f4 exf4 33 gxf4 Axf4 34
Axf7 ^ 8 ! (instead of my Informator sug­
gestion 34...Ag5? 35 f6! and wins) 35 f6 £if5
or 35 Ae6 #c6, and 32 Axf7 Axe3 33 Ag6+
&q7 34 Sxe3 Sf6 (Stohl), while after 32 d4
exd4 33 cxd4 ^ g 8 34 # f3 Axe3 35 Sxe3 £>f6
Black’s position is merely slightly worse.
32 d4 (a thrust in the opponent’s time-
trouble; 32 1i rf3!? c6 33 c4 was steadier)
32.. .exd4 33 cxd4
33...Axd4?
17
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
The decisive error: Black captures a poi­
soned pawn! After 33„JLg5 he could have
defended successfully: 34 f4 ii-f6 35 fld l c6
or 34 ^ 3 ^.xe3 35 Sxe3 £)f6 (as in the
variation with 3i....&g5!?).
34 £)g4 (threatening 35 f6 iLxf6 36 ®xh6+!)
34.. .^g7 35 £)xh6! i.f 6 (or 35-^xh6 36
#g5+ &h7 37 .&C2!) 36 ^.xf7!
The final stroke. Black resigned (1-0).
A very nervy game and in its way a typical
one: Short regularly ‘cracked’ in the time-
troubles that pursued him. Nevertheless, at
the end of this clash he declared: 'For the first
time in the match Kasparov won thanks to
his own strong play, and not my blunders.'
And the press commented on the pretty
finish: 'Garry, not suspecting that Princess
Diana was present in the royal box, produced
a truly royal game’.
The score rose to SVi-iyi. In the eighth
game, to his credit, Nigel did not lose heart
and continued fighting in the fearless man­
ner of the 19th century.
Game 3
N.Short-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match
8th Game, London 23.09.1993
Sicilian Defence B861
*8
1 e4 C5 2 £)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 £)f6 5
£ ic3 a6 6 Jtc4 (6 jLg5 - Game No.l) 6...e6 7
.&b3 (right to the end of the match I had to
try and solve the problem of this variation)
7.. .£ibd7
From the 12th game I began playing
7...^c6 (Game N0.5), and from the 16th -
7...b5 (cf. Game No.79), but all the time I was
under some pressure.
8 f4 (currently 8 Ji.g5 followed by f2-f4 is in
fashion) 8...£)c5
18
9 e5
Not the most logical plan. According to
Fischer, it is correct to attack the e6-point,
although Black is no longer frightened by
either 9 f5 £ e7 10 ®f3 0-0 11 ±e3 e5 12
£)de2 b5 13 ±d5 Ib 8 14 b4?l £)cd7 15 0-0
(6th game) 15 ...^b 6!, or 9 ®f3 b5 10 f5 &d7
11 fxe6 fxe6 12 jLg5 JLe7 13 0-0-0?! 0-0 14
e5 (10th game) 14...^d5! 15 .&xe7 £)xe7 16
®e3 d5, or 9 0-0 £)cxe4 10 £)xe4 £)xe4 11 f5
e5 12 Wh5 when he has a choice:
1 ) 12..Me7 (I2...1rd7?! 13 i.g5) 13 #f3
£)c5 14 £)c6! #c7 15 .id s a5 (15—^.d7?! 16
£)b4) 16 ^.g5! (16 ^.e3?!, as Spanish TV
viewers headed by lllescas played against me
in 1991, is weaker) l6..JLd7 (but not
I6...2a6? 17 £)d8!! f6 18 £)f7 Hg8 19 iLe3 g6
20 <£>gs! and wins, Topalov-Kasparov, Am­
sterdam 1996) 17 £)e7! ix e 7 18 JLxe7 f6! 19
®g4 .&e6! 20 ±xe6 xe7 21 ±d5 and,
thanks to the insecure black king, White’s
chances are slightly better;
2) 12...d5! 13 l e i ±c5 (13—Wc7!?) 14
Sxe4 l.xd4+ (14...0-0 15 fig4 .i.xd4+ 16 <4>hl
e4 17 c3 ,&.f6 is also unclear) 15 ite3 (15
2xd4 # b 6l) 15...0-0 16 lx d 4 exd4 17 ^.xd4
f6, and although White has excellent play for
the exchange, ways for him to gain an
advantage have not been discovered (Topa­
lov-Short, Amsterdam 1996).
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

9...dxe5 13 % 3 h4 14 Wg4 g5l?

Analyzing this game, I came to the con­
clusion that 9...£)fd7!? was even better - this
is an idea which also occurs in other varia­
tions of the Sicilian. Now White cannot
defend his e5-pawn with Af4, but after 10
exd6 £)f6 and ...Axd6 Black has a comfort­
able game. I was intending to play this in the
tenth game, but Short changed course.
10 fxe5 £)fd7 11 i.f4 b5
At one time I discussed this variation with
Magerramov, and Black's flexible position
very much appealed to me: he has no prob­
lems with his development, and the knight
on c5 both defends the e6-pawn and keeps
the b3-bishop under fire. White has to act
energetically.
12 Wg4
12 We2 Ab7 13 0-0-0 is more solid (an ex­
ample: Topalov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1996).
‘Short expressed unconcealed astonish­
ment regarding this sharp move, on which
Kasparov thought for 40 minutes!’ (Aver­
bakh). Later Short, Mikhalchishin and Ftacnik
all suggested 14...h3, but after 15 g3 this is
more likely to favour White.
On the other hand, Internet practice of
the 2000s indicated a less eccentric way to
equalise: 14—^f6! 15 exf6 Wxd4 16 fxg7
1i rxg7 17 We2 JLe7, etc. This is similar to the
12...£)f6 continuation, except that the h7-
pawn is now on h4, which hinders Black’s
...0-0, but gives him counterplay with ...Ab7
and ...h4-h3.

15 0-0-0!
In the best traditions of gambit chess! In
the press conference after the game Nigel
said: ‘Of course, this is the only way to play! I
was taught that in the opening you have to
12.. .h5! develop your pieces, but the opponent didn’t
A strong novelty, disrupting the smooth develop his, and I had to punish him.’ Be­
course of events. I advanced the pawn with sides, White had no choice: 15 Axg5? £)xe5
pleasure, anticipating interesting complica­ or 15 Wxg5? Wxg5 16 Axg5 Jtb7 was weak,
tions. After 12...^b6? 13 0-0-0 (Zapolskis- as well as 15 £)xe6?l fxe6 16 Axe6 £)b6! 17
Tataev, Stare Mesto 1992) or 13 AgS Wc7 14 i f 5 We7, etc.
0-0-0 White has a powerful attack, but 15...We7?
12.. .£)f6 13 exf6 Wxd4 (Zapolskis) or Alas, here I became nervous and I did not
12.. JLb7l? (Hiibner, Mikhalchishin) is per­ find the correct defence. Immediately after­
fectly acceptable. wards l5...Sh6 appealed to me, with the

19
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

idea of 16 jLxg5? 2g6 or 16 #xg5? #xg5 17

.&xg5 Hh5 18 $Lf4 .&b7, but the subtle 16
i.e3! &b7 (l6...£ixe5? 17 £>c6!) 17 £if3
(Nielsen) emphasises the vulnerability of the
advanced Black pawns.
As often happens, the best reply to the
gambit was its acceptance - 15...gxf4! 16
£>xe6! £ixe6 17 Jixe61Blre7! (not 17...2h6? 18
i.f5! or 17...fxe6? 18 #g6+ <4>e7 19 2d6!
£ixe5 20 #g5+) 18 Axd7+! (pointed out by
nearly everyone, apart from Short: in Infor-
mator he gave only 18 £id5?! £>xe5!)
18.. .jLxd7 19 #f3, and here not the losing
19.. .Hc8(?) 20 £ld5 -&c6 21 £lf6+ #xf6 22 20 Sd6!
exf6 jLxf3 23 2hel+ (Mikhalchishin, Ftacnik), A blow of fearful strength. In contrast to
but 19...Sa7! with the idea of 20 £>d5 Jic6 21 20 £>d6+? .&xd6 21 &xd6 #xg2 22 2xe6+
£if6+ #xf6 22 exf6 i.xf3 23 2hel+ 2e7! 24 fxe6 23 #xe6+ <£f8 24 #f5+ &g7 25 2 d l
fxe7 i.x d l 25 exf8#+ <4>xf8 and ...h4-h3 with &d5! 26 i.e3 £if8 27 2 g l # x g l+ 28 i.x g l
equality (Speelman), or 20 S h el #66 21 #f2 2h6, etc.
(21 £id5?! i.e7!) 21...Sb7 22 2d6! #04! 23 20.. .£xd6
£ie4 i.e7 24 £if6+ i.xf6 25 exf6+ <4>d8 26 The rook has to be taken, since the alter­
2e7 h3, and White has no more than a draw. natives are fatal: 20...1#rxe4? 212xe6+, 20...f5
21 exf6 £.xd6 22 #xe6+ <4>d8 23 £>xd6 *c7
24 £ f4 (Stohl), or 20...£>xe5 21 £if6+ &e7 22
Shdl! (a lethal move: 22...£>xg4? 23 Sd7+!)
22.. .#xd6 23 2xd6 <4>xd6 24 #d4+ &c7 25
jLd2! b4 26 jLf4 and wins.
21 £ad6+ £ f8 22 2 f l £lxe5 23 #xe6 #d5
The only defence. I was in a terrible mood:
I felt that I had walked right into trouble.

16 £>c6!l
‘A wonderful idea’ (Averbakh). I thought
that Black had everything defended, but
Nigel was inspired and he conducted this
phase of the game brilliantly.
I 6...£lxb3+ 17 axb3 # c 5 18 £ie4 (sacrificing
a knight, White suddenly obtains a decisive
attack) l 8...#xc6 19 £xg5 -£-b7

20

24fixf7+?
In the heat of the battle my opponent
could not resist the most flamboyant con­
tinuation of the attack, missing the winning
24 1^6! Sh7 (24...&g8 25 £>f5l) 25 Sf5!
(making quiet moves when behind on
material is psychologically very difficult - it
Tesembles aerobatics!) 25...'&g8 26 fixes ot
25...Hrxg2 26 #e7+ (26 #xe5, suggested by
Short in Informator, will also do) 26...^g8 27
fixes with the irresistible threat of JLf6 or
£>xb7.
24—^xf7 (24...'^>g8? 25 fig7+!, mating) 25
i.e7+ &g7 26 # f 6+ &h7 27 £sxf7 Whs!
A rook and the exchange up (!), Black has
to find literally the only moves to save him­
self.
28 £lg5+ &g8 29 # e 6+ &g7 30 1 ^6+ (30
JLf6+!, but with time-tmuble approaching
Short repeats moves to gain time on the
clock) 30...<^g8 31# e 6+ &g7 32 i.f 6+! &h6!
33 £>f7+!
33 #67?! (with the idea of 33..Me81 34
#g7+ ^ 5 35 £)e6! and mate) did not work
in view of 33.Sag8! 34 £lf7+ ^ 6 35 £lxh8+
5xh8 36 i.xh8 Wg5+! 37 #xg5+ &xg5 38 g3
hxg3 39 hxg3 &g4 40 JLe5 ^.ds! 41 &d 2
■if3! 42 &d3 £e4+ ot 42 <4 ,c3 £e4!. ‘A study­
like ending with opposite-colour bishops:
White does not manage to create the second
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
passed pawn, which he needs foT a win’
(Mikhalchishin).
33.. .6h7 34&g5+
White would have retained an extTa
pawn and winning chances with 34 £>xh8
5xh8 35 Wd7+I (afteT 35 #67+?! &g6 36
jLxh8 #g5+! the already familiaT drawn
ending with opposite-colouT bishops arises)
35.. .^g6 36 .&xh8 (Stohl), although afteT
36.. .#rg5+ 37 ^ b l # rxg2 a draw is more
probable.
34.. .6 h 6 35 £xh 8+?! (35 £)f7+ &h7 36
£>xh8 was preferable - see above) 35—# g 6
(35...'^>xg5? 36 #e5+, and again mate) 36
£}f7+ &h7 37 # e7
37...#xg2?
A serious error in the opponent’s time-
trouble. 37...'&g8! was essential - this diffi­
cult, far from obvious move would have
maintained the balance: 38 #xb7 (38 £>e5?
#h7!) 38...fif8! 39 £>e5 flfl+ 40 &d2 #d6+
41 &e2 (41 ^ d 3 &xh8) 41...#dl+, etc.
38 i.e5?
With his flag about to fall, Short also fal­
tered. He could have won with 38 jk.d4! - a
flamboyant and also far from obvious move.
The h2-pawn is given up with check, but the
white king hides from the pursuit: 38...#hl+
39 &d2 #xh2+ 40 <4>c3 #g3+ 41 &b4, etc.
But now his king is trapped.
21
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
38.. .# fl+ 39 &d2 # f 2+ 40 <±>d3 3+ 41
&d2 t f 2+ Vi-Vi
That day Nigel played excellently, and for
the first time in the match I found myself on
the verge of defeat. But two errors by the
opponent (24 Sxf7+ and 38 &.e5) allowed
me to save the game.
In the ninth game I again changed my
opening move, for which I now had good
reasons: after the opening embarrassment
in the fifth game, order had to be restored in
the Nimzo-lndian!
Came 4
G.Kasparov-N.Short
World Championship Match
9th Game, London 25.09.1993
Nimzo-lndian Defence E35
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e6 3 £sc3 ^.b4 4 ®c2 (4 e 3 -
Game Nos.41, 52, 69) 4...d5 (4...0-0 - Game
Nos.68,91,106; 4...C5 - Game No.90) 5 cxd5
I also employed 5 a3 ^.xc3+ 6 #xc3 £>e4 7
#c2 (Game No.97), but here Nigel prepared a
new plan - 6...dxc4 7 1Srxc4 b61? and ...jLa6,
which went into operation later (Baburin-
Short, Port Erin 1998). True, now 6...0-0 is
preferred, and only after 7 £>f3 - 7...dxc4 8
1®rxc4 b6 (the source game: Rubinstein-
Bogoljubow, Karlsbad 1929).
5.. .exd5
Later S-WxdS became fashionable, with
the idea of 6 <£>f3 #f5! or 6 e3 c5, as was
played against me by Nikolic (Moscow
Olympiad 1994), Anand (2nd match game,
New York 1995; Frankfurt (rapid) 1999) and
Kramnik (l8th match game, Moscow (blitz)
1998; Linares 1999; 2nd match game, Mos­
cow (rapid) 2001). In the set-up with 5...exd5
I already had several wins and a number of
fresh ideas.
22
6 i.g5 h6 7 ±h4 c5 (7-.g5 - Game No.63 in
Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov)
8 dxc5 g5 9 iLg3 £se4
After weakening his pawns in the centre
and on the kingside, Black immediately
attacks the c3-point. White can parry the
threats in one of two ways: either launch a
counter-attack, even at the cost of material
sacrifices, seeing as the black king is poorly
covered, or exchange Black’s active pieces
and exploit his pawn weaknesses in the
endgame. The variations of both plans are
closely interwoven in the calculations, and in
avoiding the first one can end up in the
second, and vice versa. In the present game
White carhes out the second plan, the
overall drawback to which is that the great
simplification often ends in a draw.
10 e3 Was!?
A novelty from the fifth game, which be­
came the main line. The usual I0...£)c6 l l
<£>f3 would have led to a position from my
duel with Spassky (Game N0.65 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
11 £>e2!
‘After thorough home preparation Kas­
parov makes a move which at first sight is
very risky’ (Averbakh). After the weaker 11
i.e5 0-0 12 JLd3 £)c6 13 i.xe4 £sxe5 14
JLxdS iLg4! the position is equal (5th game).
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

11.. .M S And after 12...f6, suggested by me in In-

The most natural reply. The alternative is formator, 13 ixb8! 2xb8 14 £sd4 is now
11.. .£sc6 12 aB! i f 5 13 I ' d £sxc5 14 axb4 more effective, exploiting the weakness of
£sd3+ 15 ^ d 2 ®xb4 16 Sa4 £ixcl 17 Sxb4 the light squares: 14...£sxc3? 15 WxfS ^e4+
£sxe2 18 Sxb7 £sxg3 19 hxg3 d4 20 exd4 16 <^>e2! and wins (V.Popov-Loginov, Kazan
£sxd4 21 £sd5 Sd8 22 i c 4 0-0 23 &C3 £ie 2+ 2001) or 14..Jth7 (I4...1.d7 15 &d3 or 15
24 ^ b 4 ^d4! with a slightly inferior, but JLe2) 15 ^.d3, when 15...£sxc3?! is dubious in
tenable endgame (Kasparov-Timman, Nov­ view of 16 itxg6+ (16 0-0!?) I6...‘&>e7
gorod 1995). (l 6...^f 8? 17 0-0 £se4 18 ,&,xh7 Sxh7 19 f3
12 Jte5! and wins - S.lvanov) 17 0-0! £se4 18 ix h 7
This was my new idea. When I showed it to 2xh7 19 a3, regaining the piece and retain­
my trainers they only frowned, but the more ing a persistent initiative, and therefore
we looked at the variations, the more we liked Black has to reconcile himself to a depress­
White’s position. At any event, in practice this ing endgame after l5..Jb<c3+ 16 bxc3
is more dangerous for Black than 12 iLxb8 Wxc3+ 17 Wxc3 £ sxc3 18 <&d2 l.xd3 19
2xb8 13 £sd4 &d7! 14 £sb3 &xc3+ 15 bxc3 <&xc3.
Wxc3+ 16 Wxc3 ^xc3 with equality (I.Sokolov- 13 £sd4 iLg6?
van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005). Also a seemingly natural move, but on
this occasion a poor one! The bishop could
have been left en prise, and in more than one
way:
1 ) 13...£sd7 14 £ixf5 £sxe5 15 £se7+ &g7
16 £sxd5 itxc3+ 17 bxc3 2ad8 18 S d l £sf6
19 £sxf6 2 xdl+ 20 <^>xdl (after 20 Wxdl
1 ^X03+ 21 Wd2 Wxd2+ 22 <&xd2 2d8+ 23 <&>c3
<^>xf6 White cannot hold on to his extra
material) 20...‘&’xf6 21 JLe2 WxcS with good
compensation for the pawn (Kotanjian-
Khalifman, Budva 2009), but 15 id 3 !? is
stronger (our analysis, tested in 2003);
2) I3...2e8 - to me this seemed the safest:
Here Short thought for 42 minutes... After now little is promised by 14 £sxf5 2xe5 15
the game he admitted that this was a critical £sxh6+ >4^7 16 £sg4 2e8(e7, e6), or 14 Jb<b8
moment for him. Unexpectedly Black faced £sxc3 (I 4...ig 6 15 i d 3 2axb8 16 0-0 WxcS is
difficult problems. also possible, Atalik-Short, Sarajevo 2003) 15
12...0-0 £sxf5 ^ e 4 + 16 4>dl 2axb8 with equality;
Again the most natural reply. I2...£sxc3? 3) I 3...^xc 3 (the sharpest line) 14 £sxfs
13 ®xf5 £se4+ 14 £sc3! 0-0 15 A.d3 (Karpov- (14 ®xf5 <^e4+ 15 4>dl £sc6! or 15 4>e2
Short, Prague (rapid) 2002), and l 2..Jtg 6? 13 2e8!? is extremely risky) 14...£se4+ 15 ^ d l
®dl! (Speelman) 13...f6 14 a3! £sxc5 15 £sg3 £sc6 16 i d 6 jt e l 17 £ixh6+ 4>h8! or
or 13„.£sxc5 14 £sf4! gxf4 (l4-£se4 15 ®xd5) 16..JLxc5, also with a roughly equal game
15 ^.xh 8 £se4 16 a3 ixc3+ 17 ,&xc3 £sxc3 18 (Bareev-Carlsen, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005).
®d2 are both bad for Black. However, the battles in this unusual set-

23
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
up are continuing, and I would not hurry to
make any final assessments.
14 ®b3! (the point of my idea) 14...®xc3
Short seeks salvation in an inferior end­
game, and this is better than 14...£ixc5?! 15
#xg6+ fxg6 16 ®xa5 .&xa5 17 E d l or the
attempt to keep the queens on - I4...1i rd8 (or
14.. .1.a4 15 ^.d3) 15 &d3 4k6(d7) 16 i.d4,
when Black has no real compensation for the
pawn.
15 ^.xc3! (15 £ixa5?! £ia4+!) 15..~&xc2 16
®xa5 i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 (the threat of ®xb7
helps White to exchange the weak c5-pawn)
17.. .b6 18 &d2!?
It would appear that this intermediate
move was underestimated by Nigel, who
was more expecting 18 4k)3 bxc5 (after
18.. JLxb3? 19 axb3 bxc5 20 0-0-0! 2d8 21
JLc4 Black again loses material) 19 ®xc5 Sc8
20 E el lxc5 21 E xc2 ®d7 22 4 )d2 Sb8 with
chances of defending a pawn down.
18.. .bxa5?
After this Black’s pawns are depreciated
and he can no longer calmly capture on c5.
His problems would also have increased
after l8..JLa4?l 19 ®b3! ®d7 (l9-i.xb3? 20
axb3 bxc5 21 h4! is even worse) 20 cxb6
axb6 21 £)d4. But l8..Jtg6 19 cxb6 axb6 20
4}b3 £)d7 was more resilient.
19 &xc2 Ec8
24
Essentially the only move: E d l was
threatened, and if 19...4kl7? then 20 c6 4 k 5
(20...4k)6? 21 iLa6! and wins) 21 h4l, break­
ing up the opponent’s kingside and not
forgetting about the threat of EdlxdS.
20 h4!
An energetic reply, and the culmination of
our analysis. ‘White is a pawn up, Black’s
pawn structure is weakened, and the white
bishop is stronger than the knight - all this
heralds an easy win for the world champion’
(Averbakh).
20.. .®d7
Things are hopeless after 20...Sxc5 21
hxg5 hxg5 22 Eh5 f6 23 i.d3 ®d7 24 S h i
<Af7 25 Sh7+ &e6 26 g4 with the threat of
iLf5+ (or 26...SC7 27 Slh6! and f2-f4). White
also has a big advantage after 20...g4 21 &e2
g3 22 fxg3 Sxc5 23 S ab i ®d7 24 Sb5 and
Edl, or 21...h5 22 Sabi! (my Informator
move 22 f3 is less clear because of 22...Sxc5
23 fxg4 hxg4 24 i.xg4 4k6) 22...£id7 23 Sb5
®xc5 24 E d l £te4 25 Sd3, etc.
21 hxg5 ®xc5
If 21...hxg5 22 Eh5 f6, then 23 .&d3! (but
not the Informator move 23 ^.a6?l)
23.. .®xc5? 24 £f5 (Averbakh) or 23...Exc5 24
S ahl, as in the previous note. In his charac­
teristic manner Short attempts to create
counterplay, but this attempt is refuted.

22 gxh6! £>e4 23 c4! £sxf2 24 Sh4! (matters
are decided: with Telief I sank back in my
chaiT - and began to lose concentration)
24.. .f5
Also not believing in 24...dxc4 25 itxc4.
25 Sd4?!
The lateral attack on the weak pawn
would have won faT more simply - 25 2hs!
with the idea of 25...‘&h7?! (25...Sf8 26 cxds)
26 Sxf 5 £>g4 27 2f7+! &xh6 28 ±d3 £sxe3+
29 &C3! and 2 h l+ or 25...£>g4 26 S e l dxc4
27 e4l, etc.
25.. .dxc4 26 ±xc4+ &h7?
A mined square! 26...‘&h8 27 S fl £>g4 28
&d2 Sf8 with the intention of ...£ixh6 was
more Tesilient (but not immediately
28.. .£sxh6? 29 g4!).
27 S fl £sg4 28 &d2 Sab8
Desperation. 28...Sf8 was now bad be­
cause of 29 Sxf5! Sxf5 30 ±d3 &xh6 31
i.xf5 &f6 32 Sa4 ot 3l...£se5 32 2d5 2e8 33
e4 and wins. And if 28...£>xh6, then 29 g4!
with a decisive attack: 29...£>xg4 30 Sxf5
£>h6 31 2g5! ot 29...fxg4 30 Sd7+! &g6
(30...&h8 31 i.d3!) 31 i.d3+ &g5 32 Sg7+
&h4 33 2 hl+ and Sxh6.
29 Sxf5 Sb2+ 30 &d3 Sxg2 31 i.e 6! Sc7
32 Sxa5?!
A pity: 32 Sh5! would have forced instant
capitulation afteT 32...£tf2+ 33 ^ e2 and &f3
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
ot 32...£rf633 i.f5+ * h 8 34 h7.
32.. .£>f2+ (if 32...£)xh6 there is not only 33
Sd7+ which I gave in Informator, but also
the winning 33 Sh4!) 33 &e2 Sh2
33-.^ h l+ 34 *f3 Sg3+ 35 * f4 2 g l 36
Ug5 ot 34...Sf2+ 35 &g4 Sh2 36 2c4, etc.,
would also not have saved Black.
34 &f3 £>hl (forced, alas) 35 Sd7+
Again missing a quick win - 35 2a6! Sf2+
36 &g4 or 35...&xh6 36 Sg4l. But, assuming
that White could win as he pleased, I de­
cided simply to exchange the h6-pawn foT
the a7-pawn and to remain with two extra
passed pawns (and with the black knight
stranded on hi). Tormented by the question
of why Short wasn’t resigning, I gradually
stopped understanding anything...
35.. .5xd7 36 i.xd7 &xh6 37 Sxa7 (this
suggested itself, but 37 e4!? was more
forceful) 37...&g5 38 2 a 5+ &f6 39 i.c 6 2c2
40 Sf5+1?
‘A harmless joke, which allows Black to
prolong the resistance. 40 Sh5! was more
incisive’ (AveTbakh).
40...&e7 (of course, not 40...^xf5? 41 ^.e4+
andi.xc2) 41 Ad5 &d6
Or 41 ...£sf2 42 i.b3 Sb2 43 Se5+ * f6 44
Sd5 and e3-e4, beginning the advance of the
pawns.
42 Sh5 2d2 43 2xhl?!
25
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
If I had cooled down slightly and stopped
to think, I would have played 43 a4l, since
after 43-2xd5 (43~.£>f2 44 a5l) 44 2xd5+
*xd5 45 e4+ we have a classic case of the
black king being unable to stop both pawns.
43—2xd5 44 a4 2 a 5 45 2 a l (this is also an
inaccuracy - 45 2h4l was correct) 45—* e5
46 e4??
A complete black-out - a dreadful mis­
take, reflecting the state of my nervous
system in this match. Any waiting move
followed by the switching of the rook to the
fourth rank and the advance of the pawns
would have won, for example: 46 2a2 *f5
47 e4+ *e5 48 *e3 * d6 (48...2a8 49 a5) 49
* d 4 *c6 (49...‘&e6 50 *c4 and *b4) 50
2 c2+ and 2c4.
46...*e6??
Again a typical situation: the opponent
immediately returns the favour! There was a
draw by 46...2c5! 47 2a3 2c4 48 a5 2xe4 49
a6 2f4+ 50 *e3 2f8 or 47 a5 2c3+ 48 *g4
*>xe4 49 a6 2c8 50 a7 2a8 51 2a5 * d 4 52
*f5 *04 53 * e6 *>b4 54 2 a l *>c5 55 *d7
*>b6 56 2bl+ *c5! 57 2b7 2h81. ‘This posi­
tion is in all the endgame guides, including a
book recently published by Batsford, one of its
co-authors being Speelman, one of Short’s
seconds! But apparently the challenger was
already reconciled to defeat’ (Averbakh).
26
47 * e3 (now the march of the pawns is
unavoidable) 47...*d6 48 *d4 *d7 49 *c4
* c 6 50 *b4 Se5 5 1 2cl+ * b 6 52 2 c 4 1-0
Although not without its mistakes, this
was a very interesting game. Psychologically
it set the seal on the match: the score be­
came 7-2, or 5-0 with four draws. Short
found himself in an even worse situation
than I did in my first match with Karpov
(1984/85): in that match the winner was to
be the first to win six games, not counting
draws, whereas in this one each draw
brought the leader closer to his goal. Never­
theless, the subsequent struggle in the
match was quite tense, and I had to solve
numerous problems.
Already in the tenth game Short was
closer than ever to a win, although he chose
an incorrect opening variation (cf. Game
No.3, note to White’s 9th move). After my
error on the 14th move he flamboyantly
sacrificed his queen and developed a dan­
gerous initiative, and after 28...1i rxh2? 29
£sc6 he obtained an absolutely won position,
but in his usual desperate time-trouble he
allowed me to escape in what turned out to
be one of the most fascinating games of the
match. When he was signing the score-
sheets, Nigel could hardly hold back the
tears...
In the 11 th game I played the Scotch
Game for the first time, employed an inter­
esting novelty and reached an obviously
better endgame (cf. Game No.14, note to
Black’s 10th move), but then I squandered
my advantage, almost overstepped the
mark, and after adventures reached the
haven of a draw.
Also typical of the entire match was the
fighting 12th game, where an unusual
position with a disrupted material balance
occurred.

Came 5
N.Short-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match
12th Game, London 02.10.1993
Sicilian Defence B88
1 e4 C5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
<S^c3 a6 6 JLc4 (6 JLg5 - Came No.l) 6...e6 7
jLb3 £>c6
After three tries I gave up 7...£>bd7 (Game
No.3), but I was not yet ready for 7-b5 (cf.
Game No.79).
8 f4 £ e7 9 i.e3 0-0
1 0 #f3
This is what I was reckoning on. Later
Short played 10 0-0 £>xd4 l l ^.xd4 b5 12 e5!
(12 a3 JLb7 is equal, Fischer-Spassky, 4th
match game, Reykjavik 1972) I2...dxe5 13
fxe5 £>d7 14 £>e4 .&b7 15 £>d6 jLxd6 16 exd6
(14th game) or 13„.£>e8 14 £le4 .&b7 15 ^ 3
'Wcl 16 c3 (Amsterdam 1996), and although
both times I gained a draw, I did not like
Black’s position.
10...£»<d4 11 £xd4 b5 12 £ x f6!
The best way of fighting for an advan­
tage: since 12 e5? dxe5 is bad for White, he
first removes his bishop with gain of tempo.
After 12 a3 -&b7 13 0-0-0 (Istratescu-Buturin,
Bucharest 1992) there was the promising
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
novelty I3...b4l 14 axb4 a5 with a counter­
attack.
12.. .jLxf6 (l2...gxf6?l 13 f5 does not impress,
Bednarski-Adamski, Polanica-Zdroj 1972) 13
e5 £ h 4 + 14 g3 2b8!
I had discussed this variation with Mager-
ramov. lA-.Wbe? is obviously worse in view
of 15 gxh4 (Michalek-Bagaturov, Brno 1991)
15.. JLb7 I6«f2!.
15 gxh4!?
A new direction: White accepts the bishop
sacrifice! After the well-known 15 0-0-0 JLb7
(l5..JLe7l?) 16 £>e4 I was planning l6..JLxe4
(16.. JLe7 17 f5 is more tedious) 17 #xe4 d5
18 1 ^ 3 (18 JLxd5?l exd5 19 Sxd5 is weak in
view of lg.-^aS!) l8...jLe7 19 h4 (Moro-
zevich-Mitenkov, Moscow 1991) 19 .1i rb6!
with excellent counterplay: the frontal
attack with 20 c3 (and &C2) is parried by
20.. .b4l.
15.. .1.b7 16 £>e4 dxe5?!
Preventing 0-0-0 and creating the threat
of ...1i ,d4 or ...f7-f5- At the time I was proud of
this pretty move and in Informator I even
attached an exclamation mark to it. How­
ever, in fact l6...#xh4+ is better, when 17
* f l dxe5 18 S g l 2fd8! 19 1 ^ 3 I rxg3 20
£>xg3 exf4 21 £>h5 g6 22 £>xf4 Sd4 23 £>d3
a5 or 22...Sd2 23 h3 Sh2 gives Black full
compensation for the piece, while 17 ^ 3
27
C a rry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
•xg3+ 18 £ixg3 i.x h l 19 £ixhl dxe5 20 fxe5
a5! leads to a double-edged ending with
rook and pawn against bishop and knight
(Votava-Rotman, Rishon Le Ziyyon 1993).
17 S g l g6
This was the whole point: the immediate
17...1,d4? 18 £\f6+ *h 8 1 9 1 ^3 ot 17...f5? 18
^ 3 is not possible. 17...'i,xh4+? 18 ^ 3
Hrxg3+ (l8...Wh6 19 £ig5!) 19 ^xg3 exf4 20
£sh5 is also incorrect. But possibly the lesser
evil is 17.~i.xe4 18 1^x64 ffxh4+ 19 £ f l exf4
with three pawns for the bishop, although
here also after 20 Sg2 White's chances are
better.
18 ZLdl?!
This suggests itself, but it loses White his
advantage. None of the participants, train­
ers or commentators noticed the venomous
computer move 18 Hg3!, which came to
light only in 2010.
Analysis Diagram
It transpires that if I8...'i,xh4? there is the
ambush 19 Wf2l, and after 19...#67
(I9.~i.xe4?? 20 Sxg6+ or 19~1Srxf4? 20 £lf6+
is bad) 20 £>c3 Black does not have sufficient
compensation for the piece. And if I8...ffd4?!
there follows 19 £if6+ 4>g7 20 c3l (it is hard
for a human to find such an idea!) 20...Srd8
21 £*4! Wxh4 22 #f2! #xf4 (22...«e7? 23
28
£sg5!) 23 £k5, when the knight is stronger
than the pawns.
I8...lfe7?! 19 0-0-0 is also cheerless for
Black: 19~f5 20 Wh5! i.xe4 21 S d g l ±>h8 22
Zxg6 ZLg8 23 Exg8+ ZLxg8 24 Sxg8+ 4>xg8 25
fxe5 i ’gT 26 WgS+l, transposing into a won
bishop endgame, or I9~a5 20 a3 a4 21 ^.a2
f5 22 Wc3 £xe4 23 Wxe5 1T6 (23~Hb6 24
Sc3) 24 -i.xe6+ ^ 8 25 £-d7 with an extTa
pawn and an unceasing initiative.
After l8..JLxe4 19 lfxe4 #xh4 20 IfxeS
White also puts his trust in the strength of
his bishop (20...lfxh2?! 21 f5l).
The thematic I8...f5 19 Jixe6+ 4h8 20 h5
ji.xe4 is slightly better - Black regains the
piece, but 21 hxg6! Hb7 (21..JLxf3?? 22 g7
mate) 22 Wc3 forces him to seek salvation in
an endgame: 22...'i,d4! 23 lfxd4 exd4 24
0-0-0 with an extTa pawn, but still by no
means a win.
The variations examined suggest that it is
useful to include I8...a5!, for example:
Analysis Diagram
1) 19 fxe5 .&xe4 20 Wxe4 a4 21 ^.xe6 fxe6
22 h5 1^5+! 23 C3 b4 24 hxg6 h5! 25 0-0-0
(25 g7 Sfc8 is equal) 25~bxc3 26 flxc3 a3,
and Black succeeds in creating equalizing
counterplay;
2) 19 Z d l ttxh4 20 1^2! #e7! 21 Zd7
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

lfb4+ 22 thd2 Hfxf4 with unclear complica­ position, Black gives up his f4-pawn’ (Aver­
tions (the white knight is now the ‘wrong’ bakh). ‘With this balance of forces the ex­
piece!); change of one pair of rooks is very useful’
3) 19 a3 (19 c3?! f5 is equal) 19-.a4 20 (Mikhalchishin).
jLa2 ,&xe4! (now 20...Hfd4 is also no longer However, here also it was appropriate to
so weak) 2 1 1i rxe4 Hfxh4 22 0-0-0 (nothing is include 23-.a5!?, since after 24 a3 a4 25 -&a2
given by 22 IfxeS?! I fxh2 23 f5 H 1I+ 24 2fd8 26 2xd8+ 2xd8 27 '4’xf4 '4>g7 it is more
r£ le2! Wh5+! with perpetual pursuit of the difficult for White to create a mobile passed
king) 22...1fxh2 23 Sdd3 Sfc8 24 c3 b4! 25 pawn, and the continuation recommended
axb4 a 3 26 1 ^ 2 (26 Sg 2?l Sxb4!) 26...#xg 2 by me in Informator - 24 c3 a4 25 &.c2 e5 26
27 Sxg2 Sxb4 28 fxe5 axb2+ 29 Sxb2 Sxb2 2d5! f6 27 a3 ‘with advantage to White’ in
30 ■4>xb2 h5 or 29...Se4 30 Sb5 g5, and reality involves a considerable risk for him:
thanks to the liveliness of the h- and g- 27.. .2fd8 28 2gd2?! (28 Bc5 is equal)
pawns Black has real chances of a draw. 28.. .Bxd5 29 2xd5 '4,g7 30 JLd3?! h5!, and
In any event, after 18 Sg3 I could have the black pawn avalanche becomes irresisti­
encountered serious problems, whereas now ble (31 2xb5 2xb5 32 jLxb5 g5! and 33 .g4+
I gained full compensation for the piece. with a pretty win - the pawns promote
I8...£.xe4 19 Wxe4 l rxh4+ 20 &e2 without the aid of the king!).
20 & fl 2bd8 21 2d3 as! was no better. 24 2xd8+ 2xd8 25 ^xf4 &f8
Bringing the king closer to White’s poten­
tial passed pawn. Again 25...a5!? deserved
consideration. 25...‘&g7 would also have
done - this looked dangerous because of 26
^e5, but here also 26...a5 is quite sufficient,
for example: 27 c4 a4 28 jLc2 bxc4 29 -&xa4
2d5+ 30 ^ f4 2f5+ and 2a5! or 27 a4 bxa4 28
jLxa4 2d5+ 29 f5+ or first 29...g 5, etc.
26 &e3 '4>e7 27 c4
‘White must try to exploit his pawn ma­
jority on the queenside’ (Mikhalchishin).

20...Wxh2+
I thought for 35 minutes here - 1also stud­
ied the more aggressive 20...a5!? or 20...exf4!?
(aiming to keep the queens on), but I pre­
ferred to go into an unusual endgame with
an imposing mass of passed pawns.
21 Sg2 «xf4 (21...IK15+ 22 « f3 « f5 23 Bg5
Hfxf4 24 Hfxf4 exf4 would have led to
roughly the same thing) 22 Wxf4 exf4 23
&f3 Sfd8
‘To avoid allowing the white rook into his

29
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
27.. .h5
27...f5 also deserved consideration, but I
decided to try and maintain the balance by
advancing the h-pawn.
28 a4
Also harmless was 28 c5 h4 or 28 cxb5
axb5 29 Sg5 (29 a4?l bxa4 30 i.xa4 Sb8 is
worse) 29...Sb8 30 a3 (Mikhalchishin)
30.. .Af6 and ...b5-b4 with a draw.
28.. .bxa4
In the variation 28...bxc4l? 29 ^.xc4 a5 it
seemed to me that 30 b4 axb4 31 a5 was
dangerous, but after 3l...Ad6 or 3l...Sc8 32
Sc2 (32 i.d3 Sc3 and ...Sa3) 32...b3 33 i.xb3
Sxc2 34 &.xc2 Ad6 the king enters the
square of the a-pawn and the battle con­
cludes. 30 Sg5 b4l 31 Sxa5 b3 32 Af2l? (32
iLe2 b2 33 .&f3 Sdl! with a draw) 32...Sd2+
33 A gl Sg2+ 34 A hl Sxb2 is sharper, also
with a probable draw.
29 i.xa4 h4 30 c5 Sh8
Supporting the quick-moving pawn. My
Informator suggestion 30...e5(?l) is weaker
because of 31 Sg4l.
3l S c 2
The mutual exhaustion of the forces
could have resulted after 31 Af3 h3 32 Sh2
Sh4 33 b3 Sh5 (luring the pawn to c6, where
it is blockaded by the king) 34 c6 (34 b4
Sh4l) 34-Ad6 35 *93 Ac7 36 Sxh3 Sxh3+
30
37 Axh3 f5 with the inevitable exchange of
all the pawns.
31...h3 32 ^.c6 e5 (32...g5 or 32...f5 was also
good) 33 ‘Afa h2 34 S d (34 i- h l f5 and ...e5-
e4) 34...a5
Here the draw can be achieved in more
than one way, and even by such an original
one as 34...f5 35 Ag2 hl't+ l? (or 35-.e4 36
A h l g5) 36 S xhl 2c8 37 Sh7+ Af6 38 Sb7
Sxc6 39 Sb6 Se6! 40 c6 Ag5 41 c7 Sxb6 42
c8#Sxb2+.
35&d5
Or 35 Ag2 hlW+\ 36 Sxhl Sc8 37 i.a4
Sxc5 with a draw. In this, and in other cases,
it is hard for White to achieve even the
textbook ending with rook and bishop
against rook.
35.. .5d8 (35—f5 36 Ag2 e4 37 A hl, etc.,
gives the same result) 36 ^.g2 Sd2+ (36...f5
37 Ag3 Sh8 38 c6 with a draw) 37 Ag3 Ad7
38 S a l
If 38 c6+ Ac7 39 Sc5 there would have
followed 39—f5! 40 Sxe5 f4+ 41 Ah3 f3 with
a draw.
38.. .f5 39 Axh2 Sxb2 40 Sxa5 e4
With the idea of 41 Sa6 g5 42 Sg6 f4 and
...f4-f3. Draw agreed (’/i-Yi).
The score became 8V2-3V2. After making a
couple more draws, in the 15th game I

scored a sixth win, and had it been an
unlimited match it would have become the
shortest in history. But here ‘on my last legs’
a further five games had to be played. In the
16th Nigel finally scored a consolation goal,
and the remaining games, also by no means
peaceful, ended in draws.
The match result ll'h - T h speaks for it­
self, but Short was proud of the 5-5 score in
the last ten games and said that he was
confident about the future. However, the
score in our subsequent ‘classical’ encoun­
ters was +5=9; not in his favour...
Soon Karpov won the ‘match of the un­
derstudies’ against Timman (l21/2-81/2), and
for the first time in the entire history of
world championships there was a duumvi­
rate at the chess summit: my historic title
was opposed by the official one.
New Test
International Tournament in Linares (22
February - 15 March 1994): 1. Karpov - 11
out of 13; 2-3. Kasparov and Shirov - 8V2; 4.
Bareev - 7V2; 5-6. Lautier and Kramnik - 7; 7-
9. Kamsky, Anand and Topalov - 6V2; 10.
Ivanchuk - 6; 11. Gelfand - 5V2; 12. Illescas -
4V2; 13. J.Polgar - 4; 14. Beliavsky - 2.
On returning to Moscow from a lengthy
tour of South America prior to the New Year,
I promptly plunged into the maelstrom of
chess life and began preparing for the new
season - not only as a player, but also as an
organiser. The contesting of the world
championship between 1993 and 1995 was
undoubtedly the most tense and unusual in
chess history. The challengers fought simul­
taneously in two series, to qualify via the
PCA line for a match with me, and via the
FIDE line for a match with Karpov, although
for greater legitimacy he was obliged to join
in at the semi-final stage.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
An enormous achievement of the Profes­
sional Chess Association was the two-year
contract with the Intel Corporation, which
became the main PCA sponsor. This enabled
us to stage both an unprecedented series of
rapid-play knock-out tournaments, the
Intel World Chess Grand Prix (Moscow -
New York - London - Paris), and also a
number of classical chess super-tourna­
ments, but above all - a complete world
championship cycle. Our qualifying tour­
nament (Groningen, December 1993) was
an unprecedentedly strong ‘Swiss’, and the
prize fund here was three times greater
than at the FIDE Interzonal Tournament
(Biel, July 1993). The favourites in both
cycles were the now experienced Anand
and the rapidly improving Kamsky and
Kramnik (Ivanchuk did not qualify for the
Candidates in Biel and he did not play in
Groningen).
It was at this unusual moment that Kar­
pov and I met at the regular super-
tournament in Linares. For me this was a
new test: on this occasion I faced the rivalry
not simply of an ex-world champion, whom I
had defeated in an official match for the title
(1990), but of a newly-fledged FIDE cham­
pion. Of course, Karpov was experiencing a
mental boost and was burning with a desire
to demonstrate his strength. Especially as for
many years he had been quite unable to win
in Linares and, moreover, in 1992 and 1993 I
had finished first with a score of 10 out of
13, while Karpov had finished behind me,
respectively, by 2V2 and l ’/i points. Now he
was eager for revenge. In addition, he was
openly supported by the organisers, by the
leaders of the Spanish Federation, and by
television and the press. The psychological
atmosphere at the tournament was excep­
tionally difficult for me, but that was some­
thing I was accustomed to.
31
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
An important role, as it later transpired,
was played by the drawing of lots, which
placed us alongside each other: I drew num­
ber 10, and Karpov l l . I remember being
pleased that I would have White against him,
but the experienced arbiter Vladimir Dvork­
ovich commented: ‘It’s too early to be rejoic­
ing! All the contestants, except one (Lautier),
will play the two o f you in succession - first
you, and then Karpov. Can you imagine what
state they will be in?’ I did not attach any
importance to his words, but they proved to
be prophetic. Averbakh: ‘It is quite possible
that the pairings were the secret of such a fine
result by Karpov: after their games with
Kasparov, all the players were pretty ex­
hausted when they came to play him.’ How­
ever, this alone can hardly explain the miracle
which occurred or the staggering good
fortune which accompanied the FIDE cham­
pion right from the start.
‘One’s mood is affected by luck’, Karpov
was to say after the tournament. This
thought was confirmed in the very first
round, when with Black in a time scramble
he snatched victory ‘out of nothing’ against
Lautier (extracts of this and other games by
Karpov are given in Part V of My Great
Predecessors). That day I defeated Bareev
with Black in a Benko Gambit.
In the second round I quite cleanly out­
played lllescas in a Tarrasch, while Karpov
‘took over’ Bareev from me and, knowing his
attachment to the French Defence, remem­
bered his old love - 1 e4, and initiated his
favourite play against an isolated pawn.
Bareev equalised, but five moves before the
time control, now in a dead-drawn ending,
he inexplicably blundered a rook and a mate
in one move!
So, we started with two wins and in the
third round we both had Black: after a com­
plicated battle I made a draw in my first duel
32
with Topalov, but Karpov played the opening
badly against lllescas and stood clearly worse
- when his opponent suddenly ‘cooperated’
by allowing his queen to be trapped in the
middle of the board. 3 out of 3!
In the fourth round I managed to beat
Vassily Ivanchuk in impressive style. Our
games were always gripping, and with
White between Moscow 1988 and Linares
1994 I contrived to win six times in a row.
And each time I had to solve a difficult
problem in my choice of opening strategy,
since the Ukrainian grandmaster’s reper­
toire is extraordinarily broad and anything
can be expected of him.
Came 6
G.Kasparov-V.lvanchuk
Linares, 4th Round 27.02.1994
Slav Defence D44
1 d4 £sf6 2 c4 c6 3 £ sc3 d5 4 £sf3 p6
It appears that Black is threatening the
sharp Botvinnik Variation? Well, why not
accept the challenge!
5 .&g5 (5 e3 - Game Nos.27, 98) 5...dxc4
(5...h6 - Game N0.96) 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 ±h4
g5 9 £)xg5 hxg5 10 JLxgS £)bd7 11 exf6
JLb7 12 g3 c5 13 d5 £ixf6
At that time this variation had just come
into fashion, but I was also ready for the
alternatives 13-'Srb6 14 &.g2 (Game Nos.65,
66, 82 in Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov) or 13...^.h6 14 Jtxh6 2xh6 15
#d2l, etc.
14 &g2!
In the event of 14 dxe6 JLe7 (Kir.Georgiev-
Dreev, Biel Interzonal 1993) or 14..JLg7l? 15
S g l (15 1i rxd8+ 2xd8 16 2 g l a6 is equal)
lS.-.tfbe 16 # e2 (Lobron-Kramnik, Dort­
mund 1993) l6...2d8! Black has good coun­
terplay.
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

15 Jb<h6 (15 ^.h4 ^.g7l) 15...2xh6 (this is a

harmless branch of the 13-.&h6 variation)
16 £>xb5 (16 # d 2 2h5l) l6...jLxd5 (van der
Sterren-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 1983) or I6...#b6
(Graf-Buhmann, Bad Konigshofen 2007), or
15 h4 ^.xg5 16 hxg5 2xhl+ 17 A xhl £>xd5
18 # h 5 # e 7 - after which we had written
down 19 0-0-0 0-0-0! 20 £)xb5 a6 (20..Jtc6l?)
21 £>a3 £)b4 with the assessment ‘unclear’.
15.. .#xf6 16 0-0
This natural developing move with the
threat of £ixb5 or £ie4 has no worthy alter­
native. The greedy 16 £>xb5?l would have
14.. .1-h6 allowed I6...#e5+! 17 # e2 (17 'i f l exd5l)
A novelty! Earlier games went 14...^.e7 15 17.. .#xe2+ (I7...1.d2+? 18 'ifl!) 18 4 >xe2
0-0 £ixd5 16 ±xe7 &xe7 17 £ixb5 (I was 0-0-0 (18...0-0 or 18...'4T8 will also do) 19
intending 17 Wei, but after I7...£ixc3 18 £>xa7+ 4 ^ 8 20 £>b5 (weak is 20 £>c6+? Axc6
&xb7 Sb8 19 #xc3 Sxb7 20 S fdl #b8! Black 21 dxc6 2d2+) 20...exd5 with excellent play
holds on, Aronian-van Wely, Dresden Olym­ for the pawn.
piad 2008) I7...#b6 18 £>a3l, for example: 16.. .0.0-0 17 £sxb5
1) l8...Sh4, when 19 gxh4 Sg8 20 £>xc4 Now is the right time. Although Black has
#a6! 21 Wb3 £sf4 22 f3 Sxg2+ 23 i h l i.d 5 the advantage of the two bishops, a pawn
24 S a c l Se2 25 # b 8 (25 # a 3 #c6!) mass in the centre and the possibility of
25.. .#xc4l! 26 #c7+ (26 Sxc4? i.xf3+ with counterplay on the h-file typical of the
mate) 26...<&e8 is equal, and 19 #d2 £>f4l Botvinnik Variation, I was hoping to exploit
(19-Sd4? 20 Wg5+!, van Wely-Kramnik, Biel the open position of the black king and I
Interzonal 1993) 20 £ ixc4 #a6! (20...#c7? 21 thought that in the forthcoming interesting
f3!, Oll-Topalov, Biel Interzonal 1993) 21 battle White’s chances were nevertheless
Sfci! 2g8! is unclear (Jobava-Rodshtein, better.
Pamplona 2007), but after 19 Sell # a 6 (van
Wely-K.Muller, Rethymnon 2003) 20 #62!
2g8 (20...£*f4?l 21 #e5) 21 f4l White has an
enduring initiative;
2) 18...C3 19 £ sc4 #07 20 bxc3 £>xc3 21
#d2 ^.xg2 22 4 ,xg2 £ie4 23 # e3 (van Wely-
Dreev, Bem 1993), or 19 2 b l cxb2 20 <S^c4
#c7 21 2xb2 <S^b6 22 ±xb7 *S^xc4 (Razuvaev-
Serper, Tilburg 1993) 23 2c2l £ia3 24 Jk.xa8
£ ixc2 25 #xc2 2xa8 26 2 c l 2c8 27 #04, and
in both cases White's chances are slightly
better.
15i.xf6
This has to be played. Nothing is given by 17...exd5?

33
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
The thirst of battle! Vassily captured the
pawn quite quickly and looked very content.
However, 17...a6! 18 £>c3 exd5 was neces­
sary, when 19 £>xd5?! is weak in view of
19 -.We6 20 S e l Sxd 5 21 &xd5 Wxd5 22
Wxd5 &xd5 23 Se5 £.e6! 24 Sxc5+ *b7, etc.
In the second half of the 1990s I studied 19
Sel! &b8 and the unclear 20 S b l (20 £>a4
Wd6!) 20...d4 21 £>e4Wb6 22 a3 a5! (22...f5?!
23 b4! is dangerous) 23 # 3 4 Wc6 24 Wxc4 f5
25 b4 axb4 26 axb4 JLd2L
But 21st century correspondence players
have discovered that 20 Wa4! .&g7 21 S ad i
Wf5 22 Se7 .&d4 23 Sd2 is better for White,
and instead of lg.-.&bS they have begun
successfully upholding 19-.d4!? 20 jLxb7+
<&xb7 21 £>e4 Wc6 22 Wh5 *b8!.
However, it is easy to give recommenda­
tions, knowing the result of the game. Who
could have imagined that the white a-pawn
would soon become a battering-ram, sweep­
ing away everything in its path?
18 £>xa7+ &b8 19 £>b5
Black now has a very unpleasant position,
and the point is not that White has an extra
pawn (although it will also come in useful),
but that his knight is established on b5 and
the mechanism of the subsequent attack
has been created - Wel-a5 is threatened.
19...&g7
34
If 19...She8, then 20 Sell. After 19..JLg5 I
was also considering 20 S el, but 20 Wei!
Sd7 21 b3! is more forceful (lonov-V.Popov,
St. Petersburg 1997). Black also cannot be
satisfied with 19 ...Wb6 20 a4 d4 21 jLxb7
Wxb7 22 Wh5! ± U 23 I f 5! (23 Wxc5? Sxh 2!)
23.. .5h4 24 Sael! Sg8 25 f3 (25 Se5l?)
25.. JLe3+ 26 Sxe3, obtaining a knight and
three pawns for a rook, or 22...Wd5 (22...Sd5
23 Wf3!) 23 Wxd5 Sxd5 24 £>a3, etc.
20 a4! (20 Wa4? Wa6 or 20 Wei?! Wb6 is
premature - Stohl)
20.. .WH6
A difficult choice: 20...Wxb2? 21 S b l Wf6
22 S e l and wins, while my old prescription
20.. .5.6(?!) is bad because of 21 Wd2!
(Ionov). 20..JLc6 21 h4! is also insufficient.
21 h4 i-f6?!
With the obvious threat of ..JLxh4, but for
a successful counterattack Black is short of
precisely one tempo. But after 2l..JLxb2?! 22
S b l the opening of the b-file causes his
downfall: 22...C3 23 Wb3 Wb6 (23...C4 24 Wb4
Wf8 25 Sxb 2! - Stohl) 24 a5! Wxa5 25 £>xc3
Wxc3 26 Wb5! Wb4 27 Wxb4 cxb4 28 Sxb 2 or
22.. .Wf6 23 Sxb2! Wxb2 24 Wei! Wf6
(24...Wb4 25 We7!) 25 Wa5 Wa6 26 Wc7+
<£>38 27 Wxc5 with a decisive advantage.
In Informator I suggested 21...Wg6(?!), but
this is weak because of 22 Wd2! with the

threat of Wf4+ or Wa5. It was better to
restrain the white queen with 21„.She8
(Stohl), although also here after 22 Wc2!
Black’s position is unenviable.
22 Wei!
I was proud of this unexpected move: in­
stinctively one wants to move the rook from
fl as soon as possible (to avoid a mate on h2),
but the queen, on the contrary, blocks it in.
22...^.xh4?! (consistent, but 22~.Sd7 23 Wa5
iLxh4 was more resilient)
23 Wa5?l
How to refrain from such a thrust? In the
heat of the battle I missed 23 We5+! 'iaS 24
Wc7 with an easy win: 24~.ji.g5 25 Wa5+
^b8 26 Wa7+ *c8 27 Wxc5+ *b8 28 Wc7+
4>a8 29 f4! or 24.~i.e7 (Stohl) 25 S fel i d 6
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
26 Wa5+ *b8 27 Wa7+ *c8 28 a5l. But now
the situation could have become somewhat
more complicated.
23...i.e7?!
This hastens the end. If 23~.Wc6? White
would even have won by 24 gxh4 2dg8 25
Sfel! (but not my Informator move 25 f3??
Sxg2+!), or more surely by 24 Wa7+ &c8 25
i.h3+ Sd7 26 Wa5! (threatening £sa7+)
26„.<&b8 27 i.xd7 Wxd7 28 Wa7+ *c8 29
Wxc5+ *b8 30 Wa7+ <&c8 31 Wd4! (and if
31.~i.f6 32 Wxf6 Wh3, then 33 Wf5+!).
However, 23-Sd7 would have given more
hopes of saving the game - although after
24 Wa7+ *c8 25 Wxc5+ &b8 26 Sfdl! White
is a pawn up with an attack and an objec­
tively winning position, he would still have
had some work to do.
24 Wc7+ <ia8 25 Wa5+ (on the threshold of
time-trouble I decided to repeat moves to
save time) 25—&b8 26 Wc7+ &a8
27 Sfel!
Both a defence against mate, and a deci­
sive entry of the rook into the battle.
27...i-d6 (guarding the c5-pawn) 28 Wb6
Here I saw the spectacular combinative
idea with 30 Se81! and I began putting it
into effect. True, in so doing I missed the
simple 28 Wa5+! *b8 29 Wa7+ <&c8 30 a5!
with the murderous threat of a5-a6.
35
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

28..JLb8 29 a5! My problems began from the fifth round.

A picturesque situation. The first meeting at the board with the 18-
yeaT-old Judit PolgaT, who was making heT
debut in the tournament, unexpectedly
proved to be a difficult test foT me.

Came 7
J.Polgar-G.Kasparov
Linares, 5th Round 01.03.1994
Sicilian Defence B85

1 e4 C5 2 £*f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £*xd4 £*f6 5

£*c3 a6 6 f4 (less popular than 6 JLg5,6 &e3,
6 &e2 or 6 ±c4) 6...e6
There is an especially attractive mating This is what I most often played, although
finish afteT 29...#c 6 30 Se 7 She 8 31 a 6! (the I also tried 6..Mc7 ot 6...e5.
culmination of White’s strategy) ot 30...Sd7
31 'B'xcei Axc6 32 Sxd7l .&xd7 33 ±xd5+.
And afteT the desperate 29...Sd6 30 £ixd6
yihtd6 theTe is 31 Se5! with the idea of
31.. Mxe5 32 a61.
29.. .Hd7
AfteT confidently making this move, Ivan­
chuk Telaxed and sank back in his chain At
that moment I realised that my Teply would
be a highly unpleasant surprise foT him.
30 Se8!l (threatening Wa.7 mate!) 30...)Srh2+
31 *fl #Xg2+
DespaiT: if 31...Sxe8 White mates with 32
a61. The Test is clear without any commen­ 7&e2
tary. Transposing into normal variations. 7 ®f3
32 &xg2 d4+ 33 Wxb7+ lxb 7 34 2xh8 Sxb5 is moTe aggressive, with the idea of 7...^bd7
35 a6 *a7 36 2f8 Sxb2 37 2xf7+ ^a8 38 a7 8 g4l (Short-Kasparov, Belgrade 1989), and
c3 39 2f8! 1-0 therefore 7...Wb6 is correct, with double-
edged play:
A high-quality game, which brought me a 1) 8 a3 £*c61? (not 8...£*bd7 9 £*b3 1^7 10
mass of satisfaction - and 3V2 out of 4. But g4l, Anand-Kasparov, Paris (Tapid) 1992) 9
Karpov easily beat Topalov and reached 4 £ib3 Wc7 (Short-Kasparov, Debrecen 1992)
out of 4! Fot the moment this did not greatly ot 9 £ixc6 bxc6 10 b3 .&b7 11 .&b2 d5 (Al-
concern me: I sensed that I was running into masi-Kasparov, Lyon 1994; J.PolgaT-
form and I believed in the triumph of com­ Kasparov, Dos Hermanas 1996);
petitive justice. 2) 8 £ib3 ®c7 9 g4 b5 (again leaving the

36

d7-square free for the knight on f6) 10 g 5
£>fd7 11 i.e3 <5^b6 12 0-0-0 £>8d7 (J.Polgar-
Kasparov, Geneva (rapid) 1996).
7.. .6e7 8 0-0
If 8 &e3 0-0 9 g4, then 9-d5 (Shirov-
Kasparov, Linares 2001) or 9...b5 (Short-
Kasparov, Reykjavik (rapid) 2004) is good.
8.. .1 rc7
8...0-0 is more accurate, when 9 'A’h l (9
JLe3 - Came No.115) 9...1rc7 10 a4 (10 Wei
b5 is equal, Illescas-Kasparov, Barcelona
1989) I0...£ic6 11 jk.e3 2e8 leads to a tabiya
from my matches with Karpov and Anand
(Game Nos.37, 86), and 9 Wei b5! 10 &f3 b4
11 £idl e5 leads to equality (Ivanchuk -
Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 2001).
9 Wei
After this move I became slightly ill at
ease: in the event of 9 .0-0 10 l?g3 Black
must either encounter a dangerous pawn
sacrifice - lO ...!^ ?! 11 &e3 l rxb2 12 jLf2
^ 4 13 e5l (Game N0.63 in Part III of My
Great Predecessors), or go in for the variation
10.. .£ic6 11 ile3 which I did not greatly like.
After thinking for some time, I decided to try
and take my opponent aback.
9.. .^bd7l?
An extremely rare reply, and, as it seemed
to me, second-rate.
10 a4
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
To my surprise, Polgar made this nomi­
nally new but typical move very quickly. 10
■&f3l? (preventing ...b7-b5) is far more dan­
gerous, when I0...h5?! is dubious (Zucker-
man-Benko, New York 1976), as is 10...0-0 11
■Ahl ,Ab8?! (ll...2e8 is better) 12 a4 2b8 13
g4! with an attack (Kasparov-Short, Moscow
Olympiad 1994). Here I was planning the
unusual 10...h6!? with the idea of ...2g8 and
...g7-g5, for example: 11 'A’h l ( l l a4l?)
11 .. .2g8 12 # d l? l (12 f5 £>e5 13 .&e2 is
better) 12...g5 13 f5 e5 (Geller-Rublevsky,
Elista 1995).
10.. .b6 11 £f3 i.b7
Now Black has a perfectly decent position:
White has spent a tempo on Wei, although
the queen would be better placed on e2.
12 &hl
After 12 e5? dxe5 13 fxe5 (or 13 .&xb7
Wxb7 14 fxe5 -&.C5!) 13—-^-CS! 14 exf6 ,&xd4+
White loses a pawn (Florian-Keller, Vienna
1947). But the preparatory 12 ■A’h l set me
another problem.
12...2d8!
Essential prophylaxis against the advance
e4-e5. 12...0-0?! would now be strongly met
by 13 e5l, when 13...dxe5 14 fxe5 £id5?! 15
£>xd5 ^.xds 16 i.xd5 exd5 17 £>f5! 2ae8
(I7...^xe5 18 1^3) 18 e6 fxe6 19 Wxe6+ ■ihS
20 JLf4 or 14...^xe5 15 -&xb7 £>eg4 16 £lf3!
37
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

(the Informator suggestion 16 # g 3 #xb7 17 Rightly assuming that neither of the

h3 is unclear in view of 17...Sfd8! 18 £)b3 pawn advances is dangerous for Black. The
jLd6 19 &.U £lh5, etc.) I6...#xb7 17 h3 £lh6 position is one of dynamic balance.
18 ,&xh6 gxh6 19 #xg3+ ^ 8 20 £)e5 gives 15 f5 (15 e5?! dxe5 16 fxe5 £ife4 is worse for
White an enduring initiative. Therefore White) 15...e5 16 &h6 £ ie8 17 £ib3 £)d7l?
13.. .£)e8 is better (Chandler-Schlosser, The immediate lT - ih S was also possi­
Bundesliga 1996), but I do not like this ble, but I wanted to retain both knights,
cramped position with the pawn on b6 placing them on d7 and f6.
(rather than on b5, as in an old game of 18 Sadi &h8
mine with Karpov - No.47 in Kasparov vs. I8...b5 is interesting, since Black can be
Karpov 1975-1985). satisfied with 19 axb5 axb5 20 £)xb5 #xc2
13 &e3 (my Informator attack 21 £)xd6!? ,&xd6 22
13 e5?! is pointless: 13...dxe5 14 fxe5 £)xe5Sxd6 is parried by 22.J&T18! 23 £ia5 gxh6 24
15 ^.xb7 (15 ^.f4? £lxf3!) 15~.Sxd4 16 JLxa6 £)xb7 £)xd6 25 £)xd6 #c7). But I did not
£ieg4 17 .&b5+ &f8 18 #g3 #xg3 19 hxg3 h5 want to force events prematurely.
20 ±g5 £)d5. And if 13 #93 it is too early for 19 .&e3 £)ef6?l
13.. .£>c5? on account of 14 e5! dxe5 15 fxe5 Too slow! Here the active 19...b5l, exploit­
(with the idea of 15...Sxd416 #xg7 and exf6! ing the vulnerability of the c2-pawn, was
or 15...^.f8 16 £)xe6!), but 13...0-0! is now definitely better: 20 axb5 axb5 21 # f 2 b4 22
good, not fearing 14 £)d5?! £)xd5 15 exd5 £ld5 ^.xd5 23 Sxd5 £ief6 24 Sb5 # c4 or 24
^.xd5! 16 jLxd5 exd5 and ...JLf6, or 14 e5 Sd2 #c6 with comfortable play.
(Leitao-Stohl, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) 20 #f2! (defending the c2-pawn and clear­
14.. .dxe5 15 fxe5 £ixe5! 16 M4- .&d6 17 .&xb7 ing the way for the g-pawn) 20...Sfe8
£)h5! with a comfortable game, or 14 f5 e5 15 (20...Sc8 21 g4!) 21 Sfel?!
i.h 6 £ie 8 16 <S^b3 &h8 17 i.e 3 <S^ef6 with
equality (Pogonina-Hou Yifan, Plovdiv 2010).
13 .. .0.0

Judit prefers quiet positional manoeu­

14 #g3 (later 14 itgi!? was also tried, with
the sharp idea 14...£>c5 15 b4 £)cd7 16 b5)
14...^c5
vring. 21 g4! was more energetic: 21...d5!
(21...h6?! 22 S g l or 22 g5 hxg5 23 .&xg5 £lh7
24 ^.e3 and S g l is dangerous for Black) 22
£ixd5! (if 22 exd5 e4 23 .&e2, then 23..Jta3!)
22...£)xd5 (weaker is 22..JLxd5?l 23 exd5 e4

38

24 Jie2 l rxc2 25 £>d4) 23 exd5 e4 24 3iq2,
and White’s chances are better - 24..JLd6 25
g5l,etc.
21.. .£f8 22 £g5
I was no longer afraid of 22 g4 d5! 23 exd5
(if 23 £>xd5?! £>xd5 24 exd5 e4 25 .&g2 there
is 25...£tf61, and 26 jLxb6? is not possible
because of 26...£}xg4!) 23...e4 24 .&e2 £te5l
(24...^.b4l? 25 d6 Wc6 26 g5 i.xc3l 27 bxc3
£kl5 28 c4 £>xe3 29 VHxe3 WxaA is more
complicated) 25 .&xb6 e3! (but not
25.. .£texg4? 26 Wgl and wins) 26 Wxe3
Sxd5! 27 £>xd5 &xd5+ 28 Sxd5 (28 * g l
Wxc2 29 ^ d 4 1i rxa4 with excellent compen­
sation for the exchange) 28...'Brc61, regaining
the material with equality.
22.. .H6 23 JLh4 2c8 24 Wfl! (intending £>d2
and &.e2 with an attack on the a6-pawn)
24.. .£e7 2 5 ^ d 2?l
An inaccuracy, allowing Black to sharply
activate his queen. White should have begun
with 25 Jif2, and since 25-1i rc4? 26 Ae2!
1i rb4 27 .&xa6 is bad for Black, he would have
had to restrict himself to the modest
25.. . ! rb8 26£id2 *g8.
25.. .1 .c5! (I was happily used to establishing
my queen on b4 since the times of my
Sicilian duels with Karpov) 26 £}b3 (if 26 JLf2
Wb4 27 S bl, then 27...£>c5) 26...1rb4
A turning-point.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
27 &e2?
A blunder, which surrenders the e4-pawn.
If 27 jLf2 White was concerned about the
thematic exchange sacrifice 27-.JXxc3!? 28
bxc3 WxaA. Black has easy play after 27 ^ 3
2ed8 or 27...1c7 and 2ec8, as well as after
27 Se3 d5l (apart from this Informator
suggestion there is the interesting
27.. .£>g4l? 28 £xg4 &xh4) 28 ±xf6 £>xf6 29
exd5 .&d6 or 29-1i rf4!. But even so, this
would have been a far lesser evil for Judit.
27.. ~*.xe4!
Stronger than 27...^xe4 28 JLxe7 2xe7 29
.&xa6 <S^xc3 (of course, not 29..~&.xa6? 30
Wxa.6 as given in Informator) 30 bxc3 .&xa6
31 cxb4 A xfl 32 Sxfl Sxc2. Now the game
quickly moves into a technical phase.
28 £>xe4
28 jLxf6 (28 &xa6? Jixc2) 28...£>xf6 29
£>xe4 £>xe4 30 jLd3 (30 JLxa6? Sxc2)
30.. .£tf6 was no less dismal.
28.. .£txe4 29 £xe7 2xe7 30 i.f3l?
Desperately fighting for survival. White’s
position was really too unattractive after 30
JLxa6 Hxc2 31 Sxe4 WxeA tel-WxbS!?) 32
i.d3 l t 6 33 &xc2 Wxc2 or 30 c3 Vtxbl 31
S.xa.6 £>df6! 32 JLxc8 1i rxb2 with the threats
of ...£tf2+ and ..Mxc3, and if 33 S c l d5,
winning.
30...^ef6?!
39
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Alas, with time-trouble approaching,
miracles begin. There was an easy win by
30.. .£idf6 31 ±xe4 (31 Wfxa6? £>f2+! 32 &gl
Sxc2) 3l...£*xe4 32 W(S)e2 £)f6 or 32 c3
ifxa4! 33 £sd2 £)f6.
31 Wxa6 2ee8 (3l...Sxc2? 32 £id4!) 32 # e2
*g8
In order to capture the a4-pawn in com­
plete comfort. It was too early for 32...e4? 33
JLh5l with the threat of trapping the queen
by Sd4, but an obvious advantage would
have been retained by 32...d5l? 33 ^ 2 (33
JLxd5? £>xd5 34 Sxd5 Sxc2l 35 Sd2 fiec8
and wins) 33-18rh4! 34 ^.xd5 (34 c3 WxaA or
34 * g l e4 is no better) 34...£>xd5 35 #xd5
(with the idea of 36 Wfxf7? £>g4) 36 g3
WxaA or the immediate 32...'ifxa4 ! 33 Sxd6
(33 ±b7 Sc7!) 33-.e4 34 ±h5 £>e5, and if 35
2xb6,then 35...e3! etc.
33 -&b7! Sc4?l
33. .Sc7l (with gain of tempo!) 34 -&a6
#xa4 35 2xd6 # a 2! and ...1i rxb2 suggested
itself, remaining with the extra passed e-
pawn.
34 lfd2?! (34 S a l was more resilient)
34.. .1?xa4 35 WxdS?! (giving up the c2-pawn
is equivalent to capitulation, but White is
also in a sorry plight after 35 h3 Wa2 or
35.. .5C7 36 ±f3 IT 14) 35...Sxc2 36 £)d2
36...&f8?
40
An instance which significantly affected
my subsequent performance in the tourna­
ment. Black had more than one sure way to
the goal: 36...Sxb2 37 ±c6 1134 or 37...1rc2
(with the idea of 38 JLxd7 Sd8!), 36...£sg4 37
£)e4 £>df6, and 36...1ff4 37 ^.c6 WxfS. And
even after my Informator suggestion
36.. .5.8(?!), which is less clear in view of 37
.&f3 Sxb2 38 £se4, White has few chances of
saving the game.
But where did this ridiculous knight move
come from? In time-trouble suddenly I
nervously picked up the d7-knight and
placed it on c5, but immediately - without
taking my hand off it, but merely releasing
my fingers - I saw that if 36...£sc5? there is
the fork 37 ^.c6!, when it is now Black who
has to try and save himself: 37...1h4! 38 g3
(38 .&xe8 £)g4 is equal) 38...IT15 59 ^.xe8
£sxe8 40 ! d 8 (40 lxe5?! £if6 41 We2 £ig4!
is dangerous for White) AO-.^hy! 41 #xe8
£)d3 42 S fl £sf2+, etc. After a second’s pause
I returned the knight to d7. Judit glanced in
surprise at the arbiter, but I quickly played
36.. .£tf8 - in order to continue the fight!
Although there was no violation of the
rules, later, because of this incident, a quite
sickening campaign against me unfolded
(see below).
37 £se4 £>8d7?!
An advantage would still have been re­
tained by 37...£sxe4 38 ^.xe4 Sxb2 39 &.c6
lg 4 ! 40 h3 1^5, but I had no time to calcu­
late the variations.
38 £lxf6+?
Judit made this losing move quickly, not
noticing the saving line 38 b3! 1i rxb3
(38...1rb5 39 Se3) 39 ±c6! £>xe4 (39-Sc8 40
i.xd7) 40 i.xe4 £>f6 41 i.xc2 #xc2 42 1fxb6
IfxfS 43 Sd8 with a draw.
38.. .£ixf6 39 VHxb6
If 39 Sxe5 Sxe5 40 #xe5 Black would
have settled matters with 40...^g4!. It was

also hopeless to play 39 h3 Sxb2 (39-'iff4!?)
40 &c6 Wc2! 41 S cl Wf2 42 Sxe5 (42 S fl
I?g3) 42...Sc8 43 S eel Sd2 44 Ifa3 Sc2!
with a decisive material advantage.
39...£>g4l?
A tempting thrust, but there was a sim­
pler win by 39-'Hfh4! (with the threat of
...£>g4) 40 JLf3 e4 41 &e2 £>g4 42 ,&xg4
*xg4 43 Wgl Sxb2 or 43 S g l Wxf5, etc.
40 Sfl?!
Returning the favour in time-trouble. 40
£ g l was more resilient, after which pinning
the bishop by 40...Sb8! was decisive, with a
pretty attack, forcing the gain of material: 41
h3 Sxg2+! 42 £xg2 Sxb7! 43 Wd8+ (not 43
*xb7? because of 43...WC2+ 44 <£*3 Wf2+ 45
£ e4 Wg2+ 46 £d3 £>f2+ and ...lrxb7)
43-..£h7 44 Se2 Sb3l, when 45 hxg4? I rxg4+
46 £ f l Sf3+ 47 Sf2 Sg3! leads to mate, 45
Wd2 is strongly met by 45 .h5!, while if 45
Sd3, then either 45-Wc4 46 lfd5 Wxd3 47
Wxd3 Sxd3 48 hxg4 f6 with a won rook
endgame, or 45—1Brf4l? 46 Sxb3 'Brh 2+ 47
£f3 *xh3+ 48 £ e4 l rxb3 49 ^ 2 g 6 50
fxg6+ £xg6 51 *c3 1 ^ 5 52 £f3 f5, and
White cannot hold out.
40...e4?l
With my time about to run out I missed
the simple 40...£tf2+! 41 Sxf2 Sxf2, winning
the exchange and the game.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
41 £d5?!
The variation 41 Sd4! Sf2! 42 S fdl lfc2
43 Ifc6 Sxg2 44 Wxc2 Sxc2 offered a glim­
mer of hope, when White has ‘only’ a diffi­
cult endgame a pawn down.
41.. .e3!
The only way to win. I was proud of the
fact that after all the tribulations I was able
to find and calculate all the necessary varia­
tions.
42 &b3
If 42 Wg6? there was the instantly decisive
42.. .£h8! and ...e3-e2, but 42...Sc7 or my
Informator suggestion 42...e2 would also
have done.
42.. .We4 (42...'ifa8!? 43 £lxc2 e2 was also
good) 43 &XC2 Wxc2 44 Bd8
44 Whs would have been flamboyantly
answered by 44...'irc7!! with inevitable mate:
45 Hrxe8+ £ h 7 46 g3 Wc2. It would not have
helped to play 44 S d el e2! 45 Sf4 (45 Sgl?
1^7!) 4 5 - l rd2 46 Wb4 Wxb4 47 Sxb4 £>f2+
and ...£>d3, or 45 Sf3 Wd2 46 «Tgl Se3 etc.
44.. .5.d8 45 l rxd8+ £h7
4 6 * e7
A final error, but also after 46 1 ^ 4 there is
no defence against the combined threats,
treated by the queen, knight and passed
pawn: 46...e2 47 S e l Wdl\ 48 Wgl Wd2\ and
...£*e5-d3 or immediately 46...1i rd2! 47 lfxd2
41
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
exd2 48 b4! £Je3! 49 S a l dllf+ 50 Sxdl
£)xdl 51 b5 £>f2+! 52 ‘i ’g l £Je4 and wins.
46...WC4!
And in view of 47 Bal(bl) ^ 4 White re­
signed (0-1).
Despite the mutual mistakes, an interest­
ing game, rich in adventures. Immediately
after it Judit and I sat down to analyse
variations. Journalists and photographers
crowded round our table, and they were
joined by Judit’s elder sister Susan and her
mother Klara. And, according to the press,
after a lengthy analysis everyone departed
content.
I now had 4'h out of 5. But that day Kar­
pov received a valuable present from Ivan­
chuk, who employed a novelty with White,
obtained a favourable position and an hour
in hand on the clock, but suddenly ‘floun­
dered’, blundered an important pawn on the
28th move and promptly resigned. 5 out of
5! It was then that the anxious thought first
crept into my mind: suppose this continues?
In the sixth round I again had Black and
with difficulty I saved half a point in a skir­
mish with Gelfand, while Karpov again
remembered about 1 e4 and methodically
outplayed Polgar: l...c5 2 c3l? e6 3 d4 d5 4
exd5 exd5 5 £tf3 £k6 6 Jk.b5 c4?! 7 £Je5l ^ 6
8 &xc6+ bxc6 9 0-0 JLd6 10 b3l, etc.
Meanwhile, the Spanish newspaper ABC
published a report by Roman Toran (a well-
known FIDE official, and a colleague of Cam-
pomanes and Karpov), in which he claimed
that in the game with Polgar I had supposedly
made the move 36...£k5, and then replaced it
with another. This had allegedly been estab­
lished by examining the TV footage - Spanish
TV had filmed the game.
Vladimir Dvorkovich: ‘Here were given the
words o f the chief arbiter Carlos Falcon, who
observed the time scramble in this game: “At
42
no point did Kasparov break contact with the
knight. And Polgar did not appeal to me." But
this ‘news’ also found its way into other
organs of the press. They began saying that
journalists were about to be shown the video
recording of this episode. A scandal blew up.
Here Luis Rentero, who had also watched the
game, acted resolutely: he put out a press­
release, in which he stated that a number of
unscrupulous journalists were inflating a
made-up episode, that this was damaging
the tournament's prestige and that he would
not allow any demonstrations of the video
tape. Things immediately quietened down! I,
however, was shown the video tape. An
examination o f it at normal speed does not
demonstrate anything. When slowed down (I
looked at the tape several times at various
speeds) one can see the fingers parting, but it
is impossible to establish that the piece was
completely released.'
The psychological attack on me had not
only immediate, but also long-term conse­
quences. A recent pronouncement by Evgeny
Bareev, one of the players in that tourna­
ment, is typical: 'In his time Kasparov said: if
you have slightly let go o f the piece, this does
not count. Well, fo r him it does not count.
That is, his 'code of ethics’ allows him to take
a move back. It is good that the cameras were
filming and the video was later shown. Since
then I have never believed Kasparov.’
It was on this terrible background that in
the seventh round I had White against
Karpov. I was on 5 out of 6, but my eternal
opponent had 6 out of 6! Everyone realised
that this was the decisive game of the tour­
nament. Before it there was a free day, and
Sergey Makarychev and I spent a long time
racking our brains over how on this occasion
to try and breach the Caro-Kann Defence. In
it I twice won against Karpov in Amsterdam
(1988), and twice in Linares (1992 and 2001),

but on this occasion, in 1994, something
went wrong, and evidently I burned myself
out even while preparing for the game. I find
it hard to remember another similar prepa­
ration for a game, after which, playing
White, by the 13th move I already found
myself in such an unpleasant position. I was
obliged to tTy and save myself - as it is said,
a game where things just didn't happen
(Game No.39 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-
2009).
Averbakh: ‘Whereas in the previous two
Linares tournaments it was his victories over
Karpov that, to a large extent, determined
Kasparov’s ultimate success, this time it was a
case o f ‘diamond cut diamond’: the game
ended in a draw, and the gap remained
unchanged.’
In the eighth round I drew with Black in a
very complicated game with Shirov, but the
inspired, leader, also with Black, outplayed
Gelfand in time-trouble, although initially
the latter gained an obvious advantage, on
the 24th move he could have set his oppo­
nent very difficult problems, and on the 37th
he could at least have maintained equality.
7V2out of 8! I was now one and a half points
behind.
In the ninth round I played the 19-year-
old Gata Kamsky, against whom things
usually went quite well for me. By that time
he (like both Anand and Kramnik) was
already a quarter-finalist in the candidates
matches of both series, PCA and FIDE.
Came 8
G.Kasparov-G.Kamsky
Linares, 9th Round 06.03.1994
Caro-Kann Defence B17
Ie 4 c 6
A year earlier in the previous Linares, Gata
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
replied 1...C5 (Game No.100 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov), but now he
surprised me with his choice of the Caro-
Kann. Logic typical of Kamsky: since a couple
of days previously I had played poorly
against this opening, this meant it should be
repeated!
2 d4 d5 3 ^ d 2 (3 exd5 - Game No.23; 3 e5 -
Game No.77) 3...dxe4 4 ^ x e4 ^ d 7 5 £>g5
In the seventh round I played 5 iLc4
against Karpov, but now I chose a variation
which I had tried against him back in Am­
sterdam 1988.
5.. .^gf6 6 ^.d3 e6 7 £>lf3 .&d6 8 # e 2 (more
aggressive than 8 0-0 - Game No.34 in Part II
of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 8...h6
9 ^ e4 ^xe4 10 #xe4
A modem tabiya of the variation, which I
began studying before my fifth match with
Karpov (1990).
10.. . ! ^
Another popular reply is 10...^f6 11 #e2
(11 #114 ^e7l?, Kamsky-Karpov, Dortmund
1993) 11... Vc7 12 i.d2 b6 13 0-0-0 i.b7, as
played both by Kamsky, and by Karpov, right
up to his match with... Kamsky (8th and 12th
match games, Elista 1996).
11 # g 4
11 0-0 b6 (ii...c5 12 S ell with the idea of
12.. .£sf6 13 Wh4 or 12...C4 13 i-fl) 12 ®g4 is
43
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
probably more accurate, and if 12...g5?! 13
# h 3 2g8, then 14 S ell (Anand-Bologan,
Dortmund 2003), so there remains only
12...'&f8 (cf. the note to ll...g5).
A key divergence: Black has three paths.
H...g5
This move had already occurred, but it is
dubious. The abrupt weakening of the flank
is an attempt to exploit the advanced posi­
tion of the white queen. Anand’s novelty
11.. .5g8 (Game No.48) is also suspicious. The
best is ll...&f8! (Kharitonov) 12 0-0 c5 -
against this MakaTychev and I had prepared
13 c3 (13 b3 e5l, Gelfand-Speelman, Munich
1992) 13-b6 14 S el, and if 14...£>f6(?!), then
15 # h3 with a small plus, but practice has
shown that l4...Ab7 is sounder. And after
12.. .b6 13 b3 Ab7 14 Ab2 £>f6 15 #h3l? (15
# h 4 £>d5! Arakhamia-Portisch, Roquebrune
1998) I5...£kl5 16 g3 White has slightly the
better chances (Inarkiev-Galkin, Kemer 2007)
12 Wh3!
Quickly and confidently played: back in
September 1990 Beliavsky and I had ana­
lysed this queen retreat followed by the
manoeuvre ®d2-e4. For a start Axg5 is
threatened.
12.. .5g8! (weak is 12...Af4?! 13 0-0 Axel 14
Saxcl # f4 15 Seel, Benjamin-Andruet,
Paris 1989) 13 £>d2!
44
The h6-pawn is poisoned: 13 #xh6? loses
a piece after 1 3 ...Af8 !. 1 3 Ah7?! (McDonald-
Conquest, Eastbourne 1990) is also unfa­
vourable in view of 13 . g4! 14 #xh6 Af8 1 5
# e3 (15 #h4?! Ae7) 1 5 ~gxf3 16 Axg8 fxg2,
etc.
13.. .Af8?l
On encountering a new plan, Kamsky first
of all preserves his bishop from exchange and
defends the h6-pawn. And indeed, after
13.. .C5, recommended by me in Informator,
there is the unpleasant 14 £>e4 cxd4
(l4...Af8? 15 dxc5!) 15 #xh6 (Wells-Gonzalez
Garcia, Budapest 1995; we also analysed 15
0-0!?) or 14...b6151i rf3!, and after 15...Sb8 the
black king is stuck in the centre.
Therefore a better version of the gambit is
13 .. .b6!? 14 #xh6 (14 £>e4l?) 14...Ab7 15
®e4, and here not 15..0-0-0? 16 Axg5
(Spangenberg-Roca, Villa Gesell 1994), but
now 15...C5! with hopes of compensation: 16
Axg5 c4! or 16 dxc5 Axes, etc. Black could
also have considered 13...g4l? (Frolov-
Ponomariov, Kiev 1997) 14 #xh6 Af4 15
# h 5 £>f6 16 #c5 (16 # h 4 Ag5) I6...b6 17
#33 Ab7 with good play for the pawn, or 14
# h 5 Af4 15 £se4 Axel 16 Sxcl # f4 17 0-0
®f6, when White’s advantage is only slight.
Now, however, he has an easy game.
14 £ * 4

The quiet 14 0-0 £>f6?l (Palac-Arlandi,
Formia 1995) 15 £>c4 or 14..~&.g7 15 c3 is also
good.
14...±g7
Now if I4...b6?! there is the very strong 15
f4! g4 (I5...gxf4?! 16 0-0) 16 lihS with the
threat of f4-f5 and the possibility of both
kingside and queenside castling. The weak­
ening 14...f5?l is also dangerous in view of
15 .&C4! Sg6?! 16 Whs &f7 17 f4l.
15 0-0!? (a pawn sacrifice for the initiative!)
15-..^.xd4 (I5...b6?! 16 c3, Zamicki-Giardelli,
Acassuso 1994) 16 ±e3!
A critical position.
16.. .±e5?!
Too timid! Black could also hardly be satis­
fied with l6..JLxe3? 17 fxe3 or I6...g4?l 17
« h 4 ^.xe3 18 fxe3 f5 19 1^116 We5 20 £>g3
followed by the e3-e4 break. But, of course,
he should have captured the second pawn -
16.. .^.xb2!?.
After this I spent a long time analyzing a
sharp exchange sacrifice - 17 c3?l ^.xal 18
S xal and in the end I came to the conclu­
sion that after I8...2g6! Black should be able 20...i.e7
to defend: with his enormous material
advantage he can give something back at Sxh7, but here he saw the fearful blow 22
the right time.
17 S ad i ±e5 18 g3l (not the Informator23 1^8+ <4 ’d7 24 Sdl+ <4>c7 25 Sxd8 ±xd8?
18 <Abl?!) with the simple threat of #xh6 is 26 Wd6 mate.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
stronger, also with the ideas of l8...Sh8? 19
f4! or l8...Bg6?l 19 £>d6+! and JLxg6. White
has a splendid attacking position, but the
play is still double-edged, whereas in the
game he retains both an attack and his b-
pawn.
17 Sadi £>f6?
The decisive mistake: my opponent
thought that the h6-pawn was taboo. How­
ever, things are also not easy for Black after
17.. .b6 (Berglund-Gardarsson, correspon­
dence 2002) 18 jk.e2! jtb7 (l8...£>f6? 19 f4l)
19 -&h5 or 17...£>b6 18 c4! with a crushing
attack after l8...Ad7?l (I8...f5?l 19 Ae2!) 19
f4! gxf4 20 lh 4 ! fxe3 21 Sxf7! <&>xf7 22 Sfl+
<4>e8 23 Ae2l or 20...f5 21 Sxf4! Sg7 22 JLe2l,
etc.
18 £)xf6+ ±xf6 19 J&.h7! (or first 19 Wxh6)
19.. .5 .8
In the event of 19...Sf8 20 #xh6 both
20.. We7 21 f4 g4 22 f5 exf5 23 b4 and
20.. JLe7 21 Sd2l with the threats of S fdl and
J.xg5 are fatal for Black.
20lrxh6
Gata was relying on 20..Me7 21 ^.c5l
Sd8+!! with a picturesque finish: 22...1Srxd8
45
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

21 % 7 Sf8 22 Hd3 i-d7 23 ±xg5 ±xg5 24 FIDE world champion should be helped. No
#xg5 #d8 sooner had the talk of my ‘released hand’ in
In a hopeless position Kamsky fights on, the game with Polgar begun to die away,
as usual, to the very end. when persistent rumours began circulating
25 1^5 # e 7 26 Wc7! i.c8 27 #a5 b6 28 about how Kramnik and Beliavsky were
# e 5 (28 Wa4!) 28...i.a6 29 i.e4 lc 8 30 c4 bound to ‘throw’ their games against me.
This had never happened in my life! All this
preyed hugely on my nerves, and in the end I
cracked under the pressure.
In the tenth round - a rare instance in this
tournament - fortune turned its back on my
rival: after reaching an endgame against
Kamsky with an extra pawn and winning
chances, he threw away his advantage with
his hasty 33rd move. Alas, this did not help
me: aiming at all costs to win with Black
against Kramnik, I played the King’s Indian
Defence too riskily, overstepped the mark,
came under attack in the endgame, and lost.
30.. .5g8 It was with this game that my problems with
After 30....&.XC4? White mates by 31 Kramnik began: that same year I twice lost
jbcc6+l, while if 30...1S,c5, then 31 ^ 4 .&xc4 to him in PCA rapid tournaments - on 22
32 S cl and wins. April in Moscow and on 30 June in New York.
31 b3 i.b7 32 S fd l i.a8 33 c5 bxc5 (or Later, it is true, I began recouping my losses,
33.. .'S'xc5 34 I'xcS bxc5 35 Sd7) 34 2d6 c4 but the complex of a difficult opponent had
35 bxc4 (there was no need for 35 ^.h7l? or emerged.
the startling 35 ^.g61!) 35...C5 36 .&xa8 Bxa8 The leader was again l'/i points ahead,
37 #xc5 2b8 38 g3 ®b7 39 1 ^ 4 ^ f8 4 0 1T6 and now there were just three rounds before
1-0 the finish. My last hope was the llth round,
in which Karpov played Kramnik, and I
A short but interesting battle. I now had 7 played Vishy Anand. In this game I was
out of 9 - more points than in all my previ­ successful.
ous victorious tournaments in Linares. But
on this occasion I merely reduced the gap
behind the leader: Karpov was unable to win Game 9
a superior ending against Shirov and was on G.Kasparov-V.Anand
‘only’ 8 out of 9. Linares, llt h Round 11.03.1994
I still had to play Kramnik, Anand, Be- Sicilian Defence B85
liavsky and Lautier. As in previous years, I
was pinning my hopes on a powerful finish, 1 e4 c5 2 <Sk3 d6 3 ®ge 2 <Sk6 4 d4 cxd4 5
but here there was the dreadful tournament ®xd4 (after the ‘anti-Sveshnikov’ move
atmosphere, apparently in keeping with the order, the system with 2...d6 and 5...®c6 has
ideas of my enemies about how the official been reached) 6 JLc4

46
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

At that time I regularly played this. i d 4 (Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Paris (rapid) 1995)

6.. .#b6
The expected reply. Since 1991 MakaTy-
chev and I had also done much analysis of
the Velimirovic Attack - 6...e6 7 Jk,e3 with
the idea of We2 and 0-0-0, but unfortunately
I was not in fact able to employ it.
7<£)b3
The most popular continuation - and
more promising than 7 <£)de2 e6 8 0-0 a6 9
JLb3 Ae7 10 iLg5 ®c7 11 ^ g 3 b5 (Kasparov-
Timman, Manila Olympiad 1992).
7.. .e68*10
or 15 ib 6 !? e5 (I5...ie7 16 a3! with the
threat of <£ia5) 16 f5 &e7 17 fihel, etc.
9...&.d7 is more interesting, since 10 a4
&e7 11 a5 ®c7 12 a6 0-0 13 0-0 Sfb8! (Kas-
parov-Kramnik, Horgen 1995), and 10 g4 Ac6
11 f3 *S^g6 12 Ag3 d5 (J.Polgar-Short, Nov­
gorod 1996) are both acceptable for Black.
10 ±e3 Wc7 11 f4
An interesting moment: where should the
knight move to?

11.. .£ic6
Switching to Scheveningen lines. ll...<Sk4l?
8if 4 was probably sounder, not fearing 12 i.xc4
it would have been in the style of the 11th Wxc4 13 Wf3 e5 ( l 3—b 6!?) 14 f5 b5 15 £id 2
world champion to play 8 0-0 i e 7 9 i e 3 #c6 with equality (Rublevsky-Svidler, Tivat
Wc7 10 f4 0-0 11 i d 3 a6 12 g4 (Fischer- 1995) or 12 4?)b5! (as I would have played)
Saidy, New York 1966), or 8 i e 3 #c7 9 f4 a6 12 .. .#c 6 13 A xc4 Wxc4 14 Wd3 # 06!, when
10 i d 3 b5 11 #f3 i b 7 12 g4 (Fischer-Soos, too little is promised by 15 <£)a5 (15 <£)xa7?!
Skopje 1967). But I liked an old idea of Igor Wxe4) 15..Md7 16 e5 (16 £)c4 £)xe4!)
Zaitsev - with gain of tempo to lure the 16.. .£)d5! 17 £)c4 (17 exd6 l,d8!) 17...dxe5 18
black knight to e5, in order to then drive it £ixe5 # d 8 19 0-0-0 f6 20 £ ic4 a6, etc.
away with f2-f4. Therefore MakaTychev and I were plan­
8.. .£te5 9 i e 2 i e 7 ning 15 ^3d4l? 'Sfd7 16 0-0-0 with the hope
If 9-.a6 I was planning 10 ie 3 ! (10 i g 3 of developing an initiative in the event of
h5l, Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Linares 1993) 16.. .0.0 17 e5! (Rublevsky-Nevednichy, Tivat
10..M c7 11 f4 ^ c4 12 ix c 4 ®xc4 13 ®f3 1995). However, after I6...a6! it is hard for
and 0-0-0 with the initiative, for example: White to achieve an advantage and there is
13.. a complicated game in prospect (Lastin-
.1d7 14 0-0-0 Sc8 (not 14...b5? 15 e5 or
14.. .1c6? 15 Sd4, trapping the queen) 15 Lukin, Elista 1995).

47
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
12 £f3 a6 13 0-0 0-0
A thematic tactical nuance: White does
not hurry with a2-a4, since if 13...b5?! the
break 14 e5l dxe5 15 fxe5 is unpleasant. For
example:
Analysis Diagram
1) 15...£>xe5?! 16 Axa8 £>eg4 - I studied
this gambit during the game: 17 .&f4 e5
(I7...1ra7+?! 18 Wd4! VHxa& 19 h 3) 18 £>d5
^xd5 (if I8...tta7+?! there is the decisive 19
£>d4! 0-0 20 £>xe7+ 21 S e l or 21 h3)
19 tfxdS 0-0 (I9...1fa7+?! 20 £>d4! or
19...exf4?! 20 # 06+1 is worse) 20 h3 exf4 21
hxg4 #a7+ 22 & hl ±e6 23 Wb7 2xa8 24
tfxa7 Sxa7 25 Sxf4, when White is the
exchange up with chances of success, but
the bold 17 Sel! Hrxh2+ 18 & fl is even
stronger;
2) 15...^d7 16 JLxc6 Vtxc6, and now not
17 £)a5?! ®c7 18 #f3 0-0 19 Wxa8 Wxa5
with good compensation for the exchange
(20 Wa.7 b4 and ...®xe5, Asrian-Fominykh,
Minsk 1998), but to the centre - 17 <£>d4!
with two possible continuations:
a) 17..Mb7 18 #g4! b4 (l8...g6? 19 Sxf7l,
while if I8...2f8, then 19 Sael) 19 <£>a4! 2f8
20 S a e l with a powerful attack: 20...18rd5 21
C4! Wxc4 22 »f3 Sb8 23 b3l WdS 24 WxdS
exd5 25 £>f5 and wins;
48
b) 17...Wc7l? 18 Sxf7! (a surprise!)
18.. .^>xf7 19 Wf3+! &g8 20 VHxa8 (20 £id5!?)
20.. .#b7 21 l rxb7 l.xb7 22 S fl &C5 23 &f2
or 19...^>e8 20 ttxa8 £ib6 21 Wc6+ Wxc6 22
£>xc6 £>c4 23 £ixe7 &xe7 24 1.C5+ &d7 25
b3 ^xe5 26 Ad4, and in both cases White
has an endgame with an extra pawn.
14 a4l
Before the storming of Black’s king’s for­
tress, his counterplay with ...b7-b5 must be
forestalled. If immediately 14 g4, then
14.. .b5 15 g5 i£>d7 16 a3?! £)b6!, seizing the
initiative (Al.Sokolov-Golovin, Kstovo 1994).
14.. .b6 (the clamping a4-a5 was threatened)
15 g4!
Now is the time! Even despite the fact that
this Scheveningen tabiya occurs far more
often with White to move, and he is able ‘free
of charge’ to play g4-g5, .&g2 and Sf3 (fresh
examples: Alekseev-Golod, Biel 2005; Kasim-
dzhanov-J.Polgar, San Luis 2005), or Whs and
f4-f5 (Alekseev-Movsesian, Dagomys 2006).
Now Black faces a problem: how to make
best use of the extra tempo?
15.. .5 .8
A typical move, preparing not so much
...b6-b5, as ...£>a5 with the threat of ...£>c4
(which is even more effective with the white
queen on d2). Makarychev recommended
15-.i.b7, but after 16 g5 £>d7 17 &g2 White

does not change his plan of attack, since on
g l his king is more comfortable than in the
similar set-up with &hl, for example:
17...Sac8 18 Sf3 2fe8 19 Sh3 g6 20 Wei!
£>b4 21 1 ^ 4 h5 22 ±f3! ±f8? (22...*g7l 23
£xi4! e5 24 f5 is not so clear) 23 .&xh5! gxh5
24 f5 exf5 25 f ^ h s ±g7 26 £sd4 Se5 27 S fl
£if8? (27..McA is more resilient) 28 £sxf5
Sxf5 29 exf5 and wins (Galdunt-W.Miiller,
Badenweiler 1994).
However, at the board I was more con­
cerned about the sharp continuation
15—d5l? 16 exd5 Sd8, and here I examined
the tempting queen sacrifice - 17 dxc6 Sxdl
18 Saxdl. My optimistic analysis of this line
was published in Informator and the maga­
zine Shakhmatny Vestnik, but later I came to
the conclusion that after l8..JLb4l? White
has no advantage and the chances are equal.
17 We2!? £sxd5 18 £)xd5 exd5 19 c3 with a
small plus is probably better.
16 g5 £ld7 17 ±g2
This position has also occurred many
times with White to move, and he has
immediately begun his attack with Sf3-h3
(an example: Slizhevsky-Bryzgalin, Dagomys
2006).
17...Se8
Again a typical move, vacating the f8-
square for the bishop or knight. The nervy
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
I7...b5?l is premature on account of 18 axb5
axb5 19 #621, when White turns his atten­
tion to the queenside weaknesses. 17...£>a5
18 £kU! £ sc4 19 A cl b5? is even worse in
view of 20 axb5 axb5 21 b3l £sa3 (21...£se3
22 £scxb5l) 22 £)f5l with crushing threats.
I8 2f3
By transposition and with a different
move numeration White earlier played 18
Whs (Kagan-Csom, Sao Paulo 1973), 18 We2
(Spassky-Kindermann, Bundesliga 1984),
and 18 ^ h l (Serper-MacKay, Adelaide 1988),
and later both 18 f5 (Safarli-Serban, Istanbul
Olympiad 2012), and 18 h4 .&b7 19 h 5
(Berger-Schlosser, Bundesliga 2012).
Why did I choose the typical rook ma­
noeuvre? Let us compare the diagram
position with the well-known position after
1 e4 c5 2 £)f3 d 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 £)f6 5
£ ic3 a 6 6 ±e2 e 6 7 0-0 &e7 8 f4 0-0 9 ^ h l
Wc7 10 a 4 £ic6 11 ±e3 Se 8 12 ±f3 Sb 8 13
I t o &d7 14 £)b3 b 6 15 g4 .&c8 16 g5 £)d7
17 .&g2 (not 17 'Sff2 - Game No.7 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov). Here
White’s king (on h i instead of gl) and his
queen (on d2 instead of dl) are both worse
placed, but the main thing is that it is Black
to move, and he can defend successfully
with 17..~&b7 18 Sf3 £)a5l (l8...±f8?l is
dangerous in view of 19 1^2 g6 20 Sh3 Ag7
49
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
21 1^14! £>f8 22 f5! ix c 3 23 f6!!, S.Hansen-
Svensson, Gothenburg 1998) 19 f f 2 £ ic4 20
i c l d5! with sharp play. But in out case it is
White to move and Black has not yet
brought out his bishop to b7, which means -
attack!
18.. .£ ic5
Pawn activity on the queenside is inap­
propriate: I8...b5?l 19 axb5 axb5 20 i f l ! or
18.. .1f8 19 Sh3 g6 20 # e l! (now aiming for
h4) 20...b5? (the lesseT evil was 20...ig7 21
f5l ot 20...®b4 21 W/f2 with the threat of S fl
and f4-f5) 21 axb5 axb5 22 i f l ! (Solozhen-
kin-BaTon Rodriguez, Linares Open 1995).
Anand made the risky knight move quite
quickly, although this knight could have
come in useful for the protection of the king
after, say, l8...^a5l? 19 Sh3 i£)c4 20 tfhs
<£)f8 (van der Mije-Makai, London 1980).
19 Sh3 g6 20 % 4
White’s attack is based on the threat of 21
1 ^ 4 h5 22 if 3 l and ix h 5 l in combination
with the f4-f5 break.
20...£)b4?
A decisive although by no means obvious
mistake. In seeking a counterattack on the
queenside, Black’s army conclusively aban­
dons its king to its fate. White is also better
afteT 20...if8?l 21 1 ^ 4 h5 22 gxh6! (in
Informator for some reason only the unclear
50
22 i f 3 i g 7 23 ix h 5 gxh5 24 #xh5 is given)
22.. Me7 (Makarychev’s move 22...&h7 is
worse because of 23 ®d4l) 23 Wf2, etc.
While Vishy was considering his move, I
looked at the active defence 20...h5?l, afteT
which I was planning a sharp Took sacrifice -
21 Sxh5l (little is given by 2 1 1Srh4 <£)xb3 22
cxb3 d5 23 i f 3 4^7! 24 exd5 exd5 25 £ixd5
1 ^ 8 or 21 gxh6 £)xb3 22 cxb3 d5l) 21...gxh5
22 Wxhs. In later analysis Makaiychev and I
came to the conclusion that after 22...®d7?
or 22...if8? White wins by 23 g61, but
22.. JLb7 would seem to enable Black to hold
on: 23 S fl i f 8! 24 Sf3 i g 7 or 23 f5 ®e5!
etc., and 23 g6(!) fxg6 24 #xg6+ 4 h 8 forces
only a draw.
Analysis Diagram
However, the computer extended this last
variation - 25 ®xc5 dxc5 26 1i rh6+ 4g8 27
#xe6+, and it transpires that Black has no
defence: 27...4f8 (or 27...<&h8 28 lb 3 + and
#g4+) 28 ®f 5+ 4g7 29 #g4+ "if7 (29...4f8
30 ®d5 1^16 31 e5 or 29...4h8 30 £)d5 ®d6
31 Sa3l is even worse) 30 Sdl! Sbd8
(30...£sd4 31 fixd4!) 3 1 1 ^5 + 4g8 32 1^6+
4f8 33 £sd5 or 3i...4g7 32 Sd5l and wins.
Incidentally, the g5-g6 break is also very
strong afteT other replies: 22...Sd8 23 g6!
fxg6 24 14^6+ 4 h 8 25 ®d4! (and if

25.. .^b4, then 26 £rf5!), or 22...£ixb3 23 g6!
±f6 (23...fxg6 24 #xg6+ ^ 8 25 f5!) 24 e5!
iLg7 25 exd6 fxg6 26 dxc7 gxh5 27 cxbS#
£ixb8 28 cxb3 with a won ending, or
22.. JLd8 23 g6 f6 24 g7!, regaining the rook
and retaining an extra pawn and an attack.
And yet Vishy had the opportunity for a
far more resilient defence, for example:
20.. Ji.d7!? with the idea of 21 ^ 4 h5 22
±f3 *g7! or 21 i.f3 h5l 22 gxh6 £ixb3 23
cxb3 d5, as well as 20...£ixb3!? (this is more
solid than the immediate 20...d5 2 1 1 ^ 4 h5
22 ±f3 &g7 23 exd5 exd5 24 £ixd5 lki6!) 21
lTi4 h5 22 cxb3 d5 23 M s &g7 24 exd5
exd5 25 £ixd5 #d8! with an acceptable
game.
21 # h 4 h5 22 i.f3!
The thematic J.xh5 is in the air.
22...i.f8
Allowing the bishop sacrifice, although at
least not by 22...£ ixc2? 23 iLxh5l. It could
have been forestalled by 22...<&>g7, but then
there would have followed 23 f5l e5l (the
only chance: 23...exf5? 24 Jtd4+ ^ 8 25
Jtxhs! with crushing threats) 24 f6+ &g8 25
^xc5l bxc5 26 fxe7 i.xh3 27 Wx!^ l r(S)xe7
(27...^xe3? 28 i.xh5l) 28 #g2, and White’s
two bishops should cope without difficulty
with the rook.
23 ±xh5! gxh5
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
In going in for this variation, Anand was
pinning his hopes on his 25th move - but in
vain! 23..Jtg7 was more resilient, although
after 24 JLd4l e5 25 f5! all the same Black
stands badly:
1) 25...gxf5 26 JLxc5 bxc5 27 exf5l (instead
of 27 g6?l as given in Informator) 27..~&xf5
(27...C4 28 Sfl!) 28 S fl, winning the queen
and the game: 28...^.xh3 29 Jtxf7+ 1i rxf7 30
Sxf7 &xf7 31 ®xh3;
2) 25...^xb3 26 i.xg6! fxg6 (26...'4f8 27
Sfl! with the threat of f5-f6) 27 ®h7+ sfcT8
28 S fl # c4 (28...gxf5 29 exf5 and wins) 29 f6
#x fl+ 30 <&xfl i.xh3+ 31 * g l! Sb7 32
±xb6, and the game cannot be saved;
3) 25...exd4 26 ±xg6 fxg6 (26...dxc3? 27
IT 17+ ^ 8 28 f6!) 27 lT i 7+ ^ 8 28 Sfl! <&e7
(in Informator only 28...gxf5 29 exf5 and
wins is given) 29 f6+ ^ 8 30 fxg7 Sb7 31
gS# 1^117 32 Wxb7 Sxh7 33 Sxh7 dxc3 34
bxc3 and Sf6 - the furious activity of
White’s rooks guarantees a win;
4) 25...£ixe4 26 fxg6 fxg6 27 .&g4! Jb<g4
28 1 Ti7+ ^ 7 29 Sfl+ i.f5 30 £ixe4 Sh 8 31
Sxf5+ gxf5 32 WlxfS+ * g 8 33 Sf3! We7 34
£if6+ £.xf6 35 gxf6 Wf7 36 i.xe5! Sh5 37
Sg 3+ ^ 8 38 S h 3!, and after 38...Sg8+ 39
i.g3 Sxh3 40 l rxh3+ 1 Ti7 41 l rxh7+ *xh7
42 f7 Sxg3+ 43 hxg3 *g7 44 £id4 &xf7 45
■if2 White achieves a won knight endgame;
5) 25...gxh5 26 i.xc5 bxc5 27 ®xh5 ^ 8 28
f6 i.xh3 29 1TI7! Sec8 30 fxg7+ *e7 31
®xh3 Wd7 32 ttf3! 1te6 33 S fl Sg8 34 1^6+
®xf6 35 gxf6+ <^>e6 36 £ia5, and with the
support of the cavalry White’s passed pawns
decide the outcome.
24 *xh5 i.g7 25 i.d4 e5 26 f5! £ixe4
An illusion of counterplay. However, it
would not have helped to play 26...exd4? 27
'Wn7+ sfcT8 28 f6 with mate in two moves, or
26...,4 f8 27 £ ixc5! bxc5 28 iLe3 with the
murderous threat of Wh7 and f5-f6.
27 Wh7+ Af8 28 £ixe4 i.xf5 29 Wxf5 exd4
51
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

Not wishing to drag out the hopeless re­

sistance, Black resigned.

I reached 8 out of 11. But Karpov won in

good style against Kramnik, who had not yet
regained his composure after his game with
me, and was now on 9V2 out of ll! Aver­
bakh: ‘The question of first place was essen­
tially decided by Kramnik: after winning
against Kasparov, in the next round he lost
to Karpov’ (Game No.103 in Part V of My
Great Predecessors). At this the race con­
cluded.
For an instant it may seem that things In the 12th round I had a highly painful
have become easier for Black: with material game with Beliavsky, who performed ex­
equal, the white king is also exposed. But tremely badly in the tournament: because of
how well placed it is on g l - there are no the talk about the ‘throwing’ of the game, I
pins! was by definition, so to speak, unable to win.
30 £if6! This draw concluded our meetings in ‘classi­
At this the discussion concludes. 30 Sfll? cal’ play (+11-2=14). That day Karpov drew
Se5 31 Wg6 with the threat of Sh7 was also with Anand, and in the final, 13th round he
very convincing. crushed Beliavsky in a Catalan. But I, having
30.. .1'xc2 31 £)xd4l Wxb2 completely lost my motivation, recklessly
After 3l-'B ,xf5 32 ®xf5 Black loses at attacked with White against the 20-year-old
least the exchange, while if 3l...'B,d2 there is tournament debutant Joel Lautier and
both my Informator piece sacrifice - 32 S fl resigned as early as the 30th move, allowing
l ,xd4+ 33 * h l # c4 34 £id7+ &e7 35 Se3+ Shirov to catch me.
AeS 36 ®xe5 dxe5 37 l rxe5+ <&d7 38 Sdl+, It is unlikely that anyone expected such a
as well as the simple 32 £id7+ &e7 33 ®b3. stunning victory for Karpov. Everything
32 Hdl worked out for him, he won from almost any
A logical human move, supporting the position, and in the end he achieved one of
knight on d4 and retaining complete domi­ the most impressive tournament results in
nation without having to search for any­ chess history (+9=4). When I had not yet
thing. But the computer administers imme­ cooled down after the battle, I said: ‘In my
diate punishment - 32 £id7+!? &e7 33 2el+ view, this competitive triumph was not
<&d8 34 2xe8+ <&xe8 35 2e3+ or 33.Jk.e5 34 supported by outstanding play. I have seen
2h4l (instead of the Informator move 34 Karpov play better. Now he has found an
®f3) 34...1i ,c3 35 Sxe5+! dxe5 36 ®xe5, and optimal manner of play, which by virtue of
the white king easily avoids the checks. his personal and playing qualities enables
32.. .2e5 (to defend against the mating him to achieve the maximum results with
attack, Vishy is forced to give up the ex­ the minimum expenditure of nervous
change) 33 ®d7+ &e7 34 ®xe5 JLxeS 35 energy. A kind of apotheosis of pragmatism!
We4l 1-0 On this occasion I played badly, but my

52

attitude to this is simple: I will endeavour to
play well in the next tournament.’
But for this I needed to replenish my store,
firstly, of nervous energy, and, secondly, of
opening ideas. It was after Linares 1994 that
I sensed for the first time that my opening
knowledge, accumulated in the 1980s and
early 1990s, was largely exhausted, and that
a leap to a new, qualitatively different level
was needed. The young generation was now
looking at other openings! Thus for me this
amazing tournament became a turning-
point, and its outcome a kind of historic
punishment for the mistake of 1993-
For Karpov this was undoubtedly the
"tournament of his life’. After it the FIDE
champion apparently decided that by now
he had demonstrated everything to every­
one, and he even made a bold statement in
the press: ‘Yes, I would like to play another
match with Kasparov, but now he needs this
match more than I do.’ Soon Karpov’s tour­
nament successes began to decline and, as
in the early 1980s, he endeavoured to avoid
meeting me at the board. But even so I was
able to tum the tables in Las Palmas 1996
and Linares 2001.
Soon after my return from Linares a con­
venient opportunity at last presented itself
for me to make peace with Botvinnik (I should
remind you that we had had serious ideologi­
cal disagreements). In April 1994 Moscow
together with the PCA was preparing to stage
a grandiose festival - the ‘Kremlin stars’
rapid-play knock-out tournament. How
honourable and symbolic it would be if the
chief arbiter of the first super-tournament in
the Kremlin were to be the great Botvinnik!
And so with Andrei Makarov, the new Presi­
dent of the Russian Chess Federation, and
grandmaster Averbakh, the organiser of this
meeting, I went to see Botvinnik in his office
on the second floor of the Central Chess Club.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
By that time Mikhail Moiseevich’s eye­
sight was very poor, in fact he was almost
blind: he moved about with the help of his
nephew. But his mind was completely clear.
Just as 15-20 years earlier, he knew exactly
what he wanted and what he didn’t want.
He listened impassively to our suggestion
that he should be the chief arbiter of the
tournament and, after a little thought, he
rapped out: 'Rapid chess will be the death of
our game!' Or something of that sort.
I said to him: ‘Mikhail Moiseevich, but this
form of the game is one that will make it
more popular...’ But he replied: ‘This will
cause enormous damage, colossal damage.’ I
tried again: ‘This is how everyone is playing
- hundreds of grandmasters. Even Vasily
Vasilievich is playing in this tournament!’
And he in reply: 7 don’t give a damn about
the opinion o f the majority! I am used to
thinking with my own mind!'
That was Botvinnik to the core. And so we
left empty-handed. That was my last meet­
ing with the Teacher.
Amsterdam Quartet
Double-Round Match-Toumament in Am­
sterdam (Euwe Memorial, 11-18 May 1994):
1. Kasparov - 4 out of 6; 2. Ivanchuk - 3!/j ; 3.
Timman - 2Vi; 4. Short - 2.
My first ‘classical’ appearance after
Linares was in May at the Euwe Memorial in
Amsterdam. The organisers were intending
to stage a double-round, four-player match-
tournament of all the contestants in the
recent title matches - Kasparov, Short,
Karpov and Timman! As the press wrote, ‘in
this case the event would have acquired the
character of an absolute world champion­
ship - of FIDE and the PCA'. But, alas, after
his Linares triumph Karpov declined to play
and was quickly replaced by Ivanchuk - a
53
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
player with truly champion-like playing
potential, although without a champion-like
stability of results.
Over such a short distance - just six
rounds! - any of my three opponents could
have been my rival. After obtaining No.l in
the drawing of lots, at the start, to my dis­
tress, for the first time in my life I was un­
able to beat Ivanchuk with White - a draw
as early as the 2lst move! Meanwhile, Short
beat Timman with White and took the lead.
But the second round, in which I played
Nigel Short, brought a change of leader. That
day I was able to make use of something
from the extensive analytical knowledge
accumulated for our 1993 match. At the
time many were surprised by why Short
avoided his usual French Defence, and at last
something from the submerged part of the
iceberg was revealed.
Game 10
G.Kasparov-N.Short
Amsterdam, 2nd Round
13.05.1994
French Defence
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £sc3 £sf6
Having decided to choose the French, for
the moment Nigel does not venture his
favourite 3...^.b4 (Game No.12), while
3...dxe4 (Game N0.84) was a move that he
hardly ever played.
4 e5 £sfd7 5 f4 c5 6 £sf3
Later this line occurred quite often in my
white games, and on the whole it brought
me reasonable results.
6.. .£sc6
6..Mh6 7 JLe3 a 6 is another way of fight­
ing for equality, for example: 8 £sa4 WaS-r 9
c3 cxd4 10 b4 #c7 11 #xd4 £sc6 12 # d 2
.&e7, or 8 a3 £sc6 9 dxc5 .&xc5 10 £sa4 WaS-r
54
11 b4 1*
4Srxa4 12 bxc5 0-0 13 c4 1^5+ 14
Sd8! (Kasparov-Radjabov, Moscow (rapid)
2002 ).
7 i.e3 cxd4
If 7...1i rb6 there follows 8 £sa4 WaS-r 9 c3
and now 9...C4 10 b4! #c7 11 g4l? ( ll g3
JLe7 12 J.h3 is also quite good, Svidler-
Bareev, 2nd match game, Elista 1997) ll...b5
12 £ sc5 a5 13 a3 with the prospect of devel­
oping an offensive on the kingside (Kas-
parov-Dreev, Munich (blitz) 1994), or 9-.cxd4
10 b4 £sxb4 11 cxb4 .&xb4+ 12 ,&d2 ,&xd2+
13 £sxd2 g5?! (13...0-0 14 i.d3 b5 15 £sb2
£sb6 and ...£sc4 is better) 14 Sbl! gxf4 15
,&b5 Sb8? 16 £sc5, and White won (Short-
Timman, played in the first round!).
7...a6 was also tried against me, for ex­
ample: 8 # d 2 (once, mixing up my moves, I
played 8 h4?!, Kasparov-lvanchuk, Frankfurt
(rapid) 1998) 8...b5 9 a3! (9 h4 i.b7 10 h 5
.&e7 is less good, Kasparov-Bareev, Dort­
mund 1992) g.-l^be 10 £se2! (10 1^2!?)
10...C4 11 g4 h5 12 gxh5 Sxh5 13 £sg3 Sh8
14 f5, seizing the initiative (Kasparov-
Radjabov, Linares 2003).
8 £sxd4 &C5 (after 8...«b6 9 * d 2 #xb2 10
S b l # a3 11 Ab5 White has good play for
the pawn, but modem practice shows that
Black can defend) 9 Wd2
One of the French tabiyas.

9 ...0-0
The most popular continuation. 9...a6
comes to the same thing after 10 0-0-0 (10
£sce2 We?!?, Svidler-Short, Dubai (rapid)
2002) 10...0-0 (I0...£sxd4 11 l.xd4 0-0 allows
12 i.xc5l? £ sxc5 13 #d4, then ‘i ’bl, jLd3,
ah el, g2-g4 and f4-f5, J.Polgar-Short, Buenos
Aires 2000) 11 h4, etc.
Another well-trodden path is 9...^.xd4 10
JLxd4 <S^xd411 #xd4 #b6. We looked closely
at the endgame after 12 #xb6 £ixb6, and
here instead of 13 £>b5 &e7 14 0-0-0 ,&d7
with equality (Chandler-Short, Hastings
1988/89), I was attracted by 13 a4l? (Kas-
parov-Bareev, Novgorod 1997).
In addition, there was the gambit idea 12
#d2l? #xb2 (I2...£sc5 13 0-0-0 jLd7 14 # d 4
a6 15 h4 and Sh3 is not so critical, Kasparov-
Timman, Horgen 1995) 13 S b l # a3 14 £>b5
#xa2 15 £id6+ <4 ’e7, and since after 16 # b 4
a5! White only has perpetual check (Shirov-
Bareev, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2003), I was
intending 16 S dl, but after l6...b6 17 .&d3
#a5l Black is okay (Almasi-Bareev, Monte
Carlo (rapid) 2003). Therefore it is better to
play 16 Sell? #b2 17 .&e2 (Grischuk-
Zvjaginsev, Mainz (rapid) 2005), or I6...b6 17
.&e2! # a5 18 c3 (Carlsen-Prasca, Turin
Olympiad 2006) with sufficient compensa­
tion for the pawn.
10 0-0-0
Castling suggests itself, but the prophy­
lactic move 10 g3 is also possible, for exam­
ple: 10...#e7 11 0-0-0 £sb6?l 12 £sb3l i.xe3
13 #xe3 ii.d7 14 'A’b l with some advantage
for White (Kasparov-Shirov, Astana 2001).
10.. .a6 11 h4
A fashionable plan at that time. 11 ‘A’b l
was also played (De Firmian-Short, Manila
Interzonal 1990), but 11 £>b3l? or l l #f2l? is
objectively better (an example: Kramnik-
Radjabov, Linares 2003).
11.. .£ixd4 12 ^.xd4 b5
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
13 Sh3!?
13 ‘i ’b l would have led to a position from
the De Firmian-Short game, in which after
13.. .^.b7 14 h5 b4 15 £se2 a5 16 i.xc5l £sxc5
17 £>d4 £se4 18 # e3 White gained a small
advantage. However, already then it was
known that the immediate I3...b4l 14 £sa4
(14 £se2 a5) 14...i.xd4 15 #xd4 a5 or
15.. .#a5 16 b3 .&b7 is more active.
The immediate 13 h 5 is more reasonable,
but here also after 13...b4 Black can defend:
14 £se2 a5 15 .&xc5 ^xc5 16 # e3 # b 6
(l6...#c7l?) 17 f5 a4 18 ‘i b l (Smirin-Lputian,
Rostov-on-Don 1993) I8...#c7l with the idea
of ...<S^e4, or 14 <S^a4 J.xd4 15 #xd4 #a5l?
(stronger than 15-.a5, Nunn-Lputian, Manila
Olympiad 1992) 16 b3 .&b7 17 h6 (the sharp
17 f5?l does not work in view of 17...^.c6! 18
f6 gxf6 19 exf6 ^ 8 1 , Gallagher-Barsov, Bem
1994) 17 ...g6 18 ‘i ’b l (18 c3?l bxc3 19 £sxc3
jLc6 20 <S?b2 Sfb8 is unfavourable for White)
18.. JLc6 19 £>b2 #c5 with approximate
equality.
In playing 13 Sh3 I was pinning my hopes
not on a direct attack, but rather on White’s
long-term pluses, resulting from his superior
pawn structure. It is important above all to
hinder ...f7-f6 and the immediate opening of
the centre.
13.. .b4
55
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Now 13...^.b7 deserves consideration,
since in the event of 14 h5 b4 15 £*e2 a5 16
&bl, instead of the concrete JLxc5 and ®d4
(De Firmian-Short) White has made the
ratheT abstract move Slh3. Equally unclear,
double-edged play results from 14 g4 b4 15
£*e2 a5 16 g5 .&a6! 17 h5 Wb6 (Jongsma-
Stellwagen, Nijmegen 2002), ot 14 a3 ®e7
(NajeT-A.Rychagov, Krasnoyarsk 2007).
14 £sa4 i.xd4 15 l rxd4
This position, which first occurred in Ni-
jboer-LutheT, (LeeuwaTden 1992), was one
that I discussed before the 1993 match at a
training session in Podolsk with my friend
Smbat Lputian, a great expert on the French
Defence.
15...f6?!
A novelty! The afore-mentioned game
went 15...1Bra5?! 16 b3 ^.b7 17 c3! Sfc8 18
&b2 bxc3+ 19 Sxc3 fixc3 20 l rxc3 l rxc3+ 21
^xc3 with a favourable endgame foT White,
but Black could have complicated the play
with 20...'Brd8! and ...Hc8 (NijboeT’s recom­
mendation 21 S cl 2c8 22 Wb4 is ineffective
in view of 22...Sxcl! 23 &xcl ±c6 24 g3 a5
25 l fd4 i.xa4 26 #xa4 £ ic5 27 ®d4 £te4 28
f5l). Therefore we gave preference to 20
£)xc3! and came to the conclusion that here
White’s chances are better.
That is what I was intending to play.
56
However, Lputian, returning to the position
depicted in the diagram, said: ‘Here there is
the excellent move 15-.f6 - White’s centre is
destroyed, and Black has no particular
problems.’ When Smbat left, Makarychev
and I carefully studied this move and de­
vised an idea, which became our prepara­
tion for the London match. But the French
did not occut there, and by the will of fate
the preparation went into operation seven
months lateT...
To be faiT, it should be mentioned that
Black has a perfectly acceptable defence -
I5...a5! (with the idea of ,.JLa6), and if 16
JLbs Sb8 17 -&d3 not only is l7..Wc7 possi­
ble (Fogaiasi-LutheT, Kecskemet 1993), but
also 17...&06 18 £*c5 £*d7 (NijboeT-M.GuTe-
vich, Essen 2001), or 17...f6 (Langheinrich-
Shirov, Bundesliga 2003).
16 #xb4! (of course, not 16 exf6 Wxf6 with
equality) I6...fxe5
17 Wd6!
This unexpected interposition promises
Black far more problems than the simple-
minded 17 fxe5 £ixe5 18 Se3 £*c6 (Stohl) 19
1T)6! # d 6 20 g3 ot I8...a5 19 1 ^ 4 £)g6 20
£*b6 with the idea of £)xc8, in oideT to
obtain a ‘FischeT’ bishop and put pressure on
the e6-pawn.
17...!rf6

The only move: after 17...£>f6? 18 'VlxdS
£xd819 fxe5 Black is simply a pawn down in
an endgame. The culminating moment has
been reached.
18 f5l!
The crux of White’s idea. After quickly
making this flamboyant move, 1decided that
matters were practically decided. But years
later, when a computer joined the analysis,
it transpired that the win was still a long
way off.
l8...Wh6+
Again the only sensible reply. The pawn is
taboo: I8...exf5?? 19 1Srxd5+ or lS.-.l'xfS? 19
Sf3 ^g4(g6) 20 2xf8+ £sxf8 21 £ib6 winning
a piece. I8...'£,h8? is also bad in view of 19
fxe6 1T4+ 20 'i b l Wxfl 21 Shd3! e4 22
Sxd5 e3 23 £>c3 e2 24 £>xe2 Wxe2 25 exd7
(Stohl), or 20...1rxa4 21 b3 1 ^ 4 22 Sf3l,
exploiting the weakness of the back rank.
And if I8...2e8?l White is better after 19
fxe6 #f4+ 20 'i b l #xa4 21 exd7 l rxd7 22
Wxd7 ^.xd7 23 2a3 or 21...^.xd7 22 2a3 1 ^ 4
23 l fxd5+ £ e6 24 1^3! I rxh4 25 b3, attack­
ing the weak black pawns, but the unex­
pected 19 .&e2! (intensifying the threat of
fxe6, since ...1Srf4+ and ...1Brxa4 no longer
works) is more effective: 19—^ x fs 20 2f3
# g 6 21 2 d fl e4 22 2f4 or 19...2a7 20 fxe6
£>f8 21 2f3 #xh4 22 2f7l (22 £>c5l?)
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
22...2xf7 23 exf7+ 'S?xf7 24 £>b6 with a
powerful attack.
19 &bl 2xf5?
Faced with White’s tempestuous assault,
Short makes a decisive mistake. 19...£>f6!
was far more resilient, for example:
Analysis Diagram
1) 20 fxe6? (a tactical oversight) 20...£*e4
21 IfxdS? (211i rb6 really is better) 21...£sd2+
22 Sxd2+ iLxe6! (but not the cooperative
22.. .5xfl+(??) 23 S d l 2xdl+ 24 Wxdl jLe6
25 £*c5l given by Makarychev and Knaak) 23
# d 6 1i rxd2! and wins (Carroll-van Hooff,
Internet 2005);
2) 20 £>b6 (not 20 £>c5?! IT 15! 21 S e l
exf5) 20...£>e4 21 #07! (21 #xe5 2xf5 is
equal) 21...2f7 22 #c6!i.b7 23 Wxe6 2d8 24
#xh6!? (24 2hd3 «Ti5 25 g4 #xg4 26 £)c4
£*c3+! is unclear, Baklanov-van Hoof, Inter­
net 2006) 24...gxh6 25 2b3l &g7 (25...2xf5?!
is weaker in view of 26 ,&d3 ^ 7 27 ^.xe4!
dxe4 28 &C1) 26 &C1 with a better, although
double-edged endgame;
3) 20 IFxeS! ^ e 4 21 1 ^ 4 (suggested by
Stohl, as well as the unclear 21 g4?l £>f2)
21.. JLb7l? (2l...2b8 22 £>c3l or 21...2xf5 22
jLd3! is less good) 22 2b3 e5 23 Wb4, or 21
Sf3! exf5 (21...£>xd2+?l 22 Sxd2 l rxd2 23 a3l
favours White) 22 £sc5 £sd2+ (22...<S^f6 23 g3)
57
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
23 4 a l #c6 (23...£sxf3 24 ’S'xdS-t-) 24 2c3, in
all cases with a continuing initiative, but still
far from a win.
Now, howeveT, Black has an extremely
difficult position.
20 2f3l?
After a long think I chose the most flam­
boyant way to convert my advantage, al­
though in our London analysis 20 Jte2 was
planned, with the assessment V. After this it
is bad to play 20...Sf4 (my Informator move
20.. .2f7? is even worse because of 21 Sf3!)
21 Sf3! # g 6 (21...Sxa4? 22 l t 6 ) 22 2xf4
exf4 23 B el or 20...1rg6 21 h5l (this is much
stronger than Knaak’s move 21 g4?! or
Stohl’s move 21 Bf3) 21...1Sre8 22 ±g4 Sf6 23
h6, and there is no way to save the game.
Things are also difficult for Black after 20...e4
21 g4 Sf 2 22 g5 # g6 23 .&g4 £sf8 24 £sb6 h5
(24...e3?! 25 Bel) 25 Bh2l Ixh2 26 #xh2
hxg4 27 £sxa8, etc.
20.. .fixf3
If 20...1Srf6? there was the immediately
decisive 21 Bxf5 ®xf5 22 £sb6! (far more
forceful than the 22 $Le2 given in Informa­
tor) 22...£sxb6 23 ±d3! e4 24Sfl!.
21 gxf3
‘Now the f-file is closed, but White’s
bishop has gained access to h3’ (Stohl).
21.. .1rf6 (21...417? 22 Wc6) 22 ±h3 4f7
58
Of course, not 22...£sf8? 23 £sb6. Here foT
the second time in the game I had a solid
think, selecting the better of two tempting
paths to the goal.
23 c4!
A vigorous move, again creating enor­
mous pressure. 23 f4i? ®e7l (the only
chance: 23...exf4? 24 S ell and wins) also
suggested itself, for example:
1) 24 Wc6 Bb8 25 f5 £if8 26.fxe6+! (in­
stead of the Informator move 26 £sc5?l)
26.. Jtxe6 27 Axe6+ £sxe6 28 #xd5, and
Black faces a difficult defence;
2) 24 fxe5! Wxd6 25 exd6 - calculating
this variation at the board, I was afraid of
the loss of the d6-pawn after 25...£sf6 26
£ sc5 2b8 27 B el 2b6, but from afar I did not
notice the spectacular 28 iLxe6+! Jlxe6 29
2xe6 2c6 30 d7 2xe6 31 d8£s+!. After
25.. .2 .8 26 B el £sf8 27 £sc5 Black also has a
very difficult endgame (if 27...Bb4 28 d7l,
winning a pawn).
In the end I nevertheless preferred to un­
dermine Black’s pawn centre from the other
wing - I was attracted by an unusual attack­
ing construction.
23.. .dxc4
After 23...d4 the powerful passed c-pawn
would have remained alive. And apart from
my previous recommendations 24 f4 exf4 25
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

Sfl! ot 24 c5 # e7 with the improvement 25 This colourful, energetically conducted

#c6! (Stohl), heTe 24 flgll? g6 (24...#e7? 25 game improved my mood. In the third Tound
2xg7+) 25 h5 # e7 26 #c7 is very strong, Short drew with Ivanchuk, whereas I beat
with the idea of 26...g5 27 c5! or 26...a5 27 f4! Timman with Black and consolidated my
and wins. Therefore Short captured the lead - 2Vi out of 3.
pawn, but he obviously underestimated my But in the fourth Tound I was defeated
Teply. and caught by Ivanchuk. In our game I
‘floundered’ right from the opening, over­
looking a powerful tactical stroke: l e4 c5 2
£)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 £sf6 5 ®c3 a6 6 f4
#c7 7 #f3 g6 8 l,e3 ±g7?! (8...b5 9 i d 3
^b d 7 is better, Stefansson-KaspaTov, Reyk­
javik (rapid) 1995) 9 h3 e5?! 10 fxe5 dxe5 l l
jLh6! (here my first desire was simply to stop
the clock and leave the tournament hall, but
I forced myself to play on) ll...ix h 6 12 #xf6
0-0 13 2M5 #a5+ 14 b4 #d8? (a nightmare:
afteT I4...^.g7! White does not have such a
large plus) 15 <£>e7+ #xe7 16 #xe7 exd4 17
iLc4, and on the 39th move Black resigned. It
24 £>c3! was very painful to lose practically without a
‘The knight, for a long time dozing on the fight.
edge of the board, suddenly joins the attack!’ In the fifth Tound, which was inter­
(Makarychev). changed with the sixth so that no one
24.. .®e7 (24...^f8? 25 #c6!) 25 #c6 Sb8 26 should have the same coIout three times in a
£ie4 (threatening both ^d6+ and jk,xe6+) row, both leaders won with White: Ivanchuk
26 .. 6 . 6 against Short and I in a PetToff Defence
There is nothing else: if 26...£sf6?! 27 against Timman (cf. Game No.34 in Kasparov
2M6+ <4>g6, then not 28 <£sxc8?? #b4!, but vs. Karpov 1975-1985, note to White’s 12th
simply 28#xc4!. move). We both reached y /2 out of 5.
27 £>g5+ The destiny of first place was decided in
Black would also have lost afteT the the last Tound. Somehow submissively
slightly moTe Tesilient 27...'&f8!? 28 i£sxh7+ Ivanchuk lost to Timman in a slightly inferior
‘i ’gS 29 2ig5 g6 (in Informator only 29-.JLb7 endgame, while I forced a draw afteT being
30 jk,xe6+ ^ h 8 31 #xb6 or 31 #d6! is given) fiercely attacked by Short - I could even have
30 #64! # f6 31 Sd6! (threatening ixe6+) played foT a win, but, on seeing the suffering
31.. .£)a4 32 <4>cl(c2) ot 32 #c6 # e7 33 ‘i ’al!. of my rival on the neighbouring board, I
28 #e4! g6 29 #xe5 Hb7 3 0 Sd6! (White is decided not to take a risk.
as though driving in nails - he has complete Despite the successful finish, I was disillu­
domination) 30...C3 (ot 30...£sa4 31 ^.xe6+ sioned with my insipid play in both games
±xe6 32 Hxe6) 31 i.xe6+ jk,xe6 32 Sxe6 1-0 with Ivanchuk. However, I did not grieve foT
Black resigned in view of 32...‘£sc4 33 long: the very next day Short and I set off to
#xc3. Munich, in order to join battle in a pTomi-

59
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
nent PCA blitz tournament with the partici­
pation of 17 grandmasters and - for the first
time in history! - the program Fritz
3/Pentium (cf. p.210).
Partial Revenge
Double-Round PCA Super-Tournament in
Novgorod (11-26 August 1994): 1-2. Kas­
parov and Ivanchuk - 7 out of 10; 3. Kramnik
- 5; 4-5. Shirov and Short - 4; 6. Bareev - 3.
This was the first time that such a major
chess event took place in Novgorod - an
ancient Russian city, situated 500 km. north­
west of Moscow and 200 km. south of St.
Petersburg. Together with the PCA, the
organisers produced an optimal type of
event: six leading grandmasters playing a
double-round tournament. There were no
doubts about the participation of Kasparov,
Short, Ivanchuk and Shirov, but Kramnik
agreed to play only after his failure in the
summer Candidates matches, while Kamsky,
by contrast, declined after his sensational
match victories over Kramnik and Anand.
Karpov was also invited. The Novgorod
organisers, armed with a high-powered
delegation, sought him out in Moscow, but
despite all their entreaties the FIDE cham­
pion declined the invitation, saying that he
would not play in the PCA - ‘Kasparov’s
personal organisation’. As a result Bareev
became the sixth participant. But in any
event, for the first time in the history of
chess tournaments an average rating of
2700 was exceeded and the 19th category
achieved!
Despite the traditional training session
and active relaxation by the sea, this tour­
nament was psychologically difficult for me.
From the press: 'More often than usual
Kasparov looked concentrated and detached
from everything. Not as powerful as before,
60
there was an energy field surrounding him. It
was sensed that he desperately needed to win
the tournament: the world champion was
clearly unhappy with both his results and his
play in recent times.’
At the start I managed to win with White
against Shirov in a rare variation of the
English Opening - 1 c4 e5 2 £)c3 jLb4 3 £>d5
&e7 4 d4 d6 5 e4 c6 6 £>xe7WxeT 7 £>e2, etc.
In the second round came a fighting draw
with Bareev in a Griinfeld. In the third I
aimed for revenge against Ivanchuk, who
had beaten me in Amsterdam; I played l e4
and obtained a promising position in a
Sicilian (cf. Game No.79 in Part II of Carry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, note to Black’s
n t h move), but I was unable to develop my
initiative - a draw on the 25th move. We
both reached 2 out of 3.
In the fourth round, interchanged with
the fifth to avoid a player having the same
colour three games in a row, I again had
White, this time against the. 19-year-old
Vladimir Kramnik, my ‘1994 bogeyman’. This
was a crucial game. When I was preparing
for it I felt very nervous, remembering my
three recent defeats against Kramnik (in
Linares, Moscow and New York), but as soon
as the first few moves were made, the
concrete chess problems left no place for
anxiety.
Came 11
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Novgorod,
4th Round 16.08.1994
Sicilian Defence B33
1 e4 C5 2 £sf3 £>c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ocd4 £sf6 5
£sc3 e5
In those days Kramnik still had a rather
limited opening repertoire and after 1 e4 he

most often employed the Sveshnikov Varia­
tion, with which I had a ‘difficult relation­
ship’. However, from this game things went
well, and here I was able to score a number
of notable victories.
6 £>db5 d6 7 ±g5 a6 8 £>a3 b5 9 £>d5
At that time this quiet continuation ap­
pealed to me more than the sharp 9 £.xf6
gxf6 10 4M5 (Game No.85), which brought
Ivanchuk success in his game with Kramnik
from the first round. LateT I analysed both
lines a great deal, and I quite successfully
played the Sveshnikov Variation as Black.
9-..^.e7 (9...®a5+ - Game No.104) 10 JLxf6
£xf6 11 c3
11...0-0
ll..JLb7 (Game No.13) occurs compara­
tively rarely, more frequently - ll...£ie7 12
£ixf6+ gxf6 13 £ic2 jLb7 14 .&d3 d5, and
even more frequently - 11.. JLg5 12 £ic2 Sb8
13 a4 (13 a3 a5, Kasparov-KTamnik, Frank­
furt (rapid) 2000) 13...bxa414 £icb4 £ixb415
£sxb4 M 7 16 JLxa6 Was 17 1 ^ 6 Hb6 18
# d 3 &e7 19 £*d5 Sxb2 20 0-0 ®c5 with
approximate equality (Leko-lllescas, Madrid
1998; Karjakin-Radjabov, Baku 2008).
12 <Sk2 Sb8
The main line was then and has remained
12..JLg5 (Game No.49), not without the
influence of my 1994 games.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
13 h4l?
Instead of the hackneyed 13 A e 2 Ag5 14
0-0 a5, etc. After seeing the fresh idea 13 a3
a5 14 h4 followed by I 4...g6 15 g3 (15 h5
JLg5!) 15--&g7 16 h5 (Shirov-lllescas, Linares
1994), I employed it against Kramnik (Mos­
cow (Tapid) 1994), but he confused me with
I4...£ie7, and afteT 15 £ice3?! (15 ^ x f 6+! is
correct - the inclusion of the moves a 2-a3
and ...a6-a5 is in White's favour) I5...£ixd5
16 £>xd5 ± e 6 17 g3 ^ 7 18 ± g 2 £ d 8! Black
easily equalised.
When I studied 13 a3 more closely I did
not like the reply 13. .^.g5l? 14 £icb4 -&b7 ot
14 h4 JLh6. And so here I played 13 h4 im­
mediately.
13...^e7?!
As expected! AfteT 13...g6 14 g3 .&g715 h5
Black’s position is also somewhat inferior
(l5-.^.e6 16 ±h3!, J.PolgaT-lllescas, Leon
1996), but lateT it transpired that 13-.^.e7!?
(not weakening the kingside) 14 ^ c e 3 Ae6
is safeT, with the intention of ...®d7 and
...JLd8 (Tiviakov-Yakovich, Elista 1997; KaT-
jakin-Yakovich, Sochi 2007).
14 £sxf6+!
A surprise! AfteT the routine 14 £sce3?!
there would have followed 14...^xd5 15
^xd5 iLe6 16 g3 ®d7 with the idea of ..JLd8,
by analogy with out Moscow game (see
61
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
above). Kramnik appeared to be astonished
by the capture on f6: now Black can carry out
the thematic ...f6-f5 or ...d6-d5. Yes, in the
Sveshnikov Variation it is customary to fight
for control of the key d5-point, but it turns
out that it is also possible to harass the
enemy monarch!
14...gxf6
White is at a crossroads. The move Ti2-h4
and the resource 0-0-0 give him chances of
creating an attack on the king. The black
knight will no longer feel safe on g6 on
account ofh4-h5.
15 Wd2!?
My trainers and I also analysed 15 ^.d3l?
- I soon employed this novelty against
Lautier (Moscow Olympiad 1994), and after
15-d5 (I5...f5 16 exf5! favours White, as was
confirmed in later practice) 16 exd5 ®xd5 17
£se3 6 18 Whs Black was demolished in
literally a few moves: I8...e4?! 19 -&C2 b4?!
20 C4 <£118 21 0-0-0 f5 22 1 ^ 5 2b6 23 h5
Sc6?! 24 i ’b l Sc5 25 h6 # e 5 26 Sh5! 2g8 27
£sg4l! 1 -0.
A better defence was I8...f5 19 0-0-0 Wg6
(but not I9...*h8?l 20 g4! # g 6 21 tfgSl f6 22
WxgB hxg6 23 h5 g5 24 £sxf5, Teichmeister-
Volodin, correspondence 1994), although
here also after 20 #e2l White’s chances are
better (less is promised by my Informator
62
suggestion 20 #g5 f6 21 Wxg6+ hxg6 22
i.C2).
15...i.b7
We considered this move to be the
strongest. If 15-..d5, then 16 0-0-0 or 16
Hdl!?, while if 15-f5 we were planning 16
exf5! (16 Wg5+ *h8 17 Wf6+ <&g8 18 0-0-0
^.e6 is not so clear, Kamsky-Benjamin, San
Diego 2004) I6...£ixf5 17 0-0-0, or I6...i.xf5
17 0-0-0 Sb6 (I7...i.xc2 18 <&xc2!) 18 #g5+
4>h8 19 #f6+ <4>g8 20 JLd3 with prospects of
an attack on Black's hole-ridden fortress.
16 i.d3?!
Played in accordance with our analysis:
what could be more natural - both devel­
opment and the defence of the pawn. If 16
0-0-0 JLxe4 17 ®xd6 there was the reply
17.. .£sd5! 18 Wxa6 Wc7 with normal play: 19
i.d3 i.xd3 20 Hxd3 Sb6! 21 WaS lh 7 ! 22
2xd5 (22 Wa3 b4l) 22...Sa8 23 Wxa8+ Wxa8
24 ®b4 Wf8, and White has no more than
decent compensation for the queen.
It is unsurprising that no one saw the
computer trick 16 £se3l, preventing I6...d5?
in view of 17 £sg4. And after l6...JLxe4 (if
16.. .#d7, then simply 17 JLd3) 17 £sg4 ^ 8
18 £sxf6 (what a route: £kjl-f3-d4-b5-a3-c2-
e3-g4xf6!) l8..JLg6 19 h5 i.f5 20 i.d3 or 20
g4l? White retains an enduring initiative.
16.. .d5!

The point. I6...4>h8? (Campora-Bhend,
Bem 1987) is weak in view of 17 #h6! £sg6
(I7...£ig8 18 1 Ti 5 and £se3) 18 g3 2g8 19 h5
£sf8 20 0-0-0, then £>e3, etc.
17 exd5 #xd5
18 0-0-0!
It is not often that queenside castling is
encountered in the Sveshnikov Variation,
especially with the sacrifice of the a2-pawn.
However, for the moment the black king is
far more vulnerable...
I8...e4!
The only correct defence. In Informator I
gave l8...1rxa2(?) 19 Wi6(?) e4 20 i.e2,
transposing into a position from the game,
but after 19 Sh3! with the threat of 20 Sg3+
£sg6 21 h5 Black is on the verge of defeat.
19 i.e 2 Wxa2
The principled decision. Both I9...'$fxd2+
20 Sxd2 and lg.-.WeS (Ftacnik) 20 h5l would
have left White with somewhat the better
chances.
20 Wh6 (threatening not only #xf6, but also
Sh3-g3+) 20...'te6
Again the best move. After 20...f5? apart
from 21 Sh3 there was also the decisive 21
Sd7l.
21 & d4 Wb6!
Another strong reply. ‘Although Kramnik
encountered a surprise in the opening (a
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
new plan with queenside castling), for a long
time he defended brilliantly.’ (Makarychev).
We were mainly reckoning on 2l...#e5(?)
22 f4l and thought that White had a power­
ful attack, although at the time we did not
see a forced win. A correct and unusual way
was suggested by the game Gildardo Garcia-
lllescas (Linares 1994), where after 22...exf3
(there is nothing else) 23 ^.d3l £sg6 24 g3!
±e4 (24-f5 25 h5l) 25 i.xe4? 1fxe4 26 h5
£se5 27 Wxf6 We3+ 28 4>bl £sg4 29 #f5 £sh6
Black managed to gain a draw. But in the
event of 25 Shell f5 26 £>xf5l #xf5 27 .&xe4
Wi3 28 h 5 (Stohl) or 26...f2 27 Sxe4 Wxf5 28
h5 White would have won a piece and the
game.
Kramnik did indeed defend brilliantly, but
in so doing he spent much effort and time,
which in the end led to severe time-trouble.
22 Sh3
A critical moment. It is clear that after 22
.&g4?! ^.c8! Black is okay. When thinking
about my move, I saw that my opponent was
unhappy with his position, and I ascribed
this to the consequences of the obvious
manoeuvre 22 Sh3.
But later it transpired that Kramnik was
concerned about a pawn advance - 22 g4l?
4>h8 (22...iLc8? 23 S h g l and wins) 23
£sxf5 24 gxf5, when it is not at all easy for
63
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Black to defend: 24...b4? 25 Sd7! (with the
murderous threats of S g l and Ah5-g6!)
25.. .bxc3 26 Sxb7! and wins, or 24.~fibd8? 25
Ah5! (or else 25 Sd7! Ac8 26 Ah5M) 25...Ac8
(25...e3 26 Ag6! and Sd7) 26 Ag6! fxg6 27
Sd7!! Axd7 28 fxg6 Sf7 29 gxf7 # d 6 30 S d l
(30 Sgl? Ag4!) 30...1re7 31 Sxd7 - a fantas­
tic geometric solution, found on our return
from the game.
Makarychev and I did not bother to con­
ceal our discovery from my opponent, and
he returned the favour when, a few days
later, also during dinner, he demonstrated
the correct defence - 24...Sfd8! (24...e3l? 25
S hgl Sg8 is also acceptable) 25 A h5 e3! 26
S hgl Sxdl+ 27 A xdl Sg8 28 Sxg8+ &xg8
29 #xe3 # c 6 with a slightly inferior but
drawn endgame.
22.. .6H8 23 Ag4 Sg8 (23...£sg8?! 24 # h 5
with the threat of Af5) 24 5ie6?
Here there are three possibilities (not
counting 24 £sf5?! #66!), but, alas, not one
of them leads to the desired goal. I thought
for a long time about which piece to place
on e6, and in the end I put my knight there,
overlooking after 24...Sg6 25 # f4 the reply
25.. .Ad5!. The tempting 24 Ae6?! would
have been parried by 24...Sg6! 25 # f4 fxe6!
26 #b8+ 5g8 27 # h 2 e5 28 £sc2 £sg6! (more
convincing than the earlier 28...#xf2) with
excellent play for the exchange (29 g3?! b4l).
Apparently, all that remained for White
was 24 Af5! £sxf5 (Stohl also suggests
24.. .5g7(?), but this is bad because of 25
Sg 3! Sbg 8 26 Sxg7 Sxg7 27 Axh7! Sxh7 28
#f8+ 5ig8 29 £sf5 and £se7 or Sd8) 25 £sxf5
# e 6 26 # f4 #e5! 27 #xe5 fxe5 28 Sg3 Sxg3
29 fxg3 Sf8 with a drawn endgame.
‘From what went on at that moment in
the press centre I can vouch for the enor­
mous difficulties which have to be overcome
in finding one’s way through the endless sea
of complicated variations’ (Makarychev).
64
Soon, when powerful analytical programs
appeared, everything began to look differ­
ent.
24.. .5g6!
Forced. Black would have lost ignomini-
ously after 24...£sg6? 25 h5, 24...Sxg4? 25
£ig5!, 24...fxe6? 25 #xf6+ Sg7 26 Sd7!, or
24.. .#xf2? 25 Sf3! Hg6 26 #xg6! etc.
25 # f4 2e8?
Allowing an incredible finale. When
Kramnik made this move he had no more
than two minutes left on his clock. Of course,
like everyone else, he saw the mating varia­
tion 25...Sbg8? 26 h5 2xg4 27 #xf6+
S8(4)g7 28 h6 #xe6 29 hxg7+ Sxg7 30 Sd8+
£sg8 31 2xg8+! ^xg8 32 #d8+, but in the
event of 25...Sc8 he was afraid of 26 £sg5,
and after 25...Sa8 and the brilliant exchange
of blows 26 2d6! 5ids!, the inferior endgame
after 27 Sxb6 £sxf4 28 ^xf4 Sxg4 29 Sxf6
etc. (with the rook on e8 the position is
equal).
One instinctively wants to move the at­
tacked rook, especially when the last couple
of minutes are ticking away. But 25...Ad5!
was far stronger - in the press centre this
move was discovered very quickly. It would
appear that by 26 A h5 Axe6 27 Axg6 White
could still have fought for a win, but in a
joint analysis after the game Kramnik found

27~.£*xg6! 28 1i rxf6+ <£>98, when it is now
Black who is playing for a win: if 29 SeB (29
SgB? #a5! and wins - Stohl) 29...b4l he has
bishop and knight for a rook, while after 29
h5 JLxh3 30 2d6 #c5l 31 hxg6 hxg6 32 gxh3
b4 he is a sound pawn to the good.
Therefore I would have had to discard my
dangerous illusions and urgently seek a way
to save the game, for example: 26 ^d4l? (26
£*g5? ^.b3l and wins) 26...b4l (Ftacnik) 27
cxb4 ®xb4 28 Sd2 2b6 29 2g3 or 27.Jhi8!?
28 ±f5 £>ds! 29 #xe4 £>xb4 30 ®e2 2xg2 31
2e3 ^.ds 32 2e8+ with desperate hopes of
defending - after all, it is rather White who
now has the ‘bad’ king.
26 2d6!
The immediate 26 h5? would have been a
blunder in view of 26...2xg4 27 1i rxf6+ <^>g8
28 2h4 2xg2 29 2h2 2g4 30 2h4 ^ e 6 31
Wxe6 fxe6 32 2xg4+ ^f7, when Black has a
won endgame.
26...£>d5f
Resourceful defence! 26...#a5? was alto­
gether unsuitable in view of 27 h5l 2xg4 28
#xf6+ <&g8 29 £*g5! Wan- 30 <&c2 #a4+ 31
<^>bl Wlc4 32 h6 with unavoidable mate -
Black does not have perpetual check.
But now there occurs one of those mira­
cles, for which we so love chess.
27 h5!!
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
A move of amazing beauty - for the sake
of which all this was started! Events develop
by force.
27.. .£*xf4
It did not help to play 27...2xg4 28 1 ^x94
2g8 (28...1fxd6 29 VHg7 mate) 29 * rxg8+
<&xg8 30 2g3+ ^>h8 31 £>d81, 27...2xe6 (or
27.. .fxe6 28 hxg6) 28 hxg6 £ixf4 (28...fxg6 29
1116 , and mate) 29 2xh7+ ^g8 30 gxf7+!
&f8 (30...<&xh7 31 2xb6) 31 2h8+ <&xf7 32
iLxe6+ and 2xb6, or 27...2gg8 28 2xd5!
2xe6 29 JLxe6 ®xe6 30 Sd6 (Stohl) or 29
Sd7l.
28 hxg6 #xd6
The win is simple after 28...^xh3 29 gxf7l
or 28...^d3+ 29 Shxd3l, to say nothing of
28.. .5.e6 29 Sxh7+ (see above).
29 Sxh7+ &g8 30 gxf7+ &xh7 31 fxe8W
£>xe6 32 JLf5+ ^g7 33 % 6+ &f8 34 l fxf6+
<&e8 35 £xe6
35—^ 8 ?
A blunder with the flag about to fall, but
the alternatives were equally hopeless:
35-.b4 36 ®f7+ <&d8 37 Wxb7 #xe6 38
yUxbA, 35...^.a8 36 g4l, or 35-.e3 36 fxe3
£ x g 2 37 ±f7+! &d7 38 ^.e8+! <&c7 39 1^7+
<^>d8 40 1i rxg2 (the simplest) 40...<&>xe8 41
We4+ with the exchange of queens on the
next move.
36 ± d 7 + 1-0
65
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
After this spectacular win I reached 3 out
of 4, but Ivanchuk kept pace, defeating
Bareev with Black. Then I won with Black
against Short, and Ivanchuk with White
against Shirov, and with a score of 4 out 5
we were confidently leading after the first
cycle.
In the second half of the tournament the
FIDE officials Macropulos and Iclicki arrived,
as well as Makarov, the president of the
Russian Chess Federation. ‘FIDE - RCF - PCA’
discussions began, as well as other prob­
lems, and these affected my play.
In a sharp Sicilian duel with Shirov I was
the exchange up by the 28th move, but in
time-trouble by some kind of miracle I
missed a win. Meanwhile, Ivanchuk drew
with Kramnik and then with Short. And I, by
beating Bareev, at last moved half a point
ahead - 5V2out of 7 ! In the eighth round the
status quo was maintained, as a compli­
cated King’s Indian with Ivanchuk ended in a
draw. Then in the ninth round I drew with
Short, after failing to exploit his errors in a
rook endgame, and in the final, tenth round
- with Kramnik. As a result I was caught by
Ivanchuk, who again defeated Bareev.
From the press: ‘In a n in te r v ie w b e fo re th e
s ta r t th e w o r ld c h a m p io n p r o m is e d t h a t in
N o v g o ro d w e w o u ld s e e a “n e w K asparov" . A t
th e c o n c lu d in g p re ss c o n fe re n c e h e w a s a sk e d
h o w su cc essfu l th is tr a n s f o r m a tio n h a d b een .
O n h e a rin g th is q u e stio n , S h ort, w h o w a s
s ittin g a lo n g sid e , b u r s t o u t la u g h in g : “In m y
o p in io n , G a rry w a s th e s a m e a s h e h a s a lw a y s
b een ." A p p a r e n tly th e c h a m p io n a lso f e l t t h a t
th e p r o m is e h a d n o t b e e n c o m p le te ly fu lfille d .
“The w o rk h a s begu n " , h e sa id . “I w a s less
n erv o u s a t th e b o a rd . A n d I c o u ld h a v e p la y e d
b e t te r in th e s e c o n d h a lf - in p a rtic u la r, I d id
n o t w in t w o g a m e s w h e r e I s to o d v e ry w e ll ".'
Indeed, I felt the need for a drastic re­
newal, and in particular of my opening
66
repertoire. However, with Makarychev I was
unable to resolve this problem. Sergey, with
his customary sensitivity, himself realised
that a conflict had arisen and he wisely
decided to give up his post of trainer. From
November 1994 the 30-year-old grandmas­
ter Yuri Dokhoian began working with me,
and we began patiently developing a new
preparation conception, which was to bear
considerable fruit in the late 1990s.
Three Best Games
International Tournament in Horgen (3-15
September 1994): l. Kasparov - 8 V2 out of
11; 2-3. Yusupov and Shirov - 7; 4-5.
Korchnoi and Lautier - 6 V2; 6. Gelfand - 5 V2;
7. Leko - 5; 8-9- Benjamin and Nikolic - 4V2;
10-11 . Miles and Lutz - 4; 12. Gavrikov - 3.
After returning from Novgorod to Mos­
cow, within just a few days I flew to London
to take part in the third stage of the Intel
Rapid-Play Grand Prix - and I was knocked
out in my very first mini-match, after in­
competently losing a dead-drawn position
against the program G en iu s. But as one of
the PCA directors I had to stay there right to
the final itself, as a result of which I was late
for the drawing of lots in my next 'classical'
tournament.
One of the best known chess patrons. Dr.
William Wirth, Chairman of the board of
directors of the Credit Suisse Bank, on this
occasion simultaneously organised two all-
play-all tournaments in Horgen, a suburb of
Zurich. As the press rightly commented, ‘th e
m a in , g r a n d m a s te r to u r n a m e n t proved
r a th e r n o n -u n ifo rm , a n d in cla ss th e p a r tic i­
p a n ts w e r e a s th o u g h d iv id e d in to t w o s u b ­
g ro u p s, w h ic h w a s q u ite o b je c tiv e ly r e fle c te d
in t h e f i n a l ta b l e ’.
My standard of play was initially not very
outstanding, but my results enabled me to

fight foT the lead. In the fhst round I chose 1
c4 and unhurriedly outplayed the 15-year-
old Peter Leko - the rising start of Hungarian
chess. Then I won a very nervy King’s Indian
against Lutz. In my third round game with
Benjamin I missed a decisive stroke on the
17th move and later tried to extract a win,
but without success. In the fourth round
came a difficult draw with Gavrikov, in the
fifth I managed to win a nervy game against
Gelfand (who a month before had defeated
Kramnik in a match, but in Horgen was not
in his best form), and in the sixth I drew with
Lautier.
Before the seventh round the race was led
by Kasparov, Korchnoi, Shirov and Yusupov -
all on 4Vi out of 6. That day I had White
against an old acquaintance of mine, Pre­
drag Nikolic.
Game 12
G.Kasparov-P.Nikolic
Horgen, 7th Round 11.091994
French Defence C19
1 e4
Previously I had exclusively played l d4
against Predrag (Game Nos.63, 94 in Part II
of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
1...e6 (as expected) 2 d4 d5 3 ^c3 .&b4
(3...^f6 - Game No.10-, 3-dxe4 - Game
No.84) 4 e5 c5 5 a3 Axc3+ 6 bxc3 £te7
(6..Mc7 7 ^ 4 , Kasparov-Short, Novgorod
1997) 7 % 4
The main move, instead of the experi­
mental 7 h4 (Game No.86 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
7.. .^f8
I knew that Nikolic played this rare varia­
tion, but I was also ready for 7..Mc7 8 #xg7
or 7—0-0 8 JLd3 (Kasparov-Short, Munich
(blitz) 1994). Now White has to decide how
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
best to exploit the out-of-play position of the
rook on h8.
8h4
A plan tried in the game Hubner-Nikolic
(Munich 1990), and taken up by me before
the match with Short. Predrag was not
caused any particular problems by 8 a4 ®c7
9 £>f3 cxd4 10 Wxd4 <£ibc6 11 #c5 i.d7
(Ivanchuk-Nikolic, Reykjavik 1991) or ll...f6
(Nijboer-Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2005), 8 # d l
# a 5 9 Ad2 ®a4 10 <5^3 b6 with the idea of
,.JLa6 (Beliavsky-Nikolic, Tilburg 1993) or 8
Ad3 ®a5 9 Ad2 # a 4 (J.Polgar-Nikolic,
Hilversum 1993), nor by the currently most
popular 8 &.A.2, after which he played
8...Wa.5 9 a4 ^bc6 10 <£)f3 Wh6 (Short-
Nikolic, London (rapid) 1994), and since 1997
- 8...®c7!?.
8../tc7!
The main continuation used to be consid­
ered 8..MaS 9 Ad2 ^ 4 10 h5l? (instead of
the earlier 10 Aril or 10 Sh3), and in the
Hubner-Nikolic game after 10...1,xc2?! 11
h6! gxh6 12 'i rh3?! Ae8 13 #xh6 <£)bc6 a
draw was agreed, but 12 Sell could have
given White a dangerous initiative. There­
fore I0...h6! is necessary, after which White
usually replied l l fih3 £)bc6 (ll...1i ,xc2?! 12
id 3 ) 12 ®f4, but Lputian and I analysed 11
# d l b6 12 £rf3 Aa6 13 fih4 with the idea of
67
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Sf4, when White’s position seemed to us to
be the more promising.
After Nikolic’s unexpected move for an
instant I broke into a cold sweat - it is not
immediately apparent how the threat of
...cxd4 can be parried. I sank into thought...
9 Wdl!
I was unable to find anything more at­
tractive than the sacrifice of the d4-pawn. If
9 'i ’dl?!, then 9...h5l is unpleasant, while
sacrificing a pawn by 9 -*-d2 cxd4 10 cxd4
Wxc2 promises fewer hopes of a real advan­
tage: 11 Zcl We4+ 12 Wxe4 dxe4 or
11.. .Wa4l? (Ponkratov-Fedoseev, Taranrog
2011 ) .
9.. .cxd4
9...^.d7 with the idea of ,.JLa4 (Leko-llles-
cas, Ubeda 1997) is more cautious, or 9-b6
10 £rf3 Aa6 (Djukic-Nikolic, Dresden Olym­
piad 2008).
10 cxd4 Wc3+ 11 Jtd2 Wxd4 12 ^')f3 We4+
13 £e2
Here I already felt comfortable: the posi­
tion is quite an open one, Black’s king is
misplaced and he has problems with his
development - it is clear that with his poten­
tially powerful dark-square bishop, White
has excellent compensation for the pawn. It
was the turn of my opponent to think: how
to neutralise White’s growing initiative?
68
13.. .b6!
With the obvious intention of ...jLa6. In­
tuitively Nikolic hit on the best move. Two
months later he thed against me the jaunty
13.. ^bc6 14 h5l £sxe5, but after 15 h6
gxh6?! 16 JLxh6+ 4g8 (I6...&e8? 17 £g7) 17
Sbl! he was unable to overcome the chronic
problems with his king and rook on h8, and
he resigned on the 30th move (Paris (rapid)
1994). Things are less clear after I5...£*xf3+
16 gxf3 We5 17 hxg7+ &xg7 or the Informa-
tor suggestion 15-f6 16 hxg7+ l£ ,xg7, but
the main thing was that the position was to
my taste and I felt very much at home.
14 0-0 (or 14 c4 i.a6!) 14— &a6
Black seems to be okay: he will exchange
the light-square bishops and gradually
complete his development. If White does not
devise something, his activity will simply
peter out.
15 c4l
Pawns no longer count - it is important to
open lines for the attack (at the same time
White gets rid of his weaknesses). Very
interesting tactical play commences.
15...£)bc6
15...J.XC4! 16 ji.xc4 dxc4 was safer, for
example:
1) 17 &b4 £sbc6 18 £ d 6 (Stohl) I8...b5 19
Z el Wd3, and here the variations show that
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

White’s activity is sufficient only to regain £)f4 21 £>e4 Sd8! (Stohl) 22 S cl h6! 23 g3
the sacrificed pawns; # h 5 or 21 g 3 #xg5 22 i.xf4 # d 8 23 Se3 g5!
2) 17 £>g5 # d3 18 H is , when l8...1f5 19White has no more than decent compensa­
Sfcl! or I8...1g6 19 # f3 still retains the tion for his material deficit.
intensity of the battle, whereas after I8...g6 However, in 2012 the computer found the
19 £ixh7+ ^ 8 20 ^ 7 my Informator far stronger move 17 Sell.
suggestion 21 lg5(?!) I f 5 22 Sfcl is unfa­
vourable on account of 22...£ibc6! 23 Sxc4
(after Stohl’s move 23 £ig4 there is 23...£id5!
24 Sxc4 l d 3 ' 25 Sxc6 Sh5) 23...£ixe5 24
Sc7 £id3, etc., and therefore all that remains
for White is to give perpetual check - 21
jLh6+ Sxh6 22 £>e8+ &h7 23 £>f6+.
Thus 8 h4 does not promise more than a
draw. Analysis shows that after 15...^bc6
the evaluation of the position also remains
within the bounds of dynamic equilibrium,
but White nevertheless holds the initiative
and there are more pitfalls for Black to avoid.
16 £ig5 (I made my moves confidently, Analysis Diagram
although strictly by intuition)
Now White is better after both 17...&XC4
18 jLg4! (trapping the black queen) l8...£id4
(I8...h5 19 i.h3) 19 g3 &b3 20 gxh4 £ x d l 21
iLxdl, and 17...h6 18 £ixe6+! fxe6 19 ^.g4
with a pretty attack:
1) 19 ~.£lf5?! 20 £xf5 exf5 21 cxd5 £>e7 22
d6 £>d5 23 #f3 ^.b7 24 #xf5+ &g8 25 Se4
# d 8 26 S ael # f8 27 #h3!, and Black cannot
escape from the bind;
2) 19 -£ lg 6 20 g3 # e7 21 cxd5 exd5 22
S cl £ c4 23 Sxc4! dxc4 24 #f3+ &g8 25
#xc6 &h7 26 #xc4 with more than suffi­
cient compensation for the exchange;
I6 ...#xe5! 3) 19-h5 20 JLxe6 £xc4 21 Wf3+ &e8 22
Again the best choice! After l6...#xh4 pre­ #f7+ &d8 23 Sadi! &c7 24 g3! £>d8! 25 #f3
viously only 17 cxd5 ^.xe2 18 #xe2 was # d 4 26 &b4 # b 2 27 JLxdS £>xd5 28 Sxd5
considered - here Black defends by l8...£ixd5 #b3! 29 iLd6+! &d7 30 #f5+ &c6 31 Sd2
(I8...exd5?! is worse in view of 19 g3! # c4 20 &b7 32 #e4+ £>c6 33 Sbl! JLd3 34 #xd3
Wh5 g6 21 #f3 £>f5 22 £c3 with an attack) 19 #xd3 35 Sxd3 with a favourable endgame.
# f3 £ d8 20 S fel # 34 or I8...£>d4 19 # d l! After the capture of the e5-pawn White
£ixd5, and nothing is given by 20 g3 # h 6 21 also has a dangerous initiative, but Black can
# a 4 £>f5 22 #d7?! #h5!, while after 20 fiel still hold on.

69
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
17 E el #f6
18 £h5!
A strong move, which obviously disturbed
Nikolic: the bishop avoids being exchanged.
18 cxd5 ^.xe2 19 #xe2 £sxd5 20 Eacl £ice7
looked too harmless.
18.. .g6 19 cxd5?l
The immediate 19 ji.g4l was more accu­
rate, not opening the c8-h3 diagonal and
achieving an obvious advantage after
19.. .A xc4? 20 £.xe6! fxe6 (20...£sd4 21 i.c3!)
21 Sxe6 #f5 22 £ b 4 &g8 23 £xe7 Se8 24
g4l. And if 19—&c8, then 20 £sf3 is good, or
20 # c l ^>g7 21 ji.f3 with sharp play and full
compensation for the two pawns.
19.. .exd5
The only way: 19-£ixd5?! 20 ^.g4l (but
not the Informator suggestion 20 E el in
view of 20...£>e5! - Stohl) 20...^e5 (20...£sd4?
21 £ixe6! or 21 £sxf7l) 21 £ixe6+! fxe6 22
ji.g5 £sxg4 (there is nothing else) 23 Axf6
£igxf6 24 Exe6 (Stohl) 24...&f7 (24-&g7?! 25
g4!) 25 Ed6 Shd8 26 Sxd8 Exd8 27 # a 4
wins the a7-pawn - the queen and rook will
still play on the black king’s nerves.
20 £ g4 h67!
It is bad to play 20...<&g7? 21 £)e6+! fxe6
22 Sxe6 i.e2 23 ^.h6+! &xh6 24 # cl+
(Stohl), or 20...Ed8? (Ftacnik) 21 £ixf7l &xf7
22 i.g5 # d 6 23 #f3+ &e8 24 Eacl and wins.
70
But the accurate 20..JLc8! (insisting on the
exchange of bishops) would have parried the
direct threats: 21 £e2 h6 22 £>f3 &g7 or 21
E el h6 22 i.xc8 (22 i.c3? d4 23 £xc8 hxg5l)
22...Exc8, and since 23 1.C3?! d4 24 £se4
WeS! favours Black (Stohl), White is forced to
seek chances with 23 £rf3 Ed8 (if 23...d4,
then 24 g4l *g7 25 ^.xh6+! or 24...#d6 25
^.c3l)24^.c3 d4 25^.al.
21 £ * 6+!
An intuitive, one could say Tal-like piece
sacrifice. I realised that Black still had con­
siderable defensive resources, but White is
not taking any particular risk - he obtains
some amazing tactical possibilities.
21...fxe6 22 Exe6 #f7
22...#g7? does not work in view of 23
Sell, when after Stohl’s move 23-.ji.b7 there
is the decisive 24 Scxc6! £)xc6 (24—&.xc6 25
£b4) 25 h5! gxh5 26 #f3+ *g8 27 #xd5, if
23-h5 - 24 Ecxc6! £sxc6 25 Sxc6 hxg4 26
i.b4+ &g8 27 # x d 5+ &h7 28 hs!, and if
23„.A c4 there is the no less flamboyant 24
h5l gxh5 25 ^.xh5 4^8 (25-Eh7 26 Ec3!) 26
Exc4l dxc4 27 Ee4 (with the threat of Sg4)
2 7 - ^ 7 28 # 02! £rf5 29 Sxc4 <^cd4 30 Sxd4
Ehf8 31 Sc4, etc.
23 #a4?l
It was stronger to first bring the rook into
play - 23 Sell, as I recommended in Infor-

mator. It is an unusual situation: Black is a
piece and a pawn up, but it is bard to find
the correct move:
Analysis Diagram
1) 23....&C8? (23...^d4? 24 lxe7l) 24 2exc6
£>xc6 25 2xc6 iLxg4 26 Wxg4 ^ g 7 27 b5 or
26.. .Wf5 (Stohl) 27 Wd4l ^ g 8 28 b5l gxb5 29
2 c3! b4 30 2f3 We4 31 Wf6 2b 7 32 2f4l and
wins;
2) 23....&C4? 24 2xc4l dxc4 25 Wal ^>g8 26
2f6 2d8 27 b5! gxb5 28 2xf7 &xf7 29
Jk.xh5+ <S?e6 30 Wel+ with a winning attack,
or 25...2h7 26 2f6 (Burgess) 26...2d8 (Stobl)
27 2xf7+ ^xf7 28 Wei! 2d6 (28...h5 29 .&e6+
and Jk.xc4) 29 b5! g5 30 Jk.c3, and Black is in
trouble;
3) 23...b5?l 24 2cxc6! £>xc6 25 2xc6 bxg4
26 ^.c3! 2b5! (26...<&>g8? 27 2f6, and after
Stobl’s move 26...Wd7 there is tbe decisive 27
Wa4l) 27 2 f6 Wxf6 28 £ x f 6 2f5 29 J.C3! g3l
30 f3 2 c8 31 Wd4, and with tbe opposite-
coloured bishops tbe queen is obviously
stronger than tbe two rooks (3l...2c6 32
Wg7+ ^ e8 33 i e l ! , etc.);
4) 23...J.b7?! 24 2c3l d4 (24...&g8? 25 2f3
or 25 Wei 2e8 26 b 5! and wins, while after
24.. .b5? 25 jLh3 tbe g5-square is catastro­
phically weakened) 25 Sf3 £rf5 26 Jk.xf5 gxf5
27 iLxh6+ Hxh6 28 2xh6 4>e7 29 Wc2l Sg8
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
30 Sxc6 Jk.xc6 31 Wxc6, regaining tbe mate­
rial and continuing tbe attack;
5) 23...Sc8 (this would appear to be tbe
best defence) 24 2d6 &g7 25 b5l 2hf8 26
Jk.c3+ ^ 7 27 bxg6+ £ixg6 28 Sf6 We8! 29
Jk.xc8 Sxf6 30 Jk.xa6 d4 31 .£±>2!, and thanks
to bis two powerful bishops White bas
excellent compensation for tbe pawn.
That was tbe price Black should have bad
to pay for tbe flippant 20...b6?l (instead of
20....&C8!). Now, however, tbe position is
again roughly equal.
23.. ..6.C4!
I underestimated this counter-sacrifice.
23.. .^.b7? was weak in view of 24 S ael 2e8
25 ^.c3l or 24...Sh7 25 2d6! with an attack, as
was 23.Jk.c8? 24 2xc6 JLxg4 25 2c7! 2c8 26
2 acl We6 27 S e l i.e 2 28 Wd7 Wxd7 29 2xd7
or 26...2xc7 27 2xc7 We6 28 ^.b4 2b7 29
Wxa7 ^ g 8 30 ±xe7 Wel+ 31 &h 2 We5+ 32
g3 2f7 33 Wb8+ &h7 34 J.d61, winning tbe
b6-pawn with chances of a win. And 23...b5?!
24 .&h3 ^.c4 would have allowed White tbe
additional resource 25 Jk.g5! and2ael.
24 2xc6 £>xc6 25 Wxc6 2e8! 26 Jk.d7!
After tbe exchange of a pair of rooks - 26
2 e l 2xel+ 27 ± x e l d4! 28 We4 or 28 h5 -
White also bas full compensation for tbe
exchange, but the position is easier for Black
to play.
71
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
26...&g7!
There would have been a sudden finish
after 26-2d8? ( 2 6 ..Z e 2 ? 2 1 #c8+) 21 i.e6!
i.b5! (Stohl) 28 #C3! d4 29 # b 3 « f6 30 Sell
Eh 7 31 Sell, when Black is not saved by
either 3l.JSe8 32 #d5! or 3l-.-2.d7 32 Wb4+
#67 33 .2.xd7 or 32...'±’g7 33 .2.f4!!, nor by
3l-.-2.e8 32 Se4l *97 33 i.f4 .2x6 34 J ie S
,2.xe4 35 1i rb4!! Sd7 36 f4l with crushing
threats.
27.2.03+ *h7
28 h5l? (instead of the drawing 28 2.xe8 or
28 ,2.xh8, this is the last chance of sharpen­
ing the play) 28...Zhf8
28...Shg8?! (28...gxh5? 29 .2.f5+!) is dan­
gerous after 29 .2.xe8 Zxe8 30 hxg6+ #xg6
31 #d7+ *g8 32 Edl! # f7 33 #g4+ *h 7 34
&d4, when White has an attack with oppo­
site-coloured bishops: 34-Sg8 (34-Se4?! 35
Zxe4 dxe4 36 #xe4+ is hardly acceptable) 35
#h3! J ie 2 36 ,2.d2 Zg6 37 Sf4, etc.
But the safest was 28...Se7!? - now noth­
ing is given by 29 .2.xh8?! &xh8 30 hxg6
#f4l (Stohl), while if 29 .2.b4, then 29...Hhe81.
29 hxg6+ (of course, not 29 2.xe8 #xf2+
with perpetual check) 29—# x g 6 30 ,2.xe8
# x e 8! 31 # d 6! # f7 32 iLd4
Trying to build up an attack with the
rooks on, White avoids 32 f3 Ze8 33 E el
with equality.
72
32...Ze8 33 S c l (threatening Sc3) 33—Se4?!
With time-tTouble approaching, Nikolic
cracks under the burden of a lengthy de­
fence in a position with a Tiad’ bishop and
king. The simplest way of curbing White’s
aggression was 33-.Ze6! 34 WbS (34 #g3
Se4l) 34-Se8 35 # d 6 Se6 with equality.
34.2.e5!5g4?!
In I n fo r m a to r I considered this move to be
the decisive mistake and instead I suggested
34-.Se2 35 f4 with the variation 35-1Brg6(?)
36 #d7+(!) &g8 37 g4(?) &f8 leading to
equality. However, after 37 #h3! h5 38 Sxc4l
Sel+ (38...Exe5? 39 Sc8+ Se8 40 f5! # f7 41
Sc6 and wins) 39 ±h2 dxc4 40 #c8+ 4f7 41
f5 # h 6 42 #xc4+ White picks up the 37-
pawn with checks, forces the return of the
exchange and obtains a queen endgame
with an extra passed pawn. In fact 35-.Se3l
is correct, although after 36 #b8! White can
continue fishing in troubled waters.
35 Zc3
35—Eg6?
But this is indeed the decisive mistake.
Nikolic fails to find what was now the only
defence, and a far from obvious one -
35-..h5! 36 Sh3 .2.e2! with the threat of
„..2.f3, and if 37 Se3 (Stohl), then 37...Sg6! 38
# d 8 Zg8! 39 # h 4 Zg4 40 # h 3 Ze4 with
equality. The immediate 36 He3 is some-
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

what stronger, but here also after 36...Sg6!
37 H i8 fig8 38 H i4 fig4 39 1113 d4! 40 Sf3
# g 6 41 2f8 #g5 42 f4 # h 4 43 *xh4 2xh4
44 f5 iLg8 Black should be able to defend.
36 #d8! 2g8 37 H i4
was caught by Shirov. We each had 6 out of
8, with Korchnoi and Yusupov on 5V2.
In the ninth round came the highly im­
portant ‘duel of the leaders’ with Alexey
Shirov, and I was fortunate to be able to
carry out an amazing positional exchange
sacrifice, which to this day is not suggested
by a single computer!

Came 13
G.Kasparov-A.Shirov
Horgen, 9th Round 13.09.1994
Sicilian Defence B33

1 e4 C5 2 £)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 5

£ ic3 £ k 6 6 £)db5
At one time I used to avoid the Sveshnikov
37.. .fig5? Variation by 6 £sxc6 (Game No.89 in Part II of
With his flag about to fall, Nikolic leaves Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov), but now
his rook open to the f2-f4 attack, but he was I had prepared for it, knowing that my
also lost after 37...fig6?! 38 ,&d4! (blocking opponent usually did not avoid critical
the d-pawn and creating the threat of fie3- opening disputes.
e7), or the more resilient 37...'S,e6 38 Se3 6.. .d6 7 i-f4 e5 8 i.g5 a6 9 £sa3 b5 10 £)d5
(Stohl) 38...d4 39 i.xd4 1 ^ 6 40 2e7+ i.f7 41 (10 ,&xf6 gxf6 11 £sd5 - Game No.85)
H i 3 fid8 42 We3, etc. 10.. .1.e7 (l0...®a5+ - Game No.104) 11 i.xf6
38 f4 fih5 i.xf6 12 c3 i-b7
Equally hopeless were 38...2g6 39 f5l (the Shirov used to employ this rare plan with
dark-square theme: 39-Sg5 40 lxg5l), a subsequent ...£sb8-d7, avoiding the thor­
38.. .H i5 39 H dis! 2xh5 40 2g3, and oughly studied positions arising after
38.. .fig8 39 Sh3 H 8 (39-h5 40 g4) 40 i d 4 12.. .0.0 (Game Nos.ll, 49)-
(threatening f4-f5 and Se3-e7+) 40..JLe2 41 13£*C2
Se3 2g4 42 1^7+ l rxe7 43 Sxe7+ <£^6 44 In the event of 13 .&d3?! £ft>8 14 ^c2 £)d7
fixe2 Sxf4 45 i-b2, etc. 15 a4 bxa4 16 Sxa4 JLg5 Black has a com­
39 HI8 fortable game (Beliavsky-Shirov, Linares
Failing to find any satisfactory defence 1994).
(39...Sxe5 40 fxe5 H 1 + 41 ^ 2 H 4+ 42 13.. .£ib8
2g3), Black lost on time (l-O). It is an altogether different picture after
13~.£te7 14 £sxf6+ gxf6 15 i-d3 d5, as, for
A very complicated game and, for pre­ example, in Shirov-lllescas (Las Palmas
computer times, one of high quality. After it I 1994). And after 13 ...0-0, hoping for the
became the sole leader, but in the next modest 14 i e 2 ±g5 15 0-0 £sb8 16 #d3
round I drew quickly with Korchnoi, and I £)d7 (Tiviakov-Shirov, Oakham 1992), Black

73
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
has to reckon not only with 14 a4, but also
14 h4!?.
14 a4
A typical undermining move. At that time
they also tried 14 g3 £>d7 15 £sce3 0-0 16 h4
(Anand-Nunn and Anand-Kramnik, Monte
Carlo (blind) 1994) or 14 c4 0-0 15 cxb5 axb5
16 jLxb5 #a5+ 17 £sc3 (Campora-De la Villa,
Cordoba 1995).
14 £sce3 £sd7(?!) 15 £sf5?! is pointless in
view of 15 - 0-0 16 £sxd6 jLxd5 17 Wxd5 #c7
(Morris-Krasenkow, Andorra 1991) or
17-£>b6! (Shirov). However, as it later tran­
spired, 15 a4l bxa4 16 £sxf6+! (an unex­
pected exchange of this powerful knight) is
far stronger: I6...£sxf6 17 ®xa4+ # d 7
(I 7...*f 8 18 f3!) 18 l rxd7+ &xd7 19 f3
(I9...d5?l 20 0-0-0!) or 16-Wxf6 17 1fxa4
# d 8 18 £sf5 0-0 19 £sxd6 with the initiative
(lordachescu-Timoshenko, Tusnad 2004).
Therefore 14-0-0 is more solid, and if 15 h4,
then 15...£sd7 16 g3 £sb6.
14—bxa4 15 2xa4
Sharply activating the rook. 15 £sce3 is
also not bad - in the event of I 5„.£sd7 ?! 16
®xa4 0-0 17 2 d l jLg5 18 Wc2 (Zapata-
Shirov, Manila Olympiad 1992) l8..JLxe3 19
<S^xe3 £sc5 20 f3 (after Shirov’s move 20 Ji.d3
there is 20..JLc6! and ...a6-a5) 20...®c7
White’s advantage is slight, but 16 £sxf6+! is
74
correct (cf. the previous note). 15-0-0 16
Sxa4 £sd7 is safer, although 17 h4! gives
White some advantage (Zagrebelny-Gagarin,
Moscow 1995).
15-£sd7 16 Sb4l?
A cunning novelty. Again 16 £sce3l? was
logical with the ideas of l6..JLg5 17 £sf5,
16.. .£sc5 17 Sb 4(a2), and 16 ...0-0 17 h4l. But
back in Novgorod I conceived the idea of an
unusual exchange sacrifice, which is possi­
ble after 16 2b4 £>c5 (l6..JLc6?! 17 2c4! is
worse). After making my move, I froze in
expectation - and, fortunately for me, Shirov
quickly moved his knight.
16.. .£ sc5?!
After the game Alexey declared this move
to be virtually the decisive mistake, although
this was more of an emotional reaction. To
be honest, I did not see anything special for
White after l6...2b8, and the cool-headed
16.. .2.7! was even stronger (Erdogdu-
Halkias, Antalya 2001).
17 2xb7H
This move, which stunned my opponent,
afforded me great satisfaction: a pure
exchange sacrifice merely for domination of
the light squares and the restriction of the
‘bad’ knight. However, if one digs deeper, it
transpires that Black’s bishop is also ‘bad’,
and in general the coordination of his pieces
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

is poor - this is why it is so hard for him to
cope at the board with the problems that
have suddenly arisen.
17.. .^xb7 18 b4
While Shirov was considering his reply, I
strolled about the stage, and the leader of
the ‘B’ tournament, grandmaster Julian
Hodgson, came up to me and asked: ‘Didn’t
they teach you that a rook is stronger than a
bishop?’ I replied: ‘That day I wasn’t at the
lesson!'.
18.. .!,g5
In order to answer 19 ‘SiceB?! with
19.. ~&xe3, but the knight can go to c4 from
the other side. After 18...0-0 apart from 19
£ice3 and £>c4 White acquires the additional
resource 19 h4!?. Things are not improved by
18..#c8 19 £ice3 &d8 (l9...£id8? 20 £c4!
and wins) 20 h4! 0-0 21 g3, etc.
doxical feature of the exchange sacrifice is
that for the moment White is even behind in
development!
2l...axb4 22 cxb4 # b 8?!
Dangerously moving away from the king-
side. Black vacates the d8-square for his
knight or bishop and brings the queen to the
a-file, to have the possibility of launching it
into White’s position. But this active plan
proves just as pointless as the passive de­
fence 22...Sb8?! 23 h4 Jth6 (Stohl), in view of
the paralysing 24^cb6!.
22...Ia2 23 0-0 #c8 was better, with the
idea of ...# 66-116 or 22..JLh6 23 0-0 #g5,
although in both variations after 24 g3
White is not risking anything and at the
minimum he maintains dynamic equality.

23 h4i?
If 23 0-0 I did not like 23...£>d8, for exam­
19 £ia3! 0-0 20 £k4a5 ple: 24 h4 (24 £>cb6 Sa7 is equal) 24...^.h6 25
A natural desire to open the a-file for the £icb6 l a 7 26 # g 4 &T18! (avoiding a pretty
rook. The suicidal 20...f5(?) should be met trap: 26...£>e6? 27 £sd7! Ixd7 28 £>f6+!) 27
not by my Informator suggestion 21 itd3(?), £id7 f5! 28 #xf5 Sxf5 29 <^xb8 Sf8 with a
but simply 21 exf5i, since 21...flxf5 is bad roughly equal endgame. Therefore I decided
because of 22 h4! .&.xh4 23 # g 4 itxf2+ 24 to set my opponent a tricky problem: where
^ d l and l.d3, or 22..Ae7 23 &d3 Sf7 24 to move the bishop - to h6 or to d8, taking
Wc2 with a winning attack. away a square from the ill-starred knight?
2l l . d 3 However, Black’s error would have been
21 h4!? deserved consideration. But I hur­more clearly emphasised by 23 <£>cb6! Sa2,
ried to mobilise my forces - another para­ and now not 24 £>d7? (Stohl) 24..~&.d2+! 25

75
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Wxd2 (25 & f l #a7! ot 25 *e2 jLg5+! is even
worse) 25~-Sxd2 26 £>xb8 Sxd3, but simply
24 0-0 Wd& 25 Jtb5 ot 24~.lre8 25 # 9 4 with
mounting pressure.
23...£h6?
Played in accordance with the motto ‘all
or nothing’. 23...-«td8 was nevertheless more
solid, although here also after 24 g3 all the
chances are with White: 24~.'ira7 25 0-0
26 1i ,f3 or 25...1#rd4 26 Wc2, and the black
queen is out of play, or 24~.jj.c7!? 25 0-0 5}d8
(Stohl) 26 b5 £>e6 (26...1rb7?! 27 b6 &b8 28
£sce3!, beginning an attack on the king) 27
b6 &d8 28 Wbl! £>c5 29 Eel, etc.
24^cb6Sa2 25 0-0
Another instance of late - and very
timely! - castling. After 25 £>d7? .&d2+! 26
i f l Wa.7 27 jtb l Eb2 it is White who would
have had to fight for equality.
25."Ed2?!
It is already hard to offer Black any good
advice. The alternatives were also insuffi­
cient: 25~.lra7 26 &C4 Sd2 27IT 15 (Stohl) or
27 #g4!, or 25...#e 8 (25~ .lrd 8 26 g3) 26 &c4
Sd 2 (26...Sa3 27 1^2 or 26...Ea7 27 Wh5!
* h8 28 £>f6! is no better) 27 IT 15 * h 8 28
£)f6! We7 29 £>bd5 #d8(e6) 30 Jtb5 with
strong threats. White continues to dominate
because he has more pieces in play (look at
the rook on f8 and bishop on h6, to say
76
nothing about the wretched knight on b7).
2 6 * f3
A normal human move, aiming at the
king. But the computer chooses the cold-
hearted 26 Wbl! and <5k4, trapping the rook:
26.. .1ra7 27 £>c4 Ea2 28 £>c3 Ea6 29 b5
(Stohl) 29~.Sa4 30 £>xa4 1i rxa4 31 ^ 2 and
wins.
26.. .Wa7
Defending against the threats of £*d7 and
Eal. After the ‘faint-hearted’ 26...1i rd8 there
is the decisive 27 ^.a6!.
27-ad7?
An oversight! Alas, I attacked the rook
immediately, but the only way to win was by
the preparatory 27 .&b5! (what a difference
there is in the strength of the bishops!), for
example: 27.~Sc2 28 £>d7 Ea8 29 £>e7+ *h8
30 Wxf7 (nearly all the white pieces have
invaded the opponent’s position) 30..M&2
31 £>d5 (Stohl), or 27~.£>d8 28 £>d7 £>e6 29
£>e7+! &h8 30 £>xf8 Wxe7 31 £>xe6 and JLc6
followed by b4-b5, when the bishop on h6
remains a spectator.
After 27...*h8 28 £>d7 Sg8 29 #xf7
(threatening £>e7) 29~.£>d8 30 Wfs Black’s
days are also numbered: 30...1i rb7 31 £>e7 g6
32 #f6+ &g7 33 # g 5 #xb5 34 # x d 2 #xd7
35 £)xg8 &xg8 36 1i rd5+ with the unavoid­
able invasion of the rook and the march of

the b-pawn, or 30...Sd4 31 £>e7 g6 32 #f6+
±g7 33 £>xg6+! hxg6 34 #xg6 jLf8 35 Wh5+
&g7 36 #g5+ *h 8 37 #xd8 1157 38 &C6!
Ix c6 39 £>xf8 d5 40 le 7 ! 2g7 41 l e 6 with
a decisive material advantage.
27.. .£>d8?
Returning the favour. Wom out by the
thankless defence, Shirov returns the ex­
change, not noticing that in the variation
27.. .5a8! (strictly the only move: 27...Se8? 28
£s5f6+! gxf6 29 #94+ &h8 30 £>xf6 2xd3 31
#f5! or 27...£sc5? 28 bxc5 #xd7 29 c6! # a7
30 c7 and wins) 28 £>e7+ * h 8 29 #xf7 2xd3
30 £sf8 Black is saved by 30...1ra2! 31 l f 5 g6
32 #f6+ &g7 with a draw: 33 £sfxg6+ hxg6
34 £ixg6+ (34 #xg6 ±f8) 34...&h7 35 #f5!
#d2l, etc.
Annotating the game for Informator and
the Russian press, I came to the conclusion
that 27...2a8 would nevertheless have lost to
28 £>7b 6 - 28...2b8(d8)? 29 £sc4! or 28...2f8?
29 ^.b5l, obtaining the position with 27
&b5.
Analysis Diagram
But in the computer era once again the
only defence was found - 28...1fa3! (Stohl)
29 £sxa8 2xd3, for example: 30 £sf6+ <^f8 31
£sxh7+ &e7 32 # e2 2d2 33 #b5 #xa8 34
2 c l # b 8 35 # b 6 &e6 36 2c7 #a8! 37 g3
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
2dl+ or 30 # e2 2d2l 31 # g 4 #xa8 32 2 c l
£>c5! 33 bxc5 2xd5l 34 exd5 i x d 35 c6 h5l,
and everything reduces to perpetual check.
Another recommendation by Stohl is also
interesting - 28 J.C41? ®d8 29 #f5. How­
ever, he attaches a question mark to
29...#d4, assuming that after 30 £>7b6 2 a l
31 ^>h2! White wins, although here also
Black has a pretty way to draw: 3i. .£se6! 32
£>e7+ £*8 33 .&xe6 ±f4+! 34 *h3 #d3+ 35
f3 #xf3+! 36 gxf3 2h2+ 37 &g4 2g2+ with
perpetual check.
28 £sxf8 &xf8
29 b5l (the key move, killing Black’s potential
activity) 29—# a 3
If 29...£se6, then 30 b61. Soon after the
game I recommended 29...#d4 - and incor­
rectly! After this both 30 ii.e2l (Stohl) and the
thematic 30 #f5! &e8 31 #c8 #c5 32 £>c7+
&e7 33 b6! are decisive.
30 # f5!
It would appear that Shirov overlooked
this move, enabling White to avoid the
exchange of queens. The squares c8 and d7
and the h7-pawn are all attacked. With
material equal, White has an overwhelming
advantage in the quality of his pieces. At last
the target of the attack becomes the black
king.
30...&e8 (of course, not 30...2xd3 31 # d 7 g6
77
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
32 Wxd8+ *g7 33 b6) 311x4 Sc2
If 3l...Wc5 32 #xh7!, and 32...1rxc4? is not
possible because of 33 #g8+ *d7 34 £ib6+
and <5^xc4.
32 Wxh7! Sxc4
This leads to the loss of the exchange, but
32...#c5 33 .&b3 Sb 2 34 #g8+ * d 7 35 .&dl
was also hopeless (Stohl).
33 WgS+ *d7 34 £sb6+ * e 7 35 £>xc4 #c5
(35...#a4 36 £>xd6!) 36 Sal!
Another paradox: at the start of the game
White was the clear exchange down, and at
the end he is the exchange and a pawn to
the good! Black has given up, one after the
other, both of his rooks for two minor pieces.
And now the outcome is decided by the
inclusion in the attack of the sole surviving
rook.
36.. .Wd4 (36...# xc4 37 Sa7+) 37 Sa3
Also strong was 37 2a81, condemned by
me because of the ‘unclear’ 37~.£»e6 38
2e8+ * f 6 39 2xe6+ * x e 6 40 WcS+ * f 6,
although here 41 g 3, say, would have won.
But the most forceful was 38 g3l * f 6 39
!T i 7! # d l+ (39...*e7 40 £sa5!) 40 * g 2l £sf4+
41*112!.
37.. .-«-Cl 38 £\e3 1-0
Or 38 ^xd6!, but I played simply to keep
the material.
78
I think that this game is one of the best
from my entire chess career. It is rare to see a
positional exchange sacrifice without any
concrete tactical play and with a deep
strategic idea.
I now had 7 out of 9, but the competitive
intrigue was not exhausted, since Yusupov,
who played excellently in this tournament,
defeated Korchnoi and remained just half a
point behind. The destiny of first place was
finally decided by my game with Artur
Yusupov in the tenth, penultimate round. I
was able to employ some interesting ana­
lytical preparation in the Scotch, which led
to a colourful finish.
Game 14
G.Kasparov-A.Yusupov
Horgen, 10th Round 14.09.1994
Scotch Game C45
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £>c6 3 d4
Declining the offer to play 3 .M>5 and re­
member our duel of 15 years earlier (Game
No.35 in Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov).
3.. .exd4 4 £)xd4 JLc5 (4...£>f6 - Game Nos.38,
61, 65) 5 £\x c 6
Also an ancient variation, but far more
rare than 5 JLe3 (Game N0.88 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov), which I
revived in my match with Short (1993).
5.. Mf6 6 Wd2 dxc6 7 £>c3 (the fashion of the
early 1990s) 7...£.e6
A natural developing move. In later
games of mine there occurred 7...£\e7 8 ^ 4
£)g6 9 #xf6 gxf6 (Kasparov-Topalov, Las
Palmas 1996) 10 f4i? with slightly the better
endgame for White, or S.-.WdB 9 lLe2 (9
JLe3!? or 9 #g3!? Wxg3 10 hxg3 is more
accurate) 9...£sg6 with equality (Kasparov-
Anand, Frankfurt (rapid) 1999). But experi-

ence has suggested that it is best to play
7..JLd4!, not waiting for the leap of the
knight.
8 £sa4l?
This, one of my key discoveries in the
Scotch Game, was a 1993 match novelty
(instead of the previous 8 ®f4 or 8 ii.d3).
White plays his knight to the edge of the
board, in order to drive the black bishop
from its strong position and comfortably
complete his development. His aim is to
extinguish Black’s temporary activity and try
to convert his extra pawn on the kingside (as
in the ‘Berlin Wall’ or the Exchange Variation
of the Ruy Lopez).
8...Sd8 9 i-d3 i-d4 10 0-0 a6
Safeguarding the d4-bishop against the
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
threat of c2-c3. In the 11th game of our
match Short played 10...£se7?!, but after 11
c3 b5 12 cxd4 Wxd4 13 Vic2 l rxa4 (I3...1rxd3
14 1i rxd3 Sxd3 15 £sc5 is also unfavourable)
141i rxa4 bxa415 -&c2 White obtained clearly
the better endgame.
1 1 #a5l?
And here is another novelty. In the 17th
game of the match with Short I chose the
insipid 11 £sc3 £se7 12 £se2 ^.b6 13 'Bfy and
after 13...£sg6 14 'Sfxf6 gxf6 15 £sg3 I
achieved a minute advantage, but in the
event of 13...1Hfxf4 14 £sxf4 -a.c8 it would
have been even more symbolic. After that
game I couldn’t help feeling that you can’t
play chess that way (£sc3-a4-c3?l), and I soon
devised 11 # a5 - an attempt to cut the
Gordian knot at one stroke.
It would seem risky to play a second piece
to the edge of the board, especially the
queen. But with gain of tempo White opens
the path of the cl-bishop, and in view of the
threats of Wxc7 and ^.g5 Black can no longer
play on general grounds. However, the main
thing is that to avoid ending up in an un­
pleasant position, he is forced to sacrifice a
pawn. From the frown on Yusupov’s pensive
face it was evident that this was all clear to
him...
11.. .b5
White is better after ll.-WeS 12 #xe5
.&xe5 13 £ sc5 ^. c8 14 £sb3 or 13 &e3 and f2-
f4 with the desired endgame, as well as
11.. .Wfe7 12 ±f4 Id 7 13 S ad i £sf6 14 c3 &a7
15 &.c2, although here his advantage is less
obvious.
Artur correctly followed a gambit course,
but by advancing his b-pawn two squares
forward he weakened his queenside. ll...b6!
12 Wxa6 was more accurate, and now not
12.. .g5?l 13 Wb7 £se7? (l3..We5 14 £sc3! ^ e7
15 £se2 ^.c5 is more resilient) 14 Wxc7 b5 15
£ sc3 ^.e5 16 Wa5 £sg6 17 a4! and wins
79
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
(Rebel-Yusupov, Ischia (rapid) 1997), but
either 12..JLc8 13 # a 7 b5 14 £ k:5 * e5 15
i.e 3 Jixe3 16 fxe3 ^)f6 17 * e 2 # x b 2!
(17—0-0 18 rL>d3 #xe4 19 -a.f3 is weaker) or
17 £)b7 i.xb7! (instead of 1 7 - ^ 4 ? 18 ZfA,
Pavasovic-Dos Santos, Halle 1995) 18 #'xb7
0-0, or I2...£sh6 13 .S.e2 (Pavasovic-Acs,
Budapest 1995) 13.-S.e5l, or immediately
12.. ..5.e5, provoking f2-f4, in each case with
good counterplay.
However, it would appear that Black also
has excellent chances after ll...b5 - after all,
the white queen is shut in on the queenside.
12 -* 3 S-b6
It was hardly any better to sacrifice the c7-
pawn by 12...£ie7 13 #xc7 -S.e5 14 # b 6 or
12 .. .®h6 13 #xc7 ^ g 4 14 Wf4, etc.
13 # x a 6 £ih6
As internet practice of the 2000s has
shown, after 13-£te7 14 .S.e3! (14 a4?l .S.c8!)
14.-S.xe3 (14.-S.c8?! 15 *a3) 15 fxe3 *g5
(15-..WeS?! 16 a4) White retains the initiative
with the aid of a counter-sacrifice of a pawn
- 1 6 a 4 l.
14 £e3!?
In order to kill Black’s activity and ap­
proach his weaknesses, I am ready even to
spoil my kingside pawns - the hope and
pride of my position. In the event of 14 e5l?
#xe5 (I 4...#h 4 ?! 15 i.xh6 #xh6 16 #a3l is
80
worse) 15 S.xh6 gxh6 (for his broken pawns
Black has the two bishops and the open g-
file) 16 a4 0-0 17 axb5 4h8! 18 bxc6 £g8 or
16 'Hrb7 0-017 »xc6 b 4 18 £ia4 S.d419 £ a e l
iff4 the play could have become sharper.
14...-Sc8 15 'Vla3 (the queen was threaten­
ing the c6-pawn, but now castling is pre­
vented) 15...-&-xe3 16 fxe3 'i'eS
Since the endgame after l6...#e7? 17
#xe7+ <&’xe7 18 h 3 and a2-a4 (or I8...b4 19
£>a4 and a2-a3) does not satisfy Black, he is
forced to solve the problem of evacuating his
king.
The alternative was I6...1fg5, and if 17
#a7. then 17 .We5 with the intention of
...0-0. In Informator I gave the strange rec­
ommendation 17 .Se2(?!) Wxe3+ 18 &hl,
overlooking the reply I8...#b6! with the
threat of ...b5-b4. The correct way is 17 Sf3!
£>g4! (17 -S d 6?! 18 *a7!) 18 £ie 2 *Ti4
(I8...£ixe3? 19 Og3) 19 h3 £ie5 20 Bf2 fol­
lowed by £sf4(d4), and the advantage is with
White, but the black knight on e5 is really
very strong.
17 .S.e2! (keeping the knight on h6) 17...Sd6!
The prelude to castling. White is better after
17-£>g4 (17.-S.g4?! 18 2f4) 18 .S.xg4 i.xg4
19 &f4 S.e6(c8) 20 with the idea of a2-
a4.
18 Uadi

White completes his development. After
the ‘greedy’ 18 Wa5 0-0 (l8...Sd8? 19 a4!) 19
Wxc7 there could have followed I9...^g4 20
jLxg4 ^.xg4 21 S a e l (if 21 a3 jLf3! - an
amusing trick!) 21...f6 22 Sf4 h5 with good
practical compensation for the material
deficit.
18.. .0.0 19 Sxd6 cxd6 20 S d l
Consideration should have been given
both to the sensible 20 Sf2 (with the idea of
20.. JLg4 21 h3), and also to 20 Wb4!? (plan­
ning a2-a4 and Wd4) 20..JLg4! 21 ±f3!
(Black does not have to fear my Informator
suggestion 21 Wd4 Jixe2 22 <S^xe2 <S^g4)
21.. JLxf3 22 gxf3, improving the pawn
structure and retaining some chances of
converting the extra pawn: 22...f5 23 a4 fxe4
24 Wxe4 Wg5+ 25 ^ h l bxa4 26 Wxc6 Wxe3
27 Wxa4, etc.
Here Artur again thought for a long time.
His clock ticked away, and in the end he
launched a desperate counterattack, going
in for material and, more importantly,
positional concessions.
20...C5?
The pawn exchange 20...Wg5 21 Wxd6
Wxe3+?! 22 4Til is unfavourable for Black,
but 21...b4!? 22 Wxb4 .&h3 is by no means so
clear.
However, the safest of all was 20...Sd8!,
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
and if 21 Was, then not my 1994 suggestion
21...Se8?! 22 Wb6! £ig4 23 i.xg4 .&xg4 24
Sd2(d3), but 21...Wg5! (Blatny), and White’s
advantage evaporates: 22 'iTil i.g4! or 22
Wb6 b4! 23 Wxb4 ^.h3 24 .&f3 .&xg2 25
JLxg2 Wxe3+ 26 &I1I £ig4 27 S fl £rf2+ 28
fixf2 Wxf2 29 h 3 Wxc2. And even after the
preferable 21 ^ h l!? ^ g 4 (2l...^.g4?! 22 h3!)
22 Jb<g4 ^.xg4 23 S fl White has merely a
symbolic advantage of ‘half a pawn’.
21 £lxb5 i- g 4
21.. .^g4? no longer worked in view of 22
jLxg4 £.xg4 23 Sxd6 JLe2 24 Sd5 or the
more subtle 23 S d 2! Wxe4 (23...Sb8 24 c4)
24 ^xd6 We5 25 c4 and wins.
22 Wd3 (the most energetic) 22...Wxb2 23
a4l Wb4
23.. ~&xe2 24 Wxe2 Wb4 25 £ixd6 Wxa4
was slightly more resilient, but even then
after 26 Wd3 White would be completely
dominant, for example: 26...£}g4 27 h 3 £te5
(27...^f6 28 e5) 28 Wd5, and 28...Wxc2? is
not possible because of 29 S fl Wc3 30 Sf5.
But now I am able to keep the bishops on.
24 £ f3
Or 24 £xg4 £ixg4 25 £ixd6 Wxa4 26 h 3
(see above). But I wanted to ‘freeze’ the black
knight on h6: matters are decided by the
enormous difference in the strength of the
knights.
81
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

24.. .Wxa4 25 £)xd6 Wb4 (25...®d7 26 Wds or *g7, then 35 2c7! #xc7 36 £)e8+) 34 2xc8
25-.Sd8 26 h3! is no better) 26 h3! .&e6 (threatening jk.d5) 34...#a7 35 &h2 (of
(26...i.xf3 27 gxf3 f6 28 lki5+ *h8 29 f4 or course, not 35 .&d5? #xe3+) 35...#e7 (after
28.. .£rf7 29 Wee! is hopeless) 27 e5 #114 35-h6 36 l.d5 #xe3 37 2xg8+ * h 7 38
Also in the event of 27...&h8 with the idea 2xg7+! the knight fork is again decisive) 36
of ...£}g8-e7 (Yusupov) 28 jk.d5l # b 2 29 3Lxe6 5e8 1-0
fxe6 30 Sfl! or 28..JLxd5 29 #xd5 #c3(a3) Black lost on time.
30 e4 Black has no defence.
28 # 6 4 # e 7 (the endgame after 28...#xe4 A draw at the finish with Miles completed
29 .&xe4 g6 30 g4 is lost, but the queen my performance in the tournament - first
retreat is another important concession) 29 place by a margin of one and a half points.
S b lf 5 ‘Zurich helped me to forget London’, I de­
It would not have helped to play 29...f6 30 clared on my return to Moscow. ‘I was
Sb7 # d 8 31 Sa7 (threatening #b7) 31. .fxe5 especially successful in the games with
32 #xe5 # f6 33 #xc5 or 29~.g6 30 # f4 £>f5 Shirov and Yusupov, which were exception­
31 .&g4 £ixd6 32 exd6 - White has allowed ally important in the competitive sense. For
the exchange of the ‘bad’ h6-knight, but on the sake of them alone it was worth going to
the other hand he has obtained a powerful Zurich.’
passed pawn: 32...#d7 33 S d l f6 34 e4 Curiously, this tournament was arbitrarily
iLxg4 35 hxg4! g5 36 # d 2l, etc. divided into three stages (rounds 1-4, 5-8
30 # c 6 <4>h8 31 # x c5 Sc8 and 9-11), in each of which a prestigious jury
Desperation. (Dr. Wirth, grandmasters Hort and Kinder-
mann) awarded special prizes tor the best
games, and I won two of these - for my wins
against Nikolic and Yusupov. And then my
game with Shirov was voted the best in the
6lst volume of Informator.
Before the end of the year I appeared in
three more events. In November in Paris I
won the fourth and concluding stage of the
Intel Rapidplay Grand Prix, in Lyon I played
three games for the Sarajevo team Bosna in
the European Club Cup (+l-l=i), and I took
a very active part in saving the 31st World
Chess Olympiad, which Greece had suddenly
32 #xc8+! withdrawn from staging.
The final combination did not demand of These events took place against the back­
me any great effort: White simply breaks ground of the continuing schism in the
through the opponent’s defences at the least Russian Chess Federation. The vice-president
fortified point. Even so, the ’queen sacrifice’ Yuri Averbakh recalls:
(instead of the routine 32 #d4) impressed 'At a critical moment for international
the spectators. chess, Makarov, the recently elected president
32....&.XC8 33 2b8 £)g8 (if 33-.g6 34 2xc8+ of the Russian Chess Federation, and alto­

82

gether unexpectedly the world champion
Kasparov came to the aid of FIDE, thereby
dispelling rumours that he was intent on
destroying FIDE. We in fact wanted to dem­
onstrate that we were aiming not for a
conflict, but for collaboration, and were
ready to do everything possible to help the
development of world chess (although six
months before this the previous leaders of the
Federation, Bebchuk and Karpov, had sent
FIDE a fa x with the assertion that our organi­
sation had set itself the objective of destroy­
ing FIDE!). The FIDE board of directors headed
by Campomanes greeted our proposal with
delight and unanimously decided that, firstly,
it would recognise our federation as the only
one acting legitimately on the territory of
Russia, and, secondly, it would entrust us
with the staging of the Olympiad and the
Congress at the previously planned dates.’
The Olympiad, which was organised in
less than two months, took place in the
gigantic Kosmos Hotel in Moscow (30 No­
vember - 16 December 1994). Those were
incredibly intensive days. I still don’t under­
stand how I was able to combine my daily
administrative and political chess functions
with successful play in the tournament.
My three strong-willed wins at the finish
- against Azmaiparashvili, Short and the
‘new German’ Yusupov - helped our harmo­
nious team again, as two years earlier in
Manila, to win Olympiad ‘gold’: 1. Russia-1 -
371/2 out of 56; 2. Bosnia and Herzegovina -
35; 3. Russia-2 and 4. England - 34V2; 5-7.
Bulgaria, Holland and USA - 34 etc. (alto­
gether - 124 teams). The winning team
comprised Kasparov {FP/i out of 10), Kramnik
(8 out of ll), Bareev (51/2 out of 10), Dreev
(51/2 out of 8), reserves Tiviakov (6’/2 out of 9)
and Svidler (5'A out of 8).
Intuitively I felt that things were not right
with the world championship, and I took the
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
opportunity to make a truce with Campo­
manes. At the FIDE Congress which took
place at that time we signed a Declaration of
Cooperation between FIDE and the PCA,
according to which in the final of both
qualifying series a ‘unifying’ match for the
title was envisaged (the full text of this
historic document, which, alas, was not put
into practice, was published in Kasparov vs.
Karpov 1988-2009).
From the perspective of the 21st century
Yuri Vasiliev called 1994 a fateful one for
chess: ‘The intrigue, at the centre of which
were the key figures of that time - Kasparov,
the Russian Chess Federation President
Makarov and the FIDE President Campo­
manes, who was unexpectedly re-elected for
a new term, gave birth the following year to a
phantom by the name of llyumzhinov. The
victory in Moscow proved to be a pyrrhic
victoryfor Kasparov.’
Tal Memorial
International Tournament in Riga (Tal
Memorial, 12-23 April 1995): l. Kasparov -
7I/2 out of 10; 2. Anand - 7; 3. Ivanchuk - 6I/2;
4-5. Kramnik and Short - 6; 6. Gulko - 5; 7.
Yusupov - 4I/2; 8. Ehlvest - 31/ 2; 9-11. Tim-
man, Vaganian and Kengis - 3-
Early in 1995 the qualifying Candidates
series concluded for both versions of the
world title - FIDE and PCA. In the FIDE semi­
final matches in February Kamsky crushed
Salov (s'h-x'/i), and Karpov overcame Gel-
fand (6-3). Now in the principal FIDE match
Karpov had to meet Kamsky. But in March
Kamsky also had to battle with Anand in the
final match of the PCA Candidates. If Gata
had won, a unique situation would have
arisen: one contender challenging two
champions! But Anand prevailed (FP/i-AVi),
and he thereby became my next opponent in
83
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
a match for the world championship.
Therefore our encounter in Riga at the Tal
Memorial in April was awaited with height­
ened interest and was christened a ‘recon­
naissance’ and a 'dress rehearsal’. It was
with this tournament that eleven grand­
masters of the Professional Chess Associa­
tion, in addition to the Intel Rapidplay Grand
Prix, began contesting the PCA Grand Prix
Super-classic, which consisted of three
stages: Riga (spring), Novgorod (early sum­
mer), and Horgen (late autumn).
At the drawing of lots I received an un­
usual gift - ‘No.l’, thanks to which I was free
in the first round, which coincided with my
32nd birthday. In the second round I quickly
defeated Timman with White (cf. Game
No.62, note to Black’s 7th move), and in the
third I even more quickly gained a draw with
Black against Kramnik in a quiet Italian
Game. Kramnik had the reputation of being
an expert on the closed games, but in the
mid-1990s he regularly played l e4 against
me, and I replied either 1...C5 or l...e5.
After the initial rounds a leading quartet
emerged: Anand and Ivanchuk - 2'/i out of
3, Kramnik - 2, Kasparov - l'/i out of 2. I
need hardly explain the competitive impor­
tance of my game with Vishy Anand in the
fourth round. Before it I experienced a great
emotional surge and I even exclaimed: ‘I feel
in the mood to sacrifice! I will dedicate this
game to Tali’. And I did indeed create a
spectacular miniature.
Game 15
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
Riga, 4th Round 16.04.1995
Evans Gambit C511
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 -Sk6 3 £c4 £c5
If 3...{hf6 there would have followed 4
84
^ g 5 - since, as I declared after the game, in
Riga and on such an occasion that is how
one should play!
4b4l?
My first employment in ‘classical’ play of
the ancient Evans Gambit! Makarychev and I
began analyzing it back in 1992, but more
for pleasure. On one occasion I chose it
against my will - in the first game of my
thematic gambit match with Short (London
(rapid) 1993) and then for many months I
hesitated: could it be played in a top-rank
tournament? And now I thought: this is a
tournament in memory of Tal - and I must, I
really must play the gambit.
Thus, by the irony of fate, this preparation
by Sergey and myself saw the light only at
the end of the ‘Makarychev era’. We tried to
introduce new content into this 19th cen­
tury opening, although a residue of strategic
unsoundness remained: White gives up a
pawn in a position where Black has not yet
broken any of the rules.
4...£xb4
Or 4...ib6 5 a4 a5 6 b5 £>d4 7 £>xd4 .&xd4
8 c3 i b 6 9 d4 exd4 (9-'&e7 is rather more
solid) 10 0-0! (10 cxd4 d5!) 10...^e7 11 i.g5
h6 12 ±xe7 Wxe7 13 cxd4 Wd6? 14 £sc3!
jLxd4 15 £>ds! JLxal 16 Wxal 0-0? (I6...f6 is
essential, although even here after 17 b6!

cxb6 18 # d l! White is on the attack) 17 e5
#c5 18 S cl and wins (Kasparov- Piket,
Amsterdam 1995).
5 c3 ± e 7
Another classical variation - 5..~&a5 6 d4
exd4 7 0-0 (Short also employs 7 #b3)
7...®ge7! (7...d3?l 8 #b3! - Game No.4 in
Part I of My Great Predecessors) 8 cxd4 d5 or
8 £sg5 d5 (Anderssen-Mieses, Breslau
(match) 1867) was also topical in the 2000s.
6 d4 (we also looked at 6 #b3 £)h6 7 d4 £sa5,
but we did not find anything promising for
White) 6...£)a5!
Black immediately returns the gambit
pawn in the hope of free development, an
ideal pawn structure and the two bishops.
6...d6?l is dubious on account of 7 #b3
£)a5 8 jLxf7+! (8 #a4+? c6, McDonnell-La
Bourdonnais, 5th game of the 4th match,
London 1834) 8...^f8 9 #a4, or 6...exd4?l 7
# b 3 £sa5 8 itxf7+! ^ f8 9 # a 4 (Cochrane).
7 i-e2l?
Earlier White mainly played 7 £)xe5 £)xc4
8 £>xc4 d5 9 exd5 #xd5 10 £se3 (relying on
his mobile pawn centre) 10...#a5 or
10...#d8, as in the thematic Kasparov-Short
game, where I gradually seized the initiative,
carried out a pretty combination, but blun­
dered in time-trouble and Black miracu­
lously escaped.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
The move 7 .&e2, with which White de­
clines to return the pawn and insists on a
gambit, would appear to contradict the idea
of Captain Evans (an attack on the f7-point),
but Black’s knight has gone to a5, weakening
his centre. White does not aim to give a
quick mate, but wants to extract positional
benefits from the opening of lines and his
lead in development.
7-.exd4
A sounder continuation emerged from
correspondence play in the 1980s-1990s:
7.. .d6 (in tum Black insists on returning the
pawn; not 7...£)f6? 8 dxe5 £)xe4 9 #a4) 8
#34+ c6 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 £ixe5 £)f6, although
the position after 110-0 seemed to me to be
quite playable.
8 #xd4!
One of the underestimated ideas, giving
the play an original direction: the sudden
attack by the queen on the g7-pawn creates
psychological comfort for the opponent.
Weaker is 8 0-0 9 e5 £>e4 10 #xd4 f5 or
8 cxd4 £tf6, also known at that time from
correspondence play.
8.. .®f6
The most natural reply. There are several
ways of defending the g7-pawn, but each of
them promises some problems for Black.
Thus if he delays his development with
85
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
8.-^8?! or 8...f6 9 0-0 White has obvious
compensation for the pawn.
Far more interesting is the counter­
sacrifice of the pawn (before the game I did
not even consider this!):
1) 8...d6!? 9 Ifxg? JLf6 10 VHtqS, and if
lO-.We?, then not 11 0-0?! (Shirov-Timman,
Biel 1995) ll...1i rxe4!, but 11 1Brf4! (KaTjakin-
Beliavsky, Warsaw 2005). But I0...£se7 l l
i.g5 (11 0-0 Sg8 12 W a jLh3!) Il...£sg6 is
better, with complicated play (Short-Oni-
schuk, Beijing 2000);
2) 8...d5!? 9 1 ^ 7 (9 exd5 £sf6 10 c4 0-0 is
equal) 9..-&f6 10 WgB dxe4 11 £>d4 £se7
(ll...JLd7?! 12 £sd2!) 12 ^ b 5 £sac6!
(I2...£sd5?! is weaker in view of 13 c4! a6 14
cxd5 £ixb5 15 £sc3, Huschenbeth-Gustafsson,
Bonn 2011) 13 £ sxc7+ l rxc7! 14 #xc5 .&e5 15
Wxe5 £)xe5 with a roughly equal endgame.
9 e5 5k6 10 IT14
10 Wf4 allows Black the additional possibil­
ity 10...£sh5 11 #34 g6 12 ,&h6 (Meltz-
Gaevsky, Kharkov 1981) 12...^.f8! 13 .&e3 (13
i.g5 &e7) 13...f6!?.
10.. .£sd5 11 Wg3 g6
Again the most natural reply. An ex­
change sacrifice also deserved consideration
- 1 1 ...O-O 12 JLh6 g6 13 iLxf8 (to my jaunty
Informator suggestion 13 h4 there is the
satisfactory reply I3...2e8 14 h5 d6, if there
is nothing better) lB-WxfS 14 ^.c4 (Stohl)
14.. .£sb6 15 £sbd2 d 6 with a tense fight.
12 0-0 (if 12 JLh6, then l2..JLf8 or 12...d6)
12.. .£sb6?!
Here 12...0-0 was more natural, and if 13
.&h6 2e8 14 c4 apart from the unclear
14.. .£sb6 15 *S^c3 d6 (Ponomariov-Daniliuk,
Krasnodar 1997) 16 Sadi!, Black has the
unexpected tactical trick I4...£>f6! 15 exf6
,&xf6 16 ,&g5 Sxe2 17 £sc3 .&xg5 18 £sxg5
Se8! and ...d7-d6, relieving the situation.
Therefore first 13 c4! £sb6(db4) 14 £>c3 is
more accurate.
86
13 c4?!
Black’s hesitation would have been em­
phasised by 13 .&h6! (Chandler) 13...Af8
(I3...d6?! 14 ^.b5! or 13...d5?! 14 Sdl! is
worse) 14 ^.f4 (Stohl) or 14 .&g5 .&e7 15 a4,
retaining pressure.
13.. .d6
After 13...£sa4, suggested by me in Infor­
mator, 14 JLh6 d6 15 Bel! is strong, with an
enduring initiative. And 13...0-0 14 £k3
would have led to a position from the note
to Black’s 12th move.
14 Sdl?!
14 ^.h6 or 14 £fc3 was better, with suffi­
cient compensation for the pawn. However,
Anand promptly returns the favour.
14.. .^d7?
A turning-point. 14...^.e6? 15 c5! was also
bad, but now was the time for the paradoxi­
cal move 14...£sa4! (Stohl), not only prevent­
ing c4-c5, but also hampering the develop­
ment of White’s queenside (now 15 .&h6 is
unfavourable because of I5...f6!).
15 .&h6!
At last! I think that Vishy believed implic­
itly in the safety of his position and obvi­
ously underestimated the sacrifice of a
second pawn. After any capture on e5 White
will have very powerful compensation.
15.. .£scxe5

If 15...dxe5, then 16 £ ic3 iLf8 17 ®h3! (far
stronger than my Informator suggestion 17
iLg5) 17...f6 18 c5! with a powerful attack.
16 £ixe5 £sxe5
After I6...dxe5 17 £ic3 it would not have
helped to play 17 ....M8? 18 Sxd 7 l, 17 ~f6 18
c5l (Stohl; 18 ^.g4l?) 18...J.XC5 (l 8...J.f8 19
±e3) 19 Sacl, or 17 ...c6 18 ± g 7 i.f 6
(l 8...Sg8 19 ^.xe 5) 19 .&xh8 J.xh 8 20 £ie 4,
etc.
17£ic3
Anand was hoping for 17 .&.g7?! Jtf6! 18
JsLxh8 JsLxh8 19 ®c3 ®d7! with excellent
compensation for the exchange, but, as my
new trainer Yuri Dokhoian rightly remarked,
it would be a pity to give up such a fine
bishop for the inactive black rook. And
Mikhail Gurevich added: ‘Garry prefers to
bring up his last reserves. His pieces slice
through the opponent’s position like a knife
through butter.’
The immediate breakthrough 17 c5l?, de­
nying Black the possible reply 17-.^d7, also
deserved consideration.
17...f6
‘In terrible time-trouble (!) Vishy tries to
erect something resembling a fortress. But
this looks very passive. It would appear that,
in the given specific instance, logic (his
strongest side) led down the brilliant Indian
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
player’, writes Gurevich. ‘l7...iLh4 18 Wie3
± e 6, developing the queenside, was more
resilient.’ However, after 19 c5l Black’s
position collapses like a house of cards.
17...®d7 looks more resilient, for exam­
ple: 18 £ie4 ii.f8 19 ®c3 f 6 20 Jtf4l (my
Informator variation) 20..Jtg7 21 c5l (Stohl)
21...0-0! 22 cxd6 c6 23 Sabi, and White has
excellent compensation for the pawn in the
form of his mighty passed pawn, or 18
£id 5!? £ ic5 19 ®c3 Sg 8 (I assessed this
position as unclear) 20 J.e 3! c6 (20...£ie4?!
21 lt2 ! ) 21 i.xc5 cxds 22 i.d4! with a
dangerous attack on the king caught in the
centre, although in both cases there is still
much play in the position.
18 c5! £f7?!
This merely aggravates Black’s difficulties.
He should have developed his queen’s
bishop, although each of the possible moves
had its drawbacks and his king would have
remained under an unrelenting attack:
1) l8...jLd7 (Stohl) 19 cxd6 cxd6 20 Sabi!
itc6 21 £)d5 iLf8 22 jLcl! with the threat of
f2-f4, and if 22...±e7, then 23 W 53!;
2) l8..JLe6 19 Sabi! (Stohl) 19...Sb8 20
cxd6 cxd6 21 f4 £sf7 22 # e 3 £sxh6 23 Wxe6
Wc8 24 !T)3 or 22 ±g7 Sg8 23 We3 Sxg7 24
Wxe6 ®c8 25 «b3 with domination on the
light squares;
3) l8...iLf5 (the bishop deprives the rook
of the bl-square, but comes under attack by
g2-g4) 19 Sacl!? i.f8 20 We3 Sc8 21 g4!
^.xh6 22 1^116 ±e6 23 f4 or 1 9 ...C6 20 cxd6
JLxd6 21 We3 # e7 22 g4i, continuing to
fight for a win.
19 cxd6 cxd6
There is nothing else: 19...£ixd6? 20 jtc4
i f 5 21 £sd5! i e 4 22 S acl or l9..Jtxd6? 20
itb5+! (a murderous check!) 20...J.d7 (20...C6
21 i.f4 and i.xd6) 21 Sel+ J.e5 22 &g7
Jtxb5 23 £>xb5 Sg8 24 £sxc7+! with crushing
threats.
87
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
2 0 # e 3 !^ x h 6
20...£ie5 21 f4 ot 20...a6 21 £>d5 was also
hopeless, to say nothing of 20...'Brb6 21
i.b5+! i.d 7 (2l...&d8 22 W e2 and £id5) 22
±xd7+ ^ x d 7 23 «Ti3+ f5 24 £>d5, etc.
21 Wxh6 ± f8 22 # e3+
After 22 jLb5+?! &f7 23 JLc4+ d5l 24 Sxd5
(24 Wi4? ^g7!) 24..JLxh6 25 Sxd8+ * g 7 26
S a d i Sf8! 27 Sxf8 &xf8 28 Sd8+ &e7 29
Sh8 &d6 it is unclear whether White’s
advantage is sufficient for a win. And the
quiet, winning computer line 22 # h 4 l ^ f7
23 Sacl! ± e6 24 iLc4 or 23-.Jk.d7 24 £sd5
iLc6 25 £sf4 frightens a hum an since it does
not force matters.
22.. .4 f7 (22..JLe7 23 -&C4 or 2 2 ..M e 7 23
£ie4l was even worse) 23 £id5 (23 Sacll?)
23.. .1 .e6
If 23.. Jk.g7 White decides m atters with 24
.&c4 JLe6 25 ±b3! Se8 26 £)f4 .&xb3 27
#xb3+ ^ f8 28 £se6+, winning the exchange
and the game. 23-.Jk.d7 is hardly any more
resilient: 24 S a c l ik.c6 25 # b 3 l (not the
Informator 25 Jk.c4) 25...*g7 (25-.Jk.e7 26
£>c7+) 26 Sxc6! bxc6 27 Wb7+ * h 6 28 Sd3l
or 24...Sc8 25 Sxc8 (25 W xa 7 ik.h6 26 S b l is
also possible) 25...'irxc8 26 £ixf6! with an
irresistible attack.
24 W e7
Overlooking White’s reply. However, Black
88
would also have lost after 24...1i rd7 25 ik.b5!
or 24-Jk.c8 25 S a c l with the threat of Sxc8!
(Stohl), and even after the lesser evil -
24...i.d7 (24.~i.f5 25 g4) 25 1^3+ & g 7 26
#xb7 (Gurevich) 26...‘&h6 27 S a b i, etc.
25 S e ll
The last surprise - an ambush: 25-.Jk.h6
26 i.c4l or 25...d5 26 i.f3l. Black resigned
( 1 - 0 ).
This game was judged the best in the
63rd volume of Informator. I remember
Anand with a sad smile observing: The fate
of our match will depend on how often
Kasparov employs the Evans Gambit.’ And I
predicted: ‘It is probable that now this
opening will begin to occur frequently, and
much will be determined simply by the
method of exhaustive searching.’ And,
although I was very proud of this win in the
style of the old masters, in the match with
Anand I played only 3 i-b5 or 3 d4. But the
sweeping manner of play in the main, 10th
game (Game No.19) evoked ‘Evans-style’
ideas.
After this I reached 2y/i out of 3, while Iv­
anchuk was leading with 3Vz out of 4. But
then he slowed down and drew all his re­
maining games, including the one with me
in the sixth round, after holding out with

difficulty as Black in a King’s Indian. I man­
aged, not without a degree of luck, to win
with Black against Yusupov and Vaganian,
and also in the tenth round with White
against the ‘home’ player Kengis, an old
opponent of mine in junior tournaments
(just think: our first encounter took place 22
years earlier). This brought me to ‘plus five'
and first place.
Anand also produced a finishing spurt. As
a result he finished just half a point behind
me, so that our duel in the fourth round took
on the status of the decisive game of the
tournament.
The chairman of the Tal Memorial organ­
ising committee was the Latvian Prime
Minister himself, and also present at the
opening ceremony were the President of the
country and the Russian ambassador! But,
alas, the tradition of staging super-
toumaments of this standard in Riga was
not established. The prominent Baltiya Bank,
the main sponsor, soon collapsed and was
liquidated...
After Riga and before our match in the
autumn, Anand played only in two Intel
Grand Prix knock-out tournaments, whereas
I twice took part in ‘classical’ events. First
there was the regular match-toumament in
Amsterdam (Euwe Memorial, 11-18 May
1995): 1. Lautier - 4 out of 6; 2. Kasparov -
31/ 2; 3. Topalov - 2V2; 4. Piket - 2. It was
amusing that up to the last round I copied
the previous year’s results - draw, two wins,
loss, win, but at the end I contrived to lose to
Piket and I nevertheless finished behind
Lautier.
‘The root of the trouble lay in accumu­
lated fatigue and many years of lack of
training: I was no longer in the habit of
aiming for an ultra-complicated battle,
where the price of every move is very high’, I
declared at that time in an interview. ‘Posi­
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
tions such as in the game with Piket, where
in a Griinfeld White had a passed pawn on
d6, were ones that previously I sensed with
the tips of my fingers. But now I am commit­
ting crude errors... I have got out of the habit
of playing with great intensity! This is a
warning signal, but it has sounded in time.
Now the main thing is to mobilise myself
absolutely before the match with Anand.’
From Amsterdam I travelled to Cologne,
where on 20 May I played two 25-minute
games with an opponent I had lost to the
previous year in London - the program
Genius (1 V2-V2). Everything was decided by
the dramatic first game. In the opening I felt
extremely feverish - the ‘Amsterdam
wounds’ were still painful, and all around
there was an incredible hullabaloo. On the
18th move, in a roughly equal position, I
made an inexcusable oversight, leading to
the loss of a pawn. The machine could take
either a ‘good’, healthy pawn, or a ‘bad’,
doubled one, but leading to an endgame
with winning chances. Fortunately, Genius
grabbed the ‘good’ pawn (that was how it
was programmed), and I immediately cre­
ated threats to the black king. After a couple
of poor moves the machine came under a
‘mortal’ pin and could no longer avoid
defeat.
Alexander Roshal: ‘A certain perplexity -
why has Kasparov been obviously under­
performing in some of the recent events? -
may be replaced by understanding, if you
glance if only briefly at the champion’s
schedule during this period: Tal Memorial in
Riga, simuT in the British Embassy, active
participation in a congress of the Russian
Chess Federation, the 'Kremlin stars’ tourna­
ment, flights - first to Noyabrsk (1200 km.
further north than Tyumen), then to Orel, a
simuT in the Central Chess Club for veterans
o f the Great Patriotic War, a blitz-
89
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
tournament in the same place, the Euwe
Memorial in Amsterdam, a mini-match with
computers in Cologne, the PCA super-
tournament in Novgorod... On 5 May at
Moscow airport an excited Kasparov was met
by his chauffeur, who said something to him.
The champion turned to his companions and
sombrely said in a changed voice: "A few
hours ago Botvinnik died”. To win constantly
with such a way of life is almost impossible.’
Great Play
International Tournament in Novgorod (26
May - 5 June 1995): 1. Kasparov - 6'/i out of
9; 2-5. Ehlvest, Short, Ivanchuk and Topalov -
5V2; 6. Kramnik - 5; 7. Timman - 4; 8. Gulko
- 3; 9. Yusupov - V/r, 10. Vaganian - 2.
The basic line-up for the second, Nov­
gorod stage of the PCA Grand Prix Super­
classic was the same as in Riga, except that
Anand was replaced by Topalov.
‘Kasparov had plenty o f organisational
and purely chess concerns. His collapse at the
finish of the Amsterdam tournament, when
he lost two games out o f three, did not allow
Garry any peace', testifies Yuri Vasiliev. ‘In a
telephone conversation with me the cham­
pion declared that in Novgorod he would
definitely play far better than in Amsterdam.
And he said this persistently and forcefully.
But it is one thing to say this, and another
thing to do it.’
At the start, after employing a fresh idea
in the King’s Indian Defence, I finally
achieved an ‘historic’ victory over Gulko -
the only grandmaster in the world who had
a score of +3=2 against me. In the second
round, alas, I again was unable to do any­
thing with White against Ivanchuk, who for
the first time chose the Caro-Kann Defence
against my 1 e4. The d4-d5 breakthrough
promised an advantage, but in the end it led
90
merely to simplification and an equal end­
game. A difficult game!
The next day I was paired against Artur
Yusupov, who had begun the tournament
with two losses with Black and now was not
averse to recouping his losses with the white
pieces, at the same time improving the score
of our individual meetings. But I wanted to
send a ‘black spot’ to my opponent in the
forthcoming match - Yusupov was one of
Anand’s trainers.
Game 16
A.Yusupov-G.Kasparov
Novgorod, 3rd Round 29.05.1995
Torre Attack A4 8
1 d4 £>f6 2 £>f3 g6 3 -&g5 ^.g7 4 c3 (if 4 e3,
then 4...C5 is good, but now this is a pawn
sacrifice) 4...C5I?
Nevertheless! In our Riga encounter I
chose 4...0-0 5 £sbd2 d6 6 e4 c5 7 dxc5 dxc5 8
£e2 £sc6 9 0-0 1^7 10 #c2 2d8 with a
tough, protracted battle - the game began
to tum in Black’s favour only at the very end,
in time-trouble.
5 e3
After a little thought Artur rejected 5
dxc5, when there can follow 5..Wc7 or
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

5...£sa6 6 ®d4 (6 b4?! £se4, Stangl-Hug, or tbe less forcing 12..JLg7 with tbe inten­
Altensteig 1994) 6...£sc7 7 £sbd2 £se6 8 #c4 tion of ...b6-b5.
b6 9 cxb6 ®xb6 10 Wb3 ®c7 with lively play 11 £sce5 h6 12 Jk.f4
for tbe pawn (Sorokin-Sakaev, St. Petersburg
Zonal 1993).
6 Wb3 0-0 7 £>bd2

12.. .C4!
This is what I was counting on, when I
conceded tbe e5 point to White. Black in­
7.. .d6!? tends ...b6-b5 and if a2-a3 tbe manoeuvre
A novelty in tbe spirit of tbe Reti Opening ...£sb6-a4, with counterplay compensating
with colours reversed (and a tempo less, but for tbe defect in tbe pawn structure.
for tbe moment Black is not fighting for an 13 h4!? b5 14 g4
advantage). Tbe usual 7...d5 8 jLe2 £sc6 9 0-0 Vusupov cherishes aggressive ideas, re­
leads to a tabiya of tbe opening, but Ijudged jecting equality after 14(13) £sxd7 and
such pawn tension to be favourable for intending to open tbe h-file. This imparts an
White: I was not inspired by 9-.c4 10 #a3, interesting dynamic nature to tbe play:
9.. .cxd4 10 ®xb6 axb6 11 exd4, or 9..~&f5 10 despite tbe absence of tbe queens, tbe
dxc5 ®xc5 11 £sd4. position is effectively one from tbe middle-
8 Wxb6 (my idea consisted of 8 jLe2 ,&e6! or game, with both sides trying to attack.
8 £ sc4 #c7l) 8...axb6 14.. .£>b6!?
From this point there begins complicated, A double-edged reply, creating a ‘Dvoret­
non-standard strategic play. Tbe doubling of sky effect’: tbe two white knights, which
Black’s pawns is compensated by tbe open­ have just tbe one e5 point, begin to get in
ing ofthea-file. each other’s way. Tbe perfectly sound 14...h5
9 £ sc4 £sbd7 10 i.e2 d5 (avoiding tbe opening of tbe h-file) 15 gxh5
Not in tbe Reti spirit. Apparently tbe best £sxh5 or 15 £sxd7 Jb<d7 16 g5 £se4 looked
was 10...b61? (I0...b5 11 £sa3 is dangerous) rather tedious.
11 iLh4 g5 12 ilg3 £se4 or 11 ilxf6 Ji.xf6, 15 g5 hxg5
and if 12 e4, then 12...b5 13 £se3 b4 14 cxb4 Again tbe h-file could have been kept
cxd4 15 £)d5 e5 (I5...e61? 16 £sxf6+ £sxf6 - closed - 15...h5 16 gxf6 exf6, but after 17
Stobl) 16 £)d2 iLd8! 17 £sc4 £rf6 18 £sxf6+ £sd3 cxd3 18 £.xd3 19 £>h2 &d7 20
JLxf6 with comfortable play (19 £)xd6 ^.e7l), 9fed2 (and if 20...£)c4+, then 21 ^c2) it is

91
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
more difficult for Black to find counterplay
compensating for the weakness of his
pawns.
16 hxg5 £te4
The ‘sideways’ I6...£>h5 also deserved con­
sideration, foT example: 17 Ah2 £>a4
(l7..JLf5? 18 £ih4 - Makarychev) 18 ^ d 2 (of
course, not 18 0-0-0?! £>xc3! 19 bxc3 fixa2 -
Stohl) I8...b4!, ot 17 £>h4 £>xf4 18 exf4 £>a4
19 S b l (Stohl) 19..JLxe5 20 fxe5 ^ 7 and
...Bh8 with equality.
17 £>d2!
Exchanging this passive knight for a pow­
erful opponent. AfteT 17 £>h2? <?ia4 18 f3
±xe5! (even better than my Informator
suggestion I8...£id6) 19 dxe5 £tec5 ot 17 a3?
£>a418 Sa2 (Stohl) I8...£>xb2! 19 Sxb2 £>xc3
and ...Sxa3 Black’s plan would have been
completely justified.
17.. .-&f5! (a timely development of the
bishop on the operational diagonal f5-bl) 18
i.g4!?
A sharp, but logical Teply. 18 £>xe4 ^.xe4
19 f3 -&f5 20 fih2 f6 is harmless (Stohl). And
if 18 £>g4 £>a4 19 £>xe4, then 19...dxe4 20
S b l ±xg4 21 ±xg4 e5 is suitable, as is
19.. JLxe4, condemned by me in Informator
because of 20 f3 ^.f5 21 ^h6+ JLxh6 22
Sxh6 £>xb2 23 ^ 2 f6 24 gxf6 exf6 25 S ah l
Sxa2 26 ±d6 £>d3+ 27 *g3 Sfa8 28 ±xd3
92
±xd3 29 e4 dxe4 30 d5, although Black is
saved by 30...g5!.
18.. .^ a4
Earlier I attached an exclamation mark to
this thematic move, although computer
analysis has shown that it was more accu­
rate to play l8..JLxg4! 19 £>xg4 £ia4 20
£>xe4 dxe4 21 fibl b4 22 £>h6+ (22 cxb4 c3
with equality - Stohl) 22..JLxh6 23 Sxh6
bxc3 24 bxc3 £ ixc3 25 Sxb7 £)d5! 26 ±e5 f6
27 gxf6 Sxa2! 28 Sxg6+ >4f7 29 fxe7 Se8 30
Sg7+ ^66, or even better the immediate
19.. .b4! 20 cxb4 Sfc8 with excellent counter-
play.
19 £ixe4 dxe4 (again 19 ..JLxg4 ! 20 £ixg4
dxe4 21 S b l b4 was better - see above) 20
■&xf5 gxf 5
21 Sbl!
I was reckoning on 21 0-0-0?! £>xc3!
(21...b4 22 cxb4 c3 23 b3 £ft>2, suggested by
a number of commentators, is worse in view
of 24 a4! £>xdl 25 * x d l ±xe5 26 ±xe5 f 6 27
gxf6 exf6 28 ±d6) 22 bxc3 Sxa2 with the
threat of ...Sfa8 - White is saved only by a
prompt attack: 23 g6! f6 24 £rf?! Sfa8 25
Sh7 Sxf2 (25...b4? 26 ±h6!) 26 <&bl! Sfa2,
and now not the Informator TJ <&cl? Sg2!
28 ^ b l 5xg6 when Black wins, but 27 Bel!
(Stohl), forcing a draw.
21...b4l?
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

An attempt to devise something more 2) 22...Sfc8!? 23 g6!, and here not

cheerful than a fight for equality by 21...£sb6 23.. .Axe5?! 24 dxe5l Bc6 (24...fxg6? 25 e6
22 a3 Axes (22...£sd5?! 23 4 d 2 - MakaTy- and Ae5 - Stohl) 25 gxf7+ 4xf7 26 Sh7+
chev) 23 Axes f6 24 gxf6 exf6 25 Af4 Bf7 4 e 6 with chances of defending, but simply
and ...Sh7. 23.. .fxg6 24 £sxg6 4 f7 25 Ae5 4xg6 26
22 cxb4 Bgl+ 4f7 27 Sxg7+ 4 e6 and ...c4-c3 with an
22 £sxc4?! is weak in view of 22...b5 23 obvious draw.
£se5 bxc3, etc., but 22 4d2! promised some 23 a3
advantage - here I recommended 22...Sfc8, After the non-routine move 23 S a l Black
but after the unexpected 23 a3! (Stohl) would have kept afloat with 23...£sd5! 24
Black’s activity comes to a standstill. 4 d 2 £sxb4 25 £sxc4 £sd3 26 Ag3 b5 27 £sb6
22...£sxc3! 23 bxc3 Bxa2+ 24 4 c l! (24 4 d l Sa7.
bxc3 25 B el Sfa8 is equal) 24...b3! 25 ^ xc4 23.. .5.c8! (threatening to solve all the
Sc8 26 Sxb3 Sxc4 27 4 b l Bca4 is more problems with ...c4-c3) 24 g6! Axes!
energetic, when Black holds this slightly 'The path found by Kasparov is very nar­
inferior endgame. row’ (Makarychev). White is better after
2 4 -f6?! 25 £sf7 £sd5 26 Bel c3 27 bxc3 Sxa3
28 Bh7! or 24...fxg6?! 25 £sxg6 4f7 26 AeSl.
25 gxf7+!
Nothing real was given by the pawn sacri­
fice 25 dxe5 fxg6 26 e6 Bc6! 27 Ae5 Bxe6
(Stohl) 28 Ad4 Bc8 29 4e2 Bd6.
25.. .4 .f 7 26 A xes (this suggests itself, but
only the ‘quirky’ 26 dxe5l would have left
White with a mini-plus: 26...4M5 27 B dl or
26.. .Bh8 27 4d2) 26...£sd5

22.. .£sb6
Again Black does not seek the easy ways
(perhaps this is how one should play for a
win?). Two replies would have retained
equal chances:
l) 22...C3!? 23 b3 (23 bxc3 £sxc3 is equal)
23.. .£sb2 24 a4 £sd3+! (instead of my Infor-
m a to r 24...b5? 25 a5 or 24...Axe5 25 Axes f6
26 gxf6 exf6 27 Ad6), and in the event of 25
£ixd3?! exd3 26 B a l (26 Bdl? d2+ 27 4 e 2
Sac8 and wins - Stohl) 26...fife8 27 4 d l e5 ‘White’s activity on the kingside is ephe­
Black’s pair of connected passed pawns is meral, while the black knight has obtained
very strong, and therefore 25 4 e 2 with an excellent post on d5, and this is a suffi­
equality is safer; cient price for the pawn.’ (Makarychev).

93
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
27&d2
In the event of 27 Sh7+ ^eB 28 Sh6+ ^>d7
29 Sh5 (Stohl) Black could have avoided an
immediate draw (29...‘&e6 30 Bh6+) by
29-.Sf8 with the ideas of ...b7-b5 and ...c4-c3.
27.. .C3+! (the play again becomes sharper,
without, however, straying beyond the
bounds of equality) 28 ^>c2! (28 bxc3?l Sxa3)
28.. .cxb2+ 29 ^ x b 2 Sc3 30 S a l
For the moment Artur is not in a hurry to
force a draw - 30 Sh7+ ^ e 6 3 1 S g l Sc(a)xa3
32 Sg6+ £>f6 33 .&xf6 exf6 34 Sxb7.
30.. .b5l?
A last chance, which unexpectedly proves
successful. If 30...Sd3 I was concerned about
3 1 Sh7+ ^ e 6 32 S g l (cf. the previous varia­
tion).
31 B hcl (this would appear to be the surest
way to the drawing haven) 31—Sd3! 32 Sc5!
(of course, not 32 Sdi? Saxa3!) 32...£)b6
33 Sxb5?
In time-trouble Artur makes a natural
‘reflex’ move, failing to find the only defence
- 33 &C2 ! with the idea of 33...Sa4?l 34 Sxb5
£)C4 35 &C1! or 33...£)c4 34 a4! Sd2+
(34...£)a3+? 35 Sxa3l) 35 &C3 Sd3+ with
perpetual check. Now, however, comes an
unexpected and uncommonly pretty finish.
33-£>c4+ 34 & cl (34 &C2? Saxa3) 34...Sg8
35 .&g3 f4l! (the crux of Black’s idea) 36 Sf5+
94
It turns out that the pawn is taboo: 36 jbcf4?
Sc3+1, and m ate in two moves, or 36 exf4
Sc3+! 37 ^ d l (37 ^>bl? 2h8!) 37...Sh8 38
S a 2 S h l+ 39 & e 2 Sxg3l 40 fxg3 (40 Sc 2
Bggl! 41 Sxc4 B d l or 40 Sc5 Sc3 is alto­
gether depressing) 40...Sh2+ and ...Sxa2.
36...&g6! 37 Sxf4 Bc8!
An ambush! Exploiting the fact that the
white rook has been lured off the fifth rank,
Black creates an amazing mating construc­
tion.
38 Sg4+ (both 38 & b l £)d2+ 39 &b2 2b3+
and 38 Sa2 £ixa3+ 39 ^ 2 Sc2+ would have
led to an elegant mate) 38...&h5!
This is even more forceful than 38...‘£ >f7 39
Sg5e5!40 jLxe5£)a5+!.
39 Sh4+ &g6 (repeating moves in time-
trouble) 40 Sg4+ &h5 41 Sh4+ &g5! 42 f4+
^ 6 ! 43 f5+ ^ 5 , and in view of 44 Sh2
£)d2+ 45 ^ d l £)bl+l, White resigned (O-l).
That was my last win over Yusupov. Two
subsequent draws, in Horgen 1995 and
Yerevan 1996, produced the final score of
our official meetings: +1 1 -1 =9 .
The following day I had Black against the
rising star of Bulgarian chess, the 20-year-
old Veselin Topalov. Despite his youth, he
was already well known for his bold, un­
compromising style, and he had beaten me

at the 1994 Moscow Olympiad. But from
Amsterdam 1995 the scores began to tum
the other way, and our final balance in
‘classical’ play was +9-3=13 in my favour. It is
curious that all my losses against Topalov,
including the last, tragic one (Game No.lOO)
were suffered as Black in the Sicilian. How­
ever, in it I won even more games!
Came 17
V.Topalov-G.Kasparov
Novgorod, 4th Round 30.05.1995
Sicilian Defence B80
1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 £)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 e6 5
£>c3 d6 6 l e 3 (6 g4 - Game No.66 in Kas­
parov vs. Karpov 1975-1985) 6...<£sf6 7 f3
l e 7 8 Wd2 0-0 9 g4 a6
I prepared for the English Attack before
my match with Short (1993), studying both
the main variations with 2...d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
<£sxd4 4£if6 5 ^ c 3 a6 6 f3 e6 7 l e 3 b5 and
...4^bd7 (Game Nos.56, 58, 66, 74), and also
positions with ...^c6.
10 0-0 -0 ^ x d 4
In 1988 I thought that White simply had a
Keres Attack with the loss of a tempo (f2-f3),
and I tried 10..Ub8 or 10...^d7 (Game No.39
in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kas­
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
parov). But other ways to equalise had to be
sought, and a rather rare plan was worked
out - 10...£sxd4, ...b7-b5, ...lb7 and ...2c8
with the ideas of ...^e5-c4 and ...b5-b4
(again by analogy with the Keres Attack).
11 lx d 4 b5 12 & bl
The variation 12 g5 (12 a3 *£sd7!, Ponom-
ariov-Kasparov, Linares 2002) 12...£>d7 13 h4
l b 7 14 a3l Sc8 15 i b l leads to a transposi­
tion of moves, but 13...1i rc7 14 i b l (14 a3
4&e5!) 14-.b4 15 *£sa4 l b 7 with the idea of
16 b3 lc61? (Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2003) is
questionable in view of 16 #xb4l? (Anand-
Akopian, Wijk aan Zee 2004).
12...1b7 13 h4 Sc8 14 g5 ®d7
15a3!
A novelty in the continuation of the theo­
retical duel. In our previous game (Amster­
dam 1995) Veselin had allowed ...b5-b4: 15
Sgl?! b4l 16 £se2 (16 £sa4? 1x6) I6...£se5 17
Sg3 ^ c4 18 # c l? (18 #xb4 ^ c7 is not so
clear) I8...e5 19 l f 2 a5 20 l g 2 l a 6 21 S e l
a4 22 l h 3 2c6 (22...1b81?) 23 tfd l, and after
23...d5l 24 exd5 2d6 25 f4 2xd5 26 fid3
^a3+! 27 bxa3 lx d 3 28 cxd3 fixd3 I gained
a spectacular win.
In 1993 we also analysed 15 g6?l, but af­
ter 15...fxg6 16 l h 3 e5 we did not find
anything good for White. The prophylactic
move 15 a3 is much stronger: it would seem
95
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
merely to assist the attack with ...b5-b4, but
with the bishop on b7 it is not possible to
play this immediately, and Black is forced to
switch to the plan with ...£>e5-c4.
15~.£>e5 16 W e 3 £*4 (l6...£sc6? 17 ^.b6, Po-
nomariov-Morozevich, Moscow (blitz) 2008)
1 7 i-xc4 Sxc4
18 S h g l!
Not 18 e5?! Wc7. Topalov has played the
opening well, acting in roughly the same
way as in his Amsterdam game with Lautier:
ideas of a direct attack combined with
positional motifs. It is not so easy for Black to
create counterplay.
I8...b4
If lS-Wcy, then 19 jLf6! is unpleasant,
exchanging the dark-squared bishops and
making it difficult for Black to defend his de­
pawn. I8...2e8 19 h 5 .&f8 involves the loss of
a tempo, and White can exploit this, not by
launching a storm against the king’s fortress
(20 g6 fxg6 21 hxg6 h 6 22 f4 # 08!), but by
simply doubling or even tripling heavy
pieces on the d-file - 20 Sd3l, etc.
19 axb4 Sxb4 20 S g 2
A subtle positional move: the rook covers
the second rank and is ready to double on
the d-file. But perhaps the immediate 20
JLc5!? is even better: 20...Sc4 21 jLa3 VHc7 22
Sd3 .&a8?! 23 h5 Sb8 24 S gdl (Vokarev-
96
Lastin, Moscow 1999), or 22...Sb8 23 S gdl
(Komeev-Pogorelov, San Sebastian 2000).
20.. JLa8
With the intention of ..Wb8. After
20.. JL c6?I 21 £sa2! Sb5 (2l...Sc4? 22 b3,
Milov-Vogt, Bundesliga 2005) 22 JLxg7!
<&xg7 23 WC3+ ‘i g S 2 4 l rxc6 W j 8 25 c3 Black
has no compensation for the pawn. 20...a5
21 ^.c5! is also insufficient - I recommended
21.. .dxc5(?) 22 Sxd8 Sxd8 'with good com­
pensation for the queen’, but after 23 h5!
White has a fearfully strong attack.
21 b3
Again 21 ^.cSl? deserved consideration:
21.. .5b7 (the attacking attempt 2l...Sb8? 22
Sgd2 # a 5 23 £xd6 £xd6 24 Sxd6 Sxb2+ 25
<&,xb2 5b8+ is illusory in view of 26 ®b5!,
when Black remains the exchange down) 22
Sgd2! (at that time I also judged 22 e5 d5 23
b3 to be in White’s favour, but after
23.. ..6XC5 24 'V/y.cS Wb8! Black is okay)
22.Jirb8! (the only way: after my earlier
22.. .5d7(?) there is 23 ^.xd6! and e4-e5), and
now 23 .&xd6?! is premature on account of
23.. .5xb2+ 24 &C1 Sb7l with equality (25
^.xb8?? ^.a3 mate!), but after 23 ^.a3! the
initiative is with White. However, after
thinking for some 20 minutes, Topalov
apparently decided that more could be
extracted from the position.
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

21.. .a5 22 h5 file by an attack on the weak b4- and d6-

After 22 JLc5(?!) I again advised 22...dxc5(?) pawns; after 27 £la4 ii.c6 28 £sb2 #c7 Black
23 Hxd8 Hxd8 24 Sd2 Sbd4 25 Sd3 £c6 26 would have become active) 27...#c7l
h5 g6 ‘with a good game, since the white The opening of the centre - 27...d5? 28
king’s position has been weakened by the exd5 ilxd5 - is unfavourable because of 29
move b2-b3’. However, after 27 h6! Black is ld 2 Ac6 30 f4 e4 31 h6 or 30...f6 31 gxf6
probably in trouble. 22...Sb8! 23 Sgd2 a4! is gxf6 32 h6.
correct, with chances for both sides: 24 £sxa4 28 #d3!
Was 25 £ b6 #36! 26 2xd6 £xd6 27 Sxd6 Accuracy is now demanded of White. If 28
fifc8, etc. ld 2 possible is 28...£c6 29 # d 3 #a5l 30
22.. .#c7 23 ii.f6! (it was this tn'ck that #xd6 2a8 31 c4 bxc3 32 £sxc3 ii.e8 with
Veselin was counting on) 23...Sfb8 good compensation for the pawn: 33 £sa2
Essential accuracy. If 23...^.c6?! 24 ii.xe7 f6! 34 gxf6 J.f7 or 33 Sd3 h6! 34 gxh6 ^.b5l
#xe7 there could have followed 25 h6! (my 35 Se3 #a7l 36 # d 2 gxh6, etc.
Informator move 25 Sgd2 is less clear in view
of 25...Sc8!?) 25...Sfb8 (25...g6? 26 £sa2) 26
# f4 e5 27 #f6! gxf6 28 gxf6+ &f8 29 fxe7+
<4 ixe7 30 ‘A’c l with the better endgame.
24 £xe 7 # xe 7

28.. .^f8!
This move deserves an exclamation mark
for psychology. By bringing up his king to the
defence of the d6-pawn, Black provokes
immediate activity by White on the kingside.
25 Sd4 Veselin was visibly perplexed - apparently
Actively preventing ...a5-a4. A more com­ he was reckoning on 28..JLc6?l 29 g6! or
plicated way of fighting for an advantage 28.. .5b6 29 g6! (in Informator for some
was 25 'A’cll? (not exchanging a pair of reason I judged 29 Sd2 iLb7 30 # c4 to be in
rooks). Against the two moves suggested by White’s favour, although after 30...#xc4 31
me in Informator White has strong replies: bxc4 f6 the endgame is equal) 29~fxg6 30
25.. JLc6 26 #f4! or 25...S4b6 26 h6L And if hxg6 h6 31 Hd2 ^.b7 32 # e3 with some
25.. .#c7, then simply 26 Sgd2, retaining advantage.
pressure. 29 g6?l
25.. .e5 26 Sxb4 axb4 27 £sa2! (in order to This is typical Topalov - he tries to expose
hinder the opponent’s counterplay on the a- the opponent’s king, even at the cost of

97
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
giving him an outside passed pawn. But - he
advances the wrong pawn! The accurate 29
h6! (not the Informator line 29 Sd2 &e7 30
&b2 in view of BO-.^cS! 31 c3 bxc3+ 32
£ ixc3 Jlc6 or 32...h6 with equality) 29...g6 30
Sd2 &e7 31 f4l or 30...2b6 31 f4l (when
31.. .exf4? is not possible on account of 32
1B,d4!) would have enabled White to main­
tain his fading initiative.
29.. .fxg6 30 hxg6 h6
31 f4?!
But here this is going too far: Black is not
weakened on the long diagonal and his g7-
pawn is defended. White plays for mate and
effectively bums his boats behind him, by
activating the sleeping bishop on a8. It was
better to make this move later, with the
black king on e7: 31 Sd2 &e7 32 f4l? (if 32
&b2 or 32 £)cl, then 32...1i rc5! and ...±c6)
32.. .exf4 33 1 ^ 4 2g8 (33...*f8 34 £ixb4) 34
^2 1 , regaining the pawn with approximate
equality.
31.. .exf4 32 S f 2 &g8 33 Sxf4 tfcs!
Virtually Black’s first active move - and
immediately a threat (34...'i,gl+). The situa­
tion has changed: now the e4- and g6-
pawns are weak, the black king has rushed
back, and it is now White who has problems.
But Topalov sensed the danger too late.
3 4 S fl
98
The ending looks alarming for White after
34 Sf5 1^1+ 35 &b2 Wxg6 36 e5l 1^6! 37
IfxdB IfxdB 38 exd6 g5l. I suggested 34 £)cl
as being the best practical chance, but in
Informator I also gave the correct reply -
34...Se8!. And, indeed, after 35 ^ 6 ^ 8 ! ? 36
tfxde ^.xe4 37 £)d3 2d8 381i rxb4 Jb<g6 with
the passed pawns on opposite wings the
bishop is stronger than the knight, and
Black's chances are rather better. The move
in the game is most probably no worse than
these continuations.
34—Wb5!
The incautious 34...1i re5?! would have run
into 35 l t 4 + &h8 (35 -d5?! 36 #c5 l rxe4?
37 #a7! and wins) 361i rxb4!, when Black has
only equality - 36.Jire8! 37 WxdB jLxe4.
34...2c8 was not bad, but psychologically the
offer to exchange queens proved far more
unpleasant for the opponent.
35 2cl?!
A difficult choice. 35 ^ 3 ? was bad in view
of 35—WeS!, both defending and attacking
the weaknesses on e4 and g6. 35 2f7?! (35
2gl! is better) 35...1i rxd3 36 cxd3 .&c6 with
the threat of ...Ji.e8 or 35 WxbS?! Sxb5 36
2 d l i.xe4 37 2xd6 <&f8 38 Sd4 i.xg6 39
£ixb4 h5! 40 ^ c l Ji.f5 also does not look
good, since the endgame is advantageous to
Black: his pawns advance more quickly, and

the bishop is more mobile than the knight.
White's attempt to exchange the queens in a
more favourable version (35.~#xd3?l 36
cxd3, not allowing the bishop to go to c6)
leads to a quick rout, though, since Black is
by no means obliged to go into the end­
game.
35...#e5! (pretty pendulum-like oscillations
by the queen) 36 # c4 + &h8
37 S h i?
A desperate time-trouble trap. 37 £)xb4?
#xe4 or 37 #c7? Sf8 38 £)xb4 ^.xe4 was
also hopeless. Only 37 B el retained saving
hopes, although after 37...Se8 and ,..^.xe4
Black would be a sound pawn to the good.
37.. .^.xe4 (it was still possible to lose:
37.. #xe4?? 38 2xh6+ gxh6 39 # f7 f e l + 40
<£scl and mate) 38 # c 7 (not 38 Bxh6+? gxh6
39 # f7 #g 7 or 39#c7 Sb7) 38...Sf8!
Unexpectedly this move, in combination
with the next one, not only parries the
attack, but also brings me victory.
39 2xh6+ 4>g8
White’s attack has come to a standstill
and Black completely dominates - all his
pieces have taken up attacking positions.
40 £>cl
If 40 Sh4 Black would also have won with
40..Jk.xc2+! (but not the Informator
40.. .^.xg6(?) 41 #04+ d5 because of 42 #d4l
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
with a draw) 41 #xc2 # e l+ and ...#xh4. 40
Sh7 JLxg6 41 B hl #e6! (threatening ...#xb3
and ...2c8) 42 #c4 #xc4 43 bxc4 b3 was also
depressing for White.
40...JL x c 2+!
It is this bishop, which has been waiting in
ambush, that lands the decisive blow. In view
of 41 for a long time <4>xc2 2f2+ or 41 #xc2
gxh6, White resigned (0-1). A very difficult,
fighting game, with a spectacular finish.
After then scoring a third successive win -
over Vaganian - I was confidently leading
the race: Kasparov - 4’A out of 5; Ivanchuk
and Short - 3I/2. But in the sixth round I had
a difficult draw with Kramnik, whereas
Ivanchuk defeated Short and reduced my
lead to the minimum. After this both lead­
ers, exhausted by the extreme Novgorod
heat, each made two draws, and now every­
thing was decided by the last, ninth round.
Ivanchuk was obviously aiming to repeat his
success of the previous year, when he had
caught me by winning at the finish, but on
this occasion he lost to Topalov. I had to be
satisfied with a draw against Timman, who
employed an improvement as late as the
24th move (cf. Game N0.4, note to Black’s
ll th move), and as a result I took first place,
a point ahead of my nearest rivals.
99
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Yuri Vasiliev: 'The leading role in the tour­
nament was played by the world champion.
He acted extremely professionally and cre­
ated a number o f masterpieces o f attack and
counterattack. His games with Yusupov and
Topalov were especially impressive. This was
great play!’
Match with Anand
World Championship Match Kasparov -
Anand (New York, 10 September - 10 Octo­
ber 1995): 10Vi-7Vi.
Initially it was planned that my match
with the winner of the PCA cycle would be
held in Germany - such an offer had been
made to me during the 1994 Moscow Olym­
piad by the organisers of the Dortmund
tournaments. The venue had already been
selected and all the conditions agreed.
However, the German Chess Union, who
were one of the Federations unhappy with
the outcome of the FIDE Congress in Moscow
and the conditions of the proposed agree­
ment with the PCA, effectively announced a
boycott of the match. Early in 1995 the
Dortmund organisers suddenly made a
reverse move - they held a press conference,
at which they besmirched the PCA and
announced their intention to hold a super-
toumament in the summer with the partici­
pation of ‘the world champion Karpov’. An
amusing detail: when in the autumn of
2000 their favourite Kramnik became world
champion, they immediately ‘forgot’ from
whom he had taken the title...
But, despite the critical situation, all the
same the match would have taken place,
since the main sponsor of the PCA was
interested in it. Then, in the June days of the
second, New York stage of the Intel Rapid-
play Grand Prix, the Mayor of New York,
Rudolf Giuliani, suddenly displayed extraor­
100
dinary enthusiasm. The CTazy idea was
conceived of staging the match on the 107th
floor of the south tower of the World Trade
Centre, which precisely in September was to
be opened anew - after the infamous terror­
ist act of 1993. And we decided that it would
be better to hold the match there, where
they were eager for this event, rather than
somewhere where they were ‘basically’
opposed to it.
The World Trade Centre took on the prepa­
ration of the playing hall (with seating for
roughly two hundred) and the advertising of
the match. It was a fortunate coincidence of
interests: the Centre needed to again have
the attention of the world community fo­
cused on it. Operating at the match were
such mighty TV and radio companies as the
CNN and the BBC. Chess players could not
even dream of such publicity!
In July and August, like two years earlier, I
again prepared intensively for the match on
the Adriatic Sea, in blessed Croatia. It was a
long time since I had felt so well, in the
physical, as well as the chess and the psycho­
logical sense. I swam a great deal and went
canoeing. I established my own personal
record: I swam three and a half kilometres in
the open sea in one hour, forty minutes.
Almost every day I paddled up to seven
kilometres in the canoe and at the chess
board I spent two hundred and fifty hours.
Apart from the old-timer Alexander
Shakarov, I was helped by Yuri Dokhoian and
Yevgeny Pigusov (official seconds). And in
the last week Vladimir Kramnik arrived; we
played some rapid chess and looked at a few
ideas. The inclusion in the team of a top-
class grandmaster helped me to acquire the
necessary confidence. In New York we were
joined by Mikhail Khodarkovsky, my man­
ager and press attache.
Taking into account the experience of my

match with Short, I decided to expand my
range of openings, and after 1 e4, apart from
the usual 1...C5 2 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4
£sf6 5 £>c3 a6, I prepared a secret weapon:
5...g6 - the Dragon Variation! Noticing that
Anand did not play so confidently against it
as in other set-ups, we found several new
ideas, and the Dragon justified itself 100%. In
addition, for one game a rare line of the
Rauzer Variation was planned - 5..£>c6 6
jLg5 e6 7 i.e7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 f4 h6, etc. (cf.
Game N0.25, note to Black’s 8th move), but in
the match things did not come to this.
Of course, much attention was devoted to
the Najdorf Variation. But here we missed the
mark: we analysed 6 .&e3 or 6 f3, and 6 JLg5,
and 6 f4 - everything apart from the quiet 6
jLe2. The only thing that we did not look at
before the match was the Scheveningen:
after all, before this, in contrast to me, Anand
had no experience with it at all! However, it
was in the Scheveningen that the main
match battles developed, and with 6 JLe2
Anand constantly created problems for me.
The 25-year-old challenger’s team com­
prised Ubilava, Yusupov (the official seconds),
Speelman and Wolff. He was also helped by
Dvoretsky, and a number of invisible volun­
teers, who were hoping for my defeat. During
his preparation Anand sharply improved his
theoretical erudition and made a thorough
study of the 6 jLe2 variation in the Schevenin­
gen, the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez,
which he had played in his youth and in the
candidates matches (Yusupov was an expert
on it), a new, aggressive scheme of counter­
play in the Scotch (cf. Game N0.38, note to
White’s 10th move), a variation of the Nimzo-
Indian which had been revived by
Romanishin, and which quelled my enthusi­
asm for 1 d4 (cf. Game N0.63 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, note to Black’s
5th move), etc.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
My opponent arrived for the match fully
armed. Vishy was indeed the most worthy
contender to the crown and could well have
won both qualifying cycles - not only of the
PCA, but also FIDE. ‘The match will be difficult
not because it is being played on the 107th
floor, but because Anand is a very dynamic
and rapidly improving player’, I declared at an
interview before the start. 'But Ithink that my
great experience should tell and, most impor­
tant, the form which I have managed to
acquire during the 50 days of training.’
The schedule of the match, which was to
be the best of 20 games (and not 24, as
previously), was unusually rigorous, genu­
inely professional. We played four times a
week - on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays
and Fridays, without time-outs and ad­
journments, with a seven-hour time control:
two hours for 40 moves, an hour for 20, and
half an hour to the end of the game. As was
the case two years earlier, immediately after
a game the players gave press conferences.
The drawing of lots was personally carried
out by Giuliani. And the next day, 11 Sep­
tember (just think: exactly six years before
the 2001 tragedy...), he made the move 1 c4
for Anand and declared New York to be the
capital of world chess!
'After all the photographers had snapped
the beaming Rudolf and Garry and the faintly
smiling Vishy, Anand took back his c-pawn
and made his genuine first move - 1 e4l. The
world champion promptly cast off his film
actor’s mask and, after assessing the opponent
with his unique and characteristic glance,
replied 1...C5!’, writes the chess historian Isaak
Linder, who recalls the amazing atmosphere
of the match at the top of the sky-scraper:
'During the one minute of ascent on the
rapid escalator your ears popped. Here p o m
the viewing platform there was a wonderful
panorama of New York - p o m the Statue of
101
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Liberty to the Brooklyn Bridge... That which I
saw staggered me. In a cubic glass ‘aquarium’
three people were sitting: the two world-
famous grandmasters at the chess table, and
at the back o f the stage a small, frail woman,
the chief arbiter Carol Jarecki. Directly in front
of the cube was the auditorium with placesfor
those closest to the 'camps of the warring
sides’. Some seats were marked ‘Kasparov’ and
others ‘A nand’. Fans could also sit here if they
paid 75 dollars for a ticket. For the others, less
fastidious, crowded into the foyer and listen­
ing to the commentary on ear-pieces (they sat
on the floor, reinforced by beer and sand­
wiches), the tickets were 15 dollars. “Fischer's
dream has come true: chess in the public
view", I sadly reflected...’
The first eight games ended in draws - a
record for world championship matches!
And although the battle was very tenacious,
only once did we make more than 30 moves.
This occurred in the third game, which
Anand nearly won.
Came 18
V.Anand-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match
3rd Game, New York 14.09.1995
102
19 es!
While Vishy was thinking (this lasted 29
minutes), I went off to the rest room and
there I suddenly realised that he was calculat­
ing the combination involving the e4-e5
break and the typical bishop sacrifice on h7.
Regretting that on the 17th move I had
rushed with ...£id7-c5, I began feverishly
wondering how to get out of this mess. And I
took a decision while still 'behind the scenes’.
19...Sf81?
‘Sensing the full extent of the danger im­
pending over his position, Gany made this
move confidently and imperturbably, but
above all - amazingly quickly. And the psy­
chological reckoning worked!’ (Makarychev)
After the simple-minded 19-dxe5? there
would have followed 20 jLxh7+! ^xh7 21
fxe5, when Black has no defence:
1) 21...£)xc2? (or 21...jLxf3? 22 exf6 and
gxf3!) 22 exf6 iLxf6 23 ^.xf6 gxf6 24 £>g5+!
(24 £se5! also wins) 24...fxg5 25 Sf7+ *g6 26
S afi 1 ^ 8 27 Wes! Sh8 28 Sg7+ * h 5 29
1^3!, mating;
2) 21...f5 22 ±xc5 ±xc5 (22...^.xf3 23
.&xe7 with the ideas of 11114+ and gxf3) 23
£sg5+ &g8 (23-.'4’h6? 24 H 14+, and mate)
24 Uh4 (threatening Sadi) 24...<&f8 25
I h 8+ * e 7 26 Hrxg7+ *d8 27 Sadl+ jLd7 28
Sxf5!, etc.;
3) 21...1rc7 (the lesser evil) 22 H 14+ *g8
23 exf6 £xf6 (23...gxf6? 24 £sg5!) 24 ±xf6
gxf6 25 1Brxb4 ®e7 26 £)d4 with a decisive
material and positional advantage.
The ‘admission of the mistake’ - 19-.£)d7
was far more resilient, but this would have
been a psychological concession, and also
after 20 i.c4! d5 21 exf6 JLxf6 22 i.b3 White
would have gained a small but enduring
initiative.
20 jLxc5?
Anand took me at my word! And, indeed,
after 20 £xh7+? ^xh7 21 exf6 Sxf6! White
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

has nothing, for example, 22 £*g5+ ^ 8 23 new material for analysis. I tried 1 d 4 ,1 £rf3,
.&xf6 ,&xf6 2 4 18rh4 VHe8, repelling the attack
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £ic6 3 -&b5 and 3 d4. And after
(Makarychev). the eighth game at night in my sleep (!), I
However, my opponent did not notice a finally discovered a ‘hole’ in the Open Varia­
simple transposition of moves - 20 exf61. tion of the Ruy Lopez, which had brought
Anand a draw in the seventh game. During
the free days my trainers and I thoroughly
checked the correctness of the pretty combi­
nation that had been found, with the sacri­
fice of a pawn and a rook. It was time to go
on the attack! But ahead lay Monday and the
“black’ ninth game...
Just before the start of the match the ex­
perienced grandmaster Leonid Shamkovich
predicted that ‘Anand would take the lead,
but then Kasparov would draw level and
move ahead’. After the eight draws he re­
fined his prognosis: ‘Kasparov needs to shake
Analysis Diagram himself up, and to play his kind of risky chess.
Perhaps for this he needs to lose one game?
Now Black loses after 20..JLxf6? 21 This would be a good stimulus for him, he
Axh7+! *xh7 22 £ig5+ Axg5 (not 22...*g6? would then be given a powerful surge of
23 f5+! exf5 24 ^ge4+ or 22...*g8? 23 Wi4 adrenalin in his blood. He needs a stimulant,
JLxgS 24 fxg5, etc.) 23 fxg5! Sxfl+ (worse is to wake up from the sleep in which he finds
23.. .*g8? 24 Wi4 or 23...'&g6? 24 Sf6+1, himself at the start of the match.’
mating) 24 Sxfl ^ 6 1 ? (24...'ire8 25 ^ 4 + Amazingly, that is what happened. Ex­
*g8 26 Axg7! *xg7 27 Wi6+ &g8 28 Sf6! cited by my fantastic ‘Spanish’ discovery, I
and wins - Anand) 25 ^e2l e5 26 ^.xc5 dxc5 was so gripped by anticipation of the tenth
27 WxeS Wg4 28 &f4+ &h7 29 h3l, etc. game the following day, that I was unable to
I would have had to reply 20...Sxf6 21 concentrate on the ninth and I suffered a
iLxf6 JLxf6 with some compensation for the defeat. For the first time a theoretical nov­
exchange. ‘With the opponent short of time elty let me down even before I could employ
and after the sharp change in the character it! Now it was doubly important that it
of the position, this would have given Black should work the following day.
some saving chances’ (Makarychev).
20.. .dxc5
With a draw on the 37th move. Came 19
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
Whereas in the first five odd-numbered World Championship Match
games the arena of battle was the Schev- 10th Game, New York 26.09.1995
eningen, in the even-numbered games I Ruy Lopez C80
varied my openings, probing for weak points
in my opponent’s preparation and obtaining 1 e4 es 2 £>f3 £sc6 3 iLb5 a6 4 ± a 4 £if6 5

103
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
0-0 £)xe4
In the opinion of Kramnik and other ex­
perts, it was a serious mistake by Anand to
repeat the Open Variation. But apparently
he was confident about the safety of his
position... In the 12th game Vishy was to try
5...b5 6 JLb3 &c5 7 a4 &b7 8 d3 d6 9 £sc3 b4
10 £)d5 £sa5 11 £sxf6+1 ^ 6 1 2 &a2 h6.
6 d4 b5 7 &b3 d5 8 dxe5 Ae6 9 £sbd2 £sc5
10 c3 d4
ll£ > g 5 l?
We had seriously analysed this sharp
move of Igor Zaitsev (the source game:
Karpov-Korchnoi, 10th match game, Baguio
1978), not cherishing any particular hopes in
the variation 11 jLxe6 £)xe6 12 cxd4 £>cxd4
(Came Nos.85, 86 in Part V of My Great
Predecessors; Adams-Anand, 2nd match
game, Linares 1994).
Il...dxc3
The attempt ll..JLd5?! is dubious be­
cause of 12 £sxf7! &xf7 13 Wf3+ &e6 14
#g4+! &e7 15 e6! Jixe6 16 2 e l # d 7 17
.&xe6 ^xe6 18 £)f3 with a powerful attack
(Svidler-Anand, Dos Hermanas 1999).
But Smyslov’s ll.-.WxgS!? is playable: 12
#f3! 0-0-0 13 .&xe6+ fxe6 1 4 Wxc6 #xe5! 15
b4! VHd5\ 16 VHxdS exd5 17 bxc5 dxc3 18
£)b3 d4 19 -&a3! g6l? (l9..Jte7 - Came
No.118 in Part II of My Great Predecessors) 20
104
.&b4 &.Q7 21 a4, and now not 21...<4 ’d7?l 22
axb5 axb5 23 Sfdl! &e6 24 2acl!, impeding
the black king and blocking the passed
pawns (Kasparov-Shirov, Linares 2001), but
the computer line 2l...d3! 22 axb5 d2 23
bxa6 (23 c6 &b8l, Shirov-Anand, 4th match
game (rapid), Mainz 2004) 23...C2 24 £>xd2
&xal 25 S x al 2he8 26 S cl 2e4l 27 &c3
2c4l 28 Sxc2 2d3 with equality (Moro-
zevich-Ponomariov, Biel 2004).
12 £\xe6 fxe6 13 bxc3 Wd3
All these well-known moves were made in
just a few minutes.
In the sixth game I chose 14 £>f3, but in­
stead of 14-Wxdl 15 -&xdl ±e7 16 JLe3
£)d3 with a somewhat inferior endgame for
Black (Karpov-Korchnoi), there followed
14...0-0-0! (an important improvement by
Ubilava) 15 Wei £ixb3 16 axb3 4b7 17 ±e3
&e7 with double-edged play.
14 &c2!
And here is the novelty - an old recom­
mendation of Tal ‘with compensation’ after
lA-WxcS. Zaitsev: ‘I remember that with Tal
and Balashov in Baguio the three of us
analysed this bishop move and did not find
anything positive in it. But in commentaries
it was decided, exclusively with the aim of
creating confusion, to also point out 14 -&c2,
since this seemed to us to be a blind alley.

And only now, 17 years later, I realised how
cruelly mistaken we were.’
14...WXC3 (l^-.lfdS? 15 a4!) 15 £sb3!!
The point of White’s idea! Whereas Anand
spent only four minutes on the capture of
the c3-pawn, after the stunning knight
move (a sudden sacrifice of the rook on al!)
he thought for all of 45 minutes - possibly a
record for the ‘Indian miracle-worker’, who
was famed for his quick reactions.
15...£sxb3?
Not an easy choice. 15~.£sb4? or 15...^.e7?
is also bad because of 161ih5+, as is I5...g6?
16 ^.g5! (stronger than 16 jLd2 #xe5 17
Sel). And I5...£sd4? runs into 16 £sxd4! (16
Wh5+ g6 17 JLxg6+ hxg6 18 WxhS is not so
forceful) le.-.Wxal 17 £sxe6! £sxe6 18 WdS
£sd8 19 S d l and wins.
MakaTychev suggested I5...£sxe5(?) 16
M 2 # c4 17 1Ti 5+ £sf7 18 S acl WdS
(l8...Sd8 19 Sfel! is slightly more resilient),
but 19 IfxdS exd5 20 2fel+ <4>d8 21 ^xc5
±xc5 22 &b3 .&a3 23 .&xd5 gives White a
technically won endgame, and 1 9 1Srh3(e2) a
very strong attack.
In Informator I gave what was supposedly
the only acceptable defence: l5...Sd8 16
±d2 Sxd2(?!) 17 £sxd2 ‘with a small advan­
tage for White’. However, after I7...£sxe5
(I7...1rxe5 18 S el) 18 £sb3 (18 a4l?) Black
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
does not have sufficient compensation for
the exchange: I8...£sed7?l 19 £sd4! .&d6 20
S cl with a strong attack (20..JH32?! 21 .£±>3
and wins, Khalifman-Hracek, Pamu 1996) or
I8...i.d6 19 iTiS+l (19 £sxc5 WxcS 20 S cl
WdSl is weaker) 19-£sf7 (I9.g6? 20 ,&xg6+
£sxg6 21 Sacl) 20 We2, and White’s chances
are better.
But l6...1B,xe5(!) 17 S el, which I con­
demned, is by no means so clear.
Analysis Diagram
ly.-.'BttS? (later | learned that this had
already occurred in a half-forgotten game
van den Berg-Nevestveit, correspondence
1990) 18 Wg4! £sd4 19 £sxc5 (19 Sadi!?
£sxc2 20 JLg5) 19 -.&XC5, and here not 20
#xg7? Sf8 21 &xh7 (21 &e4?! Wi5l)
21...Sd7 22 1^6+ <4>d8 23 i.h 6 £sf3+! with a
draw (Naiditsch-Mamedyarov, Pamplona
2004), but 20 i-e4l 1 ^ 6 21 1 ^ 7 2f8 22
Wxhy Sd7 23 1i rg6+ Sdf7 24 .&h6 with an
overwhelming advantage - the fruit of 2lst
century internet experience!
This same experience has established that
after I7...'irf6! 18 £sxc5 Sxd2! 19 Sxe6+
Wtxe6 20 £sxe6 Sxdl+ 21 S xdl .&d6! 22
£sxg7+ &d7 White’s slight advantage may
not be sufficient for a win. Therefore, inci­
dentally, lS.-.WxeS 16 S e l Sd8! should be
105
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
rated on a par with I5.~3d8.
Initially we also thought that the capture
on b3 chosen by Anand was acceptable. But
in fact now the trap snaps shut and there is
no longer any way to equalise.
16 £xb3
16.. .^d4
Comparatively the best chance. l6...Sd8?
is too late in view of 17 #h5+ g6 18 #g4!
#xe5 19 JLb2! £id4 (I9~.#xb2 20 #xe6+) 20
S ael # f5 21 #xd4! with crushing threats.
Or l6...#xal?! 17 #h5+ g6 (I7...*d7? 18
^.xe6+! &xe6 19 *94+ *f7 2 0 #f3+, etc.) 18
#f3! ®d8 (there is nothing else) 19 # f6
(apart from this move, which I pointed out
immediately after the game, 19 Af4l? is also
strong) 19...Sg8 20 ^.xe6 JLe7 (20...JLd6 21
S e l is no better, while 20..JLg7? 21 jLf7+! or
20.. .5g7? 21 JLa3! is even worse) 21 jLd7+!
&xd7 22 e6+ <£ixe6 23 # x a l, and although
Black has rook, knight and pawn for the
queen, it is doubtful whether he is able to
solve the problem of his ‘bad’ king.
l6...JLe7?! (I6...^.b4? 17 -&e3!) is also in­
sufficient: 17 ^.d2 # d3 18 S cl £id4 19 Sxc7
£ie2+ 20 4>hl Bd8 21 ±e3\ or 18...0-0-0 19
Sxc6 #xd2 20 # g 4 with a powerful initia­
tive for White.
Therefore l6...<£id4 suggests itself, and
Anand made it quite confidently, expecting
106
the ‘natural’ 17 -&g5 ®xb3 18 axb3 #xe5 or
17 S b l 0-0-0, etc.
17 #g4H
‘Brilliant, but still not yet fully under­
standable’ (Makarychev). When in analysis I
saw this quiet move, I had doubts - after all,
White gives up a whole rook. And we
checked the variations on a computer which,
although far slower than today, confirmed
the correctness of White’s idea. This mo­
ment can be regarded as the birth date of
computer preparation!
17.. .# x a l
‘I7...®xb3? 18 #xe6+ is fatal, but it is al­
ready too late for Black to think of anything
else’ (Zaitsev). Say, I7..~&e7 (17.0-0-0 18
JLgS!) 18 JLe3! ®xb3 19 #xg7 Sf8 20 axb3
Sf7 21 #g8+ i.f8 22 Af4! #xb3 23 i-h6!
# d 5 24 S ad i #c5 25 ^ h l!, intending f2-f4,
when Black is paralysed, or l9...®xal 20
#xh8+ i.f8 21 #f6! i.e7 (if 21...#c6 there is
the knock-out blow 22 Sdl!! ®c2 23 #114!)
22 #xe6 # c4 23 #xc4 bxc4 24 S x al with a
more than healthy extra pawn.
18 £xe6! 5d8
Practically the only defence against the
threat of JLd7+. My Informator suggestion
18.. .#c3(?) is bad in view of 19 -&d7+ ^ 7 20
JLe3 &C5 21 e6+! -^>g8 22 #e4!.
19 ^.h6M

This instantaneous reply is an impressive
final stroke, which staggered Anand. Black is
forced to seek salvation in an ending a pawn
down.
19...#c3?!
The best version of going into the end­
game was I9...#b2! (l9...#xfl+? 20 'A’xfl is
hopeless) 2fi JLxg7 #62! 21 ib<h8 #xg4 22
Axg4. In Informator I gave this position the
assessment ‘and wins’, but here White
would still have had some work to do: 22...C5
23 f4 or 22...&e7 23 e6, etc.
20 Jb(g7 #d3 21 Axh8
21...#g6
It would not have helped to play 2l...£te2+
22 4>hl Sd4 (after 22...£ig3+?! 23 hxg3
#xfl+ 24 4 >h2 B dl 25 #h5+ White is the
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
first to give mate) 23 #h5+ # g 6 24 #xe2
#xe6 25 f4 or 23 i f 7+1? &xf7 24 e6+ and
Jtxd4.
22 i f 6 &e7 23 i=xe7 # x g 4 (23...*xe7? 24
#h4+! &e8 25 Ag4! and wins) 24 &xg4
&xe7 25 S e ll
Preventing ...c7-c5. ‘The rook stops Black’s
counterplay on the queenside. In the con­
cluding phase of the game Garry plays
accurately and unhurriedly’ (M. Gurevich).
Yes, it was a long time since I had been in
a situation where over two weeks of an
event I had not once won, and so I did not
want to spoil everything after such a bril­
liant novelty. Anand, by contrast, began
playing quickly. I think that at heart he had
already lost faith in a favourable outcome.
25.. .C6 26 f4 a5
There are also no chances of holding out
after 26...Ig8 27 i .d l Sd8 (27...C5? 28 Ixc5
£ie6 29 ib 3 ! - Stohl) 28 g3! (28 &f2 c5!)
28.. .£)f5 29 &g4 £)e3 30 &f3 or 28...Bd5 29
&f2 c5 30 &e3 c4 31 &e4 Sd8 32 f5, begin­
ning the advance of the passed pawns.
27 <£*2 a4 28 £e 3 b4
29 A.dl!
Avoiding the last traps: 29 £e4?! b3! 30
axb3 axb3 31 f5 £f7 or 29 Sc4?l a3l, when
the position suddenly becomes sharper: 30
fixd4?? Sxd4 314 >xd4 b3 and Black wins.
107
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
g4 2d5 3 1 2c4 c5
2 9 ...S 3 3 0
The illusory chance 3l...b3 (3l...£>e6 32
.&C2!) 32 axb3 a2 would have disappeared
after 33 2a4 £se6 34 i.e2 £ixf4 35 i.c4 ^ g 2+
36 <&e4 Sd 2 37 b4 or 33...£sb5 34 i.e2 £sc3
35 Sa3! 2d7 (35...*f8 36 b4) 36 f5 £>d5+ 37
■4f3 ^ b 4 38 ^.c4 2 d l 39 f6+l, breaking
through to the queening square.
32 &e4 Sd8 33 2xc5 £>e6
34Sd5!
White offers to give up the pride of his
position - the pair of connected passed
pawns, in order to exchange the rooks and
pick up both of Black’s queenside pawns.
3 4 -2 c 8 (despair) 35 f5 Sc4+ 36 &e3 £>c5 37
g5 S c l (37...b3 38 i.xb3l) 38 2d6 1-0
Or immediately 38 f6+ &e6 39 2d6+ &xe5
40 f7l. But as it was, Black resigned.
A grandiose and, most importantly, accu­
rately implemented idea. The game was
judged to be both the best and the theoreti­
cally most important in the 64th volume of
Informator. It had a fatal psychological effect
on my opponent: right to the finish Vishy
was unable to regain his equanimity after
this shock.
The scores were only level and half of the
match still lay ahead, but Anand ‘floun­
dered’ in the very next game, when the hour
108
of the Dragon sounded. I played it for the
first time in my life! On again encountering
an opening surprise, Vishy chose a quiet
continuation which led to a drawn end­
game, but I attacked too sharply on the
queenside and gradually created problems
for myself.
Came 20
V.Anand-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match
llt h Game, New York 28.09.1995
28 b4?
Anand suddenly imagined that I had
blundered the exchange. The simple 28
£>xe7! 2e8 29 £>d5 i.xd5 30 b4l axb4 31
axb4 Sc4 32 2xd5 2xb4+ (32...2ec8? 33 c3!
2 xc3 34 2e2! and 2xb5) 33 &C3! (it was this
that I had overlooked, relying only on 33 i ’cl
f5l with equality) 33-2c4+ 34 &b3 would
have obliged Black to fight for a draw in a
double-rook endgame a pawn down: 34...f5
35 2xb5 2ec8 36 2e2 fxe4 37 fxe4*f7, etc.
28...axb4 29 axb4 (29 <£sxb4 f6 and ...if?
was unfavourable for White) 29—2c4 30
£>b6??
Hara-kiri! After 30 c3l ^.xd5 31 2xd5l
2 xc3 32 2e2l and 2xb5 there would still

have been all to play for
30...Sxb4+ 31 ^ a 3 Sxc2l
And in view of the elegant 32 Sxc2 2b3+
33 <£ ’a 2 2e3+, White resigned (O-l).
For the first time in the match I took the
lead: 6-5. The following day in the 12th
game Anand employed not the Open Varia­
tion, but the Arkhangelsk Variation of the
Ruy Lopez. He was clearly in a ‘groggy’ state
and reached a difficult endgame, but in
time-trouble I missed excellent winning
chances.
In the 13th game my team decided that I
should repeat the formidable ‘Dragon’,
despite the fact that my opponent had had a
couple of days for preparation.
Game 21
V.Anand-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match
13th Game, New York 02,10.1995
Sicilian Defence B771
1 e4 c 5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^ x d 4 £sf6 5
£ sc3 g6 6 Ae3 A g7 7 # d 2 £sc6 8 f3 0-0 9
£c4
The main line. In the 15th game after 9 g4
Ae 6 10 0-0-0 £sxd4 11 i.xd4 # a5 12 4>bl
2fc8 13 a3 2ab8 14 £sd5 l rxd2 15 2xd2
£)xd5 16 iLxg7 £ie3! a draw was agreed.
9—&d7 10 h4 h5 11 -&b3 2c8
Excluding the insipid variation ll...£se5
12 jLh6 2c8 13 -&xg7 4>xg7 14 0-0-0 (Anand-
Topalov, Madrid 1993).
12 £sxc6
It is noteworthy that Anand again takes a
quiet course, aiming to avoid any risk. The
weak points of the Dragon had not yet been
probed, and indeed was it worth seeking
them - suppose that I had decided to use
this defence on just the one occasion?
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
12 0-0-0 £se5 is far more critical. Now if 13
jLh6 there is a sharp exchange sacrifice -
13.. JLxh6 14 I'xhe Sxc3l? 15 bxc3 1^5
(Game No.42 in Revolution in the 70s). The
ll th game went 13 ^ b l £)c4 14 -&xc4 2xc4
15 £sde2 b5 16 JLh6 1^5! 17 -&xg7 (if 17
£)d5 l rxd2 18 £)xe7+ ^ h 7 19 ^.xd2, then
19.. .£sxe4l 20 b3 £sxd2+ 21 2xd2 2c5! 22
Sxd6 2e5 is equal) 17...<4>xg7 18 £sf4 2fc8 19
£icd5 Wxd2 20 2xd2 £sxd5 21 £sxd5 <±f8
with equality.
And it was only in the 17th game, after
serious analytical work, that Vishy employed
the most formidable weapon - 13 .&.g5 2c5
(Sosonko’s defence) 14 ‘A’bl! 2e8 15 2 h e l
(15 Jkh6 is nevertheless more forceful, with
the idea of 15....&h8 16 g4l) lS -'i'aS 16 a3.
Here I incautiously played l6...b5? (the pawn
separates the queen from the rook!), and
after 17 ^.xf6! exf6 (I 7 ..~&.xf6 18 £sd5) 18
£sde2! I ran into difficulties. I 6...#a 6! 17 f4
(17 -&h6 ^.h 8!) 17...£sc4 18 £xc4 2xc4 19 e5
£sh7 was correct, with good play (Game
No.49 in Revolution in the 70s).
12 .. .bxc6 13 Ah6 c5 14 -&C4 (14 -&xg7 ^xg7
15 y&e2 Wlc7 16 iLc4 2b8 17 0-0-0 £c6! is no
better for White) 14—®b6!
A novelty - previously 14...2b8 16 0-0-0!
was played (Tolnai-Watson, Kecskemet
1988 ).
109
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
15 .&xg7 4xg7 16 b3
I think that the safest was 16 0-0-0!? # b 4
17 b3 ii.e6 18 £}d5 with equality. ‘White is
unable to seize the moment to castle and
stabilise the position. All the subsequent
play illustrates Anand’s extremely depressed
condition after the two heavy ‘knock-downs’
in the 10th and 11th rounds of the match’
(Zaitsev).
16 .. .Ae 6 (immediately beginning to break
up the opponent’s ‘fortress’) 17 £>d5?!
‘Anand was probably let down by his
sense of danger, otherwise he would have
preferred 17 Jb<e6 fxe6 18 £>a4’ (MakaTy-
chev). Indeed, the minor pieces of the same
name should have been exchanged, al­
though even here after I8...#c7l Black has a
comfortable game: 19 0-0-0?! c4, while if 19
c4?l or 19 0-0, then 19...d5l is good.
17.. JLxd5 18 exd5
18 .. .e5 l (an unexpected thrust, setting
White an eternal problem - to take or not to
take?) 19 dxe6
After 19 0-0-0 or 19 0-0 Black has a slight
but clear positional plus: the bishop on c4
becomes too ‘blunt’.
19.. .d5 20 ±e2 (20 &xd5? 2fd8) 20...C4!
Psychologically the decisive blow. For the 2 1 ...Sce 8 !
first time in my life, with one move I simul­
taneously prevented castling on both sides! a hard one to find - a second move with an
110
My opponent was most probably hoping for
20...#xe6?! 210-0.
21 C3?
Panic. 21 Sdl! was essential, with the in­
tention of #d4. Anand grasped that this was
the correct defensive idea, but he performed
it badly: emotionally he was not ready for a
grand battle, and as soon as the situation on
the board changed sharply, he promptly
went to pieces.
Against the rook move, in Informator I
recommended 21...c3(?l) 22 # d 4 fxe6, but
after 23 0-0 White is quite alright. Other
continuations are more dangerous for him:
1 ) 21 ...fxe6 22 bxc4?! e5! 23 #c3 (23 cxd5?
£>e4l) 23...dxc4 with an escalating attack, or
22 #d4! #35+ (or 22...#c7!? with the idea of
...e6-e5) 23 # d 2 (23 4*2? cxb3 24 cxb3 e5! 25
#xe5 Sc2 is bad for White) 23...#xa2 24
bxc4 1®To2 25 0-0 dxc4, retaining some
advantage;
2) 21...Sfe8!? (if 21...Sce8, then 22 #d4!
#xe6 23 S d 2) 22 exf7 4xf7 23 # d 4 #66!
(instead of the Informator 23...cxb3 24 #xb6
axb6 25 cxb3 Sc2 26 Sd2 with equality) 24
#d2 # e5 or 24...C3 25 # d 3 #e5 with excel­
lent compensation for the pawn.
Vishy simply missed this reply, which was

already developed rook! Now the invasion of
the rooks on the e-file proves decisive, and
the game quickly concludes.
22 bxc4
Alas, 22 Wd4 does not work because of
22.. .Wxe6 23 Wd2 d4! or 23 Wf2 Se7 and
...Efe8, and 22 exf7 Sxf7 23 0-0-0 (otherwise
...Sfe7) 23...cxb3 24 Ad3 bxa2 25 Wxa2 Sc7!
is no better.
22.. .1xe6 23 ^ f l
After 23 cxd5 Se5 24 & fl £>xd5 25 Wd4
Wf6!, with the threat of ...Ed8 and ...<£ie3+,
White also has no defence (26 4f2 £ixc3!).
23.. .5fe8 24 A d 3 dxc4 (the most accurate,
although Black would also have won with
24-£ig4!? 25 fxg4 2f6+ 26 Af5 hxg4, and if
27 Wd4, then 27...Wb2!) 25 Axc4
25.. .^e4!
Such moves are made with great pleas­
ure. In view of 26 fxe4 (26 Wei Ed6!)
26.. .5f 6+ 27 & el Sxe4+ 28 Ae 2 Wf2+ 29
'i d l Exe2!, White resigned (0-1). A crushing
defeat!
This spectacular miniature caused Anand
another mental trauma. A second successive
loss with White! He tried to fight on, but the
burden of accumulated misfortunes also
told the following day - at the decisive
moment of the 14th game.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
In it after l e4 Vishy ‘desperately’ decided
to shock me with the exotic Scandinavian
Defence - l...d5l? 2 exd5 Wxd5 3 £>c3 Wa5
(from the press: ‘For the first time in the
match Kasparov removed his jacket. Before
that he had only removed his watch.’) 4 d4
5 £rf3 (later in simuls and blitz games I
successfully employed 5 Ad2!? c6 6 Ad3)
5...C6 6 £>e5 Ae6! 7 Ad3 £>bd7 8 f4?! g6! 9 0-0
Ag7, when Black had achieved a comfortable
game, and after a series of excessively sharp
moves by me, aimed at refuting this ‘incor­
rect opening’, he seized the initiative.
Mikhail Gurevich: ‘After coming under
positional pressure, Carry employed a strong
psychological ploy - he offered a draw after
16 thxd5. Vishy hesitated and spent several
minutes before he replied with I6...exd5 and
a natural refusal. On this he spent some
additional energy, whereas Kasparov gained
confidence. He fought like the devil, and the
scales o f fortune began to rock together with
the challenger...’
Came 22
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
World Championship Match
14th Game, New York 03.10.1995
m
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
After gaining complete control of the e4
point, Anand was already anticipating a
swift reprisal - ....&e4, ...£sf5, etc. But here
White unexpectedly launched into a close-
range fight.
26 a6! b6?l (26...£sb5 would still have re­
tained an advantage) 27 £se5!
An unpleasant blow. ‘Threatened with a
positional squeeze, Kasparov sharpens the
situation, abruptly disturbing the material
balance. Such a procedure, setting the
opponent a difficult psychological problem,
was one of which Tal had a brilliant com­
mand’ (Zaitsev).
27.. .We6
This reply was condemned by many
commentators, but not by me. After 27...fxe5
28 fxe5 £se4 29 £xd8 2xd8 30 g4l hxg4 31
JLxg4 White would have gained a rook and a
protected passed pawn for two minor
pieces, and would easily have maintained
the balance with play against the exposed
king:
1 ) 3l...lTi7 32 &xf5 gxf5 (if 32...£sg3+?! 33
& gl £sxf5, then not Gurevich’s move 34
Sc3? because of 34..~&b4!, but 34 'Bfg4l with
a dangerous attack) 33 Wf3 &h8 34 2c2 jLb4
35 2g2 2f8 36'»f4;
2) 3l...^.xg4 32 l rxg4 £sf2+ 33 2xf2 Wxf2
34 Wxge-r jLg7 35 #66+ (or 35 2c7 with
equality, but not MakaTychev’s 35 2 g l? Wf7)
35.. .6f8 36lTi3!;
3) 3l...£h6 32 ^.xf5 gxf5 33 2c2 &h7 (ac­
cording to Zaitsev, ‘with the better prospects
for Black’) 34 ®g4 2f8 35 1i rh3 with the idea
of 2c6 or 34 Wf3 f435 2fcl, etc.
Vishy assumed that the white knight
would not run away from him - 28 £sc6?l
2d7, but misfortune strikes from the other
side.
28 g4!
Initiating wild complications. ‘Wonderful!
This sudden thrust imparts a total character
112
to the play - individual strong or weak
squares cease to play a significant role. The
change of scene proved so sharp that Anand,
who also had an advantage on the clock (he
had 21 minutes left, against 10 for Kas­
parov), simply became rattled and in literally
two moves he ended up in time-trouble. And
the unimaginable din that arose in the hall
penetrated through the sound-proof glass
into the playing ‘bunker’ and conclusively
overcame the challenger’ (MakaTychev).
28...hxg4 29 £lxg4
White has created ‘his’ play.
29...±g7
Suitable for maintaining the dynamic
balance, although there were also more
ambitious continuations:
1) 29...£se4 30 £se3 2e7l (but not the in­
correct Informator line 30...£sg3+? 31 hxg3
'Hfxe3 32 jLxf6 2d7 33 2 e l 2h7+ 34 £h4) 31
£sxf5 2h7, and after 32 2c2 gxf5 the black
knight on e4 is too strong, so White must
play 32 &xf6! 1 ^ 6 (32...£sxf6 33 £sg3) 33
JLxe4 dxe4 34 £se3 2xd4 35 Vic2(e2) with
equality;
2) 29..~&e7, and 30 £sh6+?! (30 2c7? -&xg4
31 £xg4 f5 and ...£se4) 30...&g7 31 £sxf5+
£sxf5 32 2 e l Wtd6 33 -&g3 Wd7! or 32 JLf2
JLd6 33 1Brd2 2c8 is unfavourable for White.
Stronger is 30 2el! £)e4l (not 30...iLe4?
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

because of 31 .&xe4 £ixe4 32 f 5) 31 £tfi6+! JLg4) 34 2 g l White retains some initiative:

if8!? (if 3l...'&ti8(g7) there is the drawing
combination 32 £>xf5(+) #xf5 33 2c7 1Brxf4
34 ^.xe4 - threatening ±xg6! - 34 .dxe4 35
±g3 # f5 36 Sxa7, but now this is bad
because of 34...1Brxh4!) 32 Sc2! .&h3 (if
32...2c8 or 32...^.d6, then 33 2g2!) 33 2 g l f5
34 # e l 2c8 35 2e2 with very complicated
play.
30 2 c 7! (now it is far easier playing White)
‘the excellently placed knight does not fully
compensate for all the defects of the position’
(Zaitsev). Therefore the only correct defence is
31...2c8! 32 2xc8 (32 2xa7? £>c3) 32...2xc8 33
£>xf5 gxf5, when the powerful knight to­
gether with control of the c-file secures Black
equal chances.

32 2 g l
It is hard to refrain from such a move. But
30.. .£>e4 an unexpected idea, not mentioned by
A long-time dream of the knight. anyone, was also very strong: 32 jLg4l?
30.. JLxg4(?!) 31 ^.xg4 f5, given by me in (exchanging Black’s active pieces) 32..JLxg4
Informator, is bad in view of 32 2el! £>e4 33 331Srxg41Brxg4 34 £ixg4 - in the ending with
.&xd8 2xd8 34 ^.f3. White is also better after his rook on the seventh rank and pawn on a6
30.. JLe4 (M.Gurevicb) 31 ^.xe4l £>xe4 White has a big, if not decisive advantage:
(31...1rxe4+ 32 Wf3) 32 f5! gxf5 33 2gll, etc., 34.. .2 c8 35 2 fcl or 34...2a8 35 2 g l, etc.
while if 30...2a8 there is 3 1 2xg7+!? ^xgy 32 32.. .g5?!
±xf6+ i f 7 33 .&e5 with very sharp play. Desperation. If 32...f5?, then 33 ^.h5! is de­
31 £ie3 .&h3? cisive, while my recommendation 32...'ird6(?!)
A time-trouble error in a position where it 33 2xa7 l fxf4 34 2xg6 2d7 35 2xd7 ±xd7 is
was not easy to find the correct solution. unsuitable on account of 36 .&g4! (better
Thus 3l~.£>g3+? was bad because of 32 than the earlier 36 £>g2) 36...£>c3 37 Wf3
^.xg3! 1Srxe3 33 2 e l, and 31...1rd6(?) 32 2xa7 #xf3+ 38 jLxf3 2xe3 39 ±xf6 *f7 40 i.h 5!
±c8, which I mistakenly recommended due ±xf 6 41 2 g 3+ and 2 xe3 with a won ending
to an oversight, in view of 33 f5l g5 34 We2 (passed a- and h-pawnsl). 32...2d7l? 33 2xd7
with the idea of 34...gxh4 35 ^.xe4l, etc. #xd7 34 2xg6 4f8 was far more resilient, but
The dangerous rook on c7 should have in time-tTouble one does not easily sacrifice a
been urgently exchanged. But after 3l...2d7?l pawn ‘just like that’.
32 2xd7 1 ^ 7 33 £>xf5 gxf5 (33-M xfS^ 34 33 &g4?!

113
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
In In fo rm a to r this flamboyant move was
given an exclamation mark, although in fact
33 fxg5l fxg5 34 Sxa7 would have won more
surely, for example: 34...b5 35 Sb7l &h8 36
^ .e l and a6-a7 (36...1i rxa6? is not possible on
account of 37 Jtxe4 Sxe4 38 Sxg7l <4 >xg7 39
Sxg5+).
33...i-xg4 34 # x g 4 #x g 4
35 Sxg4!
But here I guessed right: the ‘deserving of
consideration’ 35 ®xg4(?l) was less good,
since after 35...Sc8 36 Sxa7 Sa8 37 2d7
Sxa6 38 £>e3 (Wahls) 38...Sea8! 39 £)xd5
S a l or 35...Sf81? 36 fxg5 fxg5 37 £ie5 & x e 5
38 dxe5 Sf7 39 i.xg5 £ixg5 40 Sxg5+ &f8
Black would have had chances of escaping to
a draw a pawn down.
35.. .®d6
At the press conference after the game I
gave preference to 35...Sc8. If 36 Sxa7 Black
loses after 36...Scl+ (to say nothing of
36.. .‘&f8? 37 £if5) 37 4 ^ 2 S b l 38 Sb7l Sb2+
39 4 h l <5M6 40 Sxb6 £ ic4 41 £>xc4 dxc4 42
S gl! cxb3 (42...Sxb3 43 Sc6) 43 fxg5 f5 44
S d l, etc. However, after 36...Sa81? 37 Sxa8
Sxa8 38 fxg5 fxg5 39 ®xd5 Sxa6 40 Sxe4
gxh4 41 Sxh4 Sa5 42 £>xb6 Sb5 and ...Sxb3
he would retain hopes of saving the game,
although two pawns down.
36 ^.f2 £>b5 (it is clear that the knight did
114
not willingly go from e4 to b5) 37 Sb7 Se4
(but here 37...^d61? 38 Sxa7 Sa8 was more
resilient) 38 f5
I liked this move, bmying the g7-bishop
for ever, but there was a technically simpler
win by 38 h4 (it is also possible to begin with
38 £)f5 or 38 4g2) 38...2xf4 39 Sxf4 gxf4 40
£>f5 i-f8 4 1 4g2.
38...2xg4
There is nothing else: the black knight has
to guard the a7-pawn, the bishop cannot
come into play - 38..JLf8? 39 £}xd5l, and
neither can the rook on d8 - 38...2c8? 39
®xd5l 2 c l+ (39-2xg4? 40 £ie7+) 40 2 g l
2 c 2 4 1 ^.e3l (instead of the In fo rm a to r 4 1
^.g3 2xd4) 4l...^c3 (if 4l...^xd4 or 4l...4f8,
then 42 2g2l) 42 ^.xg5l fxg5 43 £ ixc3 2xc3
44 2xg5, etc.
39 £)xg4 2c8
In the time scramble the disorderly rum­
ble of the spectators’ voices continued to
carry through to us, for the first time in the
match penetrating through the supposed
sound-proof barrier. Both players nervously
flinched and in perplexity looked first
around, and then at the arbiter...
40 2d7?!
A vexing mistake on the last move before
the time control. It was more logical by 40
h4l to continue the attack on the kingside,

where White is dominant: 40...gxh4 41 .&xh4
Uc6 42 4g2 followed by 4g3-f4 and the
threat of Sd7 or Hb8+.
40...2 c 2?
With his flag about to fall, Anand missed
a chance opportunity - 40...Sc3l. After this
in Informator I gave a pretty ‘win’: 41 Sxd5
fixb3 42 2d8+ 4>f7 43 Sd7+ 4>f8 44 4g2 Sa3
45 h4! gxh4 46 .&xh4 Bxa6 47 .&xf6 (47
<£sxf61? is somewhat better) 47..~&xf6 48
£>xf6 Sa4 49 £)h7+ 4e8 (49...4g8? 50 f6!
and wins) 50 f61? 4xd7 51 f7 fia2+ 52 4g3
2a3+ 53 4g4, overlooking a pretty draw -
53-.Sf3! 54 4>xf3 £)xd4+ and ...£ie6.
But the correct move is 41 £se3l Sxb3, and
now not 42 £sxd5(?) Sa3 and ...Bxa6 with a
draw (Wahls), but 42 4g2!, making it diffi­
cult for Black to win the a6-pawn and inexo­
rably increasing the pressure:
1) 42...Sb4 43 £)xd5 Sa4 44 4>f3 2xa6 45
4 g 4 (with the threat of 4h5-g6) 4 5-S a3 46
Ag3l ^ c 3 47 £)c7 and £se6, winning;
2 ) 42...‘4 >
f8 43 £>xd5 Sa3 44 £)b4 Sa4
(44...4g8 45 Sd5) 45 ± e l S a l 46 4f2,
repelling all the attacks and intending a
decisive assault;
3) 42...Sa3 43 Sxd5l £>c7 (43...Sb3 44 4 f 3)
44 Sd8+ 4 h 7 45 Sd7 £)b5 46 £)g4 4 g 8 47
Sd5 Sa5 48 h4! gxh4 49 ^.ell, winning
material and the game.
41 Sxd5 1-0
In view of 41...£sc7 42 Sd8+ and Sc8.
At the end of the game this was how I ex­
plained my opponent’s failure: ‘He was very
well prepared personally against me. His
trainers took into account all my habits,
passions and characteristics, the openings
that I play, and so on, but they did not take
account of the individual characteristics of
Anand himself. They imposed on Vishy a
manner of play which was uncharacteristic
of him, they squeezed him into a framework
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
where a pn'ori he was unable to demon­
strate what he was capable of through his
talent. Anand as though forgot about his
rich intuition, he completely excluded n'sk,
he aimed to calculate everything to the end,
and those variations in which this was not
possible he simply rejected. This was not in
accordance with his style, talent and vision
of the game.’
This fourth win in five games increased
my lead to 8y2-5y2. To retain my title I only
needed to score another one and a half
points.
The match was effectively decided, and I
again fell into a slight doze. The outcome of
this was four draws, of which only the 17th
game was protracted. Vishy finally joined
battle in a Dragon (cf. Came No.2l, note to
White’s 12th move), and obtained a better
endgame, but after mistakes by both sides
towards the end of the fourth hour of play I
managed to save the game.
The following day in the 18th game the
exhausted fighters did not see any point in
prolonging the torture: I offered a draw on
the 15th move, and we shook hands 13
minutes and 35 seconds after the start of
play. ‘Congratulations’, Anand said quietly.
The match concluded ahead of schedule:
lO'/i-l'/*.
This was a really difficult duel, and for me
especially from the third to the tenth game.
For the first time I sensed an ambiguous
attitude towards myself: whereas most
chess fans were rooting for me, most profes­
sionals were openly wanting me to lose, so
that the chess world should finally acquire a
‘correct’ champion and rid itself of the ‘PCA
diktat’.
And I myself was exhausted by the con­
stant organizational problems, but after my
win in the match I was filled with optimism
and I stated in an interview that soon the
115
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
PCA would have a new two-year contract
with the Intel Corporation (‘a good contract,
the details of which are now being worked
out’), and that in it they had already pledged
one and a half million dollars for the unifica­
tion match, envisaged in the Moscow
agreement with FIDE. Alas, in December,
because of the torpedoing of this agreement
and the constant attacks on the PCA in the
press, Intel changed its mind about signing
the contract and pulled out of chess.
To a question about the presence in my
team of the potential contender foT the title
VladimiT KTamnik (suppose you have to play
a match against him?), I carelessly replied: ‘I
don’t see any problem here. Volodya and I
are on excellent terms. If we need to play a
match, we will prepare, and devise some­
thing. He has learned a lot about me, and I
have learned something about him’. These
words were remembered five years later, in
October 2000...
Despite my fatigue, ten days afteT the tam­
ing of the ‘Madras tigeT’ I had to compete in
the third, concluding tournament of the PCA
Grand Prix Super-classic (HoTgen, 20 October
- 1 November 1995): 1-2. KTamnik and Ivan­
chuk - 7 out of 10; 3-4. Ehlvest and Short - 6;
5. Kasparov - 5; 6-8. Yusupov, Korohnoi and
Gulko - 4Vi; 9. LautieT - 4; 10. Vaganian - 372;
11. Timman - 3.
Another ten days lateT, 9-12 November,
while continuing to complain of a Tjad head’
and being 'sick of chess’ afteT New YoTk, I won
the decisive, Paris stage of the Intel Rapidplay
Grand Prix, smashing Morozevich, Kiril GeoT-
giev and Anand all 2-0, and defeating Kram­
nik in the final (l-l; 1V 2-V 2). And, finally, on 30
November and l December, I played two
games in Lublin for the Sarajevo Bosna team
in the European Club Cup (+1=1).
But on 25 November 1995, at a scandalous
FIDE Congress in Paris, suddenly, in violation
116
of all the rules, traditions and juridical norms
of FIDE activity, for the first time a completely
new person was elected to the post of its
President - a Russian citizen, the 33-yeaT-old
millionaire and President of Kalmykia, Kirsan
llyumzhinov. In his enthronement speech he
said that he considered himself a friend of
both Karpov and Kasparov - and that he
could ‘bring them to peace’.
But at first it was unclear whether it
would in fact be possible to overcome the
stubborn resistance of those opposed to the
immediate signing of the agreement with
the PCA. Thus Makarov, President of the
Russian Chess Federation, who played a
prominent role in the unification process,
stated immediately afteT the Congress: ‘The
new FIDE President faces the very difficult
task of unifying the world championship...
The agreement between FIDE and the PCA,
with excellent financial conditions for FIDE,
where it is allotted funds for chess develop­
ment ($300,000 a yeaT - G.K.), has been
prepared and signed by the PCA. Today it is
up to FIDE to make the next move.'
Soon, on 21 December, the Russian Chess
Federation Praesidium also expressed anxi­
ety: 'The Congress in Paris, which wrecked the
agreement between FIDE and the PCA, effec­
tively violated grossly a decision of the Moscow
Congress, which was unanimously approved in
December 1994. In this way the split in chess
has not only not been overcome, but has
possibly been aggravated stillfurther.’
However, already on 23 December a sensa­
tional Teport arrived from Singapore: the FIDE
Presidential Board had approved a suggestion
by llyumzhinov to contest the world champi­
onship in annual knock-out tournaments
with the participation of 128 leading players
and with an overall prize fund of $5 million,
and that Kasparov and the winner of the
forthcoming Karpov-Kamsky match would be

admitted directly into the semi-finals of the
first such tournament.
But what about the planned unification
match? My reply was expressed in a long
interview, entitled ‘I am the world cham­
pion. Not of a particular version, but of
chess!’ (a more complete text of it is given in
Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009):
‘Was the new FIDE project agreed with me
beforehand? No, I was simply handed the
facts... FIDE faced a dilemma - peace, or war
with the PCA. I think that the ‘Singapore’
knock-out project may have been conceived
before llyumzhinov and initiated by Karpov
and his ally, the new FIDE first vice-president
Kouatly, also a fervent opponent of the
agreement with the PCA (Karpov: "These
ideas, apart from the financial part, belong to
Kouatly. I come to this conclusion, because
earlier he discussed them with me." - G.K.). To
llyumzhinpv this project certainly seems
logical as a way of reassuring the chess
world - but I will tTy to disclose its true sense
and the latent threat.
‘Karpov understands perfectly well that in
a match between the two world champions
he will lose hopelessly, and in his heart he
also recognises the fictitious nature of his
‘appointed’ title. Something must be devised,
some chance found! But money is needed,
and quite a lot. But there is no money. And
then, like a magician, Kirsan llyumzhinov
appears. And somewhere behind the scenes a
plan is conceived, which they will now try to
put into effect: if it is not possible to fight for
the title, it has to be eliminated! Or more
precisely, devalued, reduced to a lottery, to a
chance happening, to a transitory title, played
for in some annual tournament, which will
completely kill the old-age tradition. Typical
profanation!
‘The implication of this entire operation is
simple: if I agree to play in the tournament,
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Karpov will have better chances than in a
usual match, while if I refuse, they will effec­
tively isolate me and compel me to play a
match dictated by their conditions... However,
I am sure that they are seriously mistaken. I
will not play in the new FIDE world champi­
onship, irrespective of the prize fund.’
Progress Report
Euwe Memorial Tournament (Amsterdam,
21 March - 1 April 1996): 1-2. Topalov and
Kasparov - &/i out of 9; 3-4. Short and
Anand - 5; 5-6. Kramnik and Lautier - A'/v, 1.
Seirawan - 4; 8. Gelfand - 3VS; 9. Piket - 3;
10. Timman - 2VS.
In January 1996 I gave a clock simul’ in Rio
de Janeiro against the Brazilian team (5-1 ),
and in February I played a match in Phila­
delphia with an IBM brainchild - the com­
puter Deep Blue (4-2). But in the absence of
Linares (the only year when it did not take
place; I missed 1995 because of the scandal
in 1994), my first tournament appearance
came in March at the Euwe Memorial in
Amsterdam.
This category 18 super-toumament dif­
fered from Linares in that the number of
participants was smaller, but they were no
less strong: all the leading grandmasters
arrived, with the exception of Ivanchuk, as
well as Karpov and Kamsky - they faced a
match for the title of FIDE champion (pre­
cisely at the time when, on not finding any
decent sponsors, llyumzhinov came to an
agreement with his ‘friend’ Saddam Hussein
and announced that the venue would be
Baghdad!).
‘For the first time after an interval o f nearly
six months Kasparov participated in a strong
tournament’, wrote my second Yuri Dok-
hoian. ‘After all, isolated games in simuls’ or
team events cannot be compared with full-
117
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
scale and serious encounters with such dan­
gerous opponents as Anand, Kramnik and
Topalov... A match with a computer stands
apart. Playing against it has its own specific
nature and is rather unpleasant. The slightest
inaccuracy, to say nothing of a mistake,
practically deprives you of any subsequent
chances. The machine’s iron logic is not subject
to the psychological nuances of the struggle,
and it is not possible to upset its equilibrium or
confuse it in complications. The match with
Deep Blue took a great deal of emotional and
physical strength, but it did not have any
definite significance in Kasparov’s prepara­
tions for a normal "human’ tournament. This
isolation from competitions with humans told
at the very start, but with each subsequent
round his taste for the game gradually re­
turned.’
My start in Amsterdam was discouraging: I
suffered an opening disaster in the Najdorf
with 6 iLc4, playing Black against Topalov (it
is amusing that in the third round Short took
‘revenge’ on him, by improving my variation
cf. Came No.3, note to White’s 9th move).
Then I won an interesting King’s Indian with
Black against Piket, gaining revenge for my
loss the previous year in a Griinfeld, but
Topalov created a new sensation: he also
defeated the second participant in the recent
world championship match - Anand!
Against the background of these events,
my next game with Vishy Anand acquired
particular importance.
Game 23
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
Amsterdam,
3rd Round 24.03.1996
Caro-Kann Defence B14
le 4 c6
118
Tired of the ‘Spanish torture’, Anand, like
Karpov in his time, tries the super-solid
Caro-Kann as a panacea against all ills.
2 d4 d5 3 exd5
I also decided to surprise my opponent,
and instead of my usual 3 ®d2 (Came Nos.8,
48), I chose the Panov Attack, which I had
never previously played, although I had
analysed it a little, first with Makarychev,
and then with Dokhoian. Later I also took a
look at 3 e5 (Game No.77).
3...cxd5 4 c4 £sf6 5 £ ic3 £ic6 6 iLg5
If 6 £)f3 Black most often replies 6...ii.g4
(Game No.58 in Part IV of My Great Predeces­
sors), but sometimes also 6...jLe6 (Nepom-
niachtchi-Anand, Mainz (rapid) 2009).
6.. .e6
Black defends in the old-fashioned way,
avoiding risky lines - 6..JLe6 (Kasparov-Dreev,
Moscow (rapid) 1996; Morozevich-Anand,
Moscow (rapid) 2002), or 6...dxc4 7 ^.xc4 (the
line with 7 d5 £>e5 8 # d 4 faded into the
background because of 8...h6l, Anand-Seira-
wan, Amsterdam 1992) 7...h6l? (a fashionable
move, which has supplanted the unclear
7.. .1rxd4 8 Wxd4 £ixd4 9 0-0-0 e5) 8 i.f4 e6 9
£)f3 iLd6 (Aronian-Wang Yue, Linares 2009)
or 8 iLxf6 exf6 9 £)f3 ^.d6 (Ivanchuk-Aronian,
Nice (rapid) 2009), and Black holds on.
7®f3
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

It is unfavourable to play 7 cxd5 exd5 8 10 i.b5 £)xc3 11 bxc3 i.d7 (ll...#a5?l is

£.xf6?l # x f 6 9 £)xd5 #66+1? (9...®d6 10 £ ic3
£ixd4 with equality is simpler) 10 #62 ^.d 6
with excellent compensation for the pawn
(Raud-Flohr, Pamu 1937). And if 7 c5, then
7.. JLd7l? 8 ^.b5 b 6! is good (Psakhis-Granda
Zuniga, Manila Olympiad 1992; Topalov-
Gulko, Elenite 1995).
7.. ~&e7 (tbe main line; for 7...dxc4 cf. Game
No.9 in Part II of My Great Predecessors) 8 c5
weak: 12 ^.xc6+ bxc6 13 0-01, and I 3...#xc3?
is not possible because of 14 #a4) 12 0-0 0-0
With the obvious intention of freeing
himself with I 3...b6. Here I thought for a
long time, trying to understand how White
could retain the initiative...

13 Sell!
A deep prophylactic move in the style of
Nimzowitsch! This at first sight strange
8.. .h6?! move (the rook runs up against its own
A novelty at high level, but hardly a good pawn) was one that I was very proud of. It
idea. It is more logical to play 8...0-0 (or was my opponent’s tum to think: he faced a
immediately 8...£)e4 9 JLxe7 # x e 7 10 .£±>5 serious psychological dilemma - whether or
£)xc3 11 bxc3 0-0 12 0-0 i.d7 and ...b7-b6) 9 not to play ...b7-b6. In the end the most
± b 5 £)e4 10 JLxe7 £)xe7 11 S cl (the source critical move seemed too dangerous to
game: Botvinnik-Kmoch, Leningrad 1934) Anand, and he preferred to make a waiting
11.. .b6 12 c6 # d 6 l3 0-0 a 6 14 £.d3 (14 # a 4 move with his rook.
^.d7l, Naiditsch-Leko, Dortmund 2009) 13.. .5e8
14-..£)xc6 15 £>xe4 dxe4 16 i.xe4 i.b7 17 d5 If I3...b6l? there follows 14 c4l, and in the
exd5 18 #xd5 2ad8! with equality (Naid- event of 14...dxc4 (I4...£)a5?l 15 £)e5l;
itsch-Rodshtein, Porto Carras 2011). 14.. .bxc5 15 dxc5!) 15 i.xc4 (15 d5?l is less
9 JLf4! (Vishy was probably hoping for 9 -&h4 good: 15-£)b4 16 c6 £ixd5 17 cxd7 £)xf4 18
£ie4) 9».^e4 Sxc4 £)g6) 15-.bxc5 16 dxc5 White creates a
Now this relieving manoeuvre does not protected passed pawn. He is also better
achieve its aim; with his e 7-bishop still on after 16.. JLxc5 17 .£±>5 # e 7 18 #c2, winning
the board, Black has a cramped position. two pieces for a rook and pawn.
White begins hindering his queenside But the computer trick I 4~.ji.e8!, not no­
development, doing everything possible to ticed by anyone, is more interesting, in order
prevent ...b7-b6 and ...e6-e5. to answer 15 2 e l with 15 ~.£)a5, when if 16

119
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
£>e5 £>xc4 17 c6 ^.b4, and after 15 ^.a6 not
to agree to the depressing I5...£ia5 16 cxd5
IfxdS 17 Wc2, but to sacrifice the exchange
for a pawn - 15~.dxc4!? 16 JLb7 b5, for
example: 17 Jb<a8 Wxa8 18 d5 exd5 19
lfxd5 !t8 !? 20 ^.d6 ,&d7 21 £>e5 &f6! 22
jLxf8 &xe5 23 i.d6 JLc6 24 Wdl &d3 25 Sc2
JLe4 with sufficient compensation now for
two exchanges!
14 S e l i.f6
Anand does all he can to counter the de­
velopment of White’s initiative, not rushing
with the undermining move ...b7-b6. Espe­
cially since now in the event of 14...b6?l 15
c4l the position of the rook on e8 would have
told: White is better after both 15-dxc4? 16
d5 exd5 (I6...£ib4(?) no longer saves Black
because of 17 c6 <S^xd5 18 cxd7 - with gain
of tempo!) 17 'i'xdS, and 15...bxc5?! 16 cxd5
£ixd4 17 ^xd4 cxd4 18 Jic7 Wc8 (after
13...b6 here Black would have had the equal­
izing 17...1re8) 19 i.e5! 1^18 20 i.xd7 Wxd7
21 dxe6 Wxe6 22 &xg7, etc.
15 S b l!
I was also proud of this mysterious move
(the rook has done its job on cl), although in
Informator I pointed out that 15 ii.d3 b6 16
cxb6 axb6 17 ^.bl was better ‘with a small
advantage for White’. Anand also considered
this plan to be more unpleasant for Black,
120
although after 17...^.e7! (with the idea of 18
®d3 f5) he would have got away with a
slight fright.
15...b6 16 £a6 i.c8 17 £b5 i-d7 18 &a6
i.c8
Surely not a draw?
19 jLd3! (after repeating moves to gain time
on the clock, I sprung another surprise on
my opponent) 19...bxc5 20 £>e5
This paradoxical pawn sacrifice sets Black
a difficult practical problem: how to parry
the threatened direct attack on the kingside?
‘This sacrifice is of the ‘purely Kasparov’
category: there can be no doubt about its
correctness’ (Makarychev).
20.. .11d7
A natural developing move, although also
slightly passive. Black would like to exchange
knights and bishops - 20...£>xe5?! 21 dxe5
.&g5?!, but after 22 JLxgS IfxgS (22...hxg5?
23 Whs! and wins), the insidious tactical
stroke 23 ^.b5! 2d8(f8) 24 i.c6 wins the
exchange for a pawn. The same misfortune
awaits Black after 21...JLe7?l 22 Whs! .&g5
(22..JLf8? 23 Se3! or 22...Sf8? 23 ^.xh6!
gxh6 24 #xh6 f5 25 exf6 Sxf6 26 iLg6 is
even worse) 23 JLxgS Wxg5 24®xg5 hxg5 25
&b5! Sd8(f8) 26 Ac6.
Black is also not completely happy after
21.. JLh4 22 Wg4! (after 22 IT 15 now 22...Sf8

23 ,&xh6 gxh6 24 Ifxhe f5 is possible, and if
25 exf6, then 25...±xf2+! 26 <4>hl Sxf6 27
W 17 + 4*8 28 Se5 Sf7 with equality) 22...f5
23 # 9 6 (23 exf6 # x f 6 2 4 g 3 2 f 8 ! is unclear)
23..Jtd7 2 4 g4! (2 4 .&xh6 Se7) 24...C4 25 ± c 2
W e7 26 S b 7 2 f 8 27 i.xh6 1*7 28 #xg7+,
transposing into a better endgame.
20...ixe5 deserved some consideration:
2 1 dxe5 l a 5 (if 2l...f5 an advantage is
promised not by my Informator 22 Se3(?l)
because of 22 ...H 14, but by 22 exf6! # xf6 23
Jk,b5 & d 7 24 ± d 6 c4 25 Se3 or 24...1rxc3 25
I c l W a s 26 Sxc5 - Stobl) 22 # 9 4 4*8 23
2e3 ia 6 ! (exchanging the powerful bishop
on d3) 24 Sg3 g5 25 ± xa6 ®xa6 26 ± e3
Seb8 (Makarychev), when Black successfully
defends, but after 22 jLb5! i d 7 23 l g 4 4*8
24 Se3 or 22...±b7 23 Se3 he comes under
an attack.
Besides, after 20...±d7, a move con­
demned by the commentators, as yet Black is
by no means losing.
21 Sb7! (nevertheless forcing the exchange
on e5) 2l..JLxe5
2l...£ixe5? is fatal after 22 dxe5 i e 7 23
# 9 4 ! or 22..JLh4 23 11115! (to say nothing of
22..JLg5 23 Jb<g5 hxg5 2411115!), while after
the desperate 22...±c61? there is the very
strong 23 Sxf7l 4xf7 24 exf6 lx f 6 (24...gxf6?
25 IH 15+ 4 e 7 26 Sxe6+1, mating) 25 & e5
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
IH 14 26 fie3! or 25...1rg5 26 f4 and Se3-g3 -
at the cost of the exchange and a pawn,
White obtains a fearfully strong attack.
22 dxe5
A critical point of the game.
22.. .5b8?
The correct idea - to get rid of the white
rook on the seventh rank and seize control of
the b-file - but incorrectly implemented.
From the press: ‘It was said that the match in
New York had left its mark and that Vishy
had not yet rid himself of the negative
emotions.’ At any event, in this game Anand
was unable to cope with the constantly
arising problems.
But how should Black play? After
22.. JLc8? 23 # 94 ! he would not have been
saved by 23 „JLxb7 24 ^.xh6 g6 25 ^.xg6!,
23.. .4*8 24 ^.xh6 gxh6 25 Sxf7+1, or 23~.Se 7
24 .&xh6 HT8 25 Sbbll. Also dubious was
22.. .f5?l 23 exf6 H?xf6 24 .&d6! (rather more
forceful than 24 ^.xh6 l x h 6 25 Sxd7 -
Stohl) 24-Sed8 25 Se3l with a dangerous
attack, or 22...£)e7?! 23 HTi5 c4 (of course,
not 2 3 ..JL c6? 24 ±xh6! g6 25 W qA ^.xb7 26
±g5! or 23~.£*5? 24 g4 £*h4 25 Se3! and
wins) 24 .&.C2 d4 25 cxd4, when 25~~£.c6? 26
Sxe7! Hrxe7 27 ^.xh6 11)4 28 4*1 is bad for
Black, but he also does not equalise with
25.. .1ra5?! 26 <4*1 c3 27 ± xh6 or 25...£*5 26
121
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
±xf5 (26 jk.e4!?) 26...exf5 27 d5, etc.
It was essential to include 22...C4! (driving
the bishop to a vulnerable position), and in
the event of 23 &c2 2b8 24 2xb8 #xb8 25
®g4 Af8 26 Se3 Wb2! White’s bishop on c2
is attacked and his back rank is weak, so he
has to force a draw - 27 2g3, etc. It would
seem that 23 A bl 2b8 24 2xb8 #xb8 25
Wc2 g6 26 # d2 is more promising for him.
Now, however, with all his available forces
- queen, rook and two bishops - White
assails the unfortunate black king.
23 2xb8
23 Wg4 Af8 (23...g5? 24 h4l f5 25 exf6
2xb7 26 iLxgS! and wins) 24 2xb8, etc.,
could have come to the same thing.
23...Wxb8
Moving the knight away - 23...£sxb8
(Stohl) was bad in view of 24 ®h5! c4 25
2e3! cxd3 26 2g3 or 24-f5 25 ± xh 6! £ k 6 26
±g5 Wc7(a5) 27 £.f6!.
24 ®g4 (with the obvious threat of iLxh6)
24...Af8
There is nothing else: 24...AT18? 25 2e3l,
while if 24-g5? White decides matters with
the flamboyant 25 Wh5! gxf4 26 #xh6 £sd8
27 h4 or 25...Ag7 26 ±xg5 hxg5 27 l rxg5+
Af8 28 Wi6+ Ae7 29 ®f6+ Af8 30 JLg6!
£)d8 3lh4, etc.
25 Se3
122
The rook is aiming for g3.
25.. .®d8?!
This definitely loses. 25...Wb2 was more
resilient, when in the event of 26 Ug3?! Black
would have been saved by 26...1Hral+ 27 M l
1x8!! 28 Wxg7+ Ae7 29 h4 l a 6 30 Ah2
®xfl 31 lx h 6 Ad7 32 lg 5 We2l 33 #xf7+
%\e7 34 M 6 ®xf2 35 Sg8 ®f4+ with perpet­
ual check.
However, the cool-headed 26 h4l would
have retained a powerful attack: 26...#xc3
(my Informator moves 26...1c8? or 26...C4?
are less good because of the same move - 27
Sg3l) 27 Sg3 Wel+ (27...Ae7 28 ®xg7) 28
Ah2 Ae7 (28...g5? 29 Wh5! - Makarychev) 29
Wxg7 Ad8 30 Wxf7 Ac7 31 lx h 6 c4 32 i.g6,
and despite all the complications, White
should win.
26 h4!
Even better than 26 Sg3 g5 27 h4l. Here
Anand belatedly realised that he would have
to abandon his kingside and try to save
himself by running away...
26.. .1 .a5 27 Sg3 Ae7 28 #xg7
How could White not capture the pawn?
However, there was an immediate win by 28
lg5+! hxg5 29 WxgS-r f6 30 Wxg7+ Ad8 31
exf6.
28.. .Ad8 29 1 ^ 7 #xc3 30 lb 5 (30 I f ll?
# b 2 3 1 Ug7 ^ 7 32 lx h 6 was simpler, with

the intention of JLg5+ and h4-h5) 30...'Bra5
(30...Wb4? 31 -&xc6 i.xc6 32 Sb3) 31 Sg7
This makes things somewhat harder for
White, in contrast to 31 Ji.xc6! JLxc6 32
jLxh6 or 32 Sg7. Fortunately, on this occa­
sion I nevertheless did not allow Vishy to
achieve a miraculous escape, as occurred in
Linares 1992 (Game No.86 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
31...£)e7
The only chance of avoiding a dismal fate
was 31-.Se7! 32 1^8+ *c7 33 Sxe7 £)xe7 34
#xe7 #xb5, but even then after 35 ^-xh6
and ^.g5l the outcome would have been
decided by the passed h-pawn.
32 Jbcd7 (after 32 Ji.fl! and Jb(h6-g5 Black
would have had to resign) 32...&xd7 33 ^ 6
Defending the e5-pawn with the aim of
JLxh6-g5 and h4-h5. 33 Sg6 was also strong.
33-d4
33...'Brxa2 34 i.xh6 or 33-C4 34 -&xh6 c3
35 i.g5 Vlc5 36 h5 c2 was no better - here,
apart from 37 ®f4 given in Informator, both
the simple 37 J*-Cl and the pretty 37 h6
c l l ,+ 38 JLxcl #xcl+ 39 *h2 d4 40 h7 'Vic5
41 Sg3! Vic8 42 Ea3 would have won.
34 £xh6 c4 35 i.g5 V ies 36 Sxe7+
Although here White had a choice be­
tween 36 '#f3 and 36 h5,1 instantly captured
on e7 (Vishy even nervously flinched): the
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
pawn endgame after 36..JSxe7 37 1Brxe7+
Vlxe7 38 Ji.xe7 <&xe7 39 ^ fl! is clear without
any commentary. Black resigned (l-O). A
mind-boggling game!
After this round a leading quintet
emerged: Topalov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Short
and Lautier - 2 out of 3. The status quo was
maintained in the fourth round, in which we
all drew - I escaped with difficulty in an­
other Sicilian duel with Short (cf. Game No.5,
note to White's 10th move).
In the fifth round the quintet split up,
since only Topalov and I won. The game with
Yasser Seirawan, played 'in Tal style’, also
afforded me enormous pleasure.
Came 24
G.Kasparov-Y.Seirawan
Amsterdam,
5th Round 27.03.1996
Queen's Cambit D37
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e6 3 £>f3 d5 4 £)c3 £)bd7
(Yasser’s favourite set-up: an invitation to a
‘Karlsbad’ structure after the continuation 5
cxds exds) 5 Vic2
I had studied this move in various similar
positions, but here it turns out to be not fully
appropriate.
5.. .dxc4!
A logical modem idea of Igor Ivanov’s, in­
stead of the old 5-.c6 or 5..~&e7(b4). A rapid
...C7-C5 promises Black a comfortable game.
6 e4 C5 7 dxc5
The alternatives are harmless: 7 d5 exd5 8
exds (after 8 e5?! apart from 8...£}g4 there is
an unexpected piece sacrifice - 8...£ixe5! 9
£ixe5 £ d 6 10 l fa4+ &f8) 8...i.d6 9 JLxc4 0-0
or 7 JLe3 a6 8 e5 <5V)4 9 JLxc4 Vic7 (Wang
Hao-Eljanov, Sarajevo 2009).
7.. .-&XC5 8 JLxc4
123
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
8.. .a6!
And here is Seirawan’s novelty. The pre­
mature 8...<£sg4?! allows White to develop his
bishop on f4, and after 9 0-0 he is better in
the event of 9~.a6 (g.-.Wc??! 10 ^b5) 10 Jk.f4
'HTfj?! (Gulko-I.Ivanov, New York 1994) 11
£>e2! or 10...b5 11 i.d3 l.b7 12 h3 ^gf6 13
e5, and 9...0-0 10 Jk.f4 VHf6 11 Jk.g3 (Grischuk-
Genba, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011).
9 a4 (9 iif4 b5 10 i.d3 .&b7 is equal) 9..Mc7
(threatening ...JLxf2+ and ...Wxc4) 10 0-0
Not wasting time on the defence or the
withdrawal of the bishop. Now 10...^.xf2+? is
bad on account of 11 Sxf2! #xc4 12 b3 Wc6
(I2...1fc7 13 £>b5!!) 13 &a3 £ig4 14 Sd2 and
wins.
10.. .£lg4
Or simply 10...0-0 with the ideas ....&d6,
...^e5, ...b7-b6 and ...^.b7 - Black has noth­
ing to complain of. But Seirawan was al­
ready playing to seize the initiative! Without
having time to be upset by this tum of
events, I unexpectedly saw a completely
paradoxical way of sharpening the play...
11 h3l?
Rejecting the safe, but dead-drawn l l
£>e2 £ d6 12 h3 ^ge5 13 ^xe5 £>xe5 14 &b3
Wxc2 15 l.xc2 i.d7.
'In the opening the champion encoun­
tered such a surprise, that he was immedi­
124
ately forced to consider: should he make a
quick draw, or... Kasparov chose ‘or’ - he
decided on a romantic sacrifice of the ex­
change and a pawn. And the result was one
of the most brilliant games of the tourna­
ment.’ (Makarychev).
11.. .£>xf2
Seirawan played this without thinking,
evidently assuming that I had missed this
move! After the game he admitted: 'Win­
ning the exchange and a pawn without
visible compensation was so tempting...’
The ‘faint-hearted’ ll...£sge5!? (but not
11.. .h5?! 12 £>e2!) 12 £\xe5 £>xe5 13 £ e 2 0-0
was much safer, with excellent play for
Black. The fighting move ll...£sxf2 is also
hard to criticise, but it leads to an excessively
sharp change in the situation - in other
words, to wild complications.
12 Sxf2 i.xf2+ 13 Wxf2 #XC414 Wg3
Here Yasser thought for a long time and
he realised that Black faced quite difficult
problems.
’Initially Seirawan was probably looking
for an accurate way of converting his extra
material, then he unwillingly reconciled
himself to the forthcoming great technical
difficulties, and later fatigue from the
fruitless searches began to set in, and a fatal
idea occurred to him... Any playeT will be

familiar with such a psychological situation.
Moreover, deliberately creating it for the
opponent may even be a distinctive creative
procedure.’ (Makarychev).
14.. .f6
The decision to give up the g7-pawn and
at the same time weaken the king’s defences
looks very risky (and, indeed, the far from
obvious 14...Wb4l? 15 #xg7 # f8 with the
idea of 16 # d 4 #05! or 16 Wg3 Sg8 17 'S,f2
b6 and ...Jtb7 would have been more solid),
but my opponent was hoping that the rapid
return of the queen would consolidate his
position.
If Black had begun clinging on to the ma­
terial, he would have been left with a ‘bad’
king and his development incomplete.
Therefore Yasser was not satisfied with
14.. .1.8 15 ±e3, 14-Sg8 15 ±e3, 14...1,c5+
15 i h 2 g6 16 Jlh6 or here 15...Sg8 16 e5!
(and if I6...f5, then 17 exf6 £sxf6 18 JLg5), or
14.. .g6 15 Ah6 b6?l (also dangerous is 15-f6
16 S d l or 15...Sg8 16 jLe3, but for a draw 16
^d5l? exd5 17 exd5 f 6 18 Sel+ i f 7 19
^g5+! or I8...id8 19 ^g5! is also sufficient)
16 S d l # c 5+ (I 6...±b 7? 17 Sxd7l) 17 i h l
jib 7 18 ‘S'igs! with an attack.
In Makarychev’s opinion, since in these
variations the king is stuck in the centre and
the terrible weakness of the dark squares is
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
felt, Black should have acted pragmatically -
‘calmly castle, give back the exchange and
play for a draw’: 14...0-0 15 Ah 6 g 6 16 Sdl!
(not rushing with iLxf8, since the rook will
not run away: l 6...Sd8? 17 i h l ! or l 6...Se8?
17 e 5!) I 6...b5 (l 6...b6?l is weaker in view of
17 i h l ! f 6 18 e 5l, when I 8...f5? is not possi­
ble because of 19 #g5!) 17 Wh4 (17 # f4 f5!)
17.. ..1,c5+ 18 'i ’h l Wh5l, etc. However, White
could try his luck with 17 Axf8 <£ixf8
(Makarychev) 18 Wd6! or 17 -..ixf 8 18 e5!
with the idea of Sd4 and ^ e 4, retaining the
initiative.
15 #xg7 ®c5+ 16 i ’h l (16 ih 2 l? deserved
consideration- then after I 6...®f8 17 # g 4
# g 8 18 # f4 # g 7 the move 19 ,&,e3! would
have gained in strength: 19 - S g 8 20 S g l or
19.. .^ f 8 20 S g l i d 7 21 e5! f5 22 # b 4 JLc6
23 Jlg 5 with sufficient compensation for the
exchange) 17 ^ 4 !
Too slow! He should have defended the
e6-pawn with gain of tempo - 17-'®,g8!,
driving the white queen from its attacking
position. True, after 18 Wf4 (18 Wh4?! #g6)
19 #d6! (now 19 e5? does not work
in view of 19...Sg8 and ...f6-f5, while if 19
±e3 Sg8 20 S g l there is 20...#g3!) 19..M&7
20 #g3 b6 21 bB! I would have retained
excellent chances, for example: 21...®f8 22
125
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
J,a3 Eg8 23 # c 7 1 ^ 7 24 £sh4 #g3 (24...£te5
25 #xb6) 25 ®c6! *f7 26 ®xa8 WxM 27
,&d6, etc.
18 e5!
Yasser obviously underestimated the
strength of this breakthrough. Here I began
looking to the future with great optimism,
sensing that White would firmly seize the
initiative.
18.. .5 .8
Voluntarily giving up kingside castling,
although after I8...f5 19 #d4! 0-0 (but not
1 9 - ^ 6 ? 20 Wd6, and not ig...h6? 20 £sd5!
exd5 21 e6 ot 19...Sg8 20 ±g5!) 20 ±h6 Se8
21 £>e2! Black would also have encountered
great problems: 21...^f8 22 <5M4 lk.d.7 23
Sa3! or 21...'Brh5 22 iLg5 and £rf4 with
mounting pressure.
19 #04! f5 (the black knight cannot move:
19.. .^xe5? 20 ^xe5 fxe5 21 £ie4 7 22
±e3 and wins, or 19...£>b6? 20 #d4l, etc.) 20
&g5!
All White’s trumps would have been
thrown away by 20 £>g5?! £)xe5! 21 We2
Wg7 22 iLf4 ^g6! (not the Informator
22.. JLd7(?0 in view of 23 S ell) 23 £>xe6
iLxe6 2 4 1i rxe6+ £>e7, etc.
20.. .H6?
The decisive mistake in a difficult position.
20.. .b6? 21 #c6 Eb8 22 £>d5! was totally bad.
20.. .^f8 was essential, and if 21 Sdl, then not
21.Jk.d7?! 22 #c7! Sxg5 23 <£ixg5 We7 24
®xb7 Sd8 25 £\f3 &c8 26 Wc6+ 4f7 27 Sxd8
#xd8 28 £ie2 #d 7 29 Wfc4 &b7 30 £ied4 with
a clear advantage for White, but immediately
21.. .5.g5! 22 <£ixg5 1®fh5, still with hopes of
saving the game:
1) 23 (or 23 # f4 Ad7) 23...^d7 (with
the idea of ..,ii.c6 or ...Sc8, and if 24 2d6, then
24.. .Wi 6) 24 Sxd7l? &xd7 25 1 ^ 4 &e8 26
#xb7 Ed8 27 #xa6 #h6!, with counterplay;
2) 23 ^ge4! fxe4 24 ®d4 ±d7 25 £ixe4
0-0-0 26 b4! £ig6 27 <£id6+ <£>b8 28 £\f7 Sc8
126
29 Wd6+! (29 l rxd7 £tf4!) 29...&a8 30 #xd7
Sb8 31 ^ d 8 ot 31 S fl with an extTa pawn,
but not yet a win.
21±h4
Not removing the bishop from the impor­
tant h4-d8 diagonal, although 21 JLxh6!?
was also very promising: 21...1i ,g6?! 22 ±g5
<£sxe5 23 #05! ®g7 24 S d l and wins, or
21.. .^f8 22 £)e2! with a pawn for the ex­
change and a powerful attack.
21.. .# g 6
21...iSYf8 was more Tesilient, hoping for 22
£\d4(?) &d7 23 Wb4 ±c6 24 £\xc6 bxc6 25
Wb6 - in Informator I gave this position the
assessment ‘dear advantage foT White’, but
after 25...1Wra7! 26 ®xc6+ ^ f7 Black is okay:
27 £>d5!? ^g6!? 28 £\c7 £\xh4 29 ®xe6+
<&g7 30 S c l 1^2 31 ^e8+ >£f8, and White
has only perpetual check.
However, an imposing advantage would
have been retained by 22 Sdl! J.d7 23 £>e2!
(not the Informator 23 ®c7?? ®g7, when
Black wins) 23...£>g6 24 iLf6 Ji.c6 25 2d6
±d5 26 Wc3 or 23.Jk.c6 24 £\f4 £\g6
(24...Sg7 25 £\d4) 25 ^xe6 £ixh4 26 £ ic7+!
^ f8 27 Wb4+ &g7 28 #xh4 &h7 (28...#xc7
29 Sd6!) 29 ^xa8 Wg7 30 #f2 Sxa8 31 Sd6,
etc.
22 S g l 4jf8
It is hard to offer Black good advice-.
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

22.. .'4f7(f8) 23 ®d4 was unsuitable, as was

22.. Mf7 23 Wc7 &f8 24 <£id4 or 22...Sg7 23
Wd4! and 4he2-f4.

28 bxa6
There was another dual solution - 28 b6!?
±xf3 29 gxf3 Sb7 30 Sdl! or 28...Sc8 29
23#b 4 2xc8+ i.xc8 30 <£)d2l, and the black army is
23 Wd4 was slightly more accurate, with paralysed. But I was aiming to open lines.
the idea of 23..~&d7 24 Wb4l, but there was 28.. .£xf3
an immediate win by 23 ®c7! Sg7 24 ®d8+ If 28...Axa6, then 29 S a l or 29 ^ d 4 is
<4f7 25 i.f6 Sh7 26 <£ih4 1^3 27 £se4! fxe4 good, while after 28...Sxa6 - 29 Wb5! 2a8 30
28 i.e7 and Sfl+. ^ d 4 or the quiet 30 ^ 2 ! with the idea of
23.. . 5 . 7 24 £ie2 30.. .5c8 31 Bxc8+ &xc8 32 ^d4(d2), but not
With the decisive threat of £sf4. The alter­ 30 Sc7? i.xf3 31 gxf3 2 al+ 32 4>h2 ®g8 33
native was 24 #b6!? Sd7 25 £Vi4 a5 26 &f2 S ad i 34 Sc8+ <4f7 35 ^xe6 <£ixe6 36
<£)ce2, winning. In any case the black bishop 2xg8 ^xg8 when the win is still in question.
remains on c8 and White is totally domi­ 29 gxf3 Sda7 30 S g l
nant. Now M 6 and Sg7 is threatened. 30 Sc6
24.. .b5 (24...1d7 25 £if4 I rg8(f7) 26 W d6! or Wd7 31 Sd6 also wins.
25.. .a5 26 '#xf8+ ^xf8 27 £ixg6+ was also 30.. .5xa6
hopeless for Black) 25 axb5 (first 25 ®f4! was
more forceful) 25...Sd7 (neither 25...ii.b7 26
£>f4 a5 27 Wa3 nor 26...#f7 27 ^ d 4 would
not have managed to save the game) 26 <^f4
1^7 27 S cl
The most obvious move. However, first 27
b6!? itb7 and now 28 S cl was also convinc­
ing.
27.. .1.b7
If 27-.Sc7 White would have won not only
by 28 Sxc7 Wxc7 29 b 6 2b8 30 ^ h 5, but also
by the sequence 28 Sdl! J.b7 29 bxa6 or
28.. .5 .7 29 Sd6.

127
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

31 ‘S hs! (not difficult, but very pretty) 8 0-0-0 £>xd4

31.. M c7 (31...Sal 32 £sf6+ <4>d8 33 ^d5+ or Not the experimental 8...0-0 9 f4 h6
33 ^e4+!) 32 Sg7 I a l+ 33 *g2 #c2+ 34 (Kramnik’s favourite set-up was g.-^xdA 10
A f 2 1-0 #xd4 Wa5) 10 ± h 4 (10 h4?l <^xd4 1 1 1 ^ 4
hxg5 12 hxg5 is unclear, Anand-
The leaders were now Kasparov and Topa­ Kasparov, Paris (rapid) 1995) 10...1*8§rb6?!
lov - 3V2 out of 5, Kramnik - 3. In the sixth (I0...e5 - Game No.39 in Kasparov vs. Karpov
round I drew with difficulty in a King’s 1975-1985), in view of 11 £>xc6! bxc6 12 e5
Indian battle with Timman, while Kramnik dxe5 13 fxe5 £ie4 14 £ixe4 .&xh4 15 ^ 4
defeated Topalov and replaced him in the with an enduring advantage for White
leading duo - we each had 4 out of 6. (Leko-Kramnik, Belgrade 1995).
In the seventh round I had White against 9 # xd 4 a6
the No.2 in the world rating list, Vladimir A surprise! Before this my opponent had
Kramnik, and, of course, I was in a fighting chosen only the main line - 9...0-0 and then
mood, taking into account not only the 10 e5 dxe5 11 ^xeS ±d7 or 10 f4 Was (with
competitive importance of the game, but 8...£>xd4 Black avoids the variation 8...0-0 9
also the current score of our individual ftb3).
meetings in ‘classical’ play (+1-1=5). 10 f4 b5
‘Earlier 10...0-0 occurred, but Black did not
achieve equality. Kramnik tries to develop
Came 25 his queenside’ (Dokhoian). On the next two
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik moves I spent 55 minutes!
Amsterdam,
7th Round 30.03.1996
Sicilian Defence B66

1 e4 c5 2 £k3 £ ic6 3 £sge2

A move order which excludes the
Sveshnikov Variation. But Kramnik readily
agrees to the Rauzer Variation, various lines
of which he played regularly at that time.
One of them we even prepared together for
my match with Anand (cf. the note to Black’s
8th move, below).
3.. .d6 4 d4 cxd4 5 ^xd4 £sf6 6 JLg5 (6 J lc4
Wb6 - Game No.9) 6...e6 7 #d2 ±e7 11 JLxf6
Another of Kramnik’s weapons was 7...a6 There are also other plans (say, 11 &e2
8 0-0-0 h6. This occurred in four of our JLb7 12 JLf3), but this looks the most logical:
games (Moscow (rapid) 1996; Novgorod while there is an opportunity, it is useful to
1997; 1st and 3rd match games (rapid), spoil Black’s pawn structure. I had studied
Frankfurt 1999), bringing me three draws this type of position for both sides.
and one win - and that was not as a result of Il...g xf6
the opening (cf. Game No.l2l). Black loses ignominiously after ll...JLxf6?

128

12 e5 dxe5? 13 1 ^ 4 ^.d7 14 fixd7! (but not
14 JLxb5? axb5 15 Sxd7 Was!, Karasev-
Aseev, St. Petersburg 1995) 14...<i >xd7 15
^.xb5+! axb5 16 2 d l+ &e8 (l6...<i,e7 17
'BTd4+) 17 2xd8+ 2xd8 18 fxe5, etc.
12 I d 3
As it transpired, this novelty - a simple
developing move - is, alas, insufficiently
energetic. Tbe typical 12 f5 is parried by the
equally typical 12...#c7 and ..McS (Dolma-
tov-Aseev, Kemer 1995). I also thought about
tbe ‘unclear’ 12 e5l, but at tbe board I didn’t
see what White should do after 12...d5
(Game No.30).
Then 12 jLe2 appeared on tbe scene, after
which Black played both 12...1i ,a5?! 13 e5!
fxe5 14 fxe5 d5, when tbe best here is not
tbe reckless 15 £ixd5?! exd5 16 e6 0-0 17
Sd3 (Sbirov-Kramnik, Monte Carlo (rapid)
1996) because of 17..~&.d6! with equality, but
15 S h fl or 15 ^.b5 with tbe idea of 15...Sf8?
16 £)xd5!, winning (Svidler-Kramnik, Inter­
net (blitz) 1999), and also 12...1i rc7! 13 ^.f3
Ab7 (Leko-Kramnik, Frankfurt (rapid) 1996)
or 13 f5 Wc5 (Topalov-Kramnik, Monte Carlo
(blindfold) 2000).
12...#C7
It is possible to force tbe exchange of
queens - 12...1,a5 13 & bl b4 14 £se2 WcS,
but after 15 iLc4 (Vuckovic-Balogh, Novi Sad
snorx, A n an a ana Las r a i m a s
2009) 15-.Wxd4 (I5...^.b7 16 #d3!) 16 <£>xd4
iLb7 17 S h el White’s chances are somewhat
better.
1 3 # e3
‘A typical Kasparov manoeuvre: tbe queen
moves away from tbe centre, to avoid being
exchanged, and beads closer to tbe enemy
king.’ (M.Gurevich).
13.. .#c5 14 % 3
Tbe threat of Wg7 is rather ephemeral:
even if Black should lose bis h7-pawn, be has
chances of creating queenside counterplay.
This is what Kramnik is aiming for.
14.. .b4 (the alternative is 14...jib7 and
...0-0-0) 15 £>e2 a5l?
The immediate 15...^f8 was more circum­
spect.
16 & b l
If 16 M ql 2f8 17 1i rxh7 I was concerned
about 17...b3(?!) 18 axb3 a4 19 bxa4 Sxa4,
but after 20 f5l (instead of my earlier 20
£ sc3) 20...exf5 (20...1.a6 21 lb 3 ) 21 £sc3
2 al+ 22 &d2 #f2+ 23 <£ie2 Black’s activity
does not compensate for bis material deficit:
23.. .5xdl+ 24 S xdl #xg2 25 exf5 1^5+ 26
&c3l or 23...fia5 (now 23...Sa2? is bad be­
cause of 24 Sal! Sxb2 25 Sa8 &d8 26 #xf5)
24 S a l Ad8 25 exf5, etc.
Therefore tbe correct continuation is
17.. .a4l 18 'A’b l (in Informator I hastily
129
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
assessed this as V) I8...a3 19 b3 l b 7 with
quite good compensation foT the pawn: 20
S h el 0-0-0 ot 20 h4 &d7\.
16.. .Af8 (no longer risking giving up the h7-
pawn with I6...a4!?) 17 ®h3
My Informator recommendation 17 S cl is
no better in view of 17~.a4 18 c3 Sb8 (Hart-
man-Atalik, Neum 2000).
17.. .H5 18 Scl?!
In order to play c2-c3 and open the c-file.
But 18 f5 was more circumspect, not allow­
ing ...f6-f5.
I8...d5?!
Kramnik sensed that a convenient mo­
ment to become active had arrived, but he
struck from the wrong side! I8...f5l and
...lf6 was very strong - the power of this
bishop, which has no opponent, would have
ensured Black the better prospects: 19 c4
lf6 ! or 19 exf5 exf5 20 <S^g3 I f 6! 21 ^xf5
(21 lxf5? h4) 21...1e61, and the white king
is in serious danger.
19 exd5 (19 f5l? a4l) 19...®xd5
19-f5l? (but not 19...exd5?l 20 lf5 ) again
deserved attention: 20 dxe6 lx e 6 with the
idea of ...lf6 or 20 c4 l f 6 with positional
compensation for the pawn. But if Black is
hoping for an advantage, then l9...'Sfxd5 is
more suitable.
20 f5! (finally suppressing the f6-pawn)
130
20.. .a4l 21 fih e l
21 fihfl or 21 c3 also suggests itself. For
the moment in each case the computer
assessment of the position remains ‘equal’.
21.. .5b8
21...a3! was more consistent: 22 b3 e5 23
c4 f d7 24 Wte3 l b 7 25 l e 4 Hd8 or 22...exf5
23 Wi4 (23 c4 We5!) 23-.-l.b7 (23...Sa5(a7)
will also do, but not 23-1i rxg2? 24 S g l Wds
25 Wg3!) 24 £sd4(g3) Wes 25 c3 Sd8! 26
Sxe7 Wxe7 27 £sxf5 W e5 28 #xb4+ A>g8 29
£>e7+ A>g7, forcing perpetual check.
22 ^ f 4 Wd6
‘Who can say why in this complicated po­
sition Kramnik offered a draw? But it is
easier to explain Kasparov’s refusal: his
eternal striving to be first!’ (M.Gurevich).
2 3* ^3
After this silent reply to the peace offer,
my opponent experienced a certain discom­
fort.
23...e5
23-.a3? is too late on account of 24 fxe6!
f d 4 25 c3 bxc3 26 b3l, and 23-.lb7?! 24
i e 4 is also dubious for Black. It looks fright­
ening for Black to disfigure his pawns and
open the position with 23...exf5, but here,
strangely enough, nothing fatal for him is
apparent: 24 £sd5 (24 Hcdl b3l) 24...1b7 25
i c 4 Bd8 26 flcdl Wc5 or 24 i c 4 Wc7l 25
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

We2 Ad6 26 £id5 Wa?, and if 27 £sxf6, then 28 Sdl?!

27.. .We7!.
24 £)d5 (of course, not 24 £ixh5? a3! 25 b3
®d4 26 c3 bxc3 with a complete change of
scene) 24....&d8
Going into a position with opposite-
coloured bishops deserved consideration -
24.. .1.b7!? 25 Ae4 i.xd5 26 l,xd5 1 ^ 6 (with
the idea of ...&c5-d4) 27 Se4 (27 1x6 a3 28
Scdl, given by me in Informator, is weaker
on account of 28...fic8 29 Id5(e4) axb2 or 29
l a 4 Wa7! 30 lc 6 Wc7 with equality)
27.. .1 .8 28 Sc4 # b5 29 S d l lc 5 30 ®e 2 a3
31 b3 4e7, and White has no advantage.
25 l e 4 (25 Scdl!?) 25...®c5?
Losing an important tempo. After 25...1b6!
26 £M>6 #xb6 27 Scdl a3l 28 b3 l b 7 or 28
Se3 l a 6 Black would have had every chance
of holding the position.
26 c3
A tempting and long-planned advance,
but the waiting move 26 Sedl!? and only
then c2-c3(c4) was more shrewd.
Another error! My hand ‘accidentally’
failed to move the rook one square further
on - 28 Seel! (preventing ...lb6) 28...1d7
29 Sdl! or 28...ib7 29 Slc2 4g7 (29...1b6?
30 £ixf6!) 30 Sd3 with dangerous pressure.
28.. .1b6! (reverting to the correct idea) 29
£ixb6
29 a3!? I d 4 30 £\b4 l d 7 31 l c 6 was
more promising, but I did not want to allow
the black bishop to go to d4. Now the situa­
tion, and with it Black’s defence, is simpli­
fied.
29.. .1'xb6 30 Sc2
Thanks to his superior pawn structure,
White could still have retained some advan­
tage by 30 Sd2! 4g7?! 31 1^3+ 4f8 (not
31.. .‘A’h6? because of 32 Sc6! # g l+ 33 *4x2
3b6 34 2dd6) 32 a3!, or 30...i.b7 (30...1rgl+
31 # d l!) 31 ix b 7 Sxb7 32 # d l H d4 33 4 a l
anda2-a3.

30...*g7!
At last opening a way for the h8-rook to
26.. .bxc3! (I was more expecting 26...b3(?) 27 the queenside. 30...±b7 was also possible; it
a3l) 27 Sxc3 #d6! was condemned by me in Informator be­
I also underestimated this reply, having cause of 31 #a3+ 4g7 32 Axb7 Sxb7 33
counted on 27~.1i fb5? 28 b4! and a2-a3 (alas, #xa4, but after 33-Sc8! Black has good
28.. .axb3? 29 Sxb3 and wins), creating a compensation for the pawn. That is also the
passed pawn and killing Black’s counterplay case after 31 Jtxb7 Sxb7! 32 g4 4g7! 33
on the b-file. gxh5 4 h 7 34 S g 2 lg 8 .

131
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
31 a3
Now if 31 # 93+ there is the reply
31.. .'£’h61, while if 31 .&d5 - 31...a3l. After the
game 31 g4 seemed stronger to Dokhoian
and me, but this is an illusion: by 31...h4
(and if 32 # g 2?! with the idea of g4-g5, then
32.. .5.81), or 31...i.b7 32 gxh5 i.xe4 33
#xe4 (with the Informator evaluation V)
33.. .a3l 34 b3 2bd8 Black would have main­
tained the balance.
At this point the players were already on
the threshold of a severe time scramble.
31.. .*h6?!
A sudden lack of vigilance - the defence of
the f 6-pawn is weakened! 3i...^.b7 sug­
gested itself, for example: 32 2d7 (32 #g3+
^ 6!) 32...^.xe4 33 #xe4 2hd8! with equal­
ity (34 #xa4 2a8 35 # e 4 2xd7 36 # x a 8
2 dl+ 37 &a 2 # g l, etc.) or 32 i.xb7 2xb7! 33
#g3+ &h 6, and Black is out of danger (34
# h 4 2 d 8!).
32 2dd2?i
Blindness in reply, which was all the more
strange, in that I had already seen a similar
idea for sharply improving my position (cf.
the note to Black’s 27th move) - 32 b4! 2d8
(32...axb3? 33 2c6 and wins) 33 2xd8 # x d 8
34 #e3+ *g7 35 2d2 # c 7 36 £ c 2!, aiming
at the weak pawns on a4 and h5, or 32.. Ji.b7
33 i.xb7 #xb7 34 #e3+ &g7 35 #g3+ &f8
132
36 # h 4 # b 6 37 2cd2 2c8 38 2d5 with
unpleasant pressure (38...#e3 39 25d3 # b 6
40 ^ a ll, threatening b 4-b5).
In Informator preference was given to a
tempting ‘blow from the right’ - 32 g4, but
after 32...2g8! and ...iLb7 Black would have
held on.
32...i,b7?
A thematic move - made at the most in­
appropriate moment. In the given specific
situation, in order to defend against the
threats along the sixth rank, Black should
have urgently exchanged his passive rook on
h 8 for the active rook on d 2 - 32...2d8 with
equality.
33 .&xb7 #xb7 34 2c6!
Black has nevertheless come under pres­
sure and he is now forced to seek a way of
compensating for the unavoidable loss of his
f6-pawn.
34...2hc8!
The best practical chance. In the event of
34-2hd8 35 2xf6+ &g7 36 #xb7 2xb7 37
2xf7+ 2xf7 38 2xd8 2xf5 39 &C2 or 34...'&g7
35 #g3+ 4*8 36 2xf6 #e4+ 37 #d3l #xd3+
38 2xd3 Black would have reached a difficult
rook endgame a pawn down.
35 2xf6+ 4g5?!
This allows White an additional resource.
After 35..4g7! nothing is given by 36 #xb7
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

Bxb7 37 E a 6 Ec4l or 36 Efd 6 # x f 3 37 gxf3 #xe5 or 37...4T6 38 Sd6+ <&e7 39 #xe5+

S c 3 ! 38 S g 2 + 4 f8 39 Eh 6 &e7 40 E e 2 Bxa3 8 40 Ef6.
41 lxe5+ <^>d7 with a probable draw. All that 37 gxf3 2 c 3!
would have remained for me was the gam­ Also an excellent and unexpected move!
bit line 36 #g3+! <£^6 37 Ed6+ <4>e7 (not After 37...Sf8?! 38 Ea7 Sa8 39 Exa8 Sxa8 40
37.. .‘4>xf5? 38 #f2+ <&g5 39 #f6+ <4>g4 40 h3+ He2 ^>xf5 41 Ee4 the white rook takes up a
<£>g3 41 #xe5+ with unavoidable mate) 38 very strong position and Black is unlikely to
#xe5+ ^ f8 39 Eh 6, and after the forced be able to save the game.
39 .. .# x b 2 + 40 # x b 2 Sxb 2 + 41 < 4>xb2 S b 8+ 38 lg2+
42 <&a2 (42 <&c2 Eb3l) 42...<4>g7 43 Sxh5 Se8 It is useful to check where the king will
a rook ending would have risen, where move.
White retains his extra pawn, but Black
retains hopes of a draw:
1 ) 44 Sh4 S e 2 + 45 & b l Sxg 2 46 Sxa4
I x h 2 47 Sa5 4T6 48 Sd5 Sh4! (but not
48.. .5 . 2 ? 49 a4! Sxf5? 50 fixf5+ ‘i ’xfS 51 a5
and wins - M.Gurevich) 49 &c2 Sf4 50 &b3
Sxf 5 with equality, while if 48 a4 Black is
saved by rook checks from the side -
48 .. .5 .l + 49 < 4>c2 S h 2 + 50 <4>b3 Sh3+ 51 <4>c4
Eh4+, etc.;
2) 44 gB 4f6, and here not 45 g4 fie 2 + 46
‘A’b l S e l+ (the Informator 46...Sg2(?l) 47 h 3
is weaker) 47 &C2 Se3l (the same plan is also
good after 44 g4) 48 h4 Sxa3 49 E h 6 + <&e5 38...4>f4?!
50 Eb 6 S h 3 with a draw, but 45 Sh4l S e 2 + ‘The decisive mistake in severe time-
46 <4>bl <4>xf5 47 Sxa4 Sxh 2 48 Sf4+ ‘with trouble: now it becomes impossible to stop
some winning chances’ (Dokhoian). the f-pawn’ (Dokhoian). Indeed, the unex­
36 lx f7 l pected ‘leap to the side’ 38...'&h4! would
‘Garry was very proud of this unexpected have been far more resilient, for example: 39
move, found in time-trouble’ (M.Gurevich). Sg3 Ecb3l (39~.Sxa3? 40 f4! and wins) 40
The no less flamboyant 36 #g3+ would have Sh7 Sxb2+ 41 ‘A’cl Ebl+ 42 <&d2 S8b2+ 43
forcibly transposed into the variation with <&c3 Sb3+ 44 <4>c4 Scl+ 45 &d5 Sb5+ with a
35.. .'&g7 (cf. above), but I intuitively sensed ‘perpetual’ pursuit of the king, or 39 Eg8
that 36 Sxf7 was more dangerous for Black. Bb6! 40 Sa7 Bxa3 41 f6 Sxf3 42 f7 Sbf6 43
36.. .#xf3 Exa4+ ^ h 3 44 Eg 5 E3f5 with a draw.
‘Kramnik is a person without nerves! After White’s advantage is also ephemeral after
a stunning blow he instantly (!) makes his the best move 39 <A’a2l? Exf3 40 Ee2.
reply by intuition, with his flag about the However, 38...4>f4 does not yet lose, but
fall’ (M.Gurevich). If 36...#xf7? White would merely makes things much more difficult for
have won by 37 #63+! (but not the Informa­ Black.
tor misprint 37 #g3+?? because of 37...'&h6!) 39 f6 Ixf3?
37.. .‘4>xf5 38 S f 2 + <4>e6 39 Sxf7 &xf7 40 But this is already the decisive error. It

133
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
was essential to play 3 9 -l4 f5! 40 2a7 &xf6
41 Sxa4 Exf3 42 2e2 2e8 with chances of
holding out a pawn down, thanks to the
strong passed pawn on the e-file.
40 Ee7 (now the f-pawn costs Black too
dearly) 40...2f8 41 f7 &f5 42 2g8 43
2xe5! 1-0
‘A fantastic dash!’ (M.Gurevich).
Thanks to this important win, for the first
time in the entire tournament I became the
sole leader - 5 out of 7. But hot on my heels
was Topalov, after beating Lautier.
In the eighth round I had Black against
Lautier, an ‘awkward’ opponent for me.
After ordering lunch in my room, Dokhoian
and I were calmly concluding our prepara­
tions and preparing to take our traditional
walk, when there was a sudden phone call
from the organisers: ‘Where are you?’. I
replied: ‘In my room.' And then I realised to
my hoiror that we had forgotten to put our
clocks forward by an hour! It was precisely
on that Sunday 3lst March that Europe
switched to summer time...
After sprinting to the venue I arrived half
an hour late for the game and rapidly rattled
out a King’s Indian Defence. Fortunately, the
game followed a line I had analysed, I em­
ployed a novelty with a pawn sacrifice, and
without particular anxiety I gained a draw.
In the meantime Topalov won a good
King’s Indian with Black against Gelfand and
caught up with me just before the finish.
Kramnik would have tried to give chase, but
against Anand he lost from an excellent
position with White.
In the final round the burgeoning Topalov
had White against Piket. I did not expect
anything good to come of this game, and to
avoid falling behind my rival I had to win ‘to
order’ against Boris Gelfand. For this I again
had to display exceptional resourcefulness.
134
Came 26
G.Kasparov-B.Gelfand
Amsterdam,
9th Round 01.04.1996
Sicilian Defence B92
1 e4 c 5 2 4Tif3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£ic3 a6 6 & e 2
At that time my interest in 6 .&C4 (Game
Nos. 3, 5, 79) had cooled and I switched to
the set-up with 6 £.e2, where Dokhoian and I
had some new, interesting ideas, one of
which we prepared for this game.
6.. .e5 (my opponent’s favourite reply; for
6.. .e6 see Game Nos. 37, 86) 7 £>b3 ^.e7 8 0-0
There are fewer winning chances with 8
.&g5 ^.e6 (Game No.ll in Part I of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
8 ...0-0
The second round Short-Gelfand game
went 8..JLe6 9 f4 Wc7, and after 10 ‘A’h l
0-0?! 11 f5 ^.c4 12 g4! White seized the
initiative, but it was safer to play 10...h6
(J.Polgar-Anand, 4th match game, Mainz
(rapid) 2003) or 10...£>bd7! with the idea of
11 g4 h6 12 g5 hxg 5 13 fxg5 £ih7 14 .&g4
£>df8! (Timofeev-Sakaev, Moscow 2005).
Black can also be satisfied with 10 £id5
£xd5 11 exd5 ^bd7 12 c4 0-0 13 & hl Efe8
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

14 i e 3 exf4 15 ix f4 i f 8 16 Hcl # 5 6 with White with a small plus, or 10...b5l - the

equality (Anand-Kasparov, Linares 2000). strongest continuation, which later was also
But I was planning 10 a4 £)bd7 11 'A’h l ( ll employed by Gelfand.
f5 i.c4 - Game No.70 in Part IV of My Great 11 a4 £)b4
Predecessors) 11...0-0, and here not the ‘hack­ Perplexed by the unexpected tum of
neyed’ 12 Jk,e3 exf4 13 Sxf4 (Game Nos.54, events, I sank into thought: what can be
56, 57 in Part V of My Great Predecessors), but extracted from the extra tempo?
the energetic 12 g4l? (Korsunsky-Kasparov,
Baku 1976) 12...ixb3 (I2...exf4 13 g5 ^ e 8 14
±xf4 with promising play) 13 cxb3 ^c5 14
g5l (14 Af3 exf4 15 i.xf4 h6 with equality,
Anand-Lautier, Amsterdam 1996) 14...£rfxe4
15 £)d5 #d 8 16 b4l - this was our discovery,
giving White an enduring, if not decisive
advantage: I6...£ie6 17 f5l! ^.xg5 (I7...£)6xg5
18 #d3) 18 #d3l JLxcl19 #xe4 £)g5 20 #g4
and wins, or I6...^d7 17 #c2l (we studied
only 17 i.f3 f5 18 i.e3) I7...f5 18 £k7 (Ivan-
chuk-Morovic, Neum 2000).
However, on this occasion Boris quite
quickly played 8...0-0. 12 i.f3
g'A’hi^ce White intends a new, double-edged plan
If 9...b5?l, then 10 a4l is unpleasant (Game with g2-g4, trying to make use of the king’s
No.33), but a year later my opponent sur­ position on h i for an attack on the g-file.
prised me with 9...b6, which became one of The usual 12 jk,e3 favours White after
the main moves (Kasparov-Gelfand, Linares 12.. JLd7?l 13 Af3 (Geller-Reshevsky, Palma
1997). de Mallorca Interzonal 1970; Geller-Poluga-
10 f4 evsky, Portoroz 1973) or I2...#c7?l 13 Sell
No better is 10 i e 3 .&e6 11 # d 2 a5! ±e6 14 £ld2! (Geller-Spassky, Moscow 1974;
(Short-Gelfand, Budapest 2003), or 10 f3 a5 Kavalek-Spassky, Manila Interzonal 1976).
11 A e 3 a4 (ll...±e6!?) 12 £icl (12 £id 2l?) 12..JLe6 13 f5 JLd7 with the idea o f ..Jtc6
12.. .5a5! (Ismagambetov-Gelfand, Astana and ...d6-d5 is not so clear. And I did not like
(rapid) 2012). the immediate relieving manoeuvre in the
10.. .a5l? centre - 12...d5l? 13 fxe5 £)xe4, when after
A surprise from Minsk: Kapengut’s pupil 14 £)xe4 (if 14 i.f3, then not the Informator
boldly switches to play along the lines of the 14.. .£ ixc3(?!) 15 bxc3 £ic6 on account of 16
Boleslavsky Variation - 5- £ ic6 6 Ji.e2 e5 7 #xd5, but simply 14...Af5! 15 ^ d 4 i.g6 with
£)b3 Ae7 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 a5, despite the fact equality) 14...dxe4 15 #xd8 Sxd8 16 iLb6
that White’s king is already on h i and he has Sf8 or 14 £)d4 £)xc3 15 bxc3 £>c6 16 £)f3
an extra tempo compared with the well- Ae6 it is hard for White to hope for any
known variation 10 a4 £>b4 l l 'A’hl. particular advantage.
Earlier only 10...exf4 was played, which It was for this reason that I played 12 jtf3
after l l ±xf4 i e 6 12 # e l and B dl leaves - conceding the c4-square to Black seemed

135
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

to me to be the lesser evil. 16 Ah6 Se8

12...#b6!? After the audacious exchange sacrifice
The developing 12..Ji.e6 13 g4 Sc81? was I6...£ie5?! both the romantic 17 £>f5l? and
also good, while if 13 .&e3, then also 13-Sc8 the pragmatic 17 .&xf8 were possible.
or 13...®c7, obtaining a comfortable position
from the first game of the Karpov-Spassky
match (Game No.83 in Part III of My Great
Predecessors). However, the queen move is
more interesting: by depriving the white
bishop of the e3-square, Black provokes the
enemy fire!

17 £sf5!
After taking a deep breath, I sacrificed the
knight. Since otherwise White cannot count
on anything, the sacrifice is essentially forced.
I did not see all the variations, of course, but I
felt that my attack would be sufficient at
least to maintain the balance and would set
IB g4l (13 ^ 2 #a61? 14 £ib5 .&e6 or 13 S e l my opponent difficult problems.
#f2!? 14 Se2 # h 4 is unclear) 13...exf4 17...gxf5
Black takes urgent measures against g4- After 17-..^e5 18 4?sxe7+ White’s chances
g5. 13...d5? 14 exd5 or 13....&e6?! 14 g5 are rather better: his dark-squared bishop is
4?se8(d7) 15 f5 was unsuitable. But 13...h61? now very strong. And if 17...^.f8?l he would
deserved attention, since now ‘the inactive have replied 18 ^ 2 1 , insisting on I8...gxf5
knight on b3 can embark on the dangerous 19 gxfs.
route b3-d4-f5’ (Dokhoian). 18 gxf5 i-f6!
14 .&xf4 £sd7 15 £sd4 g6?! Dokhoian and I condemned this ‘King’s
Gelfand is aiming to play as safely as pos­ Indian’ move, since after it White regains the
sible and he underestimates the positional sacrificed material and has the initiative 'for
sacrifice of a piece. The immediate 15~.£se5l free’. However, in the variation which we
would have enabled him to hold on after 16 recommended - l8...‘A>h8 19 S g l ,&f8
£sf5 icxf5 17 exf5 £)xf3 18 #xf3 h6 (but not (19-Sg8? is weak in view of 20 2xg8+ ‘A’xgS
18.. .£sxc2? 19 £sd5 y i d 8 20 1^ 4 £sxal 21 21 # g l+ WxgH- 22 Sxgl+ s4h8 23 ±h5 and
^xe7+ "AhS 22 f6! gxf6 23 .&g5! and wins), wins, but it is not too late for 19...Af6!) 20
while l6...Se8! would altogether have solved #d2 Black might not have found the namow
all his problems: 17 .&e2 (17 .&g2 JLe6) saving path:
17.. ~&xf5 18 gxf5 .&f6. 1) 20...1rd8? 21 Af4! £sf6 22 #g2! and

136

S a d i (this is far stronger than my I n f o r m a -
t o r 22 SgB); 21...Ae7 22 fiadl is also insuffi­
cient, as is 21...£se5 22 £ib5! Ae7 (22...£ixf3?
23 Wg2; 2 2 . . . W 6 23 £lc7) 23 Ah5 and S ad i
with a decisive advantage for White;
2) 20...d5 21 Af4! (in the event of 21 Ae3
Acs White’s task is more difficult: 22 Axes
#xc5 23 exd5 l f 8 or 22 # g 2 # f6 23 exd5l?
Axe 3 2 4 ^ e 4 «rh6 25 £id 6 Wf8 26 ®xe8
£ie5, etc.) 21...Ac5 (if 21...1i rf6, then 22 exd5
is strong, as is 22 Ag5 WeS?! 23 Bael! or
22...Wg7 23 exd5 £ie5 24 Ah5) 22 Sg2 or 22
exd5l? with a powerful attack, more than
compensating for the material given up.
After l8...Af6 or l8..A h8 19 S g l Af6
Black nevertheless has more chances of
holding on.
19 S g l+ * h 8 20 # d 2
Unhum'edly increasing the pressure - it is
this, incidentally, that constitutes the great­
est difficulty in playing such positions. The
impulsive 20 e5? £ixe5 21 ®e4 would have
run into 21...d5l, when after 22 £sxf6 #xf6
23 Ag7+ Wxgy 24 Sxg7 ^xg7 White’s hopes
are dashed.
20...£se5l
The only defence against the mating
threat Wg2 is to block the g-file with the
knight. It would be fatal to play 20...'Srd4? 21
®g2 # e5 22 £sb5l (more forceful than the
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Sadi) or 20...'#d8?! 21 £ib5
I n fo r m a to r 2 2
£ie5 (21...Sa6? 22 £ ic7! #xc7 23 Wg2 and
wins) 22 £sxd6 Ad7 (not my earlier 22...Sa6?
23 £sxe8) 23 A h 5 ! - a decisive stroke:
23...fie7 24 Wg2 £>g6 (24...#g8 25 I f 2! Wd8
26 #g3! # g 8 27 # f 4 # d 8 28 Ag5l) 25 fxg6
fxg6 26 Axg6 or 2 3 ..M & 7 24 £)xe8 #xe8
(after 24...Sxe8 25 ®g2 Black has to give up
his knight: 25...£sg6 26 c3 £sd3 27 fxg6 and
Af3, winning) 25 Wg2 Wg8 26 Wh3(f2) W e 8
2 1 fig2 Ac6 28 # g 3 Wg8 29 # f4 ®e8 30
fiagl, and Black cannot hold out.
21 # g 2 £)g6
22 fxg6
Intensifying the pressure by 22 Safi!?
with the idea of A e2 and fxg6 was also
interesting: 22...Ad4?l 23 Ae2l A xgl 24
fxg6 fxg6 25 1^3! Wd8 26 &xgl, and White
has powerful compensation for the ex­
change, or 22...Ae5 (by analogy with the best
continuation on move 23 in the game) 23
Ae2! Sg8! (23...#c5? 2 4 ^g5!) 24 fxg6 Sxg6
(24...fxg6? 25 A c4!) 25 Sxf7 ^xgl-r 26 Wxgl
Sxgl+ 27 'A’xgl Ae6 28 Se7 Sg8+ 29 ‘A’f l
A h3+ 30 & el £ ixc2+ 31 *d 2 £id4 32 Ac4
with a favourable endgame.
22...fxg6
After 22...hxg6? 23 Safi!, because of the
opening of the h-file and the vulnerability of
his f7 point, Black would have suddenly
137
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

found himself in a critical position: 23-icd4 24 ix g 7 + *xg7 25 S a d i l.d7

24 jk,g4l with the threat of Sxf7, 2 3 -1i fd8 24 White is also better after 2 5 - ie 6 26 <£>b5
i.h5l, and 2 3 -i.e 5 24 & e 2 (24 Ahsl?) i c 4 27 ^.e2l (my earlier 27 £ixd6 i x f l 28
24—&e6 25 ^d5! are all bad for him. £sxe8+ Sxe8 29 Sd7+ is weaker because of
23 S g fl 29.. .fle7l! 30 Sxe7+ 4 f6 31 Wxfl <4>xe7)
Here also 23 Safi!? deserved considera­ 27.. Jb<e2 (27-&.xb5?! 28 axb5!) 28 Wxe2 or
tion, with the idea of 23—&.d4?! 24 ie 2 ! 26.. .5.d 8 27 ^ 3 , winning a pawn.
jk,xgl 25 Wf3! (cf. the note to White’s 22nd 26 # g3! Se5
move), or 23—&e5 24 .&g4! JLxg4 (24-.'ird8 After 26...Se7 2 7 Sxd6 # c5 28 ± .g 2 Black
25 ix c 8 Hxc8 26 Sf3l and S g fl is also has no compensation for the pawn.
depressing, but 24...'Sfc7l? is more resilient)
25 1Srxg4 W c 7 (if 25— ®c6? White decides
matters with 26 Sf7l .&xc3 27 fixh7+ or
26...d5 27 S g fl d4 28 Wf3l) 26 Sg2 ,&g7 27
£}b5 1^7 28 i.xg7+ <£ xg7 29 S d l Sad8 30
^ 3 with the threat of ^xd6 and an endur­
ing initiative.

27&g2
A difficult choice from the three possible
bishop moves. 27 .&g4 .&xg4 28 # x g 4 was
also tempting, but 2 7 ^.e2l was even better,
with the idea of 2 7 - S f 8 ? 28 Wxe5+ dxe5 29
Sxd7+, when 2 9 - ^ 8 ? is not possible
because of 30 ic4 + , or 27-^ixc2? 28 J.c4
23.. .£g7? &e6 29 i.xe6 Sxe6 30 £id5 Wc6 311^4 and
A serious, possibly even decisive mistake: wins. 27- A c6 28 2xd6 Wc5 29 Sd5l Sxd5 30
the exchange of bishops at an inappropriate 4?ixd5 or 2 7 ..M C 7 28 # f4 also does not
moment weakens the d6-pawn and allows impress.
White a powerful attack on the daTk squares. 27...£ixc2?
23.. .1.e5! was essential. If now 24 ig 4 , then In severe time-trouble Boris CTacks undeT
24.. .'Src6! (but not the Informator 25-^ixc2? the pressure of a difficult defence and he
26 £sd5, etc.) is good: 26 Sf2 d5 ot 26 Sf7 decides to ‘die happy’.
J.xc 3l 27 bxc3 Sxe4 28 #f3 Se7l with equal­ Things were also dismal for Black afteT
ity (this possibility shows the distinction with 2 7 - M a 28 £tt>5! ±xb5 29 axb5 £)xc2 30 S cl
the 23 S afi variation). Therefore first 24 Sxb5 31 1^2 Sc5 32 e5!, and afteT 27-S a e 8
Sadi! is correct, and only afteT 24—&d7(e6) - 28 Wf4 # d 8 (ratheT more Tesilient than the
25 Ag4, retaining some pressure. Informator 28..Jk,e6 29 £ib5) 29 Sxd6 We7

138

30 Hf6 itf5! 31 2b6! AcS 32 £ib5 with an
attack and an extra pawn, or 27~.Hf8 28
Sxf8 &xf8 29 2fl+ &g8 (not 29...(>4,g7 30
Wh4! g5? 31 ^ 5 Ae8 32 #f3 and wins, or
30.. .d5 31 Wg3! winning a pawn) 30 <£±>5!
(stronger than my earlier 30 Wh4 2e8 31
®f6) 30...ite6 31 S d l £>c6 32 #f4, when the
d6-pawn cannot be defended.
28 £sd5
The most forceful was 28 #f4! Ae6 29
<^b5 ^ e3 30 £>xd6 - arriving from an unex­
pected side!
2 8 .. .®d 8 29 I f 2 (29 #b3!?) 29...<£sb4
29...1c8 30 £sb6 AgA 31 ^xc8 i.x d l 32
£)b6 JLg4 (32...Sc5 33 2 x d l #xb6 34 e5!) 33
^ic4! and # x c2 or 29..Jtxa4 30 £>b6 £>e3 31
®xe3 iLxdl 32 £>xa8 JLg4(a4) 33 £>b6 was
hopeless for Black.
30 £>b6 (30 &\xbA would also have won
easily: 30...axb4 31 Sxd6 or 30...Axa4 31
Wf7+ &h8 32 2 c l with the threat of Sc7)
30...Jsug4 31 #f7+ &h8 32 iixa8 Axdl 33
fixd l Wxa8 34 #f6+ (34 2xd61?) 34...&g8 35
2xd6 Se8 3 6 Zd7 1-0
Topalov also won, and we shared first
place, one and a half points ahead of our
nearest rivals. It was an uncommonly fight­
ing tournament: two-thirds of the games
ended decisively.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Genna Sosonko: ‘This was a major success
for the 21-year-old Bulgarian grandmaster,
who is always impeccably dressed and ex­
tremely correct. His ability to sit and concen­
trate is amazing. Topalov is excellently pre­
pared, and he may improve still further,
although he is already a grandmaster of very
high class. Not without reason the Dutch
press commented that in the tournament
there were two brilliant winners... ’
‘I think that this was one of my best tour­
naments in recent years’, I stated soon
afterwards. ‘I am very happy with my play,
except, of course, the game with Topalov.
But after it I scored ‘plus five’. I won all my
games with White! There was the same kind
of ‘roller’ as in my games of some ten years
ago: all the white pieces advance, and
against this hurricane Black cannot defend.
Moreover, this had nothing to do with my
widely advertised opening preparation: not
once did I gain an overwhelming position
from the opening, but all the wins were
achieved in an exceptionally tense battle!
‘I often ended up in time-trouble, but I still
continued to control the situation. I am
happy that I have overcome something of a
creative slump, which was observed both
during the match with Anand, and in last
year’s ‘classical’ events, when I noticed to my
dismay that my play had become more sterile
and the vivid colours had disappeared... Here I
was fighting with young players, who have
grown up with my games, demonstrating my
approach to the struggle. So that I regard
Amsterdam 1996 as a kind of progress report
on my ten years as champion. For me it is very
important that I myself have also not forgot­
ten how to play attacking, fighting chess.’
Difficult Opponent
International Tournament in Dos Hermanas
(20 May - l June 1996): 1-2. Kramnik and
139
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Topalov - 6 out of 9; 3-4. Anand and Kas­
parov - 5Vi; 5- Hlescas - 4'A; 6-7. Kamsky and
Gelfand - 4; 8. Ivanchuk - 3V2; 9-10. Shirov
andJ.Polgar- 3.
After Amsterdam I also took part in the
April 'Kremlin Stars’ rapid-play knock-out
tournament in the PCA Grand Prix series. Two
years earlier I had lost in the quarter-final to
Kramnik, and a year earlier to Anand in the
semi-final, but on this occasion I reached the
final, on the way defeating Gelfand (2-0) and
Dreev (l-l; 1-0), and spectacularly crushing
Anand (Game No.115). In the final Kramnik
and I drew l-l, but then I played terribly in
the blitz tie-break: I lost the first game with
White, after avoiding a repetition of moves
(although I had less time and an inferior
position!), and in one move I threw away a
win in the second. Apparently the Kremlin is
not my territory...
It stands to reason that I again wanted to
get even with Kramnik, and an opportunity
presented itself at the end of May in the
small Spanish town of Dos Hermanas. This
categoiy 19 super-tournament assembled
almost the entire chess elite, including even
the FIDE challenger Kamsky, who within five
days was due to start his long-suffering
match with Karpov, which had after all been
switched from Baghdad to Elista.
My first appearance in Dos Hermanas was
also my last: the playing conditions were not
veiy impressive. Compared with this hamlet,
modest Linares looked like a world capital!
The playing room was in a small, stuffy
semi-basement, which resembled an air-raid
shelter This, to put it mildly, did not pro­
mote creativity, and for me it was a difficult
and not veiy successful tournament.
My starting duel with Gata Kamsky
turned out to be tense and nervy. In a slow
Ruy Lopez (cf. Game No.2, note to White’s 8th
140
move) by the 24th move I obtained an
obvious positional advantage, but here I
suddenly became stuck and I was unable to
build on my success - draw. This game
proved to be the last of our eight ‘classical’
tournament meetings (+4-1=3).
In the second round I had a short but veiy
wild Sicilian draw with Anand (cf. Game
No.37, note to White’s 6th move). Then in
the third I won against Shirov, but in the
fourth for the first time I was unable to beat
lllescas with White - a warning signal! At
this point the leading five looked like this:
Anand - 3Vi out of 4, Gelfand - 3; Kasparov
and Topalov - 2V2; Kramnik - 2.
In the fifth round those who were trailing
gave chase: Topalov defeated Gelfand, and
Kramnik, who had begun the tournament
with four draws, ‘wore out’ Anand on the
101st move. I gained a draw with Ivanchuk,
after employing another novelty in the
King’s Indian (cf. Game N0.36 in Kasparov vs.
Karpov 1988-2009, note to White’s 8th
move). The leading group became much
more compact: Anand and Topalov - 3Vi out
of 5; Kasparov, Kramnik and Gelfand - 3.
The next day I had White against my
‘Kremlin conqueror’, Vladimir Kramnik. By
his own admission, in this game he was
ready to do everything to maintain his ‘plus
one’, which had been gained with such
difficulty. But I was eager to reach ‘plus two’.
Came 27
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Dos Hermanas,
6th Round, 27.05.1996
Slav Defence D48
ld 4
‘I do not wish to appear banal, but 1 e4 is
stronger and more aggressive’ (Kramnik).

However, in our preparations for the game
Dokhoian and I decided to defer the discus­
sion in the Rauzer Variation.
1.. .d5 2 c4 c6 3 £ sc3 £sf6 4 £>f3 e6 5 e3
Kramnik was expecting my usual 5 Ag5
(Game Nos.6, 96), as Kamsky played against
him in the fourth round. But I had prepared
a couple of fresh ideas in the Meran.
5.. .^bd7 6 Ad3 dxc4 7 Axc4 b5 8 ,&,d3 Ab7
9 0-0 a6 10 e4 c5 11 d5 c4 12 1x2 # c 7 13
£sd4
A rare move. The main battles revolve
around 13 dxe6 fxe6 (Game No.98).
13.. .£ ic5
In the event of 13-.e5 14 £if5 g6 15 £ih6
<S^h5 my intention was 16 g3l (instead of 16
Wf3 £rf4l, Gelfand-Dreev, Tilburg 1993), for
example: l6...iLc5?! 17 ^ f3 Sf8?! 18 Ad2 (18
<S^g4l?) with an obvious advantage (Carlsen-
Shirov, Biel 2011).
14 b4
An energetic attempt to open up the
game, to exploit White’s superior develop­
ment. 14 2 2d8 or 14 i g 5 (Chemin-
Topalov, Budapest 1993) 14-.id6 15 f4 h6 is
unclear.
1 4 .. .cxb3 15 axb3 b4 16 £ia4 <Skxe4
17 Axe4!?
A novelty! The source game Yakovich-
Sorokin (Calcutta 1991) went 17 dxe6 fid8?!
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
(l 7-ic d 6! was more accurate) 18 exf7+?! (18
iLxe4! ^xe4 19 Ab 2 or I8...^.xe4 19 .&e3
favours White) I8...r^ xf7 19 JLe3 Ad 6 20 h 3
2he8 with equality. This was why I played 17
iLxe4 immediately, setting my opponent
concrete problems.
17.. .^xe4 18 dxe6 JLd6!
The only move, which Kramnik made
quite confidently and quickly. Neither
18.. .0-0-0? 19 Ab 2 and ficl, winning, nor
18.. .fid8?! 19 Ab 2 jLd6 20 Hcl JLxh2+ 21
'A’h l Wf4 22 <S^c5 was suitable.
19 exf7+ (aiming to prevent Black from
castling) 19...1i rxf7!
Kramnik: ‘This involves the following
piece sacrifice, but I did not want to concede
the initiative - after 19...^xf7 20 #h5+ g6 21
Wh3 the black king feels uncomfortable’.
And, indeed, the complicated position after
21.. .5ae8 22 i b 2 or 21...1rc8 22 f3 <Sk3 23
Wh4 seemed to Dokhoian and me to be
more promising for White.
20 f3
20...tth5!
If the knight moves, 2el+ is decisive,
while in the event of 20...0-0? 21 fxe4 # xfl+
22 # x f l ix h 2 + 23 ^xh2 Sxfl 24 £sc5 White
has an excellent endgame.
21 g3! (nothing is given by 21 h3 WeSl 22 f4
Wf6) 21...0-0?!
141
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Strangely enough, instead of a defeat, this
and the following daring move brought
Kramnik an unexpected success, a share of
first place in the tournament, and even a
win in the competition for the best game in
the 66th volume of !nformator\
21...^xg3! was stronger (Baramidze-
A.Braun, Saarbnicken 2009): 22 hxg3 (22
2el+? £ie4! 23 S a 2 0-0 24 fxe4 1+14 and
wins) 22...0-0 23 Sa2! .Sxg3 24 Sg2 ,S.e5 25
<Sk5 Sad8 26 ±e3 £c8! 27 f4! W xdl 28 I x d l
S,xf4 29 .S,xf4 Sxf4 30 Sgd2l (Kramnik)
30...1g4+! (30..Jtg4? 31 £sc6!) 31 4+2 2f8+
with sufficient compensation for the piece,
or 23-Sad8!? 24 Sh2 #g6 25 #c2 S,e5! 26
<?ie6! I x e 6 27 #xh7+ 4+7 28 H i5+ 4g8,
and White has only perpetual check.
22 fxe4 1 +i 3?
The decisive mistake! Black would also
have lost after 22...Hxfl+? 23 # x f l Wes
(23.-S.xe4 24 Af4!) 24 1+4+ 4h8 25 £+5! or
23~Jb<g3 24 hxg3 .S,xe4 25 S a 2l l+ il+ 26
4f2 I+ 12+ 27 4e3 #xa2 28 4xe4 (Kramnik).
But 22...1,e5! 23 S e l ,S,b8!! with the idea of
...jta7 would have retained compensation
for the material deficit (the knight on a4 is
out of play!) and left the outcome unclear:
24 Wd3 .Sa7 25 .Sb2 2ad8 26 2 a d l h5 or 24
S+4 2xf4! 25 gxf4 ®xf4 26 2 a 2 i„a7 27 Sf 2
WeS 28 4hf5 2f8, etc.
142
The culminating point of the game, and
perhaps of the entire tournament.
23 £+ 3??
The opponent’s desperate play unsettled
me. Makarychev: ‘When he was considering
his move, it is probable that Kasparov sub­
consciously envied both his opponent’s
liberated state, and the formidable power of
his pieces. After all, usually Garry himself
plays in this manner... Meanwhile, after 23
We2\ White would have had every chance of
parrying the attack.’ And of converting his
extra piece:
1) 23—S,xe4 (if 23-2ae8, then 24 2xf8+
,S,xf8 25 1+1 is good) 24 S+4! S,xf4 25 2xf4
(even better than 25 ®xe4 .Sxg3 26 We6+)
25...Sxf4 26 gxf4 2e8 27 £)C5 S,g6(c6) 28
£ice6 and wins;
2) 23.-S.xg3
Analysis Diagram
24 £+5! (Kramnik: 'During the game we
both overlooked this strong move’) 24-2xf5
25 Sxf5 2e8 (25.-S.xe4?! 26 WxeA l rxh2+ 27
4+1 or 25-S,xh2+ 26 #xh2 #g4+ 27 4+2
#xe4 28 ®e5! Wc2+ 29 4 e l is hopeless for
Black) 26 1+4+ 4+18 27 Sa2, or 24-S,e5 25
S,b2! S,xb2 (if 25-Iae8, then 26 Wc4+ 4h8
27 S,xe5 Sxe5 28 #xb4 Sb8 29 ^c5) 26
4^xb2 1Bfxb3 27 ^ d 3 ‘with an obvious advan-

tage, although it is not clear whether it is
sufficient for a win’ (Kramnik). But after 27
<Sk4l (threatening SfB) 27...Wc3 28 ftcd6
everything is clear: Black can resign.
It is curious that, annotating the game in
Informator and the magazine 64, Kramnik
gave only a continuation favourable for
Black: 23 Sa2?l Axe4 24 Hel(?) Hae8 (if
24.. .Ab7? there is 25 We2! with the idea of
25.. .1.xg3 26 We6+) 25 Se3 (this is bad
because of 25—h5! or 25...Se5l) and he
altogether kept silent about the 23 We2!
resource - why spoil the picture with some
inconvenient ‘trifles’? But years later he
nevertheless mentioned it in his book of
selected games.
To this day I don’t understand how I could
fail to make this very obvious move...
23„.i.xg3
24 ^ c5
This knight jump was condemned by all
the experts, but there is no longer anything
better. For example:
1) 24 Sa2 Ab8! 25 <£sc5 Aa7 26 Ae3 Sac8
27 Saf2 Sxc5l 28 Wd6 Wc8! 29 <£se5 Sxf2 30
*xf2 Axe4, and after the forced 31 * e l
Hcl+ 32 Axel Wxcl+ 33 Wdl Wc3+ 34 Wd2
Ab8! 35 <£sd7 Ad6 36 *62 Ae7 37 Wxc3
bxc3 38 <£se5 c2 39 ^ c4 Ab4 Black has a won
ending;
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
2) 24 We2 Ad6! (Kramnik gives only
24...Sxf3 25 Sxf3 Axh2+, after which both
his suggestion 26 *f2, and 26 Wxh2 Wxf3 27
Wg2! Wdl+ 28 *h2 Sd8 29 Ab2 are suit­
able) 25 Ab2 (if 25 Sa2 Wg4+1, while after 25
Wg2 Wxg2+ 26 *xg2 Axe4 the pin on the
knight is unpleasant) 25-.Sf4l 26 Wc4+ *h8
27 Axg7+ *xg7 28 Wd4+ Sf6 29 S a 2 Saf8
30 3g2+ *h8 with a powerful attack and
equal material.
24.. .5xf3!2 5Sxf3?
A black-out. It was essential to find the far
from obvious defence 25 Sa2l, forcing the
exchange of queens at the cost of a rook -
25.. .5xfl+ (25...IC3? 26 <£ixb7) 26 Wxfl
Wxfl+ 27 * x fl fic8 28 Ae3, in order after
28.. .Af4l to seek salvation either with knight
against bishop - 29 ^xb7 Axe3 30 Sxa6
(although, according to Kramnik, 30...Af4
‘would have led to a very difficult endgame
for White’), or in an ending with opposite-
coloured bishops one or two pawns down -
29 Axf4 Sxc5 30 Ad6 Sc3 31 Sa4l and Sxb4
(the best chance).
25.. .Wxh2+ 26 * f l Ac6!
With the threat of ...Ab5+. ‘A quiet move
of crushing strength, which was overlooked
by Kasparov. It is surprising that, despite his
extra rook, White is completely defenceless’
(Kramnik).
143
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

27 .&g5 (if 27 Sa5, then my game with Judit Polgar played after the
27...&.C7 or
27.. .1rhl+ 28 4e2 #g2+ 29 4e3 .&c7!) free day I was a little lucky. After obtaining an
27.. .1.b5+ 28 £>d3 Se8! 29 Sa2 easily won ending, I suddenly made a ‘bril­
Desperation. liant’ move - 32...£>e4? and threw away the
greater part of my advantage. But then I
nevertheless contrived to win a textbook
endgame with rook and knight against rook.

Came 28
J.Polgar-G.Kasparov
Dos Hermanas,
7th Round, 29.05.1996

29.. .Whl+
In time-trouble Kramnik overlooked
29.. .^.xdB+! 30 Sxd3 Whl+ 31 4e2 1^2+ 32
4e3 Sxe4 mate.
30 4e 2 Hxe4+ 3 1 4 d 2 % 2 + 32 4 c l Wxa2
33 Sxg3 # a l + 34 4>c2 W c 3 + 35 4>bl Sd4
Picking up the knight on d3. White re­
signed (O-l).

This was my only loss after 1 d4 in almost

19 years, from the ill-starTed 18th game of
the 1986 match (Game No.18 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) to the
end of my career in 2005! And it was no
accident that I suffered it against Kramnik -
my most awkward opponent since the mid-
1990s. The vexation and bitterness of this
painful reverse took a long time to pass:
after all, if I had won this game, I would
probably also have won the tournament.
In the meantime Topalov snatched a win
against Kamsky, who on the 45th move
committed ‘hara-kiri’ in an equal position,
and became the sole leader - 4Vi out of 6.
Despite my soiry state, I managed to compose
myself and make a reasonable finish. True, in
Starting from the 60th move, when the
last pawn was eliminated, the harmonious
trio of black pieces constantly pursued the
white king, drove it into the very comer, and
here something irreparable occurred - 'the
guard was tired’.
79 S a l?
There was now only one way to draw - 79
Sfl+1.
79...£ie6! (the trap snaps shut) 80 Sa6 <4*7
81 2a7+ &g6 82 2a8 Sd7
The precise plan was 82...Sd6! followed by
the manoeuvre of the knight to f6, it being
‘important that at the moment when the
knight moves away from the king, White has
no checks’ (Bologan), for example: 83 Sg8+

144

*f7 84 Sb8 £g5 85 Sf8+ <4>g6! 86 Sg8+ <&>h6
and ...£>h7-f6 or 83 <4>g8 -5^c7 84 Sb8 £)ds 85
<4f8 Sd7 86Sa8 £if6.
83 2b8 Sc7 84 &g8 S c 5 85 Sa8 Sb5 86 &h8
Sb7 (86...Sb6! 87 <4>g8 £ig5 88 <4f8 Se6! 89
Sa7 £b7+) 87 Sc8 Sk7 (87-.Sb 6!) 88 2g8+
<4>h6! 89 S g l
Capitulation. Otherwise I would have still
have bad to find the correct plan: 89 2c8
£)e6 90 ‘A’gS <4^6 91 ‘A’hS 2b6! or 89 2f8
2b6! (but not 89...£)d5? 90 2f6+l).
89...Sb8+ 90 2g8 £\e8 0-1
In view of 912f8 4 ^ 6 92 2g8+ 4f7.
In the eighth, penultimate round, I com­
pletely outplayed Topalov in a Sicilian, but
when there was already more than one way
to the goal, I spoiled things with a ridiculous
queen retreat.
Came 29
G.Kasparov-V.Topalov
Dos Hermanas,
8th Round, 30.05.1996
36 # e l?
I could have decided matters not only with
the line I gave in Informator - 36 #g5 Wxc2
(36...2g7 37 Bel!) 37 h4 (37 £)c4 or 37 £ie4l is
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
even stronger), but also with the frontal
attack 36 g4l. For example, 36...fxg4 37 hxg4
with the threat of f4-f5 or 36...2g7 37 gxf5
exf5 38 Wh6 with the threat of £sxfsl.
36...e5! 37 fxe5 (37 2xb4 e4 38 2xb8+
£)xb8! is equal) 37...£)xe5 38 Wg3 £)xf3 39
gxf3 Sa8
And a draw was soon agreed (V2-V2).
After this miraculous save Veselin re­
tained the lead, but no longer on his own: he
was caught by Kramnik and Anand.
At the very finish I was fortunate to win
with Black from a hopeless position against
Gelfand, who with his 40th move, the last
before the time control, changed the evalua­
tion of the position from ‘completely won’ to
‘completely lost’. Thanks to this I caught
Anand, who lost out in the "battle of the chal­
lengers’to the aggressively inclined Kamsky, so
that Vishy and I finished half a point behind
the winning pair - Kramnik and Topalov.
Emerging from a ‘Groggy’ State
32nd World Chess Olympiad (Yerevan, 15
September - 2 October 1996): 1 . Russia -
38V2 out of 56; 2. Ukraine - 35: 3. USA and 4.
England - 34; 5-7. Armenia-1, Spain, and
Bosnia and Herzegovina - 33V2; 8-12. Geor­
gia, Bulgaria, Germany, Sweden and Iceland
- 33, etc. (altogether - 114 teams). The
winning team comprised Kasparov (7 out of
9), Kramnik (41/2 out of 9), Dreev (5 out of 8),
Svidler (8yi out of ll), reserves Bareev (7'A
out of 10) and Rublevsky (6 out of 9).
In the summer before the 1996 Yerevan
Olympiad, while I was relaxing and prepar­
ing for the new season, the match for the
title of FIDE champion finally took place in
Elista, and Karpov defeated Kamsky (lOW
7V2). Immediately after the closing cere­
mony, at a press conference on 14 July 1996,
145
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
the FIDE President llyumzhinov stated: 'I am
not giving up my plans to stage a world
championship with the participation of the
100 best players in the world and with a
prize fund of five million dollars. In addition,
in 1997 a Kaspamv-Karpov match ‘foT the
absolute championship’ will be held. The
agreement in principle of the contestants
has been obtained. The prize fund will be
not less than two million dollars.’
In view of FIDE's rejection of the traditional
world championship system, my match with
Karpov was no longer a unifying event, but a
purely historic and competitive one: the world
champion was due to meet a worthy oppo­
nent, who had gone through the FIDE qualify­
ing system. And whereas earlier, after my
match with Anand, I put forward the usual
condition - ‘with a 10-10 score the world
champion retains his title’, now, to avoid
losing my opponent, I decided to make a
compromise. But Karpov too had to make a
compromise in return, as otherwise we would
have been unable to come to an agreement.
On the joint initiative of llyumzhinov and
Makarov, Karpov and I met on 23 August
1996 in the Kalmykia agency in Moscow.
Almost immediately the two of us were left
alone, and our face-to-face and later corre­
spondence discussions led within three weeks
to the production of a very important (at that
moment) unofficial agreement to a match,
signed on 14 September by both contestants.
In it, among other things, it was stated that
‘the match will be played for the title of world
champion’, that ‘the match will be played
outside the currently existing official organi­
sations, FIDE or PCA’, that ‘the status of the
participants in the match are world cham­
pion and FIDE world champion’, and that ‘in
the event of a drawn match, additional rapid
games are to be played (4 games in 2 days); if
they too result in a draw, two additional rapid
146
g a m e s aTe t o b e p la y e d u n til t h e fir s t v icto ry ,
a n d th e n , i f t h e p a r it y is still r e ta in e d , o n e
m o r e g a m e w ill b e p la y e d in w h ic h W h ite
m u s t w in b u t h e h a s a t im e h a n d ic a p ’ (th e
fu ll t e x t o f th is m e m o r a n d u m a n d a n a c c o u n t
o f its s u b s e q u e n t f a t e aTe g iv e n in Kasparov
vs. Karpov 1988-2009).
B u t a t t h e t im e , in la t e A u g u s t a n d e a r iy
S e p te m b e r , t h e s e c o n d a n d , a la s , t h e la s t
s t a g e o f t h e PCA R a p id p la y G r a n d Prix w a s
o r g a n is e d by th e C re d it S u is s e B an k in
G e n e v a . A ft e r b e a t in g G r a f (2 - 0 ), T o p a lo v
(1V 2-V 2) a n d J.P o lga r (1V2-V2), I lo s t in t h e
fin a l t o A n a n d ( l - l ; V2-IV2). In th is m a t c h m y
n e r v o u s s y s te m a g a in le t m e d o w n : a ft e r
b rillia n tly w in n in g t h e fir s t g a m e w it h B lack
(G a m e N 0 .1 1 6 ) and a c h ie v in g an
o v e r w h e lm in g p o s itio n in t h e s e c o n d , I w a s
u n a b le e v e n t o d r a w , a n d in t h e d e c is iv e
b litz g a m e , w it h a le a d o n t h e clo ck , t w o
e x t r a p a w n s a n d w h e r e lite r a lly a n y m o v e
w o u ld h a v e w o n , I u n im a g in a b ly b lu n d e r e d
m y q u e e n ! T h is w a s a v e r y s e v e r e s h o c k .
T h e O ly m p ia d in Y e r e v a n c o in c id e d w it h a
s h a r p p o litic a l crisis in A r m e n ia . T h e y e v e n
b r o u g h t ta n k s in t o t h e c ity - so fie r c e w a s
t h e b a t t le fo r t h e p o s t o f P re s id e n t o f t h e
c o u n try ... A s t e m s t r u g g le w a s a ls o e x p e c t e d
o n t h e s ix ty - fo u r s q u a r e s o f t h e c h e s s b o a r d .
R u ss ia a g a in d id n o t lo o k t h e c le a r f a v o u r ­
ite s , b u t w e w e r e a im in g fo r v ic to ry . T h e
te a m lin e -u p w a s a lm o s t t h e s a m e a s in
1994 , o n ly w it h R u b le v s k y r e p la c in g T iv ia k o v .
A n d o n t h e w h o le t h e O ly m p ia d w e n t f a r
m o r e c a lm ly fo r u s t h a n t w o y e a r s e a r lie r in
M o s c o w . M a k a r y c h e v : ‘Kramnik, the hero of
the two preceding Olympiads, was unwell
and out of sorts: on this occasion he made
nine draws, some with difficulty. On the other
hand, from the start Svidler (7 out of 8!) and
Bareev (6/2 out o f 7!) were rampant. Dreev
and Rublevsky soon reached a plus score, and
then Kasparov altogether ran intoform.’

In the first two rounds, while Kramnik
and I were being treated for colds, the Rus­
sian team crushed Finland and Bangladesh
(both 3V2-V2). In the third round I turned out
for a ‘white’ game with Lautier, still unwell
and in a ‘groggy’ state after the shock in
Geneva. In this condition the heightened
attention of the fans was an added stress: I
had not been in Yerevan since 1976 and I
was there for the first time as world cham­
pion. After playing the opening badly (cf.
Game No.22 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-
1985, note to Black’s 12th move), I had to
fight for a draw. But nevertheless Russia
overcame France: Vh-Vh.
In the fourth round we confidently beat
Germany 3-1, although I had another diffi­
cult draw - with Yusupov (cf. Game No.77 in
Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov,
note to Black’s 13th move). Then Russia
defeated China and Armenia (both 2'h-V/i),
but I, after a day’s rest, was unable to win
against Akopian and I flamboyantly forced a
draw by perpetual check (cf. Game No.98,
note to White’s 14th move). The local specta­
tors applauded, thinking that this was a
mark of respect for the Armenian commu­
nity, but in fact it was a forced measure.
In the seventh round I was finally able to
concentrate and open my score with a win.
My opponent was the 26-year-old Czech
Grandmaster Zbynek Flracek.
Came 30
G.Kasparov-Z.Hracek
World Chess Olympiad,
Yerevan, 7th Round, 23.09.1996
Sicilian Defence B661
1 e4 C5 2 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^ x d 4 <£\f6 5
£>c 3 £\c 6 6 ± g 5 e6 7 I'd 2 a6 8 0-0-0 <2\xd4 9
# x d 4 M.e7 10 f4 b5 11 i.xf6 gxf6
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Following my Amsterdam game with
Kramnik, but now I was fully prepared for
this risky variation.
12 e5!
A combative novelty! Against Kramnik I
chose the quiet 12 iLd3 (Game No.25).
12.. .d5
Necessary: after 12...fxe5?l 13 fxe5 d5 14
^,d3 the Achilles’ heel of Black’s position -
the f7 point - is exposed, while in the event
of 12...dxe5? 13 We4 &d7 14 fixd7 ‘A’xdy 15
^,xb5+ axb5 16 12dl+ White already has a
decisive advantage: I6...'4>e8 17 13xd8+ 2xd8
18 ^ x b 5 exf4 19 a 4 Sg 8 20 a5, etc., or
1 6 .. .^ ,d 617 'SixbS <4 >e 7 1 8 <£\xd6 W b 8 19 f x e 5
Sxa2 20 e x f 6+ £ f 8 21 S d 4 l l rx b 2 + 22 & d 2 .
13 ‘A’b l
When I analysed this new continuation, I
came to the conclusion that this prophylac­
tic move was the most correct. After 13 f5
0-0 with the intention of ...fxe5 and ...iLf6
Black has good play.
13.. .b4
Dokhoian: ‘Over-optimistic. It was not
possible to block the position completely by
13.. .f5?l on account of 14 g4l fxg4 15 f5 (or
first 15 h3!? - G.K.) with an attack. But
13.. .^.b7 deserved consideration, with the
idea of finding the black king a shelter on
the queenside’.
147
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

After this we did an analysis, refined in exploiting Black’s backward development

2000 before the match with Kramnik: 14 f5 and the vulnerability of his king.
fxe5 15 'i'xeS ik,f6 16 #g3 17 fxe6 fxe6
18 &e2, when both 18...0-0-0 19 i.g 4 h5 20
i h 3 h4 21 Wf4 (Kasparov-lvanchuk, Frank­
furt (rapid) 1998), and I8...h5 19 a4l (19 ^.fB
0-0-0 is equal, Anand-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee
2000) 19...h4 (I9...b4 20 £se4l) 20 #g6+ Wf7
21 ^ 4 ! (Akopian-Mamedyarov, Dresden
Olympiad 2008) are insufficient for Black.
Easy equality is also not promised by
13...i.d7 14 i-d3 or 13...Sg8 14 i.e2 (when
14-b4? 15 £se4! or 14...fixg2? 15 i.f3 fig8 16
<£sxd5l is bad for Black). However, the sharp
move 13...b4 drives the knight along the
desired route c3-e2-g3-h5. 17 g4!
14 ®e2 (not 14 exf6?l ix f6 15 #xb4 #c7, After 17 h3 ^ 6 ! 18 1Brxb6 fixb6 19 g4
when Black has active play for the pawn) fig8 the queens would have been exchanged
and a slightly better endgame reached - not
at all what White was hoping for.
17.. .fxg4 18 f5 (I was happy with my attack­
ing position, but things were still far from
simple) I8...fig8!
The best chance. The alternatives were
unsuitable: l8...'Brc7? 19 #xg4 #xe5 20
i.c4l! exf5 (20...dxc4 21 Shel) 21 #g2(f3), or
18.. .exf5?l 19 e6 Sg8 20 exf7+ &xf7 21 ±g2
Sb5 (the Informator 21..Jtb7(?) 22 fihfl figs
23 £sg3 is even worse) 22 fihfl or 22 %t4
with serious threats.

14.. .a5
A difficult choice - White is better after
14.. .fxe5 15 fxe5 or 14...Sb8 15 f5 (15 #631?
and is ‘more positional’) I5...'irb6
(15 ...O-O?! 16 Sd3l) 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 ^ 4 with
an initiative, although perhaps not a very
dangerous one.
15 £sg3 (intending an attack on the f6 point)
15».f5 (l5-.h5?l 16 JLe2 or 16 f5 is worse) 16
£lh5 (16 JLb5+?l 4^8! is not so clear)
16.. .m>8
If I6...a4 again 17 g4! fxg4 18 f5 is strong,

148

19 £sf6+
A tempting check. But the developing 19
iLd3 Wb6 20 #14 exf5 21 S hfl was more
interesting, or else the clamping 19 f6! iLf8 20
£sg7+ Sxg7l? (20..Jb<g7?! 21 #xg4) 21 fxg7
&.xg7 22 h3l, when Black has insufficient
compensation for the exchange: 22...#g5 23
S e l h5 24 ^.d3 &d7 25 Shfl, etc.
19.. .± xf6 20 exf6 # d 6 (again the best
defence) 21 &.g2
‘A key move. White leaves the central d-
and e-files open for his rooks. The routine 21
iLd3 was worse on account of 21...exf5! 22
#e3+ &d8 or 22 Shel+ <£f8 with unclear
play' (Dokhoian). And the exchange 21 fxe6
is pointless in view of 2l..Jtxe6! (pointed
out by Stohl instead of the Informator
21.. .fxe6(?) 22 ^.e2).
21 A c4!? was more shrewd, with the idea
of 21..JLd7 22 Shel. True, after 21...<4>d8! 22
fxe6 ±xe6 23 ^.xd5 ^.xd5 24 #xd5 #xd5 25
Sxd5+ &c7 26 Sxa5 Sg6! it is unclear
whether White can win this favourable
double-rook endgame.
21.. .5.5?
This, the only obvious mistake by Black in
the game, proves to be decisive. As the lesser
evil Dokhoian and I suggested 21...Sb7(?l) 22
#e3(?l) 4^18 23 #h6, but here after 23...'4>c7l
White’s advantage altogether evaporates. 22
fihel (22 fxe6!?) 22...-4>d8 23 Se5l Sb5 24
# a 7 is stronger, retaining a dangerous
initiative (24...#c7? 25 #e3l).
But after 21...Sb5l (over-protecting the d5-
pawn) Black would have managed to consoli­
date, and it would indeed not have been easy
for me to achieve success: 22 S h el (nothing is
given by either 22 fxe6 ±xe6, or 22 #d3 Sc5)
22.. .'4>d8! 23 # a 7 #c7 24 #e3 # d 6 or 23 S cl
jk.d7 24 fxe6 (24 c4?! bxc3l) 24..JLxe6 25 c4
bxc3 26 #xc3 Af5+, etc.
Now, however, White is able to carry out a
spectacular concluding combination.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
22 £xd5! icd7
22...exd5 23 #e3+ and #xg5 or 22...#xd5
23 #f4! is fatal, as is 22...&f8 23 # a7 (23
#e3l?) 23...exd5 24 Sxd5l or 22...^.b7 23
Axb7 (23 #e3l?) 23..#xd4 24 Ac6+1.
23 S h e l h6 (23...Sc8 24 # e 4 and fxe6, while
if 23-Sxf5, then 24 Axe6 #xd4 25 Jb(f5+
and Sxd4 is decisive) 24 fxe6 (24 #e4l?)
24...fxe6 25 # a 7 1-0
In view of the murderous threat of ^.xe6.
As a result Russia crushed the Czechs
(3V2-V2) and the team consolidated its lead­
ing position.
After this the quality of my play sharply
improved. In my game from the next round
with Alexey Shirov, who was then leading
the Spanish team, I was able to carry out
both an unusual positional idea in the
opening and a pretty combinative stroke in
the middlegame.
Came 31
A.Shirov-G.Kasparov
World Chess Olympiad,
Yerevan, 8th Round, 24.09.1996
Sicilian Defence B52
1 e4 C5 2 £sf3 d6 3 i-b5+
149
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Shirov far more often played 3 d4, not
avoiding sharp disputes in the Najdorf
Variation (Game Nos.40, 45, 51, 93)- How­
ever, two years before this he had already
given me this ‘soothing’ bishop check.
3.. .1.d7
3...£sd7 is more risky, although Black holds
out both after 4 d4 £sgf6 5 0-0 cxd4 (5...a6!?,
Ljubojevic-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1991) 6
Wxd4 a6 7 ^.xd7+ JLxd7 8 jLg5 e6 (instead of
8.. .h6?l, Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Linares 1991) 9
•?ibd2 j Lc6! (Rublevsky-Bologan, Poikovsky
2003), or 5 ^c3 cxd4 6 #xd4 e5 7 'id3 h6!
(Yudasin-Kasparov, Ljubljana 1995), and
after 4 0-0 £igf6 5 S e l a6 6 JLfl b6 7 d4 cxd4
8 £sxd4 ji.b7 9 f3 e6 (Shirov-Kasparov,
Linares 1994).
4 i-xd7+ # xd7 5 c4
In order to play d2-d4 and after the ex­
change on d4 set up a 'Maroczy bind’. If 5
0-0, then 5-£tf6 6 S e l ?Tc6 or immediately
5-53c6 (excluding the variation 5~.^f6 6 e5).
5—^c6 6 £*3 (6 0-0 or 6 d4 is also played,
not allowing that which occurred in the
game) 6...g6 7 d4
7...±g7!?
An interesting idea, which I devised at a
summer training session in a game with
Sergey Rublevsky. After the usual 7...cxd4 8
•5^xd4 i.g7 apart from 9 i.e3 the dangerous 9
150
•?ide2 T)f6 io 0-0 followed by JLgS is possible,
for example: 10...0-0 11 f3 a6 12 a4 2fc8 13 b3
'B’dS 14 &hl •?Vl7 15 i.g5 (Kramnik-Gelfand,
3rd match game, Sanghi Nagar 1994), or
12...e6 13 i.g5 Wc7 14 &hl <3d7 (I4...,i 'a5 15
JLh4 is no better, Oral-Kasparov, Prague
(simul’) 2001) 15 b3, and White has some
pressure (Shirov-J.Polgar, Vienna 1996).
True, soon instead of 10...0-0, a clever re­
source was found: 10...#e6!? 11 4bd5 1Brxe4
12 ^c7+ &d7 13 ^xa8 #xc4! 14 ^b6+!?
axb6 15 vTc3 Sa8 (I5...b5l?) 16 a4 ^ e 4 with
quite good compensation for the exchange
(Kasparov-The World, Internet 1999).
In any event, after 7..~i.g7 all that remains
for White is to develop his bishop at e3 (8
ji.e3 cxd4 9 £sxd4 ?Tf6, etc.) or cramp Black
with d4-d5, which is what my surprised
opponent did.
8 d5 i.xc3+!
The point of Black’s idea! He unexpectedly
exchanges his strong bishop, but perma­
nently spoils White’s pawn structure and
hopes to set up a blockaded position, as, for
example, in the Nimzo-lndian Defence.
9 bxc3 ■ STaS
10 0-0l?
Typical Shirov - for the sake of an attack
he does not spare his pawns! 10 •?Td2!? is
more practical, with the idea of 10...f6 11 f4

0-0-0 (ll...~ih6 12 e5!) 12 0-0 b6? 13 a4! and
-'Tsb3 (Rublevsky-Ehlvest, Polanica Zdroj
1997). But after I0...e5 11 0-0 ~>f6 (or li...f6
12 f4 exf4 13 Sxf4 0-0-0 14 '#e 2 #'a4) 12 f4
exf4 13 Sxf4 ^ h 5 14 S fl 0-0 Black's de­
fences are solid: 15 e5?! dxe5 16 £se4 f5 17
<£\xc5 (Rublevsky-Vescovi, Poikovsky 2002) is
parried by ly...1® ^! 18 <?te6 Sf7 (19 c5?l
*5^g7! or 19 g4^ig7l).
10.. .f6
Shirov called this move ‘very strong’,
pointing out that 10...£ixc4(!) 11 #'e2 ^e5(?)
12 ^xe5 dxe5 13 f4 would have allowed
White a dangerous initiative. But after
11.. .'l®ra4! Black is quite okay: if 12 e5, then
12.. M&6, 12...0-0-0 ot even 12...<4 f8 is possi­
ble. Therefore 11 a4l? £tf6 (ll...e5?! 12 dxe6!)
12 # ^ 3 ^ a 5 13 c4 is better, with sufficient
compensation for the pawn.
1 1 £id2 ( ll a4l? with the idea of ll...sbxc4
12 '#013 ^ a 5 13 c4 was a possibility) ll...b 6
Here li...^h6?l is bad on account of 12
-c ib3! >^xb3 13 axb3.
12 We2?
A serious positional mistake: the black
queen should not have been allowed to go to
a4. 12 h3 (Ganguly-Sasikiran, Mumbai 2004)
is insipid: 12...&f8!? 13 f4 £>h6 14 e5 £if5
and ...h7-h5 or 14 Sf2 £sf7 and ...4g7.
Of course, the most energetic move was
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
the immediate 12 f4l, rejected by Alexey
because of I 2...‘r ih 6! (12 ...0-0-0? 13 a 4 l, as in
the Rublevsky-Ehlvest game). Now if 13 e5,
then 13...«g4(?!) 14 #a4+(?!) # d 7 15 #c2
#f5 with equality would seem to be good,
but after 14 Sf3l the black queen becomes
uncomfortable: 14...0-0 15 e6 <£\f5 16 1Hrfl!,
etc. Therefore 13...^f5 is correct, with the
idea of ...0-0, or 14 e6 >liTo7 15 ®a4+ 4f8 and
...&g7. Black’s position seems rather danger­
ous, but nothing terrible for him is apparent.
12.. .'#a4! (blocking up White’s queenside
and paralyzing his development) 13 f4
If 13 Sbl, then 13 ...O-O-O is now accept­
able (but not the greedy I3...#rxa2? in view
of 14 Sb5! with the threat of &.b2 and Sal).
13.. .^ h 6 14 e5 0-0-0
Sharper than 14...0-0. After sinking into
thought, Shirov realised that White’s attack
had come to a standstill, and so he decided to
at least make an active move with his rook.
15 S b l £)f5
AfteT the game I lamented that I did not
play more forcefully here - 15...Shf81? with the
idea of 16 e6 f5l and ,..^g4(g8)-f6, with excel­
lent prospects: I would be threatening either
...■££4, or ...&c7, ...Sb8, ...a7-a6 and ...b6-b5, or
...h7-h5, ..-Sh8 and ...h5-h4, etc., and White
would only be able to ‘stand and wait’. How­
ever, the knight move to f5 is also not bad.
151
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
16 g4
Trying to create at least some semblance of
play. ‘Risky but necessary. After 16 e 6 h5 White
cannot do anything against the plan ...i>c7,
...Sb8, ...a7-a6, ...b6-b5 and so on’ (Shirov).
I6...£>h4?
This pseudo-activity loses Black all his ad­
vantage. I6...£)g7! with the threat of ...h7-h 5
was far stronger (for example, 17 e 6 h5l). It
was precisely this that Shirov was afraid of
and ‘without much confidence’ he was
intending to reply 17 exf6(?) exf6 18 f5.
Indeed, here after I8...2he8 Black has a
decisive advantage.
17 exf6 exf6 18 Wf2! g5 19 £«4!
Suddenly the white pieces have come
alive and it transpires that Black also has
weaknesses - the pawns on d 6 and f6. Not
knowing what to do next, I thought for a
long time and in the end I found a lengthy
drawing combination.
19-We8!?
In my opinion, this is more interesting
than 19...h5 (I9..#xc4?! 20 ^ x f 6 is worse for
Black - Shirov) 20 gxh5 #xc4, also maintain­
ing the balance: 21 Wei gxf4 22 JLxf4 # x d 5
23 5^xd6+ Exd6 24 #xh4 Sxh5 25 # 94+ Sd7
26 S bdl # f 5 27 Wg2 2d5! or 21 <£xf6 Sdf 8
22 fxg5 Sxf6 23 i.f4 Sxf4 24 #xf4 #xf4 25
Sxf4Sxh5, etc.
152
20 E e l Wg6! 21 fxg5l
With just 20 minutes left to the time con­
trol, my opponent rejected the tempting 21
f5?l- And he was correct to do so: of course.
Black would not have replied 21...#f7? 22
5}xg5 fxg5 23 -&.xg5 Edg 8 (Shirov), because
of 24 Se7! # f 8 25 #xh4 and wins, but rather
21.. .#g7 22 ^ g 3 h 5! (Shirov mentions only
22.. .6X C 4 23 £)h5 # f7 24 Se 6 £te5 25 #e2l,
which gives White compensation for the
pawn) 23 ^xh5 ExhSl 24 gxh5 <£)xc4 with
excellent play for the exchange: 25 Se 4 £>e5
or 25 Ee 6 #b7! and ...IfxdS.
21.. .5he8
According to Shirov - ‘the only move’. But
21 .. . £ ixc4!? was also playable - 22 # x h 4
She 8 23 <£>d2 fxg5 24 # f 2 Exel+ 25 # x e l
Se 8 26 # f l £)e3, when White is unable to
exploit his extra piece: 27 # f3 (defending
both pawns, on d5 and g4) 27...#c2l 28 # e2
4d8(d7) or 28...Se4(e5), etc.
22 ^ixd6+! Exd6 23 Exe8+
Or 23 i.f4 £ ) xc4! 24 i.x d 6 <£)d2! 25 gxf6
(25 Exe8+ # x e 8, as in the game) 25...£>df3+!
26 * h l £ixel 27 Sxel Sxel+ 28 # x e l # d 3l,
forcing perpetual check.
23...Wxe8 24 i.f4!
Only not 24 #xh4? # e 4 25 S a l ^xc4 and
wins. After the intermediate bishop move
Alexey was already mentally celebrating
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

victory, but my reply took him aback.
24.. .^xc4!
‘Lightning from a clear sky!’ (Shirov).
24.. #e4?! 25 S fl or 24...Sd7?! 25 #xh4 # e4
(25-fxg5 26 Sell) 26 S fl fxg5 27 #xg5
£)xc4 28 #g8+ was much weaker. And after
24.. .*rg6 25 Sfl! (25 S e l Sd8! - Shirov) Black
has a slightly inferior endgame after
25.. .5 .8 26 #xh4fxg5 27 .&xg5! Sg8 28 ± U
#xg4+ 29 #xg4+ Sxg4+ 30 JLg3, 25...Sd7 26
#xh4 fxg5 27 #xg5 £)xc4 28 #xg6 hxg6 29
S el, or 25...fxg5 26 iLxd6 #xd6 27 # f7 £ig6
28 «xh7 ®f4 29 S e l Wd7 30 #f5 #xf5 31
gxf5 £ ixc4 32 f6! £id6 33 Se7 <&d8! 34 Sxa7
<&e8 35 Se7+ &f8 36 Sd7 £ie4(e8) 37 c4
£)xf6 38 Sd6 <&e7 39 Sxb6, still with win­
ning chances.
25 iLxd6 ® d 2 ! 26 S d l
According to Shirov, he was absolutely
sure that I had miscalculated somewhere
and that the game was over. But...
could have saved his knights, but hardly the
game. Now, however, it is White who has to
display caution.
2 7 i-g 3
It transpires that after 27 Sxd2 all the
material is regained with checks: 27...#bl+
28 W fl £if3+ 29 ^ f2 #x fl+ 30 <&xfl £ixd2+
(it was this that Shirov had not seen) 31 ^ e l
(31 <&e2?! £)e4 is worse) 3l...£ie4, forcing a
draw in the minor piece endgame.
After playing 27 ji.g3, Shirov offered a
draw. I replied: ‘But I have a perpetual, can I
think a while?’. And after five minutes I
satisfied myself that after 27...£shf3+ 28 <&hl
£iel+ 29 r£ g l <£>df3+!? (instead of 29...£sef3+)
30 4 f l G)c2 White is saved by 31 d6! (there is
also the computer method - 31 Sell?
£)f(c)xel 32 gxf6) 31...&d7 32 i.f4 fxg5
(32...#xf4 33 Wxc2) 33 ficl! £icel (33..#xf4
34 Sxc2) 34 #62!, etc. Therefore a draw was
agreed (Vj -’/ j ). A gripping struggle!

We overcame the Spanish (2V2-1 V2) and

then continued our winning streak, to which
I made a fair contribution, winning four
games in a row.
In the ninth round I had another sharp
Sicilian duel with Topalov, who, playing
White, did not make any obvious mistakes,
but he acted not altogether certainly (cf.
Game No.37, note to White’s 13th move),
and it all concluded, as the press wrote, with
a ‘Kasparov-style vendetta’.
This crushing win over the Bulgarian
26.. .We4!! team (3V2-V2) essentially decided the destiny
A unique situation: Black is the exchange of the gold medals, and we drew our next
and a pawn down, and he also leaves both two matches, with Bosnia and Herzegovina
knights en prise! I was so proud of this (in a Scotch I overwhelmed Ivan Sokolov - cf.
amazing move, that I even forgot about the Game N0.38, note to White’s 9th move), and
vexing lapse I6...£)h4?, which spoiled my Ukraine.
original positional idea. In the 12th round I met the now mature
By 26...£)df3+? 27 4 f l # d 7 28 i.g3 or and already very experienced leader of the
26.. .£)hf3+?! 27 <&hl # e 4 28 #g2! Black Israeli team Ilya Smirin, against whom I had

153
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
once won a memorable game in a USSR
Championship (Game No.42 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
Game 32
I.Smirin-G.Kasparov
World Chess Olympiad,
Yerevan, 12th Round, 29.09.1996
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 C5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^ x d 4 £if6 5
^ c3 a6 6 „i.e3
The other prelude to the English Attack is
6 f3, when 6...e6 7 JLe3 (Game Nos.56, 58)
can lead to a simple transposition of moves,
but 6...Wd6 is interesting (Game No.76).
6...£)g4
When I first saw this move in 1993 I was
genuinely amazed: is it really possible to
play this? And up to the summer of 1996 I
replied only 6...e6 (Game Nos.66, 74) or 6...e5
(Game Nos.45, 93). But beginning with the
rapidplay tournament in Geneva I began
regularly employing 6...®g4, fathomed out
the ideas of this dynamic variation, greatly
enriched its theory and gained several
memorable victories with it.
7 .&g5 h6 8 Ah4 g5 9 l.g 3 -&g7 10 i.e2
At that time this was the main continua­
154
tion along with 10 f d 2 (Game No.54), but
later 10 h3 came to the fore (Game No.63).
10.. .h5 11 .&xg4
11 h4 gxh412 Sxh4?l £sc6 is weaker (Topa-
lov-Kasparov, Geneva (rapid) 1996), while if
11 £sf5 ilxf5 12 exf5 (Kasparov-Topalov, 2nd
match game, Sofia (rapid) 1998), then 12...h4
(Shirov-J.Polgar, 1st match game, Prague
1999) or 12...£sh6 (Kordovich-Sanakoev, cor­
respondence 1994-1999) is quite good.
11.. ..1,xg4 (later I switched to ll...hxg4 -
Game N0.51 ) 12 f3 ik,d7 13 .&f2 £>c6
14 ^ d 5
14 0-0 (Game No.40) or 14 ®d2 (Game
No.116) was nevertheless more solid. ‘Smirin
optimistically decided to improve White’s
play compared with the recent rapid games
between Anand and Kasparov. But did Ilya
really think that Gany would go in for this
complicated position without serious home
preparation?’ (Makarychev).
14...Sb8!
The most useful move, with the aim of
evicting the annoying knight by ...e7-e6:
after £ixc6 and ...bxc6 the b-file is opened
and the b6-square will be defended.
15 0-0 e6 16 £sxc6 (trying to justify his 14th
move: after 16 £sc3 £>e5 Black has a com­
fortable game) I6...bxc6 17 £>e3
17 £sc3l (with the idea of 17...d5?l 18 JLd4)

is safer: 17...Ae5 (l7...Sxb2 18 <S^a4 and
#xd6 or 17...Ac8 18 B bl with equality is no
better) 18 Ad4 fixb2 (l8...Axd4+ 19 #xd4
# b 6 20 #xb6 Bxb6 21 b3 <4 >e7 with equality
is simpler) 19 ®a4 Sb5 20 Axes dxe5 21
# d 6 # e7 22 #c7 or 21...#b8 22 # d 2 with
sufficient compensation for the pawn.
17...d5
A critical moment on the emergence from
the opening.
18 Bbl?!
White should already have thrown cau­
tion to the winds and given up the exchange
by 18 b3l, since in the event of l8...Axal
(18...0-0 and ...f7-f5 is safer) 19 # x a l 0-0 20
Ag3 Bb7 21 Ad6 2e8 22 Ae5 he has good
play on the dark squares.
18...0-0?!
The crude l8...Exb2! 19 fixb2 Axb2 was
stronger, since Black is better after 20 exd5
cxd5 21 c4 Af6 22 cxd5 Abs 23 B el Ac3
winning the exchange, 20 #d3 (suggested
by me and Dokhoian) 20...0-0 21 #xa6 #a81,
or 20 c4 d4 21 §)c2 e5 22 ®b4 (recom­
mended by Makarychev) 22...Ac3 23 ®d3
(Korneev-Wojtkiewicz, Linares Open 1997)
23...#e7!.
19 c4?
‘A serious mistake. 19 c3 was necessary,
although here after 19...T14! and ...f7-f5 Black
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
also has the initiative’ (Dokhoian).
19...d4 20 &)c2 e5 21 £>el
When Ilya played 22 <S^d3 he was hoping
to exploit the weakening of my kingside, but
he underestimated the latent dynamics of
the position. Setting up a barrier with 21 g4,
recommended by me and other commenta­
tors, would not, however, have eased
White’s situation in view of 21...hxg4 22 fxg4
c5 and ...Bb6.
21.. .f5! 22 <S^d3 g4!
‘This move was overlooked by Smirin.
There is no reason for Black to waste time on
the ‘King’s Indian’ ...f5-f4- Kasparov begins
an immediate attack on the key points of
White’s defences - the f3-e4 pawn pair.’
(Dokhoian)
23®c5
‘The best practical chance; White would
have lost after 23 exf5? Axfs’ (Makarychev).
The attempt to prolong the resistance by 23
Ag3 did not work on account of 23...f4 24
A el gxf3 25 #xf3 Ag4 26 # f 2 #g5l 27 Ab4
fif7 with the threat of ...f4-f3 and a powerful
attack (28 'Abl h4, etc.).
23.. .gxf3 24 « xf3
White would have lost ignominiously af­
ter 24 gxf3 fxe4 25 ^xe4 Ah3 26 B el #68!
27 * h l # g 6 28 Bgl Ag4l 29 £id2 Sxf3! 30
£>xf3 # e 4 31 Bg3 Bf8 or 25 £ixd7 #xd7 26
155
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
fxe4 ®e8! (more forceful than the Informa-
tor 26...1rh3) 27 & hl (27 1 id3 Sf4!) 27..Mg6
28 #e2 Sf4 29 S b el Wf6 (threatening ...Sf8)
30 jLg3 Sxfl+ 31 Sxfl Sxb2L
24...fxe4 25 # x h 5
25.. .®e8!
‘A brilliant solution!’ (Makarychev). ‘The
most accurate continuation, disrupting the
harmony of the white pieces’ (Dokhoian).
White would have had much better chances
of a draw after both 25...e3? 26 ±h4 (Stohl)
26.. .5xfl+ 27 Sxfl We8 28 #f3 Sxb2 29
jtf6!, and 25...Sf5? 26 ®g6 Sg5 27 # x e 4 &f5
28 Vjte2 jLxbl 29 <£se6 or 26...Sf6 27 #xe4
JLfS 28 # e 2 jLxbl 29 Sxbl, etc.
26^5
Things are hopeless after 26 # x e 8 jtxe 8
27 <£sxe4 (27 ^ e 6 e3l) 27..JLg6 28 <£sc5 (28
fifel Sf4) 28...e4l (stronger than the Infor-
mator 28..JLxbl) 29 .&g3 Sbe8 (Stohl) or 29
“Sid7 e3 30 JLxe3 Sxfl+ 31 Sxfl Bd8, win­
ning a piece and the game.
26.. .5f5 (26...e3? 27 ±g3) 27 # d 2 e3!
The simplest: Black transposes into a won
endgame, with unconnected but neverthe­
less unstoppable passed pawns.
28 JLxe3 S x f l+ 29 S x f l dxe3 30 Wxd7
# xd 7 31 £sxd7 Sxb2 32 <£sf6+ (32 P)c5 e2 33
S e l e4 34 £sxe4 ^.d4+ 35 'A’h l Sxa 2 was
even worse) 32...,&xf6 33 Sxf6 Sxa2
156
34 S f l (34 M l Sf 2+!) 34-.a5 35 S e l e2 36
M l a4 37 S b l a3 38 Sb8+ M l 39 Sa8 S a l
40 4>xe2 a2 O-l
In view of 41 M 2 e4.
Thanks to this win we defeated Israel, and
the following day, thanks to my first win
with White against Yermolinsky (revenge for
the ‘childhood injury’!) also the Americans.
At the finish Russian beat Iceland by the
same I'/i-l'/i score and by a respectable
margin took first place.
The best results on board l were posted by
A1 Modiahki (8 out of 10), Kasparov (7 out of
9) and Ivanchuk (8V2out of 11 ). I commented
as follows on this paradoxical picture: ‘In
announcing the best results on individual
boards, very strange things occur. In a diffi­
cult battle I can defeat Ivanchuk, but I am
quite unable to beat a player from Qatar, who
plays in the region of the 80th board with
opponents who are not even of simultaneous
standard for me or Ivanchuk. And in the end
the winner of this ‘tournament’ is declared
the prize-winner on board l! This is some
kind of naive joke with respect to the top-
class grandmasters fighting one another.'
At the FIDE Congress taking place at the
same time, llyumzhinov consolidated his hold
on the Presidential post. It was then that his

coalition with Kouatly and Karpov broke up,
after which llyumzhinov finally decided that
he had no need to organise a unification
match, and that it was better to get rid of the
‘champion’s diktat’ by means of the knock­
out world championship. But for the moment
this did not greatly concern me, since an
‘unscheduled’ match with Karpov was al­
ready taking shape: for our sixth duel some
excellent sponsors had been found - the
organisers of the December super-tourna­
ment in Las Palmas, who in the autumn of
1997 were also proposing to hold there a
match ‘for the absolute championship’.
Soon Karpov stated in an interview: 'Of
course, the match is necessary - it is awaited
by millions of chess fans, and it should also
settle all of the accounts in my chess relations
with Garry. Therefore, when I won against
Kamsky and once again became the legiti­
mate world champion, I immediately made
contact and entered into discussions with my
old opponent.’
I also commented on this topic: ‘Whether
Karpov likes it or not, a match without
Kasparov cannot be considered a match for
the title of world champion. Today, whether I
like it or not, before any qualifying cycle is
organised I have to finalise the negotiations
with Karpov, because in the eyes of the
public he is regarded as my obvious oppo­
nent in a match for the chess title. In my
view, FIDE has forfeited the moral and
financial right to the world championship,
since it has simply opted out of staging it.’
Towards the end of the Olympiad I again
sensed my former chess strength, and this
heralded a surge in Las Palmas and Linares.
By that time order had been restored to my
chaotic, crazy life of the early 1990s, when I
was battling on several fronts - FIDE, the
Russian Chess Federation, and a protracted
divorce process. Finally, calm was restored
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
and my every-day life was stabilised. Back in
the spring of 1995, at the concluding ban­
quet of the Tal Memorial Tournament, I met
Riga student Yulia Volk. In 1996 she moved
to my place in Moscow, and on 28 October
our son Vadim was bom.
Supreme Court
Double-Round Super-Tournament in Las
Palmas (8-21 December 1996): 1. Kasparov -
6V2out of 10; 2. Anand - 5V2; 3-4. Topalov and
Kramnik - 5; 5-6. Ivanchuk and Karpov - 4.
Las Palmas 1996 was undoubtedly an his­
toric chess event, comparable with a ‘su­
preme court’ and strongly resembling the
epochal AVRO Tournament (1938), where
Alekhine and Capablanca were opposed by
six young pretenders to the title. True, the
modem organisers, aiming to achieve the
highest, unprecedented 2lst category for
the tournament, did not invite eight, but
only six of the top-rated players in the world
- Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Anand, Topa­
lov and Ivanchuk, whereas for a ‘full com­
plement’ it was lacking Kamsky (after losing
his match to Karpov, he left the chess scene
for a long time), Gelfand and Shirov.
‘With them we could indeed have had a
review o f all the real challengers compared
with the ‘old champions", wrote the Russian
journalist Yuri Vasiliev. ‘However, in contrast
to their prototypes, the ‘upgraded Alekhine’
and the 'upgraded Capablanca' are intending
soon to play a match against each other. To
avoid possible false rumours, Kasparov said
at a press conference before the start that a
comparison of this “tournament of six" with
the world championship was unfair, since by
tradition the chess title can be won only in a
match.’
But the importance of victory in such a
tournament was exceptionally high, and the
157
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
players felt the weight of responsibility. But,
of course, the experts and the fans were
intrigued by the performance of the two ‘Ks’,
especially in the light of our negotiations
with the Spanish organisers about our
forthcoming match, which were conducted
through our lawyers at the start of the event.
In this ridiculously nervy atmosphere I
was fortunate to start well - with Black I
outplayed Topalov, who surprised me with 1
d4. A closed Catalan led to an equal position.
On the 25th move Veselin went wrong, but
with my 28th move I lost my advantage and
got into severe time-trouble. Nevertheless
my opponent did not play accurately
enough to extinguish the activity of my
pieces in an interesting rook ending.
In the second round I again had Black and
I easily gained a draw with Ivanchuk. In the
third round KTamnik surprised me with a
King’s Indian Defence, which he had pre­
pared for the tournament, and he also easily
gained a draw. That day Anand beat Ivan­
chuk, after which he was sharing the lead
with me - we each had 2 out of 3.
And then came the fourth round, and a
crucial encounter with Vishy Anand, my
‘Geneva conqueror' (to avoid anyone playing
three successive games with the same colour,
the fourth and fifth rounds weTe inter­
changed). Makarychev: 'The game of last
year’s opponents in the match for the world
championship was the focus of attention.
Garry played the opening simply splendidly.’
Came 33
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
Las Palmas,
4th Round, 12.12.1996
Sicilian Defence B92 1
1 e 4 c5 2 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5
158
<^c3 a6 6 J„e2 e5
As in out 1995 match, Anand again gave
me the pleasure of a ‘Najdorf, but earlier,
following my example, he played 6...e6.
7 £lb3 l.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 A bl
My trainers and I studied this set-up dur­
ing that match, and for both sides. And lateT
it occurred in the game Short-Kasparov
(Novgorod 1994).
9.—b5?I (this is what I played, but 9-b6 or
9...£)c6 is more solid - Game No.26) 10 a4!
Short replied 10 £)d5, and after 10...£)xd5
11 #xd5 Sa7 12 Ae3 jLe6 13 I t t l Sb7 Black
achieved a reasonable game. Analyzing that
game, I came to the conclusion that the
preparatory 10 a4 was stronger.
10...±b7
Also after 10...b4 11 ^ d 5 Ab7 (ll...£)xd5?!
is worse in view of 12 #xd5 Sa7 13 .&.e3 J.e6
14 ®d2 Sb7 15 f4, Oll-Piesina, Riga Zonal
1995) 12 £)xf6+ J,xf6 13 f3 White has a
minimal advantage: 13-McJ (I3...d5?l 14
c5) 14 JLe3 d5 15 exd5 Sd8 16 a5l Sxd5 17
# e l (IstTatescu-Gallagher, Switzerland 2007).
11 £)d5! (an idea of Tseshkovsky) ll...bxa4
ll...|5^xe4? is bad in view of 12 <5^a5l #xa5
13 £ixe7+ Sl?h8 14 f3 iW 8 15 £lf5 g6 16 fxe4
gxf5 17 Bxf5 iLxe4 18 ^.d3l with an attack.
White is better after ll...<£ibd7?! 12 £ixe7+
Wxe7 13 f3 bxa414 £ia5 £ ic5 15 <^xb7 <^xb7

16 J5xa4 (Khalifman-Loginov, St. Petersburg
1995) or 13...b4 14 £)a5 2fb8 15 ±e3
(Svidler-Loginov, St. Petersburg 1996).
Black is also not completely comfortable
after ll...£sxd5 12 exd5 b4 13 a5, ll...±xd5
12 exd5 b 4 13 f4, or ll...b4 (cf. 10...b4).
1 2 Sxa 4 itc 6
This quickly-played move was a novelty by
the Anand team. 'Black wants to accept the
sacrifice of the e4-pawn, which previously he
had not ventured’ (Makarychev). 12...£sbd7
has been played, but White is satisfied with
this: 13 £sa5 .&xd5 14 exd5 £)b6 15 2a3
£)bxd5 16 ±f3 e4 17 .&xe4 £sxe4 18 Wxds
<£)f6 (Tseshkovsky-Nevostruev, Vladivostok
1990) 19 1137!, or 13 £ixe7+ # x e 7 14 f3 d5
15 exd5 £sxd5 (I5...i.xd5 16 2xa6) 16 £ia5
(Saulin-Brikov, Tula 2004).
13 2a3! £sxe4?!
It soon transpires that for the pawn White
gains the opportunity to mount a powerful
bombardment of the kingside with his heavy
pieces. 13-.a5 was nevertheless preferable,
although after 14 <£ixe7+ lx e 7 15 £sxa5
JLxe416 f3 jk,g6(f5) 17 c4 Black is worse.
14 ^a5
In our preparations Dokhoian and I also
looked at this variation and here we cut it
short, deciding that Black was in difficulties.
That proved to be the case.
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
14.. .^f6 (I4...^.g5 15 f4l exf4 16 iLxf4 also
held little joy for Black) 1 5 <£sxc6 (removing
an important defender of the light squares)
15.. .^ xc 6
Here I stopped to think, looking for the
correct way to develop my initiative.
1 6 jLc4 l?
‘A splendid move, concluding the opening
dispute: now Black is in a difficult position’ -
that is what I thought, as did my trainer,
who in Informator even attached two ex­
clamation marks to this move: the bishop
occupies an attacking diagonal and estab­
lishes control over the key d5-point.
However, 16 Sh3l? with the threat of Ac4
also deserved consideration - this would
have denied Black a defence which he had in
the game (l6...2c8), for example: I6...£sxd5
17 ®xd5 £)d4?l 18 jLd3 g6 19 f4l or 17...1fd7
18 c3 with an appreciable advantage for
White. But, carried away by the plan of
creating a direct attack on the king, I decided
to defer for a short time the switching of the
rook to h3. And as soon as I placed the
bishop on c4, I suddenly sensed intuitively:
now something will happen...
I6...£)d4?
And it happened: this obvious move loses
by force! In vain the knight hurries to take
part in the defence of the kingside.
159
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

I6...2c8! was necessary, with the idea of wins) 19 <£)xf6+ Jlxf6

17 Sh3?! £ixd5 18 Jb<d5 ig S , when Black The first critical moment of the game. I
defends. Therefore White has to regain the sank into thought for half an hour...
material - 17 ^.xa6 in the hope of l7...Sa8?l
18 ^xf6+ jtxf6 19 Sh3l (when 19...Sxa6? is
not possible because of 20 WdB), but after
17 ...Sb8! 18 c3 (18 Ih3? £sxd5 19 WxdS
£ib4) I 8...®a7 19 Sb 3 he has no attack on
the king, but ‘only’ a positional advantage in
the form of the two bishops and the outside
passed b-pawn.

20 JLd5?
Of course, in the first instance 1looked at
the obvious 20 g4!. After satisfying myself
that Black would lose after 20...<£>h4? 21 g5
or 20...d5? 21 gxf5 (21 ^.b3l?) 21,..dxc4 22
#h6, etc., I concentrated on the main varia­
tion - 20...#08 21 jLdS £>h4 22 HglLwith the
deadly threat of 'BTiB and g4-g5. Since
17 Sh3! 22.. .2 b 8 23 IT 16 I t s 24 c4 or 23...2b4 24 c4l
‘A truly fearsome rook!’ (Makarychev). is bad for Black, there only remains 22...g5 23
Suddenly the h7 point becomes very vulner­ 2xh4! gxh4 24 g5 -&g7 25 g6! - White has a
able. pretty mate after 25-hxg6 26 2xg6 1i rh3
17.. .g6 (26...1rf5 27 1Brh6) 27 2xg7+! (or 27 4 g l
17...h6? is ruinous in view of 18 JLxh6 (or immediately) 27...4xg7 28 # 116+ 4g8 29
18 #d3l immediately) I8...gxh6 19 Wd3l #g6+ 4 h 8 30 H 15+ 4g8 31 4 g l!, when
£ie6 (l9..Axd5 20 Sxh6 f5 21 IT 13 or there is no defence against 4 h 6 and #g6+,
19.. .4.g7 20 #g3+ does not help) 20 2xh6 or 25-2a7 26 gxh7+ 4 h 8 27 Ixg7l 4xg7 28
4^7 21 ^xf6! 2h8 (21...e4 22 Sh7+ 4xf6 23 #h6+ 4 h 8 29 #f6+ 4xh7 30 ,&e4+.
#xe4, mating) 22 Sh7+! 4xf6 23 #f3+ £if4 But I couldn’t find what to do after
24 Ixf7+ 4g6 25 1^4+ £g5 26 S d l with an 25.. .4h8 26 gxf7 #f5, since in the variation
irresistible attack. 27 Axa8 Sxa8 28 # d 5 2f8 I didn’t see the
18 #d2! only knock-out blow 29 JLh61. This was, after
This move, which was obviously underes­ all, the 10th move of the variation (inciden­
timated by Anand, I made quickly and tally, Anand also did not see it). This missed
confidently. Against the threat of # h 6 Black spectacular win was pointed out after the
has only one defence. game by Dokhoian, who had looked at it
18.. .^ f5 (I8...^h5? 19 g4 2c8 20 b3! and with a computer.

160

I myself sensed that 20 g4 should have
won, and had I played this, the result would
have been a brilliant game. But the difficulty
of the given situation was that I also had
another tempting move - 20 iLd5 with an
attack on the rook: the threat of g2-g4 forces
Black to give up the exchange, and White
obtains a technically won position.
Nevertheless, 20 JLd5 deserves a question
mark. After making it, I was psychologically
upset, since I was vexed and unable to
forgive myself for rejecting 20 g4.
20...H5!
An instant reply: while I was thinking
about my 20th move, it all became clear to
Anand. It was noticeable that he calmed
down somewhat.
21 JLxa8 (little is changed by 21 iLe4 'ffd?!
22 JLxa8 Bxa8) 21...#xa8 22 Sa3 Sc8 23 c3
Wb7
After 23...Sc4?l 24 S d l White takes con­
trol of the d5 point.
24W d3Sc6
The second critical moment in this topsy­
turvy game. Here, under duress, I was
‘blinded’ and made an obviously incorrect
move.
25 Bdl?!
Anything would do, only not this! For ex­
ample, 25 ‘i ’g l £>e7 (25...^g7 26 Bel) 26
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Ba4 d5 27 Bb4 Sb 6 28 Sxb 6 # x b 6 29 c4l?
dxc4 30 #xc4 or 29...d4 30 b3, later exploit­
ing the weakness of the a-pawn and slowly
but surely converting the advantage of the
exchange for a pawn.
25.. .d5!
The point: Black immediately gets rid of
his weak backward pawn (26 #xd5? is not
possible because of 26...Sd6), and White’s
positional advantage is reduced.
26 Ba5 d4 27 cxd4 (alas, 27 c4? will not do, if
only because of 27...£ld6 28 b3 e4) 27...exd4
(probably this capture is slightly better than
the alternative continuation 27...£>xd4 28
£e3) 28 b4!
The correct plan: the exchange of the
queenside pawns expands the operational
scope of the heavy pieces.
28.. .^lh4 29 f3
Gradually beginning to prepare g2(g3)-g4-
I realised that I couldn’t manage without
this advance, but I was unable to find the
most appropriate moment for it.
29.. .1 .xb4 (29...£>f5 30 JLd2) 30 Sxa6 Sxa6
3 lW x a 6 i.g 7
32#d3?!
Another slip. The accurate 32 #a8+! ^>h7
33 ®d5 Wa4 34 Sgl! would have disrupted
the harmony in the opponent’s ranks:
1 ) 34...1ra7?! 35 g4! hxg4 36 fxg4 d3 37
161
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

JLg5 #f2 38 i.xh4 #xh4 39 #xd3 or 36...f6 I d £k3 49 g4! (at last!) 49».#a5 50 S e l
37 ^.d2! # a 3 38 £.el #f3+ 39 #xf3 £>xf3 40 #05 51 h3 (51 Se8!?) 5l...^.f6 52 f4 h4
S fl £\e5 41 h3, winning a pawn and then After the inferior capture 52...hxg4?! 53
also the game; hxg4 White would also have acquired the Vi­
2) 34...#e8 35 #64! #d8! (after 35...#xe4? rile.
36 fxe4 the threat of ,&g5 is decisive) 36 Sfl! 53 #f3 #b5 (covering e8; 53-^b5!? and
(the Informator 36 g4(?!) hxg4 37 fxg4 is ...£>d6) 54 g5 £ g 7 55 Se7l
weak in view of 37...#a5!) 36...^f5 (36...#f6
37 ^ g l!) 37 g4! hxg4 38 fxg4 £)d6 39 #d5
# e7 40 ^ g l, continuing the fight for victory
and welcoming the exchange of queens:
40.. .#e6 41 #xe6 fxe6 42 S e l e5 43 &f2 e4
44 Af4 e3+ 45 &f3, etc.
32.. .£)f5
White’s task has become much more dif­
ficult. At any event, for the moment Black is
holding on. In time-trouble before the first
control I decided not to make any sharp
advances.
33 ^.f4 # b 2 34 g3 &h7 35 S d 2 # b 7 36 # e 4
# b 5 37 # d 3 # b 7 38 # e 4 # b 5 39 & g l # a 5 Just before the second time control, this is
40 # d 3 £>e7 the last critical moment in the game, which
was not noticed by either the player^ or the
commentators.
55.. .# b l+ ?
55...#b4! was far more resilient: 56 #e4!
(if 56 Sxf7 there is the double attack
56.. .# b l+ and ...#a2!) 56...#c4 57 # e l #d3!
58 Sxf7 <£ie2+ 59 &g2 ^g3 and the outcome
remains unclear.

Time-trouble was over, and I began look­

ing for the optimal arrangement of my
pieces. The position is still far from drawn,
but I was oppressed by the burden of nega­
tive emotions...
41 S d l ^ d 5 42 £ d 2 # a 7 43 S e l # d 7 44
<£>g2 (44 Sal!?) 44...'®a7 45 & g l # a 2 46
Se2 # a l+ 47 S e l # a 4 (47~ # a 2 48 g4!) 48

162

56 # f l?
An error in Teply. It would appear that
White could have won with the paradoxical
56 *h2l W/c2 57 1 ^ 2 - after 57...^bl?l 58
- ie l d3 59 fid7 or 5 7 -^ 3 ? ! 58 i . e l W bl 59
±f2 things are completely bad for Black,
while if 57...^b5 there is the strong 58 Sd7!
®c5 59 Wf2(g4) *g8 60 Id8+ ±f8 61 #e2
£ic7 62 Sc8 or Bl^WaS 62 jLel, also with
excellent chances of converting the material
advantage. However, I had too few minutes
left to figure out all these nuances.
56..Mf5 (having arranged his pieces well,
Black has created sufficient counterplay) 57
Wtel (57 *h2 .&f8!? 58 Se5 2! or 58 Se8
itd6! was no better) 57...®xh3 58 flxf7
% 4 + 59 * h 2 h3! 60 # f l £>e4 61 i . e l d3!
62 # xh 3 + # xh 3 + 63 * xh 3 d 2 V i-'/i
A mind-boggling game!
It was a pity that I did not manage to cre­
ate a ‘canvas’ and crush a direct rival, but
there was no time for me to grieve: at the
very finish of the first cycle I had to play
Karpov with Black. At that moment nearly all
the contestants still retained chances of
overall victory: Anand and I had 2'/i out of 4,
with Karpov, Kramnik and Ivanchuk on 2.
Our game was preceded by two free days,
and here Karpov allowed himself to be
unjustifiably diverted. With the tournament
in full swing he flew to Paris for the opening
of a junior tournament! From the competi­
tive point of view this was a suicidal step,
comparable perhaps with Capablanca’s trip
to Leningrad during the 1925 Moscow
International Tournament - it will be re­
membered that the Cuban gave a difficult
simultaneous display in the city on the Neva,
and on his return he suffered a defeat.
Miraculously, Karpov did not lose to me, but
he came a cropper in the second half of the
tournament...
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Came 34
A.Karpov-G.Kasparov
Las Palmas,
5th Round, 15.12.1996
40...h6?
Time-trouble haste! With the last move
before the time control Black wastes his
important reserve tempo and throws away
the win - 40...e5! 41 fxe5 fxe5l 42 &c3 &e6
43 *d3 *f5, etc., or 41 e4+ * d 6 42 fxe5+ (42
*e3 * e6 or 42 f5 gxf5 43 exf5 *d5 is no
better) 42...fxe5 43 *e3 * e6 44 &f2 (44 f4
h6!) 44...*d6 45 *g3 (45 *g2 h5!) 45-h6!
(an essential tempo!) 46 <±Jh3(g2) h 5! 47 &g3
g5, creating an outside passed pawn. I
discovered this soon after the game, and the
following day the entire press centre was
amazed by my ‘blindness’.
41 e4+ &d6 (for a win Black now lacks that
very tempo) 42 <^63 e5 43 fxe5+ fxe5
(43...‘&xe5 44 f4+) 44 &f 2 &e6 45 & g 2 ! '/i -'A
The only move (45 ^ 3 ? ^ 6 46 ^ 4 h5+
47 ^ 3 g5 and wins) with the idea of 45~.‘A’f6
46 &g3 g5 (again mutual zugzwang: 46...T15?
47 f4 and White wins) 47 h 5 with a draw.
After this we spent a long time analyzing
our 164th game on the empty stage... Of
163
 Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
course, it is hard to call it an entertaining
game, but it was of great competitive and
psychological significance. Many even
considered it to be the key game of the
entire event, since Karpov was playing White
and in the event of success he could have
fought for first place. Therefore our
‘thoughtfulness’ and our mutual mistakes
can be put down to the exceptional impor­
tance of the result. I most probably missed
the winning move 40...e5 for the reason that
sub-consciously I was happy with a draw:
after three games with Black, ‘plus one’ in
the first half of the event seemed to me to be
quite a decent result.
Meanwhile, at the time when we were
just exchanging the queens, on the floor
above the playing hall llyumzhinov was
giving a press conference, at which he
announced the decision of the latest FIDE
Presidential Board meeting. Finally it was
officially declared that the new-formula
world championship (on the knock-out
system) would take place in exactly a year’s
time, its prize fund would be 5 million
dollars, and the main sponsor would be
Kalmykia.
From the press: ‘The championship has
again been deferred - now from spring 1997
to December, evidently in order to allow
Karpov and Kasparov to decide on their
match, but searching questions on this topic
are avoided very simply by the professional
diplomat llyumzhinov: "/ am the President o f
FIDE and I answer onlyfor my organisation".’
In the meantime Anand had also drawn,
and we were caught by Ivanchuk, who
defeated Kramnik. The leading trio was on 3
out of 5.
The next day the second half of the tour­
nament began, and Anand lost to Kramnik,
Ivanchuk drew with Karpov, as did I, to my
vexation, with Topalov, who answered 1 e4
164
with the unexpected l...eS (cf. Came No.14,
note to Black's 7th move). Four rounds
before the end, the outcome of the tourna­
ment was still absolutely unclear: Ivanchuk
and I had y /2 out of 6, with Karpov, Kramnik
and Anand on 3. It need hardly be said how
competitively important was my next en­
counter with Vassily Ivanchuk, against
whom I had not won in ‘classical’ play for
nearly three years.
Dokhoian: ‘Understandably, both the play­
ers and their helpers experienced extreme
pressure.’
Came 35
G.Kasparov-V.lvanchuk
Las Palmas,
7th Round, 17.12.1996
Alekhine's Defence B04
1 e4 £>f6
A surprise! Vassily had emplpyed l...e5,
1 .. .C5, l...c6 and l...e 6 against me, but here
he found a comparatively rare opening, for
which I was not specially prepared.
2 e5 ^d5 3 d4 d6 4 £sf3 g6
Before this Ivanchuk had only a couple of
times tried 4...Jig4 5 &e2, which had also
occurred in one of my games (Game N0.8 in
Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
Another line goes 4...dxe5 5 ^xe5 g6 6
j*.c4 c6 7 0-0 &g7 8 Hel 0-0 9 i-b3 £>d7 10
£)f3 £>7f6 11 c4 £>c7 12 h3 c5 13 £>c3 cxd4
14 £sxd4 £>e6 15 iLe3 £ixd4 16 1i rxd4! &-e6
17 Wh4l Was 18 c5l, and White seized the
initiative (Kasparov-Adams, Linares 1997), or
5.. .C6 6 i.e2 jLfs 7 g4l? (7 0-0 £sd7 8 £>f3 e6 9
c4 is steadier) 7..Ae6 8 c4 £sb6 9 b3 f6 10
£>d3 #xd4 11 ji.b2 WdS 12 £>c3 with quite
good compensation for the pawn (Kasparov-
Short, Moscow (rapid) 2002).
5 ^.c4 c6 (5~.£sb6 6 iLb3 is more often

played - Game No.27 in Part I of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 6 0-0 j L g l
7h3
In general I was intending 7 exd6 Wxd6
(7-.exd6 8 Sel+) 8 h3! (not 8 ^bd2 jLg4,
Ivanchuk-Vaganian, Manila Olympiad 1992)
8.. .0-0 9 .&b3 or 9 S e l with a small but
enduring advantage for White (similar to
the afore-mentioned game with Adams).
However, being in a slightly confused state
after l...£rf6,1 mixed up the move order!
7.. .0-0 8 exd6 (in this version there are also
arguments in favour of 8 # e 2 or 8 Sel)
8.. .exd6!?
Surprise ‘number two’ - a novelty instead
of the usual recapture S-.Wxde. Black main­
tains the pawn symmetry.
9 Sel
After some thought, I made a logical de­
veloping move. Nothing was given by 9
i.xd5 cxds 10 £ ic3 i.e6 l l £se2 £sd7 12 £>f4
£sf6 with equality.
9 - ^ c 7 10 i.g 5 -&f6 11 i.h 6
In the event of 11 ^.xf6 #xf6 (here the
queen is well placed) 12 Ji.d3 £se6 13 c3 £)f4
14 £sbd2 d5 the position is roughly equal.
11.. .5e8
If ll..JLg7 it is now possible to exchange
bishops - 12 Ji.xg7 <&>xg7, and then play 13
d5l, for example: 13-b5 14 -&fl £sxd5 15
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
^.xb5 '^fb6 16 £sa3 with some advantage.
12 Sxe8+ £sxe8
13 £b3
After spending quite a lot of time, I was
unable to devise anything more sensible
than the questionable plan with c2-c4 and
the sacrifice of the d4-pawn.
13 £ sc3 d5 14 -&d3 suggested itself, al­
though after 14...£sd6 (with the idea of ..JLf5)
15 i-f4! <£sf5 (l5...-^-f5? 16 i.xd6) 16 £ie2 H d6!
White simultaneously has two pawns en
prise. I was concerned that the following
variation was harmless for Black: 17 S b l
£sxd418 £sexd4 -&xd419 £sxd4 (19 ®e 2 Ae6)
19.. Mxd4. However, 17 ®d2l is stronger,
when 17...1S,xb2? 18 S e l £sa6 19 ^.g5l or
17.. ~&.xd4? 18 £sfxd4 £tod4 19 -&xg6! is bad
for Black, while after 17-.^xd4?l 18 £sexd4
JLxd4 19 i.xb8! Sxb8 20 ^ 4! i.xf2+ 21 <4tfl
Sa8 22 £sg5 i.f5 23 Wxf2 Wxb2 24 S e l the
white knight is worth more than the black
pawns. 17-^.e6 is more solid, after which
White replies 18 c3 and retains a small plus
thanks to his better development.
13.. .d5 14 c4 (starting with this move I
began playing very quickly, and this made a
great impression on my opponent) 14—dxc4
14 ..~&.e6!? 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 £>c3 £sc6, not
allowing the b3-bishop any freedom, was
also quite safe.
165
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
15 Axc4 £>d6 16 Ab3 17 # d 2!
‘A non-routine reply, after which the op­
ponent sank into lengthy thought’ (Makary-
chev).
17...£sd7
17...^xd4 (but not 17..Jtxd4? 18 Jig 5 #d6
19 Af4l #f6 20 ^c3 and wins) 18 £>xd4#xd4
would have equalised more easily, for exam­
ple: 19 #xd4 Axd4 20 £>c3 Ae6 21 S e l £>a6
22 Axe6 fxe6 23 S,xe6 Sd8! (more accurate
than Makarychev’s variation 23...<4>f7 24Sd6)
or 19 # e l # e5 20 £>c3 Ae6! (Dokhoian’s
move 20...Af5 is inferior because of 21 #d2!
and Sel), and White has no advantage after
either 21 #xe5 Axes 22 S d l <5)a6 23 Axe6
fxe6 24 £>e4 b6, or 21 Axe6 #xe6 22 #xe6
fxe6 23 £se4 Ad4 24 S d l e5 (24...C51?) 25
£>f6+ <4f7 26 £>xh7 £>d7, etc. 17...^d7 makes
things more difficult for Black.
18 £>c 3 (18 Af4 £sf8!) I8 ...^ xh 6 19 # x h 6
£if8 20 S d l!
The position that has arisen is of the same
type as in a line of the Queen’s Gambit, well
known to me from games with Karpov
(Game No.75 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-
1985; Game No.22 in Kasparov vs. Karpov
1986-87) and Short (Game No.25 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov). White
has conceded the advantage of the two
bishops, but he has created pressure on the
166
a2-g8 diagonal and has the potential threat
of the d4-d5 breakthrough.
2 0...A e6
The most logical. My Informator sugges­
tion 20...#a5(?) is incorrect because of 21
#f4! #f5 22 #63! Ae6 23 d5 Axds
(23...cxd5? 24 g4) 24 £sxd5 cxd5 25 Sxd5,
when White has a dangerous initiative.
21 d5
Continuing the series of instant moves
(virtually the longest in my ‘classical’ career).
After this thrust Vassily became nervous: he
thought that by ...Ae6 Black had neutralised
the pressure, and suddenly it transpired that
he still had unresolved problems. Having a
decent advantage on the clock (30-40 min­
utes), Ivanchuk began thinking for long
periods and soon he was in desperate time-
trouble.
21.. .cxd5 22 £sxd5 Sc8
For the second time in the game Black
does not capture a pawn, but makes a
‘simple’ developing move. 22...Axb2l? was
more resolute: 23 # f4 Sc8 24 # b 4 (my
Informator 24 £>e5(?l) is weaker in view of
24.. .Axe5! 25 #xe5 Axd5 26 Axd5 £te 6)
24.~i.f6 25 #xb7 Axd5l 26 Axd5 #c7 or
immediately 22...A,xd5l? 23 flxd5 # e 7, in
each case with equality.
23 # e3 b6
 Short, Anand and Las Palmas

23...^.xb2? 24 #xa7 was now unfavour­ #67 27 £>d3, winning the exchange for a
able for Black, but to fight for a draw he pawn.
could have gone into a slightly inferior 26 hxg4 &g7
endgame by 23...^.xd5 24 iLxdS Wb6 25
#xb6 axb6 26 b3 2c7.
24 £>e5!
A strong move, creating an unpleasant
domination of the white knights.

27 f4!
Building up the pressure. 'White is plan­
ning to squeeze the black pieces - in particu­
lar the knight on f8 and the bishop on f6’
(Dokhoian).
24.. .5C5 27...h6 (27..~&xb2? 28 #f2l, driving the black
Ivanchuk now had only five minutes left on bishop off the long diagonal) 28 f5
his clock. According to Makarychev, 24...^.g7
deserved consideration, although after 25
£ixf7! &xf7 26 £>f4 # e7 27 £)xe6 £)xe6 28
#f3+ ^ 8 29 # g 4 2e8 30 S e l and 2xe6
White is a pawn up and Black’s only hope is
the opposite-coloured bishops.
Exchanges would have been more radical -
24.. .1xe5 25 #xe5 £xd5 26 2xd5 (26 i.xd5
#e8!) 26..-2cl+ 27 &h2 #c7 28 f4 #xe5 29
2xe5 2 c7 with an acceptable endgame,
although the bishop is far more active than
the knight. But my opponent assumed that
for the moment there was no need for this.
25 £>g4! (creating new problems for Black) 28...g5?!
25.. .£xg4 On this occasion 28...iLxb2? is bad be­
It is time to eliminate one of the knights - cause of 29 f6+! £xf6 (29...'&’h7 30 #e7l) 30
the alternative was 25...^.xd5 26 JLxd5 # e 7- £)xf6 #xf6 3 1 2 f l and wins.
But 25..~£.xb2? would have been strongly But the move in the game is also unsuc­
answered by both 26 £sdf6+ JLxf6 27 2xd8 cessful. Real chances of a successful defence
±xd8 28 #d4l (Makarychev), and 26 £rf4l were offered by 28...gxf5l, for example: 29

167
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
£)f4 We?! 30 £)h5+ *g8 31 Wxh6 Axb2 32
g5 Scl! or 29 gxf5 Axb2 30 We2 Af6 31
We7 32 Wg4+ * b7 33 <^d5 We5 34 Wh5
<&g7! 35 <?ixb6 Sc7 36 £id5 Sd7 with equal­
ity. However, for a human player, especially
one in time-trouble, it was difficult to make
such a risky decision.
29 We2?!
The insipid 29 ‘i ’hl?! would also have
given Black an important tempo to consoli­
date with the unexpected move 29...Sc8!
(and if 30 We2, then 30...Wd6 31 Wa6 Wb8, if
there is nothing better).
The most energetic was 29 We4! with the
threat of £sf4: after 29...&g8 30 Wa4! or
29...Wb8 30 £sxf6 &xf6 31 Ad5 White has an
obvious advantage. Therefore perhaps the
best chance would have been a queen
sacrifice - 29-Sc8 30 £tf4 Wxdl+! 31 Axdl
gxf4 32 Wxf4 £id7 with the desperate hope
of constructing a fortress. But to find this in
extreme time-trouble would have been
practically unreal! This is also confirmed by
the opponent’s reaction to my somewhat
mysterious move.
29...^h7?
‘The culminating moment. After passing
through numerous mined squares unharmed
Ivanchuk, in terrible time-trouble, cracks
under the pressure and commits an irrepara­
168
ble mistake’ (Dokhoian). Possibly this oc­
curred precisely due to the lightning speed of
my moves.
29...Wd6? 30 We8 was also bad, but 29...a5
would have enabled Black to hold on, and if
30 a4 (fixing the weakness of the b6-pawn),
suggested by Dokhoian and me, then
30...Sc8!. Or the immediate 29...Sc8!, cover­
ing the eighth rank with the intention of
...Wd6 and ...£xi7(h7). Then 30 Wa6 is parried
by 30...Axb2 31 Wxa7, and now not 31...Scl?
32 Sxcl Axel because of 33 f 6+! &g8 34
£se7+ &h7 (34...&h8? 35 £ig 6+!) 35 £)fs!
(Dokhoian and I looked only at the variation
35 Ac 2+ &h 8 or 35 £)g6 Wd4+ 36 4>hl Wxf6
37 £sxf8+ &g8, which is equal) 35-..Wxf6 36
Axf7 &h 8 37 Ac4 Af4 38 Wb7 with an
obvious advantage for White, but 3l...^d7l,
for example: 32 £sf4 Scl! (not even thinking
about 32...gxf4 33 Wxd7) 33 Sxcl Axel 34
£se6+ fxe6 35 fxe6 Ae3+ 36 & hl Af4 (of
course, not 36...‘£ >f6? 37 exd7 and wins) 37
exd7 Ac7 or 37 Wxd7 Wxd7 38 exd7 Ac7
with a drawn opposite-coloured bishop
ending.
30 £sxf6 Wxf6 3 1 Sd7 Se5 (there is nothing
else) 32 Sxf7+! Wxf7 33 Wxe5+ Wf6 34
Wc7+ &h8
35 &hl
An entirely human move: because of the

mate threat Black cannot reply 35...'Sfxb2.
The machine move 35 .&.f7! was also deci­
sive, only not the greedy 35 ®xa7?, since
after 35-®d4+ 36 4 ti l £vf6 Black would
gain counterplay.
35...a5
35—Wf8 36 Wxa7 and 35...Wg7 36 Wb8+
or 36 ±f7! are also hopeless for Black.
36i.e6
Here a good dozen moves would have
won. Black lost on time (l-O), without man­
aging to play 36...£rf8 (when there would
have followed 37 #xb6, etc.).
A very important win, which eliminated a
dangerous rival: after this Ivanchuk was as
though substituted and he scored only one
more half-point. In this blood-thirsty round
there were no draws: Anand crushed Karpov
in spectacular style, while Kramnik lost to
the resurgent Topalov. A decisive separation
of the leading group occurred: Kasparov -
4V2 out of 7; Anand - 4; Ivanchuk - 3Vr;
Topalov, Kramnik and Karpov - 3.
Then, after a free day, all the games ended
in draws. Against Kramnik I ‘sounded the
retreat’ in the Lasker Defence to the Queen’s
Gambit, but in the end I saved the game
literally by a miracle. My ‘white’ duel with
Karpov in the ninth round also took a very
difficult, nervy and uneven course.
Roshal: ‘An interesting intrigue developed
around virtually the main game of the entire
tournament. The sceptics asserted: Kasparov
will not risk his sole leadership, while Karpov
(especially with Black) will be inhibited by the
risk o f damaging the prestige of the future
match between them. The meticulous Kas­
parov appeared in his full regalia, whereas
without a tie Karpov looked imposing and
even complacent... The game proved unfor­
gettable, especially its finish, which took place
in afearful time scramble.’
Short, Anand and Las Palmas
Game 36
G.Kasparov-A.Karpov
Las Palmas,
9th Round, 20.12.1996
32.. .1d7??
This instinctive defence against iLd6 is a
fatal mistake in a good position. ‘Black is the
first to crack under the enormous tension'
(Dokhoian). Karpov had only one minute left
and he no longer had time to look for a
different, active defence: 32..Jtxe4 33 iLd6
10rxb2 or 32...C4!? 33 Ad6 Wxhs, or best of all
- 32...'®rxb2! 33 iLf3 (33 icd6? does not work
because of 33...®d4+ 34 4 ti l #xe4 35 #xf8+
^ 7 36 Af3 ^ 3) 33-.e5, and White does
not have sufficient compensation for the
pawn: 34 #c8 #d4+ 35 ±f2 # d 7 36 l rxd7
£lxd7, etc.
33 #e8!
A thunderous blow. Unexpectedly the
black king finds itself in mortal danger.
33.. .15rxfl+ (there is nothing else: 33-.g6(f6)
34 £d6!) 34 & xfl !d l+ 35 Axdl £xe8 36
itf2 (36 iLd6! was more accurate)
36.. .1Lb5+?
36...£ld7! was necessary, when the pin 37
ita4 is unpleasant, but 37,4 >e2 is also good -
it is unlikely that Black would be able to
169
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

resist the combined onslaught of the king Roshal: 'The nine culminating moves in
and the mobile bishops. this game literally shook the chess world,
divided into supporters o f the two contest­
ants. Right to the end o f the tournament in
the press centre, and much later elsewhere,
these time-trouble moves were repeated. It is
simply pointless to talk here about good or
bad luck: Karpov was indeed in poor form.’
Makarychev: ‘Yes, to play as well at the age
o f 45 as one did at 25 is practically impossi­
ble.’
A round before the finish I had moved a
point ahead of Anand and was assured, at
the least, of a share of first place. And on the
last day I had Black against Vishy and I quite
37 &e2! confidently gained a draw in a sharp branch
Now Black’s queenside pawns cannot be of the Scheveningen (cf. Game No.37, note to
defended. 'Remembering the missed win White's 13th move).
(also in a time scramble) in the game from Thus the world champion took his ‘lawful’
the first cycle, on this occasion Garry does first place, while the FIDE champion shared
not let his advantage slip.’ (Dokhoian). last place, being the only player not to score
37.. .1.xe2+ 38 '&xe2 £sd7 39 ^ 3 (the king a single win. As a result the Kasparov-Karpov
heads for the booty) 39—a6 40 .&gl! match was sharply devalued: the sponsors
But not immediately 40 &c4 £te5+, when were unwilling to invest several million
41 &XC5? is not possible because of dollars on the clash between the winner of
41.. .£sd3+ and ...£ixf2. the tournament and an outsider.
40.. .f5 41 exf5 exf5 42 &c4 ®e5+ 43 *xc5 This veritable supreme court led to a re­
£sd3+ 44 *b6 1-0 alignment at the top of world chess and
After 44...®xb2 45 ixaB the game is de­ drew the line under the ‘two Ks’ era. The era
cided by the a-pawn. of my confrontation with the young began.

170
 Chapter Two
Second Peak
Battle for Prestige
International Tournament in Linares (3-16
February 1997): 1. Kasparov - 8'/2 out of 11;
2. Kramnik - 7V2; 3-4. Adams and Topalov -
6V2; 5. J.Polgar - 6; 6. Anand - 5V2; 7-8.
Ivanchuk and Gelfand - 5; 9. Nikolic - 4Vr,
10. Dreev - 4; 11-12. Sbirov and Piket - y / 2.
Despite the dramatic outcome in Las Pal­
mas, the chess world entered 1997 still
expecting a sixth Kasparov-Karpov match.
‘After Karpov's failure the number of
those wishing to stage our match has dimin­
ished: perhaps this will also affect the prize
fund’, I stated soon afterwards. ‘But even so,
a match is the only possible way of contest­
ing the champion’s title, and at the moment
there is no more lawful challenger than
Karpov. He has to his credit successes which
today no one can match: from Linares 1994
to the match with Kamsky. I hope that our
match will take place in the autumn of 1997
and that by the end of Feburary, after the
super-tournament in Linares, we will decide
on the venue and the final conditions.’
But the attitude of potential sponsors to
this match was also influenced by the next
‘chess Wimbledon’, which was revived after
a year’s break (in honour of this a super­
prize for the winner was even wheeled into
the hall of the Anibal Hotel - a Sukuzi jeep).
All the Las Palmas contestants arrived in
Linares, apart from Karpov, who totally
ignored numerous invitations, which of­
fended the Spanish organisers. In an open
letter to the FIDE champion, Senor Rentero
stated: ‘You are hiding... But it is interesting
for me to see how you intend to sell your
match with Kasparovfor 400 million pesetas.
After all, all the sponsors were awaiting your
appearance in Linares. The fact that you are
not playing in Linares is bound to have
consequences: thus Cadilso Insular (the
government of the Canary Islands - G.K.) will
not sponsor you.’
For Vishy Anand and me the start in
Linares was a continuation of the finish in
Las Palmas: we again played with the same
colours - and again it was a tense duel in a
Scheveningen!
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

good after I2...1b8, and because of this I

Came 37 looked for other ways here:
V.Anand-G.Kasparov 1 ) 12 ..JLf8 13 I t o (13 g4l?) 13...^a5 14
Linares, 1st Round, 04.02.1997 # f 2 £ ic4 15 iLcl e5 16 £ide 2 d5l 17 fxe5
Sicilian Defence B85 4^xe5 18 iLf4 dxe4 with sharp play
(Sutovsky-Kasparov, Tel Aviv (simul’) 1998),
1 e4 C5 2 £tf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5 but 14 b3l is better (Almasi-Portisch, Hun­
£sc3 a6 6 ± e 2 gary 2000; Adams-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee
In Dos Hermanas 1996 Vishy chose 2006);
against me 6 Jte3 e6 7 g4 h6 8 f4 e5 9 4^5 2) 12.. Jtd7 13 £)b3 b6 (I3...£ia5 14 £sxa5
and after 9...£fc6 he suddenly sacrificed a #xa5 15 ®d3 Sad8 is more tedious, Anand-
knight - 10 Wf3?! g6 11 0-0-0 gxf5 12 exf5 Kasparov, 9th match game, New York 1995)
with very sharp play. Later I employed 14 g4 ±c8 15 g5 £sd7 16 ,&g2 ±b7 17 H i5
9.. .h5l? (Shirov-Kasparov, Linares 1998; £sb4 18 Sf2 g6 19 !Ti3 i,f8 20 S afi i.g7!
Timman-Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 1999). with equality (Anand-Kasparov, Frankfurt
6.. .e6 (6...e5 - Game No.26) 7 0-0 ± e 7 8 a4 (rapid) 2000), but 17 Sf3l is more promising.
£sc6 9 ± e 3 0-0 10 f4 Wc7 11 & hl He8 12 13Wd2
±f3 In Las Palmas 1996 Anand played 13 g4l?
The main line of my matches with Karpov and after 13...'£)xd4 14 .&xd4 e5 15 fxe5 dxe5
(1984/85 and 1985). In my match with 16 ±.3.7 Sa8 17 g 5 Sd8 18 We2 £ie8 19 ±e3
Anand (1995), 12 jLd3 was also tested (Game ±e6 20 # f2 (20 £sd5l?) 20...Sdc8! (against
N0.86). And if 12 JLgl, then l2...Sb8 is Topalov at the 1996 Olympiad I replied
acceptable (Game No.62 in Kasparov vs. 20.. .'Src4, but this is worse because-of 21
Karpov 1975-1985), or 12....&d7 13 £)b3 b6 £sd5! ^.xd5 22 b3 #c3 23 exd5 with a clear
14 iLf3 Sab8 15 yie2 (Tseshkovsky-Kasparov, advantage) 21 S ad i iLc5 with 22 £sd5!
Moscow 2004) 15-JL c8!?. (instead of 22 iLxc5 #xc5 with equality, as
occurred in the game) 22..JLxd5 23 Sxd5
iLxe3 24 #xe3 he could have retained some
advantage.
Today more topical lines are 13 ..JLf8 and
13.. .£id7 14 g5 ii.f8 or 14 ±g2 Af8, but not
14.. .b6 15 g5 ±b7 (Svidler-Kasparov, Linares
1998) 16 1i fh5, which is judged to favour
White.
13.. .^a5
This comparatively fresh continuation
with the threat of ...£ic4 is an attempt to
exploit the queen move to d2. If 13...^.d7 I
was not afraid of the well-known 14 £sb3 b6
l2...Sb8 15 g4 (Game No.7 in Part II of Garry Kasparov
The immediate I2...£sa5?l is rather pre­ on Garry Kasparov), nor of 14 S a d i £sa5l? 15
mature in view of 13 g4! (Anand-Topalov, b3 Sec8 16 £sde2 ±e8 17 ±37 Sa8 18 jLd4
Dortmund 1996). This same thrust is also £k6! 19 iLxf6 jLxf6 20 #xd6 (Kamsky-

172

Kasparov, Tilburg 1991) 20...ixc3! 21 £sxc3
£sa5 with equality, but rather of the modest
variation with 14 '®rf2 (Game No.54 in Kas­
parov vs. Karpov 1975-1985), where I myself
bad some ideas for White.
1 4 # f2
If 14 b3, then I4...b6 is not bad (Hiibner-
Timman, Tilburg 1985), whereas my in­
tended 14...£sc6 is questionable on account
of 15 a5l (15 e5l?) 15-..£sxa5 (I5~.id7 16
£sde2l, Almasi-Hracek, Porto Camas 2011) 16
e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 ib 4 l 18 £sde2 £sd719 £sb5l,
etc.
14.. .^ c 4 15 i c l e5 16 £sde2 exf4
This move is better than its reputation
and, besides, Black has problems after
16.. .1 .7 17 b3 £sa5 18 i b 2 (Huzman-
Novikov, Kherson 1989) or I6...d5 (here this
is weaker than in the aforementioned game
with Sutovsky) 17 fxe5 (17 £sxd5 £sxd5 18
exd5 i c 5 19 WgB e4 20 i h 5 is also good,
Emelin-Karalkin, St. Petersburg 1998)
17.. .£sxe5 18 if 4 .
17 £sxf4 i e 6
18 b3
Only this is a novelty. ‘Without trying to
be too clever, White completes his develop­
ment. The drawback to this move consists in
the resulting insecurity of the knight on c3
and the general weakening of the queen-
Second Peak
side’ (Dokhoian). Previously 18 i e 2 was
played, after which instead of the usual
18.. .£se5 I was planning the original reply
18.. .1 .8 l? - the bishop operates on both
wings, and the e-file is opened for the rook.
18.. .£se5 19 i b 2 2bc8 20 2 a d !
A quick and logical move in Anand’s style:
White defends the c2-pawn, intending <Sk3-
e2-d4 and a bind with c2-c4.
20.. .#C5
Also logical - activation with gain of
tempo, since the exchange of queens is
unfavourable for White. 20...£sg6 21 £ice2
£sd7 with the idea of ...if6 also deserved
consideration.
2 1 # g 3 g6
A typical move with the idea of ...if8-g7,
but Black does not succeed in playing this
and he is left with his king’s defences weak­
ened. In Informator I condemned 21...1i rb4(!?)
22 <Ske2 £sxe4(?l) because of 23 ix e 4 #xe4
24 £sd4, although after 24...h6! 25 Seel 1i rh7
26 £sdxe6 fxe6 27 £sxe6 ih 4 ! 281i rxh4 Sxe6
White's advantage is insignificant. Things
are also not so dear after 22...id7 23 £sd4
i f 8 24 £sf5 ^ 8 25 Wi4 ®a5l, as well as the
immediate 2l...1ra5!? or 21...if8!?.
22 £sce2
The correct plan, as nothing was given by
22 £sxe6 fxe6 23 ^ 3 id8(f8). But now
173
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Black is slightly discomforted: £sxe6 is
threatened, and if 22..Jtf8?l or 22..JLd7?l,
then 23£sd3l.
22.. .£sxf3
Reluctantly exchanging this fine knight,
which was standing like a granite Tock in the
path of the b2-bishop.
23 gxf3
Necessary: afteT 23 ®xf3?! JLg4 24 ®d3
<£sxe4l 25 £sg3 (25 l ,xe4? i,f6!) 25...d5 26
£sxd5 £>xg3+ 27 hxg3 l.e2l 28 ®xe2 fbcdS it
is White who has to think of how to equalise.
‘Black has managed to block the f-file, but
White has acquired another trump - play on
the g-file. It is also important that now the
e4-pawn is securely defended.’ (Dokhoian).
23.. .b5
Preventing c2-c4, since after 23...Ad7 24
c4 ot 23...£lh5 24 £>xh5 Wxh5 (given by me
in Informator) 25 £tf4! ^ 6 (25...'irg5 26 c4)
26 ^xe6 fxe6 27 f4 White has slight but
enduring pressure.
24axb5 axb5 25 Ad4
Driving the queen off the fifth rank. There
was little to be gained by 25 £>d4 £shs
(25...itd7l?) ot 25 c4 £sh5l 26 £sxh5 fbchS 27
<5\f 4 # g 5 with drawing simplification.
25...i'c6
Dynamic equality would have been main­
tained by interposing 25...£>h5l, for example:
174
26 W 2 #g5 27 S g l Wh6 28 £sxe6 fxe6 29
&e3 #g7 30 £sd4 ®e5 or even 29...1rf8 30
£>d4 b4 31 £>xe6 Ah4l- But I was attracted
by a tactical idea - the sacrifice of my knight
on e4-
26% 2
Anand is alert to the idea: if 26 £)xe6 fxe6
27 £sf4, then 27...£sxe4! 28 1 ^ 4 (28 fxe4
®xe4+ 29 flf3 Sf8! etc.) 28...£sg5l 29 £sxe6
Wd7 with equality. And yet 26 Sfell? with
the idea of h2-h4-h5 was more active, or the
immediate 26 h4l, allowing 26...£)xe4l 27
fxe41^64+ 28 #g2! (28 &gl Sxc2l) 28...1,f5
29 £sg3 Wxg2+ 30 l4 ’xg2 Sxc2+ (not the
Informator 30..JLxc2(?) because of 31 £)d5!
^.xh4 32 jk.f6!) 31 &f3 fixcl 32 Sxcl ie 6 ! 33
£)xe6 fxe6 34 h 5 with the threat of Hc7-
b7xb5, but White is left with too few pawns
and Black retains Teal chances of a draw.
26.. .b4?
An oversight. 26..JLd7? 27 h4l iLd8 28 c3
and h4-h5 ot 26...£)d7?! 27 Aal! and £)d4
was also insufficient. The correct solution
was 26...Ad8, in OTder to parry 27 h4 by
27.. .d5l 28 e5 £sd7 and ...£)f8 with a more or
less solid defence.
27 £sg3?
With more time for thought than me,
Vishy again displays caution (this is not how
a Sicilian playeT acts!) and completely kills

his attack on the kingside. 27 <£sxe6 fxe6 28
£sf4 was far more energetic, when after
28.. .*f7 29 £sd3#b5(b7) 30 fla t not only are
Black’s king’s defences weak, but also his b4-
pawn (and after 29...‘4 ’g8 30 ^xb4 # b 7 31
£id3 e5 32 JLb2 he has no real compensation
for it). Both Anand and I thought that the
best reply was 28...e5(?) 29 £sxg6 hxg6 30
#xg6+ &h8 (30...*f8? 31 Sgl!) 31 S g l Sg8
32 #h6+ ^h7, but neither of us saw that
here White wins by 33 Bxg8+! ^xgS
(33-Sxg8? 34 ±xe5+) 34 Sgl+ &g5 35 ±e3
#c3 36 #h3! (the only way!) 36...Sf8 37
&xg5 #xf3+ 38 #xf3 fixf3 39 ±h6+! or
36.. .#xe3 37 #xc8+ &f7 (37-.<4 >g7 38 # g 4
and h2-h4) 38 #f5+ sfee8 39 #g6+!, etc.
Moreover, we both thought that 27 h4
had lost its strength because of 27...#b5, not
noticing 28 c4! bxc3 (otherwise h4-h5) 29
<5^xc3. In view of the threat of h4-h5 Black
would have had to give up the exchange for
a pawn - 29...Sxc3 30 ,&xc3 £sh5 31 £sxe6
fxe6 32 # g 4 #xb3 and engage in a depress­
ing fight for a draw.
27.. .#b5 28 £sxe6 fxe6 29 f4 e5! 30 ,&b2 (30
ice3 was more accurate, with equality)
30.. .5.5!
‘An excellent multi-purpose move - simul­
taneously defending and attacking.’ (Dok-
hoian).
Second Peak
31 f5?
Anand played this quite quickly (possibly
under the influence of 30...Sc5), making a
serious positional mistake. All the commen­
tators, myself included, recommended 31
£sf5 #06 32 £)h6+ &g7 33 £sf5+ with a
probable draw, but after 3l....&f8!? 32 fxe5
dxe5 33 S cdl # c 6 34 <^d6 Sd 8 35 Sxf6
Sxd 6 Black’s chances are nevertheless
slightly better.
31.. .g5!
This is the point! ‘The strongest and most
unexpected move in the game’ (MakaTy-
chev). ‘After shutting all his active pieces out
of the game, White has been left with typical
Sicilian weaknesses (the pawns on c2 and
e4). Strategically the game is decided: White
has no way of opposing the inexorable
strengthening of Black’s attack’ (Dokhoian).
At this point we each had about 10 min­
utes left. Glancing at my opponent, I saw his
face suddenly change. All was clear to An­
and! And since the time of our match I knew
that after a sharp change of scene he would
no longer be able to play at full strength...
32 Seel?!
VeTy submissive. If 32 #d2, then not the
Informator 32...g4(?!) because of 33 # h 6, but
simply 32...h6 or even 32...#c6!? 33 #xg5+
<&f7.
The best chance was 32 h4! with the idea
of 32...g4 33 £sh5 i ’hS 34 £ixf6 &xf6 35
#xg4 (35 S fdl # c 6!) 35„.Sxc2 (in Informa­
tor I assessed this in favour of Black) 36 Sgl!
# d 3 37 Sxc2 #xc 2 38 ± c l #xb3 39 &g5,
obtaining saving counterplay. 32...h6!?,
maintaining the tension, is probably
stronger. But in this case White could still
have held on, whereas now his position goes
rapidly downhill.
32.. .# c6 33 Se2 &f7! 34 ± c l S g8
34...h6 followed by ...Sc8 was also good,
but I had already prepared a counter-
175
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

offensive on the kingside. round, again playing Black, I escaped with

35 iLe3 (White’s position is also veiy difficult difficulty against Dreev, in the third I failed
after 35 2 fe l h5 36 £sfl g4, etc.) 35...2c3 36 to finish off Gelfand, and in the fourth I
£ d 2 (36 S a l h 5!) 36...Sxc2 37 Axb4 Hxe2 almost lost to Piket, who in a King’s Indian
38 Wxe2 employed a novelty with a pawn sacrifice (cf.
Game No.77 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on
Garry Kasparov, note to White’s 13th move).
By the free day after four rounds I had just
'plus one’ and was half a point behind the
leaders - Kramnik, Adams and Polgar. My
play was unimpressive, and I urgently
needed to break the sequence. The basis of
my winning run was laid by the game with
Predrag Nikolic.

Game 38
G.Kasparov-P.Nikolic
38.. .h5! Linares, 5th Round, 09.02.1997
‘The decisive resource. Now the bulwark Scotch Game C45
of White’s position - the e4-pawn - inevita­
bly falls, and with it his entire set-up col­ 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £>c6 3 d4 (to cheer myself up,
lapses.' (Dokhoian) the non-routine Scotch was chosen) 3...exd4
39 £bth5? 4 £ixd4 £if6 (4~JLc5 - Game No.14) 5 £ixc6
Time-tTouble confusion - the capture of bxc6 6 e5 We7 7 W e 2 £>ds 8 c4 i.a6
the pawn loses instantly! 39 S e l g4 40 &d2 The alternative is 8...£ib6 (Game No.6l).
(but not the Informator 40 1i rc4+(?) Ifxc4 41
bxc4 Sc8 and wins), was essential, although
even here after 40...h4 41 £rfl Sa8 with the
threat of ...Sa2 Black has an overwhelming
advantage.
39.. .£ixe4 40 Wf3 (40 Wg2 2h8!) 40...g4 41
Wg2 Sh8! 0-1
A knock-out: 42 £ig3 £ixg3+ or 42 f6 JLd8,
etc. ‘A brilliant finish, and quite a good claim
by Kasparov for victory in the tournament!’
(MakaTychev).

This loss sapped Anand’s energy, and he

emerged from a minus score only at the very 9b3
finish. As for me, such a striking win should In my game against I.Sokolov (Yerevan
have been inspiring, but I suddenly came to Olympiad 1996) I tried 9 g3 g6 10 b3 .&g7 11
a halt - I made three draws. In the second .&b2 0-0 12 JLg2 2fe8?! 13 0-0 with some

176
 Second Peak

advantage: if 13..Jb<e5 14 #xe5 #xe5 15 with sufficient counterplay (Rublevsky-Kar-

JLxe5 Bxe5 16 cxd5 ^.xfl 17 i ’xfl cxd5 there jakin, Poikovsky 2010).
is 18 f4! Be3 19 .&xd5 (with gain of tempo!) 12 £>d2
19-Bae8 20 £>d2, etc. But 12...Bae8 is more Natural development with the idea of
accurate: 13 0-0 A xe5 14 ®xe5 ®xe5 15 0-0-0 and h2-h4 or f2-f4. It is weaker to play
^.xe5 Sxe5 16 cxd5 ^.xfl 17 i ’xfl cxd5 18 12 JLg2?! Bae8 13 0-0 jLxeS, but the imme­
£>c3 (now if 18 f4 Se3 19 .&xd5 Black equal­ diate 12 h4 Bae8 13 'id ll, defending against
ises with 19...Sd3! 20 J.f3 Be8) I8...c6 with ..Jtxe5, is interesting.
an unclear and non-standard ending 12.. .f6
(Rublevsky-Nikolic, Polanica Zdroj 1996). 12...Sae8?l 13 0-0-0! is now not good for
9.. .g5!? Black. I2...£)b4!? is more critical - I judged
Ubilava’s aggressive move, which first 13 0-0-0 £>xa2+ 14 ^ b l <£)b4 15 h4 to be in
occurred in Kasparov-Anand (8th match White’s favour, but later I realised that after
game, New York 1995). Before that 9-0-0-0 15.. .d5 16 ex d 6 ( l 6 hxg5?l i.c 8 !) I 6 ...# x e 2 17
(Game No.70 in Part II of Carry Kasparov on A x e 2 cxd6 18 h xg5 A c 8 both sid es have
Cany Kasparov) or 9~.g6 (Game No.65) was ch an ces, a n d th e im m e d ia te 15....&C8! is
mainly played. even better, w ith th e id e a o f 16 h x g 5 d5 or
10 g3l? 16 £>e4 g 4 w ith equality.
10 h4l? (Palac-Giorgadze, Pula 1997) is However, instead of queenside castling,
also problematic, whereas my New York 10 13 £rf3! (threatening a2-a3) 13-C5 14 A g 2
i.a3 d6 11 exd6 1 ^ 2 + 12 i.xe2 i.g7l 13 d5 15 0-0 is stronger. It is hard to say how
cxd5 i.’xe2 14 4 >xe2 JLxal 15 S cl 0-0-0! 16 much weaker I2...f6 is than this move, but it
Bxc6 gave White only compensation for the allows White to begin pursuing the weak­
exchange and not an advantage. ened black king.
10.. .1.g7 11 i.b2

11 ...0 -0 ?!
After ...g7-g5 it is more logical to play
11...0-0-01, for example: 12 £>d2 £>b4 13 £>f3
Bhe8 14 a3 g4 15 £)h4 i.xe5 16 0-0-0 £ia 2+
17 4 >c2 W 6 18 i.xe5 Bxe5 19 ^ 2 Bde8
13 Wh5
Played in accordance with our analysis.
White has only a small plus in the endgame
after 13 exf6 #xe2+! (not the Informator
13-.^.xf6 14 1Srxe7 £)xe7 15 ^.xf6 Sxf6
because of 16 £>e4l S e 6 17 f3) 14 A x e l A x f 6

177
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
15 l.xf6 £ixf6 16 0-0 Bae8. But 13 0-0-0!?
fxe5 14 Wh5 or 14 h4 deserved considera-
tion.
13...£)b4
14 h4!
The crux of White’s plan. At this we con­
cluded our analysis, with the cheerful con­
clusion: White has a dangerous attack.
Whereas in the event of the timid 14 'A’dl?
Black would have seized the initiative:
14.. .fxe5! 15 a3 e4 16 axb4 &xb 2 17 2xa6
Sxf2 18 l.e2 e3 19 Ba2 (19 Bfl? fixfl+ 20
£ixfl #e4! and wins) 19...exd2 20 Bxb2 a5l,
etc.
14.. .g4
Avoiding the opening of the h-file. It also
made sense to offer the exchange of queens
- 14...®e8!?. After 15 ®xe8 2axe8 16 0-0-0
£)xa2+ 17 <&bl £)b418 £ie4 fxe5 19 Bxd7l (if
19 &-c3, then not the Informator 19...Bf3, but
19.. .2.8! 20 Sxd7 ±c8 21 Bxc7 ±f5 with
equality) 19...^.c8 20 Bxc7 ^.f5 21 iLg2 gxh4
(21...^d3? 22 jLa3) 22 Bxh4 Bd8 Black would
have equalised.
And yet 15 hxg5! WxhS 16 Sxh5 fxe5 17
<4>e2 with the intention of JLh3 would have
left White with the better prospects: 17...£)c2
18 Bel £)d4+ 19 JLxd4 exd4 20 Bel! or 17...e4
18 JLxg7 <4>xg7 19 .&h3 (my earlier 19 JLg2 d5
20 Bahl is also good) 19...d5 20 2h6.
178
15 & dl!
An unexpected reply, with the threat of
a2-a3, trapping the knight: now 15...fxe5? 16
a3 e4 no longer works because of 17 '8fxg4
£)d3 18 l.x d 3 exd3 19 B el Wf7 20 Bel and
®xg7+, winning the d3-pawn and the game.
15...C5 (or 15...1.b7 16 a3 c5!) 16 a3
16.. .£ic6?
Nikolic cracks under the pressure. Inter­
posing l6..JLb7l was far more resilient, for
example:
1) 17 B gl £)c6 18 iLd3 h6! (instead of
18.. .f5? 19 JLxf5, as given in Informator) 19
exf6 (in contrast to the position which could
have occurred in the game, the bishop has
moved from a6 and 19 ®g6 is now weak)
19.. JLxf6 20 ®xg4+ 'i ’hS 21 B el l f 7 22
±xf6+ ®xf6 23 B bl £ie5 24 1^2 £ixd3 25
Wxd3 1Brxf2 26 <4>c 2 Bae8 with a slightly
inferior, but perfectly acceptable game;
2) 17 axb4 l? ^.xhl 18 iLd3 - this ex­
change sacrifice was suggested by many
commentators, but after I8...h6 19 ®xg4!
(with the threat of f2-f3; the Informator 19
®g6 fxe5, allowing equality, is weaker)
19.. JLb7 20 exf6 Bxf6 21 Axf6 ®xf6 22 Ba5
cxb4 a lengthy battle lies ahead, and it is
unclear whether White will have any advan­
tage.
17 i.d3 f5?

The resistance would have been pro­
longed by I7...h6 18 #g6! (this is the whole
point: in pairying the threat of 1Srh7+ and
exf6, Black loses his bishop on a6!) I8...£ixe5
19 ^.xe5 (19 lh 7 + <4 >f7 20 S e l d6 21 ^.g6+
£ixg6 22 Bxe7+ £ixe7 is unclear) 19-fxe5 20
#xa6 e4l 21 ,&xe4! ii.xal 22 ,&xa8 Bxa8 23
Bel, exploiting the weaknesses in the oppo­
nent’s position: 23...#d6 24 #xd6 cxd6 25
Se4 h5 26 Se7 and £te4, or 23~ .lrf 6 24 Wb7
Bf8 2 5 # x c 7 lrxf2 2 6 l rd6.
18 £xf5 i.xe5 19 B e l d6
20 ice4l (the decisive stroke: 20..Jk.xb2? 21
£d5+) 20...iLb7
Also bad is 20...1rg7 21 ^.xc6 ^.xb2 22 Ba2
Bab8 23 Sxb2 #xb2 24 ^.d5+! <&h8 25 Se7,
when after 25...1ral+ 26 <&c2! #a2+ 27 &c3
^ a l a 28 &d3 'S,d4+ 29 &c2 the checks come
to an end.
2 1 #xg4+
Here there is already more than one way
to the goal - say, 21 f4(f3) or 21 jk.d5+ 'A’hS
22 f4- But I simply captured a pawn and
transposed into a won ending.
21..M%7 (if 2l...&h8, then White replies 22
£xc6 iLxc6 23 f4) 22 £d5+ <&h8 23 ^.xe5
dxe5 24 Wxg7+ ^xg7 25 £se4 Bad8 26 £ ixc 5
iLc8 27 Ba2!
The final touch, after which Black re­
signed (l-O).
Second Peak
In the meantime Polgar defeated Dreev
and became the sole leader - 4 out of 5.
Kramnik, Adams and I remained half a step
behind.
The next day I had Black against an ag­
gressively inclined Veselin Topalov.
Game 39
V.Topalov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 6th Round, 10.02.1997
Queen's Gambit D35
1C4
Earlier Topalov played only l e4 against
me, but in Las Palmas 1996 he suddenly
went 1 d4, and now - another surprise! After
some thought, I also decided to surprise my
opponent with a rare (for me) reply.
I...e6 2 4k3 d5 3 d4 ± e 7 4 cxd5 exd5 5 £ f4
6 e3 (6 Wc2 0-0 7 e3 c5l - Game No.72 in
K a s p a ro v vs. K a rp o v 1 9 7 5 -1 9 8 5 ) 6...^.f5i?
Ubilava’s gambit variation, which came
into fashion after the 12th game of my
fourth match with Karpov (1987). Before
that attention was focused on 6...0-0 7 £sf3
(Game No.74 in K a s p a ro v vs. K a rp o v 1 9 7 5 -
1 9 8 5 ) or 7 ^.d3 (Game No.14 in Part II of
C a r ry K a s p a ro v o n C a r ry K a sp a ro v).
7 Wb3
Topalov accepts the challenge. The insipid
7 £ige2 0-0 would have been a psychological
concession on White’s part (Game No.39 in
K a s p a ro v vs. K a rp o v 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 ).
7 - £ ic6
As I played this I feverishly tried to re­
member the variations with the sacrifice of
the b7-pawn.
If 8 Wxby, then 8...£ib4, and in numerous
analyses in the mid-1980s we did not find
any advantage for White after either 9 Bel
0-0 (Ubilava played this three times), or 9
^.b5+ 4^8 10 <^d2 a6 (Salov-Timoshchenko,
179
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Irkutsk 1986). Probably the most solid is 8 a3
£)a5 (Gavrikov-Ubilava, Tbilisi 1983) 9 #32!?
(an old idea of Timoshchenko, which was
first seen in Flear-Komeev, Nice 2000).
However, something unimaginable awaited.
8g4l?
‘This position was thoroughly studied
during the Karpov-Kasparov match (1985),
and 8 g4 was rejected by both teams of
trainers’ (Ubilava). Through surprise I fell
into a slight stupor: ‘Is it really possible to
play this?’ I wondered. It turns out that it is!
8...£ixg4!
8..JLc8 9 h3 is worse (Morozevich-Oni-
schuk, Reggio Emilia 2010/11), as is 8..JLxg4
(which I rejected intuitively, having decided
that the bishop should remain on f5) 9 #xb7,
and Black fails to equalise after either 9..Jtd7
10 ik.xc7 (Fridman-Azarov, Jurmala (rapid)
2012), or 9-..£>b410 Bel!, for example:
1) 10..Jtf5?! (Aleksandrov-Dobrowolski,
Warsaw (rapid) 2008) 11 a3! Sb8 12 #xa7
£ ic2+ 13 Sxc2 Ba8 (13...&XC2 14 ±xc7) 14
^.b5+ *f8 15 #xc7 -&xc2 16 £;ge2 with
excellent compensation for the exchange;
2) 10...Sb8 11 #xc7 #xc7 12 ±xc7 Sb7 13
JLe5 £)e4 14 f3 .&h4+ 15 .&g3 £)xg3 16 hxg3
Jbcg3+ 17 &d 2 i.f5 18 jtb5+ * d 8 (l8...<&e7?!
19 a3!) 19 £ige2 &d6 20 a3 £>a2 21 Scgl,
etc.
180
9 £sxd5?
A serious oversight. Black is also better
after 9 a3? (Aleksandrov-Azmaiparashvili,
Groningen 1997) 9..~&h4! 10 jLg3 0-0 or
10..JLxg3 11 hxg3 £>e7, while 9 #xb7 is
harmless in view of 9...£>b4 10 Ab5+ &f8 11
jLxc7 # c8 12 ,&c6 £sxc6 13 #xc6 Sb8 14
£sxd5 Sxb2 15 £sxe7 £sxf2! and ,..^d3+. But
9 #xd5! is stronger, for example:
1 ) 9-..#xd5 10 £ixd5 ±b4+ l l <^xb4 ^xb4
12 S cl c6 13 a3 (Wojtaszek-Onischuk,
Poikovsky 2012) or 10...0-0-0 11 ^xe7+ £ixe7
12 S cl £}d5 13 -&g3 (Najer-Azarov, Czech
League 2013), and in both cases White has
slightly the better endgame;
2) 9...#c8 (recommended by me after the
game) 10 #g2 0-0 (I0...£sf6!?) 11 e4 ( ll
0-0-0!?, Fridman-Prusikin, Bad Wiessee
2012) ll..Jtxe4!? 12 £\xe4 i.b4+ 13 £sc3!
# f5 14 JLe2 Bfe8? 15 <4Tl!, and White won
(Aronian-Kramnik, Monte Carlo (blindfold)
2011), but 14...h5! 15 #g3 £sxd4 is correct,
with two pawns for the piece and unclear
complications.
At any event, the 8 g4 thrust is currently
of interest and it leads to very complicated
play.
9 ...0 - 0 !
Playing for a lead in development. Per­
haps Topalov was expecting 9..Jte4 10
 Second Peak

£lxc7+ ^ f8 11 Jke2 jLxhl 12 ,&xg4 with 2) 13 # d l (a more resilient defence)

compensation for the exchange, or l l fB
£>xd4 12 exd4 #xd4 IB £>h3! i.b4+ 14 &e2
with wild play. But now the unpleasant pin
...jLe6 is threatened, and the assessment of
the position changes in Black’s favour.
10 Jkg2
Not 10 £>xe7+?! #xe7 11 i.e2 g5! or 10
jLxc7?! # d7 11 £ g 2 (11 £>xe7+? #xe7 and
wins) ll...^.e6 12 h3 (12 £>xe7+? £>xe7! 13
#xb7 ^.d5 and wins) 12...£>xe3! 13 fxe3
&h4+ 14 * f l Sac8 15 i-f4 £>a5 16 # d l
iLxd5 with an obvious advantage for Black.
10.. .1Lh4l (the bishop moves away with gain
of tempo) 11 Jig3
After 11 £>h3l? £ e6 12 0-0 £>xd4! 13 exd4
c6 Black would have regained the piece and
remained a pawn up, but it would appear
that this was the lesser evil for White.
11.. .£ e 6 12 & f l
Forced, alas. 12 £>h3(e2) £>a5 and ..JLxds
or 12 jLf3 a5! was bad for White.
13-..£>xf2 (simpler than 13...£>c4l? or
13.. .5e8!? with the threat of ...£>xf2) 14 4 >xf2
Ji.xd5 15 ^.xd5 (not the Informator 15
#h5(?) jk.g5 and wins) 15...#xd5 16 #f3
# d 8 17 S cl £>c6 or l6..JLxg3+ 17 hxg3
Sad8 18 Sh5 f5, and Black is a sound pawn
to the good.
13 £>h3 a 4 14 # c 4 £>a5 15 #c5?l
15 # e2 was essential, although after
15.. .6xg3 16 hxg3 £>xf2! 17 &xf2 £xd5 18
jLxd5 #xd5 19 £tf4 # d 6 Topalov would
have faced a difficult defence a pawn down.
15—b6!
The most forceful: White has no good
square for his queen, and he is forced to go
into a lost endgame.
16 £ x h 4 bxc5 17 £ xd 8 Haxd8!
17...Sfxd8!? 18 £>hf4 Sab8 also had its
points.

18 £>e7+
If 18 £>hf4, then I8...g5! is strong, since if
12.. .a5 19 £>xe6? fxe6 the f8-rook comes into play,
I was dazzled by the mass of possibilities. and after 19 £>e7+ 4 Ti8 20 £>e2 (20 h3?
12.. .5e8 was also tempting, but 12...£>a5! £>xe3+!) 20...cxd4 21 h3 (21 £>xd4 c5 or 21
was even better, for example: exd4 JLc4 is no better) Black decides matters
1) 13 ^.xh4 #xh4 14 #02 (given by me in with both the quiet 2l...£>e5 22 <5^xd4 2b8
Informator) 14...#d8! 15 £>c3 ^.c4+ 16 4>el 23 b3 c5 and ...axb3, and the sharp
# h 4 17 £>dl 2fe8 18 # d 2 £>c6 19 £>f3 2l...£>xf2l? 22 <4 >xf2 dxe3+ 23 i ’e l (23 &xe3?
#h5(h6) with an overwhelming advantage; 2fe8!) 23...2d2 24 £ e4 2b8, etc.

181
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

1 8 .. .6118 .19 d5 Ad7 2 0 2 c l 26.. .5b8 27 ^ e c6 Axc6 28 £sxc6 <£sxc6 29

Or 20 ^ g 5 Bb8. For an instant it appeared dxc6 a3l? (more forceful than the Informator
to Topalov that the worst was over for him. 29...Sbb2) 30 Bxc4 Sd2! and ...a3-a2 would
But even with his broken queenside pawns also have been decisive.
Black retains a terribly strong initiative: 27 <^ec6 Axc6 28 ^ x c6 ^ x c6
White’s downfall is caused by his retarded 28.. .£sb3l? 29 Sxc4 £sd2 30 Sd4 £sde4
development and the glaring weakness of would also have won, but the exchange of
his b2-pawn. knights is technically simpler, although it
20.. .C4 (whereas this is more of a strength!) allows White a potential chance in the form
21 £ig5 of his c6-pawn.
Also insufficient is 21 & e 2 Bb8 22 Sc2 29 dxc6 Bxe3
Bfe8 23 £ sc6 £ ixc6 24 dxc6 Af5 25 e4 (25 Here there were a good dozen ways to the
S d 2 a3l) 25-A xe4 26 Axe4 Ixe4+ 27 &f3 goal, from 29...fib2l? or 29..JSa81, to the
Sd4 28 B el f6, or 21 Bc2 Bfe8 22 d6 cxd6 23 forcing 29...‘£se4 30 Axe4 Bxe4 31 B hdl
£sd5 Bb8 24 £sg5 Af5 25 e4 (25 Bd 2 a3!) Sxe3 (3l...Be61?) 32 Sd7 Be6! (instead of the
25.. .Ag6 26 f3 £se5 and ...f7-f6. unclear Informator line 32...Bee2(?) 33 Sxc7
21.. .h6 (the immediate 21...Bb8! 22 Sc2 a3! Bxf2+ 34 &g3) 33 Bxc4 Bf6 34 Sxc7 Bfxf2+
23 bxa3 Aa4 was more energetic: 24 Bcl(c3) 35 '4,g3 Bfc2l, etc.
Sb2 or 24 Be2 c3!) 22 £lf3 30 B xc4
22 <£se4 was more resilient, although even White has acquired ephemeral counter­
here after 22...Bb8 23 Sc2 Bfe8 24 h3 £se5 play against the c7-pawn, and I became
things are bad for White. nervous.
22...Bb8 23 h3 24 <£sd4 (24 Bc2? did not
work because of 24...Sfe8 25 ®c6 ^ xc6 26
dxc6 Af5 27 Bd2 Ad3+ and ...£se4) 24...Bxb2

Black now has a completely won position,
but a few moves later I relaxed and began
‘performing miracles’.
25 Af3 (25 Sc2 fixc2 26 £sxc2 Se8 and wins)
25 ...Bxa 2 26 &g2 Be8
30.. .5b3
30...Se5! 31 B b l Bg5+ 32 <4>fl ^ 7 was
more accurate, not fearing 33 Sb7 in view of
33 -.Sal+ 34 & e 2 Ba5 35 Sxc7 a3 and wins.
31 Sd4 (if 31 B e l I was intending 3i...Sbb2,
and so I answered 31 Bd4 in the same way)
31.. .Bbb2
A loss of time. There was a quicker win by

182

31.. .g5! 32 h4 &g7 or 32 2d8+ &g7 33 Sc8
Saa3l 34 ^.d l S b l and ...<S^d5!-
3 2 S fl
Pursuing the c7-pawn by 32 2d8+ ^ h 7 33
S fl Sb5! 34 Sc8 did not help in view of
34.. .5a3l (threatening ...Sg5+) 35 h4 Sf5 36
^.d l Sc3 37 Sxc7 ^ d 5 38 Sa7 Sf6! (not the
Informator 38...a3(?) in view of 39 .&g4! Sf4
40 id 7 ) 39 S e l (39 Sxa4 £>f4+!) 39~.a3 and
wins.
32.. .5d2?
And this is already a mistake: Black should
not have allowed the exchange of his hyper­
active rook and moved it off the b-file,
thereby denying himself the ...Sb5 resource.
After the cool-headed 32...<£>h7! (32...Sb5 is
also not bad), White has no worthy alterna­
tive to the variation 33 Sd8 Sb5l 34 Sc8
Sa3! (cf. the previous note).
33 Sb4
33 Sxd2l? also deserved consideration:
33.. .5xd2 34 S a l Sd4 35 S b l (not the Infor­
mator 35 ^.dl? in view of 35-.a3l 36 ,&b3
Sd3 37 Sxa3 ^g8! and ...g7-g6, winning)
35-a3 36 Sb8+ &h7 37 Sa8 Sd3 38 Sa7
&g6 39 Sxc7 £)e8 40 Sa7 Sc3 41 Sd7 or
3 7 - ^ 5 38 Sxa3 £>f4+ 39 *£^3 with hopes
of saving the game a pawn down. At any
event, I have not found a clear win here.
33.. .6H7 34 Sb7 (34 Sb81? £)d5 35 -&e4+ g6
36 ^.xd5 Sxd5 37 Sc8 and Sxc7 is also
interesting) 34—^ e 8 35
The effect of time-trouble - White loses a
very important tempo. The only justification
for his 33rd move was 35 .&g4! a3l? (35-..'4>g6
36 £,d7 £>f6 37 Sxc7 £)d5 38 Sa7 £)e3+ 39
^ g l 4^xfl 40 c7 Sdc2, as given in Informa­
tor, is weaker in view of 41 2a6+! ^TiS 42
&c6) 36 ±d7 £)d6 37 Sxc7 Sac2 38 Sa7 a2
39 c7, still retaining chances of a draw:
39.. .6g6 40 JU4 Sc3 41 Sa6 or 39...g5 40
‘i ’g l &g6 41 £,a4 Sc3 42 S al.
35.. .g6
Second Peak
With the threat of ,..^d6-f5+, including
the knight in the attack on the king. 35...'4>g6
or 35-g5 would also have won.
36 2 e l£ )d 6 37Sxc7
37-.^g7!
37...Sxf2 was also good, but a quiet move
is always more unpleasant for an opponent
who is in severe time-trouble.
38 2d7 £)f5+ (38...Sac2l?) 39 &f4 Sxf2
And White lost on time (0-1). If 40 c7 Sac2
41 Se8 Sc4+ 42 ^ e5 Black easily wins by
both 42...Sxf3 and the simple 42...Sfc2.
After six rounds the leading group com­
prised Kasparov, Kramnik and Polgar - 41/ 2;
Adams - 4. But the ‘crunch’ seventh round
finally determined the two leading contend­
ers for first place: Kramnik beat Polgar, and I
won against Adams, who, like Ivanchuk in
Las Palmas, risked employing the Alekhine
Defence (cf. Game No.35, note to Black’s 4th
move).
After scoring three wins in a row I was
also eager for ‘blood’ in the eighth round,
playing Black against Ivanchuk, who was on
‘minus three’. And I achieved an excellent
position, but in a time scramble I over­
stepped the mark and allowed a very strong
tactical stroke. Yuri Vasiliev: ‘Kasparov was
crushed and dismayed. He lost on time in
183
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
what was now a completely hopeless posi­
tion. In an impotent rage Garry clenched his
fists, shook his head, as though wanting to
cast off a delusion, and again and again
cursed himself under his breath.'
Meanwhile Kramnik made a draw and
moved half a point ahead. The following day
I cleanly outplayed Judit Polgar, but my rival
defeated Dreev and maintained the status
quo. Two rounds before the finish Kramnik
had 7 out of 9, with me on 6'A.
In the tenth round my opponent was
Alexey Shirov - by general opinion a highly
inventive and brilliant player, but also
uncompromising, who sometimes allowed
himself to be caught by a counterattack. I
remember having a terrible night before the
game: in a local restaurant there was an
incredibly noisy wedding, and it was quite
impossible to sleep. That, however, did not
affect my fighting mood.
Game 40
A.Shirov-G.Kasparov
Linares,
10th Round, 15.02.1997
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 c5 2 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5
£} c 3 a6 6 JLe3 (Shirov’s usual plan against
the Najdorf Variation; 6 f3 Wb6 - Game
No. 76) 6...£)g4
At that time I used to play this more often
than 6...e5 (Game Nos.45,93), or 6...e6 7 f3 b5
(Game Nos.56, 58, 66, 74).
7 i.g 5 h6 8 i.h 4 g5 9 i.g 3 i.g 7 10 i.e 2 (10
Wd2 - Game No.54; 10 h3 - Game No.63)
10...h5 1 1 -&.xg4 i.xg4
This and the other opening moves were
made quite quickly by us. At that time I did
yet even contemplate ll...hxg4 (Game No.51).
12 f3 i-d 7 13 0-0
184
An attempt to improve on the play of both
Smirin - 13 .&f2 £}c6 14 £sd5 Sb8! (Game
No.32), and Anand - 14 ®d2 £}e5 (Game
No.116).
13...£>c6 14 i.f2 e6!?
Recommended by Bologan in the com­
mentary to his game with Ribli (Bundesliga
1996), where after l4...Sc8 15 £sd5 e6 16
£}xc6 (16 exf5l 17 -&b6 #xb6 18 £}xb6
JLxd4+ and ...^.xb6 is unclear) I6...2xc6 17
jLd4! White gained a slight advantage. He is
also better after I4...£se5 15 £sf5! (15 £sd5 is
less good in view of I5...e6! 16 £}b61&xb6 17
£>xe6 'Hfxf2+ and ...^.xe6) 15-..^.xf5 16 exf5,
and if I6...1*712ird7 17 £sd5 Sd8 (Zontakh-llincic,
Belgrade 1996), then 18 f4l gxf419 ^.h4.
15 ^ce2
If 15 £ sxc6 ^ . xc6 16 ^.d4 I was planning
16.. ..6e5!, when Black has a solid position
(which was confirmed in Short-Topalov,
Novgorod 1997). But Shirov, who was aiming
for a large-scale battle, avoided exchanges
and moved his knight from c3, in order to
play c2-c4(c3). 15 £>de2l? (Lanka-Rogozenko,
Kishinev 1998) was a good alternative.
15 .. .£se5 16 b3
Taking away a square not only from the
black knight, but also his own knight on d4,
which Black exploits. Therefore soon they
began trying 16 # d 2 (J.Polgar-Sutovsky,

Hoogeveen 1997) and 16 c3 (Socko-Vaulin,
St. Petersburg 1997).
16.. .g4! 17 f4 h4!
Unexpectedly the e5-knight is left en prise
and an attack on the king is threatened. This
upset ShiTov’s equanimity - he neveT liked
such scenarios.
18 i.e3
In the event of 18 c4?! g3! 19 hxg3 hxg3
(but not the Informator l9-®g4(?) because
of 20 1Srd3) 20 l.xg3 (20 <£ixg3 1^4) 20...®g4
21 #d2(d3) Wf6 Black seizes the initiative.
And after 18 fxe5 dxe5 19 c4 exd4 20 JLxd4
WgS 21 JLxg7 #xg7 22 ®d4 (there is noth­
ing better) 22...1Srxd4+ 23 <£ixd4 Sh5 he has a
comfortable Sicilian endgame.
18.. .h3 (as in Game No.ll6, fixing the pawn
on h2 and exposing the light squares close
to the enemy king) 19 g3 ^ c 6 20 Wd3 0-0
I prefer this to the computer suggestion
20...1rc7(a5) and ...0-0-0.
21 S a d i (21 <£ixc6 i.xc6 22 <£id4 ±d7 23
S ad i fs! would also have led to approximate
equality) 21...f5!
Opening lines, in oTdeT lateT to threaten
..Mg2 mate, and in the event of an endgame
to exploit the pawn wedge dn'ven into
White’s kingside.
22 C4
Carrying out his plan of setting up a bind.
Second Peak
If 22 #d2, then 22...b5. And 22 ®xc6 Axc6
23 #xd6?l (23 exf5 exf5 24 Wxd6? ^e8!)
23.. .®xd6 24 Sxd6 i.xe4 is altogether unfa­
vourable foT White.
22.J@ra5!
With an attack on the a2-pawn followed by
...Sae8. My Informator suggestion 22...1i re8(?!)
is less good because of 23 exfs exfs 24 ®c2.
23®c3
23 #d2l was more circumspect, forcing
23.. .1rxd2 (23...1ra3?! 24 <£ic3 is dubious) 24
Sxd2 Bae8 with the idea of ...e6-e5 and an
equal ending - thus, 25 exf5 e5! 26 fxe5
Axes 27 Jtf4 <^xd4 28 <£ixd4 l.xd4+ 29 Sxd4
Be2 immediately forces a draw.
23.. .5ae8
Aturning-point of the game.
24 Sfel?!
Allowing a thematic counter-stToke. ‘White
is forced to wait, and this is difficult! The last
five or six moves took Alexey more than an
houT, and he was beginning to run short of
time’ (Makarychev). The problems would
have been solved by the cool-headed 24 exfs!
exfs 25 ±f2 (Stohl).
24.. .e5l (played with pleasure, although also
afteT considerable thought) 25 <£)xc6?!
25 <£)de2 was more resilient, and if
25.. .exf4 26 gxf4 Sf7 (Stohl), then 27 i.f2!.
25.. .Axc6
185
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
The bishop has become fearfully strong,
and it is now hard to offer White any good
advice.
26 b4?!
Attempting to muddy the waters. A pawn
would have been lost after 26 fxe5 fxe4,
when 27 £)xe4? Wxe5! (instead of the Infor-
mator 27...Sxe5) is bad for White, or 26 £)d5!
exf4 27 .&xf4 Wxa2 (threatening ...Wg2
mate!) 28 Se2 (28 Sd2 Wa3!) 28...fxe4! 29
M e 3 Was (Stohl) 30 i.xd6 Sf3 31 Wg5 i.xd5
32 b4! Wb6+ 33 JLcS Wd8 34 Wxd8 Sxd8 35
Sxd5 Sxd5 36 cxds e3! 37 d6 <4f7 38 d7 A f 6 ,
when Black retains chances of a win, and
White of a draw.
26.. .Wa3!
I was wrong to condemn this continua­
tion - it is stronger than 26...Wxb4 27 S b l
fxe4 28 £)xe4 Wa5 29 ^ g 5 (but not the
Informator 29 £)xd6? exf4 30 £)xe8 fxg3!
and wins) 29...e4 30 We2 Wf5 31 S b d l with
some counterplay for the pawn.
27 b5 exf4 (it is too early for 27-fxe4? 28
Wxd6 with equality) 28 JLxf4 (28 bxc6? fxe3)
28.. .axb5
28...fxe4l? was also good: 29 Wxd6 (29
We2 axb5 30 <£sxb5 Wf3!) 29...Wxc3l (Infor­
mator gave only 29..Wxd6(?l) 30 Ji.xd6 AxcS
31 bxc6 ^.xel 32 ^.xf8, but even here there
are chances of success after 32..Ji.a5!) 30
186
bxc6 bxc6 31 Wg6 (31 Wxc6? JLd4+, while if
31 A e S , then simply 3l...Wxc4) 3l..Wf3! 32
Sd2 e3 33 Sde2 Se4 and wins.
29 cxb5 Wc5+?!
This allows White an additional resource.
29...Wxc3 30 bxc6 bxc6 would have led to a
technically won ending, for example: 31
Wxc3 A x e s 32 Jb(d6 jLxel 33 .&xf8 Sxe4 or
31 icxd6 Wxd3 32 Sxd3 Sxe4, etc.
30&e3?
It was essential to play 30 Se3 -&xe4 31
£.xd6! (31 Wxd6 Wxd6 32 i.xd6 ±c2 or 32
2xd6 Ji.f3 is rather worse - Stohl), and
although after 31...^.xd3 32 JbccS Sxe3 33
A xes ^.c4 34 iLd4 ^.h6! White has a difficult
endgame, he would still have a glimmer of
hope of saving the game.
30.. .Wxc3 (now it is all over) 31 bxc6 Wxc6
(31...bxc61?) 32 Wxd6 Wxe4 33 Wd5+ Wxd5
34 Ixd5 A c3 35 Se2 He4 36 S f2 (36 Hd3
A f 6 37 r^ f l Sfe8 or 37 Sed2 f4! did not help)
36.. .5.e8 37 Sd3 i.f6 38 Sed2 (38 Hel f4l)
38.. .Hxe3l 0-1
‘Inspired play!’ (Makarychev).
After this win I caught up with Kramnik
(he quickly drew with Anand). We now had
7V2 out of 10 - one and a half points more
than our closest pursuers.
Mikhail Gurevich: ‘The last round became

the culmination of Linares 1997. The fate of
the first two places in this exceptionally
prestigious tournament was decided in the
game between the two leaders. I am sure that
money was not the main thing at stake in
this game: it was not the Suzuki jeep or the
$10,000 difference in the prizes that the
players were thinking about before the start.
Above all it was a battlefor prestige!’
In the event of a draw and a share of first
place, the tournament winner was to be
decided not by the Berger coefficient, but
simply by discarding the results against the
player who finished last. Before the 11 th
round this player was Shirov, who had lost to
me and drawn with Kramik. Therefore in his
game with me it seemed that Kramnik
should be satisfied with a draw (in the
course of the round, however, everything
was turned on its head: Shirov was caught
by Piket, and now it was I who could be
satisfied with a draw), but I was aiming to
win ‘to order’ against this difficult opponent,
against whom I had an equal score in ‘classi­
cal’ play: 2-2 with seven draws.
Came 41
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Linares,
11th Round, 16.02.1997
Nimzo-lndian Defence E59
ld 4
In the preceding rounds I played only l e4,
but that day I was afraid of the drawing
tendencies of the Petroff Defence, which my
opponent had in fact just begun employing
(Hubner-Kramnik, Frankfurt (rapid) 1996).
I...£sf6 2 c4 e6
A surprise! Of course, Dokhoian and I had
prepared for Kramnik’s usual openings - the
Meran (Came No.27) and the King’s Indian
Second Peak
which occurred in Las Palmas 1996. But the
Nimzo-lndian had not previously occurred in
his games. It is probable that my opponent’s
second, Sergey Dolmatov, had this flexible
defence in mind when before the game he
expressed his confidence: ‘Volodya will make
a draw’.
Incidentally, from his youth Kramnik was
a splendid psychologist and he always
keenly sensed his opponent’s state of mind.
Thus here, feeling that I was bursting with
energy, instead of sharp variations he delib­
erately chose an opening of which he even
had less knowledge, merely in order to avoid
a direct confrontation and not allow me a
clear initiative.
3 £k3 i-b4 4 e3
A surprise in reply, which took me just
five minutes (after the game with Ivanchuk I
forced myself to play more quickly). My
opponent was probably expecting 4 ^c2, my
usual move at that time (Came Nos.4, 68, 90,
91, 97,106).
4.. .0-0 (4...C5 5 £*e2 - Game No.39 in Part I of
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 5 iLd3 c5
(5...d5 - Game No.26 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 6 £sf3 d5 7 0-0
An old ‘modem variation', which had then
again come into fashion, largely thanks to
the efforts of Yusupov.
7.. .£ sc6 (7...cxd4 - Game No.69) 8 a3 .&xc3 9
bxc3 dxc4
On encountering a surprise, Kramnik fol­
lows the main line. Later he successfully
played 9...Wc7, as I also once chose, but after
10 # 02, having restricted White’s options, he
returned to the main line - 10...dxc4 11
&xc4 e5 12 &d3 (12 &a 2 ±g4!) 12 ...Se8
(Game No.52).
10 £ xc 4 Wc 7
A well-known tabiya of the Nimzo-lndian
Defence, where initially l l a4 was played,
and sometimes 11 .&e2(b5), but mainly 11
187
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
,&d3 or l l iLb2 (cf. Game N0.52, note to
White’s 10th move). Although I had not
previously employed this variation, I had
done a little analysis of one of the compara­
tively rare lines...
11 JLa2
‘In order to conclusively take the oppo­
nent away from his analysis’ (Makarychev).
In playing this, I was hoping that in an
unfamiliar situation my opponent would
feel uncertain and would play cautiously
where he needed to show more initiative.
That was indeed what happened, and after
White’s success in this game the popularity
of the variation rose sharply.
Here Kramnik thought for a long time: he
was obviously not prepared for this turn of
events.
11.. .b6
A rare move - and precisely in the spirit of
'avoiding a direct confrontation’. In Gelfand-
Korchnoi (Horgen 1994), a game played
before my very eyes, the topical ll...e5 12 h3!
occurred, and after 12...b61? 13 ®c2?l e4 14
£sg5 -&a6 Black seized the initiative (Game
N0.46 in Part V of My Great Predecessors).
Later after 12 h3 Dokhoian and I looked at
the old reply 12...e4 and the currently fash­
ionable 12..JLf5, but mainly Korchnoi’s
12.. .b6, after which the main reply became
188
13 d5l e4 (I3...fid8 14 e4, Iskusnyh-Goldin,
Elista 1995) 14 dxc6 exf3 15 1Srxf3 .&e6!?
(after 15...We5 or l5..JLa6 White also has a
small plus) 16 ,&xe6 fxe6 17 c4 2ac8 18 jLb2
#xc6 19 Wxc6 2xc6, holding this somewhat
inferior endgame (Yakovich-Tiviakov, Elista
1997).
12 S e l (there is nothing for White to invent:
he needs to prepare e3-e4) I2...e5
Black nevertheless needs to attack the
centre - 12..JLb7?l 13 e4 £se7 14 iLbl, etc., is
too dangerous for him.
13 e4
The most natural, after which Kramnik
again stopped to think. No more was prom­
ised by 13 h3 e4 14 £sd2 (Knaak-Korchnoi,
Baden-Baden (rapid) 1995) 14..Jta6l? or 13
d5 e4 14 dxc6 exf3 15 ®xf3 &.e6 (Yakovich-
Aleksandrov, Krasnodar 1997).
13...i.g4?!
Not a very successful novelty: Kramnik
decided not to open the position, fearing the
power of the white bishops. But it would
have been better to play I3...cxd4 14 cxd4
exd4l (I4...i.g4?! 15 d5! £sd4 16 .£±>2, Gulko-
Antonio, Bled Olympiad 2002) 15 -&g5 .&g4
16 &xf6 gxf6 17 h3 £xf3 18 1 ^ 3 # e5 19
S ad i Sac 8 with equality (Knaak-Cs.Horvath,
Dresden 1988) or 15 e 5!? £sd7 16 e 6 fxe6 17
JLxe6+ (17 Sxe 6 ^ 8 18 £>xd4 £sxd4 19

#xd4 £ sc5 20 2h6 i.f5 21 i.f4 Sad8 ot 20
Sd6 <S^e4 is equal) 17...<ili8 18 ®xd4 £sxd4
19 l rxd4 £sc5 20 .&a2, and if 20....&b7?, then
21 JLb2 Bad8 22 Wh4 with an attack, al­
though afteT 20..Jk,e6! (we had not seen this)
21 jLxe6 £sxe6 things head foT a draw - 22
Sxe6 Sad8!.
14 dxc5!
White aims to create scope for his bishops
and for the sake of this he disregards the
academic advantage after 14 d5 £sa5 15 c4
ot 15 h3 (I spent a very long time calculating
the variation 15 d6?l # d 8 16 h3 iLxf3 17
gxf3, but in the end I rejected it because of
the radical 17...£se81? 18 f4 ®xd6 or 18 ®d5
<S^xd6 19 Wxe5 £sdc4).
14—bxc5 15 h3 Sad8 16 W e 2
I6 ...i.xf3
‘The TetTeat l6..Jth5?! is dubious in view
of the constant threat of shutting this
bishop out of the game by g2-g4 and ®d2’
(Kramnik). Both 17 S b l and 17 -&g5 are
good, as well as the immediate 17 g4 ,&.g618
£sd2.
17 # x f3 Sd6
An interesting attempt to dig himself in -
both defending the knight on f6 (in the
event of JLg5) and preparing ...Sfd8.
18 i.g 5
After my Informator recommendation 18
Second Peak
Jte3 there is the Teply I8...®a5! with the
idea of shutting in the a2-bishop with ...c5-
c4 and exploiting the weakness of the a3-
and c3-pawns (19 S ab i Sd3). But 18 Sbl!?
did indeed deserve consideration.
AfteT obtaining two bishops against two
knights I overestimated the benefits of my
position. ‘Having worked for several years
with Garry, I know how much he respects
bishops. He likes to repeat the joke: “The
worst bishop is stronger than the best
knight!”. But in every joke there is a dose of
truth. The champion is able to manoeuvre
skilfully with bishops with the aim of
activating them’ (M.Gurevich).
However, in my joy I was unable to find a
precise plan foT building on my advantage
and soon I lost the thread of the game.
I8...h6 19 ^.h4 (after ...Ti7-h6,19 ^.e3 is also
interesting - Stohl) 19—Sfd8 20 S a b i
‘Gradually White finds work for all his
pieces, in leisurely fashion planning an
attack on the c5-pawn.‘ (Dokhoian).
20...£se7
According to Gurevich, ‘Black has a prob­
lem in selecting a plan, since his knights
have no central strong points: 20...Sd3?! 21
Se3 ot lO-JPaS?! 21 Sb7 Sf8 22 Sdl! with
the initiative’ (this is stronger than my
Informator line 22 S eb l ®xa3 23 ^.d5).
189
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

21 JLc4! (here the bishop is operating on
both wings; 21 #g3?! g5!) 21...^c8
‘For one of his knights Vladimir has found
a defended square - b6, where it blocks the
b-file and aims at the a4- and c4-squares’
(M.Gurevich). In the event of 21...£ig6 22
Jtg3 Sd2 23 #f5 or 22...Sb6 23 #f5 ‘i fS 24
h4! h5 25 &.e2 White would have retained
pressure.
22 4g3?l
Alas, a blank shot. None of the commen­
tators pointed out the better chance 22
iLd5! <£ib6 23 c4 with a small but enduring
advantage for White.
22...£ib6
bishops: 30 Sxd7 £ixd7 31 #xd7 #xd7 32
ix d 7 Sd8 33 i.c6 Sdl+ 34 ^ h 2 f6 35 f4 exf4
36 ^.xf4 a5 with equality.
23.. .5e6 24 a4 c4 25 # e 2 (of course, not 25
Sedl? Sxdl+ 26 S xdl £ic8! and ...£id6)
25.. .5d3
Not 25...a5 26 Sb(e)dl. For the moment
Kramnik defends tenaciously, exploiting my
imperceptible error on the 22nd move.
26 a5
‘Aiming to cramp Black and disrupt the
coordination of his pieces. The key moment
of the game has been reached.’ (M.Gurevich)

26.. .£ ic8?
It was essential to play 26...£ibd7 27 Sb4
23 £b5l? (27 S eel Sed6) 27...Sxc3 28 #32! (not giving
With the idea of a3-a4-a5. ‘White goes in up the a5-pawn) 28...£if8! (not the Informa-
for a sharpening of the play: now after ...c5- tor 28...#d6(?) 29 Sxc4 or 28...Sxg3(?) 29
c4 his light-squared bishop is in danger of Sxc4) 29 Sxc4 (if 29 ^ 2 there is the pretty
being cut off from the main army’ (Dok- reply 29...Sd6! 30 ^.xe5 <£ig6! or 30 f3 <£ih5)
hoian). Instead, Yuri and I recommended 23 29.. .5xc4 30 Jtxc4 Sc6 with a slightly infe­
£e2 Sd2 24 #f5 ®fd7(?!) 25 S b d l with rior (nevertheless the knights are somewhat
advantage to White, not noticing the reply weaker than the bishops!) but acceptable
24...Se8!, when nothing is given by 25 S bdl position.
(Stohl) 25...Sxdl (25...Sc2l?) 26 Sxdl c4, 25 27 Sb4 Sxc3 28 Sxc4?
iLh4 Se6 o r25f4^fd7. Returning the favour. We both overlooked
23 .M l (Kramnik) 23...Sd2 is equally un­the veiled threat 28 #b2!, for example:
clear, when after 24 a4 <£ixa4 25 # f5 <£>d7 26 28.. .5b3 29 Sxb3 cxb3 30 S cl # b 7 31 ±c4
i c 4 Sf8 27 S ed l Sxdl+ 28 S xdl £iab6 29 Sc6 32 ±xe5 <£ie7 33 Sc3 with an over­
Jtb5 Se8! Black repels the assault by the whelming advantage, or 28...Sxg3 29 ^.xc4!

190

Bc6 30 fxg3, when 30...Sxc4? 31 Sxc4 #xc4
32 S cl is bad for Black, while after 30...#xa5
31 <4b2 4^d6 32 Ad5 or 30...<4b7 31 i.d3
#xa5 32 <4+12 White has every chance of
converting his advantage of the exchange
for a pawn.
28...&XC4 29 #xc4
29...®b8?
‘At the elite level - a decisive mistake’ (Dok-
hoian). Already in time-trouble, Kramnik
rejected a depressing endgame.- 29...#xc4 30
1.XC4 Sc6 31 Bel! 4T8 32 ix e 5 £>xe4 33
,&b2, when the bishops dominate the knights.
But he should have eliminated the last
white pawn on the queenside - 29...#xa5!
30 # xc 8+ 4 b 7 31 S b l Hb6 (Dvoretsky),
regaining the piece: 32 # c4 a 6 33 #xf7
fixb5 or 32 #f5+ 4g8 33 # x e 5 a 6, etc. True,
after 32 <4h2! Sxb 5 33 S cl Sb 6! 34 #f5+ g 6
35 # c 8! 4g7 36 # d 8! Black would still have
had to work hard to gain a draw: 36...Sb5 37
# e 7 # b 4 38 #xb4 Sxb4 39 .&.xe5 or 36...Sa6
37 Sc7 £sxe4 38 # e7 #d5 39 ±xe5+ £sf6 40
f4, etc.
30#c5 £sd6 31.&d3
‘Black’s position begins to go rapidly
downhill: without any counterplay, it be­
comes impossible for him to defend his only,
but very vulnerable weakness on a7.’ (Dok-
hoian).
Second Peak
31.. .£>d7
If 3l...£sb7, then 32 S b l 4i}xc5 33 Sxb8+
4 b 7 34 i c 4 Sc6(e7) 35 f3 is strong.
‘3l...«b7 32 a6, 3l...#a8 32 f3 or 3l...#b3 32
Se3! is also insufficient’ (M.Gurevich).
32 # a 3 (32 #c6!?) 32...£sf8 (32...£ib5 33
# 3 4 a6 34 A c4, etc.) 33 S b l # c 7 34 S c l
# d 8 35 a6
‘A favourite Kasparov technique with the
help of which he has won more than once’
(M.Gurevich). 35 #c3(c5) was also good.
35 .. .^>g6 36 # c 5 Se7 37 f3 £se8 38 i f l Sc7
39«e3
Before the time control I endeavoured to
play solidly, otherwise I would have chosen
39 #a5! # e7 40 Sxc7 £ixc7 41 i c 4 or the
pretty 41 Af2 ^ e 6 42 f4l! exf4 (42...4^exf4 43
#c5l) 43 # d 5 f3 44 g3! and wins.
39‘..Sd7 40 <4h2 (40 #c5 or 40 h4! was more
forceful) 40...Se7?! (40...#b8 41 if2!) 41
Sc6
41 Sbl! with the threat of Sb7 was more
quickly decisive.
41.. .4H7 (4l...Sd7 42 #c3!) 42 # cl? ! (42
#c5! - Stohl) 42...£\c 7 43 #c3 #d7 44 Sc5
#d6 45 Af2 (45 h4l?) 45...£se6?! (45...#dl
was more resilient) 46 Sd5
Now it is all over.
46 .. .# b 8 (46...# c7 47 #xc7 Sxc7 48 ‘i g l
was also hopeless) 47 Sb5! #d6 48 Sb7 ^d4
191
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

49 # b 4 (49 i.e3!?) 49...#f6 (49..#xb4 50 increase my rating to 2820, but also to

fixb4 Sc7 51 ^.e3 and wins) 50 #c5?! repeat my finishing spurt at Belfort 1988 (6
50 #33!, covering the e3-square, was out of 7, without draws) and establish an
more accurate. unusual record - 5 out of 5 against the
players occupying 2nd-6th places!
Linares 1997 was an important landmark
in my chess career: I was able to demon­
strate my superiority over the stars of the
young wave. In an interview soon after­
wards I said:
‘For the first time in many years I have bro­
ken away from the main elite group in terms
of my contribution to chess. After Las Palmas I
already had the feeling that with the opening
and general chess preparation accumulated
over a year I could make a new surge. Now
the collection of ideas has become so great
50.. .£k6?! that I have moved ahead in many directions.
Kramnik’s last chance was 50...#f4+!, and And here this showed itself! This was how it
if 51 ^.g3?! #e3 52 #c4, then 52...Se6! 53 was in the late 1980s, when between me and
# d 3 (the pawns are taboo: 53 Sxa7? ^xf3+ the rest of the elite there was a gulf in the
or 53 Sxf7 Ec6!) 53..#cl 54 JLf2 £sf4, when understanding of chess, and in work. But this
the outcome is unclear. 51 ^ g l! Se6 (there disappeared in the early 1990s, when I did
is nothing else) 52 jLxd4 exd4 53 #xd4 £)e5 little work on chess.
54 Sb3l £>c6 55 # e3 is correct, panying the ‘In order to restore this lead, I needed a
attack and calmly converting the extra year of work. Yuri Dokhoian, Alexander
pawn. Shakrov and myself - this is our small but
51 Jk.e3 (51 JLc4!?) 51...Se6 52 Jk.c4 Se7 united team, plus three computers. From
(52...Sd6 53 Sxf7) 53 &d5! sometime early in 1995 we built up a new
‘The main target is the a7-pawn, and chess base, and in Las Palmas I knew that it
White is not diverted by brilliancy such as 53 was ready. At that time I was not yet able to
ilxf7 Sxf7 54 Sxf7 #xf7 55 #xc6, winning. play at full strength, but the regeneration
The entire game is a textbook example on was in progress. And in Linares it occurred!'
the theme of consistently, slowly and persis­ To the question, who is now the No.2
tently improving the placing of the pieces, player in the world - Anand, Kramnik or
especially the bishops! A bishop adagio...’ Topalov - I replied: ‘To all appearances,
(M.Gurevich) Kramnik, although on sum of successes any
53 .. .£id 4 54 Sxa7 Sxa7 55 # x a 7 £se7 (this of the three could claim to be considered
is now through inertia) 56 iLc4 h5 57 # c5 No.2. But this does not mean that each of
1-0 them would be able to win a match against
Karpov, because match play is a quite differ­
This victory enabled me not only to win ent matter.’
the tournament with a ‘plus five’ result and I also touched on the forthcoming match

192
 Second Peak

with Karpov: ‘Here everything rests on my in my second match with the computer Deep
own moral obligations: I think that the world Blue - 2V2SV 2 (New York, 3-11 May 1997).
champion should defend his title every two The colossus was shaken! And no wonder:
years. Who should I now play against? For the throughout the spring I had been engaged
public today I simply have no other opponent not in chess, but in politics - I was helping
than Karpov: after all, he is the FIDE world general Alexander Lebed; we even created
champion, having won a certain parallel the ‘Third Force' coalition...
cycle. But now, after missing Linares, he is Yuri Vasiliev: 'As one well-known grand­
simply obliged to win the very strong tour­ master joked, the match with Deep Blue
nament in Dos Hermanas...’ slightly spoiled the champion’s brand. The
However the Dos Hermanas tournament sporting world is so arranged, that previous
in April 1997 produced a different outcome: successes, even the most prestigious, are
1-2. Anand and Kramnik - 6 out of 9; 3-5. instantly forgotten, if you stumble even only
Salov, Karpov and Topalov - 5, etc. It is note­once. A 'document verification’ o f the world
worthy that after Karpov lost to Kramnik in champion was expected, or more precisely - a
the third round, I received from Las Palmas a verification of his ‘human face’: had not his
completely new proposal - to play a match creative face been changed beyond recogni­
with the winner of a match-toumament of tion by the skirmish with the monstrous force
four or six leading grandmasters! from the other world? Was this the same
Of course, I supported this idea: who person as in Las Palmas and Linares?
would dispute the legitimacy of such a chal­ ‘Whereas in New York, Kasparov was tested
lenger? And at the end of Dos Hermanas, by Deep Blue, in Novgorod the challengers
senor Rentero, the ‘father’ of Linares, also were intending to arrange a quality control
made a suggestion: instead of the usual of the champion. Would he pass it? Garry did.
tournament, the following year he proposed Descending on to the stage o f the ‘Lord
staging a four-cycle match-toumament of Novgorod the Great’ from the unearthly,
the four leading grandmasters in the world, dizzying heights of the battle with the elec­
and he named me, Kramnik, Anand and tronic monster (there it was a completely
Topalov, i.e. the top four on rating. different nervous tension and a completely
Nevertheless, the hope of organizing a different game), the champion as though
match of the ‘two Ks’ remained until mid­ infected his opponents with some kind of
summer. unknown virus: it is probable that none of the
participants will remember such a parade of
Quality Control of the Champion mistakes and crazy oversights! Initially the
Double-Round Super-Tournament in Nov­ number of decisive games was simply fright­
gorod (10-23 June 1997): l. Kasparov - 6V2 ening! White was rampant: after the first
out of 10; 2. Kramnik - 6; 3. Short - 5; 4. cycle he was leading lO -ll’
Bareev - 4V2; 5-6. Topalov and Gelfand - 4. Again, as four months earlier in Linares,
my main rival was Vladimir Kramnik. At the
The Novgorod ‘tournament of six’, which start he suffocated his contemporary Topa­
reached category 20, a record for Russia, lov in the style of the young Karpov, while I
provoked a particular stir, since before it I won an instructive game against Boris
suffered an absurd and highly painful defeat Gelfand.

193
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

6.. .dxc4
Came 42 A very sharp variation of Igor Zaitsev’s,
G.Kasparov-B.Gelfand which Gelfand had taken up. Instead of the
Novgorod, conventional 6...Jtb4+, Black suddenly
1st Round, 11.06.1997 sacrifices the exchange!
Queen’s Indian Defence E l5 7 £le5 (it is not obvious that the gambit 7
bxc4 A xc4 8 0-0 is correct: 8...±d5 9 ^c3
l d4 (I decided to avoid a discussion in the i.b7, Ivanchuk-Gelfand, Linares 1990)
Sicilian Najdorf) l...£sf6 2 c4 e6 7.. .Ab4+ 8 4 f l
And my opponent rejected his usual Not trusting 8 iLd2 cxb3 (K.Grigorian-
King’s Indian or Meran. It is possible that Zaitsev, Baku 1980), White goes in for the
Boris (an expert on the Nimzo-lndian with loss of castling. Now he will have a choice: to
White) had prepared some improvement for capture material in the hope of enduring
Black in my recent game with Kramnik Black’s activity, or restore pawn equality and
{Game No.4l). remain with a powerful centre, but with a
3 £}f3 b6 4 gB (I far more often played 4 £*c3 ‘bad’ king on fl.
or 4 a3) 4...i.a6 5 b3 d5 8.. .11.6
Diverging from the highway of my In the event of 8...c6?! (Kurajica-Karpov,
matches with Karpov - 5...^.b4+ 6 Ad2 &e7- Bugojno 1980) 9 £ixc6! <£ixc6 10 Jtxc6+ 4 e7
But Dokhoian and I had looked at the 11 iLxa8 ®xa8 12 f3 (Magerramov-T.Hor-
Queen’s Indian at a summer training session vath, Tmava 1981) or 8...<SMd7?l 9 a3! (in­
in 1996, and I had some knowledge of it. stead of the modest 9 £ixc4 c6 10 &b2,
6 i.g 2 Karpov-Timman, 8th match game, Kuala
If 6 cxd5 exd5 7 JLg2 I could have ex­ Lumpur 1990) 9..~&e7 10 £sxf7! 4xf7 11
pected 7..~&b4+ 8 i.d2 Jlxd2+ (or 8... JLd6(e7) JLxa8 c6 12 <S^d2 (Su.Polgar-Psakhis, Aruba
- the current fashion) 9 #xd2 0-0 10 £)c3 1992) Black does not have sufficient com­
2e8 11 0-0 ( ll £se5l?) H...£)e4 12 <£sxe4 pensation for the exchange.
dxe4 13 £sg5 £}c6 with equality (Eingom- 9 £ ) xc 4
Gelfand, Moscow 1990; Beliavsky-Gelfand, Things are now unclear after 9 £sxf7 (9
Linares 1993). Axa 8?l Jb<e5) 9...4xf7 10 Jtxa 8 c6 11 bxc4
l.xc4 12 £sd2 ±d5 13 f3 e5 14 e4 ±e6.
White’s advantage is also slight in the event
of 9 £sd2 £sbd7 (but not 9~Jb<e5? 10 dxe5
£)g4 l l iLb2 or 11 T13, Ivanchuk-Motwani,
Manila Olympiad 1992) 10 <Sk6 #08 11
£ sxc4 ±b7 12 1 ^ 3 <£)b8 13 £)6e5 0-0 14 ± b 2
Jke7 (Maslak-Tomashevsky, Moscow 2008).
9.. .^d5 (Black plays the opening somewhat
anti-positionally, but on the other hand
actively, relying on his better development)
10 e4
This is how I played three weeks earlier
against Atlas in a clock simultaneous

194

(Catonsville 1997). If 10 J.f3 there is 10...f5,
maintaining the knight on d5. 10 #(12 £sc6
(lO..Jtb4!?) 11 £sxd6+ cxd6 12 £sc3 £sce7 13
£sxd5 £>xd5 is also harmless (Nikolic-
Gelfand, Tilburg 1990), while 10 ilb2 (Len-
gyel-Zaitsev, Graz 1979) 10...£ic6! (I0...f5 11
£sc3l) 11 e4 £>de7 could have led to a simple
transposition of moves.
I0...£se7 l l i.b 2 £sbc6 12 £sbd2
The position looks favourable for White -
he only needs to bring his king’s rook into
play as soon as possible. But in fact things
are not so simple: Black can attack the
strong pawn centre.
12 ... 0-0
Atlas replied I2...e5 13 d5 £>a5?l, but after
14 ^ g l (14 Sell?, Andreikin-Tomashevsky,
Noyabrsk 2005) 14...£sxc4 15 £sxc4 Jb<c4 16
bxc4 0-0 17 ^.h3l and &g2 White retained
some advantage. Later I myself successfully
tried the pawn sacrifice 13...£»d4 14 £»f3 (if
14 J.xd4 exd4 15 £^3, I was intending
15 .~i.c5 16 £sxd4 0-0 17 ^>gl?! c61, but 14
^ g l c5 15 f4l? is more interesting) 14-C5 15
<&gl (15 i.h3l? and <&g2) 15...^.xc4 16 bxc4
0-0, and Black is more or less okay (Huzman-
Kasparov, Tel Aviv (simuT) 1998).
13 ^ g l b5 (the moment for ...e6-e5 has been
missed: after 13...e5 14 d5 £>d4 15 .&xd4
exd4 16 £sxd6 #xd6 17 £>c4 ^.xc4 18 bxc4 c5
Second Peak
19 f4 Black is too passive) 14 £sxd6
A novelty. At the least 14 £»e3 is no
weaker, and if 14...f5?l (Burger-Petursson,
Reykjavik 1986), then 15 S cl or 15 £M3!,
exploiting the holes in Black’s position. In
Informator I recommended 14...e5 15 d5
£sd4 16 £»f3 c5 17 dxc6 £»dxc6, but after 18
S cl jtb7 19 h4 White’s position is the more
promising.
14.. .cxd6 (I4...#xd6?l 15 e5 and £se4) 15 h4!
Since 15 d5 £>e5 16 £»fl b4 is slightly
premature, when Black has counterplay
associated with the d3 point, I pushed my h-
pawn forward, and this ‘psychic attack’ was
crowned with success!
15.. .#b6
If 15...Sc8, then 16 h5 h6 17 Sh4!, solving
the problem of the rook’s development. But,
taking into account the energy which the
bishop on b2 soon develops, I5...d5l? de­
served consideration.
I6h5!?
With the queen on b6, the immediate 16
d5l (16 £sf3 d5!) was good: I6...£sd4 17 <&h2
or I6...£»e5 17 £rfl b4 18 jtd4 (moving the
bishop away from ...£»d3 with gain of
tempo) I8...#a5 19 £»e3 ^ d 3 20 f4 with the
initiative. However, it was after my reckless
move that Gelfand faltered.
16...H6?
195
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
‘Black avoids a direct battle. He should
have taken a risk - I6...<£jxd4, although after
17 h6 g6 18 £ jc4 £se2+ 19 Wxe2 bxc4 20 JLf6
the ‘draught’ along the long diagonal guar­
antees White sufficient compensation for
the pawn’ (Dokhoian). But after 20...<£ sc6 or
20 JLg7l? 2fc8 21 ®f3 £sc6! Black has no
grounds for particular disquiet. That, how­
ever, is also the case after 18 <£jf3 ®xf3+ 19
1 ^ 3 f6! (instead of my Informator I9...f5(?)
20 exfs, etc.).
17 d5 (releasing the b2-bishop, like a genie
from a bottle) 17...®e5?!
The lesser evil was 17...®d4 18 <£jf3 (18
a4l?) I8...^xf3+ 19 Jtxf3 e5 (a barrier in the
path of the b2-bishop) 20 g4 (forestalling
...f7-f5) 20...b4, although after 21 itcl!?
(instead of the Informator 21 Sh3) 21...f6 22
ii.e3 the bishop is clearly superior to the
‘bad’ knight on e7 and White retains the
initiative on the queenside.
18 £sfl! b4
After I8...exd5 19 exd5 .&c8 20 JLd4 (or 20
±xe5 dxe5 21 d6 £sc6 22 £se3) 20...1 ra 6 21
a4! Sb8 22 £se3 £sf5 23 £sxf5 Jtxf5 24 Eh4!
White also has very unpleasant pressure.
19 ^.d4 # a 5 20 £se3
20...Sac8
Black’s problems would also not have
been solved by 20...exd5 21 exd5 or the
196
comparatively more resilient 20...£sd3 21
iLfl! e5 (21...£se5? 22 f4 or 21...£jc5? 22 ®g4
e5 23 Jb<c5 dxc5 24 d6 is worse) 22 jtxd3
exd4 23 ®g2, soon winning the d4-pawn.
21 Sh4!
A pretty and well-founded move, activat­
ing the rook. 21 f4 ®d3 (not 21...<£sd7? 22
dxe6 fxe6 23 &h3) 22 jLfl e5 (22...£jc5? 23
Wg4) 23 ^.xd3 exd4 24 ±xa.6 #xa6 25 l ,xd4
(given in Informator) would have won a
pawn, but after 25...f5! 26 e5 Sc3 Black
would have gained counterplay against the
denuded white king.
21...SC7 (21...£ld3 22 JLfl!) 22 U ta!
It suddenly transpires that White’s attack
is very strong even without f2-f4: both a2-a3
and £sg4 are threatened. It is hard to offer
Black any good advice.
22.. .1C3
A desperate exchange sacrifice - if only to
get rid of the d4-bishop. After the ‘normal’
22.. .5fc8 there is the decisive 23 ®g4 (with
the threats of <£ixe5 and <£ixh6+!) 23...f6 24
<£sxf6+! or 23...®xg4 24 Sxg4 e5 25 ’S'xhe
£sg6 26 f'gSl. 22...®d3 23 -&f6! &h7
(23...gxf6 24 ®g4) 24 e5l, 22...<&h7 23 a3l
(even more forceful than the Informator 23
JLxeS dxe5 24 d6), and 22...exd5 23 exd5 f6
24 a3! 1135 25 ±xe5 fxe5 26 lc4 l are all
equally hopeless.
 Second Peak

23 .&.XC3 bxc3 24 1 ^ 4 exd5

If 24...1i rc7 there would have followed 25
S cl 2c8 26 <£>dl exd5 (the Informator
26.. .C2? 27 <£>e3 is completely bad) 27 Sxc3
£>5c6 28 yild2 d4 29 S c l and wins.
25 exd5 Wc7 26 W d l
A ‘subtle’ move, approved of by all the
commentators. ‘The queen moves back into
an ambush position, making way for the
rook’ (Dokhoian). However, White would also
have won with the ‘crude’ 26 <&h2!? (with
the idea of f2-f4) 26...f5 27 S cl or 26 Bel!
2c8 27 Se4 f5 (27...£>d3 28 Sc2 £iel 29
Sxc3l) 28 Sxe5l dxe5 29 Wb4, when the B l± g2
threat of d5-d6 forces Black to give up his 03- Again 31 £ ic4 was good, but why rush?
pawn. The bishop retreats with the feeling of a
26.. .5 .8 duty performed: the c3-pawn will soon fall,
My Informator suggestion 26..JLd3 or when it is all over.
26.. .f5 would have been refuted by the 3 1 ...£.a6 32 Sa4 Wb6 33 £>c4 .&xc4 34 bxc4
precise move 27 ^c4l. £tf5 (or 34~£ixc4 35 Sxc3, etc.) 35 Sxc3
£>d4?! 36 c5! Sxc5 37 # x d 4 1-0

In the second round I drew as Black with

Topalov, although I played the Najdorf
successfully and could have fought for a win
(cf. Game No.67 in Part II of Garry Kasparov
on Garry Kasparov, note to White’s 8th
move). Then with White I won two French
Defences: with adventures against Bareev
(in an endgame with two rooks against rook
and knight), and quite easily against Short
(cf. Game No.86 in Part II of Garry Kasparov
on Garry Kasparov, note to Black’s 6th move).
27 &e4 After starting with 3V2 out of 4, I was in
The impassive computer advises 27 Sell, an optimistic mood. Kramnik had half a
but a human in the fourth hour of play acts point less, and the remaining contestants
practically: he securely blocks the passed 03- were on a minus score. But a tense King's
pawn, takes control of the d3-square - and Indian duel between the leaders in the fifth
Black’s counterplay evaporates. The win for round ended in defeat for me, despite an
White is merely a question of time. extra hour on the clock and an apparently
27.. .1 fb6 (27...1ra5 28 a4l) 28 S f4 ± b 7 29 dangerous initiative for a pawn. I was so
S c l Was (29..~&a6 30 £>f5) 30 Sc2 (30 £>c4l) distressed that I decided not to employ the
30.. .6h8 King’s Indian again, although objectively the

197
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

opening was not to blame. natural developing move with the knight,
Thus after the first cycle I found myself in Black has also tried I2...b513 e4, and I2...#c7
the role of pursuer: Kramnik - 4 out of 5; 13 e4 or 13 .&f4 (Kasparov-Fedorowicz, Graz
Kasparov - 3V2. Fortunately, at the start of 1981 ) .
the second cycle I was again able to beat 13 h3
Boris Gelfand in quite a good game. 13 e4?l £)g4! is unfavourable for White,
but 13 ^.f4 # e7 14 # 3 4 (14 e4?l £sg4l,
KTamnik-Timman, Linares 1993) 14...^.b7 15
Game 43 £sb5 is more topical (an example: Pelletier-
B.Gelfand-G.Kasparov Gelfand, Biel 2001).
Novgorod, 13.. .b5 14 e4
6th Round, 18.06.1997 With the idea of 14...#b6 15 ^.e3l. If 14
Queen’s Indian Defence E l2 ,&f4 Black can play either 14...#b6 15 e4 ^.b7
(Korotylev-Arkhipov, Alushta 1994), or even
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e6 (I wanted to play this the pawn sacrifice 14...£>h5l? 15 ^.xd6 #b6
against Gelfand back in Dos Hermanas 1996, 16 ,&f4 (ot 16 g4 #xd6 17 gxh5 Sad8!)
but I ran into 1 ^fB) B £>f3 b6 4 a3 16.. .£)xf4 17 gxf4 (Khenkin-Chemin, Stock­
Boris chose my own variation, and right holm 1997) 17...C4! with a good game: 18 e4
up to the 14th move we played quite quickly. £sc5 19 e5 £sd3 20 Se4 (20 d6?l ^.b7l)
4.. .C5 (sharper than the usual 4...Aa6 or 20.. JLh6, etc.
4.. .£b7) 5 d5 £a 6 6 #c 2 exd5 7 cxd5 g 6
(7...d6 8 £ sc3 £>bd7?l 9 -&f4! - Game No.32 in
Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 8
£ ic3
Less is promised by 8 ,&f4 (Game N0.68 in
Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).

8 ...£g 7 9 g 3 0-0 10 £ g 2 d6 1 1 0-0 Se 8 12
2£el £>bd7
Modem Benoni-type positions appealed to
me right from my youth. Apart from the
14...#c8!
A strong novelty, which I devised before
my game with Gelfand in Dos Hermanas
1996: now after the inevitable ...b5-b4 all the
black pieces come alive. Previously l4...Sc8
15 .&e3 (van Wely-Kamsky, Amsterdam
1996) or 15 ^-f4 (LautieT-Onischuk, Wijk aan
Zee 1997) was played.
15 -&f4
‘After coming undeT the psychological

198

pressure of a surprise, Boris continues his
development - a sound approach!’ (M.Gure-
vich). After 15 a4 b4 16 £sb5 my Informator
suggestion l6...Wb8 17 Af4 Af8 is not bad,
but l6..JLxb5!? 17 axb5 c4 is more forceful
(if 18 Sa4?l there is the reply I8...£)b6! 19
Sxb4 l c 5 20 ±d2 fie7 and ...Sae8).
Later 15 iLfl b4 16 £sb5 was tried, after
which the best is I6...'irb8! 17 l a 4 (17 £sc7?!
b3!, Tikhonov-Najer, Moscow 2006) 17...Ab7
18 axb4 Sxe4! (not the variation of
Nisipeanu and Stoica - I8...<£sxe4 19 la5 !)
19 Bxe4 £sxe4 20 itf4 itxd5 21 £sxd6 £sb6,
and Black is perfectly okay.
15.. .b4 16 £sa4
If 16 £sdl there would also have followed
16.. .b3l, for example: 17 Wbl lc 7 ! or 17
lx b 3 fixe4l? (I7...£sxe4 18 l c 2 £sdf6 is also
possible, A.Volodin-Olenin, Dnepropetrovsk
2007) 18 JLxd6 1.C41 19 l c 2 Sxel+ 20 £sxel
ix d 5 with at least equality.
16.. .b3!?
‘The point of the novelty: the queen is di­
verted from the defence of the e4-pawn’
(M.Gurevich). Dokhoian and I also analysed
16.. .1,b5 17 axb4 cxb4 18 IT dI! H d8(c7) 19
£sd4 with interesting complications. But
with I6...b3 Black is already fighting for the
initiative, and in addition it is more danger­
ous for White psychologically: he may ac­
Second Peak
quire illusory hopes of an advantage.
17 lx b 3 (17 Wbl?l #c7!) 17...^xe4 18 l c 2
After the strange Informator suggestion
18 £sh4? there is the decisive l8...£sxf2!.
I 8 ...£idf6
I think that I8...f5 19 £sc3 Hb8, which oc­
curred later, is more promising.
19 g4?!
Here you are: Gelfand succumbs to the
illusion! The advance of the g-pawn brings
him nothing but a headache and weak­
nesses. 19 £sh4?! is also dubious on account
of a pretty piece sacrifice - I9...1d7! (instead
of the unclear 19...g5 - M.Gurevich, Stohl) 20
JLxe4 £sxe4 21 Sxe4 Sxe4 22 I x e 4 fle8 23
l c 2 Se2 241133 &d4 25 £ig2 ±xf2+ 26 <4>h2
h5! 27 S fl ik,d4 with a powerful attack: 28
£sc3 Sxg2+! 29 <4>xg2 l,xfl+ 30 <4>xfl g5!,
and White will not survive.
The soundest was the immediate dislodg­
ing of the black knight from e4 - 19 £sd2!
£sxd2 20 lx d 2 1 ^ 7 21 £ sc3, retaining
approximate equality.
I9...1d7!
‘A multi-purpose move. By connecting his
rooks and attacking the knight on a4, Black
wants to force it to return to c3, and then to
exchange both white knights, in order to
achieve greater harmony in the actions of
his pieces and to develop an attack on the
199
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

queenside.’ (M.Gurevich). slight advantage for Black, but 24...£tf4l? or

19...^.b5?! is inaccurate: 20 g5 ^<17 (now 24...Sbe8!? 25 i- f l i.x fl 26 4>xfl #b7! is
20.. .£)h5? costs a pawn: 21 Sxe4 Sxe4 22 more dangerous.
#xe4 # a 6 23 £lxc5 dxc5 24 £>e5, Comas
Fabrego-Roeder, Barbera 1997) 21 gxf6 jLxa4
22 b3 itxf6 23 bxa4 iLxal 24 JSxal, and the
white bishops are slightly more active than
the rook and pawn.
20 g5
20 £)g5? £>xg5 21 ,&xg5 h5l favours Black.
However, here also, even with the loss of a
tempo, it was not too late to tackle the
knight on e4 - 20 £)d2!?.
20 .. .^h 5 2 1 i.h 2
A continuation of the ambitious plan.
White is not satisfied with tense equality in
the variations with 21 Sxe4 lx e 4 22 £)xc5 23.. .-&XC3?
(22 #xe4?! Se8 23 £>xc5 Sxe4 24 £>xd7 Sxf4 An amnesty! ‘Black consistently carries
is weaker) 22...Sc4 (22...dxc5 23 #xe4 with out his strategy of neutralizing the white
equality) 23 #xc4 JLxc4 24 £>xd7 ^xf4 25 bishops - especially the potentially danger­
£>f6+ iLxf6 26 gxf6 jLxd5 27 E d l Se8 28 ous one on h2’ (Dokhoian). But I should have
<4>h2 h6 29 Sd4 g5 30 h4 Se4 31 £ f l gxh4 32 struck with 23...Sxb2!. Alas, when I analysed
b4, holding this slightly inferior endgame. the variation 24 Sxb2 JLxc3 25 Sxe4 fxe4 26
2 1 .. .f5 ! (supporting the knight on e4) 22 #xc3 exf3 27 JLxf3 #xh3 28 iLxd6,1 did not
£>c3?! notice the lethal resource 28..JLe2! 29 Sxe2
White does not contemplate switching to Sxe2 30 &xc5 (30 &c7? Se7! 31 d6 Sf7 and
a fight for a draw by 22 gxf6 £)hxf6 23 £ie5l? wins - Stohl) 30...Se4! 31 JLb4 (31 ^.d6?
dxe5 24 JLxe4 £>xe4 25 #xe4 Sac8 (Stohl) 26 Sg4+ 32 JLg3 Sxg5 and wins) 31...Sf4,
h4l and S adi, or 23 £>c3!? £>xc3 24 bxc3 i.c4 leading to a slow but certain win for Black:
(24-.^xd5 25 #32! c4 26 £>d4) 25 Se6! Sxe6 32 ,&g2 #xc3 (Dokhoian) 33 .&xc3 Sg4! 34
26 dxe6 iLxe6 27 £>e5!. d6 <4f7 or 32 #e5(el) #xf3 33 #e8+ (33
22 .. .5 .b 8 ! #e6+ Sf7) 33-Sf8 34 i.xf8 #xf8 35 #e6+
This move consolidates Black’s advantage. 4>h8! 36 d6 # d 8 37 #d5 # d 7 38 #c5 4>g8!,
It is probable that Gelfand was only expect­ accurately converting the extra piece.
ing 22...£)xc3 23 bxc3 with equality. 24 bxc3 Sxbl 25 Sxbl i.c4 26 £sd2 !
23 Sabi? ‘A desperate attempt to give at least a
A tactical error in a difficult position. little air to the white bishops, which resem­
White’s problems would not have been ble two unfortunate suffocating dogs,
solved by 23 S acl Se7l (with the idea of forgotten by their owner in a locked car’
...Sbe8) 24 £>xe4 (24 Se3 iLd4!) 24...fxe4 25 (M.Gurevich). It was hardly any better to
Sxe4 Sxb2, etc. In Informator I gave 23 £sxe4 suffer a pawn down after 26 Sel?! £)xg5 27
Sxe4 24 S ab i (24 Sxe4? Sxb 2 25 # a 4 JLbS Sxe8+ #xe8 28 iLxd6 £se4 29 JLe5 iLxd5.
and wins) 24-..Sxel+ 25 £)xel f4 with a 26.. .<$^xd2 (refusing the Greek gift: 26..JLxd5?!

200

27 #d3 with equality) 2 7 #xd2 f4!
Shutting the h2-bishop out of the game -
it was this idea of domination which at­
tracted me on the 23rd move. ‘Vacating the
f5-square for his queen, Black prepares an
invasion on the kingside’ (M.Gurevich).
28 S e l (28 i.xf4? Iff5) 28...1e5!
The crux of the idea!
29 Se4?
In an inferior position and with time-
trouble approaching, Gelfand blunders a
pawn. He could not bring himself to play 29
2xe5 dxe5 - then the h2-bishop is com­
pletely bad, and 30 # d l 4f7, 30 h4 4f7, 30
#61 #f5 or 30 #b2 #b5 do not look good.
But there was the pawn advance 30 d6, at
least uncovering the bishop on g2:
1 ) 30...4f8 31 .&c6! #xh3 32 # d l #d3 33
#xd3 i.xd3 34 f3 £>g7 35 * 92! £>f5 36 jLgl
£se3+ 37 4 f 2! 4f7 38 4 e l 4e6 39 d7 4e7 40
4 d 2 i.f5 41 i.xe3 fxe3+ 42 4xe3 i.xd7 43
JLxd7 4xd7 44 4e4, miraculously saving the
pawn endgame a pawn down: 44...4d6 45
c4 4 e6 46 f4;
2) 30...i.e6 31 4 h l! h6 (31...C41?) 32 gxh6
(not 32 h4? hxg5 33 hxg5 ^ g 7 and ...<S^f5)
32...4h7 33 f3 £tf6 (33-i.xh3 34 #d5 is
equal) 34 jLgl #c6 35 #f2 £)d7 36 # h 4
#xd6, and here not the Informator 37 #d8,
but 37 #g5!? with the idea of h3-h4-h5 and
Second Peak
chances of a draw.
29...Sxe4 30 iixe4 #xh3 3 1 i.g 2 (31 i.xf4?
#g4+)3l...#g4 3 2 # e l^ g 7
The knight switches to f5. 32...4f7 33 4 h l
jLd3! 34 c4 jLf5 and ...#xg5 would also have
won.
33 f3 (33 # b l i.xd5l, etc.) 33...#xg5 34 # b l
(avoiding 34 # e 4 jLxd5 35 #xf4 #xf4 36
jLxf4 £se8) 34...£sf5 (threatening ..JLfl!) 35
#b 8+ 4g7 36 #xa7+ 4h6 37 #f7
37...i.fl!
‘A spectacular concluding combination -
the end of the white bishops’ suffering!’
(M.Gurevich).
38 4 x f l (38 #f8+ 4h5 was also hopeless, or
38 jLxf4 #xf4 39 jLxfl #g3+ 40 4 h l £>e3!,
mating) 38...^e3+ 39 4 e l #h 4 + 40 4 e 2
# x h 2 4 1 4 d 3 £>f5 O-l
This win enabled me to catch Kramnik,
who drew with Topalov. We now had 4V2out
of 6, with the third-placed Topalov on 3.
However, the remainder of the tourna­
ment brought me a mass of disappoint­
ments. With White I was unable to beat
Topalov, and with Black, after overstepping
the mark, I only just gained a draw with
Bareev. But the main unpleasantness oc­
curred in the ninth, penultimate round,
before which I unexpectedly became the sole
201
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
leader, since the day before Kramnik had lost
to Short.
Playing White against Vladimir Kramnik, I
was eager to gain revenge for my loss in the
first cycle, in order to win the tournament by
a convincing margin and at the same time
again move ahead in the score of our ‘classi­
cal’ games (which at that time was +3-3=7).
After l e4 c5 we played a variation of the
Rauzer Attack, known from the game Shirov-
Kramnik (Linares 1997), and after employing
a powerful novelty (18 c3! and 19 Ji.c2!) I
gained an enormous lead on the clock and a
completely winning position. But then I did
something terrible.
Game 44
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Novgorod,
9th Round, 22.06.1997
2 5 Sd4?
White could have won with both 25 Sd3!
followed by Sf3, and 25 g3! which I pointed
out after the game (Dokhoian: ‘an accurate
move, breaking Black’s back’), when after
25-h5 26 h4 iLh6 27 Sd4! g6 28 g4 or 27...f5
28 ii.b3 with the threats of # x f 5 and iLxf8
Black can resign, while 25..Me8 runs into 26
202
'Hrb6! &e7 (26...Ia8 27 Ae4) 27 # xa6 £xd6
28 exd6, winning.
25.. .®e8! (now I do not have the reply Wb6)
26 h4 i-e7 27 g4 i.xd6 28 exd6 Sc6 29 g5!
More energetic than 29 S fd l ®d8
(29...e5?! 30 ©62!) 30 ^ 3 . White has missed
a direct win, but he has retained a consider­
able advantage.
29.. .e5?!
A fatal weakening of the b3-f7 diagonal.
29.. .h5 30 Sfdl, etc., was more resilient.
30 Sd5?!
White would have had an irresistible at­
tack after 30 #e2! # d 8 (there is nothing
better) 31 Se4(d5) Scd6 32 Sxe5 with the
threats of .£±>3 and Se8.
30.. .5.xd6 31 Sxd6 Sxd6 32 iLb3 ^ e 6
33 g6??
Hara-kiri! Every chance of success would
have been retained by 33 gxh6 £tf4 34 hxg7!
<4xg7 (Kramnik planned 34..Sg6(?), not noti­
cing 35 h5! Sxg7 36 18714 £)e6 37 h6 Sg6 38
&c2 and wins) 351^3 4f8 36 h5! We7 37 Sgl.
33...f6!
Suddenly White has been left without an
attack, and is a pawn down. However, in
time-trouble Vladimir played inaccurately
and a move after the time control, visibly
tired, he agreed to a draw (Vi-V*), although
he still had the better chances.

And so, in Novgorod 1997 Kramnik once
again confirmed his reputation as a difficult
opponent! In the last round he tried for
seven hours to breach Gelfand’s defences,
but on the 66th move he missed chances of
winning. And I, after drawing with Short,
nevertheless took sole first place and won
my third ‘super’ in six months.
‘I do not have the right to play as badly as
on this occasion in Novgorod’, I said after the
tournament. 'There were only isolated
episodes and two whole games where I
played well. I under-performed. But even in
the terrible state in which I was after the
match with Deep Blue, all the same I am
superior to everyone else as regards store of
ideas. Incidentally, I also played to my rating
-2820!
‘I see missed opportunities and, what is
important, I see my opponents’ play. A
match with a computer gives a very distinct
feeling: the absence of the right to make a
mistake. My calculation of variations is now
veTy good, and in long variations I did not
make mistakes. My mistakes were elemen­
tary oversights. Simply some nervous de­
rangement due to a lack of mental
strength... Now I will rest, hold my tradi­
tional training session by the sea - and with
new strength I will aim for the 2850 mark!’
Meanwhile, having enlisted the support
of the International Olympic Committee,
FIDE was preparing for its first knock-out
championship with 128 participants and the
unprecedented prize fund of five million
dollars. As tempting compensation for the
wrecked unification match, llyumzhinov
invited Karpov and me directly into the
semi-finals! Just think: the two losers of the
semi-final matches of four (!) games were
each due $384,000, and the finalists in the
match of six (!) games - $768,000 (to the
loser) and $1.37 million (to the winner).
Second Peak
On returning from Novgorod to Moscow,
on 27 June I sent the International Olympic
Committee President, Juan Antonio Sama­
ranch, my official refusal to play in the FIDE
knock-out championship: ‘The proposed
formula breaks with tradition and, unfortu­
nately, devalues the title of world cham­
pion... I have already stated publicly, un-
equivocably and unambigously, that under
no circumstances will I take part in this
event.’ Ilyumzhinov’s FIDE needed ten whole
years to admit that the world title can be
contested only in long matches!
During the Novgorod tournament I said
that ‘the idea of the match with Karpov was
not yet dead’, and I promised within a
month to reply more precisely. But on 21
July, a week after Dortmund 1997 (l. Kram­
nik - 6V2 out of 9; 2. Anand - 5V2; 3-4. Topa­
lov and Ivanchuk - 5; 5. J.Polgar - 4Vz; 6-8.
Gelfand, Karpov and Short - 4), I was forced
to declare: ‘The match with Karpov, unfor­
tunately, will not happen. I did not expect
this and to the last moment I thought that
everything was normal. Before the tourna­
ment in Dortmund, Karpov and I even
rewrote our agreement... As never before in
my life, I was rooting for Karpov, but his
result had an adverse effect on our sponsors’
frame of mind.’
34-year-old ‘Veteran’
International Tournament in Tilburg (26
September - 9 October 1997): 1-3. Svidler,
Kasparov and Kramnik - 8 out of 11; 4-5.
Adams and Leko - 7; 6. J.Polgar - 6; 7. Shirov -
5; 8-9. Lautier and van Wely - 4V2; 10. Onis-
chuk - 4; 11. Piket - 2'A; 12. Shaked - IV2.
After completing a summer training ses­
sion in Croatia, where after staying on Red
Island for four years we moved to the de­
lightful seaside town of Makarska, I flew to
203
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
distant Buenos Aires and on 6-7 September I
gave a double-round clock simultaneous
against the Argentinian team (8V 2-3V2). And
at the end of September Dohoian and I set
off to the Dutch town of Tilburg, where I had
not been for six years.
Yuri Vasiliev: 'Before the start of the tradi­
tional tournament in Tilburg everyone was
asking: who will win this time - Kasparov or
Kramnik? Before this Garry had finished
ahead o f Vladimir in the spring in Linares,
and in the summer in Novgorod. What would
happen in the autumn? Kasparov was in the
unaccustomed role o f tournament veteran -
as the organisers repeated several times, he
was invited in the role o f 'professor', setting
examinations (autumn term?) fo r the tal­
ented young players.’
Sergey Makarychev: ‘This Tilburg looked
rather more modest than the hugely strong
super-toumaments of recent times, but it had
an intriguing aspect: the 34-year-old ‘vet­
eran’ Garry Kasparov was testing the young.
True, two of these young players - Vladimir
Kramnik and Peter Svidler - are already so
strong, that they themselves are capable of
testing anyone. Together with Kasparov they
comprised a truly Herculean trio, scoring 50%
o f all the wins in the tournament!’
For me this tournament proved difficult
not even due to its youthful nature, but
rather because of the uneven line-up. Thus
the world junior champion, the American Tal
Shaked (who was admitted instead of Topa­
lov) suffered eight defeats with three draws.
After easily beating him in the first round,
Kramnik joked: 'For me the expression 'to
play in Tal style' has taken on a new mean­
ing.’ It was clear that in Tilburg the player to
succeed would be the one of the favourites
who dealt most severely with the outsiders.
The start went very well - 3 out of 3! With
Black I struck van Wely’s position a decisive
204
blow as early as the 15 th move, and with
White I confidently outplayed Judit Polgar.
As her second Lev Psakhis admitted, ‘when
you are preparing fo r the ‘white’ Kasparov,
you want to metamorphose into a tiny little
insect, as in Franz Kafka’s novel, and hide
somewhere fa r away...’ Then in 20 moves I
disposed of Shaked, after employing a
valuable novelty in a Grunfeld (cf. Game
N0.16 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009,
note to White’s 8th move). I decided to
return to this ‘well-forgotten’ defence after
Novgorod, having become disillusioned with
the King's Indian, and at a summer training
session I began analyzing the topical varia­
tions with my trainers.
In the fourth round I had a complicated
game against the young Ukrainian (later -
American) Onischuk. I obtained a favourable
bishop endgame, but I missed some winning
chances and Black saved himself. All my
rivals also drew, so that the status quo was
maintained: Kasparov - 3'/i o u t of 4; Kram­
nik - 3; Svidler, Adams and Leko - 21/ 2.
After a free day came the fifth round, in
which I had Black against Alexey Shirov. We
always had uncompromising duels, most
often in the Sicilian Najdorf. And on this
occasion too we played a game which,
although by no means error-free, was very
interesting.
Came 45
A.Shirov-G.Kasparov
Tilburg, 5th Round, 02.10.1997
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 c5 2 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 £>f6 5
£k3 a6 6 ± e3 e5
When my opponent’s second, Zigurds
Lanka, saw this move, his face dropped: two
days of preparation had come to nothing! In

Linares 1997 I later played 6...<S^g4 against
Shirov (Came Nos.40, 5l)-
7 £sb3 .&e6 8 f3 .&e7 (8...£>bd7 - Came
No.93) 9 1 ^ 2 Zhb&J (here 9...0-0 is more
flexible) 10 g4
10.. .h6
Two years later this weakening of the
kingside^ was deemed risky, and since the
position after 10...b5 11 g5 b4 12 £se2l <£)h5
13 £ig3 or ll...£)h5 12 0-0-0 £)b6 13 * b l 0-0
14 <£)d5 (Shirov-Gelfand, Groningen 1996)
was considered somewhat better for White,
8.. .<£)bd7 or 8..JLe7 9 Wd2 0-0 came to the
fore.
11 0 - 0-0
Black does not fear the over-impetuous 11
h4 b5 12 S g l <£)b6 (l2...b4l?, Anand-Kamsky,
Linares 1994) 13 g5 £)fd7 14 £)d5 .&xd5 15
exd5 hxg5 16 hxg5 2c8 17 <£)a5 (17 0-0-0
£ ic4) 17...^xd5l 18 £)b7 £)xe3 19 £)xd8
<£ixc2+ 20 ^>dl <£ixal with good compensa­
tion for the queen (Kir.Georgiev-Kasparov,
Paris (rapid) 1995).
11.. .b5 12 h4
The alternative is the preparatory 12 ^>bl,
for example: 12...b4 13 <£)d5 .&xd5 14 exd5
£)b6 15 c4l? bxc3 16 l rxc3 0-0 17 1 ^ 5 £)fd7
18 h4 (Tseshkovsky-Doroshkevich, Krasnodar
1996) or 12...£)b6 13 1^2! (13 £)a5 #07 14
JLxb6 #xb6 15 <£)d5 <£)xd5 16 exd5 .&d7 is
Second Peak
more harmless, Topalov-Kasparov, 5th
match game (rapid), Leon 1998) I3...£sfd7 14
h4 or 13...Sb8 14 £sc5 (14 h4l?) 14...b4 15
£)e2l £)C4 (I5...d5l?) 16 £ixe6 fxe6 17 £sg3
<£ixe3 (if 17...#c7, then 18 ,&xc4 #xc4 19 h4)
18 #xe3 £sd7 19 .&xa6, and White later won
in Shirov-Gelfand, Belgrade 1997.
12.. .£)b6 (I2...b4?l 13 £)d5 .&xd5 14 exd5
<£)b6 is weak on account of 15 #xb4 or 15 f4)
13 &bl?!
13 #f2! is more accurate, with the idea of
13.. .5b8?l 14 <£)c5 b4 15 ^ b l (Shirov-Sadler,
Monte Carlo (rapid) 1998) or 13...^fd7 14
^>bl Sc8 15 ^ d 5 (Kasparov-Huzman, Tel
Aviv (simuT) 1998), when White retains the
initiative. Now, however, Black carries out
...b5-b4 in comfort.
13.. .b4l 14 iLxb6 (forced: if 14 ^ e 2 <Sk4)
14 .. .#xb 6 15 £)d5 i.xd5!
In the event of 15...<£)xd5 16 exd5 .&d7
Black keeps the two bishops, but White
succeeds in quickly regrouping: 17 -*Ld3 a5
18 We2 a4 19 <£)d2 with a solid, roughly
equal position.
16 exd5 a5
Not I6...fic8?l (Ye Jiangchuan-Stangl, Bei­
jing 1995) 17 #e2l with the idea of 17...a5 18
#b5+. But now the threat of ...a5-a4 is
imminent. Alexey thought for half an hour.
17#d3
205
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Trying to create an attack on the light
squares, but this proves to be illusory. 17
jLh3? a4 18 <£)cl fia5l is bad for White
(Lanka-Piesina, Vilnius Zonal 1993), and 17
JLc4 (Bologan-Wahls, Bundesliga 1995)
17-..a4 also does not impress.
17.. .0.0! 18 <£id2
Shirov follows the planned course, not
rushing with 18 g5?l, after which there is
18.. .^h5 19 gxh6 g61, when White’s attack
comes to a standstill, and the black knight
invades on f4.
18.. .a419 ^e4?!
After 19 Ah3 (Luther-Womacka, Schoneck
1996) 19...b3l? 20 cxb3 axb3 21 a3 Sa4 Black
also has somewhat the better chances, but
this was the lesser evil for White.
19...Sfc8!
An important novelty! Weaker is 19...^xe4?l
20 #xe4 (Dueball-van Arkel, Holland 1997),
since in this case there is an immediate threat
of Ad3, and if 20...a3 21 b3 #c5, then 22 ±c4.
After 19...Sfc8 it suddenly transpires that
my counter-threats are far more effective.
‘Apparently I did something wrong, since
Black so easily achieved a good game’ (Shi­
rov). And, indeed, after this game the move
order 12 h4 and 13 ‘A’b l was rejected.
20 <£)xf6+?
This stubborn striving to set up a #64 and
206
itd3 battery leads to disaster. 20 g5 was
essential, although even here after 20...<£)h5!
(20...^xe4 21 #xe4 favours White) 21 #b5
(21 gxh6?! £sf4!) 21...#c7 22 S h 2 b3l 23 cxb3
Sa5 Black has the initiative.
20...Axf6
At this point my opponent again stopped
to think: ...b4-b3, ...a4-a3 and ...e5-e4 are all
now threatened. A classic attack with oppo­
site-coloured bishops!
2 1 # e4
Nothing good for White is promised by 21
lh 2 a3 22 b3 Sc3 or 21 g5 e4! 22 fxe4! (not
22 # b 5 # c 7 or the Informator 22 #xe4 b3
and wins) 22...b3! 23 cxb3 Axb2! 24 4 >xb2
axb 3 25 #xb3 # f 2+ 26 4>bl Scb8 27 ±b5
Hxb5 28 #xb5 #xa2+ 29 4>cl hxg5 30 hxg5
#g2! 31 S h el Ic8+ 32 #c6 2xc6+ 33 dxc6
#xg5+ 34 Sd2 #a5!, winning the c-pawn
and probably the game.
21.. .#c5
I no longer remember why I rejected
21.. .b3l, although I saw that after 22 cxb3
(worse is 22 Ad3 bxc2+ 23 ix c 2 Scb8,
winning) 22...axb3 23 a3 ±xh4both 24Sxh4
#f2! (threatening both ...#xh4, and ...fic2)
and 24 ±d3 l.g5 25 #h7+ *f8 26 S h fl (26
itf5? Sxa3!) 26...Af4 are inadequate for
White. In addition, Black had the murderous
move 23...#c5! with the threats of ...#c2+

and ...Sxa3, for example: 24 i d 3 Hxa3! 25
bxa3 ®xa3 26 1117+ 4f8 27 H 18+ 4e7 28
®xc8 #a2+ 29 4 c l b2+ 30 4d2 b l ! ^ 31
©c2 lbxc2+ and then ...lrxd5+ with a
decisive material advantage.
2 2 id 3
Too late: Black is the first to begin! 22 g5
was more resilient, in the hope of 22...hxg5?
23 hxg5 ix g 5 24 i h 3 Sc7 25 id 7 ! and ic 6 .
However, here the bishop sacrifice is good -
22.. .a3! 23 gxf6 (23 f4? b3!! 24 cxb3 axb2 and
wins) 23...axb2 (threatening ...b4-b3 or
...Bxa2), and 24 i d 3 gxf6 is fatal for White
(cf. note to 22...4T8). Therefore White must
return the piece, but after 24 i c 4 lx c 4 25
®xc4 Sxc4 26 S hgl g6 27 h5 (27 Sg4 Sac8)
27.. .g5 28 Sg4 Sf4 29 Sxf4 exf4 and ...Sa3!
or 24 i a 6 Sxa6 25 S dgl g5 26 Sxg5+! hxg5
27 hxg5 ®xc2+! 28 ®xc2 Sxc2 29 4xc2 Sxa2
30 Sh4 b l# + 31 4 x b l b3 32 Sb4 Sd2 33
Sxb3 4h7! Black has a technically won rook
ending.
22„.&f8?
A vexing delay. As after 22 g5, the pretty
bishop sacrifice would have been decisive -
22...a3! 23 g5 axb2! (of course, not 23...hxg5??
24 hxg5 ix g 5 25 Sh8+!) 24 gxf6 gxf6, and
White has no defence: 25 4xb2 b3! or 25 f4
Bxa2!, while the endgame after 25 Hh(d)gl+
4f8 26 #04 lx c 4 27 ix c 4 Sxc4 is clear
Second Peak
without any commentary.
23 g5l (the opening of the flank generates
sufficient counterplay) 23...hxg5 24 hxg5
ix g 5 25 # f5
Not noticing 25 f4l? ix f 4 26 Bdfl with
the threat of Sxf4, when White’s initiative
fully compensates for the two pawns: 26...g5
27 H 5 or 26...g6 27 Sh7 b3 28 Sxf4!, etc.
2 5 ...ih 6
My Informator suggestion 25...if6(?) 26
ib 5 ! 2d8 27 i c 6 Sa7 is weak in view of 28
f4!.
26 Sh4!
With the threat of Sc4. Unsuitable was 26
f4? a3! or 26 5xh6?! gxh6 27 ttf6 WxdS! (not
the Informator 27...b3(?) 28 ®xh6+ 4e8 29
cxb3 axb3 because of 30 i f 5! with equality)
28 l rxh6+ (28 S h i ®e6!) 28...4e7 29 H 14+
f6 30 i e 2 Sh8!, converting the extra ex­
change.
26...&e7
This ignoring of White’s threat disheart­
ened Shirov. Black sacrifices his queen! All
the same there appear to be no ways of
converting the extra pawn. Thus if 26...Sc7
White can now play 27 fixh 6! gxh6 28 # f 6
®xd5 (28...b3 29 ®xh6+ 4 e8 30 W 18+ 4e7
31 ®h4+) 29 Shi! Wd4 (29...tfe6? 30 « h 8+)
30 l rxh6+ 4 e7 31 ®g 5+ 4d7 32 Sh 4 ! Sg 8
33 ®xg8 #xh4 34 l fxf7+ ®e7 35 i f 5+ 4d8
207
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
36 #g8+ # e8 37 # d5 with equality.
Black is also not promised anything by
26.. .#xd5 27 &e2 #b7(a5) 28 jLc4! or
27.. Me6 28 #xe6 fxe6 29 Sxd6, 26...g6 27
#h3 £ f4 28 &xg6 or 28 S el, or 26...Scb8 27
Sc4 # a5 (27...#xd5? 28 Sc7) 28 f4l (instead
of the Informator 28 JLe4) 28...b3 (28...exf4?
29 #h7l) 29 cxb3 axb3 30 a4, or even
26.. .5e81? 27 S c4#a5 28 Shi! (renewing the
threat of Sxh6) 28...b3 29 a3, etc.
27 Sc4 (avoiding getting involved in the wild
complications after 27 f4 b3 28 fxe5 a3l or
27.. .1rd4!? 28 S fl a3l) 27...#xc4 28 Jk.xc4
Sxc4 29 I'd3 Hac8 30 S e l &f4
Black has full compensation for the queen
- rook, bishop and pawn, and all his pieces
are excellently coordinated, but the possi­
bilities of strengthening the position are
only slight, and if White does not make any
serious mistakes he should reach the draw­
ing haven without particular difficulty.
31 Se4
There was no reason to exchange this po­
tentially dangerous rook. Equality would
have been far more simply maintained by 31
b3! axb3 32 axb3, forcing 32...Sc3! (after
32...S4C5 33 Se4! or 32...Sxc2 33 #xc2 Sxc2
34 4 >xc2 it is now Black who has to fight for a
draw) 33#f5 ^ 8 ! (instead of the Informator
33-g5 34 Shi) 34 S h i 4>e7! 35 Sh7 £.h6.
208
However, in time-trouble it was psychologi­
cally difficult to decide on a weakening of
the dark squares with b 2-b3.
31.. .5xe4 32 fxe4 (after 32 # x e 4? S h 8! the
weakness of the bank rank is felt: 33 a 3 b 3l
or 33 Wei S h 2 and wins) 32...g5
The resulting passed pawn causes White
a mass of problems.
33 a3
The correct plan, although 33 #h3 (33
#a6(b5)? S h 8 and wins) 33-S g 8 34 c4l g4
35 #h4+ Sg5 36 # h 6 g3 37 c5! was also
acceptable.
33<-bxa3 (after 33~g4 34 axb4 White would
have acquired his own passed pawn: 34...g3
35 #f3 Sg 8 36 # g 2 with equality, and if
36.. .5h 8?l 37 b5l) 3 4 #a6!
Of course, not 34 #xa3? g4 35 #xa4 g3 36
#37+ ^f61, when the queen cannot cope
with the g-pawn.
34.. .5d8
In time-trouble I played as solidly as possi­
ble. The best practical chance was 34...Sh81?
35 #b7+ ^ 6 36 # d 7 &Q7, when the incau­
tious 37 bxa3? would have lost to 37...Sh4! 38
#xd6 g4 39 # a 6 Sh6 40 # f l Sb6+! 41 4>a2
g3 42 #g2 (42 # g l fig6) 42...Sh6 43 4^2 4f6
44 # g l (44 #e2 4g5l and ...Sh2) 44...Sh2 45
4c3 (45 #b6+ 4g5!) 45-S e 2 with the threat
of ...g3-g2 and ...iLe3. White would have been
saved only by 37 4a2! axb2 38 4xb2 Sh2
(38...Hh6 39 4 a3 Sg6 40 #g4) 39 #xd6 g4 40
#c7(c6) g3 41 d6 or 40 # d 7 a3+ 41 4xa3 g3
42 #g4+ 4 f8 43 d6.
35#b6
A draw could also have resulted from 35
bxa3, 35 c4, or 35 #b7+ Sd7 (35...4f6? 36
#c7) 36 Wh6 g4 37 c4 g3 38 c5 g2 39 c6 Sd8
(39-Ah2 40 C7! g l# + 41 # x g l jtx g l 42
c8#=) 40 #a7+! 4 e8 (40...4f6 41 # g l Sg8
42 c7) 41 # g l (or 41 c7, but not the Informa­
tor 41 #f2? Sb8 and then 42 # a 7 Sxb2+ 43
4 a l 4 f8 and wins) 41...Sb8 42 c7 Sxb2+ 43
 Second Peak

A a i i ’d7 44 08#+! ^ x c 8 45 Wcl+I with a three times. Together we had won two
pTetty stalemate. Olympiads (1994 and 1996), but this was the
B5...g4 fiTst time we met in an individual tourna­
If 35...axb2 there would have followed 36 ment. Alas, the first attempt proved a disas­
c4! g4 37 c5 with a dtaw. ter...
Yuri Vasiliev: ‘Peter created the greatest
sensation of the tournament: he won against
Kasparov! He deceived the professor - under
the guise of a frog he brought a rattlesnake to
the examination... The variation he chose was
modest, but venomous. He appeared to lose a
mass of tempi in the opening, and then he
sacrificed a pawn. Garry too openly displayed
a lack of respect for the audacious student,
and he failed to sense the moment of real
danger. He continued seeking winning chan­
ces in a position where he should have beat a
retreat.’
36 C4? Now Svidler was sharing the lead with
The decisive mistake in desperate time- me, with Kramnik just half a point behind.
trouble. After 36 bxa3 Sh8! (36...g3 37 #07+! This badly conducted game upset and
4>e8 381136) 37 lc 7 + &f6 38 lx d 6 + 4>g7 39 unsettled me. HoweveT, to still be in conten­
l d 7 Sh4! (39...g3 40 lg 4 + ^ 8 41 d6) 40 tion foT fiTst place I had to win in the eighth
H>5 g3 41 l e 2 Sh6! 42 ^ b 2 Sg6 43 lg 2 round against Jeroen Piket.
&f6 (bringing up the king to the d-pawn) 44 Dokhoian: ‘Every player knows how diffi­
&c3 Sh6 45 I g l Sh2 46 d6! (nevertheless!) cult it can be to play on the day after a
46.. .5d2 47 ^ b 4 Sxc2 (47...Sxd6 48 c4) 48 defeat. In such a situation very few are able
*xa4 g2 (48...<4>e6 49 la 7 ) 49 d7! &e7 50 to demonstrate their best play. I remember
I d l Sd2 51 l g 4 the d-pawn would have how in Linares 1997 many were surprised
helped to stop the menacing g-pawn. when Kasparov, after losing the previous day
36.. .g3l 37 c5 g2 38 cxd6+ Sxd6 39 lc 7 + to Ivanchuk, then won in good style against
4f6! (any move would have won, but this is Judit Polgar and subsequently continued to
the most flamboyant!) 40 lx d 6 + ^g7 0-1 demonstrate excellent play. Psychological
resistance to a temporary setback is an
The following day I crushed the young integral condition for overall success. ’
Leko in a Scotch Game and reached ‘plus
five’. This is how the leading trio looked at
that moment: Kasparov - 5V2 out of 6; Game 46
Kramnik and SvidleT - AVi. G.Kasparov-J.Piket
Then I had Black against the 21-year-old Tilburg, 8th Round, 05.10.1997
St. Peterburg player PeteT SvidleT, who was Queen’s Gambit Accepted D27
gaining in strength and by that time had
already won the Russian Championship 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4

209
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
My opponent’s reply took me aback: Piket
usually played the King’s Indian, and in
recent times I had not often encountered the
Queen’s Gambit Accepted.
3 e3 (3 e4 - Game No.55) 3...^f6
By rejecting 3 £»f3 £»f6 4 e3 White avoids
4..JLg4 (Game No.60 in Part I of Garry Kas­
parov on Garry Kasparov), but allows the
ancient variation 3...e5 4 ^.xc4 exd4 5 exd4
£»f6 (Black has also tried 5-iLb4+ 6 £»c3 £»f6
7 £sf3 0-0 8 0-0 ±g4 9 h3 ot 9 l.e3, Kas-
parov-Fritz 3, Munich (blitz) 1994) 6 £»f3 ile7
7 0-0 0-0 8 h3 £sbd7 (8...£sc6 9 £sc3 is a
Petroff Defence!) 9 £»c3 £»b6 10 JLb3 c6 11
Sel! (cf. Game No.52 in Kasparov vs. Karpov
1975-1985, note to Black’s 6th move).
4 ilxc4 e6 (now it all reduces to the main
tabiya) 5 £tf3 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 .&.b3
A continuation that had come into fash­
ion, and one that Dokhoian and I had ana­
lysed a great deal. Here Piket was unlucky:
his planned opening surprise did not suc­
ceed.
7...b5
A rather risky and ambitious reply. ‘Now,
in order to Tetain the initiative, White has to
play very enterprisingly’ (Dokhoian). 7...cxd4
8 exd4 £»c6 or 7...^c6 (Game No.57) is safer.
8a4 b4
8...bxa4?! 9 JLxa4+ £sbd7 (9...^.d7 10 <£ie5)
210
10 e4! is weaker (Rublevsky-Vaulin, Smo­
lensk 1991), but 8...^.b7 occuts sometimes.
9 £sbd2 ±b7
If 9-.cxd4 (Piket-Tkachiev, 1st match
game, Cannes 2000) I would have made the
thematic move 10 e4.
10 e4!
Little is promised by 10 # e 2 £»bd7 or 10 a5
£ibd7 11 jLa4 i:e7 with equality (Piket-
Lautier, 2nd match game, Monte Carlo 1996).
10...cxd4
10...^xe4? 11 £sxe4 l.xe4 12 l e i i d s 13
±g5 is obviously to White’s advantage. But
the best defence is 10..JLe7! 11 e5 £sfd7 12
£»c4 0-0 (Dreev-Ponomariov, PanoTmo 2001;
Yerevan 2001). Here Black has a compara­
tively normal game, but in 1997 such subtle­
ties were not yet known.
11 e5
ll...^d 5 ?!
A serious error, as is ll...£»e4?! 12 ^xe4
±xe4 13 £sxd4 (Klimov-Vaulin, Yekaterin­
burg 2002) ot 13 a5l?.
Il...£»fd7! is correct, although after 12
£»c4 White retains some advantage: I2...£»c6
13 i g 5 ®c7 14 S cl (Topalov-Lautier, Monte
Carlo (rapid) 1997) or 12...£»c5 13 .&.g5 'ffc7
(I3...f6? is bad on account of 14 exf6 gxf6 15
£»xd4! with crushing threats: lS-'i'dS?! 16
<£id6+! #xd6 17 ®h5+, GeTshon-Svetushkin,

Yerevan 2000) 14 ^xd4 (I also analysed 14
Sell?) 14...^c6 (I4...&xb3?l 15 ^xbBl) 15
<£ixc6 yilxc6 16 f3, etc.
From this moment I began playing spon­
taneously, and immediately a question
arose: where to develop the d2-knight?
12 £ ic4 (a novelty - previously 12 <£ie4 was
tried) 12...£ ic6 (I2...^.e7?l 13 &g5 or
12.. JLc5 13 ^g5l? is worse) 13 Ji.g5
By analogy with the ll...<2ifd7 12 £ ic4
variation I went in for a complicated pawn
sacrifice. But with the knight on d5 it is
simpler to play 13 ^xd4l? or even 13 ^g5!?,
opening a path for the queen to the king-
side.
13..Md7
After 13-f6? 14 exf6 gxf6 15 S ell White
has a decisive attack: I5...fxg5 16 Exe6+
4f7(d7) 17 Exc6! or 15...#e7 (I5...1rd7 16
£ib6!) 16 ^.b4 Eg 8 17 ^b61. Also no relief is
offered by lB-.'B'cy 14 Eel .&C5?! 15 £>d6+!
^.xd6 16 iLxdS -&.C5 (weak is l6..Ji.xe5? 17
S ell or I6...exd5? 17 exd6 #xd6 18 Eel+
<4f8 19 ^xd4) 17 E xc5 exd5 18 <£ixd4 or
14 - h 6 15 ^.b4 ^ f4 16 ^.g3 g5 (not Stobl's
cooperative variation I6...^b5? 17 £sd6+
£,xd6 18 exd6 # d8 19 d7+! ®xd7 20 £ie5
and wins) 17 ^.xf4l (17 a5 is insipid, Cvetnic-
Peres, correspondence 2000) 17...gxf4 18
iLc2! and Ji.e4.
Second Peak
14 Ed?!
Here also this looks logical, but the ‘rou­
tine’ 14 ^xd4l was stronger. I rejected this
because of I4...h6 15 Ji.h4(?!) £rf4, when the
black pieces come alive. However, an endur­
ing advantage would have been retained by
15 ^ x c 6 (Stobl) 15...hxg5 (lS -^x ce 16 <£ia5
or 15..~&.xc6 16 Whs! is dubious) 16 <£i6a5 or
15 i-cll? with the threat of <S^xc6 and #g4.
14 .. .116 ?
A needless weakening of the kingside, but
more important - Black drives the bishop to
g3, for where it itself is aiming! My emor
should have been exploited by l4..Jtc5l, for
example:
1) 15 £ifd2 0-0 16 £>e4 -&e7! 17 Wi5 (17
1 ^ 3 4^8!) 17...d3l? 18 Ecdl ^.xg5 19 WxgS
(19 £ixg5 b6 20 Exd3 lt7 ! ) lg.-WdS! 20
1 ^ 3 £id4 21 #xd3 £if4 22 # e3 i.xe4 23
1i rxe4 f5l 24 exf6 Wxf6 25 -&a2 Eac8 with
equality, or 17 Axe7 1i rxe7 18 E el Ead8 19
£icd6 £ixe5 20 £ixb7 l rxb7 21 £ ic5 1 ^ 8 22
£ixa6 # d 6 23 £ ic5 Sc8 24 #xd4 £ ic6 25
#d3(d2) <S^a5, and the defence bolds;
2) 15 ^cd2 ^.a7! (l5..Jte7?! 16 &xe7 or
16 <£ie4 favours White, while after 15..Ji.b6
the bishop may come under attack by a4-a5
or £ ic4) 16 £ie4 0-0 17 1^ 2 £ice7! (l7...f5 18
exf6 £sxf6 19 Sfel! is more tedious, while
17.. .Eac8? is bad because of 18 ji.xd5 exd5
19 ^f6+!) 18 <£ixd4 ^ g 6 19 £)f3 Eac8, and
again Black bolds on.
15 i-h4 i.c5
Clearly, not 15...^.e7? 16 &xe7 4xe7 17
£id 6! <SM4 (I7...^xe5 18 £if5+! - Stobl) 18 a5l
and wins.
16 £sfd2
Switching the knight to an attacking posi­
tion. 16 Ji.g3!? £ide 7 (16...0-0 17 ^d6!) 17
jLc2 or 17 ^fd2l and £se4 also deserved
attention.
16.. .0-0 (the trick I6...^e3? 17 fxe3 dxe3 did
not work because of 18 <£ie4 e2+ 19 £>xc5
211
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
exdltf 20 Scxdl, winning) 17 £ie4 .&e7
If 17.. JLa7, then 18 # 94! (Stohl).
18 .&g3!
This manoeuvre was underestimated by
Piket! White has more than sufficient com­
pensation for the pawn, and it is hard for
Black to find a defence against the invasion
of the white cavalry at d6 and c5, sweeping
away everything in its path.
18.. .Wd8?!
If I8...f5? 19 exf6 gxf6 White wins not only
with the Informator 20 £icd6, but also by 20
Wh5 or 20 Sell. However, l8...2ad8!? and
,.JLa8 was more resilient - although the
harmony of Black’s pieces is disrupted and
his position is very dangerous, for the mo­
ment nothing decisive is apparent.
19 £>cd6 £ia5
Black's position would have collapsed af­
ter 19...ltt)6? 20 ^.xd5 exd5 21 £)f6+! gxf6
(2l...&h8 22 1^3) 22 £rf5 fxe5 23 *94+ JLg5
24 £)xh6+ or 22...£)xe5 23 £ixh6+ * h 7 24
iiTiS, etc.
20 JLc2 (20 £)C5!?) 20...b3
20...f5?! was unsuitable: 21 exf6 £)xf6 22
£)xf6+ 2xf6 23 £)xb7 £)xb7 24 .&e4 (Stohl)
24.. .£)c5 25 i.xa8 Wxa.S 26 Wxd4 £)b3 27
^ 7 £)xcl 28 2xcl ,&f8 29 ^.e5l, when Black
loses. And if 20...1Hrb6!? I could have replied
21 £ ic5! (211^3!?) 21..JLxd6 22 exd6 b3 23
212
i.d3! or 21...b3 22 jLbl £)c3i? 23 bxc3 Wxc5
24 cxd4! 1Hrb4(b6) 25 ^ 3 with a powerful
attack.
21 JLb l
21.. .Wb6?
Black’s last chance was the counter­
sacrifice 21...£)b4! 22 Wxd4 £)C2 23 ±xc2
bxc2 24 2 xc2 jLds, reaching a difficult
position a pawn down, but at least not
losing immediately. Now, however, White
begins a decisive offensive.
22 Wd3 g6 (22..JLxd6 23 £)xd6 g6 24 Sfel!
and Se4, winning) 23 £)c5 (23 Wd2 ^ 7 24
h4! was also strong) 23—.&.C8
23...£)b4 24 ®xd4 no longer helped, and
23~JLc6? 24 £)xf7! was even worse.
24 h4! (24 #xd4 was far more prosaic)
24.. .£ ic6
Allowing a spectacular finish. However,
things were also hopeless after 24...h5 25
Wxd4 & d7 (25...Sd8 26 ^ 3 with the threat
of £ixf7!) 26 JLe4 £ixd6 (26...£ixc5 27 Sxc5
and wins) 27 exd6 JLxd6 28 ^.xds! (more
accurate than Stohl’s variation 28 £)xe6
&.xe6 29 yHxb6 £)xb6 30 JLxd6) 28...exd5 29
JLxd6 Wxde 30 £)e4! and £)f6+, or 28...^.xc5
29 Sxc5 exd5 30 a5 We6 31 f3! and fiel with
an irresistible attack on the dark squares.
25 as! (a diverting pawn sacrifice; 25 h5?
£)xe5i was incorrect) 25...'Brxa5

Or 25...£sxa5 26 hs! Axd 6 (26...£)b4 27
# x d 4) 27 exd6 £)b7 28 bxg6 with crushing
threats.
26 £)xf7! Sxf7 27 #xg6+?! (27 £>xe6! Axe 6
28 # x g 6+ was more accurate, when it is all
over) 27...*f8?!
27...Sg7 28 #e8+ Af8 29 Wxc6 Sb8 was
more resilient, after which good is 30 Afs!?
£)c7 31 £>xe6 Sb6 32 WxbS #xb6 33 £>xg7
Axfs 34 £sxf5 or 30 £)e4l Ad7 31l t 4 , and if
31...Ab5 32 #xb3 1^4, then 33 1T3! Axfl
34 S xfl with an irresistible attack (34...^>h8
3 5 1 ^ 5 or 34...1rb7 35 Aa2l).
28 £sxe6+ Axe6 29 2xc6 A d 7 30 Wxh6+ 1-0
In view of 30...'&e8 31 e 6.
Since Svidler could only gain a hard-won
half-point against Adams, I again became
the sole leader - 6V2 out of 8! But then with
Black I only just made a draw with Adams,
and with White I was again unable to beat
Kramnik (cf. Game No.90, note to Black’s 7th
move). Fortunately, my rivals also did not
greatly accelerate.
These were the leading positions before
the last round: Kasparov - 7V2 out of 10;
Svidler and Kramnik - 7. At the finish Kram­
nik fully expectedly won against van Wely
with White, Svidler unexpectedly easily beat
Onischuk with Black, and with Black in an
Second Peak
English Opening I did not achieve anything
against Joel Lautier. But here something
extraordinary occurred.
Makarychev: ‘The champion, after losing
his big aim (to improve his rating by scoring
9-10 points), played out the tournament
obviously without any great enthusiasm and
at the very last moment he missed a unique
opportunity to take solefirst place.’
Came 47
J.Lautier-G.Kasparov
Tilburg,
11th Round, 09.10.1997
In this equal position White has a good
dozen moves leading to a draw. Therefore,
when Joel played 20 Sc7? and offered a
draw, I agreed - without looking at the
board! But this was a mistake: after 20...Sb8
21 2xc6 fixb4 22 Sc 2 Sxe4 or 20...C5!? 21 b5
(21 bxc5? 2 b 8! and wins) 21 ...Sb8 and
...2xb5 Black would have remained a pawn
up and with winning chances.
Well, I was evidently not destined to win
this tournament on my own: with Kramnik
and Svidler I shared lst- 3rd places. Here tie-
break scores were not counted, but they
213
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
would have been best for Svidler. At that time
Peter was playing very freshly and resource­
fully - and was steadily rising. His finest hour
could have been the FIDE knock-out champi­
onship in that December, but in the quarter­
final he suffered a very painful defeat against
Adams. After this Svidler somehow drooped,
and although he continued to post good
results, he didn’t quite reach the leading roles
on the world stage.
As for Karpov, after the collapse of our
match the only thing left for him was to
defend his title of FIDE champion. Especially
since at the end of the year he received from
FIDE another fantastic ‘present’: with 128
participants, in view of my non-participation,
he was allowed directly into the super-final!
And this despite the protests of many well-
known grandmasters - Kramnik even refused
to take part.
The main part of the first FIDE world
championship on the knock-out system took
place from 9-30 December 1997 in Groningen
and produced a deserved triumph for Vishy
Anand, who in mini-matches defeated Niko-
lic, Khalifman, Almasi, Shirov, Gelfand and
Adams. And already on 1 January 1998 - just
imagine! - in Lausanne his super-final match
began with Karpov, who had flown in there
from the Canary Islands.
And so the chess world witnessed FIDE’s
unprecedented ‘Lausanne experiment’ - a
battle between the freshly rested 46-year-old
Karpov and the 28-year-old Anand, worn out
by three weeks of play. Vishy drew on his last
reserves and, by winning the sixth game,
levelled the score: 3-3. But for the tie-break he
no longer had any strength: Karpov won both
rapid games and retained the title of FIDE
champion, which, however, provoked a mixed
reaction in the chess world.
‘A colossal and undeserved handicap!’, wrote
the well-known trainer Mark Dvoretsky. ‘At
214
present, and this is not only my view, Anand is
far stronger than Karpov and he would surely
have been successful if the play had been on
equal terms (with both players equally fresh or
equally tired). Karpov has legally become world
champion, but in the eyes of almost all chess
players he effectively isn’t.’
This last statement was confirmed very
quickly by the results of Wijk aan Zee, Janu­
ary 1998: 1 -2. Kramnik and Anand - 8V2 out
of 13; 3-5. Shirov, Timman and Adams - 7V2;
6-10. Karpov, J.Polgar, Gelfand, Topalov and
Piket - 6V2, etc. Nevertheless llyumzhinov
declared: ‘The title 'world champion’ is
registered legally and belongs to FIDE. The
world champion is the player who has won
the world championship, and it has been won
by Karpov. Although there are players with a
higher rating.’ I should remind you of the top
of the rating list at that moment: Kasparov -
2825, Kramnik - 2790, Anand - 2770, Ivan­
chuk and Topalov - 2740, Karpov - 2735.
Crisis Point
Double-Round Super-Tournament in Linares
(21 February - 10 March 1998): 1. Anand -
7V2 out of 12; 2. Shirov - 7; 3-4. Kasparov
and Kramnik - 6V2; 5. Svidler - 5V2; 6. Ivan­
chuk - 5; 7. Topalov - 4.
After losing my opponent in a match for
the world championship, I also lost my
mental equilibrium. After a series of tour­
nament triumphs it suddenly became
unclear what to do next. Through lack of
funds the PCA had ceased to function back
in 1997. But I was far more depressed by the
fact that FIDE had dared to break an age-old
tradition, by replacing matches with the
lottery of the ‘tournament of a hundred’.
Many realised that the knock-out system
was unsuitable for determining the strong­
est player in the world (after five such

championships this was also realised by
FIDE), but the enormous prize fund, cleverly
called a ‘distribution of monetary aid’,
pushed all sensible arguments into the
background. In the absence of an opponent
and a qualifying cycle my title was as though
hanging in mid-air, and I felt isolated.
But here after Lausanne Karpov still de­
clared himself the sole champion! When the
Sport Express correspondent reminded him
about the memorandum we had signed,
where he had ‘acknowledged Kasparov to be
the world champion, and himself to be FIDE
world champion’, Karpov said: 'That memo­
randum was private... Kasparov was the world
champion, but he lost his title when he refused
to defend it. Today I am the world champion,
and he is an impostor, even with his rating of
2825. Well, so what? He does not play in the
official FIDE championships. As soon as Fischer
stopped playing in the FIDE system, he lost his
title. The only difference between them is that
Fischer has not played for 25 years, whereas
with Kasparov it is onlyfive.’
Soon, on 30 January 1998,1replied to him
in an interview in the same newspaper:
‘Now, at the finish of Wijk aan Zee, it has
finally become clear to everyone how Karpov
is now playing... Some are now calling me an
“impostor"? Well, it is time I played a match
for the world championship. The question is
how this match should be regarded: as a
political or a chess event? If the former, I can
again play against Karpov. But it is unlikely
that money would be found for such a
match: Karpov’s play is now too weak. And,
secondly, I would like to regard a match for
the crown as a chess event, not a political
one. Therfore I will play against the strong­
est challenger. The circle of players from
which he will be determined is very limited.
Soon all will be revealed - wait for the start
of the tournament in Linares.’
Second Peak
It appeared that I had managed to find a
solution: on 21 February, at a press confer­
ence in Linares, Luis Rentero and I an­
nounced the creation of the WCC - the
World Chess Council (headed by Rentero),
aimed at arranging the playing of the world
championship. In the first cycle, shortened
because of present circumstances, the
second and third players in the world -
Vladimir Kramnik and Vishy Anand - were
to be invited to play a challenger’s match of
10 games early in the summer, with the
winner to play me in a match of 18 games in
the autumn (Rentero named the Andalucian
government as its organiser and sponsor). In
the event of one of the candidates declining,
he would be replaced by the participant in
the imminent ‘tournament of seven’ who
made the best result.
Linares 1998 was the second super-
toumament in history, after Las Palmas
1996, of the highest, 2lst category. Unfortu­
nately, I did not prepare for it in the best
way, but more importantly, I was quite
unable to concentrate on the play. The
uncertain situation with the matches, the
constant problems and negotiations - all
this preyed on my nerves (true, not only on
mine). To cap it all, I immediately went down
with flu and for a long time felt unwell,
periodically running a high temperature.
Nevertheless, things began quite well.
With Black in the first round I with difficulty
repelled Svidler’s attack in a Scheveningen
(cf. Game No.37, note to White’s 13th move)
and at the end I even seized the initiative,
but lacked the energy to develop it. I was
free in the second round, and in the third I
had White against Vishy Anand, who before
this had won against Shirov and Svidler.
MakaTychev: ‘So, Anand was on 2 out of 2!
It need hardly be said that Garry arrived for
the game, aiming only for a win. For the flu-
215
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
suffering champion, the rest the previous day
was most opportune. As the press wrote, Kas­
parov, even pale and unwell, with a high
temperature and absolutely starving, was still
the same Kasparov - a merciless lion!’
Came 48
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
Linares, 3rd Round, 24.02.1998
Caro-Kann Defence B17
1 e4 c6 2d 4d5
On this occasion, as in Amsterdam 1996,
Vishy employed virtually the most solid
defence, having prepared a novelty in one of
the main lines.
3 £ld2 (3 exd5 - Game No.23; 3 e5 - Game
No.77) 3...dxe4 4 £)xe4 £)d7 5 £>g5 £>gf6 6
JLd3 e6 7 £>lf3 ± d 6 8 # e 2 (8 0-0 - Game
No.34 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov) 8...H6 9 ^ e 4 ^ x e 4 10 # x e 4 # c 7
ll# g 4
At that time the fashion for 11 0-0 b6
(11...C5 12 Sell) 12 # g 4 had not yet arrived.
ll...S g 8
And here is a novelty! However, nowadays
they do not play this, and not ll...g5 (Game
No.8), but the old-fashioned ll...^f8! 12 0-0
c5 13 S e l (13 b3 e5!) 13 - b 6 14 c3 .&b7
(Topalov-Anand, 6th round).
12^>d2
After some thought I chose almost the
same plan as against Kamsky in Linares
1994. Anand was hoping for 12 JLxh6 £sf6 13
#g5, and now not 13-.gxh6? 14 #xf6 fixg2
15 0-0-01, but 13...iLf8 or 13...^d5! with very
unclear play:
1) 13.-i.f8 14 # f4 i.d6 15 £)e5 £>d5! 16
#g3 (16 #g5 ^f8! - cf. variation 2) I6...f6 17
.&h7 fxe5l (17...&8 is dangerous: 18 ^g6+
^ f7 19 f4! with the idea of £>e5+) 18 .&xg8
gxh6 19 #g6+ <^f8 20 JLxe6 exd4, panying
the attack, or 14 1iHrh4! gxh6 15 #xf6 fig4!
(l5...Sxg2 16 £>e5!) 16 # h 8 Sxg2 17 &e2
# e7 18 fihgl Sxgl 19 Sxgl JLd7, then
...0-0-0 and ...c6-c5 with equalizing pros­
pects;
2) 13...£)d5! 14 i.h7 i.e7 15 #g3 Sh 8 16
#xg7 &f6 17 #94 ±e7! or 14 £)e5 ^ f 8! 15
^.h7 f 6 16 £>g6+ &f7 17 # g 4 e5 18 £)xe5+
(18 #h5? gxh6 19 £>xe5+ ^ f 8 20 JLxg8 ^xgS
21 #e8+ JLf8 22 £)g6 ^.f5! 23 #xa8 ,&xg6
favours Black - Stohl) I8...fxe5 19 #g6+ <^f8
20 0-0-0 (20 JLxg8 &xg8 21 0-0-0 e4!)
20.. .5 .8 21 Sd3 Ag4, in both cases main­
taining the balance.
White’s advantage is also insignificant
after the quiet 12 0-0 £sf6 (I2...g5?l 13 g3!)
13# h 4 b6 14 S e l &b7 15 £>e5 0-0-0.
12.. .^f6 13 «f3?l
13 #62 was more promising: 13...C5 14
dxc5 ^.xc5 15 0-0! (not my Informator sug­
gestion 15 ^ b 3 .&d6 16 £>d4 .&d7 and not
Stohl’s move 15 £>c4 in view of 15-.b6)
15.. ~&d7 (I 5...b6?l 16 £ie4!) 16 £)c4 0-0-0 17
JLd2 or 16 Sbll? 0-0-017 b4 .&d418 c4 e 5 19
^ b 3 with the initiative on the queenside.
13.. .e5!
Of course! I was reckoning only on 13...C5
14 £>c4 cxd4 15 .&d2 with quite good com­
pensation for the pawn. But now the
chances become equal.

14 dxe5 A x e s 15 £)C4 A e 6
After this I realised that White’s play had
come to a standstill, and after some thought
I decided to sacrifice a pawn.
16 JLd 2 i?
Rejecting the ‘correct’ 16 <£>xe5 #xe5+ 17
# e2 (17 #e3 <£)g4 is equal) 17...#xe2+ 18
4>xe2 <£)d7 and ...®e5(c5) with simplification
and a quick draw, White goes in for compli­
cations.
16 ...0 - 0 -0 ?!
Psychological capitulation: after pondering
over his move, Anand was afraid to capture
the pawn. In the event of 16...jb<b2?! 17 <£>xb2
(only not 17 J.f4? Ac3+ 18 ^ f l # e7 - Stohl)
17.. # e5 + 18 #e3! #xb2 19 0-0 Black does
indeed have an unpleasant position: if
19.. .0.0-0? 20 #xa7 Sxd3 there is the decisive
21 jtf4l (instead of the Informator 21 cxd3(?)
#xd2) 2 l...lrxc2 22 S acl # e 2(xa2) 23 Sxc6+1.
However, after l6..Jtxc4l 17 ii.xc4 Axb2
both 18 0-0? itx a l 19 23el+ (19 fixal 0-0-0)
19.. Jte5 20 #f5 <4>d8, and 18 Sbl?! #e5+!
(more solid than l8...JLe5l?) and 19 ...O-O-O
are unfavourable for White. I would have
had to play 18 #e3+ #e5l 19 #xe5+ .&xe5
20 0-0-0 0-0-0 21 ilxf7, regaining the pawn
without chances of an advantage, despite
the two bishops: 2l...Sgf8 22 jte6+ 4>c7 23
fihel Ad6, etc.
Second Peak
17 0-0-0 £id7
Vishy did not risk giving up his light-
squared bishop for the knight, although
17~.ii.xc4!? 18 Ji.xc4 Sd4 promised Black
equality -1 9 Ab3 Ugd8 (Y.Gonzalez-Massara,
Cuba 1998) or 19 .&d3 Af4, to say nothing of
19 ^.xf7 # x f1 20#f5+ Sd7 21 #xe5 #xa2 22
#35 #xa5 23 ii.xa5 b6 with a probable draw
or 19 Wf5+ ^b8 20 Axf7 Sf8 21±.b3(e6) # d 6
with excellent counterplay.
18 JShel
All the commentators, myself included,
criticised this natural move, and wrongly so.
The recommended 18 ‘A’b l (with the idea of
I8...i.f6? 19 ±f4 £ie5 20 # e 4 ±xc4 21 ,&xc4)
is parried by lS-'A’bS 19 S h el g5l, to the
delight of the rook on g8 (Stohl’s move
I9~.^.d5 is less good because of 20 #e2).
1 8.. .Hge 8?!
This routine centralization proves to be a
significant loss of time. The accurate l8..Jtf6!
with the idea of exchanging knights after
...<£)e5 would have retained equality: 19 ii.a5
(19 # f4 g5) 19 ...b6 20 ^.b4 (20 .&d2 £)c5 or
20.. .4>b8!) 20...£)e5 21 £ixe5 .&xe5, or 19
jtg5l (the crux of the defence) 20 jtxg5 hxg5
21 #e3 (21 h3 4^8) 21...g4l (sharper than the
Informator 2l...£sb6) 22 #xa7 .&xc4 23 JLxc4
#f4+ 24 4 b l #xc4 25 lx d 7 Sxd7 26 #a8+
4 >c7 27 #xg8 Sd2.
217
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
19 &bl!
Suddenly Black’s position has become
shaky: now if l9...Af6? there is the decisive
20 Af4, and no other useful moves are
apparent.
19...g5?!
Without the rook on g8 this is an unneces­
sary weakening. Although neither 19...Ad5 20
We2(e3) nor I9...f6 (Stohl) 20 g3 <4>b8 21 Whs
equalises, one of these would have been the
lesser evil.
20 h4! (continuing the fight for the h2-b8
diagonal, begun with the moves <£sc4 and
«f3) 20...Af4
A difficult choice. Black would have lost
after 20...Af6? 2 1 Aa5 b6 22 £sd6+l. His
problems would not have been solved either
by 20...f6 ?l 2 1 £sxe5 A ds (2l...£sxe5? 22 ®xf6)
22 l b 5 £ixe5 23 Af5+ <4>b8 24 Wxh6 Axa2+
25 <4 ’xa2 Sxd2 26 1 ^ 6 S x d l 27 B xdl gxh4
28 Ae6! c5 29 l rxh4, or by the comparatively
best 20...gxh4l? 21 b3l (not the Informator 21
We3(?) in view of 21...Axb2! 22 <£sxb2 Axa2+
or 22 <4>xb2 Axc4 with equality) 21...A h2
(2 1 ...Sg8 22 We3) 22 S h i £se5 23 £sxe5 Axes
241^4+ <4*18 25 g3, etc.
21 Axf4 gxf4 22 Af5!
An elegant tactical stroke, exposing the
weaknesses in Black’s position: 22...Axf5? 23
Sxe8 Sxe8 24 ^ d 6 + ^ 8 25 <£sxfs.
218
22.. .<£f8?!
Confusion. Black would also not have
been saved by 22...Ad5?l 23 2xe8 fixe8 24
l g 4 Sd8 25 b3! * b 8 (25...Axc4? 26 bxc4
and wins) 26 Axd7 Sxd7 27 <£se5 Se7
(27...Sd6 28 f3l) 28 !g8+! (more forceful
than the Informator 28 <£sd3 f3 29 gxf3)
28.. .1c8 29 l g 7 with an overwhelming
advantage. 22...<£sb6 23 fixd8+ <4>xd8 24
Axe6 Sxe6 25 Bxe6 fxe6 was more resilient,
although even here after 26 ld 3 + ! Black is
plagued by the weakness of his kingside
pawns: 26...1d7 27 <£se5l (not objecting to a
knight endgame) 27...1rd5 28 b3 with the
threat of £if7+ and <£sxh6.
23 #h5 <4>b8 24 Axe6 £sxe6
25 a4!
Playing for a bind. ‘With one move White
kills two birds: he secures the dominating
post at c4 for his knight and he opens an
escape square for his king in the event of his
back rank being overloaded. After 25 ®xh6
b5 26 <£sd2 Sg8 Black's pieces would have
come alive’ (Dokhoian), although after 27
Whs Sxg2 28 <£se4 he is still indifferently
placed.
25...®e7 26 ®e5+
To save time on the clock with a time
scramble approaching, I decided to repeat
the position. 26 2xd8+! 2xd8 27 <£se5 ^ 4
 Second Peak

28 2 d l was more resolute, when after the 29...1e7 30 £>g4 3 xd l+ 31 2 x d l ® g7

exchange of rooks it is difficult for Black to
defend his weak pawns, and he has no real
counter-chances.
26...Wc7 (26...'&>a8 27 a5! was dangerous) 27
Wh5 We7 28 b3?!
Again not rushing with 28 2xd8+! Sxd8
29 ^e5. The squeezing move b2-b3 proved
psychologically unpleasant for Anand, and
he did not find the best defence.

32 f3!
‘A similar move to 25 a4l. White very care­
fully attends to the safety of his fine knight,
now securing it a post on g4. After complet­
ing his prophylactic work, he invades the
black monarch’s position with decisive
effect’ (Dokhoian). The greedy 32 <Sk<h6?!
would have activated the black pieces:
32.. .1T18! 33 g4 fxg3 34 fxg3 b6 35 2 f l 2d7
28.. .*f6? 3 6 g 4 lrc3.
The correct continuation was 28...2xdl+ 32.. .2e8 33 #f5!?
29 S xdl £ ic7! (aiming to exploit the weak­ In such a position it was a pity to ex­
ness that has arisen on c3) 30 £id6 (30 #xh6 change the queens immediately - 33 Wxhe
‘Skis! 31 'i ’c l 2g8 is also not so clear), when *xh6 34 £xh6 2h8 35 &xf7 2xh4 36 2d6,
if 30...2g8?! 31 ®xf7 ®xf7 32 £>xf7 ^ d 5 33 allowing the opponent practical saving
S g l h5 34 ‘SkjS 2e8 35 g4fxg3 36fxg3 Black chances in an endgame a pawn down.
has a difficult endgame a pawn down, but 33.. .6a8?!
after 30...1f8 31 £>f5 (31 Ik h e £>d5!) If instead 33-2e7 there can follow 34 £>f6
31.. .1.e5 32 Wxh6 (32 2d7 a5! 33 Se7 Wc5) (threatening #e5+) 34...'Brh8 35 2d7 W 8 36
32.. .£»e6 33 ^ 5 Sk:7! (unexpected and 2xe7 ®xe7 37 ^ g 4 *c8 38 a5l or 34...'S’c8 35
thematic) the outcome would have been in We5 2 c7 36 a5 a6 (36...1rxg2? 37 £>e8) 37
question. 2d2 with gradual suffocation. The same
29 ^e5 strategy is also good after the most resilient
This situation is even more favourable for move 33-.a6! - 34 a5 or 34 £>f6 2c8 35 2d2
White than on the 26th or 28th move: Black etc.
cannot defend all his weaknesses and, 34 h5
deprived of counterplay, he is beginning to There was a pretty win by 34 Sd7! £>f8
suffocate. The time on Vishy’s clock was (34...^c5 35 2e7 2d8 36 We5\) 35 Ie 7 2d8
rapidly running out... 36 <S^e5! (stronger than Stohl’s move 36 We5)

219
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
36.. .Hfxg2 37 #d3!. HoweveT, I continued
playing foT a bind.
34.. .Ef8?
Time-trouble convulsions. 34...a6! was
essential, neutralizing 35 Sd7 by
35.. .51.5(f8). But here tbe queen exchange
now suggests itself - 35 #f6! ®xf6 36 £ixf6
with a won endgame.
35 Sd7
Absolute domination.
Both 3 5 - l rc3 36 £ixh6 and 35...1rg5 36
#xg5 hxg5 37 h6! are also hopeless. Anand
lost on time (l-O) - for only the second time
in his entire preceding career!
Strangely enough, this was my only win in
the tournament: after it I assumed the
unaccustomed role of ‘drawing king’, all my
remaining ten games concluding peacefully!
And after this loss, which was also Vishy’s
only one, for a long time he was unable to
Tegain his composure and he lost the lead.
Three rounds before the finish, the lead­
ing trio looked like this: Shirov - 6V2 out of
10; Anand and Kasparov - 5 out of 9. But
then Shirov lost to Svidler, while Anand
competently picked off the badly performing
Ivanchuk and Topalov. Fighting draws in the
last Tound games Kramnik-Anand and
Shirov-Kasparov produced the final results:
220
Anand - ‘plus three’, Shimv - ‘plus two’,
KTamnik and Kaspamv - ‘plus one’.
Kramnik’s second, gTandmasteT Sergey
Dolmatov: ‘This was how the tournament
went for Kasparov. Against him all the par­
ticipants played with particular accuracy.
With Black they kept away from lines deeply
studied by Garry and avoided dangerous
positions. And with White they often did not
even try to initiate a serious fight, but above
all preferred safety. Therefore with Black
Kasparov effectively did not have any win­
ning chances in even a single game.
'A typical example was the last round
game with Shirov. Kasparov employed a
novelty (cf. Game No.37, note to White’s 6th
move - G.K.) and equalised - a normal
occurrence. Playing White, Shirov avoided
any risk and, guided by tournament consid­
erations, forced a draw... Previously Garry
often won with Black thanks to his splendid
opening preparation. But even then I thought
that sooner or later the ‘Day c f Judgement’
would arrive. And here in Linares the oppo­
nents skilfully neutralised one of the impor­
tant components of Kasparov’s succcesses.’
HoweveT, the next year in Linares directly
the opposite picture was observed. Therefore
my comparative failure in March 1998 was
by no means a ‘Day of Judgement’, but the
consequence of my illness and a short-term
creative crisis.
Signs of a Tetum to form were aheady
seen in May, when in Sophia I white-washed
Topalov in a rapidplay match (4-0), and in
Tel Aviv I crushed the Israeli team in a dou­
ble-round clock simultaneous (7-l). But in
the middle of June I slumped: in Leon in an
‘advanced chess’ match with Topalov I won
only 'on penalties’ (3-3; blitz: 2V2-1 V2), and in
a rapidplay tournament in Frankfurt I fin­
ished behind Kramnik and Anand... To
escape from the crisis, intensive and con­

stant work was TequiTed, and in July my
tTaineTs and I began this at a TegulaT train­
ing session in Croatia.
In the meantime Anand declined to take
part in the WCC candidates match. Vishy
had obligations to FIDE, and in addition he
was enjoying life and was not burning with
desire to play a difficult match with Kram­
nik, and, in the event of success - an even
more difficult match with me. Thus Kram­
nik’s opponent became Shirov - the second
prize-winneT at the super-toumament in
Linares. Their match took place from 23 May
to 4 June in the Spanish town of CazoTla and
produced a sensational victory for Alexey
ShiTov (SVi-SVi)-
Thus in the summer of 1998 I spent a
month and a half intensively preparing for
my next match for the world championship. I
was helped by Dokhoian and Shakarov, and
towards the end we were joined by Boris
Gelfand (who, incidentally, then won the
August tournament in Polanica ZdToj, ahead
of Shirov, Ivanchuk and Karpov). By the
autumn I had calmed down and become
stronger physically, and I had significantly
renewed my store of opening ideas.
But Rentero reneged on his obligations.
Already in Cazoria he experienced obvious
problems in paying the prizes: Kramnik
received only a third of the promised sum,
while Shirov, who was due part of the two
million prize fund of the main match, was left
altogether without a cent. My losses were
also considerable. As it transpired, the WCC
project collapsed due to the retirement of an
important official in the Andalucian govern­
ment, on the support of whom Rentero was
counting. An attempt to negotiate with the
Catalonian government also achieved noth­
ing. AfteT this sad story I realised that global
plans cannot be lowered to a municipal level!
Feeling a moral obligation to play the
Second Peak
match with Shirov, with the help of my
manager Owen Williams I began seeking new
sponsors. The task was complicated by the
fact that my opponent had a terrible score
against me (-7=6), was rated a hundred
points loweT, and had also finished last at
Dortmund in July 1998.
Nevertheless a serious offer arrived from
Los Angeles to stage the match in November
with a prize fund of one million dollars -
$650,000 to the winner and $350,000 to the
loser. This was far better than nothing. But
Shirov initially stated that he would not play
for less than $400,000 in the event of defeat,
and then he demanded immediate bank
guarantees. My lawyer worked flat out and
quickly prepared a contract, and the organis­
ers agreed to transfer the money to a bank
account in installments over a period of 30
days. But Shirov obstinately said: ‘No!’ - and
out match collapsed.
While hope still lingered I played a training
match of six games with Jan Timman (Pra­
gue, 5-13 September 1998). The hall with
seating foT 700 was full every day, and foT the
last two games it was unable to accommo­
date all those interested. The final score 4-2
was exactly the same as in our first match in
1985. At the closing ceremony I commented:
‘It would appear that since that time the
relative strengths of the two players have not
changed’. The organiser of the Prague match,
the indefatigable former GMA President
Bessel Kok, told me that he wanted to organ­
ise a match foT the world championship.
However, not the duel with Shirov, but one in
the future, aimed at 'changing the current
abnormal situation, involving the possession
of the champion's title'.
At the end of September Kok approached
FIDE and me with a sensational offeT to stage
a ‘1999 match for the world championship’
with a prize fund of three million dollars
221
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
between the ‘generally acknowledged world
champion Garry Kasparov’ and the winner of
the forthcoming FIDE knock-out champion­
ship, which would be renamed the ‘1999
Candidates Tournament’. This offer appealed
to me, but first I was nevertheless intending
to play Shirov. Alas, it was no longer possible
to find anyone willing to stage the match...
Thanks to Rentero I was left without any
tournaments: the vacancies at Tilburg in
October and Wijk aan Zee in January had
already been filled. I was obliged to restrict
myself to analytical work with my trainers
and blitz games with grandmaster Sergey
Shipov.
My only appearance at the end of the year
was a colourful blitz match of 24 games with
Vladimir Kramnik (Moscow, 27-28 November
1998). At the start I took the lead - 3-1, but
then I suddenly ‘floundered’ and in the end I
equalised the score only with difficulty: 12-
12! The match did not earn me any laurels in
this confrontation with a difficult opponent:
Kramnik once again ascertained that he
could fight against me. But on the whole I
was content, since I felt that I was gaining
momentum.
In addition, a long-standing dream of mine
had been realised: to see how interesting
such a match could be for internet users. For
the first time all the games were broadcast in
real time throughout the world! I intended to
make use of this experience in the work of my
recently founded chess site ‘Kasparov Club’.
At that time my interest in Russian politics
had cooled and I was seriously carried away
with promoting chess via the internet.
Record Winning Series
International Tournament in Wijk aan Zee
(15-31 January 1999): 1. Kasparov - 10 out of
13; 2. Anand - gyi; 3. Kramnik - 8; 4-7.
I.Sokolov, Piket, Shirov and Timman - 7; 8-9.
222
Ivanchuk and Svidler - 6V2; 10. Topalov - 6;
11. Kasimdzhanov - 5; 12. van Wely - A'/i;
13. Yermolinsky - 4; 14. Reinderman - 3.
I played in Wijk aan Zee 1999 only by
chance: the tournament line-up was already
decided. The organisers turned down a
suggestion by my manager to include me as
a 15th participant, with a reduced appear­
ance fee. But, fortunately, at the last minute
Short withdrew (his wife had given birth),
and I took the free place.
Towards the end of the 20th century the
traditional festivals in Northern Holland
became an annual gathering of the world
chess elite, although since the 1960s the
likes of Botvinnik, Keres, Bronstein, Geller,
Spassky, Korchnoi, Tal, Portisch and Po-
lugaevsky had all played here. For many
years the venue was in Beverwijk - a small
town with a population of about 40,000, and
from 1968 it was moved to its suburb Wijk
aan Zee - a district with two or three thou­
sand inhabitants. The sponsor has invariably
been the local steel works, the owner of
which was the Hoogovens company, from
2000 - Corns, and now Tata Steel.
Previously I had not played in Wijk aan
Zee for two reasons. First, because of the
tournament’s insufficiently high category (it
rose during the 1990s). Second, although I
was a hardened Olympiad fighter, the ‘big
bazaar’ atmosphere seemed inconducive to
creative play. It is hard to concentrate when
in one enormous hall five tournaments are
taking place simultaneously: A, B, C and
mass opens. But gradually I became accus­
tomed to this gigantic ant-hill and in the
press I even expressed my admiration: ‘In
the hall there are 500 people - a grandiose
spectacle! The spirit of chess amateurishness
reigns. The Dutch manage this brilliantly.’
The key intrigue of the tournament was

said to be my first meeting in 11 months
with Vishy Anand, who in the previous year
had gained a series of brilliant victories and
was regarded as ‘the main opponent of the
13th world champion’. Of a thousand chess
fans questioned on the Internet, almost 50%
predicted first place for Anand, half less for
me, and a further half less for Shirov and
Kramnik.
Of course, before the start I experienced
both tension and excitement, but even more
- a severe tournament hunger! I was in an
excellent mood, since I felt I had a great
reserve of strength and fresh ideas. Also
reassuring was the No.l which I selected at
the drawing of lots.
True, in the first round I had a quiet draw
with Ivanchuk: Black gradually equalised in
a ‘Karlsbad’. But in the second round I was
able to crush the Sveshnikov Variation as
performed by the 26-year-old Loek van Wely,
who in the future was to win the Dutch
Championship many times.
Game 49
G.Kasparov-L.van Wely
Wijk aan Zee,
2nd Round, 17.01.1999
Sicilian Defence B331
*3
1 e4 C5 2 £>f3 £>c6
In this game with me my opponent de­
cided to keep under wraps his other well-
tried weapon -th e Najdorf Variation.
3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 £>f6 5 £)c3 e5 6 £)db5 d6 7
JLg5 a6 8 £ia3 b5 9 £sd5 (9 ^.xf6 gxf6 10 £}d5
- Game No.85) 9..«&e7 (9-®a5+ - Game
No.104) 10 ilxf6 jLxf6 11 c3 0-0 (ll..JLb7 -
Game No.13) 12 £k2 JLg5 (l2...Sb8 - Game
No.ll) 13 a4!
It has long been known that the sharp 13
h4 -&h6 14 g4 is well met by 14..~&f4l 15 #f3
Second Peak
.&e6 16 £)xf4 ^ 6 ! 17 g5 'Srxf4 18 'Srxf4 exf4
with equality (Minic-Langeweg, Budva 1963).
13...bxa4 14 Sxa4 a5
One of the main tabiyas of the variation.
15 i.b5
Smyslov’s move. It is tempting to develop
the bishop with gain of tempo and at the
same time clarify what Black is going to do
with his knight on c6. And yet the usual 15
.&C4 is better (here the bishop is in its right­
ful place: fighting for control of the d5-
point!): 15...Sb8 16 Sa2 itiS 17 ^ce3 (for
example, Anand-Kasparov, Linares 2005) or
16 b3 i ’hS 17 0-0 (Game Nos.13-15 in Revo­
lution in the 70s).
15.. .1.b7
The fight for the d5 point should not be
put off for even one move: 15...^e7l is
correct, and if 16 <S^xe7+ #xe7 17 0-0, then
17.. Mb? 18 1 ^ 3 -&e6 19 c4 .&d8 with equal­
ity (Smyslov-Sveshnikov, 45th USSR
Championship, Leningrad 1977). If 17 £lb4,
then 17-JLh3, 17..~&g4 (Landa-van Wely,
Bundesliga 2004), or even 17-Mc7 (Socko-
Zezulkin, Czech League 2004) is satisfactory.
The immediate 16 <S^cb4 is more accurate,
when in the variations with I6...£ixd5,
16.. .^.b7 or I6...^.e6 things are not easy for
Black (Dokhoian and I analysed this). But he
is saved by both l 6...JLd7 ! 17 ^ x e 7+ JLxe7 18
223
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
J.xd7 axb4! (Svidler-lvanchuk, Polanica Zdroj
2000) or 18 ^c6 #e8! (Tiviakov-Cifeuntes,
Hoogeveen 2000), and Adorjan’s original
idea l6..JLh3l, first employed by Leko in
2001 (Game No.12 in Revolution in the 70s).
16 £lce3
Strictly speaking, a novelty, but this is not
the best line (wbicb also applies to 16 h4
J.h6). Confused by the unexpected move
15.. .^.b7, I failed to exploit my opponent’s
inaccuracy: the logical 16 0-0 foel 17 .&c4!
would have given White a small but endur­
ing advantage.
16.. JLxe3 17 ^xe3 £le7
In reply van Wely also misses a chance
opportunity - ly...1® ^!? 18 #e2(d3) ^d8!
19 0-0 £)e6 or 19 £)d5 J.xd5 20 exd5 £)b7
with good counterplay.
18 0-0 Sb8?!
Also passing up another interesting pos­
sibility - lS...1® ^ 19 ^ 3 (Short-Gelfand,
Pamplona 1999) 19-..Sfd8!, intending ...d6-
d5. After 20 &C4 &c6 21 2a3 (21 S a 2 1^7)
21.. .a4 (Gutov-Filippov, Smolensk 2000) or 20
c4 ^c6! 21 ^ d 5 ^ 4 Black would still have
had equal chances. I8...f5l? is also interest­
ing.
But I8...d5?l is dubious: 19 exd5 ^xd5 20
£)xd5 JLxdS (20...1fxd5? 21 #xd5 J.xd5 22
S fal and wins) 21 h3! (instead of the Infor-
224
mator 21 c4 or 21 S el, since White cannot
manage without an escape square for his
king) 21...f6 22 c4 -&e6 23 1 ^ 8 Bfxd8 24
S fal Bac8 25 b3 Sd3 26 S bl, and in the
endgame the weakness of the a5-pawn is
felt.
19 #d3 Wb6
After I9...£>g6 20 g3 'S'gS the soundest is
2 lS d ll.
20 &C4!
I manage to stabilise the situation, and
Black, deprived of counterplay, comes under
pressure. He has weak pawns on a5 and d6,
and also the d5 point to deal with.
20.. J L c 6 21 Sa2 2fd8 22 b3 (with the simple
threat of S fal and Sxa5) 22..Mc5
A pretty move, but ineffective. However, if
22.. .'®rb7 (hoping for 23 f3?l d5 24 exds
^ x d 5 25 Sxa5 1Brb6 with equality), then 23
^ d 5 is strong - although after 23...^xd5 24
exd5 ^.b5 25 Sxa5 ^.xc4 26 bxc4 White’s
extra pawn is doubled, his chances of pre­
paring the c4-c5 breakthrough are very real.
23 S f a l Sa8
Black is already on the ropes, but what to
do next? I sank into thought...
24 h4!
White begins a demonstration on the
kingside, hoping at the least to seize new
space.

24.. .h6
Rejecting 24...h 5 because of the fear that
after 25 # e2 ,&xe4 (25—g6? 26 #f3) 26 #xh5
my initiative would develop into an attack. It
was this continuation that I was planning
and spent a long time calculating. It is bad to
play 26...£}g6? 27 Wg5! with the threats of
b3-b4 and h4-h5 or 26..JLg6? 27 #g5! d5 28
b4! (instead of the Informator 28 h5(?) f6!)
28.. .#c7(d6) 29 h5, etc. There is the more
resilient 26...d5 27 #xe5 £>g6 28 # g 5 f6 29
# g 4 dxc4 30#xe4 cxb3 31 #66+ <&f8! (I saw
only 31-*h8?! 32 #xb3 £>xh4 33 2a4) 32
#xb3 £}xh4, although here also after 33 Sa4
£ig6(f5) 34 Sc4 the chances are on White’s
side.
25 h5l (constricting the knight on e7 and the
entire enemy kingside) 25 ..JLb7 26 5 d l iLc6
2 7 S d a li.b 7 28 ^.d5l
After repeating moves to gain time on the
clock, I set about creating a passed pawn on
the queenside. It is of no importance that
the weakness of the d5 point and the back­
ward d6-pawn disappear: White exploits his
advantage in space and the better placing of
his pieces.
28.. ..6.d5 (after 28...£}xd5 29 exd5 the a5-
pawn would have been doomed) 29 exds
2dc8 30 b4!
For van Wely it came as a surprise that
Second Peak
the transition into an endgame had not
eased his problems.
30...#xc3 31 # x c3 Sxc3 32 2xa5 2b8 33
Sa7
A typical rook invasion of the seventh
rank. Black also has a difficult position after
33 2a6 £>c8 34 2c6 2b3 35 2 a c l £>b6 36
2xd6 2xb4 37 2c7 or 33 2a8 2cc8 34 2xb8
2xb8 35 2a6 £>c8 36 2c6 <&f8 37 £>c4, etc.
33-.&f8 34 2d7
34.. .£ ic8?
Losing. 34...^e8 was more resilient, when
in the event of my Informator suggestion 35
2xd6 2xb4 36 2da6 Black would retain
drawing chances by replying 36...£>c8 or
36.. .2cb3. Stronger is 35 2aa7l £}c8 36 2db7
2xb7 37 2xb7 followed by g2-g4 and b4-b5,
paralyzing the opponent’s defence.
35 2d8+ * e 7 36 2g8 2xb4 37 2a8!
The decisive move. ‘The rampant rooks
wreak havoc’ (MakaTychev).
37.. .*d7
37...2cl+ 38 * h 2 *d7 39 g3! or 37...2xe3
38 fxe3 £)b6 39 2ab8 £>xd5 40 2xb4 £)xb4
4 1 2xg7 and 2h7xh6 was also hopeless.
38 2xg7
In the time scramble I immediately
grabbed the pawn, although I could have
first safeguarded my king by 38 g4(g3).
38.. .2 c l+ 39 &h2 2 f4 40 £>g4?
225
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

This leads to unnecessary complications. see a dentist, was replaced by the local
40 2a2l (threatening g2-g3) 40...2h4+ 41 master Bosboom). Many were expecting
4>g3 Sxh5 42 Sxf7+ ^ 8 (42...<&e8 43 Sh7) Anand to win, but I started with 7 out of 7,
43 Sa8 fig5+ 44 would have won. and after a draw with Kramnik I again won -
8V2 out of 9! And although I then contrived
to lose with White to Bosboom, in the end I
scored 101/2 out of 13 and took first place by
a margin of one and a half points ahead of
Anand and Ivanchuk, whom I beat in our
individual games (from the year 2000, for
some reason, such blitz tournaments were
no longer held).
After such a powerful stimulus I felt very
much on form. In the third round I beat
Yermolinsky with Black, after castling queen-
side in the Griinfeld - a very rare occurrence
(cf. Game No.67, note to White’s 10th move),
40.. .£se7 and I caught the leader - Anand. Topalov
40...Sf5 41 ^g3 ^ e 7 also deserved con­ and Kramnik were half a point behind.
sideration, since the Informator 42 £sxh6 (42 In the fourth round came an unforgetta­
Sf 8l?) 42...Sxh5 43 2xf7 2xh6 44 2a7+ 2c7 ble duel with Veselin Topalov, the fantastic
45 2 xc7+ & xc7 46 2xe7+ 4>d8 47 2a7 is finish to which was published in all the
unclear because of 47...2g6+L Therefore 47 world's chess magazines. Hans Ree: 'Those
2g7! is more accurate. But Black also has who were fortunate enough to be present at
46.. .1,b 6!? 47 2e6 2h8 48 2xd6+ &c5 49 2d7 this game will talk about it to their children
2 f8! with saving hopes even two pawns and grandchildren, and these stories will
down! continue as long as chess is alive!’
4 1 2a 7+ &e8?
An echo of time-trouble - Black blunders
a piece. It was essential to play 4i...2c7 42 Came 50
2 xc7+ 4>xc7 43 £sxh6 2h4+ 44 i ’gl! 2xh5 45 G.Kasparov-V.Topalov
£sxf7 £sf5l (more resilient than the Informa- Wijk aan Zee,
tor 45...‘A’d7 46 g4!) 46 2g6 2h4 (46...£sd4 47 4th Round, 20.01.1999
f 3) 47 g4 2h7! 48 2f6 £\e7 49 £sxd6 £sxd5 Pirc Defence B07
with practical chances of holding out a
pawn down. 1 e4 d6
42 g3! Sf5 43 2h7 <£*8 44 2a8+ 1-0 Veselin decided to surprise me, and he
achieved his aim: in ‘classical’ play I had
A good start - l'/i out of 2, but Anand be­ never before encountered this defence!
gan with two wins. 2 d4 £*f6 3 £ sc3 g6 4 &e3
The following day, 18 January, was free, Planning the typical Wd2, f2-f3 and 0-0-0
and in the A group the organisers arranged ‘followed by an attack on the kingside’. It
a blitz tournament (only Shirov, who had to seemed to me that here White did not need

226

any special knowledge. But in fact, of course,
in this set-up also an accurate move order is
important.
4.. .6 g 7
Often Black first plays 4...c6 5 ^ 2 b5 or
5...51bd7 (Kasparov-Azmaiparashvili, 1st
match game (blitz), Panormo 2003), devalu­
ing the effect of 6 Ah 6.
5 ®d2 c6
6f3
More is promised by the immediate ex­
change of bishops - 6 Ah6!? Axh6 7 Wxh6
Was 8 Ad3 c5 (8...b5 9 Sif3) 9 d5l (if 9 Sige2,
then 9...Sk6 10 d5 Ste5 11 Ab5+ *d8! is
good, Caruana-lvanchuk, Biel 2009) 9-Sibd7
10 Sif3, for example: 10...b5 11 0-0! c4 12
Ae2 b4 13 Skll WcS (Adams-van Wely,
Debrecen 1992) 14 Sig5!? - an internet
novelty of the year 2000.
6...b5 7 Sige2
An inopportune move, made only because
others appealed to me even less. With the
pawn on f3, taking away this square from
the knight, 7 Ah6 Axh6 8 #xh6 Was 9 Ad3
Sibd7 is no longer so tempting. The sharp 7
g4 is unclear because of 7-h5 8 g5 Sifd7 9 f4
(Sveshnikov-Gulko, Riga 1975) 9~b4!? 10
Skll c5. And it would seem rather early for 7
0-0-0: it is precisely for this that Black is
preparing.
Second Peak
7...Sibd7 8 Ah6 Axh6 9 #xh6
White’s only achievement is that he has
hindered Black’s castling: on the kingside for
the moment it is not possible, while on the
queenside because of ...b7-b5 it is not with­
out its dangers.
9.. .Ab7
Logical development. There is no longer
any point in 9-WaS because of 10 'Ski and
Sib3 (Hartston-Littlewood, Bristol 1968),
while if 9...e5 (Blatny-Piket, Groningen 1985),
now is the right time for 10 0-0-0.
10 a3
Impeding Black’s offensive on the queen-
side. As it later transpired, this was a novelty:
earlier 10 g4 or 10 ■Ski was tried , but not 10
0-0-0?! b 4 11 Sibl(a4) Was.
10.. .e5 (I0...a5l?) 110-0-0
11 dxe5 Sixes?! 12 Skl4(g3) or ll...dxe5
12 S k i with the idea of Sid3, Ae2 and 0-0
also deserved consideration.
Generally speaking, it has to be said that
White’s play in the first half of the game,
although quite sound, was by no means the
most energetic. But perhaps this was an
essential prelude to a masterpiece?
11.. .We7 (ll...a5!?) 12 & b l (making way for
the knight) 12...a6
The plan with ...exd4 and ...c6-c5 is slightly
slow. Again I2...a5!? suggested itself - I
227
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
condemned this in Informator because of IB
£>cl (the immediate IB dxe5 is better)
13...b4 14 dxe5 dxe5(?!) 15 £>a4 bxa3 16 b3,
but after 14...£>xe5! 15 “£>a4 (15 axb4 axb4
16 £>3a2 c5) 15-..bxa3 16 b3 0-0-0 or 16...C5
Black is fine.
13 £ > d
13 g4l? is sharper. The standard knight
manoeuvre cl-b3-a5 is no longer so danger­
ous for Black - but without this a grandiose
combination would not have happened!
13.. .0-0-0 14 £>b3 exd4! (14...C5 15 d5 is too
passive) 15 Sxd4 c5 16 S d l £>b6!
Next in tum is the freeing ...d6-d5.16...d5?!
17 exd5 “£>b6 is premature because of 18
I rh3+!, disclosing the weakness of the c5-
pawn (Marciano-Chabanon, Cannes 2000).
17 g3
White completes his development, al­
though he should probably have preferred
17 (preventing ...d6-d5) 17...She8 18
# f2 with a minimal plus.
17.. .6b8 (I7...d5l?) 18 £>a5 (objectively a
blank shot, but I did not see anything better)
18.. .1.a8
The immediate I8...d5 is also possible: 19
£ixb7 &xb7 20 exd5 £rfxd5 21 £>xd5 Sxd5
22 ±d3 f5 23 S h el Wc7{f7), and the superi­
ority of bishop over knight is ephemeral.
19 £.h3 (what else?) I9...d5 20 #f4+ (bring­
228
ing the queen back into the game) 20...&a7
21 S h e l d4 (the exchange 2l...dxe4?l 22
fxe4 favours White) 22 £>d5?l
Undoubtedly a reckless move, provoked
by an unwillingness to retreat with 22 £>a2
and engage in lengthy trench warfare with
roughly equal chances. But, in view of what
happened, I don't know what kind of as­
sessment the knight jump to d5 deserves.
22...£>bxd5 23 exd5 Wd6
24 Sxd4!
It was this stroke that I saw when consid­
ering my 22nd move, and I was seized by
fervour! After 24 £>c6+ £lxc6 25 WxdB 5xd6
26 dxc6 &b6 27 Se7 ^xc6 28 Sxf7 (after
Stohl’s move 28 S d el there is the simple
28.. .5f8) 28...Se8 Black simply has the better
ending.
24.. .cxd4?
T could have declined the rook sacrifice
and maintained equality. But I found it very
interesting (such a raid by the king!) and I
was eager to see how this would all end’
(Topalov). By 24...^.xd5 25 Sxd5! £>xd5 26
Hrxf7+ £>c7 27 Se6 #dl+ ! 28 <&a2 Sd7 29
Se7 VUd5+\ 30 WxdS Sxd5 31 Sxc7+ &b6 32
Sc6+ ^>xa5 33 iLc8 (because of this move
Stohl rejected 27...Wdl+) 33-Sxc8 34 Sxc8
c4 and ...Sd2 Black would indeed have
gained a draw.
 Second Peak

But 24-..<4 ’b6! was even stronger - since

25 1Brd2? £)xd5! is not possible, White would
have had to fight for equality in an inferior
endgame: 25 £)b3?! ^.xd5! 26 VHxd6+ 2xd6
27 Sd2 2hd8 28 2f2!? (rather more resilient
than the Infonvator 28 2edl) or 25 b4 Urxf4
26 2xf4 £)xd5 27 2xf7 cxb4 28 axb4 £)xb4
29 £sb3 2d6 (29-.^.d5 30 2f6+) 30 2e6!, etc.

28 Wc3?
Quickly played: I had already seen the
contours of the variation with the black king
on d l and I was unable to refrain from
making this move, which throws away a
certain win. Black would have been set
difficult problems by 28 2e6l? fxe6 29 #63!
#xb4+! 30 axb4 *xb4 31 #d4+ &a5 32 d6!
25 2e7+!f £sd5 33 £ x e 6.
The crux of my idea - diversion (25 But a couple of days later in the Washing­
1i rxd4+? Wb6 is incorrect). ‘The sacrifice of ton Post Lubosh Kavalek pointed out the
two rooks is very pretty!’ (Sveshnikov). phenomenal decisive move 28 Sa7ll.
25.. .6b6
It turns out that 25...1rxe7? 26 1i rxd4+
leads to mate, and 25...<&’b8? 26 #xd4l £)d7
27 ix d 7 ^.xd5 28 c4! to a swift rout:
28.. .1rxe7 29 Wb6+ 'i ’aS 30 #xa6+ 4>b8 31
Wb6+ i ’aS 32 ic6+! ix c 6 33 £sxc6.
26 Wxd4+ &xa5
If 26...1i rc5 27 1 ^ 6 + # ^ 6 I was planning
the colossally strong 28 ^.e6!l. Now 28...2he8
29 b4l and #d4+ or 28...‘&’xa5 29 b4+ * a4 30
#03 ix d 5 31 ^b2 and Wb3+! is suicidal. But
28.. .1xd5 also does not help: 29 b4l .4x6 30
Whd7 lfdl+ 31 &b2 #xf3 32 1 ^ 7 with a
winning attack. Analysis Diagram
27 b4+ &a4
Topalov was hoping to defend, but I intui­ White would have had to see not only the
tively sensed that it would not be so easy for mate after 28...£)xd5 29 Sxa6+I! Wxa6 30
Black to escape. Wb2l £ sc3+ 31 #xc3 £d5 32 &b2 and Wb3+!

229
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
or 28..JLxd5 29 Wc3! Ehe8 30 &b2 Se2 31
Wc7! (threatening Was mate) 3i..Wxc7 32
Sxa6+, but also the accurate tactical blows
28.. JLb7 29 Sxb7 £>xd5 30 i.d7! Exd7 31
Wb2! £ixb4 32 Sxd7 Wc5 (32...Wf8 33 Wc3!)
33 Sd4 Sc8 34 Wb3+ or 29...Wxd5 30 2b6! a5
(30...Sa8 31 Wxf6 a5 32 31 Sa6! Ea8
32 We3N Exa6 33 * b 2 axb4 34 axb4 Wa2+
(tbere is nothing else) 35 (&>xa2 ^>xb4+ 36
<^>b2, and under threat of mate Black suffers
great loss of material (36...&C4 37 c3 or
36.. .5.6 37 JLfl, etc.).
To cope with this at the board, with time-
trouble approaching, was practically impos­
sible. It was especially difficult to realise in
advance that, at the end of the variation
with 32 We3ll, with two rooks for the queen
Black has no defence! But this omission led
to an even more remarkable finale...
28.. .Wxd5 (of course, not 28..JLxd5? 29 *b2)
29 Ea7!
Veselin was expecting 29 Wc7? Wdl+ 30
<^>b2 Wd4+ with perpetual check and did not
imagine that White would play for mate
with quiet moves!
29.. .1.b7 (29-..Sd6? 30* b 2) 30Sxb7
An incredible position: it is Black to move,
be is a rook up, and White has no direct
threats - but how to save the king shut in on
a4?
230
30.. .Wc4!
The only move! If 30...Ed6? there is the
knock-out blow 31 2b6!! Exb6 32 <£ ’b2. After
30.. .£ie4 31 fxe4 Wc4 32 2a7H 2dl+
(32...Ea8 33 We3) 33 * b 2 Wxc3+ 34 *xc3
2d6 35 e5 2b6 36 ^>b2 Black’s ‘bad’ king
causes his downfall even in the endgame
(^.g2-d5-b3 mate is threatened): 36...f5 37
&g2 Ed8 38 i.b7 2d7 39 JLc6! or 36...2e8 37
i.g2! 2xe5 (37...2d8 38 2xf7 or 38 i.b7 2d7
39 ^.c6!! 2d8 40 i.d7 and c2-c4) 38 i.b7 2e3
(38...2e7? 39 i.d5!) 39 i.xa6 2xa3 40 ^.c8+
^>xb4 4 1 2xa3.
30...Ehe8 (Topalov) 31 2b6 2a8 32 &fl!!
(Ree) was also discussed: 32...2el+ (32...£sd7?
33 2d6!) 33 Wxel £)d7 34 2b7H £se5
(34-.Wxb7 35 Wdl!, mating) 35 Wc3!, and
Black is in trouble (35..Wxf3 36 JLd3), or
32.. .2.c8 33 Wxc8 Wdl+ 34 <&a2 Wd5+ 35
^.c4! Wxc4+ 36 Wxc4 bxc4 37 Exf6 with a
won endgame. At the board I did not see all
these variations - but I would have had to
find them!
31 Wxf6
3l...*xa3?
Topalov took the pawn very confidently,
reckoning that his king would escape from
the pursuit. Meanwhile, the only defence
was 3l...Edl+! 32 ^ 2 Ea8, forcing White to
go into an endgame: 33 Wb6! Wd4+ (33...a5?

34 ^.d7 and wins) 341i rxd4 Sxd4 35 2xf7 a5!
(35-Sd6? 36 Sd7l, maintaining the mating
net) 36 JLe6 axb4 37 i.b3+ * a5 38 axb4+
*b6 (38...Sxb4? 39 c3) 39 Sxh7 - I thought
that here also White had a decisive advan­
tage (after all, three pawns for the ex­
change!), but I now Ithink that after 39...Sf8!
(instead of the Informator 39...Sc8(?) 40 h4)
Black could have fought for a draw.
32 Wxa6+ &xb4 33 c3+! &xc3 34 Wal+ &d2
(34-*b4 35 1T32+! * a5 36 Wa3+ Wa4 37
fia7+ was hopeless) 35 # 62+ & d l 36 JLfl!
Hd2! (can Black really save himself?) 37 2d7l
‘A truly study-like idea!’ (MakaTychev).
This move, like the previous one, was made
with particular pleasure. To this day I re­
member how the expression on Topalov’s
face suddenly changed.
37...2xd7 38 £ xc4 bxc4 39 Wxh8 2d3 40
Wa8 c3 41 Wa4+ & e l 42 f4 f5 43 & c l S d 2
44 Wa7 1-0
And an ovation broke out in the hall!
This rare combination was possibly the
most brilliant in my chess career. During our
evening walk Dokhoian and I met Yer-
molinsky, and he proclaimed: Yes, / saw it on
the monitor. Not bad!'. Moreover, the organ­
isers announced that this game could al­
ready be called the most brilliant in the
Second Peak
tournament, while the local correspondents
christened it a ‘diamond’ and suggested that
it would be the best game in 1999, even
though the year had just begun. Later the
experts deemed it to be the best in the 74th
volume of Informator.
That day Anand also won, and we both
reached 3V2 out of 4. In the fifth round I
outplayed Reinderman in a tense battle and
finally took the sole lead. Then I won a
slightly better ending against Piket, who got
into very severe time-trouble, and I in­
creased the gap: Kasparov - 5V2 out of 6;
Anand - 4V2; Kramnik - 4.
The seventh round battle with the WCC
challenger Alexey Shirov was ultra-crucial, in
view of our wrecked match. Shirov blamed
me, although in the episode involving the
WCC I had suffered no less than him and in
return I had ‘unearthed’ the match in Los
Angeles, which was rejected by my oppo­
nent. And when Kok suggested I play a six-
game match with Judit Polgar in the sum­
mer with a prize fund of $200,000,1declined
in favour of Alexey...
From the press: ‘The game created height­
ened interest with the exacting public, who
crowded round the barrier separating the
masses from the elite of the grandiose festi­
val. The importance of the occasion was
recognised by the numerous journalists, the
participants in the super-tournament, and
above all by the players themselves: they were
extremely tense and composed.’
Came 51
A.Shirov-G.Kasparov
Wijk aan Zee,
7th Round, 24.01.1999
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 c5 2 £tf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5
231
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
<£)c3 a6 6 &e3 (6 f3 ^ 6 - Game No.76)
6...£}g4
A fully anticipated opening duel, al­
though there could also have followed 6...e5
(Game Nos.45, 93) or 6...e6 7 f3 b5 (Game
N os.56, 58, 66, 74).
7 i.g5 h6 8 &h4 g5 9 &g3 &g7
In our preparations for the match with
Shirov, my trainers and I looked a great deal
at this position and devised some ideas.
10 £e2 (10 Wd2 - Game No.54; 10 h3 -
Game No.63) 10...h5 11 -&-Xg4 hxg4
Instead of the customary H...iLxg4 (Game
Nos.32, 40, 116), I conceived the idea of
rehabilitating a rejected variation.
12 0-0
Soon 12 <£)d5 ^ c6 13 ^ f5 came to the
fore: 13—&xf5 (13—&xb2 14 S b l ,&a3 is also
possible) 14 exf5 Jtxb2 15 S b l ^aS-r 16 Wd2
JLd4! 17 ®xa5 £ixa5 18 <£>c7+ &d7 19 <£>xa8
Sxa8 with equality (Anand-Topalov, Dort­
mund 1999). 18 c3l ^.c5?l 19 £)c7+ &d7 20
<£>xa8 Sxa8 21 h4 gxh3 (21...Sh8 22 h5) 22
Sxh3 is stronger, with a favourable end­
game (Shirov-Grischuk, Wijk aan Zee 2011),
but l8 —&f6! is more solid.
12...e6?!
A dubious novelty. White would also have
been fully satisfied with l2..JLxd4?l 13
WxdA f6 14 <£>d5 ^ c6 15 # e 3 (Shirov-Salov,
232
Wijk aan Zee 1998), 12...'Brb6?l 13 £if5 .&xf5
14 ^d5l (Ramesh-Minasian, Ubeda 1999),
and the most popular I2...£ic6(!) 13 ^f5
^.xf5?! 14 exf5.
Soon in this last line I was indeed able to
rehabilitate the variation: 13..JLxc3! 14 bxc3
Was 15 1i rxg4 f6 (the black king is quite well
placed on f7) 16 S ab i (16 Wt3 £)e5 17 'Sfe3
.&xf5 18 exf5 Sc8 with equality, Leko-Lutz,
Frankfurt (rapid) 1999) lB -’i'xcS 17 S fdl
£>e5 18 JLxeS # x e 5 19 g3 b5, and White had
to struggle for a draw (Shirov-Kasparov,
Sarajevo 1999, 2nd round). In the sixth round
Leko did not risk playing 6 JLe3 against me,
explaining after the game: "because of the
weakness of the doubled pawns on c2 and
c3’. Later he nevertheless tried 15 <£)e3!?
(instead of 15 1i rxg4) 15 —&e6 16 S b l and
<£>d5 (Leko-Gelfand, Monte Carlo (rapid)
2002). But Black can avoid this by 14—f6!? 15
#xg4 WaS.
This was my main ‘secret weapon’, but on
that January day I was tempted by.another
idea, devised in the summer - on the beach. I
wanted to deprive the white knights of the
f5- and d5-squares. Although in doing so the
d6-pawn is weakened or even sacrificed, and
the ‘blunt’ bishop on g3 is activated, I was
pinning my hopes on the ...<£)d7(c6)-e5
manoeuvre. The plan with 12...e6 is ex­
tremely risky, but unexpected! Besides, at
the time I did not see any refutation of it.
Shirov, naturally, was surprised and he sank
into thought-
13 &d2?!
This obvious move was the one I expected.
Black need not fear either 13 <£>de2 (Almasi-
Kir.Georgiev, Bundesliga 1999) 1 3 - ^ 6 ! 14
i.xd6 b5 or 14 ®xd6 #xd6 15 JLxd6 <£>e5
with good play, or 13 <£>b3 ^.xc3! 14 bxc3 e5
with a secure shelter and chances of exploit­
ing the weakness of the white pawns (Tivia-
kov-Vachier-Lagrave, Hoogeveen 2010).

However, 13 S ell could have emphasised
Black’s retarded development: the gambit
move I3...£)d7? is now bad because of 14
iLxd6 £ie5 15 £sc(d)b5l or I4...ie5 15 £)f5l
(Vallejo-Ortega, Saint Vincent 1999), and
other moves are also insufficient: 13...0-0 14
e5 or 14 # d 2l with an attack, or 13..Jte5 14
iLxe5 dxe5 15 ^ 3 Wxdl 16 <£ixdl! with
obviously the better ending.
13...£)d7!
The point of my idea: with his powerful
knight on e5 Black has nothing to fear.
14 JLxd6?!
Of course, it was better to play 14 S ad i
£ie 5 (to me this position seemed acceptable
for Black) 15 b3 with the intention of f2-f3,
and if 15...b5, then 16 a4l. But Shirov decided
to try and refute my audacious idea with the
help of a knight sacrifice.
14...<£)e5 15 <£)cb5 axb5 16 <£)xb5 f6! (an
important defensive move) 17 S fd l
If 17 <£ic7+?! 4T7 18 <£ixa8 Black has the
fork l 8...<£)c4 (which there would not have
been after 13 Sell) 19 ^ 4 0 ^ 4 ) WxdB 20
# x d 6 <2^xd6 with two pieces for a rook and
an excellent endgame (21 e5? <£)c4!). There­
fore Alexey preferred to remain with two or
three pawns for the piece and chances of
pursuing the exposed black king. Alas, the
compensation proves to be insufficient.
Second Peak
17.. .4f7 18 #e2 (18 a4 £ic6!?) I8...1,d7
Not bad, but I 8...<£ic6!? was more interest­
ing, avoiding the spoiling of the pawns, for
example: 19 itg3 ^ 6 or 19 JLc5 ^ 8! 20
1 ^ 4 &g6 21 #g3 IT 17, etc.
19 M e S (19 c4 &g6!) 19...fxe5 20 £)d6+
Shirov was already short of time, and it
was increasingly difficult for him to find
accurate moves. Later he recommended 20
'Srxg4 with the idea of 20...#e7 21 <£)d6+, but
20.. .6 g 8(g6) is more shrewd.
20.. .6g6
2lSd3?!
White would have lost after 21 <£ixb7?
#c7 22 £)C5 (22 £)d6 Sh7 or 22...g3l 23 hxg3
Sh7 and wins) 22...'Srxc5 23 Sxd7 g3! (much
stronger than the Informator 23...Saf8) 24
hxg3 fih6! (Makarychev) 25 ®g4 (defending
against ...Sah8) 25...Se8 26 S ad i M b with
the threats of ...Wxc2 and ...Heh8.
21 #xg4 was essential, for the moment
avoiding the exchange of queens, although
after 2l...#c7 all the trumps would have
remained on Black’s side. After the exces­
sively aggressive rook move, for the first
time in the game Ihad a long think.
21...#f6! (threatening ...#f4 or ...5h7 and
...Sah8) 22 ® xg4
22 C4?l (22 £)xb7? ib 5 ) 22...Sh7 23 ®xg4
(23 S ad i Sxa2) 23...#f4 was even worse. The
233
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

pawn has to be taken, but now Black ex­
changes the queens.
22.. .#f4 23 h3 (23 Wxf4? exf4 and wins)
23.. .#xg4 24 hxg4
With his powerful knight on d6 Shirov is
hoping to create something resembling a
fortress, but objectively his position is close
to lost.
followed by the win of the a2-pawn and the
game, but at the board I was not sure that
with the light-squared bishop I would be
able to destroy the enemy fortress: Black has
no pawn breaks! And therefore I decided to
keep the two bishops.

3 1 Sc2 (covering the second rank) 3 l —^f6

32 & f2 iLa4 33 Sc3 S b 2+ 34 * g 3 S c2
24.. .1.C6 (34...Sa6!?)35Sd?l
Preserving the pawn on b7. 24...Sh7l? also 35 Sxc2 JLxc2 36 %Sb7 Sa3 37 *112 was
deserved consideration, with the idea of 25 nevertheless more resilient.
<£sxb7 itc 6 26 <£sd8 jLxe4 27 Hd6 itf6 or 26 35...Sxa2 36 S b l ± c6 (36...Sa6! was more
<£id6 Sah 8 27 Sh3 Sxh3 28 gxh3 Id8! 29 forceful) 37 Sb6
£ ic4 itxe4, gradually converting the extra
piece.
25 C4?!
A weakening, which makes things easier
for me. After 25 f3 Jlf6 the dark-squared
bishop would have quickly come into play.
25 a3! and S ad i was more resilient.
25.. .5hd8 26 f3 Af8 27 c5 b6
This pawn should not have been ex­
changed. There was a simpler win by
27.. .5a4! (threatening ...Sd4) 28 £)f7?!
1.XC5+ 29 &h2 Sxd3 30 <£ixe5+ ^ f6 31 <£ixd3
,&,d4 or 28 S a d i Sxa2 29 Sld2 ^>f6, etc.
28 b4 bxc5 29 bxc5 l a 5 30 Sc3 2b8 37...Sa6
Here I began to have agonising problems ‘It was still possible to get carried away
over the conversion of my advantage. and go wrong: 37...Se2? 38 2xc6 Saa2 39
30.. JLxd6!? 31 cxd6 Sxd6 suggested itself, *h2! Sxg2+ 40 * h l, and things end in

234

perpetual check’ (Zaitsev).
38 2b8 (if 38 2cb3 there could have followed
38..JLe7 or 38...22a5) 38—&e7
38..JLxd6l? 39 cxd6 Sd2 and ...2xd6
would again have won, but I stuck firmly to
my course.
39 2 c l (39 2h8 2e2l? and ...2aa2) 39—2a8
(39...2d2l? and ...2aa2) 40 2b6 22a6 41
2bbl
White’s set-up would also not have held
after 4 1 2 cb l 2xb6 42 2xb6 jLd7(a4), etc.
4 l —ie 8 ! 42 2 h l (42 £>xe8+ 2xe8 43 2b6
2xb6 44 cxb6 2b8 45 2 b l .&c5 46 b7 &e7
was hopeless) 42...iLg6 43 2b7 2c6
44 £>f5?!
A pretty move, but ineffective. After sur­
viving one scramble before the first time
control, Shirov was again in time-trouble
and he overlooked an opportunity to com­
plicate my task by 44 2h6!, nevertheless
forcing the exchange on d6 - 44-^-xd6 45
cxd6 2xd6.
True, analysis shows that in this endgame
Black would also retain every chance of
winning: 46 2b2 2ad8 47 2 h l 2d2 48 2 h b l
2xb2 49 2xb2 .&e8 (activating the bishop, in
order to take aim at the g2-pawn and bring
up the king) 50 4f2 .&a4 51 2a2 2d4l? 52
2b2 Jic6 53 2b8 2d2+ (the Informator
53..~&xe4(?) 54 fxe4 2xe4 55 ^>g3 2f4 56
Second Peak
2f8+ &g7 is unclear in view of 57 2a8) 54
<^ >g3(gl) .&a4 with the intention of ...^.dl-
e2-fl, or 53 &e3 2c4 54 2a2 Ji.a4 55 ^>d3
2b4 56 &e3 &e7 57 2d2 2c4 58 2a2 ^>d6 59
2d2+ &C5 60 2d8 2c2 and wins.
This bears some distant resemblance to
the ending of my game with Yusupov from
Linares 1990 (Game No.66 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
44—&f8
44....&XC5!? 4 5 ® g 7 &f7 4 6 £>h5+ ^>g6
would also have won. In any event, with the
two bishops the path to the goal is much
simpler.
45 2h8 (45 £>d6 2xc5) 45-exf5 46 gxf5 ± f 7
47 &g4 &g7 48 2h5 .&xc5 49 2xg5+ &f6
0-1
‘Abattle on a grand scale!’ (Makarychev).
By winning against Shirov I set a personal
record - for the first time I overcame my
‘curse of five wins’. Usually after them there
followed either a loss, or bad play, but here -
a sixth successive win! And after it came a
seventh, against the future FIDE knock-out
champion Kasimdzhanov (at that time no
one yet had any suspicion of his grandeur:
he had qualified for the main tournament
from group B).
And so, this longest winning series, not
counting the incidental first place in the
blitz tournament, produced the best start in
my career - 7'A out of 8 (my ‘tournament
rating’ crossed the 3000 mark!). Anand was
points behind, and Kramnik 2V2.
However, I was extremely tired and I felt
that the storm clouds were gathering over
me. The tension grew from game to game,
and in the ninth round the thunder charges
reached the absolute maximum. In my game
with the ‘new Dutchman' Ivan Sokolov I
suffered a temporary fogging of the mind, a
kind of ‘short circuit’.
235
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Game 52
I.Sokolov-G.Kasparov
Wijk aan Zee,
9th Round, 26.01.1999
Nimzo-lndian Defence E59
1 d4 £)f6 2 C4 e6
I avoided the Griinfeld Defence, because
my opponent would certainly have prepared
for it together with Timman (at our Prague
match in 1998 Sokolov was his trainer).
3 £*3
After 3 £)f3 I was planning 3~b6 4 £)c3
£b7 5 a3 d5, and if 6 jLgS ^.e7 7 l fa4+ ^.c6
8 Wb3 dxc4 9 ®xc4 0-0 10 £xf6 £xf6 11 e4
(this is what Ivan played), then ll...b5 12
£ixb5 (12 #d3 is more solid, I.Sokolov-
Almasi, Dos Hermanas 2001) 12..JLxe4 13
£ ixc7 £)c6l? (instead of 13...^.d5, Sadler-
Speelman, Hastings 1998/99) 14 4bxa8 Jbcf3
15 gxf3 £)xd4 with sharp play.
3.. .1Lb4 4 e3
‘Ivan usually plays 4 #c2, but in a recent
blitz match with Kramnik, Garry successfully
solved his problems with 4-..d5’ (Makary-
chev).
4 .. .0-0 5 ^.d3 d5 6 £>f3 (and here Sokolov
used to employ only 6 cxds exds 7 £ie2)
6.. .C5 7 0-0 £ic6
Earlier and later I replied 7...dxc4 or
7-.cxd4 (Game No.69), but that day I was not
very well prepared for the ‘modem varia­
tion’, and I followed the most usual path.
8 a3 i-xc3 9 bxc3 # c 7
By playing this, Black allows 10 cxds, but
on the other hand he avoids, for example,
the line 9.dxc4 10 JLxc4 7 11 ^.a2 (Game
N0.41 ). In any event, White has the two
bishops and a strong, mobile centre, while
Black’s trumps are free piece development
and dynamic play, capable of neutralizing
the opponent’s offensive.
236
10#C2
If 10 cxds exd5 I had in mind 11 ^ h 4 'B'aS
12 ,&b2 Se8 13 S e l c4 14 &-C2 4be4 (Lautier-
Kramnik, Tilburg 1997) or 11 a4 Se8 12 ,&a3
c4 13 ^.c2 £)e4 14 .&xe4 Sxe4 15 £)d2 Se8
16 e 4 dxe4 17 S e l Af5 18 £)xc4 Sad 8 (Lau-
tier-Kramnik, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1998).
And if 10 ,&b2 either 10...£)a5 or 10...5e8
is possible, as well as I0...dxc4 11 iLxc4 e5
with the possible continuation 12 iLe2 Hd8
13 Wc2 jLg4l 14 dxe5 £)xe5 15 c4 £)xf3+ 16
gxf3 ^.h3 17 S fdl # 06! 18 Wc3 £ie8 19 ^ h l
Ae6 20 S g l f6 (Khalifman-Kramnik, Linares
2000), or 12 h3l .&f5! (I2...e4 13 £id2 £ia5 14
i.a2 jk.f5 15 c4! Sfe8 16 d5 £)d7 17 f4l exf3
181§rxf3 Jkq6 19 h4l favours White, Kramnik-
Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 2001) 13 ^ e 2 Sad8,
maintaining the tension in the centre.
10 Wc2, the move chosen by Sokolov, led
to a position which was familiar to me from
childhood. However, by the irony of fate, at
the decisive moment I forgot the old analy­
ses and remembered only that Black should
be completely alright...
10...dxc4 11 £.xc4 e5 12 £d 3 (12 £ a2 i.g4
is equal) 12 ...Se 8 13 e4
13 £)xe5 is stronger, but here everyone
knows how to arrange the pieces: 13...£)xe5
14 dxe5 Wxe5 15 f3 .&d7 or 15-.^.e6 (Game
No.59 in Part V of My Great Predecessors).

13.. .exd4! 14 cxd4 i-g 4 15 e5
The start of a lengthy, forcing variation.
Sokolov played this very confidently, although
he was probably counting only on a draw.
In the event of 15 #xc5 I was attracted by
15.. .£sxe4 16 jLxe4 Sxe4 17 £>g5 Sxd4l, but
not 17...Se7?l 18 Wc2! g6 19 £)e4 .&f5 20
£)f6+ &g7 21 #d2l &xf6 22 d5 Sd8 23 i±>2+
£te5 24 f4 #05+ (Bronstein-Euwe, Zurich
(Candidates Tournament) 1953) 25 -&d4l,
when White’s chances are slightly better.
However, I also remembered the safe
15.. .^.xf3 16 gxf3 #d 7 17 &e3 (17 d5? £>e5
18 ±e2 # h3 19 # e3 £>xd5l) 17...£>xe4l with 21...Sxh7?
equality (Lehmann-Kholmov, Havana 1965).
15.. .^.xf 3 16 exf6 £)xd4 17 £xh 7 + &h 8 18 needed
fxg7+ & x g 7 19 -&b2
Second Peak
19 .. .5ad 8!
Mobilization! After 19..#e5 20 ^.xd4l (the
Informator 20 gxf3(?) is bad because of
2 0 .. . £ sxc2! 21 ^.xe5+ ^xh7 22 S acl Sxe5 23
Sxc2 2g8+ 24 & hl b5) 20...cxd4 21 gxf3 Sh8
22 Saell? (22 # e 4 is equal) 22...#d6 23 & hl
Sxh7 24 2gl+ ^ h 8 25 Sg3 White has an
easy game.
20 gxf 3 (20 2fcl? .&xg2 or 20...Se5l? will not
do for White, and 20 ,&f5?! #f4! is also
rather weak) 20...2 h8 21 & h l
The critical position, which has been
known since the middle of the last century.
A ‘reflex', purely automatic move. I only
to stand up, drink some coffee, catch
my breath - and I would certainly have
remembered that 21...<i ’f8! had to be played.
Shakarov and I looked at this move before the
All-Union School Children's Spartakiad (Alma-
Ata 1974). Alexander Ivanovich showed us,
the members of the Azerbaijan team, an
interesting game between two Soviet corre­
spondence players, which had been published
in the Riga magazine Shakhmaty, and then
before my eyes Tavadian on the 6th board
defeated in this way the Leningrad player
Egorov.
After 21...<i ’f8 the white queen is attacked,
and although Black is temporarily a piece
237
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
down, he inevitably regains it: the bishop
cannot move from h7 because of mate on h2!
White has not even a hint of an advantage -
moreover, in the event of 22 jLxd4 2xd4 23
Hfcl (23 2gl? Sh4! and ...28xh7) 23...b6 24
<^ ’gl(g2) f6! or 22 #d3 (Schach Magazir, 64)
22...Sd5! 23 S g l (23 f4 f6!) 23-Sh5 24 ^g2!
#d7l? he is forced to retreat.
And if 22 We4 there is the strong 22...f5!
(22...f6 is equal, B.Vladimirov-Lisitsyn, Lenin­
grad 1955) 23 1114 Sxh7 24 #f6+ (24 #g3?
£sxf3 and wins) 24...‘&e8, for example:
Analysis Diagram
1) 25 fifel+?! <&d7 26 Se5 &C8, and 27
Sael? (Yakovenko-Karpanov, correspondence
1972-1973) is bad because of 27.~Sdh8!, but
27 ^.xd4 cxd4 28 Sdl! is not so clear.
26...# d 6! 27 #xd6+ &xd6 28 £xd4 cxd4 29
Sxf5 Sdh8 is correct, with an obviously better
endgame (Egorov-Tavadian, Alma-Ata 1974);
2) 25 #g6+! #f7 26 «g3 (not 26 #g5?
Sxh2+! or 26 lxf7+? &xf7), and after
26...‘&>d7 27 ^.xd4! or 26...f4 27 1 ^ 4 White
holds this slightly inferior position. I found
this defence later, but at the time I thought
that with 21...‘&>f8 Black was winning.
Alas, instead of this a losing move was
made. When after the game I was leaving
the hall, Timman commented sarcastically:
238
‘Sometimes you have to check old analyses...’
I remember thinking at the time: analyses of
the best Soviet trainers don’t need to be
checked - they simply have to be reproduced
on the board!
22 2 g l+ ^h8 23 Sg3 (with the king on h8
White has acquired the terrible threat of
tripling heavy pieces on the g-file) 23...1e5
24 2 a g l
24...5H4?!
24...11i5 25 Slg2 f6 was more resilient,
blocking the dangerous diagonal in the hope
of 26 # 04?! 12 i rf7! (Porath-Stahlberg, Amster­
dam Olympiad 1954). But after 26 #64!
Black has no good defence against 2g6 and
1Hrf4: if 26...Se8 or 26...'irf7 the prophylactic
move 27 iLc3! is decisive - White safeguards
the el-square against the invasion of the
rook, and then, by creating mating threats,
picks up the f6-pawn.
25 W cl (25 f4! #e7(h5) 26 f3 and #g2 would
have won more quickly) 25...‘&h7?!
A final error, but Black would have also
failed to save the game after 25...1i rf5 26
#e3! 1^6 27 Sg4l, 25...11i5 26 Slg2 2e8 27
# g l!, or 25-2h7 26 Wfi! # e7 27 Wg2 Wf8
28 2g4, etc.
26 1i rb l+ &h8 (26...f5 27 Ja.xd4 leads to
mate) 27 # f l ! « e 6 (27..JU6 28 W 13!) 28
# g 2 1-0

A terrible rout! Although I was still lead­
ing with 7V2 out of 9, Anand was now just a
point behind. Fortunately, the next round, in
which we played each other, was after a free
day, and I was able to rest a little and com­
pose myself. However, I did not achieve
anything against the Queen’s Gambit Ac­
cepted (cf. Game No.57, note to White’s 11th
move), and the result was a short draw.
In the 11th round I had Black against
Timman, who had analysed my seventh
round game with Shirov and had prepared a
surprise - 13 S ell (cf. Game N0.51 , note to
White’s 13th move). But after 6 ,&e3 I devi­
ated - 6...e6 7 g4 h6, and then my opponent
immediately forced a draw, by repeating the
exact moves of my game with Shirov from
Linares 1998 (cf. Game No.37, note to
White’s 6th move). From the press: ‘Appar­
ently Timman derived great pleasure from
this joke game, since later all evening he
drank beer in the press centre and laughed
about how he had fooled Kasparov.'
In the meantime Anand beat van Wely,
and two rounds before the finish the situa­
tion became much sharper: Vishy was only
half a point behind me, and I still had to play
Svidler and Kramnik. In the 12th round
Anand equalised with Black against Yer-
molinsky - a draw on the 20th move. And I
had White against Peter Svidler, who, I will
remind you, in Tilburg 1997 inflicted on me
my only defeat, thus depriving me of sole first
place. It was time for the debt to be repaid.
Game 53
G.Kasparov-P.Svidler
Wijk aan Zee,
12th Round, 30.01.1999
Griinfeld Defence D971
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 g6 3 £)C3 d5 4 £)f3 (4 cxd5 -
Second Peak
G a m e N o.67)4—A g7 5 ® b 3
I had studied this variation for Black back
in the era of my matches with Karpov, and I
prepared it for White for the match with
Anand (1995), and in the summer of 1998 -
also for the match with the inveterate
Griinfeld player Shirov.
5...dxc4 6 # x c 4 0-0 7 e4 a6
This is also what Shirov usually played,
but we had looked at all the lines. A chapter
in Revolution in the 70s is devoted to the
theme of the ‘Hungarian’ Griinfeld.
8 e5
If 8 ,&e2 b5 9 ^ 3 Black replies 9...£sc6 10
e5 .&e6! or 9...C5 10 dxc5 iLb7(e6). And if 8
^ 3 apart from 8...b5 he has also tried 8...C5
9 dxc5 # a 5 (9...^bd7 10 c6l?) 10 1 ^ 6 #xb6
11 cxb6 £)bd7 12 ,&e2 £sxb6 13 .&e3 with
slightly the better endgame (Kasparov-Leko,
Frankfurt (rapid) 2000).
8.. .b5 9 # b 3 £)fd7 10 e6
Already then it had transpired that after
10 .&e3 c5 11 e6 cxd4l Black has a good
game (Piket-Timman, Rotterdam 1997;
Epishin-Svidler, 2nd match game, Groningen
1997). Another fashionable idea was 10 h4
c5 11 e6 c 4 12 W dl £)b6 13 exf7+ Sxf7 14 h5
£}c6 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 Jie3, for example:
16.. JLf5 17 £)g5 Sf6 (I7...£)xd4l? - Anand)
18 g4 ±e6 19 £)ce4 &d5 20 # d 2 (Anand-
239
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Svidler, Linares 1999) 2O...10rd7! (Svidler) or
16.. .£\d5!? 17 a4 Sb8 18 axb5 axb5 19 .&h6
iLg4 20 Ji.xg7 (Babula-Ftacnik, Czech League
1997) 20...fixg7! with sharp play.
10.. .fxe6 11 ^.eB!?
A surprise! White was unsuccessful with
11 h4 £sf6 or 11 ®xe6+ ,ATi8 12 Wle4 £sb6
(Portisch-AdoTjan, Amsterdam 1971; Karpov-
Kamsky, 5th match game, Elista 1996).
An interesting nuance: before breaking
open the kingside, White waits to see where
the d7-knight will go. The dynamics of the
position are such that he has to play very
accurately - otherwise Black may seize the
initiative.
11.. .6b6?l
Without hesitation Svidler moved the
knight away from his king - which is what
we were hoping for! Il...£sf6 is correct, after
which there would have followed an attack
from the other side: 12 a4 (12 jLe2 £sc6 is
equal, Ivanchuk-Shirov, Polanica Zdroj 2000)
12.. .bxa4 13 Bxa4, and here we made a
detailed analysis of 13...£sc6 14 i-C4 Sb8 15
jLxe6+ * h8 16 # c4 ±xe6 17 #xe6 Wd6 18
£sg5 Sxb2, assuming that after 19 <$M7+ (but
not 19 0-0?! £sd8 with equality, Karpov-
Svidler, Dos Hermanas 1999) 19...Sxf7 20
Wxf7 e5 21 iLcl! White has some chances of
success.
240
However, soon Black’s play was improved
by 13...£sd5! 14 ii.c4 c6 (Piket-Shirov, Monte
Carlo (rapid) 1999; Ponomariov-Svidler, Biel
2000). And in addition, instead of 12...bxa4,
Hort’s gambit 12...b4!? appeared: 13 'ffxbA
£sc6 14 « t5 t d 6 or 14 Wa3 # d 6 (l 4...Bb8!?).
12 h4!
Beginning a storming of the kingside de­
fences, which is doubly dangerous for the
reason that Black’s traditional ...c7-c5
counter is delayed.
12...£ sc6
If 12...£sd5 13 h5 £sxe3 14 fxe3 c5 15 hxg6
hxg6 (Levtchouk-Duong Thanh Nha, Quebec
1992), then 16 0-0-0! and Wc2 with a power­
ful attack.
IB h5
13.. .1xf3!?
A typical exchange sacrifice, which Peter
made very confidently. 13...£sxd4? 14 <£sxd4
itxd4 15 Bdl! is bad for Black, and I3...b4?!
14 £se2! is also insufficient.
14 gxf3 £sxd4 15 B d l!
After this Svidler sank into thought: it has
become clear that Black does not have full
compensation for the exchange.
15.. .C5 (I5...£sxf3+? 16 ■A>e2 £sd4+ 17 .&xd4
jLxd4 18 hxg6 and wins) 16 JLxd4
16 hxg6 h6! (I thought that 16...£sxf3+(?)
17 <4 >e2 ^d4+ was unclear, but after 18

&xd4 cxd4 19 gxh7+ * h 8 20 JLg2 Sb8(a7)
21 <£se4 Black is in trouble) 17 .&xd4 cxd4,
etc., could have led to a transposition of
moves.
I6...cxd417 hxg6 h6!
A clever defence. After I7...hxg6?! 18 #c2!
# f8 (l8...#e8 19 Ad3! and &xg6) 19 #xg6
#f5 20 #e8+ # f8 21 #c6 dxc3 22 &d3!
(Stohl) 22...i.d7 23 # x b 6 # x f3 24 ih 7 + *f8
25 Sh4! White has a decisive advantage.
Here I felt that the situation was spiralling
out of control, and 1thought for a long time.
Dokhoian reminded me about the ...h7-h6
resource during our moming stroll, but I
decided: I will work things out at the board!
And I did indeed find an accurate move.
18 Zh5!
A sudden activation of the rook! 18 Sh4
£>d5 19 Shxd4 £xd4 20 Sxd4 £b7 21 JLh3
# d 6 22 Se4 (Shabalov-Kaufman, Irvine
2010) 22..JLc8! is less convincing. However,
18 f4!? # d 6 19 £g2 Sa7(b8) 20 Eh4 and
£ie4(e2) was a good alternative.
I8 ...# e8
Sooner or later Black must ‘pull out the
nail’ - capture the g6-pawn, but then the g-
file is opened. l8...Sa7? would not do, not
only because of 19 £ie2 as given in Informa-
tor, but also in view of 19 JLh3! £>c4 20 a4
and wins.
Second Peak
19 £>e2 # x g 6 2 0 E h l
‘The rook has prevented ...<£sd5, and after
fulfilling its task it promptly switches to
other work’ (Makarychev). 20 Hh4!? was also
good.
20.. .6.8?!
An unfortunate place for the king.
20.. .#f7?! is also weak: 21 £>xd4 e5 (2l...i.d7
22 JLh3!) 22 £>c6! #xb3 23 axb3 with a
technically won endgame (Taleb-Khachian,
Abu Dhabi 2000) or 20..JLb7?! 21 S g l # f6
22 Sxd4 with an escalating attack (Koro-
tylev-Timofeev, Krasnodar 2002). But
20.. JLd7! would have made it difficult for
White to convert his exchange advantage.
2 lS g l# f7
Things are also difficult for Black after
2 l...lrh5!? (2l...#f 6? 22 Sxd4 and Edg4) 22
<£sxd4 (not complicating things unnecessar­
ily) 22...SM5 23 # d 3 #e5+ 24 #e4, but at
least this is not mate.
22 £>xd4 £>d5
Here for the second time I sank into
thought. The tension was enomnous, and
after the slightest error my advantage could
have evaporated.
23 Wd3!
The correct plan - the creation of the at­
tacking battery # 6 4 and ji.d3. The same
would have resulted from 23 #c2! ji.d7 (I
241
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
was concerned about 23...e5 24 £ixb5 ^.b7,
but after the ‘wild’ computer suggestion 25
£ ic7 2 c8 26 £c4! e6 27 £ixe6! ®xe6 28 #b3
2xc4 29 Wxc4 White has an obvious advan­
tage) 241Sre4.
23...i-d7
Here if 23...e5 there are two attractive
possibilities: 24 £ixb5 .&b7 25 £ia3!? £sf4 26
# e3 ^.d5 27 b3 and £)c4, or 24 £ ic6 £b7
(24-.^.e6?! 25 'EM £)f6 26 IT 14) 25 WxdS
’S'xdS 26 Sxd5 ^.xc6 27 Sc5l (more forceful
than the Informator 27 2d3) 27...^.xf3 28
Sg3, and White has every chance of win­
ning.
24 ^ 4 (it was noticeable that Peter obvi­
ously did not like my plan) 24—2c8 25 .&d3
2 5 - ^f6?!
Black should have urgently run from the
comer - 25...‘i >g8, and although White has
an obvious advantage, for the moment he
has no direct win.
26#h4
An alternative was 26 #f4!?. It is possible
that 26 1Srb7!? was even stronger, but I wan­
ted to keep the queen close to the black king.
26— 2c5
After the slightly more resilient 26...^d5
White does not immediately reply 27 2g6?l
Wf4 28 2g4 Wf6 29 #g3? because of 29...h5l
(in analysis we missed this rejoinder) 30 WhA
242
^.e8 with unclear play, but first 27 ®e2l, for
example: 27...*fxf3?! 28 2g6 ttf8 (28J&f6 29
£if4!) 29 4^2! JLe8 (otherwise 2dgl) 30
2xe6 and wins.
27 £ie2!
With the unexpected threat of £sf4 - the
knight joins the attack! ‘In this game one has
to admire the pendulum moves by the rook
hl-h5-hl and the knight e2-d4-e2’ (Makary-
chev).
27...£id5 (if 27...e5, both 28 £ig3(c3) and 28
#g3 are good) 28 2g6 W f 8 29 # e 4 (29 &d2
and 2 d g l was simpler) 29—Wf7
In the event of 29-&’g8 (29-.1i rf5 30
2xg7!) all the same I would have to play 30
<4>d2! &f7 31 2 d g l £xb2 32 1 ^ 4 with
complete domination.
30 <&d2 (30 2xe6! £if6 31 2xe7 was more
flamboyant) 30—^ 6 31 ^ 3 1-0
In view of 3l...2d5(h5) 32 2 d g l or 32 £sf4.
This game won the brilliancy prize!
A very complicated and, most impor­
tantly, complete game: for content I would
even rate it higher than the encounter with
Topalov, where I played the opening indif­
ferently. With this win I practically assured
myself of first place, by reaching 9V2 out of
12 and increasing my lead over Anand to a
full point.

The last round began in the morning,
which was not very good for me, but even
worse for my opponent, Kramnik, who in
addition was suffering from flu. We contin­
ued our duel in the Meran, begun in our
blitz match, and strictly in accordance with
analysis I confidently secured a draw.
Meanwhile, in a stem fight Anand won
with White against Topalov and ended up
on ‘plus five’, without any losses! He played
very creatively in the tournament and
posted virtually the best result in his career -
but he only finished second. I think that this
demoralised Vishy before Linares.
After Wijk aan Zee there again began to
be talk about organising a match between
us. At the closing ceremony the tournament
director stated: ‘We are proud that our
tournament has opened the way to a genu­
ine match for the world championship.’ And
the press wrote: ‘Now, when Kasparov and
Anand have demonstrated such superiority,
the idea of staging a world championship
with the participation o f one hundred players
looks completely pointless.’
Not surprisingly, around that time Bessel
Kok modified his plans. Earlier he had been
proposing to stage a match between me and
the winner of the forthcoming FIDE knock­
out championship. Now Kok decided to
arrange in the autumn of 1999 a match
simply between player No.l and player No.2.
My Stellar Linares
Double-Round Super-Tournament in Linares
(20 February -10 March 1999): 1. Kasparov -
101/2 out of 14; 2-3. Kramnik and Anand - 8;
4. Leko - 6V2; 5-6. Topalov and Ivanchuk - 6;
7-8. Svidler and Adams - 5V2.
Just three weeks after Wijk aan Zee my
rivalry with Anand continued in Linares,
which as usual assembled a brilliant, even
Second Peak
line-up. This category 20 super-tournament
included all the previous year's ‘2700s’, apart
from Shirov (who held a grudge against
senor Rentero, although the latter was no
longer involved, having been seriously
injured in a car crash), plus Adams and the
burgeoning 19-year-old Leko.
Two cycles, 14 rounds - by today’s stan­
dards, a marathon distance! Before the start
I was planning to score ‘plus four’, which
was the limit of my self-esteem: this should
have sufficed for first place, for which I was
hoping after Wijk aan Zee. And almost to the
middle of the tournament everything fol­
lowed the planned schedule - nothing
heralded the final super-result.
In the first round I had White against
Svidler and I decided not play 1 d4 (as in
Wijk aan Zee), but after 1 e41 did not achieve
anything in a Ruy Lopez - a draw on the
32nd move. But in the second round unex­
pectedly quickly I seized the initiative with
Black in my game with Vassily Ivanchuk.
Game 54
V.lvanchuk-G.Kasparov
Linares, 2nd Round, 22.02.1999
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 c 5 2 <£if3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 £)f6 5
£k3 a6 6 JLe3 (6 f3 - Game Nos.56, 58, 76)
6.. .<£)g4 (6...e5 - Game Nos.45, 93; 6,..e6 -
Game Nos.66, 74) 7 .&g5 h6 8 &H4 g5 9 ^.gB
£g7 10 ®ti2
‘Leaving the black knight in peace and
intending to castle - it is not known where!’
(Shipov). The alternative is 10 &.e2 (Game
Nos.32, 40, 51, 116 ), or the most modem
move 10 h3 (Game N0.63).
10.. .£ic6 1 1 £ib3 £)ge5
I considered this defence to be sounder
than ll...b5 12 h4 or ll..JLe6 12 h4 gxh4 13
243
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
iLxh4. Now if h2-h4 there is the reply ...g5-
g4.
12 fB b5 IB itf2 S b 8 ! (a typical move, secur­
ing control of the b6-square) 14 ®d4
Sharp play would have resulted from 14
0-0-0 £ sc4 15 ^.xc4 bxc4 16 £>d4 # b 6 17 b3
cxb3 18 c(a)xb3 ®b4! or 14 £sd5 ®c4 (I4...e6
is also possible, Leko-Milos, Yopal 1997) 15
JLxc4 bxc4 16 <5M4 ^-d7- But Ivanchuk rather
thoughtlessly repeats the game Anand-
Kasparov (Linares 1998).
14.. .b4!
An energetic reply, recommended by Leko
in Informator, Volume 70. Against Anand I
chose 14..JLd7, and after 15 iLe2 £ ic4 16
i.xc4 bxc4 17 S b l White gained a minimal
plus. Already then I considered l4-b4, but I
avoided a dispute, since I was feeling unwell
and I was aiming only for equality.
15 <£sdl
Nothing is given by 15 £ ixc6 £sxc6 16 £sdl
a5 17 ^.e2 jLe6 and ...d6-d5, while 15 ®ce2 is
met by the thematic 15...®c4l 16 # d l (16
£ixc6? is bad in view of lB...1® ^! 17 Wds
i.e6 18 Wd3 £)xb2 19 Wxae Ac8! 20 # a7
Wxc6\, and if 21 #xb8 Wxc2, winning)
16.. .^6e5 with a comfortable game.
Here, after thinking for a few minutes, I
found a very strong move - a blow in the
centre!
244
15...£>xd416 £ x d 4 d5l
Played without particular hesitation: all
the main ideas of such set-ups were well
known to me.
17 exd5?!
An unfortunate reaction. After 17 iLxe5?!
JLxeS 18 #xd5 Wc1 or 18 exd5 0-0 the e5-
bishop, lacking an opponent, would have
given Black powerful compensation for the
pawn. However, White could still have
maintained approximate equality by 17
jLa7! 2 b 7 18 JLf2 dxe4 19 l rxd8+ <&xd8 20
fxe4! (but not my Informator 20 iLxa6(?)
because of 20...2c7l) 20...£ig4 21 iLc5(gl),
etc.
17.. .1'xd5 18 c3
‘The bishop on d4 was hanging, and re­
treating it would signify acknowledging the
supremacy of the g7-bishop and the impo­
tence of the knight on d l’ (Shipov). In the
event of 18 Jta7 (Makarychev) I8...#xd2+ 19
<&>xd2 2b7 and ...0-0 Black simply has a
better endgame, but I8...#e61? is more
dangerous.
18.. .0 -0 19 £ e 2
If 19 £se3, then l9..Jfr6! with the threat
of ...2d8 is strong. White aims to complete
his development as quickly as possible - and
yet, strangely enough, he does not succeed
in castling!

19.. .2 .8 20 WeB
Of course, not 20 0-0? bxc3 21 bxc3 £>c6
and wins.
20.. .£b7!
A logical developing move. In Informator I
examined both tbe exchange 20...bxc3, and
the retreat 20...£sg6 (both would have made
things easier for tbe opponent). The sharp
20.. .g4l? was also tempting, with the idea of
21 <?tf2?! bxc3 22 £xc3 #e6!, but 21 f4 is
more resilient. In any event, White already
has an unpleasant position.
2l£ lf2
Not 21 &b6? 2d6 or 21 £a7? 2bc8.
‘White’s main problem is what to do with his
king. Perhaps 210-0 was nevertheless better’
(Makarychev). Against castling I had pre­
pared 21...£sg4l (21...g4l? is also interesting)
22 # e 4 #xe4 23 fxe4 Sxd4l 24 cxd4 jLxd4+
25 4 ’h l £)f6 with excellent compensation for
the exchange. Therefore 21 h3l? was more
resilient.
2l...bxc3
Slightly premature. Black’s pressure is
stronger after 21...£sc4! 22 ±xc4 #xc4 23
&xg7 *xg7 24 S c l (24 h4?l Sd61, 24 #e5+?!
f6! and 24 £sg4?l bxc3 25 bxc3 ^.a8! are all
worse for White) 24..-Sbc8 25 We2 (25 #65+
&g8!; 25 £sg4 2c6 or 25...#b5, forcing 26 c4
Sxc4) 25...a5!?.
Second Peak
22 jl XC3 (22 bxc3?l £lc4) 22...#e6
Preventing 23 0-0? in view of 23~£sxf3+!.
Again 22...£k4!? 23 -&xc4 #xc4 24 -&xg7
&xg7 deserved consideration, with the idea
of 25 S c l #b5! (25...#xa2 26 #e5+ *g6 27
0-0 is not so clear) 26 h4 Sd6! and ...Se6 or
26 a4 #b4+!, maintaining the advantage.
23 i f l !
A courageous decision. 23 £>e4? would
have led to a lost endgame after 23-~£.xe4!
(this Shipov move is more accurate than my
Informator 23...£sg4 24 fxg4 #xe4) 24 #xe4
(24 fxe4 £ sc4!) 24...f5 25 # c 2 £sd3+ 26 * f l
2lxc3 27 #xc3 Sbc8 28 #b3 #xb3 29 axb3
£scl or 23 £sg4?l £)xg4 24 #xe6 £xc3+ 25
bxc3 fxe6 26 fxg4 ^.xg2 27 S g l £.c6 and
...Sb2.
23_a.d5! (with the threats of ...^.xa2 and
...£sc4) 24 b3?
‘Cutting off the bough on which his own
c3-bishop is sitting, but also after 24 h4 £sc4
25 #xe6 jLxe6 White cannot hold his queen-
side’ (Shipov). However, by playing 26 £xg7
&xg7 27 b3 (but not 27 hxg5? £se3+! 28 * g l
Sxb2 and wins) 27...£)e3+ 28 &gl, here
Ivanchuk would have had better chances of
saving the game, for example: 28..JZd2 29
£xa6 2a8 30 &d3 g4 31 fxg4 £ixg4 32 ^.e4l
Saxa2 33 Sxa2 Sxa2 34 £sxg4 i.xg4 35 £>h2,
etc.
245
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

24.. .5bc8 ful than the Informator 3l...#e3), and 29

The rook promptly takes aim at the bishop Sd3? Scl+ 30 i .d l £sxdl 31 Sxdl Sxdl+ 32
which has lost its support. 24...f5l? also £sxdl # e2 or 30 £sdl ‘Sixdl 31 ^.xdl Sc3!
suggested itself. But the combination would have been fatal. And 29 S b l would
24.. .£)xf3? 25 #xe6 ,&xe6 26 ,&xg7 £)d2+ 27 have run into 29....&d4! 30 # d 2 (30 #xa6
‘i e l &xg7 did not work because of 28 Sdl, Sc6 31 # d 3 WeS with the threat of ...Sc2)
winning a piece. 30...#e5 31 .&d3 g4! 32 S e l JLxf3!, winning.
25 Sd l?! Now, however, the battle becomes
This definitely loses. However, also after sharper: Black again has the opportunity to
25 ^.xe 5 (25 ^.d4? Sc 2) 25....&xe5 26 S e l (26 go wrong.
S d l Sc2) 26..JLc7 27 #xe6 &xe6 White’s
position is unenviable: the black pieces
gradually penetrate into his rear.

25—SxcB! (to the delight of the bishop on
g7) 26 # x c3 £)g4 27 # a 5 £)e3+ 28 & g l Sc8
Alas, I did not play 28...^xdl!!. It was psy­
chologically difficult to give up the rook with
check, but this would have led to a pretty
win - 29 #xd8+ &h7, and White is not
helped by 30 £se4 .&d4+ 31 ^ f i £se3+ 32
* e l .&xe4 33 fxe4 #xe4, 30 .&d3+ f5 31
JLxf5+ #xf5 32 #xe7 # b l 33 Wei i.d4, or
30 ^ f l ^xf2! (simpler than 30...£se3+ which
I gave in Informator) 31 <4'xf2 .&d4+ 32 ‘i e l
,&b6! with an irresistible attack.
29 #xa6!
The best chance: White tTies to save him­
self in an ending, by returning the exchange.
Both 29 Sxd5? £sxd5 30 &C4 (30 # d 2 jLc3)
30...Sxc4 31 bxc4 #621, mating (more force­
29.. .£sxdl?!
Missing two more convincing ways to the
goal:
1) 29-#xa6 30 JLxa6 ‘S ixdl 31 .&xc8 .&d4
32 & fl £sxf2 33 S g l £)d3! 34 S h i £sb4!
(depriving the white bishop of the a6-
square; I only considered 34-..£)cl, allowing
35 .&a6 £ixa2 36 &c4) 35 a3 £sc2 and wins;
2) 29...Sc6 30 # d 3 Sd6 (with the threats
of ...£sxdl and ...jLxf3) or 30...g4l - White is
completely without defence.
30 # x e 6 JLxe6 31 -^xdl
After 31 £sxdl?l Sc2 32 & fl Sxa2 33 b4
h5! White’s downfall would also have been
caused by the sorry placing of his pieces, in
particular the rook on hi, for example: 34 h4
g4 35 fxg4 hxg4 36 h5 f5 37 h6 jLd4, etc.
31.. . 5 d
‘31...Sd8! with the idea of ...Sd2 and
...jLd4 was even better’ (Shipov), not only

246

quickly winning the a- and b-pawns, but also
retaining the rooks, although even in this
case I would still have had to play accurately.
And here White unexpectedly resigned
(O-l). Analysis shows that Black wins with­
out any particular problems in all variations,
apart from one - 32 g4! S a l 33 4>g2, for
example:
1) 33-.Sxa2, allowing the exchange of
rooks - 34 S ell ^.d4 35 Se2 Sxe2 36 &xe2
i.xb3 with an extra pawn and good winning
chances, but with a lengthy battle in pros­
pect;
2) 33--&C3 (preventing the manoeuvre
Sel-e2) 34 a4 Sa2 35 &fi! (instead of the
Informator 35 3fl(?) ,&d4 and wins) 35-^.d4
36 £>e4 (36 £>d3?! h5! 37 h3 Sd 2 38 £ e 2
■&xb3) 36..JLd5, and although as before
White’s lot is unenviable, he can still resist.
But Ivanchuk was apparently too ex­
hausted by the lengthy defence of a difficult,
unaesthetic position, and he hurried to
avoid any further torment.
This confident win with Black over a dan­
gerous opponent improved my frame of
mind and encouraged me. In the next round
I went along to my ‘white’ game with Vishy
Anand with an enormous desire to build on
my success.
Second Peak
Game 55
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
Linares, 3rd Round, 23.02.1999
Queen's Gambit Accepted D2 0
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4
In Wijk aan Zee I was unable to defeat
Anand after 3 &f3 a6 4 e3 e6 5 ^.xc4 c5 6 0-0
7 (Came Nos.46, 57), and so on this
occasion I chose a more energetic continua­
tion.
3.. .e5
For more details about this variation, and
also about 3-.C5, 3...£ic6 and 3-£ lf6 - cf. the
chapter ‘Queen’s Gambit Accepted with 3
e4’ in Revolution in the 70s.
4 exd4
If 4-..^.b4+ I was intending 5 £)c3, avoid­
ing the unclear 5 &-d2 ,&xd2+ 6 £}bxd2 exd4
7 -£.xc4 £k6 8 0-0 # f6 9 b4 a6 (Kasparov-
Short, Novgorod 1994).
5 J.XC4 $)c6 (5...^.b4+ 6 ^bd2! Kasparov-
Hiibner, Skelleftea 1989) 6 0-0 A e6 7 .&b5
At the time it was thought that in the
main line 7 ^.xe6 fxe6 8 ^ 3 ^ 7 9 1i rxb7
Sb8 10 #36 £rf6 11 £±>d2 iLd6 Black was
okay. But nowadays White is sometimes
successful with 12 b3 0-0 13 ^.b 2 (an
example: Aronian-Shirov, 1st match game,
Elista 2007).
7.. .1-c5 8 £>bd2
Nothing is given by 8 #c2 ,&b6 9 a4 a5 10
^.xc6+ bxc6 11 Wxc6+ £ d 7 12 Wc2 £>e7 13
^ a 3 0-0 (van Wely-Anand, Monte Carlo
(blindfold) 1997). 8 b4l? .&b6 9 a4 is more
topical: 9„.a5 10 bxa5 Sxa5 11 £>bd2 £ie7 12
£ig5 with the idea of £}xe6 and £}c4 (Ushen-
ina-Korbut, St. Petersburg 2004) or 9...a6 10
jLxc6+ bxc6 11 a5 .&a7 12 ,&b2 (Aronian-
Shirov, 3rd match game, Elista 2007).
8.. .1 rd6?!
A dubious surprise. The usual 8...£te7 is
247
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
sounder: 9 £sg5 (9 £sb3 #d6!) 9~#d7 10
£sxe6 #xe6 11 £sb3, when Dokhoian and I
analysed both ll..JLb6 12 £ixd4 ix d 4 13
#xd4 0-0 14 #c4!? (instead of 14 # a 4 a6
with equality, Piket-Anand, Wijk aan Zee
(blitz) 1999), and ll...# d 6 12 i.f4 #xf4 13
^xc5 0-0, producing a novelty - 14 #cl!?
(although later it transpired that after
14...#xcl 15 Saxcl Sfb8! Black can hold this
slightly inferior endgame).
However, Vishy himself had prepared a
novelty - the immediate S...1® ^ , and I
thought for nearly a whole hour...9*1
9 e5
9 £)c4!? (9 £>b3 £se7!) 9-.-l.xc4 10 lx c 4
also looked logical, relying on the power of
the two bishops: if I0...£sge7, then 11 S ell
( ll #b3(?!) 0-0 12 #xb7, given in Informa-
tor, is weak in view of 12...Sab8 13 #36
£sg6) ll...f6?! 12 e5! £sxe5 13 l f 4 with a
dangerous initiative (Tunik-Nachev, Saratov
1999). But in the end I was attracted by
another idea.
9...#d5 10 £sg5! 0-0-0
After quickly making this and the follow­
ing solid moves, Anand looked at me with
unfeigned surprise, as if asking - what can
White achieve?
11 l c 4 #d7!
Black has no reason to set out on a risky
248
voyage - ll-'S'xeS?! 12 £sxe6 fxe6 13 fiel
# f6 14 £se4 # f8 (my Informator variation
with an ‘unclear’ assessment), since after 15
£ig5! with the threat of the £sxe6 fork he
gets into difficulties: I5~.d3 16 i e 3 £sd4 17
lx d 4 lx d 4 18 #d2, and White’s chances
are better.
12 4^xe6fxe6
It appears that Black has no reason for
concern: for the moment he retains his extra
pawn, and his king feels comfortable. ‘Some­
thing extraordinary is demanded of White’
(Makarychev).
13 b4!!
Sacrificing a second pawn for the sake of
an attack! 13 #b3?! £sa5! or 13 £se4?! -&b6
14 £ig5 Se8 15 # b 3 £sa5! 16 I.xe6 £sxb3 17
Jlxd7+ <±>xd7 18 axb3 ®e7, etc., was ineffec­
tive.
13...^sxb4?!
In continuing to play very quickly (Vishy
spent just 9 minutes on his opening moves,
whereas I had already used an hour and a
quarter!), Black makes a mistake. 13..~&xb4
14 # b 3 ‘i ’bS! (14...Se8? 15 S b l and wins) 15
S b l b6 16 £se4 .&e7 17 ^.xe6 # e8 was
better, repelling the first wave of the attack,
or the paradoxical 13..Jtb6 (Ubilava) -
although after both 14 #b3 # e7 (l4...Se8?!
15 £sf3) 15 a4! #xb4 16 # a 2 and 14 a4 d3

(I4...a5 15 1133) 15 £sf3 £sge7 16 H )3 White
has somewhat the better chances, here wild
complications would have ensued.
14lb 3?!
It is hard to criticise such a natural move,
but 14 ^.a3! (Ljubojevic) was better, with a
fearfully strong attack. If I4...£sd3?, then 15
Sbl! or 15 lb 3 ! is decisive, or if 1 4 -Ie7 ? ~
15 la 4 ! (instead of the Informator 15 S b l or
15 £se4). 14...a5?! 15 £sb3! J.b6 16 i.xb4
axb4 17 a3 is also insufficient, as is
14 .. .* b 8?! 15 Sbl! a5 16 £sb3 J.b6 17 £sxa5!
.&xa5 18 ^.xb4 ,&xb4 19 Sxb4 b6 20 l b 3 or
17.. .6 .5 18 Sxb6!! cxb6 (l8...£ixb6? 19 «f3)
19 £.d6+ &a7 20 i.xd5 exd5 21 £sb3, etc.
14-'tic6 is more resilient, although even
here after 15 1i rb3 or 15 S cl Black faces
difficult problems.
14.. .£>d5!
After 14...‘&b8 15 Sbl! b6 White could
win the exchange - 16 £ie4 .&e7 17 £sg5
£sd5 18 £sf7 or continue his attack with 16
JLxe6 #c6 17 Wc4 and &b3, in both cases
retaining the better prospects.
15 £se4
‘The knight, and after it the cl-bishop,
come very energetically into play’ (Makary-
chev). 15 S b l ,&b6 16 a4 a5 17 .&a3! or
15.. .b6 16 £se4 .&e7 17 a4 was also interest­
ing.
Second Peak
15—-&-b6 (l5-^.e7 16 £ b 2! and &xd4) 16 a4
a5
The only move: I6...a6? 17 a5 .&a7 18 ^.g5
£ige7 19 S ab i #c6 20 Sfcl or l6...^.a5? 17
S b l i.b4 18 ±xd5 #xd5 19 ®xb4 #xe4 20
Ag5l.
17 £sd6+!
A move which is not just spectacular and
stunning, but also objectively the strongest.
White cannot be satisfied with either 17
&d 2 £sge7 18 JLb5 £sc6 with the idea of
...£sc3!, or 17 J.g5 £sge7 18 .&b5 £sc6 19
jk.xd8 Sxd8 20 S a d Sf8, when Black has
sufficient compensation for the exchange.
17.. .6b8
17.. .cxd6? is bad: 18 .&xd5 exd5 19 WxbB
#c7 (I9...dxe5 20 .&a3!) 20 WbS\ with the
threat of jk.d2, ot I9...£se7 20 e6 (20 .&f4!?)
20.. .Wc7 (20...#xe 6 21 &g5!) 21 Wxd4 #c4
22 lfdl! and&g5.
18 ±xd5 exd5 19 Ad 2! (Vishy was about to
calm down, but this move again threw him
into disarray) 19-.cxd6
The knight now has to be taken: JLxa5 is
threatened, and if lg.-WeB? White decides
matters with the preparatory 20 Sfel! (but
not 20ik.xa5?Sxd6!).
20#xb6 dxe5
20.. .£ie7? 21 exd6 Wxd6 22 #xd6+ Sxd6
23 .&f4, winning the exchange and the game.
249
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
21 f4l!
‘In Kasparov style!’ (Makarychev). It was
this undermining move which tempted me
when I was calculating the consequences of
14 1i rb3. The aim would have not been
achieved by either 21 S fel £se7 (2l...1i rd6!?
and ...£sf6) 22 Sxe5 £sc6 23 JLf4 &a8 24 S b l
2he8!, or 21 2 a b l £se7 22 2 b 5 £>c6 23 2 fb l
#c7. etc.
21.. .£if6!
The best reply: Anand finds counterplay
involving the advance of his passed d-pawn.
If 21...e4? White would have won by 22 f5! e3
23 JLel and JLg3+, while my Informator
recommendation 21...1i rd6(?) did not work
because of 22 VxaSl.
22 fxe5 £ « 4 23 ibtaS
I attached an exclamation mark to this
move, not seeing any advantage after 23 e6
#c6 24 3iU+ &a8 25 WxaS+ (25 l rxd4 Wxe6)
25.. .1ra6 26 #xa6+ bxa6 27 i.e5 d3! 28 2f7
£sg5! 29 J.xg7 £sxf7 30 exf7 2hf8.
However, consideration should have been
given to 23 JLf4!? Wc6 24 1Srxd4! (I underes­
timated this ‘step backwards’) 24...'irc4
(Black must urgently seek salvation in an
endgame) 25 e6+ 'A’aS 26 1Srxc4 dxc4 27
2 a e l £ic5 28 e7 2c8 29 JLd6 or 27~.£sf6 28
e l Ec8 (28...Sde8 29 i.d2! b6 30 i.c3) 29
J.e3! 2he8 30 2f5, when Black is still re­
250
quired to defend accurately.
In any event, I tried to attack and did not
want to exchange the queens immediately.
23...d3!
If 23 -.Sc8 there would have followed 24
e6! Wc6 25 1Srxd4 Wxe6 26 S ab i with an
enduring initiative. The opponent’s unex­
pected reply unsettled me. I now had just
four minutes left on my clock, and in the
wild scramble I failed to find the correct
continuation.
24 e6?l
An untimely breakthrough, leading to
rapid simplification and a draw. I should
have retreated my queen - either simply 24
Wd4 Sc8(df8) 25 1i rxd3 with a minimal
advantage (Vishy would have had to strive
for a draw in a depressing position), or 24
Wb4 with the dangerous threat of .*.b6 and
Was, forcing Black to seek an accurate
defence:
1) 24...Sde8 25 £ b 6 d2 (25...Se6!? is evi­
dently better: 26 a5 d2l 27 a6 bxa6 28 Sxa6
W37 29 i-a7+ &a8 30 l rxb7+ &xb7 31 Sxe6
■4>xa7 32 Sc6 £sf2M 33 ^ 2 Sf8+ 34 Sf6!
gxf6 35 '4>e2 Se8 36 2xf6 Sxe5+ 37,4 ’xd2 h5
with a miraculous escape, or 26 Was Sxb6 -
cf. variation 2) 26 #a5! (26 a5 Se6!) 26...Wc6
27 Sabi! Ehf8! 28 Sfdl! #^4! (instead of the
losing Informator variations with 28...£sc3?

29 e6 or 28...If7? 29 e6! Wxe6 30 Wa7+ &c8
31 Sbcl+!, etc.) 29 h3!, and White neverthe­
less retains the initiative;
2) 24-Sc8! 25 -&b6 Sc6 26 Wa5 Sxb6 27
Wxb6 d2! (but not the Informator 27...Se8?
28 a5) 28 a5 Wc7 29 fiadl Se8, when the
strong d2-pawn defended by the knight
gives Black real chances of a draw, or
25—Sc2l? (a computer counter-attack) 26
Wa5 #e6! 27 Wa7+ &C8 28 Wa8+ <&d7 29
Wxb7+ ^ e8 30 g3 Sf8! (it is also possible to
begin with 30...d2!) 31 .&e3 d2! with a draw
(there is an especially pretty perpetual check
after 32 Wxg7 Ig 8 33 Wxh7 £>xg3l 34 l rxc2
£\f5+ 3 5 ^ 1 ^ 3 + ) .
24...«d 6 25 Wxd6+ Sxd6 26 e7 2f6 27 Hxf6
£ixf6! (not weakening the pawn structure
with 27-gxf6?!) 28 S d l He8 29 ,&b4
Draw agreed on White’s proposal (Vi-’/i):
after 29-&C7 30 Sxd3 &c6 his advantage is
purely symbolic.
It was a pity that the gradiose idea 13 b4
did not produce a win, but I sensed that I was
on a creative upsurge. Silvio Danialov: 'Every­
one had the very strong impression: both had
demonstrated chess of the highest level! After
the game Kasparov was very sullen and angry,
and he left quickly. Vishy was beaming with
delight, he was very happy!’
In the fourth round I had White against
Kramnik and after l d4 £if6 2 c4 e6 3 £>c3
iLb4 4 Wc2 I was unable to breach the ultra­
solid set-up 4-d5 5 cxd5 Wxd5 - a draw as
early as the 2lst move. But the next day with
Black I defeated the leader, Adams, outplay­
ing him in a difficult, nervy battle in the
Closed Variation of the Sicilian, and at last I
was leading the race: Kasparov - 3Vi out of
5; Svidler and Adams - 3; Anand, Kramnik
and Topalov - 2yi.
In the sixth round Leko held out against
me in a slightly inferior endgame. In addi­
Second Peak
tion, the chasing pair changed: Anand won
against Svidler, and Kramnik against Adams.
At the finish of the first cycle I had Black
against an aggressively inclined Veselin
Topalov, who unusually had scored six
draws. With this game, which took place
after a free day, there began one of the most
brilliant winning series in my career.
Game 56
V.Topalov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 7th Round, 01.03.1999
Sicilian Defence B80
1 e4 C5 2 £)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
<Sk3 a6 6 f3
In order to play the ‘English Attack’ with­
out any excesses such as 6 JLe3 £ig4 (Game
Nos.32,40, 51, 54, 63,116).
6.. .e6 (6...Wb6 - Came N0.76) 7 JLe3 b5
The most fashionable line. 7—&e7 8 Wd2
£ic6 9 g4 0-0 (Game No.17) is employed
three times less often, and 7—‘S^bd7 (Came
No.lOO in Part II of Carry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov) is altogether uncommon.
8 g4 (8 Wd2 - Game N0.66) 8...h6
Later I also tried 8...£sfd7l? 9 Wd2 £ib6
(Game No.122).
9 Wd2 £)bd7 10 0-0-0 i.b 7 11 h4
The sharpest plan, to which White turned
after 11 jLd3 was neutralised (Game N0.41
in Revolution in the 70s).
11.. .b4
I have played this thoroughly studied po­
sition with both colours - and with an
almost 100% score!
12 £ia4!
The alternatives are weaker: 12 <Ske2?! ds
13 -&h3 dxe4 14 g5 hxg5 15 hxg5 exf3! (the
knight is hanging!) 16 £rf4 £>e417 Wei 2xh3!
and ...e6-e5 (Anand-Ljubojevic, Buenos Aires
1994) or 12 £ibl?! d5 (Came N0.58).
251
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
12...Wa5!?
Now 12...d5 is questionable in view of 13
JLh3 with the threat of g4-g5 - in this way I
defeated van Wely (Wijk aan Zee 2000) and
Wojtkiewicz (Reykjavik (rapid) 2000).
13 b3 <£ic5! (a bold pawn sacrifice with the
aim of exploiting the weakening of the white
king’s defences) 14 a3 £sxa4 (14...Ec81?) 15
axb4 Wc7 16 bxa4 d5 (l6...£>d7!?) 17 e5 £sd7
18 f4
All these well-known moves were made
quite quickly.
I8...^b6!
But here is a novelty. I8...a5?l 19 £^>5 (19
bxa5l? with the idea of .£±>5) W-WcS 20
bxa5 d4?, which had previously occurred, is
bad because of 21 Sh3l dxe3 22 Sxe3 &-C5
252
23 £id6+ Axd6 24 1 ^ 6 .
19 a5?!
Veselin also made this move quickly and
confidently, but to no purpose - he should
have returned the pawn! True, nothing is
given by 19 f5 £ixa4 20 fxe6 £ic3! 21 exf7+
<4 lxf7 22 JLd3 Axb4 23 Sdfl+ &g8 (Anand-
Gelfand, 3rd match game (rapid), Shenyang
2000), but 19 Sh3! was more promising
(Game No.74).
19...£>C4!
The only way: in the event of 19~.£sa4?! 20
c4! dxc4 (20...Sc8 21 Sh3l) 21 Wc2 I would
have had to find a means of saving the
game.
20Wc3
'But not immediately 20 ib<c4?! #xc4.
Now Black has to find the correct plan of
counterplay, otherwise he is simply a pawn
down’ (Makarychev). I had prepared a para­
doxical reply, and I could not resist the
temptation to play it instantly.
20...1fe7!?
The threat of ...'Hrxb4 is more important
than development! Topalov was shocked: he
was obviously expecting either 20..JLxb4? 21
l rxb4 £ixe3 22 Sd3! (22 S e l £ic4(xg4) 23 f5 is
also good) 22...£)c4 23 Sb3 £ixa5 (23...Sb8?
24 f5!) 24 Sc3 £>c4 25 .&xc4 dxc4 26 Sxc4
Wd7 27 S d l with the initiative, or 20...Sc8 21

,&d2 (threatening ^.el) 21...£>xd2?l 22 #xd2
with an extTapawn (22..Me7?! 23 Sh3l).
Dokhoian and I had looked at this entire
variation the previous summer, when we
were preparing for the match with Shirov,
and the ‘non-human’ queen move was
suggested by the computer. At that time,
beginning with the 1995 match with Anand
(cf. Game No.19), such computer novelties
were only just coming into practice. But
when the analytical programs became
stronger, another surprising move was
found - 20...Sb8! with the unpleasant threat
of ,.JLa8 and ..JLxb4, for example: 21 Sh3
,&.a8 22 i.xc4 dxc4 23 £>e2 i.xb4 24 i.b6!
1 ^ 6 ! 25 axb6 l,xc3 26 Sxc3 Ad5 27 f5
2xb6 28 £>f4 Sb5 29 fxe6 fxe6 30 £>g6 2g8,
and White, a pawn down, is thinking only of
a draw.
21 £ xc 4?!
The experts, to a man, thought this ex­
change was necessary, but the computer
quickly points out the veiled tactical re­
source 21 JLd2! £sxd2 (21...Sb8?! is now bad
because of 22 ^ .el ^.a8?l 23 # a l!, while if
21...2c8 there is 22 f5!) 22 4>xd2 l rxb4 23
2bl!!, forcing 23...1S,xbl (23...'Srxc3+ 24 <&>xc3
is too depressing) 24 ^.b5+ #xb5 25 £>xb5
axb5 26 Wc7 i.b4+ 27 * e2 (27 c3 i.xc3+!)
27-.0-0! (at the cost of the bishop, Black
Second Peak
safeguards his king and eliminates the a-
pawn; afteT 27...i.a6?! 28 2 b l JLa3 29 ^ 6 +
<4>e7 30 #c7+ 31 f5 his forces’ lack of
coordination proves fatal) 28 #xb7 Sac8 29
2 c l ^.xa5 30 ®xb5 -&c3 with a probable
draw.
2l...dxc4
The bishop on b7 has come alive, and
there is now some advantage on Black’s side.
22 i.d2?!
‘A psychologically understandable deci­
sion. Topalov prefers to play with a pawn for
the exchange and (which is important) a
blocked position, rather than be under
enduring pressure by the two black bishops
with material equal. But objectively 22 S hfl
1 ^ 4 23 #xb4 .&xb4 24 f5 was probably
stronger, after which there is the interesting
24.. .0-0!? (24...^.d5 25 £>e2l with the idea of
£tf4) 25 fxe6 fxe6 26 2xf8+ 2xf8 27 £>xe6
2e8 with the initiative’ (Shipov). But 28 2d7!
gives White good chances of a draw.
22.. .1.xhl 23 2xhl #b7 24 2dl i.e7?!
Aiming at last to complete my develop­
ment, I overlooked a possible sharp reply by
my opponent. After 24-®d5! (Stohl) with
the idea of 25 f5 2d8 or 25 ^ 3 0-0-0 and
...&.e7 Black would have consolidated his
advantage.
25 #f3?!
253
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
While rejecting 25 '8rxc4? Sc8 26 #b3(d3)
0-0, Veselin also overlooked 25 f5l WdS 26
<£ixe6! (in Informator I gave only 26 fxe6?
fxe6 or 26 jtf4? 2d8) 26...fxe6 27 f6, when
for the sacrificed rook White has a danger­
ous attack: 27...gxf6 28 exf6 JLd6 29 -&xh6
WeS 30 #f3 Wal+ (30...2c8 311^7!) 31 4d2
^,xb4+ 32 4e2 #e5+ 33 4 f l Sa7 34 .&e3!
Hah7 35 1^8+ 4f7 36 Sd7+ .&e7 37 Sxe7+
4xf6 38 ,&g5+ 4g6 39 Wf3 2xe7 40 £ x e 7
2e8 41 h5+ 4g7 42 ,&b4 4g8 43 4g2 with a
pawn for the exchange and prospects of a
draw.
25 — 0 - 0 - 0 ? !
In my Informator variation 25...'irxf3(!) 26
£sxf3 0-0-0(?) 27 S ell 4 b 7 28 2e4 2c8 29
4 b 2 White would have created a kind of
fortress. However, after 26...Sd8! the end­
game is very difficult for him, since if 27 2 e l
there is the breakthrough 27...C3! 28 J.xc3
2c8 29 -&d2 2c4 with the threats of ,..^.xb4
and...g7-g5l.
26 #c6+! W x c 6 27 ^ x c6 2d7 28 <£ixe7+
2xe7
‘Now the black rooks have no files on
which to invade, and after 4b2-c3 the
important c4-pawn may be hanging’ (Shi­
pov). In addition the bishop has strong
points (on b6, c5 and d6) - as Botvinnik
taught in such cases, ‘the bishop must be
254
defended by a pawn’. Nevertheless, White’s
defences remain vulnerable.
29 2 e l
If 29 JLe3 (but not immediately 29 4b2?
2d8 and ...2ed7) there is the sensible 29...2d7
30 2 e l (30 2xd7?l 4xd7 is obviously worse)
30...4b7 31 ^.c5 4c6 32 .&d6 g5! with winning
chances: 33 fxg5 hxg5 34 h5 f5 35 gxf5 exf5 36
JLc5 2dh7 or 34 hxg5 2h7l with the plan of
continuing ...4b5, ...2d8-h8 and ...2h2, win­
ning.
2 9 -h 5
Moving this pawn off a dark square and
fixing White’s kingside pawns. But here also
29.. .4b7 30 &e3 2d7 was more flexible,
retaining the ...g7-g5 resource (cf. the previ­
ous note).
30 g5 4 b 7
Consideration should have been given to
30.. .2b7l? and ...2d8 or the immediate
30.. .2d81? 31 ^.e3 (31 2e4? 2ed7 32 2xc4+
4b7) 31-2d5 32 jLc5 2ed7.
31 JLe3 (31 2e4? 2d8l, etc.) 3 1 -2 d 7 32 &C5
4 c6
32...C31? (one of the ideas of this end­
game) is also interesting, although after 33
2e3 2hd8 34 .&d6 2c8 35 2e4 it is again not
easy for Black to break through (35—f6 36
g6).
33 .&d6 f6

34 gxf6?
‘A serious strategic mistake, probably
caused by Black’s time-trouble, and, as a
consequence, by Veselin’s desire to begin
playing for a win’ (Shipov). The opening of the
g-file backfires on White, but the line given in
Informator - 34 g6 Sh6 35 S g l c3(!) 36 Sg3
<4^5 37 Sxc3 Bxg6 38 3Sc5+ <4>e4 ‘with un­
clear play’ would have left me chances of
success: 39 Sc6 Sa7 40 exf6 gxf6 41 -&.C5 Ha8
42 fixe6+ <4>xf4 43 -&d4 <4>g4 44 Sxf6 Igg8!
45 c4 (45 ^-f2 ? Eaf8!) 45...'4’xb4, etc. Therefore
the patient 34 fifl! was correct.
34-.-gxf6 35 S g l f5! 36 <4>d2 <4>d5?
An error in reply. The immediate seizure
of the g-file would have been decisive:
36.. .5dd8! (more rigorous than the Informa­
tor 36...Shh7 and ...Shg7) 37 <4>e3 Shg8 38
Sg5 <4^5 39 c3 ^ 6 ! and ...<4>b5-a4-b3.
37 <*>63?
My plan could have been forestalled by 37
^ 03! with the idea of 37...Shh7 38 Hg8! or
37.. .5dd8 38 Ae7l. Now, however, White’s
fortress is destroyed.
37—Shh7 (threatening...Shg7; 37...C31? 38
<4>d3 Sdd8! and ...Shg8 or 38 4f3 Sc8! and
...Sdd8-g8 was also good) 38 Ji.f8!?
The alternatives were insufficient: 38 c3
Shg7 39 Sg5 &c6 40 <ie2 <4>bs 41 ±f8 Sgf7!
and ...<4>a4-b3, or 38 Sdl+ <4>c6 39 S g l (39
Second Peak
^d4? Shg7) 39-Bhg7 40 Sg5 Sxg5l? (apart
from 40...'4>b5 or 40...C3) 41 fxg5 f4+l, etc.
38..,Shf7 (38...C31?) 39 Ah6
If 39 l,d6, then 39-.Sg7!.
39.. .5h7
‘To gain time on the clock. In a calm situa­
tion there could have followed 39...C3! 40
<4>d3 Sc7 with the threat of ...Sc4’ (Shipov).
Or 40...Sh7l? 41 JLf8 Sc7 and wins. This was
far stronger than 39...‘4’c6(?l) 40 Sg6 Sde7,
etc., which I gave in Informator.
40 Sg6?!
Avoiding 40 Af8 Shf7 41 ii-h6 c3l (cf.
above). According to Shipov, ‘in the time
scramble White could have played for the
trap 40 Sg81? Sxh6?? 41 Sc8 with mate, but
after the normal reply 40...Sb7l 41 Sc8 Shc7
he is in trouble’. For example, 42 Sa8 Sxb4
43 Sd8+ (43 Sxa6 Sd7!) 43...'4>c6 44 Sd6+
<4^)7 45 Sxe6 Sb2, and now 46 jLf8 Sc8! 47
Se7+ (47 &g7 Sc6!) 47...'4>a8 48 Sf7 Sxc2 or
46 <4>d2 c3+ 47 &d3 Bbl! 48 i.f8 Bdl+ 49
^eS Sc4 50 Sb6+ <4’c7 with decisive threats
(51 e6 Sc61).
40.. .5b7?!
This does not throw away the win, but
40.. .5h8! or 40...Sd8! would have been im­
mediately decisive, cutting off the bishop
from the queenside and then beginning to
mop up on that side of the board.
255
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

41 JLf8 Shf7 42 i.d 6 Topalov confidently ‘marks time’. At any

42 Sf6? Sxf6 43 exf6 e5 (threatening ...e5-event, at this point he looked unperturbed.
e4) 44 i.e7 exf4+ 45 *xf4 *66 46 *g5 Eb8
was hopeless for White.
42...Sg7

With a second time-trouble approaching I

tried calculating various lines and nowhere
could I see a clear win. From the press: ‘The
In the end I have nevertheless obtained monitor showed a close-up view of Garry’s
the desired position. face, distorted by the enormous tension. In
43 Sg5 Sbf7 (43...C3I?) 44 c3 his characteristic way the champion was
‘This opens the d3- and b3-points for the constantly shaking his head and casting
black pieces, but there was nothing else: 44 dark glances at his opponent. Then he would
£.b8 Sxg5 45 fxg5 (45 hxg5 h4) 45...f4+ 46 turn away from the board with revulsion
4f3 <i ,d4’ (Shipov). This last move is incorrect and again begin shaking his head. And
on account of the sudden 47 b5! Sb7 48 J.d6 suddenly, one after another, there followed
Sxb5 49 g6L 46...Sb7 47 itd6 c3l is correct, two staggering exchanges.’
putting White in zugzwang: both 48 ^ >xf4 49-Exg5!
Sf7+ and 48 4f2 f3! are bad for him. In fact 49-Sxd4l! 50 Sxg7 (after 50 cxd4
Here I caught my breath and stopped to it is no longer necessary to capture on g5 -
think. It is clear that there is hardly anything 50.. .5c7l is decisive) 50...&XC3, was simpler,
that White can move (if Sxh5? there is when in view of the threat of ...,&,b2(b3) and
always ...Sh7). This means that the king ...c4-c3 the rook endgame is hopeless for
invasion ...,&,c6-b5-a4-b3 should be decisive. White. There was also a win by 49..'£>c2 50
44.. .6C6! 45 &f3 (not 45 ^ 4 ? because of lil?e3 Sxg5! 51 fxg5, but here not the Infor-
45.. .5xg5 46 fxg5 f4) 45...'&b5 46 i.c5 mator 51...f4+(?) 52 ^xf4 (52 <&>e4(?) Sf7 53
If 46 Sxh5? Sh7! 47 Sxh7 fixh7 48 ^ 3 4 f3 *d3 and wins) 52...Sxd4+ 53 cxd4 ^ 3
both 48...'&’a4 and the return 48...'&’c6 fol­ 54 g6 c3 55 g7 c2 on account of 56 ^gsl!
lowed by ...^5-64 will do. with a draw (instead of the simple-minded
46.. .6a4 47 i.d4 Sd7 48 &e3 (and here if 48 56 gS#? cl®+), but the waiting move
Sxh5? Black wins not only with 48...Eh7, but 51.. .5d8l, when White is in zugzwang: 52
also the thunderous 48...Sxd4l 49 cxd4 c3) 4f3(f2) ^d3, 52 &e2 f4, or 52 £.b6 Sd3+ and
48.. .6b3 49 ...,&xc3.

256

50fxg5
50.. .5.d4?
No one, including the two players, real­
ised just how serious a mistake this was,
although Shipov commented: ‘There was a
much quicker win by 50...f4l 51 b5 (51 &f2?!
Rxd4! - G.K.) 51-axb5 52 a6 b4 53 a 7 2d8,
but again time-trouble interfered.'
51 cxd4 c3 52 g6 c2 53 g7 c l # 54 g8#
In this queen endgame, which has arisen
by force, White is a pawn up, but Black is the
first to begin checking and he firmly holds
the initiative. But is this sufficient for a win?
54.. .#c4+ 55 4e3
The correct move: my Informator recom­
mendation 55 4f3(?) # fl+ 56 4e3 (with the
idea of 56...f4+? 57 4 e 4 f3 58 #g3l with a
draw) is bad because of 56...#el+! 57 4f3
#e4+ 58 4>f2 (58 4g3? f4+ - Shipov)
58.. .#xd4+, continuing to pick up pawns.
55-&C3
After making a complicated by-passing
manoeuvre, my king has imperceptibly
‘crept in from behind’ and together with the
queen has created threats to the enemy
king. It is hard for White to find an accept­
able defence: his weak pawns prevent his
own queen from giving checks. I did not yet
see a mating construction, but I sensed that
the end was close and I became nervous.
Second Peak
From the press: ‘At this point Garry did
something strange. The hall froze in fright.
Even the ironic press centre did not make its
traditional remarks about the ‘Kasparov
theatre’: the champion leaned back in his
chair, then suddenly slapped himself on the
head and disappeared behind the stage.’ But
Veselin maintained his ice-cold calm...
56 # d 8?
A final mistake, which no one noticed!
Stohl gave the ‘losing’ 56 b5(!) axb5
(56...#xd4+ 57 4f3 #d5+ 58 4f2 axb5 59
#c8+ and 60 a6! is no better) 57 a6 #xd4+
58 4f3(?) #d5+(?), ‘and Black takes on e5
with check’. In fact after 59 4g3 #xe5+ 60
4f2 White is saved by the passed a-pawn.
However, 58...f4l is decisive. Therefore 58
4e2! is correct, with the idea of 58...#xe5+
59 4>f2(fl) or 58...# c4+ 59 4 e l! #xh4+ 60
4 f l #c4+ 61 4 e l #e4+ 62 4f2!.
Also, no win for Black is apparent after
57.. .b4 (instead of 57...#xd4+) 58 a7 #xd4+
59 4e2 #xa7 60 #xe6 b3 61 #c6+ * b 4 62
e6 b2 63 #d6+ with a stream of checks.
However, Topalov did not even think
about the saving 56 b5, but for the moment
he made a ‘solid’ queen move, his entire
appearance demonstrating his belief in the
firmness of White’s position.
56.. .#d3+ 57 <4*4
257
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Or 57 &f2 f4 (Shipov) 58 #g5 #xd4+ with
a decisive attack, since the black king is
covered against counter-checks: 59 &e2
#d2+ 60 & fl #e3, and White is in
zugzwang (Stohl).
57.. .Wd2+!
57...‘4 ’d2!? 58 ig S f4 followed by ...f4-f3
would also have won, but in this case the
white king would have escaped from the
cage.
58 &f3 # d l+
The immediate 58...f4l 59 #c8+ (&lb2 60
# c4 #e3+ 61 * g 2 #g3+ 62 * h l #xh4+,
etc., was more forceful, but I did not want to
move my king away.
59*e3
Allowing a pretty finish. 59 &f4 #g4+ 60
ie S #g3+ 61 &e2 #g2+ would have led to
the same thing. And if 59 &f2 there would
have followed 59...f4l, for example:
1) 60 #c8+ *d2 61 #xa6 (61 #xe6 #e2+
62 i g l f3, mating) 6l...1i rel+ 62 4^2 #g3+
63 * h l (63 i ’f l f3!) 63-#xh4+ 64 4^2
#g3+ 65 * h l f3 66 # f l # e l! 67 * g l h4 68
a6f2+ 69*g2h3+l;
2) 60 #g5 #xd4+ 61 *62 (61 & fl f3l)
61.. .#d2+ 62 & fl #63, winning as in the
note to White’s 57th move.
59.. .# g l+ 60 ^ e 2 (if 60 &f3 Black would
have mated by 60...#fl+ 6 l ■4,e3 f4+ 62 ^ e4
258
^d2! or 61 ^ 3 f4+ 62 *h2 #e2+ 63 i h l f3)
60...#g2+ 61 *e3
Not 61 * e l *d3.
6l...f4+! 0-1
It was only here that it dawned on Topa­
lov. His face changed and he slumped back
in his chair: 62 ^xf4 ^ d 3 leads to a spec­
tacular mate in the middle of the board. ‘A
fantastic raid by the black king!’ (Makary-
chev).
This impressive win put me in an excel­
lent mood and left me confidently leading
after the first cycle: Kasparov - 5 out of 7;
Kramnik and Anand - 4.
In the next round, without any respite, I
won quite well with Black against Svidler in
a Sicilian with 4 #xd4. Four wins in eight
games, and all with the black pieces - this
had never happened to me before! The lead
over my pursuers grew to one and a half
points.
The following day I met Vassily Ivanchuk,
who was Black for the third game in a row.
This was a rare instance when in a double­
cycle tournament they did not change the
order of the rounds at the end of the first
cycle, to avoid such a situation: Ivanchuk
said that he was prepared to play three
games in a row with the same colour! And in

the seventh round he beat Svidler, but in the
eighth he missed a win against Anand,
which seriously upset him. But I, irrespective
of my opponent’s mental state, very much
wanted at last to open my account with the
white pieces.
Game 57
G.Kasparov-V.lvanchuk
Linares, 9th Round, 03.03.1999
Queen’s Gambit Accepted D27
I d 4 d 5 2c4 dxc4
Ivanchuk’s usual tactics: now and then he
employs not ‘his’ openings, but those which
have recently occurred with his opponent,
and where he has prepared some novelty.
Therefore Vassily’s choice did not greatly
surprise me.
3®f3
After some thought I rejected 3 e4, as I
played in the third round against Anand
[Game No.55), and I decided to test another
idea in the classical set-up, which had oc­
curred in another recent game with Anand
(Wijk aan Zee 1999).
3.. .e6 4 e3 C5 5 Axc4 a6 6 0-0 7 Ab3
£lc6 (7...b5 - Game No.46) 8 £lc3 cxd4 9
exd4 i.e7 10 S e l
Soon 10 jLg5 0-0 11 # d 2 £ia5 12 kc2 b5
also came into fashion (Kramnik-Anand,
Dortmund 2001; 3rd match game (rapid),
Leon 2002).
10 .. .0.0 l l a3
The main line. In Wijk aan Zee I chose 11
Ji.f4 £ia5 12 k.c2 against Vishy, but after
12.. .b5 13 d5 exd5 1 4 1 ^ 3 £ ic6 15 .&C7 #d7
16 £ie5 <£)xe5 17 Ji.xe5 g6 I did not achieve
anything. And if 12 d5 <£ixb3 13 1i ,xb3 Black
has both the queen sacrifice 13...£sxd5 14
S ad i £ixf4! 15 Sxd8 Sxd8 (Game No.124),
and 13...exd5 14 S ad i Ji.e6 15 'Sfxb7 .&d6
Second Peak
(Fritz X3D-Kasparov, 4th match game, New
York 2003) or 15...Se8.
11.. .£ia5
Vassily played this without hesitiation in
expectation of 12 ,&a2 b5 with equality.
11.. .b5l? 12 d5 exd5 13 £>xd5 £ixd5 14 i.xd5
±b7 is sounder, when White’s advantage is
too small (an example: Alterman-Anand,
Belgrade 1999). This was why in the third
round I avoided 3 ®f3.
12 £ c2! b5
13 d5!
Instead of the known 13 Wd3 ilb7 14 iLg5
g6 with equality (I.Sokolov-C.Hansen, Malmd
1998) - an immediate breakthrough! From
the expression on my opponent’s face I saw
that he didn’t like this at all.
13.. .£ ic4
On encountering a surprise, Ivanchuk de­
cided to centralise his knight and not get
involved in the dangerous variations with
13.. .exd5 14 .&g5 .&e6 15 # d 3 g6 16 £)d4
Wb6 17 Se2l or 13...£ixd5 14 £ixd5 exd5 15
# d 3 g6 (I5...f5 16 a4l) 16 iLh6, and if
16.. .2.8?, then 17 #c3 f6 18 £ih4! (threaten­
ing <2ixg6) l8...<A’f7 19 ^ 3 and wins
(P.H.Nielsen-Bentsen, Denmark 1999).
But, as it later transpired, Black has the
stronger 13...fie8! 14 .&g5 £)xd5 (I4...h6?l is
inaccurate in view of 15 .&h4 <£)xd5 16 <£)xd5
259
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
exd5 1 7 1M3 g6 18 We3 -«Le6 19 Wxh6 ix h 4
20 jLxg6! 1^6 21 Wh7+ &f8 22 £ixh4 with a
powerful attack, Kramnik-Anand, Dos Her-
manas 1999) 15 £sxd5 exd5 16 i.xe7 Sxe7
17 Sxe7 1i rxe7, although even here after 18
a4! &b7 19 axb5 axb5 20 I 'd 3 g6 21 WxbS
White retains a small plus (as a result of
which the stock of ll...b5l? rose).
14 1M3! (creating problems for Black)
14.. .2.8?!
There is no longer time for such a luxury.
And the more so for 14...exd5? 15 Sxe7! or
14.. .£ib6? 15 £ie5! with the threat of
^ c 6(g4), which is even more forceful than
the Informator 15 £>g5- Black should have
played 14...g6 15 £>d4 (Makarychev)
15.. .^.b7! 16 dxe6 11136! with counterplay, or
15 a4! £>xd5 16 £sxd5 exd5 17 .ih 6 ftxb 2 18
We2 &f6 19 £xf8 *xf8 20 axb5 ^ic4 21 Sa2
a5 with a pawn for the exchange and the
possibility of a tenacious resistance.
15 a4!
Now this undermining move is especially
strong. The seemingly tempting 15 £sg5?
would have been parried by I5...exd5! 16
£ixh7 g6 17 £>xf6+ ,&xf6 18 2xe8+ Wxe8 19
£>xd5 Wen- 20 Wfl Wxfn- 21 * x fl i.x b 2
with equality (possibly this is what Vassily
was hoping for).
15...exd5 (I5...£d7 16 axb5 axb5 17 2Lxa8
260
Wxa& 18 dxe6 Jixe6 19 £>xb5 would have led
to the loss of a pawn) 16 axb5 a 5
‘Trying to patch up his crumbling flank,
but the b5-pawn will be a decisive factor’
(Makarychev). There was not a lot of choice:
after l6..JLb7?! 17 b3 Black would have had
to give up a piece.
17 b3 (17 ^.g5?! £sxb2 18 # d 4 £b7! was
over-hasty) 17...£sd618 £sd4
Preventing ..JLfS. 18 £>xd5?! i f 5 19
£ixe7+ Sxe7 20 Wdl £xc2 21 Vxc2 Sxel+
22 £ixel ftxb5 was weaker, but 18 Ze5!? g6
(I8...i.b7? 19 £ixd5) 19 i-b2 was good.
l8..JLb7
l 8...£>de4? did not work because of 19
£sc6L
This was a psychologically difficult mo­
ment for me. After spending a whole hour
on all sorts of calculations, I was unable to
find a direct win: everywhere there was
some defence. I had to take the play along
positional lines.
19 f3!
Crippling the black knights. White’s plan
is to exchange all the heavy pieces: in the
minor piece ending it will be more difficult
for Black to defend his weak a5-pawn, and
the role of the passed b5-pawn and the
threat of £x:6 will be strengthened.
In the event of 19 5k6 ^.xc6 20 bxc6
 Second Peak

£)de4! the c6-pawn would have been lost: 21
£>xe4 dxe4 22 Wxd8 (22 Wc4 i-b4!)
22.. .5axd8 23 £±>2 2c8 24 -&xe4 .&b4 ot 21
£>xd5 Wxd5 22 Wxd5 £>xd5 23 Sxe4 (23
JLxe4?! ^.b4) 23~.£>b4! (but not 23-^.f6? 24
Sxa5!).
It is also unclear how great White’s ad­
vantage is after 19 ^.b2l? 2c8 20 £)c6 j&.xc6
21 bxc6 £>de4 22 ®xd5 Wxd5 23 Wxd5 £>xd5
24 ^.xe4 ^.b4 25 .&f5! &xel! 26 £xc8 2xc8
27 2 x el f6 with drawing chances.
19.. .2 c 8
23--.^.g7. The attempt 23...h6? 24 .&xh6
i.xh6 25 lx h 6 £)xb5 did not work because
of 26 £>e6! fxe6 27 1 ^ 6 + &h8 (27...'&f8 28
Sxe 6 Hc6 29 £>c5! and wins) 28 H 16+! (28
Sxe6? &xc2 with equality) 28...^g8 29 2xe6
1T8 (29...Sxc2 30 Hxf6 Hcl+ 31 ^ 2 Sc2+ 32
&g3 # 07+ 33 f4! is now hopeless for Black)
30 !g 6 + l g 7 31 Sxf6 with two extra pawns.

24 Se2l
The incautious 24 Hxe8? Wxe8 25 .&xf6
would have led to a draw by repetition:
25.. .^.b4! 26 l e i (White loses ignominiously
20 £ta4l after 26 #f2? A el 27 # f l #63+ 28 * h l
Not immediately 20 jLg5? on account of ^.h4! 29 ^.xh4 l rxd4 30 &f2 Wtd2 31 £ sc5
the tactical stroke 20...£sde4! 21 fxe4 dxe4, d4!, etc.) 26..JLa3! 27 ±b4l.
when Black seizes the initiative: 22 #63 £>g4 24.. JLb4 25 l e 3 5 c 7 (Black has defended
23 JLxe7 2xe7 24 WC7! or 22 £b4 everything, but he has not repaired the
23 2e3 h6! (instead of the Informator chronic defects of his position) 26 JLd3 Se7
23.. .2 xc3? 24 2 xc3 or 2 3 - l rc7? 24 ^.xf6) 24 27 Wcl £Lxe2 28 ^.xe2 le 7 ? l
,&xf6 Wxf6 25 2 d l 1136!? with dangerous Hastening the exchange of queens, which
threats. is desirable for White. After 28..JLd6(e7) the
20.. .jLf8 (20...g6 was more resilient, with the situation would still have remained uncer­
idea of 21 £g5 £>h5 or 21 £ b 2 £sd7) 21 £g5 tain.
g6 22 Wd2l 29 le 3 l lx e3 +
Aiming at the a5-pawn and preventing The retreat 29...1rc7(d7) may have been a
...h7-h6. All the white pieces are ideally more resilient defence, but equally unattrac­
placed. tive: after 30 b6 and ^.b5 or 30 g3 and jLfl
22.. .5xel+ 23 S x el <£>de8l? White retains a big advantage and sooner or
Another trap: Ivanchuk opens the diago­ later he would all the same have forced the
nal for his f8-bishop, not rushing with exchange of queens.

261
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

30 Axe3 £>d7 (30...l£tf8 31 ®c2! was no 35...d4 36 £>d5

better) 31 <5^c6! Suddenly the situation has become more
31 b6 *f8 32 Ab5 ®e5 (32...£>b8?l 33 £>c2complicated.
Ad6 34 Ad2!) 33 £>c2 £>d6 looked not alto­
gether clear.
31...Axc6 (there is no choice) 32 bxc6

It would appear that here also 36...£>xc6 is

not possible because of 37 Ab5, but Black
has the tactical trick 37-£>b4! 38 ®xb4 ®d6.
32.. .£ib8? This would have put the win for White in
An oversight in approaching time-trouble. doubt, for example: 39 £>d5 ®xb5 40 ®xc7
32.. .®e5? also failed: 33 Ab6 (threatening £)xc7 41 Axd4 ®d5 42 Af2! 4g7l 43 A el
c6- c7) 33.-A.d6 3 4 f 4 ® x c 6 35 Ab5l. 4f6! (43-®b4? 44 Ac3+! 4f8 45 Axb4 axb4
The battle would merely have been pro­ 46 4f2 and wins) 44 Axa5 4e5 45 4f2 4 d 4
longed by 32...£>f8 33 ®c5l (forcing an 46 g4 4d3, saving the game thanks to the
ending with two bishops against two activation of the king.
knights) 33-Axc5 (not 33-£>e6? 34 £lxe6 It is better to play 39 Ad3l? axb4 40 Axd4
fxe6 35 Ab6 or 33-£>c7? 34 £sa6 Ad6 35 £>c8 (40...®b7?! 41 Ae 4 l) 41 4f2 (my Infor-
Ab6 and wins) 34 Axes £ie6 35 Aa3l mator line 41 Ac 5 Ab 6 42 Axb6 ®xb6 43
(things are more difficult after 35 Ab6 <A>f8 4f2 is unclear because of 43-® d 5), or 39
36 Axa5 &e7) 35-®d4 36 4*2 f5 (not Ad7l? axb4 40 Axd4 ®b7 41 Ac6 £>d8 42
36.. .£\xc6? 37 Ab5 or 36...£>xb3? 37 *63) 37 Ads Ad6 43 4f2 with an enduring advan­
Ab 2 £ixe2 (37-.£>xb3 38 Ae5l a4 39 A di tage (two bishops, the weak b 4-pawn), which,
and c6-c7) 38 4xe2 4f7 39 4d3, and there is however, may not be sufficient for a win.
no way of saving the game. But Ivanchuk was so demoralised that he
33 Ab6! (33 Ab5 £sc7!) 33...Ad6 (forced: did not notice 37-®b4l and he resigned
33-®xc6? 34 Ab5 and wins) 34 £sc3 Ac7 35 ( 1 - 0 ).
Af2?
A painful lapse in time-trouble. There was Yuri Razuvaev: ‘As in the first cycle, Vassily
an immediate win by 35 Ac5l d4 36 £\d5, resigned without exploiting all his chances to
since 36...<£\xc6? is not possible in view of 37 the full. It has to be admitted that the rebirth
Ab5- That would have been a genuine of Kasparov’s style of ten years ago provokes
positional masterpiece! in his opponents a feeling of doom.’

262

This was my last win in ‘classical’ play
against Ivanchuk (four draws in 2001-2003
led to this final score in our individual meet­
ings: +10-4=19). It is amusing that immedi­
ately after the game Vassily said to his second
that now he had to prepare properly for his
game with the ‘tournament leader’ Kramnik.
‘But what about Kasparov?’, some bystanders
asked in surprise. ‘Here Kasparov is playing
hors concours!’, explained Ivanchuk, having in
mind the leading positions: Kasparov - 7 out
of 9; Kramnik - 5V2; Anand - 5.
Before the tenth round there was a free
day. I had to play Vishy Anand, and we both
prepared thoroughly for this critical encoun­
ter, which took place on the background of
the discussions begun with Kok about our
match for the world title in the autumn.
Yuri Vasiliev: ‘Vishy’s camp was reinforced
by new volunteers: grandmaster San Segundo
arrived, and together with Elizbar Ubilava
they spent 15 hours studying a critical posi­
tion in a topical variation of the Sicilian. But
Kasparov and Dokhoian were also looking at
this precise variation...’
Sergey Shipov: ‘The key moment of the sec­
ond half of the tournament. Whoeverfinished
first in the final table, the individual meeting
of the two leading players in the world was of
great psychological and even political impor­
tance. The world champion’s lead over his
rivals was great, but if he had lost this game,
even first place in the tournament would not
have quelled thefashionable discussions about
power sharing at the chess summit.'
Game 58
V.Anand-G.Kasparov
Linares, 10th Round, 05.03.1999
Sicilian Defence B801
1 e4 C5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 £)f6 5
Second Peak
£ sc3 a6 6 f3
None of your 6 ±e3 £sg4 (Game Nos.32,
40, 51, 54, 63, 116 ) or 6...e5 (Game Nos.45,
93). Anand was obviously trying to draw me
into the main variations, and I accepted the
challenge!
6.. .e6 (B.-.^be - Game No.76) 7 £.e3 b5 8 g4
h6 9 ® d 2 £sbd7 10 0-0-0 £ b 7 11 h4 b4 12
£sbl?!
12 £sa4l is correct (Game Nos.54, 74), but
the ‘amoral’ retreat to bl, employed by
Ivanchuk, Anand and Leko, also has some
justification: the knight covers the king
against an attack on the a-file, and White
hopes to break through quickly on the
kingside and in the centre.
12.. .d5!
A classic counter. 12...#a5?! (Anand-Gel-
fand, Haifa (rapid) 1998) is weaker in view of
13 Sgl! with the threat of g4-g5 (Stohl).
13 &h3
13...g5!
Also a typical Sicilian pawn sacrifice,
which in the given position was first tested
in the third round Leko-Topalov game. The
earlier 13...^e5?! 14 g5 £sfd7 (Ivanchuk-van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1996; Anand-Topalov,
Tilburg 1998) did not appeal to me because
of 15 .&xe6! fxe6 16 £sxe6 # a5 17 gxh6 gxh6
18 exd5 with a strong attack.
263
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
14 hxg5 hxg5 15 exd5 £>xd5 1 6 JLxgS Wb6 !
An unpleasant surprise for the Anand
team, who were expecting l6...Wa5 17 Ag2
S xhl 18 Sxhl! Wxa2 (l8..JLg7?! 19 Sh7) 19
Sh8 with sharp play, as in the Leko-Topalov
game. I hit on 13...g5! and l6...Wb6! before
Wijk aan Zee, and then before Linares Dok-
hoian and I studied this line at a training
session in Podolsk, and we analysed it as far
as the 25th move!
17 Ag2 (after 30 minutes’ thought)
17...Sxhl 18 JLxhl
Now if 18 Sxhl?! there is l8..JLg7! 19
S d l (19 £sb3? a5!) 19-Sc8 with the initia­
tive for Black.
I8...fic8!
Continuing to strengthen the position. It
is an amazing picture: White’s extra pawn
has no significance, but the domination of
the black pieces may tell. Everything de­
pends on tactics: if White does not give mate
after the breakthrough in the centre, his
position will begin to collapse.
19 S e ll
This suggests itself, and it is also the only
move (19 Wh2? Ag7 or 19 f4? £>c3! is fatal).
Here for the first time I thought for some
five to ten minutes - merely with the aim of
trying to convince Anand that I had not
studied this variation veiy thoroughly.
264
1 9 -# a 5 !!
A paradoxical and psychologically difficult
move: after all, the queen has only just gone
to b6, and most important - it looks terribly
dangerous to leave the e6 point without
defence! In the pre-computer era such
moves were not even considered... However,
after 19-.Ji.g7?!, 19...Sc4?! or 19...£>7f6 there
could have followed 20 £sfs!, while if
19...£>c5 20 f4 Ag7, then not 21 £>f5? (Mas-
trovasilis-Lutz, Corfu 1999) 21...b3!, but 21
£sxe6! fxe6 22 i.xd5 AxdS 23 Wxd5 4*7 24
Wf3! b3! 25 f5l, and analysis shows that
White maintains the balance.
Instead of this Black threatens by ...Wxa2
and ...£lc5 to create great problems for the
white king. And Vishy again sank into
thought. Usually imperturbable, on this
occasion he became noticeably nervous and
he was clearly unhappy with his position.
20 f4l?
‘The best defence for White is attack! It
was hardly worth saving the pawn by 20 a3,
a standard move with this placing of the
queens’ (Shipov). And, indeed, then there
could have followed either 20...Wb6 (given
by me in Informator) 21 axb4 J.xb4 22 c3
Acs 23 £>f5 (Stohl) 23..JLf8! or 21...£>xb4 22
£ sc3 i.g7 23 Ae3 Was! with excellent play,
or 20...£>c5!? 21 f4 Wb6 22 axb4 (22 a4? b3!)
 Second Peak

22.. .'txb4 23 #xb4 £ld3+! ot 23 c3 #c4(a4), I don’t remember for how long Anand
and White is obliged to fight only for equal­ thought after 22..JLg7, but it was engraved
ity. in my memory that he was shocked by this
20.. .Wxa2 21 f5 move.
23 exf7+ (23 Jbcd5? Ifxd5 and wins)
23...*xf7
‘Gany carries out an unexpected and
paradoxical plan, not preventing White from
opening lines against the black monarch.
Such strategy was deemed faulty back in the
mid-19th century, but here an exhibition of
modem chess magic begins.’ (Razuvaev).

21...£ ic5
This was played in accordance with our
analysis and in the end it proved murder­
ously effective, but... ‘From the standpoint of
playing for a win, 21...e5 deserved considera­
tion, since after 22 1 ^ 2 # c4 the capture on
e5 is dangerous only for White’ (Shipov).
However, here things are not altogether
clear after 23 .&xd5 .&xd5 (23...1,xd5 24
£ie6!) 24 Sxe5+ £ixe5 25 'txe5+ *d7 26
£}d2 I?c5 27 £ie 4 -&xe4 28 1i ,xe4 with a
pawn for the exchange and counterplay
against the exposed black king, giving
practical chances of a draw.
22 fxe6 ^.g7l
In the event of 22...fxe6 23 1i rh2! Black
would have had to find the only saving
moves: 23...£id3+ 24 * d 2 £ixel 25 #h5+
^ 7 26 W7+ *d6 (26...^.e7? 27 Ifxe6+ 4>c7
28 &xe7 * b8 29 Ifxel £ixe7 30 #65+ Sc7
31 £ie6 £id5 32 ie 4 l and wins) 27 l ,xb7 (27
#xe6+ &c7 28 JLf4+ i ’dS is equal) 27...#c4!
(but not the Informator 27---Sc7(?!) 28 1 ^ 8
iLg7(?) 29 .&d8! and wins) 28 i ’xel #xd4 29
1 ^X08 #gl+ , and the white king cannot
escape from the checks.
24 .&xd5+?
Anand had already guessed that I had
reached this position on my board at home.
Under the pressure of Black’s threats he
began to panic and he failed to find the only,
far from obvious way to draw - 24 #f2+!
i ’gS 25 #f5! (the termination of my analy­
sis) 25-±xd4 26 1fg6+ ±g7 27 Se8+ 2xe8
28 1fxe8+ 4>h7 (28..JLf8? 29 ±h6) 29 #h5+
with perpetual check, or 25...1fc4 26 iLe4
(not the Informator 26 Sdl(?l) because of
26...^.xd4l 27 £ ic3! £ ixc3! 28 ^.xb7 £ixb7 29
bxc3 &g7 30 Sd7 Sc7) 26...1rxd4 27 IT 17+
<4f8 28 jLxd5 l rxb2+ 29 i d l #d4+ 30 &C1
with the same outcome.
‘Vishy did not see the draw, because he
was too unsettled and in addition he was
short of time: he had less than 13 minutes

265
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
on his clock. And this is Anand - the quickest
chess player on the planet!’ (Vasiliev).
‘When attacking in the Sicilian, White of­
ten has the illusion of being close to a win.
This deceptive, intoxicating feeling can let
even the best players down, but it would
seem impossible to overcome it. I can assure
you: Vishy was confident of victory and he
was not looking for a way to save the game!
Only in the region of the 26th move did he
realise what had happened.’ (Razuvaev).
24...1xd5 25 fie7+ ^ g 8 26 Sxg7+ (there is
nothing else) 26...<&>xg7 27 £sc3!
The best practical chance. Things are
hopeless for White after 27 £if5+ lxf5!
(apparently it was this that Anand did not
notice in advance) 28 gxf5 <£sb3+ 29 ^ d l
Af3+ 30 <&el £sxd2 3l£sxd2 jLg4.
27.. .bxc3!
Here I began to hesitate. Trying to obtain
a technical position as soon as possible, I
spent a long time calculating the variations
with 27...1i rhl+?! 28 jtf3. As it later
transpired, after 29 Ae7 (29 £if5+? ^h7) not
only 29..Jtxdl is decisive, but also 29...£se4!
30 l d 3 iLxg4 31 ^.xb4 &f7 (Stohl) or
31.. .5c7 (instead of the Informator 3l...£rf2?
32 £te6+!), or even better - 30...b3! 31 £sxb3
£sf2 32 i.f6+ 4>xf6 33 I f 5+ &e7 34 le 5 +
<^7, avoiding the checks: 35 lf5 + ^ 7 ! 36
266
lc 5 + <&’b7! 37 £sa5+ ^>b8 38 1136+ i.b7 39
lx f 2 Sd8 40 l e 2 jk,f3 and wins.
However, White has the more resilient 29
<£se6+! ^ 6 30 £sxc5 lx d l+ 31 I x d l JLxdl
32 i.e3 .&e2 33 ^ 2 or even 32 <&>xdl fixes
33 .&e3 Sc4 34 g5 and b2-b3 with some
chances of a draw.
28 £sf5+ 4f7!
28...<4 f8 29 iLh6+ is less accurate, when
after 29...‘&f7 30 lx d 5 + .&xd5 31 £sd6+ <i>g6
32 £}xc8 4>xh6 White acquires an extra
tempo (which, however, does not save him),
while after 29...'&’e8 30 lx d 5 .&xd5 31 £sd6+
<&>d7 32 £}xc8 cxb2+ 33 <ix b 2 <i>xc8 he
remains not with a knight, but a more
mobile bishop.
29 lx d 5 + iLxd5 30 £sd6+ <^g6 31 £sxc8
*xg5 3 2 <£sb6 ,&e6 33 bxc3 * x g 4 34 <&’b 2
4 f 4 35 ^ a 3 a5! (the most forceful decision -
but one which demands accuracy!) 36 £ia4
‘White’s last chance is an endgame a
bishop down, where the opponent has only
an a-pawn and the queening square is of the
wTong colour. But he also has a knight! The
importance of the game was great, and
Garry faltered...’ (Makarychev).
36...£se4?
A blunder in what was now a time scram­
ble, and a surprising one not only for a world
champion, but also any experienced master.

The a5-pawn should have been guarded like
the apple of one’s eye! There was an easy
win by 36...£sb7 or 36...£sd7! 37 b2 £sb6 38
c4 (38 £sd3+ &e3 39 £sc5 ^.d5 or 38 £sa4
<S^c4+ and ...4,e3 is also hopeless) 38...^.xc4!
39 £ sxc4 ^ xc4+ 40 ^b 3 £se5! (but not
40.. .£sb6? 41 c4! i ’eS 42 c5 with a draw) 41
4>a4 £sc6 42 4>b5 i ’eS 43 i ’xce a4.
37 £ib2! (I missed this move: 4 ,a4xa5 is
threatened) 37...^xc3 (or 37...<£ic5 38
^d3+!) 38 £id3+ &e3 (if 38...4,e4, then 39
<2k5+ 4^5 40 £sxe6 4xe6 41 4b3 with a
draw) 39 <£>c5
At this instant I realised to my hoiror that
the position was drawn, and in my haste I
conceived something that at least resembled
an idea.
39.. .1-f5!?
If 39-^.d5(f7) White is miraculously saved
by 40 £)b3! ^.xb3 (40...a4 41 4b4!) 41 cxb3
4 d 4 42 b4! a4 43 b5 4c5 44 b6 4xb6 45
4 b 4 with a draw.
40 4b2l
An accurate move, the last before the
time control. White would have lost after 40
£sb3? a4 41 £ ic5 ^.xc2 42 4b2 4d2 (Shipov)
or 40 £sb7? a4 41 4 b 4 4d2 (41...4d4!?) 42
£id6 ^.e6(d7) and ...4xc2.
40...£sd5 (alas, 40...£sb5 41 4b3! was inef­
fective, as was 40...£sdl+ 41 4b3l, but not
Second Peak
the Informator 4 1 4cl(?) in view of 41...^.g4,
winning) 4 1 £sb7 a4 42 c4 £sb6 43 £sd6
Again forced: after 43 c5? <S^c4+ 44 4c3
iLe6! (instead of the Informator 44...a3? 45
£sd6! with a draw) 45 £sd6 £se5 46 4 b 4 .&b3
Black wins.
43.-^-d3 (there is nothing better: 43-^.d7
44 c5 £sd5 45 £sc4+ 4 d 4 46 £sb6 £sf6 47 4a3
with a draw) 44 c5 <£)d5 45 4 a 3 £lc2
(45...4d4 46 4xa4 4xc5 47 £ib7+(f7) with a
draw) 46 <£)b5 (threatening c5-c6) 46...<S^e7
47 £ia7?
Wom out by his sufferings in the opening,
prolonged defence and severe time-trouble,
Anand relaxed and stumbled when a step
away from a draw - 47 <£ic3 and <£ixa4. He
serenely played 47 4^a7, thinking that all the
same he would pick up the a4-pawn - and
fell into the only trap!
47.. .6d 4 48 c6 £sd5 49 £)b5+
Or 49 4b2 i .d l 50 <S^b5+ 4c4 (but not
50.. .4c5? 51 £ sc3 a3+ 52 4 a l! £ ixc3 53 c7
with a draw - Shipov) 51 c7 4g4, picking up
the c-pawn while retaining the knights and
the a-pawn.
49-&C5 50 c l l.f5!
On seeing this move Vishy turned pale.
‘Worthy of a study’ (MakaTychev). ‘It is the
first time in my life I have seen this’ (Ljubo-
jevic).
267
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Namely, 51 &xa4 52 4>a5 ^c4+ 53
&a4 £lc2 mate! or 53 &a 6 ± c 8+, winning
the knight with a standard mate. 51 £}a7
£ sxc7 52 &xa4 4 ^ 6 or 51 c8# Axc8 52 &xa4
ftb 6+ 53 4>a5 £sc4+ 54 ^ a 4 iLd7 comes to
the same thing. Therefore White resigned
(0- 1 ).
Razuvaev: ‘The main game of the entire
tournament. Recently Kasparov admitted
that stored on his computer are 3,920 origi­
nal analyses, and he added: “My preparation
is not from variation to variation, but con­
ceptual - significantly higher than with the
others." Therefore it should not surprise us
that by the 27th move Anand ended up in a
lost position.’
It was not without reason that after this
game Alexander Roshal gave his report on
the round the heading ‘Engineer Garry’s
hyperboloid’. For the first time in tourna­
ment play a complicated computer analysis
worked out at home was demonstrated at
such depth - l6...'Brb6, lg.-.WaS and 22.. Jk,g7
(remember also 20...1Sre7 in the game with
Topalov). Black’s risky plan ended in com­
plete triumph, but this could hardly have
occurred in the pre-computer era. To a
human such counterplay seems extremely
dubious and dangerous, but impassive
machine calculation enabled it to be estab­
268
lished that White’s attack was not deadly,
and that Black’s threats were very real.
As a result I achieved a unique result, by
scoring five successive wins with Black, and
all in the Sicilian Defence, which Alekhine
once called ‘a gangster shoot-out in a dark
room’. From the press: ‘Never before has
there been such an instance in a tournament
of ‘2700s’ of someone winning all their
games with Black!’
The position in the race was now: Kas­
parov - 8 out of 10; Kramnik - 6; Anand - 5.
In Shipov’s opinion, ‘only in the ll t h round
did the wise Kramnik make the correct move
against the champion - 1 d4l. The outcome
was another Griinfeld (cf. Game N0.36 in
Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87, note to Black’s
15th move), and a forced draw with a cas­
cade of sacrifices, which effectively settled
the question of the tournament winner.
A natural slump set in, and in the 12th
round my ‘white’ game with Adams took a
very difficult course. After my .poor 25th
move I lost a pawn without any particular
compensation. But Adams could not decide
whether to be satisfied with a draw or fry to
win. Because of this he got into time-trouble,
became nervous (which rarely occurred with
him), and somehow unexpectedly lost. My
lead over Kramnik thus increased to V/2
points.
There were two rounds remaining, and if I
had scored 1 V2 out of 2, I would have sur­
passed the performance (greater than 3000)
of Karpov in Linares 1994. I had hardly any
strength left to play, but nevertheless in the
13th round I played a fighting Sicilian draw
with Leko (cf. Game No.93, note to White’s
9th move), and in the 14th I almost broke the
resistance of Veselin Toplaov, although after
1 3 I did not have anything from the
opening and I gained the initiative only at
the start of the second time control.

Game 59
G.Kasparov-V.Topalov
Linares, 14th Round, 10.03.1999
All the games, apart from ours, had al­
ready concluded. The tournament had
concluded! But I continued to seek a win,
agonisingly overcoming my fatigue and my
pacific mood.
49 f5!
With the threat of i ’hBxhA. I mistakenly
regretted that I did not play 49 £)h5. It would
appear that if 49...£>f5 there is any easy win
by 5 0 1i fxb6, but after 50...'4f8! with the idea
of ...1i rd4 Black could still have resisted: 51
iLxf5 £xf5 52 1T52 <4>e7! 53 1^7+ <£>d8 54
1T6+ Wxf6 55 £sxf6 <&e7 56 <4>g3 .&d3.
However, there was a genuinely worthy
alternative - 49 #d2l? £)g6 (49-h6 50 £)h5
with the idea of 50...hxg5 51 Wc3 or 50...'Sfd4
51 Wei) 50 ^ h 5 Wa3, and in the event of 51
c5 bxc5 52 We3 Wb2+ 53 <£^3 .&c4 54 .&e6+!
(my Informator suggestion 54 We8+ ^ f8 55
£*f6+ &g7 56 We7+ i-f7 57 Wxc5 is unclear
because of 57...Wal!) 54..~&xe6 55 Wxe6+
■4f8 56 Wf5+ *67 57 Wxc5+ &f7 58 Wc4+
<4>e7l 59 Wxc6 Wd4! Black somehow holds on
(60 Wf6+?1 Wxf6 61 ^xf6 <4 ’e61), but after 51
J.f3l ^ e 7 52 £)f6+ &f7 (after the Informator
Second Peak
52.. .<4 ’g7(?l), 53 £ig4! is even stronger) 53
£sg4 ^eS 54 £se5 ^.f5 55 £)xc6 £ixc6 56
±xc6 &f7 57 &q2 or 56...4’e7 57 We2+ J.e6
58 JLg2 White is a sound pawn to the good
with a technically won position.
49.. .H6!
I underestimated this excellent resource,
having mainly considered 49...h5 50 ^ 3 !
hxg4+ 51 <4 ’xh4 or 49...£>xf5 50 JLxf5 JLxc4
51 Wc2(e3) and wins, and so I stopped to
think...
50 g6?
A painful blunder, leading to the loss of all
the pawns! 50 Wa2l would have been deci­
sive after 50...hxg5 51 c5+ Wd5, and here not
the Informator 52 Wxd5+(?1) cxd5 53 cxb6
JLa6 with drawing chances, but 52 Wd2!
with the murderous threats of Wxg5+ and
cxb6, for example: 52...‘&f8 53 cxb6 Aa6 54
Wb2l.
50.. .h5! 51 c5 (desperation) 51...bxc5 52
Wa2+ c4! 53 Wa8+ Wf8 54 Wa7 (or 54 Wxc6
hxg4 55 We6+ <4>h8 56 We5+ with perpetual
check) 54...^xg6 (54. .Wg7 was also possi­
ble) 55 fxg6 i.xg6 56 i.e6+ i.f7 57 i-f5 Wd6
58 &h3 iLg6!
With a draw on the 69th move (’/i-’/i).
It was a pity to miss the win, but as it was
I finished on ‘plus seven’ - 75% in a tourna­
ment where, in contrast to Wijk aan Zee,
only the strongest were playing. My rating
shot up, far beyond the 2800 mark. I was
also inspired by the quality of the games. I
think that this was my most stellar Linares.
This is what I had to say immediately after­
wards:
‘By the middle of the tournament I had
warmed up. And I made more moves than
anyone, i.e. I fought to the last pawn! And
yet here 1am the oldest player. But in fight­
ing spirit and energy reserve I am superior to
the young! The explanation for my wins
269
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
with Black is fairly simple: in recent times I
have been exclusively reinforcing black
openings. And the Najdorf Sicilian is a
minefield, where you can only make one
mistake. In my preparations for the match
with Shirov I analysed this opening a great
deal, because in it Shirov plays the sharpest
lines. But the match did not take place, and
my entire ‘black ammunition’ came into
action in Linares and Wijk aan Zee!'
As the press wrote, the world champion’s
winning margin provoked memories of
Nimzowitsch’s words, which he once ex­
pressed about Alekhine: ‘He deals with us like
inexperienced fledglings!’ However, it is
important to note that the mini-match with
Kramnik ended in a draw: Vladimir held his
own even in my best tournaments!
Historic Rating
International Tournament in Sarajevo (16-26
May 1999): 1. Kasparov - 7 out of 9; 2-3.
Bareev and Shirov - 6; 4. Morozevich - S'A; 5.
Adams - 5; 6. Leko - A'/r, 7. Topalov - 4; 8.
Short - 3; 9 .1.Sokolov - 2V2; 10. Timman - lV2.
The category 19 super-tournament in Sa­
rajevo was a difficult one for me for many
reasons. Playing after triumphs such as Wijk
aan Zee and Linares is a real test: everyone is
expecting new resounding victories of you!
But here it was also a short tournament with
an uneven line-up. In addition, in Bosnia,
where I had been in 1994 during the bomb­
ing, I had a whole army of fans, and such
psychological pressure also cuts both ways.
In the absence of Anand and Kramnik my
main rivals were Shirov, Bareev and the
rapidly improving Morozevich. On this
occasion there was no starting spurt. In the
first round Bareev acted ultra-safely against
the Griinfeld Defence - a draw on the 22nd
move. In the second round I again had Black
270
and I obtained some advantage against
Shirov (cf. Game N0.51 , note to Black’s 12th
move), but I was unable to squeeze out more
than a draw.
Before the third round the leaders were
Topalov - 2 out of 2; Morozevich and Shirov
- lV2. It was time to begin accelerating,
seeing that against my next opponent -
Nigel Short - things usually went well.
Game 60
G.Kasparov-N.Short
Sarajevo, 3rd Round, 19.05.1999
Nimzo-lndian Defence E20
1 d4 £if6 2 C4 e6 3 £ ic3 Ab4
More often Nigel played the solid 3~.d5,
but here he remembered the times of our
match (1993).
4 ^ f3
In reply I decided to avoid 4 Wc2 (Game
Nos.4, 68, 90, 91, 97, 106) or 4 e3 (Game
Nos.41, 52, 69), remembering the even more
distant times of my matches with Karpov
(1985 and 1986). I used to leisurely follow
the development of this variation and I
occasionally employed it in blitz games.
4.. .C5 5 g3 0-0 6 Ag2 cxd4 (no experiments
- Short follows the main line) 7 £ixd4 d5 8
cxd5
The attempt 8 # b 3 Axc3+ 9 bxc3 £ic6 10
cxd5 £ia5 11 ®c2 £ixd5 12 #d3 (Game
No.13 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov) was neutralised by 12...1Src7!
(Kasparov-Suba, Dubai Olympiad 1986).
8.. .£ixd5 9 A d 2
I had tried this against Anand and Kram­
nik at the January blitz tournament in Wijk
aan Zee. The alternative is 9 1^3, for exam­
ple:
1) 9...1T36 10 AxdS exd5 11 Ae3 Axc3+
(ll..Jth 3 12 g4l?) 12 #xc3 1^6?! 13 h4! (13

0-0 £>c6 is more modest, Kasparov-Kramnik,
14th match game (blitz), Moscow 1998)
13...h5 14 g4l, and Black runs into difficul­
ties, or 12...'Sra6 13 Ifd3 (13 f3 or 13 a4 is
also not bad) 13...1S,xd3 14 exd3 ik,d7 15 &d2
with slightly the better endgame (Carlsen-
Kramnik, London 2011);
2) 9...£sc6 10 £sxc6 bxc6 11 0-0 # a5
(ll...Sb8 is also fashionable) 12 ±d2 £,xc3 13
bxc3 ± a 6 14 fifdl #c5 15 e4 i.c4 16 # a4
£>b6 1 7 1134 H i 5 18 ^.e3 (18 c5! 19 H >2
Sad8 is equal, Jakovenko-Carlsen, Moscow
2007) 18..JLe2 19 2d2 Sab8 20 ,&xb6 axb6 21
Hd6, and now not 2l..JLf3? 22 lx c 6 with an
extra pawn (Kasparov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee
2000), but 21...Sfc8! with equality (van Wely-
Short, Wijk aan Zee 2000).
9—.&XC3
Black can also play 9...^xc3 10 bxc3 -&e7
11 S b l £sd7! (not ll...e5?! 12 2xb7 exd4 13
Sb3! JLe6? 14 .&xa8 £sa6 15 -&f3 .&xb3 16
l rxb3, Kasparov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee (blitz)
1999) 12 0-0 £sb6 13 JLf4 £sd5 14 H i 3 £sxf4
15 gxf4 (Kasparov-Salov, Linares 1990)
15.. .^.d6! 16 e3 e5 with equality, while after
12 ^.xb7 i.xb7 13 Sxb7 ®c8! or 12 Sxb7
Axb7 13 JLxb7 ^.f6! (not my Informator
13.. .5b8(?!) 14 £ic6) 14 i.xa8 # x a 8 15 0-0 Sc8
(Mamedyarov-Kasimdzhanov, Elista 2008) he
has good compensation for the pawn.
Second Peak
10 bxc3 £sb6
‘A cunning prophylactic move, with the
idea of seizing the blockading square c4, and
deferring the thematic ...e6-e5 advance until
a convenient moment’, wrote grandmaster
Sergey Shipov, commentator on the already
popular ‘Club Kasparov’ website.
Nevertheless the immediate 10...e5l is
better, after which White often replies 11
<£lb3(c2), but I tried 11 £lb5 and now ll...a6
12 jL d .&e6?! (I2...axb5 is equal) 13 c4 £se7?
(Kasparov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee (blitz)
1999) 14 WxdS 2xd8 15 £sc7 and wins, or
ll...£ic6 12 0-0 ,&e6 13 i.c l a6! (I3...1ra5!?
Kasparov-Miralles, Evry (simul’) 1988) 14 c4
£sb6! 15 £sd6 £sxc4 16 £sxb7 # x d l 17 Sxdl
£sd4 18 £sc5 (18 e3 £.g4!) I8...2ab8 with
excellent play for Black (Piket-Tkachiev, 7th
match game, Cannes 2000).
l l £e3!
White must act energetically, as otherwise
his structural weaknesses will begin to tell. If
11 0-0, then ll...e5 12 £sbs £sc4 13 .SLcl £sc6
14 ^.d5 £s6as! (blockade on c4) 15 Hd3 a6 16
£sa3 .&f5! with equality (Makarychev-
Yudasin, Ivano Frankovsk 1982).
ll„ .^ d 5
Short’s novelty: the knight ‘changes its
mind’. This gives Black more of a choice than
Il...£sc4 12 # d 3 £sxe3 13 Wxe3 and 0-0 with
271
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
‘Catalan’ pressure foT White (Mochalo-
Dydyshko, Minsk 1982).
12#d2
The gambit 12 JLcl # a 5 13 0-0 #xc3 14
S b l also deserved consideration, with com­
pensation foT the pawn. Ot 1 2 ...£ sxc3 13 ®d2
£sd5 14 ^.a3 Se8 15 0-0 (Stohl), but afteT
13.. .e5! 14 £sf3 #xd2+ 15 .&xd2 £se4 16
£sxe5 <S^xd2 17 4 ,xd2 White has merely a
symbolic plus in the ending.
12.. .£sd7
‘Not rushing with the exchange on e3 and
considering a siege of the white c3-pawn (by
...£s7b6, etc.). AfteT 12...e5 13 £sb5 £sxe3 14
®xe3 <^c6 15 0-0 # e7 16 S fdl the white
knight would have invaded at d6, since afteT
16.. .5.8? 17 Jb<c6 bxc6 18 #xe5! Black is let
down by his back Tank’ (Shipov).
13 ^.g5l (13 c4?! £sxe3 14 ^ e 3 #a5+!)
13.. .»c7
14 £sb5
The prelude to an interesting pawn sacri­
fice. Nothing was given by either 14 e4
£s5b6, or 14 ^.xd5 exd5 15 £sf5 ^ 8 (my
Informator line 15-f6 16 £se7+ ^ 8 is not so
clear on account of 17 .&f4! <£se5 18 <S^xd5)
16 0-0 (16 <£sxg7?! ®e5l 17 &h6 Sg8 - Stohl)
I6...#e5 17 <£sd4 ^ b 6 with equality.
The most natural move: 14...'®rc4?! 15
272
<S^d6 ®c5 16 c4 was dubious (Stohl), while in
the event of 14...Wb6 15 Sbl! (15 c4 f6! -
Shipov) 15...a6 16 c4 ot 15...f6 16 iLf4! (if 16
e4 fxg5 17 exd5 Black equalises by 17...a6! 18
£sa3 ®c5 19 £sc2 £sf6) l6...£sxf4 17 Wxf4
Black would have remained undeT slight
pressure.
15 c4! (15 S b l a6!) 15...®xc4
A fearless reply! 15...f6 was more cautious,
for example: 16 jlxd5 exd5 17 .&e3 ^xcA 18
£sxa7 (Shipov) I8...d4! 19 .&xd4 (19 'S'xdA
£se5!) 19-Se8 20 £sxc8 Saxc8 21 S b l b5
with sufficient compensation for the pawn,
or 16 # d 4 £sb4 17 ®xc5 £sxc5 18 &e3 £sc2+
19 &d2 £sxe3 20 i ’xeS .&d7 with a roughly
equal ending.
16 S b l
With the intention of 0-0 and Sfcl. ‘The
exchange of a weak pawn for one tempo is
not a bad deal!’ (Shipov). White gTeatly
hinders the development of the opponent’s
queen side.
I6...£s7b6
The planned manoeuvre, but in the given
specific situation it allows an unpleasant
attack. I6...a6? 17 ^.xd5 exd5 18 <£sd6 ®c6
19 &e7 or I6...h6? 17 .&xd5 #xd5 18 #xd5
exd5 19 £ sc7 was bad, and 16 . j £ sc5?! was
unattractive in view of 17 iLxd5 exd5
(I7...1rxd5?! 18 #xd5 exd5 19 £sc7) 18 Sb4

£se4 19 Sxc4 £>xd2 20 Sxc8 (20 Sd4!? is also
good: 20..JLd7 21 £sc7 Sac8? 22 £sxd5 and
wins, or 20...£se4 21 £sc7, winning the ex­
change: 2l...Sb8?! 22 Ae7) 20...£sf3+ 21 exf3
2fxc8 22 &d2 with the better endgame, or
I6...£s7f6 17 JLxf6! £ixf6 18 0-0 with the
ideas of £sd6 and Sfcl (Stohl).
However, I6...f6!? was safer, and if 17
Af4!, then either 17...£s7b6 18 0-0 &d7 19
Sfcl # 3 4 20 £ sc7 Sac8 (Stohl) 21 £>xd5
<?ixd5 22 Axd5 exd5 23 #xd5+ iTi8 24 #xb7
jLe6, or 17...£sxf4 18 gxf4 £sb6 19 0-0 # a 4
(l9...e5?l is less good: 20 £)d6 Wfxf4 21 Ad5+
<ih8 22 £rf7+ Sxf7 23 #xf4 exf4 24 -&xf7),
when my Informator 20 Sfdl(?!) is inaccu­
rate in view of 20...Ad7 with equality. In any
event, in both cases Black could have
counted on a draw.
17 0-0
17...H6!
Already practically the only defence. ‘The
move of a very self-confident person!
Psychologically it is very risky - to allow such
an attack on your king with the board full of
pieces, and not against anyone, but against
Kasparov!’ writes Shipov, and he recom­
mends 17-..f6(?!), overlooking the powerful
18 e4! - after I8...£se7 19 Sfcl # a 4 20 £e3
£>c6 21 #c3 or 18...£sc3 19 £>xc3 fxg5 20
Sfcl e5 21 a4!? White has a clear advantage.
Second Peak
In the variation 17..JLd7?! 18 S fcl # 3 4
(18../ttg4 19 e4!) 19 £sd6 it is also hard to
offer Black any good advice: 19-f6 20 e4
#33 (20...£se7? 21 Ae3 and wins) 21 £sxb7
fxg5 22 exds Sac8 23 d6, and 19...h6, which
seemed acceptable to me, is bad in view of
20 JLxdS! (I only considered 20 Af4 or 20 e4)
20...hxg5 (20...£sxd5?! 21 Sc4! or 20...exd5?!
21 Sb4! is even worse) 21 Axb7 Sad8 22
WxgS Wxa2 23 i.e4 with a fearfully strong
attack (23..Mxe2? 24 Sc2 and wins).
18 Axh6!
18 S fcl Wg4 or 18 e4 hxg5 19 Sfcl 1 ^ 4
20 exds exds is harmless. The piece sacrifice
is also by no means winning, but it creates
an unusual and dangerous position for
Black, with a disrupted material balance.
I8...gxh6 19 e4 (cutting off the black queen
from the defence of the kingside) 19...£se7
The alternatives are bad: 19-.Ad7? 20
Sfcl Wa4 21 exds Sac8 (21...Axb5 22 Sb4!)
22 £)c7 and wins, or I9...£sf6?! 20 Sfcl £)xe4
21 # e l! #xa2 22 i.xe4 (Stohl).
20 S f c l Wa4 21 Wxh6
I assumed that, at the minimum, White
would always have perpetual check, and
that if he were able to bring other pieces to
the aid of his queen (rook, knight, bishop, h-
pawn), then Black would be in trouble.
However, at the board I somewhat overrated
273
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
my chances: Short has adequate defensive
resources.
21.. .1 d 7 !
Again the only move! If 21...£sg6? 22 h4
£sc4 White wins prettily by 23 h5l? £sge5 24
Ixc4l #xc4 (24...^xc4?l 25 # f6 <£b7 26 h6
Eg8 27 #xf7+ <ih8 28 e5) 25 #g5+ <ih7 26
#xe5, etc., and more forcefully with 23 a3l
(also threatening Sb4) 23...a5 (Stohl) 24
#g5l <ih7 25 e5 £>cxe5 26 h5 <£^7 27 hxg6
£>xg6 28 E c7 or 24...£>ce5 25 f4 M 7 26 fxe5
ix b 5 27 h5 &e8 (27...‘£g7 28 #f6+ &h6 29
<£h2!) 28 hxg6 fxg6 29 Sc7 #d4+ 30 <£h2
Sf2 31 2bxb7 Sxg 2+ 32 <£xg2 #xe4+ 33 *f2
±.d7 34#e3l.
It is fatal to play 21...f6? (Stohl) 22 a3l e5
23 Sb4 Was 24 £>d6 or 21...e5? 22 #g5+!
£>g6 23 h4 &.d.7 (23...<i ,h7 24 £>d6!) 24 h5 (24
£sd61?) 24-^.xb5 25 hxg6 ±c4 (Shipov) 26
gxf7+ &xf7 27 i f 3!- Things are also difficult
for Black after 21...<£sc4?l 22 ?hc7 Sb8 23 2 b 5
£>g6 24 Sg5 £>ce5 25 Sh5 2d8 26 #h7+ ^ 8
27 Sxe5 2dl+ 28 S xdl # x d l+ 29 i f l # c l
30 £}xe6+! ix e 6 31 2xe6 fxe6 32 #xg6 2e8
33 #f6+ 4^8 34 h4, etc.
22 2c5 (switching across to the main battle­
field) 22...^g6
To avoid mate, Black would like to move
his rook from f8. However, the immediate
22.. .5fd8? did not work because of 23 Sg5+
274
£sg6 24 Sxg6+ fxg6 25 #xg6+ <4>h8 26 £sd6
Hf8 27 e5 and wins (Stohl).
23 Sg5!?
Before intensifying the pressure with this
move, I convinced myself that the alternatives
were ineffective: 23 h4 #xa2l (23...ixb5?l 24
2cxb5l) 24£>c3 # a3 25 h5! (25 Sg5? 2fc8!! 26
2xg6+ fxg6 27 '§rxg6+ 4f8 and Black wins)
25.. .#xc5 26 hxg6 fxg6 27 #xg6+ with per­
petual check, or 23 Sh5 Sfd8! 2 4 ^d 6 i e 8 25
e5 2xd6! 26 exd6 Sd8! (after the Informator
26.. .#d4 there is 27 #h7+ 4f8 28 2g5) 27 h4
# d 4 also with a probable draw.
23.. .#C2
This would appear to be the best defence,
especially compared with 23...#xa2? 24
£ sc3! #02 25 e5! i.c6 (25...#xc3 26 i.e4) 26
jtxc6 bxc6 27 2b4! <S^d5 28 2h4l or 24...#c4
25 e5l JLc6 26 itxc6 (26 h4l? also wins)
26.. .bxc6 27 h4l #xc3 28 h5 and wins.
But 23..Jtxb5 deserved consideration: 24
2bxb5 #d4l (rather more accurate than
24.. .# d l+ 25 4 h 2 # a l! - Stohl), and now 25
h4 #g7! 26 #xg7+ 4xg7 27 h5 2ac8 28 hxg6
2cl+ 29 i f i fxg6 is harmless, while 25 e5
#al+ ! 26 ± f l 2ad8! (threatening ...2dl) 27
2b4 2d4 28 2xd4 #xd4 29 h4 £>d7 and 25
Sbe5 #al+ ! 26 £.fl #xe5 27 Ixe5 £>xe5
lead to equal positions, as pointed out by
Stohl.
 Second Peak

24 ^aB 2b3l? would have won. Thus, in the event of

Here and on the next move I spent a long 25.. .#dl+? 26 ^.fl Black is not helped by
time looking for more promising possibili­ 26.. .2 .c 8 27 2 x g 6 + !, 2 6 ...2 a c8 27 g4H # d 4 28
ties. Say, 24 Sb3, and after my Informator e5 2 c3 29 £ic2! #c5 30 ^ .d3l, 26...&C6 27
line 24...#dl+ 25 .&fl ^.xb5(?) there is the 2 d 3 # a l 28 e5, or 2 6 ...# d 4 27 e5 i.c6 28
immediately decisive 26 2xg6+! fxg6 27 & d3! # d 7 29 £ib 5 .
#xg6+ ^>h8 28 2xb5, while if 25...Sac8? - 26 But after 25...#d4! White does not
g4! with the threat of 2h3. 25...#al! is achieve anything: 26 e5 2ac8 (26..JLc6? 27
better, with the idea of 26 e5 ^.xbs (Stohl), JLxc6 bxc6 28 2f3! and wins) 27 iLfl! (27 h4
but 26 £ic7! creates problems for Black. Scl+ 28 &h2 .&c6! is equal) 27..Jtc6! 28 2d3
However, after 24--£-xb5!? 25 2bxb5 #c3! #64! (not my earlier recommendation
(by analogy with 23..JLxb5) or 24...#xa2l? 28.. .#a4? because of 29 £>c2! #xc2 30 g4! or
there appears to be no way for White to 29 £sb5M # e 4 30 f3 #04034) 31 Sd4l #c5 32
develop his initiative. ^.d3, winning) 29 f3 #b4! - instead of the
24.. .1U3 Informator 29-#a4? 30 2xg6+ fxg6 31
Again 24..#xa2? is bad: 25 e5 #e2 #xg6+ ^>h8 32 #h6+ &g8 33 .&h3 and wins.
(25...^.c6 26 Sb4!, while after 25...#xa3 26 Now this variation does not work because of
^.e4 or 25...Sfd8 26 2xg6+! the inclusion of 33-..#el+!. And after 30 £ic2 #c5+ I would
the g2-bishop in the attack is decisive) 26 h4, have had to force a draw.
etc. (Stohl). In Informator I also condemned Even so, 25 2b3 would have set Black
24~.#c3!? because of 25 e5 (25 h4? #h8) more problems.
25.. .6 C 6 26 & xc6 bxc6 27 h 4 # x a 3 (? ) 28 h5 25.. .#xa3 26 h5l?
# e 7 29 & g2! a n d 2 h l , w in n in g, b u t after Nothing ventured, nothing gained! Strictly
27.. .^d7! with the threat of ...£idxe5 (Shipov) speaking, it was now time to curtail the game
or 27...2ab8 28 h 5 £ic4! White has no more by 26 2xg6+.
than perpetual check. 26.. .#e7l 27 e5 (of course, not 27 hxg6? f6,
when Black wins; White vacates the 64-
square for his bishop) 27 ..~&e8 !
Black would have lost ignominiously after
27-.&C6? 28 JLxc6 bxc6 29 &g2! (threaten­
ing 2 h l) 29...#d7 30 2b3!.
28 &e4!?
The balance would have been more safely
maintained by 28 hxg6 fxg6 29 Ah3, for
example: 29-.#h7 30 JLxe6+ .&f7 31 2xg6+
4>h8 32 ^.xf7 2xf7 33 #g5 or 29...2f3 30
<4>g2l, when 30...2a3? (recommendedby Stohl
instead of 30...2c3?! 31 2b4!) is weak in view
of 31 2xg6+! ^.xg6 32 #xg6+ #g7 33 ^.xe6+
25 h4 &f8 34 #f5+ &e7 35 2cl!, winning, but
25 e5 would have been a blank shot after 30.. .2.5 or 30...2xf2+ 31 4 ^ 2 #c5+ 32 <&fl
25...2fc8 with the idea of ...#xa3-f8 (Stohl). i.b5+ 33 2xb5 2f8+ leads to a draw.
At the end of the game I thought that 25 28.. .f5 29 exf6 2xf6

275
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

‘The subsequent events took place in severe *g2 Hdl 38 f4 2d6 39 &f2 i.xg6 40 i.b7.
time-trouble, in which, as is well known, the 32.. .E c8?
most important thing is to make sure your And with his time about to run out, Nigel
mistake is - the penultimate one!’ (Shipov). faltered! 32..JLc6?? would also have lost in
view of 33 Sh5! i.xe4 34 2h8+ * e7 35 Sh7
#xh7 36 l rxh7+ * d 6 37 2 dl+ £>d5 381^4!.
32..JLxg6 is more natural, after which 33
Sb4? £)d5l or 33 »g4? ^ 7 34 Sb3 Wh61 is
bad for White (not the Informator 34...2g8?
because of 35 2c3l with equality). However,
the following lines are good enough for a
draw: 33 a4 2c8 34 ^ 4 2c4 35 2xg6 2xg6
36 WxgB IfxgB 37 JLxg6 2xa4 38 f3 and
JLe4, or 33 2b3 (it is this that 1was planning)
33.. .£*d5 (3 3 ...2 c8? 34 -&xg6 2 x g 6 35 2 f3 +
& g8 36 2 x g 6 # x g 6 37 2 f4 l a n d w ins) 34
2 f3 l? (34 # g 4 £>e7 35 2 x b 7 will also do)
30 hxg6? 34.. .2xf3 35 Sxg6 # a l+ 36 *g2 2f6! 37
30 jLxg6! JLxg6 31 2 xg6+ 2 xg6 32 1Hrxg6+1 Ti 8+ * e7 38 #xa8 £>e3+! 39 *h3! 2xg6 40
was essential, when the open position of the #xb7+ &f6 41 i.xg6 Wfl-r 42 * h 4 £>g2+ 43
black king would have given White every &g4 ^xg6 44 #64+ with perpetual check.
chance of a draw: 32...&h8 (32..Mg7 33 At the time no one noticed the move
# x e 6+) 331^6+ ttTi7 34 # f 6+ # g 7 35 # x e 6 32.. .2d8! with the idea of 33 2h5?l ^.xg6 34
(Shipov), or 32...‘&f8 33 Sb3 'Hrf7 and here JLxg6 ’ilxgB 35 2h8+ &g7 36 2xd8 # x b l+
either 34 Wg4 * e7 35 Sf3 1 ^ 7 (Stohl) 36 37 *g2 H i 7 (Stohl) or 34 Sh8+ * e7 35 Sxd8
Wb4+ &d7 37 Wb5+ * d 6 38 Wb4+ * c 6 39 &xd8 36 2 d l+ &e8! 37 JLxb7 # e 7 and wins.
2c3+, or 34 # e 4 WxhS 35 2f3+ &g7 36 g4 33 jLxb7 ^.xg6 34 -&e4 2d4 35 f3 is more
Wg6 37 #e5+ 4^8 38 2h3! ^ 8 39 2h8+. resilient, but after 35-.e5 White’s attack
‘But the point is that Kasparov was playing comes to an end and he faces a difficult fight
for a win!’ (Shipov). for a draw.
30.. Mg7? (here I could have lost - 30...jLc6!)
31 #h7+! (Nigel overlooked this nuance)
31.. .6 f8 32 Wh4?
Also an instinctive time-trouble move:
White avoids the exchange of queens. ‘Garry
(no doubt with a formidable appearance) so
to speak pummels the opponent’s brains in
the time scramble!' (Shipov).
Meanwhile, the balance would have been
maintained by 32 JLxb7l? Sd 8 33 ik.e4, 32
Sa5l? (Stohl) 32...Sb8 33 2xa7 e5 34 i.xb7, or
32 a4 l (the most forceful) 32..JSc8 33 a5 £id7
34 Ifxg7+ *xg7 35 Sxb7 a 6 36 Sa7 2cl+ 37

276

33 Sh5! (now my idea comes to fruition)
33...£xg6 34 2h8+ & f 7 35 2xc8 £>xc8 36
Hxb7+ £>e7 (an illusion of a fortress) 37
£ x g 6 + Wxg6
If 37...'4’xg6, then 38 Wg4+ ^ 7 39 l fxg7+
&xg7 40 Hxe7+, etc.
38 Wb4 WfS?! (an oversight, but 38...<&>g8 39
#xe7 was also hopeless) 39 V x e J + <^g6 40
# h 7 + 1-0
‘Despite the result, mention should be
made of the boldness and coolness displayed
by Short, who resolved to (and did!) go in for
a grand battle with Kasparov. His reward
was a winning position, but in time-trouble
it was once again the stronger player who
was lucky.’ (Shipov).
An uneven, but fascinating game. This
was my last ‘classical’ win against Short -
two draws in 2000 established the final
score in our games: +21-2=27.
That same day Bareev crushed Topalov,
Morozevich did the same to Shirov, and the
leading group now looked like this: Moro-
zevich - 2'A out of 3; Kasparov, Bareev,
Topalov and Adams - 2. In the fourth round
all the games were drawn (mine in a Griin-
feld with Topalov), in the fifth I outplayed
Ivan Sokolov in a very tense struggle, gaining
revenge on him for Wijk aan Zee, and in the
sixth I drew in a Najdorf with Leko.
Three rounds before the finish the out­
come of the tournament still looked com­
pletely unclear: Kasparov, Shirov, Bareev and
Adams - 4 out of 6; Morozevich - 3'A- The
time for decisive battles had arrived.
In the seventh round came my first ‘clas­
sical’ meeting with Alexander Morozevich.
After achieving nothing with White from the
opening, I gradually assumed the initiative
and for a long time the game balanced
between a win and a draw, but in the end I
won the endgame. And, finally, I felt com­
pletely liberated - the next day I confidently
Second Peak
beat Timman in a Griinfeld, after sacrificing
the exchange (cf. Game N0.19 in Kasparov vs.
Karpov 1986-87, note to White’s 12th move).
This was the position of the leaders before
the last round: Kasparov - 6 out of 8; Bareev
and Shirov - s'A- Since at the finish my rivals
were playing each other, in my game with
Michael Adams a draw would have been
quite satisfactory. But I wanted to conclude
the tournament on a high note, for which I
chose the newly-fashionable Scotch.
Game 61
G.Kasparov-M.Adams
Sarajevo, 9th Round, 26.05.1999
Scotch Game C45
1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 £>c6 3 d4 exd4 4 ^xd4
(4....&C5 - Game N0.14 ) 5 £>xc6 bxc6 6 e5
# e 7 7 * e2 "id58c4->b6
Adams always played only this, and now
the variation is even more popular than
8...jLa6 (Game Nos.38, 65).
9 £>c3 (a replacement for the old 9 £>d2 -
Game N0.71 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on
Garry Kasparov) 9.-We6
The alternative is 9-. a5 10 f4 or 10 ^.d2
(Rublevsky-Adams, Rethymnon 2003; Rad-
jabov-Adams, Tripoli 2004).
277
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
10 # e 4 i-b4
10...g6 11 f4 or 10...^,a6 11 b3 0-0-0 12
J.b2 (Kasparov-Adams, Internet (rapid)
2000) is also interesting.
11 ± d 2 l,a6 12 b3 i.xc3 13 Axc3 d5 14
#h4!
This novelty is an improvement which I
thought up before my match with Short
(1993): the queen retains control of the
important c4-square. Black is not frightened
by 14 W3 dxc4 15 JLe2 0-0 (Ljubojevic-
Spassky, Montreal 1979; Ponomariov-Spassky,
Cannes 1998).
14...dxc4 15 ±e2 £\d5l?
Adams ‘takes the bull by the horns’. My
trainers and I looked more at 15 ...O-O 16 0-0
and considered it promising for White, who
has the advantage of the two bishops.
16 Ad4!?
This move is good for one game. 16 jtxc4!
is stronger - this is what I played against
Timman (Wijk aan Zee 2000), and after
I6...g5l? (a weakening with a tactical point)
17 ^ 4 (little is promised by 17 .&.xd5 ®xd5l
18 ®xg5 Hd8 19 1 ^ 4 h5 20 ®f3 1 ^ 3 21
gxf3 Sg8, Sutovsky-Karjakin, Pamplona
2004) 17...i.xc4 18 #xc4 £\f4?l 19 #xe6+!
£\xe6 (I9...fxe6 20 g3) 20 0-0-0 <£e7 21 Uhel
J2hd8 22 Sxd8 2xd8 23 Se4l White obtained
the better ending and soon won.
278
18...0-0-0! is more accurate: 19 0-0
(Macieja-Timman, Curacao 2002) or 19 Jid4
c5l (Pavasovic-Mastrovasilis, Topola 2004)
with an acceptable game for Black. In addi­
tion, the tenacious defender Adams could
have chosen the modest l6...iLxc4 17 ®xc4
<£\XC3 18 ®XC3 0-0-0 19 0-0 Sd5 with
chances of a successful defence.
16...C5?
As it transpired, I ‘guessed right’ with 16
ild4: in reply my opponent decided to
simplify the position, but he overlooked
something. After I6...£sb4 17 0-0 £sc2? 18
S acl (18 ^.c5(?l), given in Informator, is
unclear because of I8...#xe5) I8...£sxd4 19
#xd4 0-0 20 j Lxc4 JLxc4 21 Sxc4 Black
would soon have lost a pawn. I6...£se7 17
0-0 £sf5 18 # f4 £ixd4 19 #xd4 0-0 is better,
with prospects of equalizing, but l6...Wf5!
equalises immediately (Morozevich-Piket,
4th match game (blitz), Internet 2000).
171.XC5 £>c 3
It was on this trick that Adams was pin­
ning his hopes. He would have lost after
both 17-.cxb3? 18 ®a4+, and ly.-^xeS? 18
0-0 ® f4191TI3! or 19 i.g4l f5 20 h3.
18 A xc 4?
A case of mutual chess blindness. By 18
&f3! ®xe5+ 19 ±e3 £sd5 (l9...Sb8?l 20 0-0
0-0 21 I f e l or 19...0-0?! 20 Jtxa8 lx a 8 21

bxc4 is even worse) 20 0-0 0-0 21 ^.d4 1^4
22 #xf4 £sxf4 23 jLc5 White could have won
the exchange, and with it, most probably,
the game. Instead of this I purely mechani­
cally captured the pawn - and threw away
my advantage!
1 8 . . M x e 5 + 19 £ e 3 £se4l
A surprise! I mainly calculated 19...£>d5?!
20 0-0 i.xc4 (20...£sxe3?! 21 Sfel! 0-0 22
±xa6 is weaker) 21 #xc4 0-0 22 iLd4 with
the better middlegame, ot 21 JLd4 ®f4 22
Sfel+ <£>f8 23 #xf4 £sxf4 24 bxc4 with the
better endgame.
20 0-0 (20 Scl?! #a5+! 21 4>e2 £sd6)
20.. .1.xc4 21 bxc4 0-0 22 S f e l
The natural move, and 22 S ad i Sfe8 23
Ji.d4 1^5 24 f 3 <S^g5(d6) is hardly any better.
22...Sfe8
An equally natural Teply. After the game
Adams suggested 22...£}d6(?!), but then by
23 ^.d4! (23 ^.b6?! #xel+!) 23~.lra5 (my
Informator 23...1Srf5(?!) 24 c5 £ib5 is weakeT
because of 25 JLxg7! 4>xg7 26 a4, regaining
the piece with an attack) 24 #g3! f6 25 c5
Sae8 26 ^ 3 + ^ h 8 27 S ed l White would
gain an enduring plus.
But after 22...Sfe8 the chances are almost
equal, and it would appear that my opponent
relaxed slightly prematurely. The pawn
symmetry apparently heralds a quick draw,
Second Peak
but all the same the white bishop is stronger
than the hanging black knight. Black’s posi­
tion is far more dangerous than it seems.
23 f3! £sd6
After 23-..£sc3 (which I recommended in
Informator) 24 ®f2! Black experiences some
discomfort. But perhaps he should have
given up a pawn - 23...£sc5!? 24 .&f2 1 ^ 6 25
2xe8+ 2xe8 26 Wd4! #xd4 27 &xd4 £>e6 28
JLxa7 2a8 29 JLe3 Sa3! (after the Informator
29...Sa4 White has the strong 30 a3! f5 31
<£>fl) 30 &f2 f5 with chances of a draw.
24 -&-f2
24...1rf5?
Practically Black’s only mistake, but a seri­
ous one. It was also bad to play 24...'Brc3? 25
c5 £ib 5 26 a4 £sa3 27 S ad i with the initia­
tive, or 24...®f6? 25 VHxf6 gxf6 26 Sxe8+ Sxe8
27 .&xa7 <S^xc4 28 jLd4 with a superior end­
game. But after 24...'S,a5 25 c5 £rf5! (instead
of my previous 25...£sb5? 26 a4! ot 25-..£ib7?!
26 #c4!) 26 a4 or 24...1h2!? 25 a4 White’s
advantage is objectively only slight.
25 C5
Now Adams’s position sharply deterio­
rates: his knight is unable to find a suitable
post. A surprising metamorphosis in a
‘simple’ open position: just now Black was
afloat, and suddenly he quickly plunges to
the bottom.
279
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
25...£ib5
The problems would also not have been
solved by 25...Sxel+ 26 Sxel £}e8 27 #34
£>f6 28 #c6 Hc8 29 #b7.
26 # b 4 # d 3 (if 26...C6 there would have
followed 27 a4 £Jc7 28 Sxe8+ £ixe8 29 # b 7
#c8 30 S b l) 27 S e d l! a5! (27...#e2? 28 a4
and wins) 28 #a4! # e 2 29 S e l
29...#d3?!
29-..£sc3 30 #c6 #b5 was essential, al­
though even here after 31 #xc7 £se2+ (more
resilient than the Informator 3l...Sxel+(?)
32 Sxel £lxa2 33 i.d4l, etc.) 32 4>hl h6 33
#b6! or 31 Sxe8+ Sxe8 32 #xc7 h6
(32...£ixa2 33 #b6, winning the a5-pawn) 33
S ell Sxel+ 34 i.x e l £ie2+ 35 <4 f2 £>d 36
#xa5 #e2+ 37 i ’g l £)d3 38 #a8+ 4>h7 39
#e4+ #xe4 40 fxe4 £sxc5 41 iLf2 White
would have won.
30 Sxe8+ Sxe8 31 2 d l # e 2 32 S e l 1-0
Thanks to this third successive win I in­
creased my lead over my pursuers, scored
‘plus five’ and reached a new historic rating
mark - 2851. Despite rating inflation, this
record stood for 13 years (!), until at the end
of 2012 it was broken by the phenomenal
Norwegian Magnus Carlsen.
The tournament in Sarajevo was an un­
commonly fighting one (the number of
280
decisive games exceeded 50%!), but I didn’t
display the same boldness as in Wijk aan Zee
and Linares. Evgeny Bareev: ‘The participants
had the feeling that Kasparov was playing at
roughly 25% o f his desire. When it was
needed, he would develop additional mo­
mentum. Eye-witnesses reckon that his mood
here was very different from that in Linares
and Wijk aan Zee. There he was an angry,
hungry wolf, whereas here the wolf was
good-natured, as in a cartoon film. But even
so the good-natured wolf devoured quite a
number of sheep.’
A month later I took part in a four-cycle
rapidplay match-toumament (Frankfurt am
Main, 29 June - 2 July 1999), staged as part of
a grandiose festival to mark the 75th anniver­
sary of the Frankfurt West Chess Club. As is
now clear, this tournament with its proud
title Siemens Giants was unique in its way: in
it participated only the classical world cham­
pions - Karpov (12th), Kasparov (13th), Kram­
nik (14th) and Anand (15th). At the time the
last two were still called ‘crown princes’.
The organisers did indeed regard this
‘battle of the giants’ as the unofficial rapid-
play world championship. The reference
material published beforehand contained
information about the relative scores of the
participants in all forms of chess. I had the
best overall percentage - 54, Kramnik was
on 51, Anand - 47 (because of his poor score
with me), and Karpov - also 47 (but he had a
worse score against all three).
We played one cycle a day for four days,
i.e. three games with a 25-minute time
control each day. I went through the whole
event undefeated; in the first cycle I unex­
pectedly easily beat Anand with Black (cf.
Game No.42 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87,
note to Black’s 12th move), in the third cycle
I defeated Kramnik (Game No.l2l), and in
the fourth cycle - Karpov (Game No.45 in

Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009). A win in all
the mini-matches with a score of 2Vi-l'/i
brought me overall success: 1. Kasparov -
7'/i out of 12; 2-3. Anand and Kramnik - 6; 4
Karpov - 4'/ j . Of course, I was satisfied with
the result, but 1did not harbour any illusions
regarding the quality of my play, and so I
said: ‘This victory should not be put down as
one of my main achievements of the year.’
Indeed, 1999 was one of the stellar years
in my career: 1 won three major tourna­
ments in succession and a blitz tournament
in Wijk aan Zee. The extreme tension of
playing against the leading grandmasters in
the world did not allow me to conduct all my
games at an identically high level, but even
while making mistakes I continued acting
confidently and I did not lose my composure
in unexpected and difficult situations. As a
result, at the closing ceremony of the Frank­
furt Festival, its director Hans-Walter
Schmitt remarked: ‘Kasparov has shown that
he is world champion in all forms of chess -
classical, blitz and rapid.’
In Frankfurt we all made mistakes. The
reason was the enormous stress: they may
have been ‘rapid’, but three games a day,
and against such opponents! True, I was able
to retain a big reserve of energy. The secret is
simple. Usually my competitive year would
begin in September, after a lengthy training
session, and by the following summer
fatigue would set in and a crisis would
ensue (as, for example, in Novgorod 1997 or
Frankfurt 1998). But the 1998/99 season
began late for me - in January, and by the
summer I was not yet empty in either the
chess sense, or psychologically, or physically.
That was the basis of my victory.
That same summer, on 21 June, there be­
gan a unique internet game ‘Kasparov
against the world’, organised by the Micro­
soft Corporation. Yuri Dokhoian, Boris Al-
Second Peak
terman, the program Deep Junior and I had
twelve hours per move, while our numerous
opponents, taking into account discussion
and voting, had 36 hours. And on 25 October
1won on the 62nd move, deep into a queen
endgame (where Deep Junior was especially
active). Over the 124 days of uncompromi­
sing struggle, the specially created site was
visited by more than three million people
from 75 of the world’s countries - unprece­
dented interest in a chess event!
I was convinced that the ‘worldwide web’
would open completely new opportunities
for chess. And on the wave of the world
boom in internet business, together with
financial partners from Israel I set up the
‘Kasparov Chess Online’ company, the core
of which became the English language site
KasparovChess.com, which greatly expanded
the audience and content of the Russian
language ‘Kasparov Club’.
In August of that memorable year a new
FIDE champion emerged - the winner of the
second knock-out championship Alexander
Khalifman, but, alas, because of financial
problems the Kasparov-Anand match
planned for the autumn was postponed
until the following year.
Necessary Demonstration
International Tournament in Wijk aan Zee
(14-30 January 2000): l. Kasparov - 9Vi out
of 13; 2-4. Kramnik, Anand and Leko - 8; 5.
Morozevich - 7'/ j ; 6. Adams - 7; 7-8, Piket
and Timman - 6V2; 9- Nikolic - 6; 10. Short -
5’/2; 11-12. J.Polgar and Korchnoi - 5; 13-
Lputian - 4’/2; 14. van Wely - 4.
Before the next festival in Wijk aan Zee
the previous year’s tournament was re­
membered, where I scored seven successive
wins, but in the end Anand finished just half
a point behind. And many were interested
281
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
in whether there would be a new race
between us - the probable opponents in a
forthcoming match for the title. Immedi­
ately after the opening ceremony and the
drawing of lots we held a joint press confer­
ence, at which we confirmed our readiness
to play this postponed match in the autumn.
In passing Vishy commented: '1999 was a
good year for Kasparov, possibly the best in
his career, but now Garry has to demonstrate
everything anew. Therefore he is again under
pressure.’
Naturally, I was anxious, and mainly be­
cause of my lengthy break in play, but I was
burning with desire to repeat the previous
year’s success.
The start went well, although it was very
nervy. After playing well a prepared varia­
tion of the Griinfeld Defence against
Korchnoi, I obtained a better endgame, but
with my inaccurate 22nd move I lost the
greater part of my advantage and in the
ensuing time scramble the position almost
reached a draw. Fortunately for me, the
illustrious veteran went wrong and resigned
on the 55th move. This was our last ‘classi­
cal’ meeting (overall score: +13 -1 =13 ).
In the second round I was again Black -
against Piket and, after employing another
novelty in the Griinfeld I nearly overstepped
the mark in a complicated battle, but in the
end it was a draw. In the third round I spec­
tacularly crushed van Wely in an English
Attack (cf. Game No.56, note to Black’s 12th
move), and in the fourth I had a difficult
draw with Adams.
By that time the leading group had taken
shape: Kasparov, Kramnik and Piket - 3 out
of 4; Anand, Leko and Morozevich - 2y/i. In
the fifth round I had White against the 22-
year-old Muscovite Grandmaster Alexander
Morozevich, who in this game tried a stun­
ning piece of opening preparation.
282
Game 62
G.Kasparov-A.Morozevich
Wijkaan Zee,
5th Round, 20.01.2000
Slav Defence Dl 7
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 £sc3 £sf6 4 £sf3 dxc4 5 a4
JLf5 (5.. JLg4 6 £le 5 - Game No.93 in Part I of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 6 £ie5 (at
one time I preferred 6 e3 - Game Nos.33, 97
in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kas­
parov) 6...£ibd7
If 6...e6 (Game No.132 in Part I of My Great
Predecessors), there would have followed 7 f3
and e 2-e4.
7 £>xc4 ® c7
7...£ib6 8 £le5 £lbd7?! 9 ®b3! (Kasparov-
Timman, Riga 1995) is obviously favourable
for White, but 8...a5 9 f3 £>fd7 (Vallejo-
Kasparov, Linares 2003) is not so clear. In
addition, in the 21st century Morozevich
several times surprised eminent opponents
with the sideline 7~.£>d5 8 g3 e5 or 8 f3 e5 9
e4 £>xc3 10 bxc3 iLe6.
8 g3 e5 9 dxe5 £sxe5 10 i.f4 £sfd7 11 i . g 2
A tabiya of the matches between Alekhine
and Euwe (1935 and 1937).
Usually my opponent played ‘according
the rules’ - ll...f 6 12 0-0 £lc 5!? (instead of

the old 12...Sd8 13 # c l &e6 14 £>e4l -
Game No.20 in Part II of My Great Predeces­
sors) 13 £>e3! (13 e4 .&g6!) 13-JLe6 (avoiding
13.-i.g6 14 b4 £>e6 15 b5 Sd8 16 #b3, van
Wely-Morozevich, Elista Olympiad 1998) 14
b 4 Sd 8 15 # c 2 (15 #bll?) 15 -® a 6 16 b5
£>b4 17 # e 4 i.c5 with a sharp battle (An-
and-Morozevich, 10th round). But for me he
decided to make an exception.
11.. .g5l?
A novelty at high level! At the time I con­
sidered this audacious and energetic move
to be dubious, but today it brings Black good
results, and largely because of it White has
been looking for other ways of combating
the Slav Defence.
12 £>e3!
After some thought I managed to work
out the resulting unfamiliar problems, and I
rejected the obvious capture on e5:
1 ) 12 £>xe5 gxf4 13 £>xd7 0-0-0! 14 1 ^ 4
#xd7 15*Wxf4 (15 Wxh8 Wd2+ 16 * f l Wxb2
17 S e l i.b4 18 #f6 Wc2 is ineffective)
15-.-2.d6 16 * c l (16 # h 6 &b8 or I6„.*e6)
16.. .*b8 (I6...a5?! 17 0-0 i.e5? 18 £>b5! and
wins, Kramnik-Morozevich, Monte Carlo
(rapid) 2002) 17 0-0 (Kramnik-Anand, Mos­
cow (rapid) 2002) 17-h5l? (Hiibner) or 17 a5
a6 (Kempinski-Morozevich, Bled Olympiad
2002);
2) 12 ±xe5 £>xe5 13 # d 4 f6 14 0-0-0 i.e7
(instead 14—2.e6?l 15 f4l, was Gelfand-
Morozevich, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2005)
15 £>e3 .2.e6(g6) with chances for both sides
in each case.
12.. .gxf4 13 £>xf5 0-0-0 14 # C 2
A flexible move, retaining the option of
queenside castling or <&fl, so that after the
opening of the h-file the king’s rook will be
in play. If 14 0-0 fxg3 15 hxg3, then 15-h5 is
satisfactory (Kelecevic-Tukmakov, Winter­
thur 2003) or 1 5 - ^ 8 (Shirov-Morozevich,
Monte Carlo (rapid) 2005).
Second Peak
14...£>g4?!
With this jaunty swoop Black as though
acknowledges that he is now playing purely
intuitively. It is probable that in his prepara­
tions Alexander studied 12 £>e3 and 14 # c 2
less than other moves. Soon he produced an
improvement - 14-£>c5 15 0-0 £>e6 and
after 16 S ad i j Lc5 17 £>e4 £ b 4 he equalised
(Kramnik-Morozevich, Astana 2001; Bareev-
Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2002). But 16 #e4l
(Ponomariov-Gelfand, Plovdiv 2003) is more
promising. Therefore instead of 15 -£>e6
Black began seeking counterplay with
15 -fxg 3 16 hxg3 a5 17 S fdl h5 18 Sxd8+
#xd8 19 S d l # f6 (Ivanchuk-Gelfand, Sochi
2005).
He has also tried both 14—2.b4?l 15 0-0!
and 14 ...£>g6 15 0-0-0 (Gelfand-Morozevich,
Sochi 2004) or 15 0-0 with the idea of an
attack on the queenside (an example: Carl-
sen-Wang Yue, Nanjing 2009). But probably
the most topical nowadays is 14-fxg3 15
hxg3 &b8 16 0-0-0 ji.b4 (Eljanov-Moroze-
vich, Beer Sheva 2005; Giri-Aronian, Wijk aan
Zee 2011) or the immediate 14-<&>b8!? with
very unclear play, for example: 15 gxf4 (15
a5 £>c5l) 15 -^c4 16 e3 £>c5 17 S d l Sxdl+
18 £>xdl #35+ 19 £>c3 # b 6 (Wang Hao-
Nakamura, Istanbul Olympiad 2012).
15 a5! (now White succeeds in making use
283
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
of the a4-square) 15—fxg3
Black is forced to take measures against
the unpleasant threat of a5-a6. I5...a6?! 16
Sa4! ot 15..Jtc5?! 16 0 -0 a 6 (if I 6...£)df6?l ot
then 17 a6) 17 £>e4! is bad foT him,
while afteT 15...£ic5 16 0-0 a6 17 S fdl there
is the threat of b2-b4 and £>a4.
16 hxg3 a6
17 Sa4
This active move very much appealed to
me: both white rooks come into play on the
outside files. But apparently 17 £)e4!? .&b4+
18 & fl * b 8 19 # a 4 .&f8 20 ±f3 £>ge5 21
l b 3 was better, planning to work on the
weak f- and h-pawns.
17—£>df6 18 £>e4 (18 JLh3 £>e5 is also
interesting, Khismatullin-Andriasian, Kavala
2010) l8-£sxe4?!
A dubious exchange, making my task eas­
ier Things are far from cleaT afteT l8...£>d5!
19 £sc5 h5 (but not 19...£>b4? 20 Sxb4 Wxa 5
because of the brilliant 21 £>e7+! &xe7 22
#f5+ winning the queen, ot 21...& C 7 22 0-0
# x b 4 23 £>xa6+) 20 £>d3l? (ratheT more
accurate than 20 0-0, as given in Informator)
ot 19 JLh3l? £>e5 20 0-0 and S dl, when
White has only a minimal advantage - at
the board it seemed far greater to me.
19 .&xe4 h5 20 4 f l ! (the triumph of my
plan: the king hides itself on g2, afteT which
284
it will be possible to go afteT the weak black
pawns) 20—S&b8 21 &g2 JLe7
2l...£)e5 was more resilient.
22 £>xe7!
The essential transformation of one type
of advantage into another. It is psychologi­
cally difficult to exchange a powerful knight
for a passive bishop, but I was inspired by
the model game FischeT-PetTosian (Game
No.lOl in Part IV of My Great Predecessors).
In this way White avoids the possibility of an
ending with opposite-coloured bishops,
intensifies the pressure and soon wins a
pawn.
22—# x e 7 23 -&f3 £>e5 (not wanting to
suffer afteT 23...£>f6 24 ®f5 ot 24 Sf4) 24
JLxhS (there is also not full compensa­
tion foT the pawn after 24...Sd5 25 lc 3 ) 25
1^3?! (25 IfcS ot 25 Shh4l? was correct)
25—f6?!
Missing a chance opportunity to compli­
cate the play by 25...1fd5+ 26 e4 ld 6 ! (if
26...1e6?, then not only the Informator 27
Sd4l is strong, but also 27 .&g4!) 27 S a a l
«d4.
26 Sah4 1^5 27 (27 e4l? 1^8 28 ± e 2
was more resolute) 27—Sxh4 28 Sxh4 H >1
(28...£>xf3 29 exf3l? Sd3 30 Sf4 was also
bad) 29 S h i (29 lfb4!) 2 9 -S d l 30 Hxdl
I x d l 31 b4 (31 1134!?) 3 1 -* c 7 32 Wc5

Wd6! 33 l rxd6+ &xd6 34 .&e4 £sc4 35 i-d3
(35 *f3!) 3 5 -^ b 2 ? ! (35...£sd2 was more
resilient) 36 f4!
After errors by both sides White neverthe­
less converts his advantage into a win.
36 ...£sdl 37 g4! £se3+ 38 &f3 £sd5 39 &e4
£sxb4 40 .&.C4 c5 41 g5 fxg5 42 fxg5 &e7 43
"&f5 £sc2 44 ^e5 £se3 45 .&e6 c 4 1-0
Kramnik also won that day (this was his
last win: he drew his eight remaining
games), and with 4 out of 5 we were leading
the race. But then I slightly stalled, making
three successive draws.
In the sixth round against Short I ended
up in a strategically hopeless position from a
Closed Sicilian and extricated myself literally
by a miracle. The inaccurate conversion of
advantages against Korchnoi and Moro-
zevich, and difficulties in games with Adams
and Short, with whom I usually played very
confidently - all these were symptoms of
indifferent form. And also in the seventh
round, when Anand unexpectedly gave me a
pawn (cf. Game No.60, note to White’s 9th
move), I was unable to create problems for
my opponent. Then in the eighth round,
after playing a Griinfeld well against Lpu-
tian, on the 24th move I missed a chance to
gain some advantage.
Second Peak
The leading positions at that moment
were: Kasparov and Kramnik - 5V2 out of 8;
Anand and Leko - 5. It was time to cast off
the shackles, and in the ninth round I won
with White in a Scotch against Timman (cf.
Game N0.61, note to White’s 16th move),
then in the tenth - a good Griinfeld with
Black against Nikolic. I now had 7V2 out of
10, a point more than Leko and Kramnik. In
the n t h and 12th rounds I drew with them,
having to conduct a difficult defence in a
Griinfeld against Kramnik.
The result of these duels determined the
fate of first place: before the last round I had
8V2 out of 12, with Leko and Kramnik on T/i.
At the finish both my pursuers had Black
and contented themselves with draws.
Therefore in my ‘white’ game with Judit
Polgar a half-point would more than satisfy
me. But at the very height of the opening
battle I suddenly felt the urge to finish
‘brilliantly’.
Game 63
G.Kasparov-J.Polgar
Wijkaan Zee,
13th Round, 30.01.2000
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 c5 2 <Sif3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5
£ sc3 a6 6 &.e3 (6 f3 1 ^ 6 - Game N0.76)
6.. .£sg4 (6...e5 - Game Nos.45, 93; 6...e6 7 f3
b5 - Game Nos.56, 58, 66, 74) 7 .&g5
It was not in order to cynically force a
draw by 7 ^.ci £sf6 8 A.e3 £sg4 9 ^.cl that I
prepared for the Sicilian.
7.. .H6 8 £ h 4 g5 9 £ g 3 £ g 7 10 h3
The most modem and most unpleasant
continuation for Black, which has sup­
planted 10 Wd2 (Game No.54) or 10 &.e2
(Game Nos.32,40, 51, 116 ).
10.. .£sf6!?
285
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Judit also decided to surprise me with a
novelty! Before this everyone automatically
played I0...£se5, and here l l £sf5 had come
into fashion (Shirov-J.Polgar, 3rd match
game, Prague 1999), but I was planning l l
f3 4£sbc612 Af2 A e6 13 ^ 2 , for example:
Analysis Diagram
1) 13 ...Hc8 14 0-0-0 Was, and things are
unclear after 15 ^ b 3 #07 16 ‘i b l (16 a3?l
b5 or l6...Axb3 17 cxb3 ®a5, Topalov-
Gelfand, Bugojno 1999) I6...b5 17 ^ d 5 Wb7
(Lauk-Azmaiparashvili, Internet 2002), but
15 ‘A’bl!? promises White a small advantage:
15...^xd4 16 Axd4 Iixc3 (l6...b5 17 a3l) 17
l fxc3 l fxa2+ 18 &cl 0-0 19 1 ^3 1 ^ 3 20
bxa3 Sc 8 21 h 4 l, etc.;
2) 13-1^5 14 £sb3 Axb3 15 cxb3 £sb4 16
a3 £sg6 17 S d l £sc6 18 £sd5 l fxd2+ 19 Sxd2
with slightly the better endgame (Leko-
Kasparov, Linares 2000);
3) 13...£sxd4 14 -&xd4 #a5 15 a3 (15 h4l?)
15 - 0-0 (I5...2g8 16 h4 Sc8 17 hxg5 hxg5 18
0-0-0 favours White, Kasparov-J.Polgar, Lina­
res 2001) 16 h4 £sg6 17 hxg5 hxg5 18 b4 ^c7,
and Black’s chances are not worse (Anand-
Ponomariov, 2nd match game (rapid), Mainz
2002; Akopian-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2004).
However, the move I0...4?sf6 was also
known to me: it was studied by my team in
286
preparation for the match with Anand
(1995), and was suggested by Evgeny Pigu-
sov. And suddenly our preparation was
employed for the first time against me!
Excited, I decided to play enterprisingly...
l l iLc4
We also studied l l ®e2 <£sc6 (Ponom-
ariov-J.Polgar, Benidorm (rapid) 2002), and
11 iLe2 n ? 6 12 £sb3 Ae6 13 h4 £ic6 or 13
0-0 <£sbd7 (Wang Zili-Bologan, Baijing 2000),
but the most popular line became l l ®f3
Wb6 12 0-0-0 £sc6 (12...0-0!? 13 Ac4 £sc6 14
®xc6 #xc6 15 Ab3 Ae6, Leko-Carlsen, Wijk
aan Zee 2010) 13 4£sxc6 #xc6 14 Ae2! (14 e5
Wxf3 15 gxf3 dxe5 16 Axes Ad7 with equal­
ity, Shirov-Kasparov, Sarajevo 2000) 14-4£sd7
15 ®d5 ®e5 (Adams-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee
2001) or ^..W cS (Lutz-J.Polgar, Budapest
2003; Leko-Carlsen, Moscow 2009) with
double-edged play.
11.. .W>6!?
ll...£ixe4(?!) with the idea of 12 ®xe4 d5,
which I recommended in Informator, is
dubious because of 12 Whs! 0-0?! 13 4£sxe4
d5 14 0-0-0 dxc4 15 h4! (15 £sf5 AxfS 16
Hxd8 Sxd8 17 # f3 Ag6 is not so clear) or
12.. .d5 13 AxdS 0-0 14 Axe4 l rxd4 15 0-0
with the initiative for White. But games
played in the 2000s approved ll...b5 12 Ab3
b4, and if 13 ®d5, then 13-^xe4 14 ^ 3

£ixg3! 15 £ ic7+ #xc7 16 #xf7+ * d 8 17
#xg7 Se 8 18 fxg3 e5 19 £lf5 #xg7 20 £ixg7
He7 with a roughly equal endgame.
12 0-0 (12 jLb3! 0-0 13 h4 is better, Sulypa-
Ruck, Kladovo 2001) 12...0-0!
Now 12...£ixe4? will not do in view of 13
£ixe4 #xd4 14 £ixd6+! exd6 15 #62+ &.e6
16 jLxe6 0-0 17 S ad i and wins (this curious
variation occurred in Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk
aan Zee 2001). In analysis we also looked at
12...#xb2 13 # d3 with good compensation
for the pawn. Again 13-.£ixe4? is bad: 14
£ixe4 #xd4 15 £ixd6+! exd6 16 #e2+ JLe6
17 jLxe6 0-0 18 S ad i # f6 19 .£±>3, etc. The
correct defence is 13...£ih5, when 14 e5 is
possible, with wild complications.
But Judit, by confidently castling, avoided
these dangers. And I began to waver: what
was I to do next?
13 £ide2?!
Insisting on the pawn sacrifice, although
the quiet 13 £ib3 £ ic6 14 i h l or 14 a4 was
in the spirit of the position, when it is doubt­
ful whether White has anything, but Black
also has nothing special. But I felt the urge
for heroic deeds - as Spassky used to say in
such cases: ‘Forward, KazimiTych!’
13...#xb2
Happily capturing this base pawn, since
in return White does not obtain any imme­
Second Peak
diate pluses. But Black nevertheless has to
spend time bringing the queen back, and
White can try to exploit the weakening of
the kingside.
14 ^.b3 (14 S b l # a 3 15 £id5 £ ic6 was no
better) 14...#a3!
Accurate. I4...£ih5? was bad because of 15
S b l # a 3 16 £id5 £ ic6 17 £ixe7+! £ixe7 18
jLxd6 or l6..JLf6 17 #d3! (threatening £ixf6+
and £xf7+) 17 ...*h 8 18 # f3 £ixg3 19 £ixg3
and wins. And after my Informator recom­
mendation 14...£ic6(?) with the idea of 15
a3(?) £ixe4!, the preliminary 15 e5l is strong:
15 ...£ih5 (I 5...£ixe5? 16 a 3l, and the queen is
trapped) 16 a3 £ixg3 17 fxg3 -s-xe5 18 #d3
i.xc3 19 ^xc3 i.f5 20 #d2, and to save the
queen Black is forced to give up a piece.
15 f4
15.. .£ic6
Again an accurate reply! There is no rea­
son to rush with 15-^h5, since 16 JLf2
(after 16 £)d5, as given by me in Informator,
16.. .e6! 17 £se7+ ^ 7 is unclear) I6...^.xc3
(I6...gxf4 17 £id5!) 17 £ ixc3 £ixf4 18 £id5
gives White full compensation for the mate­
rial deficit. Now, however, my task is more
complicated.
16 & h l
Useful prophylaxis. If 16 M 2 the flight of
the queen could have continued - I6...#a5!.
287
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

16.. .1Le6 black king is in danger;

Natural development, but the main thing 2) 21 £>xf6+! Axf6? 22 1T3 Axb3 (if
is to neutralise the dangerous white bishop. 22.. .5xc2 23 £*d4 Axd4 there is the decisive
In the event of lS-WaS 17 Ael!, I6...£sh5l? 24 'Srh 5l) 23 Axd 6!l (instead of 23 axb3
17 Ah2 or I6...g4l? (closing the f-file) 17 f5 given in Informator) 23...1Srb2 24 S b l and
White would also have retained compensa­ wins, or 21...exf6 22 1^3 £>xc2 (22...Axb3?
tion for the pawn. 23 Axd6!) 23 Axd6 WaS 24 e5l f5 25 1 ^3
17 Wd3 Sac8 18 fxg5 hxg5 19 £>d5 Sfe8?! with an attack.
Too slow. After the immediate captures 21.. .£>bxd5 22 exd5 A d 7
on d 5, to obtain reasonable play I would After this simple reply I came to my
have had to display miracles of resourceful­ senses and began cursing myself: White has
ness: 19...Axd5 20 exd5 £>b4 21 !T5! £sbxd5 no useful moves and not even a hint of
22 Wf3! WcS 23 Af 2 Was 24 S ad i e 6 25 Ad4 compensation for the pawn. I felt an almost
or 19~.£>xd5 20 exd5 £>b4 21 1 ^ 2! £sxd5 irresistible desire to resign, and it was only
(21...Axd5 22 Wxgs) 22 WxgS (not my Infor- with difficulty that I forced myself into the
mator 22 £kl4(?) Axd4 23 Ifxd 4 in view of mood for a tenacious resistance...
23.. .1T34!) 22...£>f6 23 H i4! (instead of 23 Incidentally, when after the round the
£>d4(?) £se4 24 Wh4 Axd4) 23...1ra5 24 £>d4 journalists asked Kramnik: ‘Why did you so
Ad7 25 Sael, etc. quickly agree a draw with Black?’, he replied:
20 S a d i £>b4 ‘But I could not imagine that Kasparov
would play like that with White!’. And,
indeed, in such an important game with
Polgar, against whom before this I had a 4-0
score in ‘classical’ games, a defeat seemed
almost unimaginable.

2l1?f3?
A senseless, purely mechanical move. And
yet I could now have not only maintained
equality, but also set Black serious problems:
1 ) 2 l l re3!? (threatening 'S'xgs) 2l...£>bxd5
22 exd5 Ad7 (not the Informator 22...Axd5? 23 c3la5
23 Sxd5 £>xd5 24 1iSff3! and wins, nor The correct plan. In the event of 23—g4?!
22...£lxd5(?!) 23 # x g 5 £if6 because of 24 24 IT 4 a5 (24-gxh3? 25 gxh3 Axh3 26 S g l
Axe6! fxe6 25 Axd6! exd6 26 Sxf6 WcS 27 is bad for Black) 25 Ah4 a4 26 Ac4 the
# g 4 with the initiative) 23 Wxgs, and the position would have become much sharper.

288

241U 3
A desperate chance - to set up the attack­
ing battery # d3 and Ac2, aiming to play
2xf6. After 24 Sd2 .£±>5! and ...a5-a4 White
would also have lost the c3-pawn.
24...a4
In Informator I wrongly criticised this
move, driving the bishop to c2. My recom­
mendation 24...1rc5(?) 25 Af2 i-b5 26 WfS
Was (26...'irc7 27 c4!) is weaker because of
27 C4! i.xc4 28 i.xc4 Sxc4 29 WxgS with
dangerous counterplay.
25i-C2
The culmination of the battle.
25.. .«rc5?
But this is a mistake, as is 25...'irxa2? 26 #c5(c6) White cannot break through.
2xf6! ^.xf6 because of 27 1®rh7+ &f8 28
i.f4!! i.f5 (if 28...e5, then 29 i.g6!! fxg6 30
i.xg5 i.xg5 31 2fl+ Af5 32 Sxf5+ with
perpetual check) 29 ^.xfs Wxe2 30 Ag4 Wxg4
31 hxg4 gxf4 32 g5! or 27 S fl i.g7 28 IT 17+
<if8 29 £)f4! gxf4 30 J.xf4, fordng 30...1S,xc2
31 Wxc2, in each case with equality.
The prophylactic 25...‘&f8! was essential,
when 26 Af2 Wxa2 or 26 J .b l fic5 is too
depressing, while 26 2xf6!? is parried by
26.. .exf6! (26...i.xf6 27 S fl Sxc3! 28 £>xc3
Wxc3 29 Wb7 Sc8 30 i.g6! i.e8 31 Wi6+
Ag7 32 Wxgs is not so clear) 27 c4 (there is
nothing better) 27...'irxd3 28 jLxd6+ ^>g8 29 30 £se6+! ji.xe6 31 dxe6 Sc7
Second Peak
^.xd3 f5 with a technically won ending.
26 Sxf6!
Judit probably thought that she was
about to win, when suddenly it transpires
that it is Black who has to try and escape!
26.. .exf6
26...jLxf6?! is dangerous: 27 £sf4! (after 27
h4, preferred by me in Informator, there is
the defence 27...e5! 28 #117+ *f8 29 hxg5
^>e7! 30 gxf6+ &d8 with a draw) 27...‘&f8
(27...gxf4? 28 ^.xf4 and wins) 28 # h 7 gxf4
29 i.xf4 e5! 30 jLg6! <&e7 31 #xf7+ ^>d8 32
#xf6+ &C7 33 Axe8 Sxe8 34 ^.g5, and it is
now White who is a pawn up.
27 # h 7 + ^ f8 28 £sd4 (threatening 29 -&xa4
i.xa4 30 £>fs) 28...Se5l
The only defence! 28...Se3? 29 JLxa4! or
28.. .5.7? 29 i.f5! #xd5 30 £>e6+ fxe6 31
Sxd5 exd5 32 jLxd6 is bad, as is 28...#xd5?
29 £ie2(f3).
29 i.xe 5 fxe5?
Stunned, Judit is unable to keep pace with
the change of scene. Equality would still
have been retained by 29...dxe5! 30 £sf5
JLxf5 31 #xf5 - in Informator I assessed this
position as a ‘clear advantage to White’, but
this is obviously going too far: after
31.. .#xc3 32 Axa4 2d8 33 d6 # c4 34 i.b3
289
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

There is nothing else: 31...1i rf2? 32 .&f5! Sxc5 44 e7l, and the curtain comes down:
Sc7 33 exf7 Sxf7 34 ±e6 We2 35 Sbl! or 44.. .‘£ xe7 45 We8+ 4>d6 46 ^.a4l or
31.. .Wc4? 32 e7+ 4>xe7 33 .&d3! Wxa2 34 44.. .Wxdl+ 45 Wxdl 4>xd7 46 Wb3l.
Wxg7 and wins. 36 .&xe6 <4 e7 37 Axd5 (now White is simply
32 £ xa 4 a pawn up with a fearfully strong attack)
The tension of the fourth hour of play in 37.. .5 .7 38 c4 (I did not even bother to pick
the last round is felt: I thought it best to up the queen by 38 S f l) 38...We3 39 Wh7
simply capture the pawn. 32 jLg61? was 4>d8 40 S b l (40 Wg8+! <4>c7 41 S b l was
more flamboyant: 32...f6 (32...fxg6? 33 Sfl+ more forceful) 40...Wf4 (40...^.f8 41 Wg6!) 41
4>e7 34 Wg8 is altogether bad) 33 ±f7 Sxf7 ^.e6! Se7 42 i.g 4 Sf7 (42...Wxc4 43 Wf5,
34 exf7 ‘A’xfy 35 We4 or 35 Wh5+ with a etc.) 43 Wd3+ Wd4 44 Wg6 1-0
straightforward win.
32.. .d5 (32...fxe6? 33 Wg6 Sf7 34 Wxe6 and As a result, although I scored half a point
wins) 33 Wf5 less than in Wijk aan Zee 1999, there was no
Making things more difficult for myself. genuine battle for first place. From the press:
The far from obvious 33 ^.d7! (instead of the ‘In the opinion of many grandmasters, Kas­
Informator 33 exf7 Sxf7 34 -&b3 Wb5!) parov was fa r from at his best, and he had an
would win: 33...We7 34 S fl jLf6 35 Wh6+ unusually large number of dubious positions.
.&g7 36 Wg6 or 34...f6 35 a4l Sxc3 36 a5 with What told was a lack o f practice. But, even
the murderous threat of a5-a6 and Sbl. though not in his optimal form, all the same
33.. .Wc4l 34 i-d7 Wf4 35 Wbl he finished a point and a half ahead of his
closest pursuers.’
Sergey Shipov: ‘Kasparov, achieved the
round-by-round score planned in his training
camp and even exceeded it by quarter of a
point! There were no problems in the open­
ing. Anand and Kramnik were not at their
best. In recent times Leko has obviously
improved, but on seeing his game with van
Wely, Kasparov was horrified and exclaimed:
"If my successors will play the Sicilian so
passively with White, I will have to stay in
top-level chessfor another 10 years!"
‘Morozevich can also be a real rival to Kas­
35.. .fxe6 parov - I think that he has reached the main
In time-trouble Polgar misses a more chasing group: Anand, Kramnik, Shirov and
resilient defence - 35..Wc4! 36 S fl f 6. Even Leko... The gap between Kasparov and these
so, with such a ‘nail’ as the e 6-pawn White five players is a result of differences in physical
would have gradually broken through the condition (Garry Kimovich, the eldest of them,
opponent’s defences - 37 Well (the Informa­ is in the best shape!) and in opening prepara­
tor move 37 .&.b5 is unclear after 37...Wc5!) tion (again his work at home is more compe­
37.. Wa6 38 Sdl! Wxa2 39 We3 Wb3 40 tently arranged). If these five do not close the
Wf3(e2) 4>e7 41 Wh5 ^ 6 42 c4l d4 43 c5+! gap, we will have to waitfor some youngster...’

290

Fatal Choice
Double-Round Super-Toumament in Linares
(27 February -10 March 2000): 1-2. Kasparov
and Kramnik - 6 out of 10; 3-6. Leko, Anand,
Khalifman and Sbirov - 4Vi.
After my victory in Wijk aan Zee I also
wanted to perform worthily in Linares: by
that time the question of an autumn world
championship had finally been decided. Its
prize fund of two million dollars was pro­
vided by a London company ‘Brain Games’,
set up on the initiative of Raymond Keene.
But my opponent, Anand, would not sign
the contract, and the situation remained
unclear, which unnerved both players.
I wasn’t able to prepare fully for this cate­
gory 21 super-toumament. Because of uncer­
tainty regarding its staging I was late in
receiving my invitation - after I had already
become involved in my renovated Kas-
parovChess site with the organization of an
international knock-out tournament of 16
grandmasters with a time control of 60
minutes per game (9-20 February 2000). Of
course, I also played in it: I beat Barua (2-0),
van Wely and Adams (each 1V 2-V 2), but in the
final I unexpectedly lost to Piket (Vj-i ’/ j).
I remember my trainer saying sadly: 'Once
again you have had to sacrificeyourselffor the
future of chess.’ Indeed, the internet used up a
mass of energy and time. Between March and
June of that year our company organised
another unique knock-out tournament: the
first world championship in chess history for
general education schools. Already then I was
dreaming of promoting a teaching program
in schools and organizing chess enthusiasts
throughout the world via the internet. An­
other dream was to write a book about recent
chess history, to show its constant progress
through the play of the world champions, and
it was precisely then that I began working on
Second Peak
creating the series My Great Predecessors...
The line-up of Linares 2000, although
slightly shortened, was fully traditional: only
the old-timer Topalov, who was experienc­
ing a crisis, was replaced by the new FIDE
champion Khalifman. The organisers col­
lided head-on with all the interested per­
sons, provoking arguments about who was
now the world champion. Some said that the
champion was Khalifman, and that Kas­
parov was simply the strongest player, but
others saw things differently: ‘For llyumzhi-
nov and perhaps a few people p o m Lenin­
grad it is Khalifman, but the overwhelming
majority do not consider it to be him. We
have one world champion...’ (Korchnoi).
Dokhoian and I felt that my creative
surge, which began in 1999, was already on
the wane: there was no sign of the freshness
and energy of the previous year. And
throughout the tournament I was pursued
by ‘rises and falls’, even during the course of
individual games. Nevertheless, the start
went well: a theoretical duel with Shirov,
who employed the Petroff Defence, was
heading for a draw after a sharp tactical
skirmish, when Alexey suddenly blundered a
piece, and I was able to win an endgame
with rook, bishop and two pawns (g and h)
against rook and three pawns (f, g and h).
In the second round I had an equally sharp
battle in a Griinfeld with Khalifman: on the
20th move I missed a chance to seize the
initiative, and the result was a draw. Also
interesting was the course taken by my third
round game with Kramnik, who employed a
dubious novelty in the Petroff Defence (cf.
Game No.82, note to White’s 10th move). I
found the correct set-up, then I went slightly
wrong, but Kramnik gave me a chance to
cany out an unusual attack. Alas, short of
time, I allowed the exchange of my important
bishop, and on move 22 we agreed a draw.
291
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
In the fourth Tound I won with Black
against Anand, who played surprisingly
uncertainly (cf. Game No.26, note to Black’s
9th move), then in the fifth round I pressed
on Leko’s position in a Griinfeld with 5 1®rb3,
but was unable to extract anything Teal - a
dTaw in a pawn endgame on the 39th move.
The positions in the Tace afteT the first
cycle were: Kasparov and Kramnik - 31/* out
of 5; Leko - iVr, Shirov and Khalifman - 2;
Anand - V/i. The second cycle was also not
distinguished by the number of decisive
games: in the eighth round Khalifman won
against Leko and in the ninth he lost to
Anand, but the remaining 13 games con­
cluded peacefully. The tournament was a
record one for the number of draws, al­
though many of them were fighting games.
For me the second cycle began with a bat­
tle against Shirov - another crazy Sicilian.
From the opening I obtained a dangerous
position (cf. Game N0.76, notes to Black’s 6th
move and Black’s 10th move), then I seized
the initiative, but on the 3lst move I missed
a real winning chance, and my opponent
forced a draw. In the seventh round I had
good chances against Khalifman in a French
Defence, but I again played inaaccurately,
and Black set up a fortress.
In the eighth round came the second, key
game with Vladimir Kramnik. The winner of
this encounter would almost certainly take
sole first place in the tournament. With
White Kramnik tried to impose a battle on
his opening territory.
Game 64
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
Linares, 8th Round, 08.03.2000
Queen's Gambit Accepted D23
1 £>f3 £>f6 2 C4 C5 3 g3
292
Usually VladimiT played 3 £>c3 with the
idea of 3...£>c6 4 g3 ds 5 d4 (Tal-Timman, 5th
match game, HilveTsum 1988), but since the
times of my battles with Karpov I used to
Teply 3-.e6 (Game No.3 in Kasparov vs.
Karpov 1975-1985) ot 3-d5 (Game No.50 in
Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87).
3...d5
3...b6 4 iLg2 JLb7 5 0-0 e6 (Game Nos.49,
55, 59 in Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov) or 5...g6 (Kramnik-Kasparov, 14th
match game, London 2000; cf. the paragraph
before Game N0.71 ) were also in my reper­
toire.
4d4l?
‘A rare move, to which my assistant Mi­
guel lllescas drew attention. Analyzing this
system for Black, I noticed that it was not so
easy to equalise, and I began examining it
from White’s point of view. Especially since
this is a kind of ‘anti-Griinfeld’, and it was
precisely the Griinfeld Defence that I wanted
to avoid. This version is slightly worse for
White than with the knights on c3 and c6,
but it is an interesting move.’ (Kramnik)
Much more common is 4 cxd5 £)xd5 5 iLg2
£)c6 6 £)c3 (6 d4 cxd4 7 £>xd4 £>db4 8 £>xc6
Wxdn- 9 &xdl £)xc6 10 £>c3 iLd7 leads to
rapid simplification, Kramnik-Kasparov,
Frankfurt (rapid) 2000) 6...£>c7 7 d3 e5 8 0-0

$Le7 9 £>d2 i.d7 10 £>c4 0-0 11 Axc6 i.x c6 12
<S^xe5 i.e8 13 Wb3 (Piket-Kasparov, Internet
2000) 13-b6 14 ^.e3 .&f6, when the two
bishops, especially the light-squared one,
compensate Black for the sacrificed pawn, or
6.. .g6 7 0-0 ii.g7 8 # 34 (instead of the usual 8
£>xds - Game No.82 in Part V of My Great
Predecessors) 8...0-0 (Black has more problems
after 8...£)b6 9 Ifb5 ®d7 10 d3, Kasparov-
Kramnik, 5th match game, London 2000) 9
#04 £lxc3 10 dxc3 ^ 6 with approximate
equality (Uhlmann-Smejkal, Trencianske
Teplice 1979).
The unexpected pawn thrust 4 d4 discon­
certed me, and I began thinking for a long
time over my moves.
4.. .dxc4
Apparently the simplest. I had not played
the TarTasch Defence 4...e6 5 cxd5 exd5 since
the 1980s. And after 4...cxd4 5 ^.g2 White is
promised some advantage either by trans­
posing into a Catalan - 5...e6 6 0-0 dxc4 7
£>xd4 (an example: Kramnik-Naiditsch,
Turin Olympiad 2006), or 5-'#,a5+ 6 £>bd2
®c6 (6...dxc4 7 0-0!) 7 0-0 e5 8 £ib3 (Topalov-
Shirov, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1999), or 5.. dxc4
6 WxdA (Gelfand-Svidler, Monte Carlo (rapid)
2007).
5 # 8 4 + (5 £g2?! £sc6) 5».^.d7
‘If 5...£>c6, then 6 dxc5, although in this
case also Black has a mass of possibilities.
But it was for this kind of play that I was
aiming.’ (Kramnik)
6 Wxc4 £c6!?
A questionable novelty. ‘Black leaves his
c5-pawn en prise, and so I did not pay 6..JLc6
any great attention’ (Kramnik). And, indeed,
the only plus point of this move is its origi­
nality. After the Catalan move 6...e6 with the
idea of 7 -&g2 JLc6 and ...£)bd7 (which oc­
curred back in my match with Korchnoi, 7th
match game, London 1983), 7 dxc5 &c6 8
£>c3! £>bd7 9 Jie3 seemed unpleasant,
Second Peak
making it difficult for Black to regain the
pawn (cf. the note to Black’s 7th move).
But 6...cxd4 is more natural: 7 -&g2 ^.c6 8
0-0 IfdS 9 £>a3 (Kramnik-Leko, Frankfurt
(rapid) 2000) 9-d3! or 8...e6 9 £>xd4 i.xg2 10
<4 ’xg2 <S^bd7 (Gelfand-Svidler, Odessa (rapid)
2009), as well as 7...£>c6 8 £\xd4 2c8 9 £>c3
e6 10 0-0 (a Catalan tabiya) 10...£ixd4 11
#xd4 ^.c5 12 Wh4 0-0! 13 &xb7 (13 -&g5
h6!) 13...Sb8 14 ^.f3 Sb4 15 I'gS ^.d4 16
Wd2 (16 S d l #b6!?) I6...»c7 17 £ d l 2fb8
with quite good compensation for the pawn
(Kramnik-Naiditsch, Dortmund 2010).
Here Kramnik also began to think...
7dxc5
My idea could have been disputed by 7
IfxcS!?. Although 7 ..£>a6 gives Black coun­
terplay in view of the unfortunate position
of the white queen, after 8 #c2 it is unclear
whether he has full compensation for the
pawn and whether he can equalise after
8.. .e5! (if 8...2c8 or 8...£)b4, then 9 Wdl! is
good) 9 £ g 2 (not g dxe5?! £ib 4 10 lfb3 -&d5!
11 Wdl £>g4 - Stohl) 9...exd4 10 0-0 £c5 11
£ibd2 0-012 £sb3 i-b6.
7.. .£d5
While retaining the resource ...e7-e5 or
...g7-g6 and ,.JLg7, Black, in the words of
Kramnik, ‘intends to pursue the queen, for
which it is not so simple to find a good retreat
293
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
square’. But nevertheless 7-.e6!? was better,
and if 8 <£ic3! <£ibd7 9 .&e3, then 9...Sc81, for
example: 10 &.g2 Jb<c5 11 ix c 5 ^.xf3 12
jLxf3 Sxc5 13 #b3 b6 14 0-0 0-0 with equal­
ity (Topalov-Anand, 1st match game (rapid),
Leon 2006), or 10 b4l? b6! 11 jLg2 bxc5 12 b5
jLa8 with double-edged play.
8 #a4+ i.c6 9 #c4 i-d5
10 #c2!
Played after a long think. After 10 # h 4
there is the acceptable 10...e6 11 &.g2 JLxcS
(as in the game) or l l <£ic3! .&c6! 12 JLe3
<£ibd7 13 ^.g2 (13 # c4 2c8! - cf. above)
13.. Jb<c5 14 ^.xc5 <£ixc5, and if 15 #g5, then
15.. .^ce4! (Stohl). But Kramnik was con­
cerned about Black’s attempt to manage
without an immediate ...e7-e6 (I0...£ic6?!),
and he decided to force this move.
10.. .e6 (lO..Jle4?! 11 # 03! e6 12 £ibd2 JLc6
13 &.g2 favours White) 11 iLg2
‘In the opening we spent a lot of time: the
position was really complicated. 11 <£ic3 -&c6
(ll..JLxc5 is hardly good: 12 <£ixd5 #xd5 13
SLg2 with a small but enduring advantage)
12 b4 a5 13 b5 ^.xf3 14 exf3 ^.xc5 15 .&g2
<£ibd7 16 f4 looked unclear. White has a
weakened dark-square complex, while Black’s
pieces are well placed and there is the pros­
pect of an unpleasant pin on the c-file.’
(Kramnik)
294
But in my opinion the pair of powerful
bishops guarantees White an obvious ad­
vantage. Since ll..JLxf3 12 exf3 ^.xc5 13
±b5+! £ ic6 14 ^.xc6+ bxc6 15 0-0 0-0 16 S d l
# a 5 17 .&d2, etc., is also insufficient, the
move 11 £ ic3! could have cast doubts on my
7..JLd5.
11.. .£e4!
Renewing the pursuit of the queen.
11.. .^bd7?l 12 £ ic3 i.c6 13 b4-a5 14 b5 .&xf3
15 ^.xf3 ^.xc5 16 0-0 #c7 17 .&b2 or
11.. .#a5+?! 12 *hc3 ±xc5 13 0-0 £c6 14 a3,
etc., would have been weaker.
12#c4
A minimal plus was promised by 12 #c3l?
(12 # d 2 £ibd7! - Stohl) I2...£ibd7 13 £ibd2
(but not 13 b4?! a5 14 a3 £id5 15# d 4 #f6! -
Stohl) 13...ic6 14 £ib3 £ie4 15 #c2 £iexc5
16 0-0 or 13...<£ixc5 14 <£ixe4 <£icxe4 15 #c4
#35+ 16 £id2 £id6 17 #b3.
12..JLd5 (after Kramnik’s suggestion
12.. .#d5 there is the strong 13 #b5+! #c6 14
*hc3 ^.xc5 15 0-0) 13 # h 4
Avoiding 13 #c2 JLe4 14 #c3 (cf. above),
White seeks chances on the kingside.
13.. .1.xc5 14 <£ic3 ^-c6 15 0-0
Not 15 #g5?l <£ibd7 16 #xg7? because of
16.. .2 .8 17 # h 6 £xf2+!.
15.. .^.e7?!
‘Already Kasparov did not have much
 Second Peak

time left (bearing in mind that there were consideration’. And if 17...£>e4, then 18 H 4!
still 25 moves to go to the time control), and (after Kramnik’s move 18 1 ^ 4 there is
he automatically played ‘solidly’. I5...£)bd7 18.. .h5!) I8...^xc3 19 bxc3 0-0 20 £ie5 i.xg2
was correct - Black has a perfectly normal 21 ^ x g 2 with appreciable pressure.
position: 16 b4 ^.e7 (when 17 b5? does not 17.. .£sbd7
work in view of 17-^.xf3 18 .&xf3 £)d5, Almost atoning for the ‘sins of youth’,
winning), 16 S d l 1Srb6 or 16 Ji.g5 0-0’ but...
(Kramnik). And if 16 g4, then 16...0-0 17 g 5
^ d 5 18 £)e4 ^.b6 is possible, but I6...^d5l?
17 ^xd5 ^.xd5 18 g 5 0-0 with equality is
simpler.
16 S d l

18 g4!
‘The correct way of developing the initia­
tive. It is essential to act quickly - Black has
no weaknesses, and if he should succeed in
castling and moving his queen from a5, it is
16.. .#a5?! not clear how White can hope for an advan­
In advance I did not realise that after tage.’ (Kramnik)
16.. .£)bd7?! 17 £>e5l Ji.xg2 18 l4 ’xg2 with the 18.. .h6
threat of # a 4 White develops enduring If 18...O-O? there would have followed 19
pressure: l8...'Hrc719 £)xd7 Wc6+ (I9...£>xd7?l g5 £)e8 20 £)d5! (Kramnik's move 20 ^e4(?l)
20 Wa4 - Stohl) 20 f3 ^xd7 21 i.g5 .&xg5 22 is unclear because of 20...'Bfa 6!) 20...'{tfxd5 21
#xg5 0-0 23 S acl h6 241135 WxbS 25 £>xb5, &b4 (Stohl) 2l..JLxg5 22 IfxgS ^xgS 23
etc. However on a5 the queen comes under £)xg5 ^.xg2 24 l4 ’xg2, winning the exchange
attack, and therefore le...!!^ ! was more for a pawn with real chances of victory.
solid: 17 l t 4 (Kramnik’s variation 17 .&e3(?!) 19 % 3 ? !
#xb2 18 Ji.d4 l a 3 is not very dangerous for 19 g5l was more energetic: 19...£>h7 20
Black) 17...0-0 18 .&e3 11)4!? with hopes of a ^ 3!? (20 # d 4 allows simplification -
successful defence. 20.. .£ixg5 21 £sxg5 i.f6!? 22 £ice4 IfxgS 23
17 & d 2 £sd6+ &f8 24 ilxg 5 i.xd4 25 Sxd4 hxg5 26
‘It seemed rather shameful to go into a ,&xc6 bxc6 27 £)xf7 <&xf7 28 Sxd7+ ^ f6 with
slightly better endgame by 17 l g 5 lx g 5 18 drawing chances) 20...hxg5 (now 20...£)xg5?
jk,xg5 £)bd7 19 S a c l’, writes Kramnik. ‘17 is bad because of 21 £)d4 ^.xg2 22 £icb5l) 21
Sbll? with the idea of b2-b4-b5 deserved £)d4 with excellent compensation for the

295
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
pawn, although after 2l...1Sra6! 22 £ixc6
bxc6 things are not fatal for Black after 23
jk.e3 (Stohl) 23...£)df6 24 S a d £)d5 25 jk.d4
0-0, 23 £se4 (Stohl) 23...0-0 24 £sxg5 (24 &c3
Sfd8) 24...£sxg5 25 .&xg5 .&xg5 26 #xg5 £)f6
27 3d3 Sfd8 28 Sg3 ®e8 29 jLf3 Sac8 and
Wb5l, or 23 a4(b4) Sb8 24 b4(a4) Sxb4l 25
£sb5 cxb5 26 ±xb4 Axb4 27 axb5 ®xb5 28
Sxd7 0-0! or 25 ®e4 Sd4 26 jk.c3 Sd5 27
.&xg7 Sg8 28 jk.d4 £)hf8, etc.
19.. .1fo6
Not rushing with 19...0-0?! in view of 20
h4, and if 20...h5, then 21 g5 £ig4 22 jk.h3!.
However, l9...Wb6!? was more accurate,
with a sound position: if 20 h4, then 20...h5l
21 g5 ®g4 (threatening ..JLd6!) is now good.
20 h4
Logical. Kramnik’s recommendation 20
B a d is parried by 20...Sd8 (Stohl) 21 h4 ®b6
or 21 jLf4 0-0.
20.. .#C4?!
Neither of us liked 20...h5 21 g5 ^ g 4 on
account of possible problems with the
knight on g4, for example: 22 jLf4 0-0 23
jk.h3 or 22..JLc5 23 e3 0-0 24 S ab i Sac8 25
jLh3. Black would also not have equalised
with 20...£)c5 21 £ie5 (Stohl) or 20..JLb4 21
^d4l, but the cool-headed 20...Sd81? de­
served consideration - 21 g5 hxg5 22 hxg5
£sd5l 23 'A’f l g6 with unclear play.
296
21 ±f4?!
White is tempted by the threat of Sd4.
Again 21 g5l hxg5 22 hxg5 was stronger:
22.. .£sh5?! (22...£)d5? 23 S a d ) 23 lT i 2!
(Stohl gives only 23 ®c7 1i rg4(?), allowing 24
jk.e3! jk.d8 25 1^2, but 23..Jk.c5! is correct)
23.. Jk.c5 24 e4! with the ideas of g5-g6, jk.f4
and jk.fl, or 22...^e4 23 I£sxe4 ®xe4 24 S a d ,
and White’s chances are better.
2l...#b4?
If 21...O-O?!, then 22 e4! is unpleasant
(22...^xe4? 23 £sxe41i rxe4 24 £sel, etc.). But
I missed an excellent opportunity to solve
my problems by 21...g5l 22 hxg5 hxg5, for
example:
1 ) 23 £sxg5 (23 jk.xg5?! #xg4) 23...e5!
(Kramnik) 24 ix e 5 £sxe5 25 ®xe5 jk.xg2 26
<4>xg2 # x g 4+ 27 1 ^ 3 Sg 8 28 f4 l rxg3+ 29
<4>xg3 £sh5+ and ,..^xf4 (Stohl), or 29...^h7
30 £sd5 Sc8 in each case with equality;
2) 23 jk.e5!? .&xf3 (23...Sh6?l 24 i.d4! -
Stohl) 24 i.xf3 <^xe5 25 #xe5 ®f4! (Kram­
nik’s variation 25...,Brc5(?!) 26 'B'xcS jtxc5 is
dangerous because of 27 £sa4!) 26 Wxf4 gxf4
with a drawn endgame.
22 a3! (I underestimated the strength of this
move) 22...#xb2 (22..Wb6 23 ±c7 ®a6 24
e4l is too depressing) 23 £sd4! g5l?
A desperate try, which unexpectedly
proves successful. 23...Wb6? did not work in

view of 24 S ab i # a 6 25 <Skb5 with the
murderous threat of <£>c7+. Black also had
few hopes after 23..~£.xg2 24 Sdbl! (24 £>a4
# x a l 25 S xal £ d 5 26 £>b5 0-0 27 £>ac3
5ac8 is unclear) 24...£>e4! 25 Sxb 2 <£>xg3 26
&xg2 e 5 (not 26...i.f6? 27 S d l or 26...Sc8?
27 JLxg3 Sxc3 28 Sxb 7 and wins - Stohl) 27
£}d5! (Kramnik’s variation 27 -&xg3 exd4 28
£sd5 is weaker in view of 28..JLd8! 29 5xb7
£if6) 27..~&d8 28 £>b5! £>e4 29 £>bc7+ ^.xc7
30 £ ixc7+ &e7 31 £ixa8 2xa8 32 &e3 with
the exchange for a pawn and a probable
win.
24 £sxc6?
An amnesty! Suffering from an illusion,
Kramnik even attached an exclamation
mark to this move, although he could simply
have played 24 hxg 5! hxg5 25 ^.xg 5 £ x g 2
26 i ’xg2 1i fb 6 27 Sabi! (more forceful than
Stohl’s move 27 £}cb5) 27...1rc5 28 <£}cb5! 0-0
(28...'irxg5? 29 £>c7+ and <£>dxe6+) 29 £>f3!
£>e4 30 i.xe7 Wxe7 31 'i rh 2 with the threat
of S h i and an irresistible attack (31...f5 32
gxf5 Sxf5 33 Sgl! and 4>fl+).
24...gxf4 (of course, not 24...bxc6? 25 hxg5
hxg5 26 ±xg5) 25 Wd3 bxc6
If 25...£>c5?, then 26 Wc4 (Kramnik) is
good, as is 26 ^ 4 with the idea of 26...£>b3
27 # e5 £>xal 28 £>xe7 &xe7 29 £>d5+
(Stohl), or 26 «f3.
Second Peak
26 £xc6!
‘In the event of 26 S d b l Black holds the
position with the only moves 26...£>e5 27
Wd4 Wc2 28 #xe5 0-0’ (Kramnik). Now
White would appear to have a clear advan­
tage, but in approaching time-trouble Black
unexpectedly succeeds in saving the game.
26.. .0-0 (26...Sd8? 27 Sdbl) 27 i.xa8 £>e5l
An important intermediate move.
27-.£> c5? 28 ^ 3 w a s incorrect, w h ile if
27.. .5xa 8 I was afraid of an endgame the
exchange down - 28 S d b l <£>e5 29 Sxb 2
£>xd3 30 exd3 £>xg4, although, in Kramnik’s
opinion, ‘thanks to the broken white pawns.
Black’s compensation for the exchange is
quite sufficient’.
28 Wd4 Sxa8 29 Wxe5
A crucial moment. ‘After 29 S ab i Wxe2\
30 £>xe2 £>f3+ and ...<£ixd4 Black has good
play’ (Kramnik), which demands verification:
1) 31 <&g2 £>xd4 32 £>xd4i? (32 Sxd4 e5
and ...£ixg4 - Kramnik) 32...<£>xg4 33 £>c6 (33
*f3 h5) 33...^.xh4 (33...i.xa3!?) 34 &h3
£>xf2+ 35 4 >xh4 £>xdl 36 Sxdl 4>g7, achiev­
ing a draw;
2) 31 &hl! <£ixd4 32 Sxd4 (32 <$ixd4?! <£ie4)
32.. .e5 (another Kramnik variation - 32...f3 33
<£>gl iLxa3 is rather worse because of 34
Sb7!) 33 Sc 4 ! (not Kramnik’s move 33 Sa 4
because of 33-£>xg4 34 S g l h 5! 35 f3 i-c 5
with equality - Stohl) 33..~&xa3 (Stohl) 34 f3,
nevertheless retaining some advantage.
29.. .5c8!
‘After 29...£>d5 30 S ab i #xc3 31 Sxd5
Wh3 32 Sd3 #xg4+ 33 * f l #xh4 White
would retain chances of success, although the
position is too complicated for a definite
assessment’ (Kramnik). However, 33 &h 2!
clarifies the assessment: 33.. 'i rxh4+ 34 Sh3
# f 6 (34...1rxf2+? 35 * h l £ g 5 36 S g l and
wins - Stohl) 35 Sgl+ 4>f8 36 # x f 6 jLxf6 37
Sxh 6 £ b 2 38 S b l *g7 39 Sh3, and Black has
a difficult endgame.
297
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

30 S a d
30 Sdcl?! is weak: 30...£id5 31 S ab i
#xa3 (Kramnik) 32 £ixd5 Sxcl+ 33 Sxcl
#xcl+ 3 4 ^ 2 # 33!.

35-..# e l+ !
According to Kramnik, 35...f3(?) 36 g5+
hxg5 37 hxg5+(?) ^eS 38 £ ic6+ 4>e4, etc.,
would also have led to a draw, but after 37
30.. .£id5! Sxg5! with the threat of £ig 8 mate White
‘I saw this move in advance, but I under­ would have suddenly created a mating net
estimated it: after all, White gains an enor­ and won: 37...#el+ 38 * h 2 # x f 2+ 39 *h3
mous material advantage!’ (Kramnik). After e5 40 £>f5 e4 41 £id4 (Stohl).
30.. .5c 5?! 31 # d 4 Black would still have had 36 ^ g 2 # e 4+ 37 i ’h2 # c 2 (the white king
problems, where now an unusual balance of cannot avoid perpetual check) 38 4 ’g2 #e4+
forces arises, and White is unable either to 39 &h2 # c 2 40 g5+ hxg5 4 1 2xg5
weave a mating net around the black king, Or 41 hxg 5+ 4>e5 42 4 ,g2 #64+ 43 ^ 2
or to preserve his own king from perpetual (43 4 fi? f 3 and wins) 43~.#h7+.
check. 41...#xf2+ V 1-V 2
3 1 £ixd5 (31 Sbl?! #xc3 32 Sxd5 exd5 33 'An unusual and highly interesting, large-
#xe7 f3! is ineffective - Stohl) 3l...# x e 5 32 scale battle. Its outcome was quite legiti­
£ixe7+ &%7 mate.’ (Kramnik).
32...<i ,h7!?, an attempt to confuse matters
in the time scramble, could have been At the finish I felt extremely tired. In the
suppressed by both 33 Sxc8 #xe2 34 Sdd8! ninth round against Leko I employed the
#xg4+ 35 4 f l #xh4 36 £ic6 f3 37 Sh8+ 4>g7 variation with 6...£ig4 in the Najdorf, ob­
38 Shg8+ 4f6 39 £ib4, and 33 £ ixc8 #xe2 tained a more or less tolerable endgame (cf.
34 Sd4 #xg4+ 35 4 f l (Stohl) or 34 £id6 Game N0.63, note to Black's 10th move), but
#xg4+ 35 4 f l f3 36 Sc7! (Kramnik’s varia­ with my ridiculous 20th move I suddenly
tion 36 £ixf7 #g2+ 37 * e l # g l+ 38 ^ 2 gave up my a 6-pawn. In his fright Leko
#xf2+, etc., is not so good), in each case with thought for a long time, captured the pawn
equality. - and promptly squandered his entire
33 5xc8 (the alternative 33 £ ixc8 # x e 2 also advantage.
leads to a draw) 33...#xe2 34 Sg8+ ^ 6 35 A draw was also the result in my ‘white’
Id 7 game with Anand, who was sharing 3rd-6th

298

places. I gained some advantage from the
opening (cf. Game No.82, note to White’s
10th move), but I was unsettled by the
thought that, in the event of me winning,
Vishy would finish last on his own, and the
sponsors’ interest in our match would cool. I
was tormented by the ‘ghost of Karpov in Las
Palmas 1996’: I was in danger of losing my
opponent! Although Anand was literally
shaking with fright, I was also unable to play
normally, and after a senes of exchanges we
concluded peace.
Kramnik also drew, and we shared first
place, with all our four tie-break indicators
turning out to be identical! The fifth indicator
was a drawing of lots. Which of us two would
be awarded the traditional prize for the
Linares winner - a model of a mining derrick?
To avoid this question being decided by the
blind will of chance, the organisers suggested
we play a blitz decider. And here, in Dok-
hoian’s opinion, I made an inexcusable
psychological mistake: I said that I already
had several such trophies, and with a ‘Baku-
like grand gesture’ I gave up this prize to
Kramnik. My decision proved to be symbolic:
in the spring Kramnik took the prize, and in
the autumn he took the world title! Of course,
I should have agreed to the blitz, but I was
irresolute, assuming that in the autumn I
would be playing a match with Anand...
After Linares I flew to Moscow, while
Kramnik, Anand and Shirov went off to an
exhibition tournament in Monte Carlo. For a
further ten days the organisers of the Lon­
don match tried to persuade Anand to sign
the contract, but after a long delay Vishy
refused, stating: ‘The negotiations were cut
short mainly in view of the absence of any
guarantees for me. I suggested different
variations, but in vain.’
I don’t know precisely what mountains of
gold llyumzhinov promised him, but as a
Second Peak
result Anand did not miscalculate: at the
end of 2000 he won the third FIDE knock-out
championship, crushing Shirov in the final
(3V2-V2).
Again I was left without an opponent, and
I urgently had to decide what to do next.
With whom should I now play a match -
Kramnik or Shirov? Dokhoian thought that
without hesitation the 1998 challenger
Shirov should be chosen. But I objected: after
all, in the competitive respect this was not
interesting - in ‘classical’ play against Shirov
I had an overwhelming score (+8=8). By
contrast with Kramnik the score was equal
(+3-3=17), many games had proved difficult
for me, and it was clear to everyone that he
was the most dangerous opponent. And I
was convinced: the world champion was
obliged to play against the strongest! I
wanted to accept a genuinely serious chal­
lenge - that was the style of my entire life.
And I chose Kramnik. He quickly agreed,
after requesting $50,000 in expenses for
match preparations, and admitting: 'First I
consulted with Anand and I still don’t under­
stand why they didn’t come to an agree­
ment.’ Of course, a clause about a return
match should have been included in the
contract, and Kramnik would not have
objected. In the given instance this was a
sensible idea, since the challenger had not
participated in the organization of the
match, he had not gathered the money for
its staging, as happened in ancient times,
and he was presented with all this on a silver
platter (such a sinecure was unprecedented
in chess history!), moreover without having
to qualify - and after his win he tn'ed to
persuade everyone that I must play in a
qualifier... But all my life I had spoken out
against obligatory return matches - and I
decided not to make an exception.
For this choice I was to pay bitterly.
299
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Double Hat-Trick
International Tournament in Sarajevo (16-29
May 2000): l. Kasparov - S'A out of ll ; 2-3.
Adams and Shirov - 8; 4-6. Morozevich,
Topalov and Bareev - 6; 7 .1.Sokolov - 4V2; 8-
11 . Movsesian, Short, Kir.Georgiev and
M.Gurevich - 4; 12. Bacrot - 3.
After Linares I won a rapidplay tourna­
ment (Reykjavik, 1-2 April 2000), taking first
place in my group (4Vi out of 5), before
defeating Wojtkiewicz (1V 2-V 2) and, in the
final, Anand (l-l; 2-0). And then I began
preparing for the category 19 super-
tournament in Sarajevo, timed to coincide
with the 40th anniversary of the well-known
Bosna Club, for which I had appeared in the
mid-1990s.
On this occasion there were not 10 players
in the tournament, but 12: the eight grand­
masters from the previous year and four
newcomers. Again, like a year earlier, Kram­
nik declined to play, having begun active
preparations for our match in the autumn,
and again he was replaced by Short, who
lived not far away in Greece.
Shirov was in brilliant form, having evi­
dently decided to demonstrate to the chess
world that he was the ‘lawful challenger since
1998’. True, at the start Alexey was unable to
convert a sound extra pawn in his game with
Adams, but then he began crushing one
opponent after another and he took the lead.
In the first round I was paired with the 17-
year-old French prodigy Etienne Bacrot, who
at that time was being trained by my former
long-standing mentor Alexander Nikitin. For
him this was a battle of the pupils! And
whereas on that day (and on others) many
seconds preferred the relaxed atmosphere of
the press centre, Nikitin and Dokhoian sat
rooted on one of the front rows of the play­
ing hall.
300
Game 65
G.Kasparov-E.Bacrot
Sarajevo, 1st Round, 17.05 2000
Scotch Game C45
Ie 4 e 5
Bacrot usually employed the Sicilian, but
here suddenly, precisely in the traditions of
Nikitin, he switched to classical lines. After
some thought I decided to play the Scotch.
2 <£sf3 <£sc6 3 d4 exd4 4 £sxd4 <£sf6 (4....&C5 -
Game N0 .1 4 ) 5 £sxc6 bxc6 6 e5 7 #e2
£sd5 8 c4 .&a6 (8...£sb6 - Game N0 .6 1 ) 9 b3
9.. . g6
The most popular move, although both
9.. .g5 (Game N0 .3 8 ) and 9...O-O-0 (Game
No.70 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov) are still played.
10 f4
10 g3 J.g7 11 i.b2 0-0 12 jLg2 2fe8?! or
12...5ae8 (Movsesian-Bacrot, Chalkidiki
2002) is also problematic - cf. Game No.38,
note to White’s 9th move.
10.. . 1 rb4+
Nowadays the best reply is considered to
be 10...f6 11 exf6 1^62+ 12 ± xe2 J.b4+ 13
.&d2 ±xd2+ 14 <£sxd2 <£ixf4 15 S fl £ixe2 16
4>xe2 >4f7 with equality (Radjabov-Kasparov,
Linares 2004) or 11 ±a3l? £sb4! (11..JW7?! -

Game No.81 in Part II of Carry Kasparov on
Garry Kasparov) 12 iLb2 Ab6! (Sutovsky-
Nielsen, Reykjavik (rapid) 2004).
11 i.d2 #b6
12 #e 4
Since the time of my preparations for the
match with Short (1993) I was unable to
decide wbicb was stronger here - 12 Wle4,
forcing ...f7-f5 (control of tbe e4-square!), or
12 #f3, allowing ...f7-f6, for example:
12.. .£lb4! (I2...1rd 4 13 £>c3 £>xc3 1 4 l rxc3! c5
is more modest, Lautier-Bacrot, Cannes
2002) 13 & dl Ab7 14 £>c3 c5 15 We3 We6 16
£>b5 £>a6 17 &c2 Ag7 18 S e l 0-0 19 i.d3 f6
with double-edged play (Lautier-Fontaine,
Aix les Bains 2003).
In addition there is tbe interesting pawn
sacrifice 12 £>c3 A b 4 13 ®d3!? (instead of 13
I f 3 £>xc3 14 i.xc3 M>7 15 0-0-0 c5 16 Wle3
JLxc3 17 Wxc3 0-0-0 and ...d7-d6 with equal­
ity, Gelfand-Karpov, Linares 1992).
12.. .f5! 13 # f3 #d4
Also with tbe pawn on f5, 13...£>b4! 14
■idl iLb7 15 £>c3 c5 is better, after wbicb I
was planning not 16 £>d5 because of
16.. JLg7 (Nataf-Bacrot, Cannes 2002), but 16
#631? with tbe possible sequel 16...0-0-0
(I6...#e6l?) 17 a3 £>c6 18 £>a4 Wa6 19 £>xc5
Axes 20 #xc5 11)6! (20...d6?l 21 exd6 2xd6?
is bad because of 22 #xd6!! cxd6 23 c5,
Second Peak
trapping tbe queen) 21 lx b 6 axb6, and
Black, although well mobilised, for tbe
moment is nevertheless a pawn down (1993
analysis).
14 £>c3 £>xc 3
15 iLxc3i?
A novelty! The capture with tbe bishop
makes sense after ...f7-f5, since now Black
does not have ...f7-f6, and after ...d7-d6
followed by ...dxe5 and fxe5 White acquires
a passed pawn. In tbe event of tbe alterna­
tive recapture 15 lx c 3 Black does not equal­
ise fully with 15...1re4+ 16 l e 3 or 15...1xc3+
16 A xc3 (V.lvanov-Misbucbkov, Cherepovets
1993), but after tbe moves 15...C5! and ..JLb7
be is okay.
l5...A b 4 16 2 c l A xc 3+ 17 Sxc3 0 -0 -0 ?!
A natural move, but 17...Ab7! was more
accurate, still maintaining approximate
equality: 18 c5 (18 Sd3 W)6 with tbe inten­
tion of ...c6-c5) I8...d5 (I8...d6!?) 19 cxd6 (19
Ae 2!? as 20 a3) l 9-.cxd6 20 We3 dxe5 21
'§rxe5+ ®xe5+ 22 fxe5 0-0-0 (Nataf-Bacrot,
Marseille 2001).
18 c5!
An unpleasant clamping move, hindering
Black’s ...d7-d6. After 18 Sd3 be would have
escaped from bis problems with l8...Wb6!
(but not tbe greedy l8...Wal+ 19 B dl 'i rxa2?
in view of 20 #c3) 19 ^ 3 d6.
301
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
I8 ...£ b 7 ?
To be honest, this submissive move stag­
gered me: the bishop is voluntarily incarcer­
ated! l8...jLxfl was more resilient: 19 Sxfl
g5!? (forcing the exchange of queens; if
19-.d5(d6) 20 cxd6 2xd6, then 21 We3 or 21
Sf2 and 4 f l is good) 20 W d31'xdB 21 SxdB,
when Black fights for a draw in an inferior
rook endgame: 21...2de8 22 2e3 2hg8 23 g3
d6, etc.
19 # e 3 l #xe3+?!
Practically the decisive mistake: with such
a bishop the endgame cannot be saved!
However, after the ‘intractable’ 19...1134! 20
£e2 d6 (20...d5?! 21 #d2!) 210-0! (instead of
21 cxd6(?!) cxd6 22 0-0 dxe5 23 fxe5 1136,
which I gave in Informator) 21...dxe5 22 fxe5
Black’s position is unenviable (22...1,d4 23
g4!).
20 2xe3 d6 2 1 i.c4 l (the endgame is obvi­
ously better for White) 21...&d7
If 21...dxc5? not only is my Informator
suggestion 22 e6 strong, but also 22 JLe6+
*b8 23 ^.f7! Sd7 24 e6 2e7 25 h4! and h4-
h5. And if 21...2he8 (Stohl), then immedi­
ately 22 h4l.
22 h4 (threatening h4-h5) 22...d5 (Etienne
ventured this in desperation: 22...dxe5?! 23
Sxe5 She8 24 h5! was just too unattractive)
23£d3
302
23 ice2l was more effective, with the ad­
ditional threat of g2-g4, and 23...h5 is no
longer so good on account of 24 2hh3, 2hg3
and b3-b4, or 24 Sg3 2h6 25 b4, when the
third rank is free for the rook raid to a3.
23.. .H5!
Exploiting the chance opportunity, Black
tries to set up a fortress. After 23-..'4>e6 24 h 5
White would have broken through on the
kingside: 24...g5 25 g4! (Stohl), or.24...2dg8
25 hxg6 hxg6 26 Seh3 Sxh3 27 Sxh3 and
Sh7.
24Sg3 Sh6
In the event of 24...2hg8?l 25 2g5 after
any move by Black there is the decisive
breakthrough 26 g4! fxg4 27 ^.xg6 or
26.. .hxg4 27 h5. And after 24...2dg8 25 2g5
*e7 26 Sh3 i c 8 27 Shg3 4f7 28 b4, as in
the game, White would have attacked from
two sides.
25 b4& e6
The attempt to confuse matters by 25...a5
would have run into 26 b5! cxb5 27 ^.xb5+
c6 (27...'4>e6(e7) 28 c6!) 28 ^.d3! followed by
,S>d2 and S bl, winning (this is more forceful
than the Informator 28 iLa4). Instead of this
Bacrot preferred to go totally on to the
defensive, allowing me to create a textbook
example of a combined attack on both
wings.
 Second Peak

26 &d2 5a8 27 2 b l a6 (if 27...a5, then again coirect idea.

28 b5! cxb5 29 .&xb5 - Stohl) 28 S b 3 i f 7 29
2a3 Shh8 30 2g5
The tireless rook manoeuvres keep Black
in a state of constant tension.

36.. .2hb8?!
36.. JLc8?l or 36...2ab8?! would have lost a
pawn in view of 37 2g3l and 2ga3, but even
the most resilient defence would not have
30.. .2H6?! saved Black: 36...2hg8 37 2g3 2gb8 (instead
After 30...Shb8? my earlier 31 g4 hxg4 32 of the Informator line 37...2a7? 38 ^.xh5l
h 5 is not bad, but 31 ,&e2! and Sag 3 is far gxh5 39 e6+) 38 2ga3 2a7 (38...&C8 39
simpler. And to the desperate 30...a5?! 31 23a4) 39 &c3, forcing 39...2ba8 and break­
bxa5 ^.a6 I would have replied 32 .&c2!, ing through on the queenside: 40 bs! cxb5
retaining the bishops and the threat of a 41 ^.xb5 2b8 42 £xa6! 2ba8 43 .&xb7 2xa5
breakthrough: 32..JLc4? 33 2ag3 2h6 34 44 2xa5 2xa5 45 * b 4 2a7 46 ^.xd5+ * e7 47
JLxfS! gxf5 35 Sg7+ i e 6 36 Sxc7 and wins. a4 or 4 1 ...C6 42 ,&e2 followed by 2b3-b6,
Only 30..JLc8, trying to hold both pawns - a6 &d4 and 2a3, threatening 2ab3 or 2g3.
and g6 - would have prolonged resistance. Black cannot keep pace with the movements
3 lic 3 of the white rooks and he is unable to de­
The planned centralization of the king. In fend all his weaknesses.
Informator I also considered 31 2a5 2hh8 32 37 2a3! (now misfortune strikes from the
JLe2, but 31 ^.e2l would have won the most other side) 37...2H8
quickly, for example: 31...&C8 32 2a5 2h8 33 The counterplay on the b-file proves illu­
2g3 and 2ga3, or 3 l...ig 7 32 2ag3 i h 7 33 sory: 3 7 ....&C8 38 2ag3! 2xb4+ 39 &C3 2xf4
i c 3 m.c8 34 i d 4 2b8 35 a3 JLb7 36 jLd3 2f8 40 2xg6 and wins.
(2xg6! was threatened, and if 36...2g8, then 38 2ag3 2ag8
37 ^.xf5) 37 e6! £c8 38 i e 5 2e8 39 &f6 If 38...2h6 White would have won by 39
JLxe6 (39...2xe6+ 40 i f 7 with the threat of 2xg6! 2xg6 40 jbchs 2ag8 4 1 2xg6 2xg6 42
^.xf5) 40 2e3 2f8+ 41 ie7 !, etc. e6+ <&f6 43 e7.
31.. .2b8 32 2 a 5 2a8 33 i d 4 2hh8 34 .&c2 39 i.x h 5 !
2ab8 35 &d3 2a8 (35...&C8!? - Stohl) 36 And in view of 39...gxh5 40 e6+ or
i.e 2 ! 39.. .2xh5 40 2xh5 gxh5 41 e6+ Black re­
Now in time-tTOuble, W hite h its on th e signed (l-O).

303
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
After this good start I began to have prob­
lems. In the second round, with Black in a
Sicilian (cf. Game No.99, note to White’s 8th
move), I completely outplayed Adams, but
was unable to finish him off. In the third
round, with White in a French, I with diffi­
culty won a very nervy game against Gure­
vich. Then I gained a draw with Topalov (l d4
d5 2 c4 c6 3 £>f3 £>f6 4 £>c3 e6 5 g3 £)bd7 6
g3 dxc4l, etc.) and easily defeated Ivan
Sokolov, who failed to equalise in a Petroff
Defence (cf. Game No.82, note to White’s
10th move).
In the sixth round with Short I again had a
winning position in a Sicilian, but again I did
not finish him off. In the seventh round I had
a nervy, crazy duel with Morozevich: attack­
ing, I gave up a mass of pawns and should
have lost, but on the 18th move my oppo­
nent played his queen to the wrong square
and the result was a draw.
In the eighth round I had Black against
the leader - Shirov, who was half a point
ahead of me, and I employed the fighting
novelty ll...Wb6 in my traditional Najdorf.
But Alexey played for the result and did not
seek a refutation, going into a slightly better
endgame (cf. Game No.63, note to White’s
11th move) - a draw on the 27th move.
Since our closest pursuers won, before the
final three founds the battle for first place
sharply intensified: Shirov - 6 out of 8;
Kasparov, Morozevich and Adams - S'A.
Vladimir Barsky: ‘Shirov was playing
splendidly, and it appeared that a sensation
was on the cards. Of course, Kasparov was not
bound to win all the tournaments in succes­
sion, but fo r a very long time he had not had
any other results. Shirov could have earned
the applause o f the entire chess world - it
seemed all that was needed was a little more
effort, and he would displace Kasparov from
his customary first place... But here a new
304
hero came to the fore - Sergey Movsesian.'
The 21-year-old Armenian Grandmaster,
then living in the Czech Republic, who before
this was on 2 out of 8, scintillated in rounds
9 and 10 with sensational wins over Moro­
zevich and Shirov!
As for me, like a year earlier I managed to
win all three of my remaining games. The
win over Bareev was a very difficult one: he
faltered only on the threshold of my time-
trouble in a slightly inferior double-rook
endgame. Then I crushed Kiril Georgiev in a
Sicilian and before the last round I was at
last leading the race: Kasparov - 7'A out of
10; Shirov and Adams - 7.
My remaining game was with Black
against the formidable Sergey Movsesian.
Taking account of the fact that both my
pursuers were very determined (and in the
end both won!), to take sole first place I had
to aim for a win, but remember that in the
event of a loss I might finish third. Therefore
it would have been unjustified heroism to
plunge into battle under the motto ‘death or
glory’.
Our duel also had a personal aspect. In
the summer of 1999 during the FIDE knock­
out world championship in Las Vegas, while
customarily criticising the ‘tournament of a
hundred’ as unsuitable for determining the
strongest player on the planet, I tried to
assess objectively the chances of the quarter-
finalists and I arbitrarily divided the grand­
masters into four groups: the ‘favourites'
Kramnik and Shirov, the ‘solid’ Adams and
Khalifman, the ‘unpredictable’ Polgar - and
the ‘tourists’ Akopian, Nisipeanu and
Movsesian (curiously, both ‘favourites’ went
out in the quarter-finals, and the tourna­
ment was won by the ‘solid’ Khalifman, who
defeated Polgar, Nisipeanu and Akopian).
Unexpectedly Sergey was offended by my
jocular term ‘tourists' and he sharply ex-
 Second Peak

pressed his objections in the press. Now this deliberately follows it, although he knew
‘tourist’ was certainly intending to take my that 8 g4 was considered more accurate, and
scalp as a souvenir and to become the only after 8...h6 - 9 #d2 (Game Nos.56, 58,
‘conquerer of the kings’! 74), excluding the set-up with 8...£*bd7,
In principle, my opponent's fighting mood ...£ib6 and ...£)fd7, but provoking 8...^fd7!? 9
suited me. After taking all the factors into # d 2 £)b6 (Game No.122).
account I planned my game strategy - I 8.. .£)bd7 9 0-0-0
chose a flexible Sicilian set-up, in order to White also ignores 9 g4 £)b6 10 a4l? £)c4
launch a counter-attack at the first oppor­ 11 jS.xc4 bxc4 12 0-0 (Anand-Kasparov, 4th
tunity. match game (blitz), Reykjavik 2000) or 12 a5
(Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2005).
9.. .1-b7 10 g4 £>b6 11 Wf2
Game 66 Prophylaxis, replacing the direct l l h4
S.Movsesian-G.Kasparov (Game No.40 in Revolution in the 70s).
Sarajevo, 11th Round, 29.05.2000 11.. .£tfd 7 1 2 &bl?l
Sicilian Defence B80 12 jLd3 fic8 is correct, and now not 13
h4?l Sxc3l 14 bxc3 Wc7 (Campora-Yudasin,
1 e4 C5 2 <5^3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^ x d 4 £sf6 5 Moscow 1989), but 13 £sce2 (Game No.122).
£ ic3 a6 (my opponent allowed the Najdorf These complicated positions were some of
Variation, which greatly pleased me!) 6 JLe3 the key ones for me: it was them that I
e6 analysed most of all.
Avoiding the forcing variations with But Movsesian decided to provoke me
6.. .£ig4 (Game Nos.32, 40, 51, 54, 63, 116) or into making an ‘unclear’ exchange sacrifice,
6.. .e5 (Came Nos.45,93). which had occurred in internet blitz games
7 f3 (7 g4 h6 - cf. Game No.37, note to of his with van Wely.
White’s 6th move) 7...b5 12.. .5c8 13 - id 3
Far more active and more popular than
7.. .±e7 8 # d 2 £)c6 9 g4 0-0 (Game No.17).

13..Sxc3!
Without hesitation: such sacrifices are
8«d2 axiomatic for any experienced Sicilian
Having selected a definite plan, Sergey player, an element of chess culture.

305
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
14 bxcB # c 7
14...^a4 15 ^ e 2 jLe7 is also not bad.
While there are many pieces on the board,
White’s material advantage is impercepti­
ble, whereas his pawns are spoiled, his king
is exposed, and it experiences greater dis­
comfort that its black opponent. Such
compensation is something one can only
dream of!
15 £>e2 JLe7
After the game Sergey said that van Wely
had placed his knight on a4 and never played
,.JLe7 and ...0-0. This is a psychological prob­
lem: when behind on material you want to do
something immediately. But for a successful
attack Black has to complete his development
and bring all his pieces into play.
16 gS 0-0! 17 h4 £sa4!
An absolutely natural novelty: there is no
reason to rush with ...d6-d5, although 17...d5
18 h5 (Zagrebelny-Lingnau, Berlin 1993)
I8...£>a4 is also acceptable. The knight on a4
is no weaker in the attack than a rook, and is
even better!
Here I could not resist the temptation - I
stood up from my board to see how things
were going with my pursuers. And almost
with relief I saw that both Shirov and Adams
were confidently heading for a win. Now I
definitely knew that I had to forget about
306
them, concentrate on my own game and
win at all costs. When I returned to the
board, all thoughts about cautious play were
put out of my mind...
18 JLcl?!
A significant delay. 18 hs is more logical,
although here after I8...£>e5 Black also has
comfortable play: 19 ^.d2?! dsl, and on d2
the bishop is just as awkwardly placed as on
cl, or 19 ild4 £>c4 (Stohl).
18.. .£te5 19 h5
It is already hard to offer White any good
advice. If 19 f4? there is the typical reaction
19.. .£>xd3 20 cxd3 ds! - Black even undou­
bles the opponent’s pawns, but now his
bishops come into play: 21 exds (21 e5? d4
and wins) 21...^.xd5, and after the rook
moves from h i there follows 22...Sb8! with
the threat of ...b5-b4 and a strong attack.
19.. .d5
This blow in the centre suggests itself
(both ...f7-f6 and ...bs-b4 are threatened).
19 .f5 (Stohl) is not so clear, but serious
consideration should have been given to
19-..f61? 20 g6 (20 gxf6?! is weak in view of
20.. JLxf6 21 £d2 d5!) 20...h6 2 1 # g 3 f5! or
21 #63 d5i, and Black holds all the cards -
his king is completely safe.
20 # h 2 (in a difficult position Movsesian
finds a clever tactical trap)

20...^.d6!
After 20...b4? 21 exd5 Black would have
not only lost all his advantage, but in view of
the threat of ±xh7+ he himself would have
come under a fearfully strong attack:
1) 2 1 ...£ ixc3+ 22 £ ixc3 bxc3 23 i ’a l! ^ .d6
24 ^.xh7+! 4 >xh7 25 g6+ <A>g8 26 h6! £ ix g 6 27
# h 5 ! or 23...f5 2 4 h6! g 6 25 ^.c4l! .&d6 26
^.b3 iix d 5 27 ^ .xd 5 exd 5 28 M4- an d wins;
2) 2l..JLd6 22 Jb<h7+ ‘A’hS (22...<A>xh7 23
g6+ ^ 8 24 h6! <£ixg6 25 #115 is also dan­
gerous) 23 g6! £kl3 (if 23...£ixg6, then 24
^xd6!! #xd6 25 hxg6 is decisive) 24 # h 4
£ixcl 25 h6 f5 26 dxe6! £ixe2 27 Sxd6
£iexc3+ (if 27...b3 28 hxg7+ #xg7, then 29
■&.g8+! ‘A’xgS 30 #h7+ #xh7 31 gxh7+ and
32 e7!) 28 <A>al £ib5 29 Sd3 2e8 30 e7 #e5+
31 c3 gxh6 32 g7+! #xg7 33 &xf5 and
#xh6+ with crushing threats;
3) 2l..Jb<d5 22 ^.xh7+! 4 >xh7 (22...<A>h8?!
23 Sxd5! exd5 24 .&g6! and h5-h6) 23 g6+
<A>g8 24 h6! # c4 25 Sxd5 #xe2 26 Sxe5
£ ixc3+ 27 i ’a l # x h 2 (27...#c4? 28 Sa5) 28
Sxh2 with hopes of nevertheless converting
the exchange advantage.
2 l# h 3 ?
A fatal mistake. The intrigue would have
been retained by 21 ^.f4l, and although
Black is better after both 2l...<£ixc3+ 22 £ixc3
1^X03 23 # d 2 #xd2 24 -&xd2 £ixf3 (Stohl) or
Second Peak
23.. .#a3 24 &e2 Sc8, and 21...b4l 22 g6! (22
cxb4 Sc8 23 2cl(?), suggested by me in
Informator, is fatal because of 23..~&xb4)
22.. .bxc3 23 i ’a l h6 24 S b l £ ic5 or 23...^xf3
24 # h 3 -&xf4 25 #xf3 &e5 26 S dfl f5l,
White nevertheless still has drawing
chances.
21.. .£ixd3! (such an exchange is easily
overlooked) 22 cxd3 b4
Unexpectedly it transpires that Black has
a decisive attack on the king. And White’s
attack has not yet even started...
23 cxb4
Hara-kiri, but what to do? If 23 h6 g6 24
cxb4 the simplest is 24..~&xb4. And in the
event of 23 c4l? Black wins elegantly both
with my Informator line 23...dxc4 24 g6 cxd3
25 Sxd3 Sc8! 26 Sd 2 &e5 27 S h d l ^.c6!
with the threat of ,.JLb5-d3+(xe2), and by
23.. .£ ic3+ 24 £ ixc3 bxc3 25 ‘A’a l Sb8 26 g6
jLc6 27 h6 ^.e5l - again White’s exchange
advantage does not play any role.
23.. .5 .8 24 ‘A’a l dxe4
24...^.xb4l 25 # h 2 #c2 would have won
immediately, but I was attracted to the
game continuation by its forcing nature and
the following little combination, which
afforded me aesthetic pleasure.
25 fxe4 .&xe4! (a simple but attactive stroke
from Black)
307
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

A final trick. If 31 S gl, then 31....&C3!, and

if 31 S cl there is 31-®c4! 32 Sxc4 #65+ 33
d4 WbS 34 h6 g6 with inevitable mate.

26 g61?
Desperation. If 26 dxe4, then 26.. JLe5+ 27
£)d4 ^.xd4+ 28 Sxd4 'Sfxcl+ and mate.
26 ...± x h l 27 W xhl i.xb 4 28 gxf7+ 3 1 ...£ixdl!
(a pretty mating construction) 32
£)xe6+ &xf7
White resigned (0-1), and applause broke
out in the hall.

So, ‘plus six’ - and a sixth successive vic­

tory in super-toumaments, a kind of double
hat-trick: two in Wijk aan Zee, two in Linares
and two in Sarajevo.
Vladimir Barsky: ‘A brilliant achievement
by Kasparov. However, the tournament has
shown that here is no gulf between him and
the ‘rest of the world’. Kasparov is superior to
his rivals mainly in physical preparation
28.. .6f8! (remember that he again scored 3 out of 3 at
The most forceful, although 28...1Srxf7 29 the finish), and in his ability to organise his
i.d2 (29 h6?l Wc7) 29...i.xd2 30 Sxd2 Sf8 or work on chess. In this second factor his de­
28.. .6xf7 29 i.b2 (29 #f3+ &g8) 29...£lxb2 voted second Yuri Dokhoian deserves enor­
30 S cl was also sufficient - in Informator I mous credit - Kasparov’s colossal knowledge
gave the assessment ‘with counterplay', but is systematically arranged. Anyone who
after 30....&C5! 31 d4 £>a4l Black wins. wants to fight for the title of the strongest
29 % 2 player in the world must in the first instance
Or 29 .&b2 Wc2 30 S b l l rxe2 31 h6! (31 surpass the 37-year-old Muscovite in these
Wfb7 #xb2+!, mating) 31-.&C3! 32 hxg7+ two components.'
&xf7! 33 1T17+ 4f6 34 &XC3+ £sxc3, and This was my last ‘classical’ appearance
White is lost. before the autumn match for the world
29.. .5b8! (an ambush!) 30 iLb2 ®xb 2 31 £*d4 championship. A month later I played in a

308

double-cycle rapidplay tournament (Frank­
furt am Main, 22-25 June 2000): 1. Anand -
7 V2 out of 10; 2. Kasparov - 6; 3. Kramnik -
5; 4. Sbirov - 4V2; 5-6. Leko and Morozevicb -
y / 2 . Burning with desire to repeat my tri­
umph of the previous year, I started with 2V2
out of 3, then made three draws - and
disintegrated, losing with White to Leko
from an obviously better position. And in
July, as usual, I set off with my team for a
lengthy training session in Croatia.
Match with Kramnik
World Championship Match Kasparov -
Kramnik (London, 7 October - 2 November
2000 ): 6V2-8V2.
For understandable reasons I have never
spoken in detail about my match with
Vladimir Kramnik. My preparations for it
were serious, but, unfortunately, inflexible
and therefore ineffective: hardly any of our
opening ideas came in useful in the match
and they were employed only in subsequent
tournaments. The state of my nervous
system was also far from ideal. Emotional
fatigue had accumulated from the constant
tournament victories and endless organiza­
tional problems with internet projects. I was
also wom out by a two-year lawsuit with my
former wife living in the USA, for the right to
bring my daughter Polina to Moscow at least
once a year.
We held two big training sessions - in the
summer on the Adriatic coast and in Sep­
tember on the outskirts of Moscow. On this
occasion my usual team of Yuri Dokhoian
and Alexander Shakarov was joined by the
young grandmasters Andrey Kharlov and
Mikhail Kobalia. At various stages Boris
Alterman and Michael Adams also helped.
For White the main emphasis was placed
on 1 e4. 1 d4 was studied superficially, and
Second Peak
only just before the match did I look a little at
1 c4 with Boris Gulko, who was passing
through Moscow. Because of this narrow
repertoire, in the course of the match I lacked
flexibility. On the other hand, after 1 e4 we
made appreciable progress in all of the
openings from Kramnik’s repertoire: we
demolished the Petroff Defence (on the back
of this I beat Adams - Came No.82), we
combed through the Sveshnikov and Rauzer
Variations in the Sicilian, and we renovated
both the Caro-Kann with 3 e5 -&f5 4 £sc3 (in
this way I later won against Karpov - Game
No.77), and the French with 3 £sd2 - for
example, 3...C5 4 £)gf3 £sf6 5 e5 £)fd7 6 c3
£sc6 7 ^.d3 Wb6 8 0-0 (Kasparov-Bareev, 1st
match game, Cannes (rapid) 2001) or 4...cxd4
5 exd5 #xd5 6 &c4 »d6 7 0-0 £>f6 8 Sell?
Jte7 9 £se4 (Kasparov-Gelfand, Astana 2001).
But we didn’t look at l...e5 2 £sf3 £sc6:
Kramnik hardly ever played this, and I
thought that starting from nothing it would
be too much trouble to prepare for both the
Ruy Lopez and the Scotch Game. It was only
at the end of the second session that I said:
we ought to look at the Berlin Defence
(Kramnik employed it at Wijk aan Zee in
1999 against Topalov and reached an infe­
rior endgame), but, although we had a
Spanish expert in Adams, no deep analysis
was made. Incidentally, I might have studied
this new segment of theory back in the
autumn of 1998, during my Prague match
with Timman: according to his second, Ivan
Sokolov, against 1 e4 he had prepared the
‘Berlin Wall’. Alas, as fate would have it, at
the time I played only 1 d4.
With Black I did not see any particular
problems after 1 £tf3 £sf6 2 c4 (Game N0.64),
and against 1 d4 I chose the well-tested
Griinfeld Defence, tempted by the idea of
‘engineer Garry’s hyperboloid’ - to refine
and ‘sharpen’ on the computer all the main
309
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
forcing lines of this opening. After spending
a mass of time, we made enormous progress
in many directions, looking at literally every­
thing - apart from the old, ‘harmless’ line 7
£rf3 c5 8 JLe3 in the main variation. And it
was this that Kramnik employed!
I remember that when, just in case, I
asked Sergey Shipov to give me some advice
for Black in the Catalan, he exclaimed anx­
iously: ‘What, do you only have the Griin-
feld?’ No, in reserve we also had the Queen’s
Gambit Accepted - it was played by Kharlov,
and we looked at it a bit. The black positions
arising in this opening were not altogether
to my taste, but I knew them and I was
hoping to defend myself. In subsequent
meetings with Kramnik the ‘OGA’ served me
quite well, but in the first attempts - the 4th
and 6th games of the match - things were
difficult, and as an emergency I had to
include the Nimzo-lndian Defence.
In addition I fairly wore myself out by ana­
lyzing l e4 for Kramnik. He used to employ
this move very rarely (against me in the mid-
1990s, and after 1996 only in blitz games),
but in the summer he used it to beat Leko in
a TV exhibition match with a time control of
one hour for the game (Cologne, 14th Au­
gust 2000). However, here also my efforts
were in vain: in the match with me Kramnik
did not play this.
It was with this wealth of, as it soon tran­
spired, superfluous opening knowledge that
I arrived for the match, commenting on 5th
October at a press conference before the
start: ‘Kramnik is a player of universal style,
which makes him a very dangerous oppo­
nent.’ In the given instance the marked
difference in the ratings of the players -
2849 against 2770 - did not play any role: it
was meeting between grandmasters of the
same class.
The challenger’s official helpers were Ev­
310
geny Bareev, Miguel lllescas and Joel Lautier.
But other grandmasters also took part in his
preparations - among them Vladimir Be­
likov, Sergey Dolmatov (my second in two
matches with Karpov), Peter Svidler and
Boris Gelfand, who had come to my place for
a training session lasting several days before
the proposed match with Shirov (1998).
Moreover, Bon's did not consider it necessary
to wam me that he was now helping my
opponent. As Kramnik put it, ‘there was no
systematic work’, but 'at least once a fort­
night they spoke on the phone’ and ‘ex­
changed certain ideas - say, about some
interesting games’. (Recently Gelfand dis­
closed that he was offered my help before
his 2012 match with Anand, and he angrily
declined: how could he accept, since Kas­
parov had helped Anand before the 2010
match with Topalov? But I only gave the
champion a few bits of advice by telephone).
Bareev: ‘The team selected was an interna­
tional one, and in the main each worked at
home, with Kramnik himself holding several
training sessions with various players... Each
was responsible for his own personal front. I
worked on the white pieces, except for the
Griinfeld Defence. The ‘Berlin Wall’ was pre­
pared by Dolmatov and Kramnik working
together for about two weeks. As a matter of
fact, neither Lautier nor I knew what was our
main weapon against l e4... Kramnik and
Lautier worked on the Scotch Game. And on
the main opening for White - the Griinfeld
Defence - it was lllescas who carried out some
very serious work.’
The chief arbiter was Andrzej Filipowicz
(Poland). In the spirit of the times the match
was of 16 games (and not 20, as in the 1995
match with Anand), but we still played four
times a week - on Tuesdays, Thursdays,
Saturdays and Sundays, with a time control
of 40 moves in two hours, 20 in an hour, and

half an hour for the rest of the game. As has
already been mentioned, immediately after
a game the players gave a press conference.
And, for the first time in the history of such
matches, before play an anti-computer
control operated: the players had to pass
through a special X-ray machine.
But in general the level of organization
was markedly inferior to my London
matches with Karpov (1986) and Short
(1993). The hall of the Riverside Studios in
which we played and the way to the press
centre reminded Cenna Sosonko of a cinema
in Leningrad, where in 1947 he saw the film
Secret Agent - in fact the cinema looked
somewhat superior...
When in the first game after my 1 e4
there followed l...e 5 2 £sf3 £*c6 3 ,&b5
& f 6 !?, I glanced at my opponent, smiled and
shook my head. On suddenly encountering
the ‘Berlin Wall’, I was unable to gain even a
hint of an advantage - a draw on the 26th
move. How to breach Black’s defences in this
‘tedious’ endgame, resembling those which
arise in the Spanish Exchange Variation?
From the very start the problem of the white
pieces raised its head, a problem with which
my team later struggled unsuccessfully for
the entire match (cf. Game No.80, notes to
Black’s 9th move and White’s 10th move).
Before the second game I was not in the
best of moods, but I was confident about the
soundness of my Griinfeld. However, an­
other surprise awaited me.
Game 67
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match,
London, 2nd Game, 10.10.2000
Griinfeld Defence D85
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g 6 3 £ sc3 d5 4 cxd5 £>xd5 5 e4
Second Peak
£ ixc3 6 bxc3 -&g7 7 £sf3 (for the correct
reaction to 7 .&e3 c5 8 ^ 2 - cf. Game N0.16
in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009) 7...C5 8
iLe3
This was also played against me by Yer-
molinsky in Wijk aan Zee (1999). 8 2 b l is
more topical, but here I had already three
times extinguished Kramnik’s initiative by
8.. .0-0 9 i.e 2 cxd4 10 cxd4 1^5+ 11 -&d2
1Brxa2 12 0-0 £.g4 (Novgorod 1994; Linares
1998; Frankfurt (rapid) 1999).
8.. .Wa5 9 Wd2 £ g 4
The old move 9 -^ c 6 was probably better,
as Romanishin once played against me
(Game N0.48 in Part I of Garry Kasparov on
Garry Kasparov), and as later I myself played
against Kramnik in Astana 2001 (Game
No.70 in Revolution in the 70s). Analyzing the
knight move during the match, we were
expecting the reply 10 2 b l and were plan­
ning a well-known queen sacrifice -
10.. .0-0!? l l 2b5 cxd4 12 2xa5 dxe3 1 3 1 ^ 3
£lxa5 (Game Nos.72, 73 in Revolution in the
70s), but it turned out that the opponent
was planning l0 2 c l.
10 2 b l!
Threatening 2b5 or 2xb7. Yermolinsky
chose 10 2cl, and after lO..JLxf3 11 gxf3 e6
12 d5 exd5 13 exd5 £>d7 14 c4 Wb6 (I4...1ra3
or l4...1Srxd2+ is also possible, as in two
311
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Kramnik-Shirov blitz games, Internet 1999)
15 -&h3 f5 16 0-0 Wd6 17 ±f4 jLe5 18 S fel
0-0-0 Black achieved an excellent game.
10...a6
Played almost without thinking, although
for a second I had the fleeting idea of an
alternative pawn sacrifice - I0...£ld7!? (Giri-
Nijboer, Eindhoven 2010), with the idea of 11
Sxb7 £sb6L But I0...a6 was played by Ivan­
chuk against Timman back in Linares 1992,
and he solved his opening problems.
11 Sxb7!
Of course! ‘I looked at 11 Sxb7 with Boris
Gelfand at a training session in Israel, much
earlier and not for the match, some time in
1999’ (Kramnik). After 11 Hb3?! b5 Timman
did not achieve anything. But I disregarded
the simple capture on b7, since Ivanchuk
had condemned it in Informator No.54
because of ll..JLxf3 12 gxf3 £sc6.
Il...ii.xf3 (11...£sc6 12 .&C4! 0-0 13 .&d5 fiac8
14 0-0 also does not give full equality,
Tregubov-Bacrot, France 2001) 12 gxf3 £lc6
13 ± c4 l
Also natural! After this I experienced a
shock: where was Ivanchuk’s promised ‘clear
advantage for Black’? And I realised just how
carefully my opponent had trawled though
my ‘black’ games. White’s novelty is a good
one, of course, but objectively there is noth­
312
ing amazing about it - apart from the great
psychological effect!
Frankly speaking, I was angered when this
game was voted the theoretically most
important in the 80th volume of Informator,
whereas the eighth with the fantastic dis­
covery I6...£lc7! was placed only second.
After all, at the time I6...£lc7 was not sug­
gested by any computer, whereas the moves
11 Sxb7 and 13 -&c4 are fairly obvious. Is it
possible that the experts were swayed by the
competitive and psychological importance
of the game?
13.. .0-0 14 0-0 cxd4 (the correct reply:
14 .. .5ad 8?! 15 d5 ±xc3 16 ®cl!) 15 cxd4
i.xd 4
15...1Srh5?! 16 ±d5 #xf3? is weak in view
of 17 # d l!, while after I5...'irxd2 16 Jlxd2
£sxd4 17 <^ >g 2 e 6 18 E el Efc8 19 JLd3 the
two bishops promise White somewhat the
better ending.
16 iLd5l (the culmination of the analysis by
Kramnik & Co.) 16....&.C3
‘The initial cause of Black’s difficulties’
(Bareev). Yes, it was simpler to play
16.. .1rxd2! 17 Axd2 2fc8! (17...£>e5?! 18 Ah6
- Kramnik) 18 ^ 2 ! (18 Ah6 e6 19 JLxc6
2xc6 with equality, Yermolinsky-Azmaipar-
ashvili, Hyderabad 2002) I8...e6 19 -&b3 Sa7
20 Sxa7 ^lxa7 21 E d l <S^b5, when White has
 Second Peak

an almost symbolic advantage (the two nent’s kingside and the opposite-coloured
bishops!), but 16 ..J lc 3 is also not so bad. bishops fully compensate Black for the pawn
17 f c l deficit. But in fact his position is uneasy: the
Played after half an hour’s thought. In the d 5-bishop is stronger than its opponent.
event of 17 Wc2 Bac8 18 Sell? (with the idea
of I 8...£ie5 19 Wb3! £ixf3+ 20 <ig2 e 6 21
<ix f 3 exd5 22 Wxd5) Black would have
sacrificed a piece - l8...£id4 19 Wdl e 6 20
JLxd4 Jlxd 4 21 Sxc8 l.xf 2+! 22 <ixf2 Sxc8
23 iLb3 We5! with sufficient counterplay
against the exposed king.
This was an important moment: wanting
to escape from the unpleasant pressure, I
decided to give up a pawn here, hoping for
the drawing tendencies of opposite-coloured
bishops.

21 f4
The most natural (f4-f5 is threatened),
although 21 Wh6!? followed by 4 ^2 and h2-
h4-h5 also deserved serious consideration.
21.. .Wd8 (21...iLb8 22 f5l?) 22 Wc3! (now if
22 f5 or 22 Wd2 there is 22...Wh4!) 22....&,b8
(22...Wh4?!23Wg3!)23Wf3
Kramnik rejected the tempting 23 Wg3l?
because of 23...Wf6 24 e5 Wf5 25 Ac4(?) Sd8,
but after 25 Sdl! White would have retained
the advantage. 23...Wd6! is correct, although
24 f5 could have set me a difficult choice:
17.. .^d4?! either to seek salvation in dangerous endings
Apparently the best was the cool-headed a pawn down - 24-Wxg3+ 25 hxg3 gxf5 26
17.. .5ac 8 - all the commentators assumed exf5 Sd8 or 24...Wxd5 25 exd5 ilxg3 26 fxg3
that after 18 JLb6 Wb4 19 a 3! Wb2 20 Wxb2 Sd8 27 S d l <ig 7 , or to continue resisting
iLxb2 21 a4! Black has a difficult endgame with the queens on - 24~.Wf6!? 25 f4! (25
(White is threatening to set up a passed Wg4 'ihS! - Shipov) 25...Aa7+ (25...Sc8 26
pawn on the queenside), but 2l...iLa3! 22 'ih l!, but not the commentators’ suggestion
S d l £ib4 would have given him chances of a 26 Sbl(?!) in view of the equalizing
successful defence: 23 Jlb3 Sc3 24 S b l £ic6 26.. .Wd4+! 27 & hl <ig7) 26 <&hl <ig7, etc.
or 23 &C7 ^xd5 24 Sxd5 f5 25 e5 &f7, etc. 23.. .Wh4
18 Jlxd4 (18 Wdl?! e 6 is equal) I8 ...ilxd 4 19 23...Wc7l? (removing the support of the
Sxe7 Sa7! (l 9-.Wd8?! 20 Wc7!) 20 Sxa7 d5-bishop) 24 e5 Bd8 and ...&q7 is interest­
^xa7 ing - the pawns are stopped, and it is diffi­
At first sight the weakness of the oppo­ cult for White to strengthen his position.

313
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
24e5g5!
‘Forcibly simplifying the play, and bring­
ing tbe game closer to the drawing haven’
(Zaitsev). But I spent too much time and was
rapidly beading for time-trouble. In addition,
there was something that I did not take into
account.
25 l e i !
I bad thought that Black was now com­
pletely alright: 25 fxg5?! ^.xe5 or 25 e6?!
fxe6 26 JLxe6+ 4g7 27 #03+ 4h6. I over­
looked the strong rook move, and this un­
dermined my confidence in a favourable
outcome to the game, although the result­
ing endgame a pawn down is still far from
lost.
25...#xf4
25...gxf4? 26 4 h l! 4 h 8 27 #c3 (Bareev)
27.M e l 28 e6+ f6 29 S b l or 29 # c4 was far
worse for Black.
26 # x f4 gxf4 27 e6 fxe6 (there is nothing
else) 28 lx e 6 4 g 7 (if 28...a5, then 29 fia 6+!
4g7 30 lx a5 Sf5 31 Sb5 and a2-a4) 29
Ix a 6 lf 5
Black’s objective is either to exchange
rooks, or to break through with his rook to
a7 or on to the second rank, and move his
bishop on to the a7-f2 diagonal, for example:
l) 29...1f6 30 2a8 2b6 31 a4 (according to
Kramnik, 31 4g2 Sb2 32 4h3 f3 33 4 g 4
314
4,xh2 34 4xf3 is steadier, but is this good
enough to win?) 3l...lb2 32 a5, and now not
32..JLd6? 33 2c8! with the threat of a5-a6,
but 32...ie5 33 la7 + 4 g 6 with drawing
chances;
2) 29...Sd8 30 la 5 JLc7 31 lb 5 l Sb 8 32
±b7 2d8 33 a4 (Shipov) 33...1d4 34 a5 la 4
35 a6 f3 36 2 b l (Bareev) 36...4f6 or 32...4f6
33 a4 2g8+ 34 4 f l Sg5 35 Ad5 f3, also
saving the game.
3 0 i.e 4
30.. .5e5
A logical plan to blockade the a-pawn by
...Se5-e7-a7. The ‘more natural’ 30...Sb5, as
advocated by many commentators, was also
a more difficult way to fight for a draw in
view of 31 a4 Sb2 32 h4l i e 5 33 f3 (Bareev)
or 314g2 Hb2 32 h4l.
31 f3 Be7 (I did not want to play 3l...Hb5 32
a4 Sb2 with the loss of a tempo, again
because of 33 h4l - Kramnik) 32 a4
After 32 Ia 8 ±a.7+ 33 4g2 ±e3 34 2c8
(34 a4 Sa7!) 34...2a7 35 Bc2 4 h 6 Black’s
position cannot be undermined.
32.. .5a7!
In Informator Kramnik recommended
32.. Jk,a7+(?l) 33 4g2 ±e3 with the idea of 34
4h3 fle5l (34-Sa7? 35 Sxa7+ Axa7 36 4g4
and wins) or 34 a5 Se5l (34...Sa7? 35 fixa7+
Axa7 36 4h3 h5 37 4g2 4 f6 38 h4! and

wins), but 34 b4! is stronger 34...2a7? 35
Sxa7 JLxa7 36 a5 and A+13 and wins
(Bareev), while if 34~2e5 35 ^ 3 h 5, then 36
2g6+ Af7 37 2g5l, and again White has a
won opposite-coloured bishop ending.
33 2b6! (of course, not 33 Sxa7+ ^.xa7+ 34
A>g2 ,&b6 with a dead draw) 33..~&e5
(33-..^.c7 was also satisfactory) 34 2b4
34.. .5d7?
The decisive mistake. ‘Of course, the re­
sulting endgame is extremely unpleasant
for Black, but it was possible to hold it.
34.. .^.d6 35 Sc4 2a5l was correct, stabilizing
the position’ (Kramnik). And retaining every
chance of a draw - the pawn is not going
anywhere!
35& g2
‘Avoiding a trap - after 35 a5? .&c3 36 2a4
2 dl+ 37 A>g2 2 a l Black would nevertheless
have exchanged the rooks’ (Shipov): 38 2 x al
iLxal 39 A fl h6 40 A>e2(?) Af6 41 4 ^3 A>e5
42 A>c4 ii.d4 with a draw (Bareev). But by 39
a6 ,&d4 40 A+13! or 40 h4l and A>h3 White
would have forced ...h7-h5 and won easily.
Therefore after 35 a5l? it would be essential
to Teply 35...2dl+ 36 ^ 2 2 a l.
35-.2d2+ (ot 35-.2a7 36 A>h3 with the
threat of ^ 4 ) 36 A I 13 h5
Depriving the white king of the g4-squaTe,
but allowing a4-a5- According to Bareev, if
Second Peak
36.. .2a2 White wins by 37 ^.d5l 2d2 38
2b7+ Af6 39 2f7+ A>g7 40 2d7 Af6 41 a5
.&b8 42 a6 A>e5 43 2b7, but the modest
36.. .h6!? was more resilient - and this would
appear to be true: 37 2b7+ Af8 38 2b6 2a2
39 2xh6 2xa4 40 <Ag4 Sd4 41 h4 2d6 42
2h5 £g7 with the idea of ,.JLh6 (43 A>xf4?
2h6! 44 2f5+ 2f6 with a draw).
37 2b5 Af6 38 a5 2a2 (38..JLd4? 39 2d5) 39
2b6+
39 2c5l, threatening jLb7 and a5-a6, was
more forceful, and if 39..~&d4, then 40 2xh5.
In any event I had less than a minute left on
my clock for the next two moves, and I was
able to think for only a few seconds over my
reply.
39...A>e7?
A time-trouble blunder of a piece. ‘The
error made by Kasparov came as a real shock
to the spectators’ (Bareev). However, after
the only move 39...A>g7 Kramnik pointed out
a ‘strictly mathematical’ win in a bishop
endgame: 40 a6 ,&d4 4 1 2g6+ <Af8 (41...Af7?
42 2d6) 42 jLb7 (threatening 2g5) 42...2a5
43 2d6 £ g l 44 2 dl! £e3 45 2d5! 2xd5 46
jLxd5 &Q7 47 A,g2 Af6 (47...h4 48 A>h3) 48
h4l.
40 £ d 5 1-0
In view of 40...2xa5 4 1 2e6+ or 40...2e2 41
a6.
315
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
A discouraging start to the match: it was
not even so much the score, but rather my
state of mind. I was shocked by the *holes’ in
my opening repertoire that had been imme­
diately revealed, both for White and for Black.
I did not know how to breach the ‘Berlin Wall’,
and I had no desire to check what other
surprises Kramnik would spring on me in the
Griinfeld Defence. Almost my entire prepara­
tion had gone down the drain and I had to
begin working virtually from zero!
Sosonko: 'As Boris Spassky used to say, in
world championship matches it is important,
expressing it in wrestling language, to keep
your opponent on the mat, to create constant
negative emotions in him. At the start of the
match Kramnik has been more successful in
this.'
In the third game, for the only time in the
match, I was able to gain some advantage in
the Berlin and to at least set Black problems.
But Kramnik defended tenaciously and in
time-trouble, when I began playing with fire,
he could even have seized the initiative.
Things concluded with a sharp endgame with
connected passed pawns on opposite wings
and a draw on the 54th move.
Subsequently with the white pieces I was
not able to achieve anything at all (!) and a
real battle developed only when I was Black.
Before the fourth game there was agonis­
ing indecision: should I or shouldn’t 1play the
Griinfeld Defence? We feverishly looked at
various modifications of the main variation -
now I was imagining tricks everywhere, and
in the end I decided to change opening. This
was a serious psychological concession: how
much effort had been put into this defence
before the match! Perhaps I should neverthe­
less have employed the Griinfeld right to the
end (White doesn’t have a forced win there!),
but the second game had left too bitter a
taste in my mouth...
316
Thus it was that the Oueeen’s Gambit Ac­
cepted came on to the stage. Kramnik was
somewhat surprised, he chose the variation
with the exchange of queens (this was in
accordance with his match strategy), and
after another novelty he seized the initiative.
On the 25th move I lost patience, launched a
risky counterattack and reached a hopeless
position. But after mutual mistakes in the
second time scramble Kramnik missed a win,
and the result was a highly dramatic draw on
the 74th move.
This miraculous escape could have inspired
me to great feats in the fifth game, played the
following day, but this did not happen. On the
eve of the match, on learning about the double
games at weekends, Adams phoned and
warned me: ‘Garry, bear it in mind: the one
who has the white pieces on the Sunday will
find it very difficult!’. Indeed, to play with full
intensity after tense battles on the Saturday
proved impossible, as was confirmed by the
fifth, ninth and thirteenth games. In the fifth
after the unexpected 1 c4 I gained a stable
plus, but I played insipidly and failed to exploit
some favourable chances, which led to a draw
as early as the 25th move.
In the sixth game the Queen’s Gambit Ac­
cepted again occurred. This time Kramnik
went in for complicated play, employing a
novelty with a pawn sacrifice. I declined the
gift and reached a normal position, but after
a fierce battle, having passed the first time
control, I made a serious mistake. My oppo­
nent was close to success, he won a pawn, on
the 56th move he went chasing a second one,
and - here literally by a miracle I found a
spectacular draw by perpetual check. Another
dramatic finish!
Kramnik was consoled by my terrible play in
the seventh game: 1 c4 c 5 2 £)f3 £>f6 3 d4 cxd4
4 £ixd 4 a 6!? (this move, instead of the usual
4...e6 5 g3, threw me into a stupor) 5 £)c3 e6 6
 Second Peak

g3 (transposing into a Sicilian is more active: 6 For the first time in the match! After my
e4 ^.b4 7 ^ 3 or 6..Mc7 7 a3, Kasparov- London sufferings, Dokhoian put forward a
Kramnik, 2nd match game, Moscow 2001) formula which I subsequently found useful:
6.. M/C7 7 Wd3?! (I should have given up the the more correct the opening, the more
pawn - 7 i.g2 Wxc4 8 0-0, Kasparov-Kramnik, inoffensive Kramnik was.
8th match game (blitz), Moscow 2001) 7...^c 6 3 £>c3
8 £)xc6 dxc6! (Kramnik had played this against My opponent's match repertoire was
Alterman back in 1987 at a session of the deeply thought out. With White the chal­
Botvinnik-Kasparov school; I was hoping for lenger played l d4, happily allowing the
8.. M xc6 9 e4) 9 i- g 2 e5 10 0-0 i.e6 1 1 £a4. Nimzo-lndian Defence and obviously avoid­
Draw agreed: only Black can have the more ing the Meran, which is possible after 3 £sf3
pleasant position here. d5 4 £>c3 c6 5 e3 £>bd7. Apparently after
The match was approaching its mid-point, 1.. .d5 2 c4 c6 3 £>f3 £>f6 instead of 4 £>c3 he
and I did not see any ray of hope for myself: had prepared the quiet 4 e3 .&f5 5 £>c3 e6 6
what to do next and how to regain my previ­ £>h4 (as in the game Smirin-Kasparov, Tel
ous form was quite unclear (the situation Aviv (simul’) 1998). And this was a practical
partially resembled the first half of my 1995 decision. Years later, sailing into the stormy
match with Anand). At this point, seeing my waters of the Meran turned out catastrophi­
sufferings in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, cally for him (Kramnik-Anand, 3rd and 5th
Dokhoian persuaded me to look at the match games, Bonn 2008).
Nimzo-lndian Defence. Such a restructuring 3.. ..6b4 4 Wc2 (this was as expected; 4 e3 -
in the course of the match was not easy, since Game Nos.41, 52, 69) 4...0-0 (4 . d5 - Game
all the free time had to be spend ‘reinventing Nos. 4, 97; 4...C5 - Game No.90) 5 a3 ibcc3+ 6
the wheel’ both for Black, and for White. This Wxc3 b6 7 iLg5 il.b7 (7...C5 - Game No.106) 8
work took an enormous amount of energy, f3 (8 e3 - Game No.91) 8...h6 9 iLh4 d5
which Ilater lacked for the play itself. (9...d6 10 e4!) 10 e3 £>bd7
Nevertheless, before the eighth game I was
in a good mood. Firstly, Adams and I had
finally found the time for a proper analysis of
the ‘Berlin’ and had found a worthy reply to
the plan with ...'idS-cS (giving hope for the
ninth game). And, secondly, an interesting
novelty had been devised in a line employed
by Kramnik against the Nimzo-lndian.

Came 68
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match,
London, 8th Game, 21.10.2000 11 cxd5
Nimzo-lndian Defence E321 A psychologically important nuance - I
guessed that Kramnik would go in for this
1 d4 £>f6 2 C4 e6 variation with the exchange of queens: he

317
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

had already played this position both with 16 e4

Black, and with White. The most critical reply. After 16 <£se2 cxd4
Il...£sxd5 12 ±xd 8 £sxc3 13 l.h4 £sd5 14 17 ^xd4 £ic5 (Topalov-Kramnik, Monte
±f2c5 CaTlo (rapid) 1998), or even betteT 17...Sac8
This undermining of the centre suggests or I7...a6, Black has no problems.
itself (the source: M.GuTevich-Polugaevsky,
New York 1989). The alternative is 14...f5
(M.GuTevich-Karpov, Linares 1991; Kasparov-
KTamnik, 20th match game (blitz), Moscow
1998).

At that time I6...£)e7 17 ^ e 2 was promi­

nent, and after 17..Jtc6 18 ,&,a6 b5?l 19 a4
bxa4 20 dxc5 £se5? 21 £sd4 Bab8 22 ±g3 f6
23 0-0-0 White achieved a clear advantage
(KaspaTov-KTamnik, 16th match game (blitz),
15 l.b5 Moscow 1998), but 17...cxd4l 18 <£sxd4 a6
‘A move which practically went out of use (Anand-Karpov, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1999) or
after this game’ (Bareev). Everyone began 18.. .e5l? is better. I6...^f4 17 ^ e 2 a61? 18
playing 15 e4 immediately, afteT which there i,c4 ®g6 is also acceptable, neutralizing the
can follow 15...^f4 16 J.e3 <£sg6 (Kramnik- slight pressure.
Naiditsch, Dortmund 2003; Bareev-KTamnik, However, I had prepared a pretty and
Wijk aan Zee 2004) or 15...^e7 16 <£se2 (16 completely unusual pawn sacrifice, which
jtb5 ^.c61, Gelfand-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2002) effectively closed the variation with 15 J.b5.
16.. .2ac8 17 £sc3 cxd4 18 i,xd4 £sc5 19 S d l 16.. .^c7!
Bfd8 (KTamnik-Leko, Dortmund 2006), and ‘A strong novelty. Black provokes his op­
everywhere White has merely a miniscule ponent into capturing the c5-pawn. Two
plus. years ago I recommended this tempo-
15.. .6fd8! gaining move on the pages of the 64 maga­
In the event of 15...^5f6 16 <£se2 a6 17 zine, annotating the KaspaTov-KTamnik blitz
iLa4 White is better after both I7...b5 18 match in the Cosmos Hotel. True, I wasn’t
A c2 cxd4 19 <?ixd4 Hac8 20 0-0-0 (Ljubo- able to see as deeply as Gany...’ (Shipov).
jevic-Kramnik, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1997), 17 ± x d 7 (17 &C4 l.a61?) 17...Ixd7 18 dxc5
and especially 17...cxd4 18 <£sxd4 ^c5?! 19 (there is nothing else) I8...f5!
JLc2 e5?l 20 ^ f5 Bfd8 21 ,&h4! (Kramnik- ‘Brilliant! Exploiting White's retarded de­
Adams, Linares 1999). velopment, Black sacrifices a pawn and

318
 Second Peak

opens up the position’ (Bareev). After this (part of our analysis).

unexpected second attack on the centre 20...fxe4 21 fxe4 .&xe4
Kramnik became nervous.

22 0 -0 ?!
19 cxb6 It was hardly right to allow the black rook
19 e5l? is safer - here we analysed to go to d2. After 22 £ ic3 ^.xg2 23 E gl J.f3
19-Sd5 20 cxb6 Sxe5+ 21 foe2 J.a6! 22 24 Sg3! (lamenting that ‘for a person, in
0-0-0! £)d5 with good counterplay: 23 £)d4 contrast to a computer, it is unpleasant to
axb6 24 Sd2 (Shipov) 24...Sc8+ 25 'i b l <&f7 play such positions on account of the ex­
with equality. However, 19-.bxc5 is simpler, posed position of the king’, Kramnik consid­
and after 20 S cl £)d5! 21 £)h3 (Golod- ered only 24 J.xb6, to which I would have
Pilgaard, Ubeda 2001) there is the strong replied 24...e5! and ...e5-e4) 24...Sd3 25
21.. .C4! 22 Sxc4 g5 with excellent compensa­ JLxb6 £id5 26 £ixd5 exd5 27 a4! or 24...Sf8
tion for the pawn, while if 20 J.xc5, then 25 ^.xb6 es 26 ±xc7 Sxc7 27 a4! Sb7 28 S a 2
20.. .5d5 21 b4 (21 Ad6?l £ft>5) 21...Exe5+ 22 and a4-a5 White’s chances are in no way
£)e2 JLa6 23 Sa2 £)d5 is equal (correspon­ worse.
dence games from the 2000s). 22.. .Ed2 23 £ic3?!
l9 —axb6 20 £)e2 According to Kramnik, here he discovered
White hurries to complete his develop­ to his surprise (both at the board, and in
ment. 20 exf5? exf5 21 ,&e3 is weak in view analysis) that his position was not easy and
of 21...Sd3! 22 <&f2 £ld5 23 i.c l E d l 24 <£>62 that after 23 S fel (23 £ig3?! JLds) 23...Sxb2
Ed4 with an attack. 20 e5 Sa5! also seems 24 -&d4 Sc2 25 -&xb6 ^ d 5 “life is difficult for
unpleasant, although after 21 Edl! Sxe5+ White’. However, according to Shipov, 26 jLf2
22 £se2 Sed5 23 Sxd5 £)xd5 24 0-0 the would have given better chances of a success­
position is roughly equal. ful defence than in the game: ‘Black’s pieces
Kramnik, who condemned the move in are active, but there is nothing real’. Accord­
the game, called 20 J.xb6 fxe4 21 fxe4 ^.xe4 ing to Bareev, White has ‘clear equality:
22 £sf3 £)d5 23 £.c5 Sb7 24 0-0 Sxb2 25 Sf2, 26.. .5f8 27 S acl Sa2 28 S a l or 26...Sa4 27
etc., ‘the only way to equalise’. But in Infor- £)g3 £fc3 28 £sxe4.’ Also after 26...e5 27 £sg3
mator I also gave 20 Edl!? Exdl+ 21 <£>xdl .&g6 28 Sxe5 he should be saved by the
fxe4 22 fxe4 ^.xe4 23 £>f3 with equality limited number of pawns remaining.

319
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
23...£b7
24 b4!
The best chance. In advance Kramnik had
been intending 24 Sadi?! Sxb2 25 Sd7, but
he noticed in time that after 25-Sc8 it is
bad to play 26 £)a4? Sc2 27 £>xb6 Sf8!,
when there is no defence against ..JLa6. The
alternatives are also insufficient: 26 Scl?!
£sb5l 27 Sxb7 £sxc3, 26 S e l £c6 27 Sd6
£)d5 28 ^ e2 e5 - ‘as it is said, a pawn down
but with a difficult position’ (Kramnik) - or
26 £sdl Sa2 27 £ sc3 (27 Se7? ^.c6! and
...£sd5-f4) 27...SC2 28 £sb5 £>xb5 29 Sxb7
£sxa3 30 £b6 Se2. After 24 S fd l Sxb2 25
Sd7 Sc8 26 <5Ml Black would also have
remained a pawn up: 26...Sc2 27 £>e3 Sc6
and ..JLa8.
24.. .5f8!
Immediately taking aim at the f2-bishop.
White would have been caused fewer prob­
lems by 24...e5 25 a4l Sf8 (25...£>e6 26 Sfdl!
- Shipov) 26 a5 bxa5 27 bxa5 Sc 2 28 £>dl
£ a6 29 S e l £>d5.
25 Sa2!
‘A lot of time had to be ‘consumed’ before
the strongest continuation was found’
(Kramnik). A similar move to 19...Sa7! in the
second game: to minimise the danger, the
powerful rook must be exchanged!
25.. .5xa2 26 £>xa2 £>d5
320
‘Taking away the c3-square, defending
the b6-pawn and threatening ...£)f4.’
(Bareev)
27 jk.d4! (with the idea of £)c3) 27...Sa8!
‘An excellent reply! The rook has done its
work - forced the white knight to a2 - and it
can now return to a8!’ (Shipov).
28 £>c 3!
Again the best, and more importantly, the
psychologically correct decision: with time-
trouble imminent, Kramnik simplifies the
position at the cost of a pawn, hoping to
gain a draw with the opposite-coloured
bishops. He also considered other, far more
complicated and risky continuations:
l) 28 J.b2?! £)e3 29 Scl, and in the event
of 29...^.d5 30 £>c3 £>c4 (Shipov’s try
30..JLxg2 is parried by 31 ^ 2 £)c4 32 &xg2
£>xb2 33 £>b5) 31 Sc2! ‘Black can transpose
into a theoretically drawn rook endgame
with an extra pawn: 3l...£>xb2 32 Sxb2
Sxa3 33 £>xd5 exd5 34 Sd 2 Sb3 35 Sxd5
Sxb4’. The entertaining variation 3l~£>xa3
32 jLxa3 M>3!? 33 Sb2 £c4 34 £>bl! J.d3 35
b5 jLxbl 36 jLd6 jLd3 37 &c7 is no better for
Black.
However, there is the stronger 29...Sd8!
30 Sc7 ^.e4! 31 ^.cl (31 Sxg7+? ^ 8 32 J.C3
£ b l or 32 £>cl Sd2 33 £ e5 Sd5 34 Sg3 £>f5
is hopeless for White) 3l...Sdl+ 32 &f2
 Second Peak

£*g4+ 33 ^g3 -&f5! (more forceful than my move ‘with the idea of 2g4\ but after 31
Informator suggestion 33...£if6 34 .&e3 2d8!) 2cll? 2a2 32 g3 (threatening 2c7) 32...g5 33
or 31 ^.c3 g5 32 ^.el £>xg2 33 £>c3 .&f3 with 2 c5 2g2+ 34 ^ f l 2xh2 35 2xb5 .&a6 36 <&gl
a dangerous attack; 2d2 37 2b8+ White would have had rather
2) 28 2f3?! - Kramnik rejected this move more chances of a draw.
because of 28...g5l (not 28...£>xb4?! 29 2g3!
or 28...£>e7 29 2c3! 2d8 30 2c7 2xd4 31
2xe7 2dl+ 32 &f2 ±d5 33 £>c3 2d2+ 34
^ e3 2xg2 35 £>xd5 exd5 36 2e6, saving the
rook endgame) 29 ^cl(?) 2c8 30 ®b3 £sf4
31 2f2 JLd5 32 ®d2 2cl+ with a win for
Black.
29 £>c3 is more resilient: 29...£>f4 30 2e3
.&xg2 (after 30...2xa3 31 g3 2 al+ 32 &f2
£>h3+ 33 &e2 &f7 34 ^.xb6 2 h l 35 2d3
2xh2+ 36 ^>e3 White has sufficient compen­
sation for the pawn) 31 a4, and if 3l...b5 32
a5 iLc6 (in Informator in the heat of the
moment I assessed this position as ‘clear The key moment of the game. With an
advantage for Black’), then 33 .&e5! (threat­ extra infantryman and an extra hour on the
ening ^.xf4 and 2xe6) 33 -‘^ f7 34 £>e2 with clock, I could, as Shipov put it, have ‘drunk a
an equal game. But the more accurate coffee, looked around the hall, and consid­
31.. .2d8! 32 ,&xb6 2d2 33 £>e2 2 d l+ 34 &f2 ered my move without any haste...’ But I
2fl+ 35 <4>g3 ^.hl! (threatening ...£>d5) 36 a5 have to admit that I was content to have
^ f7 or 36 jLd8 .&d5! would have given Black gained easy equality from the opening and
a fearfully strong attack. was psychologically unprepared for the fact
28.. .£>xc 3 29 .£.xc 3 2xa3 that within a few moves I would gain an
obvious advantage. And I replied too
quickly...
31...2d3?
'An inexplicable blunder, immediately
losing the advantage, and similar to the
en-or in the second game. Kramnik was short
of time, whereas Kasparov had more than an
hour on his clock! But he made the next few
moves quickly and rather nervily.’ (Bareev)
The con-ect move was 3i...h5! (preventing
2g4) 32 2h4 2a2 33 2xh5 2xg2+ 34 ^ f l
2g4 35 &C3 ^.d5 or 32 g4 h4l (the point) 33
g5 2a2 34 2xh4 2g2+ 35 ^ f l 2xg5 with an
30 ^.d4 b5 (I played this without thinking: it extTa pawn and winning chances - at the
is important to retain the b-pawn) 3 1 2f4 least Black for a long time could still have
After the game Kramnik praised this tediously tormented his opponent.

321
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
32 S g 4 g5
When I played 3l...Bd3 I overlooked that
after 32...Sdl+ 33 4*2 Sd2+ White could
play 34 4e3l Sxg2 35 Hxg2 jtxg2 36 h4 with
a theoretically drawn ending with opposite-
coloured bishops. Alas, that is also how
things concluded.
33 h4 4*7 34 hxg5 hxg5 35 4*2
35...Sd2+ (or 35...4g6 36 4 e2 fib3 37 ±e3
4*61? 38 i.d 2! jLd5 39 Bxg5 i.c4+ 40 4 d l
with a draw) 36 4e3! Sxg2 37 Sxg2 A.xg2
38 &e5 'A -'A
Thus the first half of the match concluded
with the score standing at rpA-3'A in Kram­
nik’s favour. I thought that the situation
could still be repaired, and that I only
needed to smoke my opponent out of his
‘Berlin bunker'. But in the 9th game, played
on a Sunday, Kramnik disconcerted me by
unexpectedly rejecting his earlier 9..Jtd7
followed by ...4c8 in favour of 9-h6. In my
vexation I responded badly (cf. Game No.80,
note to White’s 10th move), and as a result
the prepared new strategic plan did not go
into operation - a draw on the 3lst move.
To some extent this failure became deci­
sive: after it I was psychologically broken and
I arrived for the 10th game in a terrible
frame of mind. Due to chronic lack of sleep
322
my head was spinning - I was wom out by
the lengthy night-time vigils at the board.
Came 69
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match,
London, 10th Game, 24.10.2000
Nimzo-lndian Defence E54
1 d4 £*6 2 c4 e6 3 £sc3 &b4 4 e3
When Kramnik played this instead of 4
Wc2 (Game No.68), I was slightly surprised
(later it transpired that he had prepared 4 e3
for the match). I had to refresh in my mem­
ory the variations of this system.
4 ...0-0 5 i.d 3 d5 6 £*3 c5 7 0-0
7...cxd4
The altemtive is 7 ...£c 6 (Game Nos.4l, 52)
or 7-dxc4 8 Jtxc4 £sbd7 9 a3 cxd4 10 axb4
dxc3 11 bxc3 Wc7. The 12th game continued
12 Jte2l? (a sharp pawn sacrifice instead of
1 2 1i rb3 £ b 6 13 iLe2 e5 and ...±e6, Kramnik-
Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2001) 12...'Brxc3! 13
±a3! £d5! 14 # b l # f 6 15 Ad3 h 6! 16 b5
Hd8 17 ^.b2 We7, and after the risky 18
Sa4?! <£c5 19 ^.h7+ 4 h 8 20 Sh4?l f6!
White’s attack came to a standstill.
8 exd4 dxc4 9 ^.xc4 b6 (one of the tabiyas of
the ‘Nimzo’) 10 ilg 5

10 We2 i.b7 l l 2 d l <£ibd7 or 11 ..JLxc3 12
bxc3 ®c7 (Beliavsky-Kasparov, 4tb match
game, Moscow 1983) is more rarely played.
10.. .1.b7 l l 2 e l
If l l <S^e5 there would have followed
11.. .<£)bd7 (Yusupov-lvanchuk, 6th match
game, Brussels 1991) or ll...h 6 12 ^.h4
<S^bd7 (Korobov-Alekseev, New Delhi 2012).
1 1 .. .^bd7
The main move, but I also considered
11.. .£k 6l? 12 a3 jLxc3 13 bxc3 <£)e7 (Sad-
vakasov-Ch iburdan idze, Yekaterinburg
1997), not fearing 14 ilxf 6 gxf6 with equal­
ity.
12 2 c l
‘Both players spent a long time on their
moves. It was evident that, although the
position was largely familiaT to them, they
did not remember the exact details.’ (BaTeev)
12.. JSc8 13 IfbB (13 -&d3 is also in fashion)
13.. .1-e7
13 ..~&xf3?! 14 1i rxb4 is dubious for Black. I
remembered that 13-.&XC3 14 2xc3 h6! was
good (we had looked at this a little), but I
was half asleep - at one point I even ceased
to see the board! - and I made my moves
automatically.
14 i.xf6
The fruit of White’s thinking, and ap­
proved by the commentators. But 14 <£)e5l?
Second Peak
is more timely: 14...^xe5 15 dxe5 £ki7 16
i.xe7 Wxe7 17 ^ b 5 1 ^ 5 (l7-.Sc5?! 18 f4l,
Shulman-Smagin, St. Petersburg 1994) 18
^ 3 ®xg3 19 hxg3, and if 19..~£.a6?l 20 <£)d6
.&xc4 (R.Hall-Kristensen, correspondence
1995), there is the unpleasant 21 <£ixc8!
2xc8 22 b3, winning the exchange for a
pawn, while after 19...2c5 20 <£)d6 <S^xe5 21
2xe5 2xe5 22 <S^xb7 the bishop and knight
are rather stronger than the rook and pawn.
14.. .^xf6
Again played ‘on auto-pilot': intuitively I
felt that this was the correct move, leaving
White practically no choice. 14..~£.xf6!? 15
<£ib5 i-xf3! 16 ®xf3 a6 17 £ia7 2c7 18 <Sk6
®c8! 19 &d3 ^ b 8 or 17 £id6 2c7 18 <£ixf7
2xf7 19 i.xe6 20 2xc7 (20 i.b3 'i ’hS)
20.. .15fxc7 21 ^.xf7+ 1§rxf7, etc., would also
have been sufficient for a draw.
15 i.xe6!
Forced: 15....&xf3 was threatened, while if
15 <£)e2?!, then simply lS...1# ^ .
15...fxe6?
Another critical moment of the match.
Once again I made a ridiculous mistake,
whereas I5...2c7! would have solved Black’s
problems. Moreover, this would now have
demanded accurate play by White:
1 ) 16 i c 4 (16 i.xf7+?l 2xf7 17 ^e5(g5)
^.f8 is worse) I6...^.xf3 17 gxf3 2d7 with
323
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
excellent compensation for the pawn;
2) 16 £sg5 ±d6 17 £sb5 Se7 18 £sxd6 #xd6
19 i.c4 # f4 20 £sf3! (20 #g3 # d 2 with
equality, Emms-Ddttling, Bundesliga 2002)
20.. .1.xf3 21 #xf3 Sxel+ 22 2 x el #xd4 23 b3
with a small plus, or I6...#xd4! (I did not
notice this obvious reply - an indicator of my
form!) 17 £>xf7 (17 i.xf7+?l ^>h8 or 17 Scdl?!
# h 4 18 ^xf7 £lc5 is weaker, and 17 2c2 JLd6!
18 £*b5 ^.xh2+ is also ineffective) 17....&.C5 18
£id 6+ (there is nothing better) I 8...&I18 19
£ixb7 #xf2+ 20 ^>hl Sxb7 with equality.
16 # x e 6 + &h8 17 # x e 7 l.x f3 18 gxf3!
Being in the grip of the match stereotype,
I was expecting the exchange of queens and
was hoping to save myself in the endgame:
18 #xd8 Bcxd8 19 gxf3 2xd4 20 Se7 Sd2 21
£se4(?!) £>xe4 22 Sf7 ^ g 8 23 2xf8+ &xf8 24
fxe4 (Kramnik) 24...a5 with equality. Now,
however, Black’s task is far more difficult.
18.. .tfx d 4 19 £>b5!
‘A move, which, I am sure, Kasparov un­
derestimated beforehand’, writes Bareev.
‘Despite the fact that by this point each of
the players had used more than an hour,
they were still following the game Hazai-
Danielsen (Valby 1994).’ To my profound
regret, after 18 gxf3 I began to ‘flounder’
completely and sub-consciously I was al­
ready resigned to a second defeat...
324
19.. .Wxb2?
The aforementioned game went
19.. .#f4?l 20 2xc8 2xc8 21 £>d6 #xf3?
(21...2a8 22 £*f7+ ^ g 8 was far more resil­
ient) 22 £sxc8 #g4+ 23 i f l #h3+ 24 *e2
#xc8 25 ^ d 2 and White won. But as yet
Black’s position is not so bad!
‘After the strongest queen moves
19.. .#d3!? or 19...'ird2!? White retains a
small advantage, but Black should be able to
defend’, thought Kramnik and he demon­
strated this with a detailed analysis. Accord­
ing to Bareev, the best was 19...#d2!, ‘in
order to keep the el-rook under attack (and
in some cases the knight on d6), and if
necessary return the queen to g5 or h6’: 20
2xc8 (20 £>d6? £>g4!) 20...2xc8 21 £sd6 2b81,
and White does not achieve anything real
with 22 £se8 (if 22 &g2 or 22 h4, then
22.. .h6) 22...2b7! 23 Wes (23 #f8+ £>g8 is
equal) 23...£>g8! a n d ... 2e7, 22 £>f7+ *g8 23
# e6 #d5!, or 22 £>c4!? #g5+ 23 * h l #d5
(23...#h5 24 £se5 2e8 25 # c 7 h6 26 2 g l 2g8
is also possible) 24 £)e5 a5 25 2 g l 2b7 26
# f8+ #g8.
20 2xc8 2xc8 21 £*d6
21...2b8
Kramnik attaches a question mark to this
move, explaining: ‘Apparently Kasparov’s
undoing was his desire to set me a trap. As a
 Second Peak

joint analysis with the computer showed, it # g 6 # a 3 27 Se6!.

was essential to play 21...Sa8 22 £)f7+ &g8 23-h6 24£lxh6+ 4>h7 25 #f5+! (Kramnik)
23 # e 6 h 6 (strictly the only move: 23...h5? 24 or 25 #>13! also did not help.
£ig5+ &h8 25 #f5 and wins) 24 £>xh6+ &h7 24 £>d8+ &h8 25 # e 7 1-0
25 £)f7! Se 8 (succeeding in exchanging
rooks) 26 # f 5+! ^ 8 27 Hxe8+ £)xe8 28 £>g5 Bareev: Try remembering a worse game
# 01+ 29 <4>g2 P\f6, and although in principle than this one in Kasparov’s career.' Kramnik:
Black’s position is lost on account of the ‘Probably the strangest game in the match.
catastrophic position of his king, it is still There is no way it can be called an opening
possible to defend.’ win. It was obviously not Kasparov’s day. In
But all these complications are unneces­ general he calculates variations well, but here
sary: after 2l...Za 8 there is the immediately in a ‘pure calculating' position he became
decisive 22 £>e8! £}g8 23 # d 7 (Bareev), and rattled. This happens both in matches, and in
against the pawn march f3-f4-f5-f6 Black tournaments, when you are out o f sorts and
has no satisfactory defence. everything literally slips through your fin ­
22 £lf7+ gers. ’
Now this wins, although here also 22 £)e8 The score became 6-4 in the challenger’s
£ig8 23 # d 7 is good (but, of course, not the favour. Arriving for the 11 th game, I was
greedy 22 # x a 7 ? Hf8 23 # e 7 &a8, when the tuned up for a ‘battle for Berlin’, but after l
situation becomes more complicated). e4 e5 2 £)f3 £ic6 3 £b5 Kramnik made a
22...&g8 23 #e6! wise move - he was the first to deviate,
The final touch. choosing the fashionable variation 3-..a6 4
ia 4 £)f6 5 0-0 b5 6 i.b3 i.c5 Within 15
minutes we reached an endgame somewhat
favourable for White with rook and two
pawns against two bishops, known from the
game Kupreichik-Malaniuk (Munster 1995)
and tested by me in a training game with
Adams. But Kramnik defended more
strongly and set up a fortress. The dismal
outcome for me was another toothless draw
with White.
And so, five games before the finish, I re­
mained on ‘minus two’ and it was still
unclear how I was going to make up ground.
23.. .5f8 But the 12th game was played on the birth­
‘Instant death. An amazing oversight by a day of my son Vadik (he was four years old),
great tactician. 23...h5 24 £)g5+ 'Afi8 would and I was hoping to engage in a genuine
have allowed a longer resistance’, writes battle in the Nimzo-lndian, despite the long­
Shipov, and he himself gives Kramnik’s move standing dismal experience in the 4 e 3
25 #f5!, which does not leave Black any variation. After all, from the opening I al­
chances: 25-.-lrxa2 26 Se7! # a 3 27 Zc7, ways reached normal positions!
25.. .#c3 26 Se 6 ! #c7 27 # g 6 or 25.~-f8 26 In principle Kramnik could already have

325
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
‘quietened’ me with l <2^3 (as in fact oc­
curred in the 14th game), but he apparently
wanted to conclude the battle in crushing
style. He sacrificed a pawn, launched an
attack (cf. Game No.69, note to Black’s 7th
move) and for the only time in the match he
overstepped the mark, allowing me real
winning chances.
Came 70
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match,
London, 12th Game, 28.10.2000
Black is a sound pawn to the good, but
both players were running increasingly
short of time.
28...<£b6
I was carried away by the variety of tacti­
cal possibilities. 28..JLc61? deserved consid­
eration, or else 28...<S'ib4!? - after this Kram­
nik gave in Informator 29 ^.b l (29 # a7
®d6!, when 30 Sxc5? fixes 31 Wxc5 Wxc5 32
fixes ^.c6! is bad for White, but 30 h 3 f 5 31
± b l jtc6 is also insufficient) 29..JLc6 30 e4
‘with the idea of We3’, but after 30...,' irb7 31
We3 <^a6 the position becomes stabilised
and Black should gradually convert his
material advantage.
326
29 S4C3
Of course, not 29 fixes? because of the
dagger-blow 29..~i.c6!!. Kramnik also con­
sidered 29 fid4l? Hc8, but 29...4’g8l? is
better. But the most resilient was 29 fi4c2l.
29...Sb4!
30<^d2
If 30 <£ih4 there would have followed
30.. Me8 or 30...£>g8. 30 #a5? (30 Abl??
fia8) was unsatisfactory in view of 30...<S'ia4!
31 Sc4 Sxc4 32 fixc4 .&.C6! 33 .&.C2 (33 h3?
fidl+ and ...<^b2!) 33-.Sa8 34 # e l <£ib2 35
fic3 JLxf3 36 gxf3 c4, etc.
Here Kramnik already had just three min­
utes left on his clock, while I had six, and in
the time scamble we made three mutual
blunders in succession!
30.. .f5?
A senseless move: why weaken the posi­
tion and drive back the ‘hanging’ bishop?
The commentators recommended the
simple 30...fic8 or the flamboyant 30..Jk,c6!?
31 fixes fixe4l. But in my view, the strongest
was 30...1i rd6! 31 Sd3 ^ 8 , moving the
queen to a defended square, or 3l...^d5,
centralizing the knight, when Black retains
all the advantages of his position.
31 ±f3?
Returning the favour. In his haste Kram­
nik missed the sudden chance opportunity -

31 Sxc 5! Sxe 4 (there is nothing better) 32
£>xe4 fxe4, after overlooking the saving
move 33 Wb4 l, winning the e4-pawn with
roughly equal material.
Rattled, I thought oveT my reply foT almost
all the m inutes remaining to the tim e con­
trol...
31...£>a4?
Nevertheless getting rid of the extra
pawn! The cool-headed 3i...Sc 8 would have
retained quite good chances of success,
although it is no longer so easy to convert
the material advantage.
32 Sxc5 (of course!) 32...2b2 (it turns out
that if 32...2bb8 White is saved by 33 S5c3)
33 £>c4 # xc 5 V2-V1
In view of the inevitable 34 1i fxc5 £>xc5 35
4bxb2.
At this the match effectively concluded: a
score of 7-5 with just four games to go -
without the white pieces! After the 12th
game I suffered a sleepless night (fancy
missing such a chance!), and I was simply
not in any state to play the next day. For the
13th game I prepared an interesting idea in
the variation of the Ruy Lopez from the llth ,
but Kramnik again chose the Berlin Defence
and moved his king to e 8, avoiding the
preparation by myself and Adams. AfteT
Second Peak
losing the thread of the game, I made a
couple of second-rate moves and immedi­
ately, now in a slightly inferior position, I
offered a draw (cf. Game No.80, note to
Black’s 10th move). Kramnik: 7 think that
Kasparov was obliged to continue the game,
but he could notfind the strength to do this.’
It appeared to be all over. But in the 14th
game my opponent unexpectedly afforded
me one moTe chance to fight foT a win. After
playing 1 £rf3, he played the English Open­
ing very unconvincingly (cf. Game No.23 in
Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87, note to White’s
10th move). What told, apparently, was the
enormous tension, with which I was famil­
iar, caused by the burning proximity of the
goal. Black began to take the initiative, but
Kramnik found a subtle pawn sacrifice and
defended himself. HoweveT, on the 34th
move he suddenly went in foT the exchange
of queens and found himself in a difficult
endgame.
Came 71
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
World Championship Match,
London, 14th Came, 31.10.2000
37 Sd6?
327
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

A mistake, which was not noticed by the parov camp after the game, was a more
commentators. White should have com­ dangerous move, with the idea for the
bated the menacing c-pawn with 37 2 b 6 - moment of bringing the king to the centre
here the rook does not come under attack or making the ...g6-g5 break’, writes Shipov,
and in some cases there is a check from b 5- who rejects 40 4g2 because of 40...e5! 41
37.. .C3? 4 f l f6 42 Sc2 g5 and recommends 40 f4,
By breaking away from its remaining since ‘40...&g7 41 ^g 2 &f6 42 Sc2 is ineffec­
forces, the pawn become too vulnerable. tive’, for example: 42...e5 43 &f3 (with a
According to my opponent’s analysis, draw - Kramnik) 4 3 .‘&>e6 44 fxe5 ^ d s! 45
37.. .*4+8! 38 4g2 4 e7 39 S d l e5! would have 4 ,e2! 4 ^ 4 46 <&>dl ^>xe5 47 Se2+ &f5 48 Se7
given me good chances of success, when the f6 49 Sc7, gaining a draw.
desperate 40 a 4(?l) is fatal because of 40 Sxc3
40.. .5 . 8! 41 S a l 4 d6 42 a5 (42 4 f l 4c5 43 ‘This is correct. In time-trouble it was not
4e2 4 b 4 44 Sbl+ 4c3!) 42...4c5 43 a 6 (43 worth even calculating the variations with
4>fl c3! 44 4 e 2 4b4!) 43...4 b 6 44 Sbl+ 40 <&g2? 2a3 - there it is possible to lose’
4xa6 45 4 f l (Kramnik) 45...Sd8!, cutting off (Bareev). It is even more possible to lose after
the king from the passed c-pawn. All that 40.. .C2! 41 & fl &g7 42 <&e2 <4f6 43 &d2
would have remained for White was the (Shipov) 43...&f5! 44 Sxc2 Sxc2 45 ‘4 ’xc2 f6!
depressing 40 4 f l 2a8! 41 S cl Sa4 42 Sc 3 with the murderous threat of ...g6-g5-
4 d6 - ‘despite the material equality, the 40.. .5xf2+ 41 & g l Sa 2
endgame is very dangerous for him: the f 3-
pawn is weak, and the black king is all the
time threatening to break through via d 5 or
c5’ (Kramnik). After 43 a3 4d5 44 4e2 f6
there is also the threat of ...g6-g5.
38 S d l 2a8 (38...4g7 39 4>g2 4f6 40 f4l,
etc., was no better) 39 S c l

Play has reduced to a drawn ‘four against

39...Sxa2
‘Quickly played: there was no time for
thought. 39 .Sa 3!?, suggested by the Kas­
three’ endgame, but Kramnik was afraid of
playing f3-f4, and as a result he again gave
me quite good practical chances.
42 Sc7 (42 f4! was simpler) 42...&f8 (if
42...e5, then 43 Sc5 f6 44 Sc7) 43 Sb7 &e8
44 Sb8+ (44 f4!) 44...&e7 45 Sb7+ &f6 46
4-fl (46 f4!) 46...e5 (46...Sd2 47 f4! - Bareev)
47 2b6+ <±f5 48 Sb7 ^ e 6 49 Sb6+ <&>f5 50
Sb7 f6 51 Sg7?l

328
 Second Peak

51 2f7 g5 52 hxg5 ^xgS 53 Sg 7+ ot 51^>g3 71 g6 2g4 72 ^>h6 i f 4 and wins;

Sb8 g5 52 hxg5 fxg5?! 53 Sf8+ was safeT (by 2) 61 2g6! e4 62 2f6+ * e 2 (62...&xg3 63
analogy with the game SchneideT-LazaTev, i f l with a dTaw) 63 g4 (63 <^ >g2 with a
Paris 1998). dTaw) 63...e3 64 g5 Sd5 65 g6 <S?d2 66 2e6
51.. .g5 5 2 hxg5 fxg5 53 2g8 2g5+ 67 <S?h2 e2 68 2d6+, pursuing the king.
‘Here I bad to think foT a long time, since A pretty dTaw, found by lllescas.
in the variation 53 2f7+ ^ 6 54 Se7 4 f6 55 But KTamnik himself declared that ‘all this
Sh7 I initially overlooked the move 55..g4l’ is of importance only foT endgame theory’,
(KTamnik). since ‘at the board he saw a very simple
53.. .g4! 54 2f8+ ^e6 55 2e8+ thing’ - 56 2g8! (in my opinion, not an
obvious move) 56...gxf3 (not 56...2a3 57 fxg4
2xg3 58 2f8+ <&>e7(g7) 59 2f5 with a dTaw)
57 2f8+ &g5 (not 5 7-*e6 58 2xf3 e4 59 2f4
ot SS.-.&dS 59 2f5 with a dTaw) 58 2xf3 ^ 4
59 2e3 4f5 60 ^ e l, and although ‘White
still has to play accurately, objectively this is
a dTaw’.
56 2f8+ ig6?!
A vivid illustration of my mental state:
instead of the attempt 56...&e6, I allowed
my opponent to claim a dTaw by thTee-fold
repetition of the position.
57 2g8+ &f5 (57...^f7 58 2g5 4 f6 59 f4 is a
55.. .^f5 dTaw) 58 2f8+ Vi-Vi
At the board KTamnik was the most con­
cerned about 55 .^ 6 !? 56 fxg4 (ot 56 2f8+ This was my last real chance of saving the
&e7 57 Sf5 &e6 58 2f8 2a3, forcing the match - bearing in mind that with a score of
exchange on g4) 56...hxg4 57 2g8 4f5 58 8-8 I would have retained my title. But now
* g l (not 58 2g7? '&e4 59 Sxg4+ 4f3) the score became 8-6. In the 15th game in
58.. .5 . 2 l 59 Sg7 ^e4! 60 Sxg4+ 4f3, foT desperation I played 1 d4 and employed the
example: Catalan Opening. Kramnik ‘partially forgot’
l) 612g8? e4 62 2f8+ <&e2, and White has the theory and thought foT a long time, but
no defence: 63 2a8 (63 ^ 2 ^ 3 + 1 , but not did not in fact equalise. However, I was
Bareev’s move 63...e3? because of 64 2fl! unable to develop my initiative and on the
with a draw ) 63...e3 64 ^ 2 ^ 3 + 65 ^ 3 39th move, now in an equal endgame, I
2f2+ 66 ^>g4 e2 67 2d8+ &C2 68 2c8+ & dl offered a draw. And I congraulated my
69 2d8+ & el 70 2e8 4 f l 71 &g5 2f3 72 g4 successor on his deserved victory in the
<&f2 (as occurred with reversed coIouts and a match.
different move numeration in the game KTamnik: 'For six months I worked myself
Dorfman-SchlosseT, France 2001), or 63 g4 e3 into the ground, following a complete pro­
64 &g2 2d4! 65 ^ 3 ^ d 2 66 2e8 e2 67 &h4 gram. For this, figuratively speaking, the stars
(67 4f2 2f4+ 68 ^g3 2f8! and ...el#+) rewarded me. I also made a surge in chess
67.. . e l l f+ 68 2 x el ^>xel 69 *h5 4f2 70 g 5 understanding... I prepared well psychologi­

329
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
cally, much better than my opponent, and I
chose the correct tactics. I did not aim for
immediate equality from the opening, but I
was ready for a dijficult and prolonged
defence of inferior positions. To some extent
this was a novel approach.’
Indeed, Kramnik realised full well the
danger of direct clashes and he endeavoured
to avoid over-forcing ‘computer’ variations,
having learned from the memorable 10th
game of my 1995 match with Anand (Game
No.19). Thus, in the analysis of the ‘Berlin’
endgame the computer is of little use, and
this defence was deemed 'a good choice
against Kasparov’. In his euphoria after the
victory Bareev talked about ‘the triumph of
human over computer preparation’, and he
predicted: ‘Is it really possible to take the
Berlin Defence seriously? Within six months it
will be destroyed, and in ‘Informator’ there
will be all the analyses of how White wins.’
But 13 years have already passed, and even
now the ‘Berlin’ is played by many grand­
masters - no one has even come close to
refuting it...
330
Speaking more broadly, I can say that
Kramnik arrived for our match with new
ideas and he made a great contribution to
the further development of chess. The
opening theory, philosophical outlook on the
opening and tastes of numerous players in
the early 21st century were formed under
the influence of this match and the 14th
world champion. For a time his approach to
chess became the dominating one.
As for myself, I overestimated the role of
computer analysis, I did not get the feel of
my opponent, and I was unable to withstand
the intensity of a battle in which much had
to be devised along the way. The wound
suffered in the second game proved impos­
sible to heal. I was let down by defects in my
psychological preparation and a lack of
nervous energy. I did not have alongside me
an experienced, top-class grandmaster, and
an overall conception of the match was not
devised.
In that historic autumn, fate punished me
for my excessive self-confidence and lack of
practicality.
 Chapter Three

Life after Death

Farewell to Wijk aan Zee
International Tournament in Wijk aan Zee
(12-28 January 2001): 1. Kasparov - 9 out of
13 ; 2. Anand - 8V21 3-4. Kramnik and Ivan­
chuk - 8; 5-7. Adams, Morozevich and Shirov
- 7V2; 8. Leko - 6V2; 9. Topalov - 5Vi; 10-11.
Fedorov and van Wely - 5; 12-13. Piket and
Tiviakov - 4V2; 14. Timman - 4.
In a Ruy Lopez with 3.a6 Vishy chose
5....&C5 (instead of 5-b5 6 Ab3 .&C5, as
Kramnik played against me, llth match
game, London 2000) and gained equal
chances, but suddenly he embarked on a
dubious venture on the queenside and
reached a losing position.

In my third Wijk aan Zee, a category 19 Came 72

super-toumament, the situation was un­ G.Kasparov-V.Anand
usually intriguing: I was now playing as an Wijk aan Zee,
ex-world champion, which was psychologi­ 3rd Round, 16.01.2001
cally difficult and uncustomary, and my
main rivals were the two new champions -
Vladimir Kramnik (in the historic line) and
Vishy Anand (in the FIDE line). For me this
was a very important test: I needed to dem­
onstrate that the London match had been
merely a temporary failure, and not a total
catastrophe.
I started very well, using two blacks to
maximum effect: without problems I de­
feated Tiviakov and Fedorov in closed varia­
tions of the Sicilian - 2 out of 2! But when I
met Anand after a free day, I realised that I
would not have an easy life in the event.

331
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
25 #C2?
‘In the evening, when we were quietly
dining in the hotel restaurant’, writes An-
and’s trainer Elzibar Ubilava, ‘Kasparov came
up to our table and said that, after analyzing
the game with Fritz, he had found the fol­
lowing winning variation for White: 25 Hxa6
#xc3 26 Sxf7 Eg8 27 Wfl! (it was this simple
move, with the threats ofWxbS, 2/8 and 5 a8,
that I overlooked - G.K.) 27...*5^8 (27...Wxd2
28 2a8) 28 Sxg7 (28 Zf8(d7) is also decisive,
and even 28 Wxb5 xf7 29 Qrfl - G.K)
28.. .<&>xg7 29 Sxd6 2f8 30 #xb5 Wxe3+ 31
<&>hl’. Or 29...1rxe3+ 30 <&>hl # f4 31 Wxb5
£sf7 32 Sd3! (Anand).
To this day I am perplexed as to why I did
not play 25 2xa6l, even if I did not see this
forced win: after all, the more modest 27
# g 4 (threatening Sa8) 27...*5^8 28 Sd7
would also have been decisive. A win was
missed for literally no apparent reason!
25.. .H6 26 1U3 2b6 27 S fa l 2c6 28 2 la 3
(28 2xa6! 2xc3 29 ®d5 would still have
retained an advantage) 28...a5!
Here I exposed myself to the ...d6-d5-d4
advance (incidentally, as also happened in
Las Palmas 1996 - Game No.33) and almost
lost, but by a miracle I saved myself in a
fearful time scramble:
29 &h2 ?! d5! 30 ®b5? d4! 31 bxa5 dxc3 32
332
£sb3 £>c5?! (32...^d6! 33 Wxe5 c2 34 £scl
2e8 35 #93 ®a7 36 a6 ^xe4 was more
accurate, winning) 33 fic4 Sb8 34 ®xc6
#xc6 35 £ ixc5 #b5? (35—g5! 36 Ra(c)xc3 g4
was correct, with a sudden attack) 36 Scxc3
2 37 £sd7 Sb 2 yi-’/i
In the fourth round I confidently equal­
ised against Ivanchuk in a rare line of the
Scheveningen (cf. Game No.7, note to Black’s
8th move) - a draw on the 28th move. After
this a leading trio emerged: Kasparov,
Kramnik and Shirov - 3 out of 4.
And then came the 5th round, the ultra-
crucial duel with Kramnik. Against 1 e4 my
opponent again erected the ‘Berlin Wall’, but
on this occasion he tried to manage without
...h7-h6. Dokhoian and I had also prepared for
this: I gained some advantage (cf. Game
No.80, note to Black’s 9th move) and, in Yuri’s
opinion, I ‘played enterprisingly', but Black
nevertheless managed to consolidate. And
here some incredible events began to occur.
Came 73
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Wijk aan Zee,
5th Round, 18.01.2001

24.. .5h5?
‘A blunder. Even if it wasn’t such, all the
same the move was pointless’, comments
Kramnik, and he recommends 24 -^f5 or
24.. .f5 (in my view, in order to exclude the
reply 25 £ xj5, 24-f6! 25 exf6+ gxf6 with the
idea of ...£*e6 is more accurate).
Of course, this is a black-out. Black’s entire
strategy in the Berlin is aimed at preventing
White from exploiting his pawn majority on
the kingside, and it could have immediately
collapsed. But I returned the favour...
25 £>g5?
Now White is merely somewhat better. 25
g4! would have led to a decisive advantage.
Usually such moves are not made because of
the capture en passant, but after 25...hxg3+?
26 £wg3 Black loses material: 26...Sh4(xh3)
27 2xd4! 2xd4 28 £rf5+ and ^xd4 (this
simple fork, which neither of us noticed, was
later pointed out by some journalists). And
after 25...Shh8 26 f5 he would have been left
empty-handed, for example: 26...fihe8 27 c3
&b5 28 2xd8 2xd8 29 4>e3, etc.
The exchange of such blunders was not
only ‘an indication of the by no means bril­
liant form of both players’ (Kramnik), but also
evidence of the extreme tension reigning at
the board and the tournament. In such a
difficult struggle, nerves play a decisive role.
Life after Death
25...fihh8 (out of harm’s way) 26 2d3 £te6
27 £txe6 4 xe 6 28 S c d l 2d5 29 c4 2xd3 30
Sxd3 a5 31 bxa5 2a8
After 31...bxa5 White simply has an extra
pawn on the kingside.
32 Sa3 4>f5 33 4 f3 2a6 (of course, not
33.JSxa5? 34 Sxa5 bxa5 35 g4! or 33„.bxa5?!
34 2d3) 34 c5! (otherwise ...c6-c5) 34...f6?
The adventures continue: Black voluntar­
ily creates a dangerous passed pawn for his
opponent! However, even after 34-bxc5! he
would still have had to work hard to achieve
a draw: 35 4e3 c4 36 2a4 c5 (36...C3? 37
4d3) 37 4f3 c3 38 4e3 c4 (38...Sg6? 39 4d3)
39 2 xc4 2xa5 40 a4 c5 4 1 4>d3, ‘and here the
manoeuvre ...2a6-g6 can be tried, as well as
the switching of the king via e6 to d5’
(Kramnik).
35 Se3l 2xa5 36 e6 2a8 37 e7 2e8 38 a4
4>g6 (38...g5 39 Se4l) 39 He6 4 f7 40 2xc6?
The clamping 40 f5! would have won. Thus
after 40...bxc5? 41 a5! c4 42 4>e3 Black suc­
cumbs to zugzwang. In a joint analysis after
the game we looked at 40...g5 41 2xc6 2xe7
and the unclear continuation 42 cxb6(?) cxb6
43 Bxb6 Sa7, but 42 4>g4! with the unavoid­
able breakthrough of the king to the f6-pawn
is decisive: 42...bxc5 43 a5! Se4+ 44 4>h5 Sa4
45 Sxc7+ 4>e8 46 2xc5, etc.
In Informator Kramnik also recommended
333
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

40.. .g6, but after 41 Bxc6 gxf5 42 Bxc7 bxc5 <£>c3 a6 6 Jte3 e6 (6...£>g4 - Game Nos.32,40,
43 Sa7! with tbe threat of a4-a5-a6, Sb7, a6- Si, 54, 63,116) 7 f3 b5
a7 and Sb8 Black is lost, since be cannot go
into tbe pawn endgame (43...Sxe7 44 Sxe7+
4>xe7 45 4>e3), and bis passed c-pawn is
stopped by tbe white king.
The more resilient 40...Sxe7 would also
not have saved Black after 4 1 fixc6 Sd7
(4l...bxc5? 42 a5l) 4 2 cxb6 cxb6 43 2xb6 <4 >e7
(43-Sd5 44 Sb5 or 43-.Ba7 44 2b4 Sa5 45
4>g4 is weaker) 44 a5 Sd5 45 Sb7+ 4>d6 46
4>g4 Sxa5 47 Sxg7 Sb5 48 Sf7 Sb 2 49
Sxf6+ <4>e7 50 Se6+ ^ 7 5 1 4?f3!.
40.. .5a8! (tbe way to tbe drawing haven) 41
cxb6 (4 1 fixc 7 bxc5 4 2 e8W+ 4>xe8 43 Sxg7
fixa4 draws) 41...cxb6 42 fixb6 Sxa4 43 Se6 The main line, which had already oc­
4>e8 44 &e4 (44 4>g4 &a2 l) 44...Sa3+ 45 Se3 curred in our game from Linares 1999 - with
(45 <4>g4 Bg3+) 45...Sxe3+ 46 4>xe3 f5 '/*•'/* reversed colours!
8 g4 (8 Wd2 - Game N0.66) 8...H6 9 # d 2
Tbe painful errors in my games with An- £sbd7 10 0-0-0 ± b 7 11 h4 b4 12 <^a4 (12
and and Kramnik left an unpleasant after­ ^ b l? l - Game No.58) 12...1ra5!? 13 b3 £sc5
taste. In tbe sixth round came a fourth 14 a3 ® x a 4
successive draw - with Black against Moro- When Black began to have problems here,
zevich in 14 moves. Never before in Wijk aan the more promising 14...Sc81? 15 ®xb4 (15
Zee bad I started so feebly! axb4 ^xb3+) l5...Wc7 came to the fore
Sbirov burst ahead, after scoring three (Anand-Gelfand, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2000;
successive wins - over the Dutchmen Piket, Anand-Kasparov, Moscow (rapid) 2002).
Timman and van Wely. He had 5 out of 6 (!), 15 axb4 ^ c 7 16 bxa4 d5 (l6...^d7l? is
with me, Kramnik and Morozevich on 4. another deviation) 1 7 e5 ^ d 7 18 f4 ^ b 6
In order to rectify the situation somehow,
I needed to win in the seventh round against
Veselin Topalov. Knowing the character of
my opponent, I had no doubts that there
was a sharp battle in prospect.

Game 74
G.Kasparov-V.Topalov
W ijk aan Zee,
7th Round, 21.01.2001
Sicilian Defence B801

1 e4 C5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 £if6 5 19 Ih 3 !

334
 Life after Death

Of course, not 19 a5?! (Game No.56). Dok- the decisive 24 f6! gxf6 25 exf6 iLxf6
hoian and I looked at the rook move before (25...^.d6 26 Sc3!) 26 e5 (26...1rxg3 27
the second game with Topalov at Linares ^.b5+ and 3Sxg3) 27 E e l &.e6 28 Sc3 4}c4 29
1999, but at the time I decided not to play 1 ^.xc4 dxc4 30 Sce3, etc.;
e4- And in the summer of 1999 this strong lc) 20...^.e7 21 f5 Ec8 22 jLel exf5 23
novelty was introduced by grandmaster gxf5 WxeS 24 Sa3! £\b6 25 .&g3! (25 f6 1 ^ 6
Viorel Bologan. 26 Sf3 is also not bad, Agrest-Svensson,
19...£ sc4?! Sweden 2003) 25...®f6 26 S e l with crushing
A dubious attempt to improve things for threats: 26...4f8 27 & e 5 VUxbA 28 ^.xg7+!
Black. Other possibilities: 4>xg7 29 f6+! #xf6 30 Sf3, or 26...0-0 27 ± e 5
1) I9...£sxa4 (immediately regaining thel rxh4 28 f6! JLxf6 29 £lf3 H i5 30 .&xf6 gxf6
pawn) 20 JLf2 and now: 3 1 ^.d3 Sc4 (3l...4’h8 32 Se2l) 32 S gl+ Sg4
33 Wh2l! Sxgl+ 34 ®xgl+ and 10)6;
2) 19...Sc8 (Lastin-Najer, Bor 2000) - after
this White has the unpleasant 20 f5! <£sxa4
21 c4! or 20...£sc4 21 JLxc4 'WxcA 22 fxe6
(internet games of the 2000s);
3) 19-h5 20 gxh5 £sxa4 21 M 2 Sxh5 22
f5! Sc8, and here not 23 fxe6?l <£sc3l (Zon-
takh-Najer, St. Petersburg 2002), but 23 b5l?
(Mikheev-Smikovski, correspondence 2003)
or 23 c4 l with an obvious advantage for
White;
4) I9...'ird7 (from the internet, 2006) 20
£sxe6! W/xe6 21 f5 Wxe5 (21...1t6 22 b5 ®c7
Analysis Diagram 23 Jtxb6 #xb6 24 bxa6 and wins) 22 JLd4
Wd6 23 «e3+ &d7 24 f6! or 20...fxe6 21
la) 20...Sc8 21 JLel <£sb6. This is how Bolo- jLxb6 Wxa4 22 1 ^ 3 'tal-H 23 &d2 ^.xb4+ 24
gan’s opponents replied - Novikov (Phila­ 4>e2 # a 4 25 c3 and #g6+ with a powerful
delphia 1999) and Pelletier (Biel 1999), but it attack.
soon transpired that this is weak on account In view of the fact that after l9...‘Sic4
of 22 f5l. In addition, on the internet the Black also does not succeed in creating
clever move 21 c4l emerged, with the idea of counterplay and simply remains a pawn
2l...dxc4?l (21....&C6 22 fs! is more resilient) down, it is not surprising that the entire
22 l t 2 JLc6 (22..3Sd7 23 f5 or 22...£lb6 23 variation has gone out of serious use.
<£sxe6 fxe6 2 4 .&xb6 Wf7 25 f5 is even worse) 20 W c 3 Sc8 21 & d 2
23 £ sxc 6 W x c 6 24 Sa3 i.xb4 25 ®xa4 i.xa3+ A sound move, retaining an advantage
26 #xa3, and the black king is in great dan­ (Black has nothing to latch on to), but 21
ger; Jk.f2l? (Stohl) is more accurate, and the most
lb) 2 0 ..JL c8 2 1 f5 Sb8 22 lb 3 ±e7 forceful is 21 f5! # d 7 22 1133 (So-Moussard,
(22...‘£sb6? 23 Sc3 and wins) 23 .&d3 4^ 6 Belfort 2012) or 21...1rxe5 22 fxe6 fxe6 23
(from a 2002 game between Argentine Sf3 with dangerous threats.
correspondence players), and here there is 2l...JLe7

335
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
21...£sxd2?! 22 Hrxd2 or 21...1rd7 22 1133
is also insufficient, while against my Infor-
mator suggestion 2 l...lre7(?!) there is the
rejoinder 22 f5l.
22 JL e l (having supported his b4-pawn,
White calmly prepares the f4-f5 break­
through) 22—2b8?
Planning with ...iLc8 to kill two birds with
one stone: both defend the e6-pawn, and
attack the b4-pawn. However, it was more
important to maintain the outpost at c4,
and therefore 22...0-0 or 22...h5 was essen­
tial.
23 f5! (the point: now 23...1rxe5? is not
possible because of 24 iLg3) 23—-&c8
(23...i.a 8 24 b5!) 24 &XC4 dxc4
25 #f3?!
336
The sharp and energetic 25 b5! with the
threat of f5-f6 would have placed Black in a
hopeless position: 25..~&d7 (25...O-O 26 f6
gxf6 27 £sc6!) 26 f6 gxf6 27 exf6 JLd6 28
jLg3! i.xg3 29 Sxg3 axb5 30 # b 4 1^4+ 31
Se3! I?xf6 32 £sf5 or 29...1rf4+ 30 Se3 Wxf6
31 bxa6, etc.
25—&.d7?!
This loses. However, after 25..~£.b7 26 We2
JLd5 27 c3 Topalov would also not have had
compensation for the pawn deficit.
26 fxe6 fxe6 27 g5!
27 c3 was also good, with the idea of
27.. .^.xa4 28 Sd 2l and g4-g5, but 27...H 7 is
more resilient. The move in the game is
sharper and stronger, and in addition it was
aimed at stunning the opponent: White
offers either of his pawns - g5 or e5, to say
nothing of the one on b4.
27—hxg5
Things are depressing for Black after
27.. Jbcb4? 28 H i 5+ &e7 29 Sf3 -&e8 3 0 1 ^ 4
or 27...h5?l 28 g 6 ! (even better than my
Informator 28 c3) 28...Sf8 2 9 1^2! ^.xb4 30
^.xb4 Sxb4 31 Sf3 Wc5 32 Sxf 8 + WtxfS 33
S f l W c S 34 I f 3! &d8 35 « f 8 + « x f 8 36
2xf8+ &C7 37 c3 and Sf7, winning.
28 hxg5 Sxh3 29 # x h 3
2 9 - l rxe5
This is what Topalov was pinning his

hopes on, and at this moment he looked very
content with his position. After 29..~&xg5+?
30 <&bl ±h6 (30...#xe5 31 £\f3 or 30...<&e7
31 # h 7 is completely bad) I calculated both
31 &C3 and 31 £ixe6! #xe5 32 £ixg7+! 1 ^ 7
33 #h5+ £ ^ 8 (33...^f8 34 ±c3l) 34 &h4+
±g5 (34...&c8 35 * 05+ &b7 36 2d6, mating)
35 jLxg5+ <£>c8 36 b5 (more forceful than the
laformator 36 ±d2) 36...axb5 37 -&f4!, and
the curtain comes down.
3 0 # h 5 + <&f8
31 £if3!
A brilliant move, which decides the game.
After it Veselin’s face changed... White is
completely dominant, and Black, despite the
long-awaited material equality, has no way
of saving himself.
31.. .#e3+
Nothing comes of 31~.#al+? 32 ^ 2 2d8
(32...g6 33 1112! or 32...#b2 33 &e3! is also
dismal) 33 &e3! g6 (33...1rb2 34 c3) 34#h6+
# g7 35 -&C3! with a spectacular rout:
35.. .#xh6 36 gxh6 <&g8 37 h7+!.
32 ^>b2?
A slip in the time scramble. I was too
afraid of 32 ,&d2! Ia 3 + 33 ^ b l, but it was
precisely this that would have led to a win:
1 ) 33...1xb4+ (33....&d6? 34 #h8+ <trf7 35
g6+! or 34...<&e7 35 #xg7+ and £te5 is hope­
less for Black) 34 -&xb4 l rxb4+ 35 ^ c l #a3+
Life after Death
36 <&d2 <&g8 (36...1rb2? 37 #h8+ <&f7 38
<£>e3!) 37 Shi! ±b4+ 38 <&e2 # c 3 39 #h7+
<^f8 40 Sdl!, and Black is lost (40...±c5 41
# e 4 &e7 42 £ie5 ± e 8 43 g6);
2 ) 33...'4>
g8 34 S h i Sxb4+ 35 ±xb4#xb4+
3 6 * d &d6 (36...1ra3+ 37 &dl) 37 #h8+
<&f7 38 g6+! <&f6 39 #h4+ &xg6 40 S fl!
#a3+ 41 ^ d l l c 5 4 2 ^e2! (my laformator
line 42 le 4 + &f7 43 £ie5+ ^ e8 44 ^xd7
&xd7 45 Sf7+ ^.e7 46 Sxg7 will also do)
42...C3 43 le 4 + &f7 44 £ie5++ &e8 45 ^xd7
#h5+ 46 l f 3 , and White easily converts his
exchange advantage.
32.. .^.e8?
The final error. With his flag about to fall,
Black loses control and fails to exploit a
chance opportunity - 32..JLxa4l, for exam­
ple:
1) 33 -&C3 Sxb4+! 34 .&xb4 .&xb4 35 #h8+
&f7 36 g6+ & f 6 \ (I missed this reply: the
black king escapes from the cage!) 37 #h4+
(37 #d8+ jLe7!) 37...<&xg6 38 # x c4 (no more
is promised by my laformator 38 S gl+ <&t7)
38.. .#xf3 39 S g l+ <&h5 40 # xb 4 ±xc2!,
picking up the last pawn;
2) 33 #h8+ >&f7 34 #xb8 #xf3 35 S a l
(instead of the laformator 35 Sd4 #e2! 36
#f4+ .&f6 with a draw), but here also Black is
saved by 35...&XC2! 36 # g 3 #xg3 37 ±xg3
±d3 38 ± e l jLxg5 39 ±c3 .&e3 40 Sxa6 g5
337
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
with a probable draw.
33 Wh8+ &f7 34 Ac3 1-0
Now it is all over.
This win - perhaps not error-free, but
partly conducted in the ‘good old style’ -
improved my mood and enabled me to
reduce the gap behind the leader: Shirov -
5V2out of 7; Kasparov and Kramnik - 5.
In the eighth round Leko chose against
me the ultra-solid Reti Opening, avoiding
any theoretical discussions, and although I
obtained a promising position, I could only
gain a draw. But Shirov won against Tiviakov
and increased his lead - 672 out of 8 (!), a
point ahead of me and Kramnik. The ‘cards’
had favoured Alexey from the very start of
the tournament, but he faced a difficult
finish: Kasparov, Anand, Ivanchuk, Kramnik
and Morozevich!
To retain chances of first place, in the
ninth round I needed without fail to win
against Shirov. And I did everything possible
to gear myself up for a fight, especially since
the game was played on an important date
for me - 30 years since my father’s death.
Unfortunately, before the game, for the first
time in my chess career, I did not shake
hands with my opponent, for which I gave
this explanation on my ‘Club Kasparov’
website:
‘In recent times Shirov has on several oc­
casions made insulating public comments
about me. My patience snapped when I
learned that my match with Kramnik was
supposedly fixed. When I arrived in Wijk aan
Zee, we had a conversation about this. I said:
"Alexey, everyone can become impassioned,
this is understandable, but mistakes should
be admitted, and so it would be good if you
were to apologise.” He couldn’t give me a
clear reply. After this I am unable to shake
his hand...'
338
Came 75
G.Kasparov-A.Shirov
W ijk aan Zee,
9th Round, 23.01.2001
Petroff Defence C42
1 e4 (of course!) I...e5 2 £sf3 £sf6
My opponent decided to delight me with
the Petroff Defence, which we studied so
intensively before the match with Kramnik.
3 £sxe5 d6 4 £sf3 £sxe4 5 d4 d5 6 Ad 3 Ad6
True, Kramnik far more often played
6...£sc6 (Game No.82), and Shirov took the
risk of repeating a line which he had already
employed against me in Linares 2000.
7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6 9 V tC l
The afore-mentioned duel went 9 cxd5
cxd5 10 £ sc3 £ sxc3 11 bxc3 A g 4 12 S b l £sd7
13 h3 A h 5 14 Sb5 £sb6 15 c4 Axf3 16 1 ^ 3
dxc4 17 A c2 ^ 7 18 a4 g6 - one of the
fashionable tabiyas, where after 19 Ae3(d2)
White has full compensation for the pawn,
but not more, and after our Linares game
Shirov demonstrated this in games with
Anand (Linares 2000), Grischuk (4th match
game, New Delhi 2000), and Topalov (Monte
Carlo (blindfold) 2000; Wijk aan Zee 2004).
9 1Hrc2 (along with 9 Sel) is somewhat
stronger, and Shirov himself had already

played this against Leko (Linares 2000) and
Adams (Sarajevo 2000).
9...£)a6 10 aB i.g 4 11 £ie5
We spent a lot of time looking at this key
position and we came to the conclusion that
in all the three main branches of the varia­
tion Black has definite problems.
ll..J L h 5
This bishop retreat to the edge of the
board was condemned, but it is no worse
than two other replies:
1) ll...i.xe5 12 dxe5 £)ac5 13 f3 £)xd3 14
#xd3 £ sc5 15 1 ^ 4 £)b3 16 #xg4 £ixal 17
i.h6 g6 - this was considered the main
continuation (the source game: Ljubojevic-
Hort, Amsterdam 1988), and it occurred in
the Shirov-Leko game, which we, naturally,
had also analysed;
2) ll...i.f5 12 b4l, cramping Black (Shirov-
Adams), since after 12 £}c3 i.xe5 13 dxe5
£iac5 he has a comfortable game (Carlsen-
Kramnik, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2011).
In both lines we had deep preparations
awaiting their hour (but for some that hour
never in fact came).
12 cxd5 cxd5 IB £)c3l
A novelty. After 13 i.xe4 dxe4 14 #xe4
Se8 Black has sufficient compensation for
the pawn (Timoshchenko-Makarychev, Mos­
cow 1990). Shirov sank into thought...
Life after Death
13.. .£)xc 3
13- i.xe5! is sounder: 14 dxe5 £iac5 15
£sxe4l (15 i.xe4 dxe4 16 £)xe4, given by me
in informator, runs into I6...£)d3! 17 i.g5
# d 4 18 £)d6 #xe5 with equality - Huzman)
15.. .£)xd3 16 WxdS i.g6, and nothing special
is given by 17 £)f6+ Wxfei (l7-.gxf6 18 #g3
3e8 19 f4l is dangerous) 18 Wxd5 6, 17
'Brb 3 i.xe4 18 1i rxb7 (18 Sdl?! Sc8! is equal)
18.. .#h4 19 ^ 3 d4 (Leko-Shirov, Linares
2004), or 17 #b5 dxe4 (l7 -i.x e4 18 Sdl!
with the threat of f2-f3) 18 1i rxb7 a5 and
...Sb8 - although everywhere White is a
pawn up, with the opposite-coloured bish­
ops Black has good drawing chances.
14 bxc3
By the exchange of knights Black has
spoiled the opponent's pawn structure, but
his knight has abandoned the important
outpost at e4, while for the moment the
white knight is still on e5.
14.. .6 .8
14- .i.xe5? is now bad because of 15
i.xh7+! 4 T18 16 dxe5 g6 17 1 ^ 2! <4>xh7 18
#h6+ « g 8 19 i.g5 f6 20 i.xf6 Wd7
(20...Sxf6?! 21 exf6 #xf6 22 f3 and g2-g4,
winning) 21 f3 (threatening g2-g4) 21...'Brh7
22 'Bfxh7+ (22 1^21?) 22...<4>xh7 23 g4 with a
technically won endgame.
And l4-.-i.g6 15 £>xg6 hxg6 would have
339
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
been positional capitulation: Black has a
‘bad’ knight with a weak pawn on d5, and
White’s two bishops guarantee him a stable
advantage.
15 f4
Here I spent a long time calculating the
tempting variation 15 Jb<h7!? g6 16 #d2
i ’xh? 17 iHi6+ 4 ^ 8 18 ^.g5, when I8...f6?
will not do in view of 19 <£>xg6 fxg5
(I9...1.xg6?! 20 l rxg6+ &h8 21 Sfel!) 20
«Ti8+ <&f7 21 #xh5 # f6 22 1117+ l g 7 23
£>xf8 lx h 7 24 ^xh7 *g6 25 £>xg5 *xg5 26
a4 and wins. l8..JLe7 19 ^.xe7 l rxe7 20
S ael H 6 is correct. Now by 21 g4l? White
regains the piece and obtains a very com­
fortable ending: 21...#g7 22 Wxg7+ ^xg7 23
gxh5 gxh5 24 Se3, etc.
But, afraid of selling my advantage too
cheaply, I was looking for a decisive attack -
21 £>d7 lg7(?) 22 lf4 ! f6 23 £)xf8 Bxf8 24
Wd6 (my Informator move) or 24 g4! g5 25
# d 6 £xg4 26 Se7 Sf7 (26...Wg6 27 Wxd5+)
27 Sfel. However, Black has the more resil­
ient 21...1rc6 22 <£>xf8 (it is not yet too late to
revert to 22 £>e5 ! f 6 23 g4l?) 22...Sxf8 23 f3
Wxc3 24 g4 l.xg4 25 fxg4 lx d 4 + 26 * h l
£>c7 27 Sf3 b6 28 Sh3 1 ^ 7 29 l rxg7+ <±’xg7
30 Se7 <£>e6 31 Sxa7 d4 with drawing
chances.
At the board it was difficult to weigh up
340
accurately the consequences of these com­
plications, and in the end I gave preference
to the consolidating move f2-f4.
I5...1.xe5?
To my surprise, Shirov committed an ob­
vious positional mistake. These alternatives
were also insufficient: 15...Sc8 16 B bl Wc7
(l6...Sc7?l 17 Sb5) 17 l.f5 or 17 Wf2 f6 18
'Srh4, and 15...^c7 16 JLxh7 g6 17 g4 ix g 4
(17-I.xe5?! 18 gxh5) 18 £>xg4 <±1xh7 19 f5l
1i rh4 20 # g 2 with a dangerous attack. But
after 15...f6! 16 £sf3 # d 7 White’s pressure is
still tolerable.
16 fxe5! (of course, not 16 dxe5, which
would have given the opponent the re­
sources ...d5-d4 and ...<£>c5) l6 ..JLg 6
If l6...'Brc7, then 17 ^.g5l. Black intends to
play ...1^7 and ...<£>c7-e6, but does not
succeed: his f7 point comes under pressure.
17 a4! (the appearance of the bishop on the
a3-f8 diagonal decides the outcome) 1 7 ...^<17
18 l.a3 Sfe8
Things were also quite unpromising for
Black after l8..JLxd3?! 19 #xd3 Sfc8 20 Sf3
and Safi, winning.
19 .&,xg6 fxg6
Forced: I9...hxg6? 20 Sf3 and S afi is com­
pletely bad - the f-pawn cannot be held. But
now White has acquired an ultra-powerful
passed e-pawn.
 Life after Death

20 W b 3 dxe4 27 2f7 £>d5 28 2xg6 2g8 29 e6 <&h7 30

A useful move, paralyzing the black 2g3! with the murderous threat of ile5 (this
knight, and - most important - the queen is simpler than my earlier 30 2g4 £>f6).
takes aim at the weak d5-pawn.

26 2h3
20.. .b6 With time-trouble approaching, to save
If 20...£)c7?! 21 Ifxb? 2eb8 there is the time on the clock I decided to repeat moves.
decisive 22 e6! # d 8 23 #xa8! (23 #c6 is 26 #a2(b3) was more consistent, or 26 2xg6
more prosaic) 23~2xa8 24 e7 VHg8 25 2f8 £>e6 27 IT j I! £>g5 28 # f5 2xc3 29 <&hl! 2c6
<£se8 26 2afl! (more forceful than the Infor- 30 h3, and Black has no defence.
mator 26 2 el) 26...£>f6 27 c4 dxc4 28 d5, etc. 26.. .#g5 27 2g3 # h 5 28 i.xc7 (it was a pity
20.. .2.c8 21 £.d6 # c6 (21...2c4?! 22 2f3 and to exchange such a fine bishop immediately,
2afl) 22 2 a b l is also bad for Black, while if but I did not want to allow the ‘unclear’
20.. .#c6 there is the strong 21 2 a c l £>c7 ...£>e6) 28...2xc 7 29 2xg6 Wh4
(21...2ac8 22 2f7) 22 c4l dxc4 23 l rxc4 #xc4 After 2 9 ...2 xc 3 30 2xh6+ or the more
24 2 xc4 £>d5 25 2f7 and wins. resilient 29...2ec8 30 2g3 White also has
21 jLd6 £>c7 22 2f3 (the doubling of rooks every chance of converting his extra pawn.
on the f-file settles matters) 22...2ac8 23 30 h3
2 a f l h6 (23...'£’g8 24 2f7l, winning the d5- Creating a modest escape square for the
pawn) 24 'Vic2 king. The line 30 # b 3 Vie4 312g3 was more
Here also 24 2f7! would have won quickly, energetic, but the strongest move was 30
for example: 24~.1B,c6 25 Vfc2 £>e6 (25...2e6 #f5!, since if 30...2xc3?, then 31 2xg7l gives
26 2lf6!) 26 #xg6 #xc3 27 i.e7l #xd4+ 28 mate.
<&hl #xe5 29 £.f6! # e 4 30 £xg7+ £ ^ 8 31 30.. .#xd4+
# g 3!. However, what again operated was a Transposing into a hopeless double-rook
fear of squandering the advantage. endgame. If 30...2ec8 I was planning the
24—Wg4! (of course, not 24...Se6 25 2f7 Vic6 simple 312g4, avoiding brilliance such as 31
26 2lf6! or 24...£>e6 25 1 ^ 6 Vixa4 26 2f6! «f5l? Sxc3 32 2f4 # d 8 33 Wh5 S3c7 34 2f6!
and wins) 25 2g3 (25 2f4 or 25 h3 would (threatening 2xh6+) 3 4 ...^ 8 35 ^ 5 Why
also have led to a win) 25...)i ,h5 36 e6 and wins.
Again the best chance: 25~.1Sre4? 26 #xe4 31 cxd4 2 xc2 32 2f7 2g8

341
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

Not 32...Bc4 33 Bgxg7l, etc. And so, I caught ShiTov. We now both had
6Vi out of 9, with KTamnik and Morozevich
(who had unexpectedly beaten the worid
champion with Black) on S'A. Then came the
last free day, and then the final fouT Tounds.
In the tenth round I drew with Black against
Piket, after frying unsuccessfully to drag out a
slightly better rook endgame. Meanwhile,
Shirov completely outplayed Anand and could
even have won in one move (32 Be81), but it all
ended peacefully, after which the leading
group looked like this: Kasparov and Shirov - 7
out of 10; Morozevich - 6'A Kramnik and
Adams - 6; Anand and Ivanchuk - 5'A
For an instant Black has restored material In the final rounds the distraught Shirov
equality, but White’s attacking potential is lost to Ivanchuk and Kramnik, with a draw
too great. against Morozevich. From the press: ‘This
33 Bd6 event, like a mirror, reflected Shirov’s problems:
33 Sxa7 Sd2(c4) 34 Ixb6 Ixd4 35 a5 the heavy defeat against Kasparov and the
would also have won easily. However, from subsequent poor finish pushed him back
the practical point of view it is better to almost to the middle of the tournament table. ’
create a pair of connected passed pawns: However, for me also the finish proved
they promote ‘on autopilot’. A brief agony difficult. In the 11th round I won a very
now follows for Black. nervy game, full of mistakes by both sides,
33.. .1c4 34 Ix d 5 Sxa4 35 Sdd7 (35 e6!?) against Timman (this was our last ‘classical’
35.. .5al+ (35...Se8 36 4*2, etc.) 36 4f2 meeting, giving a final score of +20-2=23),
Sa2+ 37 4*3 4>h7 38 e6 4>g6 39 d5 2c8 and I finally took the sole lead, by a margin
of a whole point. In the remaining games
with van Wely and Adams I endeavoured to
keep complete control of the situation, and
two draws sufficed for first place. And it was
Anand who burst through to second place.
After receiving a powerful stimulus from
Shirov, following his example he defeated
the same three Dutchmen and as a result
finished just half a point behind me.
Here is a brief extract from an interview,
which I gave immediately afterwards in my
then customary room 207 in the four-star
Duin Hotel: ‘Before the start I thought that
40 Sc7 (here all roads lead to Rome) 40...Be8 ‘plus five’ would give first place. I felt that
41 g4 a5 42 Sxg7+ 4*6 43 Sgf7+ 4>e5 44 the tournament would be too nervy. And
Sf5+ 4>d4 45 e7 1-0 that was how it turned out: a nervy, big

342

tournament. I played so-so, but the champi­
ons played even worse. On the whole I was
dissatisfied with my play, but I cannot
separate it from the situation in the chess
world and my terrible frame of mind. It is
very difficult to play normally with such a
trauma in your heart.’
In a farewell speech at the closing cere­
mony I permitted myself a rather bold
comment: ‘This tournament has shown that
there is life after death!’ And with a smile I
added: ‘However, I am wary of the fact that
my results in Wijk aan Zee are steadily
deteriorating: ‘plus seven’, ‘plus six’, ‘plus
five’... I don’t know what will happen next
year!’ Alas, before the next tournament I fell
ill and I never played in Wijk aan Zee again.
So that this ‘plus five’ turned out to be my
swan song...
Yuri Vasiliev: 'For three successive years the
final table at Wijk aan Zee has invariably been
headed by the strongest piayers in the worid -
Kasparov, Anand and Kramnik. This was also
the case in the 2001 tournament, the most
imposing in its entire history. The name of the
winner was aiso unchanged: Kasparov. Many
were hoping that, after iosing the match to
Kramnik in London in autumn 2000 and
conceding the worid title to him, Kasparov
would lose the aura of a super-player, and
would become an ordinary grandmaster who
it is possible to beat. This hasn’t happened! His
hand is still just as strong, his calculation just
as quick and his eye just as vigilant. The king
has lost his crown, but not his strength. But
will this strength be sufficient for him to
regain the throne?’
Three-Point Margin
Double-Round Super-Toumament in Linares
(22 February - 6 March 2001): 1. Kasparov -
7V2 out of 10; 2-6. J.Polgar, Leko, Shirov,
Karpov and Grischuk - 4Vi.
Life after Death
Before the next Linares it transpired that
its category would be lowered from 21 to 19,
since neither of the new ‘chess kings’, who
had emerged at the end of 2000, would be
playing: neither Kramnik nor Anand. Before
the start I made the following comments:
‘This is a question of responsibility.
Linares used to be the ‘chess Wimbledon’,
the most important and most prestigious
tournament, where the strongest always
played. Now this won’t be the case. It is
unfavourable for the new world champions
to play there; they put there own interests
first... But there is also another problem with
Linares: on encountering the refusal of
Anand and Kramnik, the organisers are
seeking to replace them on the principle of
‘resonance’ of names. Everyone knows the
names of Karpov and Polgar, but, alas, in the
present-day chess hierarchy these players
are not rated so highly. It is sad, but there is
nothing to be done; Linares is Linares, and as
before I consider it my duty to play there.’
At the start of 2001 Karpov still retained
part of his once enormous practical
strength, but he was playing more rarely in
tournaments higher than category 14-16,
achieving comparatively modest results. He
came to Linares for the first time after a six-
year interval, no doubt with the desire to
demonstrate something to me and to the
chess world. True, the nearly 50-year-old ex­
world champion might well be let down by
his age... Our opponents were the far
younger Peter Leko, Alexey Shirov, Judit
Polgar and the 17 -year-old debutant Alex­
ander Grischuk, a semi-finalist in the recent
FIDE knock-out world championship. As had
been the case since 1998, the grandmasters
competed in two cycles, and so that no one
should play three successive games with the
same colour, the fourth and fifth rounds
were interchanged.
343
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
After three days’ play the tournament had
not produced eitheT leaders, ot outsiders: all
nine games ended in draws. The start did
not go well foT me. In the fiTst round with
Black against Leko I ended up in a difficult
position (cf. Game N0.67 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, note to White’s
9th move), gave up the exchange and saved
myself only by a miTacle. In the second
round I was unable to beat PolgaT with
White (cf. Game N0.63, note to Black’s 10th
move), and then in the thiTd round I had
another Sicilian duel with Shirov (cf. Game
No.7, note to White's 8th move). AfteT spend­
ing a lot of time in the opening I seized the
initiative and had the better endgame, but
in time-tTouble I missed a win. Although in
this game I already showed some ‘signs of
consciousness’, on the whole my play did not
yet herald the final triumph.
The lack of decisive games provoked a
squall of biting comments in the Spanish
press. And after the free day, as if we had
listened to the criticism, the score was finally
opened. I had Black against a rising staT of
worid chess - the Muscovite Alexander
Grischuk. This was our first meeting at the
boaTd, and my young opponent did not
conceal his ambitions.
Game 76
A.Grischuk-G.Kasparov
Linares, 4th Round, 27.02.2001
Sicilian Defence B901
1 e4 C5 2 <Stf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 <^xd4 £sf6 5
£)c3 a6
The opening variation could have been
anticipated: Grischuk thought that in the
‘NajdorF Black had problems and that for
White this was a gift of fate, and I did not
want to deprive him of such a gift.
344
6 f3 (to avoid 6 jte3 £ig4 - Game Nos.32, 40,
51, 54, 63,116)
But Black also avoids the standard book
lines 6...e6 7 ,&e3 (Game Nos.56, 58, 66, 74)
and 6...e5 7 £)b3 .&e6 8 ±e3 (Game Nos.45,
93). I had already played this against Shirov
(Linares 2000) and I thought that the queen
move was not bad. Sometimes this position
arises two moves later - after 6 iLe3 £ig4 7
&cl£if6 8 f 3 « rb6,etc.
7^b3
At that time this natural move was made
automatically, but after the present game it
tTanspiTed that 7 g4l £lc6 8 £)b3 e6 9 1^2
(denying the opponent the counterplay with
8.Mc7\ and ...b7-b5-b4) was more accurate.
Grischuk, Anand and many others began
playing this, in oTdeT to transpose into a
well-known tabiya - 9..M'c7 10 JLe3 b5 11
0-0-0 (cf. the note to Black’s 10th move).
7.. .e6 8 # e2
In the event of 8 g4 apart from 8...£>c6 9
We2 (Grischuk-ShiTOV, Linares 2001, 9th
round), there can follow 8.Mc7 9 iLe3 b5
(Grischuk-J.Polgar, Cannes (rapid) 2001) or
8.. .£sfd7 9 V£e2 jLe7 and ..Me7 (Motylev-
J.Polgar, Ohrid 2001).
8.. .#c7!
A subtle move. It used to be thought that
sooner or later Black had to develop his

knight on c6 - say, 8...£k6 9 ^.eB #c7 10
0-0-0 b5 11 g4, arriving at a tabiya from the
note to Black's 10th move. But since the
white knight has moved from d4, there is no
longer any need for the move ...£ic6: for the
moment it is possible to keep the knight on
b8, play ...b7-b5-b4 and then develop it at d7.
9 g4 b5 10 ± e 3
10.. .b4l
An unexpected novelty, changing the pat­
tern of the position. 10...^c6 l l 0-0-0 was
and still remains at the centre of attention.
Here I was concerned about the unclear
11.. JLe7 12 & bl £id7 13 # f2 (Leko-Topalov,
Batumi 1999), and in the afore-mentioned
game with ShiTov I chose ll...£>e5?!, but
after 12 g5 £rfd7 13 f4 £ic4 14 ,&d4 White
retained the initiative. Soon afteT Linares
20011tried ll..JLb7 12 h4 Sc8 and ran into
13 g5l (13 & bl £sd7 14 S g l £sce5 is unclear,
Grischuk-ShiTOV, 2nd match game, New
Delhi 2000) 13-..£>d7 14 # f 2 -Sees 15 a3 with
somewhat the better game foT White (Gris-
chuk-Kasparov, 1st match game (rapid),
Cannes 2001).
I also had problems after n...£kl7 12 # f2
Sb8 (I2...b4 13 £ia4 Sb8 14 S g l is no better,
Leko-J.PolgaT, Cap d’Agde (Tapid) 2003) 13
f4l? (Grischuk-Kasparov, Moscow 2004),
although later my opponent himself twice
Life after Death
played 12...Sb8 against Anand, and the
latter replied 13 & bl (Monte Carlo (rapid)
2006 and 2011).
l l <£*a4 £}bd7 (the right way!) 12 #04
Forcibly transposing into a roughly equal
ending. After 12 #f2(?!) Sb8 13 g5 £ih5 the
knight on a4 becomes a headache for White.
But he has the stronger 12 g5l, which I
condemned in Informator because of
12.. .£ixe4 (l2...#c6 13 gxf6 gxf6 14 0-0-0
#xa4 15 & bl is questionable) 13 fxe4 #c6.
And, indeed, in the event of 14 a3 #xa4 15
# c4 £te5 16 #xb4 #xb4+ 17 axb4 ^.b7 Black
has a favourable Sicilian endgame. However,
the bold 14 ±g2! #xa4 15 e5 d5 16 0-0
would have given White excellent compen­
sation for the missing material: l6..JLe7 17
#h5! or I6...#c6 17 #f2 £ixe5 18 S a e l ±d6
19 J&.C51.
12.. .#xc4 13 £ x c4
13.. .d5! 14 exd5 £>e5 15 -&e2 (15 £>b6 £sxc4)
15.. .^xd5 16 ± d 4 -id6!
An important move, emphasising the fact
that the weaknesses in White’s position are
fixed and that Black is perfectly okay.
16.. .£ic6 17 .&f2! was less good. The knight
should not be moved from e5 - here it is very
strong!
17 £ c 5?!
The developing 17 &f2 or 17 0-0-0 was
345
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

more logical, when after 17....&C7 (Stohl) the
position is dynamically balanced. With the
move in the game White takes away the c5-
square from his knights.
17.. .1.e7l?
A non-routine move, of which I was
proud. However, parity would have been
maintained by 17...4>e7 18 itxd6+ 4 ^ 6 19
0-0-0 4c7! (instead of the earlier 19...4e7(?!)
20 Shel) 20 S h el g5, while more chances of
an advantage would have been given by
17.. Jtc7! (covering the b6-square, in order to
play ...<£)f4) 18 a3 bxa 3 19 Sxa3 .&b7 (Stohl)
or I8...h5!?.
19—f6 20 <£iac5 (and here 20 axb4 axb4 21
4f2 4f7 22 h4 was somewhat better)
20 ... 0-0 21 0-0
White completes his development. His
king would have been uncomfortable after
21 axb4?l £)xb4 22 4d2 Sd8 23 c3 £tec61.
But the lesser evil was 21 Jbce5l? fxe5 22
axb4 £)xb4 23 4 d l, although even here after
23...^.g5 Black would have retained some
initiative.

21.. .bxa3!
The accurate move order: 21...£)f4 22 JLb5
bxa3 would have allowed the opponent
additional possibilities - 23 bxa3(?l) or 23
18 a3?! ^.xe5l fxe5 24 Sxa3 (Stohl).
18 i.d 4 f 6, 18 i.xe7 4xe7 and 18 0-0-022 Sxa3
^ f4 19 S h el JLb7 would all have led to a If 22 JLxe5?l (22 bxa3? a4) there was the
slightly more pleasant position for Black. strong interposition 22...a4l, when 23 .&d4
Instead of this White initiates play on the (23 Sxa3?l axb3 is worse) 23...axb3 24 £}xb3
queenside, but he allows a counter-blow on (24 cxb3?l Sd8! 25 i.c4 a 2) 24...£tf4 or 23
the kingside. ,&g3 axb3 24 £)xb3 £)e3 25 Sfcl iLa6 would
I8...a5?! have condemned White to a difficult fight
Playing to hold the b4-pawn proves insuf­ for a draw.
ficiently energetic. I8...h5l was correct, 22.. .<£)f4 23 iLbs (now 23 ^.xe5? does not
immediately beginning to harass the weak work because of 23...£)xe2+ 24 4f2 fxe5 25
white pawns. 4xe2 i.a6+ 26 <£xa6 i.xa3) 23...Sb8 24
19 i.d4 i.xe5
With gain of tempo repairing the mistake 24 Sxa5?l was less convincing: 24..JLd8
made on the 17th move. However, 19 .&xe7 25 i.xe5 fxe5 26 c4 i.xa5 27 £ixa5 £te 2+ 28
4xe7 20 4f2 also deserved consideration. 4g2 (but not Stohl’s variation 28 4f2? £)d4

346

29 &e3 <£sxb5 30 <£sc6 Bb6 31 cxb5 Bxb5 32
b4 because of 32...S.b6! 33 faxes Bxb4, when
White cannot hold out) 28...£sd4 29 b4 ^xb5
30 fa c6 Bb6 31 cxb5 Bxbs with chances of
converting the extra exchange.
24...£ih3+!
Again an interposition - and the best
practical chance! Nothing was promised by
24-..Sxb5 25 Axf4 Sxc5 26 <£sxc5 Axc5+ 27
&g2 Axa3 28 bxa3 or 24...fxe5 25 Ac4 Sb4
(25-.-A.d8 26 £sd3) 26 Ad3, etc.
25 4^2 Sxb5
26Ag3
Black is clearly better after 26 4xh3? fxe5
27 c4 Bxc5 28 faxes Axc5 29 BxaS Ad4 30
Ha8 e4l. And after 26 c4 (White can also
interpose a move!) 26...Sxc5 27 £sxc5 fxe5 28
Bxa5 fat4+ the two bishops are nevertheless
somewhat stronger than the rook and pawn.
In Informator I gave 26 Ad4 fatA+ 27 4 h l
e5 28 Ae3 f5 with the initiative for Black
after 29 Sxa5 Sxa5 30 ^xa5 fxg4, etc., but
29 g5! faeb (29...Ag5 30 Bxa5 Bb8(b4) 31
Axf4 and £id3) 30 ^xe6 Axe6 31 Sxa5 Sxa5
32 ^xa5 is more resilient, hoping to neutral­
ise the power of the bishops. White also
holds on after 28...Sd8 29 Sxa5 Bxa5 30
£sxa5 Axes 31 Axes Sd 2 32 Ae3 Sxc2 33
Axf4 exf4 34 b4.
26...£\g5
Life after Death
This outwardly pretty move loses Black his
advantage. But in the event of 26...Axcs!? 27
£ sxc5 Bxc5 28 4xh3 Bxc2 29 Bf2! White
would most probably be saved by the oppo­
site-coloured bishops, despite the weakness
of thef3-pawn.
27 Af2?
A fatal error in time-trouble. 27 c4! would
have equalised, for example:
1 ) 27...SXC5 28 <£sxc5 Axes 29 Bxa5 Ad4
30 h4 fa fl 31 b4 (31 c5 Axb2 32 B bl is also
good) 3l...^e5 32 B dl Ac3 33 Axes! fxe5 34
Ba8 with the idea of 34...Axb4 35 B bl Ad6
36 Bb6 with equality, or 34...Ad4 35 Sd3,
when the pair of connected passed pawns is
a real strength;
2) 27...Bb4 28 h4 Bxc4 (after my Informa­
tor 28...£rf7 the most accurate is 29 Ba4! -
Stohl) 29 hxg5 Axes 30 ^xc5 BxcS 31 Ad 6
B c 2+ 32 Sf2 Sxf2+ 33 4xf2 Bd8 34 Ae7
Sd2+ 35 4e3 Sxb2 36 gxf6 with a draw.
27.. .Ab7l (White has not managed to drive
the knight from g5, and his f3 point is under
pressure) 28 A gl
28 Ae3(d4) Sc8 29 h4 faxtS\ (cf. the note
to Black’s 29th move) or 28 £sxb7 Axa3 29
falxes Axb2 30 c4 Bbb8 is also depressing.
28.. .5c8 29 h4 Axf3+
29-..^xf3! was more accurate: 30 Sxf3 (30
^xb7? *£sxh4+ and ...Axa3) 30...Axc5 31
347
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
£>xc5 Ibxc5 321.XC5 lxc5 33 c3 Sc4 34 ^ 3
ik,xf3 35 a4 or 33...h5l, winning an
important tempo and the game.
30 fixf3 £>xf3 31 ‘A’xfs A x e s 32 £>xc5 &bxc5
33 ilxc5 Sxc5
34 c3 (after 34 h5 g6! Black would soon have
created a pair of connected passed pawns,
but now he does this immediately) 34...H5!
35 gxh5 Sxh5 36 b4?!
Instant death. True, 36 <4^4 IIc5 would
have merely prolonged the resistance, but
not changed the result.
36...axb4 37 cxb4 Sxh4 0-1
A fighting game!
In the meantime Polgar won with White
against Shirov, so that she and I were lead­
ing the race with 2'h out of 4.
In the fifth round, which concluded the
first cycle, I had White against Karpov. We
had not met in ‘classical’ play since Las
Palmas 1996. This is what Yuri Vasiliev
reported from the scene of events:
‘That day the tournament hall was unable
to accommodate all those wanting to watch;
people were standing in the aisles, and to get
through to the stage, which was also a scene of
activity, was extremely difficult There was a
kind of parade of the top officials of Linares,
the province ofJaen, and ofAndalucia in gen­
348
eral. They all wanted to witness the historic,
166th (!) Kasparov-Karpovgame. You couldn’t
move for reporters on the stage, while the
grandmasters sat amongst all this madness.
‘Kasparov concealed a smile with his hand
and slightly closed his eyes. Karpov was inscru­
table, and this sombre, aloof, impassiveface of
the Great Competitor staggered and drew the
attention of the Spanish, who know their
chess. The history of the ancient game has not
known such a confrontation. Just think: five
matches for the world championship! They
have gone through five madly intense
matches! In each of them there were more
than 20 games. During one of these matches,
which lasted nearly six months, in the Land of
the Soviets there was a change of power, and
one of the contestants almost died of exhaus­
tion... Karpov-Kasparov: this is a whole epoque
in chess. And in our life - also an epoque..
‘And here they were sitting before their next,
166th game, inundated by flashing lights. Just
like then, back in 1984... And again they were
ready to uphold their principles. Their views on
chess. On the struggle. And on life.
‘The smile disappeared from Kasparov's
face, and he acquired his familiar, slightly
sinister expression, circulated a countless
number of times by all conceivable and
inconceivable publications in the world. But
Karpov was still impassive. The Alcalde of
Linares, Juan Fernandez Gutierrez, started the
clocks, and the great battle began.’
Right from the opening I was able to set
my opponent serious problems.
Game 77
G.Kasparov-A.Karpov
Linares, 5th Round, 28.02.2001
Caro-Kann Defence B12
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5

Up until then I had played this against the
Caro-Kann only in simultaneous displays,
while in serious games I once chose 3 exds
(Game N0.23), but invariably 3 £id2 (Game
Nos.8, 48), including against Karpov (Game
Nos.34, 85 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on
Garry Kasparov). ‘It became clear that the
13th world champion had devised some­
thing truly murderous!’ (MakaTychev).
3...-&f5 4 £>c 3
The sharpest line, which I had prepared
for my match with Kramnik (2000). In
simuls’ I had tried 4 £tf3 e6 5 a3 or 4 c3 e6 5
.&e3, against Shirov (Game N0.129) and
Jobava (Rethymnon 2003) - 4 £.e3, and
against Vallejo (Linares 2003) - 4 £>d2.
4...e6
The usual reply, but after this game for a
time Karpov turned to 4...1i rb6. To me the
queen move seems second-rate (since it
delays Black’s development), although I
myself played it once, in order to pany 5 g4
with 5..~&d7 (Velimirovic-Kasparov, Moscow
Interzonal 1982). However, Black does not
gain full equality either here, or after the
quiet 5 £>f3 e6 6 jLe2 £se7 7 0-0 JLg4 (7..&d7
8 b3 is no better) 8 £sa4 (8 b3 or 8 h3 is also
suitable) 8...#c7 9 b3 b5 10 £sb2 £>d7 11 c4
(Grischuk-Karpov, Linares 2001, 7th round)
or 11 c3!? Sb8 12 £sd3 £>g6 13 a4 (Shirov-
Life after Death
Karpov, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2001).
5 g4 ^.g6 6 £>ge2
Threatening h2-h4 and £tf4.
6...£>e7
At that time this was the main continua­
tion - a prophylactic defence of the g6-
bishop with the aim of retaining a flexible
pawn chain in the event of the exchange
£sf4xg6 after h2-h4 and ...h7-h5. 6...h6 7 .&e3
£sd7 8 Wd2, etc., is too slow. 6...f6 is also not
very attractive (Game N0.87 in Revolution in
the 70s). But the most energetic is the im­
mediate attack on the centre by 6...C5!, for
example:
1 ) 7 J&.e3 £ k6 (Game N0.88 in Revolution in
the 70s) or the more modem 7....cxd4 8 £sxd4
.£±>4 ! (examples: Motylev-Nisipeanu, Roma­
nia 2001; Shirov-Grischuk, Dubai (rapid)
2002; Sutovsky-Bologan, Poikovsky 2007);
2) 7 h4 h5 8 £>f4 ^.h7! 9 £>xh5 £>c610 dxc5
.&XC5 11 i.b5 #07 12 i.xc6+ #xc6 13 #f3
0-0-0 (Game No.89 in Revolution in the 70s) or
11 jLg2 <£f8 (Shirov-Topalov, Dresden Olym­
piad 2008), also with double-edged play.
It was because of 6...C5 that the variation
4 £>c3 e6 5 g4 .&g6 6 £}ge2 declined in
popularity, but this happened later, and at
that time, in 2001,1took an optimistic view
of the complications resulting here.
7 ^ f4
349
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Later it transpired that 7 f4! is even more
dangerous for Black, for example; 7...C5 8
£»g3l (Anand-Karpov, Wijk aan Zee 2003).
7...C5 8 dxc5!?
A seemingly anti-positional move (White
himself helps the opponent to destroy the
pawn centre), which a year earlier had been
tried in the game Shirov-Karpov (Monte Carlo
(blindfold) 2000). The dynamic nature of the
resulting positions appealed to me: while
Black is spending time on regaining the
pawn, White can hide his king in a compara­
tively safe place and develop an initiative in
the space vacated, with the hope of creating a
direct attack on the enemy king.
The following line is quite acceptable for
Black: 8 h4 cxd4 9 £»bs £>ec6 10 h5 ^.e4 11
f3 a6! (but not ll..JLxf3?! 12 ®xf3 “Sixes 13
®g3 Ssbc6 14 £»d3 f6 15 Sif4, Anand-Karpov,
Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2001) 12 Sid6+ (12
fxe4 axb5 13 exd5 exd5 14h6!? S)d7l, Malak-
hov-Galkin, Lausanne 2000) 12..JLxd6 13
exd6 g5l 14 £»h3 h6 15 fxe4 dxe4 16 Ag2 f5
(Topalov-Anand, Linares 1999; Nataf-
Solozhenkin, France 1999).
8...S)d7
Natural development. After 8,..<5iec6 9 h4
Wc7 {9-^3.5 10 jtd 2l, Khalifman-Dreev,
Dubai (rapid) 2002) 10 h5! ®xe5+ 11 S)fe2l
the white pieces come into play very quickly:
350
H...iLe4 12 iLf4 W 6 13 g5 with a powerful
initiative (Ghschuk-Dreev, Moscow 2002;
Rychagov-Wessman, Gothenburg 2002).
9 h4 Sixes 10 l,g2!
‘This unpretentious move is the whole
point’ (MakaTychev). While preventing ...jLe4,
White intensifies the threat of h4-hs and
prepares We2, which creates a threat to the
d 5-pawn. His initiative is very dangerous, and
determined measures are required of Black.
10...h5?!
Karpov incautiously repeats his blindfold
game with Shirov. Soon he was to
strengthen Black’s defence by I0...d4l 11 h5?
dxc3 12 ^xdS-r 2xd8 13 hxg6 Si7xg6 (Al-
masi-Karpov, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2001).
Of course, 11 <Sce2 should be played, and if
ll-WaS-H 12 <4fl Wxc5, then 13 £sxd4 - I
reached this position in my preparation for
the game and I decided that White is not
taking any particular risks here, whereas
Black still has to demonstrate equality
(nevertheless, this was his best chance).
11 # e2! £ s7c 6
After ll...£»xg4?l the commentators gave
12 £ixg6 £ixg6 13 £ixd5, but 12 ^ b s! 1 ^ 7
13 £»d6+ 'A’dS 14 c4 was better, with a very
strong attack.
12 £ixg6 “S^xg6 13 jtg5l
Here is the novelty. In the Shirov-Karpov

game after 13 £sxd5 .&xc5 14 .&g5 £sge7 15
1T35 f6 16 #xc5 £sxd5 17 0-0-0 #e7! Black
successfully completed his development.
Now, however, he faces serious problems: it
is hard for him to find any more or less
secure shelter for his king, whereas after
castling on the queenside the white king will
be completely safe.
l3...JLe7 (already here Karpov had only
some 20-25 minutes left on his clock) 14
gxh5
14.. .£if8?
This reply surprised me - Dokhoian and I
had not even looked at it, since we considered
it completely bad. Also weak is 14...£sge5? 15
f4 £sd7 (I5...f6 16 h6!) 16 0-0-0 £ ixc5 (l6...&f8
17 Shel) 17 .&xd5! or 15...£sc4 16 0-0-0 #a5
17 Jtxd5!, etc. One of two continuations was
comparatively the lesser evil:
l) I4...^.xg5, and I would have had to
make a difficult choice between the two
possible captures:
la) 15 hxg6 £sd4l (it is bad to play
15.. Jbch4? 16 jtxd5! or 15..~&f6?! 16 £sxd5!
i.x b 2 17 S b l #a5+ 18 #d2!) 16 ®g4l? (16
Wd3 ^-f6, suggested by me in Informator, is
unclear) I6...^xc2+ 17 i f l £sxal 18 gxf7+
(18 hxg5 2xhl+ 19 JLxhl f5l) I8...^xf7 19
hxg5 2xhl+ 20 jLxhl - White has a danger­
ous attack (say, 20...Sc8 21 g6+ ^ e7 22 ^ 4 !
Life after Death
Sxc 5 23 1®rd4 l, etc.), but after 20...1i rh 8 21
g6+ ^ f 6 (21...^e7? 22 £sxd5+! exd5 23
#g5+) 22 ^.xd5! exd5 23 £sxd5+ ^ e5 24
#g5+ ^ e 4 (24...^d4? 25 £ic7!) 25 ^ e 2l # g 8!
(but not 25...1rhl? 26 £sc3+ ^ d 4 27 #f4+
<^xc5 28 b4+! &c6 29 #c4+ * d 6 30 £se4+
<^d7 31 ®f7+, etc.) no win is apparent;
lb) 15 hxg5 £sf4 16 # g 4 £sxg2+
(l6...Wc7?! 17 0-0-0 £se5 18 #g3! 0-0-0 19
itf3!) 17 Wxg2 # a5 18 0-0-0 d4 (lS.-.l'xcS 19
g6!) 19 £se4 l fxa2 20 £>d6+ <&>e7 21 Sxd4
# a l+ 22 ^ d 2 # x b 2 23 Sf4! (my Informator
variation), or 18...0-0-0 19 ®f3! £se5 20 # f4
£sc4 21 Sd 3, and White retains the initiative;
2) 14...£sxh4 15 ^.xh4 ^.xh4 16 ,&xd5 .&e7
(16 ...0-0 17 ^.xc6 bxc6 18 £se4 ! is less good)
17 jtxc 6+ bxc6 18 # e 4 2 c8 (or I 8...&f8, but
not I8...1rc7?! 19 0-0-0) 19 S d l Wc7 20 b4,
retaining the extra pawn.
But after the passive knight retreat Black
is unable to avoid being forcefully crushed.
15 £sb5 £sd7 (I5...f6?l 16 JLf4 or 16 h6 gxh6
17 .&f4 and 0-0-0 is hopeless)
16 h6!
‘A wonderful resource! After 16 £sd6+?
4f8 the position would have become un­
clear, whereas now Black does not have time
to set up a defence’ (Makarychev).
16...£sxc5
I6...gxh6? 17 £sd6+ 4f8 18 Whs would
351
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

have led to a swift catastrophe, as would
I 6...g6? 17 Jtxe7 £sxe7 (I7...4xe7 18 ^.xd5l)
18 0-0-0 Bxh6 19 c4 or 18...0-0 19 h5, etc.
exclaimed: ‘That’s how chess should be
played!’ However, during the game, after
some thought, I could well have played 20
4 b l, but most probably I would have found
the decisive stroke 20 iLxd5! exd5 21 Shgl+
4f8 22 <£sc7 with irresistible threats (above
all #g4).

17 -&f4!?
17 hxg7 Sg8 suggested itself, and then
either 18 jtf4 or 18 itxe7, but the unex­
pected bishop retreat, with the threat of
<£sc7+, seemed more effective to me. 20 4>bl
17...'4f8?! Now I would play 20 c4!?, breaking up
This makes things easier for White, as Black’s defences w ithout. any sacrifices.
does 17...Sc8?l 18 hxg7 2g8 19 0-0-0 £>b4 ‘Surprisingly, White’s position is so strong
(19-Sxg7 20 jtxd5) 20 a 3l £sb3+ 21 4>bl that he can even permit himself prophylaxis.
Sxc2 22 #e3(f3). However, 17-.#a5+! was In time-trouble, Karpov is unable to see his
more tenacious, after which I was planning way through all the tactical nuances, and he
18 c3, for example: 18...0-0-0 19 hxg7 Hhg8 himself provokes the opponent into carrying
20 ic 7 , winning the exchange, or I8...#a4 out a winning combination.’ (MakaTychev)
19 £ sc7+ 4 d7 20 i g 3 Bac8 21 hxg7 Shg8 22 20.. .a6
<£sxd5 exd5 23 Bdl! with a strong attack for This loses, but what is to be done? If
the sacrificed piece. 20.. .5c8, then 21 c4!, while after 20...#a5,
18 hxg7+ 4 x g 7 19 0-0-0 (the outcome is apart from 21 c4, both 21 j Lc7 and 21 h5
decided) I9 ...4 f8 £ib4 22 <£sa3! £>a4 23 Sh3 are good.
After this my opponent had just 9 (!) min­ 21 £>c 7! S c8 22 JLxd5! exd5 23 fixdS # x c7
utes left on his clock. If 19...Bc8 White would There is no choice: 23...£>d7 24 Sh5! Bxh5
have had the same choice between 20 c4 25 #xh5 i.f6 26 l,d6+ ^ e 7 27 £ld5 or
and the preparatory 20 4 b l. 23.. .1xc7 24 Bxd8+ ix d 8 25 id6+!, and
In a joint analysis after the game Karpov again the king’s insecurity proves decisive
and I became fascinated by lg.-.'ffaS and the (25...£se7 26#e5!).
variation 20 a3 Bag8! 21 &c7 # 3 4 22 b3 24 1.XC7 Sxc7 25 Sf5 Sd7 (25...£sd4 26 #e5
# a 6 23 b4?l 4*8! 24 l.xd5 exd5 25 bxc5 or 25...1.d6 26 # d 2 jk,e7 27 #c3 is also fatal)
JLxcS with unclear complications. I even 26 c3

352

26...f6
26...Sh6 was better, although the result
would have been the same: 27 2 g l Sxh4 28
f4 &d6 29 l f 2 or 27...£se6 28 l e 3 2f6 29
2xf6 (29 2h5l?) 29...^.xf6 30 h5, etc.
27 2 g l £ld 8 (27...2xh4 28 2xc5! &xc5 29
# e 6) 28 # g 4 «ie8 29 2h5 2f8 30 2xcs!
i.xc5 3 1 * h 5 + 1-0
This important game is one of my most
memorable (it was also rated very highly by
Judit Polgar). By energetic and consistent
play I was able to exploit Karpov’s opening
error (by no means always did this happen),
and in addition the win made me the sole
leader after the first cycle: Kasparov - 3Vi
out of 5; Polgar - 3; Leko and Shirov - 2'/r,
Karpov - 2; Grischuk - lVi.
I arrived for the sixth round in an elated
mood and confidently outplayed Leko in a
complicated Spanish (cf. Came No.2, note to
Black’s 10th move). This defeat was Peter’s
only decisive game in the tournament... My
lead over Polgar increased to a point.
After a free day Judit with White engaged
me in a real battle for the lead, and on my
territory - in a Najdorf with castling on
opposite sides (cf. Came No.122, note to
Black’s 13th move). She boldly sacrificed a
pawn, but then suddenly incorrectly ex­
Life after Death
changed bishop for knight (22 jLxe4? dxe4),
allowed a counter-blow in the centre, and -
launched a desperate attack!
Game 78
J.Polgar-G.Kasparov
Linares, 7th Round, 03.03.2001
25 c 3 ?l (not wishing to suffer a pawn down
after 25 fxe5 £xe5) 25...f6!
Judit underestimated this strong reply. In
the event of 25...exd4? 26lx d 4 White would
have regained the piece and obtained a
tolerable endgame. Now, however, she is
losing.
26 gxf 6 (26 £ixg7?! #xg7 27 gxf6 #xf6 28
lg 3 + I g 6 is bad for White) 26...exd4l 27
£Jxd4 g 6 ?!
An instinctive defensive move, made in
approaching time-trouble. ‘Surprisingly, for
the only time in this very interesting game
Garry became rattled’ (MakaTychev).
In a joint analysis after the game we dis­
covered the fearfully strong 27..~&a3!! with a
pretty win in all variations, for example: 28
fxg7 (28 £se6 lc4!) 28...2f7 29 bxa3 £sxc3+
30 * a l Wes! or 28 2 g l g6 29 f 5 £xb2 30
fxg6 £ ixc3+ 31 i >xb2 £ixdl+ 32 2 x d l hxg6
3 3 * 921117!.
353
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

27..Jk,d5 28 #g2 (28 <£sb3 &c4) 28...g6 29 with Anand (1995). I was able to exploit an
f5 Af7 would have been more prosaically inaccuracy by my opponent in a very compli­
decisive. However, 27...g6 does not throw cated endgame and to securely blockade the
away the win, but merely makes it more enemy passed pawns (cf. Game No.19, note
complicated. to Black’s ll th move), after which the win
28 f5! became a matter of technique.
28 £le6 was insufficient in view of In that same eighth round Karpov gained
28...<£sxc3+! 29 bxc3 l rxc3 30 fie3 1T)4+ 31 his only win in the tournament - against
Sb3 ®c4! 32 £sxf8 e3! 33 ®b2 <£>xf8 34 £sg3 Polgar. This settled matters as regards the
Jtxf4. fight for first place: by reaching ‘plus four’ -
6 out of 8, I was now two points ahead of
Judit.
The draw with Karpov in the ninth round
was our last, 167th ‘classical’ game (cf. Game
No.47 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009). It
did not tum out to be the most vivid, but it
confirmed a pleasant trend for me that had
long been taking shape: playing White,
Karpov no longer created problems for me,
as he had at one time in our matches; more­
over, I increasingly often obtained comfort­
able and rather promising positions with
Black. This game determined the final score
28.. .gxh5? of our serious encounters: +28-20=119 in my
An amnesty! After 28...J.d5l it was still favour, including +7-1=15 in tournaments.
possible for Black to convert his material Finally, I beat Grischuk with White in the
advantage: 29 fxg6 hxg6 30 S g l (30 ^ 2 ? ! ‘anti-Sveshnikov’ variation l e4 c5 2 £sf3
jtf7) 30...#c4l 31 lxg6+ (31 £sb3?l <£>f7) £sc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 <£sxd4 £if6 5 <£sc3 e6 6 ^xc6
31.. .'i’h7 32 Sg7+ 'A’hS 33 £sb3 e3! 34 # x e 3 bxc6 7 e5 ^ d 5 8 £se4 jtb7 (8...#c7 is faT
# e 4+ 35 Sd3 'ffxe3 36 Sxe3 ik,g8!, and the more often played - Game No.89 in Part II of
rampant bishops sweep away everything in Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 9 JLe2l,
their path. etc. - also one of the variations that we had
29 <£se6 £ sxc3+! (now forced in view of the prepared for the match with Kramnik.
threat o f’Hfgl+J 30 bxc3! (30 'i ’al? <£)xdl and The results of Linares 2001 were truly
wins) 30...®xc3 31 Sxd6 (forcing perpetual paradoxical. This is not often seen: one
check) 3 l—Vb4+ 32 'i’a l # c3 + contestant scored ‘plus five’, and the re­
And a couple of moves later a draw was maining five - all ‘minus one’. Regarding
agreed ('A-'A). A fascinating battle and a this, Seirawan joked: 'For the first time in his
splendid finish! life Kasparov finished last but one!’. By win­
ning my eighth super-toumament in suc­
The following day Shirov surprised me by cession and finishing thee points ahead of
his choice of the Spanish Open Variation, my pursuers, I once again demonstrated
resembling the tenth game of my match that the 2000 London match was by no

354

means the end of my chess career, for which
many of my colleagues-cum-rivals were
hoping.
Here are some interesting observations by
the well-known trainer Anatoly Bykhovsky,
who was helping Grischuk in the tourna­
ment:
‘Linares 2001 was memorable above allfor
Kasparov’s performance. None of the other
contestants played with such intensity and
will-to-win. It is probable that after losing the
title o f world champion Kasparov has ac­
quired an ultra-important objective - to
demonstrate that he is still the strongest
chess player on the planet. And in tourna­
ment play he is now superior to everyone. He
is a maximalist, in contrast to Kramnik and
Anand, who apparently do not think that
they should always try and beat everyone.
But Kasparov aims for this constantly, in
every game. And in Linares he played not
simply for first place, but for the optimum
result.
'Kasparov’s attitude to the game was al­
ready apparent from, for example - lunch.
The other contestants spent at least an hour
on it, talking among themselves and with
their trainers. But Kasparov lunched very
quickly and did not allow himself to be
distracted at all before a game. The behav­
iour of Yuri Dokhoian was also an indication
of Garry's frame of mind. The other trainers
strolled about, chatted or drank coffee, but
Dokhoian and Klara Shagenovna (who has
been at all the tournaments in Linares, since
she considers this to be one of the most
important events for her son) sat in the hall
and without distraction followed the play of
their ‘protege’. In general, Kasparov's attitude
to his own performance provoked admiration
- although a Linares ‘old-timer’, he played
here as though for the first time.
‘Naturally, the relations between Kasparov
Life after Death
and Karpov drew attention... The two 'Ks'
have different aims: Kasparov wants to
demonstrate (and fo r this he has every basis)
that he is still the strongest player in the
world, whereas Karpov simply wants to play
chess and maintain his high reputation... But
they have more things in common. They have
both been world champion, and both speak
out against the innovations of FIDE and
llyumzhinov in the fields o f rapid chess and
the world championship. Karpov and Kas­
parov want to defend classical chess; to some
extent nothing divides the ‘veterans' - they
have no fundamental disagreements. When
they shook hands before a game, played, and
analysed it after the finish, one sensed their
benevolent attitude to each other’.
The highly uneasy situation, which had
developed by that time in the chess world,
induced the champions of different eras to
display solidarity. Roughly a month after
Linares, Karpov, Kramnik and I published a
joint ‘Appeal to the chess society’ - a decla­
ration in defence of classical chess, tradi­
tional tournaments and matches for the
world championship (cf. Kasparov vs. Karpov
1988-2009). The efforts of the champions,
augmented by the activity of Bessel Kok and
Yasser Seirawan, led within a year to an
illusory compromise with the FIDE Board...
Fall of the Berlin Wall
Double-Round Tournament in Astana (19
May -1 June 2001): 1. Kasparov - 7 out of 10;
2. Kramnik - 6'/i; 3. Gelfand - 5V2: 4-5. Shirov
and Morozevich - 4V2: 6. Sadvakasov - 2.
Soon after Linares I gave rapid chess its
due: in Cannes I won the FIDE World Cup (cf.
p.488), and a month later in Zurich I finished
second in a tournament to mark Korchnoi’s
70th birthday. On the whole I played confi­
dently - I won my group (4V2out of 5), easily
355
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
beat Korchnoi (1V2-V2) and Short (1V2-V2), but
in the final I once more ran into Kramnik
(V2-1 V2): with White I was again unable to
breach the ‘Berlin Wall’, while with Black I
obtained a good game and could even have
repeated moves, but I suddenly lost control
over myself and over the situation.
Kramnik gained a new lease of life after his
comparative failure in Wijk aan Zee, and the
next round of rivalry between the 13th and
14th world champions acquired particular
importance - this was the category 20 May
super-toumament in Astana, the new capital
of Kazakhstan (which for me replaced Sara­
jevo). The day before the start we gave a joint
press conference, which created enormous
interest. And in general at this ‘tournament
of six’ there was an unusually large number
of spectators, including young players.
The line-up was also not altogether usual.
To the two 2800 favourites and three 2700
fighters was added the local 2500 hero, the
22-year-old Darmen Sadvakasov (on the
other hand, his trainer was none other than
Yuri Razuvaev!). It was this debutant who
nearly spoiled the final picture for me, by
twice losing to Kramnik (with White in an
equal endgame, and with Black by blunder­
ing on the 14th move) and gaining two
draws with me, in both of which I had to
suffer...
In the first round I beat Shirov with Black
in a comparatively rare line of the
Scheveningen (cf. Game No.99, note to
White’s 8th move) - this good win gave me
an additional charge of optimism. In the
second round against Gelfand I employed a
novelty in the French Defence, which had
been prepared for the match with Kramnik,
and I held a definite initiative, but to be on
the safe side Boris gave up his queen (which
was not essential) and set up a fortress - a
draw on the 41st move. But Kramnik, by
356
beating Gelfand and Sadvakasov, started
with 2 out of 2.
The next day I had Black against the un­
predictable Alexander Morozevich.
Came 79
A.Morozevich-G.Kasparov
Astana, 3rd Round, 22.05.2001
Sicilian Defence B87
1 e4 c5
2 d6 3 d4
On this occasion Morozevich was in a far
more aggressive mood than in Wijk aan Zee
2001, where he made a draw with me after 3
£b5+ &d7 4 ^.xd7+ #xd7 5 0-0 (in the ninth
round in Astana, Sadvakasov achieved the
same by 5 c4 ^ c6 6 d4, but not 6 4^3 g6 7
d4 ^.g7l? - Game No.31).
3...cxd4 4 4^xd4 5 4 k 3 a6 6 JLc4 e6 7
£b3
‘A variation from my chess childhood’
(Morozevich). This was also played success­
fully by another pupil of the well-known
trainer Vladimir Yurkov - the 1980s candi­
date Andrey Sokolov.
7...b5
To be honest, I was not very prepared for
this variation and here I hesitated for some
ten minutes over whether to play 7...4ft>d7

(Game No.3) ot 7...£k:6 (Game N0.5). But
nevertheless I chose the main ‘Gelfand’ line,
which I had used towards the end of my
match with Short (1993).
8 0-0 & e7 9 Wf3 # c 7 10 Wg3 0-0 1 1 £ h 6
£ ie 8 12 S a d i
‘I twice tried 12 &>hi, but even such a
clever move does not give White an advan­
tage’ (Morozevich).
l2 ..JLd 7
13 f4l?
A frontal attack! In Linares 1993 I success­
fully played 13 <£if3 against Gelfand (Game
No.99 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov), but it transpired that neither it,
nor 13 a3, nor 13 Sfel, nor 13 £lce2 prom­
ises White anything special. ‘It is amusing
that here each of us played in his own way.
After warmly thanking in my heart all the
theoreticians, I decided to act simply and
directly’ (Morozevich).
13...£*6 14 f5l?
After this rare move I thought for half an
hour. It was known that little is promised by
14 £lxc6 £lxc6 15 f5 ‘A’hS 16 &e3 (later 16
f6l? came into fashion) I6...b4 17 £la4 £lf6!
(Damaso-Amason, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990)
or 14 i.g5 .&xg5 15 fxg5 £sxd4 16 Sxd4 IfcS
(Morozevich-Gelfand, Istanbul Olympiad
2000 ) .
Life after Death
14...^xd4 (in order to hold the e6 point) 15
Sxd4
15.. .1Lf6!
The immediate I5...b4 (Florean-
Nisipeanu, Romania 1996) is dangerous on
account of 16 e5l dxe5 17 fig4 &h8 18 2xg7
bxc3 19 f6! JLxf6 20 2xf6 cxb2 21 2 fl. And if
15.. .^h8 with the idea of 16 $Le3 £if6 17
H§h3?! d5l (Mamedyarov-Gelfand, 3rd match
game, Kazan 2011), there is 16 f6! .&xf6 17
2xf6 WcS 18 .&xg7+ £ixg7 19 ^ 2 , when
White has some advantage.
16 2d3 i.e5!
After some thought I made a natural
move - 1placed my bishop in the very centre,
which turned out to be a novelty. White is
better after I6...<^>h8 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 Jie3 b4
19 £se2 e5 (I9...i.b5? 20 <£sf4) 20 2d2 (Ma-
cieja-Wojtkiewicz, Warsaw 1995).
However, I6...b4l? is acceptable: 17 fxe6
fxe6 18 £ie2 a5 or 18 e5 WcS+l (in Informa-
tor I gave only the unclear 18.. JLxeS) 19 .&e3
WxeS 20 <£sd5 Wxg3 21 hxg3 i.b5, and Black
is okay.
Sasha was intending to initiate ‘very lively
play’ by 19 2e3(?l), but after I9...bxc3l 20 exf6
cxb2 21 ,&xg7 2f7 22 iLh6+ (£ >h8 with the
threat of ...£i(2)xf6 White risks being left with
nothing. ‘If I6...b4 had occurred in the game, I
think that it would have terrified both players
357
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
- therefore l6..JLe5 is stronger and, most
important, more solid’ (Morozevich).
17 % 4
For some five minutes my opponent en­
joyed the variation 17 fxe6(?) ii.xg3 18 exf7+
<i>h8 19 Sxg 3 # 05+ 20 i.e3 # e5 21 Sg5 #e7
22 £)d5, but it is unsuitable in view of
22.. .#xe4l 23 Sf4 #e6. He did not want to
return with 17 ^.f4(l?) on account of
17.. .£rf6, when 18 Sxd6? £sh5 is bad for
White, while after 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 ^.xe5
dxe5 20 Sdf3 ^ h 8 Black has a solid position.
17.. .b4 (driving away the knight from the d5
point) 18 f6?!
A flamboyant, inventive move, but hardly
the best. True, after 18 fxe6?l JLxe6 19 JLxe6
bxc3 20 JLd5 #c8! (20...cxb2 21 i.xa8 #a7+
22 'i ’h l #xa8 is unclear because of 23 Sb3!)
21 #xc8 Bxc8 22 JLf4 cxb2 23 JLxe5 dxe5
White would have reached a poor endgame,
while after the retreat of his knight he would
be fighting only for equality: 18 £se2 (in the
event of 18 £sdl exf5 19 exf5 ^.b5 20 f6
jLxf6! 21 Bxf6 JLxd3 22 cxd3 'i ’hS White
does not have full compensation for the
exchange) I8...exf5 19 exf5 i b 5 20 Se3l?
(not 20 f6 Jb<f6! 21 Sxf6 JLxd3 22 cxd3 ^h8,
as in the variation with 18 £)dl) 20...<4>h8 21
JLg5 #c5 22 'i ’h l £>f6 (22..JLxb2 23 c3!) 23
# h 4 i.xe2 24 Sxe2 JLxb2 25 fie3! Sae8 26
358
Bxe8 Sxe8 27 JLxf7, holding the position.
18.. .g6 (of course, not I8...bxc3? 19 .&xg7 or
18.. .JLxf6? 19 Hxf6 bxc3 20 Sxc3) 19 £>e2
‘Without thinking, since there is nothing
else! On the other hand, now Black has a
wide choice, and it was not surprising that
here the ex-champion thought for a long
time and found an excellent possibility.’
(Morozevich).
19...a5i!
‘A move of all moves!’ (Razuvaev). ‘Al­
though this move cost Black more than half
an hour, its strength more than compen­
sates for the time spent’ (Morozevich). After
19 £>e2 my opponent was obviously happy
with his position, whereas I was extremely
anxious about the future of the black king,
for example:
1) 19...^xf6 (not 19-^.xf6?! 20 JLxf8 'i ’xfS
21 Sdf3) 20 # h 4 a5?! (Black loses immedi­
ately after 20...£>h5? 21 g4! £sg7 22 Sh3 g5
23 ii.xg5, but 20...#d8 is possible) 21 Bxf6
a4? (21..JLb5 is more resilient) 22 Sh3 2fe8
23 g4! ^.xf6 24 #xf6 #c5+ 25 JLe3 # e5 26
# h 4 #h8(g7) 27 .&C4 and wins;
2) 19..JLb5 20 #h4! ^.xd3 21 cxd3 #c5+!
(my Informator 21...#a7+ 22 'i ’h l JLxb2(?) is
bad because of 23 d4!) 22 'i ’h l JLxf6 23 Sxf6
£)xf6 24 #xf6 # e5 25 #f2!?, ‘and the three
minor pieces can cause a lot of trouble’

(Morozevich), although after 25...f5 things
are still unclear.
Gradually I realised that it was not so
simple for White to create real mating
threats and that Black had time to land a
powerful counter-blow on the queenside,
while his dark-squared bishop stands on e5
like a rock (Grandmaster Gufeld would have
beamed with pleasure!). The effect of the
move 19...a5 was phenomenal: White’s
attack comes to a standstill and his position
becomes difficult.
20 £ x f8
The only move. After my Informator rec­
ommendation 2 0 Wh4(?) a4 21 ,&g5 (it is too
late for 21 ,&xf8 axb3 22 Wh6 J.xf6! 23 Sxb3
Wc5+ 24 * h l i.g5 25 Wh3 *xf8 26 Wxh7
,&f6! 27 £tf4 ^.b5 and wins), Black wins not
only with 21...h5 22 g4 hxg4l 23 Wxg4 i.b5!
24 Sh3 ^.xe2 25 Wxe2 axb3 26 Wf2 ±d4!
(Morozevich), but also the immediate
21.. .M51.
‘I made the exchange of the fine bishop
on h6 for the pitiful f8-rook with great
difficulty, reluctantly. However, for heart-felt
sufferings I had little more than twenty
minutes left on the clock, and the decision to
'grab' some material on the way was taken
mainly intuitively.’ (Morozevich).
20.. .6 xf8 21 Wh4
Life after Death
21...a4!
Tempo play. After my Informator 21...h5
White would have equalised by 22 *5M4! with
the threat of ,&xe6:22...a4 23 ^.xe6! ^.xe6 24
£>xe6+ fxe6 25 f7! Wc5+ 26 * h l £>f6 27 Sg3,
and if 27...Wxc2?! (27...*xf7 28 2gf3) 28
Sxg6 Wxb2, then the pretty 29 Wg5! *67 30
Sell, etc.
22 Wxh7
With the simple threat of #118 mate.
22...#a7+?!
A mistake that no one noticed: Black loses
control of c4 - a loophole for the white
bishop! Everyone examined only 22...£*xf6
23Wh8+ £sg8! (after 23-*e7? 24 Wxa8 axb3
25 cxb3 at the least White retains the extra
exchange) 24 Why! £tf6 with a repetition of
moves. Although here also Black could still
fight for an advantage with 24..-&f6!.
But 22..JLxf6! was even better, winning
after 23 Sdf3?! Wc5+ 24 * h l axb3 25 2xf6
£>xf6 26 2xf6 ±e8 27 cxb3 We3! 28 £*gl(g3)
Sxa2 or, not so quickly, after 23 e5?! dxe5!
24 i.c4 *e7! 25 b3 axb3 26 axb3 Wc5+ 27
‘M il <5M6 with the threats of ...2h8 and ...e5-
e4.
White would have had to find the only
and far from obvious defence - 23 .&d5!
exd5 24 2df3 Wc5+ 25 * h l Wxc2 26 2xf6
£>xf6 27 2xf6 £e6! (27-Ae& 28 Wh8+ *e7
359
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

29 #114 &d7 30 e5! with equality) 28 2xe6
fxe6 29 #h8+ *e7 30 #g7+ * d 8 31 #g8+
&C7 32 #xa8 Wxe2 33 #a5+ * d 7 34 #xa4+
* e7 35 #a7+ 4f6 36 exd5 #xb2 37 h4!
# a l+ 38 * h2 #e5+ 39 *li3 #xd5 40 #b8,
with chances of saving the queen endgame
a pawn down. Now, however, he has nothing
to worry about.
23 & h l <£sxf6 24 # h 6 + &e7 25 1.C4
Of course!
cisive mistake. After the game in a joint
analysis we both criticised this move, think­
ing that White should simply have made an
escape square - 28 h3 ‘with only a small
advantage for Black’. But it is far from clear
what White should do in reply to 28...2g8!
(threatening ...g6-g5; if 28...ihxe4 White
equalises by 29 2 xf7+i &xf7 30 Wh7+ - G.K.)
29 #g5 2h8 30 2df3 (30 fog3? &c3l - G.K.)
30.. .2h5 31 # d 2 g5l, and White has no
sensible moves’ (Morozevich).
Instead of 31 #d2?, correct is 31 2xf6
2xg5 32 2xf7+ *d8 33 2f8+ *c7 34 2lf7+
*c6 35 2c8+ *b6 36 2b8+! * a5 37 2a8+
,&a6 38 2fa7, regaining the queen with
drawing chances. Therefore instead of
29.. .2h8 my Informator 29...&b2\ is more
accurate, with a clear positional advantage.

25.. .#c5
The variation 25...^.c6!? (25...£sxe4? 26
Hi4+) 26 £sg3! (26 #h4?! g5! 27 #xg5 2g8)
26.. .#c5 27 b3 axb3 28 axb3 (28 £xb5? .£±>5)
leads to a roughly equal position, which
could also have arisen in the game: 28...2a2
29 2df3 2 xc2 30 ^.d3 2a2 31 £)h5! 2 al! 32
£ixf6 2xfl+ 33 2 x fl ^.xf6 or 28..JLxe4 29
£ixe4 £ixe4 30 #h4+ £sf6 31 Sdf3 #d4, in 28...£xf4?
both cases with the excellent dark-squared With a time scramble approaching I de­
bishop and a pawn for the exchange. cided to exchange one of the opponent’s
26 b3 axb3 27 £xb3? attacking pieces, to exclude tactical strokes
27 axb3 ^.c6 28 ^ g 3 was correct (cf. such as 28...2g8?! 29 ^.xe6! fxe6 (29...#xc2
above). Sasha did not want to allow the 30 ^.b3!) 30 £sxg6+ 2xg6 31 #xg6 #xc2 32
activation of the a8-rook, but he allowed the #g7+ * d 8 (32...*e8? 33 Sh3) 33 2xd6+
activation of the d7-bishop. ‘The unjustified ^.xd6 34 #xf6+ &c7! (Morozevich; Stohl’s
discarding of material makes White’s posi­ move 34...‘&d7 is worse on account of 35
tion very dismal’ (Morozevich). #f7+ &e7 36 #f2! or 35...&C6 36 #e8+ *b6
27.. .1.b5 28 £)f4!? 37 #xe6) 35 #f7+ ^-d7, although even here
‘This has its drawbacks, but it is not a de­ Black’s chances are slightly better.

360

For some reason, neither I nor my oppo­
nent noticed the simple possibility 28..JLxd3!,
immediately regaining the exchange with an
obvious advantage:
1 ) 29 £)xd3?! Wd4 30 £sxe5 Wxe5 31 #e3
g5 and wins, or 30Wh4 Wxe4 31 Wxe4 £>xe4
32 ®xb4 £c3 33 £sd3 2h8 34 2f3 £.d4, and
White has an extremely difficult endgame;
2) 29 cxd3 Wd4 (threatening ...Sg8 and
...g6-g5; Stohl called this position ‘roughly
equal’!) 30 &c4 (30 Wg5 Sc8) 30...g5! 31
®xe6!? (31 «xg5 2g8 32 Wh6 Wb2 33 g3
®g4 and wins) 31...fxe6 32 Wg7+ <4^8 33
&xe6 Sa7 34 Wxg5 <4^7! and ...<4^6 - Black’s
extra piece is superior to the pawns.
29 Wxf4 We5 (now the only move)
30h3?l
All the endings - 30 Wxe5?! dxe5 and
,..^.xd3 or 30 2xd6?! Wxf4 31 2xf4 ^xd6 32
2xf6 2a7! - are in Black’s favour. Therefore
the most logical was 30 Wf2 2h8 31 h3 or
30.. .g5, and now 31 Wb6(?) 2h8 32 h3
(Morozevich) is dangerous in view of
32.. .£>d7! 33 Wf2 2h7 with the intention of
,.JLxd3 and ...g5-g4, and my Informator 31
a4 bxa3! is too troublesome, but the cool-
headed 31 'A’gl! maintains dynamic equal­
ity.
30.. .g5 (the transition into a favourable
ending deserved consideration: 30...Wxf4!?
Life after Death
31 2xf4 &xd3 32 cxd3 g5 and ...2c8) 31
Wf2?l
‘Although Kasparov never had the reputa­
tion of being a great lover of the endgame,
nevertheless 1 did not consider my position
to be so bad that I should exchange on e5
and lose ingloriously after 31 Wxe5 dxe5 32
2 c l £>xe4!’ (Morozevich). However, here
White is still far from being lost: 33 2e3 f5
34 2 cel iLc6 35 'A’gl, etc.
My Informator recommendation 31 Wd2
is more accurate, for example: 3 l .2h8 (not
my earlier 31...2b8 because of 32 Wf2) 32
Wxb4 &xd3 (32...®g4 33 Wxd6+ Wxd6 34
2xf7+!) 33 cxd3 g4 (Stohl) 34 Wb7+ 4*8 35
Wc8+ <4^7 36 Wcl! gxh3 37 Wf4 or 3l...£)xe4
32 Wxb4 f5 33 2 e l (after 33 c4 £.c6 Black
has excellent compensation for the ex­
change) 33...g4 34 <4gl 2h8 35 Wd4! &xd3
36 Wxe5 dxe5 37 cxd3 £ ic5 38 &C4 with a
probable draw.
31...g4!
32 Wb6
‘The various captures on f6 and d6 would
have led to a hopeless endgame, hence the
need to create counter-threats’ (Moro­
zevich). And, indeed, after my Informator 32
Wxf6+(?!) Wxf6 33 2xf6 &xf6 34 2xd6 with
the idea of 34...gxh3 35 2b6 (but not 35
2d4?! 2g8!), Black has the very unpleasant
361
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
34.. .g3! 35 2d4 JLe2 36 Sd2 jLa6 and ...4e5,
winning.
32.. .£\d7
In time-trouble I decided to repeat moves.
32.. .5.8(?!), which I gave in Informator, runs
into 33 -&C4! -&xc4 34 lt 7 + 2d7 35 ^ x c4
®xe4 36 4 g l! (Morozevich), when White is
okay. But 32..JLxd3 33 cxd3 (33 1137+?! £\d7
34 cxd3 Sd8) 33-2h8! (Stohl) would have
condemned him to a difficult defence.
33 Wf2 ' f6 34 Wb6 2h8?!
Again missing 34..JLxd3 35 cxd3 Sh81.
35 2xd6?
‘A bad oversight in not the most compli­
cated position, which spoils a very interest­
ing game. And yet to calculate the saving
variation, despite having only two minutes
left, was not difficult: 35 lc7+! £sd7 36
2xd6! (a sacrifice within the bounds of my
tactical vision) 36...2xh3+ (after 36...1rxe4 37
Sxf7+ <4>xf7 38 JLxe6+ it is only Black who
may have problems) 37 gxh3 l rxe4+ 38 ‘A’gl!
®e3+ 39 Sf2, and here we have either
perpetual check (39...1rg3+), or unclear play
after 39...g3 40 2dd2 gxf2+ 41 2xf2 - once
again the extra exchange proves the only
but sufficient argument’ (Morozevich).
3 5 . . M x d 6 36 #xd6+?!
Now the position stabilises. The non­
trivial 36 #xb5 gxh3 37 g4! was more resil­
362
ient, for example: 37...1d4! (not 37...1rd2
because of 38 Wc5+! 4d8 39 I'g l) 38 H>7+
£sd7 39 ^.a4! (39 c3?! is weak in view of
39-bxc3 40 S d l 2b8!, etc.) 39...2d8 40 g5
4>f8 (40...H)6 is also not bad) 41 ^.xd7 1H2
and ... 2xd7 with winning chances, ‘but
despite everything, White can still somehow
fight on’ (Morozevich).
36...&xd6 37 Sxf6 2h7!
For an instant White has an extra pawn,
but he faces insoluble problems. Black picks
up the e4-pawn, creating a mobile passed
pawn or even a pair of connected passed
pawns. Meanwhile, the b4-pawn holds two
of White’s pawns, and he does not manage
to create counterplay.
38 &h2
If 38 2f4 gxh3 39 g3, then 39—h2! 40 2h4
JLc6! 41 4xh2 ilxe4 (Morozevich) or 41
2xh7 ii.xe4+ 42 4xh2 ilxh7 with a won
bishop endgame.
38.. .4e5 39 2f2 gxh3 40 gxh3 (40 g3 f6!)
40.. .1.c6
‘The time scramble had ended, and it was
time to resign, but I always fight all the way’
(Morozevich).
41 -&C4 (41 2e2 i.xe4 42 c3? bxc3 43 2xe4+
<4>xe4 44 ii.c2+ <4>e3 45 ii.xh7 f5 did not work
for White) 41...-ixe4 42 2e2 f5 43 -id 3
(avoiding the march of the e- and f-pawns)
 Life after Death

43.. .4 f4 came the duel of the leaders. For the first

43...4d4l? would also have won. The main time since the tragic second game of the
thing was not to mess things up. At the 2000 match I risked repeating the Griinfeld
board you imagine all kinds of horrors... Defence against Kramnik - and I confidently
44 i.xe 4 (44 fiel Ha7) 44...fxe4 45 S f 2+ gained a draw in a crucial set-up (Game
4e 3 46 2f8 (46 2f6 4d2, 46 Sg2 2a7 or 46 No.70 in Revolution in the 70s). My peace of
4g2 Sh5! was no better) 46...e5 mind in this important part of the battle­
‘The move of a chess gourmet. The crude field was restored.
46.. .4d2, drawing the e-pawn towards the But in the fifth round I suffered a misfor­
queening square, would also have won. And tune: I was unable to beat Sadvakasov with
more quickly: this move would have been White. After playing a variation of the Eng­
the last one.’ (Morozevich) lish Opening, well known from the second
47 Se8 Sc7 (again, 47.-4d2! 48 Sxe5 e3 was game of my 1987 match with Karpov, I
simpler) 48 fixes (48 4g3 fig7+ and ...4d2) ended up in a dubious position (cf. Game
48.. .4f4! No.29 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87, note
to White’s 10th move), and although I then
gained the initiative, this was not enough
for a win - a draw on the 43rd move.
Meanwhile, my main rival won against
Morozevich and was leading the race after
the first cycle: Kramnik - 4 out of 5; Kasparov
- 3V2. However, the next day I breached
Shirov’s French Defence (cf. Game No.lO,
note to White’s 10th move) and again
caught the leader - we both had 4I/2 out of 6.
In the next three rounds Kramnik beat
Sadvakasov and scored two draws, while I
had to be satisfied with half-points: with
White again has an extra infantryman, Black against Gelfand in a Griinfeld, with
but here I had already calculated the varia­ White against Morozevich in his sideline of
tions to the end. Although Black has only one the Slav Defence (cf. Game No.62, note to
pawn left, it is sufficient. Black’s 7th move), and with Black against
49 Sb5 (or 49 Sa5 fixc2+ 50 4 g l 4f3 51 Sadvakasov. This was a terrible game: I tried
Sf5+ 4e2) 49...fixc2+ 50 4 g l e3 51 Sxb4+ very hard to seize the initiative, and ob­
4f3 (5i...4g3 52 Sg4+ 4xh3 was also good) tained an interesting, promising position,
52 fib i (52 fib8 would have allowed but I went wrong and in the end I nearly lost.
52...ficl+ 53 4h2 e2) 52...fig2+ 53 4 h l e2 Although I was terribly vexed at being
54 a4 4 f2 55 a5 Sg5 56 4 h 2 Sxa5 57 h4 unable to beat Sadvakasov and catch Kram­
fia3 0-1 nik, the tournament arbiter Vladimir Dvork­
ovich later saw that this had its plus points:
This fighting win enabled me to catch ‘Had the leaders been equal before the last
Kramnik - we now both had I'/i. out of 3. round, their game might not have been the
The next day in the rearranged fourth round main event of the tournament! It is quite

363
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
probable that they would have agreed to
share the last point and victory in the tour­
nament, as happened at Linares 2000. Now,
however, there could not be a share of first
place, but victory for Kasparov would enable
him to become the sole winner. Winning 'to
order’ is doubly difficult, but possible; 13
years earlier Garry managed to beat Karpov
in the 24th game o f the match in Seville and
to retain the title of world champion. The
number '13 ’also operated in Astana...’
And so, before the finish Kramnik was on
6^/2 out of 9, I had 6, and I was due to play
the leader with White. I had to compose
myself for a decisive battle.
Game 80
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Astana, 10th Round, 01.06.2001
Ruy Lopez C67l
l e4 e5 2 £sf3 £ic6 3 ^.bs
In Astana my opponent demonstrated
what he had prepared for our 2000 match
against the Scotch: 3 d4 exd4 4 £ixd4 .&c5 5
£ixc6 # f6 6 # d2 bxc6 (instead of the main
move 6...dxc6 - Game N0.14 ) 7 £sc3 £se7 8
jtd3 0-0 9 0-0 £ig6 10 £sa4 (10 4 til! is more
accurate) 10..JLd6! l l g3 2e8 with equality
(Sadvakasov-Kramnik, 2nd round).
Of course, I could also have played 3 d4,
but I didn’t want to avoid the Spanish be­
cause of the Berlin Defence! I considered
myself obliged to go in for its main variation
and demonstrate that in it Black did not
have easy equality. During the six months I
had already accumulated many ideas here.
3...^f6
I sensed that Kramnik would again erect
the ‘Berlin Wall’: at that time he constantly
played this not only against me, but also
against Leko, Shirov and others.
364
4 0-0 £)xe4 5 d4 £sd6 6 JLxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5
■ f5 8 ®xd 8+ &xd8 9 <^c3
It would appear that Black has an inferior
version of the Spanish Exchange Variation:
apart from the pawn minority on the king-
side (usually in the Exchange Variation this
is fully compensated by the two bishops), his
king, unable to castle, hinders the coordina­
tion of his pieces, and the e5-pawn cramps
his position (in the Exchange Variation he
usually plays ...f7-f6). But, on the other hand,
with his pawn on e5 White’s control of the
light squares is weakened, and also after the
exchange of queens the intensity of the
battle is reduced. And with accurate play
Black hopes gradually to solve his problems.
He even does not especially value the two
bishops, often exchanging the dark-squared
one, when the ‘unopposed’ light-squared
one is sufficient for him.
The position is still a middlegame without
the queens, but there is a great risk that the
play will quickly simplify and become too
tedious, not allowing any scope for flights of
fantasy.
9...h6
Kramnik used to skilfully vary the differ­
ent branches of the Berlin, making it hard
for me to prepare. Here the computer is
useless: everywhere the play is viscous and

non-forcing, with a variety of possible plans.
Because of the frequent change of scene it is
not easy for White to formalise the position
and find the most effective method of
converting his pawn majority on the king-
side. In the 2000 London match I experi­
enced great problems with this, but later I at
least began making natural moves.
Our dispute began with 9..~&d7, for ex­
ample: 10 bB h 6 (later Kramnik also success­
fully played 10...&C8!? 11 .&b2 JLe7) 11 -&b2
<&c8 12 hB (12 S ad i b 6! 13 £se2 c5, 3rd
match game, London 2000) I 2...b6 13 S ad i
£se7! (1 st match game, London 2000), or 10
S d l &c8 11 £>g5 i.e 8 12 £sge4 b 6 13 h3
&b7 14 g4 £se7 (Zurich (rapid) 2001). Inci­
dentally, the idea of moving the black king to
c8 and b7 was upheld long ago by Lasker,
and in the mid-1970s by Romanishin.
But in Wijk aan Zee 2001, 9...^e 8 (the tra­
ditional plan) was unexpectedly ‘detonated’:
10 h3 .&e7 (according to Kramnik, he had
prepared this for the 15th game of our 2000
match), although after l l ^.g 5l? .&xg5 12
£sxg5 h 6 13 £sge4 b 6 14 S fdl £se7 (I4...<&e7!
is better, Anand-Kramnik, Leon (advanced
chess) 2002) 15 f4 White nevertheless man­
aged to gain a minimal advantage (cf. Game
No.73).
10 h3
When I first encountered 9...h6 I chose 10
Sdl+ (what for?) I 0...^>e8 l l h3 a5 12 .&f4
i.e 6 13 g4 £se7 14 £sd4 £sd5 15 £>ce2 ^.c5
with equality (9th match game, London
2000). As it transpired, with the black king
on e 8 the set-up with ^.f4 and S ad i is
preferable, so that in case of necessity the
bishop can comfortably return to cl.
10.. .^.d7 (here also 10...^>e8 disconcerted
me: 11 £se4 c5 12 c3 b 6 13 B el i.e 6 14 g4
V2-V2,13th match game, London 2000) 11 b3
11.. .6e8l?
Another surprise! I was expecting a tran­
Life after Death
sition to the usual 11...&C8 12 JLb2 b6 13
S ad i £se7, when instead of the match
continuation 14 £se2 £sg6 15 £sel (15 £sg3
£sf4 16 ^ d 4 a5 is no better, Shirov-Kramnik,
Astana 2001) 15...h5 or 14 Sd2 c5 15 S fdl
&.e6 (Anand-Kramnik, Mainz (rapid) 2001), I
wanted at last to employ a set-up prepared
with Adams during the 2000 match: 14 S fel
c5 (I 4...£>g6 15 £sd4l) 15 £se2 £sg6 16 h4
.&g4 17 ^h2l (Adams-Kir.Georgiev, Kemer
2007) or l6..A e7 17 e6! £.xe6 18 h5 £sh4 19
£sf4 (Anand-Nakamura, London 2010), in
both cases with some initiative. This was our
very detailed preparation!
12 &b2 Sd8
The idea of Black’s new plan is to ex­
change one pair of rooks on the d-file. The
main drawback to this plan is that the black
king remains in the centre, and White must
try to exploit this factor as quickly as possi­
ble.
13 S a d i £se7
An important manoeuvre: the knight
switches to g6 and hinders the advance of
White’s kingside pawns. In similar positions
the first to begin playing this was Zoltan
Almasi (1995), and the evaluation of the
Berlin Defence as being unpromising for
Black gradually changed.
14 S f e l
365
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
This move took a good deal of time - I was
already considering the idea of the pawn
sacrifice on e6.
14...^g6 15 ^ e 4
15.. .^f4?
Apparently the most natural move, with
the idea of ...£ie6 - with his knight on e6
Black has nothing to fear. My opponent
looked contented. ‘At this moment some
kind of glitch occurred with me. After play­
ing IS-'SMa , I stood up from the board and
suddenly realised that 16 e6! would give
White a fearfully strong attack. It completely
flew out of my mind!’ (Kramnik).
It should be said that Black would also not
have escaped from his problems after
15 .. ..M5 16 Sxd8+ -ixdS 17 <£ig3 (Stohl)
17-.Ad7 (I7...^xc2? 18 £id4 and wins, while
if 17...^.e6 apart from 18 <£)h5 there is the
strong 18 £id4!) 18 <£)h5 Hg8 19 g4 or
15.. .Ae6 16 £id4 AdS 17 £sg3 (17 ^c3l?)
17.. .5.4 18 f3l (18 c4 Axg2 19 Acl, sug­
gested by Dokhoian in Informator, is unclear
in view of 19...g5!) l8..Jtc5 19 <^>h2(fl), etc.
We also looked at and even recom­
mended 15...C5, but after 16 c4l (16 £ig3 £M4
17 e6, Leitao-Almasi, Pamplona 2001, is
weaker) I6...£if4 (16....&C6? 17 £rf6+! - Stohl)
17 e6! (17 A cl is insipid: 17...£ie6 18 <Sk3
Ae7 19 £id5 A c6, McShane-Mamedyarov,
366
1st match game, Lausanne 2003) 17...^xe6
18 ik.e5 Sc8 19 £ic3 with the threats of <£)d5
and £ih4 White is on the attack: 19 ...f6 20
jk,h2l (from the internet, 2003).
On seeing l5-®f4,1 felt happy. Black sup­
posedly fortifies his e6 point, but...
16 e6!
A sudden breakthrough at a fortified
point, producing a phenomenal effect! ‘A
typical middlegame motif (Stohl). I had
analysed the e5-e6 pawn sacrifice in other
variations of the Berlin, so that the idea was
already familiar to me. In the end, despite
subsequent errors, I managed to put into
effect the ‘secret plans' which I had worked
on, for hours and days studying these amaz­
ingly diverse positions.
16.. .£ixe6
Quite a quick reply: it is clear that
16.. .fxe6? 17 ^.e5 will not do, nor will
16.. .1.xe6? on account of the pretty 17 £>f6+!
&e7 (I7...gxf6 18 8xd8+ 4>xd8 19 Axf6+ and
Axh8) 18 ita3+ Sd6 (l8...4>xf6 19 Hxd8) 19
£ie4 and wins.
17 £id4?
A mistake in reply! 17 £ih4? (with the
threat of f2-f4-f5) did not work because of
17- A c8 18 £if6+? (18 fixd8+ 4>xd8 19 £if5
really is better) I8...gxf6 19 Bxd8+ ^xd8 20
Axf6+ Jk,e7 21 Ji.xh8 iLxh4. But the incredi-

bly strong computer move 17 .&e5! (which
the machine indicates, but for a human
player is almost impossible to find at the
board) would have set Black virtually insolu­
ble problems:
1) 17..JLc8?! 18 £>f6+! 4e7 19 £sh4! (an­
other difficult move!) 19...g6 20 £id7l Sxd7
(20..JLxd7 21 ,&xh8, and 21...f6? is bad in
view of 22 £ixg6+ 4f7 23 £ixf8 £ixf8 24 Sd2
and Sedl, winning) 21 Sxd7+ .&xd7 22
,&xh8 winning the exchange (again 22...f6?
23 £>xg6+ 4f7 24 £ixf8 £ixf8 25 S d l is bad
for Black), or 19...Sxdl 20 £>f5+ 4d8 21
Sxdl+ £ d6 22 £)e4 (22 h4 or 22 f3) 22...f6 23
£ixf6 2f8 24 £ixd6 gxf6 25 £>f5+ and .&b2
with an overwhelming advantage;
2) 17...Sc8 18 £sh4! (this is what neither of
the players saw; if 18 ,&f6? only I8...gxf6! 19
£ixf6+ 4e7 20 <S^xd7 2d8 would have saved
Black, but not my earlier I8...2a8(?) on account
of 19 JLe5l) 18...C5 (the best defence against
the threat of f2-f4-f5: I8..£h7? 19 f4 &e7 20
£if5 .&f8 21 £ifg3! and wins) 19 f4 jLc6 20 f5
,&e7 21 £>f3 f6 22 fxe6 fxe5 23 £>xe5, and Black
has a very difficult position, for example:
23...2f8 24 £ixc6 bxc6 25 g4 2d8 26 2xd8+
.&xd8 27 2 d l with the threat of 2d7.
But at the board 17 £>d4 also seemed dan­
gerous for Black: it is not immediately clear
what he should play.
Life after Death
17...C5?!
This move took Kramnik nearly three-
quarters of an hour, after which he had just
18 minutes left for 23 moves. There are
indeed very many possibilities in the posi­
tion, and a mistake is possible at every step:
1) 17....&C8? 18 £ixe6! (18 £if6+ gxf6 19
£ixe6 2 x d l 20 £ig7+ 4d7 21 2xdl+ Ji.d6 is
not so clear, although it was this variation
that Kramnik feared most of all) l8...2xdl 19
£ ixc7+ 4d8 20 2xdl+ 4xc7 21 ,&e5+ 4 b 6 22
£ig3! (or 22 g4! with the same threat of 2d8;
this is more forceful than my earlier 22 2d8
jLf5 23 ^ d 2 jLxc2, although even here after
24 4 fl! and ,&d6 Black will not have full
compensation for the exchange) 22...f6
(22...&C5 23 ^.xg7) 23 2d8 fxe5 24 Sxc8 g6
(24...g5 25 £>f5) 25 Se8 ,&g7 26 2e6 g5 27
£if5 .&f8 28 Se8 and wins;
2) 17...Sh7! (if 17-Sg8 there is 18 Sd3
with the idea of Sg3 and £if6+!) 18 f4! c5! 19
£sf3 4c6?l 20 Sbl!, defending the bishop in
the variation 20..JLxe4 (20..JLe7? 21 f5 £id4
22 f6!) 21 2xe4 g6 22 g4 .&g7? 23 f5 and
wins. 22...Sd5?! is also insufficient: 23 c4
2d3 24 4f2! (my earlier 24 £iel is slower on
account of 24...Sd2! - Wedberg) 24...4d8
(24...h5 25 4e2l) 25 .&f6+ 4c8 26 f5 with
pressure. It is better to play 22...4d7 23
£ie5+ 4c8 24 £sxg6 - White regains the
pawn, but his advantage may not be suffi­
cient for a win (I reached this position in my
calculations during the game). But the main
thing is that instead of 19...Ac6, Black could
play 19 .-f5! 20 £ ic3 i.e7 or 20 £sg3 .&c8!,
calmly panying the threats.
With the move in the game Black drives
the white knight to f5, so that f2-f4-f5 is not
threatened. But now he acquires other
problems.
18 £>f5 2h7
The only move: 19 £ixg7+ was threatened,
and if I8...2g8 there is 19 £ixh6.
367
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
19 .&f6! (played with great pleasure)
19...Sc8?
A mistake, which was not noticed by any
of the commentators. 19...Sa8!, moving the
rook away from possible attacks, was more
resilient, although even here after 20 f4 £lc6
21 ^.h4l with the threat of £sfg3 and f4-f5
White has excellent play for the pawn.
20 JLxg7?
Over-hasty. A cruel trick was played on me
by my preceding game with Sadvakasov,
where in a complicated position with a time
scramble I did not capture a pawn on a5 and
in the end I lost all winning chances. There­
fore I was impatient to restore material
equality.
20 f4! ^.c6 21 £sfg3! was significantly
368
stronger - this was the move that Kramnik
was most afraid of. Black has a difficult
choice:
Analysis Diagram
1) 2l...g6 22 f5! (more forceful than my
other suggestions - 22 .&h4 or 22 c4l?)
22.. .gxf5 23 £sxf5 with a continuing initia­
tive (23...C4 24bxc4l - Stohl);
2) 2l..JLd6 22 £sxd6+! (after 22 2xd6!?
cxd6 23 £sxd6+ &d7 24 £sxc8 ^>xc8 25 JLe5
g6 26 f5 £sg7 27 fxg6 fxg6 28 &d6 £sf5! 29
£sxf5 gxf5 30 JixcS White is a pawn up, but
Black pins his hopes on the opposite-
coloured bishops) 22...cxd6 23 f5 gxf6 24
fxe6 and now:
2a) 24...d5? 25 e7 h5 26 £tf5 (threatening
£sd6+) 26...‘&>d7 27 c4 d4 28 b4 .&a4 (28...b6
29 b5 JLa8 30 £sxd4!) 29 Sd2 b6 30 2e3 and
2a3, winning;
2b) 24...Sg7? - this would have saved
Black with his rook on a8, but now White has
a fork on d6: 25 £tf5 Sxg2+ 26 & fl fxe6
(forced, alas) 27 2xd6! (far more vigorous
than 27 £>xd6+ &d7 28 £sxc8 ^>xc8 29 2e2)
27.. .6f7 28 2dxe6 (threatening both £sd6+
and 2xc6) 28...2d2 29 £sd6+ 2xd6 30 2xd6
2g8 31 2e2 2g6 32 2de6 with a technically
won position;
2c) 24...fxe6 25 2xe6+ ^d7! (the most re-
 Life after Death

silient: 25..‘£’d8 26 £sh5l, while after my
suggestion 25 .Se7(?!) 26 2xf6 Black simply
loses material) 26 2dxd6+ ^c7 with the idea
of 27 2xf6?l 2g8 28 *h 2 2hg7 29 2d3 h5 30
2f4 b5, obtaining good counterplay for the
pawn, but the accurate 27 2d2 or 27
£)h5(e2) retains an enduring advantage for
White.
‘Moves such as 20 f4 are in Kasparov’s
style, and I was absolutely sure that he
would not play 20 jLxg7. The result was that
1spent 40 minutes in vain, time which could
have come in useful in my subsequent
calculations’ (Kramnik).
20..JLxg7 21 £ixg7+ 2xg7 22 £)f6+ &e7 23
£)xd7 2d8 24 £se5 2 x d l 25 2 x d l
An endgame slightly worse for Black has
arisen by force, one where he has real
chances of a draw.
After 26...4>e6 (but not 26...£sxg2? 27 2 g l
or 26...2xg2? 27 £sd3) 27 £>g4 £sxg2 28 4>xg2
h5 29 2el+! 4>d6 30 4f3 hxg4+ 31 hxg4
White would have continued to trust in his
extra pawn on the kingside.
27 £lg4 Sd5l
The correct idea - centralizing the rook. In
the variation 27...h5 28 £se3 White has a
small but stable plus. ‘I could have held this
inferior endgame, undoubtedly with draw­
ing chances. But I had 10 minutes left to the
time control, and I needed to make several
accurate moves which were difficult to find.
Therefore I decided to force events. Unfortu­
nately, Black’s play did not ‘knit well’ tempo-
wise, and I became rattled...’ (Kramnik).

28 2 e l+ !
Also the correct move. In the knight end­
game White has no advantage: 28 Sxd5
25.. .£sf4 (25...£)d4 also looked quite good, £sxd5 29 £>xh6 £>b4 30 £>f5+ 4f6! (30...4>e6
after which I was intending 26 4Ti2l) 26 31 g4l £sxa2(c2) 32 h4 is not so clear) 31 £>e3
i>hl! (31 g4 £ sxc2) 3l...£lxa2 32 i g l £lc3 with the
Continuing to fight for an advantage - an idea of ...b7-b5 and ...a7-a5-a4.
outwardly quiet, but very concrete move, 28.. .<&f8 29 ^ x h 6 Sd2?l
especially unpleasant in the opponent’s This does not yet lose the game, but it
time-trouble. Black would easily have gained makes things more difficult for Black.
a draw in the event of 26 i f l <£ixg2 or 26 29.. .<4 ’g7! was more solid, after which my only
£>g4 £>xh3+ 27 gxh3 h 5 28 f3 f5 29 4f2 hxg4 hope was an attack with limited forces: 30
30 hxg4 fxg4 31 S g l c4, etc. £sg4 Sd 2 31 Se4 £*e6 32 c3 (32 £>e3 Sxf2)
26.. .2g5! 32.. .5.a2 33 f4, when it is dangerous for Black

369
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
to go pawn-grabbing - after tbe possible
33...Ib2 34f5 £>d8?l (34...£>f8! - Stobl) 35 Be8
£sc6? (35...Bd2 and ...a7-a5 is more resilient)
36 b4 Sxb3 37 b5 Bxc3 38 b6+ 4>b7 39 fif8
White wins. 33...Sa3l? is more cunning, and if
34 f5 £>d8 35 Be8 <£sc6 36 h4, then 36...C4!, or
else 33...a5l? at once with double-edged play.
3 0 le 5 !
This unexpected rook move essentially
decided tbe game: after it Kramnik fell into a
stupor.
30...Bxf2?
Blundering a piece: in time-trouble Black
overlooked tbe reply 31 Bf5. But it was very
difficult for him to find tbe correct defence:
1) 30...£se6?l 31 Sf5 <&>g7 32 Bxf7+ 4>xb6
33 Sf6+ 4>g5 34 Bxe6 Sxc2 35 4b2 (35
<&>gl!?) 35...Bxf2 36 Be5+ and Bxc5 with an
extra pawn, or 35-..Sxa2 36 g4l, beginning
tbe advance of tbe powerful connected
passed pawns;
2) 30...SXC2 31 Sf5 Sxf2 (after 3l...4>g7?l
32 Sxf4 <*xh6 33 Sxf7 tbe white pawns are
superior) 32 £>g4l (32 Bxf7+ <4 >e8 33 Sf5
£sd3 is unclear) 32...Bxg2 33 Sxf4 Bxa2 - in
tbe endgame with knight for three pawns,
thanks to bis passed h-pawn White retains
chances of success, but after 34 £se5 (Stobl)
or 34 h4 Sa3 35 £se5 tbe win, if there is one,
is extremely difficult;
370
3) 30...4>g7! 31 £tf5+ (31 £sxf7 Bxc2)
32 <£se3 4>xe5 33 £sc4+ &d4 34
£lxd 2 &c3 with a draw, or 31 Bf5, and in tbe
event of 3i...£ixh3? 32 £sg4 tbe knight is
trapped, while after 3l...£ixg2 32 &xg2
<&>xh6 33 B xc5 or Sl.-.&xhe 32 Bxf4 Bxc2 33
Sxf7 Sxa 2 34 Bxc7 b 6 35 f4 Black has a
difficult rook endgame, but no one saw
31.. .£se2!, forcing a draw: 32 <5^xf7 £sd4 33
B xc5 £ le 6 34 Bf5 <5M4 with ‘perpetual’
pursuit of tbe rook, or 32 £sg4 Sxc2 33 Sg5+
(33 h4 <£sd4) 33...^f8 34 h4 £>d4(f4) and
...£se6.
3 1 Bf5 ^ g 7 32 £sg4! (now everything is
clear) 32...Bxg2 33 Bxf4 Bxc2 34 Sf2
In contrast to tbe variation with 30...Sxc2
Black has not managed to capture tbe 32-
pawn, and therefore be is doomed. But, of
course, Kramnik did not want to resign
prematurely.
34.. .BC3 35 & g 2 b5 (if 35...C4 36 bxc4 Bxc4
there is 37 Sxf7+!) 36 h4!
Here I concentrated fully, realizing that I
bad no right to throw away tbe win.
36.. .C4 (36...4>g6 37 £>e5+ 4b5 38 Bf3l Bxf3
39 *xf3 or 38...BC2+ 39 &g3 Bxa2 40 Bxf7
was also hopeless) 37 h5 cxb3 38 axb3
White gives up bis last queenside pawn,
in order to set up tbe murderous ‘rook +
knight + pawn' mechanism on tbe kingside.

38.. .5C5
If 38...1xb3, then 39 h6+ &f8 (39~.<£h8 40
Hxf7 or 39...4>g8 40 £rf6+ &f8 41 Se2 leads
to a quick mate) 40 h7 &g7 41 Sxf7+ or
39.. 6g€> 40 fif6+ 4>g5 41 h7l-
39 h6+ <&f8 40 £lf6 Sg5+ 4 1 4>hl!
The most forceful: 4l...2g6 42 Sh2 - no
chances! Black resigned (l-O).
For all its imperfections, this was a very
precious game: not only a win in a decisive
encounter, enabling me to overtake a very
dangerous rival and take first place (in a
ninth successive tournament!), but also my
first win against Kramnik after the ‘blank’
score in the 2000 match (the overall balance
of our meetings in ‘classical’ play was now
+4-5=40), as well as the winning of a crucial
opening dispute - the fall of the ‘Berlin Wall’!
Soon afterwards I said in an interview that
my win in Astana ‘not so much buries the
entire qualifying cycle, about which Kramnik
is constantly talking, but makes it completely
pointless in the eyes of the world community,
including the eyes of sponsors’. It was pre­
cisely then that I was phoned from America
by a potential sponsor of world champion­
ships, who was supporting my junior chess
projects, and he asked: ‘Well, is it time to put
together money for a return match?’.
I began thinking and speaking about this
immediately after the 2000 London match.
But I remember our team doctor Alexander
Polkhovsky looking sadly at me and asking:
‘After playing a whole match with Kramnik,
do you not realise who you are dealing with?’
Indeed, if Kramnik had resembled Euwe in
something other than his height, after my
three tournament victories in 2001 the
question of a return match would have been
decided automatically. During Euwe’s time
the concept of ‘reputation’ was not an empty
phrase!
Life after Death
Why I did not include in the London con­
tract an item about a return match is some­
thing that is hard to explain, based on the
logic of Kramnik or Anand, who have always
been concerned in the first instance about
their own well-being. But whereas Anand did
this openly, Kramnik, as has happened many
times in history, tried hypocritically to cam­
ouflage his personal benefit ‘with the inter­
ests of chess’.
After becoming the challenger and the
champion without any qualifying process
(and after before that losing all the qualifying
cycles in his career), Kramnik promptly de­
clared: 7 went infor this in order to restore the
qualifying system... The question is about the
system itself. To a large extent it is o f no sig­
nificance who is the strongest. In his time
Fischer was obviously superior to the remain­
ing candidates. But this did not mean that he
should have been freed from having to qualify.
It is a completely natural situation: if you are
strongest, then you should in fact win the
qualifying tournament. I understand Kas­
parov’s enormous desire to play a match for
the world championship, but, I have to admit, I
don't see the logic in his words... Is he alto­
gether fo r’ or ‘against’ qualification? I person­
ally think that there should be qualification!
And he? I should like to hear from him a clear
and unambiguous reply to this crucial ques­
tion.’
My reply was not only ‘clear and unambi­
guous’, but also quite exhaustive:
‘When I won the title of world champion I
was the No.l on the rating list, and I regularly
won matches against Karpov and all the
tournaments in which I took part, but new
victories continued to be demanded of me.
Confirmation was constantly demanded of
me, and this is probably normal. In the chaos
of the current situation only one fact can
remain undisputable: the world champion
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
should be the strongest player on the planet.
The London match gave Kramnik the title, but
he needs to confirm it with victories. The
champion had the possibility of doing this in
Wijk aan Zee and Astana. The outcome is
known...
‘My position has always been very simple:
if there is a sound qualifying system, the
automatic right to a return match is an
incorrect idea. Now I am zealously fighting for
my right to a return match because I am
winning all the tournaments in which I take
part - including those where Kramnik plays.
He does not now need to seek a new oppo­
nent.
‘It would be very good to create a new
qualifying system. But for the system to be
legitimate, one must be sure that the world
champion is the strongest player on the
planet. If Kramnik wins a second match
against me, there will no longer be any
questions. If he loses, then, although the
outcome of the London match was right, a
conclusive change will not yet have occurred.’
After properly restoring my strength at the
traditional summer training session by the
sea, I ‘chalked up’ 11 out of 12 in a Europe
against Asia rapidplay match (Batumi, 17-19
September 2001), won S'A-2Vi in a double­
round clock simultaneous against the Czech
national team (Prague, 18-20 October 2001),
and played quite well in the Botvinnik Memo­
rial - a short match with Kramnik in three
forms of chess (Moscow, 30 November - 9
December 2001).
Initially in memory of Mikhail Botvinnik it
was planned to stage a four-cycle match-
tournament with three of his pupils - Karpov,
Kasparov and Kramnik. However, Karpov
suddenly withdrew, but arrived for the start
of the FIDE knock-out championship, which
began three days earlier in Moscow. Since he
went out in the very first round, chess fans in
372
the foyer joked: ah, what a pity that Karpov
withdrew from the match-tournament of the
three ‘Ks’ - he would still have been in time.
When there were just the two of us left,
Kramnik insisted on reducing the number of
classical games to four, so that the match
should not have too much importance. Our
chess triathlon began with a draw in ‘classi­
cal’ play (2-2), and in rapidplay (3-3), and
concluded in victory for me in blitz (6V2-3V2).
After Astana I played quite successfully
against my main opponent and did not lose
to him again in ‘classical’ play. The burden of
responsibility which pressed on me in the
2000 match had obviously been lifted.
Who is the Real King?
Double-Round Super-Tournament in Linares
(22 February -10 March 2002): 1. Kasparov -
8 out of 12; 2. Ponomariov - 6V2; 3-5. Ivan­
chuk, Anand and Adams - 6; 6. Vallejo - 5; 7.
Shirov - 4V2.
On this occasion the background to
Linares was provided not by the preceding
tournament in Wijk aan Zee (of the Linares
players, only Adams took part there), but the
recent FIDE knock-out world championship,
which produced several sensations. Anand
was relieved of his title after losing in the
semi-final to Ivanchuk, who, in turn, unex­
pectedly lost in the final to a rising start of
Ukrainian chess, the 18-year-old Ruslan
Ponomariov. The new FIDE champion, who
strongly resembled Kamsky and Karpov in
their youth, played freshly and energetically
- in the preceding rounds he knocked out
Morozevich, Bareev and Svidler!
Now Ponomariov was making his debut in
a category 20 super-tournament, and in a
battle with five of the top ten in the world
rating list he was eager to demonstrate that
his success in the knock-out was no accident.
 Life after Death

The other Linares debutant was 19-year-old

‘2600’ player Francisco Vallejo - at that time Game 81
the strongest native Spanish Grandmaster. G.Kasparov-VJVnand
'Notable by his absence is Vladimir Kram­ Linares, 3rd Round, 25.02.2002
nik, whose serious plans for this year would
appear to be limited only to a match in
October with the computer Deep Fritz’, wrote
the Ukrainian journalist Nikolai Fuzik.
'Vladimir will also have to miss his favourite
traditional July tournament in Dortmund,
since on this occasion it will have the status of
a candidates event, the winner o f which will
earn the right to a match with Kramnik for
the historic’ version of the world champion­
ship title. But even without him Linares 2002
promises to be exceptionally interesting. For
Kasparov, who has not found his niche in
either of the world championship systems,
there only remain tournaments in which to 39 £ g 6 + (there was no time to see 39 Se5!)
demonstrate who is the real king in the 39...&g8 (the bishop is taboo: 3 9 .'irxg6? 40
kingdom, regarding which the other partici­ Hxb2 or 39-..*xg6? 40 Sg4) 40 jLh7+ & f l
pants may have their own opinion.’ (40...<4 >h8 41 S ell and wins) 41 .&g6+?
Of course, I was psychologically depressed But now, when the time control had been
by the absence of any real prospect of playing reached, it was possible to stop, think and
a match for the world championship, and find the decisive stroke 41 lies!, with the
initially I was nervous (however, that was the idea of eliminating the powerful knight and
case in the majority of similar tournaments). I giving mate (Sxd5 and Sf4+), for example:
started, like the year before, with three draws.
In the first round I was unable to beat Vallejo
with Black, although for a long time 1had an
excellent position, and after my opponent’s
time-trouble blunder 40 Wc2? I could have
won with 40...^xf5l. But, alas, I took the
wrong pawn, and White managed to escape. I
was terribly vexed: surely I wasn’t going to be
struck by the ‘Sadvakasov syndrome’?
In the second round I was free, then in the
third I played Vishy Anand and engaged him
in a complicated, viscous struggle in a
Paulsen Sicilian. I gained some advantage,
but in the time scramble a parade of mutual Analysis Diagram
mistakes began, and after the time control I
missed a wonderful chance. l) 41...'ire7 42 Sxd5! (my Informator line

3 73
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
42 Sg4 £rf6 43 Seg5 is also good enough)
42.. .exd5 43 Sf4+ ‘A’eS 44 lg 6 + <4>d8 45 Sf7
and #xg7, winning;
2) 4i...lfcl+ 42 <A>g2 S b l (bad are both
4 2 .. .5 . 2 43 lg6+ l! <4>xg6 44 Sg5+! or
43.. .‘4 >e7 44 Hxe6+!, and 42 ...£sf6 43 Sf4 Sd2
44 l d 3 l with a m urderous attack) 43 Sxd5!
H l + (43-11)1+ 44 &h3 ®xd5 45 Sf4+ and
1Brxg7) 44 &f3 S lb3+ 45 <4^4 cxd5 46 #f4+
4>e7 47 4>g5!! # a 6 (47-Sh8 48 id 3 !) 48
l g 6 # c 6 (48 ...Sf8 49 WxfS+l) 49 Sh7 lx c 5
50 Sxg7+ 4>d8 51 Sg8+ and Sxb8, or
44 .. .W 1 I+ 45 ^ 4 #xd5 46 H 4 + < 4>e7 47
Sh5! l d l + (47-.filb4 48 axb4 Sxb4 49 Sxd5
and wins) 48 f3 S lb 3 49 1 ^5+ “4f7 50 lg 6 +
^ 8 5 1 l f 4 , and the curtain comes down.
41.. .6 .8 42 lh 7 + V2-V2
Drawn in view of the three-fold repetition
of the position (after 42...<4f7).
The two missed wins were a pity, but I
had to move on. The next day I played an­
other viscous game - with Ivanchuk, which
ended in a draw on the 34th move.
In the fifth round, which took place after a
general free day, I met Michael Adams, the
only player who at that moment was on a
plus score - 2 out of 3.
Came 82
G.Kasparov-M.Adams
Linares, 5th Round, 28.02.2002
Petroff Defence C421
*3
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £>f6
As a matter of principle Mickey played
this, rather than 2 ...£ jc6, although we had
studied the Petroff Defence together before
the match with Kramnik (2000). The next 12
moves were made quite quickly.
3 £sxe5 d6 4 £sf3 £sxe4 5 d4 d5 6 ld 3 £sc6
(6..Jtd6 - Game N0. 75) 7 0-0 l e 7 8 c4 <£sb4
8...^f6 occurs more rarely: 9 h3 (more ac­
curate than 9 £)c3 - Game No.100 in Part I of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 9...^b4
10 l e 2 dxc4 1 1 lx c 4 0-0 12 <£sc3 c6 13 l e i
£sbd5 14 lg 5 l e 6 15 1133 Sb8 16 £>e5 le 8
17 Sadi, and White’s chances are slightly
better (Kasparov-Gelfand, Bled Olympiad
2002 ).
9 le 2
The green light to this variation was given
by the 4 lst game of the Karpov-Kasparov
match (1984/ 85). Today this is played auto­
matically and, as they rattle off these well-
known moves, players sometimes do not
even suspect that back in early 1985 for a
participant in a world championship match
it was a problem to find a worthy reply to 9
le 2 .
9.. .0-0 (9...dxc4 - Game No.45 in Kasparov vs.
Karpov 1975-1985) 10 a3
It was this that I prepared for the match
with Kramnik. The alternative is 10 £)c3 l f 5
11 a3 <£sxc3 12 bxc3 £>c6 13 S e l (13 cxd5
#xd5 leads to a position from the game)
13.. .5e8l, not 13.-l.f6 14 l f 4 £se7?! 15 11)3
(Kasparov-I.Sokolov, Sarajevo 2000). Kramnik
and Anand played against me I0...b6 11 a3
<£)xc3 12 bxc3 £)c6 13 cxd5 #xd5 14 S e l lb 7
15 l d 3 Sae8 (Linares 2000), but after 16 c4
Wd8 17 d5 ^ b 8 18 £se5 (18 lb2l?) I8...1f6

19 -&b2 White’s chances ace rather better
(Kasparov-H.Olafsson, Reykjavik (rapid) 2000).
I0...£sc6 11 cxd5 #xd5 12 £*3 £sxc3 IB
bxc3 (now White’s trump is the mobile
pawn pair d4 and c3) 13...j<-f5
The most natural reply, but we also stud­
ied 13 ...b6 (cf. the preceding comment),
13-..£>a5 (Adams played this in 2005), and
even 13...Wd6 (J.Polgar-Karpov, Hoogeveen
2003).
14 S e l
14...Sfe8
And here is Adams’s novelty - instead of
the premature 14...iLf6 (15 iLf4, Kasparov-
Dao Thien Hai, Batumi (rapid) 2001; Kas-
parov-Kasimdzhanov, Linares 2005), or the
timid l4...Wd6 (15 a4, Sutovsky-Schandorff,
Esbjerg 2001). We also looked at 14.2ad8?!
15 iLf4, forcing 15~.Wa5, since if 15~.Wd7
there is the unpleasant 16 ji.b5, while after
15 -iLd 6 16 c4 We4 Black runs into 17 iLg5!
Sd7 18 M l Wg4 19 h3 Wh5 20 d5.
15 ii.f4 Sac8
The position after this move, which is
considered the strongest, has become a
tabiya. 15 .~ji.d6 is weaker (here the bishop
prevents the pressure on the d4-pawn), in
view of 16 c4 We4 17 -&e3 Sad8 18 5a2!
(Game N0.51 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-
2009).
Life after Death
16 c4
Later White tried a good dozen moves
here - including 16 iLd3 Wd7 17 S b l (Leko-
Anand, Linares 2003; Kasparov-Anand,
Linares 2005), 16 h3 (Kramnik-Anand, Wijk
aan Zee 2003; Kasparov-Motylev, Moscow
2004), and 16 £sd2 (Adams-Kramnik, Wijk
aan Zee 2005), etc. However, at the time this
was all still unusual.
16.. .We4 17 i.e3 ilf6
The fashion for a rapid c3-c4 fell sharply
after 17...Wc2! (Leko-Kramnik, 3rd match
game, Brissago 2004). We also looked at the
queen move, but for some reason we con­
sidered it insufficient.
18 Sa2
Black would have been set far more prob­
lems by the alternative 18 Sell, as I later
played in a rapid game against Karpov
(Game No.49 in Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-
2009). But I very much wanted to switch the
rook to the centre, following the example of
the old game Karpov-Portisch (Lucerne
Olympiad 1982).
18.. .b6
This move, made after a long think, was
one that I awarded an exclamation mark to
in Informator, judging that White was better
after l8...2cd8 19 Sd2 (19 d5 £>e5 is equal,
Grischuk-Huzman, Rethymnon 2003). But
here also after I9...h6 Black has quite a solid
position: 20 h3 We7 21 c5 £>a5 or 21 d5 £>a5
22 £d 3 Wd7, etc.
The ...b7-b6 idea has a good positional
basis. Black’s main problem is the vulnerable
position of his queen, and he needs to solve
it somehow, without allowing a break­
through by White’s central pawns. Overlook­
ing the radical solution 17 -Wc 2!, Adams
found another possibility: place the knight
on a5, where it will be defended by the b6-
pawn, and if necessary retreat the queen to
b7.
375
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
19 hB
Realizing that too little was promised by
19 Sd2 £ia5 20 jk.d3 #g4, after lengthy
hesitation I decided to begin a pawn offen­
sive away from my king!
19.. .£>a5 20 g4
When in the tournament table you have
nothing but draws, advances such as g2-g4-
g5 demand a certain courage. But if White
does not drive back the powerful black
bishops and create at least some slight
pressure, he will simply have nothing to
hope for.
20.. JLg6
My activity markedly perturbed Adams,
but he made the best move, placing his
bishop close to his king. 20...JLxg4? 21 hxg4
#xg4+ 22 <4+11 was incorrect, while if
20.. .jLd7?!, then 21 Jtd3 was strong, for
example: 21...#b7 22 g5 Jtd8 (22..JLe7? 23
£ie5 and wins) 23 Sxe5 24 dxe5 jLe6 25
#e2, and Black does not have sufficient
compensation for the exchange, or 21..JLa4
22 # e 2! #b 7 23 g5 .&e7 (23...^.d8 24 £>e5 c5
25 ^.f4! cxd4 26 jk.e4 £ic6 27 # g 4 and wins)
24 £>e5 g6 25 d5l Jtf8 26 £>g4 .&g7 27 #f3
c5(c6) 28 Sae2 with an overwhelming
advantage for White.
21 g5 Ae7 22 <5ie5 (the black queen is still in
danger) 22..JLd6!
376
Again best! 22...#b7? is weak in view of 23
ik,g4 Scd8 24 Af4! (but not my Informator 24
#a4(?) because of 24...iLd6) 24..~&d6 25 Sae2,
and White develops powerful pressure.
23 £>xg6
Now is the time! Nothing was given by 23
JLd3 # h 4 24 £>xg6 hxg6 25 # g 4 #xg4+ 26
hxg4 ^-f4! with equality (Svidler-Gelfand,
Moscow (rapid) 2002), nor by 23 Ji.f3 # h 4 24
^.g4 ^.xe5! 25 .&xc8 5xc8 26 dxe5 #xh3 27
Sd2 h5 or 27...£ic6 with a pawn for the
exchange and excellent counterplay.
23.. .hxg6 24 C5!
It seemed to me that White was about to
seize the initiative. If 24 iLg4 both the quiet
24.. .flcd8 25 # a 4 Af8 and the gambit line
24.. A xc4 25 ^.xc8 Sxc8 were satisfactory.
24.. .6.8!
And again the best move: Black has a solid
defence! I spent a long time calculating the
variation 24-bxc5 25 dxc5 ^.f4?! (25-.&f8!)
26 &g4 2cd8 (26...Sb8 27 Sae2!) 27 Sd2
Axg5 28 JLd7! with fine play for the pawn:
28.. .5.7? 29 Sd4 # e5 30 fid5 #03 (30...#e4
31 c6!) 31 ^.d2 2xel+ 32 Jtxel (an unusual
construction!) or 28...Se5 29 Sd4 #b7
(29...2xd7 30 Sxd7 #c6 31 Sd4 is hopeless
for Black) 30 f4 #b3 (30...Sxe3 31 Sxe3 .&f6
32 Sdd3!) 31 &f2 2xel+ 32 # x e l Jtf6 33
jk.a4, when Black has to fight for a draw a

piece down - 33...#xa3 34 2xd8+ jtxd8 35
# x a 5 # x h 3 or 33...#xh3 34 2xd8+ i.xd8 35
#68+ <&h7 36 #xd8 #g4+ 37 <&fl #h3+, etc.
25 i.g 4 Scd8 26 Sae2 #d5
In the Anand-Adams game from the 13th
round there followed 26...#c6! 27 cxb6(?l)
with a draw, although after 27...cxb6! the
advantage is now with Black. Equality would
have been retained by 27 #c2 bxc5 28 dxc5
# d 5 29 ±f4! Sxe2 30 #xe2 #xc5 31 S cl
#xa3 32 Hxc7 ± cS 33 ie61.
27 Jcf4! Sxe2 28 #xe2
28.. .C6?
Nevertheless my pawn offensive dis­
turbed Adams’s composure: for a long time
he found the correct defence, but at the
board this was not easy to do, and in the end
he cracked under the pressure. The move in
the game looks natural - the pawn moves
away from an attack, but now the situation
suddenly changes sharply and Black encoun­
ters insoluble problems.
The capture of the d4-pawn also had to be
calculated: 28...<5}c6? 29 jLxc7 £>xd4 30 #e4!
#xg5 (30...bxc5 31 .&xd8 #xd8 32 h4 or
30.. .#xe4 31 2xe4 Sd5 32 cxb6 axb6 33
jLxb6 is no better) 31 .&xd8 #xd8 32 c6! f5
33 c7 and wins, or 28...#xd4? 29 ^.xc7 2d5
30 ,&d6! ,&xd6 31 cxd6 2xd6 32 # e8 + <&h7
33 #xf7 # d 5 34 # f 4 # d 2 35 2e3 2d3 (more
Life after Death
resilient than the Informator 35-.#cl+(?) 36
^>h2 <5ic4 37 .&e6 and wins) 36 jte6 # d l+ 37
<&g2 2xe3 38 #xe3 £>c6 39 # e 4 £>e7 40 a4,
and White has a technically won ending.
However, after the accurate reply
28...#c6! Black would have maintained the
balance: 29 # e5 (29 ±f3 #d7) 29...bxc5 30
dxc5 &xc5 31 #xc7 #b6! with the threat of
..Jtxf2+ or ,.JLxa3. Although White has two
active bishops, there are too few pawns on
the board, and also the ‘bad’ knight on a5
quickly comes into play.
2 9 1 x 7 2a8
Necessary, since after 29...#xg5? 30 l.xd8
#xd8 31 # e8 or 29...#xd4? 30 lx d 8 #xd8
31 cxb6 axb6 32 h4 there is no compensa­
tion for the exchange.
30#e5?
Alas, I was lured by a pretty false trail, not
noticing its refutation. 30 #a6! was correct,
forcing 30...#c4 (I was afraid of 30...#xd4(?)
31 cxb6 lc 5 and I underestimated the
simple 32 #xa5 #xf2+ 33 ^ h l lx b 6 34
lx b 6 #xb6 35 #e5(d2) with an extra piece)
31 #xc4 <5^xc4, after which White has two
promising options:
1 ) 32 2cll? b5 (32...^xa3 33 S al!, and in
the event of 32...<5}a5 33 Sc3 l.e 7 34 h4 l.d 8
35 l d 6 bxc5 36 dxc5 £>b7 37 ld 7 ! l a 5 38
Sd3 ^ x d 6 39 cxd6 the passed d-pawn has
377
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
the final word) 33 a4 a6 34 ^g 2 JLe7 (if
34-..£ib2, then 35 Sc2! £ixa4 36 .&a5 and
^.d 7xc6 is decisive) 35 h4 'A’fS 36 axb5 axb5
37 d5! (a familiar motif) 37...cxd5 38 c6 f5 39
gxf6 gxf6 40 g5 41 hxg5 fxg5 42 .&g3
JLd6 43 c7 and wins;
2) 32 d5l? cxd5 33 c6, also with excellent
winning chances: 33-..£ia5 (after 33...£ixa3
34 &f4 £ib5 35 c7 £ ixc7 36 &xc7 or
33-^.xa3 34 &q3 b5 35 c7 £ib6 36 &f4!
White’s task is simpler) 34 2 c l .&xa3
(34...^ib3?! 35 .&b8! 2xb8 36 c7 and c8W) 35
Sc 2 £ ic4 36 &f4! b5 37 c7 b4 38 &f3! £ib6 39
jtxd5 £ixd5 40 cSW+ 2xc8 4 1 2xc8+ ^>h7 42
,&d6, winning one of the pawns and convert­
ing the advantage: 42..Jtb2 43 2b8! Jtcl 44
h4 a5 45 2b7 f6 46 gxf6 £ixf6 47 .&c7, etc.
30...#xe5 3 1 2xe5 £ k4
32 d5l? (this sudden breakthrough in the
centre caught Adams unawares) 32...£ixe5
32...cxd5! was sounder: 33 c6 £)a5! 34
2xd5 (earlier I was planning 34 .&d7, but I
overlooked 34...£ixc6! 35 .&xc6 2c8)
34...£ixc6 35 &d7 £ia5(d8) 36 a4, and White
merely has compensation for the piece,
sufficient for a draw.
33 &xe5
An amazing position: White has sacrificed
the exchange in order to create a very dan­
gerous passed c-pawn. Black faces a difficult
378
choice, especially on the threshold of time-
trouble.
33.. .cxd5?
The decisive error! The quick-moving
pawn would not have been stopped by
33-.2e8? 34 ^.f4! (controlling the cl-square!)
34.. .f5 (34...bxc5? is bad in view of 35 dxc6 c4
36 &d7 2a8 37 i f l ! .&xa3 38 &e2, winning,
while after 34~.cxd5 35 c6 .&xa3 36 c7 and
c8# white should be able to convert his
extra piece) 35 gxf6 gxf6 36 dxc6 f5 37 -^.f3!
g5! 38 &xg5 .&xc5 39 &f4 ^ 8 (after 39-b5
40 c7 ^.b6 41 ^.b7 .&xc7 42 &xc7 2e7 43
jtd5+ the two bishops overcome the rook) 40
c7 <&e7 41 Ab7 <^ >d7 42 h4! (more accurate
than my Informator 42 a4) 42...Jb<a3 43
^.a6! 2c8 (43-2a8? 44 h5 &f8 45 &b5+!
&e7(e6) 46 h6) 44 Axc8+ ^>xc8 45 h5 &f8 46
h6 .&xh6 47 .&.xh6 <^ >xc7 48 '4’f l - a lengthy
and very pretty winning variation!
However, the immediate 33—f5! would still
have maintained the balance: 34 gxf6 (34 if 3
2e8!) 34...gxf6 35 .&h2 f5 36 &f3, and here
either 36...2c8 37 cxb6 axb6 38 dxc6 JLh6
(threatening ...f5-f4) 39 .&e5 .&g7 40 JiH g5!
41 iLxg5 .&e5, neutralizing the passed pawn,
or immediately 36...g5 37 dxc6 2c8 38 cxb6
axb6 39 &d 5+ * h 7 40 ±e5 &xa3 41 c7 .&b2!
42 iLd6 JLa3!, diverting the white bishop
from the defence of the c7-pawn.

34 c6 (now this pawn will cost the rook, and
Black will be a piece down) 34...f5 35 gxf6
gxf6 36 ±e6+ &g7 37 ^.g3 i.xa3
Or 37...d4 38 c7 ±xa3 39 cSW 2xc8 40
JLxc8 a5 41 'A’fl, etc.
38 ±xd5
The last interesting moment in the game.
38...1c8?!
38...a5! was more resilient: 39 c7 5h8 40
Ae6 a4 41 cSW Sxc8 42 Ji.xc8 (with the idea
of <4fl) 42...Ab2l - the far-advanced a-pawn
would have forced White to play very accu­
rately: 43 &.c7\ (43 ‘t f l ? is parried by the
unexpected 43...a3 44 ^.e6 J.e5l) 43~b5 44
ild6 or 43„JLd4 44 iLe6, when the bishops
stop the black pawn pair and then eliminate
them with the help of the king. To win White
needs to retain his kingside pawns, espe­
cially the f-pawn, and therefore it is desir­
able to safeguard it by f2-f3.
39 c7 i.c5 40 i.b7 Sxc7 41 i.xc7 a5 42 ±c6!
(stopping both pawns and easily stretching
the opponent’s defences) 42...g5 43 ‘A’f l
<4^6 44 f3 4>h5 45 ±e8+ 4>h6 (45...i’h4 46
4 >g2 with the threat of Ji.g3 mate) 46 4>e2 f5 43—^ 7 ?
47 l.d8 1-0
This first win in the tournament enabled are the first to break through to the queen­
me, with Vh out of 4, to replace Adams as ing square: 46 fia2?l Sxa2 47 4>xa2 4>g5,
the only player on a plus score.
Life after Death
In the sixth round I had my first encounter
with Ruslan Ponomariov, and against my
Najdorf he employed the sharp English Attack
(cf. Game No.17, note to White’s 12th move).
By the 2lst move a roughly equal endgame
was reached with rooks and opposite-
coloured bishops. From the press: 'Possibly the
most unexpected moment for Kasparov came
when in an obviously drawn position his
young opponent decided to fight for some­
thing more. "He’s playing for a win?!” they
exclaimed in surprise in the press centre.’
On the 31st move Ponomariov suddenly
gave up his g5-pawn for the a5-pawn,
allowing me to create a dangerous pair of
connected passed pawns, and in the time
scramble he overstepped the mark and
ended up in a lost position.
Came 83
R.Ponomariov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 6th Round, 01.03.2002
After the simple 43-.cxb4 (or first 43...Sf2)
44 axb4 Sf 2! 45 jtd 5(c6) f4 the black pawns
etc., or 46 Sg8 i.d6 47 c4 (47 ±.e4 f3 48 2g6+
3 79
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
&e7! is no better) 47...f3 48 c5 JLe5 49 b5 S fl
50 b6 f2 51 ^.g2 S g l 52 c6 Sbl+ and ...fixb6.
44 bxc5! ^.xc5
If 44...Sd3l? White is saved by 45 c6 jLf6
4 6 ^.g 2 Sxc3+ 47 * b 4 Sc 2 4 8 £d5+ * e 7 49
Sg8 and if 49...f4 or 49-..^.e5, then 50 Hg6.
Now, howeveT, it is an immediate dTaw in
view of 45 S a 5 and Sxf5+.
A third missed win, and in an important
game! The next day I chose against Shirov l
e4 c5 2 £)f3 £)c6 3 .&b5 (since I was psycho­
logically not prepared for the Sveshnikov
Variation), played unconvincingly and did
not achieve anything - a draw on the 26th
move. But nevertheless I ended the first cycle
as the leader: Kasparov - 3'A out of 6; Po-
nomariov, Ivanchuk, Adams, Vallejo and
Shirov - 3; Anand - 2Vi.
At the start of the second cycle I neverthe­
less won with White against Vallejo, al­
though I again played unconvincingly: I had
a considerable advantage, but then I gave up
a pawn without gaining any particular
compensation for it. However, in time-
trouble the young grandmaster went wrong,
and his game went downhill. The lead over
my pursuers grew to a full point.
In the ninth round I was free, and behind
me Ponomariov led the chase by beating
Adams. In the tenth round, in which it was
Ruslan who was free, I had Black against
Anand and I seized the initiative in a sharp
branch of the Najdorf (cf. Game No.93, note
to White’s 9th move), but by some miracle
my opponent held out - a draw on the 40th
move. It need hardly be said how happy
Vishy was-. foT the first time afteT out 1995
match he did not lose to me in Linares!
Then I made two further Sicilian draws:
with White against Ivanchuk and with Black
against Adams. And two rounds before the
finish I was caught by Ponomariov: we both
380
had 6 out of 10, with our closest pursuers on
just 50%. Thus my second duel with the new
FIDE champion became the decisive game of
the tournament.
Game 84
G.Kasparov-R.Ponomariov
Linares, 13th Round, 09.03.2002
French Defence CIO
1 e4 e6 (a surprise: Ruslan played this for
virtually the very first time!) 2 d4 d5 3 ^c3
dxe4 (3...£)f6 - Game No.10; 3...^.b4 - Game
No.12) 4 £>xe4 £>d7 5 £>f3
The main line. At that time White was
also successful with 5 jLd3 £>gf6 6 # e2 c5 7
£ixf6+ £ixf6 8 dxc5 ^.xc5 9 -&-d2!? (instead of
9 £>f3 # c 7 10 0-0 0-0 11 i.g5 b 6 with equal­
ity, Ivanchuk-Karpov, Las Palmas 1996)
9.. .0.0 10 0-0-0, which ‘testifies not so much
to the true strength of this opening weapon,
but rather to the fact thqt at that moment
players with Black were unprepared for the
forcefully-devised tactical battle imposed by
the opponent’ (Zaitsev).
5.. .£>gf6 6 £)xf6+
Possibly my opponent had prepared for 6
£g5 £ e7 (6...h6!?) 7 £>xf6+ ^.xf6 8 h4 0-0 9
jLd3 c5 10 #62!? cxd411 # e 4 g6 12 0-0-0, as
I played against Anand (2nd match game
(rapid), Reykjavik 2000) and Shirov (Frank­
furt (rapid) 2000), or 6 JLd3 £>xe4 7 ^.xe4
£sf6 8 jLg5 # d 6 9 £d3!? #b4+ 10 £ d 2 #xb2
110-0 with quite good compensation for the
pawn (Kasparov-Anand, 3rd match game
(blitz), Reykjavik 2000). But under the influ­
ence of Adams I had taken a fancy to a
different plan.
6.. .£sxf6 7 c3
A rare and fresh move (Dokhoian and I al­
ways looked for such continuations!), which
from 2002 became popular. The classical line

is 7 ^.d3 c5 (Maroczy-Rubinstein, Karlsbad
1907) or 7...b6 (Teichmann-Rubinstein, Bad
Pistyan 1912). If 7 .&C4 Black plays 7...£.e7,
7.. .C5, or even 7 .a6 and ...c7-c5 (Ivanchuk-
Anand, 1st match game, Moscow 2001). And
after 7 £>e5, in contrast to that which oc­
curred in the game, 7...£>d7 is suitable (Reti-
Mieses, Gothenburg 1920).
7.. .C5
A delay in the attack on the centre -
7.. .^.e7 and ...0-0 broadens White’s options.89
8 £>e5l?
An attempt to improve on the variation 8
&e3 1Brc7 (8...cxd4 9 ^.xd4 is less good) 9 £>e5
a6 10 Wa4+ £>d7, which was tested in the
sixth round game Adams-Anand. In it after
11 0-0-0 cxd4 12 £>xd7 Wxd7?! White could
have gained an advantage by 13 Was!, but
12..JLxd7! 13 ®xd4 ^.c6 with equality is
more accurate. Black is also not too afraid of
11 £b5 cxd4 12 i.xd7+ £xd7 13 Wxd4 £b5
14 a4 ^.d 6 15 ^xf7 &xf7 16 axb5 axb5 (an
example: Ponomariov-Akobian, 2nd match
game, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009).
8.. .£>d7?
The rare variation disconcerted Ruslan,
and he immediately made a mistake. If
8..JLe7(d6) or 8...cxd4 there is the unpleas­
ant 9 ^.b5+ ^.d7 10 £>xd7. If 8...'Brc7 - again
9 -&b5+ (Topalov-Milov, Prague (rapid) 2002)
Life after Death
or 9 ^.f4 ^.d 6 10 ^.b5+. White is also better
after S.-WaS?! 9 WbS! (again threatening
jLb5+) 9-.a6 10 £>c4 1^7 11 ^ 6 (Doring-
Grabliauskas, Litomysl 1996).
Therefore correct is 8...a6l, when 9 £t.e3
Wc7 leads to an unclear position from the
previous note (9 ^.g5Wc7 is no better), while,
as became clear a few days later, the end­
game after 9 # a 4+ S-d7 10 £>xd7 fixd7 11
1Brxd7+ &xd7 12 dxc5 ^.xc5 is almost drawn
(Kasimdzhanov-Dorfman, Bundesliga 2002).
9£b5!
This is the point: the pin on the knight
combined with the threat of fif3 puts Black
in a difficult position. Here Ponomariov
realised that he had gone wrong some­
where, and he sank into thought...
9.. .£d6
Already the only move. It is bad to play
9 . . .a6? 10 1^3 I ,e7(f6) 11 £xd7+ and 1 ^ 7 ,
or 9 .cxd4? 1 0 1^3 W e 7 (I0...f6? 11 IT 15 +;
10.. .! ^ ? 11 £f4!) 11 £g5! f6 (ll...'Brxg5? 12
£xd7+) 1 2 Sdl! fxg5 13 Sxd4 1^6 14 !Ti5+
g6 1 5 W e 2 & .c5 1 6 £xd7+ £xd7 17 £>xd7
# e 7 18 £>xc5, etc.
10 # g 4 !
A strong move, although 10 jLf4! is also
promising (10 jLe3 0-0 or 10 0-0 a6!? 11
jLxd7+ ^.xd7, Mellado Trivino-Bofill Mas,
Spain 1990, is not so clear).
381
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

(intending ...g7-g6 and ...<£ >g7; 14...'Brc7? 15

A little-tTodden path! If 10...0-0 I spent a
long time calculating the variations with l l
Axd7! (11 Ah6 ^ 6 12 <£sxd7 Axd7 13 Ag5
®g6 14 Axd7 Sad8 is less good, Jeric-
Podlesnik, Slovenia 1991) ll...Axe5
(ll...Axd7? 12 Ah6 or ll...f5? 12 I tt l! is
fatal) 12 Axc8 cxd4, and in the end I came to
the conclusion that after 13 cxd4! Axd4 14
Axb7 Sb8 15 Af3 Black does not gain suffi­
cient compensation for the piece: 15...'ifa5+
16 & fl Axb2 (^...IfcS? 17 4) 17 Axb2
Sxb2 (Shipov) 18 Wd4 Sd2 19 ®e3 Sb8 20
Sell? (more forceful than the Informator 20
g4) 20...g6 21 h4! Sbb2 (21...®xa2 22 g4! h6
23 *g2) 22 4>gl Sxf2 23 h5 Sbc2 24 Sbl!
Sb2 25 <S?h2 or 20...h6 21 <4>gl! Sxa2
(21...Sbb2 22 Sc8+ <4>h7 23 h4!) 22 h3 and
<4>h2 with good winning chances.
Sd3!) 15 Ad3 Ad7 16 Ae4 Wc7 17 #f3 with
appreciable pressure foT White, but Black
retains defensive resources;
2) 11 Af4! (the best solution) ll...<£if6
(ll...£lxe5 12 Axes or ll...h5 12 Wdl! is also
depressing) 12 ®f3 cxd4 13 0-0, and Black is
in tmuble: 13...Ae7 14 cxd4 'Srxd4?!
(l4..Mld5 15 1^3) 15 Sacl! ®d5 (I5...1fxb2
16 a4) 16 We2 a 6 17 Aa4 or 13...g5 14 <£sd7+
Axd7 15 Axd6+ 4>g7 16 Axd7 <£sxd7 17
S ad i Wf6 (I 7...dxc3? 18 Ab4!) 18 1 ^ 7 e 5
19 Aa3 Shd8 20 cxd4 exd4 21 f4l g4 22 f5,
etc.
Il...£ixe 5 12 dxe5 A x e s 13 AgS
After 13 Sdl?! ttc7 14 Wh4 Af6 15 Ag5
<4 ,e7 White would have been in danger of
selling his advantage too cheaply.

13.. .Af6
1 1 0 - 0 !? A difficult choice. If 13...h5? I was plan­
‘True to his attacking manneT, Kasparov ning 14 Sadi! with the pretty idea of
goes in for a pawn sacrifice, hoping in 14.. .Axh2+ (l4..Wb6 15 IT 14!) 15 ‘i ’h l Wb6
compensation to gain a strong initiative’ 16 Ae7+! ‘i ’gS 17 Wg5 Af4 18 1 ^ 4 ®xb5 19
(Zaitsev). However, here I spent too much Sd8+ <A>h7 20 S fd l and wins. And in the
time studying the tempting alternatives: event of 13 ...f6 14 S ad i Ruslan would have
1) 1 1 IT 15 £sxe5 12 dxe5 Ae7 13 0-0 (Zait­had to find a place for his queen:
sev’s flamboyant trick 13 Ah6?! with the 1 ) 14...1fc7?! 15 IT 15 tte 7 (I5...‘4>e7? 16 f4!
idea of 13...gxh6? 14 S d l is parried by Ad6 17 f5! with crushing threats, while the
13...1Hrb6!) 13-h6! (my Informator l3...'Brc7 is Informator 15-.g6(?) 16 ^ 6 + ^ 7 17 f4!
worse because of 14 Ag5!) 14 S d l Was Ad6 18 f5! exf5 is bad because of 19 g4H) 16

382

$Le3 g6 17 H i6+ 4f7 18 Sd2 a6 19 i.e2 with
a dangerous attack;
2) 14...1re7 15 i.e3 4f7 16 ik.c4 i.c7 17 f4
h5 18 WhB, and Black faces difficult prob­
lems.
14 S a d i #C7
In tnformator I gave the variation 14-1i re7
15 JLxf6 #xf6 (avoiding the spoiling of the
pawns) 16 1Srg3(?!) g 6 17 1i rc7 4g7 18 #xc5
with a V evaluation, but after I8...e5
White’s advantage is only slight 16 #c4! g6
(l6...«fe7? 17 ®d3! and 1fd8+) 17 «xc5+
4g7 18 f4 is far stronger, regaining the
pawn with an enduring initiative.
15 #h4
15 -&xf6l? deserved serious consideration:
15.. .gxf6 16 Wh4! 4e7 17 f4! (more energetic
than the Informator 17 Sfel) 17...Sd8 (if
17.. .C4?! there is a spectacular win by 18 f5!
# c 5+ 19 4 h l #xb5 20 fxe6 #g5 21 'Hfxc4
i.xe6 22 #b4+ 4 e8 23 #xb7 Sc8 24 Sfel!)
18 f5 e5 19 Sxd8 #xd8 20 Wxhy with an
enormous advantage: 20...JLd7 21 S d l J.xb5
22 Sxd8 Sxd8 23 h4! Sdl+ 24 4h2, and
Black cannot hold out. But as it is, his posi­
tion is very difficult on account of the bad
position of his king.
15 .. .1.xg5
The only move. I was tempted by the
variation 15...4e7?! 16 f4 a6 17 f5! with a
Life after Death
decisive attack: 17...axb5? 18 fxe6 WeS 19
J.xf6+ gxf6 20 S d el Sa4 (20...1i rg5 21 exf7+
and #e4) 21 1 ^ 6 or 17...e5 18 i.c4! b5 19
i.d5 Sa7 (I9...i.b7?! 20 i.xb7 #xb7 21
JLxf6+ gxf6 22 Sfel, threatening Sxe5+) 20
H i 5 4 e8 (20...4f8 21 i.e6M or 20...Sf8 21
J.e3 with the threats of #xh7 and b2-b4 is
no better) 21 Jte3 -&b7 22 Ae6!? or simply
22 Sd2, winning.
16 # x g 5 f 6 l7 ® h 5 g6
If 17...4e7 the most natural is 18 S fel g6
19 H i6 4f7 20 Se3! or l8...a6 19 i.c4 g6
(I9...b5? 20 l.xe6) 20 IT 13! f5 21 H i6 4f6
(21...4f7 22 g4!) 22 Sd5! 4f7 (22...exd5? 23
Wh4+) 23 Sde5 with unbearable pressure:
23...'ire7(d6) 24 g4l.
18 # h 6 + &f7
Of course, not lS-.Wgy? 19 Sd8+ 4f7 20
£.e8+L
19 Sd3?
Carried away by the faulty idea of switch­
ing the rook to h3, I blocked the bishop’s
path to e2. An overwhelming advantage
would have been retained by the normal
doubling of rooks on the d-file - 19 Sd2!
(Dokhoian) 19...a6 20 J.e2! (more accurate
than my Informator 20 JLd3) 20...#e7 (there
is nothing better: 20...b5?! 21 S fdl f5 22 g4!
or 21...Sa7 22 h4!) 21 S fdl 1T8 22 l f 4 We7
23 # a 4 We8 24 WaS We7 25 Sd6, etc.
383
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
19.. .a6! 20 fih3 (20 JLa4 b5 with equality)
20.. M e7
20..Jtd7l is more elegant, when no ad­
vantage is promised by 21 ii.c4 Sag8 22 S d l
b5l (instead of the Informator 22...Sg7(?l) 23
Shd3) or 21 JLe2 Sad8 22 S d l 1^5, while 21
jtxd7 Hrxd7 221i rxh7+ leads to an equal rook
ending.
21 JLd3 f5
At this moment I realised to my distress
that White now merely had decent compen­
sation for the pawn. Black is about to com­
plete the development of his queenside, and
therefore the safest thing would have been
to force a draw by 22 'Srxh7+. But I developed
an irresistible desire to ruffle the opponent’s
forces - it was a pity to part with such a
promising attacking position!
22 g4!?
This risky move, made on the threshold of
a time scramble, unsettled Ponomariov. Up
until now the young champion had de­
fended confidently, but here he began to be
overcome by doubts, and he gradually lost
the thread of the game.
22...#f6 (the immediate 22...b5l? was more
subtle, and only if 23 S e l - 23...1Srf6 with
double-edged play) 23 fid l!
The appearance of the rook on the d-file
creates certain problems for Black.
384
23.. .b5
23...fxg4?! 24 Sg3 e5? 25 .&C4+ 4>e8 is
suicidal in view of 26 Sgd3l (this is even
better than the Informator 26 2d5). But to
maintain equality 23...g5 24 #h5+ # g 6 25
gxf5 l^ h S 26 Sxh5 exf5 27 h4 (27 Sxg5
JLe6! - Stohl) 27...<4 >g6 28 Sxg5 4>f6 or 27 f4
Ji.e6 28 fxg5 Bad8 is quite sufficient.
24 JLe2 e5
It would appear that Ruslan was already
imagining he had winning chances - other­
wise he could have restricted himself to one
of two more modest continuations:
1) 24-Sa7 (with the idea of ...Sd7) 25
#xh7+ (if 25 Shd3, then the equalizing
25.. .g5 26 ®15+ 4 ^ 7 27 gxf5 h61? 28 fxe6
±xe6 and ...Sf7 is possible) 25...Sxh7 26
Sxh7+ 1 ^ 7 27 Sxg7+ <* xg7 28 Bd8 (28 g5
Sd7) 28..JLd7l (if 28...Sc7 Stohl recommends
29 g5, and I - the preparatory 29 c4l?) 29 f4
(29 g5 e5 with the intention of ...JLe6 and
...Sd7) 29...fxg4 30 JLxg4 ^ f6 with a slightly
inferior, but objectively drawn endgame;
2) 24...g5, and although after 25 #h5+ Wg6
26 gxf5 exf5 (Stohl’s ‘drawing’ variation
26.. .'ifxh5(?!) 27 ii.xh5+ 4^7 is dangerous on
account of 28 fxe6 Ji.xe6 29 Se3l ii-f5 30 Se5
or 29...±xa2 30 Sd7+ 4h6 31 fih3l g4 32
i.xg4+ 4g5 33 -&e2) 27 Bd61? (my Informator
27 Se3 is parried by 27...g4 28 # h 4 1T6 29

# 115+ # g 6 with equality) 27...#xh5 28 Sxh5
ot 25 gxf5 #xh6 26 2xh6 *g7 (26...exf5 27
c4l?) 27 Sh5 h6 28 f4 White retains a slight
initiative, with accurate defence it all ends in
simplification and a draw.
25 Shd3
Intensifying the pressure. I didn’t play g2-
g4 in order to go in for the colourless 25 g5
# g 7 26 Sd5 #xh6 27 2xh6 * e6 28 Sxc5
&d6 29 b4 .&e6 with equality.
25.. .5a7?
An over-insipid ‘prophylactic’ move, al­
lowing the victorious invasion of the white
rooks. It was essential to play 25...fxg4l 26
2d6 # f4 27 Sxg6 (27 # h 4 gBl or 27 Sd7+
&xd7 28 Sxd7+ * e 8 29 # g 7 # f8 30 Se7+
#xe7 31 #xh8+ # f8 32 #xh7 Sb8! is unfa­
vourable for White) 27-..#xh6 28 2xh6 JLfS
29 2d5 *g7 30 2c6 (30 2hd6 c4) 30...2hc8
31 2cd6! (after 31 2dxc5?l 2xc6 32 2xc6
2d8! 33 2xa6 2d2 34 .&xb5 ^.e4l 35 h3 h5
Black suddenly creates a mating attack!)
31.. .C4 32 f3 (32 2xe5 2e8 is equal) 32...gxf3
33 ^.xf3 2e8, and White, despite the activity
of his rooks, would merely have comfortable
equality.
26 2d6 # g7
After 26...^.e6 27 2c6 g5 28 #xf6+ 4>xf6
29 2dd6 2e7 (29...2e8? 30 gxf5 *xf5 31 .&h5 28 a4!
2ee7 32 h3! and wins) 30 2xa6! (with the A spectacular undermining move also on
Life after Death
threat of .&xb5-c4; my Informator 30 2xc5 is
weaker because of 30...2a8) 30...2b8 31
gxf5+ *xf5 32 h3l or 30...e4 31 2dc6! 2d8
(31...C4 32 2ab6 and 2xb5) 32 h3l &e5 33
2 xc5+ 2d5 (33.-.^f4? 34 2xe6! and 2xf5
mate) 34 2xd5+ .&xd5 35 ^.xb5 the black
ship would also have sunk.
27#e3
This return of the queen with gain of
tempo suggests itself, but 27 # d 2 would
also have won, for example:
1) 27..~&e6 28 gxf5! (but not 28 2xe6(?)
&xe6 29 #d5+ i f 6 as given in Informator,
when White has only perpetual check)
28.. .gxf5+ 29 * h l 2g8 30 ^.h5+ i f 8 31
2d8+ * e7 32 f3(f4) or 29-h5 30 2xe6! *xe6
31 #d6+ i f 7 32 &f3 e4 33 #xc5 2e7 34
#xf5+ #f6 35&xh5+;
2) 27...2e8 28 #d5+ &f8 (28..Ae6 29
#xc5) 29 c4l (breaking up Black’s queenside)
29-b4 30 2d8 # e 7 31 2xe8+ #xe8 32
#xc5+ 2e7 33 g5l &f7 34 #xb4 2d7 35 # b 6
and wins;
3) 27 .2e7 28 g5l (here also this clamping
move is decisive) 28...2e6 (28..Ae6 29 2xa6)
29 # d 5 2he8 30 a4 # f8 31 2c6, and White
begins mopping up.
27.. .2c7
385
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
the other wing. In principle 28 gxf5 itxf5
(28...gxf5?! 29 4 ’h l and wins) 29 Sxa6 is
equally good, as is my Informator 28 Ji.f3,
since neither 28...fxg4? 29 ^.d5+ nor 28...e4?
29 JLxe4! fxe4 30 ^ 4 + is possible.
28...e4
Hopeless is 28...flf8 29 axb5 axb5 30 JLxbS
4^8 31 A c4+ 4 h8 32 Sd8! h6 (32...e4? 33
* f4 He7 34 # b8 - Stohl) 33 Sxf8+ ®xf8 34
#xe5+ Sg7 35 Sd5(d6), picking up the c5-
pawn.
29 axb5 (29 ®g3 Se7 30 gxf5 was also
suitable) 29...axb5 30 Jb(b5 WeS
31«g5
In severe time-trouble I simply threw my
queen closer to the black king. The game
could have been concluded by 31 Bids! f4 (if
31.. .11.e7, then 32 gxf5 gxf5 33 ik.c4 or
32.. JLxf5 33 Wf4) 32 # c l (simpler than the
Informator 32 Wi3 # e7 33 1^6) 32...We7 33
#xf4+ 4g7 34g5!.
31.. M e7
31...±e6 32 JLc4! fie8 33 Sld5 # f6 3 4 ^ 4
was also fatal. However, neither 3i...2a7 32
B ids ®e7 33 Wh6 nor 3l~.Sb7 32 Aa6 Ba7
33 itxc8 Bxc8 34 Sd7+ would have helped,
and nor would the most resilient 3i...e3l? 32
fxe3 We7 (Black loses ignominiously after
the Informator 32...Se7(?) 33 ic 4 + 4g7 34
gxf5 jLxfS 35 Se6!! or 34...1rxe3+ 35 ®xe3
386
Sxe3 36 f 6+ 4 h 6 37 f7) 33 ®h 6 1 ^ 4 34 Ae 2l
Se5 35 gxf5 ix f5 36 B al with an extra
pawn and a powerful attack.
32 ^ 6 (threatening 8 xg6) 32...i.e6 33 ® f4
A good dozen moves would now have
been decisive, but in particular 33 gxfs! with
the idea of 33-±xf5 34 ±c4+ or 33-.gxf5 34
i e 2! and jLh5+.
33.. .1.c8
If 33-h6 or 33...Sb8, then 34 fixe6! wins,
while if 33-.Shc8 I would have had to play
34 gxf5 gxf5 35 4 h l! (threatening Bxe6)
35.. .C4 36 Wh6 and wins.
34 ^ h 6 (34 gxf5l, but I have created the
threats of Bxg6 and j Lc4+) 34...^.e6 35 gxf5
(at last!) 35».gxf5 (35-±xf5 36 Ac4+) 36
JLe 2 ! # f6 37 ih 5 + 4e7
38 fixe6+! (the final stroke) 1-0
A very important win, with enormous
tension! Before the very finish I surged one
point ahead: Kasparov - 7 out of 11 , Ponom-
ariov - 6, Ivanchuk, Anand and Adams - S’A
In the last round Ponomariov drew with
Anand, after accurately performing the
Marshall Attack. I had Black against Alexey
Shirov. Before this the score of our decisive
games in ‘classical’ play was 13-0 in my
favour, and Shirov fearlessly launched into a
tactical fight, having apparently decided

with the aid of some cabbalistic computa­
tions that at the number ‘IB’ his misadven­
tures should come to an end.
Game 85
A.Shirov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 14th Round, 10.03.2002
Sicilian Defence B33
1 e4 c5 2 £if3 £ic6
After the usual 2...d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4
£if6 5 £ ic3 a6 a severe test would probably
have awaited me, and so Dokhoian and I
tried to slightly surprise my opponent.
3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 £sf6 5 £ ic3 e5 6 £sdb5 d6
7 i.g 5 a6 8 £)a3 b5
Before this I had employed the Sveshnikov
Variation only in simuls, blitz games and the
‘advanced chess’ match with Topalov (1998).
We had studied it a lot for White, and we
came to the conclusion that it could also be
played with Black.
9 i.xf6
An indication of Shirov’s determined
mood: he captured on f6 quite firmly and
quickly, although up to 2000 he used to
prefer the quieter 9 £id5 (Game Nos.ll, 13,
49,104).
9...gxf6 10 £)d5
Life after Death
10.. .f5
Later I twice played 10...iLg7 - here the
topical line is still 11 Ad3 £ie7 12 £ixe7
®xe7 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4 (14 c3 f5 15 £ sc2 is
more modest, J.Polgar-Kasparov, Prague
(rapid) 2002) 14...f5 15 0-0 0-0 16 #f3 (Shi-
rov-Kramnik, Linares 2000; Shirov-Topalov,
Dortmund 2002) or 16 # h 5 (Shirov-Carlsen,
Sofia 2009; Wijk aan Zee 2010).
When I played 10...f5,1 was almost certain
that in reply Shirov would capture with his
bishop on b5: he had already played this,
and with success.
1 1 i.xb5
A piece sacrifice rich in chances, which
periodically causes Black problems. The
typical plans - either 11 jLd3 .&e6 12 c3, 12
Whs or 12 0-0, or 11 c3 .&g7 (if ll...fxe4?l the
move 12 Jbcbs! gains in strength) 12 exf5
Axfs 13 £>c2 and £ice3 - were very familiar
to both players.
11.. .axb5 12 £ixb5
After picking up two pawns, White is
threatening a check at c7, against which
there is no normal defence - only to give up
material.
12.. .5.4!
A counter-attacking idea of the Moscow
master Sergey Gorelov. Initially 12...Sa7 13
£sxa7 £ixa7 was played, but later tests
387
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
showed that White’s chances were better
after both 14 exf5 (Vitolins) and 14 c3 - say,
14...£>b5?l 15 a4! (stronger than 15 exf5 ®c7
16 £>e3 .&b7 17 Wa4+ 'Hrd7, Mitkov-Shirov,
France 1994) 15...^c7 16 a5, etc.
13 b4
Another sacrifice, this time of a pawn,
with the aim of cutting off the aggressive
rook or opening lines on the queenside,
where the black king is hoping to hide. This
dramatic move, which has been known since
1979, was also employed by Shirov’s compa­
triot, the Latvian master Alvis Vitolins - a
great lover of unfathomable complications,
which in the pre-computer era did not lend
themselves to accurate assessment even in
home analysis.
The source game Levchenkov-Gorelov
(Jurmala 1977) went 13 £sbc7+ *d7 14
exf5?l £>e7?l (l4...Se4+!) 15 0-0? Sd4 and
Black won. 14 0-0 is better: 14...Sxe4 15 WhS
£>e7 16 #xf7 * c 6 17 c4 Wd7 18 £ a 8! £>g6!
with dynamic equality (Game No.18 in
Revolution in the 70s). The 13 b4 thrust was
an attempt to breath new life into the 11
JLxbS gambit.
A fresh idea of McShane’s, which, it is
true, signifies a rejection by Black of at­
tempts to refute the piece sacrifice in the
388
opening and an agreement to a quick draw.
Of course, one would like to capture the b4-
pawn, but with what?
13 .. .£)xb4 14 £)bc7+ *d7 15 c3 is consid­
ered to be dangerous - after 15 ~.£lxd5 16
1B,xa4+ &XC7 17 exd5 or 15...Sa7 16 cxb4
Sxc7 17 0-0 (17 #a4+l?) Black is alright as
regards material, but the open position of
his king causes him masses of problems.
13.. .5xb4 14 £)bc7+ *d7 15 0-0 leads to a
more complicated situation.
Analysis Diagram
After 15 ...Sxe4 16 fTi 5 or 15...Sb7 16 W i 5
£>e7 17 #xf7 Sxc7 (I 7...*c6? 18 S ab i and
wins, Shirov-Lautier, Monte Carlo (blindfold)
2000) 18 £ft>6+ i c 6 19 S abi, and also in the
event of lS-.'B'gS 16 <S^xb4 <S^xb4 17 S b l (or
even 17 Wbl?!, Vitolins-Chemyaev, Kherson
1990), the open b-file does indeed hinder
Black’s defence.
The sacrifice of the queen for three minor
pieces is interesting - lS-'B'xcy 16 <S^xc7
*xc7 17 lTi5 Sxe4 18 #xf7+ Ji.e7 19 a4 Sf 8
20 « b 3 Sb4 21 WdS £ a 6 (21...Sd4l?) with a
draw after a lively battle (Baljon-Dolmatov,
Amsterdam 1979). 19 Sfbl! 2f8 201ttrb3 Sb4
21 # d 5 Sxbl+ (21...Sd4? 22 Wb5!) 22 Sxbl
JLd7 23 a4 is stronger (M.Rychagov-Ripari,
Saint Vincent 2001). Incidentally, the Esto-

nian grandmaster Mikhail Rychagov was a
friend and trainer of Shirov’s.
It appeared that this risky idea was
knocked down by the ‘advanced chess’ game
Shirov-Topalov (Leon 2001): 16 c3l? (being
two bishops down, White does not immedi­
ately capture the queen!) I6...2xe4 (lS-Wby
17 cxb4 and Hcl!) 17 !T i5 4 ^ 8 18 £>xc7
&xc7 19 Vixf7+ &.e7 (reaching the ‘Dolmatov
position’, but with the pawn on c3, which
deprives the black pieces of the b4- and d4-
squares) 20 S ab i jLa6 21 S fdl 2f8 22 Wb3
Hb8 23 Vie6 Sxbl 24 2 x b l i.d3 25 2 d l f4?
26 1 ^ 5 i.c2 27 2 c l 2e2 28 a4, after which
White emerged victorious. However, after
23.. .6C4! 2 4 IfxfS 2 x b l 25 2 x b l &d3 26 2 f l
d5 Black’s chances are not worse (Naiditsch-
Jakubiec, Griesheim 2002).
But the most popular line is 15-2g8!? 16
£M>4 £ixb4 17 ®d5 (after 17 c3, fashionable
in the 21st century, 17...Vixc7 18 cxb4 fxe4 or
18.. .1rb7 is good) 17...£lxd5 18 I'x d s <4 ’e7,
and Black is better after 19 2 a b l &.e6 20
1(1)7+ &f6 (Vitolins-Kishnev, Jurmala 1981),
as well as 19 a4 'Vic7! (threatening ,.JLb7) 20
2 a b l fxe4 or 19 exf5 .&xf5 (I9...2g4 20 2 a b l
is less clear, but not 20 f4? 1Hrb6+ and ..JLb7,
F.Vaisman-An.Bykhovsky, Israel 2007) 20
2 a b l &.e6 (internet games in the 2000s).
However, all the questions in the
controversial variations with 13-2xb4 had
been far from resolved when the move
13.. .'irh4 appeared on the scene.
14 0-0 2g8
Here, after little thought, Shirov confi­
dently pushed forward his f-pawn.
15 f4l?
A novelty! In the event of 15 c3 f4! a draw
results from both 16 H,xa4 (16 i ’hl? 2g6!)
16.. .2xg2+ (Luther-McShane, Lippstadt
2000), and 16 £>f6+ #xf6 17 l ,xa4 f3 18 g3
IT 14 or 17...1,g5 18 g3 fxg3 19 hxg3 1 ^ 4
with the transparent aim of .J5xg3+.
Life after Death
The ambitious 15 f4 looks threatening:
White prevents ...f5-f4 and opens up the
position (if I5...exf4? 16 c3 Black is in trouble).
At any event, my deliberations over the
resulting position took me about an hour (my
opponent was burning with impatience!).
Initially, to be honest, I was horrified: all
around there appeared to be terrible threats.
However, Black has an extra piece, and this
must be exploited in some way! Gradually I
calmed down, and literally by the method of
elimination Ifound a worthy reply.
15...&d8!
It is curious that the computer immedi­
ately suggests this move, not an easy one for
a human to find. Black needs to coordinate
his pieces, defend against the impending
checks and other attacks (for example, 16
c3), and it turns out that the best place for
his king is on d8! It is now White who has a
difficult choice.
16 c3
As was planned. True, a move later Shirov
not only fails to gain an initiative compen­
sating for the piece, but he himself comes
under a swift attack. But did he have any­
thing more cheerful? We will discard the
reckless 16 £ixd6? ,&xd6 17 £ib6 £id4! 18
£ixa4 fxe4 or 16 fxe5? £ixe5 17 2f4 (17 £ibc3
2xb4l 18 £lxb4 £sg4 or 17 ^ 4 2a6 is also
389
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
weak) 17...'Sfg5 18 Wfl fxe4 19 lx e 4 (19 1T2
Sa6) 19...ib7, when White has no defence.
Also nothing good is promised by 16 c4?!
Ua6 17 exf5 jtb7! with the ideas of ...exf4
and ...the7 - here White has his problems
compared with the similar position with the
pawn on c3 (cf. the note to White’s 17th
move). But the manoeuvre 16 <£)b6!?, rec­
ommended by me in Informator, deserves
consideration: l6...Sxb4 17 £ixc8 ^xc8 (a
move earlier, after 15 ^b6? Sxb4 16 £ixc8,
Black would have won by l6...Sxb5 17
£ixd6+ ik,xd6 18 WxdG <£)d4, whereas now,
with his king on d8, after l7...Sxb5? 18 £ixd6
he would have to resign!) 18 Wds ^ 7 !
(avoiding I8...£)d4?! 19 #a8+ 4>d7 201i rb7+).
Analysis Diagram
Now 19 1i rxf7+? £ie7 20 £ixd6 #g4! 21
Sf2 <4>xd6 is bad for White. 19 exf5?! .&e7! 20
#xf7 Wg4 21 We6+ &d8 22 # d 5 Sxb5 23
Wxc6 e4! 24 ®xe4 ®xf5 is also insufficient -
the bishop is superior to the weak pawns! All
that remains is to mobilise the rook:
1 ) 19 S ad i Hg6! (l9...Wf6?! 20 #c5!, Isaev-
Elliott, Turin Olympiad 2006), and here 20
1^7+ ? &e7 2 1 Wxf5+ ^ 8 or 20 exf5? Sh6
21 Wxf7+ (21 h3 Sxf4) 2l..JLe7 (the combi­
nation 22 Sxd 6+ Sxd 6 23 £ixd6 4>xd6 24
fxe5+ ‘i ’c7 25 f6 is refuted by 25...'Brd4+ 26
390
<£Til #f2!) is weak, but White is saved by 20
g3! Sxg3+ (there is insufficient extra mate­
rial after 20...'irh3 21 fxe5 Sxe4 22 #xf7+
±e7 23 2xd6+ Sxd6 24 exd6 Se2 25 Wxf5+
WxfS 26 Sxf5 iLxd6 27 Sd5 with equality) 21
hxg3 #xg3+ 22 <4>hl IT 13+ 23 ‘i ’g l 1^4+ 24
4>hl 1 ^15+ 25 4>g2 #g6+ 26 4>hl exf4 27
Sd 2! f3 28 S h 2 fxe4 (28...Sxe4 29 £>c3!) 29
c3! Sa4 30 £)d4! £ixd4 31 Wh7+ and cxd4,
persistently pursuing the black king;
2) 19 S ab i Sxbl 20 Sxbl Sg6 21 £ia7(c3)
or 20...£id8 21 £ ic3 fxe4 22 Sfl! i.h6 23
£ixe4 Hg6 24 f5 Jte3+ 25 4>hl Sh6 26 h3,
also with full compensation for the piece.
16.. .5a6
Threatening to clear the long light-
squared diagonal, play ...±b7 and attack the
white king. Here it was Shirov’s tum to think
for a long time. He sat almost motionless,
covering his eyes, as if he had fallen into a
deep trance. It would appear that at that
moment he sensed that the history of our
bloodshed would not be restricted to the
unlucky number ‘13 '...
17 a4?
The decisive mistake! Also unsuitable
were both 17 ^dc7? fxe4 or 17...Sb6, and 17
exf5? Jk,b7! 18 £)bc7 £ie7! (the g-file plus the
long diagonal!) 19 Sf2 ±h6 20 b5 (20 £ixe7?
jtxf4! 21 £ixg8 Jtxh2+ 22 * f l 4>xc7 23 b5
J.g3! is fatal) 20...Sb6! 21 f6 (21 a4 Jk.xf4 or
21 £ixb6 <4 >xc7 22 fxe5 ds! does not help)
21.. .£ixd5 22 £ixd5 i.xf4 23 £ixf4 exf4 24 a4
#xf6 25 C4 We5! 26 W l (26 a5 #c5) 26...f3!,
etc.
In the event of 17 £ie3?! £ia7! 18 £ixa7
Sxa7 19 £ixf5 l.xf5 20 exf5IT 13 21 ^ 2 Sc7
22 g3 ®xf5 White would face a difficult
battle to save the game - a piece is a piece!
And only by 17 £)bc7! Sa7 18 b5! Sxc7 19
£ ixc7 <4 >xc7 20 bxc6 could he have main­
tained the balance, exploiting the vulner­
ability of the black king: 20...exf4 21 WdS!
 Life after Death

Wg5 22 e5 dxe5 23 Sf 2 or 20...1fg4 21 Wd2!
iLh6 22 c4 -&xf4 23 Sxf4! exf4 24 S d l Sg6
25 c5!, etc.
17...fxe4
Now Black has both an extra piece, and a
lot of pawns.
I 9...e3l (‘the most human’, although there
was also 19-.^d4!) 20 £>xe3 (20 £)dc7 £ixb4!
21 cxb4 Wc4 and wins) 20...We4 21 B el
(there was also no future with 21 Se2
5id4(xb4) or 21 We2 £>e7!) 21...£>xb4! 22
cxb4 Ah6

18 f5?! Black has temporarily returned the piece,

An error in a difficult position. In defend­ but how rampant his bishops have become!
ing against ..JLh3(g4), White runs into even Such an attack can be created only in one’s
greater problems. After 18 £se3?! (Pym- dreams...
Harley, Telford 2005) the simplest was 23 <£>hl (23 £>xd6 ^.xe3+, while after 23 £ig4
18.. .Wh3! 19 We2 exf4 20 Sxf4 -&h6 21 Sxe4 Wxg4 24 £>xd6 there is also 24..~&.e3+!, with
(21 <£>hl We6!) 2l..JLxe3+ 22 <4>hl (22 Sxe3 mate) 23...-&xe3 24 We2 (desperation)
Sxg2+) 22...£>d4! 23 £>xd4 Sxg2! 24 Wxg2 24...Bc6 25 a5 (25 Sd2 Bxg2) 25-.Wxb4
Wxg2+ 25 * x g 2 ^.b7 26 &f3 -&xd4 27 cxd4 Not bad, but 25...Wd5! was more drastic.
f5 and wins. 26 £>xd6 Bxd6 27 Wxe3
But nevertheless there was the more resil­
ient 18 £idc7 1Ti 3 (I8...2b6!?) 19 We2 (19
Wc2? e3! or my Informator 19 Sa2? .&g4! 20
Wc2 ^.f3 is worse) 19-.exf4 2 0 Wxe4 £>e5 21
<&hl We3 22 Wxf4 Wxf4 23 Sxf4 -&h6 24
Sf2(e4) Sc6 or 24 Sd4 -&b7!, and Black
converts his material advantage, or the
prophylactic 18 Sa2! with the idea of
18.. .^.g419 Wbl.
18.. JLb7l (l8...£>e7!, immediately exchang­
ing the d5-knight, was also strong) 19 Sa2
Too late! But there was already nothing to
move: 19 £*bc7 £>e7!, 19 £>e3 £>a7! and 19
Wei Wxel 20 Sfxel £se7! were all cheerless. 27...Wd4

391
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Here I spent a long time calculating the
transition into a pawn endgame - 27...fixg2
28 Sxg2 ®d2 (28...Sd2l wins) 29 ®xd2 Bxd2
30 S egl f6?! (30...<4>e7 31 h4 Ha2 32 <4>h2
ik,xg2 33 Sxg2 Sxa5 is moTe correct) 31 h4
<4 >c7 32 <4>h2 Sxg2+ 33 Ixg2 Jb<g2 34 <4 >xg2
<4 >b7 35 £*3 ^ 6 36 <4>e4 ‘A’xaS 37 ‘i ’dS 4 ^6
38 4 e6 e4 39 4xf6 e3 40 4g7 e2 41 f6 el®
42 f7 ®e7 43 4g8 ®e6 44 h5 h6 45 4g7 ®d7
46 4 h8 with a draw! But in the end I aban­
doned these ‘sadistic experiments' and
made a safe move.
28 W cl ® d 5 0-1
That was how my record three-year senes
of ten ‘classical’ tournament victories con­
cluded. ‘Kasparov once again steam-rollered
his way through Linares’, wrote David Lyada
in the 64 magazine. 'By a margin of one and
a half points he won his fourth successive
Andalucian trophy and decisively demon­
strated who in the chess world is still ‘number
one’. There is no disputing both his superior­
ity in the current Linares, and the fact that
Garry has won 13 o f the last 15 super-
tournaments. Today only the elusive Kramnik
remains a dangerous opponentfor him.’
Immediately afteT the tournament I
stated in an interview that KTamnik was
concerned only about his own interests and
was neglecting his obligations to the chess
world:
‘The champion's title had a sacred mean­
ing only because it belonged to the strongest
player. It is ridiculous when Kramnik talks
about some ‘official’ title, match ot qualifi­
cation. His unwillingness to play a return
match has led to a devaluation of the tradi­
tional title, since today KTamnik is not the
strongest playeT. He had no otheT way of
demonstrating that he is the strongest,
other than to play anotheT match with me...
‘Unfortunately, Kramnik has done every­
392
thing he can to avoid the most dangerous
opponents, and not only me. (In the Candi­
dates Tournament held in July 2002 I did not
participate, and neither did Anand, Ponom-
ariov or Ivanchuk - G.K.). It is staggering that
Anand and Kramnik did not w ant to play a
match against each otheT. On becoming
champions, they could have come to an
agreement, but they preferred to Tetain theiT
split achievements and not place them
undeT threat.'
Last Olympiad Triumph
35th World Chess Olympiad (Bled, 25 Octo­
ber - 10 November 2002): l. Russia - 38V2
out of 56; 2. Hungary - 37'A; 3. Armenia -
35; 4. Georgia - 34; 5-12. China, Holland,
England, Slovakia, Israel, Yugoslavia, Mace­
donia and Switzerland - 33V2, etc. (alto­
gether - 134 teams). The winning team
comprised Kasparov (71/2 out of 9), Grischuk
(7 out of 11), Khalifman (7 out of 9), Moro-
zevich (7 out of 11), reserves SvidJer (6 out of
9) and Rublevsky (4 out of 7).
By early 2002 the London firm ‘Brain
Games’, which had staged my match with
Vladimir KTamnik, was on the verge of
bankruptcy and in February it sold the rights
to staging the next world championship to
the ‘Einstein Group’ financial company.
Foreseeing serious problems in attracting
majoT sponsors ‘undeT Kramnik’, the well-
known American grandmaster Yasser Seba-
wan suggested a plan for uniting the world
championships undeT the aegis of FIDE. This
idea was supported by me, by Bessel Kok,
and at the last moment also by Kramnik.
I spent the whole of March and April on
setting up this new concept of unification,
assuming that I had no other chance of
playing a match for the worid champion­
ship: all the illusions with TegaTd to Kramnik

had already been dispelled. At the cost of
enormous nervous expenditure a compro­
mise with the FIDE board was reached.
On the eve of these seemingly historic
decisions Bessel Kok arranged an excellent
rapidplay knock-out tournament for the
Eurotel Trophy (Prague, 29 April - 5 May
2002). After beating Milos (2-0) and J.Polgar
(2-0), in the quarter-finals I lost a fierce
battle to Ivanchuk (1-1; 1-1; O-l), and he lost
in the semi-final to Anand. The other finalist
was Karpov, who beat Short, Kramnik,
Morozevich and Shirov! But in the final
Anand defeated Karpov, gaining mini­
revenge against him for Lausanne 1998.
On 6th May 2002 the FIDE President Kir-
san llyumzhinov, together with the 13th and
14th champions, Kok and Seirawan, signed
the famous Prague Agreement - ‘Resolution
on the Unification of the Chess World’. From
then on FIDE became the sole custodian of
the World Chess Championship title and the
only organization staging official world
championships. But at the same time it was
obliged to become a management organiza­
tion, to set up a precise schedule which
would satisfy potential sponsors (essentially
this was an attempt to carry over into the
2lst century the positive experience of the
GMA and PCA), and to approve a unification
plan, according to which the FIDE champion
Ponomariov had to play a match with the
leader of the world rating list Kasparov, the
‘historic’ champion Kramnik with the win­
ner of the ‘Einstein Group' candidates tour­
nament, and the winners of these two
matches were to meet in a unifying match
for the world championship.
The agreement admitted that ‘the unifica­
tion plan is not perfect and will not satisfy
everyone’. Indeed, soon 22 grandmasters,
including Anand, Shirov, Leko, Lautier, Yusu-
pov and almost the entire Russian team,
Life after Death
expressed in an open letter: ‘our concern
about the violation o f sports principles’ and
called on all parties to ‘resolve the injustice’,
since 'there are better ways of reunification'.
Possibly there were indeed other ways, but
the letter was signed by people who con­
ceived the unification process in completely
different ways, and it looked like an attempt
to hinder this process.
At a press conference devoted to the
opening of a stage of the FIDE Rapidplay
Grand Prix (Moscow, 1-5 June 2002), I stated:
‘Many of those who have signed this letter
do not want any unification at all. Since it
demands not only sacrifices, but also joint
energetic work. Without the securing of a
five-year calendar, and in particular money
for 2003, we will not get anywhere. The
enormous work which is now being carried
out needs the support of grandmasters, and
notits torpedoing!’
On this occasion I managed to concen­
trate on playing and I won this rapid knock­
out tournament, beating Ehlvest, Lautier
(both 2-0), Grischuk (1 V2-V2), Khalifman (l-l;
1 V2-V2) and, in the final, Radjabov (lyi-’/i).
‘My immediate plans are associated with the
world championship. I also intend to play for
Russia in the Olympiad’, I stated at the
concluding press conference. ‘But in general
the year will be dominated by rapid chess:
unfortunately, there are now no ‘classical’
tournaments left...’
Meanwhile, Kramnik’s friends, in confor­
mity with his aim of not playing a return
match with me, organised a ‘qualifying
cycle’, which now became part of the unifi­
cation plan. The ‘Einstein Group’ Candidates
Tournament (Dortmund, 6-21 July 2002) was
memorable for the absence of four favour­
ites, the participation of the ‘2600’ player
Lutz and the ridiculous format. The eight
grandmasters were divided into two double­
553
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
round mini-groups, the top two players from
each played semi-final mini-matches of four
games, and the winners met in a final mini­
match. Success went to Peter Leko, who
finished second in his group, but then beat
Shirov and Topalov.
All these months I continued my involve­
ment in organizational work, and I held
endless discussions, on which masses of
energy were spent. Already then it became
clear that all FIDE’s plans were ‘up in the air’.
This hectic regime led to a disaster for me in
the rapid match Russia vs. Rest of the World
(Moscow, 8-11 September 2002). In each
team there were ten players, who played
each of the other team members on the
Scheveningen system, and I scored just 4 out
of 10! An unprecedented failure and with a
nightmarish quality of play! Kramnik also
did not distinguish himself (4 out of 9), and
the Russian team lost 48-52.
After this serious failure I very much
wanted to rehabilitate myself at the 2002
Olympiad which began six weeks later in the
Slovenian town of Bled, where unforgettable
triumphs were achieved in their time by
Alekhine (1931) and Tal (1961). Kramnik
declined to play for the team - evidently he
realised that, with my much higher rating, I
was not going to concede board 1 to him.
On this occasion the Russian team did not
have any great problems: nearly all played
well, but especially Khalifman and I. At the
start we crushed Costa Rica and Belarus (both
3V2-V2) - by tradition I did not play in the first
round, but in the second I opened my account
with a win. Here is what our team trainer
Naum Rashkovsky wrote about this: 'Garry
defeated Aleksandrov in simply classical style:
his opponent did not even understand what
had happened, with what strength of player
he had encountered! He lost without a whim­
per, without making a single move that at
394
least somehow would have sharpened the
play. After this game Kasparov was full of self-
confidence. We all also breathed an obvious
sign o f relief, since in a team much depends on
the form of the leader...'
In the third and fourth rounds we confi­
dently defeated India and Georgia (both 3-1 ),
and I won, correspondingly, against Sasiki-
ran and Mchedlishvili. 3 out of 3! In a diffi­
cult fifth round match with Armenia (2-2), I
drew with Black against Akopian. Then
without me Russia crushed Bosnia and
Herzegovina - again S’/z-Vz!
After scoring 18V2out of 24 we were lead­
ing the race by a margin of three points over
our closest pursuers - the Hungarians. And
it was they who proved to be our main rivals.
We only needed to slow up slightly in
matches with Poland (3-1; I beat Krasenkow)
and Holland [2V2-1 V2), for Hungary to win
twice 3V2-V2 and reduce the deficit to one
and a half points. And in the ninth round the
Hungarians also beat us - 2Vi-lVi.
Playing Black against Leko (cf. Game
No.93, note to White’s 9th move), I gradually
gained the initiative, and had an enormous
lead on the clock and a somewhat better
endgame, but... With the score standing at
1-1 Svidler suddenly made an incredible
blunder of a pawn and lost, and I, on seeing
this, became nervous, rushed things and
first lost all my winning chances, and then
blundered into a two-move fork. Fortu­
nately, in desperate time-trouble Leko
missed a win, and two moves later we
agreed a draw.
And so, Russia - 251/2 out of 36, Hungary -
25. The battle for Olympiad ‘gold’ intensi­
fied! In the tenth round I won a tense Sicilian
duel against Ye Jiangchuan, taking my score
to 6 out of 7, while our team beat China (3-1)
and increased the lead over the Hungarians
to a point.

The destiny of first place was decided by
the eleventh round, in which Hungary were
paired against England and Russia against
Germany. My opponent was the 31-year-old
champion of the country Christopher Lutz, an
outsider in the recent Candidates Tourna­
ment. Before this I had beaten him in Horgen
(1994), and earlier in a simul’ against the
West German national team (Came No.103),
but Olympiad encounters are distinguished
by their completely special intensity.
Came 86
C.Lutz-G.Kasparov
World Chess Olympiad, Bled,
11th Round, 06.11.2002
Sicilian Defence B85
1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5
^c3. a6 6 &.e2 e6 (6...e5 - Came No.26) 7 a4
£sc6 8 i.e3 £ e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 Wc7 11 * h l
Se8 12 &d3 (12 &f3 - Game No.37)
12...£ib4 13 a5 i.d7 14 £)f3 Sac8!
The Scheveningen tabiya of my match
with Anand (1995). In the third game I
played 14 ....&C6?!, but after 15 .&b6 I encoun­
tered problems. Against jLb6 it is important
to have the reply ...'irb8 - hence the develop­
ing rook move.
Life after Death
15 Wei
A comparatively rare, although typical
manoeuvre. Anand unsuccessfully tried
against me both 15 We2 .&c6 16 .&b6 Wb8
(5th game), and 15 .&b6 Wb8 followed by 16
e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 £sfd5 18 £sxd5 exd5 19 S e l
h6!? 20 c3 £sxd3 21 Wxd3 .&c5! (7th game),
while I, now with White, did not gain any
advantage after 16 jLd4 ^.c6 17 Wd2 £sxd3
18 cxd3 £sd7 (16th game).
15...£ c6 16 ^.d4 (16 ^.b6 Wb8 17 .&d4 is
perhaps slightly more accurate, Smirin-
H.Olafsson, New York 1997) I6...<£xl7 17
WgB
Lutz makes the most natural moves.
17.. .6f6!?
An idea from the time of the 1995 match.
17.. JLf8 is also perfectly sound, for example:
18 £sdl £sxd3 19 cxd3 e5 20 fxe5 dxe5 21
jLc3 Wd6 (Svidler-Anand, Linares 1999) or 18
e5 £sxd3 19 cxd3 dxe5 20 fxe5 f5! (Wang
Hao-Ponomariov, 2nd match game, Khanty-
Mansiysk 2007). But why not exchange the
strong white bishop?
18 £xf6
Black is better after 18 e5?l dxe5 19 £sxe5
£sxd3 20 cxd3 Wd6 or 19 fxe5 £)xd3 20 cxd3
^.xf3l, etc. And if 19 .&xh7+? ^ x h 7 20 fxe5
he has the decisive 20...4g8! (but not, as I
gave in Informator, 20..JLe7(?) 21 £sg5+
395
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
ilxg5 22 #xg5 ‘A’gS because of the unclear
23 Sf4l).
18.. .^xf6 19 ®d4
19 e 5 was again unfavourable in view of
19.. .dxe5 20 fxe5 £>xd3 21 cxd3 £sd7 22 d4
f 6. White puts the powerful c6-bishop under
attack and vacates the f 3-square for his rook.
19.. .5.d8 (hindering e4-e5 and vacating e 8
for the bishop) 20 ®h4 ®xd3
20..Jte81? with the idea of ...'iics-hs
(Stohl) deserved consideration.
21 cxd3 #e7l?
Forestalling the attack which is possible
after 21....&.e8(d7) 22 2f3 h 6 23 g4l and g4-
g 5, exploiting the ...h7-h6 advance.
22 h3?!
An indecisive and unnecessary move,
which takes away the h 3-square from the
rook. 22 Sf 3l was more energetic, after which
there could have followed 22...£sd5 23
# e l(f 2) ®xc3 24 bxc3 ds! (avoiding the bind
24.. ~&d7 25 C4) 25 e5 iid7 with a roughly
equal game: the strength of the d4-knight is
balanced by the weakness of the c3-pawn. On
the other hand, White would have retained a
perfectly comfortable and safe position.
22.. .1.e8 23 Sfcl
Openly playing for equality. In the event
of 23 g4 (Stohl) I would also have replied
23.. .£*d5l, but 23 Wf2 would have led to
396
more complicated play.
23.. .^d5! 24 y$xe7 (avoiding the unclear 24
#g3(f2) £ib4 - a good place for the knight!)
24.. .£sxe7
Lutz was apparently confident that a
draw was not far off. I also thought that the
endgame was equal. But nevertheless the
black bishop is more mobile than the knight,
and the a5-pawn may become weak.
2 5 ‘4 ’g l
On general grounds White centralises his
king. Nothing good was promised by 25 g4
e5 26 £>de2?l d5 27 fxe5 dxe4 28 d4 Sc4 or
26 £sf5 ®xf5 27 gxf5 Jtc6! (not Stohl’s move
27-.exf4 because of 28 with equality)
28 2e8, when Black retains a slight
edge.
25.. .e5! (opening the position, Black seizes
the initiative) 26 £ide2 f5
Not the most convincing move, although
in Informator I attached an exclamation
mark to it. 26...d5 was at the least no worse,
but the most subtle was 26...f61? with the
idea of ...d6-d5 or 27 d4 ^.f7 28 d5 f5l.
27 exf5
27 &f2 could have been met by
27.. J td 7(c6) or 27...fxe4 28 dxe4 ^.f7, and
the sharp 27 g4 by 27...fxg4 28 hxg4 d5 or
27.. .fxe4 28 dxe4 Sc5l? (more cunning than
my Informator 28...exf4 29 ^xf4 ilf7 30 S d l
 Life after Death

Sc4) 29 b4 2cc8, and everywhere Black has Lutz was obviously ‘floundering’. 30 Sxc5
some pressure. (30 Sc3 J.c6!) 30...dxc5 31 fxe5 Sxd3 32 £ ic3
27.. .£ixf5 28 £id5 (32 Scl?! Se3! - Stohl) 32...J.C6! (threaten­
If 28 £ie4?!, then 28.-J.c6 is unpleasant. ing ...Sd2, and in addition White has weak
But White should have preferred 28 g4 £ie7 pawns on e5 and a5) 33 S fl g6 was also
29 *f2l? (Stohl’s move 29 d4 is weaker in unattractive, but nevertheless this was the
view of 29-Sc4, and my Informator move 29 lesser evil.
f5 - because of 29...d5 30 d4 £ ic 6) 29-.J.c6 30.. .5xe5 31 £lf4 £id4?!
30 ,&g3, maintaining the tension in the I rejected the sharp 3l...g5?! because of 32
centre. £ifd5 (32 <S^h5!?). But the infiltrating
28.. .5c5l (this sets White a concrete prob­ 31.. .5f8!? deserved consideration, or else the
lem: what to do with the knight on d5?) 29 pressurizing 3l.-J.c6!?, blocking the c-file.
<£b6?! 32 Sc8! (not 32 fic7? J.c6; White exploits the
29 Sxc5?! dxc5 or 29 £idc3?! (29 £iec3? opportunity to exchange a potentially
J.f7) 29-.exf4 30 £ixf4 £id4 etc. also does not dangerous rook) 32...Sxc8 33 £ ixc8 Jc6
impress. The variation 33-.g5 34 £ih5 (34 £>d5
‘The critical moment in the game. Now £ic6! - Stohl) 34-Se6 (not the Informator
White can no longer manage to drive the 34-Se2(?!) 35 £ixd6 with equality) 35 S fl h6
black pieces from the centre. It was essential also promised merely a small advantage.
to begin pursuing the black bishop - 29
£ ic7! J . c6 (29.. JLf7 30 Sxc5 dxc5 31 fxe5 2c8
32 e6 or 29-Sc8 30 Sxc5 dxc5 31 £ixe8 2xe8
32 S cl also leads to equality) 30 g4 £ie3(e7)
31 d4 with a probable draw.’ (Dokhoian).

29...J.b5
The bishop breaks out into the open. The
white knight on b6 looks well placed, but it is
ineffective, and it is hard even to imagine
where it will end up.
30 fxe5?!
34 Sfl?
The decisive mistake. ‘What could be
more natural than this move? Apparently it
was hard for Lutz to agree to 34 £ixd6 £ie2+
35 £ixe2 Sxe2 36 £ie4 Sxb2’ (Dokhoian). 36
g4! is more resilient: 36„.Sxb2 (36„.Sg2+ 37
* f l S h 2 38 S e l Sxh3 39 Se7 Sxd3 40 £ixb7
is unclear) 37 S e l Sg2+ 38 ‘i ’f l Sg3, when
Black wins a pawn, but by no means yet the
game.
34...Se8!

397
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

This shocked Lutz. ‘With one move Black
unexpectedly contrives to attack all the
white pieces: neither of the knights on c8
and f4 nor the rook on f l feels safe, and
neither does the king on g l - it comes under
check from e2!’ (Dokhoian).
35^a7
Sadly necessary: White loses after both 35
£sxd6? Sf8! 36 g3 g5, and 35 £ib6? 2f8! 36
g3 £sf3+. A pretty rook manoeuvre!
35...&d7
Stronger was 35-..Sf8!? 36 £sxc6 bxc6 37
g3 2f5 winning a pawn (I saw this at the
board) or 37...g5 38 £sh5 2xfl+ 39 ^ x f l -4>f7,
when the knight endgame is difficult for
White. But I very much wanted to cut off the
knight on a7.
2) 41 2xb7?! £sf5 42 ftb5 (desperation)
42.. .h5! (of course, not 42...axb5? 43 a6 with
equality) 43 £sa3 £sg3+! 44 & el 2e2+ 45
* d l 2xg2 or 43 £sc3 ®e3+! 44 * e l £sxg2+
45 '4’f l £se3+ and ...f4-f3;
3) 41 2xd6 £sf5 42 2f6 £se3+ and now 43
<£>gl 2xg2+ 44 'i h l 2f2 45 £sc8 (45 2e6
2xb2) 45-*g7 46 2b6 f3 47 2xb7+ ^g 6 48
ftd6 2fl+ 49 &h2 f2 50 2f7 ® dl followed by
...2el and ...f2-fl®, or 43 s4>el £sxg2+ 44 '4’f l
&g7 45 2e6 f3 (setting up the winning
construction) 46 d4 £sh4 47 2e3 ^ f6 48 2c3
2xb2 49 £sc8 2a2 50 £sd6 2xa5, etc.
36.. .h5
It was simpler to send the knight after the
a5-pawn - 36...£sb3!? 37 £sb6 ,&e6. But I had
the idea of creating an unusual attack on
the king with a small force.

36 £sd5
The only move. If 36 Scl? there is the de­ 37®b6
cisive 36...g5! (White’s downfall is caused by A difficult choice. 37 <A>h2 was dangerous:
his errant knight) 37 Sc4 gxf4 38 flxd4 2a8 37.. .£sb3 38 £sb6 JLe6 39 Sf2 (after 39 S e l
39 2xd6 ice8! (more accurate than the which I gave in Informator, 39...'4>f7 and
Informator 39-Af5) and ...fixa7 or 37 Sc7 ...4^xa5 is good) 39-.d5! (more forceful than
gxf4 38 2xd7 2el+ 39 <4>f2 2e2+ 40 <4>fl 2c2! 39.. .£sxa5) 40 2e2 £scl 41 Se3 d4 42 2e4
(40...2xb2? 41 £ sc8!) with the irresistible ®xd3 43 2xd4 4^xb2, and again Black is a
threat of ...£sf5: sound pawn to the good. After 37 b4 iLf5 38
1) 41 2d8+?! -4>f7 42 2d7+ (42 £sc8 £sf5l,2f2 2e5 39 £sb6 g6 40 £sbc8 (40 £sac8?l
and 43 £sxd6+ is not possible: 43...‘^ >e7) ftb5) 40...2e6 White would also have had to
42...<ie 6 43 2xb7(h7) £sf5, threatening conduct a gruelling defence.
...£se3+ or 44 'i ’gl? £sg3 with a quick mate; 37.. .±f5 38 ^>h2?! (38 b4l planning 38...g5

398

39 b5 was more resilient) 38...g5! 39 B d ?
In time-trouble White blunders. The last
saving chance was 39 ^ c4 (39 b4?l g4l), after
which there are two tempting options:
39.. .1.xd3 40 £sxd6 Be6 41 S d l Bxd6 42
Sxd3 £>b5 43 Bxd6 £)xd6, when again White
has a difficult knight endgame, or the cool-
headed 39...Sd81? (but not 39...Ba8?? 40
£sxd6 Ae6 41 B el Bxa7 42 Se4!) 40 £sb6 g4l
41 hxg4 (41 b4 Be8 or 41 £>d5 ^ 7 followed
by the activation of the king is no better)
41.. .hxg4 42 ^ 3 ^ 7 43 B el 4f6 and wins.
39.. .g4! 40 hxg4
The alternatives did not help: 40 Sc4 Be3!
(an elegant mating finish!), 40 £sds g3+! 41
<4>hl <4>g7, or 40 £sac8 g3+! 41 ^ h l Be2 42
£id5 i.xc8 43 Bxc8+ <&g7 44 B el fixb2, etc.
40.. .hxg4 41 £>ac8 (into a mate, but 41 B dl
^ e2 42 g3 ^d4! was also hopeless) 4l...g3+
42 ^ h l Se6 (with the threat of ...Bh6+) 0-1
‘A splendid example of domination play’
(Dokhoian).
This was my last, 50th win in Olympiads.
Russia crushed Germany (3V2-V2), whereas
Hungary beat England only by the minimum
margin and three rounds before the finish
they were now trailing us by two points.
In the 12th round we maintained the
margin by beating Croatia (2V2-1 V2). The
13th round matches Russia-lsrael and
Hungary-Armenia and the 14th round
match Russia-Yugoslavia quickly ended in
draws. My draw with Gelfand (cf. Came
No.82, note to Black’s 9th move) produced
the final score in our ‘classical’ meetings
(+8=8) and also a pleasing result: by scoring
7V2 out of 9 (+6=3), I stepped on to the
Olympiad podium as the possessor of the
highest performance (2933).
‘I can say that I was very happy to hold the
gold medal in my hand. This is already the
sixth victory for Russia in Olympiads and my
Life after Death
eighth’, I said at a concluding press confer­
ence in Bled. I made four appearances for
the USSR and four for Russia, including six
times on board 1 , with an overall score of
+50-3=29. After 2002 I did not play in the
Olympiads, and in them Russia did not finish
first for more than a decade...
The sham FIDE presidential elections,
which took place at the Congress in Bled,
were a pure formality: the Kirsan llyumzhi-
nov team remained in charge. With the
benefit of hindsight, I have to admit that
Bessel Kok and I made a serious mistake, by
going along with Seirawan’s tempting
unification plan and concluding peace with
llyumzhinov. It should have been foreseen
that this plan would collapse, and a battle
should have been begun for a change in the
FIDE leadership. Kok should undoubtedly
have been put forward for the post of presi­
dent: in 2002 llyumzhinov was weakened
(his power base in Kalmykia had become
shaky), and Bessel would have had excellent
chances of winning. The 2006 attempt, alas,
was too late...
Despite the Olympiad triumph, to some
extent the departing year marked the end of
my period of domination in the chess arena.
This was confirmed in an exhibition match
of four rapid Kasparov-Karpov games (New
York, 19-20 December 2002), which I unex­
pectedly lost 1 V2-2V2 (cf. Kasparov vs. Karpov
1988-2009, Game Nos.48- 51 ), faltering
under the burden of numerous problems. In
particular, I was unnerved and kept in
suspense by the unclear situation regarding
my forthcoming match with the computer
program Deep Junior. It was twice post­
poned, and it was only just before the start
of the first game that llyumzhinov informed
me by telephone that within a month the
encounter with the machine would never­
theless take place.
399
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Borderline Condition
Double-Round Tournament in Linares (21
February - 9 March 2003): 1 -2. Kramnik and
Leko - 7 out of 12 ; 3-4. Kasparov and Anand
- 6V2; 5. Ponomariov - 5V2; 6. Vallejo - 5; 7-
Radjabov - 4V2.
Linares 2003 saw the meeting of all the
participants in the expected Ponomariov-
Kasparov and Kramnik-Leko matches, as well
as Anand - the N0.3 in the world rating list
and the winner of Wijk aan Zee 2003.
Somewhat apart from this ensemble were
two ‘2600’ players: the local representative
Vallejo and the 15 -year-old debutant Tei-
mour Radjabov - the hope of Azerbaijan
chess. And much depended on which of the
favourites would score the most points
against the outsiders.
I hardly prepared for this category 20 su­
per-tournament, which I played just two
weeks after my ultra-tense New York match
with the computer program Deep Junior (3-
3) and experienced clear signs of nervous
exhaustion.
David Lyada: ‘The anxiety for Kasparov be­
gan with the drawing of lots, when it tran­
spired that in the first round he would have
Black against Kramnik. And the latter, figura­
tively speaking, is a kind ofthom in Kasparov’s
flesh. And whereas before the drawing of lots
Garry was very sociable and amiable, after it
his face changed. Suddenly he became very
serious, then he proceeded silently out of the
Cervantes Theatre (where the opening cere­
mony took place) to the Hanibal Hotel, and,
after giving his apologies, did not even show
up for the ceremonial dinner. He went off to
prepare for the game, and his mother asked
for a meal to be brought to his room. The
stellar duel between Kramnik and Kasparov
turned out to be short... '
We continued our duel in the Queen’s
400
Gambit Accepted, begun more than two
years earlier (1st match game (rapid), Mos­
cow 2001), and in a complicated, roughly
equal position on the 18th move Kramnik
offered a draw, which I accepted with alacrity.
In the second round I had White against
Radjabov and, of course, I was not contem­
plating any result other than a win. I gained
some advantage in a French Defence (cf.
Game No.10, note to Black’s 7th move), but
the position remained rather complicated.
The critical moment arrived on move 21.
Came 87
G.Kasparov-T.Radjabov
Linares,
2nd Round, 23.02.2003
After attacking the knight with ilfl-e2, I
was planning to develop an initiative after
21.. .£)h6 22 0-0 or 21...£)xh2 (21...Sxh2? 22
Sxh2 ^xh2 is bad on account of 23 4T2!
with the threat of Shi) 22 0-0-0, etc. But
Teimour astounded me with a knight sacri­
fice.
21.. .^gxe5?!
‘An excellent practical chance’, Dr. Tar-
rasch could well have commented. 'It ap­
peared that one of Radjabov’s trainers - the
 Life after Death

indomitable Viktor Korchnoi - had instilled queen on d5 was defending the rook on hi.
in him all his fighting spirit’ (Lyada). After And after thinking here for nearly 15 min­
thinking for some five minutes, I suddenly utes, for some reason I decided that 24 ^ 4
saw the reply 22 # e3 and I decided: that will would also win.
be calmer.
22 We3?
The accurate 22 jLxeS! £sxe5 23 dxe5 ^.c5
24 ^.g4 &e3 25 #g2 or 24 £f3 &e3 25 ^ 2
g5 26 a4! would have given White a piece for
a pawn and every chance of winning, al­
though the play would still have retained a
definite sharpness.
22.. .£>d7?
A very weak move, after which mentally I
had already chalked up the point. 22..JLd6!
was essential, with the idea of 23 dxe5? &.C5
24 'Brf3 2hf8! (far stronger than the earlier
24.. .g5 25 ^.d 2!) 25 # g 4 &f2+ 26 <&dl(d2) 24...g5!
d4, so that White would have had to restrict The point: I missed the fact that 25 .&xg5?
himself to the modest 23 0-0-0 £sd3+ 24 was not possible because of 25...Sdg8. Now,
jLxd3 .&xf4 25 1i rxf4 cxd3 26 Sxd3 with a for the first time, the position becomes
minimal advantage. sharper. Radjabov judged it to be already in
23 Wxe6 i.h4 Black’s favour, but this is probably going too
far: it would be more accurate to say that
the position is dynamically balanced.
25 i.d 2 Hde8 (25...£sa5 26 0-0!) 26 0-0-0
£sa5

24 % 4 ? ?
An inexplicable black-out. Initially I had
been intending to play simply 24 WxdS £sf6
(24...Sde8? 25 0-0-0 or 24...She8?! 25 ^.g5! is
worse) 25 #f5+ (25 #g2!?) 25...<£ ’b7 26 0-0-0, 27 Sdfl??
etc. But suddenly I lost the geometry of the For the first time in many years I commit­
piece coordination - I overlooked that the ted two blunders in the course of just three

401
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

moves! After 27 i ’b l with the idea of th e pow erfu l stroke 38...2xb3+ ! a n d su ffered
27.. .£ib3 28 JLf3, which I was initially plan­ th e loss o f m aterial.
ning, I suddenly didn’t like 27...'#g6+ 28 4 ,a2
#c2(?), although after 29 2h fl! (my earlier
29 iLf3 is weak on account of 29-b4! 30 Came 88
cxb4 Se3! 31 ±xe3 c3 32 S b l 1133+ 33 i ’a l P.Leko-G.Kasparov
<£sc4 34 iLcl c2 35 ^.xg5l <£sxa3! with a Linares,
probable draw) 29...2h7 (29...i(.xg3? 30 2f7, 3rd Round, 24.02.2003
but not 30 hxg3?? Se4) 30 £sf5 or 29...b4 30
cxb4 J.xg3 31 2f7 Black is in trouble, and
28.. .<£sb3 or 28...‘&c7 is correct, with compli­
cated play.
Hardly bad I made the terrible rook move,
when I saw that I had blundered a piece.
27.. .£sb3+ 28 4>dl J.xg3
And 29 hxg3 is not possible in view of
29.. . ! fg6 with the deadly threat of ...H)l+.
After a desperate but hopeless resistance,
White failed to make his 40th move and lost
on time (O-l).

A terrible defeat, which ruined the entire

tournament for me. The press labelled the
game 'a surprise, which will go down in chess
history’. And, indeed, I had not lost in Linares
for 62 games (since my defeat against Ivan­
chuk in 1997), it was even longer since I had
lost with White (since my defeat against
Kramnik in Dos Hermanas 1996 - Game
No.27), and in general I had never lost to such
a young opponent. I was very indignant when
at the end of the tournament the ‘experts’
awarded the brilliancy prize to this game
(with such terrible blunders!), but I neverthe­
less congratulated Radjabov himself.
The day after this severe shock I decided
to engage Peter Leko in a real battle. I delib­
erately chose a sharp and very dangerous
variation of the Sicilian (cf. Game No.17, note
to White's 12th move), came under an attack
- and the risk proved justified. For almost 40
moves Leko persistently attacked, but in a
terrible time scramble he faltered, allowed
4 1 2 b6
The only defence. When Peter made his
40th move he had just four seconds left on
his clock, and earlier he might not have
found this strong 4lst move.
41.. .^c7 42 2hl+?
But this is already losing. It was essential
to play 42 Hxb8 2cl+ 43 2xcl ®xcl+ 44 2 b l
®C3+ 45 2b2 <4>g8! 46 # d 8 (46 sfebl? #d3+
47 2 c2 i.a3 and wins) 46...4>g7 47 I t o !
Jk.b4! 48 ®xc3 ±xc3 49 a4 g5 50 a5 g4 51 a6
g3 52 a7 g2 53 aS® glW+ 54 &a2 i.xb2 55
4 ,xb2 with hopes of saving the queen end­
game a pawn down.
42 .. .JLh 6 43 2xb8 2 c l+ 44 2 x c l # x c l+ 45
2 b l #C3+ 46 2b2 # e l+ (46...ig8!) 47 2 b l
# c3 + 48 2b2 & g 8! 49 a4 i . c l 50 H >6 &g7
The immediate 50...g5! was more reso­
lute, for example: 51 4 ,a2 Jtxb2 52 #xb2
WC4+ 53 ®xe4 54 a5 g4 and wins, or 51
4>bl i.xb2 52 #d8+ (52 Wxb2 # e l+ and

402
 Life after Death

...#xe4) 52...‘&h7 53 #xg5 #d4l 54 #h5+ idea of 64 a6 #d3+!) 63...#e4+ 64 &c5 # c2 +

&g7 55 #g4+ ^f6, and the black king es­
capes to the queenside.
51 &a2 (5 1 # b 4 was no better: 5l...^.xb2+
52 #xb2 f e l + 53 # b l #d2! 54 WbS! fc l+ !
55 &a2 #c2+ 56 &a3 #xe4 57 a5 g5 58 a6
g4 and wins) 5l-..^.xb2 52 # xb 2 #04+ 53
&a3 # x e 4
65 &b5 # e 2 + 66 &b6 # e 3 + 67 &C6 g4 68
a6 g3 69 a7 g2
Alas, there was also no win after 69...#f3+
70 &c7 g2 71 a 8 # #xa8 72 #g5+ *f8 73
#h6+ s*?e7 74 # d 6+, etc.
70 a 8 # #e4 +

7 l# d 5 ?
It was incomprehensible how I contrived In time-trouble again, Leko obtained a
not to win this endgame with two extra second queen - and stumbled on easy
pawns and three connected passed pawns! ground! After 71 ^>c7! # x a 8 72 #g5+ it
54 a5 g5 5 5 # d 2 # f4 5 6 # d 8 would all have concluded in perpetual check.
After 56 # d6 Black has not only 56...g4 57 71...#g6+ (7l...#xd5+ 72 &xd5 g l # 73
a6 #cl+! 58 &a4 # a l+ 59 *b5 g3 or 58 &a2 &xe5 #g5+ 74 * d 4 # d 2+! 75 *e5 f6+! 76
# c 2+ 59 <&a3(al) #c3+ and ...g4-g3, but also &f5 #g5+ 77 <&e6 #e5+ 78 <&d7 f5 was
56.. .e4 57 #d4+ *g6 58 &b4 (58 a6 e3) more methodical, when White cannot hold
58.. .#f3! (avoiding the insidious trap 58...e3?? out) 72 &C7 g l # 73 #xe5+
59 #xf4 gxf4 60 &C3!, when White wins) 59
# d 8 (59 a 6 e3l) 59-.e3 60 &c3 g4, winning.
56.. .# c l+ ?
There is no point in driving the white king
to the aid of the a-pawn. The simple 56...g4
would have been decisive: 57 a 6 g3 58 a7
#f3+! (after 58...#e3+? 59 &b4 #xa7 60
#g5+ White is saved by perpetual check) 59
&b4 g 2 60 #g5+ *h7 61 * a5 f 6, and the
curtain comes down.
57 &b4 # b 2+ 58 &C5 # c3 + 59 &b5 # b 3+
60 &C5 # c 3+ 61 *b5 # b 3+ 62 &c5 # e3 + 63
&b4 (of course, not 63 ^b5? e4l with the

403
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
A picturesque position: can Black convert
his extra pawn with four queens on the
board?
Again missing a win, which would have
been achieved by 73-f6! 74 VHe7+ &h6 75
1i raf8+ (75 1i ref8+ 1^7+!) 75.~<&g5, when
White has nothing better than 76 #c5+
#xc5+ 77 #xc5+ Wf5 78 Wgl+ #g4, etc.
74 Wh8+! ix h 8 75 Wxf6+ Wg7 76 #h4+
&g8 77 &d6 Wg6+ 78 <^>e5 * g7 79 #e7l
(the only move) 79..-'BrgB+ 80 ‘i f s #g6+ 81
&e5 Wh6 82 4f5 Wg6+ 83 &e5 <&h7 84
Wh4+ i g 8 85 #d8+ &g7 86 #e7 'A-'A
At the end of the game an unpleasant
incident occurred. I had five minutes left,
Leko had ten seconds, and he decided to
claim a draw in view of the three-fold repeti­
tion of the position. But he did this incor­
rectly: with me to move he suddenly stopped
the clocks and appealed to me and the
arbiters, stating, moreover, that Black was
tTying to win on time (as if he had not done
this with Kramnik in an endgame with rook
against bishop, 10th match game (rapid),
Budapest 2001). My opponent’s behaviour
made me terribly angTy, but in the end the
arbiters calmed things down and recorded
the draw. A little later Peter apologised to
me - apparently his trainer and father-in-
law Arshak Petrosian had had a few words
with him...
Lyada: 'Kasparov again left the stage in a
very bad mood. In the end did this waste of
energy affect his performance in the tourna­
ment?’
In the fourth round I was free, then there
was a general free day, and in the fifth
round came a crucial duel with Ruslan
Ponomariov. The FIDE champion had started
with l out of 4, so there was no way back for
either of us. In our preparations for this
404
‘white’ game, for a long time Dokhoian and I
were unable to decide what to play on this
important occasion.
Game 89
G.Kasparov-R.Ponomariov
Linares, 5th Round, 27.02.2003
Queen's Indian Defence E18
1 £if3 £>f6 2 d4 e6 3 g3
An unusual move order. ’White invites
Black to choose: either the Catalan Opening,
ot the Queen’s Indian Defence. In the latter
case Black has to restrict himself to varia­
tions with the development of his bishop on
b7’ (Dokhoian). That is, without 3 c4 b6 4 g3
.&a6 (Khalifman-Ponomariov, Moscow
(rapid) 2002).
3...b6 4 £g2 £b7 5 c4 i.e7 6 5k3 £>e4 7
Ad2
I have managed to obtain one of the
Queen’s Indian tabiyas, which had not
previously occurred in my opponent’s
games.
7...£.f6 8 0-0 (8 Wc2 - Game No.99 in Part V
of My Great Predecessors) 8...0-0 9 S c l
9 'ifc2 £ixd2 10 #xd2 d6 has not fright­
ened Black since the times of the games
Korchnoi-Karpov (23rd match game, Mos-
 Life after Death

cow 1974) and Petrosian-Karpov (2nd match £>c4l?) or 13-Se8 14 c4. And even after the
game, Milan 1975), and little has been best move 1 2 ...£ ic 6! 13 c4 (13 £sd2, sug­
changed by 11 S fdl <$M7 12 b4 (instead of gested by me in Informator, is unclear in
the previous 12 d5 e5) 12...g6 IB a4 a5 14 b5 view of 13...g5l? 14 -&e3 2e8) 13...dxc4 14
.&g7 15 S acl # e7 (Vallejo-Ponomariov, Sxc4 b5 15 Sc 2 £>xd4 16 £>xd4 ^.xg 2 17
Linares 2003,14th round). ,&,xg2 #xd4 18 #xd4 i.xd4 19 2 b l a6 20
9...d5 2 xc7 Black would have had to defend accu­
Quite a solid move. 9...d6 10 d5 or 9...C5 10 rately.
d5 (Game N0.46 in Part I of Garry Kasparov 13 e4!
on Garry Kasparov) is strategically risky. ‘The most energetic: with one move
10 cxd5 exd5 11 i-f4 -S^xcB White is able simultaneously to include
A slightly premature exchange. As has several of his pieces in the play. The pro­
been known since back in the 1980s, the posed arena of battle is the centre and the
typical ll...£>a6 followed by ...c7-c5 is more kingside, and the knight on a6 requires too
flexible. much time to reach there.’ (Dokhoian).
12 bxc3! 13.. .dxe4?!
It would appear that Ruslan underesti­ This exchange aggravates Black's difficul­
mated this reply, expecting 12 Sxc3 c5. The ties, but it was not an easy choice. After
capture with the pawn changes the charac­ 13.. .C5 th ere w ere several te m p tin g options:
ter of the play: now c3-c4 or e2-e4 is on the 14 e 5 ,14 2 e l and 14 exd5 #xd5 (l4..Jtxd5
agenda, and ...c7-c5 is no longer so effective. 15 c4!) 15 c4 (or 15 £>h4l? # d 7 16 ^.xb7
#xb7 17 £>f5) 15—WfS 16 £)h4 # d 7 17 d5, in
any event retaining the initiative.
14 £sd2 g5?!
A desperate step. The unfortunate posi­
tion of the black knight tells in all variations:
1 4 .. .C6 15 £ sx e4 -&e7 16 # b 3 w ith th e id ea o f
16.. .£>c7 17 £>c5l, I4...^.g5 15 .&xg5 #xg5 16
£>xe4 -&xe4 17 i.xe4 2ae8 18 #d3!, and
14.. .2.8 15 2 e l g5 16 <S^xe4 ^.xe4 17 -&xe4
gxf4 18 # 34! or 15..Jte7 16 £>xe4 c6 17 c4
*hc7 - seemingly the lesser evil, although
even here after 18 c5 £>ds 19 .&e5 .&xc5 20
<£>xc5 bxc5 21 dxc5 Black is in difficulties.
12.. .£>a6?! 15 ^.e3!?
And this is already a mistake: with the I had to spend a long time choosing be­
white pawns on c3 and d4, the black knight tween this move and the very tempting
is in danger of being stranded on the edge of continuation 15 £sxe4 ^.xe4 16 Jb<e4 gxf4
the board. However, easy equality was not 17 # h 5 2e8 18 #xh7+ ^ 8 19 .&b7! c5
promised by either I2...2e8 13 c4 (13 £le5l?) (I9...2b8?l is worse: 20 ,&xa6 b5 21 a4l,
13.. .dxc4 14 Sxc4 £>a6 15 # c 2 (15 #d3!?) releasing the bishop with the incidental
15.. .C5? 16 <S^g5! (Kochiev-Ovortrup, Gausdal threat of #h6+ and #xf4) 20 iLxa6 cxd4 - at
1991), or 12...£)d7 13 £>d2 c5?l 14 e4 (14 the board this reply concerned me most of

405
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
all, although 21 S fdl and cxd4 leaves White
with an extra pawn, an attack and good
winning chances.
15.. .5e 8
If lS-Wey, for the moment not weaken­
ing the f7 point and intending ...c7-c5 and
...2ad8(e8), 16 S e l is convincing, as is 16
Whs c5 17 2cel!, when there appears to be
no defence against £sxe4 and JLxgS: if
17.. .h6, then 18 f4! wins.
16 f4!
A deadly idea: White hits on the Achilles’
heel in the opponent’s position - the f7
point! Ponomariov was shocked: he had
considered only 16 f3?! c5l.
I 6 ...exf3
‘16...C5 17 fxg5 i.g7 18 lt i5 2e7 19 £)b3
would hardly have improved the situation’
(Dokhoian). Indeed, ig...cxd4? is bad in view
of 20 £ixd4 and £)f5, as is 19...'ird6? because
of the sudden 20 2f6! ,&xf6 21 gxf6Wxf6 22
JLg5 Vte6 23 2fl! and wins. 19...£)c7 20 dxc5
or lg.-WeS 19 2f4l, etc., is also insufficient.
17 £ x f3 iLd5l
The alternatives were unsuitable: 17...C6
(with the idea of ...£ic7) 18 JLe4!, threatening
IT 15, or 1 7 -.2 x e 3 18 i.xb7 2 x c 3 19 £)b3!
2xcl 20 Wxcl 2b8 21 JLxa6, when the piece
is far superior to the pawns (21..JLxd4+ 22
£ixd4 Wxd4+ 23 2f2!, etc.).
406
18 i.xd5!
‘White needs to act energetically. One
wrong move, and the black knight will come
into play - 18 We2? c6’ (Dokhoian). Or even
18.. .£sb4!?.
18.. .'Bxd5 19 2xf6 2xe3
Here I again stopped to think, deciding
where to move my queen - to fl, g4 or h5.
For the moment White is a pawn down, but
he is effectively playing with an extra knight.
20#g4
‘In view of the impending lack of time for
thought, White’s decision must be deemed
practical, to say the least: his following
moves are understandable and clear’ (Dok­
hoian). My Informator suggestion 20 #fl(?!)
is weaker on account of 20...£sc5! 21 2f5
#xa2 22 2xg5+ ^ 8 23 » f6 (Stohl) 23...2e6!
24 #g7+ &e7, when Black still holds on.
Objectively the most forceful winning
move was 20 #h5!? with the threat of
£)f3xg5, and if 20...2xc3 21 2xc3 ®xd4+,
then 22 2f2! Wxc3 23 1 ^ 7 + * h 8 24 *67!
with an irresistible attack: 24-Sg8 25 ^ e 4
or 24—Wg7 25 Sf7 #d4+ 26 * h l! - the
triumph of White’s strategy! However, in
this case I would have had to find the only
moves, whereas 20 Vtg4 leaves White a
comfortable choice.
20...Se 6

This loses conclusively and irrevocably.
But the more resilient 20...Sae8 would also
not have saved Black after 21 S f 5 (21 Scfl or
21 is also possible) 2l...1Bre 6 22 1Brxg5+
#96 (22...*h 8 23 £ sc4) 23 1T4 h 6 24 S fl S e l
(24...1rd6 25IT 14!) 25 £sc4, etc.
21 Sf5 Wc6
22 Wxg5+
With time-tTouble approaching I began
playing unconvincingly, and the game was
prolonged. The moves came to me with
great difficulty: there was the pressure of
the tournament situation, and I was afraid
of squandering my advantage... On seeing
the 28 a3 resource (cf. the note to Black’s
23rd move), I did not think for long. Mean­
while the attack 22 Scfl! would have been
immediately decisive, for example: 22...1Brxc3
23 Sxf7 VHe3+ (23...Sg6 24 1M ) 24 * h l or
22.. .5f8 23 Sxg5+ Sg6 (23...<&’h8 24 Sxf7!) 24
£te4 with the threat of £rf6+.
22.. .5g6 23 # h 5 Sf8
For the moment the unfortunate knight is
unable to come into play: 23...^b4?l 24 Scfl!
Wxc3 25 Sxf7 Hrxd4+ 26 S lf 2 Sg7 27 Sxg7+
<&xg7 28 £rf3(b3) or 27..Mxg7 28 a3l, when
it is trapped.
24 £>f3 f6
After 24-Me4 the most effective is 25
£sg5! VHe3+ 26 <&g2 Sg7 (26...1rd2+ 27 *h3)
Life after Death
27 Scfl, breaking through to the f7 point,
since if 27~.1Bre8(e7) White mates by 28 S lf4
andftxh7l.
25 £sh4 (now the place for the knight is at
f5) 25...Sg7 26 Wh6 (26 Sf4! and £rf5 was
stronger) 26...<^b8 27 Sh5
And here 27 Sf3(f2) followed by Scfl(el)
and was preferable.
27...f5
Black tries to save himself in an endgame
a pawn down. He would have lost immedi­
ately after 27...£>d7 28 £>f5 Sgf7 29 Sg5+!
<&h8 30 Sg7. If 27...1re4, then 28 £sf5 is also
good, but first 28 Sfl! is even better, so as in
the event of 28...Sgf7 29 Sf4 ^ e 2 to land the
crushing blow 30 £}g61.
28 1T4 (28 #xc6! £>xc6 29 £>xf5 Sd7(g6) 30
S e l was a simpler way to win) 28..Me4 29
S f l Wxf4 30 Sxf4 S g 4 31 Sfxf5 <£)d7 32
Sxf8+ £>xf8 33 &f2
The endgame is a technical win for White,
but the conversion of the extra pawn de­
mands considerable accuracy.
33-..£>d7 34 £>f5 (34 ^ 3 ! Sg7 35 £>f5 Sf7 36
c4 was more energetic) 34...&h 8
The following knight ending is also hope­
less: 34...£tf6 35 ^ 3 ^xh5 36 £sh6+! (not the
simple-minded 36 &xg4? due to 36...<5^f6+ 37
4f3 £>d5 38 c4 £>c3) 36...‘&g7(f8) 37 £>xg4,
and Black is unable to activate his game.
407
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

pressure. Gradually I gained a marked

advantage, but just before the time control I
lost it by a premature exchange of bishops.
In turn, on the threshold of a draw in a
straightforward rook endgame, Anand sud­
denly began to go wrong and after the fatal
57-..4h8? he lost. This was my last win over
Anand - later we played four more draws,
making the final score of our ‘classical’
meetings +15-3=30 (in Linares.- +7=10).
For Vishy this game was a real tragedy
and it ruined the entire tournament for him.
I suspect that under its impression he later
35 4*3 also lost a rook endgame against Leko. And
Or 35 2h6l. By now I had calmed down: yet initially he was playing better than
White wins with the advance of his pawns. anyone and could have taken first place - if I
35.. .2g8 36 Sh6 2f8 37 g4 £)f6 38 c4 4 g 8 (if had not been in Linares...
38.. .a6 the most correct is 39 4*4 b5 40 c5 or And so, after the first cycle things did not
40 g5 £>g8 41 Sxa6 bxc4 42 4e5) 39 4*4 Sf7 look so bad for me: Kramnik - 4 out of 6;
40 g5 £>e8 41 4e 5 Sd7 42 4 e 6 S f7 43 2f6 Kasparov, Leko and Anand - Vh. However, I
£ixf6 drew all my games in the second cycle,
And without waiting for 44 gxf6 with the although I fought as hard as I could. I had
threat of £ih6+, Black resigned (1-0). real winning chances only in. the penulti­
mate round with Vallejo, but I squandered
This win gave me some momentum, but them with time-trouble approaching. My
nevertheless it was insufficient. In the sixth fighting draw with Anand at the finish was
round I employed the Slav Defence against also memorable: we were both half a point
Vallejo (cf. Game No.62, note to Black’s 7th behind the leaders, and in an Accelerated
move), and my young opponent handled the Dragon I tried desperately but unsuccess­
resulting complicated endgame very crea­ fully to seize the initiative.
tively. It all ended with opposite-coloured Despite everything, an interview I gave
bishops and a draw on the 42nd move. The soon afterwards was full of optimism. ‘After
leading positions before the seventh round, my loss to Radjabov I set myself a minimum
the last of the first cycle, were as follows: program: to win the tournament of the
Anand and Kramnik - 3’/z out of 5; Leko - 3; strongest players (i.e. without Radjabov and
Kasparov - V/i. The competitive importance Vallejo). Against the main players I scored
of my ‘white’ game with Anand need hardly ‘plus two’ and, despite bad luck, my ’border­
be explained... line’ condition and poor form, I finished just
After 1 e4 Vishy chose l...c6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 half a point behind first place, after missing
dxe4 4 £ixe4 iLf5 and on the 17th move he much more. So perhaps things aren’t so
offered the exchange of queens, hoping to bad? Is it not rather early for me to be buried
draw without any problems, but then he - as usual, if I miss out on first prize - by
played uncertainly, as though under some some well-wishers?’

408

Linares 2003 brought to an end my long
series of tournament victories. For me this
was a warning before the planned match
with Ponomariov: I needed to prepare more
seriously and revise much anew. However, at
the age of 40, and still irritatingly dependent
on decisions of the FIDE board, it was far
more difficult to reach a new peak.
Evgeny Bareev: To judge by this tourna­
ment (althoughpom it one cannot make any
judgements) before his match Leko is in
excellent form, and Kramnik is very strong.
Whereas Kasparov and Ponomariov are in
decline. But, remembering what an incredible
surge he had eighteen months ago, Ruslan
should be able to overcome the crisis and
return to his peak form. And Carry too is
quite capable of preparing brilliantly for an
individual event and of returning to the
proper level of his physical and psychological
condition. There are two very interesting
matches in prospect. In them the strongest
players in the world are indeed coming
together! Incidentally, at present Anand has
no motivation, he is simply not interested in
pghting, perhaps because he is not involved
in this.’
Alas, my hopes of playing in the unifying
cycle were not destined to be realised...
Instead of Yalta - to Crete
European Club Cup (Rethymnon, 27 Sep­
tember - 4 October 2003): 1. NAO (Paris) - 13
out of 14; 2. Polonia (Warsaw) and 3- Kiseljak
(Bosnia) - 12; 4. Norilsk Nikel - 11; 5. Ladya
Kazan-1000 (Kasparov - 4-V* out of 6) - 10,
etc. (altogether - 45 teams).
Initially FIDE planned to hold my match
with Ruslan Ponomariov in the summer of
2003 in Buenos Aires, then from 18th Sep­
tember in Yalta, where a Commonwealth of
Independent States summit was planned. It
Life after Death
was even announced that the symbolic first
moves would be made for the players by the
presidents of Russia and Ukraine.
However, Ponomariov was in no hurry to
sign the match contract: together with his
manager Silvio Danailov he put forward
some twenty corrections, demanding that
‘the lawful rights of the world champion
should not be encroached upon’. Then the
list of corrections was reduced to four. After
accepting two of them, FIDE announced a
final date for the signing of the contract -
midday on 28 August. Ponomariov sug­
gested continuing the discussions in Kiev,
but on 29 August the FIDE President llyumz-
hinov suddenly held a press conference at
the Interfax News Agency and cancelled the
match. Here is an extract from the official
press release:
‘FIDE shall not allow the selpshness of any
one player to cause a hindrance to the unifi­
cation process... It is with deep regret that
FIDE has to cancel the Ponomariov-Kasparov
match. However, FIDE shall endeavour to
proceed with the unification process. A
proposal shall be placed to the forthcoming
FIDE Congress in Halkidiki, Greece, 27 October
- 3 November. The winner of the FIDE World
Championship in December 2003 shall be
crowned World Champion and he shall play
Grandmaster Garry Kasparov next year. The
winner o f this match shall then play the final
unification match.’
My reaction to the cancelling of the
match was predictable: ‘The situation shocks
me - I find myself in an idiotic position. I
expected that my opponent would try my
nerves, that provocations were possible, but
I could not imagine that my opponent would
simply escape! I have suffered serious moral
damage, and, not unimportant, material
damage, comparable to the prize fund of the
match. For six months I have had to decline
409
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

various invitations and I have invested a lot 'We have absolutely trustworthy informa­
of time and money on preparing for the tion that the day before the cancellation of
match with Ponomariov.’ the match Kasparov phoned llyumzhinov and
My team of helpers comprised Dokhoian, said directly: “Accept all Ponomariov’s condi­
Shakarov, Kobalia and, for the first time, tions!" But the following day llyumzhinov
grandmaster Viorel Bologan. cancelled the match. We watched his ap­
Later I said: ‘I should like to know who in pearance on Russian television, and he looked
fact wrecked this match. The Ukrainian side terrible - it was obvious that for him this was
complicated the situation by raising obsta­ a big blow. And one last thing: if Ruslan was
cles in the form of some ridiculous condi­ to blame for everything, why didn’t FIDE
tions, and effectively the 19-year-old Po­ apply any sanctions against him? The reply
nomariov was a puppet in the hands of suggests itself... Of course, it is impossible to
influential chess and political officials, while demonstrate anything.’
I was a hostage of their behind-the-scenes Apparently this was destined to happen:
intrigues.’ too many ‘interested persons’ - in both
It was rumoured that the Ponomariov chess and in politics - did not want me to
team received part of the prize fund in regain the title of world champion (try then
advance, that the FIDE champion played getting it back!), llyumzhinov keenly sensed
poorly in training matches with Morozevich this mood, and in addition he has always
and Short (years later Nigel showed me one been a faithful soldier of the Kremlin. The
of the games from the match, which he lost unification of the world championships took
SVi -A'A), and that either Danailov & Co., or place, but only after I left the stage...
the organisers, decided that it would be And so, in the autumn of. 2003, after my
better not play Kasparov. intense preparations, I suddenly found
The curtain over the secret cancellation of myself completely without any tourna­
the match could some day be opened by ments. But here Bologan invited me to
llyumzhinov himself, but we can only make appear in the European Club Cup - to play
conjectures. Here is the opinion of my oppo­ on board 1 for the Kazan team Ladya, the
nent’s representative - Silvio Danailov, the 2003 Russian champions. And I readily
current President of the European Chess rushed into battle, without even signing a
Union: contract, but restricting myself to a verbal
7 can firmly say that the Ukrainian sideagreement with Kazan about payment for
was not to blame: neither Ruslan, nor myself. my participation. I simply needed to play
It is quite inexplicable why FIDE fought so chess somewhere!
fiercely against our proposals. We had a very After arriving beforehand with Dokhoian
great desire to play the match. Who in fact on the Greek island of Crete, we took up
wrecked it? It is very possible that something residence in the cosy village of Panormo,
happened at a high political level in Russia. some 20 kms. from Rethymnon, where the
We all know who Kasparov constantly criti­ Cup was being held. And on 23 September I
cises in his articles about politics... I think that played a short training match with Zurab
Kasparov and llyumzhinov know perfectly Azmaiparashvili, at rapidplay (Game No.130)
well who in Russia wrecked the match and and blitz. The score: 2-0 and VA-'A.
why. The favourites for the European Club Cup

410
 Life after Death

were NAO (Grischuk, Svidler, Adams, Lautier, burg 1997), and 7..Mc7 8 i g 5 JLe7 9 e4 d6
Vallejo, Bacrot and reserve Fressinet) and a 10 &e2 a6 and ...b7-b6, transposing into a
Russian quartet - Ladya (Kasparov, Bologan, ‘Hedgehog’ (Kasparov-Kramnik, 6th match
Rublevsky, Smirin, Kharlov, Timofeev and game (blitz), Moscow 2001).
reserve Khasangatin), Norilsky Nikel, Len- 8 JLf4 £sh5 (8..JLb7 9 Hdl is more often
transgaz from St. Petersburg and Tomsk 400. played, when if necessary the bishop can
But, as often happens, life produced its retreat to cl) 9 Ag5 .&e7
changes.
For two-thirds of the tournament both my
Ladya team and I myself played very success­
fully. In the first round we met a weak
Belgian team, but it was led by quite a
strong grandmaster, Vladimir Chuchelov, a
former Muscovite, who had long been living
in Belgium. The game took place exactly on
his 34th birthday.

Game 90
G.Kasparov-V.Chuchelov
Rethymnon, 10 h4!
1st Round, 28.09.2003 I had been wanting to employ this ag­
Nimzo-lndian Defence E39 gressive move since 1987, when I was pre­
paring for my fourth match with Karpov. The
ld 4 non-standard positions which arise here
Chuchelov, like his pupil van Wely, played veTy much appealed to me. White plans to
the Sveshnikov Variation against l e4, which castle on the queenside (where his king will
did not inspire me. feel perfectly comfortable) followed up by
1.. .£sf6 2 c4 e6 3 £)c3 A b4 4 ® c2 pressure in the centre or a swift attack
Before the match with Ponomariov we against the king.
studied this variation in great detail and 10.. .±b7
devised a number of new ideas. 4 e3 (Game The most natural reply. The weakening
Nos.41, 52, 69) remained in reserve. 10.. .f6?l 11 iLd2 f5 (Kaufman-Christiansen,
4.. .C5 (4...d5 - Game Nos.4, 97; 4...0-0 - Game Seattle 2003) could have told after 12 e4 or
Nos.68, 91,106) 5 dxc5 0-0 6 a3 ix c 5 7 £sf3 12 0-0-0 and e2-e4. After 10...£sc6 11 0-0-0
b6 ±a6 (immediately attacking the c4-pawn)
The only lines which had occurred previ­ 12 e3! 2c8 (I2...£sa5? 13 d6 14 c5l) 13
ously in my games were 7...^c6 8 JLgS (8 ^ b l White’s chances are also somewhat
.&f4 d5 9 e3 ®a5 - Game No.96 in Part II of better.
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 8...£sd4 9 1 1 0 - 0 - 0 !
£sxd4 ib<d4 10 e3 1 ^ 5 11 exd4 I'xgS 12 If 11 e4, with the idea of ll...£sc6 12 Hdl
# d2 1i rxd2+ 13 <^ ’xd2 b6 with a slightly h6 13 i d ! £sf6 14 iLf4 (Kaidanov-A.lvanov,
inferior endgame, (Kasparov-Kramnik, Til­ Denver 2002), the position is unclear after

411
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
11.. .h6 12 ±xe7 #xe7 13 0-0-0 £if6 or 12
ii.d2 $)f6 13 e5 ^ g 4 (Harikrishna-Chandler,
Gibraltar 2004).
11.. .<Sk6 (now ll...h6 is weaker in view of 12
.fi.xe7 #xe7 13 Sgl! with the threat of g2-
g4)12 e4
A novelty. The attack 12 g4 G)f6 13 Jixf6
&xf6 14 £ig5? (Svetushkin-lonescu, Bucha­
rest 2002) is unsuccessful after I4...g61.
12.. .£)f6?!
The first critical moment: Chuchelov does
not sense the danger. If 12...a6, then 13 e5 is
also unpleasant. Therefore it was better to
play 12...h6! 13 Axe7 £ixe7l? (after 13...#xe7
14 g4 £lf4 15 g5 or 14 ...#f 6 15 i.e 2 £if4 16
g5l £ixe2+ 17 # x e 2 #f4+ 18 i ’b l Sad8 19
gxh6 White retains the initiative) 14 g4 £if4,
and in the event of 15 # d 2 # b 8 16 #xd7
?)c6 Black has quite good counterplay for
the pawn: 17 #d 6 #xd6 18 Sxd6 Sfd8 19
Sxd8+ Sxd8 20 g5 h5, etc.
13 e5 &g4 14 i-f4!
The e5-pawn is far more important than
the one on h7: 14 .&d3?! £>cxe5! 15 .&xh7+
&h8 16 £ixe5 £lxe5 17 ^.e4 ^.xe4 18 #xe4
f6, and Black is okay.
14.. .5c8?!
White is also better after 14...f6(f5)?l 15
exf6 G)xf6 16 &g5! #c8 (I6...#e8 17 £>b5) 17
<4>bl h6 18 f3 or 15..JLxf6 16 <S^g5! £.xg5
412
(l6...g6? 17 £ixe6) 17 i.xg5 £)e7 (if 17-2xf2,
then 18 #64 £)f6 19 # e3 Sf5 20 Ad3 Sa5 21
£ib5 or 20...Se5 21 £te4l, and 21...d5 is not
possible on account of 22 .&xf6 gxf6 23 cxd5
exd5 24 #h6) 18 f3 £)e5 19 h5 h6 20 £ h 4
Hc8 (20...a6 21 #d2!) 21 £ib5 with an attack.
The lesser evil was 14...h6 (a human does
not voluntarily play this!) 15 ^ b l (15 £>g5?!
does not work because of 15.hxg5 16 hxg5
g6 17 # e 2 <Skxe5 18 i.xe5 £ixe5 19 #xe5
Axg5+) 15 .f6 (l5...Sc8? 16 £ig5!) 16 exf6
Axf6 (l6...£ixf6? 17 Axh6!) 17 £)b5 £ice5,
although here also after 18 Sh3! the initia­
tive is with White.
15 & bl
The king has to move off the c-file. After
this prophylactic move Black encounters
enormous problems: White’s attack devel­
ops swiftly.
15.. .f5?!
Chuchelov nevertheless decides on the
creation of a 11016’, since after the awkward
15 .. # e 8 (I5...£)a5? 16 £)g5 g6 17 f3 and
wins) 16 ,&d3 it would have been difficult for
him to defend: I6...h6 17 Sh3! £te5 18 Sg3
h5 19 #e2! or lB.-iriSl? 17 Axh7 £ia5 18
i.d3! £)xc4 19 ^ g 5 f5 20 exf6 £ixf6 21 f3,
etc. But here at least Black would not have
lost by force.
16 exf6 £sxf6 (l6...Axf6 17 £>b5 or 17 £>g5)

17 £ig5!
The array of active possibilities (17 h 5 ,17
Ji.d3 and 17 £ib5 are all interesting) left me
dazzled, and in the end I made the most
obvious move with the threat of £ixe6. Now
Black’s position is definitely lost.
17..M e8
Of course, not 17...e5? 18 £id5!.
18 £ib5!>
Picturesque knight leaps: White is attack­
ing from every side. However, 18 .&d3! was
even stronger: I8...g6 (l8...®h5 19 £ie2!) 19
£ixh7! (at the board I spent a long time
calculating the pretty variations with 19 h 5
£ixh5 20 Sxh5 gxh5 21 ±xh7+ ^ 7 22
Sxd7!! #xd7 23 &g8! Sf5! 24 &xe6 £id4! 25
±xd7 £ ix c 2, which most probably lead to a
draw) I9...'&>xh7 20 h5 &Q7, and now not the
Informator suggestion 21 ,&xg6 IM8 (al­
though even here 22 S h el is unpleasant),
but a decisive pawn capture which escaped
my attention - 21 hxg6!, for example:
21.. .£ld4 22 JLh6+ ^ 8 23 Wd2 £lf5 24 f3!
21.. .5 .8 22 2xh8 »xh8 23 # c i! and S h i
with an irresistible attack.
18.. .e5 (l8...a6?! 19 £id6) 19 .&d3!
A sudden bishop sacrifice! I very much like
this unusual development of the attack,
which is not picked up by computer pro­
grams - they all value material too highly!
Life after Death
In Informator I recommended the simple
retreat 19 .&e3, and in the event of 19...d5(?!)
20 Sxd5 (20 f4 e4!) 20...£ib4 21 axb4 ±xd5
22 £ixa7 Sa8 23 Ji.xb6! (my earlier 23 cxd5
Sxa7 24 ^.xb6 is worse in view of 24-Sb7 25
ji.a5 ^.xb4, etc.) 23...1rb8 24 cxd5 I'xbe 25
£ ic6 i.xb4 26 Sh3! White does indeed have
a big advantage. But I9...'&’h8!? with the
idea of 20 f3 d5! is by no means so clear.
19—e4
This is insufficient, as is 19...g6 20 h5 (20
£lxh7!? 'ixhy 21 h5) 20...exf4 (20...£ixh5? 21
fixh5!) 21 Shel! £ixh5 22 ^sd6 £ld4 23 Wc3
£ib5 24 £ixb5 (24...Sc5?! 25 £id6 Wo8
26 jLxg6!) 25 .&e4 .&xe4+ 26 £ixe4 with an
overwhelming advantage.
The question is: what to do after 19...exf4
20 ^.xh7+ <A>h8? I was intending 21 ,&g6!
# d 8 22 Shel! with the non-forcing threat of
.&f7, ^ 6 and h5-h6. Even a strong com­
puter does not immediately ‘realise’ that
Black has no defence: White has to make
many quiet moves! For example:
l) 22...f3 (the consequences of 22...£ia5 23
^.f7! or 22...a6 23 £id6 are more obvious) 23
gxf3 a6 24 M l\ axb5 25 Wg6, and Black is
not saved by 25...Sg8 26 Sd5l, 25-d6 26 h5
£ie5 27 Sxe5!, or 25.Ji.c5 26 h5 £ie7 (this
would have refuted the variation 22...a6 23
.&f7?) 27 Sxe7! Wxe7 28 h6;
413
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

2) 22..Ji.a6!? (the most resilient) 23 &^7\ In the second round Ladya managed
JLxbS 24 1 ^ 6 JLxc4 25 ^.xc4 iLxa3 (there is without me (6-0). In the third I won a good
nothing else: if 25~.1i re8?!, then 26 <^f7+ game against Jobava in a Caro-Kann with 3
Sxf7 27 i.xf7 ITO 28 Sd5! £sg8 29 Sxd7 is e5 ii-f5 4 ii.e3, after employing an important
decisive) 26 bxa3 ^ e 7 27 £sf7+ Sxf7 28 #xf7 improvement (cf. Game No.129, note to
£sf5 (28...£seg8 29 i.b3) 29 .&.b5, and Black, Black’s 6th move). After a viscous positional
the exchange down, cannot hold out. struggle things again ended with a direct
20 ^.e2l (there is no point in combinations attack on the king.
such as 20 iLxe4? £sxe4 21 Wxe4 .&xg5 22 As a result we defeated the young
®xe8 Scxe8 23 ix g s Sxf2) 20...H6 (20...'Brg6 grandmaster team from Tbilisi [4V 2-1V 2), and
21 £d6!) 21 £sd6! i.xd 6 22 i.xd 6 the following day also Lentransgaz (4-2),
when with unexpected ease I beat Konstan­
tin Sakaev with Black in a Slav (cf. Game
No.97 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov, note to Black’s 10th move). Inci­
dentally, in the early 2000s for a time he
took part in my preparations: I played some
training games with him.
Thus I started with three wins. ‘Probably
the 'highlight of the program’ was the appear­
ance of Kasparov’, Evgeny Atarov, the 64 cor­
respondent, shared his impressions. ‘It was
evident that, after the forced break o f six
months, the thirteenth world champion had
22.. .hxg5? terribly missed playing and the tournament
Curtailing the suffering. 22...£se5?! 23 atmosphere. Even on his only free day Garry
Wc3 (23 Wb3\?) 23...^d3 24 l.xd3! (more ‘hungrily’ strolled between the boards - in
forceful than the Informator 24 #d4) dark glasses, hands in his pockets and noncha­
24 -.exd3 25 f3, etc., was also unattractive. lantly chewing gum; he would glance at the
But 22...£se7 was more resilient, after which score sheets and stand for a long time by
23 Wb3 or 23 c5!? is good - in any event, positions that interested him. And he looked
there are too many ‘holes' in Black’s position. completely different - a genuine bird of prey,
23 hxg5 £sh7 (if 23...£se7, then 24 gxf6 2xf6 ready to tear its victim to pieces - on days
25 c5, threatening JLc4+ or ^ 3 + ) 24 Sxh7l when he was playing: the arbiters strictly
&xh7 25 i.x f8 # x f8 ensured that the public did not crowd around
There is no way of saving the game: the board at which Kasparov was playing... He
25.. .£se5 26 JLd6 £)d3 27 f3! or 25...‘A’g8 26 arrived, as for any event that was important
&d6 ^ d 8 27f4!. for him, with his team - trainer and family.
26 # xe 4 + &g8 27 #d5+! 1-0 And all the remaining stars were to some extent
In view of 27..Mf7 28 #xf7+ &xf7 29 overshadowed by him. The hall was electrified
Sxd7+ and Sxb7- In the Nimzo-lndian by his presence - as soon as Kasparov finished
Defence it is not often that one sees such a his game, this intensity disappeared, and
crushing defeat! around they were only playing chess.’

414

After four rounds, having won all their
matches, the leaders were Ladya (20'/i) and
NAO (18V2). In view of the short tournament
distance (just seven rounds), the central
match between the leaders, which took
place in the fifth round, could have been
decisive. And it was a grandiose battle! I had
White against Alexander Grischuk and
towards the end of the first time control I
held the initiative, but my team was losing
1-2 (on board 2 Bologan lost to Svidler).
Atarov: 'Soon Smirin also appeared in the
hotel foyer - he had drawn with Lautier and
he sadly reported to Klara Shagenovna: "We
would appear to be losing...”At this moment
Kharlov had a difficult position against
Vallejo, and even Kasparov's heroic efforts
against Grischuk should not have been
enough to save the match.
‘Fenced in by two rows of chairs against
the spectators, who were pressing in from
every side, Garry, as though in a cage, kept
walking from comer to comer - from his
board to Kharlov’s, from time to time wiping
his brow with a handkerchief and rapaciously
glancing first at Grischuk, and then at Vallejo.
And here a minor miracle occurred, one of
those that usually occurs with Kasparov: "He
had nothing, but what a merry-go-round he
has set in motion!" said the Belgian grand­
master Chuchelov in delight. “How he plays! It
is something incredible...", those around
whispered.’
Came 91
G.Kasparov-A.Grischuk
Rethymnon,
5th Round, 02.10.2003
Nimzo-lndian Defence E321
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e6 3 £ ic3 i.b4 4 Wc2 (I again
played this, rather than 4 e3 - Game Nos.41,
Life after Death
52, 69) 4 — 0-0 (4-d5 - Game Nos.4, 97; 4-.c5
- Game No.90) 5 a3 ibcc3+ 6 #xc3 b6 7 j«-g5
£b7 (7...C5 - Game No.106) 8 e3 (8 f3 -
Game N0.68) 8...d6
Grischuk replied to 4 Wc2 in the best way.
9£ie2
At the time this plan was rare and was
only just coming into fashion. 9 f3 £ibd7 10
^.d3 c5 11 £ie2 2c8 occurred more often.
9.. .£ibd7 10 #d3
It all began with 10 Wc2 (I studied this
idea before my 1987 match with Karpov,
but, alas, I did not in fact employ it) 10...C5 11
£ k 3 (I.Sokolov-Timman, Amsterdam 1996;
Ivanchuk-Topalov, Linares 1999) and was
then continued with l l 2 d l (I.Sokolov-
Gustafsson, Calvia Olympiad 2004). It was
precisely in 2003 that 10 ^ 3 became
popular, and Bologan and I even played
some training games with this variation.
10.. .£a6!
A novelty! In the event of 10...h6 11 iLh4
c5 12 £k3 (Bareev-Karpov, Cap d’Agde
(rapid) 2002) or 10...C5 l l £ ic3 (I.Sokolov-
A.Sokolov, France 2003) White solves his
development problems and it is more diffi­
cult for Black to equalise. The virtues of
10.. .1.a6 were known to me, but I decided to
try and squeeze my opponent on the queen-
side.
415
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
11 b4?!
The position hardly gives White grounds
for such an aggressive and risky advance, l l
e4?! h6 12 Ji.h4 d5! 13 e5 g5 is also not good.
Meanwhile little is promised by 11 #c2
(transposing into the 7...^.a6 8 e3 d6 9 £>e2
£sbd7 10 #c2 variation) 11...C5 (Agrest-
Korchnoi, Malmo 1996).
In the seventh round a new line appeared
- 11 <£ic3 d5 12 Wc2 A xc4 13 .&xc4 dxc4 14
# a 4 h6 15 i-h4 c5 16 #xc4 cxd4 17 #xd4,
and in the endgame after I7...^c5 18 ,&xf6
1Brxf6 19 Wxf6 gxf6 with accurate defence
Black gained a draw (Ivanchuk-Kasparov,
Rethymnon 2003). In 2004 Grischuk
achieved the same with 17...g5 18 ^.g3 £*c5
or 17..Mc7 18 0-0 fifc8, but soon in place of
16 #xc4 came 16 Sdl! (Atalik-Gershon,
Athens 2004).
11.. .C5 12 b5 (after 12 dxc5?l bxc5 13 b5
there emerged 13...^e5 14 ^ 3 .&b7)
12.. .1.b7 13 £>c3 a6
Immediately attacking the pawn chain.
Later Black tried 13...h6,13..Me7 and l3...Sc8
(Rowson-Beliavsky, Calvia Olympiad 2004).
14 f3 (preparing &.e2 and 0-0) 14...h6 15
i.h4
15 ...* e 7
15...axb5! 16 £*xb5 d5 was more ener­
getic, emphasising the drawbacks of White’s
416
position: 17 cxd5?l exd5 18 &e2 c4 19 ^ 2
JLc6 20 <S^c3 He8 and ..Me7 with an attack
on the weak e3- and a3-pawns, or 17 &e2
,&c6 18 0-0 (18 £>c3 Sa5l 19 0-0 #a8)
l8..Jtxb5 19 cxb5 Se8 followed by ...C5-C4
and ...e6-e5.
16 ^.e2 cxd4
I6...axb5 17 £*xb5 d5 18 0-0 is now un­
clear (Stohl). By delaying, Grischuk allowed
me to disentangle myself.
17 #xd4 (not blocking the d-file) 17...e5
A responsible decision, but if Black ‘stands
still’ - 17...<2^5 18 Sbl! (more accurate that
my Informator 18 £ d l) I8...£fd8, then after
19 0-0 White’s chances are slightly better.
I8 # d l
In Informator I gave this move an excla­
mation mark, but 18 # d 2 was at the least no
worse: I8...g5 19 .&g3 axb5?! 20 £*xb5 d5 is
unfavourable on account of 21 cxd5 J.xd5
22 0-0 or 21...£>xd5 22 e4 £>f4 23 1^61, while
after I8...£*c5 19 bxa6l? (instead of my
earlier 19 Bdl) 19-Sxa6 20 Sa2 £fa8 21 0-0
Black still has to defend accurately.
I8...g5
Exploiting the position of the queen on
dl, Grischuk prepares a counter in the
centre. I8...e4 19 Wd4l (not Stohl’s move 19
f4 because of 19...axb5! 20 ^xb5 d5)
19-.exf3 20 gxf3 was dangerous for Black,
 Life after Death

while after l8...£)c5!? 19 0-0 axb5 20 £)xb5 the better 22...£)c5 White would have re­
White would gain what he wanted: he has tained some pressure with 23 14Sfb2, and if
the two bishops, for the moment the weak­ 22.. .dxc4 23 i.xc4 £)C5, then 24 1 ^ 2 £sh5 25
ness of the a3- and c4-pawns is not felt, and .&.el and JLb4.
the black pawns on b6 and d6 are fixed. 23 *b4?!
19 £ g 3 axb5 20 £sxb5 d5 210 -0 Black’s eiror could have been exploited in
Of course, not 21 cxd5?! £)xd5. White fi­ one of three ways: by the simple 23 H ad or
nally completes his development with the 23 cxd5 .&xd5 (23...^xd5?! 24 ^.c4 Wc6 25
hope of exploiting his strategic pluses - the Sfcl! £)c5 26 #32) 24 W 32, and also by the
advantage of the two bishops and the weak­ gambit 23 S fdl dxc4 24 1Td4 Hc5 25 e4 JLa6
ness of squares in the opponent’s position 26 £)d6 or 24...Sc6 25 H a d £sd5 26 I t o ,
(especially in the vicinity of his king) - and the trusting in the power of the two bishops.
possible invasion of his knight on d6. However, as long as diagonals have not been
But for the moment the play is double- cleared for them, White’s advantage is not
edged and White’s position is merely some­ yet so serious.
what the more promising: he first needs to 23.. .HC5
stabilise the situation in the centre and on Not 23...dxc4?! 24 Hfdl! (cf. above; my
the queenside, without squandering his Informator line 24 e4 -&a6 25 £>d6 is worse:
advantages, which is difficult, since all the 25.. .Hc6!). After 23..JLa6!? 24 Hfdl i.xb5 25
black pieces are active. cxb5 White’s position is also more pleasant.
21.. .fiac8 (21...fifc81, not moving the rook off 24 a4
the a-fife, was more accurate) 22 IfbB Grischuk underestimated my leaving the
22 cxdsl? is also possible: 22„JLxd5 23 c4-pawn en prise, and was more expecting
1 fd 2 or 22...£sxd5 23 e4 £)e3 24 1^6! I ,xd6 24 cxd5 £>xd5 25 1i ,d 2 - objectively this was
25 £>xd6 £)xfl 26 £)xc8 (there would not indeed stronger.
have been this resource after 21...Sfc8) 24.. .fifc8 (if 24...dxc4, then 25 e4 £)h5 26
26.. .£sxg3 (26...Sxc8 27 -ixfl) 27 £)e7+ &g7 Hfdl, aiming for d6) 25 H fd l
28 hxg3 with a favourable endgame. After 25 -&f2 not only my Informator
25-.e4 would have done, but also 25...^.a6.
But now a critical moment has arrived.

22...«re6?!
Here the queen comes under attack. After

417
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
25.. .1.a8?
The wrong square! 25...dxc4? 26 e4 £sh5
27 fid6 or 26...C3 27 Jk,f2 c2 28 2 d cl was also
incorrect. But 25..~&.a6! with the idea of
...Jk,xb5 would have maintained the balance,
for example: 26 cxds (26 JLf2 JLxbS and ...e5-
e4) 26...£sxd5 27 # d 2 i.xb5 28 ±xb5 £i7f6
(threatening ...e5-e4) 29 e4 £sc3, or 27 1i rb3
£sc3(f4) 28 Wxe6 £sxe2+ 29 &f2 fxe6 30
2xd7 £sf4 31 exf4 exf4 with a drawn end­
game. Now, however, Black’s position could
have deteriorated sharply.
2 6 Ia 3 ? !
26 JLf2?! is also inaccurate in view of
26.. .e4 27 cxd5 ix d s! (instead of the Informa-
tor 27...£sxd5? 28 1i rxe4!) 28 £sd4 We8. The
strongest was a difficult move to find, the
prophylactic 26 Wa3! with the threat of cxd5
and e3-e4, for example: 26..Jtc6?! (26...e4 27
f4l) 27 cxd5 £sxd5 28 e4 £sf4 29 ,&,xf4 gxf4 30
<?>d6 or 26...dxc4 27 e4 g4 28 £sd6 gxf3 29
gxf3 28c6 30 £sf5, and the miraculously
surviving knight joins the battle!
26.. .g4
In sharpening the play, Grischuk again
misses a chance to exchange the powerful
knight - 26...±c6!? 27 & el (27 £sc3 e4!)
27.. ~&xb5 28 axbs <4 lg7, when there is still all
to play for.
27 cxd5 lx d 5 (27..~&xd5!?) 28 e4!
418
Restricting the bishop on a8, which Black
failed to get rid of in time. 28 2xd5 was too
modest: 28...JLxd5 (this is even better than
my Informator 28...£sxd5) 29 e4 2cl+ 30 .&.el
JLb3! 31 2xb3 Hxel+ 32 ® xel 1i rxb3, etc.
There is no reason to help the opponent with
the development of his pieces!
28...Sxdl+ 29 i. x d l gxf3 30 gxf3
30.. .£sc5
The only way: after 30...£sh5? the white
knight leaps across to the kingside - 31 £sd6
2c6 32 £sf5 ^ 7 33 i.e2 or 3 i...S d 32 Wd2
S b l 33 £sf5 £sc5 (more resilient than the
Informator 33...£sxg3(?) 34 hxg3 and wins)
34 1ttrc2 2b4 35 A el 2c4 36 1^2+ 4>h7 37
jtd2 with a growing initiative.
3lW b2!
Although White has been left with a wor­
rying weakness on a4, he has also been left
with the two bishops and active pieces, now
obviously aiming at the king.
31.. .£sfd7 (if 3 l-2 d 8 , then 32 iLe2 £sfd7 33
Sal! an d 2 d l) 32 ®d2! &c6?!
Allowing the knight to go to d6 and f5,
after which Black’s defence is very difficult.
32.. .‘£b7?! 33 £sd6 2g8 34 &e2 2g6 35 £sf5
(Stohl) or 33-.2d8 34 £sf5 is also weak, and
34~Jtxe4 35 fxe4 £sxe4 36 1i rb4 £sdc5
(36...'irxf5?! 37 2f3 ®g6 38 #e7! and wins)
37 £se3 2d4 38 Wb5, etc., is also insufficient.

32...£rf8 or 32...Sc6 was more resilient,
although it is understandable that with such
moves one will not go far. The dormant
bishops are awaiting their hour!
33 Ha8
If 33...Sd8, then 34 £>f5 'A’h? 35 JLb3! 1T6
36 ±c4.
34 JLe2! (here I began to ‘smell blood’, but
soon the’time scramble interfered) 34...®f6
34-.£>b3? 35 Sxb3! Wxb3 36 &C4 1 ^ 3
(36...#bl+ 37 *g2) 37 £)xf7! would have led
to immediate disaster.
35£)f5
Allowing Black to regroup his knights. 35
JLc4!? deserved attention: 35...£)e6 (after the
passive 35~.Sf8, 36 £sf5 is now strong) 36
J.xe6! Wxe6 (36...fxe6?! 37 WC2 £ ic5 38 a5l is
worse) 37 £)f5 £k5 (in Informator I gave
37...Exa4(?), overlooking the murderous 38
Sd3! Sa2 39 Well ^.a4 40 £)xh6+ <4>h7 41
£>f5 and wins) 38 &xe5! &h7! 39 a5 Sg8+ 40
jLg3 bxa5 4 1 1Brf4 with a growing initiative -
most probably Black cannot hold out.
35.<.&h7 36 Ac4 (threatening JLxf7) 36...<2^e6
Of course, not 36...Exa4? 37 Sxa4 ^.xa4
38 ±xf7! ^ e 6 (38...1rxf7? 39 l rxh6+ &g8 40
JLh4! or 38 JiSg5?! 39 ^ 6 ! is even worse) 39
&f2 <£ig5 40 jLd5, when White dominates.
Or 36...Ea7?! 37 i.xf7!, and 37-.^.xe4 38 fxe4
<^xe4 does not work because of 39 WdS!
Life after Death
#xf5 40 JLe6 # g 6 41 Sf3 ^df6 42 #xe5 or
4l...^ef6 42 Wc6 with a triumph for the
white bishops.
37 Sd3!
Into the thick of the battle! 37 JLxe6?! fxe6
38 <£)d6 Sxa4 is now pointless, and 37 ^ 6
Sxa4 (rather better than the Informator
37.. .£>f4) 38 #xc 6 Sxa3 39 l fxd7 Sc3! is also
not so clear.
37.. .£)dc5!
There is nothing else: 37...£>d4? 38 JLxf7!
(more resolute than my earlier 38 <£ixd4)
38.. .£>xf5 39 exf5 Wxf7 40 Ed6 or 37...Sxa4?
38 J.xe6 Eal+ 39 <4>g2 ^Sixe6 40 We3(c3) and
Ed6, winning.
38 fid6 £xe4!
This piece sacrifice is the only counter­
chance! After 38..Jk.xa4?! the simple 39 Exb6
or 39 Jk.xe5 1^5+ 40 &f2 is possible, but the
best is 39 ^ 3! (threatening JLxeS) 39...£)d7
40 h4, when it is hard to offer Black any good
advice: 40...Sc8 41 Wb4 £)dc5 42 WxbB Jk.e&
43 ^.d5 and wins.
39 ^.xe6
The alternative is 39 fxe4l? £)xe4 40
Sxe 6!, gaining two minor pieces for a rook:
40.. .fxe6?! 41 #d7+ &h 8 42 # c 6! Eg 8 43
jk.xe6 <£ixg3 44 hxg3 or 40...Hrxe6 41 1^2
Sc 8 (the Informator 4 l - 1i rxf5 42 J.d3 and
Jk.xe4 is no better) 42 <£ie3 (Stohl) 42...#06 43
419
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

jLd3l (43 1 ^ 3 ^gS is unclear) 43-f5 Instinctively simplifying the play in time-
(43...1fxc2 44 Jixc2 S xc2 45 ^xc2 f6 46 ±f2 trouble, although the seemingly dangerous
£)c3 47 JLxb6 £)xa4 48 Ji.c7 is unlikely to 40.. .11.g7! 41 ^ h l! 2a7l (only not 41...2xa4?
save Black - the bishop is superior to the 42 JLxeS) would have led to a dynamically
pawn pair) 44 Wxc6 2xc6 45 ^.xe5 with balanced position:
winning chances. 1) 42 Aa2 i.g6 43 2xb6 (43 2d8 2d7)
39...-&-xf5 43.. .e4! 44 IfdS (44 2b8 IfaH-) 44...£>d7 45
2d6 # a 1 + 46 Wdl « x d l+ 47 2 x d l <Sk5 48
2d8 JLh5 49 JLg8+ ^ 6 50 fxe4 2xa4 51 e5
^ e 4 and ...£sxg3;
2) 42 JLxeS <5^e4! (a phenomenal com­
puter move, inaccessible beforehand to a
human) 43 jLxq7 £)xd2, aiming for opposite-
coloured bishops: 44 JLxh6 £*e4l 45 fxe4
JLxe4+ 46 ^ g l 2xf7 47 2xb6 2a7 or 44 -&e8
2e7 45 i.b5 (45 2xd2 2xe8) 45...£>e4l 46
JLf8 £>xd6 47 i.xe7 £>xb5 and ...JLd7(d3).
41 Wxg5 hxg5 42 £xe5
In view of the limited number of pawns,
White has chances of success only with the
40 i.xf7? rooks on: after 42 2xb6 2xa4 43 2f6?l JLh3l
Played on the last move before the time 44 i.xe5 £*d7 45 £b3(e8) £sxf6 46 i.xa4
control with an illusory hope of creating an &g6 the position is a draw. The time control
attack! 40 jLxf5+! ’itfxfS was correct, for had passed, and here Grischuk sank into
example: thought...
1) 41 2xh6+ ^ 7 (if 41...'&,g8?, then 42 42.. .£>d7?
2h4! 1^6 43 2g4+ ^ 7 44 ®c2+ e4 45 2xe4! Fatal! 42...£)xa4? 43 h4l or 43 2f6! was
is decisive) 42 2h4l (the previous 42 2xb6 also bad, but after 42...2xa4l 43 2xb6 (43
£)e6 43 #d5 2xa4 44 ®xe5+ is weaker, 2d8 ^h6) 43...^sd7 44 2b7l 2a3l (instead of
above all because of 44...'&g6!) 42...2h8! (not the ‘cooperative’ 44...^xe5? 45 -&b3+ and
42.. .f6? 43 2g4+ ^ 7 44 WdS 2f8 45 a5) 43 ^.xa4, winning) 45 -&e8 2d3 Black would
2g4+ *f6 44 Wb2 &e7! 45 ®xb6 2c8 46 i.f 2 have retained quite good drawing chances,
®c2 and, despite being a pawn down, Black although he would still have had to work
retains drawing chances; hard. Incidentally, on the 42nd move Vallejo
2) 41 ifxhe+l ^ g 8 42 2f6! - a resource also faltered, missing a win against Kharlov.
not noticed by anyone: 42...1Srbl+ 43 ^ 2 43 £ c 3!
®c2+ 44 ^ 3 1Ti 7 45 ^.xe5 2xa4 46 #xh7+ Engaging an interesting mating mecha­
*xh7 47 2xf7+ *g8 48 2g7+ * f8 49 2c7 or nism. It is surprising that White is able to
42.. .Wh7 43 ^-xe5 2xa4 44 2xb6 Ifxhe 45 create deadly threats even deep in the
2xh6 4 f8 46 ilf6 ^ e8 47 ^g2, and in both endgame! It was not easy to foresee this...
cases White has an excellent position with 43.~£>c 5
active pieces and an extra passed pawn. 43...2xa4? is now too late in view of 44
40.. . % 5 jLe8 2a7 45 2d5l .&e6(h3) 46 2xg5 wins.

420

44 h4!?
AfteT hitting on the decisive combinative
idea, foT a long time I was unable to select
the most precise move OTder. If 44 -&d2 I was
concerned about 44...g4l. 44 Sf61? looked
tempting. And after the game I tried to
uphold the flamboyant 44 a5l? bxa5 45 h4l,
denying Black a possibility which he had on
the 45th move (although, as it later tran­
spired, it also would not have saved him).
44—gxh4 (44...g4? 45 2d5 and wins) 45 a5l
(45 Sd4? Sxa4 46 Sd8 4 b 6 47 Sh8+ i.h7 is
equal) 45...bxa5
Grischuk and I, as well as many commen­
tators, thought that Black could have saved
himself with 45...£>a4 46 jLd4 2a7l (not
46...bxa5? 47 Sf6! Sd8 48 jLe5 and not
46...2.a5? 47 Sd8 &h6 48 2h8+ ^.h7 49
jLb3! or 48...‘&g5 49 4^2! £ ic5 50 jLc3l,
winning), but then there is the decisive 47
2f6! 2xa5 48 4>h2, putting the opponent in
a surprising zugzwang: 48...h3 (48...^.d3 49
2f4l or 48...2b5 49 2d6! and 2d8 is hopeless)
49 4>g3 2 b 5 50 2d6 2b4 51 M6! and 2d8,
winning.
46 2d5! (the most accurate way to the goal)
46.. .£ta4
After 46..JLg6 47 iLxg6+ ^>xg6 48 2xc5 a4
49 f4 Black is simply a piece down.
47 £d4! £ g 6 48 &e6! £ c2
Life after Death
If 48..JLe8 both 49 f4 and 49 &f2 would
have won, but the most forceful was 49 2g5l
2a6 50 2g7+ (apart from the laformator 50
i.f5+) 50...*h 6 512e7! i.h5 52 i.f5l &g5 53
JLc2, when the black king cannot escape
from the mating net.
49 f4
49 2d7+! ^ h 6 50 ^.f7l (with the threat of
2d5-h5 mate) SO.-.'&gS 51 2d5+ i.f5 52 i.e6
2f8 53 .&d7 was more elegant, unexpectedly
trapping the knight. But for safety’s sake I
decided simply to advance my passed pawn.
49.. >Sb8 50 2h5+ 3?g6 5 1 2g5+ (ignoring 51
2 x a 5 ) S l - ' i h e 52 i.f7
52 jLg7+ 4>h7 53 £ e 5 2b7 54 .&g8+ 4>h6
55 &d6 or 53-2d8 54 f5 * h 6 55 2g6+ 4>h5
56 2g2l would also have been decisive.
52.. .1Ldl 53 &h2 (again 53 2 x a 5 or 53 ^ .g7+
4 b 7 54 &e5 2 d 8 55 .&e6! w o u ld h a v e w on)
53.. .2d8 54 £ f6 (54 ^.g7+l?) 54...2c8 (if
54.. .2d7 there could follow 55 &e8 2d6 56
2g6+ 4 h 7 57 2g7+ 4 h 6 58 2f7 with the
threat of £g5+) 55 £ e 6 (55 £g7+! 4h7 56
jLe5 was simpler) 55...2c6
55...2C7 56 £ e 5 2 e 7 (56...£ ic5 57 £ g 4 ! ) 57
£ f 5 2 f 7 (5 7 ...2 x e5 58 2 g 6 + ) 58 4 h 3 an d
4 x h 4 w o u ld also n o t h a v e help ed .
56 JLg7+ 4 h 7 57 ^.f5+ 4 g 8 58 ^.e4 (58
jLd7l? 2 c5 59 ^.e6+ 4 h 7 6 0 jLe5 would have
quickly settled matters) 58...2c5
421
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

aged to win both matches, Ladya stalled.

The next day we were unable to beat the
Israeli team Beer Sheva - strangely enough,
because of me. After four wins in a row, the
last of which had taken a great deal of effort,
my play suffered an obvious slump. I was
desperately in need of a rest, but at the team
meeting I heard: you have to play! And I went
into battle, achieved an excellent position,
and - committed a terrible blunder.

Game 92
59 &d5+ A.Huzman-G.Kasparov
An error in the time scramble, all the more Rethymnon,
vexing for the reason that I saw an astound­ 6th Round, 03.10.2003
ing winning idea and pointed it out immedi­
ately after the game: 59 Ji.d4+! Sxg5 60 fxg5
Ji.b3 61 g6 4*8 62 JLbl (to play for domina­
tion and zugzwang, forcing Black to give up
his knight; 62 4h3 4e7 63 g7 4d 6 64 &c2! is
also possible) 62...4e7 63 g7 4d6 64 ^.c2l.
59...4h7
59...Sxd5l? 60 Sxd5 4xg7 61 Sxdl was
more resilient, although here also White
would have overcome some technical prob­
lems by retaining his f-pawn: 6l...4*6 62
4h3! (62 Sd6+? 4*5 63 Sd5+ 4g4l) 62...4f5
(62...£ic3 63 Sd3 £)e2 64 4g4) 63 Sd5+! 4 e4
64 Sxa5 £)b6 65 f5 or 6l...£)c3 62 Sd7+! 4*6
63 4 h3 4*5 64 Sf7+ 4 e6 65 Sf8(c7), etc. 20..JL c8?? (instead of the simple 20...Se8
60 Ji.d4 Sc2+ (or 60...4h6 614h3 and 4xh4) and ,.JLc8 with an excellent position) 21
6 1 4 h 3 Sc7 62 &e4+ 4 h 6 63 2g8 Sxd5! # e 8 (alas, neither 21...£ixd5? 22 #xg7
Mate is unavoidable, and Black resigned mate nor 2l...'Srxd5? 22 ^e7+ and £ixd5 is
(l-O). A tense battle and an impressive little possible) 22 Jk.xc4 l-O
finish! Despite the mistakes, this was one of
my best games in the 21st century. Had it not been for this catastrophe and
the drawn match (3-3), we would still have
The scores became level, and a few min­ been in the fight for first place... In the
utes later Kharlov agreed a draw with seventh, concluding round, Ladya also stood
Vallejo, making the result 3-3. Now the better, but we lost to Polonia (2-4), and I
destiny of the cup would be decided by the drew with Black against Ivanchuk (cf. Game
two final rounds. But whereas NAO man­ No.91, note to White’s 11th move).

422

As a result we finished only fifth and in
my six games I scored ‘plus three’. Not bad,
but the bitter after-taste of my tragic blun­
der remained. ‘It will be interesting to see if
conclusions will be drawn and will those, who
financed the project, be able to find a ‘scape­
goat’for the poor performance of the team?',
inquired the sports correspondent of the
Respublika Tatarstan newspaper. Of course,
a ‘scapegoat’ was found: the sponsors
decided that since the team leader had not
taken first place, it was altogether not
necessary to pay him for appearing! Such
are our Russian customs...
The FIDE Congress, which took place soon
afterwards in Greece, moved the world
knock-out championship to the second
quarter of 2004 and selected as its venue the
Libyan capital Tripoli (this immediately
brought to mind the 1996 KaTpov-Kamsky
match, which nearly took place in Baghdad).
And I, awaiting a new match opponent, was
again left in a suspended state. Kramnik and
Leko were also not in a hurry to play their
match, citing the lack of sponsors...
I concluded this extremely nervy year with
another match against a chess program -
Fritz X3D (New York, 11-18 November 2003),
which also ended in a draw: 2-2. The historic
moment was inevitably approaching, when
it would become pointless even for world
champions to fight against the computer.
Different Sorts of Draws
Double-Round Super-Toumament in Linares
(18 February - 5 March 2004): 1. Kramnik - 7
out of 12; 2-3. Kasparov and Leko - 61/2; 4-5.
Radjabov and Topalov - 6; 6-7. Shirov and
Vallejo - 5-
Failing to find an outlet for my efferves­
cent energy on the chess board, I again
became involved in politics and I headed the
Committee-2008 ‘Free Choice’, founded on
Life after Death
17 January 2004. For the whole year we
made public statements about the current
political situation and the need to unite
democratic forces, and I made speeches
about human rights and the character of
political trials in Russia to the US Commis­
sion for security and collaboration in Europe
and at the Baltic Development Forum in
Hamburg. Then in December I took an active
part in the organization of a Citizens’ Con­
gress ‘For democracy, against dictatorship’.
For the super-toumament in Linares in
February 2004, which was of the usual cate­
gory 20, I was quite well prepared, but I did
not play as successfully as I had hoped. What
nevertheless told were my involvement in
other matters, and my lengthy lack of prac­
tice. Strangely enough, my result was an
exact copy of Linares 1998: eleven draws and
just one win. Only on this occasion there was
no Anand, the winner of Wijk aan Zee 2004:
he supposedly was unable to come to an
agreement with the organisers (the press
wrote that he wanted to avoid meeting me).
But there are different sorts of draws, and
if you look at some ten games of mine from
this tournament, it can be seen with what
passion I battled, trying to demonstrate that
I was still the strongest player in the world.
In the first round I had another serious
battle in the Najdorf with Alexey Shirov. As
we took our seats at the board before the
game, we sprung a little surprise on the
spectators: for the first time after a three-
year interval we shook hands.
Game 93
A.Shirov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 1st Round, 19.02.2004
Sicilian Defence B90
1 e4 C5 2 £rf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
423
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

£k3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 weight of the struggle to the queenside.

I more often employed 6...£ig4 against Other topical lines are:
Shirov (Game Nos.40, 51), but in time this 1) 10 g4 ^b6, when 11 £sa5?l b4 12 <£ie2
set-up became too hackneyed. d5 (Svidler-Kasparov, internet (blitz) 1998) or
7 £)b3 i.e 6 8 f3 £)bd7 110-0-0 &.e7 12 #f2 £ifd7 (Svidler-Kasparov,
Instead of 8..JLe7 (Game No.45), Black Wijk aan Zee (blitz) 1999) is not good for
tries to sharpen the play immediately by White, but he can try for an advantage by 11
beginning counterplay on the queenside. g5 ^fd 7 12 <£ia5!? (12 f4 g6!, Leko-Shirov,
9#d2 Sarajevo 1999; 12 <£)d5 Hc8!, Adams-
The alternative is 9 g4. The reply 9-h6 Kasparov, internet (rapid) 2000) l2...Sc8 13
weakens the kingside (Kasparov-Huzman, 0-0-0 #07 (l3-b4l?) 14 ‘A’b l i.e7 15 h4
Tel Aviv (simul’) 1998; Kasparov-lvanchuk, (Morozevich-Karjakin, Nice (rapid) 2008) or
Frankfurt (rapid) 1998), and therefore 9-b5 12.. .b4 13 £)d5 £)xd5 14 exd5 #xa5 15 dxe6
10 g5 b4 is better, with chances for both fxe6 16 JLh3 #d5 17 # e2 (Inarkiev-DvoiTys,
sides - 11 £>d5 £)xds 12 exd5 i.f5 13 i.d3 St. Petersburg 2012);
JLxd3 14 #xd3 .&e7 (Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2) 10 0-0-0 £)b6 11 #f2 £ ic4 (if ll...£)fd7,
1999; Bled Olympiad 2002) or 11 <£)e2 <£)h5 then 12 f4 with the initiative) 12 JLxc4 bxc4
12 # d 2 a5 13 £ig3 £)xg3 14 hxg3 a4 15 £>cl 13 £)as!? - Bologan’s move, which brought
# a5 (Anand-Kasparov, Linares 2002), or else Anand success in games with Kasimdzhanov
9.. .^b6 10 g5 ^ h 5 11 # d 2 &e7, as I played (San Luis 2005) and Gelfand (Wijk aan Zee
in Linares 2004 against Leko (3rd round) and 2006).
Vallejo (14th). 10.. .b4 1 1 £)d5 i.xd 5 1 2 exd5 £)b6 13 i.xb 6
9.. .b5 # x b 6 14 a5 (14 0-0-0 g6l, Perenyi-T.Horvath,
Planning 10...^b6. From there the knight Hungary 1982) 14...#b7 15 i.c4
aims for c4, and White also has to reckon With the long-known idea of Sa4 and
with ...b5-b4, since the c3-knight cannot £icl-a2, attacking the b4-pawn which is cut
jump with impunity to d5. off from its forces. If 15 0-0-0, then not only
15.. .g6 is good (Sax-Ftacnik, Lucerne Olym­
piad 1982), but even I5...h5l? and ...g7-g6
(Sandipan-Sutovsky, Pune 2004).
15.. .g6!
A novelty which I had already tried
against Shirov (Frankfurt (rapid) 2000),
giving Black good counterplay in return for
the inevitable loss of the b4-pawn. l5..JLe7
is weaker in view of 16 Sa4 2b8 17 ^ c l!
(Game No.33 in Revolution in the 70s). Now,
however, the bishop emerges on to the
attacking diagonal h6-cl, where it puts the
dark squares under fire and prevents the
10 a4 evacuation of the white king to the queen­
In tum, White aims to exploit the early side. In view of the fact that the black queen
advance of the b-pawn by switching the is ready to occupy the a7-gl diagonal, there

424

is every chance of White’s king remaining in
the centre.
16 Sa4 Eb 8 17 Wd3 (not rushing with 17
Qcl) 1 7 - S a 8 18 Wd2 2 b8
19 £)cl
In the afore-mentioned rapid game Shirov
forced a draw - 19 WdB. Now, when the
15.. .g6! idea had been tested in some thirty
games "(Shirov himself had even played it!),
he was ready to fight for an advantage.
19 .. .h5 l (disclosing colossal tactical nuances)
20 ^ d 3
No better is 20 £ia2 &h6 21 We2 Wd7\
(Anand-Topalov, 2nd match game (rapid),
Bastia 2003) or 21 Wxb4Wa7 22 Wxd6 #e3+
23 & fl Sxb2 24 Sb4 £)g4!, when 25 fxg4?
even loses after 25...1i rf4+, and so White has
to force a draw by 25 Bb8+ or 25 ^ 8 +
(Karjakin-Naiditsch, Pamplona 2004).
20 .. .1.h6 !
Insistently inviting the capture of the b4-
pawn. The faint-hearted 20...£)xd5 would
have left White with a positional advantage:
21 ^.xd5 #xd5 22 £)xb41135 23 b3.
2i l e 2l
More subtle than 21 l rxb4. Here 21...1ra7?
no longer works (as with the knight on e2)
because of 22 !x d 6 le 3 + 23 £ f i Sxb2 24
Sal!, but double-edged play results from
21.. .1.c7 22 1 ^ 3 (22 #C 3? £>xd5!, Ivanchuk-
Life after Death
Gelfand, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2002) 22...0-0 23
£)f2 (23 0-0 e4l) 23...^.cl 24 £>d3 £e3 25 & dl
(J.Polgar-Shirov, Linares 2001) 25...1rd7!? 26
T el ^.h6 with the threat of ...e5-e4 and
excellent compensation for the pawn.
21 ... 0 - 0 !
Again ‘voting’ for a complicated middle-
game a pawn down, instead of an inferior
endgame with equal material in the event of
21...£ixd5 22 i.xd5 Wxd5 23 £)xb4 Wbs 24
b3l, etc.
22 £txb4
For what has the pawn been given up?
White will now castle, when Black will have a
weakness on a6, and in addition the inva­
sion of the knight on c6 is unpleasant. It is
clear that Black must reveal his trumps
immediately.
22.. .Wd7!
And here is my preparation: such
‘strange’ moves very much appealed to me -
the computer does not find them! Here
22.. .e4 was played several times, but after 23
0-0 #d7? 24 £ ic6 Sxb 2 25 fxe4 £ig4 26 Sa3!
Ee8 (Gelfand-Topalov, Cap d’Agde (rapid)
2003) 27 h3! Black stands very badly, while
after 23-.exf3 24 *xf3! £>g4 25 £)c6 #xb2
26 £ixb8 WxbS (Shirov-Gelfand, Monte Carlo
(blindfold) 2001) 27 &hl!? or 27 h3!? his
activity is not worth the exchange.
425
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
23 £sc6
Of course, if 23 b3 there would have fol­
lowed a queen sacrifice - 23...Wxa4! 24 bxa4
2xb4- Rook and knight against queen and
pawn - this would appear to be an unfa­
vourable material balance for Black (that is
also what the computer thinks). But on
looking more deeply, we discover that if 25
0-0 2xa4 Black altogether has nothing to
fear, while after 25 .&b3 2a8 26 0-0 <5M7!
(suggested by Dokhoian) his pieces occupy
comfortable and solid positions, whereas
constructive possibilities for White are very
limited. Therefore Shirov does not take the
queen and even gives up the b2-pawn,
pinning his hopes of an advantage on the a-
pawn.
23...Sxb2 24 0-0
This looks very attractive: the a6-pawn is
doomed, and .&b3, trapping the rook on b2,
is also threatened.
24...h4!
A very important part of the plan: the
weakening of the white king’s defences is
Black’s best chance! The swift march of the
h-pawn to h3 (h6) was one of my favourite
attacking devices - remember, among
others, my games with Shirov and Anand in
the variation with 6...£>g4 (Game Nos.40,
1 1 6 ).
426
25&b3
Dokhoian and I also analysed 25 1i rd3 h3
26 g3 Se8 27 .&xa6 Wfs! (an unexpected
reply) 28 VHxfs gxfs, when, thanks to the h3-
pawn, Black has a good endgame.
25...H3 26 g3 (otherwise the black pieces will
acquire the f4-square) 26...e4l
Black has to huny: the rook on b2 and the
a6-pawn are in danger. Note that the rook in
the opponent’s rear is not only a weakness,
but also potentially, in combination with the
pawn on h3, an enormous strength.
‘It is obvious that in the opening duel
Black has gained the upper hand. Once
again Kasparov shows that as regards open­
ing knowledge in the Najdorf Variation no
one in the world can compete with him’
(Bareev). However, for the moment the
position is dynamically balanced.
27 fxe4
If 27 f4 2e8 28 Wxa.6, then 28...«rg4 29
£sd4 i.g7l 30 We2 l rxe2 31 £>xe2 £>d7 and
...£ sc5.
27.. .%4l?
A draw would have resulted from
27.. .£>g4 28 e5 (28 ^>hl?! 2e8!) 28..JLe3+ 29
^ h l £if2+ 30 ^ g l (but not 30 2xf2? JLxf2 31
2 a l because of 3i-dxe5! 32 1i rxf2?! 2xb3l,
winning) 30...£sg4+ with perpetual check.
But I decided to fight on.

2 8 Wd3l
Shirov meets me half-way, avoiding the
variation 28 1 ^ 4 ®xg4 29 e5 .&e3+ 30 i ’h l
£sf2+ 31 s^gl dxe5 32 S fal with a draw (but
not 32 £>xe5? £sdl+ 33 * h l Sbl!), and
evading a trap: 28 Wfxa6? Ae3+ 29 ^ h l fibl!
or 28 # e l? Sbl! (precisely that which was
mentioned earlier!) 29 H<bl (29 H 2 H dl)
29.. JLe3+ 30 Sf2 #f3 31 H i £ig4, mating.
28.. .1.g5! 29 e5l? (29 * h l £>g4 or 29 B el
Se8 30 e5 dxe5 would not have changed the
evaluation) 29...dxe5 30 Sh4
With the crude idea of Sxh3. But 30 d6
was more solid: 30...e4 31 lc 3 (White loses
after 31 H i4? £sg4! 32 d7 1^3+ 33 1 ^ 3
^.xe3+ 34 * h l £>f2+ 35 * g l £sdl+! 36 <&hl
Sbl! 37 £)e7+ &g7 38 £>d5 .&C5! and ...£sf2+
or 32 £>e7+ <&h7 33 £>d5 .&g7 34 Wdl f5 35
Sc4 Sbl!) 3l-Me3+ 32 #xe3 .&xe3+ 33 * h l
&d2! 34 & gl .&e3+ or 3l-^.g7 32 Wxb2 (32
Sd4.'&h7!?) 32...We3+ 33 Sf2 t e l + with a
draw.
30.. .e4 31 ltt4?
This could have put White in a dangerous
position. After 31 H d l We3+ 32 i ’h l 1112!
accuracy would have been demanded of him
in the endgame: if 33 Hrxd2?! ,&xd2 34 d 6
there is the unpleasant 34~.e3! 35 Shf4 Ac3
36 £sd4 &g7, but also after 33 Sxh3 H xdl 34
S xdl £>g4 35 * g i Ae3+ 36 & fl .&g5(c5)
with the threat of ...£)e3+ Black’s chances are
slightly better.
In analysis after the game I tried to up­
hold the exchange sacrifice 31 Sxe4(?!)
£)xe4 32 #xe4, thinking that with his strong
passed pawn in the centre White should be
able to hold out: 32...We3+ 33 1®rxe3 .&xe3+
34 * h l &C5 35 £>e5 Sb8!? (35...Sd8 36 Sdl!)
36 £sd3 S2xb3 37 cxb3 i d 6 38 £>f2 Sxb3 39
£ixh3 Sb5 40 <S^g5! (also after 37...Ae7 - 40
Sdl!) or 32...1rd2 33 H 3 *g7 34 Sdl! ^.e3+
35 i t i l Se8! 36 d6 Sxb3l? (more aggressive
than the Informator 36..Jtf4 37 1^2+)
Life after Death
37 d7 (37 cxb3?! -&g5! 38 £>e7 1134 39 S fl
Sf8 is worse) 37...1rxd7 38 Sxd7 Sbl+ 39
S d l Sxdl+ 40 Wxdl &f2 41 c4 Sel+ 42
H eel jLxel 43 ‘i g l , also gaining a draw.
However, I underestimated the cunning
quiet move 32...<£ ’h7!?. The variation I gave
in Informator - 33 l rd4 H i 5 34 H d l (34
W es? # g 4 ! ) after 34..~&e3+! 35 * h l H gS
condemns White to a difficult defence (36
H 3 J&.C5! 37 g 4 Ad6 38 H x h 3 + *g8). He also
does not equalise after 3 4 l e 4 f5 35 le 7 +
&g7 or 3 4 H i4 l rx h 4 35 g x h 4 .&e3+ 36 <&hl
Sc8!, and if 37 £}e5, then 37...Scxc2 38 .i.xc2
Sxc2 39 Sxf7+ <&g8 4 0 S fl .&f4! 4 1 £sd3 (41
£sxg6 jLd6) 41....&C7!, etc.
31...£>g4?
Over-optimistic: alas, I forgot about the
capture on T16 (the second idea of the move
30 Sh 4). Correct was 3 l...lre3+! 32 l x e 3
A xe 3+ 33 ^ h l JLg5! (far better than the
Informator 33-^ .d 2) 34 Sxh3 £>g4 35 B el
(35 d 6 £se3 and ...4hxc2) 35—*g7! 36
^ g 2(gl) f 5 with an obvious advantage: the
rook on T13 is horribly placed, and the passed
e-pawn is very strong.
32 Sxh6!
Of course! This maintains the balance
without difficulty, in contrast to 32 £)e7+
s£Ti7 33 S e l (but not the colourful 33 l rxe4?
I rxh4! 34 gxh4 Ae3+ 35 * h l £sf2+ or 34
427
Carry Kasparov on Ca rry Kasparov: Part Three
Sxf7+ 4^8! 35 £ixg6+ 4>g8 36 d6 Sbl+! 37
! f l+ 4 ^ 7 38 Uxbl #g5 and wins) 33...Sb8
34 Sxh3 # x e 7 35 ®xb2 #c5+ 36 4>bl £>f2+
37 &g2 £ixh3 38 <ixb3 1^2 39 # a l! with a
draw.
32...^xh6!
32...'Srxh6? is not good on account of the
forcing line 33 d6 £ie3 (33-'Bre3+?! 34 'Brxe3
£ixe3 35 S cl and wins) 34 £ie7+ ^ 7 35
JLxf7 Sxc2 36 A.xg6+ #xg6 37 Sxf8 Ucl+ 38
4f2 £}dl+ 39 'ffxdl S xdl 40 <£ixg6 4 ^ 6 41
Hd8, and Black cannot bold out.
33 #xb2!
For safety’s sake, Sbirov forces a draw, to
avoid having to solve problems after 33 d6
£>f5 34 £ie7+ (34 # x b 2? £ixg3) 34...1rxe7 35
dxe7 (35 Sxf5? Sbl+ 36 <&f2 e3+!) 35...^xd4
36 JLxf7+! (again the only move: 36 exfS'ff+P
&xf8 37 Sxf7+ &e8) 36...&g7 37 exf8#+
<ixf8 38 ilxg6+ <^f3+ 39 <&f2 <^xh2 40 S cl
£ig4+ 41 ‘i g l e3 42 i.f5 £if2 43 S e l Sb5 44
JLc8, escaping with difficulty.
33...®e3+ (thanks to the pawn on h3 Black
has perpetual check) 34 Sf2 f e l t 35 S fl
#e3+ ’/i-’/i
The missed opportunity 3 l - 'i ,e3+! did
not seriously spoil my mood. In the second
round I was eager to ‘repay the debt’ to
Radjabov for the previous year’s Linares
428
(Game No.87), and I reached a rook endgame
with a powerful passed d-pawn and excel­
lent winning chances. But just before the
control - in my opponent’s time-trouble! - I
threw away the advantage with my ridicu­
lous 39th move. This draw was the first
painful blow.
In the third round I had a very compli­
cated Najdorf in my game with Leko (cf.
Game No.93, note to White’s 9th move).
After a mistake on the 25th move I was on
the verge of defeat and I saved myself only
with a series of difficult moves. In the fourth
round I was free, and in the fifth I was
unable to achieve anything against Kramnik
in a Queen’s Indian with a2-a3 (cf. Game
No.lOl in Revolution in the 70s, note to
Black’s 7th move). Then with Black I confi­
dently repelled Topalov’s attack in a Slav and
with White I won a decent game against
Vallejo in an Anti-Meran.
That same day Kramnik also scored his
first win (against Topalov), and Leko his
second (against Shirov). This unusually
decisive round concluded the first cycle,
after which the leading group was as fol­
lows: Leko - 4 out of 6; Kasparov and Kram­
nik - 31/ 2; Shirov - 3.
In my eighth round game with Shirov a
rare misfire in my opening preparation
occurred. In an ‘anti-Marshall’ with 8 h3 (cf.
Game No.2, note to White’s 8th move), I
decided to improve on a variation from my
game with Kramnik (Linares 2003) and I
played 19 £ih2, underestimating the simple
equalizing reply 19...^xd5! (such inexplica­
ble ‘dead zones’ in analysis sometimes
occur). After thinking for a whole 80 minutes
(which had not happened since the 1987
match), I made the poor move 20 £ig4?! and
after 20...h5l I quickly ended up in a difficult
position, lost a pawn and also used up
nearly all my time! Fortunately, on the 27th

move Alexey went wrong and, as Yuri Va-
siliev expressed it, ‘the boomerang whistled
past Garry’s forehead’: in time-tTouble I
gained a draw with energetic play. But it
was a pity that so much nervous energy was
spent on this...
The next day I had Black against Radjabov.
This was a festive Saturday - the Linares
people were marking Andalucia Day, and
there were many people in the hall. When
Teimour played 1 e4, I hesitated for 10
minutes while 1assessed my playing condi­
tion (in a Najdorf I could expect 6 Ag5), and I
preferred the solid l...e5. In a fashionable
variation of the Scotch an equal endgame
was quickly reached (cf. Game N0.65, note to
Black’s 10th move). Then my young oppo­
nent gave up a pawn, and for a long time he
had compensation for it, but immediately
after the time control he began to ‘flounder’
and with his 45th move he made a serious
mistake, after which my position became
easily won.
Game 94
T.Radjabov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 9th Round, 28.02.2004
47...£e2?!
Life after Death
47...h5l would have been quickly decisive,
foT example: 48 Sd4 .&f3 49 Sd6 h4 ot 48
Sa7+ ^ 6 ! 49 ®d 3 (49 Sa3 h4) 49...Sb3 50
£ sc5 S b l with the victorious advance of the
h-pawn.
48 £se6+ 4 f6 49 ®d4 h5 50 <£05 g4 51 b6
gB! 52 b7 g2 53 bS#
Things were also hopeless for White after
53 ®xe2 Sxe2 54 S a l (54 b 8 l7 g l ! r+)
54.. .5b2 55 S g l Sxb7 56 Sxg2 Sd7 or even
56.. .h4 57 S h 2 4>g5 58 4>d4 Sb3.
53.. .5xb8 54 ®xe2 Sb2 55 £igl
55.. .5f2??
I spent a long time calculating the ele­
mentary 55...Sbl 56 £sf3(h3) gl'Kf-H 57 £sxgl
Sxgl - if 58 4>d5 Black wins by 58...&f5,
58.. .5g4 or 58...Sg5+ 59 ^ d 6 Sf5. Then
suddenly I impulsively made the ‘brilliant’
move 55...Sf2 with the idea of 56 <id5(?) ^f5
and ...Sfl, overlooking that now White
would succeed in bringing up his king...
56 Sa6+ &f5 57 444! S f l 58 4e3! Vi-Vi
In view of 58...Sxgl 59 4f2.
This was a genuinely severe blow: I could
not believe that I had contrived not to win
such a position! Vasiliev: 'It was painful to
look at Garry. White as a sheet, he forced his
way through the noisy festive crowd, not
noticing the papers being thrust in front of
429
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
him - for autographs.’
After the shock I had experienced I
thought it best to make a 19-move draw
with Leko, even with White, and in the next
round, the 11th, I was free. It was precisely
on that day that Kramnik won a fateful
game with Black against Leko. From the
press: ‘Three rounds before the finish a
change of leader occurred: Kramnik ‘jumped’
over Leko and reached the 'plus two’ mark.
Lastyear this was sufficientfo r a share o f first
place. Thisyear -fo r solefirst place!’
In the 12th round, by a tradition estab­
lished in the 21st century, I employed
against Kramnik the Queen’s Gambit Ac­
cepted. On the 7th move my opponent chose
a variation with the exchange of queens,
and already on the 17th move a draw was
agreed.
And so, two rounds before the finish Leko
and I were trailing Kramnik by half a point.
In the 13th round Kramnik was free, Leko
rattled off a 19-move draw with Vallejo,
while I desperately threw myself with White
against Veselin Topalov - I needed to win! In
a Spanish ‘anti-Marshall’ I did not play 8 h3,
as five rounds earlier against Shirov, but 8
a4 (cf. Game No.2, note to Black’s 13th
move), and I fought with all my might,
endeavouring to change my fate.
By the 29th move I had less than ten min­
utes left, and on the board a storm was
brewing: I concentrated nearly all my pieces
against the black king, allowing my queen-
side to be tom apart. When Topalov, true to
his fighting style, replied with the counter­
thrust 29...f5?l, for the success of my attack I
had to sacrifice a piece. My heart was
thumping in my chest, pumping adrenalin
around my body. I felt that a decisive blow
was imminent, and that I only needed to
give a discovered check. But where to move
my knight - to e6 or to e4, forward or back?
430
Came 95
G.Kasparov-V.Topalov
Linares, 13th Round, 04.03 2004
32 £se6+?!
A consequence of tiredness and time-
trouble - I had just two minutes left on my
clock, and I was extremely agitated. The
game would have been prettily and quickly
decided by 32 £se4+ (eliminating the f6-
knight - the key defensive piece) 32...^g4 33
Sxg4+! hxg4 34 #xg4+ &f7 35 1^6+ &e7 36
f6+! (more forceful than the Informator 36
#g7+) 36...‘&d8 37 # g 7 Ee8 38 f7 or 32...*f7
33 £sxf6 &xf6 34 'ilfxhs, and if 34...e4, then
35 f4l.
At the board I suddenly imagined that
Black’s queen was on a3, and in the last
variation he would be saved by 34...1Srcl+ 35
4h2 ^ 4 . When after the game Topalov said
to me that 32 ^e4+ would have won, I
retorted: 'But what about the queen check
on cl?’ And from the perplexed expression
on his face I realised to my horror that this
move was not possible, since there was no
way for the queen to reach cl. A complete
black-out!
32...&f7 (an instant reply) 33 2g7+?
Also missing the simple 33 £sxf8! #xd5

(33...'4>xf8? 34 'i fd2(cl) with the murderous
threat of # 116+) 34 'i fxd5+ £ixd5 35 £)h7
£)f4 36 &h2 - White should be able to
convert his exchange advantage without
particular difficulty.
33.. .6e8 34 £)xc7+ (34 £)xc5 Sf7! - Shipov)
34.. .6d8 35 ■5ie6+ &e8 (of course, not
35-.£xe6? 36 dxe6! and wins) 36 >5k7+
During my remaining seconds I was only
able to give checks. To be fair, nothing was
given by 36 £)xc5 dxc5 37 d6 #a6! (my
earlier 37-*d5(?) 38 £d3(!) Bf7 39 Sg8+
Bf8 40 i.b5+ *f7 41 *34 &xg8 42 ic 4 #f7
43 Jtxf7+ Bxf7 is dangerous in view of 44
#h4l), 36 £)xf8 *xf8 37 Sg6 *f7 38 # c l
£)g4 39 f6 ^d3l, and 36 #cl(d2) Bf7 37#h6
2xg7 38 #xg7 £icd7! 39 Wh8+ &f7 40 id 3
#d2! or 37 Sxf7 *xf7 38 #g5 <?ixe6 39 fxe6+
iLxe6 40 dxe6+ &xe6 41 ^.f5+ &e7, when
Black is still afloat.
36 .. .6d 8 37 £>e6+ *e8 38 <5k7+ V*-V*
After again missing a certain chance of
catching the leader and at the least sharing
victory in the tournament, I experienced a
terrible vexation and disappointment. More
than anything I was distressed by such a
blunder in tactics, which had always been
one of the strongest aspects of my play.
Nevertheless in the last round I chose
against Vallejo the same complicated line of
the Najdorf as against Leko (cf. Game No.93,
note to White’s 9th move), doggedly tried to
win and just before the first time control
was close to my goal. But I squandered an
obvious advantage, and the result was a
draw on the 55th move, a long time after
either Leko or Kramnik had been on the
stage.
Nikolai Fuzik: 'A drawing epidemic struck
practically all the competitors... The chess
‘gods' suffered especially from short ‘grand­
master’ draws. In Linares 2004 the players
Life after Death
who flourished in this occupation were Leko
and especially Kramnik. True, it was Kasparov
who was credited with the greatest number
of draws (ll). However, in his 12 games he
made 470 moves (on average about 39 per
game), whereas for Leko and Kramnik it was
379 (32) and 321 (27) respectively. Moreover,
Kasparov played only two games shorter than
25 moves (with Leko and Kramnik), whereas
Leko played 6 and Kramnik 7. 'Plus one’ is, of
course, not the result that was expected of
Kasparov, but he cannot be reproachedfor an
unwillingness to fight.’
Sergey Shipov: ‘Kasparov's performance in
Linares left mixed feelings. On the one hand,
from the positions reached he could have
achieved a decent plus score and first place.
He fought and outplayed his opponents,
demonstrating his former energy and asser­
tiveness. But only until the fourth hour! I
think that he lacked concentration and his
former confidence in his powers. Or perhaps
he was simply unfortunate! One lucky win
could have provided a new impulse for the
next one. But as it was, losing one half point
after another, Kasparov was not in the best
frame of mind, which led tofresh losses. In his
game with Topalov he attacked in his charac­
teristic style and was close to a win, and it
was only his inner problems that prevented
him from ‘not strongly, but accurately strik­
ing at the gates'. He confidently won such
positions when he was a 13-year-old youth...'
After Linares 2004 my self-confidence was
shaken, and I realised that the time had
again come to readjust somehow. At the age
of forty I was much older than most of my
opponents, who were under thirty or even
twenty. If age was beginning to affect my
results and my tactical play was misfiring,
how long could I remain at the top? I needed
to thoroughly analyse all aspects of my
game, and in particular my tactical vision.
431
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
As later victories showed, I was still in
quite good form, and in reality the problem
was not the time-trouble mistakes them­
selves, but the fact that I was getting into
time-trouble. At critical moments a lack of
practice told. This manifested itself in inde­
cisiveness and a lack of trust in the accuracy
of my calculations: precious minutes were
wasted on re-checking variations, which
should have been played very quickly. Time-
trouble is a direct consequence of uncer­
tainty...
A couple of weeks after Linares I won,
with a fair degree of luck, a rapidplay tour­
nament in Reykjavik, where for the first time
I met the young Magnus Carlsen (Game
No.131). And in the summer I took part in
the Tigran Petrosian Memorial (Moscow,
10-15 June 2004): a world team (Anand,
Svidler, Adams, Bacrot, Vallejo and van Wely)
played on the Scheveningen system with a
Petrosian team (Kasparov, Leko, Gelfand,
Akopian, Vaganian and Lputian).
At the start I beat van Wely, but that was
all. The next day I employed the Sveshnikov
Variation against Anand, and when instead
of the canonical 10...f5 (Game N0.85) I chose
10...JLg7, grandmaster Sveshnikov ex­
claimed: ‘Wrong move!’. Here I could not
refrain from responding: ‘What to do, life is
difficult!’. In the end Vishy and I drew, I
scored 3V2out of 6, and the world team beat
the Petrosian team lX'/i-lT'/i.
That same summer, after lengthy delays,
the fifth FIDE world knock-out championship
nevertheless took place in Tripoli. None of
the previous winners (Karpov, Khalifman,
Anand and Ponomariov) took part, nor did
any of the first seven nominees for the 2003
chess ‘Oscar’. The 24-year-old Uzbek grand­
master Rustam Kasimdzhanov became the
new knock-out champion, after defeating
Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Topalov and Adams
432
(true, all four only in the ‘rapid’ tie-breaks).
However, it remained absolutely unclear
when my match with Kasimdzhanov would
take place, and this uncertainty played on
my nerves.
In the autumn, having nothing else to do,
I again played in the European Club Cup
(Izmir, 2-9 October 2004), but this time for
the Yekaterinburg ‘Max Ven’ team. After
losing to my former Ladya team-mate
Rublevsky, I won against Shirov, the leader of
the Bosna Sarajevo team (this game pro­
duced a final score in our ‘classical’ games of
+15=13) and made four draws - 3 out of 6.
The results of the Cup: 1. NAO - 12 out of 14;
2. Bosna, 3. Ladya and 4. Max Ven - 11 .
Finally, on 13 October, just before the
World Chess Olympiad and the FIDE Con­
gress in the Spanish town of Calvia, llyumz-
hinov held a press conference in Moscow, at
which he announced that the Kasim-
dzhanov-Kasparov match would take place
from 7 to 30 January 2005 in Dubai under
the patronage of the UAE Ministry of De­
fence. The FIDE President confirmed that
'this match will be held within the framework
of the Prague Agreement’, and that "before
the end o f 2005 a unification match will take
place - probably, also in Dubai’.
I couldn’t help thinking: a fresh commit­
ment, but one hard to believe... However, on
15 October I was obliged to decline an
invitation to Wijk aan Zee in January 2005,
where I very much wanted to play after a
three-year interval (I was replaced by Judit
Polgar). And a week later I wrote to the FIDE
Congress, mentioning a more realistic offer
by the Turkish Chess Federation to take on
the organisation of the Kasimdzhanov-
Kasparov match. However, the Congress
declined to consider this question, citing the
absence of llyumzhinov.
Meanwhile, on 18 October the long-

awaited Kramnik-Leko match concluded.
The champion retained his title with great
difficulty: for almost half the distance
Kramnik was losing ‘minus one’, and he
levelled the scores only in the 14th, conclud­
ing game. Thus at least one of the two
participants in the ephemeral unification
match had been determined.
Russian ‘Gold’
57th Russian Championship Super-Final
(Moscow, 14-27 November 2004): 1. Kasparov
- 7'/i out of 10; 2. Grischuk - 6; 3. Dreev - SVi;
4-7. Morozevich, Motylev, Svidler and Bareev
- 5; 8-10. Epishin, Korotylev and Timofeev -
4Vr, 11. Tseshkovsky - 2V2.
Against the background of the preceding
failures and the agonisingly awaited match
with Kasimdzhanov, my first Russian Cham­
pionship was exceptionally important for
me: I needed to rehabilitate myself! In
addition, I very much wanted to win in front
of my eight-year-old son Vadik, so that the
photographs and cups at home would be
more meaningful to him. This was an old
dream of mine - when at the opening of the
super-toumament in Novgorod in 1997 I
was asked what I still wanted to achieve in
chess, I replied: ‘I want my six-month-old son
to grow up and see me on the stage in the
capacity of champion.’
Initially it was planned to hold a super-
toumament with 14 players in which, for the
first time in many years, all three Russian
world champions would meet at the board -
Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik, as well as the
former FIDE knock-out champion Khalifman.
But before the start, as the 64 correspondent
Vladimir Litus wittily expressed it, 'the players
began disappearing, as in a well-known
Agatha Christie novel (14... 13... 12... 11...), at
the rate of roughly one person a day...’
Life after Death
The first to disappear was Kramnik, who
reported that he had become unwell during
his match with Leko and had not yet recov­
ered, as a result of which, on the insistence
of his doctors, ‘he had to refrain from par­
ticipating in any competitions to the end of
the year’. After this the executive committee
of the Russian Chess Federation apparently
considered the number ‘13’ to be unlucky: it
reduced the number of players to 12, exclud­
ing one of those who had been personally
invited - Khalifman! A third unpleasant
surprise was sprung by Karpov: on 12 No­
vember together with me he took part in a
press conference devoted to the forthcoming
Russian Championship, but the next day he
suddenly withdrew, citing other urgent
matters... The Russian chess press even
issued a call: ‘Take care o f Kasparov!’
My task was made more difficult by the
uneven line-up of this category 18 tourna­
ment, which strongly resembled Wijk aan
Zee or Sarajevo: six rating favourites (Kas­
parov, Svidler, Morozevich, Grischuk, Bareev
and Dreev) and some unpredictable ‘2600s’.
Talented young players predominated - I
was the second oldest competitor after the
60-year-old Vitaly Tseshkovsky, twice a USSR
champion.
We played in the very centre of Moscow,
with a view of the Kremlin - in the main hall
of one of the restaurants in the gigantic
Russia Hotel. At one time I had lived there
with my team for the five long months of my
first match with Karpov... Soon this vivid
symbol of the ‘developed socialism’ era was
deemed to be severely dilapidated and in
2006 it was demolished (like another historic
chess hotel - the Sport, which was pulled
down in the autumn of 2004).
In the first round I won a very nervy game
with White against Bareev in a Caro-Kann
with 4-..^.f5: I had a somewhat better end-
433
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
game, and the turning-point occurred only
in the time scramble before the first control.
Then with Black I shared the point with
Korotylev. In the third round I was free, and
in the fourth I suffered a great disappoint­
ment in my game with Motylev. In an end­
game arising from the Petroff Defence (cf.
Game No.82, note to White’s 16th move),
towards the time scramble I outplayed my
opponent literally out of nothing and seized
the initiative. In search of counter-chances
Black gave up the exchange and ended up in
a hopeless position. I could have won several
times, but after a blunder on the 66th move
the game ended in a draw (which provoked,
as far as I know, a mass of sarcastic com­
ments by my ‘well-wishing’ colleagues).
In the fifth round I had another draw in a
tense battle with Epishin. My tournament
position at the mid-distance did not inspire
particular optimism (Grischuk and Dreev -
3V2 out of 5; Kasparov and Timofeev - Vh
out of 4), especially since the most difficult
opponents were still to come.
The next day I had White against one of
the leaders - the 35-year-old Moscow grand­
master Alexey Dreev, with whom in the
1990s I had three times won Olympiad ‘gold’
for Russia. A win was desperately needed,
and I decided to join battle in one of the
main lines of the Slav Defence, regularly
employed by Dreev.
Came 96
G.Kasparov-A.Dreev
57th USSR Championship,
Moscow, 6th Round, 21.11.2004
Slav Defence D431
1 d4 ds 2 C4 c6 3 £>f3 £>f6 4 £>c3 e6 5 (5
e3 - Game Nos.27,98) 5—h6
Avoiding the sharp Botvinnik Variation
434
5-..dxc4 6 e4 b5 (Game No.6), but allowing a
no less sharp reply.
6 iLh4!? (not the insipid 6 ,&xf6 ®xf6 7 e3
£id7) 6...dxc4 7 e4 g5
It is not possible to get by without this
weakening: 7....^.b4?l 8 jLxc4 ^.xc3+?l (here
also 8...g5 is better, although after 9 &-g3
£ixe4 10 0-0 £\xg3 11 fxg3l White has a
dangerous initiative, Lputian-Sveshnikov,
52nd USSR Championship, Riga 1985) 9 bxc3
# a5 10 0-0 £sxe4 11 £se5l with an attack
(Kasparov-Korchnoi, Horgen 1995).
8 ±g3 b5 9 J*.e2l
In one of the first games on this theme,
Spassky-Pachman (Moscow 1967), White
played 9 # c2 and in the end he gained a
spectacular win, but by no means on ac­
count of the opening (Game No.54 in Part III
of My Great Predecessors).
9...±b7
A tabiya of the Anti-Moscow Gambit -
virtually the most complicated and risky
variation in modem chess.
Black is a pawn up, and for the moment
he does not experience any particular prob­
lems. But in such positions White’s compen­
sation for the sacrificed material is not
immediate, but long-term, strategic. He is
inspired by the moves ...b7-b5 and ...g7-g5:
pawns don’t move backwards, and it is not

easy for Black to castle. However, very accu­
rate and energetic play is demanded.
10 h4
A modem plan, which was introduced by
Khalifman and supplanted 10 e5, as I played
long ago against Tal (cf. Game No.82 in Part I
of Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov, note to
Black’s 5th move), or 10 0-0 £sbd7 11 £ie5, to
say nothing of 11 d5?! cxd5 12 exd5 £ixd5!
13 £ixb5 a6! 14 £)d6+ JLxd6 15 ^.xd6 1^)6
16 i.g3 Hc8 17 2 c l c3 18 £>e5 cxb2 19 2xc8+
JLxc8 20 Vjlc2 0-0 (Bareev-Dreev, 3rd match
game, Wijk aan Zee 1995).
10...g4 11 £>e5
ll...h 5
Initially the most popular reply. Bad alter­
natives are ll...b4?! 12 £)a4 ^xe4 13 .&xc4
£)xg3 14 fxg3 £)d7? 15 £)xf7! and wins
(Khalifman-Dreev, 4th match game (rapid).
Elista 1998) or 13-h5 14 # e 2! (Stohl-
Pavasovic, Portoroz 1999). But later ll...£)bd7
or ll...2g8 became fashionable, as played
many times by Dreev.
12 fBl?
A comparatively rare move, which seemed
interesting to me. Usually White plays 12 0-0
£)bd7 13 Wc2, aiming to carry out the plan
from the Spassky-Pachman game in an
improved version. However, after 13-£>xe5
14 .&xe5 -&g7 15 2 a d l 0-0 the chances are
Life after Death
roughly equal: 16 f3 £)h7! 17 JLxg7 <&xg7 18
fxg4 Wxh4 19 gxh5 £ig5 20 1 ^ 2 £\h3+! 21
gxh3 #g3+ with perpetual check, or 16 JLg3
£)d7 17 f3 c5! (I7...'irb6 is also good, Vallejo-
Dreev, Biel 2002) 18 dxc5 lite7 with compli­
cated play (Aronian-Anand, Mexico 2007).
12...<S^bd7 13 fxg4 hxg4
The variation 13-.£ixe5 14 ^.xe5 hxg4
could have led to a simple transposition of
moves after 15 0-0, but here White has the
additional chance 15 ^.xg4 (an example:
Beliavsky-Kobalia, 1st match game, Tripoli
2004), after which 15...b4l? 16 £sa4 2h7 is
unclear.
14 0-0
14 £)xd7 £>xd7 15 ^.xg4 2g8! is harmless.
14~.£)xe5
Of course, not 14...b4?! 15 £ixf7! &xf7 16
e5 bxc3 17 ^.xc4 with an attack, and not
14-ji.h6?! 15 £ixf7! (Malinin-Shestakov, Tula
2002) or 14—&g7?! 15 £)xf7! (Vitiugov-
Kobalia, Kazan 2005).
15 i.xe 5 £)d7l
A brilliant novelty by Dreev: Black unex­
pectedly sacrifices the exchange and
launches a counterattack! l5-.ji.e7? 16 ^ 2
2xh4 17 ^ 4 is hopeless for him (Nechaev-
Maksimenko, Alushta 1999), and things are
also depressing after 15...2h6 16 JLf4 b4?!
(I6...2h7 is better) 17 JLg5! bxc3 18 bxc3 2g6
435
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
19 Sxf6 2xf6 20 e5 i.e7?l 21 exf6 i.xf6 22
Sbl! (Erdos-Baramidze, Olbia 2008).
16 J.xh8 (there is no choice: 16 Jtg3?! Sxh4l)
I6 ...# xh 4 (threatening ...g4-g3) 17 .&xg4
# xh 8
18 e5!
'Cutting off the black queen from the d4-
pawn’ (Shipov). I played this on general
grounds, intuitively feeling that this was the
correct decision (in contrast to 18 # d 2 b 4 19
# f2 0-0-01).
It would appear that Dreev was not pre­
pared for 18 e5: after some thought he
suddenly gave up his knight, which sur­
prised me.
I8...£ixe5?!
Also flamboyant, but it merely leads to
difficulties. 18...0-0-0! 19 # e2 c5 was much
stronger, maintaining the balance in the
wild complications: 20 d5 £>xe5 21 dxe6
£sxg4 22 #xg4 #d4+ 23 #xd4 cxd4 24 £)xb5
fxe6, and Black has excellent compensation
for the exchange (Bacrot-Dreev, Poikovsky
2005), or 20 £sxb5 a6! 21 Sxf7 axb5 22 Jb<e6
cxd4 23 ixd7+ Sxd7 (23...^>b8 24 .i.xb5
jLc5! is also suitable) 24 # g 4 ^.c6 25 Sxd7
l.xd7 26 e 6 d3! 27 exd7+ ^>d8 28 #g5+! ±e7
29 #d5 (29 #xb5 #d4+ 30 ^ h l #h4+ with
perpetual check) 29...#xb 2 30 2 e l # b 4
(S.lvanov-Shimanov, Stockholm 2012).
436
19 dxe5 ^.c5+ 20 S f 2
20.. .#xe5?!
20..JLxf2+ 21 ^>xf2 #xe5, retaining the
queens, is better - 22 #62 #d4+l. Therefore I
would have replied 22 JLf3l? or 22 #d2!?,
but with the queens on Black would have
had chances of exploiting the open position
of the white king.
21#e2!
Forcibly transposing into a favourable
endgame, where only two results are now
possible. Things are unclear after 21 # e l? l
#f4! 22 £ie4 i.xf2+ 23 £)xf2 0-0-0 24 i.f3
e5l? (24...#d2, given by me in Informator, is
weaker because of 25 #e5) 25 a4 a6 with the
intention of ...f7-f5.
21.. .#xe2
Now 21...#f4?l 22 # f3 i.xf2+ 23 ^>xf2
#d2+ 24 ■4’fl! or 21...ilxf2+ 22 #xf2l 0-0-0
23 S el, etc., is better for White.
22 JLxe2 fid8 23 'A’f l (the exchange 23 S d l
Sxdl+ 24 iLxdl would have eased the
opponent’s defence - in the first instance
White needs to centralise his king) 23...ibcf2
24 ^ x f2
‘Black has three pawns for a piece -
nominally material is equal. But in fact
White has an obvious advantage: for the
moment there are no passed pawns and
none are anticipated, the bishop on b7 is

passive, and also important is the presence
of the doubled c-pawns, thanks to which on
the queenside two white infantrymen are
restraining four of Black’s. Any active move
by Black may lead to the creation of weak­
nesses.’ (Shipov)
24...&e7
24...Sd2?! would have been a blank shot
on account of 25 £>e4 (25...Sxb2? 26 £>d6+)
or 24...a6 25 S h i cS?! 26 J.f3! i.xf3 27 Sh8+
* e7 28 Sxd8 *xd8 29 *xf3, and Black
cannot hold out.
25 &e3 a6
26 S d l
Nevertheless I was tempted by simplifica­
tion, although 26 ^.f3l? Sd3+ 27 <&e2 fol­
lowed by S h i would also have set Black
Life after Death
many practical problems.
26.. .5 x d l 2 7 i-x d l f5 (27...C5 28 g4!) 28 g4l
(threatening 29 gxf5 exf5 30 4>f4 with an
attack on the weak f 5-pawn) 28...fxg4 29
i.xg4
An entertaining ending: White has good
winning chances, but in view of the limited
number of pawns the outcome is still not
altogether clear.
2 9 .. .6 d 6 30 £>e4+ &d5
31± f3?
A very important moment in the game. In
Informator I approved of this move and gave
the ‘dubious’ 31 -£.xe6+(!) ixeB 32 £>c5+
'id s 33 £>xb7 c5 with an ‘equality’ evalua­
tion, thinking that Black would create a
fortress - according to Shipov, he needed to
‘stand, stand, and once again stand’.
But it turns out that here White has a
clear win! After 34 £)d8 ie S (34...b4 35 ^ 2 !
<4>d6 36 £M7+, etc., comes to the same thing)
35 £>f7+ *d5 36 £>g5 *e5 37 £se4 *d5 he
needs to give his opponent the move - 38
£ sc3+ *e5 39 *d2 * e6 40 £>e4 *d5 41 *e3,
and Black loses, as is customary, because of
zugzwang: 4l...‘&c6 42 £sc3 (threatening
*e4) 42...b4 43 £se4 *d5 44 £>d2 a5
(44...C3?! 45 bxc3 bxc3 46 £>b3) 45 £>e4 *c6
46 <&d2 *d5 47 £>f2 * d 4 48 ^ g 4 *d5 49
&C2 a4 (49-*d4 50 a4!) 50 &d 2 *c6 51 £se3
437
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

4>b5 52 &C2, and White begins mopping up £sg5+ &C5 37 .&e4, but also without guaran­
the pawns. tee of success.
Instead of this, afraid of squandering my 36.. JLa6
advantage, I decided not to relieve Black’s There was no reason to leave the long di­
sufferings with his 'bad’ bishop, and WTongly agonal: 36...^.d7 or 36...b4 37 a4 .&e6 was
so! simpler.
31.. JLc8 32 £ h 5 37 &h5
Dreev now had little time left, and, not 37 ^.g4l? was stronger, but even here
finding anything concrete after 32 £sg5+ with accurate defence Black would have
&C5 (33 ,4 ’e4?! c3 with a draw), I began reached the drawing haven: 37..Jtb7 38 a4
manoeuvring in search of a gradual jLz 6 39 &d7 c3! 40 £sxc3+ *c5 41 axb5
strengthening of my position. At any event, ^.xb5 42 &d2 4>b4 or 41 &d2 bxa4 42
the win for White is under question. ®xa4+ 4 ’b4 43 j *.xc6 e4, etc.
32.. .a5 3 3 -&f3 e5 34<£sg5+ 37.. .^.c8 38 i.f3 i-a6 (another move repeti­
34 &g2, continuing the waiting tactics, tion in the time scramble) 39 £sg5+ (39
deserved consideration - say, 34...a4?! 35 a3! •&g4!?) 39. .^C5 40 ±e2
or 34...b4?l 35 i-f3l, and therefore 34 .i-d7 is A solid last move before the control - the
correct. immediate 40 £sf7 would have allowed
34.. .6C5 35 ^e4+?l (35 i.e4 was better) 40.. .b4 and ...c4-c3 with exchanges and a
35.. .6d5?! draw. No win is also apparent after 40 i.g4
In the time scramble we simply repeated b4 41 a4 c3 42 £se4+ &b6 43 bxc3 bxc3 44
moves, not noticing the unexpected JLdl ji.fl 45 ^.c 2 ^.a6, when if ®xc3 there
35.. ..6 ’b6! with the idea of 36 £}g5 -&-f5 37 follows ...,4 ,c5-b4, ...c6-c5‘ and a possible
,&e4 ix e 4 38 £s(&’)xe4 a4, or 36 £sc3 .&e6 37 ...^.c4-b3 with a draw.
*64 b4 38 £sa4+ &c7 39 &xe5 c3! 40 dxc3 40.. ..6.C8
i.xa2 with a draw. Avoiding 40...*d6 41 i.g4! or 40...*d5 41
^.f3+ &c5 42 ^.g4!, but running into another
problem.
41 £sf7!
At last I hit on an idea which promises at
least something, precisely with the bishop
on e2: White picks up the e-pawn with his
knight, at the same time bringing it across
to the queenside. The simple-minded 41
4>e4 b4 42 &xe5 (42 a 4 c3!) would have led
after 42...,4 ,b5! (it would appear that this is
what Dreev was hoping for) 43 a4+ 4 ,xa4 44
■&xc4 b3 to a quick draw: 45 £sf7 4 >b4 46
£sd6 a4 47 i-d3 c5 or 45 £se4 <4>b4 46 4>d4 a4
36 a3 47 £ sc5 a3.
It would have been better to leave the 41.. .b4
pawn on a2 - as far away as possible from After 4l...*d5?! 42 ±f3+ &c5 (42...&e6?
on exchange! - and to play 36 iLg2 or 36 43 £sd8+) 43 £sxe5 Black would have ad-

438

vanced 43...b4 with the loss of a tempo, but
even in this case he would have retained
drawing chances.
42 £>xe5 .&e6 (42...C3? no longer worked
because of 43 bxc3 bxa3 44 Ac4) 43 a4
43 <^ ’d2 JLd5 was also unclear.
43.. .C3?
The illusion of a quick draw! 43-.^.d5! was
essential, with good saving chances - at any
event, White is not inspired either by my
earlier 44 £id7+ '&d6 45 &c5 or 44 iLdl
b3 45 ^.h5(g4) c3!, or by 44 *d2 * d 4 45
£>f3+ ^ 5 , etc.
44 £>d3+!
The prelude to a pretty refutation. Black
was hoping for 44 bxc3? .£±>3! 45 £id3+ <4 ,c4
46 cxb4 ^.xa4 47 bxa5 ^bS with a draw.
44.. .6b6
If 44- <A,c4 White would have won by 45
£scl+! (45 £if4+? *b3) 45-*c5 46 bxc3 bxc3
47 £id3+ * d6 48 & dl c5 49 &c2.
45 bxc3 i.b 3 46 c4! (flamboyant, although a
prosaic continuation was also appropriate -
46 <^ ’d4!? ^.xa4 47 c4 or 46...bxc3 47 £>c5
&f7 48 iLdl and wins) 46....&xa4
‘Being in a second and very severe time-
trouble, Alexey goes in for the planned
variation’ (Shipov). Perhaps having had time
to notice that 46..JLxc4 47 <4'd4 ^.b3(f7) 48
£ib2, etc., was hopeless.
Life after Death
47 &d4 £ c2 48 c5+
Matters are decided by White’s single
pawn, which is invulnerable on c5. Now,
using his extra piece, he methodically steals
up on the enemy pawns.
48...&C7 49 i-f3 i-b3
If 49..~&a4, then 50 £ib2(e5) .&b5 51 £ ic4
a4 52 £ie3 a3 53 £ ic2 a2 54 £>al! and £ d l-
b3xa2.
50 £ e 4 (50 £ie5!?) 50...i.a4 51 &C4 ± c2 52
i.f3 Ji.a4 53 <^e5! * b 7 (53-i.b5+ 54 *b3
*b7 55 ^C4(f7), etc.) 54 i.e 4 &C7 55 £>f3
i . d l 56 £id4 i-a 4 57 &C2! i.x c2 58 £ ixc2
&d8 59 £ id 4 1-0
In view of 59...‘&c7 60 ^ b 3 and &a4xa5.
Thus I reached the ‘plus two' mark and
became one of the two leaders, having half a
point less than Grischuk but a game in hand.
However, the win against Dreev had
taken too much effort, and the following day
I played appalling against Tseshkovsky,
although the opening was one of my favour­
ite lines of the Sicilian (cf. Came No.37, note
to White’s 12th move). I simply could not
decide what to do: equalise or nevertheless
play for a win? As a result I came under an
attack and almost lost, but in his traditional
desperate time-trouble Tseshkovsky threw
away both his advantage, and a draw... This
439
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
ultra-sharp duel became the turning-point
of the entire championship!
Litus: ‘A t the end of the game, that which
had long been awaited in the press centre
occurred. Kasparov came in and began
commenting on the game. And he did this
with such enthusiasm, energy and humour,
that I suddenly sensed it was then that he
gained his second wind. To all the questions
the future Russian champion answered
instantly and he gave an exhaustive reply
with variations, the spectators listening with
great interest. Kasparov was bursting with
energy. Then Garry Kimovich went into the
auditorium and with his colleagues he began
discussing the remaining games, something
he does very rarely.’
Of course, this smile of fortune increased
my optimism. In the eighth round after 1 d4
Svidler unexpectedly chose the Slav Defence
- I...d5 2 c4 c6, and we went in for a rather
rare set-up: 3 £ ic3 dxc4 4 e4 b5 5 a4 b4 6
£ia2 £sf6 7 e5 £)d5 8 &xc4 e6 9 £)f3 &e7 10
&.d2 as 11 £)cl £id7 12 £)b3. In this way I
had once beaten Ivan Sokolov (Sarajevo
1999), and now in a multi-piece endgame I
also overcame Svidler.
That was not all, for in the ninth round I
scored a fourth successive win - with Black
against Timofeev, methodically outplaying
him in a closed Sicilian. And, by reaching 6'A
out of 8 ,1moved a point ahead of my main
rival - Grischuk, whom I had to play with
Black in the last, eleventh round.
But in the tenth round I had White
against Morozevich and after a highly origi­
nal opening I gained a big advantage, but
then I stalled and was unable to break my
opponent's tenacious resistance. That day I
as though played two games, attentively
following events on the adjacent board,
where the important Korotylev-Grischuk
game was taking place. In the end Grischuk
440
rather overrated his position, overstepped
the mark and unexpectedly lost. Thus I now
had a point and a half more than him and
ahead of schedule I became Russian cham­
pion.
Nevertheless my finishing battle with
Grischuk in a Najdorf (cf. Game N0.76, note
to Black’s 10th move) was of a crucial nature
and pleased the spectators. In a time scram­
ble I managed to hold a dangerous position,
and I concluded the tournament without
any mishaps, with a weighty ‘plus five’.
At the closing ceremony my son at last
saw me being presented with a champion’s
gold medal. He was with me and I happily
hung the medal round his neck. It was joked
that Vadik deserved it: every time he came to
the tournament I was lucky... Suddenly the
12th world champion, who had disappeared
two weeks earlier, appeared on the stage to
make the presentations, and he handed me
a valuable prize - a chess set made out of
mammoth ivory (!) in the ‘Karpov Workshop’.
The Russian ‘gold’ helped me to overcome
the inner crisis and restore the confidence in
my powers. For the first time I became sole
champion of the country (in 1981 and 1988
there was a share of lst-2nd places). The
success was based on a certain adjustment
to my playing style: now I expended my time
more rationally and did not place such an
emphasis on the opening, as in former
times, but was ready for a prolonged battle
in the middlegame and the endgame.
‘All year in tournaments I did not win
more than one game, and here I scored five
whole wins! The Russia Hotel very much
helped me to prepare. Twenty years ago I
came here, every day, standing at ‘minus
five’ in my first match with Karpov. Now I
have scored ‘plus five’ - as it is said, the
angle of incidence is equal to the angle of
reflection’, I stated in an interview under the

colourful headline ‘I have regained the right
to vote’. And in another interview I added:
‘Now I have nothing more to dream about:
champion of Russia is the last title which
was not in my collection.’
As for the match with Kasimdzhanov,
even before the Russian Championship it
was clear that in January 2005 it was not
going to happen. And, indeed, soon an
assistant of the FIDE President announced
that the match was being postponed until
the spring, since Dubai had not made finan­
cial guarantees, and that in the competition
for the organizing countries it was possible
that Turkey would take part. And llyumzhi-
nov himself expressed the hope that 'in April
when financial guarantees are made by the
Turkish government the Kasimdzhanov-
Kasparov match will take place, and at the
end of 2005 its winner will play Kramnik.’.
However, I was no longer much bothered
about the obvious sabotage of the Prague
Agreement. The impasse in the battle for the
world championship had brought me to the
idea of ending my chess career.
Finishing Line
Double-Round Super-Toumament in Linares
(22 February -10 March 2005): 1-2. Kasparov
and Topalov - 8 out of 12; 3. Anand - 6V2; 4.
Leko - 6; 5. Adams - 5!A; 6-7. Kasimdzhanov
and Vallejo - 4.
Late in 2004 FIDE finally entered into dis­
cussions with the Turkish Chess Federation
about the Kasimdzhanov-Kasparov match,
planned for it to start on 25 April and asked
for the necessary financial guarantees, with
a deadline of 29 December. This date was
later extended to 18 January, and in the
middle of the month I was informed that the
guarantees could not be made early than 25
January.
Life after Death
After waiting so long for this match for
the FIDE title an enormous fatigue and
disillusionment had accumulated. My
patience snapped, and on 18 January 2005 I
declared that I was ceasing discussions and
was opting out of the FIDE world champion­
ship cycle, as published in an open letter:
'In 2002 Ijoined with FIDE in Prague to try
and unify the world championship. Over the
past two and a half years, unification
matches have been scheduled four times and
each time the deadlines have come and gone
while thefinancial guarantees were ignored.
‘Four times I have put my life on hold to
schedule three months for preparation, play,
and recuperation. The loss of earnings is easy
to understand, but the hidden damage is
psychological. These postponed and cancelled
events have been deeply unsettling to me
both professionally and personally. Our
global chess federation has rarely thought
enough to even keep me informed, let alone
compensate me financially or even apologise
for these repeated frustrations.
7 called a halt to negotiations last night,
but resentment at my treatment by FIDE has
been building for the past three months. My
life has been totally disrupted for two and a
half years thanks to this on-again, off-again
match and I must go on without this con­
stant interference.
‘Perhaps the last straw was watching the
Corus tournament in Wijk aan Zee currently
underway in the Netherlands. I was forced to
give up my invitation to play in this event
when FIDE insisted that the match would take
place in Dubai on conflicting dates. It breaks
my heart to watch such a great event from
the sidelines. It hurts me, and I believe chess is
poorly served as well...
‘As o f today I have no contract with FIDE
signed by either player, I have no financial
guarantee, and 1 know from experience that
441
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
drafting these documents can take consider­
able time...
‘It’s not about money or winning the title;
it’s about my disillusionment with the process
and the others on which it depends. In 2002 I
dreamed o f a legitimate chance to revive -
and reclaim - the real world championship
title. That no longer seems to be possible. Even
if by some miracle the match is held and I
win, I would bear a great deal o f responsibil­
ity and still have no opportunity to unify the
title. FIDE has proven itself incapable of the
task while others are unwilling.
‘As for unification, I cannot see an avenue
to contribute further. For those who saw me
as an obstacle, I will be one no longer...'
At that moment I had not yet taken a final
decision to leave the chess scene, but I felt
very keenly that it was time to change my life.
This decision began to crystallise after the
cancellation of the match with Kasimdzhanov
in Dubai, or more precisely, even slightly
earlier, at the end of the Russian Champion­
ship, when a cherished dream was realised:
my son saw a competitive triumph of mine
with his own eyes. But in February, when I set
off for Linares 2005,1already knew definitely
that this was my last tournament, and I
accordingly tuned myself up psychologically.
I wanted to finish on a high note, espe­
cially since I had not won in Linares for two
years, although I had fought with all my
might. However, it was rather difficult to
prepare for the tournament: mentally I had
already embarked on a new path. Much time
was take up by political battles within and
around the Committee 2008. My personal
life had also undergone a transformation: I
had left my previous family situation and
was planning to marry Daria Tarasova, a
young girl from St. Petersburg (in June our
wedding took place, and on 12 October 2006
our daughter Aida was born). Nevertheless, I
442
needed to bring my chess career to a worthy
finish, and 1forced myself to get ready.
In Linares everything was as usual: cate­
gory 20, seven participants, two cycles. One
debutant - the newly-fledged FIDE cham­
pion Kasimdzhanov. Of the favourites, the
14th world champion Kramnik was missing
- he had supposedly failed to come to an
agreement with the organisers (or perhaps
he had not yet recovered after Wijk aan Zee
2005:1. Leko - 81/2 out of 13; 2. Anand - 8; 3-
Topalov - 7I/2; 4-7. J.Polgar, Grischuk, Adams
and Kramnik - 7).
I made a rather difficult start, and did not
immediately warm up. In the first round
Leko put pressure on my position in an
English Attack (cf. Game N0.66, note to
White’s 9th move), but he did not make use
of all his chances - a draw on the 26th move.
In the second round I now put pressure on
Kasimdzhanov in a Petroff Defence (cf. Game
No.82, note to Black's 14th move), but I was
unable to convert an enormous advantage.
Then, not without a degree of luck, I beat
Vallejo with Black in a sharp variation of the
Queen’s Gambit Accepted.
In the fourth round I was free, and in the
fifth I met the persistent and cool-headed
Michael Adams.
Came 97
G.Kasparov-M.Adams
Linares, 5th Round, 27.02.2005
Nimzo-lndian Defence E3 7
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e6 3 £)C3 i.b 4 4 Wc2 (4 e3 -
Game Nos.4l, 52, 69) 4...d5 (4...0-0 - Game
Nos.68, 9 1 , 106; 4...C5 - Game No.90) 5 a3 (5
cxd5 - Game N0.4) 5...^.xc3+ 6 ®xc3 £>e4
Black also plays 6...0-0 with the idea of
...dxc4 or even 6...dxc4 immediately (cf.
Game N0.4, note to White’s 5th move).

7 # c 2 e5
In my opponent’s repertoire there were
also other double-edged continuations:
1) 7 ...£ ic6 8 e3 e5 9 cxd5 #xd5 1 0 jk.c4
#a5+ 11 b4 £>xb4 12 #xe4 £sc2+ 13 * e 2
# e 1+ 14 &f3 £>xal 15 ±b2 0-0 16 <£93 h6!
17 h4 2e8 18 <&h2 #xf2 19 ± x a l i.f5 with a
draw on the 30th move (Kasparov-Adams,
Izmir 2004), but 9 f3l £>f6 (Vidmar-Alekhine,
San Remo 1930) 10 dxeSl £)xe5 11 cxds or
9- 1114 + 10 g3 £ixg3 11 # f 2l £\f5 1 2 cxd5
gives White some advantage;
2) 7-c5 8 dxc5 £)c6 9 cxds (9 e3 #35+)
9-exd5 10 e3 (at one time 10 £)f3 brought
me success, Kasparov-Kir.Georgiev, Thessa­
loniki Olympiad 1988; Kasparov-Renet (Ewy
(simuT) 1989) 10..JLf5 (Morozevich-Adams,
Moscow (blitz) 2007; Wijk aan Zee 2009) or
10...#a5+ (Carlsen-Adams, Baku 2008).
8 cxd5 #xd5
9f3!
A rare plan, associated with an important
improvement on the 12th move (I had
wanted to play this against Mickey in Izmir
2004). Little is promised by 9 e3 exd4 10 £sf3
£)d6 (after 10...#c6 11 £ixd4 #xc2 12 £)xc2
White has slightly the better endgame,
Kasparov-Nikolic, Barcelona 1989) 11 £)xd4
±d7 12 f3 (12 b3 ^ c6 is equal, Kramnik-
Adams, 1st match game, Las Vegas 1999)
Life after Death
12.. .£ ) c6 13 £ ) xc6 Jlxc6 14 a4 #h5l (Topalov-
Adams, Linares 2005,1st round).
9.. .^d6
After 9...£)f6?! 10 #xc7 (10 e4?l #xd4 11
#xc7 £)c6 is inaccurate, Kramnik-Kasparov,
4th match game (blitz), Moscow 1998)
10.. .£)c6 11 dxe5 £)d7 12 e4 Black has no
compensation for the material deficit.
10 dxe5 #xe5 11 e4 ^ c6 (after ll...f5,
suggested by me in Informator, 12 £ie2 and
±f4 is also good) 12 £)e2!
And here is a novelty, helping White to
retain the initiative thanks to his two bish­
ops and strong central pawn. After 12 JLd3
(K.Grigorian-Korchnoi, 4 lst USSR Champion­
ship, Moscow 1973) Black can equalise with
12.. .f5l (threatening ...fxe4) 13 f4 #a5+ 14
±.d2 # b 6 15 e5 £id4 16 #c3 £ie4 17 l.xe4
fxe4 18 S cl iLe6, etc.
12.. .1.e6
With the intention of 0-0-0.12...0-0 13 Jlf4
# e7 14 £)c3 i e 6 15 0-0-0 is no better, or
12.. .f5 13 Af4, for example: 13-#f6 14 0-0-0
(14 £k3!? ±e6 15 ^b5) 14-0-0 15 e5l? (15
£ ic3 ^.e6 is more modest, Rowson-Chandler,
Sunningdale 2006) 15-£)xe5 16 ±xe5 #xe5
17 #xc7, or 13-#e7 14 l,xd6!? (14 0-0-0 fxe4
is equal, Likavsky-Azarov, Feugen 2006)
14.. .cxd6 15 exf5 0-0 16 g4 and 0-0-0, al­
though here some complications are possible.
443
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

13 ^.f4 Wa5+ 14 £>c3!? (the endgame is also
favourable - 14 # c 3 Vxc3+ 15 £>xc3 0-0-0
16 Scl, but with the queens on Black has
more problems) 14...0-0-0
14...£)d4!? 15 Wf2 £)b3 16 S d l 0-0-0 was
more solid, and if 17 Axd6 Sxd6 18 Sxd6
cxd6 19 iLe2, then lg.-.'B'cS, exchanging
queens. True, after 20 0-0 and S d l White
would have retained a small plus in view of
the weakness of the d6-pawn.
15 0-0-0 f5!
A logical attack on a strong pawn, fight­
ing for the d5-point. 15...£m:4? 16 £>d5 or
lS...1#!^?! 16 £>d5 ^.xd5 17 Sxd5 was un­
suitable, while after 15...g5 16 ^.xd6 3xd6
17 Sxd6 cxd6 18 JLb5 Black has too many
‘holes’.
16 .£.xd6 Sxd6 17 Sxd6 cxd6 18 ^.b5!
21.. .Wxb5 (after 21...i.d7? 22 #c5+ * d 8 23
#g5+ or 22...‘&b8 23 #e5+ Black would have
lost his queen) 22 Wxe6+ ^ b 8 23 Wxe4 Se8
24 Wf4+ &a8 25 & bl
It is natural that White should want to
shelter his king, but first mobilizing the rook
was more forceful - 25 Sdl!? with the idea
of 25...1rc6+ 26 & bl 1^6+ 27 #64!.
25.. .g5 26 ^ 7 (this looks pretty, but 26
lfd2!? and h2-h4 was better) 26...H6
After the audacious 26...a6!? 27 1i ,xh7
4 ,a7 with the threat of ...Se2 Black’s activity
nevertheless does not compensate for the
material deficit: 28 #g7! #f5+ 29 & al #c5
30 #c3, etc.

27 h4?!
Also in the given situation 27 Sdl! is
more promising - in the centre the rook is
18.. .£)d4?! more useful: 27...a6 28 Wc7 &a7 29 #c3
This leads to the loss of a pawn. I8...g6! Wb6 (another Informator variation -
and ...Sd8 was correct, preparing to defend a 29.. .5e2(?!) 30 Sd6 a5 is worse because of 31
somewhat inferior position. g4!) 30 Wc2, although even here White’s
19 Wd3 £\xb5 20 £sxb5 fxe4 21 Wxd6 advantage is still far from decisive.
There was also another way of winning a 27.. .a6 (Black succeeds in making an escape
pawn - 21 fxe4l? Sd8 22 £>xd6+ (not fearing square for his king and in neutralizing the
the pin on the knight) 22...‘&b8 23 S d l or attack on the g5-pawn) 28 hxg5 hxg5 29
22.. .6C 7 23 e5 Wxe5 24 £)b5+ &c8 25 £>xa7+ # f6 #d3+ 30 ^ a l # d 2
*c7 26 £>b5+ &c8 27 #c3+, etc. But the Black has activated his queen and is ready
transition into a heavy piece endgame gives to include his rook in the counterattack.
White a clearer advantage. 31 # f7 (31 g4l? was better) 3l...Se5l (this

444

way, rather than 3l...Ze2? in view of 32
# f8 + ia 7 33#c5+ )32#c7
If 32 Zh8+ i a 7 33 # g 8 Black has 33-~Ze8!
34 #xe8 # d l+ with perpetual check.
32- Ze8!
Accurate defence. In the event of 32...Sb5
33 Zh8+ i a 7 34 1138+ i b 6 35 #d8+ #xd8
36 Zxd8 White is a sound pawn to the good
in the rook endgame.
3 3 #f7
Nothing was given by 33 g4 #g2! 34 Zh5
#xf3 (instead of the Informator 34 .1d2(?!)
35 # c4 #63 36 ia 2 ) 35 Zxg5 H>3!, forcing
36 #c3 #xc3 37 bxc3 Ze 2 38 i b l i a 7 with
a draw.
33— Se5 34 l f 6 Ze8 (Adams also repeats
moves, missing the good drawing resource
34...Sb5!) 35 g4l? (reverting to the correct
plan) 35„.&a7 36 #f5
3 6 -ia 8 ? l
Mickey decided that he had already
achieved the optimum activation of his
pieces, and he made a waiting move. But he
could have placed his queen on an ideal
square - 36...#d4!. Exploiting the tactical
resource 37 #xg5?! He3 with a draw, Black
covers his king against checks and prepares
the consolidating move ,.JSe5. With the
same aim, the more modest 36...!e3 was
also suitable.
Life after Death
37 i b l (with the idea of Scl; the alternative
was 37 ia2 !? with the idea of Zh7) 37—Sd8
(after 37...1d4 Black now has to reckon not
only with 38 Z cl Ze5 39 #c2, but also 38
#xg5) 38 Z cl
Finally I have managed to bring out my
rook and restore the coordination of my
forces.
38—Zd5 39 # e 4 * a 7 40 Zc3 ! d l + 41 &a 2
l d 2 42 Zc2
Immediately after the time control I could
have transposed into an attractive rook
endgame - 42 #e3+!? #xe3 43 Zxe3, then
brought up my king (it would be difficult for
Black both to maintain his active rook, and
defend the g5-pawn), but ‘just in case’ I
decided to keep the queens on.
4 2 -# d 3
43 Ze2!
Avoiding a tTap - the exchange of queens
in the version 43 #xd3?! Zxd3 would have
minimised the winning chances: 44 Zc5
Zxf3 45 Zxg 5 *b6 and ...Zg3, 44 Zf2 a5 45
f4 gxf4 46 Zxf4 Zg 3, or 44 Zc3 Zxc3! 45 bxc3
<i?b6 46 ib 3 &c5 (the pawn endgame turns
out to be drawn: the g5-pawn restrains two
pawns!) 47 *c2 (47 c4 &d4 48 * b 4 b6 49 a4
i e 3 with a draw) 47...b5 48 i d 3 (48 i b 3 a5)
48...id5 49 ie 3 &e5 50 i d 2 i d 6 with a
draw.
445
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
43— Bd4 (but for Black it is unfavourable to ■4^)6 with perpetual) 50...b6 51 g5 and wins.
exchange on e4 - 4 3 -'irxe4? 44 fxe4l) 44 #e3 50 #e8 Bc4 51 g5 Bc7 52 # e6
White tries to transpose into a ‘correct’
rook endgame.
44— a5 45 Bel! &a6
Adams realised that after 45...#xe3 46
Sxe3 things would be difficult for him. But
now White unexpectedly launches an attack.
46 Wxg5! ®xf3 47 #g6+
The flamboyant 47 Be6+ b6 48 #c5 would
have been parried by 48...'®,d5+ 49 #xd5
Sxd5 50 Be3 Bg5 51 Bg3 a4l or 50 -i>b3 Bc5
51 Se3 a4+l, when again the most probable
result is a draw.
47...*a7?
Mickey cracks under the burden of a
lengthy defence. 47- b 6 48 # g 8 ®d5+ 49
#xd5 Bxd5 50 S g l Sg5 51 &b3 &b5 52 &c3
‘A’cS was essential, with saving chances in
the rook endgame.
48 Se5l (now it is all over) 48...Sa4
48...#xg4 was fatal in view of 49 Bxa5+
*b8 50 #e8+ *c7 (S0..Mc8 51 Ba8+) 51
Bc5+ *b6 52 Wb5+ &a7 53 ®a5+ * b 8 54
®c7+ and Ba5 mate. And if 48...Bd5 there is
the elegant 49 ®f5l #xf5 50 Bxf5, picking
up a second pawn.
49 #h5! (forcing another weakening of the
king’s position) 49...b6
Or 49~.1®fc6 50 ^ 5 ! (but not 50 Sxa5+?
446
52 g6! #dl(d3) 53 ^ 8 is more resolute.
52.. .a4
This loses instantly - the a4-pawn be­
comes vulnerable. However, none of the
alternatives would have helped: 52...'Srd3 53
Se3 1 ^ 7 (53-1^1 54 Bb3 Wd4 55 g6) 54
#xd7 Sxd7 55 *b3 Bg7 56 Bg3, 52...Bcl 53
Sb5 Wc6 54 We3! (threatening .Sxa5+)
54.. .a4 (54...*b7 55 Bxb6+ or 5 4 - 1 ^ 5 55
Wxcl is also hopeless) 55 Ba5+ ^ b 8 56 #e5+
(only not 56 Bxa4?? Wd5+) 56...4’b7 57 #e7+
Wc7 58 Wxc7+ and Sxa4, or 52...«rc6 53
#xc6 Sxc6 54*4^3, etc.
53 Se4 (53 g6!) 53.Jtfdl (53-b5 54#d5l) 54
S b 4 1-0
After this win I reached 3 out of 4 and
took the lead, half a point ahead of Anand. In
the meantime, on 27th February the FIDE
Presidential Council took a decision which
llyumzhinov was not afraid to call ‘historic’.
Contrary to the Prague plan, FIDE tried to
conclude the unification at one sweep - by
contesting the title of world champion in a
double-round tournament with the partici­
pation of Kramnik, Kasparov, Kasimdzhanov,
Anand, Topalov, Leko, Adams and Moro-
zevich. But, as expected, Kramnik refused to

play, while I was already living in another
dimension, and we were replaced by Svidler
and Judit Polgar.
This tournament, held in autumn 2005,
was brilliantly won by Topalov. In 2006 the
new FIDE champion played a match with
Kramnik and lost on the tie-break. In 2007 a
similar tournament was won by Anand, who
in 2008 defeated Kramnik and became the
15th world champion. Since then FIDE has
reverted completely to matches for the title
- but without me. The golden dream of the
chess elite was realised!
I did not conclude the first cycle very well:
against Anand in a Sveshnikov Variation (cf.
Game No.49, note to White’s 15th move), I
extricated myself literally by a miracle, and
against Topalov I achieved nothing in an
‘anti-Marshall’ (cf. Game No.2, note to White’s
8th move). However, I remained leader: Kas­
parov - 4 out of 6; Anand and Topalov - 3V2.
The start of the second cycle was marked
by a gripping duel with Leko. It appeared that
I was taking the initiative, but Peter defended
tenaciously (cf. Game No.100, note to White’s
6th move) and gained a draw, which gave an
overall score in our ‘classical’ meetings of
+3=15. Incidentally, in this tournament Leko
truly became the ‘drawing king’, all 12 of his
games concluding peacefully!
In the ninth round I very much wanted to
achieve that which I had failed to do in the
second round: beat the FIDE champion
Rustam Kasimdzhanov, my opponent in the
wrecked match.
Came 98
R.Kasimdzhanov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 9th Round, 04.03.2005
Slav Defence D48 1
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 <£sc3 4 e3 e6
Life after Death
After some hesitation I decided to employ
the Meran Variation, which I had looked at a
lot for both sides.
5 £tf3 <£sbd7 6 ±d3 dxc4 7 ±xc4 b5 8 i.d3
± b7 9 0-0 a6 10 e4 c5 11 d5 Ite7 (11...C4 -
Game N0.27) 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 Ac2 c4
One of the main and sharpest tabiyas of
the Meran.
14 £sd4
The disputes involving 14 £sg5 £)c5
(Game No.103 in Part V of My Great Prede­
cessors) or 14 # e 2 ± d 6 15 £sd4 £ic 5 16 f4 e 5
have died down, for example:
1 ) 17 £>f5 0-0 18 <£\xd6 # x d 6 19 fxe5
WxeS 20 Sf5 Wc7 21 ^.g5 £)fxe4! 22 2 xf8+
Exf8 23 £sxe4 We5, forcing a draw - 24 £)f6+
gxf6 25 .&xh7+ <4>xh7 26 H i5+ &g8 27 Wg6+
(Kasparov-Akopian, Yerevan Olympiad
1996);
2) 17 £)dxb5!? axb5 18 £ixb5 1136 19
£ixd6+ #xd6 20 fxe5 lx e 5 21 I f 5 # e 7 22
Wxc4 Sc8! 23 H>5+! £icd7! 24 #xb7 Sxc2 25
Ag5 ®d6l 26 1^8+ H )8 (26...*f7? 27 #xh8
- Game No.105 in Part V of My Great Prede­
cessors) 27 1 ^ 8 + <£sxb8 with a drawn
endgame.
14...^d4 ^c5 15 ^.e3 (the main move,
sacrificing the e4-pawn) 15...e5
If 15-0-0-0, then 16 We2 e5 17 £>f3 (Lau-
tier-Gelfand, Amsterdam 1996).
447
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
16 £sf3
Gelfand’s move (1997). Earlier and later
16 £sf5 was played, to which Black replied
16.. .^cxe4 17 ^xe4 <£sxe4 (Lautier-Kramnik,
Monte Carlo (rapid) 1996) or I6...g6!? 17
£sh6 (17 i.g5 £sfxe4) 17....&g7 18 1T3 £se6
(Morozevich-Anand, Mexico 2007).
16.. JLe7!
Black completes his development, even at
the cost of the exchange! After l6...£scxe4?!
17 ®xe4 ®xe4 18 S e l White has a danger­
ous initiative (Gelfand-Bareev, Novgorod
1997).
17£sg5
It used to be thought that after this move
Black had problems.
17 ...0 - 0 !
A novelty - Black sacrifices the exchange!
Before this there occurred 17...'Sfc6?! 18 <5M5
or 17...h6 18 jLxcS hxg5 19 .&e3 with unclear
play (Kruppa-Collas, Cappelle la Grande
2001). Preparing for the match with the
program Deep Junior (2003), for which the
Meran was one of the main weapons, I was
surprised to see my machine confidently
replying 17...0-0. Analysis and subsequent
practice confirmed that the exchange sacri­
fice is absolutely correct, but Kasimdzhanov
was shocked by such an unexpected turn of
events...
448
18 i.xc5
Accepting the gift. 18 b4?! h6 19 .&xc5
hxg5 20 $Lxe7 WxeT 21 a3 Sad8 is to Black’s
advantage, while after 18 # e2 2fe8 he is
completely alright (Markus-Ribli, Neum
2005).
18....&XC5 19 ®e6 #b6 20 ®xf8 2xf8
White is a clear exchange ahead, but his
pieces are passive, whereas Black has a
powerful bishop on c5, control of. d4, pres­
sure on f2 (weak is 21 a4?! JLxf2+ or 21
&hl?! J.xf2), and a pawn majority on the
queenside.
2l£>d5?l
The primary cause of White’s subsequent
difficulties. Dynamic equality would have
been maintained by 21 We2 # e6 and then
22 S ael jLd4 (Wirig-Hiibner, Cannes 2005),
22 h3 -&d4 (Korotylev-Dreev, Feugen 2006) or
22 a4 b4 23 £sd5 £sxd5 24 #xc4 £sf4! 25
#xc5 Wg4 26 jLb3+ Sf7 with a draw
(Gavrilov-Kulaots, Tallinn 2008).
21.. JLxd5 22 exd5 i.x f 2 + 23 & hl
Of course, not 23 Sxf2? ^g4. For the ex­
change Black already has two pawns (in
addition, the d5-pawn is weak) plus a dan­
gerous passed e-pawn.
23.. .e4?!
The most obvious move, with the idea of
playing ...e4-e3 with the bishop on f2, in
 Life after Death

order to restrict the mobility of the white
rooks and create threats to the king. But
23...^.d4! 24 S b l e4 25 #62 2e8 was more
accurate, denying White a defensive re­
source which he had in the game, and
retaining the advantage.
the sudden 28...£sg4l? 29 Wh4 Sxf5 30 #xg4
#xd5l with an extTa pawn and winning
chances (3lh3h5l).
25...#d6 26 a4
Strangely enough, White’s position is al­
ready lost: 26 Sd4 h5l with the threat of
...£>g4, 26 b3 c3, and 26 i.f5 #e5l 27 £e6+
i ’hS 28 S fl £te4l are all bad.

24#e2?!
Now my idea is justified. The only correct
move was 24 d6! (threatening 25 ^.xe4 26...g6! (a strong positional move, creating
£sxe4 26 #d5+ and #xe4; if 24 a4, then the deadly threat of ...£>hs) 27 axb5 axb5
24-g6!? and ...'ig?) 24..e3 25 a4l (opening
the file for the rook; my Informator sugges­
tion 25 i.f5 g6 26 Ah3 <&g7 27 d7 is less
good in view of 27...Sd8!) 25...g6 (depriving
the bishop of the f5-square) 26 axb5 axb5 27
b3 2e8 28 d7 Sd8 29 bxc4 Sxd7 30 &d3 (30
# f3 bxc4 31 ^.d l is also suitable) 30...#d4
31 #f3! or 30...b4 31 #f3! 4 ^7 (31...Sxd3 32
Sxf2) 32 JLe2 with sufficient counterplay.
24...e3 25 S fd l?
In a difficult situation Kasimdzhanov
moves his rook from fl, making the counter­
sacrifice Sxf2 impossible, and plans to bring
his al-rook into play after a2-a4. The lesser 28 g3
evil was 25 S ad i (25 b3?l c3) 25...#d6 26 It transpires that for the moment there is
JLf5 - here, in contrast to the position in the nothing for the rook to do on the a-file, and
game, 26...#e5? is not possible because of 27 the king must be saved from a direct attack.
Sxf2, but the quiet 26...<&’h8 sets White 28 b3 did not help: 28...£)h5! 29 # g 4 (29
difficult problems: thus, after 27 Sxf2 exf2 bxc4?! #f4l with the threat of ...£*g3+)
28 #xf2 my Informator 28...Se8 is good, as is 29 .Sf4 30 #e6+ #xe6 31 dxe6 e2 and wins.

449
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
And if 28 Sd4 Black would have won pret­
tily with 2&..Me5 29 S ad i iLg3!!, for exam­
ple: 30 hxg3 £sh5 31 ®g4 £sxg3+ 32 4 g l e2
33 # e 6+ #xe6 34 dxe6 Sfl+ 35 4h2 Sxdl
36 S xdl e x d l# 37 ^.xdl £sf5 or 30 d6 ,&xh2
31 d7 Sd8 32 g4 JLg3 33 4g2 JLf2 34 1^3
e2l.
28.. .^h5l
The start of the decisive assault, the white
pieces being on the other side of the board
and unable to help their king. Inaccurate is
28.. .We5? 29 d6, when 29...£sh5?! is now too
late in view of 30 d7 £sxg3+ 31 hxg3 #xg3
32 ^.f5! with equality.
29 % 4
An illusion of a defence.
29-.^.xg3! 30 hxg3
If 30 #e6+ Wxee 31 dxe6, then 3l...e2 32
hxg3 £sxg3+ 33 4g2 e x d l# 34 Sxdl £sh5 is
decisive, but 31...4h4! is simpler. Or 30 S g l
JLf2l (30..JLxh2 is also possible) 31 #xh5
JLxgl 32 Sxgl Sfll! - a very pretty stroke!
When I found it, after calculating variations
for a long time on the 28th move, I very
much wanted to see it on the board, but
alas...
30...£sxg3+ (however, also a spectacular
finish) 31 &g2
The result of the game would not have
been affected by the more resilient 31 4 g l
450
e2 32 #e6+ (but not 32 Sel? Wc5+ 33 4h2
Wf2+ 34 4h3 £sh5 and wins) 32...#xe6 33
dxe6 exdl#+ 34 ^.xdl 4g7 or 34...£sf5, etc.
31...Sf2+ 32 4h 3
32...£sf5! (the key move: White merely has a
couple of spite checks) 33 S h i h5 (or simply
33-Sxc2) 34 # x g 6 + Wxg6 35 S h g l # x g l
(35-..lrg4+!?) 36 S x g l+ 4 f7 0-1
This game was deemed the most brilliant
in the tournament.
This spectacular win 'in the good old style’
added to my confidence and strength. The
next day I won a rather tedious game
against Vallejo, gradually outplaying him in
a quiet Slav Defence. I now already had ‘plus
four’, whereas Anand and Topalov were on
‘plus one’.
In the llth round I was free, and for the
12th round, with Black against Michael
Adams, I arrived in an elated mood, ready for
new creative accomplishments.
Game 99
M.Adams-G.Kasparov
Linares, 12th Round, 08.03.2005
Sicilian Defence B84
1 e4 c5 (of course!) 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4

^ x d 4 £>f6 5 £>c 3 a6 6 JLe3 e6 (6...£sg4 -
Game Nos.32, 40, 51, 54, 63, 116-, 6...e5 -
Game Nos.45,93) 7 Jie 2
Adams liked this idea, although he also
used to employ the English Attack - 7 f3
(Game Nos.56, 58, 66, 74).
7.. .Wc7
My usual reply. 7...£)bd7 8 g4 h6 9 f4 oc­
curs more rarely (Adams-Topalov, Wijk aan
Zee 2005; Linares 2005, 8th round). Also
after 7-&.e7 White sometimes plays 8 g4 (a
recent example: Nakamura-Topalov, Sta­
vanger 2013), but Mickey preferred 8 0-0 0-0
9 a4 £ ic6 10 f4, etc. (Game Nos.37, 86). If
7.. .£>c 6, then 8 g4 is also possible, or else 8
#d2 i.e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 f4 (Adams-
Zvjaginsev, Kallithea 2008). I studied all
these set-ups before my match with Short
(1993).
8#d2
8 a4 b6 9 f4 i-b7 10 i.f3 ftbd7 (Adams-
Kasparov, Sarajevo 2000) leads to a comfort­
able ‘hedgehog’-type position for Black,
while after 8 0-0 b5 9 a4 b4 10 £ia2 £ixe4
White is not able to exploit his lead in devel­
opment (Shirov-Kasparov, Astana 2001).
8.. .b5 9 a3
Weakening the future queenside castled
position. However, it is hard to manage
without this - perhaps only 9 f3 is more
Life after Death
flexible, avoiding the variation which oc­
curred in the game: 9...^.b7 10 a4l? (Bolo-
gan-Jaracz, Warsaw 2005) or 9 .b4 10 £sa4
£)bd7 (Inarkiev-Le Ouang Liem, Khanty-
Mansiysk (rapid) 2013) 11 c3!?. And if
9~.£sbd7, then only now 10 a3 (but not 10
a4?!b41l£ia2 d5l).
9...i-b7 10 f3
10.. .£)c6!?
An attempt to exploit the a2-a3 advance.
After 10..JLe7 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 g4 £)c6 13 g5
£)d7 14 h4 (with the idea of g5-g6) the
position is dangerous for Black, although
14-..£)ce5 15 f4 £)c4 16 JLxc4 #xc4 17 f5
2fc8 is not altogether clear (Leko-van Wely,
Wijk aan Zee 2002).
I also did not like the fashionable
10.. .£sbd7 11 0-0-0 d5 (anticipating g2-g4-
g5) 12 exd5 £xd5 13 ±f4 *b7?! (I3...*b6 is
better) 14 £)f5! (Shirov-Gelfand, Monte Carlo
(rapid) 2004) or 12...£ixd5 13 £sxds i.xd5,
and here not 14 'i b l ^.c5l (l4...£)f6?! 15 g4
JLc4?l 16 ±f4 is better for White, Adams-
Topalov, 1st match game, New Delhi 2000),
but 14 Shell Sc8 15 .&f4 WbZ ( lS - H ^ ? 16
JLxbSl) 16 'i b l 4^b6 17 £)f5 with the initia­
tive (Tiviakov-Ermenkov, Struga 2002).
110 - 0-0
In the event of 11 £sxc6 jLxc6 12 0-0-0
Ji.e7 13 g4 0-0 14 g5 £)d7 15 h4 Sab8! 16 h5
451
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
a5! the weakening move a2-a3 is felt: Black’s
attack gets there ahead of the opponent’s.
And 11 g4 &e7 12 g5 £sd7 13 h4 b4
(I3...^a5l?) 14 axb4 £sxb4 15 0-0-0 (15 h5l?
Kobalia-Kasimdzhanov, Sochi 2006) I5...£sc5
would merely have led to a simple transposi­
tion of moves.
12 axb4 £sxb4
Black’s rare, unusual plan somewhat dis­
concerted Adams, and he sank into thought,
looking for the optimal decision.
13 g4
Beginning a standard attack on the king-
side - Mickey decided that for the moment
he was not under any serious threat. If 13
^ b l, then 13..JLe7 (I4£scb5?! Wa5! - Stohl).
My idea could have been disputed by 13
£scb5l? £sa2+ 14 ^ b l axb5 15 £sxb5 - in
Informator I assessed this position as un­
clear, but here I would have been forced on
to the defensive:
1 ) 15...Wc6 16 £sa7 Sxa7 (l6...Wc7 17
<&xa2) 17 £ x a 7 £ a 6 (l 7...Wa4?! 18 £c5!) 18
<&>xa2 jLxe2 19 Wxe2 Wa4+ 20 <^>bl Wxa7 21
e 5! with advantage;
2) 15 ...Wd8! 16 £c4!? (16 £sa7 ^.e7l)
l 6..JLa6 17 e5! Wb8! 18 Wa5 ^.xb5 19
Wxb5+ Wxb5 20 .&xb5+ ^ d 7 21 exd6 <£\b4
22 c3 £sd5 23 Sxd5! exd5 24 ^.b6 ^.xd6 25
2el+ &.e7 (25...(£ ’f8 26 JLxd7 is no better) 26
452
± c 5 ^ d 8 27 ^.xe 7+ &C7 28 £ h 4 with full
compensation for the exchange.
13...i.e7
I 3...d5?l did not inspire in view of 14 g5
£sd7 15 exd5 £sxd5 (I5...^.xd5?l 16 .^ W a S
17 £>b3) 16 £sxd5 ^.xd5 17 JLf4 .&d6 18
^.xd 6 Wxd6 19 Shel, when White has some
initiative.
14 g5 £sd7 15 h4
Each player occupies himself with-his own
affairs: White prepares the g5-g6 break, in
the hope that sooner or later his opponent
will nevertheless castle on the kingside
(15 ...0-0-0? 16 £scb5! and wins), while Black
builds up his forces on the queenside.
15.. .£ sc5!
As it later transpired - a novelty! In a lit­
tle-known game from the Iranian Junior
Championship (1994) 15-.Sc8 16 ^ b l
occurred, but I wanted to develop my rook
on b8.
16 & b l Sb8
An ambush! This move seems risky, and
for the moment it is not clear in what way it
is better than the typical I6...2c8 (after
16.. .Wa5? 17 -&C4! 2 c8 18 £sb3 £>xb3 19
jLxb3 Black is at a dead end) 17 h5 Was with
double-edged play: 18 g6 fxg6! 19 ^.c4 £sxe4
20 fxe4 Sxc4 21 £sb3 Wc7 22 hxg6 h5 or
even 22...£sxc2!? 23 Sxh7 Sg8. But I sensed

that l6...Sb8 contained more threats.
17 h5 (not 17 £>cb5?l Was 18 £>a3 0-0 19 h5
Sfc8!) 17...0-0!
Finally connecting all the forces. This late
castling ‘into mate’ resembles my game with
Movsesian (Came No.66).
18 g6 (Mickey looked very content, anticipat­
ing a quick win) l8 ..JLf6 (continuing to
prepare a counterattack on the queenside)
19 S d g l
Little would have been changed by 19
jLg5 JLe5!, when 20 f4? is not possible
because of 20...£ixe4!, or 19 gxh7+ ,4 >xh7 20
jLg5 ^.e 5! with the same idea of ,.JLa8.
At first sight Black’s position is terrible: it
is hard to imagine that he will be able to
defend his king. However, he has a veiled
resource.
19...£a8!!
A second successive quiet move, in unison
with castling. The rook on b 8 comes into
play, and suddenly it transpires that it is
difficult for White to attack: his king is also
uncomfortable!
20 £ g5
White naturally wants to exchange the
dark-squared bishops. 20 h 6?! is weak in
view of 20...fxg6 21 hxg7 .&xg7 and ...Sf7 l.
Also nothing is given by the flamboyant 20
.£.h6!? £>bd3! (the most ambitious reply) 21
Life after Death
gxh7+ ^>h8 22 £>db5 (22 £>cb5 jLxd4 23
£>xd4 Sxb2+ 24 ^ a l gxh6 is no better,
Hofstetter-Fenwick, internet 2005) 22...axb5
23 i.xd3 £>xd3 24 cxd3 b4 25 ^.xg7+! £xg7
26 h6 £e5! (26...^.xc3? 27 *g2 and wins) 27
^)b5! 1fird7 28 f4! ^xbS 29 fxe5 b3 30 exd6
Sfc8, forcing 31 Sh5l #xh5 32 # f4 ^>xh7 33
fig7+ ^ 8 34 S g l ^ 7 with a draw.
20..JLe5!
This way, rather than 20..JLxg5? 21 gxh7+
and WxgS or 20...fxg6?l 21 hxg6 h6
(21.Jk.xg5? 22 Exg5 h6 23 Sxc5l 1 ^ 5 24
£>xe6 and wins) 22 jLxh6! with a strong
attack. Here Adams thought for a long time
- and lost the thread of the game.
21 gxh7+?
Of course, not 21 f4? £>xe4l 22 £>xe4
jLxd4 and wins. However, White should
have insisted on the exchange of the power­
ful black bishop - 21 M 4 !. Now 21...iLf6 is
equivalent to a draw offer, 21...j.xd4?! 22
1 ^ 4 e5 23 * c4 d5 (23...exf4? 24 h6! and
wins) 24 h6! is dangerous, and after 21...fxg6
22 ^.xe5 dxe5 23 hxg6 exd4 24 Sxh7 2f6 25
fighl Sxg6 261H?xd4 White’s attack compen­
sates for the material deficit.
Things are more unpleasant for him after
21...£>bd3!? 22 £xd3 i.xd4l (22...^.xf4 23
Wxf4 £>xd3 24 gxh7+ ^>xh7 25 Sxg7+ &xg7
26 £>f5+! exf5 27 1i rg5+ with perpetual
453
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
check) 23 gxh7+ <4>h8! (Stohl; 23...‘4>xh7 24
J.xd 6!) 24 iLc4 ^ 6, but after 25 £ib5! axb5
26 l rxd4 e5 27 b 6! g 6 28 jb<e5+ dxe5 29
®xe5+ f 6 30 # e7 1137 31 1^7+! I rxg7 32
bxg7+ <4 >xg7 33 .&g8 Sxg 8 34 bxg8l r+ Sxg 8
35 Sh2 or 25..JLxgl 26 Sxgl f6 27 1 ^2 H d7
28 i.xd6 axb5 29 i.e2 2bc8 30 i.xf8 2xf8 31
h6 g5 32 e5! lT7(e7) 33 exf6 #xf6 34 Wxg5
WxgS 35 2xg5 White nevertheless gains a
draw.
21...&xh7!
Another surprise! Apparently Mickey was
expecting the unclear 2l...<4>h8? 22 h6 g6 23
itf4! (but not my Informator 23 f4(?!) be­
cause of 23—f6! 24 fxe5 dxe5) 23...1rb6 24
£kb5l.
22 £sb3?!
White would also have lost after 22 itf4?!
jLxd4 23 Wxd4 e5, and after the more resil­
ient 22 Ae3 2fc8! (against such an armada
one cannot hold out!) 23 Jtd l 1 ^5 24 £>b3
£ixb3 25 cxb3 i.c6! 26 ±d4 i.b5 27 i.xe5
i.d3+! or 23 2g5 11)6 24 £scb5 1^5 25 £>a3
£sxe4! 26 fxe4 i.xe4 27 i.f3 i.xc2+l.
22.. .£tac2l
The decisive blow. The white rooks on g l
and h i simply become silent witnesses to
the death of their king.
23 £ ixc5 (23 h6 £ia3+ 24 <4 >a2 g6 and wins) 1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 £ k6 3 £k3 (an anti-Svesh-
23.. .£sa3+ 24 <&a2 lx c 5 25 £>a4 (despera­ nikov move order, which I myself employed
454
tion) 25...^c2! (flamboyant: 26 £ ixc5 Sb<b2
mate!) 26 ^ b l #a3! 0-1
In view of 2 7 1 ^ 2 Sfc8.
It was a pity that the tournament did not
conclude with this striking miniature. It was
effectively already won: by scoring three
successive wins and reaching 7Vi out of 10,
two rounds before the finish I was one and a
half points ahead of my nearest rivals -
Anand and Topalov. It was them that I still
had to play, but I had no mental strength left
for a big effort, and also I was terribly op­
pressed by the thought that these were to be
the last games in my professional career.
A draw with White against Anand would
guarantee me first place even in the event of
a loss in the last round, since I had more
wins with Black - the tie-break which was
known in advance. And I was unable to force
myself to fight for a win in a Petroff Defence
(cf. Game No.82, note to White’s 16th move),
offering a draw practically without any play,
something which I still regret. That day
Topalov won with Black against Vallejo and
was now just a point behind me.
And so, the concluding round, a game
with the resurgent Veselin Topalov, who
seven months later was to win the FIDE
version of the world championship. To
complete the historic picture, I decided also
to annotate this dramatic game, despite the
painful memories. Up to a certain point
Black did not play badly...
Game 100
V.Topalov-G.Kasparov
Linares, 14th Round, 10.03.2005
Sicilian Defence B30

several times) B...e5
3...£>f6 4 i-b5 #07 5 0-0 £>d4 6 Z el a6 7
&C4 d6 8 £>d5 £>xd5 9 exd5 g6 10 £>xd4 cxd4
11 d3 h6 (Kasparov-Leko, Linares 2003;
Topalov-van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005) was
not to my taste. I did not risk playing 3.g6:
Veselin is well-known as an expert on the
Dragon. The move 3 .e5 is safer - I myself
had not played this before, but I knew this
set-up quite well for White.
4 i-C4 d6 5 d3 £e7 6 0-0
I preferred 6 £wi2 7 £rfi and £>e3
(Kasparov-Piket, Zurich (rapid) 2001; Kas-
parov-Babula, Prague (simul’) 2001; Kas-
parov-Radjabov, Linares 2004) or 6..JLg5 7
h4 ^.xd2+ (7-.-S.h6 8 WhSl, Kasparov-
Sutovsky, Tel Aviv (simul’) 1998) 8 Sxd2 4if6,
and in the 8th round against Leko I chose 9
0- 0 (instead of our earlier 9 Sg5 h6!, Mos­
cow (rapid) 2002; Linares 2004) 9 -i-e6 10 f4
1- xc4 11 dxc4 h5 12 f5l? £>g4 13 f6!, but
after I3...gxf6 14 £>d5 £>e7! 15 £>xf6+ 4ixf6
16 Zxf6 £ig8 17 2f5 1i rxh4 Black was able to
defend.
6...£>f6
7£>h4
Not the hackneyed 7 ^ g 5 0-0 8 f4 Sg4, as
Topalov played in games with Leko and
Kramnik (Linares 2004). ‘A novelty without
particular pretensions, but with the advan­
Life after Death
tage that it forces Kasparov to think with his
head at the very start of the game’
(Danailov).
7».£>d4
I did not even consider 7...£>xe4?!: after 8
dxe4! (8 £>xe4?! d5!) 8..JLxh4 9 f4 White has
excellent attacking prospects. 7...0-0 with
the idea of 8 f4 Sg4 is okay, but it could
have been assumed that the immediate
occupation of the d4-outpost by the knight
was expected least of all by Topalov.
8 gB (preparing f2-f4 and £>g2-e3; 8 f4?!
Sg4!) 8-.ij.g4
Here I spent a long time considering
whether or not to play 8...a6 9 a4 ji.g4, but in
the end I decided that this inclusion was not
essential.
9 f3 i.e 6 10 £ g 5 £>g8!
In principle 10...0-0 was also not bad, but
then after l l £>g2 £>e8 12 i.xe7 1i rxe7 13
4ie3 White would be able to occupy d5. Now,
however, Black seizes control of this impor­
tant square,
l l £xe7 £>xe7
12 f4l (White has to hurry, as otherwise
there follows ...0-0 and ...d6-d5, when his
entire opening plan collapses) 12...exf4 13
£xe6
Blocking the f-file by 13 gxf4 is illogical:
after this there is more than one good reply,
455
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
but I was planning the clear 13.. JLxc414 dxc4
f5l? 15 £ixf5 £>exf5 16 exf5 0-0 with equality.
13.. .fxe6 14 Sxf4
After 14 gxf4 both the simple 14...0-0 and
the audacious I4...'ird7 followed by ...0-0-0
are favourable for Black. But now a double-
edged position has arisen.
14.. .6d7l?
Apart from this original move, lA...1# ^
was not bad, or else 14...b5 15 Sf2 g5 16 £)f3
£}ec6 17 £ixd4 cxd4 18 *he2 1^)6, and if 19
Wcl, then 19-0-0-0! 20 WxgS b4 with excel­
lent play.
15 £>f3l
Topalov began playing, so to speak, by tbe
first line of tbe computer. After 15 1^4?!
#g8! White would unexpectedly have
encountered problems.
15.. .6f8
Aiming to seize control of the f-file. The
active 15-Ii rb6 would have allowed 16 e5!,
for example: I6...d5 17 £ixd4 cxd4 18 £ia4
Wc6 19 c4! £tf5 20 b4 with the initiative, or
16.. .£>g6 17 Sf7+ ^ 8 18 Sxg7 £>f5 19 Sxg6
hxg6 20 exd6 with good compensation for
the exchange.
I6 2xf8
16 £ixd4 cxd4 17 £)e2, not conceding the
file, deserved consideration: if I7 .e5 18
2xf8 (18 S fl #b6!) I8...#xf8 19 # d 2 #f7
456
with the idea of -2f8, then 20 2fl! W/xa2 21
C3 dxc3 22 £ sxc3 11)3 23 d4 l b 6 24 l g 5
lx b 2 25 lg 4 + *c6 26 d5+ *c7 27 lx g 7
2e8 28 <£>dl, and White, after picking up the
h-pawn, gains some advantage. Therefore
17-£}c6 18 l d 2 l e 7 19 2 a fl e5 is more
solid, with equality.
16.. .1 xf8 17 ^ x d 4 cxd4 18 <£>e2 l f 6 (with
the intention of ...2f8) 19 c3!
Rejecting the drawing 19 I f l . On seeing
an opportunity to invade on the f-file, I
plunged into a calculation of the variations...
19.. .2f8!
This gambit idea appealed to me: there
was every indication that I would be able to
force the so desirable draw! If 19-dxc3, then
20 la 4 + £ic6 21 2fl! seemed unpleasant,
and although after 2l...le7! (better than my
Informator 21...1g5(?!) 22 lb 3 !) Black holds
the position, he loses the initiative.
20 ^ x d 4 (of course, Veselin did not even
contemplate 20 I f l? ! dxc3 21 bxc3 lf3 !)
20.. .£ic6
Played after further thought and hesita­
tion: I had the urge to play 20...1i rf2+!? 21
<&hl 2f6 with the threat of ...2h6 or first
21.. .£lc6. This would have denied White the
move Wfl and guaranteed an easy draw.
But, alas, it was not my day-
21 # f l !
Exploiting the chance offered. Black
would not have been caused any problems
by either 21 £)xc6 #f2+ 22 & hl bxc6 23 2 c l
'#f3+ (23-1i rxb2 is also possible), or 21 'i rb3
1B,f2+ 22 <&>hl £>xd4 (22...£>d8 is equal) 23
#xb7+ &e8 24 1^8+ 25 l rxa7+ *g8 26
1 ^ 4 We2 (26...1rxb2 is equal) 27 * g l e5 - I
was engrossed in the calculation of this
particular drawing variation.
Topalov’s unexpected, seemingly inoffen­
sive move completely unsettled me, and,
losing control, I chose the ‘most elementary’
way to the drawing haven...

‘You don’t have to be a genius to establish
that the only thing Black should avoid in this
position is the transition into a pawn end­
ing. But it is apparent that the inner calm,
necessary for the taking of decisions in a
game, had been irrevocably lost by Kasparov
in the course of the endless and ultimately
fruitless discussions regarding a match for
the world championship.’ (Zaitsev).
21...1xfl+??
A tragic outcome - a dreadful, inexplica­
ble move. Black had three fairly simple ways
of gaining a draw:
1) 21...£ixd4 22 lx f6 2xf6 23 cxd4 Sf3 24
fid l g5! 25 4g2 (25 g4?l d5l) 25...g4, or 24
S fl (to me this seemed dangerous) 24...Sxd3
25 Sf7+ 4c6 26 Sxg7 2xd4 27 Uxh7 Sxe4 28
4*2 d5l - a worthy counter to White’s
passed pawns;
2) 2l...£ie5 22 1 ^ 6 Sxf6 23 S d l £ig4,
regaining the pawn: 24 c4 2f2 25 h3 £le3 26
4xf2 £lxdl+ and ...£lxb2, or 24 2 e l (24 2d2
£>e3) 24~.£)f2 25 2e3 £ig4 26 2e2 (26 2f3
£>e5) 26...^e5 27 2d2 2f3l and ...2xd3;
3) 21...1d8 (a sharper continuation, and
one that I saw!) 22 l e 2 £>xd4 23 cxd4 H>6
or 22 £*3 1136+ 23 d4 lx b 2 24 2b 1 lx c 3 25
2xb7+ 4e8(d8) 26 2b3 lc 2 , when the white
king is no better than Black’s, and if 27 ld 3 ,
then 27...1xd3 28 2xd3 4e7(d7).
Life after Death
22 2 x f l 2 x f l+ 23 4 x f l £)xd4 24 cxd4 d5?
An incorrect plan, as is the attempt to
gain counterplay on the queenside -
24.. .4c6 25 4*2 4b5?l 26 4*3 4 b 4 27 4*4
a5 (Zaitsev), which does not work because of
28 d5! exd5 29 e5l g5+ 30 4*5, etc. Black
should have stood his ground, avoiding any
weakenings. Had 1had even a modicum of
sense left, I would have played 24...4>e7 25
4e2 4d7 26 4e3 4 e7 27 h4 4d7, when
White would still have had to think about
how to break through (28 d5 exd5 29 exd5
4e7). If there is a win, it is far from obvious:
Black’s position has to be loosened on both
wings. But after 24...d5? he loses by force.
25 4*2 4e7
25...g5 was also hopeless: 26 4*3 h5 27 h4
gxh4 28 gxh4 4 e7 29 4e3! (Zaitsev) with the
threat of 4*4, and if 29...4*7, then 30 4d2l,
approaching the d5-pawn from the queen-
side.
26 4*3 4*6 27 h4?
A mistake! As many commentators have
pointed out, White would have won by 27
4g4l 4g6 (27- h 6 28 4h5) 28 4*4 4*6 29 h4
h5 (29—h 6 30 h5) 30 g4 hxg4 31 4xg4 or
27.. .g6 28 h3l (28 h4? h6 is a draw) 28...h6
(28...h5+ 29 4h4l) 29 h4, and in every case
zugzwang is decisive.
27...g6?
457
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
27...h6! was essential, and then 28 h5 ig S
29 g4 g6 30 hxg6 ix g 6 31 ^ 4 '4>f6 with a
draw, or 28 (28 * g 4 g6!) 28...g5+ 29
hxg5+ hxg5+ 30 i e 3 (a subtle move of Igor
Zaitsev’s; 30 i g 4 &g6 is a draw), when
30.. .4,e7? will not do: 31 &e2 i e 8 (‘other­
wise Black loses because of zugzwang’) 32
*d2 *d7 33 *c3 *c6 34 * b 4 *b6 (34...b6
35 * a 4 *c7 36 *b5 *b7 37 a3 a6+ 38 * b 4
i c 6 39 b3 a5+ 40 i a 4 is also bad) 35 b3 a5+
36 * a 4 * a 6 37 b4 b5+ 38 *b3 * b 6 39 *c3l
(Zaitsev gives 39 bxa5+(?) ix a 5 40 g4 4^6(7)
41 &b4 and wins, but here 40...b4! saves
Black) or 35...a6 36 * a 4 * a7 37 *a5 b6+ 38
* b 4 *b7 39 *c3 *c6 40 *d2 * d 6 41 *e3
* e7 42 '4f3 '4>f6 43 * g4 * g 6 44 b4 b5 45 a3
- again zugzwang!
However, Black miraculously saves the
game with SO -igei 31 g4 (White is forced
to block the kingside: if 31 &d2, then
31.. .*h5) 31...^f6 32 *d2 * e7 (of course,
not 32...a5? 33 b4l or 32...b5? 33 a4l bxa4 34
&C3 a5 35 exd5l exd5 36 b4l and wins, but
not immediately 35 b4? because of
35-.axb4+ 36 ix b 4 e5! with a draw) 33 &c3
i d 6 34 4 ^ 4 &c€> 35 ia S , and ‘the white
king gradually conquers squares along the
fifth rank’, but after 35...&d6 36 i b 5 (oth­
erwise Black has a fortress) 36...e5! the
position is a draw: 37 exd5 &xd5 38 dxe5
*xe5 39 *c5 ^ 4 40 d4 *xg4 41 d5 ^ 5 ! 42
4^6! (42 d6? £>e6 and Black wins) 42...g4 43
*c7 g3 44 d6 g 2, etc.
28 b4 (White simply waits for his opponent
to run out of pawn moves, and then breaks
through) 28...b5 29 ^ 4 h6 (29...h5 30 g4) 30
*g4
With the threat of h4-h5. Black resigned
(l-O): in any event he cannot hold his d5-
pawn.
A difficult, highly painful defeat - one
wants to say undeserved, but it was defi­
458
nitely not accidental: my mind was already
elsewhere. During play I couldn’t stop think­
ing about what words I would use to inform
the public about the conclusion of my chess
career, and as a result I cracked under the
pressure.
But nevertheless I was awarded another
model of the mining derrick - the traditional
prize for the winner of Linares, this ‘chess
Wimbledon’. From 1990 I took part in 14 of
the 15 super-toumaments held here, win­
ning nine times, three times taking or
sharing second place, and twice sharing
third, with an overall score o f+66 -7 =95.
That same evening, 10 March 2005, I ar­
ranged a press conference, at which I ‘sud­
denly’ announced my retirement from
professional chess and my intention to
concentrate both on writing and on social
and political activity. In my mother’s eyes
there were tears, and the assembled col­
leagues and journalists also did not hide
their emotions. To a question, what had
provoked this decision, I replied:
‘It’s very difficult to quote one reason. If I
try I could tell you that as you know I am a
man of big goals. I have to achieve some­
thing. I have to prove something. In Linares I
wanted to prove for myself first of all that I
play better than the others. I did. But I no
longer see any real goal in the world of
chess. The complete mess of the last two
years added bit by bit to my frustration.
What’s happened with FIDE in the past years
was scandalous and I didn’t hear a single
voice of concern or support for Gairy Kas­
parov.
‘After the Prague Agreement I had regular
disappointments with the entire process,
and this process was used for advancing the
agenda of others, eventually at my expense...
I recognise that in the nearest future there
will be no chance for a reunified title and

frankly speaking there is nothing else I can
hope for in the world of chess. I haven't lost
my passion for chess, so maybe from time to
time I could play for fun, definitely in some
rapid tournaments. But it should be only for
fun.’
And, indeed, why should I strain myself in
tournaments, maintaining the No.l rating in
the world, if the ‘higher powers’ had decided
on no account to allow a return match with
Kramnik? How long could I wait and endure
this conspiracy of silence? 1needed to move
forward and concern myself with something
else, seeing as there were numerous matters I
was involved with. Ihave always thought that
a person should aim for improvement and, as
far as possible, change something in their life
and their surroundings...
The era of confusion in the chess world,
which began in 1993 after the withdrawal of
Short and me from FIDE, entered a new phase
from the late 1990s. The easy money, thrown
by llyumzhinov at the knock-out tourna­
ments, enticed many grandmasters and
undermined the historic tradition of world
championships. True, within a few years it
became apparent that the winners of the
'knock-outs’ were not altogether genuine
champions, and from 2005 FIDE nevertheless
transformed these tournaments into the
World Cup, switching to the contesting of the
title in double-round super-tournaments and
matches of 12 games, and, from 2008, finally
only in matches.
In 1993,1dreamed of uniting the ideas of
the PCA and the GMA, their managerial and
trades union functions. I hoped that Short
would rally western grandmasters around
the new project, but it quickly became clear
that he did not enjoy sufficient prestige
among them. Alas, under the fire of constant
criticism it did not prove possible to create
an efficient infrastructure, although in
Life after Death
1993-95 we found - for the only time in
chess history! - a powerful corporate spon­
sor, and for the first time the leading
grandmasters made proper eamings. But we
were led down by a lack of solidarity.
When we signed the Prague Agreement in
2002, Bessel Kok and I were hoping to im­
prove the working of FIDE from within (what
optimism was displayed at that time can be
seen in my introduction to Part I of My Great
Predecessors)), but with llyumzhinov nothing
came of this. On the contrary, for a long time
this agreement delayed changes for the
better in world chess. Thanks to it llyumzhi­
nov retained the post of FIDE President in
the 2002 elections and he steers it to this
day, Kramnik acquired the desired legiti­
macy without any particular obligations and
striking competitive successes, while Kok
and I suffered a major failure - and again
zero solidarity!
The dismal state of world chess, the fact
that it has effectively become the property of
the capricious ruler of Kalmykia, is in my
view a direct consequence of the fact that
the breakthrough, prepared by the GMA in
1990 and almost carried out by the PCA in
1995, was not supported by the chess elite.
They wanted also to be fed by FIDE, and in
addition they were afraid of the ‘Kasparov
dictatorship’. Thus a rare historic opportu­
nity was missed. It stands to reason that I
bear the moral responsibility for this, but it
should also be shared with those who cate­
gorically refused to support me and did
everything possible to prevent the necessary
changes.
Since 2005 I have not only been active in
Russian politics, upholding the ideals of
freedom and democracy. I have also had to
earn a living, and I have been increasingly
travelling round the world - for want of any
eamings in Russia. Over a period of eight
459
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
years I have given more than a hundred
lectures and seminars on the theory of
decision taking, at firms including Google,
IBM, Facebook, General Electric and Fujitsu,
in major banks, universities and at business
conferences.
2007 saw the release of my book How Life
Imitates Chess, which was published in more
than twenty languages. In it I formulated my
impressions of the mechanism of taking
decisions, based on an analysis of my own
chess experience. At that time the global
consultants firm Creators Synectics included
me in its list of 100 top living geniuses, and
the magazine Time in its list of the 100 most
influential people of the year. And recently I
have been working intensively on a book
devoted to current innovatory problems.
After I stopped playing in official events I
did not disappear from chess life. I contin­
ued playing blitz on the internet, giving
simultaneous displays and attentively
following the development of chess theory.
In 2006 the publication of the five-volume
My Great Predecessors was completed, and
after it there followed Revolution in the 70s
(2007), three volumes (2008-2010) of my
complete games with Anatoly Karpov, and
the three-volume auto-biographical Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov (2011-2014).
I have worked much and I continue to
work on the advancement of chess in gen­
eral education schools throughout the
world, constantly expanding the activities of
the Kasparov Chess Fund, set up back in
460
2002 in the USA. In 2011 a European branch
of the fund was set up, and together with
the European Chess Union it carried out a
highly successful campaign in the European
Parliament to gather the signatures of MEPs
to support the ‘Chess in Schools’ program. In
the same year, 2012, an African branch of
the fund was opened in South Africa.
From time to time I have worked on chess
with the young stars - Carlsen, Nakamura,
Giri... I have also played a little myself: in
2006 I shared first place with Karpov in a
small blitz tournament, in 2009 I won a
‘nostalgic’ rapid and blitz match against him
(cf. Kasparov vs. Karpov 1988-2009), and I
beat Short ryh-Vh in a blitz match (Leuven, 9
October 2011).
In 2010 I actively supported my former
opponent at the chess board, Anatoly Kar­
pov, in the FIDE presidential elections. Kar­
pov proposed a wide-ranging program of
reform of Russian and world chess. However,
the Kremlin, as well as the leaders of. the
Russian Chess Federation, gave preference to
the ‘old-timer’ llyumzhinov, well known not
only for his chess and corruption scandals -
but also his contacts with aliens!
Before the 2014 elections, after talking to
many people throughout the world, I came
to the conclusion that, using my experience
of political battles and many years of fight­
ing for the highest achievements in sport, I
myself should try and change for the better
the situation in the chess world, and I de­
cided to stand for the post of FIDE President.

Chapter Four
Experiments
Simuls’ against Professionals
As has already been mentioned, throughout
my chess career I have aimed for unexplored
experiroents and I have tirelessly blazed new
trails. Thus in 1996 and 1997 I conducted an
unprecedented experiment ‘man against
machine’ - two matches with the super­
computer Deep Blue. And even earlier I was
the first in the world to began giving simul­
taneous displays with clocks against masters
and grandmasters - entire Olympiad teams
from various countries! The current section
is about these displays.
But first, about the history preceding
them. Simuls’ with clocks were practised in
the USSR, and I acquired my first, priceless
experience back in childhood, at two all-
union tournaments of pioneers palaces
(1974 and 1975), where teams of seven
juniors played in simuls’ against grandmas­
ters - the captains of the opposing teams (cf.
Part I of Cany Kasparov on Carry Kasparov).
Later I also gained experience in giving
simuls’: three times at these tournaments I
was the captain of the Baku team and each
time I gave five simuls’. The games were not
Life after Death
preserved, which is a pity: among my oppo­
nents were Khalifman, Epishin, Naumkin
and other future grandmasters. But I re­
member the results: +26=9 (1981), +27-2=6
(1985) and +30-1=4 (1987).
Also memorable was the first simultane­
ous display in history where the moves were
transmitted through space by satellite. This
was on 30 June 1984. Play was on ten
boards: I and the five best English juniors
were in London, and the five best Americans
in New York. Although four of my opponents
- Adams, Conquest, Ilya Gurevich and Wolff
- were future grandmasters, I won +7=3 (the
best game was No.93 in Part I of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov). There was
almost the same result in another ‘cosmic’
simul’, against ten players who were on five
continents - in the USSR, USA, Canada,
England, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Austra­
lia, Japan and Senegal: +8-1=1 (a loss to
Adams and a draw with Ulibin).
From London 1984 I set off to pick up an­
other chess ‘Oscar’ in Barcelona, where I
gave a simul’ against seven solid Spaniards:
+3=4 (among those I beat was lllescas). And
461
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

in December 1985, immediately after my

unofficial match with Timman (cf. Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov), for the
first time I took on a professional team in a
simul’. I was opposed by the Hamburg club
from the West German Bundesliga, beaded
by grandmaster Chandler. Before this I bad a
sleepless night, a two-bour press conference
in Amsterdam and the flight to Hamburg. I
began the simul’ just two hours after land­
ing and snatching a meal - I didn’t even
have time to draw breath!
To this day I remembeT the ironically scep­
tical smiles of the German public: the things 9 cxd5 £)axc5 10 # c 4 b5! (this suggests
that the young wotM champion would do in itself) l l £ixb5?!
OTder to popularise chess. My opponents 11 # x b 5 w a s unprom ising: ll..J L a 6 12
were Teady to play Black on all eight boards, Wfb4 ^ .x f l 13 ‘A’x f l ^.xc3 1 4 bxc3 w ith
and my offer to give them the white pieces pow erful d o m in a tio n foT th e p a w n (look
on four was greeted with joyful surprise. In alon e at th e Testless king on f l) , b u t th e
the end I managed to win just one game m o v e in th e g a m e is even w orse.
with White, and one, - a memorable one - Il...± x b 2 12 £ c 7!
with Black. A desperate interposition.

Came 101
F.Behrhorst-G.Kasparov
Simultaneous Display,
Hamburg 23.12.1985
Crunfeld Defence D931

1 d4 £>f6 2 C4 g6 3 £)c3 d5 (my first public

experience of employing the Griinfeld) 4
£>f3 &-g7 5 ^.f4 0-0 (5-.C5?! - Game No.l in
Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986-87) 6 e3
A harmless variation. LateT 6 S cl dxc4
came to the fore (Game Nos.48, 50 in Kas­
parov vs. Karpov 1988-2009).
6...C5 7 dxc5 £)e4 (7....&e6 is also played, but
most often - 7 - l ra5) 8 H j 3? (8 S cl £ ixc3 9
bxc3 dxc4 is correct, with equality) 8...£)a6!
I also played this in the Catalan, but here
it is even with gain of tempo! Black seizes
the initiative.
12...a6?!
Here I decided to play ‘brilliantly’, but this
was wrong! X2..MdJ\ (threatening ...a7-a6)
would have been decisive after 13 ^.e5 (13
£ie5 I T 5) 13-^.xal 14 iLxal £ a6 15 1 ^ 4 f6
16 a4 Sfb8 with the idea of 17..Jb<b5 18
axb5 a6!. The rapid conclusion of the game
would have made it easier for me on the

462

other boards, but I could not refrain from
making the flamboyant queen sacrifice.
13 -<i-xd8 axb5 14 ttc2 (after 1 4 li'xbS? ji . c 3+
15 i d l Zxd8 White is completely defence­
less) 14...-M-C3+15 Wxc3
The queen has to be returned: 15 ^ d 2 (15
&dl? 2xd8) 15...i.xd2+ 16 #xd2 ^xd2 17
Jixe7 4^cb3! 18 axb3 Zxal+ 19 *xd2 2e8 20
d6 i.d7 21 g3 Eea8 was worse.
1 5 -^ xc3 16 xxe7 ^b3!
A picturesque position: the knights have
trapped the rook!
17 Zdl?
Now a little work of art occurs: the unde­
veloped state of White’s kingside causes his
downfall. The correct continuation was 17
i.xf 8 ^ a l 18 id 3 ! (18 i.c5?! -?ie4!)
l8.JIxa2 (I8...&xf8?! 19 id 2 ) 19 id 6 ! if 5
20 ix f5 gxf5 21 0-0 -ixd5 22 i.e5 5x2 23
Zdl, or 17-Sxf8 18 Z bl (not now 18 id3?!
b4! 19 Z dl £ixdl 20 axb3 £ixe3! or 20 i x d l
Zxa2 21 Z fl i.d7!) I8...£\xbl 19 axb3 5*3
20 &gl JLb7 21 *d2 <^e4+ 22 ic 2 , main­
taining the balance.
17...Zxa2 18 &xf8 (18 d6?! £>xdl 19 <£xdl
i.g4! and wins) I8...&xf819 £sd4
Returning the pawn. 19 ^ e5 -^xdl 20
i x d l ^*5 or 19 Zgl b4! 20 i.c4 ia 6 ! 21
i.xa6 Zxa6 22 d6 ie 8 was also depressing -
the black knights are dominant!
Experiments
19—^ixdl 20 -Jib3 - J i f 2 21 Z gl - ig4
(21...b4 or 2l...£>e4 was also good) 22 d6?!
22 e4 was more resilient, although after
22.. .-?ixh2 23 i.e2 ^ig4 the evaluation of the
position is clear.
22.. .^xe3 (beginning the conversion stage)
23 ^c5 i.g 4 (23...i.e6! 24 .ie2 &c4 or 24 h3
b4 was more forceful) 24 h3
The capture 24 ix b s was weak on ac­
count of 24.~'£)xg2+ (but not the ‘elegant’
24--Za5? 25 d7!) 25 i f l ^e3+ 26 i e l ^ < 2+
27 i f 2 ?ki4+ 28 ig 3 ^ixb5 29 &xg4 ^xd6.
24—Zc2! 25 -5^6 (25 ^>e4 i.f5) 25...ie6
The rest is elementary, although - espe­
cially in a simul’! - Black still has to be
careful and accurate.
26 i e 2 i.c4 27 i-f3 - f 5 28 d7 i e 7 29 £>b8
Zcl+ 30 if 2 Zxgl 31 i x g l - d 4 32 i.e4 f5
33 i b l i e 6 34 i f 2 ix d 7
And on the 51st move White resigned
(0-1).
But in the other ‘black’ games I lost (in­
cluding to Chandler and Wahls) and for the
only time over all the years I was defeated in
a simul’: 3V2-4V2(+2-3=3).
This severe test taught me an excellent
lesson: I realised that such simuls’ de­
manded serious preparation! The main
reason for my failure was not so much
463
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
exhaustion, but rather a complete lack of
information about my opponents, which
prevented me from exploiting their weak
points. Appreciating this, I aimed for re­
venge, and all the subsequent events con­
firmed the correctness of my diagnosis.
I obtained additional practice at simulta­
neous displays with clocks in 1986-87, at
sessions of the Botvinnik-Kasparov school.
These were both good training, and a sure
way of studying live the pupils’ styles, in
order to later work on eliminating their
deficiencies. The simuls’ on five or six boards
were notable for the strength of the line-up:
among those playing, already at the master
level, were the young Kramnik, Shirov,
Akopian, Tiviakov, Sakaev, Rublevsky, Ulibin,
Alterman, Serper, Landa, Oratovsky, Gallia-
mova... Altogether I played 56 simul’ games
here, of which I won the majority, and lost,
at different times, only two (to Landa and
Oratovsky - not the most dangerous of the
opponents).
Unfortunately, I have not kept the scores
of these fighting encounters, which were of
undoubted value for chess. I will give one of
the rare games that was published - with
the 14-year-old Vladimir Akopian, played at
the first session of the school. In that very
first simul’ which, to the astonishment of my
young opponents and their trainers, con­
cluded with the score 6-0.
Game 102
G.Kasparov-V.Akopian
Simultaneous Display,
Pestovo 01.04.1986
King’s Indian Defence E971
1 d4 £sf6 2 c4 §6 3 £sc3 i.g 7 4 e4 0-0 5 £sf3
d6 6 JLe2 e5 7 0 -0 <£sc6 8 d5 <£se7 9 £sd2
At that time Volodya regularly played the
464
King’s Indian, and I decided to choose a less
fashionable move than 9 <£sel (Game Nos.58,
64, 77 in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov).
9...£sd7 (9..a5 10 a 3 £sd7 11 S b l f5 12 b4
‘A’hS! is sounder - Game No.80 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 10 b4
10.. .a5?!
Mixing up the plans! 10...f5 11 c5 £sf6 12
f3 f4 is better (but not 12...a5^ 13 bxa5l,
Geller-I.Zaitsev, 37th USSR Championship,
Moscow 1969), while if 12 a4 Black has both
12.. .f4 (Kramnik-Nakamura, Khanty-Man­
siysk Olympiad 2010), and I2...g5 (Anand-
Nakamura, London 2011).
11 bxa5 (of course!) ll..JS x a 5 12 <S^b3 JIa8
13 a4 f5 14 f3 f4?! (nevertheless there is
more life in l4...‘A’h8 with the idea of ...<£sg8
and..Jk.h6) 15 a5!
More accurate than 15 ^.a3 b6 (I5...g5?!
16 c5!, Gligoric-Donner, West Berlin 1971).
Akopian looked perplexed: my swift offen­
sive on the queenside obviously outstrips his
counterplay on the kingside.
15.. .g5 (I5...b6 16 £sb5!) 1 6 JLa3 S f 6 17 C5
(threatening 18 cxd6 cxd6 19 ^ b s) 17...dxc5
1 8 £ sxc5 <£sxc5 19 .&xc5 .&f8 20 # b 3 &h8 2 1
£sb5
White’s pressure has reached the critical
mark.
 Experiments

This hastens the end, but 29...'irc6 30 '$fb 2

JLc5 31 ^.d5 #d6(c7) 32 £xc5 bxc5 33 Wa3,
etc., was also hopeless.
30 i.xc5 bxc5 3 1 S d l £\f8 32 Wb2 Sxe6 33
iLxe6 W x e 6 34 Sd5 £\g6 35 Wb7
And immediately after the time control
Black resigned (1 -0). Quite a complete,
instructive, textbook game.

In May 1986 in a simul’ against the West

21.. .JLd7 (a difficult choice: 21...£\g6 22 jk,xf8 but playing for it were five future grand­
£\xf8 23 Wb4 i-d7 24 Sfcl is also bad) 22 masters - Lutz, Brunner, Stangl, Schlosser
f if d b6
22...C6 did not work after 2 3 .&b6 #c8 2 4
1 ^ 2 ! £sg6 2 5 dxc6 fixc6 2 6 £sa7, etc.
23 axb6 cxb6 (23-Sxal 24 fixal cxb6 25
± f2 and wins) 24 fixa8 Wxa8 25 r c7 #d8
26 ± f 2 £>g6 27 £>e6?!
27 ^.b5l was more forceful, in order after
the exchange of the light-squared bishops to
establish the knight on e6.
27.. .1.xe6 28 dxe6 #e8?l (28...1rd6 29 &C4
Was or 28...#d2 29 S a l ^ 4 was more
resilient, aiming for the exchange of queens,
although also in the endgame there are few
saving chances) 29 -&C4
29...&C5
German junior team I confidently won 6V2-
IV2 (+5=3). This team was definitely some­
what weaker than the one from Hamburg,
and Wahls, who I spectacularly crushed with
White in a Modem Benoni, gaining revenge
for my December defeat.
My game with the 15-year-old Christo­
pher Lutz proved more complicated.
Game 103
G.Kasparov-C.Lutz
Simultaneous Display,
Frankfurt 24.051986
Grunfeld Defence D88
I d4 £sf6 2 c4 g6 3 £«3 d5 4 cxd5 £>xd5 5 e4
£\xc3 6 bxc3 i-g 7 7 i.c 4 c5 8 £\e2 0-0 9 0-0
£\c6 10 JLe3 cxd4
Deviating from the well-known lO-Wcy
or 10..JLg4 (Game No.28 in Part II of Carry
Kasparov on Carry Kasparov). Currently the
immediate 10...b61? is in fashion, also not
rushing to open the c-file.
I I cxd4 b6 12 f i d £» 5
Avoiding 12..JLb7 13 i-b5 Sc8 14 Wa4
^ a 5 15 d5 (Furman-Smyslov, 17th USSR
Championship, Moscow 1949) or I3...£sa5 14
d5 (Spassky-D.Byme, Palma de Mallorca
1968 ).
13 i-d3 e6 14 l d 2 (14 #a4l?) 14...±b7 15

465
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

h4l? (Knaak’s aggressive move) 1 5 ...Wd7 16

£.h 6 ( l 6 h 5 !? )l 6 ...£ic 6 ?! f

31 a3! (after the opening of lines Black is

helpless against the invasion) 3 l—Ec4 32
The initial cause of Black’s problems. axb4 Sxe4 33 Well Sxb4
16.. JLxh6 17 Wxh6 £)c6 with the idea of 18 If 33...‘&’f8, then the reply 34 Wc8+ &e7 35
,&b5 a6! is more accurate (P.Cramling- Wb7+ i f 6 36 Wc6 would have been decisive,
Andersson, Haninge 1989). for example: 36...‘&’e7 37 Ec2! Wxc6 38 dxc6
17 .&xg7 & x g 7 18 ^.b5! a 6 ?! (and here the <&d8 39 Sd 2 +! &c7 (3 9 -.* c 8 40 g3! Sxb4 41
lesser evil was l8...Wd6 19 d5l £ia5) 19 J».xc6 Sd7) 40 b5 (or 40 Sd7+ &xc6 41 Sxf7, then
19 d5! axb5 20 Wc3+ £>e5 21 Wxe5+ f6 22 Sxh7-h8 and h6-h7) 40...Sh4 41 Sd7+ &c8
Wxe6 Wxe6 23 dxe6 or 20...<£>d4 21 £)xd4 42 Sxf7 Exh6 43 Sb7 and SxU6.
^ 8 22 Wc7 was stronger, when Black is in 34 Ea2l Wf8 35 Sa7! Wd8?! (the more
difficulties. However, as it is the passed d- resilient 35...Sd4 would also not have saved
pawn guarantees White an enduring advan­ Black in view of 36 Sd7 and g2-g3, when he
tage. ends up in zugzwang) 36 g3 (now all roads
19.. ..6XC6 20 d5l &b5 (20...exd5? 21 Wc3+) lead to Rome) 36...Wb8 37 Wg5 We8 38 Wf6
21 S f d l (2 1 Wb2 +!? &g8 22 S fd l) 2l...e5 22 S b l+ 39 &g2 1-0
h5 Sac 8 (22...Wd6!?) 23 h6+ (this pawn is
worth a piece!) 23 ...&g 8 24 S x c 8 Developing the correct strategy for this
24 £ ic3!? .&C4 25 £>bl with the threat of simul’ was helped by competent preparation
£ia3 or Ec3 and Edcl was more creative, but - a study of my future opponents’ games.
Itried to play simply and solidly. This success made me more confident that
24.. .5xc 8 25 £ ic3 Wd6 (allowing an unfa­ in this way I would also subsequently be able
vourable exchange: if 25....&C4, then 26 Eel! to impose ‘my play’ on my simul' opponents
and £)dl-e3 is unpleasant) 26 £)xb5 axb5 27 and take them away from those positions in
Wb2 b4 28 E d (28 We2! and Wa6 was more which they felt comfortable.
forceful) 28...SC5 29 Sc2 Wc7 30 Sd2 Wd6 And, indeed, in February 1987 I gained
After 30...Scl+ 31 4>h2 Wc3 32 d6! Wxb2 more than convincing revenge against
33 Sxb2 &f8 34 f4! Black has a difficult rook Hamburg: 7-1 (+6=2). On this occasion
endgame, but this was the best practical Chandler was not competing, but the aver­
chance. age rating of the team had increased and in

466

general the line-up was stronger. During the
play I not only make use of my ‘pin-point’
preparation, but I also experimented with
opening set-ups which I was then preparing
for world championship matches. In particu­
lar, I won a publishable game with Black
against the 19-year-old Matthias Wahls.
Game 104
M.Wahls-G.Kasparov
Sim ultaneous Display,
H am burg 11.02.1987
Sicilian Defence B33
I e 4 c5 2 £sf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 £)f6 5
£)c3 £)c6 (I had already played this in a 1985
simul’ against Chandler, provoking White
into playing 6 £)xc6) 6 £ldb5
Chandler did in fact reply 6 £)xc6 bxc6 7
e5 £)d5 8 £)e4 Ifc7 9 f4 ^ 6 10 c4, and after
10.. .^.b4+ (I0...£se3 - Game No.89 in Part II
of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov) 11 <4 >e2
f5 12 £)f2 (12 exf6 ^xf6 13 .&e3 Ifd8 is also
unclear) 12..JLa6 13 “&f3 £se7 14 .&e3 .&c5
15 i.xc5 Ifxc5 a sharp battle developed. But
Wahls follows the main line.
6.. .d6 7 i.f4 e5 8 i.g5 a6 9 £ia3 b5 10 £)d5
If 10 ,&xf6 gxf6 11 £)d5 there could have
followed ll...f5 12 .&d3 (12 .&xb5 - Game
No.85) 12 ..JLe6 13 Ifh5 .&g7 14 0-0 f4 15 c4
bxc4 16 JLc4 0-0 (Koch-Kasparov, Evry
(simul') 1988).
10.. .1fa5+
I looked at this check in 1985 with Timo-
shchenko, the co-author of the Sveshnikov
Variation. Sveshnikov himself preferred the
usual response 10..JLe7 (Game Nos.ll, 13,
49).
I I ,&d2 #d8 12 .&g5 (12 c4l - cf. below)
12.. .1fa5+13 .&d2 Ifd8 14 £ixf6+
After repeating moves, Wahls chooses a
quiet line. The main rejoinder is 14 c4l £sxe4
Experiments
15 cxb5 ik.e6! 16 &C4! £ie7 17 .&e3!, when
Black loses material, in return for which he
gains some counterplay: 17...Sc8 18 .&b6!
(18 <S^b6 d5l, Gobet-Kasparov, Switzerland
(simuT) 1987) I8...lfd7 19 bxa6! Sxc4 20 a7
Jb(d5 (things are not so clear even in the
wild variation 20...£)xd5?! 21 a8lf+ Sc8 22
Ifaa4 £ixb6 23 Ifxe4 d5 24 Ifxe5 .&b4+ 25
<&fl 0-0, where for the second white queen
Black has only two minor pieces, but that is
what I was intending to play!) 21 £)xc4 ^.a8!
22 f3 d5 23 £ixe5 Ife6, etc.
14...lfxf6 15 ^.d3 (15 c4 Ifg6!) 15...%6 16
0-0 &e7
17 C3
A novelty. We had analysed 17 f4 exf4l
(Sideif-Sade-Gorelov, Aktyubinsk 1985) or 17
c4 i.g4! 18 &e2 (if 18 f3, then I8...^.h3 19
Sf2 ^.h4 20 Se2 £)d4) l8..JLxe2 (l8...^.h3!?
19 ^.f3 £sd4) 19 Ifxe2 <S^d4 20 Ifd3 0-0,
assuming that everywhere Black had a
decent position.
17...d5l (exploiting the undefended position
of the bishop on d3) 18 # e 2 (18 exd5 Ifxd3
19 dxc6 0-0 favours Black) I8....&g4
I8...d4!? 19 £sc2 &h3 or 19 c4 .&h3 de­
served consideration, but I was attracted by
the possibility of giving the opponent a weak
e4-pawn.
19 f3 dxe4 20 .&xe4 ^-f5 2 1 £k 2 (after 21
467
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
jLxfs IfxfS Black is threatening ,.JLxa3)
2 1 ...0-0 (21..JLxe4!?) 22 a4 (22 i.xf5l?)
22—£xe4 23 fxe4
In the event of 231i rxe41i rxe4 24 fxe4 ^ a5
Black has a favourable endgame.
23...Sad8?l
The immediate 23 -b4! was more accu­
rate, and if 24 cxb4, then 24...£sxb4 25 ^xb4
i.xb4 26 i.xb4 Wb6+, regaining the piece
with a small plus.
24 .£.el?! (the equalizing 24 b4 would have
emphasised the drawback to my move)
24-b4l 25 £ f2 (25 cxb4£sd4!)] 25-.-b3?!
25...Sb8 was obviously stronger, but then
an interesting configuration would not have
arisen on the board.
26 £>el?!
Avoiding the sharp variation 26 £>e3!
#xe4 27 *xa6 2d2 28 S ael # g 6 29 £ ic4
2c2l? and ...h7-h5 with unclear play, White
manoeuvres his knight to d5, and I am able
to cany out my idea.
26-£sa5 27 £sd3 We6 28 £sb4 £sc4 29 £)d5
This suggests itself, since after 29 S fdl
2xdl+ 30 Sxdl 2c8 31 £sd5 a5 Black’s
chances are somewhat better.
29—Sxd5l 30 exd5 IfxdS (for the exchange
Black obtains a fine knight and a passed e-
pawn, and in addition the white a4-pawn is
rather weak) 31 S fd l Wc6 32 2d3 f5 33
468
2adlWe4!
Wahls was obviously relying on his occu­
pation of the d-file, and this unexpected
thrust came as a cold shower for him.
34 2 e l (the trouble is that White loses after
34 #xe4? fxe4) 3 4 -* x e2
Black is not satisfied with a draw after
34...£sxb2l? 35 Wxb2 Wxd3 36 Wxb3+ &h8
37 2xe5 £ f6 38 2e3.
35 2xe2
32—2d8!
Also exchanging the rook - usually this
favours the side who is the exchange up, but
here the knight on c4 completely paralyses
White!
36 2xd8+ iLxd8 37 2 e l (37 g4 g6!, and
White has the same problems) 37—^.e7
(37-..e4l?) 38 2 d l £d6!
Restricting the rook and planning to acti­
vate the king. After 38...£sxb2 39 2 b l J.a3 40
g3 g5 41 li >g2 Black’s knight and bishop
would have lost their mobility.
39 <&fl &f7 40 &e2 <&e6 41 ^.e3l (hurrying
to the defence of the b2-pawn) 41—f4 (for
the moment nothing was given by 41...£sxb2
because of 42 2 b l ^x a4 43 2xb3 or 42..JLa3
43 c4!) 42 JLd g5
It is clear that Black is playing for a win,
and the only question is whether White can
save himself. Wahls grew nervous...

43 g4?
The decisive mistake: the two connected
passed pawns are now irresistible! After 43
2d3 g4 44 h3 h5 45 hxg4 hxg4 46 S d l £e7!
47 S h i ^.g5 White would have faced a
difficult struggle for a draw.
43...&C5! 44 Sd8 (or 44 &f3 £id6 45 S e l
&d5) 44—e4l 45 Se8-i- (45 Sc8 f3+, etc.)
4 5 -& d 5 46 2d8+ £>d6 (46..JLd6!) 47 Sd7
After 47 Sf8 e3 48 &f3 the quickest way
to the goal would have been 48...£sc4 49
Sd8+ i.d6!.
47—f3+ 48 & e l e3 49 c4+ &e6 50 £.xe3
i.b 4+ 0-1
An unshowy positional masterpiece ‘in
Petrosian style’.
After this triumph I decided to take on
national teams, and for a starter in May
1987 I cmshed the Swiss team 5'A-'A -
without Korchnoi, but with six international
masters. It was before that simul’ that I first
got my hands on a powerful weapon for
purposeful preparation - the program
ChessBase, which already then had an enor­
mous database of games. From then on I
could efficiently and conveniently study the
play of my opponents, in order then to
exploit their weak points.
Inspired by these new feats, in December
Experiments
1988 in the Parisian suburb of Evny I de­
feated the French team ip/i-l'/i (+4-1=1).
True, not in the team were one of its leaders,
Renet, or the 15-year-old Lautier, the 1988
world junior champion, and on board 6
there was a local club player. Therefore the
score did not satisfy either me (I was vexed
by my loss to Sharif), or the French: they
thought that with a stronger line-up their
chances would have been by no means
worse.
And in June 1989 a ‘return match’ took
place in Evny - a repeat clock simul’ against
the French national team. Playing now were
not only Bachar Kouatly, but also Olivier
Renet (instead of the club player), and they
held a short training session, with the role of
team mentor performed by none other than
Boris Spassky! However, I won by the same
score A'/i-l'/t (+3=3), beating Renet with
White and Kouatly with Black, although this
gripping encounter did not take an easy
course.
Came 105
B.Kouatly-G.Kasparov
Sim ultaneous Display,
Evry 09.06.1989
King’s Indian Defence E92
1 d4 g6 2 c4 i.g 7 3 £ * 3 d6 4 £sf3 £sf6 5 e4
0-0 6 £ e 2 e5 7 d5 as 8 h4
In the Petrosian Variation White usually
plays 8 ^.g5 (Game No.47 in Part II of Carry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov), but my oppo­
nent used to employ the exotic plan with h2-
h4, making it harder for Black to cany out
the ...f7-f5 advance.
8—£ta6 (8...h5 9 .&g5, Kouatly-Gunawan,
Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988) 9 £id2 £k5
Allowing h4-h5, since I was not impressed
by 9-h5 10 f3 c6 11 £sfl £»c5 12 ^.e3
469
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

(Kouatly-Martin del Campo, Thessaloniki exd5, etc.

Olympiad 1988).
10 g4
A novelty instead of the immediate 10 h 5
(Kouatly-Cvitan, Geneva 1988), after which
all the same there would have followed
10.. .a4, squeezing White’s queenside.
10.. .a4 11 h5
The defects of White’s position would
have been emphasised by ll...h6! 12 g5
hxg5 13 h6 JLh8, while if 12 f3, then
12.. .gxh5 13 gxh5 £tti7 and ...£ig5. But I was
attracted by a risky idea, which shocked my
opponent-
12 g5 (12 gxh5 h6 or 12..Jth6) 12...<£)g4 (it
appears that Black is committing hara-kiri)
13® fl
If 13 b4, then 13...axb3 14 £>xb3 ®xb3 15
Wxb3 f5 16 exf5 Js.xf5 17 f3 e4l 18 fxg4 hxg4
19 Jk.e3 c5 with sufficient compensation for
the piece.
13.. .f5 14 f3
At this moment Kouatly was radiating
deep satisfaction with the course of the
game.

14...^f2?!
A flamboyant move, of which I was terri­
bly proud, although objectively it probably
11.. .gxh5?! loses. Correct was 14-fxe4l 15 fxg4 Axg4 16
If 11...C6 I did not like 12 g5, when jtxg4 (16 ±e3 £sd3+ 17 ^ 2 £>f2 is no
12.. .£>e8 is passive, while after 12...£>xh5 13 better) I6...£)d3+ 17 ^ 2 #xg5+ 18 &C2
±xh5 <£sd3+ 14 4 f l H d6 15 Sh 2 a3 #xg4 19 ^xg4 hxg4 with a mass of pawns
(I5...gxh5?l 16 #xh5, Aleksandrov-Kotronias, for the knight and the hope of 20 £>xe4 ®f2l,
Pula 1997) 16 bxa3 lki4 17 £se2 # x a l 18 but after 20 Jte3! White’s chances are
£>b3 ®xa2 19 <Sk3 in the interesting compli­ slightly better.
cations White retains a minimal advantage: 15 ^ x f2 fx e 4 16 &g2?
l9-£sb2 20 ®xa2 <£ixdl 21 jk.xdl cxd5 22 A collapse! Now the scales tip in Black’s

470

favour, whereas after 16 ^g3! exf3 17 ii-d3
a3 (I7...e4?! 18 ^cxe4) 18 £ice4! he would
not have gained sufficient compensation for
the piece.
16.. .a3l! (a highly picturesque position:
17.. .axb2 18 Ji.xb2 #xg5+ is threatened) 17
Sxh5 (or 17 £)g3 exf3+ 18 Jk.xf3 e4l)
17.. .exf3+ 18 ^.xf3 e4!
The King’s Indian bishop begins operating
at full power!
19 ii.e2 iLf5 (a solid developing move;
19.. .#e7!? with the idea of 20 ^ e3 #f7! was
also strong) 20 #d2
White would not have escaped from his
difficulties after 20 Qe3 .&g6 21 Sh3 ^d3!
22 ^.xd3 exd3, etc.
20.. .^.g6 (20...#e7!?) 21 Sh3?!
This hastens the end, but 21 Sh4 # d 7 22
thg3 Sae8 or 22 Ji.g4 # e7 also did not
promise White anything good.
21.. .#d7 22 Sg3 (22 W ei Sae8 and ...<£)d3!
was no better) 22...#f7! (avoiding being
diverted by 22..Ji.e5!?) 23 W ei Sae8
With the irresistible threat of ,..^d3. The
immediate 23...^d3 24 ^.xd3 exd3 25 We6
2ae8 26 Wxf7+ Sxf7 would also have been
decisive.
24 ^.e3 ^d3 25 #d2 axb2 26 S b l i.e5l 27
Sg4 ^f4+?!
An annoying error. 27...^.h5l would have
Experiments
won immediately, since 28 Sh4 ii.xe2 is bad
for White, while if 28 ^g3, then 28..Jk.xg4 29
Jb<g4 JLxg3 30 'i ’xgS £)e5 or 30...h5l 31 gxh6
^ e5 with crushing threats.
28 ^.xf4?!
The resistance would have been pro­
longed by 28 Sxf4 ii.xf4 29 Sxb2, although
even here after 29...^.e5! and ..Ji.h5 White
cannot hold out.
28.. .e3!
The g6-bishop also goes into operation!
Again a picturesque position: for an instant
White has two extra pieces, but enormous
loss of material is inevitable.
29 ^.xe3 (or 29 # e l JLxbl 30 # x b l jk.xf4 31
g6 hxg6 32 2xg6+ ^ 8 ) 29...i.xc3 30 #xc3
jLxbl 31 Sf4 (31 Wxb2 2xe3! 32 £)xe3 # f 2+
33 & hl #xe3 34 W xbl Wxe2 or 31 £)d2
#67!, etc., would also not have saved White)
31.. .2xe3! 0-1
The coordination of the black pieces in
this game inspired me throughout the entire
display in the battles on the other boards.
This was also a notable event: after this
simul’ I realised that I could compete success­
fully against the strongest national teams.
The way was open to even more serious tests,
but in the next couple of years I had no time
for simuls’ against professionals.
471
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
On 19th January 1992 I finally made the
next step: in Baden-Baden I played against
the German team. For the first time four
grandmasters played simultaneously against
me - Hort, Wahls, Lobron and Hertneck. At a
press conference before the start I said that I
had analysed 900 games of my opponents!
The display took place in the presence of
1,500 spectators and was broadcast on TV.
The prize for a winner was a BMW car, but a
loser received nothing. The tension was
enormous, but I managed to withstand it, by
accurately carrying out my own aim of
quickly making two draws and concentrating
on the two remaining games. As a result I
beat Wahls with White, and, with the score
standing at 2-1, in time-trouble Lobron
missed a draw by grabbing a poisoned pawn.
My confident 3-1 win provoked a furore.
In the autumn of that same year I played a
simul’ against the Argentine national team
headed by Panno. In general this team was
weaker than the German one, but we played
on six boards and in two rounds - with White
and Black. I won the first round 4-2, losing
one game - against Ricardi, then in the second
round I gained revenge against him and won
5-1. The overall score was 9-3 (+7-1=4).
After an interval of more than three years
I again found time for clock simuls’. In
January 1996 in Rio de Janeiro I won against
the Brazilian national team headed by Milos
- 5-1 (+4=2). And in September 1997 there
came a return match with Argentina. I
remember that at the start of the display I
was very nervous: sitting opposite me there
were now five grandmasters (Panno, Ricardi,
Spangenberg, Zamicki and Sorin), and it was
not easy to keep firm control simultaneously
on six boards. But it all ended well: 4V1-1 V1
in the first round and 4-2 in the second, with
one defeat - at the hands of Spangenberg.
The overall score was 8V2-3V2(+6-1 =5).
472
In the first round game with the legen­
dary Oscar Panno I had the good fortune to
employ a very interesting novelty.
Game 106
G.Kasparov-O.Panno
Simultaneous Display,
Buenos Aires 06.09.1997
Nimzo-lndian Defence E32
1 d4 £sf6 2 c4 e6 3 £k3 &b4 4 # c 2 (4 e 3 -
4...0-0 (4...d5 - G a m e
G a m e Nos. 4 1 , 5 2 , 6 9 )
N os.4, 97; 4-.C5 - G a m e N o. 9 0 ) 5 a3 .&xc3+ 6
Wxc3 b6 7 JLg5 c5
There is also this plan, although 7...iLb7 is
far more often played (G a m e N o s .6 8 ,91).
8 e3 (usually 8 dxc5 bxc5 9 e3 leads merely
to a transposition of moves) 8...d6 (if
8.. JLb7, then 9 dxc5 bxc5 10 f3 or 10 £se2!?)
9 dxc5
If 9 id 3 , then 9...£>bd7! (with the idea of 10
dxc5 £ixc5) is sound, but not 9~cxd4 10 exd4
d5?l 11 cxd5 Wxd5 12 Jb<f6! gxf6 (l2...1rxg2?
13 0-0-0! &b7 14 £>e2 2 c8 15 IfxcS+l ^.xc8 16
S hgl Wxf2 17 &xg7 i.a 6! 18 £ h 6+! s±?h8 19
Sdfl, etc.) 13 £>e2 2d8? 14 £>g3 l rxd4 (I4~.f5
15 -&e2!) 15 jLe4 and wins (Kasparov-Timman,
3rd match game, Prague 1998).
9.. .bxc5

10 0-0-0!? (instead of the odious 10 l.d3
<$}bd7 11 £te2 and 0-0) 10...^e4 (of course!)
11 #d3!
The point of my idea. After l l # c 2 ( ll
I . xd8?! £}xc3 12 Sxd6 <$^e4 13 l e 7 2e8)
I I . ..£>xg5 12 h4 f5 13 hxg5 #xg5 14 Sxd6
#67 Black is fine - the wrong piece has
captured on d6!
11.. .£ixf2
The critical reply, forcing the transition
into an endgame. Now in the variation
11.. .£>xg5 12 h4 both 12...f5? 13 hxg5 #xg5
14 #xd6 and 12...g6?! 13 hxg5 #xg5 14
#xd6 £>d7 15 #h2! h5 16 f4 # e 7 17 g4 are
bad for Black, but I2...£te4!? (more logical
than 12...£>h3 13 £>xh3) 13 #xe4 #b6! 14
£>f3 (14 #xa8 d5! 15 Sxd5 exd5 16 #xd5
2d8 17 # e 4 # d 6 18 # d5 # b 6 with equality)
14.~l.b7 is possible: 15 # d 3 (Vigorito-
J.Friedel, USA 2008) 15...d5! or 15 # f4 l.xf3
16 gxf3 £}c6 and ...fiab8 with suffident
counterplay.
12 l.xd 8 £ixd3+ 13 .lxd 3 Sxd8 14 l.e 4 d5
15 cxd5 l.b 7 (simpler than 15~.f5 16 l.f3 e5
17 e4, Schandorff-Stefansson, Reykjavik
1997) 16
I6...£\d7?
On encountering a surprise, Panno fails to
find the correct way to equalise: I 6...«$^a6 17
£>c3 f5 18 l.f3 £>c7 or I6...exd5 17 £>c3 £>c6
Experiments
18 l.xd5 £>a5 19 lx b 7 £>xb7 (Kasparov-
Timman, 5th match game, Prague 1998).
17 dxe6 lx e 4
18 e 7 l (this is the whole point!) I 8...2 e8
Immediately attacking the dangerous
passed pawn. In the event of I8...2dc8 19
Sxd 7 l.f 5 (19 - 1 x 6?! 20 2d6!) 20 2d6 2e8
21 £>g3 l.e6 22 £>e4 c4 23 2 h d l White
would have retained a material advantage
by exchanging the e7-pawn for the c4-pawn.
19 2xd7 f 6
This also suggests itself: ...<&f7 and ...2xe7
seems unavoidable. The greedy 19~.it.xg2?!
would have led after 20 2 g l to a very diffi­
cult endgame: 20.~l.f3?! 21 £}g3 l.g 4 22
2b7(c7) f5 23 £>e4! or 20.~l.c6 21 2c7 2ec8
22 2xc8+ 2xc8 23 2 d l 2e8 24 2d6 l e 4 25
2d7, etc.
20 £>g3l
An accurate manoeuvre. After 20 £}c3?!
i.c6 21 2 c7 2ec8 22 2xc8+ 2xc8 23 2 d l 2e8
24 £kl5 itf7 White has merely a minimal
plus (Jurasek-Bazant, Czech Republic 1997).
20...1,g6
20.~l.xg2?! was worse in view of 21 Shdl!
g6 22 S ld2 l.f3 23 Sf2, etc., while after
20.~l.c6 21 2c7 2ec8 22 Sxc8+ 2xc8 23 2 d l
Black would have remained a pawn down,
either with bishop against knight - 23.~Se8
24 2d6 l.b5 (24.~l.xg2? 25 £>f5) 25 2d8 g6 26
473
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
£>e4 *f7 27 £>d6+ <&xe7 28 <£sxe8 *xd8 29
<£sxf6 h5 30 &d2, or in a rook endgame -
23...&f7 24 2d8 Sc7 25 £sf5 g6 26 2h8 *e6
27 Sxh7 2c8 28 68#+ i.xe8 29 ^)g7+ *d5 30
£}xe8 2xe8 31 ^ 2 with winning chances.
21 h4l (since the bishop cannot move to f7
because of £te4, Black is forced to advance
his h-pawn) 21...h6
After 21...h5 22 2 h d l &f7 23 2 ld 5 the
weakness on h5 would have told: 23...2xe7
24 2xe7+ ^xe7 25 2xc5 a5 (25...*d6 26 2a5)
26 e4 ^>d6 27 2b5 &C4 28 a4 and £sxh5.
22 h5 ^.h7 23 2h4 (but now the rook unex­
pectedly steps sideways) 23—&f7 24 2c4
Stronger was 24 2g4l? or the activation of
the knight - 24 £te4l 2xe7 25 2xe7+ ^xe7
26 <£sxc5 followed by b2-b4 and 2g4(d4).
24—2xe7 25 2xe7+ ^xe7 26 2xc5 ^ d 6
(26...a5 27 e4!) 27 b4 2e8 28 &d 2 2e5!?
Panno tries to complicate my task by ex­
changing rooks, exploiting the poor position
of the knight on g3. But the extra pawn is
bound to bring White victory.
29 2xe5 &xe5 30 a4 £ g 8 31 b5?
A natural mistake for a simul’, where one
naturally wants to push a pawn forward.
After 31 ^>d3! (with the threat of e3-e4)
31...f5 32 £>e2 i.f7 33 £>d4 or 32...i.d5 33
£}f4 -&b7 34 g3 the win would not have
presented any great problems.
474
3 1 -£ b 3 32 a5
32.. .1.c4?
By wasting an important tempo, Black
throws away the offered draw: 32..JLa4l 33
b6 axb6 34 axb6 JLc6 35 *c3 i.xg2 36 e4 (36
&c4 i-b7) 36...‘&d6 and ...*c6 or 35 e4 &f4
36 £>f5 i-xe4.
33 b6 axb6 34 axb6 ^.d5?!
Now it all concludes quickly. 34..~&a6 was
more resilient, after which I was planning 35
^ e ll, bringing the king up to my pawns:
35.. ~&c8 36 <trf2 ^>d6 (36...i.b7 37 e4l) 37
&f3 &c6 38 &f4 and £>f5 or 35--f5 36 £>e2,
then <if2, g2-g3, £kl4 and wins.
35 e4 i.b 7 36 &e3 -&c6 37 £>f5 -&xe4 38 g4!
Panno overlooked this resource. Black re­
signed (l-O).
In May 1998 I achieved my greatest suc­
cess in such displays, crushing the Israeli
Olympiad team. This double-round match
simul’ took place in Tel Aviv and was the
major event in a grand chess festival, timed
to coincide with the anniversary of the local
Kasparov Chess Academy and 50 years since
the founding of the Israeli state.
The young Israeli team was even stronger
than the German one: I was opposed by four
‘2600’ grandmasters at the height of their
powers - Alterman, Huzman, Smirin and

Sutovsky (moreover, a rating of 2600 at the
end of the last century was far more impres­
sive than it is today). Of course, they were
eager to demonstrate that my ambitions
were beyond the bounds of possibility.
Makarychev: ‘And on the first day their open­
ing play was simply exemplary: they obtained
three very complicated positions, in one of
which Smirin began outplaying hisformidable
opponent with Black!’
Before this I had twice played Ilya Smirin
one to one (Game No.42 in Part II of Garry
Kasparov on Garry Kasparov and Game
No.32). Our third game also turned out to be
very publishable.
Came 107
G.Kasparov-I.Smirin
Simultaneous Display,
Tel Aviv 19.05.1998
Sicilian Defence B43I*6
9
I e4 c5 2 £)f3 e6 (the expected ‘Paulsen’,
although Ilya also played 2...d6) 3 d4 cxd4 4
£ixd4 a6 5 £ ic3 b5
After 5..Mc7 I usually played 6 JLe2 (Game
No.30 in Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov), but for a simul’ game with
Movsesian (Prague 2001) I prepared 6 &d3
£ic6 7 £ixc6 bxc6 (or 7...dxc6 8 f4 e5 9 f5) 8
0-0 £if6 9 ®e2 i.d6 (9...d5 10 i.g5, Spassky-
Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca 1969) 10 f4 e5
I I & hl with slightly the better game.
6 & d 3 # b 6 7 £ib3 # c 7 8 0 - 0 £tf6
This disconcerted me. Dokhoian and I had
looked a lot at the sharp variation 8..JLb7 9
Sell? b4 10 £id5 exd5 11 exd5+ with an
attack for the sacrificed piece.
9 Sel
In a normal game I would have played 9
f4l? b4 10 e5 bxc3 11 exf6 with promising
play, but in a simul’ I tried to head for the
Experiments
same idea with S el.
9.. .1.d6 (9...b4?! 10 £id5 or 10 e5) 10 g3 (now
JLxbS is threatened) I0...b4
A novelty! 10...h5? 11 e5l ^.xe5 12 Sxe5
#xe5 13 JLf4 is fatal for Black, and
10.. JLb7?! 11 .&xb5! (Ligterink-Piasetski,
Karlovac 1977) or 10...i.e5?! 11 a4 b4 12
£)bl! with the threat of £»ld2-c4 and f2-f4 is
also not good.
11 £ie2?!
Losing the initiative. 11 £ia4!, aiming at
the weak b6-square, was more energetic:
11.. .£ic6 ( ll...! ^ ? ! 12 £id4! 'tx a 4 13 e5
with a dangerous attack) 12 JLe3 Sb8, and
Black does not have an easy life after 13 c4,
13 f4 e5 14 f5, or 13 £id2 and £ic4.
11.. .£k6 12 £ied4 £)xd413 £)xd4 h5l (instead
of the quiet 13...^.b7 with equality, Smirin
sharpens the play, in order to create problems
for the simultaneous player) 14 -&fl
Switching the bishop to g2 strengthens
the king’s defences. 14 #e2 &g4 was little
better.
14.. .H415 A g 2 hxg3 16 hxg3 i.b 7 17 .&,d2
An unprepossessing move, preparing c2-
c3. I also considered 17 a3 bxa3 18 b3?!, but
after l8...JLb4! White has problems: 19 fie3
#c5 or 19...e5 20 £)f5 g6. Now also he has to
suffer the consequences of his unfortunate
knight retreat.
475
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
1 7 -lc 5 18 c3
After 18 £>b3?l £>xe4! 19 £>xc5 £lxf2!
( 1 9 - £ sxc5 20 #g4l) 20 # e 2 #xg3 21 #xf2
Shl+ 22 ‘i ’xhl #xf2 23 lx b 7 #xd2 24 lx a 8
#h6+ 25 ,4'gl(g2) #g5+ and ...#xc5 the
armada of black pawns is too strong.
18.. .# b 6 19 #62 d 5 (it is unclear whether
this should have been played: perhaps
19.. .5.8!? was more unpleasant for White)
20 e5
The balance would have been maintained
by 20 exd5 lx d 5 21 lx d 5 £sxd5 22 #g4,
and if 22...#b7, then 23 #f3(e4). But I myself
was now playing for an advantage.
20.. .^e4 21 l e 3 (a pawn sacrifice!) 2l...#c7!?
With the idea of ...#xe5-h5. If 21...bxc3 22
bxc3 £ ixc3 there would have followed 23
# g 4 with good compensation.
22 c4
‘A desperate struggle for the initiative’
(Makarychev). There was also an argument
for 22 cxb4l? Ix b 4 23 S acl #xe5 24 Bedl
with excellent play for the pawn ( lf 4 and
Sc7 is threatened).
22.. .#xe5?!
22...dxc4 23 S ad i (23 #xc4 #xe5 24 £sf3
#d5l) 23...Sd8 24 #xc4 #xe5 was safer - by
25 £sc6(f3) White would merely have main­
tained the balance.
23 £sb3?!
476
The knight moves away from the ‘hot
spot’, and my position becomes dangerous.
White would have gained a tiny plus with 23
£>c6!? Ix c 6 24 lx c5 , and if 24...d4, then 25
lx d 4 #xd4 26 Sadi! #c5(e5) 27 lx e 4 . But
the strongest was 23 cxd5l lx d 4 (not
23-.exd5?l 24 £sb3! or 23.-l.xd 5 24 £sxe6!)
24 lx d 4 #xd4 25 #xe4 #xe4 26 lx e 4 e5 27
l g 2 f6 28 f4 with the better endgame.
23...1xe3 24 # xe 3
24.. .#h5!?
Smirin again complicates matters - from
the practical point of view, the correct
decision: after all, I had to solve very difficult
problems, playing simultaneously on four
boards. 24-dxc4 25 lx e 4 (but not 25 £>d4?
# h 5 26 lx e 4 #hl+ ! or 25 £sd2? £sxd2! 26
#xe5 £sf3+) 2 5 -lx e 4 26 #xe4 #xe4 27
Sxe4 cxb3 28 axb3 <± ,e7 29 Sxb4 Shb 8 30
Sxa6 could have led to a draw.
25 #b6! (avoiding a transparent trap: 25
cxd5? Ix d 5 26 lx e 4 #hl+!) 25 ...Sb 8 26 c5
Again 26 cxd5? is bad, this time in view of
26.. .1T12+ 27 ^ f l £sxg3+! 28 fxg3 # x g 2+! 29
<± ,xg2 l x d 5+ and Bxb6.1 was relying on my
passed c-pawn, but my problems would
have been more forcefully solved by 26
Sxe4! dxe4 27 £sc5 e3 28 £sxb7 # h 2+ 29 ^>fl
e2+ 30 <&xe2 #xg2 31 £sd6+ 4 ^ 7 32 # d 4 -
the exposed position of the black king would

have guaranteed a draw.
26...H12+ 27 & f l 0-0
The rook is no longer needed on the h-file:
the queen is already on h2 and now ...f7-f5-
f4 is threatened. 27...£sxg3+? 28 fxg3 WxgS
would have been parried by 29 Se2l.
28 c6 i.a 8 29 ® x a 6
29...f5
Over-hasty! White would have been set
more difficult problems, especially in a
simul’ situation, by 29...Sbc8! 30 S acl f5 31
c7 (31 Se2?l f4) 31...d4! 32 l rxe6+ <£>h7 33
Sxe4l Axe4 34 ^.xe4 fxe4 35 1i rxe4+ &g8 36
1i rxd4 Sf7, although after 37 ^ 3! a draw
would have remained the most probable
outcome.
30 c7 Sbe8
A reflex defence of the e6-pawn. More
practical chances were offered by 30...Sbc81?
3 1 1i rxe6+ ,4 ,h7 32 £sd4 Sxc7, although even
here after 33 We5! White should be able to
hold out.
3l£>d4
The knight returns to the battle, shutting
in the bishop on a8. 31 c&W? was bad in view
of 31...Sxc8 32 1i rxe6+ (32 £sd4 is more
resilient) 32...‘&h8 33 S acl d4l with the
mating threat of ...£)xg3+. But 31 S acl
(threatening c7-cSV) was acceptable: 3l...d4
32 Sxe4l JLxe4 33 f3 1 ^ 3 34 £ixd4 or 31...f4
Experiments
32 cSW £>xg3+ 33 fxg3 fxg3+ 34 &e2 l rxg2+
35 &dl, foTdng perpetual check - 35...1i rf3+,
etc.
3l...£>d2+
31...f4l? deserved attention, hoping for
the suicidal 32 £)f3? £)xg3+! 33 fxg3 fxg3 34
Se2 d4 35 &el, and here instead of the
move given by the commentators -
35 .^.xf3?? 36 ^.xf3 when White wins, the
sudden 35...'Brh6! is decisive: 36 VHd3 Sc8 ot
36 £>gl Axg2 37 Sxg2 Sf2l. At the board I
would have had to find the only defence - 32
c8W! Sxc8 33 ! ,xe6+ &h8 34 £)f3 Wi5 35 g4
with the exchange of queens and a draw.
32 &e2 # x g 2 33 c8W
This leads to an unusual perpetual check.
33.. .1 re4+
Of course, not 33.~Sxc8? 34 1i rxe6+ ^ 7
35 Shl+. 33...^e4 was possible, when after
34 Wc2? 1i rxf2+ 35 ^ d 3 l rxg3+ 36 Se3 1 ^ 6
White is in trouble (despite the two queens!),
but a draw is ensured by 34 Wcfajxee+l Sxe6
35 l rxe6+ Sf7 36 »e8(c8)+.
34 & d l (34 <4>xd2 l rxd4+ 35 &e2 1^4+, and
it is now Black who gives perpetual check)
34.. .Wxd4 35 #axe6+!
35 1i rc2? would have been a blunder in
view of 35-£>e4+ 36 &cl £)xf2 37 & bl £)e4
and wins.
35.. .5xe6 36 Wxe6+ S f7 37 # e 8 + Sf8
477
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
Running away with the king ends in dis­
aster: 37...4>h7 38 2 h l+ <4>g6 39 #e6+ <4>g5?
(39-Sf6 40 We8+ Sf7 with a draw) 40 f4+
<4>g4 41 #g6+ <4f3 42 Wi5+ 4>g2 (42...<£xg3
43 #g6+) 43 S h 2+ 4>xg3 44 1^4+ &f3 45
Sh3+ 4 >e4 46 Wel+ 4>xf4 47 Sh4+.
38 # e 6 + Sf7 39 # e 8+ V i-'/i
An entertaining battle!
Makarychev: ‘After getting rid o f this mill­
stone around his neck and conceding another
half point to Alterman, Carry began playing
with inspiration: with Black he converted a
positional advantage against Sutovsky and
he outplayed Huzman literally out o f noth­
ing.’ The result of the first day was 3-1. My
opponents were depressed, but nevertheless
Smirin said: 'Never mind, tomorrow is an­
other day...’
But the next day brought the Israeli team
even greater disillusionment - an incredible
4-0! All the games were interesting, includ­
ing duels with White against Huzman in a
Najdorf (cf. Game No.45, note to Black’s 12th
move) and with Black against Alterman in a
Queen’s Gambit (cf. Game No.96 in Part II of
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, note to
White’s 10th move). At the end of the dis­
play, which I won with the overall score 7-1
(+6=2), Alterman said: ‘Either we don’t
understand anything about this game, or we
weren’t playing a human being.’
In October 20011faced my last such test -
a double-round simul’ in Prague against the
Czech national team, organised by Bessel Kok.
Again sitting opposite me were young, ambi­
tious grandmasters - Movsesian (2631),
Hracek (2610), Babula (2566) and Oral (2546).
Also a serious, solid team!
Sergey Movsesian had ‘old scores’ to settle
with me (cf. Game N0.66), and I devoted
particular attention to the games with him.
After 1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 my opponent chose the
478
Paulsen Variation (cf. Game No.107, note to
Black’s 5th move), and after a couple of
incautious moves he came under a crushing
attack.
Game 108
G.Kasparov-S.Movsesian
Simultaneous Display,
Prague 18.10.2001
14.. .a5?
With the intention of ...i.b4 (if 14-i.b4?,
then 15 i.xf7+!). But the consolidating
14~i.e7 was correct, with the idea of 15 Sf3
Hd8 16 Sg3 <A’f8 17 S d l i.b7 and ...d7-d5,
although after 15 Sadi! White would retain
the initiative.
15 Sf3! (signalling the start of the assault!)
15.. .1.b4?
Sergey underestimated my 17th move,
otherwise he would have preferred i 5.-i.f 8
16 Sg3 d5 17 exd5 cxd5 (l7-i.xf5? 18 Sfl)
18 £sxd5 £sxd5 19 i.x d 5 S a 6 with dubious
compensation for the pawn, or lS-.&fS 16
Sg3 1H)6 (but not I6.„i.c5? 17 i.xf7! or
16.. .#a7? 17 1^3!, and if 17.-i.c5 or
17.. .'ird4, then 18 Sxg7! is decisive, or if
17-i.e7 - 18 i.xh6! gxh6 19 #d2, etc.) 17
i.e3!? «xb2 (I7...«rb4? 18 S d l or I7...#d8

18 Wd2! is worse) 18 S b l Wxc3 19 i-c5 1 ^ 4
20 £xd4 exd4 21 S h 3 Sxe4 22 # f l 4>g8
with dubious compensation for the queen.
16 Sg3 &f8 (l6..JLxc3 17 £xh6!) 17 #e3!
A bolt from the blue! It turns out that
there is no satisfactory defence against the
deadly threat of Sxg7 (I7...icxc3 18 Sxg7l).
17.. .£>g8 (forestalling the sacrifice on g7, but
now White breaks through on the f-file) 18
f6! gxf6 19 S f l! -a-xc3
Or l 9 - <4 >e7 20 #f2! (threatening Sxg8)
20.. .1fd6 21 ±e3 with the threat of a2-a3,
and Black’s downfall is caused by his queen
being on the same diagonal as his king.
20 Sxg8+! (a pretty forcing variation with
the win of a piece) 20...&xg8 21 Wg3+ &f8
(21...<4>h8? 22 JLxh6 Sg8 23 1 ^ 4 Sg6 24
£xf7, mating) 22 Sxf6 d5 23 £xh 6+ 4>e7 24
Sxf7+ &d6 25 1^6+1 ile 6 26 Sxc7 4>xc7 27
exd5 cxd5 28 £ b 5
And on move 43 Black resigned (l-O).
Also with White I outplayed Babula in a
complicated ending, and with Black, after an
exchange of ‘favours’ (23...1Brd7? and 24
ii.d4?) I managed to hold out against Hracek.
In my other ‘Black’ game, with Oral, at one
point I seized the initiative, but then I got
myself in a muddle, made an oversight
(32...f5?) and lost. The result of the first day
Experiments
was 2 V2-1V2.
On the second day my opponents were
eager to get even, and the games took a very
tense course. The encounter with Tomas
Oral became especially crucial for me.
Came 109
G.Kasparov-T.Oral
Simultaneous Display,
Prague 20.10.2001
English Opening A33
I c4 c 5 2 £>f3 £ k6 (2...£>f6 3 g3 - Came
No.64) 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 g3
Avoiding the main line 5 £>c3 e6 with the
idea of 6 g3 ^ 6 (Game Nos.28, 30 in Kas­
parov vs. Karpov 1975-1985), White first
fianchettos his bishop.
5.. .e6 (5--.Wb6l?) 6 JLg2 jLc5 (this leads to a
more passive set-up than 6...Wb6) 7 £>b3
j».e7 8 £>c 3 d6
Nowadays 8...0-0 9 0-0 b6l? 10 ii.f4 (10
£>d5 ii.a6! l l £>xe7+ 12 £>d2 d5 is
equal, Morozevich-Leko, Zug 2013)
10.. JLb7(a6), etc., is more popular.
9 £ f4 0-010 0-0 £>h5
This is what I myself once played against
Mikhalchishin (Baku 1980). Black has an
unpleasant position: it is difficult to com­
plete development and he wants to push
back the annoying white bishop from f4.
I I jLe3 £>e5?! (the lesser evil was ll...£>f6 12
Scl) 12 c5 d5 13 i-d 4 £>c6 14 e4 ^ x d 4 (not
14.. .dxe4?l 15 IfaliS £}xd4 16 S ad i or
14.. .£>f6 15 ^.xf6 £xf6 16 exd5 exd5 17
#xd5, Smyslov-Matulovic, Palma de Mal­
lorca 1967) 15 1Brxd4 dxe4 16 Wxe4 £>f6 17
We5l?
A novelty! - my Informator recommenda­
tion of 1980! Mikhalchishin played 17 'iTA,
and after I7...£>d5 18 £>xd5 exd5 19 S ad i
Jie6 I with difficulty gained a draw.
479
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

23...i.b4?l
This merely improves White’s prospects,
as does 23...Sb6?! 24 S acl a6 25 i.a4 Sc8 26
£>d4 £>e8 (26...Sxb2? 27 i.b3) 27 Sc2, etc.
One of two lines was more resilient:
1) 23...a6 24 i.xa6 i.xc6 25 -S.fi!? (after
my earlier 25 £>d4 i.a8 26 i.b5 i.c5 27 a4
Black equalises with 27...£>g4!) 25...Sfc8 or
24 c7 Sbc8 25 i.xa6 Sxc7 and ...Sb8 with
activity, almost compensating for the pawn
deficit;
2) 23...Sfc8 24 £>d4 (24 S acl £>e8 - cf.
above) 24~.£>e8! (but not the Informator
17...±d7 24~.i.c5(?) 25 i.a6) 25 a4 i.f6 26 i.a6 e5
17.. .£>d7?! 18 Wte3 Wtc7 19 £>b5(d5) is un­(26...Sd8 27 £>db5 Sxdl+ 28 £>xdl i.xc6 29
favourable for Black, while 17...£>d5?! is now £>xa7 i.f3! 30 i.b5 £>c7 will also do) 27 i.xc8
a dubious pawn sacrifice: 18 £>xd5 exd5 19 exd4 28 £>d5(e4) Sxc8 29 £>xf6+ ^xf6 30
Sadi! (more energetic than 19 Sxd5 or 19 Sxd4 &f8! 31 b4 i.xc6 32 S cl &e7 33 Sel+
IfxdS) 19-i.f6 (I9...i.e6?! 20 i.xd5) 20 <&f8 34 Sc4 i.d7(b7), and Black should be
IfxdS WxdS 21 S(i.)xd5, etc. able to hold out.
18 Sxb7 Wb8 19 Wxb8 Saxb8 20 £a6! £c8! 24 £>d4! i.xc3?! (after 24...e5 25 £>f5 Sfc8 26
Oral gave up his b-pawn in the hope of a3! i.f8 27 £>d6 Sc7 28 ^ c 4 White would
restricting the white pieces and soon win­ have retained a sound extTa pawn;but Black
ning the c-pawn, but it is precisely this should have preferred 24—g6!? 25 S acl e5 or
passed pawn which in the end will decide 25 a4! i.xc3 26 bxc3 Sbc8, still with good
the game. chances of a defence) 25 bxc3
21 £ b 5 ! &b7
21.. .a6 22 jke2 (22 i.c6?! £>d7!) 22...^.b7
23 S acl Sfc8 24 S fd l Sc7!? (instead of
24-..^.xc5 25 £>a5, given by me in Informa-
tor) 25 Sd4 (25 £>a5 i.d5 26 £>xd5 £>xd5 is
unclear) 25..JLxc5 26 Sc4 Sbc8 27 ^ a 4 JLd6
28 Sxc7 Sxc7 29 Sxc7 -&xc7 30 £>bc5 &d5
31 ^xa6 Ad6 32 £fc3 JLb7 also did not
guarantee Black a draw, although the two
bishops would have given him counterplay.
22 c6 £a8 23 Sfdl
If 23 S acl Sfc8 24 Sfdl, then 24...£>e8!
(my Informator 24...&f8 is worse because of
25 £>d4) 25 £>a5 (25 £>d4 £>c7!) 25.~i.b4 26 25.. .e5?
^ b 7 a6! 27 i.a4 i.xb7, regaining the pawn, A tactical oversight in a difficult position.
or 25 Sd7 i.f6 26 a4 i.xc6 27 Sxa7 i.f3 with 25.. .g6? 26 c4! was also bad. 25~.£>d5 was
hopes of the two bishops. essential, although after 26 i.c4! Sbc8 (none

480
 Experiments

of 26...£>e7? 27 c7 Ebc8 28 £>xe6!, 26...£lxc3? ber 1983): 1. Kasparov - 131/2 out of 16; 2.
27 Sdcl ot 26...fifc8? 27 S ab i are possible, Korchnoi - IOI/2; 3. Tal - 9V2; 4. Ljubojevic -
while if 26...fibd8, then 27 a4 ot simply 27 8I/2; 5- Timman - 8; 6. Spassky - 7; 7. Sax - 6;
Sacl) 27 ii.xd5 exd5 28 £>fs! (the Informator 8. Larsen - 5I/2; 9. Ivanovic - 3Vi.
28 S acl is less clear: 28...Sfd8!) 28...Sc7 29 c4 My rapidplay match with Short (London,
g6 30 ®e3 Sxc6 31 cxd5 White would have 4-5 February 1987), which I won 4-2 (+4-2),
remained with an extra passed pawn. was the first to be broadcast on TV and
26 £sf5 Sxb5 27 £>e7+ ^h8 28 c7 (this tem­ heralded the further flourishing of ‘rapid’.
porary piece sacrifice produces big divi­
dends) 28—.&.b7 29 Sabi
29 Sd 8! would have led more quickly and Game 110
flamboyantly to the goal: 29...£>e8 (29...Se8 N.Short-G.Kasparov
30 <£}f5) 30 c4! (ot 30 a4l; I only considered 30 2nd Match game (Rapid),
S ad i g 6) 30...Sc5 31 08# JLxc8 32 £sxc8 g6 London 04-02.1987
33 £>d6, winning the exchange and the
game. However, I was attracted by the rook
invasion on b 8.
29.. .5xbl 30 Sxbl £a6 31 Sb8 Se8 (3l...£>e8
32 cSW £xc8 33 Sxc8 g6 34 £>c6 e4 35 ^xa7
was also bad) 32 c4
32 a4! h6 33 a5 &h7 34 £k6 &g6 35 £>xa7
was simpler.
32.. .g6? (time-trouble panic, but 32...h5(h6)
33 a4! &h7 34 £sc6 and ®xa7 would also not
have helped) 33 ^d5 Sc8 34 <£>xf6 ^g7 35
Sxc8 (35 ®e8+!) 35~.i-xc8 36 ®e8+ 1-0

I also won against Babula, while Movse-

sian and Hracek managed to save difficult
positions. The result of the second day was
3-1, and the overall score 51/2-21/2 (+4-1=3).
Over a period of 14 years I played 11
simuls’ against the national teams of nine
countries and I concluded the history of
these battles on a high note.
Quickly, even more Quickly...
Finally, here is a brief review of my achieve­
ments in rapidplay and blitz. First I must
mention a friendly blitz match with Tal
(Tbilisi, 27 December 1978), which ended in
a 7-7 draw, and a very strong double-round
blitz tournament (Herceg Novi, 14 Septem­
21 Sg4?l
Preventing ...5M4, but here the rook is in a
vulnerable position. However, in any case
Black has excellent compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
21...£sg3! 22 JLg2 (22 £*xg3 £.xg3+ 23 ^.f 2
was nevertheless better) 22...5h2
22...£sxe2! 23 <&xe2 ^.h2 planning ...e6-e5
would have emphasised White’s errors.
23 &f2 £>xe2 24 Wxe2 JLxc3 25 ^f4? (25
Wc2 was essential) 25—.&.e5 (25...Sxg2+!? 26
&xg2 e5 was also good) 26 .&xe5 (26 ^.xh2?
£d4+ and ...Wxb2) 2 6 - l fxe5 27 &gl?! (27
b3 £xa4) 27---Sh5l 28 Wd2 i.xa4, and Black
converted his advantage (0-1).

481
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

Soon I won an unofficial world blitz 22...£\f3+!? 23 ix f3 Sxf3 24 0-0-0 i.d7

championship (Brussels, 25 April 1987): 1. was good, but I chose a sharper way - with
Kasparov - 17 out of 22; 2. Timman - 15; 3- the sacrifice of a third pawn!
4. Ljubojevic and Karpov - 12V2; 5. HiibneT - 23 dxc6 bxc6 24 0-0-0 iLe6 25 #xd6 #g5+
12; 6-7. Korchnoi and Short - ll ; 8. Tal - 26 &bl Wg6 (26...1T6!?) 27 &al 5ab8
10V2; 9-10. Larsen and Sosonko - 8; 11 . van
der Wiel - 7Vv, 12. Toire - 7. Additional
match with Timman: I'/i-Vi.
I played a memorable game with Jona­
than Speelman in a GMA rapidplay charity
match USSR v. Rest of the World (Madrid,
1988). In one of the then fashionable varia­
tions of the King’s Indian (cf. Game N0.42 in
Part I of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov,
note to Black’s 7th move), I surprised my
opponent with a novelty involving a risky
positional pawn sacrifice.

28 Sh5? (cracking under the pressure, Speel­

Came i l l man gives up the exchange and comes
J.Speelman-G.Kasparov undeT an irresistible attack) 28...#xh5 29
M adrid (Rapid) 14.12.1988 ®xe6+ &h8 30 W ei <£>f3 (30...If7l?) 31 jLxf3
Sxf3, and Black won (O-l).

PTe-Olympiad double-round blitz tourna­

ment in Moscow (28 May 1992): 1. Kasparov -
111/2 out of 14; 2. Bareev - lOVi; 3. Tal - 7I/2; 4-
5. Dolmatov and Smyslov - 6; 6. Vyzhmanavin
- 5V2; 7-8. Avrukh and Beliavsky - 4I/2. Addi­
tional match with Bareev - 23/i-Vi.
PCA/Intel Worid Chess Express Blitz Tour­
nament (Munich, 20 May 1994): 1-2. Kasparov
and Fritz 3/Pentium - 121/* out of 17; 3-
Anand - 12; 4-6. Dreev, Gelfand and Short -
11; 7. Kir.Georgiev - 1oyi; 8. Kramnik - 10; 9.
Cvitan - 8I/2; 10-11. Hertneck and Nikolic - 8;
19 g3? (my idea could have been disputed by 12. Hiibner - 7; 13-14. Chemin and Wojtkie-
19 f3 and 0-0-0) 19...f3! (a second pawn wicz - 6; 15-16. Hjartarson and Lobron - 5;
sacrifice!) 20 ,&,xf3 ^e5 21 i e 2 g4 17-18. Leko and PetuTsson - 4I/2. Additional
Now the white bishop is shut in on h2-gl, match with Fritz 3/Pentium: 4-1 .
and Black is effectively playing with an extTa In Munich I was well in the lead, afteT
piece. scoring 8 out of 8 in the middle of the tour­
22 c5l? nament, and my result could have been even

482
 Experiments

betteT bad it not been foT a curious incident 15...^xa2 16 S a l ^ b 4 17 i.d l e4 18 I b l

in my ‘white’ game with DTeev. AfteT 2e8 (l8..Jtd4l?) 19 We3 f5 20 h4 Sf8
...Sh8xh5-b8 my opponent suddenly played (20...,5?scd3! was more forceful, but I decided
30...0-0!!, Tepelled the attack and won. In to bring up my second Took) 21 g3 5ae8 22
time-tTouble I did not notice that he had &g2 (22 &I1I c6!) 22...^bd3 23 2 g l f4! 24
made an illegal move... gxf4 Sxf4 25 h5 g5 (25...Se5l?), and Black
Another memorable duel was with my won (O-l).
future historic opponent.
I have pleasant memories of Paris, where I
took first place in four out of five Tapid
Game 112 knock-out tournaments. In the first Immo-
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov par Cup (1990), I beat Speelman (l'A-'A),
M unich (Blitz) 20.05.1994 Korchnoi (l-l; 2-1) and Short (l-l; 1-0), in the
King’s Indian Defence E92 final of the second (1991) I lost to Timman,
in the third (1992) I defeated Anand, and
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 £ic3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 £tf3 then twice (1994 and 1995) I won stages of
0-0 6 Jte2 e5 7 d5 a5 8 Jtg5 (8 h4 - Came the PCA/Intel Grand Prix. In 1994 I beat
No.105) 8...H6 9 l.h4 10 0-0 ±,d7 ATbakov (2-0), Hjartarson (2-0), KTamnik (l-l;
(lO...We8 is more often played - Game No.47 1-0) and Nikolic (2-0). Everything was de­
in Part II of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kas­ cided by the semi-final tie-bTeak game with
parov) 11 <S?sd2 <Sk5 12 b3 KTamnik.

Game 113
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
3rd Match gam e (Blitz),
Paris 12.11.1994

12...£tfxe4l? (a stunning queen sacrifice!) 13

Axd8 £ixc3 14 ^ e l Sfxd8 15 I d ?
15 ^ x e 2+ 16 # x e 2 e4 17 ^ d 2 is co t -
Tect (Gulko-van Wely, Groningen 1994),
although after 17...iixal 18 S xal Se8 Black
has good play. Now, however, although he
has just two pieces for the queen, he has
total domination, inevitably leading to a ZO...!^? (anything but this!) 21 a5! ®c7 22
fearfully strong attack on the king. ^xd5 ^xd5 23 Jlxb4?! (23 Axd5 ±xd 2 24

483
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three
ii.xf7+ #xf7 25 #xd2 was simpler, with a
sound extra pawn) 23...£>xb4 24 #xg6
£>d5?!
24...®f4! was more resilient.
25 #f5 (25 ^.xd5!? cxd5 26 # d 3 was not
bad) 25...g6 (25...£rf4!?) 26 # f3 #d6 27 a6
b6? 28 g3 <&g7 29 B d Se7 30 &g2 (30
&xd5!?) 30...£>b4 31 #03 &g8 32 S e l S xel
33 # x e 1 <4f8 34 #c3 £>xa6 35# c4 #d5+ 36
#xd5 cxd5 37 i.xd5
And after time-trouble adventures White
won (l-O).
Also memorable was another victorious
stage of the PCA/Intel Grand Prix (New York,
20-23 June 1995), where I defeated Adams
(2-0), De Firmian (I'h-'h), Kramnik (l-l; V2-V2
- draw with Black!) and, in the final, Ivan­
chuk (2-0).
Game 114
V.lvanchuk-G.Kasparov
1st Match game,
New York (Rapid) 23,06.1995
28...#e8! (with the threat of ...# 66-96) 29
#f2?! (weak because of the X-ray on the f-
file; 29 Sadi! was correct, and if 29...#e6,
then 30 f4) 2 9 „#e6 30 Sadi?
484
Too late! Here 30 £se3 was essential.
30.. .# g 6 (Black’s attack is now irresistible)
31 &hl (31 # h 4 .&g5 or 31 &h2 Scf8 32
#g3 # h 5 would not have helped) 31*»Scf8
32 h4 (if 32 £se3, then 32..JLxh3! 33 gxh3
Sxf3 34 # g 2 # h 5 is decisive) 32....&.C2 33
Sd2
Desperation: 33 S a l JLe4l? 34 Sxe4 (34
£ie3 Sxf3!) 34 .#xe4 35 fxe4 Sxf2 and wins.
33.. -&xd2 34 #xd2 # g 3 , and only after 35
£ib7? Sxb7 did White resign (O-l).
Of my rapid games in 1996 I should like to
mention two striking wins over Vishy Anand
- in the semi-final of the Moscow event and
in the final of the Geneva stage of the PCA
Grand Prix.
Game 115
G.Kasparov-V.Anand
1st Match game (Rapid),
Moscow 30.04.1996*
Sicilian Defence B85
1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 £sf6 5
£>c3 a6 6 &e2 e6 7 f4 8 0-0 0-0 (8...#c7
- Game N0.7) 9 i.e3 #c7 10 g4i?
Deviating from the standard 10 a4 £sc6 11
<&hl Se8 - Game Nos.37, 86.
 Experiments

10...Se8 change - 30...Sxc5 31 bxc5 Sc8.

10...d5 11 exd5 £>xd5 12 £>xd5 exd5 13
j*.f3 favours White, but 10...<Sk6 11 g 5 £>d7
is not so clear, and if 12 f5, then 12...£ide5 13
f6 £d8.
11 g5 £sfd7 12 £ d 3 £>c6 13 Whs g6 14 Wh4
i.f8 15 Sf3 i-g 7 16 £>de2l

29 ^-b6 S c 6 ? (29-S cc 8 was essential, not

allowing the invasion of the knight on d 5) 30
£>d5 £ c 8 31 Se3! H>7?! (3l...£>e6 32 £>ec3
and wins) 32 ^.d 8 l £ie 6 33 £ie7+ Sxe7 34
fxe7 Wd7 35 Sh3 1-0
A spectacular rout!
I6 .vb5?! (I6...f5 17 exf5 gxf5 was the lesser
evil) 17 Sh3 £tf8 18 f5! £te5 19 f6 i.h 8 (now The start of the Geneva final also did not
I as though have an extra piece) 20 a3 Sb8 herald any problems for me. With Black I
21 b4 (21 Ad4 or 21 £rf4 was also possible) was able to carry out an original plan of a
21.. .£b7?! kingside pawn offensive.
21.. .£ic4?! 22 A xc4 1i rxc4 23 S d l was un­
favourable for Black (Svidler-Sutovsky, Haifa
1996), but 21...h5 22 JLd2 d5 was sharper. Game 116
22 S f l Hbc8 23 £ d 4 £*6? (23-£>xd3 24 VJVnand-G.Kasparov
cxd3 e5 was correct) 24 .&e3 1st Match game (Rapid),
Missing an immediate win - 24 e5l £}xe5 Geneva 01.09.1996
25 £xe5 dxe5 26 £.xg6! fxg6 27 f7+. Sicilian Defence B90
24.. .^le5 (24—h 5? 25 £tf4 and £>xh5) 25
Sf4?! (25 i.d4!) 25...«d7? 1 e4 C5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £«d4 £>f6 5
25-h5 was correct, and if 26 jLd4, then not £*3 a6 6 i.e3 &g4 7 i-g 5 h6 8 i.h 4 g5 9
26.. .£ixd3? 27 cxd3 e5 28 £ig3l with crushing £g3 £g7 10 jLe2 (10 Wd2 - Came No.54; 10
threats, but 26...<Sk6, for example: 27 £}g3 h3 - Came No.63) 10...h5 11 .&xg4 i.x g 4
£)xd4 28 £>xh5 VUxcS 29 £}g3 £g7 30 fxg7 (ll...hxg4 - Came N0.51 ) 12 f3 .&d7 13 £ f2
£sf3+ 31 Sxf31i rxg7, repelling the attack. £*6 14 'Vldl (14 £>d5 - Game N0.32; 14 0-0 -
26 1 ^ 6 £\xd3 27 cxd3 e5 28 S fl? ! (28 Sfh4l Game No.40) 14...£ie5
was more energetic) 28..JLc7 A tabiya of a then fashionable variation.
28.. .d5l? deserved attention, in order after15 0-0
29 exd5 ^.xd5 30 3lc5 to sacrifice the ex­ Later Vishy improved with 15 b3! e 6

485
Carry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
(lS-l'aS!?) 16 £sde2 Sc8 17 ±d4 b5 18 £sdl
(Anand-Kasparov, Frankfurt (rapid) 1998).
15...e6
l5-.g4! was even better, as in the decisive
blitz game with Anand: 16 f4 £)c417 We2 Sc8
18 b3 £sa3 19 £id5 e6 20 £sb4 # a5 21 W ei b4
22 i.e3 b3! 23 g3 £sb5 24 S d l £ ic3 25 £id3
Wc7 26 S cl £)xe4 with a winning advantage
(but later I contrived to blunder my queen!).
16 b3 £)g6 17 S a d i g4 18 f4 h 4 19 £ide2 hB!
20 g3 Sc8 21 e5 d5 22 £id4 0-0 23 W d 3 f5!
Blocking the kingside, in order to steal up
on tbe white king from the queenside. The
h3-pawn is a mighty force!
24 £sce2 Sf7 25 S c l ,&,f8 26 c3 £se7 27 S f d l
£sc6 28 c4 dxc4 29 Sxc4 We8 30 Wdl b5 31
S c c l £sb4 32 £ ic3 Sc7! 33 a3
486
SS.-.^aS! 34 ± e 3 £sd3 (34...£sc6!?) 35 Sc2
b4! 36 £ia2 (36 axb 4 £sxb4 was no better)
36...£)c5 (3 6 ..J tc5 or 36..JLb5! was also
strong) 37 We2 (37 axb 4 £se4) 37...bxa3
(37...^ xb 3!) 38 b4 l.a 4 (38...£ib3!?) 39 bxc5
i.xc2 (39...1.XC5!) 40 £sxc2 i.xc5 41 JLxc5
Sxc5 42 £tel Sb5 43 # c 4 S b 2, and Black
won (O-l).
Of the ten rapid PCA knock-out tourna­
ments, held in 1994-1996, three were won
by me, two each by Kramnik, Anand and
Ivanchuk, and one by Adams (in London
1995, where I did not play).
The blitz match with Kramnik in the ca­
sino of the Cosmos Hotel (Moscow, 1998)
was the first chess event to be broadcast on
the internet. This fascinating clash ended in
a 12-12 draw (+7-7=10), with the scales
tipping first one way and then the other.
Game 117
V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
2nd Match game (Blitz),
Moscow 27.11.1998
36.. .5d 2 ?(36...£sd4 is equal) 37 Sc3? (37
Wa5\) 37...£ sc5 38 Wxb5 (if 38 ®a5, then
38...£sa4 39 Se3 Sxb 2+ 40 <^al Sd7 41 ®xa4
 Experiments

Sh2! 42 WxbS Sdl+ 43 1131+ 2xbl+ 44

^>xbl Sxh4 45 2e5 ^ 6 and wins) 38...2b7 Came 119
39 lx b 7 £sxb7 40 2xc4 2d7, and Black won G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
( 0 - 1 ). 22nd Match game (Blitz),
Moscow 28.11.1998

Came 118
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
11th Match game (Blitz),
Moscow 27.11.1998
English Opening A39

1 c4 c 5 2 <5if3 £sc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 4ixd4 £sf6 5

g3 g6 6 & g 2 &g7 7 £ sc3 0-0 8 0-0 £sg4 9 e3
d6 10 £sde2 l a 5 11 £sd5 #05?! 12 &d2!
e6?!
A mistake, but after 12...a5 13 &c3
White’s chances are somewhat better.

28 2f3?! (a reckless thirst for attack in a

roughly equal position) 28....&.C8 29 f5?l
#d2! 30 £sg3

13 b4! I x c 4 14 S c l lx a 2 ? (I4...1d3 15 ^c7

2b8 16 h3, etc., was more resilient) 15 £sec3
# 0 4 16 £ ic7 2b8 17 £s3d5? (17 £sbl! #d3 18
lx g 4 would have been decisive) 17...#a2?
Not noticing the saving 17..#d3! 18 £sf4
# a3 19 #xg4 e5 20 £sfe6 £sd8!.
18 £sc3 # c 4 (l8...Jk.xc3 19 .&xc3 and wins)
19 £s3d5? (19 £sbl!) 19...#a2? (I9...#d3!) 20
4ic3 # c 4 (the effect of blitz play: the position
is repeated for the third time!) 21 £ib l! (at
last) 2l...£>xf2?! (desperation) 22 2xf2, and
soon Black resigned (1-0).
30.. Jk.f2? (Kramnik misses his chance -
30.. .^.d4!) 31 £sfl # e l 32 &d3 2d7? (the
intensity of the battle would have been
maintained by 32..Jk.b6) 33 e6? (33 ''iSrc2!
wins) 33...fxe6 34 fxe6 (not 34 #xe6 #xe6 35
fxe6 2xf3 36 exd7 2f8 37 dxc8# 2xc8 with a
probable draw) 34...2xf3? (34-2dd8! is
equal) 35 exd7 ^.xd7 36 gxf3 & e 6 37 # c3 1-0

487
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
Also unforgettable was the blitz tourna­
ment in Wijk aan Zee (18 January 1999): 1.
Kasparov - 10V2 out of 13; 2-3. Anand and
Ivanchuk - 9; 4. Kramnik - 8V2; 5. 1.Sokolov -
8; 6-7. Svidler and Topalov - 6V2; 8.
Kasimdzhanov - 6; 9-10. Piket and Bosboom
- 5V2; 11. Timman - 5; 12. van Wely - 4V2;
13 . Reinderman - 3V2; 14 . Yermolinsky - 3.
I started with 7 out of 7, beginning with a
queen sacrifice.
Game 120
R.Kasimdzhanov-G.Kasparov
Wijk aan Zee (Blitz) 18.01.1999
I8...2d7?! (l8...2e8 was a more solid alter­
native) 19 b4?! (instead 19 itd2! WdS 20 a5
was the correct way to play) I9...£)xb4 20
# d 2 £ixd5! 21 W x a 5 £)xe3 22 2 b l (22
H d4!?) 22...£)xfl 23 <&xfl 2dc7 (23...£)d3l?)
2 4 ^ f4 e 6 25 g3h 5
And, despite subsequent mistakes by both
sides, Black won (0-1 ).
Of the three Siemens Giants rapid tour­
naments (Frankfurt am Main, 1998-2000),
the most cherished one for me was the
victorious 1999 four-cycle battle with Anand,
Kramnik and Karpov (cf. p.280).
488
Game 121
G.Kasparov-V.Kramnik
Frankfurt (Rapid) 01.07.1999
27 # g 5 (forcing a further weakening of the
dark squares) 2 7 ...if8 (27...1Srb7? 28 £)fs!)
28 JLxf8 2xf8?
The alternative recapture 28...<&xf8 29
# f6 <£>g8 was more resilient, -and if 30 ©f5
gxf5 31 Sxd5, then 3 l...lre3! 32 Sd6(d7) 2h7
and ...2g7.
29 2 h e l 2b8 30 b3! Sd8 (30...cxb3 31 axb3
2d8 32 f4 and wins) 31 £ie2! (threatening
®c3(f4)xd5) 31...cxb3 32 axb3 2d7 33 4 ,b2
(strengthening the b3-pawn in advance)
33...*,d8 34 Wf4! #c7?
Blundering and hastening the end in a
lost position.
35 2xd5! exd5 (35...®xf4 36 £ixf4) 36 ® d 4 +
1-0
In view of 36...<&d8 37 £)e6+.
In the FIDE Rapid World Cup (Cannes, 21-
25 March 2001) I won my qualifying group
(l. Kasparov - S1/* out of 7; 2-3. Bareev and
Grischuk - 4; 4-6. J.Polgar, Svidler and Lau-
tier - 3V2), and then defeated Tkachiev
(1V 2-V 2), Grischuk (l-l; 2-0), and, in the final,
Bareev (1V2-V2).

Came 122
J.Polgar-G.Kasparov
Cannes (Rapid) 22.03.2001
Sicilian Defence B80
l e4 C5 2 £tf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>c3 a6 6 ^.e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 £>fd7l? 9 Wd2
£>b6 10 0-0-0
Regarding 10 a4l? (Anand-Kasparov, 1st
match game (rapid), Reykjavik 2000), cf.
Revolution in the 70s (p.101).
I0...£>8d7 11 &b7 12 ^.d3 (12 <&bl?! -
Game No.66) 12..J3c8 13 £>ce2 £>c 5!?
13.Jk.e7 14 h4 0-0 15 * b l £ia4 16 g5
£idc5 is also not bad (the earlier J.Polgar-
Kasparov, Linares 2001).
14 & b l £>ba4
15 b3
If 15 h4 Vic7 16 ficl (for the moment not
weakening the queenside) Black can reply
I6...b4, I6...^.e7, or I6...d5 (Grischuk-
Kasparov, 4th match game (blitz), Cannes
2001), in each case leading to a complicated
battle with chances for both sides.
15—^xd3 16 cxd3 £ic5 17 &g3 ^.e7?! (better
is 17...g6 or 17...b418 £vc2 a5, Movsesian-Niel-
sen, Bundesliga 2001) 18 V ib 2 b4 (18...0-0?! 19
£>h5) 19 £>h5! (19 £>c2 0-0! 20 £ixb4 a5 with a
counter-attack) 19 ..JIg 8! (I9...g6? 20 £ixe6!)
Experiments
20 £* 2 g6 21 £shf4 (21 £sg7+? *d7 and
,..^.f6) 21..J5 22 d4 £>d7 (after 22...£ixe4 23
fxe4 Axe4+ 24 £sd3 .&xhl 25 Sxhl Black has
the same problem: his king is dubiously
placed) 23 d5 (23 Sell?) 23...e5 24 £>d3 £ a 6
24...f5l? was more energetic.
25 # d 2 ±f6?l (25—f5!) 26 S c l ^.b5 27 g5
£ . g l 28 £tb2 29 f4 (the g7-bishop should not
have been opened up; 29 h4l 2e8 30 h5 was
better) 29...exf4 30 A xf4 Wb6 31 -&e3 Wa6
32 £ m)4 £*5?! (32...a4!) 33 Shdl?!
Missing a chance to seize the initiative -
33 £ixb5 #xb5 34 ±d4! 2gd8 35 £c4.
33 .iLd7 34 ^-f4 2 x c l+ (34...a4l?) 35 S x c l
Sc8
36 JLxe5?
This is a fatal transposition of moves. 36
2xc8! WxcS 37 &xe5 ^.xe5 38 £>c4 was
correct.
36 .. .5 .c l+ ! 37 If x c l (37 ifcxdl Iffl+l)
37.. .£xe5 38 £ * 6+ (38 U til ^.xd4 39 l rxd4
WfH- 40 if d l Wg2l, etc., was hopeless)
38.. .JL x c 6 39 dxc 6 (39 Wxc6 Wfl+l 40 W c l
Wq2) 39...'te2l
A decisive invasion.
40 c7 (40 Wc2 Wxh2) 40...£xb 2 4 1 c 8 W (or
41 Wc2 Wfxc2+ 42 <&xc2 <&d7 43 *xb2 <&xc7
and wins) 41....&XC1 42 W>7+ i f 8 43 &XC1
Wxh2 ( 4 3 - lrxa2!?) 44 Wa8+ * g 7 45 Wxa5
Wf4+ 46 & d l Wxe4, and Black won (O-l).
489
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

There was also an exciting finish to a A short match with Kramnik (Botvinnik
Spanish duel in the tie-break with Alexander Memorial, Moscow, 2001) produced a 2-2
Grischuk. score in ‘classical’ play, 3-3 in rapid and a
confident win for me in blitz: 6V2-3V2.

Game 123
G.Kasparov-A.Grischuk Game 124
3rd M atch gam e (Blitz), V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov
Cannes 24.03.2001 7th Match gam e (Blitz),
M oscow 09.12.2001

19 g4l? £sf4 (I 9...£sf6(g7) 20 a5 £sc8 21 £sg3

was no better) 20 iLxf4 exf4 21 # d 2 (21 14.. .£)xf4! (another queen sacrifice!) 15
e5!?; 21 a5l?) 2 1 ...1 ,f6 ?! (21...Ac8 22 #xf4 Sxd8 Bxd8 16 I d l £id5 17 £se5
£)d7 was more resilient) 22 e5! dxe5 23 A novelty: with the score standing at 2-4
£)xe5 .&g5? Kramnik avoids simplification - 17 £sxd5
23...iLxe5 24 BxeS W 6 was essential (but exd 5 18 h 3 b 5 19 Sxd 5 $.e 6 20 Sxd 8+ Sxd8
not 24...1T14?! 25 1 ^ 4 f5 26 1^3! or 21 ®c2 'h-'h (Gelfand-Shirov, 2nd match
25...1rxh3 26 £se3). game, New Delhi 2000).
24 £>h2 (more forceful was 24 a5! <£jc8 25 d6 17.. .^.f6 18 £ sc4 (18 f4 is met by I8...b5)
Ha7 26 <£)h2 and wins) 24...a5 25 £shf3 ith6 18.. .fib8! (18...£sxc3? 1 9 lxd8+ ±xd8 20
26 l a d l (26 d6!) 26...®f6 (26...Be8!?) 27 h4 £sb6!) 19 £sa5?! (19 £)e4 or 1 9 h3 was better)
1 ^ 6 28 £sg5? (28 g5 i g 7 29 h5 and #xf4 19.. .±d7
would have been decisive) 28...Sae8 29 Unexpectedly Black begins to seize the
£ixd7 £sxd7 30 £se4 # b 8 31 g5 i=g7 32 d6! initiative.
& e 5 33 ® d 5 ®b6? (33...«c8!) 34 h5 (34 20 £se4 (20 £)xd5 exd5 21 Sxd5?! is weak
4>g2!?) 34...&e6? because of the reply 2l...b6 22 <Sk4 ile6)
A final mistake. 34...'ird8 was not so clear. 20.. .jLe7 21 ^ c 4 ± b 5 22 £se5 l.e 8 23 h3 b5
35 hxg6 hxg6 36 £)f6+! Sxf6 (or 36...<£)xf6 37 2 4 # g 3
gxf6 and wins) 37 gxf6 ilx f6 38 iLxg6, and From this point White goes wrong on
White won (1-0). nearly every move.

490

24...Sbc8 (building up the pressure) 25 'A’h l
a5 (25...f6!? or 25...£se3l? was stronger) 26 h4
a4 27 £)g5 h6 28 £)gf3 £>f6 (28...i.d6!) 29
2xd8 Sxd8 30 # f4 (30 £>el!) 30...Sdl+ 31
,4 ,h2 (31 £sgi was more resilient) 3l...-&-d6
32 g3 i.c6! 33 g4 Sd3 34 & g l i.xf3 0-1
In.a stage of the FIDE Rapid Grand Prix
(Moscow, 2002), I was again able to defeat
all my opponents.
Came 125
J.Lautier-G.Kasparov
1st Match game (Rapid),
Moscow 02.06.2002
Experiments
19 ibce5?
White eliminates the threat of ...£sd3 at
too high a price. The equalizing 19 S fel £sd3
20 2xe8+ ®xe8 21 Wd2 and ii.fl was correct.
19.. .2 .e 5 20 f4 ® b 6 + 21 & h l See8 (threat­
ening ...£sg4-e3) 22 h3 Se3 (22...b4! is more
accurate, since 23 1Srxc4? A bs is bad for
White) 23 Hf3 2ae8 (23—Se7l?) 24 Sxe3
Sxe3 25 & h 2 g6 26 £tf3 itf5 27 # f 2 <^e4
(27-b4!) 28 # g l £)d6 29 £)d4 Sd3
(29...Se8l?) 30Sxd3?
The decisive error, giving Black a powerful
passed pawn. 30 g4 Exdl 31 IPxdl iLd3 32
® gl was essential.
30.. .cxd3 31 # e 3 £sc4! 32 # e 8 + &g7 33 £)f3
(33 £)xf5+? gxf5 and ...d3-d2, winning)
33.. .#e3! 34 W /x e l £sxe3 35 £)d 2 £)C4! 36
<^xc4 bxc4
And Black won the bishop ending (O-i).
Came 126
A.Grischuk-G.Kasparov
2nd Match game (Rapid),
Moscow 03.06.2002
17».ib(e4! 18 dxe4 (18 £)xe4? Wxcl 19 Sxcl
Sxcl+ 20 i f 2 Sc2 and wins) I8...d3! 19
#xd3 £)c2 20 Hbl foel 21 #xa6 £ixf3 + 22
£ixf3 ®c4 (22_S.c5!? and ...0-0 was also
491
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three
good, but I decided to exchange the queens)
23 #b5+?! (23 #xc4 was more resilient)
23...1rxb5 24 axb5 &C5+ 25 & fl 0-0 26 <&>e2
Hb8 27 .&e3 Sxb5 28 fid i.xe3 29 &xe3
2bb8
And after mistakes by both sides Black
converted his exchange advantage (O-l).
Game 127
G.Kasparov-A.Khalifman
4th Match game (Blitz),
Moscow 04.06.2002
Ruy Lopez C61
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £sc6 3 JLb5 £sd4 (3...a6 - Game
Nos.2, 19; 3...£sf6 - Game No.80) 4 £sxd4
exd4 5 0-0 c6 6 i.c4 d5 7 exd5 cxd5 8 i.b 5+
JLd7 9 2el+ £se7
10 C4!
A second attempt: an hour earlier Black
had successfully defended after 10 a4 a6 l l
l,xd7+ ®xd7 12 d3 0-0-0 13 b4 £sf5 14 b5 a5
(Kasparov-Khalifman, 2nd match game
(blitz), Moscow 2002).
10.. .a6 (instead of the previous 10...2c8?l 11
d3 ii.xb5 12 cxb5, Luther-Klip, Pardubice
1999) 11 &xd7+ ®xd7 12 d3 (12 £sa3l?)
1 2 .. .0 -0-0 13 £sd2 &b8?! 14 b4! dxc4 15
dxc4! £sc6?! (15 ..^g6 16 c5) 16 b5 axb5 17
492
cxb5 (White’s attack is already irresistible)
17...£sb4 18 £ sc4 Wf5 (l8...#xb5 19 -&f4+
<i>a7 20 Wb3 ®a6 21 £sa3(e5) and wins) 19
Se5 ®c2 20 l.f4! #xdl+ 2 1 fixdl <&>a8 22 a3
f6 (22...£sc2 23 b6) 23 axb4! 1-0
The outcome of the final was also decided
by an elegant miniature.
Game 128
G.Kasparov-T.Radjabov
1st Match game (Rapid),
Moscow 05.06.2002
Pirc Defence B06
1 e4 g6 2 d4 i-g7 3 £sc3 c6!? 4 £sf3 d6 5 i.e3
(more aggressive than 5 .&e2) 5...£sd7 6 'ifd2
£sgf6 7 &h6
There is no great point in delaying the
exchange of the g7-bishop.
7 .. .6xh 6 (7-0-0!?) 8 Wxh6 e5 (8- ^ 3 5 !?) 9
0 0-0 WeJ (9...£sg410 Wd2 was no better) 10
-
h3 a6 ?! (a waste of a tempo; 10...b5! was
correct) 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 12 JLc4 (12 g4l?)
12.. .b5 13 JLb3 a5 14 a4! b415 £sbl JLa6
15...£sxe4?l 16 Shell £sec5 (l6...f5? 17
£sbd2) 17 ^bd2, etc., was very dangerous for
Black.
16 £sbd2 (16 Shell?) 16...0-0-0?!

Or I 6...£ib6?! 17 ®g5, but I 6...±e 2 17
S d el jLxf3 18 gxf3 £ib 6 was more resilient.
17 #e3! (threatening #a7) 17...‘A’b7 18
jLc4 ! (exposing the black king)
18...£ ic5?
The decisive mistake, although there was
also little joy for Black after l8...£ib6 19
JLxa6+ <4>xa6 20 £ib3!.
19 &xa6+ <4>xa6 20 £ ic4 £ifxe4 (20...£>fd7 21
fld6) 21 £ifxe5 (threatening both £ixc6 and
f2-f3) 21...Sd5 22 ® x c 6 # g 5 23 Sxd5 # x d 5
24 £l4xa5 (24 # 62!?) 24...&b6 25 £ixb4 1-0
In the rapid match Russia v. Rest of the
World (Moscow, 2002) I played terribly, but
even so I conducted one game in quite good
style.
Experiments
Game 129
G.Kasparov-A.Shirov
Moscow (Rapid) 09.09.2002
Caro-Karw Defence B12
1 e4 c 6d4 d5 3 e5 £ f5 4 ± e 3 # b 6 5 # c l
2
e6 (a new and natural move) 6 c4 ! ® e 7
Later other moves became more popular:
6...dxc4 or 6..JLxbl 7 Sxbl jtb4+ 8 ‘A’dl! (my
improvement on 8 Jtd 2, Gelfand-Dreev,
Moscow (rapid) 2002) 8...dxc4 9 ®d7 10
a3 ile7 11 .&xc4 # c7 12 <4>e2 (Kasparov-
Jobava, Rethymnon 2003).
7 c5! # a 5 + 8 i d 2 (8 ^c3!?) 8...#c7 9 £>c3
® d 7 10 JLe2 h6 1 1 b4 g 5?l (a serious weak­
ening; ll...b 6 was better) 12 g 4 l A g 6 13 h4
Jig7?l (I3 .gxh4 was more resilient) 14 hxg5
hxg5 15 S x h 8+ i.x h 8 16 i.xg 5 a 5
17 b5! ® x c5 (I7...®xe5? 18 A H and wins)
18 .&f6! i.x f6 19 exf6 <5ig8 (l9...#h2 20 £if3
# h l+ 21 <4>d2 or 19...£id3+ 20 .&xd3 .&xd3
21 # e3 ^.xb5 22 fxe7 would not have saved
Black) 20 dxc5 d4 21 £if3! dxc3 22 # x c3 # f4
23 g5 Sd8 24 bxc6 bxc6 25 S d l S x d l+ 26
^ .x d l # e 4 + 27 i f l ^.h5 (27...1.f5 28 #e5!)
28 # b 3l, and White won (l-O).
There was also a nice finish to the second
rapid game of my training match with
493
Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov: Part Three

Azmaiparashvili (Panormo, 2003). In a Slav
Defence with 4...a6, which at that time I
played regularly, I was able to cany out a
pretty attack.
Game 130
Z.Azmaiparashvili-G.Kasparov
2nd Match game (Rapid),
Panormo 23.09.2003
Sutovsky - 10; 4. Dreev - 9V2; 5- Karpov - 91/ 2;
6. Nielsen - 9; 7. Timman - 8; 8. Short - 7'A-,
9. Knstjansson - 7; 10. Hjartarson - 6; 11.
Epishin - 6; 12. Stefansson - 5V2; 13. Peturs-
son - 5V2; 14- Nataf - 4; 15. Carlsen - 4; 16.
H.Olafsson - 3'/i. Then I defeated Carlsen
(1V2-V2), Timman (l'A-'A), Nielsen (l-l; 1 -0)
and, with incredible luck, Short (1V2-V2).
To complete the picture, I will give the
decisive game with the 13 -year-old Norwe­
gian prodigy, who by the end of the 2000s
was first in the world rating list, and in 2013
became world champion.

Game 131
G.Kasparov-M.Carlsen
2nd Match game (Rapid),
Reykjavik 18.03.2004
King’s Indian Defence E92

1 c4 £sf6 2 £ sc3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 i-g7 5 £sf3

0-0 6 ±e2 e5 7 .&e3 exd4 (7...c6 or 7...£sg4 is
15.. .^-g6! 1 6 iLxg6? (16 #b3 was essential, better) 8 £sxd4 c6 9 f3 Se8 10 ^.f2!
but not 16 jk.xa6? £se4 17 'S'xc6 £sxd2 18 Avoiding 10 ^ 2 d5 11 exd5 cxd5 12 0-0
<4 ,xd2 e5 and wins) I6...fxg6! (opening the f- 2k6 13 c5 Sxe3l? (Game No.87 in Part II of
file with the threat of ...<£se4) 17 f3 £se4! Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov).
All the same! 10...d5 11 exd5 cxd5 12 c5 £sc6 13 0-0 <£\h5
18 fxe4 #h4+ 19 g3? 14 # d 2 l.e5 15 g3 Ah3?!
This loses by force, although Hiibner’s
suggestion 19 ‘i d l #g4+ 20 4>c2 ®xe4+ 21
“i d l is also insufficient in view of 2l...'irg4+!
22 <&>c2 (22 <i>el? I fxg2 and wins) 22...1ab8
23 #xa6 2a8 24 # d 3 Ixa4, etc.
19.. .1rxe4 20 <i>e2 (20 2 g l Wf3!) 20. . . % 2+
21 <i>d3 S f 2 22 Wa5 2b8 23 a3 l c 7 24 #xc7
Sxd2+ 25 &C3 Sdxb2 0-1

In the last ‘rapid knock-out’ won by me

(Reykjavik, 17-21 March 2004) the pairings
were decided by a blitz tournament: 1 .
Aronian - 13 out of 15: 2. Kasparov - 12; 3.

494
 Experiments

The oldest, but riskiest line. After 15...£ig7 iLe3, etc., would also not have helped.
16 Sfdl! White has merely a minimal plus.
16 fifel! £ig7 17 Sadi!
A novelty. Weaker is 17 .&b5 Sc8 18 S ad i
£ixd4 with equality (Taimanov-Stein, 33rd
USSR Championship, Tallinn 1965) or 17
£idb5 (17 £icb5 £ie6 is equal) 17...£)f5!
(threatening ...a7-a6) 18 £jxds £icd4 19
^bc3 Sc8 20 g4 Sxc5 21 gxfs Sxd5 22 £ixds
®xd5 23 ‘i h l i.g4l.
17...Sc8? (I7...^e6 18 £jxe6 and f3-f4 is
depressing, but now things are altogether
bad for Black) 18 47>db5! a6
After I8...d4 19 ^ e 4 £ie6 (I9...^f5 20
£ig5) 20 £ied6 or I8...^f5 19 WxdS WxdS 20 22 d7!? (or immediately 22 J.xd4) 22...ibcd7
£ixd5 a6 (20.. JLxb2? 21 g4 and wins) 21 £id6 23 jLxd4 £ixd4 (if 23...Sxe4 24 fxe4 ±e6,
<Sixd6 22 cxd6 Scd8 23 ii.fl! Black is in a then 25 b3, if there is nothing better) 24
sorry state. Wxd4 ®f5 25 #xd7 ®b6+ 26 &hl Sed8 27
19 £id6 iLxd6 20 cxd6 d4 (20...®xd6 21 WaA Sxdl 28 Ibcdl (28 i.xdl! #xb2 29
^x d s and wins) 21 £ie4 ik.f5 #d7) 28...#xb2 29 1^1 Sc2 30 #xb2 Sxb2
21..Sxe4 22 fxe4 ®xd6 23 ii.xd4 Sd8 24 3liLc4 £)d4 32 Se3 1-0

495
 Index of Openings

Alekhine’s Defence King’s Indian Defence

B04 164 E92 483,494
E93 469
Caro-Kann Defence E97 464
B12 348,493
B14 118 Nimzo-lndian Defence
B17 43,216 E20 270
E32 317,415,472
English Opening E35 22
A33 479 E37 442
A39 487 E39 411
E54 322
Evans Gambit E59 187,236
C51 84
Petroff Defence
French Defence C42 338,374
CIO 380
C ll 54 Pirc Defence
C19 67 B06 492
B07 226
Griinfeld Defence
D85 311 Queen’s Gambit Accepted
D88 465 D20 247
D93 462 D23 292
D97 239 D27 209,259

496
 Index o f Openings

Queen’s Gambit Declined B43 475

D35 179 B52 149
D37 123 B66 128,147
B77 109
Queen’s Indian Defence B80 95,251, 263, 305, 334,489
E12 198 B84 450
E15 194 B85 36,46,172, 395,484
E18 404 B86 18
B87 356
Ruy Lopez B88 27
C6l 492 B90 154,184, 204, 231, 243, 285, 344,
C67 364 423,485
C80 103 B92 134,158
C88 13 B97 9

Scandinavian Defence Slav Defence

B01 111 D17 282
D43 434
Scotch Game D44 32
C45 78,176, 277, 300 D48 140,447

Sicilian Defence Torre Attack

B30 454 A48 90
B33 60, 73,223, 387,467

497
 Index of Games

Adams.M-Kasparov.G, Linares 2005................................................................................. 450

Anand.V-Kasparov.G, 1st Match game (Rapid), Geneva 1996.........................................485
Anand.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 1997................................................................................... 172
Anand.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 1999................................................................................... 263
Anand.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, 3rd Game, New 1995....................102
Anand.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, 11th Game, New 1995................. 108
Anand.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, 13th Game, New 1995................. 109
Azmaiparashvili.Z-Kasparov.G, 2nd Match game (Rapid), Panormo 2003.......................494
Behrhorst.F-Kasparov.G, Simultaneous Display, Hamburg 1985.................................... 462
Gelfand.B-Kasparov.G, Novgorod 1997............................................................................ 198
Grischuk.A-Kasparov.G, Linares 2001................................................................................344
Grischuk.A-Kasparov.G, 2nd Match game (Rapid), Moscow 2002....................................491
Huzman.A-Kasparov.G, Rethymnon 2003.........................................................................422
Ivanchuk.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 1999............................................................................... 243
Ivanchuk.V-Kasparov.G, 1st Match game, New York (Rapid) 1995..................................484
Karpov.A-Kasparov.G, Las Palmas 1996............................................................................ 163
Kasimdzhanov.R-Kasparov.G, Wijk aan Zee (Blitz) 1999.................................................. 488
Kasimdzhanov.R-Kasparov.G, Linares 2005...................................................................... 447
Kasparov.G-Adams.M, Sarajevo 1999................................................................................277
Kasparov.G-Adams.M, Linares 2002..................................................................................374
Kasparov.G-Adams.M, Linares 2005................................................................................. 442
Kasparov.G-Akopian.V, Simultaneous Display, Pestovo 1986..........................................464
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Riga 1995..........................................................................................84
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, World Championship Match, 10th Game, New 1995................. 103
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, World Championship Match, 14th Game, New 1995................. I l l
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, 1st Match game (Rapid), Moscow 1996........................................ 484

498
 Index o f Games

Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Amsterdam 1996............................................................................118

Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Las Palmas 1996............................................................................. 158
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Linares 1994..................................................................................... 46
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Linares 1998................................................................................... 216
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Linares 1999................................................................................... 247
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Wijk aan Zee 2001..........................................................................331
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Linares 2002................................................................................... 373
Kasparov.G-Bacrot.E, Sarajevo 2000..................................................................................300
Kasparov.G-Carlsen.M, 2nd Match game (Rapid), Reykjavik 2004...................................494
Kasparov.G-Chuchelov.V, Rethymnon 2003..................................................................... 411
Kasparov.G-Dreev.A, 57th USSR Championship, Moscow 2004...................................... 434
Kasparov.G-Gelfand.B, Amsterdam 1996..........................................................................134
Kasparov.G-Gelfand.B, Novgorod 1997............................................................................ 194
Kasparov.G-Grischuk.A, 3rd Match game (Blitz), Cannes 2001........................................490
Kasparov.G-Grischuk.A, Rethymnon 2003........................................................................ 415
Kasparov.G-Hracek.Z, World Chess Olympiad, Yerevan 1996..........................................147
Kasparov.G-lvanchuk.V, Linares 1994................................................................................. 32
Kasparov.G-lvanchuk.V, Las Palmas 1996......................................................................... 164
Kasparov.G-lvanchuk.V, Linares 1999............................................................................... 259
Kasparov.G-Kamsky.G, Linares 1994...................................................................................43
Kasparov.G-Karpov.A, Las Palmas 1996............................................................................ 169
Kasparov.G-Karpov.A, Linares 2001.................................................................................. 348
Kasparov.G-Khalifman.A, 4th Match game (Blitz), Moscow 2002................................... 492
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Novgorod 1994..............................................................................60
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, 3rd Match game (Blitz), Paris 1994............................................ 483
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Dos Hermanas 1996....................................................................140
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Amsterdam, 1996 ....................................................................... 128
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Novgorod 1997........................................................................... 202
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Linares 1997................................................................................ 187
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, ll th Match game (Blitz), Moscow 1998.................................... 487
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, 22nd Match game (Blitz), Moscow 1998....................................487
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Frankfurt (Rapid) 1999............................................................... 488
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Wijk aan Zee 2001...................................................................... 332
Kasparov.G-Kramnik.V, Astana 2001................................................................................364
Kasparov.G-Lutz.C, Simultaneous Display, Frankfurt 1986 .............................................. 465
Kasparov.G-Morozevich.A, Wijk aan Zee 2000................................................................. 282
Kasparov.G-Movsesian.S, Simultaneous Display, Prague 2001........................................478
Kasparov.G-Nikolic.P, Horgen 1994.....................................................................................67
Kasparov.G-Nikolic.P, Linares 1997................................................................................... 176
Kasparov.G-Oral.T, Simultaneous Display, Prague 2001.................................................. 479
Kasparov.G-Panno.O, Simultaneous Display, Buenos Aires 1997.................................... 472
Kasparov.G-PiketJ, Tilburg 1997 .......................................................................................209
Kasparov.G-PolgarJ, Wijk aan Zee 2000........................................................................... 285

499
Carry Kasparov on Carry Kasparov: Part Three

Kasparov.G-Ponomariov.R, Linares 2002...........................................................................380

Kasparov.G-Ponomariov.R, Linares 2003...........................................................................404
Kasparov.G-Radjabov.T, 1st Match game (Rapid), Moscow 2002....................................492
Kasparov.G-Radjabov.T, Linares 2003...............................................................................400
Kasparov.G-Seirawan.Y, Amsterdam 1996....................................................................... 123
Kasparov.G-Shirov.A, Horgen 1994......................................................................................73
Kasparov.G-Shirov.A, Wijk aan Zee 2001..........................................................................338
Kasparov.G-Shirov.A, Moscow (Rapid) 2002..................................................................... 493
Kasparov.G-Short.N, World Championship Match, 7th Game, London 1993.................... 13
Kasparov.G-Short.N, World Championship Match, 9th Game, London 1993.................... 22
Kasparov.G-Short.N, Amsterdam 1994............................................................................... 54
Kasparov.G-Short.N, Sarajevo 1999.................................................................................. 270
Kasparov.G-Smirin.l, Simultaneous Display, Tel Aviv 1998.............................................. 475
Kasparov.G-Svidler.P, Wijk aan Zee 1999..........................................................................239
Kasparov.G-Topalov.V, Dos Hermanas 1996.....................................................................145
Kasparov.G-Topalov.V, Wijk aan Zee 1999....................................................................... 226
Kasparov.G-Topalov.V, Linares 1999.................................................................................269
Kasparov.G-Topalov.V, Wijk aan Zee 2001....................................................................... 334
Kasparov.G-Topalov.V, Linares 2004.................................................................................430
Kasparov.G-van Wely.L, Wijk aan Zee 1999...................................................................... 223
Kasparov.G-Yusupov.A, Horgen 1994................................................................................. 78
Kouatly.B-Kasparov.G, Simultaneous Display, Evry 1989.................................................469
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, 2nd Match game (Blitz), Moscow 1998..................................... 486
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 2000................................................................................292
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, London, 2nd Game 2000............ 311
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, London, 8th Game 2000............. 317
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, London, 10th Game 2000........... 322
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, London, 12th Game 2000........... 326
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, London, 14th Game 2000........... 327
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, 7th Match game (Blitz), Moscow 2001...................................... 490
Kramnik.V-Kasparov.G, Munich (Blitz) 1994.....................................................................483
LautierJ-Kasparov.G, Tilburg 1997................................................................................... 213
LautierJ-Kasparov.G, 1st Match game (Rapid), Moscow 2002.........................................491
Leko.P-Kasparov.G, Linares 2003.......................................................................................402
Lutz.C-Kasparov.G, World Chess Olympiad, Bled 2002..................................................... 395
Morozevich.A-Kasparov.G, Astana 2001...........................................................................356
Movsesian.S-Kasparov.G, Sarajevo 2000...........................................................................305
PolgarJ-Kasparov.G, Linares 1994....................................................................................... 36
PolgarJ-Kasparov.G, Dos Hermanas 1996........................................................................ 144
PolgarJ-Kasparov.G, Cannes (Rapid) 2001........................................................................ 489
PolgarJ-Kasparov.G, Linares 2001..................................................................................... 353
Ponomariov.R-Kasparov.G, Linares 2002...........................................................................379
Radjabov.T-Kasparov.G, Linares 2004............................................................................... 429

500
 Index o f Carnes

ShirovJV-Kasparov.G, World Chess Olympiad, Yerevan 1996 ...........................................149

Shirov.A-Kasparov.G, Wijk aan Zee 1999..........................................................................231
ShirovJV-Kasparov.G, Tilburg 1997................................................................................... 204
ShirovJV-Kasparov.G, Linares 1997................................................................................... 184
ShirovJV-Kasparov.G, Linares 2002................................................................................... 387
Shirov.A-Kasparov.G, Linares 2004................................................................................... 423
Short.N-Kasparov.G, 2nd Match game (Rapid), London 1987.........................................481
Short.N-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, 4th Game, London 1993....................9
Short.N-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, 8th Game, London 1993....................18
Short.N-Kasparov.G, World Championship Match, 12th Game, London 1993 ................. 27
Smirin.l-Kasparov.G, World Chess Olympiad, Yerevan 1996............................................ 154
Sokolov.l-Kasparov.G, Wijk aan Zee 1999......................................................................... 236
SpeelmanJ-Kasparov.G, Madrid (Rapid) 1988 .................................................................... 48
Topalov.V-Kasparov.G, Novgorod 1995...............................................................................95
Topalov.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 1997.................................................................................179
Topalov.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 1999.................................................................................251
Topalov.V-Kasparov.G, Linares 2005.................................................................................454
Wahls.M-Kasparov.G, Simultaneous Display, Hamburg 1987..........................................467
YusupovJV-Kasparov.G, Novgorod 1995..............................................................................90

501